Dec 01, 2022 City Council Meetings

UH, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, IT'S UH, DECEMBER 1ST AND DECEMBER 1ST MARKS A THOUSAND DAYS SINCE THE STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER RELATED TO COVID 19 WAS DECLARED.

THAT WAS ON MARCH 6TH, 2020.

WE HAVE BEEN IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUOUSLY FROM THAT TIME WITH OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ACTIVATED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

WE'VE HAD EMERGENCIES ON TOP OF EMERGENCIES, UM, BUT WE HAVE PERSEVERED.

I JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK OUR MAYOR FOR TAKING THAT VERY TOUGH DECISION EARLY IN THAT MARCH, 2020 TIMEFRAME TO CANCEL SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST AND ULTIMATELY SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM THIS ENTIRE DIAS FOR THE POLICIES AND ALLOCATING RESOURCES APPROPRIATELY TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.

WE DID KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE, AND WE ARE A BETTER COMMUNITY.

AS A RESULT.

I WANT TO THANK OUR FRONTLINE WORKERS AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, THE CITY STAFF THAT HAVE GIVEN EVERYTHING AND CONTINUE TO GIVE DR.

ESCOT, DR.

WALKS ACM, HAYDEN HOWARD, AND DIRECTOR STIR, AND THE COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE STOOD UP AND ENSURED THAT WE ARE PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I WANT TO THANK OUR COMMUNITY.

THEY TOOK CARE OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

SO, ALTHOUGH WE ARE STILL IN THIS STATE OF LOCAL DISASTER, I DID THINK THAT THE THOUSAND DAY MARK WAS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH MILESTONE TO PAUSE AND APPRECIATE THESE EFFORTS AND THIS UNPRECEDENTED TIME THAT WE'RE IN.

MANAGER.

UM, THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE TO, TO, TO THANK FOR THE, FOR THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN.

UH, YOU AND I HAVE SPENT A LOT MORE TIME, UH, TOGETHER DUE TO THAT, THAT QUIRK IN THE LAW, THAT THAT PUTS THE MAYOR IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, UM, UH, FROM A MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE WHEN WE'RE IN A, A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

UH, BUT I HAD A CHANCE TO WORK WITH YOU UP CLOSE THAT I MIGHT NOT HAVE OTHERWISE HAD.

UM, UH, AND I LEARNED FROM, FROM WATCHING YOU.

THE, THE, THE GROUP THAT WAS IN CHARGE AT THE EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER, UH, HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO WATCH AS THEY WORK.

THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS ARE PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTORS.

BOTH OF THEM HAVE DONE JUST AN INCREDIBLE JOB KEEPING THE COMMUNITY SAFE, BUT THE ENTIRE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY, BUT IT REALLY WAS ALL HANDS ON DECK.

THE, THE COUNCIL REALLY LEANED INTO IT AS A GROUP.

WE'VE DONE REALLY INNOVATIVE THINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE, TO THE RESPONSE.

UH, I DON'T GET MANY MORE TIMES TO, TO SAY OUT LOUD THE, THE STATISTIC THAT I'M MOST PROUD OF.

UM, WE'RE TAKING TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS IT AND UNDERSTANDS IT.

UH, BECAUSE AS A CITY, WE DID THINGS THAT WERE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OTHER CITIES DID AND WHAT THE STATE WERE DOING.

AND SOMETIMES THEY WEREN'T EASY.

AND I THINK IT GOES IN THE CATEGORY OF US NOT SEEKING OUT CONTROVERSY, BUT NOT ALWAYS BEING ABLE TO AVOID IT.

UH, CUZ WE DID END UP IN COURT SOMETIMES WITH THE STATE TRYING TO PUSH PROTECTIONS, BUT THE MORTALITY RATE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN DID THE CONTRIBUTIONS.

IF EVERYONE WAS LESS THAN HALF THE MORTALITY RATE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AS AN AMAZING NUMBER, YOU, THE STATE OF TEXAS HAD THE SAME MORTALITY RATE GENERALLY THAT WE HAD AUSTIN LOCALLY, UH, ALMOST 50,000 TEXANS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY.

UH, WE HAD A COMMUNITY THAT REALLY NEEDED THIS.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

YOU'RE NOT MARKING THE END OF THE EMERGENCY HERE ON THE THOUSAND DAY.

UM, BUT THE KIND OF THE BUCKET BRIGADE MENTALITY THAT OUR COMMUNITY HAS HAD TO HELP ONE ANOTHER, UM, HAS BEEN JUST A AMAZING AND A, AND A PRIVILEGE TO, TO WATCH.

SO I JUST REITERATE YOUR, YOUR THANKS TO, TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

LOCATED AT 9 0 1 AND A HALF, UH, UH, REN STREET.

UH, I'M LOOKING AT CHANGES IN CORRECTIONS AND ITEM NUMBER 22 IS REALLY DISTRICT SEVEN, NOT DISTRICT 10.

ITEM NUMBER 33 WE'RE TO RATIFY EXECUTION OF A COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT WITH AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOR A WATER QUALITY CONTROL, UH, IMPROVEMENT

[00:05:01]

AND THAT SPELLING'S BEEN CORRECTED.

ITEM NUMBER 37, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAS ADDED HER NAME AS A, A SPONSOR.

ITEM NUMBER 46, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TE HAS ADDED HER NAME AS A SPONSOR.

UH, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM.

EM.

ITEM NUMBER 60.

UH, IT'S THE INTENT TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM, UM, AT TWO O'CLOCK.

UH, CUZ IT'S SET THAT, UH, FOR THAT TIME ON OUR AGENDA AND TO POSTPONE AT THE FEBRUARY 23RD, 2023.

UH, THAT MOTION WILL BE MADE AT THAT TIME.

UH, ITEM NUMBER 86, UH, BEING POSTPONED, UH, UNTIL, UM, UH, DECEMBER, UH, EIGHTH BEING POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT WEEK, WEEK, WE HAVE SOME ITEMS THAT I'M SEEING AS BEING PULLED.

THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY IS ITEMS ONE THROUGH 50 AND 86.

AGAIN, 86 IS BEING POSTPONED WITH THE CONSENT VOTE UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

UH, SO CONSENT AGENDA ONE THROUGH 50 AND 86.

THE POLL ITEMS I'M SEEING ARE ITEM 10, WHICH HAS TO BE TAKEN UP WITH PUBLIC HEARING.

ITEM 54, THAT'S THE, THE TURS ITEM NUMBER 27, PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS 36 PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, 41 PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, POOL AND COUNCIL MEMBER S 42, 43 AND 44, PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.

WE HAVE SOME, UH, LATE BACKUP IN ITEM SIX 12, UH, 15, 22, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40, 45, 47, 55, 56, 61, 66, 67, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, UH, 85 AND 86.

UH, WE HAVE, UM, UH, AN HOUR'S WORTH OF SPEAKERS THIS MORNING.

UH, EACH SPEAKING, UH, ONE MINUTE.

UH, UH, EACH, UH, WHEN WE GET TO AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, UH, I THINK WE HAVE SOME, UH, FOLKS TO, TO SPEAK ON ON THAT.

UH, THE INTENT, UH, IS TO, UH, HAVE, UM, ZONING SPEAKERS, UH, SPEAK, UM, UH, WITH, UH, ALSO WITH UH, UH, ONE MINUTE, UH, EACH.

UH, AND THEN AT FOUR O'CLOCK THE INTENT IS TO CALL AUSTIN ENERGY.

UH, AT THAT POINT WE HAVE PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THAT.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GONNA DO TWO MINUTES WHERE THE AUSTIN ENERGY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AT FOUR O'CLOCK.

COUNCIL FUENTES.

I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR TO ITEM 48, WHICH IS THE SCALING OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIDDLE MISSING HOUSING WHEN I THANK COUNCIL ELLIS FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND BRINGING THAT ITEM FORWARD.

ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GET THE SPEAKERS COUNCIL? I HAVE A RELATIVE, I HAVE AN EXTREMELY QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF ON 33 AND 34.

MY QUESTION IS WHY WE'RE RATIFYING THOSE ITEMS AND WHY THEY'RE NOT COMING TO US FOR AN INITIAL.

SO IT MAYBE WE COULD LEAVE THEM ON CONSENT AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

AND THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT 45, ALSO A QUICK ONE.

QUICK ENOUGH THAT YOU THINK WE CAN KEEP IT ON CONSENT.

LIKELY THOUGH, UM, MY, MY QUESTION ON THAT IS THAT I'M NOT SEEING REPORT BACK DATES ON MOST OF THE, MOST OF THE DIFFERENT MEASURES.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ALL SUPPOSED TO COME BACK TO US AT THAT LAST REPORT BACK DATE THAT'S REFERRED TO, UH, FOR STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK.

AND IF THERE AREN'T REPORT BACK DATES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE OTHER ONES, THEN WE WILL NEED TO PULL IT AND TALK ABOUT REPORT BACK DATES.

MANAGER, IF YOU COULD CHECK ON THAT.

LET'S SEE WHETHER WE NEED TO PULL THAT ITEM OR NOT.

45 IS A, IS AN ITEM FROM COLLEAGUES CAUSE WE'RE A POOL.

YOU MIGHT WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER THERE ARE REPORT BACK DATES, UM, ON 45.

UH, COUNCIL ROBERT KITCHEN, UM, I WANTED TO BE, UM, ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR TO ITEM NUMBER 40 AND I WANNA THANK THIS THE SPONSOR AND CO-SPONSORS FOR BRINGING THAT ONE.

AND THEN, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, I, YOU HAD ITEM NUMBER 37, JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

I WASN'T SURE IF YOU WANTED TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR TO THAT ONE.

I DO AND I'M ON CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS.

RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S UM, AMENDMENTS FOR THE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ALONG WITH A MOTION SHEET.

OH, YOU ARE? OKAY, GREAT.

WANNA MAKE SURE IT WAS THERE? MM-HMM.

CARD OR KELLY, THANK YOU.

UM, THIS MORNING JUST BEFORE OUR MEETING STARTED, I POSTED TO THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD IN

[00:10:01]

SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION SO YOU ALL COULD REVIEW BEFORE WE GET TO THAT PULLED ITEM TODAY.

SO WE DON'T WHAT, SO YOU COULD REVIEW IT, REVIEW BEFORE THE, THE ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.

THANK YOU GUYS ARE KIT.

UH, AND I ALSO FORGOT TO MENTION I ALSO WANTED TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR TO ITEM NUMBER 45, UH, RELATED TO, TO SOLAR BATTERY STORAGE, ET CETERA.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE, UM, THE SPONSOR AND CO-SPONSORS FOR BRINGING THAT.

FAIR PRO.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK IF COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, IF YOU HAD AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DRAFTED FOR THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT YOU PULLED.

I'M JUST NOT SURE I HAVE THEM YET, SO I WANT TO THANK YOU.

WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT AND I DID WANNA DAYLIGHT, THE ONLY REASON IT'S PULLED IS TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE WORDING CORRECT, UM, FOR OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICE AND, UM, AND TO MAKE SURE WE ALL KNEW WE HAD OUR, OUR SHEETS READY.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON IT'S PULLED, NOT CUZ THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORIGINAL DRAFT.

I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO, I HADN'T SEEN IT AND YOU HAD POSTED THE MESSAGE BOARD, SO I THOUGHT MAYBE I'D MISSED SOMETHING.

SO I THINK YEAH, WE WERE JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH ON DO WE NEED TO TYPE IT INTO THE PARAGRAPHS OR CAN WE PROVIDE A BULLET LIST? SO WE'RE JUST SORTING OUT SOME OF THOSE DETAILS, BUT THE TOPICS WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS WHAT I POSTED.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

WE'LL PUT THAT UP AS SOON AS IT'S READY.

RIGHT, WE READY TO, UH, UH, HAVE SPEAKERS? ONE MINUTE EACH.

ALL

[Public Comment (Part 1 of 2)]

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL.

THE FIRST SPEAKER IS RICHARD SMITH.

SO WE'RE DOING REMOTE SPEAKERS FIRST.

YES, MAYOR.

RICHARD, PLEASE UNMUTE.

MY NAME IS RICHARD SMITH.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT EIGHT AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

I OPPOS THE CURRENT ITERATION OF THE PROPOSED SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG OTHER DEFICIENCIES.

THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WAIVES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT OUR LAKE.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT IS ALSO DEFICIENT.

MOST AUSTIN RESIDENTS AGREE THAT WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS AMONG OTHERS.

YET THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT ONLY CONTEMPLATES A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I ALSO OPPOSE GIVING 300 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE DEVELOPERS.

BUT IF AUSTIN TAXPAYERS ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THE DEVELOPERS ANY MONEY, WE MUST REQUIRE IN RETURN AT LEAST 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 60% MFI.

OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY LIVE ON THE LAKE.

ITEM 31, JEREMY HENDRICKS.

CHRISTOPHER WILLETT, ITEM 31.

HI, MY NAME'S CHRISTOPHER WILLETT.

I'M BOARD OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 31 TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO COMBAT WAGE THEFT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

UM, I'VE WORKED AT EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS AND WORKED DIRECTLY WITH LOW WAGE WORKERS WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE IN AUSTIN.

UM, WAGE THEFT HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE A REAL PROBLEM FOR WORKERS AND FOR MANY WORKERS WHO EXPERIENCE WAGES THEFT WHO HAVE MISSED A PAYCHECK, IT HAS A IMMEDIATE, SERIOUS AND DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES.

UM, LOSING THEIR ABILITY TO PAY RENT, PAY BILLS, SUPPORT THEMSELVES.

UM, THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BY HOLDING NON-PAID EMPLOYERS ACCOUNTABLE AND SUPPORTING THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW.

SO, UM, IN FAVOR OF THAT ONE, THANK YOU.

UH, GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ITEM 31 THIS MORNING, THE WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ORDINANCE.

UH, MY NAME IS JEREMY HENDRICKS.

I'M REPRESENTED, UH, BY MY GOOD FRIEND, COUNCIL MEMBER CHITO VELA.

AND I'M WITH THE LABOR'S INTERNATIONAL UNION, WHICH REPRESENTS THOUSANDS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE WORKERS IN TEXAS.

AND I'M ALSO VICE PRESIDENT OF THE TEXAS BUILDING TRADES L AND OVER A DOZEN OTHER BUILDING TRADES UNIONS STAND IN SOLIDARITY TO SUPPORT THIS IMPORTANT ITEM BECAUSE TEXAS REMAINS ONE OF THE WORST STATES IN THE NATION FOR STOLEN WAGES.

AND WITH THE PASSAGE OF ITEM 31, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO HELP PROTECT THESE WORKERS AND ENSURE TAXPAYER DOLLARS AREN'T GOING TO BUSINESSES THAT ARE PROVEN VIOLATORS OF EXISTING WAGE THEFT LAWS.

WE WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN FOR AUTHORING THIS AND THE ENTIRE COUNCIL FOR UNANIMOUSLY VOTING FOR THE WAGE THEFT RESOLUTION IN JANUARY.

UH, WE'VE HAD TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED.

WE WERE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THIS IN AUGUST, BUT WE'RE EXCITED THAT THE SAME COUNCIL THAT PUT THESE WILLS INTO MOTION WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS PASS TODAY.

SO THANK YOU ALL, UH, FOR FOLLOWING EL PASO IN HOUSTON IN THIS CRITICAL ACTION TO PROTECT WORKERS.

AND, UH,

[00:15:01]

PLEASE VOTE YES TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO BAD ACTORS THAT WAGE DEATH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN AUSTIN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR VOTE FOR ITEM 31 AND YOUR SERVICE DOC AND HAVE A GREAT DAY.

CYRUS REED, ITEM 40.

HELLO.

UM, GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS CYRUS REED WITH THE LONE STAR CHAPTER, THE SIERRA CLUB.

I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR TOTAL SUPPORT FOR ITEM 40, INCLUDING THE CHANGES AND WANTED TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER AND ALL THE, UH, CO-SIGNERS, UM, WHATEVER YOU DO ON THE RATE CASE EITHER TODAY OR NEXT WEEK.

THIS, THIS ITEM TO UPDATE THE GENERATION PLAN IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHERE WE GET OUR ENERGY FROM AND WHAT COSTS ARE ALSO GONNA IMPACT RATES AND MAKING SURE THAT WE RECOMMIT OURSELVES TO CLOSING THE COAL PLANT, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING IN THE ERCOT MARKET MAKE IT VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE RELOOK AT THE GEN PLANT AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

UH, THIS ITEM IS SUPPORTED BY AUSTIN ENERGY AND WAS UNANIMOUSLY ALSO ADOPTED AS A RESOLUTION BY THE EUC.

UH, AND SO I'M JUST VERY PLEASED THAT YOU GUYS ARE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT WITH THE NEW COUNCIL NEXT YEAR WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE GEN PLAN ONCE AGAIN AND HOW DO WE, UM, MOVE AWAY FROM COAL AND TOWARDS CLEANER, CLEANER ENERGY THAT'S HOPEFULLY ALSO AFFORDABLE FOR, UH, AUSTINITES.

THANKS SO MUCH.

AMANDA CARILLO, ITEM 54 GOOD AMANDA CARILLO AND AGAINST, UM, THE RAISE OF UTILITY COST.

UM, THE REASON I'M NOT, UM, AGAINST UTILITY COSTS IS BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE CAN BARELY PAY RENT.

SOME FAMILIES, UM, SOME FAMILY, UH, SOME WORKING FAMILIES HAD HOURS CUT AND DID NOT WORK AT ALL DURING THE PANDEMIC.

SOME HAVE JUST STARTED WORKING AGAIN AND NOW PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IF THEY SHOULD USE THEIR UTILITIES, ESPECIALLY DURING THE WINTER SEASON.

NO ONE SHOULD, SHOULD WORRY ABOUT KEEPING THEMSELVES OR FAMILIES WARM OR COOL AT HOME.

WHY ARE YOU CONSIDERING THIS RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY DURING THE WINTER SEASON? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOUR RELATIVES WERE ON A FIXED INCOME AND HAD TO CHOOSE TO USE THEIR UTILITIES TO KEEP WARM DURING A MAJOR FREE? THANK YOU HOLLY REED.

ITEM 54.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNSEL.

MY NAME IS HOLLY REED SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 54.

I'D LIKE TO USE THIS BRIEF TIME TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE OR TURS FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ZONE.

WHY HAVE YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AREA WILL NOT REDEVELOP WITHOUT TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES WHEN THE AREA OF SOME OF THE MOST UNREAL ESTATE IN AUSTIN AND IS ALREADY REDEVELOPING WITHOUT PUBLIC FUNDING, HOW IS THE TURS COMPLIANT WITH THE TEXAS TAX CODE? DEVELOPERS OF OTHER PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR NOT GIVEN PUBLIC FUNDING TO PAY FOR THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE? WHY ARE THE DEVELOPERS ON THIS VERY VALUABLE PROPERTY ENTITLED TO TAXPAYER FUNDING? WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC OF BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A LUXURY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT? AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARKLAND DEDICATION AND OTHER BENEFITS ARE ALREADY REQUIRED FOR THE CURRENT STATES TO RECEIVE THE ADDED DENSITY AND HEIGHT ENTITLEMENTS THAT SEEKS FOR APPROVAL.

IT IS MISLEADING FOR THE PUBLIC TO THINK AURS IS NECESSARY TO GAIN THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE ALREADY REQUIRED.

SUPERIOR.

PLEASE VOTE AGAINST GIVING AWAY 300 MILLION OF TAXPAYER FUNDS THAT THANK YOU NEED TO BE USED FOR OUR PUBLIC.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FRED LEWIS.

ITEM 10 54 AND 55, PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKLAND DEDICATION AND OTHER BENEFITS ARE ALREADY REQUIRED FOR THE CURRENT FRED LEWIS.

MR. LEWIS, YOU THERE ADDED TO THE HEIGHT ENTITLEMENT THAT SEEKS FOR APPROVAL? IT IS CYNTHIA VASQUEZ, ITEM 54 AND 56 CYNTHIA VASQUEZ, PLEASE UNMUTE DAVID KING.

ITEM 55 AND 56.

[00:20:06]

OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, COUNCIL HAS KNOWINGLY EMPOWERED DEVELOPMENT UPPERS AND DELIBERATELY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY REPLACING SMALL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL PLANNING WITH TOP DOWN COUNCIL KNOWS BEST LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND ORDINANCES.

DURING THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, AUSTIN HAS BECOME WIDER AND WEALTHIER.

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES AND FAMILIES OF COLOR HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY FORCED.

OUT OF AUSTIN, A MEAGER NUMBER OF SO-CALLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, MOST OF WHICH SERVE FAMILIES EARNING 60 AND 100% MEDIA FAMILY INCOME.

CONSIDER AND ENACT POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM GO AUSTIN.

AUSTIN.

PLEASE EMPOWER NEIGHBORHOODS BY PROVIDING SMALL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL PLANNING RESOURCES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND TOOLS THAT NEIGHBORHOODS CAN ACCESS AND TAILOR TO THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS AND ISSUES SUCH AS INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN VOLUNTARY DISPLACEMENT, LOW HILL INCOME FAMILIES, DEEPER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY AND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY BASED BUSINESSES AND SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS AND FOR YOUR SERVICE.

FRED LEWIS.

ITEM 10 54 AND 55.

HI, THIS IS FRED LEWIS.

I'M GONNA MAKE A FEW QUICK POINTS.

FIRST THE ISSUE IS, IS 354 MILLION IN TAXPAYERS MONEY IS THE BEST USE OF THAT MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE THIS PRIVATE LUXURY DEVELOPMENT.

8 BILLION OR IS IT PARKS, ROADS, LIBRARIES, PUBLIC SAFETY, ET CETERA.

FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, YOU CAN EITHER BE A PROGRESSIVE OR SUPPORT CORPORATE WELFARE.

THE TRUTH IS YOU CAN'T BE BOTH.

SO THOSE WHO SUPPORT GIVING THIS AWAY, DEVELOPERS ARE SHORT CHANGING THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

SECOND, HOW DID THIS PROJECT MORPH FROM 2016 63 MILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE TO 354 MILLION WITH NO EXPLANATION, THAT'S A LOT OF INFLATION.

AND LAST, YOU DO NOT HAVE IN YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAN THE FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT INCLUSION THAT BUT FOR THE SUBSIDIES DEVELOPMENT WOULDN'T OCCUR.

THEREFORE IT IS FLAWED.

YOU WILL BE SUED AND YOU WILL LOSE WHAT A LEGACY.

THANK YOU TRACY WIT.

ITEM 56, NUMBER'S REPRESENTING DISTRICT FOUR, ITEM 56 CO.

HELLO, ITEM 56 CODIFIES SLATE OF CORRIDORS SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT'LL AMPLIFY DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES AND PERMIT TO BUILDINGS MUCH CLOSER TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR ARMS. GORDIAN KNOTS OF CORRIDOR DESIGNATION, THE LANDSCAPE EAST OF I 35 WEST OF MOPAC ROADWAYS LARGE AND MEDIUM NEXT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

EL LOOP CLASSIFICATION THAT IS UNJUST IN EQUITABLE AND INCONSISTENCY IMAGINED.

OFTEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN YOU NEED.

DO NOT PLAY BALL WITH ARCHITECTS OF THE INEQUITY.

THE HAVES DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE TO WIN BY SERVING US ALL UP ON A PLATTER VOTE.

KNOW OR ENSURE THAT CORRIDORS WEST OF MOPAC COMMENSURATE WITH THOSE EAST OF 35 AND NUMBER OF MILES TO APOLOGY AND PROXIMITY TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ARE SUBJECT TO THIS PROGRAM.

FINALLY, ARE THESE CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS GOING TO SERVICE THE BASIS FOR APPLYING FUTURE UP ZONING ON TOP OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS? MAYBE YOU'LL CLARIFY THAT SO YOUR CONSTITUENTS KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH MORE IS COMING WAY.

THANK YOU KATHERINE.

TWO SIX, ITEM 56.

I'M KATHERINE TAC, A RED NEIGHBORHOOD.

OUR SOUTH BORDER IS MLK, WHICH IS FOUR LANES PROPOSED FOR MEDIUM AND OUR NORTH BORDER IS TWO LANE MAIN ROAD PROPOSED LARGE IN ITEM 56.

THAT ALONE SHOULD CONFUSE BLACKLAND PLAN WELCOMES CORRIDOR DENSITY, CONCURRENT COMPATIBILITY, AND NO ONE EVER WAKING UP FROM THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY.

I FELT AMBUSHED BY BROAD STROKE PROPOSAL.

A SINGLE METRO WRAP BUS ON MAINOR DOESN'T MAKE IT LARGE.

IT'S A TWO LANE ROAD, NOT AS WIDE AS MOST OTHER PROJECT CONNECT.

ENHANCED METRO RAPID ROADS OR OTHER LARGE ROADS LANES WERE ALSO COMPARED TO HIGHWAYS AND DOWN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY.

HOW ARE FOUR LANES? 45TH KIX.

38TH MEDIUM COMPARED TO MAINER AND WHERE ARE NEARLY ALL THE EAST WEST, CENTRAL AND FAR WEST AUSTIN ROADS FOUR LANE WINDSOR INFIELD WITH A PROPOSED PROJECT CONNECT THE ZONE.

DISPROPORTION TO AGREE WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE IS TO LET THE REST OF COUNCIL WALK ALL OVER EAST AUSTIN AGAIN.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, RIGHT, IT'S NOT EQUITABLE IN ALL SIX SQUARE

[00:25:01]

AND EAST AUSTIN.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU ALL REMOVE MAYNOR FROM THE MAP.

RESET MEDIUM OR VOTE KNOW.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TODAY.

LYDIA'S AMAN, ITEM 56, LYDIA PLEASE ON YOU PATRICIA DKA.

ITEM 56, PATTY DKA ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN DISTRICT ONE.

BLACKLAND IS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BORDERED BY MLK AND MAYNOR ROAD WITH JUST THREE BLOCKS SEPARATING THESE ROADS.

I OPPOSE.

ITEM 56 ON COMPATIBILITY CHANGES, CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN JUST THE LAST FEW DAYS THAT DESERVE MORE TIME AND ATTENTION FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

UNDERSTAND, I'M NOT CONFIDENT THE PROPOSED PLAN IS EQUITABLE FOR RULE LAWS.

QUESTIONS POSED BY MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON INDICATE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF THOSE CHANGES.

ALSO, COUNCIL MEMBER RETENTIONS ASKED IF EXPERTS FROM FROM EQUITY AND INNOVATION OFFICES HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AND DETERMINED IF AFFORDABILITY IS ACHIEVED.

CITY STAFF RESPONDED THAT THE ITEM WAS ON AN ACCELERATED TIMEFRAME AS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR RE FOR THE REVIEWS NOT BEING CONDUCTED AND I FIND THAT UNACCEPTABLE.

AGAIN, I OPPOSE ITEM 56 AND ASK YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

ALEXANDRIA ANDERSON, ITEM 56.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS ALEXANDRIA ANDERSON AND I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF ITEM 56 ON THE AGENDA.

I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS ACTUALLY TO EVERYONE I HAVE SPOKEN TO IS VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS TYPE AND THIS CHANGE AND I REQUEST A POSTPONE.

WE SUPPORT A COMPROMISE WITH A SIX MONTH PAUSE, A WORKING GROUP WITH COMMUNITY CAN BE CONVENED.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN SHOULD NOT GROW AT THE EXPENSE OF GENERATIONS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS.

MANY WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPLACED AND CHANGES LIKE THESE WILL CAUSE THE REST OF THESE FAMILIES TO HAVE TO LEAVE AUSTIN.

THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING THE COMMUNITY WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.

THE HAD ABILITY STANDARDS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE ON CERTAIN ROADWAYS WERE INCREDIBLY VAGUE.

ONCE COMMUNITY MEMBERS UNDERSTOOD THE ACTUAL CHANGE, THEY ARE CONCERNED ALSO, THIS NOTICE WAS NOT SENT OUT SPANISH OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGES.

OUR AUSTIN NEIGHBORS SPEAK.

THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED IS NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL BUILDING STANDARDS AND DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD NOVEMBER 8TH.

INCENTIVES TO SMALLER AREAS AND SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS AND STOP GIVING AWAY THE ENTIRE CITY FOR LARGE DEVELOPERS.

YOUR TIME WAS EXPIRED.

MULTIPLE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE IN TEARS TRYING TO NOTIFY COMMUNITY LEADERS OF THEIR BILL.

MCCULLEY ITEM 86.

GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS BILL MCKINLEY.

I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT FORWARD.

UH, WE ARE AT 5 0 1 C THREE HERE IN AUSTIN THAT DOES EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT WORK REGARDING THE PROJECT CONNECT.

WE ARE VERY, UH, PLEASED THAT ITEM 86 HAS BEEN POSTPONED AS OUR MEMBERS HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT IT AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING ABOUT THAT.

UH, NEXT WEEK, HOWEVER, WE DO SUPPORT ITEM NUMBER 56.

UH, WE BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT MORE HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT IS BETTER FOR AFFORDABILITY, BETTER FOR OUR WORKERS, AND BETTER FOR OUR CITY IN GENERAL.

AND SINCE AUSTIN HAS SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, RELAXING THESE, UH, RESTRICTIONS ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS WILL ALLOW FOR MORE FOLKS TO LIVE NEAR TRANSIT, ALLOWING FOR A BETTER TRANSIT SYSTEM AND BETTER ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY FOR OUR FOLKS.

SO WE URGE YOU TO PASS ITEM NUMBER 56 AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU'RE GIVING ON ITEM NUMBER 86.

HAVE A GREAT MEETING AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

LYDIA'S AMAN, ITEM 56.

UH, GOOD MORNING.

SPEAK AGAINST, UH, ITEM PHYSICS AS WELL.

UM, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUING TO GIVE MORE AND MORE CARTE BLANCHE TO LARGE DEVELOPERS.

AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE'VE PROMISED IT'S BECOME A BUZZWORD TO COVER UP FOR FAVORS TO DEVELOPERS, TAX, GIVEBACKS, AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER GIVING, UH, MORE

[00:30:01]

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE CAN SEE THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THE CITY'S BEEN TAKEN FROM KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD AND EVERYTHING WE LOVED ABOUT IT TO LET'S MAKE IT BLAND AND AND NON DISTINCT AND HAVE BUILDINGS AND TRAFFIC EVERYWHERE AS LONG AS THE DEVELOPERS ARE HAPPY AND MAKE THE MOST MONEY THEY CAN FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER.

THIS IS, THIS IS GONNA BE A LEGACY MEETING FOR SOME OF YOU AND I ASK YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DO WHAT THE PEOPLE CITY OF AUSTIN WANT.

YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING MORE HOUSING OUT OF THIS.

YOU'RE GONNA GET GRANTING PUD AFTER PUD AFTER PUD WHILE PRICES GO UP, UP AND UP AND UP.

WE'VE WATCHED THE BUILDING AT THE LOWERING GO UP WITH APARTMENTS THAT ARE OVER 4 MILLION THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY APPROVED.

RECREATING THE DYNAMICS OF COLONIZATION.

YOUR TIME EXPIRED WITH THE BUZZWORD AFFORDABLE HOUSING MAYOR.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAD CALL IN.

I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO IN PERSON.

THE FIRST SPEAKER ITEM FOR ITEM 10 AND 54 SUSAN AMANZA, FOLLOWED BY SARAH CAMPBELL.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR AND AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M SUSAN AMANZA WITH PODER AND PODER URGES THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST THE STATEMENT PUT IT DOESN'T DO, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE POOR AND THEY'RE WORKING POOR AND IT DOES NOT PROTECT LADY BIRD LAKE, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD OPPOSING THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE FOR THE AREA PROPOSED MORE DEVELOPMENT BY WEALTHY CONTRIBUTES LITTLE TO THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THEY STAND, BUT THEY STAKE UP SPACE, FORCE UP COSTS, AND PUSH OTHERS FURTHER OUT OF THE URBAN CORE.

WITH THE OVER ACCUMULATION OF LUXURY FOR THE WEALTHY, THE HYPER COMMODIFICATION OF HOUSING LEADS TO NEW FORMS OF RISK, UNAFFORDABILITY AND INSTABILITY FOR EVERYONE.

THE CHURCH DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE IN AN INCREASINGLY GENTRIFYING CITY.

AGAIN, WE OPPOSE THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE AND WE OPPOSE THE PUT FOR THE STATEMENTS.

THANK YOU SARAH CAMPBELL.

ITEM 10 AND 54, FOLLOWED BY WENDY TODD.

UM, GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS SARAH CAMPBELL AND I'M THE, UH, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS, UH, SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS IN WHICH THE, UH, STATEMENT IS PROJECT IS LOCATED.

UM, I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOU ON ITEMS 10 54, 83, 84 AND 85, ALL OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO THE STATESMAN PROJECT.

I'M OPPOSED TO THE JURORS AND TO THE PROJECT AS IT IS CURRENTLY, UH, FORMULATED, UH, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP.

UH, PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO THANK PUBLIC AND PUBLICLY BILL BUNCH FOR, UM, ACTUALLY HAVING THE ENERGY TO GO THROUGH THIS CONVOLUTED, UM, DOCUMENT AND POINT OUT ALL OF THE, UM, PROBLEMS WITH IT AND RAISING, UM, FURTHER RAISING OUR AWARENESS.

BYE WENDY.

TODD, FRIDAYS 10 AND 54, FOLLOWED BY SUSAN SPATARO.

GOOD MORNING, WENDY TODD, DISTRICT NINE.

THANK YOU TO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR DISTRICT AND TO THE MAYOR.

UM, AND TO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN FOR REPRESENTING SOUTH AUSTIN.

I'M HERE TODAY AGAIN TO ASK FOR FURTHER, UM, DISSECTION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING REINVESTMENT ZONE FOR, UM, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

AS YOU KNOW, I SERVED ON THE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH GROUP FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

I ALSO SERVED ON THE SOUTH SU WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.

THIS PROCESS IS OUT OF W TO, TO SET UP A TIFF OR A TUR AT THIS TIME WITH ALL THE PODS.

COMING ONE AFTER ANOTHER IS NOT GONNA GUARANTEE ANY COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND IT IS A 40 YEAR COMMITMENT TO DIVERT TAX DOLLARS FROM THE CITY TO ONE AREA.

SO FOR WHAT PURPOSE? FOR WHAT PURPOSE WILL WE DO THIS? THANK YOU SUSAN.

TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES FOR 55 AND 56 BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST COMING FORWARD.

UM, I UH, NEGLECTED TO MENTION THIS EARLIER, BUT I WAS CURIOUS IF THE TIME ALLOWS US

[00:35:01]

AND I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE, IS IT, DOES THE TIME ALLOW FOR THAT? I DON'T THINK SO AT THIS POINT CUZ WE'VE ALREADY HAD PEOPLE TALK ON IT.

GO AHEAD PLEASE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF TO 10 AND 56.

UM, I MEAN THE, THE, THE LAW IS CLEAR AND THAT IS AUR IS FOR BLIGHTED AREA.

THIS IS NOT A BLIGHTED AREA.

THIS IS TO GIVE DEVELOPER, UM, A BETTER DEAL AND AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY SUBTLE ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO IT.

I THINK IT'S A DISSERVICE TO EVERYONE THAT, THAT LIVES HERE IN TERMS OF 56 COMPATIBILITY.

I THINK THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE.

AND WE ARE PRETENDING THAT POOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA OF THESE TODDS THAT WE'RE GONNA HELP THEM BY GETTING RID OF THEIR HOMES AND PUTTING MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS THERE THAT MAKE A LOT OF MONEY FOR DEVELOPERS AND THEN DON'T ALLOW PARKING AND FORCE THEM TO RIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

I DON'T REALLY SEE THIS AS A BENEFIT.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT, WHEN THAT'S DONE IN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS, WE'RE GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE HAVE SEGREGATED OUR COMMUNITY AND WE WILL HAVE THANK YOU GUS PENA AND THEN FOLLOWED BY ALEX STRINGER.

MR. PENA WILL BE SPEAKING ON ITEMS 26 47, 49 AND 56.

UH, GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS GUSTAVO PENA.

I'M, UH, CHAIR ALSO OF PRESIDENTS FOR PROG, I'M SORRY, VETERANS FOR PROGRESS.

WE ARE, UH, 35,007 50 UNITED STATES, MARINES, AIR FORCE, ARMY AND NAVY, AND, UH, ESPECIALLY OUR WOMEN VOTERS, UH, UM, WHO HAVE, UH, HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 31.

AND IT'S BEEN S UH, S STATED THAT, UH, APPROVE AN ORDINANCE, UH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA BY WAGE THEFT STANDARDS.

WE NEED TO GET, UH, THAT, UH, HELP IN IN PLACE.

AND THE SECOND, UH, IS HOUSING APPROVE OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO CEILING SITE PLAN, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

UH, NUMBER 48.

AND, UH, I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT CAUSE I NEED TO GO, UH, TO THE HOSPITAL, BUT I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, EVEN BACK IN BRUCE TODDS MAY REST IN PEACE ADMINISTRATION, THAT'S WHERE EVERYTHING STARTED TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE'RE WE, WE DON'T JUST DON'T HAVE IT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, PLEASE REMEMBER WE NEED TRUE BLUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I I SAID THAT, UH, WHEN, UH, BRUCE TODD'S ADMINISTRATION.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING IT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL.

I KNOW I'VE BEEN TOUGH ON Y'ALL, UH, STIFF AND I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN GOOD LORD WILLING NEXT WEEK.

AND, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALEX STRINGER, ITEM 27, FOLLOWED BY FOLA BARRETO.

GOOD MORNING COUNSEL.

I'M SPEAKING IN REGARDS TO ITEM 27 BECAUSE WE NEED TO FIGHT DISINFORMATION AND WE NEED TO DO IT NOW.

ALL RIGHT, LOOK, STEVE, I AM SCARED, OKAY? EVER SINCE THAT RIGHT WING FASCIST ELON MUSK BOUGHT TWITTER, OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN LITERALLY HANGING ON BY A THREAD.

YOU KNOW, TWITTER USED TO BE A SAFE SPACE FOR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY AND NOW IT'S BECOME A HAVEN FOR MAG TERRORISTS.

JUST LOOK WHO THEY'RE LETTING BACK ONTO TWITTER.

OKAY, ANDREW TATE, KANYE WEST, AND THAT NAZI JOURNALIST SAVANNAH HERNANDEZ, JUST LOOK AT THEM.

THEY ARE THE PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT OF WHITE SUPREMACY AND DONALD TRUMP, HE DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO TWEET BECAUSE HIS PRESENCE IS LITERAL GENOCIDE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CANCEL TWITTER BECAUSE OF FREE AND OPEN INTERNET IS TEXTBOOK WHITE SUPREMACY.

IT'S WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST.

IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN JANUARY 6TH.

MY FAVORITE WEBSITE HAS BECOME A CESSPOOL FOR CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

JUST LOOK AT THE WAY THESE MAG CUAN ONS TALK ABOUT JEFFREY EPSTEIN.

OH, JEFFREY EPSTEIN DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF.

HIS FRIENDS WANT YOU TO WEAR A MASK AND GIVE VACCINE AND WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S FRIENDS, THEY BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, AND WHEN THEY MAKE LIGHT OF HIS SUICIDE, YOU'RE MAKING LIGHT OF MENTAL ILLNESS BECAUSE HE DID KILL HIMSELF.

BECAUSE HE IS A MINOR ATTRACTED PERSON AND MINOR ATTRACTED PERSONS THANK YOU ARE REMEMBER OF THE LGBTQ LET'S GO AHEAD.

I KNOW YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS.

I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FOLA BERETTO, ITEM 31, FOLLOWED BY GARY WARREN.

[00:40:09]

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR.

MAYOR PROTE AND COUNSEL.

MY NAME IS FLA BARRETO.

I AM THE AUSTIN POLICY COORDINATOR AT WORKER'S DEFENSE, AND I AM TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 31, THE WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ORDINANCE.

COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, HER STAFF, UM, AND THE CO-SPONSORS FOR SPEARHEADING THIS ORDINANCE.

OUR MEMBERS AND COALITION PARTNERS HAVE WORKED FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS ORDINANCE, PARTICIPATING IN COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

AND WE ARE REALLY PROUD OF THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

A STUDY BY WORKERS' DEFENSE PROJECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN TEXAS FOUND THAT MORE THAN ONE IN FIVE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS REPORTED BEING DENIED PAYMENT OF THEIR WORK.

ADDITIONALLY, ONE OUT OF THE THREE WORKERS WHO TRY TO RECOVER THEIR WAGES WERE RETALIATED AGAINST BY THEIR EMPLOYER.

THIS ORDINANCE PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR WORKERS BY REFERRING THEIR CASES TO THE CORRECT INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES AND PROVIDES A FORM OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ABUSIVE EMPLOYERS.

THE OR THIS ORDINANCE IS A HUGE STEP FORWARD TOWARDS PREVENTING WAGE THEFT IN OUR CITY, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STAND WITH WORKING PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND VOTE YES ON ITEM 31.

THANK YOU GARY WARREN FOR ITEM 31, FOLLOWED BY LYDIA CHRISTINA ORTIZ PEREZ.

UH, GOOD MORNING, UH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS GARY WARREN.

I AM THE POLITICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE CARPENTERS UNION.

I SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 31, UH, BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

UH, WE APPRECIATE HER AND HER STAFF AND ALL THE HARD WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THIS WAGE STAFFED ORDINANCE.

THIS ORDINANCE ADDRESSES WAGE THEFT TO PRACTICE THAT HAS UNFORTUNATELY CONTINUED TO BE A BUSINESS MODEL FOR FAR TOO LONG.

IT WILL HELP RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYERS, TAXPAYERS, AND WORKERS IN AUSTIN.

LAW ABIDING EMPLOYERS ARE OFTEN UNDERCUT BY BAD ACTORS AND CAN'T COMPETE WITH THOSE WHO CHEAT.

OUR LARGEST SIGNATORY CONTRACTOR IN TEXAS CIRCULATED AN INTERNAL MEMO THROUGHOUT THEIR ORGANIZATION STATING THAT THIS WAGE THEFT ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE IN THEIR ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF.

THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THIS AUSTIN BRANCH CONTRACTOR CONTACTED US REGARDING, REGARDING THE ORDINANCE.

AND IN HIS EMAIL HE WROTE, THIS IS GOOD, AND THAT IS OUR LARGEST CONTRACTOR IN TEXAS.

I ASK THAT YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER 31.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU LYDIA.

CHRISTINA ORTIZ, PEREZ, ITEM 31, AND THEN SAMUEL K.

I'LL BE INTERPRETING FOR CHRISTINA TODAY.

GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS LID PEREZ.

I AM MEMBER LEADER WORKERS DEFENSE, AND I WORK CLEANING PRI PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN LOCAL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 31, THE WAGE STEP PREVENTION ORDINANCE.

LAUN ES FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, THE WORKER'S DEFENSE MEMBERSHIP HAS WORKED TO HOLD ABUSIVE EMPLOYERS ACCOUNTABLE AND BRING JUSTICE TO WORKERS.

MEMBERS OF WORKERS' DEFENSE ARE EXCITED TO SEE THAT THE DATABASE WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE.

THIS WILL HELP MANY WORKERS DECIDE WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH SOMEONE.

TOLD US THE NAME, DEUN WASTE THEFT IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAT WE CAN IMAGINE AND IS LARGER THAN ALL FORMS OF WAGE THEFT.

LOTS OF EMPLOYERS BELIEVE THAT IMMIGRANT WORKERS IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS NO MATTER WHAT OUR DOCUMENTATION STATUS IS.

FOR THESE REASONS, MEMBERS OF WORKERS' DEFENSE ARE IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 31.

WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL JOIN WORKERS WHO ARE IN THE ECONOMIC STRENGTH OF THE CITY AND VOTE YES FOR ITEM 31.

KSH FOR ITEM 31 46 AND 47, FOLLOWED BY WILLIAM BUNCH.

THANK YOU SAMUEL

[00:45:01]

GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS SAM KIRSCH.

I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FIVE, AN ORGANIZER WITH DISTRICT FIVE FOR BLACK LIVES IN AUSTIN, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA.

UH, SO ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, EMPLOYEES STEAL AN ESTIMATED 50 BILLION PER YEAR FROM WORKERS THROUGH A VARIETY OF MINIMUM WAGE OVERTIME OFF THE CLOCK, TIP AND MEAL BREAK VIOLATIONS.

IN COMPARISON, BURGLARY, LARRIE AND AUTO THEFT COMBINED COMPROMISED APPROXIMATELY 13 BILLION PER YEAR.

SO IF YOU WANNA TAKE CRIME SERIOUSLY, IF YOU ALL REALLY CARE ABOUT CRIME, THEN YOU NEED TO TAKE SERIOUS ACTION ON WAGE THEFT.

I WAS A LINE COOK FOR SIX YEARS AND THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY HAS NORMALIZED WAGE THEFT TO AN UNIMAGINABLE DEGREE.

UM, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK THROUGH MEALS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK OFF THE CLOCK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING.

UM, SO PLEASE VOTE YES ON ITEM 31.

WILLIAM BUNCHE FOR ITEM 36, 37, 39, 48, AND 56, FOLLOWED BY ROY WALEY.

JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR, GET ONE MINUTE ON EACH ITEM OR IS THAT ONE MINUTE FOR ALL OF MY ITEMS? ONE MINUTE FOR ALL ITEMS. OKAY.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A PUBLIC HEARING TO ME.

YOU'RE LISTENING.

I CAN TELL.

UM, YOU KNOW, LAST DECEMBER WHEN Y'ALL VOTED TO CREATE THE TURS, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU OR ANYBODY PAYING ATTENTION BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS A BLIGHTED DISTRICT.

NOT NONE OF YOU BELIEVED THE OFFICIAL FINDING THAT YOU MADE, THAT THIS AREA WOULD NOT DEVELOP, UH, ON, IN THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

UNLESS WE PUT A BUNCH OF TAXPAYER GIVEAWAYS TO THE RICHEST DEVELOPERS IN THE WORLD.

UM, YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE IT THEN.

IT'S NOT NOBODY BELIEVES IT TODAY.

AND YET YOU'RE GONNA SET HERE TO SAY IT AGAIN.

UM, YOU'RE DIRECTLY TAKING, UH, THE, THE BUDGET ESCALATED FROM 50 63 MILLION TO 354 MILLION.

UH, ALL OF THAT INFLATION IS GOING INTO PRIVATE BENEFIT, NOT PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED OF, UH, YOU'RE TAKING MONEY DIRECTLY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND AND SERVICES FOR YOUR OWN DISTRICTS.

UM, THIS IS YOUR PUD VOTE.

YOU'RE THE LANE DUCK COUNCIL, JUST LIKE THE BARTON CREEK PUT.

UH, BUT THERE THEY WERE BLESSED WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO SPOKE CLEARLY AND SPOKE UP AND LED ROBERT BARN STONE AND SPOKE CLEARLY.

WE NEED ONE OF YOU TO SPEAK UP LOUDLY AND CLEARLY AND SAY HOW HORRIBLE A SCAM THIS IS AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW.

AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW, YOU'RE GONNA SUFFER FROM NOT CASTING A LEGACY VOTE FOR THIS COMMUNITY, BUT A SCARLET LETTER VOTE THAT YOU WILL LIVE WITH FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES.

NOBODY BELIEVES THIS B******T.

PLEASE WAKE UP.

ROY WALEY FOR ITEM 36 37 54, FOLLOWED BY CAROL ZUKI.

HOW DO Y'ALL, MY NAME IS ROY WALEY.

I'M THE CONSERVATION CHAIR FOR THE AUSTIN REGIONAL GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB.

UM, AND I GUESS FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE, WE WILL GO OUT, UH, THIS COUNCIL WILL GO OUT OF THE YEAR, UH, CONTINUING TO IGNORE STATE LAW AND GIVE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

WHATEVER DESIGNATED TIME IS GIVEN FOR EACH AND EVERY ITEM, IT'S ILLEGAL.

YOU CONTINUE TO ALLOW THAT.

I, I AM OFFENDED BY THE TURS AND I'M SPEAKING AGAINST IT, AND I HOPE Y'ALL WILL ALL VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT IS ROBBING YOUR DISTRICT OF MONEY THAT YOUR DISTRICTS NEED.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZING THE FIFTH RICHEST FAMILY IN AMERICA.

IF THEY CAN'T BUILD IT WITHOUT OUR MONEY, THEN DON'T.

IT IS NOT BLIGHTED AREA.

THIS IS PRIME REAL ESTATE.

THEY MIGHT HAVE TO BUILD A DIFFERENT PROJECT, BUT THEY COULDN'T, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH STEALING OUR PUBLIC PARK LAND.

ONE ACRE OF THE PARK IS UNDERWATER BECAUSE IT GOES OUT TO A NON-EXISTENT BOARDWALK.

[00:50:01]

YES, WE WANT PARK LAND, BUT WE WANT IT BE SOMETHING WE CAN USE.

AND YOU LET 'EM GET AWAY WITH THAT.

PLEASE STAND UP.

PLEASE SAY NO.

PLEASE SAY WE'RE GOING TO STOP GIVING TAX MONEY TO BILLIONAIRES AND WE ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE PARKS IN OUR OWN DISTRICT.

CAROL TKI, ITEM 36 AND 46, FOLLOWED BY KABA WHITE.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM HERE TO SPEAK FIRST OF ALL, IN FAVOR OF ITEM 36, WHICH IS A RESOLUTION CONCERNING, UH, THE STANDARDS THAT THE CITY WOULD FOLLOW IN DEVELOPING CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

IT'S A MEASURE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD DOCUMENT AND I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS IN HERE, WHICH ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN ANYTHING THAT WE ARE SEEING HAPPENING TODAY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND APPARENTLY OTHER PEOPLE DO TOO, BECAUSE THEY'VE SPOKEN ABOUT IT TODAY.

ITEM NUMBER 46 IS A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ENROLLMENT IN GOALS FOR ENROLLMENT OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AT AUSTIN ENERGY.

I THINK THIS IS A VERY, UH, NEEDED STEP TO TAKE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD BE IMPROVED BY SOME REGULAR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

AND I, AND I WILL SUM UP BY SAYING THAT A FEW YEARS AGO I CHAIRED A LOW INCOME ADVISORY TASK FORCE THAT MADE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE NEVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY REGARDING WHAT KINDS OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS.

AND I RECOMMEND THAT SOMEBODY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT REPORT BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL RELEVANT TO EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED WITH THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

KABA WHITE FRI 40 AND 45, FOLLOWED BY PAUL ROBBINS.

PAUL ROBBINS, I DON'T SEE HIM.

SCOTT JOHNSON, ITEM 47, BEEN ITEM 47.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ENERGY ASSISTANCE FUND TO THE HOMELESS STUDENT FUND TO RAISE AWARENESS FOR THAT IMPORTANT ISSUE.

WE'VE DONE WELL WITH VETERAN HOMELESS.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND YOUR PREDECESSOR AND YOU.

THE ROBUST AND COMPASSIONATE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR HOMELESSNESS IN GENERAL SHOULD BE LAUDED.

ONE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES HERE REALLY IS AWARENESS.

HOPEFULLY DONATIONS WILL FLOW IN PART DUE TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE TODAY, BUT THE, THIS FUND IS NOT ON THE BILL YET, SO WHEN IT IS, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONTINUE ADDING MONEY FOR CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH BY THE WAY, BUSINESSES CAN DONATE MONEY FOR THAT AND I DON'T THINK THEY ARE.

AND ALSO THE PARKS AND LIBRARIES FUND, WHICH IS ON THERE, WHICH HELPS FAMILIES PAY FOR CAMPS IN LEAGUES THAT CAN'T DO SO OTHERWISE.

AND WHAT YOU, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS THAT RIGHT NOW, IN THIS PAST 1500 HOMELESS STUDENTS WERE IN A I S D AND MORE REGIONALLY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

BEST WISHES, MAYOR.

YES, MAYOR AND SCOTT, JUST REAL GLAD.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, WORK AND EFFORT ON THIS AND MY, UH, UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FUNDS WILL GO TO SUPPORT, UM, HOMELESS STUDENTS, UH, AT AS D POTENTIALLY THROUGH COLLABORATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL.

IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT? YES.

RIGHT NOW A FOCUS OF, OF LIFEWORKS IS OUR HOMELESS YOUTH OR HOMELESS STUDENTS.

AND HOPEFULLY SUSAN MCDOWELL IS, IS HERE AND WE WILL SPEAK, BUT IF NOT, THEY'RE DOING GREAT WORK.

AUSTIN TRAVIS KENNY INTEGRAL CARE HAS CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY AND THEY'VE OFFERED SOME DIRECT SERVICE TO ISDS WITHIN THE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

AND THEN WITHIN AUSTIN, A I S D, THEY MAKE REFERRALS, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A FEE FOR SERVICE MODEL WHERE PEOPLE AREN'T TURNED AWAY.

BUT OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO CONTINUE AS PARENTS, AS CITIZENS TO RAISE THE AWARENESS THAT IT'S FINE AND IT'S OKAY FOR YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS AND CHILDREN AND ADULTS TO SEEK OUT COUNSELING FOR, FOR MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

AND AGAIN, I

[00:55:01]

APPRECIATE IT IN MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, BE SHOWN AS A CO-SPONSOR ON THIS SIDE.

I, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, THANK YOU BOARD.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

THANKS FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN HELPING YOU AT THIS TIME.

SCOTT TURNER FOR ITEMS 48 55 AND 56, FOLLOWED BY BRITO WALLACE.

UM, MAYOR.

JUST QUICKLY WHILE HE'S COMING DOWN, I WANTED TO FLAG THAT THE, UH, MY AMENDMENTS FOR 27 HAVE BEEN EMAILED OUT, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNEW THAT WAS OUT.

AND I SAW ONE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AS WELL.

AND OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY'S ARE ALREADY OUT THERE, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

UH, I'M OPPOSED TO ITEMS 55 AND 56.

COMPATIBILITY IS THE BIGGEST LIMITER OF OUR CITY'S HOUSING SUPPLY.

IT'S ALSO THE BIGGEST RISK TO PROJECT CONNECT SUCCESS.

IT'S NOT LEGALLY CLEAR, WHICH LOTS THIS APPLIES TO.

SOUNDS LIKE FRED IS GONNA SUE OVER IT.

UM, STAFF SAYS IT WON'T WORK AND I THINK STAFF IS RIGHT.

UM, PLEASE POSTPONE THIS ITEM.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT.

UH, THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BONUS WON'T WORK EITHER FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS.

THERE'S BEEN NO MODELING OF ITS IMPACT.

THE VMU BONUS HASN'T WORKED FOR OVER 13 YEARS, MOSTLY DUE TO COMPATIBILITY.

WHY WOULD IT WORK HERE? PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT BECAUSE THESE KIND OF, IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING.

PROPOSALS ARE NOT GONNA SOLVE OUR CITY'S HOUSING CRISIS AND AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, OR THEY WOULD HAVE BY NOW.

THESE TWO ITEMS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO GET THEM RIGHT.

AND SCOTT, SCOTT, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.

MARY, IF I MAY THANK YOU MS. SCOTT, JUST A COUPLE.

WHAT, UH, UH, IN PARTICULAR, WHAT WOULD YOU BE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF MORE POSITIVE CHANGES FOR THE THE COMPATIBILITY ITEM? WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT, IT'S, IT'S, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IT'S NOT EQUIT, IT'S NOT EQUITABLE.

UH, IT REALLY ONLY APPLIES TO A VERY SMALL AREA AND, AND THERE'S REALLY NO INDICATION OF HOW MUCH IMPACT IT'S GONNA HAVE OTHER THAN THE RESEARCH STAFF DID.

SO I THINK TAKING THE TIME TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT'S GONNA WORK OR NOT BEFORE WE JUST PASS SOMETHING BY PICKING A FEW NUMBERS WOULD, WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

WE REALLY NEED TO GET IT RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

APPRECIATE IT.

BRITA WALLACE, ITEM 48 55 56, FOLLOWED BY DANIEL CAVEMAN.

MORNING Y'ALL.

I'M BRITA WALLACE.

I AM AN INFIELD DEVELOPER AND I'M ALSO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN INFIELD COALITION.

I MOSTLY WANTED TO SHOW UP TODAY IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 48.

THIS IS A GREAT FIRST STEP TO GETTING MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND I WANTED TO THANK Y'ALL IN PERSON, EVERYONE WHO'S WORKED HARD ON IT.

DAVID HICKSON, ITEM 54, LAURA TEMPLETON.

UH, THE SAME MAIN ISSUES WE ALWAYS BRING UP ARE GONNA BE REALLY IMPORTANT HERE.

ONE IS CONSISTENCY, BOTH FOR BOTH WITH REGARD TO GETTING THINGS DONE WITHIN A CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE TIMEFRAME AND ALWAYS APPLYING THE SAME REPEATABLE RULES.

AND THE SECOND IS SIMPLICITY IN THAT WE NEED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THINGS EASIER.

RIGHT NOW EVERYTHING IS CONTINUALLY GETTING MORE COMPLICATED.

FOR THIS CHANGE TO WORK, IT NEEDS TO BE JUST AS EASY TO BUILD A THREEPLEX AS IT IS TO BUILD ONE BIG HOUSE.

WITH REGARD TO COMPATIBILITY AT EVERY MAYORAL AND COUNCIL DEBATE I'VE ATTENDED, THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS ON HOUSING ON ONLY ONE THING AND THAT'S THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE HOUSING, MORE HOUSING ON THE CORRIDORS.

I ASK YOU TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND COMMENTS FROM ULI STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEANINGFULLY CHANGE OUR COMPATIBILITY RULES TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING.

THANK Y'ALL.

DANIEL CAMAN, ITEM 48 55 56, FOLLOWED BY YVONNE WELDON.

UH, GOOD MORNING MAYOR.

MAYOR PROTEM COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

I FIRST JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON ITEM 48.

IT'S A MUCH NEEDED REFORM THAT I HOPE WILL LEAD TO THE CREATION OF MUCH, UH, NEEDED, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ON ITEMS 55 AND 56.

I'M GLAD TO SEE CITY COUNCIL TRYING TO MAKE SOME FORWARD PROGRESS ON LAND USE REFORMS AND THAT YOU ARE GIVING ATTENTION TO THE DIRE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY.

I HOPE THAT YOU TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF ON THESE ITEMS. SERIOUSLY, THEY'RE REASONABLE AND MUCH NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL INCREASE HOUSING CAPACITY MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSALS ARE.

I ALSO HOPE THAT WE SEE THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS AS A STARTING POINT, UH, IN A BROADER EFFORT TO CREATE A MORE EQUITABLE AND AFFORDABLE CITY.

MORE GENERALLY.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFORDABILITY, TRAFFIC, AND EQUITY BENEFITS OF LEGALIZING MORE DENSITY AND ENDING EXCLUSIONARY ZONING AND PARKING MANDATE PRACTICES.

WE ALL STAND TO BENEFIT FROM A DEN AND MORE CONNECTED CITY.

THE OUTDATED STATUS QUO LAND USE POLICY DOESN'T HAVE TO CONTINUE FOREVER AND WE REALLY CAN DO BETTER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, YVONNE WELDON, ITEM 49, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HICKSON,

[01:00:09]

ITEM 54 AFTER LAURA WILL BE MARY ARNOLD.

GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MAYOR, MY NAME IS LAURA TEMPLETON, DISTRICT 10.

ACCORDING TO A NLY AUSTIN MONITOR DE POLL, 57% OF AUSTINITES THINK THAT AUSTIN IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

WHY DO THEY THINK THAT? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE OUR RENTS AND OUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE WAY TOO HIGH.

THERE ARE OTHER REASONS PEOPLE ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES.

THE ISSUE THAT CONCERNS US TODAY IS THE BLATANT DISREGARD BY THIS COUNCIL TO BE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY GIVING TO PRIVATE CORPORATION.

THE PUBLIC'S HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS TO HELP FAT, THEIR ALREADY VERY LARGE MARGINS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS NOT RIGHT.

IN FACT, IT BORDERS ON FISCAL MALFEASANCE.

YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO HELP FUND REAL ESTATE DEALS TO ENRICH THE ALREADY WEALTHIEST OF CORPORATIONS.

YOU WERE ELECTED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES TO FIX OUR ROADS, TO ENSURE OUR UTILITIES WORK, TO KEEP OUR CITY CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE NO ON ITEM 54 BY VOTING NO.

YOU WILL HELP THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS DEAL.

THE AUSTIN'S SECOND DOWNTOWN CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT ANY TAXPAYER MONEY FUNDING ANY PART OF IT.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE SEEK REELECTION, THANK YOU.

THIS VOTE WILL FOLLOW YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THOSE OF YOU LEAD.

SPEAKER YES, MARY ARNOLD FOR ITEM 54, FOLLOWED BY NANCY MILLER.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR ADLER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

UM, I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO, UM, GO TO COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR MANY YEARS NOW AND ONE OF THE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WAS DONE IN THE 1980S WAS TO CREATE, UH, A WATERFRONT PLANNING EFFORT, UM, TO GIVE ITSELF, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST THE TOWN LIKE TRAIL, BUT TO MAKE THE RIVER AND THE WATERFRONT, UM, BELONG TO THE PEOPLE AND TO BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF AUSTIN.

UH, THE, THE TURS IS NOT NECESSARY.

UM, IT'S A NOT UNDERSTANDABLE.

UM, EVEN THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION GAVE REAL NO REAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY STAFF.

SO PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE TURS.

NANCY MILLER EM 54 FOLLOWED BY JACKIE BROOKS.

JACKIE BROOKS SPEAKING ON ITEM 55 AND THEN RICK CREON.

THROUGH THE COLLABORATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS AS A CONDITION.

HI MARION COUNCIL, I'M JACKIE BROOKS.

I LIVE IN D FOUR, UM, IN WINDSOR PARK.

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS ON ITEM 55.

UM, MY FEEDBACK TODAY WILL FOLLOW A YES AND APPROACH.

UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL USES.

THAT BALANCE ENSURES ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.

AND AS THIS AMENDMENT READS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, I'D ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THREE ITEMS. ONE, IF REFERENCING VMU STANDARDS INCLUDE A THOROUGH REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THOSE STANDARDS, CONSIDER OUTCOMES VERSUS INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

I'D ASK YOU TO REFERENCE THE WINDSOR VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AS A CASE STUDY.

THERE WAS AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL ON JULY 13TH THIS YEAR.

THE OUTCOME OF THE APPLICATION HAS NOT ALIGNED WITH THE INTENT AS WE ALL UNDERSTOOD AND BOUGHT INTO.

AND IT'S CRITICAL TO FIX THIS TOOL BEFORE EXPANDING ITS USE AT SCALE.

NUMBER TWO, CONSIDER THE EXISTING PLUM ESTABLISHED

[01:05:01]

ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN EVALUATION OF ANY LOCATIONS WHERE VMU IS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED AND ALSO CONSIDER THE EQUALLY CONCERNING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND CREATIVE CREATIVE SPACES AND HOW THAT AFFECTS THE MARKET OF THOSE AREAS.

THANK YOU RICK RAC ON ITEM 55 AND THEN CINDY REED.

UH, THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND EACH PLAN HAS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR A FLA WHERE RESIDENTS TOOK THE TIME TO REVIEW THE LAND USES.

UM, IN THE AREA.

UH, NUMEROUS REZONINGS OFFICES OFTEN ACCOMPANIED THE ADOPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, OFTEN PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF TO BRING NON-COMPLIANT USES INTO COMPLIANCE.

SINCE THIS AND THEY WERE USUALLY COMMERCIAL SINCE THE CITY WAS RELUCTANT TO DOWN ZONE UNDER CITY OF AUSTIN'S ZONING GUIDE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS INCLUDE N O L O, GCR, R L R G R L C B D, DMU W SLASH O CS CS ONE AND C H WELL RESIDENTIAL USES BE ALLOWED ON ALL OF THOSE DISTRICTS.

UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REZONING GAVE RESIDENTS THE OPTION OF ADDING THE MIXED USE MU OVERLAY TO COMMERCIALLY OWN PROPERTIES WHERE THEY SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED IT WOULD BE OKAY TO HAVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OR ONLY COMMERCIAL USES OR ONLY RESIDENTIAL USES.

THOSE ARE FAIR GAME FOR THE INTENT OF A AGENDA ITEM 55, BUT A PROPOSAL TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES ON ANY OF THE OTHER COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CHANGE TO THE FLA AND TREATED AS SUCH.

THANK YOU CINDY REED FOR ITEM 55, 56 AND THEN MARIO CAN TWO.

I'M SPEAKING.

I'M PART OF D FOUR QUELL HOLLOW AND I'M SPEAKING ABOUT UH, COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING.

I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GONNA LOOK BACK AT THIS RUSH DECISION AS OUR FREEWAY MOMENT.

THE FREEWAYS THAT KILLED COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, THE UP THE BLANKET UPZONING, THE REMOVING PARKING IS JUST GONNA CONTINUE TO PUSH AND DESTROY BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITIES.

LOOK AT THE EAST SIDE, THE FREEWAYS CREATED IT, BUT UPZONING AND LACK OF RESPECT TO INCORPORATE THE COMMUNITY KILLED IT.

AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I'M FROM HERE.

I'VE ALSO LIVED IN WASHINGTON, DC AND NEW YORK AND I KNOW THAT COMPATIBILITY IS IMPORTANT AND EASING SOME RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT WITH COMMUNITY INPUT.

WE NEED PEOPLE THAT ARE PLANNING THAT AREN'T JUST SITTING IN THE OFFICES, BUT KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON A STREET BY STREET LEVEL.

UM, RIGHT NOW IN MY COMMUNITY THERE ARE SIX MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS GOING UP.

ONE IS AFFORDABLE, WHICH IS A WIN.

THE REST ARE ALL LUXURY AND THAT MAKES IT NOT AFFORDABLE.

SO WE NEED TO GO FROM CHANGES WITH A BROAD BRUSH TO WITH PRECISION.

AND LASTLY, REMOVING PARKING FOR LABORERS AND THE WORKING CLASS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE BODIED.

THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE CITY TICK, THE CARPENTERS, THE HVAC TECHNICIAN, TECHNICIANS, THE PEOPLE WITH FAMILIES, THOSE PEOPLE NEED PARKING.

NOTHING ON THE EXTREME IS EVER GOOD.

I THINK WE CAN COME WITH A BALANCE.

WE DON'T NEED TWO OR THREE SPOTS PER UNIT, BUT WE NEED AT LEAST ONE SPOT FOR FAMILIES AND FOR THE LABORERS THAT WORK IN.

FINAL LANGUAGE TO GO BEYOND THE HALF MEASURES THAT WE'VE TAKEN IN THE PAST AND INSTEAD TAKE BOLD ACTION FOR A MORE AFFORDABLE FUTURE FOR AUSTIN.

MARIO CANTU, ITEM 55 AND 56 AND THEN THEREA BOYER, TERESA BOYER OR BOWER ON ITEMS 55 AND 56.

AND THEN ZACHARY THERE, RIGHT.

HI MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS TERESA BOYER AND I'M SPEAKING ON, I IS 55 AND 56 BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO POSITIVELY IMPACT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I'M THE OWNER OFWE DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER AND CONSULTANT AND I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INDUSTRY FOR 12 YEARS, PRIMARILY WITH THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM.

I ALSO HELPED WRITE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY UL I AUSTIN ON HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ALIGN WITH THE STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT GOALS OF PRODUCING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WELL AS WHERE THEY FALL SHORT.

THE FURTHER I GET IN MY CAREER, THE MORE APPARENT IT IS TO ME THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELIES NOT ONLY ON CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, BUT ALSO ON THE PRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY OF ALL TYPES OF HOUSING.

WE CAN'T RELY ON HOUSING BONDS ALONE TO BUY OUR WAY OUT OF THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND BALANCE THAT'S BEEN CREATED IN PART DUE TO OUR RESTRICTIVE LAND USE POLICIES.

WHEN FOLKS MOVE TO AUSTIN, THEY AREN'T BRINGING THEIR HOUSES WITH THEM.

SO WE HAVE CONTINUED TO PURSUE AGGRESSIVE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT JOB GROWTH.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE MUST CRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THAT ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD, GENEROUS, AND EASY TO IMPLEMENT.

IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT MORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF ALL TYPES AND TURN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS THESE ITEMS. AND WHILE I'M GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THEM, I WANNA CHALLENGE YOU IN DRAFTING THE

[01:10:01]

ZACHARY'S THERE.

ITEM 55 AT 56, AND THEN GREG ANDERSON SAID GREG ANDERSON, ITEM 55 56.

AND THEN JA PAULO CONNELLY.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

UM, IF YOU WORK FULL-TIME, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE IN THIS CITY.

SAYS A MOM OF AN A I S D SCHOOL TEACHER TO ME OUT IN THE LOBBY JUST AN HOUR AGO.

SO WE ALL KNOW THAT COMPATIBILITY COSTS US MORE HOUSING UNITS THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE RULE ON THE BOOKS.

AND IT'S GREAT THAT WE ARE DOING A LITTLE BIT HERE.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THOUGH, THAT WE'RE NOT DOING MUCH, RIGHT? IF YOU WERE REALLY MOVING THE NEEDLE ON COMPATIBILITY, WE WOULDN'T BE GOING FROM THE WORST COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THE COUNTRY TO REMAINING THE WORST COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN THE COUNTRY.

SLIDE PLEASE.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT YOU, YOU ALL WILL PASS 55 AND 56 WITH PLANNING, PLANNING, COMMISSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THIS IN THE NEXT COUNCIL.

LOOK AT THIS NEXT YEAR CUZ IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO COST US MORE HOUSING THAN ANYTHING ELSE ON THE BOOKS.

AND WE HAVE TO DO BETTER.

WE'VE GOT TO DO BETTER AND WE CAN DO BETTER.

SO EXCITED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO NEXT.

JOE POWELL, CONNELLY, ITEM 55 56 AND THEN STUART HIRSCH.

STUART HIRSCH, ITEM 55 56.

AND THEN SHANE JOHNSON, MAYOR COUNSEL, MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, OR AS I'D LIKE TO SAY, STEW FROM DISTRICT TWO.

UH, I'M HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON ITEM 55 AND 56.

AND THE REASON IS SIMPLE.

AND I READ FROM THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY, 2015, THE MARTIN PROSPERITY INSTITUTE NAMED THE AUSTIN METROPOLITAN AREA, THE MOST ECONOMICALLY SEGREGATED AREA IN THE UNITED STATES, STATING THAT IT IS NOT SO MUCH THE SIZE OF THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR THAT DRIVES SEGREGATION.

IS THE ABILITY OF THE SUPER WEALTHY TO ISOLATE AND WALL THEMSELVES FROM THE LESS WELL TO DO.

I REPORTED TO WORK HERE AT 3 0 1 AT WEST SECOND STREET 45 YEARS AGO THIS PAST MONTH, AND I AM TELLING YOU I EARNED $7 AN HOUR AS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS LIKE WE DO TODAY.

WE CONSCIOUSLY GOT OURSELVES INTO THIS.

I THINK WE CAN DO GOOD WORK NEXT YEAR TO GET US OUT OF IT.

PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

HOUSING, BUT INSTEAD WE CONSIST CONSISTENTLY SEE MORE TWO AND FOUR, $4 MILLION CONDOS.

THANK YOU, SHANE JOHNSON.

ITEM 56, AND THEN JANICE BOOKOUT.

JANICE BOOKOUT, ALSO FOR ITEM 56 AND THEN KIMBERLY KOHL HOUSE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE DURING THE PANDEMIC IN YURI.

YOU ARE AWARE OF MINE.

WE'VE LIVED OFF CAMERON ROAD FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

MY HUSBAND'S A MUSICIAN AND I WORK ALL THE TIME WITH TWO BOYS JUST UNDER 50 MFI.

WE STRUGGLE TO PAY OUR MORTGAGE.

WE NEED $13,000 TO AFFORD THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT MAY DISPLACE US SO MANY LESS FORTUNATE.

IT TOOK ME 40 HOURS TO UNDERSTAND THE NOTICE LETTER REFERRING ONLY TO CERTAIN ROADWAYS.

NO EXPLANATION, NO TRANSLATION, NO WEBSITE LINK, A PUBLIC HEARING ON ELECTION DAY AS WRITTEN.

THIS ORDER N WILL DISPLACE PEOPLE AND DAMAGE COMMUNITY TRUST.

THIS ORDINANCE AND LACK OF PUBLIC PROCESS ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT CONNECT EQUITY TOOL.

THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, THE CITY COMMISSION UT UPROOTED STUDY TWO TIMES THE ACREAGE ARE IN AREAS OF RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.

ON THE AGENDA ITEM ON WEBSITE, YOU'LL SEE A COMMUNITY BACKUP SIGNED BY CRT GAVA, MEASURE MEASURE SOS AND OTHER ORGS.

WE WANNA REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE COMMUNITY CITY CROSS-SECTOR EXPERTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ALREADY MADE WITH TAXPAYER FUNDED RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT WITH ALL THE ENERGY AND DEDICATION OF PEOPLE GIVING EVERYTHING WE HAVE TO THIS COMMUNITY.

PLEASE HEAR OUR PLEA THAT YOU TAKE THIS PAUSE.

KIMBERLY COOLHOUSE AND THEN NADIA BARBO.

MR. MAYER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UM, MY NAME IS KIMBERLY COOLHOUSE.

I'M A LICENSED ARCHITECT AND REALTOR, AND I'VE LIVED IN THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT NINE, UM, FOR 20 YEARS.

PLEASE DELAY YOUR FINAL VOTE ON GRANTING COMPATIBILITY IN CORRIDORS.

THE GREAT MYTH IS THAT MORE DENSITY ON THESE CORRIDORS PROVIDES MORE AFFORDABLE

[01:15:01]

I SEE NO SAFEGUARDS IN THIS AMENDMENT OF THAT HAPPENING AGAIN.

MY GUESS IS THAT LAWYERS AND DEVELOPERS WHO ARE BEHIND COMPATIBILITY IN CORRIDORS GOT MORE THAN ONLY ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK.

SEVEN DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH TO GET MY HEAD AROUND AMENDMENTS THAT WILL AFFECT ALL OF AUSTIN, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ADJACENT TO THE CORRIDORS, BUT EVERYONE WHO EVER USES THEM.

THIS IS NOT GIVING NOTICE.

HAVE YOU GIVEN NOTICE TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND COMMUNICATED TO THEM IMPACTS IT WILL HAVE.

HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED THE IMPACTS TO YOUR DISTRICTS? HAVE YOU USED THE COMPATIBILITY IN CORRIDORS AMENDMENT TO GET THE MOST FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHO BENEFITS BY RUSHING TO PASS THESE AMENDMENTS? THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS IS ASTOUNDING.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON 56 AND POSTPONE UNTIL YOU HAVE NEGOTIATED BETTER FOR YOUR DISTRICTS.

THANK YOU NADIA BARBO FOR ITEM 56 AND THEN PETER SL.

HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR.

I AM NADIA BARBO, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

I AM READING JANICE RANKIN'S STATEMENT FROM DISTRICT SEVEN AS SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

I OPPOSE ITEM 55 AND 56.

FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION MONEY WILL NOT RAIN DOWN FOR PROJECT CONNECT JUST BECAUSE THE CITY MAKES MASS CHANGES OF LAND USE AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO BOOST HOUSING DENSITY.

THESE PROPOSALS GIVE PRIORITY TO MASS LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRACT AND DELAY THE CREATION OF A FUNCTIONAL DESIGN FOR PROJECT CONNECT THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE 7 BILLION STREAM OF FUNDING.

IT IS FALSE AND MISLEADING TO SUGGEST THAT CREATING GREATER DENSITY WITH A MEAGER 10% OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WILL PROVIDE MASS TRANSIT WITH PROJECT CONNECT BY 2030.

INCREASED DENSITY IS ONLY ONE COMPONENT FOR OBTAINING FEDERAL FUNDS.

FIRST, THE RAIL PROJECT MUST HAVE A STREAM OF FUNDING SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE HIGHLY COMPETITIVE FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE PROJECT IS REPORTEDLY ABOUT $5 BILLION SHORT.

THESE MA MASS LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES REQUIRE THE CITY TO FOLLOW STATE LAW REQUIRING FAIR NOTICE TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALLOWING THEM TO FILE PROTESTS.

THE NOTICE SENT TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF PERSONS FAILS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO ENABLE THEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES.

THIS NOTICE LACKS INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO PROTEST.

ALSO, IT IS STATED ONLY IN ENGLISH, EXCLUDING ESL HOMEOWNERS.

THIS DENSITY FIRST APPROACH IS PREMATURE.

IT WILL DRIVE PEOPLE AND FAMILIES OUT OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND DISPLACE AUSTIN RESIDENTS FROM COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST WHERE THEY HAVE HAD HOUSING THEY CAN AFFORD.

THIS APPROACH DOES NOT ALLEVIATE COMMUTER TRAFFIC FLOW FROM THE AUSTIN PERIPHERY.

SO TRAFFIC IN AUSTIN AND I 35 WILL NOT IMPROVE.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON ITEMS 55 AND 56.

IF I COULD ASK THE STAFF REAL QUICK QUESTION.

DO WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SOUNDING TIMER THAT WE SHOULD BE LISTENING FOR? I THINK CTM HAD TO SWITCH THE TIMER REAL QUICK.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, THE BOARD FROZE UP ON ME FOR A MINUTE, SO I DID IT MANUALLY ON MY PHONE.

THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS.

OH, OKAY.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

ARE ARE WE ALL BACK TO NORMAL? I THINK, I THINK IT'S, I'M GONNA REBOOT AND SEE HOW, HOW WE DO, BUT SOMETHING'S GOING ON.

AT THE VERY LEAST, NEXT TIME I'LL RECOGNIZE THE RING.

YEAH, WE WERE ALL UP HERE CHECKING OUR PHONES.

THE CURRENT, UH, RED LINE ARE, UH, CAPPED AT AT 60 FEET? YES.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PETER SL, ITEM 56, AND THEN ALICE GLASGOW.

HELLO, I AM PETER SL.

I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SEVEN AND A LICENSED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ALIGNED WITH CLIENT INTERESTS.

I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE, BUT I WOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO APPLY THE SAME PRINCIPLES TO THE INVESTMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY MADE.

THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IGNORES THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE TO RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE EXISTING RED LINE AS A LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR.

THIS IS A HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTED STATIONS, WHICH ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SHARED WITH NEW LIGHT RAIL LINES.

CURRENT LANGUAGE IGNORES THE LATENCY BETWEEN THESE CHANGES AND THE ETOD IMPLEMENTATION.

EXISTING TOD MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS CAPPED AT 60 FEET OR LESS, WHERE VMU TWO SITES FARTHER FROM THE STATIONS MAY NOW REACH 90 FEET.

ETO OD STANDARDS MAY TAKE YEARS TO ESTABLISH DURING WHICH TIME EXISTING TOD MAY BE DEVELOPED WELL BELOW THE TRUE POTENTIAL WITH NO INTERIM PROVISION FOR VMU TWO BONUS IN EXISTING TOD, THE CITY WILL LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DENSITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PROPERTY CLOSEST TO THE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS.

EXISTING DMU ZONING IS MEANT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I'M SORRY, MAYOR, SIR? YES, GO AHEAD.

JUST A, A QUICK, UH, CLARIFICATION.

UH, SO THE, THE TRANSIT ORIENTED, UH, DEVELOPMENTS, THE TODS AROUND

[01:20:01]

SO THEY'RE, THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE EXISTING TODS.

UH, THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE LAMAR JUSTIN ONE, WHICH IS UP ON CRESTVIEW.

AND THAT STATION WILL BE SHARED WITH THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINES AND WITH THE AFFORDABILITY PROVISIONS ALREADY IN PLACE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ONLY 60, 60 FEET.

SO IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE AT 15% AFFORDABLE AT 60 FEET GOING TO 90 FEET WOULD BE 50% MORE AFFORDABLE.

UH, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE CLARIFICATIONS.

ALICE GLASGOW, FRIDAY 56 AND THEN BRIAN ROGERS.

GOOD MORNING MAYOR.

MAYOR PROAM, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY MANAGER'S GONE, BUT CITY ATTORNEY.

GOOD MORNING, ALICE GLASGOW.

AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A PROPONENT FOR MORE HOUSING.

AND TO THAT END, I ASKED YOU TO SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 56 AMENDMENTS TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I, UM, I WAS PRIVILEGED TO WORK FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND, UH, I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST EMPLOYEES HIRED.

I WAS HIRED IN 1984 AND, UM, I THE FIRST OF EMPLOYEES TO, UH, IMPLEMENT THE, UH, ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE.

THE ZONING WE HAVE TODAY AND THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WERE PART OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.

SO, UM, I URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE CHANGES THAT ARE ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY.

HOWEVER, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALLOW STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A SECOND PHASE AMENDMENT THAT LOOKS AT THE ENTIRE CITY.

SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT I WORKED ON, PROJECTS THAT I WAS THE CITY EMPLOYEE IN 1986 ARE THE SAME.

THEY'RE COMPLEX THAT WERE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, THEN THEY'RE DIFFICULT TODAY.

SO PHASE TWO FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

YEAH, MAYOR, I'M MS. GLASGOW.

I, I, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE RATE, YOU'RE MAKING REFERENCE TO LITERALLY THE ORIGINAL CODE.

UM, AND I CAN'T HELP BUT FEEL A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE TWILIGHT ZONE THAT YOU'RE STANDING HERE TALKING TO US ABOUT IT TODAY.

AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THE CONVERSATION IS THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.

UM, IN WHICH CASE I AM TRYING TO RECONCILE WITH THE PROBLEMATIC COMPONENTS OF WHAT I SEE BEFORE US TODAY.

AND REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIND MYSELF IN A PLACE WHERE IT FEELS, WHERE IT FEELS APPROPRIATE, UM, TO, TO TAKE YOUR ADVICE, WHICH I THINK IS BACKED WITH DATA AND FACTUAL INFORMATION, UM, WHEN IT JUST FEELS WRONG.

AND SO WHEN YOU SAY THE PHASE TWO APPROACH, I AM CURIOUS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

HOW DO YOU, HOW DO I RATHER, AND IT'S A, ISN'T A QUESTION SO MUCH AS ME LAYING OUT MY CONSIDERATION.

HOW DO I LOOK AT MY CONSTITUENTS AND SAY, YEAH, I THINK THIS IS BAD.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS GREAT FOR EAST AUSTIN.

UM, BUT THIS PHASE TWO THING WILL HAPPEN.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I, I GUESS I'M JUST HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU OFFER ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WITH A PHASE TWO, GIVEN OUR HISTORY AS A CITY.

WE, I MEAN, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING AT WORK SESSION THE OTHER DAY THAT MAYOR PRO TIM COLE BROUGHT FORWARD WHEN SHE WAS ON COUNCIL.

THAT'S YEARS LATER.

I, I JUST, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, GIVEN YOUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE, WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL CONFIDENT WOULD BE AN ACHIEVABLE PHASE TWO EXECUTION TIMELINE? WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE OTHER THAN STAFF HAS ASKED YOU TO ALLOW THEM TO, WELL, TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CITY.

SO TODAY, THE AMENDMENTS YOU HAVE TODAY LOOK AT CERTAIN CORRIDORS.

HOWEVER, WHEN I THINK OF PHASE TWO IS TO LOOK AT THE, THE REST OF THE CITY, THE BALANCE OF THE CITY AS FAR COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOMMODATE MORE HOUSING.

OBVIOUSLY, IF WE'VE NOT AMENDED OUR CODE IN SO MANY YEARS, WE ARE GONNA HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. UH, WE ENCOUNTERED THEM WHEN I WAS ON STAFF.

WE ENCOUNTERED, NOW THAT I'M ON PRIVATE SECTOR SIDE.

BUT, UM, A TIMELINE WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON HOW LONG, HOW MUCH TIME THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS STAFF TO, TO, TO EXPLORE THOSE ITEMS. BUT, UM, THE ENTIRE CITY, UH, NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND ADDRESSED AND NOT JUST THE CORRIDORS, BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE PROBLEMS. WE STILL HAVE TO TAKE CASES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCES.

AND, UM, IF WE ARE TRULY GONNA LOOK AT ADDING MORE HOUSING, UM, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS.

OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS HELP AND OBVIOUSLY COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE 86.

THEY'VE REMAINED THE SAME.

AND YOU, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE, THE FACTS ARE.

UH, THEY DO PROVIDE, UM, UM, PROTECTION

[01:25:01]

FOR, FOR HOMEOWNERS.

BUT, UM, I SAY WE SHOULD JUST TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THEM FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND, AND COME UP WITH, UH, AN APPROACH THAT IS A WIN-WIN FOR ALL.

AND I, I, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT MAYOR, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MOST APPROPRIATE THAT I SAVED THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.

BUT JUST TO KIND OF FRONT LOAD FOR STAFF, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT A VIABLE TIMELINE FOR A PHASE TWO APPROACH MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

AND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE SOME ADVICE FROM STAFF ON HOW TO SPEAK TO, TO MS. GLASGOW'S POINT, YOU KNOW, IN HER CAPACITY WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN EIGHTIES.

IN THE EIGHTIES, Y'ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPATIBILITY STUFF TODAY THAT PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED ABOUT NOT HAVING HAD ENOUGH TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

GUESS WHAT Y'ALL HAD SINCE THE EIGHTIES? THERE'S PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WHO WEREN'T BORN YET.

WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE EXACT SAME THING AS WHAT SHE JUST SAID.

WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT'S NOT NEW.

IT'S, IT'S MARGINALLY NEW AT BEST.

AND IT, I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH HOW IT MANIFESTS IN EAST AUSTIN.

SO JUST TO PUT THAT, THAT ON YOURS RADAR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT WHEN WE DELIBERATE ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM.

THANK YOU STEP AND THANK YOU MS. GLASGOW AND MAYOR, JUST BRIEFLY, A COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE.

I WILL COMMIT TO WORKING ON PHASE TWO WITH YOU, YOU KNOW, COME THE NEXT YEAR.

I MEAN, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS.

I COMPLETELY, UH, AGREE WITH, UH, MS. GLASGOW'S, UH, UH, COMMENTS.

AND, UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO, UH, TO WORK AND TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE IN, UH, IN THE COMING YEAR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA.

BUT DON'T MAKE A LIAR OUT OF ME.

I DIDN'T SAY I WAS COMMITTING TO THAT .

I HAVE QUESTIONS IS WHAT I SAID.

BRIAN ROGERS, EXCUSE ME.

IEM 56 I HELLO MAYOR COUNCIL.

I FULLY SUPPORT NUMBER 56.

I'M A, A CORRIDOR OWNER, AND I AND OTHER QUARTER OWNERS HAVE BEEN LONG HAMSTRUNG BY THE OVERREACH OF THE, THE DEFINITION OF TRIGGERING PROPERTY.

SO I HAD HERE, UH, AN EXAMPLE, A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A PROPERTY I OWN ON SOUTH LAMAR.

YOU'LL SEE THE CIRCLE AROUND MF THREE.

WELL, A FRIEND OF MINE, UH, GABE USED TO OWN THAT.

HE CASHED OUT IN MARCH, MADE A BUNCH OF MONEY, SOLD IT TO SOME INVESTORS.

AND SO THAT TAIL WAGS THE DOG OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THE CS PROPERTIES THAT YOU SEE ALSO BACK UP TO A CEMETERY THAT'S ZONED SF THREE.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN THERE IS GOING TO, UH, TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

MAY THEY REST IN PEACE.

SO, UH, IT'S A, YOU, SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S A MARGINAL INCREASE, BUT I THINK IF YOU WERE TO TALK TO PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE AFFECTED, UH, BY THIS, UH, THIS OVERREACH OF THAT DEFINITION, YOU'LL FIND THERE'S A LOT OF HIDDEN PROPERTIES, HIDDEN UNITS, UH, IN THE DENSITY ALONG THESE CORRIDORS.

SO I URGE YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT NUMBER 56.

UM, PAUL ROBBINS ON ITEM 46.

COUNSEL, UH, THIS IS NOT, THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT FOR, IT'S FOR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, SIR.

UH, COUNSEL, UH, I SUPPORT THIS ITEM, BUT I DO WANT TO, UH, WEIGH IN ON A COUPLE NUANCES OF IT, IMPORTANT NUANCES.

ONE, DO NOT, PLEASE DO NOT, PLEASE DO NOT, UH, RAISE THE INCOME QUALIFICATION TO 450,000.

IF YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL PROBABLY ENROLL SEVERAL HUNDRED RELATIVELY WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DESERVE ASSISTANCE FOR THE POOR.

UH, THE OTHER, UH, THING THAT I'LL ADVISE YOU OF, UM, I, I SUPPORT THIS ITEM, BUT I, UH, AM RESERVED ABOUT, UH, I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT THAT THAT WILL BE MY SPEECH.

I'M SORRY, MR. ROBBINS.

I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE I CAUGHT WHAT ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

UH, THIS IS THE ITEM TO, UH, INCREASE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

AHEAD AND CONVENE THE, UH, AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETING HERE ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.

THANK YOU, UH, FUNDING.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ABSENT MINDEDNESS.

I SPENT A LONG TIME WRITING MY SPEECH FOR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS WE HAD REGISTERED FOR IN-PERSON CONSENT.

I DO HAVE TWO FOR A H F C.

OKAY, SO LET'S GO AHEAD NOW HERE AT 1143 AND LET'S RESO RECESS, THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, UH, MEETING.

UH, LET'S GO

[10:30 AM - Austin Housing and Finance Corporation Meeting]

UM, TIME

[01:30:01]

IS, UH, 1143 AND WE'RE IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HERE AT CITY HALL.

UH, THE, UH, QUORUM OF THE, UH, DIRECTORS ARE HERE.

WHY DON'T YOU CALL SPEAKERS AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE AGENDA SPEAKERS.

THE, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS GUS PENA FRI 6 79, AND THEN DEBBIE KAISER.

OKAY, I'M NOT SEEING MR. PENA.

SO WE'LL GO TO DEBBIE KAISER, ITEM SEVEN.

AND I'M THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF IMAGINE ART IMAGINE ARTS, A CREATIVE COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF ARTISTS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES.

BEEN OPERATING IN AUSTIN FOR 26 YEARS.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM SEVEN, THE LIFT MAKE PROJECT.

THE LIFT MAKE CAMPUS IS A LABOR OF LOVE, ESTABLISHING 66 UNITS OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ANCHORED BY 8,500 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC ART STUDIOS AND A PUBLIC KITCHEN.

THIS PROJECT IS PLANTED IN DISTRICT THREE GO VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AND COUNCIL MEMBER RENTIERS, WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS PROJECT WITHOUT YOU.

UM, I SO APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AS YOU EXIT YOUR SEAT ON COUNCIL.

I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO ENJOY THIS LEGACY PROJECT INSIDE OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I HOPE TO SEE YOU FREQUENTLY WANDERING IN OUR GALLERY AND HAVING A CUP OF COFFEE WITH OUR RESIDENTS.

I WANNA PERSONALLY THANK THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

AND IMAGINE ARTISTS EXTREMELY EXCITED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD IN A LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP WITH YOU.

AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE A BEAUTIFUL PROGRAM.

I'VE GONE TO THEIR GALLERIES OVER THERE AND I'VE SEEN THE, UH, SEEN THEM WORK ON IT AND, UH, SEEN THE ARTISTS AND IT'S JUST AMAZING THE, UH, KIND OF ART THAT THESE, UH, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DOING.

SO, I, I'M REALLY JUST, OF COURSE, I'LL BE DOWN THERE.

I I WANT TO BE THERE ALSO WHEN THE, THE RIBBON CUT.

UH, JUST PLEASE INVITE ME.

I'M NOT GONNA BE HERE ON NO DIETS, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BE THERE CUZ IT'S ONE OF THOSE GREAT PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE HELPING OUR YOUNG FOLKS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, HELP WITH DISABILITY AND, AND, UH, IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

UH, WE'D BE ABLE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THESE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY GET OLDER AND THEIR PARENTS, UH, DO LEAVE PASS AWAY.

UH, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP PROVIDING HOUSING AND SERVICE FOR THESE YOUNG, THESE, UH, YOUNG FOLKS WITH DISABILITY.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CS ALL CONSENT TODAY.

YES, SIR.

UM, UH, I GUESS ITEMS ONE THROUGH 10 OR ALL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES, SIR.

UH, DOES ANYBODY WANNA PULL ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? CAUSE WE DIRECTOR WENT TO REMAKES MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? THE, UH, UH, DIRECTOR, UH, ALTER SECONDS AND DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

JUST TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED, UH, I'M SEEING IT, UH, UNANIMOUS WITH, UH, DIRECTOR VELA OFF THE DIAS.

LET'S SEE IF HE'S ANDY.

GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.

UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOS UNANIM OF THE DIAS WITH DIRECTOR VELA H THAT'S ALL OF OUR BUSINESS.

THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, UH, MEETING HERE AT, UH, UH, 11, UH, 40, UH, SEVEN.

I'M GONNA ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, UH, HERE AT, UH, 1147.

I'M GONNA RECONVENE

[Public Comment (Part 2 of 2)]

UH, WE HAVE ABOUT 32 MINUTES TO, TO DO A LITTLE WORK BEFORE WE, UH, MAYOR CALL FOR NOON SPEAKERS.

YEAH, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS SHOWED UP THAT WE CALLED EARLIER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM NOW.

FOR ITEM 55 AND 56.

MR. CANTU, YOU WORK ON GOOD MORNING.

IT'S KIND OF IRONIC HOW I'M THE LAST ONE TO SPEAK.

SO, UM, I WANTED TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT COMMUNICATION.

UH, I WAS, I WAS AROUND WHEN CODE NEXT STARTED AT $1 MILLION AND THAT EXCEEDED A BUDGET HIGH UP.

UH,

[01:35:01]

WE'RE KIND OF IN THE SAME SEAT AS WE ARE IN TODAY WHEN IT COMES TO COMMUNICATING, UH, THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY.

WE NEED TO, UH, ENGAGE WITH THEM AND I HOLD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HISPANICS THAT ARE ON THE DIAS AS WELL IN MAKING SURE THAT THAT DOES TAKE PLACE THAT WE DO, UH, COMMUNICATE WITH THE MI CONNELLS IN ALL PARTS OF AUSTIN.

UH, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.

UH, NUMBER TWO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CALENDAR, UH, THAT'S SET BY THE CITY.

THERE WERE SOME CANCELLATIONS, UM, AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE HAD, UH, VOTING ON THE SAME DAY AS PLANNING COMMISSION WITH CONVERSATIONS THAT INDIVIDUALS COULDN'T BE HERE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATE ON THE SAME DAY AS VOTING.

UH, YOU KNOW, WE WENT TO IRAQ AND IRAQ, WE HAD THAT PURPLE FINGER.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT HOW OUR MILITARY, UH, REPRESENTED US.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO REPRESENT OUR CITIZENS HERE.

DO WE ALSO HAVE CHRIS PAGE HERE? I THINK HE WAS CALLED EARLIER, WAS STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND IS ASKED TO SPEAK.

I DON'T HAVE HIM REGISTERED.

I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ASKED, BUT I DID CALL AND I WAS STUCK IN.

WHEN DID YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK? I SPOKE WITH THE CLERK THIS MORNING.

DID YOU SIGN UP BY NINE 15? I WAS IN TRAFFIC.

COULDN'T GET TO THE KIOSK, CHRIS.

HE SAID HE WAS STUCK IN TRAFFIC.

MARY, IF I MAY, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MR. PAGE HAS TO SAY.

WHY DON'T GO AHEAD MS. PAGE.

YOU MA'AM.

COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, CHRIS PAGE, DISTRICT ONE, PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEWOOD HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I'M HERE SPEAKING ON ITEM 56.

UH, IF ADOPTED UNDER ITS CURRENT STRUCTURE, OAK SPRINGS DRIVE, WHICH IS AN AS S P LEVEL TWO ROAD, WOULD BE WRONGLY DESIGNATED AS A LARGE CORRIDOR EQUIVALENT TO I 35 180 3 IN MOPAC, WHICH ARE 500% OR GREATER LARGER.

UH, IN TERMS OF CAPACITY, ACCORDING TO STAFF, TO ONLY RATIONALE FOR THIS DESIGNATION IS THAT BUS ROUTE USES OUR TWO LANE RESIDENTIAL STREET FILLED WITH HOMES IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO CUT BETWEEN AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND UH, WEBER ROAD.

I PULLED RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ZERO RESIDENTS AGREE THAT OAK SPRINGS IS APPROPRIATELY CATEGORIZED AS A LARGE CORRIDOR.

UH, WHAT WOULD FOLLOW WITH THE INACCURATE CLASSIFICATION OF OAK SPRINGS DRIVE AS LARGE CORRIDOR UTTERLY CONTRADICTS THE ADOPTED ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN.

THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE UT UPROOTED STUDY, UH, THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILT NEIGHBORHOOD, THE LDC REWRITES, UH, MISSING MIDDLE OBJECTIVES AND CRITICALLY IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE ONLY PROTECTION IN TITLE 25 FOR THE STEEPEST AND MOST DELICATE TOPOGRAPHY IN EAST AUSTIN.

PLEASE BE MORE REFINED AND TAKE COMMUNITY INPUT.

COOL.

I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE REGISTERED, BUT I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

MAYOR GUYS.

CALL HIM UP.

I'VE GOT SANDY RAMIREZ AND THEN WALTER HORTON.

I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER YOU HAVE TO SIGN UP BY NINE 15 .

UM, CUZ WE HAVE TO HAVE A, A CUTOFF.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR THESE SPEAKERS CUZ WE JUST GAVE THAT LAST ONE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK.

YOU WANNA THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

I WAS HERE AT CITY HALL, I FORGOT TO LAST NIGHT AND THEN THIS MORNING DIDN'T MAKE IT IN TIME.

UM, I WANNA SAY GOOD DAY TO EVERYONE.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST A CONTINUE IRRESPONSIBLE, WASTEFUL SPENDING FROM COUNSEL.

I'M AGAINST ITEMS 10 40, 54, 55, AND 56.

WHILE YOU ALL GAVE YOURSELVES A NICE $40,000 RAISE.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MOST OF US OUT HERE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION.

MAYBE 2% IF, IF AT THAT, UM, YOU GUYS ARE GONNA GO BACK HOME TO YOUR WARM BEDS, NICE HOUSES, WHEREVER YOU'RE AT, AND, UM, HAVING TO GO OUT AND TELL PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN OUR STREETS THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN FIND YOU A LOCATION FOR JUST TO STAY SAFE DURING THE COLD NIGHTS.

UM, I JUST ASK YOU TO PLEASE RECONSIDER ALL THE CHOICES THAT YOU'RE MAKING, ESPECIALLY FOR SOME OF YOU THAT ARE LEAVING THE DIAS AND THOSE THAT WILL BE LEFT HERE.

WE ARE WATCHING.

YOU HAVE A GOOD PLAY.

LAST SPEAKER.

COME ON UP, SIR.

YEAH, THIS IS WALTER HORTON, ITEM 56.

[01:40:01]

GOOD MORNING, STAFF.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

UH, THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION ON ME SIGNING UP, STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO ANYWAY, I'M A, UH, VERY MUCH OPPOSED AGAINST 55.

I'M A HOMEGROWN AUSTIN BOY.

BORN AND RAISED HERE IN AUSTIN.

WENT TO REAGAN HIGH SCHOOL.

UH, BEEN IN AUSTIN FOR 60 YEARS.

UH, VERY MUCH OPPOSED AGAINST THE TURNING ACCIDENT PROPERTY INTO MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.

I FEEL LIKE THAT'S ONE OF OUR BLESSINGS IN AUSTIN IS HAVING SO MUCH, SO MUCH, UH, GREENERY, UH, AGAIN, UM, EMBARRASSED TO CALL AUSTIN HOME.

WE USED TO BE PROUD TO CALL AUSTIN HOME.

SO, UH, PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGES OF AREA 55 FROM AG EXEMPTION TO MULTI-FAMILY.

THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY Y'ALL.

BYE.

ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

AGENDAS, ITEMS ONE THROUGH 50 AND 86.

THEY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES, UH, THAT GETS US BACK UP TO THE, UH, DAUS.

I'M GONNA CALL, UH, UH, ITEM NUMBER, UH, 30 WAS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT.

YOU WANNA JUST READ IN THE NUMBER, TELL US WHAT THE NUMBER IS.

GOOD MORNING, MARIN COUNSEL MEGAN RILEY ON BEHALF OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT, I'M HERE TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT OF $160,000 TO SETTLE THE UGARTE VERSUS CITY OF AUSTIN LAWSUIT.

OKAY, THAT OBJECTION, THAT'S NOTED ON THAT.

UH, ITEM NUMBER 30.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION.

MAYOR, I NOTICED THAT WE PULLED ITEM NUMBER 10, BUT 54 WAS NOT PULLED AND THEY'RE RELATED.

54 WAS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY, SO WE'LL TAKE UP TO WHEN WE TAKE UP 54.

[Consent Agenda]

86 IS BEING POSTPONED.

UH, THE OTHER POLLED ITEMS WE HAVE ARE 10 27, 36, 41, 42, 43, AND 44.

UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER RAT MAKES THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, ELLIS SECONDS, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, I JUST WANTED TO DAYLIGHT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA HAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO 48.

UH, IT'S A V3 THAT GOT EMAILED OUT, BUT I'M ACCEPT THAT AS FRIENDLY AND THANK YOU FOR IT.

UH, I'M SORRY.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M DISTRIBUTING, I DISTRIBUTED A VERSION.

THERE WERE SOME MINOR CHANGES AND I'M REDISTRIBUTING THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON ITEM 48, BUT I DO OFFER IT.

AND THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT, CAN YOU READ WHAT, 48, WHAT YOUR FRIENDLY MEMBER IS? IS THIS ACCEPTABLE TO THAT? UH, I, I WILL.

IT'S, UH, IT'S DIRECTION AND I DID, I PASSED IT OUT.

UH, UH, THIS IS A NEW ONE.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND SHOULD I JUST PASS IT OUT, MAYOR, OR SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND READ INTO THE RECORD? I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT IS.

IT'S, IT'S RELATIVELY SHORT.

THE CITY COUNCIL, DIRECT CITY MANAGER SET A GOAL FOR AVERAGE SITE PLAN, LIGHT REVIEW TIME AS FOLLOWS.

IN RECOMMENDING WHAT REGULATIONS SHOULD APPLY TO MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS, A MANAGER SHOULD ENSURE THAT APPLICATIONS CAN BE REVIEWED WITHIN 90 DAYS.

IF THE MANAGER DETERMINES THAT A 90 DAY TARGET IS NOT A FEASIBLE GOAL, THE MANAGER WILL REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON WHY A 90 DAY GOAL IS NOT FEASIBLE, AND DEVELOP A GOAL THAT IS IN LINE WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIMES FOR FIVE TO 16 UNIT PROJECTS IN NEARBY AND PIER TEXAS CITIES.

OR, UH, CLOSER TO THE CITY'S AVERAGE TIME FOR RESIDENTIAL REVIEW THAN AVERAGE TIME FOR FULL SITE PLAN REVIEW.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT BEING ADDED TO THIS? UH, ITEM 48.

HEARING NONE.

THAT AMENDMENT IS ADDED.

HER REMAINS ON CONSENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER KIT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER ONE OF YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? I I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME AS THOUGH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA, IN WHICH CASE I'M TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH.

START THERE.

I COME BACK TO YOU COUNCIL ON POOL.

I HAVE AN ANSWER ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE REPORT BACK DATE ON THE BATTERY STORAGE IFFC, WHICH IS 45.

KATHY, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M SORRY.

KABA POOL HAS AN ANSWER FOR OTHER REPORT BACK DATE THAT YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT EARLIER.

SUPER, THANK YOU.

SO IN THE, UM, ITEM ITSELF, IT TALKS ABOUT REPORTING TO AN ARRAY OF COMMISSIONS IN JUNE.

UH, THAT DATE IS SET AT JUNE 15.

THE REPORT WILL COME TO COUNCIL, UH, THROUGH THE, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY UTILITY OVERSIGHT COMMISSION AFTER THAT, PROBABLY SOMETIME IN JUNE.

AND THEN I, AND THEN I HAD SOME COMMENTS THAT I WANTED JUST TO TALK ABOUT ON THAT SOLAR, THE BATTERY, UH, IFFC.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO WAIT TILL WE GET TO COMMENTS IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS.

COST ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE REBATE TARIFF DISPOSAL, WHEN THE PLAN IS BROUGHT BACK, THAT'S ALL ATTACHED TO THAT LAST DATE OBJECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION BACK? YES.

SO I, I'VE MISPLACED YOUR VERSION TOO, THOUGH.

I THINK THIS PART OF IT IS THE SAME AS VERSION ONE.

UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE IT SAYS THE MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO REPORT TO EXPLORE BATTERY END OF LIFE RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS AND REPORT BACK THE

[01:45:01]

SUPER.

THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

YOU OKAY.

FURTHER DISCRETION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

, I HAVE A, JUST A COMMENT ON 48.

I THINK IT'S, UH, THERE'S NO LANGUAGE CHANGE.

I SUPPORT IT.

I THINK IT'S WITHIN THE LANGUAGE, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE CITY MANAGER THAT, UH, WHEN YOU DO RETURN THIS, UM, TO CON TO CONSIDER AND INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THINK THROUGH HOW, UH, HOW IN A, YOU KNOW, UH, A SHORTENED OR OR WAIVED SITE REVIEW PROCESS YOU ACCOUNT FOR, UM, ACCOUNT FOR ENFORCING THINGS LIKE TREE PROTECTIONS.

UM, I'M SURE I'M CERTAIN THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT.

UH, THE SITE REVIEW PROCESS IS ONE WAY THAT'S DONE RIGHT NOW.

SO JUST AS PART OF REPORTING BACK, UH, IT WOULD JUST BE, UH, REPORTING BACK TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR TREE PROTECTIONS ARE ENFORCED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THE SPONSOR? YES, IT DOES.

UH, COUNSEL KELLY? YES, I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT A ABSTENTION ON 15 A, NO, ON 36, WHICH IS ACTUALLY POLL.

I'M SO A NO, I'M 37 A NO ON 40.

AND AN ABSTENTION FROM 47.

THE CONSENT IS IN FRONT OF US.

UH, ITEMS ONE THROUGH 50 AND 86 PULLED ITEMS ARE 10 27, 30, 36, 41, 42, 43, AND 44.

I JUST NEED A CLARIFICATION, MAYOR, GO AHEAD.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, ON YOUR IFFC, OR I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE'S IFFC, BUT YOUR AMENDMENT, CAN WE JUST CLARIFY, IS THAT 90 BUSINESS DAYS OR JUST 90 DAYS? AND I DON'T KNOW IF ACM GONZALEZ WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION CORRECT.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ASSISTANT MANAGER, RODNEY GONZALEZ.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, I KNOW THAT YOUR STAFF MEMBER TIMOTHY BRA HAS REACHED OUT.

WE HAVEN'T CONNECTED.

UH, THE CONCERN OF COURSE IS THAT THE SITE PLAN PROCESS RIGHT NOW TAKES APPROXIMATELY 7.6 MONTHS MM-HMM.

, AND IT'S A TWO PARTY PROCESS.

WE HAVE THE STAFF REVIEW, AND THEN ONCE WE GIVE COMMENTS, THE DEVELOPERS THEN HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS.

UM, SO CONSECUTIVE DAYS, IT TAKES MORE THAN 90, IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 90 DAYS.

, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MEAN 90 DAYS OVERALL FOR STAFF REVIEW, BECAUSE WE HAVE MULTIPLE CYCLES THAT WE GO THROUGH.

AND IF YOU DO MEAN 90 BUSINESS DAYS, LIKE CONSECUTIVELY, LIKE NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS, WE'D HAVE TO IMPLEMENT SOME SORT OF TIMELINE FOR THE DEVELOPERS AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S A TWO PART PROCESS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE FIRST SITE PLAN THAT WE GET, OR THE INITIAL REVIEW WE GET, WE HAVE 21 BUSINESS DAYS TO RESPOND, WHICH OUR GOAL TO, TO MEET THAT TIMELINE 90% OF THE TIME, WHAT WE CAN'T CONTROL RIGHT NOW IS HOW LONG THE DEVELOPERS TAKE TO RESPOND TO US.

AND SO IF YOUR INTENTION IS 90 DAYS FROM START TO, YOU KNOW, CONSECUTIVE DAYS, WE'D HAVE TO PUT IN SOME SORT OF TIMEFRAME FOR THEM TO RESPOND TO US AS WELL.

SO MY INTENT WOULD BE WHAT WE CAN CONTROL AS A CITY O OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T CONTROL HOW LONG IT'S GONNA TAKE FOR SOMEONE TO REPLY FOR, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS OR CLARIFICATIONS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

BUT YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE AREA, UH, OF OUR CONTROL THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR TOTAL TIMELINE AND WE WERE THINKING 90 DAYS, CALENDAR DAYS, LIKE ABOUT THE THREE MONTH PROCESS, WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S ABOUT WHERE WE ARE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A, LIKE A, JUST A RESIDENTIAL REVIEW.

UM, WHAT WE DO CURRENTLY IS WE USE BUSINESS DAYS BECAUSE OF COURSE WE HAVE CITY HOLIDAYS WHERE OUR STAFF IS OFF, ET CETERA, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE CERTAINLY WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, BUSINESS DAYS.

AND AS FAR AS THE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW, I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT, UH, NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPARE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL REVIEW WILL OFTEN HAVE MAYBE ABOUT SIX, IF NOT SEVEN DISCIPLINE REVIEWS.

SPEAK FOR, UH, UH, FOR A COUNCIL UMBRELLAS, BUT LET'S IDENTIFY WHICH ARE THE MOST CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND PUT THOSE IN THE SITE PLAN, LIGHT REVIEW.

SITE PLAN HAS MULTIPLE, UH, REVIEWS FROM MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS.

SO EVEN THOUGH RESIDENTIAL REVIEW IS MOSTLY CONTAINED WITHIN DSD, BUT WE ALSO HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE, UH, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AS WELL, UM, WITH SITE PLAN, WE HAVE OTHER DEPARTMENTS LIKE WATERSHED, UH, WATER PROTECTION, QUALITY, UM, TRANSPORTATION, UH, PUBLIC WORKS, SOME OTHERS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A MORE COMPLICATED PROCESS.

AND, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT SAID, I THINK THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS AND DECIDE WHAT WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE AND WHAT WE DON'T NEED TO PRIORITIZE.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING, HEY, SQUEEZE EVERYTHING YOU DO INTO 90 DAYS.

I'M SAYING LIKE, AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA

[01:50:01]

AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT AS CRITICAL, LET'S EXCLUDE THOSE FROM A SITE PLAN LIGHT REVIEW SO WE CAN EXPEDITE THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S AGAIN, MY THINKING ON IT, UH, WITHOUT HAVING GOT INTO THE DETAIL OF THE ACTUAL, UH, RULEMAKING PROCESS OR THE ACTUAL AB ABSOLUTELY.

AND WE APPRECIATE THE, IF C AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMING FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL MM-HMM.

, UH, BE BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE IT WILL BE BENEFICIAL.

AND SO WE'LL, WE'LL DO THAT ANALYSIS OF WHICH ARE THOSE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL REVIEWS MM-HMM.

AND THEN BASED ON THAT, WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE CAN COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH, UM, AN ESTIMATED LIKE INITIAL CYCLE AND THEN SUBSEQUENT CYCLES.

AND THEN OF COURSE WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OVERALL, UH, GOAL OF, OF HITTING THOSE CYCLE REVIEW TIMES 90% OF THE TIME.

AND, AND AGAIN, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH 90 BUSINESS DAYS.

THAT'S NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, A, A CONCERN.

UH, I, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

OBJECTION HAVING, I, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE NEED TO PULL THIS ITEM SO WE CAN DO THE CONSENT AGENDA OR WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT OUR CONSENT.

I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

I'M GOOD WITH THIS CONVERSATION.

THE OBJECTION TO HIS AMENDMENT BEING PUT INTO PLACE SAYING IT'S 90 BUSINESS DAYS, HEARING NONE, THAT AMENDMENT'S NOW INCORPORATED AND IT'S ON CONSENT.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO? I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS, BUT I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION OF STAFF ABOUT THE RATIFICATION LANGUAGE IN 33 34.

USUALLY WHEN WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT'S, UM, BEING RATIFIED, THERE'S SOME EXPLANATION OF WHY THE RATIFICATION.

SO IF YOU JUST GIMME A BRIEF EXPLANATION.

MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, MIKE KELLY ON BEHALF OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, THE RATIFICATION LANGUAGES AND PROCESS ABERRATION.

USUALLY WE BRING THESE FORWARD AS A COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN THE FUTURE.

SO THIS PROCESS WILL ALLOW US TO REIMBURSE, BUT IT'S NOT THE USUAL PROCESS.

WE JUST STAFF INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY LOSS.

THIS CAME FORWARD AS A RATIFICATION.

I SEE.

SO USUALLY THOSE WOULD COME FORWARD AT THE TIME OF, OF THE EXPENDITURE.

AND THIS IS JUST, AND WE'RE NOW RATIFYING IT OR AT THE TIME OF THE WORK, AND THIS IS COMING FORWARD LATER BECAUSE THAT STEP GOT, UM, BYPASSED UNUSUALLY.

THIS IS A SITE, THIS HAPPENS DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PAPERWORK THAT WAS USED TO AGREE UPON THE TERMS WAS DEEMED TO BE, UH, THE NEGOTIATED CONTRACT.

TYPICALLY WE WILL DO THAT AS A COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND WILL COME TO Y'ALL AND SAY, CAN WE NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE, IN WHICH CASE WE FINALIZE.

BUT THAT NUMBER HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED UPON.

AND SO, UH, IT WAS THE ADVICE OF LATO COME AND BRING IT FORWARD AS A RATIFICATION.

AND AS I UNDERSTOOD THE BACKUP, THESE ARE, THIS IS REALLY THE, THE CITY'S COST PARTICIPATION, UM, WITH THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO AGREED TO OVERSIZE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE.

BASED ON OUR REQUEST, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOWS FOR UP TO 75%, OR IN SOME CASES MORE FOR US TO REIMBURSE.

THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT WE'RE REIMBURSING.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. KELLY.

COSTS FOR THE SYSTEM THAT ARE NECESSARY.

AND THE MAYOR HAD A FEW COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT YET BEFORE WE GET INTO COMMENTS? COUNCIL ALICE, ON ITEM 27, I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT BACK ON CONSENT IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT.

ANYBODY NEED ANY MORE TIME WITH THE AMENDMENTS? ITEM NUMBER 27, CAN WE LEAVE IT OUR CONSENT? IF IT'S GOES BACK ON CONSENT, WILL WE CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER FU IT WOULD BE, I WOULD LIKE IT TO HAVE MINE COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AND YOUR AMENDMENTS ALL INCLUDED IN THE BASE.

THAT WAS THE QUESTION I ASKED.

IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO US? OKAY.

THEY'LL IMPOSE, I THINK THEY'VE ALL BEEN CIRCULATED.

K 27 GOES BACK ON THE AGENDA WITH THE, UH, ITEMS IN THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS.

COUNCIL TOVO.

YEAH, I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT ITEM 27.

SO WE GOT A MEMO LAST NIGHT FROM AUSTIN ENERGY TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION IN WHATEVER SIAC STANDS FOR.

AND IT TALKED ABOUT, WELL IT WAS AN ANSWER TO YOUR, LET ME MAKE THIS FAST, BUT IT WAS AN ANSWER TO MAYOR PRO TEAL'S QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE HANDLE THINGS DIFFERENTLY ON AE SIDE THAN THE AUSTIN WATER UTILITIES.

AND IT TALKED ABOUT THE FACT BEING WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER THE STATE LAW TO, TO HANDLE IT THE SAME WAY.

AND SO THAT ONLY, WE ONLY GOT THAT MEMO LAST NIGHT.

I THINK IT IS A APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THAT PART OF OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A GOOD FIX.

SO I THINK IN STU, SINCE I DON'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT DRAFTED, PERHAPS WHEN WE TAKE UP THE RATE CASE, WE CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO AMEND THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION, THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY WITHOUT, IN FACT, I THINK YOU COULD JUST DESCRIBE IT HERE CUZ IT'S IN THE NATURE OF, SO, SO ADDING TO THE LEGISLATIVE, I CAN I INVITE MAYOR PRO ALTER IF SHE'S, I DON'T HAVE THE MEMO UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT TOO.

AND IT WAS REALLY THE QUESTION YOU ASKED THAT PROMPTED IT.

ARE YOU PREPARED TO SPEAK TO IT OR, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SPECIFICS.

THE ISSUE IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT ALLOWED TO LEVY IMPACT FEES, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO RECOUP

[01:55:01]

THEY'RE ONLY ABLE TO DO THE CONNECTION, UM, AND THE SPECIFIC FEES, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, SO I I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT IS A PRUDENT THING WITHIN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO BE ADVOCATING FOR.

IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD, IF, IF IT, IF ON UPON ANALYSIS IT PROVES TO BE A PRUDENT STEP FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

I BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AS WRITTEN, WE WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY, UM, TO PURSUE THAT.

BUT I, BUT I, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ANALYZE WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO, TO PURSUE.

UM, FEDERAL AGENDA DURING THIS SESSION.

STATE, THIS IS A STATE RULE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.

THIS IS THE FEDERAL, THIS IS THE FEDERAL AGENDA ANYWAY, SO, OH, THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE.

BUT WE SHOULD EXPLORE THAT.

PERFECT.

OKAY, SO LET'S LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY FOR A PICK THIS AFTERNOON.

BUT IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S WORKING REALLY WELL IN, IN, IN, I UNDERSTAND FOR AUSTIN WATER, AND WE ARE NOT HAVING TO RAISE RATES FOR AUSTIN WATER AND WE'RE ACTUALLY DIFFUSING DEBT AND SAVING, SAVING MONEY.

SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT GENERALLY I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF, BUT IT'S APPARENTLY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO, IT'S 1209.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

UH, WE HAVE SPEAKERS AND WE HAVE MUSIC THAT ARE SET.

UH, YES.

COUNCIL FUENTES.

I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 27.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY'S AMENDMENT.

MAJORITY SEVEN, PULL, REMAIN PULLED.

COUNCIL POOL.

MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT 27 IS THE FEDERAL AGENDA, NOT THE STATE AGENDA.

SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY COMMENTS THAT I, YES.

I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO ITEM 45 THAT I BROUGHT THIS WEEK.

THE ITEM DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE THE ADDITION OF BATTERY STORAGE REBATE PROGRAM AND A TARIFF STRUCTURE FOR THAT.

AND WE CAN SEE THE INCREASING ADOPTION OF SOLAR BATTER.

BATTERY STORAGE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT NEXT STEP IN OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE.

IT HELPS US TO LOWER OUR RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS FOR ELECTRICITY, AND THAT'S, UH, REALLY IMPORTANT.

CURRENTLY, BATTERY STORAGE IS OUT OF REACH FOR MOST HOUSEHOLDS, SO I'M HOPING THIS EXPLORATION, UH, WITH AUSTIN ENERGY WILL BRING FORTH A PROGRAM THAT MAKES BATTERY STORAGE MORE AVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER.

ANOTHER PIECE OF THE RESOLUTION SPEAKS TO MICROGRIDS.

IT DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE SUBDIVISIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS LIKE A POD CONSTRUCT THEIR OWN RENEWABLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROVIDE POWER TO ITS RESIDENTS OR CUSTOMERS AS A BENEFIT.

I'M SURE MANY OF YOU WILL REMEMBER THE SOLAR COMMUNITY, BABCOCK RANCH THAT RECENTLY SURVIVED UNSCATHED BY HURRICANE IAN.

SO THIS IS WHAT A MICROGRID COMMUNITY LOOKS LIKE.

THAT WOULD BE BABCOCK RANCH AND THE LARGEST MICROGRID IN THE UNITED STATES.

LIVES RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRODUCES ALL OF ITS OWN ELECTRICITY FROM STEAM.

SO I WANNA THANK MY CO-SPONSORS, MAYOR PROAM ALTER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARPER MADISON ELLIS, AND FUENTES FOR JOINING ME ON THIS ITEM.

AND I APPRECIATE THE DIOCESE SUPPORT AND THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT.

UM, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD, UH, EFFORT AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT THE CITY MANAGER BRINGS BACK TO US IN JUNE.

AND CLERK, I'D LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS A SPONSOR ON THIS ITEM IF I CAN.

APPRECIATE THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MATTERS.

I WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AS WELL ABOUT THE AGENDA, ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA.

UM, JUST A MOMENT.

HELP TO STEER MORE RESOURCES TOWARDS YOUNG SCHOLARS DEALING WITH HOMELESSNESS.

MY 13 YEAR OLD DOESN'T CARE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE A FEW, FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONTENT AGENDA BECAUSE SHE GOT HER PE SHIRT.

UM, UH, I AM VERY HAPPY THAT WE GOT TO SEE THE PASSAGE OF ITEM NUMBER 31, UH, THE WAGE THEFT ITEM.

WE HEARD A LOT FROM FOLKS, UM, ABOUT THIS ITEM.

AND HONESTLY, I'M, I'M A LITTLE EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT THAT I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH OF A, A BAD ACTOR THE STATE OF TEXAS IS, AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO US, UH, GETTING A BETTER REPUTATION AROUND THAT ITEM.

UM, I THINK IT'S, UH, SURPRISING THAT IN 2022 WE'RE JUST NOW REALLY TAKING THIS KIND OF ACTION SERIOUSLY, UH, AGAIN, EMBARRASSING.

UM, SO I'M, I'M REALLY PROUD THAT THIS NEW ORDINANCE AND PROTECTIONS THAT IT CREATES, WOE GO A LONG WAY, HOPEFULLY GO A LONG WAY.

AND SURE ENOUGH, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, ESPECIALLY IN A, A CITY LIKE AUSTIN, THAT THAT EXPERIENCE IS SO MUCH ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, UM, TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S.

POINT ABOUT THE BATTERY STORAGE ITEM.

REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THIS ONE GO FORWARD.

IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT, GOOD FOR PEOPLE'S POCKETBOOK, GOOD FOR RESILIENCE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE GOOD STUFF AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE, THE FUTURE BEING RENEWABLE, UM, AND SOLAR ENERGY REALLY BEING A BIG TOOL IN THAT TOOLBOX.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 47, THE PSEA HOMELESS CHILDREN FUNDING.

UM, ALSO VERY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO CO-SPONSOR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER OF BELLA'S ITEM NUMBER 47, WHICH WILL

[02:00:01]

UM, THAT IS ONE THAT I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY EXTRAORDINARILY FLAWED DATA ON JUST HOW MANY OF OUR SCHOLARS ARE GOING INTO SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN THE MORNING, HAVING NOT HAD SOME SECURITY AROUND WHERE THEY SLEPT THE NIGHT BEFORE.

I HEAR STORIES FROM MY KIDS THAT CONTRADICT THE NUMBERS THAT WE ARE SEEING AROUND HOW MANY OF OUR STUDENTS ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY, WELL, I APPRECIATE THE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY TOOLS, UH, WHERE POSSIBLE.

I JUST KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF, UM, HOMELESS STUDENTS.

AND IT'S TERRIFYING TO THINK, UM, HOW MUCH OF A DISTRACTION, UH, NOT HAVING YOUR PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS BEING MET MUST BE TO REALLY BEING ABLE TO LEARN.

UM, SO I HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING WE SPEND MORE CONSIDERABLY MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT IN THE NEW YEAR.

AND THEN LASTLY, ITEM NUMBER 48, A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER ELSE IS MISSING MIDDLE ITEM.

UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO BUILD THAT MISSING MIDDLE KIND OF HOUSING IN AUSTIN FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

SO RIGHT NOW OUR OUTDATED CODE, MAKING IT HARDER AND MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD THAT KIND OF SMALLER DENSER HOUSING THAT FRANKLY IS MORE AFFORDABLE AND IS MORE TRANSIT FRIENDLY.

UM, IT'S, IT'S REALLY TIME BEYOND TIME FOR US TO GET PAST, UH, OUR CHALLENGES WITH BEING HOUSING HESITANT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND GET OUT OF OUR OWN WAY.

AND LET'S MAKE FOUR PLEXES AND SIX PLEXES AND ROW HOMES SPROUT UP IN OUR CITY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE SAME KIND OF RED TAPE THAT A HUGE APARTMENT BUILDING OR EVEN A DOWNTOWN SKYSCRAPER SHOULD GO THROUGH.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF ON THIS AGENDA, AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE THESE ITEMS GO ON CONSENT.

THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.

TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE EMERGING.

UM, AS, UH, MR. CRONK NOTED EARLIER, WE MARK A THOUSAND DAYS SINCE THE STARTED THE PANDEMIC TODAY.

UM, AND LEFT OUT OF YOUR THANK YOUS WERE WAS, UH, TO THANK YOU MR. CRONK AND MAYOR ADLER FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.

THERE WERE A LOT OF EXTRA THINGS THAT WERE THROWN IN BOTH OF YOUR PLATE, UM, GIVEN THE RULES, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP DURING THAT TIME.

UM, IT IS FITTING THAT ON THE DAY THAT WE MARK A THOUSAND DAYS THAT WE ARE PROVING ITEM 23, WHICH EXECUTES AN INTERLOCAL WITH TRAVIS COUNTY ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE COUNTY THAT ESTABLISHES RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE SHARED COSTS OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC FOR A LARGE CHUNK OF THE PERIOD, UM, WHERE WE HAD NOT YET ESTABLISHED A MECHANISM TO SHARE THAT FINANCIAL BURDEN.

I WANNA THANK AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH AND HE FOR THEIR PARTNERSHIP WITH TRAVIS COUNTY ON ITEM 23 AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ANSWER MY MANY QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A MUCH GREATER APPRECIATION OF HOW COMPLICATED THE FEMA REIMBURSEMENTS AND THE TRACKING OF ALL OF THESE HOURS AND THE MATERIAL WAS ON TOP OF ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK.

UM, THIS ITEM IS GOING TO GRANT US 20 MILLION UP TO $20,450,555 FROM THE COUNTY'S ARPA, UM, COUNTERPART.

THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT STEP FOR US TO EQUITABLY SHARE THE BURDENS OF CO COVID ACROSS THE JURISDICTIONS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A SHARED GOAL ACROSS BOTH JURISDICTIONS.

TWO ADDITIONAL STEPS THOUGH ARE IN THE WORKS THAT I WANNA FLAG THAT I THINK COMPLEMENT.

UM, THIS ITEM.

THERE'LL BE A FUTURE EXTENSION OF OUR ILA WITH THE COUNTY RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH THAT WILL OUTLINE THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT FOR ANY FUTURE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES AND DISASTERS.

UM, I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO ITEM 40.

UH, THANK YOU, UH, COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF ITEM 40, WHICH I'M BRINGING FORWARD WITH MY CO-SPONSORS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, POOL VELA TOVO, AND MAYOR ADLER.

THIS ITEM LAYS OUT A PLAN FOR REVIEWING AND REVISING OUR AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.

I WORKED ON THIS TOGETHER WITH CYRUS REED AND KIVA WHITE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EUC, WHICH PASSED AN EARLIER VERSION UNANIMOUSLY.

AND THANK YOU, UM, FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

THE 2030 AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN IS A CRITICAL FRAMEWORK WHICH LAYS OUT VARIOUS GOALS AND VISIONS FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITY IN THE, THE MIDST OF OUR CLIMATE CRISIS, INCLUDING A NEW RETIREMENT DATE, HOPEFULLY, OF THE FAYETTE POWER PROJECT COAL PLANT.

UM, AS MR. REED NOTED, THE GENERATION CHOICES THAT THIS PLAN OUTLINES HAVE ENORMOUS IMPACT ON OUR RATES AND OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE OUR VALUES.

UM, AND WE DEFINITELY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A REVISION.

I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO DO AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RATE CASE.

WE HAVE NEW

[02:05:01]

UM, WE ALSO HAVE NEW FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, UM, AND LOTS OF CHANGES IN THE EARHART MARKET THAT WE HAVE TO, UM, DEAL WITH.

SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THESE, THESE UPDATES AND I THANK THE EUC AND THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AND AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF FOR THEIR ATTENTION.

UM, TO THIS MATTER, UM, RELATED TO THIS ITEM ARE ITEMS 45 AND 46 THAT MY COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL AND MAYOR ADLER ARE BRINGING FORWARD THAT I'M PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR.

THOSE HAVE TO DO WITH THE SOLAR BATTERY STORAGE, MICROGRIDS AND LOAD SHAPING TECHNOLOGY, AS WELL AS THE CAP ENROLLMENT PROCESS.

AND THEN FINALLY, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO BE SHOWN ABSTAINING ON ITEM 48, WHICH IS THE MISSING MIDDLE ITEM.

BROADLY SPEAKING, I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT THAT IS BEING ADVANCED AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT, UH, WENT INTO THE ITEM, BUT I'M LESS COMFORTABLE INCLUDING THE ELEMENTS ON PARKLAND DEDICATION AND TREE PRESERVATION.

I THINK THAT WE ALL SUPPORT ALLOWING FOR SOMETHING LIKE WHAT THESE ITEM ENVISIONS, AND I THINK IT HAS BROAD SUPPORT ON THE DIAS.

SO I'M NOT GONNA TAKE TIME TODAY TO TRY AND PUT CAVEATS ON THAT.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT STAFF BRING BACK.

UM, AND I DO WANNA NOTE THAT I WILL BE PARTICULARLY ATTENTIVE TO HOW WE ADVANCE THIS IDEA WITHOUT UNDERMINING OUR PARKLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND OUR DRAINAGE NEEDS.

UM, I THINK EVERYONE SHARES THAT BROAD GOAL, BUT, UM, I'M JUST MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ABSTAINING ON THAT FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU CASPER TO KITCHEN.

I HAVE A FEW QUICK COMMENTS TOO.

ON 48, I SHARE THE CONCERNS ABOUT REMOVING, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION AND SOME OF THE, AND TREES AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE MAYOR PRO RAISED, UH, BECAUSE IT'S DESCRIBED AS REVIEWING THEM, BUT NOT NECESSARILY, UH, REMOVING THEM.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS AND INITIATING THE CODE.

BUT AGAIN, I, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSCORE THAT I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TIM'S CONCERNS ON THAT ELEMENT.

I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY, MY APPRECIATION TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR BRINGING FORWARD, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

YOU'VE BEEN A LEADER IN TERMS OF OUR DATA, UH, HOW WE HANDLE DATA RELATED TO INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, WHICH IS SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

AND I, I THINK THIS IS REALLY GONNA ADVANCE THE BALL.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD.

MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK ON THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE SPONSORS WHO HAVE CO-SPONSORS WHO HAVE WORKED ON THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD STEP FORWARD ON THE BATTERY STORAGE AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT FORWARD.

AND I SHARE MY COLLEAGUES REAL STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE WAGE THEFT ORDINANCE.

I THINK THIS IS MUCH OVERDUE AND MANAGER, I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION BACK.

AS YOU AND I HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THROUGH THE YEARS, THE WORK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TRU CLAIRE HAD INITIATED WITH REGARD TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING, I THINK STILL HAS SOME VERY IMPORTANT PENDING PROJECTS IN TERMS OF HOW WE USE OUR, OUR CITY STAFF WHO ARE OUT IN THE FIELD CHECKING METERS AND DOING VARIOUS OTHER THINGS.

HOW WE CAN PROVIDE BETTER TRAINING TO, TO, UM, REALLY SPOT SPOT ISSUES, WHICH INCLUDE LABOR TRAFFICKING AS WELL.

COLLEAGUES, UH, NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE ARE RIGHT AWAY.

VACATIONS.

WE'VE HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST.

THERE IS A MEASURE IN 36 THAT WOULD ADDRESS ASKING THE MANAGER TO LOOK AT, UH, AS STAFF HAVE, HAVE RECOMMENDED, UM, THAT IF WE WANNA SEE CHANGES IN HOW THOSE ARE CALCULATED, THAT IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE NECESSARY TO DIRECT THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

I WANTED TO THANK STAFF FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING FEE ADJUSTMENTS.

THIS IS RESPONSIVE TO THE BUDGET DIRECTION THAT I AND OTHERS HAD BROUGHT FORWARD DURING OUR BUDGET.

UM, AND LASTLY, I REALLY WANTED TO GIVE A SPECIAL THANKS TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS TASK FORCE, UM, TO THEIR CO-CHAIRS, JAMES RUSSELL AND JEFF SMITH.

UM, TO MY COMMISSIONER ON THAT TASK FORCE IN GRID VI AND TO THE MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THAT, IT HAS BEEN A MULTI, MULTI, MULTI-YEAR PROCESS.

UM, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TODAY WITH ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF, OR ASKING OUR MANAGER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND IMPLEMENT THOSE THAT ARE READY AND COME BACK WITH ANYTHING THAT NEEDS FURTHER POLICY.

ACTION.

TO EVERYONE THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT, UM, AND, AND KEY PROTECTION FOR OUR WORKERS, UM, IN THE CITY.

CATCH OUR KITCHEN.

UM, I APPRECIATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AND, AND SHARE THEIR STATEMENTS.

I WANTED TO PARTICULARLY HIGHLIGHT NUMBER 31 RELATED TO WAGE THEFT.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, UH, WITH MY CO-SPONSORS AND THE, AND MY COLLEAGUES, EVERYONE ON COUNCIL, I BROUGHT THIS RESOLUTION AND I WANTED TO, I'M, I'M VERY PLEASED AND EXCITED THAT THIS HAS, UH, HAS NOW COME BACK TO US AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS A COUNCIL TO SUPPORT IT.

I WANTED TO PARTICULARLY THANK, UH, THE, THE EFFORTS OF THE MANY GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, UH, WORKERS' DEFENSE, THE CARPENTERS UNION.

UH, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE DA'S OFFICE, JOSE GARZA.

UH, MANY STAFF HAVE WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS.

THE STAFF FROM DOL AND T WC, AS WELL AS LEGAL STAFF AND CIVIL RIGHTS STAFF.

AND I ESPECIALLY WANT TO, UH, THANK MY COUNCIL AID, JASON LOPEZ, WHO HAS WORKED VERY HARD IN SP IN SPEARHEADING THIS EFFORT.

SO, UM, THANKS

[02:10:01]

AND SO I'M VERY PROUD THAT WE'RE ABLE TO BRING THIS FORWARD TODAY.

THANK YOU, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, AND THEN KE FOR THANK YOU.

I'M GONNA TRY TO SAVE MY VOICE TODAY, BUT I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT ITEM 48 AND APPRECIATE THE CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS POOL HARPER MADISON, AND COUNCIL MEMBER VELA.

THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY.

UM, SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CAME UP OUT OF OUR HOUSING WORK SESSION THAT WE HAD TACKLED LAST YEAR AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT UNITS THAT ARE GETTING STUCK IN A PERMITTING PROCESS THAT'S DESIGNED FOR MUCH LARGER PROJECTS.

AND SO I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AS SMALL AS FIVE UNITS HAVING TO UNDERGO A VERY, VERY LENGTHY PROCESS AND COSTLY PROCESS, THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT SEEING HOUSING COMING ONTO THE MARKET.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN'T LIVE IN THE PIPELINE, AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE UNITS ARE COMING ONLINE, THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO BUY HOMES, THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO HAVE UNITS TO RENT.

AND I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD STEP FORWARD TO LET STAFF HAVE SOME OF THE LEEWAY TO SAY, WHAT DOES A SITE PLAN LIGHT LOOK LIKE? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UM, MAKING SURE THAT THE HOMES ARE SAFE AND THAT THEY'RE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE NEED HOUSING TO LIVE IN.

WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, AND SOMETHING I SAW EARLIER TODAY WAS THAT THERE IS, THERE ARE THREE ISSUES RIGHT NOW AFFECTING PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO GET INTO THE HOUSING MARKET.

AND THAT IS HIGH HOUSING PRICES, HIGH INTEREST RATES FOR LOANS AND WAGES THAT ARE STAGNANT.

YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF TEXAS MINIMUM WAGE, I BELIEVE IS STILL $7 AND 20 SOMETHING CENTS AN HOUR.

I MEAN, IT JUST IS NOT ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A LIFE, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN BUILD A LIFE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS FIRST STEP AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT INFORMATION COMES BACK FROM STAFF IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MORE ELLIS FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THAT ITEM WITH THE SCALING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR MISSING MIDDLE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DID ASK TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR ON THAT ITEM.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO, UM, SHARE MY GRATITUDE TO COUNCIL KITCHEN AND TO, UM, TO HER A JASON LOPEZ FOR BRINGING FORWARD THE WAGE THEFT ORDINANCE.

UM, THAT IS A HUGE STEP FORWARD FOR OUR WORKERS HERE IN AUSTIN, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.

AND THAT ORDINANCE WILL TAKE EFFECT IN 10 DAYS AFTER WE PASS IT ON CONSENT.

SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE THAT MOVE FORWARD.

UH, WANNA SHARE THE CITY MANAGER THAT, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN PRIORITIZE THE HIRING OF THE WAGE THEFT COORDINATOR AND GETTING THAT DATABASE UP AND RUNNING IS, IS IMPORTANT.

WE HAVE LARGE SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS HAPPENING IN OUR CITY OVER THE NEXT NUMBER OF YEARS, AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, THAT DATABASE SET UP SO THAT, UM, FOLKS ARE PAID THEY'RE WORTH AND THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE PAID ON TIME, AND THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM TO REPORT WHEN THEY'RE NOT PAID.

UM, AND SO I'M, I'M JUST WANTED, AGAIN, COMMEND COUNCIL KITCHEN AND HER LEADERSHIP ON THAT ISSUE.

COUNCIL, UH, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN ON THAT ITEM, UH, AS WELL, THE WAGE THEFT ITEM.

UH, I WAS, UH, ON THE BOARD OF WORK DEFENSE PROJECT WHEN THE STATE LAW WAS CHANGED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WAGE IS THEFT.

UH, BUT THE CASES ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO PROSECUTE.

THEY'RE VERY TRICKY, AND I KNOW EVEN THOUGH OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS DEDICATED TO PROSECUTING THEM, UH, I KNOW HE RECENTLY HIRED, UH, STEPHANIE GARCON FROM WORKERS' DEFENSE PROJECT TO RUN POINT ON THOSE.

I KNOW THEY'RE HARD TO PROSECUTE.

AND, AND ADDING THIS, UH, KIND OF A, A A A A SHAME LIST, YOU KNOW, LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT, HEY, THESE EMPLOYERS HAVE A HISTORY OF, UH, OF NOT PAYING THEIR, UH, WORKERS MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE IN TRYING TO COMBAT, UH, WAGE THEFT.

AND AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND, UH, HER STAFF FOR, FOR WORKING SO HARD ON THIS ITEM.

BEEN BRINGING TO, TO THAT OVERSIGHT, UH, COMMITTEE.

JUST REAL QUICKLY, UM, UH, A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ON THIS AGENDA.

UH, THANK COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND, AND OTHERS FOR THE WAGE THEFT ORDINANCE AS WELL.

BUT NOT ONLY THAT, UH, JUST, UH, SEVERAL LABOR RELATED, UM, UH, INITIATIVES THAT, UH, YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD, UH, THAT I'VE BEEN PROUD TO BE PART OF ON THIS, UH, DAS.

AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE, THE EMPHASIS OF THIS COUNCIL.

UH, AND IT'S BEEN, UH, PROUD TO BE BE PART OF THAT.

I APPRECIATE THE THREE THINGS ON THE GENITOR RELATE TO AUSTIN ENERGY.

I HOPE THAT THE AUSTIN ENERGY GENERATION PLAN, THANK YOU, BROUGHT THEM, UH, WILL GIVE TO THE COMPUTER, GREAT.

GIVE TO THE COMMUNITY GREATER TRANSPARENCY ON THE ISSUES THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED ABOUT.

UH, AND THAT BEGINS WITH THE COAL PLANT, UH, AND WHY THAT HASN'T BEEN CLOSED, UH, AS WELL AS THE BIOMASS, UH, PLANT.

AND I THINK THAT, UH, THIS PLAN GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO TRUE THAT UP.

AND I HOPE WE CAN GET, UH, GREATER LEVELS OF TRANSPARENCY AND EXPLANATION, UH, THAN WE HAVE THUS FAR.

BUT THE SOLAR STORAGE INCENTIVE, BILL CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR THE INNOVATION THAT YOU'VE

[02:15:01]

UH, THE FUTURE IN SO MANY WAYS IS GOING TO DEPEND ON SUCCESSFUL, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF, UH, BATTERY TECHNOLOGY.

AND OUR CITY PLAYED A BIG ROLE IN DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGY FOR SOLAR AND WIND BY BEING EARLY INVESTORS AND PROUD THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA BE PART OF THAT.

UH, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, BATTERIES, UH, THE CAP EXPANSION, I THINK IS KEY.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE 23% OF ELIGIBLE PEOPLE PARTICIPATING.

WE NEED TO DRIVE THAT NUMBER UP.

PROBABLY NOTHING MORE WE COULD DO, BUT BETTER HELP AFFORDABILITY, UH, THAN, THAN THAT.

AND I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES ASSISTANCE IN MOVING THAT FORWARD ON HOMELESSNESS.

UH, TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

THAT'S BEEN A HUGE ISSUE FOR US AS A COUNCIL.

I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT.

OBVIOUSLY THE TWO HOMELESS STUDENT FUND IS IMPORTANT.

THANK YOU, SCOTT.

UM, BECAUSE WE SEE THAT PIPELINE AS IT RELATES THEN TO CHRONIC, UH, ADULT, UH, HOMELESSNESS.

UH, SO GETTING IN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TO BE ABLE TO, TO ADDRESS THIS IS CRITICAL.

THE DATA SHARING, UH, THANK YOU, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN FOR YOUR CONTINUED WORK ON HOMELESSNESS.

I POINT OUT THAT HERE RECENTLY, A LOT OF THE INITIATIVES ON HOMELESSNESS, UH, HAVE BEEN COMING WITH THE, THE LEADERSHIP OF COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, TOVO AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, UH, AND, AND ME.

AND, AND WE'RE GONNA BE TURNING OVER THIS TORCH TO, UH, TO, TO A COUNCIL THAT HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY INTIMATELY INVOLVED.

UH, BUT WE'RE GONNA NEED SOME CHAMPIONS REALLY TO, TO PICK UP, UP THE LABORING OR ON, ON SOME OF THESE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES THAT ARE OPERATING ACROSS THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, THE SINGLE ISSUE THAT IS CAUSING SUCCESSFUL CITIES TO GRIND, ALMOST TO COLLAPSE IS THE ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS.

AND IF WE DON'T SOLVE IT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, UH, AND IT GOES TOO FAR OUTTA HAND, WE'RE GONNA BE IN THE POSITION THOSE OTHER CITIES ARE, AND THERE WILL BE NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION.

BUT WE ARE IN A POSITION IF WE MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE AND FOCUS TO SOLVING THIS.

NOW, EVEN WHILE IT'S NOT THE THRESHOLD ISSUE, A LITTLE BIT OFF THE TOP OF MIND IS PEOPLE ARE NOT SEEN AS MUCH.

UH, YOU GOTTA STAY ON TOP OF THIS.

WE COULD BE THE FIRST CITY OUR SIZE IN THE COUNTRY AND SHOULD BE THE FIRST CITY OUR SIZE IN THE COUNTRY TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GET TO NET EFFECTIVE ZERO ON HOMELESSNESS IF YOU STAY THE COURSE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS SET OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

AND THEN FINALLY, UH, THE MISSING MIDDLE, UH, ELEMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

UH, THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE TOPICS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET DONE BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CHALLENGES, UH, WITH IT.

IT'S NOT GONNA GO FAR ENOUGH.

IT'S GONNA GO TOO FAR.

UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR WORK AND TRYING TO, TO FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN MOVE FORWARD AND IT'S GONNA MOVE FORWARD TODAY.

I LOOK FORWARD TO US GETTING TO 55 AND 56, AND I APPRECIATE THE BEAR PROS ASSISTANCE ON THAT.

AGAIN, SOMETHING WE'VE HEARD THIS MORNING IS CRITICIZED BY SOMEONE'S GOING TOO FAR AND OTHERS IS NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH.

UH, BUT LET'S GET THAT DONE, UH, SO WE CAN, WE CAN START MOVING FORWARD ON, ON THESE THINGS.

UM, KA MATTER, UH, YES, MAYOR AND I, I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUE FOR ALL THESE, UH, RESOLUTIONS, BUT I WANNA ALSO BE SHOWN, UH, TO BE SUPPORTING CO-SPONSORING 46 AND 47.

OKAY, SO NOTED.

ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL DISCUSSION.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

CONSENT AGENDAS, ITEMS ONE THROUGH 50 AND 86.

86 IS BEING POSTPONED.

PULLED ITEMS ARE 10 27, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44 HAS BEEN MOVED IN.

SECOND.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

51 IS A NON-CONSENT, UH, CONDEMNATION ITEM.

THOSE OPPOSED, UNANIMOUS WITH THE COMMENTS, UH, NOTED THAT, UH, PEOPLE MADE COLLEAGUES REAL FAST.

ITEM NUMBER

[51. Approve a resolution authorizing the filing of eminent domain proceedings and payment to acquire the property interest needed for the Slaughter Lane Corridor Project for the public use of reducing delay, improving the effectiveness of transit, and creating continuous American with Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and either separate paths or a shared-use path which will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists along the entire length of the project, the acquisition of a Sidewalk, Trail and Recreational Easement comprising approximately 0.0173 of an acre of land (approximately 755 square feet), being out of and a portion of the Theodore Bissell League, Survey Number 18, Abstract Number 3 in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, being a portion of the remainder of Lot 1, The Lane at Riddle Road, a subdivision recorded on January 8, 1980 in Book 79, Page 61 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, currently appraised at $39,077 and subject to an increase in value based on updated appraisals or a Special Commissioner’s award. The owner of the needed property is Skipper Beverage Company, LLC. The property is located at 3419 W Slaughter Ln., Austin, Texas 78748. The general route of the project is along Slaughter Lane between RM-1826 and Vertex Blvd.]

IS THERE A MOTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN AUTHORIZES THE USE OF THE POWER OF EVIDENCE DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE AGENDA FOR THE CURRENT MEETING FOR THE PUBLIC USES DESCRIBED THEY'RE IN COUNCIL MEMBER POOL MAKES A MOTION COUNT THE MEMBER SECONDS IN DISCUSSION.

THOSE A FAVOR OF DECIDE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED, I'M SHOWING THAT AS BEING, UH, UH, UH, UNANIMOUS ON THE, UH, ON THE, UH, DAUS.

UH, LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REAL FAST.

UM, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE ONES WE CAN TAKE CARE OF RIGHT NOW.

UH, COLLEAGUES, I'M GONNA SUGGEST IT IS, UH,

[12:00 PM - Public Communication: General]

1230 RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE, UH, LET'S GO TO, UH, WE GOT A CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, RESIDENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATION HERE.

SECONDLY, WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS.

THEN WE GET TO LISTEN TO SOME MUSIC.

UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE, THE ZONING SPEAKERS AT TWO.

UH, I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT WE, UH, TRY TO GET TO, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 1 45.

UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE LONG SESSIONS TODAY.

UH, AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE THE, THE PERSONNEL, UH, UM, MATTER TO, UH,

[02:20:01]

TO, TO, TO BRING UP, UH, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GONNA RESOLVE THAT TODAY.

I THINK TODAY TODAY'S GONNA BE JUST GETTING SOME, SOME INFORMATION BACK TO US, SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE CAN HANDLE QUICKLY.

UH, THE OTHER ITEM WAS THE, UH, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, NEGOTIATIONS REPORTING WHERE THERE'S A MEMO THAT CAME TO US TODAY BASED ON THAT MEMO.

IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, THE MANAGER AND, UH, UH, COUNCIL THAT, THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE A NEED FOR US TO DO THAT, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING WE WOULD HAVE THEN, WOULD BE THE, UH, TOUCH ON, UH, THE PERSONNEL MATTER AS OUR POOL.

AND SINCE WE'RE ALL ON THE DIOCESE, I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT WE WILL ALL MEET FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM.

SO JUST, WE COME BACK AT 1 45.

SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA CALL THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.

THEN WE'RE GONNA RECESS THIS MEETING WITH THAT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE'LL COME BACK AT 1 45 IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

OKAY, GOOD.

I'M HAPPY WHEN IT HAPPENS.

ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND, AND CALL SOME SPEAKERS TO SPEAKS WITH US.

IS CHARLES, UH, WINDROW HERE? WINDROW AT 1 45 IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ROOM IS, UH, MARY AGUILAR HERE.

COME ON DOWN.

IS PAUL ROBBINS HERE? YOU'LL BE ON DEX, SIR.

HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UM, MY NAME IS MARY AGUILAR AND I LIVE IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN.

UM, DISTRICT SIX.

UM, I'VE BEEN LIVING IN MY HOME FOR 15 YEARS.

UM, MY HOME BACKS UP TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, AND ABOUT A YEAR AGO, A BREWERY OPENED, UM, RIGHT BEHIND MY HOME.

UM, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, CITY OF AUSTIN APPROVED A SITE PLAN FOR THEM TO EXPAND THEIR SEATING OUTSIDE THEIR BUILDING, BEHIND THEIR BUILDING, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY PROPERTY.

UM, I EMAILED YOU A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE BIRDEYE VIEW OF MY HOME, UM, ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY.

UM, AND I ALSO INCLUDE SOME PICTURES WHERE, UM, THE TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED.

UM, LET'S SEE.

I, UM, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE CODE ENFORCER, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS AND THE OFFICE OF MCKENZIE KELLY.

UH, THEY ALL HAVE MY, THEIR EMPATHY, BUT THEY CANNOT HELP ME.

SINCE THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS APPROVED THEIR SITE PLAN, UM, I'VE CONTACTED T A C AND THE BREWERY HAS A BG LICENSE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO SELL ALCOHOL AND SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS, AND THEY CAN CARRY THEIR OPEN DRINKS OUTSIDE IN THE ALLEYWAY AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY PROPERTY.

UM, I, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ZONING IN OUR AREA WAS WRITTEN AND APPROVED IN 1985.

I'M HERE TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE ZONING, UM, FOR THE SAFETY, THE CONCERNS OF ME AND MY NEIGHBORS.

UM, I VISITED WITH SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE ALL, WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THE ZONING THAT, UM, IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEHIND OUR HOME.

UM, I HAVE LOST THE ENJOYMENT OF MY BACKYARD AND I, I AM LIVING IN AS A PRISONER IN MY OWN HOME.

UM, AT THIS TIME, IT ONLY AFFECTS ME BECAUSE MY PROPERTY LINE IS SO LONG, BUT MY NEIGHBORS ARE ALSO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS I, AS I DO.

AND MAYOR? YES, IF I COULD, I JUST WANNA THANK YOU FOR COMING UP HERE TO TALK TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE.

I KNOW THAT MY OFFICE HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH YOU MULTIPLE TIMES OVER MULTIPLE WEEKS, AND WE DID CONNECT YOU WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY SERVICES.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD FOR YOU, AND I DO APPRECIATE JUST YOU COMING DOWN HERE TODAY.

SO THANK YOU.

WELL UNDER AUSTIN'S CURRENT RATE, BECAUSE ON AVERAGE, POOR PEOPLE USE LESS THAN WEALTHY PEOPLE.

MS. ROBIN, DO YOU WANNA COME ON DOWN? IS, UH, ETHAN SMITH HERE? ETHAN SMITH, YOU'LL BE ON DECK COUNCIL.

WE GREAT COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.

SOLINSKY ONCE WROTE THAT WHEN YOU GO INTO A STRUGGLE AGAINST AN ENTRENCHED POWER, DON'T COMPLAIN THAT THE SITUATION IS UNFAIR.

GO INTO IT.

ASSUMING IT IS NOT FAIR, I WILL NOT BE TAKING HIS ADVICE TODAY.

I'M HERE TO SHOW A FEW OF THE WAYS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS SLANTED THE RATE CASE.

UH, CAN YOU FLIP THE SLIDE FIRST? AUSTIN ENERGY HAS USED PSEUDOSCIENCE TO STATE THAT POOR PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY DO BETTER UNDER THE PROPOSED NEW RATE THAN AVERAGE CUSTOMERS.

HERE IS A CHART SHOWING THE OPPOSITE DATA FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, AND US CENSUS WAS USED HERE, AND IT SHOWS THAT INCOME TRACKS CONSUMPTION.

POORER PEOPLE DO NOT DO

[02:25:01]

AUSTIN ENERGY HID THIS INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL SLIDE SECOND.

AUSTIN ENERGY HAS INTENTIONALLY STRUCTURED THE RATE CASE TO ELIMINATE VALUE FROM ENERGY CONSERVATION.

HERE'S A SLIDE SHOWING AUSTIN HAS THE LOWEST AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION OF ANY MAJOR UTILITY IN AIRCO SLIDE.

THIS SAVES ALL UTILITY CUSTOMERS ON COLLECTIVE FUEL AND REGULATORY COSTS AND HAS DEFERRED $1.2 BILLION IN POWER PLANTS.

YET THE RATE CASE DID NOT ALLOW THIS TO BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.

SLIDE THIRD, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS A CLIMATE, HAS CLIMATE GOALS TO EVENTUALLY BECOME CARBON FREE.

CONSERVATION IS AN ESSENTIAL STRATEGY, BUT AGAIN, SUCH CONSIDERATIONS COULD NOT BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE SLIDE.

AND THEN THERE IS THE ACTUAL NEED FOR A RATE INCREASE.

COUNCIL MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT WHEN AUSTIN ENERGY LOWERED ITS ORIGINAL RATE BY 25%, IT DID SO LARGELY BECAUSE OF AN ERROR.

THE UTILITY ITSELF MADE IN THE CALCULATIONS.

THE UTILITY IS NOT AN INFALLIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

BUT BEYOND THE MATH ERROR, THE INTERVENERS IN THE RATE CASE HAVE FOUND ENOUGH SAVINGS TO ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE SHORTFALL.

THIS CHART SHOWS THAT FIVE INTERVENER STRATEGIES COULD ELIMINATE MOST OF THE ENTIRE RATE INCREASE.

WHILE AUSTIN ENERGY HAS HAD MANY HOURS IN FRONT OF COUNSEL TO JUSTIFY ITS PROPOSAL, THE INTERVENER'S TIME HAS BEEN RIDICULOUSLY CONSTRAINED.

BUT THE HANGING QUESTION THAT I HAVE HAD FOR SEVERAL WEEKS IS WHY AUSTIN ENERGY WAS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THE IMPARTIAL HEARINGS EXAMINER.

NO MATTER HOW IMPARTIAL HE MAY HAVE BEEN, THE UTILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN ITS OWN JUDGE.

THERE ARE THREE LAWYERS ON THIS, DIAS.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ALLOWED TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN JUDGE TO APPOINT THEM? THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MR. SMITH, YOU WANNA COME ON DOWN IS KRISTA, I'M SEAN RAMIREZ HERE, YOU'LL BE UP NEXT.

I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY THE LAST TIME I'LL SEE YOU GUYS, UH, FOR THIS.

UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

UM, YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, RIGHT? UM, BUT, UM, I HOPE EVERYBODY STAYS ENGAGED IN POLITICS AND TRYING TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.

UM, I WANTED TO JUST PLAY YOU GUYS A SONG CUZ I ALWAYS COME UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT STUFF.

ALL RIGHT? I WROTE THIS SONG.

UM, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT SRO ANDERS CAT IS.

OKAY, COOL.

THE WORLD DESTROYS WHAT IT CAN'T HAVE.

AND EVERYWHERE YOU GO, THE WORLD TURNS ITS EYES TO YOU.

HE WANTED YOU FOR HIS OWN, AND I DON'T BLAME HIM, BUT I DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN THESE THINGS TO YOU.

THAT LINE IN BED WITH ANOTHER GIRL AND ANOTHER PLACE AND ANOTHER TIME DREAMING OF EVERYTHING TURNING OUT ALRIGHT, IS NO MATCH FOR THE SIDE OF YOU.

IT BREAKS MY HEART INTO FOR I COULD DELIGHT IN JUST A PARTICLE OF YOUR LINE AND HE COULD RIDE ALL NIGHT ON YOUR WAY.

WE COULD BOTH GET A CAT NAMED SCHRODINGER AND MELY LIVE OUT OUR DAYS, BUT THE WORLD GAVE YOU JUST ONE KISS.

SO TELL ME HOW CAN YOU EXIST? THANK YOU.

UM, ALSO I'LL SAY ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

UM, THERE IS A PARK, UH, LIKE 11TH AND WESTLAND, AND THERE'S, UM, WHAT I ASSUME WOULD BE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING OVER THERE, UM, SOME CONDOS, BUT IT STARTS, THE SCIENCE SAYS STARTING AT 1.7 MILLION.

SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A CERTAIN DENSITY OR SOMETHING, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDING AFFORDABILITY.

SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

OKAY, MS. RAMIREZ ON DOWN.

IS JOHN KAUFMAN HERE? MAYOR? HE'S ON REMOTE.

[02:30:01]

REMOTE.

MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'VE AGREED WITH MANY OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS COMMENTS I'VE HEARD TODAY THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS REFINING TO INCLUDE A SHORTER, MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR SMALL SCALE SUBDIVISIONS THAT HOMEOWNERS AND LANDOWNERS ARE PURSUING ON THEIR OWN THAT ARE NOT PART OF THEIR BUSINESS.

I WORK A FULL-TIME JOB AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO CONTINUE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN THEIR OWN HOMES AFTER SPENDING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS TRYING TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO SUBDIVIDE A LARGE LOT I HAVE LIVED ON SINCE 1997, I CAN ATTEST TO THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS FAVORING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPERS OVER INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS WHO ARE TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AS A MEANS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO CONTINUE LIVING THERE.

I ALSO HAVE LEARNED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS ARCHAIC AND NEEDS FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE OBVIOUS SIMPLE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE VETOED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONFORM TO THE CURRENT RIGID COOKIE CUTTER REQUIREMENTS.

WE, INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS DON'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL BACKING OF COMPANIES AND SUBDIVISIONS.

CREATING TWO LOTS ON OVER AN ACRE OF LAND SHOULD NOT TAKE NEARLY AS LONG TO REVIEW AS SUBDIVISIONS THAT WILL BE ADDING DOUBLE DIGIT HOMES.

ALONG THE SIDES OF, OF OUR HOUSE ARE SIX HERITAGE TREES AND 10 PROTECTED TREES.

SO I SPENT YEARS TALKING WITH NEIGHBORING DUPLEX OWNERS IN CALIFORNIA AND OREGON TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM TO SELL ME ONE OF THE TWO DUPLEXES THAT WOULD GIVE ME ACCESS TO THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY.

FINALLY, ONE AGREED TO SELL AND I PIECED TOGETHER THREE SEPARATE LOANS TO BUY IT.

THEN I DID THE UNTHINKABLE AND DECIDED NOT TO TEAR DOWN THE DUPLEX, BUT INSTEAD TO LEAVE IT AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ONLY USE THE DRIVEWAY AND SPACE WHERE A GARAGE ONCE STOOD TO ACCESS MY LAND.

I EVEN INCORPORATED PARKING SPACES FOR THE DUPLEX OCCUPANTS INTO THE SITE PLAN.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT SOLUTION.

I WAS WRONG.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS LED TO THE TEAR DOWN OF MANY OLD HOUSES ON LARGE LOTS BECAUSE THE CODE MAKES IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WORK AROUND THEM.

I'VE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT BY MY 7 8 7 0 4 NEIGHBORHOOD SAVING BEAUTIFUL TREES, LEAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT PURSUING UP ZONING TO INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER OR THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER LOT.

AND NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE SO MANY FLAG LOTS BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT'S OBVIOUS WITHOUT UPZONING OR DEMOLITIONS.

SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION ON EXPEDITING SOME OF THESE SMALLER SUBDIVISIONS.

JOHN KAUFMAN.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

THIS IS JOHN KAUFMAN.

I WOULD COMMEND THE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THANK THEM FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CAP PROGRAM.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

UH, DID JOHN? YEAH, JOHN KAUFMAN.

UH, I'M THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE THAT WAS SELECTED TO REPRESENT RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THE AUSTIN CITY OR AUSTIN ENERGY RATE REVIEW.

AND I, UH, HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER WITH, UH, VARIETY OF OTHER, UH, CONSUMER ADVOCATES ON THIS CASE, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, OTHER PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS.

WE'VE ALL COME TOGETHER ON A JOINT PROPOSAL, UH, THAT DOES NOT, THAT UNFORTUNATELY WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET AUSTIN ENERGY ON BOARD, BUT ONE THAT WOULD ALLOW A 12 MILLION INCREASE IN THE ALREADY 637 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF THE UTILITY.

WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S, IT'S RESPONSIBLE.

IT WOULD ALLOW THE UTILITY TO PROVIDE SAFE AND ADEQUATE SERVICE WITH AN ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION ON TOP OF IT.

UH, ALSO, WE, UH, AS A GROUP BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD, UH, ONLY INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE BY $2.

THE $12 CUSTOMER CHARGE IS, UM, IS VERY IMPORTANT TO AVOID RATE SHOCK.

UH, AS AND AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PROCESS WITH THE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, UH, ABOUT 25% HAS BEEN DEEMED, YOU KNOW, AS, AS RATE SHOCK, THAT WAS A FINDING IN THE CASE.

THE, UH, IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER AGREED THAT THERE WAS, UH, UNREASONABLE RATE SHOCK IN THE, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, BUT WE HAVE YET TO, UH, COME TO TERMS WITH IT.

UH, INCREASING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE TO $15 WILL CAUSE, UH, THOSE WHO USE LESS THAN THE AVERAGE AMOUNT TO FACE INCREASES OF 25, 35 OR EVEN 45% INCREASES IN THEIR UTILITY BILL.

UH, I, I CONTEND THAT THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS RATE SHOCK AND WOULD URGE THIS COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE WHAT, AT WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT YOU DO ADOPT THAT YOU MODIFY THAT AND, AND PROVIDE SOME MODERATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE, UH, WHO LIVE ALONE OR WHO ARE IN APARTMENTS WHO USE LESS THAN THE, THE AVERAGE JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CONSERVE ENERGY.

AND ON THAT POINT, I WOULD, I,

[02:35:01]

WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT YOU'RE GONNA TRY TO, UH, REACH MORE PEOPLE WITH THAT.

BUT, UH, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED ON THE, WITH THESE PROGRAM FOR MANY YEARS, I WOULD SAY IT IS PROBABLY UNREALISTIC THAT YOU COULD ACHIEVE EVEN 50%, UH, PENETRATION WITH THAT PROGRAM.

THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS WHY, UH, AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UH, FOR THE OTHER 50% OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING, UH, UNDER THE POVERTY LEVEL, THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE RATE DESIGN DOES NOT IMPACT THOSE LOWEST USERS.

UM, IT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT YESTERDAY, I'M AVAILABLE ON THOSE REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUES.

UM, THE UNCOLLECTIBLE, THE, UH, COVID EXPENSES AND THE LATE FEES, ALL OF THOSE ISSUES ARE VERY APPROPRIATE.

THOSE ARE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT WOULD BE MADE AT THE TEXAS PUC IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT, UH, A TEST SHARE THAT WAS ABNORMAL, WHICH WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE PERIOD THAT WE AUDITED WAS AN UNUSUAL PERIOD, UH, AT THE TOTAL OF THOSE THREE ISSUES WOULD, UH, REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY, UH, ALMOST EXACTLY $6 MILLION.

AND THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HOPE THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT, BUT AGAIN, AT WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE RATE SIGN AND NOT BE CAREFUL TO, UH, AVOID, UH, OUTRAGEOUS RATE SHOT FOR THOSE WHO USE LESS THAN THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY.

I'M, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

UH, THANK YOU MR. KAUFMAN.

I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY AND YOUR CONTINUED, UM, WORK ON THIS, ON THIS BIG ISSUE.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT THE LETTER THAT YOU, THAT YOU WERE A PARTY TO THAT WE RECEIVED LAST NIGHT.

THERE IS A NOTE TOWARD THE BOTTOM, AND I'M STILL WORKING THROUGH THE POINTS THAT YOU'VE RAISED ON THE OTHER, THE OTHER ISSUES, BUT YOU'VE, YOU'VE INCLUDED A CLAUSE IN HERE ABOUT, UM, MY HAVING ASKED FOR A, TO RUN A SCENARIO AT A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 22 MILLION WITH A RATE DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A $12 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND FOUR TIERS OF INCLINING BLOCKS.

AND THEN IT SAYS, APPARENTLY AE HAS NOT YET RUN THE SCENARIO.

I THINK THAT THE SCENARIO THAT REFLECTS THAT IS SCENARIO FOUR, UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, WHETHER THE EMPHASIS YOU'RE PLACING IS ON THE INCLINING BLOCKS OR I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WHEN, WHEN THOSE, UM, WHEN AE CAME BACK, I THINK THEY MISS I THINK THEIR NUMBERING IN THE EMAIL WAS DIFFERENT OR IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE SCENARIOS WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT, WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SCENARIOS.

BUT I WOULD URGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT SCENARIO FOUR, WHICH I BELIEVE DOES RUN THE NUMBERS WITH FOR A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 22 MILLION AND A CUSTOMER CHARGE OF 12.

WAS I UNDER MR. KAUFMAN? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE STILL THERE, BUT WAS THAT THE, WAS THAT THE SCENARIO? WAS THAT THE QUESTION THAT YOU WERE RAISING IN THAT MEMO? I THINK WE'VE LOST, I CAN'T TELL IN CASE OR NOT.

UH, MOVE, UH, OUT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE AT 1250.

UH, WITH THAT, UH, COLLEAGUES, UH, THOSE ARE ALL THE FOLKS WE HAVE.

UH, WE'RE GOING TO, UH,

[Executive Session]

WANTED TO MOVE INTO, UH, CLOSED THIS SESSION, UH, TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO 5 5 174, THE GOVERNMENT CO.

WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF AND COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

THAT OBJECTION, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN THE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM AT, UH, 1 45 AND URGE THOSE THAT CAN TO STAY HERE FOR SOME MUSIC.

UH, QUICK QUESTION.

I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT EARLIER, BUT WHAT TIME, UH, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WILL WE BE TAKING UP 55 AND 56? I HAVE SOME FOLKS ASKING, UH, IF WE CAN FINISH THE, THE, THE ZONING AND TIME, I HOPE IS TO BE ABLE TO DO IT THERE.

THE CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE, WE HAVE SPEAKERS AT TWO O'CLOCK ON ZONING UHHUH, AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO CALL THE AUSTIN ENERGY SPEAKERS AT FOUR.

SO WE'LL BE DOING, HOPEFULLY THERE'LL BE SOME TIME EITHER BETWEEN THAT OR, OR AFTER FOUR, CORRECT.

HEY, THIS IS A LEGIT PLACE HERE, MAN.

OCTOBER.

AND MAYOR, UM, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU HAD SUGGESTED SOME AMENDMENTS ON, NO, ACTUALLY YOU DIDN'T SUGGEST AMENDMENTS ON THE ITEM I BROUGHT FORWARD WITH, WITH MY CO-SPONSORS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET SOME SENSE OF WHEN THAT MIGHT COME UP.

WE DO HAVE, UM, STAFF HERE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE THEM A SENSE OF, OF, UM, WHETHER THAT MIGHT HAPPEN BEFORE SIX OR, OR AFTER, YOU KNOW, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S TAKE AN ASSESSMENT AFTER WE HEAR THE SPEAKERS, LET'S SEE WHAT THE ZONING LOOKS LIKE.

IF IT'S FAST, HOPEFULLY WE HAVE EVERYTHING DONE BEFORE SEX.

IF NOT, THEN WE, THEN MAYBE NOT.

I JUST, WE JUST DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

WITH THAT SAID, UM, UH, MUSIC TIME, WE'LL SEE YOU OUT, UH, IN LESS THAN AN HOUR IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM AND MAYBE WE CAN REOR.

HEY,

[12:00 PM - Live Music Brand New Key]

[02:40:01]

, UH, WELCOME TO, UH, UH, OUR CITY OF AUSTIN'S VERSION OF, UH, OF CARNEGIE HALL.

THIS IS ABOUT AS CLOSE AS WE WE GET TO, TO BEING ABLE TO OFFER OUR LOCAL TALENT AT CARNEGIE HALL STAGE.

I, I, I TELL PEOPLE, UH, AND I, AND I GET A CHANCE TO SAY THIS EVERY TIME WE BRING IN MUSIC, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS, THAT THIS IS A TRADITION THAT I THINK IS JUST ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL.

UH, BECAUSE SO MUCH OF OUR, OUR CULTURE AND OUR SPIRIT AND THE, AND THE MAGIC OF THIS CITY IS, IS TIED INTO MUSIC.

UH, YOU KNOW, I PASSED THROUGH THIS CITY BACK IN THE LATE SEVENTIES AND NO INTENTION OF STAYING.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS I DID WAS BECAUSE OF THE MUSIC.

UH, WE HAVE A DIVERSE AND INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE MUSIC ECOSYSTEM, UH, IN THIS CITY, AND IT REALLY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES US SPECIAL.

SO THE ARTISTS THAT ARE WILLING TO COME HERE AND, AND GIVE US A LITTLE MUSIC DURING DAYS THAT ARE HARD, LIKE WHEN WE'RE HAVING NOW, PRESS THE MUSIC INTO THE WALL SO THAT WE CAN PULL IT OUT LATER AT, AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING IF WE NEED TO, UH, BECOMES REAL IMPORTANT AND, AND, AND FAVORING US, UH, WITH THEIR, THEIR SKILL HERE TODAY AND THEIR ART AND THEIR CRAFT, UH, IS, UH, BRAND NEW KEY, UH, BRAND NEW KEY IS ANCHORED BY THE, UH, SONGWRITING DUO OF, UH, UH, JACK COFFIS VOCALS AND GUITAR, AND AMY MORLIN, UH, VOCALIST AND MANDOLIN, UH, WITH JILL, UH, CHECKETTS.

SECONDS.

COMMANDING DRUMS. JAMIE BARR HOLDING DOWN THE LOW AND BACKEND VOCALS NATION WEL SCHUMER CONCUSSION AND BACKEND VOCALS.

BRAND NEW KEY PLAYS PLAYED TO APPRECIATIVE LIVE AUDIENCES AROUND THE AUSTIN AREA SINCE 2012, GROWING FROM A TIGHT PORCH GRASS, UH, TRIO INTO A FULLY FORMED FIVE PIECE BAND WITH A UNIQUELY AUSTIN AMERICANA SOUND.

THE BAND PERFORMS REGULARLY AT FESTIVALS, AT LISTENING ROOMS, BREWERIES, LIVE STAGES IN AUSTIN AND IN CENTRAL TEXAS.

THERE ARE VERY FEW, UH, OUT QUEER PERFORMERS IN THE BROAD AMERICANA SONIC SPACE.

AND ALL FIVE MEMBERS OF BRAND NEW KEY ARE ACTIVISTS IN THE TRANS, QUEER FEMINIST, AND ANY RACIST COMMUNITIES IN AUSTIN.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THEIR ORIGINAL SONG SPEAK TO THE HEARTBREAK AND DESIRE AND HARD LUCK AND FLEETING HAPPINESS.

BRAND NEW KEY BRINGS PASSION FOR EQUALITY AND GENDER JUSTICE TO THEIR SONGWRITING AND PERFORMANCE, AND CLAIR WAY FOR NEW AUDIENCES TO APPRECIATE A VERY OLD STYLE OF MUSIC.

THEIR LATEST RELEASE LANDS WAS ENGINEERED AND MIXED AT AUSTIN'S WOMAN OWNED AND OPERATED CROSS PICK STUDIO, UH, BY ASHLEY WELCH NAMED MORELAND AND MASTERED BY MARIA RICE AT PEERLESS MASTERING IN BOSTON.

LISTEN TO THE HINTERLANDS ALBUM.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT, UH, DIRECTING YOU TO, TO THAT HERE, UH, AFTER WE'RE DONE, UH, GETTING A CHANCE TO, TO HEAR THESE FOLKS.

THESE FOLKS ARE A LONG TIME COMING, SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, BUT C UH, WHEN WE WERE CANCELING MEETINGS PUSHED US BACK.

SO WHAT BETTER WAY TO CELEBRATE, AS I WAS JUST SAYING TO THE, TO THE GROUP, OUR THOUSANDTH DAY, OUR 1000TH A DAY IN, UH, COVID EMERGENCY.

THEN TO, TO BRING BACK SOME, SOME MUSIC THAT WAS DELAYED ALONG THE WAY.

EVERYBODY, LET'S WELCOME BRAND NEW KEY, RIGHT? THANK YOU.

READY? 1, 2, 3, 4.

HERE'S A PLACE THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT MONEY, COULDN'T SAVE HIS TOWN.

ALL THE DISTANCE IN YOUR DREAMING CLOSES WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN.

HERE'S A HOUSE THAT'S BURNED AS SENDERS AT THE HANDS OF GIRLS.

RETURN HERE TO CHANGE A CONCRETE LANDSCAPE BACK TO THE HAILING.

NEVER UNTIL LET'S SEE'S TIME TO YOU BRING THE, I'LL BRING, WATCH THE SUNRISE ONE

[02:45:01]

LAST TIME.

ONE MORE TIME AROUND FIRE.

ONE LAST TIME.

SO COLD NOVEMBER RE HEMAN ON THE CUSP OF ARCHS MO HORSES BUSTED AT HOUNDS IN THE PURSUIT.

HERE'S ANOTHER SILVER DAGGER.

MY MOTHER, ME ALWAYS WAS JUST ON A, NOW THERE IS EVERY BRIDGE TIME FOR US TO CROSS'.

SO IF SOMEBODY IS WATCHING THIS OR YOU PLAY THIS, WANTS TO BE ABLE TO, TO FIND YOU GUYS.

DO YOU HAVE LIKE A, A WEBSITE THEY GO TO FIND YOU? OH, UH, INSTAGRAM BRAND, UH, BRAND NEW KEY MUSIC, ATX.

INSTAGRAM IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GET AHOLD OF US.

WE DO HAVE A WEBSITE, UM, BRAND NEW KEY MUSIC.

IF YOU JUST GOOGLE THAT, WE'RE GONNA BE THERE.

COOL.

AND FACEBOOK, YOUR BRAND NEW KEY MU MUSIC.

, UH, SOUNDCLOUD.

YOUR, UH, BRAND NEW KEY.

AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET THE ALBUM, THE NEW ALBUM, HOW DO THEY DO THAT? LOTS OF ONLINE SPACES.

WE BROUGHT SOME TODAY, YOU KNOW, , WHEREVER YOU CAN GET MUSIC, WHERE YOU GET MUSIC.

STREAMING, SPOTIFY, APPLE MUSIC.

WE'RE ON ALL THE STREAMING SERVICES AND IF YOU WANT AN ACTUAL CD, UM, ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS CONTACT US AND WE'LL GET YOU ONE COOL.

POSSIBLY WATERLOO TOO.

COOL.

AND, AND IF AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SEE YOU LIVE, DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR NEXT, UH, UH, GIGS ARE CI? UH, WE PLAY AT THE TEXAS KEEPER CIDER, UM, UH, QUITE A BIT, USUALLY MONTHLY.

AND THEN WE ALSO, WE HAVE A GIG COMING UP IN LOCKHART IN I THINK FEBRUARY, UM, AT LOCKHART ARTS AND CRAFTS.

VERY COOL.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, WE ARE, UH, BACK HERE IN, UM, CITY HALL.

WELL, OUR COLLEAGUES AND I, WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION, UH, TO, TO, TO ENTER, UH, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS IS BLESSED WITH MANY CREATIVE MUSICIANS WHOSE TALENTS EXTEND TO VIRTUALLY EVERY MUSICAL GENRE.

AND WHEREAS OUR MUSIC SCENE THRIVES BECAUSE AUSTIN AUDIENCES SUPPORT GOOD MUSIC PRODUCED BY LEGENDS, OUR LOCAL FAVORITES AND NEWCOMERS LIKE, AND WE'RE, AS WE ARE PLEASED TO SHOWCASE AND SUPPORT OUR LOCAL ARTISTS.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL, TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE CITY COUNCIL DAY, AS TO HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST OF THE YEAR 2022 AS BRAND NEW KEY DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

WOO.

CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU WANT TO STAND IN THE WE'RE, IT'S HORRIBLE.

[02:50:20]

UH, WE, WHILE WE WERE, UH, UM, UH, OUT, WE WERE IN CLOSED SESSION, THAT'S OVER NOW IN CLOSED SESSION, WE DISCUSSED, UM, UH, PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO ITEM E THREE.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PICK UP THOSE OTHER ITEMS, THAT ITEM AGAIN LATER.

UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S MORE TIME THIS EVENING AND THE CONTINUATION OF THIS MEETING, OR POTENTIALLY NEXT WEEK.

UH, BUT WE ARE BACK OUT HERE NOW.

UM, SO, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND

[Zoning Consent Agenda]

START WITH SPEAKERS.

UH, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, ARE THERE POSTPONEMENTS TO THE, UH, ZONING AGENDA THAT WE SHOULD LET THE SPEAKERS KNOW ABOUT MAYOR? THERE ARE, UH, JERRY REO WINS THE PLANT HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UM, ITEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE OFFERING FOR CONSENT POSTPONEMENT TODAY INCLUDE ITEM 62, WHICH WILL HAVE THE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO, UH, JANUARY 26.

ITEM 64, WE'LL HAVE A STAFF POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 9TH, ITEM 65, WE'LL HAVE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 9TH.

ITEM NUMBER 68, WE'LL HAVE A STAFF POST MOMENT TO JANUARY 26TH.

ITEM NUMBER 70, WE'LL HAVE A STAFF TO DECEMBER 8TH.

WHAT ABOUT 69? NO, NO, NO FOR CONSENT.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 74.

I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN WILL BE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THAT.

THAT'S A BRO OAKS POD TO DECEMBER 8TH.

THE RELATED ITEM 75, ALSO BRODY OAKS.

ITEM A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 8TH.

UM, LET'S SEE, ITEM NUMBER 78 AS AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO JANUARY 26TH.

UH, IT'S NOT A POSTPONEMENT MAYOR, BUT ITEM NUMBER 79 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 81 HAS A APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 26TH, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE POSTPONED ITEMS FOR TODAY.

OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONES THAT WE DON'T NEED SPEAKERS ON TODAY WOULD BE 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79, AND 81.

I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR MR. OV.

HANG ON ONE SECOND.

BUT YOU SHOULD.

IT LOOKS LIKE 70 IS A CONSENT AND IT'S 80 AND, AND 73 IS ALSO A POSTON.

70, 70 WOULD BE CONSENT, SORRY.

AND THEN 80, UM, 73 70 IS NOT A POSTPONEMENT, RIGHT? NO.

UH, 73 THOUGH IS POSTPONED DECEMBER 8TH TO WHEN? DECEMBER 8TH.

73 IS DECEMBER 8TH.

DECEMBER 8TH.

SO AGAIN, THE ONES THAT ARE BEING POSTPONED TODAY APPEAR TO BE 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 6, 73, 74, 75, 78, AND 81 AND 70 NINES BEING WITHDRAWN.

LET'S GUESS THE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE AND WANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

AND WE'RE, UH, ONE MINUTE EACH.

THE FIRST REMOTE SPEAKER WE HAVE IS ANTHONY SOAK ON ITEM 61.

ANTHONY, PLEASE UNMUTE.

KATHLEEN RAHEL ON 77, WE MIGHT HAVE A SOUND ISSUE.

IF YOU DON'T MIND ONE SECOND.

I NEED TO MOVE BACK.

WHY? BECAUSE IT ADDS TO THE ALREADY UNSAFE TRAFFIC FLOW CURRENTLY AFFECTING OUR THREE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.

REZONING AND REMOVING THE 300 VEHICLE PER DAY RESTRICTION WOULD BE AN INFECTI.

[02:55:01]

I BELIEVE WE ALL HERE AGREE THAT THE PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY IS AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE PRIVATE.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU VOTE NO.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY VOTE TO INCREASE TRAFFIC BY ANY ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF TRIPS A DAY OVER 300 WHEN OUR OWN CITY? SHOWS THAT IT WILL ADD TO THE ALREADY EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUE ON RALPH ADO.

AND THE SAME ANALYSIS THAT REPORTS BOTH PEACEFUL YOUTH AND RALPH BOB NA AS SUBSTANDARD.

THREE.

THE SITE HAS RESTRICTIONS, DEEPING AND A LIMITATION TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 7:00 AM TO 4:00 PM THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT INTO PLACE 17 YEARS AGO IN 2005, SINCE, SINCE HUNDREDS OF MORE HOMES EXIST SURROUNDING THIS SITE.

AND NOW TRAFFIC IS SET ONTO RALPH PAE DIRECTLY FROM I 35.

WHY SHOULD THESE VOLUME IN OUR OPERATION BE LESS IMPORTANT NOW? THANK YOU.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

COMMUNITY.

ANTHONY SOBA TALK ITEM 61.

HELLO, GO AHEAD.

HELLO.

YES, I'M, UH, JUST WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WESTGATE, WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED RICHLY TO THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN, THE FORMER HOME OF THE HEADLINERS CLUB, AND WAS FREQUENTED BY FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON BAY JOHNSON, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTLESS POLITICAL FIGURES, UM, IS DESIGNED BY INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED ARCHITECT EDWARD GERALD STONE, AND IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF LATE MID-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN A RARE, UNIQUE ADDITION TO THE AUSTIN SKYLINE.

UM, WHAT'S MORE, UM, GREAT CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER THE DECADES TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE DESIGN.

UM, AND IT'S TRULY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE, UH, FOR THESE REASONS THAT I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN PRESERVING THIS FANTASTIC PIECE OF AUSTIN HISTORY BY VOTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO HISTORICAL LANDMARK DISTRICT.

THANK YOU GARRETT, NICK, FOR ITEM 83 AND 84.

UH, HELLO.

I'M CALLING AGAIN ABOUT, UH, STATESMAN PUD.

UH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF THE, UH, COUNCIL WOULD RESPECT AND HONOR THE PROCESS THAT GOT US TO THE POINT WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, A PLAN AND DISTRICT, UH, INSTEAD OF REQUIRING US TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE MORE TIME TO CALL IN AND HAVE THESE, YOU KNOW, MAKE THESE OBJECTIONS WHILE THE, UH, APPLICANT CAN JUST HIRE A LAWYER AND SPEND MONEY AND OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T NEED TO IF THEY WOULD JUST ADHERE TO WHAT IT WAS THAT WE ALL AGREED ON, UM, WHEN THEY WERE PRESENT AT THOSE MEETINGS.

UM, PLEASE RESPECT OUR TIME AND JUST ENFORCE WHAT IT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ALREADY EXPRESSED AS THEIR WISHES AND PRESERVE OPEN SPACE FOR WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BE THOUSANDS OF NEW TENANTS AND ALL THIS ACTIVITY, UH, IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY HIGHLY CONGESTED IN A CITY THAT'S ALREADY LACKING IN PARK SPACE, UM, FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT REQUIRE IT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT DAY.

DENNIS POX, ITEM 84.

YES, MY NAME'S DENNIS POX.

UM, AND I, UH, WISH TO WITHDRAW THE COMMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED ON THIS, UH, AGENDA ITEM.

AND THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, WENDY.

TODD, ITEMS 83, 84 AND 85.

GOOD AFTERNOON, WENDY TODD, SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I'M GONNA ECHO THE SPEAKERS, UM, AND ESPECIALLY MARY ARNOLD.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO HER PRESENTATION EARLIER TODAY, SHE IS ONE OF OUR MENTORS AND ONE OF OUR GUIDELINES FOR WHY LADY BIRD LAKE LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES, THE STATESMAN PUT WILL BE A GREAT, UM, IMPINGEMENT ON THE VIEW CARTER, ON THE SETBACKS ON THE QUALITY OF THE WATERFRONT.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SOLICIT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY IT.

[03:00:01]

ELECTED YOU.

WE DIDN'T HIRE THE CITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE RECOMMENDING IT, THE STAFF, PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECOMMENDED IT, BUT PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE PROCESS AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO HELP YOU MAKE THIS A BETTER PROJECT.

MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE REMOTE SPEAKERS I HAVE.

SO LET ME SWITCH OVER TO IN PERSON.

FIRST SPEAKER IS BRIAN EVANS, ITEM 61, FOLLOWED BY RICHARD HARDEN.

THANK YOU COUNSEL.

THE WESTGATE FAR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMBINING LANDMARK COMBINING DISTRICT DESIGNATION.

THIS DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO PROTECT, ENHANCE, AND PRESERVE STRUCTURES, SITES, OR AREAS THAT HAVE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

AND THE WESTGATE HAS ALL OF THAT.

HOWEVER, THE WESTGATE IS NOT FEAR IMMUNE FROM FEARS OF REDEVELOPMENT.

UH, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PROPERTIES REDEVELOPED IN OUR STORIED NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, BUT IN OUR OPINION, THIS BUILDING DOES NOT NEED TO BE ANOTHER LARGE BLUE GLASS RECTANGULAR BUILDING.

LIKE SO MANY REDEVELOPED PROPERTIES HAVE BECOME.

THEY LOSE THAT CHARM, THAT CHARACTER, THAT FEEL OF AGON ERROR.

THOUGH WE HAVE THE OTHER DESIGNATIONS THERE HONORARY, WE ARE SEEKING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO THE CITY THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THIS HISTORIC SITE.

GIVEN OUR MANY DECADES OF PRESERVATION, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN INVOLVED IN OUR TWO PREVIOUS DESIGNATIONS ARE HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF, THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, A REVIEW BY CITY'S ATTORNEYS AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE OUR APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE.

BUILDING IS THAT MOST OF THE APARTMENTS ARE VERY MODEST ON EACH FLOOR.

RICHARD HARDEN, ITEM 61, AND THEN TIMOTHY DANIEL.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

UM, THERE'S REALLY THREE ISSUES HERE THAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT IN MY OPINION.

ONE IS WHAT THIS APPLICANT SPOKE TO DOES THE BILLING, MERIT, HISTORIC DESIGNATION.

I'M NOT HERE TO DISPUTE THAT.

SECONDLY IS, DOES THE APPLICATION THAT THIS APPLICANT FILLED OUT MEET THE CRITERIA, THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY? AND THEY DON'T.

I HAVE GIVEN YOU A BACKUP PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT RECITES ALL THE SHORTCOMINGS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE 102 OWNERS OF THESE CONDOS HAVE NOT SIGNED ANY KIND OF APPLICATION OR DESIGNATED THIS AS THEIR AGENT.

IT'S THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT DESIGNATED THE AGENT.

AND LAST SHOULD AIR RIGHTS CONDOS, 102 CONDOMINIUMS THAT ARE INTERIOR TO THIS BUILDING RECEIVED TAX EXEMPTIONS THAT WILL BE AS MUCH AS $650,000 ANNUALLY IN PERPETUITY.

AND JUST MY TIME'S UP.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

TIMOTHY DANIEL, ITEM 61 AND THEN DOUGLAS MOSS.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MR. MAYOR.

UH, HAPPY TO BE HERE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE WESTGATE BUILDING.

UH, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, MY WIFE.

UH, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS, BUT, UH, SHE AND I MET HERE 20 YEARS AGO, LEFT FOR WORK AND FAMILY REASONS, AND THROUGHOUT THAT PERIOD, WE'VE REGULARLY, UH, REVISITED AUSTIN.

UH, AS EVERYONE KNOWS THE SKYLINE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, UH, POPULATION HAS CHANGED AND CONTINUES TO CHANGE DAILY.

UH, WHEN SEARCHING FOR OUR HOME TO MOVE BACK TO AUSTIN, WE LOOKED AT NUMEROUS CONDOS AND PROPERTIES.

WE CONTINUED TO BE DRAWN TO THE WESTGATE FOR ITS CHARACTER, HISTORY AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

AND OF COURSE, LOCATION.

EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THESE CONDOS IN THE BUILDING NEED A LITTLE UPDATING AND TLC, THAT IS VERY POSSIBLE AND WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE CHARM AND HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING.

NOT ONLY THE ARCHITECTURE, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GRACED AND WALKED ITS HALLS.

IF ONLY THOSE WALLS COULD TALK.

YEARS AGO, THE BUILDING OBTAINED HISTORICAL DESIGNATIONS, AND IT'S ONLY FITTING THAT IT RECEIVED THOSE FROM THE CITY.

DOUGLAS MOSS, FREEDOM 61 AND THEN JODY EMEL.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS DOUG MOSS.

I'VE, UH, PURCHASED, UH, MY HOME IN THE WESTGATE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO, AND IT'S REALLY AN EXTRAORDINARY COMMUNITY TO BE A PART OF.

ONE OF THE UNIQUE COMPONENTS ABOUT OUR

[03:05:01]

THEY RANGE ANYWHERE FROM 350 TO 1100 SQUARE FEET.

SO THESE ARE MODEST SIZE APARTMENTS.

I'M AN ARCHITECT.

I WORK AND I LIVE IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.

I HAVE A GREAT AFFINITY FOR BUILDINGS OF THIS CHARACTER AND BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT IN THIS TIMEFRAME.

AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE WESTGATE, UH, AND ITS PLACE IN HISTORY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ITS PLACE IN HISTORY WITH THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDORS.

IN MY PRACTICE, I DEAL WITH A LOT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AT TIMES TO HAVE OWNERS AND BUILDING OCCUPANTS BOTH LOVE AND CHERISH THEIR BUILDINGS AND WANT TO RENOVATE AND WANT TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDINGS.

IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT THAT WANTS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORY, AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING THE WESTGATE AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK.

JODY EMMEL FOR ITEMS 69, 70, 71, AND 72.

AND THEN GRACE GILKER.

UM, GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JODY EMMEL FROM THE GOLDEN CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND I'M HERE TO SAY THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TOTALLY SUPPORTS 69, 70, 71, AND 72.

THANK YOU, GRACE GILKER, ITEM 74, AND THEN ROY WALEY IS GRACE HERE.

OKAY, ROY WHALEY FOR ITEM 74, 75, 83, 84, AND 85.

WELL, I SHOULD HAVE ONE MINUTE FOR ALL OF, FOR EACH OF THOSE INSTEAD OF ALL OF THOSE.

MY NAME'S ROY WALEY.

I'M THE CONSERVATION CHAIR FOR THE AUSTIN REGIONAL GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB, AND I'M DOWN HERE TO TILT AT THE WINDMILL.

THEY'RE ERECTING ON THE STATESMAN SITE.

ONE MORE TIME.

UH, ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE TURS.

I ALREADY SAID THIS BEFORE.

BUILD IT, BUT DON'T ASK US TO PAY FOR IT.

I'M ALL FOR THE DENSITY, BUT ADDING ALL THAT DENSITY AT THE LAST MINUTE AT THAT SITE, WE, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO ADD DENSITY.

SINCLAIR BLACK, THE ARCHITECT, UH, WANTED TO TAKE THE WHOLE, UH, WAREHOUSE DISTRICT AND MAKE IT FIVE STORY FRAMED WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS FOR AFFORDABILITY AND FOR DENSITY.

AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

THERE IS SO MUCH EMBEDDED ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVES IN TALL BUILDINGS.

THEY, THE DENSITY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL IN ONE SPOT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A TOWER OF BABBLE SITUATION.

SO SAY NO TO THE TUR, SAY NO TO THE PU, TELL THE TELL THE THE COX FAMILY.

BRING US BACK SOMETHING REALISTIC.

WE'D LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU, BUT THIS DOESN'T WORK.

THAN 3000 VEHICLES INTO THIS OVERTAXED ALREADY OVERTAX SITUATION.

JONIE COOKSIE, ITEM 77, AND THEN JOIE MATTINGLY.

JODY'S NOT HERE.

IS JONIE HERE? JONI'S NOT HERE.

OH, OKAY.

JOIE MATTINGLY.

ITEM 77.

WELCOME TO RALPH AINO.

DRIVE A MILE LONG 22 FOOT WIDE TWO LANE SUBSTANDARD ROAD, WHICH RECENTLY STARTED TAKING ON CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC DIRECTLY FROM I 35.

AUSTIN FIRE, POLICE AND EMS ARE LOCATED ON RALPH AND MUST USE RALPH TO ACCESS SOUTH FIRST AND CONGRESS AVENUE.

NOTICE THERE'S NO PLACE TO PULL OVER FOR THEM.

HERE ARE A FEW OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON RALPH, AND AS YOU KNOW, PARKRIDGE, PARKRIDGE GARDENS AND PEACEFUL HILL FAMILIES ALSO ACCESS AND ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT HAPPENS ON RALPH WHEN THE APARTMENTS ARE COMPLETED.

RALPH MAY HAVE AS MANY AS 10,000 VEHICLES PER DAY.

THAT'S EIGHT TO NINE TIMES WHAT THIS ROAD SHOULD HAVE.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES ON RALPH, BUT PLEASE NOTE NONE ARE OVER TWO STORIES HIGH, NONE HAVE STOREFRONTS MARKETING TO CONSUMERS AND NONE GENERATE MORE THAN 300 VEHICLES PER DAY.

IN FACT, NONE OF THEM GENERATE ANYTHING CLOSE TO 300 VEHICLES PER DAY.

SO PLEASE DON'T MAKE MATTERS WORSE BY ALLOWING CRUX TO BRING MORE

[03:10:01]

THANK YOU SUSAN HAMRE, ITEM 77 AND THEN MOLLY MITCHELL.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

UM, I'M A MEMBER OF THE PARKRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A DIRECTLY AFFECTED HOMEOWNER WHO LIVES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS SITE.

AND IT'S WITH THAT HAT THAT I'VE CONDUCTED EVERY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER.

UM, I DIRECT YOU TO, I HAD A BIG POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, BUT SINCE WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT, I DIRECT YOU TO SLIDE TWO, UM, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THE AREAS SHADED IN GREEN ARE RESIDENTIAL USES, ARE, ARE HOMES.

AND THE BIG RED X IS WHERE THIS GEM WANTS TO PUT A IS 50 TO 60 FOOT BUILDING WITH A RETAIL STRIP CENTER.

AND THE, THE ORANGE IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT ARE ALSO ON RALPH ADO.

UM, WE'VE TRIED HARD TO, TO GET APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROJECT IS NOT A GOOD FIT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE OBTAINED A VALID PETITION BECAUSE WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A LEGAL PROCESS THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.

AND IF THERE ARE TWO OR THREE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T MADE YOUR MINDS UP ON THIS YET, WE WOULD SURE LIKE TO APPEAL MAYBE TO YOUR INNER REBEL AND ASK YOU TO THROW SOME VOTES OUR WAY.

UM, IT WOULD BE MAKE IT WORTH ALL THE EFFORTS WE PUT IN, INTO THIS RIGHT NOW IF WE FEEL ARE IN VA.

THANK YOU MOLLY MITCHELL SPEAKING TO THE POSTPONEMENT OF 79.

AND THEN DAVID HICKSON, DAVID HICKSON, ITEM 83, NANCY MILLER, RUTH CASSARA, KAREN POP FOR ITEMS 83 AND 84, AND THEN BILL BUNCH.

GOOD AFTERNOON COUNSEL.

MY NAME IS KAREN POP.

I REPRESENT TEXAS HOUSER.

UM, WE'VE SPOKEN QUITE A BIT ABOUT THIS.

IF WE'RE AT 4%, WE SHOULD BE AT 10%.

I HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT $23 MILLION BEING A LOT OF MONEY.

IT IS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IMAGINE WHAT 10% IS.

IF 23 IS 4%, IT'S OVER 50 MILLION.

I'VE HEARD ABOUT SOME GREAT PROJECTS THAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE MONEY.

THAT'S GREAT.

THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS.

HOW MUCH MONEY AND WHERE DOES THE HOUSING GO? I'VE HEARD MORE INTEREST IN 4 22 AT THE LAKE AS A SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY, AND I CAUTION YOU TO REALLY WORK OUT THE SPECIFICS OF ENFORCEMENT ON THAT.

SINCE IT WOULD BE A PRIVATELY OWNED, IF THE CITY WOULD BUY THAT PROPERTY, IT WOULD GIVE THE CITY A LOT MORE LEEWAY IN HOW IT DEALT WITH THE AFFORDABILITY GOAL FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT.

IF IT STAYS BEING BE ENFORCED BY THIRD PARTIES, WE NEED A BETTER SYSTEM THAN WE HAVE TODAY FOR OUR THIRD PARTY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS. THANK YOU.

THANK, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR YOUR CONTINUED ADVOCACY, UM, FOR GOOD HOUSING OPTIONS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

CAN YOU WAIT, AS YOU KNOW FROM BEING PART OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS TOO ABOUT TAKING, TAKING A CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU AND PUTTING IT INTO A PROJECT OUTSIDE OF, OF THE WATERFRONT.

HAVE YOU AND TEXAS HOUSERS AND OTHER HOUSING ADVOCATES YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ALONGSIDE WADE IN ON THAT? UM, I'M PART OF A GROUP THAT ENDORSED A PROPOSAL TO GET TO 10% BY USING THE EXISTING 4% THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, AND THEN THE OTHER SIX TO HAVE THAT ON SITE.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

IT DOES BECAUSE IT, THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU, AND I THINK YOU SHARED US, SHARED THAT WITH US AT MAYBE ON SECOND READING, UM, THAT THAT ADVOCACY POSITION, AS I RECALL, DID NOT INCLUDE AN NLO FEE.

IT WAS ALL ON SITE.

IT WAS EITHER ON SITE AT THE STATESMAN TRACKED OR ON SITE AT OR OFFSITE, BUT IN THE 4 22 PROPERTY, IS THAT, AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? UH, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE VERSIONS OF IT, BUT I'M PRETTY, I I THINK THE THING THAT WE REPRESENTED AS A GROUP WAS DO THE 4% FEE LU AND THEN DO 6% ON SITE.

ON SITE AT THE STATESMAN TRACKED.

BILL BUNCH FOR ITEMS 83, 84 AND 85 AND THEN SARAH CAMPBELL.

[03:15:14]

CAN YOU LI IT? YES.

SAY SPRINGS ALLIANCE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

UH, PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE STATESMAN PUD THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SUPERIOR ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.

UH, THERE ARE DOZENS OF VARIANCES, WAIVERS AND SIMPLE ERASS OF WHOLE SWA SWATHS OF THE CITY CODE THAT ARE ALL THERE TO PROTECT US, UH, ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE POINTS WHERE OUR CURRENT CODE IS BEING ERASED.

WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING FAR INFERIOR.

YOU'RE THROWING OUT, UH, THE LEGACY, AS YOU HEARD FROM MARY ARNOLD OF LADY BIRD JOHNSON, HERSELF, ROBERTA CRENSHAW AND OTHERS WHO CALLED FOR US TO, UH, WHENEVER WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY PUSH DEVELOPMENT BACK FROM THE SHORELINE AND PROVIDE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG THE SHORELINE.

THE 2016 VISION PLAN CALLS FOR A FULL NINE AND A HALF ACRES OF PARK LAND ON THIS TRACK IN EXCHANGE FOR A, A FR A MUCH NOW FRACTION OF THE INCREASED DENSITY THAT THEY'RE GETTING.

SO THEY'RE GETTING EVERYTHING.

WE'RE GETTING NOTHING.

VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

IT CAN'T, IT IS NOT SUPERIOR.

Y'ALL KNOW THAT.

ANY, UH, COMMON SENSE ANALYSIS LEADS TO A CONCLUSION IT'S INFERIOR.

SARAH CAMPBELL, ITEMS 83, 84 85 AND THEN CAROL ZEKI.

YEAH, CAROL, GO AHEAD.

ITEM 84.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UHOH.

I THINK I FIXED IT.

EATING UP MY TIME HERE WITH MICROPHONE COVERS.

I AM HERE IN REGARD TO ITEM 84, AND I AM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF GROUPS THAT PRESENTED YOU WITH A PROPOSAL ON SECOND READING THAT INCLUDES THE AUSTIN AREA URBAN LEAGUE, AUSTIN WOMEN IN HOUSING, CARRIE TOSS OF AUSTIN GO AUSTIN, THE MOST.

AUSTIN LADIES OF CHARITY OF AUSTIN SUNRISE COMMUNITY CHURCH AND HOMELESS NAVIGATION CENTER, AND THE TEXAS, TEXAS ANTI-POVERTY PROJECT IN TEXAS.

HOUSERS.

AND WE ALL GOT TOGETHER BECAUSE WE FEEL AS THOUGH THERE IS A NEED TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN WITHIN THE STATESMAN P U D.

IT'S OKAY TO MAYBE ALRIGHT TO HAVE SOME OF IT OUTSIDE OF IT, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A GROWING TREND WHERE THE CITY IS APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCES AND ZONING ORDINANCES AND OTHER TYPES OF ORDINANCES THAT ARE CREATING SEGREGATION IN THE CITY IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE 1928 MASTER PLAN DID, THAT IT WOULD BE SYSTEMIC.

AND I AM OUT OF TIME, THIS IS THE BARE MINIMUM, THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT THAT IS IN THE, THIS DRAFT THAT WAS PUBLISHED ONLINE WITH THE AGENDA TO ME, IS THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, UH, TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY THE PROPOSAL THAT WE SUBMITTED EARLIER.

MAYOR, COULD I ASK A QUESTION? YES.

OH, YOU WANNA GO AHEAD.

UM, SO JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU ALL HAVE, I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN IT, BUT I'M TRYING TO DISTILL IT.

THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU ALL PUT TOGETHER WAS AT, UH, 10%, IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

THE TOTAL WAS 10%.

AND, AND WE FEEL AS THOUGH THAT 10% MIN IS A MINIMUM THAT NEEDS TO BE MET BECAUSE OF WHAT IS IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, P D ORDINANCE.

THAT THAT NUMBER IS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THIS COUNCIL.

DIDN'T BRING MY COPY DOWN, SO I'M LOOKING IN MY, IN MY EMAIL FOR IT AGAIN.

THANK YOU MS. BEKI, FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE NOW REFERRED A COUPLE TIMES TO THAT DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL SENT ALONG ON SECOND READING.

AND I'M LOOKING, UM, I

[03:20:01]

AND I JUST WONDER IF ONE OF YOU, AMONG THAT COALITION COULD, WOULD MIND SENDING IT, RESENDING IT, PERHAPS TO THE ENTIRE DIAS, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, JUST SO WE HAVE, SO WE HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US AGAIN.

AND THEN I WANTED TO CLARIFY, UM, THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU SUBMITTED TALKED ABOUT 10% AND, AND HAD A PORTION, A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING THERE ON SITE.

YOU TALKED ABOUT WHAT, IN, WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE AS BEING THE BARE MINIMUM.

BUT WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY IS 4%, NOT 10%.

NO, ACTUALLY, WHAT I PRINTED OUT THAT HAS BEEN PRINTED, I MEAN, MAYBE I HAVE THE WRONG DOCUMENT, BUT I TOOK THIS OFF OF THE PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE YESTERDAY AND, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THE YEAH.

CARD COPY WITH YOU.

BUT, AND 4% IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

4% IS, IS, AND I DON'T KNOW.

SO THAT'S A PROBLEM.

IF THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING POSTED THAT ARE NOT ACCURATELY REFLECTING WHAT YOU AS COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE LOOKING AT, THAT'S AN ISSUE.

I MEAN, THAT'S YOUR ISSUE, NOT MINE.

IT'S AN ISSUE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M READING THIS AND THIS WAS THE PROPOSED, THE PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION THAT I FOUND ONLINE LINE.

JUST FOR CLARITY, GO AHEAD.

CAUSE WE'RE TALKING, UH, MAYBE WE CAN ASK, ASK THE STAFF TO CLARIFY WHAT PASSED ON SECOND READING.

IT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT PASSED ON SECOND READING WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR 10%.

WE'LL TAKE THAT.

WHAT PASSED ON? FIRST READING WAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE COUNCIL.

REMEMBER THE, THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS WRITTEN FROM YOU TODAY HAS THREE OPTIONS IN YOUR 4 0 4 HOUSING.

IT HAS YOUR 10% AMENDMENT.

IT HAS THE 4 22 OPTION, AND IT HAS THE FEE AND LIEU OF OPTIONS.

SO IT DOES NOT HAVE THE 4% OPTION ANYMORE.

CAN YOU, CAN YOU DIRECT US? YEAH.

CHRIS GUNTER, ITEM 84, AND THEN CRAIG NAER.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS CHRIS GUNNER.

I'M WITH THE TRAVIS AUTOBON SOCIETY.

UM, WE HAVE MET WITH ENDEAVOR.

UH, THEY HAVE AGREED TO, UH, WITHDRAW THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND PROCEED PER CODE.

UM, WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THEM COMPLYING WITH THE 20%, UH, REFLECTIVITY, UH, GLASS STANDARD, UH, AS OPPOSED TO THE, UH, 15% THAT THEY WERE SEEKING TO DO FOR A PORTION OF THE, UH, PROJECT.

THEY'RE GONNA, UM, USE THE 20% STANDARD FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

UM, UM, MORE EXCITING IS WE HAVE AGREED TO WORK TOGETHER TRAVIS AUTOBON AND ENDEAVOR TO EXPLORE AND FIND AND UTILIZE, UM, BIRD FRIENDLY TECHNIQUES FOR THIS PROJECT.

UM, AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE GONNA COME UP WITH, UH, A MODEL FOR, UH, BIRD FRIENDLY DESIGN.

SHOULD READ CHRISTMAS STORIES BECAUSE YOUR VOICE .

BEFORE MR. GUNTER WALKS AWAY OVER HERE.

OVER HERE TO YOUR MM-HMM.

, I , I JUST, I KNOW A DIS DISEMBODIED VOICE IS COMING FROM .

WHO KNOWS WHERE.

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU AND TRAVIS OTTOMAN FOR, UH, CONNECTING UP WITH ENDEAVOR AND THE FOLKS WITH ENDEAVOR FOR, UM, BEING WILLING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT, UH, THE COMMITMENT ON BOTH, FROM BOTH PARTIES TO WORK TOGETHER ON THIS GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT CAN ONLY HAVE REALLY EXCELLENT OUTCOMES.

I THINK THE 20%, UH, REFLECTIVITY, WHICH IS STANDARD FOR THE CITY, FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE, OF THE GLASS, ESPECIALLY ON, ON THE WATERWAY, IS AN EXCELLENT COMPROMISE.

AND I THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING TO THAT AGREEMENT.

I HAVE CONSIDERABLY MORE SUPERFICIAL COMMENTARY.

UM, YOU

[03:25:01]

IT'S FANTASTIC.

YOU SHOULD DO AUDIO BOOKS OF CHRISTMAS STORIES.

I THINK MY KIDS LOVE IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTARY.

IT WAS DELIGHTFUL.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

THAT, THAT'S WHY, THAT'S HOW HE GETS JURIES TO GO ALONG WITH, UH, UH, UH, CRAIG NASER ON ITEM 84 AND THEN JOHN BLOOMFIELD.

HELLO, MY NAME IS CRAIG NASSER.

I AM THE CONSERVATION CHAIR OF THE LONE STAR CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB.

THAT'S A STATE CHAPTER, AND THAT'S AN ELECTED P POSITION.

UM, I THAT'S VERY GOOD NEWS TO HEAR ABOUT THE BIRD GLASS.

I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT.

I JUST WANNA ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, GOOGLE BUILT THIS BEAUTIFUL BUILDING THAT'S COMPLETELY FOLLOWS ALL THE BIRD QUALIFICATIONS.

AND THEY DID THAT BECAUSE THE HEAD OF GOOGLE SAYS, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS BECAUSE APPARENTLY GOOGLE LIKES BIRDS.

IT'S THAT EASY.

AND THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE WAS 0.1% OF THE ENTIRE, UH, AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUILD THE BUILDING.

SO THIS IS VERY DOABLE AND IT'S VERY GOOD TO HEAR.

NOW THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE I WANNA MENTION.

DO YOU LIKE A ROAD OR A PATH WHERE YOU WALK DOWN AND THE TREES TOUCH OVERHEAD? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT AS A KID? DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ROADS IN AUSTIN I USED TO DRIVE DOWN? CUZ THE TREES TOUCH OVERHEAD AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE WE WIDEN THE ROAD.

THAT PATH DOWN THERE WHERE THE TREES TOUCH OVER THE HEAD IS FAR MORE VALUABLE THAN I THINK SOME REALIZE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SAVED.

JOHN BLOOMFIELD FOR ITEM 84.

AND THEN LILY RIKER RICH.

UH, YEAH, JOHN BLOOMFIELD, I NO LONGER SPEAK.

UH, THANK YOU LILY.

HELLO, I AM LILY REICH AND I AM FROM DISTRICT EIGHT.

I AM SPEAKING ON ITEM 84, SPECIFICALLY WHERE IT ADDRESSES REDUCING BLUR, BIRD COLLISIONS BY LIMITING GLASS REFLECTIVITY ON THE AUSTIN STATESMAN, AUSTIN STATESMAN.

P PUD, THE DEVELOPER HAS FORMED A PARTNERSHIP WITH TRAVIS AUDUBON TO COLLABORATE ON BIRD FRIENDLY STRATEGIES, ACT ACTIONS, SUCH AS THIS IS IMPORTANT TO, FOR US AND FOR THE BIRDS WINDOW REFLECTIVITY IS A CRITICAL DANGER FOR BIRDS, CONFUSING THEM INTO FATAL WINDOW COLLISIONS, WHICH KILL 1 BILLION BIRDS ANNUALLY IN NORTH AMERICA.

THIS IS A TRAGIC LOSS OF LIFE, AND WE CAN SAVE THEM WITH A STEADFAST APPLICATION OF BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDING STRATEGIES SUCH AS THIS PARTNERSHIP.

AUSTIN CAN BE A LEADER AND DO GOOD BECAUSE IT IS GOOD.

AS A YOUNG PERSON, I HAVE HOPE FOR A BETTER WORLD WHERE WE VALUE LIFE, WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE CHOICES THAT WILL IMPACT MY GENERATION OF AUSTINITES, AND WE CARE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT.

LET'S ACT TO PROTECT LIFE AND INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US AND, AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS IN FRONT OF US NOW IS IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I ALSO WANNA SAY THANK YOU AS, AS THE REP FOR DISTRICT DAY.

WE DON'T ALWAYS GET A LOT OF D EIGHT VOICES DOWN HERE IN CITY HALL, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING UP.

MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS WE HAVE FOR TWO.

COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT GETS US THEN TO THE, UH, CONSENT.

YOU WANNA TAKE US THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, JURY? SURE.

ALSO POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO DECEMBER 8TH.

CONS, UH, THE FIRST ITEM I CAN OFFER UP IS, UM, ITEM NUMBER 61 KC 14 H 2020 2 0 0 73.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FIRST READING.

ITEM NUMBER 62 IS, UH, CASE C 14 2022 70.

AS I SAID, THIS HAS A STAFF POSTPONE REQUEST TO JANUARY 26, RELATED ITEM 63 C 14 2020 2 0 5.

THIS ALSO HAS A STAFF POSTPONE REQUEST TO JANUARY 26.

I HAVE NUMBER 64, CASE NPA 2020 2 0 22 0 1.

THIS SAYS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 9TH.

ITEM NUMBER 65.

THIS CASE C 14 2020 2 1 0 1.

THIS SAYS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 9TH.

ITEM NUMBER 66 IS THE CASE NPA 2020

[03:30:01]

2 0 29 0.02.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FIRST READING AND NOTE THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING IT BACK FOR, UM, SECOND AND THIRD READING NEXT WEEK.

APRIL, UH, DECEMBER 8TH, ITEM NUMBER 67.

ALSO OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FIRST READING WITH THE NOTE THAT WE'LL BE BRINGING IT BACK ON DECEMBER 8TH.

ITEM NUMBER 68, CASE NPA 2020 2 1 0 0.03.

THIS IS A STAFF POST APPOINTMENT REQUEST TO JANUARY 26TH.

ITEM NUMBER 69, CASE NPA 2000 THOUSAND 19 0 1 3 0.01.

CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS.

ITEM NUMBER 70 K C 14 2020 2 0 82.

I CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS.

ITEM 71, CASE C 14 2020 1 0 180 5 OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS.

ITEM 72, CASE C 14 2020 2 81.

I CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS.

ITEM 73 C 14 2020 2 0 85 THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONING REQUEST TO DECEMBER 8TH.

ITEM NUMBER 74, CASE C EIGHT 14 2020 1 0 0 99.

THIS IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN TO DECEMBER 8TH.

ITEM NUMBER 76 KC 14 H 2020 2 1 39.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS.

ITEM NUMBER 77, CASE C 14 2022 IS 77.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES OFFICE, WE HAVE A, UH, A MOTION SHEET THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDED TO THE, UM, TO THE READING.

AND ACTUALLY, I, I, SORRY, I HEAR THIS.

IT WOULD BE TO, UM, D PART TWO D BE A MINUTE TO SAY A SITE PLAN OR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BE APPROVED, RELEASED, OR ISSUED.

IF THE COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT OR USES OF THE PROPERTY CONSIDERED CUMULATIVELY WITH ALL EXISTING OR PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT USES GENERATE TRAFFIC THAT EXCEEDS 1000 TRIPS PER DAY.

EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? YES.

SO THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO, UM, ITEM NUMBER 77, ITEM NUMBER 78.

THIS CASE C 14 2020 1 43.

UH, THIS IS AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO JANUARY 26.

ITEM NUMBER 79, CASE C 14 2020 1 0 1 61 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

IEM NUMBER 80, KC 14 2020 1 180 9.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS.

IM NUMBER 81 KC 14 2020 2 49.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS CASE TO JANUARY 26.

ITEM NUMBER 82, CASE C 14 2020 2 44.

I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON THIRD READING.

ITEM NUMBER 83.

THE NEIGHBORED RELATED TO THE STATESMAN PUT WILL BE DISCUSSION.

ITEM 84 IS THE, UH, ZONING CASE FOR THE STATESMAN.

PUT ALSO DISCUSSION ITEM FIVE IS THE, UH, RESTRICTED COVENANT RELATED THE STATESMAN, BUT ALSO FOR DISCUSSION WHAT IS, WHAT IS WHAT'S 66 AND 67.

66 AND 67 WERE OFFERED FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FIRST READING.

UM, WITH THE NOTATION THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING THEM BACK ON DECEMBER 8TH.

IT'S THE ST.

JOHN'S PROPERTY, THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

IT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

SO I'M SEEING EVERYTHING BEING ON CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 83 84 AND 85 6 1.

I SHOWED HIS CONSENT ON FIRST READING.

CONSENT ON FIRST READING FOR STAFF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

WHAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN ONE FOR APPROVAL? OKAY.

IS THAT ON 61? CUZ I SHOWED DISCUSSION.

HE WAS JUST OFFERED CONSENT.

SO IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO PULL IT, IF IT'S GOING TO GET PULLED, UM, RIGHT NOW, COULD THE ZONING AGENDAS ITEM 61 THROUGH 85 AND THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE PULLED ARE 83, 84 AND 85.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, ZONING COUNCIL MEMBER POOL? MAKES A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER RAN 30 SECONDS.

IT IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR TAB? THANK YOU.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO, SORRY.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO VERY BRIEFLY, UM, THANK MY CHIEF OF STAFF, KURT KADENA MITCHELL, WHO'S WORKED ON ITEMS 80, UH, SPICEWOOD SPRINGS AND 82 ZIMMERMAN FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

THEY'VE BEEN SOME INTERESTING CASES AND, UM, HE HAS REALLY MADE IT SO THAT THE REST OF YOU ONLY GET TO VOTE ON IT.

SO I APPRECIATE HIS HARD WORK ON THAT TO MAKE

[03:35:01]

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.

YES, TOVO MAYOR.

UM, I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT MY RECUSAL ON ITEM 69, 70, 71, AND 72, AND I FILED THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK WITH THE CLERK.

IS ONE OF THESE A SAFE PROPERTY? SORRY? IS ONE OF THESE A PROPERTY FOR SAFE? NOT THIS WEEK.

THANK YOU FOR WHAT? HSC.

OKAY, THANKS.

THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS.

AND MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO, UH, HIGHLIGHT ITEMS 66 AND 67 ON THE ST.

JOHN'S REDEVELOPMENT.

VERY HAPPY TO, THESE ARE THE REZONINGS, NOT THE, THE, UH, FULL AGREEMENT, BUT IT'S STILL GREAT TO SEE THEM ON THE AGENDA.

AND, UH, I JUST WANNA COMMIT TO THE RESIDENTS OF, UH, ST.

JOHN THAT WE ARE PUSHING AS HARD AS WE CAN TO, UH, GET THIS PROJECT DONE, GET THE PARK BUILT, UH, AND GET THAT, UH, THE HOUSING AND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THERE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE AREAS RESIDENTS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? THOSE A AFFIRM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I THINK WE'RE POSTPONING THIS TO FEBRUARY 23RD, 2023.

THOSE OPPOSED? I'M SHOWING YOU UNANIMOUS.

EVERYONE ON THE, UH, ON THE DAIS.

UM, IT WAS, UH, BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE LEAVE THE CONSENT, I THINK WE HAD A BIRTHDAY YESTERDAY.

UH, JOY'S BIRTHDAY WAS, UH, YES.

YOU EVERY BIRTHDAY TO YOU THERE.

JERRY.

PLEASE KNOW THAT, UH, THE THOUGHTS OF THE ENTIRE DIOCESE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ON YOUR MOTHER'S PASSING.

UM, ALRIGHT, COLLEAGUES, UH, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN, UH, TAKE CARE OF.

NOW.

WE HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS COMING OUR WAY HERE IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES ON, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY.

UH, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN.

[60. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance adopting the Palm District Plan as an element of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, Case # CPA-2022-001. ]

IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO THAT DAY? GUYS? I TOVO MAKES A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER READ 30 A SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS ON, ON TUESDAY.

I'M SUPER SAD NOT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS PLAN MOVE FORWARD AND FOR THERE TO BE CONTINUED AND RENEWED INTEREST IN THAT AREA AND REALLY MAKING IT A VITAL, A VITAL PART OF TOWN THAT, THAT FULLY RECOGNIZES THE STORIES AND, AND REALLY CENTERS THE STORIES OF THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY THAT REALLY BUILT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO I LOOK FORWARD TO MANY MORE CHANGES IN THIS AREA THAT, THAT REALLY REFLECT AND CELEBRATE AND ENHANCE THAT HISTORY.

AND THIS PLANNING EFFORT IS GONNA BE A, A BIG PART OF THAT.

SO THANKS TO THE STAFF AND IMPORTANTLY TO THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS WHO WORK TO CREATE IT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION THIS BEFORE WE VOTE COUNCIL.

AND I'M ALSO, UH, KINDA SAD NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE ON IT, UH, AS SOMEONE THAT I ACTUALLY WENT TO SCHOOL THERE FROM THE FIRST TO THE SIXTH GRADE IN PALM SCHOOL.

AND, UH, I STILL REMEMBER MY OLD PIPS DOWN AT THE PALM SCHOOLS.

IT'S A MIGHTY, MIGHTY MIGHTY SCHOOL.

AND IF ANYONE ASKS YOU WHY, IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE PEP LOTS OF LOTS OF PEP PALM SCHOOL.

WHERE'S A GREAT SCHOOL? AND WE MIGHTY PROUD OF IT.

THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUSLY.

TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, I'M SORRY.

ITEM 60.

YEAH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THOSE ITEM 60, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, POSTPONE MANAGER, PLEASE.

UH, WE MADE A RECORD IN THE WORK SESSION OF THE THINGS WE WANTED THAT GROUP TO, TO LOOK AT AND SPEAK TO WHEN IT CAME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

I WON'T PUT IT BACK INTO THE RECORD AGAIN TODAY.

UM, OKAY.

UM, WE HAVE, UM, UM, THE, THE COMPATIBILITY AT RESIDENTIAL THAT I PROPOSE WE TAKE UP IN A BIT.

UM, WE HAVE THE STATESMAN PUT, WHICH PROPOSE WE TAKE UP IN A

[03:40:01]

BIT.

WE HAVE THE AE RATE CASE, WHICH, UH, WILL START AT LEAST WITH SPEAKERS AT FOUR O'CLOCK.

UH, SO I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, THAT GETS US TO

[42. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to develop and recommend a centralized parking management policy for City facilities and authorizing the use of an outside consultant.]

YOUR REAL ESTATE ITEMS. DO YOU WANNA BEGIN WITH, UH, UH, ITEMS 42 TO 44? YES.

AND LET'S SEE, ARE WE STARTING AUSTIN ENERGY? I WANNA BE MINDFUL OF OUR ABILITY TO TRY TO GET TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FIRST, BUT SINCE TWO COLLEAGUES PULLED THAT, I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD TAKE UP THE PARKING, THE PARKING ONE FIRST.

I'M THINKING THAT MIGHT BE THE FASTEST, UH, NUMBER 42 UHHUH.

I WAS THINKING WE COULD GO 42, 43, 44 AND SEE HOW THAT LOOKS.

42.

AND MAYOR, YOU HAD PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT.

I I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF MY ITEM.

UH, IS THERE A SECOND? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, UH, KITCHEN SECONDS THAT, UH, COUNCIL BARTO, I HAD PROPOSED A, UH, AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS BEEN CIRCULATED, UH, ON THIS, UH, ITEM NUMBER 42 PARKING.

UM, IF THERE'S, UM, AND, AND IT WOULD, THE INTENT WAS TO SAY WE NEED TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT THE PARKING STRATEGIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMICS OF THE DEALS, BUT WE ALSO ON, ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT AFFORDABLE ACCESS, UH, AS WELL.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CONSIDERING THAT TOO, OR ASKING STAFF TO CONSIDER THAT TOO, WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT PARKING STRATEGIES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AMENDMENT MAY VERY WELL BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

OBJECTION ON THE DASH TO THAT AMENDMENT BEING INCORPORATED.

HEARING NONE, THAT AMENDMENT IS INCORPORATED FURTHER DISCUSSION THAN ON THIS ITEM 42 AS OUR POLL.

UM, I THINK, UH, WELL, I I JUST WANTED TO LET THE, UM, THE AUTHOR OF ITEM 42, MY COLLEAGUE, KNOW THAT I THINK THAT THIS PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, THIS PARTICULAR IC IS, UH, MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY DEFINES WHAT THAT STRATEGY SHOULD BE.

AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT, FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK ON THAT.

SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS ITEM AND I ALSO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE MAYOR IS BRINGING.

AND SO I'M A YES ON ITEM 42.

KA TOVO.

I ALSO URGE, MAN, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS THROUGH IN VARIOUS FORMS AND YOU'VE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO, TO PEOPLE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM 42 BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? THOSE IN FAVOR OF 42 AS AMANDA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

YOU WANT TO BRING UP THEN? YES.

HAD PULLED, I HAVE, UH, SPOKEN WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, AND I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO CONSIDER THAT ONE.

ITEM NUMBER 27 THAT I

[27. Approve a resolution adopting the City’s Federal Legislative Agenda for the 118th Congress.]

SO I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH IT AT THIS POINT.

UH, COUNCIL MAYOR KELLY, YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVE? WELL, NO.

WHO'S YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 27? SOMEONE NEEDS TO VOTE TO MOVE IT.

I'LL MOVE.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS MAKES THE MOTION TO APPROVE THEIR SECOND TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL SECONDS.

THAT, FOR CLARITY WITH ALL THREE AMENDMENTS AND THEN WE HAVE THREE AMENDMENTS.

ANY OBJECTION TO ANY OF THE THREE AMENDMENTS BEING ADDED? HEARING ON ALL THREE AMENDMENTS ARE ADDED SO THAT DOESN'T, SO 27 SITS AS AMENDED.

ALL THREE AMENDMENTS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? THOSE IN FAVOR? 27 AS AMENDED.

THOSE OPPOSED 27 UNANIMOUSLY IS PROVED.

WITH, UH, 43? YES, THANKS.

THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW THAT SO THAT THAT CAN MOVE FORWARD.

COUNCIL, MAYOR TOVO, YOU WANNA TRY

[43. Approve a resolution concerning policies for leasing of City-controlled facilities. (Part 1 of 2) ]

I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS ITEM? 43.

MAYOR PRO 10.

FACE AN UNCERTAIN FOR, UH, FUTURE WITH THE DIRECTION HERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

I HAD PUBLISHED AGAIN AND, AND AMENDMENT ON, UH, ON THIS ONE THAT I THINK TRACKED, UH, EARLIER CONVERSATIONS AND, AND UNDERSTANDINGS THAT, UH, YOU HAD, UH, UH, GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL.

IT BASICALLY, UH, HAS THINGS THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO WHICH WE WERE IN YOUR LIST.

UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVENTION CENTERS, KIND OF A HYBRID.

IT, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS, BUT THE MANAGER IS GIVEN SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO, UH, ENGAGE THE COUNCIL IN THE CONVERSATION, UH, ABOUT LIVING WAGES AND BETTER BUILDING, UH, OR EQUIVALENT CONSTRUCTION LABOR REQUIREMENTS, UH, AS CONCERNS THE CONVENTION CENTER.

UH, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS, UH, AMENDMENT? YES, I REGARD THOSE AS VERY FRIENDLY.

AND I'LL NOTE THAT ON YOUR MOTION SHEET, YOU, YOU PICKED UP ON SOMETHING I HADN'T PICKED UP, WHICH IS THAT I MISSPELLED RESOLVED.

AND SO IF WE COULD EDIT THAT AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

BUT YES, THOSE ARE VERY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH ME ON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THERE.

SOUNDS GOOD.

UM, YES.

COUNCIL POOL, UM, MAYOR AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

THANK YOU FOR ITEM 43.

I, I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING LEASES TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD

[03:45:01]

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT HAS A VALUE THAT GOES BEYOND ACHIEVING MARKET RATE RENT.

AND JUST A FEW, UH, EXAMPLES OF THIS WOULD BE PLANNED PARENTHOOD, TOWN LIKE ANIMAL CENTER AND EVEN THE LONG CENTER.

AND THE RESOLUTION DOES HAVE LANGUAGE PROTECTING THESE LONG TERM LEASES LIKE THESE, BUT IT SEEMS TO PRECLUDE FUTURE IMPORTANT PARTNERSHIPS AND LEASES WITH NON-PROFITS AND ON OTHER PARCELS AND THE AMENDMENTS.

MAYOR, I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO GET THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE CURING, UH, LANGUAGE THAT YOU OFFERED ACTUALLY GETS US THERE.

SO, UH, IF THERE'S A WAY THAT YOU COULD ADJUST THAT LANGUAGE, THAT COULD HELP.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EXISTING AND FUTURE LEASES TO NONPROFITS.

UM, BUT, UH, AND JUST GENERALLY, I, I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS ON THIS ITEM 43 LIKE I HAD PRIOR AND THROUGH THE VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS REAL ESTATE ITEM.

AND SO I WILL, I MEAN, IF IT PASSES, IT DEFINITELY HAS TO BE FIXED WITH REGARD TO FUTURE LEASES FOR NONPROFITS.

BUT, UH, THE WAY IT STANDS, EVEN WITH THAT CHANGE, I LIKELY WILL BE VOTING NO ON ITEM 43.

MAY OR MAY I ASK MY COLLEAGUE A QUESTION.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT, UM, IMPACTING LONG-TERM LEASES.

IT SPECIFICALLY CALLS THAT OUT AS NOT IMPACTING LONG-TERM LEASES ALREADY APPROVED.

AND NOWHERE DOES THE RESOLUTION TALK ABOUT MARKET VALUE.

UM, IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE CASE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS, HAS APPROVED, UM, LEASES TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

THIS SIMPLY RESPONDS TO THE AUDIT FINDING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS THAT'S USED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHICH NON-PROFITS GET THOSE AWARD, GET THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.

AND SO IF THERE'S PARTICULAR LANGUAGE THAT'S CONCERNING TO YOU ABOUT, UM, MARKET RATE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF THIS.

IT'S, IT JUST IS, IS PROTECTING AGAINST THE SITUATION WE HAVE NOW WHERE IF YOU'RE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO LOCATE IN A CITY PROPERTY YOUR BEST AND FRANKLY ONLY AVENUE IS TO APPROACH THE STAFF ABOUT IT OR TO ASK A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SPONSOR A RESOLUTION.

AND SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING, FRANKLY THAT MOST NONPROFITS ARE EVEN AWARE OF.

UM, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE POLITICAL CAPITAL AND THE CONNECTIONS TO BE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO A COUNCIL MEMBER AND TO KNOW THAT THAT'S THE PROCESS AND TO ASK THEM TO SPONSOR A RESOLUTION FOR YOU TO BE CONSIDERED FOR IT.

AND, AND AS THE AUDIT FOUND, AND MY COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I CAN, I CAN CERTAINLY GET INTO DETAILS ABOUT WHAT THE AUDIT FOUND, BUT THE AUDIT DID SUGGEST THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE STRONGER MANAGEMENT OF THOSE, UM, AND ALSO MORE ACCOUNTA, MORE METRIC SETTING FOR THOSE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND MORE ACCOUNTABILITY.

BUT, BUT NOTHING IN THIS RESOLUTION SUGGESTS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE LEASING OUR PROPERTIES TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

IT SHOULDN'T IMPACT ANY OF OUR LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS.

AND IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LEASING CITY FACILITIES PAY MARKET RATE.

THAT'S NOT AT ALL THE INTENT.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD, UM, ENCOURAGE YOU TO IDENTIFY LANGUAGE HERE.

UM, I CAN DO THAT.

THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONCERNS.

IT SAYS THAT STAFF SHOULD FOCUS ON SHORT TERM LEASES FOR ANY GROUPS THAT WANT LEASES, THAT LIMITS IT TO SHORT TERM.

UM, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON, ON.

I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE CONTINUES TO BE CONFUSING AND, UH, FOR THAT REASON, I, I CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS.

I, UM, THAT WON'T WORK FOR ANY FUTURE PARTNERS COUNCIL MEMBER.

IT, IT SAYS, THAT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MARKET RATE, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT DISCOUNTED OR SUBSIDIZED RATES FOR NONPROFITS.

IT SAYS WHERE APPROPRIATE THE LEASE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED ON A SHORT TERM BASIS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TENANT TO BUILD A SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT BEING RELIANT.

THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR, THIS DOESN'T IMPACT AT ALL OUR LONG TERM LEASES, BUT IN, IN PLACES AND, AND WE HAVE SOME DOWNTOWN WHERE THE CITY OWNS PROPERTY.

AND IT MAY BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SHORTER TERM LEASE FOR SAY, FIVE YEARS FOR A NONPROFIT SO THAT THAT ORGANIZATION CAN KIND OF BUILD AND GET ON.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REQUIRING A MARKET.

IT'S NOT REQUIRING A MARKET RATE.

IT'S NOT IMPACTING PETS ALIVE.

IT'S NOT IMPACTING PLANT.

AND I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT MARKET RATE, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE, THE LENGTH OF THE LEASES AND, AND THAT'S THE, THE CRUX OF MY OBJECTIONS AND, AND MY OPPOSITION COUNCIL POOL.

I, I SHARED THE CONCERN THAT, THAT THAT YOU HAVE EXPRESSED AND HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH AND DISCUSSED THIS, UH, WITH, UH, UH, BOTH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AS WELL AS THE, THE CITY MANAGER.

UH, THE CONCERN BEING THAT BY HAVING SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE, WE MIGHT BE SUGGESTING A, A RULE IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A RULE IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, BUT

[03:50:01]

WHETHER THE STAFF WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO TREAT IT AS IF IT WAS ONE BECAUSE IT HAD GOTTEN A, A LANGUAGE WHICH HAD HAD SPOKEN TO THE, TO THE ISSUE.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IN RESPONSE SAID, HEY, LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE, THAT WE HAVE, UH, THE MANAGER HAS ASSURED ME, AND I GUESS YOU COULD SPEAK TO THIS TOO IF YOU WANTED TO MANAGER, BUT, OR IF I DON'T REPRESENT CORRECTLY WHAT YOU SAID, THAT, THAT, UH, THE MANAGER WOULD ALSO TREAT THE LANGUAGE, INTERPRETING IT AS WHAT THE LANGUAGE, UH, SAYS.

UM, AS I LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE HERE, UH, AND I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE TAKING AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DISSUADE YOU FROM THE COURSE OF ACTION THAT YOU, YOU'VE INDICATED, BUT JUST FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DIAS FOR, FOR ME, I'M OKAY WITH THIS ONE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY DOES SPEAK TO NEW LEASES AT DISCOUNTED OR SUBSIDIZED RATES.

SO THIS, THIS ABSOLUTELY ENVISIONS THAT THERE WILL BE SUBSIDIZED, UH, UH, UH, LEASES, UH, AND NEW LEASES, UH, AT THAT AMOUNT.

AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME LONG, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE 10 LONG TERM LEASES LIKE THIS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THE NEXT, UH, SEVERAL YEARS.

THAT'S GONNA BE A RECURRENT ISSUE.

UH, BUT, AND, AND WHAT IT SAYS THEN IS WHERE YOU HAVE A A, A NEW LEASE THAT'S DISCOUNTED OR SUBSIDIZED, UH, WHERE APPROPRIATE THERE SHOULD BE, UM, UM, UM, WHERE, WHERE WE HAVE THOSE, THERE SHOULD BE INCORPORATING METRICS TO ENSURE THE COMMUNITY IS GETTING WHAT IT WANTED.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IF WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S SUBSIDIZED, UH, ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY TO RECEIVE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, WE SHOULD ACTUALLY MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE RIGHT, THE, THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE AUDIT SPOKE TO.

AND THEN IT WENT ON TO SAY WHERE APPROPRIATE, IT SHOULD BE A SHORT TERM BASIS TO GIVE A CHANCE TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATION.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDING BENEFITS TO OUR COMMUNITY, HEALTHCARE BENEFITS OR OTHERWISE.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T WANT THAT ORGANIZATION TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE RED HIDE RATHER THAN TAKE THEIR DOLLARS AND PUT IT TOWARD PROVIDING THE HEALTHCARE TO PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT, THAT THAT MIGHT BE VULNERABLE.

SO I SEE THE, YOU KNOW, AS APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW THE MANAGER TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK THEM TO DO THAT CUZ WE WANT THEM TO USE THEIR RESOURCES, UH, ELSEWHERE.

SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE STAFF WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND THINK WE, WE HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A, WITH ANOTHER LEASE.

UH, BUT I THINK FOR ME, UH, AT LEAST THE, THE LANGUAGE ALLOWED FOR THE FLEXIBILITY WE NEED, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT, AND I HAVE A SUGGESTED EDIT FOR YOU THAT I'LL READ HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT, UM, IF THE, IF THE LANGUAGE ISN'T CLEAR CRYSTAL CLEAR, THE FACT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE INTEND IS GREAT, UM, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE 20 YEARS FROM NOW.

AND THAT INTENT, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CAN EASILY, EASILY BE LOST.

UM, SO HOW ABOUT LONG TERM LEASES AND FUTURE LEASES APPROVED BY COUNCIL WITH NON-PROFIT PARTNERS? AND I'M LOOKING AT YOUR VERSION HERE AND IT WOULD BE, I THINK THE FIRST BULLET WHERE YOU TALK WHERE IT SAYS LONG TERM LEASES ALREADY APPROVED BY COUNSEL.

SO AGAIN, IT WOULD BE LONG-TERM LEASES AND FUTURE LEASES APPROVED BY COUNCIL WITH NON-PROFIT PARTNERS.

SO THESE CONSTRAINTS WOULDN'T APPLY TO EXISTING LONG-TERM LEASES AND THE FUTURE LEASES THAT ARE, THAT WE APPROVE SAY, SO THAT, I'M THINKING IT WOULD BE IN YOUR FIRST BULLET OF IT, MAYBE LAW SHOULD HAVE A LOOK AT IT.

AND I KNOW THEY HAVE SCRUBBED THIS LANGUAGE.

UM, BUT FOR ME IT'S, IT'S NOT AS CLEAR AS I THINK WE NEED TO BE FOR, BECAUSE THIS IS A, AN AREA OF, OF, UH, ORDINANCE MAKING, RULE MAKING THAT COULD BE A FOCUS IN THE FUTURE.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REALLY CLEAR.

CAN IT CORRECT CLARIFI COULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN? COULD YOU READ IT AGAIN? SORRY.

OR, OR WE COULD TABLE IT WHILE I, I PUT IT INTO A FORM OF EMOTION, BUT CAN I SAY CLARIFICATION QUESTION BEFORE YOU HANG ON A SECOND.

LET'S, LET'S HEAR, HEAR IT AGAIN AND THEN WE'LL COME TO YOU IN JUST A SECOND.

AND I THINK IT, IT'S IN THE FIRST BULLET IN THE EDIT, THE AMENDMENT THAT THE MAYOR HAS.

SO THAT FIRST BULLET WOULD READ LONG TERM LEASES AND FUTURE LEASES APPROVED BY COUNCIL WITH NON-PROFIT PARTNERS.

CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? ARE YOU TRYING TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION, SAY WE HAVE A LEASE WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND EVENTUALLY THEY CAN'T REEXTEND IT AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PROCESS WHERE WE CAN SAY WE WANNA CONTINUE WITH A LONG TERM LEASE WITH THIS PARTICULAR NONPROFIT.

UM, OR ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU CAN

[03:55:01]

NEVER YOU, THAT WE CAN'T HAVE A PROCESS IF THERE'S A NEW PROPERTY THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING? NO, IT'S, IT'S THE FORMER, I I WORRY THAT WE WOULD NOT, THAT WE WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM HAVING A LONG TERM LEASE WITH OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS THAT I KNOW WE HIGHLY VALUE AND WISH TO.

SO FOR THE EXISTING ONES, OR IF WE WERE TO DECIDE TO ENTER IN ONE IN THE FUTURE BY THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THIS POLICY WOULD NOT PROHIBIT US AS A COUNCIL FROM SAY, ESTABLISHING A NEW LONG TERM LEASE WHEN THE OTHER ONE EXPIRED FOR A LONG TERM TENANT.

SO IF THERE'S A WAY THAT LAW COULD TAKE THAT AND GIVE US CRYSTAL LANGUAGE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROBLEM SHE'S TRYING TO SOLVE.

WHETHER YOU WANNA SOLVE THAT OR NOT.

QUESTION.

THAT'S WHAT I TELL HER.

SO I I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR CONCERN.

COUNCIL MEMBER POOL PRIMARILY BEING AROUND LONG-TERM LEASES AND IT SAYS HERE VERY CLEARLY LONG-TERM LEASES ALREADY APPROVED BY COUNCIL WOULD NOT, THIS POLICY WOULDN'T APPLY TO IT.

AND I, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS, AND OTHER AND FUTURE LONG-TERM LEASES APPLIED, APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, BUT I'M, IF IF IT'S, IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE POLICY SHOULDN'T APPLY TO ANY FUTURE NON-PROFIT LEASES, THAT PRETTY MUCH RENDERS MOOT EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS APPLY TO FUTURE NON-PROFIT LEASES.

SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT LONG-TERM LEASES.

I'M, I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT LONG-TERM LEASES AND FUTURE LEASES TO BY COUNCIL, APPROVED BY COUNCIL TO NON-PROFIT PARTNERS.

AND THE EXAMPLES I'VE GIVEN ARE PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

AND, AND I'VE, AND I'VE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS, BY NO MEANS, I MEAN I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORTIVE OF MAINTAINING THE LEASE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

IT'S EXCLUDED FROM BEING IMPACTED BY THIS BECAUSE IT'S A LONG TERM LEASE.

SO I WONDER MAYOR, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ONE, IF WE COULD LAY THIS, THIS ON THE TABLE, MAYBE MY COLLEAGUE CAN BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO.

BUT I I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT'S POLICY APPLY TO FUTURE NONPROFIT LEASES, CUZ THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO, IS GOING TO BE CLEAR AND FAIR AND TRANSPARENT SO THAT HOPEFULLY AS WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE VACANT PROPERTIES, WE CAN RENT SOME OF THOSE OUT TO NONPROFITS AND THIS POLICY WOULD APPLY.

THERE WOULD BE METRICS THERE WOULD BE CHECKING BACK IN THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS THAT MULTIPLE PLACES COULD APPLY TO.

SO, AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IS THE INTENT AND IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT INTENT SURVIVES TIME BECAUSE IT ISN'T AS CLEARLY EXPLICATE IN THIS LANGUAGE.

SO MY STAFF IS DRAWING UP A MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD ALLOW FUTURE COUNCILS TO APPROVE LONG-TERM LEASES WITH NONPROFITS SO THAT WE DON'T LOSE LET'S GO AHEAD, LET'S GO AHEAD AND LAY THIS ONE ON THE TABLE.

THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE THAT, THANKS.

UH, DO WE WANNA DO THE A ABC, WE'RE GONNA LOSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE I THINK INVOLVED WITH THE AADC, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A MINUTE BEFORE FOUR.

LET'S SEE IF THAT'S GONNA BE EASY OR HARD.

DO YOU WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION? SURE, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF

[41. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to establish certain procedural policies to enhance the collaboration between the City and the Austin Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) and directing the City Manager to enter into negotiations with AEDC to amend the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the AEDC related to the potential redevelopment of the following City-owned properties: 505 Barton Springs Road (One Texas Center), 124 W. 8th Street, 3002 Guadalupe, and 411 Chicon. (Part 1 of 3) ]

THAT ITEM.

UH, AND THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 36.

NO, IT'S NOT MARRIED.

UM, IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS ITEM? 41 MAYOR PROTE SECONDS THE DISCUSSION AS I PULL.

THEY'RE QUICKLY APPROACHING THE REDEVELOPMENT STAGE.

UM, THE A E D C RESOLUTION CONTINUES TO PRESENT ISSUES FOR ME.

I LAID OUT THOSE CONCERNS, UM, IN QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I LOOKED AT THE RESPONSES AND BASED ON THE RESPONSES, I CAN'T SUPPORT ITEM 41.

ONE ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE PARCELS IN MY DISTRICT THAT DES THAT DESERVE ATTENTION.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL CAMPUS, WHICH IS OFF OF BURN ROAD IN THE ROSEDALE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S IN THE HEART OF CENTRAL AUSTIN.

NOW, WHILE A E D C WILL CERTAINLY INCLUDE THOSE PARCELS IN THEIR ANNUAL REPORT, I DON'T WANNA LOSE ON IT.

AND SO TO PRESERVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS PARCEL QUICKLY, I PREFER THE MAYOR'S MOTION ON 36 TO STAND AS THE PATHWAY TO WORKING CLOSER WITH THE A E D C IN GENERAL.

SO MAYOR, I SUPPORT YOUR SUBSTITUTE OR AMENDED VERSION, UM, IN, IN, UH, UH, OVER, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IN ITEM 41, JUST TALKING ABOUT 36.

WE'RE ON 42 AND WE DON'T OWN THE RESIDENCE SCHOOL.

DO YOU WANNA ADDRESS IT? OKAY,

[04:00:02]

I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE THEY'RE A KITCHEN.

I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING 36 VERSUS, UM, 41.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING COUNCIL MEMBER POOL THAT WE NOT PASS 41 AND WE PASS 36 INSTEAD? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? I THINK THAT THE MAY I THINK THAT THE MAYOR'S, UH, AMENDMENT IS ON 36, SO YES, NO ON 41 MAYOR.

CAN I, CAN I SPEAK? SO I THINK, I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT KE PO IS SAYING IS THAT SHE WOULD PREFER THE SUBSTITUTE THAT I HAD, THAT I HAD PASSED AROUND, THAT SOMEBODY HAS PUT IN BACK UP TO 36 RIGHT.

AS A WAY TO HANDLE THE A E D C.

AND YES, IT HAS BEEN CONFUSING.

UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT LET ME JUST RESPOND.

THE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE MENTION THE, I I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, BUT I DO NOT READ, UH, THIS, UH, ITEM 41 AS, UH, PICKING, UH, PROPERTIES TO PRIORITIZE.

THESE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY, UM, PROPERTIES THAT A AI A E D C IS, UM, LOOKING AT.

SO IT'S JUST ACKNOWLEDGING A LIST THAT A E D C HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWING.

IT'S NOT STATING, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO STATE ANY KIND OF PREFERENCE.

SO IF THERE'S CONCERN THAT IT'S STATING THE PREFERENCE, THEN PERHAPS THAT LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT HERE.

THIS IS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT DIRECTED TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS ON ILAS, UM, OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES.

THESE ARE, THIS IS ALREADY AN ACTION THAT THEY'RE INVOLVED IN, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.

IT IS, IT IS NOT SIGNALING OUT PROPERTIES TO TAKE PRECEDENTS OVER OTHER PROPERTIES.

SO, OR CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.

AND IF IT'S READING THAT WAY, THEN, THEN PERHAPS IT COULD BE AMENDED.

THEY'RE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK THAT THE MAYOR'S ITEM 36 GETS TO THAT MORE CLEARLY THAN, UM, ITEM 41.

SO I, I'M PUTTING MY SUPPORT ON ITEM 36 RATHER THAN 41.

NO, WE DON'T, THAT'S NOT WHAT, OKAY.

SO NOW THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, I'M GONNA PROPOSE WE PUT THAT ONE ON THE TABLE TOO AND WE GO TO THE SPEAKERS ON US AND ENERGY TO SEE IF THERE'S A, CAN I GO AHEAD.

MI I, I JUST NEED TO ADDRESS THAT'S FINE.

UM, SOME CONFUSION THAT APPEARS TO HAVE ARISEN.

SO THE FIRST VERSION OF 36 IS THE ITEM THAT APPEARED ON OUR AGENDA, MULTIPLE MEETINGS.

IT HAS BEEN BROKEN DOWN INTO A SERIES OF VERY SPECIFIC TARGETED RESOLUTIONS.

UM, REALLY PROMPTED BY, INSPIRED BY A COMMENT THE MAYOR MADE THAT THERE WERE TOO MANY THINGS IN ONE.

THERE IS A POSTED VERSION TWO OF 36, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT IS LEFT.

BUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PIECE IS NOW IN 41, AND IT'S VERY FOCUSED ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PIECE IS VERY FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE CARVED OUT A ROLE FOR THE EDC AND THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, WHICH IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

AND IT, AND IT IS, THOSE FOUR PROJECTS ARE IDENTIFIED BECAUSE AS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SAID, THEY ARE ALL, ALL, UM, CITY OWN TRACKS.

SOME OF WHICH, UH, MAYOR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARBOR MEDICINE POINTED OUT, MAYOR PROTE COLE HAD BROUGHT ONE OF THEM FORWARD IN 2014.

SO THESE ARE FOUR PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING FOR A LONG TIME FOR 11 CHICON AND THREE OTHER PROPERTIES.

I MEAN, I SHARE WITH YOU, UH, AN INTEREST IN SEEING ROSEDALE SCHOOL, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNDER OUR CONTROL.

THAT'S, THAT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

THESE ARE FOR CITY OWN TRACKS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT REDEVELOPING FOR A LONG TIME.

SO IT IS REALLY APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND SEE IF, IF THESE ARE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN TAKE, TAKE UP, UM, IF THERE ARE, ARE OTHER PROJECTS THAT BUBBLE UP THAT ARE CITY OWN PROPERTIES, CERTAINLY THOSE COULD BE DISCUSSED WITH THE EDC.

THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE OTHER PROJECTS FROM COMING FORWARD, BUT, BUT IT IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO, TO WORK WITH THEM.

AND AGAIN, AS OUR PRESENTATION SUGGESTED ON TUESDAY, THE STAFF HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THAT WORK OF WORKING WITH LOOKING TO THE A A E D C, UM, AS A POTENTIAL PARTNER ON ALL FOUR OF THOSE.

YOU ALSO WANT TO COMMENT CASA POOL, UM, JUST WITH REGARD TO THE, THE PARCELS THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY A E D C THAT WERE, UM, HIGHLIGHTED IN, IN THE ORIGINAL, UM, PIECE THAT SHE BROUGHT COUNCIL MEMBER BETO, IT DID HIGHLIGHT FOR TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHERS.

AND WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH AND, AND SAY WHETHER THERE WAS SOMETHING IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INCLUDED.

SO THAT ACTUAL SELECTION PROCESS IS MISSING.

AND SO I, THAT

[04:05:01]

HAS ALWAYS FORMED THE BASIS OF, OF MY, PART OF MY OBJECTION TO THAT APPROACH, MAYOR.

UM, LIKE THE OTHER ONE, I'M HAPPY FOR THERE TO BE LANGUAGE ADDED THAT SUGGESTS, I MEAN, IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE EXCLUSIVE.

THE, THE AADC IS ALREADY ENGAGED WORKING, UM, ON A PROPERTY ON EAST 11TH STREET ON VARIOUS OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY.

AND SO THIS IS, THIS IS MEANT TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE FOUR BECAUSE THEY, THEY ARE PENDING AND THEY'VE, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN AWAITING ACTION NOW FOR, FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

UM, BUT CERTAINLY I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT IS EXCLUSIVE TO THOSE.

UM, IT'S SIMPLY BRINGING THOSE TO THE ATTENTION.

AND, AND IMPORTANTLY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST, THERE ARE TWO DIRECTIVES.

THE FIRST ONE IS TO DIRECT OUR STAFF TO PARTNER WITH THE A E D C ON SALES DEVELOPMENT, OTHER KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON WE SET IT UP.

WE SET IT UP TO, TO DO THESE KINDS OF, OF REAL ESTATE DEALS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PROCESS SUPPORTS THAT PARTNERSHIP FROM THE BEGINNING SO THAT WE CAN GET VALUE FROM THAT, FROM THAT, UM, ENTITY THAT WE ALL SET UP.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THIS DOES.

IT, IT MAKES SURE THAT IT IS, UM, THAT THE AADC IS EMBEDDED WITHIN OUR PROCESS AND IT HAD ASKED THE MANAGER TO PARTICULARLY NEGOTIATE AROUND THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES WITH THE AADC.

AND I WOULD WELCOME MAYOR IF, IF WE MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE THEM A HEADS UP, CUZ I THINK THEY'RE UPSTAIRS.

I WOULD WELCOME THE AAD C'S PARTICIPATION ON THIS IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL FOREZ, THANK YOU.

UM, AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MOTO, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST.

UM, THE POINTS THAT COMES FROM REUL IS RAISING IS CONCERNING TO ME ON THIS ITEM.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.

SO THE STAFF HERE NOW OR WE WANNA BRING DOWN ADC STAFF TO ALSO TALK ABOUT IT.

OKAY, MAYOR, COULD I, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, CAN I SAY ONE OF THE THINGS COME ON DOWN, THE STAFF WOULD COME ON DOWN.

CAN KIDS, UM, I I JUST WANNA POINT, UH, MY COLLEAGUES TO SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S IN, IN THAT BULLET THAT SEEMS TO BE CAUSING SOME CONCERN.

IT SAYS, UM, ARE IN PROCESS, IT'S GIVING EXAMPLES OR PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN SUCH AS, OR IN PROCESS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION INCLUDING.

SO IT IS SIMPLY GIVING THOSE FOUR AS EXAMPLES THAT WERE IN PROCESS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION.

IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE EXCLUSIVE LANGUAGE AT ALL, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ENGAGING IN ANY KIND OF SELECTION PROCESS.

IT'S JUST PROVIDING EXAMPLES.

I THAT, IF YOU WOULD.

AND I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION TO ASK WOULD BE, I THINK WE HAD GOTTEN A MEMO FROM ADC ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO REVIEWS WITHOUT FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO DO REVIEWS.

SO IF YOU COULD ALSO ASK ABOUT TWO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING THOSE QUESTIONS? SO THERE'S ONE ABOUT WHETHER THE CALLING OUT OF OF THESE FOUR PROPERTIES WOULD MEAN WOULD BE EXCLUSIVE OF ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.

AND THEN THE OTHER IS, UM, KIND OF WHAT YOUR PROCESS HAS BEEN WITH THE STAFF IN TERMS OF ABILITY TO TAKE THOSE ON FINANCIALLY.

UM, GIVING THIS DIRECTION WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STAFF CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED.

SO I THINK STARTING BACK WITH, UM, THE FOUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE LISTED, WE WOULD HAVE TO, UM, ENTER INTO ADDENDUMS JUST LIKE WE'VE DONE WITH EAST 11TH AND OUR OTHERS.

SO WE HAVE NEGOTIATED SIX ADDENDUMS TO OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

SO AS, AS COUNCIL MEMBER BE TOVO MENTIONED, WE HAVE STARTED TO, THROUGH OUR CULTURAL TRUST PROCESS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL PROPERTIES.

WE'RE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF, UM, WITH, UH, REAL ESTATE ON A EVERY OTHER WEEK BASIS LOOKING AT AND ASSESSING.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES.

SO SOME OF THOSE, UM, PROPERTIES THAT YOU SEE, THE FOUR THAT ARE LISTED, NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED ADDENDUMS THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE, UM, ENTERED INTO.

SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW THOSE FOUR WERE SELECTED, AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN YEARS OF CONVERSATION LEADING UP TO, AND SO THE ONLY ONE THAT I THINK, UM, WELL I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK TO THE, TO THE FOUR, BUT NONE OF THE FOUR HAVE, ARE IN MY PURVIEW, UM, FOR THE AUSTIN DC TODAY.

I, I THINK DOES THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTION? AND, AND IF THIS PASSES, ARE THOSE PROPERTIES PROPERTIES, UM, THAT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH OUR STAFF ABOUT? I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION KNOWING THAT YOU ALREADY ARE, BUT YEAH, AND IN PARTNERSHIP, THE, THE, TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN HAVING, BUT I THINK THAT THIS HELPS.

UM, I MEAN WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT LAND TO CONVEY TO THE AUSTIN EDC AND I THINK THAT,

[04:10:01]

QUESTIONS, DO YOU ANYBODY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? KITCHEN? I, I THINK THE OTHER, UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE EXAMPLES BECAUSE THEY'RE, UH, THEY'RE PROPERTIES THAT WE'VE WORKED ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

BUT, UM, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE EXCLUSIVE, RIGHT? I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE MENTIONING THESE FOUR HERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU, THERE COULDN'T BE, SO IF COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS PROPERTIES THAT SHE'S CONCERNED ABOUT, WE COULD ADD THEM, YOU KNOW, TO THIS RESOLUTION.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR YEARS TO TRY TO, UM, BETTER UTILIZE PROPERTIES.

SO HOW DO WE ENTER IN, WE WOULD ONLY BE ENGAGED WHEN THERE'S THE BENEFIT OF, OF UTILIZING THE AUSTIN EDC, WHETHER THAT'S NEW MAC, NEW MARKET TAX CREDITS, PHILANTHROPY, HISTORIC TAX CREDITS, THAT, THAT THOSE ARE THE BENEFITS THAT I BELIEVE THAT TO HELP DEVELOP SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.

WHAT, WHAT WE WERE DESIGNED, UM, TO DO.

YES, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE FUENTES, I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS CONCERNS AND I'M JUST A LITTLE LEERY ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS, UM, EASED UP A LITTLE BIT.

SO I'M, I'M JUST A BIT LEERY OF APPROVING SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME PRETTY MAJOR DETAILS WE'RE NOT SURE THAT WE'VE WORKED OUT QUITE YET.

DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA, BUT JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT BEING, UM, HASTY.

COULD YOU ARTICULATE, MAYOR, COULD I ASK COUNCIL MEMBER S OR COUNCIL MEMBER POOL TO ARTICULATE WHAT THOSE ARE? I THINK, UM, DIRECTOR ALVEREZ ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS EXCLUSIVE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.

COULD YOU ARTICULATE THE CONCERNS AND ALLOW, UM, DIRECTOR ALVEREZ TO RESPOND TO THEM? YOU HAD MENTIONED ROSEDALE SCHOOL AND THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE, THE, UM, PROPERTIES MENTIONED HERE, AND I THINK THAT ONE'S BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT I, I REALLY, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, I HOPE THAT WE CAN BE REALLY SPECIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER LLS, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL ABOUT WHAT THESE ARE SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM.

WELL ACTUALLY PART OF THE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE I HAVE NOT DRAFTED UP A LIST OF SELECTED PROPERTIES THAT I WOULD LIKE A E D C TO CONSIDER OTHER THAN THAT BROAD ONE THAT WE HAD A COUPLE YEARS AGO BECAUSE THE PROCESS WASN'T IN PLACE.

IT CAME TO US WITH SELECTED PROPERTIES ALREADY ON IT TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHERS.

I, I, UH, QUESTION THAT A E D C HAS THE FUNDING AND THE STAFFING AND THE STAFFING EXPERTISE TO DO A, A LARGER EFFORT THAN WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY AND, UH, ENGAGED ON.

UM, AND SO I, I THINK THAT THE INTENTION, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE HEADED WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY AND THIS PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT IS YET AT A MATURITY RATE IS, IS BEING A DEPARTMENT AND IN AN OFFICE.

IT'S ONLY BEEN, WHAT, TWO YEARS IF THAT, SINCE WE CREATED A E D C, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE READY FOR THIS FULL BLOWN, UH, PROCESS.

AND SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY THE SUM TOTAL OF, OF MY DEEPLY HELD SINCERE OBJECTIONS TO THIS PIECE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE READY.

I CAN, I CAN, IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT.

I I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND YOU'RE CORRECT.

WE WERE, THIS COUNCIL DID JUST CREATE US, UM, TWO YEARS AGO AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WE COULD, UM, ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR PARTNERS ON THE CITY STAFF.

UM, AT THIS POINT, WE ARE VERY DEPENDENT ON THE CITY THAT, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME WE'LL SHIFT, BUT WE WOULD, WE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF THE WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN ON EAST 11TH.

UM, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK THE, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, OF LAND THAT WE'RE WORKING ON CURRENTLY WORKING WITH OUR, UM, HOUSING PARTNERS THERE, UM, OUR BOARD MEMBERS.

I MEAN, SO IT, IT IS IN STEP WITH WHAT WE'RE, I MEAN, I WOULD SEE THESE THE SAME, BUT I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN TERMS OF BEING A NEW ORGANIZATION.

I WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE RUNWAY OF TIME IN WORKING WITH E D D AND CITY FINANCIAL OFFICE AND ALL OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ORDER TO KINDA GET YOUR FEET UNDER YOU AND THEN YOU CAN PROVE UP THAT YOU ARE READY FOR A LARGER, FULLER BLOWN, UH, TO TAKE LITERALLY TO TAKE THE LEAD, WHICH IS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S INITIATIVE IS IMAGINING.

AND, AND SO AS A DIRECTION THAT, THAT IS AN AIM AND A GOAL AND A PLACE THAT YOU WANNA GET TO.

I, I THINK IT'S, WELL, IT'S VERY WORTHY AND QUITE VALUABLE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE NOW.

AND I, I AM HESITATING, I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED AND HESITATING OVER AND RELUCTANT TO AUTHORIZE Y'ALL TO TAKE THE LEAD ON SOMETHING WHERE THERE, THERE'S JUST SIMPLY NOT YET PREPARED.

MAYOR, YOU WILL BE

[04:15:01]

SOON A SUGGEST.

I FEEL CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL BE AGREED.

MAYOR, COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION? YES.

CA I THINK THIS IS GONNA REQUIRE MORE CONVERSATION.

UM, I'M, I'M CONCERNED THE REASON I SUPPORT THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK IF WE DON'T, WE'RE SLOWING DOWN A E D C.

THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF BARRIERS PLACED IN FRONT OF A E D C AND THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THIS WAS TO SPEED UP THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND.

SO I'M HEARING CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

SO BECAUSE OF OUR TIMELINE AND WANTING TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE UP AUSTIN ENERGY AT FOUR, I SUGGEST, MAYOR THAT WE PUT THIS ONE ASIDE ALSO AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO THAT WE HAVE.

UM, BECAUSE, UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE, I LIKE TO HAVE A LOT MORE CONVERSATION BEFORE WE SAY THAT WE DON'T WANNA SUPPORT A E D C.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK THIS IS ABOUT SUPPORTING OR NOT SUPPORTING, TO BE CLEAR.

I DIDN'T, MY, MY, I DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY.

SUPPORT A, THE REST OF THE SENTENCE IS SUPPORT A E D C IN THEIR ABILITY TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY AND THEIR ABILITY TO, TO WORK MORE NIMBLY, UM, WITH THE CITY, WHICH IS WHAT, WHICH IS THE REASON THAT WE CREATED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND THEY HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERING BARRIERS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO MOVE QUICKLY.

AND I THINK, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, THIS IS HER RESOLUTION, BUT I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR ORIGINAL PURPOSE BEHIND ADC A E D C IS TO ALLOW THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO, TO WORK MORE NIMBLY.

AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING IN A LOT OF WAYS.

HAS, AND I CAN RESPECT THAT.

I THINK, I THINK WE ALL WANT TO SEE A E D C'S SUCCESS.

, AND I KNOW WE'VE MET MULTIPLE TIMES I WAS HERE WHEN WE CREATED THE A E D C AND I, YOU KNOW, FULLY TRUST YOU AND YOUR TEAM'S CAPABILITIES AND THE, THE STAFF ADVISORS THAT HELP WITH IT AS WELL.

I JUST THINK WE'RE HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE.

BUT BY NO MEANS IS ANYONE SAYING THAT WE DON'T ALL WANT YOU TO SUCCEED VERY MUCH.

I WILL SAY I HAVE FELT THE SUPPORT FROM, FROM COUNSEL, FROM STAFF, UM, COMMUNITY ALL AROUND SO THAT I DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO IS THIS IN THE SAME CATEGORIES? THE OTHER ONES THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THIS BREAK AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US COME UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT BOTH ADDRESSES THE, THE, THE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN JUMP ON THESE PROPERTIES IF YOU WANT TO, BUT ALSO MAKES REALLY CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUMP ON ANYTHING.

UH, AND THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AT THE THRESHOLD PLACE TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE READY TO AND, AND, AND, AND WANT TO PICK UP.

AND IF SO, THEN, THEN THE STAFF IS, IS NEEDS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT.

WHICH IS WHAT I THINK IS THE, THE, THE INTENT.

MOVE IF WE, WE CAN TO THE CALL FOR, FOR SPEAKERS ON AUSTIN ENERGY.

ONE LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY ON TWO OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE RELATED TO CULTURAL TRUST, UM, WE HAVE SET ASIDE SOME OF THE FEASIBILITY DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE.

SO TWO OF THOSE SITES WE DO HAVE JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING ON EAST 11TH, WHERE WE'RE DOING A, UM, PRE-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE DONE SO THAT THERE IS, THERE IS SOME DOLLARS SET ASIDE FOR THAT THROUGH THE CULTURAL TRUST AND THAT'S FOR TWO OF TWO OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

UM, ANOTHER ONE WE WOULD, WE WOULD, WE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO WORK WITH THE UM, AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.

SO THERE, AS COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO SAID, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE FOUR PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE WORKS.

WE MEET EVERY OTHER WEEK WITH UM, REAL ESTATE AND THE SFG TEAM.

SO THOSE CONVERSATIONS WOULD CONTINUE.

BUT, SO MAYBE DURING THIS BREAK IT'S ALSO GOOD TO TALK TO COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA OFFICE CUZ IT'S A PERCEPTION THAT, THAT YOU'RE RUNNING INTO POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS OR THAT THERE'S SOME BARRIERS AS SHE'S TRYING TO CLEAR.

YOU'RE ALSO SAYING YOU'RE ALREADY INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION.

SO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO RECOGNIZE, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING NOW, BUT IF THERE ARE BARRIERS OR ROADBLOCKS SO THAT WE CAN AS A YEAH, AND IF I COULD ADDRESS THE ROADBLOCKS VERY BRIEFLY, BASICALLY THE ROADBLOCKS AT OUR INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT.

I'VE HAD TALKS WITH MY, UM, BOARD AND, UM, ACM GONZALEZ AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS WELL, WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE IN OUR INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT TO, IT'S, IT'S NOT A, THE BARRIERS ARE WITHIN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WITHIN OUR INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED.

AND SO I'VE ACTUALLY JUST THIS MORNING WITH MY BOARD WAS DISCUSSING, UM, POSSIBLY SENDING A MEMO TO THE COUNCIL JUST TO ADDRESS, IT'S MOSTLY SECTION SEVEN IN OUR INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO REAL ESTATE.

UM, SO THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THOSE BARRIERS AS WELL.

SO MAYBE KATHY, THERE'S A, CAN I GO AHEAD.

CAN I JUST CLOSE OUT THE CONVERSATION BY, UM, I'M HAPPY TO, I MEAN, UH, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING AND I'VE BEEN SHARING THE DRAFT, BUT I WOULD WELCOME, UM, ANY SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THESE FOUR PROJECTS ARE NOT TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER PROJECTS.

AS YOU POINTED OUT, YOU ARE ALREADY, YOU ALREADY HAVE DOLLARS SET ASIDE FOR TWO OF THE FOUR.

UM, AND IN THE PRESENTATION WE TALKED ABOUT ON TUESDAY, YOU'RE ALREADY IN PARTNERSHIP.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS REALLY AFFIRMING, AFFIRMING, UM, THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION AND NEGOTIATION

[04:20:01]

AROUND THOSE.

AND THEN AGAIN, THE OTHER DIRECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT, UH, WHEN THE STAFF IS, WHEN THE CITY IS UNDERTAKING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES, THAT THEY WILL REACH OUT AND TALK WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR INTEREST LEVEL.

IS THAT SOMETHING, GENERALLY, YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT CONCERNS YOU OR DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS SUPPORTS, I HATE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS SUPPORTS YOUR WORK AND YOUR, AND YOUR MISSION? I FEEL IT DOES SUPPORT OUR WORK.

I, I, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE LEAD PART IS WHAT'S CONCERNING TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF JUST CHANGING THAT WORD TO PARTNER, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING, IF THAT SOLVES PART OF THE, THE PROBLEM.

I GUESS PART OF THE CONCERN WE CAN ADDRESS IT DURING THE BREAK IS THAT IF WE COULD BE A LITTLE CLEARER ABOUT WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE SO THAT WE'D BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE WHAT'S MISSING.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS ONE ON THE TABLE TWO, UH, 43, 44 AND 41 PUT ON THE TABLE.

LET'S

[2. Authorize reimbursement of costs to Waller Creek Owner, LLC, for the purchase and installation of the service pipe connection required to interconnect the Waller building to the Austin Energy downtown district cooling system in an amount not to exceed $2,424,138]

HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP? IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 27.

SO LET'S HAVE THE SPEAKERS.

I DON'T REMEMBER, WE SAID HOW MUCH TIME EACH ONE HAS.

UH, IT WAS LIKE TWO MINUTES.

I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID TO AN HOUR.

SO IF YOU WOULD CALL THE AUSTIN ENERGY SPEAKERS, TWO MINUTES OF SPEAKER.

STARTING WITH THE REMOTE SPEAKERS.

THE FIRST IS AMBER MILLS.

I, I DON'T THINK, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS AMBER MILLS.

I'M AN ADVOCACY ORGANIZER AT MOVE TEXAS AND A DISTRICT THREE RESIDENT WITH THE COST OF LIVING AND RENT, RENT CRISIS.

HAVING SKYROCKETED OVER THE PAST YEAR.

YOUNG AUSTINITE, INCLUDING STUDENTS AND WORKING FAMILIES, ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET, LET ALONE HAVING A CHANCE TO SAVE UP FOR THEIR FUTURE.

RAISING THE BASE RATE AND IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED CARE STRUCTURE IS NOT A SMALL DECISION, ESPECIALLY AS THE IMPACT WILL BE MOST FELT BY LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

WHILE LARGER, HIGH ENERGY FACING CUSTOMERS COULD SEE THEIR BILLS LOWERED.

VOTING CAPACITYS RATE INCREASE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND THREATENS TO THESE GOALS.

AS LAID OUT IN THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVING EQUITY, WE BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL SHOULD BE WORKING MORE CLOSELY WITH RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND RECEIVE THEIR INPUT ON MEASURES TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY, LIKE ADDRESSING THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AND EXPANDING CLEAN ENERGY RATHER THAN BURDENING WORKING, WORKING PEOPLE AND LOW INCOME STUDENTS ALIKE.

WITH YET ANOTHER RATE, RATE INCREASE, I ASK THAT YOU VOTE NOTED THIS AND ANY OTHER AUSTIN ENERGY RATE INCREASE THAT UNFAIRLY TARGETS WORKING FAMILIES AND YOUNG PEOPLE.

WILSON STRAIN.

HI, THIS IS WILSON STRAIN.

UH, I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS A PUBLIC UTILITY.

OUR PUBLIC UTILITY SHOULD BE PROTECTING OUR LOW INCOME WORKING CLASS AND ENERGY EFFICIENT CUSTOMERS, NOT TARGETING THEM.

THE MOST HEAVILY WITH RATE INCREASES ADDING UP TO HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR, AUSTIN'S LOWEST ENERGY WILL BE HIT ARE WORST BY THESE RATE HEIGHTS.

WHILE THE HIGHEST ENERGY WHO CAN ALREADY AFFORD TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE WILL ACTUALLY SEE THEIR BILLS LOWER.

I LIVE ON RIVERSIDE IN DISTRICT THREE, AND I'M A STUDENT AT UT AUSTIN.

I ACTUALLY JUST FINISHED ONE OF MY FINAL EXAMS AND THAT IS WHY I COULDN'T BE THERE IN PERSON TO GIVE MY COMMENT.

LIVING IN AUSTIN IS ALREADY SO EXPENSIVE, AND IT IS, AND IT IS.

RATE INCREASES LIKE THESE THAT WILL MAKE MY LIVING SITUATION AND MY NEIGHBORS ENTIRELY UNMANAGEABLE.

AS A RESIDENT OF AUSTIN, I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON A BASE RATE INCREASE OF ANY SIZE THAT WILL IMPACT AUSTIN'S WORKING FAMILIES, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.

INSTEAD, I STAND WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY LABOR AND CLIMATE GROUPS CALLING ON AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE PEOPLE'S UTILITY PLATFORM AND HOLD AUSTIN ENERGY ACCOUNTABLE TO PROVIDING AFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY TO WORKING PEOPLE, RESPECTING THEIR UTILITY WORKERS, AND EXPANDING CLEAN ENERGY ACCESS FOR WORKING FAMILIES TO KEEP OUR GRID RELIABLE AND OUR BILLS LOW.

THAT WAS ALL THE REMOTE SPEAKERS WE HAD CALL IN.

I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO IN PERSON.

I'LL, GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT AND THAT WE CAN SEE.

FIRST SPEAKER, SUSAN ALMANZA, AND THEN KAPA WHITE.

[04:25:02]

MY NAME IS SUSAN MANZA AND I'M WITH PODER.

UH, AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T REALIZE HOW, HOW IMPACTFUL THE RAISE IS BECAUSE ON YOUR SALARIES, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU, UH, HOW A 15 OR $25 INCREASES.

SO WHAT I BROUGHT TODAY IS TO SHOW YOU, UH, WHAT WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING FOR $15.

AND I HAVE THE RECEIPT FROM HEB.

WHAT YOU CAN FEED A FAMILY OF FOUR FOR ONE WHOLE WEE.

SO I HAVE HERE SPAGHETTI, SPAGHETTI SAUCE, TOMATO SAUCE, EO, WHAT YOU CALL VERMICELLI FOUR PACKS, A BAG OF RICE, A BAG OF BEANS, OATMEAL, A STACK OF CORN TORTILLAS, AND THEN A BAG OF POTATOES.

THIS WHOLE GROCERIES HERE WAS $15 AND 30 CENTS.

IF YOU'RE PART OF THE POOR AND THE WORKING POOR, THIS WILL FEED A FAMILY OF FOUR FOR A WEEK.

SO THAT'S, I'M, I'M, I'M BRINGING THIS FORWARD SO THAT YOU WILL REALIZE YOUR SALARY, YOU CAN COMPENSATE AND YOU WON'T NOTICE A DIFFERENCE FROM INCREASING.

BUT FOR THE POOR AND THE WORKING POOR, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS.

ONE WEEK OF GROCERIES FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR IS GONE.

SO THAT'S WHY I WANNA DEMONSTRATE TO YOU SO YOU WILL KNOW IF YOU DIDN'T WORK, IF YOU DIDN'T GROW UP POOR AND PART OF THE WORKING POOR, YOU WILL HAVE NO IDEA OF THE STRUGGLE THAT PEOPLE HAVE EVERY DAY.

SO I'M HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S AN INJUSTICE.

THIS RATE HIKE IS AN INJUSTICE TO THE POOR AND TO THE WORKING POOR.

AND IT'S TIME THAT YOU NEED TO STOP THAT.

YOU NEED TO STOP, THAT YOU NEED TO FREEZE YOUR SALARIES.

MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUGGLE THAT PEOPLE HAVE.

YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS THE MOST UNAFFORDABLE CITY TO LIVE IN, AND WHEN WE HAD A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OF COLOR FORCED TO LIVE EAST THE 35.

SO PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS RATE HIKE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, YOU, DONNA, AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE IT.

THERE'S, THERE'S, I UNDERSTAND.

HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

YOU WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

IT JUST BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME.

JUST RELAX.

LET'S FIND OUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE.

COME BACK UP.

WE, WHO DO WE STATEMENT TO THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

SHE, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PERSON SPEAKING THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD BE LISTENING.

CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I WANNA APOLOGIZE AND I WOULD LIKE TO, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE MAYOR, TO ASK MS. AMANZA TO COME BACK UP AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING STEPPED OFF.

THAT WOULD FINE.

AND MAYOR, I, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE.

I NEEDED A BREAK TO GO TO THE BATHROOM AND I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS LISTENING REMOTELY.

MS. OS, WHY DON'T YOU COME ON BACK UP.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, ROY, WE EVERYONE HERE FOR, UH, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A CORN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AND SO WHAT I HAD DEMONSTRATED IS THAT FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, YOU COULD FEED A WHOLE, A WHOLE THAT FAMILY FOR ONE WEEK.

THESE GROCERIES HERE COST ME AND I HAVE THE RECEIPT, $15 AND 30 CENTS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS ON A SALARY.

YOU MIGHT NOT THINK THAT'S A LOT, BUT FOR THE POOR AND THE WORKING POOR WOULD ADVISE.

HERE'S SPAGHETTI, SPAGHETTI SAUCE, TOMATO SAUCE, FOUR BOXES OF FEL, WHAT YOU CALL VERMICELLI, A BAG OF RICE, A BAG OF BEANS, TOMATO SAUCE, A BAG OF CORN TORTILLAS, OATMEAL FOR THE FAMILY, AND A BAG OF POTATOES.

THIS, THIS IS A WHOLE LOT.

THIS IS WHEN YOU RAISE THAT HIKE, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE TAKING THIS FOOD, YOU'RE TAKING IT OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A FAMILY FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK TO FEED.

AND SO WE'RE ASKING YOU NOT TO RAISE THE RATE HIKE AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT THE POOR AND THE WORKING POOR HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO WHEN YOU CONTINUE WITH THESE RATE HIKES.

KABA WHITE AND THEN PAUL ROBBINS.

[04:30:01]

THIS ON? OKAY, THANKS.

KAVA WHITE.

I WORK FOR PUBLIC CITIZENS TEXAS OFFICE HERE.

UM, I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD FROM US A BIT.

UM, I, I FIRST OF ALL JUST WANNA THANK SUSANNA FOR THE POINT THAT SHE'S MAKING.

I THINK THAT IT IS REALLY THE POINT THAT ALL OF US AS CONSUMER ADVOCATES HAVE HAD IN OUR, IN OUR HEADS AND IN OUR HEARTS AS WE ARE TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR RATE DESIGN THAT IS FAIR AND ALIGNS WITH THE POLICY PRIORITIES THAT THIS COUNCIL, I, I THINK, SHARES WITH A LOT OF US.

AND SO FIRST OF ALL, I, WE, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM A LOT OF, UH, PARTICIPANTS IN THE RATE CASE.

WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD WAIT AND NOT VOTE TODAY.

A LOT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHARED THIS WEEK.

THERE ARE, I THINK, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING.

SO WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL WEEK AND GET THIS RIGHT.

UM, SECONDLY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE RATE DESIGN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT REVENUE INCREASE YOU'LL DECIDE IS APPROPRIATE, I URGE YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT RATE DESIGN IS STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE FIXED FEE MORE THAN THE $2 THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE TO DO THAT.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS SCENARIOS THAT ALLOW FOR THAT TO HAPPEN AND THAT YOU ASK FOR THE COST IMPACT, THE BILL IMPACT FOR THE VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AS THEY MOVE UP THOSE TIERS.

BECAUSE WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THAT MOST OF THE SCENARIOS BEING SHARED WITH YOU STILL RESULT IN A DECREASE FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING THE MOST ENERGY WHILE THOSE WHO ARE USING THE LEAST ENERGY BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO CUT BACK IN ORDER TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA GET SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN ALL OF THESE SCENARIOS THAT YOU'RE SEEING.

SO PLEASE ASK FOR THAT DETAILED INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS.

UM, BUT I'M NOT SEEING THAT AS A FOCUS OF THE PRESENT PRESENTATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE GETTING.

SO, UM, AND, AND I GUESS THE OTHER THING IS THAT A LOT OF THE SCENARIOS, I'LL WRAP UP HERE, THAT Y'ALL ARE GETTING RESPONSES BACK TO.

THE COST ALLOCATION BETWEEN CLASSES VARIES, UH, FROM WHAT THE JOINT CONSUMERS HAVE ADVOCATED FOR.

THAT IS A BROAD COALITION AND I URGE YOU TO LOOK AT THAT COST ALLOCATION BETWEEN CLASSES TO GUIDE YOU.

CITY COUNCIL HAS MADE COMMITMENTS AND CLAIMS OVER AND OVER TO FIGHT FOR CLIMATE EQUITY.

PAUL ROBBINS AND THEN ADRIAN MACIAS, ADRIAN MACIAS, AND THEN CELINE RENDON.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS ADRIAN MACIAS.

I'M WITH PODS, YOUNG SCHOLARS FOR JUSTICE.

PLEASE WON'T KNOW ON ALL AUSTIN ENERGY RATE INCREASES.

THESE INCREASES TARGET LOW INCOME WORKERS AND ENERGY AND FISH AND CONSUMERS.

THE COST OF LIVING IN AUSTIN HAS SKYROCKETED OVER THE PAST YEARS.

SEEN HOW HOWEVER, RENT PRICES HAVE DOUBLED JUST JUST LAST YEAR.

AUSTIN WORKING FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE MEETS END.

BUT NOW WITH THE RATE INCREASING FOR ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY, FAMILIES ARE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS ON THE OTHER HOUSEHOLD NECESSITIES LIKE GROCERIES AND MEDICATION.

AUSTIN, LOW ENERGY USERS DESERVE BETTER AS WORKING FAMILIES.

MAKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE AS A RESIDENT OF AUSTIN.

I'M ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON THE BASE RATE INCREASE.

I STAND WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES, LABOR AND CLIMATE GLOBES AND HOPE ONE DAY THAT WE ALL CAN HAVE AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY FOR ALL.

THANK YOU CELINE RENDON AND THEN CRAIG NASSER.

HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS CELINE RENDON.

SINCE 2020, MY RENT HAS INCREASED $500.

THE MAJORITY OF MY PAYCHECK GOES TO MY RENT AND UTILITIES.

AND WITH THE CURRENT COST OF LIVING IN AUSTIN, IT'S BEING LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK DESPITE TRYING TO COST CUT COSTS AND WORKING EXTRA JOBS.

THIS STORY IS NOT UNIQUE AND FOR FAMILIES IN THE WORKING POOR, AS MENTIONED BY MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, MATTERS ARE ONLY GETTING WORSE.

IN AUSTIN.

MANY RENTERS LIKE MYSELF, ARE LIVING IN UNITS THAT ARE DEGRADED, NOT UPKEPT.

AND WITH THE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS WE'VE SEEN THE PAST FEW YEARS, IT'S ONLY MAKING LIVING SITUATIONS WORSE.

I'M ONLY HERE TODAY BECAUSE I HEARD FROM A COLLEAGUE, UM, ABOUT THE ITEM THAT'S BEING VOTED ON.

PLEASE CONSIDER THE EQUITY OF ENERGY RATE HIKES AND HOW YOU CAN HELP AND NOT HURT.

AUSTINITES

[04:35:01]

YET HERE WE ARE HAVING TO MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD OVER SOMETHING BASIC, SUCH AS OUR ENERGY BILL THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENS LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, KEEP OUR BILLS AFFORDABLE AND FAIR FOR ALL OF AUSTIN.

AND I STAND WITH THE CLIMATE JUSTICE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE PRESENT AND THE LABOR GROUPS THAT ARE FIGHTING FOR CLEAN ENERGY AND AFFORDABLE AUSTIN FOR ALL.

THANK YOU CRAIG NASSER AND THEN JEAN CHERRY.

HELLO, I'M CRAIG NASSER, CHAIRMAN OF OUR, THE CONSERVATION CHAIR OF THE LONE STAR CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB.

UH, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.

I GET THAT.

UM, IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE.

I JUST WILL SAY THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, WHICH WE DANGEROUSLY GO ON FROM TIME TO TIME, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE BY PEOPLE WHO HATE RENEWABLE ENERGY IS THAT IT'S MAKING OUR ELECTRICITY MORE EXPENSIVE AND A BIG RATE HEIGHT, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW FEEDS INTO THAT ARGUMENT.

SO AT ONE THING WE COULD DO THE INFORMATION I HEAR FROM US ENERGY ABOUT WHY THEY NEED THIS RAPE CASE.

UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE CUZ IT'S A PROJECTION.

THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

ONE POSSIBILITY IS TO HAVE A MUCH SMALLER INCREASE FOR ONE YEAR AND SEE HOW THINGS COME OUT BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE A BIG RATE, RATE INCREASE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WE GET LOCKED INTO IT, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, IT'S NOT ONLY IS INEQUITABLE, BUT IT PUTS US FURTHER BACK FROM OUR GOAL OF, OF FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO PLEASE GO CAREFULLY HERE.

ONE THING I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM US ENERGY I'D LIKE TO HEAR IS THEIR PLANS, THEIR LONG RANGE PLANS FOR MOVING FORWARD, HOW WE ARE GONNA MORPH OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK IN THE FUTURE IN A MUCH WARMED WORLD WHERE THEY'RE GONNA, IT'S IN MY EMAIL I SENT TO YOU WHERE THEY'RE NOT JUST SELLING ENERGY, THAT'S NOT THE PARADIGM THEY'RE GONNA DO.

MORE PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN ENERGY THROUGH SOLAR CELLS AND ON THEIR OWN HOUSES OR THROUGH GROUPS.

THAT'S GONNA CHANGE.

AND, AND I HAVE NOT YET HEARD A BUSINESS PLAN OF THE FUTURE AND THAT WILL HELP YOU MAKE A BETTER DECISION ON A RAPE CASE LIKE THIS RATHER THAN JUST DO SOMETHING THAT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ANGRY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

MR. NASER, WILL YOU HOLD ON FOR A SECOND? MR. NASER, IF YOU CAN, CAN YOU COME BACK PLEASE? THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD NAER.

UM, I HAD A QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, ON TUESDAY DURING WORK SESSION, AUSTIN ENERGY PRESENTED A COUPLE PROPOSALS FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT INCLUDED A GRADUAL PHASE IN A GRADUAL INCREASE OF THE CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE.

UM, CAN YOU SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, ON THAT PROPOSAL? OKAY, THE INCREASE OF THE SERVICE CHARGE IT, THIS IS KIND OF THE MAJOR THING THAT'S IS INEQUITABLE BECAUSE IF YOU RAISE IT A LOT, IT'S JUST, IT MAKES EVERYBODY PAY MORE AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE THE POOREST CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.

IT ALSO, UH, UH, TO SOME EXTENT THIS INCENTIVIZES THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANNA GO SOLAR BECAUSE THAT ADDS, YOU KNOW, THE SOLAR, YOU, YOU, YOU, IT, AT BEST IT'S FIVE YEARS OR MORE TO PAY OFF FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR SOLAR PANELS AT BEST.

AND WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS IT MAKES IT LONGER TO PAY OFF THOSE PANELS.

AND OS ENERGY HAS A PRETTY GOOD PROGRAM RIGHT NOW FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GO MORE SOLAR.

WHAT WE NEED IS COMMUNITY SOLAR WHERE PEOPLE, WHERE, WHERE PEOPLE COMBINE TO, WE DID THAT FOR HOMEOWNERS YEARS AGO WHERE YOU COULD PAY EXTRA MONEY AND YOU HAD TO DO THAT, THE GOODNESS OF YOUR HEART BECAUSE I, AT THE TIME, I COULDN'T GET MY PARTNER TO PAY INTO THAT.

THIS WAS YEARS AGO, MADE IT DIFFICULT.

BUT WE, WE, YOU HAVE TO KEEP THIS INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE, EVERYONE, EVERYONE, NOT JUST PEOPLE HAVE A LITTLE EXTRA MONEY TO, UH, TO GO TO, TO, UH, INVEST IN RENEWABLES.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

THANK YOU, .

NEXT SPEAKER, JEAN CHERRY AND THEN HANNAH HUGHES.

NO JEAN OR NO? HANNAH.

HANNAH.

I'M A FIVE YEAR, UH, APARTMENT RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE, AND I AM AGAINST THE AUSTIN ENERGY RATE INCREASE.

AND THEN KIM KIMIA FACTORY.

UH, HELLO CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME'S HANNAH HUGHES.

[04:40:01]

SPECIFICALLY, I'M AGAINST THE PROPOSALS THAT WILL HURT THE LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN, SUCH AS THE USAGE RATE BEING FLATTENED AND THE BASE RATE INCREASE BECOMING FULLY $25 A MONTH.

IN MY PRIOR POSITION AS REGIONAL FIELD COORDINATOR WITH TEXAS RISING, I WORKED WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS AROUND THE CITY AND MYSELF, A FORMER LOW INCOME UT COLLEGE STUDENT JUST TWO YEARS AGO.

UH, I KNOW AND THEY KNOW THAT THE GENERAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE TUITION, COST AND RENT INCREASES, UM, THAT THESE STUDENTS, UH, PUT THESE STUDENTS AT A VERY PRECARIOUS SPOT AND THUS INCREASING THEIR MONTHLY UTILITY WILL FURTHER PUT A STRAIN ON STUDENTS WHO HAVE TO WORK THROUGH COLLEGE AND THUS HURT THEIR DEGREE PROSPECTS.

OF COURSE, IT'S NOT JUST STUDENTS WHO FIND THEMSELVES IN THE SPOT.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOURLY JOBS IN THE CITY DO NOT PROVIDE THE WAGES NECESSARY TO LIVE WITHIN CITY LINES.

PRACTICALLY, EVERY INDIVIDUAL LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK WILL BE PUSHED TO THE EXTREME WITH THE BASE INCREASE GOING UP TO $25.

AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDING WHAT CONDENSING THE FIVE USAGE TIERS TO THREE WILL DO TO THEIR INCREASE OF THEIR MONTHLY COSTS.

I UNDERSTAND FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S PERSPECTIVE THAT FLATTENING THE USAGE RATE, CONDENSING THESE TIERS MAY SEEM LIKE A VERY SMALL ASK OF RESIDENTS.

UM, BUT WHAT FEELS SMALL ALWAYS BECOMES A LARGE THING.

EVERYTHING IN LIFE ADDS UP, ESPECIALLY BILLS WHEN YOU LIVE IN SUCH AN EXPENSIVE CITY.

AND THE FINAL POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE.

AROUND HALF OF THIS CURRENT COUNCIL WILL NOT BE RETURNING TO THE DIAS NEXT YEAR.

AND FOR THOSE LEAVING, I WANT TO ASK, WHAT DO YOU WANT ONE OF YOUR FINAL ACTS TO BE BEFORE YOU RETURN TO YOUR LIFE AS A SIMPLE RESIDENT OF AUSTIN? INSTEAD OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE, I HOPE YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE AGAINST THE CURRENT RATE BASED PLAN TO HELP ENSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN CAN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THEIR CURRENT QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOPEFULLY THEIR CURRENT MONTHLY BILL EXPENSES.

FROM ME, TAKE SHOWERS AT MY HOUSE.

KIMIA FACTORY AND THEN LANA MURPHY, L MURPHY, AND THEN PEDRO HERNANDEZ .

HI, I'M AN ECONOMIC STUDENT AT UT AUSTINS AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMICS BEHIND Y'ALL'S PLAN.

UM, SO BASICALLY, RIGHT, THE POWER THAT YOU GUYS HAVE AS A MONOPOLY IS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PRICE DISCRIMINATION POWER, RIGHT? WHICH MEANS THAT YOU GUYS CAN CHARGE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY HIGHER RATES, HIGHER AMOUNTS AND MAKE MORE OF A PROFIT, RIGHT? YOUR BOTTOM LINE IS SUFFERING RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT LIKE THE, THE PROPOSAL TALKS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR AND HOW YOU GUYS ARE SUBSIDIZING IT SO MUCH MORE THAN THE SMALL AND LARGE, UH, SMALL MEDIUM BUSINESSES AND THE LARGE BUSINESSES, RIGHT? UM, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT IN YOUR PLAN, LIKE YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO REDUCE THAT SUBSIDY, RIGHT? BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, RIGHT? THAT SUBSIDY IS GOOD, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, RIGHT? THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT IN YOUR PROPOSAL, YOU GUYS ARE LIKE, IF YOU LOOK AT FIGURE SIX A, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS YOU GUYS ARE RAISING, UM, THE OVERALL COST FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE, AND NOT THESE LIKE LARGE BUSINESSES.

THE THING IS, IS THAT THESE LARGE BUSINESSES, LIKE THEY'RE COMING TO AUSTIN, RIGHT? THESE TECH COMPANIES ARE COMING TO AUSTIN.

DEMAND FOR LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY IS RISING, RIGHT? AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT BETWEEN 2016 AND 2019, THE DEMAND FOR THESE LARGE COMPANIES ROSE 11%.

FOR THESE SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES, IT ONLY ROSE 2%.

I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO IMPROVE YOUR BOTTOM LINE FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO GO.

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS THAT YOU, LIKE, IF YOU GUYS JUST LIKE GOT LIKE A GROUP OF PHD STUDENTS WHO ARE MAJORING IN ECONOMICS, LIKE I'M SURE THEY WOULD DO THIS FOR FREE FOR THEIR RESUME OR SOMETHING, YOU GUYS COULD COME UP WITH A WAY BETTER, MORE ECONOMICAL PLAN THAT'S BASED ON ECONOMICS.

UM, THANK YOU PEDRO HERNANDEZ, AND THEN TESS ORTEGA.

GOOD EVENING, UM, COUNSEL IN THE DIAS.

UH, MY NAME IS PEDRO HERNANDEZ AND I AM WITH PODER AND I AM A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ALSO.

I AM WITH, I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY OF POLIS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE POOREST COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY.

UM, AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, I ALSO AM WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS COMMUNITY IN MONS.

AND IN DOING THAT, MY BILL IS HIGHER THAN IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE I ALLOW THEM TO GET GROCERIES

[04:45:01]

UM, WITH THIS RATE HIKE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IT'S GONNA HURT ME A LOT AND IT'S GONNA HURT WHAT I, WELL, MY PASSION IS, WHICH IS TO HELP THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK.

Y'ALL NEED TO NOT RAISE THESE, UM, TAX RATES.

THANK YOU TESS ORTEGA, AND THEN VALERIE MENARD.

VALERIE MENARD, AND THEN SHANE JOHNSON.

HMM.

GOOD AFTERNOON IS THIS.

GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL AND MAYOR ADLER.

UM, I'M GLAD TO BE HERE.

I DON'T NORMALLY COME TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

UM, I CAME TO AUSTIN IN 1982.

I'VE BEEN HERE 40 YEARS.

UM, SO THIS PROBABLY IS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I'VE EVER COME TO SPEAK.

AND, BUT I FELT I HAD TO BECAUSE SO MANY OTHER CITIZENS, THEIR, THEIR CONCERNS ARE NOT ADDRESSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO THIS.

BUT I'M MAKING THE TIME TO DO THIS, AND I WANTED TO SHARE THAT IN 40 YEARS I'VE SEEN THE CITY CHANGE SO MUCH, AND I WISH I COULD SAY IT WAS FOR THE BETTER, BUT IT REALLY HAS NOT.

UM, SO HERE'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT WE COULD EITHER MAKE THE QUALITY OF LIFE BETTER FOR OTHER AUSTINITES OR WE CAN MAKE IT HARDER.

AND THAT'S HOW I FEEL.

WE'VE, THAT'S THE PATH WE'VE TAKEN, IS MAKING THINGS HARDER, MORE COMPLICATED, MORE EXPENSIVE.

YOU CAN CHANGE THAT.

AND I WANNA ALSO PLEASE SPECIFICALLY TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR WHO ARE LEAVING, CONSIDER YOUR LEGACY, PLEASE, THE VOTES YOU'RE TAKING IN THESE LAST, THESE LAST FEW MEETINGS.

THAT'S HOW YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED.

SO TAKE A CHANCE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR US TO MAKE SUCH A, A DEVASTATING DECISION.

I'LL WAIT.

WELL, WE'LL LET THE NEW COUNCIL COME IN AND, AND RESOLVE THIS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT AANA SO WONDERFULLY DEMONSTRATED FOLKS WHO CAN'T BE HERE.

$15.

THAT'S A LOT OF FOOD THAT IS IMPORTANT.

I MEAN, YEAH, I CAN, I CAN AFFORD THE RATE HIKE, BUT ALSO I'M ANGRY BECAUSE, UM, BUT THESE FOLKS CAN'T.

THE OTHER THING THAT MAKES ME ANGRY IS I ALSO DO MY PART.

I RECYCLE, I LET IT MELLOW AND IT'S GROSS, BUT I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THE HOUSE, SO IT'S OKAY.

SO I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO MY PART AND NOW I'M GONNA BE CHARGED MORE.

SO THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

IT'S NOT RIGHT.

IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE LIVING IN AUSTIN EASIER OR BETTER FOR ANY OF US.

FRANKLY EVEN KNOW THAT AND ARE SUPPORTING THE RATE HIKE ANYWAY.

SHANE JOHNSON AND THEN SCOTT DELGADO.

UH, GOOD EVENING COUNCIL MEMBERS SHANE JOHNSON.

I SEE HIM PRONOUNS, UM, DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT, AS IS THE REST OF MY FAMILY.

SO, UM, FIRST I'LL TAKE ABOUT 30 SECONDS OF MY TESTIMONY TO SAY, HOW HARD IS IT TO IMPLEMENT A FIVE MINUTE BREAK BEFORE THE START OF A PUBLIC HEARING? I'M NEVER GONNA, AS A, AS A GUY, I'M NEVER GONNA SHAME WOMEN FOR NEEDING TO USE THE BATHROOM FOR ANY REASON.

BUT MAYOR AND COUNSEL DECIDING TO START THE MEETING WHEN THERE ISN'T EVEN A QUORA A PUBLIC, A QUOTE UNQUOTE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN THERE ISN'T A QUORUM ON THE DIAS IS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PUBLIC.

UH, SO I JUST WANNA START OFF AND REMIND YOU ALL OF THAT.

UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT HOW EGREGIOUS THIS, UM, RATE HIKE IS FROM RAISING, YOU KNOW, $15 A MONTH GOES A LONG OR GOES A LONG WAY, AS SANA MENTIONED.

UM, BUT IN RAISING COSTS ON RESIDENTS RESIDENTIAL SIDE WHILE LOWERING IT ON LARGE COMPANIES, ET CETERA, YOU'VE HEARD THAT A MILLION TIMES.

UM, AND EVEN MORE SO, O SYNERGY SEEMS TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT ALWAYS PROVIDING INFO IN A TIMELY MANNER TO, TO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO REQUESTED IT, AMONG OTHER ISSUES.

YOU, YOU HAVE TO DELAY THE VOTE TODAY.

IT'S THE ONLY REASONABLE OPTION FROM ALMOST ANYONE IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC, FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN.

SO PLEASE DO THAT TO BE ABLE TO HELP THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND NOT LOCK IN A DECISION THAT YOU DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND.

AND THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE HARM, PARTICULARLY TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE.

UH, AND I'LL WRAP UP BY SAYING, UM, YES, YOU DO NEED TO EXPAND CAP, BUT THAT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THIS RATE HIKE.

UH, IT'S A RED HERRING.

I THINK SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS

[04:50:01]

THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF EXPANDING CAP THAT WILL OFFSET THE INEQUITIES IN THIS RATE HIKE.

UH, AND THERE'S LOW SUBSCRIPTION TO CAP ANYWAY, THAT'S A MULTI-YEAR PROBLEM, YOU THAT WILL NOT SOLVE THE INEQUITIES IN THIS RATE HIKE.

SO PLEASE DELAY THE VOTE AND FULLY CONSIDER, UH, THE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU SCOTT DELGADO, AND THEN BRIANNA GRIFFITH.

HELLO, COUNSEL.

MY NAME'S SCOTT DELGADO.

I'M FROM DISTRICT SEVEN.

AND LIKE EVERYONE BEFORE I'VE COME TO SPEAK AGAINST AWESOME ENERGIES, PROPOSED PREDATORY RATE INCREASES.

UM, WHEN THE RATE INCREASES CAME OUT, I DECIDED TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSED RATE AND SEE HOW IT WOULD AFFECT MY BILL.

ON AVERAGE, UH, MY BILL WOULD GO UP 60%, UH, WHICH WOULD COST ABOUT 350 MORE DOLLARS EACH YEAR FOR ME, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN AFFORD.

UM, THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A PRICE SHOCK.

UM, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS DRASTIC CHANGE WITH RENT AND GROCERY PRICES? ALSO INCREASING, UH, A CITY THAT I'VE CALLED HOME FOR OVER 20 YEARS IS QUICKLY BECOMING UNAFFORDABLE TO EVEN LIVE IN.

UM, OTHER PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN PUSHED FORWARD, UH, THAT SUGGEST THAT HONEST ENERGY ONLY NEEDS A FRACTION OF THE PROPOSED AMOUNT.

UM, SINCE AUSTIN ENERGY IS A PUBLIC UTILITY, IT SHOULD BE PROTECTING THE LOWEST INCOME CONSUMERS, NOT PUNISHING THEM WITH HIGHER RATES.

IF AUSTIN ENERGY IS IN SUCH DIRE STRAITS AS THEY SUGGEST, UH, WHY ARE THOSE THAT USE THE MOST ENERGY GETTING A DECREASE? UH, WITH THAT, WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, ABOUT 2,800 KILOWATTS PER HOUR WOULD BE RECEIVING A DISCOUNT ON THESE NEW RATES, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS.

UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PRIDES ITSELF ON ATTEMPTING TO AN INCENTIVIZING CONSERVING ENERGY, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS NEW TIER SYSTEM, UH, WILL BENEFIT THAT.

UM, SO I SUGGEST THAT, UH, ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE AGAINST THIS RATE HIKE, OR AT THE MINIMUM AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THERE'S MORE INFORMATION.

BRIANNA GRIFFITH AND THEN STEPHANIE CORTE.

I'M JUST GONNA SAY, UH, KIND OF SIMILAR THINGS TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, I SAID LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WHICH IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO RAISE, SO THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE BASICALLY BASED ON COMPLETE FICTION.

UM, THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON AUSTIN ENERGIES, JUST RIDICULOUS DISTORTIONS.

AND SO I ASK OF COURSE, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE VOTE THIS DOWN THAT THERE'D BE NO NEW RATE HIKES FOR PEOPLE.

BUT ONE THING I WANT TO ASK, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, BUT BESIDES SIMPLY BEING AGAINST THE RATE HIKES AS WRITTEN BY AUSTIN, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A, A QUOTE UNQUOTE COMPROMISE SOLUTION BETWEEN THE RATE HIKES THAT HURT US THE MOST AND NO RATE HIKES.

AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS I THINK IS A CONCERN ABOUT LIKE THIS CAP, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPANSION, WHICH IS GOOD.

I WOULD NEVER SAY NEVER, YOU KNOW, DON'T EXPAND PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO SOMETHING LIKE CAP THAT ALLOWS US TO, YOU KNOW, OFFSET THESE COSTS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS MEANS TESTING, AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, AS SHANA SAID, THIS MEANS TESTING IS NOT ENOUGH.

AND IT'S ALSO RIDICULOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, POOR PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS MEANS TESTED.

UM, YOU KNOW, AS TO LIKE WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT RE ASSISTANCE WE'RE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE BY THE RICH, MORE OR LESS.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN MEANS TESTED AT ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE MEANS TESTED.

ONE OF THE NUMBERS I WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYWHERE IN THIS IS THE NUMBER OF, IF THIS, UH, IF THESE RATES ARE HIKED THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PLANNING OR IF THESE RATES ARE HIKED AT ALL, WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE THROWN OUT OF THEIR HOUSE? THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA GO BANKRUPT IF THE, IF THE RATES ARE RAISED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COME NEXT YEAR WILL HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FEEDING THEIR FAMILY AND PAYING THEIR BILLS OR GET EVICTED.

AND SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE MEANS TEST WE NEED TO DO, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS IS GOING TO RUIN.

BUT IF THIS IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO'S RUINED BY THIS, IF THERE'S AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO IS ON THE STREET NEXT YEAR AS PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THESE RATE HIKES, IT WILL BE THE FALL OF THIS COUNCIL AND IT'LL BE THE FALL OF AUSTIN ENERGY.

SO WE ASK THAT THIS BE, UH, THESE RATE HIKES BE VOTED DOWN ENTIRELY, NO NEW RATE HIKES ON THE POOR STEPHANIE CORTE, AND THEN PAUL DIORE

[04:55:02]

, PAUL DRE, AND THEN DANIEL DI.

HEY, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

UH, I'M PAUL DRE.

I'M A LAW STUDENT AT UT AUSTIN.

UM, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY THIS EVENING OTHER THAN TO ECHO, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE TONIGHT AND TO URGE YOU ALL, UH, TO, UH, AT LEAST POSTPONE THIS VOTE AND ULTIMATELY TO REJECT THE, UH, BASE RATE HIKES.

AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM EVERYONE ELSE, THEY WILL HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN.

UH, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTICE IN THAT, SO I URGE YOU TO REJECT THEM.

THEY HAVE THAT SECOND JOB.

WOO.

DANIEL DILLON, AND THEN ANDREW FORTON, OR TO ANDREW FORTON, JOE HERNANDEZ, AND THEN TOGA PEN DRAKE.

GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MR. MAYOR, MY NAME IS JOSEPH BIG JORDAN HERNANDEZ.

I AM WHAT SEEMS TO BE A RARITY NOWADAYS.

I'M AN AUSTIN NATIVE.

I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN DOVE SPRINGS, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT TWO, AND CURRENTLY REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VANESSA FUENTES.

I'M A JOURNEYMAN ELECTRICIAN AND LEAD ORGANIZER FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION FIVE 20.

I ALSO SERVE AS THE CHAPTER PRESIDENT OF THE ELECTRICAL WORKERS MINORITY CAUCUS.

GROWING UP IN THIS CITY, I WITNESSED A LOT OF CHANGE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT CHANGE, A LOT OF THAT CHANGE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED WORKING CLASS FAMILIES, WHETHER IT WAS INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES, MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFELONG RESIDENCES, RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE LIVING HERE OVER POLICE OVERPOLICING WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT AS THEY BECAME GENTRIFIED OR PERPETUAL RISING ENERGY COSTS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY WITH INCREASING THE UTILITY BILL AUSTIN RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS WILL MOST CERTAINLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE 1600 MEMBERS THAT MY UNION REPRESENTS.

WITH INFLATION RISING IN COST OF LIVING CONTINUING THE SKYROCKET THE LASTING WORKING CLASS FAMILIES NEED IS THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEING A PARTY TO ADDED FINANCIAL STRESS.

ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT MAINTENANCE THAT IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS AND PROGRESS COSTS MONEY, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT US IF WE ALLOW THE THINGS THAT WERE MEANT TO HELP, THAT WERE MEANT TO HELP RESIDENTS ENDS UP BEING YET ANOTHER CATALYST FOR GENTRIFICATION AND FOR DISPLACEMENT.

PLEASE IMPLORE YOU DO NOT BE COMPLICIT IN THE ONGOING FINANCIAL BURDEN PLAGUING WORKING CLASS FAMILIES IN AUSTIN.

TEXASES, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND I NOW YIELD THE FLOORS TO MR. CHAIRPERSON TOGA PENN DRINK, AND THEN GUS PENA.

HOW HOWDY.

MY NAME IS TOGA PEN DRAKE.

I'M A UNION ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICE.

I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN AUSTIN, AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU GUYS THAT IN, UH, 2020, MY, OR IN 2021, MY HOUSE RENT WENT UP $450.

LAST YEAR, MY RENT, MY RENT WENT UP $250.

RIGHT NOW, MY HOUSE IS SET AT 64 DEGREES BECAUSE IF I GOT IT ANY HIGHER THAN THAT, WHEN IT'S 30 DEGREES OUTSIDE, I'M GONNA NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.

I WORK, I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND JOB.

I GO TO SCHOOL, I HAVE A KID, AND I, I'M REALLY TRYING TO HAVE A PLACE TO STAY IN THE CITY WHERE I WAS BORN, IN THE CITY WHERE I WORK.

ON TOP OF THAT, I'M BEING TOLD THAT, SORRY, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL LED AN AGGRESSIVE EFFORT TO APPROVE A 40% SALARY INCREASE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WHEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T VOTE FOR, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T GET.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I NEED ON A MINIMUM WAGE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES, WHICH AGAIN, YOU GUYS CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHO STRUGGLES AND WHO DOESN'T.

IT'S HARD OUT HERE, AND I'M REALLY, REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I'M GONNA PAY MY RENT BY THE END OF TODAY.

SO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BE HERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORK.

THEY CAN'T LEAVE WORK EARLY.

[05:00:01]

THEY HAVE CLASS, THEY CAN'T BE HERE TO TELL YOU HOW HARD IT IS RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MAYOR.

MAYOR, IF, HANG ON A SECOND.

HANG ON, HANG ON.

THAT'S FULL.

IF I MIGHT ADDRESS ONE OF THE, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE LAST SPEAKER JUST MENTIONED ABOUT $15 MINIMUM WAGE FOR CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES AND ALL CONTRACTORS WHO CONTRACT UNDER THE AGES OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

ACTUALLY, I WAS, UH, I WAS ONE OF THE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS BACK, I THINK IT WAS MAYBE FOUR YEARS AGO OR LONGER, WHO, UH, NOT ONLY SUPPORTED THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT ADVOCATED FOR IT THROUGH THE UNION, WHICH I'M A MEMBER OF AFSCME AND I ALSO SUPPORTED RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE IN OUR LAST, UH, BUDGET TALKS EARLIER THIS YEAR, BUT WAS UNCERTAIN HOW HIGH WE COULD BRING THAT NUMBER.

I SUPPORTED 17 TO $18, WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT TO 20.

SO SIR, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE ROLE THAT I PLAYED AND THAT I, THAT I CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT, TO BE SURE THAT THE RECORD THAT I HAVE IS, IS APPROPRIATELY AND ACCURATELY, UH, REFLECTED.

AND I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

THAT'S COMPLETELY UNJUST.

NEXT SPEAKER.

I DON'T SEE MR. PENA HERE.

SO THEN WE HAVE ZACHARY WHITEMAN.

HELLO, GOOD EVENING COUNSEL.

UM, MY NAME IS ZACH AND I'M HERE WITH THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT.

UM, AND MANY HAVE MENTIONED IN DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PROPOSAL THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO IT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS, UM, FOR INCREASES IN THESE RATES.

HOWEVER, WE WHO ARE HERE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL, UM, WHO REPRESENT MANY GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS ALL OF AUSTIN, WE UNDERSTAND IT QUITE WELL.

WE'VE LOOKED INTO IT AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A TIERED RATE PROPOSAL THAT WILL CREATE A GREATER BURDEN ON THE LOWEST INCOME USERS WHO CONSUME THE LEAST ENERGY, AND IT WILL BENEFIT THOSE WHO CONSUME THE MOST ENERGY.

BIG BUSINESSES AND LARGE CORPORATIONS.

WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN THE COMMUNITY KNOCKING ON EVERY DOOR TO ASK THEM THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER THIS VOTE TO ASK THEM HOW THEY FEEL.

AND I ASK YOU, HOW MANY TESTIMONIES HAVE YOU HEARD TODAY IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL? WE UNDERSTAND THAT COSTS GO UP, THAT RATES INCREASE, BUT WHAT WE REJECT HERE IS THIS TIERED RATE STRUCTURE.

WE ASK FIRMLY THAT IF YOU MUST RAISE RATES, YOU DO SO ON THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT.

THOSE WITH HIGH INCOME, HIGH USERS, BIG BUSINESSES, NOT WORKING FAMILIES, STUDENTS AND RENTERS.

IN AUSTIN, HOMEOWNERS DURING THE WINTER STORM, THERE WERE COUNTLESS STORIES OF APARTMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NO HEAT AND NO POWER WITH EMPTY BUSINESSES ACROSS THE STREET WITH THEIR LIGHTS ON.

AND NOW THIS PROPOSAL PLANS TO PUT THE BURDEN OF LOSSES DURING THE PANDEMIC AND DURING THE WINTER STORM ON THOSE VERY PEOPLE WHO HAD PRIORITIZED THE LEAST DURING THE WINTER STORM AND DID NOT SERVE WHEN THEY NEEDED IT MOST.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS A PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY, AND IT SHOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC NOT PRIVATE INTERESTS.

IT IS THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN THAT MAKE THIS CITY A PLACE THAT WE ALL LOVE, NOT PRIVATE INTERESTS.

AND AS OUR CITY COUNCIL, AS OUR MAYOR, WE ASK YOU TO STAND UP AND PROTECT THE CITY, PROTECT THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, REJECT THIS RATE HIKE AND THIS PROPOSAL.

AND WE WILL THANK YOU FOR IT.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT I HAVE REGISTERED.

ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES, IT GETS US BACK TO, TO WHERE WE ARE, THE, THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE STILL TO CONSIDER TONIGHT.

WE HAVE THE RATE CASE, UH, MATTER.

WE'RE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN THAT.

UM, IF WE DON'T FINISH TONIGHT AND WE NEED TO COME BACK TOMORROW, WE COULD PICK IT UP TOMORROW AS WE COULD.

ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS WE HAVE, UH, KATO'S REAL ESTATE ITEMS 36 AND, UM, UM, 41, 43 AND 44.

WE HAVE, UM, THE, UH, TURS.

WE HAVE ITEMS 55 56, OUR COMPATIBILITY AND, UH, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, AND THE STATE'S BEEN PUT, IT'S

[05:05:01]

5 0 5 RIGHT NOW.

WE WEREN'T TAKING DINNER BREAK OR DO WE WANT TO KEEP, UH, TRYING TO WORK ON SOME OF THESE THINGS AND DO PEOPLE KNOW HOW MUCH THEY WANNA WORK TONIGHT AND WHETHER THEY WANT TO, UH, RECESS AND, AND COME BACK IN THE MORNING AS KE POINT THIS.

THANKS, MAYOR.

UM, IN LIGHT OF TODAY'S TESTIMONY, AND THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT SHOWED UP TODAY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE AUSTIN ENERGY BASE RATE INCREASED PROPOSAL, UM, AND ALSO BECAUSE WE DID RECEIVE, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF FROM AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF JUST, UH, LAST NIGHT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONSIDER POSTPONING THE AUSTIN ENERGY ITEM TO NEXT WEEK SO THAT WE HAVE MORE TIME WITH INFORMATION.

OKAY, COUNCIL PAUL, I POSTED TO THE MESSAGE BOARD, UH, SUGGESTED PATH FORWARD AND URGE EVERYBODY TO TAKE SOME TIME AND SPEND WITH THAT TONIGHT.

MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION TOMORROW ON THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, ITEM, SHOULD WE IN FACT, UH, ADJOURN WITHOUT, UM, SHOULD WE, UH, PAUSE OUR MEETING TONIGHT AND RECONVENE IN THE MORNING? I MEAN, IF, IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN CLEARLY THE EIGHTH WOULD BE THE NEXT TIME TO, TO BRING THIS ITEM FORWARD.

BUT IF WE CAN, UH, IF WE DO CONTINUE INTO TOMORROW, I'D LIKE THIS ITEM TO BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, OKAY.

IN OUR WORK TOMORROW.

DOES ANYBODY WANNA TRY TO HANDLE THE AE VOTE TONIGHT? RIGHT? TALK THROUGH SOME, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON THE AE ITEM TONIGHT.

UH, QUESTION IS TO WHETHER WE PICK IT UP TOMORROW.

WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT HERE A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW IN TERMS OF, UH, UH, EXPECTATIONS, FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UH, SCHEDULE AND THE LIKE .

UM, I DEFINITELY WANNA CONTINUE DISCUSSING TONIGHT.

AND I, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY VALUABLE, UM, FOR US TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS.

UM, TOMORROW, I JUST FOUND SOME MONEY IN THERE THAT I WANNA, UM, TALK WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT AND, UM, WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND SHARE THE, THE SCENARIO.

UM, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WILL, WE WILL RESOLVE IT TOMORROW, BUT I, I THINK IT, IT'S WORTH, UM, THINKING THROUGH AND I WOULD BENEFIT FROM THINKING THROUGH IT, UM, WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND AE STAFF FOR THAT.

UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR WE ARE ON THE COMPATIBILITY PIECE, WHETHER WE CAN TAKE THAT UP TONIGHT OR NOT.

WE'LL HAVE TO, MAYBE WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT BEST.

AS I CAN TELL, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIALS AND COMPATIBILITY.

AND I SAY THAT WITHOUT KNOWING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.

UM, UH, I THINK, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE POSTED THE MASTER PLAN, THE MASTER LIST OF ALL THE AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT.

SO THAT'S UP AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENTS.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO I MIGHT NEED DISCUSSION.

ONE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE REQUIRE RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR, UH, WHEN SOMEONE'S GETTING THE AFFORDABILITY, UH, BONUS, REMEMBER WE GAVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND WE'VE TREATED IT BOTH WAYS IN OUR CODE, BOTH WITH A REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

AND WITHOUT DOING THAT, UM, THAT'S ONE ISSUE.

AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS THE ISSUE THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VE RAISED YESTERDAY ABOUT COMBINING LOTS, UH, PROBABLY WOULD REQUIRE US TO GO INTO, UH, UH, LEGAL TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TO, TO ADDRESS THAT, UH, ISSUE.

UM, COUNSEL, I THINK IT MAY BE THOSE TWO.

I THINK THERE ARE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT PEOPLE ARE, ARE INTENDING TO, TO BRING AS WELL.

CATHERINE KITCHEN.

UM, YES, I HAVE ONE DIRECTION THAT I, I DON'T, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT IT'S JUST TRACKING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE IN, IN OUR AFFORD OTHER AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS. BUT, AND, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SURFACE IT TO PEOPLE YET.

SO I HAVE THAT.

UM, AND, AND, UM, IT RELATES TO THE MF TO THE MFI LEVELS, BUT IT'S JUST, UH, PICKING UP ANOTHER PIECE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN V FOR EXAMPLE.

SO, UM, UM, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE, UH, ABILITY OF STAFF TO, IN AREAS THAT ARE AT RISK FOR, UH, DISPLACEMENT, THE ABILITY OF, OF STAFF, UM, TO LOOK AT SUBSIDIZING WHERE NEEDED, UH, AT LEVELS BELOW 60% MFI, IF THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MITIGATE DISPLACEMENT.

SO, AND IT'S NOT, DOES IT REQUIRE A GAME STAFF AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO DO IT IF IT WANTS TO? IT'S, WELL, IT'S DIRECTING STAFF TO CONSIDER IT.

SO, UM, I ALSO MIGHT HAVE SOME LANGUAGE TO, FOR PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT, UM, RELATED TO THE, UM, THE COMPATIBILITY LEVELS, THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU HAVE, UM, WHERE YOU HAVE COMPATIBILITY ON THE SIDE.

I'M NOT CERTAIN YET.

I'M DOING SOME MORE AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SHARE THAT WITH ANYBODY YET EITHER, SO.

UM, AND THEN I WOULD JUST SAY AS A WHOLE, I, I DON'T HAVE A, A PREFERENCE HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA GET TO ALL OF THESE TONIGHT.

[05:10:01]

UM, I JUST, THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR TONIGHT.

I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE ON WHICH WE DO TO TONIGHT, AND I'M AVAILABLE TOMORROW TO CARRY OVER.

I THINK WHAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED ABOUT AUSTIN ENTER THE ENERGY RATES MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT WE NOT EXPECT TO VOTE ON THEM TONIGHT.

I'M HAPPY TO CARRY THAT OVER TILL TOMORROW.

UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE STATESMAN PUT, WE'VE GOT 55 AND 56, WHICH IS FAIRLY CONTAINED, BUT IT'LL STILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

UM, WE HAVE THE ITEMS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RO TOVO BROUGHT.

WE HAVE THE TURS AND WE HAVE THE STATESMAN PUT.

IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN ALL TONIGHT.

SO I JUST WANT US TO, I THINK WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND THINK ABOUT WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR TOMORROW, MAYOR.

AS OUR POOL MENTIONING THE STATESMAN PAD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD FINISH THAT TONIGHT AND NOT CARRY THAT TO TOMORROW.

IF WE HAVE TIME TO DO THAT TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE TOP OF MY LIST.

BECAUSE ALICE, I JUST WANNA FLAG FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON 55 AND 56, I'M WORKING ON SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL, UM, INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

AND I THINK WHAT I MAY BE REALIZING IN THESE CONVERSATIONS IS THERE MIGHT BE, UM, A, A BENEFIT TO DOING SOME SORT OF REVISITING STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES WE'RE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WHERE MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEM MORE HOLISTICALLY ABOUT WHAT IS OUR SHORT TERM RENTAL POLICIES AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DOES THE LEGISLATURE ALLOW US TO DO, AND HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE? I DO SEE A BENEFIT IN HAVING THE AVAILABILITY OF STR, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE INTO HOW PEOPLE USE THEM, BUT FOR FOLKS WHO NEED A STOP GAP MEASURE FOR A WHILE, I THINK THAT THEY ARE A BENEFIT TO KEEPING PEOPLE IN IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS IF, IF SOMETHING IS HAPPENING WHERE THEY NEED TO, TO BE SOMEWHERE FOR A STOP GAP PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THEN WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT FOR COMPATIBILITY, THE UNIT COUNT, JUST TRYING TO RIGHT SIZE IT WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE, UM, SITE PLAN TOPIC.

WE JUST, UM, KICKED OFF EARLIER TODAY TO KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT THE, THAT STAFF KNOWS THE, THE UNITS AND THE THRESHOLDS FOR MISSING MIDDLE ARE CONSISTENT.

SO I'LL, I'LL BE BRINGING THOSE BOTH, BUT WE'RE STILL IRONING OUT THE EXACT LANGUAGE.

SO IF WE'RE GONNA, OKAY.

UM, HANG ON ONE SECOND.

UM, KERA KELLY, UH, I JUST WANNA TAKE A MOMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE EVERYONE WHO CAME OUT TODAY TO SPEAK TO US.

YOU GAVE US SOME REALLY COMPELLING INFORMATION AND I THINK THAT IT'S WONDERFUL THAT YOU TOOK TIME TO BE HERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

AND AS WE GO THROUGH THESE DISCUSSIONS, I KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDER A LOT OF WHAT YOU ALL SAID.

SO JUST THANK YOU FOR THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST THAT IF WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA CARRY OVER TO TOMORROW, THAT WE MIGHT TAKE 55 AND 56 AND PUSH THEM TO TOMORROW TOO, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE FOLKS WORKING ON LANGUAGE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS AT, AT A MINIMUM, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TONIGHT TO AT LEAST CLARIFY KIND OF WHAT, WHERE WE ARE WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS, AND THEN THAT GIVES US AT LEAST AN OVERNIGHT TO REVIEW THEM AND, AND TO GET A HANDLE ON THOSE.

SO IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE CLEAR THAT WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW TO TALK ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY, I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUSH THOSE AS WELL.

AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I HAVE, I HAVE REVISITED THE NONPROFIT LEASING LANGUAGE AND HAVE SOME TO SUGGEST THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THAT QUICKLY.

BEFORE WE DO THE PUT AND THE TURS? IF EVERYBODY, HOW MUCH ARE WE GONNA, I, I DO THINK THAT WHILE AUSTIN ENERGY'S HERE, WE SHOULD, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

SO I THINK, UH, MY, MY SENSE IS WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT ROLLING OVER TILL TOMORROW, UH, JUST SO WE CAN SUSTAIN THE, UH, THE EFFORT NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE TONIGHT.

I THINK TONIGHT WE WANT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY MIGHT BE ABLE TO LINE OUT THE ISSUES AND OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'LL PICK THAT UP TOMORROW.

PICKING UP 55 AND 56 TOMORROW.

UH, IF PEOPLE COULD WORK ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, THEY'D GET THOSE OUT, UH, TONIGHT, UH, SO THAT THEY COULD MOVE MORE QUICKLY.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

I THINK THAT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL.

I THINK WE'RE, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK ON THAT.

I THINK A LOT OF THAT STUFF'S ALREADY BEEN LAID OUT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THIS IS DIRECTION, UH, AND NOT PRESCRIPTIVE STUFF, WHICH OUGHT TO MAKE THAT, UH, EASIER.

AND IF WE HAVE ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS, I THINK, AND WE'RE GONNA NEED TO PROBABLY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE WE TAKE THAT ON.

THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN, UH, THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN RAISED.

I THINK WE GO BACK TO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S, UH, UH, QUESTIONS AND SEE IF WE'RE IN A POSITION TO, TO TO, TO BE ABLE TO, UH, HANDLE THOSE, UM, THE, THE, THE REAL ESTATE, UH, ITEMS THAT GIVES US THE, THE TURS AND THE PUD, UH, TO, TO HANDLE TONIGHT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND SEE IF WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH TO, TO RESOLVE THOSE.

UM, DO WE WANNA TRY AND DO THE, UH, REAL ESTATE ITEMS AND THEN TAKE A, A DINNER BREAK AND THEN COME BACK IN AN HOUR

[05:15:01]

THAT'S A GOOD POINT FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.

AND, AND AT THIS POINT, ALL I CAN DO IS REALLY, UM, SHARE MY THOUGHTS AND, AND ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF AUSTIN ENERGY SO THAT WE CAN BE THINKING HOW WE MIGHT INCORPORATE THIS INTO HOW WE'RE THINKING AND WHETHER WE WANT TO, AND, AND BE ABLE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK, UM, FROM THE INTERVENERS.

OKAY, SO LET'S DO THIS ON THAT.

LET'S, LET'S, LET'S, WHEN WE STOP HERE, WE'RE GONNA PICK BACK UP THE AUSTIN ENERGY CONVERSATION, LET PEOPLE IDENTIFY ISSUES WHILE WE HAVE FOLKS THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE SO THAT THEY CAN BE HERE FOR THAT.

UH, AND THEN, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, UH, YOU KNOW, SET TO KIND OF AT TIMES, YOU KNOW, PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AS A COUNCIL.

AUSTIN ENERGY, 45 MINUTES, AN HOUR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, LET'S PICK UP THE PROPERTY THINGS THAT TONIGHT, RIGHT AT THAT POINT BEFORE DINNER BREAK, UH, TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN HANDLE QUICKLY.

AND IF NOT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SOME TAKE LONGER.

AND WE'LL TAKE A DINNER BREAK AND WE'LL COME BACK THEN AND DO THE, UH, TOURS AND THE, UH, UH, POD, UH, AND SEE IF WE CAN, UH, RESOLVE THOSE.

AND THAT WILL BE OUR EVENING.

I SEE WE HAVE SOME FOLKS HERE FOR PROCLAMATIONS ALREADY.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE MIGHT TAKE A DINNER BREAK AFTER FIVE 30? NOT, NOT BREAK AT FIVE 30.

UH, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE DO HAVE PROCLAMATIONS AT FIVE 30.

UM, WELL THAT PUTS US, I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT WE, THAT WE, THAT WE PICK UP THE PROCLAMATIONS AT SIX.

SO LET'S DELAY.

I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DELAY THAT JUST ONE HALF HOUR.

LET'S HAVE AN AUSTIN ENERGY CONVERSATION UNTIL, UH, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY 10 TILL SIX.

LET'S PICK UP THE, THE PROPERTY ONES THAT YOU HAVE WITH AN EYE TO BREAKING AT SIX FOR PROCLAMATIONS AND DINNER BREAK.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND HANDLE, UH, TOURISM AND PUT IF WE'RE ABLE TO.

THAT'S HOW WE'RE GONNA PROCEED.

UH, LET'S NOW OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCIL TO, TO SPEAK TO, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY.

WHILE WE HAVE STAFF HERE, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OR, UH, GIVE, UH, DIRECTIONS OR, OR THOUGHTS.

THIS IS ANTICIPATION OF US PICKING UP THIS TOPIC TOMORROW.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS, UH, NEXT WEEK AS, AS WELL IF WE NEED TO.

UH, MAYOR PROTON.

UM, SO LOOKING OVER THE SCENARIOS THAT WERE SHARED THAT I'D ASKED TO RUN, UM, THAT WE GOT BACK YESTERDAY, UM, THAT HAVE, UM, A SLIGHTLY NARROW OVER TIER TWO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED WAS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHART THAT SHOWS THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE FOR THE PROPOSED SCENARIO WHEN YOU BREAK A 1500 PEOPLE WHO ARE USING MORE ENERGY ARE GETTING A DECREASE IN THEIR RATES, UM, INSIDE THE CITY.

UM, SO WHAT I ASKED AUSTIN ENERGY WAS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE MADE IT? SO THEY WOULD HAVE, LIKE WE, WE SET THE RATE STRUCTURE IN A WAY SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECEIVE A REDUCTION, BUT THEY WERE SET EVEN THEY'VE BEEN SUBSIDIZING THE, UM, THE LOWER TIERS.

UM, AND SO WE ASKED THAT AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF AUSTIN WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SPEAK TO THAT WITH THE, ONE OF THE VERSIONS THAT WE HAVE, OR IF YOU WANT ME JUST TO SAY WHAT I LEARNED OR WHAT WOULD BE BETTER.

TO SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT WE HAD PERHAPS WANTED, BUT IT DOES OFFER, UM, A SHIFT IN ABILITY SO THAT WE ARE ENCOURAGING CONSERVATION SO THAT IF YOU USE MORE ENERGY, YOU'RE NOT GETTING A BREAK ON YOUR RATE.

SO WHEN I ASKED THEM THAT, THAT IDENTIFIES 8.5 MILLION JUST DOING THAT ON THE INSIDE.

UM, NOW THE CATCH IS THAT THIS MONEY CAN'T BE SPENT ON THE LOWER TIERS OR ON THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, OR THE WHOLE EDIFICE OF THE RATE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE OVER TIME COLLAPSES.

AND YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T JUST MOVE ONE PUZZLE PIECE.

UM, SO, SO FAR IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT, UM, WE COULD USE SOME OF THAT MONEY FOR THE CAP, UM, AND TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN EXPAND THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CAP.

WE ALSO COULD PROVIDE RELIEF TO, UM, AND I'M GONNA GET THIS WRONG, OUR S TWO AND OUR S3 CLASS CUSTOMERS, WHICH TEND TO BE BUSINESSES LIKE RESTAURANTS OR MUSIC VENUES, UM, A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT WERE REALLY IMPACTED IN THE PANDEMIC, UM, WHO HAVE BEEN SUBSIDIZING THE RATES OF EVERYBODY ELSE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME, UM, AND ARE CURRENTLY, UM, BEARING THE BRUNT OF ADDRESSING, UM, THE OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS.

UM, AND SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE RELIEF.

IT DOESN'T PROVIDE RELIEF, UM, DIRECTLY

[05:20:01]

UM, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

UM, IT PRESERVES MOVING TO COST OF SERVICE.

IN FACT, IT GETS US EVEN FURTHER TO COST OF SERVICE, UM, BECAUSE THE, THE S TWO AND THE S3 CLASSES WOULD BE GETTING CLOSER TO COST OF SERVICE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ADJUSTED AND WE'D HAVE A GOOD CHUNK OF MONEY TO EXPAND, UM, THE CAP.

UM, SO I WANNA THROW THAT OUT THERE.

IT NEEDS TO BE VETTED MORE, IT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THREE MORE.

WE NEED TO HAVE EVERYONE SEE THE, THE RUN OF, UM, DATA FOR THE SCENARIO, UM, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, UM, PUT OUT THERE, UM, TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

THIS WOULD HAVE THE INSIDE DOING THAT, BUT NOT THE OUTSIDE.

UM, AND IT'S JUST ANOTHER SCENARIO AND TO THINK ABOUT, AND THERE MAY BE OTHER USES THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH, BUT IT CAN'T BE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE MOST WANTING TO USE IT FOR ORIGINALLY.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF AT THIS POINT IT'S, IT'S RIGHT FOR YOUR STAFF OR YOU WANT TO HEAR ALL THE COMMENTS.

FIRST GREAT MINDS, UH, UH, IT WAS A HALF A WEEK AGO, I WENT TO AUSTIN ENERGY WITH THE SAME KIND OF PROPOSAL.

UM, UM, MAYBE NOT LOOKING AT, UH, UH, TAKING OFF THE ENTIRE DISCOUNT, BUT, UH, SOME PORTION OF THE DISCOUNT AS AN OPTIONALITY ON THAT.

UH, BUT THAT DOES PERHAPS GIVE US A FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DEAL SEPARATELY WITH THOSE CLASSES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, IN A WAY THAT, UM, UH, IN REPEATED RATE CASES WE'VE HAD TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT TO FIND A SOLUTION TO HELP KEEP US ALL OUTTA COURT MIGHT BE THE WAY.

UM, I THINK THAT MIGHT OPEN UP THE, THE, THE POSSIBILITY FOR US TO, TO HAVE, UM, TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT PRACTICE WITH, UH, TWO RATE, UH, STRUCTURES, WHICH, UH, MIGHT MAKE SENSE GIVEN THE OTHER, UH, ELEMENTS OF OUR, UH, OF OUR, UM, ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT, THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT IN THIS PROCESS.

SO I TOO WOULD BE INTERESTED EITHER TONIGHT OR TOMORROW FROM HEARING FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO, TO FOLLOW THAT KIND OF, KIND OF THING IS AS WELL.

AND HOPEFULLY THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THAT AND IT'S BEEN EXPLORED, COUNCIL FUENTES AND THEN COUNTS OUR POOL.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU MAYOR PROTE.

I AM CONTINUALLY IMPRESSED BY YOUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY COST SAVINGS, SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR THAT AND YOUR LEADERSHIP ON, ON THAT ISSUE.

UM, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS FOR YOU, MAY I PRETEND, WHEN YOU SUGGESTED POTENTIALLY EXPANDING THE CAP PROGRAM WITH THE, UH, THE 8000008.4 MILLION THAT YOU IDENTIFIED, ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT IT FROM A LENS OF EXPANDING THE THRESHOLD OF THOSE WHO CAN PARTICIPATE WITHIN THE CAP PROGRAM? I MEAN, LIKE THE MFI THE INCOME RIGHT NOW IT'S 200% FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.

ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT EXPANDING THAT PIECE OF IT? OR CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS TO, UM, WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ON, ON THAT EXPANSION? UM, WELL I WAS THINKING THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW THE RESOLUTION THAT WE JUST PASSED, UM, ALONG THOSE LINES, UM, BUT HADN'T, I THINK THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME CONSTRAINTS OVER WHICH PART OF THE CAP, IF IT'S THE STAFFING OR THE EXPANSION THAT COME WITH USING THIS MONEY THAT I DON'T HAVE, UM, THE BEST DETAILS ON.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ON WHICH OF THOSE DIRECTIONS WE DO.

I THINK WE HAVE CERTAINLY A CHALLENGE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE ARE NOT TAKING UP THE OPPORTUNITY AND THERE CERTAINLY WOULD BE A WORLD OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT.

UM, BUT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT I'M, AT THIS POINT.

I'M JUST SAYING IT COULD BE SPENT ON THE CAP.

WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE, WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE THE OUTLINES OF THAT AND WE'D HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHICH PART OF THE CAP GETS PAID FOR OUT OF THE BASE RATE AND WHICH GETS PAID FOR, UM, ELSEWHERE.

UM, YEAH, I MEAN, CUZ RIGHT NOW, I MEAN THAT RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED DOES, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT A THIRD OF, UH, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CAT PROGRAM ARE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE CAT PROGRAM.

IT'S STILL GONNA TAKE A WHILE FOR US TO EVEN MEET THE, THE GOALS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION.

AND I'M JUST, I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT WOULDN'T PROVIDE THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OR RELIEF THAT ARE, ARE WORKING AUSTINITES NEED, AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY EASE THE BURDEN.

SO I WOULD BE REALLY CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY POTENTIALLY OF OTHER STRATEGIES THAT, UM, THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE IN MIND WITH THIS NEWLY IDENTIFIED, UM, REVENUE AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP EASE THE, THE RATE SHOCK FOR OUR

[05:25:01]

CUSTOMERS SO THAT IT'S NOT ALL AT ONCE.

UM, AND TO GET CLOSER TO WHAT, UM, WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE INTERVENERS.

UM, AND THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD HAS OUR POOL.

SO IF YOU ALL HAVE, HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT THE MESSAGE BOARD AND LOOK AT THE, UM, UH, PROPOSAL THAT I'M PUT, THAT I'VE PUT OUT HERE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER THIS WEEK AT WORK SESSION.

AND IT WAS A SCENARIO THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH MY TEAM IN AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, SINCE LAST MONTH.

UM, YOU WILL SEE THAT, UH, THE INCREASE IN THE FIXED CHARGE IS GRADUAL OVER THREE YEARS.

IT GOES UP FROM $4 THE FIRST YEAR TO FIVE AND THEN TO SIX.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THE COST OF, UH, THE COST OF THE ACTUAL POWER, THE ENERGY THAT KILOWATT GOES DOWN, AS THAT DOLLAR GOES UP IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE STILL BALANCING TO GET TO, UH, THE REVENUE THAT IS REQUIRED.

UM, AND SO THIS IS INDEED, UH, THE EASING THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING US FOR.

UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT ADDING $14 ON TOP OF $10.

THIS IS $4 ADDED TO $10.

SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE INITIAL FIXED CHARGE AMOUNT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD PROPOSED.

UM, IT DOES, AND IT DOES GET US TO THE POINT WHERE WE NEED TO GET, AND I'M INTERESTED TO TALK MORE WITH THE MAYOR, POT TAM AND THE MAYOR ABOUT THE, UM, THE INITIATIVE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SO THAT I CAN WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN WEAVE THAT INTO THESE NUMBERS AS WELL.

WE HAVE CUSTOMERS IN WITHIN THE CITY AND WE HAVE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY.

AND BECAUSE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE INSIDE THE CITY HAVE A BENEFIT, UM, CIVIC BENEFIT OF THE, UH, THE, WELL JUST THE CIVIC BENEFITS THAT WE OFFER TO RESIDENTS IN THE CITY THAT THE OUT PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS DON'T NECESSARILY PARTICIPATE IN.

SO I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN, UM, RATE PAYERS IN THE, IN THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE CITY.

I ALSO WANNA, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING TO TO COMMENT ON THIS UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE RATE PAYERS ARE CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN WHAT WE'RE CALLING CAP, WHICH IS, UH, CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

THEY PAY $0 NO MATTER WHAT WE SET THE FIXED FEE AT.

CURRENTLY IT'S $10 IF IT HAD GONE TO 25, WHICH I DON'T THINK IT WILL, BUT IF IT HAD THOSE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM STILL WOULD PAY NOTHING.

SO THAT HAD NO IMPACT ON THEIR, UH, ON THEIR DAILY AND THEIR MONTHLY BUDGETS.

STILL, WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES FOR EVERYBODY, NOT JUST THE FOLKS WHO QUALIFY FOR CAP.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD.

EVERYBODY ON THIS DI ARE STAFF AND THE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY WITH THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER AND OTHERS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A REASONABLE RESOLUTION TO A FAIRLY COMPLEX SET OF FACTORS.

I FEEL REALLY GOOD TONIGHT ABOUT WHERE THINGS HAVE, UH, HAVE PROGRESSED SINCE WE FIRST STARTED ON OUR SERIES OF WORK SESSIONS, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONVERSATIONS ONE ON ONE WITH THE COMMUNITY, WITH THE ADVOCATES, WITH THE FOLKS WHO WE HIRED TO MANAGE THIS, UH, SIMILAR TO A PUC HEARING, UH, READING ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND LOOKING AT ALL THE ANALYSES.

I FEEL REALLY, REALLY GOOD ABOUT ALL OF THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE TO DATE.

I REMAIN REALLY HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO FIND OUR SOLUTION.

I THINK THERE IS IS A SWEET SPOT IN HERE THAT WE CAN ALL, UH, RALLY AROUND.

AND MAYOR, I'M HOPING THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOMORROW WHEN WE BRING THIS TOGETHER.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABOUT THE, UM, THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU BOTH HAVE COME UP WITH, IF WE COULD DO THAT MAYBE LATER ON THIS EVENING OR, OR TOMORROW BEFORE WE RECONVENE.

HAVE ON OUR ENVIRONMENT THROUGH OUR CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

AND THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN ON THIS REALLY DIFFICULT WALK WITH US.

IT HASN'T BEEN EASY, UM, AT ALL.

AND I THINK ALL OF US KNOW A HECK OF A LOT MORE ABOUT HOW THE RATES ARE CALCULATED AND THE IMPACTS THAT WE

[05:30:01]

THERE'S A, A WHOLE LOT OF LEARNING THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AMONG PEOPLE WHO MAYBE ONLY MET BECAUSE THEY SHARED A CONCERN ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

AND, AND I THANK YOU EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU FOR ALL OF THE REALLY STRONG AND SMART THOUGHT BEHIND, UH, YOUR COMMENTS AND THE DELIVERY OF THEM TO US HERE.

I I, I JUST AM VERY GRATEFUL.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE I, YEAH.

UH, DOES THAT, DOES THE CAP THE, UH, TRANSFER TO THE CITY, UH, DOES THE CAP ALSO GOES FOR THREE YEARS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE GRADUATED? NO, THE, UH, GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IS CAPPED AT WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY, WHICH IS 115 MILLION.

AND THAT WOULD STAY CONSTANT FOR THREE YEARS FOR SURE.

AND THEN WE WOULD ASSESS IT.

I SEE US ASSESSING OUR RATES ANNUALLY, NOT EVERY FIVE YEARS.

WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS DURING BUDGET AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION.

AND IF WE FIND THAT THE CAP, UH, NEEDS TO REMAIN, THEN WE WILL KEEP THE CAP ON.

IF WE FIND THAT WE'RE ABLE TO EASE IT A LITTLE BIT, REMEMBERING THAT THE MONIES THAT TRANSFER THROUGH THAT GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS SUPPORT, REALLY IMPORTANT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS AND, UH, THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN PUTS INTO THE BUDGET TO THE BENEFIT OF, OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES, OF THE, NOT JUST THE RATE PAYERS, BUT JUST EVERYBODY IN THE CITY BENEFITS FROM THAT GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

UM, IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT BENEFIT TO US ALL.

I DON'T WANNA LOSE IT, BUT YES, THE 115 MILLION WOULD BE KEPT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

BECAUSE VER TOVO, YOU WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S, UM, WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AT OUR WORK SESSION.

I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYONE AGREES THAT IT SHOULD BE CAPPED.

I THINK THE INTERVENERS WHO WERE SUGGESTING AN ADJUSTMENT THERE WERE, WERE SAYING THAT ONE 15 MADE BETTER SENSE IN TERMS OF A REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE HISTORICAL AVERAGES SHOWED.

UM, IT WAS, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT OUR, AT OUR WORK SESSION, I THINK AT LEAST ONE OF US, MAYBE A COUPLE OF US SAID THAT WAS NOT GOING, THAT THAT MADE BETTER SENSE FOR A REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT, BUT SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY BE AN ABSOLUTE CAP.

I NOTICED IN THE RE IN THE KIND OF REBUTTAL THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDED YESTERDAY, THEY HAVE LANGUAGE AND THEY'RE SUGGESTING THAT IT BE A CAP.

BUT I DO, I DO THINK THAT TIES THE HANDS OF THE, OF THE COUNCIL AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AN IMPORTANT WAY THAT, UM, THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN BENEFITS FROM ITS MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY IN THE SAME WAY THAT PRIVATE UTILITIES TRANSFER, UH, A BENEFIT TO PRIVATE INVESTORS IN THAT, IN THAT COMPANY.

SO IT'S TOTALLY APPROPRIATE AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED, UM, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CAP.

SO I'D, I'D WELCOME SOME THOUGHTS FROM OTHERS ON THE DIAS ON THAT, ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT.

UM, AND I ALSO HAD A QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW IF CAIA BE WHITE OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO IS A SIGNATOR TO THE JOINT, TO THE JOINT, UM, PROPOSAL IS HERE STILL.

TREY SALINAS.

OF THE, YOU KNOW, LARGER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RATE PAYERS, WHICH OF COURSE THOSE CUSTOMERS I THINK WOULD APPRECIATE.

SO YOU AND I HAVE HAD AN EXCHANGE BECAUSE YOU, YOU MADE SOME POINTS DURING YOUR TESTIMONY HERE THAT I ASKED YOU TO JUST CLARIFY IN AN EMAIL, WHICH YOU DID AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

CAN YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF REVENUE DISTRIBUTION, UM, THAT YOU AND I HAVE BEEN CONVERSING ABOUT AND AND RELATE IT TO THE ISSUE THAT COUNCIL, THAT MAYOR PROTE ALTAR WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE PIECE OF, UM, FUNDING THAT SHE'S BEEN IDENTIFIED HAS IDENTIFIED? YEAH, SO, WELL I I THINK THERE'S KIND OF TWO ISSUES THERE.

UM, THE FIRST ONE ABOUT THE REVENUE ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE CLASSES, UM, THAT I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THAT THE, THE, THE PARTIES, THE MAJORITY OF, MOST OF THE PARTIES THAT PARTICIPATED HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON REVENUE ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE CLASSES.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE SHARED THAT WITH COUNCIL AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU THAT WHATEVER OVERALL REVENUE INCREASE YOU'LL DECIDE ON THAT, THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE HONOR THAT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, SINCE WE ARE REPRESENTING, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY PRETTY MUCH THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THOSE INCREASES.

SO THE, THE SCENARIOS THAT THAT HAD BEEN RUN FOR, FOR COUNCIL MEMBER POOL AND YOURSELF AND MARY PROTE HAVE ALL USED, UH, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT REVENUE ALLOCATION THAT THAT KIND OF GOES BACK TO WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD BEEN ADVOCATING FOR.

AND IT PUTS MORE BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS TO THE BENEFIT

[05:35:01]

BUT, UM, I, I AM GRATEFUL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH THOSE OF US WHO ARE ADVOCATING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS AND WE HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT, WHICH IS FRANKLY NOT SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS HAPPENS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, PUBLIC CITIZENS, SIERRA CLUB AND LIKE LARGE INDUSTRIALS HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO COME TO YOU, UM, WITH SOMETHING THAT WE AGREE ON LIKE THAT.

SO THAT, THAT'S ISSUE NUMBER ONE.

THE, THE OTHER ISSUE ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, RATE STRUCTURE I THINK IS ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT.

I KNOW THAT AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, HAVE HAS, THEY'VE BEEN TELLING US, THEY'VE BEEN TELLING YOU THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO USE THE INCREASED REVENUE AT THE HIGHER, UH, CONSUMPTION LEVELS, THE HIGHER TIERS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE OR THE LOWER TIER.

THAT IS A POLICY DECISION, THE MATH WORKS.

SO IT'S JUST KIND OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU BUY INTO THE, THE IDEA THAT THERE IS THIS FUNDAMENTAL AND SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT MUST BE FIXED BY INCREASING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE MORE OR INCREASING THAT LOWER TIER MORE.

I THINK AGAIN, ALL OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE, THE CONSUMER GROUPS HAVE AGREED THAT THAT ACTUALLY MITIGATING THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH POSSIBLE AND BENEFICIAL.

SO HELP CLARIFY.

IT DOES.

AND I MAY NEED SOME HELP FROM YOU, UM, CLARIFYING MY REQUEST TO SEE IF WE CAN RERUN THOSE NUMBERS WITH THE COST, WITH THE REVENUE ALLOCATION IN THE WAY THAT THE INTERVIEW THAT THE COLLECTIVE GROUP HAS SUGGESTED.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I SEE MR. SAL, I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS TO ANYTHING TO ADD.

I WAS HOPING SOMEBODY MIGHT ASK ME A QUESTION.

WELL, YOU'RE, YOUR COLLABORATOR JUST ANSWERED IT, SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING.

WELL, CLARIFICATION, THIS IS WHAT I WAS GONNA POINT OUT WHEN I WAS WALKING UP HERE, IS, UH, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU TAKE INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OUR LETTER THAT WE DID SEND.

WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, AN INTERACTION, BECAUSE AS A REMINDER, WE'RE HERE, WE HERE TALK ABOUT THIS, DOING THIS LIKE THE PUC WELL, IF WE'RE GONNA DO IT LIKE THE PUC, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE INTERACTION WITH THE INTERVENERS.

WE'VE HAD NO INTERACTION, WE DIDN'T, WE DON'T GET TO SHOW UP AT WORK SESSIONS AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

YOU DON'T EVEN ASK US THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO I'M ASKING RESPECTFULLY THAT WHETHER IT IS TOMORROW OR DOES NEXT WEEK, THAT WE HAVE AN INTERACTION WITH THE INTERVENERS.

AND I THINK THE QUESTION STAFF MANAGER TO, TO, TO ADDRESS IS WE'VE NOW ALL BEEN MADE AWARE THAT A LOT OF THE INTERVENERS HAVE AGREED ON WHAT A REVENUE ALLOCATION WOULD BE AS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW MUCH THE TOTAL REVENUE IS.

SO REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL REVENUE, THEY'RE PROPOSING A CERTAIN REVENUE ALLOCATION.

AND THE QUESTION IS, IF WE HAVE EVERYBODY THAT'S IN AGREEMENT WITH IT, WHY WOULDN'T WE AGREE WITH IT? IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

IF THAT'S THE CASE.

TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, ON THE OTHER QUESTION, I BELIEVE REALLY STRONGLY AS I THINK YOU DO, THAT THE, UH, I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO, TO PARTICIPATE AND VOTE UNDER THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN THE RATE SHOCK THAT, UH, WE LIMIT THE, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

UH, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE REALLY SPECIFICALLY THAT IT'S FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND FOR THIS REVENUE COUNT.

CUZ I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT AS THE CITY GROWS AND AS THAT OPERATION GROWS, AS THE DIVIDEND TO SHAREHOLDERS WOULD GROW, THAT, THAT THIS DOES TOO.

UH, AND WE HAVE THREE YEARS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM.

BUT YOU KNOW, IT, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, MONEY THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, UM, AND IT IS COMING OUTTA THE GENERAL FUND AND, AND WE NEED TO, TO INSTITUTIONALLY PUT THAT BACK.

I DON'T WHAT, I DON'T MEAN REPLACE THE MONEY THATT COME IN, BUT GET BACK TO THE FORMULAS SO THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FORMULA.

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO HAVE AUSTIN ENERGY RESPOND TO THE, UM, TO COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S QUESTION, THE ONE THAT KAVA ANSWERED AND TREY ANSWERED, IF, UM, YOU MIGHT NEED TO REPEAT IT TO SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MR. BRITO OR, OR IF IT'S OUR GENERAL MANAGER.

THAT'S SOMETHING I I'VE TRANSFERRED BEFORE WE SWITCH BACK.

AND, AND I MAY BE WRONG AND MAY BE MR. BOCATO REMEMBERS CORRECTLY, BUT I I THOUGHT WHEN, WHEN THERE WAS A LEVEL SET BACK IN 2013 THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE HISTORICAL AVERAGE.

OKAY, HANG ON ONE SECOND.

YEAH, MAYOR, I WOULD JUST SAY WITH REGARD TO THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, YOU KNOW, AS I READ THE INTERVENERS SUGGEST, I MEAN THERE ARE TWO DECISIONS BEFORE US.

I THINK ONE IS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO LOWER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO FACTOR IN A GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AT ONE 15.

IT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CAP AT THAT LEVEL.

[05:40:01]

SO IT WAS A BIT OF A JUMP FROM, FROM WHAT THAT TRANSFER HAD BEEN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I MEAN IT WOULD, IT WOULD'VE, I I THOUGHT I REMEMBERED, AND I MAY BE WRONG, BUT THE CAP, THE EQUIVALENT WOULD'VE BEEN TO SET IT NOW AT A CAP AT ONE 20 TO SAY IT'S NOT GONNA EXCEED THAT FOR A COUPLE YEARS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE SETTING IT BACK AT THE HISTORICAL AVERAGE, WHICH IS LOWER ANYWAY, I JUST, YEAH, I I HAD NOT BEEN ADVOCATING FOR A CAP AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I WANNA VOTE FOR ONE.

BUT ANYWAY, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT QUESTION.

I WAS ASKING A QUESTION TO SEVERAL OF THE INTERVENERS ABOUT THEIR POINT, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RECAST THAT FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY'VE ANSWERED THAT.

SO I THINK THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUT AND YOU TELL WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS FORM AND IN THIS WAY TO BE ADDRESSING THEM.

ONE CONCERNS, THE, THE, THE, UH, REVENUE, UM, THE SHAREHOLDER DIVIDEND THAT COMES TO THE CITY.

THERE'S A FORMULA THAT WE USE TO DERIVE THAT.

UH, AND THEN BASED ON THAT FORMULA THAT GIVES US A NUMBERS AN OBJECTIVE FORMULA.

AND THAT WOULD INDICATE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS YEAR ABOUT 120 MILLION.

AND THE QUESTION IS, DO WE NOT TAKE THE FULL 120, WHICH IS WHAT THE FORMULA WOULD DICTATE, DO WE TAKE 115, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE FORMULA WOULD DICTATE BUT IS, BUT IS IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE GOTTEN IN THE PAST.

SO UNDERSTANDING THE MACHINATIONS OF THAT, ALL I WAS SAYING AS TOVA WAS I'M FINE WITH US TAKING LESS THAN WHAT THAT FORMULA WOULD INDICATE, BUT I WANT TO, I DON'T WANT THAT FORMULA GO AWAY.

I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S THE FORMULA.

UH, BUT IF IT MEANS THAT, UH, WE GET 5 MILLION LESS TO THE GENERAL FUND IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, THAT'S A QUESTION WE ASKED THE, THE MANAGER FOUR WEEKS AGO WHETHER HE WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND APPARENTLY HE IS, OR WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THIS HAPPEN THAT WAY.

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, A LOT OF THE INTERVENERS HAVE COME FORWARD AND SAID REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE REVENUE IS, WE'VE AGREED ON A APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN CLASSES.

AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT, THAT WORKS? SO LET'S, UH, TAKE THE FIRST QUESTION OR, OR THE GENERAL FUND QUESTION FIRST.

UM, JACKIE, SERGEANT AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER.

SO IS MY UNDERSTANDING, ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT HERE, THAT BACK WHEN THE 2012 UH, RATE CASE WAS FINALIZED, THERE WAS A FORMULA THAT WAS ESTABLISHED TO DETERMINE THE GENERAL FUND CALCULATION AT THAT TIME.

THE, UM, IT WAS DETERMINED TO SET THAT AT 105 MILLION AND TO LET THAT CALCULATION RISE AND THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER STAYED AT 105 MILLION FOR A TIME PERIOD SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL SUCH TIMES AS REVENUES INCREASED AND IT ROLLED THROUGH THE FORMULA.

AND THEN THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER HAS BEEN GOING UP PROGRESSIVELY EVERY YEAR.

AND SO WHEN WE ESTABLISH THE COST OF SERVICE MODEL AND WE LOOK AT, WE'RE GOING TO BE INCREASING RATES, WHICH INCREASES REVENUES, THERE WILL BE A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

AND SO WE SET THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO THAT IN THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY AND SO TO REFLECT WHAT THE NEW RATE REVENUE WAS GOING TO BRING IN.

AND THEN THE FORMULA WOULD BE APPLIED, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO SET IT AT 115 MILLION IN THE TEST YEAR AS OPPOSED TO THE 120 AND WHAT WE'VE TALKED WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT AND HOW WE COULD MANAGE THAT IS WHEN WE ESTABLISH THAT CALCULATION, WHAT WOULD IT BE TO COME UP WITH THE 115 MILLION AND THEN KEEP APPLYING THAT SO IT WOULDN'T STAY AT 115 MILLION, BUT RATHER IT WOULD BE CALCULATED AND AS THE REVENUES INCREASE, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER WOULD INCREASE, BUT IT WOULD BE FROM THAT STARTING POINT OF 115 MILLION, NOT THE 120.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YOU'RE SAYING COME UP WITH A NEW FORMULA? WELL, THE FORMULA RIGHT NOW IS, UM, TOTAL REVENUES SUBTRACT OFF POWER SUPPLY REVENUE, SUBTRACT OFF OUR DISTRICT ENERGY AND COOLING REVENUE, AND THEN, UM, TAKE THOSE NUMBERS FOR ACTUALS FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN WHAT'S FORECAST IN THE BUDGET TAKE THE AVERAGE OF THAT, WHICH GIVES YOU A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF REVENUES AND APPLY A, UM, PERCENTAGE UP TO 12%.

AND THAT CALCULATES TO 120 ROUGHLY FOR THIS YEAR WHEN THE RATES, WHEN THE NEW RATES ARE, IF THE APPLIED, IF RATES GO INTO A PLAY AND AS THAT GOES THROUGH SO THAT WE DON'T END UP IN A SITUATION NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND.

WHERE WE NOT COLLECTING ENOUGH REVENUE TO COVER WHAT WE WOULD SEE AS AN EXPENSE TO US.

[05:45:01]

SO EVEN THOUGH THAT CALCULATION WOULD GENERATE 120, WE WOULD BE ARBITRARILY SAYING WE'RE GONNA ONLY DO ONE 15 AND AND THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR THIS REVENUE PERIOD.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD NOT GO BACK TO THE FORMULA THAT WE HAD USED TO CALCULATE ONE 20, BUT WE WOULD MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FORMULA SO AS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FORMULA, THE FORMULA WOULD BE THE SAME.

AND IT'S THE PERCENTAGE AND THE PERCENTAGE THAT YOU APPLY BASED ON THE TARIFF IS UP TO 12%.

SO THE PERCENTAGE COULD BE ANYWHERE IN THAT WINDOW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AT 12% IT INDICATES ONE 20.

YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE CHANGE THAT 12% NUMBER UP TO 12% SO THAT IN THREE YEARS IT COULD STILL BE THAT FORMULA AND UP TO 12% OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING, I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE WOULD ADJUST THE PERCENTAGE THAT WE APPLY TO THE CALCULATION SO THAT IT REPRESENTS THE ONE 15 THAT'S I WAS IT AND WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THE CALCULATION BUT NOT AT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE FORMULA THE SAME WAY.

WE'VE HAD THE FORMULA UP TO 12%.

YOU CAN STILL MAKE THE DECISIONS YOU WANT TO MAKE.

IF WE CAN GET BACK TO THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THE 12% AT AT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN 120 THIS YEAR, THEN WE SHOULD DO THAT AND THAT MONEY SHOULD COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT I WOULDN'T CHANGE THE UP TO 12% NUMBER.

I WOULD STILL KEEP IT THE SAME.

AND, AND, AND YOU'LL USE THE BEST DISCRETION AND I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY OUGHT TO BE TRYING TO GET US TO THE PLACE WHERE WE MAINTAIN THE SAME FORMULA, WITH THE SAME PERCENTAGES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW THAT WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DEVIATE FROM.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

AND I THINK IF THERE IS GONNA BE A CAP, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS IS WHETHER, WHETHER THE VALUE TO INDIVIDUAL RATE PAYERS IS GOING TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE MINIMUM 15 MILLION WE'RE GONNA FOREGO IN THE GENERAL FUND.

I THINK THAT'S A REALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THOSE ARE DOLLARS THAT HELP US FUND LOTS OF CRITICAL BASIC NEEDS PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SO IT IS A AND AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE ONE BECAUSE THOSE ARE DIVIDENDS THAT ARE BEING PAID TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THIS, OF THIS UTILITY.

BUT THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BALANCE THE IMPACT OF IS THE REVENUE IS REDUCING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY 5 MILLION FOR, FOR THIS PERIOD, UM, SIGNIFICANT TO THE IMPACT THAT WE GET FROM THOSE DOLLARS WHEN WE INVEST THEM IN BASIC PROGRAMS THROUGH OUR GENERAL FUND.

AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF WE DO ADJUST IT AND CAP IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE A RE A NEW DAY ON THE FORMULA.

IT SHOULD GO BACK.

IT SHOULD REVERT BACK TO THE FORMULA AND THE PERCENTAGE IN CASE YOU WERE DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

MAY COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PROTE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE STILL HAVE THE OTHER QUESTION FOR HER JACKIE TO ANSWER FOR US.

DID DID SHE FINISH THE QUESTIONS AROUND, I THINK FINISHED THE GENERAL FUND QUESTION? SHE HASN'T RESPONDED YET TO THE I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION ALLOCATION QUESTION.

I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

SO SHE THEN LET'S GET THE ANSWER TO THE ALLOCATION QUESTION FIRST.

SO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INTERVENERS, THAT THERE HAS BEEN A PRESENTATION OF REVENUE COST ALLOCATION, SO PERCENTAGES OF THE REVENUE.

AND SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A, UM, PROPOSAL AND IT'S ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S, UM, UH, MESSAGE THAT SHE POSTED IN THE, UM, COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD.

AND SO IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK IN THAT SCENARIO, WE HAD TO TWEAK THOSE JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY ARE VERY CLOSE.

AND IN SPEAKING WITH SOME OF THOSE, THE, THE INTERVENERS, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLOCATIONS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH.

SO, AND THOSE ALLOCATIONS WORK WITH A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 31.3 MILLION.

IF YOU CHANGE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THEN A PERCENTAGE OF A SMALLER NUMBER IS A SMALLER NUMBER.

AND AS THOSE PARTS MOVE WITHIN THE MODEL, UM, THAT COULD CAUSE SOME DISCREPANCIES.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE CAN'T ADOPT REVENUE ALLOCATIONS INDEPENDENT OF THE TOTAL REVENUE DETERMINATION.

A LOT OF INPUT AND SO IF YOU START CHANGING, CHANGING, YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE ONE OF THE INPUTS WITHOUT HAVING IMPACTS ON THE RESULTS.

AND THE REASON WHY, WHAT IS THE, BECAUSE THEY'RE SUGGESTING OTHERWISE WHY IS WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT PROPOSAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND WE RUN THE MODEL.

SO THE MODEL IS, UM, HAS

[05:50:01]

AND SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO A RESULT, IT'S NOT AS SPECIFIC AS TAKING JUST THOSE REVENUE ALLOCATORS.

THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE INTERVENERS REVENUE, UM, ALLOCATION, UM, PERCENTAGES BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY FORGOT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT WE HAVE DISCOUNTS THAT ARE APPLIED TO OUR SCHOOLS, UM, TO MILITARY AND TO THE STATE, AND THAT REVENUE HAS TO BE COLLECTED.

AND IN THEIR CALCULATIONS, THEY DID NOT INCLUDE THE REVENUE THAT'S NEEDED FROM ALL THE CUSTOMERS TO PROVIDE THOSE DISCOUNTS FOR THE SELECT GROUP.

IF YOU WERE TO PROVIDE THAT, DO FIX THAT, IT TWEAKS, IT CHANGES THOSE ALLOCATORS SLIGHTLY, RIGHT? BUT YOU DO THAT IN PROPORTION TO THE, THE REVENUE ALLOCATION NUMBERS, YOU STILL OUGHT TO END UP IN THE SAME PLACE.

AGAIN, I'M, I'M JUST ASK, TRYING TO ASK THE QUESTION, THOMAS, WHY WOULD IT CHANGE IF WE WANTED TO PICK THE REVENUE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES, WHY WOULD IT CHANGE? WHAT IS WHAT, WHY WOULDN'T THAT APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHAT REVENUE IS? BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL GENERATING THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE.

UM, I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IT.

IT'S, UM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT, BASICALLY YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT, THE, THE INTERVENERS REVENUE ALLOCATION NUMBERS, UM, DIDN'T START WITH, UM, ALLOCATING THE DISCOUNTS, UH, ACROSS ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES AS AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROPOSING.

AND I SHOULD ADD, IT WAS NOT A CONTESTED ISSUE IN THE CASE.

UM, I THINK THAT THE INTERVENERS WOULD SAY THEIR REVENUE ALLOCATION IS JUST A BLACK BOX.

THEY JUST CAME UP WITH SOME PERCENTAGES AMONGST THEMSELVES.

UM, I WOULD SAY THIS, I I THINK THAT OUR NUMBERS ARE AUSTIN ENTITIES NUMBERS ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE OKAY.

TO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE, UH, PROVIDED BY THE INTERVENERS WITH RESPECT TO REVENUE ALLOCATION.

UM, IT, I THINK THAT IF, UH, WE KNEW WHAT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT WAS GOING TO BE, WE COULD, I WOULD SAY I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE COULD BRIDGE THAT GAP REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TOTAL REVENUE WAS.

NO, NOT REGARDLESS.

BUT IF WE HAD, BECAUSE I MEAN AT 31.3 YEAH, THINK WE CAN GET THOSE AT A CERTAIN POINT IF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THAT, THAT NUMBER RIGHT, THAT'S GONNA SKEW PERCENTAGES AND MAY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT ON REVENUE ALLOCATION.

OKAY, SO I HAVE JUST ONE TRY THIS.

IF, IF THE, IF THE INTERVENERS WERE POSING GROUP A PAGE 12%, IT'D BE 18% AND Z PERCENT.

PERCENT PERCENT.

SO IT ADDS UP TO A HUNDRED.

WHY CAN'T YOU MULTIPLY THOSE PERCENTAGES TIMES 31 MILLION IN REVENUE AND MULTIPLY THOSE SAME PERCENTAGES TIMES 22 MILLION IN REVENUE? BECAUSE, UH, THAT WOULD START TO, UM, CREATE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS AND, UM, OKAY.

SO IT, IT WOULD CREATE A, A, A PROBLEM, BUT OTHERWISE, UH, I THINK THAT WE COULD GET THEIR, WITH RESPECT TO REVENUE ALLOCATION OKAY.

MAY HAVE THEM AND THEN KE HER PULL.

UM, SO I, I SEE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF, OF, OF SMALL GUESTS AS WELL.

SO, SO I'M NOT GONNA WAIT FOR THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT IF TOMORROW, UM, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING WITH THE CHANGE THAT I WAS PROPOSING WHERE YOU ZERO IT OUT, YOU CAN REDUCE OTHER PIECES, IT JUST MESSES UP A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, UM, OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

SO IF YOU CAN SPEND SOME TIME TOMORROW WHEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION, WALKING US THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THEM.

BECAUSE IF WE SAID THAT $1 OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE WAS 5.7 MILLION, YOU KNOW, WE COULD REDUCE IT BY $1, BUT THEN ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS CHANGE FOR THE PERCENTAGES AND THEN THE PERCENTAGE THAT THEY'RE GETTING DECREASED CHANGE.

I MEAN, SO, SO THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES THAT CHANGE, BUT I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE AN ILLUSTRATION ABOUT WHY THAT'S A BAD IDEA OR MAYBE IDEALLY SHOW US IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I'M GUESSING IT'S A BAD IDEA.

UM, IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT PUZZLE, UM, SO WE KNOW SOME OF THE PARAMETERS WITH WHICH WE COULD, UM, THINK ABOUT ALLOCATING THAT, THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

CERTAINLY.

[05:55:02]

ANY OTHER POOL? SO JUST TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE, I WANTED TO ASK, UM, MR. SALINAS TO SEND US THE LETTER THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

CAUSE I DON'T THINK I'VE GOTTEN IT AND I MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE.

WE THANK YOU RES OR RESEND IT? YEAH, IF YOU RESEND IT, THAT'D BE GOOD TO EVERYBODY AND FILE THE CASE.

AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, COULD YOU GENERAL MANAGER, COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT WHERE THE STATUS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD DEFER TO OUR COUNCIL.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO KIND OF GIVE US A, A STATUS REPORT ON? I SURE.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU TALK ABOUT IT IF, IF YOU'RE NOT READY.

UH, NO, I, I, UM, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU WHERE THINGS STAND.

UM, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO DIVULGE, UH, ANY CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, BUT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE PARTIES MET THIS MORNING, UM, AND HAD AN EXCHANGE.

UM, WE'VE HAD ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH, UH, SPECIFIC PARTIES THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON.

WE ARE NOT A POS POSITION TO ANNOUNCE A SETTLEMENT.

UM, WE ARE STILL AT AN IMPASSE IN PARTICULAR ON REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, REVENUE ALLOCATION IN RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN.

UM, THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE EITHER, UM, REACHED AN AGREEMENT OR, OR ARE VERY CLOSE, BUT WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO ANNOUNCE EVEN A SETTLEMENT ON, UM, A PART OF THE ISSUES AT THIS TIME.

THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I HAD ASKED YOU ABOUT ON TUESDAY AND, AND YOU HAD INDICATED YOU WEREN'T READY TO TALK ABOUT ANY PIECE OF IT, SO THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S FAIR.

AND, AND I WILL TELL YOU THERE ARE SOME ISSUES, IN FACT, A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHERE PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT, WE'VE WORKED OUT LANGUAGE, UM, BUT FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, UM, PARTIES ARE NOT COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD, UM, WITH A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AT THIS TIME.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE THINGS STAND.

AND I SEE MR. SALINAS INDICATING THAT HE HAS A SHORT WORD THAT HE'D LIKE TO OFFER.

I JUST YOU TO SAY, THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION ON BEHALF OF CCARE ONLY.

I HAPPEN TO BE THE ONE, ONE OF THE ONES IN THE ROOM THAT THINKS WE'RE CLOSE.

GOOD TO KNOW.

HOW CLOSE, MR. SALINAS, I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT.

IT'S CONFIDENTIAL, BUT I, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT IF WE, IF WE CAN BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.

I FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

IF IT WAS WHISKEY AND A GLASS, WOULD IT BE ONE FINGER? I'M ABOUT DO THAT.

CAVA, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? ? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

UH, JUST REAL BRIEFLY, I, I'M NOT SURE I QUITE SHARE THE OPTIMISM, BUT, UH, PARTIES CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO, UH, DO WHAT WE CAN TO REACH AN AGREEMENT.

UM, AND I JUST WANTED Y'ALL TO HEAR THAT.

UH, PUBLIC CITIZENS, SIERRA CLUB, SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBORS, WE ARE ALL FOR, UH, SETTLING THE, THE SOLAR, THE VALUE OF SOLAR ISSUES.

AND I THINK WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE WORKED OUT.

IT'S NOT FINALIZED OR IT'S NOT, I GUESS, OFFICIAL, BUT THE LANGUAGE IS THERE.

SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT.

THE ONE ADDITIONAL THING TO POSSIBLY TEE UP FOR TOMORROW, I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS CAN WALK IN TOMORROW AS WE BEGIN THIS CONVERSATION BY SAYING IT'S SETTLED AND IT'S OVER, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING TO HAVE HAPPEN IF WE'RE NOT AT THAT PLACE.

UM, THERE WERE, UM, FOUR AREAS WITH RESPECT TO REVENUE THAT I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO RAISED AT THE WORK SESSION.

ONE OF THEM WAS THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, WHICH I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS AND ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

THERE WERE THREE OTHERS.

UH, YOU HAVE SENT US, UH, A MEMO ON THOSE THREE.

UH, THE, THE, THE GROUP OF INTERVENERS HAVE SENT US A MEMO ON THOSE THREE.

UH, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IF, IF THIS CASE IS NOT SETTLED, IS GET A BETTER FEEL FOR, THAN FROM A COUNCIL STANDPOINT, THOSE THREE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TEED UP IN FRONT OF US, UH, COUNCIL OR TOVO.

AND I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA REQUIRE, OF COURSE, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC TO, TO ATTEND TOMORROW, BUT IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP MR. SALINAS ON A SUGGESTION THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BIT OF A DIALOGUE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THE REBUTTAL FROM, FROM AE ABOUT THOSE VERY ISSUES, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR BACK FROM THE INTERVENERS IF THEY'RE HERE TOMORROW, ON, ON THEIR PERSPECTIVE, UM, VIS-A-VIS THE MEMO THAT WE GOT FROM AE.

COLLEAGUES, IT IS IF OTHERS WANNA HEAR IF JUST FOLKS COME AND THEN NOT HAVE IT BE OF INTEREST TO OTHERS ON THE DIAS CATCH OUR KITCHEN.

STOP ME IF YOU WERE GONNA GET TO THIS, BUT, UM, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT TIME WE'RE GONNA START TOMORROW MORNING, AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE, JUST AN ESTIMATE OF WHEN WE'LL END TONIGHT.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE STOP NOW AND WE GO TO,

[06:00:01]

UM, UH, PROCLAMATIONS.

WE'RE DONE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY TONIGHT.

UM, THE ISSUES THAT WE SAID WE'RE GONNA PICK UP TOMORROW MORNING, WERE 55 AND 50, UH, SIX.

UM, PICKING THOSE UP TOMORROW, UH, I THINK WE DO, UH, PROCLAMATIONS.

UH, AND UNLESS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU THINK WE COULD DO SOME OF THE REAL ESTATE ITEMS REALLY QUICKLY? PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO, WE'RE GONNA DO PROCLAMATIONS NEXT.

WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH PROCLAMATIONS, YOU GIVE US A FEEL FOR WHETHER OR NOT THOSE THINGS ARE QUICK.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READY TO DO THE, UH, I GUESS THEN WE, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK FOR DINNER AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND PICK UP THE TURS AND THE POD.

UH, WE, UH, ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO FINISH EVERYTHING TONIGHT.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE START TOMORROW.

IS NINE O'CLOCK TOO EARLY FOR PEOPLE TO START, LIKE ON A WORK SESSION DAY? I'M SORRY, TRAFFIC.

NINE 30 IS NINE 30 WORK.

CAN WE PLEASE STATE CO IT'S DAY 10 TOMORROW THAT WE'LL PICK IT BACK UP AGAIN.

DO YOU THINK WE CAN DO THE REAL ESTATE STUFF AFTER, AFTER WE COME BACK WANT DINNER? SURE.

SO WE'RE GONNA DO PROCLAMATIONS AND WE'RE GONNA BREAK FOR DINNER.

WE'LL COME BACK FROM DINNER AFTER PROCLAMATIONS.

UH, WE'RE GONNA DO PROCLAMATIONS NOW AT SIX O'CLOCK.

UH, DO WE WANT TO COME BACK AT, SO OUR DINNER BREAK AT 7 15, 7 15 I THINK MIGHT BE THE WAY TO DO THAT.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN DUE, HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST, 2022 IRANIAN PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION.

WE'RE GONNA DO PROCLAMATIONS NOW.

YES, FRED.

AND THEN WE'RE GONNA TRY TO FINISH BY WHAT TIME TONIGHT? BY 10 ISH? YEAH.

MY MY MY BELIEF IS EITHER THOSE THINGS ARE GONNA BE READY AND AMENABLE TO BEING RESOLVED AND WE'LL KNOW THAT WELL BEFORE 10 OR THEY'RE NOT.

AND WE'LL KNOW THAT WELL BEFORE 10 TOO.

LET'S GO TO, UH, WE'RE GONNA RECESS, UH, WE'RE GONNA RECESS NOW, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT, UM, UH, 6:04 PM UH, WE'LL COME BACK AT, UH, SEVEN 15.

UH, WE'LL HANDLE THE REAL ESTATE MATTERS FIRST, SEE, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THEM.

AND, UH, WE'LL PICK UP THE, UM, THE, THE TURS AND THE, UH, AND THEN WE'LL, UM, STOP.

[Proclamation 1]

I'M COUNCIL MEMBER VANESSA FUENTES AND I REPRESENT SOUTHEAST AUSTIN ON AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S DISTRICT TWO.

FOR OVER TWO MONTHS NOW, PEOPLE OF IRAN HAVE COURAGEOUSLY PROTESTED AND STOOD UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY, AND FREEDOM.

THESE WIDESPREAD WOMAN-LED PROTEST AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC HAVE BEEN MET WITH BRUTAL RETALIATION, INCLUDING TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT, SEXUAL ASSAULT AND EXECUTIONS.

BUT DESPITE THIS OPPRESSION, VARIOUS CROSS SOCIAL AND ETHNIC IRANIAN COMMUNITIES CONTINUE TO PRESERVE AND STAND UNITED.

IT'S A SITE THAT IS BOTH INSPIRING AND SADDENING.

WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE A CITY OF AUSTIN UPHOLDS THE VALUES OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY, AND STANDS IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE IRANIAN COMMUNITY, BOTH LOCALLY AND ABROAD.

THEIR ACTS OF COURAGE, BRAVERY, AND UNITY WILL HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE GLOBE.

WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LOOK AWAY.

I, AND I'M SURE MANY OF US HERE ARE HUMBLED TO DEMONSTRATE OUR SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY.

I WANNA GIVE A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO DR.

BINOCHE MAJA NEED FOR APPROACHING ME AND ASKING ME TO PRESENT TODAY'S PROCLAMATION.

I WILL NOW PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION, BE IT KNOWN, WHEREAS IRANIANS HAVE COURAGEOUSLY RISEN UP AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REGIME IN SUPPORT OF DEMOCRACY, LIBERTY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

AND WHEREAS FOR DECADES, THE IRANIAN REGIME HAS DENIED ITS PEOPLE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND SUPPRESSED THE DEMOCRATIC ASPIRATIONS OF SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS.

AND WHEREAS AFTER WEEKS OF DEMONSTRATIONS, PROTESTS, AND A COUNTRYWIDE STRIKE, THE IRANIAN PEOPLE CONTINUE TO PRESERVE DESPITE HARSH RETALIATION FROM THE COUNTRY'S REGIME.

AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN STANDS WITH AND SUPPORTS THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WHO INSPIRE THE WORLD WITH THEIR BRAVERY AND THEIR FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AGAINST THE REGIME'S BUREAUCRATIC TYRANNY.

NOW, THEREFORE, I VANESSA FUENTES, AUSTIN CITY COUNCILWOMAN, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON COUNCIL, AND ON BEHALF OF STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF

[06:05:01]

SOLIDARITY DAY HONOR.

THANK LEGALLY YOU PHOTOS, CAN YOU DO THIS ? YES.

ANY, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME IN FOR A PHOTO, PLEASE US.

COME ON.

IF YOU WANT TO COME WITH A PHOTO HERE.

YEARS' .

I DON'T, HERE.

I NEED, I I'LL PUSH PUSHED IT STICK.

SAME, SAME THING ON THIS SIDE TO ME.

I NEED Y'ALL TO JUST PUSH IN.

RIGHT? WE CANT, CAN WE CAN? YEAH.

CAN WE? YEAH, THAT'S PERFECT.

I PULL THE PROCLAMATION.

YOU PUT THEM UP.

I'VE GOTTA KEEP IT GOING.

YOU'S YOU'RE HAPPY WITH YOU? NO, NO.

YOU'RE .

I THINK YOU OH, A LITTLE BIT.

I KNOW.

I'M SO .

LITTLE CLOSER.

EVERYBODY GET IT TOGETHER.

YOU .

WE'RE YES.

ELSE YOU'VE HAD FOR YOU RIGHT THERE.

I HAVE THANK, THANK YOU.

YOU , SHE .

THIS IS A REAL PLEASURE.

OH, SHE, AND THEN WE'RE DOING THE MEAL.

UH, IS IT GOOD, MARIA? WE , I JUST DON'T WONDER SHE'D BE IN ORDER.

YEAH, SHE,

[06:10:01]

YES, IT'S, YES.

IT'S NOT THE WHOLE GROUP.

IT'S, I'M OKAY.

WOOHOOHOO 22ND.

REMEMBER? ALL RIGHT.

CAN WE, WE'RE WE'RE, I THINK, I THINK THE COUNCIL IS ON A, A TIME LIMIT.

SO, UM, THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS DR.

BANJA.

I'M THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF B COLLECTIVE AND A FORMER PROFESSOR OF FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY AT SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY.

THE IRANIAN COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBERS FUENTES AND ELLIS MIKAR CHI ANNADAL RVOS FOR THEIR TIRELESS WORK IN SUPPORTING THIS INITIATIVE.

CHILDREN'S GRAVES THANKFUL.

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A SAFE SPACE FOR IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR PROGENY, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF MIXED HERITAGE TO FEEL PROUD OF BEING BOTH IRANIAN AND AMERICAN.

THIS IS WHAT CREATING BELONGING LOOKS LIKE.

THIS REV REVOLUTION IS CALLED WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM.

WHY IS THAT? WELL, WOMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS A WOMAN CENTERED REVOLUTION, I HAVE TO KEEP CHECKING MYSELF EVERY TIME I SAY THAT.

IS THAT REALLY TRUE? CAN I REALLY USE THE WORD FEMINISM WITHOUT GETTING DIRTY LOOKS IN PUBLIC PLACES? , YES, IT'S FINALLY TRUE.

THE GLOBAL AND SEVERAL MILLENNIA LONG DISCOURSE ABOUT PATRIARCHY IS NOT GETTING SILENCED IN THIS PARTICULAR REVOLUTIONARY MOMENT.

NO ONE DARES TO SAY, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT WOMEN.

LET'S DISCUSS IT AFTER WE'VE WON.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS WE'LL GET TO YOUR NEEDS AFTER.

UM, WHY IS THAT THE CASE? BECAUSE THE IRANIAN WOMEN'S 43 YEAR LONG RESISTANCE AGAINST DOMINATION IS WHAT FINALLY MADE THIS REVOLUTION POSSIBLE.

THIS REVOLUTION WAS SPARKED BY FEMINISM AND IS DRIVEN BY WOMEN LOSING THEIR LIVES IN THE STREETS AND IN THE DENS OF RAPE AND TORTURE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

POLITICAL PRISONS.

LET'S NOT BE AFRAID TO CALL THIS WHAT IT IS.

IT IS A FEMINIST REVOLUTION.

WHY LIFE? THIS IS NOT AN ARMED REVOLUTION ABOUT KILLING NOT FOR THE PEOPLE.

ARMING THE PEOPLE HAS NO PLACE IN THIS FIGHT.

THE IRANIAN WOMEN AND MEN ARE INTENTIONALLY CHOOSING TO WAGE A DAILY DEFENSIVE WAR WITH THEIR BODIES, ROCKS, PIPES, SWITCH BLADES, AND OCCASIONAL OV COCKTAILS AGAINST A RUTHLESS, PARAMILITARY ARMY THAT WIELDS A CORNUCOPIA OF MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.

AND THEY CHOOSE TO DO THIS WHILE THEY DANCE, WHILE THEY SING, WHILE THEY MAKE MUSIC, WHILE THEY LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST.

THIS REVOLUTION IS ABOUT RECLAIMING LIFE IN IRAN.

WHY FREEDOM? THIS IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.

PARENTS WALK INTO THE STREETS, HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR CHILDREN, NO LONGER AFRAID MOTHERS DANCE WITH RED HANDKERCHIEFS ON THEIR CHI.

THANKFUL FOR THEIR DAUGHTER OR SON'S BRAVERY.

KNOWING THAT FREEDOM IS NEAR, I HAVE OFTEN WONDERED ABOUT BEING A WARRIOR.

WHAT BEING A WARRIOR LOOKS LIKE.

WARRIORS LOOK LIKE MAA, NIKO AND HO.

I NO LONGER WONDER ABOUT THIS.

HELLO, I'M DR.

SHUR.

I'M A PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AND FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

IN MY 43 YEARS IN THE US I'VE SEEN IRAN PORTRAYED AS THE LAND OF ANGRY FREEDOM, HATING BACKWARD PEOPLE.

BUT THE REVOLUTIONARIES OF TODAY IN IRAN ARE FORCING THE WORLD TO SEE WHO MY PEOPLE REALLY ARE.

THEY'RE BRAVE.

THEY DEMAND HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN THEY KNOW THEY COULD BE PAYING FOR IT WITH THEIR OWN BLOOD.

THEY QUOTE BOTH DR.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

AND MALCOLM X, THEY'RE LEADERLESS, BUT THEY RELY ON THEIR POWER WITH ONE ANOTHER.

THEY'VE BECOME A MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.

THEY'VE MOVED

[06:15:01]

THE UN TO ACTION AND USED THE GLOBAL STAGE OF THE WORLD CUP TO AMPLIFY VOICES OF I IRANIANS IN IRAN.

THIS MOMENT IS CRUCIAL IN RALLYING INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR IRAN AND SHOWING SOLIDARITY WITH IRANIAN PROTESTORS.

ONE OF THE IMPORTANT TENETS OF PEACE BUILDING THAT EVERY, EVERYONE EVERYWHERE CAN DO IS TO STAND WITH VICTIMS. IF SOMEONE IS SUFFERING, BE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO THEM AND SHARE THEY'RE SUFFERING AND RESPOND.

IF THEY ASK FOR HELP, THEN DO THE WORK TO SEE HOW YOU CAN HELP AND INSIST THAT OUR GOVERNMENT PUT HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

AS MY CULTURE HAS A STRONG LITERARY TRADITION, I'D LIKE TO END WITH PORTIONS OF A POEM BY BONU AND IRANIAN POET AND EXILE, WHO ALSO DESCRIBES HERSELF AS A WAR CORRESPONDENT IN VERSE.

AND WE TURNED AWAY WE COULDN'T BEAR TO WATCH THE TORTURES, THE FLOGGINGS, THE CABLES CUTTING THROUGH THE FLESH, THE NERVES BURSTING INTO CLIPS OF RECORDED CONFESSIONS.

WE COULDN'T BEAR TO WATCH THE BROKEN BONES AND RESOLVES.

WE COULDN'T BEAR TO WATCH THE HANGINGS AND THE THREATS OF RAPE.

WE COULDN'T BEAR TO WATCH THE RAPE.

WE CLOSED OUR EYES.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.

COMMUNICATION HAD STOPPED AND THE BEASTS WENT UNLEASHED.

WE COULD NOT VERIFY, SO WE DID NOT REPORT.

BUT I BELIEVE THE WORST.

AND TRUST THE RUMORS.

I MAY BE THE VOICE, BUT THE STORY IS NOT MINE.

THIS IS THE STORY OF MY PEOPLE.

WE ARE PEOPLE SANCTIONED BY THE WORLD AND SAVAGED BY OUR KIN.

WE ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND YOURS, LOVERS, CHILDREN, PARENTS, BLOOD COSTS LESS THAN FUEL.

THEY CHANTED A MOTHER OF SIX WATCHING PROTESTS ON HER BALCONY WAS SHOT IN THE HEART AND DIED ON THE WAY TO HOSPITAL ACROSS THE STREET.

THE WORLD WAS ABSENT, THE WORLD TURNED AWAY.

NOW THAT I CAN'T SEE, YOU SAID, I CAN PRETEND THAT I CAN'T SEE WHAT I CAN'T SEE.

YOU SAID DOESN'T EXIST.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE YOU SAID, AND I SHOULD.

IN HOST REPORT, POOR THANKED MY CITY FOR LOOKING AND SEEING.

PLEASE KEEP LOOKING AND INSIST THAT OUR GOVERNMENT PUT HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY AND USE DIPLOMACY, NOT WEAPONS.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

ESTEEM MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS DR.

NINA AMASI.

I AM THE DEAN OF HEALTH SCIENCES AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

25 YEARS AGO, I LEFT MY HOMELAND OF IRAN AND CAME TO THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITIES IN PURSUIT OF A BETTER LIFE.

OVER THE YEARS, I REALIZED THAT WITH OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO ME IN AUSTIN AND MY HARD WORK, THE SKY IS THE LIMIT.

IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT NOT LOST ON ME THAT HAD I STAYED IN IRAN, MY LIFE JOURNEY WOULD'VE HAD A VERY DIFFERENT TRAJECTORY FOR WOMEN LIVING IN IRAN, OPPRESSED ON A DAILY BASIS BY DICTATORSHIP.

THE SKY IS NOT THE LIMIT.

MA AMINI WAS STOPPED AND HARASSED BY THE MORALITY POLICE FOR IMPROPER HIJAB.

THIS IS THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF ALMOST EVERY GIRL AND WOMAN IN IRAN, INCLUDING MYSELF.

BUT FOR MASA, IT DID NOT END WITH HARASSMENT.

MASA WAS DETAINED AND BRUTALLY KILLED IN THE REGIME'S CUSTODY THAT SAYS, BEYOND VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

THIS IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN LIFE.

I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO SHINE A LIGHT ON THE POWER OF COUNTLESS BRAVE AND BRILLIANT WOMEN IN IRAN.

AND TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE ONGOING INJUSTICES THEY FACE.

THEY ARE FIGHTING AN UNFAIR FIGHT.

AND IF WE CARE ABOUT WOMEN, IF WE CARE ABOUT LIFE AND FREEDOM, WE MUST STAND WITH THEM AND BE THEIR VOICE.

BEN MI, MAD BAR, BAR THAT AS JOY, I'M AN IMMIGRANT TOO.

MY NAME IS SONIAN AND I'M AN IMMIGRANT.

I'M READING THE SPEECH IN PERSIAN LANGUAGE IN MY MOTHERLAND LANGUAGE, AND I'M TRANSLATING IT FOR, FOR YOU AS CASH MAN.

IAM QUE

[06:20:03]

I COME FROM A COUNTRY WHERE THE MAIN CHALLENGES IS STAYING ALIVE, NOT LIVING, DEFINITELY NOT LIVING WELL.

I COME FROM A PLACE WHERE THE RULES ARE WRITTEN BY MEN, FOR MEN AND WOMEN ARE MADE TO BE OBEY.

WE'RE LAUGHING OR SHOWING HAPPINESS.

IN CONSIDER AATI.

WE HAVE TO OBEY OUR FATHERS AND BROTHERS AND LIVE IN FEAR.

FEAR OF THEIR ANGER IN CASE THEY SENSE, AND IM MODESTY WHERE I LIVED.

BEING LOVE IN FOR WOMEN IS A SCENE BY CHILD, MARRIAGE, AND POLICE ARE THE NORM.

NOODLE, FARAJI HAB, BAR NI SARINO, VA JU AS HAKA AS VA.

I WANT TO HONOR JUST A FEW OF COUNTLESS WOMEN WHO WERE MURDERED OR ARE BEING HELD IN CAPTIVATED TODAY.

MAA, WHO IS PART OF THE MOVEMENT, THE PRI WHO REPORTED THAT HAPPENED TO MAA.

AND WE THOUGHT HOME WE WOULD NOT HAVE A REVOLUTION.

NOW, ARMITA HAD OTHERS REPRESENTATION ARE ENDURING RAPE AND TORTURE IN PRISON OR, OR HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES.

RANCH, CANIK, SHUN, AKK HAND.

I ESPECIALLY WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT ALAN CASE, WHO LOST ONE OF I TO PALLET ASSAULT BULLET LIKE OVER 500 OTHERS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME THING JUST IN TERAN.

SHE SAID, SHE SAID THAT WHEN SHE WAS SHOT, SHE, SHE COULD SEE THE MAN HITTING HER WAS SMILING.

SHE WAS, WHY WAS HE SMILING? AS HE HURT ME, SHE ASKS FINANCIAL TIMES.

I'M PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT AT THIS MORNING, THE FINANCIAL TIMES HAS ANNOUNCED IRANIAN WOMAN IN ITS LIST OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL WOMAN OF THE YEAR IN THE NAME OF WOMAN LIFE AND FOR FREEDOM.

WHO CHOOSES NOT TO WEAR THE HIJAB STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH A WOMAN WHO HAS CHOSEN TO WEAR IT.

MY NAME IS MARYAM NAAM.

I'M AN IRANIAN AMERICAN.

UM, I HAVE A MASTERS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND WORK AT A MAJOR TECH COMPANY.

WE, THE IRANIAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM FOR DECADES.

HOWEVER, THE CURRENT MOVEMENT IS DIFFERENT IN SOME VERY IMPORTANT RESPECTS.

THIS IS A MOVEMENT LED BY WOMEN.

THEY ARE ON THE FOREFRONTS OF THIS REVOLUTION, PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE.

THEIR POWER OF NOT JUST DEMANDING THEIR RIGHTS AND THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE, BUT ALSO BRAVELY TAKING THEIR FAITH INTO THEIR OWN HANDS IS WHAT NO INSTITUTION CAN RESIST AND ANY DICTATORSHIP WILL CRUMBLE IN THE FACE OF IT, NO MATTER HOW STRONG ITS EVIL FORCES.

THE SECOND IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HIS REVOLUTION IS THAT MEN ARE OUT ON THE STREETS RISKING THEIR LIVES, FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

THERE'S THIS HUGE PROGRESS IN A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN BUILT UPON PATRIARCHY FOR HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

THE THIRD IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THE FACT THAT IRANIANS OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, FAITHS, AND IDEOLOGIES, HAVE COME TOGETHER FOR A COMMON GOAL WHERE A WOMAN

[06:25:01]

WE HAVE COME TO A POINT THAT WE UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE CHOICES OF OTHERS, NO MATTER HOW DIFFERENT THEY ARE FROM OURS.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE HIJAB.

WE ARE FIGHTING THE COMPULSORY HIJAB.

WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND THE FREEDOM ANY HUMAN DESERVES ON THIS PLANET.

THE KIND OF FREEDOM THAT MANY OF US IRANIANS WHO HAVE BEEN BORN AFTER THE 79 REVOLUTION HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IN IRAN.

WITH ALL THAT, I BELIEVE THIS REVOLUTION HAS ALREADY SUCCEEDED AT THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CULTURAL LEVEL.

AND NOW WE MUST PUT ALL OUR FORCES TOGETHER.

OKAY? WE MUST PUT ALL OF OUR FORCES TOGETHER TO HELP US SUCCEED AT THE HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEVELS.

US IRANIANS OF DIFFERENT GENDERS, SEXUAL IDENTITIES AND ORIENTATIONS, FAITH, FAITHS, IDEOLOGIES, TRIBES, SUBCULTURES, AND BELIEFS ARE NOW UNITED.

THIS IS A REVOLUTION THAT IS LEADING TO A PEOPLE'S EVOLUTION.

THERE IS NO TURNING BACK AT THIS POINT.

NO ONE CAN FORCE A RIPE FRUIT THAT IS BURSTING AT THE SEAMS TO GO BACK TO A SEED.

NO ONE CAN FORCE THE AWAKEN TO GO BACK TO SLEEP.

WE ARE HERE AND WE ARE READY.

PARA ZEN AZADI, WOMEN LIFE FREEDOM.

I WANT YOU TO TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK AROUND YOU.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IRANIANS ARE HOLDING UP PICTURES.

YES, THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE 18,000 IMPRISONED AND HUNDREDS KILLED IN THE LAST 10 WEEKS.

WE ASK OURSELVES WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP THIS REVOLUTION.

I WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT I HEARD.

A YOUNG WOMAN WHO HAD SPENT THE DAY IN THE STREETS FIGHTING, SAY IN AN IRANIAN TWITTER CHATROOM ONE DAY.

SHE SAID, FOR 43 YEARS, THE WORLD THOUGHT WE WERE MADE OF THE SAME STUFF AS THE MONSTERS WHO ENSLAVED US.

AND WE STARTED TO BELIEVE THAT LIE OURSELVES.

BUT TODAY WE FINALLY KNOW WHO WE ARE.

WE ARE BRAVE, WE ARE NOT AFRAID.

WE ARE THE LIGHT AGAINST THE DARK.

WE KNOW OUR WORTH.

WE'RE TOGETHER AND WE WILL WIN.

AND FINALLY, I HELD IT TOGETHER SO FAR.

AND FINALLY, THE WORLD GETS TO SEE THE REAL IRAN, THE US THAT'S BEEN BURIED UNDER A HEAP OF LIES.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CHAMBER AUDIENCE, AND THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS VIDEO HELP THESE WARRIORS SUCCEED AND FEEL SEEN BY SPREADING THEIR MESSAGE.

SHARE MATERIAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA, PRESSURE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

IF YOU ARE A PERSIAN SPEAKER, TRANSLATE INFO IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN OR RETWEET THOSE.

WHO DO WE ASK THAT YOU TAG INFLUENCERS AND SHARE THIS VIDEO.

WE WILL BE PRODUCING A VIDEO AFTER THIS SO AS TO INSPIRE OTHER CITIES.

THIS IS OUR BIG ASK.

INSPIRE OTHER CITIES TO CREATE AN IRANIAN PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION SOLIDARITY DAY LIKE OUR CITY AUSTIN DID.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOVERNMENTS.

LET'S HELP FINALLY CONNECT THE PEOPLE OF THE US AND THE PEOPLE OF IRAN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE APPRECIATE YOU.

WE APPRECI.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT A LOT.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SO UP.

I'M, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, UH, YOU GUYS READY FOR US TO ONE LAST PICTURE? YES.

WE HAVE SOME DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS FOR SOME SELECTED ARTISTS.

THAT'S ON ON

[06:30:03]

IT'S OKAY.

AND IT'S JUST THIS, LET'S JUST, IT SOMEBODY ELSE.

[Proclamation 2]

IF THE ARTISTS COULD ALL COME UP HERE AS WELL AS THE HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOLKS.

AND IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE CHAMBER, IF YOU WOULD DO THAT QUIETLY SO THAT WE COULD, UH, MOVE FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TOO.

I THINK WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST THE ONES THAT WERE IN BIG.

I THINK THEY'RE PARENTS.

WHAT THE KIDS, THE PARENTS WON'T WITH THEM.

SO ONE, YOU'RE GONNA HELP ME INTRODUCE THIS.

YOU WANNA SPEAK TO WHAT IT IS? UH, YES.

I'LL DO SOMETHING WRONG.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE, UH, WE COULD HAVE FOLKS ATTENTION, AND IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE CHAMBER, GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

BUT IF YOU COULD DO THAT QUIETLY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SO THAT WE GET THE NAMES PRONOUNCED CORRECTLY.

SO WE, UH, SOMETIMES HERE IN, IN THE CITY, WE, WE GET THE CHANCE TO, TO TO HONOR FOLKS, UH, THAT HAVE, UH, DONE SOMETHING THAT, UH, DISTINGUISHES THEMSELVES AND IN SERVICE TO THE, TO THE CITY OR OTHERWISE.

AND WE HAVE SOME DISTINGUISHED, UH, SERVICE AWARDS, UH, FOR SOME ARTISTS THAT HAVE, UH, UH, HELPED INSPIRE US AND HELPED OUR HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, UH, JUAN ORTIZ, WHY YOU WANNA EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU EVERYBODY.

EVERY YEAR, WE, EXCUSE ME, EVERY YEAR THE HOMELESS SECURITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE PARTNERS WITH TRAVIS COUNTY OFFICE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OUR INDEPENDENT, OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND OUR SCHOOLS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO DO A POSTER CONTEST.

WHAT YOU HAVE HERE WITH US IS THE, THE, THE SELECTEES THAT WERE SELECTED FROM A, THE POSTER CONTEST, WHICH MAKE UP OUR, OUR KESO ME PREPAREDNESS CALENDAR.

AND, UH, I WANNA THANK THE SCHOOLS ALSO AS WELL AS THE PARENTS, AND MOST DEFINITELY THE CHILDREN AND THE STUDENTS THAT ACTUALLY DID THE ARTWORK AND THEN MADE UP OUR, OUR CALENDAR, ALL THE ONES THAT PARTICIPATED AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE GREAT WORK.

HM.

SO WE HAVE SOME DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS.

THEY, THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING, BUT THEY'RE GIVEN TO DIFFERENT ARTISTS.

AND THIS IS A CITY OF AUSTIN DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD.

IT'S FOR SELECTED ARTWORK THAT INSPIRES INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES TO PREPARE FOR EMERGENCIES AND DISASTERS.

AND THE ARTWORK IS GONNA BE FEATURED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'S 2023 COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS CALENDAR.

UH, AND EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL, EACH OF THESE ARTISTS IS DESERVING A PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION.

UH, EACH IS GETTING THIS CERTIFICATE PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APPRECIATION THEREOF THIS FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER IN THE YEAR 2022, UH, ISSUED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.

UH, AND AS MAYOR, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING ABLE TO SIGN THEM.

SO LET ME, UH, CALL UP THE, UH, THE, THE, THE ARTISTS AND, AND, AND OUR, AND OUR, THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL IN THE SCRIPT TYPE OUR CLERK USES, BUT IT ALSO MEANS I CAN'T READ THEM.

UM, BUT LET'S TRY, AND IF I MISPRONOUNCE SOME NAMES, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE FIX IT

[06:35:01]

UH, BUT, UM, UH, ABRAM, UH, MAN, HEY, A ABRAHAM UP HERE, .

TAKE A PICTURE.

WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE IN JUST A SECOND, MILA.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE, UH, ERIN TESSIER.

AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, SAMANTHA DUNCAN.

HI, SAMANTHA.

UH, JACK COLEMAN.

UM, UH, RICHARD RAMES, UM, AND, UH, NEM PATEL.

WE HAVE SOME OTHER ARTISTS.

UM, ARIANA CRAIG.

IS SHE WITH US? LET'S GIVE HER SOME APPLAUSE.

ANYHOW, WHAT ABOUT, UM, UM, ALINA WAR? UH, LENNON GIBSON.

UM, SOLA MARTINEZ.

SO LEAH, SO LEAH MARTINEZ, UH, DAISY BATTER.

NOT WITH US.

AND ETHAN? NOT WITH US.

LET'S HEAR FROM, FOR ALL OF THEM TOGETHER.

LET'S SEND HER RIGHT HERE.

SO ALL GUYS GO DOWN HERE, CLOSE TOGETHER, OVER HERE.

TURN YOUR PROCLAMATION ROUND SO PEOPLE'S EXAMINERS CAN SEE IT.

OKAY? OKAY.

IS IT JUST, DO WE NOT HAVE YOURS? WE MISSING ONE.

SHE'S AN HONOR IN THE PUSH IN WONDER, CAN PETE.

WHEN I SAY, LOOK THIS WAY, EVERY , CONGRATULATIONS.

ALL.

THANK YOU FOR THE CEREMONY.

ITS NICE.

HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON, MAN? I'M, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU TO YOU HAPPY? YEAH.

[06:40:22]

WE HAVE SOME A I

[Proclamation 3]

S D OFFICIALS.

I, HI, KATHY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA JOIN UP HERE OR NOT.

WE HAVE A, UH, UH, A PROCLAMATION TO BE ACCEPTED BY SOME, UH, UH, AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOLKS, UH, RELATED TO, UH, UH, INITIATIVE, UH, SUPPORTING, UM, UH, SOLAR POWER, UH, SOMETHING I JUST SPENT, UH, UH, A WEEK ON WITH THE, UH, CLIMATE CHANGE, UH, COP 27 CONFERENCE, UH, IN THE, IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

UM, EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD KNOWS HOW AUSTIN IS LEANING FORWARD IN THIS, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS SET THE GOAL OF EQUITABLY REACHING NET ZERO COMMUNITY WIDE GREENHOUSE GRA GAS ADMISSION BY 2040, MEANING THAT THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY WOULD REDUCE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS TO NEARLY ZERO.

AND WHEREAS AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN AIMS TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 375 MEGAWATTS OF LOCAL POWER, SOLAR CAPACITY BY THE END OF 2030, OF WHICH 200 MEGAWATTS WILL BE CUSTOMER CITED.

AND WHEREAS THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST INSTALLED GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAYS IN 20, IN 2002 TO PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND BEGIN INSTALLING SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOFTOPS OF ITS SCHOOLS IN 2012, AND CURRENTLY 14 AIS D FACILITY.

ASD FACILITIES HAVE ROOFTOP PANELS WHICH PRODUCE TWO MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY OR ENOUGH TO POWER 230 HOMES.

AND WHEREAS AUSTIN ISD SCHOOLS PRODUCE MORE SOLAR POWER THAN ALL OTHER TEXAS SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMBINED, THAT'S WORTHY OF APPLAUSE.

AND THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

ONLY ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE NATION PURCHASES MORE GREEN ENERGY THAN A I S D NOW, THEREFORE, I, STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, UH, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST OF THE YEAR 2022, AS A I S D SOLAR POWERED FACILITIES DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, IN RECOGNITION OF THESE ACHIEVEMENTS.

CONGRATULATIONS.

SOMEONE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? WE'LL JUST SAY THANK YOU.

WE'RE VERY THANKFUL FOR THIS HONOR.

UM, AND THANK YOU FOR, UH, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR SUPPORTING OUR SCHOOLS AND THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

SO LET THERE BE SUNSHINE.

TAKE PICTURE AND LET'S CENTER RIGHT HERE.

THAT WAY WE GET TO, LET'S SEE IN THE BACKGROUND.

YOU, I'M SORRY, WHAT? WHICH, WHAT? HERE? ONE.

[06:45:10]

IS CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON HERE WITH US? HOW YOU DOING I'S, SEE, HOW'S YOU, HOW YOU DOING? HOW'S IT? FINE, .

WE HAVE ANOTHER PROCLAMATION, UH, BE IT KNOWN THAT, WHEREAS DECEMBER 1ST IS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS WORLD'S AIDS DAY AND THE RED RIBBON IS THE UNIVERSAL SYMBOL OF AWARENESS AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH, UM, HIV.

[Proclamation 4]

TEXAS HEALTH ACTIONS.

ROCK THE RIBBON INITIATIVE EMPOWERS TEXANS TO KNOW THEIR HIV STATUS.

AND WHERE IS THE TEXAS HEALTH ACTION? A COMMUNITY INFORMED NONPROFIT THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES IN A SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT WILL ROCK THE RIBBON AND PROVIDE 24 HOURS OF FREE HIV TESTING AT THE KIND CLINIC IN AUSTIN.

UH, THE ONE AT CAN A STARTING WITH STARTING ON WORLD AIDS DAY, AND WHEREAS TEXAS HEALTH ACTION KIND CLINIC CONTINUES TO PROVIDE FREE SEXUAL HEALTH SERVICES IN THE SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT, REGARDLESS OF RACE OR CREED OR GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, IMMIGRATION STATUS, OR ABILITY TO PAY.

NOW, THEREFORE, I STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE CITY COUNCIL DO HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST OF THE YEAR, 2022 AS ROCK THE RIBBON DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE MAYOR, TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THE MAYOR HAS BEEN A LONG SUPPORTER OF REDUCING AND ELIMINATING HIV TRANSMISSION IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO SIGNED THE PARIS DECLARATION IN 2018 TO GET US TO ZERO TRANSMISSION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

PEOPLE WITH AN UNDETECTABLE VIRAL LOAD CANNOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS.

COMBINED WITH ONCE DAILY MEDICATION PREP FOR HIV, WE CAN ELIMINATE HIV TRANSMISSION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT'S OF THAT BLACK, THAT WOULD PICTURE .

I'M, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND WEAS IN THE AUSTIN AREA, UH, THERE WERE 279 NEW HIV CASES IN 2020.

KATHY, I THINK YOU AND I ARE DOING THIS ONE HERE FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

YOU WANNA READ IT? YEAH.

NO, THAT'S OKAY.

MAYBE I'LL READ THEM IF THAT'S THAT'S FINE.

[Proclamation 5]

BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS WORLD AIDS DAY BEGAN 33 YEARS AGO ON DECEMBER 1ST, 1988, IT CONTINUES TO BE AN ESSENTIAL WAY TO CELEBRATE THE EXTRAORDINARY ADVANCES THAT WE'VE MADE IN THE BATTLE AGAINST HIV AND TO REMIND US THAT HIV HAS NOT GONE AWAY AND THAT THERE IS STILL MUCH WORK TO BE DONE.

[06:50:02]

AND OF THE APPROXIMATELY 8,262 PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV IN THE AUSTIN AREA, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT OVER 1,332 ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR STATUS.

AND TO HELP STEER THE RESPONSE TO THE HIV CRISIS AND ENSURE THE BEST CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY, THE HIV PLANNING COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE AUSTIN ALUMNI CHAPTER OF THE DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY INCORPORATED WHAT'S IN THE MIRROR INCORPORATED, SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FAST TRACK CITIES AND ENDING THE HIV EPIDEMIC INITIATIVES.

AND WHEREAS THE HIV PLANNING COUNCIL, THE AUSTIN ALUMNI CHAPTER OF THE DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY, INC.

WHAT'S IN THE MIRROR INCORPORATED, AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ARE COMMITTED TO ENDING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC BY 2030.

NOW.

THEREFORE, I, STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST OF THE YEAR 2022 AS WORLD'S AIDS DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

AND I WANT TO THANK OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY DO.

HI, I'M NOW MAD HERNANDEZ.

I'M THE HEAD OF THE GOVERNANCE AND MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE FOR THE HIV PLANNING COUNCIL.

UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COUNCIL.

UM, WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND HOPE TO CONTINUE TO BE A BENEFICIAL AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE FOR THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY, MOST IMPACTED BY THAT, UH, EPIDEMIC.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JACQUELYN HABER.

I SERVE AS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE, THE, UH, AUSTIN ALUMNI CHAPTER OF THE DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY INCORPORATED.

I'M HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR PRESIDENT ROBIN BLACKMAN.

UM, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS PROCLAMATION AND THIS RECOGNITION.

UM, DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY INCORPORATED WAS ESTABLISHED 1913, UM, BY 22 COLLEGIATE WOMEN WHO ARE INSPIRING AND MOTIVATING.

UM, WE ARE THE LARGEST INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANIZATION, UH, WHICH IS MADE UP OF, UH, PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN.

AND WE HAVE OVER 300,000 INITIATED MEMBERS IN THE ORGANIZATION.

WE JOIN YOU IN OBSERVING, UH, THIS DAY AS WORLD AIDS DAY, A DAY THAT WE WILL JOIN WITH OTHERS, UH, IN RECOGNITION TO UNITE, TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THOSE WHO ARE LIVING WITH HIV AIDS AND THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FROM THE, UH, THE TERRIBLE DISEASE.

WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO EDUCATE.

WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE STRIDES IN THE MEDICAL FIELD, UH, TO ERADICATE THIS DISEASE.

AND WE JOIN WITH YOU, AND WE THANK YOU FOR THIS HONOR.

, WE SO THAT, SEE, OH, OKAY.

ONE MORE AGAIN, ONCE YOU MOVE THIS 2 31, THANK YOU.

WE CAN HAVE YOU GUYS COME ON UP.

KATHY.

[06:55:07]

I AM COUNCIL MEMBER KATHY TOVO.

HOW ARE YOU? GOOD TO SEE YOU.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT YOU THE OTHER DAY.

I'VE BEEN, UM, I'VE BEEN OVERSEAS TEACHING LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS SINCE I RETIRED, AND NOW I'M BACK IN AUSTIN.

[Proclamation 6]

I REPRESENT DISTRICT NINE, AND I THINK I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT MY LAST PROCLAMATION AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND I AM SUPER, SUPER EXCITED TO PRESENTING THIS PROCLAMATION BECAUSE I LOVE THE BLUE SANTA PROGRAM.

I THINK IT DOES TREMENDOUS WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M SO GRATEFUL TO ALL OF THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE STAFF MEMBERS WHO, WHO HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN EVERY YEAR FROM, FROM THE ACTUAL BLUE SANTA TO ALL OF THE MANY OTHER STAFF WHO SUPPORT IT.

IT'S ONE OF THE EVENTS THAT I KNOW MY DAUGHTERS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO EVERY YEAR.

AND WE JUST, UM, REALLY APPRECIATE SO MUCH BEING OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND, AND THE WARM WELCOME THAT ALL THE FAMILIES GIVE US WHEN WE, WHEN WE STOP BY.

AND ONE OF THE REALLY WONDERFUL THINGS, AND IT SHOWS JUST WHAT A SHINING CITY AUSTIN IS, IS THAT VERY OFTEN ON, IF WE DON'T GET THERE EARLY ENOUGH, WE ONLY GET MAYBE ONE RUN THROUGH BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY, SO MANY, UM, NEIGHBORS WHO COME OUT TO DELIVER PACKAGES TO THEIR NEIGHBORS THAT USUALLY AFTER A COUPLE HOURS, ALL THE PACKAGES HAVE BEEN DELIVERED.

AND SO IT'S JUST AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE AND I REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS SANTA BLUE SANTA, WHETHER, WHETHER YOU CAN GO OUT AND HELP ON DELIVERY DAY OR HELP WRAP PACKAGES OR HELP IN OTHER WAYS.

SO ON BEHALF OF OUR ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL, ALONG WITH MAYOR ADLER, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION, WHEREAS BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA PROVIDES TOYS AND FOOD FOR FAMILIES IN NEED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

AND WHEREAS OPERATION POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA IS A 5 0 1 C THREE AND OPERATES SOLELY ON DONATIONS FROM THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.

AND WHEREAS THE ORGANIZATION IS STAFFED BY THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY LIAISON AND POLICE OFFICERS AND HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS FROM THE COMMUNITY ENABLED THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM.

AND WHEREAS THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT BEGAN OPERATION POLICE AUSTIN, LET ME START AGAIN.

WHEREAS THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT BEGAN AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA IN 1972.

AND THIS YEAR THE PROGRAM CELEBRATES ITS 50TH YEAR SPREADING CHRISTMAS CHEER TO THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.

AND WHEREAS AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA BEGAN WITH TWO PATROL OFFICERS SERVING 20 FAMILIES AND HAS GROWN TO SERVING MORE THAN 5,000 FAMILIES, INCLUDING 13,000 CHILDREN.

AND WHEREAS FOR 50 YEARS, OPERATION BLUE SANTA HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY.

AND WHEREAS OPERATION BLUE SANTA IS EXTREMELY GRATEFUL FOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT FROM AUSTIN RESIDENTS, FROM THE COMMITTED PARTNERSHIPS OF AUSTIN BUSINESSES AND THE THOUSANDS OF VOLUNTEERS EVERY YEAR, WITHOUT WHOM OPERATION BLUE SANTA COULD NOT REACH THE MULTITUDES THEY DO WITH CHRISTMAS SPIRIT AND BENEVOLENCE.

AND WHEREAS OPERATION BLUE SANTA IS GRATEFUL TO THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TO APDS OFFICE OF COMMUNITY LIAISON FOR LOYALTY, SUPPORTING THE CAUSE OF BENEVOLENCE TO OUR AUSTIN COMMUNITY AND TO THE APD OFFICERS WHO 50 YEARS AGO TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF OUR AUSTIN CITIZENS.

AND THE LEGACY CONTINUES NOW, THEREFORE, I, KATHY TOBO, ALONG WITH MAYOR STEVE ADLER AND OUR COLLEAGUES DO HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 17TH, 2022 AS AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

CONGRATULATIONS, .

UH, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

UM, UH, HONORABLE MAYOR, UM, MAYOR PROTE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, AND THE CITY MANAGERS EXECUTIVE STAFF.

UM, IT JUST HUMBLES ME AND ON, UH, GIVES ME GREAT PRIVILEGE AND, AND HONOR ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY LIAISON, UM, THE BLUE SANTA BOARD MEMBERS AND THE ORGANIZATION, UM, WE'RE JUST VERY GRATEFUL, UM, FOR YOU ALL ACKNOWLEDGING US IN SUCH HIGH ESTEEM.

UM, I'D BE REMISS IF I DID NOT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT MAKE THIS POSSIBLE EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

UM, ONE SUCCESSFUL SEASON OF BLUE SANO WITH A LITTLE LUCK IS MONUMENTAL, BUT I THINK YOU'LL ALL AGREE THAT 50 YEARS, FIVE DECADES OF ANYTHING MOVES US TO A CULTURAL PHENOMENON.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S THROUGH, UM, SELFLESSNESS, UM, COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING AND QUITE FRANKLY, JUST PURE GOODNESS.

SO IT'S IN THE SPIRIT OF THAT, THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN CON CONTINUE IN THE TRADITION OF SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.

AND, UM, AGAIN, WE'RE GRATEFUL.

SO GOD BLESS YOU AND THANK YOU ALL.

[07:00:04]

THE BOSS NEEDS TO WHOOP.

I TOOK THE WHOLE END OFF.

I'M MAR AND BEMAN AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE, UH, AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION IN BLUE SANTA.

BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SO GRATEFUL FOR THIS PROCLAMATION.

AND I'M SO GRATEFUL TO SEE ALL THE PEOPLE HERE TODAY AND ESPECIALLY LOUISIANA.

HE HAD TO TAKE OFF FROM HIS SCHEDULE TO COME AND BE WITH US, WHICH IS VERY HARD.

BUT THIS IS REALLY A GREAT DAY FOR US.

WE DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DO LOOK FOR THE COMMUNITY TO ADOPT SOME OF OUR FAMILIES.

CUZ WE, THIS YEAR WE HAD A RARELY LARGE LOAD OF FAMILIES COMING AND WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SERVE THEM ALL.

WE SERVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT WE CAN DELIVER TO.

SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR ADOPTERS OUT THERE, MAYBE FOR 2000 FAMILIES.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND WE ALWAYS NEED TOYS AND THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS COMES THROUGH.

SO YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM.

AND OUR MAIN DELIVERY DAY IS GONNA BE ON THE 17TH OF DECEMBER.

COME OUT AND CHECK OUR WEBSITE AND WE NEED EVERY ONE OF YOU.

THE WEBSITE.

SHE WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO SAY THAT IF YOU CAN GO TO OUR WEBSITE, WHICH IS BLUE SANTA.ORG, AND WE'RE LISTED THERE FOR VOLUNTEERS, LISTING FOR OUR DELIVERY DAY AND ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE WITH US.

I TO PEOPLE ARE TO DO.

YEAH, THE SMALL YOU TO YOU GET RIGHT IN FRONT IN , YOU .

SMILE.

THANK, THANK YOU.

YOU YOU DONT, I'M GONNA GRAB MY CAMERA AND SEE IF WE CAN TAKE .

OH, SHE'S HERE TO CUT UP.

I JUST REALIZED NO CLUE.

NO, SHE'S GOING TO GET HER CAMERA'S.

THE COUNCIL, GO AHEAD.

DO YOU MIND TAKING A ONE MORE PHOTOS? .

ONE MORE PHOTO.

I'M MARK P I DIDN'T STAND, TAKE A PHOTO THE DAY.

SO YOU WANTED .

LET'S GO THAT PLEASE.

OH, NOW I'M THIS SIDE OF BLUE IN I'M, I'M ALL YOU WANNA WALK A WALK AND MOVE YOUR OVER A LITTLE BIT.

STAND UP.

HOW'S THIS? THAT'S GOOD.

IT'S .

WAS THAT ON PURPOSE OR, I THINK SO.

ROLL STANDING.

I WAS WAITING.

WOULD YOU TELL MIKE? RIGHT.

WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE TODAY ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.

UH, THE TIME IS, UH, UH, SEVEN, UH, 44.

UM, COLLEAGUES, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA PICK UP CATHY'S, UH, 41 40, 41, 43, AND 44 36.

WE'RE GONNA PUNT UNTIL TOMORROW.

CAUSE THEN I APPRECIATE, UH, KATHY, YOU DOING THAT? CAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ YOUR 36 YET COPIES.

AND KATHY HAS COPIES IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS ANY.

SO IT'S GONNA BE 41, 43, 44 36.

GET PEN TO TOMORROW AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHAT TO DO THERE.

QUICK QUESTION, IS THERE A RED LINED VERSION OR IS THIS JUST WHERE THE, THE VERSION MIGHT BE SO COMPLEX IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

CAUSE I THINK THE BACKUP FOR V2 I SAW DIDN'T HAVE THE TRACKS CHANGES.

UM, THE LATTER OF WHAT YOU SAID.

SO 36, MOST OF IT ENDED UP IN THESE OTHER RESOLUTIONS THAT WERE TAKING UP.

AND SO IT, IT WAS ALMOST, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A MEANINGLESS RED, RED LINE DRAFT.

BUT I DID, UM, POST IT AND BACK UP AND THAT'S WHY I MADE COPIES.

IF IT'S HELPFUL AND ANYBODY NEEDS ONE, I'M HAPPY TO HAND THEM DOWN.

MARY, SHALL I GO AHEAD AND, UM, TAKE UP 43.

AND THEN, THEN AFTER WE DO THAT, THEN WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP THE TURS.

UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE TURS THING OR IS THAT GONNA BE JUST A STRAIGHT UP VOTE?

[07:05:02]

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

AND SO POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS.

I'M NOT SAYING THINK THEY'RE, PEOPLE ARE GONNA ASK QUESTIONS, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE DEBATE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT COMPLEXITY AND WE'LL PICK UP THE TUR THEN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE FAIRLY SIMPLE.

UH, AND THEN WE'LL DO THE POD AND THEN WE'LL STOP.

WE'RE DO IN THAT ORDER.

KATHY, LET'S BEGIN WITH, LET'S BEGIN WITH KATHY.

OH, THERE YOU ARE.

THE NONPROFIT LEASING? JUST CUZ I HAD THAT ONE IN FRONT OF ME.

41.

UM, DO YOU MIND IF I TAKE UP 43,

[43. Approve a resolution concerning policies for leasing of City-controlled facilities. (Part 2 of 2) ]

SO ON THE DIAS, I'VE DISTRIBUTED TWO AMENDMENTS.

UM, ONE MAKES IT REALLY CLEAR.

IT IT'S JUST ONE, UH, LET'S SEE.

WHAT I'M REALLY MODIFYING IS THE MAYOR'S AMENDMENT, WHICH SAID, WHICH HAD A BULLET THAT SAID LONG-TERM LEASES ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND I'M SUGGESTING ADDING THE LANGUAGE SUCH AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

ANYBODY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT? YES.

COUNCIL.

UM, MY STAFF IS DRAFTING UP, UH, TO GET TO THE PLACE WHERE I WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE AND BASICALLY WE WANNA TAKE OUT ANY REFERENCE TO LONG TERM SHORT TERM MIDTERM.

THAT'S MY SECOND AMENDMENT.

SO I THINK YOU MAY BE COVERED ON THIS.

I THINK IT LOOKS TO ME HERE, LIKE, UH, COUNCIL TOVO DID THAT ALSO DURING THE BREAK.

YEAH, YOU CAN IGNORE THE YELLOW SHEET BECAUSE I WAS PROPOSING SOME OTHER LANGUAGE AT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH ONE OR TWO OF YOU ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO RESOLVE THE OTHER CONCERN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL RAISED IS JUST TO REMOVE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE AND WHERE APPROPRIATE THE LEASE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED ON A SHORT TERM BASIS TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TENANT TO BUILD A SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT BECOMING RELIANT ON LONG TERM CITY SUBSIDIZATION.

THAT'S THE ONLY REFERENCE TO, TO THE, THAT ISSUE.

AND SO I THINK IT, THE EASIEST THING IS JUST TO TAKE IT AWAY.

TAKE IT OUT.

SO AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS, I DON'T SEE THAT IN FRONT OF ME AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE OKAY, BUT I DON'T SEE, SAY, SAY IT AGAIN.

IT'S MORE SLOWLY.

AND, AND DO YOU HAVE THE BASE WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

DO YOU HAVE THE BASE? LET ME, LET ME JUST ME JUST FINISH WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.

I ALSO WANTED TO TAKE OUT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THAT WAS VALUE LADEN ABOUT LONG TERM SUBSIDIZATION AND SO FORTH.

SO I, I JUST NEED TO GET THAT PIECE IN FRONT OF ME.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I JUST READ.

BUT YOU, YOU WERE READING.

OKAY, SO MAYBE I WAS MISUNDERSTANDING.

OKAY, HERE WE GO.

WE'RE GONNA, I THINK, I THINK LISTEN TO KATHY'S DOING CUZ I THINK SHE, I THINK YOU GUYS MAY HAVE BOTH DONE THE SAME AMENDMENT.

OH GOOD.

YEAH, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

SO IGNORE THE YELLOW SHEET FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE I, I THINK THE EASIEST THING TO DO IS JUST TO LOOK AT THE MAYOR'S AT THE MAYOR'S, UM, MOTION SHEET.

MOTION NUMBER 1 42 FOR 40 ME TWO.

AND YOU'LL SEE HIS FIRST BULLET SAYS, DOES ANYBODY NEED A COPY OF THAT? I HAVE COPIES OF THAT.

HANG ON ONE SECOND.

IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO PAY ATTENTION TO EXACTLY WHICH VERSION OF WHICH PAPER WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THERE'S A LOT OF PAPER FLYING AROUND UP HERE.

SO THE MAYOR IS DISTRIBUTING POSSIBLE, THE MAYOR IS DISTRIBUTING A MOTION SHEET VERSION TWO ON ITEM 43.

AND I'M MODIFYING HIS FIRST BULLET.

SO HIS FIRST BULLET SAYS LONG TERM.

SO THE SENTENCE BEFORE SAYS THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO, AND THE FIRST BULLET SAYS, LONG TERM LEASE IS ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

I AM ADDING IN LANGUAGE TO SAY SUCH AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD JUST TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT AMONG THE LONG-TERM LEASES TO WHICH THIS DOES NOT APPLY, PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS AMONG THEM.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT, THAT AMOUNT OF GO AHEAD.

I WANT Y'ALL TO LOOK AT WHAT THE MOTION THAT I HAVE ON THAT TOPIC AS WELL.

WE'LL GET TO YOURS IN A SECOND.

LET'S JUST RUN THROUGH HER TOO.

DOES THAT WORK? THE FIRST QUESTION, PRETTY DISCREET.

WHEN WE SAY NO LONG TERM LEASE, IS KATHY'S SAYING SUCH AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD? I DON'T EVEN THINK WE NEED TO SAY THAT.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO, I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS I WAS HEARING ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

IF WE DON'T NEED IT, THEN MAYBE WE JUST DON'T DO THAT AMENDMENT CALL ATTENTION TO IT.

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

AND, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I'VE RECOMMENDED, UM, I SIMPLY SAY, UM, WE DELETE THE PHRASE AND WHERE APPROPRIATE THE LEASE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED ON A SHORT TERM BASIS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, SUSTAINABLE SUBSIDIZATION.

THAT ALL IS JUST DELETED CUZ IT'S UM, CUZ WE ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT THAT PERIOD.

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO, THE POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO, AND THEN IT'S THE LONG TERM LEASES ALREADY

[07:10:01]

AND THAT GETS TO IT AS DIRECTLY AS, AS I THINK, I THINK WE'RE IN VIOLENT AGREEMENT.

THAT WAS THE SECOND AMENDMENT I JUST PROPOSED.

ARE YOU, ARE YOU OKAY WITH LESLIE'S LANGUAGE? IT, IT'S EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE I JUST PROPOSED, SO YES, I'M, I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT.

SO IN THE SHEET, THE V2 SHEET, THE COUNCIL POOL JUST HANDED OUT THE FIRST CHANGE IN RED IN THE PARAGRAPH WHERE SHE'S STRICKEN.

THE SECOND HALF OF THE CENSUS BEGINS WITH AND COMMON ENDS WITH SUBSIDIZATION PEOPLE.

WITH STRIKING THAT LANGUAGE.

THE LANGUAGE IS STRICKEN.

NOW WE GET TO THE FIRST BULLET POINT.

YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE LESLIE.

UM, JUST THAT IT GOES BACK TO, WHICH WAS ON YOUR VERSION TOO LONG TERM LEASES ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT STAYS THE, THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN ADLER VERSION TWO.

MOTION SHEET ONE.

YEAH, THAT'S IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

YOU HADN'T MODIFIED IT AND THEN LESLIE HAD HANDED OUT A SHEET THAT DID MODIFY IT, SO NOW WE'RE NOT MODIFYING IT AT ALL.

THAT'S RIGHT.

WE'RE JUST BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.

WE'RE BACK TO THE BULLET POINT AS CONTAINED IN MY MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE, B2, WHICH I ACTUALLY TOOK FROM YOU.

AND MY OBJECTION TO THAT, HEARING NONE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS WE NEED ON ITEM 43? YOUR AMENDMENT ALSO RIGHT? WITH ALL, YES.

YEAH, WE HAD ALREADY, I THINK WE, WE ALREADY ADOPTED THAT ONE.

AND THEY'RE, UM, WHILE PEOPLE ARE THINKING IF THEY HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS, I JUST WANT TO OFFER TO EXPLAIN THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SHORT TERM, WHICH WE'VE NOW STRICKEN, WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE.

BUT I KNOW THAT WITH REGARD TO THE CULTURAL ARTS CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT GRANTS, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT NOT SETTING EXPECTATIONS FOR LONG TERM, UM, LONG TERM SUPPORT SO THAT WE CAN REALLY MAKE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO A WIDE RANGE OF ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE EARLY IN THEIR STAGES.

AND SO THAT LINE WAS REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO KIND OF DO THE SAME THING WITH OUR PROPERTIES TO TRY TO OFFER, OFFER SOME ASSISTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TRYING TO FIND THEIR FOOTING AND THEN MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE ON A, YOU KNOW, TO OTHERS.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S FOR, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU ALL CAN SORT OUT WITH WHEN THE MANAGER COMES BACK WITH THE POLICY.

COUNCILWOMAN TOVO MAKES THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 43 WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM, UH, MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2 THAT I HAD.

UH, WITH THE LANGUAGE CHANGE, UH, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL HAS SUGGESTED, UH, THAT STRIKES THE SECOND HALF OF THAT SENTENCE THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED JUST IN CASE THE RECORD DOESN'T REFLECT WHO SECONDS THAT DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO SECOND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER? BELLA, SECONDS THAT IT'S OUT.

WE'RE NOT PUTTING THAT IN.

JUST THE CHANGES.

I JUST SAID GOT IT.

MOVED IN SECOND.

LET'S TAKE IT BOTH THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, ARE YOU WITH US MAYOR? I, I'M RAISING MY HAND SO I CAN'T, UM, CAN YOU SEE ME? NO, WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

UH, HOW ABOUT NOW? GOT IT.

UM, MAYOR, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I HAD ALREADY MOVED APPROVAL.

UNANIMOUS ON THE D AND CATCH WHERE KELLY VOTES.

I WAS AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, KELLY VOTES.

NO OTHERS VOTING I PASSES TEN ONE AS AMEND.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM.

SO I'LL MOVE APPROVAL NOW OF ITEM 41, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WITH INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ON THIS SHEET THAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED.

THESE RESPOND, THESE WERE DONE, UM, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ALSO OUR CITY STAFF.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT OF COURSE STAFF SHOULD RA SHOULD, UM, SPEAK TO THIS.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH THESE EDITS THAT STAFF ARE, ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION, OF THIS RESOLUTION.

ARE THESE POSTED OR SENT OUT BY THE CLERK? JUST SO THOSE FOLLOWING ALONG CAN KEEP UP.

IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, UM, THIS IS THE CLERK.

WE DO NOT HAVE COPIES AND THEY ARE NOT PUBLISHED.

SO WE WILL NEED, UM, HARD COPIES PLEASE, OF ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED.

GIVE THEM, UM, DISTRIBUTED AS SOON AS WE CAN.

WE WILL GET YOU ONE RIGHT AWAY.

SO WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS.

I CAN MAYOR WILL GET THEM POSTED ON THE,

[07:15:01]

WE DID DISTRIBUTE THEM ON THE DIAS AND I CAN QUICKLY READ THEM OUT TO, FOR THE PUBLIC.

I THINK WHY DON'T, WHY DON'T YOU POST THEM AND WHEN YOU POST 'EM, RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE'LL STOP AND COME BACK FOR THIS.

MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO.

SO 44, WE'RE GONNA TABLE FOR A SECOND.

EVERYONE'S GONNA TRY AND FIND COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT AND SEE IF IT'S SUFFICIENT.

THAT GETS YOU THEN TO 44.

[44. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to bring to Council for consideration and approval a consistent, transparent process that includes an early opportunity for Council to set priorities, determine partners, and receive community input for the proposed development and redevelopment of City-owned land. (Part 1 of 2)]

CAN YOU ALL OFFER ME THE OPPORTUNITY VERY QUICKLY TO, UH, ALERT MY TEAM WHO ARE EITHER IN CHAMBERS OR WATCHING? WHAT'S THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO GET ME CAUGHT UP AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME RATE OF SPEED AS EVERYBODY ON THE DAY IS? OH, UM, THEM BEING IN THE BUILDING AND MEAN NOT.

WE WILL DISTRIBUTE, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT ITEM 41, THE EDITS, THE AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 41 GET DISTRIBUTED AND FOR THE THANK YOU AND THE ONE WE'RE ABOUT TO MOVE ON TO, THE ONLY AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT I THINK ARE THE ONES THAT, THAT THE MAYOR HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD, WHICH I'M GOING TO ACCEPT AS A FRIENDLY, HAVE BEEN POSTED AND HANDED OUT MY AMENDMENT PAGE, WHICH WAS MOTION SHEET ONE V TWO.

OH NO, ON 44, IT WAS MOTION SHEET ONE V TWO FOR 44 HAS BEEN POSTED AND HANDED OUT.

KATHY HAS COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAS ONE THAT SHE'S HANDED OUT ON THE DAES, BUT WILL SHORTLY BE POSTED.

BUT SINCE PEOPLE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, INCLUDING YOU, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS ITEM RIGHT NOW UNTIL YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT AND OTHERS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THAT.

I MEAN, THAT ITEM NUMBER 41 IS ONE.

WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.

NOW, NOW WE, SO ITEM NUMBER 41 IS THE ONE WE'RE TABLING.

PEOPLE ARE GONNA GET YOU THAT COPY.

THAT GETS US TO ITEM NUMBER 44.

COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MOVES.

ITEM NUMBER 44.

IS THERE A SECOND? ITEM NUMBER 44.

COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SECONDS.

IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, I HAVE OFFERED MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2 FOR ITEM NUMBER 44.

YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YOUR, I'M OKAY WITH ALL OF THOSE ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UM, THE CHANGE THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WE DISCUSSED.

SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH? YES.

ANY OBJECTION TO EVERYTHING GOING IN EXCEPT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH? OKAY, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

YES, .

SO WE CAN GO BACK TO 41 EFFECTIVELY.

UM, IS YOUR 41 POSTED? I'M SORRY? IS YOUR, JUST SO WHEN WE GO BACK TO 41, WE CAN BE EFFICIENT.

IS YOUR 41 POST? I DON'T HAVE A 41.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS.

IT'S ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER'S AMENDMENT ON 41? CORRECT.

AND THEN MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PAUSE HERE TOO BECAUSE, UM, YOU HAD, YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED.

I HAD THE ADDITIONAL ONE THAT I'VE DISCUSSED WITH MANY OF YOU ABOUT ADDING NOT MANY OF YOU, A FEW OF YOU, UM, ABOUT PREFERENCE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES THAT I DON'T BELIEVE I DISTRIBUTED ON THE DAAS OR TO THE CLERK.

SO I NEED TO, I NEED TO QUICKLY, YEAH.

I'M AFRAID I'M GONNA PUT THOSE 40 FOURS ON THE TABLE ALONG WITH 41.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THOSE 30 SIXES, BUT TOMORROW.

SO THE NEXT ITEM WE'RE GONNA PICK UP NOW IS THEN IS GOING TO BE THE TUR ITEM.

THE TURS ITEM IS, UM, NUMBER

[54. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No 20211220-002 related to Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 19 by amending the boundaries of the zone, amending the participation rate of the zone, and amending the preliminary financing plan and related matters.]

54.

THOSE BUILDINGS THAT THROWS OFF THE WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT, WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE.

ITEM NUMBER 54.

I MOVE, UH, ITEM NUMBER 54.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER IN SECONDS THAT, UH, REAL QUICKLY, COLLEAGUES, I THINK WE GONNA NEED STAFF ON THIS EVENTUALLY.

54 TES TAKES THE ELEMENTS OF THE TES AS WAS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

SO IT CONTAINS THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.

IT CONTAINS THE REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED AT 46%.

SO IT'S WHAT STAFF WAS, UH, UH, RECOMMENDING.

UM, WE HAVE ALL SEEN THAT, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF WE WANT TO HAVE THE CITY, UH, REAL SIGNIFICANT PARKLAND THAT BECOMES REGIONAL, UH, AS WELL AS, AS LOCAL, UH, BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET ANY OF THAT UNLESS WE CAN GET ENOUGH, UH, BUILDING THERE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT, THAT THROWS OFF THE, THE DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE

[07:20:01]

WE'VE SEEN THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE COST COULD GO AS HIGH AS 300 AND SOME ODD MILLION DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING WE WANT.

AND THAT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT, UH, UH, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, LOOKING AT THE REGULATING PLAN, WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE ACTION TO ASK STAFF TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND TO THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, HOW WE, HOW WE DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY.

I'VE HEARD AS WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, UH, TURS.

AND THEN THE MOST COMMON ONE WE HEAR IS THAT IT TAKES MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

UH, AND THAT USED TO BE THE CASE.

UH, BUT AS WE'VE LEARNED, THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE.

UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS LEFT OPEN TO US IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ENABLE US TO ACTUALLY HAVE MORE REVENUE THAN THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP WOULD OTHERWISE ALLOW.

UM, AND THIS GIVES US A CHANCE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT FOR HOWEVER LONG THAT THAT EXISTS.

BUT AS STAFF HAS POINTED OUT BOTH IN ANSWERS AND IN THEIR TESTIMONY, THAT DOESN'T RESULT IN, IN, IN ANY PROPER, ANY DOLLARS OR ANY DECREASED, UM, UH, REVENUE.

UM, IN THE, UH, IN THE GENERAL FUND, THERE'S BEEN A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DO A TOUR IN AN AREA THAT WOULD OTHERWISE DEVELOP ON ITS OWN.

AND OUR LEGAL STAFF HAS TOLD US, YES, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THIS AREA WOULDN'T DEVELOP IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS.

IT'S JUST NOT GONNA DEVELOP THE WAY WE WOULD WANT IT TO DEVELOP.

WE WANT TO HAVE A DYNAMIC AREA WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO SUPPORT TRANSIT, ESPECIALLY WITH A TRANSIT STATION THERE.

THAT MEANS WE NEED MORE SPACE FOR MORE PEOPLE AND MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD.

IF WE DON'T DO THIS, IT'LL DEVELOP, IT'LL DEVELOP IN, IN SIGNIFICANT WAYS, BUT THERE'LL BE LOW SLUNG BUILDINGS AND BUILDINGS AND NOT WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR WITH THE, THE VOLUME THAT IS NECESSARY TO, TO RAISE THE DOLLARS THAT WE, THAT WE WANT.

AND, AND LEGAL SAYS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO USE THE TURS IF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN ON ITS OWN.

THIS IS URBAN PLANNING.

THIS IS, THIS IS A, AS A COUNCIL, WE SIT AND DECIDE WHAT DO WE WANT TO HAVE BUILT IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR CITY AND THEN BRINGING THE, THE, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, THE STREETS AND THE ROADS TO PROMOTE THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT WE WANT TO HAVE, UH, TAKE PLACE.

UH, BY USING THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE USING, IT'S REALLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE ONLY ASSESSING THE BUTT $4, THE DOLLARS THAT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T BE ACHIEVED.

BUT FRANKLY, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THE MASSIVE PARKS WE WANT.

IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE ANY SHOT AT GETTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE WANT, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE WANT.

AND IT WOULD JUST BE WRONG FOR US, I THINK, TO PUT WHAT'S GONNA BE A SIGNIFICANT, UH, PROJECT CONNECT STATION THERE AND NOT JUST HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR RIDERSHIP.

UH, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY SUGGEST IT'S A GIVEAWAY FOR A DEVELOPER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT.

ALL THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE DETERS IS BUILDING OUT THE UNDERLYING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO GET THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WE WANT, WHICH IS AN ENDING OF ITSELF, BUT ALSO, UH, IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE WANNA HAVE.

I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THIS OVER THE LAST YEAR AND IN REFINING IT LEGAL'S WORK AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING HERE THAT'S KIND OF CUTTING EDGE AND, AND, AND, AND, AND NEW IN THIS KIND OF, UH, APPLICATION IN TERMS OF RECOGNIZING THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE, THE GENERAL FUND.

SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S EFFORT ON IT AND I HOPE IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT.

SANDY, I THINK WE'VE GIVEN EVERYBODY A CHANCE WHO NEEDS TO SPEAK.

SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO, TO, UH, APPROVE THIS ITEM AND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MAYOR PROTE.

I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR FINANCE, MAYBE FOR LEGAL.

UM, I DIDN'T SECOND IT.

I'M JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHO SECONDED YOUR MOTION IF YOU NEEDED TO SECOND, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? WHAT? PO SECONDED THE MOTION.

OKAY, YOU GO.

UM, SO MR. VINO, UM, OKAY, SO, SO HE'S .

I HAVE CALLED UP AT THE SAME TIME 54 AND 10.

CAN I DO THOSE TOGETHER? PUBLIC HEARING IS ON 54.

RIGHT? THEN YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES.

COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE HIM UP SEPARATELY.

[07:25:01]

54 IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UH, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW THAT EVERYONE'S HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? COUNCIL MEMBER PULLS SECONDS.

THAT MOTION? ANY OBJECTION TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING? NO OBJECTION.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

I HAVE

[10. Approve an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 20211220-002 related to Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 19 by amending the boundaries of the zone, amending the participation rate of the zone, and amending the preliminary financing plan and related matters]

NOW MOVED.

ITEM NUMBER 10, COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA HAS SECONDED THAT.

GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.

UM, SO MR. VINO, WE'VE HEARD, UM, THE MAYOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND.

IF WE DOUR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT? AS OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, I BELIEVE THE MAYOR'S EXPLANATION YOU WERE SPEAKING TO IS ABOUT HOW THIS TUR DOES OR DOES NOT IMPACT THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND.

AND THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED IT, THE WAY STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IT AND THE WAY THAT IT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY, IT'S BEEN STRUCTURED IN A WAY SO THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO GENERAL FUND IMPACT.

THE BOUNDARIES WE'VE SET UP, THE PERCENT RECAPTURE THAT WE'VE SET UP IS ALL DESIGNED TO ONLY CAPTURE THE REVENUE THAT WOULD NOT COME, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS THAT THE, UH, THAT THE TOURIST'S REVENUE WOULD SUPPORT.

UM, AND CAN YOU POINT TO, WE ARE IN THE DOCUMENTATION, THE BUT FORCE, BUT FOR ANALYSIS IS BEYOND THE, THE HEIM SETH ANALYSIS THAT JUST SAYS WHAT WOULD BE BUILT.

LIKE I'VE HAD QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT WHETHER WE HAVE HAVE IN THE ACTUAL BACKUP OF WHAT WE'RE PASSING, IF WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE, BUT FOR, SO THAT THE, THE MARKET ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD HAD DONE IS THE BASIS FOR THE, BUT FOR ANALYSIS, UM, THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SEE IN THE CHARLES H. SMITH ANALYSIS, THE CMR ANALYSIS IS THAT, BUT FOR OR, OR WITH THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT, WE ARE PROJECTING MORE THAN $3 BILLION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT OCCURRING.

THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

BUT FOR THE, THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT TO OCCUR.

UM, I WILL JUST FLAG THAT, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ON THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE A LEGAL CHALLENGE BASED ON THAT.

UM, I APPRECIATE THAT THE, THE SNOOPY POD WAS NOW EXCLUDED, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I APPRECIATE THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOW, UM, IN THERE.

UM, BUT I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE TURS.

I'M, I'M FRUSTRATED WE DON'T HAVE THE REGULATING PLAN.

I'M, I'M JUST NOT, I'M JUST NOT READY, UM, TO SUPPORT THIS, UM, FOR AT THIS TIME.

GOTTA THROW OUR KITCHEN.

UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

UM, SO, SO WE'RE ALL, WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY IS, IS ESSENTIALLY THE TAKING IT FROM ZERO TO 46%, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON A PLAN.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE VOTING TO AMEND THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN, WHICH DOES CHANGE THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES FROM WHAT YOU HAD INITIALLY APPROVED TO, TO CARVE OUT THE SNOOPY PUD SITE AS COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER TALKED ABOUT TO CHANGE THE RECAPTURE PERCENT FROM 0% TO 46%.

UM, IT ALSO CHANGES THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO BE SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

SO $300,000 A YEAR ESSENTIALLY IN ADMINISTRATIVE COST, WHICH WE WOULD ENVISION GOING TO SUPPORT THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

AND, UM, THAT THE ONE FINAL CHANGE THAT, WELL, THE REASON I'M ASKING, AND IT MAY BE THE, UH, THE ONE FINAL CHANGE WAS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE DIRECTION TO INCLUDE, UH, 69 MILLION AS A TIER ONE PROJECT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I DON'T SEE IN THE DOCUMENTS WHERE WE'RE VOTING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, UM, AND IT MAY, THIS MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION, THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US TO VOTE ON REFERENCES ATTACHMENT A.

AND ITEM OR APPENDIX C IS THAT PLAN, BUT THAT'S NOT IN WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

THAT'S NOT THE PLAN.

THE PLAN IS ATTACHMENT C.

SO MAYBE I JUST NEED LEGAL TO POINT OUT TO ME WHERE WE'RE VOTING ON THE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, BECAUSE I, I WAS READING THIS AND MAYBE I WAS READING IT WRONG, BUT I WAS READING IT THAT WE, WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON WAS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE.

I MEAN, BASICALLY THE ITEM THAT SAYS AN ORDINANCE THAT REFERENCES, UM, YOU KNOW, ATTACHMENT A, WHICH IS CHANGES THE BOUNDARY LIKE YOU MENTIONED, AND THAT ORDINANCE ALSO HAS IN IT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, YOU KNOW, CHANGING NOT DOLLAR AMOUNT, CHANGING IT TO THE 46%.

SO I SEE THAT TOO, BUT AM I MISSING SOMETHING? HOW ARE WE VOTING ON EXHIBIT C? I THINK THE, UH, THE LAST PART OF THE ORDINANCE TITLE SPEAKS ABOUT AMENDING THE PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN RELATED MATTERS

[07:30:01]

AM I, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? UM, UH, UM, BECAUSE IT SAYS AMEND THE PRELIMINARY BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A TITLE THAT'S NOT, UH, THERE'S A DOCUMENT IN THE BACKUP APPENDIX.

THERE'S THREE APPENDICES AND THERE'S AN APPENDIX C AND IT'S GOT THE PLAN IN IT.

BUT WHAT'S AN APPEND? APPENDIX C AN APPENDIX TWO IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

IT'S APPENDIX C TO A DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE, NORMALLY WHAT YOU DO IS YOU'D AND I I I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, Y'ALL JUST NEED TO POINT IT OUT TO ME BECAUSE I I GET WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, WHICH IS THIS ORDINANCE AND IT REFERENCES APPENDIX C OR EXHIBIT EXHIBIT SEVEN.

EXHIBIT, I'M SORRY.

YEAH, BUT IT DOESN'T REFERENCE EXHIBIT C.

SO IF WE'RE VOTING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, THEN, THEN THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE BOTH FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND EXHIBIT C BECAUSE IT'S NOT REFERENCED IN THE DOCUMENT, AND EXHIBIT B IS NOT REFERENCED IN THE DOCUMENT EITHER.

SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT AND WANTING TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

DO, DO YOU, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? I'M ASKING.

EXHIBIT C IS JURORS NUMBER 19, WHICH IS REFERENCED IN THE ORDINANCE, IS WHAT WE'RE AMENDING.

AND THE, IT AMENDS THE BOUNDARIES AND IT AMENDS THE PLAN TO ALLOW THE FINANCIAL, TO ALLOW THE FINANCIAL PLAN TO ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A TIER ONE IMPROVEMENT.

AND IT MOVES THE PERCENTAGE TO THAT.

AND WHEN IT REFERS TO CHURCH'S NUMBER 19, THAT'S THE PLAN THAT'S EX IN EXHIBIT C, BUT WHERE ARE WE ADOPTING AND DID YOU WANNA ADDRESS THIS? WHERE ARE WE ADOPTING THE PLAN? WHERE DOES IT SAY WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED THE, THEY, THEY ALREADY SET FORTH THE PLAN WHEN WE LAUNCHED THE TURS.

LAST TIME.

SO WE'VE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE CLEAR FOR PEOPLE.

SO WE'RE AMENDING THE PLAN.

WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, BUT IT IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN, RIGHT? THIS IS AN AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN.

STILL A PRELIMINARY PLAN.

SO MY QUESTION THEN IS IT'S PRELIMINARY.

SO WHAT IS THAT, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR A, UM, I GUESS ARE WE CALLING IT A PERMANENT PLAN OR WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE? SO THERE'S NOT A TIMELINE THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BUT THE TIMELINE STAFF WOULD INTEND WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE REGULATING PLAN.

WE WOULD UPDATE THE MARKET ANALYSIS, UPDATE THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS, UM, AT THE SAME TIME ALSO UPDATE ANY PROJECT RELATED COSTS AND COME BACK WITH A FINAL PLAN FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE.

I GUESS THE BIGGER PICTURE THAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO GET TO IS WHAT ARE WE SPENDING THESE DOLLARS ON RIGHT NOW? WE'RE SPENDING THESE DOLLARS ACCORDING TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, BUT THAT IS GONNA CHANGE WHEN WE GET, OR IT COULD CHANGE WHEN WE GET THE REGULATING PLAN IS, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH, THE PROJECT PLAN CAN CHANGE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN CAN BE CHANGED AS WE MOVE TO A FINAL PLAN.

SO IT, SO WE'RE NOT VOTING ON A FINAL REG REGULATING PLAN.

CERTAINLY NOT ON A REGULATING PLAN.

SO THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS THE TIER, THE TIERS, THE TIER ONE TWOS AND THREE, THERE'S LANGUAGE ABOUT REASSESSING, UM, THAT THE FUNDS GO FIRST TO TIER ONES AND THEN REASSESSING FOR TIER TWO AND THREE.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? SURE.

AND MAYBE IT'S LIKE HELPFUL TO CONTRAST THE, UH, TOURS THAT YOU RECENTLY PASSED FOR THE COLONY PARK WHERE THERE WERE PROJECT COSTS BEYOND WHAT THE TOURS COULD FUND.

AND SO WE WERE ABLE WITH COLONY PARK TO COME UP WITH AN OVERALL FINANCING STRATEGY.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE AN OVERALL FINANCING STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION YET WE DO BELIEVE THAT A AURS IS PART OF THAT FINANCING STRATEGY.

AND SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE, UH, THE, THE LIST OF PROJECTS IS AN ESTIMATED 350 ISH MILLION.

I, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME OF PROJECT COSTS AGAINST TES FUNDING.

THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THAT.

AND SO WHAT WE'VE DEVELOPED ON ADVISEMENT FROM, UM, THE CONSULTANTS WE'VE WORKED WITH ON THIS IS A TIERED STRUCTURE TO SIMPLY YES.

AND SO THE FIRST TIER INITIALLY HAD INCLUDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, WE'VE ADDED PER COUNCIL DIRECTION HOUSING AS A TIER ONE PROJECT.

UM, AND THEN DEPENDING UPON HOW THE PROJECT PERFORMS, IF THE PROJECT PERFORMS BETTER THAN WE EXPECT AND THERE'S MORE REVENUE THAN WHAT WE ESTIMATED, THEN WE COULD MOVE INTO TIER TWO, TIER THREE, TIER FOUR PROJECTS.

WE ADDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, TO THAT PER COUNCIL DIRECTION.

AND, UM, SO ARE THE TIERS IN ORDER OR ARE THEY JUST, THE, THE THINKING IS THAT THE 83 MILLION FOR THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE CAN BE COVERED AS WELL AS THE 69 MILLION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THERE, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH REVENUE PROJECTED FROM THE TIERS ALONE TO FUND ALL OF THOSE TIER ONE PROJECTS.

STAFF HAD INITIALLY RECOMMENDED THE ROADWAYS AND DRAINAGE, UH, THE 83 MILLION FOR A TIER ONE PROJECT.

[07:35:01]

BUT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH REVENUE FROM THE TURS ALONE PROJECTED TO FUND BOTH ALL OF THE, UH, HOUSING AND ALL OF THE, UM, THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION.

SO WHAT'S THE, UH, I, I DIDN'T SEE THIS, BUT I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

UM, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, UH, PROCESS FOR DETERMINING WHICH ONE OF THOSE GETS FULLY FUNDED? THAT WOULD BE IN THE FINAL PLAN.

WE'D HAVE TO HAVE THAT DECIDED FOR THE FINAL.

SO THE FINAL PLAN WOULD DETERMINE IF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS 69 MILLION AND WELL, BUT BASICALLY THE FINAL PLAN WOULD DETERMINE, UM, HOW THOSE DOLLARS WERE ALLOCATED ACROSS THESE TWO ITEMS IN TIER ONE.

WELL, AND IDEALLY IN A FINAL PLAN, WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING TO OTHER FUNDING SOURCES THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO BEAR TO ACHIEVE HIS OVERALL VISION AND SCALING THE PROJECT COST TO THE AVAILABLE REVENUE.

SO THE FINAL PLAN SHOULD BE MORE LIKE WHAT YOU SAW FOR THE COLONY PARK, A COMPLETE PACKAGE WHERE THE, THE REVENUE DOLLARS BALANCE TO THE EXPENDITURE DOLLARS.

WE'RE NOT THERE YET.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS JUST A PRELIMINARY PLAN.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? KAAR POOL, I WONDERED IF EITHER MR. VANNA OR MS. OLIVAS COULD EXPLAIN WHAT TURS FUNDS CAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY CAN'T, LIKE, IT'S CLEARLY IT'S PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ROSE UTILITIES.

UM, BUT IF THE, THESE PARCELS WERE DEVELOPED UNDER NON PUD CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT WOULD THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION LOOK LIKE? WE WOULD STILL PARTICIPATE, BASICALLY IS, IS WHAT I ASSUME.

CAN YOU, THE LAST PART OF YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

IF THESE PARCELS WERE DEVELOPED UNDER NON PUD CIRCUMSTANCES SURE.

WHAT WOULD THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE LOOK LIKE? YEAH, SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS PLAN THAT PRESUPPOSES ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN ON AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL OR, OR A PUD.

THE PLAN IS, AND THE MARKET ANALYSIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN TITLE IN, IN TOTAL CONTINGENT UPON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION THE COUNCIL PASSED IN 2016.

SO THE PUD DISCUSSION THAT'S ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS NOT, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC TO THE TUR THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO IF THAT PU DISCUSSION WASN'T HAPPENING, THE, THE TURS, UH, EVERYTHING IN THE TES ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE BROUGHT FORWARD, THE RECAPTURE PERCENT WOULD ALL BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

AND DOES THE TURS ABSOLVE A DEVELOPMENT FROM PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO A DEVELOPMENT? NO, THE TURS DOESN'T DO THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? YES.

COUNCIL, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

WHEN YOU SAY THE, THE, THE, THE RATE IS SET AT 46%, UH, IS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT 46% OF THE REVENUES IS GOING TOWARD THE TURS AND THE REST IS GOING TOWARD THE GENERAL FUND? NOT QUITE AS CLOSE, BUT, SO 46% OF THE, UH, INCREMENTAL REVENUE, THERE'S BASE, THERE'S THE BASE VALUE, AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE INCREMENTAL GROWTH ON TOP OF THAT.

46% OF THE INCREMENTAL REVENUE WILL GO TO THE TURS.

THE REMAINING REVENUE WILL EITHER GO TO GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS, GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE, OR THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP.

EXCELLENT.

SO EVEN IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE CREATING THE TOURS, WE'RE STILL GETTING A BOOST TO GENERAL FUND REVENUE.

IT JUST, IT'S GONNA BE SPLIT ESSENTIALLY BETWEEN, UH, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS AND, AND GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE AND STUFF.

CAUSE ONE MORE THING TO ADD AND, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER VAL, CUZ IT REMINDED ME IN THE PAST I HAVE OPPOSED TURS JUST ON A GENERAL CONCEPT, BUT THEY HAVE MOSTLY BEEN LIKE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE INCREMENTAL REVENUE HAS STAYED ON THAT PROPERTY.

THIS ONE IS VERY DIFFERENT.

AND I HAVE BALANCED OUT THE, TO ME VERY CLEAR COMMUNITY BENEFITS, PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE GOING TO COME TO US THAT WILL ACCRUE FROM THIS AGAINST BOTH US ASSISTING VIA 46% OF THE INCREMENTAL REVENUE BEING PLOWED BACK INTO THE, INTO THE PROPERTY AND THE REST OF THAT REVENUE GOING TO GENERAL REVENUE.

HARPER MADISON, UH, HAS HER HAND RAISED.

AND SOME OF THE TIME YOU VOTED AGAINST HIM IN THE PAST, IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE MONEY CAME OUT OF THE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE, IN THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS NO LONGER THE CASE UNLESS THAN UNTIL THE STATE CHANGES THAT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE ARE A FAVOR OF THE JURORS.

THIS ITEM 10, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER'S POOL, UH, RENTERIA, UM,

[07:40:01]

UM, FUENTES, ALICE, UH, MYSELF AND BELLA.

THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

IT'S THE MAYOR PRO TE UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, TOVO COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY DOES ABSTAINING HIS KITCHEN.

UH, SO THIS PASSES 7 4 3 3.

MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? GO AHEAD.

I SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS COMMENT EARLIER, BUT I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE I'M UNCOMFORTABLE, UH, VOTING ON SOMETHING WHERE I DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL PLAN.

AND SO, UM, AND SINCE I WON'T BE HERE NEXT, NEXT YEAR, WHEN YOU GUYS TAKE UP THE THE FINAL PLAN, I FELT IT BEST TO JUST ABSTAIN BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE SURETY, UM, ON WHAT I'M VOTING ON IN TERMS OF HOW THOSE FUNDS WILL BE SPENT.

SO THAT'S WHY I ABSTAINED.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, I THINK IT WAS SEVEN IN SUPPORT, THREE NOS AND AN ABSTENTION.

YEAH, I HOLD IT WRONG.

7 31.

I DID, I HAVE 14 VOTES THERE, I THINK.

NO, NO.

SEVEN THREE AGAINST ONE ABSTAINING PASSES.

UH, COUNCIL BAR TOVO, ARE YOU READY TO BRING US BACK? I AM.

AMENDMENTS FOR 44 FROM THE MAYOR HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED.

APOLOGIES FOR THAT.

I'M A LITTLE SCATTERED.

BRANDON FORGOT TO SUBMIT IT TO THE CLERK.

SO 44, THE

AND THEN MY AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO DISTRIBUTED.

AND IN A MINUTE WE'LL HAVE 41 AS WELL.

SO 44 IS, IS THE ITEM.

MAYOR, DID YOU WANNA DO 41 OR 44 FIRST? EITHER ONE.

SO I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 44.

IS THE MAYOR PRO TA AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, THE OTHERS VOTING I THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED NOW.

ITEM 44.

WE HAVE INCORPORATED, UH, BY AGREEMENT ALREADY, MY MOTION SHEET, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHANGE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

UH, SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, UH, TO, TO, AND THEN PUT IT TO A VOTE.

UH, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA, THE, THE, THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS YOU HAD SET, UH, A GOAL OF 85% AT TELLING THE STAFF TO GET TO THE TARGET GOAL OF 85%.

UH, AND, AND I HAVE CHANGED THAT TO SAY THE CITY SEEKS TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING AS WELL AS THE DEPTH OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF THOSE UNITS RATHER THAN USING A PERCENTAGE TARGET AND WILL PURSUE PARTNERSHIPS.

UH, I DID THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE ULTIMATE GOAL WE HAVE COLLEAGUES IS TO GET THE GREATEST NUMBER OF UNITS.

SO IF THERE'S A LARGER UNIVERSE, SMALLER PERCENTAGE, BUT MORE UNITS, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THAT MORE THAN I WOULD SUPPORT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE WITH A LOWER UNIVERSE.

UH, CUZ IT'S LESS UNITS.

AND MY GOAL IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE TO TRY TO GET THE GREATEST NUMBER OF UNITS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET.

UH, SO THIS LANGUAGE THEN, UH, TRACKS THAT INTENT.

UH, BEYOND THAT, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THIS CITY OWNS, YOU JUST CAN'T GET TO TO 85%.

IF IT'S NOT A SUBSIDIZED PROJECT, MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

SO YOURS WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO PRESCRIPTIVE.

IT DOESN'T STOP US FROM GETTING TO 85% IF THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO IN ANY SITUATION.

IT JUST DOESN'T PRESUPPOSE THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER.

AND MAYOR, IF I MAY THANK YOU.

AND I, YOU KNOW, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT POINT AND I, I, I HAD IN MY ORIGINAL SAID OR OTHERWISE GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE I HAVE ON THE MOTION SHEET THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED, TRIED TO MAR MARRY THE TWO SO THAT IT KEEPS THE PERCENTAGES, UM, BUT INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE OR OTHERWISE, MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS AND DEPTH OF AFFORDABILITY RATHER THAN USING A PERCENTAGE TARGET.

AND THEN IT PICKS UP YOUR LANGUAGE ABOUT, ABOUT PARTNERSHIPS.

SO IT HAS, IT HAS BOTH.

UM, AND, AND THE REALITY, I MEAN, IS THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE TO TALK WITH COUNCIL EARLY ON AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REALLY CLEAR WHAT THEIR PRIORITY IS AND, AND WHERE THEY WANNA SET THOSE TARGETS.

BUT, SO IT'S JUST TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES.

BUT AGAIN, I DID TAKE YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK AND TRY TO MARRY IT WITH, WITH THE TARGET PERCENTAGE AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.

I STILL LIKE MY LANGUAGE BETTER FOR ALL THE THING REASONS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THESE RESOLUTIONS, I JUST THINK THE STAFF'S GOING TO READ THAT AND THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO TRY TO HIT 85% AND I WOULD RATHER THEM JUST BE FOCUSING ON MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

ALL RIGHT, THAT'S THE ISSUE.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE, EVERYBODY ON YOUR MY AMENDMENT IS WHAT'S BEEN OFFERED.

SO MY LANGUAGE, MY OFFER AMENDMENT THAT UH, SAYS FOCUS ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AND AND DEPTH OF AFFORDABILITY IS BEING OFFERED.

THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UM, THOSE OPPOSED TO THE, TO THE AMENDMENT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS OPPOSED.

THOSE ABSTAINING

[07:45:01]

WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON 44 AS AMENDED.

I HAVE ONE OTHER AMENDMENT.

THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED.

AND THIS IS THE AMENDMENT ON THE SAME MOTION SHEET AS THE ONE I JUST MENTIONED.

IT ADDS IN THE LANGUAGE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THE CITY SHOULD ALSO RESERVE OR AFFIRMATIVELY MARKET AFFORDABLE UNITS TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO QUALIFY FOR THOSE UNITS.

ANY OBJECTION TO, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN THAT ONE THAT IS ON THE SAME MOTION SHEET.

UM, IT HAVE YOU HAND WITHOUT THAT MOTION SHEET? UM, I I CAN, IT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE CLERK.

UM, AND I DO HAVE COPIES.

I DO HAVE COPIES RIGHT HERE.

IT'S BEEN EMAILED TO EVERYBODY.

SHOOT.

OH, NO, NO, NO.

I HANDED OUT THE WRONG ONE.

HANG ON A SECOND.

THAT'S THE WRONG ONE.

I, I FOUND THE DIGITAL COPY FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

SO IF WE'RE WAITING ON ME, WE DON'T NEED TO, WOULD YOU READ THE LANGUAGE AGAIN THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO ADD? YES.

IT'S JUST, IT'S IT'S A, THIS LANGUAGE TO THE DEGREE THEY CAN TRY TO GET THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS TO CITY EMPLOYEES, CORRECT.

TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE CITY SHOULD ALSO RESERVE OR AFFIRMATIVELY MARKET AFFORDABLE UNITS TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO QUALIFY FOR THOSE UNITS.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT BEING ADDED? HEARING NONE.

THAT'S ADDED.

IF WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON 44 AS AMENDED, THOSE IN FAVOR? 44 IS AMENDED.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

THOSE OPPOSED I CAN'T SEE KE MEDICINE HOW YOU'RE VOTING.

SHE HAS, YES.

THAT'S ROBERT HARPER.

IS THAT A YES? VOTE YES.

THEN I THINK WE HAVE THE YES VOTE.

ARE WE MISSING ANYBODY? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY'S OFF OF THAT.

DA.

UM, MAYOR, THE NEXT ONE IS 41.

I REMEMBER 44 PASSES.

UH, 10 ZERO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY OFF THE, UH, DS.

ALL RIGHT, WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE?

THIS TWO HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED DIGITALLY.

UM, I'M NOW NOT REMEMBERING IF I'VE HANDED IT OUT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS HANDED OUT.

YES, IT WAS HANDED OUT.

YEAH, SHE HANDED THAT.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, HAS THAT BEEN POSTED? SO COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON CAN SEE YOUR CHANGES TO ITEM 41.

AND THESE ARE THE, AND THIS AGAIN IS THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THESE WERE WORKED WELL, WORKED WITH, UM, THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AS WELL AS STAFF.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE STAFF ARE IN FAVOR.

OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAS MOVED.

ITEM NUMBER 41, SHE'S NOW MOVING THIS AMENDMENT.

SO IT'S THE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT BEING ADDED? HEARING NONE.

THIS AMENDMENT'S ADDED.

THAT GETS US TO 41 AS AMENDED.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON 41 AS AMENDED? THEN LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF 41 AS AMENDED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, THOSE OPPOSED, UH, I'M SEEING COUNCIL MEMBER POOL VOTING? NO.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS ABSTAINING.

COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY IS OFF THE DIAS COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, DID YOU VOTE YES OR NO ON THAT? YES.

YOU'RE MUTED.

IS THAT A YES OR A NO? OR YOU WANT TO TALK? I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED.

I JUST DUNNO WHAT'S RAISE TOO.

EVERYBODY VOTED? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS VOTED ABSTAINED.

COUNCIL MEMBER POOL VOTED NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE'S A, THERE'S A HIP HOP SONG I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IN, IN PREPARATION FOR ME PRESENTING THE, THE PROCLAMATION TO U G K AND, AND PORT ARTHUR.

SO I COULD JUST WRAP IT NEXT TIME IF YOU WANT ME TO.

REALLY, I WOULD LISTEN.

I'M FULLY PREPARED TO DROP BARS THERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER TO SAYS, GO FOR IT.

NEXT TIME.

PROMISE TIME .

WITH YOUR FACE FULL SCREEN, SO WHEN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, YOU NEED TO PULL IT IN FRONT SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT.

BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT, UH, UH, WE ARE BEING GRACED

[07:50:01]

THAT WOULD WORK.

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY COMPLIMENTARY.

SO THAT PASS THERE ON 41, I THINK THAT LEAVES US ONE LEFT 43.

IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE WE DID 43.

I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT WE HAVE LEFT IS 36, WHICH YOU AND I AGREED.

WE WOULD JUST TAKE UP TOMORROW FOR 36.

OUR PASS.

THAT GETS US THE END OF THE VERY LAST THING FOR US TO CONSIDER TONIGHT, UH, WHICH IS THE, UH,

[53. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment and consider an ordinance establishing revised electric rates and charges for Austin Energy customers.]

POD.

JERRY, YOU WANNA HELP US WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THIS ONE? MAYOR, COUNCIL, JERRY, A MAYOR, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER HARBOR MADISON HERE WHILE, UH, UH, MR. OV COMES UP TO THE PODIUM.

UM, WHEN YOU SAY GRACE WITH MY FULL FACE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEAN.

IT'S, IT DIDN'T SOUND COMPLIMENTARY, SO I'M GONNA SHUT DOWN MY VIDEO UNTIL I UNDERSTAND FULLY WHAT THAT MEANS.

BUT JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, I AM HERE IN PRESENT.

YOU ARE.

IT JUST MEANT THAT YOU WERE FULL FRAME.

YOU WERE CLOSE TO THE CAMERA, SO WE COULDN'T SEE YOU.

YOU'RE JUST, YOU ARE FULL FRAME , BUT IT LOOKED GOOD.

IT LOOKED GOOD.

BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE CALL THIS ONE UP, UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN AUSTIN, UH, ENERGY? WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IT, UH, LATER IN THIS MEETING, WHICH WILL BE TOMORROW.

BUT WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCIL MEMBER ALEX MAKES THAT MOTIONS.

HER SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER REN.

SECONDS.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THOSE OPPOSED, I'M SEEING THAT BEING UNANIMOUS.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE HAVE, UM, IN THE BACKUP A COPY OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THIRD READING.

I GOT IT AT THAT TIME.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, UNANIMOUS ON DI, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY OFF HEARINGS CLOSED.

NOW LET'S TURN OUR ATTENTION THEN TO THE, UH, THE PUD.

WHICH NUMBER ITEM DO WE CALL UP HERE? OKAY, MAYOR.

WE'LL BE DOING BOTH.

UH, EVENTUALLY WE'LL BE DOING BOTH THE NEIGHBOR PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE POD, BUT WE'LL START WITH THE POD.

SO, UM,

[Items 83 - 85]

SO I BELIEVE THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED WOULD BE TO GO THROUGH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND SOME, UM, AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REACHED.

UM, THERE WOULD BE CHANGES TO THAT ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP.

SO I HAVE A LIST OF ABOUT NINE THINGS THAT I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH.

UM, THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO REFLECTIVITY.

UM, YOU HEARD SOME TESTIMONY ON THIS EARLIER TODAY.

THE APPLICANT, UM, IS NOW SEEKS TO REMOVE THE CODE MODIFICATION TO THE REFLECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE, SINCE IT WOULD NOT BE MODIFIED, UM, BASICALLY THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO REFLECTIVITY IN THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.

ANY OBJECTION TO, UH, UH, AMENDING THE SECOND READING MOTION SO AS TO TAKE OUT THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE FOR REFLECTIVITY? HEARING NONE THAT'S TAKEN OUT.

THE SECOND ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE, UH, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, UM, WE'RE PROJECT CONNECT ACROSS THE, THE NEED TO CROSS THIS PROPERTY TO ON A BRIDGE FOR THE BLUE LINE ACROSS THE, UM, UM, ACROSS LABOR LAKE.

UM, WE DID PREVIOUSLY DISCUSS, AND THE COUNCIL AGREED TO CHANGE THE WORD LIGHT RAIL TO PUBLIC TRANSIT BECAUSE THAT IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED WHAT FORM OF TRANSIT WILL BE UTILIZING THAT BRIDGE.

UM, AT THIS POINT, UM, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ALSO AGREED THAT, UM, A LARGE, A PORTION OF THIS LAND, OR THE LAND THAT WOULD BE USED FOR THIS, WOULD BE WITHIN THE AREA THAT THEY'VE ALSO ALREADY AGREED TO DO AS PARKLAND.

AND SO WHAT THE APPLICANT AGREED IS IF ANY PORTION OF THE PARKLAND IS USED FOR TRANSIT USAGE, THEY WILL PAY THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY, UM, HAD DONATED TO US.

UM, BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT THE MO MODE OF TRANSPORTATION WILL BE, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED AND THE STAFF HAS AGREED TO PLACE A LIMIT SAYING THAT THAT AREA OF, UM, PARKLAND, UM, DEDICATION FEE PAID BY THE APPLICANT FOR TRANSIT USE ON, UM, WHAT WOULD'VE OTHERWISE BEEN PARKLAND WILL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO PUT A STATEMENT IN THERE SAYING THAT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN, UM, TO THE AREA USED TO BALANCE THE NEED FOR LAND FOR TRANSIT AND THE CITY'S DESIRE FOR PARKLAND.

SO TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO ONE WANTS MORE AREA USED THAN IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR TRANSIT, SINCE WE KNOW THAT THAT, UM, WOULD OTHERWISE BE PARKLAND.

UH, HAS THERE BEEN ANY OBJECTION TO THE SOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSIT RIGHT AWAY IN THE PARKLAND, THAT AREA AND THE FEE? HEARING NONE THAT'S INCLUDED AS WELL.

WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE? OKAY.

UM, THE NEXT ONE MAYOR WOULD BE, UM, A HOTEL ISSUE.

UM, WITHIN THE, UM, FIRST ON FIRST READING AND SECOND READING HOTEL IS A PROHIBITED USE.

UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT CONDITION, IS SEEKING THAT

[07:55:01]

IT BE REMOVED.

UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE WAS TO ALLOW A HOTEL AS PERMITTED USE.

UH, WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION? STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ALLOW A HOTEL TO ALLOW A HOTEL.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE AMENDMENTS ON THIS ON THE DESK, SO THAT ONE'S NOT AGREED AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE GONNA PULL THAT ONE AND PUT IT ASIDE.

WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE? THE NEXT ONE RELATES TO THE DARK SKIES REQUIREMENT.

UM, THE, UM, APPLICANT AGREED TO SOME PROVISIONS, UM, RELATING TO DARK SKIES, UM, THAT WE'RE REQUESTED BY THE STAFF.

HOWEVER, THE, UM, APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING THAT WE, WE ADDED, UH, UH, A MODIFICATION TO WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE AND THAT WOULD TO, TO ALLOW FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR TREE LIGHTS THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED SUBJECT TO CITY CONSULTATION WITH BOTH MERLIN TUNNELS, BAT CONSERVATION OR BAT CONSERVATION AND INTERNATIONAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION CITY STAFF.

WITH THIS? YES.

ANY OBJECTION? I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE STAFF, GENERALLY SPEAKING WAS NOT OKAY WITH THE TREE LIGHTS.

UM, THE ADDITION, UM, THAT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CONSULT WITH THE WATERSHED STAFF ON INVOLVES CONSULTATION WITH THE, UH, THE TWO BACK GROUPS.

SO STAFF STAYS INVOLVED.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED? KITCHEN.

SO I'M, I'M SORRY, JERRY, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? THE STAFF WAS NOT OKAY WITH THE GLASS.

WHEN I CHECKED WITH THE STAFF YESTERDAY, THE WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF, LIZ JOHNSON, AND I BELIEVE SHE MAY BE ON WEBEX RIGHT NOW, SHE COULD NOT MAKE IT TODAY, BUT, UM, SHE SAID THAT, UM, THE STAFF WAS NOT OKAY WITH ADDING THE EXCEPTION MM-HMM.

FOR TREE LIGHTS TO THE DARK SKIES ANGLE.

SINCE LIZ AND I TALKED, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO ADD THE CONSULTATION TO BOTH BAT CONSERV OR BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL OR, UM, MERLIN'S GROUP, UM, RELATING TO BATS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE OKAY AND DON'T FEEL THAT THE LIGHTS IN THE TREES WOULD AFFECT THE BATS AND THEY AGREED THAT THEY WOULD CONSULT WITH THEM AND THE CITY, WELL ACTUALLY, FRANKLY, THE CITY WOULD CONSULT WITH THEM PRIOR TO ALLOWING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIGHTS ON THE TREE.

SO DOES THE LANGUAGE SAY CONSULT OR DOES THIS, WHO HAS TO AGREE? THE CITY WOULD STILL BE THE ONE THAT DECIDES, BUT THE CITY WOULD CONSULT WITH THOSE TWO GROUPS.

BEFORE WE ALLOW THE LIGHTS, I THINK LIZ IS ON THE, UH, WEBEX IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

UH, BUT YOU SAID THAT LIZ IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LANGUAGE ONCE YOU ADDED THE CONSULTING? NO, LIZ DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS.

THIS WAS WITHIN THE PAST HOUR.

WELL MAYBE WE CAN ASK HER AND WE CAN, HERE SHE IS.

GOOD EVENING.

UM, WELL, I WOULD WOULD SAY BAT YOU KNOW, CONSULTING WITH, UM, EXPERTS RELATED TO THE BAT CONSERVATION IS DEFINITELY IMPORTANT.

UM, I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT THE AUDUBON SOCIETY BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSULTATION BECAUSE DARK SKY IS NOT JUST TO PROTECT BATS, IT'S TO PROTECT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SPECIES, INCLUDING BIRDS, UM, WHICH DO MIGRATE AT NIGHT AS WELL.

SO CAN WE ADD THAT LANGUAGE TO ABOUT CONSULTING WITH AON? YES, WE CAN ADD THEM TO THE LIST OF THE, THE TWO OTHER NON-PROFITS THAT ARE IN THERE.

AND THEN THE LANGUAGE, WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT SAY AGAIN? UM, WITH AN EXCEPTION, AND THIS WOULD BE TO THE PORTION THAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR TREE LIGHT INSTALLATION THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO CITY CONSULTATION WITH MERLIN TUNNELS BACK CONSERVATION OR BACK CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL AND THE UBON SOCIETY, IT SAYS WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED.

SO I, I'M TRY, I'M TRYING TO FIND THE LANGUAGE THAT TELLS ME THAT THE CITY DETERMINES WHETHER IT'S ALLOWED OR NOT.

IS THAT IN, IS THAT IN YES, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CITY CONSULTATION WITH THOSE GROUPS.

SO THE WAY I INTERPRET THAT IS IF, WELL THAT IS SUBJECT TO CONSULTATION DOESN'T MEAN APPROVAL IN, IN, I WOULD JUST WANT IT TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IF WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO AFTER CONSULTATION TO SAY NO TO THAT EXCEPTION.

I'M NOT HEARING THAT IN THE LANGUAGE.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.

I MEAN, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH STAFF FIXING THAT LANGUAGE.

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.

WE'RE GONNA PULL THAT ONE ASIDE FOR A SECOND, OKAY? MM-HMM.

WE'LL, WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE? WE'LL WORK ON THAT.

THE NEXT ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE, UH, TIMING OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

AND, UM, I HAVE A RATHER, UM, IT'S A RATHER LENGTHY SECTION, BUT I, I'LL PARAPHRASE IF YOU, IF YOU, IF I MAY.

BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR NO MORE THAN THREE TEMPORARY COS FOR BUILDINGS UNTIL THE ROAD IS CONSTRUCTED.

SO THIS WOULD PLACE A LIMITATION ON THE PROJECT TO GUARANTEE THAT THE ROAD IS CONSTRUCTED, WHICH THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO, THE CITY WANTS TO HAPPEN.

UM, AND THIS WOULD BE A, A, UM, A TRIGGER MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UH, THE ROAD GETS BUILT.

GOOD.

ANYBODY HAVE OBJECTION TO THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S INCLUDED.

NEXT ONE.

A BASED UPON THE TOTAL 18.86 ACRE PARENT TRACT OF THE SITE AND TO ALLOW FOR 200 FEET OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

THE NEXT ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE BONUS AREA TOWARDS THE, UH, THE VERY END OF THE ORDINANCE.

UM, IT WOULD, THERE IT'D BE A SLIGHT MODIFICATION THAT WAS ALREADY IN THERE.

UM, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A SIX TO ONE, UM,

[08:00:01]

UM, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD OF COURSE BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EITHER ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR FEE IN LIEU OF AS REQUIRED BY THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

SO WE ALREADY, IT WAS ALREADY ADDED IN THERE TO A LOT OF THE SIX TO ONE A.

UM, WHAT THIS CHANGES IS IT MODIF, IT MODIFIES THE HEIGHT AND IT MODIFIES THE AREA WHICH THE A WOULD BE CALCULATED.

IT ALSO, UM, CLARIFIES THAT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE, THAT WERE PUT IN THERE INADVERTENTLY, I THINK RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN NC BONUS WOULD NOT APPLY HERE, SUCH AS THE, UM, THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK IT INADVERTENTLY STATED THAT THE ONLY BONUS AREA, IT HAD TO BE 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND IT ALSO SAID THE COUNCIL HAD TO PROVE EVERY ONE OF THEM.

AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE CONS AT SECOND READING.

SO WE DID SOME CLEAN UP ON THAT.

COLLEAGUES, YOU RECALL THAT I OFFERED THIS AS AN AMENDMENT, UH, AND THEN WHEN I GOT STAFF'S COMMENTS TO IT THAT IT WAS REDRAFTED, IT'S BEEN HANDED OUT.

IT'S BEEN POSTED, IT IS, UH, MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2 ON ITEM 84.

SO I INCORPORATED THE STAFF STORY.

MAYOR, I, I JUST WANNA, IS THERE, WHERE ARE WE SEEING ANY OF THIS WRITTEN? THIS IS KIND OF CHALLENGING TO FOLLOW.

SO WHAT HE JUST DID, CUZ THAT ONE I THOUGHT MIGHT NEED TO BE WRITTEN AND IT IS WHAT I HAD OFFERED SEVERAL WEEKS AGO.

SO I'VE HANDED IT OUT.

IS THAT NUMBER TWO? THAT'S MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2 TO ITEM 84.

I HAVE THAT ONE.

AND JUST TO HELP YOU OUT IF Y'ALL KNOW THIS, BUT OTHER ONES, DO WE HAVE THEM WRITTEN SOMEWHERE THAT WE ARE, WHICH ONE THAT HE'S JUST BEEN READING? UM, WELL THE ONES WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE REFLECTIVITY WOULD SIMPLY BE A STRIKE A STRIKER REMOVAL.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE FOR THAT.

UM, THE PUBLIC TRANSIT PORTION, HONESTLY, I JUST HAVE WHAT I'VE WRITTEN.

I HAVE MY HANDWRITTEN NOTES.

I DON'T HAVE THAT TYPED OUT.

UM, THE HOTEL MOTEL I THINK IS SIMPLY A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, WHICH WAY THEY WANT TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

AND THE BAT LANGUAGE, WE HONESTLY WE'RE JUST WORKING THROUGH HERE RIGHT NOW AT THE DIAS.

SO I DON'T HAVE MOTION SHEETS ON THIS.

SO, UM, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SIX TO ONE WAS ALREADY PART OF THE YEAH, THAT THE, AS IN THE SECOND READING, YES.

IN PART 20 OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE ON PAGE 23 OF 24 OF THE, THE THIRD READING BACKUP THAT'S IN YOUR ORDINANCE, IT SAYS DEVELOPMENT AND STATESMAN.

HUD MAY EXCEED 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX TO ONE AS FOLLOWS.

AND IT HAS A THROUGH F AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOTION SHEET THAT THE MAYOR'S REFERRING TO, IT WOULD STRIKE OUT B, C, D AND E AND IT WOULD LEAVE IN A AND F.

UM, A DEFINES THE BONUS A AS THE GROSS FLOOR RATE THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE A ALLOWED BY THE AMENDED LAND USE PLAN, WHICH IS, UM, IN THE CODE.

AND IT WOULD ADD, UM, LANGUAGES, SAY THAT THE SIX TO ONE OF THE 18.86, A CURRENT ACRE PARENT TRACT, AND TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN EXHIBIT D BY UP TO 200 FEET.

AND IS THERE A BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT? IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT.

IT WOULD BE WHAT, WHATEVER BUILDING.

SO THESE GETS SIX TIMES 18.86 ACRES WORTH OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THEN? OR IS THERE ANOTHER PIECE OF THE GO? YES, AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK, I CANNOT RECALL MAYOR PER TIME WHETHER THE, UH, WHAT THE BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT WAS IN THE BASE POD, BUT THIS TO THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE DOES NOT AMEND THAT.

BUT THERE IS A BUILDING COVERAGE.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE, TO BE HONEST, I CAN'T RECALL.

WELL THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT CUZ HOW DO WE KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THIS? YEAH, I HYPOTHET THE EASIEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS SIX TIMES 18.86.

WHAT? I SAID, THE EASIEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS SIX TIMES 18.86.

AND I BET THAT'S BY ACRES.

SO LIKE HOW MANY SQUARE? WE DON'T USUALLY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE? YOU'D HAVE TO DO THE MATH.

CAN WE GET THE MATH ON THAT? YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO JUDGE THIS VERSUS THE SURE.

YOU KNOW, IT WOULD OF VERSUS THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN VERSUS THE ORIGINAL PUT.

NOW WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER, I MEAN THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, 18.6 TIMES SIX, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THAT BEFORE? AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME IF I HAVE A BUILDING COVERAGE.

SO I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY SQUARE FEET I'M ADDING WITH THIS.

BASED ON THE 18.86 IT'D BE DIFFERENT.

BUT BEFORE THE NUMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS THE 4.27, WHICH WAS THE EXISTING PUT, BUT THAT WAS BASED UPON THE AREA WITHOUT THE PARKLAND INCLUDED, THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE PARKLAND.

SO I, I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO RUN THAT NUMBER.

THE APPLICANT KNOW THE NUMBER? DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW THE NUMBER OF WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DONE? 4 MILLION, 4 MILLION SQUARE FEET? 4 MILLION, 4.8 MILLION.

CAN, DOES

[08:05:01]

4.8 MILLION.

SO 4.8 MILLION.

THAT IS BEFORE YOU GET THE, I MEAN, IF YOU CAN FIT THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL 200 FEET, YOU CAN DO 4.8 MILLION.

I THINK THAT WE'D HAVE, I THINK I'D HAVE TO CHECK, CHECK THAT TOTAL, CHECK THAT BACK TO YOU.

AND WHAT WERE THEY DOING BEFORE THIS AMENDMENT? WELL, THE EXISTING, THE POD WITHOUT THIS BONUS AREA PROVISION IS THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET, ABOUT A 4.27 A R.

THIS WOULD ALLOW US SIX.

SO, SO THE, THE PUT AS IN THE SECOND READING ORDINANCE OR THE PUT AS IN THEIR ORIGINAL OH, THE PUT WITHOUT THE BONUS PROVISION THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE.

BUT WHAT IS THE, THE ORIGINAL PUT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, I WOULD SAY NO, I'M ASKING THE ORIGINAL ENTITLEMENTS, LIKE WE ARE NOW SAYING, WHAT IS THIS PUT DOING? IT IS GOING FROM ITS ORIGINAL TITLEMENTS NOW TO 4.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

WHAT IS THAT BASE FROM WHERE IT IS TODAY? BEFORE TODAY? IT ALLOWS ABOUT 600,000 SQUARE FEET.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING GOING FROM, FROM 600,000 SQUARE FEET TO 4.8 MILLION.

NOW, IF I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS FOR THE PUT AS WE HAD IT, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITHOUT THE BONUS AREA WAS THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET AN HOUR, ABOUT 4.27.

SO WE ARE POTENTIALLY ADDING ANOTHER 1.3 MILLION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK THE MATH THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU CHECK THE MASS.

YES, THANK YOU.

SO MAYOR 10, MY, MY INTENT IN ORIGINALLY BRINGING THIS WAS WHEN WE LOOK AT, UH, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT, UH, NORTH OF THE RIVER, UH, IT HAS THE, THE MINIMUM OF EIGHT TO ONE A R AND YOU CAN GO ABOVE EVEN THE EIGHT TO ONE A R TO BRING IN AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE SEE HAPPENING IN SOME INSTANCES NORTH OF THE RIVER.

SAW IT IN RAINY STREET.

WE SAW IT IN OTHER PLACES.

QUITE FRANKLY, IF WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT IN THIS LOCATION NEXT TO THIS STATION IS WILLING TO PUT IN THAT MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS LOCATION, I'M COMFORTABLE DOING IT.

IT LIMITS IT AT SIX TO ONE A.

I WOULD RATHER IT BE EIGHT TO ONE A R.

I WOULD RATHER IT BE THE EIGHT TO ONE A R PLUS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS THAT GOES ON TOP OF THAT DOWNTOWN.

UH, SO, SO I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO PUSH THIS A LOT MORE THAN, THAN WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

THAT SAID, THIS LIMITS IT TO SIX TO ONE A, WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT IT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE RIVER.

SO IF I MAY, MAY PRINT THAT I HAVE A CORRECTION WHERE I SAID YOU WERE, SO THE ORIGINAL A WAS BASED UPON THE TOTAL SITE AREA, NOT THE SITE AREA SUBTRACTING THE PARKLAND.

SO THAT CAME TO A 4.27 A I MENTIONED EARLIER, THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET CHANGING IT FROM THREE AND A HALF MILLION TO SIX WOULD RESULT IN THE 4.9 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF, UM, DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE, BUILT INTO THE POD IS 55%.

IT'S, IT'S ON ONE OF THE EXHIBITS.

BUT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 4.8 MILLION AS ESTIMATE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? IT'S AN AMENDMENT THAT CAME FROM THE COUNCIL.

I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'M JUST TRYING, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE LIKE WITH US PASSING, I MEANT WITH THE CALCULATION IN TERMS OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS.

BECAUSE THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS WHETHER THE PARKLAND IS IN THAT AREA OR NOT, SINCE A THIRD OF THE SITE IS BEING DEDICATED TOWARDS PARKLAND.

OKAY, BUT THAT'S NOT IN THIS CALCULATION.

YOU JUST SAID THAT WASN'T IN THE 3.5.

SO THE ORIGINAL CALCULATION AND THIS CALCULATION WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE 4.27 A VERSUS THE SIX TO ONE F A R, THEY BOTH INCLUDE THE ENTIRE 18 ACRE TRACK.

BUT THE ORIGINAL PUT WITH THE, I GUESS IT WAS 1.3 OR ORIGINAL, PUT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITH THE THREE AND A HALF MILLION MM-HMM.

, THE 4.27 NUMBER.

THE 4.27 NUMBER IS BASED UPON THE WHOLE 18 ACRE SITE AS WELL.

SO IT IS AN, IT IS AN APPLE TO APPLE, BUT THE EXISTING BUD, THE EXISTING BUD, UM, THERE WAS NO PARK OR THERE WAS NO PARK.

IT WAS NO, NO PARK AT ALL.

AND IT'S 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT ROUGHLY.

OKAY GUYS, WE, KITCHEN, KITCHEN.

SO MY QUESTION IS ARE, ARE WE, ARE WE LOOKING AT YOUR AMENDMENT NOW BECAUSE YOUR YES.

STRIKES B, C, D, AND E, CORRECT? YES.

SO YOUR AMENDMENT ALSO

[08:10:02]

CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT AND THE REASONING BEHIND STRIKING B BC D AND E? IF I MAY? MAYOR, GO AHEAD.

SO WHAT, WHAT THE MAYOR SAID WHEN, WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE WAS BASICALLY I WANT TO ALLOW GREATER A R GREATER SQUARE FOOTAGE MM-HMM.

, UM, IN THE MANNER OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IN TAKING PORTIONS IN BCD AND E C, D AND E TAKE PROVISIONS FROM THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND WOULD APPLY THEM TO THIS.

PUT STAFF DOES NOT FEEL THAT.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS MAKE SENSE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE PUT IN A WHOLE SET OF, YOU KNOW, ENTITLEMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, ONE OF THEM SAID THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WAS NEEDED, UM, FOR THE, UM, FOR, FOR THE DEVELOPER TO USE THE BONUS AREA.

AND IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT ONLY TRIGGERS WHEN YOU GO ABOVE THE A THAT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN MM-HMM.

, WELL, THERE IS NO DOWNTOWN PLAN HERE.

WE ALREADY KNOW THE NUMBER, THE NUMBER IS SIX TO ONE.

SO IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

THEY WOULD PAY THE FIU OF OR PROVIDE ONSITE HOUSING AND IT COULD GO UP TO SIX TO ONE.

UM, WE DID NOT SEE THE NEED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, IN DOWNTOWN, IT'S ONLY WHEN YOU GO ABOVE THE NUMBER THAT'S IN THE PLAN THAT YOU NEED TO DO IT.

A SECOND PART SAID THE ONLY BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE COULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH WE DON'T THINK IS WHAT WAS WHAT THE MAYOR INTENDED WHEN HE, WHEN HE MADE HIS MOTION.

UM, ANOTHER PART REFERS TO WHAT WE CALL THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS.

SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT THAT IS THAT ENVISIONS A PROJECT THAT IS BEING BUILT FROM SCRATCH.

UNDER THIS, I WOULD PICTURE THE BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING ABOVE THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET IN A LATER PHASE OF THE PROJECT.

AND WE ALREADY HAVE THINGS IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WE'VE LAID OUT FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE URBAN STREETS SCAPE.

SO, UH, THE GREAT STREETS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN DOWNTOWN .

THIS PUT ALREADY HAS ITS OWN STREETSCAPE PLAN LAID OUT IN THE EXHIBITS.

SO, SO LET'S TALK MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

, I'M WANTING TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS SECTION AND THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

SO THERE WAS THERE BECAUSE IF IF, BECAUSE LET ME JUST ASK THIS QUESTION.

I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THESE PARTS OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, BUT IT APPEARS TO ME WE'RE STRIKING SOME REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO THERE IS, THERE IS STILL IN THE, UH, ORDINANCE AN F THAT'S NOT BEING STRICKEN WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

AND F YEAH, BUT THAT F DOESN'T TELL US THAT THAT F IS JUST TALKING ABOUT WHERE YOU CAN DO IT.

IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MUCH IT SAYS.

THE F SAYS THAT THE, UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LET'S SEE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY BENEFIT MAY BE PROVIDED PROPERTY, UM, OFFSIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND LOCATED WITHIN A ONE AND A HALF MILE RADI.

SO THAT TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE, UM, WHERE IT CAN GO, RIGHT.

AND THEN LET ME FIND THE PORTION THAT, BUT THE LEVEL OF IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'RE STRIKING, UH, UNLESS, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO, OH, HERE IT SAYS, OR THROUGH A FEE IN LIEU OF, SO IT SAYS THAT, THAT TO GET TO, SO BASICALLY THEY'RE DUE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, RIGHT? TO GET THIS ADDITIONAL AREA, THEY CAN EITHER PROVIDE THAT OFFSITE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF RADIUS, UM, OR IT MAY BE ON THE PROPERTY OR OFFSITE WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF RADIUS.

OR A FEE IN LIEU OF THAT WOULD MATCH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE, THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

SO THE PART WHICH SAYS, OR FEE IN LIEU OF PAYMENT MADE PURSUANT TO 25,000 2 5 86 E ONE A THREE, THAT'S THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE IN LIEU OF, OKAY.

SO, UM, OKAY.

SO THE BUT THE FEE AND LIE, OKAY, SO MAYBE I'M READING THAT SENTENCE AS JUST THE FEE AND LIE PAYMENT APPLIES TO SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 5 86, RIGHT? YEAH.

IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FEE STAYS IN SYNC WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE.

BECAUSE, BUT WHAT IF IT'S DONE ON SITE? WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT IF IT'S DONE ON SITE? BECAUSE I, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'RE STRIKING THE SECTION ABOUT THE, IF YOU DID IT ON SITE, I, MY, MY LARGER, LET ME JUST ASK MY LARGER QUESTION.

REALLY.

MY, MY BIGGER QUESTION IS, SO, SO THIS IS, THIS IS A, THIS IS A BONUS AMOUNT, RIGHT? SO THIS IS AUTHORIZING THE, YOU KNOW, THE SIX TO ONE AND THE UP TO 200 FEET.

SO, UM, IF, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE EARLIER IN THE DOCUMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE SAID IS 10% OR 23 OR WHATEVER, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS EARLIER.

WOULDN'T WE BE WANTING MORE IF, IF THIS SECTION'S TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF?

[08:15:01]

HANG ON A SECOND.

AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING SOME EXCELLENT QUESTIONS BECAUSE THERE IS A FEE, AND LOU MENTIONED, AND I SEE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT THE MAYOR HAS BROUGHT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STILL INTEND TO DO THIS, BUT IT SAYS, IT CONFIRMS THAT THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW THE FEE AND LU TO SATISFY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO, WHERE IT'S, UH, THE MAYOR'S SHEET IS GOING TO STRIP OUT THE OPTIONS ON SITE LEAVING THE ONLY OPTION, THE FEE AND LOU NUMBER THAT'S SPECIFIED, WHICH IS 23 MILLION, WHICH WAS BASED ON YEAH.

ON THE OTHER AND NOT, AND NOT THIS ADDITIONAL DENSITY.

FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M, YOU KNOW, I I I DON'T FEEL LIKE'S TWOS ARE TWO.

THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

BUT, BUT WHAT I, BUT MY, WHAT MY QUESTION IS WITH THE, WITH THE OTHER AMOUNT, THE, THE, WHEN WE GET TO THAT, THAT APPLIES TO, IF WE DON'T DO THIS BONUS AREA, BUT IF YOU DO BONUS AREA, HOW MUCH WOULD THE FEE AND LIE ADD ON? THAT'S REALLY WHAT MY QUESTION, .

SO YOU'RE, BUT I DON'T, HOW MUCH WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO ON SITE? HOW MUCH IN ADDITION WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO EITHER ON SITE OR FEE? AND LOU, I DON'T SEE THAT AMOUNT HERE.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING? CAUSE IT, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE, WHAT THE STAFF DRAFTED WAS SUPPOSED DRAFT WAS THE, THE SAME KIND OF DENSITY BONUS THAT WE HAVE DOWNTOWN.

SO I THINK MAYOR, IS THAT IN SECTION B? UM, THAT'S WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THAT WHAT WE CLEARLY INTEND TO DO, AND MAYBE WE'RE GONNA LOOK BACK, MAYBE WE JUST, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO REFER TO OTHER THINGS WITH THE REGARD, WE DO WANNA REFER TO OTHER THINGS WITH THE FEE.

SO IT INDEXES AS Y'ALL RAISE IT.

UM, BUT, UM, SIMPLY PUT IT WOULD BE 10 SITE, 10% ONSITE UNITS JUST AS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS REQUIRES TODAY.

WELL THAT I, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO THIS SECTION AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW TO EITHER JUST ADD IT DIRECTLY OR FIND THE CODE REFERENCE THAT WE TAKE.

SO LET'S, LET'S PULL THE BONUS SECTION HERE.

WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT.

I MEAN, CLEARLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TRACK THE SAME KIND OF REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT WAS DOWNTOWN, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT OFFERING THIS PROPERTY ANYWHERE NEAR THE, THE HEIGHT OR BONUS.

AND ALSO KNOWING THAT DOWNTOWN'S OFFERED CERTAIN PARTS OF THE MECHANICS OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS THAT DON'T WORK HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, THE DESIGN FUNCTIONS WE DON'T WANT TO DO.

I MEAN, THERE'S SOME OF THAT STUFF WE DON'T WANT TO CARRY OVER.

DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

EXACTLY.

SO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT WILL DO ITS OWN DESIGN PLAN, RIGHT.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A DOWNTOWN PLAN MAP, ET CETERA, CETERA.

SO WE'LL WORK ON, PEOPLE ARE ASKING ABOUT, I THINK WE'LL ASKING, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD COMMENT FROM, FROM OUR COLLEAGUES IS LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BONUS REQUIREMENT.

WE KNOW WHAT IT IS.

I THINK WE HAVE THE FEE IN LUA, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS THE 10% REQUIREMENT IN THERE, RIGHT? SAME AS DOWNTOWN BONUS.

THERE'S AMENDMENTS ABOUT THAT.

SO LET'S PULL THAT, PULL THAT ONE.

AND THEN THE NEXT WOULD BE THE, UM, UM, THE MAIN, I CALL IT THE MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT OF THE POD, NOT THE BONUS AREA, BUT THE, UM, YEAH, WE HAVE AMENDMENTS ABOUT THAT.

SO, HMM.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE THEN.

WELL, THAT ONE'S A SEPARATE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE WE DOING? SO HE, THAT'S NOW THE NEXT THING TO TIA.

OH, DO YOU WANNA DO THE AMENDMENTS NOW ON THAT ONE? DO WE HAVE MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS ON THAT? NO, IT'S JUST YOURS.

RIGHT? I MEAN, ALL I WAS DOING WAS SAYING THAT, THAT I THOUGHT THE VOTES WERE TO, TO GET THE MONEY, THE 23 MILLION AND LET STAFF PUT IT TOWARD A PROJECT LIKE WATER MEROSE PROJECT ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR THAT WAS A MILE OR SO AWAY.

AND I SUPPORT THAT.

MAYOR I I, SO THAT'S THE LANGUAGE.

I, I DO SUPPORT THAT.

SO LET'S SEE IF THERE'S, IF THAT'S AN ISSUE HERE.

IT'S AN ISSUE.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M SUPER EXCITED, WALTER, ABOUT YOUR PROJECT AND SUPER EXCITED ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF MARY LEE AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE COMMITTING TO, TO MAINTAINING THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE THERE CURRENTLY FOR RESIDENTS.

BUT I'M GONNA GO WITH WHAT OUR STAFF, UM, INITIALLY RECOMMENDED, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE UNITS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND WE HAD A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE AT 4 22, UM, ON THE LAKE.

AND THOSE ARE GONNA BE READY IMMEDIATELY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN OPTION.

THAT'S AN OPTION THAT WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT.

AND WE SAY ALL THE TIME, WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN.

AND, AND GOSH, WE'VE SET A GOAL TO HAVE IT IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

THAT'S, THAT IS WHAT THE PUT ORDINANCE REQUIRES.

SO I'M GONNA STICK WITH, I'M GONNA STICK WITH THAT AND, AND I'M, I CAN'T SUPPORT MAKING IT AN ONBOARD, HAVING IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH ALL OF OUR IDENTITY PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW THE ALTERNATIVE OF A FEE AND LIE, WE ALWAYS GET THE FEE AND LIE.

WE NEVER GET THE UNITS.

AND SO I JUST CAN'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR AMENDMENT.

I ALSO WOULD NEED TO STRIKE OUT WHAT'S IN THERE CURRENTLY.

THIS TIME OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO BE, WE SHOULD BE MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER OF PLACES THAT PEOPLE HAVE.

SO WE'RE GONNA PULL THE AFFORDABILITY ONE.

UH, THE REASON I BROUGHT IT IS BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET IN

[08:20:01]

AND THIS ALTERNATE LOCATION IS A GREAT LOCATION.

IT'S ON A, ON A, ON A RAPID TRANSIT.

, UH, ON A GREAT LOCATION.

AND WE WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER NUMBER OF FAMILIES THAT WERE GIVEN A PLACE THEY COULD BE.

ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION JUST THE SAME WAY WE DID, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE NEXT ITEM.

WE'LL GIVE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS ONE, A BRIEF ONE CUZ WE KIND OF, WE'RE NOT GONNA DECIDE IT NOW.

COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND THE MAYOR GO 10.

JUST VERY BRIEFLY.

I, I SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE, UH, IT IS VERY CLOSE TO, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL.

IT IS, UM, PERMANENT.

UM, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT 4 22 BECAUSE IT'S ONLY FOR 40 YEARS.

IT'S NOT PERMANENT AND IT'S, AND WE GET MUCH MORE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE GET MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING FOR OUR BUCK, SO TO SPEAK, OUT OF DIRECTING THE 23 MILLION TO A PROJECT OKAY.

THEM BEFORE WE CONSIDER THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR HOUSING STAFF NOW THAT WE HAVE PASSED THE BOND AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A, WE'LL DO THAT WHEN WE GET INTO DEBATE ON CONVERSATION.

CAUSE I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING BOTH.

I'M NOT SURE THIS IS AN OR SURE THIS IS AN OR CHOICE.

AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, LOTS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THESE AREAS WHERE WE WANT THEM.

UM, AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER OPTION.

ANYONE WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL FAST BEFORE WE GO ON? YES.

AND I, I REALLY TRULY BELIEVE THAT, UH, IF WE MOVE IT THERE TO SOUTH LAMAR, IT'S STILL ON THE TRANSIT, UH, ZONE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY, UH, DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS USING THAT MONEY ON LAMAR AND NOT HAVING ANY FEW UNITS THAT WE'RE GONNA GET RIGHT DOWNTOWN.

IT'S, IT'S, UH, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AND, UH, IF WE CAN GET A LOT MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I MEAN, IT'S GONNA BE PAST 40 YEARS.

I WOULD TAKE THAT IN A MINUTE.

THAT'S OUR POLL.

I'M, I'M IN THE SAME PLACE THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS RENTERIA AND KITCHEN ARE.

AND I THINK WE'VE ALL SET THIS ALREADY FROM THE DIAS.

UM, THE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MONEY GO TO, UM, FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES AND MAYBE WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT MONEY GETS TRIGGERED, THE PAYMENT OF IT.

COUNCIL, I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KITCHEN POOL AND RENTERIA ON, ON THAT PROJECT.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

I JUST WANNA SAY ANYTHING.

WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE LATER.

WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE? OKAY.

WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE TRIGGER ON THAT ONE WHEN WE'LL COME BACK TO, OKAY.

UM, THE NEXT ONE WAS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S AMENDMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC FUNDING ON THIS PROJECT.

WITH THIS ONE.

UH, UM, KA TOVO, YOU WEREN'T HERE WHEN THIS WAS BEING CONSIDERED, SO WE PASSED IT WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT WAS ANTICIPATING THIS MOMENT WHEN WE COULD TURN TO YOU AND SAY, HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS.

THIS IS MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY, ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR ITEMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THIS POD THAT ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING AS SUPERIORITY REQUIREMENTS, SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ANYTHING THAT YOU WERE COMPLAINING YOU WERE CLAIMING AS A SUPERIORITY ITEM, SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE DOING TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE GONNA ASK THE PUBLIC TO FINANCE.

IF IT'S LIMITED TO THAT, THAT'S FINE.

WHAT IS THERE, IS THERE A WORD CHANGE WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THAT CLEAR? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE NOW IN 21.

IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT I MEAN? MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE I THAT YOU'VE HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO EXPLAIN IT, SEE IF THAT LANGUAGE DOES THAT MAY MAYOR ALER.

I KNOW Y'ALL CAN'T SEE ME, BUT MAY I PLEASE? YEP.

THAT HAVE LONG TERM EFFECTS, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARBOR MADISON HERE.

UM, I, I KNOW YOU WEREN'T MAKING REFERENCE TO THIS PARTICULAR WORD IN THIS WAY, BUT I WOULD OFFER, IF WE ARE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER AND OR RECONSIDER LANGUAGE, I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO CONSIDER THE USE OF THE WORD SUPERIORITY AS I, WHILE I CAN ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE INTENT.

I JUST WANNA BE REAL CAREFUL WITH LAST MINUTE WORD CHANGES

[08:25:02]

MAYOR, I CAN ADDRESS THAT.

COUNCIL TOVO.

SO MY, MY ACTUAL AMENDMENT DOESN'T USE THE WORD SUPERIORITY.

UM, THOUGH THAT IS I THINK HOW THE POD DESCRIBES THINGS, BUT I WANNA CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT JUST ELEMENTS OF SUPERIORITY.

IT'S ALSO, UM, IT IS ALSO MY AMENDMENT IS ALSO INTENDED TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE CITY FOR ELEMENTS OF, OF MEETING CODE.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF PART 21.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

NOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS SUGGESTING, IS THERE A LANGUAGE CHANGE TO 21 THAT YOU THINK IS NECESSARY TO, TO CLARIFY THAT? AND MAYOR, I NEED TO CORRECT MYSELF THAT ACTUALLY AS MY AMENDMENT WAS TRANSLATED INTO CODE LANGUAGE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS IN MY ORIGINAL, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS.

THERE IS ACTUALLY, UM, THE PART 21 COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE DOES, DOES TALK ABOUT, UM, SUPERIORITY BECAUSE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THAT IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT READS, UH, COUNCIL FINES AS AN ELEMENT OF SUPERIORITY, THE AGREEMENT OF THE LANDOWNER NOT TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO FUND OR CONSTRUCT INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMUNITY AMENITIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS ORDINANCE AS BEING CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE FUNDED BY THE LANDOWNER AS WELL AS THE AGREEMENT BY THE LANDOWNER NOT TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR, IN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED BY CITY CLO CODE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

SO BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING THIS PROJECT CANNOT MEET ITS CODE REQUIREMENTS OR, OR CREATE AND CONSTRUCT THE ELEMENTS THAT IT'S OFFERED AS, AS EVIDENCE OF SUPERIORITY, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IF THEY ARE PROPOSING USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THAT.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPING OR NOT.

I I THINK I'M HEARING YOUR CONCERN WITH THE WORD SUPERIORITY, BUT I I THINK THAT YOU UNDERSTAND CUZ WE'VE MADE SO MANY, SO MANY CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORTS AROUND NOT SAYING MASTER PLAN.

I KNOW IT.

SO, AND THAT'S LIKE THE LANGUAGE IS CHANGING THAT.

I WONDER IF THIS IS ONE OF, OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE ARE ACTIVELY IN A RECONSTRUCTIVE PERIOD, DECONSTRUCTIVE RECONSTRUCTIVE PERIOD AS A MUNICIPAL BODY AND, AND FOR IF, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU ARE OUR MATRIARCH IN A LOT OF WAYS HERE.

YOU'VE BEEN HERE THE LONGEST AND YOU'VE GOTTEN TO WATCH ALL THIS STUFF HAPPEN AND THESE ARE YOU LEADING TO THE LAST MEETINGS.

COUNCIL MEMBER HUBBER MEDICINE.

AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA BE THIS CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE SAY THINGS AND DO THINGS, I THINK THAT MADE ME FEEL A WAY THAT, WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE THAT SOMETIMES WORDS LIKE SUPREMACY MAKE ME FEEL AWAY BECAUSE OF WHAT I LOOK LIKE AND WHERE I LIVE AND WHO I AM AND WHO I REPRESENT AND WHO'S NOT REPRESENTED.

BUT I THINK THAT VISCERAL REACTION I JUST HAD MAY WARRANT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION.

UM, THANKS.

I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO ASK LAW HOW TO HANDLE THAT.

AGAIN, MY AMENDMENT, I DON'T, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE SEEN IT.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT USED THAT TERM, BUT I THINK THE STAFF ARE USING THAT TERM CUZ THAT IS, THAT IS THE UNFORTUNATE LANGUAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT IN, IN HIGHLIGHTING.

I MEAN I APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND AND, AND, UM, THINK THAT OUR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIGHT NEED A, A LANGUAGE REWRITE AND WOULD SUPPORT THAT IN THE, IN THE MOMENT.

I'M NOT SURE HOW TO HANDLE THIS SECTION THOUGH.

YOU PROBABLY NEED TO CHANGE THE USE OF THAT WORD.

AND I ALSO WANNA SAY ORDINANCE, I ALSO WANNA SAY, UM, I HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, BUT MATRIARCH MAKES ME SOUND SUPER, SUPER OLD .

BUT ANYWAY, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THERE'S MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, RICHARD SUT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS WHOLE THING, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO US.

IF I COULD ASK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO A COUPLE QUESTIONS, IT MIGHT CLARIFY IT.

HAS IN HERE NOW THAT IS PART OF YOUR MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT IS BEING PAID FOR OR PROPOSED TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDING.

COUNCIL MEMBER, DO YOU INTEND FOR THIS TO MEAN THAT TE'S FUNDING COULD NOT BE USED FOR BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION? WELL WE'VE, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST, AND I THINK THE WAY WE HAD ASKED OUR STAFF TO HANDLE IT WAS TO GIVE US A LIST OF, OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS INCLUDING WHAT, WHAT THE ORDINANCE

[08:30:01]

I DON'T PLAN DEDICATION, DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE SECTION THEN CUZ WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING FOR IS TURS FUNDING FOR BARTON SPRINGS ROAD AND THE SOUTH CONGRESS INTERSECTION AND SOUTH CONGRESS IMPROVEMENTS, THE UTILITIES AND THE RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE GOES WITH THAT.

AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE PRIORITIZATION OF PARKS TURS FUNDING FOR PARKS, IF THE INTENT IS OF THIS IS TO ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS, THIS PORTION.

IF THAT IS NOT YOUR INTENT, THEN WE JUST NEED TO GET THE WORDS RIGHT.

UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? GO AHEAD.

UH, THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS, AND I'M GONNA USE THE TERM COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT TERM, BUT, BUT BASICALLY THE, THE PUD REQUIRES THAT, UM, THAT THE, THAT IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PUD YOU HAVE TO DO EXTRA, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST CALL THAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

, I THINK WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA WAS SAYING IS THAT THAT THAT WHAT, WHAT IT'S IDENTIFIED THAT YOU ARE DOING IS EXTRA HAS TO REMAIN THAT IN OTHER WORDS.

AND IT ONLY REMAINS THAT IF YOU PAY FOR IT.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.

SO, SO THAT'S HOW, THAT'S WHAT I THINK SHE'S TRYING TO SAY.

THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO CANCER TOMOS THING FIRST IS DON'T USE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE THINGS YOU'RE CLAIMING BENEFIT.

THAT'S, THEY'VE AGREED TO THAT.

THE SECOND PART OF CATOS IS DON'T USE PUBLIC FUNDS ON THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH.

WELL, IF IT'S REQUIRED, MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IF IT'S REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

I MEAN TO, TO MY MIND.

YOU, YOU HAVE A BASED REQUIREMENT AND THEN THE, THE ADDED FOR THE PUT.

SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS YOU WOULD NEED TO BE PAYING FOR.

RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO.

EXACTLY.

AND IF IT'S REQUIRED, IF IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE YEAH.

AND THERE'S NOT, THEN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR IT.

UNLESS THERE'S, UNLESS IT'S DESCRIBED DIFFERENTLY AS IN THE PARKLAND SECTION BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE WRITTEN IN HERE AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE IF IT WASN'T PART OF THE EXTRA BENEFITS.

AND WHAT I JUST DON'T KNOW IS, IS, IS A, IS THE CHANGES UP ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH SERVES A KIND OF A REGIONAL FUNCTION, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE? I CLEARLY IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE TURS TO PAY FOR THAT.

WELL, AND IT'S WRITTEN IN TO THE, AND IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE TURS.

BUT, BUT ARE WE BUILDING IN AN AMBIGUITY BY PUTTING IN SOMETHING THAT, THAT MIGHT BE ARGUABLY REQUIRED BY THE CODE WHEN IT'S CLEARLY NO ONE'S INTENT THAT THAT BE PAID OTHER THAN WITH THE TURS.

MAYBE THAT JUST NEEDS CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.

YEAH, BECAUSE THE, UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING, IF I'M READING CORRECTLY, THAT SECTION, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT, THAT THE, UM, UH, THAT YOU ALL WILL CONSTRUCT, BUT THEN, THEN YOU'LL BE PAID, PAID FOR THAT BASICALLY.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE INTENT TO DO ANYTHING OTHER.

YEAH, I I DON'T THINK WE MAY BE IN VIOLENT AGREEMENT HERE AS TO THE INTENT.

IT'S JUST QUESTIONING UP COMING WITH WORDS THAT ACTUALLY DOES THAT.

AND WE NEED WORDS THAT SAY YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE PAID FOR SUPERIORITY AND IT'S GONNA SAY YOU DON'T PAY FOR ANYTHING THAT THE DETERS IS INTENDED TO PAY FOR AND IT SHOULD SAY ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE CODE YOU NEED TO PAY FOR.

THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND MAYBE IT'S JUST LISTING IT THOSE THREE WAYS.

ANYTHING THAT YOU CLAIM SUPERIORITY FOR NO PUBLIC FUNDS.

THAT'S GOOD.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE TURS FOR THOSE THINGS THAT THE DETERS IS INTENDED TO PAY FOR.

AND THIRD, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THINGS FOR THINGS THAT ARE OTHERWISE REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE.

JUST IN CASE ANYTHING THAT THE DETERS IS PAYING FOR COULD ARGUABLY BE SAID IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE TRICKY ONE.

I I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S AN ISSUE, BUT IT'S, DUNNO THAT THOSE ARE THE RIGHT WORDS, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE INTENT THAT WE ALL ARE AGREEING WITH.

SOMETHING LIKE, ACCEPT THOSE ITEMS IDENTIFIED TO BE FUNDED BY SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE KNOW THAT WE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THE TURS TO PAY FOR.

AND NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T USE THE TURS FOR THE THINGS THAT THE TURS WAS INTENDED TO PAY FOR.

AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AGAINST IS CREATING AN AMBIGUITY WHERE SOMEONE COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WAIT A SECOND, YOU KNOW, THAT THING WE WERE GONNA HAVE THE TURS DO.

THE TURS DOESN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

CONCERN LAW CAN ADD LANGUAGE THAT SAYS

[08:35:01]

I MEAN, THAT WOULD DO THAT FOR ME.

THAT, THAT WOULD WORK.

SO WE'RE GONNA PULL THIS ONE ASIDE AND YOU GUYS NEED TO PULL OUT YOUR PENS AND, AND HELP DRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.

I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT ISSUE NOW.

I THINK EVERYONE'S INTENDING THE SAME THING THAT JUST SPOKE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES THAT HAPPEN.

WHAT'S THE NEXT THING JURY HEAR? THE FINAL PLAY ON THE LIST IS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN HAD A PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND TO UM, SUMMARIZE WHAT IT WOULD DO WOULD BE TO CLARIFY FURTHER, WE DID DISCUSS THIS LAST TIME TO CLARIFY EVEN FURTHER THAT THERE'LL BE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN A CITY P C I P PROJECT, UM, AT CONGRESS AVENUE PROVIDING ACCESS DOWN TO THE BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AND THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT ONE? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? IS THE APPLICANT OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE? YES AND YES.

WHAT YES AND YES.

EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE? YES.

ANYBODY OBJECTION THAT LANGUAGE ALREADY? NONE THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER LANGUAGE THAT IS THIS OTHER THAN THE FIVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES WE HAVE COUNCIL AND POOL? I'M GONNA, UM, I'M JUST GONNA HAVE SOME DIRECTION ON THE PARKS MAINTENANCE AND I THINK BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN DAA AND I SEE PART HERE AND WITH THE APPLICANT.

UM, SO MAYBE, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT UP NOW.

LET'S AIR TO SEE IF THERE'S AN ISSUE SO THAT WE KNOW IT'S ON OUR RIGHT THERE NEEDS WORK LIST.

SO LET'S FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE WITH YOUR INSTRUCTION, UM, IF MR. PERT AND MR. SUTL COULD COME TO THE PODIUM.

THANKS GENTLEMEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT MET WITH THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, MR. AND THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, HEIDI ANDERSON, TO TALK ABOUT PARKS MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS AN ISSUE HERE WITH THE GREAT LAWN, HOW TO COME UP WITH A LONG TERM SUSTAINABLE PLAN.

I UNDERSTAND AND AM ENCOURAGED, UH, TO HEAR HOW WELL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING.

AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE HEAR FROM AT LEAST THE APPLICANT AND THE DAA REPRESENTATIVE.

UM, AND THANK YOU MR. KURT FOR, FOR STAYING SO LATE, UM, ABSOLUTELY.

TO CONFIRM THAT A PARKS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WILL BE FORTHCOMING.

GENTLEMEN, DO YOU WANNA START? SURE.

THIS LAST, THIS LAST WEEK, THE PARKS BOARD MET AND PASSED A A, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WAS, BUT WHATEVER THEY PASSED, THEY, THEY DON'T WANT US, THE LANDOWNER MAINTAINING THE PARK.

SO, AND, AND WE'VE NEVER SAID WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE PARK.

SO AS A, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MAINTENANCE AND THE FUNDING OF THE MAINTENANCE HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH THIRD PARTY.

AND THE DAA AND TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAVE STEPPED UP TO SAY THAT THEY WILL STEP INTO THAT ROLE.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT DUET APPEAR AT, UH, DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE.

UM, SO I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE OPERATE PARKS.

WE, UH, MANAGE PROGRAM AND, AND, UH, MAINTAIN REPUBLIC SQUARE.

WE ALSO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH WATERLOO GREENWAY CONSERVANCY.

WE PROVIDE SERVICES TO WATERLOO PARK.

WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES ALONG THE GREENWAY.

UM, I THINK SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ON THIS IS THAT WE DO WANT TO DO THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION.

UM, OUR LIMITATIONS AROUND PIT REVENUE.

PIT REVENUE WOULD ABSOLUTELY QUALIFY TO HELP SUPPORT THE MAINTENANCE ON THIS PARK AS WE USE IT AT REPUBLIC SQUARE AND WATERLOO PARK.

UM, OUR CONSTRAINT IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN AUTHORIZATION AND, UH, WE HAVE A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

SO THE, THE REVENUE DOES NOT LAST FOREVER.

SO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH REAUTHORIZATION.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR.

UM, WE ARE IN OUR 30TH YEAR.

WE JUST RENEWED THE PI FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS, BUT THERE IS A LOT THAT WE STILL NEED TO WORK OUT ON THE AGREEMENT, BUT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO PARTICIPATE ALONG WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION AND PART IN AN AGREEMENT.

THANK YOU MR. P FOR, FOR COMING AND TALKING ABOUT THAT.

IT'S BEEN ON MY MIND FOR QUITE A WHILE.

OF FUNDING THAT WILL BE COMING SPINNING OFF FROM, FROM YEAH.

I KNOW THAT WE CHANGED THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE DOWNTOWN, UH, PI THAT FUNDS INTO DAA TO INCLUDE THIS PROPERTY AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT

[08:40:01]

THIS ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE BOUNDARY, THE, THIS SITE, UM, 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN INSIDE THE PI SINCE THE INCEPTION IN 1994.

SO IT, YOU KNOW, THIS RECENT REAUTHORIZATION, IT INCLUDES THE, THE SITE, BUT THE SITE HAS ALWAYS BEEN INSIDE THE EXPANDED AND WE EXPAND BEYOND IT RIGHT.

TO BE AROUND IT.

UH, AT ANY RATE, A COUPLE PARTIALS.

POINT BEING THOUGH THAT THE FUNDS THAT ARE NOW GOING TO SPIN OFF OF THIS PROPERTY DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THESE CHANGES, OR AT LEAST NOT AT THE LEVEL.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE INCREMENT? SO THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE A LOT MORE PIT REVENUE AND SO LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT'S PUBLIC SPACE, THE PIT REVENUES WOULD BE USED TO HELP SUPPORT THE MAINTENANCE.

AND, AND THAT'S I THINK WHAT WE WERE WANTING TO HEAR.

UM, AND HAVE, SO I, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT DAA DOES.

UH, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE REALLY IMPORTANT LAND, UH, THAT'S GONNA BE TURNED INTO REAL PUBLIC ACCESS.

, UM, MAYOR, I THINK THIS IS FOR ME, SUFFICIENT TO HAVE MADE THIS, UM, UH, THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MM-HMM.

AND I WOULD, I GUESS AT SOME POINT JUST LIKE TO GET SOME, UH, REPORTING BACK YES.

WITH OUR, UH, PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT FOLKS COMING BACK TO YEAH.

I WOULD ENVISION THIS, UH, TAKING THE PATH THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE WITH REPUBLIC SQUARE, SO WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH PAR TO MANAGE REPUBLIC SQUARE.

I THINK WE CAN ENVISION THAT THAT SAME TYPE OF AGREEMENT WOULD RESULT.

THAT'S GREAT.

AND THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS POISED TO TAKE THIS ON.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS A SEAT ON THE BOARD MM-HMM.

AT DAA.

SO WE'VE GOT SOME OVERSIGHT AND CONNECTIONS AND, AND A LONG ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH, WITH THE DAA.

AND I DO THINK THAT IF WE CAN GET THIS SETTLED OFFICIALLY AND FORMALLY, THEN WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT REAUTHORIZATIONS AND ENTITIES GOING AWAY.

BUT IF SOMEDAY INTO THE FUTURE THAT SHOULD HAPPEN, THEN THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE CLEARLY IT WOULD BE A, A GAP IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PROPERTY AND FUTURE COUNCILS AT THE CITY WOULD I'M SURE.

AND, AND FOLKS LIKE YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ALL COVERED.

YEAH, WE OBVIOUSLY FROM THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE PERSPECTIVE, WE WANT THIS GREEN SPACE TO BE THE HIGHEST QUALITY GREEN SPACE THAT WE CAN ENVISION.

AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN IT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL THAT, THAT WE ALL WANT IT TO BE.

AND SO, UH, I THINK THE PARTNERSHIP TRAIL CONSERVANCY PART DOWNTOWN US ALLIANCE IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

I REALLY LIKE THE POSSIBILITIES HERE.

MAYOR, THAT'S THE POINT THAT I WANTED JUST TO MAKE SURE WAS INTO THE RECORD.

AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE MR. PE STAYING, STAYING SO LATE FOR US.

SO IS OUR STAFF AT PARKS OKAY WITH US NOT PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE? GIVEN THE CONVERSATION? YES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HANG ON.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT IT'S ON PARKS, SO.

IF THE SITE PLAN WERE TO BE, IF WE WERE TO CHARGE THOSE FEES IN JANUARY, THE ACTUAL COST, THE, THE ESTIMATED FEE IS 6.9 MILLION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. PARK? THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMITMENT.

I, SO I WANTED TO ASK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, UM, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL AS WRITTEN, THE POD SAYS THAT THEY'LL PAY A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DWELLING UNIT OVER THE FEE REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE AS AN ADDITIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE.

UM, AND THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IF PAID THE PARKLAND FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND SHALL BE USED TO BUILD THE PARK AMENITIES.

UM, BUT WE WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD THEY WERE GONNA SPEND $9 MILLION ON PARKS AND UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS WERE THEY TO GET THEIR SITE PLAN THIS YEAR ANYWAY, THEY WOULD BE PAYING LESS THAN THAT BY, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS AT SIX.

MAYBE YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US.

I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING AN INVESTMENT IN OUR PARKS AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WAS PROMISED TO US A FEW MONTHS AGO.

SO KIMBERLY MCNELEY SERVING AS THE DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, THE $9 MILLION WAS THE CALCULATION OF THE ESTIMATED FEES, UH, FOR THE FY 2023 BUDGET.

UH, HOWEVER, COUNSEL MADE THE DECISION, UH, TO ONLY RAISE THOSE FEES, UH, BY 10%.

SO THE CALCULATION,

[08:45:01]

BUT THAT'S OF COURSE, UH, DEPENDENT UPON THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THAT 6.9 MIL IS INCLUSIVE OF THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UH, UH, PER UNIT.

BUT ALL OF THIS IS, ALL, ALL OF THOSE FIGURES ARE ESTIMATES BECAUSE IT'S DEPENDENT UPON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE WILL ACTUALLY BE BUILT.

SO THE CALCULATION, THERE'S A FORMULA, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE, PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION PROCEDURES THAT, THAT DICTATES HOW WE WOULD CALCULATE THAT AT ANY, AT WHATEVER PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME THAT SITE PLAN IS READY FOR REVIEW AND THAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES ARE READY TO BE CHARGED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, IT MAKES SENSE.

IS WHAT IS THE REALITY OF WHAT'S IN THERE NOW, BUT, UM, I STILL HAVEN'T, I WOULD WELCOME, YOU KNOW, MAYOR, IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION, YOU HAD SAID THAT WE SHOULD GET, UM, THE 9 MILLION ABOUT HOW WE LEGALLY MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING AT LEAST THAT MUCH.

I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT GUESSING THAT THE FEE'S GONNA GO UP SO MUCH THAT IT'S GONNA BE MORE THAN THAT IN THE PERIOD WHERE THEY DO THAT.

BUT, UM, IT COULD GO DOWN, IT COULD CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE TIMING OF WHEN THEY DO THIS.

AND WE COULD END UP WITH EVEN LESS THAN 6.9 DEPENDING ON THE CHOICES THAT WE MAKE.

UNFORTUNATELY, HOW WE END UP DEALING WITH THIS IS MY RECOLLECTION WAS THEY AGREED TO PAY THE NINE AND THEN AS A COUNCIL WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO PUT 2 MILLION OR SO OF THAT NINE TOWARD THE UH, UM, IMPROVED OR ENHANCED ACCESS WAY.

THAT WAS IN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS THING.

SO WE GOT THE NINE, IT WAS IN TWO COMPONENTS.

ONE COMPONENT WAS THE PURE PAR COMPONENT, THE OTHER ONE WAS THE, THE, THE, THE ENTRANCE BE IT WERE TO THE PARK COMPONENT.

BUT, BUT IT WAS STILL THE NINE, WE GOT THE NINE.

IT WAS JUST DIVIDED INTO THOSE TWO SECTIONS.

SORRY, WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WE DID.

I STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE NINE THAT WE WERE, WE WERE PROMISED THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE BENEFITS.

BUT I, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH AS WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD DO BEFORE.

SO SOME, SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IS THAT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND WE HAVE, WE HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING IN PHASES, AND WE HAVE THE PHASES THAT WILL BE, UM, SUBMITTED AS SITE PLANS AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME AS THIS PROJECT GOES, EXPANDS OVER, OR IT EXTENDS OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THOSE FEES WILL BE ASSESSED AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.

ACTUALLY SECURE THE BENEFITS.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEDICATE PAR PLAN, AND WE'RE NOT COLLECTING FEES UNTIL CERTAIN PARTS IN THE PROCESS.

SO I, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS HERE THAT ARE ALL ESTIMATES AND UNTIL WE ACTUALLY KNOW THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND WHEN THOSE ACTUAL SITE PLANS ARE, ARE PUT FORWARD AND THE FORMULA IS APPLIED THERE, THERE, THAT WILL DICTATE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

SO WE DO KNOW WE HAVE THE ASSURANCES BECAUSE OUR, OUR, THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY WOULD BUILD THAT ADJACENT ENTRANCE, UH, ADJACENT TO THE CONGRESS BRIDGE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO PA PARKLAND.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT AT ABOUT 2.1 MILLION.

AND IF WE TALKED ABOUT JUST TODAY, RIGHT THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6.9.

SO TO THE POINT THAT THE MAYOR WAS MAKING WERE AT, WERE AT THE 9 MILLION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED, BUT THAT, THAT COULD FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

SO I, I JUST WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND WHENEVER THOSE SITE PLANS ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL, THAT'S WHEN WE START TO APPLY THE FEES.

SO IT'S, IT'S VERY HARD FOR US TO TALK ABOUT.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE SAYING THAT IN THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS OVER THE REQUIRED AMOUNT, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT FEE ASSESSMENT WILL BE UNTIL THOSE SITE PLANS AND THOSE NUMBERS OF UNITS ARE, UM, SUBMITTED.

BUT JUST FOR YOUR, YOUR, BUT WERE WE TO REVISE THE PLAN, THE PIPELINE DEDICATION IN A WAY WHERE IT REDUCED THE FEE, WHICH I KNOW THERE'S AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE WHO WANT US TO DO THAT.

NOT MY PREFERENCE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THAT LEAVES THIS POD THAT HAS PROMISED TO PAY, EVEN IF IT'S THE 6.9 MILLION THAT COULD GO AWAY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN.

COULD THE SIX NINE GO AWAY? I MEAN, YEAH, IF YOU, IF YOU DID WHAT YOU WANTED WITH THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, IT WOULD GO THAT WAY.

I MEAN, IF WE HAD JUST NOT INCREASED IT, IT WOULD'VE WOULD'VE GONE DOWN FURTHER THAN THE 6.9.

UM, IF SOMETHING WOULDN'T BE CHALLENGED, IF, IF THE COMMERCIAL WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN TRUE OF THE 9 MILLION TOO? IT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN TRUE OF THE 9 MILLION.

BUT WHEN WE TALK TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE BENEFITS THAT WE'RE GETTING PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, MAKE SURE THAT WE

[08:50:01]

UM, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE, BUT I THINK WHEN WE TELL THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM, YOU KNOW, UM, 2.9 MILLION EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE BEFORE THE BONUS, BUT THEY CAN JUST PAY WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE GONNA DELIVER THE PARK AMENITIES IN THIS AREA WHERE FOR MANY PEOPLE, THAT'S THE THING THEY'RE PAYING MOST ATTENTION TO.

I THINK THAT'S RISKY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THEIR INTENTION NOT TO PAY IT, BUT IT'S STILL OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS EXPECTING FROM.

SO IS THAT, IS THAT A, IS THAT A PAYMENT TIMING ISSUE? WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE'S AN UNCERTAINTY OVER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES.

YOU COULD SAY IT'S A MINIMUM OF THIS OR THAT.

UM, YOU MEAN YOU, YOU CAN, I MEAN, IF YOU WANNA TAKE THE 6.9 MILLION, YOU CAN SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME THEY'RE DONE WITH THE END OF THE PHASING, THEY WILL HAVE PAID AT LEAST THIS MUCH OR WHATEVER IS EQUIVALENT TO THE FEES AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE DOING THE SITE PLANS.

BUT IF THEY HAVEN'T PAID THAT MUCH, THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY IT BY THE END.

I MEAN, THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY TO WRITE THAT WHERE YOU CAN STILL GET THE UPSIDE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RISK OF THE DOWNSIDE.

SO WHAT WAS, WHAT IS THE, WHAT DOES THE AGREEMENT DO WITH RESPECT TO TIMING OF THE, OF THE $9 MILLION? YOU HAVE THAT DEAL ALL THE TIME AND IT JUST SAID THAT WASN'T, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO PAY PARKS AS DIFFERENT FOOTPRINTS WERE DONE.

I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR QUESTION.

JUST DEDICATE THE PARKS.

I'M SORRY, WHAT? THEY'RE DEDICATING THE PARKS, THEY'RE DEDICATING THE PARKS FOOTPRINT IS, SHOULD THERE BE SOMETHING THAT HAS THE TIMING OF THE PART 10 OF THE PAYMENTS? SCOTT, SCOTT GRANTHAM WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE, THE TIMING OF THE FEES.

YES, THANK YOU.

SO AS WRITTEN IN THE, THE LATEST, UH, DRAFT OF THE PUD THE, UH, THE PARK WOULD COME IN PHASES.

IT WOULD COME IN THREE, UM, THREE DISTINCT PHASES.

UH, ONE WITH EACH, UM, AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP OF, OF, UM, UH, PHASE ONE, TWO, AND THREE.

AND IT'S, IT WOULD BE TIME TO THE NORTHERNMOST BUILDING IN EACH, IN EACH SITE PLAN IN EACH PHASE.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE, OF THE FEE, THE PAYMENT OF THE FEES WOULD BE WITH EACH SITE PLAN? NOW THERE ARE PROBABLY, UM, I HAVEN'T ASKED THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY, BUT, UM, IT WOULD, IT'S, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT, I WOULD SAY MAYBE A DOZEN SITE PLANTS.

SO FEES WOULD BE COMING IN WITH EACH SITE PLAN, BUT THEY REALLY WOULDN'T BE COMING IN BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BUILDING THE PARK.

SO LIKE, I MEAN, THEY'RE GONNA BE, FEES WOULD BE COMING IN WITH, WITH EACH SITE PLAN, THEY, THEY WOULD GET ABOUT, THEY'RE GOING TO GET ABOUT 250 UNITS WORTH OF CREDIT FOR THE PARKLAND.

BUT ONCE THOSE 250 UNITS ARE BUILT, IT'S ALL FEES.

BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE POD WAS SET UP THAT THEY WERE GONNA APPLY THOSE FEES TO PARK AMENITIES THAT THEY ARE BUILDING THEMSELVES.

SO THE, THE FEES ARE ACTUALLY FUNNELED INTO PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, UM, NOW IF IT'S, IF THEY ARE DONE AS, UH, THAT REALLY THOSE FEES WOULD BE, WOULD BE HELD UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD POST FISCAL IS HOW IT WOULD WORK.

THEY WOULD POST FISCAL FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

WELL, I STILL THINK THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY TO WRITE A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT IF BY THE END OF YOUR LAST SITE PLAN YOU HAVEN'T PAID AT LEAST WHATEVER WE CALCULATE, THIS PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE IS AT THIS MOMENT THAT YOU HAVE HAVE TO PAY THAT.

UM, AND IF IT'S HIGHER BASED ON THE FEES THAT WE HAVE, THEN YOU PAY THE HIGHER YOU PAY THE HIGHER AMOUNT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING NOW.

BUT IT PREVENTS US, IF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE WERE TO GO DOWN FROM LOSING THE BENEFITS TO THIS PREMIER PARKLAND IN OUR COMMUNITY, .

SO, SO THE PAYMENT HAPPENS AS AN OP, AS AN OPERATION OF LAW.

SO EVERY TIME THEY WANT TO BUILD OUT THEIR, THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE PAYING DOLLARS OR POSTING FISCAL, WHICH EQUATES TO, OR THEY COULD BUILD A PARK IF THE FIRST PART HAS A PARK THAT'S BIGGER, THEY COULD COUNT THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PRIOR PHASE TOWARDS THEIR, I MEAN, THEY CAN PAY THEM IN ADVANCE IF THEY'RE MAKING PARK IMPROVEMENTS ON A EARLIER PHASE THAT ARE, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THE PHASING KNOWLEDGE, BUT, BUT THAT ALSO CAN HAPPEN.

BUT IT COULD HAPPEN SOONER, BUT IT CAN'T HAPPEN ANY LATER.

AND, AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY OR BUILD ON THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE GONNA SUBMIT A SITE PLAN.

BUT ISN'T THAT THE GUARANTEE? BUT BEFORE THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD

[08:55:01]

WITH EACH SITE PLAN.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, BUT THE FEES FOR THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ARE DETERMINED BASED ON THE SITE PLAN TIMING.

AND IF OVER TIME THOSE FEES REDUCE, WHICH AGAIN, I'M HOPING THEY WON'T REDUCE, THEN THEY HAVE TO, THEN THEY WOULD BE PAYING LESS.

AND IF THE FEES GO UP, I GUESS THEY PAY MORE.

RIGHT? I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE SOLVING FOR THEN.

WHAT, WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SOLVING FOR IS YOU DON'T HAVE A DEFINITE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE GETTING.

AND AS YOU SAID, YOU, YOU COULD, IF YOU PAY IT TO FEES, IT COULD GO UP OR IT COULD GO DOWN.

AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE A FLOOR.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT.

THAT'S A FLOOR IN HERE OF THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKLAND FEES THAT WILL GO TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU GUYS WANNA AGREE TO A, TO A FLOOR, BUT THEN YOU ALSO GET A CAP.

SO IF FEES GO UP IN THE COMMUNITY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE EXTRA AMOUNT OVER TIME.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE AGREEING TO.

YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

THEY, THEY HAVE TO PAY THE FLOOR CUZ THEY CAN GO LOBBY AT THE LEGISLATURE OUTSIDE OF THE PU.

BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE THE BUD WITHOUT THEIR AGREEMENT WITHOUT A SUPER MAJORITY.

BUT THEY CAN GO LOBBY AT THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THE RULE AND GET OUT OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

BUT MAYOR, MAYOR, I PUZZLED BY THIS BECAUSE ON PAGE 10 WE CLEARLY STATE THE LANDOWNER WILL PAY 100% OF THE COST FOR THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS LISTED BELOW AND AS IDENTIFIED AND DEFINED IN EXHIBIT G.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE ITERATIVE LIST, ALL PLAZA AREAS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THOSE WITH PARKLAND EASEMENT, GREAT STEPS, AMENITIZED, WATER QUALITY POND ASSOCIATED GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERGROUND RAINWATER C TURN, 1700 LINEAR FEET OF RECONSTRUCTED HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.

AND THEN ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS INCLUDING SHORELINE RESTORATION, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, UH, PLANTINGS AND SPLIT RAIL FENCES.

AND THEN WE GO ON FURTHER AND TALK ABOUT THE TIMING OF, OF, UH, THE PAYMENTS.

BUT I MEAN, IT'S IT'S PRETTY EXPLICIT.

IT'S NOT EVERYTHING.

BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU CREATED A PUBLIC PARK AMENITIES PRIORITIZATION, THEN MAYBE THERE'S NO MONEY LEFT FOR THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU WERE SAYING THEY'RE, I I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS CONVERSATION.

I'M SAYING THAT THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY AND THAT IF WE CHANGE THAT, THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE, UM, THE GUARDRAIL THAT YOU'RE POINTING TO AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

BUT I, I DON'T HAVE A WAY FROM THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO KNOW THAT ALL OF THOSE A HUNDRED PERCENT RESPONSIBILITIES WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT SO THAT THERE IS, SO IS THIS THE ISSUE? IF THE LEGISLATURE COMES BACK IN AND SAYS, HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY PARK FEES ANYMORE, WE STILL NEED FOR YOU TO PAY THE STILL COMMITTED 9 MILLION TO DO THE PARK IMPROVEMENT.

THEY'RE STILL COMMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE TO PAY.

THERE'S CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS THE COMMITTEE'S ANTICIPATING TO GET AND IT CAN'T BE TIED.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN IS IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THE LEGISLATURE SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FEES ANYMORE, WE STILL WANT YOU TO DELIVER THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS THAT, THAT PEOPLE ARE ANTICIPATING, YOU'RE GONNA DELIVER.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE? HOW DO WE SOLVE? IS THAT THE ISSUE? I THINK YEAH.

AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THEIR SITE PLAN, HOW DO YOU SOLVE THAT? HOW, AND OUR RULE SAYS IT'S PAID BASED ON THE SIDE PLAN, BUT IF THEY COME IN AND SAY IT, NO, NO, NO, WE GOT THAT.

HOW DO WE SOLVE FOR THAT? LEGISLATURE COMES IN AND SAYS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY A PARK FEE, BUT CLEARLY TO GET EVERYTHING HERE, YOU'RE AGREEING.

THERE ARE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS YOU'RE GONNA BUILD.

HOW DO WE MAKE SURE YOU STILL BUILD THE IMPROVEMENTS? WELL, MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT.

CUZ WHAT IF THE, WHAT IF THE LEGISLATURE COMES IN SAYS, WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS THE DISTRICT OF TRAVIS.

I CAN'T ANTICIPATE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S GONNA DO.

NO, NO, NO.

I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK NOW AND LOOK AND SEE.

NO ONE'S ASKED YOU TO ANTICIPATE THAT.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST 6.9 MILLION TO BUILD THE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY THINKS IT'S BARGAINING FOR HERE.

HEATHER TOVO.

MAYOR, CAN I ASK LAW IF THERE'S A SOLUTION HERE, CAN IT, CAN IT SAY SEVEN AND ADD ANOTHER LINE THAT SAYS, IN NO INSTANCE SHOULD THE TOTAL AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BE LESS THAN THE 6.9 MILLION DISCUSSED AT THE TIME OF, OF COUNCIL APPROVAL? I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE CITY ATTORNEY? WOULD THAT BE A LINE THAT WE COULD ADD TO THIS CLAUSE ON PAGE 12?

[09:00:04]

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I, LET ME SAY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT WOULD FIX YOUR ISSUE.

I THINK IT'S, IT ADDRESSES AN ISSUE.

YES, IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE ADDRESSES.

THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO TO SAY EARLIER.

YES, BECAUSE IT IS, IT IS A CONCERN.

UH, ERICA LOPEZ LAW DEPARTMENT.

SO THE, YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEDICATE A FLOOR OF 6.9 MILLION.

MAYOR PRO ALTER DOES THE, DOES THE, YEAH, SO THAT IS A MINIMUM IN NUMBER SEVEN A MINIMUM.

SO THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO PART 10 PARKS AND RECREATION.

UM, IN FACT, WHAT WOULD PROBABLY AN AN E PROBABLY AN E AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 10.

OH, SORRY.

OH, SO AS A COMMUNITY AMENITY, PART SEVEN EUN? NO, WELL THAT'S THE ADDITIONAL, THAT'S THE ADDITIONAL $100 PER DWELLING UNIT THAT BEYOND THE 6.9 AND, AND THE HUNDRED PERCENT PIECE, I MEAN I'M, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE, I GUESS I AM ARGUING WHERE, WHERE THE, THE PRESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE OF 6.9 MILLION WOULD OCCUR, BUT IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO LOOK FIRST AT PAGE 10.

UH, SUBSECTION E THE LANDOWNER WILL PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE COST FOR THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS LISTED BELOW AND THEN PUT IN AND IN NO CASE LESS THAN 6.9 MILLION AND AS IDENTIFY, AND THE REST OF IT GOES ON TO LIST THE EXPECTED AMENITIES.

SO IT, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SUBSECTION E WAS NOT RELATED TO THE PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE.

SO IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS CURRENT CODE FOR PARKLAND FOR APPLICATION OF PARKLAND FEE AND LIEU AND PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE PLUS SUBSECTION, UM, SEVEN, WHICH IS THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS ADDITIONAL UNIT.

AND THEN E WAS SEPARATE FROM THAT.

ARE YOU ASKING TO TO, SO THE OTHER PLACE WHERE THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DWELLING UNIT OCCURS IS ON PAGE NINE, PART 10, A LANDOWNER SHALL PAY AN ADDITIONAL.

SO IF YOU WANT IT TO BE WITH A HUNDRED DOLLARS, THEN PERHAPS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION THAT EXPLICATES THE PARKS AND RECREATION EXPECTATIONS AND PAYMENTS, IT'S UM, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WAS IN BACKUP MM-HMM.

AND IT'S PAGE, YOU CAN PUT IT 10 A, YOU CAN PUT IT IN 10 A.

YEAH, 10 A 10 A AND THAT'S LINE 28 ON PAGE NINE.

LANDOWNER PAY AN ADDITIONAL A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DWELLING UNIT OVER THE FEE REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE AS AN ADDITIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE, WHICH IN NO CASE SHALL BE LESS THAN, AND NO, WHAT'S NOT THAT IS NOT LESS THAN 6.9.

IT WOULD BE THE NEXT LINE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE.

AND IF PAID THE PARKLAND FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION SHALL BE USED TO BUILD PARK AMENITIES WITHIN THE STATESMAN PUD AND AMOUNT TO A MINIMUM OF 6.9, WHATEVER THE RIGHT 6.9 MILLION NUMBER IS IN, IN NO INSTANCE.

LESS THAN, YEAH.

IN NO INSTANCE LESS THAN, SO THE PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE IS BASED ON HOW MANY UNITS THAT THEY BUILD.

SO THE BARLAND FEE IS GOING TO BE A FUNCTION OF HOW MANY UNITS THEY BUILD AS WELL, BECAUSE IT'S THE FEE AND LOO PART THAT GOES WITH THE LAND DEDICATION.

SO THEY'RE BOTH BASED ON UNITS MM-HMM.

UM, SO BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER ARE GONNA DETERMINE THE 6.9 MILLION NUMBER.

SO THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL OF THOSE TWO TOGETHER, UNLESS I'M WRONG ON THAT, AM I CORRECT? YEAH.

SO IT'S THE TOTAL OF THOSE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS RIGHT.

I THOUGHT THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ADDITIONAL UNIT WAS OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE HAD HAD CALCULATED.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY CALCULATED THE 6.9, BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW WAY TO CALCULATE IT THAT I'M NOT PRIVY TO.

AND I THOUGHT WE HAD PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE IN SECOND.

EVERYONE THAT THE HUNDRED DOLLARS WAS IN ADDITION TO, IT'S IN ADDITION WHATEVER, HOW MANY UNITS THAT THEY WERE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE A HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE IN ADDITION TO THAT, REGARDLESS, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY FORMULA OF CHANGE.

SO THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT'S BASED ON THE UNIT COUNT.

SO THE 6.9 IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH THE FEE AND LIE PLUS THE PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IT'S THE INTENT OF COUNSELING TO MAKE BETTER.

I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THEY CALCULATED THE HUNDRED DOLLARS 6.9 OR NOT.

YES, IT INCLUDES IT.

FIGURE OUT, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

SO, UM, WE CAN, I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT AND MAYBE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA FIGURE ALL OF THESE THINGS OUT TONIGHT, SO MAYBE LEGAL CAN

[09:05:01]

AND MAYBE WE CAN, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

IS IT SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION AS A FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION AS A FLOOR? AND WHEN WOULD THAT $6.9 MILLION BE, UM, REQUIRED? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S GONNA DO THEIR LAST SITE PLAN.

IF THEY HAVEN'T PAID 6.9 MILLION WORTH, THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY THE BALANCE.

SO THEY WOULD BE PAYING THE PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE UP TO 6.9.

SO IF THEY HAVEN'T BUILT $6.9 MILLION WORTH OF UNITS, THEN IT WOULD BE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT 6.9 MILLION AT THE END.

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY UNITS THEY BUILD.

THEY HAVE TO PAY AT LEAST 6.9 MILLION MINIMUM BY THE, BY THE TIME THEY DO THEIR LAST SITE PLAN.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARKS HAVE ANY ADDITIONS TO THAT.

JUST, JUST ONE OPTION IS THAT THEY COULD POST FISCAL FOR 6 9, 6 0.9 MILLION AT A CERTAIN POINT I'M MAYBE LEGAL CAN COME BACK WITH THE, THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.

I'M JUST TRYING HERE.

I DON'T, I THINK THAT IDEA IS THERE.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN AGREE TO ATTEND INTENT.

SO I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

DO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE INTENT? YOU UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.

WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT BY LAW, THE CITY IS ENTITLED TO CITY PARK LAND FEES BASED ON A FORMULA OF THE IMPACT THAT YOU ARE CAUSING TO THE SYSTEM.

WE'RE NOT, THE LANDOWNERS ARE NOT ASKED TO GIVE FREE PARKLAND.

THEY'RE NOT ASKED TO DO EXTRA, UH, PARK FEES.

ALTHOUGH WE DID, WE DID THE EXTRA A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER UNIT OVER.

WHAT SEEMS TO BE BEING TALKED ABOUT IS, IS THAT THE CITY WANTS ZERO RISK, BUT ALL THE UPSIDE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF PERVASIVE IN THIS WHOLE PUT, THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE NO RISK, BUT THEY WANT ALL THE UPSIDE.

AND WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN SAYING THAT.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'LL COMPLY AND YOU, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO RAISE YOUR PARK FEES, WHICH YOU HAVE DONE YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND WE WILL COMPLY WITH YOUR PARK FEE ORDINANCE.

BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DO IS COMMIT TO A HUNDRED DOLLARS EXTRA PLUS A FLOOR AND NO CEILING.

AND, AND I WASN'T, I WASN'T SAYING A HUNDRED DOLLARS PLUS ABOVE THE 6.9.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS RIGHT NOW IS CALCULATED IN THE 6.9.

SO IF YOU'RE PAYING A HUNDRED DOLLARS ABOVE YOUR UNITS AND YOU'RE PAYING YOUR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE AND YOU'RE PAYING YOUR FEE IN LIE AND YOU GET UP TO 6.9, THEN YOU'LL HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MINIMUM.

LET ME SEE, IS THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS IN THE 6.9? IT IS.

ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A WINDFALL IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES CORRECT.

IT'S IN THE, IT'S IN THE 6.9 FOR THAT.

NOW IF YOU BUILD THE BONUS AREA, I MEAN THIS ALSO MEANS THAT IF YOU BUILD THE BONUS AREA, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY PARKLAND DEDICATION ON THOSE AND YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY THOSE BASED ON WHATEVER THE, THE FEES ARE.

AND YOU'LL BE REQUIRED TO PAY, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED DOLLARS ABOVE THAT.

BUT YOU WON'T HAVE TO PAY, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'VE GONE ABOVE THE 6.9, YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST PAYING FOR THE ADDITIONAL UNIT.

I MEAN YOU'RE PAYING IT BASED ON YOUR FLOOR WON'T MATTER ANYMORE ONCE YOU GO BY THE 6.9.

IF YOU DO UNITS AND THE CALCULATION IS ABOVE THAT, THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY THE, THE IMPACTS.

SO PART OF IT'S IN A RISK ASSESSMENT.

SO IT'S THE RISK THAT THERE'S A WORLD IN WHICH YOU'D END UP PAYING LESS THAN THE SIX NINE FOR THE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR ALL THE UNITS IN YOUR BASE PLAN.

THE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR ANYTHING IN THE BONUS, THE EXTRA PARKLAND DEDICATION IN THE BONUS, THE PARKLAND, UH, FEE IN THE BASE PLAN.

WHAT'S THE RISK THAT THAT'S GONNA BE, ALL OF THAT IS GONNA BE LESS THAN THE SIX NINE.

IS THAT SUFFICIENT RISK TO THAT WOULD MAKE IT SO YOU COULDN'T SAY, OKAY, WE'LL DO THAT CUZ IT'S GONNA BE THAT OR SOMETHING PROBABLY NORTH OF THAT.

I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO ANOTHER 200 FEET OF BUILDING, YOU'RE GONNA BE WELL BEYOND THIS SOME LEVEL.

IF WE KEEP THE FEES WHERE THEY ARE, THIS IS JUST A PROTECTION.

WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT IS IF WE ONLY BUILD 600 UNITS AND CALL IT A DAY AND YOU DON'T GET YOUR 6.9 NO, I'M WORRIED THAT IF THEY TELL US WE CAN'T HAVE A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY US ANY FEES FOR OUR PARKS AND WE'RE LEFT WITH A WHOLE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT HAS NO DECENT PARKS.

OH.

OR, AND THE QUESTION HERE IS, SINCE YOU'VE SAID YOU'VE PERFORMED AT THE NINE AND WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THAT AND, AND PROBABLY YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE THAN THAT CUZ OF THE ENTITLEMENTS WE GIVE, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S SIGNIFICANT RISK AND IT'S INSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROFORMA.

YOU DON'T WANT US TO BE

[09:10:01]

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

WE DON'T WANT, LET ME BE CLEAR, WE DON'T WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO DO THAT AND WE'RE GONNA FIGHT LIKE HELL AGAINST THAT.

BUT I DON'T, I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO FIGHT AT THE LEGISLATOR TO DO THAT CUZ YOU GET TO SAVE $7 MILLION.

YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THE WINDFALL.

YOU CAN CHECK ON THAT.

LET ME TALK TO MY CLIENT AND SEE IF EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON.

THAT'S THE RISK THAT I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GONNA DO ANOTHER 200 FEET UP IF ON THE BONUS THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE DOING A WHOLE LOT MORE, UH, PARK, YOU KNOW, UNITS THAT ARE GONNA REQUIRE PARK LAND.

SO I'M SEEING SIX ISSUES HERE.

OUTSTANDING.

JERRY? UH, WITH RESPECT TO THIS, THE FIRST ONE IS A HOTEL, IS IT PROHIBITED? IS IT CONDITIONAL OR IS IT ALLOWED? THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE NEED TO HAVE.

THE SECOND ONE.

TREE LIGHTS.

I THINK YOU WERE JUST COMING UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT BROUGHT IN THOSE TWO GROUPS AND I THINK I HAVE THAT LANGUAGE, MARY, WHEN, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

GIVE US THE LANGUAGE.

TO, UH, TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS POINT.

I THINK THAT WE COULD SAY, UM, EXCEPTION FOR TREE LIGHT INSTALLATION IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL AND AFTER CITY CONSULTATION WITH MERLIN TURTLE, MERLIN TUNNEL'S, BAT CONSERVATION OR BANK CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL AND THE OMAN SOCIETY.

ALL RIGHT, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S GOT IT FOR ME.

COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SAID EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT AMENDMENT GOING IN HERE AND IT IS, OKAY, WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF TREE LIGHTS, RIGHT? THEN WE HAVE THE, UH, BONUS SITUATION.

YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE 10% AND THE OTHER ELEMENTS IN THAT.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE ISSUE.

I THINK WE AGREE ON INTENT'S QUESTION COMING UP WITH THE LANGUAGE ISSUE ON THAT.

SO, SO MAYOR, WHAT, WHAT I MAYBE SUGGEST FOR THE BONUS AREA, MAYBE IT'S TO TRY TO JUST MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE.

YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO TAKE PIECES OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, PUT 'EM IN.

I THINK WE INADVERTENTLY HAD TOO MANY.

SO WHAT IF JUST AN IDEA, WHAT IF WE JUST LAID OUT AND SIMPLY SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, THE SIX TO ONE 200 FEET, THE 18.86 ACRE PAIR TRACT, AND WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE SAY IT WOULD BE FOR ONSITE AFFORDABLE, IF THEY CHOSE THAT OPTION 10% AT 120 FOR OWNER OCCUPIED, 10% AT 80 FOR RENTAL THAT MATCHES WHAT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TODAY.

AND FOR FEE AND LIEU OF, WE SAID THE, THE FEE REQUIRED WOULD BE THAT WHICH IS IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS PER THE FEE SCHEDULE AT THE TIME OF CO.

AND SO THAT WAY WOULD BE INDEXED AS THAT INCREASES WITH THE FEE SCHEDULE.

I AGREE.

I JUST GOT THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.

SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHAT'S, WHAT THE, THE, YOU SAID 10% AT 80% MFI? YES.

FOR, FOR, UH, RENTAL 10% AT ONE 20 FOR UNOCCUPIED.

THOSE MATCH EXISTING DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS NUMBERS.

AND FOR THE FEE WE WOULD SAY, OR THE FEE SCHEDULE OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF D OCCUPANCY, KNOWING THAT THAT NUMBER WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE EVERY YEAR OR WHATEVER THE COST WILL CHOOSER, WHICH IS WHAT IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS WHERE WE STARTED OUT EXACTLY.

GET THE SAME THING HERE THAT YOU GOT IN DOWNTOWN, BUT YOU'RE JUST PULLING IN THE ELEMENTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO PULL IN THE REFERENCE TO THE I THINK THAT THAT BECAME TOO COMPLICATED.

COUNCIL RO TOVO, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT FEE CURRENTLY IS.

AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO RAISE AN ISSUE RELATED TO THIS ONE WITH REGARD TO THE, THE NAMING OF THE 23.2 MILLION.

UM, ONE CONCERN THAT ONE OF OUR HOUSING ADVOCATES JUST RAISED IS THAT IF, IF THE MIX OF RESIDE, IF THE INCREASE, IF RESIDENTIAL INCREASES ON THIS TRACT OVER TIME, THAT FEE IS SET AND DOESN'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO INCREASE.

AND SO I THINK SETTING THE 23 MILLION, NAMING THE 23 MILLION IN THIS WAY IS THE SAME, IS ALMOST THE SAME ISSUE REALLY, THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW.

I I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S RELATE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING, RIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE SECTION OF HOUSING.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THE SOLUTION THAT WAS PROPOSED TO THAT SECTION WAS TO TIE IT TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEES AND THAT MAYBE GO AHEAD.

FEE AMOUNTS.

THAT, SO THE 10% AT 120% IS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'VE GOT ON PAGE 13, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A 60% MFI AND AN 80% MFI.

SO LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SO THE ANSWER TO THE ISSUE I'M RAISING MM-HMM.

MAY BE THE SAME, MAY BE THE SAME RESOLUTION, MAYBE THE SAME ANSWER THAT WE NEED TO TIE IT, TIE IT IN A SIMILAR WAY.

IN ANY CASE, IT'S STILL ABOUT, IT'S STILL ABOUT THE HOUSING DOLLARS.

UM, AND IT'S AN ISSUE I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE FOR, UM, LET'S SPLIT THESE ISSUES.

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES, BUT YEAH, THE FIRST IS IT'S, YEAH.

AND, AND THE OTHER THING MAYOR AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, IS THAT,

[09:15:01]

SO I WOULD JUST LOOK TO STAFF AND MAYBE COUNCIL TOBO KNOWS THIS AREA REALLY WELL.

I'M NOT SURE IF THOSE ARE THE RIGHT LEVELS.

SET IT TO, WOW.

IT'S EVEN MORE, WE'VE ASKED IT TO BE WHATEVER THE, THE LEVEL IS IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

C 12, THE CURRENT, I THINK THEY MOVED.

OKAY, PAUSE.

SORRY, WHAT'S, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IS THERE A QUESTION? WELL, MY, WELL, I HAD GO, I HAD ASKED A QUESTION FIRST ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE FEES, WHAT THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE IS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

SO THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH CBD ZONING OTHER THAN RAINY STREET IS $12 PER SQUARE FOOT OF THE BONUS AREA.

THAT'S IN THE, THIS FISCAL YEAR FEE SCHEDULE.

AND AS I RECALL, IT HAD BEEN HIGHER AND WE ACTUALLY LOWERED IT.

IT HAD BEEN, COMMERCIAL WAS HIGHER.

UM, COMMERCIAL WAS 18, WENT TO NINE, UM, DEPENDING ON YOUR DISTRICT 12 WENT TO SIX.

BUT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH C B ZONING OTHER THAN RAINY STREET AS $12.

AND WE HAD DIRECTED THAT THERE'D BE A STUDY DONE.

I THINK IT WAS NOT DONE IN TIME.

AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE FEES WERE LOW LOWERED.

BUT HOPEFULLY THAT'S, HOPEFULLY THE STUDY IS GONNA BE DONE.

SO WE'RE CLOSER TO, TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS TO BUILD.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS IN, UH, PART 12 PART, IF THE DOWNTOWN BONUS IS 10% AT 120 OWNERSHIP AND 10% AT 80% RENTAL, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ON PAGE 13? WELL, MAYOR, PAGE 13, THE THING THAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING WAS ACTUALLY FOR THE BONUS AREA AND THINGS ON PAGE 13 AS THE MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO IT'S THE BONUS PROGRAM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THE BONUS, JUST THE BONUS PROGRAM.

WELL, AND I, AND I CONFUSED THE ISSUE BY SAYING THAT BACK IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION ON PAGE 13, THERE'S AN ACTUAL NUMBER FOR THE FI AND LU BASED ON WHAT THE DEVELOPERS SAID IT WOULD COST THEM TO DO THE INCREASES.

BUT IT'S, IT POSES THAT NUMBER POSES THE SAME CHALLENGE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WE PRO.

LET'S, LET'S DO ONE ISSUE AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE SO THAT WE KNOW WE GET CONFUSED.

WELL, ALL RIGHT.

SO WE, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR THE BONUS, WE SAID IN OUR RESOLUTIONS THAT WE'VE PASSED TWICE AS COUNCIL IS DO WHAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IS.

YOU TRIED TO PULL IN DOWNTOWN DENSITY, BONUS LANGUAGE THAT'S CREATING PROBLEMS. SO NOW YOU'VE PULLED THE ELEMENTS OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND ARE PUTTING THEM IN HERE.

RIGHT? SO THE OTHER NUMBERS WOULD STAY THE SAME.

WE'D ADD THE 200, WE WOULD ADD THE 18.86 AND FOR THE, FOR THE BONUS, WE'D SAY 10 10 AT ONE 20, OWNER 10 AT 80 RENTAL OR THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE AS PER THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE WHEN THE BUILDING IS BUILT.

GATHER OR KITCHEN.

MY QUESTION IS FOR OUR HOUSING STAFF.

SO I JUST, UM, UM, JUST WANNA JUST DOUBLE CHECK WITH YOU ALL THAT LEVEL.

UM, I, I KNOW THAT THAT LEVEL IS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PRO PROGRAM, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT AREA OF TOWN THAN THIS DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, SOUTH OF THE, SOUTH OF THE LAKE IS NOT DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, USING THAT AS AN ANALOGY, BUT IT IS NOT DOWNTOWN.

SO THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE KIND OF HIGH TO ME, 10% AT 80%, 80% MFI, AND 120% MFI.

SO I JUST WANNA DOUBLE CHECK WITH YOU ALL THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE LEVELS FOR A BONUS.

THE, UH, MFIS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ARE THE HIGHEST MFIS THAT WE HAVE.

TYPICALLY, THEY ARE 80% AND 60% FOR RENTAL, 80% FOR OWNER, AND 60% FOR RENTAL.

OH, THEY ARE? OH, OKAY.

BUT IT IS A RECOGNITION THAT THE DOWNTOWN AREA IS A UNIQUE MARKET.

THAT COMMANDS HIGHER RENTS AND HIGHER FOR SALE PRICES.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT TRANSLATES HERE.

I MEAN, TO ME, I WOULD KEEP IT, WE SAID WE WANTED TO DO THE DOWNTOWN, SAME THING.

I WOULDN'T MAKE IT HARDER TO DO IT HERE THAN DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, DOWNTOWN, I MEAN, I'M AS COMFORTABLE AS WE'VE DONE THE LAST TWO TIMES OF JUST MIRRORING WHATEVER THOSE PROVISIONS ARE.

AND WE THINK THOSE PROVISIONS SHOULD CHANGE AND THEY SHOULD CHANGE ALL OVER.

THEY SHOULD CHANGE DOWNTOWN TOO.

COUNCIL MEMBER, TOVO MAYOR, I THINK YOU'VE SAID A FEW TIMES

[09:20:01]

THE LAST COUPLE TIMES.

I DON'T, I THINK YOU ONLY VOTED ON THIS ON SECOND READING.

THIS WASN'T IN THE ORDINANCE.

THAT WE PASSED ON FIRST READING.

UM, MANDY HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU.

TO ME, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I CONCUR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DOWNTOWN.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PI FOR A WHILE, BUT IT'S, IT IS, YOU KNOW, MOST, MOST FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA, UH, OF TOWN DO NOT REGARD THIS AS DOWNTOWN.

UM, IT IS WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND WE HAVE SOME, WE HAVE SET GOALS OF FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT AREA.

UM, IN YOUR ESTIMATION, WERE THESE INCOME LEVELS WHAT PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO SEE 20% OF THE UNIT OF THE UNITS CREATED IN THIS AREA BE AFFORDABLE? WHEN WE TALK TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GENERALLY THEIR VISION IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN ANY OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT WE TALK ABOUT.

BUT OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE CERTAINLY INTENDED TO BE CALIBRATED TO THE MARKET.

UM, AND SO THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEET THE COMMUNITY'S EXPECTATIONS REGARDING AFFORDABILITY, WHICH IS WHERE OUR SUBSIDY GENERALLY COMES IN.

UM, SO OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET THE MARKET WHERE IT IS, UM, AND BUILD ON THAT, UH, MARKET, UH, CAPACITY.

AND THEN OUR SUBSIDY PROGRAMS ARE REALLY DESIGNED TO DRIVE DOWN THE MFIS THAT WE SERVE.

I GUESS, I'M NOT SURE, WOULD IT BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE DIFFERENT LEVEL, DIFFERENT MFI LEVELS FOR THE, THE POD AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS? AND THE, MY UNDER UNDERSTANDING IS THIS REFERENCE IS SPECIFICALLY TO A BONUS.

IT IS A BONUS ON TOP, BUT, BUT I, I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHY THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT.

UM, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT.

I MEAN, I, THAT'S I, LET ME SAY, I KNOW THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT WAS A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT.

ONE WAY TO MAKE IT EASIER THOUGH, WOULD BE TO KEEP IT ALL AT THE SAME LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY, THE HUNDRED PERCENT AND 80%, OR NO, I WOULD, I WOULD GO WITH LOWER 80 60.

I WOULD GO WITH, YEAH, I WOULD GO WITH, WITH THE 60 AND 80 THAT WAS SPECIFIED FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNITS, UM, THAT'S PART OF THE SUPERIOR A POLICY DECISION.

UM, WHILE YOU'RE, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, UM, IT WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT A FEE AND LU RATHER THAN ONSITE.

AND I WONDERED IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS IN HERE AND WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE.

THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I ASSUME, ON THE STATE'S MEN WAS NOT TO CREATE THOSE, WAS NOT TO HAVE A FEE AND LU OKAY, SO LET'S HOLD OFF THAT QUESTION CAUSE IT JUMPS TO A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

MAY, I WAS TRYING TO BE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR TIME AND MOVEMENT, BUT I'LL LATER, MADDIE, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE YOU LEAVE FOR A SECOND, MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IN ALL OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, WE WANT PEOPLE TO USE THEM.

SO IT DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD TO PUT IN LOW NUMBERS CAUSE WE FEEL BETTER WITH LOW NUMBERS IF IT'S NOT GONNA BE USED.

IF WE THINK THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS WOULD GIVE US BETTER NUMBERS AND IT WOULD BE USED MORE IF WE DROPPED IT TO 80% AND 60%, WHY AREN'T WE DOING THAT? SO, UM, ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE CALIBRATED.

WE HIRE A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT TO LOOK AT THE MARKET REALITIES TO CALIBRATE THE PROGRAM SO THAT WE ARE PROVIDING SOME SORT OF BENEFIT OR INCENTIVE FOR DEVELOPERS TO OPT INTO THIS.

UM, OPTIONAL VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.

UM, SO WHAT, WHAT WE DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE FOR DOWNTOWN, UH, I CAN'T THINK OF AN EXAMPLE TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, WHERE WE'VE HAD A DEVELOPER DO ONSITE AFFORDABILITY.

UM, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A FEE IN LIE PAID FOR.

WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE NUMBER FOR RAV STREET? UM, I LEFT MY COMPUTER BACK THERE.

I BELIEVE THAT IT IS $5, UH, A SQUARE FOOT.

BUT WE DO HAVE A MIX FOR RAINY STREET.

IT'S A MIX OF ONSITE, AFFORDABLE, IT'S LIKE A HALF AND HALF, 5% ON SITE COUNCIL MEMBER TO OH MY GOSH.

I REMEMBER TOO.

FANTASTIC.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANTLY, AS YOU WERE JUST SAYING WITH RAINY, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT SOME OF THE HOUSING, SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEEN ON SITE, BE ON SITE.

AND WE'VE BEEN HAVING THAT ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM FOR LONGER THAN I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.

AND THE FACT IS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY UNITS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPERS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND CREATE THOSE UNITS ON SITE.

CUZ IF HE AND LEWIS IS SO LOW, I'M JUST SCARED TO DEATH THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUILD OUT OF THIS AREA AND NOT HAVE ANY AFFORDABLE UNITS.

CUZ WE SET THE NUMBERS TOO LOW, LIKE WE SAW HAPPEN TO US IN RAINY STREET CUZ WE SET THE NUMBERS BELOW.

UM, WE SENT THE NUMBERS TO A PLACE WHERE THE MARKET DIDN'T USE IT AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES THERE THAT WE NEVER REALIZED.

I BELIEVE THEY ARE USING IT IN RAINY STREET AND THEY'RE USING IT IN VMU.

BUT IN THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT REQUIRES ON SITE, THOSE ARE, WE HAVE THREE PROGRAMS, UNO, RAINY, UNO, RAIN, AND VMU.

AND THEY'RE CREATING THOSE UNITS.

AND EACH OF THOSE HAS VERY UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS

[09:25:01]

AND CERTAINLY IS A VERY UNIQUE SUB GEOGRAPHY.

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT, WE HAVE THE ALPHABET SOUP OF DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. I'VE GOT A WHOLE CHART.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IT ALL.

SO I'VE GOTTA USE MY CHEAT SHEET.

AND UH, RAINY IS 5% OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA 80 PER AT 80% FOR BOTH OWNER AND RENTAL.

UM, OKAY, SO IT 10 O'CLOCK, I MEAN, YEAH.

DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE PAST 10 O'CLOCK OR DO WE WANNA FOLD THIS INTO TOMORROW? OKAY, SO THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE ARE HOTEL.

WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF IT'S PROHIBITED, CONDITIONAL OR WHETHER IT'S PERMITTED.

I THINK IN THE BONUS THING HERE, I THINK WE HAVE, UH, I AGREED TO THE KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE, BUT WE HAVE NOT AGREED TO WHAT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE.

THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.

ONE IS WHAT IS THE, UH, REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY TO PUT IN FOR THE BONUS AREA.

AND THE SECOND ONE IS, ARE WE GOING TO, UH, HAVE THE 23 AND A HALF MILLION SET, OR WHAT ARE THE 23 MOVE? I THINK WE HAVE THOSE TWO QUESTIONS UNDER THAT SECTION.

I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THE SECOND ONE AGAIN? MAYOR? THE FIRST ONE IN, IN NUMBER THE HOTEL IS THE FIRST ONE.

THE SECOND ONE IS WHAT IS THE BONUS PROVISION? RIGHT.

THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE BONUS PROVISION.

I THINK YOU'VE SOLVED THE THIRD QUESTION, WHICH WAS HOW DO WE DO THE LANGUAGE? MM-HMM.

, THE TWO REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE, ARE WE DOING 10% OR MORE THAN 10%? ARE WE DOING 80? WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE 60% UHHUH? THAT'S THE SECOND QUESTION.

THE THIRD QUESTION IS THE ONE THE COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO RAISED, WHICH WITH RESPECT TO THE $23 MILLION, IS THAT THAT A NUMBER THAT SHOULD MOVE? OR IS THAT A NUMBER THAT IS SET? MM-HMM.

THOSE TWO QUESTIONS.

THE NEXT ONE IS THE AFFORDABILITY QUESTION.

AND THE QUESTION THERE, IS IT ON SITE, IS IT AT 4 22 OR IS IT, UM, FEE AND LU THAT THE STAFF CAN USE AT, UH, SOMETHING LIKE, UH, THE WALTER MONROE PROJECT ON SOUTH LAMAR? THAT I THINK IS THE THIRD QUESTION.

THE FOURTH QUESTION IS THE TURS AND PUBLIC FUND QUESTION, WHICH I THINK WE'VE AGREED ON INTENT.

WE HAVE TO JUST HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE.

I THINK THOSE ARE THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ON THE MUD.

ALL RIGHT THERE.

UM, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MENTIONED THE PARKLAND DEDICATION PART IN YOUR LIST.

UM, BUT I DID WANNA JUST MAKE A SUGGESTION AND MAYBE A LAW CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

UM, IF MAKE THE FLOOR OF 6.9 MILLION, WHICH INCLUDE THE EXTRA A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER UNIT POSTED NO LATER THAN BY THE FILING OF A SITE PLAN FOR THE COMPLETION OF SAY, 1200 TO 1300 UNITS, UM, I THINK PAR CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO PUT THE RIGHT NUMBER OF UNITS AND THAT SHOULD BE TO GET TO THE AMOUNT, WHATEVER IT WOULD BE, MINUS THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UM, IN THE 6.9 CALCULATION.

THAT WAY IT'S TIED TO THE UNITS, UM, IN A WAY THAT THAT LINES UP WITH THE PARKLAND DEDICATION APPROACH.

UM, IT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, SLIGHTLY OFF, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD, THAT PERHAPS ADDRESSES SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? AND, AND THANK YOU.

THAT'S THE SIXTH ISSUE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS HOW DO WE HANDLE THE PARKLAND AND THE WINDFALL QUESTION, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE AGAIN ? SURE.

UM, SO THE IDEA IS TO, TO HAVE THEM HAVE TO POST AT LEAST AS MUCH OR, OR HAVE USED AT LEAST AS MUCH IN THE PARK, UM, BY THE TIME THEY DO A SITE PLAN TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER FOR THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY'RE PROPOSING.

NOW, IT'S NOT A PERFECT NUMBER BECAUSE WE HAVE BOTH COMMERCIAL AND THERE'S HOTEL AND WHATEVER, BUT PICK SOME MEASURE THERE THAT IF THEY REACH THAT LEVEL AND THEY'RE SUBMITTING THAT SITE PLAN AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE 6.9, THEY HAVE TO, UM, HAVE, HAVE PUT THAT MUCH FORWARD.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? THE NUMBER OF UNITS IT'S ANTICIPATED IN THE PLAN.

NOW WHEN YOU GET TO THOSE NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU SHOULD HAVE EITHER GIVEN FEE AND LIE OR PAID MONEY TOTALING THAT 6.9 MILLION OR INVESTED THAT MUCH IN THE, NOT PAID THAT MUCH OR DONATED THAT MUCH.

AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT I HAD CIRCULATED AN AMENDMENT THAT RELATES TO THE HOTEL QUESTION, WHICH IS RELATED TO STRS, UM, WHICH WOULD, UM, PROHIBIT TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO STR AND THEN FOR STR SAY THAT STR TYPE THREE SAY THAT THEY MAY NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITH ANY BUILDING WITHIN ANY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES THERE.

THE CURRENT CODE IS, SO ISSUE NUMBER SEVEN IS A LIMITATION ON SDR.

AND I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT.

WE JUST HAD OUR, OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO FIRST ISSUE IS HOTEL, SECOND ISSUE IS THE BONUS PROVISION.

TWO QUESTIONS THERE.

THIRD ISSUE IS THE AFFORDABILITY.

[09:30:01]

THE FOURTH ISSUE IS THE LANGUAGE FOR THE PUBLIC FUNDING QUESTION.

THE, THE FIFTH ISSUE IS THE PARKLAND WINDFALL QUESTION.

AND THE SIXTH ISSUE IS A, UH, SDR LIMITATION.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I DON'T THINK THEY CAN HAVE TYPE ONE, TYPE TWO THERE ANYWAY, IT WAS JUST FOR CLARITY.

AND SO THE REAL ISSUE IS THE NUMBER PERCENTAGE FOR THE TYPE THREE.

AGAIN, COLLEAGUES, IT'S 10 O'CLOCK, WE WANNA TRY TO HANDLE THESE OR WE WANT TO COME BACK TOMORROW AND THEN TRY TO WORK THROUGH THOSE SIX ISSUES.

I WOULD SAY TOMORROW.

HMM.

I WOULD SAY TOMORROW.

COME BACK TOMORROW.

SO THOSE ARE THE SIX ISSUES.

MAYBE WE CAN ADVANCE THOSE SIX ISSUES AND COME BACK WITH LANGUAGE SUGGESTIONS.

TOMORROW WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE AT 10, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE, WE REDO AUSTIN AN ENERGY FIRST.

SORRY, COULD WE DO AUSTIN ENERGY FIRST? UM, BEFORE, BEFORE YOU DECIDE THAT I WANTED, I THINK MY STAFF IS TRYING TO FIND TIME FOR THE THREE OF US TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU BOTH BROUGHT, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO DO BEFORE WE DIG IN.

WE CAN TRY THAT.

AUSTIN ENERGY.

I'M GONNA CALL UP, I'M GONNA CALL UP THE POD FIRST AT 10 O'CLOCK.

LET'S START AT THE POD THEN I'M GONNA DO 55 AND 56.

AND THEN WE'RE GONNA DO AUSTIN ENERGY.

I'M GONNA DO 'EM IN THAT ORDER.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A SENSE OF HOW LONG WILL MEET TOMORROW, CUZ I DO HAVE A HARD STOP AROUND TWO ISH.

LET'S JUST BOOK IT AND WORK TOMORROW.

SEE HOW MANY ISSUES WE CAN NARROW DOWN TONIGHT.

AT, UH, 10 13.

I'M GONNA ADJOURN THIS MEETING.

NO, I'M GONNA RECESS THIS MEETING AND WE WILL RECONVENE AT, UH, 10 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.

ON YOUR LIST WAS THE, UM, ISSUE I RAISED CORRECT? ABOUT THE HOUSING? ABOUT THAT HOUSING ABOUT THE MILLION? YEAH.

THAT WAS PART B OF ITEM TWO.

RIGHT CLOSE.

WE'RE RECESSING BACK HERE AT 10 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE PUT, WE'RE GONNA DO 55, 56.

WE'RE GONNA DO AUSTIN ENERGY AND, AND WE'RE GONNA DO, I'M SORRY, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PUBLIC HEARINGS.

UM, YES CUZ THIS IS CONTINUATION OF THE MEETING TOMORROW.

ANY OBJECTION TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PUD HEARING? NO OBJECTION.

THE PUBLIC HEARING, HEARING? NO OBJECTION ON THE DIETS.

THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PUD IS CLOSED.

I'M SURE.

36.

WE ALSO ARE GOING TO DO, UH, POTENTIALLY EXECUTIVE SESSION ON 55 OR 56 DEPENDING ON WHETHER THAT'S NEEDED.

CORRECT? RIGHT, RIGHT.

GUYS, THANK YOU.

WE DIDN'T FINISH THAT.

DID WE? DID WE FINISH FIRST? OH, IT'S, HI COLLEAGUES, THIS IS, UH, WE ARE RECONVENING THE, UH, DECEMBER 1ST, 2022 AUSTIN, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

UH, YOU'LL RECALL WE CONVENE THIS MEETING, UH, UH, SOME HOURS AGO.

UH, WE'VE TAKEN, UH, UH, SPEAKERS, UH, ON THIS AGENDA, UH, BUT WE HAD PEOPLE LAST NIGHT THAT WERE HAVING TROUBLE STAYING AWAKE ON THE DA.

UH, SO WE HAVE, UH, WE RECESSED, UH, SO THAT WE COULD PICK UP THE CONTINUATION OF THIS MEETING NOW, UH, AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE, UM, ITEM 84 AT ALL THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, POD.

UM, THEN, UH, 55 AND 56, UM, AT THE NIGHT DEVELOP I DEVELOPER CODE.

THEN, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS GONNA GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO URGE 36 AND THEN WE WILL GO TO AUSTIN.

UH, ENERGY.

THAT'S THE ORDER THAT WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW.

WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH THE, UM, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT POD.

AND AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH ALL THE ELEMENTS LAST NIGHT, I DON'T KNOW WHERE JURY IS , WHAT HE'S, OH, HE'S HERE.

JUST HIDING.

I'LL WAIT JUST A SECOND.

[09:35:04]

HEY, JURY.

I JUST WANNA CONFIRM WHAT WE HAVE LEFT TO DECIDE.

HOTEL.

UH, WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE, UH, PERMITTED, DISALLOWED, OR CONDITIONAL.

WE HAVE TO, UH, DECIDE WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE, UH, ANY LANGUAGE WITH A PROHIBITION ON STR.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S, UH, LANGUAGE, UH, TO ADOPT ON CATHY'S AMENDMENT, GIVEN THAT THE INTENT SEEMED TO BE EVERYONE HAD THE SAME INTENT, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, TIMING, UH, ISSUE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE HAVE TWO ISSUES.

ONE IS, UH, WHAT'S THE TIMING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE 23? WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF, UH, WHERE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE AND THEN, UH, IF PEOPLE WANT TO URGE IT, WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE 23 MILLION CHANGES.

THOSE WERE THE THREE ISSUES SUBSUMED IN THAT.

THEN WE HAVE THE, UH, BONUS AREA, UH, WHERE WE NEEDED LANGUAGE THAT, UH, MADE CERTAIN WHAT THE BONUS PROVISIONS, UH, WERE, UH, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT CLEAR.

I THINK WE WERE AGREED ON INTENT.

WE FORGET THE LANGUAGE.

AND THEN THE LAST ISSUE WAS, UH, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THE PARK'S FUNDING IS GOING TO HAPPEN? IS EVERYBODY CONTEMPLATES IT AND THERE'S NOT A WINDFALL TO THE DEVELOPER SHOULD THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT GO AWAY OTHERWISE? BUT AS IT'S BEEN PERFORMED AND IT'S PART OF THE, THE CONVERSATIONS HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS.

I THINK THOSE ARE OUR SIX AREAS.

CAN YOU, UM, TELL US WHOSE AMENDMENT THIS ONE IS? DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE A NAME.

AND YOUR, YOUR NAME IS ON THE OTHER ONE.

I SEE THAT.

YEAH, THIS LEGAL JUST GAVE ME THE LANGUAGE.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, LEGAL QUESTION.

I THOUGHT THAT IF THERE'S SETTLED LAW LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T PASS A LAW TO OVERTURN IT.

LIKE IF IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE, WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE.

THE ORDINANCE CONTROLS OR IS IT, IS IT SUCH THAT IF THIS LANGUAGE ON THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES WERE TO BE PREEMPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, CAN THE LEGISLATURE REACH INTO OUR FINALIZED ACTIONS HERE IN THIS ORDINANCE AND NULLIFY IT? HMM.

BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.

WE HAVE ONE.

IT'S, SO I'M, I'M INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT COUNCIL MEMBER.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE.

YES'.

TALK TO US ABOUT THAT PLEASE.

MULTIPLE TIMES.

WELL, BRIEFLY, BRIEFLY.

SICK LEAVE OVERTURN, SICK LEAVE THE PREEMPTION OF SICK LEAVE AND THE BAG BAN AND SO FORTH.

SO THAT PREEMPTION SOURCE OF SOURCE OF INCOME.

UM, REGARDLESS, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THIS LANGUAGE AND SO I THINK WE'RE, AND THAT'S THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS.

AND, AND THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO THE LANGUAGE.

CURRENT FEES IN TERMS OF ITS CALCULATION OF WHAT WOULD BE OWED UNDER TODAY'S, UM, REGULATIONS.

SO, UH, LET'S START QUICKLY WITH THE THINGS WHERE WE THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A, A AGREEMENT.

UM, THIS, UH, ITEM 84 AL, WHICH ADDRESSES, UH, THE SIXTH BULLET POINT.

HAS EVERYBODY SEEN THAT LANGUAGE? IS THERE AGREEMENT ON THAT LANGUAGE? I'M, THERE'S A LOT OF PIECE OF PAPER.

CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PARKLAND FEE ONE OR THE S YES.

THE PARKLAND FUNDING.

IF THE PARKLAND, THIS IS A AVOID THE, DO YOU WANT ME JUST TO EXPLAIN THE, WHAT WE DID? WHAT SHOULD I JUST EXPLAIN WHAT WE DID? OKAY.

UM, SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT BY THE TIME THEY GET TO PHASE THREE AND WHEN AT PHASE THREE THERE AND THE PHASES ARE DETERMINED BY THE DEDICATION OF PARKLAND.

SO THERE'S THREE PHASES IN THE ORDINANCE FOR DEDICATION OF PARKLAND.

WHEN THEY GET TO PHASE THREE AND THEY'RE, UM, DEDICATING, UM, THE PARKLAND, UM, BEFORE THEY CAN HAVE THE, THE, UM, SITE PLAN APPROVED, IF THEY HAVE NOT PAID AT LEAST 6.9 MILLION, THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY AT LEAST THAT MUCH.

THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED IF THE FEES INCREASED TO PAY INCREASED FEES.

THE 6.9 MILLION INCLUDES THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UM, ABOVE

[09:40:01]

UM, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DOES.

IT TIES IT TO A PARTICULAR SPOT THAT'S ALREADY WITHIN THE PUT ORDINANCE AS THE TIME AT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PAID AT LEAST AS MUCH, AT LEAST AS MUCH AS WHAT THEY WOULD OWE TODAY BY THE CURRENT CALCULATIONS OF WHAT'S PROPOSED.

AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IF THE FEES REQUIRED MORE.

AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT, JERRY, IS THE STAFF OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

IS THE APPLICANT OKAY WITH THAT? SURE.

SORRY, SORRY.

MAYOR AMENDMENTS ARE FLYING.

I WAS READING ONE.

CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IT ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE, UH, PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR H DEALING WITH THE UH, UM, POSSIBLE WINDFALL ISSUE? YES.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT GOING IN? THAT'S GOING IN? WE CAN TAKE THAT ONE OFF OF OUR LIST.

UM, I ALSO MODIFIED THE SDR AND I THINK THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT TOO.

LET'S LOOK AT THE, UH, UH, SDR ISSUE.

SO, UM, WHAT THIS DOES, THIS WOULD ALLOW TYPE ONE, WHICH WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD A CONDO OWNER THAT WANTS TO RENT OUT THEIR, UM, PLACE FOR SOUTH BY OR FOR A WEEK HERE OR THERE.

UM, TYPE TWO IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

OR IF WE DID, IT'D BE A REALLY EXPENSIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

UM, AND UM, FOR TYPE THREE THEN WE WOULD, INSTEAD OF CAPPING BY CURRENT, WHICH BY CURRENT CODE IS 25% IN ANY BUILDING, IT WOULD BE 10%.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED, WE JUST WOULDN'T BE ALLOWING IT TO GO UP TO 25%.

UM, SUPPOSED THE STAFF AND APPLICANT ARE OKAY WITH THAT APPLICANT.

WITH THAT ONE TOO? YES.

APPLICANT'S OKAY WITH THAT.

SO IT TAKES CARE OF THAT ONE.

ANY PICTURE OF THAT LANGUAGE GOING IN, HEARING ON THAT LANGUAGE GOES IN.

WHAT ABOUT THE, UM, UM, UM, AFFORDABLE? WHAT ABOUT THE, THE GOD IT'S REALLY HARD.

HOW ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TIMING AND BONUS ISSUE? DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THAT? SO, MAYOR, I, UM, WE, I WAS WORKING ON IT JUST A MOMENT AGO.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE FINAL LANGUAGES YET.

UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, I CAN PARAPHRASE WHAT'S BEING TYPED UP OR, UM, WELL, LET'S WAIT TILL WE HAVE LANGUAGE.

I, WE DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE YET.

UM, AND THE BONUS, THE BONUS AREA, DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE ON THAT YET? UM, MAYOR THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY BEING WORKED ON.

UM, MAYBE IF WE COULD DO THE TIMING FOR THE 23 MILLION.

LET'S DO THE TIMING OF THE 23 MILLION TIMING FOR THE 23 MILLION.

UM, WHAT, UM, WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THE APPLICANT, THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AGREEMENT ON WOULD BE THAT THE, UM, THE 23 MILLION FEE IN LIEU OF WOULD BE PAID WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, FOR, FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD AND FOR THE CITY TO PAY FOR ROADS, UTILITY AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

SO WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT BASICALLY THE PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD THEMSELVES SPARTAN STRINGS ROAD.

AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY THAT SAYS THAT THEY CANNOT GET A FINAL, A PERMANENT CO UNTIL THE ROAD IS INSTRUCTED.

THEY CAN GET A COUPLE OF TEMPORARY COS, BUT NO PERMANENT CO UNTIL THE ROAD IS INSTRUCTED.

THE DEVELOPER BELIEVES THAT THEY CAN BUILD THE ROAD PROBABLY FASTER THAN THE CITY CAN.

AND SO THE PLAN, UM, AS ENVISIONED IN SOUTH CENTRAL AND THE ENTIRE TIME WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING THE POD IS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD A ROAD AND THE CITY TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR THAT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, TURS OR OTHERWISE.

WHAT THIS WOULD SAY IS THAT WITHIN 23 MONTHS, WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THAT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BEING ISSUED FOR THE ROAD, THEN THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE 23 MILLION OR IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE TIA, WHICH WOULD SIMPLY ALSO INCLUDE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO BARTON SPRINGS AND SOUTH CONGRESS.

MAY I HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.

SHOULD I GO AHEAD.

UM, DO WE HAVE THIS LANGUAGE ANYWHERE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT? UM, NOT YET.

THAT'S THE QUESTION WE ASKED JUST A SECOND AGO.

THEY'RE WORKING.

OH, THEY'RE WORKING ON THIS LANGUAGE TOO? YES.

DECIDE ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE.

I JUST, I NEED TO EITHER SEE, WE'RE NOT GONNA

[09:45:01]

OKAY, GREAT.

WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER WE'RE TRYING TO FIND BACK.

WELL THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HE JUST READ.

SHOULD I ASK THAT NAME? YES, YOU CAN ANSWER.

SO JERRY, SO UM, SO YOU WERE SAYING THE, THE SOONER OF ONE ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IS SIGNED.

I DIDN'T, YES, THERE WOULD BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER.

THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER BUILDS THE ROAD, THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY SOMEHOW REIMBURSES THEM FOR THAT.

AND SO WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THAT DATE HAPPENING, NOT NECESSARILY OH, OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY EXACTLY.

TO REIMBURSE THEM.

YES, YES.

WELL, OKAY.

AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE OF IT IS THE SECOND JUST KIND OF BROADENS THAT A LITTLE BIT TO INCLUDE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFYING THE TIA.

SO IF IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, IT MAY BE, FOR EXAMPLE, A, UM, UM, RE IS THERE RE-ENGINEERING OF THE INTERSECTION? OKAY.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE 12 MONTHS.

UM, AND IS, AND I'M ALSO CURIOUS WHETHER THE SECOND PIECE COULD ACTUALLY OCCUR MORE QUICKLY.

STARTED, SIGNED FOR, COMPLETED.

UM, I THINK FOR THE 12 MONTH ISSUE, I'D HAVE TO DEFER THE APPLICANT WHY THEY WERE REQUESTING THE 12 MONTHS.

YEAH, I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER.

AND THEN THE, UM, THE SECOND PIECE SAYS, TELL ME WHAT IT SAYS AGAIN.

THE SECOND PIECE SAYS, OR, UM, OR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT SAYS REQUIRED IN THE TIA CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT.

THE SAME THING.

IT'D BE THE SAME THING.

A CONTRACT BETWEEN OH, SAME THING BETWEEN AND DEVELOPER.

IT WOULD JUST BRING IN THE INTER IF WE STARTED WORKING ON THE INTERSECTION BEFORE WE ACTUALLY STARTED BUILDING THE ROAD.

WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE BOTH IN THERE SO THAT EITHER ONE OF 'EM WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED TO GET CONTRACT.

I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE THINKING BEHIND 12, UH, 12 MONTHS, CUZ THAT'S A LONG TIME.

AND, AND ALSO I, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT AND WHEN THE CITY PAYS FOR THOSE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

DO WE HAVE THE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE TIMING IS FOR WHEN THE CITY'S GONNA PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION COST.

WELL, I THINK THAT THAT DEPENDS, THAT DEPENDS UPON THE CITY, RIGHT? RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE MAY END UP USING HERS MONEY FOR THAT.

WE MAY END UP USING SOME OTHER FORM OF YEAH.

MONEY.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW YET.

I JUST WOULDN'T WANT THERE TO BE A LAG OR, OR I MEAN, I CAN SEE SOME LAG.

I WOULDN'T WANT THERE TO BE A LONG LAG BETWEEN, BETWEEN THOSE TWO BECAUSE OF COURSE, OUR GOAL WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS TO MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO WE, WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF YEARS HERE WITH THAT KIND OF TIMING.

AND, AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER, WHAT THIS TRIES TO GET TO IS TWO, TWO THINGS THAT BOTH SIDES WANT TO HAPPEN SOONER.

THE, THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE THE ROAD TO HAPPEN SOONER.

AND THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO GET THE 0.3 MILLION SOONER.

AND SO THIS AGREEMENT KIND OF TIES THE TWO TOGETHER TO KIND OF MAKE US BOTH TRY TO DO THINGS SOONER.

BUT IT'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF TIME IF I'M, IF I'M NOT A, BECAUSE IT'S, ISN'T IT, OR MAYBE I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE COUNCIL MEMBER AS, AS Y'ALL KNOW, WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TELLING YOU WHERE TO SPEND YOUR MONEY, SO WE'RE, THAT'S NOT OUR ISSUE.

BUT WE HAVE TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT BUSINESS AND, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD NEED THE MONEY PROBABLY IN ABOUT 18 MONTHS.

SO WE JUST BUILT IN THE, A SIX MONTH CONTRACT, 12 MONTHS TO PAY.

IF THEY NEEDED IT SOONER, IT COULD BE SOONER.

IT'S, WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO WRITE A CHECK AND JUST HAVE IT SIT IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S BANK ACCOUNT.

SURE, THAT'S FINE.

WHILE THEY'RE NOT READY.

BUT THAT'S, IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THEY MIGHT BE READY TO SPEND IT.

AND THAT'S HOW THE TIMEFRAME CAME.

SO, SO YOU'RE THINKING IS THAT, THAT THAT, UM, SORT OF TRIGGER OF SIGNING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WOULD HAPPEN IN SIX MONTHS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GUESSING SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, OR SIX MONTHS FROM A YEAR FROM NOW.

OH, SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT, THAT, THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT? OR IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL ARE ANTICIPATING? THE LANGUAGE THAT PROTECTS THE CITY ON THAT UHHUH IS THAT IF WE DIAL AROUND AND DON'T SIGN A CONTRACT, THE CITY COULD START CONSTRUCTION ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD.

AND THAT TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT.

SO THE CITY'S IN FULL CONTROL OF THE TIMING OF THAT.

THAT WITH THE WORK THAT WE HAD, UM, EPS DO FOR US RELATED TO THIS POD, AND THEY PLACED THE VALUE OF THAT AT 23 MILLION.

, TAKE A LOOK.

SO THAT'S A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THE 23,000, 23 MILLION, WHAT DOES THAT NUMBER REPRESENT? LIKE WHAT WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIVALENT? I HAVE RICHARD SUBTLE CELL PHONE IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE THAT.

YOU CAN HAVE IT .

REMEMBER THAT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND 23 MILLION WHERE THAT CALCULATION CAME FROM, WHAT THAT REPRESENTS.

IT WAS ONE THING I DID WANNA CLARIFY TODAY FOR EVERYONE, UM, THE $23 MILLION CAME FROM THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO THE 4% ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THE STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING BECAUSE OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN, THE DOLLAR VALUE THAT WAS 23 MILLION.

WE HAVE VERIFIED

[09:50:01]

SO WHAT IS THAT PER UNIT? UM, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THE MATH, BUT I THINK IT WAS, THESE ARE BOTH MOTION G ONE ABOUT 500,000.

ABOUT 500,000.

AND THAT'S FOR 4%.

THAT WAS, THAT'S THE VALUE OF 4% OF THE ONSITE HOUSING THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN THE POT.

UM, MR. STER, ON THAT POINT, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LAST NIGHT.

I THINK THAT THAT RAISES THE SAME CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD WITH THE PARKLAND DEDICATE DEDICATION FEE, WHERE IF, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED, THE AMOUNT OF FEE AND LIE IS NO LONGER, POTENTIALLY NO LONGER EQUIVALENT TO WHAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN AS A PERCENTAGE BASED CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ARTICULATE THAT, BUT MM-HMM.

, THE NUMBER WAS DERIVED FROM A PERCENTAGE OF UNITS, AND IF THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL ON THE TRACK GOES UP, THEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD'VE HAD TO GO UP.

AND SINCE THEY'RE NOT DOING UNITS, THOUGH, I'M ANXIOUSLY AWAITING THE MOMENT IN THIS MEETING TO REVISIT THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT IF THEY'RE NOT DOING THE UNITS AND WE'RE CONVERTING THE UNITS INTO A DOLLAR AMOUNT, THEN THE 23 MILLION MAY END UP BEING TOO LOW.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS A MINIMUM OF 23 MILLION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS GONNA GO UP IF THERE'S AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL ON THE TRACT.

UM, LET ME GO, LET ME, UM, THAT AGAIN, WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING ELSE, I'M GONNA GO CHECK THE PUT AND SEE IF THERE'S A, A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL THAT'S ALLOWED.

UM, AND SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY SOLVE THAT PROBLEM BECAUSE WE WOULD KNOW THAT THERE'D BE NO MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL.

I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ONE AND I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD WANNA DO IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO HAVE, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, A HOTEL OR ON THE SITE, OR IF THEY DON'T GET APPROVAL FOR A HOTEL AND THEY DECIDE TO DO RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS, MY GUESS IS THAT THIS COUNCIL WOULD BE SUPER SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T, I HOPE THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE THAT'S NOT A CAP ON THE HOUSING.

IT'S AN ISSUE.

SO WE HAD THREE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONUS, AND THE THIRD ONE WAS, DOES A 23 NUMBER MOVE? YEAH.

SO WE'VE GONE BACK TO THAT.

AND THEN I, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE OUR STAFF UP AGAIN, MAYOR, THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT UP TO, TO TALK, TO REVISIT THE ISSUE OF THE FEE AND LU PLEASE VISIT THE ISSUE OF THE FEE AND LU VERSUS ONSITE HOUSING.

AND I'D LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS OUR STAFF, UM, AND ASK THEM FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE KIND OF HOUSING.

IS THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT? NOW WE HAVE, WE HAVE THREE ISSUES AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE GONNA PICK EACH ISSUE UP.

WE'RE GONNA STAY ON THAT ISSUE TILL WE TRY TO DECIDE THAT'S FINE ISSUE.

AND BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE MOVE BETWEEN.

AND SO THE THREE ISSUES ARE ONE, WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT? THE SECOND ONE IS WHERE IS IT? IS IT FEE AND LOU, IS IT ON SITE? WHAT ARE THE RULES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? AND THE THIRD ISSUE IS DOES THE 23 MILLION MOVE WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA FOCUS NOW THERE'S LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE THAT'S NOW BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU THAT, UM, THAT JERRY WAS WORKING ON THIS MORNING.

AND I THINK WE ACTED AS SCRS FOR, OR TYPISTS FOR.

IT IS, UM, JUST HANDED OUT.

AND IT IS MOTION SHEET TWO.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

SO JERRY, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE THREE ISSUES AND, AND ULTIMATELY I'M GONNA NEED RICHARD'S ATTENTION ON THIS TOO.

UM, THERE ARE THREE ISSUES.

THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT'S THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT? THE SECOND ONE IS WHERE IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DONE? AND THE THIRD ONE IS, DOES THE 23 MILLION MOVE IN THE EVENT YOU DO, FOR EXAMPLE, MORE RESIDENTIAL SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE? SO CAN YOU STAY HERE FOR JUST ONE SECOND, MICHAEL? THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT ADDRESSES THE TI DO WE HAVE ANY WORDS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT TO ADDRESS THE TIMING OF WHEN THE THINGS PAID? UM, JUST THE WORDS I'VE READ OUT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.

WE DO NOT HAVE THEM TYPED UP YET.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE YET DOWN HERE YET.

AND IT'S NOT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS HANDED OUT THIS MORNING.

BASED ON 4% OF 2,500, 4% OF 2,500, IF YOU DO MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN THAT, SHOULD THE 23 MILLION GO UP? YES.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.

THEN WE HAVE A QUESTION OF WHERE IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING'S MONEY SPENT? AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE 20, THAT'S THE 23 MILLION MOVE.

THE 23 MILLION MOVE QUESTION IS A NEW QUESTION.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE ON IT YET.

AND THE QUESTION IS, IF WE BUILD, SINCE THE 23 MILLION WAS CALCULATED

[09:55:01]

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT AND I THINK THAT THEY CAN ADDRESS IT RIGHT NOW AND MAY OR MY, MY CLIENT KEEPS TAPPING ON ME SAYING, WHEN DOES THIS STOP ? BUT, BUT THE ANSWER, WHEN WE GET IT RIGHT, WHEN WE GET IT RIGHT, THAT'S ON, UM, JUST LIKE THE PARK FEES, THE 23.2, WE'LL SAY THAT THAT IS A FLOOR, WHETHER WE BUILD FIVE UNITS OR 25 UNITS OR WHATEVER, IF WE BUILD MORE THAN THAT WAS CALCULATED ON, WE WILL PAY MORE.

IT'LL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.

SO WE'RE GONNA NEED LANGUAGE THAT DOES THAT, CUZ THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES PROBABLY THAT RUNS TOO.

I THINK WE HAD A GLITCH IN RESPONSIBILITIES OF WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO DRAFT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

KATHY, SO LET ME JUST ADD ONE MORE WRINKLE TO THAT CHALLENGE.

I THINK YOU CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS FOR THE 23 MILLION.

AS I RECALL IN THE COURSE OF CONVERSATIONS YOU SAID IT WAS GONNA COST YOUR CLIENT 23 MILLION TO PRODUCE THAT KIND OF HOUSING.

I THINK, DO WE HAVE AN AGREED PART? I THINK YOUR, I THINK YOUR ECONOMIC CONSULTANT CAME UP WITH THAT.

DO WE HAVE FINE, MY, MY QUESTION HERE IS DO WE HAVE AN AGREED UPON CALCULA IN ADDITION TO SAYING THAT THAT'S THE FLOOR, DO WE HAVE AN AGREED UPON CALCULATION THAT WOULD BE USED TO COME UP WITH THE ADDITIONAL FEE AND LIEU IF THE RESIDENTIAL INCREASES? THAT'S THE KEY.

WE GOTTA FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FORMULA LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FORMULA WAS TO COME UP WITH 20, BUT AGAIN, IT'S ONLY IF IT'S, IT'S THAT'S, IF WE USE THE BONUS PAYMENT, THE BONUS PAYMENT'S GONNA HAVE THE FEE IN LIEU THAT'S DESIGNATED IN IN THE BONUS.

MR SU I WAS ASKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT, I WAS ASKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT ONE OF OUR HOUSING ADVOCATES POINTED OUT, WHICH IS IF THE NO, NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FINE TO STAY THERE.

IF THEIR POINT WAS, IF SOME OF THE USES ON THE SITE CHANGE AND THERE END UP BEING MORE RESIDENTIAL, NOT IN THE BONUS PIECE, BUT JUST END UP BEING MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN THE COMMERCIAL YOU'D CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATE, THAT WOULDN'T NECESS BASED ON HOW THIS IS BEING DRAFTED AT THE MOMENT, THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY TRIGGER AN INCREASED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION, THOUGH.

IT SHOULD.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE MOVING AWAY FROM A PERCENTAGE BASE OF THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO JUST, UH, A FEE AND LIE, BUT THE FEE AND LIE IS STATED IN HERE AS AN EXACT NUMBER, THEN IT DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE.

SO WE NEED, WE NEED LANGUAGE THAT DOES, UM, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION DOES AS YOU, AS YOU JUST CAPTURED IT, SETS IT AS A FLOOR, BUT ALSO AGREES UPON A CALCULATION THAT WOULD BE USED TO COME UP WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WAY TO EQUATE TO THE, THE, I THINK IT'D PRETTY, THE PERCENTAGE 3.2 IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS WE HAVE IN OUR PUT TODAY.

AND THAT'S 4%, IF WE DO MORE THAN THAT, IT WILL, THE FEE WILL GO UP ON A PRO RATTA BASIS IN THE SAME WITH THE SAME CALCULATION.

THE SAME CALCULATION.

SO, SO WEIGH ON WHETHER THAT MAKES SENSE.

SHE WOULD BE THE, OKAY, MANDY, IS THAT SUSCEPTIBLE OF, OF BEING ABLE TO BE WRITTEN DOWN INTO THAT? RIGHT.

SO TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE 23 MILLION UM, WAS PART OF A CALCULATION, A THIRD PARTY STUDY CONDUCTED BY EPS THAT VALUED THE 55 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 80% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AT THAT 23 MILLION THAT EQUALS 418,000 PER UNIT.

WE ARE FINE WITH THE RIGHT NOW THE 4%, UH, THE ONSITE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH EQUATES TO THE 23 MILLION.

UH, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT BEING A FLOOR AND THEN ADJUSTED APPROPRIATELY SHOULD THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, INCREASE THAT SEEMS AND THE EQUATION THAT IS.

SO THE EQUATION FOR 18 PER UNIT OR SOMETHING, FOUR 18 PER UNIT.

SO AASE AND MICHAEL, AS YOU'RE HELPING TO FACILITATE THE WRITING OF LANGUAGE, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WRITTEN.

WE NEED ONE WORK WITH LEGAL AND STAFF TO GET THE RIGHT WORDING ON THE TIMING QUESTION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT OF DECE TO DISCUSS, BUT IT WAS DESCRIBED TO US AND IT SEEMED TO BE OKAY, BUT LET'S SEE THE WORDING.

AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS, THE $23 MILLION NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO MOVE BASED ON $418,000 PER UNIT PUT ON THE SITE WITHIN THE INITIAL THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET.

SO IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THE BONUS AREA COUNTS OUR KITCHEN, YOU JUST, MY QUESTION, THE BONUS AREA IS SEPARATE, BONUS AREA IS SEPARATE, BUT IT SAYS, AS AS COUNCIL MARTO JUST EXPLAINED, IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, DON'T DO A HOTEL AND THEY DO RESIDENCE, THEY COULD HAVE A HIGHER RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT STILL WITHIN THE THREE AND A HALF.

THOSE TWO THINGS NEED TO BE DRAFTED.

[10:00:01]

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN AGREEMENT OR I'M SORRY, I UNDERSTAND TO GO AND PUT THE THINGS THAT WE JUST SPOKE OF, PUT THAT IN WRITING RIGHT.

WITH REGARD TO THE TIMING AND WITH REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE 23 MILLION.

OKAY, GOT IT.

SO THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD OKAY.

WITH THE TIMING AS IT WAS ISSUED AS IT WAS DESCRIBED.

AND ARE WE OKAY WITH HAVING THE $23 MILLION BE THE FLOOR AND THEY SET FLOORS SO CAN'T GO BELOW THAT, UH, BUT IT COULD GO ABOVE THAT BASED ON MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THE 418 PER UNIT.

DOES THAT WORK? YES.

I MEAN IT'S ALL BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT I DON'T SHARE, BUT YES.

UM, BUT THE, THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING I WANNA THROW OUT HERE, WE HAD A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN THAT YOU INITIATED ABOUT HOW TO CALCULATE THE BONUS AREA V AND LOU.

IS IT NOT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I ASSUME THAT THE BONUS AREA WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE NOT TO THE BONUS AREA QUESTION YET, BUT WE'LL GET THERE.

I WANNA REVISIT THE CALCULATION OF THAT AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE EASIER JUST TO USE THE CALCULATION WE JUST DISCUSSED.

WE WILL BE, WE'LL GET TO THE BONUS AREA EXCEPT IN JUST A SECOND.

SORRY, I'M TOTALLY THAT'S OKAY ON EVERY ISSUE, SIR.

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP KNOW.

YOU'RE DOING GOOD .

WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT.

UH, THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE THIRD ANSWER, THE THIRD QUESTION IS WHERE DOES IT GO? IS IT ON SITE? IS IT AT 4 22? IS IT OFFSITE? WE STARTED HAVING THAT CONVERSATION YESTERDAY.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THAT HERE NOW, CATHERINE ENTENTES.

I THINK WE STARTED HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT APPROACHING THIS FROM A BOTH END PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FEE IN LIEU AT MINIMUM 23 MILLION AS WELL AS ONSITE AFFORDABILITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE 4 22 PROPERTY.

AND SO IF WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND ON, ON DOING BOTH MM-HMM.

, YOU'RE SAYING THE $23 MILLION COULD EITHER BE SPENT NO, NO, NO.

ON 4 22 OR OFFSITE OR BOTH? OR ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT 23 MILLION PLUS THE 4 22 UNITS PLUS THE 4 22 UNITS.

MAYOR, MAYOR, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE BONUS AREA WOULD BE OVER AND WOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE THE 23 MILLION.

SO ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE 23 MILLION, WE COULD SPEAK TO THAT IN TERMS OF AT 4 22.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT FOR ABOUT THE BONUS STUFF IN A SECOND.

I THINK WHAT COUNCIL, WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS SHE WANTS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, UH, SUPERIORITY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET TO BE 23 MILLION PLUS UNITS IN 4 22.

I'M NOT SURE SHE, WHERE SHE'S SAYING THAT FUNDING'S COMING FROM FOR THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT CUZ IT, WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME POTENTIAL FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S IN EXCESS OF 23 MILLION.

, WHERE WERE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT MONEY WOULD COME FROM? I THINK WE HAD START, WELL, I MEAN MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE FROM THE DEVELOPER MM-HMM.

, BUT I THINK WE ALSO OPENED THE, THE CONVERSATION TO HAVE OUR HOUSING STAFF COME, UH, YOU KNOW, SHARE SOME, UM, SOME FEEDBACK AND INSIGHT AS TO THE HOUSING BOND DOLLARS THAT WE JUST PASSED AND IF THERE'S ANY CONSIDERATION OF THAT FUNDING, UM, FOR THAT PROPERTY.

BUT AGAIN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO HAVE, UH, A STRONGER COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE APPLICANT.

THAT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

SO FROM OUR HOUSING STAFF, I WANT ONE, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT FROM OUR HOUSING STAFF, IS THERE MORE THAN 23 MILLION TO EXTRACT FROM, FROM OUR HOUSING STAFF AND OUR DELVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR COST? YOU? I THINK YES.

I MEAN IT'S THE 23 MILLION, THE RIGHT NUMBER TO EXTRACT FROM A PROPERTY OWNER OR, OR BASED ON THE ANALYSIS YOU'VE DONE OF THE ECONOMICS, YOU WOULD BE EXTRACTING MORE THAN 23 MILLION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS, WHICH WAS CORROBORATED, UH, BY THE THIRD PARTY REPORT.

THE 23 MILLION IS THE, UH, EQUIVALENT TO THE 4% ON SITE AFFORDABILITY.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST ISSUE.

WILLOWS AND LEGACY FANTASTIC PROPERTIES.

ARE WE ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO COME WITH MORE THAN 23 MILLION? MY POSITION WOULD BE I'M GONNA RELY ON OUR STAFF TO DO THE CALIBRATION AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE 23 MILLION.

DO WE WANNA PUT THAT TO THE VOTE? THE NEXT THING WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS WHETHER THE HOUSING STAFF HAS ADDITIONAL MONEY THEY WANT TO THROW INTO THIS, BUT WE WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE 23 MILLION NUMBER.

WHAT, I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, MAY I PUT TIME FIRST? OKAY.

SO, UM, MANDY, IF YOU COULD, SO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, AND I'LL ASK MANDY TO COLLABORATE THIS, WAS THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, NEARBY FOR A FOUNDATION

[10:05:01]

WE HAVE BOND MONEY OR WE HAVE THIS MONEY THAT WE COULD USE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THAT WOULD BE A PERFECT PROJECT FOR THE BOND AND WE COULD GET THE HOUSING AT 4 22 OR ON SITE WAS WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT OUR HOUSING STAFF THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD BE MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT, UM, WE COULD MAKE BY DOING BOTH.

UM, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH MANDY, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT SET OF CHOICES AND, AND OPPORTUNITIES.

IF, IF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, GENERALLY IN THAT AREA OF TOWN.

SO I AM NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS AN EITHER OR.

UM, I'M LOOKING AT THEM AS TWO DISTINCT, UM, OPPORTUNITIES.

UH, AND THE STATESMAN POD, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE STATESMAN POD.

AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS THE 4% IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN.

UM, ONSITE AFFORDABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY SUBSEQUENTLY CAME UP WITH AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ALSO APPEALING BECAUSE WE ARE VERY COMMITTED TO HAVE TO MEETING THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION GOAL OF 20% AFFORDABILITY.

AND THIS WILL CERTAINLY HELP US MOVE TOWARD THAT.

THE OTHER PROPERTY, UH, THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED, MARY LEE FOUNDATION, UM, IS A LONGSTANDING PARTNER, A NONPROFIT PARTNER.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM MARY LEE HERE, RUSS WALKER, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FANTASTIC ORGANIZATION.

THEY ARE LOOKING AT REDEVELOPING THEIR LARGE CAMPUS RIGHT OFF SOUTH LAMAR.

WE'VE ALREADY MET WITH THEM.

UH, WE HAVE INVESTED OF THEIR, IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN A DOZEN INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS ON LAMAR SQUARE.

TWO OF THOSE, UM, THE TWO IN THE BEST SHAPE ARE, UM, PREVIOUS A H F C AWARDEES.

WE HAVE TWO MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES THERE.

WE WOULD ANTICIPATE INVESTING IN THE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, OF THOSE, THE ENTIRE CAMPUS FRANKLY, UM, BECAUSE IT MEETS ALL OF OUR PRIORITIES.

POPULATION IS EXTREMELY LOW INCOME, VULNERABLE POPULATION ALIGNMENT WITH PROJECT CONNECT, ALL FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY TO LEVERAGE OUR FUNDS.

THOSE WOULD CLEARLY, UM, THE 2022 HOUSING BONDS, THE 350 MILLION RECENTLY APPROVED BY VOTERS WOULD PRESENT AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR INVESTMENT INTO MARY LEE.

UM, AND WHILE WE CAN'T PRESUPPOSE THAT THEY WOULD BE AWARDED FUNDS BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS, A QUARTERLY APPLICATION PROCESS, UM, IF I WERE A BETTING WOMAN, I WOULD SAY IT'S A REALLY GOOD BET THAT THEY WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES FOR THAT.

AND WITHOUT GOING INTO GORY DETAIL OF, OF HOW ALL OF THE HOUSING FUNDING FINANCING WORKS, BUT IF WE WERE TRYING TO LEVERAGE, UM, OUR RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MOST HOUSING, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT BOTH POTS TOGETHER IN THE MARY LEE PROJECT OR TO PUT THE BOND PROJECT, THE BOND POT THERE AND GET THIS ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? BECAUSE AREN'T THERE LOTS OF OTHER HOUSING FINANCE, UM, TOOLS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE FOR THE OTHER PROJECT? FOR MARY LEE? FOR MARY LEE? ABSOLUTELY.

SO WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE MARY LEE REDEVELOPMENT WOULD ENTAIL A TRADITIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, UH, PROJECT WHERE WE WOULD, UH, PROVIDE SOME GAP FINANCING.

THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW AH, H F C OPERATES.

UM, TYPICALLY WITH OUR LITECH DEALS, UH, WE LEVERAGE OUR BOND DOLLARS OR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FIVE TO ONE.

UM, WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD LEVERAGE RATIO.

UM, NOW THEIR REDEVELOPMENT IS, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD.

IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN TOMORROW AND IT WILL BE A LARGE SCALE REDEVELOPMENT.

IT'LL BE MULTIPLE PHASES AND TAKE TIME.

UM, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE FINANCING WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT THAT'S HOW I WOULD ANTICIPATE.

SOUTH CENTRAL, UM, IS A BIT OF A MORE UNIQUE ANIMAL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT, WE'RE LOOKING AT GETTING HOUSING UNITS ON SITE, NOT UTILIZING OTHER, UM, UH, PROGRAMS LIKE THE LITECH PROGRAM.

WE'RE LOOKING AT GETTING THAT THROUGH OUR PUD ORDINANCE.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE.

RIGHT? SO IT'S A BOTH.

SO IT'S A BOTH.

AND COUNCIL IN MY VIEW IT'S A BOTH AND BOTH.

AND COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

BUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM ADVOCATES FROM, I MEAN I THINK THE STATESMAN IS NOW UP TO THREE EDITORIALS ABOUT IT.

CAUSE I SAY WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES QUESTION I THINK RAISES THE POINT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL ALONG ABOUT WHETHER 4% IS THE RIGHT FIGURE.

I DON'T, I DON'T DISPUTE, I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO DISPUTE THAT 4% EQUATES TO 23 MILLION BECAUSE THAT'S JUST SEEMS,

[10:10:01]

UM, SUPPORTING THE VIEW, WHICH I PERSONALLY SHARE THAT THE NUMBER TO BEGIN WITH WOULD'VE BEEN 10% BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR PUT ORDINANCE CALLS FOR.

IT CALLS FOR 10% OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE.

THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENED HERE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT THE PUT ORDINANCE CALCULATES THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION ON THE BONUS AREA.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE OTHER, THE POD UM, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT THAT WE HAD AT OUR LAST MEETING, THAT THAT PROJECT, THE BASELINE WAS SET AT THEIR EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT.

THE BASELINE TO CALCULATE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS NOT SET AT THEIR ENTITLEMENTS.

IT WAS SET AT THE INCREASED ENTITLEMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED CALCULATING 4% OR 10%, THEY GOT A BIG JUMP.

THEY, THE STAFF DID NOT USE THE BASELINE ENTITLEMENTS TO CALCULATE THE BONUS AREA.

SO WE ALREADY LOST BASED ON THAT DECISION OF STAFF MANAGER I ASKED YOU AT OUR LAST MEETING, SO PLEASE THANK YOU.

REPORT BACK ON WHY THAT DECISION WAS MADE.

IT'S TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER POD THAT'S WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO I WOULD LIKE A QUESTION, I WOULD LIKE A RESPONSE TO THAT HERE BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THIS PIECE OF THE MEETING.

WHY, WHY THE BASELINE WAS NOT SET CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE BASELINE SHOULD BE SET AND HOW THE OTHER POD WAS SET.

UM, SO AGAIN, THAT'S I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION.

NOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ON THE DIAS THAT SUGGEST THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORT TO INCREASE IT BEYOND 4%.

BUT I DO WANNA, I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT ONE.

THEY GOTTA JUMP, UM, IN HOW THAT 4% WAS CALCULATED AND THEY'RE NOT USING 10, THEY'RE USING FOUR.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, I REALLY SUPPORT THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GOING.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE ANY, WE'LL HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO WEIGH THE DAY, BUT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING IT CUZ I THINK IT'S A CRITICAL QUESTION.

AND AGAIN, IT'S THE ONE THAT, THAT THE COMMUNITY THAT OUR, OUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER THAT OTHERS HAVE BEEN ASKING ALONG.

THE SECOND QUESTION, I THINK IS WHETHER WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE, ACT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACTUAL UNITS AND YOU KNOW, AS I SAID YESTERDAY, I LOVE FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES.

I HAVE A TON OF RESPECT FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO.

I AGREE WITH OUR HOUSING STAFF THAT, THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS, THERE ARE FINANCIAL OPTIONS FOR THAT PROJECT THAT DON'T EXIST TO CREATE HOUSING IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE STARTED TALKING, AND I SHARED THIS WITH THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY WHEN WE STARTED TALKING AND MY OFFICE FACILITATED MEETINGS WITH VARIOUS HOUSING ADVOCATES AND, AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THERE WAS A REAL CALL TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BEING THE FIRST PROJECT OUT OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL GATEWAY, THAT WE REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE HOUSING GETS CONSTRUCTED ON SITE.

AND IT TOOK A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS FOR PEOPLE TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING HOUSING OFFSITE, BUT VERY CLOSE AT 4 22.

AND I REALLY WANNA APPLAUD THE DEVELOPERS FOR COMING UP WITH THAT OPTION.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPTION.

I THINK IT, I THINK IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE LETTER OF OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS THE SPIRIT.

IT'S WITHIN THE AREA.

AND THE REAL BENEFIT THAT EVERYBODY I SPOKE WITH SAW IS THAT THOSE UNITS ARE GONNA BECOME AVAILABLE WITHIN A YEAR.

AND BECAUSE THEIR, THEIR COMMITMENT, AND I'M GONNA ASK THEM TO VERIFY IT HERE IN A MINUTE, IS THAT THOSE UNITS WILL BECOME AVAILABLE AS AFFORDABLE UNITS AS THOSE LEASES ROLL OVER.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN, I MEAN THIS IS SUCH A FABULOUS OPPORTUNITY TO GET 70 UNITS A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

WE KNOW THAT TONS OF THE JOBS IN THIS DOWNTOWN AREA ARE SERVICE INDUSTRY JOBS.

THE FOLKS WHO OCCUPY THOSE JOBS CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE ANYWHERE CLOSE BY AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

BUT FOR REALLY REQUIRING THERE TO BE INCOMES RESTRICTED UNITS, AND I THINK WE ALL BENEFIT WHEN FOLKS LIVE CLOSER TO WHERE THEY WORK, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WORK DOWNTOWN AND ARE COMING IN AT LUNG DISTANCES.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE SAY, SAY WE ALWAYS WANT, WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN.

IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE CHEAPER TO CONSTRUCT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL CITY.

BUT THAT'S, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CITY POLICY THAT SAYS WE'RE GONNA CONSTRUCT THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CHEAPEST PLACES.

OUR STATED POLICY AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IS TO TRY TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN AND WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE THAT HERE.

SO I THINK, UM, MANDY, I WANNA ASK YOU A FEW MORE DIRECTED QUESTIONS.

I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY FROM OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS IN THIS ONE IS THAT YOU STILL STAND BY THE RECOMMENDATION TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT UNITS EITHER AT THE STATESMAN SITE OR AT 4 22 RATHER THAN A FEE AND LU STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL, SINCE FIRST READING.

THE CONVERSATIONS HAVE GROWN SINCE THEN.

OF COURSE 4 22 BECAME AN, UH, AN OPTION, A POTENTIAL OPTION, DETAILS OF WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AS

[10:15:01]

THE APPLICANT JUST REMINDED ME.

UM, UH, BUT OUR PREFERENCE AND OUR PRIORITY WOULD BE ONSITE.

IF THAT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED FOR WHATEVER REASON OR THAT IS NOT YOUR DETERMINATION, THEN OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THE 23 MILLION FEE IN LIEU AS A FLOOR, WHICH WE, I I THINK WE HAVE JUST ALL AGREED ON, UM, 23 MILLION AS A FLOOR TO BE USED WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, TOURISTS DISTRICT.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY IF THIS 23 MILLION IS NOT, I THINK WE HAD A CONVERSATION AFTERWARD ABOUT THE 23 MILLION AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED THROUGH THIS DEAL TO A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION.

BUT SINCE, SINCE THE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN MARRIED, MY WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR, FROM YOUR, UM, EXPLICATION OF YOUR MEMO, NOT MEMO, WHAT'S IT CALLED, AMENDMENT SHEET, THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

YOU'RE JUST PROPOSING THE FEE AND LIE.

BUT SINCE WE'VE MARRIED THE CONVERSATION HERE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PUTTING THOSE DOLLARS DIRECTLY INTO ONE PROJECT, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT PROJECT AND JUST MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHICH IS THAT YOU FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL PROSPECTS FOR THAT, FOR THE FUNDING PROSPECTS FOR THAT PROJECT.

MARY LEE FOUNDATION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE RECEIVED CITY SUPPORT IN THE PAST, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ABLE TO LEVERAGE LOTS OF DIFFERENT FINANCIAL STREAMS THAT WE COULDN'T LEVERAGE TO SAY BY AFFORDABLE UNITS AT A PRIVATE, AT A PRIVATE, UH, COMPLEX LIKE FOUR TWO ON THE LAKE.

THEY ARE WELL POSITIONED WITHOUT A DOUBT, UM, FOR FUTURE RECEIPT OR AWARD OF A H F C FUNDING THROUGH THE RDA PROGRAM.

RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, WE HAVE A QUARTERLY APPLICATION PROCESS FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES IS, I'VE, I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM NOT BE SUCCESSFUL, UM, IN THEIR APPLICATIONS, UH, FOR THE RDA PROGRAM.

AND WE, THE, THE PROJECT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE MET WITH MARY LEE AND FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES ON THIS PROJECT, UM, MEETS ALL OF OUR PRIORITIES, ABSOLUTELY ALL, ALL OF OUR PRIORITIES AS A CITY, CITY IN TERMS OF POPULATION SERVED, IN TERMS OF LOCATION, IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL LEVERAGE.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE DEAL YET.

UM, SO IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO APPLY FOR FUNDING TODAY.

UM, BUT IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN THE FUTURE.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY HAVE A PHASED APPROACH, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE AREA ON LAMAR SQUARE.

I MEAN, IT'S A, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG PROJECT, UH, THE ENTIRE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S GONNA TAKE MULTIPLE YEARS.

UM, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM ON IT.

AND CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES WE'RE CONSIDERING? SO WE HAVE THE TIMING OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED ON THE STATESMEN, THE TIMING OF THE UNITS BECOMING AVAILABLE ON HIM AT 4 22 VERSUS THE TIMING OF WHATEVER WE WOULD END UP SPENDING THE 23 MILLION ON.

AND WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION THEN AFTER THAT THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND WE'LL ROTATE AROUND SO OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTION AS WELL.

THE PROJECT, BUT IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A YEAR FROM NOW IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN.

AND THEN IF AT SOME POINT WE COULD COME BACK AND ASK THE DEVELOPER IF, IF THEY ARE STILL, UM, INTERESTED AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE 4 22 OPTION, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WAS A GREAT IDEA AND I'M, I'M GRATEFUL TO THEM FOR RAISING IT.

AND WE HAVE WALTER HERE AND WE MIGHT CALL HIM TO TALK TO, THE ONLY THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS ONSITE 4 22 OFFSITE.

EVERY OTHER ISSUE WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING LATER, WE'RE GONNA FOCUS LASER FOCUS ON THAT ISSUE.

GO AHEAD AND ANSWER COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES REALLY RAISED THE QUESTION TOO, THOUGH OF HOW MUCH, WHAT IS THE RIGHT PERCEPT? I UNDERSTAND WE WILL GET TO THAT QUESTION LATER, BUT WE CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT ONE THING AT A TIME WHERE WE'RE NEVER GONNA MOVE FORWARD.

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.

SO IN, IN TERMS OF THE TIMING FOR THE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, UH, THE TIMING FOR ONSITE UNITS AT THE STATESMEN WOULD DEPEND ON THE BUILD OUT, UH, OF THE STATESMEN.

SO I AM GONNA DEFER TO THE DEVELOPER THE TIMING OF 4 22.

UM, OF COURSE IT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.

UM, AND SO WHILE WE WOULD ANTICIPATE SHOULD THE CITY SECURE AFFORDABLE UNITS AT AN OFFSITE PROPERTY, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD PUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE PROPERTY TO SECURE THOSE FOR THE LONG TERM.

UM, THE DETAILS WOULD BE WORKED OUT, BUT AS THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT TO ME, THIS IS ALSO CONTINGENT ON A VARIETY OF OTHER, IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN TOMORROW.

I WANT TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT WHO IS BUSY TALKING RIGHT NOW, UH, TO, UH, TO TALK THROUGH.

UH, CAN, CAN WE, OKAY, SO WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

AND THEN THE TIMING OF THE 23 MILLION, SHOULD WE DEPLOY IT WITHIN THE TURS REALLY DEPENDS ON, UH, REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE TURS.

WE HAVE BEEN JUGGLING MULTIPLE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES RANGING FROM, UM, HOTEL ACQUISITION, UM, SOME VACANT LAND.

UH, WE'VE BEEN JUGGLING A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT OP SO IT DEPENDS ON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE TURS.

THE TIMING OF THE MARY LEE PROJECT, I WOULD DEFER TO THEM IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY ANTICIPATE KICKSTARTING

[10:20:01]

AND WALTER NODED HIS HEAD, WELL PROBABLY THE'RE TALKING BUILT UNITS AND KIND OF FEW IN THAT AREA.

SO, UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS ON, ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

YEAH, JUST ON THAT.

SO THE, ON THE TIMING, SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE TIMING OF THE 23 MILLION, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER, WAS ABOUT 18 MONTHS POTENTIALLY TIMING FOR MARY LEE COULD BE POTENTIALLY 18 MONTHS IF IT WENT WITH THAT 23 MILLION.

SO MY QUESTION IS IF WE USE BOND FUNDS FOR MARY LEE, WHAT ARE WE TALK, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHEN, WHEN WOULD WE BE TALKING ABOUT ISSUING AN APPLICATION PROCESS? OKAY, SO, UM, MULTIPLE THINGS WRAPPED IN THERE.

FIRST OF ALL, FOR MARY LEE, THEY ARE DOING A PHASED APPROACH AND WE, I DIDN'T, THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION, MANDY.

MY QUESTION IS, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOCUS BECAUSE I HEARD THAT PART EARLIER.

UH, WHEN WOULD THE APPLICATION PROCESS OPEN UP FOR THAT? BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S QUITE A LONG PROCESS FOR APPLYING FOR FUNDS.

SO IF, SO LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE WHOLE TIME.

UH, AND I'M NOT ASKING WHAT THEIR PROCESS IS.

I'M ASKING WHAT OURS IS.

UH, IN TERMS IN ORDER TO MAKE FUNDING AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WOULD IT OPEN UP? HOW LONG DOES THAT PROCESS TAKE? SO REALISTICALLY, IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY SELECTED, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? WE HAVE A QUARTERLY APPLICATION PROCESS OKAY.

AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR ALL NON-PROFIT FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPERS.

UM, IT TYPICALLY TAKES ABOUT A HUNDRED DAYS TO GO FROM APPLICATION TO A H F C APPROVAL.

SO THAT'S OUR, OUR TIMEFRAME.

UM, THE CHALLENGE IS THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING TO DEPLOY THROUGH RHODA.

AS WE SIT RIGHT HERE ABOUT A MILE AWAY AT THE STREET JONES BUILDING, WE HAVE HOUSING STAFF AND FSD STAFF AND OUR LEGAL STAFF TALKING THROUGH THE DEPLOYMENT AND THE SPEND PLAN FOR THE 2018 BONDS.

2022, I'M SORRY, 2018 IS ALL GONE.

2022 BONDS.

UM, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE FIRST TRANCHE OF THOSE DOLLARS READY THIS SPRING.

WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE IN OUR PIPELINE AND NEED THOSE FUNDS.

SO WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY SLOW DOWN IN OUR QUARTERLY APPLICATION PROCESS.

FEBRUARY WOULD BE OUR NEXT APPLICATION OPENING.

UM, I CANNOT SPEAK TO, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MARY LEE IS READY TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION YET, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE AWARE OF OUR APPLICATION PROCESS FEBRUARY AND THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY GO TO A HFC SOMETIME IN MAY, JUNE.

SO PART OF MY, GOING BACK TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ONSITE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, ONSITE VERSUS 4 22 VERSUS A FEE FEE AND LUBE.

PART OF MY CONCERN IS, IS NOT EVEN, EVEN IF, EVEN IF IT WASN'T MARY LEE THAT WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT, I'D STILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

, BECAUSE MY CONCERN WITH ONSITE WITH 4 22 IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONLY 40 YEARS.

THAT IS NOT A LONG TIME.

AND THEN WE HAVE NOTHING AT THE END OF THAT TIME.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? UM, SO I SHOULD SAY, SO OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 40 YEARS.

PART OF OUR RDA PROGRAM INCLUDES A ROFER, UH, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AT THE END OF THE 40 YEARS MM-HMM.

FOR A H F C TO BUY DOWN THOSE UNITS.

SO THERE ARE PROVISIONS BUILT IN, THOSE HAVE BEEN BUILT IN FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS NOW FOR THE END OF THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FOR THE CITY OR A H F C TO SECURE LONGER TERM AFFORDABILITY.

SO CAN, WOULD WE HAVE AN OPTION OF SECURING THAT RIGHT NOW SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A QUESTION IN 40 YEARS? WE MAY OR WE MAY NOT DO IT AND WE DON'T KNOW YET IF THE, DOES A DEVELOPER HAVE TO AGREE TO GO BEYOND THE 40 YEARS OR NO? YES.

SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO COULD I, I HAVE QUESTIONS IF, IF I CAN CONTINUE ON THIS LINE REAL FAST CUZ AND LET'S KEEP CIRCULATING THROUGH SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN ASK, WE'LL FINISH THIS TOO.

SO, SO FOR RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT NAILED, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

STAY WITH MANDY.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS NAIL THE, WE'LL BRING UP THE APPLICANT IN A SECOND, WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT.

OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO.

I I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING UP FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES WHEN IT'S TIME.

SO I'LL STAY WITH HER RIGHT NOW THEN.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING THEN IS, SO LAST QUESTION FOR YOU AND MAYOR, YOU CAN TELL ME IF THIS IS A LATER QUESTION, IS I DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE BONUS AREA HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL DOLLARS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MAY BE A LATER QUESTION.

WE'LL, I'M JUST TELLING THEM NOW IF THEY NEED TO START THE CALCULATION.

[10:25:01]

FOCUS NOW ONSITE 4 22 FURTHER OFFSITE.

CAN I, CAN I CIRCLE BACK AND ANSWER A ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WAS KIND OF EMBEDDED IN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS? EVEN IF FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES APPLIED IN FEBRUARY FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES IN MARY LEE, I ASSUME IT WOULD BE SOME SORT OF PARTNERSHIP.

IT WOULD NOT BE FOR THE FULL 23 MILLION, IT WOULD BE FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF THEIR PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BE A PORTION 23 MILLION WOULD BE MORE THAN WE'VE PUT INTO ANY SINGLE PROJECT.

UM, OKAY.

SO I DO WANNA BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHASING, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALSO PHASING THE MONEY OVER TIME FOR AN INVESTMENT IN A PROPERTY, WE WOULD NOT BE PUTTING 23 MILLION INTO EACH PROJECT.

SO THAT'S WHY ONE REASON I WANNA LATER TALK TO FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES, THERE IS A, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUTTING 23 MILLION TOWARDS THAT PROJECT NOW AND, AND THE, THE FUNDING THAT COULD COME THROUGH OUR BOND PROGRAM.

IT'S NOT THE SAME AMOUNT AND THE TIMING IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME.

THINK THAT WE CAN'T LET THIS OPPORTUNITY SLIP BY.

COUNCIL POOL.

THANKS COUNCIL MEMBER 30.

SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE ALMOST FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHERE WE CAN BUILD IT AND WHERE IT MAKES SENSE.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT SUBSIDIZING UNITS ON LITERALLY ON THE SITE AND NOT AT 4 22, AT NEARLY A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR EACH OF THOSE UNITS IS JUST NUTS.

I DON'T, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD RESPONSIBLE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS.

THE VALUE IS NOT THERE.

THAT'S WHY WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THIS, I HAVE, AND WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT 4 22, THAT SEEMED LIKE A, A BRILLIANT OFFER, AN ALTERNATIVE.

THEN WHEN WE STARTED PEELING BACK THOSE LAYERS, AND I THINK IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN POINTED OUT THE 40 YEAR MM-HMM.

, UH, RESTRICTION, WHICH EXTEND AN EXTENSION OF THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE, THE LANDOWNER TO AGREE TO IT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER'S GONNA BE.

MAYBE YES, MAYBE NO, WHO KNOWS 40 YEARS FROM NOW.

BUT THEN THE POINT ABOUT THE HOUSING, UH, THROUGH FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES PHASED IN WITH, UH, PORTIONS OF, OF THE FUNDING COMING BOTH FROM THIS AMOUNT AND POTENTIALLY BOND FUNDING, THE NUMBERS, THE RAPIDITY WITH, WITH WHICH IT WOULD BE PUT INTO GROUND, THE, THE CREDIBILITY OF, OF FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES AS AN ENTITY, THEIR RECORD THAT HAS PUT THAT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR ME.

AND SO THAT, THAT'S HOW MY THINKING ON THIS HAS EVOLVED.

WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS COMING BACK TO THE, WELL, IF YOU WILL, ASKING THE DEVELOPER AT THIS POINT, NOT, AND I MAY BE MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES IS SAYING, BUT IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, WE WANT BOTH THE 23 POINT WHATEVER MILLION PLUS WE WANT YOU TO GIVE US MONEY SO THAT WE CAN GET THE SUBSIDIZED UNITS AT 4 22.

THAT FOR ME IS A COMPLETE NONSTARTER.

I I THINK THAT IS LITERALLY GOING BACK TO THE WELL AND PLOWING NEW ROWS THAT WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T AT ALL LOOKED AT.

AND I FEEL LIKE AT THIS LATE MOMENT IN THIS CONVERSATION WHERE THE VOTE SHOULD REALLY HAPPEN TODAY, THAT THAT'S TERRITORY THAT, THAT FEELS UNFAIR TO ME ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOARD.

UM, AND THEN I WILL JUST SAY, I, I APPRECIATE THE STUDIOUSNESS AND THE ACADEMIC NATURE OF THE QUESTIONING AND EVERYTHING, BUT I, I THINK WE HAVE TURNED OVER EVERY ROCK AND EVERY PEBBLE AND, AND DELVED DOWN INTO THE DETAILS.

WE ALL, I THINK I WOULD BET KIND OF KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS AND MAYOR, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MOVE, UH, EXPEDITIOUSLY TO A VOTE ON HOW WE'RE GONNA HANDLE THE HOUSING PIECE.

SOUNDS GOOD.

COUNCIL MEMBER PADILLA AND, AND, UH, MAYOR, I ALSO AGREE WITH, UH, KITCHEN AND PAUL, UH, THIS IS A, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD FOR, TO BUILD AS MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS.

WE KNOW THE NEEDS OUT THERE.

I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH EVERYBODY'S SAYING IT'S AN EMERGENCY AND WE KNOW THAT THE WAY THIS MONEY IS GONNA TRICKLE DOWN, YOU KNOW, AND TO $416,000, ALMOST HALF A MILLION DOLLARS PER UNIT, AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PERMIT AFFORDABLE HOUSE ON A MAJOR LINE, A MAJOR LINE THROUGH OUR PROJECT CONNECT PARTNERS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF EVEN HAVING THEM PUT FUNDING IN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE ON LAMAR, IT'S JUST TOO HARD TO TURN IT DOWN.

AND I, I I

[10:30:01]

I, I KNOW THAT HOW WE ARE TAXING AND WE, WE GET WHAT ABOUT 23 MILLION, 24 MILLION A YEAR ON OUR HOUSING BOND.

AND IF THAT IS YOUR JOB THEN IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT YOU CAN GET THE 20%.

HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE GET EACH YEAR FOR OUR, ON THE HOUSING? WE'RE WORKING ON THE SPEND PLAN RIGHT NOW.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE A FOUR TO SIX YEAR SPEND PLAN.

SO WE 70, LET'S JUST SAY AN AVERAGE OF 70 MILLION A YEAR, A YEAR THAT WOULD FUND MULTIPLE UH, PROGRAMS INCLUDING RDA, ODA.

WE ALSO HAVE OTHER DOLLARS THAT WE, AND THEN WITH THE 23 MILLION, WHAT, HOW MUCH IT WOULD THAT HELP OUT? SO THE 23 MILLION, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM ONE OF THE MAYOR'S MOTIONS, UH, WHICH I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE, UH, WOULD BE, SHOULD YOU ALL CHOOSE TO DO THE FEE AND LOO WOULD GO INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, WHICH CAN BE DEPLOYED, UM, IN ALIGNMENT WITH RHODA AND ODA.

SO OUR TRADITIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. UM, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATION, UM, PUT ON, ON THE FUNDS.

OUR RECOMMENDATION OF COURSE WOULD BE TO KEEP THE FUNDS WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT TOURS.

UM, BUT I HAVE ALSO SEEN SOME LANGUAGE, UM, THAT WOULD ENABLE STAFF TO DEPLOY THE FUNDS TO, UH, A MILE AND A QUARTER OUTSIDE OF THE TURS OR A MILE AND A HALF OUTSIDE OF THE TURS, WHICH WOULD ENCOMPASS THE MARY LEE UM, PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND MAYOR, I'M, I'M ALSO, I'M READY TO VOTE ON THIS ONE, RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER PUENTES, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? AND THEN COUNCIL ELLIS, THANK YOU MAYOR.

I MEAN COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL IS INTERESTING THAT YOU USE THE ANALOGY OF GOING BACK TO THE, WELL, UM, THIS IS A POLICY DECISION.

IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST POLICY DECISIONS THAT THIS COUNCIL WILL MAKE.

AND SO I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS AND KNOWING THAT THERE HAS BEEN DISAGREEMENT AT THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE SHOULD BE REQUIRING FOR THIS STATE'S BEEN PUT, I DO THINK THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, 23 MILLION, THE EQUIVALENT OF 4%, I HAVE ALWAYS SAID I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE PERCENTAGE THE EQUIVALENT OF 5, 6, 7 MORE PERCENT, UH, OR TOTAL PERCENT, UH, OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT.

I AM AM FULLY IN ALIGNMENT THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT OFFSITE OPTIONS.

I SUPPORT THE 23 MILLION FEE IN LIEU.

WHAT I'M ASKING IS CONSIDERATION FOR THE 4 22 PROPERTIES SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT THE, THE PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS UP A LITTLE BIT MORE.

AND I WILL CONTINUE PRESSING.

THAT'S PART OF MY JOB AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY, UM, I'LL REPEAT IT AGAIN.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION.

IT'S THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DEMAND MORE, ESPECIALLY AS IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE ELSE, I THINK THE 23.2 MILLION INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND IS AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY HERE.

SOUTH LAMAR IS A GREAT PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IT'S NEAR JOBS, IT'S NEAR MUSIC, IT'S NEAR SOCIAL SERVICES, IT'S NEAR SO MANY GREAT THINGS AND IT'S NOT THAT FAR FROM WHERE THIS SITE IS.

THIS IS NOT IN A DIFFERENT PART OF TOWN.

THIS IS A, A WALK AWAY, UM, BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING SO FAR AWAY THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT INTERLINKED IN SOME WAY.

AND I, I THINK AT SOME POINT TODAY WE COULD ARGUE ABOUT THIS ALL DAY LONG, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TODAY AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST TRY TO DECIDE SOMETHING AND, AND GET ON WITH IT CAMERA, TRY AND GET US TO SOME VOTES TOO.

SO, UM, FOR ME, THE 23 MILLION MANDY, I'M GONNA QUESTION FOR YOU HERE IN JUST A SECOND.

SO DON'T GO TOO FAR AWAY.

THE 23 MILLION, I'M FINE WITH THAT NUMBER.

I THINK IF WE START, I'M GONNA RELY ON THE STAFF.

THEY'VE DONE THE CALIBRATION, THEY BROUGHT IN AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY GROUP.

I WOULD ALWAYS LIKE THE NUMBER TO BE MORE, BUT AT SOME POINT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE NUMBER WE'RE GOING TO USE.

CUZ IF WE DON'T DO THAT THEN WE CAN'T GET TO ANY OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

WE GOTTA GET TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR WE'RE NEVER GONNA GET TO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.

SO I'M FINE GOING WITH 23 MILLION SO THAT WE CAN MOVE PAST THAT QUESTION AND ACTUALLY TRY TO START FRAMING THIS THAT WE CAN HAVE A VOTE THEN THE SECOND OF THE COUNCIL AND WHETHER WE'RE OKAY WITH 23 OR WHETHER WE WANNA, UH, OPEN THAT UP AND AND ASK FOR 40 OR 50 OR 80 OR WHATEVER IT IS WE ALSO WILLING TO ASK FOR.

BUT I THINK WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.

THE SECOND ONE, WITH RESPECT TO THE WHERE IT IS, I THINK CLEARLY YOU'VE SEEN A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IS SAYING DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON SITE, DOESN'T NEED TO BE UH, $500,000 TO BE IN THAT PLACE.

I KNOW THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND ROSIE'S RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN TO PUT IT ON SITE AND WE'VE HEARD THAT, RIGHT? UH, I PART OF THAT IS PROBABLY THAT WE HAVE HAVE ALSO GIVEN YOU THE INSTRUCTION TO GET TO 20% AFFORDABILITY ACROSS THE DISTRICT.

UH, AND, AND,

[10:35:01]

AND IF WE TAKE A BIG BLOCK OF THIS PROPERTY AND SAY WE'RE GONNA PUT THE AFFORDABILITY UNITS FOR THIS PROPERTY ON SOUTH LAMAR, WHICH IS A MILE OR SO AWAY WITH TRANSIT AND IT'S A GREAT LOCATION, THAT'S GONNA MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO GET TO 20%.

SO I THINK INHERENT IN A VOTE TO SAY WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER SOMETHING ON SOUTH LAMAR IS ALSO SAYING TO YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY GET TO 20% THAT THAT'S A, A MEASUREMENT OR A MARK TO GET.

BUT I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT SAY IF WE CAN GET TWICE AS MANY FAMILIES WITHIN A MILE OF THIS SITE FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH MONEY IT IS, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S BASED ON 20% OR 10% OR 40%.

WE CAN GET TWICE AS MANY FAMILIES INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE WITHIN A MILE OF THIS.

I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYERS DOWNTOWN, SOMEBODY WHO WAS WORKING DOWNTOWN COULD GET ON THAT, THAT THAT RAPID BUS LINE ON SOUTH LAMAR AND BE AT THEIR, THEIR PLACE OF WORK WITHIN MINUTES.

I'M PERFECTLY OKAY WITH THAT.

I THINK WE'RE RELEASING YOU FROM THE OBLIGATION TO HAVE 20% WITHIN THIS THREE BLOCK AREA AND IF THERE'S STUFF, OTHER ACTION TO TAKE, I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO THAT AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HOLDING YOU TO A STANDARD THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE.

BUT FOR ME RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK WHEN WE ASKED THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO STEP FORWARD YESTERDAY AND SAY WHAT THEY WANT, IT WAS A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THAT LOOKED AT YOU GUYS AND SAID, WE WANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES MORE THAN BEING IN AT AT GROUND ZERO.

THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND QUESTION THEN THAT WE WOULD DECIDE.

UM, UM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE THESE QUESTIONS IN TURN.

SO FIRST LET'S DECIDE THE 23 MILLION QUESTION.

ARE WE GOING TO BASE EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING ON, ON THE CITY'S ANALYSIS? THE 23 MILLION IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT, THE 23 MILLION SCALING AS A FLOOR SCALING UP IF THEY BUILD MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, AS IT WAS CALIBRATED.

UH, AND LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 23 MILLION SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT BASICALLY REQUIRING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION OF 4% VERSUS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.

NO, I'M JUST SAYING, OR IF YOU'RE ASKING US TO SAY, DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE 4% EQUATES TO 23 MILLION, WE'RE ASKING ARE WE GOING TO ASK FOR MORE THAN 23 MILLION FROM THIS DEVELOPER FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PUD 23 MILLION AS THE FLOOR, AS THE FLOOR SCALING UP BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL UNITS THAT ARE BUILT.

SO I THINK THE QUESTION THAT, THAT'S THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU PHRASE IT AS THE DOLLAR OR THE PERCENTAGE IS WHETHER WE'RE, WHETHER WE'RE CALCULATING IT APPROPRIATELY, WHETHER WE'RE GOING HOWEVER YOU CALCULATE AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET TO THE 23 MILLION.

I DON'T WANNA PRESCRIBE HOW DIFFERENT PEOPLE MIGHT GET TO THE 23 MILLION CUZ DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF GETTING THERE.

I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION IS ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH $23 MILLION IS RECOMMENDED BY OUR STAFF AND OUR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT OR ARE WE NOT? WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

I THINK COUNCILOR FUENTES RAISES A REALLY GOOD ISSUE ABOUT CO-INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING FUND AND I THINK THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE AND, AND MAYBE AN OPTION FOR US TO NOT NECESSARILY DECIDE EXACTLY HOW IT GETS SPENT OR WHERE IT GETS SPENT, BUT TO GIVE PARAMETERS AND THEN TO LET THESE FOLKS THEN COME BACK TO YOU GUYS ON THE COUNCIL, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR WITH, WITH DIFFERENT WAYS TO, TO PLATOON THAT 23 MILLION.

SO I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO DECIDE IT TODAY IF WE ARE DECIDING TODAY THOUGH WHAT THE OBLIGATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POD.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ROSIE, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON.

SOME OF THE TIMING STUFF.

I APPRECIATE IT.

YOU HAVE TO FORGIVE ME.

MY, UH, BIOLOGY ARE GETTING THE BETTER OF ME.

UH, I THINK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS GOT ME SICK.

UM, SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO LIKE SEND THIS CONVERSATION INTO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, UM, I IT, I DIDN'T QUITE GET SOME OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN WHICH CASE I, I I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION ABOUT LIKE SEPARATING OUT THE $23 MILLION FEE AND LU YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT.

UM, BUT I DO HAVE UH, SOME GENERAL OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT, EXCUSE ME, PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES AND

[10:40:01]

AND SO, UM, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, ARE YOU TRYING TO GET US TO JUST EXCLUSIVELY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE 23.2 MILLION FEE IN NEW PART RIGHT NOW? OR ALL OF IT RIGHT NOW? WE THAT'S THE 23.2 WE HAVE.

CAUSE I DO HAVE TWO MORE STAFF QUESTIONS.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

UH, HOLD ONTO THOSE QUESTIONS CAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

BUT IF THAT'S MY, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

4, 5, 6, 7 QUESTIONS AT THE SAME TIME.

WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE'LL BE HERE IN TWO HOURS, SAME PLACE.

SO WE ARE GONNA FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON ARE WE ASKING FOR 23 MILLION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AND OUR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT OR ARE WE GONNA ASK FOR MORE THAN 23 MILLION ASSOCIATED WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION? WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHERE IT GOES.

WE'RE NOT DECIDING IF THERE ARE CO-INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES OR HOW WE DO THAT.

JUST 23 MILLION.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON NOW.

MAYOR PRO TE SO I'VE BEEN RAISING THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO JUST MENTIONED IT, UM, UNDER OUR POD ORDINANCE IT'S 10% UNDER, EVEN IF WE AGREED IT WAS 4%, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 4% IS NOT CALCULATED RELATIVE TO THEIR BASE ENTITLEMENT.

SO EVEN IF WE AGREED THAT THIS SHOULD BE 4%, IT MATTERS WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON THAT.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT WOULD, WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE? EVEN IF WE ALLOWED THAT IT WAS 4% AND WE WENT OFF THE 600,000 SQUARE FEET BASE ENTITLEMENT AND YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE JUMPING TO 3.5 MILLION BEFORE THE BONUS, WHAT WOULD THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT BE IF WE DID 4% ON THAT? IF, OH, IF WE HAVE NOT DONE THE MATH, WHAT WOULD BE, IF IT WERE 4% ABOVE THE BASELINE, WHAT WAS THE BASELINE THAT YOU USED? IT WAS, WELL THE EXISTING PIPE ALLOWS FOR 600 SO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

BUT DID YOU USE THE EXISTING POD OR DID YOU USE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT? AS WE'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER, WE USE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND WE AND WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT HAD YOU USED FOR THE WELL, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT CONTEMPLATED SOME POSSIBLE SCENARIOS, BUT THEY WEREN'T, I WOULD SAY THEY WEREN'T REAL.

UM, BUT RATHER FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED THE 4% OF THE, UM, OF THE SITE BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I CAN'T RECALL WHAT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS.

I CAN LOOK IT UP, BUT, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE PRESUME SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ON STATESMAN SITE.

MAYBE COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU CAN, CAN ADD TO WHAT I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

YEAH, I THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AS THE HEIGHT, WHAT THE HEIGHT ENTITLEMENT WAS VERSUS WHAT THE BASELINE, WHERE YOU STARTED THE BASELINE DISCUSSION.

YEAH, AND I'M STILL WAITING MAN.

UH, MAYOR, BEFORE WE CONCLUDE AND TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT IS CORRECT, I DO REALLY WANNA HEAR FROM THE MANAGER ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN BASELINE.

WELL THE HEIGHT WAS, MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 400, BUT IT HAD, IF I RECALL, SIX HEIGHT GRADIENTS THAT WENT FROM 400 ON DOWN WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN.

UM, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY HAVE AGAINST REQUESTING RIGHT NOW YOU'RE REQUESTING FIVE 40 AND THEN THREE, THREE SEGMENTS TO GO DOWN FROM FIVE 40.

MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO ASK THIS IS WE IN THE BRODY POD, THEY'RE DOING, YOU KNOW, 10% OFF.

LIKE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW THIS IS BEING CALCULATED AND WHAT IS IT BEING CALCULATED OFF OF? BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE BASE OF THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE EXISTING POD.

IT WAS BASED OFF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WHICH MAKES THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.

EVEN IF YOU AGREE IT WAS 4% LOWER.

IT WAS BASED UPON TWO THINGS.

IT WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT'S AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PUT AND ALSO THAT IT'S, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

IT'S BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PUT MM-HMM.

THIS IS, AND ALSO THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN CALLING FOR A SOMEWHAT REDUCED AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS TRACK.

BECAUSE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS THAT THIS TRACK WAS BEARING THE BURDEN, IF YOU WILL, OF THE A THIRD OF IT BEING DEDICATED AS PARKLAND AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR BARN SPRINGS ROAD.

BUT THERE'S ANOTHER THAT'S THE SOUTH CENTRAL GOT YOU THE 4% YES.

OF WHAT'S THE 4% CALCULATED OFF OF IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN IF YOU'D DONE THE 10% IN THE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO YOU'RE ASKING WHAT'S THE 4% OF THE ASSUMED SOUTH CENTRAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND THEY'RE DOING MORE THAN THAT.

YES, THEY'RE DOING MORE THAN WHAT IS THE SOUTH CENTRAL SQUARE FOOTAGE? YES.

AND ARE THEY DOING 4% OF THE MORE THAN, OR ARE THEY ONLY DOING 4% OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL? WHAT WAS, WHAT'S IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS 4% OF THE TOTAL OF WHAT'S THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING RIGHT NOW.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOTAL, I'M SURE YOU OKAY.

PUT IT TO PARKLAND, WE CAN PUT IT TO TRANSIT, WE CAN PUT IT, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS DEAL TO PUT THE WORD COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

SO, SO I'M GONNA JUMP IN HERE CAUSE BUT THE BONUS JUST NOT THE TWO OF YOU, BUT SHE ASKED ME A QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND SHE DID, BUT IT'S GOTTA BE MORE THAN JUST THE TWO OF YOU GOING BACK AND FORTH AND TEAMING.

I WANT TO GET US TO A VOTE ON 23 AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S 4% OR 10% OR 20%.

THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO EXTRACT FROM THIS DEAL TO PUT TO WHATEVER WE WANT TO.

WE CAN

[10:45:01]

AND AS A GROUP, WE DECIDE WHAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE WANT THEM TO BE.

WE'VE ASKED FOR A LOT OF PARK LAND BENEFITS FROM THIS TRACK.

NOW, IF WE WANT TO ASK FOR LESS PARK STUFF, UH, SMALLER PARKS, LESS CONTRIBUTION TO PARKS, THEN WE FREE UP ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO BE SPENT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO THAT BECAUSE I LIKE THE DEAL THAT WE'VE CUT ON PARKLAND, BUT THAT MEANS THERE'S 23 MILLION, THE 4% BECOMES A GUIDE OR SOMETHING THAT WE SHOOT FOR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.

BUT IT WILL ALWAYS COME DOWN TO LOOKING AT THE ECONOMICS OF THE DEAL AND OUR STAFF COMING TO US WITH OUR CALIBRATORS AND SAYING, THIS IS HOW MUCH YOU CAN EXTRACT FROM THESE PEOPLE.

THEN WE CAN SPEND IT HOWEVER WE WANT TO.

THAT'S WHY I'M OKAY WITH THE 23.

CUZ IF WE GO HIGHER THAN THE 23, THEN THE NEXT CONVERSATION IS WHAT LESS PARKLAND ARE WE GONNA ASK FOR OR PARK IMPROVEMENTS? ARE WE GONNA ASK FOR? THE, THE EXAMPLE FOR US, WE KEEP, HAVE TO GO BACK TO IS WHEN THE CITY SETS PERCENTAGES OR DEMANDS OR EXTRACTION LEVELS FOR THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE MARKETPLACE, WE END UP WITH WHAT HAPPENED ON RAINY.

BECAUSE FOR YEARS, PEOPLE BUILT IN RAINY AND NEVER GAVE US ANY AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE WE HAD ASKED FOR SOMETHING THAT LOOKED GREAT ON PAPER BUT COULDN'T PERFORM.

NOW THAT WAS A COUNCIL BEFORE US THAT DID THAT.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU, I I I I, WE HAVE DONE THE SAME KIND OF THING AS A COUNCIL OURSELVES.

AND, AND I WISH WE HAD HUNDREDS OF MORE FAMILIES IN RAINY STREET RIGHT NOW PLANTED THERE PERMANENTLY THAN WE HAVE.

WE EITHER ACCEPT OUR STAFFS AND OUR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATION TO US THAT YOU HAVE $23 MILLION SPENDED HOWEVER YOU WANT TO, OR WE DON'T.

AND IF WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT, THEN, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE OUR STAFF AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE OUR THIRD PARTY CALCULATORS.

CUZ AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RELY ON OUR STAFF AND THEIR EXPERTISE TO SAY THIS IS WHAT THE NUMBER IS.

WE'RE GOT ONE LAST ROUND AND WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON WHETHER 23 MILLION IS THE RATE NUMBER OR NOT.

COUNCIL OUR KITCHEN THEN COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, VERY QUICK, VERY QUICKLY, I JUST WANNA REMIND US ALL THAT THE 23 MILLION IS NOT THE ONLY DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR HO AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH ALL OF THIS.

YOU KNOW, I, I ABSTAINED, BUT YOU ALL VOTED ON $69 MILLION, UH, IN TURS.

SO TO, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE 20%, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND SO, UH, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE, TOVO MAKE A MOTION, MAYOR, BUT FIRST I JUST NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT RAINY.

WE HAD A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I'VE ALREADY CALLED THE MOTION.

WELL, I'VE CALLED WHAT WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON, BUT I WANTED TO 23 MILLION OR NOT.

PROGRESS AS PART OF THE BUD.

BUT I I, OKAY, LET ME ADDRESS THAT IN A MINUTE.

BUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT RAINY IS THAT THE PROBLEM WITH RAINY WAS NOT THAT WE DIDN'T GET AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE WE SET TOO HIGH OF A THRESHOLD.

WE DIDN'T GET AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD WAS CAPTURED AS ONE DAY, ONE DAY.

I MEAN, THERE WAS A GLITCH IN THE ORDINANCE THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY TO EXTEND BEYOND ONE DAY UNTIL IT WAS FIXED.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT WAS FIXED AND I WOULD NEED STAFF TO WEIGH IN ON HOW MANY UNITS WE'VE GOTTEN.

BUT IF YOU LOOK OVER AT RAINY, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT SLOWING DOWN DEVELOPMENT NOW THAT WE HAVE AN AFFORD AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT THERE AND IT'S AN ONSITE AND A FEE AND LIE AND THE EXPLOSION IN RAINY STREET, MUCH OF IT HAS HAPPENED AFTER WE IMPLEMENTED THOSE CHANGES.

SO, I MEAN, RAINY IS A MORE COMPLICATED, AND AGAIN, IT HAD TO DO IN PART WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A GLITCH IN THE ORDINANCE THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO IT WHAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

UM, MAYOR, I WOULD SUGGEST, AND I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION, I JUST, I THINK THE WAY YOU'RE PHRASING THE QUESTION IS REALLY UNCLEAR.

AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT SAYS WE SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 4% OR 23 MILLION AS A FLOOR AND JUST VOTE THAT UP OR DOWN.

OKAY? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER FOUR PERCENT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER OR NOT.

PEOPLE CAN COME UP TO THE 23 MILLION CALCULATION DIFFERENT WAYS.

OKAY? I DON'T WANNA PRESCRIBE FOR PEOPLE HOW THEY COME UP TO IT.

THE QUESTION IS, IN THIS DEAL IS A 23 MILLION, WE GONNA ASK FOR MORE.

OKAY? LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 20 AS WHAT AS A FLOOR, AS A FLOOR GOING UP WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES THAT THEY HAVE.

AND SO WHAT IS, YES, OKAY, WHAT IS THIS? THOSE IN FAVOR AND ARE WHAT IS YES IN THAT? WHAT IS WHAT? LIKE IF WE'RE VOTING ON THAT, HOW DO YOU SAY IF YOU'RE, LISTEN, LISTEN.

YOU'RE VOTING YES.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF, OF, OF MAINTAINING THE 23 MILLION AS A FLOOR AS WHAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION IS COMING FROM THIS DEVELOPER ON THIS

[10:50:01]

NOT INCLUDING THE BONUS, BUT IT IS THE BASE PLAN.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, I HAVE, UM, THOSE OPPOSED TO THAT, LET'S SEE THAT I HAVE THE MAYOR PROAM AND COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBA VOTING.

KNOW THE OTHERS.

VOTING I, WE COUNTED HAR COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE.

SHE WAS AN I VOTE.

23 MILLION IS THE NUMBER.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE DONE WITH THAT.

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW WE SPEND THE 23 MILLION.

I THINK THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHERE DO WE SPEND IT? DO WE SPEND IT ON SITE? DO WE SPEND IT AT 4 22 OR DO WE SPEND IT UM, UH, DOWN THE STREET? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

AND WHEN I TELL YOU DOWN THE STREET, NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT IT HAS TO BE AT ANY PARTICULAR ONE, BUT WE LAID OUT PARAMETERS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, HAS TO BE WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF, HAS TO BE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE, HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO TRANSIT AND, AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

I THINK THAT'S THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW.

NOW, WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE, FROM, UH, MR. MORROW ON THIS ISSUE.

AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT HEARING FROM HIM.

I DUNNO IF WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT LET'S FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

AND THE APPLICANT AS WELL ON THIS QUESTION.

I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD US YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, AS YOU'VE TOLD US SEVERAL TIMES, IS TO HAVE IT ON SITE.

PART OF THAT ISN'T THAT PART OF THAT, THAT YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DELIVER 20% IN THAT AREA.

SO PART OF IT IS, UH, OUR OBLIGATION TO MEET THE VISION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE BEEN ABSOLVED OF THAT TODAY, I CANNOT SPEAK TO, RIGHT.

UM, BUT PART OF IT ALSO IS A COMMITMENT TO HAVING ALL TYPES OF HOUSING IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN, INCLUDING DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP AREAS.

UM, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

I KNOW THE 418,000 PER UNIT IS A BIG NUMBER, BUT I WILL SAY JUST IN OUR TRADITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NOW THE COST IS 2 75 A UNIT, A DOOR FOR A STICK-BUILT CONSTRUCTION IS JUST EXPENSIVE, RIGHT? SO THE FOUR 18 DOESN'T SCARE ME.

UM, AND I, I DO THINK THERE IS VALUE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT A MILE AND A QUARTER AWAY IS ONLY A MILE AND A QUARTER AWAY.

UM, BUT TO ME HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN THIS DENSE TRANSIT AREA RIGHT NEXT TO DOWNTOWN IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, I THINK THINK THERE'S ALSO VALUE THAT, AND I THINK YOU FRAME UP THE ISSUE WELL, FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT 2 78 IS IS SIMILAR TO THE FOUR 15, THEY WOULD GO ONE WAY FOR PEOPLE THAT SEE THAT AS A, AS A, AS A LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY TO HOUSE PEOPLE, THEY WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY.

YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL AREAS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY THIS IS THE SAME AREA CUZ IT'S ALL EFFECTIVELY DOWNTOWN.

IT'S NOT THAT THEY DON'T AGREE IN ALL AREAS, THEY JUST DEFINE THE THE AREA A LITTLE BIT MORE BROADLY THAN YOU DO.

THAT'S THE ISSUE.

CASA POOL.

AND I, AND I JUST WANNA SAY IT DOESN'T SCARE ME.

IT DOESN'T SCARE ME.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE APPROPRIATE USE OF OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A RESPONSIBLE DECISION FOR ME TO MAKE, TO INVEST THAT MUCH MONEY FOR AN INDETERMINATE AMOUNT OF TIME.

IT'S NOT SUSTAIN, IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

AND THE LONGER WE HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE GOING THROUGH THESE ISSUES STARTING IN 2015 AND WATCHING HOW THIS HAS ALL EVOLVED, IT HAS ONLY SHOWED ME EVEN MORE HOW SOMETIMES THE POLICIES THAT WE CREATE, WE CAN TRY TO CALL THEM ASPIRATIONAL, BUT THEY SOMEHOW GET IZED AND IT THEN BECOMES A CHALLENGE TO GET TO THAT NUMBER DESPITE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC.

I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE HERE.

COULD BE CONSIDERED AT 4 22 ALSO POTENTIALLY.

I I WOULD LIKE TO, AND WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A MOTION, WE CAN THINK ABOUT HOW TO WORD IT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO REMIND US THAT, THAT THIS, WE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A ZERO SUM VOTE HERE.

UM, I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER THE 23 MILLION, UH, TO BE, UH, SPENT OR TO BE DES DESIGNATED IN THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR HAS, UM, HAS CHARACTERIZED IT IN HIS, UM, IN HIS MOTION, WHICH IS THE OFFSITE.

UM, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE DOLLARS OVER THE 23 MILLION BECAUSE THERE IS, BECAUSE OF THE BONUS AREA THAT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR, UH, FOR 4 22.

UM, AND THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONSIDER, JUST REMIND EVERYONE AGAIN THAT THERE ARE TOURISTS DOLLARS THAT

[10:55:01]

SO, BUT AT THIS POINT, MY HIGHEST PRIORITY HERE IS I, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.

MY HIGHEST PRIORITY HERE IS TO SECURE THESE FEE AND LOU DOLLARS FOR AN AREA THAT IS VERY, VERY CLOSE.

AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA.

IT IS VERY CLOSE, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, AND ACC I I I I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MANDY, BUT, UH, ON SOUTH OF MAR I MEAN YOU'RE VIRTUALLY DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN TERMS OF LIVING THERE VERSUS LIVING RIGHT THERE, THERE ON ON, YOU KNOW, AT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO FOR PURPOSES OF THAT, UM, I ALSO, UM, WELL, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GET INTO THIS MAY OR NOT.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OF HOW MUCH MORE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE BONUS AREA OR ALSO WHETHER WE EVEN HAVE AN OPTION TO GO BEYOND, UM, 40 YEARS.

MY, MY DECISION'S NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THAT AT ALL BASED ON THE, UH, POLICY ISSUE.

I, I SUPPORT, UM, UH, DEDICATING THIS 23 MILLION TO THE, UH, TO THE, THE FEE AND LOU IN THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR HAS CHARACTERIZED IT, WHICH IS RIGHT.

WHAT IF WE SWAPPED IT? WHAT IF WE HAD, UM, THE BASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION BE THE 4 22 UNITS SINCE THEY'RE AVAILABLE NOW? AND THIS IS THE QUESTION I'VE BEEN ASKING TO BE ABLE TO ASK THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

UM, BUT I THINK IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, IF I'M REMEMBERING THEM CORRECTLY, HE REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THOSE WOULD BE LEASES THAT WOULD ROLL OFF WITHIN A YEAR.

AND SO THOSE 70 UNITS COULD BE AVAILABLE WITHIN A, WITHIN A YEAR OF WHENEVER THIS IS TRIGGERED.

AND THEN ANYTHING IN THE BONUS PIECE, WHICH IS ALREADY EXPRESSED AS A FEE AND LIE NOT, AND WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT, WELL WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT NOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, IT'S ONLY BEING TALKED ABOUT AS A FEE AND LU INCLUDE THAT PIECE AS THE FEE AND LU THAT WOULD GO TOWARD A PROJECT.

I MEAN, I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD YOU SAY, MANDY, IS THAT THE BEST OPTION HERE IS TO GET BOTH PROJECTS AND, AND THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES, UM, PLENTY THAT, THAT, THAT IS A VERY REALISTIC SCENARIO TO HAVE BOTH THE HOUSING DOWN THE STREET IN LAMAR, UM, AS WELL AS THESE UNITS HERE ON SITE.

AND SO IF WE SWAPPED WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, BUT HAVE THE BONUS PIECE BE THE FEE AND LU AND GET THOSE UNITS AT 4 22 RIGHT AWAY, I THINK WE, I THINK WE'VE REALLY WON.

AND I WOULD INVITE MR. SUBTLE UP TO ASK, UM, ASK HIM IF THE DEVELOPER IS STILL COMMITTED TO THE 4 22 AND HOW SOON THOSE UNITS COULD BE AVAILABLE.

BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF, PART OF WHY YOU PRESENTED IT AS AN ADVANTAGE THAT THOSE UNITS COULD BE AVAILABLE AND NOBODY WOULD NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM AT THE STATESMAN.

AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING THAT ALTERNATIVE.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT ONE.

SO THE OVERARCHING CONCEPT IS WE HAVE TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT WORKS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA OF 4 22, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THE TURS WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED AND THE FUNDING WAS GOING TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE THINGS THAT THE TUR SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY OUR PROJECT WORKS.

AS THE CONVERSATIONS MORPHED AND RIGHTFULLY SO, WE REALIZED THOSE FUNDS DON'T GET APPROPRIATE TILL A A TIME IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE'VE COME UP WITH A TRIGGER, WHETHER IT'S THE 23 MILLION OR THE UNITS AT 4 22, THE TRIGGER WOULD BE WITHIN A YEAR AFTER WE ALL SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY SAYING THE CITY'S GONNA DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO, WE DO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW WITHIN 12 MONTHS, WE'LL HAVE EITHER UNITS AT 4 22 OR THE 23 MILLION CHECK.

SO LET'S NOT QUESTION I WAS ASKING IS, UM, WITH REGARD AFTER THAT TRIGGER IS MET, AFTER WHAT YOU HAD SAID, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT THE UNITS AT 4 22 WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE AS THE LEASES WERE UP FOR RENEWAL.

AND SO THAT WITHIN THE COURSE OF A YEAR, THOSE 70 UNITS WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE TRIGGER HAPPENS.

BUT, BUT YEAH.

IS THAT STILL ACCURATE? AND DO YOU STAND STILL STAND BEHIND THE, THE PROPOSAL TO DO IT? TO DO THE UNITS AT 4 22? YES, AND I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA THROW SOMEBODY OUT IF THEY'RE AT THE END OF THEIR YEAR LEASE AND THEY NEED ANOTHER MONTH, BUT SURE.

BUT, BUT YES.

BUT, UM, WITHIN, WITHIN A YEAR OR SO.

IS THAT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE MOTION I MADE IN JUST A SECOND? OKAY.

UM, AND IS THAT STILL A PROPOSAL THAT THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO DO? YES.

AND SO COLLEAGUES, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE THE UNITS BE AT 4 22 AND THEN ALLOCATE THE BONUS AREA TO THE FEE AND LOU PIECE THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TO INVEST IN ANOTHER PROJECT.

[11:00:01]

CUZ I ALREADY MADE A MOTION MM-HMM.

, RIGHT? AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK THE THRESHOLD QUESTION FOR US TO DECIDE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT THE, THE, WHETHER WE WANT IT TO BE ON SITE.

THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IF WE WANT IT ON SITE, THEN IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE POD DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING TODAY.

IF ON THE OTHER HAND WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON SITE IN THE POD, THEN WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY.

WE CAN IF WE'RE ABLE TO, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT IT TO A VOTE IF WE COULD, WE COULD ALSO ASK THE HOUSING FOLKS TO COME BACK TO THE NEXT COUNCIL IN, IN FEBRUARY AND SAY, YOU'VE TURNED UP 23 MILLION AS A PART OF THE POD.

THIS IS THE SPENDING PLAN THAT WE WOULD ADVISE.

IT INCLUDES SOME 4 22 IT FUNDS WALTER FIRST PHASE OF HIS THING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL IS WE'RE NOT PUTTING IT ON SITE AND, AND WE CONSIDER, UH, UH, THINGS TO BE WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF OR A MILE AND A QUARTER, UH, SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE TO WITHIN THIS.

SO DON'T, DON'T, THE, THE EMPHASIS SHOULD BE ON NUMBER OF UNITS REACH OF AFFORDABILITY AND SPEED GETTING IT ON THE GROUND WITHIN A MILE AND A QUARTER.

AND, AND I WONDER IF WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S 4 22 OR PHASE ONE OR ALL OF THE PHASES OF BON, WE WERE ASKING COUNCIL, THE STAFF TO COME BACK, THE STAFF TO COME BACK REALLY FAST WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW YOU WOULD SPEND THE 23 MILLION.

SO MY QUESTION FOR LEGAL IS CAN WE, CAN WE ADOPT A POD THAT REQUIRES THE 23 MILLION CONTRIBUTION INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND OR WHEREVER IT NEEDS TO GO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL, THIS NEXT COUNCIL WILL QUICKLY DECIDE HOW THAT 23 MILLION IS SPENT.

THE ONLY THING WE'RE TAKING OFF THE TABLE IS THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON SITE, UH, ON THE POD PROPERTY.

IN FACT, THEY WON'T BE ON SITE ON THE PROPERTY.

PATRICIA LINK WITH A LOT OF APARTMENT TO BE MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

DOES THE ORDINANCE NEED TO SAY WHERE STAFF IS GONNA SPEND THE 23 MILLION? YES.

NO IT DOES NOT.

WE MAY NOT AGREE OR THEY MAY NOT AGREE ONCE THAT PROCESS HAPPENS, THE WAY THAT THE UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION IS SATISFIED IS THROUGH PAYMENT OF THE 23.2 MILLION.

SO WE COULD TODAY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE POD JUST HAVING MADE THE DECISION THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON SITE IN THIS POD.

SO THEREFORE THE POD THING CAN MOVE FORWARD.

CUZ WE'RE NOT ASKING HIM TO PUT ANYTHING ON SITE.

WE ARE PUTTING IN THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE 23 MILLION INTO THE FUND AND THEN WE'RE GIVING A DIRECTION TO THE COUNCIL, COME BACK TO US AND TELL US WHETHER YOU WANT TO INVEST ALL THAT MONEY IN 4 22, WHETHER YOU WANNA INVEST ALL THAT MONEY IN, IN WALTER MORRO, HIS COMPLETE PROJECT.

WHETHER YOU WANT TO COME BACK WITH A COMBINATION OF THOSE THINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS.

NOW, IS THAT POSSIBLE? YES, THE CONCERN WOULD BE ONCE THE PUT IS APPROVED, IF 4 22 OR AN OFFSITE LOCATION IS NOT, UM, A REQUIREMENT OR AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER, THEN THE ONLY THING WE GET IS THE 23 MILLION AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH US ON 4 23.

CAN WE DRAFT AROUND THAT? CAN WE SAY THE 23 MILLION GOES INTO THE DEAL AND INTO THE FUND AND THE PROPERTY OWNER? UH, THE, THE PUT AS PART OF THE PUD DOCUMENT IS AGREEING TO MAKE 50 UNITS OR WHATEVER THE RIGHT NUMBER IS IN 70 UNITS IN 4 22 AVAILABLE, UM, UM, AT WHATEVER, 23 MILLION IS DIVIDED BY 70 UNITS AND THE CITY HAS THE OPTION OF ELECTING TO SPEND ALL OF IT OR NONE OF IT IN 4 22.

AND THAT WAY AS PART OF THE POD, THE THE, THIS DEVELOPER HAS TO KEEP THAT OPTION OPEN TO US FOR ELECTION BY THE NEXT COUNCIL OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING.

SO I THINK THE WAY WE WOULD PROBABLY DRAFT THAT IS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN'T SATISFY THEIR OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNTIL WE HAVE NEGOTI, TILL WE'VE, UNTIL WE HAVE DETERMINED WELL, THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT AN OPTION FOR US.

AND SO THE QUESTION, THE ISSUE IS, IS MAKING SURE THAT THE MONEY IS NOT, CAUSE ONCE THE MONEY'S PAID, IF THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE, THEN WE ONLY HAVE THE MONEY, WHICH IS AN OPTION.

I KNOW, I'M, I'M TRYING TO WORK THROUGH IT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE, IF THE GOAL IS FOR THE LANDOWNER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY ON A POTENTIAL LEASE OF UNITS AT 4 22 AND THEN DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GOES, I MEAN I GUESS THERE'S POTENTIAL

[11:05:01]

I WAS SUGGESTING SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

I WAS SAYING AS PART OF THE PUD REQUIREMENT, THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO PUT THE 23 MILLION INTO THE, INTO THE TRUST FUND ON WHATEVER THE TRIGGER IS THAT WE'VE NEGOTIATED ON THIS OTHER DEAL.

SO THAT TRIGGERS SET, THEY HAVE TO DO THE 23 MILLION, THAT'S ONE OBLIGATION UNDER THE PUD.

THE SECOND OBLIGATION UNDER THE POD IS THAT THEY WILL MAKE 70 UNITS AVAILABLE UP TO 70 UNITS AVAILABLE IN 4 22 AT 2.3 MILLION DIVIDED BY 70 UNITS.

UH, AND THAT CHOICE IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CITY TO ELECT UP TO 70 UNITS, UH, THAT THE CITY HAS TO MAKE WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

THIS ISN'T THAT DOESN'T WORK.

I MEAN THEY HAVE, OKAY, NEVERMIND.

EVERYONE'S SHAKING THEIR HEAD NO AT ME.

CAN I, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOBA.

MAYOR, COULD YOU REMIND US WHAT THE INITIAL MOTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MADE? THEY'RE NOT EASY.

MY ORIGINAL MOTION WAS THE 23 MILLION FLOOR WOULD BE, UM, WOULD BE ALLOCATED, UM, OFFSITE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WERE, WAS IN THE MAYOR'S MOTION AND THAT ANYTHING ABOVE THAT AMOUNT, UH, THE, THE STAFF WOULD WORK TO, UH, INCLUDE IT AT 4 22.

SO I THINK MAYOR, AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH TIME AND DETAIL WE'VE ALL INVESTED, WE REALLY DO NEED TO SETTLE THAT QUESTION HERE TODAY.

RIGHT? WE'LL TAKE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS VOTE.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT VOTE? ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THAT OPTION.

I HAD MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

WHAT? THAT'S WHAT WANTS TO AMEND THAT MOTION.

UM, AND I AM, I AM PERSUADED THAT YOU MAY HAVE AN ANSWER TO MOVE US FORWARD AND THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE ME TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE STAFF.

SO YOU'VE ALREADY DRAFTED THE SECTION ABOUT, ABOUT HAVING 4 22 ON THE LAKE AS AN OPTION.

IS IT POSSIBLE, AND THIS MAY ACHIEVE WHAT THE MAYOR WAS SAYING, TO LEAVE THAT IN THERE AND HAVE IT BE AS AN ALTERNATIVE WITH PART C ON 14, THE LANDOWNER MAY SATISFY THE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSINGS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

OR THE LANDOWNER MAY SATISFY THEM WITH THE SECTIONS ON THE LAKE AND THEN HAVE THE NEXT CLAUSE BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT I THINK YOU HAVE BEFORE THEN THAT THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND PLANNING, UM, SHALL MAKE THAT DECISION.

AND THE NEXT COUNCIL, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PUNTING IT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL TO DECIDE, THE NEXT COUNCIL, UM, CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE MANAGER TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSING.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE WAY TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING.

OKAY, FOR ME, I'M MEMBER KITCHEN HAS MADE A PROPOSAL, YOU'RE MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS.

I'M ASKING YOU IF THAT SATISFIES WHAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING.

I MEAN, I, I WOULD STRAIGHT UP MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD STRAIGHT UP MY, MY IS IS 4 22.

IF WE WANNA TRY TO PRESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH AND I THINK WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED AS THE WAY TO DO THAT.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE REQUIRE, THAT WE REQUIRE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS BE AT 4 22 AS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 15 OF 24 IN SECTION D.

AND THAT THE BONUS AREA, UH, DESCRIBED LATER IN THE DOCUMENT BE THE PIECE, THE FEE AND LU THAT WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND SO THAT WE HAVE SOME UNITS THERE NEARBY, IMMEDIATE, MORE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.

AND THAT THE BONUS AREA, THE DOLLARS THAT WOULD COME FROM THE BONUS AREA LATER ON, UM, WOULD BE THE FEE AND LOO PIECE THAT COULD BE INVESTED IN PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF, OKAY, SO, SO I'M CLEAR AND THERE'S AN ORDINANCE DRAFT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US ALREADY AND THERE'S ONE THAT SAYS, HEY, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON SITE, USE THIS LANGUAGE.

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT IN 4 22, USE THIS LANGUAGE IF YOU WANT TO GO OUTSIDE 4 22, BUT IN, BUT IN THE SAME AREA, USE THIS LANGUAGE.

WHAT I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SAYING IN HER MOTION IS LET'S SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO, UM, UH, THE THIRD CHOICE, UH, LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST 23.1 MILLION, RIGHT? BUT IF THEY DO UNDER THEIR THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET MORE UNITS THAN, THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN, THAT ADDITIONAL, UM, UH, FEE AND LU PROPORTION OF FEE AND LU ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WOULD BE SPENT ON 4 22.

UH, YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I ALSO OKAY.

IS SUGGESTING A, AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.

SO THAT WAS HER MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER TO

[11:10:01]

AND YOUR AMENDMENT IS WHAT? IT'S BASICALLY SWAPPING THEM.

I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I THINK THE CHALLENGE BEFORE YOU EXPLAIN IT, I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS SWAPPING THEM.

WHAT DOES, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION THAT IS PART OF THEIR 4%, WHAT THE COUNCIL IS AGREED, THAT'S A GOOD 23 MILLION GETS SPENT AT 4 22.

WELL, IT'S NOT BEING SPENT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT BUYING THOSE UNITS.

WE'RE THEY'RE FULFILLING THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4% REQUIREMENT OR ESSENCE BUYING THEM.

WE'RE WE WE'RE TAKING THE $23 MILLION AND WE'RE PUTTING IT TOWARD THAT.

EXACTLY, YES.

OKAY, THEN THE FOUR.

THEN, THEN HOW YOU DESCRIBED IT SO IT BE ACCURATE, 23 MILLION THAT THEY WOULD FULFILLING THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 23 MILLION EQUIVALENCY.

SO LET'S PUT THAT 4 22 AND THEN ANY MONEY IN THE BONUS PIECE WOULD BE INVESTED IN OTHER PROJECTS.

SO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT.

AN AMENDMENT.

WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

CAN I SPEAK TO AND JUST SAYING CATHERINE POOL? YEAH.

AND IF I COULD SPEAK TO THAT, MY GUESS IS THAT STAFF WILL NEVER COME BACK AND TELL US TO SPEND THE MONEY ANYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT FOR ON IN THE WATERFRONT DISTRICT.

THAT'S THAT THEY'VE BEEN CONSISTENT IN THEIR SUPPORT FOR THAT.

WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION THAT VEERS AWAY FROM WHAT THE STAFF HAS CONSISTENTLY TOLD US.

SO I AM NOT WILLING TO THEN TURN IT BACK TO STAFF TO GIVE US ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD LIKELY ALIGN WITH WHERE THEY ARE STANDING.

WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO SAY THE 23 MILLION GETS SPENT FIRST ON 4 22.

AND IF IT GOES UP ABOVE THAT BECAUSE THE FLOORS GONE UP ABOVE THAT, WE'RE THEN HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD THEN COME BACK AND TELL US HOW TO SPEND IT.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN COUNCIL, COUNCIL, UH, UH, KITCHENS INITIAL ONE, WHICH WAS THE FLOOR 23 GETS SPENT OTHERWISE AND THE BONUS GETS SPENT.

4 22.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON.

SECOND, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE FIRST ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

IF THAT DOES NOT PASS, THEN WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN PROPOSED.

BUT I NEED TO CORRECT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER IS A, A SECOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MOTION OR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

MAYOR PROTE SECONDS.

AND SO TO CLARIFY, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL THE MONEY FROM THE BONUS GOES INTO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

IT IS NOT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN PRESUME WHERE THE STAFF WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT IT.

I ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO BE A COUNCIL DECISION FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL.

WE MAY TAKE A VOTE.

THIS IS THE BULK OF MY MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.

THE BULK OF MY MOTION IS ABOUT TRYING TO CREATE HOUSING IN THIS AREA NEARBY SOONER THAN WE MIGHT IF WE'RE INVESTING IN ANOTHER PROJECT.

MAY I SPEAK TO? YES, YOU CAN.

UM, JUST TWO POINTS.

UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE, AND THE REASON I, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, BUT THE REASON THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT, I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN THAT IS TWO THINGS.

FIRST OFF, WE HAVE NO, NO COMMITMENT THAT, UM, THAT THOSE UNITS AT 4 22 WILL LAST PAST THE 40 YEARS.

AND THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T CONSIDER 40 YEARS TO BE A LONG TIME AND I WANT SOMETHING PERMANENT THAT I CAN COUNT ON.

UM, AND THEN MY, MY, YOU KNOW, MY SECOND, UM, CONCERN IS THAT, UM, WELL, YEAH, THAT, THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT I AM, AM I AM GOING FOR CERTAINTY HERE ON WHAT I THINK WILL BE A LONG TERM WILL BE A LONG TERM, A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AN AREA VERY CLOSE BY THAT IS NEGLIGIBLE IN IN DIFFERENCE IN, IN, IN LOCATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

WE ALSO HAVE NO INSURANCE THAT, THAT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER OR EVEN FASTER TO, TO PUT THOSE, THOSE UNITS AT 4 22, UM, ON THE GROUND THAN IT IS, UM, IN THE MECHANISM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO, SO THAT'S MY REASON.

I I APPRECIATE YOUR REASONS ALSO, UM, AND RESPECT THEM, BUT THAT'S WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

I NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM OUR STAFF.

UM, THANKS FOR RAISING THE POINT ABOUT THE TIMING.

I NEED TO CLARIFY, MANDY, SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER WHEN YOU WERE ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 40 YEARS.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WE INVEST IN OTHER PROJECTS, IF WE WERE FOR EXAMPLE, TO INVEST IN THE MARY LEE FOUNDATION PROJECTS.

WHEN YOU WERE ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, WERE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S A 40 YEAR THAT OUR AGREEMENT THERE WOULD BE 40 YEARS TOO AND AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE A R OF FIRST REFUSAL? OR WAS THAT AN ANSWER ABOUT THE 4 22 THAT IT WOULD BE 40 YEARS WITH A R OF FIRST REFUSAL? SO OUR STANDARD RDA AGREEMENT IS FOR 40 YEARS, A MINIMUM OF 40 YEARS IS OUR REQUIREMENT IN NOT IN PERPETUITY.

COMMITMENT WOULD BE FOR 99 YEARS.

SO NOT IN PERPETUITY.

COUNCIL MEMBER, NOT IN PERPETUITY.

HOWEVER, I SHOULD NOTE THAT UH, WALTER MORROW LAST TIME HE WAS HERE STATED THAT THEIR

[11:15:01]

BUT OUR STANDARD IN OUR POLICY GUIDELINES IS A MINIMUM OF 40 YEARS.

THANK YOU'RE.

AND THAT'S THE PUT ORDINANCE AS WELL.

WE'RE, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS IN PIECES CAUSE WE GET THE CRITERIA IN JUST A SECOND.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS.

UH, MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

I HAVE THE MAYOR PROAM AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

IT'S THE BALANCE OF THE DICE THAT DOESN'T PASS.

COUNCIL, WAIT.

CAN YOU PLEASE THE COUNT ON THAT? CAUSE THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T VOTE.

I ABSTAINED FROM THAT.

WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, TWO PEOPLE, TWO PEOPLE IN FAVOR, EIGHT PEOPLE OPPOSED, AND ONE ABSTENTION DOES NOT PASS.

THAT GETS US THEN TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS, UH, MOTION, WHICH IS TO SAY LET'S DO IT, UH, UH, OFFSITE AND ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY ABOVE THE 23 MILLION WHEN IT SCALES UP SHY OF THE BONUS GOES TO, UH, 4 22.

IF IT'S AVAILABLE.

AND IF NOT, THEN THEY WOULD FIGURE OUT HOW ELSE TO INVEST.

YEAH, IT WASN'T SHY OF THE BONUS.

IT INCLUDED THE BONUS IF THERE IS A BONUS.

OKAY, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, THOSE OPPOSED TO THAT COUNCIL TOVO IS OPPOSED.

THOSE ABSTAINING ON THAT.

THAT'S THE MAYOR PROTE.

SO I HAVE THAT PASSING AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW.

EVERYONE, EVERYONE I'D, I'D TO SPEAK ABOUT MAYOR, HANG ON ONE SECOND.

I WANT EVERYONE TO LOOK AT MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO THAT I HANDED OUT.

THAT IS MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO TALKS ABOUT HOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT, RIGHT? SO WE'VE ALL AGREED IT'S NOT THE FIRST TRANCHE OF MONEY IS NOT GONNA BE SPENT EITHER ON SITE OR ON 4 22 BUT OFFSITE.

SO THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAD FOR THAT WAS, UH, AND THIS BUILDS OFF OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STAFF GAVE US FOR THAT OPTION, BUT WE'VE ADDED CRITERIA TO IT.

SO IT SAYS THE FEE AND LU MAY BE UTILIZED WITH A MILE AND A HALF OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES ON A MAJOR TRENDS QUARTER WITH MOUNT TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERSHIP WITH AN ORGANIZATION'S TRACK RATE PROVIDING DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT CRITERIA? WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT CRITERIA IN ANY WAY.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IS EVERYONE.

IS ANY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

ARE PEOPLE OKAY WITH THAT CRITERIA? RAISE YOUR HAND.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT CRITERIA? COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO SAYS NO TO THAT CRITERIA.

SO THAT WOULD BE OUR CRITERIA.

DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? I DO.

AND IT'S THE SAME COMMENT I WOULD'VE MADE A MINUTE AGO.

SO YESTERDAY THIS COUNCIL TOOK A VOTE TO INVEST IN THE TURS TO HELP CREATE WHAT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.

AND, AND WHAT, AND NOW WE ARE IN A POSITION OF ON THE DIAS WITHOUT, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO BRING AN ACTION TO CHANGE THIS COMPONENT OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, BUT A BIG REASON, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIG AREAS OF FOCUS WAS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO WE NOW HAVE A PROJECT MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT TO CREATE HOUSING IN THIS AREA.

WE HAVE COMMENTS ON THE DIAS ABOUT NOT CREATING IT WITHIN THE WATERFRONT, AND THERE'S BEEN A COUNCIL ACTION TO INVEST WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE FLOW INTO THE GENERAL FUND AS DOLLARS THAT WE'RE NOW GOING TO BE INVESTING, UM, TO CREATE, TO CREATE AND HELP BUILD OUT A PLAN THAT IS NOT EVEN GOING TO CREATE HOUSING FOR ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE IN THIS PART OF TOWN.

IT'S GOING TO BE LUXURY.

NOW WE'RE INVESTING DOLLARS AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AN AREA THAT'S PROBABLY JUST GOING TO HAVE HIGH DOLLAR LUXURY HOUSING EXCEPT FOR WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE ON ONE ON ONE TEXAS, WHICH WERE THESE DOLLARS APPLICABLE.

UM, COULD BE INVESTED THERE AT LEAST.

TRIGGER LANGUAGE THAT, UH, THE JURY TOOK US THROUGH BEFORE IN, UH, PART 12.

VERY UNFORTUNATE.

AND I THINK YOU, I'M SORRY, WHAT MOTION? RIGHT, SO, SO MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO THAT HAS THAT LANGUAGE, AND I AGREE WITH YOU COUNCIL MATO, THAT STUFF MIGHT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGREEMENTS.

WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT HERE TODAY AS PART OF THIS BUD ANALYSIS.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO NOW.

THERE, THERE, WHICH I THINK WE JUST DID.

YOU'VE ONLY GOT A PIECE OF IT AND YOU NEED A SECOND.

OKAY, LET'S DO IT AGAIN.

MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO.

SOMEONE 'EM WANNA MOVE.

MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO.

COUNCIL POOL MOVES THAT MOTION.

THE WHOLE THING, THEIR SECOND TO THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, UH, FUENTES SECONDS.

THAT MOTION.

THIS, UH, IS THE ONE THAT SAYS 23 MILLION.

IT HAS THE CRITERIA TO DO IT.

IT HAS THE

[11:20:01]

UH, UH, E AND IT TAKES OUT THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WERE THE OTHER TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF FUNDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE.

AND IT NEEDS TO BE, THIS IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE VOTED ON BEFORE I, WE VOTED ON THE FIRST HALF OF IT.

WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THE TRIGGER PART OF IT.

SO THE FIRST HALF OF IT, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER AND SUGGESTING WE VOTE ON IT AGAIN.

ARE WE VOTING ON WE'RE GONNA VOTE, WE'RE GONNA VOTE, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE WHOLE THING.

WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO AND MOVED IN SECOND.

THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE.

SO MAYOR, I HAVE A I'LL BE, SHOULD BE HANDING OUT RIGHT NOW.

UM, YOU ASKED FOR THE, UH, PRINTED OUT OF WHAT THE LANGUAGE I SPOKE OF EARLIER FOR THE TRIGGER LANGUAGE.

WE REFINED IT A LITTLE BIT.

WE'RE GONNA HAND IT OUT RIGHT NOW.

FOR SECTION 12.

SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE, IT'S NOT THE TRIGGER LANGUAGE THAT'S SHOWN HERE ON 12, IT'S WHAT'S BEING HANDED OUT NOW? YES.

IT'S WHAT BEING HANDED OUT NOW, WE, WE, WHAT I SPOKE TO EARLIER, RIGHT NOW, THE VERSION I HAVE, WELL, TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC FACILITIES CONTRACT.

SO I READ SOME LANGUAGE EARLIER.

WE REPLACE THAT AND THAT'S BEING HANDED OUT RIGHT NOW.

IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT.

IT'S THE, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PART 12 E.

AND THE MOTION SHEET SAYS C BY ACCIDENT.

SO, ALL RIGHT.

SO, SO JERRY IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO TO REPLACE PART 1212 E.

WHAT'S BEEN HANDED OUT TO IS SAYS SEE, BUT THAT REALLY, WHAT SHOULD HAND OUT TO SHOULD SAY E I'M SORRY, THAT WAS THE TYPO.

YEAH, WE'RE FACING, WE GET IT AT THIS END OF THE DIAS.

SO WE CAN'T, NO, HE'S JUST CHANGING.

WE NEED, HE'S CHANGING THE, WE'RE GETTING THREE MORE COPIES.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO JURY'S AND TRISHA'S AMENDMENT CHANGING THE TRIGGER? I HAVEN'T READ IT CUZ WE DON'T HAVE IT AT THIS END OF THE DIAS.

ARE THERE MORE COPIES OF THAT COMING? WHERE IS THAT COMING? THE LANDOWNER SHALL PAY 23.2 MILLION UPON THE EARLIER OF ONE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF LANDOWNER EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CONSTRUCT THE BAR SPRINGS ROAD EXTENSION.

OR IS AMENDED AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES NECESSARY FOR THESE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OR THE CITY DEDICATE FUNDS TO REIMBURSE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS? THESE IMPROVEMENTS MAY INCLUDE ANY RELATED ROAD UTILITIES RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S THE TRIGGER.

ANYBODY HAVE PROBLEM WITH LEGALS PUTTING IT IN.

RICHARD, THERE'S ONE PIECE OF THAT.

THE CHANGE SINCE WE ALL DISCUSSED THAT AND THAT IS THE TRIGGER WAS THE CITY START CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE FACILITIES AND THAT CHANGE TO NOW THE CITY IS ALLOCATING MONEY AND IT HAS A MAY INSTEAD OF A SHALL.

AND I CAN'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY ALLOCATES MONEY FOR A SIDEWALK AND THEN ASKS ME FOR MY 23 MILLION.

SO THAT MAY AT THE END SHOULD BE SHALL AND THEN WE'RE GOOD.

OH, IS THAT RIGHT? THINK IT'S MEANT TO REIMBURSE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE WE'RE FINE WITH YOU.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

WE'RE FINE WITH THEM MAYOR.

OKAY, SO IN THAT LAST SENTENCE, THE MAY BECOME SHALL NOW TRISH, WHEN WHEN THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS WERE ON THIS, THERE WAS ONE, IF THERE'S AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SPENDING OF THE FUNDS THAT'S EXECUTED, THEN THAT TRIGGERS IT.

WE ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION WHERE WE HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS READY FOR THEM TO EXECUTE IT AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO EXECUTE IT, UH, IN THE CITY THEN BEGAN THE CONSTRUCTION.

SO THE SECOND CHOICE WAS THE CITY DOES COMMENCES THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE IMPROVEMENTS.

MM-HMM .

AND THEN THE THIRD ONE THAT I THINK YOU'VE ADDED HERE, ROMAN NUMERAL NUMBER TWO IS THE CITY DEDICATES FUNDS TO REIMBURSE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

IT DEDICATES THE FUNDS.

RIGHT? SO CAN WE ADD AROMA NUMERAL THREE THAT, THAT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL OPTION, WHICH IS UH, WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, WHICH IS YOU WANNA USE THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, OF CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS OR I COMMENCES CONSTRUCTION THEREOF I THINK IS WHAT IT WOULD SAY CUZ WE'VE DESCRIBED IT ABOVE OR THREE.

UH, THE CITY COMMENCES CONSTRUCTION THEREOF.

DOES THAT WORK? YES.

THAT AMENDMENT BEING INCLUDED? HEARING DONE THAT AMENDMENTS INCLUDED TA I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO

[11:25:01]

SINCE THIS HAS THEM PAYING THE MONEY TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, IF THEY WERE PAYING IT TO, MAY IT TO THE FOUNDATION, WOULD THEY GET A TAX DEDUCTION THAT THEY COULD THEN PROVIDE US MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? MANDY SAYS NO, , I JUST WANNA UM, THEY VERY WELL COULD I ASSUME THEY WOULD GET A TAX DEDUCTION? NO, THEY WALTER'S SAYING NO.

UM, OKAY.

BUT THE STA STRONG STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO IDENTIFY A PROJECT OR AN ENTITY BUT PUT IT INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND SO THAT WE CAN ADMINISTER IT ACCORDING TO THE POLICY THAT Y'ALL LAID OUT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I WAS, I WAS JUST, I WOULD, I WAS JUST ASKING WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS MONEY IF THERE WAS A WAY TO STRUCTURE IT, UM, THAT WAY AND, BUT I GUESS THEY CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN AMEND IT IF WE NEED TO.

THAT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS, THEN EVERYBODY WOULD AMEND IT CUZ EVERYBODY DOES BETTER.

SO WE HAVE NOW MOTION SHEET NUMBER TWO AS AMENDED.

UH, PART E WAS FIXED.

UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED, UH, THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSTAINS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS OFF THE DI THE OTHERS VOTING, I'M SORRY.

COUNCIL MEMBER VE OFF THE DIAS.

THE OTHERS VOTING YES AS AMENDMENT PASSES.

WE'VE NOW HANDLED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT WORK.

THE, UM, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED.

WE'VE DONE THE UH, ALTAR, WE'VE DONE THE TSDR, HAVEN'T DONE, WE'VE DONE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

LET'S LOOK AT THE BONUS PROVISION.

THE BONUS PROVISION HAS BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU COLLEAGUES.

UM, IT WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU.

IT HAS MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2, IS THAT THE CORRECT ONE MOTION SHEET.

ONE V2.

UH, THE BONUS AREA, UM, IT'S PART 20.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY, I HAVE TWO THAT SAY MOTION ONE V2 AND ONE HAS THE STRICKEN LANGUAGE AND ONE HAS AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS LANGUAGE.

MOTION SHEET ONE V2.

IT'S THE ONE THAT HAS, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

WHAT'S BEEN POSTED NOW THAT ONE OF THE ONE THAT HAS, UH, 10% OF BUILT AREA ABOVE 3.5 MILLION IS ACTUALLY THE OPERATIVE ONE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THAT, IF YOU TAKE THAT V2 AT THE TOP AND TURN THAT INTO V3, THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S IT SHOULD BE.

SO MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V2 THAT HAS THE 10% OF BUILT AREAS.

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SHOULD REALLY BE MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE V3.

AND THAT HAS BEEN RETYPED WITH MOTION SHEET V3 AND THAT'S BEEN POSTED NOW AND SENT OUT.

ALL RIGHT, SO IS THIS THE LANGUAGE WE WANTED TO DO THAT AFFECTS THE BONUS AREA? UM, YES MAYOR, IT TRIES TO TAKE THE ELEMENTS OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND APPLY IT TO THE, UH, TO THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, IN THE BONUS AREA.

SO WHAT THIS DOES, COLLEAGUES, WE, IT WAS AN ISSUE WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY.

ARE WE USING THE AFFORDABILITY STANDARDS OF DOWNTOWN? UH, BONUS PLAN AS WE HAD SAID IN THE RESOLUTION, WE PASSED COUNTS OF OUR KITCHEN.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, WHEN READING THIS TOGETHER WITH WHAT WE JUST PASSED, WHEN IT SAYS, UM, ALTERNATIVELY A FEE IN LIE MAY BE PAID, UH, FOR THE SAME, THAT FEE IN LU WOULD HAVE TO GO TOWARDS 4 22 BECAUSE THIS LANGUAGE SAYS BUILD ON SITE, WHICH I'M FINE WITH OR UM, OR UM, A FEE IN LIE.

BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THAT FEE IN LIE WOULD GO TOWARDS 4 22 CUZ THAT'S WHAT WE JUST PASSED.

GOES SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE GIVE US THE ELECTION TO LEASE THE UNITS FOR THE BONUS SQUARE FOR THE BONUS PROGRAM FOR THE FEE USING THE FEE AND LIE DOLLARS.

CAN WE ADD, CAN, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? YEAH.

SO UNDER THE, USING THE VMU AS AN EXAMPLE, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN CODE THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY ELECTS TO SPEND MONEY IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE WOULD USE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FEE AND LU UNDER THE BONUS PROGRAM AND THE DIRECTION IS TO SPEND THAT AT 4 22 OR IF STAFF

[11:30:01]

SO IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FEE AND LIE THAT FEE AND LOO MONEY WOULD BE THE CITY COULD ELECT TO USE THAT MONEY IN 4 22.

SO TALK TO ME, PART OF THIS BONUS MONEY MAY NOT COME UNTIL THE TAIL END OF THE PROJECT SAY OKAY, SO THIS COULD BE FIVE, 10 YEARS FROM NOW.

EXACTLY.

I'M NOT SURE IF 4 22 WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE IN FIVE TO 10 YEARS.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO PUT IT IN LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YEAH, I WAS AVAILABLE OR SOMETHING.

YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO TO TO PROTECT IT FROM THE FEE AND LU AND SPEND SOMEPLACE.

CUZ WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARAMETERS HERE FOR THIS FEE AND LUBE.

AND I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T JUST GONNA GO INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND BE SPENT SOMEPLACE THAT WASN'T EVEN ANYWHERE NEAR THIS.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YES.

SO WE COULD JUST SAY FIRST PRIORITY WOULD BE 4 22 IF AVAILABLE AND IF, OR MAYBE THE ELECTION LANGUAGE THAT, THAT TRISH IS TALKING ABOUT YOU, YOU COULD, YOU COULD HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE CITY MAY ELECT TO USE THE MONEY AT 4 22 OR THE CITY CAN USE IT WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OR SERVICE AREA, WHATEVER THE, THE AREAS THAT YOU WANNA COVER.

I WOULD, I WOULD RATHER SAY SHELL ELECT TO USE 4 22 IF IT'S AVAILABLE.

USE 4 22 IF IT'S AVAILABLE.

SECOND IF NOT AVAILABLE THEN USE THE CRITERIA WE SET FOR, UM, THE AMENDMENT WE JUST PASSED SO THAT WAY IT, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, YOU COULD DO IT EITHER ONSITE, YOU COULD DO IT IN LIEU.

IF YOU'RE DOING IN LIEU, YOU WOULD DO 4 22 IF AVAILABLE AND IF NOT THEN YOU WOULD DEFAULT TO THE OTHER.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? RIGHT.

ONSITE.

AND IF HE IN LIE, ALTERNATIVELY A FEE IN LIE COULD BE PAID.

AND THE FIRST PRIORITY IS 4 22 IF AVAILABLE.

IF NOT AVAILABLE, THEN THE PREFERENCES USING THE SAME CRITERIA THAT WE JUST HAD AND THE ONE WE PASSED WITHIN A MILE AND A QUARTER DEEPLY AFFORDABLE.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE SAME.

THE WORD PRIORITY IS HELPFUL FOR US.

THE SAME PRIORITY.

BE REQUIRED WOULD BE THE, THE 10% BUILT AREA UP TO 3.5 MILLION.

MAYOR PRO 10.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THE BONUS BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING THE POTENTIAL TO 200 FEET OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT IF THEY GO ABOVE THE HEIGHT THAT IT'S ALLOWED WHETHER THEY HAVE TO START PAYING THE BONUS OR IF THIS IS BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ACROSS THE PUT.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN INTENTION.

I THINK YOUR INTENTION WAS IF THEY WERE GOING ABOVE THE, THE, THE, THE HEIGHT LIMIT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND PROVIDING RIGHT.

THEY CAN ONLY GO ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT.

I'M NOT SURE BREEDS THAT WAY.

IT, IT SORT OF SAYS THAT THEY CAN DO THAT IF, YOU KNOW, THEY PROVIDE 10% OF IT ABOVE THE 3.5 MILLION.

BUT IF THEY, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN THE FIRST BUILDING, IF THEY WENT ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO BE PAYING FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THAT HEIGHT ABOVE THE CURRENT LEVELS.

AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT.

SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PART 20 BONUS AREA, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE IS TIED TO THE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.

IS IT? DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO IF THEY DON'T, IF THE HEIGHT, IF THEY, IN THE VERY FIRST BUILDING, IF THEY CHOOSE TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT MAXIMIZES THE HEIGHT, SO IT'S WHAT'S IN THE POD DRAFT NOW PLUS 200 FEET.

THEY WOULDN'T BE AT 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND SO THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THE BONUS BUT THEY WOULD GET THE HEIGHT.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE ARE, WE ARE BUSTING WHAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT HAD SAID IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND OTHER THINGS HERE QUITE A BIT.

I I THINK YOUR INTENTION WAS NOT TO DO THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.

SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT IF THEY GO ABOVE 200 FEET, THEY'RE DOING IT ASSOCIATED WITH THE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.

AND IF THEY GO ABOVE 3.5 AND IF THEY GO ABOVE MILLION, THEY CAN'T GO ABOVE 3.5 AND THEY CAN'T GO ABOVE 200 EXTRA FEET UNLESS, SO TO BE CLEAR.

SO, BUT THEY'RE NOT, IF THEY BUILD ONE BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS, THAT GETS THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, 10% OF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT BONUS AREA WOULD

[11:35:01]

SO IF THEY SPREAD IT ACROSS SEVERAL BUILDINGS ONCE THEY HIT 3.5, I'M SORRY.

NO, CUZ THEY HAVE THREE POINT, SORRY.

WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY, AS THEY, SO WE WOULDN'T COUNT THE INITIAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THE PART UP TO THE 200 IF THEY HAVEN'T HIT 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

SO IF THEY, ANYTHING ABOVE THAT HEIGHT IS SUBJECT TO THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

ANYTHING ABOVE 200 FEET IS SUBJECT TO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF THREE AND A HALF MILLION FEET IS SUBJECT TO THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

WHETHER THEY GO ADDITIONAL, THE GREATER OR NOT, WHETHER THEY GO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OR NOT.

IF THEY GO ABOVE THREE AND A HALF FEET, THE EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SUBJECT TO AFFORDABILITY.

IF THEY GO ABOVE 200 FEET, IF THEY GO ABOVE THE BASE HEIGHT UP TO 200 FEET, UH, THAT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CUMULATIVE THOUGH.

SO LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU WERE LIKE IF YOU, YOU DON'T GET CHARGED TWICE, YOU DON'T GET CHARGED TWICE FOR THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT RIGHT.

BUT IT, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THE EXTRA HEIGHT IN THE FIRST BUILDING BEFORE YOU HIT 3.5 MILLION AND NOT PAY THE CMO AGREED FOR THE HOUSING.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONCE, ONCE THEY BUILD OUT 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET, ANY OF THESE, THEY EITHER CAN'T GO ABOVE 200 ANYMORE AND YOU STOP AND WE GIVE IT ON EACH BUILDING WITHIN THAT 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

NO, THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

IF THEY EVER GO ABOVE THEIR BASE HEIGHT MM-HMM.

ANYTHING ABOVE THEIR BASE HEIGHT IS SUBJECT TO AFFORDABILITY.

PERIOD.

IF THEY GO ABOVE THEIR BASE HEIGHT, SUBJECT TO AFFORDABILITY.

SECOND, IF THEY GO ABOVE THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET, WHETHER THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OR NOT, IT'S SUBJECT TO AFFORDABILITY.

MAYOR, IF I MAY, AND I HATE TO COMPLICATE THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT COULD I ADD A THIRD ONE THAT WOULD SAY ABOVE 1,378 UNITS, UM, THAT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING THAT FLOOR PROBLEM? WELL HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

CAUSE I THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION WE HAD BEFORE.

THEY HAVE 1,378 UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW.

IT ALSO HAS THEM DOING A HOTEL.

IF THEY DECIDE IN THE FUTURE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE HOTEL.

SO THEIR NUMBER OF UNITS GOES UP ABOVE 1,378 UNITS THAT SAY 1500 UNITS MM-HMM.

THEY COULD DO THAT UNDER THEIR POD.

AND SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS DO WE WANNA ADD THAT AS BONUS BECAUSE THE 23 MILLION FIGURE WAS DERIVED FROM THE 1378.

NO, THE 23 MILLION FIGURE NEEDS TO BE DRAFTED INTO THIS.

SO THAT, THAT NUMBER EVERYWHERE YOU SEE 23 MILLION, IT NEEDS TO SAY 23 MILLION PARENTHESES.

I THINK HE'S SAYING THAT, THAT THE 1378 INCLUDES THE 70 AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WE'VE NOW, THAT ARE OFFSITE.

AND SO NOW THEY'RE GETTING TO BUILD THOSE UNITS ON SITE.

AND WHAT WHAT I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT IF WHAT, WHAT THE SCENARIO I'M TRYING TO AVOID IS IF THE 1378, I'M SORRY THE 23 MILLION IS BASED UPON THE 4% OF THE 1378 NUMBER.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE 23 MILLION.

AND YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY THERE'S A SCENARIO WHERE THEY COULD PAY THE 23 MILLION CHECK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER BASED UPON THE TRIGGER MECHANISM THAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED.

IF IN THE FUTURE THEY DECIDE TO BUILD MORE THAN 1,378 UNITS, THEN THEY WOULD OWE US ADDITIONAL MONEY BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PAID US THE 23 MILLION.

BUT WE WOULD SAY THAT THOSE ARE, THAT'S MORE THAN WHAT WAS PRESUMED IN THE 23 MILLION.

AND WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT CAN WE ADD, MAKE 1378 A PART OF THE BONUS PROVISION? SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF THEY GO FROM 1,378 UNITS TO 1500 UNITS MM-HMM.

BECAUSE THEY DECIDE NOT TO DO A HOTEL MM-HMM.

, THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY BONUS.

BUT WE ALSO WOULDN'T GET ANY, WE WOULDN'T GET ANY BECAUSE WE WERE SAYING EARLIER THAT THAT THEIR OBLIGATION FOR 23 MILLION IS JUST A FLOOR.

IT COULD GO UP IF THEY DECIDE TO BUILD MORE THAN 1,378 UNITS.

SO THE WAY IT IS STRUCTURED RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD NOT GET THE ADDITIONAL MONEY.

YOU NEED THE BONUS PROGRAM TO GET ABOVE 1378.

SO IF IT, IF THEY BUILD THE 1500 BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S CRAFTED, RIGHT.

THE CALCULATION THAT THEY DID ASSUMES 1378.

BUT THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WE, I MADE A NOTE WE HAVE TO DOUBLE BACK TO CUZ I THOUGHT OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION SAID THAT 23 MILLION IS JUST THE FLOOR.

FORGET BONUSES.

20, THEY, IF THEY DON'T BUILD A HOTEL AND THEY DECIDE TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL IN THAT SPACE, THEIR OBLIGATION IS NO LONGER 23 MILLION.

IT'S WHATEVER IT IS ABOVE 23 MILLION BASED ON THE BASE PUT

[11:40:01]

PROVISIONS.

SO MAYOR I, I AGREE THAT 23 MILLION IS A FLOOR.

I THINK WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO DO IS TO CREATE THE MECHANISM TO GO, TO GO ABOVE THE FLOOR IF THEY GO ABOVE THAT NUMBER OF UNITS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T INCREASE OVER THREE AND HALF.

NO, THERE'S SQUARE FEET.

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE POD.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE THREE OPTIONS AS YOU SPOKE ABOUT IN THE POD, RIGHT? SO THEY DON'T GO ABOVE THREE AND A HALF MILLION MM-HMM.

, AND THEY DON'T GO ABOVE THEIR BASE HEIGHTS.

, BUT THEY HAVE MORE THAN 1300 UNITS THEN THEY'D HAVE TO PAY FOR, FOR THOSE UNITS, THEY'D HAVE TO PAY THE, THE, THE BONUS.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE BONUS.

THEY PAY, HAVE TO PAY THE, THE AFFORDABILITY, THE NON BONUS AFFORDABILITY PROVISIONS, THE POD PROVISIONS.

, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT, OH, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, TALKING ABOUT ORIGINAL.

SO 4%.

THERE'S TWO SCENARIOS.

WE, WE, WE NEED THAT AMENDMENT TILL TOO.

THEY COULD DECIDE NOT TO EXERCISE ANY BONUS BASELINE, WHICH IS TOPIC.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BEEN IN, IN MEETINGS WHILE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT ON THE, ON THE DAS POSSIBLE.

BUT, BUT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING THAT AT BEGINNING.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH US DOING THAT? WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT SAYING WAS WE BASED EVERYTHING ON 23 MILLION MM-HMM.

, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT IF THEY, THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD MORE THAN 23, MORE THAN WHATEVER THOSE UNITS, NUMBER OF UNITS WERE, UH, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THEY COULD BUILD MORE UNITS IF THEY WANTED TO.

AND IF THEY DID, THEY, THEY OWE MORE, THEY OWE MORE MONEY, THEY'RE GONNA OWE MORE PARK FEES, THEY'RE GONNA OWE MORE.

SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A STANDARD FOR THE PARK FEES.

WE DO NOT HAVE A STANDARD TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT ADDITIONAL FEE WOULD BE.

WE DO FOR THOSE UNITS.

YEAH, YOU DID THAT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT WOULD APPLY THE STANDARD HU ORDINANCE IF YOU WILL.

THE POD PART OF THE CODE WOULD APPLY.

GOTCHA.

AND CORRECT MAYOR.

AND JUST TO CATCH THEM UP, WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION EARLIER, MANDY INDICATED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PER UNIT, SOMETHING LIKE FOUR 18 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE USED TO CALCULATE THE ADDITIONAL.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, JERRY? I'M SORRY, CONSTABLE TO CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? SO, SO WE DO KNOW THAT NUMBER RIGHT? THAT WE, WE KNOW THE NUMBER THAT THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S 23.1 MILLION DIVIDED BY 1,478 UNITS.

78, YEAH.

AND THAT WAS ABOUT 500,000.

SO, SO IF THEY GO ABOVE 1,478 UNITS, STILL MAINTAINING THEIR HEIGHTS, STILL MAINTAINING THEIR THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY MORE IN PARKS.

THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY MORE IN, IN, IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION.

AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE RATIO OF 23.1 TO 1478.

IT WOULD BE.

YOU SAY IT WOULD BE THE SAME 10 AND 80 NUMBER? YES.

AND SO THAT'S WITHIN THE REGULAR PUTT.

THE BONUS PROVISION SAYS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT, IF YOU GO ABOVE THREE AND A HALF MILLION TOTAL SQUARE FEET , OR IF YOU GO ABOVE BASE HEIGHT IN THE POD.

WHICH BY THE WAY IS CAPPED AT NO GREATER THAN 200 FEET.

BUT IF YOU GO ABOVE THE BASE HEIGHT, THEN ANYTHING THAT YOU BUILD ABOVE THREE AND A HALF FEET OR ANYTHING THAT YOU BUILD HIGHER THAN THE BASE HEIGHT IS SUBJECT TO THIS BONUS.

SO I SEE I SAY THE BONUS SAME HERE ABOVE EXHIBIT D.

SO IT WOULD BE 200.

IT BE ANYTHING ABOVE THE HEIGHTS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE PUT ORDINANCE, WHICH, OKAY.

SO, SO, SO MAYBE WHAT THAT MEANS TO BE IS, AND OR INSTEAD OF AN END WHERE, WHERE IN ORDER THE CONCEPT HERE IN, IN, IN THAT PART 20 SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE THEM GOING BACK TO, TO MAYOR PRO TE'S INITIAL QUESTION, WHERE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT IF THEY GO ABOVE THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET OR IF THEY GO ABOVE BASE HEIGHTS, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE BONUS PROVISION.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD SAY.

ANYWHERE NEAR THE FOUR 18 COST.

I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION.

HANG ON A SECOND.

WHICH WAS, IT'S RELATED TO THIS OKAY THOUGH, BECAUSE IT SAYS AS PER THE FEE SCHEDULE AT THE ISSUE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

UM, RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK ANY OF OUR BONUS PROGRAMS ARE ANYWHERE NEAR FOUR 18 ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT, 418,000.

SO JUST WANNA PUT A PIN IN THAT, THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

AND THEN IT SAYS, AS PER THE FEE SCHEDULE AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH PRESUMABLY WAS FOR LIKE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, BUT I JUST WANNA FLAG THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A BONUS THAT'S

[11:45:01]

AND SO WE SHOULD JUST DECIDE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THAT.

WE MAY NOT, BUT I WANTED, I WANTED TO TO FLAG THAT.

AND THEN IF WE DID IT EARLIER TIED TO THE FOUR 18, IF WE WERE UPDATING OUR FEE SCHEDULE AND THEY TOOK 20 YEARS TO BUILD THIS OUT, WOULD WE WANT IT TO BE TIED TO THE FOUR 18 OR THE NEW SCHEDULE, I THINK DRAFTED TO DO WHICHEVER ONE IS HIGH.

WE, WE'VE DRAFTED IT TO TIE IT TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS WHAT THE RESOLUTION ASKED US TO DO.

WE COULD TIE IT TO THE FOUR 18.

MY SUGGESTION IS, SAY THE EARLIER ONE THOUGH, I THINK THAT CREATES AN ISSUE FOR, RIGHT.

I THINK THE FOUR 18 WAS, WAS TIED MORE TO WHAT WAS THE AVAILABLE DOLLARS IN THE PROJECT THAT WE COULD GET, WE COULD SPEND ON PARKLAND, WE COULD SPEND ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF WE DID MORE ON PARKS THAN THE FOUR 18 NUMBER WOULD GO DOWN.

IF WE DID THE LESS, IT'S JUST THE LEVEL OF EXTRACTION.

I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS BEING USED.

LIKE WHEN THEY SAID THAT IF THEY DO MORE UNITS, THEY HAVE TO PAY MORE.

AT WHAT POINT IS IT FOUR 18 VERSUS WHAT'S IN THE FEE SCHEDULE? SO LIKE HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS WHEN, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S RELATED TO THIS SECTION, BUT IT'S OFF OF THAT CASE.

THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE THREE AND A HALF MILLION IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, IS TREATED AS ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNDER THREE AND A HALF MILLION.

SO IT HAS TO GIVE A, A, A PROPORTIONATE CONTRIBUTION.

THE BONUS ON TOP OF THAT IS GOING TO BE CALCULATED CONSISTENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

MAYOR, CAN I CLARIFY? YES.

UM, SO FOR THE BONUS AREA, BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING FOR THE DEVELOP THE DEVELOPMENT TO EITHER FOR A BUILDING TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE TO EXCEED 3.5 SQUARE MILLION SQUARE FEET, TO GET THAT, YOU HAVE TO GIVE US THE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THIS SOMEWHAT TO, TO REFLECT THAT SO THAT IT'S BASICALLY YOUR, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US THE BONUS IF YOU HIT ONE OR THE OTHER OF THOSE STANDARDS.

AND THAT WAY WE CAN APPLY IT TO YOUR POINT, MARY, TO EACH BUILDING.

AND THEN IT'S NOT, I MEAN, IF ON THE FIRST BUILDING THEY DO ABOVE, THEY DO, THEY DO THE EXTRA 200 FEET AND THEN ON THE FOURTH BUILDING THEY HIT 3.5 MILLION.

I DON'T THINK YOU COUNT IN THAT TOTAL.

THE PART THAT'S ABOVE, THAT'S THAT 200 FEET CUZ THEY'VE ALREADY PAID IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

YES, YES.

THE BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE THREE AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET KA TOVO, UM, MAYOR PERIM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE GOT A QUESTION, AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING OR ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT.

WHEN, WHAT FEES ARE WE GOING TO USE TO CALCULATE THIS? I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEES WOULD BE THE MOST RECENT AT THE TIME OF, AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH.

NOT FIXED IN TIME AS OF TODAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ADDED TO IT, UH, SAID THAT IT WOULD BE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE IN EFFECT IN THE FEE SCHEDULE AT THE TIME OF A CO FOR THE BUILDING.

AND THEN I WANTED TO ASK OUR STAFF BACK TO THE, BACK TO THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE EXISTING PUT BEFORE YOU GETS TO THE BONUS AREA.

UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT AS A DOLLAR FIGURE, A PRORATED, UH, PRORATED INCREASE BASED ON THE DOLLAR FIGURE THAT'S ASSIGNED TO EACH UNIT.

I WANTED TO ASK OUR HOUSING STAFF IF IT MAKES BETTER SENSE TO HAVE THAT BE A SQUARE FOOTAGE IN CASE WE END UP IN THAT BONUS AREA HAVING JUST EXTREMELY OVER LARGE PENTHOUSES AND THINGS, WHICH, WHICH MAY VERY WELL BE THE CASE IF YOU'RE GOING UP THAT HIGH, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE VERY, YOU KNOW, FEWER UNITS WITH AN INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT, HOW CAN WE ENSURE REALLY THE BEST, UM, THE MOST ACCURATE CALCULATION OF WHAT THAT BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE I WILL HAVE RESULTS IN, IN TO LAW ABOUT THAT.

BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD MIRROR WHAT WE DO WITH OUR DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS IN TERMS OF EITHER LIKE FOR LIKE UNITS OR SOME SORT OF PROVISION AROUND SIZING.

I'M SORRY, I MIXED, I MIXED THINGS UP.

IF THEY CHANGED THE HOTEL TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

DIRECT THAT DIRECT THAT THE FORMULA THAT YOU USE IS ACTUALLY ONE BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR ANY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL BEYOND WHAT IS BEYOND THAT 1387 OUTSIDE THE BONUS AREA THAT THE MAYOR'S TALKING ABOUT, LIKE PUT ASIDE THE BONUS AREA, BUT THEY CHANGE A HOTEL TO A CONDO DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT INCREASED RESIDENTIAL ENDS UP BEING MUCH LARGER UNITS AND YOU'RE USING THE SAME FORMULA AND THE FORMULA IS BASED STRICTLY ON THE PER UNIT COST RATHER THAN A SQUARE FOOTAGE COST.

SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE INSTEAD

[11:50:01]

UM, SHOULD WE REALLY BE LOOKING JUST AT A UNIT, A PER UNIT COST AS THE FORMULA FOR FIGURING OUT THE INCREASED AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION? OR WOULD IT MAKE BETTER SENSE TO HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE? I NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE EPS STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED IN TERMS OF THE METHODOLOGY.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A PER UNIT AND THERE WERE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THE UNIT SIZE.

IF YOU GIVE ME SURE.

BECAUSE IF THE UNIT SIZE, YOU KNOW, IF THE UNIT SIZE IN THAT NEW BUILDING IS THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF THE UNIT SIZE IN THE ONES THAT, THAT WERE, THAT EPS EVALUATED, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC.

I'M HAVING THE WEIRDEST FLASHBACK OF BEING OVER THERE LISTENING TO A CONVERSATION THAT BRISA MCCRACKEN AND MIKE MARTINEZ WERE HAVING ARGUING JUST THIS POINT, WHETHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS SHOULD BE UNIT BASED OR SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED.

BUT, BUT IT IS, IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, RIGHT? BECAUSE AND OURS DO VARY.

SO LET ME GO PULL UP THE EPS STUDY AND I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION.

OKAY, SO SUBJECT TO THAT POINT, UH, ARE WE OKAY WITH MOTION SHEET ONE V3 SUBJECT TO THAT POINT? YEAH, MAY OR MAY I JUST MAKE THE DIRECTION THAT WE COME UP WITH A SQUARE FOOTAGE FORMULA.

LET'S LET HER COME BACK AND TELL US WHAT HER THINKING IS ON THAT WHEN SHE CHECKS.

BUT LET'S VOTE ON MOTION SHEET ONE V3 SUBJECT TO THAT POINT ON UNIT OR WHATEVER.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION COUNCIL? 30 SECONDS THAT THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR AND I JUST WANNA BE CLARIFY THAT IT INCLUDES THE CHANGES, WHAT THE CHANGE AND IT INCLUDES THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED.

THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THE CHANGES WE JUST DISCUSSED, MEANING THE ADDING THE HEIGHT, IT WAS, IT WAS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN HEIGHT IF YOU WENT ABOVE THREE AND A HALF FEET, IT INCLUDES THE CHANGES.

HOW ABOUT REITS REINVEST FIRST IN 4 22? IF IT'S AVAILABLE, IF NOT, YEAH.

UH, THEN THE SAME CRITERIA WE USE WITH RESPECT TO PROXIMITY AND THE, LIKE, THOSE BE THE, THE PRIORITIES THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL.

WELL, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAD TO BE OFF FOR PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE SHE KNOWS THAT WE ADJUSTED THIS PART SO THAT IT'S ONSITE OR IF IT'S OFFSITE.

4 22 IS THE FIRST PRIORITY.

AND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE LANGUAGE JUST SAYS FEE AND LOON.

SO WE WANTED TO FIX THAT.

DID DURING THAT PERIOD, DID ANYBODY ASK THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HONOR THAT OFFER BEYOND, BEYOND THIS? THAT'S WHY WE SAID IF AVAILABLE, WE DIDN'T ASK.

CAUSE WE IT COULD BE FIVE, 10 YEARS FROM NOW COULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP.

ITS REALLY, IT'S REALLY, WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, IT'S A WISHFUL HOPE, BUT OKAY.

THERE'S SOME STUFF THEY JUST COULDN'T GUARANTEE.

THOSE OPPOSED, THOSE ABSTAINING.

THOSE A FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MAYOR PRO TA COMES OVER.

TOVO ABSTAIN.

THE OTHERS VOTING I WITH, UH, HOPPER MADISON OFF OF THE DA RIGHT? SHE, I AND SHE VOTES THERE.

CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? YEP.

YOU VOTING? YES.

MY APOLOGIES.

I I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS STILL OFF.

I, I WAS TRYING TO SPARE OUT MY SNEEZY FACE.

UM, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE MY CAMERA WAS STILL OFF.

I WAS AN EYE.

OKAY, SO IT PASSES WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, SO THAT GETS US OUT OF THE BONUS PERIOD.

SUBJECT ONLY TO THE UNIT VERSUS OTHER CONVERSATION.

UM, I THINK WE'VE HANDLED EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE HOTEL.

IS THAT CORRECT? SAID, UH, UH, HAVE WE ADDRESSED THE, UH, PUBLIC FUNDING ISSUE? OH YES.

CATHY'S UH, DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE ON, UH, COUNCIL TOVO IS PUBLIC FUNDING QUESTION.

YOU DO MA'AM.

MAYOR, WHILE WE'RE GETTING ADJUSTED, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? UM, JUST SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THE REST OF THE DAY LOOKING LIKE? IT'S 1254 AND I THINK THE MEAT OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS TODAY HAVEN'T BEEN TAKEN UP YET.

I'M, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT WHAT I HAD PLANNED LOGISTICALLY IS NOT GONNA SHAKE OUT AND BECAUSE I MADE OBLIGATIONS TO THE PEOPLE IN PORT ARTHUR THAT I PROMISED TO, YOU KNOW, BE A CERTAIN TIME AND ALL THAT, I'M REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO MAINTAIN MY OBLIGATIONS ALL THE WAY AROUND HERE

[11:55:01]

TODAY.

SO ARE, ARE WE, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT WE DON'T COVER EVERYTHING TODAY, IN YOUR OPINION? I THINK, I DON'T KNOW.

UM, I I, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE WE KNOW EXACTLY THE ANSWER.

I THINK THAT WE'VE GONE AROUND ON 55 AND 56 SO MANY TIMES THAT I SEE NOW MOTION SHEETS THAT I'M NOT SURE IT'S GONNA TAKE US LONG TO RESOLVE THOSE.

I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE VOTES.

UH, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN KIND OF RESOLVED.

UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, UM, UH, I STILL HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT YOUR BASE MOTION ON 36, SO I'M STILL NOT GONNA BE READY TO VOTE ON THAT TODAY CAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS OTHER STUFF THIS WHOLE TIME.

WHAT? OKAY.

IT'S, IT'S SUPER SHORT.

IT'S BEEN POSTED.

I MEAN, THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE LEFT IN IT HAVE BEEN POSTED ALMOST FOR, SO WE CAN GET TO A VOTE ON 36.

WE CAN GET THE VOTE, WE CAN WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

BUT I THINK IT'S, WE CAN TAKE IT, BUT WE NEED POSTPONE 36 OR WE'LL TAKE A QUICK VOTE ON 36 AND THAT GETS US THEN TO AUSTIN ENERGY AND I THINK THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT AND MAYBE THEY CAN COME BACK TO US WITH SOME GOOD NEWS THAT THAT MAKES US, I'D HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME THERE TOO.

KATHERINE KELLY, MAYOR, AFTER WE DISCUSS THIS, BEFORE WE GO ONTO THE NEXT TOPIC, IF I COULD HAVE JUST A FEW MOMENTS TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

I'M SORRY, WERE YOU SAYING POTENTIALLY TO POSTPONE 55 AND 56 OR? I DON'T DON THINK SO.

I THINK THAT WE'RE, I THINK THEY'RE TEED UP THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THEM PRETTY QUICKLY.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT STILL AT ISSUE ON THOSE.

SO WE HAVE LANGUAGES BEEN HANDED OUT TO US.

KATHY, DOES THIS LANGUAGE LOOK OKAY TO YOU? DOES IT LOOK OKAY TO THE APPLICANT? WAS THERE, WERE THERE PROBLEMS? ARE YOU OKAY? DOES THIS MEET YOUR INTENT? YOU GOTTA GIVE ME A RE GIVE ME A MINUTE TO READ IT.

LET'S SEE.

JUST SAY AND, AND THE APPLICANT WILL NOT GET PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ANYTHING THAT'S LISTED IN EXHIBIT R MM-HMM.

EVERYONE'S READING IT NOW.

ARE THERE MORE COPIES? CUZ WE DIDN'T SEEM TO GET A COPY DOWN HERE.

YOU DIDN'T GET A COPY OF IT? NO.

NEITHER CHITO OR I DID.

I MEAN, MAYOR, IT'S TOTALLY, TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

I HAVEN'T READ IT.

IT'S, UM, NO, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY IT ALL.

NO, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S ENTIRELY, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT EVERYBODY'S MOVING QUICKLY.

I THINK IF I BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

I'M NOT SURE THAT I HEARD CONCERNS.

I MEAN, I GUESS MAYBE WE HAD SOME CONCERNS FROM THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THERE.

BUT IT'S, BUT THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF YEAH.

ASSERTION THAT THE, THAT THE PUD IS EXCEPTIONAL TO WHAT COULD BE REQUIRED CREATED UNDER CONVENTIONAL ZONING.

AND I MEAN, IT'S A, SO I THINK THE ISSUE YESTERDAY, THE AMBIGUITY AND THE LANGUAGE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAD WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL AGREED WAS BEING PAID FOR BY THE TURS, BUT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS OTHERWISE REQUIRED IN A NORMAL NON PUD SITUATION REQUIRED TO BE BUILT BY THE CODE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TOURISTS STILL PAID FOR IT, THE PUBLIC FUNDS PAID FOR IT, THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO DISALLOW AND ANTICIPATED TE'S EXPENSE TO NO LONGER BE A TE'S EXPENSE BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS OTHERWISE REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE.

THAT SAID, WE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING AS BEING SUPERIOR, UH, THUS EN TITLING THE APPLICANT TO GET THINGS FROM THE CITY.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT WAS GONNA BE PAYING FOR THOSE THINGS, UH, AND NOT GETTING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THEM.

BECAUSE IF THE APPLICANT WASN'T PAYING FOR THOSE THINGS, IT WAS NO LONGER THE, THE DEAL BEING MADE.

YES, MAYOR.

UM, SO WE HAVE AN EXHIBIT R AND HAVING TROUBLE PULLING IT UP, UM, THAT WE NEED TO SHOW YOU.

BUT WHAT WE FOCUSED ON, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, IS WHAT ARE THE LANDOWNER'S OBLIGATIONS AND TRIED TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF WHAT THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS ARE BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T REGULATE THE CITY, IT REGULATES THE LANDOWNER.

SO WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHAT THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR AND THAT THOSE THINGS THAT HE, THAT THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IS PART OF THE SUPERIORITY ELEMENT THAT IS REQUIRED TO PASS A PUTT.

SO ISN'T IT, ISN'T IT WHAT WE WANNA SAY HERE? THIS JUST THE SECOND SENTENCE, DROP THE FIRST SENTENCE AND THE SECOND SENTENCE SAYS, THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE PUT IS SUPERIOR OCCURRING ENTITLEMENTS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR IN CONVENTIONAL ZONING BECAUSE THE LANDOWNERS FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY MEETING IS SHOWN EXHIBIT R.

AND ASSUMING THAT THAT EXHIBIT R, WHICH WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS THE LIST WE

[12:00:01]

OR WE COULD JUST SAY REAL SIMPLY THE APPLICANT'S NOT GONNA GET ANY PUBLIC FUNDING FOR WHAT'S LISTED IN EXHIBIT R MAYOR.

THE CONCERN THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS WAS ONE THAT BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE ARE MOST DISCUSSED, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE, WOULD NOT BE TURNING TO THE CITY FOR SUPPORT EITHER FROM THE TURS OR FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE FOR THINGS THAT THEY HAD PROPOSED THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO TO BE MEET CODE OR TO FULFILL SOME OF WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED.

AND, AND SO THAT'S NOT REALLY COVERED.

THAT'S NOT REALLY COVERED BY SAYING WE UNDERSTAND THEY'RE PAYING FOR THESE ITEMS. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HIT THE SAME CONCERN.

WELL, WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY IS ADDING ON SOMETHING, ON SOMETHING REALLY BASIC THAT SAID, UNLESS IDENTIFIED AS PROJECTS THAT WILL BE FUNDED UNDER THE TURS, YOU KNOW, AT KEEPING WHAT WE HAVE IN 21 AND JUST SAYING, AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND RESPECTFULLY THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT REFERENCING THINGS BEING PAID FOR OUT OF THE TURS AND THE PUD ORDINANCES.

WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS THE LANDOWNER'S OBLIGATIONS AND NOT WHAT THE CITY MAY USE OTHER FUNDS FOR TO DO.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S TO FOCUS ON WHAT THEIR OBLIGATIONS ARE, WHAT THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS.

SO THAT'S ONE OF OUR CONCERNS.

SO IF, IF, IF EXHIBIT R IS A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT THE, THAT THE APPLICANT IS PAYING FOR, IF IT'S A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT ENTITLE THE APPLICANT TO SUPERIORITY OR OTHERWISE, WE'VE ALL AGREED THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO PAY FOR MM-HMM.

, ISN'T IT JUST AS SIMPLE TO SAY ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE ATTACHING EXHIBIT R THE APPLICANT WILL PAY FOR WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT, PUBLIC FINANCING OR PUBLIC MONIES.

AND THAT THE SIMPLEST WAY TO DO THAT.

AND I THINK COUNCIL TOVA, THAT MIGHT BE THE COMPLETE WAY.

HERE'S THE LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY, THEY'VE SAID THEY WERE GONNA PAY FOR THAT WE'RE COUNTING ON.

THEY'VE OBLIGATED THEMSELVES TO PAY FOR, THEY PROMISED THEY'RE GONNA PAY FOR, THE APPLICANT WILL PAY FOR ALL THESE THINGS WITHOUT GETTING ANY PUBLIC SUPPORT.

I MEAN, I WOULD CERTAINLY, I WOULD CERTAINLY EXPECT THEM AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT THEM TO PAY FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO DO TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE, WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT R.

IF THAT'S, IF I, IF I CAN, LET'S JUST CLARIFY IF THERE ARE ARE ELEMENTS, UM, AND CHANGES THEY NEED TO MAKE TO THEIR PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE COSTS? THE LANDOWNER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEIR CODE OBLIGATIONS ARE.

AND ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE DESCRIBED IN THIS POD MM-HMM.

SHOULD BE, THAT IS, THAT IS A COSTLY ITEM SHOULD APPEAR ON EXHIBIT R.

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

I CAN RUN THROUGH THE LIST WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE EXHIBIT TO BE, BUT EXHIBIT R KELLY ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY AGREED TO PAY FOR.

I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO JUST ESTABLISH A LEGISLA RECORD.

WE ALSO NEED, WE ALSO NEED THE LIST OF THE THINGS THAT IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THE THIRD IS GOING TO PAY FOR.

I THINK WHAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS SAYING IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND, AND THE AMBIGUITY.

SO, BUT IT'S SOME WAY THEY TO HIT THE AMBIGUITY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS THING THAT WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT TES IS GONNA PAY FOR IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PAYING FOR.

IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE STRUGGLING.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO, LET ME WALK THROUGH THE LIST THAT'S ON THE EXHIBIT AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET, GET THE EXHIBIT OUT.

I'M HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES, INVESTMENT BY OWNER, INTERNAL STREETS, OPEN SPACE SHORELINE RESTORATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY, AND 1700 LINEAR FEET OF RECONSTRUCTED HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, OPEN SPACE PLAZA, PUBLIC PARK ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, OPEN SPACE, ESTIMATED PARKLAND FEE AND LIEU, UH, WATER QUALITY RAIN GARDENS AND UNDERGROUND CISTERN, ENHANCED BAT VIEWING AREAS ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL INCLUDE SIGNAGE, EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS AND CAMERAS FOR VIRTUAL BAT VIEWING AND EDUCATION.

PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN 2000 SQUARE FEET OF VERTICAL GREEN WALL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

PRIVATE STREETS ARE OPEN SPACE AREAS THAT RECEIVE MORE THAN FOUR HOURS OF SUNLIGHT AND WILL EITHER BE COMPOSED OF VINE AND MESH OR A LIVING WALL SYSTEM.

AND THEN WE HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT GOES WITH IT.

SORRY, TR DID YOU SAY THIS AS POSTED AS BACK UP FOR TODAY? WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT.

OH, OKAY.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT POSTED.

SO, UM, I'M STRUGGLING, I SHOULD SAY.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT MY STAFF AND I ARE GONNA HAVE THE CAPACITY TO KIND OF READ THROUGH THIS.

SO I JUST WANNA, AGAIN, ESTABLISH KIND

[12:05:01]

OF A LEGISLATIVE RECORD TO YOUR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

AND THIS THE OTHER STAFF WHO ARE WORKING WITH THESE KNOWLEDGE, THESE ARE ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AS BEING IMPORTANT ELEMENTS WITHIN THIS PROJECT AND HAVING LANDOWNER PAY FOR.

AND IF, AND IF FOR SOME REASON ONE OR TWO HAVE BEEN MISSED, I ASSUME THAT THE STAFF WILL COME BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO THE NEW COUNCIL WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD TO, TO MAKE THAT, TO MAKE THAT FIX IF WE NEED TO.

WITH THAT SAID, ARE WE OKAY WITH PASSING THE STATESMAN? PUT PART 21 AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HANDED UP.

ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE THAT IS PUT IN.

DO WE PUT IT IN AS IT'S WRITTEN? I MEAN, THE FIRST SENTENCE I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO, IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF IT'S JUST WHAT TRUTH IS.

I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE ATTACHMENT OF THE EXHIBIT R.

SO ANY OBJECTION TO THAT GOING INTO ONE WRITTEN IN, I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY ELSE MAKES A MOTION, THAT'S FINE.

I MEAN, I'M, I CAN'T STAND BY.

I'M THE, MY INTENT WAS NOT TO KIND OF HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE POD BEING SUPERIOR TO CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS.

SOLELY THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY ARE SOLELY THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

SO I THINK, CAN WE, CAN WE TAKE PART 21, TAKE THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE POD THE LANDOWNER IS FUNDING THE ELEMENTS LISTED IN EXHIBIT R.

WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT, THE LANDOWNER SHALL PAY FOR THE ITEMS LISTED IN EXHIBIT R WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT, LAND OWNER FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES SHOWN IN EXHIBIT R R ARE THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONS THE LAND? YES.

WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT, I WOULD PROBABLY LEAVE IT AT JUST AT THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

PEOPLE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE? OKAY.

THAT COMES IN FOR 21, I THINK.

THEN IT LEAVES US JUST ONE LAST ITEM.

AND THAT'S THE HOTEL ISSUE.

COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES.

UH, THANKS, MAYOR.

I BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER HAR MADISON ALSO HAD AMENDMENT SO SHE COULD LAY HERS OUT FIRST.

MINE WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE TO HER AMENDMENT.

UM, UH, MY APOLOGIES.

COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, THE TIMING IS REALLY TERRIBLE.

SO THERE'S ABOUT TO BE A LOUD NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND FOR ME.

I NEED ABOUT A THREE MINUTE DELAY.

A MAYOR AS THE CHAIR.

I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WANNA ACCOMPLISH THAT.

WE, WE CAN DO THAT.

LET'S TAKE A THREE MINUTE BREAK AND LET PEOPLE GO TO THE RESTROOM.

MAYOR, I APPRECIATE IT.

OR I I COULD DO THAT.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL THIS ITEM WAS OVER.

CONGRATULATIONS, CADETS ON YOUR ACHIEVEMENT TODAY.

YOUR, YOUR CALL.

DO YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? WELL, I, IT IS 1 0 7, SO IT'S A GOOD TIME.

UM, AS, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, TODAY IS A GRADUATION CEREMONY FOR AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY EMS. AND I'M STILL VERY PROUD OF THE CADETS WHO'VE COMPLETED THE TRAINING NEEDED TO SERVE THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY IN THE HIGHEST WAY POSSIBLE.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE AS A COUNCIL, COULD NOT ATTEND TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE IN SESSION.

I'D LIKE TO ISSUE A SPECIAL CONGRATULATIONS TO CHIEF ROBERT LUZ AND THE ENTIRE EMS EXECUTIVE AND TRAINING STAFF FOR THIS GREAT ACHIEVEMENT.

YOU SHOULD BE IMMENSELY PROUD IN 2022.

THIS GRADUATING CLASS IS STEPPING INTO A PROFESSION THAT IS BEING ASKED TO DO MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE.

IT MAY SEEM DAUNTING THAT YOU HAVE TO WALK STRAIGHT INTO SUCH A SITUATION THAT'S CHALLENGING.

BUT AS ANYONE WHO'S CALLED TO SERVE OTHERS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED, ALREADY KNOWS.

CHALLENGING TIMES ARE WHEN LIVES ARE SAVED AND WHEN LIVES ARE CHANGED.

THIS IS YOUR TIME TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE.

THINK OF IT WHEN RESPONDING TO A MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION OR A MASS CASUALTY INCIDENT, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCIDENT, BUT MANY ARE RELYING ON YOU TO HELP MAKE THINGS BETTER.

WE ARE ALL RELYING ON YOU TO HELP MAKE THINGS BETTER IN OUR CITY.

AND WE KNOW EVERY ONE OF YOU CADETS ARE READY FOR THE JOB AND WILLING TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE.

AND AS YOU BEGIN THIS NEW CHAPTER IN YOUR CAREER, YOU MAY LOOK TO OTHERS TO GUIDE AND MENTOR.

YOU KNOW THAT THOSE OF US WHO'VE WORKED IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WANT TO SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND GUIDANCE WITH YOU.

OUR DOORS ARE ALWAYS OPEN FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, AND COMMENTS AS TO HOW WE CAN MAKE EMS BETTER.

WE'LL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AS WE FIGHT HARD FOR WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.

AND WE MUST ALL SUPPORT EACH OTHER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO RELY ON US IN A TIME OF CRISIS.

YOU'RE NOW PART OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AND WE'RE THANKFUL TO HAVE YOU.

YOU'LL DO GREAT THINGS, CHANGE LIVES AND MAKE THE CITY A SAFER PLACE TO LIVE.

WELCOME TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FAMILY AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING YOU AS YOU SET OUT TO SERVE OUR CITY.

AND THANK YOU FOR, FOR, FOR GIVING THOSE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE

[12:10:01]

COUNCIL.

UM, CUZ I, WE ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY.

ALL RIGHT GUYS, I THINK WE'RE READY ALREADY.

LET'S TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK FOR FOR REST.

WE'LL COME ON BACK.

OH MY GOSH.

UM, THANKS.

JUST WHAT DO I THAT PEOPLE

[12:18:33]

WHAT OKAY.

REAL OPPORTUNITY TO COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE'S SOME, UH, LUNCH IN THE BACK ROOM IF YOU WANT TO GET IT AND BRING IT BACK OUT TO THE DA IN THIS LAST FIVE MINUTES, YOU MIGHT WANNA GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

THIS ONE, UM, SLIGHT AMENDMENT TO THE ITEM THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.

UM, IT TURNS OUT IN EXHIBIT R THERE'S A SMALL TYPO.

OKAY, HANG ON A SECOND.

LET'S WAIT TILL WE GET THE COUNCIL BACK.

WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE BEHIND THE, AND WANTED US TO TAKE ANOTHER MINUTE OR TWO.

AND ONCE WE VOTE ON THIS, IT'S MY 10 FOR US TO BE ABLE TO, TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AMENDMENT.

THEN I THINK WE HAVE THE HOTEL QUESTION, THEN I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUT, UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REAL FAST ON 55 AND 56 ON 56, UH, FOR THE,

[12:20:01]

FOR THE ON 56.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME BACK OUT OF THAT AND TAKE A QUICK VOTE.

WE'RE PREPARING PACKETS RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE ON BOTH 55 AND 56, THE MOTION SHEETS, A RED LINE OF THOSE MOTION SHEETS SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE.

AND A MASTER SHEET OF ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS AND OTHER THINGS.

IT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN POSTING, BUT WE'VE BEEN UPDATING THEM AS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH IT.

WHEN ARE WE EATING LUNCH? I WOULD SUGGEST YOU GO BACK AND GRAB THE LUNCH RIGHT NOW.

BRING IT BACK OUT TO THE DESK.

I WANT US TO TAKE IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN TOGETHER, CUZ WE'LL LOSE PEOPLE HERE THIS AFTERNOON.

SOME AS JUST WE KEEP BOOKING.

JERRY RICHARDS DROVE FAST.

WASN'T, ARE WE READY TO PICK THIS BACK UP? ALL RIGHT, WE READY? YOU LIKE TO NOTE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY NEED A VOTE.

I JUST WANNA MAKE A NOTATION IF NEED THE MEETING HERE.

THIS IS, I CAN CONTINUE THE DECEMBER 1ST, UH, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

UH, IT'S 1 23 ONCE YOU HAVE, OKAY.

SO I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED TO VOTE HERE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL'S AWARE OF A MISTAKE IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WE WERE JUST SPEAKING OF.

UM, ON EXHIBIT ARE, UM, IS AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE, UM, INVESTMENTS THAT THE OWNER WILL BE MAKING IN THE POD AT LIST ONE THROUGH SEVEN.

YOU KNOW, THINGS SUCH AS INTERNAL STREETS TO DEBUTING AREA, ET CETERA.

IT ALSO HAS AN ACCOMPANYING MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THOSE, UM, ITEMS WILL BE LOCATED.

AND INADVERTENTLY THE LEGEND FOR THE MAPS THAT PUBLIC INVESTMENT BY OWNER, IT ACTUALLY SHOULD JUST SAY INVESTMENT BY OWNER.

AND OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA ADD RELATED TO PART 21.

SO INADVERTENTLY THE LEGEND TO THE MAP, THE WORD PUBLIC WAS PUT IN THERE.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? IT'S WORTH PUBLICLY COMING OUTTA THAT LANGUAGE.

NO THANK YOU.

ANY OBJECTION TO PUBLICLY COMING OUT THAT AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE, THAT WORD COMES OUT.

UM, AS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

I'LL, RIGHT, THAT GETS US BACK TO THE LAST ISSUE, WHICH, UH, THE HOTEL ISSUE COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COLLEAGUES.

I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE PATIENCE WITH THE BRIEF DELAY.

UM, SO, UH, MY MOTION ON THE HOTEL ITEM, UM, SO I WANTED TO MOVE THAT THE HOTEL MOTEL REMAIN AS A PERMITTED USE,

[12:25:01]

AND THEN I HAVE SOME COMMENTARY.

UM, BUT THAT'S THE, GENERALLY THAT'S THE MOTION.

SO I SUPPOSE I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

YEAH, MAYOR, YOU GUYS ARE A SECOND TO THAT, GUYS.

GONNA PULL A SECOND.

IS THAT, LET'S HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

GO AHEAD, .

UH, APPRECIATE IT.

SO IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HOTEL USE IS REALLY A CRITICAL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE FOR THIS PROJECT.

UM, JUST WHEN WE'RE THINKING THROUGH HOW IT ALL PENCILS OUT.

AND SO I, I'M FULLY HERE AND EMPATHIZE YOU.

I, Y'ALL KNOW THAT I, I'M HAVING SOME DIFFICULT DECISIONS, UH, TO MAKE HERE, UH, TODAY.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM, YOU KNOW, CAUSE I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND EMPATHIZE WITH THE UNION'S CONCERNS.

UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WE CAN SOLVE THROUGH ZONING THOUGH.

UM, SO I, I WANTED TO SAY I FULLY REMAIN COMMITTED TO STANDING WITH THE UNION IN THEIR, UM, VALUABLE AND CONTINUED FIGHT FOR A CONTRACT THAT SUPPORTS AND PROTECTS ANY AND ALL WORKERS WHO END UP IN ANY FUTURE HOTEL ON THIS SITE.

UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO, TO HAVE THAT PERMITTED USE BE A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.

I I DON'T SEE THE EQUATION SHAKEN OUT WITHOUT THAT VARIABLE COUNSELS MAY I LIKE TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH I HANDED OUT YESTERDAY, IF I CAN.

AND MY MOTION WOULD BE TO AMEND PART EIGHT IF I CAN GET A SECOND TO DO WHAT THIS WOULD MAKE HOTEL MOTEL USE A CONDITIONAL USE ON THE PROPERTY.

IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THAT WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS FILED, THAT THE LANDOWNER SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO UNITE HERE OR SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION.

AND THAT THIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT? COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

UH, THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO, AND I WANNA THANK, UH, MY COLLEAGUE COUNCIL PROPER MADISON ESPECIALLY, AND YOU SHARED YOUR SENTIMENTS ABOUT STANDING WITH THE UNION ON THIS MATTER.

THIS AMENDMENT IS FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT WE HAVE, UM, THAT WE HAVE PROPER NOTIFICATION WHEN THEY, WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES SELECT A HOTEL OPERATOR, AND THAT THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING, UM, AND LETTING US, LETTING PLANNING COMMISSION KNOW, THEREBY LETTING US KNOW.

AND OF COURSE, HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UNION AS WELL.

FURTHER THE DISCUSSION COUNCIL, OUR KITCHEN.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER ELLAS HAD HER HAND UP FIRST.

PROTECTIONS FOR THE UNION TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION.

I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY HAS HER HAND UP TOO.

THIS IS, THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY HARD STRUGGLE, I THINK FOR A LOT OF US TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT PATHWAY FORWARD.

UM, YOU KNOW, BUT AFTER ALL THE YEARS AND HOURS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW TO GET THE BEST USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND, AND ALL THE OTHER DETAILS WE'VE BEEN DELIBERATING TODAY, UM, I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE A POSITION WE'D BE IN WHERE THERE'S NO GOOD JOBS FOR A HOTEL TYPE OF USE, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE GOOD UNION JOBS.

UM, BUT THAT WE ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY WORK TO DO AND THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE ARE PROUD OF OUR TOURISM INDUSTRY AND THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP IT RUNNING, WHICH ARE THE FOLKS THAT WORK IN IT EVERY SINGLE DAY.

AND SO I'VE, I'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS A LOT, BUT JUST SEEING THAT THERE COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE FINANCES DON'T PENCIL OUT AND WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT HOW THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE GOING TO BE DELIVERED TO THE COMMUNITY AFTER ALL OF THIS DELIBERATION.

UM, FOR TODAY, I HAVE TO SUPPORT IT BEING AN INCLUDED USE, BUT CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE, THE UNIONIZATION OF IT.

UM, IF AND WHEN THE TIME COMES AND, AND WE'LL BE THERE, RIGHT? WITH PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JOBS HAVE, YOU KNOW, GOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY MEASURES IN PLACE WHEN, WHEN THAT MOMENT ARRIVES AS OUR KITCHEN.

UM, WELL, MY THOUGHT IS THAT, UM, THAT I, I THINK THIS, THIS, UM, UH, MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES KIND OF, KIND OF STRIKES A, A GOOD, UH, A BALANCE THAT, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WORKS, UM, TO ME BECAUSE IT MAKES, IT'S ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE.

UM, AND, BUT IT PUTS IN, IN PLACE A PROCESS, THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE FOR CONDITIONAL USE THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT CONVERSATION.

UM, AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM, THAT THE UNION IS INCLUDED IN THAT CONVERSATION.

SO THAT LETS, THAT LETS THERE BE, UH, A CONVERSATION THAT IS, UM, THAT CAN FOCUS ON THE, UM, CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME.

UM, AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, WHICH HOTEL MIGHT BE INTERESTED AND EVEN IF THERE IS A HOTEL INTERESTED, UM, AT THAT TIME.

SO IN A WAY, WE'RE ALLOWING THAT CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN, UM, AT A BETTER TIME AND, UM, IN A WAY THAT, UM, ALLOWS FOR SOME

[12:30:01]

AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD BALANCE.

I'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THE, THE ISSUE OF A HOTEL IN THIS SITE, AND I THINK I'VE SPOKEN PREVIOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT HAPPENING, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE, UH, AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THAT, OF THAT AREA IN A GOOD WAY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO SHARE THE PROXIMITY TO THE RIVER, UM, IN A, IN A SETTING THAT SPINS OFF SIGNIFICANT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES.

SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE'RE BACK TO TALKING ABOUT HAVING A HOTEL ON THE SITE.

I'M A LITTLE BIT, UM, CONCERNED OVER TRYING TO USE THIS ISSUE IN THE PUD UM, UH, SCRIPTING OR THE, THE REGIME TO, TO FORCE ISSUES THAT ARE UNRELATED TO, IN MY MIND, TO THE ACTUAL CREATION OF THE PU.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONDITIONAL USE PIECE AND DO SUPPORT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER UPPER MADISON'S MOTION TO ALLOW, SIMPLY ALLOW THE HOTEL TO HAPPEN.

I THINK THE OTHER PIECES WILL FALL INTO PLACE.

I THINK THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING IN OUR CITY, AND I SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF A UNION THAT WE VALUE UNION, UM, THE REASONS FOR UNIONS AND THE PROTECTIONS THAT ACCRUE TO WORKERS BY WAY OF THAT MECHANISM.

AND I, I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO ASK THE, UM, PARTIES HERE, THEY WOULD AGREE TO THAT AS WELL.

NO ONE IS, I WOULD, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO FAR TO SAY THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPERS ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO HARM OR ABUSE OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORKERS WHO WOULD BE EITHER BUILDING ON THE SITE OR WORKING ON THE SITE.

SO I, I SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON'S BASE MOTION.

UM, I'VE PREVIOUSLY SAID PUBLICLY THAT I BELIEVE THAT A HOTEL USE IS A GREAT USE OF THAT SITE.

WE ARE A CITY WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF TOURISM AND EVENTS THAT OCCUR HERE.

AND, UM, SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I THINK WE NEED A HOTEL ON THAT, THAT PROPERTY FOR SURE.

UM, CAUSE OF OUR KITCHEN.

UM, MY MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE NO MECHANISM, UM, UH, TO, TO CARRY OUT OUR POLICY.

AND OUR POLICY RELATES TO, UH, OUR, WE HAVE LOTS OF POLICY PROVISIONS IN PLACE WITH REGARD TO, UM, UNION PARTICIPATION.

UM, AND THAT INCLUDES OUR HOSPITALITY WORKERS.

AND, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A, YOU KNOW, LONGSTANDING AND MORE THAN ONCE HAVE WE SPECIFIED, UM, CERTAIN UNION, UM, PARTICIPATION IN WORKER PROTECTIONS, UM, AS A MATTER OF POLICY WHEN WE DO THINGS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN HERE.

AND, AND WHAT THIS DOES IS, IN FACT, THIS EVEN STOPS SHORT OF ACTUALLY STATING THAT WE EXPECT, UM, THAT WE EXPECT, UM, SOME, YOU KNOW, IF A HOTEL USE THAT WE WOULD EXPECT THE HOTELER TO, YOU KNOW, TO WORK WITH THE UNION.

WE HAVE NOTHING WRITTEN THAT DOES THAT.

SO ALL THIS IS DOING IS ALLOWING FOR A CONVERSATION.

IT CERTAINLY ALLOWS FOR THE USE CERTAINLY ALLOWS FOR THE USE.

IT DOESN'T DICTATE WHAT KIND OF, UM, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATION HAPPENS WITH THE UNION.

BUT IT'S OUR ONLY MECHANISM AT THE MOMENT TO PROTECT THE UNION.

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEVELOPER, AND I'M HAPPY TO ASK THE, UH, DEVELOPER TO COME UP, BUT THEY HAVE NOT AGREED TO THE KINDS OF CONCERNS THAT THE UNION IS, IS, IS RAISING.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THIS PROVISION IN THE FIRST PLACE, IS WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENT FROM THEM AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THEIR HOTELER IS RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M UNDER, I'M UNDERSTANDING WHY THEY DON'T, BUT UNLESS THEY CAN TELL ME THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE RIGHT NOW THAT SPEAKS TO, UM, HOW THE UNION CAN BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION, THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY MECHANISM FOR ENSURING THAT THAT POLICY IS CARRIED OUT.

AND I, I CAN'T JUST TRUST IT.

SO, SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE POLICY IS A GOOD WAY TO JUST SAY WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT A POINT IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL IT DOES.

BEFORE WE GO TO THE, UH, APPLICANT COUNCIL, HARPER MADISON, YOU RAISED YOUR HAND, UH, MAYOR.

I DIDN'T WANT THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AND FOR US TO EXTEND THE DIALOGUE.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO REMIND US, UM, TO KEEP, TO KEEP, UH, I KNOW WE'RE LOSING COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AT SOME POINT, AND

[12:35:01]

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO BE VERY CLEAR.

UM, I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE NOTICE COMPONENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER FENT, COUNCILWOMAN FUENTES, UM, MOTION.

BUT I, I DO HAVE SOME HESITATIONS AROUND SOME OF THE OTHER LANGUAGE, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONAL USE COMPONENT.

WE JUST WANT IT TO BE PERMITTED.

AND I THINK, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, TO YOUR POINT, I, I APPRECIATE HAVING A MECHANISM THAT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, A PART OF THE PROTOCOL, UM, BUT ALSO TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S POINT.

I MEAN, WE'RE STATING PUBLICLY RIGHT NOW WHAT ALL OF OUR INTENTION IS BEHIND, UM, THE HOTEL COMPONENT.

I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE NECESSARILY FOR US TO BUILD INTO THE PUBLIC POLICY.

SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS AROUND THE HOTEL, THE, THE UNION AND HOTEL PIECE.

UM, SO I, THE CODIFICATION OF THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, PIECE OF OUR POLICY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DO IT, BUT I CERTAINLY AM SAYING PUBLICLY, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE, UH, WHAT Y'ALL'S CONCERNS ARE AND, AND HOPE THAT THAT'S A LEVEL OF COMMITMENT THAT WE CAN GET.

UM, THE, THE NOTICE COMPONENT ESPECIALLY, UM, AND I WON'T REALLY DIG TOO MUCH INTO MY CONCERNS AROUND UNITE HERE OR SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION, LIKE SOME OF THAT GETTING REAL SPECIFIC THERE GIVES ME PAUSE.

UM, BUT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE DESIRE FOR THERE TO BE SOME NOTICE TO THE UNION.

DOES THE APPLICANT WANNA ADDRESS THIS? CAN I, IF, IF WE'RE RUNNING INTO TIME CONSTRAINTS FOR, FOR COUNCIL, LET'S, LET'S KEEP GOING.

I WANNA SAY SOMETHING TOO, LIKE THE OTHER PEOPLE WANNA TALK, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? MAYOR MEMBERS, THE COUNCIL, MAYBE LIKE YOU, THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER IS SUPPORTIVE OF WORKERS' RIGHTS AND IN NO WAY WANTS TO, TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH WORKERS' RIGHTS OR IN ALL THE THINGS THAT PROTECT THEM.

BUT THERE'S NOT ONE PLACE IN THE LAND USE CODE WHERE UNIONS OR LABOR IS MENTIONED.

IT IS NOT A CRITERIA FOR A ZONING CASE.

IT'S NOT A CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IT'S NOT A CRITERIA FOR ANY KIND OF PERMIT.

IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO INJECT A LABOR ISSUE INTO A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

NOW, THAT'S ONE THING I WANNA SAY.

SECOND THING I WANNA SAY, WITHOUT HOTEL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS PROJECT, ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR IS OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE WE'VE SAID OVER AND OVER WE HAVE TO HAVE A VIABLE PROJECT.

TO HAVE A VIABLE PROJECT.

WE HAVE TO BE, HAVE CERTAINTY ON A HOTEL USE AND WE CAN'T HAVE THE UNCERTAINTY OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND FINALLY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AN AUTOMATIC, AT LEAST A YEAR DELAY OF THIS PROJECT.

THAT MEANS THAT'S A DELAY OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THAT'S A DELAY ON THE PARKS.

THAT'S A DELAY OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY, AND IN FACT WE'RE SO STRONG ABOUT IT, WE, WE, WE, I'VE GOT A VALID PETITION DRAFTED TO SAY WE WILL NOT ACCEPT A PROHIBITED USE OR A CONDITIONAL USE.

IT'S JUST THAT IMPORTANT.

AND IT'S JUST, WHAT WE CAN DO THOUGH IS WE CAN PROVIDE NOTICE THE MINUTE WE KNOW WHO OUR HOTELIER IS AND WE CAN STITCH IT INTO THE POD WITHIN, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF PICKING A HOTELIER SUBJECT TO NDAS OR WHATEVER WE MAY BE SUBJECT TO.

WE'LL LET THE CITY KNOW AND THE CITY CAN LET WHOEVER THEY WANT KNOW, AND THEN THOSE PEOPLE CAN CONTACT THE HOTELIER.

WE'RE FINE WITH THAT, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE IT AS A PERMITTED USE.

THANK YOU, KATHRYN.

I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, AND THIS ONE'S HARD BECAUSE I WOULD WANT THE CITY TO USE EVERY BIT OF LEVERAGE IT HAS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND WORKER'S RIGHTS.

AND I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO BE TRYING TO FIND EVERY OPPORTUNITY WE CAN TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF OUR CORE VALUES, UH, HERE IN THE, IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY.

MY CONCERN IS, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED BY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT TOOL TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

UM, WHEN, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I I WOULDN'T HAVE TALKED ABOUT EXPLICITLY EXCEPT FOR THE EXPLICIT CONVERSATION FOR THE WAY THE ZAP THE DAYS.

UM, WHEN WE PUT IN PROVISIONS THAT GRANT ZONING OR DON'T GRANT ZONING ON PERFORMANCE OF, UH, AN ACT, WE RUN A RISK OF OF HAVING A CONTRACT ZONING VIOLATION.

UM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER IF WE HAD ALL KEPT THAT CONVERSATION KIND HAVE IN OUR HEADS SO THAT IT WASN'T OUT ON THE DIAS, BUT IT'S OUT ON THE DIAS, UH, AND NOW OUT ON THE DI IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK LEGALLY, UM, WE'RE ENTITLED TO, TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO.

UM, BUT I WOULD, UH, URGE THE COUNCIL TO TRY AND FIND WAYS TO, TO, TO USE LEVERAGE THAT WE DO HAVE OR TO

[12:40:01]

INCENTIVIZE AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, UH, THE, THE BEHAVIOR WE WANT.

AND, AND I REALLY APPLAUD YOU AND, AND COMMEND YOU FOR BEING ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHAMPIONS ON THIS DAY AS OF, OF HELPING TO ENSURE THAT WE DO THAT, UM, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

CA TOVO, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, BUT I WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK LAKEFRONT ZONING, L ZONING, UM, TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT USES AS BEING MORE APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS I SEE THE SUGGESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER OF MAKING IT A CONDITIONAL USE, IT'S ALSO ABOUT HOW, WHAT THE KIND OF LAND USES ARE THAT ARE ON THAT TRACK AND WHETHER, WHETHER HOTEL IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT IN THAT SPOT OR WHETHER, WHETHER RESIDENTIAL IS IS PREFERRED OR SOME OTHER KIND OF USE.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, WE CERTAINLY HAVE LOTS OF TOURISM, UM, AND LOTS OF NEED FOR HOTELS HERE IN AUSTIN, BUT WE ALSO HAVE HAD LOTS OF BIG HOTELS BUILD HERE, UM, AND OPEN HERE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE IS A A, A HIGH NEED FOR A HOTEL THERE, AND I THINK IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT.

UM, AND I ALSO SHARE THE SUPPORT FOR THE UNION THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED.

MR. OVN, I WANTED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS JUST TO KIND OF GET BACK TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT MR. SU SAID.

WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADDS A YEAR TO THE PROJECT? I THINK, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY DO IT.

THERE'S KIND OF TWO WAYS TO DO IT.

MOST EVERYBODY DOES IT, I CALL IT THE SECOND WAY.

AND THAT'S TO ACTUALLY DO IT WITH THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.

UM, THERE IS A WAY YOU CAN SPLIT IT OFF AND JUST HAVE THE LAUS QUESTION ANSWERED AND THEN DO THE ENGINEERING LATER.

THAT HAS A TENDENCY TAKE TWICE AS LONG AS MOST PEOPLE AVOID THAT.

UM, BUT I THINK THAT TO SAY IT, IT ADDS A YEAR.

IT CERTAINLY TAKES A YEAR TO GET A SITE PLAN THROUGH THE PROCESS IF IT HAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GO WITH IT.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF DOESN'T IT ADDS TO IT, BUT I KNOW THAT THE TOTAL TIME WOULD BE AT LEAST A YEAR.

RIGHT? BUT I, BUT IT COULD TAKE THAT LONG WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TOO, JUST TO GET YOUR SIDE PLAN THROUGH.

IT COULD, IT JUST DEPENDS UPON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SIDE PLAN.

BUT, BUT THE ADDED ELEMENT AT THE END OF HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, NOTIFY, HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, POSSIBLY GO TO COUNSEL ON APPEAL, DEFINITELY ADDS TIME TO THE PROCESS.

KATHERINE, SWITCH CLOSED THAT.

I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I'VE FORGOTTEN, BUT MAYBE I'LL, MAYBE IT'LL POP UP AGAIN.

UH, COUNCIL FUENTES THINK THEN THE MAYOR PROTE, MAYOR PROTE, THEN COUNCIL FUENTES.

UM, SO I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR HOSPITALITY WORKERS, UM, DESERVE GOOD WORKING CONDITIONS.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE ON THAT.

UM, THIS IS NOT LIKE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THIS IS A PUT AND IT'S DISCRETIONARY.

SO IF WE CHOSE TO INCLUDE THIS, WE COULD TECHNICALLY, FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT HEARING THAT THE VOTES ARE THERE, BUT I, BUT I, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS A GIVEN THAT YOU CANNOT, CANNOT DO IT.

UM, THE WAY THAT MR. SU, UM, SUGGESTED, UM, THIS IS A, THIS IS A UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE WE'VE JUST SAID YOU CAN'T LIVE IN THIS PLACE AND WE CAN'T CUZ WE'VE TAKEN THE HOUSING AND PUT IT OFFSITE.

AND NOW WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO SECURE THE WORKERS' RIGHTS.

THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

UM, THANKS COLLEAGUES.

THIS IS REALLY A SIMPLE MOTION.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A HOTEL THERE, IT'S JUST ABOUT SAYING IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

IT'S ESTABLISHING A PROCESS SO THAT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE STRONG CHAMPIONS OF WORKERS' RIGHTS, THAT WE HAVE OUR UNION AT THE TABLE.

HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, UH, TO ME IT'S A VERY SIMPLE CHOICE.

AND, AND SO I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION.

TO TAKE A VOTE, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE, UH, MOTION.

UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AMENDMENT.

UH, UM, 1, 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6.

I, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, UH, VELA KITCHEN.

UH, MAYOR PROTE AND TOVO.

THOSE OPPOSED? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

IT'S A BALANCE OF THE DAIS.

UH, THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS ON A FIVE TO SIX VOTE.

I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO BE VOTING AS ABSTAINING ON THAT ONE JUST CAUSE I THINK THE ORDER IS A LITTLE OKAY ON IT DOES NOT PASS ON A FIVE FIVE.

THE ONE VOTE.

UH, THAT WILL VOTE THEN ON, ON, UH, COBO HARPER MADISON'S MOTION? YES.

KATO MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER

[12:45:01]

FUENTES TO ADD YOUR NOTIFICATION PIECES TO THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

I THINK, UM, COUNCIL HARPER MADISON JUST STRIKES THE HOTEL AS A USE, BUT YEAH, IT STRIKES IT AS USE PROHIBITION AS A PROHIBITION.

PROHIBITED USE.

SO, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHE HAD THE NOTIFICATION PIECES AND AS I UNDERSTOOD MY CONVERSATION WITH, UM, MR. SUBTLE THIS MORNING, I THINK THEY ARE, WELL I DON'T WANNA REPRESENT IT, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD THINK WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF, IF THEY CAN FEED IN, UM, MELD IN THERE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFYING UNITE HERE ABOUT THE HOTELIER.

IF WE'RE ABLE TO ADD THAT, HAVE AN AMENDMENT DRAFTED OR IF I CAN PROVIDE THAT DIRECTION, I AM A LITTLE WORRIED.

CAUSE I DO HAVE TO STEP OFF THE DA HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

MAYBE WE COULD JUST USE YOUR LAPTOP.

THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THIS.

AND I WOULD CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT JUST IN CASE MY, MY COLLEAGUES ARE CURIOUS.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTIFICATION PIECE.

SO, SO, SO THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE ASKING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR NOTICE OF DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS FILED, THAT THERE IS A NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT THAT THE LAND O LANDOWNER NOTIFY COUNSEL AND UNITE HERE ABOUT THE SITE PLAN BEING FILED.

COUNSEL, IT WOULD BE, WE COULD NOTIFY COUNSEL.

THAT WOULD BE UNUSUAL.

UM, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT WE COULD NOTIFY IF A SITE PLAN IS FILED ON THE SITE THAT AS A HOTEL, AS A USE, WE CAN NOTIFY UNITE HERE OR ITS SUCCESSORS.

NO, NO.

WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING NOTICE TO A THIRD PARTY.

WE WILL GIVE NOTICE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN PRIOR TO FILING A SITE PLAN.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, HERS WAS ASK US TO NOTIFY YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES.

CAN WE, CAN WE ADD LANGUAGE? I I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I SAID EARLIER.

THAT'S THE COMMENTARY THAT I MADE EARLIER.

I'M MOST COMFORTABLE WITH THAT NOTIFICATION COMING DIRECTLY TO THE CITY AND THEN US BEING RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THAT INFORMATION.

BUT, OKAY.

THE, THE THIRD PARTY IS NOT, IS THE PART THAT I DIDN'T AGREE WITH.

I DO AGREE THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CITY OF A, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE NOTICE OUT.

CAN WE ADD THE CITY WILL TAKE CARE OF, OF THAT THE CITY WILL NOTIFY IF A HO IF A SITE PLAN IS FILED FOR A HOTEL USE, THE CITY WILL NOTIFY UNITE OR THEIR SUCCESSOR.

ANY OBJECTION TO INCLUDING THAT INTO COUNCIL MEMBER'S MOTION? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF, UM, IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF EXPENSE THAT MIGHT INCUR UPON THE CITY TO, TO DO.

I I THINK IT'D BE A MINI MINIMAL.

IT WOULD.

BE A NOTICE OR A EMAIL OR A FORM.

MAY I PRO, UM, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, MY CONVERSATIONS EARLIER ABOUT THIS ITEM WITH MR. SU, I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR COMPANY.

I MEAN, IT, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN WITHOUT THE COMPANY, I THINK.

IS THAT POSSIBLE? I MEAN, I THINK IT'S REALLY THE NAME OF THE PERSON, THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND THE CONTACT THAT NEEDS TO BE CONVEYED, WHICH IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS AT SITE PLAN IN THIS CASE? OR WOULD THAT BE COMING AT A DIFFERENT STAGE? IT COULD BE AT ANY STAGE, BUT I I WHERE YOU COULD STITCH IN HERE.

WE'LL PROVIDE YOU NOTICE FOR OUR SITE PLAN AND SUBJECT TO ANY NDAS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO BE WITHIN THOSE TIMEFRAMES.

WE'LL LET YOU KNOW OF THE HOTELIER AS WELL.

SO ADD THAT WHEN HE SAYS YOU, IT'S, IT'S THE APPLICANT LETTING THE CITY KNOW OF THE HOTEL.

YOU'RE AS SOON AS IT'S ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT A PROHIBITING NDA.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT TO COUNCIL, REMEMBER KELLY'S COMMENT ABOUT THE, HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST? YOU BROUGHT A GOOD POINT THAT I'VE BEEN WANTING TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH OUR NOTIFICATIONS, UH, MAILERS COST, LIKE THE ONE THAT WE JUST DID FOR COMPATIBILITY THAT WE SENT.

I'D LIKE TO GET A PRICE ESTIMATE ON THAT AS WELL.

YEAH, I I JUST HAD NO IDEA IN BEING NEW.

I FIGURED IT WAS A GOOD TIME TO ASK.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS, INCLUDED THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE HOPPER MADISON AMENDMENT.

THOSE OPPOSED, I'M SEEING THAT AS BEING UNANIMOUS.

THAT GETS US TO A VOTE ON THE PUT IN ITS ENTIRETY LEGAL.

EVERYBODY READY FOR US TO VOTE ON THE PUT IN ITS ENTIRETY? OKAY.

I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE.

I'LL BE QUICK.

AND REMEMBER WE WE'RE LOSING COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, HERE ON THE AGENDA.

I'LL, I'LL BE, I'LL BE, I'LL BE REALLY QUICK.

UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA THANK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO FOR HER HARD WORK, UM, ON THIS POD IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OVERLAY.

UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU'VE DEDICATED 11 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE, UM, AND YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET THE CREDIT THAT YOU DESERVE FOR YOUR WORK AND SERVICE.

SO THANK YOU.

SO MANY HAVE BENEFITED FROM YOUR HARD WORK AND I WISH MORE WOULD TAKE THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION TO BENEFIT FROM THE WISDOM THAT YOU'VE CULTIVATED IN THAT PROCESS.

I KNOW YOU AND YOUR STAFF HAS SPENT INNUMERABLE HOURS WORKING IMPROVE THIS PROJECT, AND I KNOW THAT IT HASN'T

[12:50:01]

BEEN EASY.

UM, I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE WHOLE DIAS FOR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THIS PROJECT.

AS THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN LAYS OUT, THIS AREA PROVIDES GREAT PROMISE FOR OUR CITY AND IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR MORE DENSITY.

IN MANY WAYS, THOUGH, OUR POD PROCESS FOR LARGE PROJECTS LIKE THIS FEELS VERY BROKEN.

THEY OFTEN BECOME CONTENTIOUS, AND I REALLY FEEL THAT OUR COMMUNITY BELIEVES THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS WELL SERVED BY THE OUTCOME.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR DECISIONS MATTERS.

AND WHILE THIS PROPOSAL HAS IMPROVED FROM WHERE IT BEGAN, IN MY VIEW, THE BAR FROM WHERE WE STARTED WAS SO LOW THAT EVEN WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ACHIEVED IN THE OUTCOME THAT MERIT'S APPROVAL IN SOME WAY.

THAT'S A FAILURE OF THE POD PROCESS ITSELF, BUT IN OTHER WAYS, IT'S UNIQUE TO THIS PROJECT AND HOW IT FAILS TO DELIVER ON THE PROMISE OF OUR VISION FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT ONE CAN BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR DENSITY AND NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT DELIVERS ON ITS PROMISE.

I THINK WE ARE ALLOWING FOR A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, NEARLY A 600 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS DON'T SUFFICIENTLY MATCH THE AMOUNT OF PRIVATE PROFIT THAT WE ARE FACILITATING WITH THIS PROJECT.

THE TOURIST CREATES A FUNDING MECHANISM THAT I FIND TO BE PROBLEMATIC.

AND FROM MY RECOLLECTION, ONE OF THE CENTRAL ELEMENTS OF THE CREATION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN WAS TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA.

AND NOW THIS MAJOR PROJECT BENEFITING FROM BOTH THE TURS AND THE POD, WILL DODGE THAT BENEFIT AND RESPONSIBILITY.

SO AS MUCH AS I'VE TRIED, AND I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS, THIS PROJECT TODAY HAS NOT EARNED MY SUPPORT, AND I REGRET THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE MORE.

UH, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS THAT IS, IS MORE TRANSPARENT OR MORE OPEN OR A PROCESS THAT LEAVES BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY FEELING BETTER ABOUT THE CALIBRATION ELEMENTS.

UH, KA TOVO.

UM, THANK YOU MAYOR PROTE FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE KIND WORDS.

I APPRECIATE IT.

I AM IN THE SAME POSITION.

UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS POD I ENTERED TODAY THINKING, BOY, IF WE COULD SHIFT TO BACK TO 4 22 AND, AND GET THOSE 70 UNITS.

I WAS GONNA REEVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFITS BALANCED OUT WITH, WITH THE, WHAT MY COLLEAGUE HAS RIGHTLY DESCRIBED AS THE REAL INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS HERE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

I'M EXCITED TO SEE THE REDEVELOPMENT.

I THINK IT, IT IS A GOOD PLACE FOR INCREASED DENSITY.

I THINK THE PARKLAND IS GONNA BE TERRIFIC.

I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS AREA OF TOWN REDEVELOP, AND THIS IS GONNA BE A SIGNATURE PROJECT IN THE MIDST OF IT.

I WISH IT WERE ALSO GOING TO BE A PLACE THAT I COULD SAY WAS, WAS, UM, HAD LED TO THE CREATION OF HOUSING FOR FOLKS WHO WEREN'T PAYING MARKET RATE OR WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE LIKELY GONNA BE VERY HIGH DOLLAR PRICES.

AND, AND I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A, A REAL SUCCESS IN OUR FIRST STEP IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE HOUSING ADVOCATES AND PARK ADVOCATES AND MANY, MANY OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE PROVIDED THEIR WISDOM AND THEIR TIME AND THEIR ENERGY AND LOTS OF VOLUNTEER EFFORTS.

I DO, I DO AGREE WITH MERE PROTIME ALTER THAT IT'S AN IMPROVED PROJECT THAN IT WAS WHEN IT BEGAN.

I THINK WE, WE WILL, WE WILL SEE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT THERE, BUT I DO WISH WE HAD THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UM, NOT A FAN, LOU, AND, AND MORE OF THEM.

BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

COUNCIL KITCHEN.

UH, JUST QUICKLY, UM, I APPRECIATE, UH, THE EFFORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND THANK YOU MAYOR TIM FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

UM, AND, UM, UH, I AM GOING TO, UH, SUPPORT THIS, UH, POD.

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE AREAS WHERE I WOULD HAVE DONE, UH, HAVE LIKED TO OBTAIN, UH, MORE, UH, VALUE.

I DO THINK IT IS VALUABLE.

UM, I, UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD A VERY RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION, I THINK ABOUT OUR APPROACH TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, FROM MY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS, THIS DOES CARRY OUT OUR GOALS, UH, TO, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHAT THAT SHOULD LOOK LIKE, AND I RESPECT THAT DIFFERENCE.

BUT I, UM, I JUST, UM, I, TECH ISSUE IS CHARACTERIZING THIS IS NOT, IS NOT COMING FORWARD WITH, UM, UH, WITH, UH, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HIGH CAPACITY, IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS BECAUSE IT DOES.

UH, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD SHARE THE CONCERN.

I WOULD'VE PREFERRED, UH, ADDITIONAL HIGHER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY.

UM, SO I SHARE THAT CONCERN ALSO, BUT ON, BUT IN BALANCE, UM, I THINK THAT THIS IS, UM, A PROJECT THAT I CAN SUPPORT, UH, GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT, LIKE ALL THE PODS WE NEGOTIATE, AND QUITE FRANKLY A LOT OF THE DEALS THAT WE NEGOTIATE, UH, REQUIRE US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE EXACTING FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER EVERY PENNY WE CAN FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

UH, AND WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

THAT'S OUR JOB AND OUR, OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

[12:55:02]

UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I I WOULD REPEAT THE, THE SUGGESTION I'VE BEEN MAKING NOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY ON STAFF WHOSE JOB IT IS TO DO NOTHING BUT CALIBRATE AND DO NOTHING BUT COMING TO COUNCIL AND SAYING, BASED ON THIS DEAL AND THESE FINANCES AND THIS PROFOR, THIS IS THE VALUE OF WHAT YOU CAN EXACT, BECAUSE THIS COUNCIL CAN'T DETERMINE THAT NUMBER.

UH, THE COUNCIL CAN THEN TAKE THAT NUMBER AND SAY, WE WANT SO MUCH OF IT IN PARKS AND SO MUCH OF IT IN HOUSING.

UM, BUT THAT THRESHOLD NUMBER WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH IN A WAY THAT HAS, UH, GREATER, UH, TRUST, UH, AND, AND FAITH, UH, BOTH ON THIS, UH, DAY AND IN THE, AND THEN THE COMMUNITY.

READY, TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR THE PUBLIC.

SEE HOW QUICKLY WE CAN TAKE CARE OF 55 AND 56.

UH, COUNCILWOMAN RAV KITCHEN, UM, HARPER, MADISON ELLIS FUENTES RENT POOL AND MYSELF.

THOSE OPPOSED, UH, IT'S THE BEAR PRO TAM AND, UH, COUNCIL O TOVO.

UM, ABSTAINING AND ABSTAINING IS IS COUNCIL MEMBER CALL.

SO ON AN EIGHT TO TWO TO ONE VOTE, THE PUT IS APPROVED, MY COLLEAGUES.

UM, LET'S

[Items 55 & 56]

IT'S GONNA BEGIN WITH AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WE'LL DO, UH, VIRTUALLY, UH, SINCE COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON IS NOT WITH US HERE PHYSICALLY.

UH, SO COUNCIL WILL NOW GO IN A CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO 5 5 1 0 7 1.

GOVERNMENT CODE COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED ITEM 56 WITHOUT OBJECTION, UH, IN, IN TWO OR THREE MINUTES MEAN I'M GONNA GO UP TO MY OFFICE AND, AND TURN ON THE COMPUTER AND SEE IF I CAN GET PEOPLE TOGETHER.

CANCEL TOVO.

WE'VE HAD SUCH A FLURRY OF AMENDMENTS ON THIS.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD TALKED LAST NIGHT ABOUT TRYING TO GET HANDLE ON THAT AND WE DIDN'T.

AND I COULD USE A HANDLE ON THAT BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA BE HANDING OUT RIGHT NOW ON THE DIOCESE.

YOU GUYS COULD COME FORWARD.

UH, THESE ARE ALL THE MOTION SHEETS COMING FROM, UH, THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND ME.

IT HAS THE LIST OF ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS.

UH, AND IT HAS, UH, RED LINE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE.

IF YOU ARE OTHERWISE BRINGING AN AMENDMENT TO 55 AND 56, CAN YOU JUST IDENTIFY THAT NOW? YES.

CASUAL ELLIS.

I DO HAVE, UM, ONE FOR ITEM 55 ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTAL.

AND ON 56 THERE IS ANOTHER ONE ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AND THEN A THIRD ONE THAT IS ABOUT THE UNIT, UH, THRESHOLD THAT I'VE HANDED OUT HERE ON THE DAAS, TAKING THE UNIT THRESHOLD FOR COMPATIBILITY FROM 12 TO 17.

AND THAT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE, UM, THE MISSING MIDDLE THRESHOLDS WE JUST SET FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT AT 16 UNITS.

SO THERE'S THREE.

THERE'S SORRY, HOW MANY FOR? COULD YOU JUST SAY LIKE ONE FOR THIS AND TWO FOR THAT ONE.

I THINK WE GOT, WE DID GET ONE MOTION SHEET FOR 56 FROM YOU JUST DISTRIBUTED AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO FOR 55.

I HAVE TWO FOR 56 AND ONE FOR 55 SDR ONES.

YEP, THEY'VE BEEN EMAILED OUT.

AND THE SDR SAYS PROHIBITED TO S STR UNITS IN THE BONUS UNITS, SO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE COULD, FORMS THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO WHAT WE JUST DID.

MISSING MIDDLE.

IS ANYBODY ELSE BRINGING ANY, UH, OTHER AMENDMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN? YEAH, MAYOR, I KNOW WE WANNA USE MOVE QUICKLY, BUT IT, IT IS CONFUSING SO WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.

SO I HAVE, UH, TWO AMENDMENTS.

BOTH OF THEM ARE ON 56.

UH, YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE THEM.

UH, ONE RELATES TO THE, UM, RELATES TO AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, UM, AND, AND THE AFFORDABLE PROGRAM.

UH, AND THE OTHER ONE, UH, RELATES TO THE, UM, UH, IT'S BEEN PASSED OUT AND THE OTHER ONE RELATES TO THE QUARTER.

UH, THE LARGER QUARTER, THE DEPTH THAT HA IT CREATES AN, AN EXCEPTION FOR A VERY LIMITED, UH, PURPOSE.

AND THAT ONE'S BEEN, UM, PASSED OUT ALSO.

THEY'RE BOTH ON 56 2 ON 56.

I HAVE TWO ON 56 1 DEALS WITH THE WRAPAROUND TRACK AND ONE DEALS WITH, UH, FINDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUBSIDIZE UNITS.

[13:00:01]

ANYBODY ELSE BRINGING ANY AMENDMENTS ON THIS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT AT THIS POINT? MAY I HAVE FOUR? THEY'VE ALL BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT I CAN PRINT ON, THEY'RE ALL IN 56 AND WAIT 56? UH, YEAH, 55 BEING THE, THE COMMERCIAL ON RESIDENTIAL SIX.

UH, AND THE MAYOR PRO TIM AND UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN BOTH HAVE AMENDMENTS TO MY AMENDMENTS, WHICH I AM FINE WITH BOTH OF THOSE.

UM, UH, YEAH, THE REP.

OH, THAT'S AMENDMENT.

COUNCIL VELA HAS FOUR AMENDMENTS.

I PASSED MINE OUT AS A, AS A REGULAR AMENDMENT.

WE'LL, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.

SO I PASSED OUT MY AMENDMENT TO HIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS SIMPLY ADDING A TOUCHPOINT ON THE PROCESS, WHICH HE'S OKAY WITH.

SO YEAH, AND ACTUALLY THOSE ALL THE AMENDMENTS LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE WALKING BACK IN.

THAT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE, I BELIEVE.

SO JUST TO RECAP, MAYOR, WE HAVE UM, TWO MASTER LISTS, ONE FOR 56, 1 FOR 55 FROM YOU.

WE HAVE FROM THE MAYOR PRO AND THE MAYOR PROTE.

AND THEN WE HAVE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, TWO AMENDMENTS ON 56, 1 AMENDMENT ON 55 FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, TWO AMENDMENTS ON 56 FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VILLA FOUR AMENDMENTS ON 56 FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER MAYOR PROTO ALTAR, AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER VILLA'S AMENDMENT, AND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER VILLA'S AMENDMENT.

NO, FOR ME, THERE'S TWO FOR ME, FOR ME ON 56.

AND HE'S INCORPORATING IT INTO, YEAH.

AND THEN I DON'T HAVE ONE ON 55.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS THAT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VELA FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE JUST ABOUT TO GO DO NOW AND WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

OKAY, SO IN 10 MINUTES, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S, OKAY, SO LEMME SHOW, WE'LL CONVENE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN 10 MINUTES.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S IN YEARS OR NOT, BUT I THINK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER FROM MADISON GREG COUNCIL MEMBER APPRENTICE, I THINK IS AT THE AIRPORT.

UH, SO, UH, WE MAY, UH, START OR POSTPONE OR HOLD VOTE VOTES IF WE LOSE COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, BUT WE'RE GONNA TRY AND GET THESE THINGS DONE SO THAT SHE CAN VOTE.

COLLEAGUES, UH, THERE WAS, UH, ONE LAST ISSUE ON THE UH, STATESMAN POD.

UM, AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE AT A CLOSED SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION.

WE DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED ITEM 56, AND THIS IS THE CONTINUED DECEMBER 1ST, 2022 COUNCIL MEETING AND THE TIME IS 3 24.

UM, WE ARE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON THE STATE SMITH POD.

UH, CUZ THERE'S ONE ELEMENT THAT I'M NOT SURE WE VOTED ON THAT WAS THE, WHETHER WE WANTED TO DO UNITS OR SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE ASKED MANDY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

UH, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TELL US WHETHER WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO REOPEN IT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT ISSUE OR WHETHER YOU CAN JUST PUT THAT IN.

WE NEED TO ADOPT THAT QUESTION.

MATTIE, DID YOU LOOK AT THAT? LOOKED AT WAS THE E PS ANALYSIS.

EPS CAN DARE EPS KATE, DARREN SMITH I THINK DID A PRESENTATION TO Y'ALL SEPTEMBER OF 2022, RIGHT.

ABOUT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE STATESMAN PUT RIGHT.

UM, THE ANALYSIS LOOKS AT MARKET VERSUS AFFORDABLE RENTS AND THEN KIND OF COMES UP AND, AND CAPTURES A VALUE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL, WHICH FED INTO THE 31 MILLION THE MARKET.

AND THE AFFORDABLE WAS BASED ON SQUARE, AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO IT ALREADY, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 55 UNITS OR 70 UNITS, WHICH EQUALS THE 31 MILLION, I'M SORRY, 23, 20 3 MILLION, NOT 31 MILLION .

UM, THEY ALREADY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION AN AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR MARKET RENTS ACROSS A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREA AS WELL AS AFFORDABLE RENTS.

SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION IS ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND MAKING ANY CHANGES.

SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANKS FOR TAKING ANOTHER LOOK AT TO RESOLVE THE OTHER ISSUE.

THE OTHER ISSUE WHERE WE SAID IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE, IT SHOULD BE THE 23.1, UH, BUT WE SAID THAT'S GONNA BE A FLOOR.

I THINK WE INCORPORATED THAT INTO SO MANY THINGS WE PASSED.

DO YOU NEED US TO REOPEN IT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT 23 1, WHEREVER IT'S USED IS IDENTIFIED AS A FLOOR? THAT COULD CHANGE IF THERE'S MORE UNITS IN THE BASE, BUD? UM, NO.

THE DIRECTION AND MOTION WERE FOR THE OKAY.

MAKE IT A FLOOR SO WE KNOW THAT IT IS THE FLOOR.

AN INCREASED CONTRIBUTION? WE WILL NEED TO ADD THAT INTO IT BASED ON THE MOTIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED, THAT WERE MADE TODAY.

IF I MAY, UM, TRISH, BUT IS THERE EXPLICIT DIRECTION SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED THAT MAKES IT REALLY CLEAR IF THE USES ON THEIR CHANGE AND, AND RESIDENTIAL INCREASES THAT THERE WILL BE

[13:05:01]

SO THERE'LL BE SOME LANGUAGE THAT WILL APPEAR NEW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT YOU SAID AND TRANSLATE IT INTO THE ORDINANCE.

SO CUZ IT, SO THAT, THAT WILL BE THERE BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS THE DIRECTION IN THE VOTE OF THE COUNCIL.

PERFECT.

SO THAT, THAT INTENT WAS CLEAR.

WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU KATO.

THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US OF THOSE ISSUES.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON.

WE'RE GONNA CALL UP 55 AND 56.

WE'RE GONNA CALL 'EM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME JUST BY WAY OF DISCUSSION, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE 55.

VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY AND THEN VOTE ON 56 SEPARATELY.

DO YOU HAVE FIVE? MAYOR WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS AND JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH, YOU HAVE FIVE FOR 55, IS THAT RIGHT? BUT ZERO FOR 56.

YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T CALL YOURS OUT, BUT THEY'RE IN THE PACKET.

WE HAVE, WE HAVE.

IT'S JUST THE MOTION SHEET.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE MOTION SHEETS.

FIVE OF THEM.

UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I HAVE ALL OF THEM FRONT OF ME.

5 55, YOU HAVE FIVE.

GOT GOT HANDED OUT MOTION SHEETS.

UH, WE, WE HAVE, UM, SIX CUZ THERE'S ONE THAT WAS ON THE BACK OF THE BACKSIDE.

FIVE.

AND THEN ON 56, MAYOR PROTE AND I HAD SIX AS WELL, BUT THEY'RE HANDED OUT IN THE PACKET.

THEY'RE HAND OUT.

YOU REDISTRIBUTED THEM WITHIN THAT PACKET.

AND THAT'S BEEN POSTED.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, YOU ASKED WHAT HAD CHANGED.

SO WHAT HAS CHANGED IS, IS THAT, UH, TRISH WENT THROUGH AND GAVE US A NEW VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO THE CITATIONS DIDN'T NECESSARILY WORK AS WE WENT ACROSS AND WE LEFT OFF THE CITATIONS.

UM, BY THE WAY, THE CITATION THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR AMENDMENTS IS NO LONGER RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE, NOT A PROBLEM.

THEY CAN STILL PUT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

SO THAT WAS ONE CHANGE.

THE CITATIONS CAME OFF OF IT.

AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGE WAS THAT, UH, UM, UH, THIS PACKET AMER TIME AND I ARE NOW RECOMMENDING THAT WE, UH, UH, DON'T CHANGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS IT IS ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO REQUIRING, UH, RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY THAT'S, THAT'S WRITTEN IN AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGE OTHER THAN THAT IT'S LIKE WHAT WAS POSTED THE DAY BEFORE.

MAYOR PROTE, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU IF YOU WANT TO KIND OF OPEN US UP ON THIS.

TO DO THAT, UH, PLEASE REACH OUT TO MY OFFICE.

UM, I'M GONNA START A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS ON THIS BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN REALLY WORKING HARD FOR WELL OVER A YEAR AS PART OF THIS PROCESS AND OBVIOUSLY PART OF LOTS OF OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, DISCUSSIONS TO TRY TO GET US TO A PLACE, UM, THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER AS A COUNCIL, UM, TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED, BUT I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR COUNCIL STAFF, PARTICULARLY MY CHIEF OF STAFF, KURT KAENA MITCHELL, STEPHANIE TRI JULIE MONTGOMERY, SOPHIA MORALES, LOUISA BRINS MADE, WHO WORKED TOGETHER TO CRAFT THE INITIAL RESOLUTION ON COMPATIBILITY.

UM, OUR CITY STAFF WORKED HARD TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK IN TIME FOR US TO CONSIDER IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

OUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PUT IN EXTRA TIME AND MEETINGS, AND I WANNA PARTICULARLY ACKNOWLEDGE MY PLANNING COMMISSIONER GRAYSON COX, BUT ALSO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR TODD SHAW AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK GROUP, UH, COMMISSIONER OF ETAR, JEFFREY THOMPSON, JAMES SHE, JESSICA CONE, JENNIFER MUER, AND GREG ANDERSON, WHO ALL, UM, WORK TOGETHER TO HELP US TO, TO ADVANCE THESE.

TAKEN, TO GATHER THESE PROPOSALS WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL WHERE IT IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED AND INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS BY GRANTING INCREASED FAR.

AND IF THE PROJECT IS MIXED USE, THEN IT ALSO INCREASES THE HEIGHT.

THIS PROPOSAL REDUCES COMPATIBILITY FOR HOUSING PROJECTS IN GENERAL.

IT REDUCES IT EVEN MORE IF YOU INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED, IN WHICH WE HAVE EXTREMELY AMBITIOUS GOALS ON CREATING IN WHICH OUR PUBLIC IS DEMANDING.

AND THE PROPOSAL REDUCES COMPATIBILITY EVEN MORE IN AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SERVED OR WILL SOON BE SERVED BY TRANSIT, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHERE WE SAID WE WANT TO PARTICULARLY INCENTIVIZE OUR GROWTH.

AND THESE ARE ON THE MEDIUM, THE LARGE AND LIGHT RAIL, UM, CORRIDORS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THESE CHANGES.

SOME HAVE SAID THIS PROPOSAL GOES TOO FAR AND OTHERS HAVE SAID IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

I AM PREPARED TO SUPPORT THESE ITEMS TODAY.

UM, FOR ANYONE WANTING US TO DO MORE, WE CAN CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER ON HOW TO TO ACHIEVE THAT.

I WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT'S COME UP IN THIS CONVERSATION.

UM, MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT NEEDING TO CREATE MORE HOUSING IN WEST AUSTIN.

AND IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DIAS WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW

[13:10:01]

UM, AND LET'S SET UP A TIME TO MEET AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

MY DOOR IS OPEN ON THAT.

UM, WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND WORK, WORK TOGETHER.

I BELIEVE THE MAYOR AND I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT ABROAD AND DIVERSE CAUCUS REPRESENTING MULTIPLE CORNERS OF THE CITY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE RESULTS.

IT MAY NOT BE WHAT ANY ONE OF US WOULD'VE CRAFTED ON OUR OWN, BUT RATHER THAN LAMENTING THAT WHETHER THIS PROPOSAL IS ONLY HALF A LOAF, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT HALF A LOAF IS STILL A LOT OF BREAD AND WE CAN ALWAYS CONTINUE TO WORK TO MAKE OUR CITY MORE LIVABLE AND MORE AFFORDABLE.

SO I WANNA CLOSE FOR NOW BY THANKING MY CO-SPONSORS, MAYOR ADLER, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, WHO WERE PART OF OUR QUORUM ON THE CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY.

AND I WANNA THANK COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO, THEN COUNCIL MEMBER KASAR AND COUNCIL MEMBER AND KITCHEN WHO WERE PART OF THE QUORUM INITIATING THE ALLOWANCE OF RESIDENTIAL USES AND COMMERCIAL ZONES AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IF QUORUM RULES HAD ALLOWED OTHERS WOULD'VE ROLLED UP THEIR SLEEVES AND WORKED WITH US, UM, ON THESE VARIOUS PROPOSALS.

I THINK OUR WORK TOGETHER HAS ACHIEVED SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR APPROVAL OF THESE ITEMS TODAY.

UM, AND THEN WHEN YOU RECOGNIZE ME AGAIN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON 55.

BUT, UM, MAYOR PROTE, THANK YOU.

I THINK YOUR COMMENTS REALLY, UH, SELF SUFFICIENT.

WANNA THANK YOU ALSO FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON BOTH 55 AND 56.

UH, YOU KNOW, COLLEAGUES, AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS NOW FOR LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS, ALL THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE WERE IDENTIFYING THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD AGREE ON THIS ATTEMPT AS WE IDENTIFIED AS THE COUNCIL, WAS TO SEE IF WE COULD GATHER TOGETHER SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE COULD AGREE ON AND ACTUALLY PASS SOMETHING.

WE EMBARKED ON THIS ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, UH, THE, THE PROCESS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO TO, TO DO THAT.

I'M HAPPY WE'VE GOTTEN TO THIS PLACE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO US PASSING THIS TODAY, UH, WITH CONSENSUS.

AND THEN I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, UM, THERE'S STILL MUCH WORK TO BE DONE, LOW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

UM, I'LL BE EATING MY POPCORN, UM, WATCHING ON TV OR COMING DOWN TO SING SONGS AT THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT TO, TO, TO ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD.

UH, BUT I, BUT I, UH, AM PROUD TO, TO BE PART OF A GROUP THAT'S ABLE TO, TO GET SOMETHING DONE TODAY.

WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THE MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 55? SO ITEM 55 IS THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

UM, AND I MOVE PASSAGE OF THE RED LINE WITH AMENDMENTS THAT INCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE MAYOR AND I HAVE PUT FORWARD IN THE PACKET THAT WAS SHARED WITH YOU FOR ITEM 55 AND OUTLINED, UM, IN THE MASTER LIST OF ISSUES.

IT'S CALLED RED LINE WITH AMENDMENTS.

UH, SECOND BY, UH, COUNCIL POOL.

UM, DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 55.

UH, COUNCILOR KITCHEN.

UH, I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MISSED WHAT YOU SAID.

THE PROCESS WAS GONNA BE, ARE YOU GONNA TAKE EACH AMENDMENT? IS THAT HOW YOU'RE GONNA DO IT OR HOW ARE YOU GONNA DO IT? YEAH, HER, HER MOTION, UH, INCLUDES ALL OF 50, I MEAN INCLUDES THE, THE MASTER SHEET WITH THE THINGS THAT CAME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE LIKE.

SO IT'S THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN.

UH, UH, WE COULD, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO, TO ENTERTAIN, UM, ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.

WHAT I'M SEEING IS JUST ONE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT IN 55 FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS THAT, UM, UM, HAS BEEN HANDED OUT.

MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE, ITEM NUMBER 55.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, YOU WANNA MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT? I'M, I'M SORRY.

I I MISSED A KEY PHRASE EARLY ON.

DID YOU MAYOR PRETEND, DID YOU MOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? I MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REDLINED VERSION, WHICH WAS, IT IS BOTH BASED OFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEIR RED LINES.

THIS ONE.

THEY MADE THEIR RED LINES TO, UM, THE STAFF PROPOSAL AND THEN WE CHANGED THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SOME OF WHICH WENT BACK TO THE STAFF PROPOSAL.

SO IT'S A, IT'S A CONGLOMERATION.

YOU'VE EXPLAINED WHAT YOU'VE ACCEPTED AND WHAT YOU HAVEN'T ON THAT FIRST OVERVIEW SHEET.

AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE FRAMED AS AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE AMENDMENT SHEETS.

BUT AS I LOOK AND I SEE RED LINES, THOSE ARE RED LINES TO EXISTING CODE, NOT RED LINES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE, NOT RED LINES TO THE STAFF.

THEY'RE RED LINES TO WHAT IS IN CODE TODAY.

AS YOU HAVE REDRAFTED IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? COUNCIL MEMBER? I MAY BE ABLE TO HELP.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE MOTION IS, THE BASE MOTION TODAY IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE

[13:15:01]

AND, AND, AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS ON TOP OF THAT.

BUT THE BASE MOTION YOU'RE STARTING FROM IS PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION, CORRECT? YES.

WHICH IS, WHICH IS THIS VERSION IN OUR PACKET? YES.

AS THOSE TWO THINGS COMBINED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PUT FORWARD AS HANDED OUT.

AS HANDED OUT ON THE DICE.

SO FROM WHAT'S IN BACKUP THOUGH? IT JUST, SO ANYBODY'S FOLLOWING ALONG THE IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION.

GUYS, OVER KITCHEN.

UH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, MAKING SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING ONE OF THE SECTIONS.

SO THIS, THIS IS, UM, ITEM NUMBER, UM, IT'S, UH, IT'S ON THE, IT'S THE LAST PAGE.

OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. YES.

AND IT'S NUMBER THREE.

SO, UM, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE IN 56, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE CUZ UH, THIS ONE JUST SAYS MUST EQUAL OR EXCEED THE NUMBER OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ALONE.

WHEREAS THE ONE IN 56 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHICHEVER PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANNA, WE WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR WE'RE NOT DOUBLING, BUT IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHICHEVER PROGRAM HAS THE HIGHER NUMBER OF, UM, AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT SUPPLIES.

AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE INTENT IS THAT THAT REALLY WORKS IN, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME IN, UM, 55 AND 56.

I'M NOT CERTAIN WHY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, IF THAT, DOES MY QUESTION MAKE SENSE? IT DOES.

AND THE INTENT WAS FOR THEM TO BE THE SAME.

UH, THE REQUEST WAS THE SAME.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THEY WERE JUST DRAFTED AT TWO DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME.

SO I'D ASK TRISH, I THINK THERE'S MULTIPLE, WE BELIEVE THERE'S MULTIPLE BONUS THINGS FOR THE QUARTER ONE AND THIS ONE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT IT RELATIVE.

THAT'S IT, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

BUT, BUT WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO, TO MY MIND OF, OF ALL, OF ALL OF THE BONUS PROGRAMS THAT A PARTICULAR PROPERTY MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN, WHETHER IT'S VMU TWO, WHETHER IT'S COURT OR OVERLAY, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, OR WHETHER IT'S VMU ONE, WHATEVER IS THE, UM, IS THE, UM, STRICTEST AFFORDABILITY IS THE ONE THAT WOULD APPLY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'VE GOT IN 56.

AND THE, AND THE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD IS THE MOST STRICT ALSO IN 55.

SO IT'S THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD IS THE SAME.

THE REASON THE LANGUAGE IS DIFFERENT RIGHT BEFORE IS BECAUSE ONE OF THEM DEALS WITH MULTIPLE OTHER POTENTIAL COMBINING STUFF, AND THE OTHER ONE DEALS WITH JUST ONE.

AND WE'RE SAYING BETWEEN THESE TWO YOU HAVE TO USE THE, THE MOST.

BUT IT DOES, IF I CAN, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING AND I THINK TRISH'S GONNA CLARIFY, BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO, UM, ON ITEM 55 UNDER OTHER DENSITY PROGRAMS MM-HMM.

, UM, IT SAYS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE MUST EQUAL OR EXCEED THE NUMBER OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, PLUS THE NUMBER OF ONSITE UNITS REQUIRED BY THE OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, EXCEPT IT'S PROVIDED FOR THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO FOR OTHER PROGRAMS, THEY CAN'T SUBSTITUTE IT HERE.

WHEREAS WE WANTED YOU TO BE ABLE, SINCE WE MADE THE DEFINITION OF THE BONUSES THE SAME FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOR THE CORRIDOR, UM, OR THAT TO SATISFY THE CORRIDOR, YOU COULD DO THIS ONE, UM, THROUGH THAT.

HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO V BECAUSE THE, THE V REQUIREMENT IS A 60%, I'M GONNA GET IT BACKWARDS, BUT IT'S LIKE 60% AT 10%.

I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN WE USED THE VMU ONE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT I'LL LET TRISH SPEAK TO THE DRAFTING.

I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M SEEING IT.

, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S A HIGHER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT FROM THE TWO.

YEAH, IT WOULD BE, I THINK IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT IT READS THAT WAY.

AND THE, THE PART ON PAGE 11 AT THE END WAS, WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT TWICE IF YOU WERE TAKING CARE ADVANTAGE OF THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM.

SO, SO THE CONTROLLING, WHAT YOU ALL ARE SEEING IS THE CONTROLLING LANGUAGE IS F TWO FOR, FOR OTHER BONUS, LIKE THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM DOESN'T SPECIFY ALL OF THE BONUSES.

, IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO SATISFY A BONUS PROGRAM AND THEN YOU GET THIS, IT SAYS REQUIRED BY THE OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM REFERS TO.

SO FIRST SENTENCE, IF IT'S ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR A SEPARATE IN ONE

[13:20:01]

UHHUH, I SEE.

YEAH, I THINK IT HITS YOUR, I THINK IT WAS EVERYBODY'S INTENT.

I THINK WE HIT IT.

TRISH, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING TOO? SO IN MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE.

IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT THIS PROGRAM AND YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN THE OVERLAY, THEN YOU TAKE THIS PROGRAM PLUS THE OTHER PROGRAM AND PUT THEM TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE TO MEET THE BOTH ONSITE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE, UH, REGULATION.

THE PROBLEM IS NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE THE WAY I'M READING THIS, I GET NUMBER ONE SAYS, NUMBER TWO SAYS, IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, I PROPERTIES DON'T HAVE A V OR THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE RESIDE.

IF PROPERTY HAS COMMERCIAL, YOUR PROBLEM IS NUMBER THREE, IS IT NOT? BECAUSE IT SAYS IF A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO ELIGIBLE TO UTILIZE THE COURT OVERLAY PROGRAM, THEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS MUST EQUAL OR EXCEED THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ALONE.

SO ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY WOULD NEVER BE ELIGIBLE FOR V IF THEY'RE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY, YOU COULD HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE YOU WERE NO, NO.

UM, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT SPECIFIC TO A PROPERTY THAT WANTS TO USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND IS IN THE CORRIDOR, RIGHT, YOU ONLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BONUS PROGRAM, NOT THE BONUS PROGRAM INCORPORATED INTO THE OVERLAY IF YOU WANNA HAVE THE BONUS.

OKAY, BUT HOW DO YOU, BUT BUT IF YOU'RE, IF, IF YOU'RE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND YOUR V AND YOU'RE IN A CORRIDOR OVERLAY, WHICH ONE DO YOU, SO IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU COULD USE YOUR V AND YOU COULD DO YOUR RESIDENTIAL, YOU COULD DO RESIDENTIAL IN COMMERCIAL, SORRY.

PROPERTIES ARE NOT OH, YOU'RE CORRECT.

YOU'RE CORRECT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT COVERED BY THE, UM, OH MY GOODNESS.

BY, BY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

BUT WHAT IF YOU ARE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RIGHT NOW AND YOU WANNA ADD V IN THE FUTURE, YOU HAVE TO COME IN FOR A ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO GO TO VMU TWO AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ZONING CHANGE TO, WILL YOU BE ELIGIBLE FOR V ONE, NOT JUST VMU TWO.

IF YOU'RE NOT A V PROPERTY AT ALL RIGHT NOW AND YOU WANNA COME IN AND ADD V I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD WANT TO.

SO IN THAT A SENSE OF PROPERTY THAT IS, UH, THAT IS, UM, ELIGIBLE TO USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL THAT DOES NOT HAVE A V UHHUH CAN USE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW WHAT IS IN VMU.

AND MY GUESS IS THEY WOULD PROBABLY USE VMU TOO AS THAT HAS, UM, THE ADDITIONAL, UH, ENTITLEMENT.

UH, THEY WOULD COME IN AND GET THE V FROM COUNCIL AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, IF THEY MET THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE V PROGRAM AND THE VMU PROGRAM TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE VMU ONE OR VMU TWO BASED ON THAT, I WOULD JUST FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE.

I I I CAN, WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS MAYOR.

I WOULD JUST FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE IF IT SAID SOMEWHERE JUST A REALLY CLEAR, JUST A STATEMENT THAT SAYS WHATEVER PROGRAMS AND JUST LIKE YOU DID IN 56, IF IT JUST SAID CLEARLY, WHATEVER PROGRAMS, UH, WHATEVER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE HELD TO THE, TO THE, THE, THE, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE I'M AFRAID THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MISSING A, A, A CIRCUMSTANCE.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

SO FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, IF YOU ARE ZONED V YOU ARE NOT, YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

IF YOU ARE ZONED V CURRENTLY, THE, IF THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO A PROPERTY.

YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE IF YOU HAVE A V ON YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR V IN THE FUTURE CUZ YOU HAVE A V.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A V RIGHT NOW, CAN YOU USE THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN THE, IN THE FUTURE? IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE POINT YOU APPLY FOR V YOU'RE NO LONGER UNDER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT.

AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, I JUST HAD THE PAGE, SORRY, PAGE SEVEN OF THE RED LINE WITH AMENDMENTS.

IT'S LINE 1 97.

A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS ZONED TO V.

A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED

[13:25:04]

LINE 1 97 AND YOU'D GET MUCH BETTER YOU'D GET.

SO THAT WOULD APPLY IN THE FUTURE.

YOU READ THAT LANGUAGE TO APPLY IN THE FUTURE IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANNA COME INTO COUNT, IF YOU WANT TO SEEK A V FROM COUNCIL, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY UNDER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS C1 IS SAYING? CORRECT.

SO AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS, IT HAS ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS, AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, EACH OF 'EM LISTED, UH, AS WE WENT THROUGH IT, THE TWO STORIES TO THREE STORIES IS RECOMMENDED, WAS ALREADY IN THERE.

THE, THE FI LOU WAS ALREADY IN THERE.

THE, UM, ALL THESE ELEMENTS AS STAYED OUT AS WERE IN THERE OR IF THEY'RE CHANGED, THEY'RE NOTED AND THERE'S A MOTION SHEET ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

AND THEN THE RED LINE, UH, CAN YOU POINT ME TO THE LU? I FIND THAT WHICH FEE AND LU YOU JUST REFER TO AS LU, UM, THE, HE AND LU WAS THE ONE THAT, THAT DROPPED THE, THE, THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

THAT WAS THE CHANGE.

AND IT'S ON LINE 2 57, 2 50 FEE AND LOU STARTS AT 2 52.

OKAY, GOT IT.

NO PROBLEM.

ALL RIGHT, SO THOSE WERE ALL THE, THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS MOVES, UH, HER, UH, AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THE ONLY OTHER AMENDMENT TO 55.

OKAY, NO PROBLEM.

HEATHER ELLIS, YOU WANNA LAY OUT YOUR MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE, ITEM 55.

I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, CHECK IN WITH, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A STAKEHOLDER, UH, GROUP TO SORT OF GO THROUGH THESE ISSUES AGAIN AND UPDATE EVERYTHING.

THIS IS AMENDING SECTION 25 2 DASH FIVE 90 E.

UM, SHORT TERM RENTAL USE IS PROHIBITED WITHIN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT IN A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE RATIONALE IS LISTED BELOW, BUT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATION IN A NUMBER OF THESE LAND USE ISSUES WE'VE TAKEN UP OVER, UM, THE PAST TWO DAYS.

AND I KNOW THERE WAS A ROBUST STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVED INPUT SESSION WITH SHORT TERM RENTAL.

AND SO I JUST WANT THESE TO STAND AS STREAMLINED AS POSSIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTAL STANDARDS, KNOWING THAT WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE THAT CONVERSATION BACK UP AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING DECIDED WITH STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT AND EASILY LOCATED WITHIN THE CODE.

AND SO I JUST WANTED FOR THIS, THESE CONVERSATIONS FOR 55 AND 56 TO JUST MAKE THEM AS IS, AS IS CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED IN CODE THIS COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS MAKES THIS MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? UH, COUNCIL REMEMBER IN 30 SECONDS DISCUSSION COUNCIL? YEAH, I HAVE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AND I'M GONNA HAVE THE SAME STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEXT ONE AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO EVALUATE MY CON MY SUPPORT FOR THESE MEASURES.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TOLD OUR COMMUNITY, WE'RE GETTING TONS OF FEEDBACK.

I DON'T KNOW IF EVERY DISTRICT IS, BUT THESE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NOT, UM, A, A GROUND SWELL OF SUPPORT NECESSARILY FOR THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING HERE TODAY.

AND I'M GONNA SUPPORT THEM IF WE PROCEED ALONG A REASONABLE PATH BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE REASONABLE CHANGES.

HOWEVER, IF WE'RE LOOSENING REQUIREMENTS AND GRANTING ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS TO PROPERTIES AND THE RESULT IS AN INCREASE IN SHORT TERM RENTALS, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

WE'VE GONE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND WE'VE SAID OUR INTENTION IS TO CREATE HOUSING TO CREATE MUCH NEEDED HOUSING UNITS, AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE HOUSING.

AND WE KNOW WHAT THE MARKET PRODUCES.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE MARKET IS PRODUCING THIS IN YOUR DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, BUT IT SURE IS IN MINE AND COUNCIL MEMBER RENTEES AND COUNCIL AND MAYOR PRO ALTERS.

AND WHEN THERE IS A CHOICE, SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE MOST FINANCIALLY LUCRATIVE.

AND SO I, I CANNOT SUPPORT PROVIDING, PROVIDING INCENTIVES AND THEN ALLOWING THOSE TO BE USED TO CREATE MORE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

FURTHER DISCUSSION AS PAUL, I'M, I'M, I WANNA HEAR EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS ON THIS.

THIS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT AREA FOR US TO LEGISLATE IN, BUT

[13:30:01]

I THINK THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS WAS MAYBE 2016 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA, DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE TOOK THIS UP? I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A, IT WAS PRE PANDEMIC, WHICH MEANS IT WAS EONS AGO.

AND SO WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, UM, WOULD, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN, IN KIND OF LEADING ON A STAKEHOLDER CONVERSATION SO THAT WE'RE NOT PIECEMEALING, WHICH IS I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE GET AT A LITTLE HIGHER LEVEL FOR THE POLICY SETTING AND, AND THAT WE DON'T DO IT CASE BY CASE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO GET AT.

I THINK, I THINK PIECEMEALING IS A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT.

AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN ROBUST STAKEHOLDER INPUT.

I AGREE THAT IT COULD BE TIME TO REVISIT THAT.

UM, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ISSUES WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS BECAUSE OF ENFORCEMENT OR BECAUSE OF AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THOSE DIRECTLY AND, AND NOT PIECEMEALING TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THAT.

SO I'D, I'D LOVE TO TO LOOK AT HOW TO INVOLVE STAKEHOLDERS AND, AND YOU KNOW, HONESTLY TO BRING IN THE FOLKS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THE RULES THAT WE SET.

BECAUSE I THINK I, I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE THERE, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ON THIS DIAS BEFORE.

SO DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE OKAY WITH TAKING MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE AND TURNING IT INTO A DIRECTION FOR THE MANAGER TO CREATE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ON THIS ISSUE AND OTHER STR ISSUES AND COME BACK TO COUNSEL? IS THAT SUFFICIENT MANAGER? MM-HMM.

DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO THAT AMENDMENT GOING IN HEARING NONE.

THAT AMENDMENT GOES IN.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS? JUST THE STAKEHOLDER PORTION.

JUST THE STAKEHOLDER PORTION GOES IN.

I THINK THOSE ARE, SO THAT LEAVES MY AMENDMENT AS IS WRITTEN MM-HMM.

SO IT'S NOT MAKING THE CHANGE TO THE DOCUMENT, IT JUST CREATES THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

AND THEN THAT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS COULD AMEND THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THESE, IT COULD COME BACK WITH THAT OR MANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS CUZ YOU MADE IT MORE BROAD THAN JUST THIS, IT COULD COME BACK WITH OTHER STR RECOMMENDATIONS.

I, I'D PREFER TO KEEP THE, THE REGULATIONS STANDARDIZED UNTIL THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP HAS HAD A CHANCE TO MEET.

BUT IF THAT'S NOT THE WILL OF THE DIAS, THEN UM, WE CAN SEE HOW THAT GOES.

COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL? YES.

AS KELLY, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD BE CHANGING SOMETHING UNTIL WE GET THE FEEDBACK FROM THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP.

COULD WE WORK TOWARD CONSENSUS ON HAVING THE LANGUAGE READ AS IS STANDARDIZED IN THE REST OF THE CODE UNTIL THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP CONVENES AND MAKES AN ASSESSMENT? SO IN THIS CASE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUT IN THE AMENDMENT TO, UM, UH, PROHIBIT SHORT TERM RENTALS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

YOU'VE AMEND THAT TO SAY, UH, UH, JUST, UH, PROHIBITED WITH AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

WE HAVE A STUDY PERIOD OF TIME AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS IT THAT THAT IS THE RULE IN THE MEANTIME? DOES IT ALLOW, UH, I GUESS OUR EXISTING RULES WOULD, WOULD ALLOW IT THE SHORT RULE, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TO EXIST SUBJECT TO ALL THE RULES WE HAVE IN PLACE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS SAYING WE SHOULD PROHIBIT IT.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS WAS MOVING FOR A LESSER PROHIBITION, PROHIBIT IT.

VALLEY.

I MEAN, I I I AM WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS IN TERMS OF, I MEAN THESE, THEY HAVE UTILITY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO, I KNOW THE, THE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, NEGATIVE REPUTATION AND, BUT AS SHE'S MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT USE THEM.

FAMILIES IN PARTICULAR, UH, WHO, YOU KNOW, REMODEL AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO I, I DON'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, JUST AS A, AS A DEFAULT MATTER, JUST, YOU KNOW, EXCLUDE THEM.

UH, I I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF HER AMENDMENT.

THIS IS 50.

AND I MISSED MY POINT IN TALKING ABOUT IT.

YEAH, I MEAN, TO BE CLEAR, A PROPERTY OWN, THIS ISN'T EXCLUDING, THIS ISN'T MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTS TO DO A SHORT TERM RENTAL TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE.

THIS IS, THIS IS HITTING THE TYPE THREES, WHICH ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, INVESTOR OWNED, INVESTOR OWNED PROPERTIES.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD URGE WE LISTEN TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WORK, I THINK A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS A FINE IDEA.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT TO CONSIDER AFTER OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION NEXT TUESDAY.

WE'RE GONNA HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD ON ONE VERY SMALL ELEMENT OF IT, BUT THERE'S A LOT TO DISCUSS.

BUT AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD REALLY URGE THAT IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE, UM, UNDERTAKING SOMETHING TO CREATE MORE HOUSING THAT WE LISTEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND WHAT WE KNOW TO BE THE CASE AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT HOUSING, THAT THOSE UNITS GET RESERVED AS HOUSING.

[13:35:04]

I THINK THE MARKET PROVIDES HOMEOWNERS TO DO THIS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE, THAT PROVIDES FOR THAT PRODUCT THAT CAN, THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT PRODUCT TO COME TO THE MARKET WITHOUT CREATING MORE INVESTOR OPPORTUNITIES.

GUYS, ALICE, I JUST HOPE THAT WE COULD REACH A CONSENSUS AND THAT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS SHOULD BE REVISITED.

UM, BUT THERE, THERE HAS BEEN ROBUST STAKEHOLDER INPUT.

IT IS, UH, QUITE A FEW YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL AND I DON'T THINK FOR THE, THE PURPOSES OF TODAY WE NEED TO NECESSARILY SAY, UM, THAT WE LIKE THEM OR DON'T LIKE THEM.

THERE ARE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE DOING SHORT TERM HOME REMODELING OR MAKING REPAIRS FOR THEIR HOME WHERE, WHERE THEY CAN'T BE INHABITED.

THEY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF OPTIONS ON THE MARKET.

AGAIN, THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE I A HUNDRED PERCENT BELIEVE THAT, THAT THOSE ARE AN ISSUE THAT WE COULD JUST STEP UP AND MAKE SURE THOSE ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF.

UM, BUT, BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A FACILITY TO USING THEM AND I, I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE COULD DO A SIMILAR STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT IS NOW ABOUT SIX YEARS OLD.

UM, I, I JUST THINK THAT'S WHY THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY, AT LEAST TO KEEP THEM STANDARDIZED FOR NOW.

NOT SAYING THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP WON'T, WON'T COME BACK AND, AND MAKE SOME OTHER DIFFERENT PROPOSALS.

SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S ROOM HERE FOR, FOR SOME MORE DISCUSSION.

MAYOR, WAIT, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

BEAR PRO TAB? YES.

UM, SO COUNCIL MA TOVO, I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS, UH, BUT I ALSO DO KNOW THAT THE STR ARE CAPPED IN MULTIFAMILY TO 25%.

I WANTED TO ASK, UM, MS. LINK IF SHE COULD CONFIRM THAT THIS WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE FOR A PROPERTY WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING, IT IS 25% OF THE UNITS.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER, ANOTHER OPTION RATHER THAN DOING NO WOULD BE TO DO WHAT WE JUST DID ON THE STATESMAN POD AND, YOU KNOW, CAP IT AT 10%.

UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WILLOW THAT IS WILL BE ON THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE, UM, ALLOWING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT NOT HAVING IT BE AN OVERWHELMING PORTION, UM, IN ANY, IN ANY, IN ANY BUILDING.

UM, AND I THINK THAT IS LIKELY GONNA BE THE DIRECTION IF WE, IF WE ARE GONNA PUT ANY CONTROLS ON SDR, I THINK THAT'S LIKELY THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTROLS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE, UM, TO POTENTIALLY DO IN ANY CASE.

UM, SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DIAS TO CONSIDER, UM, AS A COMPROMISE ACROSS THESE APPROACHES IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

UH, SO RIGHT NOW THE, THE, THE, THE FAULT LAW ABSENT THIS IS THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE PROHIBITED IN 75% OF THE UNITS.

IS THAT RIGHT? AS OUR POOL.

AND, AND THE EXISTING, UM, RESTRICTIONS, UH, IF WE CONTINUE THEM ON, IT STILL KIND OF LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION OF, FOR THE PURPOSE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, WHICH WOULD BE HOMEOWNERS THAT NEED TO RELOCATE BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING WHOLE HOME RENOVATIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT MECHANISM WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY GET ACCESS TO THOSE SDRS.

THAT, THAT MOTIVATION IS A REALLY GOOD ONE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DIRECT THE, THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN OR EVEN TO ENFORCE IT, BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DIG INTO AND EXPLORE.

MAYOR PARTTIME, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO 15% AND WE CAN KEEP MOVING? SURE.

I MEAN, I, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO DO A COMPROMISE HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO, TO REDO THE SDR POLICIES AS WE STAND IT HERE NOW.

UM, SO I WOULD SUPPORT, UM, UH, NO GREATER THAN 15% AND NONE IN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT GOING IN? YEAH, I HAVE AN OBJECTION.

JUST PLEASE REGISTER ME AS A NO, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE ARE REDOING THE ZONING OR FIXING TO REDO THE COMPATIBILITY.

AND NO UNITS, NONE OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEN, THEN WE HAVE TAKEN A STEP TOWARD FOR THE RESTRICTING STR WE'LL REGISTER THAT AS A NO VOTE.

WE, WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO MODIFY AND PROBABLY ONCE A WEEK I GET EMAILS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING US WHY WE'RE ALLOWING PROPERTIES IN OUR MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS TO BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

IT JUST, IT'S TOTALLY ANTITHETICAL TO WHAT WE'RE, AND IN THIS PROCESS WE SAY WE WANNA DO.

AND IN THIS PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH HERE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE COMPROMISING PURITY FOR CONSENSUS.

IF WE DO, UH, LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 15%

[13:40:01]

WE'LL TAKE THAT AMENDMENT AND PUT THAT AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE AMENDMENTS ON 55.

TAKE A VOTE.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON 55.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF 55 AS AMENDED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED TO 55, UH, TWO NO VOTES.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY AND, UH, COUNCIL BAR TOBO.

THE IS VOTING I OH, ON THAT ONE.

ARE WE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT OR VOTE ON THE WHOLE THING? JUST TAKE A VOTE ON THE WHOLE THING.

ON 55, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS EVEN THOUGH I, I TOTALLY DISAGREE.

I WILL SAY IF IT, IF IT MAKES ITS WAY IN INTO COMPATIBILITY, I'M UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT THAT.

UH, KELLY, YOU WANTED TO BE SHOWN AS A NO VOTE.

SAME KIND OF THING WITH RESPECT TO, UH, WHAT'S BEEN, UH, UM, UH, LAID OUT.

I, AGAIN, YOU SEE THE, UH, BASE, UH, WHICH IS THE, UH, UH, TR RECONFIGURED, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU SEE THE, UH, ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED ON 56 AND THEN THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT ON 56.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS ON 56.

UM, LIKE A BASE MOTION.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE A BASE MOTION? YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD.

I WILL MOVE, UM, PASSAGE OF ITEM 56, UM, IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PASSED OUT IN OUR, UH, PACKET WITH THE RED LINE WITH AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY, UH, THE MAYOR AND MYSELF.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? COUNCIL POOL.

SECOND SET.

UH, WE SEE THE BASE AMENDMENTS.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.

UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, WE JUST PUT YOU UP ON THE, ON THE DEAL FIRST.

SO I'M GONNA COME BACK TO YOU.

LAST, LET'S START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

YOU HAVE, UH, UH, A MOTION SHEET ON 56? UM, YES, MA'AM.

I, I HAVE TWO, UH, MOTION SHEETS ON 56.

DO YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THEM BOTH OR? I'M GONNA SEE IF WE CAN DO 'EM QUICKLY.

YOUR FIRST ONE WAS CONCERNING, UH, UH, UH, WRAPAROUND TRACKS.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT GOING IN? SO, UH, I'M NOT SURE.

IS THIS, UH, THE AMENDMENT THAT WHERE YOU'RE AMENDING MY, UH, UH, AMENDMENT FOR? UH, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY IT STANDS, IT STANDS SEPARATELY, BUT THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH, YOU YOU HAVE IT.

I JUST, UH, WAS DOUBLE CHECK IT, BUT IT'S NOT A AMENDING MY AMENDMENT.

IT'S AMENDING THE BASE ORDINANCE.

YEAH, IT'S, IT'S BASED.

NO OBJECTION.

SO TRISH, I NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THAT IN.

MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MAKER OF THE MOTION.

IT ALSO HAS A ZONING, IT HAS SF FIVE, I THINK.

I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND.

IS IT STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THE SCENARIO THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS? IS IT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS A LOT OR ARE YOU TRYING TO ADDRESS ONE TRACK, YOU KNOW OF? I JUST COULDN'T QUITE VISUALIZE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND HOW FREQUENTLY IT OCCURS.

UM, I I DON'T THINK IT OCCURS VERY FREQUENTLY.

IT OCCURS WHEN YOU HAVE LOTS THAT ARE COMING IN AT AN ANGLE, UM, AND YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR, NOW THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE A PROPERTY WRAPS AROUND.

SO IT'S BOTH ON, IN THE BACK OF A PROPERTY AND ON THE SIDE OF A PROPERTY.

AND YOU CAN HAVE THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVE A STREET COME IN AT AN ANGLE TO A STRAIGHT STREET.

SO I KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENS ALONG SOUTH LAMAR.

I DO, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE REST OF THE CITY.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLACES IN, I THINK THERE MAY BE PLACES IN ALONG OTHER CORRIDORS, BUT THIS ALL THIS IS LIMITED TO LARGE.

THIS IS LIMITED TO LARGE CARTERS AND LIGHT RAIL LINES WHERE YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND IT IS LIMITED TO A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THE, THE PROPERTY IS, UH, WHERE, WHERE IT IS.

UM, UH, THE CORRIDOR PROPERTY WRAPS TWO SIDES OF A, OF ANOTHER PROPERTY, NOT JUST BEHIND THE PROPERTY, BUT IT WRAPS TWO SIDES.

[13:45:02]

YEAH, BUT WE TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE SF FIVE, IT, IT, THAT WAS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO SAY TRIGGERING PROPERTY.

SO LAW TOLD US TO TAKE THAT OFF.

DO YOU, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE LANGUAGE, I DO THINK I NEED TO SEE THE MOST RECENT, I ONLY HAVE, I HAVE ONLY SEEN THE FOLDER.

YEAH, THERE, IT'S, THAT'S THE MOST RECENT.

THAT DOESN'T CHANGE CONTENT.

IT'S JUST THAT LAW SUGGESTED WE REWORD IT THAT WAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT FROM GUYS.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? REMEMBER GOING IN, MAYOR, CAN I MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE THE CORRECT LANGUAGE? YES.

UM, SO A STRUCTURE CAN REACH AN ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT LEAST 150 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.

THE CORRIDOR PROPERTY BOTH SHARES A PORTION OF A REAR INSIDE LOT LINE OF A TRIGGERING PROPERTY AND IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM.

AND IT APPLIES TO A LIGHT AND MEDIUM RAIL ROAD OR CORRIDOR.

THAT OBJECTION THAT GOES IN YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, UH, ASKS CITY MANAGER TO IDENTIFY STRATEGIES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

YES, I CAN READ IT.

UH, CITY MANAGERS DIRECTED TO IDENTIFY STRATEGIES, UH, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS TO MITIGATE DISPLACEMENT RISK DUE TO DISPARITIES IN INCOME LEVELS ACROSS THE CITY IN, IN AREAS AT RISK OF GENTRIFICATION IN WHICH THE LOCAL MFI IS LOWER THAN THE TRAVIS COUNTY MFI.

UH, THIS IS JUST DIRECTION TO ASK OUR STAFF TO IDENTIFY STRATEGIES.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT GOING IN SAYING, NOW THAT AMENDMENT GOES IN, GETS US TO COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAVE, UH, SOME AMENDMENTS? ANY YOU WISH TO OFFER? I DO.

I LIKE TO, UH, UH, ACCEPT, UH, THE MAYOR PROTE.

IT'S A MPT ALS AMENDMENT TO CVE AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH IS A DIRECTION TO, UH, THE CITY MANAGER.

UH, SHE OFFERED AMENDMENT TO AN MY AMENDMENT ONE.

I HAVE NO OBJECTION.

UH, AND SO, SO YOU'RE MOVING YOUR AMENDMENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER AUTHORS AMENDMENT, WHICH ASKS FOR A REPORT BACK AND FOR NA UH, YES.

THAT HER IS JUST ADDING THE, AND SHALL PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO COUNSEL REGARDING THE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY BEING USED TO PERFORM THE ANALYSIS NO LATER THAN 90 DAYS BEFORE PRESENTING THE FINDINGS TO COUNSEL.

GOT ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT GOING IN? UM, YES.

I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION.

I HAD SOME SUGGESTIONS TO BROADEN IT JUST A BIT, IF THAT'S OKAY.

THIS IS A GOOD TIME YOU NEED IT.

MY SUGGESTION IS JUST, AND THIS MAY BE ALREADY INHERENT IN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING IN, WHAT YOU'RE THINKING FOR THE CITYWIDE REVIEW, BUT I THOUGHT IT MIGHT ALSO BE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE EQUITY TOOL THAT, YOU KNOW, PROJECT CONNECT HAS AN EQUITY TOOL AND THERE'S A UT AUSTIN UPROOTED TOOLKIT.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT, NOT, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE SPECIFICS PER SE.

JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EQUITY.

UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AS, AS REPRESENTED BY, UH, OUR VARIOUS TOOLS AND OUR EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY INNOVATION OFFICES.

BECAUSE IF I'M READING YOUR DIRECTION, YOUR DIRECTION SAYS, DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO DO A CITYWIDE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF CURRENT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THOSE STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND TO HELP MEET STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS.

SO I WOULD JUST ADD, UM, THAT ANALYSIS SHOULD ALSO, UM, IN INCLUDE EQUITY CONCERNS AS REPRESENTED BY OUR, OUR, UM, EQUITY ANALYSIS TOOLS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT AND, UM, AND, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS TO MEET STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT AND PROJECT CONNECT EQUITY TOOL GOALS.

YES, THAT WOULD DO IT.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT? NO OBJECTION.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE, IS IT, I'M JUST NOT, I'VE NEVER BEEN SURE WHAT THE AND WAS DOING IN YOUR, IN YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT.

SO DOES THAT WORK? THE MAYOR JUST TOOK OUT THE, AND AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER UNLESS YOU'RE PUTTING A COMMA IN THERE.

CAUSE I THINK IT WAS, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY LOOKING IN HIGH OPPORTUNITIES AND TO HELP MEET STRATEGIC HO HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS OVERALL.

UM, AND SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH I JUST, IF YOU PUT A I AM, I AM.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT THE AND OR NOT, JUST, I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS BETTER.

I JUST WAS CONFUSED.

I I I DON'T THINK THE, AND IT'S NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY IN HIGHER OPPORTUNITY AREAS TO HELP MEET STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS.

I, I, I DON'T THINK IT BLUEPRINT AND PROJECT CONNECT EQUITY TOOL GOALS, THAT'S ADD THAT TO NO OBJECTION AND COMES OUT THAT CHANGE.

ANY OBJECTION.

HEARING NONE.

THAT'S IN, DO YOU WANNA OFFER ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? I DO.

I WANT

[13:50:01]

TO OFFER TWO AMENDMENTS.

UM, THIS ONE WOULD BE, UH, THE VE AMENDMENT TWO, WHICH I APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THE, UM, AFFORDABILITY GOALS IN THE, THE AFFORDABILITY BONUS PROGRAM, I SHOULD SAY, UH, ON THE, UH, THE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, THE COMPATIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY BONUS SCHEMATIC.

THE, THE, THE STRATEGY.

I'M MUCH, I HAVE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

THIS IS, IT'S NOT BASED ON THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO WHAT I SAID IN THE, UH, IN THE WORKING SESSION WHERE THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY HAS NO CONTROL OVER WHETHER THEIR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY OR NOT.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS IMPOSED FROM AROUND THEM.

THERE'S NO REAL QUICK AND EASY WAY TO TELL WHETHER YOUR PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY OR NOT.

UH, THERE'S NO LIST OR MAP, UH, AGAIN, THAT I'M AWARE OF, OR THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DEFINITIVE, UM, THAT TELLS YOU, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOUR PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY ARBITRARY AND I DON'T THINK THAT SOMETHING AS THAT SO ARBITRARY SHOULD BE WHERE, UH, WE ARE USING, UH, AFFORDABILITY GOALS.

UH, I THINK THAT THE, THE BETTER FAIRER WAY IS TO SIMPLY DO THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES BY RIGHT, AND JUST LIMIT THE, THE, THE EFFECT OF, UH, OF, UH, OF COMPATIBILITY.

ANY SECOND TO THIS? NO.

SECOND.

THIS IS GONNA DIE FOR WANT OF A SECOND.

MY HOPE IS, IS THAT YOU PICK THIS UP AS PART OF THE PHASE TWO WORK.

UH, AND IT'S NOT CONSISTENT, I THINK, WITH KIND OF THE CONSENSUS PLACE WE WERE GOING, BUT I THINK THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE ON THIS.

AND I, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT COUNCIL, UM, MOVING THOSE KIND OF ITEMS, CONSIDERING THOSE KIND OF ITEMS. THANKS, MAYOR.

BECAUSE I CAN'T SUPPORT THE PIECE THAT IS BY, RIGHT? THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS NOT SECONDED.

SO IT HASN'T BEEN IN FRONT OF US, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY YES.

YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT.

DO YOU WANNA MAKE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? UH, YES.

AND THEN I HAVE, UH, THE AMENDMENT THREE.

UH, I'M WITHDRAWING AMENDMENT FOUR.

UH, AND AMENDMENT THREE IS FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION WAIVER FOR COMPATIBILITY.

UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, CURRENTLY THE ONLY WAY TO, UH, WAIVE COMPATIBILITY IS VIA A DEMONSTRATION OF HARDSHIP.

UM, WHETHER THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY IS FINE WITH IT, WHETHER IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ALL PARTIES AGREE THAT WE DON'T EVEN WANT COMPATIBILITY TO APPLY, WE STILL CAN'T WAIVE IT.

UH, OR WE CAN, BUT JUST ONLY BASED ON VERY STRINGENT, UH, UH, HARDSHIP WAIVER WHERE BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS.

SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO, UH, PROVIDE A WAIVER FOR COMPATIBILITY AND, UH, LIST THE, THE, THE STANDARDS WHERE THE OWNER OF THE QUARTER SIDE AND THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY ARE THE SAME.

THE OWNER CONSENTS, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, JUST A, A KIND OF A BASIS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON, UH, A WAIVER FOR COMPATIBILITY.

VERY MUCH THAT I'M BE HAPPY TO SECOND THIS AND I, AND I, WHEN I EXPLAIN WHY.

COUNCIL SECONDS, IT, UM, I THINK THAT ON THE HEIGHT LIMIT LIMITATIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR, OR PLANNING COMMISSION, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, BUT LAW HAS FIXED THOSE SO THAT THIS DOES WORK.

UM, AND I DO THINK IT'S NEEDED.

UM, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FIX.

UH, THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

HAPPY TO SECOND, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER.

UM, IN MY SENSE, I COULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GRANTING OF WAIVERS OF COMPATIBILITY AWAY FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN'T GRANT WAIVER.

OH, THIS IS CREATING A WAIVER OPPORTUNITY WHERE NONEXISTENT PREVIOUSLY, THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.

MAYBE LAW CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

I THOUGHT THAT THERE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE LANGUAGE HAD BEEN, HAD BEEN FIXED.

UH, IF THAT'S NOT TRUE, THEN PLEASE DO, PLEASE DO ADVISE.

DOESN'T THIS CREATE BUSINESS INTENDED TO CREATE KEVA A WAIVER WHERE THE NUMBER ONE DOES NOT EXIST NOW? IT, IT DOES, IT IS CREATING, UH, NOT A HARDSHIP WAIVER.

IT'S, UH, ADDING A DISCRETIONARY WAIVER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

NOT,

[13:55:01]

I'M GONNA ASK FOR A SECOND.

AGAIN, MY HOPE IS, IS THAT WE PUT THIS INTO THE NEXT PHASE BEFORE WE START GRANTING DISCRETIONARY WAIVERS TO COMPATIBILITY MIGHT BE A REALLY GOOD THING TO DO.

JUST NOT PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, HEATHER, TO AGREED.

AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE SCENARIOS UNDER WHICH YOU COULD GET A WAIVER IS IF THE OWNER OF THE COURT A SITE AND THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY ARE THE SAME, WHICH MEANS ANY PROPERTY OWNER WHO JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND BACK SUDDENLY BYPASSES THE PROCESS.

ANY OBJECTION? I MEAN, DOES O IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? THEN IT DIES FOR WANT OF A SECOND.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR AMENDMENTS.

I THINK THE ONLY OTHER AMENDMENTS I HAVE ARE ACCOUNTS MEMBER ALICE'S AMENDMENTS.

CAN YOU SAY, UM, MY MIC DOESN'T WORK.

IS IT WORKING? YES.

OKAY, THEN MY, MY LIGHT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

UM, EVEN THOUGH THAT WASN'T A SECOND, I'M EXCITED TO FURTHER THAT CONVERSATION AND, AND POTENTIALLY EVEN DISCUSS WHETHER SETBACKS COULD BE APPROPRIATE TOO.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT SITUATION AND THAT PROCESS TO, TO WEIGH IN ON IT.

BUT I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION I'D LIKE TO HAVE.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND AGAIN, I'M EXCITED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE PROSPECT OF, OF, OF COUNCIL MEMBER MADISON AND COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND, AND OTHERS, UH, ENGAGING THE, THE COUNCIL IN THIS CONVERSATION, UH, WHEN YOU ALL GET IN PANEL NEXT YEAR, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE, ANY LAST, UH, AMENDMENTS TO ITEM 56? I DO MY MOTION SHEET NUMBER ONE, AMENDS SECTION 25 2 7 69 0.04 B AND C AND ALL IT ADJUSTS, I'M SORRY IT'S NOT RED LINES, BUT IT CHANGES THE UNIT COUNT FROM 12 TO 17 AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE, THE WORK THAT WE JUST KICKED OFF FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND TRYING TO MATCH THE 16 UNIT COUNT THRESHOLD.

SO THIS IS CHANGED TO 17 SO THAT ANYTHING OVER 17 WOULD THEN TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY AND THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT OR NONE THIS AMENDMENTS HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? YES, I HAVE ANOTHER ONE SIMILAR TO ON 56 CHANGING THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL USES, UH, BACK TO JUST IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

AND THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONE, STREAMLINE IT WITH CURRENT CODE AND THE OTHER COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR, UM, OWNER OCCUPIED OR NON-OWNER OCCUPIED TYPES OF SHORT TERM RENTALS.

SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO 55 BEAR.

I'M NOT SURE HOW TO FIX THE LANGUAGE TO MATCH WHAT WE DID ON, UM, 55 SO THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER.

IT'LL BE VERY CONFUSING IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT RULES ACROSS THESE TWO PROGRAMS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF LAW COULD TELL US HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT, JUST CUZ IT'S IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT PLACES.

I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T BE PROHIBITING IT IN OTHER THINGS, SO THOSE MIGHT BE FINE.

BUT I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU MAKE THAT HAPPEN PER SE.

BUT, UM, STARTING WITH, UH, 7 69 0.06 11, WHICH IS THE PART OF THE BONUS PROGRAM, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION WITHIN THE BONUS PROGRAM.

STARTING WITH THAT FIRST, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT AS IT IS OR DO YOU, ARE YOU THINKING TO DO WHAT YOU DID ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL? OUR QUESTION WAS HOW DO YOU DO WHAT WE DID SO THAT THE RULES ARE CONSISTENT? SO FOR THAT ONE, SO FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION, WE WOULD USE THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, UM, FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND WE WOULD PLACE IT IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION.

WE CAN DO THAT FOR THAT ONE CUZ IT'S PART OF THE BONUS PROGRAM.

SO IT'D BE MATCHING.

SO WHICH, WHICH ONE WAS THAT TO SAY? UM, THAT IS 7 69 0 0.06 D 11.

FOR THE OTHER, UM, FOR THE FIRST, FOR THE FIRST TWO, WELL, LET ME GO ACTUALLY START WITH THE THIRD ONE.

DO YOU CURRENTLY STR USE IS A RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO WE WOULD TAKE THAT OUT TO MAINTAIN IT AS CURRENT CODE, IF THAT'S WHAT THE, THE, THE WILL, THE DIAS.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PREFER.

SO WE WOULD REMOVE THAT.

UM, SO I WOULD STRIKE THAT SECTION FROM THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

I'M SORRY, CAN YOU JUST TELL ME I YES.

LOOKING AT HER SHEET.

SO AT 7 6 9 0.05, IT'S THE THIRD.

SO YOU'RE SAYING IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW ANY SHORT TERM, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO PROHIBIT SHORT TERM.

WE JUST HAVE OUR RULES APPLYING.

ACTUALLY WHAT THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE HERE.

SO THE LANGUAGE AS IT READS NOW IS IN THIS DIVISION A RESIDENTIAL USE DOES NOT INCLUDE

[14:00:01]

A SHORT TERM RENTAL USE.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE RESOLUTION WORKS, THE RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE COULD HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL, WOULD HAVE SOME OF THE WAIVERS AND CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY.

AND SO THERE WAS ALSO LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION ABOUT NOT WANTING SHORT TERM RENTALS, HOWEVER, TO MAKE IT MATCH HOW THE OVERLAY ITSELF OPERATES, WHICH FOCUSES ON THE WAIVER BASED ON YOUR USE.

IT DOESN'T LIMIT USES, IT JUST SAYS YOU GET THIS ADDITIONAL WAIVER OR YOU GET, UH, PARKING MINIMUM CHANGE OR YOU GET THIS, UH, HEIGHT LIMITATION DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF YOUR USE.

SO IF COUNCIL DOES NOT WANNA SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, THEN THAT IS, SO THAT IS WHY IT IS DRAFTED THAT WAY.

SO IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL USE DOES NOT INCLUDE A SHORT TERM RENTAL USE TOVA.

UM, TR I JUST NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU'VE JUST SAID.

DID YOU SAY THAT THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION INCLUDED A PROHIBITION ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS? THAT IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT TO ALIGN IT WITH WHAT WAS ACTUALLY INITIATED BY COUNSEL TO MAKE THOSE MESH? IT DOESN'T, THE OVERLAY IS NOT DESIGNED TO PROHIBIT USES.

THE OVERLAY IS DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT ALL WORK, THE WAY THAT I HAVE APPLIED THAT IS YOU DO NOT GET THE CHANGES IN HEIGHT.

OR COMPATIBILITY IN, IN PARKING.

IF YOU HAVE SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

IT JUST DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HEIGHT PARKING CHANGES.

IF, AND IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HEIGHT, YOU WOULD JUST CEASE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL USE.

YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL USE.

IF YOU COME IN AND YOU'VE JUST REDEVELOPED YOUR PROPERTY, AND WE CAN TELL THAT YOU'VE USED THE, THE BENEFITS OF THE OVERLAY, YOU WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE RIGHT.

THAT'S KIND OF THE NATURAL EFFECT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

BUT IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION THAT THIS COUNCIL PASSED.

UM, THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN IF IF IT WENT ALL COMMERCIAL, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO ALL COMMERCIAL IF YOU'VE GOTTEN THE BENEFIT OF THE OVERLAY.

SO IT, IT WORKS FOR MULTIPLE DIFFERENT USES.

BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, JUST TO DRILL DOWN ON WAS WHAT OUR ORIGINAL, UM, CONSENSUS WAS BUILT AROUND AND IT WAS AROUND THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

AND FOR ME TO APPLY THAT, IT HAS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE USE FOR THE RIGHT, THE CHANGES.

SO WHAT ARE THE WORDING CHANGES? WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE FIRST FOUR BULLET POINTS? FIRST THREE BULLET POINTS.

SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER SHORT TERM RENTAL, A RESIDENTIAL USE? AND I UNDERSTAND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER LSG DOES WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO THAT PROVISION THE THIRD BULLET DOWN WOULD GO AWAY.

STRIKE THE THIRD BULLET POINT.

THAT LEAVES YOU WITH AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL AND NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL USES.

AGAIN, THAT MEANS IF YOU HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE, YOU SO WOULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE COMPAT COMPATIBILITY CHANGES AND PARKING CHANGES IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM.

IF THE COUNCIL WANTS THEM TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL, WE NEED TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE.

THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LANGUAGE IN THE LAST BULLET POINTS.

THE FIRST TWO, THE FIRST TWO.

I'M JUST TRYING, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE MATCH WHAT WE'RE DOING EVERYWHERE ELSE SO THAT IT'S LESS CONFUSING.

THE, THE WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO FISH FOCUS ON BAKING.

THERE'S AT LEAST A RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT COULD MEAN ONLY SHORT TERM RENTAL USES AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES.

SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.

SO, SORRY, THIS IS GETTING PRETTY FAR IN THE WEEDS.

I I THINK THIS REALLY HIGH LEVEL, YOU KNOW, THE POSTING LANGUAGE IS KIND OF ABOUT ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS GONNA BE SO MUCH MORE HELPFUL IN TRYING TO STREAMLINE HOW TO, HOW TO FIGURE THESE ALL OUT.

SO ARE WE OKAY WITH PUTTING IN THE FOURTH BULLET POINT AND STRIKING THE FIRST THREE? SO, SO WHAT I WANNA, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THOUGH, THE CHALLENGE THAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING IS THAT IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE COMPATIBILITY BONUSES AND STUFF, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE.

UM, AND WE DON'T WANNA HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE INCENTIVIZING STR AND

[14:05:02]

AND COMMERCIAL.

BUT IF WE MAKE IT 10%, HOW COULD THEY DO THAT? LIKE, I MEAN LIKE IS THAT EVEN A FEASIBLE THING THAT YOU WERE, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FEASIBLE OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO NINE UNITS OF, FOR A CORRIDOR SITE? UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST BULLET, UH, FOR A CORRIDOR SITE WITH AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL USES AND NO MORE THAN 15% SHORT-TERM RENTAL USES, UM, AND THEN, HOLD ON.

I SEE THE AMENDMENT NOW.

COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK I WAS MISREADING THIS AMENDMENT.

YOUR CURRENT LANGUAGE IS FOR A CORRIDOR SITE WITH AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL USE AND NO SHORT TERM RENTAL USES IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

SO THE NO, NO AFFORDABLE UNIT, NO STR AND AN AFFORDABLE UNIT IS ALREADY, IS CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FOR YOUR NON AFFORDABLE UNITS.

IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT THAT TO 15% OR 10%, WHATEVER THE NUMBER MIGHT BE, WE WILL SAY THAT IT WOULD BE AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL USE, NO MORE THAN X NUMBER OF WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGES SHORT TERM RENTAL USES AND NO SHORT TERM RENTAL USE IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

AND I CAN ACCEPT THAT IF THAT'S, UM, REACHES US SOME CONSENSUS ON THE DIAS.

CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? SURE.

SO IT WOULD READ FOR A CORRIDOR SITE WITH AT LEAST ONE RESIDENTIAL USE NO MORE THAN WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGE IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE.

SHORT TERM RENTAL USES AND NO SHORT TERM RENTAL USE IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, A SETBACK REQUIRED AND IT GOES ON FROM THERE.

I THINK THAT, I MEAN, I PREFER NONE, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT ACCOMPLISHES, I'M FINE WITH THAT COMPROMISE, BUT DO YOU WANT TO USE THE SAME PERCENTAGE FROM RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL? 15.

AND IS THAT THE SAME CHANGE YOU'D MAKE THEN IN NUMBER TWO? CAUSE IT'S THE SAME THING? YES.

NUMBER THREE, STRIKE NUMBER FOUR WAS GONNA BE MAINTAINED.

WHAT ABOUT NUMBER FIVE? NUMBER FIVE? I WOULD MODIFY IT TO MATCH ONE AND TWO.

ARE PEOPLE OKAY, UM, WITH THOSE CHANGES TO KA ELLIS'S AMENDMENT TO HER, THE CHANGES TO HER AMENDMENT OR HER AMENDMENT, THE CHANGES TO HER AMENDMENT FIRST.

SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES TO HER AMENDMENT.

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.

UH, ANYBODY OBJECT TO THAT BEING PUT IN? YOU WANT TO JUST EXPRESS A NO VOTE AND LET IT GO IN THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOBA VOTED NO.

UH, THAT AMENDMENT WILL GO IN.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE AMENDMENTS WE HAD ON 56.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON? I DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS.

MAYOR, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THOUGH, BUT I CAN'T SEE WHO ALL'S IN CHAMBERS.

ARE THERE HOUSING STAFF MEMBERS THERE? UH, YES.

ERIC HOUSING AND PLANNING.

HI THERE ERIC.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

UM, I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

I, YOU KNOW, I, I STARTED ALONG THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING ON TUESDAY AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CERTAIN, UM, THAT I GET CLARITY AND THEN JUST GET, UM, SOME CLARITY FOR THE RECORD'S SAKE.

EXCUSE ME, I, UM, I I ASKED ABOUT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION ON TUESDAY AND I JUST, I WANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN.

AND DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CONVERSATION AND, UM, WHAT I AM CERTAIN WILL BE SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS, IS IT SAFE TO SAY, OR WOULD YOU SAY THAT, THAT THE DISTRIBUTION, UM, GIVEN THESE, UM, GIVEN OUR CURRENT APPROACH IS EQUITABLE? NO, AND WE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COUNSEL Q AND A ABOUT THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

LIKE I SAID, I I I, I'M GOING BACK TO THE SAME LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM TUESDAY, UM, WHICH WILL, UM, INCLUDE THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED ABOUT THE OMISSION OF CORRIDORS.

SO CAN YOU TELL US WHY DID STAFF OMIT CORRIDORS AND ACREAGE AND HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS SPECIFICALLY IN WEST AUSTIN? UH, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH CORRIDORS SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND, AND I, I GUESS NOT INCLUDED IN

[14:10:01]

THAT SENSE.

I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

MAYBE THAT IT DOESN'T QUITE, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THE SECOND HALF OF THAT QUESTION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO TODAY TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITY BY ADDING CORRIDORS THAT WERE LEFT OFF OF THIS MAP? I, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TODAY BECAUSE OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

I I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS COULD NOT BE ADDED.

SO WE'RE NOT ALLOWED, CORRECT.

IN WHICH CASE I, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR.

UM, UH, SO THAT THERE'S NOT ANY MISUNDERSTANDING FOR MY COLLEAGUES OR FOR THE PUBLIC.

THIS ITEM IS DESIGNED A, AS IT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, IS DESIGNED AS INEQUITABLE.

UM, THE EXCLUSION OF CORRIDORS IN HIGH INCOME AREAS WAS PURPOSEFUL AND BY COUNCIL DIRECTION.

UM, AND WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION TO ADDRESS THESE INEQUITIES TODAY.

SO THE FACT THAT A WELL INTENTIONED AND NECESSARY REFORM TO OUR REALLY DESPERATELY OUTDATED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS BEEN WARPED TO ONCE AGAIN EXCLUDE WEST AUSTIN AND OTHER HIGH INCOME AREAS FROM THIS MUCH NEEDED HOUSING CONVERSATION IS, IS SADLY NOT AT ALL SURPRISING.

UM, BUT THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, HELPING ME WITH THAT.

SO WITH, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'LL LEAVE, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I, I THINK, I THINK I MADE MY POINT.

THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON,

RAISED A REAL GOOD POINT.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, THERE THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE OUR ENTIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MORE EQUITABLE.

UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I I HOPE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT THIS COUNCIL REALLY FOCUSES ON.

THE NEXT ITERATION.

THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THIS THAT WE'RE DOING TODAY THAT DO PROMOTE, UH, UH, EQUITY.

UH, THE HOUSING STAFF HAS ALSO TOLD US THAT IT PROMOTES AFFORDABILITY AND QUITE FRANKLY, UH, IN, IN, IN THIS CITY PUSHES TOWARD GREATER AFFORDABILITY OR PUSHES TOWARD GREATER EQUITY, UH, GIVEN THE, THE MAKEUP AND, AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF OUR CITY.

THIS IS NOT PERFECT AND IT'S NOT EVERYTHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN.

I DO THINK IT IS GONNA BE EASIER FOR, UM, UH, THE COMMUNITY TO MOVE TO GREATER EQUITY, UH, IN THE FUTURE IF THIS IS DONE.

CUZ I THINK IT, IT SETS OUT THE FORM AND THE VEHICLE AND THE APPROACH THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO, TO, TO DO THAT.

UH, AND IT'S GONNA BE EASIER TO DO THAT IF YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO DO ALL OF THE HEAVY LIFT AT THE SAME TIME.

UH, SO MY HOPE IS, IS THAT RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS NOT PERFECT AND, UH, MY HOPE IS WITH ABSOLUTE AND RESOLUTE RESOLVE TO CONTINUE TO, TO TO WORK AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN ON THE NEW COUNCIL TO EVER INCREASE, UH, EQUITY.

WE EMBRACE THAT MOVE TOWARD EQUITY THAT COMES FROM, UH, WHAT ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN, UH, IN CULTURE AND IN FORM, UH, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN AGREE ON, ON THIS PATH THAT WE SET OUT ON AS A COUNCIL, UM, UH, UNANIMOUSLY, UH, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT YOU RAISED, AND I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING THAT POINT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT AS WE PASS THIS, AND I HOPE THAT WE DO, UM, THAT WE ARE, ARE, ARE RESOLVED TO, TO CONTINUALLY WORKING, TO, TO MAKE OUR CITY MORE EQUITABLE.

HI, COLLEAGUES.

I THINK, UM, I THINK WE, WE VOTED, UH, DID WE VOTE ON COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S? I THINK WE REGISTERED THE NO VOTE.

SO ITEM NUMBER 56 IS IN FRONT OF US, UH, AS AMENDED, UM, COLLEAGUES, I'D LIKE TO TO ASK FOR THE VOTE TO SEE IF THERE ARE NINE VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS.

IF THERE AREN'T NINE VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS, I'M GONNA ASK FOR IT TO BE POSTPONED TILL NEXT WEEK, IF THAT'S OKAY.

UH, ARE THERE, UH, UH, NINE VOTES IN, IN FAVOR OF THIS SO WE COULD PASS IT TODAY AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK? UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UM, I GUESS I'M SEEING, I'M SORRY, WHAT? I'M SEEING EIGHT VOTES.

[14:15:02]

UH, VANESSA IS NOT HERE.

WE'VE LOST, UH, VANESSA, UH, CUZ SHE WAS AT THE AIRPORT.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON HAD VOTE.

I AM, I'M GONNA VERY HESITANTLY VOTE YES.

AND THEN I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.

PLEASE, MAYOR.

OKAY, THEN I'M GONNA CALL THIS WITH NINE VOTES.

FOUR.

AND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, I THINK YOU VOTED.

HOW DO YOU VOTE? I'M GONNA ABSTAIN.

I WAS, UM, I CERTAINLY CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION INTENDING TO SUPPORT IT.

I THINK IT'S MUCH NEEDED TO, TO MAKE CHANGES TO OUR, OUR COMPATIBILITY.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT'S GOING ON.

I'M GONNA, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER HAS TO SPEAK TO, I JUST WANNA RECORD YOUR VOTE.

SO I CALL THIS AT NINE VOTES, FOUR ZERO AGAINST ONE ABSTENTION.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, FENT THIS OFF THE DIAS IT PASSES.

COUNCIL OF HARPER MADISON, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO VERY SOON, VERY SOON IN 2023, GOING BACK AND MAKING THE NECESSARY UNILATERAL CITYWIDE CHANGES AND MAKING THE COMMITMENT TO NOT BEING A HOUSING HESITANT CITY.

CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? YES.

MY VOLUME IS ACTING A LITTLE FUNNY ON MY END.

I, UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I I REALLY STILL STRUGGLED SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.

AUSTIN HAS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMPATIBILITY RULES OF ANY MAJOR TEXAS CITY.

UM, IT'S, IT'S A MAJOR BARRIER TO ALLOWING MORE HOUSING IN OUR CITY, PARTICULARLY ALONG THOSE TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHERE WE ALL WANNA SEE MORE PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING.

SO THE IDEA THAT EXPENSIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SHOULD HAVE SUCH AN ENORMOUS FORCE FIELD AROUND THEM THAT PROTECTS THEM FROM APARTMENTS AND PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEM IS THE DEFINITION OF EXCLUSION.

SO I'M, I'M ALL FOR RELAXING OUR CURRENT RULES, BUT I REALLY WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT'S EQUITABLE, THAT'S IMPACTFUL, THAT'S NOT OVERLY COMPLICATED.

I, I DIDN'T LIKE IT WHEN WE DELIBERATED AND DECIDED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN CORRIDORS IN WEST AUSTIN FROM THESE CHANGES.

I STILL DON'T LIKE IT NOW.

I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THE MAP AND SEE HOW MUCH MORE THE EAST SIDE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE WHILE THE WEST SIDE CONTINUES TO AVOID SHOULDERING ITS FAIR SHARE OF AUSTIN'S GROWTH.

I THINK IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, WE SHOULD MAKE 'EM CITYWIDE.

UM, TO YOUR POINT, AND, AND YOU DIDN'T SAY MAYOR, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID VERBATIM, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, WE SHOULD DO, WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT EQUITY MOVING FORWARD.

YOU KNOW, EVEN SHOULD ISN'T STRONG ENOUGH CUZ IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AN OPTION WE ARE OBLIGATED TO, SHOULD BE THE SENTIMENT.

AND I DON'T FEEL UNANIMOUSLY LIKE THAT'S THE, THE CASE WITH US AS A BODY.

I I HAVE SAID BEFORE, I KNOW THIS STUFF IS COMPLICATED.

I KNOW THAT IT ISN'T ACCESSIBLE TO LAY PEOPLE WHO AREN'T SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, BUT LUCKILY WE DO HAVE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS ON OUR CITY STAFF WHO HAVE TOLD US THAT THESE CHANGES BRING ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY TO AN ALREADY OVERLY COMPLEX CODE AND THAT THE IMPACTS ARE MINIMAL.

AND I TRUST THAT EXPERTISE.

OUR IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TALKS ABOUT CREATING MORE EFFICIENT, MORE PREDICTABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND THE COURT STOPPED US SHORT OF DOING THAT.

NOW.

IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE MOVING BACKWARDS.

FRANKLY, I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY.

I THINK THEY WILL HELP.

UM, I REALLY JUST FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT US MAKING ANY FUTURE CHANGES WITHOUT A MUCH STRONGER LENS OF EQUITY.

SO, YOU KNOW, FOR NOW, YOU KNOW, I, LIKE I SAID, I JUST VERY, VERY HESITANTLY SUPPORT THE ITEM BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, ALICE FLASCO SPEAKING TO US YESTERDAY WAS REALLY IMPACTFUL TO ME TO THINK ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO, YOU KNOW, I TALK ALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW INACCESSIBLE CITY HALL IS AND JUST HEARING HER STORY, YOU KNOW, HER GOING FROM A JUNIOR PLANNER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK SHE SPENT ENOUGH TIME IN THAT ROLE TO AMASS THE KIND OF KNOWLEDGE A PERSON WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHICH WAY TO GO IN A, IN A DECISION THAT'S AS DIFFICULT AS THE ONE THAT I'M HAVING TO MAKE TODAY.

I'M HAVING TO SAY YES TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS WHOLLY UNFAIR, INAPPROPRIATE, AND FRANKLY EMBARRASSING THAT I HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, SAY IT WAS WHAT WE COULD DO.

YOU KNOW, IT AIN'T GREAT, BUT IT WAS WHAT WE HAD.

YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY HATE THAT FOR US.

UM,

[14:20:01]

CUZ SO MUCH OF OUR LACK OF PRODUCTION IS ABSOLUTELY BY CHOICE.

AND WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

THANK YOU .

I JUST WANNA ECHO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, OUR MEDICINES COMMENTS AND, UH, I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, WITH HER AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LOOK FORWARD TO DOING SOMETHING BROADER, UH, MORE EQUITABLE AND CITYWIDE.

UH, AND, UH, JUST IT'S A MARGINAL STEP FORWARD.

I, I WILL SAY THE ONE THING THAT REALLY MOTIVATES ME RIGHT NOW, WE ARE STARTING TO SEE A SLOW DOWN IN, UH, BUILDING PERMITS AND A SLOW DOWN IN HOUSING BECAUSE OF INTEREST RATES AND BROADER, UH, YOU KNOW, ECONOMIC ISSUES.

AND WE REALLY NEED TO BUILD THROUGH THAT SLOW DOWN IF WE'RE GOING TO AT ALL TACKLE OUR LACK OF HOUSING SUPPLY AND TO WHATEVER MARGINAL WAY THESE CHANGES CAN IMPROVE THAT AND MAYBE CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS TO ADD SUPPLY.

LET'S GET IT DONE NOW, BUT WE, WE, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED BROADER CHANGES AND, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR THOSE, UH, ON THE DIOCESE NEXT YEAR.

AS YOU RECALL, GOT 80% OF THE ACREAGE ALONG, UH, LARGE AND, AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS EITHER WITH COMPATIBILITY REMOVED OR REDUCED OVER 60% FOR MEDIUM.

KAVO, I CUT YOU OFF BEFORE.

YOU CAN SPEAK.

YOU WANT TO? YEAH, JUST VERY BRIEFLY.

I HAD INTENDED TO SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK THE BALANCES ARE, ARE IN THE MAIN GOOD, GOOD THINGS.

I THINK THE CHANGES REALLY RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO LOOSEN UP THE RESTRICTIONS, BUT ALSO MAINTAIN SOME, SOME LEVEL OF PROTECTIONS AS WELL AND, AND REALLY CREATE THAT IMPORTANT BALANCE.

AS I INDICATED WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, I THINK THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS IN MY DISTRICT AND ACROSS THE CITY.

SO THAT, UM, THAT'S THE REASON FOR MY ABSTENTION.

I WANT TO CONGRATULATE EVERYBODY AND THANK EVERYBODY FOR PASSING BOTH 55 AND 56.

I THINK WHEN WE ENTERED INTO WORKING ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, EIGHT YEARS AGO, WE'VE, WE'VE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON IT, UH, AND QUITE FRANKLY CAME CLOSE TO GETTING THINGS DONE.

THERE WERE PEOPLE THEN THAT SUGGESTED THAT OUR PROBLEM WAS, IS THAT WE, THAT WE WEREN'T WILLING TO COMPROMISE.

UM, AND, AND, AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME TRUTH IN THAT.

AND, AND AS WE SEE, NOT ALWAYS ALL THE TRUTH IN THAT.

UM, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, UH, TODAY, UH, WILL ALLOW US TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD HOUSING THROUGHOUT AUSTIN.

UH, ESPECIALLY IN VARIOUS COMMERCIAL ZONES PROVIDING, UH, MIXED USE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS.

IT'S GONNA CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WALKABLE RETAIL SPACES.

UH, THIS DRIVES AFFORDABILITY AT THE 60% MFI LEVEL FOR RENTERS.

UH, IT'S A BONUS SIMILAR TO VMU ONE, UH, WHICH WE SEE, UH, IS NOW GETTING APPLICATION.

UM, I HOPE THAT STAFF WILL COME BACK WITH THE INFORMATION AND THE DATA SO THAT, UH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

56 ALLOWS US TO ENSURE WE HAVE MORE HOUSING ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL AND PREP BUS RAPID ROUTES, HOW TO SET US UP FOR GREATER SUCCESS THAN WE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE.

IT HAS COMPATIBILITY ENDING AT A HUNDRED FEET FOR DEVELOPMENTS AMONG, UM, UH, TRANSIT, UH, CORRIDORS WHEN SOMEONE, UH, USES AFFORDABILITY AND ENDS COMPATIBILITY AT 200 FEET BY RIGHT WHEN BEFORE OUR LIMITATION WAS 500 FEET, UH, IN THIS CITY, UM, IN, IN, IN LOCATIONS, UH, IT'S GONNA SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ON MEDIUM CORRIDORS.

UM, THAT REFLECTS THE, THE CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO, TO ACHIEVE ALSO PROVIDES FOR 60% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

MFI THAT WORK ON AFFORDABILITY IS EQUITABLE WORK.

BUT AS COUNCIL MEMBER HARPERS MADISON POINTS OUT THERE IS, THERE IS A LONGER WAY TO, TO GO.

AND MY HOPE IS THAT THIS NEXT COUNCIL PUSHES TO THAT.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP SET UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE MOVES.

UH, AND I HOPE THAT AND TRUST THAT, UH, IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO, UH, MOVE, UH, FURTHER.

UM, BUT THIS MOVE,

[14:25:01]

AND THAT WAS BEFORE WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE, UH, INCREASED LIMITATIONS ON, UM, COMPATIBILITY LIMITS BY RIGHT.

SO THAT NUMBER WOULD BE EVEN HIGHER IF WE ASKED STAFF TO, TO DO THAT AGAIN.

UH, I JUST WANNA CONGRATULATE EVERYBODY FOR, FOR BEING ABLE TO GET THIS DONE.

UM, COUNCIL, YES, MAYOR PROTEM.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I REALLY LEARNED THROUGH THIS PROCESS WAS THE VALUE OF WORKING WITH COLLEAGUES WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS AND DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE, UM, AS WE APPROACH THE LAND USE, UM, ISSUES.

I DON'T THINK WE DO THAT ENOUGH.

I THINK I'VE, UM, YOU KNOW, LEARNED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT.

I'VE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH SOME OF YOU ON ADU RULES, OTHERS ON THE COMPATIBILITY, OTHERS ON THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, WORKED WITH FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER GARZA ON THE HOMESTEAD ACT.

I THINK WHEN WE TAKE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, UM, TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES AND UNDERSTAND ON THE GROUND, GROUND WHAT'S GOING ON IN OTHER PEOPLE'S DISTRICTS, UM, WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE PROGRESS, UM, THAT MOVES US FORWARD.

UM, I AGAIN WANT TO EXTEND THE INVITATION.

I STARTED WITH MY REMARKS THAT I WILL BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOU GET MORE HOUSING, UM, IN WEST AUSTIN.

UM, THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE VEHICLE FOR THAT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DID MAKE A A, UM, A BIG DENT IN THAT, UM, EVERY TOOL THAT WE USE IS NOT GONNA SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS AT ONCE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TOOLS.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE MADE, UM, A LOT OF PROGRESS ON A, ON A LOT OF, UM, DIFFERENT FRONTS.

UM, AND SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE ABLE TO CONCLUDE THIS COUNCIL WITH PASSING THESE TWO ITEMS. UM, I THINK THERE IS ALSO VALUE IN, IN TYING THE INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS TO AFFORDABILITY.

WE ARE GETTING, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THESE AREAS WHERE WE MOST WANT THEM, AND THERE IS VALUE IN THAT.

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IF WE WEREN'T REQUIRING THIS, WE WOULDN'T GET ANY OF THAT.

UM, SO I THINK THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS WHERE, WHERE I THINK THIS, UM, DOES MOVE US FORWARD AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE, UM, TO WORK, UM, IN WAYS THAT ALLOW US TO LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER, UM, IN WAYS THAT WE MAYBE DIDN'T ALWAYS DO DURING THE CODE NEXT PROCESS.

LET'S MOVE ON.

UH, I THINK WE'RE BEGINNING TO RUN OUT OF TIME.

LET'S HIT THE THING THAT, UH, MOST TIMES SENSITIVE TO US NOW, WHICH IS AUSTIN ENERGY.

MAYOR ADLER.

MEDICINE, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.

I I PROMISE TO BE BRIEF.

I HAVEN'T SAID THIS.

NO, NO, GO AHEAD.

UM, I, I JUST WANTED TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT MAYOR PROTE JUST SAID, AND I, I ALMOST KEPT IT TO MYSELF CAUSE I COULDN'T QUITE THINK OF HOW TO ARTICULATE IT WITHOUT IT SOUNDING, UM, WHINING.

AND I THINK WHAT I, WHAT I WAS THINKING THAT I DIDN'T ARTICULATE EARLIER IS, TO THAT POINT, MAYOR PROTE AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE DAY IS, UM, I HOPE THAT AS WE ARE CONSIDERING HOW TO MAKE THINGS MORE FAIR, THAT IT IN THE FUTURE FEELS LIKE THE EQUITY COMPONENT IS AS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, AS IT IS TO ME.

UH, I, I WANT FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THIS IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S REAL OR NOT, THAT SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE THE EQUITY ITEMS, UM, ARE MINE.

IT FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE AS A BODY SOMETIMES OPERATE IN DEFERENCE TO ME TO ADDRESS INEQUITY.

AND WHEN I DO THAT, I WANT TO REMIND Y'ALL, I SAID THIS ONCE BEFORE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, ANOTHER ITEM A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN I HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO SAY EQUITY, EQUITY, EQUITY, EQUITY, EQUITY, IT MAKES ME AN EASY TARGET AND IT MAKES IT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT LANDS, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE FOLKS THAT NEED TO HEAR IT THE MOST I NEED FOR US ALL TO IN UNISON, LOCKED ARMS AT THE SAME RATE OF SPEED.

AND FEROCITY TALK ABOUT EQUITY BEING OUR, OUR NORTH STAR.

THAT HAS TO BE FOR ALL OF US AND NOT JUST SOME OF US.

AND THAT'S NOT ACCUSATIONS SO MUCH AS ME MAKING A HEARTFELT PLEA FOR US TO ALL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING IT A PRIORITY.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, A SYMBOLISM THAT, THAT PROVIDES OUR CONSTITUENTS MAKES SOME OF THIS HARD STUFF A LITTLE BIT EASIER.

AND, AND THAT'S ALL.

MAYOR, COULD I MAKE A COMMENT? UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER

[14:30:01]

UM, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

UM, I, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, THAT I THINK THIS, THIS COUNCIL OR THE NEXT COUNCIL I SHOULD SAY CAN EMBRACE.

I HOPE, UM, I CAN GIVE SOME ANALOGY FROM THE WAY THAT WE'VE, UM, BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, PROJECT CONNECT AND CAP METRO, UH, PROJECT CONNECT HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION AND, AND IT'S BEEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT, AND YOU, YOU, YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THAT THE OTHER DAY AT OUR JOINT MEETING.

BUT IT'S BEEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW EQUITY HAS TO BE CENTRAL TO TRANSPORTATION AND NOT AN ADD-ON, BUT HAS TO BE INTEGRAL TO TRANSPORTATION.

AND IT'S TAKEN, IT'S TAKEN A COUPLE OF YEARS OF CONVERSATION WITH PROJECT CONNECT TO MAKE THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MORE FRONT AND CENTER IN THE CONVERSATION.

WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAYING IS WE NEED THE SAME OR BETTER KIND OF CONVERSATION WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO, UM, I'LL BE HAPPY TO CONTRIBUTE WITH TO THAT AND THE WAYS THAT I CAN BEING OFF COUNSEL, UH, PERHAPS I CAN TESTIFY AND, AND, UM, AND SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS AND THE EFFORTS OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL, WHICH IS, WHICH I THINK IS YOUR POINT.

UH, AND A GOOD POINT, UH, TO DO THAT.

I, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S, I I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

LET'S, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S AUSTIN.

LET'S GET TO AUSTIN ENERGY.

UM, BEFORE WE DO, SO, MAY I POSTPONE 36 PLEASE? OKAY, LET'S DO 36.

I MOVE POSTPONEMENT OF 36 TO NEXT WEEK.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING 36 UNTIL NEXT WEEK? 36 IS POSTPONED UNTIL, WHAT? I MEAN, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT UP THAT THE MAYOR INDICATED THAT HE HADN'T READ IT AND I JUST DON'T KNOW.

I JUST WONDERED IF IT WAS FAST, CUZ THE STAFF HAS BEEN HERE ALL THIS TIME.

IF IT'S GONNA BE A LOT OF DEBATE, WE CAN POSTPONE IT.

BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU CAN BRING IT UP NOW IF YOU WANT TO.

I'M GONNA BE A NO VOTE ON 36.

UM, YEAH, I'D, I I, SO THERE'S USUALLY, THERE'S TO, THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE 36.

THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO POSTPONE 36 SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL? ANYBODY OBJECT TO BEING POSTPONED? HEARING NONE, IT GETS POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

LET'S CALL UP AUSTIN ENERGY MAYOR.

YES, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA DO THIS AS PART OF AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT I THINK WHAT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO, TO LET PEOPLE KNOW FAIRLY EARLY IN THIS CONVERSATION WHAT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU AND I, I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S BEEN ONE OF OUR LEADERS ON THIS, SO I I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW FAIRLY SOON WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO TODAY AND NOT TODAY.

UH, IT'S ALMOST FIVE O'CLOCK AND LET'S, SO LET'S HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AND SEE WHAT THEY PROPOSE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE.

NO, I WANNA HEAR THAT.

I DEFINITELY WANNA HEAR THAT.

I'M JUST GONNA REGISTER RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE TODAY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF ME TO VOTE.

LET'S, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S EVEN A REQUEST THAT WE VOTE TODAY.

AND I SAY THAT OUR KITCHEN, CAUSE I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR REQUEST TO VOTE TODAY.

AND I CAN AMPLIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.

UM, I'M HOPING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO HONE IN ON DIRECTION FOR STAFF, THEN THEY CAN GO AWAY AND WRITE THE ORDINANCE.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT ON TUESDAY FURTHER, AND THAT LEAVES US THE OPPORTUNITY ON THE EIGHTH TO TAKE A FINAL VOTE.

AND I WOULD JUST REMIND THE DIAS THAT I AM ON A PLANE ON THE NINTH, SO I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR ANY DELIBERATIONS SHOULD THEY HAPPEN.

HAVE TO, UH, CONTINUE OVER TO FRIDAY THE NINTH.

COUNCIL MEMBER POOL

[53.Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment and consider an ordinance establishing revised electric rates and charges for Austin Energy customers. 53. Strategic Outcome(s): Government that Works for All.]

STAFF.

RATE, UH, DECREASE TO SOME OF THE, UH, HIGHER TIERS AND ALSO TOUCHED ON SOME OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES OR SOME OF OUR INTERVENERS.

AFTERNOON, MARK DE BROSKI, CFO OF AUSTIN ENERGY.

UM, I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP THIS REALLY BRIEF, AS YOU KNOW, ON TUESDAY, UH, DURING, UM, THE HEARING, UM, OR THE WORK SESSION, I HAD PRESENTED, UH, THREE OPTIONS TO YOU.

AND THEN, UM, WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBER UL, UH, REQUESTING A RUN WHERE WE PHASED IN OVER THREE.

THAT WAS, UM, UH, FOURTH OPTION.

AND THEN WE HEARD FROM THE MAYOR PROTE ABOUT, UH, LOOKING AT MAYBE NOT, UH, OR NOT GIVING A, A

[14:35:01]

SO I'M JUST GONNA JUMP TO THAT, UM, THAT SCENARIO.

UH, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE STARTING WITH AND SORT OF THE DISPROPORTION HOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIX.

UM, AND YOU'LL SEE, UH, CURRENT, UH, AN EIGHT 60 BILL IS ABOUT, UH, JUST SHY OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS $99 AND 86 CENTS AND A CAP CUSTOMER IS 79 69.

SO, UM, THIS IS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS OPTION.

UM, I'M GONNA SKIP THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICK.

AND THIS USES COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS PROPOSAL, UH, AS AMENDED BY THE MAYOR PROTE ALTAR.

AND IT USES, UH, AN INCREASED REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, 31.3 MILLION.

AND THAT'S ACHIEVED BY REDUCING THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER FROM 120 MILLION TO 115 MILLION IN THE TEST YEAR.

IT MOVES CUSTOMERS CLASSES TO 40% UNITY, NOT FAR AS OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, BUT IT DOES MAKE PROGRESS ON MOVING CUSTOMERS COASTER, THEIR COST OF SERVICE.

UH, WE HAVE SEPARATE RATE STRUCTURES FOR INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CU CUSTOMERS IN THIS SCENARIO.

UM, AND WE HAVE NO DECREASE FOR THOSE HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN THIS SCENARIO.

UM, AND WHAT THAT, THAT FUNDING AVAILABLE, UH, WE, UH, USE THAT TO FUND A 2012 OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMER AGREEMENT.

UM, AND ALSO, UH, GIVES US SOME FUNDING FOR THE CAP EXPANSION PROGRAM.

UH, WITH THAT MONEY.

UH, IT HAS FOUR TIERS, UH, AND, AND A THREE STEP INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE FROM 14 TO 15 AND 16.

UM, AND TODAY ON THE GRAPH, I'M JUST GONNA SHOW YOU THE 14, THE 15 AND 16 LOOKS VERY SIMILAR.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS AS YOU INCREASE THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE FROM 14 TO 15, THAT INCREASES THE CAP BENEFIT THAT THE CUSTOMER RECEIVES BECAUSE THAT, UM, CUSTOMER CHARGE IS WAIVED.

SO YOU'LL GET A, A LOWER CAP BILL WITH EACH SUCCEEDING YEAR.

SO WITH THAT, YOU CAN SEE WITH THE, UM, $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE.

SO THIS WOULD BE THE, THE FIRST STEP IN, IN THE, IN THE THREE STEPS, UH, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FOR INSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS CURRENTLY AND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER SCENARIO THERE WITH THREE.

SO YOU CAN SEE RATES GO FROM, UH, 4 CENTS IN THAT FIRST TIER, UH, UH, JUST OVER 5 CENTS AND SECOND TIER.

UM, AND THEN SINCE WE REMOVED, UM, CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GETTING A DECREASE, THAT THIRD TIER NOW GOES A 7.28 CENTS, AND THE THIRD TIER COMES IN AT 10.560.

AND YOU STILL HAVE PRETTY GOOD PROPORTIONALITY AMONGST THOSE TIERS, UM, ON THAT.

AND THEN FOR OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS, UM, THEY'RE GOING FROM THREE TIERS TO THE FOUR TIERS.

UM, THERE ARE CUSTOMERS IN THOSE HIGHER TIERS WHO ARE DIGGING DECREASES CUZ WE DID NOT LIMIT THOSE CUSTOMERS.

UM, AND THEIR RANGES FROM, UH, THE FIRST TIER IS THE SAME AT 4 CENTS, 5, 4, 1 TO 5.9, AND THEN THE 7.7, THEN THE 7.70 CENTS, UH, IN A FOURTH TIER.

AND AGAIN, YOU GET GOOD PROPORTIONALITY AMONGST THOSE TIERS.

AND GRAPHICALLY, THIS, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

SO THIS IS THE INSIDE CITY, UM, ORANGE BAR BEING THE NUMBER OF KW H ARE BEING SOLD IN THAT TIER.

UH, THE GOLD BAR IS THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE FIRST TIER WHERE, UM, IT'S BELOW COST OF SERVICE.

UM, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE BENEFIT THERE OF, OF RECEIVING SALES IN THAT FIRST TIER.

THE SECOND TIER IS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO COST OF SERVICE.

SO THAT ORANGE BAR IN THE, IN THE GOLD BAR ARE A LITTLE BIT EVEN.

AND YOU GOT HIGHER TIERS THERE, YOU'LL SEE, UM, THAT'S WHERE, UM, THE, THE STEEPNESS OF THE PRICE CURVE HAPPENS.

AND SO, UH, USING THIS SCENARIO, UM, TYPICAL INSIDE CITY NON CAP CUSTOMER EIGHT 60 IS A A HUNDRED EIGHT NINETY TWO, SO THAT'S ABOUT LESS THAN OR ABOUT $9 INCREASE VERSUS WHERE YOU STARTED, WHICH WAS ABOUT A 14 OR $15 INCREASE.

AND THE CAP CUSTOMER GOES, UH, TO 84 19.

AND FOR THE OUTSIDE CITY AGAIN, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPORTIONALITY WHERE IN THE FIRST TWO TIERS, THE SALES ARE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN REVENUE.

THAT'S OFFSET BY SLIGHTLY MORE REVENUES IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH TIER.

UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE CURVES NOT QUITE AS STEEP ON, ON THE OUTSIDE SINCE WE DID NOT LIMIT THE DECREASES.

UM, OUTSIDE CITY, THAT CUSTOMER WOULD GET ABOUT $105 BILL IN CAP WOULD BE ABOUT AN 88 91.

AND AGAIN, EACH YEAR AS WE INCREASE THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE AND WE DECREASE THOSE ENERGY RATES, CAP CUSTOMERS, UM, GET A, A HIGHER BENEFIT, UH, OF THE PROGRAM.

AND THIS IS A CHART THAT SHOWS THE STEEPNESS OF THAT PRICE CURVE.

AND SO THE, THE ORANGE DOTTED LINE IS INSIDE CITY CURRENTLY, AND THE YELLOW

[14:40:01]

DOTTED LINE IS OUTSIDE CITY.

UM, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE, THE VARIOUS OPTIONS BRING FOUR A WAS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS WITHOUT DECREASING, UM, THE, UM, ELIMINATING THE INSIDE CITY DECREASE OR FOUR B IS WHERE WE DO LIMIT THAT NO, NO DECREASE INSIDE THE CITY.

UM, AND IT'S, UH, STEEPNESS IS, UM, UH, SLIGHTLY STEEPER THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR, FOR INSIDE CITY.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I, I HAVE A QUESTION IF IT'S OKAY.

UM, AND I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS, BUT IS THIS PRESENTATION IN BACKUP BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE IT ONLINE RELATED TO THE ITEM? AND IF IT'S NOT, COULD YOU MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS POSTED AND SENT TO US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS? OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THIS DIRECTION ALLOWS US, UM, TO DO.

I HAVE ONE MORE PROPOSAL THAT I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT AND BRING BACK TO US ON TUESDAY.

AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

UM, SO IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT UNDER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UM, THERE'LL BE CERTAIN YEARS WITH THE AVERAGES WHERE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXCEED ONE 15, EVEN THOUGH 12% OF REVENUE WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THAT.

UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF NUANCES ON, ON IMPLEMENTING THIS PROCESS, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT IF WE OVERSHOOT OUR REVENUE, SO YOU GET YOUR REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND IF YOU HAD A YEAR LIKE THIS YEAR THAT WAS VERY HOT AND YOU HAD A LOT OF EXTRA REVENUE, THAT THE FIRST USE FOR THAT EXTRA MONEY WOULD BE TO MAKE THE GENERAL FUND WHOLE IN TERMS OF THE TRANSFER IN TERMS OF, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A POLICY THAN A RATE ISSUE, BUT IT WOULD BE A POLICY THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO ADOPT OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHEN WE DID THIS.

SO IF AS MANY OF US EXPECT WE'RE GONNA HAVE HOT YEARS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE A DROP IN THE GENTLE FUND RELATIVE TO THE 12% POLICY.

RIGHT? SO, UM, THAT CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK AT AT BUDGET SEASON ONCE WE HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT REVENUES MIGHT BE FOR THE YEAR.

OBVIOUSLY A SENSE IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUES IF WE HAVE HOTTER THAN NORMAL YEAR, LIKE WE HAD 22, THAT PUSHES UP WHAT YOU MULTIPLY THAT AMOUNT BY, RIGHT? AND WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND CITY FINANCE ON IF THERE'S ENOUGH REVENUES, UM, TO, UM, INCREASE THAT GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL DURING THE BUDGET SEASON.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL, BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU PUT IN THE BASE, IF YOUR REVENUES ARE HIGH ENOUGH THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN DO THAT OR IT GETS SHORTED UP, IT MIGHT GET SHORT UP AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR CLOSES.

I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS.

WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TODAY IS SIMPLY TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE COULD OPERATIONALIZE THAT AS DIRECTION FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CAP GENERAL FUND AT ONE 15, RIGHT? WELL, THE, IT'S ONE 15 IN THE TEST YEAR AND THEN WE HAVE THE FORMULA AS, AS AMER POINTS OUT THAT WE WOULD APPLY EACH YEAR DURING THE BUDGET MM-HMM.

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT, UH, WE COULD GO UP TO THE 12%, THEN, THEN WE COULD DO THAT, RIGHT? SO IF IF WE HAD A LOT MORE REVENUE, IT WOULD BE MORE THAN ONE 15.

EVEN WITH THE LOWER THAT'S RIGHT.

A BUDGET SURPLUS, THEN THAT IS A POTENTIAL USE OF THOSE FUNDS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT THE, THE FIRST USE OF THAT SURPLUS OR THE DEFAULT USE OF THAT SURPLUS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE PHYSICAL CYCLE.

WE CAN, UH, HAVE OUR CUSTOMERS SEE THE BENEFIT OF THAT? UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN MADE SO FAR, PARTICULARLY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S EFFORT, UH, TO GET THIS DOWN TO 31 REVENUE, THE 31 MILLION REVENUE, UH, TARGET THERE AND THE, UM, $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE.

GO FOR KITCHEN.

UM, UH, I I, I HEAR YOUR RE REQUEST MAYOR PRO TIM, AND I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT TOO.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT.

UH, BUT I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT, UM, THIS IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR THE PUBLIC.

UM, THE 31 MILLION, UM, REVENUE.

UM, IT'S STILL, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE OTHER VARIOUS PIECES, IT'S STILL A SIGNIFICANT, UM, INCREASE, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE MAYOR PRO HIM MENTIONED THAT WE MAY HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD YEARS, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS COMING IN.

AND I, FOR JUST, FOR ME, I WOULD WANNA KNOW WHAT KIND OF OPTIONS WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TO, TO ACTUALLY HELP OUT OUR, BE MORE HELPFUL TO OUR, OUR CUSTOMERS, UH, RATHER THAN, UM, THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST PRIORITY, UM, AS OPPOSED TO, TO ADDING DOLLARS BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.

HUH.

OH, SO, SO, UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT, BUT, UM, BUT I WOULD ASK AS YOU, AS YOU CONSIDER THE, UH, MAYOR PORT TIM'S REQUEST THAT YOU ALSO CONSIDER, IS THERE A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN, UM,

[14:45:01]

BUT I'M, BUT I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO STAY SAY THAT I, I STILL AM, UM, CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE LEVELS, UH, BECAUSE THEY STILL SEEM TO ME TO BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC AND I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION AT THIS POINT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

SO, AND I DON'T KNOW OTHER, OTHER, MY CO OTHERS OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RAISED OTHER OPTIONS FOR LOWERING, LOWERING THAT REVENUE AMOUNT FROM 31 MILLION.

AND I'M, UM, I'M OPEN TO LISTENING TO THAT, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

, I WANTED TO THANK AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, FOR WORKING WITH THE PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT, I GUESS THE ENTIRE YEAR PRETTY MUCH FROM WHEN, UH, THEY FIRST BEGAN.

SO FOR WORKING WITH THE PARTICIPANTS WITH COUNCIL AND OUR STAFF TO GET US TO THIS PROPOSAL.

AND, AND I KNOW WE'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE ALL DAY KIND OF TAGGING ONE ANOTHER WITH BITS OF INFORMATION TO, UM, TO KIND OF FILL THIS OUT AND, AND GOING BACK AND FORTH.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE CONCERTED EFFORTS.

THERE IS NEVER A PERFECT SOLUTION.

UM, BUT I DO FEEL THIS PROPOSAL GETS US REALLY, REALLY CLOSE.

UM, THESE PROPOSED CHANGES CAPTURE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF AVERAGE RATE PAYERS IN THE FIRST TWO TIERS AND ENSURES THAT THESE CUSTOMERS COME CLOSER TO PAYING THE ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE, WHICH IS A MANDATE, UM, UNDER STATUTE IS MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE COST OF SERVICE AND IF NOT A MANDATE, GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.

UM, THE SHARP INCREASE AT TIER THREE AND FOUR DO, DO, DO SIGNAL CONSERVATION THAT WILL HOPEFULLY EITHER GET CUSTOMERS TO CHANGE THEIR HABITS OR INVEST IN SOLAR.

THE MAYOR PRETENDS AMENDMENT ALLOWS US TO CAPTURE EXTRA REVENUE THAT WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

AND I WANNA THANK HER FOR BRINGING, FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD.

SO AS DIRECTION TO OUR STAFF, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THIS PROPOSAL AS AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PRESENTED TONIGHT AS THE FRAMEWORK WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE PARTIES CAN RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES.

IT'S MY HOPE THAT COUNCIL WILL HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN VOTE ON NEXT WEEK.

WE HAVE A WORK SESSION ON TUESDAY WHERE WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.

AND I HOPE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE, UH, BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS ITEM EARLIER, UM, THIS AFTERNOON, THAT THAT LEAVES US, UH, FACING A VOTE ON DECEMBER EIGHT, WHICH I, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE PURSUE.

I WILL BE, UM, OFF THE DIAS ON THE NINTH, SHOULD THIS MEETING CONTINUE OVER INTO A SECOND DAY NEXT WEEK AND WON'T BE ABLE TO BE HERE.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE CONCLUDE THESE ISSUES ON, ON DECEMBER 8TH.

WE'LL MAKE THAT A PRIORITY TO DO.

THANK EVERYBODY.

IT'S BEEN A REALLY LONG ROAD.

DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM US? DO YOU WANT ANYTHING ELSE FROM US? NOPE, I'M MAYOR.

I, I, I DO.

WE WE'VE HAD SOME PROPOSALS FOR A LOWER REVENUE AMOUNT IN A LOWER CUSTOMER CHARGE, SO I JUST WANT TO SIGNAL THAT I'M STILL THINKING ABOUT THAT AND I MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE.

AND SO I WANNA, UH, I WANT TO HAVE MORE OF THAT CONVERSATION ON, ON TUESDAY.

I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

UM, WHEN YOU DO THE COMPARISON BETWEEN YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, UM, AND THIS PROPOSAL FOR NEXT YEAR, UM, YOU SAID THE NUMBERS, I THINK IT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD'VE BEEN AN INCREASE ON AVERAGE OF 15 AND NOW IT'S AT, I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND NINE, $9.

CLOSER, IF YOU COULD, UH, UH, UH, AIR OUT WHAT THE FINAL PROPOSAL IS SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO RE REACT TO IT.

SO WE'VE SHAVED OFF ABOUT $6 FROM WHAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN FROM THE INITIAL PROPOSAL.

UM, AND I THINK ACTUALLY SOME OF THE CHANGES IN MY VIEW SINCE I WASN'T AS CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING TO 50% COST OF SERVICE, I THINK IN THE LONGER RUN ARE GONNA HELP US, UM, NEXT TIME HAVE A LITTLE BIT LESS PROBLEMS. UM, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS ABOUT A $6 AMOUNT THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SHAVE OFF THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR THE AVERAGE, UM, RATE PAYER AND AS WELL AS INCREASING THE CONSERVATION SIGNALS AND ADDRESSING OUTSIDE AND, UM, THE S TWO S TWO THREE LEVELS.

SO I THINK THAT IS PROGRESS.

IT'S NOT PERFECT.

OBVIOUSLY WE'D ALL LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE FREE ENERGY, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

AS YOU GET

[14:50:01]

IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ACTION ON US AND ENERGY, UH, TILL NEXT WEEK? COUNCIL MEMBER POOL MAKES THAT MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER? KELLY SECONDS THAT MOTION, UM, DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION COUNCIL TO MAYOR, I, I HAD TO STEP OFF, UM, FOR A MINUTE.

I HAD A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO, TO SAY AND A COUPLE DIRECTIVES I WANTED TO ASK THE STAFF TO CONSIDER.

I SEE THAT WE'VE HAD, WE HAVE SOME FOLKS HERE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE ALL DAY.

UM, SOME OF THE INTERVENERS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR PLAN IS.

I GUESS OUR PLAN IS NOT TO CON NOT TO HEAR FROM THEM TODAY, BUT I DO THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD SIGNALED WE MIGHT WANNA DO TODAY.

UM, NO.

DO YOU HAVE STUFF YOU WANNA SHARE WITH US? OKAY, WHAT I, I DO WANNA, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS APPROACH THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.

OF COURSE.

YOU KNOW, I NEED SOME TIME TO LOOK THROUGH IT.

WE HAVEN'T, WE JUST RECEIVED IT AND HAVE TO HAVE TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH IT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MELDING OF, OF THE APPROACH THAT YOU HAVE HERE WITH A $12 OR $13.

UM, AND I'LL, I'LL LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THAT, BUT A $12 CUSTOMER CHARGE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT AS WELL AS A LOWER REVENUE REQUIREMENT.

I CONTINUE TO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME VERY RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO BE LOWER.

AND I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT THOSE THAT THIS APPROACH BE MELDED WITH THE RUNS THAT I ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT LAST WEEK, WHICH WERE 22,000,020 7 MILLION AND USING, I THINK THE, THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED ONTO THE JOINT CONSUMER TO THE JOINT, UM, THE JOINT APPROACH THAT WAS FORWARDED TO US HAVE ASKED THAT THEY BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE SAME, THAT THE, THAT THE, UM, ALLOCATION BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHICH THEY'VE SUGGESTED IT.

IS THAT DOABLE, MR. DOMBROSKI? YES, I, WE COULD, WE MIGHT NEED SOME DIRECTION ON WHERE WE WOULD, UH, FOCUS THOSE REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING IN ORDER TO GET THAT LOWER REVENUE REQUIREMENT.

YEAH, I NON-CLEAR DECOMMISSIONING OR ECONOMIC I DID FORWARD, I DID, YOU KNOW, FORWARD THAT WHEN I REQUESTED THE RUNS INITIALLY, I THINK YOU DISAGREED WITH THEM.

UM, AND WE HAVEN'T, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TODAY TO HASH IT OUT WITH THE INTERVENERS OFFERING THEIR OPINION AND, AND AE OFFERING THEIRS.

BUT, BUT I DID IDENTIFY, I IDENTIFIED THOSE DOWN TO ABOUT 27.4.

UM, BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE STILL HAVE, I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESOLUTION ON WHETHER, WHETHER I ACCURATELY ACCOUNTED AND REDUCED FOR, OR THE AMORTIZATION FOR THE CONTRACTING AND OVERTIME COST FOR WINTER WINTER STORM.

EVERY TIME WE MENTION IT.

I MENTIONED THAT I HAVEN'T GOTTEN VERIFICATION THAT I'VE DONE THAT CORRECTLY, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR SOMEBODY TO LET ME KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S BEEN, BEEN DONE.

UM, AND THEN THE 22 TO GET IT DOWN TO 22 OR 20, I THINK IS GONNA TAKE, UM, THERE WERE NOT, THERE WERE NOT SPECIFIC LINE ITEMS IDENTIFIED.

IT WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF WHAT WE DID IN 2013, WHICH WAS TO IDENTIFY THAT AS A COST, UM, AS A RATE IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGY.

THERE WAS A LINE ITEM IN THE 2013 THAT WAS A REVENUE REQUIREMENT REDUCTION NOTED AS A RATE RATE, UH, MITIGATION STRATEGY.

YES, I WAS AWARE OF THAT.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE LANGUAGE.

UM, AND THAT WOULD BE THE NATURE OF THE, THE ADDITIONAL CUTS.

, YOU NEED FURTHER DIRECTION FROM ME OR NO? I, I THINK I'M CLEAR.

I WOULD JUST, UM, KIND OF ECHO, UH, WHAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID IN ADVANCE OF NEXT WEEK SPEAKING ABOUT THIS.

AGAIN, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A PRESENTATION AHEAD OF TIME TO REVIEW AND I KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD AS WELL, JUST SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE AND GET AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION.

WE ALL KNOW THAT.

BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO OUR CONSTITUENCY IN THE RIGHT WAY BEFORE CASTING VOTES.

THANKS, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.

WE'LL TRY TO MAKE THAT NEXT TIME.

WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON IT FOR THAT TO BE, FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE GENERATED? NO, AND I, I DON'T THINK, I THINK PRETTY CLEAR.

AND I HOPE AS YOU CAN TEE UP SOME OF THESE ISSUES FOR US ON TUESDAY, I FEEL BADLY.

HEY, TODAY, WE'RE ENDING THE MEETING TODAY, AND YOU'VE HEARD DISPARATE COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE ON THE DAY, SO I'M NOT SURE YOU LEAVE HERE WITH, WITH, WITH, UM, REAL DIRECTION.

RIGHT? UH, BUT I WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU HEAR FROM ONE OR TWO PEOPLE AS DIRECTION, UH, OR THE SENTIMENT FROM THE, UH, D AS A WHOLE.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T, UH, JOIN IN ON THOSE ISSUES.

YES, I HEARD MAYOR, WHAT DOES THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL? YES.

BUT MAYOR, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN EXACTLY? I MEAN, I'VE ASKED THEM TO, TO PROVIDE SOME, TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION BACK.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT

[14:55:01]

I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

NO, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T NEED TO BE A VOTE ON YOUR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

I KNOW MAYOR, YOU MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.

OH, I DO THINK AT THIS JUNCTURE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE FAIRLY CLEAR IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO GO SO THAT WE CAN CONCLUDE THE SETTLEMENT CONVERSATION.

THAT THE CLOCK IS TICKING AND THE TIME IS REALLY SHORT.

AND THAT IS WHY I SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME WORKING WITH STAFF AND, UH, OTHERS TO COME WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT, NOT JUST TODAY, BUT ON THE, UH, MESSAGE BOARD PREVIOUSLY.

WE ARE PUSHING TOWARD THIS END AND WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF, UH, REOPENING EVERYTHING WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR.

SHOULD WE THEN GO THROUGH THE, THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT WERE LEFT ON THE TABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE, TO THE REVENUE, UH, ISSUE.

YOU WROTE A MEMO, THE, THE INTERVENERS WROTE A MEMO.

DO WE WANT TO TEE THOSE UP AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT EACH OF THOSE THREE THINGS? YEAH, MAYOR, I DON'T, WE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FULL DIAS.

I THINK WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DO, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO HAS LAID OUT WHAT HER REQUEST IS, WHICH IS JUST TO COMPLETE THAT INFORMATION SHE'S REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO HER TARGET OF 27 MILLION OR SO, AND IS ALSO ASKED TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT A $12 CUSTOMER CHARGE.

SO THAT'S NOT, THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR, I THINK.

AND THAT'S CLEAR, CLEARLY ALL WE WERE ASKING FOR, I THINK THAT IN A PERFECT WORLD, THEY'RE ASKING FOR GREATER DIRECTION THAN THAT.

SO THEY KNOW HOW TO WORK.

UH, AND THEY HAVEN'T HEARD FROM VERY MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT D NOW COULD BE THE PEOPLE THAT DIES AREN'T READY TO DO THAT YET.

WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE A FULL D WE'RE NOT GONNA BE TAKING ANY VOTES, BUT THE, BUT THEY'RE LEAVING HERE TODAY WITHOUT MUCH DIRECTION ON WHETHER 31 IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER.

UH, AND I WAS ASKING TODAY AS WHETHER WE WANTED TO GET INTO THAT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY SAY NO, UH, AND, AND WE'RE NOT, UH, MY SUGGESTION IS YOU TRY TO TEE UP THESE ISSUES FOR CONVERSATION BY GETTING INFORMATION OUT EARLIER, BUT AT SOME POINT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SIT DOWN PERHAPS ON THOSE THREE ISSUES AND DECIDE THOSE THREE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO, UH, TO, TO, TO REVENUE.

AND IF WE'RE NOT DESIROUS IN DOING IT TODAY, THEN IT, THEN IT GETS PUSHED TO NEXT WEEK.

THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN SAYING.

MAYOR PROTE.

UM, FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE, WHO ARE FOCUSED IN ON THE CUSTOMER, THE SERVICE CHARGE PIECE, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE RUNS THAT WE'VE SEEN AND LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGES, BUT ALSO LIKE WHAT THEY WOULD BE CHARGED ON THE WHOLE, BECAUSE WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY END UP PAYING IS A FUNCTION OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE RATE.

UM, AND IF WE DON'T FIND REVENUE RATE DECREASES, IT COMES OUT ABOUT THE SAME.

BUT BY LOWERING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, YOU'RE HURTING THE CAP.

CUSTOMERS WHO GET THAT FOR, THEY GET THAT COMPED.

UM, AND SO IF YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND YOU MOVE THAT STUFF AROUND, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDING MORE RELIEF TO MORE PEOPLE.

UM, IT TOOK A WHILE TO SORT OF FIGURE THAT OUT.

UM, BUT YOU REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, THOSE CHARTS AND WALK THROUGH THAT.

UH, BECAUSE IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND YOU LOOK AT THAT PERCENTAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU GO FROM 10 TO 15 AND YOU SAY IT'S A 50% CHARGE INCREASE, BUT THEN WHEN YOU COMBINE IT WITH, UM, WHEN YOU COMBINE IT WITH THE RATES AND THEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT SOMEBODY WHO'S PAYING SAY 600 FOR 600 KILOWATTS, IT'S, IT'S, I THINK LESS THAN A 20% INCREASE.

AND SO JUST OVERALL FOR THEIR BILL.

AND SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.

SO AS YOU'RE, YOU'RE FIGURING OUT HOW YOU'RE WEIGHING, UM, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE VERSUS THE TOTAL CHARGE, I WOULD JUST REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT DATA, WHICH HAS BEEN MORE APPARENT IN SOME OF THE LATER, MORE RECENT RUNS THAT WE'VE SEEN.

KELLY, THANK YOU.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL BEEN SITTING IN HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND GOING THROUGH IT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

AND AS WE'VE ALL DONE OUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE ON THE ISSUE, I JUST WANNA SEE THAT I REALLY SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS DIRECTION.

I KNOW THAT SHE'S BEEN A STRONG LEADER IN THIS AREA.

AND WHILE THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, I JUST KNOW THAT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW SEEMS LIKE THE BEST COMPROMISE FOR, FOR WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

SO I JUST WANTED TO VOICE THAT.

I SUPPORT THAT.

INTO THE DINNER HOUR FOR THE SECOND DAY OF DELIBERATIONS, AND WE'RE HEADING INTO THAT AREA OF, PEOPLE PROBABLY AREN'T WATCHING, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW ALONG AS THE DELIBERATIONS PROGRESS.

THANKS FOR ADDING THAT DIRECTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS.

I AGREE.

I THINK SOME OF THE NEGOTIATING AND COMPROMISING THAT'S, THAT'S HAPPENING WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL IS, IS WORKING OUT REALLY WELL.

I ALSO WOULD JUST LIKE TO FLAG THAT WE'RE HEADING

[15:00:01]

BUT I FEEL CONFIDENT IN SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE HITTING.

UM, AND JUST DON'T KNOW HOW PRODUCTIVE WE WILL BE IF WE, UH, KEEP TAKING THIS ON AND ON AND ON INTO THE EVENING OF THE SECOND DAY OF THE MEETING.

AND I THINK BY 10:00 PM OUR CLOCK RUNS OUT ENTIRELY FOR A MEETING.

SO I'VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE AND WOULD LIKE TO NOT DO THAT TONIGHT.

, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

UH, I ALSO SUPPORT THE, THE DIRECTION CHAIR THAT YOU'RE TAKING IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS AS WELL.

UH, COUNCIL OUR KITCHEN.

I, I AGREE.

AND SO I'LL JUST BE VERY, VERY SHORT.

I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL HAS DONE AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING.

I'M JUST NOT THERE YET, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MAYOR.

MAYOR, PRETEND.

BUT I HAVE LOOKED AT THE IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND I AM, I THINK THE CUSTOMER CHARGE DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON FAMILIES.

IF NOTHING ELSE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT CASH FLOW AND WHAT THEY, THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO PAY VERSUS WHAT THEY MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON AND THINGS LIKE THAT CAN BE IMPORTANT TO LOWER INCOME FOLKS.

AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT, SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT.

I'VE LOOKED AT IT ALSO AND I STILL HAVE THESE CONCERNS, SO I JUST WANNA LAY THAT OUT.

YOU KNOW, UM, I, I APPRECIATE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

IT IS WAY BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK, WHAT WE, WHAT WE STARTED WITH AND I APPRECIATE THAT WORK.

I'M JUST SAYING I'M NOT QUITE DONE AND I'M JUST WANTING TO SIGNAL THAT, AND I'M INTERESTED IN THE IDEAS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO HAS PUT FORWARD.

I THINK IT'S ABOUT AS MUCH DIRECTION AS WE CAN GIVE YOU, WHICH MAYOR, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK FOLKS ARE ON, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO BE INTER AS PART OF THEIR JOB, BUT ALSO WE HAVE SOME WHO HAVE, WHO HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THIS JUST AS COMMUNITY ADVOCATES WHO ARE INTERVENING IN THIS CASE AND THE WORK THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT, THAT I HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD ARE, ARE REALLY THEIRS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE, THAT WE CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET, IF WE CAN GET TO A BETTER OUTCOME.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THE, THAN THE 30.

I THINK THERE'S RATIONALE TO GO BELOW THE 30 MILLION, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT.

AND I DO THINK THERE ARE, UM, OUR OTHER, OTHER METHODS WE CAN ACHIEVE.

AND WHAT WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY YET IS TO DO IS TO COMBINE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE WORK WE INITIATED LAST WEEK WITH THE APPROACH THAT WE JUST RECEIVED HERE TODAY.

SO THAT, THAT IS IMPORTANT.

ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING THIS ITEM? UNTIL NEXT WEEK? HEARING THIS ITEM IS POSTPONED TO NEXT WEEK.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MAYOR THAT WE CARVE OUT SOME TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE INTERVENED AND HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING, UM, DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAN DO AE SO THAT WE CAN REALLY GET A DIALOGUE THAT HELPS INFORM OUR CHOICES.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA NEXT WEEK.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE IFCS AND SEE WHICH ONES WE WANT TO CONSIDER AND WHICH ONES WE DON'T, UH, HOW WE WANT TO SPEND THE TIME, UH, THAT WE HAVE.

CAUSE IT'LL BE A LIMITED DAY, YOU KNOW, A LIMITED TIME.

SO LET'S, WHEN WE GET THE SCHEDULE, LET'S TAKE ASSESSMENT OF IT AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE HAVE A, AN AGENDA THAT THAT WORKS FOR US.

ABOUT 30 IFCS.

SO I'M NOT SURE WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO, TO LIVE RU WE'LL FIGURE OUT A PROCESS TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE EVERYBODY'S ENTITLED TO A VOTE.

UH, BUT WE MAY FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THROUGH IFCS MORE QUICKLY.

WELL, WE COULD JUST TAKE 'EM ALL ON CONSENT.

THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO DO IT.