Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

[00:00:02]

THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPH,

[2. Public Comments]

ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? YES, MADAM CHAIR.

I HEARD YOU SPEAKING TO ONE OF THE MEMBERS.

THANK YOU.

MA'AM THANK YOU.

MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.

I'M ZENOBIA JOSEPH.

MY COMMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ITEM 11, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ITEM IT'S SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE $633 MILLION OF THE DEFERRED PROJECTS RELATED TO CAPITAL EXPRESS CENTRAL PROJECT.

I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WHILE THE LANGUAGE IN THE PACKET ON PAGE 63, SPECIFIES PROJECT SCORES AND RANKING, THERE WERE THREE METRO RAPID LINES THAT WERE IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN.

THOSE PROJECTS ACTUALLY SCORED HIGHER THAN THE ONES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON JUNE EIGHT, 2020 WHEN YOU APPROVED THE DEFERMENT LIST.

AND SO I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THAT AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO AT LEAST DISCUSS WHY THE PROJECT SCORES AND RANKING WAS NOT USED FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE WERE THREE LINES MLK CAMERON WROTE TO ENDESA TO ACC, HIGHLAND AND PALMER, SAMSUNG TO APPLE.

EACH OF THESE LINES, THE METRO RAPID LINE SERVED MORE MINORITIES THAN THE ONES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN.

THERE ARE 53% MINORITIES MLK, 74% AND 55% ON PALMER COMPARED TO BURNET MEN, CHAKA AND OAK HILL, AND SPECIFICALLY CONVICT HILL.

THERE WERE ONLY 37 TO 38% MINORITIES.

SO MY COMMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO TITLE SIX OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SCORES WERE 88, 87 OUT OF 100 FOR THE NORTHEAST LINES IN 82 AND 85 FOR THE ONES THAT WERE SOUTHWEST.

IT COSTS MORE FOR THE ONES THAT WERE SOUTHWEST.

THEY WERE $41.2 MILLION COMPARED TO 18.4 FOR ALL THREE OF THE METRO RAPID LINES IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN.

THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF $22.8 MILLION.

AND SO I'M ASKING YOU, AND I DID TESTIFY BEFORE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2020.

I ASKED THEM TO FIND $4.7 MILLION OUT OF THEIR CATEGORY, 12 FUNDS TO ACTUALLY FUND THAT RAPID LINE ON PARMER LANE.

I WOULD JUST CALL IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

THE 2014 PROJECT CONNECT NORTH CORRIDOR, A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STUDY ACTUALLY SPECIFIED THAT 53 58% OF THE JOBS WOULD BE IN THE NORTH CORRIDOR.

AND THEY ALSO SPECIFIED, UM, THAT THE NOT ONLY THEY EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE CONDUCTIVITY WAS SIGNIFICANT.

AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, THAT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH THE STATE $633 MILLION OKO PARKWAY PROJECT.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE UNDER ACCOUNTABILITY, INTEGRITY, AND TRANSPARENCY, THEN THE SCORES THAT ARE LISTED IN THE BOARD PACKET IS WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES.

AND I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO, UH, COMMIT TO ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH THAT.

LASTLY, I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2020 PROHIBITS THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PROPAGANDA, AND EVEN AFTER THESE LINES WERE CUT CAPITAL METRO AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN CONTINUE TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THE PARMA LINE WAS STILL THERE AND ALSO THE MLC.

UM, AND THAT WAS ON THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, UH, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.

AND I THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY COMMENTS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPH.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

MADAM CHAIR.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER SHAY.

UM, I'M WONDERING IF ASHBY CAN EXPLAIN TO US ABOUT THAT RANKING OR WAS THAT A TXDOT RANKING? IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE HIGHEST RANKED, UH, PROJECTS GOT INCLUDED AS MS. JOSEPH WAS LAYING OUT.

SO, UM, COMMISSIONER SHEA, THE AGENDA ITEM, UM, IS ABOUT THE DEFERRED PROJECTS.

AND WE CAN, IF THERE'S A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT, WE CAN ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, BUT, UM, DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, W YOU KNOW, W WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IF THERE IS THE SPECIFIC, WHEN WE GET TO AGENDA ITEMS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE RANKED SPECIFIC CAP METRO ROUTES.

SO, UM, I'M GOING TO LET, UH, STAFF ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE GET TO NUMBER 11.

OKAY.

IF WE'LL JUST REMEMBER THAT I WOULD LIKE, UM, SOME EXPLANATION OR INFORMATION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHEA.

OKAY.

UM, I WANT TO, LET'S SEE FOR THE RECORD, UM, I SAW MAYOR ADLER COMING IN ON THE CALL, UM, AND, UH, SAW COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND JERRY MITCHELL.

UM, I THINK I SAW MAYOR SCHRADER

[00:05:02]

AND COMMISSIONER TREVELYAN AND OF COURSE, COMMISSIONER SHEA.

SO THE ONLY ONES I HAVE MISSING AT THIS POINT ARE ALISON ALTER, UH, JUDGE BROWN.

AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S IT.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOU SHOW UP, BUT WELCOME.

AND THANK YOU FOR CYNTHIA.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OKAY, GREAT.

UM, SO I THINK WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY.

ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD.

AND, UM, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UM,

[5. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on November 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes]

SO, UH, IF WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES? OKAY.

MAYOR MORGAN.

UM, MIKE, IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR MORGAN A SECOND BY MARY QSEN.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

HEARING NONE.

UM, IF THERE IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THE MOTION.

OKAY.

HEARING NONE.

MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY

[6. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on CAMPO Executive Director to Begin Negotiation of Legal Services Contract.]

ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISCUSSING TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON CAMPO, UH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS OR LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

UM, I BELIEVE CHAD IS GOING TO UPDATE US ON THIS ITEM.

YES.

THANK YOU.

MADAM CHAIR.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.

EXCELLENT.

UM, SO CAMPOS CURRENT LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS MONTH AND TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF LEGAL SERVICES, TYPO BEGAN THE PROCESS TO PROCURE A NEW LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT LAST YEAR.

UH, THIS PROCESS BEGAN ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2020.

UH, WHEN YOUR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS WAS POSTED FOR CAMPO LEGAL SERVICES WITH SUBMITTALS, FOR THE RFQ DUE ON NOVEMBER THE SIXTH, WE RECEIVED PROPOSALS FROM THE THREE FIRMS THAT YOU SHOULD SEE ON THE SCREEN.

PRICKER STAFF, ACOSTA, LLP, KIM SMITH, LLP, TIM CAMPO, STAFF EVALUATION TEAM, INDIVIDUALLY REVIEWED AND SCORED THE PROPOSALS BASED ON A SET OF SELECTION CRITERIA.

AND THOSE SCORES WERE THEN AVERAGE FOR THE FINAL RANKING.

THE SELECTION CRITERIA WAS INCLUDED IN THE RFQ, AND IT EQUALLY WEIGHTED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OF FIRMS STAFFING AND ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS, UNDERSTANDING OF SCOPE AND PAST PERFORMANCE BASED ON THIS EVALUATION, THE RESULTS YOU CAN SEE ON THE STREET OR ON THE SCREEN NOW WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, UM, AS TIM TUNJI LAW WITH 91 TOTAL POINTS FOLLOWED BY KIM SMITH AND PICKER STAFF AND NEXT TYPE, PLEASE, BASED ON THE RESULTS.

UH, THIS REVIEW STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE POLICY BOARD AUTHORIZED THE CAMPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAD BLASEY.

SO MOVE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

BYE.

BYE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION I'M SURE.

COULD, COULD WE GET A LITTLE BIT OF EXPLANATION? UM, I KNOW THE BIGGER STAFF, UM, IS A, A VERY EXPERIENCED LAW FIRM, UM, AND I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW, UH, WHAT, HOW THE, HOW THE FIRMS WERE RANKED BASED ON THE CRITERIA, BECAUSE, UH, UM, UH, TELL YOU AS A SMALL FIRM.

UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE RANKING AND THE CRITERIA.

SURE.

UM, SO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO FOR PICKER STAFF, UM, THE PROPOSAL DID NOT INCLUDE ANY, UM, OR INDICATE ANY PRIOR MPO EXPERIENCE.

UM, THE TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE THAT IS PROVIDED IS REALLY UNRELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE RFQ OR CAMPOS PROCESSES, UM, AND IT REALLY FOCUSES MORE ON FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR, UM, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

UM, THOSE SORTS OF PROJECTS THAT, THAT THEY TYPICALLY WORK ON, UM, AS WELL, THE RESUMES THAT WERE INCLUDED, UM, DID NOT INDICATE ANY, UH, EXPERIENCE THAT WAS RELEVANT TO CAMPO OR MPO.

WAS THAT THE CATEGORY THAT, UH, TONY AND I, I THINK THEY'RE FINE.

I, I, I KNOW, UM, UM, MR. TONY AND SHANNON, I THINK THEY DO A FINE JOB, BUT WAS THE GREATEST, UH, UH, WEIGHT GIVEN THAT GAVE HIM SUCH

[00:10:01]

A MUCH HIGHER SCORE BECAUSE THEY HAD EXPERIENCED PROVIDING, UM, LEGAL GUIDANCE TO AN MPO.

THAT WAS A KEY.

THE OTHER REALLY CRUCIAL ITEM FOR THE, UM, LAW FIRM IS THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHERE BOTH OF THEIR PRIMARY CONTACTS, UH, DEMONSTRATED NPO EXPERIENCE.

UM, NONE OF THE OTHERS HAD THAT.

UM, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL JUST MAKE NOTE THAT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE WE MAY BE SETTING UP A CRITERIA THAT WOULD GUARANTEE THAT THE ONLY FIRM THAT WOULD EVER SCORE HIGHEST IS THE FIRM THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDING LEGAL GUIDANCE.

AND I, AND I, WHILE I APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, UH, EXPERIENCE, UM, I ALSO DON'T WANT TO SET UP A PROCESS THAT WOULD PREVENT ANY OTHER FIRM FROM EVER REALLY, UH, RANKING, UH, AT A LEVEL THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK THIS QUESTIONS MAY HELP, UM, LEAVE YOU TO SPEAK TO WHICH AT SAYING, AND IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT, THAT THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA THAT WAS UTILIZED HERE HAD TO DENOTE IT SPECIFICALLY THE EXPERIENCE AND THE EXPERTISE WITH MPOS PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, CAUSE YOU GUYS DO THIS FOR A LIVING.

I JUST LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.

UM, THERE ARE OTHER FIRMS THAT WOULD HAVE JUST AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS SUCH, BUT THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THIS, UM, PROCESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL ADD THAT THE, THE, FROM THAT WAS, UM, SECOND, UM, THAT KIM SMITH FIRM DID HAVE, UM, NPO EXPERIENCE.

AND THAT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS COUNTED AS, UH, AND THEY WERE IN THE SECOND PLACE POSITION.

THE ISSUES THERE WERE THEN THE PRIMARY CONTACT LISTED DID NOT HAVE NPO EXPERIENCE, AGAIN, TEMPO EXPERIENCE, BUT JUST MPO EXPERIENCE.

AND MOST OF THE FIRMS, UH, WORK ON WATER DISTRICTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

UM, SO YEAH, THAT, THAT, UH, MIDDLE UNDER THERE REALLY GIVES AN INDICATION OF HOW THE SCORES WORK.

NO, EXCELLENT.

NO, THAT'S, THAT'S PERFECTLY FAIR ANSWER.

MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE JUST MOVING FORWARD.

WHAT I'M CITY COMMISSIONERS CONCERN IS THAT THE POOL OF CANDIDATES WE'RE HOWEVER WE'RE GOING ABOUT DOING THE SOLICITORS GIVING PROCESS AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT'S OUT THERE, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FULLY, WE'RE HITTING THE FULL UNIVERSE OF THIS CANDIDATE.

SO EVERYONE HAS AN ABILITY TO DO SO.

I THINK THAT, UM, TIM HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB BY THIS MPO TO SAY THE LEAST.

UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YEAH, WE WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A GO AHEAD CHIP AND TRY TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO REGARDING SERVICES.

OF COURSE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, TOTALLY.

I'D MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

UM, WE ACTUALLY THANK YOU, JUDGE, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

SO, UH, MOTION BY, UH, MAYOR MORGAN AND SECOND BY COUNCIL FOR KITCHEN.

UM, HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IF THERE'S ANYBODY AGAINST THE MOTION.

OKAY.

HEARING NONE, MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY

[7. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Project Selection Criteria]

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON FDA'S 10 PROJECT CRITERIA.

AND THIS IS RYAN CALLS WITH TELCO STAFF.

THIS ITEM THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU IS AN UPDATE TO THE 53 CRITERIA.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE 53 10 PROGRAM HAS A, IT'S AN FTA PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY A DESIGNATED RECIPIENT IN THIS CASE, THAT'S CAPITAL METRO, BUT SELECTION OF A DESIGNATED RECIPIENT.

UM, THEY'VE DELEGATED THIS SELECTION OF PRODUCTS TO CAMPO.

UM, AND THE 53 10 PROGRAM ITSELF DIRECTLY SUPPORTS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS THAT ARE TAILORED TOWARDS SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

WE RECEIVE ROUGHLY A MILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING EVERY YEAR.

AND SO WE DO, WE'VE BEEN DOING AN ANNUAL CALL SINCE ABOUT 2012, AND IT'S ACTUALLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS IS KIND OF INCREDIBLY COMPETITIVE.

AND SO LAST TIME WE DID THE PROJECT SELECTION.

THIS IS BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, THE POLICY BOARD DID REQUEST THAT WE KIND OF REVISIT THE CRITERIA AND THE PROCESS.

UM, IT WAS LAST APPROVED IN 2012.

AND SO WE KIND OF TOOK A HOLISTIC REVIEW TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO KIND OF CHANGE YOU KIND OF UPDATE AND, UH, MAKE IT A MORE COMPETITIVE, UM, PROCESS.

AND SO, UM, THAT IS WHAT THIS HAS TO MISS TODAY.

AND I'LL BRIEFLY JUST GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND THEN THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR.

AND THEN IF

[00:15:01]

WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE CRITERIA, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, MR. ADMINISTERING OTHER PROJECTS, UH, ONCE WE GET THE PROJECT CRITERIA UPDATED.

UM, SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT TYPE, PLEASE, UH, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE, UH, WE DID THE, DID THE UPDATE, EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

AND THAT WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE.

IT WAS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS.

WE STARTED WITH THE CURRENT CRITERIA AND WE REVIEWED THE FTA RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE, A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, ANY RESOURCES THAT FDA HAD.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT SOME TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, WHITE PAPERS.

UM, WE ALSO LOOKED AT OTHER 53 GRANT CRITERIA WITH ACROSS THE STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT CAPITOL, METRO REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION COMMITTEE GAVE THEIR FEEDBACK ON IT BACK IN, UH, DECEMBER.

I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTICE THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THIS IS THE 53, 10 FUNDING IS TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING.

THEY DO A PLAN EVERY FIVE YEARS AND THE 53 10 FUNDING IS REALLY DESIGNATED TO KIND OF FUND THOSE PROGRAMS THAT COME OUT OF THEIR PLANNING PROCESS THAT USE THEIR FEEDBACK WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.

WE'VE TAKEN IT TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TWICE.

NOW WE GET FOR INITIAL FEEDBACK.

AND THEN ONCE WE HAD A DRAFT OF THE CRITERIA TO GET BACK TO THEM AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, AND THEN OF COURSE, THIS WENT TO THE POLICY BOARD IN NOVEMBER AND A GOOD DISCUSSION ON THE HATS.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TOWARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

UM, SO IT'S BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT CRITERIA.

UM, SO THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE ELIGIBILITY ON THE LEFT.

THAT'S JUST YOUR BASIC ELIGIBILITY LOCATION, THE SPONSOR TYPE IN THE ACTIVITY THAT WE WOULD BE FUNDING AND THE SCORING CRITERIA, WHICH IS REALLY THE MEAT OF IT ON THE RIGHT.

WE HAVE SEVEN CRITERIA WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE WEIGHTS ON THE RIGHT.

AND IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, DEEP DIVE ON THESE, BUT I WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING.

SO FOR THE PROCESS UPDATE, THE ELIGIBILITY DOES THE SAME, NOTHING.

WE REALLY CHANGED.

TWO MAJOR CHANGES THAT HAVE COME OUT OF IT IS THAT THE, WE HAD A PROJECT PUT INTO THIS SCREENING.

UM, PREVIOUSLY THE BUDGET WAS PART OF THE SCORING CRITERIA, BUT WE'VE KIND OF MOVED THAT INTO THE PROJECT IN A SCREENING, FLESHED OUT BUDGET.

AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPONSORS ARE GOOD STATEMENTS WITH FTA AND CAPITAL METRO.

UM, AND SO THINGS LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING, JUST CHECK THE, THE, THE PROJECT ITSELF HAS BEEN FULLY FLESHED OUT AND IT WAS READY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.

AND THEN THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

UM, KIND OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS THAT WE SHOULD MOVE TO A TWO YEAR SCHEDULE AS OPPOSED TO DOING ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF FUNDING.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR, I WILL DO TWO YEARS WORTH OF FUNDING EVERY TWO YEARS.

AND SO THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL.

I THINK, ESPECIALLY TO THESE SPONSORS THAT APPLY MOST OF THESE ARE SMALL NONPROFITS AND BABY TAILORED PROGRAMS THAT WE'LL BE BETTER ABLE TO USE THEIR RESOURCES AND TIME BECAUSE IT DOES A TON OF PROCESS APPLYING FOR FUNDING.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER TWO YEARS AS A SCRAMBLE EVERY YEAR TO GET RENEWED FUNDING SO THAT IT WILL BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO THEM.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT, WE ALSO HAVE THE UPDATED SCORING CRITERIA.

MOST OF IT HAS REMAINED THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WEIGHTS HAVE CHANGED PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY.

UM, SO WE'VE MOVED TO THE BENEFIT HAS REMAINED THE SAME PROGRAM.

SUSTAINABILITY WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA.

UM, WE DID HAVE PROGRAM EXPERIENCE OF CORONATION AND PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERCONNECTIVITY ARE BOTH PART OF THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA THAT WE PULLED OVER.

THOSE, THOSE THAT ARE, WE THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT TO EVALUATE THE PROJECTS THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR BENEFICIAL THINGS, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO, WE REDUCED THE WEIGHTS ON THESE BECAUSE THOUGH THEY ARE IMPORTANT.

WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO PRECLUDE OTHER NEW PROJECTS FROM BEING COMPETITIVE IN THE PROCESS.

UM, WE BUMPED UP THE TCC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING FOR THE RTCC MISSION AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES, WE DID THE, ONE OF THE NEWEST ONES IS THE PERFORMANCE MEASURE OF MONITORING.

THIS IS 20 POINTS.

THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE SPONSORS DO YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT PATTERN DATA AND HOW THE FUNDING IS BEING SPENT AND PARTNERSHIP.

AND THIS IS REALLY JUST TO LINE IT UP WITH THE, THE WAY THE FEDERAL FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE FAST

[00:20:01]

REALLY KIND OF DELEGATED, VERY PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING MECHANISM.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, IS REALLY JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN REPORT ON THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT IS.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY JUST A COST BENEFIT IN THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA.

BUT, UM, FROM THE DRAFT CRITERIA THAT YOU SAW, THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS WAITED 30 POINTS.

AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER BECCA BROUGHT IT UP FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

WE ALSO HEARD THIS ABOUT TCC DID THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

ONE REPORT WAS OVERLY GRADED.

AND SO WE REDUCED THE 30 POINTS DOWN TO 20 AND THEN REDISTRIBUTED 10 POINTS INTO THE BENEFIT BECAUSE BOTH THE BENEFIT SECTION AND THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ESSENTIALLY WEIGH THE SAME THINGS, BUT WHAT WAS QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE.

SO THAT, THAT WAS A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO CRITERIA.

UM, AND SO, UM, THIS, UH, THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THAT FEEDBACK.

AND WITH THAT REQUEST, WE'LL HAVE THE UPDATED CRITERIA AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, RYAN.

I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THAT.

I KNOW YOU COMMISSIONER BECKETT AND OTHERS ON THAT.

UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SECOND PEG, UH, JUDGE OAKLEY MAKE THE MOTION AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS COUNSEL FOR MATEO WITH THE SECOND DISCUSSION.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER CHAIR.

UH, MY QUESTION JUST, UH, JUST SO THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND AND JUST TO REMIND US ON THE TIMING.

SO WITH THIS, WE'LL BE MOVING TO EVERY TWO YEARS.

HOW DOES THAT, UM, UH, CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO AND EXPLAIN TO FOLKS WHEN THAT KICKS IN AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT, UM, EXISTING, UM, UH, GRANTEES, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT, THAT THEY MAY BE, UM, I JUST WANT TO ALLAY ANY CONCERNS THAT SOMEONE MAY BE RELYING ON A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME IS MY QUESTION MAKES SENSE, BUT I'M ASKING YOU YES, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

UM, SO RIGHT NOW, NORMALLY WE WOULD BE DOING, YOU KNOW, OUR ANNUAL CALL AT THIS TIME.

AND SO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS, WE'LL JUST IMMEDIATELY GO INTO A CALL BACK.

WE CAN GET EVERYTHING UPDATED AND THEN IT, AND THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TWO YEARS WORTH OF FUNDING.

SO WE'D GIVE OUT THIS YEAR'S FUNDING AS WELL AS TO BE DISTRIBUTED.

SO HOPEFULLY FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY GAPS BETWEEN THE LAST CALL AND DOING THIS ONE.

SO IF SOMEBODY IS RELYING ON THIS FUNDING, WE CAN PROBABLY GET IT TO THEM PRETTY QUICKLY.

IT REALLY JUST A MATTER OF UPDATING THE MATERIALS AND EDUCATING THE SPONSORS ON THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND GETTING GOING THERE SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN A FEW MONTHS GAP BETWEEN THE NORMAL TIMEFRAME.

HOPEFULLY THAT, YES, THAT WAS EXACTLY MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

YEAH.

UM, IF I, IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION, UM, I AM, UH, JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT TOOL.

IS THAT AN INTERNAL TOOL THAT WE ARE MEASURING OR COMPARING, UM, THAT, THAT W THAT WE HAVE PUT FORTH, UH, FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PROJECT MANAGERS TO, UM, TO LAY OUT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS EXTERNAL, THAT THEY SET OUT THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESSES THEMSELVES.

THAT'S GOOD, KIND OF A MIX.

SO WE DO HAVE SOME RECOMMENDED BEFORE IT WAS MEASURES.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO TRACK SUCH AS RIDERSHIP AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT A LOT OF THESE ARE SMALL NONPROFITS THAT HAVE A PERFORMANCE MEASURE SYSTEM IN PLACE.

AND SO THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE PART OF THE EDUCATION PROCESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NEW UPDATED CRITERIA IS REALLY KIND OF GETTING THEM UP TO SPEED.

I'M SURE IT WILL BE POSSIBLY GETTING INTO THE SYSTEM.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD FTA, I THINK I'VE JUST SOME STANDARD PERFORMANCE MEASURE SYSTEMS THAT WE CAN USE.

AND SO I THINK REALLY JUST GETTING THOSE TOOLS TO THE SPONSORS IS GOING TO BE THAT THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT THERE WILL BE THAT EDUCATION, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING NEW FOR THEM.

THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

SEEING NONE.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM JUDGE OCULI AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MATEO.

IS THERE ANYBODY AGAINST THE MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, A MOTION PASSES,

[00:25:01]

UNANIMOUSLY ITEM

[8. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on 2021 Transportation Alternative Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project Call and Funding of Eligible Deferred Projects]

NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON 2321 TRANSPORTATION, UH, SET ASIDE PROGRAM CALL RYAN, THAT'S YOU AGAIN, YOU PRETTY MUCH.

UM, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THIS ITEM IS A, IT'S REALLY KIND OF TWO THINGS THAT RELATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE SET ASIDE.

ONE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROJECT CALL.

AND THEN SECONDLY, WE WANT TO ALLOCATE SOME OF THIS FUNDING TO THE DIFFERENT LIST TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE FUNDING IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A CORE OF OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL TBG FUNDING.

THAT'S AVAILABLE KIND OF SMALLER SCALE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WITHIN THE URBAN AREA, SUCH AS JUST KIND OF BIKE PATHS, BIKE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND SHARED USE PATHS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

UM, WE GET APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILLION IN TESTIFYING EVERY YEAR.

UM, THE LAST TIME WE DID A PROTOCOL, WE AWARDED FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS, 2018 THROUGH 2022.

UM, AND SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO DO A PROJECT CALL FROM FISCAL YEARS, 2023 TO 2026.

AND AGAIN, ALMOST APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION WITH WHICH TO UPDATE WHATEVER WE REFORMED TO THE DEFER PROJECT LIST.

UM, SO, AND THEN WE'LL BE USING THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN LATE 2017.

THAT'LL BE THE READINESS VALUATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND THE COST ANALYSIS.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO 2026, THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU TODAY, ASK HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PERFECT FALL.

IS, DOES UNLIKE LIKE STG FUNDING, HABITAT LIMITS.

ONCE IT HITS THE BANK ACCOUNT, WE ENDED UP FOUR YEARS WITH WHICH DO YOU ALLOCATE THAT OBLIGATED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT.

AND BECAUSE OF THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO A PROJECT CALL AND AFTER THE AWARDING PROJECT SPONSORS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ASA PROCESS, AS WELL AS THE EMPOWERMENT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE THINGS, IF YOU'RE NOT AHEAD, WHEN IT COMES TO TESTIFYING, YOU'RE BEHIND.

AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THIS PROJECT CALL, UM, KIND OF GET IT WRAPPED UP THROUGH THE SUMMER AND THEN TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, AND HOPEFULLY SOMETIME NEXT YEAR ACTUALLY DO THE ACTUAL SELECTION.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO GO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AS WELL.

UM, SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, SO, UH, IN RELATION TO THAT, WE DID REVIEW THE DEFERRED LIST AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS TEST TO IDENTIFY SOME TASKS ELIGIBLE PROJECTS TO PRIORITIZE FOR REFUNDING.

SO WE WANTED TO GET THESE PROJECTS REFUNDED BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD WITH A PROJECT CALL.

SO WE KNEW, UM, AND SO WE IDENTIFIED THESE PROJECTS AND THEN WE HELD JOINT COORDINATION MEETINGS WITH SPONSORS, AS WELL AS TEXTILES.

I REALLY DID KIND OF GAUGE THE INTEREST IN RE FEDERALIZING THESE PRODUCTS AND ALSO TO GET TO KIND OF REVIEW THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT READINESS AND WHEN THEY COULD POTENTIALLY USE THAT FUNDING AND ALSO DETERMINE WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS WOULD BE NEEDED SUCH AS WHAT WE NEED TO AFA OR REFRESH THE ONES THAT THEY HAD, UH, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, UM, THROUGH THIS COORDINATION MEETINGS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE POLICY BOARD LIKE PAINTER SHARED USE PATH, THAT'S A PICTURE OF, THERE WILL BE ALLOCATING ROUGHLY $2.2 MILLION IN TASKS TO THIS PROJECT.

UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT PROJECT, WE ARE IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT.

UM, THERE'S STILL A FEW MORE, WE'RE COORDINATING WITH THEM, SOME NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH.

SO WE MAY BRING FORWARD SOME ADDITIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT TO THE TASK, PERHAPS, HOPEFULLY.

UM, BUT JUST WANT EVERYONE TO BE AWARE IN ADDITION TO THIS SPECIFIC FUNDING TODAY THAT WE MAY HAVE KNOWN LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF THIS, UH, THIS, I WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, REQUEST APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TASKS AND THE REFUNDING OF THE SHARED USE PATH.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

IT, UM, IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? THANK YOU, MR. TREVELYAN.

I'M SORRY.

WHO WAS THE SECOND JONES? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JONES.

UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION FOR THE STAFF IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A REFUND IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS IS PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THAT W THAT HAVE BEEN, THAT ARE MOVED STILL MOVING FORWARD, THAT WEREN'T DELAYED.

IS THAT PART OF THE CRITERIA, OR COULD THAT BE PART OF THE CRITERIA? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY? I THINK READINESS

[00:30:01]

IS A FACTOR IN PRIORITIZING THESE PROJECTS IF THAT'S LIKE.

SO, CAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF THE SPONSOR IS MOVING FORWARD WITH STILL DEVELOPING THAT AND MOVING IT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROCESS, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AND THE INFORMATION I'M A LITTLE BIT LATER ON THE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS, BUT IT DOES, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE A OF THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN MOVE FORWARD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN DEFERRED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN EXPECTATIONS AS FAST AS YOU'RE STILL DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO PRODUCTS.

AND SO THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT'S WHY WE HELP THEM WITH THOSE COORDINATION MEETINGS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BE FUNDED.

UM, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE ONLY TWO OR THREE PROJECTS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE FOR TASA FUNDING.

SO THERE WASN'T REALLY, THERE WAS ENOUGH FUNDING TO COVER ALL OF THE PROJECTS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS, UM, AND MOVING FORWARD THAT THAT DEPLOYMENT PROCESS WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

YEAH, IT DID MOST OFTEN.

WELL, THE MAIN THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, ANNA DAYS AREN'T PENALIZED FOR KEEPING, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO CONSTRUCTION ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WOULD DIFFER.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, THANK YOU.

UH, RYAN AND COMMISSIONER JONES.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? I HAVE A QUESTION.

THIS IS A CUSTOMER WITH KITCHEN.

I'D GO AHEAD.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR, UM, UH, Y'ALL'S WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON THE WALNUT CREEK TRAIL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S STILL DISCUSSIONS THERE AND THAT ALL THAT RELATES TO IT WHEN IT'S READY TO COME BACK AND THAT, UM, AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE POINT THAT Y'ALL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HIM AND IF IT DOES BECOME READY, THEN THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE SPRING.

SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

UM, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.

HEARING NONE.

UM, ANY ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE ITEM NUMBER? OKAY.

HEARING NONE.

MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY ITEM

[9. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on Amendments to Transportation Policy Board (TPB) Bylaws]

NUMBER NINE, TAKE DISCUSSING, TAKE APART PRODUCTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY BOARD BYLAWS.

UM, JUST, UH, THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP IN OCTOBER AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER.

UM, AT OUR POLICY BOARD MEETING, THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT WE NOT BRING IT UP IN A DECEMBER MEETING, SO IT WAS MOVED TO JANUARY.

UM, ON THURSDAY THERE WAS SOME FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, UM, SENT IN BY A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN THAT, THAT CAMPUS, UH, POLICY BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVED ON FRIDAY.

AND SO, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO GIVEN THE VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE POLICY BOARD HAS HAD TO LOOK AT, UM, THESE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED.

UM, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS PULL THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA AND I'M GOING TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, OF COUNCIL MERVIN MATEAH COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN, COMMISSIONER JONES, AND JUDGE OAKLEY, UM, TO TAKE JUST THE ITEMS RELATED TO, UM, THE OFFICER ELECTION AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

SO THE SCOPE WOULD BE THOSE TWO ITEMS, WHICH I THINK ARE THE TWO, UM, OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT, UH, WERE LARGELY RAISED AND THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING I'LL BRING, WELL, WE'LL GET THE NON WHAT I, WHAT I BELIEVE HER, UM, CLEANUP ITEMS AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS, UM, TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEN ASK THIS SUB COMMITTEE TO ME, CLARIFY THOSE TWO AREAS OF SCOPE.

UM, AND, UH, LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AND AGAIN, LET OUT, UM, SORT OF WHAT THE GOAL WAS AND THOSE TWO THINGS FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, IF YOU ALL, A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK, UM, WITH A RECOMMENDATION.

SO I'LL BE, I'M SETTING UP THAT SUB COMMITTEE, BUT I AM PULLING THIS ITEM FOR ANY ACTION, UM, TODAY.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 CHAIR.

MAY I PUT, MAY I SPEAK PLEASE? OH, I PULLED THE ITEM, UM, FROM THE AGENDA.

AND SO, UH, WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO IS JUST BRING THAT TO DO, UH, SO THAT WE CAN

[00:35:01]

MOVE ON AT A CHAIR.

I THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PULLED THE ITEM.

WELL, IT'S OKAY.

IF I'M THE ITEMS, THERE'S NOT AN AGENDA CHAIR.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO APP.

I'M GOING TO ASK TIM, SO THE WAY IN, IF YOU COULD FOR US, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT IT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING, UM, THE RIGHT PROTOCOL IF THE ITEM'S BEEN PULLED.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON TIM.

COULD YOU WEIGH IN ON IT? I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK TIM TO WEIGH ON THE FACT THAT YOU WERE ANNOUNCING, YOU'RE PULLING IT AT THE MEETING INSTEAD OF AHEAD OF THE MEETING.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THAT.

AND SO I'D LIKE, UM, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL.

THIS IS, THIS IS NEWS TO ME.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PULL IT, EVEN THOUGH I WENT TO REACH YOU BEFORE THE MEETING.

AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO DO FOR YOU TO DO THAT.

I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO POSTPONE IT AND VOTE ON A POSTPONE, BUT TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA ON THE DAY OF THE AGENDA, WITHOUT ALLOWING AT LEAST SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

SURE.

I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION AS WELL.

AND IS THIS ABILITY TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA AND THEREFORE PREVENT ANY DISCUSSION, A UNILATERAL AUTHORITY THAT ONLY THE CHAIR HAS, OR CAN ANY MEMBER OF A CAMPO DO THAT? SO, TIM, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD TWO QUESTIONS.

UM, OUR BYLAWS PROVIDE THAT VERY EXPRESSLY THAT THE CHAIR SETS THE AGENDA AND THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD SUBJECT TO THE, UH, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TAKING UP A REQUEST TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, UM, IN A FUTURE MEETING, UH, WHICH OF COURSE COULD OCCUR.

AND THEN THE ITEM COULD BE PLACED ON THE NEXT, UH, FULLY, UH, ON THE NEXT AGENDA.

BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT SPEAK OF WHEN THE CHAIR HAS TO DO THAT.

AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN THE POSITION TO MAKE UP POLICY IN THAT REGARD.

I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION ON, UH, COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT THE CHAIR'S ACTION.

IF ALL THEY ARE IS COMMENTS THAT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE BYLAWS, UH, THAT PREVENTS THE CHAIR FROM PULLING AN ITEM, UH, SUBJECT AGAIN, TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BYLAWS THAT, UH, PERMIT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO MANDATE THAT THE ITEM BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT A FUTURE MEETING.

UH, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION OF OUR ACCOUNT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR GO AHEAD.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. TARGHEE.

THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF US IS NOT PLACING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S ALREADY ON THE AGENDA AND IT'S BEEN POSTED, UM, AND PUBLIC THAT IT'S ON THE AGENDA.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND WE ARE GOVERNED BY OUR BYLAWS.

OUR BYLAWS ARE SILENT ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

SO YOU, IS IT YOUR LEGAL OPINION THAT AFTER ITEM IS PUBLICLY POSTED AND PLACED ON AN AGENDA THAT THE CHAIR ON THE DAY OF THE, UM, OF THE MEETING AT THE MEETING ITSELF, CAN UNILATERALLY PULL AN ITEM OFF OF THE AGENDA? IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR LEGAL OPINION? YES, BECAUSE THE BYLAWS SAY THAT THE CHAIR DOESN'T SPEAK OF AGENDA PER SE ROBERT'S RULES, ROBERT'S RULES PROVIDE A TWO THIRDS RULE FOR PLACING AND FORCING AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO AN AGENDA.

OUR BYLAWS SIMPLY SAY, THE CHAIR SHALL SET THE BUSINESS AND THE WORD IS BUSINESS OF THE BOARD.

UM, IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO PULL IT, UH, THEN THE CHAIR CAN PULL IT SUBJECT AGAIN.

HOWEVER, TO THE SAFEGUARD THAT THE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CAN FORCE THE ITEM UP.

SO IF THE, IF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WANTS TO HAVE THE ITEM AS A MATTER OF MANDATORY PRACTICE TO BE ON THE AGENDA, IT CAN MEET AND A VOTE OR CAUSE THE ITEM TO BE PLACED ON NEXT MONTH FOR GENDER.

OKAY.

SO A UP QUESTION AND THEN I IMAGINE OTHERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR. TOGI.

SO THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS,

[00:40:01]

IS, UH, IS IT ONLY THE CHAIR THAT CAN UNILATERALLY ON THE DAY OF AFTER IT'S PUBLICLY POSTED, PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA OR CAN ANY MEMBER, I THINK THAT WAS COMMISSIONER SHAY'S QUESTION.

OUR BYLAWS CURRENTLY SAY JUST THE CHAIR.

UM, I AM ASKING YOU ABOUT LOSS BEYOND THE BYLAWS.

THIS IS RELATED TO POSTING AND PUBLIC NOTICE BECAUSE BASICALLY WE ARE, UH, THE CHAIR IS PROPOSING TO TAKE AN ACTION THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC NOTICE ABOUT, AND IT'S NOT A POSTPONEMENT AND IT'S NOT A VOTE SHE'S UNILATERALLY, BUT OUR BYLAWS ARE, ARE PUBLICLY ON OUR WEBSITE.

PUBLIC AS COMPLETE NOTICE OF OUR BYLAWS ARE, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHAIR HAS THAT AUTHORITY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT AS PART OF THE REASON WE WERE DOING THIS BYLAW REVIEW, IN FACT, UM, UNDER THE TWO COMPETING PROPOSALS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THAT QUESTION IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

ONE PROPOSAL SAYS THAT THAT GOING FORWARD, THE ENTIRE BOARD COULD FORCE AN AGENDA ITEM.

IN WHICH CASE THE CHAIR COULD NOT PULL THE ARM AND ANOTHER CASE IN, UH, IN THE OTHER PROPOSAL.

BUT TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COULD FORCE AN ITEM ON THE, IN THAT CASE, THE CHAIR, IF THAT WERE TO BE ADOPTED, THE CHAIR DID NOT PULL THEM OUT, BUT THE WAY THE BYLAWS ARE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THE BYLAWS ARE PUBLIC ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT SHE PROPOSES TO DO.

MR. TOGI I WILL MAKE ONE MORE STATEMENT AND THEN SHARE AFTER OTHERS ASK, ASK THEIR QUESTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

SO MR. TUCKY, THE BYLAWS THEMSELVES SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE ABILITY TO PUT, TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA.

THE BYLAWS ARE OR SILENT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO READ TO ME IF THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THE CHAIR CAN PULL IT OFF AFTER IT'S PLACED.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, BUT THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE SEEN IN PERHAPS I'VE MISSED IT, BUT THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT BYLAWS THAT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CHAIR MAY PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA AT THE MEETING AFTER IT'S BEEN PUBLICLY POSTED.

SO IF THERE'S LIKE, LIKE THAT, I INVITE YOU TO READ THAT LANGUAGE TO ME.

I IMAGINE THAT OTHERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS.

SO, UM, I'LL ALLOW OTHERS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE IS NO SUCH LANGUAGE.

THE LANGUAGE IS 10.

IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MO MOMENT, THE CHAIRPERSON DESIGNATE IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED IT, DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU OFFER ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE INSERTED BY YOUR INTERPRETATION.

I GATHER THAT AN ADDING COMMA AND THE CHAIRPERSON SHALL NOT CHANGE THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED AFTER NOTICE OF THE MEETING AND BUSINESS.

I DON'T, I'M SORRY THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THERE NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT.

BUT IT'S NOT IN OUR PROPOSAL EITHER.

I DON'T BELIEVE CORRECT.

I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I I'M TELLING YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T, UH, IN THEIR INDEPENDENT AS YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

SO, UH, I HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS, BUT I IMAGINE THAT OTHERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN FIRST.

UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, I REASON FOR PULLING THIS IS, UM, I'M THE ONE THAT ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THE ITEM UP, BOTH WITH THE EXECUTIVES IN OCTOBER, AS WELL AS THE NOTE.

AND, UM, GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED BY YOU AT THE HOUR, I WANTED THE POLICY BOARD TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT IT AND TO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT IT.

THERE'S NOT A RUSH ON THIS ITEM.

AND I FELT LIKE BY SETTING UP THIS SUBCOMMITTEE OR THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT, UM, WOULD GIVE FULL POLICY BOARD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU SUBMITTED AS WELL AS, UM, THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT FURTHER.

UM, AND I, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS

[00:45:01]

SOME CLEANUP THINGS, AND THEN THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST YOU COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN OR OTHERS HAVE PROPOSED, UM, CHANGE ON, BUT, UM, OR THAT, YOU KNOW, TH THIS WILL COME BACK.

IT'S JUST AN ATTEMPT TO, INSTEAD OF, BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT MANY HOURS ON THIS ALREADY AND, UM, HOPEFULLY IT'LL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO REPRESENT WITH YOUR CHANGES.

I THINK NOVARI NEFARIOUS, OR YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO DEPAUL, BUT SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

OKAY.

SO CHAIR, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONS.

AND, UM, AND YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A CONVERSATION.

AND I, AND I THINK THAT A, I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO TALK WITH OTHERS.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

I, I DO WANT TO JUST SPEAK TO TWO THINGS, TWO WAYS IN WHICH THIS IS CHARACTERIZED.

THE FIRST THING IS THAT THE, THE CHANGES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, AS YOU DID MENTION, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

AND LET ME JUST SAY, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE I THINK THE KINDS OF CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED ARE ONES THAT WILL BE, UM, FULL TO THE CAMPO BODY IN, IN, YOU KNOW, IN THE LONG RUN.

SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANT THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE, HERE WERE ONES THAT WERE DISCUSSED, UM, IN NOVEMBER AND EARLIER.

SO THEY'RE NOT AT THE 11TH HOUR.

THE OTHER THING IS I DID PROVIDE THIS TO OUR STAFF ON THURSDAY AND REQUESTED THAT THEY SEND IT OUT ON THURSDAY TO PROVIDE MORE TIME.

SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONS, I DON'T OBJECT TO YOUR REASONS.

I JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE I WAS, OR WE WERE PROPOSING THINGS THAT WERE TOTALLY THINGS THAT WE HAD NOT BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAD BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY.

SO I JUST THINK THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S STILL FINE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANT MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THIS IS NOT 11TH HOUR.

GO AHEAD, MAYOR ADLER.

I WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE, THE, THE, THE DELAY TO GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO, UH, BE ABLE TO CONSIDER IT AND, AND, UH, THINK THAT FORMING THE COMMITTEE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, TO DISCUSS IT IS GREAT.

UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AT, YOU KNOW, QUICKLY, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HERE SINCE NOVEMBER, UH, SO THAT WE CAN GET IT RESOLVED, BUT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE, THE, UH, KIND OF THE, THE PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE SAT FOR A, FOR A CHAIR TO BE ABLE TO JUST PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA.

UH, ONE, I THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

CAUSE I THINK THAT WE ALL REPRESENT DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET THINGS ONTO THE PAGE AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED.

SO I HOPE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ADDRESSED.

I CAN'T, I DON'T READ THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CURRENT BYLAWS TO SAY THAT THE CHAIR CAN PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA.

MR. TARGHEE, AS I READ IT, WHAT IT SAYS IS THE CHAIR PERSON HAS THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED.

AND THAT HAPPENED HERE.

THE CHAIR PURSUANT TO THE BYLAWS IN HER WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED.

AND ONCE THAT'S HAPPENED, THEN I THINK IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED, OR THE BODY CAN VOTE TO POSTPONE IT OR TO REFER IT TO A COMMITTEE.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT GIVES THE CHAIR ANY POWER OTHER THAN TO PUT IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED AND WHERE I THINK YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS.

THE INTENT OF THIS MEANING IS THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA PURSUANT TO THESE BYLAWS AND THE CHAIRPERSON HAS A CHOICE, THEY CAN EITHER PUT IT ON THE AGENDA OR NOT PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO PUT IT IN A WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED OR NOT.

IF THEY DON'T DO THAT A CHAIR, AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO SAY, YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON, BUT IF THE CHAIR PUTS IT ON THE AGENDA, THERE'S NO REASON FOR YOU TO GO TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, NO, IT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE THE BODY AND FOR THE CHAIR, THEN TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN FOR A WRITTEN NOTICE AND THEN TO PULL, IT WOULD HAVE REMOVED FROM THAT PERSON, THE ABILITY

[00:50:01]

TO HAVE GONE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA.

SO I THINK THAT IF YOU READ THE BYLAWS, THE ONLY POWER THAT YOUR HAS IS TO PUT THINGS IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF WHAT THE LOCATION OF THE MEETING AND THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED ARE CONSIDERED, BUT THERE'S NO ABILITY TO PULL SOMETHING OFF THAT AT THAT POINT, IT BELONGS TO THE BODY AND A MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE OR TO POSTPONE WOULD BE IN ORDER.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN ANY EVENT AND ON THAT BASIS, I WOULD SUPPORT THE ACTION BEING TAKEN TODAY.

BUT I WOULD BE REALLY, I DON'T WANT TO, TO ACQUIESCE IN AN INTERPRETATION THAT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT GIVES ONE PERSON AMONGST ALL OF US, THE ABILITY TO JUST PULL SOMETHING FROM EGYPT.

WELL, I CONCUR WITH YOU THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, UH, GIVEN THE OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED HERE, THAT YOU ALL MAKE POLICY FROM THIS BOARD.

CERTAINLY NOT ME AND I, UH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED, UH, IN ANY COMMITTEE WORKUP ON ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.

I AGREE WITH YOU THERE.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, HAD SOMEBODY ELSE SPONSORED OR PUT THIS ITEM ON, I WOULD NOT FELT THE LIBERTY TO PULL IT, BUT THIS WAS SORT OF MY ITEM.

I BROUGHT IT UP.

AND, UM, SO, UH, THAT WAS JUST ONE AS WELL, BUT, UM, I DON'T HEAR ANY OTHER, AT LEAST I WENT, OBJECTION IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION THERE.

THIS IS USED AND I WANT TO BE IN LINE TO MAKE A POINT.

AND THAT'S THE QUESTION.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

GLADLY VOTE FOR THE POSTPONEMENT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN WHERE, REGARDLESS OF BYLAWS, WHICH OURS ARE SILENT, ONCE AN ITEM HAS BEEN POSTED, AND THAT MEETING HAS BEEN DONE ONCE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, IT BELONGS TO ALL OF US.

UM, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ONE IN ONE PERSON HAS, I PULLED THAT OFF THE AGENDA.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MOTIONS TO POSTPONE.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT POSTPONED, BUT IS OKAY, I'M GONNA, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE CHAIR HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA, REGARDLESS OF WHO POSTED IT.

AND I DON'T WANT THAT PRECEDENT TO GO FORWARD, BUT, UH, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT SO WE CAN DO THIS PROPERLY.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICIES ON THIS RIGHT NOW FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION TO PROVOKE THE ITEM.

ALRIGHT.

THERE'S A MOTION BY MARY AND HANG ON A SECOND MOTION BY MAYOR HOUSTON.

AND THE SECOND WAS BY JOHN, CORRECT? YES.

I'M WONDERING IF THE, UM, THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION IN THE SECOND WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE REST OF, OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH WAS TO CREATE THE, MAKE ME, UM, AND PROVIDE THE TIME FOR THE, HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THEN BRING IT BACK AFTER THAT PROCESS WAS COMPLETE.

I'LL BE HONEST.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

THAT DEFINITELY MY MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ITEMS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED BECAUSE I WAS MAKING THE MOTION TO POSTPONE BASED ON THOSE ITEMS. MOTION WILL, UH, SECOND, MY RESTATED MOTION, UH, WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY.

OH, THE MOTION BY MAYOR AND JUDGE OAKLEY IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM.

UM, AND TO NOW AS CHAIR, I DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THE, UH, AUTHORITY TO SET UP SUBCOMMITTEES, BUT THAT'S FINE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE IT IN THIS MOTION.

UM, THE COUNCIL, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE COUNCIL MEMBERS, KITCHEN AND COMMISSIONER JONES, AND JUDGE OAKLEY TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS RELATED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND, UM, THE OFFICERS AND, UH, THE THIRD ITEM THAT CAME UP ON THE AGENDA.

SO THAT'S THE MOTION.

UM, AND THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION MR.

[00:55:01]

COMMISSIONER SHAY? UM, I, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND FOR TOGI, I'LL START WITH HUGGY.

UM, ARE WE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER? I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WE WE'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE BYLAWS AND COULD NOT FIND THAT.

AND SO IF IT'S NOT, UH, UH, STATED IN THE BYLAWS, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ADDING THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD STIPULATION, WE ARE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

IT'S ACTUALLY PROPOSED IN ONE OF THE, UH, IN ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY.

WE EXPECT WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, SUBJECT TO A MINT, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THOSE RULES BY VIRTUE OF OUR BYLAWS.

ONE OF THE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

THAT'S RIGHT.

WE DID ADD THAT.

GOOD.

SO THAT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION, I THINK UNDER THE COMMITTEE, ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT CYNTHIA LONG SAID THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD ONLY CONSIDER THE DURATION OF THE TERMS AND THE MAKEUP OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT? SHE, SHE, SHE PROPOSES SOME CLEANUP ITEMS THAT WOULD FALL IN THE CLEANUP AS WELL.

SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TASK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND THEN, UH, AND THEN MY QUESTIONS HERE IS, UM, I ACTUALLY, UM, FREQUENTLY WANT US TO HAVE MORE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME ITEMS BEFORE CAMPO.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE A REGULAR PRACTICE AND NOT A ONE-OFF OR ABERRATION.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN WE NEED TO HAVE MORE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION THAN OUR MEETINGS APPEAR TO ALLOW FOR.

AND SO I W I WOULD ASK THAT WE BE ABLE TO SEND THINGS TO A SUBCOMMITTEE LIKE THIS, UM, WHEN IT'S WARRANTED, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

THERE, THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I HAD IDEAS ON.

SO IF THE COMMITTEE IS LIMITED TO WHAT YOU HAD, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'LL BE A FEW MORE THINGS I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE I HAD GONE THROUGH AND GOT SOME OTHER IDEAS.

SO, UM, I HOPE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN OTHER IDEAS AT OUR NEXT COMMITTEE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UM, IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, UH, CHAIR ALONG? I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

OKAY.

UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT, UM, AND IT'S FOLLOWS UP ON WHAT I THINK IT WAS MARY HOUSTON JUST MENTIONED THAT THE, THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, IS TO ALLOW A DRESSING OTHER ITEMS. I THINK IF I'M REMEMBERING EXACTLY HOW SHE, SHE MENTIONED IT.

SO I'M WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLARITY ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

I WAS, MY ORIGINAL IDEA WAS TO LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT OUTLINE BOTH OF OUR NARCO DISCUSSION OR THE ITEMS DIDN'T SEEM, I'M SORRY, YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT.

I'M SORRY.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? UH, I GOLD OR SUB COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE METADATA, WHICH WAS THE, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO UNDER PRINTED, STANDING, YOU CORRECTLY CHAIR, UM, THE SCOPE OF THE, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS TO LOOK AT THE ITEMS WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME, SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND, UM, AND THE SOME ALTERNATIVES, BUT ALSO, UM, UM, UH, ALSO, UM, AS MAYOR HOUSTON SUGGESTED ANY OTHER KINDS OF ITEMS. AND, AND I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS MAYOR HOUSTON MIGHT WANT TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL IT THAT SEEMED TO BE A REQUEST FROM HER.

SO, WELL, I REGULARLY VOLUNTEERED AT AFFINITY.

I'VE RECOMMENDED THE SUB COMMITTEE, AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT INCLUDES SETTING UP THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS I'VE DEFINED IT.

AND, UM, THE SCOPE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE OFFICERS, THE, UM, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SET UP, HANG ON.

I THINK YOU'RE MUTED.

NO, IT JUST CUT OUT.

UH, ALL RIGHT.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

[01:00:01]

THINGS ARE GOING IN AND OUT SOMETIMES FOR US, IF SOMEBODY TURNS OFF THE VIDEO, THE AUDIO WILL COME THROUGH BETTER.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE FOR YOU, BUT IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE COULD TRY.

UM, I'LL GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY.

I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS SET UP THE COMMITTEE WITH THE FOUR MEMBERS THAT I'VE LISTED AND THE SCOPE TO INCLUDE WHAT I'VE, WHAT I'VE STATED PLUS ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND WHAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSED ON THURSDAY.

SO IF WE, THIS IS A COMMISSIONER SHAY.

SO IF WE, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HONOR MAYOR HOUSTON'S REQUEST TO BE ADDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THAT I'M ASKING THE SUB COMMITTEE TO BE SET THE WAY IT IS? I'M TRYING TO, TO BALANCE IT OUT, UM, WITH CITY AND COUNTY, AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO BIG THAT WE ADD ANOTHER COUNTY AND ANOTHER CITY.

SO I'M TRYING TO HAVE TWO CITY PEOPLE IN TWO COUNTY WAS THE GOAL.

AND IN DOING THAT, UM, WELL ALSO TOO, I WANTED TO ASK A CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY SERIOUS ISSUE.

UM, UH, AN ATTORNEY HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE, CAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY ASKING THAT IF THE BYLAWS ARE SILENT AS TO AN ISSUE, THEN IS IT THE STANDARD VIEW OF THE ATTORNEY THAT THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO UNILATERALLY DECIDE ON ANY ISSUE? NO.

NO, BUT THAT'S YOUR RULING IN THIS INSTANCE? ISN'T IT? WELL, IN, IN THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION, YES, BUT NOT AS A GENERAL MATTER, OF COURSE NOT, NO, THE CRITERIA FOR, UH, COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE BYLAWS.

THAT'S ALL, BUT THE BYLAWS ARE SILENT ON THIS ISSUE.

EXACTLY.

AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE BYLAWS, ALL THE QUESTION.

SO THE QUESTION, IT WAS A RECORD.

I DISAGREE WITH THIS LEGAL AND I THINK IT QUESTIONS, UM, IS, IS THERE ANYONE AGAINST THE MOTION TO POSTPONE SHARE LONG WHEN THE MOTION IS CALLED? WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

THAT REQUIRES A TWO-PART.

OKAY.

HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT WE WITHDRAW THE CALL AND, UM, NOTE COMMISSIONER SHAY'S OBJECTION.

AND JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT, CYNTHIA? I'M OKAY.

WITH GOING TO A VOTE JUST REAL FAST THOUGH.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT MAYOR HOUSTON WOULD BE PROPOSING.

UH, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

MAYOR HOUSTON PROPOSES SOMETHING AND THEN PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO UNTIL WE GOT TO THE MEETING.

SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS THAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KIND OF GET NOTICED OR GET CONSIDERED.

AND ONE THING SHE COULD DO IS SHE COULD GIVE IT TO ONE OF THE FOUR, OR SHE COULD GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE COMMITTEE.

AND THEN