Jun 02, 2021 Water and Wastewater Commission

[00:00:03]

UM,

[CALL TO ORDER]

WE VIDEO CONFERENCING AND WE GOT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ATTEND ALREADY AND

[A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SO WE WILL MOVE OUT OF MINUTES OR THE MAIN THIEVES COMMISSION LEADER IN MEETING.

I MEAN, SHE KNOWS HE GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.

AND ANY COMMENTS, NOTHING TO BE DONE IF WE WEREN'T IN THE 10 MOTION MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CHERISE SECONDS.

MR. MICHEL COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SECOND, UH, MS. BRANCA, PLEASE CODE.

YES, SIR.

FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES WITH COMMISSIONER, MAKING A MOTION AND COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SECONDING THAT MOTION.

COMMISSIONER MORIARTY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER PEN.

YES.

CHAIR LEE.

VICE-CHAIR CASTLEBERRY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. YES.

COMMISSIONER FISHER.

YES, IT IS UNANIMOUS WITH NINE.

UH, APPROVING.

THANK YOU, MISS BLANCA.

WE WILL

[B. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION’S REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL]

GOT ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY RECUSALS AND START.

WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER MORIARTY, PLEASE.

NO QUESTIONS, NO RECUSAL COMMISSIONER PEN, NO QUESTIONS.

NO RECUSALS PERMISSION.

LET ME SHELL.

I HAVE NO RECUSALS.

I DID SUBMIT SOME QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY TO STAFF.

I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SEVERAL RESPONSES AND THEY MAY HAVE COPIED THE ENTIRE COMMISSION ON THOSE RESPONSES.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS MEETING.

THANK YOU.

AND I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR RECUSAL.

NO QUESTIONS.

NO RECUSALS PERMISSION.

PERMISSION, NO QUESTIONS.

NO RECUSALS.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, NO QUESTIONS.

NO RECUSALS.

WE SHOULD NOT BE SURE.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEFORE.

NO RECUSALS.

THANK YOU.

NO QUESTIONS.

NO RECUSALS.

THANK YOU FOR THE CONSENT ITEM.

N FIVE AND WE IN THE PEN MOTION CASTLEBERRY.

I MEANT THE MOTIONS PROPOSAL.

VICE CHAIR.

CASTLEBERRY.

MAKE A MOTION.

SECOND COMMISSIONER, GO SECOND.

AM I CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. .

YES, SIR.

FOR THE CONSENT ITEMS, INCLUDING B ONE B2 B3 WITH VICE CHAIR, CASTLEBERRY MAKING A MOTION AND COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

SECONDING COMMISSIONER MORIARTY.

COMMISSIONER PEN.

YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHELLE.

YES.

THANKS JANE.

YES.

AND WILLIAMS. I NEVER SUBMIT THE SIDE PLAN.

YES.

FISHER FISHER.

YES.

COMMISSIONER TRITA.

YES.

CONSENT AGENDA PASSES UNANIMOUS NINE ZERO.

THANK YOU.

[B.4. Recommend approval of Service Extension Request No. 4652 for wastewater service to a 34.4 acre tract located at 11213 FM 620 within the Drinking Water Protection Zone, partially within the City’s Full-Purpose Jurisdiction, partially within the City’s 2-mile Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction, and Austin Water’s service area.]

[00:05:02]

WHICH THE DRINKING WATER PETITIONS ON.

I THINK YOU ALREADY, WE DIDN'T SEE THESE FOLKS JURISDICTION.

N AUSTIN'S HUNTER SWIMMIES ANGRIER.

AND WE WERE HAVE PRESENTATION BY THEN OUR FIRST ATTORNEY MR. SHOOTER.

AND YOU ARE RIGHT.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES.

UM, MY NAME'S RICHARD SADDLE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND, UM, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PROCEDURE.

I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION BACKUP INFORMATION.

DO YOU WANT ME TO WALK THROUGH IT AND HAVE YOU FLIPPED THROUGH IT ON THE SCREEN OR DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK A MINUTE FIRST AND THEN USE THE MATERIAL FOR QUESTIONS? I THINK HE'S, YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN GET A BRIEFING OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE OR ANY, ANY HIGHLIGHT POINTS THAT YOU THINK THAT WILL HELP THE COMMISSION MEMBERS MAKE DECISIONS, THAT WILL BE GREAT.

OKAY.

THEN I'LL WALK THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF WE NEED TO DIG INTO THE MATERIAL.

UM, THIS, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY DIVIDED INTO TWO PIECES OF 9.4 ACRES, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE CITY AND ENTITLED TO SERVICE AND A 25 ACRE SITE THAT IS IN THE ETJ.

MY CLIENT HAS, UM, OWNS THE 9.4 AND WE HAVE THE 9.4 AND THE 25 UNDER CONTRACT.

THE, UM, WE DID A ZONING CASE LAST YEAR ON THE NINE ACRE SITE.

AND AS PART OF THE ZONING CASE MET WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AROUND US AND REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE NINE AND THE 25 AS PART OF THAT ZONING CASE, THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION SAYING THAT THEY WANTED US TO BRING THE TWENTY-FIVE ACRES ALSO INTO THE CITY, WHICH MY CLIENT AGREED TO.

BUT HIS SELLER, THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID, WELL, YOU CAN BRING THAT INTO THE CITY WHEN YOU OWN IT, BUT NOT WHILE I OWNED IT.

SO THAT, THAT MEANT THAT WE HAD TO, UM, ENTER INTO WE'RE GOING TO ENTER INTO AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.

BUT IN THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS TO GO TO COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.

SO THEN WE LOOKED AT THE OLD ONES THAT HAD BEEN ACTED ON IN THE PAST AND BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SITE PLANS AND NOBODY COULD KNOW REALLY WHAT YOU COULD DO.

WE FILED A SITE PLAN WITH THE CITY, UH, AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, SHOWING THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, IT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE WATER QUALITY, ALL THE SETBACKS, ALL THE PROTECTION OF THE CES.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES FROM ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES.

SO WE THEN TAKE THE, THE SCR REQUEST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.

AND WE GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD DIDN'T AGREE WITH US.

THEY THOUGHT THAT COMPLYING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES WAS NOT ENOUGH.

AND THEY VOTED NOT TO RECOMMEND THE SCR.

PART OF THE REASON THE CITY STAFF SAID THAT, UM, THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT WATER WASTEWATER SERVICE HERE, AS THEY THOUGHT THAT WE ARE TOO CLOSE TO SOME ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.

ALL OF WHICH, AGAIN, WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE SETBACKS AND INTERESTING ENOUGH, THE PROD THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET DRAINS UNDER SIX 20 AND DRAINS THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.

AND THAT ONE DID GET AN SCR AND THE SAME WATER DRAINS EACH WAY.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, UM, APPROVAL OF THE SCR, SO THAT THE SITE, THE NINE ACRE SITE IN THE CITY AND THE 25 ACRES OUTSIDE THE CITY CAN BE DEVELOPED AS A COHESIVE SITE PLAN COMPLIANT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

ONCE WE GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED, WE CAN CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN ONCE IT'S CLOSED, MY CLIENT HAS AGREED TO BRING IT INTO THE CITY FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION.

SO MR. CHAIR, THAT'S MY, THE BRIEFEST.

I COULD BE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER, PLEASE SHOW SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND IT'S, SO I'M LOOKING UP THE WATERSHED.

SO IT SAYS DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE SITE WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE WASTEWATER SERVICE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT STAFF DO NOT RECOMMEND SUPPORT FOR THE WASTEWATER SER 46 52.

BUT THEN MY QUESTION IS, IS THE ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER MICHELLE'S ANSWER IS THE PROPOSED

[00:10:01]

SO I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE IT.

WON'T PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES TO ITS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM WATER SHRUB.

IT SEEMS LIKE I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I GUESS HOW WE CAN HAVE THESE TWO CONFLICTING IDEAS COMMISSIONER FISHER.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WHOLE THING IS COMPLIANT WITH OUR WATER QUALITY ORDINANCES.

WE HAVE STAFF FROM WATERSHED AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR PERSPECTIVE IF, IF THEY COULD BE MOVED OVER AS A PARTICIPANT.

YES, CHRIS HARRINGTON, THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER I THINK IS NOW AVAILABLE.

OKAY, GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSIONERS.

I'M CHRIS HARRINGTON.

I'M THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.

AND, UH, I'M HAPPY TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I DO JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE.

UH, WE'VE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE POLICIES AROUND SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS IN THE PAST.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FRAME THIS CONVERSATION IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE POLICIES.

SO DIRECTOR MAZARA, ACCORDING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

UM, FOR THESE TYPES OF SERVICES GETS ATTENTION REQUESTS AND THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE, BUT THERE IS NO CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN CODE THAT TELLS US, UM, WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS OF THESE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST APPLICATIONS.

AND SO OUR LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT IN WATERSHED PROTECTION AND PROVIDING OUR GUIDANCE, OUR ART TO YOU AND TO COUNSEL, UM, FOR THESE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS, IS, DOES THE PROVISION OF SERVICE, DOES THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE OR WATER SERVICE IN ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE FACILITATE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME WITH, UM, ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON SOME SITES, THE PROVISION SERVICE, UH, DOES NOT NECESSITATE, UH, OR, OR DOES NOT COME WITH THAT OBVIOUS IMPACT.

AND SO AS WE ENTER INTO IT, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT KIND OF WHAT ARE THE KNOWNS.

YES, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS DO MITIGATE, UM, TO SOME DEGREE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.

THEY DO REQUIRE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, BUT IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.

SO NOT ALL RUNOFF IS TREATED.

UM, THEY DO REQUIRE A SETBACK FROM ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, UM, THAT ARE PROTECTED BY CODE.

AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THIS TRACK.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE SPRINGS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE WETLANDS.

IT IS, UH, CON IMMEDIATELY CONTRIBUTING TO THE HABITAT OF THREATENED JOLLYVILLE PLATEAUS SALAMANDERS.

AND SO THE, IT IS AN LOT OF REGULAR, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE GOOD.

THEY ARE NOT PERFECT.

UM, SECOND, UH, ANECDOTALLY WE KNOW THAT ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FAILS AT SOME CERT AT SOME TIMES, AND WITH SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, ANECDOTALLY, WE KNOW THAT CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SERVICE AT TIMES A LIFT STATION OR LINE WILL FAIL, BUT THERE IS NOTHING OF WHICH I AM AWARE.

AND IF YOU ARE, PLEASE EDUCATE ME, BUT THERE'S NOTHING OF WHICH I AM AWARE THAT SAYS, WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SERVICE IS ALWAYS BETTER, WHEREAS, UH, IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAN ONSITE SERVICE.

AND SO AGAIN, WE ALL HAVE THOSE ANECDOTAL, UM, STORIES I CERTAINLY DO ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT EQUATION, BUT TO SAY THAT OUR ONSITE OR THE STATE'S ONSITE WASTEWATER REGULATIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTIVE OR ARE LESS PROTECTIVE THAN OUR CENTRALIZED SERVICE PROVISIONS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT.

SO WHAT DO WE KNOW ON THIS SITE? IF WE DO PROVIDE WASTEWATER SERVICE, THEN IT EXPANDS THE FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE, WHICH HAS MULTIPLE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND PROTECTED GREEK BUFFERS.

IF WE DO NOT EXTEND WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THIS LOCATION, THEN LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL END UP ON THE GROUND, UM, ON THIS SITE.

AND SO THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT IS DRIVING OUR RECOMMENDATION.

THERE WAS A PREVIOUS SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, UM, CONSIDERED ACTUALLY TWO PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS OF WHICH WE ARE AWARE THAT WERE CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED BY WATERSHED STAFF.

I AGREE, UH, MR. SUTTLE IS CORRECT THAT THE, UH, UPSTREAM PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, UM, DOES ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SITE.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING THAT EVALUATION ON A SITE SPECIFIC BASIS AND THERE WEREN'T THE PRESENCE OF THE CREEK BUFFERS OR THIS SENSITIVE, OR THE DEGREE OF SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.

SO THAT DEVELOPMENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY FURTHER DISTANCE THAN THIS TRACT IN QUESTION.

SO IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM, FROM CITY COUNCIL, THAT IS THE NATURE OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, WILL THE PROPOSED S E OUR IMPROVEMENT CROSS KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THEN SO SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW CAN NOT BE CONDITIONAL.

MR. SUTTLE IS CORRECT.

AND THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY A SITE

[00:15:01]

IT IS NOT FINALIZED, UM, THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH CODE.

UH, SO IT'S NOT ABOUT CROSSING INBAR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS RESPECTING THE BUFFERS FOR THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE CREEKS AS REQUIRED BY CODE BASED ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN AND WHERE IT EXISTS.

SO THE ANSWER'S NO, THEN IT WAS NOT GOING TO CROSS IT.

IT DOES NOT.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES AT THIS STAGE OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING REVIEW PROCESS AND WATERSHED PROTECTION.

SO WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECOMMEND SUPPORT FOR THIS.

DO THEY RECOMMEND SUPPORT? AND THE AGENDA GENERAL QUESTION ON, ON CASES LIKE THIS, IF THERE'S THINGS ON SITE, OR IS THAT, IS THIS SPECIFIC TO THIS REQUEST, OR IS THIS LIKE A KIND OF A GENERAL POLICY FOR WATERSHED? IT IS SPECIFIC TO THIS REQUEST THAT IS NOT A GENERAL POLICY.

WE EVALUATE EVERY CERVIX, INSTINCTUAL QUEST APPLICATION BASED ON THE SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS.

WE HAVE A RECOMMENDED, EVEN IN MY TENURE AS ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED, UM, SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST APPLICATIONS.

SO IT'S NOT A, A DEFAULT, UM, ALWAYS NO, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY.

AND, UH, THIS IS A DUMB QUESTION I UNDERSTAND, BUT IS WATER.

AUSTIN WATERS IS RECOMMENDING THIS IS THAT RIGHT? SO IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REALLY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON A TECHNICAL CAPACITY TO SERVE, AND WE RELY ON WATERSHED'S EXPERTISE ON ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE HAVE TECHNICAL SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SERVE THIS LOCATION.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCOTT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET ME JUST STOP HER ONLY FORM OTHER SHIPS.

I GOT VICE CHAIR.

I THINK YOU NEED TO UNMUTE AGAIN.

THIS IS A QUESTION FOR A WATERSHED EYE PROTECTION.

UM, MR. HARRINGTON, IF, IF, UM, I REALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE PERFECT.

IS THERE SOMETHING MORE THAT CAN BE DONE? SEEMS VERY, VERY, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF UNFAIR IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT, UM, IT, WHAT WOULD WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUESTS TO PROTECT, UM, THESE, IF YOU COULD CHANGE THE REGULATIONS OUTSIDE OF JUST, NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE SERVICE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE PLANNING TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY, IN WHICH CASE, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE PROVIDED SERVICE IF, UH, SO MR. SUTTLE ALREADY SPOKE TO THE SEQUENCING.

OBVIOUSLY IF THE ANNEXATION, IT WAS COMPLETE SUCH THAT THEY WERE FULL PURPOSE, THEN THE, THIS REVIEW WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY.

UM, UNFORTUNATELY AS I MENTIONED, STATE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM MAKING THE EXTENSION OF SERVICE.

CONDITIONAL IT'S EITHER A YES OR A NO.

SO, UM, IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, YES, ABSOLUTELY.

WE WOULD LOVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH APPLICANTS, UM, TO COME UP WITH MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICE THAT WOULD MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WOULD PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL MEASURE OF CERTAINTY THAT, UH, THE PROVISION OF SERVICE DOESN'T INITIATE A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN INVOLVED IN, UH, IN HEARINGS, LAND USE COMMISSION HEARINGS ON APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES, WHERE APPLICANTS HAVE SAID, LOOK, CITY COUNCIL ALREADY APPROVED THE EXTENSION OF SERVICE TO MY TRACK.

THAT MEANS THEY'VE ALREADY BASICALLY APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS TRACK.

YOU SHOULD BE RECOMMENDING THIS ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT THE SEQUENCE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING WORKS HERE FOR AUSTIN.

SO IF WE COULD MAKE IT CONDITIONAL, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY OFFER CONDITIONS.

WE CANNOT.

SO AGAIN, IN THE ABSENCE OF A MORE CLEAR DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL OR CRITERIA IN CODE THAT IS MORE QUANTITATIVE TO ENABLE US TO KIND OF DO A MORE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS WHERE WE'RE LEFT IN THIS VOID OF WHAT IS THE POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICE AND ALL I ALL I'M REALLY LEFT WITH AND I'VE LOOKED AND WE'VE EVEN DONE RESEARCH ON IT, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE SENSE OF IS, IS A SEPTIC SYSTEM OR T LAP ALWAYS WORSE THAN, UH, THE PROVISION OF CENTRAL SERVICE FOR WASTEWATER.

AND NO, I, I'M NOT FINDING EVIDENCE TO THAT FACT BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, UH, CORRECTLY DESIGN FULLY, YOU KNOW,

[00:20:01]

SO I DON'T HAVE A STANDARD TO GO BY, BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS IF WE PROVIDE SERVICE, UM, FOR THIS FACILITY, THEN THOSE, THE, THE IRRIGATION AREAS EITHER FOR AN ONSITE SEWAGE FACILITIES OR FOR A LAND APPLICATION PERMIT, THOSE ARE NOT SUBTRACTED FROM THEIR NET SITE AREA, WHICH MEANS THEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MORE AREA ON WHICH TO PLACE IMPERVIOUS COVER OUR WATER QUALITY CONTROLS ARE BUFFERS, MITIGATE, IMPART THOSE IMPACTS, BUT THEY DO NOT ELIMINATE THOSE IMPACTS.

THAT WAS A LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

UM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

UM, YOU DID.

THANK YOU.

UM, AND I GUESS, DOES THE UTILITY, HAVE, COULD THEY SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONSITE SYSTEMS VERSUS CENTRALIZED? I KNOW UTILITY FOCUSES ON, UH, HAS A CENTRALIZED SYSTEM, SO THEY MIGHT BE A LITTLE SWAYED THERE.

UM, MY OWN LIMITED EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH IS, UM, THAT I WOULD PREFER CENTRALIZED, YOU KNOW, IT'S LESS RISKY BECAUSE ONSITE CAN BE NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS MAINTAINED REGULARLY, BUT I WOULD LIKE, I HAVE LIMITED EXPERIENCE AND I'D LIKE TO, DOES ANYBODY, IS ANYBODY ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT KEVIN CRITTENDON AUSTIN, UH, WATER? UM, I WOULD SAY SPECIFICALLY TO THE SITE, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T EVALUATED THIS PARTICULAR SITE FOR SUFFICIENCY OR AVAILABILITY, OR EVEN THE APPLICABILITY OF MY OWN SITE APPLICATIONS.

SO AS IT RELATES TO THE SIGN, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC COMMENT.

I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE, WE HAVE, UM, THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE CENTRALIZED SERVICES, EVIDENCE BY THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION THAT WAS PROVIDED.

UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO CONTEMPLATE HOW A, UH, ONSITE SYSTEM MIGHT PLAY IN AND HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL.

SO, UH, I WILL SAY THAT FOOD'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE OF CENTRALIZED VERSUS DE-CENTRALIZED WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY SOME SIMILAR CONCERNS WITH WEIGHING APPLICATION RATES AND PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES AND COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

SO, SO THERE'S KIND OF CONCERNS ON BOTH.

SO I HAD WITH MAINTENANCE OPERATION WITH DECENT LAWS VERSUS WINE APPLICATION ON THE MORE SYMBOLIZE.

SO JUST, AND AGAIN, JUST FROM WORKING IN THE FIELD, THERE'S CONCERNS ON BOTH SIDES.

THERE'S THE, UH, AND THIS IS RICHARD SUTTLE.

DOES THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ONSITE SYSTEM, DOES THAT REMAIN WITH THE LANDOWNER OR DOES THE CITY TAKE OVER THAT? I MEAN, AGAIN, KEVIN CRITTENDON HERE.

UM, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING HYPOTHETICALS, I WOULD ASSUME GENERALLY THAT WOULD REMAIN WITH THE LANDOWNER.

SO ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, ONE THING THAT WOULD ARGUE IF BOTH SYSTEMS WERE EQUAL, AT LEAST THE CITY MAINTAINS THEIR CENTRALIZED SYSTEM.

YOU'RE RELYING ON A FUTURE LANDOWNER TO MAINTAIN AN ONSITE SYSTEM.

AND, AND, UM, WHILE CHRIS STATES THAT IT WOULD BE LESS DEVELOPMENT WITH, UM, ONSITE WASTEWATER, IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN IT REMAINS OUTSIDE THE CITY.

THEN THERE ARE NO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.

SO WHILE YOU MIGHT GET LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU MIGHT GET THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS, DEPENDING ON THE APPLICATION RATE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS, WHICH THEN GETS THE NEIGHBORS UPSET BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ZONING AGREEMENTS THAT WERE IN PLACE AS PART OF THE ZONING CASE.

SO FROM THE APPLICANT'S POINT OF VIEW, THE ONSITE ACTUALLY WORKS ON BALANCE BETTER, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY WILL COME IN UNDER FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION, AND WE'LL START PAYING TAXES AND WE'LL PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED HOUSING IN THIS AREA OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO I CONCUR IT'S EITHER IMPERVIOUS COVER OR IT'S APPLICATION OF SEWAGE.

AND WHEN IT RAINS AND IT WASHES OFF, I DON'T KNOW, WHICH IS WORSE.

YOU'RE YOU PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN I DO.

IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT OUR POLICIES HAVE GOTTEN TO WHERE IN AUSTIN, IN THIS AREA, IF YOU MEET ALL

[00:25:01]

AND IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF ODD TO ME.

I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR ISSUES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I GOT? I GOT A COUPLE OF EASY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SATO.

YOU ALL PROPOSE YOUR CURRENT IS PROPOSING A 315 MILES FAMILY UNITS.

ARE THERE ANY INTENT TO HAVE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THE SYSTEM, IN THE ENVIRONMENT? THERE'S, THERE'S NO CITY PROGRAM, UH, PROPOSED TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE.

ALTHOUGH WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS IN THIS AREA, THE MARKET RATE IS VERY CLOSE TO MEETING THE 80% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME LEVELS.

THANK YOU.

UH, I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION IS, UH, STAFF PROPOSED FOR DISCHARGE, A PROPOSED 12 INCH WOOD ABT WISH WATERLINE TO N IN 16, EIGHT INCH IS ORDERED NINE.

AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE, WE EVALUATE IT.

SEE THAT'S APPROPRIATE ENOUGH BECAUSE, UH, TC REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU CANNOT GET IT FROM .

I MADE A PINT WHO IS SMALL TIME IN A PACK, BUT JUST FOR STUFF TO CONSIDER ABOUT IT IS NEEDED.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, IF NOT, WE WALK INTO PRINT MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER .

IS THERE A SECOND, MR. MICHEL SECONDS, COMMISSIONER MICHELLE.

SECOND, HIS FRIEND COMPANY'S CALLED AN OLD FOR ITEM B FIVE WITH A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARETTA AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MICHELLE COMMISSIONER MORIARTY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER PENN.

YES.

CHAIR VICE-CHAIR CASTLEBERRY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER MUSK GROVE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. CAN WE SHARE AND FISHER? YES.

OKAY.

UH, UH, PASSIVE EIGHT ZERO.

SORRY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU.

OH, JUST TO CLARIFY, NOT BE FIVE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

IT'S A NEW ONE TOO.

[C.2. Update from Winter Storm Working Group]

VICE CHAIR, CASTLEBERRY.

SORRY, DID IT AGAIN? ALL RIGHT.

WE HAD OUR SECOND MEETING ON MAY 17TH.

UM, THE FOCUS WAS, UM, OH, I GUESS THE MEETING WAS HELD IN PERSON.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE PRESENT, UM, THAT MEETING, UH, FOCUSED ON THE PUBLIC MESSAGING, UM, CONTENT TO PREPARE, UH, CUSTOMERS FOR WINTER EVENTS.

SOME REALLY

[00:30:01]

UM, WE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNICATION PLATFORMS, THE CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS, UM, ACCESSIBILITY OF DATA, UM, AND THE, UM, AUSTIN WATER STAFF PROVIDED A LIST.

UH, WE HAVE SOME WORKING LISTS, UM, THAT WE'RE WORKING OFF OF, OF QUESTIONS AND, UH, THE NEXT SET OF, UM, THE NEXT MEETINGS, WE'LL KIND OF TURN ON, UH, UH, TECHNICAL, UH, FACILITIES AND SOME INTERNAL, UM, COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE TOUCHED ON WITH, WITH THAT.

UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

UH,

[C.1. Update from Austin Integrated Water Resource Planning Community Task Force]

UH, THANK YOU.

CHEERLY AND UH, I HAVE TO KNOW THAT I'M A LITTLE, UH, HAVING TO ATTEND SO MANY MEETINGS.

I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD OUR LAST, UH, AUSTIN INTEGRATED, BUT I KNOW THE, THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE ARE A FEW WEEKS AGO RELATED TO THE ASR.

WE HAVE THE CONSULTANTS AND WE'RE LEADING THAT EFFORT AND, UH, AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF THAT, WHICH WILL BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR WATER PLAN.

SO THEY'RE GETTING STARTED AND THAT'S KIND OF THE MAJOR, THE MAJOR ISSUE WE WE ADDRESSED.

AND, UH, I THINK THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG.

THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT,

[D.1. Customer Assistance Program (CAP) Discussion]

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR.

OKAY.

UH, BEFORE I START, UH, I'VE TIMED THIS FOR 10 MINUTES, BUT SINCE I CANNOT, UH, CONTROL THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, I'M GOING TO ASK THE A V UH, TECH TO CHANGE THE SCREEN.

WHENEVER I SAY SLIDE, IS THAT OKAY? SOUNDS GOOD.

UH, COMMISSION I'M PAUL ROBBINS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

AND I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO ADVISE CITY COUNCIL, TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF AUSTIN'S PROGRAM FOR UTILITY DISCOUNTS FOR THE POOR, WHICH IS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY AUSTIN WATER RATE PAYERS, AS AN ADVOCATE, TRYING TO FIX THIS PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS, MISDIRECTING MONEY MEANT TO AS HIS LOW INCOME RATE PAYERS, I HAVE PROBABLY SPENT ABOUT 19 MONTHS OF UNPAID TIME IN THIS PURSUIT.

HOWEVER, THE BUREAUCRATIC INTRANSIGENCE I'VE EXPERIENCED HAS CONVINCED ME THAT REFORM IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR.

IF AN INVESTIGATION IS CONDUCTED BY A THIRD PARTY, SUCH AS THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE SLIDE, LET ME START BY GIVING YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS PAP PAP ASSIST, LOW INCOME RATE PAYERS OR AUSTIN'S WATER ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES.

IT BEGAN IN 1985 WITH MUCH SMALLER PARTICIPATION.

AUSTIN WATER BEGAN FUNDING IT IN 2009 AND THE PROGRAM WAS GREATLY EXPANDED IN 2013.

PAT GIVES ABOUT $11 MILLION A YEAR FOR WATER BILL DISCOUNTS AT HIS WATER AND WASTEWATER.

UH, BY MY ESTIMATE, THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY PARTICIPANT WILL RECEIVE OVER $500 PER YEAR IN WATER WASTEWATER DISCOUNTS, UH, WHICH AMOUNTS TO ABOUT A 50% SAVINGS.

A NEW PROGRAM FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL REDUCE THEIR BILLS BY ABOUT $200.

[00:35:01]

AND ABOUT 22,000 MULTIFAMILY PARTICIPANTS WILL BE ADDED THIS YEAR SLIDE.

SO HOW DO CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATE IN CAP? THE VAST MAJORITY ARE AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED.

IF SOMEONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS ON ONE OF SEVEN SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, SUCH AS SOCIAL SECURITY, DISABILITY, OR FOOD STAMPS, THERE'S SELECTION ASSUMES THE HOUSEHOLD IS POOR, EVEN IF IT HAPPENS TO BE WEALTHY.

HOWEVER, ABOUT ONE OUT OF SIX PARTICIPANTS, INCOME QUALIFY.

IF THEIR HOUSEHOLD MAKES NO MORE THAN 200% OF THE POVERTY LEVEL, WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SCREENED OUT BY REQUIRING CUSTOMERS.

WE HAVE HOMES, UH, WITH OVER $250,000 IN IMPROVEMENT VALUES, OR WHO'S OWNER OWN OWNS MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY TO INCOME QUALIFY.

BUT AS THIS PRESENTATION WILL SHOW, THIS DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK SLOWLY.

HI, TAP WATER DISCOUNTS HAVE THREE MAIN PROBLEMS IN REGARDS TO THE WATER UTILITY.

FIRST, SOME DISCOUNTS ARE STILL GOING TO CUSTOMERS WITH HIGH REAL ESTATE ASSETS ALMOST SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED.

THIS PROBLEM IS NOT AS BAD AS IT USED TO BE, BUT IT IS STILL AN EXPENSIVE WASTE.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, THERE ARE NO INCOME QUALIFICATIONS FOR CUSTOMERS WITHOUT I REAL ESTATE ASSETS, AUTO ENROLLMENT.

THERE'S NOT ALWAYS WORK.

AND THIRD, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR AN ADVOCATE LIKE MYSELF OUTSIDE OF THE CITY BUREAUCRACY TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MONITOR THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE SOME OF THEM INFORMATION IS DIRECTLY HIDDEN OR PLACED BEHIND A PAYWALL SLIDE.

OKAY.

TO THE ISSUE OF THE FIRST PROBLEM.

AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IS A CLUMSY TOOL TO FIND QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, A PERSON LIVING IN A MANSION OR A HOME, UH, OWNED BY A CUSTOMER OWNING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES.

MAY INDEED BE ON A SOCIAL PROGRAM LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY OR FOOD STAMPS.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE FAMILY LIVING IN THAT HOME IS POOR.

AND IN 2014, THAT IS WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS INDEED OCCURRING.

AUSTIN ENERGY WAS FIRST ALERTED TO THE PROBLEM IN SEPTEMBER OF 2014, AND THE PROBLEM WENT PUBLIC IN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR, BUT IT TOOK THE BUREAUCRACY ALMOST FOUR YEARS TO BEGIN TO INCOME, QUALIFY THESE PEOPLE WITH HIGH REAL ESTATE ASSETS, SLIDE 10, HOWEVER, CUSTOMERS WITH HIGH REAL ESTATE ASSETS CONTINUE TO BE ENROLLED IN A RECENT SURVEY.

I DISCOVERED THAT 123 PARTICIPANTS RECEIVING THE DISCOUNT HAD IMPROVEMENT VALUES OVER $250,000 OR OWN MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY, 28 OF THESE OWNED MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, 18 PAD, EXPENSIVE ADDITIONS, SUCH AS SWIMMING.

I QUESTIONED HOW WE CAN INCOME QUALIFY.

MANY OF THESE PEOPLE GIVEN THEIR APPARENT WEALTH SLIDE.

UH, THIS IS A 7,100 SQUARE FOOT MANSION WITH A TENNIS COURT AND A SWIMMING POOL ON FOUR ACRES IN A GATED COMMUNITY.

THE OWNER HAD A SECOND HOME RECEIVING CAP SLIDE.

THERE WAS A RECENTLY BUILT HOME IN OLD WEST AUSTIN WORTH $1.7 MILLION RECEIVING CAP SLIDE.

HERE'S A MODEST DUPLEX IN NORTH AUSTIN.

RECEIVING CAP WOULD BE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE IF THE OWNER DID NOT OWN FIVE PROPERTIES IN CORPUS CHRISTI SLIME, INCLUDING THIS WATERFRONT HOME TOTAL ASSETS ARE MORE THAN $2 MILLION PAY.

IF THIS IS POVERTY, SIGN ME UP SLIDE.

THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO INCOME QUALIFICATION FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS, JUST BECAUSE A CAT PARTICIPANT DOES NOT LIVE IN A MANSION DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE POOR.

THEY MIGHT HAVE HIGH SALARIES OR OWN STOCK PORTFOLIOS OR EXPENSIVE CARS AND JEWELRY.

THIS HOME IN CENTRAL AUSTIN IS WORTH MORE THAN 700,000 IS WORTH ALMOST $700,000.

[00:40:02]

THE OWNER IS NOT REQUIRED TO INCOME QUALIFY DUE TO THE QUIRKY WAY.

APPRAISALS ARE CONDUCTED.

THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE IS LESS THAN $250,000.

THE OWNER COULD BE QUITE WEALTHY.

WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW THERE COULD BE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LIKE HIM OR HER, UH, SHOULD A PERSON WITH LARGE ASSETS, ESCAPE, SCRUTINY, SLIDE I, AND A THIRD PROBLEM IS THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY.

OVER THE YEARS, THERE'VE BEEN A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WHERE THE CITY HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT WOULD ALLOW A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEMS WITH LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS OR THE CITY WANTED TO CHARGE UNJUSTIFIED COSTS TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION SLIDE.

NOW THERE ARE SEVERAL, UH, STANDARD EXCUSES THE CITY HAS MADE OVER THE YEARS TO DELAY CHANGE.

THE FIRST IS THAT CHANGING AUTO-ENROLLMENT PROCEDURES WOULD BE DIFFICULT AND ONLY RESULT IN A SMALL NUMBER OF REMOVALS.

HOWEVER, EVEN THE NUMBER THAT I RECENTLY FOUND, UH, IF ALL OF THEM WERE FOUND TO BE NON-ELIGIBLE, THAT WOULD RESULT IN MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SAVINGS AND MOST COULD BE REMOVED BY COMPUTER.

THE SECOND IS THAT INCOME QUALIFICATION IS TOO COMPLICATED AND WOULD BE A TERRIBLE PARTICIPATION.

THIS IS NONSENSE SACRAMENTO'S LOW-INCOME DISCOUNT PROGRAM IS ENTIRELY BASED ON INCOME QUALIFICATION.

IT IS INEXPENSIVE TO ADMINISTER AND HAS MORE THAN TWICE AUSTIN'S PARTICIPATION ON BOTH PERCENTAGE AND PARTICIPANT BASIS.

AND THIRD IS THAT CAP HAS ALREADY BEEN AUDITED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST SIX YEARS.

HOWEVER, WHEN I INVESTIGATED THIS CLAIM, UH, I COULD FIND NOTHING ON THE CITIES FROM THE CITY'S AUDIT DEPARTMENT THAT COULD SUBSTANTIATE THIS SLIDE.

SO WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS TO THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROBLEMS? FIRST PROHIBIT PARTICIPANTS WITH HIGH REAL ESTATE ACT ASSETS FROM, UH, JOINING, THEY CAN USUALLY BE IDENTIFIED FROM THE TAX ROLLS AND EASILY BLOCKED SECOND REQUIRED INCOME VERIFICATION FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS.

AGAIN, THERE COULD BE THOUSANDS OF CUSTOMERS WHO ARE NOT POOR, WHO ARE RECEIVING CAP DISCOUNTS AND THIRD STOP THE UNWARRANTED CONSTRICTION OF INFORMATION THAT WILL ALLOW GREATER PUBLIC SCRUTINY SLIDE.

HOW CAN YOUR COMMISSION HELP PASS A RESOLUTION AT YOUR NEXT MEETING, ASKING COUNCIL FOR A FULL AUDIT OF THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM NEXT YEAR SLIDE.

I DO APPRECIATE YOUR, UM, ATTENTION AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

THIS IS MY CONTACT INFORMATION.

IF YOU NEED TO REACH ME.

THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

UH, IS THERE ANY STUFF THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION ABOUT ALL THE CONCERN ITEMS? ALL RIGHT.

NOW, DID GREG, SORRY.

KREMA GROSS IN AUSTIN.

ENERGY IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR DREAM.

IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE ANY INPUT TO THE COMMISSION, WE DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, BY THE WAY, I'M DREAMA GROSS.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGEMENT OR AUSTIN ENERGY.

UM, MANY OF YOU, IT'S GOOD TO SEE AGAIN, I'M IN A DIFFERENT ROLE NOW, HOW MANY SHE KNOWS YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR TREVOR? I DO, UH, COMMISSIONER PLEASE.

UM, THERE SOME PRETTY SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS THAT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT FIT THE IDEAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ENROLL FOR THE PROGRAM.

UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, AND UNDERSTANDABLY, THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE SEEN THIS.

UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF LOOKING INTO AND RESEARCHING TO ENSURE THAT, THAT THE BAD APPLES, IF YOU WILL, AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM?

[00:45:03]

UM, LET ME START OFF BY SAYING WE HAVE, WHAT I THINK ARE VERY ROBUST QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKS.

THEY ARE NOT PERFECT.

UM, WE RELY A LOT ON DATA SETS THAT WE GET FROM HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FROM TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY TO VERIFY INFORMATION ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES, AS WELL AS ENROLLMENT IN HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, OR SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS THAT QUALIFY YOU FOR A CAP DISCOUNT.

UM, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS THAT I WANT TO CLARIFY IS THAT EVERYONE GOES THROUGH ENROLLMENT OR AN ELIGIBLE SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM IS GOING THROUGH AN INCOME QUALIFICATION PROCESS, TYPICALLY THROUGH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

THAT CAN BE A 20 TO 40 PAGE APPLICATION DEPENDING ON THE PROGRAM AND THE PROGRAMS THAT A CUSTOMER'S APPLYING FOR, WHICH INCLUDES INCOME, DOCUMENTATION TAX RECORDS.

AND IN SOME CASES, NOT FOR EVERY CASE, OTHER TYPES OF ASSET INFORMATION.

SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING INCOME SCREENING FOR A HIGH VALUE HOME OR MULTIPLE EQUITY, THAT IS A SECONDARY INCOME MEANING FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS.

OUR PROGRAM IS BUILT AROUND THE IDEA OF AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT, UM, WHICH WAS CHAMPIONED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN 2012 AND STARTED IN 2013 BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT OR CUSTOMERS WHO WERE IN LOW TO MODERATE INCOME SITUATIONS.

AT THAT TIME, WE WENT FROM AN ENROLLMENT MAXIMUM OF AROUND 7,000, 7,700 CUSTOMERS PRIOR TO 2013.

WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY AT 35,000 CUSTOMERS WHO RECEIVE THAT DISCOUNT.

SO THE INTENT WAS TO ENROLL MORE PEOPLE IN CAP WITH AS FEW BARRIERS AS POSSIBLE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE CREATED THIS PROCESS.

HOWEVER, THE TERM AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT MEANS IT'S AUTOMATIC FOR THE CUSTOMER, THAT THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH MULTIPLE HOOPS TO GET ENROLLED.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S AUTOMATIC ON THE CITY OR OUR VENDORS SIDE.

THERE'S A PRETTY COMPLICATED SYSTEM OF CHECKS THAT WE GO THROUGH.

IT HAS TO BE BUILT OUT.

THERE'S A LOT OF CHECKS.

WE GO BACK THROUGH WITH, UM, THIS, OUR, UH, TAXING AUTHORITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IS ACCURATE.

WE HAVE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE PARCEL ID THAT WE HAVE RECORDS AND ONE THAT WE HAVE IN TR IN TRAVIS COUNTY'S TAX DATA.

SO YES, SOMETIMES THERE ARE, ONE-OFFS WHERE THAT HAPPENS AND WE HAVE QUALITY TRAININGS.

WE TRY TO CATCH THOSE AND REVIEW THEM ON A MONTHLY BASIS INTERNALLY.

UM, IS IT PERFECT? NO, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR VENDOR TO IMPROVE MULTI-PROPERTY SCREENINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CATCH THINGS LIKE INCORRECT SPELLINGS, UM, WHERE SOMEONE MAY HAVE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, BUT THE NAME IS SPELLED DIFFERENTLY IN EACH OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

SO WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR VENDOR TO FIND WAYS OF VERIFYING.

IS THIS THE SAME PERSON? UM, WE BELIEVE IN OUR REVIEW OF THESE RECORDS, THAT THE NUMBERS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, AND THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IDENTIFIED HAVE INDEED GONE THROUGH SECONDARY INCOME VALUATION PROCESS OR INCOME VERIFICATION PROCESS WHERE IF YOUR HOME IMPROVEMENT VALUE IS OVER $250,000, THERE'S A PROCESS WHERE WE ASK YOU TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CONFIRM THAT YOUR INCOME IS WITHIN OUR THRESHOLDS.

SO THERE'S A LOT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT WE THINK WE'RE MEETING THE ORIGINAL INTENT, WHICH WAS TO MAKE ENROLLMENT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE FOR CUSTOMERS WHO ARE ALREADY IN NEED AND WHO, YOU KNOW, SHOULD HAVE ACCESS.

UH, WE CAN ALWAYS GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT IMPROVED PROCESS OVER TIME.

BUT ULTIMATELY WE THINK THAT THERE'S A VERY, VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT MAYBE WHAT UNQUOTE SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS AND THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR CUSTOMERS RECEIVE THE CAP DISCOUNT OR CORRECTLY RECEIVING THE CAP DISCOUNT.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? LET ME SQUIRRELS IS, OH, SORRY.

GO AHEAD.

UM, IS, UM, IS THERE A PROCESS FOR, UM, AN OFFICIAL PROCESS FOR APPEALING OR, UM, INVESTIGATING IF, UH, YOU KNOW, A RESIDENT, UM, WE USERS SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE INCORRECTLY.

IS THERE A PROCESS FOR THAT OR IS THIS SORT OF TAKEN, DO YOU GUYS TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU DO YOUR REGULAR AUDITS OR YOUR QC, OR IS THERE ANY PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO EXPRESS OFFICIALLY EXPRESS CONCERN AND GET A PARTICULAR MATTER INVESTIGATED AT A PARTICULAR PARCEL? WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL PROCESS FOR A CITIZEN COMPLAINT.

[00:50:01]

UM, WHAT I WILL NOT DO IS SUMMARY INFORMATION ON OR RESPOND TO SPECIFICS ON A VIDEO CALL, UM, ABOUT A PARTICULAR ADDRESS WITHOUT THE CUSTOMER CONSENT.

UM, BUT IF WE HEAR OF A CONCERN FROM A CITIZEN, MR. ROBBINS, WE INVESTIGATE AND MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THE NECESSARY STEPS ARE TAKEN.

UM, AND IN SOME CASES WE FIND THAT THERE IS A CORRECTION.

AND IN OTHER CASES, WE FIND THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH OUR CURRENT PROCESS APPROACH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

LET ME SHOW HIM YETI BREEZE.

UM, BUT I ASKED PAUL ROBBINS A QUESTION, AND THEN I WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IS THAT OKAY? GO AHEAD, MR. ROB, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THESE 35,000 PEOPLE RECEIVING THIS ASSISTANCE, DO YOU THINK ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATELY RECEIVING? CAN YOU HEAR ME? UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

UH, YOU ASKED WHAT PERCENTAGE, UM, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE THAT I CAN FIND, UH, I'M NOT ASKING THAT I'M ME ASK YOU IF YOU, BECAUSE I REALIZE YOU SELECTIVELY, YOU, YOU CAN'T AUDIT BY YOURSELF 35,000, BUT IF YOU WERE TO HAZARD AN ESTIMATE, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE 35,000 WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU ESTIMATE BASED OFF WHAT YOU, YOU, YOU YOU'VE DONE TO NOT BE GETTING THIS MONEY.

I WOULD HAVE TO, THAT'S AN EMOTIONAL ANSWER TO ME AND I TRY TO HEAR TO NUMBERS BILL, SINCE I CANNOT, SINCE WE CANNOT, UH, INCOME QUALIFY THE APPLICANTS, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY FOR ME TO ESTIMATE.

I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THEORETICALLY, THERE COULD BE THOUSANDS.

THERE COULD BE 10, 15, 20% THAT WERE I, I, I I'VE GOT THE GIST AND DREAM OF WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PERCENTAGE IS? I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT.

IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 1%.

ALL RIGHT.

THEN WHY WOULD IT BE EVERYBODY BE SO RESISTANT TO AUDITING THIS THING? WHY WOULDN'T, WHY WON'T THEY DO THAT? WE GENERALLY DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR, OR AGAINST AN AUDIT.

I WILL SAY THAT WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE INTERNAL AUDITS OR THE CAP PROGRAM WHERE ADHERING TO OUR PROCESS GUIDELINES.

WE HAVE ROUTINE INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKS.

UM, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE MADE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS.

MR. ROBBINS PRESENTED INFORMATION FROM AS FAR BACK AS 2014, WE'VE SEEN INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, EVERY TIME THAT THIS HAS COME TO LIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAKE THOSE.

AND I WOULD JUST ADD THE CITY AUDITOR REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS THE AUDITOR TO DO AUDITS.

AND, UM, UM, I'M SURE MR. ROBINS HAS COMMUNICATED IN CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION, UH, TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS.

AND AS OF YET, THEY HAVEN'T DIRECTED AN AUDIT OF THIS NATURE, BUT IF THEY DO, WE CERTAINLY WILL COMPLY.

RIGHT.

AND I THINK WHERE I'M HEADED WITH THIS, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH HERE FOR ME TO SAY, THERE'S ALBUMS HERE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE INTENSIVE, UH, CLEANSING OF THIS SITUATION.

I THINK IT'S EMBARRASSING WHEN WE'RE GIVING THESE DISCOUNTS TO PEOPLE WITH SWIMMING POOLS AND TENNIS COURTS.

AND LARGE HELPS.

I THINK IF WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE IT'S TOO MANY, SO I'M HEADED TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, AT OUR NEXT MEETING OFFERS SOME FORM OF RESOLUTION THAT WE COULD VOTE ON.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.

YES OR NO, BUT TO ME, UH, THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH HERE THAT I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO GET THIS THING CLEANED UP BETTER.

CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A MOMENT? YES, PLEASE.

UM, WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING, UM, THE PRESENCE OF SAY A SWIMMING POOL ON A PROPERTY, UM, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT A NUMBER OF OUR CAP RECIPIENTS.

AGAIN, I CAN'T DISCLOSE SPECIFICS MAY LIVE IN HOMES THAT THEY'VE LIVED IN FOR 40 OR 50 YEARS, PARTICULARLY THOSE RECEIVING SAY MEDICAID BENEFITS OR MEDICARE.

UM, AND IN THOSE CASES WE DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S SWIMMING POOLS AND USE.

UM, WE CAN SEE WHEN IT WAS BUILT.

[00:55:01]

UM, WE, WE ACTUALLY SEE THAT QUITE A BIT, UM, IN THE POPULATION THAT WE HAVE.

SO JUST, JUST, I WANT TO PRESENT THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE OR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER NOT ARGUING FOR AGAINST, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS IN MR. ROBINSON'S REPORT ABOUT HOW OR WHY SOMEONE MAY BE LIVING IN A CERTAIN PROPERTY THAT MAY NOT TRULY REFLECT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT PROPERTY.

UH, EXCUSE ME, MAY I ALSO ANSWER, OH, GO AHEAD.

UH, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE MAY BE PEOPLE, UH, ON FIXED INCOME THAT LIVED IN A COMPANY FOR 40 OR 50 YEARS THAT ARE, UM, ARE TRULY POOR.

AND THERE MAY ALSO BE OTHER PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN A HOME WITH A SWIMMING POOL WHO ARE, DO QUITE WELL.

AND THERE IS NO WAY FOR MS. GROWTH OR ME TO KNOW, UH, UH, WHAT SITUATION, ANY PARTICULAR, UH, PAP CUSTOMER IS.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED INCOME QUALIFICATION TO BE THE NEW STANDARD.

AS I SAID, THERE ARE PLACES LIKE SACRAMENTO THAT HAVE INCOME QUALIFICATION, AND THEY ALSO HAVE VERY ROBUST PROGRAMS. I AM NOT TRYING TO REDUCE PARTICIPATION.

I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET POOR PEOPLE'S MONEY TO POOR PEOPLE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS? WHAT ELSE? MS. GLOSS, I GOT TWO QUESTIONS.

MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME CREATE.

SO IF A CUSTOMER IS 45 OR AUSTIN WATER, IT WILL BE AUTOMATED 40, 45 FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.

AM I CORRECT? UM, IF THE CUSTOMER HAS BOTH SERVICE AGREEMENTS, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND AGAIN, AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION MEANS THAT THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH ENROLLMENT AND A STATE SPONSORED OR LOCAL, UM, ACTUALLY IT'S STATE OR FEDERAL SPONSORED SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM, WHICH HAS AN INCOME QUALIFICATION COMPONENT AT OR BELOW FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL 200%.

THANK YOU GOT ANOTHER QUESTION IS ALSO THE ENERGY AND AUSTIN WATER FOR YOU.

MIGHT'VE KEPT CUSTOMERS BY WHY THE SOLID WASTE DOES NOT DO THAT.

DO YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE PARTICIPATION.

UM, CAP CUSTOMERS DO RECEIVE A DISCOUNT ON, UM, SOME OR THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A DISCOUNT, I THINK ON SOME WATERSHED PROTECTION FEES.

UM, AND THEN DEPENDING ON AGE OR ABILITY TO USE TRANSPORTATION, THEY MAY ALSO QUALIFY FOR DISCOUNT WAIVERS.

THAT PROCESS IS SEPARATE FROM THE CAP DISCOUNT, BUT DISCOUNTS ARE INCLUDED CHAIR.

I CAN PARTIALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD.

UH, I TALKED TO THE FORMER HEAD OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES ABOUT THIS SUBJECT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BOB GUITTARD.

AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE DID NOT WANT HIS DEPARTMENT TO BE A PART OF THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, UH, THEY BEGAN CONDUCTING INCOME QUALIFICATIONS.

OKAY.

SO BASED ON YOUR STATEMENT, THAT MEANS NATE SONY, WHICH IS NOT AGAINST THE CAP PROGRAM, BUT THEN THEY THINK THAT THE CAP PROGRAM NEED TO BE IMPROVED A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THEY PARTICIPATE IN IT.