* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] WHAT'S UP. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD. AS SOON AS I SEE THE CAMERA SHIFT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND CONVENE TODAY'S, UH, COUNCIL WORK SESSION. IT IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2022. WE'RE IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ROOM HERE AT, UH, CITY HALL. UH, AND, UM, UM, WE HAVE A AGENDA LAID OUT IN FRONT OF US COLLEAGUES TODAY. UH, WE HAVE, UM, PULLED ITEMS, BASICALLY FIVE TOPICS IN OUR PULLED ITEMS. ONE IS PARKLAND DEDICATION. I THINK THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS RELATED TO THAT. WE HAVE, UH, THE COUNCILMAN BULL HOUSE, TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THAT TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE. I SAID FIVE IT'S ACTUALLY SIX. WE HAVE AN ITEM RELATED TO THE LICENSE PLATE READERS. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PETITION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT, AND WE HAVE, UH, ONE ITEM ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN. SO SIX TOPICS IN FRONT OF US. WE ALSO HAVE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, UM, PRINCIPALLY TO, TO HAVE OUR INTRODUCTORY MEETING WITH, UM, UH, HR ON THE THREE, UH, COUNCIL, UM, UH, APPOINTEES, THE CLERK, CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR, AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK, JUST PERSONNEL SESSION. UH, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A REQUEST FOR, UM, UH, VISITING ABOUT THE SDRS. UH, SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS WE HAVE ON EXECUTIVE SESSION. UH, AND THEN, UM, UM, WE HAVE, I THINK WE [D. Council Discussion] OUGHT TO PROBABLY BEGIN WITH JUST A QUICK DISCUSSION ABOUT LOGISTICS ON THURSDAY, UH, GIVEN WHERE WE, WHERE WE MIGHT BE. UM, SO LET'S START WITH THAT CONVERSATION HERE REAL FAST, UH, OR, OR, AND THEN LET'S GET INTO IT. I THINK AT THE END OF THAT CONVERSATION, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE LIKE, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THURSDAY. UM, JUST BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE. UH, I DON'T KNOW. UM, UM, SO LET'S BEGIN FIRST WITH A DISCUSSION OF THURSDAY LOGISTICS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT, UH, SOME OF US ARE BEING APPROACHED WITH A REQUEST TO SET A TIME CERTAIN ON THE POLICING ITEMS, UH, IN THE EVENING, I'M TOLD THAT AT THIS POINT, UM, THAT THERE ARE, UH, ROUGHLY 60 PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK HERE ON TUESDAY. UM, UH, I'VE HEARD, UH, ESTIMATES THAT, UH, BY THE TIME WE GET TO THURSDAY, WE COULD HAVE, UM, UH, A COUPLE HUNDRED PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MOST OF THE PEOPLE SIGNING UP TO SPEAK OR SIGNING UP TO SPEAK ON THE TWO POLICING MATTERS, UH, THE LICENSE PLATE READER AND ON THE, UM, ON THE, ON THE PETITION. UM, AND THERE'LL ALSO BE REQUEST KIND OF TO CHANGE HOW WE'RE, HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING, UH, THESE ITEMS AND, AND THE LIKE, SO I WANTED TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO ENTER TO THAT CONVERSATION TODAY, AS OPPOSED TO, UH, OPPOSED TO THURSDAY, UM, LAST MEETING WAS THE FIRST TIME I CAN REMEMBER THAT WE ACTUALLY, UM, UH, DID NOT HAVE AND SUSTAIN A VOTE TO EXTEND PAST 10. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS GOING FORWARD. UH, BUT WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN IS WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA AND FIGURE OUT THOSE THINGS THAT WE JUST POSTPONE, UH, UH, OR MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE LOOK AT MIDAFTERNOON AND SAY, WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO GET DONE TODAY? UH, AND WE START, UH, POSTPONING, UH, ITEMS. I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL QUESTION ON SOMETHING OR AN INFORMATION QUESTION TO REALLY TRY TO GET IT ANSWERED IN Q AND A, UH, OR DURING A BREAK, UH, RATHER THAN HAVING TO ASK THOSE QUE RATHER THAN HAVING TO PULL ITEMS TO, UH, ASK QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE MY INTENT ON SMALL ITEMS THAT GET PULLED THAT WAY TO CONSIDER THEM LAST. AFTER WE HAVE, UH, GONE THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THE AGENDA ON THINGS THAT MIGHT BE OF GREATER CONCERN TO, TO MORE PEOPLE ON THE, UH, ON THE DAIS. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF AS MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AS I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HANDLE THE THINGS THAT ARE OF GREATEST INTEREST TO THE MOST PEOPLE, UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT, UH, DOESN'T UM, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, THAT WE GET THEM DONE REGARDLESS OF HOW, UH, THE REST OF THE DAY PLAYS OUT. SO BEFORE WE WENT IN, I WANTED TO GIVE OPEN UP THE FLOOR JUST FOR EVERYBODY TO TALK ABOUT THURSDAY, IF THEY WANTED TO KATHY MAYOR, I HAVE A, A LITTLE BIT [00:05:01] OF LOGISTIC. I HAVE SOME LOGISTICAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU ABOUT TODAY AS WELL. DO YOU WANT ME TO START WITH THOSE OR ON THURSDAYS? SO IN TERMS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, I NEED TO STEP OUT FOR JUST, UM, AND BE VIRTUAL DURING THAT FOR A LITTLE PIECE OF IT. SO DO YOU ANTICIPATE TAKING UP THE PERSONNEL ITEMS FIRST OR THE LEGAL BRIEFING ON SDRS I'M COMFORTABLE TAKING UP EITHER WAY THAT ENSURES THAT YOU CAN BE THERE FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO BE THERE FOR? I CAN, I CAN ALSO MANAGE IT WHICHEVER WAY. UM, THEN I, THEN I'D PROBABLY TAKE UP THE PERSONNEL MATTERS FIRST AND AT THE END OF THAT TOUCH BASE ON THE SDRS AS WE'RE HEADING BACK OUT. GREAT. THANK YOU. I JUST NEED TO BE IN FRONT OF MY FOLDERS FOR SDRS. AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THURSDAY, I, I THINK IT'S, UM, I'M GONNA GIVE A LITTLE THOUGHT AND I MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE SUGGESTIONS HERE IN A MINUTE. I DO THINK THOSE SMALL QUESTIONS TEND NOT TO SLOW US DOWN. IT'S REALLY THE OTHER, THE OTHER STUFF THAT DOES. SO MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT YOUR PLAN ON THAT SCORE IS THAT THAT MAKES SOMETIMES WHOLE BUNCHES OF OUR STAFF WAIT AROUND FOR, FOR ITEMS THAT ARE GONNA, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY BE DONE IN FIVE MINUTES. UM, SO I JUST OFFER THAT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I MEAN, I'M, I THINK I HAD A COUPLE OF THOSE LAST TIME AND THEY WENT SUPER QUICKLY. IT'S JUST NOT ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THINGS BECOME APPARENT AFTER YOU GET YOUR RESPONSES BACK IN THE Q AND A, WHICH DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING SOMETIMES. SO IT'S JUST, IT'S HARD TO, IT'S HARD TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS, SO I SHALL DO MY BEST, BUT IF YOU COULD JUST THINK ABOUT, ABOUT THAT, THAT THOSE TEND NOT TO SLOW US DOWN, BUT I THINK WE COULD HAVE A LIMIT. LIKE IF IT'S, IF WE'RE AT FIVE MINUTES ON ONE OF THOSE, THEN IT, THEN IT'S GOTTA GET POSTPONED OR GET PULLED. AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING, IF WE COULD SAY, THIS IS A REALLY QUICK QUESTION AND FIVE MINUTES, IF WE'RE NOT, WE HAVEN'T TAKE FIVE MINUTES, WE'VE EITHER VOTED OR IT'S POSTPONED, CUZ SOMETIMES WE GET CAUGHT ON SOME OF THOSE AND THEY END UP TAKING 20 MINUTES, 30 MINUTES, WE, NO ONE COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED IT WOULD. RIGHT. OR IT GOES, SO I'LL CONSIDER THAT. OR THEN IT GOES TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO LEMME THINK ABOUT THAT, CUZ THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. YEAH. UH, YES. PO AND THEN ANNE. YEAH. I, I REALLY, UH, WAS UH, KIND OF SURPRISED ABOUT LAST THURSDAY NEEDED IT. AND UH, I JUST WANTED TO APOLOGIZE TO THE PEOPLE THAT FLEW IN INTO AUSTIN THAT NIGHT TO BE, YOU KNOW, AT THE, AT OUR MEETING THAT DIDN'T GET THEIR ISSUES, UH, DISCUSSED. AND WE JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE APOLOGIZE TO Y GUYS WE WOULD KNOW THAT WE SHOULD INFORM PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAN WE WEREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT MUCH. UH, THAT KIND OF AN AGENDA THAT LONG, THAT WHEN WE GOT SO LATE AT NIGHT THAT WE WOULD, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. SO YEAH. SO I JUST, I, I WENT THERE AND APOLOGIZED TO SOME OF THE PEOPLE HAD FLOWN IN FROM CHICAGO THAT WERE, AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT DSU WAS GIVEN ME. I THINK THE POINT'S WELL TAKEN. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION NOW TO GIVE PEOPLE KIND OF A HEADS UP AND, AND TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT. UH, ANNE, AND THEN, UM, I'VE HEARD A, A QUESTION RELATED TO, UM, I THINK IT'S RELATED TO THE, UM, OFFENSIVE POLICE OVERSIGHT ISSUE, BUT IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT FOR OTHER ISSUES TOO. AND THAT WAS JUST THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, A TIME CERTAIN, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO DO. UM, AND WE HAVEN'T, UM, YOU KNOW, RECENTLY FOR LOTS OF GOOD REASONS, BUT, UM, THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE ASKED WHETHER WE CAN SET A TIME CERTAIN FOR THAT ITEM. UM, AND I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH, UM, THE THINKING ABOUT WHEN THEY WILL BE SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AS WELL AS JUST WHEN THEY CAN LISTEN. SO WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON THAT? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT'S A BIGGER TOPIC TO BRING UP THE WHOLE TIME CERTAIN ISSUE. NO, AND I THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO, TO BRING THAT UP. MY DEFAULT WILL BE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THE SAME WAY. I'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION HERE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, MOST, ESPECIALLY THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OCCASIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS WHERE THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO SEVERAL OF US AND TO THEIR CONSTITUENCIES WHO ASKED FOR A TIME CERTAIN AT A CERTAIN PART OF THE DAY, MY ANSWER, THEN I'LL GIVE THE SAME ANSWER NOW THAT I GAVE THEN. CAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UH, EVEN THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE THAT I MIGHT BE MORE INTERESTED IN NOW OR THAT MY CONSTITUENCIES ARE MORE INTERESTED IN, I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT FOR ME TO, TO PLAY IT STRAIGHT DOWN. THE, THE, THE FAIRWAY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DO IT THE SAME WAY TO CALL THE SPEAKERS IN THE MORNING, GET THE SPEAKERS HANDLED THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE REST OF THE DAY LOOKS LIKE. MM-HMM AND WE CAN PLAN OUT THE REST OF THE DAY WHEN WE HAVE SPEAKERS THAT ARE CALLED, THEN LATER IT ADDS AN UNKNOWN AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT. MM-HMM I UNDERSTAND THE, THE STATEMENT THAT, HEY, WE WANT TO, WE WANT OUR ISSUE TO BE ABLE TO COME UP IN THE EVENING BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUENTS CAN'T BE THERE DURING THE DAY MM-HMM I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT SAY, DON'T DO IT IN THE EVENING, CUZ THAT'S WHEN I'M WITH MY FAMILY AND MY CHILDREN, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TALK DURING THE DAY. [00:10:01] SO I HEAR IT BOTH WAYS. MM-HMM I AM CONCERNED THAT IF WE HAVE 200 SPEAKERS, I'VE ALSO HEARD PEOPLE ASKING FOR MORE THAN A MINUTE. IF WE HAVE 200 SPEAKERS ON THIS AND EVERYBODY SPEAKS FOR ONE MINUTE MM-HMM THAT PROBABLY IS GONNA TAKE US FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF HOURS TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THOSE SPEAKERS. MM-HMM IF WE START AT SIX WE'RE PAST 10 AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO BE ABLE TO, TO, TO DELIBERATE MM-HMM UH, SO I, MY RECOMMENDATION OR MY DEFAULT AND, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD BE THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL AND I'M NOT GONNA BE, TRY TO UNDERST STAND IN IN THE WAY OF THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. UH, BUT I WOULD DO IT, UH, THE, THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, UH, BECAUSE IT IS IMPARTIAL TO SUBSTANCE MATTER OR ISSUE AND IT'S JUST STAYING CONSISTENT AND I THINK IT'S SERVED US WELL, UH, IN TERMS OF MEETING MANAGEMENT AND GETTING WORK DONE. UH, DO YOU SEE A, A POSSIBILITY TO, UM, WELL, LET'S SEE, I GUESS SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE, UH, SO, SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN TERMS OF WHEN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SPEAK TO US. UM, WHAT ABOUT WHEN WE TAKE UP THE ITEMS, DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE OR ARE YOU THINKING THAT WE TAKE ALL THE SPEAKERS AND THEN GIVE PEOPLE AN IDEA ABOUT HOW THE REST OF THE DAY IS GONNA GO? I THINK SO. CAUSE I THINK WE WOULD KNOW MORE AT THAT POINT. OKAY. SO AT THAT POINT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, GIVE PEOPLE ENOUGH OF AN IDEA, UM, THAT IT'S SIMILAR TO A TIME CERTAIN FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT NOT FOR SPEAKERS. YES. YES. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I THINK, AND I THINK WE COULD, AND I THINK WE COULD MANAGE THAT. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE AND, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR, FOR A CLOSED VOTE ON THAT ISSUE, I HAVE ASKED OR, UH, ON THE POLICE MATTER, WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION WITHIN 10 DAYS OF CERTIFICATION. UH, WE ALSO HAVE TO PASS SOMETHING, UH, WITH SEVEN VOTES, NOT WITH SIX VOTES, UH, UNLESS WE DO IT ON, ON SEPARATE DAYS. SO I'VE ASKED THE CLERK TO SET A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON SATURDAY AND A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON MONDAY, UH, IN CASE WE'RE AT A SIX, FIVE PLACE. AND WE NEED THE, UH, THREE SEPARATE DAYS. UH, I HAVE THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYOR'S MEETING AND I'M MAKING A PRESENTATION FRIDAY MORNING. UH, AND MY PLAN HAD BEEN TO FLY OUT, UH, TO MIAMI ABOUT DINNER TIME. I'M NOW CHECKING ALL DIFFERENT ROUTES TO SEE IF THERE'S LIKE A RED EYE WAY THAT I COULD GET TO THE CONFERENCE, UH, IN THE, IN THE MORNING SO THAT I CAN BE HERE THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE EVENING, UH, IN CASE, UM, WELL, THE MEETING'S GONNA GO PAST SIX WOULD BE MY, MY GUESS UNDER ANY SCENARIO. I'M SORRY, MAYOR. I DIDN'T FOLLOW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. I THINK HE'S GONNA GO PAST SIX UNDER ANY SCENARIO. SO I'M, I'M CHECKING TO SEE IF I CAN EXTEND MY STAY ON THURSDAY TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE PAST SIX. GOTCHA. THE PRESENTATION IS FRIDAY MORNING, NOT SATURDAY MORNING. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE POTENTIALLY HAVING A FRIDAY MEETING. SO WE WE'RE POTENTIALLY HAVING IT. DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD TO EXTEND OVER TO FRIDAY IF WE TAKEN A VOTE TO IT'S IT'S THE SAME MEETING. SO THE, THE, THE, THE NEW SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS WILL BE NOTICED SATURDAY FOR SATURDAY AND MONDAY. THANK YOU. YES, I SAY, THANK YOU. UM, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT I'VE BEEN RAISED. I, I REALLY APPRECIATED OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE ADJOURNED AROUND 10, 10 30 AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT PRECEDENT OF ADJOURNING, UM, BEFORE 11, UH, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE TOPICS. I MEAN, ALL OF THE ITEMS WE CONSIDER ARE SUBSTANTIVE. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN JUST HAVE A CONSENSUS ON NOT GOING PAST 11, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF, UM, I ALSO APPRECIATE, UM, THE CONVERSATION AROUND, UM, HAVING TIME CERTAIN FOR ITEM CONSIDERATION. SO SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU LAID OUT, HAVING SPEAKERS IN THE MORNING, BUT SAYING, YOU KNOW, AT 4:00 PM, WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER THE POLICING ITEMS. THAT'S WHEN COUNCIL WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION, UH, AND TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE COMMUNICATING THAT WITH THE PUBLIC AND WITH THE INTEREST GROUPS SO THAT THEY KNOW, OKAY, THIS IS THE TIME THAT WE, UH, TENTATIVELY PLAN TO DISCUSS THE ITEM AND DELIBERATE. UM, AND THEN LAST THE, I DIDN'T, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT PEOPLE FLEW IN FOR THAT ITEM. UM, SO I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE PUBLIC, IF YOU DO HAVE STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE FLYING TO LET US KNOW IN ADVANCE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE ITEMS THAT IF WE WORK ON THEM TODAY, WE CAN GET VERY FAR. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH POSTPONING, PARKLAND, DEDICATION ANY FURTHER. WE, WE NEED TO GET THAT DONE FOR THE BUDGET. UM, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND WE CAN HAVE A LOT [00:15:01] OF THAT CONVERSATION TODAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME CONVERSATION AND THIS THE SAME CHALLENGES, UM, WITH THE MOTIONS, UM, AS BEFORE. SO I WANNA SAY THAT, I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS TOO, THAT WE CAN HAVE A LOT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATION THEY'VE BEEN ON OUR AGENDA, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE TIMES. UM, I'M NOT IN THE QUORUM THAT IS, UM, EITHER PUTTING FORWARD THE LICENSE PLATE READER OR WITH THE OTHER GROUP THAT WAS ON THE, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT PATH, BUT IF FOLKS HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE SUBSTANTIVE THINGS THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH, UM, TO SHARE TODAY, WE CAN GET A LOT OF THAT WORK DONE, UM, TODAY. UM, YOU KNOW WHAT VANESSA SAID ABOUT WAITING? UM, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER VOTED TO EXTEND PAST 10 O'CLOCK. I DON'T THINK WE MAKE GOOD DECISIONS AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME. UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW AVAILABLE I AM ON SATURDAY AND MONDAY, UM, TRAVELING AND, UM, NOT SURE WHETHER I WILL BE IN A POSITION TO GET ON THE VOTE. I WILL DO MY BEST IF I NEED TO, UM, BUT WANTED TO, WANTED TO FLAG THAT. UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE AGENDA TODAY, I JUST WANNA FLAG THAT. UM, I THINK WE NEED TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE STATESMAN POD TIMING, UM, AND WHEN WE TAKE THAT UP, UM, AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I THINK 47, WHICH IS APPOINTMENTS. THANKS. UM, AND THANK YOU, MAYOR PROTE FOR BRINGING UP THE LICENSE PLATE READER ITEM. WE HAVE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO A SECOND UPDATED VERSION, WHICH SHOULD BE POSTED TO THE MESSAGE BOARD TODAY. I'D BE HAPPY TO PASS OUT WHAT WE CAME UP WITH TODAY IN WORK SESSION. SO YOU ALL CAN REVIEW IT. AND THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE THE BULK OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY, INSTEAD OF CARRYING IT ON FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S NOT MY INTENTION TO CONTINUE TO POSTPONE. I THINK WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THE ABILITY THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ON WHERE WE LANDED. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MARY. I, I ALSO WAS SURPRISED THAT WE, UH, DIDN'T HAVE A MOTION TO GO PAST 10. I KNOW, UH, AS IT GETS INTO THE LATE HOURS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BED. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING OUR WORK FOR 12 HOURS AT THAT POINT. AND SO I JUST, UM, I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT OUR PRACTICE TO END AT 10, BUT I DO THINK THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP, NOT QUITE FOLLOWING ALONG, YOU KNOW, HOW DID WE GET TO A VOTE OR WHAT WAS DECIDED, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED? I THINK, I THINK IT'S IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST TO TRY TO DO THINGS WHILE WE ARE FRESH. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE STAFF THAT SHOWS UP EARLY IN THE MORNING TO GET READY FOR THE MEETINGS AND THEY MIGHT BE HERE TILL 10 OR 12 AT NIGHT. ALSO NOT KNOWING IF THEIR ITEMS ARE GONNA COME UP. SO I KNOW IT HASN'T BEEN OUR STANDARD PRACTICE TO ADJOURN AT 10, BUT I AM SUPPORTIVE OF US TRYING TO KEEP IT CLOSE TO A 12 HOUR MARK, JUST, UM, SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, WHERE WE LANDED AT THE END OF THE MEETINGS. I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, 10 O'CLOCK. I, I'M FINE WITH, YOU KNOW, LET'S FINISH WHATEVER WE'RE DEALING WITH AT, YOU KNOW, 10, BUT THIS KIND OF GOING TO ONE O'CLOCK TWO O'CLOCK. I, I DON'T THINK THAT GOOD DECISIONS ARE MADE. UH, I, I, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE NOT ONLY UP EARLY, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEETING DAYS THEY'VE OFTEN WORKED, YOU KNOW, REALLY LATE THE NIGHT BEFORE COUNCIL MEETING DAYS. SO, UH, I, I JUST, FOR MULTIPLE REASONS, UH, GENERAL RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC AND, AND GENERAL RESPECT FOR OUR WITNESSES AND, AND STAFF AND, AND, AND AGAIN, FOR OUR OWN DECISION MAKING, I, I WOULD SAY A HARD STOP, UH, AT, AT 10, AGAIN, WITH, YOU KNOW, CONTINUING JUST TO FINISH THAT ITEM OR MAYBE TO KNOCK OUT UP SOMETHING QUICKLY. UM, AND I, I WANTED TO, UM, SECOND, UH, THE MAYOR PROTE SUGGESTION ABOUT THE STATESMAN PUT, I THINK WE SHOULD GET SOME, SOME CLARITY ON, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THAT ITEM. AND, AND IF, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT SEEMS THAT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL IS TO CONTINUE IT TO THE 29TH. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS NOT GONNA BE, UH, OR TO CONTINUE IT FROM THE 15TH, I SHOULD SAY FROM THURSDAY, I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S ALSO NOT GONNA BE AVAILABLE, SO THAT PROBABLY WE SHOULD PROBABLY MAYBE HASH THAT OUT. SO WE CAN JUST GET THAT OFF THE TABLE SOONER THAN LATER, THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT, UH, IN LOGISTICS. AND I AGREE WITH, UH, THE MAYOR PRO TE THAT I THINK SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA BE AN AGREEMENT ON THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCES, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENTS ON THAT, UM, WHICH WILL JUST BE THE AMENDMENT TO, UM, UH, WHEN THE FORMULA GETS LOCKED INTO PLACE AND THE DIRECTION TO HAVE A, UH, STAKEHOLDER, UH, PROCESS, UH, UM, AND THEN TO, UH, ENLARGE FOR RESIDENTIAL, THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. UH, THERE MAY BE SOME CONVERSATION, UH, ABOUT SOME OF THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. MY RECOMMENDATION IN THE WAY I'LL VOTE ON [00:20:01] THAT WILL BE IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE ALL AGREE ON, WE CAN ADOPT 'EM OTHERWISE TO PUSH THEM INTO THAT, UH, ENGAGEMENT, UH, PROCESS TOGETHER WITH THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WANTED TO HELP AN AMENDMENT ARM, WE COULDN'T QUITE WORK OUT, WHICH IS, UH, WHEN THE FEE SHOULD BE PAID TO PUSH THAT, UH, UH, ISSUE INTO THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AS WELL. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE MAY NOT BE HAVING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON, ON THAT ISSUE ON THE, UM, UH, STATESMAN PUT CASE WHEN WE WERE THERE. UH, AT OUR LAST MEETING WE HAD, UH, TALKED ABOUT, UH, POSTPONING THAT TO THE 29TH. I THINK WE SHOULD STILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. IT'S GONNA REQUIRE US TO ACT ON THE 15TH. WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE APPLICANTS NOT ABLE TO BE THERE ON THE 15TH, WHICH IS WHY WE DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING OF PUSHING IT TO THE 29TH. UM, UH, I PERSONALLY LIKE YOUR IDEA OF TRYING TO COME UP WITH A, A BASE MOTION THAT TAKES, AGREED THINGS OFF THE TABLE, IF WE CAN AND HELPS US HAVING A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION ON THE 29TH. UH, BUT I WOULD ALSO JOIN IN, IN TAKING THAT ITEM BA BASICALLY, AND POSTPONING THAT, UH, INTO THE, THE, THE, THE 29TH ANNE. UM, I APOLOGIZE, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO, TO ASK YOU THIS BEFORE, BUT I'M, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE ALSO SHOULD POSTPONE THE ONE THAT'S RELATED TO, UH, I THINK IT'S ITEM 90. UH, THE ONE YOU BROUGHT I'M A CO-SPONSOR ON THAT ONE. UM, IT'S, IT'S A SEPARATE BUT PARALLEL ITEM TO THE PUN. AND SO IF IT, UM, I JUST DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE, UM, TO, TO DO THAT. SO IT ALSO GIVES TIME PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO, TO, TO THINK ABOUT IT. SO 90 IS THE ONE THAT, THAT, UM, UM, UM, CO-SPONSORS AND I HAVE BROUGHT TO, UH, UH, ASK THE STAFF WHEN THEY DO THE REGULATING PLAN WORK TO MAKE SURE THEY BRING US, UH, A REGULATING PLAN PROPOSAL THAT ACTUALLY HAS ENOUGH DENSITY TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO DO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, DISTRICT. YEAH. IT GIVES US SOME OPTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S WHY I SIGNED ON TO IT. SO, AND FOR THAT REASON, SINCE IT'S JUST OPTIONS IN TELLING HIM TO COME BACK TO STUFF, I WOULD BE READY TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT. OKAY. BUT I'M NOT ADVERSE IF PEOPLE, IF IT, IF, IF YOU KNOW, IT'S A CLOSED VOTE AND PEOPLE NEED MORE TIME. OKAY. AND WE COULD TALK TO STAFF, I KNOW THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT TO BE DONE BY THIS MEETING, CUZ THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE REGULATING PLAN GROUP THAT'S DOING WORK. YEAH. BUT IT'S ALSO A PULLED ITEM TODAY. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE HOW THAT CONVERSATION GOES. UM, AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL KNOW, WE'LL KNOW MORE. ALRIGHT. SO AT THIS POINT AND KIND OF THE DEFAULT IS TO JUST CALL ALL SPEAKERS AT 10 O'CLOCK, UH, AFTER, UM, UH, ZONING SPEAKERS AT TWO O'CLOCK, EVERYBODY HAS A MINUTE, UM, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE HANDLE THE THINGS THAT WERE POSTPONED FROM LAST WEEK. SO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE TIME TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THOSE, UH, BUT, UM, MIDDAY OR EARLY DAY, WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA TO GO THROUGH THE TIMING AND HOW MANY SPEAKERS, HOW MUCH TIME, UM, UM, UH, WE HAVE LEFT, UH, AFTER SPEAKERS SO WE CAN MAKE, UH, TOGETHER A GROUP DECISION ON HOW TO HANDLE THE REST OF THE DAY, BUT CLEARLY WITH THE GOAL OF, OF TRYING TO END THIS MEETING AND FUTURE MEETINGS, IF WE CAN, BY 10 O'CLOCK. UM, I BEG FOR EVERYBODY'S INDULGENCE WITH RESPECT TO HOW MUCH WE TALK WHEN WE TALK AND HOW MANY QUESTIONS WE ASK AND HOW MANY THINGS WE PURSUE. SO I, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, TRY TO, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE THOSE THINGS, UH, UH, OFF THE, UH, OFF THE DAYS. UM, AND, UM, UNLESS, UM, UH, PEOPLE WANNA SPEAK UP. OTHERWISE IT SOUNDS LIKE ON THE MEANING MANAGEMENT THAT, UH, THE STATESMAN PUT GETS POSTPONED TO THE 29TH. I SEE, UH, UH, ALLISON SHAKING YOUR HEAD. NOPE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. IN FACT, YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT AN HOUR IN MEETING MANAGEMENT PLACE? SURE. UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. WE DON'T HAVE A FULL DIAS ON THE 29TH AND I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE A FULL DIAS IF WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE STATESMAN PAD. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND THAT, BUT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER WHO'S GONE WEDNESDAY ON THE 29TH ON THE 29TH. UH, LESLIE I, SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THE POSTPONEMENT TO THE 29TH. I SUPPORT THE POSTPONING TO THE 29TH. DO WE KNOW WHO IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE 29TH? FROM THE DIAS ME, I, UM, WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN A, UH, TRIP TO, UM, TO LEARN ABOUT BIO PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN, IN THE NETHERLANDS. AND SO I WILL BE GONE ALL OF NEXT WEEK. OKAY. [00:25:01] THAT, AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT TO BE REMOTELY PARTICIPATING, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. UM, OKAY, THANKS. IT'S GONNA BE SECOND READING. UH, NOT FINAL READING ON IT. SO, UH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE POSTPONEMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WHILE WE HAD THE PEOPLE IN FROM CHICAGO AND THE LIKE, UH, SO IF THERE HAD BEEN RESISTANCE TO THAT, I WOULD'VE HOPED THAT IT WOULD'VE COME UP. THEN MAYOR, MAYOR, WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. THERE WAS PEOPLE WHO CAME UP TO THE DIAS AFTER WE ADJOURNED AS A COUNCIL, WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIVELY WHAT WE WERE, WHAT WE WERE CLEARLY. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION, KNOW IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO I MEAN, HOW WE GONNA TAKE UP SOMETHING AS BIG AS THE STATESMAN, WITHOUT A FULL DIAS, EVEN IF IT'S STUCK IN READING. AND I HEAR THAT PROBLEMATIC. I'M NOT SAYING IT AS, SO THERE, BUT YOU MIGHT BE SO CUT ME OFF WHEN I WAS TRYING TO, TO TALK AND, AND THEN THAT'S OKAY. UM, AS I WAS SAYING, UH, I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THAT TO COME UP, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE HAD THE LAST MEETING, I UNDERSTAND IT DIDN'T BECAUSE WE WERE ANTICIPATING HAVING THE BROADER CONVERSATION ON THE POSTPONEMENT. UH, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S CRITICALLY UNFAIR TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION NEXT WEEK WHEN THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE TO PARTICIPATE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO VOTE ON SECOND READING WITHOUT HAVING THE APPLICANT HERE TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF, UM, UH, IF THERE'S TIME AND PEOPLE WANT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER ON THURSDAY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM, UH, TRYING TO PUT IT TO, UH, TO A VOTE ON THURSDAY. SO I'LL BE VOTING FOR US, US NOT TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT. UH, MATTER, WE CAN'T DECIDE THAT QUESTION TODAY. IF OTHER PEOPLE WANNA SAY THINGS ABOUT IT, LET'S LET PEOPLE SAY THINGS ABOUT IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T VOTE ON THAT TODAY, BUT WE'LL CALL THAT UP EARLY ENOUGH, UH, UH, ON THURSDAY TO MAKE A DECISION SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PLAN THEIR THEIR DAY. KATHY MI, I WANNA UNDERSCORE SOMETHING THAT THE MAYOR PRO TIM SAID, WE HAD A DIS WE DIDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS BEING POSTPONED. IT WASN'T CLEAR. AND IT'S STILL NOT CLEAR THOUGH. I ASKED THE APPLICANT, IF HE'S AVAILABLE THURSDAY, I HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT HE'S NOT AVAILABLE THURSDAY. UM, BUT JUST THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, I HAVEN'T CONFIRMED THAT. AND SO THAT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T APPARENT. NUMBER ONE, I, I TOO, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES HAD NO IDEA. THERE WERE PEOPLE FROM CHICAGO THAT WAS, THAT WAS NOT INFORMATION SHARED. THERE WAS NOT INFORMATION SHARED THAT THE APPLICANTS, UH, REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT AVAILABLE THIS THURSDAY, NOR DID WE HAVE A, A DIAS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO IS GONNA BE AVAILABLE ON THE 29TH OR WHEN THOSE ITEMS THAT WE DIDN'T VOTE ON AT THE LAST MEETING WERE POSTPONED TO. SO, I MEAN, WE'RE ALL, WE WERE ALL OPERATING WITH ZERO INFORMATION. AND SO THAT BEING SAID, I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, ON BOARD WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT MAYOR PROAM EXPRESS. THIS IS A, A HUGE, HUGE PROJECT, UM, IN MY DISTRICT, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS, IS GOING TO BE TRANSFORMATIVE FOR THAT AREA. AND I THINK WE NEED A FULL DIAS ON EVERY READING AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT ABSOLUTELY FROM THIS WEEK. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT WHEN, WHEN WE'RE ALL HERE, MAN. YES, GUYS, WRITE THIS. THANK YOU. AND I, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. CERTAINLY I'M EXCITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS URBAN MOBILITY STUDY TOUR, THE NETHERLANDS, BUT, UM, I, YOU KNOW, IF THE CONVERSATION NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE ON SECOND READING WITHOUT ME, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THIRD READING. UM, I HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE SHARED WHAT MY PRIORITIES ARE. I OFFERED AN AMENDMENT LAST WORK SESSION THAT COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING. SO I JUST DON'T WANNA DERAIL THE CONVERSATION ON THE STATE'S BEEN PUT ON THE ACCOUNT OF ME NOT BEING THERE. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO ABSENT, ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S HOW WE'LL APPROACH, UH, THE LOGISTICS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY. AND I, I ALSO SUPPORT, UH, POSTPONING IT UNTIL THE WEEK AFTER THAT TWO WEEKS LATER ON THE 29TH, UH, I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION WHEN I KNOW THE OCCUPANT IS NOT GONNA BE HERE. OKAY, PAIGE, I WILL ALSO SUPPORT POSTPONING UNTIL THE 29TH, KATHY. I WOULD JUST ASK FOR THE SAME COURTESY THAT I THINK I'VE AFFORDED ALL OF YOU WHEN YOU'VE HAD A, A LARGE CASE IN YOUR DISTRICT AND REQUESTED ALL PARTICIPANTS THERE. AND, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, BUT YOU'RE A MEMBER OF MY SUBRU AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR INSIGHT BEING PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF, OF OUR ABILITY TO TALK THROUGH THE VARIOUS OPTIONS. WE HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED. ONE IS THE OPTION THAT WE PASSED ON FIRST READING. THE OTHER IS THE ONE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER VE BRING IS BRINGING FORWARD, WHICH, UM, HAS SOME VERY DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING BENEFITS AMONG OTHERS. AND SO I THINK, I THINK THE CONVERSATION IS, [00:30:01] IS ONE THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE. AND I THINK IT IS A PROJECT THAT, THAT WARRANTS THE TIME. OKAY, ANNE, UM, I WILL SUPPORT A POST MOMENT TO THE 29TH. UM, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT UP THIS THURSDAY, SO OKAY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEE, AND I THINK THAT WE GOT CONSENSUS ON THAT. SO WHAT I WAS SAYING, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR PROTE SUGGESTED IS THE DATE AFTER THE 29TH, SO THAT WE HAVE A FULL DIAS. WELL, AT THIS POINT, I, I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO THAT, THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER TO SEE. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY. AND SO I'M A BIT TORN BECAUSE I'M ALSO HEARING FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES THAT SHE'S EXPRESSED HER, HER, UM, OPINION. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO TELL HER SHE HAS TO BE THERE, BUT AT THIS POINT I THINK LET'S DEAL WITH THAT. UM, WITH THAT LATER, UM, I, I RESPECT, I, I RESPECT THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS IS A MAJOR, MAJOR, UM, PUT IN YOUR DISTRICT. UM, BUT IT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE CITY. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO, UM, I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO RESPECT EACH OTHER'S POINTS OF VIEW. OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON FROM MEETING MANAGEMENT, UH, TO, UM, TO, UH, PULL THE ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION, BOTH YOU AND I PULLED, UH, THOSE ITEMS. UM, ALISON, YOU WANNA, YES. OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD, NATASHA. THANK YOU. BEFORE I APPRECIATE IT. BEFORE WE MOVE ON. UM, I, I, I WANTED TO WEIGH IN, I'M ALSO OUT OF TOWN ON THE 29TH. OKAY. SO SUBSEQUENTLY I WOULD SUPPORT, UH, VANESSA'S MOTION TO, TO POSTPONE THE ITEM TO THE FOLLOWING MEETING IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, VERY GRACIOUSLY SAID THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITHOUT HER. AND SO IT WAS AN, IT WAS A, UM, SUGGESTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO 10 THAT I AFFIRMED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE CAN'T DECIDE THAT QUESTION, BUT IT'LL BE AMONG THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE DISCUSS, UH, ON THURSDAY, SO THAT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION ON THAT, UH, ISSUE. SO PEOPLE CAN PLAN THEIR DAY. LET'S GO AHEAD TO PULLED ITEMS, [53. Approve an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 25-1 relating to residential and commercial parkland dedication regulations, waiving the requirements of City Code Sections 25-1-501 (Initiation of Amendment) and 25-1-502 (Amendment; Review) related to Planning Commission review and public hearing requirements and providing direction regarding administrative rules implementing parkland dedication Code regulations. ] PARKLAND, DEDICATION, UM, ALISON, YOU WANNA START US OFF. UM, SO I, I HOPE THAT, UM, WE WILL, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, WITH THE COMMERCIAL ADOPTING THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, UM, AND TO, UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE US, UM, MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, A SMALL FEE INCREASE, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL AND PASSED OUT AN AMENDMENT, UM, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 59, UM, THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA RELATED TO PARKLAND DEDICATION. 53 IS THE FULL, UM, ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES FOR COMMERCIAL IN IT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS PUT FORWARD AS AN IFFC, SO WE COULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE, UM, CHANGES. THEN WE HAVE 59, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ADOPTING THE FEE. THERE ARE TWO EXHIBITS THERE THERE'S EXHIBIT ONE AND EXHIBIT TWO EXHIBIT ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE RESIDENTIAL FEE EXHIBIT TWO HAS TO DO WITH THE COMMERCIAL FEE. UM, AND THEN, UM, WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S 66 AND 67. UH, ONE OF THOSE IS THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND THE HEARING, THE OTHER IS A HEARING FOR RESIDENTIAL, UM, SO THAT WE CAN BE IN LINE WITH THE CODE, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE NEEDED TO POSTPONE IT LAST TIME. UM, SO MAYOR, I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE WHERE YOUR MOTIONS ARE AT. I JUST PASSED OUT A MOTION, MY RECOMMENDATION WITH WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, UM, WITH THE FEE INCREASE. UM, AND I CAN, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I'M WONDERING MAYOR, IF WE SHOULD GET CLARITY ON WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING FIRST, BECAUSE THAT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW WE PROCEED. SO THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US CONCERNING PARKLAND. THERE'S THE, UH, UH, FIRST ITEM THAT IS THE ORDINANCE THAT ONLY ADDRESSES COMMERCIAL. UH, AND THEN WE, UH, HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT, UH, ADDRESSES BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. UH, IN THAT RESPECT, WE ONLY NEED TO MAKE CHANGES [00:35:01] TO COMMERCIAL. IN ONE OF THE TWO PLACES. WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEM BOTH. UM, ALTHOUGH WE COULD CERTAINLY MAKE CHANGES TO THEM BOTH SO LONG AS THEY'RE IDENTICAL CHANGES. UH, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD IN FRONT OF US, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND, AND COMMERCIAL THERE I'VE HANDED OUT. UH, AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, ALLISON, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, A MOTION SHEET, NUMBER ONE THAT TALKS TO FEE CALCULATION, AND IT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE FEE IS TO BE CALCULATED. UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO APPLY TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. UH, AND IT COULD BE AN AMENDMENT THAT'S PUT, I THINK IN EITHER ONE OF THE TWO OR IN BOTH SO LONG AS IT'S, UH, UH, IDENTICAL, UH, BUT IT SPEAKS TO THE FEE CALCULATION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S SUPPORTED BY STAFF AND, UM, UH, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANY CONTROVERSY ON THAT. THE SECOND ONE. YEAH, GO AHEAD. JUST BEFORE WE LEAVE ON THAT, UM, AT SOME POINT LAW WILL NEED TO CLARIFY, BELIEVE WE HAVE TO CHANGE SOME WORDING TO MAKE SURE IT'S REALLY THE FORMAL SUBMISSION. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU PUT ONE TINY PIECE OF PAPER IN AND IT'S SUBMITTED, BUT LIKE YOU'VE ACTUALLY FORMALLY SUBMITTED YOUR APPLICATION AND THERE MAY BE SOME WORDING UNLESS THAT'S ALREADY CAPTURED IN HERE, DAWN, I WANT TO TRACK WHATEVER THE FORMAL PROCEDURE IS FOR, FOR, FOR OTHER KINDS OF SITUATIONS. I DON'T WANNA CREATE A NEW STANDARD, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COURTS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN AN APPLICATION CONSTITUTES AN APPLICATION. AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THOSE, THAT LAW APPLIES HERE TOO. I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A NEW STANDARD. AND THEN CERTAINLY IF LEGAL THINKS THERE'S WORDS WE HAVE TO ADD TO DO THAT, WE, WE CAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO LONG AS WE'RE NOT CREATING A NEW STANDARD, IS LEGAL PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THAT YET? OR DO YOU WANNA TELL US ON THURSDAY THE RIGHT WORDING? I THINK ON THURSDAY, WE'LL NEED TO DO THAT. I BELIEVE THAT, UH, OUR LAWYER, ERIC LOPEZ IS WORKING ON THAT FROM LAST MEETING. OKAY, GREAT. AND, AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY IT'S JUST SO THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU CAN'T PUT LIKE A TINY PIECE OF PAPER IN AND SAY YOU'VE SUBMITTED IT AND THEN HAVE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR FEE ASSESSMENT LOCKED IN. THERE IS A TIME AT WHICH YOU'RE CONSIDERED FORMALLY SUBMITTED. AND WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE, UM, APPLIES AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN ON BOTH RELATIONSHIPS. AND, AND I JOIN YOU ON THAT. I THINK THE LEGAL STANDARD RIGHT NOW UNDER TEXAS LAW IS SOMETHING LIKE FAIR NOTICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND WHATEVER THAT STANDARD IS THAT APPLIES IN CHAPTER 2 45 ISSUES, OR THIS JUST NEEDS TO BE THE STANDARD THAT APPLIES HERE. BUT I AGREE, AND IT'D BE GREAT IF LEGAL COULD COME BACK TO US TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED LAW. YES, YOU HAVE MARY AND I, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THAT HOW I REALLY, UH, MY POSITION IS THAT I, I REALLY DON'T REALLY SUPPORT RAISING ANY KIND OF FEED ON HOUSING. WE'RE IN A REALLY, UH, CRISIS HERE IN AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, AND THE, UH, WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO AFFORD TO RENT ANYMORE APARTMENTS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST. AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE KEEP CONTINUE TO ASK US WHY IS THESE PRICES KEEP GOING UP? AND WE DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THE FACT THAT IT'S THESE FEEDS THAT WE'RE PUTTING, ATTACKING ONTO THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BUILDING THESE APARTMENTS. AND ALL IT'S DOING IS MAKING THEM MAKE THE PRICES GO UP. AND WE'RE DISPLACING A LOT OF LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE INCOME PEOPLE THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE IN AUSTIN. AND I KNOW THE ARGUMENT THAT, UH, WELL, WE NEED PARK LAND SO THAT THEY COULD COME IN FROM OUT OF TOWN SO THEY CAN ENJOY IT, YOU KNOW? AND IT'S THE REASON WHY THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, BUT WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE FEED TO INCREASE IT SO THEY CAN COME DOWN HERE AND ENJOY IT DURING THE WEEKENDS. AND I JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. GOOD POINT. THERE ARE FOUR ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO PARKLAND THAT ARE GONNA BE IN FRONT OF US. ONE IS THE ONE IS SETTING THE FEE ITSELF FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND FOR IF IT PASSES AND RESIDENTIAL THAT'S ONE, UM, LET'S GET TO THAT DISCUSSION IN A SECOND. THERE ARE THREE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER. THE FIRST ONE IS THE AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO HOW FEES ARE CALCULATED. THAT'S THE ONE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT HERE. WE'LL WAIT TO SEE IF LEGAL THINKS THERE'S ANY MORE WORDING WE NEED TO, TO, TO, TO PUT, UH, PUT INTO THAT. THE SECOND ONE, UM, ALLISON WAS THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENT, UH, THAT YOU'VE ALL SEEN. IT JUST BASICALLY SAYS THAT, UH, EXEMPT FROM THE FEE RIGHT NOW, IT HAS LIKE SMART HOUSING. I THINK THIS MAKES IT, UH, MORE BROAD TO CAPTURE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT AMENDMENT WOULD JUST BE RELEVANT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION. AND THEN THE LAST ONE THAT I'VE HANDED OUT IS THE ONE THAT HAS THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT SETS UP A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, UH, TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL IN THE SPRING, UH, AND THAT NEEDS TO RELATE TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL [00:40:01] AND TO COMMERCIAL. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE THREE AMENDMENTS, UM, UH, MAYOR PROTEM THAT, THAT I WOULD BE BRINGING. THANK YOU. SO, UM, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FEE COLLECTION ANYMORE. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FEE COLLECTION AS AN AMENDMENT. UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE HOPE GETS CONSIDERED IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. UM, SO A COUPLE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SHARE, SO, UM, I'M SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT FOR THE FEE CALCULATION, UM, BUT IT DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FEES THAT WILL BE, UM, ASSESSED AND HOW MUCH WE WILL TAKE IN, IN TERMS OF REVENUE. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, IF PAR CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T, I DIDN'T ASK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE SPECIFIC COSTS OF MOVING TO THIS AMENDMENT. UM, IT, IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. IT WILL PROVIDE A LARGE AMOUNT OF CERTAINTY TO OUR DEVELOPERS, UM, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL. UM, AND SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF IT, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT DOES REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES THAT WILL BE COMING IN WHEN THEY'RE, WHEN THEY HAVE TO OPT, UM, FOR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND. UM, AND THAT IS TRUE FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF PART CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, AND IF THIS IS RELEVANT, AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE SETTING THE FEES, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY A, A SUBSTANTIVE AND IMPORTANT BIG CHANGE THAT DELIVERS SOMETHING TO THE DEVELOPERS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR. UM, BUT IT DOES HAVE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF WHAT, WHAT WE WILL SEE, UM, IN TERMS OF RECEIPTS, WHICH I THINK MATTERS FOR THE FEES. SO, UM, IF PART COULD SPEAK TO ANY ELEMENTS OF THAT, THAT YOU THINK ARE RELEVANT AS WE CONSIDER, UM, HOW MUCH TO RAISE THE FEES. GOOD MORNING, LEANNA CALCA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PARKS INTEGRATION DEPARTMENT. AND THANK YOU FOR THIS DISCUSSION. AND I WANT TO MENTION THAT THE ENTIRE, UM, PLD TEAM IS HERE TO HELP WITH THOSE, UM, ANSWERS. UM, I WILL TURN THE, UH, QUESTION TO RANDY, BUT, UH, UH, AS FAR AS ASSESSING THE FEES AT THE BEGINNING OF, UH, WHEN THE, UH, SITE PLAN, UH, IS SUBMITTED, THAT DOES NOT HAVE, UM, A COST FOR, FOR US. AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WELCOME BECAUSE IT CREATES THE CERTAINTY, UM, FOR THE DEVELOPERS. AND IT ALSO ALLEVIATES THE MAD DASH WHEN THERE IS A, UM, A CHANGE OF THE YEAR FOR, UM, FOR, FOR REVIEWS. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WASN'T SUGGESTING IT HAD A, A, UM, A COST IN TERMS OF PARTS TIME. IT DOES AFFECT THOUGH WHAT YOU TAKE IN, IN TERMS OF MONEY, UM, FOR THE FEES. AND THAT WAS WHAT, AND I DIDN'T ASK YOU IN ADVANCE, SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE A CALCULATION, UM, BUT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHANGE, UM, IT, SO THAT IT'S ASSESSED AT ASSESSMENT, AND THEN IT TAKES THREE YEARS OR A YEAR AND A HALF TILL YOU GET YOUR SITE PLAN APPROVED, YOU'RE USING A DIFFERENT FEE. UM, WHEN YOU PAY AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL, MM-HMM . UM, SO THAT MEANS YOU'RE TAKING IN LESS MONEY. AND SO PROJECTS EVEN THAT ARE UNDERWAY NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY NEXT YEAR, WE INCREASE THE FEE, THEY COULD BE PAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR'S FISCAL YEAR, 20 TWOS FEE. UM, AND YET, YOU KNOW, SO, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING FURTHER OUT OF SYNC, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE TAKING IN FROM WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU'RE ASSESSING IT. UM, AND THAT WAS WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FREEZING THE FEES, IF YOU WANNA ACTUALLY FREEZE THEM AND HAVE 'EM BE, OR YOU'RE NOT FREE, IF YOU WANNA KEEP THEM, YOU STILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BALANCE, THAT WE'RE LOSING SOMETHING, WHICH I THINK IS SUGGESTS THAT WE NEED TO RAISE THEM SOMEWHAT. OBVIOUSLY I HAVE NEVER BEEN ADVOCATING THAT WE DOUBLE THEM AGAIN. SO, UM, PERHAPS, UH, RANDY OR SOMEONE ON THE TEAM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. GOOD MORNING. UM, RANDY SCOTT PARKS AND RECREATION APARTMENT, WE DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR THE, THE IMPACT, BUT PART IS SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THE AMENDMENT. UM, LAST YEAR, SEPTEMBER, BEFORE OCTOBER ROLLED AROUND, WE PROCESSED, UH, AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SITE PLANS AND, AND SUBDIVISIONS TRYING TO GET THEIR FEES IN BEFORE THE FEES WENT UP. UM, THERE IS A, A FINANCIAL IMPACT, BUT, UM, I THINK IT ALSO, UH, IS, UH, GOOD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. I GIVES THEM CERTAINTY WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR SITE PLANS AND WHAT THE FEES WILL BE. SO, OR WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AMENDMENT. AGAIN, I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE AMENDMENT. [00:45:01] WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS AS WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING, AND WE ASSESS THE FEES, UM, IF WE ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT OBJECTING TO THE AMENDMENT. IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE FEES, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE ASSESS THE FEE AND DETERMINE WHERE BETWEEN 0% AND 25% WE NEED TO GO. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM YOU. AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'VE NEVER BEEN QUESTIONING WHETHER THIS MAY FOR, FOR FOLKS IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THINGS AND THE CERTAINTY, UM, BUT IT HAS A FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCE. AND FOR ME, PART OF WHAT I'VE BEEN WANTING TO DO THIS WHOLE TIME IS MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SIMILAR OR MORE RESOURCES FOR PARKS, UM, TO MAINTAIN QUALITY OF LIFE. AND IF THAT IS YOUR GOAL, AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING IT, THEN YOU NEED TO, TO AFFECT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE FEES THERE PRO WE CAN PROVIDE THAT NUMBER OKAY. FOR THURSDAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO, UM, WHAT I'M PROPOSING WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE FEES IS I PASSED OUT A SHEET. UM, AND SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS FOR EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL, I AM PROPOSING, ESSENTIALLY THAT WE INCREASE, UM, THE FEE BY 25% IN ORDER TO DO THAT. WHAT YOU CHANGE IS THE LAND COST FACTOR THAT YOU ARE ASSUMING, UM, TO GENERATE THE FEE, UM, THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY. UM, SO BE 25% ABOVE WHAT WE HAD FROM FISCAL YEAR 22. UM, AND THEN I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE ADOPT THE COMMERCIAL FEE IN LIE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN EXHIBIT TWO. UM, AND WHAT THIS DOES, THIS APPROACH ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RISING LAND PRICES MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY TO ACQUIRE PARKLAND WHILE STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN THE AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTING NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UM, ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT RATES BETWEEN THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE CITY'S GOAL OF CREATING MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL, UM, DEVELOPMENT. YES, I MACKENZIE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. MAYOR PRO TIM, AND, AND I APPRECIATE US HAVING PARKLAND, BUT TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RENTER RIO SAID. I THINK THAT IT'S BECOME INCREASINGLY UNAFFORDABLE IN OUR CITY AND AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE NEED TO USE EVERY TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX TO HELP MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN, AS A RENTER MYSELF, I HAVE A LOT OF HEARTBURN HAVE A LOT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT RAISING FEES, KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PASSED DOWN FROM DEVELOPERS TO INDIVIDUALS, EITHER PURCHASING OR ARE EVEN JUST TRYING TO STAY HERE. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, NATASHA, I APPRECIATE IT. UM, I'LL START BY SAYING HAPPY HAND DAY TO EVERYBODY. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK MAY HAVE PRETEND REALLY LAID OUT, EXCUSE ME, UH, THE CONCERNS THAT SHE HAS ABOUT FEE INCREASES IN A WAY THAT I REALLY DON'T HAVE TO SAY A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. SO MOST OF, OF WHAT I'LL SAY NOW IS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE GENERAL REPUBLIC WATCHING, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN HAS SOME OF THE HIGHEST PER UNIT DEVELOPMENT FEES IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, UM, OUR EXISTING DEDICATION FEE BALANCED COUPLED WITH BOND RESOURCES, LEAVE US IN A REALLY GOOD POSITION TO CONTINUE TO EXECUTE ON OUR OBLIGATIONS AS A MUNICIPALITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPEN SPACE, UH, FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO ENJOY. SO, UM, I LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT OUR SITE PLAN PROCESS LITERALLY TAKES YEARS, UM, YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY HERE IN THE SAME STUFF THAT I AM, BUT IN TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS THIS WEEK, WE TALKED ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY STALLED OR ABANDONED, FRANKLY, BECAUSE COST CHANGES. UM, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, THE WAY THAT RANDY LAID OUT THAT COMMENTARY AND PREDICTABILITY. UM, THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT AND WHAT TO ANTICIPATE. AND SO, UM, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEKEND AND THEY REALLY DIDN'T GET THAT COMPONENT. UM, SO THAT SAID, I, I APPRECIATE THE MAYOR REALLY INCORPORATE IN THE SECOND PART OF MY BUDGET AMENDMENT INTO HIS MOTION, UM, FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES, UM, THE AUSTIN HOUSING WORKS AND, UH, AUSTIN HOUSING COALITION, UM, THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE OF NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE REALLY COMMITTED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING THEIR EXPRESSED SUPPORT, I THINK REALLY TELLS US A LOT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE POINT THAT WAS MADE. YEAH, MULTIPLE TIMES IN RENTER COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, UM, THAT FEE HAS [00:50:01] TO GO SOMEWHERE AND IT, AND IT DOES COME DOWN TO THE BUYER OR THE RENTER AND, UH, TO COUNCIL MEMBER RENTER'S POINT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY FOR RENTERS. YOU KNOW, I REALLY HOPE THAT MOVING FORWARD, WE REALLY DO START THINKING MORE ABOUT HOW WE CAN BUILD IN MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THE OVER 50% OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. UM, THE, THE RENTERS. UM, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE SOMETIMES MISS WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE KINDS OF, UH, LIKE FEE ASSESSMENTS. UM, SO I, I THINK IF WE'RE COMMITTED TO AFFORDABILITY, WHICH I KNOW WE ARE, WE, WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO AND WORK ALONGSIDE THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON A SOLUTION THAT WORKS BEST FOR HOUSING AND REALLY BEAUTIFUL, COMPREHENSIVE PARK SYSTEMS. UM, SO, UH, THANKS FOR THE TIME, UH, TO HEAR ME OUT. AND I REALLY HOPE THAT THE COMMUNITY, THIS IS AN INVITATION FOR MORE CONSTITUENTS TO ASK ME SOME QUESTIONS LIKE THE ONES I RECEIVED OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEKEND. I THINK THAT PERSON BEING ABLE TO TAKE THAT INFORMATION BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE WAS REALLY VERY HELPFUL FOR THEIR ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONVERSATION. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT IS KIND OF WONKY WHEN YOU START TRYING TO BREAK DOWN FOR PEOPLE EXACTLY HOW WE ASSESS FEES AND FORMULAS, AND BE ABLE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK MAYBE WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WE ASSESS FEES. IT'S BEEN SORT OF PROBLEMATIC IN MY MIND'S EYE, BUT FOR NOW THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. UM, SO I, I LOVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. YES, LESLIE. THANKS. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I, I'VE BEEN HEARING THE, UM, IT RAISES THE COST OF THE RENT OR THE PURCHASE OF THE HOME FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. THAT IS A STANDARD ARGUMENT AGAINST HAVING A PARKLAND DEDICATION, GET BRINGING IN ENOUGH MONEY SO THAT WE CAN BUY THE LAND AND MAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR, OUR CITY PARKS. THE PROBLEM IS NOBODY EVER GIVES US ANY REAL GUARANTEES THAT IN FACT, IF WE DON'T RAISE THESE FEES, THEY WON'T RAISE THE RENTS OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. THEY'RE LOOKING BECAUSE OF THE TIME LAG NOW AT THE TIME THAT ARGUMENT IS MADE. YEAH, THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE COST IS, BUT THAT IS ALSO THE TIME WHEN YOU CAN FACTOR IN THE PREDICTABILITY OF A FEE, HOWEVER, WHATEVER LEVEL IT IS THAT WE SET IT AT. SO I, I, I MUST SAY THAT AFTER LISTENING FOR EIGHT YEARS FROM ALMOST FROM THE DI ABOUT THESE REPEATED ARGUMENTS, I HAVE TO SAY, I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANY GUARANTEE FROM ANY APPLICANT THAT IN FACT THEY WILL KEEP THEIR RENTS LOW. AND, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK, IS EVEN EXEMPTED FROM THESE FEES. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? MARI PRO TOWN. YES. YES. THIS IS KEY RIGHT HERE, UH, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MARKET RATE RENTS AND PURCHASE PRICES. SO I JUST, UM, SO I PUT THAT OUT THERE. UM, AND IF SOMEONE HAS SOME CONCRETE EVIDENCE OR SOME REAL GUARANTEE, UH, FROM DEVELOPERS AND APPLICANTS THAT THEY IN FACT DID NOT RAISE THEIR RENTS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHARGED TO HIRE FEE. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THAT, BUT THAT PARTICULAR FACT IS EXPLICITLY ABSENT. SO I, I, THAT ARGUMENT FALLS FLAT FALLS FLAT FOR ME. I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A COMPROMISE IN HERE BETWEEN THE ZERO AND THE 25%. AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IF THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO CAN WORK TO FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND TO PRESENT TO US. THANKS. I SEE. YES, VANESSA. THANK YOU. I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF COULD PULL UP, THERE'S A MAP THAT I WANNA SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. IT IS THE POPULATION GROWTH MAP THAT SHOWS, UM, THE PARKLAND DEFICIENT AREAS. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE BACKUP WITH THE ITEM AT OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING POPULATION FORECAST PARK DEFICIENCY, WHERE IT SHOWS THE AREAS WITH POPULATION GROWTH AT 50% OR MORE BY 2040. UH, WE CAN PULL THAT UP JUST ONE MOMENT WHILE WE FIND IT. THANK YOU. YEAH. YOU KNOW, UM, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF, OF THE EAST SIDE, PARTICULARLY SOUTHEAST, WHEN I THINK OF THIS POLICY AND I SEE THAT THE FEES FROM THIS POLICY ARE GOING TO BENEFIT OUR EASTERN COMMUNITIES. UM, CERTAINLY I, IT MAKES ME REALIZE HOW NUANCE THIS CONVERSATION IS. UH, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO HAVE THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO HAVE EVEN MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS. BUT KNOWING THAT SO MUCH OF THE FEES, UH, THE FEES FROM THIS ORDINANCE, UH, GO TO PARKS ON THE EAST SIDE, YOU [00:55:01] KNOW, SO YOU HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, NUANCE IN OUR APPROACH. AND SO I APPRECIATE MARY PER PRETEND THAT YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE FULL FEE, UH, CALCULATION THAT WAS SET UP FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, YOU HAVE OFFERED A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPROMISE HERE WITH A 25% PROPOSAL, UM, RATHER THAN THE FULL, UH, DOUBLING OF THE FEE. UM, AND SO I WAS WONDERING MAYOR, PRETEND IF YOU COULD TALK US THROUGH, UM, HOW YOU ARRIVED TO THAT 25% AND WHY THAT NUMBER IS IMPORTANT. SURE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE, UM, APPRECIATE YOUR OBSERVATIONS. IT IS REALLY, UM, IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION IS TIED TO WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING, AND IT'S A TOOL THAT WE HAVE TO AVOID THE MISTAKES THAT WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST, WHERE WE HAVEN'T PROVIDED, UM, PARKS, WHERE WE'VE DEVELOPED AND, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S SUCH A NEED, UM, IN, IN SOME PLACES OF OUR COMMUNITY. UM, SO THE WAY THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THE FEES IS THAT, UM, WHEN WE MOVE TO THE FORMULA IN 2016, UM, THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED, UM, WE DID SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, WHICH IS THAT WE TIED THE FEES TO THE COST OF LAND FOR US TO PURCHASE PARKLAND. SO WHEN WE TIED IT TO THE COST OF LAND FOR US TO PURCHASE FOR PARKLAND, WE INCORPORATED A FIVE YEAR AVERAGE OF LAND THAT IS IN THERE, UM, TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE PAID FOR PARKS. UM, AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING IN IS SOMEHOW TIED TO WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE, WHICH IS PARKS. WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER TIME IS THE COST OF LAND IN AUSTIN HAS GONE UP AND THE COST OF LAND HAS GONE UP, NOT JUST FOR DEVELOPERS, BUT IT'S ALSO GONE UP FOR THE CITY WHEN WE TRIED TO PURCHASE, UH, PARK LAND, UM, WITH THE PANDEMIC, WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. AND THE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE HERE IN AUSTIN, THAT COST OF LAND HAS GONE UP FASTER THAN WE LIKELY ANTICIPATED. IT WOULD. UM, AND IT'S GONE UP AT A RATE THAT HAS MADE THE FEE DOUBLE, UM, LAST YEAR, AND THEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN DOUBLING MORE AGAIN, THIS YEAR, I LOOK AT THE FORMULA AND THE FORMULA IS TELLING US THIS IS WHAT WE COULD CHARGE. SO IT PROVIDES THE NEXUS. IT SAYS THAT, UM, IF WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN PARK, UM, ACCESS AT THE SAME RATE THAT WE HAVE IT, THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO CHARGE AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPERS SO THAT WE COULD TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR NEW RESIDENTS AND OUR EXISTING RESIDENTS HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO PARKLAND. I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS AS THAT IS ALL TRUE. THAT IS THE MAXIMUM, BUT WE HAVE DOUBLED THE RATE OF LAND, THE, THE COST OF LAND. UM, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S TOO MUCH FOR OUR DEVELOPER TO ABSORB IN ONE YEAR, BUT IT STILL MEANS THAT THE COST OF LAND IS INCREASING. AND IF WE FREEZE IT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO PARK LAND. WHEREAS IF WE GO UP A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, THEN WE'RE AT LEAST MOVING TOWARDS THAT. UM, I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I PICKED 25% BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS, UM, A REASONABLE AMOUNT TO INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR, GIVEN THAT THE COST OF LAND WAS MORE THAN DOUBLING. UM, SINCE YOU INVITED ME TO SPEAK, I'LL SAY ONE MORE THING ON THIS, WHICH IS NOT ON YOUR, ON YOUR ANSWER. UM, BUT THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, IN FISCAL YEAR 22, THE COST OF LAND THAT'S BEING USED IN THAT CALCULATION IS $166,000 PER ACRE. THE ONLY LAND YOU CAN BUY FOR $166,000 IN AUSTIN IS NOT AN ACRE. AND IT IS VERY LIKELY A FLOOD PLANE AND OTHER THINGS. AND WE REALLY NEED TO PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH PARKLAND THAT CAN BE USABLE. THE FORMULA THAT WE WOULD USE IF WE WERE USING THE NUMBERS UNDER FISCAL YEAR 23 IS 366,000 PER ACRE. AND AGAIN, YOU CANNOT BUY LAND. THAT'S USABLE AND GOOD FOR 366,000 PER ACRE. UM, AND SO I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP MOVING THAT UP. HOPEFULLY THE COST OF LAND WILL NOT BE, KEEP GOING UP AT THE RATE. IT IS ON THAT. EVENTUALLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO, TO, TO CATCH UP IF WE, IF WE MAKE MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE I GOT THAT. AND THAT WAS A LONG ANSWER TO YOUR, TO YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE I'M THINKING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, IF WE DIDN'T, IF, UM, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE ORDINANCE SET UP THE WAY IT IS, HOW ELSE WOULD WE GO ABOUT FUNDING AND MAINTAINING, OR ACTUALLY JUST FUNDING INQUIRING PARKLAND ON THE EAST SIDE? HOW ELSE WOULD WE BE FUNDING PARKS ON THE EAST SIDE? SO THE WAY THAT WE WOULD DO IT IS WITH BONDS. UM, AND SO THAT MEANS THAT EVERY TAXPAYER HAS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF, OF, OF PARKS. UM, WHAT'S IMPORTANT WITH THE PARKLAND DEDICATION. WE'VE BEEN TALKING A [01:00:01] LOT ABOUT THE FEES AND I WANT US NOT TO FORGET THAT THERE'S ALSO THE LAND DEDICATION PORTION, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT, WHICH HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A PARK DEFICIENT AREA OR THERE'S A TRAIL CONNECTION, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE PARK AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT PARK IS RIGHT WHERE RIGHT WHERE WE NEED IT, BUT OTHERWISE YOU'D HAVE TO USE BONDS. UM, AND THAT PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYERS, UM, RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPERS. UM, AND I WILL JUST ADD GOING BACK TO THE CONVERSATION, UM, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL RAISED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW YOUR, YOUR FEES AND THEY'RE PREDICTABLE, IT GETS BROUGHT INTO THE COST OF LAND AND IT REDUCES THE COST OF LAND, WHICH IS GOOD THING. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT IS, UM, THE CLARITY THERE TO OPT TO PROVIDE OUR COMMUNI IS KNOWING THAT, UM, IF WE DON'T KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH OF AUSTIN AND UNDERSTANDING HOW MUCH IT COSTS US RIGHT NOW TO, TO BUY LAND, UH, WE'LL ESSENTIALLY BE ASKING OUR AUSTINITE THAT WE ALREADY KNOW ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY IN THIS CITY, UH, TO TAKE ON THOSE ADDITIONAL COST BURDENS FOR, FOR US TO MAINTAIN A ROBUST PARK SYSTEM AND FOR US TO ENSURE THAT AS WE GROW AND WE KNOW THAT THE GROWTH OF AUSTIN IS HAPPENING ON THE EAST SIDE, UM, THAT, THAT IT'S JUST GONNA BE EVEN MORE CHALLENGING IF WE DON'T, UM, TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY. AND I, AND I APPRECIATE CUZ WE ARE SAYING WE, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPROMISE ALREADY IN THIS PROPOSAL TO ONLY INCREASE THE FEE BY 25%. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I AM SUPPORT OF SOME AMOUNT OF INCREASE TO THE, UH, TO THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND, UH, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE THOUGHTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES, UH, AND YOU YOU'RE OFF ON. OKAY. SO, UH, FIRST I WANT TO JUST, THANK YOU MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING, YOU SORT OF LAID OUT THE THREE OR FOUR THINGS THAT WERE, THAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TALK THROUGH. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE, WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON EXEMPTING, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE FEES. SO THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS. UM, AND I THINK IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. RIGHT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. SO WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE ITEM THAT WE'RE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT'S IN ONE OF THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UM, THE PROPOSAL THAT, UH, MARI PRO TIM IS MADE WITH REGARD TO THE 25%, UM, I CAN, I SUPPORT THAT? I DO. I ALSO THINK IT IS A, A REASONABLE, UM, UH, A REASONABLE AMOUNT TO, TO, UM, TO ADD AS ADDITIONAL. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. UM, I ALSO JUST WANNA JUST SET THE BROADER PICK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE BROADER PICTURE HERE IS THAT I, I VIEW PARKLAND DEDICATION AS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, UM, AND THAT'S, THAT IS A FEE BASED ON, UM, UH, THE TIED TO THE DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA. AND THEN WE SPEND THOSE DOLLARS IN THAT AREA AND IS DESIGNED TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE. UH, TO MY MIND, PARKLAND IS AN IMPORTANT AND KEY INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT TO ME, UM, AS OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. SO OF COURSE THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, WHAT THE MAYOR, PORT TIM IS LAID OUT AS AN APPROACH, UM, IN A DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE MAKES SENSE TO ME. AND SO, UM, I CAN SUPPORT THAT 25%. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS I AGREE WITH, UM, WHAT, UH, OTHERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PREDICTABILITY AND ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF STREAMLINING OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES. SO WE COULD, WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, UH, TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T, I, I CONSIDER THAT TO BE A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM WHAT I THINK IS FUNDAMENTAL, WHICH IS PARKLAND DEDICATION, UH, IN OUR APPROACH TO, TO GREEN SPACE AND PARKS, WHICH I THINK IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. SO, UM, AND THE LAST POINT IS, UM, I DO THINK THAT THE POINT ABOUT HOW DO, HOW DO WE, UM, I THINK HOPEFULLY WE'RE IN AGREEMENT, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE. AND WE'RE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL, UH, BECAUSE OUR ALTERNATIVE IS BOND, WHICH YOU SAID ACTUALLY PUTS A GREATER BURDEN ON PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT ALSO DOESN'T TIE IT TO THE AREA. SO, SO I JUST, THAT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING THAT. UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHERE WE HAD CONSENSUS AND WHERE, WHERE WE WERE STILL, YOU KNOW, TALKING THROUGH THINGS AND JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I, I SUPPORT THE MAYOR PORT TIMS APPROACH AT THE 25%, [01:05:01] THE ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT THIS CONSENSUS IS THE FEE CALCULATION ISSUE SUBJECT TO, UH, LEGAL, TAKING A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, UH, CH I, UH, APPRECIATE THE, THE COMMENTS. AND I THINK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS ANALOGY TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE IS, IS APT, CONCEPTUALLY GREAT PLANTS, THE PARKS DEDICATION FEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY DISTRICT, THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, APARTMENTS GOING UP RIGHT NOW. THERE'S A LOT OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT MONEY IS THE FEE IS GOING TO PARKS IN MY DISTRICT AND THERE'S LAND DEDICATION THAT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WITHIN, UH, MY DISTRICT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON MY CONSTITUENTS, UH, ESPECIALLY IN, IN AREAS WHERE, UH, THERE WERE NOT, UH, PARKS AVAILABLE BEFORE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE VERY SIMILAR WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FEES THAT ARE PAID ARE DEDICATED TO THE AREA. SO THAT THOSE AREAS THAT ARE BEARING, UH, THAT ARE SEEING MORE DEVELOPMENT ARE GETTING BENEFITS FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT. LIKE I SAID, CONCEPTUALLY, I THINK IT'S A GREAT APPROACH. AND, AND I APPLAUD THE, THE, THE CITY FOR, FOR THE APPROACH. THE, THE PROBLEM IS THE LEVEL OF THE FEE AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT IS TOO HIGH. AND I AM CONCERNED WITH POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE, UH, INVOLVEMENT, UH, PARTICULARLY ON, HONESTLY, ON THE COMMERCIAL, UH, PARKLAND SIDE. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT, AND THE RUMORS ARE THAT THERE'S ALREADY KIND OF MOVES THE FOOT TO EITHER LIMIT OR POTENTIALLY ELIMINATE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COMMERCIAL, UH, UH, PARKLAND, UH, DEVELOPMENT, UH, FEE TO DISALLOW THEM. UH, AND GIVEN THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW CITIES THAT, THAT LEVY THE, THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES AND GIVEN THE LEVEL THAT WE'RE SETTING OUR, OUR PARKLAND, OUR RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND, A DEDICATION FEES, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, POTENTIAL, UH, LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT, THE GREAT PROGRAMS CONCEPTUALLY GIVEN THE INCREASES THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, THOUGH, I JUST CANNOT SEE SUPPORTING ANY INCREASE IN THE FEES AT THIS TIME. UH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION THAT ULTIMATELY, I MEAN, YES, DEVELOPERS PAY THE FEE, BUT THEN THEY PASS ALONG THOSE COSTS. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST, YOU KNOW, A WEALTH OF, UH, OF ANALYSIS THAT, THAT, THAT FINDS EXACTLY THAT. I MEAN, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO PROPERTY TAXES WHERE, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE USERS, WHETHER IT'S, AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S A CIGARETTE TAX OR, YOU KNOW, ALCOHOL TAX OR, YOU KNOW, MOTOR VEHICLE TAX OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THE END USERS ARE THE ONES THAT BEAR THOSE, UM, UH, ULTIMATELY BEAR THE FEES. AND WHEN WE'RE, WE'RE TAXING, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THAT ULTIMATELY IS ABSOLUTELY GONNA BE BORN BY AN IMPACT. UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE, UH, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RENTING THOSE APARTMENTS, UH, AND THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN. I, I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER AND, AND, UH, IN COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, OPERA MADISON ADDRESS THAT VERY WELL. SO, UH, I SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE TABLE EXCEPT FOR THE, AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND, UH, UH, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT, BUT I DO THINK, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD STEP. HOPEFULLY IT WON'T GO DOWN IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE. I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE HOLD A LINE ON OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES, THAT PROBABLY IMPROVES THE CHANCES OF, OF THESE ITEMS SURVIVING, YOU KNOW, UNSCATHED IN THE, UM, IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THANK YOU COLLEGE, JUST BY WAY OF HOUSE CLEANING, ITEM NUMBER 53, THAT'S IN BACKUP, WHICH IS THE COMBINED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, JUST SO YOU CAN FIND THE, THE ITEMS THAT, UH, ANNE JUST MENTIONED. THE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AT LINE 75 THROUGH 79. UH, THAT'S ON PAGE THREE OF THAT IT'S UNDERLINED. AND THE CALCULATING FEE IS AT LINE 528 IN A CALCULATING THE FEE SECTION IN CASE YOU WANT TO SEE HOW THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY PLACED, UH, IN THE, UH, IN THE ORDINANCE. UM, I ALSO UNDERSTAND, OH, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND PEE AND THEN I'LL GO, UH, YES, MAYOR. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN ASKING WHAT THE FEES HAVE BEEN IMPACTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW FOR, I BELIEVE OVER THREE YEARS AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THE ANSWER. UH, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF RESISTANCE ON THE CONSOLE TO GO INTO AND VIEW THIS KIND OF, UH, UH, ITEMS THAT REQUEST THAT WE SOME MADE. AND, AND BY THE WAY, UH, I WANT TO ASK, UH, HOW MUCH DO WE CHARGE PRESENTLY NOW FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING? IS IT BY THE UNIT OR IS IT BY THE SQUARE FEET? RESIDENTIAL IS BY THE UNIT. AND HOW MUCH IS THAT? IT VARIES FROM, UH, HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY. UH, THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN EACH TYPE OF UNIT. [01:10:02] CAN YOU, CAN YOU READ ON FOR ME? UM, SO THE PROPOSED THE FEES FOR, SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT. THAT'S THE CORRECT ONE FOR LAST YEAR, THE, THE CURRENT FEES, THE 2022, UM, OR THE 2021 FEES ARE, UH, 2,900 FOR A HIGH DENSITY UNIT. AND, UM, THEY ARRANGE UP TO 4,700 ABOUT FOR LOW DENSITY UNIT THAT'S FOR THE LAND FEES, UH, IN, AND THEN THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE IS ABOUT 351, OH, SORRY, 526 FOR HIGH DENSITY UNIT RANGING UP TO, UM, 867 PER UNIT FOR A LOW DENSITY UNIT. THANK YOU. AND, AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A THING THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME. WE ARE ALREADY CHARGING SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT ON THESE UNITS AND, UH, WE KEEP ON ADDING MORE AND, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID EARLIER THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE'D BEEN TO HER ON EIGHT YEARS AND HAVEN'T SEEN, SEEN THEM REDUCE RENT. WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE EIGHT YEARS AND I'VE SEEN CONTINUING INCREASES IN FEED. WE DON'T WANT TO, UH, LOOSEN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SO THAT WE COULD GET IT DONE FASTER AND CHEAPER. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS OF CODE NEXT. AND, AND WE WERE SAYING THAT IF WE DO NOT ALLOW THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT AUSTIN NEEDS, THAT THE LAND PRICES WERE GONNA GO UP AND WHICH IT DID. I MEAN, IT'S JUST OBVIOUS, YOU KNOW, I HAD THE SAME ARGUMENT THERE IN MY TOPLESS THAT WE DON'T WANT ANYMORE DENSITY HERE. WE WANT TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT IS, WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE NOW, THOSE HOMES ARE SELLING FOR OVER $400,000, AND THEY'RE ALMOST 50 YEARS OLD. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO DO THESE KIND OF POLICIES WHERE WE'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW DENSITY, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE COUNCIL AND, AND DELAY THESE TYPE OF PROJECTS, THEN YES, WE'RE THE LAND PRICE THAT WE PAID. $1.2 MILLION. THEY'RE ON SHOW CREEK FOR ONE LOT, ONE LOT. YEAH. WE COULD ARGUE ABOUT LAND PRICES GOING UP. AND WE PAYING THAT KIND OF MONEY JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, A 90 BY 60 LOT, WHAT LOT, I MEAN, THAT IS GOING TO DRIVE THESE PRICES UP. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS SAY, NO, IT'S NOT THE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. WE'RE GONNA HAVE LAND, BUT CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, YOU BETTER BE WHERE, BECAUSE YOUR RENT'S GONNA GO UP EVEN HIGHER. THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UH, IN, IN HOPES OF, UH, SPEEDING THINGS UP ON THURSDAY AS WELL. THERE'S BEEN SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE COME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, YOU'VE INDICATED, UH, AN INTENT TO MAYBE BRING SOME OF THOSE BY AMENDMENT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. UM, I'VE MOVED AHEAD AND, AND PUT INTO THE BASE MOTION. SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND, AND CHARGING, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THAT. UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF IF YOU WOULD REACT TO FIVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS THAT, UM, I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, UH, RAISE, UM, UH, AND I KNOW PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE RAISED, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU, UH, ARE, ARE GOOD WITH, OR WHETHER YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THEM. AND SPECIFICALLY, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 3, 4, 7, AND 15. UH, NUMBER ONE IS, UM, UH, A SMALL BUSINESS EXCLUSION, UH, DEFINING IT IS, UH, BUSINESSES THAT ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S OUR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. AND ARE YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT ONE? UH, HI, TOM ROLLINSON WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, UH, STAFF RESPONDED AS NEUTRAL TO THIS. UH, WE THINK IT WOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACTS ON THE OVERALL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FUNDS THAT WOULD, UH, COME FROM SUCH AN AMENDMENT, UH, FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION. UH, WE DID SUGGEST THAT IT MAY BE BETTER TO FRAME IT INSTEAD OF AS LIKE A SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM. IT WOULD RATHER BE EQUAL TO LESS THAN ONE WHOLE FUNCTIONAL POPULATION. SO REALLY WE, THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE PROPOSED LESS THAN WHAT I'M SORRY, ONE PERSON, ONE FUNCTIONAL, UH, POPULATION FOR THAT IT'S, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS AN EXPRESSION OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ON SITE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND SO, UH, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, BE MORE SUITED TO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CRAFTED TO SPECIFY BE LESS THAN [01:15:01] ONE FUNCTIONAL PERSON, UH, AS AN EMPLOYEE, ONE EXACTLY COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT WITH ONE LESS THAN ONE EMPLOYEE. WELL, ONE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE, THE DISCOUNTS THAT ARE APPLIED TO THE, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DISCOUNTS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE, SUCH AS THE COMMUTER RATES, UM, HOURS OF, UH, OPERATION OCCUPANCY RATES. OKAY. SO AFTER THOSE DISCOUNTS, EXACTLY. COULD YOU, COULD YOU PROVIDE US LANGUAGE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY? WE CAN. YES. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT, OKAY, GO AHEAD. UM, SO, UM, JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT YOU PUT ON YOUR BASE MOTION, THEY RECOMMEND DOING THAT, BUT, UM, MAKING SURE THAT YOU STILL HAD TO DEDICATE LAND. SO REMEMBER THAT THE KEY PART OF THE COMMERCIAL WORD INANCE IS NOT THE FEES. WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE FEES, BUT THE REAL KEY PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE IS THE LAND THAT WE GET. UM, AND SO THERE BECOMES SOME CHALLENGES FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, POTENTIALLY IF YOU DO THAT. AND SO, UM, I HAD BEEN, I HAD SPENT SOME TIME GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT UNLESS WE CAN ALSO FIND A WAY TO DO THE LAND, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED. UM, AND SO, UM, IF WE CAN FIND A WAY, UM, TO EXEMPT THEM AND STILL REQUIRE THE LAND WHERE IT'S A CRITICAL CONNECTION, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. UM, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, FOR THURSDAY, UM, BECAUSE PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IT IS, WE, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE FEES, BUT IT IS REALLY FOR THE COMMERCIAL. THE KEY PART OF IT ARE THESE TRAIL AND MOBILITY CONNECTIONS, UM, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND THAT WE'RE ABLE TO, TO, UM, REQUIRE THEM TO SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE VERY OFTEN NOT GONNA BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA AFFECT THEIR BUILDING, BUT DOES ALLOW FOR THAT MOBILITY AND THAT, THAT EXTRA ACCESS, UM, TO THE PARKS. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE I WANT TO ASK ABOUT IS, UH, NUMBER, UM, PLANNING, COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, NUMBER THREE, PARTIAL CREDIT FOR FLOOD DIVERSION LAND DEEMED SAFE BY, UH, UH, PARK PARKS AND REC DISTRICT. SO STAFF FELT THAT THIS WAS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. SO WE DO HAVE A CODE SECTION, UH, 25 1 6 0 3 D UH, THAT ALLOWS FOR 50% CREDIT FOR LAND THAT OTHERWISE DOESN'T ISN'T SUITABLE. UM, WE DO FEEL LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S INCODE CURRENTLY IS BROAD ENOUGH TO ENCAPSULATE THIS IDEA. UM, AND WE'VE ALSO FELT THAT BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT BROADER OF LANGUAGE THAT'S ENCODE TODAY THAT, UH, IT COULD PROVIDE FOR A MORE KIND OF CONTEXT SENSITIVE APPROACH. UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS ASKED US ABOUT IN THE PAST, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK ON, YOU KNOW, SPECIFYING THE KIND OF SUITABILITY INSTANCES WHERE WE WOULD PROVIDE 50% CREDIT FOR 25% OR 25 YEAR FLOOD PLANE IN KIND OF A MEMO THAT WE'VE GIVEN, UH, OR WORKED WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON IN THE PAST. SO, UH, STAFF KIND OF NEUTRAL FELT THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY IN CODE. OKAY. CERTAINLY ANYTHING WE CAN DO AGAIN, TO, TO HELP WITH PREDICTABILITY AHEAD OF TIME FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, I THINK IS PART OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE SEARCHING FOR. OR IF I COULD ALSO JUST ADD THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN THE OPERATING PROCEDURES AND NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. UM, AND WE DON'T TEND TO DICTATE THE OPERATING PROCEDURES FROM THE NEXT THING IS AT NUMBER FOUR. UM, UH, IT CONCERNS, UH, HOW WE COLLECT FEES FOR MIXED USE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. ABSOLUTELY. SO, UH, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FROM STAFF ON THIS ONE THAT, UH, ESSENTIALLY YOU'D BE EXEMPTING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SIDE FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING A PROPORTIONATE IMPACT TO THE PARK SYSTEM. SO THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT IT WOULDN'T BE MEETING THE, THE IMPACT ON OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE. AND, UH, SINCE YOU'D KIND OF DECOUPLE THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE IMPACT THAT THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY OF HOW WE'RE ADMINISTERING THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAY MY NUMBERS DON'T LINE UP WITH YOURS. CAN YOU JUST, UM, CUZ NUMBER FOUR WAS THE CAL WAS THE FEE, UM, CALCULATION ON MY, ON THE, ON THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT I MAY HAVE A, I MAY HAVE WRITTEN MY NOTES DOWN OR MAYBE A DIFFERENT LIST. DOES SOMEONE KNOW WHAT NUMBER CUZ I, I THOUGHT WE DID NUMBER FOUR, [01:20:01] WHICH WAS THE ONE, THESE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, YOUR AGENDA IT'S ON THE AGENDA'S BACK UP. DO YOU SEE WHICH ONE IS THE MIXED USE? IT'S NUMBER FOUR OF YOUR AMENDMENTS, BUT IT'S NOT OF THEIR AMENDMENTS, THE AGENDA BACK UP PC RECOMMENDATIONS. I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M TRYING TO TRACK IT TO THE ACTUAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE NOT ALL WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY TOOK UP COMMERCIAL. THEY DIDN'T TAKE UP RESIDENTIAL, IT WASN'T ON THEIR THING. AND SO SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE MORPHED IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PRESENTED ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE MAYOR'S PUTTING. AND THAT WAS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED. AND SO I'M TRYING TO TRACK IT BACK TO THE, TO THE CASE. GOT YOU. SO THESE WERE NOT AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE GOING TO BRING THERE, THERE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS COMING OUT OF PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION. NUMBER FOUR IN BACKUP OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT APPEARS IN BACKUP, UH, IS THE ONE THAT WE JUST ASKED STAFF TO COMMENT ON. SIMILARLY, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH I GUESS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN IN BACKUP, UH, IS THE ONE THAT EXEMPTS MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ON CITY OWNED LAND STAFF WANNA RESPOND TO THAT ONE? UH, YES. THANK YOU. SO, UH, WE WERE ALSO, WE'D HEARD FROM, UM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED CONSIDERED. UH, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE KIND OF NEUTRAL ON. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE DONE WITH ED D AND THAT HAVE THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON PARKLAND, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S UNDERGOING THESE NEGOTIATIONS TODAY, UM, AND THE, THE CHANGE IN THE REQUIREMENT COULD AFFECT THEM. YES, KEVIN, I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE, WOULDN'T, WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT DEVELOPERS OF OUR LAND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME PROGRAM THAT WE REQUIRE OF OTHERS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT WAS A ARGUMENT THAT SOME OF THE SAME, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MADE THAT EVENING AS WELL? UM, WHAT I JUST, WHAT I JUST SEARCH, I BELIEVE USUALLY WE, UH, NEGOTIATE A STAFF, UH, THE MDA AND, AND USUALLY THERE'S SUPERIOR MORE LIKE A, A PUT, IS IT RELATES TO PARKLAND AS WELL. UM, SOME CASES, UM, ON TIGHT SITES IT'S, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, PLACES LIKE COLONY PARK OR, OR MUELLER OR, UM, OTHER ONES LIKE THAT ARE USUALLY, UM, RYAN DRIVE, UM, THEIR SUPERIOR AS IT RELATES TO PARKS ALREADY GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE PARKLAND DEDICATION WINNERS. AND, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE ONES THAT ARE IN NEGOTIATION AS OF AUGUST 1ST, 2022. AND THAT WAS JUST TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S ALREADY NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON IN THOSE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD THEN BE RADICALLY ALTERED BY HAVING TO, UM, CONFORM TO A NEW ORDINANCE THAT IS LIKE SORT OF BEING WRITTEN AS OF AFTER THEY'VE BEEN NEGOTIATED. AND SO IT WAS JUST TO EXEMPT THOSE FEW THAT WERE ALREADY IN DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATED, NOT WE NEED MOVING FORWARD. I SEE I, IF SOMEBODY IS, IS THERE, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. IS THERE SOMEBODY ON THIS DIAS WHO'S PLANNING TO BRING THAT ONE FORWARD? I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY'S BRING FORWARD OTHER THAN I'VE HEARD IT BEING RAISED AND OFFERED. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, UH, AS PEOPLE WERE APPROACHING THURSDAY. SO I WOULD NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. AND, AND I HATE TO ASK FOR IT, IF, IF NO, ONE'S BRINGING IT FORWARD, CUZ THEN IT'S JUST A, A KIND OF WASTE OF STAFF TIME AND EFFORT. BUT I WOULD WANNA KNOW EXACTLY WHICH MDAS ARE IN PROGRESS, WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED. AND THOSE THAT WOULD THEN BE EXEMPT FROM, I HAVE A, I HAVE A COUPLE IN MIND, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD WANT THE FULL LIST PLEASE. MAYOR. THANK YOU. YES. UM, I HAD A QUESTION. I, I THINK THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE MDAS, THIS CAN BE WAIVED WITHIN THEM REGARDLESS, IS THAT CORRECT? LEGAL? SO I, I, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S NECESSARY FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND, AND, AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I WOULD WANT THOSE MDAS TO HAVE AS MUCH PARKLAND AS POSSIBLE. UM, BUT I THINK I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THIS ONE AND THINKING IT MADE SENSE AND THEN GOING THROUGH A RABBIT HOLE WITH IT. AND I THINK WHERE WE CAME OUT WAS THEY COULD WAVE ANYWAY WITHIN THE MDA. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, GOOD MORNING, MARY COUNCIL, ERIC LOP HAS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. UM, WE WOULD, UH, MY, OUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE INSTEAD OF CREATE AN EXEMPTION IN THE ORDINANCE JUST TO [01:25:01] CREATE A SEPARATE PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT, UM, WHERE COUNCIL GIVES DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF TO WHENEVER THEY BRING BACK THE MDAS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO, UM, WAIVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF, UM, THE NEGOTIATED PACKAGE DEAL. SO INSTEAD OF EXEMPTING IT SPECIFICALLY IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S CONSIDERED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND THE WHOLE, UM, PACKAGE, ALL THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF, UM, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MDA PROCESS INSTEAD OF JUST PUTTING IT IN, IN THE CODE. AND THAT WOULD JUST BE A SEPARATE PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE COULD ADD ON. BUT DO YOU NEED THAT IN ORDINANCE? I MEAN, THEY CAN, WE CAN WAVE AN ORDINANCE. I MEAN, LIKE THEY COME BACK WITH THE MDA, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION THAT IF YOU'RE COMING BACK AND YOU'RE WAVING IT TO WAIVE IT, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT A NECESSARY STEP. NO, BUT, UM, RIGHT NOW IT WOULD APP THE, I GUESS THE, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE CREATING A NEW REGULATION THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT, UM, IT'S BEEN RAISED TO ME BY STAFF THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S SOME CURRENT NEGOTIATION, CURRENT MDS THAT ARE BEING NEGOTIATED WHERE THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL, UM, REGULATION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER. BUT IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S DIRECTION THAT, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE IT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE AS AN EXCEPTION OR NOT, OR JUST BE, YOU COULD ALSO BE SILENT TO IT AS WELL. THERE WAS JUST MAYBE SOME DESIRE, I GUESS, I'M, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGE THAT IS TRYING TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT I THINK IN EACH OF THESE CASES, WE'VE CLEARLY, UM, INDICATED WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. AND IF A WAIVER IS NECESSARY, YOU JUST COME TO US AND YOU ASK US FOR THE WAIVER. UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO ONLY DO IT FOR, YOU KNOW, MDAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS, ET CETERA. I, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE'S BRINGING THIS, BUT TO ME IT SEEMS NOT NECESSARY. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, UM, MAYOR, I WENT THROUGH ALL THE AMENDMENTS CUZ I REALLY APPRECIATED THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORK AND EFFORT THAT THEY TOOK TO REVIEW THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION. UM, SO I'VE BEEN DOWN THIS THIS DIRECTION AND, AND IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT IT'S IT'S NECESSARY. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT'S TRYING TO BE, TO BE ADDRESSED. OKAY. AGAIN WITH AN EYE TO SHORTENING OUR TIME ON THURSDAY, I'M, I'M RAISING THE, THE ISSUES THAT I'VE HEARD MIGHT BE RAISED. UM, THE OTHER ONE, UH, THAT, THAT I'VE HEARD IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER OR AMENDMENT NUMBER 15, UH, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY A, A DIRECTION, UH, ABOUT INTEGRATING PARKS WITH, UH, TRANSIT. DOES THAT LANGUAGE LOOK GOOD TO YOU? SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALREADY CONSIDER. WHEN WE LOOK AT DEDICATION CASES, WE OFTEN, YOU KNOW, UH, FACTOR IN THESE KINDS OF THINGS INTO HOW WE DESIGNED THE PARKS WITH APPLICANTS. UH, OFTEN, YOU KNOW, WITH INFILL SITE DEVELOPMENTS, THEY'RE LOCATED NEAR THESE SORTS OF FACILITIES LIKE BUS AND, UH, RAIL TRANSIT STOPS. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SORT OF AMENDMENT NECESSARY TO, UH, RE HAVE IT AS TO BE LIKE A REQUIREMENT, BUT, UH, WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THE, THE DIRECTION AND THE NOTION BEHIND IT. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 10? WHICH ONE'S THAT THIS IS THE ONE FOR ART GALLERIES, WORKSHOPS, THEATERS, AND LIVE MUSIC VENUES. SO I THINK THIS ONE, UH, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT LIKE PENDING RESOLUTION, UH, FOR ADOPTION BY COUNCIL. UH, GENERALLY WE FELT SIMILARLY TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, WHICH WAS THAT IT WOULD HAVE A RELATIVELY SMALL, UH, IMPACT ON THE OVERALL REQUIREMENT AND THE FEES THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED FROM THOSE TYPES OF USES. HOWEVER, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE AN IMPACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR PROPORTIONALLY WITH THIS NEW REQUIREMENT. OKAY. DO, IF I CAN JUST ADD, UM, ANY PROJECT THAT'S UNDER 3000 SQUARE FEET IS ALREADY TODAY EXEMPTED FROM THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. SO IT'S ALREADY TODAY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IF IT'S A SMALL ART GALLERY UNDER 3000 SQUARE FEET, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. IT'S ALSO ONLY NEW PROJECTS. SO AN ART, AN ARTIST MOVING INTO AN EXISTING BUILDING WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. IT WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE AS HIS ORDINANCE. AND THEN FINALLY ONE CONSIDERATION IS THAT, UM, ART GALLERIES, ART WORKSHOPS, ET CETERA, IS NOT A ZONING USE. IT SAID USE THAT COULD CHANGE. SO IF THE USE CHANGED AND IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IN THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD BE NO WAY OF CAPTURING THE IMPACT. SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S GONNA BE AN ART GALLERY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. [01:30:01] I THINK THOSE WERE ALL THE QUESTIONS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER, HAR MEDICINE, NATASHA. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE UNMUTING. UM, NUMBER 15, WE DIDN'T QUITE COVER, UM, UH, THE PART THAT I WANTED TO, TO OFFER SOME DIRECTION ON. UM, SO WITH NUMBER 15, I WANTED TO, UH, OFFER SOME DIRECTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL FUTURE LOCATIONS OF BUS AND TRANSIT STOPS ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHEN REQUIRING LAND DEDICATION. AND I INTEND TO POST, UH, THE DETAILED MOTION AND THE REASONING TO THE MESSAGE BOARD. OKAY. OH, AND THEN ALSO ON NUMBER SEVEN. UM, AND WE GOT THE SUPPORT OF, UH, OF EDD STAFF THERE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO E A. SO FROM MDA TO E A MAYOR ALLISON. OH, CAN GO. YOU'RE SPEAKING TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE JUST RAISED. I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR HER YEAH. ABOUT THAT. GO AHEAD. SO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, CAN, CAN YOU HELP ME, UM, JUST FLUSH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAY, UM, STAFF CONSIDER THE LOCATIONS, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN SO THAT WE HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE OR, OR, OR LESS GREEN SPACE AROUND TRANSIT? I, I, YOUR LAST THING THAT YOU WANTED TO BRING ON THE DIRECTION, I JUST WANTING TO UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. THE CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE LOCATIONS FOR BUS AND TRANSIT STOPS A LONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS. YES MM-HMM I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS ASKING FOR MORE, UNLESS SO MUCH AS A GUARANTEE THAT WE GET SOME AROUND. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. UM, TRANSIT AND YOU KNOW HOW WE INCORPORATE THAT INTO PROJECT CONNECT PLANNING. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANTED SOME CONTEXT FOR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. IS THAT HELPFUL? UH, YES. ALLISON, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER. DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER. UM, COUNCIL HAR FROM, I WAS JUST ASK THAT IF YOU COULD PLEASE SHARE YOUR, UM, AMENDMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I THINK WE JUST DISCUSSED SOMETHING REALLY SIMILAR AND SAID IT WAS ALREADY PART OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY DO. UM, AND, AND IS PART OF THE, PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF WHAT THEY LOOK AT. UM, AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT FOR THE MDA E THAT, THAT, THAT REALLY WASN'T A NECESSARY PART OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE STAFF CAN JUST COME BACK TO US AND SAY, IT NEEDS TO BE, IT, IT NEEDS TO BE, UM, WAIVED AND, AND, AND WEIGH THE BENEFITS THAT, THAT THEY'RE GETTING, UM, WITH RESPECT TO PARKLAND, ET CETERA, AS PART OF THE, AS PART OF THE PROJECTS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, UM, IN THE WORKS. UM, I, IT'S HARD SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE REMOTE TO CATCH ALL THE NUANCES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, TO, TO FLAG THAT. AND IF YOU ARE GONNA BRING SOMETHING, IF YOU CAN POST IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT, UM, PERHAPS WE CAN RESPOND ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AND SAVE US SOME TIME ON THURSDAY. THANK YOU. YOU BET. MAYOR PRO TIM. AND LIKE I SAID, UM, BEFORE I PLAN TO POST THAT, TO THE MESSAGE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA PUT 'EM ON THE SPOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE EDD IS AROUND. UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO CONFIRM, UM, WITH ED D THAT THAT CHANGE BETWEEN FROM MDA TO E A WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. AND SO ONCE I MAKE THAT POST AND, UM, ONCE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT, THEN I'LL HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NECESSARY. IF IT'S NOT, THAT'S GREAT. YOU KNOW, IF I MAKE THE POSTED THE, YOU KNOW, THE DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT NO FURTHER WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE, I THINK THAT'S AWESOME. JUST WANNA MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY IF IT, IF IT DOES NEED TO BE SOME EXPLICIT DIRECTION, DOES ANYBODY HERE FROM EATING THINK THEY COULD SPEAK TO THAT, UH, MAY OR NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'LL GET BACK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND MAKE SURE THAT THE REST OF THE DIAS HAS THAT SAME FEEDBACK. UM, BUT WE CURRENTLY ARE IN THAT STATE WHERE WE DON'T THINK THAT FURTHER DIRECTION IS NECESSARY, BUT WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT HER QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE ON PARKLAND, KATHY COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE, WE MAY HAVE GONE BEYOND THIS, BUT I'M, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE SHIFT FROM MDA TO E A AND WHAT THE INTENT IS THERE. COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE. OH, IS THAT I WAS ASKING, COULD YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THE SHIFT FROM MDA TO E A? SURE. AND I REALLY THINK THIS, THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR STAFF TO SPEAK TO THE QUESTION. I, BUT MOSTLY IT'S TO NOT DISRUPT THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS IS MY UNDERSTANDING. UM, BUT I'M CERTAINLY NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. [01:35:01] SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF THEY WERE TO OFFER YOU SOME CLARITY AROUND THE RATIONALE FOR THE REQUEST THERE. AND THEN I GUESS, SPENCER, WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR STAFF RESPOND, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR STAFF RESPOND, IF THEY COULD EXPLAIN WHY THEY, WHY THEY ARE, IF THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THIS FLEXIBILITY BE BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE, WHY THEY BELIEVE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT CURRENT FLEXIBILITY, JUST IN THE SAME WAYS THAT MAYOR PROTE ALTER SUGGESTED IT, IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE THEN NEGOTIATING AGAINST OURSELVES BEFORE WE'RE EVEN IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS. I'M NOT SURE WHY THE STAFF, IF THEY DID REQUEST THAT CHANGE, WHY THEY WOULD'VE REQUESTED THAT CHANGE. UM, OKAY. JUST ADD ONE PIECE OF CLARITY HERE. I THINK THE ISSUE WAS WE WERE ADDING THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THOSE, THOSE NEGOTIATIONS HAD STARTED BEFORE COMMERCIAL. AND SO IT WAS TO NOT ADD THE COMMERCIAL ON TOP OF IT WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY PRETTY FAR ALONG IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. I THINK THAT WAS THE PIECE OF IT. THAT WAS OF QUESTION NOT THE, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL PART, UM, JUST AS WE DON'T APPLY IT FOR OTHER FOLKS UNTIL JANUARY. UM, I THINK THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE RATIONALE. AND, AND REMEMBER THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ONLY LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL, NOT AT RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THEN, THANKS. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE THEN JUST A MATTER OF EXCLUDING PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE WORKS RATHER THAN SETTING THIS AS AN EXEMPTION FROM HERE ON OUT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT, THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS, BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY CAN JUST WAIVE IT. RIGHT. AND I THINK THE WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT IT'S IN BACKUP HAD THAT DATE IN IT. UH, BOTH THAT IT'S ADDITIONAL POINT. THAT'S TRUE. I JUST YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE DATE. I THINK THE DATE'S ALREADY IN IT AND JUST TO CHANNEL, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, UH, OR A HOUSTON, UH, AND E IS AN EXCLUSIVE, NO NEGOTIATING, UH, AGREEMENT, UH, AND AN MDAS, UH, MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON PARKLAND BEFORE WE MOVE PAST THE PARKLAND ISSUES? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, UH, FOR, FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU. ALL [54. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to direct the use of Convention Center funds to restore the interior of the Castleman-Bull House for use as a Convention Center facility and to ensure that the forthcoming Palm District Plan proposes to integrate the Castleman-Bull House in a meaningful way.] RIGHT. LET'S MOVE NOW TO, UM, UH, WE HAVE, UH, ITEMS 54 AND 61, THE CASTLEMAN BULL HOUSE AND 55 N 60, UH, THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE. I THINK BOTH OF YOU AND I HAVE PULLED THESE, UH, KATHY, YOU WANNA GO FIRST? SURE. UM, SO THE CASTLEMAN BULL HOUSE, WELL, SO LET ME JUST SAY, IN CASE, IN CASE NEXT YEAR'S COUNCIL DECIDES TO DO THIS, IT'S PRETTY COMPLICATED IF YOU PUSH YOUR BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO AFTER THE BUDGET PROCESS, AS WE DISC DISCOVERED, BECAUSE THEN YOU, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUDGET ORDINANCE BY WHICH TO, TO KIND OF REFLECT ON. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE, THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SOME KIND OF ODD, ODD THINGS ON, ON HERE. THESE ARE JUST AS A REMINDER, THESE WERE TWO ITEMS I BROUGHT FORWARD DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND WE KIND OF RAN OUTTA TIME TO DO THEM. SO I'VE, I DID GO AHEAD AND BUILD IFCS RELATED TO THESE THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE BACKUP. I WANNA JUST CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO, TO THE FACT THAT WITH THE CASTLEMAN BULL, I DID THREE VERSIONS AND MAYOR, I KNOW YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU DISTRIBUTED. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE SEEN THE THIRD VERSION THAT IN, IN ESSENCE, I HAD DISTRIBUTED ON THAT, ON THE DIAS THAT DAY, AND PROBABLY POSTED AS WELL AND DISTRIBUTED VIA KATIE, BUT IT DOES, IT DOES ASK FOR, UM, THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THE, AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE TO DEFINE A SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE RESTORATION AND, AND RENOVATION AND SOME OTHER THINGS. SO I THINK IT, IT, I THINK IT DOES BUILD IN, IN A STUDY PIECE, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING PROPERTY. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1873. IT CAME INTO THE CITY'S POSSESSION MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO. AND SO FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, IT HAS SAT VACANT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER. THERE WERE SOME PLANS EARLY ON AND SOME MONEY THAT WAS AVAILABLE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DO THE RESTORATION. AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IT, IT DIDN'T GO FORWARD. LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT DIDN'T GO FORWARD SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE CONVENTION CENTER, UH, RENOVATED THE EXTERIOR AND HAD PLANS TO USE IT FOR AN EVENT AND THEN COVID HIT AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE YET TO UNDERTAKE THE RESTORATION OF THE INTERIOR. AND SO MY BUDGET AMENDMENT NOW RESOLUTION AND BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOCATE, WOULD ONE PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION THERE. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMED LIKE A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN YOU DID THE EXTERIOR RESTORATION, THAT THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DOING THE INTERIOR NET. MAYBE I, MAYBE THAT WAS JUST WHERE MY MIND WENT, THAT WE WERE STARTING WITH THE EXTERIOR AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INSIDE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY OF US WELL TO [01:40:01] HAVE A CITY BUILDING SITTING VACANT FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, I MEAN, NONE OF US WERE ON THE DIAS WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO ACCEPT THIS BUILDING AND INTO OUR POSSESSION, BUT TO BE GOOD STEWARDS, I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO RESTORE IT AND TO USE IT FOR A CITY PURPOSE. UM, AND ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S SITTING ON DOWNTOWN REAL ESTATE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT BE USED AND, AND BE A FUNCTIONING OCCUPIED BUILDING. SOMETIMES I'VE SAT ON THIS DIAS AND HEARD CONVERSATIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS BUILDING IS, SHOULD WE, IS THERE A POLICY WE CAN PUT IN PLACE IF THERE'S A DEMOLITION DOWNTOWN TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DEMOLITION HAPPENS CLOSER TO THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE VACANT PROPERTIES SITTING DOWNTOWN AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO, IT'S HARD TO ASK OTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT WHEN, WHEN WE OURSELVES HAVE HAD A VACANT BUILDING, A VACANT HISTORIC PROPERTY SITTING, SITTING DOWNTOWN FOR, FOR SEVERAL DECADES. SO THIS ACTION WOULD, WOULD FIRSTLY, UH, ASK THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE TO WORK TOGETHER TO DIVINE A SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF THE CASTLEMAN BULL HOUSE. IT WOULD BY SEPARATE ACTION ALLOCATE 8 MILLION, UM, TOWARD THE RESTORATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT. I THINK WE'LL KNOW ONCE, ONCE THE FIRST BE IT RESOLVED AND THE NEXT BE IT RESOLVED OR COMPLETED. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WOULD ASK THAT, UH, AN INTERIOR THAT A UPDATED ESTIMATE BE PROVIDED TO US KNOW LATER THAN THE FIRST, WHICH MAY HAVE TO BE PUSHED BACK. BUT MY INTENT HERE IS, IS TO GET SOME FORWARD ACTION ON THIS ITEM AND TO COME TO SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE IT, BUT, BUT TO REALLY GET SOME, MAKE SOME STRONG COMMITMENTS ABOUT RESTORING IT, IT, THE NEXT, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, I'M GOING TO ALTER A BIT BECAUSE IT, IT SPEAKS TO THE FORTHCOMING PALM DISTRICT PLAN, INTEGRATING THE CASA AND BULL. AND THAT PLAN IS, IS BASICALLY DRAFTED AND COMING FORWARD TO US. AND I THINK THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AROUND THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN. AND IN A MINUTE, I'M GOING TO HAVE THE EMAIL, I THINK THAT, THAT WE HAVE WITH SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HOW EXACTLY IT INTEGRATED THAT. SO, SO THAT IS MY THAT'S MY PROPOSAL. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. UM, AGAIN, I'M, I'M AWARE THAT THE OLDER THAT THE ESTIMATES THAT WE HAVE ARE OLDER ONES, WHICH IS WHY I'VE ASKED STAFF TO MAKE THAT ESTIMATE TO ALSO DO THAT ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND TO, YOU KNOW, GET SERIOUS ABOUT, ABOUT MAKING THAT, ABOUT GETTING THAT RESTORATION WORK DONE MANAGER. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE TWO THINGS, YOU OR YOUR STAFF, THIS ONE THING, RIGHT. THE BLE WE'LL START WITH THAT. UH, CERTAINLY MAYOR AND I'LL TURN TO STAFF IN A SECOND, BUT I THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS TO HAVE. AND I THINK BECAUSE AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS POINTED OUT, UM, WE'RE JUST IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING WHAT THOSE REVISED ASSESSMENTS MIGHT BE, UH, CONDUCTING THAT STUDY. UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, PURSUING AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IT'S HARD TO KNOW WITHOUT HAVING THE, THAT INFORMATION, WHAT THAT FUTURE NEXT STEP MIGHT BE AND WHAT THE COUNCIL, UH, DIRECTION AND, AND SUPPORT WOULD LOOK LIKE, UH, IN THAT REGARD. UM, BUT I'LL SEE IF, UH, ACM, GONZALEZ WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. CAN I ASK THE MANAGER ABOUT WHAT HE JUST SAID? SURE. UM, MANAGER, I, I'M NOT TOTALLY FOLLOWING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, I MEAN, THERE IS NO ABSENT THIS RESOLUTION. THERE IS NO MOVEMENT TO HAVE A STUDY ON IT. AND I THINK THAT BOTH, UH, SORRY, IF I WASN'T CLEAR THE STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF A STUDY AND SEEING WHAT THOSE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS MIGHT BE, UH, REGARDING THAT, UH, IMPORTANT ASSET THAT THE CITY HAS. WHAT WOULD I THINK THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS IF WE'RE, I ASSUME THERE WAS ALWAYS AN INTENT TO RESTORE IT BECAUSE WE SPENT MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS TO RESTORE THE EXTERIOR. SO WHAT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE ABSENT EX IN RESTORING THE INTERIOR, RIGHT? CUZ WE'VE ALREADY SPENT MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS TO RESTORE THE EXTERIOR. CERTAINLY THERE WAS NOT A PLAN I ASSUME THERE WAS NOT A PLAN TO NOW HAVE THAT BE THE FINAL ACTION ON THIS BUILDING AND TO LEAVE A, A PIECE OF, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT WE ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECADES AGO, STAND VACANT FROM NOW ON. RIGHT. MM-HMM SO, SO THERE, I ASSUME THERE WAS AN ACTION OR AN INTENT. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S TIME NOW TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP AND BEGIN THE PROCESS, NOT OF STUDYING IT, NOT OF DISCUSSING, BUT REALLY GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THAT RESTORATION. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. AND, AND I WANNA, UM, ALSO ECHO OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS' INTEREST IN KASMAN BULL HOUSE. UM, AND IT'S AN INTERESTING RESPONSE BECAUSE OF COURSE WE'VE GOT THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOW A PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER. AND AS [01:45:01] YOU ALL KNOW, WE'VE LOOKED AT NOT JUST THE CONVENTION CENTER AS A BUILDING, BUT THE ENTIRE AREA AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WITH REGARD TO THAT AREA. AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE PALM PLANNING DISTRICT AS WELL, WHICH ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE CAMAN BULL HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHERE CB GREATHOUSE HAS WORKED WITH THE NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY ALL THE ASSETS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA AND HOW WE CAN COLLECTIVELY USE THOSE ASSETS. UM, SO IN THAT REGARD, UM, TRISHA, UH, DIRECTOR TRISHA TARO CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO WHY WE STOPPED AT THE EXTERIOR AND WHY WE NEED OUR RENOVATIONS AND THEN HOW WE HAD PLANNED TO OF COURSE, APPROACH THE INTERIOR AND BELIEVE THE INTERIOR IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE COLLECTIVE ASSETS THAT WE HAVE THERE RATHER THAN ANY ONE PARTICULAR ASSET. UH, GOOD MORNING, MAYOR COUNCIL, CITY, UH, MANAGER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TRISHA TETRA DIRECTOR OF THE CONVENTION CENTER. UM, SO YOU ARE CORRECT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PO THE, UH, HOUSE BEING, UH, DONATED TO THE CITY, UH, THAT WE DID UNDERGO SEVERAL STUDIES, UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE WERE, WE ARE BA WE WERE BALANCING, UH, OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, UH, INITIATIVES ARE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER ORIGINALLY. UM, SO WE FELT THAT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND, AND, UH, WE WORKED WITH THE PALM DISTRICT. WE WA WORKED WITH WATERLOO GREENWAY AS WELL. UM, AND WE WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP A, UH, A PATH FORWARD TO RENOVATE THAT FACILITY, UM, THAT WOULD INCORPORATE, UH, EVERYTHING GOING ON WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UM, AND SO GIVEN THE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT AND THE TIMELINE OF WHERE WE WERE WITH, UM, THE PALM DISTRICT, WE MADE THE DECISION TO START WITH THE EXTERIOR OF THE FACILITY. SO DURING COVID, WE DID RENOVATE THE EXTERIOR OF THAT FACILITY, THAT FACILITY, AND IT IS COMPLETED. UM, WE, UH, STAFF IS VERY AWARE OF THE ASSET, UM, AND COMMITTED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, CONTINUING THE PROCESS OF RENOVATING THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. UH, STAFF BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE, UM, TO CONTINUE TO, UH, WRAP THIS HOUSE INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT, BECAUSE WE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, RENOVATING THE ENTIRE CONVENTION CENTER FACILITY, UM, INCLUDING, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, PORTIONS OF THE STREET AND POTENTIALLY THAT, THAT WEST, THAT EAST SIDE OF, UH, RED RIVER. SO WE HAVE, UM, EVERY INTENT TO RENOVATE THE INTERIOR OF THE FACILITY. WE WANTED TO ROLL THAT INTO THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT. UM, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. LET ME ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM, JUST SO THAT I KNOW, UM, AND, AND COLLEAGUES I'VE HANDED OUT SOMETHING THAT, THAT ASKS FOR THIS STUDY AND, AND, UH, KATHY, WHERE, WHERE IT'S DIFFERENT IS YOUR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE AND ALSO ASKS FOR A STUDY. IT'S JUST A NEW ENOUGH ISSUE FOR ME THAT I HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF THE BACKGROUND OR BEEN ABLE TO VET OR STUDY IT. SO I DON'T KNOW YET WHETHER I WANT TO AUTHORIZE OR WHETHER I WOULD VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE, THE $8 MILLION FOR IT YET, JUST CUZ I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THE STUDY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE THEN TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT AUTHORIZATION, SUBJECT TO THE DISCUSSION, UH, UH, HERE AND, AND ON THE DAYS. BUT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT. AND THAT'S WHY I STILL HANDED IT OUT. UH, UH, EVEN LOOKING AT THE, THE VERSION TWO THAT YOU HAD, IS THERE STAFF, IS THERE A DISCUSSION, DO WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO, TO, TO UM, UM, RENOVATE THAT BUILDING IN THAT LOCATION? SO, UH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE BORN OUT THROUGH THE DESIGN, UH, PROCESS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT. I MEAN, UH, IT, IT IS CURRENT CURRENTLY WHERE IT RESIDES, IT DOES NOT HAVE RESTROOMS. IT DOES NOT HAVE POWER. IT DOES NOT HAVE WATER, UM, BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS JUST DROPPED THERE. SO WE DESIGNED THE EXTERIOR, UH, TO RESTORE IT BACK TO, UM, IT'S BEAUTIFUL, IT'S BEAUTY AND IT'S GLORY. UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, UH, RENOVATED THE FENCE AND SOME LANDSCAPING AROUND THAT. BUT UH, IF IT WERE TO BE RENOVATED WITH CONVENTION CENTER, HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS, IT WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN ON ITSS EXISTING PROPERTY, I BELIEVE. AND IT WOULD NEED TO BE USED AS A CONVENTION CENTER USE, MEANING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LEASE THAT, UH, OR IF, OR GIVE IT OUR CUSTOMERS, THE ABILITY TO LEASE THAT SPACE. UH, SO IF, IF IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE RENOVATIONS TO HAPPEN IN HIS EXISTING PLACE, WE BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FUNDS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. UM, IS THAT THE PLAN OR IS THERE A PLAN YET? I MEAN, WHERE ARE WE ON THIS? SO THE QUESTION THAT THE COUNCIL BEING FACED IS DO, DO WE AUTHORIZE THE MONEY AND ASK FOR THE PLAN OR IS THERE A REASON WE WOULD WANT THE STUDY BEFORE WE AUTHORIZE THE DOLLARS? AND IF I COULD, THAT WAS PART OF THE PALM PLANNING DISTRICT CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING AS WELL, WHICH IS, UH, [01:50:01] LET'S TALK WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER. LET'S TALK WITH THE WATERLOO GREENWOOD CONSERVANCY AS WELL AS TO WHAT THE FUTURE PLAN COULD BE FOR THE CASTLEMAN BULL HOUSE. AND SO WE WANTED TO WRAP THAT DISCUSSION IN AS PART OF THE PALM PLANNING DISTRICT AS COUNCIL MEMBER. UM, TOVA MENTIONED THAT THAT PLAN WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL. UM, AND THE PLAN WILL SAY THAT, HOWEVER, THAT IS A NEXT STEP FOLLOWING THE PLAN, WHICH IS TO ENGAGE WITH THE WATERLOO, ENGAGE WITH CONVENTION CENTER AND IDENTIFY A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BEST PLAN FOR, FOR KAMAN BULL HOUSE. CAN I ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY JUST SAID REGARDING THE FUNDING? LET ME MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO INTRODUCE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. I, UM, I, I JUST GOTTA GET BETTER ABOUT HOLLER AND ADAM AND RAISING MY HAND FOR A WHILE. SORRY. UM, SO SEVERAL THINGS INCLUDING, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE POINT OUT FOR MY COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY MY NEWER COLLEAGUES, UM, WHO WEREN'T HERE WHEN WE DID IT. AND FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A COUNCIL, WE, WE ALREADY, WE COMMITTED OURSELVES TO RECOGNIZING THAT OUR PUBLICLY OWNED ASSETS, UM, CITY OWNED ASSETS SHOULD NOT HONOR PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONFEDERACY AND WITH WHITE SUPREMACY. AND SO I WOULD REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE BYPASS THAT COMMITMENT WITH THIS, UM, WITH THIS PROJECT, THIS INITIATIVE, UH, A QUICK REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS THAT THE HOUSE IS NAMED AFTER INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE SOUTH SPIKE TO PRESERVE ENSLAVEMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. UM, I DEFINITELY, I MEAN BEFORE ALLOCATING ANY BUDGET FOR RESTORATION OF THIS PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT'S THOROUGH, UM, AND OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS HOW DO WE, AS A CITY MAKE A COMMITMENT FINANCIALLY, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVEN OUR LIMITED RESOURCES CURRENTLY, HOW DO WE MAKE A FINANCIAL INVESTMENT AND IN PRESERVING THE HISTORY OF THIS HOUSE AND DEVELOP A, A TARGETED RESTORATION ESTIMATE. I, I SUPPORT THE MAYOR'S AMENDMENT, BUT I DEFINITELY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. UM, THEY'RE RELATED. YOU MAY NOT SEE WHY, BUT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE SCENES WITH BOTH ITEMS, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT ABOUT THE AUDIT WE ASKED FOR AND THE BLACK EMBASSY, UM, RESOLUTION THAT WE AUTHORED. AND I MEAN THE EARLIEST INDICATIONS, UM, WHEN ASKED WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF RACISM AND SEGREGATION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN? LIKE BASICALLY THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MONEY REPRESENTS, YOU KNOW, THE INTENTIONAL DISINVESTMENT IN COMMUNITIES AND PEOPLE, AND IT'S A LOT AND IT'S THE FIRST PASS. AND SO I, I PERSONALLY SEE A CORRELATION BETWEEN THAT DEBT IS HOW I LOOK AT IT AND THIS TYPE OF FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IT'S IN CONGRUENT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, KATHY COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU. YOU'VE RAISED A REALLY CRITICAL PIECE OF HISTORY RELATED TO THIS HOUSE. I WANNA CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST CLAUSE IN THE RESOLUTION, WHICH, WHICH RAISES, UM, PART OF THE ISSUE THAT YOU'VE RAISED, WHICH IS ASKING OUR STAFF TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATENESS OF CHANGING THE NAME OF THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE CONFEDERACY AND IN KEEPING WITH OUR POLICY OF REVIEWING FACILITY NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONFEDERACY. YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGE AT THE MOMENT. AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION THAT YOU'VE RAISED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD EXPEND ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON THIS FACILITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I MEAN. I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT IT'S A FACILITY THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE JUST SPENT MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS OF CONVENTION CENTER DOLLARS REVIEWING THE, DOING THE EXTERIOR. AND IT'S NOT BEING USED AS AN OFFICE OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO DO THE INTERIOR RESTORATION. SO I, I, I HEAR THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING AND I'M GONNA GIVE IT SOME CONSIDERATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE OWN THE BUILDING IT'S IN THAT LOCATION, WE'VE PUT A MILLION DOLLARS IN. SHE HAS HER COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER MEDICINE HAS HER HAND UP. SHE DID, I WAS GONNA RECOGNIZE HER WHEN YOU WERE DONE. WELL, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WHAT, AND THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF BECAUSE YOU SEEM [01:55:01] TO BE SUGGESTING, WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE FUNDING USE. OKAY. NATASHA, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING BEFORE KATHY ASKED HER QUESTION OF STAFF? YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO POINT OUT THAT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT WE HAVE THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BEFORE WE ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL 8 MILLION. I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE SOME INVESTMENT, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT AS, UM, AS THE IMPETUS FOR MAKING MORE INVESTMENT. I I'D SAY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO, WELL, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE RIGHT NOW. UM, I, I, I THINK THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMPONENT SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE WE MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE STRUCTURE. KATHY. YOU WANNA QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. I WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS I'M, UH, TWEAKING THIS A BIT. AND I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT THAT COULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN AND SHOULD HAPPEN. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. UM, AND WE'LL, WE'LL FLIP, WE'LL WORK TO FLIP FLOP THAT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE SOME MONEY SET ASIDE FOR THIS PURPOSE, IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD. SO THAT, THAT MONEY IS THERE. IF AND WHEN THE COMMUNITY DECIDES THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD IN SOME WAY. AND I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK WE, I WOULD JUST REALLY SUGGEST THAT THERE BE A COM WELL, I I'VE ALREADY SAID MY PIECE ON WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A CITY FACILITY STANDING EMPTY DOWNTOWN. UM, WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED, UM, DIRECTOR TETRA, THE CONVENTION CENTER. I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT IT STAYS IN THAT LOCATION, THE CONVENTION CENTER HAS ALREADY SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE, WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE IF IT, IF IT WAS GOING TO BECOME, IF IT WERE GOING TO BECOME AN ASSET OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S DEPARTMENT SAY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT I ASSUME THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPAY THOSE CONVENTION CENTER DOLLARS. SO AT, AT SOME POINT CITY MANAGER, YOU MUST HAVE MADE AN ASSESSMENT THAT THIS, THAT THIS IS NOW UNDER THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE CONVENTION CENTER. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE'VE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION THAT I CAN RECALL ON THIS DIAS IN ANY OF MY 11 YEARS ABOUT THE CASTLEMAN BILL HOUSE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT HAS BEEN A COM UH, SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE DIRECTED. I ASSUME IF I CAN COUNCIL MEMBER THE, A LARGE PORTION OF THE, UH, RENOVATION OF THE EXTERIOR FACILITY, THE DECISION TO MAKE THAT, UH, MAKE THOSE REPAIRS WAS, UH, TO KEEP THE, THE INTERIOR OF THE FACILITY AS INTACT AS POSSIBLE. SO THE, A LOT OF THAT WAS MEANT FOR PRESERVATION OF THE, OF THE HOUSE ITSELF. SO THE EXTERIOR GOT A NEW ROOF, NEW WINDOW, UH, NEW WINDOWS AS NEEDED DOORS AS NEEDED PAINTING THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO IT WAS TO PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HOUSE IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION UNTIL THERE WAS SUCH A TIME WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE WERE DECISIONS MADE, UH, TO WHETHER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO RENOVATE THE INTERIOR OF THE FACILITY, UM, FROM A, THE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, FUNDS, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS, UM, LELA MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE LEGAL U THE LEGAL, I THINK MY QUESTION REALLY WAS, I THINK YOU HAD SAID IF IT, IF IT IS GOING TO BE OPERATED BY THE CONVENTION CENTER, IT NEEDS TO REMAIN IN THAT SPOT. AND I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF WE HAVEN'T ALREADY CROSSED THAT BRIDGE SINCE, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY SPENT CONVENTION CENTER DOLLARS, MM-HMM ON THAT PROPERTY. AND SO THEY WOULD NEED TO EITHER BE REPAID OR SOME, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY, I MEAN, THE MANAGER YOU ALL, AND, AND THE MANAGER HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION. UH, THIS IS LELA FIRESIDE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAW DEPARTMENT. AND, UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN. UM, IT MAY BE THAT THE WAY TO ADDRESS IT WOULD BE AT SUCH TIME, IF IT IS MOVED TO A PARK FACILITY THAT IS FREQUENTED BY TOURISTS OR CONVENTION DELEGATES, THE FUNDING WOULD BE ADJUSTED THROUGH THE, UH, HISTORIC HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ALLOCATION, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE TALKING A NUMBER OF YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. SO IT'S THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT WE CAN EXPLORE THE OPTIONS FOR. YEAH, WE HAVE SO MANY, I GUESS THAT WOULD NOT BE, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE IT SHIFT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOLLARS. WE HAVE SO MANY, MANY, MANY PROJECTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF CITY FACILITIES THAT ARE COMPETING FOR THOSE DOLLARS, AS WELL AS, AS PROPERTIES OUT IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE A COMMITMENT AND I THINK ARE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB OF SPENDING THOSE DOLLARS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY ON A DIVERSE ARRAY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME, THIS, THIS IS ELIGIBLE FOR CONVENTION CENTER DOLLARS AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED IN THAT MANNER. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN DID NOT PROPOSE MOVING IT [02:00:01] AT THIS POINT. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY PROPOSALS IN 20 YEARS, UM, INCLUDING IN THIS MOST RECENT PLANNING EFFORT, WHICH WAS UNDERTAKING LOOKING AT THIS AREA AND THINKING ABOUT SHIFTS AND PLANNING AND WHATNOT, AND IT'S STILL NOT RECOMMENDING A MOVE. SO I, I THINK, UM, PUTTING OFF A DECISION ABOUT RESTORING IT, BECAUSE WE MIGHT DECIDE TO MOVE IT IS, IS ALSO NOT A, NOT A PLAN I COULD SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, AND, UH, TO ELABORATE, UH, WHEN TRISHA HAD ASKED, ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ABOUT LIKE, IF IT REALLY WAS JUST A, WHAT IF SCENARIO IN CASE ANY, THERE WAS ANY CONTEMPLATION OF MOVING THAT HOUSE OUT OF THAT, OUT OF THAT AREA, BUT IT IS A CONVENTION CENTER ASSET. WE HAVE VIEWED IT AS A CONVENTION CENTER ASSET. AND TO YOUR POINT, WE ARE ABLE TO USE THOSE ELIGIBLE HOT TAX DOLLARS FOR THE RENOVATION. NOW, AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PALM PLANNING, UH, VISION WILL COME OUT AND WILL WANT TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING WATERLOO, WATERLOO, GREENWAY ABOUT THE BEST USE OF THAT. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, IT IS A CONVENTION CENTER ASSET. UM, THANK YOU. I GUESS THAT KIND OF ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS. I WOULD SAY, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER MEDICINE, AND MAYOR, YOU'VE BOTH SPENT SOME TIME LOOKING AT IT AND HAVE SOME IDEAS. AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE MOMENT I DON'T HAVE A SUBOR AND I WOULD LOVE TO, TO WORK WITH YOU BETWEEN HERE AND THURSDAY AND SEE, I THINK I'VE ALREADY INVITED YOU TO DO SO. AND YOUR, AND YOUR SUGGESTION KIND OF IS THE WORKOUT HERE TO SET ASIDE, BUT NOT AUTHORIZE, AND THEN LET THAT COME BACK MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE, THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. LET ME TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE, VET THAT CONCEPT TO SEE YOU MAY HAVE DONE HELPED US. YEAH, AND I THINK, AND I THINK THAT WORK, YOU KNOW, THE ANALYSIS AND THE UPDATING OF THE ESTIMATE AND THE LOOKING AT WHAT IT, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS IS GONNA TAKE SOME TIME AND ALLOW US AND AFFORDS THE TIME TO HAVE THE KIND OF COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE YOU ARE DESCRIBING. IN ADDITION TO THE ONE THAT I HAD ALREADY PUT IN THERE TO DISCUSS THE, THE NAME, THE NAME ASSOCIATION WITH THE CONFEDERACY. AND THAT WOULD ALSO ADDRESS MY CONCERN OF NOT ACTUALLY DOING THE FINAL AUTHORIZATION UNTIL THE STUDY COMES BACK. SO THOSE THINGS WOULD, WOULD DOVETAIL, BUT IT WOULD ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN OF MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD IF THAT WAS THE DECISION AT THAT POINT. YEAH. I MEAN, WE NEVER AUTHORIZE THE FUNDS UNTIL THE CONTRACTS HIT US ANYWAY. SO, BUT ALL WE'RE REALLY DOING NEVER IS SETTING IT ASIDE BECAUSE TRUE THAT'S, THE STAFF WORKS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION AT THAT POINT THAT THE DECISION'S BEEN MADE AND IT DOESN'T CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES AND ALWAYS JUST POINTS IN THAT DIRECTION. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, THANK YOU, MARY. I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING OCCURRED TO ME AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO WAS TALKING ABOUT HAVING MADE THE INVESTMENT AND WHAT HAPPENS MOVING FORWARD. UM, AS A RESULT OF US, YOU KNOW, BEING IN POSSESSION IN THIS BUILDING AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, UM, BACK TO MY POINT ABOUT THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT I MADE REFERENCE TO EARLIER, THE BLACK EMBASSY NEEDS A PHYSICAL SPACE. UM, SO IF WE HAVE BRICK AND MORTAR, THAT'S UNOCCUPIED AND NEEDS TO BE OCCUPIED, I SEE THAT AS, I MEAN, EVEN SYMBOLICALLY AS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE PLACE TO PUT THE BLACK EMPATHY. SO I'D LIKE FOR Y'ALL TO ADD THAT TO YOUR POINT OF CONSIDERATION, UM, AS WE MOVE INTO DELIBERATION FOR THURSDAY, IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA, TOO, COUNCIL MEMBER. I LOOK FORWARD TO, TO THAT DISCUSSION. AND I THINK IN PREPARATION FOR THAT, AND, AND MAYBE OUR OFFICES CAN HAVE IT BETWEEN HERE AND THURSDAY, BUT I WOULD ASK LAW TO HELP US FIGURE OUT HOW THAT, HOW THAT WORKS. IF THE CONVENTION CENTER INVESTMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE ON THE EXTERIOR, WHAT WOULD BE A PATH FOR ALLOWING FOR THAT HAPPENED? NOT FOR AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT JUST IF YOU COULD HELP THINK THROUGH WHAT THAT PATH WOULD LOOK LIKE. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WHILE WE HAVE, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HERE. DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, AND TALK ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING ITEM? SO THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CONVENTION CENTER TO THE CITY HALL PARKING GARAGE AMENDMENT THAT I BROUGHT DURING THE BUDGET THAT WENT PAST. UM, WE AGREED AT THE TIME TO, TO RAISE THE RATES TO BETTER COVER OUR COSTS AND ALSO TO BETTER REFLECT, WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT TO BETTER COVER OUR COSTS. UM, WE RAISED THEM TO AN EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE NUMBER AND, AND ONE THAT WAS IN KEEPING WITH THE RATES AROUND IT, THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE PARKING RATES ARE THE, THE ONES THAT I'M PROPOSING ARE THE SAME. I BELIEVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY IN PLACE FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER, WITH THE PARKING GARAGE, UM, HERE THERE IS A GENERAL FUND COST. AND SO YOU ALL MADE REMEMBER THAT WE AGREED TO COME BACK AND, AND LOOK AT IT IN A COUPLE MONTHS AND SEE WHETHER THOSE ESTIMATES WERE, WERE LOWER, WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE HIGHER THAN, THAN WE AGREED TO ASSUME. UM, THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THIS ONE, [02:05:01] BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ASKED THEM TO COME BACK AND CHECK IN. I WOULD SAY THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENCES HERE. ONE IS THAT THE, THE PARKING GARAGE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER GOES TOWARD PAYING DEBT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS, AS WE TALK ABOUT PROJECTS THAT ARE EXPENSIVE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER TO UNDERTAKE, INCLUDING AN EXPANSION, UM, IT SEEMS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE USE OUR ASSETS AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE ARE RESPONDING APPROPRIATELY TO THE DEMAND ON IT, AS WELL AS TO THE COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING THAT CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE. I, UM, I HAVE TO JUST SHARE THAT I WAS TROUBLED BY THIS SORT OF UNFOLDED AND LAST TIME'S Q AND A I'M TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT, THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER SALES TEAM SPENT TIME, UM, CALLING CONVENTION OPERATORS TO ASK THEM TO PLEASE WEIGH IN AND, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO WEIGH IN AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. I MAYBE JUST ONCE BEFORE, HAVE I SEEN CITY STAFF SPEND TIME TRYING TO LOBBY OPPOSITION AGAINST A COUNCIL, AMENDMENT AND MANAGER I'VE EXPRESSED TO YOU PERSONALLY, AND I'VE EXPRESSED TO RODNEY TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GONZALEZ AS WELL, HOW CONCERNED I AM ABOUT, ABOUT THAT ACTION? UM, I THINK THIS IS A VERY REASONABLE PROPOSAL. I THINK WE NEED TO BE GOOD FISCAL STEWARDS OF OUR PROPERTIES. I THINK ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE WORKING TO PAY OFF EXISTING DEBT, I THINK WE NEED TO BE THE CONCERNS THAT I SEE EXPRESSED BOTH IN OUR DISCUSSION LAST TIME BY THE CONVENTION CENTER, AS WELL AS IN THE MESSAGES THAT WERE SOLICITED FOR OUR, FOR OUR, UM, CONSIDERATION. I SEE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS COULD IMPACT CONVENTIONS. AND AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME ON THE DIAS, AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER POOL ASKED THIS QUESTION, THE CONVENTION CENTER ALWAYS HAS THE ABILITY TO VALIDATE PARKING AT THAT GARAGE AND DOES, AND SO I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT VERY HANDILY ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT CONVENTION YEARS. IT WON'T AT ALL, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO LET IT IMPACT THEM AT ALL. UM, AND I KNOW SOMETIMES AT THIS GARAGE AND AT THE LONG CENTER, I MEAN, I PARK AT THE LONG CENTER SOMETIMES WHERE THERE'S A SPECIAL EVENT AND THE OPERATORS THAT DAY HAVE PAID THE CHARGES. AND IF YOU SAY, YOU'RE GOING SAY TO THE SETTLEMENT GARAGE SALE, THEY WAVE YOU IN AND YOU DON'T PAY, OR THERE'S A SET RATE FOR THAT DAY. SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY THAT THAT CAN EXIST AT THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE. IF THERE IS A PARTICULAR SHOW WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A SMALLER RATE, THIS ISN'T ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I, WE CAN CERTAINLY BUILD INTO THIS WHATEVER KIND OF CAVEATS YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONVENTIONS THAT OPERATE THERE STILL COME AND, AND PARTICIPATE. I FREQUENTLY HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF GOING TO A SHOW AT THE LONG CENTER AND PAYING MORE FOR PARKING THAN I, I'M NOT THE LONG CENTER, THE PALMER EVENT CENTER, I'M PAYING MORE FOR PARKING THAN THE SHOW ITSELF. UM, AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HEARD, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO WELL WITHIN THE CONTROL OF, OF, UM, THE PARKING GARAGE AND US OPERATORS AT THE CONVENTIONS CENTER TO MODULATE AROUND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, YOU EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM THAT I'D LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND. ONE OF THE THINGS IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE REALIZED IS THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER DOESN'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROGRAM. AND SO THIS, THIS, UH, BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THEM TO PARTICIPATE ALONGSIDE OUR OTHER CITY STRUCTURES IN THAT AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM. SO, YOU KNOW, IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT NIGHT, I THINK THE CONVENTION CENTER REP STAFF MEMBERS SAID, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR KEEPING THE RATES LOW IS TO BE KIND OF A BENEFIT TO THOSE IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY WHILE WE HAVE, WE HAVE A VERY CONCRETE WAY OF DOING SO, AND THAT'S THE AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM. AND SO HAVING THE CONVENTION CENTER PARTICIPATE IN THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC THAT I THINK THOSE TWO MEASURES, I THINK ARE A BETTER WAY OF ENSURING THAT THE PEOPLE, THE CONVENTION CENTER WANTS TO ASSURE, HAVE LOWER COST PARKING, HAVE IT, RATHER THAN JUST KEEPING THE RATES LOW FOR EVERYBODY ARTIFICIALLY LOW, I WOULD SAY, UM, THE LOWEST IN DOWNTOWN, I THINK WAS THE ANSWER THAT WE GOT BACK FROM THE Q AND A. SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY PROPOSAL. I THINK IT'S A VERY REASONABLE ONE. UM, AND I'LL JUST, UH, ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT I DO WANNA, AT SOME POINT GET AROUND TO THE QUESTION TO THE POINTS THAT YOU WERE RAISING AND SEE IF IN THIS FORUM, WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT A PATH FORWARD FOR, FOR MANAGER. WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THIS AND THEN, UH, ANNE AND THEN MCKENZIE, SEE, THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER, CERTAINLY THE CONVERSATION AROUND SOME OF THESE FEES HAVE BEEN, UH, PROPOSED BY STAFF AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WITHIN EACH BUDGET CYCLE. UH, STAFF HAS CERTAINLY, UH, AGREED TO AND ARE, ARE ANTICIPATING DOING ANOTHER MARKET, UH, UH, STUDY REGARDING THIS, UH, UH, FEE STRUCTURE. AND SO I'LL, I'LL TURN TO ACM GONZALEZ, BUT, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO [02:10:01] MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH IN TERMS OF ANY CHANGES TO OUR FEES, UH, IS REFLECTIVE OF THE, THE MARKET CONDITIONS, UH, AND THE ABILITY FOR THE OPERATORS TO ADJUST IT AS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR PURPOSES. THANK YOU. SO, ANDREW, UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR HOW THOSE COMMUNICATIONS TRANSPIRED, BUT SALES STAFF AND INDIVIDUAL TRADE SHOWS THEIR INTENT REALLY WAS TO GATHER DUE DILIGENCE SPECIFICALLY FROM THOSE TRADE SHOWS. SO THAT WAY WE COULD INFORM COUNCIL ABOUT INFORMATION FROM THOSE TRADE SHOWS VERSUS ANECDOTAL INFORMATION, WHICH WE HAD HAD PREVIOUSLY. UM, AND SO LESSONS LEARNED, UH, ABOUT JUST ENSURING THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE TIGHT WHEN WE PERFORM OUR DUE DILIGENCE. UM, WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING GARAGE, UH, A CONCERN HERE OF COURSE IS, UM, THE FEES. WE AGREE THAT THE FEES ARE ALWAYS WORTHWHILE FOR REVIEWING. WE REVIEW THOSE INTERNALLY. UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE HIRING AN EXTERNAL, UH, MARKETING CONSULTANT OR NOT MARKETING CONSULTANT, BUT CONSULTANT WHO CAN DO A MARKET STUDY FOR US ON THE PARKING GARAGE, WHO CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT COUNCIL HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, UH, THE LOCATION, THE ANCILLARY, UH, LOCATIONS THAT BENEFIT FROM THE PARKING GARAGE, THE RATES, ET CETERA, TO GE TO GIVE US INFORMATION THAT WILL GUIDE US AS TO HOW BEST TO INCREASE, INCREASE THE RATES AND WHAT MECHANISMS ARE USED. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT VALIDATION AND DIRECTOR TORO CAN, UH, PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO ON THAT AS NEEDED. WE DO PERFORM THE VALIDATION, AS WE ALL THINK OF AT THE, AT THE PALMER EVENT CENTER, IT WORKS THERE, IT'S AN ATTACHED PARKING GARAGE OPERATIONALLY. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. WE DON'T DO THAT LEVEL OF VALIDATION AT THE CONVENTION CENTER, UM, DOING SO WOULD BE A COMPLETE CHANGE IN OUR OPERATIONAL MODEL. UM, SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A POLICY DECISION HERE, THE IMPLICATIONS ARE THAT WE WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY HAVE TO CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE OPERATE IN TERMS OF VALIDATION. SO JUST TO DRAW THAT DISTINCTION, WE DO, UH, DO THAT VALIDATION AT PALMER. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE VISITED THE PALMER ON MANY OCCASIONS FOR VARIOUS EVENTS WHERE YOU'RE VALIDATED, HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO VALIDATION, THAT'S NOT THE MODE OF OPERATION THAT WE EMPLOY AT THE CONVENTION CENTER FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A CONCERN HERE IS THAT WE WANT MORE INFORMATION TO GO INTO GUIDING US AS TO HOW THOSE FEES ARE INCREASED AND AT WHAT LEVEL, AND AT WHAT TIMES, UH, SO THAT WAY WE CAN, UH, DO THE BEST JOB POSSIBLE WITH COLLECTING THE HIGHEST REVENUES POSSIBLE. UM, AND WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF WE ARE GONNA BE CHANGING OUR FUNDAMENTAL VALIDATION, UH, PROCEDURES, THAT WE DO THAT EYES WIDE OPEN WITH THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US, UM, MAYOR, UM, HANG ON ONE SECOND, JUST TO LET OTHER PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS TOO. UH, AND, AND THEN, UH, I CAN, OKAY. UM, SO REALLY MY QUESTION IS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO COUNCIL MEMBER, TOBO, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND, AND, UM, AND INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT. UM, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING THE, THE REASON FOR NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. I'M A BIT CONCERNED THAT, UM, THAT, UH, A MARKET STUDY MIGHT TAKE QUITE A BIT OF TIME AND BE COSTLY. SO CAN YOU GIVE ME AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY? AND THEN ALSO I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING, STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE. I MEAN, I'M, CUZ I'M HEARING COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO SPEAK TO ADDRESSING, UM, CONCERNS. AND SO CAN YOU ABSOLUTELY PLEASE ARTICULATE BETTER BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE, UM, AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. UM, AND I'M ALSO HEARING THAT THERE'S SOME MECHANISM AND MAYBE IT'S NOT VALIDATION, BUT THERE'S SOME MECHANISM TO OFFER, UM, DISCOUNTS FOR, UM, FOR EVENTS. SO ARE YOU ALL THINKING THERE IS NO MECHANISM CURRENTLY TO OFFER DISCOUNTS FOR EVENTS? UM, I DIRECTOR TORO CAN BEST, UH, RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION, BUT WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERNS, OF COURSE, UM, THE FEE INCREASE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, UM, FROM WHAT, THE WAY THAT WE CURRENTLY OPERATE AND THE TRADE SHOWS THAT WE DEAL WITH MM-HMM , FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, UH, THEY WOULD VIEW THAT AS A COST PROHIBITIVE, UM, INCREASE TO CONDUCT THEIR TRADE SHOWS IN AUSTIN. UM, NOW WE'RE, I'M SORRY NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT WHY ARE THEY PAYING THOSE FEES? SURE. AND WE CAN ELABORATE ON THAT. UH, DIRECTOR TATRO CAN ELABORATE ON THAT. UM, AND THEN CONCERN OF COURSE, IS THAT IF IT'S COST-PROHIBITIVE DO THEY THEN NOT RENEW THEIR AGREEMENT WITH US AND THEN FIND A DIFFERENT CONVENTION CENTER WITHIN THE REGION OR ELSEWHERE. AND THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE TYPICALLY MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENTS. SO IT'S NOT LOSING A TRADE SHOW FOR ONE, UH, SEASON OR ONE YEAR, BUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF POTENTIALLY LOSING THEM FOR MULTIPLE YEARS. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND. DON'T DON'T WE HAVE IT IN SOME MECHANISMS TO DON'T WE NEGOTIATE WITH TRADE SHOWS [02:15:01] ON WHAT THEY PAY. I MEAN, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER. SURE. COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, SO OUR PARKING RATES ARE, UH, IN LINE WITH THE STANDARD OF WHAT THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING RATES ARE ACROSS THE STATE AND SIMILARLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY. UM, WHEN WE NEGOTIATE WITH OUR CUSTOMERS, WE PROVIDE THEM WITH, UM, WHAT THE COST OF SERVICE WOULD BE TO HOST THEIR EVENTS. SO WE CHARGE A TECH, TECHNICAL UTILITY SERVICES. WE CHARGE FOR EQUIPMENT, WE CHARGE FOR PARKING. WE PURPOSELY KEEP ALL OF THOSE RATES AT OR BELOW THE COST OF SERVICE BECAUSE OUR MODEL IS TO, UM, TO BRING IN HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, UM, AND TO MAXIMIZE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCES THAT ARE, UM, TEXAS BASED AND A LOT OF THOSE EVENTS HAPPEN, UM, IN THE SUMMERTIME. AND THE REASON WHY THE VALIDATIONS WORK AT THE PALMER EVENT CENTER IS BECAUSE IT IS A SMALLER VENUE LIKE, UM, ACM GONZALEZ SAID IT IS THE PARKING GARAGE IS CONNECTED TO, AND A MAJORITY OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO, UH, DO THE VALIDATING OF PARKING. THEY ROLL THAT INTO, UM, THEY DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO PAY FOR THE PARKING FOR THEIR ATTENDEES. SO THE, THE, THE VALIDATIONS ARE ACTUALLY BEING BILLED BACK TO THE CUSTOMER AND THE CUSTOMER'S PAYING FOR THOSE PARKING FEES AT THE CONVENTION CENTER WE HAVE LOOKED AT, UM, AND WE DO VALIDATIONS ON A VERY SMALL SCALE, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE, APPROXIMATELY 3% OF OUR, UM, OVERALL, UH, PARKING TICKETS THAT WE RECEIVE, APPROXIMATELY 3% OF THOSE ARE VALIDATION. SO IT IS A VERY SMALL PROCESS. WE HAVE CUSTOMERS AT THE CONVENTION CENTER WHO CHOOSE TO PAY FOR THEIR VOLUNTEER OR THEIR STAFF PARKING. WE WILL DO A VALIDATION BECAUSE IT IS A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND WE CAN EMAIL THOSE QR CODES OUT DIRECTLY. UM, IF YOU WERE ASKING US TO ALL OF A SUDDEN, UM, BALLOON, THIS VALIDATION PROCESS TO WHERE EVERY ATTENDEE THAT ATTENDS A CONFERENCE THAT PARKS IN OUR GARAGE WOULD NEED TO RECEIVE SOME SORT OF A QR CODE OR SOME WAY TO VALIDATE, UM, TO GET THAT DISCOUNTED RATE, UH, THE CONVENTION CENTER ISN'T CURRENTLY SET UP FOR THAT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE, UM, ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR PARKING, UH, EQUIPMENT COMPANY TO FIND OUT WHAT VALIDATION, UM, MACHINERY IS AVAILABLE. IT WOULD BE, UM, IT WOULD TAKE ADDITIONAL STAFF I BELIEVE. UM, AND IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO GET THIS PROGRAM UP AND OFF THE GROUND. UM, ADDITIONALLY, A MAJORITY OF OUR ATTENDEES, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS THAT THEY STAY WITHIN, THE CONVENTION CENTER IS BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE HOURS. UM, AND THAT IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE A VARIABLE RATE PARKING STRUCTURE, THAT IS WHY, UH, WE KEEP THAT, THAT RATE COMPARABLE TO WHAT OTHER CONVENTION CENTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE CHARGING. IN ADDITION TO DOWNTOWN, WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL RATES ON, ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTS THAT ARE HIGHER, UM, TO TRY TO CAPITALIZE ON THAT NON-CON CONVENTION PARKING THAT COMES IN. SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE ADD, UH, HIGHER RATES THAT WE CHARGE ON THE WEEKENDS. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN UNTIL 11:00 AM, SO THAT IF THERE WERE, UM, PATRONS IN DOWNTOWN THAT, YOU KNOW, NEEDED TO LEAVE THEIR CAR OVERNIGHT IN UBER HOME, THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND GET THEIR VEHICLE. BUT THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT STAFF HAS IS, UM, INSTITUTING A BULK VALIDATION PROCESS FOR THE SIDE, THE SIDES AND SCOPE OF THE ATTENDEES, UM, AND THE CONVENTIONS THAT WE HAVE. ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LOCAL EVENTS THAT WE TRY TO BRING IN, UM, ON THOSE WEEKENDS THAT ARE NOT IDEAL FOR, UM, WHEN THERE'S OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN DOWNTOWN. UM, AND THOSE ARE THE PRICES THAT ARE DISCOUNTED, UH, OR THAT THE TICKET PRICES ARE TYPICALLY, UM, LESS EXPENSIVE. THAT WOULD BE OUR CHILDREN SHOWS OUR SPORTING EVENTS. UM, AND THEN OUR CONSUMER SHOWS AS WELL. SO OUR, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF REACHING OUT TO OUR CUSTOMERS AS WE ARE INCREASING OR THINKING ABOUT INCREASING OUR RATES IS ALWAYS TO ENGAGE WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND DETERMINE HOW THAT RATE INCREASE MIGHT, UH, IN INADVERTENTLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEIR SHOW. UM, SO I HOPE THAT THAT HELPS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. UM, YES. AND THEN I ALSO HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND THE COST OF DOING THE PARKING STUDY. SURE. THE CONVENTION CENTER HASN'T, UM, DONE A PARKING RATE WITH AN OUTSIDE COMPANY BEFORE. SO WE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD TAKE US SOME TIME TO, UH, ENGAGE AND, AND GET A TEAM ON BOARD AND DO THAT STUDY. I WOULD, I WOULD EXPECT PROBABLY NINE MONTHS TO, TO A YEAR, UM, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THAT PROCESS, UH, WE DO EVERY YEAR WE DO AN ANALYSIS. UH, OUR PARKING TEAM DOES AN ANALYSIS OF, UH, THE PARKING RATES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, AS WELL AS THE CONVENTION CENTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND WE, WE BASE OUR RATES VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S KIND OF HAPPENING IN THE MARKET AT THE TIME AND WE DO, WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR RATES. UM, AND, AND WE DO LOOK AT TRYING TO DO THAT ABOUT EVERY TWO YEARS. UM, WELL, I I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA, I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFICULTY WITH PROCEEDING THE WAY THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT REQUIRING YOU TO PUT A VALIDATION [02:20:01] MECHANISM IN PLACE. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE WAY I SEE WHAT SHE'S SUGGESTING IS LEAVES SOME FLEXIBILITY TO HOW YOU WOULD, HOW YOU WOULD DEAL WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH, WITH TRADE THEN TRADE SHOWS. I DON'T SEE THAT WHAT SHE SUGGESTED AS PRESCRIPTIVE IN THAT WAY. SO I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER TO TOBO WHAT SHE'S THINKING, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE RAISED. YEAH. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. UM, AND THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE ARE VALIDATIONS. I DID IN MY LAST Q AND A, IN THE Q AND A FOR THE LAST MEETING ASKED THAT QUESTION. AND, AND SO WE HAVE A LIST OF THE VALIDATIONS AND I, YOU KNOW, THE MEANS BY WHICH YOU MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR CONVENTION GOERS TO PARK AT WHATEVER RATE YOU NEGOTIATE. I WOULD, I WOULD THINK IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. I MEAN, IF, IF, IF IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO PUT A VALIDATION MACHINE IN, BECAUSE THE VALIDATIONS WOULD BE MORE THAN HAVE A SIGN UP THAT SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO THE HOME AND GARDEN SHOW, PARKING IS $5, SHOW YOUR TICKET OR, OR BE IT ON THE HONOR SYSTEM. BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF YOU HAVE THE LOWEST, YOU KNOW, THE, THE Q AND A TALKED ABOUT, TALKED ABOUT HAVING ONE OF THE LOWEST PARKING RATES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT DOESN'T PRESERVE, THAT DOESN'T REALLY PRESERVE SPOTS FOR YOUR CONVENTION GOERS NECESSARILY BECAUSE THOSE COULD VERY EASILY BE FILLED UP BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GOING TO CONVENTIONS. IF YOU HAVE THE LOWEST PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I MEAN, I KNOW PEOPLE WHO PARK THERE WHEN THEY GO TO RAINY STREET, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE LOWEST PARKING PLACES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WHAT WE REALLY WANNA DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROJECTING, PROTECTING THE CONVENTION GOERS. THEN I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT. AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I'M, I'M SURE THAT SOME CREATIVITY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM TO PROTECT PRICING FOR, FOR CONVENTION GOERS, SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO, TO DOOM DOOM THEIR ABILITY, YOU KNOW, THE CONVENTION CENTER'S ABILITY TO, TO GET VISITORS IN THERE, BUT IN TERMS OF DAY IN AND DAY OUT PARKING RATES, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH OTHER DOWNTOWN PARKING RATES. AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE CLOSER TO THE COST OF SERVICE BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE NOT SERVING CONVENTION YEARS, THEY SHOULD BE CLOSER THAT WE SHOULD BE CAPTURING CLOSER TO THE COST OF SERVICE. I ALSO WANNA SAY THE PARKING STUDY, THE CONSULTANT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO THE, I DO WANNA TALK. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. UM, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT THING AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, UM, I, I HAVE A POINT ON THAT, BUT I'LL, I'LL BE QUIET FOR A BIT. SO, UM, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO. UM, AND THANK YOU MAYOR FOR RECOGNIZING ME EARLIER. UM, SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF RAISING THE RATES OF OUR PARKING GARAGES, INCLUDING THE, THE FACT THAT PRIVATE GARAGES MIGHT SEE THIS AS A SIGNAL THAT THEY COULD RAISE THEIR RATES. AND THEN WE'RE IN A RATE WAR AND, AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT SAYING IT WILL, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MIND. UM, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE IN OUR MUSIC INDUSTRY AND SERVICE INDUSTRY. AND I THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING WITH YOUR RESOLUTION ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM. BUT WHEN I MENTIONED THE WOMAN I'D MET, WHO WORKS OVER AT THE HOTEL NEXT DOOR, HOW SHE WAS KICKED OUT BECAUSE, UH, HER HOURS CHANGED AND SHE'S NO LONGER ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM. UM, I LEARNED THAT OUR PARKING PROGRAM HERE FOR EXAMPLE, IS ONLY AVAILABLE BETWEEN 3:00 PM AND 5:00 AM FOR SERVICE INDUSTRY WORKERS. AND SO I JUST WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE PARKING PROGRAM AT THE CONVENTION CENTER, MAYBE AN EXPANSION ON HOURS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE SERVICE INDUSTRY WORKERS WHO ARE UNFAIRLY BURDENED BY PAYING FOR PARKING BECAUSE THEIR EMPLOYERS WON'T COVER IT. I HAD JUST HANDED OUT SIMILAR TO THE COUNCILMAN BULL HOUSE. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE STUDIED. UH, YOU KNOW, MY FIRST IMPULSE IS TO KEEP PARKING RATES HIGH DOWNTOWN, SO IS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO, TO FIND DIFFERENT WAYS TO, TO BE DOWNTOWN. AND THE LIKE, UH, AT THE SAME TIME, UH, THERE SEEMED TO BE SIGNIFICANT, UH, CONCERN FROM STAFF. SO BEFORE I WOULD AUTHORIZE IT, I'M MORE COMFORTABLE ASKING FOR, UH, A STUDY SO THAT, OR AT LEAST FURTHER INFORMATION FOR US, UH, I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BIG ENOUGH DECISION THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING IT WITH MORE INFORMATION, UH, AND A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO VET. SO THAT'S WHY I HAD HAD PROPOSED THE, THAT, THAT ANALYSIS, UH, PAGE AND THEN PEEL. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, I COULD SUPPORT THE STUDY. I KNOW I ASKED, UH, A Q AND A IN THE BUDGET CYCLE. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE BACK. UM, I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT I, I HOPE THAT ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE CONSULTING [02:25:01] WITH OTHER BIG CITIES IN TEXAS AND THEIR PEERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN KEEPING BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL ABSOLUTELY PICK OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS. THEY WOULD PICK OTHER PEER CITIES THAT OFFER SOME OF THE SAME BENEFITS THAT PEOPLE WANNA COME AND VISIT AUSTIN FOR. AND SO I, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS PROBABLY EVERY BUDGET CYCLE GOING THROUGH AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE RATES ARE COMPETITIVE. UM, AND IF YOU COULD RAISE THEM AND BRING IN MORE MONEY AND PEOPLE WOULDN'T GO AWAY, I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY WOULD'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. SO I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF JUST RAISING THEM TO RAISE THEM, BUT I, I HEAR, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE BEST VALUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY SPACE AND OUR PUBLIC PARKING GARAGES. UM, I, I COULD GO FOR A STUDY, BUT I COULD EVEN GO FOR JUST SAYING, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING FOR THIS PARKING FEE, BUT I JUST, I DON'T WANNA SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON THIS. CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE OTHER BIG TOPICS TO COVER TODAY FOR THIS MEETING. OH YES. AND I AGREE WITH PAIGE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE LOSING A, A LOT OF THE, UH, TRADE SHOWS THAT WE NORMALLY USED TO GET HERE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER. THEY'RE GOING OUT TO CEDAR PARK AROUND VILLE, CUZ THEY'RE ALL BUILDING THESE MEDIUM SIZED CONVENTION CENTERS. AND UH, SO THEIR CAUSES ARE A LOT LOW. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE HERE, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GONNA LOSE BUSINESS BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GONNA COLLECT A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, UM, FEEDS FOR PARKING, BEING A, A TRANSIT SUPPORTER, PUBLIC TRANSIT SUPPORTERS. YOU KNOW, I, I COULD SEE IF WE DID HAVE A RAIL OR, OR SOME KIND OF, UH, PARKING RIDE TYPE PROGRAM HERE. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO INCREASE THE FEES DOWN THERE, BUT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT, I DON'T SEE, SEE THE NEED FOR IT. WHAT ELSE MAY YES. TRUE. I, I APPRECIATE A COUNCIL MEMBER TOFU, AGAIN, JUST LOOKING FOR REVENUE. UH, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT EFFORT. UH, I KNOW THAT STAFF DID HAVE A, KIND OF A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WHERE THEY WERE RAISING, UH, RATES. UH, AND, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT, WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. I MEAN, IT SEEMED REASONABLE TO ME AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, UH, IF COUNCIL MEMBER, WHAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT RESPONSE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN THAT, I THINK, IS IT, WAS IT FOR THIS OR WAS IT FOR THE PARKING GARAGE HERE? I THINK THE COMPROMISE WITH THE PARKING GARAGE HERE WAS THAT WE JUST ACCOUNTED FOR LOWER REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS AS WE WERE, UM, USING IT IN OUR BUDGETING. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE STAFF I'VE ASKED THE MANAGER, IF HE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, AT, AT WHETHER THERE IS SOME INCREASE THAT'S THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE. DID YOU COUNCIL MEMBER? I MEAN, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I I'LL DOUBLE CHECK AND, AND IF I FIND IT, I I'LL I'LL GET IT TO YOU. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, WE, I MEAN, WE DO HAVE, UH, UH, SOME OP SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE OUR RATES. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. WE BELIEVE THAT WE COULD MAKE SOME INCREMENTAL INCREASES IN THE INTERIM, UM, THAT WOULD ACHIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, UH, TO REACH HERE. I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU WHENEVER IT'S CONVENIENT. IS IT IN SOME FORM THAT I'VE MISSED IT? I APOLOGIZE IF IT'S IN THE, UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, ACM GONZALEZ AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT. UM, AND SO WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU IF YOU'D LIKE IT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE CERTAINLY CAN. MM-HMM ALL RIGHT, ALLISON, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PROVIDE THAT TO ALL OF US, CUZ I THINK WE HAVE A SHARED DESIRE TO BE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE CHARGING THE RIGHT AMOUNT, UM, FOR THIS CITY RESOURCE. UM, I WANTED TO ASK IF YOU COULD PLEASE COMPILE ALL THE Q AND A FROM BUDGET AND FROM DIFFERENT PLACES, UM, TO BE IN THE BACKUP. UM, FOR THURSDAY, IT'S GETTING A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE PIECES. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER IN THAT Q AND A, IF YOU DID HAVE DATA FROM OTHER CITIES, UM, CONVENTION CENTER GARAGES AND WHAT THEY WERE CHARGING AND VAGUELY REMEMBER THEY WERE NOT LOWER THAN OURS. UM, AND SO I WOULD LIKE THAT DATA IF YOU HAVE IT, EVEN IF IT'S TWO YEARS OLD, UM, FOR THAT, UM, IF YOU CAN SHARE IT NOW, IF YOU HAVE IT. UM, AND THEN THE LAST PART I HAD IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DID ADOPT A PARKING FEE IN THE BUDGET. SO WE'RE NOT, IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I'M STILL DECIDING WE, WE STILL HAVE A PARKING FEE. I JUST WANNA, I GUESS IF WE DON'T ADOPT SOME OTHER ONES THAT'S MAYOR PUT HIM. YES, WE DO HAVE THE PARKING ANALYSIS OF THE OTHER CONVENTION CENTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH THE ENTIRE COUNCIL AND CONSERVE YOUR TIME HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. AND IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE CREATIVE ACROSS THE HOURS THAT YOU'RE DOING? IT, IT MEAN IN SO FAR AS THE CONVENTION CENTER TIMING TENDS TO BE ONE THING AND THEN THE [02:30:01] EVENING, ET CETERA, TENDS TO BE IN OTHERS. THAT SOMETHING THAT IS A PERMUTATION WE COULD LOOK AT. THAT'S CORRECT. UM, I BELIEVE IN THIS LAST FEW SCHEDULE THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, WE DID ADJUST THE HOURS. UM, SO WE ARE CONSTANTLY EVALUATING THE NUMBER OF TICKETS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT PEOPLE ARE STAYING, ANALYZING THE NUMBER OF HOURS AND THE RATE THAT THEY'RE STAYING. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT DO WE BELIEVE OR CONVENTION ATTENDEES VERSUS OUTSIDE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THAT HIGHER PARKING RATE AT NIGHT AND ON THE WEEKENDS. UM, AND SO WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH YOU, PART OF THE PROPOSAL WAS ADJUSTING THE HOURS, UM, SO THAT, UH, IF YOU ADJUST THE LENGTH OF STAY, THEN IT WILL ADJUST THE, THE, UH, RATE INCREASE INCREMENTALLY. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH THE, WITH THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU. I THINK, UM, THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEING SHARED WITH ALL OF US WILL BE, WILL BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT I DID NOT MENTION THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF A STUDY, BUT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. HOW LONG DO YOU INTEND FOR THE STUDY TO, TO BE, UM, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. I, I ACTUALLY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, UM, SAID I WANTED TO GET BACK TO. I, I DO NOT, I WOULD, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AS A STUDY. OUR CITY PARKING FOLKS HAVE, HAVE COMPILED. I MEAN, THEY TRACK THIS REGULARLY. WE HAVE A CITY DEPARTMENT THAT TRACKS REGULARLY THE PRICES FOR EVERY PARKING GARAGE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WHEN I ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION, THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE IT TO ME. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT INFORMATION BE THE BASIS FOR THE STUDY RATHER THAN HIRE A CONSULTANT WHO'S GONNA BE DONE IN NINE MONTHS. I WOULD ASK OUR CITY STAFF WHO HAVE THIS INFORMATION TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AS WE DID AND COME UP WITH A RATE THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, THAT'S THAT WAS WHAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS HOW WE CAME UP WITH OUR PROPOSAL FOR THIS PARKING GARAGE. AND YOU CAN DO THE SAME FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. IT SHOWS YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE ADJACENT ONES ARE AND, AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT MAKES SENSE. AND THEN I THINK COUPLED WITH THE KIND OF CHECK BACK IN, IN THREE MONTHS AND SEE HOW IT'S GOING. I THINK THAT BUILDS THE LEVEL OF PROTECTIONS THAT I WOULD SUGGEST ARE NECESSARY. BUT SO COUNCIL MEMBER, I GUESS AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, I WASN'T PROPOSING A STUDY. I WAS PROPOSING THAT WE USE THE REALLY EXTENSIVE DATA WE ALREADY HAVE ABOUT PARKING RATES TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION ABOUT WHAT THOSE SHOULD BE IN THIS SECTOR OF DOWNTOWN AND THEN CHECK BACK IN IN THREE MONTHS AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN ANY DIRE, CIRCUM, DIRE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. OH, THANK YOU FOR TALKING ME THROUGH THAT. AND I I'M TRYING, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JASON REDBURN AND OTHERS IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WHO COLLECT THAT DATA. SO PERHAPS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN EVEN BEFORE THURSDAY, I WOULD SUPPORT YOU IN HAVING A, A QUICK TURN BACK. THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE INTERIM PERIOD OF TIME? YOU KNOW, DO WE ASK THE STAFF TO DO THE ANALYSIS, UH, SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR ALL THE, THE ISSUES, UH, AND HAVE THEM RELATIVELY SHORT TIMEFRAME TO COME BACK SO THAT THE COUNCIL THEN CAN CONSIDER ALL THAT INFORMATION AND THEN CHANGE THE RATES THAT THE RATES ARE GONNA BE CHANGED OR DO WE CHANGE THEM FIRST AND THEN MAKE THAT PART OF THE STUDY TO, TO ANALYZE. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT IF, IF YOU WANTED TO DO THE FORMER AND HAVE A QUICK TURNAROUND BACK, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT SIDE, I'D BE COMFORTABLE DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND, AND WOULD WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. UM, YEAH, I'LL GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT, BUT I, I STRONGLY WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT HIRE A CONSULTANT. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S MONEY. WE NEED TO BE SPENDING WHEN WE HAVE THAT EXPERTISE THAT EXISTS. AND I THINK GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS A LOT. I MEAN, WE HAVE A WHOLE DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, PARKING AUSTIN PARKING STRATEGY THAT I THINK SUPPORTS, UM, MANAGING OUR PARKING SYSTEM. WELL, THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER RENT, THIS IS WITHIN BLOCKS OF OUR RED LINE. AND, AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING FOLKS WHO ARE COMING DOWNTOWN, PERHAPS NOT FOR CONVENTIONS, BUT FOR LOCAL FOLKS WHO ARE COMING DOWN FOR SHOWS AND FOR OTHER REASONS TO USE THAT, THAT TRANSIT, UM, AND TO USE OTHER FORMS OF GETTING DOWNTOWN. SO I THINK THIS IS VERY MUCH AN ALIGNMENT. I THINK MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE COVERING OUR COSTS FOR PARKING IS AN ALIGNMENT, NOT JUST WITH OUR FISCAL PRUDENCE, BUT ALSO IN OUR, IN OUR STATED POLICY OF ENCOURAGING A 50 50 MODE SHARE. SO THANK YOU. AND I WOULD LIKE WELCOME THAT, UM, PROPOSAL AND, AND PERHAPS THAT'S, THAT'LL GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH THE BETTER DIRECTION IS IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD OR WE'RE WAITING. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, AND IN THE NATURE OF, OF STILL TRYING TO ADVANCE BALLS, SO MAYBE WE HAVE, UH, CAN NARROW CONVERSATIONS OR AT LEAST FOCUS THEM. LET'S TALK ABOUT LICENSE [56. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to identify funding in the amount of $114,775 in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to reinstate the license plate reader program at the Austin Police Department, include funding in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget for continuation of the program, return to Council with any necessary actions for Council to appropriate the funding for this 56. purpose, re-evaluate and implement appropriate changes to the former policy on license plate readers, and work with the Office of the Police Oversight and coordinate community input sessions related to the policy.] PLATE READER NEXT. UH, I PULLED THIS ITEM, BUT, UM, UH, MACKENZIE, IF YOU WANT TO GO FIRST TO KINDA LAY OUT, UH, UH, THAT'D BE GREAT. I CAN DO THAT. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND, UM, SUGGESTIONS. AND I WANNA THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS AS WELL. I PASSED OUT AND [02:35:01] IT'S ALSO POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, THE MOST UPDATED VERSION OF THE AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER RESOLUTION. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T HAVE A RED LINE YET I CAN GO THROUGH WHAT SOME OF THOSE CHANGES ARE. SO, UM, IF WE GO TO PAGE FOUR OF EIGHT, I ADDED IN THE INFORMATION LINE 76, IT SAYS DATA SHARING WILL ONLY OCCUR FOR INVESTIGATING OR PROSECUTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR APD. IF A CIRCUMSTANCE ARISES WHERE THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW TO SHARE THE INFORMATION AT THE REQUEST OF A STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY FOR ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE, THEN APD WILL NOT GRANT DIRECT ACCESS TO THE DATABASE, BUT WILL SUPPLY THE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR A SPECIFIC CASE OR INVESTIGATION TO THE EXTENT LEGALLY POSSIBLE. IF THE CITY RECEIVES A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT IS BROADER THAN A SPECIFIC CASE OR INVESTIGATION, THEN APD WILL REPORT THAT REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, PRIOR TO SHARING INFORMATION, I BELIEVE THAT ADDRESSES OUR NEED FOR A SORT OF STOP GAP. SO THAT COUNCIL IS AWARE WHEN DATA SHARING OCCURS, UM, IN CASE THE PROGRAM NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED OR REASSESSED. UM, ON NUMBER SIX, I ADDED THIS, IT WASN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT PUBLICLY, BUT LINE 98. UM, I WAS REVIEWING POLICIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY IS IN PORTLAND. UM, OREGON'S THEIR, I GUESS, POLICY ON LICENSE PLATE READERS. IT SAYS, UNLESS THERE'S A CRIMINAL NEXUS OFFICERS WILL NOT USE LICENSE PLATE READER DATA FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATING PERSONS WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH ASSEMBLY AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIONS, SUCH AS ATTENDING POLITICAL RALLIES, PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS, AND RELIGIOUS GATHERINGS. I JUST FELT THAT WHEN I READ THAT IT REALLY SPOKE TO OUR COUNCIL AS A WHOLE AND, AND WHAT WE STAND FOR AND THAT WE DIDN'T WANNA HAVE THOSE TYPES OF, OF RIGHTS, UM, INVALIDATED OVER THIS USE OF THIS, UM, TECHNOLOGY. AND THEN NUMBER SEVEN, UM, ONLINE 1 0 4 CAME FROM CONCERNS ABOUT MISTAKES WITH TECHNOLOGY AND A REPORT THAT WAS RECENTLY MADE IN THE MEDIA REGARDING AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S PULLED OVER WITH US UTILIZATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT THE PLATE WAS INCORRECT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN AND THAT THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY ON OFFICERS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE DOUBLE CHECKING THE PLATES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY GET A HIT HIT, THEY NEED TO VISUALLY VERIFY THAT THE PLATE MATCHES WHAT THE HIT WAS FOR. UM, A LICENSE PLATE READER ALERT ALONE DOES NOT CREATE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY A TRAFFIC STOP OR THE DETENTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE MAKING A STOP OR DETENTION. THE OFFICER MUST FIRST MAKE A VISUAL CONFIRMATION THAT THE LICENSE PLATE MATCHES THE INFORMATION CAPTURED BY THE LICENSE PLATE READER AND REPORTED IN THE LAST ALERT. AND TWO CONFIRMS THE LICENSE PLATE INFORMATION WITH THE NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER IN TEXAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER. SO HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HAD COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU POSTED TO THE MESSAGE BOARD. I DID PUT THOSE IN THERE AND THEY ARE ONLINE ONE 14 THROUGH 1 28. UM, I WILL PROBABLY MAKE ONE MINOR ADJUSTMENT INSTEAD OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN SECURITY OFFICER. I'M GONNA CHANGE THAT TO THE CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER, BECAUSE THE TITLE WAS NOT PROPERLY WRITTEN IN LINE ONE 19, UM, 1 27. AND THEN ALSO, UM, THE SECURITY OFFICER DESIGNATION WITH AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS. UM, THIS IS ALL JUST DATABASE AND SECURITY FOR OUR DATABASE TO ENSURE THAT THE LICENSE PLATE READER DATA IS KEPT SECURE. UM, AND I REALLY DO THANK YOU FOR THOSE SUGGESTIONS. AND THEN ONE OTHER, UM, SUGGESTION WAS IN REGARDS TO THE AUDITS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER PROGRAM THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED OR PREVIOUSLY HAD, THEY WERE DONE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS BY THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND WHEN I LISTENED TO YOU ALL, WE REALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION. I THINK THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE DOING THOSE AUDITS. NOW IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHTS, UM, SCOPE TO BE DOING AUDITS LIKE THIS. SO I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH OUR AUDIT AUDITOR WHO HELPED ME DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE. AND COREY'S HERE TODAY FOR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, UM, WHICH IS ONLINE 1 35. AND SO THERE WILL BE AUDIT OVERSIGHT FOR THIS PROGRAM IF WE WERE TO HAVE THE RESOLUTION PASS. AND THEN I ADDED ALSO IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE AUDIT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE REQUESTED PRIOR AUDIT DATA FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE. AND SO THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO YOU THIS WEEK, IF IT HASN'T ALREADY, UM, AND THEN MAYOR ADLER, UM, YOUR SUGGESTION TO DO THIS AS A PILOT PROGRAM, I TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION AND THAT IS ONLINE 1 55. SO THE PROGRAM WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SUNSET AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR, 2023. IF WE APPROVE THIS, UNLESS WE FURTHER EXTEND IT BY COUNCIL. UM, I ADDED FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT, THAT THE CITY MANAGER WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND GIVE US TIME TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM, TO SEE IF IT REALLY IS GOING IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY WANTS IT TO. UM, SO THAT'S JUST A REAL HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE [02:40:01] LAST COUPLE WEEKS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR FOR LETTING ME LAY THAT OUT. NO, AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THIS, UM, ALLISON, I JUST HAD A, A QUICK REQUEST. DO YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN MAKE A REDLIN VERSION AVAILABLE AS WELL? SO THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION WITH LEGAL, UM, ON WHETHER OR NOT RED LINES COULD BE POSTED ONLINE AND SO THEY CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. OR MAYBE YOU CAN TALK TO THAT. I, THAT I THINK THAT MIGHT NOT BE AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT THAT WAS OFFERED. YOU CAN EMAIL IT TO ME CAUSE I'M NOT YOUR QUORUM, BUT RIGHT. BUT, BUT THEY CAN POST YOU SEND THEM A RED LINE VERSION. OKAY. SO SOMEONE I'LL GET THAT FIGURED OUT. THANKS GUYS. STAFF COULD POST A RED LINE IN TO BACK AND THAT'D BE HELPFUL. OKAY. UH, YES, VANESSA. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MOORE, KELLY. I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, THE, THE EFFORT, THE EXTENSIVE EFFORT YOU HAVE HERE AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE ACCEPTED AS PART OF YOUR, UM, REVISED RESOLUTION. UH, I STILL REMAIN DEEPLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PREMISE OF ADDING A TOOL THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE POLICE SURVEILLANCE THAT WE KNOW IS DEMONSTRATED TO DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AS WELL AS, UM, KNOWING THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A NEW WORLD POST ROW. UM, SO, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN DURING THE LEGISLATIVE CYCLE AND WHILE WE'VE DECRIMINALIZED ABORTION HERE LOCALLY, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT, UM, CAN HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND WHAT THAT CAN MEAN FOR AUSTINITES, UM, TRAVELING THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AND FOR TEXANS TRAVELING THROUGHOUT AUSTIN. UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE QUESTION I HAD IS YOU MENTIONED, UH, ADDING A ROLE FOR THE CITY AUDITOR, UM, AND LOOKING AT THIS AUDIT, UM, LOOKING AT THE DATA, AND I'M CURIOUS, EVEN THOUGH THIS MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT, UM, WERE THEY APPROACHED, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH OPO? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN TAKING ON? OR IF, IF OP SOMEONE WITH THE OFFICE IS HERE TO, TO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT AS TO, UM, WHY THERE ISN'T A ROLE FOR THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT WITH THIS. SO A LOT OF THE RESEARCH THAT I DID AND THE INFORMATION CAME FROM THE POLICE CHIEF HIMSELF. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER OR IF, UM, ASSISTANT CHIEF GREEN, WALT. I THINK I GOT THAT CORRECT. COULD ANSWER WHY THIS WOULD BE BETTER DONE THROUGH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE VERSUS THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT, JUST SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND BETTER. CAN I, YES, MA'AM THANK YOU. ARE YOU GUYS ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. THANK YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IS BEST SUITED TO CONDUCT THOSE TYPES OF AUDITS FROM AN EXTERNAL STANDPOINT, ANY SORT OF, UH, DISCREPANCIES WITH THE DATA, WHETHER THOSE COMPLAINTS COME INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY, OR AS A RESULT OF THE AUDIT WOULD BE AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHTS PARTICIPATION IN THAT INVESTIGATION. BUT THE AUDIT ITSELF, WHETHER IT'S QUARTERLY OR ANNUALLY IS, IS BEST SUITED TO BE DONE BY THAT AUDITOR. AND THEN CAN, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU BUILD ON THAT? HANG ON ONE SECOND. SORRY. UH, RAY, COULD YOU MAYBE BUILD ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AND TALK ABOUT HOW THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT'S ROLE WOULD BE IN THIS PROCESS? UH, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, RAY ARIANO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. AND JUST TO BUILD ON WHAT, UH, ASSISTANT CHIEF GREENWALT, UH, WAS SAYING ESSENTIALLY THE POLICE OVERSIGHT OFFICE OF THE POLICE OVERSIGHT IS REALLY FOCUSED ON HANDLING AND, UH, MONITORING COMPLAINTS. AND SO JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING FROM AN AUDIT PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD WANT EITHER A SEPARATE PARTY OR, UM, THE, UH, CITY AUDITOR TO ACTUALLY DO AN AUDIT. SO IN IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT, OKAY, THAT PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE FEELS THAT INFORMATION WAS, UH, IMPROPERLY SHARED WITH, UM, WITH ARIC OR ANY OTHER ENTITY HAD ACCESS TO THEIR DATA, THEN WHO WOULD THEN INVESTIGATE, LIKE, ARE WE WAITING UNTIL THE QUARTERLY AUDIT REPORT BEFORE SOMEONE GOES IN AND LOOKS AT IT? WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THEN? AND, AND SO IF THERE'S ANY CONSTITUENT THAT HAS A, UM, UM, INTEREST CONCERN OR COMPLAINT, UH, THEN THAT SHOULD BE LODGED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE POLICE OVERSIGHT AND THEY WOULD BE INVESTIGATED AT THAT TIME. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS LOOKING AT INFORMATION OVER THE PAST, WHATEVER PERIODICITY WE'RE INTERESTED IN QUARTERLY OR, OR WHATEVER, AND TAKING A LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE, UM, THE AUDITS WERE CONDUCTED PROPERLY, ACCESS TO THE DATABASE WAS CONDUCTED PROPERLY AND SO FORTH. IF THERE'S A CONCERN AT ANY TIME OF A PARTICULAR, UM, LPR USE OF AN LPR DATA THAT CAN, UH, BE SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF POST OVERSIGHT AT THAT MOMENT. GOTCHA. OKAY. SO THERE'S STILL A ROLE FOR OPO WITHIN THIS, BUT IT WOULD [02:45:01] BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT PROCEDURALLY IT WOULD BE THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WHO WOULD BE DOING THE MONITORING OF THE DATA. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN IF IT'S OKAY, REAL FAST, I WANNA ALSO ADD THAT I'VE WRITTEN IN SEVERAL PLACES IN THIS RESOLUTION WHERE INFORMATION IS SHARED WITH THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND, AND, UM, OUR COUNCIL AS A WHOLE. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT'S INCLUDED GUYS ARE OUR POOLING CUZ WE'RE KITCHEN, THANKS FOR THESE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS AND EDITS TO, UM, THE APL R I THINK WITH EACH ADDITIONAL ITERATION, THIS GETS A, TO BE A STRONG RESOLUTIONS. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT KNITTING TOGETHER, OUR AUDITOR FUNCTIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT IS A REALLY, THAT'S A REALLY POSITIVE AND STRONG CONNECTION BECAUSE OF THE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROFESSION SPECIFIC TO OUR OFFICE OF AUDITOR. I THINK THAT IS, UM, ACTUALLY A REALLY CREATIVE AND HELPFUL, UM, AMENDMENT. AND I SEE THAT OUR CITY AUDITOR IS WITH US AND SHE IS WITH US AND SHE HAS A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION. AND I, I ASKED HER THROUGH HAND SIGNALS, UM, IF SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP AND KIND OF SPEAK TO THIS AND THAT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS CLEARLY WHY SHE'S HERE. SO IF IT'S OKAY, THAT'S FINE. LIKE TO HAVE CORY STOKES RESPOND OR, OR TALK ABOUT THIS A BIT. SURE. SO I DID WANNA MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I THINK IN THE, IN THE PRIOR VERSION OF THE PROGRAM, THERE WERE QUARTERLY AUDITS OR AN QUARTER QUARTERLY AUDITS. AND THEN I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT ANNUAL AUDITS. UM, MY PREFERENCE FOR MY OFFICE AND WHAT'S REFLECTED HERE IN THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS THAT WE DO A, A KIND OF WAIT TILL THE END OF THE PILOT PROGRAM AND DO A REVIEW OF HOW THINGS ARE WORKING. WE'VE DONE THAT WITH BODY CAMERAS. WE'VE DONE THAT WITH, UM, OTHER PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. UM, BUT WE'VE DONE THAT WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, NEW PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED AND WE COME IN AND LOOK AND LOOK AT HOW WELL IT'S WORKING. SO MY, MY PREFERENCE IS TO DO THAT MORE AS A ONE TIME AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PILOT. UM, AND GET THAT, GET THAT REPORT BACK TO YOU GUYS VERSUS US BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT KIND OF ONGOING WORK. SO THAT ONGOING WORK CAN BE DONE BY APD, UM, COULD BE DONE BY ANOTHER ENTITY. BUT, UM, I THINK THAT THE IT'S HELPFUL TO IMPLEMENT THIS KIND OF THING AND HAVE US COME IN AND SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE SPECIFIED INITIALLY, HOW ARE THOSE PLAYING OUT? ARE THEY, ARE THEY BEING FOLLOWED? WHAT IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE OR, OR WHAT CAN WE DO TO KIND OF KEEP THIS AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE SENSITIVITY OF THIS DATA? SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I BELIEVE WAS REFLECTED HERE AS COUNCIL MEMBER AND KELLY AND I DISCUSSED IT. AND SO, UM, THAT, THAT IT'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT A ONE TIME AUDIT, WHICH WE WOULD DO AFTER THE PILOT. OKAY. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. UM, THANK YOU, COREY. I WANNA SPEAK TO THE OVERSIGHT FROM A, FROM A SORT OF A BROADER LEVEL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO THINK ABOUT THIS FROM CUZ THE LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT AND THE POINTS AT WHICH OVERSIGHT OCCURS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. UM, THERE IS DAILY OVERSIGHT BUILT INTO THIS DAILY OVERSIGHT FROM A DATA SECURITY PERSPECTIVE AND THAT IS SOME OF THE DATA SECURITY ITEMS THAT, THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER REFERRED TO EARLIER. AND I'M JUST GONNA READ IT. IT'S DESIGNATION OF A SECURITY OFFICER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FOLLOWING RECEIVING DAILY ALERTS ON ATTEMPTS TO LOG IN, UH, LIMITING ACCESS TO THE LICENSE PLATE DATABASE FOR ONLY PERMISSIBLE USE AND REGULAR MONITORING ACCESS TO DATA STORED UNDER THIS PROVISION. THIS SECTION IS DESIGNED TO, TO USE BEST PRACTICES ON MONITORING DATA STORAGE, BEST PRACTICE ON DATA STORAGE IS IMMEDIATE ALERTS, UM, AND DAILY REVIEW OF, UM, OF ACCESS TO A DATABASE. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT'S A SECURITY PROVISION THAT'S BUILT IN. THE SECOND THING TO REMEMBER IS THE, UH, AND THAT'S INDIVIDUAL OVERSIGHT ON ACCESS TO THE DATA STORAGE ON A, YOU KNOW, ON THE, ON THAT BASIS. THE OTHER KIND OF OVERSIGHT TO LOOK AT IS THE PROGRAMMATIC OVERSIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY AUDITOR IS TALKING ABOUT. UM, AND SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND ALSO, UM, AS SHE DESCRIBED IT. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THE ROLE OF THE OPO AND THE, THE ROLE OF THE OPPO IS THREE ROLES, THREE, UH, THREE POINTS OF CONTACT AND OVERSIGHT WRITTEN INTO THIS. AND THE FIRST IS AN UPFRONT ROLE AND THAT INVOLVES, UM, CONSULTATION PARTICIPATION IN HAVING A SAY IN THE, UM, UH, IN DEVELOPING THE POLICY AND THE PROCEDURES THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE GONNA [02:50:01] ACTUALLY REQUIRE. AND THE OPO IS PART OF THAT. THE OPO IS ALSO INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT SHARING THAT WITH THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT. AND THOUGH THEY'RE NOT CONDUCTING THE O THEY REVIEW THE CITY AUDITOR WOULD BE, THEY WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REVIEWING THOSE RESULTS. AND THEN FINALLY, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT, UH, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE OPO IS THEIR ROLE IN, UM, IN INVESTIGATING AND MANAGING, UH, ANY COMPLAINTS, UH, AS WAS DISCUSSED ALSO. SO I WANTED, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE REDUNDANT MECHANISMS FOR REVIEWING, UM, THE APPROPRIATE AND PROPER USE OF THE DATABASE. AND THE OPO IS INTEGRAL TO THAT AS IS DATA SECURITY, UM, AND THE CITY AUDITOR. SO FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU, UH, FOR YOUR, UM, UM, WORK AND LEADERSHIP ON THIS ITEM AND WORKING SO HARD TO TRY AND FIND A, A COMPROMISE OR A WORKABLE SOLUTION WHERE IT COULD MOVE FORWARD, NOT AN EASY THING TO DO ON SOMETHING THAT BEGAN WITH, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH CONTROVERSY AS THIS ONE DID, UM, COLLEAGUES IN, IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I THINK THESE I'M GONNA READ THROUGH A LIST OF WHAT I THINK ARE THE, THE DECISION POINTS, UH, FOR US TO MAKE THE ISSUES THAT ARE, UH, HAVE BEEN RAISED, UM, UH, AS ONES THAT, THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED. THE FIRST ONE CONCERNS THE, UH, ACTUAL DATA ITSELF, AS WE'VE HEARD, A LOT OF THIS DATA IS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE. SO IT'S ALREADY, UH, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CAMERAS AROUND IN THE CITY, UH, AND, AND DIFFERENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, UH, IN, IN TALKING TO THE CHIEF, UH, WAS, IT WAS APPARENT IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND WE CAN ASK THE, THE CHIEF HERE THAT, UH, THE BULK OF WHAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, UH, UH, NEEDS AND COULD USE IS PROBABLY THAT'S ALSO CAPTURED IN THE, IN THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, BUT THAT WOULD BE THEN DATA THAT WE DON'T ACCUMULATE OURSELVES. AND WE DON'T, IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL DATA, UH, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, TALKING TO THE CHIEF AND WE WANT CONFIRMATION TO THIS IS THAT IF IT'S A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, IT'S NOT DATA THAT WE OWN. SO IT'S NOT DATA THAT WE CAN TURN OVER. UH, AND IF, UH, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ICE OR THE STATE WANTED TO HAVE THAT DATA, THEY WOULD GET IT FROM THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA PROVIDER, CUZ THAT'S THE PERSON THAT, THAT OWNS AND HAS THAT DATA, UH, SINCE IT'S NOT OUR DATA, IT'S NOT DATA THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH OTHER PEOPLE THROUGH THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, UH, UH, AGREEMENTS AND THE LIKE, CUZ IT'S NOT OUR DATA TO DO THAT. UH, THAT WOULD HELP, I THINK, UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT WITH, WITH, WITH MOST OF THE DEAD ISSUES, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, UH, BECAUSE, UH, THE CAMERAS ARE NOT TRAINED WELL IN LIKE I 35 IN A WAY THAT I COULD BEST BE USED. SO THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN HAVING, UH, AT LEAST SOME CAMERAS WHICH WOULD BE, UH, FIXED ON I 35, UH, AND WE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE, UH, AND WHAT PARTS OF TOWN THEY WERE LOOKING AT, CUZ IT WOULD BE I 35, UH, AND THAT DATA COULD BE ACCUMULATED, UH, AS WELL AS GIVING SOME NUMBER OF CAMERAS, RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER THAT THE CHIEF COULD STRATEGICALLY DEPLOY, DEPLOY WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC CRIME OR SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION, UH, WHICH CAMERAS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, LOGGED IN AND LOGGED OUT. SO IT WOULD BE, UM, UM, EASIER TO, TO CREATE AN AUDIT TRAIL FOR HOW THEY WERE USED FOR THAT LIMITED USE. THAT'S ONE QUESTION, UM, WHOSE DATA, WHICH RELATES TO THEN THE NUMBER OF CAMERAS NEXT ISSUE WAS, UM, WHICH CRIMES CAN BE INVESTIGATED. WE'VE SEEN DIFFERENT LISTS OF CRIMES, UH, AND, AND ONE POSSIBLE, UH, RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE. SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY JUST FELONIES. UH, WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE THAT SAY NEEDS TO BE BROADER THAN THAT. WE'VE SEEN LISTS. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF MAKING IT FELONIES AND CLASS A MISDEMEANORS, UH, AS, AS ONE POSSIBLE MIDDLE GROUND CLASS SAY MISDEMEANORS WOULD INCLUDE BURGLARY OF PROPERTIES AND, AND, AND ASSAULTS. THIRD ISSUE, UH, THAT, UH, I THINK HAS, WAS RAISED IN THE CONVERSATIONS WAS THE RETENTION OF DATA. HOW LONG WOULD THE DATA BE, UH, UH, RETAINED, UH, AND AS YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS A YEAR, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, KELLY TOOK IT DOWN TO 30 DAYS IN THE PROPOSAL. WE KNOW THAT ONE OF OUR COLONIES, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA WAS SUGGESTING, UH, THREE MINUTES. [02:55:02] UH, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THREE MINUTES BEING A VALID TOOL FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS, BUT NOT OTHER KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS, UH, IN PRESSING THAT TIME LIMIT. UM, UH, THE OTHER INFORMATION I WOULD SHARE IS THAT THE HALO CAMERAS ARE AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY AND THEY'RE ON THE SEVEN DAY RETENTION PERIOD. SO ONE POSSIBLE THING TO CONSIDER WOULD BE SEVEN DAYS, UH, AS IS THE, THE HALO CAMERA, UH, SITUATION. UH, BUT ANYHOW, THE RETENTION OF DATA BECOMES AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED. UH, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROGRAM'S SUNSETS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, UH, UH, SOME OF OUR CITY STAFF WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE IT BE REVIEWED IN A YEAR AS OPPOSED TO SUNSETED, UH, IN, UH, IN A YEAR. UH, BUT THAT DIFFERENCE WAS SOMETHING THAT, UH, WAS A, UH, UH, AN ISSUE AUDIT CONSIDERATIONS, UH, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, WHO DOES THAT, HOW DO THEY DO THAT? AND, AND WHAT ARE THEY, UM, UH, ASKING FOR, UH, WE HAVE MATERIALS HERE. I THINK THERE WAS ALSO SECTION SEVEN OF COUNCIL MEMBER VES, UH, SUBSTITUTE, UH, MOTION. PEOPLE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT, UH, INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION PRIOR TO ACTION, SOMETHING THAT, UH, YOU'VE INCORPORATED IT INTO YOUR BASE, UH, MOTION. UH, BUT THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE. UM, SUSPEND THE DATA COLLECTION IF IT'S REQUESTED BY THE STATE AGENCIES OR ICE OR BY, UH, AGS OFFICE OR THE FEDS, UM, MAYBE ADDRESSED IN, IN, IN PARTIAL MATTER IF IT'S, UM, NOT DATA THAT WE OWN AND WE'RE RELYING ON COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, BUT STILL EXISTS WITH ANY DATA THAT WE MIGHT BE, UH, UH, ACCRUING. UH, AND THEN, UH, THERE, THE POLICY IN GENERAL ORDER CHANGES, UH, IF THAT HASN'T BEEN POSTED, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OLD POLICIES, UH, ARE POSTED INTO BACKUP IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, SO THAT, UH, THE COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL CAN SEE THOSE, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE BEING REVISED RIGHT NOW. UM, UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF, UH, WE COULD ALL SEE WHAT THE OLD POLICIES WERE. UM, THEY ACTUALLY PROBABLY TRACK A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THEM AND NOT EVERYTHING ON THE LIST THAT I JUST READ READ THROUGH. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT KIND OF LIST ON THE, IN ESSENCE, THE SUBGROUP TO IDENTIFY ISSUES THAT FORMED UP FOR EVERYBODY, UH, CHEETO. AND THEN LESLIE, THE QUESTION FOR, UM, THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE WE'VE REQUESTED THE PRIOR AUDITS FOR THE, UH, A L P PROGRAM WHEN IT WAS, AND WE HAVEN'T, UH, RECEIVED THOSE YET. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THE, THE AUDITS ARE OR FOR ACM? UH, ARIANO THE SEE, I, I SAW THAT THEY WERE BEING GATHERED THIS MORNING. WE'LL HAVE THEM TOO SHORTLY. OKAY. AND ON THE SAME, UH, PLEASE, AND ON THE SAME, UH, LINE OF, UH, OF THINKING THERE, I BELIEVE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AUDITS OF THE HALO PROGRAM AND WHAT IT IS BEING USED FOR, OR AGAIN, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DETAILS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I BELIEVE THEM LIKE AN ANNUAL REPORT AND, AND, AND REVIEW, UH, COULD YOU GET US THOSE, UH, AS WELL, BE HAPPY TO, UH, GET THAT INFORMATION? I'M I, I THINK USING THE AUDITOR FOR THE AUDITS, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD STEP. UH, AND, AND I, I SUPPORT THAT, UH, IN TALKING WITH MY, YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL, MY AMENDMENT WAS, UH, FELONIES AND ABOVE IN TALKING WITH THE POLICE CHIEF, UH, HE, UH, POINTED OUT QUITE CORRECTLY SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CLASS A INCLUDE, UH, ASSAULTS, UH, INCLUDE FAMILY VIOLENCE CASES INCLUDE A VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND A HANDFUL OF OTHER, UH, RELATIVELY SERIOUS CRIMES WHERE, UH, HE WOULD LIKE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE, UH, A PS IN THOSE, UH, SITUATIONS. SO I WOULD BE, UH, OPEN TO INCLUDING CLASS A'S AND ABOVE IN THE SPECTRUM OF, UH, OF CRIMES THAT WE, UH, ARE ALLOWING THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO USE A PRS FOR. UH, MY, HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO LIMIT IT TO CLASS A AND ABOVE AND NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE, THE CLASS BS OR, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL CLASS CS. UH, I KNOW THAT BY DESIGNATING THE CRIMINAL, LIMITING IT TO CRIMINAL THAT SHOULD IN AND OF ITSELF EXCLUDE A LOT OF THE, THE TICKETS CUZ THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CIVIL, UH, MATTERS. BUT, UH, REGARDLESS I, I JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE LIMITATION AND, [03:00:01] AND UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO LIMIT IT TO CLASS A AND ABOVE. AND YOU, I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS WITH THE A PS. I'M NOT GONNA SAY JUST NO, BUT THE RETENTION, THE DATA RETENTION TO ME IS A, UH, A HARD LINE THAT I DO NOT WANT TO CROSS. UH, I'M COMFORTABLE USING A LPRS TO FIND, UH, STOLEN VEHICLES TO FIND, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE MISSING, UH, THAT ARE KIDNAPPING SUSPECTS. WE HAVE A LOT OF PARENTAL SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONE PARENT, UH, UH, TAKES A CHILD, AMBER ALERTS, THOSE KINDS OF ALERTS, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH USING THEM TO FIND, UH, FOLKS WITH, UH, ACTIVE AGAIN, FELONY WARRANTS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY CLASS A WARRANTS, BUT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH USING A L PS TO TRACK THE WHEREABOUTS OF PEOPLE AS THEY GO ON ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS IN AUSTIN. UH, I BELIEVE THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. I THINK WHEN YOU STORE ALL THAT DATA AND THEN YOU SEARCH IT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IS A SEARCH UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION. I THINK YOU NEED A WARRANT, UH, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TYPE OF SEARCH. UH, I, IF IT IS A 30 DAY, UH, PERIOD OF RETENTION, UH, I, I JUST CANNOT, UH, SUPPORT THAT LEVEL OF, UM, OF, UH, DATA RETENTION, AGAIN, KEEPING IT TO USING A PS FOR STRICTLY HOTLIST SITUATION. UM, WE CANNOT ABUSE DATA THAT WE DO NOT COLLECT, AND IF WE'RE NOT COLLECTING DATA OVER THE LAST 30 DAYS, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, USING MISUSING THE DATA, YOU KNOW, SEARCHING FOR THE WHEREABOUTS OF, YOU KNOW, GIRLFRIENDS OR, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM, SO, SO THAT'S WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW ON THE, ON THE LPRS. OKAY. UH, LESLIE, THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU JUST GAVE CHEETO ON SEARCHING FOR GIRLFRIENDS, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE GUARDRAILS THAT ARE BEING WRITTEN INTO THIS? IT, IF THEY'RE MIGHT CONCEPTUALLY THAT IF THE POLICE ARE LOOKING FOR LICENSE PLATE, YOU KNOW, ABC 1 23, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THAT INTO THEIR A P SYSTEM. AND IF IT HITS, THEN THEY CAN GO AFTER THAT VEHICLE OR AGAIN, USE IT AS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO, YOU KNOW, TO INVESTIGATE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT. UH, SO ANY KIND OF, UH, KIDNAPPING, ANY KIND OF ABDUCTION, ANY KIND OF MISSING PERSON'S REPORT, WHETHER IT BE AN ELDERLY OR WHATEVER THE SITUATION, THE POLICE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT AND FIND THE INFORMATION. WHAT I DON'T SUPPORT IS KIND OF PUTTING IN ABC 1, 2, 3, LET'S SAY WHERE THE THEY'VE BEEN FOR THE LAST 30 DAYS. AND IT COMES THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. UH, HANG ON, HANG ON, HANG ON. THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND I, I REALLY, THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE NOT DOING IT, WE'RE COLLECTING THE DATA, WHETHER WE SEARCH FOR IT OR NOT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE QUESTION. I MEAN, TO, TO KIND OF GET COLLECT ALL THE DATA, PUT IT IN A DATABASE AND THEN SAY, OH, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY DOING A SEARCH. YOU'RE NOT DOING A SEARCH UNTIL YOU WANT TO DO A SEARCH. THE DATA IS THERE AND LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT IT'S NOT THERE. OH, OKAY. BUT I THINK THAT, HANG ON, I, I THINK THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME INDICATION THAT THERE WAS A CRIME BEING INVESTIGATED IN ORDER TO DO A SEARCH FOR, I JUST STRUCK ME THAT THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU YOU WERE USING WAS ONE THAT WAS UNOFFICIAL. AND I THINK THAT WE ALL WOULD IN HOPE THAT NO SEARCHING OF THE DATABASE WOULD BE EXTRA JUDICIAL AND YOU YOURSELF ARE HOPING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS IS BEING SO TIGHTLY FRAMED. UM, BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING ANYWAY, WHETHER WE HAVE A LPRS OR ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE MISUSING ANY DATA THAT WE HAVE OR THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES OR THEIR STATUS AS OFFICERS TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S EXTRA JUDICIAL. AND IN FACT, WE HAVE RULES AND LAWS THAT COME IN TO PRE NOT ONLY TO PREVENT THAT, BUT TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR IF THEY'RE FOUND, IF THERE'S EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THAT'S HAPPENED. OKAY. SO THAT, WASN'T REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT. MY QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY ON THE FIRST, BUT IT, BUT THAT CONCERNED ME ENOUGH BECAUSE IT STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. SO I, I, I THINK YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THAT, UM, MAYOR, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR FIRST BULLET OF ITEMS THAT YOU WANTED TO, OF [03:05:01] QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED WAS THE ACTUAL DATA IT'S ALREADY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE. AND WE KNOW THAT, THAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY BEING PICKED UP FOR OUR ACTIVITIES ON THE STREETS WITH VARIOUS SECURITY CAMERAS, THAT PRIVATE COMPANIES AND PEOPLE HAVE THAT, THAT CAPTURE US WALKING BY, OR, OR ALTERCATIONS THAT HAPPEN ON A SIDEWALK. AND THEN OF COURSE, THERE'S THE FACT THAT EVERYBODY HAS THEIR PERSONAL, UM, CELL PHONE DEVICES AND THEY TAKE PICTURES OF ALL KINDS OF THINGS AT ALL TIMES. SO THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR GOVERNMENT TO BE DOING THAT. AND I THINK WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON, ON THAT CONCEPT, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE ARE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, NOT HAVING OUR OWN PROGRAM, WHERE WE GUARD OUR DATA, BUT INSTEAD IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN POSSIBLY ACCESSING COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA THAT'S OUT THERE. I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH HOW ACCURATE THAT DATA MIGHT BE, WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT COULD BE, UM, OFFERED IN, UH, AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW WITH CHAIN OF CUSTODY ISSUES SURROUNDING IT AND, AND HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST. UM, SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE EXIT RAMP ON THE ACTUAL DATA GOING TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE BUSINESS THAT IS OUT THERE DOING THAT IS, IS A, A HOPEFUL ONE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER WHAT WE ARE CAPTURING AND HOW LONG WE RETAIN IT AND THEN ELIMINATING IT AND ERASING IT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, WHETHER IT'S 30 DAYS OR SEVEN DAYS, THREE MINUTES STRIKES ME AS UNWORKABLE. UM, BUT I WANTED TO RAISE THAT, TO SEE IF, IF THAT WAS A, A CONSIDERATION THAT YOU, THAT YOU HAD, IT WAS JUST AN ISSUE. AND IT WAS A SUGGESTION AS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT, UH, ASSISTANT CHIEF, UH, GREENWELL, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, TO, UH, THAT QUESTION ABOUT, UH, COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA AND, AND WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE, THE VIABILITY AND THE ACCURACY P D TO THANK YOU PRIMARILY RELY ON THAT. THE, THE FIRST QUESTION YOU HAD MR. MAYER WAS WHO OWNS THAT COMMERCIAL DATA, AND YOU WERE CORRECT IN YOUR, UH, SPECULATION, THAT COMMERCIAL DATA THAT WE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER STATE LOCAL OR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INQUIRIES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR DATA. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE ANYTHING COLLECTED THROUGH OUR OWN CAMERAS, UM, WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE A DIFFERENT ANSWER. BUT THE, THE ANSWER TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S QUESTION IS THE PROGRAM THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, GIVES US THE ABILITY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL DATA IN A HANDFUL OF OUR OWN CAMERAS. THE COMMERCIAL DATA WE WOULD GET IS GONNA BE A FINITE AMOUNT OF AREAS. UH, MOST OF THEM ARE GONNA BE LOCAL TO A SPECIFIC PLACE, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE, UM, ABILITY TO MOVE THOSE CAMERAS AROUND AND GET MORE INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP US IN OUR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS IS THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, DATA THAT'S RELIABLE IS THAT DATA THAT YOU CAN USE. SO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE DATA HAS TO BE VERIFIED THAT THAT POINT CAME UP ALSO, THAT IT HAS TO BE INDIVIDUALLY VERIFIED BY THE OFFICER BEFORE ANY ACTIONS TAKEN. THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN OUR PREVIOUS POLICY. AND THE REASONS BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY DOES SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, MISTAKE AND M OR AN IN, UM, THOSE SORT OF THINGS COME UP, IF THERE'S MUD ON THE LICENSE PLATE OR IT'S DARK OUTSIDE. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL, A PERSON VERIFY THAT THE ALERT THAT WE HAVE, OR THE CAR THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS IN FACT, THE RIGHT LICENSE PLATE, AND THAT THERE IS STILL A CURRENT NEED TO TAKE ACTION OR INVESTIGATE THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE. SO WHILE IT'S IN THE, UM, THE OLD POLICY, IT'S GONNA BE IN THE NEW POLICY. AND I NOTICED IT WAS IN THE REATION RESOLUTION AS WELL. SO THE, THE DATA THAT COMES FROM THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE CAMERAS ARE ONLY GONNA BE AS GOOD AS THOSE CAMERAS ARE, BUT THEY'RE GONNA BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY US BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN. SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND THEN I'LL PASS IT ON TO CUZ THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE RAISING THEIR HAND NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE DATA. I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THE DEPARTMENT WAS INITIALLY RECOMMENDING, UH, A GREATER NUMBER OF CAMERAS THAT WOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY DIRECTED TO GATHER DATA, UH, AND, AND GREATER AMOUNTS OF DATA. AND THAT THAT DATA BE HELD FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE ONLY CONCERN WAS A TOOL TO INVESTIGATE, UH, UH, UH, WRONGDOING, UH, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE, THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE WAY. AND, AND THE BROADEST NET. I UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, MY QUESTION IS IF WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO WEIGH IN THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OR CONTROLS OR TRUST [03:10:01] ISSUES OR WHATEVER ELSE, IF WE WERE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, IS IT A VIABLE, UH, UH, ALTERNATIVE, UH, TO PRIMARILY RELY ON COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, UH, WITH A HANDFUL OF, OF ALSO CAMERAS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE OF RELIABILITY ISSUES OR OTHERWISE JUST IS NOT A, A VIABLE, UM, ALTERNATIVE OR OPTION THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER? IT WOULD GIVE YOU AN EXTRA TOOL ON YOUR TOOL BELT, BUT IT WOULD YOUR INFORMATION BY ABOUT HALF. SO THERE WOULD BE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, WHETHER THEY BE A CLASS, A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY WOULD BE A MURDER OR A SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT YOU MIGHT NOT SOLVE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THOSE EXTRA INFORMATION GATHERING TOOLS, THOSE EXTRA CAMERAS OUT THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE ASKING IF COMMERCIALLY DATA IS BETTER THAN NOTHING, THEN THE ANSWER IS YES. BUT WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IN ORDER TO DO JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS IN OUR COMMUNITY IS TO REINSTATE THE PROGRAM AS IT EXISTED BEFORE MINUS THE 365 DAY RETENTION, UH, TO GO TO 30 DAYS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COLLEAGUES, THERE WERE SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD RAISED HANDS, UH, ALLISON, YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE YET. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THAT, UM, EXCHANGE. SO WHAT WE'D BE DOING IS THE COMMERCIAL PLUS HOW MANY CAMERAS? I, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY WE WERE DOING BEFORE WAS LIKE 15 OR I, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY, HOW MANY, YEAH, I THINK THAT WE WERE, UH, 21 IS THE NUMBER THAT STICKS OUT TO ME. I'D HAVE TO GET AN EXACT NUMBER FOR YOU, BUT, UM, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY, WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BASE ON OUR, OUR DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY, IT WOULD BE A MIX OF, UH, FIXED, UH, CAMERAS, UH, SOME STATIONARY CAMERAS WE COULD DEPLOY IN VARIOUS AREAS AND THEN MOBILE CAMERAS THAT WOULD BE MOUNTED TO THE PATROL CARS. THANK YOU. UM, MAY, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THEY WOULD ONLY DO COMMERCIAL CAUSE THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE CONTROL OVER WHERE THEY PLACED ANYTHING? I WASN'T MAKING A SUGGESTION. I WAS, IT'S KIND OF IDENTIFYING ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED, UH, BUT THERE WAS, UH, DISCUSSION, ONE DISCUSSION WAS JUST SAYING, USE THE COMMERCIAL DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE. THEN WE'RE NEVER IN A POSITION OF HIM TO TURN ANYTHING OVER. I THINK THE MORE FREQUENT DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT RELYING PRIMARILY ON THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, BUT ALSO HAVING A CERTAIN OTHER NUMBER OF CAMERAS THAT COULD BE STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED. AND THE CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF, HE SAID THAT, UH, HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME CAMERAS, UH, COUPLE CAMERAS, OTHERWISE THEY COULD BE DEPLOYED ON I 35 AND COULD BE AFFIXED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT I 35 TRAFFIC. UH, AND THEN, THEN HE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVE SEVERAL CAMERAS THAT COULD BE MOBILELY DEPLOYED OR DEPLOYED IN OTHER LOCATIONS THAT HE COULD STRATEGICALLY, UH, USE, UH, THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE, BE KIND OF LOGGED IN, LOGGED OUT KIND OF THING TO, TO, TO HAVE REAL CLEAR AUDIT TRAIL ON USE, BUT IT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL COMPONENT, ALBEIT NOT AT THE NUMBERS THAT, UH, HE WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSING. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I'M GONNA, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE A FLAG FOR, FOR YOUR COMMENT, UM, CHEETO ABOUT LOWERING OR CHANGING IT TO CERTAIN NUMBER OF CRIMES. UM, THERE'S SOME LOOPHOLES IN THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO SCOOTERS. UM, THAT MEAN IT'S NOT A CRIME TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND IT IT'S IT'S PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE YOU WOULD STILL WANNA BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON, UM, FOR A CIVIL LIABILITY SUIT, UM, IN, AND SO I'M NOT SURE, AND YOU COULD NEED A LICENSE PLATE IN THOSE SITUATIONS AND IF YOU HAD IT, UM, IT COULD BE A FAIRLY DRAMATIC IMPACT TO THE PERSON. AND IF IT WAS SHORT OF DEATH, THAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED. UM, PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS A MINOR THAT WAS HIT. AND, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU ALL OF THE, THE DETAILS OF IT. UM, BUT I KNOW THAT, UM, THERE, THERE ARE SOME REAL CHALLENGES WITH THE SCOOTERS, UM, AND OUR ABILITY TO, TO ENFORCE THINGS. AND, AND SO I WOULD BE A LITTLE HESITANT ON SOME OF THOSE CHANGES UNTIL WE GOT THAT FIGURED OUT. YES, MACKENZIE. YEAH. UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. MAYOR PROTE. I WAS ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE LIMITED IT, UM, HATE CRIMES, NOT BEING INVOLVED AS WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT AS A CONSIDERATION AND, UM, ASSISTANT CHIEF GREEN, WALT, COULD YOU HELP THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND OR WALK US THROUGH HOW AN OFFICER ACCESSES THE DATA FOR THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN OFFICER SITTING [03:15:01] DOWN IN FRONT OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THEN LOGGING IN TO USE IT AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THEN COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE AUDIT TRAIL THAT'S CREATED WHEN THE OFFICER DOES THAT AS WELL? PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. SO A DETECTIVE OR OFFICER WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM WOULD, UH, GET TO IT THROUGH THE INTERNET AND A LOG ON SYSTEM FROM THEIR DESKTOP COMPUTER IN THE OFFICE. AND EVERY TIME THEY LOG ON AND EVERY KEYSTROKE THEY TAKE IS AUDITED AND KEPT SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY DID IT, WHO LOGGED ON AND WHAT SEARCHES THEY CONDUCTED. SO IF AN OFFICER, UH, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING IS TRYING TO VERIFY IF A SUSPECT VEHICLE WAS AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME OR CORROBORATE THE ALIBI, THAT THEY WERE NOWHERE NEAR THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AND THAT IN FACT THEIR CAR WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE TO HELP EXONERATE THEM, THEY WOULD SIMPLY LOG IN, UH, THE LICENSE PLATE. IT REQUIRES A, A CASE NUMBER IN ORDER TO GET THE RESULTS. AND THEN THEY COULD CONDUCT THAT QUERY TO FIND OUT, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THAT VEHICLE WAS SCANNED, UH, IN, OR AROUND LOCATION. AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CRIME OCCURRED AND THE, UH, THE AUDIT LOGS ARE KEPT IN PERPETUITY. SO THAT ORDERLY OUR RISK MANAGEMENT UNIT WILL GO THROUGH AND CONDUCT QUERIES TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S USING A VERIFIED CASE NUMBER THAT'S CONNECTED TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. AND THOSE WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE TO DO THE SAME THING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR EXPLAINING THAT. I REALLY LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT, UM, HOW OFFICERS COULD LOG INTO THE SYSTEM TO CORROBORATE THAT YOU WERE NOT AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME, WHICH TO ME LENDS ME TO BELIEVE THAT HAVING THAT DATA RETENTION OF AT LEAST 30 DAYS IS HELPFUL BECAUSE I WOULD, AS SOMEONE WHO WOULDN'T COMMIT A CRIME, I WOULD WANNA HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE FOR BACKUPS SO THAT I WOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH THE CRIME. BUT, UM, THAT'S ASIDE THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO SAY, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER OF OTHER, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, BUT THROUGHOUT MY RESEARCH ON THIS, UM, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO, WELL, ONE THAT I DEFINITELY KNOW OF, I HEARD THERE WAS ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY. AND THAT ASIDE, WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT LICENSE PLATE READER DATA IS THAT IT ONLY CAPTURES THE LICENSE PLATE, MAKE MODEL OF THE VEHICLE. IT DOESN'T CAPTURE THE PICTURE OF WHO'S IN IT. AND I SEE IT AS A TOOL TO HELP MULTIPLY THE ABILITY OF OUR OFFICERS TO SOLVE CRIMES IN A TIMELY MANNER, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE, THE POLICE FORCE IS SO SHORT STAFFED RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON, THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN, EXCUSE ME, UM, A BIG POINT OF CONCERN FOR PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. UM, AND SO I'M HAVING TO TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY LIKE WHERE I STAND ON THE ITEM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S CATEGORICALLY WRONG FOR US TO ENABLE SURVEILLANCE NETWORKS, THAT TRACK AND STORE, UM, THE MOVEMENTS OF ALL CARS WITHOUT A WARRANT IN THE CITY FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND THE VARIABLES WITH HOW LONG PEOPLE THINK IS APPROPRIATE. UM, EVEN THAT TELLS ME THOUGH THAT IT'S A MATTER OF DISCRETION AND JUST KIND OF FRIGHTENS ME, UM, IN MY MIND'S EYE. I THINK SEARCH UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT SURVEILLANCE JUST IS NOT, UM, THE CONDITIONS FOR SEARCHING THAT I CAN SUPPORT ARE A THREE MINUTE LIMIT OF DATA STORAGE, UM, RESTRICTING SEARCHES TO A LIMITED SET OF CRIMES, UM, OR EMERGENCIES AND NOT ALLOWING ANY OTHER ENTITIES ACCESS TO THE DATA THAT WE COLLECT. I THINK ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS FLAT OUT SURVEILLANCE, WHICH I BELIEVE REALLY DOES VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF OUR RESIDENTS, WHO DON'T, WHO HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL. UM, I THINK IT WOULD ALSO ENABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT, UH, WELL, ENABLE THE ENFORCEMENT, RATHER OF LAWS THAT, UH, RUN AGAINST OUR ADOPTED POLICIES, UM, CONCERNING ABORTION AND IMMIGRATION. THOSE ARE DEEP CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. I'M ALSO, YOU KNOW, VERY CONCERNED THAT SURVEILLANCE CAN EASILY BE APPLIED, UM, IN A DISCRIMINATORY FASHION. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT LEAVES US RELYING ON INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS TO MODERATE THE POTENTIAL ABUSES IN TECHNOLOGY. AND BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HUMAN, REGARDLESS OF THE JOB THAT WE DO MEANS WE'RE ALL FALLIBLE AND LEAVING ANY, YOU KNOW, REAL DEGREE OF SURVEILLANCE RELATED DISCRETION TO PEOPLE. UM, CONCERNS ME, COLLEAGUES I'VE BEEN ASKED TO POST TO THE MESSAGE BOARD, THE LIST OF ISSUES THAT I JUST READ THROUGH AND MY OFFICE WILL DO THAT, SO THAT IT'S POSTED FOR PEOPLE TO SEE CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION. AND, UM, [03:20:01] I THINK I, I, I WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. I, I THINK WE ALL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAME THINGS HERE. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IS THE LEVEL OF RISK WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE. AND I WOULD JUST ASK US ALL TO TRY TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND THEN SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW THIS RAISES THAT RISK. AND DOESN'T RAISE THAT RISK. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT US REPEATING THE FEARS THAT PEOPLE ARE BRINGING TO US WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEY CAN AND CAN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'RE JUST, I MEAN, I, I, I, I, I THINK WE'RE USING WORDS THAT ARE JUST, UM, AND I, AND I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS CUZ WE ALL HAVE THE SAME FEARS. UM, BUT I WOULD JUST CALL, I WOULD JUST REALLY ASK US ALL, INSTEAD OF REPEATING THOSE FEARS, LET'S TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEY CAN OCCUR. THERE ARE RISK HERE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I THINK THE RISK, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER VELA SAID IT BEST WHEN HE SAID THAT THE RISK IS WHEN YOU HAVE DATA, THE RISK IS THAT SOMEONE MIGHT ACCESS IT, UM, FOR A PURPOSE THAT IS NOT AUTHORIZED. THAT IS THE RISK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN SURVEILLANCE THAT IS VERY OF, OF PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CITY, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS DOING. THAT IS ALSO VERY DIFFERENT THAN, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. SO I WANNA STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DECIDE HERE. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE IS THE LEVEL OF RISK THAT EACH OF US FEELS COMFORTABLE OR NOT EVEN COMFORTABLE, BUT EACH OF US ARE BALANCING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BALANCING. WE'RE BALANCING THE LEVEL OF RISK OF MISUSE WITH THE, THE VALUE CAN THAT CAN BE ADDED, UM, IN, UM, YOU KNOW, IN ADDRESSING CERTAIN CRIMES. SO THERE IS RISK THAT DATA WILL BE INAPPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED. SO THEN THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU REDUCE THAT RISK WITH REVIEW AND AUDIT AND WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH CERTAIN DATA SECURITY AND OTHER TOOLS. SO I, I REALLY JUST, I'M REALLY JUST PLEADING WITH MY, WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO PLEASE LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY FOCUSED. SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE BALANCE, BECAUSE I AGREE THERE ALWAYS IS A REAL, BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE BALANCE, I'M WANTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO, UM, FROM THE POLICE PERSPECTIVE TO ADDRESS A KIDNAPPING, FOR EXAMPLE, OR AN, OR AN ASSAULT. UM, BUT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT LIKE A KIDNAPPING OR AN ASSAULT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND SO I'M FOCUSED IN ON THAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU RETAIN THE DATA FOR CUZ I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION AND THAT GETS BACK TO WHAT AGAIN, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER VELA SAID IS YOU HAVE DATA, THERE'S A RISK OF ACCESSING IT. SO WHAT CAN YOU DO? I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE THE OFFICER TO PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND. SO FROM A, THE, COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO, WE'VE GOT ON THE TABLE THREE MINUTES VERSUS 30 DAYS CAN, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME SUGGESTIONS IN BETWEEN. COULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE, UH, LEVEL BETWEEN THOSE OR APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD TO BETWEEN THOSE TO BE ABLE TO REALLY REACH THOSE KINDS OF CRIMES THAT I TALKED ABOUT? ABSOLUTELY. SO IF YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE RETENTION, ALL YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING THE SYSTEM FOR IS IMMEDIATE REAL TIME ALERTS A VEHICLE HAPPEN TO BE SCANNED BY THE CAMERAS THAT ARE ALREADY LISTED INTO A DATABASE THAT THEY'RE WANTED FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER, WHETHER THE CAR'S STOLEN OR IT'S CONNECTED TO AN AMBER ALERT OR A MISSING AND A ENDANGERED PERSON. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWN AHEAD OF TIME THAT THAT CAR WAS BEING LOOKED FOR FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER. THE REASON THAT HISTORICAL DATA IS SO IMPORTANT IS SPECIFIC TO THE TYPES OF CRIMES THAT YOU MENTIONED. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IF WE HAD A KIDNAPPING OF A PERSON OR A CHILD AND WITNESSES WERE ABLE TO GIVE US THE LICENSE PLATE THAT, UM, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CRIME, OFTENTIMES CRIMINALS DON'T REGISTER THEIR VEHICLES AND, AND THERE MAY NOT BE PARKED WHERE THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION COMES BACK TO. SO ALTHOUGH WE CAN RUN THE LICENSE PLATE TO SEE WHO THE REGISTERED OWNER IS, CHANCES ARE THE KIDNAPPING SUSPECT WHO HAS THAT PERSON THAT THEY KIDNAPPED. WON'T BE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE VEHICLE IS REGISTERED TO. BUT IF OUR PATROL VEHICLE HAPPENED TO DRIVE BY THAT VEHICLE A WEEK PREVIOUS, WE WILL VERY QUICKLY BE ABLE TO FIND OUT A POSSIBLE LOCATION WHERE THE SUSPECT VEHICLE MIGHT BE. AND WE CAN GO TO THAT ADDRESS AND CHECK ON THE STATUS OF THE VICTIM AND HOPEFULLY RECOVER THEM SAFELY EVERY DAY THAT YOU ADD TO THE RETENTION INCREASES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GATHER VALUABLE DATA. UH, [03:25:01] THAT'S WHY 365 DAYS WAS USED DURING THE FIRST ITERATION OF THIS PROGRAM. AND THAT'S WHY WE ADVOCATE FOR, YOU KNOW, 30 DAYS INSTEAD OF THREE MINUTES AT THIS TIME. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT KIDNAPPING OR MURDER SUSPECT WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND THE SUSPECT IN, UH, RECOVER EITHER THE GUN OR IMPORTANT EVIDENCE TO HELP SECURE A CONVICTION. THE HISTORICAL DATA THAT WE HAVE IS GOING TO LEAD US TO LOCATION, SUSPECTS, VICTIMS, AND EVIDENCE MORE QUICKLY. AND THE LONGER THAT WE HAVE THAT DATA IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT. DOES THAT HELP? YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN I HAVE A, ANOTHER QUESTION RELATED TO SURVEILLANCE. UM, I DON'T SUPPORT SURVEILLANCE AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US SUPPORT SURVEILLANCE, BUT I WANNA UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THE CITY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE CAMERAS, IT'S GONNA, IT'S GONNA BOIL DOWN TO WHEREVER OUR PATROL CARS HAPPEN TO BE. AND IT IS SORT OF A RANDOM ASSORTMENT OF PLACES. WE'RE NOT GONNA SPECIFICALLY DEPLOY THE CAMERAS UNLESS WE HAVE A SPECIFIC CRIME THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE ROCK THROWER INVESTIGATION THAT HAPPENED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UM, OR THE BOMBING THAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT HAPPENED WHERE WE MIGHT PUT 'EM IN, IN LOCATIONS TO HELP SOLVE THAT CRIME. BUT ONE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION I WANNA MAKE AND THIS MIGHT HELP HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, UM, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONDING TO CRIME IS THAT THE LPR SYSTEM IS REACTIVE IN NATURE. WE DON'T DEPLOY IT TO GO LOOK FOR NEW CRIMES OR TO PICK ON ANY PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS. WE USE THE LPR SYSTEM AND THE INFORMATION IN IT TO HELP SOLVE CRIMES THAT ARE ALREADY REPORTED TO US. SO WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW THAT TRAIL. SO TO SPEAK OF INCIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HELP SOLVE THOSE CRIMES. SO WE'RE NOT SURVEILLING TO GO OUT AND, UM, GATHER NEW INFORMATION, SO TO SPEAK. WE ARE INVESTIGATING CRIMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPORTED TO US AND THAT'S UM, AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT, WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT IS, WELL, HELP ME UNDERSTAND IS WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT THE FACT THE, HOW YOU RECOVER THE DATA, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN OR HOW YOU CAPTURE THE DATA, HOW WE RECOVER THE DATA, IF IN THE CASE NUMBER OF, SO THE DATA IS GONNA BE CAPTURED AND STORED IN THE DATABASE THAT NOBODY WILL LOOK AT UNTIL WE NEED IT FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SO THAT THE DATA IS IN THE DATABASE. UH, NOBODY AT APD IS LOOKING AT IT UNTIL WE HAVE A NEED TO GO LOOK AT IT FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATING SOMETHING, WHETHER THAT BE SOMETHING AS, UM, EGREGIOUS AS A MURDERER OR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, LOWER PRIORITY, LIKE A STOLEN VEHICLE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO ACTUALLY GO LOOK AT THE DATA. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT ANYBODY OTHER THAN HELP THE, THE VICTIMS OF THOSE CRIMES THAT ARE REPORTED TO US. BUT THEN HOW DO, I'M SORRY, THIS WOULD BE MY LAST QUESTION. OTHERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHERE TO PUT THE CAMERAS? I THINK WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FIXED CAMERAS VERSUS CAMERAS THAT MOVE AROUND. SO WHAT, WHAT'S THE CONTROLS ON WHERE THE CAMERAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT'S THE PARAMETERS, UH, ON AND WHO DECIDES ON WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE DEPLOYED? GOOD QUESTION. SO THE CAMERAS THAT ARE ON VEHICLES ARE GONNA BE RANDOMLY DEPLOYED IN NATURE, WHEREVER THAT PARTICULAR, UH, VEHICLE GOES THAT DAY, WHATEVER THAT PATROL VEHICLE GOES THAT DAY. SO THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A LOT OF, UM, PRE-PLANNING INVOLVED IN THAT THE, THE TRAILERS THAT GO OUT AND DEPLOYING SPECIFIC AREAS ARE GONNA BE IN REGARDS TO SOME SORT OF A CRIME TREND THAT'S BEEN REPORTED TO US THAT WE FEEL LIKE MIGHT BE USEFUL TO HAVE A LPR DEPLOYED AND EXAMPLES I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW WE USED IT IN THE BOMBING, UH, TO PUT IN A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE WE FELT LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME INFORMATION GAINED TO HELP IDENTIFY WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. I KNOW WE DEPLOYED IT IN THE ROCK THROWING INCIDENT TO HELP RECOVER VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES THAT WERE UP AND DOWN I 35. I KNOW THAT IN 2000, I THINK IT WAS 19, MAYBE 2018, THERE WAS A, A SERIAL SHOOTER, A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT THAT WAS HAPPENING. AND WE KNEW THE, THE BASIC THOROUGHFARE THAT THE SUSPECT WAS TAKING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE LOCATIONS WHERE HE WAS SHOOTING AT VEHICLES. SO WE DEPLOYED IT ON THAT ROAD SO THAT WE COULD CAPTURE DATA ON THAT SPECIFIC ROAD. BUT, UH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, UM, JUST PUT IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE SAKE OF GATHERING DATA, JUST IN CASE THOSE ARE DEPLOYED AFTER A CRIME TRAIN HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED. WELL. UM, SO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, PERHAPS WE, WE HAVE BEEN PRETTY SI WE'VE BEEN TOTAL TOTALLY SILENT IN THIS RESOLUTION ABOUT WHERE CAMERAS ARE DEPLOYED, BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT THAT IS ONE PIECE OF THE PROTECTIONS AND, UH, OR MAYBE IT'S IN THERE AND I JUST HAVEN'T NOTICED IT, [03:30:01] BUT I THINK THAT, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PARAMETERS AROUND THE DECISION MAKING ON WHERE, UM, WHERE THEY'RE DEPLOYED SO THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE, IS THE POLICY AND THE PRACTICE, AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHERE THIS IS WRITTEN, UM, AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT PERHAPS WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE WRITTEN THAT DOWN TO MAKE SURE DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, COUNSELOR HEALTH? IT DOES. AND, UM, I APPRECIATE YOU THINKING ABOUT THAT AS A CONSIDERATION. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT YOU TO LINE 98 ON PAGE FIVE OF EIGHT. UM, I TALK ABOUT, AND THIS IS NEW TO THE RESOLUTION. I WAS GOING THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY EARLIER, BUT IT SAYS, UNLESS THERE'S A CRIMINAL NEXUS OFFICERS WILL NOT USE LICENSE PLATE READER FOR PURPOSES, PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATING PERSONS WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH ASSEMBLY, AND EXERCISE OF RELIGION, SUCH AS ATTENDING POLITICAL RALLIES, PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS, AND RELIGIOUS GATHERINGS. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT MAKES IT SPECIFIC THAT THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE, OF THE, OF THE CAMERAS, OR AS THE OFFICER JUST SAID IS, UM, HAS, IS RELATED TO A CRIMINAL NEXUS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE WORDING WOULD BE, BUT PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE, I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING A MOTION SHEET ON THAT ON THURSDAY. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON LICENSED BY RESEARCH COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON NATASHA. THANK YOU, MARY. I APPRECIATE IT. UM, MY, MY COMMENT IS, IS, UH, DIRECTED AT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. IT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, JUST COINCIDENCE THAT YOU SAID YOUR COMMENT ABOUT STAYING FOCUSED AFTER I SPOKE. UM, IN WHICH CASE I WON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IT DOES SOMEHOW MINIMIZE THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY AND REMOVES THE POSSIBILITY THAT I AGREE WITH THEIR CONCERNS. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISTINCT LACK OF FOCUS IN WHAT IT IS THAT I PRESENTED. AND I APPRECIATE THAT IN ADDITION TO EXPRESSING MY CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE RISK, AND THEN DO THE, THE SUBSTANTIAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT I JUST HAD TO SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS THERE WERE THAT I SOMEHOW LACK, FOCUS BECAUSE I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY CONSTITUENTS. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE. I ADDITIONALLY WANT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU SEEK AS WELL, BOTH GET TO BE TRUE IN THIS SETTING. I THINK WORK SESSIONS ARE INTENDED FOR US TO EXPRESS OURSELVES, UM, BOTH QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS AND EXPRESS CONCERNS. SO NOTHING I SAID WAS INAPPROPRIATE, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER. I NEVER, I WAS NOT. I APOLOGIZE IF IT SOUNDED TO YOU LIKE THAT WAS DIRECTED AT YOU. UM, IT WAS COINCIDENCE THE ORDER IN WHICH I WAS SPEAKING, AND I CERTAINLY WAS NOT DIRECTING THAT AT YOU. AND I'M SORRY, AND I HOPE YOU WOULDN'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. UH, I THINK EVERY ONE OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF, ARE REFLECTING THE CONCERNS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS AND EVERY ONE OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. SO I'M SORRY. IT APPEARED THAT WAY TO YOU. I DID NOT USE YOUR NAME. IT WAS A COINCIDENCE IN THE ORDER IN WHICH, UM, I WAS CALLED UPON. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU DID NOT, BUT YOU, YOU ADMONISHED YOUR COLLEAGUES. YOU DID DO THAT. YOU SAID WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED. YOU ENCOURAGED US TO STAY FOCUSED. SO MAYBE IT WASN'T JUST ME, IT'S US AS A BODY, BUT I DON'T THINK EXPRESSING CONCERNS, ANY INDICATION OF LACK OF I, MY SUGGESTION'S GONNA BE, MY SUGGESTION IS GONNA BE, WE MOVE ON HERE. UH, I WANT, UH, COLLEAGUES TO KNOW THAT, UM, UH, THE LIST NOW HAS BEEN POSTED IN THE MESSAGE BOARD, UH, AS IN ADDITION TO THE, UH, UH, UH, POST FOLLOWING IN THE SAME STREAM AS THE POST THAT YOU MADE THIS MORNING, UH, WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION, THAT'S WHERE IT CAN BE FOUND, UH, VANESSA MAYOR, ARE WE STILL GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS TOPIC LATER THIS AFTERNOON? UM, CAUSE I STILL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND I WANNA ASK, UH, VELA, YOU KNOW, YOUR INTENTION WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU PLAN TO BRING FORWARD. MY THOUGHT WAS LET'S STICK WITH THIS LONG ENOUGH, CAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING TOWARD THE END SO WE CAN FINISH THIS. THEN WE'LL GO AND TAKE A LUNCH BREAK TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND COME BACK OUT AND TALK, UH, POTENTIALLY THE, UM, UH, PETITION, UH, ISSUE. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, UH, JUST THE, THE SUPREME COURT IN A RELATIVELY SIMILAR CASE. AGAIN, IT'S NOT EXACTLY ON POINT, BUT THERE WAS A CASE WHERE A POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS PUTTING A TRACKER ON A, ON A VEHICLE, UH, WITHOUT A WARRANT. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BASICALLY STICK A LITTLE MAGNET WITH A TRACKER ON THE VEHICLE AND THEN TRACK IT AS IT, UH, UH, DROVE AROUND THE CITY AS PART OF AN, AN INVESTIGATION. AND THE QUESTION WAS, UH, WHETHER THAT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, WHETHER THEY NEEDED TO GET A WARRANT FOR THAT OR, UH, OR NOT. AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THEY DID NEED A WARRANT THAT YES, EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE WAS ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS THE ENTIRE TIME, EVEN THOUGH THAT, YOU KNOW, ANY CITIZEN COULD SEE THAT CAR, YOU KNOW, PASSING BY, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS PUBLIC DATA, THAT THE, THE, THE [03:35:01] SUM TOTAL OF THE DATA COLLECTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THAT CASE DID RISE TO THE LEVEL OF, UH, OF A SEARCH THAT REQUIRED A WARRANT. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM AN A L P PROGRAM THAT IS CAPTURING A VAST AMOUNT OF DATA OF VEHICLES DRIVING AROUND THE CITY AND STORING IT, THEN ONLY TO BE SEARCHED LATER AS NEEDED FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UH, A CASE MAY BE. I, I DON'T WANNA MINIMIZE THE VERY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THAT COME UP WITH REGARD TO THE COLLECTION OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF PRESUMPTIVELY INNOCENT PEOPLE AS THEY GO ABOUT THE CITY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE WITH REGARD TO FACE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DATA APPS ON PHONES RIGHT NOW, IT MIGHT BE YOUR WEATHER APP THAT IS KEEPING TRACK OF YOU AND YOUR PHONE, AND THEN THAT DATA IS PURCHASED BY A POLICE DEPARTMENT BY SO I, I, I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE MORE INFORMATION THAT THE POLICE HAVE, THE MORE THEY CAN ARREST AND, AND, AND, UH, BRING PEOPLE TO JUSTICE. BUT THERE'S ALWAYS THAT BALANCE BETWEEN, UH, LIBERTY AND SECURITY. AND AS A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A WARRANT TO ENGAGE IN A, IN A SEARCH AND TO MEET THIS CROSSES THE LINE. THIS, WHEN YOU WERE, ARE RETAINING DATA OF PEOPLE ONLY TO GO BACK AS NEEDED AND, YOU KNOW, FILTER THROUGH IT, TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN TO, AGAIN, CLEAR THEM OF A CRIME OR TO NOT, THOSE ARE SEARCHES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD REQUIRE A WARRANT. IF WE WANT TO AVOID THOSE ISSUES, THEN WE LIMIT IT TO THE HOT LIST. THEN WE JUST SAY THAT, OKAY, THIS CAR WITH THIS LICENSE PLATE WAS JUST REPORTED HAVING DONE A DRIVE BY SHOOTING, BOOM, ENTER THAT INFORMATION AT THE, A PRS. AS SOON AS WE GET A HIT, THEN THE POLICE HAVE KNOW WHERE THAT VEHICLE IS. THEY CAN GO OUT AND FIND IT AGAIN. SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S BEEN CHARGED WITH A VERY SERIOUS CRIME. WHAT IS THEIR VEHICLE? THAT'S THE LICENSE PLATE ON THE VEHICLE, ENTER IT INTO THE A P SYSTEM. AND THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, TO, TO FIND THAT PERSON. BUT I, I JUST DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE THE VERY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THAT, UH, UH, ARISE WITH THE WIDESPREAD USE OF, UH, A L P TECHNOLOGY. AND ESPECIALLY IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S SAVING THE DATA THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THE LICENSE PLATE READERS CONNECT COLLECT. ALISON YOU, I'M SORRY. VANESSA WAS CONNECT NEXT, ELLA. SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU, YOU STILL PLAN TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT, CORRECT? I DO. AND, AND I, I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD VERSION AND WHAT I'LL PROBABLY DO, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT RIGHT NOW, BUT IS, COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THIS, UH, TO COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, KELLY'S VERSION TWO, UH, THE, THE VAST MAJORITY, IT WITH IT, I'M FINE WITH THE, THE, THE THINGS THAT JUMP OUT AT ME ARE THE, THE DATA RETENTION, UH, TIMEFRAME, UH, AND THEN THE, UH, THE SCOPE OF WHERE WE USE A L. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS THAT I WOULD MOST LIKE TO LIMIT. SO ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT KEEPING IT CUZ YOUR AMENDMENT HAS A THREE MINUTE, UH, DATA RETENTION TIME PERIOD? IT DOES. AND THAT'S BASED ON THE, UH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, UH, THEY HAVE A THREE MINUTE DATA RETENTION. AND AGAIN, THE IDEA IS JUST TO USE IT FOR HOT LIST, YOU KNOW, FOR STOLEN VEHICLES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPORTED AS STOLEN FOR ACTIVE WARRANTS, NOT TO USE IT AS A DATA COLLECTION AND INVESTIGATION DEVICE, BUT MORE TO USE IT AS A KIND OF EMERGENCY IDENTIFICATION DEVICE. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND THEN THAT THIS IS I'M WITH YOU ON, ON THE RISK OF UNLAWFUL SEARCHES. I THINK THAT THIS ITEM COULD POTENTIALLY AS PROPOSED, COULD POTENTIALLY BE A VIOLATION OF OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED. UM, AND THAT'S NOT A RISK THAT I'M WILLING TO, TO BEAR AND ESPECIALLY KNOWING FROM THE INFORMATION THAT A C L U PROVIDED US THAT STATES THAT APD AS WELL AS TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, BACK IN 2018 SHARED INFORMATION WITH ICE, UM, THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING LPR TOOLS AND, AND COUPLE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, THAT THERE ARE OTHER AGENCIES THAT HAVE THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN STILL, UM, AID IN INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT NECESSARILY TAKING ON SUCH A TOOL, UH, OURSELVES. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LIVING IN, UM, KELLEY YOU MENTIONED, UM, A COURT, YOU CITED A COURT RULING SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GUARANTEED PRIVACY ON PRIVACY ON THE ROADWAYS. UH, AND THAT IS ALARMING BECAUSE HOW DO WE KNOW THAT SOMEONE IN A NEIGHBORING COUNTY WON'T BE USING OUR DATA? [03:40:01] IF WE HAVE AN LPR ON I 35, UM, TRYING TO TRACK DOWN AN INVESTIGATION OF A, OF AN ABORTION. UM, AGAIN, THERE'S SO MANY SCENARIOS THAT COULD PLAY OUT HERE. UM, AND KNOWING THAT THE, THIS COURT RULING THAT YOU CITED, KNOWING THAT THE LEGISLATURE, UH, AS WE, AS WELL AS, UH, SUPREME COURT HAVE SAID THAT WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. WHEN IT COMES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CHOICES, I REMAIN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSAL AS, AS CURRENTLY, UM, CONSIDERED. AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT, AND THIS IS NOT, I TAKE A P D AT THEIR WORD THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND CAREFUL WITH THE, WITH THE DATA. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF MISUSE OF A P DATA FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AND HONESTLY, FROM AROUND THE WORLD. SO IT'S JUST, TO ME, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME, UH, BEFORE THAT DATA IS MISUSED AND OR FALLS INTO THE WRONG HANDS. UH, AGAIN, YOU CANNOT ABUSE THE DA DATA THAT YOU DO NOT COLLECT, AND THAT'S THE CORE OF, OF, OF WHAT I'M PROPOSING ALLISON. THANK YOU APPRECIATE, UM, HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE WELL SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS COMPLICATED SET OF ISSUES THAT DO HAVE PROS AND CONS ON, ON ALL SIDES. UM, I WANTED TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, UM, COUNCIL JUST FOLLOWED UP BY ASKING, YOU KNOW, THAT WHETHER YOU WERE GONNA STILL BE PURSUING THE THREE MINUTES, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU, HOW YOU HAVE THE THREE MINUTE AND YOU DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, UM, ABOUT FINDING, YOU KNOW, THE STOLEN VEHICLE OR THE KIDNAPPING SUSPECT. IF YOU ONLY HAVE DATA RETAINED FOR THREE MINUTES, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU HAVE 30 DAYS, UM, AND I OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT THAT, YOU KNOW, OVER 365, BUT, BUT LIKE THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO HELP, UM, THE VICTIMS AND, AND I'M JUST NOT FOLLOWING HOW WITH THREE MINUTES RETENTION, YOU DO THAT, UNLESS SOMEBODY'S ALWAYS CHECKING FOR THAT, UH, PARTICULAR LICENSE PLATE AT ALL TIMES, OR THEN YOU'RE, I MEAN, SO THE WAY IS A HIT. WHEN, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU ENTER IN LICENSE PLATE ABC 1 23, ONCE IT HITS THAT DATA'S RETAINED THAT IF YOU GET A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION ON A LICENSE PLATE, NUMBER THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT DATA IS RETAINED UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED ESSENTIALLY, OR UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARD TO THAT LICENSE PLATE, BUT YOU'RE NOT KEEPING THE LOCATION INFORMATION OF ALL THE LICENSE PLATE, UH, DATA THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING KIND OF, YOU KNOW, FOR 30 DAYS OR FOR 365 OR ANY, IT'S LOOKING FOR A SPECIFIC LICENSE PLATE WHEN IT HITS THAT DATA IS RETAINED. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT THAT'S HELPFUL CUZ SOME OF THESE MECHANICS ARE CHALLENGING, BUT THEN IF, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT LICENSE PLATE WAS 30 MINUTES BEFORE YOU ENTERED IT, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. YOU WOULD NOT RETAIN, UH, DATA ON, YOU KNOW, WHERE ANY UNKNOWN, RANDOM VEHICLE IS JUST DRIVING AROUND. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE 30 DAYS OF LOCATION INFORMATION ON THAT VEHICLE SAYING, OH LOOK, THERE THEY COME NORTHBOUND ON I 35. THERE THEY GO SOUTHBOUND ON I 35. THAT THAT WOULD NOT, THAT'S THE LEVEL OF DATA THAT I DON'T WANT TO KEEP BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT IS A VIOLATION OF PEOPLE'S PRIVACY. THAT UNLESS I'M SUSPECTED OF A CRIME, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS ANY BUSINESS KEEPING THE, MY DETAILED WHEREABOUTS AS I GO AROUND AUSTIN, TEXAS. THANK YOU. UM, CHIEF, COULD YOU PROVIDE AN, ANY MORE INSIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE TRADE OFFS HERE. ABSOLUTELY. UM, I THINK, UH, JUST AN IMPORTANT NOTE TO MAKE IS THAT UNTIL THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO IS SUSPECTED OF A CRIME, THAT INFORMATION IS NOT SEARCHED OR LOOKED AT. WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT CRIMINAL CONNECTION BEFORE WE CAN LOOK AT ANYTHING. BUT TO THE POINT OF YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, WE WILL, WITH THREE MINUTE RETENTION, WE WILL ONLY GET REAL TIME HIT ON VEHICLES. WE KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR. SO IF WE ALREADY HAVE A STOLEN VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN REPORTED AND WE PUT IT IN A T C, C, THEN WE WILL GET A HIT OF THE STOLEN VEHICLE THAT WE HAPPEN TO DRIVE BY. IF, UM, THERE'S A PARTICULAR CRIME THAT HAS, UH, COMMIT, BEEN COMMITTED AND WE KNOW THE SUSPECT'S VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE, AND WE CAN PUT IT INTO THE HOT LIST PROGRAM. AND IF WE HAPPEN TO DRIVE BY IT, WE'LL GET THAT NOTIFICATION. BUT WHAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IS TO PROACTIVELY GO FIND THAT VEHICLE AND SAVE THAT VICTIM [03:45:01] OR RETAIN THAT EVIDENCE OR TAKE THE SUSPECT INTO CUSTODY, GET THE GUNS OFF THE STREET BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO LOOK, IF WE CAN'T SEE WHERE THAT VEHICLE'S BEEN OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, IT'S A, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOOL TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE BACK END OF THAT CRIME AND TO RECOVER PEOPLE SAFELY. CAN YOU PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THAT WAS IMPORTANT? YES. UM, TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN, ONE THAT POPS TO MIND MOST QUICKLY IS BACK YEARS AGO, THERE WAS TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE, THEY JUST HAD THEIR INTENT SET ON ABDUCTING, A YOUNG GIRL AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTING HER. THEY WENT TO A BUS STOP AND TRIED TO GRAB ONE YOUNG GIRL MIDDLE SCHOOL, AGE GIRL WHO WAS ABLE TO GET AWAY SHORTLY AFTER THAT, THEY GRABBED A SECOND GIRL WHO WAS ABLE TO JUMP OUT OF THE CAR AND GET AWAY. THE WITNESSES GAVE US THE, THE LICENSE PLATE OF THAT VEHICLE. WE RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A SERIOUS CRIME. THERE'S A, A SERIES THAT'S BEING COMMITTED. IT'S ESCALATING IN NATURE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REGISTRATION DID NOT COME BACK TO THE CURRENT LOCATION, EXCUSE ME, THE REGISTRATION WAS NOT CURRENT. SO THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE WAS NOT ACCURATE. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S DRIVING THE VEHICLE TODAY, UH, WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING, BUT A VERY QUICK SEARCH OF THE LICENSE PLATE SCANNER DATABASE SHOWED THAT IT WAS SCANNED AT A RESIDENCE IN THE AREA. WE GO TO THAT RESIDENCE. WE FIND THE VEHICLE. ONE OF THE SUSPECTS IS STILL ON SCENE AND CONFESSES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A YOUNG GIRL TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT. WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE BOTH OF THEM INTO CUSTODY WITH A THREE MINUTE RE RETENTION PROGRAM. WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT INFORMATION AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE GONE ON TO SUCCEED IN THEIR MISSION THAT DAY OR THAT WEEK. YOU ONLY WILL HAVE SUCCESS IN THE VEHICLES THAT WE KNOW ABOUT IN ADVANCE. AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND FIND OUT WHERE THESE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN SO THAT WE CAN STOP THESE CRIMES THAT ARE BEING OCCURRING. THANK YOU MAY I THINK, I THINK YOUR COMMENTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER VELAS REALLY POINT TO THE, THE CHALLENGING POLICY QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US AND THE TRADE OFFS, UM, THAT WE NEED TO NAVIGATE WITH THIS DISCUSSION. SO I, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE, LESLIE, I'LL JUST CLOSE BY AGAIN, EXPRESSING MY APPRECIATION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS INITIATIVE. IT'S AN IMPORTANT INITIATIVE. IT IS A BALANCE OF POLICY, UH, CONCERNS. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT PRETTY WELL, UM, IN OUR DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST HOUR AND OVER MANY, MANY WEEKS AND, AND, AND CONVERSATIONS, I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE. YOUR IF C UM, I DO THINK IT IS STRONGER AND, UM, AND A BETTER INITIATIVE THAN WHEN IT WAS FIRST OUT OF THE BLOCK. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY DIGGING IN TO HELP WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS. UM, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT OUR, OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT CROSSES LOTS OF DIFFERENT DIVIDES. AND I THINK THAT THIS, IF C ASSISTS IN ENSURING THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS PROTECTED. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANNA GO LAST? I WAS GONNA LET YOU CLOSE THIS CONVERSATION. KATHY, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, UH, CHIEF JUST REAL QUICK ON THAT EXAMPLE, DID YOU SAY THAT THE, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT ESCAPED, THEY WERE ABLE TO, THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE LICENSE PLATE INFORMATION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE WITNESSES THAT WERE WATCHING WHAT WAS HAPPENING GAVE US THE LICENSE. SO PRESUMABLY IF WE HAD A HOTLIST, UH, A L P R THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD'VE ENTERED THAT LICENSE PLATE INTO THE HOTLIST, UH, A L P R, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE HOPEFUL IF WE HAPPENED TO DRIVE BY IT, IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL TO GO BACK AND FIND THEM BEFORE THEY FOUND ANOTHER LITTLE GIRL. BUT IF YOU ARE PUTTING A LPRS AROUND, LIKE ON I 35 ON MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS, THEN PRESUMABLY THAT WILL TRIGGER, UH, A HOT LIST NOTIFICATION. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE, UH, KNOWN WHERE THAT VEHICLE WAS. I MEAN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? ONLY IF IT DRIVES BY ONE OF OUR CAMERAS. WOULD YOU THANK YOU, CHIEF COUNCIL MEMBER COUNTY. THANK YOU. UM, JUST TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, COUNCIL MEMBER FLOES, I'M HOPING THAT YOU COULD HELP ME WITH THIS BECAUSE I'VE HEARD IT A LOT, NOT JUST FROM OTHER COLLEAGUES, BUT ALSO JUST OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, SOME OF THE EMAILS WE'VE BEEN GETTING, CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN LPRS HAVE BEEN USED TO TRACK SOMEONE SEEKING AN ABORTION? HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF? NO, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT THE CONCERN IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. WE HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS AN INTENT TO TAKE AWAY PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, THIS UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE CYCLE. SO WHILE WE DO CRIMINALIZED ABORTION IN THE REPORTING AND INVESTIGATING ABORTIONS, THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT WILLIAMSON COUNTY WON'T PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION OF ABORTIONS. I SEE. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME WITH THAT. UM, [03:50:01] ASSISTANT CHIEF GREEN, WALT, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING? I, I KNOW THAT YOU WORK IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, SO MAYBE YOU'VE HEARD IT FROM OTHER AGENCIES. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU ASSISTANT CHIEF, UM, AND THIS MAY SEEM A LITTLE OUTTA LEFT FIELD, BUT THERE IS A REASON FOR IT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT OUR AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME IS ACROSS THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO GET TO SOMEONE WHEN THEY REPORT A VICIOUS CRIME, SUCH AS THE ONES WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY? I DON'T KNOW IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN, UH, STRUGGLING WITH RECENTLY BECAUSE OF OUR STAFFING ISSUES IN RISING, BUT WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENT TO SAY IT'S MOST LIKELY MORE THAN THREE MINUTES? YES MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN I WANT TO JUST, UM, THANK THE 445 INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE CITY. WHO'VE EMAILED OUR OFFICES OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM. AND JUST SAY THAT IT'S, IT'S NICE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANNE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, I, I WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE, THE, UM, THE ABORTION, UM, EXAMPLE, AND, AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER FUS FOR CLARIFYING WHAT YOUR CONCERN WAS ABOUT ANOTHER JURISDICTION, FOR EXAMPLE. SO, UH, SO FOR ME, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ALSO. UM, AND SO MY THOUGHT WAS OKAY, SO, SO HOPEFULLY THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY WAS, WAS, UM, OKAY. SO I, I GUESS THE PROTECTION THAT I'M THAT I'M THINKING PROTECTS US AGAINST THAT. AND YOU CAN TELL ME IF YOU DON'T, IF, IF IT DOESN'T IS THE FACT THAT, UH, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESS TO OUR DATABASE IS A P D OFFICERS, NOT WILLIAMSON COUNTY OFFICERS ARE NOT OFFICERS FROM ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. SO, AND HELP ME THINK THROUGH IT. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH IT, YOU CAN HELP ME. SO IF ONLY A P D HAS JURISDICTION AND THEY HAVE TO ENTER A CRIMINAL, UM, CASE NUMBER TO ACTUALLY SEARCH THE DATABASE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW, HOW MUCH DATA SHOULD BE IN THAT BASE, BUT TO SEARCH THE DATABASE, THEN I'M NOT SURE HOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES IMPACTS US UNLESS THE CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROLS OVER A REQUEST TO US FOR A PARTICULAR CASE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? WELL, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC AT LAST WEEK'S COUNCIL MEETING, OR TWO WEEKS AGO, THIS OUR LPR DATA WOULD BE SHARED WITH ARIC, THE AUSTIN REGIONAL AND, UH, INFORMATION CENTER. OKAY. OKAY. AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER PLATFORM THAT HAS THAT OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE ACCESS TO. UM, SO THEY'RE ALL FEEDING IN DATA INTO THIS ONE ENTITY. SO WHO'S TO STOP ANOTHER JURISDICTION FROM ACCESSING THE INFORMATION THAT ARICK WOULD IN VIRTUE HAVE ACCESS TO AS WELL. WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, WHEN DATA GOES. AND SO I'LL ASK THE OFFICER BECAUSE IF THAT'S WHAT'S HA HAPPENING, I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN EITHER. AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT I THOUGHT WAS PROTECTING US AGAINST THAT. AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN WE NEED TO DO MORE. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, AND WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT I THOUGHT SAID THAT, UM, THAT NO, NO OTHER THAT IF THAT, IF ANOTHER JURISDICTION WANTS THAT THIS IS OUR DATA THAT WE OWN, AND THAT IF ANOTHER JURISDICTION WANTS ACCESS TO IT, THEY HAVE TO ASK US, IS THAT, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? IS, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE SCENARIO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS RAISE THE CONCERN ABOUT, ABOUT OUR, OUR DATA OWNED BY US GOING INTO IRAQ AND THEN OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD ACCESS IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH US? IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING, OFFICER, COULD YOU, I'M SORRY. SO THE INFORMATION IS ACCESSIBLE TO A R AND ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY COULD REQUEST IT FROM US. THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO GET IN AND JUST VIEW EVERYTHING. CAR BLANCHE. THEY DON'T HAVE A LOG ON DIRECTLY TO OUR SYSTEM. OKAY. SO THEY HAVE TO ASK US, THEY CANNOT LOG ONTO THE SYSTEM FOR OUR DATA DIRECTLY. IT HAS TO COME THROUGH APD IS THAT RIGHT? ABORTIONS ARE, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CRIME. SO THEY WOULD BE ASKING FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION. NO, WE WOULDN'T BECAUSE WE'VE GOT LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT TALKS ABOUT, I THOUGHT WE HAD SPECIFICALLY HEAD LANGUAGE, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, IF I CAN, COULD I HELP YOU WITH THIS? COULD I SPEAK TO IT FIRST? IT SAYS DATA. SHARON, DO WE HAVE A LAWYER ON THE PHONE HERE WITH US? JACKIE JACKIE'S PHONE? COULD I READ WHAT I, DATA SHARON WILL ONLY OCCUR FOR INVESTIGATING THE INTER PROSECUTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR A P [03:55:01] D. SO LET'S FIND OUT IF THAT'S LEGALLY VIABLE IN THAT PARAGRAPH. YEAH, BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT TOO. AND SO, ERICA, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, JACKIE? I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. CAN YOU ASK COUNCIL MEMBER OR COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN? CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC WHEN YOU SPEAK, PLEASE? SURE. I'M SORRY. DID WHICH PART DID YOU NOT? I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF IT, BUT I, BUT I, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT ANYTHING JUST MOVING FORWARD. IF YOU COULD DO THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. I JUST WANNA RUN THE SCENARIO. JACKIE, CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT WHEN WE, WHEN, IF WE HAVE TO TURN OVER DATA? WE HAVE. OKAY. YES. SO, UM, IN THE COUNCIL, IN OUR, OUR RESOLUTION, WE HAVE IN THERE THAT WE WILL ONLY USE, UM, OUR LICENSE PLATE, ME DEBT FOR OUR OWN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. AND IF THERE IS A REQUEST THAT WE FROM ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WE WILL NOT GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THE DATABASE. WE WOULD GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO SO BY LAW. SO, UM, AND THAT INFORMA, THAT IS IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, UM, SORRY, THE RESOLUTION THAT IS, THAT HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. UM, IT SAYS DATA SHARING WILL ONLY OCCUR FOR INVESTIGATING AND OR PROSECUTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR A P D IF A CIRCUMSTANCES ARISES WHERE THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW TO SHARE THE INFORMATION AT THE REQUEST OF A STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY FOR ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE, AN APD WILL NOT GRANT DIRECT ACCESS TO THE DATABASE, BUT WILL SIMPLY SUPPLY THE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR SPECIFIC CASE OR INVESTIGATION TO THE EXTENT LEGALLY POSSIBLE AGENCY RECEIVES A REQUEST. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO, NO, NO. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHEN ARE WE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO TURN OVER DATA THAT WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO OTHERWISE TURN OVER? THAT WOULD BE LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, UM, UM, WELL BASICALLY THE GOING TO WHAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN ASKING ABOUT, LIKE IF ICE REQUESTS, UH, INFORMATION REGARDING, UM, AND ASKED FOR US TO COOPERATE, UM, IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS, THEY ASK FOR SPECIFICALLY A LICENSE PLATE READER INFORMATION, WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE THAT INFORMATION. WE DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THE DATABASE, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE 'EM THAT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE. BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE, BUT WE HAVE A, OKAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WORKS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE PUT IN HERE IS THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE, ERICA, I'M SORRY. CHECK. OH, JACKIE, SORRY. THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF THE, SO WE SAY TO THE EXTENT LEGALLY POSSIBLE, MAYBE WE NEED TO FIX THAT LANGUAGE, BUT, UM, WE HAVE A STEP IN HERE WITH APD REPORTING RE REQUEST TO THE OPO, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PRIOR TO SHARING INFORMATION. SO ISN'T THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO ALSO. YES. UM, SO WE DO NOT, IT, IT SAYS IF THE CITY RECEIVES A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS BROADER IN A SPECIFIC CASE FOR INVESTIGATION, THE EPD WILL REPORT THAT REQUEST TO THE OFFICE POLICE OVERSIGHT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO ANYTIME THAT WE ARE HAVING TO GIVE INFORMATION THAT WE OTHERWISE WOULD NOT WANT TO GIVE, WE DO NEED TO LET, UM, COUNSEL KNOW, IS THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. AND ALSO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER BEFORE GIVING THE INFORMATION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER VELA. SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE CATEGORIES, YOU KNOW, THE MIS MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IS THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT ABORTIONS ADDRESSED BY LIMITING? THE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STATE LAW WOULD REQUIRE THE SHARING OF THAT DATA FOR A, LIKE, ESPECIALLY FOR A FELONY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT IT REQUIRES IT FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED. UH, AND I WOULD SAY THIS, IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNUSUAL FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY NOT TO SHARE, UH, LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS WITH ANOTHER AGENCY THAT IS PURSUING A, A FELONY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. AND JUST, IF WE DON'T KEEP THE DATA, WE DON'T HAVE TO SHARE IT. OKAY. I WASN'T ASKING FOR, FOR THAT. I WAS TRYING, I'M TRYING TO STAY FOCUSED ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION. SO YEAH, SO THERE'S A RISK. AND IN THAT RISK THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IS WHEN CAN WE SAY NO? AND HOW DO WE SAY NO TO, TO A REQUEST FROM ANOTHER ENTITY? THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS ATTEMPTS TO PUT A STEP IN THERE BEFORE WE SAY NO, OR NOT. BEFORE WE SAY NO, BEFORE WE GIVE 'EM ANYTHING THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ENFORCING OURSELVES. SO, SO I THINK THAT STATE OF THE LAW IS WE CAN'T SAY NO, AND WE CAN'T NOT TURN IT OVER TO ICE. WE CAN REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. HEY, ICE ASKED US FOR INFORMATION THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO [04:00:01] TURN OVER, BUT WE WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO TURNOVER. AND WE'LL GIVE YOU NOTICE THAT WE'VE DONE THAT. MM-HMM OPEN QUESTION IS WHETHER, IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR A PROSECUTOR IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY OR OTHER PLACE ASKS FOR, UH, QUESTIONS RELATED TO SEEKING, UH, AN ABORTION UNDER STATE LAW, UM, WE'VE HEARD, UH, COUNSELOR VES, UM, NOT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, BUT WE, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM, FROM OUR LEGAL STAFF ON THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. OKAY. UM, THAT WE DID ASK THE QUESTION EARLIER WHILE WE HAVE YOU HERE, JACKIE, JUST REAL FAST. IF WE USED COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DATA, UH, THE CHIEF, AN ASSISTANT CHIEF, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN THAT DATA. WE DON'T HAVE TO TURN OVER THAT DATA. UH, BUT THEY WOULD, UH, BE REQUIRED TO GET THAT DATA FROM THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT DATA OR THE COMPANY THAT ACCUMULATED IT. IS THAT TRUE? IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT ALWAYS TRUE. I WOULD SAY THAT IT MAY BE POS IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THE COURT SAYS, YOU KNOW, CITY YOU'RE IN POSSESSION OF IT. THIS IS UNDER YOUR DUTY TO COOPERATE WITH ICE OR WHETHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, THEY SAY THAT IT IS RELEVANT. WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN IT OVER. OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT CAME FROM OUR PRIVATE DATA OR IF IT CAME FROM A COMMERCIAL, UM, IT IS STILL POSSIBLE THAT WE STILL HAVE TO TURN IT OVER. UM, YOU KNOW, DESPITE THE MANNER IN WHICH WE RECEIVED IT. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION? OPEN QUESTION WE HAVE IN POSSESSION OF IT. WHAT ABOUT STATE LAW CLAIMS? UH, YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ICE, ON IMMIGRATION. UH, WHAT IF THE, UH, STATE, UH, WANTED TO PURSUE, UH, PROSECUTION OF THE, UH, UH, ABORTION LAW, SAME THE COURT. IF THEY SAID THAT IT WAS RELEVANT AND IT WAS OUR DUTY TO BE TO COOPERATE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN IT OVER. SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. UM, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN SAY BLANKLY SAY YES OR NO. IT DEPENDS ON THE, ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. UM, IF WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF IT, IT'S VERY, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE WILL HAVE TO TURN IT OVER. THANK YOU. WHETHER MATTER WHAT MANNER, WHICH WE RECEIVED IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, KATHY, DID YOU WANNA GO? AND THEN, AND THEN ALLISON, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND RAISED. I'M ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE MY COMMENT, UM, TO OUR, TO OUR, UH, LAW FOLKS DIRECTLY ABOUT A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND HOW IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME ONE HERE, BUT I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT IT IN A, IN SESSION. THANKS. OKAY. CHANGE MY MIND. YOU WANT, UM, BUT BEFORE WE CONCLUDE FOR LUNCH, AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH THIS TOPIC, I HAD A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT QUICKLY. OKAY. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU THEN. UH, ALLISON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? UM, THANK YOU. UM, I'D ORIGINALLY RAISED IT TO, TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, BUT I JUST WANNA, UM, FIRST ALL CONGRATULATE, UH, ASSISTANT CHIEF GREENWALT AND BEING APPOINTED TO ASSISTANT CHIEF. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, AND THEN AS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THIS IS A NUANCE WITHOUT MEETING IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IN THIS CASE, IT, I THINK IT DOES, DOES, UM, MATTER, IT'S ILLEGAL TO PERFORM AN ABORTION. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE AN ABORTION. UM, AND SO IT WOULD BE THE, I, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS INTO TO, TO WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY WENT TO GET AN ABORTION, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME. UM, AND PRESUMABLY YOU KNOW, WHERE THE DOCTORS ARE WORKING, BUT I, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. I'M, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE'S SOME DYNA, THIS GETS COMPLICATED ON A LOT OF ISSUES, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S JUST A NUANCE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND. AND THEN I HAD A COUPLE OTHER THINGS WHENEVER WE COME BACK. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON LICENSE PLATE READERS BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK? I THINK WE'RE BACK TO YOU. IF YOUR THING WAS ON LICENSE PLATE READERS. NO. UH, BEFORE WE TAKE A RECESS, IT'S ONE 15 TO GET TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND LUNCH COMING BACK AFTERWARDS FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS. IS ANYBODY ANYTHING THEY WANT TO RAISE HERE REAL QUICKLY? FIRST, KATHY, I RECOGNIZED YOU FIRST. IF WE'RE GONNA LET YOU GO AHEAD AND DO OKAY. ALLISON YUGO. UM, SO FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR A COMMERCIAL, UM, WE STILL HAVE AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE THAT WHEN WE ADOPT IT, WE NEED TO HAVE FTES TO IMPLEMENT IT. NOW IT DOESN'T GO INTO PLACE UNTIL JANUARY. UM, BUT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF I NEED TO HAVE DIRECTION ON THAT. WE'VE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET CLARITY ON AN ANSWER. WE DO NEED TO FTES TO IMPLEMENT IT. UM, AND THEY COME OUT OF THE PLD MONEY. SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE GENERAL FUND MONEY, BUT PROCEDURALLY, WE NEED TO HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT THAT MECHANISM IS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN ON THURSDAY, BUT WE NEED SOME CLARITY ON THAT. UM, AND THEN I WANTED TO RAISE FOR 47, I THINK, IS THE APPOINTMENT. UM, I WANTED TO ASK IF WE COULD PUT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES ON, [04:05:01] UM, AS AN ALTERNATE FOR CAMPO, I THINK WITH THE TRANSITION COMING, UM, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COVERED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND WE NEED CAMPOS ARE REALLY COMPLICATED, UM, IN HER GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE. AND SO WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF LEAD TIME SPOKEN WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, AND SHE'S WILLING TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE. I KNOW I HAVE A MEETING THAT I HAVE TO MISS, UM, IN OCTOBER AND, AND MAYOR, YOU'RE ALSO AN ALTERNATE, THIS WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE. UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND PUT HER ON AS THAT, ON THE APPOINTMENTS STUFF. OBVIOUSLY THINGS WOULD BE RESHUFFLED COME JANUARY OR FEBRUARY AS THE NEW COUNCIL DESIRES, BUT I DON'T WANNA LEAVE US WITHOUT, UM, REPRESENTATION OR A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE A PROXY BECAUSE WE HAVE, I THINK THAT MAKES REALLY GOOD SENSE WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT ON THE NOMINATIONS. UH, THANK YOU. SO IF THE CLERK, IF YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU, KATHY. UH, THANK YOU. SO NUMBER 29, I'M GONNA SUBMIT, HOPEFULLY IF I REMEMBER TO DO SO A QUESTION ABOUT 29, BUT I'LL JUST RAISE IT MANAGER FOR YOUR ATTENTION TODAY. AND, AND TO REPORT BACK TO US, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT VACANCIES AND STAFFING WITHIN OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. NUMBER 29 IS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH UT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF STREET CLOSURES AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE, UH, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT, HOW THAT MAY IMPACT OUR, OUR CAPACITY ISSUES WITH REGARD TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. OKAY. UM, NUMBER 33, I KNOW I WAS, UH, SUBMITTING A QUESTION AND SAW THAT COUNCIL MAYOR PROTE ALTAR HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED ONE ABOUT THIS. AND SO JUST I'LL MENTION AS A, IT IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING AND HAD I KNOWN I WOULD'VE JUST DONE THE AMENDMENT AS PART OF THE BUDGET, BUT WE, WE ARE MAKING AN AMENDMENT. WE'RE ADDING FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF 67,000 BECAUSE THAT PLUS SOME CHANGE, BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY, APPARENTLY IN THE WORKS, I HAD BROUGHT A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR 233,000 FOR THE SOBERING CENTER. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE THIS WAS ALREADY IN THE WORKS, THEY'RE HANDLING THIS ONE, AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK AND ASK US FOR ANOTHER AMENDMENT FOR THE REST OF THE MONEY. SO, UM, IT IS, IT IS A, IT IS AN AWKWARD PROCESS, BUT IT'S, BUT, BUT THE AMOUNT, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WILL BE 233 AND THEN 57, UH, MANAGER IS THIS, THIS IS SETTING A PROPOSAL FOR RATE ADJUSTMENTS, BOSTON ENERGY IS THIS OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY RATE PROPOSAL COMES. REMEMBER THIS IS THEIR REGULAR PROCESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AT THE END, LIKE DOESN'T ALWAYS TIME EXACTLY WITH THE BUDGET. AND SO THIS IS THEIR PROCESS TO DO THAT. UM, DID THEY ADJUST THE RATE? THE POWER SUPPLY? OKAY. CORRECT. GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS. SO LET'S, UH, TAKE, UH, UH, LET'S RECONVENE HERE IN, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT'S ONE 20. NOW, DO WE WANT TO TRY TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN AT A QUARTER TO TWO, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GRAB THINGS WE'RE GONNA HIT THE, THE THREE PERSONNEL MATTERS AND THEN THE SDR QUESTION, DOES THAT WORK? DO WE NEED THAT MUCH TIME AS A BREAK? SORRY, ONE TIME I WAS GONNA SAY 1 45 GIVES CHANCE FOR PEOPLE TO GRAB LUNCH, GO TO THE RESTROOM AND LIKE, YES. UM, THAT'S FINE. CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT WE HAVE LEFT AFTERWARDS? I THINK WE HAVE, UM, THE POLICE ORDINANCE AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ITEM. I THINK YOU HAD THREE. I ONLY HAD TWO. UH, I HAVE THE POLICE OVERSIGHT ISSUE ITEMS, 86, 87 AND 91. AND ITEM NUMBER 90, WHICH IS THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAID I MIGHT HAVE. OKAY. THOSE TWO ISSUES ARE THE ONLY ONES WE HAVE LEFT. OKAY. UH, MAYOR JUST ONE OTHER AND I CAN MAKE, MAKE THIS POINT ON THURSDAY, BUT I AM GONNA ASK, I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER VILLA INDICATED THAT HE WAS GOING TO ASK STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE BASED ON HIS AMENDMENTS. AND I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE STAFF ACTUALLY HANDLE THOSE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AS A RED LINE, AS WE ORDINARILY WOULD DO SO THAT WHEN THAT COMES BACK, WHEN THE STATESMAN POD COMES BACK TO US ON SECOND READING, WE CAN SEE, WE CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT PASSED ON FIRST READING. AND THEN WE CAN SEE ANY ALTERNATE OF PROPOSALS AT AS PROPOSED RED LINE VERSIONS, AS WE USUALLY DO WITH AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN A, A WHOLE NEW, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. UH, WE'LL WE'LL DO IT THAT WAY. I'M ONLY HESITATING BECAUSE IF IT IS SO DIFFERENT, IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO DO A RED LINE VERSION, BUT, UH, AS WE DRAFT SOMETHING, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE. AND IT'LL, IT'LL BE CLEAR. WHAT'S DIFFERENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT REGARD [ Executive Session] THEN CITY COUNCIL NOW IS GONNA GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP FOUR ITEMS PURSUE INTO SECTION 5 0 1 0 7 4, THE GOVERNMENT CODE WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED ITEMS E ONE E TWO E AND E THREE, UH, WHICH CONCERN PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK. AND THEN PURSUANT TO 5 51 0 7 1, WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES [04:10:01] RELATED TO ITEM 93, WHICH IS SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. THAT OBJECTION WILL SEE YOU, UH, ONLINE AT, UH, 1 45. AND THEN WE WILL RETURN AFTER THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CLOSE OUT THE, THE CONVERSATION ON THE POLICE OVERSIGHT PETITION AND THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, RESOLUTION BROADCASTING. [90. Approve a resolution relating to the development of a regulating plan for the South Central Waterfront District.] AND WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION IN CLOSED SESSION. WE DISCUSSED PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED ITEMS E ONE E TWO E THREE AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM 93, BUT HARD BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS TO DISCUSS THE, UH, PETITION WE'RE GONNA SPEND, UH, BULK OF OUR TIME ON THAT. WE HAVE A HARD STOP AT FIVE O'CLOCK HOUSEKEEPING MATTER BEFORE WE GET THERE WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS THE MERITS OF IT. UH, IF WE HAVE TIME AT THE END OF THE POLICE, UH, PETITION CONVERSATION, UH, BUT IN A BREAK MANAGER, THE QUESTION HAD COME UP ABOUT, UH, CONSIDERING POSSIBLE POSTPONEMENT. UH, YOU WERE EXPLAINING TO ME, UM, UH, STAFF'S POSITION ON THAT. I JUST WANTED YOU TO SHARE THAT WITH THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL. THANKS MAYOR. AND AGAIN, THE STAFF HAS BEEN PROCEEDING WITH THE REGULATED PLAN AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN PAST, UH, WORK SESSIONS AND COUNCIL MEETINGS. AND SO THAT WORK CONTINUES AND OUR MAIN FEEDBACK HAS BEEN IF THERE'S GONNA BE, UM, CHANGE IN DIRECTION OR, OR, UH, ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, THE SOONER WE CAN RECEIVE THAT THE BETTER, BUT IF THERE IS A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS, IT WOULD JUST CONTINUE TO MEAN THAT WE WOULD BE PROCEEDING AGAIN WITH THE REGULATING PLAN AND, UM, AND NOT NECESSARILY DEVIATING FROM THE SCHEDULE THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY OUTLINED. SO, AND I'LL ASK ACM GONZALEZ IF I'M, IF I NEED TO BE CORRECTED ON ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY, WE'RE GONNA KEEP PROCEEDING UNTIL WE HEAR OTHER FROM THE COUNCIL. AND ANY POSTPONEMENT WOULD JUST DELAY THAT, UM, ADDITIONAL DIRECTION THAT WOULD BE GIVEN FROM THE COUNCIL. SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT, IN THE QUESTION, IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS FILED, NOT TO PRECLUDE STAFF FROM COMING BACK WITH WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WANTED TO INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WORK THAT THEY HAD BEEN PREPARING AND WERE MOVING FORWARD TO. BUT TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT, UM, UH, THERE WAS THIS ADDITIONAL SCENARIO THAT IT SEEMED LIKE A CRITICAL MASS OF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SEE. AND THAT WAS TO SAY TO, TO STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THEIR REQUEST, JUST DON'T PROCEED UNDER WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING. YOU NEED TO GIVE US BACK SOMETHING THAT, THAT ALSO, UH, UH, ALLOWS FOR, UH, UH, GREATER RAISING OF RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO FUND THE, UH, COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THAT. AND, AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, YES, AND I AGREE MAYOR THE INTENT WAS TO, TO ADD OPTIONS, UH, NOT TO, TO AWAY OPTIONS. AND SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WILL YOU'RE PROCEEDING WITH THE OPTION YOU'VE BEEN PROCEEDING ON? DO, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE NEED TO PASS THIS OTHER BEFORE YOU CAN CONSIDER ADDING AN OPTION? I THINK THE STAFF WAS ASKING FOR DIRECTION IF THEY WANTED US TO CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE WE NEEDED TO TELL 'EM THAT THAT'S WHY I PUT IT ON IT. THAT WAY THEY CAN CONSIDER THAT THEY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THAT IMPACTS THEIR TIMELINES OR THEIR PRESENTATIONS. IT'S NOT THE PRECLUSION OF THEM COMING BACK WITH WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WANT TO COME BACK WITH. IT'S NOT MAKING A CHOICE ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT, IT'S GETTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DATA. AND FOR THAT REASON, I THINK IT CAN PROCEED, UH, ON THURSDAY SINCE IT'S NOT MAKING ANY CHOICES ON ANYTHING, BUT JUST ASKING FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL STUFF UNDERSTAND. BUT KATHY, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD HAD SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT, UM, YOU HAD HOPED THAT, UH, I'D BE ABLE TO ADDRESS. YEAH, I HAD, I HAD PULLED THIS, UM, BECAUSE I, I DO HAVE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS. I SUBMITTED SOME QUESTIONS TO THE Q AND A THAT ARE FOR THE STAFF, BUT AS YOU KNOW, WHEN IT'S AN ISD, WE HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF COLLEAGUES HERE, BUT I NEED TO START WHERE THE MANAGER LEFT OFF. WHAT WAS, COULD YOU REMIND US THE DATE WHEN THE REGULATING PLAN WAS GOING TO GO TO, I GUESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO A ASSUME GONZALEZ, I WILL PULL UP MY LAPTOP RIGHT NOW AND GET THAT DATE FOR YOU. OH, JUST APPROXIMATELY. I MEAN, I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE WITHIN MONTHS, ACTUALLY, EVEN SOONER THAN THAT, OUR FIRST, UH, DISCUSSION I BELIEVE, UH, MAY BE, UH, AROUND THE WEEK OF THE 19TH OF SEPTEMBER. YES. IT, AND THAT'S WHY WE LOOKING FOR ANY TYPE OF DEVIATION FROM THE CURRENT PLAN TO COME FROM COUNCIL, UM, IMMEDIATELY. SO THAT WAY WE COULD, UH, AT LEAST PAUSE THAT PROCESS OF RELEASING THAT INFORMATION UNTIL WE HAD CHANCE TO, UM, ENCOMPASS THE NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION. AND SO AS I READ THIS RESOLUTION, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I MEAN, MY STAFF PULLED ONE RESOLUTION I DID ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN. I THINK THERE WAS OTHER DIRECTION THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE REGULATING PLAN, MAYOR, YOUTH DONE RESOLUTIONS. WE'VE MET TOGETHER WITH STAFF FOR YEARS NOW, TRYING TO GET THE REGULATING PLAN FINISHED. SO ONE IMPACT I SEE FROM THIS RESOLUTION IS THAT WE'RE MOVING IT FROM [04:15:01] YOU'RE ABOUT TO BRING FORWARD THE DRAFT. SO I ASSUME THE DRAFT EXISTS. YES. AND IT WOULD BE PAUSED FROM SEPTEMBER UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE YES. IN, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ENCOMPASSES ANY NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION. AND SO I, I NEED SOME HELP UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT NEW DIRECTION WILL BE BASED ON, ON THIS. SO THE, SO THE SECOND BE IT RESOLVED. WELL, THE FIRST AND SECOND, BE IT RESOLVED ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY PART OF WHY YOU'RE DOING THE REGULATING PLAN. I BELIEVE CREATING A VIBRANT COMMUNITY, FACILITATING THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE, THE 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'M ASSUMING THOSE ARE ALL PART OF THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING REGULATING PLAN. SURE. AND IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR STAFF TO, UH, TALK TO COUNCIL ABOUT THE, UH, RESOLUTION AND HOW WE WOULD INTERPRET IT AND, AND HOW WE WOULD THEN, UM, TAKE THAT AS DIRECTION, INCLUDING NEW DIRECTION, AND THEN WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH THE CURRENT REGULATING PLAN. MAYBE. SO IF I COULD JUST ASK THOUGH, I THINK LIKE, AS I SAY, THE FIRST BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND THE SECOND ONE, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON, CREATING A REGULATING PLAN THAT REALIZES THE VISION AND THE VISION WAS VIBRANT IN VIBRANT AREA INFRASTRUCTURE, 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE, THE, THE CONCERN WAS, IS THAT THEY'VE ALSO REPORTED BACK TO US AS THEY WERE WORKING ON THE REGULATING PLAN, THAT THE REGULAR PLAN REGULATING PLAN THEY WERE WORKING ON, DIDN'T DELIVER THESE THINGS. SO IF IN FACT WE REALLY WANTED THESE THINGS TO BE DELIVERED, UH, THEN THEY NEEDED TO GET DIFFERENT KINDS OF DIRECTION IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS THE, WHERE IS THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION? I THINK IT'S IN LINE 78 TO 82, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT. YES. UM, LAST WEEK, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN, I THINK MR. DUTTON, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S AN OPT IN, I HAVEN'T, I HAVE ASSUMED IT HAS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. IS THAT ACCURATE? IT IS COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO, IT'S EFFECTIVELY, THE ENTIRE THING IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. SO THEN THE THIRD, BE IT RESOLVED ASKING THAT THERE BE A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS ALREADY PART OF THE REGULATING PLAN THAT YOU WERE PLANNING ON BRINGING FORWARD. SO AS, SO I THINK THAT, I THINK WHAT IS DIFFERENT HERE IS, ARE THE OPTIONS FROM 78 LINE 78 TO 82. AND MAYOR, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU. AND THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW, TO ALLOW HEIGHT AND AR AND ENTITLEMENTS BEYOND WHAT WE'RE IDENTIFIED AS POSSIBILITIES WITHIN THE VISION PLAN AS ONE OPTION, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT DEVELOPING TO THE VISION PLAN WAS NOT, DID NOT RENDER THE DISTRICT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. AND THEN THE NEXT, THE NEXT OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO CHANGE THE BASE ZONING THROUGHOUT, WITHOUT TYING IT TO A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. IS, AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH. I DIDN'T WANT TO LIMIT THE STAFF IN COMING BACK TO US, UH, IN, IN WHAT THEY COULD COME BACK TO US. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF COMING BACK WITH, UH, AN ENTIRE DENSITY IF THEY DID THAT, BUT I WAS TRYING NOT TO PREJUDGE THE QUESTIONS, BUT THEY HAVE DEVELOPED. SO HERE'S, HERE'S REALLY MY QUESTION. SO AS I SEE IT, THE NEW PIECE, WHAT, WHAT THIS IS DOING, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULATING PLAN YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON, ARE PREPARED TO DELIVER HERE IN A MATTER OF WEEKS TO COUNSEL, IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO, TO CONSIDER UPPING THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THIS DISTRICT AS ONE OPTION AND AS A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE, JUST CHANGING THE BASE OWNING. CAN WE, HOW DO YOU, YOU, YOU ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL DIRECTION BACK WHEN WE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS AND WE, YOU CAME TO US IN JUNE POINT OUT A QUESTION, WE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT WORK WITH, UH, WITH THE CONSULTANT COMING BACK IN TELLING US WE NEEDED TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. YOU ASKED FOR DIRECTION TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO PROVIDE. CAN YOU TALK TO COUNSEL ABOUT HOW YOU INTERPRETED THIS AND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET MA'AM? CAN I, BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN I JUST MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WHAT YOU INTENT WAS TO TRY TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED? AND, AND THAT'S MY ANSWER. I'M TRYING TO GIVE STAFF WHAT THEY WANTED BECAUSE THEY INDICATED THEY NEEDED TO GET ADDITIONAL DIRECTION, TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED IT. AND WHATEVER ADDITIONAL DIRECTION WAS THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO THEM. AND SO, SO MAYOR, CAN I JUST ADD ONE LITTLE THING IT'S RELEVANT TO THEM SPEAKING? SO WHEN YOU SPEAK, WHEN YOU SPEAK TO THIS, UH, I SIGNED ONTO THIS AND MY INTENT WAS, UM, TO SIGN ON AS THE MAYOR SUGGESTED, BUT ALSO IT WAS A FOLLOW UP FROM OUR CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING THE CHALLENGES OF CREATING A REGULATORY PLAN. THAT WAS AN INCENTIVE PLAN [04:20:01] VERSUS A REGULATORY PLAN THAT REALLY APPLIED TO THE WHOLE AREA AND PUT REQUIREMENTS ON IT. MY CONCERN, AS I EXPRESSED AT THAT TIME WAS TO GET TO THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE WANT TO GET TO, THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, AND NOT PIECE BY PIECE BECAUSE THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT PIECE BY PIECE, WE'RE NEVER GONNA GET TO HOUSING. SO MY CONCERN WAS TO ADD OPTIONS THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO BACK FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONSIDER, WELL, JUST AN, UH, INCENTIVE PROGRAM OR TO CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE LIKE WHAT WE TRADITIONALLY DO WITH REGULATORY PLANS, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH REQUIREMENTS IN ZONING, UH, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BENEFITS THAT WE WANTED TO SEE. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, I THINK I'M SAYING THE SAME THING JUST PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO, TO ME TO SEE AS OPTIONS. SO WHEN YOU SPEAK TO THIS YEAH. LET'S, LET'S FIND OUT THEIR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION AND THEN I THINK WE'RE ALL. AND THEN I, I THINK WE'LL ALL HAVE BETTER IDEA WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND, AND WE RECOGNIZE ALSO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HAS TRANSPIRED FROM NOT JUST, OF COURSE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN, BUT GOING BACK TO THE VISION PLAN AND I RECOGNIZE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT PIECE BY PIECE PARTIAL MM-HMM . UM, THE REGULATING PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN, UH, CONSIDERED AS PUTTING FORWARD THE VISION PLAN MM-HMM AND THE VISION PLAN DOES LOOK AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARCEL BY PARCEL. SO IT LOOKS, SAY INCENTIVES ACTUALLY, UM, FOR CERTAIN PARCELS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE VISION PLAN AND THEN MOVING FORWARD IN THAT MANNER. AND SO ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT IF THERE'S CONCEPTUALLY SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT DIRECTION, THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO GIVE, THAT EVEN CAN DIFFER THAN FROM THE VISION PLAN, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE INFORMED OF WHAT THAT DIRECTION IS BECAUSE, UM, WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AND WHAT WE ARE TAKING AS DIRECTION IS THE VISION PLAN. UM, AND I DON'T THINK ABSOLUTE DIVISION PLAN THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO THE REGULATING PLAN, BUT CRAIG CAN OFFER US ANY CLARIFICATION IN THAT REGARD. AND SO WE'RE JUST GOING FORWARD CURRENTLY WITH WHAT WE HAVE AS THE PREVIOUSLY COUNCIL ADOPTED VISION PLAN AND HOW TO PUT THAT IN EFFECT THROUGH THE REGULATING PLAN. SO, SO TO THAT REGARD, I HAVE A COPY OF THE VISION PLAN. THE VISION PLAN HAS CERTAIN HEIGHT LIMITATIONS THAT, UH, I THINK WE HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD IF WE LIVE BY THOSE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, WE CAN'T GET IN THIS DISTRICT, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET, WE CAN'T EVEN FUND ALL THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT TO GET. I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAFT REGULATING PLAN THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US PREPARED SOMETIMES THAT INCORPORATES AND CARRIES FORWARD THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS THAT WERE CONTAINED IN THE VISION PLAN. AGAIN, BEING TOLD THAT IF YOU ARE BOUND BY THOSE, WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING THAT'S FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. SO I THINK THAT THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO GO BACK AND SAY, GIVEN THE GOALS WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, GIVE US A PLAN THAT ACTUALLY COULD HELP DELIVER TO US THE THINGS THAT WE WANT. AND IN THAT REGARD, YOU CAN CONSIDER ADDITIONAL F AR OR YOU CAN CONSIDER ADDITIONAL BONUS PROGRAMS, OR YOU CAN CONSIDER WHATEVER YOU THINK IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REALIZE ALL THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND THE, THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE AND ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE WANT. AND IF I MIGHT VERY QUICKLY, AS WE BRING THESE ADMINS FORWARD TO VARIOUS SPORTS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, WE WILL BE ASKED, OKAY, WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE REGULATING PLAN. AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO LEAN BACK AND SAY, THE BASIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTION. AND RIGHT NOW THAT DIRECTION IS THE APPROVED VISION PLAN. IF THIS COUNCIL CHOOSES TO OFFER A DIRECTION THAT'S IN ADDITION TO OR DIFFERENT THAN THAT, THAT THEN GIVES US THE INFORMATION WHERE WE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT DELINEATE WHY THE REGULATING PLAN IS COMING FORWARD AS IT IS. BUT THUS FAR, THE REGULATING PLAN IS FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTION, WHICH WAS ADOPTION OF DIVISION PLAN. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE COMING FROM, AND THAT INCLUDES THE LIMITATIONS PER PARCEL. SOME AT 100 FEET, IT DOES MOST OF THEM AT 100 LESS THAN 100 OR 200 FEET. AND JUST ONE PARCEL THAT EXCEEDS THAT TOTAL. IT DOES. AND, AND IT'S INTENDED FOR THE STAFF NOT TO BE LIMITED BY THAT IN AT LEAST ONE REGULATING PLAN OPTION. THEY BRING BACK TO US THAT CAN FUNCTION. UH, LESLIE, THANKS. AND THEN ALSO TO THIS POINT ON THE REGULATING PLAN, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT RAISING THE FLOOR OF ENTITLEMENTS IN THE REGULATING PLAN AND AS Y'ALL ARE CRAFTING THE PLAN AND THAT TO [04:25:01] GIVE US SOME SENSE OF STRUCTURE, I ONLY WANNA CONSIDER RAISING THE CEILING SO THAT WE CAN CAPTURE MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THROUGH THE DENSITY BENEFITS, UH, BONUS PROGRAM. AND, AND I DO THINK THAT CHANGING THE BASE ZONING PHRASE THAT IS IN THERE AS, UH, WHAT IS THAT ONE IS, UH, LINE 82 BULLET ITEM THREE. THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT. I I'D BE FINE ON THURSDAY. PEOPLE WANTED TO TAKE THAT OUT. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF CHANGING IT TO, UH, ENSURING ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I JUST WANT TO PLAN AND THEY CAN DELIVER TO US WHAT OUR COMMUNITY ASKED THAT RIGHT AREA TO DELIVER TO US. THANK YOU, UH, COUNCIL, OUR KITCHEN. UM, OKAY. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE EACH ARE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS IN THE NATURE OF OPTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO COME BACK AND WE EACH MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT OPTION WOULD WANNA SEE. I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S AN OPTION IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL TO, TO GET US, UH, TO, TO GET US TO THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND NOT IN A, NOT IN A VOLUNTARY WAY, BECAUSE WHAT, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR LAST CONVERSATION, WE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ON THE DIAS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW WE NORMALLY DO REGULATING PLANS AS OVERLAYS, I GUESS, MIGHT BE THE BEST WAY TO TALK ABOUT 'EM. AND AS DENSITY BONUS DENSITY BONUS MEANS THEY COULD CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANNA PARTICIPATE WHERE AN OVERLAY IS MORE OF A RE OF A REQUIREMENT. AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM, FROM THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WAS THAT OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE'VE TRADITIONALLY DONE REGULATING PLANS, MAKE THEM MORE OF A REQUIREMENT. I I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO ARGUE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESOLUTION. THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION IS TO BRING OPTIONS BACK TO THE COUNCIL. SO, AND, UM, AND THE REASON I AM THINK THESE OPTIONS ARE IMPORTANT. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE WAY THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT IS SET UP. YOU KNOW, IT'S SET UP WITH THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE, YOU'RE GETTING DIFFERENT COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE, OF THE, OF THE VISION PLAN BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION OF IT. SO SOME PLACES PARKS ARE MORE, YOU KNOW, THE GREEN SPACE IS MORE IMPORTANT. OTHER PLACES THE HOUSING IS, BUT FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS AND MY QUESTIONS WITH YOU ALL, WE DON'T HAVE A PATH AND WE DON'T HAVE A, A MECHANISM FOR ENSURING THAT WE GET TO 20% HOUSING. SO SOME OF THAT IS, IS WHAT THE MAYOR'S TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ENTITLEMENT, BUT I'M ALSO ASKING, IS THERE A WAY TO DO THAT WITH A REGULATING PLAN THAT IS NOT SO NOT SO OPTIONAL, BUT THAT REALLY GETS US TO, SO TO MY MIND, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE HEIGHTS AND THE CHANGES THAT WE NEEDED, WHAT'S THE OPTION FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE GET HOUSING FOR THAT THAT'S NOT VOLUNTARY. SO, UM, AND AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I MIGHT NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THAT. NONE OF YOU MIGHT VOTE FOR THAT, BUT WE WANNA SEE IN MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE WAY THAT THE REGULATING PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED TO BE YEARS AGO, WAS IT WAS MORE OF A REGULATING PLAN THE WAY YOU USUALLY THINK ABOUT REGULATING PLANS AS AN OVERLAY, AND ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THAT VISION. SO SURE. I KNOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED, BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SURE. I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO GREG DUTTON FOR SOME FOLLOW UP, BUT ABSOLUTELY WE WELCOME ANY COUNCIL DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO THAT AS A PATH. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF THAT IS THE WILL OF COUNCIL, AND IF THAT'S THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION, WE WILL CERTAINLY BRING THAT FORWARD. UM, GREG CAN SPEAK TO, OF COURSE, THE CURRENT REGULATING PLAN, UH, BEING CONSIDERED AS A BONUS VERSUS, UH, YOUR, UM, MENTION OF USING AN OVERLAY, UH, AS AN OPTION. SO I'LL DEFER TO GREG ON THAT, UH, PART OF IT. AND I'M, I'M NOT CERTAIN IF I'M USING THE RIGHT TERMS, GREG, BUT I'M, I'M TRYING TO REPEAT THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD FROM THE DI. SURE. UH, SO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCOME, RESTRIC, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT, UH, THROUGH ANY MECHANISM, ANY REGULATORY MECHANISMS. SO IN ALL OF OUR OVERLAYS OR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, IT'S ALWAYS A VOLUNTARY THING. WE CAN DO THINGS LIKE, UH, GRANT ADDITIONAL, UH, HEIGHT F AR DENSITY, BUT THE ACTUAL INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE, UH, INCENTIVE BASED. UM, OKAY. I DON'T WANNA TAKE THIS DOWN A TANGENT, BUT I DO WANNA UNDERSTAND. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS, IS THE, AS PART OF THE OPTIONS IS HOW YOU GET, HOW YOU GET TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR THE WHOLE VISION PLAN IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU'VE GOT PARCELS THAT ARE OWNED DIFFERENTLY. SO THAT'S WHAT I WANNA SEE BACK. AND [04:30:01] THAT'S, AND THAT'S, WHAT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO GIVE US, UM, SOME POTENTIAL PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO AS A REQUIREMENT. UM, WE CAN STRUCTURE THE, THE REGULATORY PLAN THAT, UM, IS AN OPT-IN, UH, CHOICE FOR DEVELOPERS TO MAKE. THEY WANT THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS. THEY WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO OPT INTO THE REGULATING PLAN. OKAY. AGAIN, WE CAN TALK OFFLINE ABOUT THAT. SO ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS NO ROUTE, OR YOU JUST HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT FURTHER? THERE'S NO ROUTE TO GET TO THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACROSS THE WHOLE VISION PLAN THAT THERE'S A ROUTE TO GET TO THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING, JUST HOUSING UNITS. NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCOME, RESTRICTED HOUSING. UH, THERE'S NO WAY THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT. OKAY. SO WE CAN'T GET TO, WE CAN'T GET TO THE, WE CAN'T GET TO THE C W VISION THEN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, I, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT AS A COPY OF LIKE ALL OF OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS. I THINK WHAT GREG IS REFERRING TO IS WITH REGARD TO THAT ONE SPECIFIC DEVICE OF THE REGULATING PLAN. LET ME SAY THAT IT IS OUR STAFF GOAL TO PUT FORWARD. THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE PERCENTAGE HAS ENVISIONED, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE. UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. OKAY. UM, OKAY. YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, I THINK, IS, UM, BEING INTERPRETED AS CAN THE 20% ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE REGULATING PLAN. AND WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M OFFERING IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ACHIEVING THE 20% THROUGH A VARIETY OF MECHANISMS AND THAT'S WHAT WAS PUT FORWARD IN THE VISION PLAN. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M WANTING TO SEE IS, UM, WHEN THE OPTION COMES BACK, HOW DOES THAT FIT ON A PATH TOWARDS GETTING THE, THE, UM, TARGETED, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE WHOLE TRACK? OKAY. AND MY WORDS MAY HAVE BEEN UN ARTFUL IN HERE. I WAS TRYING TO ASKING SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS YOU WERE CAUSE I WASN'T READY TO RULE ANYTHING OUT. I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE BY VIRTUE OF THE FUNDING, UH, LIKE SIDEWALK WIDTHS AND STREET WIDTHS, AND A GRIDS. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN, IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT. SO IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO RAISE MONEY, TO BE ABLE TO SUBSIDIZE IT AS PART OF THE PROJECT, THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL WAY TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY. UH, AND I MAY HAVE BEEN OVER BROAD IN THE LANGUAGE THAT I USE. SO I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE, BUT THE INTENT IS TO DRIVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE WANT. UH, MAYOR PROTON. THANK YOU. UM, COUPLE THINGS, MY FIRST QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MAYOR, UM, HAVE YOU SEEN A DRAFT OF THE REGULATING PLAN? UH, ONLY FROM LIKE FOUR YEARS AGO. OKAY. UM, SO IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY AT THE BEGINNING, YOU SAID THIS WOULD DELAY IT TILL JUNE OF NEXT YEAR, IF WE DIDN'T DO, IS THAT WHAT I MEAN? WHAT IS THE TIME DELAY OF DOING THAT'S IN HERE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE PROVIDED A, HAVE WE PROVIDED A POTENTIAL DELAY? OKAY. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS. THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS. OKAY. OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR YOU TO ASK. I HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IT WITH A BLANK AND STAFF CAME IN AND SAID, WELL, LET'S FILL IN THAT BLANK FOR YOU. UM, AND THAT'S HOW STAFF FILLED IN THAT BLANK, BUT I, BUT OTHERWISE WE GET A DRAFT REGULATING PLAN MONDAY, CORRECT. I, I, I CAN CLARIFY. UM, I THINK THE ISSUE, UH, REALLY IS THAT THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR REVIEW, UH, FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES. UM, WE NEED THAT TIME TO HAVE THE, SORT OF HAVE THE PLAN PROOFED OUT BEFORE IT'S PRESENTED SO THAT IT MEANS THAT, UH, TIMES TIME IS USED TO ACCOMMODATE ANY PIVOT THAT WE GET FROM COUNCIL, UH, ON THURSDAY AND FROM EXTERNAL REVIEW THAT WILL HELP US DETERMINE THAT THE BALANCE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES ARE, YOU KNOW, PROPERLY CALIBRATED. SO I'M, I'M REALLY, I'M NOT QUITE, I HAVE, I HAVE A LOT OF RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION. UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DRAFT REGULATING PLAN, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH READY SO THAT I KNOW WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DO AN OVERLAY THAT'S REQUIRED IF WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER THINGS WE COULD DO IN THAT OVERLAY, BUT A REQUIRED OVERLAY, BUT NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO IT'S REALLY THE CURRENT PLAN USING DENSITY BONUSES WITH THE VISION PLAN IS ITS BASIS, OR, UM, DOING THE REGULATORY PLAN WITH BONUSES THAT ALLOWS FOR THE HEIGHTS TO GO EVEN FURTHER, UM, ARE THE TWO OPTIONS. [04:35:01] AND I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE OPTION BASED ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ASAP. AND THEN HAVE YOU WORK ON THE OTHER ONE? SO AT MINIMUM, WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING IN THE STATESMAN POD THAT GETS US IN TROUBLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE VERY MINIMUM OPTION. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT ALSO BECAUSE IF WE START TO INTRODUCE THESE HEIGHTS THAT ARE WELL ABOVE WHAT WAS IN THE VISION PLAN, WE'RE THROWING 10 YEARS PLUS OF WORK OUT AND THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT MUCH HEIGHT ON THAT END OF LATER BIRD LAKE. AND WE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW NOW, BUT LIKE WE'VE GOTTA GO OUT AND FIGURE THAT OUT IN SOME MECHANISM, BUT YET WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS, OR WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. I'M NOT IN A RUSH TO MAKE A DECISION ON STATESMEN, BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GONNA ASK ME TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE 29TH OR WHATEVER DAY IT IS. WE FIND THAT WE'RE ALL HERE AND TELL ME YOU GOT A DRAFT PLAN AND I CAN'T SEE IT FOR THE BASICS THAT MAKES ME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE. I'M NOT SAYING DON'T GO DO MORE WORK, BUT MAYBE YOU'RE NOT DOING ALL OF THE OTHER VETTING, BUT AT LEAST WE GET TO SEE. AND, AND TO BE CLEAR, I WASN'T PROPOSING THAT ANYTHING GET HIDDEN AND I'M, I AM AN ALL SUPPORT OF GETTING EVERYTHING OUT. THAT'S BEEN PREPARED AND PRESENTED, BUT AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OR THE TASK FORCE ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT SAID TO US, WHEN HE TESTIFIED, PLEASE DON'T HAVE US SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON SOMETHING THAT IS DRIVING A PLAN THAT YOU'RE NOT ULTIMATELY GOING TO ACCEPT BECAUSE IT LEAVES THE DISTRICT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IT IS WE WANT TO GET DONE. PLEASE, DON'T ASK US TO SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THAT. I MEAN, I, AND I THINK THAT'S THE OPTION. I MEAN, IF, IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THEN LET'S BE REALLY HONEST AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THE BENEFITS AND LET'S MAKE PEACE WITH THAT. BUT IF WE DO WANT THOSE BENEFITS, WE ARE AT THE VERY LEAST HAVE THESE FOLKS AND THE VOLUNTEERS WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY DELIVERS THAT. AND SINCE THE WORK THEY'RE DOING NOW, WE'VE BEEN TOLD, DOES NOT DELIVER THAT. I DON'T WANT THEM TO SPEND ANY MORE TIME DEVELOPING THAT I WOULD MUCH RATHER THEM SPEND TIME NOW ON SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER THE PROJECT FOR US, THAT WE, THAT THE COMMUNITY SAID IT WANTED. AND THE COMMUNITY WORKED ON UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF IT DID THAT, IT COULD DELIVER THOSE THINGS. BUT NOW WE KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT BY DEFINITION, IT'S NOT DELIVERING THAT IF IT'S DELIVERING A HUGE AMOUNT MORE HEIGHT. SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF THE PLAN WAS ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HEIGHT, EVEN IF IT DELIVERS THESE OTHER BENEFITS, IT'S NOT DELIVERING THE PLAN AND THE VISION EITHER. THAT MAKES SENSE. IN, IN WHAT WE SAID IS THAT THE ORIGINAL VISION PLAN CONTAINS A CONTRADICTION. YES, YOU CAN'T DELIVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE GRID THAT WAS SHOWN WITH THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THE BUILDINGS. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND SO AGAIN, IF THIS IS READY ON MONDAY TO SHOW US THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CONVERSATION. IF WE'RE GONNA SAY WE HAVE TO GO UP MORE FOR THIS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA ASK YOU, WHEN YOU COME BACK TO ME WITH THE HIGHER HEIGHT IS, WELL, WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE IF WE FOLLOWED, FOLLOWED THE OTHER PIECE? AND WE CAN, WE'RE ALMOST READY TO HAVE THAT PIECE. YEAH, I DON'T, AGAIN, I DON'T MIND COMING UP, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SHOW. THE LAST TWO MEETINGS. WE WERE TOLD HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD BE GENERATED FROM THE PLAN WITH THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND THOSE NUMBERS WERE RUN AND WE HAVE THAT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. AND THEN THEY SAID, IF YOU GIVE DIFFERENT ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH BONUS OR OTHERWISE, THEN, THEN YOU CAN GENERATE UP TO $240 MILLION, UH, ADDITIONAL FUNDING. RIGHT. BUT A LOT OF THAT WAS ALSO, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING YOU WERE DOING THE BA, I MEAN, THERE'S A PIECE HERE THAT IS CONFUSING TO ME. AND MAYBE THIS RESOLUTION IS JUST CONFUSING TO ME, BUT, BUT IN YOUR, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE STAFF. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILLION, MORE SQUARE FEET THAT THEY'RE GETTING ABOVE, YOU KNOW, THEIR ENTITLEMENTS, THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WOULD WE GET FROM THAT? YOU KNOW, AND THIS PLAN IS PART OF THE KEY TO BEING ABLE TO TELL THEM THAT I THINK IT IT'S THE VISION. AND THIS SEEMS TO SAY, GO BACK AND COME BACK NEXT JUNE. NO, I, WELL, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, I, I JUST WANNA, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS DOES THEN. AND SO I THINK WE NEED THAT. SO I'M NOT OBJECTING TO GETTING NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. AND TO BEGIN WITH POTENTIALLY GO UP ON HEIGHT. I JUST, I DON'T MIND STAFF GIVING US ALL THE INFORMATION AND ALL THE REPORTS AND ALL THE STUDIES THAT THEY'VE BEEN PREPARED AT THIS POINT. I JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THAT. AND THE REASON I DON'T WANNA SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THAT IS THEY'VE DONE THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THAT PLAN. AND THEY HAVE REPORTED BACK TO US THAT IT GENERATES INSUFFICIENT FUNDING, EITHER FROM THE TERMS OR FROM THE INCENTIVES THAT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS [04:40:01] IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ENABLE US TO BUILD THE, THE, THE, THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THE STREET GRIDS, THE UTILITIES, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY, THAT ARE IN THE VISION PLAN. IT DOESN'T GIVE US THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE OR TO DO ALL THE PARK LAND WE WANT, OR ALL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE WANT. IT DOESN'T ENABLE US TO DO THOSE THINGS ON SEEING THAT WE THEN SAID, OKAY, WELL THEN WHAT IS IT THAT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE, UH, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DELIVER THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE WANT AND THE GRID THAT WAS NECESSARY. WE ASKED THAT QUESTION, STAFF CAME BACK TO US AND SAID, HERE'S A SCENARIO THAT WOULD IN FACT, DELIVER THE ECONOMICS WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE CERTAINLY A LOT CLOSER TO BEING ABLE TO DELIVER ALL THOSE THINGS. AND, AND THEN WE SAID, OKAY, WELL THEN LET US SEE WHAT A REGULATING PLANT LIKE THAT LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. I JUST DON'T WANT 'EM TO SPEND MORE TIME ON SOMETHING THAT AT THE VERY OUTSET WE KNOW DOESN'T WORK, BUT I DO THINK THEY SHOULD SHARE WITH US ALL OF THAT, SO THAT NOTHING'S BEING HIDDEN, BUT THEY'VE TOLD US WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT, THAT CAN BE BUILT IN THAT AREA, BECAUSE IT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT, THAT POWERS THE RESOURCES THAT PAYS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT PAYS FOR THE STREET GRID THAT PAYS FOR THOSE THINGS. THEY'VE, THEY'VE TOLD US THAT. AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, GIVEN THAT, WHAT DOES A REGULATING PLAN LOOK LIKE? SO, I MEAN, IF, IF A REGULATING PLAN ALONE, ISN'T GONNA GET US THERE. I MEAN, WE ALREADY, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT A REGULATING PLAN ALONE, WASN'T GONNA THE, THE HEIGHTS AND THE REGULAR HANG GRANT THAT THEY'RE LIMITED TO WILL NOT ENABLE YOU TO GET THERE. OKAY. SO CAN'T YOU COME BACK WITH ANOTHER SCENARIO OR TWO, IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE TO SHOW US WHAT YOU CAN GET. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THIS QUESTION IS. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, I'M ASSUMING, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE. EXACTLY THAT. OKAY. WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR IN WHAT'S WRITTEN, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR, BECAUSE IT'S, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT HEARING THAT. I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL WORDING, I MEAN, I AM ALL EARS FOR THAT, BUT WE TRIED TO, TO JUST TO EXACTLY SAY, IS DIRECTED DEVELOP A REGULATING PLAN THAT DETAINS ALL THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ENVISIONED AND THE VISION PLAN TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. IT SHOULD ALLOW FOR THE TYPE AND SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MAXIMIZES THE BENEFITS ACHIEVED THROUGH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, MAXIMIZES THE, UH, OPPORTUNITIES. IT SAYS THAT, UH, UH, IT'S WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO FUND THE, THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE DESIRED COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THE DESIRES FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDED, TO HELP FACILITATE THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO REALIZE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING THE LIVELY, ATTRACTIVE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE ENVIRONMENT, THE PARKLAND OPEN SPACE, GREAT PUBLIC SPACES, CONNECTIONS SUIT ALONG THE WATERFRONT INCREASED HOUSING OF WHICH THESE 20, AT LEAST 20% OF WHICH HAS TO BE NEW, NEW, AFFORDABLE UNITS. WE I'VE, I AM PERFECTLY OPEN TO ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, BUT WE'VE TRIED TO EXPLAIN HERE NOT ONLY THE WHY, BUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS AND THEN TRIED TO LEAVE IT OPEN FOR THESE FOLKS TO, TO COME BACK TO SAY, OKAY, IF WE ACTUALLY WANT TO DO THIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IN TERMS OF THE REGULATING PLAN THAT'S WAS ENTIRELY THE INTENT. I APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION. AND THEN KATHY, I'LL GET, AND THEN JUST TO THAT POINT, THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING, WE'RE NOT MESSING WITH THE FLOOR. OKAY. WE'RE NOT, OR AT LEAST THAT'S, MY INTENTION FLOOR STAYS THE SAME. WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE CEILING, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. AND IF WE CAN GET STAFF TO SHOW US WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS, THEN WE'LL HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE WOULD, HOW HIGH WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO ACHIEVE THE REVENUE STREAM THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DO THE CIVIC BENEFITS. AND SO IT'S A BIT OF A IT'S, IT'S AN EXERCISE AND THEY'LL COME BACK AND GIVE US SOME NUMBERS AND WE CAN SEE HOW ELASTIC IT IS, KATHY, OR IN ELASTIC. YOU'RE OFF. I STILL HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET TO THEM TODAY. AND I JUST WANNA INDICATE THAT THIS IS AN AREA. THIS IS NUMBER ONE, MY DISTRICT, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS. YOU INVITED OUR REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT 7, 5, 4, AND SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU DID NOT INVITE ME TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. I WOULD'VE LIKED THE OPPORTUNITY. AGAIN, THIS IS A, AN AREA OF HUGE IMPORTANCE FOR THE CITY, BUT IT IS ALSO SQUARELY IN MY DISTRICT. AND TYPICALLY, UM, THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO THINGS. SO I NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I, UM, I, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO MY CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THESE AREAS, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE TOWN LAKE CORRIDOR PLAN DECADES [04:45:01] AGO. UM, I, I VERY LIKELY WILL HAVE TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT. I UNDERSTAND IT WILL DELAY, BUT ON, YOU KNOW, HAVING URGED, HAVING URGED OUR MOVING FORWARD ON THE REGULATING PLAN NOW TIME, AND AGAIN, AND WE'VE STARTED AND STOPPED AND STARTED AND STOPPED. UM, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE TAKING A NEW TACT HERE, I THINK WE NEED TO ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS. AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN. I THINK, I MEAN, JUST IN THE COURSE OF OUR CONVERSATION, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT IT WAS, IT SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR ON LINE 82, THAT WE WERE LOOKING THAT ONE OF THE OPTIONS WAS TO LOOK AT CHANGING THE BASE ZONING AS ACROSS THE WAY. I APPRECIATE WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING NOW IS THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT OUT. MM-HMM , WHICH IS, WHICH IS GOOD. UM, I HAVE ASKED FOR THE REGULATING PLAN DRAFT TO BE IN THE Q AND A, I THINK WE DO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT, WHAT'S BEEN DRAFTED. IT'S READY TO COME FORWARD. I'VE ASSUMED, AND YOU CAN TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I HAVE ASSUMED MR. DUTTON AND OTHERS THAT LINES 54 ON IS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN CRAFTING. THAT THE REGULATING PLAN THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD WORKS WITH IS ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND VISIONED AND THE VISION PLAN TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. THAT'S GREAT COUNCIL MEMBER. SO I'M INTERESTED IN SEEING, I'M INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. DOES THAT MEAN YOU FIGURED OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, OR YOU'VE GOTTEN AS CLOSE TO FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AS YOU CAN, WHICH WAS SHY BY $200 MILLION. IT'S MORE OF THAT SECOND, WHICH IS THAT, UH, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS, BUT I'M STILL INTERESTED IN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'RE GONNA BE TRADE OFFS IN THERE. AND IF, AND IF THE COMMUNITY COMES FORWARD AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, AFTER, AFTER DECADES OF TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHTS AT THESE LEVELS, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF SOME INCREASED HEIGHT, BUT MAYBE NOT AS FAR AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE TRADE OFFS ARE. AND SO I'M, I'M QUITE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE REGULATING PLAN WHERE IT IS AT THE MOMENT. I'VE ALSO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS. IT SOUNDS, YOU'LL SEE QUESTIONS IN THE, UH, IN THE Q AND A ABOUT THE EAST RIVERSIDE REGULATING PLAN. I THINK WE'VE, IF YOU'RE TAKING OUT THE BASE ENTITLEMENT ZONING ACROSS, I THINK THAT'S A MOOT POINT, BUT I JUST WANNA, I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN WHY I'VE ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL DID AND I WAS PART OF IT AND VOTED FOR IT IS THAT WE INCREASED THE ENTITLEMENTS ALONG THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR, AND THEN ADDED A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM ON TOP OF THAT. AND FOR THE MOST PART, BECAUSE WE DID THAT INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS, WE HAVE GOTTEN VERY LITTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IF ANY, IN THOSE AREAS, MOST PEOPLE DON'T DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. SO TO ME, THAT WAS REALLY INSTRUCTIVE. UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN, YOU, UH, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD ENSURE WE HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THE ONLY WAY WE DO THAT IS THROUGH DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. SO I THINK WE NEED TO ALL BE REALLY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T REPEAT THE RIVERSIDE EXAMPLE AGAIN, OF INCREASING THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. IF WHAT WE REALLY WANNA DO IS ENCOURAGE, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, BECAUSE WE ONLY CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THOSE THROUGH DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM MOST EFFECTIVELY. SO ANYWAY, I'LL LIKELY HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS ON THURSDAY. YEAH. AND THEN JUST REALLY QUICK, UH, REALLY QUICKLY. UM, I THINK THERE ULTIMATELY THERE'LL BE A POLICY CONVERSATION FOR THIS COUNSELOR FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL, BECAUSE IT COULD BE THAT THE POLICY DECISION IS WE WANT TO KEEP BUILDINGS LOWER IN THE DEVELOPMENT LESS, AND THEN EXCHANGE FOR THAT. WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT LESS PARK LAND AND LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LESS CHANGES TO THE URBAN, UH, LANDSCAPE. THAT COULD BE THE CHOICE THAT'S MADE. WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT CHOICE NOW, BUT THAT'S GONNA BE A CHOICE FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL OR TO HAVE INCREASED HEIGHT AND HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HAVE ADDITIONAL PARK LAND AND HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND CHANGES TO THE URBAN. WE'RE NOT MAKING THOSE DECISIONS NOW, BUT WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THOSE OPTIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE WANTED TO REALIZE THE FULL AMOUNT. AND I MEANT NO OFFENSE BY NOT JOINING YOU IN THIS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I'VE BROUGHT UP HERE NOW FOR, FOR SUCCESSIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS. UH, AND SOME OF THE COLLEAGUES CAME AND SAID, I REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT THAT CONCEPT AND WORK TOWARD MAKING THAT HAPPEN. AND THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE THAT BECAME THE, THE SPONSORS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT'S THIS GROUP BRINGING IT TO THE BALANCE OF THE COUNCIL. I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD END UP SUPPORTING THIS. I HOPE THAT YOU'D END UP SUPPORTING THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY THAT THIS, THAT THIS ASKS. BUT I ALSO REALIZED THAT THAT, THAT YOU WEREN'T READY TO DO THAT YET. UH, SO YES, THE PEOPLE THAT JOINED THIS WERE THE PEOPLE THAT APPROACHED IT AND SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT THEIR SHOULDER BEHIND THIS AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. IT WAS NOT AN INTENT TO EXCLUDE YOU FROM THE CONVERSATION AT ALL. IN FACT, I'VE TRIED TO SET IT FOR WORK SESSIONS [04:50:01] LIKE THIS, SO THAT YOU COULD PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONVERSATION RATHER THAN HAVING IT SOMETHING THAT A GROUP OF SPONSORS WERE DEALING WITH ON THEIR OWN. I APPRECIATE THAT. I, YOU KNOW, I, HOWEVER I WILL SAY THAT WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN VERY LIMITED WAYS AND WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME ALMOST EVERY TIME IT'S BEEN ON THE DIAS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, EVEN WHEN WE HAD OUR PRESENTATION AT COUNCIL, IT WAS THAT WAY. AND SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD AGREE ON THAT. I THINK SOME OF OUR CONVERSATION MIGHT HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE NOW SPENDING TIME TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LIKE THE BASE ENTITLEMENT ACROSS THE WAY. AND I WANNA SAY I'VE, I'VE OFTEN INCLUDED PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, INCLUDING YOU MAYOR, UH, AS PART OF MY SUBOR, EVEN IF YOU, WEREN'T A, CO-SPONSOR VERY FREQUENTLY, INCLUDING ON AN ISSUE. YOU AND I, AND I'VE DONE THAT TOO WITH YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UM, I THINK INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE, AS WE'RE KIND OF WRAPPING UP OUR TIME HERE TOGETHER, UH, THOSE OF US WHO STARTED THE TEN ONE, I THINK WE'VE ALL LEARNED A LOT ABOUT, ABOUT HOW TO WORK WITHIN THIS SYSTEM. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST, I THINK A MATTER OF COURTESY TO INCLUDE THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO REPRESENTS THE DISTRICT, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, A VERY GOOD WAY TO BENEFIT FROM THE EXPERTISE THAT SOMEONE BRINGS IN TERMS OF THEIR DISTRICT. AND IN TERMS OF IN THIS CASE, THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN, WHICH, I MEAN, I'VE READ PROBABLY MORE STUDIES ON THIS AREA, DATING BACK TO THE SEVENTIES THAN, THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. YES. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I APPRECIATE US ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT WITHOUT ALL THE HISTORY THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS ROOM HAS, I KNOW I WOULD APPRECIATE MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WHERE WE COULD TAKE SPEAKERS, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO THIS WILL AFFECT THAT I DO WANT TO HEAR MORE FROM THAT'S OUR KITCHEN. UH, YEAH. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN, THAT MY PURPOSE HERE IS INFORMATION. IT'S NOT MAKING A DECISION. UM, SO I, I THINK THAT, UM, IF WE DON'T GET THE INFORMATION, WE, WE CAN'T MAKE ANY OTHER DECISION CUZ WE WON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US TO HAVE ANY TRADE OFF. SO THAT THAT'S MY, THAT WAS MY INTENT IN SUPPORTING THIS. AND I FELT LIKE IT WAS JUST, JUST CAME OUT OF THE LAST CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. SO THIS IS NOT, THIS, THIS DOESN'T MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AT ALL. AND UM, SO I, I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT TO THE, TO EVERYONE AGAIN, THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT PROVIDING US MORE INFORMATION AND OPTIONS, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND TO THAT END, I HAVE A QUESTION. I, I, I AM A BIT SURPRISED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THOUGH. IT WAS NOT MY, IT WAS NOT, WELL, NOT A BIT SURPRISED. I AM TOTALLY SURPRISED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING GIVEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE, THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE OPTION THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DELIVER TO US, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY NOW WHY IT WOULD TAKE ALMOST A YEAR, UH, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THE REASON I'M, UM, NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT TRADE OFFS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE SOME ANALYSIS ABOUT. I MEAN, THERE HAD TO BE SOME ANALYSIS DONE TO COME UP WITH THE, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, TO COME UP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AS THE MAYOR HAS SAID, COME UP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE NOT WITH THE CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS. WE'RE NOT GONNA GET TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. WE NEED TO GET THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO, SO I JUST DON'T, I, UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD TAKE SO LONG. AND I THINK, I REALLY THINK THAT WE, WE NEED TO HAVE, HAVE, UM, I DO AGREE WITH THE MAYOR AND WITH, UM, MAYOR, PORT, TIM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO THAT SEEING WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON THAT. UH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A WAY TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY IN SHOWING US BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN WE SEE WHAT YOU'VE GOT ALREADY. I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY ASKING THE QUESTION, WE'RE ALREADY ASKING THE QUESTION. WELL, OKAY. SO HERE'S, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND WE CAN'T GET X, Y, AND Z FOR IT. SO WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET X, Y, AND Z? SO WE CAN'T MAKE A, A DECISION BASED ON THAT. I, I DON'T THINK, OR WE WOULD BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE'RE OPERATING WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION. SO I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING WHAT'S THE HOLD UP. SURE. AND IS, IS THERE A WAY, AND MAYBE IT'S A PHASED APPROACH TO GIVING THIS INFORMATION, OR MAYBE IT'S MAYBE IT'S INFORMATION THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S MORE PRELIMINARY PERHAPS THAT COULD THEN, UM, GO THROUGH MORE VETTING IF NEEDED, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? ABSOLUTELY. AND, AND IF I COULD START WITH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALWAYS ENDEAVORING TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. UH, IT'S NEVER OUR INTENTION TO SIT ON INFORMATION OR TO, UH, DELAY THE RESPONSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UH, THE JUNE DAY OFFERED WAS JUST BEING VERY CONSERVATIVE, ALL THINGS IN THE MIX. AND THIS IS NEW TO US, OF COURSE, POTENTIALLY A CHANGE IN, IN THE DIRECTION [04:55:01] WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT, UH, WE HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO OF COURSE, UM, GET, UH, GET IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL DIRECTION IS. AND ALSO OF COURSE FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING, IT WOULD INVOLVE A RECALIBRATING MM-HMM OF THE REGULATING PLAN. AND RECALIBRATING MEANS THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN OPT IN BASIS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE MARKET WOULD SUPPORT, WHAT A DEVELOPER WOULD SAY, YES, I WANT TO VOLUNTARILY OPT IN AND ASSIGN MYSELF ALL OF THESE RESPONSIBILITIES BECAUSE THE BENEFIT IS THERE AND THAT TAKES A MARKET RECALIBRATION. AND THAT, THAT, THAT TAKES SOME TIME. IT TOOK SOME TIME FOR US TO WORK WITH ECON NORTHWEST TO DO THAT. IT WASN'T OVERNIGHT. UM, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO ALL OF THAT TYPE OF WORK AGAIN. UM, BUT IT WOULD BE IN, UH, OF COURSE OUR INTEREST TO DO THAT QUICKLY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR THE REGULATING PLAN FOR SOME TIME. NOW, UH, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT PLAN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. UH, THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE A NEW DIRECTION FOR US, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ENGAGE IN IT AND THAT WE WORK COLLECTIVELY AND WITH OUR CONSULTANTS AND, UH, LOOK AT ALL THE MARKET INFORMATION THAT IS OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GIVING YOU THE BEST POSSIBLE. SO BETWEEN NOW AND THURSDAY, COULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S THE OPTION OF, OF FEATHERING IN INFORMATION, MAYBE IN STAGES, MAYBE THERE'S SOME BASIC INFORMATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN EARLIER, UH, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. SO THE COMMUNITY CAN KIND OF BE BROUGHT ALONG IN THE CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF MAYBE HAVING IT ALL INVESTIGATED AND TIED UP INTO TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTION. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN IMPORTANT THING TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND, AND JUST TO BE, TO BE CLEAR THE, THE TIME THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, UM, IS, IS ABSOLUTELY RODNEY RODNEY, A SPOT ON IT IT'S TO, TO ALLOW US TIME TO DRAFT OR TO REDRAFT THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATING PLAN AND TO WORK WITH, UH, AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO REVIEW AND TEST AND, AND HELP US WITH THE CALIBRATION PIECE ALSO BUILT INTO THAT IS, UH, A THREE MONTH PROCESS TO PRESENT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND SO WHEN WE SAY WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK TO COUNCIL IN NINE MONTHS, IT'S GOING PUBLIC, UM, NOT IN JUNE, BUT IN MARCH. OKAY. SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE, THE THREE MONTH PUBLIC PROCESS TO WORK IT THROUGH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THAT'S BAKED INTO ANY, UH, OF THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS THAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING BACK TO COUNCIL. YEAH. THAT'S HELPFUL TO LEARN. UH, AND TO, UH, YOUR POINT, UH, COUNCIL, MARK KELLY. I, I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION, BUT MY SENSE IS IT'S NOT NOW THAT THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN WHEN WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DATA. I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING A CONVERSATION NOW, WHERE THERE IS NO INFORMATION OR DATA. AND IT'S BEEN REALLY FRUSTRATING FOR ME AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY, TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC DEBATE THAT'S HAD ON THIS ISSUE AND EDITORIALS AND NEWSPAPERS OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS WITHOUT HAVING THE INFORMATION OUT. SO, SO THE CONVERSATIONS REALLY HAVEN'T, THERE THERE'S BEEN NO ABILITY TO REALLY TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES BECAUSE WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS AND DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE, ON THE DAY, AS, AS WE BEGIN TO, TO DO IT, WE JUST NEED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US AND OPTIONS IN FRONT OF US SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENT CHOICES ARE AND HOW THOSE DIFFERENT CHOICES IMPACT WHAT WE CAN GET. NONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS CAN WE HAVE YET UNTIL WE FINALLY GET SOME ADDITIONAL STUFF. ALL WE KNOW NOW IS WHAT WE GOT IN JUNE, WHICH IS THE PLAN WE HAVE NOW, ISN'T FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE THAT THE ORIGINAL, BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US WHAT IS, AND IT DOESN'T TELL US HOW WE WOULD GET THERE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY AT THIS POINT REALLY HAS GOTTEN ENOUGH INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. AND I THINK THAT IF WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THAT INFORMATION OUT. SO I THINK THERE'S A MUCH RICHER CONVERSATION TO HAVE, HAS TO HAPPEN, BUT I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION AND DATA TO THE PUBLIC, UH, AS WE GO INTO THAT CONVERSATION. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOU LAYING THAT OUT FOR ME, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO THINKS SINCE IT'S IN HER DISTRICT ABOUT GETTING THAT FEEDBACK NOW VERSUS WAITING UNTIL WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. AND IT'S IN MY DISTRICT TOO. OH, YES. SORRY. OKAY. COUNCIL ART. TOVO YEAH. I'M, I'M WHOLLY CONFUSED ABOUT, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM, I'M REALLY CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE GETTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WORKS OR ACTUALLY DIRECTING THEM TO REDRAFT. AND I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT I HEAR IS REDRAFTING, AND TO ME, THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT FIRST WE START WITH THE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS. IF WE'RE ASKING THEM TO GET INFORMATION AND COME BACK, THAT'S A, A, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT ANSWER. AND I GUESS WHILE I'M TALKING, I'LL JUST SAY, IF THERE IS A DRAFT, IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW. WELL, ANYWAY, I JUST, AGAIN, I, IT'S VERY CONFUSING WHAT THIS IS DIRECTING AND KIND OF WHAT RESPONSE IT'S GONNA PRO PRODUCE CASPER VALID. [05:00:01] I JUST WANTED TO, TO KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARDS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WE DO HAVE THE ONE TEXAS CENTER, WHICH AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT ACHIEVING OUR GOALS. I THINK THAT IS KEY TO ACHIEVING OUR GOALS. I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST THE PRIVATE, UH, LEON PARCELS WHERE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SQUEEZE SOME MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OUT OF, YOU KNOW, HERE OR THERE, BUT WE HAVE OUR OWN PARCEL, UM, POTENTIALLY READY TO BE REDEVELOPED WHERE WE COULD ADD A LOT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND, AND ON THAT TO MY GOAL WOULD BE TO MAXIMIZE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE SITE, NOT THE PERCENTAGE, UH, AND AGAIN, GOING TO THE SAME DISCUSSION, UH, YOU KNOW, 20% OF, OF 200 UNITS, UH, IF WE CAN GET A MUCH HIGHER RAW NUMBER OF UNITS, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT EVEN IF IT'S LESS AS A PERCENTAGE, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE END UP WITH 13% OF AFFORDABLE, BUT THE 13% IS A MUCH BIGGER NUMBER THAN THE 20% WITH THE, YOU KNOW, OF THE PREVIOUS CALCULATION, THEN, I MEAN, WE'RE STILL WINNING EVEN THOUGH THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PERCENTAGE MAY NOT MEET OUR GOAL. TO ME, THE PERCENTAGE IS JUST A NUMBER ON PAPER THAT WHAT COUNTS IS THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WE BUILD, UH, IN THE AREA. SO I JUST, I DON'T WANNA LOSE FOCUS AND KIND OF HOLD THAT 20% AS LIKE IT'S GOTTA BE 20%. NO, THE OVERALL NUMBER OF TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WE BUILD ON ON SITE SHOULD BE, UM, UH, GOAL. AND I'D BE WILLING TO CONSIDER LANGUAGE CHANGE TO THIS THAT ALSO INCORPORATES THAT POSSIBILITY AS WELL. AND I THINK YOU INCORPORATE THAT LANGUAGE. I MEAN, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY EXPLICITLY THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT, THAT WE CAN, UH, CREATE. UH, AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST, I THINK THE, THE STATESMAN PUT CONVERSATION HAS BEEN, UH, VERY, UH, REVEALING IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE ALREADY ON THIS ONE TRACK TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THIS ONE DEVELOPER WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ON THIS ONE SIDE, AND WE'RE ALREADY FINDING OURSELVES LACKING. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK WE, WE ARE ALREADY CONFRONTING THE, THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE, WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET WHERE WE'D LIKE TO BE. SO I, I, I, AGAIN, I'M, I'M A CO-SPONSOR AND I, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND LET'S SEE HOW WE CAN MAXIMIZE BOTH, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ON THAT TRACK. AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE ALL HEAR FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS, BUT I, I THINK THE IDEA OF MAKING THIS AREA A, JUST A BEAUTIFUL KIND OF WORLD CLASS DESTINATION, THAT'S WHERE, WHERE MY CONSTITUENTS ARE AT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT I HEAR. I DON'T HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT. I DON'T HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT, I KIND OF HEAR THE QUALITY OF THE TRAIL, UH, THE QUALITY OF THE PARKS, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE SITE, UH, YOU KNOW, FAMILY KIND OF ACTIVITIES. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT, THAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE, ARE ASKING FOR OUT OF THE, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS BEFORE WE GO TO THE LAST ITEM WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA? UH THANK YOU. UM, WANTED TO CLARIFY, SO THE STATESMAN PUT, ADDS A LOT OF BULK ABOVE AND BEYOND THEIR ENTITLEMENTS AND ALSO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT TUR CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN. AS I REMEMBER, UM, IS THAT EXTRA BULK INCLUDED IN THE TURS CALCULATIONS, KIM O LAVA'S DEPUTY CFO. SO THE ORIGINALS HERS CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE POTENTIAL, UM, AS NOTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, UM, VISION PLAN, UM, FOR THE UPDATES THAT YOU RECEIVED EARLIER THIS MONTH, UH, THERE, THERE WERE JUST, THERE WERE GENERAL MARKET UPDATES BASED ON OUR CURRENT PROJECTED VALUES, STILL BASED ON THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. UM, BUT THEN THE, THE EIGHT TO ONE AR ANALYSIS, UM, WAS JUST CONSIDERING EIGHT TO ONE. SO THE STATESMAN PUT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A, AN INT SIGNED DEAL. UM, HE, THE CONSULTANT WOULD NOT INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT UNLESS IT'S, UH, BEEN COMPLETELY APPROVED AND FINALIZED. OKAY. SO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE ASKING US FOR THESE ENTITLEMENTS, THE DEBATE IS NOT SO MUCH OVER WHETHER THEY GET THOSE ENTITLEMENTS, BUT WHAT THEY PROVIDE IN COMMUNITY TO BENEFITS, BUT YET WE HAVEN'T CALCULATED THE TERMS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTITLEMENTS, BECAUSE THE, THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, THE POD ARE NOT FINALIZED. UM, THEY'RE STILL BEING DISCUSSED AND DEBATED. UM, IT'S, [05:05:01] IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THOSE, IN THOSE CALCULATIONS, UM, BECAUSE IT COULD CHANGE SO DRASTICALLY AS A RESULT. THE ONE, THE, WHAT WE DO HAVE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, UM, TO START THE ANALYSIS WAS THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE POTENTIAL AS NOTED IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, UH, VISION PLAN, UH, WHICH WAS THE ECO NORTHWEST HAD DONE THAT MARKET CALIBRATION. SO WHEN THE, UM, REST OF THE TEAM IS REFERENCING THAT CALIBRATION OF, UM, JUST WHAT THE MARKET CAN HANDLE, THAT'S THAT WHERE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE COULD COME INTO PLAY, AND WE CAN BE LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE STATE'S BEEN PUT ENTITLEMENTS AND THE SORT OKAY. BUT WE HAVE A DEVELOPER COMING IN AND SAYING THEY CAN BUILD THIS MUCH. AND ACTUALLY THEY'VE SAID THEY WOULD BUILD MORE. AND YET WE CAN'T EVEN FACTOR THAT INTO THE CALCULATIONS. AND IT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR TRACKS WE HAVE. WELL, WE, IT, COULD IT BE YES. HAS IT BEEN NO. OKAY. BECAUSE IT WAS THAT THE STANDARD PRACTICE ON DOING THIS SORT OF ANALYSIS IS ONLY UTILIZING. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE STANDARD ANALYSIS. IF YOU WERE GOING TO THE STATE AND YOU WERE ESTABLISHING THE, BUT FOUR AND GOING THROUGH THE FINANCIAL PLAN, THAT WOULD GO TO THE STATE, BUT IN TERMS OF OUR PURPOSES OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW HIGH WE WOULD NEED TO GO TO GET THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A CALCULATION THAT SHOULD BE PRETTY BASIC TO DO. AND I KNOW I, FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE CALCULATIONS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE BEFORE US, WHERE WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE MARKET WHO'S SAYING THAT THEY WILL SHOW UP AND BUILD SOMETHING AND BUILD SOMETHING EVEN BIGGER THAN THAT. THE, THE OTHER FACTOR TO COUNT FOR IS WHEN THAT MARKET ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED, IT'S NOT DONE ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS. MM-HMM, , IT'S LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE DISTRICT UNDER CONSIDERATION. AND SO, AND AS A RESULT, THOSE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE POTENTIAL THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE VISION PLAN. SO, UM, IF THERE WAS A FIRM DEAL IN PLACE ON ANY PARCEL THAT COULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR, BUT, BUT FOR THAT, IT'S, IT'S BASED ON THE ENTIRE ZONE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. OKAY. SO A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION IS PREMISED ON THIS NOTION THAT IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US ARE FROM OUR CONSULTANT. UM, WE RECEIVED CALCULATIONS FROM A DEVELOPER THAT WERE MORE RELIANT ON THE INCOME STREAM. UM, I ASKED MS. TRUO, I THINK I ASKED MS. OLIVE OLIVERS AS WELL, UM, TO LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS AND TELL US WHETHER THOSE WERE ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS OR NOT, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY WERE ESTIMATING WOULD COME IN WAS REALLY DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM YOU ALL. AND I ASKED FOR THOSE CALCULATIONS TO BE EVALUATED. DO YOU HAVE A SENSE AND WHEN WE'RE GONNA GET THOSE BACK OR FROM BRIAN ROGERS? YEAH, I THINK, UM, WE HAD A RESPONSE THAT I THOUGHT WAS LOADED INTO Q AND A FROM LAST MEETING. UM, BUT I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND VERIFY AND I'LL RECIRCULATE THAT. OKAY. IT'S POSSIBLE. BUT IF IT, IT WAS DURING THE MEETING, UM, OKAY. THEN I PROBABLY DIDN'T SEE IT, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW IT, BUT WE'LL GO BACK AND IF COULD, UM, SEND THAT BACK OUT. UM, ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER THERE BEING A WHOLE LOT OF INCOME STREAM CALCULATIONS, UM, IN THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU GUYS PRESENTED. SO THAT, THAT ALSO GIVES ME PAUSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET'S CALL UP THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS THE, UH, PETITION, UH, ITEM MAYOR. I HAVE A, A QUICK PROCEDURAL QUESTION BEFORE WE GET INTO IT. YES. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE, UH, OVERSIGHT PETITION ITEM, RIGHT? YES. UM, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING EARLIER THIS MORNING AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, SO THE NUMBER OF VOTES THAT ARE NEEDED TO PASS IT ARE, IS SEVEN VOTES, RIGHT? IF YOU WANT TO PASS IT ON ONE DAY, IF YOU WANNA PASS THIRD READING ON ONE DAY SEVEN VOTES. SO IT'S, IT'S SEVEN FOR IT'S SEVEN, NOT NINE IT'S SEVEN. IF YOU WANNA PASS IT ON ONE DAY. AND IF, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO, IF IT'S JUST SIX, YOU HAVE TO DO IT ON MORE THAN ONE DAY. IT'S THREE DAYS. IT'S NINE VOTES. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PASS IT AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM, WHICH IS WHY I WENT, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SET IT SHORT OF 72 HOUR, NOTICE THE SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS, THEN YOU HAVE A, BUT WE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO WAIT, WAIT, JUST TO, TO, TO CLARIFY, WE CAN'T HAVE, UM, SO NORMALLY TO PASS AN ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THREE READINGS. UM, BUT IF YOU HAVE SEVEN VOTES, YOU PASS IT IN ALL THREE READINGS IN ONE VOTE SWO. OKAY. SO WE NEED IT ON THREE DIFFERENT DAYS. IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE SIX VOTES, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RESOLVE IT ON THURSDAY. UM, IF NOT, THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT DO WE DO? AND SO WE WOULD CALL, ADD MEETINGS FOR YOU ALL TO DO IT ON SATURDAY AND ON MONDAY. OKAY. AND IN WHAT SITUATION DO YOU REQUIRE NINE VOTES? IF THE ITEM IS AN EMERGENCY ITEM, IT REQUIRES NINE VOTES VOTES, BUT WE'RE NOT IN THAT SITUATION TWO HOURS. OKAY. SO, SO, SO FOR ON THURSDAY, IF IT WERE TO BE [05:10:01] VOTED TO PASS ON THURSDAY, IT WOULD REQUIRE SEVEN VOTES. IF THERE'S SIX VOTES, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE DAY. CORRECT. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. CORRECT. SO THOSE TWO MEETINGS ON SATURDAY AND MONDAY ARE BEING SET CONDITIONALLY SO THAT THEY'RE THERE AND WE'VE GIVEN MORE THAN 72 HOURS NOTICE. SO IT WAS IN THAT SITUATION THAT I ASKED LEGAL TO DO THAT FOR US. YES. JUST TO CLARIFY PROCEDURALLY, IT REQUIRES SEVEN VOTES. IF WE'RE GONNA ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, IF WE ARE GONNA CALL AN ELECTION IN FEBRUARY FOR MAY, WE DON'T NEED MORE THAN SIX. IF YOU CALL THE ELECTION THIS WEEK, YOU WOULD NEED SIX VOTES TO CALL THE ELECTION. IT'S AN ORDINANCE, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THREE READINGS TO DO IT UNLESS YOU HAVE SEVEN VOTES TO CALL THE ELECTION, WHICH I ASSUME YOU WOULD TO FURTHER CLARIFY. TYPICALLY WHEN WE CALL THE ELECTION, WE DO IT AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT BEFORE WE HAVE TO WORK TO GET THE ELECTION ACCOMPLISHED. IF YOU WERE TO ORDER THE ELECTION THIS WEEK, THOUGH, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE THE ELECTION IS NOT UNTIL MAY OF 2023. AND WE HAD SUGGESTED IF YOU WERE GONNA ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IT THIS WEEK. IF IT'S GONNA CAUSE A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, ET CETERA, YOU COULD SIMPLY WAIT TO DO IT LATER, ANYTIME BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY, WHATEVER OF 2023. THANK YOU. I THINK THOUGH MY QUESTION WAS IF, IF, IF WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY, I MEAN, WE'RE SORT OF CHOOSING BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS IN, IN SOME SENSE. CORRECT. SO IF WE, IF WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SEVEN TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. WE ONLY NEED TO HAVE SIX WHO DON'T WANT TO, TO ADOPT IT. IN FACT, PROCEDURALLY YOU'RE CORRECT. IF WHAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF US IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? IF WE FAIL TO PASS THE ORDINANCE FOR WHATEVER REASON, EITHER BECAUSE IT'S VOTED DOWN OR BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T COME TO A VOTE. IF WE FAIL TO PASS IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEN WE'RE OBLIGATING OURSELVES TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT IN MAY, EITHER AT THIS MEETING OR AT SOME FUTURE MEETING. BUT IF WE HAVE, BUT IF SIX OF US WANT TO PASS THE ORDINANCE AND NOT SEVEN, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SO THAT WE COULD PASS IT AND WE'VE SET IT UP SO THAT WE COULD STILL DO THAT IF THAT'S THE, WILL THE MAJORITY, THAT'S THE CREDITS. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS OR ADDRESS THIS? YES. SHOULD THERE, I, UH, I SIGNED THE PETITION, UH, AND I, I SUPPORT THE, UH, THE MEASURES IN THE PETITION. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARD ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND, AND OVERSIGHT, UH, WITH, UH, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT HAVING A COMMUNITY VOTE IS, HAS A LOT OF VALUE. THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT AND ONGOING ISSUE, POLICE OVERSIGHT IN AUSTIN. AND MY SENSE IS THAT IT WOULD PASS AND MY HOPE IS THAT IT WOULD PASS OVERWHELMINGLY. AND I THINK THAT SENSE AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL REALLY TOOK TO EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, TO BOTH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE POLICE ASSOCIATION TO, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE INCOMING CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. AND FOR THAT MATTER, YOU KNOW, TO OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE THAT ARE ALSO DEBATING THESE SAME ISSUES AND TRYING TO, UH, ADOPT DIFFERENT TYPES OF OVERSIGHT MEASURES. I THINK ABOUT SAN ANTONIO, I KNOW THERE WAS A POLICE OVERSIGHT PETITION IN SAN ANTONIO THAT, THAT CAME VERY CLOSE TO PASSING, BUT, UH, BUT DID NOT. SO, UH, JUST, I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST WANNA EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS. THAT'S KIND OF HOW I'M LEANING IS TO PUT IT TO THE VOTERS. LET'S HEAR WHAT, UH, THE VOTERS HAVE TO SAY, AND THEN, UH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. OKAY. UH, CUSTOMER OUR KITCHEN. UM, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE, WHAT, UH, WHERE, WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I AM, UH, PREPARED TO, UH, VOTE FOR ADOPTING THE, UH, POLICE OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE. AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN MY, UH, PERSPECTIVE AND REASONING ON IT. UH, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF POLICE, ACCOUNTABILITY IS FUNDAMENTAL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE NEGOTIATED IN A POLICE CONTRACT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, THAT I THINK THE, UH, IS, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A STATEMENT, [05:15:01] UH, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IN FOR OUR COMMUNITY. UM, AND, UM, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AT OUR LEVEL AS LEADERS IN THE COMMUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND ADOPT THE POLICE OVERSIGHT, UM, ORDINANCE. I THINK IT IS A VERY REASONABLE APPROACH. THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN THE LANGUAGE AND, UM, I SUPPORT IT AND I JUST FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT, UM, UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR NEGOTIATION. UM, AND SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR AN ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT. AND ONCE I THINK OF IT IN THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEN I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT I, I CERTAINLY RESPECT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS I DO, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IS FUNDAMENTAL. SO I'M PREPARED TO VOTE FOR IT, CATCH A POOL. THIS ONE'S TRULY A DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR ME. AND, AND I'VE BEEN CONCERNED FROM THE BEGINNING DAYS OF THE REFERENDUM DRIVE THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WAS PROBLEMATIC. AND, AND WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IS PROBLEMATIC. SO I, I THINK WE SHARE A COMMUNITY VALUE AROUND THIS DAS, UM, OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY, AND THAT INCLUDES MORE INDEPENDENCE FOR, FOR THE OFFICE OF, UH, POLICE OVERSIGHT. BUT I ALSO WANNA ENSURE THAT AS WE MAKE PROGRESS TOWARD THAT GOAL, THAT WE ARE ON REALLY SOLID GROUND. NICE. SO I HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT HOW WE GET THERE, AND I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M PREPARED, UH, TO WORK ON AND SUPPORT A MIDDLE GROUND, UH, THAT MOVES US FORWARD, BUT THAT DOES NOT IMPERIL OUR LEGAL STANDING ON THIS ISSUE. AND THAT'S A SPECIFIC PIECE THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. I DO THINK THAT THERE MAY BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND HERE THAT WILL ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT ALSO RECOGNIZES THE VERY REAL LIMITATIONS THAT THOSE STATE LAW PLACES ON ALL CITIES, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPENDED TO PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT IN MAY OR CUZ IF WE ADOPT THE MEASURE, WE HAVE TO ADOPT IT EXACTLY AS IT'S WRITTEN THAT'S RIGHT. WHICH IS WHY I DO NOT SUPPORT ADOPTING THE MEASURE AS IT IS WRITTEN BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS PROBLEMATIC LANGUAGE IN IT THAT WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL BARRIERS AND OBSTACLES FOR THE CITY TO MANAGE. UM, I AM LOOKING FOR INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY THROUGH WHATEVER ACTIONS WE MIGHT TAKE BETWEEN NOW AND, AND UH, GOING FORWARD, WORKING WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF TO DO THIS REALLY CAREFULLY AND IN CLEAR MIND AND CLEAR EYE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR. AND AGAIN, WHAT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE THAT WE HAVE TO OPERATE IN WITHIN, WITHIN STATE LAW. OKAY. COLLEAGUES. YES. I'M, I'M ALSO TORN ON THIS ONE. I SEE A LOT OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY CITY DEPARTMENT'S FROM OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY, UM, I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A PETITION SUBMITTED THAT WE JUST ADOPTED OUTRIGHT. UM, I DO SEE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE VOTERS MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD AND YOU KNOW, IT GIVES US AS COUNSEL THE BACKUP TO SAY, THIS IS THE LAW AS THE VOTERS APPROVED IT AND WE ARE TRULY IMPLEMENTING THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, BUT I DO SEE A LOT OF VALUE IN THIS PARTICULAR PETITION. SO I'M, I'M STRUGGLING A BIT WITH EXACTLY WHERE I'LL BE ON THURSDAY. OKAY. I WAS WONDERING, CAN YOU TALK US THROUGH WHAT YOUR ITEM NUMBER 91 SEEKS TO DO? YES. UM, IT, IT DEALS WITH A, A LOGISTICAL MATTER. UM, I SUPPORT, UH, INCREASED, UH, COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S OVERWHELMINGLY, UH, SUPPORTED, UH, IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR THAT REASON. I SIGNED THE, THE PETITION AS WELL AND, AND I'M REAL APPRECIATIVE AND WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE, THE ADVOCATES THAT MANAGED TO GET THE, THE NECESSARY SIGNATURES TO ENABLE US TO PUT IT ON THE, THE BALLOT IN MAY. UH, AND I, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A PRETTY EMPHATIC STATEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THAT ISSUE. AND, UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, THAT, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN OVERSIGHT AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NEGOTIATED, WE [05:20:01] SHOULD HAVE THE BEST POLICE OVERSIGHT BECAUSE WE SHOULD JUST HAVE THE BEST POLICE OVERSIGHT. AND AS A COMMUNITY WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE ASSOCIATION, WE SHOULD ALL FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS. AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE THAT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANYTHING ELSE. WE SHOULD HAVE THAT AND SEPARATE FROM THAT WE SHOULD PAY OUR POLICE OFFICERS. WELL, IN FACT, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD MAINTAIN PAYING OUR POLICE, PAYING OUR POLICE OFFICERS MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE PLAYS THEIR POLICE OFFICERS, THAT WE ALWAYS GET THE CREAM OF THE CROP HERE, UH, IN OUR, IN OUR CITY. UH, BECAUSE I THINK WE DO, WE SUPPORT OUR POLICE AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. AND WE NEED TO DO THAT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANYTHING ELSE. WE JUST NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL INTENT TO TRY AND GET THIS ITEM ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, UH, WHICH FIT WITH THE, UH, SCHEDULE FOR, FOR NEGOTIATING, UH, CONTRACTS. UH, BUT IT DIDN'T GET ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER WHEN IT DIDN'T GET ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, IT PUSHED IT TILL MAY. AND THE LOGISTICAL ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS THAT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO A CONTRACT NOW, THEN THE CURRENT CONTRACT, WHICH EXPIRES IN SEPTEMBER, UH, BY ITS TERMS WILL BE EXTENDED UNTIL MARCH. UH, BUT JUST TO MARCH. UH, AND I WAS, UH, CONCERNED THAT IF WE ENDED UP WITHOUT A CONTRACT IN MARCH, THAT SOME OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS NO CONTRACT AND THEY COULD LOSE SOME OF THE ACCRUED SICK LEAVE, UH, THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET WHEN THEY RETIRE, BECAUSE OUR CONTRACT FALLS OFF. UH, AND, AND, AND WE WOULD BE IN THIS, UH, HORRIBLE PLACE WHERE SOME OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT DIDN'T WANNA RETIRE MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES NEEDING TO CONSIDER RETIRING IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY IN ORDER TO MEET THE, THE MAY CUTOFF POINT. AND I, AND I, AND I THINK COLLECTIVELY WE WANT THOSE OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO, TO STAY ON AND, AND, AND GET PAST A POTENTIAL ELECTION IN MAY. SO WHAT I HAD PROPOSED IN THAT RESOLUTION WAS IF WE'RE GOING TO SET THE ELECTION IN MAY, UH, THAT WE EXTEND THE BENEFITS THAT ARE IN THE CONTRACT FOR POLICE OFFICERS, SO THAT THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO, TO RETIRE, UM, UH, IN THE ANTICIPATION OR OF, OR WITH THE FACING UNCERTAINTY. SO IT EXTENDS THOSE BENEFITS MOST SPECIFICALLY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UH, THE ACCRUED SICK LEAVE THAT YOU CAN GET ON RETIREMENT TILL THE END OF MAY. AND I THINK THAT GIVES THE COMMUNITY AND, AND THE COUNCIL AND THE POLICE ASSOCIATION AND OUR STAFF, UH, SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THOSE ANSWERS, UH, WITH NO ONE, UH, NONE OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS BEING FACED WITH, UH, WITH A FORCED CHOICE WHILE THEY, WHILE THEY LACKED INFORMATION. SO THAT WAS THE INTENT TO EXTEND IT FOR VIRTUALLY LIKE AN SEVEN OR EIGHT WEEK PERIOD OF TIME. UH, SO THAT, UM, UH, OUR POLICE OFFICERS WHO I THINK WE NEED TO SUPPORT AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY THAT COULD OTHERWISE BE CREATED BY A DECISION TO SET THE ITEM ON THE BALLOT THAT WE, THAT WE TAKE CARE OF THEM AND TAKE CARE OF THIS SITUATION. UM, YES, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, THANK YOU. UM, LIKE MANY OF YOU HERE, I DO BELIEVE IN INCREASED OVERSIGHT IN SOME WAYS, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO. AND I AGREE THAT PARTS OF THE PETITION LANGUAGE IS TROUBLING. AND SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT ITEM 91, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ARE UNDER NEGOTIATIONS NOW. AND IF WE DO FALL OUT OF A CONTRACT, THAT THERE COULD BE A MASS EXODUS OF OFFICERS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE CURRENTLY FOR RETIREMENT. AND I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD BACK ABOUT ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN FOR HOW WE MIGHT WORK WITH OFFICERS WHO ARE STAYING HERE, AND IF ANYONE WILL BACK THEM UP IN REGARDS OF STAFFING OR THAT SORT OF THING. SO IT'D BE INTERESTING TO, I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR IF THAT EXISTS OR IF THERE'S ONE BEING DEVELOPED IN CASE WE DO HAVE OFFICERS LEAVE IF WE WERE TO GO OUT OF CONTRACT. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT ITEM FORWARD. THANK YOU GUYS ARE KITCHEN. UM, YEAH, I, I, I AGREE. I, UM, I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD, UH, ITEM TO BRING FORWARD. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D TIE IT TO THE OVERSIGHT PETITION. I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S, IT IS, TO ME, THESE ARE SE THESE ARE SEPARATE. I, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT, UM, WE SHOULD PAY OUR OFFICERS THE BEST, UH, AND I'VE, WE'VE DONE THAT. AND I, I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PAY THEM AT THE TOP OF, OF [05:25:01] THE LATTER. AND TO ME, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO, TO, TO REACH AGREEMENT, UM, DURING THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS, THEN I, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT THAT SHOULD BE ABOUT COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO, TO EXTEND. BUT, UM, WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO DO IS SEPARATE OUT THE, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE ISSUE OF BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION, BECAUSE TO ME, THEY DON'T GO TOGETHER. AND, UM, AND I DON'T SEE THAT AS I, I ALSO DON'T SEE POLICE OVERSIGHT AS, AS A NEGATIVE FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS. I THINK IT IS, UM, IT IS A PLUS FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND FOR THE WHOLE CITY TO HAVE AN, A HAVE AN OVERSIGHT PROCESS, YOU KNOW, A FAIR OVERSIGHT PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE BECAUSE IT'S ALL, YOU KNOW, OVERSIGHT PROCESS IS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR OFFICERS. AND SO THAT'S WHY I DO NOT TIE THEM TOGETHER. I DON'T THINK IT GOES TOGETHER. UM, SO, SO I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, I, I WON'T BE HERE NEXT YEAR TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I WOULD BE PERFECTLY WILLING TO, TO EXTEND WAGES AND BE BENEFITS. I THINK WE ALWAYS NEED TO SUPPORT OUR OFFICERS WITH WAGES AND BENEFITS WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, ORDINANCE. UM, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AND THOSE LEGAL QUESTIONS ARE PRESENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE ADOPT 'EM NOW, OR WHETHER THEY GO THROUGH AN ELECTION PROCESS, UM, THAT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE. UM, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, UH, IN THE COURT. UM, AND THERE'S A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE IN THAT, UM, ORDINANCE. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT IT, THAT THERE ARE THINGS IN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, BUT THERE'S TWO THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT PERHAPS, UM, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT, MIGHT BE CONCERNING OR THEN THOSE COULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT AS, UH, I DON'T SEE THAT AS KEEPING US FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH OVERSIGHT. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT, THEN, UH, LET'S UM, ADJOURN, THE, UH, WORK SESSION HERE AT, UH, 5 0 9. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.