* 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.
          [00:00:04]
          GO AHEAD AND CONVENE. 
          TODAY'S, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CONVENE TODAY'S AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION. 
          TODAY IS, UH, TUESDAY, UH, NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022, AND WE ARE IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ROOM HERE AT CITY HALL. 
          UH, THE TIME IS, UH, NINE 16 COLLEAGUES. 
          WE'RE GONNA START TODAY WITH, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY BASED RATE DISCUSSION. 
          UH, WE'LL SEE HOW LONG THAT GOES. 
          AT THE END OF THAT, UM, UH, THE MARI PRO TAB ASKED FOR THERE TO BE DISCUSSION ABOUT SPEAKER TIMES, I THINK, UM, UH, AT, UH, MEETINGS. 
          AND WE, UH, WE HAVE A FEW OF THOSE LEFT. 
          UH, AND THEN I WOULD IMAGINE AS A COUNCIL YOU'LL REVISIT THAT. 
          UH, YES. 
          REMEMBER, UM, MAYOR IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ITEM 73 WAS POSTPONED. 
          I DON'T WANNA MAKE THE STAFF STAY JUST FOR ME TO ANNOUNCE THAT IT'S POSTPONED. 
          WHEN IS, WHAT'S THIS? IS THE, UH, I ILA TRAVIS REIMBURSEMENT? IT'S POSTPONE. 
          WE'RE WE'RE POSTPONED, I'M SORRY, WITH THE COUNTY. 
          WOULD A CONVERSATION ON THAT HELP AT ALL? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO 73. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          73 IS PULL. 
          SO AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY BASE RATE DISCUSSION. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT SPEAKER TIMES WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH SPEAKER TIMES, AND WE'LL DO PULLED ITEMS. AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY PULLED ITEM I'M AWARE OF IS, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS, UH, UH, IFFC WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          I WAS WAITING TILL YOU'RE DONE. 
          ARE YOU DONE? NOT QUITE YET. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT ARE NOTICED ON EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          ONE IS A COPYRIGHT MATTER AND THE OTHER ONE WAS, UH, POSTED FOR THE AVAILABILITY TO DISCUSS, UH, LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. 
          UM, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO HAVE THE EXECUTIVE CONVERSATION ON LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, LET ME OR ANN NO, WE PUT IT ON THERE JUST IN CASE. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THERE. 
          IF NO ONE ASKED FOR IT, THEN THE ONLY THING WE WOULD TALK ABOUT WOULD BE COPYRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE'LL COME BACK TO IT. 
          UM, I HAD ASKED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS TIME I'M NOT SEEING IT, SO I JUST WANT, MY QUESTION IS, WHEN ARE WE HAVING IT? I HAD ASKED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ON MY BUDGET WRITER, UH, MY BUDGET WRITER RELATED TO, UM, UH, REPLACEMENT OF THE NORTHBRIDGE SHELTER. 
          SO, UM, I, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I MUST HAVE MISSED THE RESPONSE TO MY EMAIL. 
          SO WHEN IS IT SCHEDULED FOR? AND, AND MAY I ADD TO IT? CAN IT BE, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT AS PART OF, UM, THE PUB, THE PRIVATE, THE PUBLIC PROPERTY, IFC THAT I BROUGHT THIS? WELL, WE, WE COULD, SO WE COULD DO IT ON THURSDAY, I MEAN, OR, OR TODAY. 
          IS IT ? YEAH. 
          OR TODAY. 
          I MEAN, BUT THE, I MEAN, THE STAFF'S GOTTA BE PREPARED CUZ THEY HAVE TO. 
          UM, DO YOU KNOW THE QUESTION THAT, UH, CUSTOMER KITCHEN IS WANTING TO ADDRESS? I THINK IT'S A REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND APOLOGIES FOR NOT CATCHING IT, FOR PUTTING IT ON TODAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THE STAFF WOULD NOT BE READY TODAY TO TALK ABOUT IT, THE REAL ESTATE FOLKS AND, AND DIANA GRAY. 
          UM, AND IF WE COULD, WE COULD PROVIDE A MEMO FOR INFORMATION. 
          NO, THIS IS A CONVERSATION FOR COUNSEL. 
          UH, IT IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROCEED WITH, UM, THE FUNDING OPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR A, A SHELTER. 
          UH, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF PLACES TO POTENTIALLY, UH, CHOOSE FROM IT. 
          THIS IS MORE ABOUT THE FUNDING, UH, CHECK NOT MUCH ABOUT WHICH PLACE. 
          WOULD YOU CHECK AND SEE IF WE COULD DO THIS ON THURSDAY? YES, PLEASE. 
          IT'S VERY TIME SENSITIVE, UH, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GONNA TAKE ACTION, WE ONLY HAVE A FEW MORE, UM, MEETINGS TO DO IT. 
          AND AGAIN, MY FOCUS HERE IS ON THE, THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS HOW MIGHT WE FUND THIS? I MEAN, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LOCATION, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH A PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT, BUT I DO WANT US TO GET CLEAR, UH, BECAUSE OUR, UM, OUR STAFF IS NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE FUNDING QUESTION. 
          AND TO THE DEGREE THAT THE INTERCESSION NEEDS TO BE ABOUT A BETTER PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, I DO HAVE SOME PARTICULAR PIECES OF PROPERTY. 
          OKAY, THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT I WOULD RAISE IS THE, AS THE BASIS FOR US TO BEING ABLE TO DO IT ON THURSDAY, BUT IT'S HOLD OFF ON THE CONVERSATION. 
          GOTCHA. 
          MM-HMM. 
           TILL WE, TILL WE TILL WE GET TO THE, TO THERE ON THURSDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MAYOR PRO TEMP. 
          UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE SET THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, WE WANTED THAT TO BE ON THURSDAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NEGOTIATING TODAY. 
          UM, SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE PLANNED TO HAVE THAT ON THURSDAY'S. 
          FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK IT'S SET FOR BOTH DAYS. 
          NO. 
          YES, WE HAD SET IT THAT WAY. 
          WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE NO 
          [00:05:01]
ONE, SO IT'S ON THE AGENDA ON THURSDAY, PEOPLE COULD CALL FOUR 10, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTED IT TODAY, THERE'S CERTAINLY THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO I WANT IT ON THURSDAY. 
          IT COULD BE BOTH DAYS. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT I WANT IT ON THURSDAY. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          I'M ALL, I'M, YOU ASKED IF WE WANT IT. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO STILL, IF SOMEBODY WANTS IT TODAY, FIND ME, FIND ANN. 
          OTHERWISE, IT'S NOT GONNA BE ON TODAY. 
          LESLIE, LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY TO CALL UP THE AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF AND I'LL KIND OF INTRODUCE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE START? 
          [B1. Austin Energy Staff Briefing on Proposed Revisions to the Base Rate Structure and Cost of Service.]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START. 
          LESLIE CHAIR, WE'LL START WITH YOU. 
          IF OUR PRESENTERS FROM AUSTIN ENERGY COULD COME UP. 
          AS YOU ALL KNOW, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL WORK SESSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ALL LEADING UP TO A VOTE ON, UH, THE BASE RATE CASE. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY THE 1ST OF DECEMBER AT OUR REGULAR MEETING THAT DAY. 
          WE DO HAVE DECEMBER 8TH AS A REGULAR MEETING AS A FALLBACK, BUT TODAY WE ARE GOING TO GET KIND OF A LAY OF THE LAND FROM OUR GENERAL MANAGER AND, UM, FROM MS. COOPER AND MR. DON BROSKI. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF LAY OUT SOME EXPECTATIONS IN ADVANCE. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT ASKING AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          WHAT IS THE GAP THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS TRYING TO FILL? THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF MONEY. 
          THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE IE AND THE ICA. 
          THAT'S THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT COMPARISONS OF THE BASELINE AMOUNT FROM THE VARIOUS REPORTS. 
          WE CAN LOOK AT THE NUMBERS IN THAT CONTEXT AND MAKE SOME INFORMED DECISIONS. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE IS WE LOOK AT DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. 
          MUCH LIKE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPTIONS THAT WE CAN ALL CONSIDER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT HERE. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WE BRING SUFFICIENT OPTIONS AND DIFFERENT LEVERS, UH, FOR THE CALCULATIONS SO THAT WE HAVE REALLY GOOD INFORMATION TO BUILD, UM, OUR DECISIONS BASED ON THE OPTION SCENARIOS. 
          UM, AND THEN I HAVE SOME SCENARIOS THAT I'VE DESCRIBED HERE AND I'VE PROVIDED THEM TO AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          A SCENARIO THAT USES A GRADUATED INCREASE OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          THAT STEADILY GOES UP OVER THREE TO FIVE YEARS, MUCH LIKE WE ARE DOING WITH THE, UM, UH, WELL THE GRADUATED, MUCH LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH THE PSA TO AVOID RATE SHOCK, A SCENARIO WITH FOUR TIERS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED THREE A SCENARIO BASED ON PROJECTIVE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. 
          AND THAT GETS INTO HOW MUCH MONEY COMES FROM, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY INTO THE GENERAL FUND EACH YEAR. 
          UM, A SCENARIO WITH ANY SAVINGS IDENTIFIED BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING, EX HEARING EXAMINER. 
          AND A, A VARIETY OF COMBINATIONS OF THESE ITEMS THAT WORK TO FILL IN THE FUNDING GAP. 
          THE POINT IS WE NEED TO FILL THE FUNDING GAP AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SUFFICIENT MONEY IN THE RESERVE SO THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT ONCE MORE IN THE FUTURE CONFRONTED WITH THE SITUATION LIKE WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS YEAR. 
          SO JUST TO RECAP, WE'RE LOOKING AT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, MAYBE SIX, UM, OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE, UH, DISCUSSIONS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AMONG, UH, WORK SESSION, PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN OUR VOTING MEETING. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, UH, FOLKS BEING HERE AND GENERAL MANAGER SERGEANT, TURN IT OVER TO YOU. 
          UM, MAYOR, MAY I ASK MY COLLEAGUE A QUESTION? COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, ARE THOSE, UM, IS THAT LIST OF QUESTIONS POSTED SOMEWHERE? THE SCENARIOS THAT YOU JUST RAN THROUGH? I HAVE A COUPLE THAT I'M ASKING STAFF TO PREPARE AND I WANNA, I DON'T THINK I HEARD IT ON YOURS, BUT, UM, IF YOU COULD SHARE THAT LIST THAT WOULD BE HAPPY, HAPPY TO SHARE IF IT'S NOT ALREADY UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THIS IS GENERALLY WHAT, UM, HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION THROUGHOUT SO, AND DRAWS FROM THE ICA AND THE I H E AS WELL AS AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. 
          MAYOR APPROACH HIM. 
          COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          I'M JACKIE, SERGEANT AUSTIN, ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER. 
          WITH ME TODAY ARE MARK DOMBROSKI, OUR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 
          AND TAMMY COOPER, OUR SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE. 
          I WANNA THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME THIS MORNING TO ENGAGE IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY BASE RATE REVIEW PROCESS WITH YOUR SUPPORT. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY HAS BECOME A RECOGNIZED LEADER IN CLEAN ENERGY, GREEN BUILDING DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE, AND MANY MORE PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE. 
          YOU AND OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS YOU AS WE BEGAN OUR CURRENT BASE RATE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          WE SOON REALIZE THAT THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE ALL 
          [00:10:01]
SHARE A FEW THINGS IN COMMON WITH US. 
          THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE SERVICE. 
          THEY WANT US TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND EFFICIENT WITH BOTH OUR ENERGY AND USE OF DOLLARS, AND THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE TO LEAD ON IMPORTANT GOALS WHILE ALSO BEING RESPECTED A RESPECTED COMMUNITY PARTNER. 
          I SAY ALL THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU WANT THESE THINGS TOO. 
          WE REVIEW OUR COST OF SERVICE EVERY YEAR, AND AT A MINIMUM EVERY FIVE YEARS PRODUCE A FULL COST OF SERVICE STUDY AND IF WARRANTED, CONDUCT A FULL BASE RATE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          THIS HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE APPROACH. 
          FROM 1994 TO 2011, AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT SEEK BASE RATE CHANGES, BUT IN 2011, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT OUR FINANCIAL CONDITION HAD SIGNIFICANTLY DETERIORATED. 
          WE WERE NOT MEETING OUR FINANCIAL POLICIES AND BOND COVENANTS AND OUR CASH RESERVES HAD BEEN SPENT. 
          IT BECAME IMPERATIVE THAT WE ADJUST RATES AND SET A PATH FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT REVENUES WOULD COVER OUR COSTS TO SERVE CUSTOMERS, MEET FINANCIAL POLICIES, AND REBUILD OUR RESERVES. 
          SO IN 2012, THE CITY COUNCIL EMBARKED ON A PROCESS OF REVIEWING RATES AND MANY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO PARTICIPATED AT THAT TIME ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ENGAGED TODAY. 
          ALTHOUGH THE 2012 RATE REVIEW WASN'T EXACTLY A SMOOTH PROCESS, WE LEARNED A LOT. 
          AND WITH THE CONTINUED WATCH OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND AUSTIN ENERGY REALIZED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A MORE STRUCTURED PROCESS GOING FORWARD. 
          WE REVIEWED THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS RATE MAKING PROCESS AS A GUIDE AND CRAFTED A MORE STRUCTURED PROCESS FOR OUR 2016 RATE REVIEW. 
          IN 2016 THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED PROCESS, THE CITY HIRED AN IMPARTIAL HEARINGS EXAMINER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO PRESIDE OVER WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A LEGAL CASE. 
          THAT PROCESS WENT WELL. 
          WE REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH MOST OF THE PARTIES IN THE CASE, AND RATES WERE ULTIMATELY DECREASED STARTING JANUARY 1ST, 2017. 
          FAST FORWARD TO TODAY, AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE SAME STRUCTURED PROCESS WITH AN IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER. 
          HOWEVER, THIS YEAR IT'S MORE CHALLENGING TO FIND AN OUTCOME EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY HAS NOT HAD A BASE RATE INCREASE IN OVER 10 YEARS. 
          LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          WE HAVE NOT HAD A BASE RATE INCREASE IN OVER 10 YEARS, AND IN FACT, AS A RESULT OF THE 2016 BASE RATE REVIEW, WE REDUCED BASE RATES BY 42 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. 
          I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT HASN'T INCREASED OVER THE PAST DECADE, BUT WE DO SHARE YOUR CONCERN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS WHO ARE FACING COST PRESSURES AS WELL. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE ALSO REACHED A POINT WHERE WE CAN NO LONGER DELAY ADJUSTING OUR BASE RATES. 
          AS PEOPLE MOVE INTO AUSTIN, THEY ARE MOVING INTO INCREASING INCREASINGLY MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT HOMES. 
          CUSTOMERS ARE SIMPLY NOT USING AS MUCH ELECTRICITY, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. 
          IT ALSO MEANS THAT DUE TO OUR CURRENT TIERED RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE, 77% OF THESE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FIXED COSTS. 
          AN ASSUMPTION THAT MANY PEOPLE MAKE IS, SHOULDN'T IT COST LESS TO SERVE PEOPLE IN THOSE MORE EFFICIENT HOMES? AND THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO. 
          YES, THEY USE LESS ENERGY AND THAT REDUCES OUR POWER SUPPLY COSTS. 
          BUT OUR FIXED COSTS, COSTS THAT ARE RECOVERED IN BASE RATES ARE INCREASING. 
          OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS AGING AND MUST BE MAINTAINED, REBUILT, AND UPGRADED. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE MUST ADD NEW SUBSTATIONS TO SERVE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS AND LARGER BUILDINGS. 
          WE'RE PAYING FOR THE ONGOING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A MUCH LARGER AND MORE COMPLEX SYSTEM THAN IN THE PAST. 
          AND WE CONTINUE TO SEE INCREASING COSTS FOR BOTH LABOR AND MATERIALS. 
          SO AS OUR CO COSTS OUTPACE OUR REVENUES, WE MUST STRUCTURE OUR RATES IN A WAY THAT FAIRLY CHARGES CUSTOMERS CLOSER TO WHAT IT COSTS TO SERVE THEM. 
          WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DELAY WHAT NEEDS TO OCCUR NOW AND HOPE THAT THE SITU WILL WILL IMPROVE BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU IT WILL NOT. 
          AND IN FACT, WE'LL ONLY GET WORSE. 
          WE KNOW THAT OUR CUSTOMERS WANT STABLE AND PREDICTABLE RATES, AND THAT MAKES OUR WORK ON DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, GREEN BUILDING, WEATHERIZATION AND CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE. 
          EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, AUSTIN ENERGY IS, IS COMMITTED TO CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN ALL OF OUR PROGRAM AREAS AS WE WORK WITH ALL OF YOU TO ADVANCE THE CITY'S OUTCOMES AND GOALS. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO TAMMY COOPER FOR A BRIEF PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JACKIE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. 
          MAY I, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          ARE THE INTERVENERS, WHAT IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO FIND THE DIFFERENT INTERVENERS REPORTS, INCLUDING THE CONSUMER, THE 
          [00:15:01]
INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE? I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN A FEW BINDERS AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT REPORT AGAIN AND I CAN'T. 
          SO ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE, AND WE HAVE THE URL AND THE PACKET, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY SEND THAT TO YOU VIA EMAIL SO THAT IT'S SOMETHING EASY TO CLICK ON. 
          AND WHAT YOU FIND IN YOUR BINDERS IS JUST A, A SMALL FRACTION OF THE MATERIAL, UH, THAT IS PART OF THE PROCEEDING. 
          AND THERE'S, THERE'S FRANKLY, HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS AND IT WAS, IT WAS TOO MUCH TO PRINT OUT. 
          SO WE KIND OF PUT SOME HIGHLIGHTED, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF INFORMATION FOR YOU IN THE BINDERS, BUT THEY'RE, UH, AVAILABLE ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE. 
          THANKS. 
          SO, SO THE PREVIOUS BINDER, AGAIN, I HAVE IT, I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHERE I SAW IT. 
          SO IT'S NOT, SO THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES REPORT IS NOT IN THIS BINDER, IT'S NOT IN THE PREVIOUS BINDER. 
          IT IS PART OF THE FULL DOCUMENTS. 
          UM, AND IS, ARE THOSE FULL DOCUMENTS LINKED AS A BACKUP FOR TODAY'S, IS THAT URL PART OF THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S SESSION? IT'S, WELL, IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S OFFICIALLY AS A BACKUP, BUT THE URL IS LISTED IN THE SLIDES I'M ABOUT TO GO THROUGH. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND IF I COULD ASK THE CITY CLERK TO ADD THAT LINK, UM, AND AT, AT EVERY AE SESSION THAT WE HAVE FROM HERE ON OUT, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT URL LISTED AS THE BACKUP, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THAT WAY, UM, THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO EASILY ACCESS ALL THAT, THAT FULLER INFORMATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND THAT SAME URL AND, AND SPECIFIC LINKS TO THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PART OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, PAGE THAT HAS THE RATE CASE ON IT. 
          YES. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A LINK TO THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. 
          SO THE TWO CONNECT, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY DO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE SLIDES, AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS JUST GIVE A QUICK REFRESHER ON SOME OF THE PROCESS. 
          I KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU BEFORE, BUT AS WE KIND OF CULMINATE HERE IN THE FINAL PHASE, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA JUST TO DO, UM, A LITTLE REMINDER OF THE PROCESS AS JACKIE ALLUDED TO. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          I HAVE A CLICKER. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          UM, AND AS JACKIE MENTIONED, IN 2012, COUNCIL ESTABLISHED THE PROCESS TO REVIEW AUSTIN ENERGY'S BASE RATES. 
          AND I JUST TOOK A QUOTE FROM THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE, UH, WHERE THAT WAS CODIFIED. 
          AND IT REFERENCES THE HIRING OF AN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND ALSO AN IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER. 
          AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE, UH, AS I GO THROUGH THE SLIDES. 
          AND I THINK JUST, JUST TO, FOR YOUR AWARENESS, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME, SOME ACRONYMS THAT YOU'LL HEAR. 
          SO YOU'LL HEAR FOR INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, YOU WILL HEAR I C A AND FOR IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, YOU WILL HEAR, HEAR I H E. 
          AND SO, WE'LL, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO SAY THAT OUT AND, AND NOT SLIP INTO ACRONYMS. BUT IF YOU DO HEAR THAT, UH, THAT'S THE DISTINCTION. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THOSE TWO ROLES ARE CLEARLY IMPORTANT ROLES IN THIS PROCESS. 
          UM, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS SPECIFICALLY RETAINED BY THE CITY TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          AND THE REASON THIS IS DONE REALLY IS BECAUSE IT'S DONE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE MOST PART, IN INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY RATE MAKING PROCEEDINGS. 
          MANY, UH, STATES HAVE A SEPARATE AGENCY OR PERHAPS A DIVISION WITHIN, SAY, AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO REPRESENT THESE INTERESTS BECAUSE TYPICALLY THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY, UM, ORGANIZED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN BE REPRESENTED AS A WHOLE IN MANY RATE MAKING PROCEEDINGS. 
          AND THEN THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, OR THE I A E IS MODELED AFTER AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. 
          AND YOU MAY HEAR AN ACRONYM, ALJ, UH, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE REALLY MIXED UP ALL THE TERMS HERE, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S, IT'S VERY SIMILAR, UH, AT WHERE THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER IS. 
          SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES, DOES NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME, AND IS THERE TO SIT AS A JUDGE BETWEEN, UH, ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS, INCLUDING AUSTIN ENERGY, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, AND ALL OF THE OTHER PARTIES WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS. 
          AND HERE'S THE BUSY TIMELINE SLIDE. 
          WE HAVE SHOWED THIS TO YOU BEFORE, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE HEADING NOW TOWARD THE FINAL PART OF OUR TIMELINE. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE COMPLETED, UH, KIND OF THE GRAY, THE BLUE AND THE GOLD SECTIONS OF THIS. 
          SO A LOT OF EXTENSIVE OUTREACH PARTICIPATION BY THE PARTIES. 
          WE HAVE HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE, UH, DOCUMENTS FILED AS, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER NOTED. 
          AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVITY. 
          AND AS WE ARE HERE TOWARD THE END IN THE ORANGE SECTION, WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AS WELL ALL OF THE DIFFERENT MEETINGS THAT ARE COMING UP. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THAT REALLY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INTENSIVE PROCESS 
          [00:20:01]
FOR BOTH AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED, WE HAD MULTIPLE COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETINGS BEFORE WE HAD THE HEARING. 
          THOSE WERE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY AT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          AND THROUGH THE SPEAK UP AUSTIN.ORG WEBSITE, WE HAD OVER 600 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED. 
          AND AS PART OF THE FORMAL PROCESS, UH, THE PARTICIPANTS ARE LISTED THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THESE. 
          AND AGAIN, THE, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE OR ICA, IS JUST ONE AMONG MANY OF THE PARTIES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDING. 
          AND THEY ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS OF AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          WE CALLED THAT DISCOVERY, AND THEY, UH, SUBMITTED AND WE RESPONDED TO MORE THAN 500 QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR PROPOSAL AND PROVIDED ALL THE INFORMATION, UH, THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES. 
          WE ALSO HAD THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          IT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND IT LASTED OVER THREE DAYS AT AUSTIN ENERGY'S HEADQUARTERS. 
          AND AS I NOTED, UH, THIS WAS LED BY THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, AND AS I SAID EARLIER, HE IS AN EXPERT IN UTILITY RATE MAKING WITH NO SPECIFIC AFFILIATION TO AUSTIN ENERGY OR ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          AND IN FACT, HE HAS NOT SPOKEN, UH, SUBSTANTIVELY WITH ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING. 
          THE ONLY, UH, INTERACTION ON THE SUBSTANCE THAT THE PARTICIPANTS, INCLUDING AUSTIN ENERGY HAVE WITH THE IE, IS EITHER IN A PUBLIC MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE. 
          SO AT THIS THREE DAY HEARING, A VARIETY OF WITNESSES WERE, UH, MADE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONING. 
          AND THEN FOLLOWING THE HEARING, ALL OF THE PARTIES FILED A POST HEARING BRIEF OR KIND OF A SUMMARY OF THEIR POSITION FOR THE INDEPENDENT, THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER TO REVIEW. 
          AND THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH. 
          IT WAS 148 PAGES, AND IS A DETAILED SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF AUSTIN ENERGY AND ALL THE PARTICIPANTS' POSITIONS ON MORE THAN 40 DISCRETE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. 
          AND THAT, UH, MATERIAL, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS IN THE BINDER THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          AND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY INTENDED AS A STARTING POINT FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, AS JACKIE MENTIONED, UH, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL HAS REFINED THE PROCESS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND IN DETERMINING TO REACH OUT AND BRING IN THE THIRD PARTY IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, THAT ENABLES COUNCIL TO REALLY HAVE A PLACE WHERE IT CAN GO TO LOOK AT A, UH, INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL AS FROM THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS. 
          JUST A QUICK HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          UH, GENERALLY THE IA E AGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON THE MAJORITY OF OUR REVENUE REQUIREMENT REQUESTS. 
          HE DID NOTE THAT THE RATE DESIGN CHANGES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WAS SEEKING OR WELL ARTICULATED AND CONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN CITY RATE MAKING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES, HE OBSERVED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSES A REASONABLE STANDARDIZED APPROACH THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY MOVE ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES CLOSER TO THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          NOW, IN THAT, THOUGH, HE DID EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT RAY CHALK FOR SOME RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, BUT FINALLY NOTED THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AUSTIN ENERGY MUST RECOVER ITS REVENUE REQUIREMENT THROUGH ITS RATES. 
          AND HERE IS THE LINK TO THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER. 
          YOU CAN SEE THERE, AGAIN, EVERY DOCUMENT THAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, UH, IS INCLUDED HERE, INCLUDING OUR BASE RATE FILING PACKAGE, ALL OF THE PARTY'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY, THE BRIEFS, THE IE RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WHAT WE CALL EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, WHERE THOSE ARE WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE, UH, TAKEN ISSUE WITH SOME OF, OF THE THINGS THAT THE IE PROPOSED. 
          ALL OF THE VIDEOS OF THE HEARINGS ARE ARCHIVED ON ATX N FOR ANY ONE OF YOU OR THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THOSE. 
          AND AS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A SEPARATE WEBPAGE FOR OUR RATES. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. DOMBROSKI. 
          MORNING, MARK DEBROWSKI, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UM, THIS MORNING I'M GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THAT MORE ADDRESSES WHY, WHY DID WE MAKE THE PROPOSAL WE DID, UM, IN, IN THE DATA THAT, THAT WE LOOKED AT. 
          SO THE FIRST IS WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS THREE ISSUES. 
          AND THE FIRST IS, UH, THAT WE NEED AN INCREASE OF $35.7 MILLION IN REVENUE. 
          AND WHAT THIS DOES ALLOWS US TO RECOVER OUR ACTUAL COSTS THAT WE SPEND TO SERVE OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          IT ALSO IMPROVES THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE UTILITY. 
          AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH, UH, TWO CREDIT DOWNGRADES OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. 
          UM, THIS WILL START TO, UH, MOVE THE NEEDLE IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. 
          WE ALSO NEED TO CHANGE THE, THE BASE RATES STRUCTURE TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL CONCEPTION PATTERNS. 
          [00:25:01]
UM, OUR CURRENT BASE RATES ARE BASED UPON HOW CUSTOMERS USE ENERGY IN 2009. 
          IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT NOW IN 2021. 
          IN FACT, WE'RE SELLING 77% OF THE KWH UH, KILOWATT HOURS BELOW THE ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO IT'S HARD FOR US TO RECOVER OUR COST. 
          IT ALSO RECALIBRATES THE TIERS TO REFLECT OUR ACTUAL CONSUMPTION PATTERNS THAT WE'RE SEEING. 
          OUR THIRD GOAL IS TO MOVE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS CLOSER TO THEIR COST OF SERVICE. 
          UM, THIS IS PART OF THE ISSUE ABOUT THE RATE SHOCK. 
          UM, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE SEEING RATE SHOCK NOW IS WE DID IT TO OURSELVES. 
          WE DID IT TO OUR CUSTOMERS, UH, BOTH IN HOW WE SET RATES IN 12 AND WHAT WE DID IN 2016. 
          SO AS YOU MOVE YOUR CUSTOMERS CLOSER TO WHAT WE CALL UNITY OR, UH, CLOSER TO THE COST OF SERVICE, FUTURE RATE CHANGES WILL BE MORE EQUAL AMONG CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS. 
          AND FINALLY, IT REDUCES SUBSIDIES BETWEEN CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO, UH, AS A RESULT, WE HAVE OUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS THAT ARE PICKING UP MORE OF THEIR, OF THE COST THAN THEY, UM, ATTRIBUTE AND RESIDENTIAL LESS. 
          SO FIRST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'LL, YOU'LL, YOU'LL HEAR US USE, UH, AND AND HOW THAT COMES INTO PLAY. 
          SO, REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SO REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS THIS SIMPLY WHAT DOES IT COST US TO OPERATE THE UTILITY? AND THIS IS BASED UPON THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL COST. 
          IT'S NOT PROJECTED COSTS, IT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY SPENT AND INIT THIS CASE. 
          IT'S WHAT WE SPENT IN, UM, 2021. 
          WE'LL THEN TAKE THOSE COSTS AND THOSE BECOME THE AUSTIN ENERGY'S COST OF SERVICE. 
          WE TAKE THOSE COSTS AND THEN WE ALLOCATE THE AMONGST ALL THE CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS. 
          SO WE HAVE, UH, RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, OUR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BROKEN UP BY SECONDARY ONE, TWO, AND THREE, PRIMARY ONE AND TWO, UH, TRANSMISSION CUSTOMERS AND LIGHTING. 
          SO EACH OF THOSE THEN BECOME THAT CUSTOMER'S CLASS COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO YOU HEAR ME SAY A RESIDENTIAL COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO IT'S THOSE COST THAT WE'VE ALLOCATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          AND FINALLY, RATE DESIGN. 
          RATE DESIGN IS HOW WE CONSTRUCT TO COLLECT, UH, THOSE REVENUES FROM EACH CLASS OF CUSTOMER BASED UPON BILLING DETERMINANTS. 
          SO THIS IS KILOWATTS KILOWATT HOURS OR THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS OR THE THREE MAIN WAYS THAT, UH, BILLING DETERMINANTS. 
          AND IF YOU MULTIPLY ALL THAT TIMES THOSE RATES, WE SHOULD GET THE TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR THE UTILITY. 
          WE ALSO HAVE SOME CONFUSION ON, UM, YEARS. 
          AND SO TO KIND OF CLARIFY, UH, ALL OF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE FISCAL YEAR. 
          SO THIS IS, UH, FROM OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THE YEAR IN WHICH, UH, THE TITLE IS. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, UH, OUR COSTS ARE BASED UPON FISCAL YEAR 2021. 
          SO THAT'S SEPTEMBER, OR EXCUSE ME, OCTOBER 1ST, 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2021. 
          DANIEL HEARS TALK ABOUT THE TEST YEAR AND ALL THE TEST YEAR IS IT'S THAT FISCAL YEAR. 
          UM, AND THEN WE MAKE KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES. 
          SO IF WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE AN EXPENSE IN FUTURE YEARS, WE'LL TAKE IT OUT OF THE FISCAL NUMBERS IF WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EXPENSE AND WE'LL ADD IT IN THERE, THAT BECOMES OUR KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES. 
          AND FINALLY, THE BASE RATE REVIEW, THAT'S THE YEAR IN WHICH WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING THE REVIEW. 
          SO THIS CASE, IT'S 2022. 
          WE DID A BASE RATE REVIEW IN 2012, BUT 2009 WAS THE TEST YEAR, UH, JUST TO GIVE AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          AND FINALLY THE EFFECTIVE YEAR, THAT'S THE YEAR IN WHICH THE RATES ACTUALLY CHANGE. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, WE'RE, UH, FORECASTING TO CHANGE THOSE IN 2023. 
          AS JACKIE POINTED OUT, UH, WE DON'T CHANGE BASE RATES THAT OFTEN. 
          IN FACT, FOR 20 YEARS, WE DIDN'T CHANGE THEM AT ALL. 
          AND THE REASON WHY WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT WAS GENERALLY LOAD GROWTH OR MORE CONSUMPTION ALLOWED US TO RECOVER OUR INCREASING COSTS. 
          SO AS YOU ADD MORE CUSTOMERS, YOU ADD MORE LOATH LOAD AND THAT INCREASES THE REVENUE AND ALLOWS US TO COVER OUR COST. 
          IN 2000 AND UH, 13, WE DID, UH, INCREASE BASE RATES BY ABOUT 6.4%. 
          UM, AND THEN ABOUT FIVE YEARS LATER, WE HAD ANOTHER RATE CASE AND WE REDUCED THEM 6.7% OR THE 42 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. 
          AND SO THIS YEAR, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A BASE RATE INCREASE OF ABOUT 5.6. 
          SO IT'S LESS THAN WHAT WE REDUCED BY LAST TIME. 
          AND WHAT ARE BASE RATES? SO BASE RATES ARE USED TO RECOVER OUR FIXED COST. 
          IT IS NOT THE COST OF ELECTRICITY. 
          SO BASE RATES FOR THINGS LIKE OUR SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT TREE TRIMMING, OUR DEBT SERVICE EMPLOYEES TECHNOLOGY DRONE FUND TRANSFER, WE CALL THEM FIXED. 
          NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T CHANGE, BUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T CHANGE BASED UPON HOW MUCH KILOWATT HOURS THAT CUSTOMERS USE. 
          THAT'S NOT THE DRIVER, THAT'S THE DRIVER OF THE ELECTRICITY AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IN BASE RATES OR POWER SUPPLY COSTS, A CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, STREET LIGHTS, TRANSMISSION TYPE, UH, COST. 
          THOSE ARE 
          [00:30:01]
ALL COLLECTED IN OTHER TYPES OF RATES THAT WE ASSESS OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          AND A GOOD EXAMPLE I LIKE TO USE THAT, UH, MOST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH IS, UH, AN AUTOMOBILE. 
          SO MOST PEOPLE BUY AN AUTOMOBILE THAT'LL GO OUT AND THEY'LL BORROW THE MONEY FROM A BANK. 
          UM, AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL TAKE THAT OUT FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEY'LL PAY A FIXED AMOUNT EACH MONTH FOR THAT CAR. 
          AND AS THEY DRIVE THAT CAR, THEY HAVE TO PUT FUEL IN IT. 
          UM, AND THEY MIGHT DECIDE TO BE MORE EFFICIENT OR CONSERVE. 
          AND SO THEY MIGHT TAKE THE BUS TO WORK RATHER THAN DRIVE. 
          SO THEY, THEY DRIVE FEWER MILES. 
          AND IN THAT CASE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME CAR COST, THE SAME CAR PAYMENT, BUT THEY'D HAVE A, A LOWER FUEL BILL. 
          YOU WOULDN'T CALL YOUR CAR A LOAN COMPANY AND SAY, I ONLY DROVE HALF AS MANY MILES THIS MONTH, SO I'M JUST GONNA SEND YOU HALF MY CAR PAYMENT. 
          BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO WITH BASE RATES. 
          SO BASE RATES RECOVER THOSE FIXED COSTS. 
          THINK OF ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE POLES, THE TRANSFORMERS, THE WIRES, THE EMPLOYEES, THE TRUCKS. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOVERING. 
          UM, AND IF YOU WERE TO ADJUST YOUR THERMOSTAT TO CONSUME FEWER K H, UH, YOU WOULD GET A LOWER BILL, YOU'D GET A LOWER POWER SUPPLY COST, CUZ THAT'S THE VARIABLE PIECE, OUR SAME BASE RATE COST, BUT THE LOWER POWER SUPPLY COSTS. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ANALOGY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND ON A CUSTOMER'S BILL, UM, WE RECOVER A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF COST. 
          AND SO THIS, UH, IS CALLED A WATERFALL CHART AND SORT OF SHOWS YOU IN PROPORTION WHAT WE RECOVER IN A TYPICAL INSIDE CITY OF AUSTIN NON CAP RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER THAT USES 860 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          SO THIS IS USING THE, THE RATES AS EFFECTIVE AS OF TODAY. 
          AS YOU KNOW, THE PSA THAT WE ADOPTED BECAME EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1ST. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE ABOUT, UM, 80% OF THAT BILL IS REALLY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROVISIONAL ELECTRICITY. 
          SO, UM, UH, THE, THE BAR ON THE FAR LEFT, THE, THE, THE BLACK BAR THERE, UH, ABOUT 30% IS FOR THOSE FIXED COSTS. 
          THE ON AND M, THE DEBT SERVICE LABOR VEHICLES, UM, ABOUT 38% IS THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT. 
          THAT'S THE COST OF THE ACTUAL ELECTRICITY THAT THE CUSTOMERS USE. 
          AND ABOUT 13% IS TRANSMISSION. 
          THAT'S THE COST IT TAKES TO GET THE ELECTRICITY FROM WHERE IT'S GENERATED TO THE CUSTOMERS. 
          UM, OR TO AUSTIN ENERGY LOAD ZONE. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE JOB FUND TRANSFER IN DIRECT SUPPORT, UH, CAP, STREET LIGHTS, ENERGY EFFICIENCY PIECE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOP. 
          YOU ADD ALL THOSE TOGETHER, IT'S ABOUT $99 AND 86 CENTS FOR A TYPICAL CUSTOMER IN RECOVERING THOSE FIXED COSTS AT A VARIABLE ENERGY RATE OR THAT KILOWATT HOURS IS OUR CHALLENGE. 
          UM, IF YOU GO BACK TO 2014, WHICH WAS OUR LAST TEST YEAR, SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE INCREASED CUSTOMERS BY 18%. 
          UM, THAT'S A LOT OF CUSTOMERS ADD A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, RELIABILITY TO ENSURE, WELL, AT THE SAME TIME OUR SALES OF KILOWATT HOURS, HOW WE RECOVER THOSE COSTS HAS ONLY INCREASED BY 4%. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A REAL DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE COST YOU'RE TRYING TO RECOVER AND WHAT WE'RE RECOVERING IT IN. 
          AND THE, THE YELLOW LINE THERE, THAT'S THE, THE ACTUAL REVENUES, UH, EACH YEAR. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WEATHER PLAYS A BIG, UM, UH, PART OF, OF HOW MUCH REVENUE WE COLLECT. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE IN OUR QUARTERLY UPDATE, UH, THAT YOU'LL SEE IN NOVEMBER, 2022 WAS A VERY HOT YEAR. 
          AND SO OUR CUSTOMERS USED A LOT OF ENERGY TO COOL THEIR HOMES. 
          THEY REALLY OVERPAID THIS YEAR, UH, BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A FIXED RATE TIMES OF VARIABLE KILOWATT HOUR. 
          SO WE EARNED ABOUT 40 MILLION MORE, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT HOT WEATHER. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE 40 MILLION MORE OF EXPENSES BECAUSE OF IT, BUT WE COLLECTED IT. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE OUR MILLION REALLY MILD YEAR, LIKE YOU SAW BACK IN, UM, SOME OF THESE PRIOR YEARS. 
          THEN WE UNDER COLLECT AND THAT'S THE RESULT OF COLLECTING A FIXED COST AND A VARIABLE RATE. 
          SO WHY DO WE NEED $35.7 MILLION? A COUPLE REASONS WHY. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A MASTER BOND ORDINANCE. 
          AND THAT'S GOVERNS THAT. 
          WE GO OUT AND WE, WE BORROW MONEY, UH, FROM INVESTORS THAT GIVE US THAT MONEY AND WE MAKE CERTAIN PLEDGES TO THEM, UM, THAT WE WILL ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY BACK THOSE BONDS. 
          AND THEY'VE, UH, HAVE IN THERE A SPECIFIC FORMULA CALLED THE THE NET REVENUES FORMULA. 
          AND HERE I'VE DEMONSTRATED IT FOR YOU. 
          AND SO IT SAYS, EVERY YEAR THEN IN WHICH YOU HAVE YOUR AUDITED, UH, RESULTS, YOU'LL, YOU'LL MEASURE YOUR NET REVENUES. 
          AND IF IT'S NOT ENOUGH, UH, TO, TO COVER, IF IT'S NOT POSITIVE, THEN YOU WILL ADDRESS, UH, YOUR RIGHTS CHARGES AND FEES AND YOU'LL ADJUST THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS POSITIVE NET REVENUE. 
          SO LOOKING BACK IN 2021, YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THE COLUMN ON THE LEFT, UH, THE FORMULA, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAD A FUND BALANCE OF $383.8 MILLION. 
          THAT'S OUR CASH AND RESERVES. 
          UM, AND YOU'LL SEE 
          [00:35:01]
THAT THE NET REVENUES WAS 257 MILLION. 
          SO WHAT THAT TELLS YOU IS IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FUND BALANCE, THE AMOUNT OF CASH WE HANDED IN A BANK, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THIS TEST. 
          AND SO IF YOU REMOVE THAT FUND BALANCE, WE WOULD BE, UM, NEGATIVE BY $126 MILLION. 
          AND I'VE BEEN REPORTING TO YOU EACH, EACH QUARTER, UM, OUR CASH HAS BEEN BEING DEPLETED. 
          SO THAT FUND BALANCE IS GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER. 
          UH, WE DON'T YET HAVE AUDITED RESULTS FOR 2022. 
          UH, BUT GIVEN WHERE I SEE THE CASH BALANCES, I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE A MUCH CLOSER MARGIN IN 22. 
          SO AT SOME POINT WE ARE REQUIRED TO JUST RATES, UH, AS A PLEDGE TO OUR BOND HOLDERS. 
          THE NEXT IS OUR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, UH, EACH QUARTER WE REPORT TO YOU OUR, OUR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE. 
          UM, AND HERE IS A, UM, A TREND, UH, FOR YEAR END FOR 19 20 21 AND 22. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WE HAVE NOT HIT AT LEAST FOUR OF THOSE, UM, UH, UH, METRICS, UH, SINCE SINCE 2019. 
          UM, AND, UH, THE REASONS WHY WE HAVE THESE FINANCIAL POLICIES THAT IT PROVIDES US A BASIS FOR, FOR GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE UTILITY. 
          SO YOU DON'T JUST CHANGE YOUR METRICS, UH, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THEM. 
          THE IDEA IS YOU CHANGE YOUR PRACTICES TO COMPLY WITH THE METRICS. 
          UM, AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, IN 2022, THE POINT I I MADE EARLIER, WHICH WAS WE HAD A REALLY HOT SUMMER. 
          SO WE SAW, UH, WE HAD FORECAST A NEGATIVE 4% OPERATING MARGIN AND WE CAME UP WITH A 2% POSITIVE MARGIN, WELL BELOW OUR TARGET OF 10%. 
          UH, BUT IT WAS POSITIVE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE HOT SUMMER, BUT WE STILL HAD A BUDGET DEFICIT OF $3 MILLION. 
          SO CURRENT REVENUES DID NOT COVER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES. 
          THAT'SS, CUZ WE NEED MORE REVENUE TO COVER OUR COST. 
          ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS WHAT DO OUR CUSTOMERS SEE OVER THE YEARS? AND SO, UH, THIS CHART SHOWS YOU WHAT A, UM, WHAT A TYPICAL CUSTOMER HAS PAID SINCE 2012. 
          THOSE ARE THE, THE ORANGE BARS THERE, AND WE MATCHED THAT WITH INFLATION. 
          SO HOW MUCH IN DID INFLATION CHANGE THOSE, THOSE, UH, COSTS FOR US? AND YOU CAN SEE THAT STAYED WELL BELOW THE LINE OF INFLATION. 
          AND IN FACT, UM, CUSTOMER BILLS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN GOING DOWN OVER THE YEARS. 
          AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS, WHAT'S TERMED RATE SHOCK IS BECAUSE RATES ARE SO LOW RELATIVE TO THOSE INFLATIONARY COSTS THAT, UH, WE NEED TO RECOVER. 
          UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WHY UM, RATES NEED TO GO UP TO 5.6%. 
          AND BECAUSE, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS BELOW THEIR COST OF SERVICE, IT NEEDS TO GO EVEN MORE. 
          AND THAT DESCRIBES THE RATE SHOCK THAT WE'RE SEEING. 
          SO SOME OF THE, UM, UH, PREVAILING THOUGHTS OR ASSUMPTIONS THAT, THAT WE'RE HEARING IS THAT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE PENALIZING FOLKS WHO CAN CONSERVE ENERGY OR PENALIZING ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 
          UH, SO WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS. 
          AND THE, THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE DATA IS FIRST IS, UM, ALL HOMES ARE BECOMING MORE, UH, ENERGY EFFICIENT AND, UH, OVER THE YEARS, AND SO THIS CHART IS FROM THE EIA OR THE ENERGY INFORMATION, UM, ADMINISTRATION. 
          AND SINCE THE 1980S, UH, ON AVERAGE ALL HOMES CONSUME LESS ELECTRICITY. 
          UM, THAT'S A TREND WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND IT'S FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. 
          UM, IMPROVEMENT IN IN BUILDING INSULATION AND MATERIALS, UH, IMPROVEMENTS IN EFFICIENCIES LIKE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT, WATER HEATERS, REFRIGERATORS, LIGHTING AND APPLIANCES. 
          THINK BACK IN THE 1980S, EVERYONE HAD INCANDESCENT BULBS, USED A LOT OF ENERGY WITH RESISTANT HEAT. 
          NOW MOST HOMES ALL COME WITH L LED LIGHTING. 
          UM, THE CODES THAT YOU PASS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT MAKES HOMES MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WHEN THEY'RE BUILT. 
          SO AS A RESULT, WE'RE SEEING THIS DECREASE IN CONSUMPTION ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT HAVING TO DO WITH RATES OR TIERED RATES, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE BUILD HOMES. 
          AND IN FACT, WE SEE THAT EXACT SAME TREND HAPPENING, RIGHT, RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          UM, THIS CHART SHOWS, UH, TWO VIEWS. 
          UM, SO THE, THE ONE ON THE LEFT WITH THE YELLOW BARS, THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS MULTI-FAMILY HOMES. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE IF YOUR HOME WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 2012, YOU USE ABOUT 1100 KILOWATT HOURS PER MONTH. 
          AND THAT STAYED PRETTY CONSTANT THROUGH 2014. 
          AND THEN WE STARTED SEEING A DRAMATIC DECREASE IN CONSUMPTION. 
          IN FACT, HOMES BUILT A STAR TAKING SERVICE IN 2020, USED HALF AS MUCH ENERGY AS THE ONES BUILT PRIOR TO 2012. 
          AND IF YOU LIVE IN A MULTIFAMILY HOME, YOU USE HALF AS MUCH ANY OF THAT. 
          WE'RE SEEING THE SAME TREND IN THOSE IF YOU LIVE IN A MULTIFAMILY HOME. 
          BUILT TO, PRIOR TO 2012, HE USED ABOUT 654 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          A BRAND NEW CONDO OR TOWN TOWNHOUSE 
          [00:40:01]
TODAY USES ABOUT 336 KILOWATT HOURS PER ABOUT HALF AS THAT. 
          SO RESIDENTIAL USES MORE THAN MULTI-FAMILY, BUT THEY'RE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT. 
          AND MULTI-FAMILY USES ABOUT HALF AS MUCH AS RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US IS YOU'VE DRIVEN AROUND AUSTIN AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING BUILT ARE MULTIFAMILY HOMES. 
          IN FACT, I THINK WE'RE JUST ABOUT 50 50 NOW. 
          UH, AND THE PERMITS WE'RE SEEING ISSUED ARE MUCH MORE TOWARDS MULTIFAMILY HOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MOVING INTO. 
          AND THE WAY WE'RE PICKING, PICKING THAT UP IS IN THE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS OF OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO THIS DRAFT SHOWS, UH, RESIDENTIAL SUMMER CONSUMPTION, UH, THE ORANGE BARS ARE WHAT WE SAW IN 2009. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT WE BASED OUR CURRENT TIER STRUCTURE ON. 
          AND THE GOLD BARS ARE WHAT WE SAW IN 2021. 
          UM, AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE SHOWING YOU SUMMER IS THAT'S, WE, WE CALLED SUMMER PEAKING. 
          WE USED MOST OF OUR ENERGY IN THE SUMMER BECAUSE IT'S REALLY FOR COOLING, AND THAT'S THE ONE WE USE MOST OF OUR LOAD. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT, UM, THOSE GOLD BARS GREATLY INCREASED, UM, IN TIERS ONE AND TWO. 
          IN FACT, UM, THE TOP OF TIER THREE IS 15,000. 
          AND SO WE SAW A 78% INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION IN THOSE LOWER TIERS VERSUS A 12% DECREASE IN THE UPPER TIERS. 
          AND BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEEPLY TIERED RATE, WE EXPECT TO RECOVER MORE. 
          AND THERE'S HIGHER TIERS WITH CONSUMPTION THAN LOWER TIERS. 
          THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE, THE SUBSIDY THAT'S OCCURRING. 
          BUT IT CAN'T OCCUR IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH GROWTH IN THE FIRST TIER AND NOT IN THE UPPER TIERS. 
          THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE'RE NOT RECOVERING ENOUGH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE IS, WELL, WE HAVE, UH, THESE TIERED RATES AND IT'S INTENDED TO SEND A PRICE SIGNAL TO OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          SO WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT THAT AND SAYING, WELL, HOW DO CUSTOMERS REACT TO THESE PRICE TIERS? AND SO, UM, IN THEORY, AND IT'S, IT'S A SOLID THEORY. 
          IT SAYS THAT IF, UM, WHEN A CUSTOMER GETS, UH, TO A CERTAIN POINT AND IT IT COSTS THEM MORE, THEY WILL, UH, UM, REDUCE THEIR CONSUMPTION. 
          AND SO, UM, THIS IS, UM, A HYPOTHETICAL, UH, THAT WOULD SHOW YOU THAT IF, UM, IF A CUSTOMER WAS RESPONDING TO A PRICE TIER, THEY WOULD GET UP TO THE, TO THE TOP OF ONE TIER, LIKE TIER ONE OR TIER TWO, THEN I'D SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANNA GO IN INTO THE NEXT TIER, SO I'M, UH, CONSERVE OR, OR USE LESS. 
          AND SO YOU'D SEE THEM BUNCH AT THE TOP OF THAT TIER, AND THEN THE NEXT TIER WOULD DROP DOWN AND THEN THOSE CUSTOMERS WOULD BUNCH UP UNTIL THE NEXT TO THE TOP OF THE TIER. 
          THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE OF CUSTOMERS RESPONDING TO THESE, UM, PRICE SIGNALS OR THE, THE TIERED PRICING. 
          WHEN WE ACTUALLY LOOK AT OUR CUSTOMERS AND HOW THEY RESPOND TO 'EM, IT'S, THEY DON'T, THEY SMOOTHLY CROSS OVER THESE TIERS INDICATING THEY ARE NOT RESPONDING TO THESE, THESE PRICE SIGNALS. 
          IT'S FOR A MULTIPLE OF REASONS. 
          ONE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT TIER YOU'RE ON, WHAT TIER YOU'RE IN, UM, AND IT MAY HAPPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, UM, WHEN YOU'RE SLEEPING. 
          UM, AND IT'S, UM, UM, THE DIFFERENCE IS JUST NOT ENOUGH FOR CUSTOMERS TO, TO REACT TO. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFICULT CONCEPT IN IN, IN USING ELECTRIC INDUSTRY. 
          TIERED PRICING REALLY FIRST CAME, UM, IN FASHION IN CALIFORNIA, AND IN FACT THEY'VE GONE AWAY FROM IT, UM, BASED UPON SOME OF THE SAME REASONS THAT THAT, THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. 
          SO CUSTOMERS DO NOT REACT TO THE PRICE TIERS. 
          WE DO THINK THEY REACT TO, UM, HIGHER BILLS OVER TIME. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A HIGHER BILL OVER A LONG PERIOD, THEY MIGHT, UH, INSTALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES, BUT THEY DON'T CONSERVE AS A RESULT OF PRICE SIGNALS. 
          AND WE HAVE A NICE, UM, COMPARISON THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, RIGHT, RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN, AS YOU KNOW, UH, BACK IN 2012 WHEN WE SET RATES, CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAVE THREE TIERS SET AT DIFFERENT INTERVALS. 
          AND CUSTOMERS INSIDE THE CITY HAVE FIVE TIERS. 
          UM, AND SO WE, WE LOOKED AT THAT, WE SAID, WELL, UM, HOW DID THEY CHANGE THEIR ENERGY CONSUMPTION OR, OR HOW MUCH ENERGY THEY, THEY USED OVER TIME? AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS, UH, THIS IS CALLED AN INDEX. 
          UH, WE, WE, WELL, IN 2012, IT MEASURED HOW MUCH THEY CHANGED INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS, AND IT'S NEARLY IDENTICAL. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE THINGS THAT ARE CAUSING A REDUCTION IN ENERGY, UM, USE ARE OCCURRING RE ARE OCCURRING REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF TIERS. 
          AND AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE REASONS WHY WE'RE SEEING THESE REDUCTIONS, UM, LIGHTING, UH, MORE EFFICIENT, UH, HVAC UNITS, UH, MORE EFFICIENT APPLIANCES, UM, ALL THOSE REASONS ARE WHAT'S DRIVING THIS. 
          IT'S NOT THE TIERS. 
          ANOTHER POINT WE OFTEN HEAR IS, WELL, UM, THE, THE TIERS ARE IMPORTANT TO, UH, PROTECT LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO, UM, WE, WE LOOKED 
          [00:45:01]
AT THAT AND WE, WE TRIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT, THAT THAT WAS IN FACT TRUE. 
          UM, WE DON'T COLLECT, UH, INCOME DATA IN OUR, ON OUR CUSTOMERS, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH IS INCOME BASED. 
          SO IN ORDER TO BE ON THE, GENERALLY ON ON THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, YOU HAVE TO BE 200% OR LESS OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. 
          SO FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, THAT'S $55,500. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE CAP CUSTOMERS AS A PROXY, WE LOOKED AT IT AND WE SAID, WELL, WHERE DO THEY FALL IN TERMS OF, UM, THEIR, THEIR ENERGY USAGE? AND WE FIND OUT WAS THOSE GRAY BARS ARE THE CUSTOMERS ON THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND THEIR ENERGY USE TENDS TO BE IN TIERS TWO AND THREE AND FOUR, UH, AS A PERCENTAGE. 
          THEY'RE TAKING MORE OF THEIR ENERGY IN THOSE TIERS. 
          UH, FOR NON CAP CUSTOMERS. 
          UM, THOSE ORANGE BARS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE TAKING THE PREPONDERANCE OF THEIR ENERGY IN TIER ONE AND TWO. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU DRIVE AROUND OFTEN THIS KIND OF MAKES SENSE, UH, THINK OF ALL THE NEW CONDOS AND THE APARTMENTS WE'VE HAD IN DOWNTOWN, THE RAINY STREET AREA, UH, THE, THE THE MILLER NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THOSE ARE VERY EFFICIENT TYPE UNITS AND THAT'S WHERE, UM, UM, A LOT OF THE FOLKS ARE MOVING IN AND THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE UNITS, SO IT TAKES A HIGHER INCOME TO BUY ONE. 
          UM, AND SO WE TESTED THIS THEORY IN REAL LIFE AND WE GRABBED TWO ZIP CODES, UH, 7 0 1, WHICH IS OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, AND, UH, 7 24, WHICH IS UP IN THE, UH, NORTH EAST. 
          AND SO THESE TWO ZIP CODES, UH, LOOK VERY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS, UM, THE HOUSING VALUES, UH, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND NORTHEAST. 
          SO THAT, UH, 7 24 IS ABOUT ONE THIRD OF THE HOUSING VALUE. 
          UM, THEY'RE MEDIAN INCOME, UM, 7 24, ABOUT 40% OF THE INCOME LEVEL OF DOWNTOWN 122 VERSUS 50,000. 
          REMEMBER I TOLD YOU THAT 55,500 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR IS 200% OF FPL. 
          SO BASED UPON THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS. 
          IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT WE SEE 0.2% OF THE CUSTOMERS DOWNTOWN ARE ON THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          ALMOST 22% OF THE CUSTOMERS IN 7 24 ARE ON OUR, ON OUR CAP PROGRAM. 
          SO WE CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT'S A, UH, LOWER INCOME LEVEL. 
          BUT IF YOU GO DOWN, LOOK AT THEIR BILLS IN DOWNTOWN, THEIR AVERAGE BILL IS $66. 
          AND AT 7 24, EVEN WITH 22% OF THOSE CUSTOMERS ON CAP, THEIR AVERAGE BILL IS $102 OR ABOUT 155% HIGHER. 
          SO JUST LIKE YOU CAN GET ZIP CODES THAT TELL YOU THAT A LOWER INCOME ZIP CODE IS PAYING HIGHER BILLS THAN 7 0 1, WHICH WOULD BE A FAIRLY AFFLUENT ZIP CODE IN AUSTIN. 
          THE OTHER THING WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT WE'VE HEARD IS, WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE TIERED PRICING TO GENERATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 
          AND THE CUSTOMER CHARGE RELATIVE TO THE TIERED PRICING WOULD, WOULD SKEW THOSE. 
          AND SO WE LOOKED AT SOME UTILITIES AND, UH, THESE WERE, UM, UTILITIES IN CENTRAL TEXAS AS AS WELL AS LUBBOCK, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF OUR COT AND SOME MUNICIPAL UTILITY. 
          AND FROM 2013 AND 20, THE CHART ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION IN ALL OF THOSE UTILITIES. 
          IN FACT, THE ONLY UTILITY THAT HAS TIERED RATES IS, IS AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UM, CPS DOES HAVE AN ADDER DURING THE SUMMER, AND SO I GUESS YOU COULD MAYBE CONSIDER THAT A TIER. 
          SO IF YOU USE MORE THAN 600 KILOWATT HOURS THAT THEY HAVE AN ADDER ON YOUR BILL, UH, IN THE SUMMERTIME. 
          UM, BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT, UM, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT ENERGY REDUCTIONS ACROSS THE BOARD REGARDLESS OF TIER STRUCTURES AND REGARDLESS OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH, WITH THE, HOW THE RATES ARE SET RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION THAT EACH UTILITY SEES. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE MORE OF YOUR, YOUR SALES IN THE LOWER TIERS AND YOU AGGREGATE MORE CUSTOMERS LOWER TIERS, YOU RECOVER LESS REVENUE. 
          THIS KIND OF PUTS ALL THIS TOGETHER IN PERSPECTIVE. 
          AND SO, UH, WHAT THIS CHART IS SHOWING YOU HERE IS, UH, THE YELLOW BARS IS WHERE WE HAD CONSUMPTION IN 2009 WHEN WE CREATED THESE, THESE RATE DESIGNS. 
          AND THE GRAY PORTION IS WHAT WE'VE ADDED, UH, THROUGH 2021. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE HAD A, UM, A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, 27% IN TIER ONE OF SALES, AND TIER TWO IS ABOUT 11%. 
          AND YOU ADD THAT TOGETHER, THAT'S A 21% INCREASE IN TIERS ONE AND TWO, AND THAT'S THE 77% THAT'S BELOW THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT TIERS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, UM, WE ACTUALLY SAW A REDUCTION IN THOSE TIERS. 
          SO, UH, OVERALL, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UM, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THERE. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A FIXED RATE, MULTIPLY THE K H IN EACH TIER, UH, THIS CAUSES US TO UNDERCOVER OUR REVENUES. 
          THE OTHER THING WE'VE HEARD IS, UM, WELL YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, 
          [00:50:01]
YOU'RE PENALIZING THESE CUSTOMERS WHO'S CONSERVING I'VE CONSERVED. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU SEE THIS GROWTH IN TIER ONE AND TWO. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS, UM, IT IS THE GROWTH OF NEW CUSTOMERS AND NOT THE MIGRATION OF CUSTOMERS THAT'S CAUSING THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THESE LOWER TIERS. 
          AND SO WE TOOK ALL THE CUSTOMERS THAT FIRST STARTED TAKING SERVICE BETWEEN, UH, 2013 AND 2020 AND WE SAID, WHAT'S IN THEIR BILLS? WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF USAGE WE'RE SEEING FROM THOSE CUSTOMERS? AND IN HERE, OUT OF ALL THOSE CUSTOMERS, 38% OF THEM STAY WITHIN THEIR SALES STAY WITHIN TIER ONE AND 39% STAY WITHIN TIER TWO. 
          SO THAT'S AS HIGH AS THEY'RE GOING INTO TIER STRUCTURE. 
          SO THAT BIG GROWTH WE'RE SEEING IN THE FIRST TWO TIERS, THAT'S FROM NEW CUSTOMERS, NOT EXISTING CUSTOMERS CONSERVING AND MIGRATING DOWN, ALTHOUGH THAT CAN HAPPEN AND IT DOES HAPPEN. 
          BUT THE PHENOMENON WE'RE SEEING IS NEW CUSTOMERS COMING IN. 
          AND THE REASON WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS WE OFTEN HEAR PEOPLE SAY GROWTH SHOULD PAY FOR GROWTH. 
          WELL, IF YOU HAVE A NEW CUSTOMER COMING ONLINE AND THEY'RE ONLY PAYING HALF OF THEIR COST OF SERVICE, THEY'RE NOT PAIRING THEIR SHARE OF GROWTH, WE'RE PUTTING THAT EITHER ON OTHER CUSTOMERS ON THE SYSTEM OR ON OUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          THE OTHER ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE THAT I, I POINTED OUT WAS TRYING TO MOVE OUR CUSTOMERS CLOSER TO THEIR COST OF SERVICE. 
          AND WHAT THIS GRAPH SHOWS YOU, UH, IS THAT BLACK BAR, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY AS A WHOLE, OUR COST OF SERVICE, WE ARE $35.7 MILLION BELOW OUR COST OF SERVICE. 
          THAT'S HOW MUCH MORE REVENUE WE NEED TO RECOVER OUR COSTS BASED UPON THE TEST YEAR 2021. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE IF WE ADD THAT 35.7, THEN WE GET TO ZERO. 
          UM, FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL, UH, COST OF SERVICE FOR THAT CLASS, THERE ARE CURRENTLY ABOUT 70.2 MILLION UNDER THEIR COST OF SERVICE. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THROUGH CHANGING RATES AND THROUGH, UH, THE COST ALLOCATIONS IS TO MOVE THEM A LITTLE BIT CLOSER ABOUT, UM, UH, ABOUT HALF PERCENT, 50% TO THEIR COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE ABOUT $24 MILLION BELOW COST OF SERVICE STILL BEING SUBSIDIZED. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S ABOUT A HALF STEP GETTING TO WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. 
          UM, AND THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE HEARING THAT THE RATE SHOCK, UM, AND I WANNA PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE DID LAST IN 2016. 
          AND SO WE REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH ALL THE INTERVENERS AND PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT WAS WITH THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, THE SAME ONE WE HAVE THIS TIME. 
          AND HIS REQUIREMENT WAS, WAS WE TAKE $5 MILLION AND WE APPLY IT TO THE FIRST TIER. 
          THAT WAS HIS RE HIS, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR US TO SETTLE. 
          UM, SO WE DID THAT IN ORDER TO GET A SETTLEMENT. 
          SO WE PUT $5 MILLION INTO THAT FIRST TIER AND THAT REALLY DROVE DOWN THAT PRICE. 
          AND THEN WE GOT THE CITY COUNCIL AND WE BROUGHT THAT SETTLEMENT BEFORE YOU. 
          UM, AND UH, WE, WE SHOWED YOU HOW THE BILLS LAID OUT AND WE STILL HAD A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER THAT WAS DOWNTOWN, AND WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CUSTOMER RECEIVED A DISCOUNT OR A REDUCTION IN BILL. 
          SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO PUT ALMOST ANOTHER $4 MILLION IN THE FIRST TIER TO BRING THAT CUSTOMER BELOW THE COST, UH, BELOW THAT, THAT LINE. 
          AND SO AS A RESULT, THAT RESULTED IN A 2.80 CENT PER KILOWATT HOUR. 
          IN THE TIER ONE. 
          AS I'VE SHOWED YOU EARLIER, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GROWTH IN CUSTOMERS IN TWO POINT IN THAT, IN THAT TIER, AND THEY'RE BUYING THAT ENERGY AT 2.80 CENTS AND A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION FROM THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS ORANGE BAR SO LOW ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, WHAT WE CALL SECONDARY TWO AND SECONDARY THREE, THESE ARE RETAIL STORES. 
          THEY'RE RESTAURANTS, UH, MID-SIZE, UM, UH, STRIP MALL TYPE STORES, UH, UH, SMALL BUSINESS OFFICES, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING ABOVE THEIR COST OF SERVICE, UM, AND IN, IN TOTAL ABOUT 42 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO BRING THEM DOWN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE GETTING A REDUCED, UH, A BILL. 
          AND SOME FOLKS HAVE POINTED US BEING UNFAIR. 
          WHY ARE WE GETTING INCREASED? BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING A DECREASE. 
          WELL, THIS IS THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THEY'RE SO FAR FROM THE COST OF SERVICE AND WE'LL NEVER MAKE PROGRESS ON GETTING FOLKS CLOSER TO THEIR COST OF SERVICE. 
          WE DON'T TAKE THIS STEP. 
          AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU IS THAT LOOK AT THE REST OF THOSE, UH, CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS, PRIMARIES, 1, 2, 3, TRANSMISSION CUSTOMERS. 
          THEY'RE BARELY MOVING AT ALL. 
          AND THE REASON WHY THEY'RE BARELY MOVING AT ALL IS WE MOVE THEM CLOSER, THEIR COST OF SERVICE BACK IN 2012 AND 2016. 
          SO AS A RESULT, UM, THEY'RE ALL GETTING, UM, UH, VERY SMALL ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          THEY'RE MUCH CLOSER TO THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          IF WE CAN GET RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS, UH, THOSE S TWO S AND S THREES CLOSER TO THAT, WHAT WE CALL UNITY OR ZERO, THEY TOO WOULD ALSO SEE LESS CHANGE WHEN WE ADJUST RATES. 
          SO HOW DOES THIS ALL COME TOGETHER? 
          [00:55:01]
THE ORANGE, UH, BOX ON THE TOP HERE, THAT'S OUR CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE. 
          WE HAVE FIVE TIERS INSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, THAT'S FROM 2.80 CENTS UP TO 10.80 CENTS. 
          AND, UM, FOR OUR, OUR TEST YEAR, AND AGAIN, IT'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE CALL WEATHER NORMALIZED. 
          SO WE ASSUME THAT THE WEATHER IS NORMAL AND THAT'S BASED UPON A 20 YEAR HISTORY. 
          UH, AND SO WHEN WE RATHER NORMALIZE IT, THAT PUTS ALMOST 80% OF THE SALES IN TIER ONE AND TWO. 
          UM, THE WEATHER CHANGES HOW WE COLLECT THE ACTUAL REVENUE FROM CUSTOMERS, BUT FOR THE TEST YEAR, THAT'S ALMOST 80%. 
          AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT'S HEAVILY WEIGHTED IN THOSE LOWER TIERS AND THAT PREVENTS THE COST RECOVERY. 
          WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THREE TIERS. 
          WE HAVE THREE TIERS OUTSIDE THE CITY. 
          NOW WE'RE PROPOSING THREE TIERS FOR BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE AND PROPOSING THE CHANGE WHERE THEY BREAK. 
          SO RATHER THAN BREAKING THE FIRST TIER AT 500 KILOWATT HOURS, PROPOSING TO BREAKING AT 300, AND THEN SECOND TIER WOULD BE 300 TO 1200. 
          AND THEN ABOVE, UH, TIER THREE IS WOULD BE 1200 OR MORE. 
          AND THAT FIRST TIER IS JUST BELOW THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          THE SECOND TIER IS APPROXIMATELY THE COST OF SERVICE, AND THE THIRD TIER IS ABOVE THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          AND WHAT THIS PRODUCES IS MUCH MORE PROPORTIONAL TIERS. 
          SO IT ALLOWS US TO RECOVER THAT REVENUE FROM OUR CUSTOMERS, UH, BASED UPON HOW THEY'RE USING ENERGY NOW, THOSE, THOSE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS. 
          AND WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. 
          UM, I'VE PUT THE SCENARIOS UP ONTO THE MESSAGE BOARDS SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT. 
          A QUESTION ON THIS LAST PAGE, UM, MR. DOMBROSKI, IF I'M INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT WHAT IT WOULD, WHAT THE BREAKS WOULD BE FOR FOUR TIERS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO RUN US SOME NUMBERS THAT THAT TAKES YOUR SECOND TIER AND MAYBE MAKE SECOND TIER AND I'M JUST BLUE SKY IN HERE, 300 TO 6, 3 0 1 TO 600, AND THEN 6 0 1 TO 1200 AND SEE HOW THAT 51.1% BREAKS OUT IN THOSE IN A, IN A FOURIER SCENARIO? SURE. 
          SO THERE'S, UM, WE, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          SO, AND UM, UM, I CAN GET JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, IN A DIFFERENT, UH, FORUM, BUT, SO THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE ENERGY CHARGE. 
          IF I TOLD YOU THAT CURRENT, WE HAVE A $10 A MONTH CUSTOMER CHARGE AND WHAT WE PROPOSE IS A, AS A $25 CHARGE. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU COULD GO ANYWHERE FROM GOING COLLECTING BASE RATES IN ALL A FIXED CHARGE AND THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A $60 A MONTH PER CUSTOMER CHARGE AND HAVE NONE COLLECTING K H AND YOU COULD COLLECT IT ALL IN THE, AND THAT WOULD BE ABOUT ON AVERAGE 7 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR. 
          SO YOU CAN ADJUST THAT ANYWHERE YOU WENT TO THE OFFSET IS, THERE IS A LOT OF INSTABILITY WHEN YOU COLLECT IT ALL IN K H CUZ AS I POINTED OUT, LIKE THIS SUMMER WHERE YOU HAD A REALLY HOT SUMMER, WE WOULD REALLY OVER COLLECT FROM OUR CUSTOMERS IN A MILD YEAR. 
          WE WOULD NOT COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE. 
          UM, AND SO WHERE YOU BREAK THOSE TIERS RELATIVE TO HOW MUCH YOU'RE TRYING TO COLLECT IN THE K H CHARGE IS WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE MANAGING. 
          SO, UM, WHAT'S ALMOST MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NUMBER OF TIERS IS WHERE THOSE TIERS BREAK. 
          BUT WE CAN RUN THOSE SCENARIOS OKAY. 
          BUT IN THE END, WHAT WE HAVE TO CALCULATE IS THAT WE ACHIEVE THAT AVERAGE SENSE PER K H IN ORDER TO COLLECT THOSE COSTS FROM THOSE TIERS. 
          AND WOULD YOU RUN A SCENARIO WITH THE FOUR TIERS THAT HAS THE RATE THAT DOESN'T GET TO $25 BUT SAY GETS TO 18? YES, WE NEED THAT. 
          AND THEN SEE HOW THE, UH, COSTS FLOW INTO THE FOUR TIERS TO ACHIEVE THE RECAPTURE WE CAN. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK THIS IS A REALLY HELPFUL, UM, PRESENTATION TO, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND, AND I DO ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO READ THE HEARING EXAMINERS, UM, REPORT. 
          IT GOES INTO A LOT OF, A LOT OF DETAIL AND I THINK WITH THIS, UM, CRIB NOTES FIRST, I THINK IT WILL WILL HELP IN READING THAT. 
          UM, A SCENARIO THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN, I DON'T THINK IT WAS INCLUDED IN WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, UM, HAS BROUGHT UP IS ONE THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH SEVERAL FOLKS FROM UT UM, AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, AND THAT IS WHERE YOU RAISE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DOLLARS, BUT YOU DON'T CHANGE THE TIERS AS MUCH. 
          YOU HAVE A GOAL OF THE 37 AND I THINK WE'VE ASKED YOU TO RUN THOSE AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          SO I WANNA FLAG THAT I'M INTERESTED IN SEEING A SCENARIO WHERE WE MOVE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE UP NOT AS MUCH, BUT WE DON'T LOWER THE TIER PRICES. 
          NOW WE MIGHT DECIDE WE NEED TO MOVE, UM, I'M OPEN TO MOVING THE BREAK POINTS FOR THE TIERS OR THE NUMBER 
          [01:00:01]
OF TIERS. 
          UM, BUT MY, MY, THE REASON THAT I WANNA SEE THAT IN ADDITION TO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD WORK INSTEAD IS THAT I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CHOICES THAT ARE BEING MADE ABOUT INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, AND THE WAY THIS SETUP WORKS, BECAUSE YOU'RE SHIFTING ALL OF THE MONEY OVER INTO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SHIFTING A LOT OF THE FIXED COST INTO THE CUSTOMER CHARGES. 
          YOU ARE LOWERING THE RATES SIGNIFICANTLY THAT THOSE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ARE PAYING, THEY'RE USING MORE ENERGY. 
          UM, AND THEY WERE ALREADY PAYING LESS THAN THOSE OF US INSIDE. 
          AND SO I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT PIECE AS WELL. 
          AND SO THE ALTERNATIVE I'M TALKING ABOUT AVOIDS THAT YOU HIT EMERGENCY, IF I EVER RECALL RIGHT, THE SCENARIO THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT THE MATH DIDN'T WORK, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE MATH, SO I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA ADVOCATE FOR SOMETHING WHERE THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. 
          UM, BUT I, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE ASKED TO SEE, I DO WANNA SPELL A MYTH THAT THE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN DO NOT PAY LESS THAN THE CUSTOMERS INSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, SO THAT, UM, WELL THEIR TIERS ARE LOWER. 
          SO AT THE SAME RATE OF USAGE, THEY'RE PAYING LESS THAT THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THEIR BILLS ARE HIGHER. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE USING MORE ENERGY, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE PAYING LESS PER KILOWATT. 
          THAT'S SO THEY'RE PAYING LESS THAN THEY WE ARE FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY INSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE RECOVERING A FIXED COST AND A VARIABLE RATE. 
          SO RECOVERING MORE FROM THOSE CUSTOMERS THAN WE COVER FROM THE INSIDE CITY OF AUSTIN BECAUSE OF THOSE TIER STRUCTURES. 
          OKAY, WELL I'M GOING TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT I'M GONNA NEED THAT TO BE MADE VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          BECAUSE I AM NOT ABLE AT THIS POINT TO EXPLAIN TO MY CONSTITUENTS WHY WE HAVE THIS DIFFERENTIAL BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE PAYING LESS TO ME. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND THE MATH MAY NOT WORK THAT WAY, BUT, BUT I HAVE REQUESTED THE SCENARIO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ANSWERS TO THAT. 
          AND I THINK IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT THE LEVERS THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS TO RAISE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE NOT AS MUCH AS THE 15, BUT TO RAISE A THREE OR FOUR OR SEVEN, WHATEVER THE RIGHT AMOUNT IS AND NOT, NOT DO AS MUCH ON THE TIERS. 
          AND YOU MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO GO DOWN ON THE TIERS, BUT, UM, GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN, THAT'S BELOW WHAT THEY WERE PAYING, UM, FOR THE OUTSIDE DOES DOES IN MY VIEW, UM, HAVE SOME DISTRIBUTIONAL. 
          WE'LL MAKE SURE IMPLICATIONS. 
          SO I WANNA SEE THOSE. 
          UM, AND THEN WHEN WILL WE SEE AN UPDATED PROPOSAL? CUZ YOU NOW HAVE THE MATERIAL FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          THERE ARE A FEW CHANGES, SMALL CHANGES TO REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, I THINK ON THE MARGINS, MAYBE, UM, IF I'M, I HAVEN'T SPENT A WHILE SINCE I READ THAT REPORT, BUT THEN THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY WERE A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. 
          UM, ARE YOU PLANNING TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE OR ARE YOU STICKING WITH YOUR PROPOSAL EVEN IN LIGHT OF WHAT THEY'VE COME BACK WITH? UH, WELL, IN OUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY, WE DID ADDRESS THE, UH, REDUCTION FROM THE 48 MILLION TO THE 35.7. 
          AND SO THAT IS, IS WHAT, UM, THE IE RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON AND IN OUR, UM, RESPONSE TO THE IE RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, WE DID, UM, YOU KNOW, INDICATE A FEW AREAS WHERE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT WE COULD EITHER DISAGREE WITH OR NOT. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE WERE PLANNING TO REDO THE ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, 500 PAGE PROPOSAL. 
          IT, IT, IT'S REALLY JUST SORT OF ALL SORTED OUT WITH THE VARIOUS OTHER FILINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN I WANTED TO, I MAY HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME, UM, ASK ONE LAST ONE RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, AT SOME POINT IN THE PRESENTATION YOU SAID THAT THE AVERAGE, AND, AND I MAY HAVE MY NUMBERS WRONG CAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE, BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THE AVERAGE BILL WAS A HUNDRED AND THEN YOU'RE INCREASING IT ONLY 5%, BUT YET WE'RE TELLING FOLKS IT'S A $15 RATE. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THOSE NUMBERS RIGHT. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THE, THE 5.6% IS THE INCREASE IN REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, BUT BECAUSE WE CHANGE, WE'RE CHANGING HOW WE ALLOCATE THOSE COSTS TO VARIOUS CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS, THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS BETWEEN THE, THE BILLS OR THE RATES FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE 5.6 DOESN'T APPLY TO THE RESIDENTIAL HIGHER THAN THAT TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THE 5.6 IS, OKAY, WE NEED TO HAVE REVENUE NUMBERS THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS CAN UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL RATES. 
          AND IF IF SOMEBODY MISCONSTRUES THAT CHART AND SAYS IT'S A 5.67% INCREASE, THEN IT'S NOT REALLY THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE DOING THAT AS AN AVERAGE OVER THE CLASSES, THEN WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING CLEARLY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          WE 
          [01:05:01]
WILL, WE HAVE THAT BROKEN OUT AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL PROVIDE THAT. 
          WE'LL SOME ACTUAL BILL, UH, WILL SHOW THAT FOR YOU NEXT TIME WE MEET. 
          UM, BUT THE 5.6 IS REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND AFTER TO DO THE COST ALLOCATION, THE RATE DESIGN, THAT, THAT DETERMINES THE BILL. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S, UH, THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T NECESSARILY REFLECTIVE OF EACH OTHER. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING THEN THE WAY THAT THAT'S, OR MISLEADING MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WORD. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT HELPFUL IN EXPLAINING WHAT THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IS, UM, FROM THAT CHART. 
          I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL US ONE PARTICULAR THING, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS COMMUNICATED LIKE WE WERE, WE WERE, WE WERE RAISING IT LESS THAN WE HAD IN IN PRIOR YEARS. 
          UM, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE FOR THE, THE INDIVIDUAL NO, I APOLOGIZE IF I INCLUDE, WE ARE NOT CHANGING BILLS 5.6%. 
          THAT'S THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT WE'RE CHANGING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE MAKES, WE NEED TO, BUT YOU DIDN'T PRESENT US THE NUMBER, THE PERCENTAGE FOR THE BILL. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE CARE ABOUT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE CAN GET TO THAT. 
          YES. 
          SO I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          YOU KNOW, THE, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT RATES HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TOUGH ONE, UH, IN PART BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION THAT'S OUT AND SUGGESTIONS OF, OF IMPACTS AND RULES AND, AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT TRUE AND IT'S, UM, SOMETIMES WHAT MAKES INTUITIVE SENSE IS NOT WHAT THE DATA SHOWS. 
          UH, SO TO HAVE A A DATA BASED CONVERSATION IS, IS IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT. 
          AND THAT HAPPENS IN A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE HAVE PUBLIC, UH, POLICY CONVERSATIONS. 
          BUT IT SEEMS TO BE MOST, THIS CONVERSATION SEEMS TO BE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO THAT. 
          AND AS I RECALL THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD FOUR YEARS AGO OR FIVE YEARS AGO, A LOT OF IT CENTERED AROUND THE USAGE OF LOW TIER AND WHETHER THERE WAS THIS, WHETHER LOW TIER USERS WERE THE SAME AS, UH, ECONOMICALLY, UH, VULNERABLE USERS. 
          UH, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET THE GREATEST SAVINGS IN THE LOWEST TIER WHEN IN REALITY THAT WAS FURTHER DISADVANTAGING PEOPLE ECONOMICALLY, CUZ THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY WERE. 
          UH, AND THE EFFORT TO TRY TO GET THE GREATEST SAVINGS DOWN AT THE LOWEST TIERS WAS ACTUALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS THAT PEOPLE WERE MAKING. 
          I THINK THE CHART THAT YOU HAVE ON PAGE 13, UM, OF THIS, OR RATHER PAGE 31 OF THIS PRESENTATION, UM, IS UM, UM, ONE OF THE ONES THAT IS JUST EYE-POPPING I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHICH COMPARES, UH, WHAT THE BILL IS IN 77 0 1 DOWNTOWN, RELATIVELY AFFLUENT AREA WITH THE BILLS THAT ARE PAID IN SEVEN A 7 24 IN THE NORTHEAST. 
          UM, PUTTING ASIDE FOR A SECOND THAT THIS IS YET ANOTHER PIECE OF REALLY GOOD EVIDENCE AS TO, UH, THE SYSTEMIC INJUSTICES THAT EXIST IN OUR, OUR SOCIETY. 
          IF YOU HAVE LESS WEALTH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BUY A MORE EXPENSIVE HOME BECAUSE THROUGH GENERATIONS YOUR FAMILY HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO ACCUMULATE THAT WEALTH, WE'RE GONNA MAKE YOU PAY HIGHER UTILITY BILLS, WHICH IS THE NET EFFECT OF THE POLICY WE HAVE. 
          UM, AND, AND UM, THIS JUST SHOWS THAT ONCE AGAIN THE, THOSE KINDS OF SYSTEMIC IMPACTS. 
          BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THIS ONE, UM, CUZ IT'S, IT'S WHAT THE DATA SHOWS IN, IT'S THE REALITY. 
          USUALLY WHEN SOMEBODY HAS A FLAT RATE THAT'S BEING PAID, IT'S GENERALLY BELIEVED TO BE REGRESSIVE BECAUSE A FLAT RATE PAID BY SOMEONE WITH A LOWER INCOME, THAT FLAT RATE'S GONNA BE A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TOTAL INCOME. 
          UH, SO WE TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM FLAT RATES EXCEPT THAT WE HAVE THIS PERVERSE SITUATION HERE WITH OUR ENERGY WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE FLUENT ARE ABLE TO PAY LOWER RATES CUZ THEY USE LESS, UH, POWER. 
          SO IT'S ALMOST THE OPPOSITE IS BEING THE CASE. 
          IT ALMOST LOOKS AS IF THE SCENARIO WOULD BE THAT THE FLAT RATE IS ACTUALLY THE PROGRESSIVE WAY TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE, UH, POWER RATES. 
          UH, IF WE START OUT WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT, THAT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MORE FLUENT AREAS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO PAY, BE ABLE TO USE LESS POWER AND THEREFORE PAY THE LOWER RATE IN THE LOWER TIER. 
          I'D BE INTERESTED IN SEEING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE RUN ON PAGE 31, WE HAVE THE COMPARISON OF 
          [01:10:01]
OH ONE AND 24 ZIP CODES UNDER THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE. 
          HAVE YOU RUN THIS SAME THING TO SEE HOW THOSE TWO ZIP CODES PERFORM UNDER THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE? I HAVE NOT. 
          UM, AND I CAN SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT. 
          IS IT SUSCEPTIBLE OF THAT OR WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE? UM, IT COULD BE. 
          IT'S UM, BEFORE I PROMISE WE CAN DO IT. 
          LET ME GO BACK AND SEE IF WE ACTUALLY CAN DO IT. 
          WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU WE CAN LOOK AND SEE YES. 
          UH, BECAUSE THAT ALMOST BEGS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FLAT RATE MAYBE IS NOT GOING UP ENOUGH. 
          MAYBE THE FAIREST THING WE COULD DO IN THE SYSTEM WOULD BE TO HAVE THE FLAT RATE GO UP MORE OF THE $102 IN THE AVERAGE BILL. 
          YOU SAID THAT, THAT WE COULD RUN THE BASE RATE ENTIRELY ON A FIXED CHAR CHARGE, EVERYBODY IN THE CITY THE SAME FLAT RATE AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT $60 60 OR WE COULD CHARGE EVERYBODY THE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE POWER AND CHARGE EVERYBODY THE SAME RATE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT I AM INTRIGUED BY THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE $60 CHARGE. 
          EVERYBODY JUST PAYS THAT. 
          AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO THAT, BUT WITH THIS LINE, I'M INTERESTED IN JUST SEEING WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS AND WHERE THAT BASE RATE SHOULD BE. 
          AND YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS ANALYSIS, BUT OF THE 102, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT 102 IS BASE RATE COMPONENT? UM, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 30, 35% OF THAT. 
          IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL BECAUSE A LOT, SO THEY, ABOUT 22% OF THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE ON CAP. 
          SO WE WAIVE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE THE $10. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO DO THE MATH. 
          I 30, 40% OF THAT WOULD BE BASE RATES. 
          OKAY. 
          PROBABLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT AREA WHO DON'T HAVE THAT, IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY 40, 45%. 
          MAYBE I'M ASKING YOU PULL NUMBERS OUT AND I KNOW YOU HATE TO DO THAT ONE OR SITTING HERE, SO I'M NOT GONNA MAKE YOU DO THAT. 
          UM, I, I DO, I JUST WANT, AND UH, YOU, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, UM, ABOUT HOW PEOPLE SEE TIERS LIKE TAXES. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A REGRESSIVE TAX, UH, WHICH MEANS IT'S A, IT'S A UNIFORMLY APPLIED LIKE A SALES TAX, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S 6% OF WHATEVER YOU BUY. 
          AND IF, UM, REGARDLESS OF YOUR INCOME, YOU SPEND 6% OF SALES TAX, THAT'S A REGRESSIVE TAX. 
          UH, SO THAT THE LESS INCOME, THE HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF YOUR, OF YOUR TOTAL INCOME. 
          UM, UTILITY TIERS AREN'T LIKE THAT IN BETTE IN TIER ONE. 
          EVERY CUSTOMER'S IN TIER ONE REGARDLESS OF INCOME. 
          SO WHETHER YOU MAKE $10,000 A YEAR OR A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, YOUR FIRST 500 KWH OR IN TIER ONE, IF YOU USE MORE THAN 500 TIER, SOME OF THOSE CUSTOMERS GO TO TIER TWO. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT PROGRESSIVE AND REGRESSIVE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE INCOME. 
          I, WHEN WE SEND ELECTRONS, WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GONNA TAKE THAT ELECTRON. 
          WE DON'T KNOW THEIR, THEIR INCOME LEVEL. 
          AND SO THINKING OF IT IN TERMS OF PROGRESSIVE AND REGRESSIVE REALLY IS, IS IS NOT ACCURATE. 
          REAL QUESTION IS CHARGE EVERYONE THE RIGHT THAT IT COST IS PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND TO PUT PROGRAMS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE LOWER INCOME AND HAVE A HIGHER ENERGY BURDEN ARE PROVIDED THE ASSISTANCE THEY NEED THROUGH PROGRAMS AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO CHANGE THE RATE. 
          CUZ WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GET THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THEN, THEN MY LAST QUESTION GOES EXACTLY TO THAT POINT. 
          IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING THAT, THAT EQUALIZED THINGS EVEN MORE, UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE THAT NEED THE GREATEST PROTECTION, IS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE WE DID THAT BUT EXPANDED TO A GREATER DEGREE? THE ASSISTANCE THAT WE SHOW TO PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE IN ORDER TO REALLY TARGET SINCE, SINCE THE TEARS DON'T GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO, THE PILLS DON'T GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO, JUST TO BE STRAIGHT UP AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE ASSISTANCE THAT WE GIVE TO PEOPLE MOST VULNERABLE AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PICK THAT UP IN OUR RATE STRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT EQUALIZES THAT. 
          YEAH, SO A LOT OF FOLKS CRITICIZE US CAUSE WE USE CAP AS A PROXY FOR LOW INCOME IN AUSTIN. 
          THEY MAKE NO MISTAKE. 
          WE'RE NOT, UM, WE'RE AWARE WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 35,000 CAP CUSTOMERS, UH, ABOUT 25,000 OF THOSE COME THROUGH THE AUTO ENROLL PROGRAM. 
          SO IF YOU'RE, UH, ARE AN APPLICANT OR RECEIVE A THROUGH ONE OF THOSE, THOSE PROGRAMS, YOU, YOU'RE YET AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED. 
          UH, WE ALSO ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO SELF ENROLL AND THAT'S ONLY ABOUT 10,000. 
          AND WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY MORE CUSTOMERS OUT THERE THAT CAN BENEFIT AND THEY ARE LOW INCOME. 
          AND, UM, WE SHOULD DO, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, A BETTER JOB REACHING OUT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS AND TRYING TO GET THEM TO SIGN UP TO GET THE ASSISTANCE 
          [01:15:01]
THEY NEED. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY THEY DON'T SIGN UP. 
          COULD BE PRIDE, COULD THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT PROGRAM, THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS, THEY WANNA TALK TO A GOVERNMENT. 
          SO ALL THOSE THINGS COME INTO PLAY, BUT WE, I THINK WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB OF REACHING OUT TO GET AS MANY CUSTOMERS WHO QUALIFY THE ASSISTANCE THEY NEED SO THAT THEIR ENERGY BURDEN IS LESSENED. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DO THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. 
          AND THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TO USE IT, THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US ARE NOT EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO IN FACT DO THAT. 
          BUT IF WE HAD THE GOAL, SINCE WE KNOW IN THE CITY THERE'S MORE THAN 35,000 PEOPLE THAT NEED THAT ASSISTANCE, IF THE GOAL THAT WE SET FOR OURSELVES WAS TO GO FROM 35,000 PEOPLE UP TO 70,000 PEOPLE OR WHATEVER THE RIGHT NUMBER WAS AND SAID, GO AWAY AND, AND OVER THE COURSE OF THIS YEAR FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET FROM 35 TO 70,000 LEGITIMATE, LET ME, LIKE, LET'S, LET'S DOUBLE, LET'S GET MUCH CLOSER TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY NEED IT. 
          AND THEN BUILT INTO OUR RATE STRUCTURE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO WHERE IT'S MOST NEEDED. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST WAY TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. 
          BECAUSE AS I HEAR ALL THE SOLUTIONS TRYING TO FIND IT HERE THAT BEGIN WITH THINGS LIKE, LET'S LOWER THE BASE RATE. 
          I'M NOW THINKING, MY GOD, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T LOWER THE BASE RATE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PEOPLE WHO ARE, ARE MOST VULNERABLE AND MAKE THEM EVEN MORE VULNERABLE. 
          AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS PLAY WITH ONE ANOTHER. 
          UH, WE'LL GO TO THE CHAIR AND THEN WE'LL GO TO TOVO AND KINDA ABOUT THIS. 
          YEAH, THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THE BASE RATE PIECE. 
          SO I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THAT MODELED. 
          I AGREE THAT THE CAP PROGRAM, WE NEED TO ASSESS THAT AND LOOK AT ADDING DOLLARS TO THAT PROGRAM AND THEN, UM, A, A VERY CONCERTED EFFORT TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT'S FOR AND FIND THOSE PEOPLE WHO, AS YOU POINT OUT MAY HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO SIGN UP FOR THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          AND THEN WHILE WE'RE DOING IT, WE CAN CONTINUE TO SCRUB THE CRITERIA AND MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE ARE ARE TRULY ELIGIBLE FOR IT. 
          BUT I, I DO LIKE, UM, INCREASING THE FUNDING INTO THE CAP PROGRAM AND UM, WOULD LIKE US TO, TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          UM, I DON'T DISAGREE ON THAT POINT, BUT I DO WANNA, I DO WANNA GO BACK TO A COUPLE THINGS THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER NOTED AS WELL AS THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          AND, AND ALSO I WANNA ECHO THE MAYOR PROMS. THANKS. 
          THIS WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION AND I THINK SETS A REALLY IMPORTANT, IT'S, IT'S A GREAT OVERVIEW AND IS A REALLY HELPFUL FRAMEWORK FOR GOING AND DIVING INTO BOTH OF THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS THAT I JUST MENTIONED. 
          AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT PROCESSES THESE DAYS, I JUST WANNA SAY HOW MUCH BETTER THIS PROCESS IS THAN THE 2013. 
          AND THIS WAS A CONSTRUCTION OF COUNCIL, UM, IT WAS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT CREATED THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, THE PARTIAL, UM, HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS, AND IT WAS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION. 
          THAT ONE WAS BILL SPELMAN'S. 
          UM, THE NEXT ONE WAS MINE TO CREATE THE IN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          AND I THINK THESE ARE, THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF HOW, YOU KNOW, WE LEARN FROM, FROM DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON AND THE COUNCIL HAS AN ACTIVE ROLE IN CREATING PROCESSES THAT HELP THE NEXT, THE NEXT TIME THOSE THINGS COME UP. 
          SO, UM, I, FOR 1:00 AM REALLY GRATEFUL, LET ME JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT, WHAT IS NOT HAPPENING NOW ARE ZILLIONS OF REQUESTS, MEETING REQUESTS TO EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY AND SENDING ON TONS OF DOCUMENTS TO EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY, THAT THEN OUR OFFICES WE'RE KIND OF STRUGGLING TO MAKE SENSE OF AND, UM, JUXTAPOSE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE THE HEARING EXAMINER WHO'S DONE THAT. 
          I DO THINK THERE ARE, THERE ARE POINTS OF, THERE ARE VARIOUS POINTS THAT WE AS A COUNCIL NEED TO DISCUSS. 
          UM, FOR ONE THING, WELL, I'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE, BUT I DO WANNA TALK ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BASE RATE SINCE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BASE CUSTOMER CHARGE RATHER. 
          UM, AND NOTE THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER SAYS MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT QUALIFY FOR A E'S CURRENT CAP PROGRAM MAY EXPERIENCE RATE SHOCK. 
          AND, UM, JUST TO PUT AND, AND ECHOES AND CONFIRM SOME OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE SAYS. 
          AND I'LL READ FROM THAT REPORT QUICKLY. 
          UM, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE TALKED ABOUT THE $25 BEING FAR OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL FIXED RATES CURRENTLY CHARGED BY THE OTHER TWO MUNIS. 
          UM, SAN ANTONIO IN THIS, THEY'VE INCLUDED A CHARTS IN ANTONIO, LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK, UH, CHARGES EIGHT SAN ANTONIO 8 0 7 SAN ANTONIO CHARGES $9 AND 10 CENTS. 
          UM, THEY ARE THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE 
          [01:20:02]
NOTES THAT THAT INCREASE WILL BE, UM, WOULD INCREASE A FIXED RESIDENTIAL CAR CHARGE BY 150%. 
          AND ESTIMATES THAT THE BILL IMPACTS OF, OF THE, OF THIS PROPOSAL WILL RANGE FROM, UM, FOR THOSE AT THE LOWEST TIER WILL BE 50%, 50 POINT, 75% INCREASE. 
          SO I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND TAKING A LOOK, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE GONNA BE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE CUSTOMER BAIT RATE. 
          I MEAN, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE HEARING EXAMINER AND THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE BOTH CONFIRMED THAT, THAT THAT INCREASE IS TOO HIGH. 
          THE INCREASE, UM, THAT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE SUGGESTS IS NO MORE THAN $13. 
          UM, BUT THE BILL IMPACTS, THEY ARE, THEY SEEM BOTH, AGAIN, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER SEEMS TO CONFIRM WHAT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE SAYS. 
          THIS IS GONNA BE REALLY A BIG RATE SHOCK FOR FOLKS WHO ARE NOT ON THE, THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          AND I THINK WE ALL, YOU KNOW, WANNA ENCOURAGE LOWER USAGE. 
          AND SO LOOKING AT A 50% INCREASE ON FOLKS IN THAT FIRST TIER IS, IS OUS. 
          I MEAN THAT'S A HUGE, HUGE BILL IMPACT. 
          AND YEAH, AND JUST JUST TO CONFIRM, IT LOOKS, UM, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE SUGGESTS THAT THAT, UM, RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE COULD HAVE, UH, AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 30 TO 50% ON MONTHLY BILLS. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL AGREE WITH? IT COULD BE. 
          SO AGAIN, I SHOWED YOU THAT CHART, LIKE IF YOU'RE IN A MULTI-FAMILY, BRAND NEW HOME, YOU MIGHT BE USING 336 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A $45 BILL. 
          SO THEIR BILL MIGHT GO UP $20 TO $65. 
          UM, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PERCENTAGE. 
          AND IT'S, IT'S, UM, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE SO, SO FAR BELOW THEIR COST OF SERVICE AND I EXPLAINED THE REASON WHY WHAT WE DID LAST TIME AND UH, CLASS AS A WHOLE. 
          SO WHILE THAT PERCENTAGE SOUNDS LIKE A LOT, YOU'RE GOING FROM 45 TO 65, UM, IS THE, THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT IN ONE OF THOSE MULTIFAMILY TYPE HOMES. 
          YEAH, AND I, I THINK MAYOR, UM, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT INCREASING CAP, BUT I, YOU KNOW, IT IS A GOAL, A STATED GOAL OF THIS CITY TO ENCOURAGE LESS, UM, ENERGIES. 
          AND SO IT'S A VERY SERIOUS POLICY QUESTION FOR ME WHETHER WE WANNA INCREASE THE BILLS SO MUCH. 
          UM, THE COSTS SO MUCH FOR THAT, FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO DO, THEY'RE EITHER, UM, DOING A LOT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THEIR OWN HOMES OR WHEN THEY'RE MAKING CHOICES ABOUT WHERE TO RENT OR TO LIVE, THEY'RE CHOOSING ENERGY EFFICIENT UNITS AND THEY'RE DOING SO IN PART, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA SEE OUR, OUR CITY MOVING TOWARD. 
          SO THAT'S A, THAT IS A POLICY CONSIDERATION THAT I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE, HAVE YOU, UM, SO SOME OF THE, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE LOWERED THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FROM 48 MILLION TO 35 MILLION. 
          HAVE YOU INCLUDED ALL OF THE, THE IN, UM, INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER GOES THROUGH ALL THE OTHER REQUESTS FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT ADJUSTMENTS? HAVE YOU INCLUDED ALL OF THEM? HAVE YOU ACCEPTED ALL OF THEM? I GUESS I SHOULD SAY? SO, UM, SO THE, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE WAS ONE INTERVENER OF, NO, I'M SORRY, I IF I SAID THAT, I MEANT THE HEARING EXAMINER. 
          OH, THE HEARING EXAMINER. 
          IN LOOKING AT THE HEARING EXAMINER, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE A COUPLE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          I'M STILL TRYING TO REALLY DIVE INTO IT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DID AGREE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER INTERVENERS ABOUT ADJUSTING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          HAVE YOU, IN MOVING FROM 48 TO 35 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT, HAVE YOU ACCEPTED ALL OF THE HEARING EXAMINERS, UM, CONFIRMED AGREEMENT FOR THOSE REDUCTIONS? SO WHAT WE PRESENTED, UH, DURING THE HEARINGS TO THE INDEPENDENT OR IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER WAS A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 35.7. 
          AND, UM, OKAY, ALLOWING ME TO COME BACK AND CORRECT MYSELF. 
          I BELIEVE THE ONLY ADJUSTMENT TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER AGREED WITH THE OTHER ONES WAS A REDUCTION IN THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. 
          WE HAD 120 MILLION, HE RECOMMENDED, I BELIEVE ONE 14 TO ONE 15, UH, WAS HIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 31 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I JUST SAW A REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          I JUST SAW HIM, UM, AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS THAT WASN'T GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. 
          SO, SO THERE MAY BE EITHER I, UM, READ IT TOO QUICKLY OR, OR THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL ONES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THAT'S ONE REASON, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE ARE, IF WE LOWER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THEN THERE'S NO LESS OF, UM, A NEED TO RAISE RATES. 
          AND THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE CAME 
          [01:25:01]
UP WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR REDUCTIONS THAT WOULD'VE REDUCED THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FROM 35 MILLION DOWN TO 6.5. 
          THE HEARING EXAMINER DID NOT AGREE WITH YES, WITH ALL OF THOSE. 
          UM, BUT I DO THINK A FEW OF THEM ARE WORTH DIVING INTO AND REALLY TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, DID THE, SO THE, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING, THE PARTIAL IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER DID, DID TALK, AS I MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT RATE SHOCK. 
          WAS THAT EXAMINER, UM, AWARE OF THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT CONVERSATION? I MEAN, I ASSUME THE ANSWERS WE HAVE B NO IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER. 
          WHAT DOES, I'LL BE DARNED, I HAD NO IDEA. 
          RATHER HIM SPEAK FOR HIM SOMETHING. 
          THIS IS REALLY VERY USEFUL, USEFUL WORK. 
          SO, UM, MAY I, MAY I, UM, ASK A QUESTION OF THE IMPARTIAL HEARING A SEMINAR? ABSOLUTELY. 
          SURE. 
          SO YOU, JUST FOR RECORD PURPOSES, MY NAME IS TRAVIS VIRI. 
          THANKS. 
          AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ROLE IN THIS PROCESS AND FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 
          SO AS I WAS READING FROM YOUR REPORT, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RATE SHOCK THAT WAS, UM, THAT YOU FELT THAT YOU CONFIRMED, UM, AND YOU ALSO RECOMMENDED, MAYBE THIS'LL BE THE SECOND, ANOTHER QUESTION AFTER WE DO A ROUND, BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE, THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT AE EXPLORE A DIFFERENT RI RATE DESIGN. 
          SO I HOPE WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE RATE SHOCK PIECE AND WHETHER WHEN YOU MADE THAT COMMENT, WHETHER YOU WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE AN INCREASE TO THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD HIT THOSE SAME RATE PAYERS? UM, NOT SPECIFICALLY. 
          IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WASN'T MENTIONED. 
          AND BY THE WAY, I CAME HERE TODAY TO OBSERVE NOT TO PRESENT, BUT THAT'S OKAY. 
          I'M MY APOLOGIES. 
          IT'S FINE. 
          NO, IT'S FINE. 
          WOULD YOU PREFER TO, TO SPEAK ABOUT IT? I THINK YOU'RE ON THE AGENDA ANOTHER DAY, IS THAT RIGHT? WOULD YOU YEAH, BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO CHAT FOR A BIT. 
          UM, JUST KEEP IN MIND, WE DRAFTED THIS RECOMMENDATION AS A TEAM. 
          THERE ARE ACTUALLY FOUR ATTORNEYS WHO D WHO THREE OTHER ATTORNEYS WHO HELPED ME DRAFT. 
          UH, THE ATTORNEY WHO ASSISTED IN THE RATE DESIGN IS ACTUALLY HERE TODAY, ANDREW EDGE, BUT HE ACTUALLY IS NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK EITHER, PROBABLY. 
          BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS, LET ME PUT SOMETHING INTO CONTEXT. 
          WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY AGREE WITH THE ICA ON ALL OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RAPE DESIGN. 
          WHAT WE AGREED WITH WERE CONCERNS, AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. 
          THERE WERE CONCERNS FOR THE PSA THAT WAS LARGELY OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS PROCEEDING. 
          SO WE DIDN'T DELVE INTO IT. 
          UM, SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. 
          AND SO I WON'T ASK THAT QUESTION ABOUT YOUR RATE DESIGN, UH, COMMENTS TODAY FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. 
          UM, BUT, BUT IT, I, IF I'M READING CORRECTLY, YOU DID CONFIRM THE CONCERN ABOUT RATE SHOCK TO CONSUMERS AND THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF, BECAUSE IT WAS SEPARATE FROM THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS JUST BASED ON THESE INCREASES. 
          SO I THINK I WOULD JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THAT CAN, THAT THE CONCERN ABOUT RATE SHOCK I WOULD THINK IS AMPLIFIED BASED ON THE ACTION WE JUST TOOK IT. 
          IT IS. 
          CAN I JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THAT? UH, THE CONCERNS ABOUT RATE SHOCK, YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED MORE INFORMATION AND THIS IS JUST THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING. 
          WE ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION ON SEPTEMBER 9TH THAT I SUSPECT WAS ALREADY STALE BY THE TIME WE WE ISSUED IT BECAUSE FOLKS HAVE BEEN TALKING, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN, YOU WANT AE TO BE TALKING TO THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          AND THEY DID. 
          AND THEY HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY, UH, BUT WE DIDN'T DO IN THIS PROCESS. 
          I WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AT THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR 14 YEARS DOING ELECTRIC ENERGY. 
          I KNOW MS. COOPER, I KNOW MR. BTO FROM THAT. 
          SO, UM, WHEN YOU RUN ONE OF THESE RATE CASES AT THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, AT THE END OF THE RATE CASE, YOU ACTUALLY COORDINATE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION STAFF BECAUSE THE SOAH JUDGES, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS, THE SOAH JUDGES DON'T HAVE EXPERTS TO ACTUALLY CRUNCH THE NUMBERS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING. 
          SO YOU DO WHAT'S CALLED NUMBER RUNNING, YOU COORDINATE WITH STAFF WHO ARE EXPERTS AND THEN YOU FIND OUT WHAT'S YOUR ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS GONNA BE. 
          THE INFORMATION GETS SENT BACK OVER AND YOU DO IT ALL THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT LIAISON, WHICH I USED TO DO AS WELL AS A JUDGE. 
          YOU HAVE A A CORDONED OFF JUDGE WHO HANDLES ALL THE NUMBER RUNNING. 
          THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. 
          AND THAT'S OKAY. 
          I, I SAY THIS BECAUSE WHAT WE PROPOSE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          THEY'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE MADE BY OTHER PARTIES WEREN'T REASONABLE. 
          IT'S JUST THAT WE HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH AE ON CERTAIN ISSUES AND OTHER PARTIES ON OTHER ISSUES. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL. 
          AND I GUESS WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE, UM, ASKING FOR, I THINK MAYOR PROTE ASKED FOR ONE, AND I HAVE A KIND OF A NUMBER RUNNING THING I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR. 
          AND THAT IS TO, TO 
          [01:30:01]
PURSUE THE, UM, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION SUGGESTION THAT WE CONSIDER A VARIABLE CUSTOMER CHARGE BASE, BASE CHARGE BASED ON, UM, THEIR AMOUNT OF WHERE THEY FALL IN THE TIERS AS I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL, UM, GET THAT INTO THE Q AND A SOME VARIABLE, SOME SETTING THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE DIFFERENTLY BASED ON WHERE YOU ARE IN YOUR TIERS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. 
          I, I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT. 
          SO THAT'S GOOSE TO ME. 
          I WOULD JUST BE CAUTION THAT COULD CHANGE A LOT OF VOLATILITY IN YOUR BILLS. 
          LET'S SAY YOU HAD A $10, YOUR, CUZ EVERY CUSTOMER'S A TIER ONE, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD HAVE A, SAY A $5 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          IF YOUR BILL ONLY GOES IN FIRST TIER, THEN $10 IN TIER TWO FROM MONTH TO MONTH, YOUR BILL WOULD GO WOULD VARY. 
          VARY A LOT. 
          YEAH, I I, I'D BE CAUTIOUS AGAINST THAT. 
          ONE THING WE TRY TO DO IS PREDICTABLE BILLS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS SO THEY CAN BUDGET JUST LIKE WE NEED TO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I ALSO JUST WANNA PUNCTUATE THIS CONVERSATION BY STATING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, TODAY THE INCREASE IN THE PSA TOOK EFFECT. 
          SO MANY OF OUR AWESOME ENERGY CUSTOMERS ARE FILLING THAT, UH, $15 AVERAGE INCREASED ON THEIR BILLS. 
          UH, SOME OF WHICH WERE STATE REGULATORY FEES. 
          UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE CONSIDERING A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD DOUBLE THE AMOUNT, THE BASE RATE AMOUNT FROM $10 TO $25. 
          AND SO THAT IS, UM, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RATE SHOCK THAT THIS WILL HAVE ON OUR, ON OUR RESIDENTS AND, AND PARTICULARLY OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, UM, AROUND TOTAL REVENUE, TIER STRUCTURE, CAT PROGRAM, AND CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          UM, JUST ONE QUESTION ON EACH OF THOSE. 
          UM, THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS ON THE TOTAL REVENUE. 
          I KNOW YOU TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, HOW AUSTIN ENERGY ORIGINALLY, UM, PROPOSED A RATE INCREASE TO 7.6%, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT 48.2 MILLION THROUGH THE INDEPENDENT HEARING, UM, EXAMINATION. 
          YOU THEN DECREASED THAT DOWN TO 35 MILLION AFTER THE I H E FINDINGS. 
          UH, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT HAPPENED AND, AND THE DECREASE THERE? CORRECT. 
          SO, UH, OUR FIRST, UH, REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN REVENUES OF 48 MILLION, WE DID DECREASE AT THE 35, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE THE I E SO DURING THE DISCOVERY, AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS, UM, WE NOTICED THAT WITHIN THE MODEL, UM, THAT WE HAD, UH, SUBTRACTED A NEGATIVE NUMBER AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, IT CREATES AN ADDITION. 
          AND SO IT WAS A, JUST A CHANGE OF SIGN THAT, THAT THE FORMULA WAS CORRECT, BUT THE FACT THAT WE PUT A CREDIT INTO THE SPECIFIC CELL CAUSED THE NUMBER TO INCREASE. 
          UH, WE WORKED WITH, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, I BELIEVE THAT UM, UH, FIRST ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THAT WE AGREED WITH HIM THAT THAT WAS IN FACT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AND THAT WAS ON OUR NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING EXPENSE. 
          SO WE REDUCED IT FROM 48 TO 35. 
          AND ALSO THROUGH THE ICA IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ALSO NOTED HEAVY EQUIPMENT LEASES IN ADDITION TO THE NON-NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING AND THEN ALLOCATING BAD DEBT, BAD DEBT EQUALLY WOULD REDUCE. 
          THEY ALSO STATED AND RECOMMENDED THAT IF YOU ALLOCATE DIFFERENTLY, THAT THAT WOULD REDUCE THE RESIDENTIAL FEE BY 3 MILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO A COUPLE THINGS THERE. 
          SO THE FIRST WAS, UM, WE HAVE A, A LONG TERM LEASE ON ALL OF OUR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. 
          UM, AND HIS, UH, I BELIEVE HIS RATIONALE WAS YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE A KNOWN OR MEASURABLE OTHER WORDS INCREASE COST BECAUSE OF THAT LEASE. 
          CUZ YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IT YET OR HAVEN'T, THE COUNCIL HASN'T ADOPTED IT. 
          UM, IT WAS ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER. 
          WE HAD ALREADY PLANNED TO BRING IT LIKE WE DO EVERY YEAR. 
          AND SO IT WAS ADOPTED AND APPROVED AND, UM, DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, UM, THE NON-NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING, UH, WE SET ASIDE $8 MILLION EVERY YEAR TO TAKE DOWN AND REMOVE THINGS LIKE DECKER, SANDHILL, UH, THE BIOMASS PLANT, UH, PLANTS LIKE THAT. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT WAS BASED UPON A DECOMMISSIONING STUDY. 
          AND WHAT HE RECOMMENDED WAS TO TAKE IT FROM 8 MILLION DOWN TO 2 MILLION MM-HMM. 
          , WELL, 8 MILLION STILL ISN'T ENOUGH. 
          UH, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE STUDY THAT THEY, THEY APPROVED LAST TIME, UH, I'M NOT SURE AS RATIONALE, THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE HAD ACQUIRED, UH, NACODOCHES AS A PLANT TO ACQUIRE. 
          SO WHAT WE DID AGREE IS WE DO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE THAT, THAT NON-NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING STUDY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH MONEY WE NEED TO COLLECT. 
          BUT IN THE MEANTIME WAS TO CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE 8 MILLION PER YEAR AS WE HAVE SINCE 2016. 
          UM, AND ON THE BAD DEBT IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU SPREAD THAT BAD DEBT AMONGST THE CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO, UM, THE REASON WHY WE DON'T DO IT FOR ALL THE CUSTOMERS EQUALLY IS CUZ THEY DON'T ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE BAD DEBT EQUALLY. 
          AND SO FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, UM, 
          [01:35:01]
THAT GET BEHIND ON THEIR BILLS, WE HAVE A VERY, UH, MANY STEPS BEFORE THAT CUSTOMER GETS DISCONNECTED OR, YOU KNOW, WHEN A CUSTOMER LEAVES BECOMES BAD DEBT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. 
          SO THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH BAD DEBT FOR THEIR CLASS. 
          AND SO WE DON'T SPREAD THAT RESIDENTIAL BAD DEBT OVER TO THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. 
          AND SO AS A RESULT WE DISAGREE WITH THE ICA ON THOSE, UH, UH, CHANGES. 
          SO ON THE PORTION OF THE EQUIPMENT LEASES, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A DECREASE IN THAT AMOUNT ON, ON WHAT YOU ARE NO, YOU'VE, YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY SIGNED THE CONTRACT, WE APPROVE IT, WE'VE ORDERED THE EQUIPMENT AND WE HAVE THE, WE'RE GETTING THE BILLS FOR IT. 
          SO SO THAT IS A SET COST AT THIS POINT? IT'S AT COST, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ON THE TIER STRUCTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN, IN COMPRESSING FROM FIVE TIERS TO FOUR TIERS AND I THINK COUNCIL REP POOL, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE A, A PROPOSAL TO LOOK AT THREE TIERS OR WAS IT FOUR TIERS? FOUR FOUR TIERS? UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION ON THAT WOULD BE, UM, WELL JUST A GENERAL QUESTION GIVEN, UM, GIVEN THE RATE AMOUNT SEEMS THAT A LOT OF THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO RECOUP IS COMING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL FEES VERSUS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FEES. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THAT TO ME JUST SIGNIFIES BACK TO THE INEQUITIES THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, BILL STRUCTURE AS IT IS. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THIS CHART THAT, THAT YOU LAID OUT HERE, UM, THAT SHOWS A DEPICTION OF A, OF A HOUSEHOLD IN 78,724 VERSUS A DOWNTOWN ZIP CODE. 
          BUT THIS ALSO SAYS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THAT DOWNTOWN ZIP CODE IS AT ABOUT 18% VERSUS IN THE NORTHEAST ZIP CODE, WHICH IS AT ALMOST 75%. 
          AND SO THERE IS ALREADY A DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CONDOS AND APARTMENTS WILL USE TRADITIONALLY LESS ENERGY. 
          UM, SO I, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION ON THAT REALLY WOULD BE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW WE COULD, UM, BETTER BALANCE THE TIER STRUCTURES, WHICH I THINK THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'LL PROVIDE IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, IT'LL HELP, UM, WILL HELP WITH THAT. 
          UM, BUT, BUT, BUT MAYBE PERHAPS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR A THREE-TIER SCENARIO, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED. 
          AND I ALWAYS POINT OUT MAYBE WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NUMBER OF TIERS IS WHERE THE TIERS BREAK. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S ONE THING WE'RE ANALYZING. 
          WE WILL BRING BACK TO YOU SOME, UM, SOME ANALYSIS AS WELL AS RECOMMENDATION. 
          BUT WE HAVE PROPOSED A THREE-TIER STRUCTURE THAT BREAKS AT 300 AND THEN ANOTHER BREAK AT 1200. 
          AND SO THE MAJORITY OF CUSTOMERS IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WOULD STAY IN TIER TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ON THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THIS, UM, THAT PROGRAM REALLY IS CENTERED ON, UM, INDIVIDUALS IN EXTREME POVERTY. 
          I MEAN, IT'S 200% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LINE AND YOU MENTIONED THE 55,000, UM, HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR, BUT FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE LESS THAN 28,000 TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          AND IT SEEMS THAT MANY OF, UM, THE ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE ON THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE CAP PROGRAM IS REALLY LIMITED. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, ONLY 30% OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CAP PROGRAM ARE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          AND EVEN THEN IT TRULY IS NOT AN, UH, A REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED, THAT HAVE A NEED, UM, FOR LOWER UTILITY BILLS. 
          I MEAN, AGAIN, UM, THIS IS FOR INDIVIDUALS AT 200% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. 
          SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE COULD WE ALSO RUN, UM, COULD WE ALSO GET SOME INFORMATION ON, UM, THE TYPICAL ENERGY USE OF A HOUSEHOLD THAT IT'S MAKING BETWEEN THAT, UH, 28,000 TO, UH, 61,000? THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 80% MFI? YES. 
          IN FACT, I HAVE AN ANALYSIS, UM, BY CENSUS TRACK, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST GROUP THAT I CAN GET DOWN TO. 
          CAUSE I DON'T HAVE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER, UM, UH, INCOME LEVELS, BUT I DO HAVE CENSUS TRACKS MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND SO THAT'S USUALLY AROUND 4,000 INDIVIDUALS. 
          UM, AND I DO HAVE THAT BY CENSUS TRACK AND I HAVE BOTH CONSUMPTION INCOME, UM, AND I CAN RE PRESENT THAT TO YOU. 
          YES. 
          BUT DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, BECAUSE THE, WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO, UH, PARTICIPATE IN THE CAT PROGRAM, BUT THE CAT PROGRAM, THE SCOPE OF THE CAP PROGRAM IS, IS SUPER LIMITED IN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT IT WOULD REACH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S A POLICY CALL FOR YOU AS, AS A, AS A, AS A BODY, WHICH IS WHERE, WHERE DO WE SET THOSE THRESHOLDS? UM, AND SO THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR YOU TO HAVE. 
          UH, WE ADOPTED 200% FPL AND I BELIEVE THE REASON WHY IS, AND I'M NOT THE CAP EXPERT, IS MANY OF THE PROGRAMS, THE AUTO ENROLL PROGRAMS, THAT'S THE LEVEL THAT THEY SET. 
          SO IF YOU QUALIFY FOR, UH, VA, WHICH 
          [01:40:01]
IS A VOLUNTARY 125 OR YOU QUALIFY FOR, UH, MEDICAID, IT'S, IT'S 200%. 
          AND SO BY DOING THE AUTO QUALIFY, UM, IS WHY I THINK THEY SET THAT AT THAT LEVEL. 
          UM, AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE OUR FOLKS COME IN THAT MANAGE THE CAP PROGRAM AND AND DISCUSS WITH THAT WITH YOU. 
          BUT THAT IS CERTAINLY A POLICY CALL FOR YOU TO MAKE, UM, ON THAT, ON THE THRESHOLDS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WHAT MY LAST QUESTION FOR NOW IS ON THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND YOU LISTED, UM, THERE'S A, A CHART ON ONE OF THE BACKUP MATERIALS THAT HAS COMPARISONS TO OTHER UTILITIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS LIKE PER KNOWLES AND BLUE BONNET. 
          UM, MY QUESTION IS, UM, HAVE WE LOOKED AT COMPARISON TO, OR WHY ARE WE COMPARING TO THOSE UTILITIES VERSUS, UM, PEER CITIES ARE MORE OUR SIZE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE SAN ANTONIO, EVEN LUBBOCK, UM, FOR MORE ACCURATE, UM, ASSESSMENT OF WHERE WE STAND WITH OUR, WITH OUR FEE STRUCTURE. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT THE ICA, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, UM, STATES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER'S CHARGE SHOULD NOT EXCEED $13. 
          AND THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, UM, IS AT 25. 
          SO, UM, THE REASON WHY WE SELECTED, UH, THESE THINGS, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT PAGE 32. 
          UM, CPS ENERGY IS SAN ANTONIO, UM, DIFFERENT CITIES, THE RESIDENTS THERE TAKE, UH, ENERGY IN, IN DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          AND SO, UM, SAN ANTONIO AND AUSTIN, UM, ARE THE ONLY TWO MAJOR CITIES IN AUSTIN THAT HAVE A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY. 
          AND SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THEIR RATES ARE, WE CAN GO THEIR, THEIR TARIFFS AND LOOK AT 'EM, UH, CITIES LIKE HOUSTON AND DALLAS FORT WORTH, UM, TAKE IT FROM A INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY AND THEY HAVE WHAT WE CALL REPS OR RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDERS. 
          THAT'S THE COMPETITIVE MARKET AND THEY DON'T PUBLISH, UM, TARIFFS. 
          AND SO YOU HAVE TO GO LOOK AT CONTRACTS AND WE LOOK AT EIA DATA, WHICH COMES OUT ABOUT A YEAR LATE ON THAT. 
          SO IT'S HARD FOR US TO EXACTLY JUDGE WHAT INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS PAY FOR IN DALLAS FOR THEIR ENERGY. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE A MUNICIPAL OWN UTILITY OR COOPERATIVE LIKE PERDON DALLAS OR BLUEBONNET, YOU PUBLISH THAT INFORMATION. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE, WE, WE USE THESE AS A COMPARISON, UH, CUZ WE CAN GO OUT AND GET THEIR, THEIR, THEIR CURRENT RATES, WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING CUSTOMERS. 
          BUT IS THE SAN ANTONIO IS ALSO MUNICIPALLY OWNED OR IS THAT CPS ENERGY IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO? YES. 
          AND THEIR BASE, THEIR BASE RATE IS AT $9 AND 10 CENTS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEY, THEY HAVE NO TIER STRUCTURE AND THEY HAVE A ALMOST 1100 KWH IS THEIR AVERAGE CONSUMPTION. 
          SO THEY CAN HAVE A, A LOWER RATE AND THEY'RE ASSURED OF RECOVERY BECAUSE THEIR CUSTOMERS USE MORE ENERGY. 
          WHERE WITH US WITH A $10 CHARGE AND MORE CONCENTRATION OF ENERGY SALES IN THE LOWER TIERS, WE'RE NOT ASSURED OF THAT. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE AND HOW MUCH YOU COLLECTED ENERGY. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET THAT BALANCE AND IT BECOMES MORE, UH, THE MATH BECOMES A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED WITH THE TIER STRUCTURES. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, I'LL BE GLAD TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AND, AND DEMONSTRATE SOME OF THAT FOR YOU ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          BUT WE WOULD BE SETTING OUR RATE AT $25 WHEN SAN ANTONIO, A MUCH LARGER CITY, HAS THEIR RATE AT $10, $9 AND 10 CENTS. 
          AND, AND I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          THEY ONLY HAVE ONE TIER. 
          SO I GUESS WITH THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE MORE INFORMATION TO, TO UNDERSTAND THAT FINANCIAL DIFFERENCE AND JUST BE AWARE THAT IN ADDITION, UH, THE BALANCE OF HAVING GOING FROM $10 AND $25, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS WE'RE LOWERING THE COST FOR KW H AND, AND CHANGING THE TIER. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. 
          WE'RE NOT JUST TAKING ONE ACTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, I WAS INTERESTED IN ONE OF THE POINTS YOU RAISED, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING IT. 
          IT WAS, IT HAD TO DO YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE EXAMPLE THAT THEY SELECTED WITH REGARD TO LOOKING AT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN, IN THE NORTHEAST. 
          AND WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE, THAT THE TYPE OF HOUSING COMPARABLE BECAUSE THE TYPE OF HOUSING IS DIFFERENT, RIGHT? BASICALLY HAVING A DIFFERENT ZIP CODE SUBSET, UM, TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE USE, THE DIFFERENCES IN USAGES VERSUS THE THE CHARGE. 
          THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING POINT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK THAT'S A, I THINK PROBABLY WE COULD FIND A HIGHER INCOME, UM, HIGHER INCOME SINGLE FAMILY, PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY AREA. 
          THANKS FOR RAISING THAT MAYOR. 
          ALSO EXPRESS AN INTEREST IN THE, UH, THE INFORMATION REQUESTED THAT CORRELATES BY CENSUS TRACK, UH, USAGE, UH, AND, AND INCOME. 
          UH, AGAIN, 
          [01:45:01]
JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW THOSE THINGS ARE, ARE CORRELATING THAT FROM KITCHEN. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA ECHO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, MAYOR, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT AND COUNCIL MEMBER POINTS AND OTHERS MAY HAVE ALSO. 
          UM, I, I I THINK THAT WE NEED TO, UM, HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE CAP PROGRAM IN CON IN IN CONTEXT. 
          UM, WHICH MEANS I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED TO TALK TO THE CAP PROGRAM FOLKS, UH, BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER ONE THING WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HERE OR NOT, I MEAN A KEY THING WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE RATE SHOCK. 
          WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, UH, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT OUR CAP PROGRAM. 
          AND WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS SAY THAT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. 
          I THINK, SO MAYOR, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT, COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINT DID ALSO, OTHERS DID. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ALLOW OURSELVES THE APPROPRIATE TIME, UH, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE, UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, UM, MAKING THAT PROGRAM MORE BROADLY AVAILABLE, UH, TO THE, TO, TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. 
          THE LATTER PART OF THAT BEING THE REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION, WHICH IS NOT JUST TO EXPLAIN WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT THE NET IMPACTS ARE, BUT WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS IF WE WANT TO USE THE CAP PROGRAM TO TO, TO BETTER ADDRESS THE SHOCK, ESPECIALLY AMONG THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE LEAST ABLE TO, TO WEATHER THAT SHOCK. 
          ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES BY RAISING THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE OF 25 IS WE DO WAIVE THAT CHARGE. 
          SO IF YOU'RE ON THE CAP PROGRAM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE INSULATED FROM THE, THE CHANGE IN RATES. 
          I, IF YOU'RE A HIGHER CONSUMER, SAY ONE, SAY ONE OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT IN 1950S OUT ON OUR, UH, EAST SIDE OF AUSTIN, UM, YOUR ENERGY CHARGES CAN GO DOWN LESS AND SO YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH INSULATED. 
          BUT AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE CAP PROGRAM TO TO, TO GET THAT BENEFIT AND THE CHALLENGES. 
          HOW DO YOU GET THOSE CUSTOMERS, UH, WHO HAD QUALIFY AND, AND DESERVE THAT BENEFIT? HOW DO YOU GET THEM ON THE CAP PROGRAM? I THINK THAT'S OUR CHALLENGE. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS TOO. 
          AND THEN I EXPAND THAT EVEN FURTHER CUZ I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER FRONT DID RAISE AN INTERESTING QUESTION, WHICH GOES TO THE FACT THAT I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT HERE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMPTION AND RATE AND BILL AND INCOME AND I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLAT RATE, UH, AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THOSE VARIABLES. 
          SO I TOO AM GONNA BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE COMPARISON OF, UH, SINGLE FAMILY CENSUS TRACK IN THE NORTHEAST AND A SINGLE FAMILY CENSUS TRACK IN THE NORTHWEST, UH, SO THAT WE HAVE THE SAME KIND OF UNIT BEING USED CUZ THAT'S A VARIABLE THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW AND INTUITIVELY WHAT'S RIGHT. 
          BUT ALSO KNOWING THEN HOW THIS CHANGE IN STRUCTURE WOULD AGAIN, IMPACT THAT. 
          SO NOT JUST SEEING WHAT OUR CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE DOES, SINGLE FAMILY HOME CENSUS TRACK IN NORTHEAST VERSUS NORTHWEST, BUT WHAT WOULD THOSE SAME TWO CENSUS TRACKS BE UNDER THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, WHICH INCREASES THE BASE RATE? YEAH, TO THAT POINT TOO, REMEMBER WITH THE HOUSING BOND THAT WE ARE HOPING PASSES, OOPS, SORRY, THAT WILL BE ON THE  ON THE BALLOT, UM, NEXT WEEK, UH, THERE'S MONEY IN THERE FOR, UH, REPAIRS TO HOMES, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT'S TARGETED FOR LOWER INCOME PARTS OF THE CITY. 
          AND IF INDEED THE, THE HIGHER ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS RELATED TO LACK OF INSULATION, UM, OLD CASEMENT WINDOWS, UM, POORLY CLOSING DOORS, YOU KNOW, AND WHATEVER'S IN, IN THE ATS AND SO FORTH. 
          THE CITY HAS FOR A LONG TIME HAD THESE KIND OF, UH, UH, HOME IMPROVEMENT KIND OF FUNDS AVAILABLE AND IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THAT FUND AND REALLY RAMP UP, UH, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE, UM, ENLISTED TO HAVE THAT WORK DONE AT NO COST TO, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOMES. 
          SO WE CAN ACTUALLY BRING THE HOMES UP TO A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD WITH REGARD TO, UM, UH, ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION AND THEN THAT WOULD HAVE A, A REALLY GOOD IMPACT ON HOW MUCH ENERGY THEY NEED TO USE BECAUSE THE HOUSE WOULD BE MORE SOLID. 
          WE SET ASIDE $47 MILLION 23 FOR THAT PROGRAM. 
          AND THEN I THINK IN THE $350 MILLION PACKAGE, WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED A SPECIFIC AMOUNT. 
          WE'VE LET THOSE NUMBERS FLOAT, 
          [01:50:01]
BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HOMES IS, IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE TO ME THAT'S IN THAT PACKAGE AND THAT PROPOSAL. 
          AND THIS IS AN, AN AREA PARTICULARLY WHERE I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, THAT EMPHASIS. 
          AND THEN MAYOR, I THOUGHT IF WE WERE KIND OF DRAWING THIS TO A CLOSE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE CONVERSATIONS. 
          UM, I WANTED TO RUN THROUGH THE, THE, UH, DATES AGAIN. 
          AND THEN I ALSO BROUGHT A BIT OF A SH UH, A PIECE OF INFORMATION TO PUT UP ON THE OVERHEAD. 
          AND I THINK OUR, UM, A AV GUY HAS THIS ON A, ON A THUMB DRIVE, AND I'D HAND THIS TO TAMMY COOPER TO WALK THROUGH. 
          THIS IS MY BILL , UM, FOR OCTOBER SIX TO 24. 
          AND OF COURSE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT YOU PAY ON YOUR BILL IS NOT ALL ELECTRIC, RIGHT? IT'S YOUR WATER, IT'S YOUR WASTE WATER, IT'S YOUR DRAINAGE AND, AND CLEAN STREET FEES ON THE BACK SHOWS HOW MUCH. 
          UH, AND I TIPPED INTO THE THIRD TIER, UM, A BIT IN OCTOBER. 
          I'LL PASS THIS DOWN FOR MS. COOPER AND THEN HAVE OUR, OUR, UH, 80 GUY PUT THIS UP ON THE SCREEN. 
          THIS IS THE, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA PASS THIS DOWN TO MR. DOMBROSKI, THE BILL AND, AND I WANTED STAFF, IT'S, IT'S ON THE THUMB DRIVE PICTURE OF IT, MAYBE WE BROUGHT DOWN A THUMB DRIVE AND THE VIDEO. 
          YEAH, I THINK IT'S ALREADY LOADED UP. 
          I SAW IT FLASH ON THE SCREEN BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED. 
          SO THIS SHOWS YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF, OF THE TIERS AND HOW EVERYBODY PAYS TIER ONE AND UM, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY PAYS TIER THE, AND THEN THOSE WHO ARE IN TIER TWO PAY TIER ONE PLUS TIER TWO. 
          UH, TO ME IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LIKE, UM, AND OH GOSH, THIS ISN'T A VERY, UH, NICE COMPARISON. 
          MAYBE IT WAS KINDA LIKE INCOME TAX, RIGHT? YES. 
          IT'S IT'S A MARGINAL INCREASE IN, IN THE ADDITIONAL TAXES ON THE MARGINAL INCREASE, NOT ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE GOAL IS YOU HAVE THAT AVERAGE RATE SHOULD BE COLLECTED AMONGST ALL THOSE TIER. 
          AND THE NICE THING IS THERE'S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACK, UH, SHOWS YOUR 13 MONTH AVERAGE, YOUR DAILY A, HOW MUCH YOU PAY A DAY, YOUR MONTHLY USAGE AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND I, I WANT TO JUST TO HAVE AE STAFF KIND OF WALK EVERYBODY THROUGH THIS. 
          SO, UH, YOU CORRECT TO POINT OUT WE HAVE THE CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES BILLING SERVICE, SO IT'S FOR ALL UTILITIES. 
          UM, SO IF YOU'RE A WATER CUSTOMER, YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE THAT. 
          BUT ON THE ELECTRIC SIDE HERE, IT'S, IT'S CALLED OUT. 
          SO THE FIRST IS A CHART ON THE LEFT THERE. 
          YOU SEE THIS, A HISTORY AGRAM THAT COVERS 13 MONTHS AND ALLOWS YOU TO SEE HOW YOU USE ELECTRICITY THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND HOW YOU COMPARE IT TO LAST YEAR AT THE SAME TIME. 
          UM, SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, YOU'RE PRETTY CLOSE, UM, MONTH TO MONTH. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, UM, BUT YOU CAN SEE ALSO THAT, UH, YOU ARE A, UH, SEVERE SUMMER PEAKER. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , YOU'RE TURNING ON YOUR, YOUR, YOUR AIR CONDITIONING. 
          TOTALLY OWN THAT . 
          AND FOR 2021, YOUR, YOUR BARS ARE PROBABLY HIGHER AS YOU CAN SEE THAN WERE A YEAR AGO. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAD A HOTTER SUMMER. 
          THAT'S THE WEATHER DRIVING THAT. 
          UM, ON THE RIGHT SIDE ARE THE INDIVIDUAL NUMBERS. 
          AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, THE READINGS FROM YOUR, YOUR METER, UH, POINT OUT. 
          WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE, UM, METER READERS ANYMORE. 
          WE DON'T GO HOUSE TO HOUSE LOOKING. 
          YOU'RE AT METER. 
          THIS IS ALL DONE AU UH, THROUGH AUTOMATION OR WHAT WE CALL OUR, UH, ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND SO, UM, WE, WE TAKE THAT DOWNLOAD, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT'S USED TO CALCULATE YOUR BILL. 
          SO YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAS LAST PERIOD'S READING AND THIS YEAR'S BILL, UH, READING AND THE TOTAL IS YOUR TOTAL KWH. 
          IN THIS CASE YOU USED, UM, 1072 KILOWATT HOURS AND GOING DOWN TO BILL HERE, THERE'S THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE OF $10. 
          THAT'S FIXED REGARDLESS THE NUMBER OF KW H YOU USE, UH, WE'RE GONNA BILL YOU $10. 
          UM, THE FIRST IS TIER ONE. 
          SO AGAIN, WE TALK ABOUT BREAKING AT 500. 
          AND AGAIN, THERE'S THAT NUMBER, THAT 2.86 CENTS SO THOSE FIRST, UH, 500 KILOWATT HOURS COST YOU $14 AND 1 CENT. 
          UM, THE RATE, UM, UH, JUST THAT MIGHT BE DOUBLE, UM, UH, TO TIER TWO. 
          THE NEXT ONE, THE NEXT 500 ARE AT, UH, 5.83 CENTS. 
          SO THAT COSTS YOU $29 AND 16 CENTS. 
          AND AGAIN, THE POINT IS MAKING, WHICH IS REGARDLESS OF YOUR INCOME, ALL YOUR FIRST TWO, 500 ARE AT THIS RATE, AND YOUR NEXT 500, THE NEXT RATE. 
          SO, UM, IT'S NOT INCOME, IT'S NOT PROGRESSIVE OR REGRESSIVE. 
          UM, THE NEXT TIER THREE IS YOU CROSSED OVER THAT BY ONLY 72 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          AND SO WE BUILD YOU AT 7.81 CENTS, AND THAT TOTALED $5 AND 63 CENTS. 
          UM, AND THEN REGULATORY CHARGE IS 
          [01:55:01]
BILLED COMPLETELY ON KW H. 
          AND SO, UH, THAT'S THE ONE POINT, UH, TWO ZERO 6 CENTS TIMES 1072. 
          THAT GIVES YOU THE $12 AND 93 CENTS. 
          COMMUNITY BENEFITS CHARGE, IT'S TOTALLY BASED UPON KILOWATT HOURS AS WELL. 
          AND THAT CAME TO $5 AND 53 CENTS. 
          AND THAT PAYS FOR, UH, AREA STREET LIGHTING, THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM THAT I JUST MENTIONED. 
          UM, THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT, THIS IS THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ELECTRICITY THAT YOU USED. 
          SO THOSE ARE ELECTRONS. 
          WHEN YOU TURN ON YOUR LIGHT, THAT MAKES A TURN ON AND YOUR APPLIANCE RUN. 
          THAT'S THE ELECTRICITY THAT COSTS YOU, UM, $30 AND 84 CENTS, AND THAT'S 2.88 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR TIMES 1072. 
          YOU'VE HEARD ME MENTION THAT THAT IS A, A FIXED RATE ALL YEAR LONG, AND I KEEP THINKING THAT IF CUSTOMERS KNEW WHAT IT REALLY COSTS THEM. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN, UM, JUNE AND JULY WHEN YOU HAD A HIGH CONSUMPTION, THE FACT IS IT WAS ACTUALLY COSTING US AUSTIN ENERGY PROBABLY CLOSER TO FIVE AND A HALF OR 6 CENTS TO DELIVER THAT ENERGY TO YOU. 
          AND WE'RE GONNA CATCH IT UP THROUGH THE OVER UNDER COLLECTION. 
          HAD YOU GOTTEN THAT PRICE SIGNAL, MAYBE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE CROSSED OVER TO, TO YOUR, I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT, SO THAT'S THE PRICE OF THE ENERGY. 
          THAT'S THE PRICE SIGNAL YOU SHOULD BE GETTING THAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING. 
          UH, BUT THAT'S COME THROUGH THE POWER SUPPLY. 
          AND FINALLY, THERE'S A, UM, RESIDENTIAL SALES TAX THAT WE APPLY, UH, TO CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE BILL. 
          UM, AND THAT'S A DOLLAR AND 8 CENTS FOR THE CITY SALES TAX AT 1%. 
          SO YOUR TOTAL BILL IS $109 AND 18 CENTS FOR 1072 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          THE TOTAL BILL WAS MORE LIKE $230 WITH ALL THE OTHER, UH, UTILITIES INCLUDED. 
          AND I DO THINK THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE LOOK AT THE BILL AND THINK ALL OF THAT IS ELECTRICITY. 
          YES. 
          BUT IN, IN, IN REALITY, IT, IT'S, WE OFTEN GET MORE THAN HALF CALLS AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, AND THEY'LL CALL AND SAY, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY ELECTRIC BILL. 
          AND WHEN OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS START ASKING THE QUESTIONS, THEY FIND OUT IT'S ABOUT WATER. 
          BUT SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYONE, AND IT COMES FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, WE, WE WON THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BUT THIS IS A CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES. 
          IT'S, IT'S EVERYTHING. 
          YOU DON'T SEE AN AUSTIN ENERGY LOGO ON HERE. 
          SO WE COMBINE IT, IT'S COSTS, IT SAVES MONEY FOR OUR, OUR, OUR CITIZENS. 
          UH, BUT IT IS CONFUSING AT TIMES. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, AND ASSUME THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, EVERYBODY GETS THE BILL AND, AND FOR WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. 
          UM, SO I'LL JUST CLOSE BY, UH, REMINDING EVERYONE ABOUT OUR BASE RATE REVIEW SCHEDULE TODAY WITH THE WORK SESSION. 
          WE HAD THE BRIEFING, WHICH LAID OUT A REALLY GOOD, UH, GROUNDING FOR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          LOTS OF READING MATERIAL, MORE QUESTIONS WILL BE OCCURRING TO EVERYBODY. 
          I URGE EVERYONE TO SUBMIT THEM TO US. 
          AND ENERGY, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO PUT 'EM UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. 
          I'VE PUT THE SCENARIOS UP, UM, THAT I POSED EARLIER IN THE MEETING ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. 
          IF YOU WANNA PUT YOURS THERE, THEN THEY'RE ALL ACCUMULATED. 
          BUT AUSTIN ENERGY WILL BE LOOKING FOR INPUT FROM YOU, NOT ONLY ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, BUT ALSO PERSONALLY. 
          I URGE, UH, THE ADDITIONAL ONE-ON-ONES ON NOVEMBER NINE AT 10:00 AM IS OUR SPECIAL CALLED, UH, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH INVITED TESTIMONY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, THE HEARINGS EXAMINER, THE IN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, AND ALL OF THE INTERVENERS IN THE BASE RAPE CASE. 
          AND YOU'VE SEEN THAT LIST OF WHOM ALL THEY ARE. 
          AND I IT WAS ALSO IN THIS PRESENTATION ON THE 15TH, WE'LL HAVE, UM, AT 10:00 AM AT COUNCIL A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE ALL PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UH, IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED. 
          NOVEMBER 29, 9:00 AM ANOTHER WORK SESSION. 
          WE HAVE THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING ON THAT DAY, AND WE WILL HAVE AGENDA ITEMS RELATING TO THE BASE RATE, UM, ON NOVEMBER 29, AND THEN DECEMBER ONE AT FOUR O'CLOCK. 
          WE'LL CALL A PUBLIC HEARING DURING OUR COUNCIL MEETING. 
          AND THEN THAT WILL BE OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO CONSIDER TAKING A VOTE ON THE BASE RATE. 
          THIS IS WHERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED. 
          UM, IT'S, WE'VE GOT THE POSTING TIMES 10:00 AM WITH A 4:00 PM TIME CERTAIN FOR AUSTIN ENERGY'S PUBLIC HEARING. 
          AND, UM, THERE'S SOME MORE LINKS UP ON MY MESSAGE BOARD POST WITH THE BASE RATE REVIEW INFORMATION WEBSITE, AUSTIN ENERGY BASE RATE REVIEW, INFORMATION WEB PAGE. 
          UH, AGAIN, THE SCENARIOS, UH, THAT WERE OPPOSED TODAY. 
          AND I, I KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PICKED UP ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND, UM, UH, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM EVERYBODY HERE TODAY. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          THANK YOU MAYOR PROAM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHEN WE MIGHT, IF WE'VE GIVEN YOU SCENARIOS THAT WE'VE WANTED YOU TO RUN THE NUMBERS ON, UM, WE MAY OR MAY NOT WORK, 
          [02:00:01]
UM, IF, IF WHEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION, UM, CAN I GET BACK TO YOU? I THINK SOME OF THOSE WE'VE ALREADY RUN, AND SO IT'D JUST BE A MATTER OF COMPILING THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER ONES, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT. 
          UM, AND SO I WANT TO GET BACK WITH STAFF BEFORE I COMMIT THEM, BUT WE'LL DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST FOR CLARITY, BECAUSE ON YOUR SLIDE 14, IT'S TITLED AUSTIN ENERGY 2022 BASE RATE REVIEW. 
          UM, IT SAYS ONLY TWO BASE RATE CHANGES SINCE 1994, AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE 5.6% NUMBER. 
          IT DOESN'T CLARIFY THERE THAT YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, SO THAT IS THE SLIDE THAT IS, I THINK, UM, NEEDS TO BE UPDATED SO THAT WE ARE TALKING SO FOLKS KNOW WHAT THEIR RESIDENTIAL RATE INCREASES BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS WELL ABOVE A 5.6% INCREASE FOR THE SOME OF THE MORE YOU ARE CORRECT. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? THIS IS VERY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. 
          [D1. Council meeting time management.]
NEXT THING I HAD WAS FOR US TO, UH, VISIT ON, UH, THE DISCUSSION ON SPEAKER TIMES. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER TO GIVE SPEAKERS MULTIPLE, UM, ONE MINUTE FOR EACH THING THEY SIGN UP FOR. 
          UM, AND WE WERE, UH, REQUESTED TO, TO RAISE THAT AT A, AT A, AT A WORK SESSION REMINDER, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS WE'VE BEEN GIVING EVERYBODY JUST ONE MINUTE TO TALK. 
          UH, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO KEEP, UH, SPEAKERS GENERALLY TO, UH, UH, AN HOUR IN THE MORNING, AN HOUR IN THE AFTERNOON. 
          UM, WE START AT 10, UH, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE TRY TO STOP AT NOON MEANS HALF THE TIME THEN IN THE MORNING FOR SPEAKERS, AND THEN IN THE AFTERNOON AND HOUR STARTING AT TWO, UM, TO GIVE PEOPLE MULTIPLE MINUTES. 
          UH, I THINK, UH, IT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF GIVING PEOPLE MORE CHANCES TO SPEAK, UH, BUT ALSO MORE TIME ASSOCIATED WITH SPEAKERS. 
          UM, THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANNA EXPERIMENT STARTING NEXT CALENDAR YEAR, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD URGE HOW WE HAVE BASICALLY TWO REAL BIG COUNCIL MEETINGS COMING UP IN DECEMBER. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO MEETINGS TO, TO, TO, TO CHANGE THE, THE PRACTICE WOULD URGE YOU TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH IT AND MAYBE SPEND MORE TIME FIGURING OUT HOW TO FACILITATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          BUT, UH, THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, UH, UH, BE, BE, BE DONE. 
          UH, CATHERINE POOL AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT IT'S LATE IN THE DAY TO CHANGE, UH, THE, UH, THE PROCESS AT THIS POINT. 
          AND I, AND I ALSO THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, DISAGREEMENT AROUND WHETHER, UM, THE STATUTE REQUIRES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THAT WE, UM, WE WHO ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUE ON COUNCIL IN 2023, CONSIDER, UM, REALIGNING THE PUBLIC INPUT WITH THE ITEMS AS THEY ARE CALLED. 
          AND WE INTERESTED IN TALKING WITH, UM, THE DIAS ABOUT RETURNING TO THAT APPROACH. 
          WE MADE THESE CHANGES DUE TO THE PANDEMIC AND, AND OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT, IF NOT FOR HAVING TO BRING PEOPLE ON REMOTELY. 
          UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT, WHICH YOU WERE SAYING MAYOR, ABOUT HOLDING ON ANY, UM, SPECIFIC CHANGES. 
          WE HAVE FOUR MEETINGS LEFT TO THIS MONTH, AND I GUESS KIND OF A CONSENT ITEM, A CONSENT MEETING ON THE 15TH, SO FEWER THAN A HALF DOZEN MEETINGS LEFT IN THE YEAR AND PICK IT UP NEXT YEAR. 
          I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER POOL THAT THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL COULD DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL AS WE GET STARTED IN THE NEW YEAR. 
          I AM WORKING ON A ITEM RELATED TO MEETING MANAGEMENT, SO IF ANYONE HERE IS INTERESTED IN JOINING THAT WITH ME, THAT WILL BE HERE NEXT YEAR, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL OR KITCHEN. 
          UM, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. 
          I DO WANNA POINT OUT TWO THINGS THOUGH THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO FIGURE OUT. 
          WE HAVE TWO MAJOR PUDS, UH, TO CONSIDER. 
          ONE OF 'EM THE STATESMAN, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE BRODY PUD, WHICH IS IN MY DISTRICT TO COME FORWARD, AT LEAST ON FIRST READING, THAT'S UNCLEAR, BUT IF IT DOES COME FORWARD ON FIRST READING, UH, THEN THAT WILL BE A MAJOR MEETING. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE, UM, PUBLIC INPUT FOR THOSE SESSIONS? I, I AM, I'M CONCERNED THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WITH, WE'VE BEEN DOING ALL ZONING AT ONE TIME, UM, AND THEN WE GET TO THOSE ZONING ISSUES WHEN WE GET TO THEM. 
          [02:05:01]
THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE TWO MAJOR THINGS IS THAT IT TOTALLY SEPARATES THE PUBLIC'S CONVERSATION FROM OUR CONVERSATION. 
          AND TO ME, THAT DOESN'T WORK WELL. 
          SO, UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF GENERALLY HOW THE, THE, THE COUNCIL WORKS, MOVE FORWARD, MOVES FORWARD. 
          THAT IS NOT, NOT FOR ME TO SAY, BUT, UM, BUT THESE TWO PODS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE OTHER INSTANCES I'M NOT AWARE OF, BUT THESE ARE TWO THAT I AM. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT FIVE, IF WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT, IF WE DO GET TO THE BRODY PUD, THEN I WILL WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK THAT IS NOT SO SEPARATED FROM WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE CONVERSATION. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. 
          UH, WHAT WE USED TO DO IS WE USED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE OUR, HAVE THE COMMENTS CLOSER TO THE POD, AND WE, AND WE CERTAINLY DO THAT FOR THE, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE PROPOSING THE POD FOR THE DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO COMMENT RIGHT THERE AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE A HARD AND FAST WAY THAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER IT. 
          AND THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT. 
          I MEAN, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DROP A GENERAL RULE AND, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE GONNA BE HERE NEXT YEAR, WORK ON THAT, I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE WANTS TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION SO THAT THEY CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT LOGISTICAL ISSUES. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER, I URGE YOU, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU BRING THEM IN. 
          IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CHANGING THE RULE TODAY, THEN WE DON'T NEED THEM TO SPEAK TODAY. 
          IF WE WERE GONNA TRY TO CHANGE THE RULE FOR DECEMBER, I THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO SPEAK YOUR QUESTION. 
          GOING TO THOSE TWO SPECIFIC ITEMS MIGHT BE SOMETHING AS WE GET CLOSER TO THAT MEETING THAT WE COULD FASHION A PARTICULAR RULE FOR. 
          THAT CONVERSATION ON THAT TOPIC AT THAT MEETING MIGHT BE A BETTER WAY TO DO IT THAT REALLY FOCUSES IN ON, ON THAT ELEMENT. 
          AND THEN LET THE COUNCIL DECIDE, GET CLOSER. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE STATESMAN POD, BUT, UM, AND I'LL LEAVE THAT, UH, OTHERS TO SPEAK TO. 
          BUT FOR THE BRODIE POD, THAT'LL WORK BECAUSE THERE'S STILL SOME UNKNOWNS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW WE'LL BE PROCEEDING WITH IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF LETTING PEOPLE SPEAK, UM, PER ITEM. 
          I THINK THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CALLED THAT SAY THEY'RE SIGNED UP FOR THREE ITEMS, AND I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GET THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS OUT IN, IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          I ALSO THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO US IF THIS IS AT ALL LOGISTICALLY FEASIBLE THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO TAKE UP THE NUMBERS TOGETHER SO THAT PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING ON THE SAME ITEMS AND YOU'RE GETTING ALL OF THAT COMMUNICATION AT ONCE ON THE SAME TOPIC. 
          SO WE'RE NOT JUMPING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE ITEMS. UM, I, I AM THOUGH SUPPORTIVE OF DOING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE SPEAKERS TOGETHER IN THE MORNINGS. 
          I KNOW, ESPECIALLY FOR DISTRICT DATE FOLKS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO, TO BE AT CITY HALL ALL DAY LONG. 
          IT'S USUALLY SOMETHING THEY CAN CARVE OUT MAYBE AN HOUR OF THEIR DAY. 
          BUT AS WE GET INTO THE AFTERNOON, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE JUST CAN'T SIT AROUND ALL DAY WAITING UNTIL THEIR ITEM IS CALLED THAT THEY WANNA SPEAK ON. 
          SO I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING THEM ALL TOGETHER, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REVISIT, UM, THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PORTION. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T SIGNING UP UNDER FALSE NAMES, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IS EXPECTED. 
          WE HAD A SITUATION LAST THURSDAY WITH COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE, AND I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH, BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY NOT HAVE THAT TYPE OF TERMINOLOGY BEING USED DURING THE NOON HOUR. 
          I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE AND WOULD LIKE TO LOOK FORWARD AND MAYBE TALK TO LEGAL ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PARAMETERS AND EXPECTATIONS THERE ARE FOR, UM, THE OPEN SPEAKING SESSIONS. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD POINT. 
          WE, WE, WE TRY TO GET THE TOPICS, UH, GROUPED AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS DOING THAT NOW BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION THEY HAVE, BUT IN TWO SEPARATE GROUPS. 
          SO WE DO THEM BY NUMBER FIRST OVER THE PHONE, AND THEN WE DO THEM BY NUMBER, NOT ON THE PHONE. 
          BUT IF SOMEBODY GETS CALLED ON THE FIRST NUMBER THAT THEY'VE DONE AND THEY WANNA ALSO SPEAK ON ANOTHER ISSUE, THAT ONE'S GOING TO COME OUT OF TURN BECAUSE OUR RULES RIGHT NOW HAVE THEM HAVING TO SPEAK ALL AT ONCE. 
          UH, AND, AND I WISH WE HAD BETTER RULES WITH RESPECT TO, UH, INTERVENING IN PEOPLE. 
          AND I, BOY GODS, IF YOU GUYS COULD FIGURE THAT ONE OUT AND WORKING WITH, WITH COUNSEL, UH, ON THAT, FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T ABRIDGE PEOPLE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS MORE POWER TO YOU, THAT THE ONE ESCAPED ME. 
          UH, BUT THAT WAS CERTAINLY HARD TO LISTEN TO ON, UH, ON LAST THURSDAY. 
          AND QUITE FRANKLY, I, I FELT SOME APPRECIATION FOR THE MEMBERS THAT WERE ABLE 
          [02:10:01]
TO AND WALKED OFF THE DAIS. 
          UH, SO JUST TO NOT CONDONE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT RULE IS, BUT I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU GUYS TO FIND ONE. 
          UM, MAYOR TIM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HEAR FROM LEGAL AS TO WHETHER WE ARE REQUIRED TO HEAR, UM, FROM PEOPLE AND PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH ITEM THAT THEY WANNA SPEAK ON, UM, WHETHER IT'S HERE A MEMO, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          I, I DO THINK WE NEED, WE NEED TO HAVE A RULING ON THAT. 
          HAPPY TO HELP. 
          I MEAN, THIS DISCUSSION IS, UH, IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE MECHANICS OF IT, CERTAINLY THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU ALLOW SPEAKERS ON THE ITEMS BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE ON THEM, AND YOU ALL ARE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOW YOU MANAGE YOUR TIME AROUND THAT. 
          AND THE, THE SPECIFIC QUESTION'S A LITTLE MORE NUANCED ABOUT DO THEY GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EACH TOPIC THAT THEY'RE GONNA SPEAK ABOUT? UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN FINESSE THAT AND WORK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS, AS WE TURN TO THE NEW YEAR, UM, CITIZEN COMMUNICATION OR PUBLIC INPUT. 
          NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE IT, OF COURSE, AT ALL. 
          UM, AND YOU DO HAVE RULES OF DECORUM FOR YOUR COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          SO, UM, PEOPLE, YOU CAN'T ASK PEOPLE TO, TO FOLLOW RULES OF DECORUM, BUT YOU CAN'T LIMIT BECAUSE OF FREE SPEECH, OF COURSE, THE TOPICS THAT THEY TALK ABOUT. 
          SO IT'S, AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF A NUANCE CONVERSATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN FOLKS ARE COMING TO SPEAK ON TWO ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LIKE THE SAME TOPIC. 
          SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE STATE'S BEEN PUT, IS LISTED TWICE. 
          I'M NOT, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THEY GET DOUBLE THE TIME BECAUSE IT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE RELATED TO IT. 
          UM, BUT LIKE LAST WEEK WHEN WE HAD THE OFFSET ITEM AND WE HAD THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, I THINK THOSE WERE DISPARATE ENOUGH ITEMS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, UM, ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON BOTH ITEMS. AND THAT REQUIRED I THINK, MORE TIME. 
          AND SO I THINK IF WE ARE IN THAT SITUATION, EVEN IN THE COMING MEETINGS, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE PEOPLE, UM, THAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT NOT TO ABUSE IT, BUT IF THEY'RE REALLY ARE, ARE SEPARATE ITEMS. UM, AND THEN I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THINK ABOUT, WE SOMETIMES HAVE, UM, A TON OF PEOPLE COMING WHO ARE ON THE SAME TOPIC, WHO ARE ORGANIZED TO COME. 
          UM, AND WE USED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, UM, DONATIONS OF TIME AND OTHER THINGS WHICH ALLOWED FOR A MORE COHERENT PRESENTATION OF ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER OF AN ISSUE. 
          UM, AND I THINK ALLOWED PEOPLE TO REALLY VOICE THEIR CONCERNS BETTER THAN HAVING, YOU KNOW, 20 PEOPLE COME IN SPEAKING A MINUTE. 
          I'D RATHER HAVE, I I, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY, WHEN THERE'S AN OPTION FOR THAT, UM, TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS, BUT PROVIDE A GREATER AMOUNT OF TIME AND ALLOW THEM THE REAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE US A COHERENT, UM, AND CLEAR SORT OF ARGUMENT TO US. 
          I DON'T THINK WE'LL GET THAT FIGURED OUT, UM, FOR DECEMBER. 
          UM, THERE MAY BE SOME ITEMS FOR WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT IS NECESSARY. 
          I THINK WITH THE AE RATE CASE, WE ARE MAKING TIME FOR SOME OF THE, UM, SOME OF THE INTERVENERS TO SPEAK AT LENGTH IN THE HEARING, AND SO THAT GIVES THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WERE THERE AN ITEM WHERE THAT MADE A LOT MORE SENSE? I THINK THAT HELPS US IN OUR, IN OUR DELIBERATIONS. 
          UM, I, I, I GENERALLY PREFER MORE TIME FOR SPEAKERS, UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE BALANCE OF BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR WORK. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL TOVO PO. 
          OKAY. 
          PO WHY DON'T YOU GO AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          YOU KNOW, AND WE REALLY WENT TO THIS, UH, TIME LIMIT ON, UH, BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RULE THAT WE HAD TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM UNTIL WE VOTED ON IT. 
          SO IF THAT ITEM WENT, YOU KNOW, FOR THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS, THEN THEY WERE ALWAYS INVITED TO, HAD THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND SPEAK. 
          AND WE DIDN'T USED TO ALLOW THAT UNTIL THAT RULING CAME IN, WHICH, UH, MADE THE MEETINGS GO VERY LONG. 
          SO, UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM GOING VERY LONG ON MEETINGS. 
          UH, I NEVER HAD, BUT, UH, THERE WAS A DECISION MADE THAT WE CUT OUR MEETINGS OFF AT 10 UNLESS WE VOTE TO CONTINUE IT. 
          SO, UH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE FACING THINGS THAT ARE, THAT IS NOT IN OUR CONTROL WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RULED THAT. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND 
          [02:15:01]
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL OTO? UM, YEAH, I, I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          ONE IS, AS COUNCIL MEMBER PULL POINTED OUT, WE ADJUSTED OUR RULES DURING THE PANDEMIC AND HAD TO, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT ADJUSTING OUR RULES RIGHT NOW, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE. 
          BUT I THINK FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE REALLY, UM, COMING DOWN AND SPEAKING OR SPEAKING TO US ON THE PHONE WHO ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT TWO TOPICS IN, YOU KNOW, 30 SECONDS EACH, UM, OR COMING DOWN AND HAVING ONLY ONE MINUTE INSTEAD OF THE THREE THEY ONCE HAD, THE, THE ISSUES THEY CARE ABOUT BETWEEN HERE IN DECEMBER ARE GONNA BE DONE BY THE TIME THE NEW COUNCIL GETS SEATED. 
          SO I THINK IF THERE'S A, A CONCERN THAT OUR GROUP HAS ABOUT PUBLIC, A PUBLIC SPEAK SPEECH AND NEEDING MORE OF IT, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MAKE THAT CHANGE AT A MINIMUM. 
          I WOULD ECHO MAYOR, PRO TEM, UM, ALTERS POINT THAT IF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOO VERY DISCREET ITEMS, THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST GET THE MINIMUM TIME FOR EACH. 
          AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE THAT CHANGE RIGHT AWAY. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION, RIGHT, TO CONSIDER ALTERING, ALTERING IT FOR THAT. 
          IS THERE A, A CONSENSUS AROUND THAT? THAT IF SOMEBODY'S TALKING ABOUT TWO VERY DIFFERENT ITEMS, THAT THEY WOULD GET THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EACH? I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUES, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN SUPPORT DOING RIGHT AWAY? IF YOU'RE TALKING, IF SOMEBODY HAS SIGNED UP ON TWO VERY DIFFERENT ITEMS, AT LEAST GETTING THE ONE ONE MINUTE MINIMUM, MY RECOMMENDATION TO THAT YOU'RE ASKING WAS TO NOT ADOPT IT AS A GENERAL RULE. 
          CAUSE LIKE THESE GONNA BE TWO REALLY TOUGH MEETINGS, BUT IF THERE'S A PARTICULAR ITEM THAT'S COMING UP, LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN IDENTIFIED TO, TO, TO MAKE AN ACCOMMODATION FOR THAT, I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM, FROM OTHER FOLKS. 
          THIS IS A, THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT'S BEEN MADE VERY RECENTLY. 
          UM, AND SO I'M, I'M SUGGESTING WE, WE GO BACK TO SOMETHING MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CHANGE TO WHAT THE SPEAKING OPPORTUNITIES WERE BEFORE . 
          I SUPPORT LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SIGN UP FOR THE TWO PODS, UH, IN THE WAY THAT ANNE HAD MENTIONED, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT ITEMS COMING IN FRONT OF US. 
          WE HAVE FOUR-ISH MEETINGS LEFT. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT THE INCOMING COUNCIL WILL TAKE THIS ISSUE UP, UM, AND MAKE PLANS AND, AND PROCESSES THAT, THAT THEY WANNA WORK WITH. 
          UM, I, UH, AM CONCERNED ABOUT HOW WE DEAL WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE COMING IN TO SPEAK WHEN IT HAS US HERE UNTIL THREE AND FOUR IN THE MORNING, AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE FOR THAT. 
          SO, UM, SO I AM ON YOUR QUESTION, KATHY, IN THE PLACE WHERE STEVE IS, I THINK THE, OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I GUESS IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, TO HEAR ACROSS A DIAS, I MEAN, SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP BEFORE WE, BEFORE THIS GROUP CONCLUDES, UM, COULD BE SOMETHING RELATED TO A POLICE CONTRACT. 
          UM, ANOTHER MAJOR ISSUE IS THE RAPE POLICY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR, FOR CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE INTERESTED AND ENGAGED IN THOSE ISSUES, THEY MAY REGARD THOSE AS ONES WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE MORE THAN A MINUTE. 
          AND, AND IF THERE ARE A COUPLE ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA THAT THEY, THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN, IN PROVIDING INPUT ON, THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO SPLIT IT BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN TO ME. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          WELL, CAN I, YEAH, THANKS. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. 
          UM, SO, UM, I THINK THAT WAS WHERE I WAS GOING EARLIER, SO I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. 
          I AM, YOU KNOW, JUST THINKING ABOUT ITEMS THAT, UM, MAYOR THAT, THAT WE'VE LED ON THAT ARE COMING UP WITH LIKE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND COMPATIBILITY, THAT WILL BE ON OUR AGENDA, UM, DECEMBER 1ST. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT GIVING PEOPLE ONE MINUTE TO COVER BOTH OF THOSE, IF THAT WERE THE ONLY THINGS THAT THEY WANTED, UM, TO SPEAK ABOUT. 
          UM, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, WE ALREADY ARE PLANNING TO GO OVER INTO THE, TO THE FRIDAY FOR EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS. 
          UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME, YOU KNOW, BOTH DAYS AND SPEAK CUZ WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, JUST BE RECESSING THE, THE, THE SAME MEETING. 
          BUT, UM, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UM, THAT WE, WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, 30 SECONDS IF THEY'RE SPEAKING ON THREE ITEMS. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REALLY DO WANT TO COME AND SPEAK ON 
          [02:20:01]
THOSE ISSUES. 
          BY THE WAY, I I DO RECOGNIZE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, UH, INTRO TO URBAN STUDIES, UH, CLASS THAT'S WALKED IN HERE TODAY. 
          SOMETIMES WE'RE DISCUSSING REALLY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. 
          THIS IS A, A WORK SESSION, UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY. 
          IT GIVES US A CHANCE TO TALK AMONG OURSELVES. 
          YOU'VE WALKED INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE DO OUR MEETINGS, UH, AND, AND, AND, UH, WEIGHING THE, THE BENEFIT OF GIVING EVERYONE THE CHANCE TO TALK IN THE COMMUNITY FOR HOW LONG THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT LIMITS ON THE, THE NUMBER OF TIMES SOMEONE CAN SPEAK OR THE TIME THEY CAN SPEAK VERSUS, UH, WE'VE HAD COUNCIL MEETINGS OF GO TILL FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, UH, AND THAT'S NOT QUITE FAIR TO EVERYBODY TOO. 
          SO THOSE, THOSE BALANCES IS WHAT YOU'VE WALKED INTO THE CONVERSATION. 
          YES. 
          UH, COUNCIL MARIELLA, I DON'T SUPPORT ANY CHANGES TO THE CURRENT, UH, SPEAKER SYSTEM. 
          IT'S, THERE ARE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS FOR A CITY OF, OF 1 MILLION PEOPLE WITH A RICH TRADITION OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY. 
          UH, I REMEMBER THE OTHER, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH MEETING IN PARTICULAR, BUT THERE WERE PLENTY OF FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND I REMEMBER THERE WAS A, A REQUEST TO GIVE THEM THREE MINUTES EACH. 
          AND I REMEMBER JUST QUICKLY DOING THE MATH AND THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE SIX HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. 
          AND AGAIN, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S PRACTICAL OR UH, UH, REALISTIC. 
          UM, I ALSO, WITH THE TIMING IS ALSO A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, I THINK THE FIXED TIME GIVES PEOPLE A TARGET THAT THEY CAN KIND OF ACCOMMODATE THEIR, THEIR BUSY LIVES AROUND. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK ON A, A GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER, YOU KNOW, 10 O'CLOCK AND THE 12 O'CLOCK, UH, TESTIMONIAL THIS TWO O'CLOCK, THE THE ZONING, UH, HEARINGS. 
          WHEREAS IF WE SAY, OKAY, YOU WERE GONNA GIVE PEOPLE TIME BEFORE EACH ITEM, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THOSE ITEMS ARE GONNA COME UP. 
          AND IT MAKES IT, I THINK, VERY HARD TO PLAN, TO GIVE TESTIMONY. 
          I MEAN, YOU REALLY HAVE TO COMMIT THE ENTIRE DAY TO SIT THERE AND WAIT FOR THE ITEM TO COME UP. 
          SO HAVING, I I, THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS ITS FAULTS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN CHANGE IT WITHOUT CREATING OTHER PROBLEMS. SO FOR THE TIME BEING, I WOULD, UH, KEEP THE, THE, THE SYSTEM THE SAME CATHERINE OR KITCHEN, UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE. 
          I THINK THAT ONE OF THE WAYS WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT IS FOR PARTICULARLY LARGE ITEMS OR ITEMS WHERE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, VERY SIGNIFICANT IN, IN A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO, UH, PARTICIPATE. 
          WE ALWAYS DID A TIME CERTAIN, SO WE ALLOWED FOR A TIME CERTAIN OPPORTUNITY TIME. 
          CERTAIN WAS NOT HARD AND FAST, BUT IT WAS CLOSE ENOUGH SO THAT WE COULD THEN GIVE PEOPLE, UH, AN IDEA OF WHEN WE MIGHT, UM, BE, UM, UH, TAKING TESTIMONY. 
          I THINK THE TIME CERTAIN CONCEPT WORKS PRETTY WELL. 
          UM, SO I, AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT I'M JUST SUGGESTING FOR PARTICULAR ITEMS THAT I'M AWARE OF AND I'LL DO THAT AS THEY COME UP. 
          UM, BUT YOU ALL MIGHT CONSIDER GOING BACK TO TIME CERTAIN OKAY. 
          BECAUSE OUR TO CUZ WE'RE ALICES DO YOU WANT ME TO GO FIRST? I JUST, I I WILL AGREE. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE 4:00 AM MEETINGS. 
          IT'S VERY, VERY HARD FOR US TO DO OUR WORK AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW ALONG WHEN WE'RE HAVING MEETINGS THAT LATE. 
          WE HAVE TO ALSO BE RESPECTFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS GETTING HERE BEFORE THE MEETINGS AND CLEANING UP AFTER THE MEETINGS AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE THERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE. 
          AND I THINK TAKING VOTES AT 2:00 AM 4:00 AM IS JUST NOT THE WAY THAT WE DO THE BEST POLICY. 
          UM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ULTIMATELY THE JOB OF THE MAYOR TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET US THROUGH THE MEETING AND GET ALL THE ITEMS IN ORDER AND ALL THE ITEMS VOTED ON AND KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING. 
          SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE INPUT, BUT I THINK GENERALLY RUNNING THE MEETING IS, UM, SOMETHING WE HAVE TO JUST LET THE MAYOR FIGURE OUT AND WHOEVER IS THE NEXT MAYOR MAY HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OPINION, UM, TO WHICH I WOULD ALSO CARE ABOUT HOW THEY WANT TO RUN THAT MEETING AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
           ON A COUPLE OTHER TOPICS THAT CAME UP HERE. 
          UM, ONE I WOULD ASK THE CITY MANAGER, I MEAN THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE COULD GET AN ANSWER ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT THE MAYOR PROTIME RAISED ABOUT. 
          UM, I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA DO SOME THINKING ABOUT WHETHER ALLOCATING ONE MINUTE FOR MULTIPLE TOPICS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW. 
          I THINK YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE TOPICS COMING UP WHERE, WHERE WE WILL LIKELY HAVE QUESTIONS, MAYBE EVEN CHALLENGES, UM, IF THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE PRACTICE. 
          SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HEAR THAT LEGAL ADVICE SOONER, AND I UNDERSTAND AND REALLY 
          [02:25:01]
WELL, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD SOME REALLY UNBELIEVABLE THINGS SAID THROUGH PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH THE YEARS. 
          AND SO WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH LAW ABOUT THIS THROUGH THE YEARS. 
          I WOULD THINK WE CAN RESTRICT PEOPLE FROM SIGNING UP WITH FALSE NAMES THOUGH, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A POLICY THAT PEOPLE CAN'T COME BACK WITHIN. 
          I THINK YOU CAN SIGN UP WHAT, ONCE A MONTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A PRETTY, UM, A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD DEAL. 
          LIKE YOU CAN'T, IF YOU'VE SIGNED UP FOR A FALSE NAME WITH A FALSE NAME, IT'S NO DIFFERENT MAYOR FROM SIGNING UP. 
          YOU KNOW, IF I SIGN UP, BUT THEN I GIVE, I WANNA GIVE MY TIME TO, UM, JOHN SMITH WHO COMES DOWN TO THE MEETING WITH ME, YOU TYPICALLY DON'T ALLOW THAT. 
          SO I WOULD THINK THE SAME IS TRUE OF IF, IF YOU'VE SIGNED UP AS JOHN SMITH, BUT YOUR NAME IS REALLY JANE DOE, THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THAT, THAT WAS MY INTENT TO DO THAT. 
          I ASKED AT THE MEETING WE HAD, WE HAD SOMEONE SIGN UP, PUT HER FALSE NAME, WHETHER THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF A POLICY, I WAS TOLD NO. 
          GOTCHA. 
          UH, SO I HAD THAT PERSON SPOKEN, HAD THAT PERSON RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          SPOKEN IN A WAY WHERE THAT WAS VIOLATION. 
          I WOULD NOT HAVE LET THAT PERSON SPEAK. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST THOUGHT WE COULD CLEAR THAT UP, THAT THAT HAS TO SO IS THAT, IS, ARE WE ALL PRETTY SOLID ON THAT AT THIS POINT? THAT IF SOMEBODY SIGNS UP ON A FALSE NAME, THEY CAN'T SPEAK? RIGHT. 
          IT'S THE PERSON, NOT THE NAME THAT THEY WRITE DOWN. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THAT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THAT UNTIL OBVIOUSLY UNTIL THE PERSON IS THERE. 
          AND SO IT'S CONFUSING AS, AS, BUT AT LEAST WE KNOW AS LEAST WE KNOW IT'S NOT ALLOWED. 
          IF IF IT'S IDENTIFIED, WE KNOW NOW IT'S NOT ALLOWED. 
          CORRECT. 
          UM, WITH REGARD TO, I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT KEEPS TRIPPING US UP IS THAT IN, IN THE, WITH MORE COMPLICATED ISSUES, UM, WE ARE, WE CONTINUE TO GET INTO THAT CYCLE OF IF WE WANTED TO GIVE MORE TIME TO SPEAKERS FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THAT'S NOT, THAT THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM. 
          IS THAT WORTH OUR DISCUSSING? WHICH ISSUE? I'M SORRY? UM, FOR EXAMPLE, IN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE, IF YOU WERE SUGGESTING THAT WITH THE STATESMEN AND THE BRODY OAKS POD, THAT THOSE MIGHT BE ALLOCATED MORE TIME OR JUST A TIME CERTAIN, UM, I'LL HAVE TO GET WAIT TILL WE GET CLOSER, BUT I WAS THINKING IN TERMS OF A TIME CERTAIN, OKAY. 
          ANYWAY, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO RESOLVE IF WE CAN GET TO SOME COMFORT LEVEL ABOUT HAVING DIFFERENTIAL TIMING TIME SPEAKING TIMES FOR DIFFERENT ISSUES. 
          IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE LAW IS, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK IF WE COULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT ISSUE. 
          AND WITH REGARD TO THE STATESMAN, THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, AND I DID WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TIME MANAGEMENT, ABOUT AGREEING ON A TIME CERTAIN AND ALSO GETTING SOME SENSE FROM COLLEAGUES. 
          I'VE BEEN ASKED IF, IF THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL IS TO TRY TO TAKE IT UP ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, UM, OR JUST ON SECOND READING, WE'RE ONLY POSTED FOR SECOND READING. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, THAT CLARIFIES THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE TO ABOUT THIRD READING. 
          HOW, HOW ABOUT A TIME CERTAIN, COULD WE AGREE TO TAKE IT UP AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND IF SO, WHAT, WHAT TIME WOULD WORK? UM, I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER ZONING. 
          CAN WE SET A TIME OF SAY, THREE O'CLOCK? UM, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE AGENDA THAT WAY, BUT I COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. 
          AND IF IT WAS THE WILL TO BE ABLE TO ANNOUNCE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS GOING TO COME UP SO THE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO TUNE IN AND SEE THAT TIME AS BEST WE COULD, I THINK WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT. 
          COULD WE TRY TO GET THAT WORD OUT TODAY? COULD YOU? SURE. 
          COULD YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT A TIME TODAY? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS? WE'VE LOST UT ALL RIGHT. 
          IT IS, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HARBOR MEDICINE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          I, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONVERSATION. 
          I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN A BIT. 
          I THINK IT'S MOST APPROPRIATE IN MY MIND'S EYE TO LET, I MEAN, THERE ARE GONNA BE A LOT OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          UM, SO THAT SAID, I JUST WONDER IF IT'S MOST APPROPRIATE TO LET THAT BODY MAKE THE DECISION. 
          SO TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S POINT, I THINK, UH, I THINK THE DEFERENCE TO THE MAYOR IS A PART OF THE PROCESS. 
          UM, AND THE MAYOR SHOULD BE THE, THE POINT OF AUTHORITY AND THE STEWARD FOR HOW WE OPERATE THE MEETINGS. 
          AND I THINK EVERY MAYOR WOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY. 
          I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH. 
          UM, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT WE ALL WOULD. 
          UM, SO THAT SAID, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM THERE. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION AS A POINT OF CONSIDERATION, UM, MOST ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO WANNA TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND MORE TIME TO OUR, UM, GENERAL CITIZENRY TO, TO, UM, PRESENT BEFORE COUNSEL. 
          KIND OF TWO THINGS. 
          I WOULD JUST WONDER IF THERE'S JUST GENERALLY ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, UM, THIS IS ME JUST THROWING OUT SOMETHING I MADE UP IN MY HEAD. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POSSIBILITY. 
          I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO THIS, BUT I JUST WONDER IF, UM, FOR ME, SOMETIMES 
          [02:30:01]
IT WOULD BE, UM, HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION. 
          I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED TO ME THAT FOLKS SAY, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          UM, AND FOR FOLKS WHO JUST WANNA GET IT ON THE RECORD, WHO JUST WANT IT IN THE ARCHIVES, WHO JUST WANT SOME VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THEIR POSITION ON THE, THE ITEM BEING, YOU KNOW, A PART OF THE PACKAGE. 
          UM, I JUST WONDER IF, IF WE COULD USE THE, THE ROOM THAT WE USE FOR PRESS CONFERENCES AND SET UP A CAMERA AND LET FOLKS MAKE THEIR TESTIMONY THERE, UM, IF THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT PEOPLE ARE TAKING, JUST GETTING IT ON THE RECORD AS OPPOSED TO WANTING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BODY. 
          UM, OTHERWISE I, I'M GONNA, YOU KNOW, SAY WHAT MOST OF MY, UM, WHAT SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY SAID IN REGARDS TO JUST THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE TIME. 
          THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH OF IT AND THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN ASK, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF ADJACENT TO THE COUNCIL TO DO SO. 
          THAT'S REALLY, I THINK THAT'S A, A BIG POINT OF CONSIDERATION THAT I HOPE THE, THE NEW MAKEUP OF THE COUNCIL TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE NEW MAYOR TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION AS A PART OF THEIR STEWARDSHIP OF OPERATING THE MEETING. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TALK LESS. 
          UM, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THAT IN ANY WAY TO, TO BE INSULTING OR TO SAY THAT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON TAKES UP TOO MUCH SPACE AND TIME. 
          UM, BUT I DO THINK AS WE ARE RECALIBRATING, IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE COMMITTING TO DO AS A BODY, I THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE MY MENTOR SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN COMPROMISE GOES WELL, EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE THEY LOST SOMETHING. 
          SO IF WE NEED TO LOSE SOME MORE COUNCIL MEMBER DELIBERATION TIME TO GIVE SOME MORE TIME TO OUR CONSTITUENTS FOR THEIR TESTIMONY, UM, THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE MORE OF A REASONABLE SOLUTION. 
          UM, TO FIND MORE TIME, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PRODUCE IT, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS FOR US TO TAKE UP LESS TIME. 
          SO THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING I HOPE FOLKS THINK ABOUT MOVING FORWARD. 
          I, I MYSELF HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF GOING ON FOR TOO LONG, BUT, UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY SHAVE OFF SOME TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THIS. 
          UM, WE'LL STILL CALL THE SPEAKERS NEXT WEEK THE WAY WE'VE BEEN CALLING THEM. 
          I'LL SEE IF I CAN HAVE A TIME CERTAIN BEFORE WHICH WE WON'T NOT RAISE THE, UH, ISSUE OF THE, UH, OF THIS STATESMAN POD. 
          UH, AND THEN TRY TO CALL IT AS SOON AS WE CAN AFTER THAT PERIOD, IDENTIFYING TIME. 
          DO WE KNOW WHEN THE BRODY HOOD IS COMING? WHAT AGENDA THAT'S GONNA BE ON? UM, WE DON'T KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WOULD NOT BE BEFORE DECEMBER 1ST. 
          IT MAY BE DECEMBER 8TH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AGAIN, IT WOULD BE MOST LIKELY FIRST READING, BUT, UM, AND, AND I SEE ROSIE NODDING HER HEAD BEHIND YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THAT'S PRETTY OFFICIAL, RIGHT GUYS? IT'S, UH, IT'S 10 TILL 12. 
          UH, WE HAVE ONE POLL ITEM, WHICH IS, UH, KATO'S PROPERTY ITEM, AND WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DEAL WITH A COPYRIGHT, UH, ISSUE. 
          UH, DO YOU WANNA BREAK NOW? DO YOU WANT TO DO THE REAL ESTATE IFFC AND THEN BREAK AND DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? WHICH CHARLES'S PREFERENCE? I, I WOULD ASK COUNCIL OVER TOVO IF SHE, SHE HAS ANY TIME CONSTRAINT? UM, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T, BUT I WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOLKS ARE GONNA WANNA COME BACK TO, TO DISCUSS ONE ISSUE AND HAVE IT BE THIS ISSUE. 
          SO PERHAPS WE TRY TO TAKE IT UP NOW AND, AND SEE HOW FAR WE GET. 
          OKAY. 
          [A. Pre-Selected Agenda Items]
SO LET'S CALL UP THEN. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU PULLED THIS ITEM. 
          YES. 
          SO I, I MEAN, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR THE GROUP. 
          UM, THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT THE STAFF HAVE RAISED. 
          I THINK MOST OF THEM, MOST OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE STAFF PRESENTED NEXT WEEK ARE RELATIVELY, OR LAST WEEK, ARE REALLY ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE VERY EASILY, EASILY DEALT WITH. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO JUST WANTED TO, TO ASK, UM, COLLEAGUES WHAT, WHAT QUESTIONS THEY MAY STILL HAVE AS A, AS A FEW POINTS OF CLARIFICATION TO THE PRESENTATION THAT THE STAFF DID. 
          UM, THERE ARE ONE, UM, THE STAFF HAVE INDICATED THAT THE NONPROFIT LEASE POLICY THAT RESPONDS TO THE AUDIT IS NOW A POLICY. 
          I HAVE ASKED FOR THAT TO BE PUT INTO THE BACKUP. 
          UM, I'LL REMIND COLLEAGUES THAT THIS SETS FORWARD, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, YOU ASKED KIND OF WHAT YOU RAISED A, A QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE PROCESS CURRENT THAT, THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY WORKS. 
          UM, JUST WITH REGARD TO ONE, A AREA OF LEASING, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYBODY ABOUT THE AUDIT THAT INDICATED SOME EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS 
          [02:35:01]
WITH HOW WE MANAGE LEASES, UM, AND THE AUDIT FINDINGS THAT WERE DONE, SAID AMONG OTHER THINGS, UM, THE CITY LACKS CENTRAL OVERSIGHT OF THE LEASING PROCESSES. 
          I'M GONNA SKIP AROUND. 
          UH, THE CURRENT CITY'S CURRENT LEASING PROCESSES DO NOT ENSURE LEASES ARE DEVELOPED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. 
          THEY DON'T ALWAYS PROTECT THE CITY FROM LEGAL RISK. 
          THEY DO NOT. 
          UM, IT TALKED MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT THE NEED FOR CENTRALIZED, THERE'S NO CENTRAL OVERSIGHT SITE OR OWNERSHIP. 
          AND SO WE'RE NOT MANAGING LEASING WITH A STRATEGIC APPROACH, WHICH ULTIMATELY COMPROMISES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PURSUE LESS COSTLY ALTERNATIVES TO LEASING. 
          SOME WORK CERTAINLY HAS BEEN DONE IN THAT AREA, BUT A MORE CLARIFIED PROCESS JUST IN, THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THIS RESOLUTION WOULD SEEK TO, TO PUT AN UMBRELLA POLICY ON HERE. 
          UM, AGAIN, I THINK THE NONPROFIT PARTNER PIECE WE CAN TALK ABOUT. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I DO WANNA EMPHASIZE AFTER THE STAFF PRESENTATION LAST WEEK, THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THERE NOT BEING FLEXIBILITY AND THERE IS FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO EVERY SECTION OF THIS. 
          SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. 
          UM, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OF OPINION BETWEEN WHETHER OR NOT AN RFP SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL. 
          THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT TIMING, UM, THAT I, THAT I HOPE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT. 
          OKAY, GUYS, , JUST A FEW THOUGHTS. 
          AND I DID REVIEW THE ITEM AND, UH, REVIEWED THE, THE PRESENTATION AGAIN. 
          UH, YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO. 
          UM, I, THERE ARE A LOT OF, I THINK, SECONDARY EFFECTS TO THIS ITEM THAT ARE UNKNOWN AND POTENTIALLY VERY, UH, DAMAGING TO THE CITY'S REAL ESTATE INTERESTS AND ANY POTENTIAL REVENUE FROM THOSE, UH, INTERESTS. 
          I ALSO SEE A LOT OF STAFF TIME BEING LOST. 
          UH, AND, AND THAT'S A COST AS WELL, UH, IN TERMS OF, I, I SEE THESE KIND OF ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF PROCEDURAL LAYERS AND BUREAUCRACY. 
          I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT THE EFFECT IS GOING TO BE. 
          UH, ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR USING REVENUE BASED LEASES INSTEAD OF MARKET BASED LEASES. 
          OOH, YOU KNOW, THAT REQUIRES A LEVEL OF INTERACTION AND PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LESS SO AND THE LESSEE. 
          THAT IS GOING TO BE A VERY TRICKY RELATIONSHIP TO MANAGE. 
          UH, I, I MEAN THAT THOSE ARE RARELY USED. 
          UH, I MEAN, THE ONLY TIMES THAT I CAN THINK OF WHEN THOSE TYPES OF LEASES ARE USED ARE FOR LIKE MAJOR, UM, SHOPPING CENTERS, KIND OF MAJOR RETAIL OUTLETS IN, IN KIND OF PRIME LOCATIONS. 
          UH, AND EVEN THEN THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT THE DEFAULT LEASE. 
          UH, AND THEN THE, UH, THE LESSOR AND THE LESSEE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO AUDIT EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW, THE BOOKS. 
          IF, IF I'M THE, THE, THE REAL ESTATE OWNER AND, YOU KNOW, I'M LEASING TO BEST BUY, UH, I WANT TO SEE THE SALES NUMBERS FROM BEST BUY, I'M NOT JUST GONNA TRUST THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING THE PROPER, UH, YOU KNOW, LEASE PAYMENTS. 
          TO ME, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP AND I DON'T SEE THE CITY RIGHT NOW SET UP TO MANAGE THAT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP. 
          UM, THERE ARE GONNA BE COSTS INVOLVED IN HIRING THAT LEVEL OF EXPERTISE TO MANAGE THAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP. 
          AND I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT THE BENEFIT WOULD BE. 
          AGAIN, I'M JUST TAKING, YOU KNOW, A A ONE EXAMPLE THERE. 
          YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ONE THAT I'M AGAIN, DECENTLY FAMILIAR WITH FROM MY TIME ON, ON, UH, AT WORKERS' DEFENSE PROJECT IS, YOU KNOW, THE OSHA REQUIREMENTS AND THE BETTER BUILDER PROGRAM. 
          I FULLY SUPPORT THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE STATESMAN PUT ON OTHER MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BECAUSE THERE'S A MARGINAL COST INCREASE INVOLVED THERE FOR A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. 
          BUT I THINK WITH ONE STEP, AND TO SAY THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS TO BE OSHA 10 CERTIFIED, AND THAT IS A VERY, VERY BIG STEP TO TAKE AND WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR, UH, CONTRACTORS TO MANAGE. 
          UH, CONSTRUCTION TRADES ARE VIRTUALLY UNREGULATED IN TEXAS. 
          THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU TAKE OSHA 10. 
          IT'S A COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY THING THAT, YOU KNOW, VERY FEW, HONESTLY, CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES DO. 
          UH, SO THAT IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT REQUIREMENT IN AND OF ITSELF IS GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL COST THAT A LOT OF CONTRACTORS A, ARE NOT GONNA WANT TO BEAR. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA LOSE A POOL OF CONTRACTORS WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY, AND B, ARE GONNA PASS THOSE COSTS ALONG TO THE CITY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN DOING IN TERMS OF A CASE BY CASE BASIS, ANALYZING THOSE KINDS OF, YOU KNOW, REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS ON A CASE 
          [02:40:01]
BY CASE BASIS AND TAKING, YOU KNOW, YOUR MOST KIND OF SOPHISTICATED FIRMS, UH, AND HAVING THEM, UH, UH, IMPOSING THOSE REQUIREMENTS ON THEM. 
          I'M FINE WITH, I, I JUST, THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS CREATED WHEN WE USE THIS, YOU KNOW, HARD AND FAST RULE ACROSS AN ENTIRE, UH, CATEGORY. 
          UM, AND THEN AGAIN, ON THE, ON THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS, AGAIN, THAT'S THE, I I JUST THINK ABOUT THE AUDITING. 
          YOU KNOW, WE CAN, I CAN SIGN A CONTRACT AND SAY, SURE, I'LL DO WHATEVER THE CITY SAYS. 
          WHO'S GONNA GO BACK AND AUDIT THAT? WHO'S GONNA CON, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GONNA LOOK AT THE PAYROLL STUBS AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS EFFECTIVE, THAT THAT'S HAPPENING. 
          AGAIN, THERE ARE JUST, I, I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF EXPENSES AND COMPLICATIONS ON THE CITY SIDE THAT, UH, ARE GONNA TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND RAISE A LOT OF COSTS. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BENEFIT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FROM ALL OF THAT IS. 
          THAT'S OUR POOL. 
          I SEE MISS TRUE LOVE IS HERE, AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD INVITE STAFF TO COME UP AND, AND KIND OF RESPOND. 
          WE HEARD FROM RODNEY LAST, LAST TIME, BUT, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MS. TRULA. 
          I THINK WE CAN DO THAT TOO, BUT I THINK SHE CAN CALL UP STAFF IF SHE WANTS TO. 
          DON'T YOU COME ON UP. 
          AND MR. VINO, ARE YOU HERE FOR THIS ONE AS WELL? IT'D BE GREAT TO GET YOUR CO COUNSEL ON THE MATTER. 
          THANKS. 
          AND, AND JUST GENERALLY, IF YOU ALL COULD WEIGH IN, I KNOW THAT, UM, WE'VE HEARD FROM ACM GONZALEZ, BUT NOT FROM, FROM OUR, UH, CFO OR FROM OUR HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER AND, AND JUST, UH, I THINK PART OF HAVING, UH, ACM GONZALES AT THE REQUEST OF THE MAYOR FROM THE LAST, UH, COUNCIL MEETING WAS COORDINATING AMONG ALL MANY DEPARTMENTS. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THIS, UH, PARTICULAR RESOLUTION. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION. 
          AND SO, UH, SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR FEEDBACK OR, OR, OR WAYS IN WHICH STAFF IS, IS REALLY, UM, REFLECTIVE CO COLLECTIVELY OF, OF THE WORK AMONG THOSE DEPARTMENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SUMMARIZE, BEFORE THEY SPEAK, CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION THAT THEY CAN INCORPORATE INTO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING? FIRST, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE A GENERAL OVERVIEW FROM THE STAFF ON WHAT THEIR TAKE IS WE HAVE HEARD. 
          AND, AND THEN WHAT I WANNA ADD IS, AFTER YOU, AS YOU DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN THIS CONVERSATION TO, TO WHAT CAN BE DONE. 
          UH, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT CAN'T BE DONE AND THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO IS TRYING TO SOLVE FOR CERTAIN PROBLEMS. SO YOU GUYS ARE VERY CREATIVE. 
          I'D LIKE TO HEAR ALSO HOW YOU WOULD PROPOSE SOLVING FOR THOSE PROBLEMS. ABSOLUTELY. 
          I, I'D BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO THAT. 
          UH, ONCE WE RESPOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S QUESTION. 
          UH, THE PRESENTATION THAT I PROVIDED LAST WEEK WAS A CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCERNS FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THIS RESOLUTION. 
          THEY RANGE, OF COURSE, FROM FINANCE, FROM THE REAL ESTATE DIVISION AND FINANCE, UM, FROM OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, NUMEROUS OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING OUR UTILITIES, AS WELL AS THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT AND THE CONVENTION CENTER DEPARTMENT. 
          SO WE HAVE WORKED, UH, COLLABORATIVELY WITH EACH, UH, AMONGST EACH OTHER WITH, WITH EACH VERSION, UM, TO LOOK THROUGH THE RESOLUTION AND IDENTIFY ANY CONCERNS THAT WE, WE SEE WITH THE RESOLUTION. 
          SO LAST WEEK'S PRESENTATION REALLY JUST HIGHLIGHTED THE TOP FIVE PER THE MAYOR'S MESSAGE BOARD RE, UH, POST. 
          WE WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO FIVE, UH, IN RESPECT TO COUNCIL'S TIME, THERE ARE OTHER STAFF CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE SHARED ALSO VIA THE MEMO THAT WAS RELEASED TO COUNCIL THURSDAY MORNING. 
          BUT IT DOES REPRESENT A CONSOLIDATED LIST OF DEPARTMENT CONCERNS. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ED AND ROSIE IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. 
          MR. GATES IS, OH, AND MR. GATES? YES. 
          AND THEN I WILL ONCE TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTION. 
          GO AHEAD, ED. 
          UH, THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          ED VAN, YOU KNOW, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 
          I AM JOINED, UM, VIRTUALLY BY MICHAEL GATES, OUR REAL ESTATE SERVICES OFFICER. 
          UM, JAMES SCARBOROUGH, OUR CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER, IS ALSO IN THE BUILDING AND AVAILABLE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS. 
          AND REALLY THE, SOME OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS' CONCERNS ARE, ARE REALLY IN THOSE TWO AREAS. 
          AND WE'VE HAD GREAT CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND HER STAFF, UM, ABOUT THESE CONCERNS. 
          AND, UM, I DO THINK THE RESOLUTIONS MADE FORWARD PROGRESS IN TERMS OF ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEM, BUT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS WITH 
          [02:45:01]
HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THE TIMELINE OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. 
          UM, WHILE THE POLICY OBJECTIVES OF OF, OF EARLIER COUNCIL INPUT AND, UM, UM, COLLABORATION AMONGST AGENCIES, UM, WE LIKE, UH, OR WE SUPPORT, BUT THERE ARE CONCERNS JUST ABOUT HOW LONG SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD TAKE. 
          UM, SO, AND I KNOW WE'RE TRYING, YOU'VE, YOU'VE TRIED TO MAKE SOME EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE THOSE, BUT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT A, A PROJECT AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PICK YOUR PROJECT LIKE THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH IS ALREADY, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON TRYING TO GET TO, UM, THAT POINT WHERE WE CAN RELEASE THE RFQ. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS RESOLUTION WOULD CALL FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, WORK TO ANALYZE ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, UM, UM, FACILITY NEEDS TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING THOSE FACILITY NEEDS INTO THE CONVENTION CENTER. 
          UM, AFTER THAT WORK WAS DONE, WE WOULD NEED TO COLLABORATE ACROSS AGENCIES, TRAVIS COUNTY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, CENTRAL HEALTH, NOT FOR PROFIT AGENCIES. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THESE THINGS WILL TAKE A LOT OF TIME, TAKE A LOT OF TIME. 
          UM, WE GET THE POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
          I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IT AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN ACHIEVE THE POLICY OBJECTIVES IN A MANNER THAT DOESN'T, UM, CREATE AS MUCH OF A, A POTENTIAL DRAG ON OUR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS PROCESS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S ON THE REAL ESTATE SIDE. 
          ON THE SOLICIT SOLICITATION SIDE, IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE, UM, CHANGES THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE IN TERMS OF HOW WE GO ABOUT, UM, CIRCULATING AND GATHERING COUNSEL FEEDBACK ON OUR, UM, RFQ AND RFPS, UM, WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO OUR, UM, UM, ANTI LOBBYING ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING RFQ IN ADVANCE OF THAT IN A PUBLIC MANNER WOULD PUT THEM OUTSIDE OF OUR CURRENT ANTI LOBBYING ORDINANCES. 
          UM, SO THAT IS, IS ONE CONCERN AS WELL IS JUST IN REGARDS TO HOW WE MAINTAIN, UH, CONTROLS OF THE RFQ AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THAT, OF THE SOLICITATION PROCESS AND COMPLYING WITH, UM, EXISTING ANTI LOBBYING REQUIREMENTS. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          ROSIE TREE LOVE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND PLANNING, AND MANDY DE MAYO HAS BEEN OUR PRIMARY PERSON WORKING ON THIS, AND SHE IS ON THE, THE WEBEX LINK. 
          OUR CONCERN CONTINUES TO BE AROUND, UM, REQUIRING THAT EVEN AS A BASELINE TARGET GOAL, UH, REQUIRING 85% INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY, UM, REQUIRING THIS MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS COULD POTENTIALLY DEFER OR DETER PROPOSALS FOR LARGER PROJECTS THAT WOULD DELIVER PERHAPS A LOWER PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT A HIGHER, UH, NET NUMBER OF UNITS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS IN SOLICITATIONS THAT INCORPORATE HOUSING MAY NARROW THE NUMBER AND DIVERSITY OF RESPONDENTS, UH, TO, TO SOLICITATIONS AND PRECLUDE, UH, FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF DELIVERING THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO WE'RE IT THE, WHEN WE HAVE ANY KIND OF A BASELINE PERCENTAGE FOR INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, THAT'S GONNA BE A CONCERN. 
          I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN, UM, KIND OF REFERRING BACK TO SOME COMMENTS THAT MANDY MADE AT, UM, ABOUT HEALTH SOUTH. 
          I THINK IF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION WERE DOING THIS AS, OR WERE DOING A SOLICITATION AS HOUSING, YOU WOULD SEE PERHAPS 85% INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          BUT THAT'S THE ONLY COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE. 
          UM, SO WHEN YOU HAVE THESE LARGER CITY OWNED PROPERTIES THAT ARE, OR CITY OWNED, UH, SOLICITATIONS THAT ARE GONNA FACILITATE MULTIPLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE FLEXIBILITY THERE AND WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANY KIND OF A, A TARGET OR BASELINE PERCENTAGE THERE. 
          AND I WOULD JUST ASK, SINCE I SEE MANDY'S SQUARE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING SHE WANTS TO ADD, MANDY, UH, NOTHING TO ADD ON TOP OF THAT. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT WAS OUR MAJOR CONCERN, UH, AS HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF AND AS, UM, AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, RECOGNIZING THAT THIS RESOLUTION, UH, DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, UM, PROJECTS, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT A H F C DEVELOPMENTS ARE UNIQUE AND SEPARATE FROM A CITY OF COST SOLICITATION, WHICH REALLY WOULD BE SITE SPECIFIC, UM, THERE WOULD BE COMMUNITY CONTEXT UNDER CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, AND NOT EVERY PROJECT WOULD BE, UM, UH, WOULD HAVE A PRIMARY, UH, INCOME RESTRICTED, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGET. 
          SORRY, MIKE GATES IS ALSO IN LINE. 
          MIKE, IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD? I'LL SPEAK TO THE, 
          [02:50:01]
UH, REVENUE SHARING PROVISION THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA TEED UP QUITE NICELY. 
          THOSE CONCERNS REGARDING THOSE. 
          SO PERCENTAGE LEASES, HOW THOSE ARE STRUCTURED, UM, ARE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY THE, THE BASE RENT FOR A PARTICULAR LOCATION IS $10,000 A MONTH. 
          IF IT'S GONNA BE A REVENUE SHARING OR PERCENTAGE LEASE, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE FRONT A DISCOUNT TO THE BASE RATE. 
          SO RATHER THAN $10,000 A MONTH, YOU'D HAVE IT AT $8,000 A MONTH. 
          AND THEN YOU'D NEGOTIATE WHAT'S CALLED A BREAK POINT. 
          AND SO MANY SALES OVER THAT BREAK POINT, THAT BASICALLY PERCENTAGE, UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT BREAK POINT WITHIN BE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THE CITY WOULD CAPTURE. 
          THEY INTRODUCED THE AUDIT COMPONENT THAT COMES FROM VELA MENTIONED, AND IT VERY WELL COULD BE THE CASE THAT THE STAFF TIME TAKING TAKES TO AUDIT THESE THINGS. 
          UM, WE COULD ACTUALLY LOSE, UH, IN THOSE TYPES OF LEASES. 
          ALSO, OUR LOCAL MARKET DOESN'T SUPPORT, UH, PERCENTAGE LEASES. 
          UM, THIS AS A REGULAR KIND OF, UH, THE NEGOTIATED TERM, UM, BASE RATE OF RENTAL AGREEMENTS ARE WHAT WE SEEING IN THE MARKET. 
          UM, WE WOULD BE, WE'D BE ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT REVENUE SHARING LEASES ARE MORE, UH, SUPPORTED BY THE MARKET WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE PROPERTIES APPRAISED. 
          SO RATHER THAN BEING A PRESCRIPTIVE, YOU KNOW, EVERY LEASE HAS TO BE A PERCENTAGE LEASE. 
          UH, HAVING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO SEE WHAT THE MARKET IS INDICATING TO US AND THEN EXPLORING THAT, WE ANTICIPATE MAKING THIS MORE COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET. 
          UM, AND WITH RESPECT TO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THE BETTER BUILDER, UH, THE LIVING WAGE, THE MINORITY OWNED WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS, THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, OUR APPRAISERS, WHEN THEY DO THE FIRE MARKET RENT STUDIES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSESS A VALUE FOR THOSE. 
          AND SO WHEN WE WOULD BRING FORTH RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'D BRING BACK WHAT THE MARKET RATE WOULD BE, BUT WE'D EXPECT THE RECOMMENDED RENTAL RATE FOR A PARTICULAR, UH, ENTITY WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNTETHERED FROM THAT APPRAISAL BECAUSE AGAIN, THE APPRAISER'S NOT GONNA ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THE VALUE OF THOSE. 
          AND SO THERE'D BE SOME CONCERN THERE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, COULD STAFF MAKE A GOOD JUDGMENT? IS THIS A GOOD DEAL FOR THE CITY IF WE'VE GOT THAT OVERHEAD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PARTICULAR LEASE AGREEMENT? SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THE LEASING IMPACT, UM, GIVEN THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION IN THE IFC. 
          THANK YOU, MICHAEL. 
          I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE ACM, VERONICA BURS ON THE LINE. 
          SHE COULDN'T BE IN PERSON DUE TO FAMILY HEALTHCARE MATTER, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD. 
          AND THEN WITH THAT, I WILL TRANSITION TO RESPOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTION AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          I APPRECIATE, BEFORE YOU GO TO THAT SECOND, ROSA COULD SPEAK TO THE QUESTION OF LAND BANKING AND HOTELS, THIS IMPACT THAT AT ALL. 
          WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? DOES THIS IMPACT, UM, UH, LAND BANKING OR HOTEL PURCHASES? I, I'LL DEFER TO MIKE, BUT YOU MAY RECALL ME THAT, UH, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS IN THE SLIDE PRESENTATION LAST WEEK WAS THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY THROUGH EARNEST MONEY CONTRACT WITHOUT FIRST, UH, SEEKING COUNSEL INPUT. 
          WE'VE DONE THAT SEVERAL TIMES WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE PROPERTY, AND I LISTED, I THINK HEALTH SOUTH AND ST. 
          JOHNS'S EXAMPLES WHERE OUR REAL ESTATE OFFICE WAS CONTACTED BY THESE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE ON MARKET. 
          SO IN ADVANCE OF THEM HITTING THE MARKET, WE WERE OUT OFFERED A FIRST RIGHT, IF YOU WILL. 
          AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT THROUGH A EARNEST MONEY CONTRACT THAT FALLS UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S PURVIEW. 
          UM, AND SO I BELIEVE WE DID THAT WITH SOME OF THE HOTELS AS WELL. 
          AND THEN WE OF COURSE SUBSEQUENTLY HELD A COUNCIL CONVERSATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL DESIRE TO PURCHASE THOSE PROPERTIES WAS THERE. 
          AND SO, YES, I, I WOULD SAY FROM THE HOTEL PERSPECTIVE, IT CERTAINLY DOES, AND I'LL DEFER TO ED AND MIKE, UH, WITH REGARD TO LAND BANKING AS WELL, BUT FROM AUSTIN HOUSE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, IT DOES NOT AFFORD, COULD I SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? NO, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEM SPEAK TO IT AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK, RESPOND, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE MISUNDERSTANDING THE, WHAT THE INTENT IS, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UH, FROM AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH IS, UH, HOW WE FACILITATE EXPENDITURE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS, THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT APPLY, BUT OUR, UM, OFTENTIMES THE HOTEL ACQUISITION HAS STARTED ON THE CITY SIDE. 
          SO IT WOULD APPLY YOUR PERSPECTIVE. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          COULD I PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT? UH, BECAUSE, WELL, YOU ASKED, YOU ASKED THE OTHER QUESTION HOW WERE, WE ASKED YOUR FIRST QUESTION FIRST, BUT HE HASN'T, I MEAN, WHAT WOULD YOU AND I, AND I WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE ACQUISITION, THE COUNCIL MEMBER DID REMOVE THAT, SAY VERBALLY AT THAT PHRASE WOULD BE REMOVED LAST WEEK. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO THAT, WELL, I'M SPEAKING TO IS THE CURRENT RESOLUTION THAT'S POSTED, BUT LAST WEEK I, WELL, BUT, BUT THE, BUT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN AN AMENDMENT THAT REMOVES THE, THE HOTEL. 
          SO MAYOR, I, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I JUST, I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE WITH INFORMATION THAT'S NOT ACCURATE ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE, UM, 
          [02:55:01]
THAT IS, THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT AND, UH, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MADE THAT VERY SPECIFIC. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW, THAT'S NOT THE LAND BANKING, BUT THAT IS THE HOTEL. 
          AND LET ME SAY, WE HEARD THE CONCERN EARLY ON, WE MADE A, AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT, THAT WE THOUGHT ADDRESSED IT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ACQUISITIONS WERE, WERE NOT A CONCERN AND, AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN IT CAME UP AGAIN LAST WEEK, I SAID, WE'LL MAKE YET ANOTHER EDIT. 
          BUT IT, I MEAN, IT, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO SLOW DOWN POTENTIAL ACQUISITIONS. 
          AND WE HAVE TRIED NOW IN THREE OR FOUR ITERATIONS TO REMOVE THAT CONCERN. 
          WE'VE APPARENTLY NOT DONE IT SUCCESSFULLY. 
          SO I, I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF WE KIND OF RAISE UP THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT IS, UM, THE KIND OF VERY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK, AND THEN WE SORT OF DRILL DOWN INTO STAFF CONCERNS ABOUT THAT FEEDBACK AFTER I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WASN'T THE INTENT IS JUST NOT, IS NOT GETTING US TO KIND OF A PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME ON SOME OF THESE ISSUE. 
          SO I, PART OF IT IS ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING TO ME. 
          SO IF THERE'S A LIST, CUZ THE POSTED VERSION DOESN'T EXCLUDE THAT. 
          SO SOMEONE WHO'S TRYING TO CATCH UP TO OUR CONVERSATION WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE POSTED VERSION. 
          BUT IF YOU COULD POST JUST A LIST, NOT EVEN WORD CHANGES, BUT JUST A, A LIST OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU INTEND TO MAKE TO THE POSTED VERSION SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW, WOULD BE ABLE TO REFER TO SOMETHING AND SEE IT. 
          MAYBE THAT MIGHT HELP THE, THE, THE QUESTION. 
          UM, THE OTHER THING I HAVE DONE TOO, IN, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT HOTELS IS ADDED IN LANGUAGE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC HOTEL BECAUSE THAT KEPT A RISING. 
          BUT, UM, OKAY. 
          I WILL, I DON'T WANNA CUT SHORT. 
          I KNOW AN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN HAD A QUESTION. 
          I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE PRIORITIES AND THE BENEFITS, UM, TO GET BACK TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA WAS SAYING AND THEN TO KIND OF RAISE IT UP TO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD. 
          I JUST DON'T WANNA SAY OF IN CONTEXT OF THE CONCERNS, BUT YES, I THINK YOU'RE, DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IF YOU WOULD SAY, I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING AND I'M MAKING THESE 10 CHANGES THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE. 
          WE'LL DO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK NOW RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION THAT COUNCILS OF OUR KITCHEN ASKED WOULD BE THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MARY. 
          I, I DO WANNA JUST MAKE A FIRST OVERALL COMMENT. 
          UM, THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF IS RAISING, UH, ARE IN NO WAY, UH, AN ATTEMPT TO, UM, TO DISREGARD THE POLICY SETTING THAT IS HERE. 
          WE RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS COUNCIL'S ROLE AND WE WANT TO ALWAYS HELP WITH THAT. 
          UM, THE WAY THAT THIS STARTED OUT WAS WITH A, UH, VERY LARGE DOCUMENT, AND WE HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY IN RESPONSE MODE SINCE THAT TIME. 
          WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUST WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, WHICH IS TAKE A STEP BACK AND LISTEN FROM COUNSEL AS TO THE POLICY CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE, THE VALUES THAT YOU, YOU WANT EMBEDDED IN A POLICY. 
          WHAT ARE THOSE OVERARCHING THEMES THAT YOU BELIEVE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN A REAL ESTATE POLICY? WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A, A DRAFT TO ATTEMPT TO MEET THOSE COUNCIL'S COUNCIL CONCERNS IN A WAY THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW. 
          THE, THE, UM, OP THE, THE MODE THAT WE'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER IS THERE'S A DRAFT, WE RESPOND TO THE DRAFT, THERE'S ANOTHER DRAFT, WE RESPOND TO IT. 
          AND TO YOUR POINT, YES, THE VERSIONS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD HAVEN'T YET ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND SO THE MAYOR, OF COURSE, LAST WEEK HAD HAD PROFFERED THAT WE OFFER LANGUAGE TO THE RESOLUTION THAT DOES ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. 
          WE THINK THAT TAKING THAT A STEP FURTHER AND ACTUALLY, UH, DRAFTING A POLICY THAT WE BELIEVE MEETS THE INTENT AND MEETS THE GOALS AND MEETS THE OUTCOME AND MEETS THE VALUES, MIGHT BE A GOOD OUTCOME AS WELL. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE IN MULTIPLE PLACES, THIS ACTUALLY TEES UP FURTHER WORK. 
          UM, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. 
          I TALKED ABOUT THE AUDIT, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, UM, CRITICAL OF HOW WE HANDLE OUR LEASES IN THAT IT'S NOT STRATEGIC, IT'S NOT AIMED AT, UM, REALLY MEETING COMMUNITY NEEDS AND, AND FRANKLY, THE PROCESS FOR WHICH WE USE LEASES FOR NON-PROFITS IS NOT TRANSPARENT WITH VERY LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY BACK. 
          I KNOW THE STAFF HAVE DONE AN INTERNAL POLICY THAT'S NEVER BEEN SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL, SO I'M, I REQUESTED IT AND GOT IT FROM YOU THIS MORNING. 
          UM, BUT IT IS, THIS RESOLUTION IS TEEING UP THAT POLICY WORK IN PLACES WHERE IT'S NOT TEEING UP THE POLICY WORK, IT'S ACTUALLY DRAFTING A POL, IT'S DRAFTING SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE. 
          THOSE ARE IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE IN THE PAST ISSUED SIGNIFICANT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE DON'T YET HAVE A CHANGE TO THAT POLICY. 
          SO I, I WILL, UM, TAKE A STEP BACK AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT, BUT 
          [03:00:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO THROUGH, SAY THE CONVENTION CENTER FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE ALL MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF IT. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING THAT WE'VE HAD COUNCIL CONVERSATIONS AND ACTIONS ON THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE WE HAD A WHOLE DESIGNED CONVENTION CENTER, FRANKLY, THAT WAS, HAD LOTS OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS. 
          AND WHEN IT CAME TO A VOTE, THERE WAS A, A, A SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY UPRISING WHO SAID, WE DON'T WANT JUST A BIGGER BOX THAT'S NOT GOING TO IMPROVE THAT AREA. 
          AND NOW WE HAVE RESTARTED THE EXPANSION PROG PROJECT YET AGAIN. 
          TO ME, THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE TIMING QUESTION, ED, I'M, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE TIMING. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO AFFECT IS A PROCESS OUTLINE WITH PLENTY OF FLEXIBILITY, UM, THAT PROVIDES FOR COMMUNITY INPUT CONSISTENTLY AND COUNSEL INPUT CONSISTENTLY AND A LAYING OUT OF BASELINE REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL BE BE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HEARD LAST TIME AND A AND A TOUCH POINT WITH COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PRIORITIES ARE CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE SOLICITATION THAT'S GOING OUT. 
          AND I WOULD WELCOME EVERYONE AROUND THIS TABLE'S INPUT IN, IN HOW WE CAN TAKE WHAT I'VE LAID OUT HERE AND CRAFT A PROCESS THAT MEETS THOSE GOALS. 
          BECAUSE WHAT WE, WHAT WE HAVE OTHERWISE IS SOMETIMES THERE'S COMMUNITY INPUT AND MEETINGS AS THERE WERE IN RYAN DRIVE. 
          SOMETIMES THERE IS NONE AS THERE AS THERE WAS WITH HELL SOUTH. 
          SOMETIMES THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS ON INCLUDING THINGS IN AN RFP AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE NOT. 
          AND WHEN, WHEN THE PROPOSALS COME BACK TO US WITHOUT THOSE BASELINE REQUIREMENTS, WE CAN'T MAKE THEM REQUIREMENTS ANYMORE. 
          AND SO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I THINK HAVE ARISEN HERE THAT I WANNA EXPLORE. 
          ONE IS THE 85%, UM, DIRECTOR TRUE LOVE YOU SAID THAT THAT'S ONLY AUSTON HOUSING AND FINANCE CORPORATION IS UNDERTAKING A PROJECT. 
          THERE'S NEVER, THERE'S NOT A COUNCIL CONVERSATION UP FRONT ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO BE, WHO IS GOING TO DO WHICH PROJECTS. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT MAYNOR AND WHETHER THAT WAS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR THE AUSTIN HOUSING AND FINANCE CORPORATION. 
          AND THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          WE GOT, YOU KNOW, 93% AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THAT CHOICE. 
          AND THERE'S, WHAT I'M TRYING TO IN INSTILL IS A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO TAKE PLACE WITH ONE, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TWO, WITH THE COUNCIL UP FRONT SO WE CAN HELP SAY THESE ARE GONNA BE PRIORITIES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS FOR THESE TRACKS. 
          NOW MAYBE I WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH A LIST BASED WITH MY STAKE WITH MY CO-SPONSORS ON PRIORITIES THAT I THOUGHT THAT WE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY COME UP ONE ON, ON ON ALL OF THESE AS ONE OFF, UM, NEGOTIATIONS. 
          I THOUGHT THEY WERE THINGS THAT WE, WE WANTED TO AT LEAST BEGIN WITH THINKING ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBER BE BELLA, YOU, YOU SEEM TO BE EXPRESSING SOME CONCERNS WITH BETTER BUILDER BEING A PART OF CITY PROJECTS THAT I JUST WASN'T AWARE OF. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR RAISING THOSE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES FEEL ABOUT THAT, BUT I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE NEGOTIATE FOR THAT ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING OURSELVES AS, AS A CITY TO THE SAME KIND OF STANDARDS. 
          HAVING SAID THAT, UM, IN THE PRIORITY SECTION, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU RE READING THIS CLOSELY ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN POINT TO THINGS THAT ARE OF CONCERN. 
          THAT'S VERY, VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, HAVING SAID THAT, THERE, THERE IS ALSO LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS, AT EVERY POINT, ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF THE MANAGER RECOMMENDS DIVERGING FROM THESE STANDARDS OR DESIRES TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED RESULTS THROUGH ALTERNATIVE METHODS, THE MANAGER MUST PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. 
          SO AT EVERY ONE OF THESE SECTIONS, THERE'S BUILT IN THAT KIND OF FLEXIBILITY, REVENUE SHARING IS SOMETHING WE DO WITH OUR CONCESSIONS ON, ON PARKLAND. 
          AND SO IT'S CERTAINLY, I THINK, WORTH THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE EXTEND THAT TO OUR, OUR LEASES, UM, ON OTHER PROPERTY. 
          IT MAY BE THAT THAT DOESN'T, THAT THAT'S MORE COMPLICATED, BUT WE DO HAVE A MODEL AT THE CITY FOR DOING THOSE CONCESSIONS. 
          I TAKE YOUR POINT THAT IT MAY BE TOO COSTLY TO IMPLEMENT, BUT IT'S, IT'S A, IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE IN THE MIX, BUT MAYBE THAT'S, MAYBE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SAY THIS SHOULD, IT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT TO DO A REVENUE SHARE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A BASELINE REQUIREMENT. 
          WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT HELP? COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REVENUE SHARING, THE ONLY, AND, AND AGAIN, I'M THE NEWEST COUNCIL MEMBER, THE BAR SPRINGS CONCESSION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IN TERMS OF SOMEONE WHERE THERE IS, ARE THERE OTHER, UH, UH, LESSEES THAT, UH, UH, ARE DOING REVENUE SHARING? I THINK MOST OF THEM ON PARKLAND DO, I THINK MOST OF THEM HAVE A REVENUE. 
          I'LL, I'LL DEFER 
          [03:05:01]
TO MIKE GATES, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE A B I HAS REVENUE SHARING, BUT I'LL DEFER TO MIKE GATES TO OTHER LEASES THAT, UH, AND TYPICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, UH, THOSE THAT ARE RETAIL, NOT NECESSARILY OFFICE TENANTS OR, OR SOMETHING, OR NON-PROFITS FOR SURE, FOR SURE, BUT MORE OF THE RETAIL TENANTS. 
          MIKE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA ADD? AND IT, AND THIS WAS NOT DESIGNED TO APPLY TO NONPROFITS TO BE CLEAR. 
          UM, WE ARE GONNA DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
          THE WAY THAT IT READS THE LANGUAGE DOES SAY THAT, UM, GOTCHA. 
          THE INTENT IS NOT TO EXTEND IT TO NONPROFITS, AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT I, IT'S STANDING THAT A B I A AND PAR HAVE A REVENUE SHARING COMPONENT AND SOME OF THEIR AGREEMENTS. 
          BUT FOR THE SEVEN RETAIL SPACES, UM, CITI HAS, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CURRENT LEASES WITH PERCENTAGE THAT ARE OUR FINISHED SPACES. 
          AND, AND IF I MAY, I MEAN, THOSE ARE BOTH, I'M SORRY. 
          UH, THOSE ARE CAPTIVE AUDIENCES. 
          YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOME, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE NOT KIND OF JUST THE RETAIL SPACE, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO HERE WHERE SOMEONE CAN RENT IN CITY HALL OR THEY CAN GO TO ONE OF THE VACANT STOREFRONTS A BLOCK AWAY AND RENT FROM SOMEONE ELSE. 
          SO I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT USING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BAR SPRINGS CONCESSION STAND OR A B ARE RELEVANT TO MOST OF THE CITY'S REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS. 
          OKAY, THAT'S AN INTERESTING AND USEFUL POINT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          I'LL GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT. 
          UM, BACK TO THE BENEFITS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THIS REMINDS ME A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD ABOUT THE CHAPTER THREE 80 AGREEMENTS WHERE WE WERE ONE OFF TRYING TO, AS THEY CAME FORWARD BEFORE COUNCIL, ASKING FOLKS TO HAVE A PREVAILING WAGE, HAVE, UM, SAFE STANDARDS FOR WORKERS AND THE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, STEP BACK AND PUT SOME OF THOSE QUALIFICATIONS INTO THE GUIDELINES. 
          AND SO THE, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO KIND OF DO THE, THE SAME, TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE PRIORITIES BE PART OF THE ORDINARY COURSE OF, OF THOUGHT RATHER THAN HAVING THEM HAPPEN AT THE END TRYING TO, TRYING TO PUT THEM INTO AN RFP THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM, TRYING TO PUT THEM INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT WHERE THE RFP DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM. 
          AND SO THERE MAY BE A MORE THRESHOLD QUESTION HERE ABOUT WHETHER THESE ARE WE, WHETHER THESE ARE GOALS WE WANNA SEE ON OUR CITY PROPERTY. 
          I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE DID WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS IN CRESTVIEW ON THE RYAN DRIVE PROJECT, AND WE GOT, AND THAT'S CITY OWN LAND, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A 60%, LET ME MAKE SURE I GET THESE NUMBERS RIGHT. 
          UM, 60% OF THE TOTAL HOUSING BE AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE AND, UM, LIKE AT A 60% MFI AND THAT'S ON LAND THAT WE OWN. 
          AND THAT'S THE BEST WE WERE ABLE TO DO THERE. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THE, UM, SECTION COUNCIL MEMBER ON HOUSING AND THE 85%, UM, HAVE YOU STIPULATED WHAT THE MFI RATE IS ON THAT? I HAVE, UM, IT SAYS 85% WITH FAMILY, FAMILY SIZE UNITS. 
          THIS AGAIN, IS JUST ON LAND WE OWN AND DEEP LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY. 
          AND IT SAYS, UM, SOME EXAMPLES, IT DOESN'T STIPULATE IT, BUT IT SAYS RENTAL RATES BASED ON 50%. 
          BUT JUST JUST TO NOTE, THERE IS ALSO LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION AS THERE HAVE BEEN IN EVERY OTHER THINGS THAT SAYS IF THE MANAGER RECOMMENDS DIVERGING, PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION. 
          AND SO IT COULD BE THAT JUSTIFICATION WILL BE, YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMEND 60% HERE. 
          MY, MY INTENT HERE IS TO TRY TO DRIVE US BE BEYOND, I THINK GREEN RIGHT NEXT DOOR HAD ZERO. 
          AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE IN SOME OF OUR OTHERS, UM, IS MORE LIKE 20%, EXCEPT FOR THE AUSTIN HOUSING AND FINANCE, WHICH MANDY HAD STATED, THEY LOOK FOR 85%. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. 
          BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN AS HIGH AS 93, SO THANKS. 
          SO THERE MAY BE ANOTHER NUMBER, BUT AGAIN, THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF YOU RECOMMEND DIVERGING, LET US KNOW WHY. 
          THE PART THAT CAUGHT MY EYE, AND I THINK IT'S CAUGHT OTHERS' EYE, UM, THAT GIVES ME GREAT PAUSE. 
          AND I'M SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO, UM, NEGOTIATE THAT. 
          AND I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR SOMETHING HIGHER THAN 10% SINCE THE DAY I CAME TO THIS DIAS, AND IT'S EIGHT YEARS LATER AND IT'S STILL NOT POSSIBLE. 
          WE CAN'T EVEN GET 25%, ALTHOUGH I'M REALLY HAPPY WITH THE 60% IN THIS UNUSUAL CASE, UM, ON RYAN DRIVE, AND I'M REALLY PROUD OF THAT. 
          85% OF THE UNITS ON ANY PARCEL, 
          [03:10:01]
UM, IS SUPER HIGH. 
          UM, THERE, AS YOU SAY, THERE, THERE ARE SOME RELEASE VALVES, BUT WHAT PEOPLE WILL FOCUS ON, WHAT I FOCUSED ON WAS THE 85%. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S REALISTIC. 
          I THINK AS ROSIE UH, SPOKE TO EARLIER TODAY, THAT WE LOSE SOME OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS MUCH AS I WISH IT WERE DIFFERENT. 
          WE DON'T HAVE INCLUSIONARY ZONING IN THIS, IN THIS STATE WHERE WE, IT'S ALWAYS A CARROT AND A STICK AND THE REQUIREMENTS, UM, PEOPLE, THE DEVELOPERS AND THE AGENTS WILL WALK AWAY FROM THE PROJECTS. 
          I'M, I'M PRETTY WELL CONVINCED OF THAT. 
          SO IF 85% OF THE HOUSING UNITS HAVE TO BE INCOME RESTRICTED, WE STAND TO LOSE SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UH, THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR. 
          AND WE WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING DEVELOPERS TO BID ON THESE AND THEY WOULD END UP NOT BEING, NOT BEING AFFORDABLE. 
          AND I WISH THE WORLD WERE, WERE DIFFERENT, BUT, UM, I HAVE A A I WISH THE WORLD WERE DIFFERENT, BUT THE 85% TO ME IS, IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE CAN ASK FOR. 
          I THINK THAT THE 60 THAT WE GOT ON RYAN DRIVE WAS, WAS THE MAX AND THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING THAT AND TRYING TO GET MORE LIKE THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS GETS US THERE, MAYOR, I, I, I JUST WOULD SAY THAT I CONTINUE TO BE RELUCTANT AND AM HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO CHANGE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM WHEN IT COMES ON THURSDAY. 
          AND I, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS THE GENERAL SENSE AROUND THE DIAS HERE TODAY. 
          UM, I THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS A WHOLE LOT. 
          I THINK STAFF HAVE TRIED REALLY HARD TO, UM, GIVE ALTERNATIVES. 
          I KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROTO HAS MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO HER INITIAL RESOLUTION. 
          I'M STILL HAVING DIFFICULTY KEEPING UP  WITH ALL THE CHANGES. 
          UM, AND THIS IS NOT THE, THE MAIN ITEM THAT I'VE BEEN PURSUING IN THE LAST, UH, COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          MOST OF MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THIS AND WE CAN CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT IT HERE TODAY. 
          I THINK WE MAY HAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE THE DIOCESE IS PROBABLY PRETTY SETTLED ON, ON THE FEELING ON WHETHER TO WELL CONTINUE. 
          I REALLY HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE THERE. 
          CAN I SPEAK, LET HER FINISH TALKING. 
          , I I DO HAVE THE SENSE THAT THAT IS, THAT THE DIOCESE IS RELUCTANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AND TO MOVE THIS FORWARD OR EVEN POST UPON IT. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO, UM, FIND A, AN END POINT FOR THE CONVERSATION TODAY SO THAT WE CAN, UM, CONTINUE ON WITH OTHER, THE OTHER, OTHER ITEMS THAT WE MAY HAVE IN FRONT OF US. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S GIVE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO ONE MORE CHANCE TO TALK COUNCIL MORE KITCHEN. 
          UM, YEAH, I'M FINE WITH AN END POINT. 
          WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHEN WE'RE GONNA STOP TALKING, BUT, UM, BUT I THINK WE'RE ENGAGED IN, IN AN EXERCISE TO FIND, UM, TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS. 
          I THINK THAT THE, THE PROBLEM THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS TRYING TO SOLVE FOR ARE IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION OF WHAT WE ASK FOR FROM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDPOINT FOR PUBLIC LAND IS IMPORTANT POLICY PIECE. 
          I THINK THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE EX EXTENT ON PUBLIC LAND THAT WE ASK FOR WORKER PROTECTIONS LIKE WE'VE DONE WHEN WE REACH OUT TO PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT. 
          SO I'M NOT READY TO, I AM NOT READY TO SAY THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE WE DON'T WANNA ADDRESS. 
          I AM HAPPY TO WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND WITH STAFF TO, TO SEE, JUST TO SIT DOWN AND SEE IF WE CAN VERY EXPEDITIOUSLY JUST WALK THROUGH ALL THE ISSUES. 
          BUT I'M NOT, I AM NOT DECLARING THIS DEATH. 
          I THINK THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES HERE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. 
          MAYOR. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          WELL, YOU CAN GO NOW IF YOU WANT TO HIS, YOUR ITEM. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          IF NOW IS WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK, THAT'S FINE. 
          I'M HAPPY TO. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MCALLY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I'M, I'M NOT REALLY READY TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM EITHER. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF TIME HAS BEEN IN A, FOR YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, UM, WORK THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. 
          BUT UNTIL THE STAFF'S CONCERNS ARE RESOLVED AND WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE, UM, STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND IT'S NOT GONNA BE TOO MUCH OF AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE WORK THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. 
          UM, I, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE EXPERIENCES THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THAT IF WE SHARED THEM OR HIGHLIGHTED THEM WOULD BE VALUABLE TO STAFF. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT YET. 
          AND, AND I'M CONCERNED 
          [03:15:01]
THAT OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE PRESCRIPTIVE IN THEIR STATEMENT, LIKE THE 85%. 
          CAUSE I THINK FOCUSING NOT LESS ON THE PERCENTAGE AND ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS GENERALLY A BETTER WAY TO DESCRIBE THAT. 
          AND FOR SEVERAL OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE KINDS OF THINGS, PART OF IT THAT I'M WRESTLING WITH IS YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO PUTS IN THIS, I'M PUTTING THESE THINGS DOWN, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. 
          IF THERE'S A REASON NOT TO JUST COME BACK AND TELL US, THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO, TO DO THAT. 
          UM, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WOULD WANT IT TO SAY SO THAT YOU'RE NOT BOUND TO DO BY SOMETHING THAT'S PRESCRIPTIVE. 
          THE PART I'M WRESTLING WITH IS, ONE OF MY EXPERIENCES OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS IS RECOGNIZING THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, WHICH IS WHEN COUNSEL SAYS THAT, THAT'S NOT HOW STAFF READS THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER. 
          SO COUNCIL SAYS, UM, WE WANNA HAVE CHILDCARE IN ALL DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH IS LAUDABLE THING, WE NEED CHILDCARE. 
          BUT YET WE'VE HAD SOME INSTANCES WHERE IT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT, IT WAS A SUGGESTION, AND WHEN IT DIDN'T HAVE IT, THEN STAFF GETS, UM, UM, UH, CAUGHT UP IN, IN AN ADVERSARIAL KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WITH COUNCIL. 
          WHEN IT STAFF DETERMINED IT DIDN'T FIT OR DIDN'T, DIDN'T PROPOSE IT, THAT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT THAT IT'D BE THERE. 
          IT WAS JUST, HEY, CONSIDER THIS STAFF CONSIDERED. 
          IT DIDN'T GO THAT DIRECTION. 
          BUT WHAT RESULTS THEN IS A PRACTICAL MATTER THEN IS STAFF THAT'S RELUCTANT TO BRING THINGS BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          I DON'T, ALMOST, MY FEELING IS ALMOST OVER TIME THAT THEY, THAT STAFF FEELS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S GONNA BE FELT LIKE IT DIDN'T DO ITS JOB BECAUSE IT COULDN'T RETURN BACK WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT IT WAS THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO, TO SEE IN IT. 
          UH, SO THERE'S THAT PRACTICAL MEASURE, UH, WHERE, WHERE WE DON'T GET DEALS OR, OR POTENTIALLY LOSE DEALS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONTAIN ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED. 
          BUT ALL BUT THE THINGS THAT WERE ON THE WISH LIST AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THROUGH THAT. 
          UH, AND IT, AND IT, AND IT MAY BE THAT WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE POLICY GOALS ARE AND TO SAY TO STAFF, UM, IS THERE A BETTER WAY FOR US TO, TO DRIVE CONSIDERATION, UH, OF SOME, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT PRACTICAL THING IS, BUT THAT'S ALSO ONE OF MY EXPERIENCES OVER THE LAST, UH, EIGHT YEARS. 
          I'M WRESTLING WITH THE ONE ABOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL PRIOR TO NEGOTIATION AND, AND ISSUING RFPS SAME TIME. 
          I MEAN, I WANT TO HAVE STAFF INVOLVEMENT IN MOST CASES THAT WORKS FOR US. 
          WE CAN POINT TO SOME INSTANCES WHERE IT DIDN'T, WE CAN POINT TO SOME INSTANCES WHERE THE STAFF GOT INVOLVED AND THEN THE PROCESS WENT OFF THE TRACK BECAUSE THE STAFF WAS NOW TAKING CONTROL OF, I MEAN, THE COUNCIL WAS NOW TAKING CONTROL OF A PROCESS THAT THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BEST TO BE ONE THAT WAS LED BY THE, BY THE, BY THE COUNCIL. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M AWARE OF SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S BEEN REALLY HELPFUL TO, TO GET THE, THE COUNCIL BACK IN AND TO MAKE THAT WORK AND TRYING TO PARSE THOSE TWO SITUATIONS. 
          GIVEN THE FIRST THING I SAID, UH, IS, IS, IS IS THERE, UH, BECAUSE EARLY COUNSEL INPUT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ENSURE SUCCESS. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME MORE STRUCTURED WAY OR SYSTEM OR CONVERSATION OR QUESTION OR SOMETHING. 
          I THINK THAT THAT IS ASSOCIATED, UH, WITH THAT. 
          UH, BUT THE OTHER THINGS LIKE LIVING WAGE, WE ABSOLUTELY WANT A LIVING WAGE CUZ ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE DO A LIVING, WHEN WE DO A LIVING WAGE AND WE REQUIRE OUR CONTRACTORS TO DO A LIVING WAGE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE OUR TENANTS DOING A LIVING WAGE. 
          ALL THOSE THINGS HELP OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY DRIVE TO A LIVING WAGE. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THOSE ARE ALL FORCED CHOICES. 
          YOU CAN'T REQUIRE A TENANT TO DO A LIVING WAGE WHEN, WHEN THEIR INDUSTRY'S NOT DOING THAT AND EXPECT THEM ALSO TO PAY MARKET RENT. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I'M WILLING TO TAKE LESS RENT, UH, IN ORDER FOR THAT. 
          SO A POLICY THAT SAYS, UH, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, IF THERE'S A CHANCE TO GET LIVING WAGE AND EXCHANGE FOR LESS THAN MARKET RENT, UH, MAYBE THAT IS A POLICY THAT IS, THAT IS HELPFUL. 
          RECOGNIZING THAT EVEN THAT MAY NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO, UH, IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT, MY SENSE IS, IS THAT IN READING THIS STAFF DOESN'T THINK THAT IT HAS THE, THE FREEDOM OR THE ABILITY WITHOUT, UM, UH, FACING A SITUATION THAT IT IS LOAD TO PUT ITSELF INTO TO BE ABLE TO, TO TO, TO RESPOND AND DELIVER. 
          THE SAME THING WITH ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE WITH CHILDCARE, 
          [03:20:01]
UM, UH, FACILITIES. 
          UH, FINDING TEMPORARY USES FOR VACANCIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE, THE GOOD IDEA. 
          WE, WE DIFFERED ON THAT WITH, WITH HELL SOUTH IN TERMS OF LOCKING INTO, UH, A PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE I'M QUITE READY TO, TO AGREE TO A POLICY, UH, ON THAT. 
          I COULD STATE THE POLICY THAT SAYS IF WE HAVE A VACANCY, BUT A POTENTIAL HIGHEST AND BEST USE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU DON'T OTHERWISE ENCUMBERED. 
          SO IS TO LOSE FUTURE OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY FOR STAFF. 
          UM, SO, SO UH, CUZ REMEMBER I'LL, I'LL ENDEAVOR TO TRY TO, TO GET THROUGH TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, JUST A BASE DISAGREEMENT ON, ON SOME OF THE POLICY ISSUES, UM, REQUIRING ZONING BEFORE, UH, HAND BEFORE THAT GOES. 
          UM, UM, I MEAN I, I CAN SEE THAT'S, THAT, THAT I THINK IS A REALLY INTERESTING CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO, UH, LANDS THAT, THAT, THAT WE DON'T OWN, UH, THAT ARE OWNED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT CAN BE PUT UP FOR SALE WHERE OUR ZONING MAY ONLY COUNT IN THE EVENT OF, OF A, OF A, OF A SALE TO A NON, FOR A NON-PUBLIC USE. 
          UH, BUT I THINK THAT'S, UM, THAT, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
          PROBABLY A BROADER QUESTION, BUT, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT IS, IS NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE HANDLING ON AN AD HOC BASIS. 
          THERE SHOULD IN FACT BE STAFF ATTENTION TO THAT QUESTION. 
          UH, I AGREE WITH, UH, A THOUSAND PERCENT, SO I'M NOT SURE I'M NECESSARILY ON BOARD WITH THE ANSWER, BUT SAYING WE HAVE FELT ON THIS DIET THAT THOSE THINGS COME BACK TO US WITHOUT KIND OF A POLICY YET. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S MORE OF THE SITUATION. 
          SO WHAT, IT'S THE THINGS THAT WE JUST SEEM TO RUN INTO THAT FEEL LIKE THEY'RE NEW EVERY TIME WE RUN INTO THEM. 
          AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE I'M WITH YOU IN TERMS OF ALL THE SOLUTIONS OR THE REMEDIES, BUT YES. 
          ON SO MANY OF THE QUESTIONS, I'M GONNA TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS MYSELF TO SEE IF THERE'S A PLACE THAT THIS DIAS COULD GET TO THAT SAID, PLEASE DON'T PUT FUTURE COUNCILS INTO A PLACE WHERE IT FEELS THAT HOC. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA NECESSARILY RECOMMEND TO YOU WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO US EITHER WITH AN ANSWER OR WITH THE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT ANSWER OR FOR SOME UNIFORM APPROACH SO THAT IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S NEW EVERY TIME. 
          IT, IT GETS THERE. 
          AND I HOPE THAT THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          YEAH, IT IS. 
          I THINK THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          AND SO FOR SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, THE CO-SPONSOR GROUP HAS PROPOSED POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT, THAT IT'S BEING INTERPRETED AS A MANDATE RATHER THAN AS A GUIDELINE. 
          AND SO I THINK SOME CLARIFICATION TO THE LANGUAGE MIGHT HELP IN SOME OF THOSE. 
          UM, MAYOR, MAYBE YOU AND I CAN SIT TOGETHER IN SOME OF THOSE. 
          WE MAYBE NEED TO BACK UP TO THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS THAT, THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER AND JUST SAY, COME BACK TO US WITH THE POLICY. 
          BUT I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WOULD, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I COULD SPEND THE NEXT TWO HOURS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE GIVEN RISE TO THIS. 
          I THINK THESE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE'RE USING OUR PUBLIC LAND AND IT'S OF SUBSTANTIAL CONCERN TO THE COMMUNITY AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES AND STANDARDIZING SOME OF THESE PRACTICES IS GONNA BE OF GREAT VALUE. 
          UM, I, SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT, UM, SOME OF, I'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAYBE WITH YOUR HELP AND THE HELP OF THE OTHER CO-SPONSORS, HOW TO SET UP THE CONVERSATIONS IN PLACES WHERE WE'RE NOT SURE THERE'S A CONSENSUS, BUT I I REALLY THINK THAT, UM, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO CARVE OUT A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO MORE CONSISTENTLY GET THOSE BENEFITS. 
          LET ME, I'M GONNA SAY ONE MORE EXAMPLE. 
          I HAVE ASKED FOR THE LAST MAYBE NINE MONTHS, MAYBE LONGER, TO SEE IF THE COUNCIL CAN REVIEW THE CONVENTION CENTER RFP BEFORE IT GETS DISTRIBUTED. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE HAD START AND STOPS FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS ON THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION. 
          AND THIS COUNCIL HAS INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN HIRING A CONSULTANT, UM, TO, IN HIRING THE UT TO REALLY HELP US RETHINK THAT AREA OF TOWN. 
          AND NOW THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION RFP THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE STREET NEEDS TO CAPTURE THOSE. 
          I HAVE GONE ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE STAFF'S WORK. 
          THERE WAS JUST CONFUSION ABOUT IT. 
          FIRST IT WAS THEY WERE GONNA SHARE IT, THEN PURCHASING SAID THAT'S NOT OUR PRACTICE. 
          THEN THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          AND FINALLY ON THURSDAY, I GOT THE ANSWER BACK, UM, THANK YOU, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SAYING NO, WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE IN OR WHAT WILL BE IN THE RFP, BUT THEY WILL NOT SHARE THE RFP WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT POLICY DIRECTION. 
          SO IF, IF OUR COUNCIL OR ANY OTHER COUNCIL EVER WANTS TO REVIEW 
          [03:25:01]
AN RFP OR AN RFQ TO HAVE THAT TOUCHPOINT TO SEE WHETHER THE PRIORITIES WE'VE SET ARE ENCAPSULATED IN IT, WE CANNOT DO THAT. 
          YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          GENERATIONS OF COUNCILS IN THE FUTURE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT ABSENT A POLICY DIRECTION THAT AFFORDS THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AT A MINIMUM IT WOULD BE GOOD JUST TO HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL EVER WANTS TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY SO THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, DON'T SPEND NINE MONTHS TRYING TO GET THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. 
          AND I WILL SAY I'M, I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THERE AREN'T COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, WHO HAVE SEEN RFPS IN THE PAST, FRANKLY. 
          SO HAVING A A CONSISTENT POLICY IS, IS HELPFUL. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR ALL THE THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER, BELLA AND KELLY, UM, AND POOL AND MAYOR. 
          I THINK, I THINK YOU HAVE POINTED TO SOME, SOME PLACES WHERE WE CAN GET TO CONSENSUS AND YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE TO BE DONE WITH THIS TOO, BUT I THINK THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY, TOO MANY THINGS I'VE SEEN ON THIS COUNCIL THAT I THINK ALL OF OUR ACCUMULATED WISDOM CAN REALLY SET A PATH FOR, FOR THE BEST USE OF OUR PUBLIC LAND, WHICH IS AN EXTRAORDINARY ASSET THAT THE CITY HAS. 
          SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA KEEP ON ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          IF I COULD, MAYOR, JUST SO FOR ONE CLARIFICATION, I'D BE GLAD TO CIRCULATE MY EMAIL TO ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          UM, YES, MY RESPONSE WAS WE COULD NOT PUBLICLY SHARE THE RFQ WITH ALL OF COUNSEL. 
          THAT'S NOT OUR PRACTICE. 
          HOWEVER, INDIVIDUALLY SHOULD YOU OR YOUR POLICY AIDES DESIRE TO SEE THE DRAFT RFQ, WE ARE GLAD TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. 
          WE ONLY ASKED THAT YOU SIGN A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. 
          SO THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND EVERY POLICY AID OF YOURS. 
          UM, OUR RESPONSE WAS THAT WE COULDN'T SHARE IT PUBLICLY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT OUR BEST PRACTICE. 
          UM, AND ONCE WE SHARE IT PUBLICLY, WE CAN'T CONTROL THE DOCUMENT. 
          GOT IT. 
          ARE WE READY? UM, UM, I'M GONNA BE BRIEF CUZ I'M IN A QUORUM WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO AND I CAN SPEAK TO HER. 
          BUT I DO WANNA JUST, UM, SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VALUE OF CAPTURING THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM, UM, THAT WE HAVE WITH, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO, THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, MYSELF, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER FUNDUS WHO ARE ON AS CO-SPONSORS THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT HAS GONE INTO THIS RESOLUTION. 
          AND I THINK IT REFLECTS A CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED EFFECTIVELY, UM, CREATIVELY AND IN ALIGN WITH OUR VALUES WHEN WE DEAL WITH, UM, ISSUES, UM, DELIGHTING DEALING WITH PUBLIC LAND. 
          UM, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THOSE CONCERNS LIGHTLY. 
          THEY HAVE COME UP OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          WE MAY NOT HAVE LANDED ON THE SOLUTIONS, BUT THE PROBLEMS ARE GOING TO REMAIN. 
          AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT FOR US TO SIMPLY IGNORE, UM, THE QUESTIONS AND THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE BEING RAISED BECAUSE THEY WILL COME BACK AGAIN AND WE WILL SPEND MORE AND MORE TIME ON THAT. 
          UM, AND I THINK THE, THE, THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS WAS TO SPEND LESS TIME LATER BY HAVING CLEAR POLICIES. 
          AND I WILL SAY I HAVE A, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN RFP, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, PART OF A NEGOTIATION OVER A LAND ISSUE. 
          AND I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND I'VE BEEN TOLD I NEED AN NDA AND NO ONE'S GIVING ME THE NDA TO SIGN. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S A PROBLEM, UM, THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THINGS THAT HAPPEN, UM, WHERE WE, WE NEED, WE NEED, WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER PROCESS AND CITY MANAGER, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CALL FROM, YOU KNOW, FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SAY, SOMETHING'S NOT WORKING RIGHT HERE. 
          SOMETHING CAN WORK BETTER. 
          UM, WE'VE HAD SOME GREAT OPPORTUNITIES WITH OUR PUBLIC LAND, UM, BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO BETTER AND WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE UNDERLYING POLICIES AND APPROACHES BECAUSE THEY FEED INTO OUR, THEY FEED INTO OUR SUCCESSES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT'S THIS TOPIC. 
          THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR, FOR COMING UP. 
          UM, WE HAVE 
          [E. Executive Session]
AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ONE ITEM IS A COPYRIGHT MATTER. 
          I THINK IT'S GONNA BE SHORT. 
          NO. 
          SO LET'S DO THAT REAL FAST AND THEN WE'RE DONE FOR THE DAY. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, DO YOU WANT US TO GO VIRTUAL TO GET TO THIS, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES, PLEASE. 
          I'D, I'D HOPE TO JOIN YOU ALL IN PERSON, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA MATERIALIZE THAT WAY, SO THANK YOU. 
          NOT A PROBLEM. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSE SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO 5 5 1 0 7 1 IN GOVERNMENT COATS CITY. 
          THE COUNCIL DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATES TO E TWO, WHICH IS THE COPYRIGHT MATTER YOU WANT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR TODAY. 
          WE ANTICIPATE IT COULD BE PART OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THURSDAY. 
          UH, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION VIRTUALLY, AND I WILL COME BACK OUT AND CLOSE THIS MEETING WHEN, UH, THAT MEETING IS OVER. 
          THE TIME IS, UH, 1240. 
          UNDERSTAND THAT I'M FIVE READY. 
          ALL RIGHT, WE'RE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION. 
          UH, IN 
          [03:30:01]
CLOSED SESSION WE DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM E TWO, UH, COPYRIGHT MATTER. 
          AND WITH THAT, THE, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, WORK SESSION HERE ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022 IS OVER AND ADJOURNED AT 1 26. 
          THANK YOU.
* 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.