* 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.
          THERE 
          [00:00:01]
IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT, GUYS, LET'S GO AHEAD IF WE CAN, IF THE DV FOLKS ARE READY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THIS DECEMBER 6TH COUNCIL WORK SESSION, WE'RE IN THE BOARDS ROOM HERE AT THE CITY HALL. 
          UH, THE TIME IS NINE 10, UH, 
          [A. Pre-Selected Agenda Items (Part 1 of 2)]
COLLEAGUES. 
          IT LOOKS AS IF, UM, UH, THE MAIN THING WE HAVE TO DISCUSS TODAY IS AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          WE'RE GONNA PULL THAT UP. 
          FIRST. 
          PULLED ITEM BY THE CHAIR, UH, POOL, UH, WHO'S, UH, PULLED THAT ITEM. 
          WE HAVE A COUPLE ITEMS, UH, AFTER THAT, THAT, UH, ARE PULLED. 
          I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE GONNA TAKE LONG. 
          UH, THE, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO JUST GET THROUGH THE PULLED ITEMS. UM, WE HAVE THREE MATTERS ON EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE POLICE NEGOTIATION ISSUE. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE HAS ASKED THAT. 
          WE CONSIDER THAT ON THURSDAY, UH, WHEN SHE IS, UM, UM, UH, WITH US. 
          SO IT MIGHT BE THAT, UH, WE PUSH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, UH, TO THURSDAY. 
          UH, I NEED TO LEAVE HERE SOMETIME NEAR ABOUT, UH, NOON. 
          UH, SO I'LL BE WITH YOU TO THAT POINT. 
          YOU ALL CAN CONTINUE ON WITHOUT ME, UH, FOR HOWEVER MUCH YOU, UH, WANT TO DO. 
          UH, THE, UM, UH, ECONOMIC, UH, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BRIEFING, UH, IS SOMETHING THAT IF THERE'S TIME AND I'M HERE, WE COULD, I PREFER TO HEAR THAT, BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. 
          MOSTLY IT'S THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, ITEM I THINK I NEED TO, TO BE HERE FOR. 
          YES, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 64. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO REGARDING IT. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU SHOULD MAKE NOTE OF THAT. 
          COUNSEL. 
          KELLY'S BULLYING ITEM 64. 
          YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          AND, UM, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS REALLY BRIEFLY EACH OF MY AMENDMENT, EACH OF MY RESOLUTIONS, AND JUST SEE IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS GIVEN THAT WE'RE IN OUR LAST COUNSEL MEETING. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT THEY SERVICE TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          64 BY WAY IS, UH, THE STR GENERAL PLATFORM ITEM. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S BEGAN WITH, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, COMING UP. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY COULD JOIN. 
          SO I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, UH, THIS MORNING PRESENTATION A LITTLE BIT WITH, UH, UH, THE CHAIR AND, UH, ALSO THE, THE, THE MAYOR PRO. 
          JUST IN TERMS OF, OF HOW TO APPROACH IT. 
          UH, THE GOAL IS, UH, FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT SPEAK, UH, BEFORE WE, UH, BEFORE WE END THE YEAR. 
          UH, WE HAD KIND OF A WIDE RANGING CONVERSATION LAST WEEK, UH, AND I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN HAVE LESS OF A WIDE RANGING CONVERSATION THIS, AND ONE THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY POINTS TO, UH, UH, WHAT YOU GUYS ANTICIPATE IS IN, UH, CONTROVERSY SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN BE REALLY FOCUSED ON WHERE OUR HELP OR DIRECTION THIS MORNING WOULD BE OF, OF GREATEST VALUE. 
          UH, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF ISSUES AND A LIMITED RANGE WITHIN THOSE ISSUES THAT YOU'D REALLY LIKE, UH, THE COUNCIL TO FOCUS. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE WITH US TODAY THE ADVOCATE FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, THERE ARE FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          MY HOPE, I MEAN, SOME OF THOSE THINGS I THINK MAY INVOLVE, UH, ISSUES THAT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN. 
          SO PROBABLY CALLING YOU UP AT SOME POINT TO, TO TALK TO US. 
          SO THE COUNCIL CAN HEAR LIMITED NUMBER ISSUES, LIMITED NUMBER RANGE WITHIN THOSE ISSUES. 
          AND THEN TO HEAR, UM, UM, ADVOCACY OR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO RESOLVE 'EM, UH, BOTH FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AND THEN FROM, UH, UH, RELEVANT INTERVENERS ON THAT ARE FOCUSED ON THOSE ISSUES, I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          SO WITH THAT IN MIND, MAYOR, YES, JUST AS KATHY TOBO. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT LIMITED ISSUES AUSTIN ENERGY HAS IDENTIFIED THAT I DID RUN A 
          [00:05:01]
SIGNAL TO THE, THAT I WOULD LIKE. 
          I HAVE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, UM, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INTERVENERS, BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS ACTUALLY SOMEBODY THAT THE CITY HIRED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS, OF RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. 
          AND SO WE'VE REALLY HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME WITH MR. KAUFMAN AND I, IT IS MY INTENT, UM, TO SPEAK WITH HIM TODAY ABOUT SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT I THINK ARE REALLY CRITICAL AND WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO, TO DO THAT. 
          EVERYBODY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, BUT SO THAT I UNDERSTAND EVEN THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKING, I WANT A CONTEXT FOR THAT. 
          UH, SO WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH THAT CONVERSATION THAT IDENTIFIES OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND RANGES WITHIN ISSUE. 
          UH, AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO, TO, TO, TO MOVE ON HERE. 
          HERE. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO KIND OF KICK THINGS OFF? OKAY. 
          I PULLED THE ITEM AND GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I PULLED THE ITEM SO WE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT THE PROPOSAL THAT I PUT BEFORE YOU LAST FRIDAY. 
          WANTED TO GIVE YOU A WALKTHROUGH REALLY QUICK OF THE HANDOUTS THAT ARE AT YOUR, UM, AT YOUR PLACES. 
          THERE ON THE DIOCESE ALSO ARE BEING UPLOADED IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY TO THE MESSAGE BOARD. 
          UM, AND THIS CHART FOR REFERENCE, I HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS TO MAKE, TWO EDITS TO MAKE TO THAT. 
          I'LL GIVE YOU THOSE IN A MINUTE. 
          AND THEN THE BOCATO MEMO, UM, THAT GIVES AN OVERVIEW AND THEN THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN SURFACED, UM, BY THOSE OF US ON THE DIAS FOR ANSWER TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS EMAILED TO EVERYBODY, I THINK LAST WEEK. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE SEES THAT AND HAS IT IN FRONT OF YOU SO THAT IF, IF THERE ARE ISSUES RELATING TO THE RESPONSES FROM MR. B, THEN YOU, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          TWO QUICK EDITS. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CHART WHERE IT SAYS CM COOLS PROPOSAL, THIS IS OPTION FOUR B WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, 31.3 MILLION. 
          UM, THE, UH, AMENDMENT, THE EDIT IS TO THE FIRST ALTER AMENDMENT. 
          THE NEW RATE SHOULD READ 0 7 2 8 5. 
          THERE'S A TWO MISSING BETWEEN THE SEVEN AND THE EIGHT AND SKIP DOWN TO THE $16 FISCAL YEAR 25 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          UM, AGAIN, THAT NEW RATE IN THE FIRST LINE ALTER AMENDMENT NEW RATE SHOULD READ 0.0274. 
          SO, OKAY, SO HAVING, UH, OFFERED THAT, LET ME JUST REALLY QUICK, UM, GIVE YOU A RUNDOWN ON THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU, AND IT IS OPTION FOUR B, UH, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST THURSDAY. 
          UH, AND FRIDAY THE PROPOSAL BEGINS WITH AN ASSUMED REVENUE OF 31.3 MILLION. 
          WE GET THERE BY HOLDING THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, AT 115 MILLION FOR THREE YEARS. 
          WE WILL EVALUATE HOW WE ARE DOING DURING BUDGET NEXT YEAR. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT, HAS A FINANCIAL NEED THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ICA AND THE I E THAT'S THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER. 
          THERE ARE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS COUNCIL'S DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS FISCALLY STABLE AND HAS ENOUGH REVENUE TO CONTINUE TO RIDE THE PROGRAMS THAT THE CITY ENJOYS, LIKE THE ZILKER TREE LIGHTING AND SPONSORING THE REGIONAL SCIENCE FAIR, EVEN ADMINISTERING THE, UH, THE UH, UH, THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          THIS PROPOSAL FOUR B PROVIDES A GRADUAL CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASING BY $4 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND $1 IN THE TWO FOLLOWING YEARS. 
          THIS APPROACH GETS THE UTILITY TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE FINANCIALLY AND HELPS AVOID RATE SHOCK. 
          THE PROPOSAL HAS FOUR TIERS. 
          THE FIRST TWO TIERS CAPTURE THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER AND THE RATE IS OFFERED JUST BELOW THE COST OF SERVICE AT FOUR AND 5 CENTS PER KILOWATT. 
          THERE'S A SHARP INCREASE AT TIER THREE AND FOUR TO INCENTIVIZE CONSERVATION THAT WILL EITHER GET CUSTOMERS TO CHANGE THEIR HABITS OR HOPEFULLY INVEST IN SOLAR. 
          THE MAYOR PRETENDS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN THE CHART, ALLOWS US TO CAPTURE EXTRA REVENUE THAT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          AND I WANNA THANK HER FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD. 
          I THINK IT ADDS VALUE AND ALLOWS US TO MEET OTHER GOALS IDENTIFIED BY THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          THE EXTRA REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT WOULD GO TOWARD MAKING THE OUTSIDE RATE PAYERS WHOLE, AND THREE AND A HALF MILLION WOULD GO TO EXPAND THE 
          [00:10:01]
CAP PROGRAM. 
          SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALL INTERESTED IN DOING BECAUSE IT OFFERS ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THEIR BILL. 
          I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS DUE TO RATE INCREASES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE AUSTIN ENERGY TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY ADVOCACY GROUPS LIKE GAVA TO INCREASE OUTREACH IN NEIGHBORHOODS SO THAT WE CAN BOOST ENROLLMENT IN THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          ON THE CHART, YOU'LL SEE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 
          I'VE ADDED AUSTIN ENERGY'S CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE AND THE RATES THAT OTHER CITIES CHARGE FOR ELECTRICITY. 
          YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HOW OUR PUBLIC UTILITY BENEFITS RATE PAYERS BY PROVIDING ELECTRICITY AT A LOW COST. 
          WHAT WE NEED TO DO TODAY IS GIVE OUR UTILITY STAFF A SENSE OF THE DIAS. 
          TO THAT END MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A STRAW POLL TO GAUGE SUPPORT FOR THIS PROPOSAL. 
          SO AUSTIN ENERGY IS PREPARE, IS ABLE TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR THURSDAY, AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE DO THAT AFTER THE, UH, CONVERSATION ON THE, ON THE, AROUND THE DIAS HERE TODAY. 
          I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU STILL HAVE CONCERNS, SO, UM, MAYOR, I'LL HAND THE MIC BACK TO YOU TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT ANY KIND OF PRESENTATION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. 
          THANKS SO MUCH. 
          SO I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          I THINK LET'S END THIS CONVERSATION WITH, UM, A STRAW POLL. 
          WE CAN'T VOTE FIST THE FIVE, WHATEVER IT IS TO GIVE INDICATION. 
          I THINK THAT'S WELL TAKEN AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE OUR GOAL. 
          I APPRECIATE THE PROPOSAL. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL, SO THERE'S NO PERSPECTIVE FOR ME TO PUT IT IN YET. 
          SO I WANT TO GET TO YOUR PROPOSAL, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THE PROPOSAL, I WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VARIABLES ARE THAT ARE AT PLAY AND WHERE THEY'RE AT PLAY. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR VARIABLES. 
          ONE IS THE HOW MUCH REVENUE WE GOING TO RAISE. 
          ONE IS WHAT IS A FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          ONE IS WHAT IS THE RATE STRUCTURE, AND THAT INVOLVES BOTH THE TIERS AND THE RATES. 
          AND THEN THE FOURTH ONE WOULD BE ALLOCATION ACROSS CLASSES. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE THE FOUR, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          UH, BUT IF THOSE ARE THE FOUR, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT EACH OF THOSE. 
          I'D LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE RANGE THAT YOU THINK WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON GIVEN, UH, ALL OF THE PARTIES AND ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS SO THAT THE TASK WE HAVE AS A COUNCIL AND, AND MIGHT BE, MIGHT BE FOCUSED, UH, A LITTLE BIT ON, ON WHAT YOU THINK IS MOST WHAT MOST NEEDED. 
          MAYOR, WHAT WERE YOUR FOUR? I'M SORRY, WHAT WERE THE, THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT IS THE REVENUE? WHAT IS THE TOTAL REVENUE WHEN YOU, UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT IN THE PARTY'S CONVERSATIONS, THEY'RE STAYING WITHIN A GENERAL RANGE IN WHICH WE SHOULD KNOW THAT, SO WE SHOULD KNOW. 
          SO IF WE WANT TO BE AN OUTLIER TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT, WE KNOW WE'RE BEING AN OUTLIER TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT OR WE KNOW WITHIN WHICH UNIVERSE EVERYBODY'S TALKING. 
          SO WE MIGHT BE TALKING IN THAT UNIVERSE AS WELL. 
          THE SECOND ONE IS, WHAT IS THE FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE? THAT'S THE SECOND ISSUE. 
          THE THIRD ONE IS THE RATE STRUCTURE, AND THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSION OF TIERS AND RATES, UH, WITHIN THE RATE STRUCTURE. 
          THE LAST ONE I HAD WAS ALLOCATION ACROSS CLASSES, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE ARE THE RIGHT ONES. 
          I ASKED THEM TO COME AND START THIS MORNING WITH TELLING US WHAT THE RIGHT ONES WERE. 
          DO YOU HAVE A, A WAY TO HELP US GET INTO THIS AND TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON AND WHAT ARE THE RANGES WITHIN EACH OF THOSE? GOOD MORNING, MAYOR THOMAS QUEDO OUTSIDE COUNSEL, CAN YOU PRESS YOUR BUTTON? IS THAT PRESS IS PRESSED, BUT, OKAY. 
          I WAS GETTING FEEDBACK BEFORE. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          IS BETTER. 
          THOMAS PERRO OUTSIDE COUNSEL COUNCIL. 
          AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE, I HAVE GONE AHEAD AND PREPARED A VERY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, UH, LIST OF ISSUES THAT, UM, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION FOR, UH, US TODAY. 
          AND I CAN, UH, PASS THAT OUT. 
          WOULD YOU PASS THAT OUT? WOULD YOU ALSO GIVE A COPY OF THAT TO THE CLERK? I'LL DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND IF THE CLERK COULD POST THAT INTO BACKUP, SO ANYBODY WATCHING THIS MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT LIST AS WELL. 
          MAYOR PROAM. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I AM STILL LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION TODAY IN TERMS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PIECES. 
          I DID PROPOSE THE AMENDMENT SO THAT WE WOULD, UM, NOT DECREASE THE FOLKS WHO ARE IN THE HIGHER TIERS. 
          BUT I'M STILL LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          IF, IF SOMETHING SURFACES THAT I BELIEVE IS CONVINCING, 
          [00:15:12]
MAYOR, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY FIRST. 
          UM, IS THAT THE WAY YOU WANNA HANDLE IT? OR IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARISE, I'M JUST AFRAID WHAT WE USUALLY DO IS WE COVER SO MUCH TERRITORY THAT IT'S THEN HARD TO COME BACK. 
          AND THERE ARE SO MANY POINTS IN BETWEEN WHERE I REALLY FEEL LIKE I NEED TO ASK A QUESTION OF OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          I ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS I PROMISE THAT ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, PULLS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT SHE MADE THAT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND. 
          SO MAYBE BEFORE WE HIT OKAY, WE'RE NOT, NOT THERE YET, I WANT TO GET THE BACKGROUND OUT BEFORE WE START TALKING DETAILS SO THAT THERE'S A PLACE TO PUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GONNA GET. 
          I JUST, IT WAS PLEASE ORIENT US INTO THE OVERALL CONVERSATION. 
          IT WAS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ABOUT HOW SHE HANDLED OUT OF CITY RATE PAYERS. 
          I GOT THAT'S IS SO FAR DOWN SPECIFIC ISSUE AT THIS POINT. 
          WE'LL HANDLE IT LATER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, I PROMISE WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUTTA CITY RATES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ORIENT US IN BIG PICTURE. 
          UH, THANK YOU MAYOR. 
          UM, SO THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU RECEIVED, BASICALLY JUST LIST WHAT WE HAVE INTERPRETED AS THE SEVEN MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE CASE AND THE ONES THAT WE NEED GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD IN TERMS OF MAKING A DECISION ON THURSDAY. 
          AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH 'EM QUICKLY AND I DON'T INTEND TO ADDRESS EACH ISSUE SUBSTANTIVELY AT THIS POINT, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU SORT OF THE BACKGROUND OR TO ORIENT YOU. 
          SO THE FIRST QUESTION, OF COURSE, IS HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THE UTILITY NEED TO COLLECT IN RATES NEXT YEAR? UH, AND THAT'S CALLED THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF COURSE. 
          SO WE, WE DO NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE GOING TO BE. 
          UM, THE SECOND ISSUE THEN, UH, RELATES TO THE, UH, MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          OF COURSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AS WELL. 
          AND SO, UM, WE'LL NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL. 
          THE THIRD ISSUE IS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN PROPOSALS, UM, THAT THERE'LL BE THREE TIERS OR FOUR TIERS. 
          UM, AND SO THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. 
          DIRECTLY RELATED TO ISSUE THREE, UH, IS ISSUE FOUR, WHICH IS WHAT ARE THE BREAK POINTS GOING TO BE FOR EACH OF THOSE TIERS? AND AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL RATES AT THIS POINT. 
          ISSUE FIVE, UM, UM, ASKS FOR THE RATES FOR THOSE TIERS. 
          AND THE REASON WHY WE NEED GUIDANCE ON THAT IS BECAUSE THE STEEPNESS OR THE PRICE CURVE, UM, HAS BEEN A CONTESTED ISSUE AND ONE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT INDEED, EVEN FOUR B TALKS ABOUT CHANGING THE CURVE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE A DECREASE FOR HIGH USE IN CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO, UH, WE, WE DO NEED SOME GUIDANCE. 
          WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THE EXACT NUMBERS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT WE CERTAINLY NEED SOME, UM, GUIDANCE, UH, UM, IN ORDER TO, UH, DESIGN THE RATES THAT ARE GONNA BE CHARGED TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          UM, ITEM SIX IS THE CLASS REVENUE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES. 
          UM, TYPICALLY IN A RATE CASE, THE DECISION MAKER WOULD MAKE DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE CONTESTED ALLOCATION ISSUES. 
          THE APPROACH THOUGH THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN IN MANY SETTLEMENTS AND HAS BEEN, UM, USED TO HEAR BY THE INTERVENERS, HAS BEEN TO NOT ADDRESS EACH ONE ONE OF THOSE ISSUES INDIVIDUALLY, BUT TO JUST SIMPLY, UM, PUT A PERCENTAGE NEXT TO, UM, EACH CLASS, MEANING WHATEVER THE INCREASE IS, EACH CLASS WILL THEN GET THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE INCREASE. 
          AND AGAIN, THAT'S A TYPICAL OF RESOLVING, UM, CLASS ALLOCATION WITHOUT THE DECISION MAKER HAVING TO GET REALLY INTO THE WEEDS ON EVERY COST ALLOCATION ISSUE. 
          UM, AND SO WE WILL NEED THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, AND THEN LASTLY, UH, WE'LL NEED SOME GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO OUTSIDE CITY RATES AND IN PARTICULAR, WHETHER OUTSIDE CITY RATES WILL BE THE SAME, UH, OR WHETHER THEY WILL BE DIFFERENT. 
          AND THEN, UH, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT, WE'LL NEED A LITTLE MORE GUIDANCE ON THAT. 
          SO THESE ARE WHAT I THINK ARE THE, THE WHAT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, THE ISSUES THAT ARE, HAVE BEEN THE MOST CONTESTED, THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED GUIDANCE ON AND TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION. 
          THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES IN THE CASE INTERVENERS BROUGHT UP, UH, YOU KNOW, OTHER ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. 
          BUT I THINK IF YOU GIVE US GUIDANCE ON THESE SEVEN ISSUES, WE'LL HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO GET TO THE FINISH LINE ON. 
          BUT LET ME ASK SOME QUESTIONS, UH, ABOUT THESE SEVEN ISSUES, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO, TO FOCUS IS DOWN SO THAT THE USE OF THE COUNCIL'S TIME HERE TODAY IS MOST PRODUCTIVE FOR YOU. 
          WE HAD HEARD LAST WEEK THAT THE CLASS REVENUE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES WAS AGREED TO GENERALLY 
          [00:20:01]
BY MOST OF THE P MOST OF THE INTEREST AT STAKE. 
          AND THAT YOU HAD LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, WELL, NOT QUITE EXACTLY, AND IT VARIES IN PART ON THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE HERE, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE CLASS REVENUE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES, YOU ALL WERE REALLY CLOSE AND THOUGHT THAT ONCE WE ANSWERED ALL THESE OTHER QUESTIONS, WE WERE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THOSE ISSUES WOULD RESOLVE THEMSELVES. 
          CAN WE ASSUME THAT FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES YOU MAY ASSUME THAT UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM US OTHERWISE. 
          OKAY. 
          THE REASON I SAY IT THAT WAY IS IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING ON, ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT OR ON, OKAY, YOU LET US KNOW IF WE DO SOMETHING TO TAKE OUT OF THAT GENERAL FRAMEWORK. 
          BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT WE, THAT WE PUT ITEM NUMBER SIX DOWN TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF OUR LIST TO TALK TO IT. 
          IF WE DON'T GET TO IT AND YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US RED FLAGS HAVE GONE OFF, IF WE DON'T EVEN GET TO IT TODAY, WE'RE GENERALLY OKAY. 
          AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO OUTSIDE CITY RATES, THAT'S A RECURRENT ISSUE FOR US BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE POLITICS, UH, OF HAVING A RATE CLASS THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THE PUC. 
          AND IT PULLS IN THE CONTESTED ISSUES ABOUT HOW WE USE OUR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND OTHER KINDS OF QUESTIONS. 
          THOSE THINGS COULD GO THROUGH A LONG PUC PROCESS, BUT HISTORICALLY WE'VE RESOLVED THOSE QUESTIONS BY HAVING A SEPARATE RATE CASE FOR THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND SETTING RATES IN A WAY THAT HAVE OTHERWISE COMPROMISED THOSE, THOSE ISSUES. 
          UH, SHORT OF UH, HAVING TO GO TO THE PUC TO RESOLVE THEM, UH, IT OKAY. 
          IS THAT AVAILABLE TO US HERE AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? MEAN, CAN WE JUST DO THAT SAME THING? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T JUST GENERALLY DO THAT SAME THING? I GUESS THERE ARE REASONS. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW THERE ARE REASONS, BUT ON BALANCE, ARE THERE REASONS THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING WE NOT DO THAT HERE? UH, MAINTAINING, UH, THE, THE, UH, AN APPROACH SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU ADOPTED IN 2012 AND 2016, UM, I THINK IS, IS THE, UH, APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO FORWARD. 
          AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, DO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S, THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THAT WITH THE OUTSIDE RATE PAYERS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA MOVE THAT ONE ALSO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF OUR LIST AS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT. 
          IF WE MAKE OTHER DECISIONS THAT MAKE THAT HARDER, IMPOSSIBLE, IT DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE. 
          AND YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK TO US, MAKE SURE THAT YOU, THAT YOU DO. 
          YES, WE WILL. 
          MAY I, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I, I VERY MUCH WANNA TALK ABOUT OUT OF CITY RATE PAYERS. 
          I THINK THAT, UM, IT'S, I WOULD NOT SUGGEST TAKING THEM OUT AND DOING A PROCESS DIFFERENT. 
          WE KNOW FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT THE COST OF SERVING THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE HIGH. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE GO WITH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE FROM OUR JOINT, OUR JOINT GROUP THAT'S WEIGHED IN OF KEEPING THOSE OUT OF CITY RATES AS THEY ARE NOW MAKING NO CHANGES. 
          AND I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST THAT THAT MIGHT, THAT THAT MIGHT REMOVE THEM FROM AN ABILITY TO EVEN HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RATES. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE KEEP THAT'LL BACK TO THAT WE KEEP IT AS IT IS. 
          AND WE'LL, IF THERE'S A NEED TO DIVE INTO THAT CONVERSATION, I WOULD ASK IF WE COULD DO SO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF THAT'S POSSIBLE SINCE IT RELATES TO A FORMER UM, LAWSUIT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL SAVE THE OUTSIDE CITY RATES FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION FIRST AND THEN IF NECESSARY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE. 
          BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, LET'S FOCUS ON THE FIRST FIVE OF THESE, UH, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, THE FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE, AND THEN THE RATE STRUCTURE BEING THE NUMBER OF TIERS, THE BREAK POINT FOR THE TIERS, AND THE RATE FOR THE TIERS. 
          UM, AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THOSE THREE THINGS, IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT EACH OF THOSE, IS THERE, AT THIS POINT IN THE MONTHS AND MONTHS OF CONVERSATION THAT HAVE HAPPENED, UH, A GENERAL RANGE WITHIN WHICH, UH, THE, THE PARTIES SEEM TO BE OPERATING WITH RESPECT TO, I KNOW IT'S NOT PEOPLE'S INITIAL POSITIONS NECESSARILY. 
          UM, AND I KNOW NO ONE IS COMMITTED TO ANYTHING CUZ WE'VE BEEN IN REVENUE CONVERSATIONS, BUT IS THERE ANY DIRECTION YOU CAN GIVE US WITH RESPECT TO A REVENUE REQUIREMENT RANGE THAT, GIVEN OUR LIMITED TIME WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO FOCUS WITHIN? WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DIVULGE ANY SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, SO I'M LIMITED IN THAT WAY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS, UM, EXPRESSED PUBLICLY A WILLINGNESS TO GO DOWN TO 31.3 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 
          [00:25:02]
THE GFT ADJUSTMENT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND PUBLICLY, I BELIEVE THE LAST DOCUMENT WE'VE SEEN WAS THAT JOINT ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM SOME PERHAPS ALL OF THE INTERVENERS, UM, STATING THAT THEY COULD ACCEPT A 12 MILLION RATE INCREASE. 
          SO THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS, BUT AGAIN, I, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, UM, PUBLICLY DIVULGING, YOU KNOW, WHAT OTHER PARTIES, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE WILLING TO, TO MOVE TO. 
          UM, GOD, THAT MAKES IT HARD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU ANY MEASURE OF REAL ASSISTANCE HERE EXCEPT MARY HAS ANY OF THE OTHER INTERVENERS HERE OR OTHER PARTIES THINK THEY COULD GIVE US ANY BETTER ADVICE ON A RANGE THAT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO FOCUS ON? YES, COME ON. 
          GOOD MORNING, JOHN KAUFMAN, INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD, I I THINK THAT THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE RESULTS IS BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, UH, 12,000,030 1 MILLION. 
          UM, WELL THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE RESULTS IS PROBABLY EVEN WIDER THAN THAT, EVEN PERHAPS, RIGHT? SIX. 
          SO I'M NOT ASKING FOR POSSIBLE RANGE. 
          THE, UH, I THINK A MIDPOINT AREA THAT I WOULD FOCUS ON WOULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN, UH, 22 AND 25 MILLION. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE, I MEAN, THIS IS THE WAY THAT I THINK A TYPICAL REGULATOR WOULD LOOK AT THE CASE AND TRY AND, UM, I THINK THAT THE AVERAGE RESULT THAT YOU GET FROM THE TEXAS PUC IS, IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 50% OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED BY A UTILITY. 
          UH, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT. 
           YES, MAY 10. 
          SO IN THOSE TYPICAL CASES, WHEN THEY'RE GETTING 50%, WHAT ARE THEY TYPICALLY ASKING FOR? WELL, IT JUST DEPENDS. 
          I MEAN, THE NUMBERS THAT I'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN, AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS CUZ THE NUMBERS THAT I'VE SEEN, THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR MULTIPLES OF WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS ASKING FOR. 
          AND SO I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN COMPARE IF SOMEONE'S ASKING FOR 400 MILLION OF REVENUE ADJUSTMENT TO A 31 MILLION AND THEN CUTTING IT IN HALF. 
          SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE NUMBERS. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. 
          AND IF PROVIDE THOSE IN THEY'RE ILLUSTRATIVE, I WOULD, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS TWO RATE REVIEW PROCESSES THAT THE CITY HAS GONE THROUGH IN THE, IN THE LAST ONE THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2016, WHICH WE WERE ALSO A PART OF THE, UH, UH, THERE WAS A 25 MILLION REDUCTION IN THE REQUEST FOR WHAT, UH, THEN WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY BEGAN WITH, UM, UH, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE, UM, UH, A LOT OF FACTORS. 
          UM, AS FAR AS WHERE, WHERE YOU WIND UP ON THE OVERALL REVENUE, UM, JUST, UM, TO ME THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISN'T AS IMPORTANT AS SOME OF THE LATER ISSUES. 
          UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T A, A RATE SHOCK OR A SEVERE IMPACT ON ANY SUBSET OF CUSTOMERS. 
          AND THAT'S BEEN INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES AS, AS YOU GO THROUGH THEM, TEND TO PUSH COSTS ONTO THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE, AND THE LOW USAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          IF THE, IF THE TOTAL REVENUE ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT RELATIVE TO THE OTHER ONES, CAN CAN, CAN WE REACH TO A NUMBER THAT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 29 AND 31 THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE? OF COURSE, THE HIGHER YOU GO WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE MORE DIFFICULT THE OTHER DECISIONS BECOME, BUT THE, ALL THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUE OR THE RATE DESIGN ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED CAN BE DECIDED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          YOU'RE JUST GONNA HIGHER IMPACTS. 
          RIGHT. 
          DO YOU THINK BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU'VE SEEN, THAT IF WE ENDED UP IN A 29 TO $31 MILLION RANGE WITH RESPECT TO REVENUE, THERE'S A, A SETTLEMENT THAT HAS THAT ELEMENT? I THINK AT THAT LEVEL YOU ARE DEFINITELY LOOKING AT RATE SHOCK FOR, UM, UH, CUSTOMERS THAT USE BELOW THE AVERAGE. 
          AND BY THAT, AND RATE SHOCK IS NOT JUST A RHETORICAL TERM IN THE REGULATORY PARLANCE, UH, RATE SHOCK CAN BE QUANTIFIED AND IN THIS CASE WITH THE PROCESS IN FRONT OF THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RATE SHOCK WOULD BE ABOUT 25%, 25.7%. 
          SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE VARIOUS RUNS AND YOU LOOK AT THE USAGE LEVELS, UH, I WOULD, UH, URGE YOU TO AVOID HITTING ANY PARTICULAR SUBGROUP OF CUSTOMERS OVER THE 25.7% RATE SHOCK THRESHOLD. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR, IF I GO AHEAD ADDRESS THIS TWO POINTS. 
          MR. KAUFMAN CONTINUES TO FOCUS ON THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE TO THE, TO THE VERY LOWEST USE CUSTOMERS 250 OR SO KBH UNDER, UM, WELL PROPOSAL, UH, THE FOUR B SCENARIO, THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER, 
          [00:30:01]
THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER WOULD SEE A 9% INCREASE, WHICH IS A $9 AND 6 CENT INCREASE IN THEIR BILL. 
          SO OVER THE COURSE OF A OH, OVER A MONTH. 
          IN A MONTH, YEAH. 
          AND SO WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT THE VERY LOWEST USE CONSUME WOULD SEE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE, UH, MANY OF 'EM BEING IN THE TEENS OR LOW TWENTIES, UM, THE, AGAIN, THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER WOULD SEE ABOUT A 9% IN THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS I DO NOT THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OR WISE TO BASE THE AUSTIN ENERGY'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT ON WHAT AN INVESTOR ON UTILITY AT THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION MAY HAVE RECEIVED OR NOT RECEIVED. 
          THE FACT THAT ENCORE OR CENTER POINT MAY HAVE OVERREACHED IN A RATE CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A'S RATE REQUEST IS UNREASONABLE. 
          AND INDEED, THOSE UTILITIES WHO ARE INVESTOR OWNED AND DO HAVE A PROFIT INCENTIVE IN AN OBLIGATION TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, TO REVENUES UNLIKE AE, UM, HAVE A RETURN COMPONENT, A PROFIT, UH, COMPONENT THAT ACTS AS A CUSHION, IF YOU WILL, UH, IF THEY GET LESS THAN WHAT THEY REQUEST. 
          SO I WOULD JUST URGE YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. 
          THAT'S NOT TO SAY AE IS FULL REQUEST IS REASONABLE AND ADJUSTMENTS SHOULDN'T BE MADE. 
          I WOULD JUST URGE YOU NOT TO USE WHAT AN INVESTOR ON UTILITY COMMISSION. 
          YOU, YOU JUST DON'T SET RATES OR SHOULDN'T, IN MY OPINION, SET THE RATES FOR THIS UTILITY BASED UPON WHAT ANOTHER UTILITY DID OVER AT THE PUC. 
          COLLEAGUES. 
          WERE GONNA COME BACK HERE PRETTY QUICKLY TO THE QUESTION OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT REQUEST. 
          DID YOU WANNA JUST RESPOND TO THAT? OH, JUST, UH, ONE THING I WOULD JUST NOTE HERE AND, AND IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY CLASSES AND SUBGROUPS OF CLASSES THAT ARE RECEIVING RATE REDUCTIONS UNDER THIS SCENARIO THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, SAY, A $31 MILLION OVERALL INCREASE, AND THAT WOULD BE, TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS A CURRENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 637 MILLION OR, OR IN THAT RANGE. 
          AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT ADDITIONAL WOULD BE ADDED TO THAT. 
          AND IF YOU ADD 31 MILLION TO THAT, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE, THE, UH, ASSUMPTION UNDER THE, UH, THE SCENARIO IN FRONT OF YOU THAT COUNCIL REMEMBER TO, UH, POOL PUT THAT THE REVENUE CLASS HERE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY 41 MILLION AND THAT'S IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE RATE REDUCTIONS IN THE OTHER CLASSES. 
          AND SOME OF THE INCREASES HERE, I'M NOT SURE WE'VE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED PART OF IT IS TO, UM, AND I'LL USE THE WORD SUB, UH, SUBSIDY, BUT I, YOU KNOW, IT'S SUBSIDIES IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, BUT TO PAY FOR 2 MILLION, UH, RELIEF FOR THE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOLKS, UH, PART OF THAT IS TO, I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT GOES. 
          THE, THE UPPER TIERS HERE IN THIS SCENARIO ARE REDUCED, BUT THE LOWER, BUT THE MONEY DOESN'T GO BACK TO THE LOWER TIER, DOESN'T PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE LOWEST USERS. 
          IT GOES SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS. 
          SO, UM, JUST TO POINT OUT, NO MATTER WHAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT NUMBER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS WITHIN THE CITY IS GONNA BE PAYING MUCH MORE THAN THAT THE OVERALL AMOUNT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE POINT, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO A CONVERSATION ABOUT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE'RE GONNA GIVE EVERYBODY THE FULL AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AT A REALLY HIGH LEVEL, JUST LIKE WE DID ON REVENUE, COULD WE IDENTIFY THE ISSUES ON THE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE? NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A ONE POINT AUSTIN ENERGY WAS ASKING FOR A $15 INCREASE OVER THE EXISTING MONTHLY REVENUE CHARGE, AND AT THE LAST PROPOSALS NOW ARE DOWN TO AN INCREASE OF FOUR OR A YEAR, 1, 2, 3 OF THREE, FOUR, AND $5 INCREASE. 
          HOW IS THAT STACKING UP WITHIN THE CONVERSATIONS WITH SURE. 
          AS YOU NOTED, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY WAS PROPOSING A $15 INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT, UM, LEVEL OF $10 UP TO 25 IN, UH, DOLLARS PER MONTH IN THEIR DIRECT CASE. 
          UM, THEY HAVE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THEY, UM, WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT, UH, SCENARIO FOUR B, WHICH WOULD, UM, PHASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASE IN OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD. 
          SO THAT WOULD START WITH FOUR GO UP TO $15 AFTER YEAR ONE, AND THEN $16 IN YEAR TWO. 
          TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS AN INCREASE OF $4, $5 AND $6 CORRECT. 
          OVER THE EXISTING $10 CHARGE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THE, UM, ICA UM, PROPOSING THEIR DIRECT CASE, UM, I BELIEVE TO NOT INCREASE IT, BUT IF YOU DID NO MORE THAN TO MAKE IT NO MORE THAN 11 OR $13 OR 30, YEAH, NO MORE THAN 13. 
          AND, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THEIR CURRENT POSITION OR THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO MOVE OFF THAT. 
          UM, SO DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE LIKE $2 APART 
          [00:35:01]
ON THE MONTHLY REVENUE CUSTOMER CHARGE? YEAH, THAT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST CRUCIAL DECISION POINT THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. 
          IT, IT, DR THE, YOU KNOW, EVERY DOLLAR THAT YOU ADD TO THAT DRIVES THIS DISPARATE IMPACTS IN, IN CREATING, UH, REALLY BIG WINNERS AND LOSERS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          UM, WE'VE, WE'VE RUN SO MANY SCENARIOS AND LOOKED AT SO MANY NUMBERS THERE, AND I WOULD SAY THERE IS, UM, IN MY MIND A REAL BREAK POINT BETWEEN 14 AND 15. 
          WHEN YOU GO, UH, WITH, WITH A $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE, YOU HAVE PRETTY SEVERE RATE SHOCK TO CERTAIN COMPONENTS. 
          UH, WE WOULD URGE THAT YOU GO NO HIGHER THAN $13. 
          AND I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. KAUFMAN FOR, WELL, OFTEN ENERGY WOULD AGREE WITH MR. KAUFMAN THAT WHILE THE DISPARITY MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A GREAT DEAL, UM, THAT IT, IT IT ACTUALLY IS VERY IMPORTANT, UH, AGAIN FOR, BECAUSE OF THE BILL INSTABILITY AND THE FINANCIAL INSTABILITY THAT THE UTILITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXPERIENCING IF THEY GO BELOW THAT 14, 15, 16, UM, LEVEL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT SOUNDS AS IF GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE RANGE IS, IS ROUGHLY 13 TO 15 IN TERMS OF THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          MADE ANY PROMISES DEPENDS ON LOTS OF OTHER THINGS, MAYOR, BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT AT A REALLY HIGH LEVEL, THAT'S KIND OF THE RANGE THAT WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF THREE TO FIVE OVER THE EXISTING CHARGE, RIGHT, MAYOR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE COULD TALK FOR, WE'LL COME BACK AND EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS THEY WANT, BUT, BUT MAYOR, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU THINK THE RANGE IS, THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEARD THEM SAY, SO I'M FINE. 
          WE CAN, I CAN WAIT. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO SET THE PARAMETERS HERE WITHOUT HEARING FROM EVERYBODY. 
          I'M NOT, I'M NOT AND I WASN'T SAYING PERIMETER, I WAS JUST BASICALLY YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          AND I APPRECIATE, I WAS REPEATING WHAT I WAS HEARING WHERE, WHERE, AND I HEARD SOMETHING YOU SAID HE WAS AT 13, 13 50 AND, AND SAID IF YOU GET ABOVE 14, IT'S PROBLEMATIC. 
          AND OUR PERSON WAS SAYING THERE ARE SOME ENERGY PERSON WAS SAYING 15 WAS THE PROPOSAL, AND IF YOU DROP BELOW 15, IT CREATES, UH, SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP FOR THEM. 
          I, I HEAR THAT. 
          IT'S JUST IF THE REST OF US ARE ASKING QUESTIONS, WE MAY SAY MAYBE IT'S 12 TO 14 OR SOMETHING. 
          I JUST, I I'M HAPPY. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          I JUST DIDN'T HEAR 12 TO 14, BUT I HEAR THAT. 
          I HEAR THAT. 
          BUT WE'LL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE, WE'RE GONNA GET RIGHT BACK TO IT. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO DELAY STUFF OUT, BUT EVEN AT THAT HAS NARROWED US DOWN IN THE CONVERSATION, SO, SO IT WAS A PRODUCTIVE TWO MINUTES. 
          NOW LET'S HAVE A PRODUCTIVE TWO MINUTES ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS. 
          TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. 
          SURE. 
          CURRENTLY AUSTIN ENERGY FOR INSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS FIVE, UM, RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS. 
          IN THEIR DIRECT CASE THEY WERE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO THREE. 
          UM, THE ICA PROPOSED PROPOSES FOUR TIERS. 
          UM, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS, HAS STATED A WILLINGNESS TO MOVE TOWARDS TO FOUR TIERS, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS, UM, TO NO LONGER CONTINUES TO BE A DISPUTED ISSUE. 
          OF COURSE, THE SIGNIFICANT, UM, ISSUE STILL REMAIN AS TO WHAT THOSE BREAK POINTS ARE GOING TO BE. 
          UM, I I WOULD SAY I, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ADDRESS THE TIERS, YOU KNOW, ISSUES THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY, YOU KNOW, YOU MOVE ONE COMPONENT AND IT AFFECTS THE OTHERS. 
          THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX AREAS AND, AND IN TRYING TO DO A RUN, IT CAN TAKE DAYS TO KIND OF GET THIS RIGHT. 
          UH, WE TRIED REALLY HARD AS, AS THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE GROUP TO TRY TO, UH, MOVE IN THE DIRECTION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS, GIVE THEM MORE FINANCIAL CERTAINTY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO AVOID, UH, YOU KNOW, A RADICAL IMPACT ON THE, THE LOW USAGE CUSTOMERS. 
          UH, WE, WE RECOMMEND FOUR TIERS. 
          THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN THE FOUR TIERS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS. 
          UM, BUT THERE HAS, THERE, THERE HAS BEEN SOME MOVEMENT IN, IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I WOULD SAY THIS IS, THIS IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S A LEVER THAT'S REALLY HARD FOR YOU TO MOVE BECAUSE IF YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE RATES HERE, GOING TO, TO, YOU KNOW, ADDING ANOTHER TIER, IT, IT REALLY, UH, THROWS THINGS INTO, UM, A COMPLEX SITUATION. 
          SO WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IS THAT, THAT THERE MIGHT BE GENERAL, UH, AGREEMENT OR WILLINGNESS. 
          IT'S, YEAH, THE, UM, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE MIGHT BE GENERAL WILLINGNESS TO BE USING FOUR TIERS. 
          YES. 
          UH, AND IF THERE'S GENERAL WILLINGNESS TO USE FOUR TIERS, REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT IS THE BREAK POINT AND THEN WHAT ARE THE RATES AND OBVIOUSLY THE BREAK POINTS DICTATE THE RATES. 
          HOW IS THIS COUNCIL SUPPOSED TO GET THEIR HANDS AROUND OR HEADS AROUND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE BREAK POINT FOR TEARS AND THE RATES FOR TIER? I WOULD SAY THAT IT HAS TO DO WITH HOW STEEP YOU WANT THE CURVE TO BE, THE CURVE THAT ENCOURAGES ENERGY CONSERVATION AND UM, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE CURVE IS CURRENTLY LIKE THIS. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS IT LIKE THIS, 
          [00:40:01]
WE WANT IT LIKE THAT. 
          SO IT'S, I THINK YOU COULD SEND A SIGNAL AS TO EXACTLY HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO, UH, HAVE THIS PROGRESSIVE INCLINING BLOCK CURVE. 
          SO, SO IS IT HELPFUL IN GIVING YOU DIRECTION ON HOW TO DO BREAK POINT FOR TEARS AND RATES FOR TEARS FOR US TO CENTER THE CONVERSATION AROUND HOW STEEP OR FLAT, UH, WE WANT THE CURVE TO BE? I WOULD SAY THAT THAT, UM, THE STEEPNESS NO, NO. 
          IS, IS THAT THE RIGHT THING THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE STEEPNESS IS ONE IMPORTANT ELEMENT. 
          THE STEEPNESS DECIDES WHAT PRICE SIGNAL YOU WANT CUSTOMERS TO RECEIVE, AND DO YOU WANNA SEND A STRONG PRICE SIGNAL TO ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION AS MR. KAUFMAN MENTIONED. 
          BUT I THINK THERE'S AT LEAST TWO OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS AT PLAY AS WELL WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BREAK POINTS. 
          ONE IS SUBSIDIES, HOW FAR OR ABOVE OR BELOW COST DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THESE BREAK POINTS? AND THAT LEADS INTO THE THIRD POINT, WHICH IS PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT FROM A'S PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS FINANCIAL STABILITY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THE USAGE PATTERNS. 
          IF YOU PUT THE BREAK POINTS AT THE WRONG SPOT, YOU CAN CREATE NOT ONLY SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIES, BUT ALSO FINANCIAL INSTABILITY FOR THE UTILITY. 
          SO I, I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY THREE, UM, CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN SETTING THE BREAK POINTS. 
          WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY, WHAT'S THE SUBSIDY ISSUE? I MEAN, I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE FINANCIAL STABILITY ISSUE? UM, BECAUSE OF THE, UM, WAY IN WHICH RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS USE ELECTRICITY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THOSE PATTERNS, IF YOU PRICE THE, IN PARTICULAR, THAT FIRST TIER WRONG, AND IF YOU, AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO THAT IS IF YOU PUT THE BREAK POINT IN THE WRONG PLACE, THEY, THE UTILITY COULD BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY DON'T RECOVER THEIR REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          YOU COULD GIVE THEM 28 MILLION, 31 MILLION, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT IT. 
          I, HOW DO YOU, WHY? AND THEN I'LL GO TO YOU. 
          I, I WOULD SAY PERHAPS SOMEONE FROM AE MIGHT WANT TO PUT A FINER POINT ON HOW SPECIFICALLY PUTTING THE BREAK POINT IN THE WRONG SPOT COULD, COULD IMPACT THEIR FINANCIAL STABILITY. 
          WELL, MR. DOMBROSKI COMES UP, I'M JACKIE, SERGEANT AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. 
          MR. DOM BROSKI HAS PROVIDED YOU WITH VARIOUS PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE RATES ARE SET AND WHERE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS IN RELATION TO THAT. 
          AND THEN HOW THE TIERS AND HOW YOU TAKE THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMPTION IN THE TIER TIMES THAT RATE, PLUS THE NEXT TIER TIMES THAT RATE, PLUS THE NEXT TIER, ET CETERA. 
          AND THEN YOU DIVIDE IT BY THE TOTAL KILOWATT HOUR NUMBERS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING THE AVERAGE SYSTEM RATE. 
          AND SO THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHARED AND, AND, AND EXPLAINED OVER AND OVER ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, UM, WHERE THE TIERS BREAK AND THEN HOW THE REVENUE IS COLLECTED WITHIN THOSE TIERS BECAUSE OF THIS CHANGING, UH, CONSUMER, UH, PATTERNS OF CONSUMPTION. 
          SO THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS, I UNDERSTAND ONCE YOU SET THE BASE RATE, YOU HAVE TO GET THE REST OF THE MONEY FROM THE VARIABLE. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MULTIPLY THE USERS IN EACH CLASS TIMES YOU SOLVE FOR WHAT IS THE RATE THAT'S NECESSARY FOR EACH OF THOSE USERS AND TOGETHER THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT I GET. 
          EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT THE STEEPNESS ISSUE AND HOW THAT IMPACTS FINANCIAL STABILITY, ASSUMING YOU ARE CORRECTLY SOLVING FOR THE RATE IN EACH TIER SO THAT IT'S PAYING FOR WHAT IT NEEDS TO PAY FOR MARK DEBROWSKI, CFO OF AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          SO WE SET RATES TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF REVENUE, AND IF YOU MAKE THAT SLOPE, THE PRICE CURVE STEEPER, YOU'RE MOVING REVENUE, UH, THAT SHOULD BE EARNED IN THE FIRST TWO TIERS TO THE HIGHER TIERS. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE A, UM, AND WE SET RATES BASED UPON A NORMAL WEATHER YEAR, SO THE AVERAGE OF THE LAST 20. 
          AND SO IF YOU HAVE A VERY MILD YEAR, A MILD SUMMER, MILD WINTER, YOU WILL NOT SELL AS MANY KWH AS YOU HAD IN YOUR TEST YEAR. 
          AND SO YOU WON'T EARN THOSE REVENUES IN THE HIGHER TIERS. 
          PEOPLE, UH, SALES WILL BE CONCENTRATED IN LOWER TIERS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT'S A REALLY STEEP SLOPE, THAT'S A LOT OF REVENUE. 
          UM, AND THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE LIKE WE SAW IN 22 WHERE YOU HAD A VERY HOT SUMMER WHERE WE WE OVER EARNED. 
          AND SO THAT CAUSES CUSTOMERS BILLS TO BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THEY ANTICIPATED. 
          WHILE IT IMPROVES THE REVENUES, THAT'S THE STABILITY WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS NOT HAVE OUR CUSTOMERS BILLS, 
          [00:45:01]
UH, SWING WILDLY WITH WEATHER CHANGES AND ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A FINANCIAL STABILITY THAT WE'RE, UM, UH, ENJOYING THE REVENUES WE NEED IN ORDER TO COVER OUR COST. 
          SO TO THE EXTENT YOU MADE A STEEPER CURVE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUBSIDIZING, UM, THE THE LOWER TIER WITH THE HIGHER TIER WITH A GREATER UNCERTAINTY OF ACTUALLY ACHIEVING THOSE. 
          OKAY. 
          RESPOND TO THAT. 
          I, I THINK I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLER AND UM, I, I DON'T MEAN TO BE SPEAKING FOR AUSTIN AND ENERGY, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS MORE REVENUE STABILITY, RIGHT? THE MORE, UH, REVENUE THAT IS CERTAIN IS RATHER THAN BEING VARIABLE. 
          AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 
          THE MORE YOU INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE MORE YOU MOVE MONEY AROUND IN THE TIERS, THE MORE OR LESS CERTAIN YOU ARE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET EXACTLY THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU, THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE. 
          UH, AND THAT'S, I THINK THE, I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE. 
          IT'S NOT THAT THEY WOULDN'T ON AVERAGE MEET THEIR COST OF SERVICE, WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT NUMBER YOU PICK AND WE DO THE RIGHTS, THEY'RE GONNA BE DESIGNED TO GET TO THAT NUMBER. 
          IF THERE IS, IF MORE OF THE RATE IS IN A FIXED, UNAVOIDABLE FEE, THEN MORE OF THAT REVENUE IS GONNA BE CERTAIN THERE'S GONNA BE LESS VARIABILITY IN THE INCOME AND LESS VARIABILITY IN THE RATES. 
          BUT THAT WILL ALSO MEAN THAT CUSTOMERS WILL HAVE LESS CONTROL OVER THEIR BILLS. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIXED RATE AND THE VARIABLE RATE. 
          YEAH. 
          ONCE WE HAVE SET THE FIXED RATE YES. 
          PULL THAT OFF THE TABLE, THEN THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE SET THE VARIABLE RATE? WELL, YOU, AND WE CAN EITHER SET IT ON A STEEPER LINE OR FLATTER LINE, RIGHT? AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STEEPER AND FLATTER WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A SET RATE THAT'S BEEN SET THAT IS OFF THE TABLE. 
          AND WHAT I HEAR AUSTIN ENERGY SAYING IS, IS THAT THE FLATTER, THAT VARIABLE IS, IT INCREASES THE CHANCES THAT PEOPLE'S BILLS WILL STAY FAIRLY CONSTANT. 
          THAT THE STEEPER THAT IS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE GREATER SUBSIDY, THE, THE HIGHER END SUBSIDIZING THE LOWER END AND GREATER VARIABILITY ON RATES IF THE WEATHER CONDITIONS, UH, ARE NOT NORMAL, RIGHT. 
          THE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE GREATER VARIABILITY. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT IF YOU DO THE MATH RIGHT, IT'S GONNA AVERAGE OUT OVER TIME. 
          IT'S NOT, UH, THEY WILL ON AVERAGE GET THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU, YOU'RE SEEKING TO GET, YOU'LL GET THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IN A MORE VARIABLE WORLD. 
          CORRECT. 
          I'D JUST JUST LIKE TO ADD TO THAT EXCEPT FOR NEW CUSTOMERS THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THE SYSTEM ARE MOVING INTO MORE EFFICIENT HOMES, WHICH IS A GREAT THING. 
          THEY'RE LOWER CONSUMERS AND IF WE'RE NOT COLLECTING WHAT OUR COST OF SERVICE IS, CUZ THEY'RE IN TIERS ONE AND TWO, WE'RE ADDING TO THE SYSTEM AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE NEVER PAYING THEIR COST OF SERVICE BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ALL BASE RATES. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF IT BEING ALLOCATED TO KILOWATT HOURS AND IT'S ALL THE SAME THING. 
          IT'S PEOPLE, IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S FACILITIES, IT'S TRAINING, IT'S VEHICLES, IT'S ALL OF THOSE FIXED COSTS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THOSE COSTS AND WE NEED TO RECOVER THAT REVENUE TO PAY OUR EXPENSES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF A GENERAL THUMBNAIL IN EACH OF THESE. 
          I WOULD PROPOSE WE GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND WE OPEN IT UP FOR EVERYONE TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
          UM, MAY I HAVE ONE MORE BIG ISSUE? GO AHEAD AND FINISH AND THEN WE'LL GO TOGETHER. 
          I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER, UH, DATA POINT ON RANGE FOR YOUR BENEFIT. 
          JUST SO YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL FOUR B, WHICH AGAIN AE IS STATED THAT THEY COULD ACCEPT HAS BREAK POINTS AT 300 KWH 902,000, THE 300, 900, 2000. 
          THE, AGAIN, THE MOST RECENT PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE INTERVENERS IN THEIR JOINT ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL HAS BREAK POINTS AT FIVE HUNDRED, THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED, FIVE HUNDRED, THIRTEEN HUNDRED, TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED. 
          GONNA JUST GIVE YOU THAT. 
          SO AGAIN, YOU COULD HAVE A SORT OF A RANGE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND DOES THAT IMPACT THE FLATNESS OR THE STEEPNESS OR IS THAT NO, OUTSIDE OF, IN AND OF ITSELF IT DOES NOT. 
          UM, OKAY, SO LET'S, SO TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. 
          OKAY, SURE. 
          WHY DO YOU RECOMMEND 300 902,000 AS OPPOSED TO 500 1300 2500? WELL, A AE IS, WELL, AE ACTUALLY WAS PROPOSING, UM, DIFFERENT BREAK POINTS AGAIN, AND THIS IS WHERE, THESE ARE THE BREAK POINTS FOR SCENARIO FOUR B AND AUSTIN ENERGY IS STATED AGAIN THAT THEY CAN ACCEPT THAT. 
          UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE. 
          WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO COLLECT MORE OUT OF THAT LOWEST TIER AND TO REDUCE THE SUBSIDIZATION THAT THEY BELIEVE IS GOING ON THERE. 
          UM, SO THE MORE BREAK POINTS YOU HAVE LOWER MEANS LESS 
          [00:50:01]
SUBSIDIZATION AND MORE NEW CUSTOMERS PAYING, UH, COST OF SERVICE? I MEAN, YES. 
          WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR? YEAH, UH, AUSTIN ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR, UM, THREE TIERS RATHER THAN FOUR. 
          AND THOSE BREAK POINTS, UH, MY MEMORY DOESN'T SERVE ME. 
          WE'VE HAD SO MANY SCENARIOS. 
          I CAN HAD SO MANY SCENARIOS I CAN'T RECALL WHAT, WHAT, YEAH, SO OUR ORIGINAL TIERS WERE BREAKING, UH, AT 300, 1200. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT WAS MOVING MORE PEOPLE DOWN INTO THOSE LOWER TIERS CAUSE OF THOSE RATES? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          IT WAS A HALF A PENNY BETWEEN EACH TIERED PRICING WAS ORIGINAL. 
          YEAH. 
          WHICH MEANS THAT THE, THE, BY HAVING MORE BREAK POINTS LOWER, IT DECREASES THE SUBSIDIZATION AND HAS NEW CUSTOMERS PAYING COST OF SERVICE. 
          UM, YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, SUBSIDIES IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, WE, WE'VE DONE OUR OWN COST ALLOCATION MODELING AND WE, WE SEE COST OF SERVICE DIFFERENTLY. 
          SO THAT'S, I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH HIM SAYING THAT, BUT I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THERE'S A, THERE'S A WIDE RANGE OF OPINIONS THAT EXPERTS HAVE ABOUT HOW YOU ALLOCATE THESE COSTS AND DIFFERENT EXPERTS MAKE DIFFERENT SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS AND THERE'S, THERE'S SORT OF A RANGE OF RESULTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO I SOMETIMES BRISTLE WHEN I HEAR, UH, THAT THERE'S A SUBSIDY, BUT I JUST, AS LONG AS YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS SORT OF JUST A RELATIVE TERM. 
          AND, AND I WOULD NOTE IN THAT REGARD, YES, GO AHEAD CATHY. 
          YOU WANNA ANSWER THE QUESTION? YEAH, I WOULD ASK OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE COST ALLOCATION THAT YOU RAN IS DIFFERENT AND THE RATIONALE FOR IT. 
          UM, WELL THERE'S, AND, AND THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS THAT IT'S USED. 
          ONE IS, IS TO DETERMINE HOW YOU, HOW YOU SHOULD PROPERLY PUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INTO THE CLASS, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, LARGE COMMERCIAL, BIG PRIMARY AND, AND DIVIDE THAT UP. 
          AND THEN WITHIN, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SORT OF HOW YOU ALLOCATE IT. 
          AND THAT'S BEEN EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL. 
          UM, UH, WE, WE, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR PER, YOU KNOW, OUR STUDY SAID THAT THE, THAT UM, THAT THE CO THAT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE SHOULD ONLY BE SOMETHING LIKE SIX OR $7, UH, BASED ON OUR COST ANALYSIS OF IT, WE, WE ANALYZE THAT AND IN A WAY THAT WE BELIEVE ONLY CUSTOMER SPECIFIC COSTS SHOULD BE PUT INTO THAT. 
          THAT'S JUST, IT'S ONE MODEL THEY USED A DIFFERENT MODEL, ONE THAT PUTS A LOT OF DISTRIBUTION COST INTO IT. 
          I DUNNO IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS. 
          UH, BUT, UH, IF I MIGHT JUST POINT OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA GET TO, IF WE'RE GONNA GET TO POINT, UH, SIX ABOUT THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS, IN MY MIND YOU KIND OF, YOU HAVE TO DO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THEN THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS, THEN THE RATE DESIGN WITHIN THE CLASSES. 
          AND I WOULD NOTE, I, I KNOW IT WAS, IT WAS SAID THAT WE ARE CLOSE ON THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS. 
          I, UM, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF RELATIVE. 
          THE, THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS THAT ALL THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMER REPRESENTATIVES AND INTERVENERS AGREED UPON AMONGST THEMSELVES. 
          WE AGREED HOW TO DIVIDE IT UP AMONGST OURSELVES OF ALL THE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVES OF WHO ARE ACTUALLY GONNA PAY THE BILL. 
          AND AUSTIN ENERGY HAS, HAS AN ALLOCATION AND THAT'S USED IN THIS FOUR B ALTERNATIVE THAT MAY LOOK SIMILAR, BUT IT, IT IS A LOT OF MONEY TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          IT'S ABOUT 6 MILLION MORE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS HAS TO PICK UP. 
          SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIALS COVERING 49% AND COVERING 50% OF THE OVERALL REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THAT'S, SO IT'S, IT, IT IS A LOT OF MONEY. 
          UM, BUT, UH, ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW. 
          DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP AHEAD, BUT, UH, I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE METHOD OF CLASS ALLOCATION THAT THE CLASS, THE PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE CLASSES HAVE AGREED UPON THEMSELVES. 
          AND IF, AGAIN, IF THE MATH IS RIGHT, IT'S GONNA GET TO EXACTLY WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT YOU WANT. 
          I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT, THAT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IN THAT IN FOUR B, WE WERE ASKED TO CHANGE THE RATES AND THE HIGHER TIERS TO MAKE SURE THAT NO INSIDE CITY CUSTOMER RECEIVED A DECREASE. 
          SO YOU APPLY A COST ALLOCATION, BUT THEN WHEN YOU MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE MODEL TO FORCE A RESULT, YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THOSE CLASS ALLOCATIONS. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S A DIFFERENT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT FOUR A, WHICH DOESN'T DO THAT, THE DIFF THE THE, UM, THEY'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE. 
          EVEN IN FOUR B, THE DIFFERENCE, THE ALLOCATION TO RESIDENTIAL CLASS IS, IS, UH, 50.48%. 
          THE INTERVENERS ARE AT 49.46%. 
          SO 1% DIFFERENCE, BUT THAT'S 6 MILLION MR. KAUFMAN IS, IS CORRECT. 
          NORMALLY YOU WOULD SET A RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, ALLOCATE THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES, AND THEN YOU WOULD DESIGN RATES TO COLLECT THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT FROM EACH OF THOSE CLASSES. 
          BUT FOR 
          [00:55:01]
B DECOUPLES RATE DESIGN FROM REVENUE REQUIREMENT MEANING THAT, UH, IT, IT, IT DOES WHAT MS. SERGEANT JUST SAID, WHICH IS THAT IT SORT OF FORCES THE NUMBERS IN A WAY THAT MEANS THAT THE HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS GET NO DECREASE. 
          AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU CREATE MORE REVENUE FROM THE, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT FOUR B IS TRYING TO DO IS TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SIERRA CLUB AND PUBLIC CITIZEN AND SOME OF THE COUNCIL THAT SAYS, WE DON'T REALLY LIKE GIVING HIGH USE CUSTOMERS A DECREASE. 
          THAT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT. 
          IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR, OUR, UM, STATED GOALS OF CONSERVATION. 
          UH, AND SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHY FOUR B CREATES SIX MORE MILLION DOLLARS OF REVENUE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, THE PERCENTAGES STILL ARE RIGHT AT 1% DIFFERENCE. 
          JUST, IF I MIGHT JUST, I, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT OF WHOEVER IS TRYING TO AVOID RATE REDUCTIONS WHILE SOME CUSTOMERS ARE GETTING REALLY LARGE INCREASES. 
          BUT THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH FOUR, THE FOUR B ALTERNATIVE IS, IT, IT DOES, IT REDUCES THE REDUCTIONS OR ELIMINATES THE REDUCTIONS IN THE HIGHER TIERS, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE, PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE LOWER TIERS. 
          IT PROVIDES RELIEF TO SOME OTHER CUSTOMER CLASS. 
          IT DOESN'T STAY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          AND AS YOU ALL PROBABLY ARE AWARE, WHAT IT DOES IS IT CREATES ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT'S USED TO RESOLVE OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMER ISSUES AS WELL AS FUND THE EXPANSION OF THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH IS IN EACH OF THOSE, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS GOING TO CAP VERSUS HOW MUCH GOING TO THE OUT OF CITY. 
          I, I'VE JUST FAILED TO SEE WHY WE WOULD BE TRYING TO PROVIDE RATE RELIEF TO OUT OF CITY CUSTOMERS AT THE EXPENSE OF IN CITY CUSTOMERS. 
          THAT JUST MAKES ZERO SENSE TO ME UNDER FOUR B. 
          UM, ELIMINATING THE DECREASE FOR THE HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS GENERATES APPROXIMATELY 8.5 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE. 
          ABOUT, WELL, EXACTLY 5 MILLION WOULD, UM, ACTUALLY BE SHIFTED TO S TWO AND S THREE CUSTOMERS, UM, WHO ARE CURRENTLY PAYING ABOVE COST. 
          BUT PREVIOUSLY, YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS IT ACTUALLY GOES TO OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. 
          AND, AND I'LL GET TO THE EXPLANATION FOR THAT IN A MOMENT. 
          THE OTHER THREE AND A HALF MILLION GOES TO HALF EXPANSION COST THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUGH. 
          NOW, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE 5 MILLION THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS DONE IN 2012, ACTUALLY 2012 WAS 6 MILLION AND IN 2016, UH, AND I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU, YOU DON'T, YOU DO NOT WANT AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. 
          IT WILL COST YOU, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR, YOU'RE LIKELY TO LOSE, UM, A NUMBER OF THE THINGS THAT ARE, HAVE THIS COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED AS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF SETTING, UH, A'S RATES. 
          BUT IF THEY HAVE NO, IF THEY HAVE NO RATE CHANGE, I, THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IN, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          IF THEY HAVE NO RATE CHANGE, IF THEIR RATES REMAIN CONSTANT TO WHAT THEY ARE NOW, PERHAPS THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING. 
          UM, SO THE, SO THE 5 MILLION THAT SHIFTS WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, I STILL, I'M, I'M SUPER SUPPORTIVE OF CAP, BUT I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT AGAIN THAT WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT CAP EXPANSION IN THIS WAY. 
          WE'VE NEVER PRE, EVERY TIME WE'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT IT, IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE NEED MORE CAP MONEY, I WILL RETURN TO COUNCIL AND WE WILL, UM, FIGURE OUT A AS HOW TO PROVIDE FOR THAT. 
          WE'VE NEVER, THAT I'M AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, DECIDED TO PASS A RESOLUTION TO EXPAND CAP AND THEN KIND OF PUT MONEY INTO THE RATE CASE IN THIS WAY. 
          THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT SHIFT AND IT'S GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT. 
          IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT NOW ON RATE PAYERS FOR A BENEFIT THAT WILL HIT OTHER RATE PAYERS LATER DOWN THE ROAD ONCE WE'VE ACTUALLY ENROLLED THEM. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF OUR CUSTOMER ADVOCATE HAS A, HAS A POINT. 
          AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT? I COULD SHARE WITH YOU COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, THAT WHEN THE, UH, CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WAS FIRST PUT INTO RATES, UM, AND ADOPTED THAT THE PROGRAMS WEREN'T DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE THE BENEFITS. 
          SO THEY STARTED COLLECTING THE MONIES BEFORE THE PROGRAMS, UH, WERE ABLE TO BE ESTABLISHED AND PUT INTO PLACE AND IMPLEMENTED. 
          SO IT ALLOWED FOR THAT FUNDING TO BE THERE WHEN THEY NEED IT. 
          AND I ALSO REMIND YOU THAT THAT 8.5 MILLION WOULD BE FOR A FULL YEAR OF REVENUE BASED ON THE TEST YEAR 2021, AND IT WOULD BE AT A $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          AND THE, UH, 
          [01:00:01]
A FAULT THE RATES THAT WOULD UP COME, COME OUT WITH THAT. 
          SO IT'S NOT IN THIS FIRST YEAR. 
          AND BECAUSE THESE RATES WON'T EVEN BE IN EFFECT FOR A FULL YEAR, WE WOULDN'T SEE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN I ASK MR. KAUFMAN TO TALK ABOUT THE CAP PIECE. 
          UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO COMMEND THE COUNCIL FOR FOCUSING ON CAP. 
          I THINK IT'S A, A REALLY IMPORTANT PROGRAM AND I, AND I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO EXPAND IT. 
          UH, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE A LOT OF REPRESENTING OF, UM, LOW INCOME PROGRAMS, UH, I THINK IT'S, UM, IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET TO THE LEVELS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, VERY OPTIMISTIC TO GET, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO 50%. 
          IN FACT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UTILITY THAT HAS GOT THAT MUCH PENETRATION TO START WITH. 
          THE OTHER THING, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME CONCERN, I HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH ADDING INTO, UM, THE RATES COST THAT ARE PROJECTED THE FUTURE. 
          WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE CAN'T LOOK OUTSIDE THIS, THIS TEST YEAR PERIOD. 
          AND IF WE'RE GOING OUTSIDE AND CONSIDERING FUTURE COSTS, I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERING FUTURE REVENUES, UH, SOME OF WHICH INCLUDE THE TOWN LAKE SENATOR, I BELIEVE REVENUES THAT ARE GONNA BE A WINDFALL HERE IN THE FUTURE, UH, WHICH WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE WE'RE STAYING ONLY WITHIN THIS, UM, HISTORICAL TEST YEAR PERIOD. 
          UM, SO I, I, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY TO BE ADDING, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO, EVEN THE CAP PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT. 
          I THINK YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE ON THE PROGRAM. 
          AND SO OTHERWISE, THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE NOT ON THE PROGRAM ARE GONNA BE SUBSIDIZING OTHER, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LOW INCOME PEOPLE SUBSIDIZING THE PROGRAM FOR, FOR OTHER FOLKS. 
          UM, THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF, OF HOW THESE PROGRAMS WORK, DESPITE THE AUTO ENROLLMENT AND, AND THE, UM, UH, I THINK VERY PRAISEWORTHY, UH, COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT EVEN IF THEY, EVEN IF THEY, WE ARE SUCCESSFUL, AND I HOPE WE ARE IN ENROLLING MORE, WE'RE STILL YOUR, YOUR OTHER POINT IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, UM, ACCOUNTING FOR A FUTURE COST WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT YOU AND LANETTA AND VARIOUS OTHERS HAVE SAID ABOUT FUTURE REVENUES. 
          CORRECT. 
          AS THEY, AS THEY LOOK RIGHT NOW OUTSIDE THE TEST. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND I WOULD SAY THAT NORMALLY THAT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE TRUE IN TERMS OF, OF HOW YOU WOULD NORMALLY SET RATES, BUT WE HAVE A, A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION HERE WHERE, UH, WHERE AGAIN, IT, IT, THERE WAS AN EXPRESSED, UM, DESIRE, AT LEAST FROM SOME, AND A PROPOSAL HERE THAT, UM, WOULD ELIMINATE THE DECREASE TO THOSE HIGH USE CUSTOMERS. 
          AND ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES WAS THAT IT PRODUCES ADDITIONAL REVENUE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AE DIDN'T WANT TO JUST GET A WINDFALL AND POCKET THE MONEY AND NEITHER DID, UM, UH, THOSE WHO PUT TOGETHER, UH, FOUR B. 
          AND SO KNOWING THAT YOU ALL JUST APPROVED LAST WEEK AN EXPANSION OF THE CAP PROGRAM, IT SEEMED LIKE A, A GOOD USE OF THOSE DOLLARS TO HELP FUND WHAT THEY KNOW WILL BE ADDITIONAL COST. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS, UH, IN TURN, KATHY, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WHEN, WHEN I HAD ALSO PROPOSED DECREASING THE, THE, THE DECREASE DECREASE, ELIMINATING THE DECREASE IN ORDER TO RAISE MONEY. 
          BRAD, A CITY, YOU WOULD ASK THE QUESTION ALMOST RHETORICALLY CITY. 
          IT JUST GOES BACK TO THE CONVERSATIONS AND, AND WHAT WE HAD TWO YEARS AGO, THERE'S A SUSCEPTIBILITY TO OUR SYSTEM IN HAVING A RATE GROUP THAT'S ABLE TO TAKE US TO THE P C OVER ISSUES LIKE, UH, LIKE THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. 
          AND THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO REALLY LITIGATE THAT AT THE STATE LEVEL? I THINK THESE ARE REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE ASKED TO BE ADDRESSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          SO LET'S HOLD THE CONVERSATION UNTIL WE GET TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN CAN, CAN DEAL WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO, TO COUNCIL. 
          I STILL WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND, AND AT LEAST DURING MOMENTS IN TIME TRY TO KEEP US TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. 
          OTHERWISE WE'LL ALL GET CONFUSED. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE START TALKING ABOUT REVENUE INCREASE, THEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE ISSUE, AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT THE, THE TIERS AND BREAK POINTS AND RATES FOR TEARS. 
          SO TIER RELATED ISSUE AND SEE IF WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION IN TURN AS BEST WE CAN, RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE NOT TOTALLY CONTAINABLE TO THOSE ERRORS. 
          MAY I ADD A CATEGORY? SORRY, WHAT MAY I ADD? A GENERAL CATEGORY, HUH? SO AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE, I THINK THERE'S A, A REAL DIFFERENCE. 
          UM, AND I APPRECIATE MR. KAUFMAN FOR REALLY HELPING ME ARTICULATE. 
          I DUNNO IF I'M GONNA BE ARTICULATING IT WELL, BUT THERE, I THINK WE'RE, THERE ARE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON COUNCIL ABOUT HOW TO, WHETHER WE'RE LOOKING AT A PHASE IN OR WHETHER WE'RE LOOKING AT A A, AN INITIAL DECISION THAT'S GOING TO BE REEVALUATED. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL OF 
          [01:05:01]
US, I THINK HAVE TALKED ABOUT MAKING AN INITIAL DECISION THAT WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO A REAL, UM, PRETTY SOON REEVALUATION. 
          SO I, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT, I WAS CERTAINLY NOT EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR MAKING A DECISION. 
          NOW THAT WAS LIKE A THREE, THREE YEAR STEP IN TO $16. 
          I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE MR. ROBBINS AND MR. OKIE AND VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE MAKE A DECISION FOR ONE YEAR OR SO AND THEN REEVALUATE IT AND SEE WHERE THE REVENUES LOOK WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REVENUES APPEAR TO BE COMING IN HIGHER. 
          ARE THE SUGGEST LET HAVE YOU GUYS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT APPROACH. 
          ARE WE PHASING, ARE WE MAKING A DECISION TO PHASE IN OVER THREE YEARS OR ARE WE MAKING DECISION YOU RESPOND TO THAT? THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY YOUR DECISION. 
          WHEN WE LOOKED AT THESE, WE WERE TRYING TO, WITH, WITH FOUR A AND FOR B TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE HEARING. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD $25 IS TOO MUCH. 
          SO WE CAME BACK WITH THAT. 
          WE HEARD THAT WE WANNA CONTINUE TO HAVE TIER PRICING AND SO WE INCREASED FROM THREE TIERS TO FOUR TIERS. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN REALLY TRYING TO LISTEN AND HELP YOU ALL GET TO A DECISION THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON. 
          UM, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE LONGER WE CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH OUR CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE, UM, THE MORE JEOPARDY THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR FINANCIAL POSITION. 
          AND SO THIS IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE GET TO A, A DECISION. 
          BUT I THINK THE QUESTION THAT SHE'S ASKING IS, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH HAVING ANOTHER RATE CASE IN A YEAR OR IN A PREVIOUS GREAT THIS PROCESS? YOU WANT TALK ABOUT THE, THE QUESTION, WHAT? THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE COME BACK IN A YEAR AND AND ASSESS WHERE, HOW THIS IS WORKING? YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? THAT'S THE ISSUE. 
          NOT, WELL, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, IS THAT THESE RATES WON'T HAVE BEEN IN, IN EFFECT FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR. 
          AND WE GO ON THE FISCAL YEAR AND THEN WE GET AUDITED FINANCIALS, AND THEN WE BASE A COST OF SERVICE STUDY ON THOSE AUDITED FINANCIALS FOR A FISCAL YEAR. 
          AND SO WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FISCAL YEAR AND THE RATES HAVEN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME IN OUR CYCLE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RATE REVIEW? WELL, AT A MINIMUM WE'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT AND DETERMINE BASED ON A COST OF SERVICE, WHETHER WE NEED TO MAKE, UH, ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR BASE RATES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 
          WHEN WOULD THAT BE? IT'S, IT'S A MINIMUM, I BELIEVE OF FIVE YEARS. 
          FIVE YEARS? OKAY. 
          IT CAN BE LONGER. 
          COULD BE LONGER. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS, COULD BE SHORTER. 
          SO, SO IF A YEAR IS TOO SOON, CUZ YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE INFORMATION, SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF TWO YEARS? I JUST CALL, I, I HAVE, UH, I'VE DONE HUNDREDS OF RAPE CASES AND I WOULD, I THINK THE SWEET SPOT IS THREE YEARS. 
          HONESTLY, I THINK THAT ONE OR TWO YEARS IS TOO SOON AND FIVE YEARS CAN LET THINGS KIND OF GO TOO FAR. 
          UM, JUST MY OPINION. 
          SO, SO I THROW THAT OUT THERE, KATHY, JUST IN TERMS OF IF WE, I'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING SOMETHING EARLIER THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THREE YEARS IS THE MINIMUM OF TIME IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          I'M HEARING THAT MAYBE A YEAR IS TOO FAST. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WON'T ASK ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, BUT I WILL PUT ON HERE, NUMBER EIGHT, WHETHER WE HAVE A RATE TO REVIEW SOONER THAN FIVE YEARS, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE UTILITY HAS THE OPTION OF REQUESTING A RATE INCREASE TIME TOO. 
          I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A RESTRICTION ON THEIR ABILITY TO RAISE THE RATES AND, YOU KNOW, OR LOWER THEM OR LOWER THEM. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          WHICH, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME. 
          I MEAN, WE DID HAVE, HAVE AN ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS NOT AS PART OF A FULL BLOWN RATE CASE. 
          AND I THINK IF WE, IF WE TOOK A LESS, UM, AGGRESSIVE APPROACH ON RATES AND WHAT, WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY FEARS COMES TO PASS, WHICH IS THAT THEY CONTINUE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE REVENUE COMING IN, UM, IS, IS LOWER, THEN WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, OR THE NEXT COUNCIL WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          MR. KAUFMAN, YOU HAD DISCUSSED THIS IN, IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, SO THAT MIGHT BE A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE APPROACH, UM, THAT'S WHEN 2016 WAS A FULL, WHEN THE CONVERSATION REVIEW WITH AN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LAST TIME THAT WE ADJUSTED RATES, WHICH WAS TO LOWER IT, WASN'T IT IN 2016? WAS THAT 2016? AND THAT WAS A FULL BLOWN RATE REVIEW WITH AN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER, UM, OR IMPARTIAL HEARINGS EXAMINER AND INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND MULTIPLE PARTIES INTERVENING IN THE CASE. 
          BUT YOU DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, EVERY BUDGET, AT LEAST EVERY BUDGET CYCLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS OR 
          [01:10:01]
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS. 
          YOU KNOW, NORMALLY A UTILITY'S GOING TO, UH, NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR BASE RATES OUTSIDE OF, UH, A MORE FORMAL PROCESS IN WHICH THEY DEVELOP A COST OF SERVICE STUDY AS THEY'VE DONE REALLY SINCE 1994, JUST THREE TIMES IN, IN, UH, 12, 16 AND NOW IN 22. 
          AND NORMALLY A UTILITY GOES ABOUT FOUR YEARS BETWEEN RATE CASES, MAINLY BECAUSE EVERYONE'S EXHAUSTED AND DOESN'T WANNA SEE 'EM BACK. 
          BUT IF THE UTILITY NEEDS RATE RELIEF, THEY CAN COME IN SOONER. 
          INDEED, THE P HAS A RULE THAT SAYS THAT SETS A SCHEDULE THAT SAYS UTILITIES HAVE TO COME IN EVERY FOUR YEARS AS A CHECK, BUT IF, AGAIN, IF THEY NEED RATE RELIEF, THEY CAN COME IN SOONER. 
          TO ME, THE CONCERN WITH COMING BACK IN A YEAR OR SO IS THAT IT DOES REQUIRE THEM TO ENGAGE CONSULTANTS AND DEVELOP A COST OF SERVICE STUDY, WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS. 
          UH, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO DEVELOP SOME TYPE OF PROCESS IF YOU WANTED INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS. 
          UM, SO IT IT BECOMES A, JUST A REAL COMPLICATED DETAILED PROCESS. 
          UH, IF YOU GENERALLY, NOW IF SOME STREAMLINED APPROACH WAS DEVELOPED, THEN THAT COULD MAYOR GO AROUND THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAVE LISTED NUMBER EIGHT QUICKER NEXT RATE CASE. 
          YES. 
          UM, WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ALREADY IN WORK SESSION AND WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AND, AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT REVIEWING WHERE WE ARE DURING BUDGET, UM, WHERE THESE RATES ARE AND THE REVENUES THAT ARE BEING, UH, BROUGHT IN BASED ON THEM DURING BUDGET NEXT YEAR. 
          AND IN ANY CASE, I WILL CONTINUE TO PROPOSE THAT WE DO THAT. 
          I DON'T HAVE, THERE'S NO REAL DISAGREEMENT ON THAT. 
          I THINK THAT THE STATUS REPORT IS REALLY IMPORTANT ALSO USING THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IN THE, IN OUR MEETINGS TO HAVE REALLY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT THE REVENUE LOOKS LIKE AND SOME FORECASTING THROUGH THE REST OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE SO THAT WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION EARLIER AND IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE FASHION. 
          I AGREE WITH THE THREE YEAR LOOK FOR, UH, REESTABLISHING THE RATES, BUT I ALWAYS HAVE, BACK IN 16 WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT, I FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO COME BACK AND REVIEW THESE EARLIER THAN FIVE YEARS. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING PLAYED OUT THIS YEAR, I DON'T KNOW THREE YEARS AGO HOW THAT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT OBVIOUSLY. 
          BUT I DO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT. 
          FIVE YEARS I THINK IS TOO LONG WITH THE ENVIRONMENTS CHANGING AS, AS QUICKLY AS THEY DO. 
          I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT WE SORT OF PUT THAT ASIDE BECAUSE IT ISN'T REALLY RELATED TO, UM, GETTING TO THE, THE NUMBERS HERE. 
          AND I THINK THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT SCRUTINY GOING FORWARD NEEDS TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN, UH, AND AT A DEEPER LEVEL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW IS WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          DO YOU WANNA, UH, CHAIR POOL, DO YOU WANNA SAY WHERE YOUR PROPOSAL WAS WITH RESPECT TO REVENUE REQUIREMENT? AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A COPY. 
          SURE. 
          WE'VE CIRCLED AROUND, UH, THE 31.3 THAT INCLUDES THE, UH, HOLDING STEADY, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AT 115 MILLION, UM, COMBINED WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM MAYOR PROTO ALTAR, WHICH SPINS OFF THE 8.5 MILLION. 
          AND, UH, AND THERE'S NO INCREASE OR DECREASE TO OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. 
          IT DOES FREE UP SOME FUNDS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE RATE CASE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS AND POS AND POSITIVE MANNER. 
          THE 31.3 MILLION, UH, IS, UH, PRETTY FOUNDATIONAL AND, AND FEELS VERY BEDROCK TO ME AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON REVENUE. 
          YES. 
          UM, THIS IS RELATED TO REVENUE. 
          I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TO GET HIM, BUT IT, IT'S ANOTHER VARIABLE THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. 
          AND I WANTED TO GET MR. KAUFMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I'M SORRY TO DO THIS TO TAKE YOU OFF, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. 
          UM, ORIGINALLY AUSTIN ENERGY WAS TRYING TO GET US 50% COST OF SERVICE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , AS I UNDERSTAND POOL'S PROPOSAL, IT'S GETTING US TO 40% COST OF SERVICE. 
          UM, MR. HOFFMAN, IN THE RUNS THAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE JCA AND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, WHAT IS YOUR GOAL WITH RESPECT TO GETTING THE COST OF SERVICE, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT VARIABLE FOR THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE UTILITY? I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE PERCENTAGE, UH, TOWARDS COST OF SERVICE THAT THE, UH, JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE WOULD DO. 
          UH, IT WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH. 
          AND I, UM, LET ME JUST ANSWER THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE CONCEPT OF GRADUALISM. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, IN REGULATORY TERMS, WHAT GRADUALISM TENDS USUALLY MEANS IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, UH, AN AUDITED PERIOD OF TIME AND YOU'RE MOVING TOWARDS WHERE YOU WANT THAT TO BE. 
          YOU ADOPT SOME SORT OF COST ALLOCATION AND YOU MOVE A CERTAIN DISTANCE TOWARDS THAT. 
          UH, GRADUALISM DOESN'T USUALLY MEAN A PHASE IN APPROACH. 
          IT 
          [01:15:01]
USUALLY MEANS THAT YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GO A LITTLE A LITTLE WAYS TOWARDS THAT. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE EACH YEAR IS DIFFERENT. 
          AND I IMAGINE IF YOU DID, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR, IF YOU AUDITED 2022, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE TEST YEAR THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS CASE. 
          AND SO YOU DON'T WANT TO BE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND, AND MAKING RADICAL SHIFTS. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, MOVING 40 OR 50% IS ACTUALLY, UH, OVERLY AGGRESSIVE IN MY OPINION. 
          I THINK YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY MAKE ONE STEP IN THE DIRECTION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS TO GO AND, AND RECOGNIZE THEIR NEED FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY, UH, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, LESS VARIABLE REVENUES, BUT, BUT JUST TAKE ONE STEP, NOT TWO, THREE OR FOUR STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION. 
          THAT'S MY, AS AS TO ADDRESSING THE GRADUALISM CONCEPT. 
          DOES THAT HELP? IT DOES. 
          I GUESS PART OF WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS, IS YOU WERE RIGHT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, MY AMENDMENT, WHICH SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA DECREASE PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE, UM, USING MORE ENERGY THAT THAT ADDS MORE REVENUE. 
          BUT THAT ASSUMPTION MEANS FOR THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET, UM, 40% ALL THE WAY DOWN. 
          AND, AND SO IT MAY BE THAT WE WANNA SET IT AND SAY WE WANNA DO 33% OR SOMETHING FOR THAT FIRST TIER, KEEPING THAT FIRST TIER REALLY LOW AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS AT 40% AND THEN WE DON'T DECREASE. 
          AND MAYBE IN THE SECOND YEAR WE'RE GOING UP TO 40% FOR THEM. 
          SO THAT THE SHOCK IS NOT AS MUCH IN THIS FIRST YEAR. 
          YEAH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW. 
          THAT MAY GET SO COMPLICATED AND MOVE FROM, FROM RATE MAKING, BUT IT, BUT THERE IS A VARIABLE THAT WE COULD PLAY WITH THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY IS EQUAL ACROSS EVERYONE AS LONG AS WE'RE MOVING IT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT DOES TO THE, TO THE, TO THE PRODUCT. 
          BUT IF, IF, IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET A LITTLE BIT MORE RELIEF IN THE, IN THE VERY FIRST TIER, YOU COULD DO THAT, OR YOU COULD START AT 13 THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN GO 13, 14, 15, AND YOU END UP IN THE SAME PLACE AT SORT OF THE END. 
          UM, THOSE, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO SOLVE THAT MIGHT, UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT ALL CUSTOMERS BUY ENERGY IN THE FIRST TIER, RIGHT? AND IF YOU MOVE OUT OF THE FIRST TIER AND INTO THE SECOND TIER, YOU ONLY PAY FOR THE ENERGY THAT YOU USE IN THIS AT THE SECOND TIER RATE IN THE SECOND TIER. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE YOU MOVE INTO TIER TWO AND THEN ALL OF YOUR CONSUMPTION IS PRICED AT TIER TWO OR TIER THREE OR TIER FOUR, ET CETERA. 
          UM, AND SO IF YOU'RE AT A HIGHER USE TIER, IF YOU ADJUST THIS DOWN HERE, THEN YOU'RE ADJUSTING IT'S CIRCUITOUS, RIGHT? BUT WHEN YOU GIVE US THE CHARTS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS THAT FALL IN THAT TIER IS THE PRICE THAT YOU'RE GIVING IN THAT THE PRICE THAT THEY ONLY GET IN THAT OBVIOUSLY THE PRICE PER KILOWATT IS BUT THE THE PER KILOWATT HOUR, BUT THE, THE CUSTOMER AMOUNTS, WHEN YOU GIVE US, UM, WHEN YOU GIVE US, SAY THE AVERAGE BILL AMOUNT, WHEN SOMEBODY FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY, IS THAT LIKE THEIR TOTAL BILL UP TO, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY TOOK THE PERSON WHO WAS IN TIER SIX WITH OR LEVEL SIX WITH 750 TO ONE TO 1000, AND I HAVE A CHART FOR INSIDE RATES THAT SAYS THAT WOULD BE A HUNDRED AND TEN SIXTY THREE, THAT'S THEIR TOTAL BILL, CORRECT. 
          NOT JUST, SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THAT CUMULATIVE EFFECT, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD CHANGE THE OTHER PIECES, BUT, UM, AND THAT'S WHY AT THE OUTSET, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SAID EARLIER, UM, ONE OF MY FIRST REMARKS WAS ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER. 
          SO THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER IS IN, IF YOU LOOK AT LEVEL SIX THERE, UH, IT FALLS BETWEEN 7 51 AND A THOUSAND. 
          AND SO FOR THAT CUSTOMER, THEIR RATE INCREASE IS GOING TO BE, YOU SEE IT SAYS $8 AND 95 CENTS, BUT THAT'S FOR THE RANGE. 
          SOMEONE WHO'S AN ACTUAL AVERAGE CUSTOMER WOULD BE A $9 AND 6 CENTS INCREASE, AND THEIR PERCENTAGE WOULD BE RIGHT AT 9% RATHER THAN 8.8. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, I MEAN, AS YOU, AS YOUR CONSUMPTION GOES DOWN, YOUR PERCENTAGE CHANGE IS HIGHER BECAUSE AGAIN, WELL FIRST OF ALL, YOUR STARTING POINT IS MUCH LOWER. 
          AND SO IT'S EASIER TO HAVE A, A LARGER PERCENTAGE. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE DIFFERENCES IN THE RIGHTS AS YOU GO FROM ONE TIER TO THE NEXT. 
          MAYOR PROAM, IF I MIGHT, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMPLER IF YOU GUYS KIND OF LOOKED AT THE PROCESS WITH REVENUE REQUIREMENT THEN CLASS ALLOCATIONS, THEN, YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH THE TIERS AND, AND THE CUSTOMER CHARGED WITHIN RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING MONEY BACK, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS TO OTHER CLASSES. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE CLEANER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU FIRST DETERMINED HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WANNA COLLECT 
          [01:20:01]
FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS AND THEN LOOKED AT THE TIER AND, AND NOT MOVED MONEY OUTSIDE, UH, OF I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE IF YOU WANNA NOT GIVE DECREASES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSUMING MORE ENERGY WITHIN THE CITY. 
          SO WE WOULD PREFER THAT RELIEF BE PROVIDED AT THE LOWER TIERS, YOU KNOW, AND UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH A'S OF OTHER GOALS WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK FULLY, BUT I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS AND I GUESS WE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE MAYOR'S PLAN, VANESSA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND COLLEAGUES, THAT'S KIND OF MY FOCUS WITH THIS CONVERSATION IS REALLY LOOKING AT RELIEF TOWARDS OUR LOWER END RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, UH, LOWER USERS. 
          UM, AND SO THAT, SO THANK YOU, UM, FOR FRAMING IT THAT WAY. 
          THAT IS DEFINITELY WHERE, HOW I'M APPROACHING THIS DECISION. 
          UM, THE QUESTIONS I HAVE AROUND THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS IF YOU COULD TALK US THROUGH WHAT OUR REVENUE, UM, ACTUALS HAVE BEEN THE LAST FEW YEARS. 
          CAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, EVEN IF WE TAKE THIS YEAR ALONE FOR 2022, WE ARE ALREADY PROJECTING A SURPLUS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? NO COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE FINANCIAL, UM, THE FOURTH QUARTER FINANCIAL PROJECTION FOR 2022 THAT STEPHANIE ULKA PROVIDED TO YOU AT THE UOC MEETING MM-HMM. 
           SHOWS AN ESTIMATED 3 MILLION DEFICIT. 
          SO WHEN WE, DURING OUR WORK SESSION LAST WEEK, WHAT WAS THE, THE, THE LINE ITEM THAT HAD AN INCREASE IN REVENUE IN REFERENCE TO, I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO IS THAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY BUDGETED FOR A LARGER LOSS AND PERHAPS REVENUES, UM, HAVE EXCEEDED WHAT WAS IN THE BUDGET. 
          AND THAT BRINGS IT TO A, WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? A $3 MILLION, BUT MAYBE MR. DEBROWSKI CORRECT ME ON THAT, PERHAPS THAT WAS IT. 
          SO IN THE FOURTH QUARTER YOU SAW THAT WE HAD, WAS REFERRED TO AS BUILD BASED REVENUES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 
          WE'RE ABOUT $40 MILLION HIGHER FOR THE YEAR. 
          AND WHAT THAT PRODUCED WAS A, UM, A 3 MILLION NEGATIVE NET INCOME VERSUS SOMETHING MUCH LARGER. 
          AND THAT WAS FOR 20 PHYSICAL YEAR 22, WHICH HAD TO REALLY HOT SUMMER. 
          UM, THAT SAME, SAME NUMBER FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS, WE IS A LITTLE OVER A 90 MILLION LOSS. 
          AND THAT WAS BECAUSE THE YEARS WERE, WERE, WERE MORE, UH, MILD. 
          THEY WEREN'T THE HOT SUMMER. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, LOOKING OUT ON AVERAGE, THAT'S THE WEATHER EFFECT THAT'S WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE, UM, RATE STRUCTURE WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE SO THAT CUSTOMERS' BILLS DON'T GO WILDLY LIKE THAT. 
          AND AND YOUR EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT THE PRIOR YEARS, DID AE LOSE, IS IT 90 MILLION OVER THE PRIOR TWO YEARS OR IS IT THAT THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO, UM, IS ABOUT A 90 MILLION LOSS AND THAT COMPOUNDED WITH THE POWER SUPPLY IS THE REASON WHY OUR CASH IS ABOUT 200 MILLION, UH, BELOW WHERE WE NEED TO BE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE, BUT WE'RE PROJECTING WE'RE THREE YEARS, WE'RE STILL PROJECTING A 3 MILLION DEFICIT FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. 
          CORRECT. 
          THAT'S OUR CURRENT NET INCOME BEFORE, UH, AUDIT RESULTS, WHICH WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL MARCH. 
          BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER FOR 22. 
          FOR 22 FOR 22. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, WHAT ABOUT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET OUR REVENUE REQUIREMENT AT THAT POINT, JUST THE LAST TWO YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC IS WHEN WE RAN THAT 90 MILLION DEFICIT. 
          YES. 
          I BELIEVE 19 WAS JUST ABOUT SPOT ON AND THEN 20 AND 21 WERE SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW AND THEN 22 BECAUSE OF THE HOT SUMMER. 
          UH, THAT'S THE RESULTS WE JUST DISCUSSED. 
          UM, MR. KAUFMAN, WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, IS THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS THAT YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING WHEN IT COMES TO THAT DECISION? I MEAN, JUST KNOWING THAT RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS THAT, UM, BETWEEN THE PROPOSALS AND, AND WHAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, LOOKING AT A REVENUE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN 22 TO 25 MILLION AS SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE TO REDUCE THE RATE SHOCK. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER INSIGHTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE? WELL, I, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY WIDE RANGE, BUT I THINK ANY OF THOSE RANGES WOULD, WOULD, UH, PROVIDE AUSTIN ENERGY WITH ENOUGH MONEY TO, UH, MEET US FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND TO HAVE PROVIDE RELIABLE SERVICE. 
          AND, UH, SO EVEN, YOU KNOW, EVEN AT SIX OR 12 MILLION, I THINK THAT, UH, THEIR FINANCIAL HEALTH WOULD NOT BE IMPINGED. 
          BUT, UH, YEAH, I, UH, I THINK IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AT THIS WIDE RANGE, I THINK THAT 20 TO 25 MILLION, 22 TO 25 MILLION MAYBE IS, IS REALLY THE, UM, KIND OF THE MIDPOINT AND, AND KIND OF A BALANCING 
          [01:25:01]
OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVING HOW MUCH REVENUE OVERALL IS NEEDED, BALANCING OF THE ISSUES TO ENSURE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE UTILITY AND TO REDUCE RATE SHOCK. 
          I MEAN, AT THAT LEVEL IT WOULD HELP. 
          YES, IT WOULD DEFINITELY HELP THE RATE SHOCK DOWN THE PROCESS. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION ON RIVE. 
          THAT'S, UM, DURING THE, DURING THE ICE STORM, THE SNOWSTORM THAT WE HAD, WE HAD A SURPLUS OF REVENUE COMING IN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? OR FROM THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT AND WE'VE REFUNDED, WE'VE GIVEN ALL OF THAT MONEY BACK TO CUSTOMERS, SO WE HAVE TO, YOU JUST COULDN'T KEEP SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK. 
          YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT'S BEEN RETURNED. 
          YES. 
          BUT I MEAN, IF, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED IN THE FUTURE, COULD Y'ALL KEEP THAT OR DO YOU, YOU, ARE THERE SOMETHING IN THE LAW SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE BACK IMMEDIATELY? SO WE USE GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND THOSE REQUIRE US TO RECORD MONIES INTO CERTAIN ACCOUNTS. 
          AND SO MONIES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT ARE SEPARATE FROM MONIES THAT WE COLLECT AND USE FOR BASE RATE EXPENSES. 
          AND SO WE DON'T CROSS USE THOSE DOLLARS. 
          THEY WOULD BE, UM, IN THE POWER SUPPLY ACCOUNTS AND WOULD NEED TO BE DEALT WITH OVER TIME WITH THE RATES THAT WE SET FOR THOSE PASS THROUGH CHARGES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND MR. KAUFMAN, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER WHEN WE, YOU HAD A PRESENTATION WHEN WE WERE IN THE DIAS THAT YOU, YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS $2. 
          HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT? ON A BASE THAT HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THAT'S HAS HOW YOU S SLICE UP, YOU KNOW, REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS BAKING THE PIE AND THEN ALL THE OTHER DECISIONS ARE SLICING UP THE PIE, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU DETERMINE HOW MUCH REVENUE REQUIREMENT THERE IS. 
          AND, UM, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. 
          BUT YEAH, WE, WE WERE RECOMMENDING A $2 INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE FROM $10 TO $12. 
          BUT THAT'S, TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S NOT ADDING REVENUE. 
          THAT'S HOW YOU DIVIDE UP THE REVENUE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND WERE YOUR, UH, TIER, UH, DIFFERENT THAN, UH, WHAT RECOMMENDED? YES, THEY WERE DIFFERENT. 
          THEY, WE HAD, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIERS, YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INCLINING RATES, WE WERE, WE WERE KIND OF IN BETWEEN WHERE, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY WANTED TO BE AND WHERE, OR THEIR KIND OF IN BETWEEN. 
          NOW AS FAR AS THE, THE RANGE, I, I WOULD, AND BECAUSE THE TIERS ARE SO COMPLICATED, I WOULD URGE YOU JUST TO FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONE NUMBER THAT YOU CAN EASILY CHANGE. 
          IT'S ONE LEVER THAT YOU CAN, UM, ADOPT HERE OR, YOU KNOW, SOON. 
          AND, UH, THE TIERS ARE JUST SO COMPLICATED, UH, THAT IF, YOU KNOW, YOU START TINKERING WITH THOSE AND THEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT'LL TAKE A LONG TIME TO GO THROUGH THE DATA TO GET THE NUMBERS TO ADD UP. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND WE KNOW THAT YOU CAN THEN, YOU KNOW, REDUCE OR INCREASE THE, THE, THE VOLUME METRIC USAGE FEES TO, TO BALANCE IT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION THERE ARE ON OUR OPTION FOUR B MM-HMM. 
          , UH, AND IT SEEMS A PRETTY, UH, STEEP INCREASE ON THE, ON THE BASE COST OF, UH, UP TO $6 IN THREE YEARS. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT. 
          YEAH, I THINK, AND JUST, UM, RECOGNIZING THE CHALLENGES ABOUT TINKERING WITH THE TIER, I WOULD SAY IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE LOWER USAGE CUSTOMERS, WHICH I DO, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT, UM, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE LEAVE THE TIERS THE WAY THEY ARE, BUT GO DOWN TO A 12 OR $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE, I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE RELIEF. 
          AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REASONABLE I 13 IMMEDIATELY OR PHASE THAT IN? I'M NOT, I'M NOT GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF A PHASE IN, I THINK, UH, SETTING IT THAT WAY AND OR WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT TO PICK. 
          I MEAN, I KIND OF VIEW THE PHASE IN AS IT'S ULTIMATELY GONNA BE $16 MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND, UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AT AT 15, AT $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND HIGHER, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME SEVERE RATE SHOCK. 
          YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AT LEAST SOME SEGMENT OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, PEOPLE WHO USE LESS THAN THE AVERAGE, UH, HAVING SOME SURPRISE BILLS. 
          AND, UH, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO LOOK AFTER THOSE PEOPLE EX EXCLUSIVELY. 
          I'M TRYING TO REP, I'M TRYING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU, UM, MOVE IN THE DIRECTION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS, BUT DO SO IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T REALLY PRODUCE A WHAMMY ON, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME SUBGROUP OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          THANK YOU, 
          [01:30:03]
KATHY. 
          SO TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND I'M GONNA ASK, UM, I STAFF TO DISTRIBUTE THE RUNS THAT WE'VE REQUESTED AS WELL. 
          I THINK SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED ON FRIDAY. 
          I ASKED THAT AE UM, ADJUSTS THEM TO LOOK AT, TO USE THE SAME ALLOCATION METHODS THAT THE JOINT GROUP HAD COME FORWARD WITH. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET YOUR READ ON ON THAT. 
          MR. KAUFMAN. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS THAT THE JOINT CONSUMERS AGREED TO? YES. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE HAD FRIDAY. 
          WE TRIED TO CLARIFY IT YESTERDAY AND ASK, UM, ASK FOR SOME TWEAKS AND WE'RE TOLD THAT IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANY KIND OF, UM, TO PRODUCE THAT INFORMATION. 
          SO I'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT TO LOOK TO WORK WITH. 
          BUT BACK TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          YOU HAD PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SOME OF THOSE I HAD CARRIED FORWARD INTO OUR RUNS. 
          WE GOT A MEMO FROM AUSTIN ENERGY SUGGESTING THAT, UM, SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, REBUTTING THOSE, THOSE REDUCTIONS. 
          CAN WE GET YOU TO TALK ABOUT, I THINK BEFORE YOU GAVE US A RANGE OF I, IN, IN YOUR FILING, I THINK YOU SAID, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR US, WHAT DID YOU ORIGINALLY SAY WAS, SHOULD BE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WHAT, UM, HAVE YOU SUGGESTED TODAY WOULD BE THE HIGHEST RANGE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST? AND TWO, UM, WHAT IS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT'S BEING IDENTIFIED, UM, IN THE JOINT GROUP? AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT HOW UNUSUAL IT IS, AND I KNOW YOU COMMENTED ON THIS BEFORE, BUT WE'VE GOT INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS, AS, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL INTERVENERS AND OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE ALL ALL AGREED ON THAT JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          SO I, I REALLY WANNA FOCUS MY ATTENTION TODAY ON THAT ONE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND SO IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT AGAIN, WHAT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU ALL CAME UP WITH AND HOW THAT DIFFERS FROM YOUR FIRST ONE. 
          AND IF WE NEED TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THOSE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN, BUT I WANNA JUST SAY, I MEAN MY, MY REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS IN THE 22 TO 25 MILLION AT THIS POINT, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE OTHER REDUCTIONS. 
          BUT IF YOU COULD, I KNOW THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN YOUR, I'M TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING YOU ASKED ME. 
          , UM, FIRST OF ALL, THE, THE THREE ISSUES THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED, UM, ARE ALL THE, THOSE ARE THE THREE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE TEST YEAR BEING SOMEWHAT ABNORMAL DUE TO WINTER STORM YEAR AND THE CO AND COVID 19. 
          AND THO THOSE ARE LATE FEES, UNCOLLECTIBLE FEES, AND, UH, JUST THE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE, UH, UH, COVID 19 AND WINTER STORM YEAR. 
          AND, UH, THE WAY WE CALCULATE THOSE, UH, THEY ADD UP TO JUST ABOUT $6 MILLION. 
          SO I THINK IF, IF YOU AGREE WITH US THAT THE TE THAT THE TEST PERIOD WAS UNUSUAL AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENT TO TAKE OUT THE OUTLYING ABNORMAL ASPECTS OF THAT YEAR, I THINK YOU WOULD REDUCE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IN A REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY 6 MILLION. 
          AND I THINK THEY MIGHT, I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY MAY CALCULATE THAT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY. 
          UM, AFTER OUR AUDIT, UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, UH, OF, OF THE UTILITY, WE WERE RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE OF, UH, $6 MILLION. 
          AND THEN AFTER, UH, SOME DISCUSSION, WE, UH, DECIDED AND, AND DECIDED AS A GROUP, ALL THE INTERVENERS AGREED, UH, ALL BUT ONE, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO GO UP TO $12 MILLION GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION TO THE UTILITY. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN FOR A WHILE. 
          BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GO UP, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF CHOICES AND YOU COULD GO UP, UP FURTHER, UH, TO PROVIDE MORE ASSURANCE TO THE UTILITY. 
          UH, BUT, UH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AT THE LEVEL, UH, YOU KNOW, AT THE, YOU KNOW, OVER 30 MILLION, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT SOME, SOME MAJOR IMPACTS. 
          SO YOU'RE ORIGINAL JUST TO, JUST TO CAPTURE IT, YOUR ORIGINAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BASED ON YOUR CALCULATIONS AND YOUR ANALYSIS, WHICH YOU WERE HIRED BY THE CITY TO DO MM-HMM. 
           SHOWED A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 6 MILLION, AN ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION, YES. 
          AN ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION IN WORKING WITH THE OTHER INTERVENERS. 
          UM, YOU REVISED THAT TO SAYING IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BE AT 12 MILLION MM-HMM. 
          , WE ARE STILL LOOKING AT A REVENUE REQUIREMENT IN, IN THE PROPOSALS BEFORE US AND THE SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED OF MORE THAN 30 MILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, IT'S, UH, OVER 40 MILLION, 41 MILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UM, CAN YOU GET BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES? SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE CAN DIVE INTO THE, THE, UH, CERTAIN, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND REDUCTIONS THAT, THAT I THINK YOU'VE PROPOSED THAT SEVERAL OF US AGREED TO AND TALK ABOUT THOSE DETAILS. 
          BUT I WANNA TALK ABOUT JUST THE BIG PICTURE QUESTION THAT, THAT GETS TO THE, THE QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER F FUENTES WAS ASKING ABOUT, 
          [01:35:01]
ABOUT WHETHER, UM, WHETHER THE GENERAL PERIOD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT SAY, THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE REVENUES? UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP GETTING BACK TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE REVENUES BEING BEING PRETTY, UH, SOLID EXCEPT FOR THE TWO PANDEMIC YEARS. 
          I, UM, I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE THE DATA IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YEAH, GENERALLY FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE LAST RATE CASE REVENUES HAVE BEEN, UH, HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO, UH, MEETING WHAT THEY WERE HOPING TO MEET, EXCEPT FOR THOSE LAST TWO YEARS. 
          UM, BUT I, I KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND I DON'T KNOW BUDGET, I DON'T KNOW IFLY COOPER IS HERE, BUT I KNOW SHE'S, UM, SUBMITTED SOME IN, SHE'S ONE OF THE INTERVENERS WHO HAS SUBMITTED SOME INFORMATION TO YOU AND IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO, TO HER FROM HER IF SHE IS HERE I THIS TIME. 
          THANKS MR. EVANS. 
          I THINK I HEARD THAT SHE HAD A MEDICAL ISSUE TO HER SISTER. 
          YEAH, SHE DID. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M SORRY TO HEAR THAT. 
          SHE DID EMAIL ME THIS MORNING, MAYBE ALL OF US. 
          SO I'LL SEE. 
          I'LL RETRIEVE THAT INFORMATION AND SEE IF IT SPEAKS TO THIS ISSUE. 
          LESLIE, I WANTED TO ASK AUSTIN ENERGY, WHAT IMPACT HAVING, UM, LOWER REVENUES ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MR. COFFIN WAS OFFERING, WHAT THAT IMPACT WOULD BE ON, ON THE UTILITY? WELL, AS, AS WE'VE SHARED WITH YOU, UM, OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WHEN WE'VE BEEN DOING OUR QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETINGS, OUR CASH POSITION IS, UH, GOING DOWN, IT'S GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC BOND COVENANTS THAT REQUIRE THAT COUNSEL EVERY, UH, ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION TO SET RATES TO ENSURE, UM, THAT WE'RE COLLECTING OUR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS AND CERTAIN LEVELS OF, OF CASH. 
          AND MR. DAM ROSKI CAN SPEAK MORE, UH, TO THAT, BUT, UM, AT THOSE LEVELS, WE ARE NOT GONNA BE IN THE FINANCIAL POSITION THAT WE NEED TO BE, UM, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE SERVICES, UM, THAT OUR COMMUNITY EXPECTS FROM US. 
          SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT PAINFUL TO BRING IT UP AGAIN, BUT CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH, UM, WHERE OUR, OUR CURRENT DEBT, UH, RATING IS WITH THE BOND HOUSES IN NEW YORK? OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THIS SUMMER WE WERE DOWNGRADED BY FITCH AND, UH, STANDARD AND PORES FROM AA, AA MINUS, UM, MOODY'S HAS NOT TAKEN ACTION, HOWEVER, WE ANTICIPATE SELLING BONDS, UH, IN MARCH. 
          AND THAT'S, UM, CUZ I HOPE TO USE THE, UM, AUDITED FINANCIALS FROM FY 22 THAT, THAT WE'LL GET IN FEBRUARY. 
          UM, ALL THOSE AGENCIES, UH, UM, OFTEN TOUT THE AUTONOMY OF LOCAL, UM, GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO SET ITS OWN RATES. 
          AND SO THEY GIVE A LOT OF FAITH IN THAT. 
          AND WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT WE HAVE THIS RATE REVIEW AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATING US, UH, SETTING OUR RATES TO ACHIEVE OUR REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN MARCH WHEN THEY RATE OUR BONDS. 
          AND WE MAY, UM, IF, UH, IF IF THEY FEEL THAT'S NOT ADEQUATE, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT, UH, FURTHER DOWN RATES. 
          AND, AND WHEN OUR RANKING IS DOWNGRADED, THAT MEANS THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UM, SO THE FIRST THING IT MEANS IS THAT, UH, THE COST OF BORROWING MONEY, IT'S, IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          SO MOST OF OUR BONDS ARE 30 YEARS, SO WE EXPECT TO PAY A HIGHER INTEREST RATE. 
          WE ALSO, UM, OUR CREDIT RATE DEPENDS ON OUR UNSECURED CREDIT WITH OUR TRADING PARTNERS. 
          SO WE, WE BUY AND SELL OVER 800 MILLION OF ELECTRICITY IN NATURAL GAS EVERY YEAR. 
          AND SO WE WOULD, UM, UH, WITH THE LOWER CREDIT RATING, YOU HAVE TO PUT MORE CASH UP AS COLLATERAL AND AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR CONSTRAINTS IS CASH. 
          WE'RE DOWN SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BUY, UH, LETTERS OF CREDIT, WHICH THEN WOULD COST MORE, UH, AT THAT, THAT LEVEL. 
          AND WE ALSO BUY, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF GOODS. 
          AND THE, UM, THAT THE TERMS ON SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS WE NEGOTIATE WITH THOSE SUPPLIERS, UM, ARE BASED UPON THE CREDIT RATING OF THE ISSUE AS YOU WOULD, AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE. 
          SO ALL THOSE WOULD BE IMPACTED. 
          I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          SO WHEN BOND RATINGS DROP, THAT MEANS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE UTILITY HAVE TO FUND OUR OPERATIONS OR, OR OUR BONDING, OUR, OUR BORROWING OF MONEY AT A HIGHER RATE. 
          IT COSTS US MORE MONEY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          JUST LIKE A CONSUMER, IF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL CREDIT SCORE, IF YOU HAVE A REALLY HIGH CREDIT SCORE, YOU CAN, YOU CAN BORROW 
          [01:40:01]
MONEY AT, AT A, AT A LESSER RATE. 
          SAME THING FOR A A PUBLIC THAT SEEMS LIKE A A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DOWN. 
          HOW DO YOU TURN THAT AROUND? SO IT TAKES SEVERAL YEARS. 
          SO ONE IS TO IMPROVE YOUR LIQUIDITY, WHICH MEANS HOW MUCH CASH YOU HAVE ON AND TO ENSURE THAT YOUR CURRENT REVENUES ARE COVERING YOUR CURRENT OPERATIONS, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT SINCE 2000. 
          UM, THOSE, THOSE ARE THE TWO QUICKEST THINGS TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, WE DID NOT PUT ANYTHING ON OUR REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO REPLENISH OUR RESERVES. 
          UM, AND SO UNLESS WE GET SOME, SOME POSITIVE MARGINS, UM, THAN THOSE CASH, CASH WILL NOT BE EARNED. 
          UNLIKE IN 12 WHEN WE PUT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS INTO, OR, UH, RESERVES INTO THE RATES. 
          WE DIDN'T DO THAT THIS YEAR. 
          UH, FOR ALL THE REASONS, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S RATE, RATE SENSITIVITY. 
          UM, I WOULD IMAGINE IT TAKE THREE TO FOUR YEARS, IF ANYTHING STABILIZES BEFORE YOU MIGHT EXPECT A RATE, UH, OR A CREDIT INCREASE. 
          UM, ASSUMING WE, WE GET THEIR REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND QUITE HONESTLY, UM, THIS IS ABOUT A TEST SHIRTS. 
          IT'S, IT'S FOR, FOR 21. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, OUR, OUR REVENUES WILL BE WHAT THEY ARE, OUR EXPENSES WILL BE WHAT THEY ARE IN THE FUTURE AND, AND INFLATIONARY COSTS. 
          SO WE CAN MAKE ALL SORTS OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT RATES MIGHT BE TO GET THEM LOWER. 
          BUT IN THE END, IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CURRENT REVENUE TO COVER OUR CURRENT EXPENSES AND WE DON'T HAVE TO CASH TO BUY, THAT'S GONNA PUT US IN A REALLY BAD POSITION. 
          AND IF WE DON'T REVERSE THAT AND THE SPIRAL CONTINUES DEBT, WHAT WOULD BE THE RED ZONE WHERE WE WOULD START FLASHING SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ALARM ALARM? SO, SO IN OUR, OUR BOND COVENANTS, UM, IN OUR CALLED THE MASTER RATE ORDINANCE, UM, THERE IS A TEST THAT WE'VE AGREED TO WITH OUR, OUR BOND PURCHASERS THAT IF OUR REVENUES DON'T ACHIEVE A CERTAIN LEVEL, UM, THEN CITY COUNCIL, UH, MUST ADJUST RATES. 
          UM, I THINK I PRESENTED THAT TO YOU IN EARLIER WORK SESSION, AND THE ONLY REASON THAT WE DID NOT MEET THAT TEST IN FY 21 WAS BECAUSE, UM, OF OUR CASH BALANCES. 
          SO 22 WITH THIS, UH, HOT SUMMER, UH, I'M, WE HAVE NOT PERFORMED THE TEST AGAIN YET, BUT WE WILL, WHEN WE GET OUR AUDITED RESULTS, UM, I I HOPE WE CAN, UM, GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE NOT BRINGING THAT BACK TO YOU AS A RESULT BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT BOT ORDINANCE, THAT THAT WOULD BE THEIR, THE FIRST BIG RED FLAG. 
          I, I TAKE ALL OF THE FINANCIALS, UH, REALLY, UM, AS A HEAVY BURDEN TO US ON THE DICE WITH OUR DECISION MAKING AND THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE CARRY MAYOR IS, IS LARGE. 
          I DON'T WANT US, UH, INADVERTENTLY TO TRIGGER A DOWNWARD SPIRAL OR FIND OURSELVES IN A, IN A POSITION FISCALLY WHERE WE CAN'T REVERSE IT ANY TIME SOON. 
          HOW SENDS GO AHEAD. 
          I JUST, I GOT A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          UH, I READ THE REPORTS ON THOSE, THOSE DOWNGRADES, AND I THINK THOSE ARE SOMETHING YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SERIOUSLY. 
          UH, BUT I, AS I READ THEM, THOSE, THOSE REPORTS HAD PRIMARILY TO DO WITH ERCOT AND THE WHOLESALE MARKET AND WAS SORT OF THE, THE CONSEQUENCE OF WINTER STORM YURI, AND THEY WERE DOWNGRADES THAT OCCURRED TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT UTILITIES. 
          AND SO IF, IF I WAS HERE TODAY BEFORE YOU TOOK THAT VOTE ON THE PSA INCREASE, I WOULD'VE TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THAT INCREASE, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT, OF THAT INCREASE. 
          BUT I DID NOT SEE A CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE BASE RATES. 
          AND, UH, FRANKLY, AA MINUS IS A VERY HIGH CREDIT SCORE. 
          I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE ALREADY IN, IN A PRETTY GOOD PLACE AND, UM, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT NATURAL TO THINK THIS WAY, BUT WITH REGULATED MONOPOLIES, WHEN I SEE UTILITIES IN THE A'S AND THE DOUBLE A'S AND THE AAA'S, I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAVE RATES THAT ARE TOO HIGH. 
          AND THE BALANCE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU WANT, UH, YOU KNOW, TRIPLE B IS REALLY WHERE I LIKE TO SEE REGULATED UTILITIES BE AT NOW. 
          SO I I APPRECIATE THAT MR. KAMAN, BUT I, I WILL POINT OUT THAT, THAT YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY A DECISION MAKER AND, AND YOU CAN LEAVE THIS ROOM AND, AND NOT CARRY THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ME. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          YOU ALSO ARE, ARE NOT HAVING TO, UM, YOU'RE NOT A STEWARD OF THE TAXPAYERS DOLLAR EITHER. 
          AND IF I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, UM, HAVE POLICIES THAT SUPPORT A UTILITY THAT KEEPS THOSE ADJACENT FEES AND INTEREST RATES LOWER SO THAT THE TAXPAYER PAYS LESS, THEN I WILL DO THAT. 
          I AM COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. 
          THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY MAKING IS I I SEE MY, UH, MY RESPONSIBILITY. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE. 
          MINE DIFFERS, UH, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHERE I SIT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. 
          AND, AND THAT'S HELPFUL CUZ OBVIOUSLY WE CARRY A D UM, THE, UM, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HEAR, UH, UH, OTHER FACTORS AND OPINION CUZ THAT'S GONNA HELP US MAKE AN EDUCATED 
          [01:45:01]
DECISION. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE TO THAT. 
          SURE. 
          I, UM, IN A REPORT THAT THE REASON WHY AUSTIN ENERGY WAS DOWNGRADED BY BOTH THE AGENCIES WAS NOT BECAUSE WE OPERATE . 
          WELL, THAT'S CERTAINLY A CREDIT NEGATIVE AND THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO, TO OPERATE. 
          THE REASON WHY WE WERE DOWNGRADED WAS, UM, OUR LIQUIDITY, UH, THE LOSS OF CASH AND THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE, UM, ON OUR DEBTS. 
          THAT'S THE REASON WHY, REMEMBER THAT, UH, BOND RANG AGENCIES, THEIR REPORTS WERE REALLY USED BY BOND BUYERS INVESTORS, AND IT HELPS THEM SET WHICH BONDS DO YOU WANNA BUY IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE, IT, IT, IT, UM, IT INCREASES THE RISK THAT THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FUTURE WHERE THAT ISSUER DOESN'T HAVE, UH, THE FUNDS TO PAY BACK THOSE, THOSE BOND HOLDERS. 
          AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WATCHED. 
          SO IT WASN'T ABOUT IRCO, WHICH IS WAS A CREDIT NEGATIVE, BUT THE REASON WHY WAS BECAUSE OF OUR LOSS OF CASH AND BECAUSE OUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO WAS DOWN. 
          HOW SENSITIVE IS THAT? IF, IF WE WERE TO DO 31.3 MILLION IN REVENUE VERSUS SAY 28 MILLION IN REVENUE, WOULD THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR CREDIT RATING? NOT DIRECTLY. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, THE MORE REVENUE THE HIGH, UM, THE HIGHER YOUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE WILL BE, UM, AND, UM, TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN HAVE A POSITIVE MARGIN, THEN YOU CAN START BUILDING SOME CASH BACK. 
          AND AT THIS POINT, UH, WHERE WE ARE, UH, EVERY DOLLAR OF CASH WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, UH, ALSO BY WAY OF, I MEAN I LIKE THE WORK THAT, UH, THE, THE CHAIR DID WITH RESPECT TO THE OPTION, UM, IF I HAD TO PICK, YOU KNOW, A FORCED CHOICE, SO I EITHER ENDED EXTREMELY NOT BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE BOND SITUATION. 
          AND IF I WAS GOING TO AIR, I WOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF FINANCIAL STABILITY FOR AUSTIN, UH, ENERGY. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO, TO READ THE, THE PROPOSALS AND THE COUNTERS ON THE $8 MILLION WORTH OF REVENUE IMPACTS THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO RAISED AND FEEL CONFIDENT FOR ONE POSITION OR ANOTHER. 
          UM, SO, BUT I, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTING A LOWER REVENUE THAN, THAN HALF OF THAT, OR, OR THREE, YOU KNOW, DOWN TO 28 3 OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WOULD BE. 
          BUT AGAIN, IF, IF I WAS HAVING TO PICK AND, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER IN THE 2231, I WOULD BE AT 31 31 3. 
          UH, AND I SAY THAT WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THE REST OF IT SHAKES OUT. 
          UH, THE NEXT ISSUE, AND I'LL HAVE AN HOUR LEFT, UH, AND IT WOULD BE GOOD, I THINK FOR OTHER COUNCIL OFFICER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INDICATE KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT, UH, REVENUE, UH, ISSUES. 
          UH, I THINK THAT, UH, CUSTOMER POOL DID THAT. 
          KATO DID THAT. 
          I'VE NOW, UH, DONE, DONE THAT. 
          UH, AND THEN WE COULD TURN, YOU KNOW, QUICKLY TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO KIND OF WEIGH IN WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ON THIS ONE? UH, AND, UH, WELL, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING BACK AND FORTH A, UH, A BIT. 
          LET ME JUST SAY THAT, UM, LET ME FIRST ASK THE QUESTION AND THEN I I CAN TELL YOU WHERE I'M AT ON THE, AND YOU'RE ASKING, UH, FOR SOME COMMENT ON THE REVENUE, RIGHT? YES. 
          THAT FIRST ITEM, UHHUH . 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, MY, MY PREFERENCE ON THE, UH, REVENUE ITEM IS TO, TO REALLY LOOK AT, AND, AND I, FIRST OFF, LET ME JUST SAY I APPRECIATE, UH, I APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE DISTILLED THINGS FOR US TO TALK IN TERMS OF, AND, AND YOU ALSO, MAYOR, THIS IS VERY HELPFUL TO TALK IN TERMS OF REVENUE AND THEN THINKING OF ALLOCATION AND RATES. 
          SO IT'S A LOGICAL WAY TO PROCEED. 
          UM, AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT MY PREFERENCE IS BETWEEN 25 AND 27 MILLION IN TERMS OF THE, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO ASK YOU THAT IS, THAT'S MY OPERATING, UH, PREFERENCE NOW. 
          UH, AND THAT'S BASED ON SOME REQUESTS THAT, UM, OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND ALSO BASED ON, ON YOU AS OUR, UM, UH, ADVOCATE HAS MENTIONED. 
          SAY AGAIN, YOU'VE SAID THIS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY AND I REALIZE THAT THE NUMBER, YOU'RE SAYING, MAYBE THE NUMBER YOU'RE SAYING MAY BE HIGHER THAN THAT 25. 
          BUT, UH, WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOMMENDATION AT, AT THIS, AT THIS POINT AS TO REVENUE REQUIREMENT? YES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, I, I WOULD SAY, UM, 
          [01:50:01]
YOU KNOW, IN, IN, IN THAT PARTICULAR, IN THE MID, MID TWENTIES. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, I, I DON'T, I MEAN, HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE WORLD WOULD END, AND I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE DIRE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES IF THEY ONLY GOT 12 MILLION MORE. 
          BUT I THINK THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO BE TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS IN THE TWENTIES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE REASON, JUST FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M LOOKING AT THAT, IT'S BECAUSE, UM, TO ME THE, THE IMPACT ON OUR, ON OUR CUSTOMERS IS PARAMOUNT, UM, UH, AND RATE SHOCK IS PARAMOUNT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , AND I KNOW THAT IT MAY, MAY, MAY SOUND LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT MONTHLY, THAT IT MAY NOT SOUND LIKE, BUT VERY MUCH, BUT TO A LOW INCOME FAMILY, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO IF WE'RE GONNA ERR ON THE SIDE OF, UM, SO FOR ME, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD, I WOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF KEEPING IT LOW, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A REASONABLE RANGE, UM, UH, WITH THE ABILITY ADJUST IF WE HAD TO. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING 25 TO 27. 
          I ALSO JUST APPRECIATE YOUR ROLE AND I RESPECT YOUR ROLE. 
          WE'VE HIRED YOU TO WORK FOR US, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND IT REALLY, UM, HELPS ME, UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, POLICY DECISION MAKING BECAUSE, UM, I THINK THAT YOUR JOB FOR US IS TO, TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CUSTOMER. 
          AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I JUST WANNA ECHO THE, THE SENTIMENTS FROM COUNCIL KITCHEN, JUST SAYING THANK YOU MR. KAIN, FOR JOINING US TODAY AND FOR PROVIDING YOUR FEEDBACK. 
          YOU WERE HIRED BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF FEEDBACK, AND AS, UM, YOU KNOW, AS POLICY MAKERS WHO WERE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND OVERSEE THIS PUBLIC UTILITY, I GREATLY VALUE YOUR EXPERTISE AND YOUR INSIGHT. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US TODAY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I AM, I, I DO NOT SEE MYSELF SUPPORTING A REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT'S ABOVE 27 MILLION. 
          UM, I THINK THE 25 TO 27 IS MUCH MORE REASONABLE AND, UM, COULD GET US TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN WITH, ACTUALLY, I WAS GONNA ASK FOR PENDING INFORMATION ON THE COST OF SERVICE AMOUNT FOR THE ICA, UM, EUC PROPOSAL. 
          IF YOU COULD PROVIDE LIKE AN ESTIMATE ON THE COST OF SERVICE WITHIN THE, THE GROUP PROPOSAL, UM, I REALIZE EUC, THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL SEPARATE, BUT IF I COULD JUST GET A BETTER SENSE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT INFORMATION IS GONNA BE HELPFUL WHEN WE COMMUNICATE WITH OUR CONSTITUENCIES ABOUT THE COST OF SERVICE AND WHY WE HAVE TO DO THE, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M READY TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I THINK TO ME, WHAT CONTINUES TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF MY DECISION MAKING IS THE RATE SHOT IMPACT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH STAFF ABOUT EXPANDING PARTICIPATION IN THE, IN THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, UM, WAS ONE THAT YOU, I JUST WANNA PUNCTUATE YOUR REMARK, UM, MR. KAUFMAN, THAT VERY FEW UTILITIES GET 50% PARTICIPATION RATE IN THEIR PROGRAMS, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA GET FROM 33% TO 50% WITHIN THE NEXT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD BE PLEASED TO SEE THAT, BUT REALISTICALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, SO TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, WE CAN PROVIDE THE RELIEF TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS IN LIEU OF, YOU KNOW, DEDICATING THAT AMOUNT TO THE EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, I WOULD BE WANTING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT TO SEE THAT SHIFT, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVES OUR VERY LOW INCOME, OUR VERY VULNERABLE, BUT THERE ARE STILL INDIVIDUALS, THERE ARE FAMILIES IN AUSTIN WHO ARE LOW INCOME, WHO ARE STRUGGLING, WHO ARE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK, WHO ARE GONNA FEEL THIS IMPACT OF GOING UP, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO $6 A MONTH IN THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE. 
          UM, AND THEY'RE GONNA FEEL IT THE HARDEST. 
          AND THAT'S, UH, WHERE MY CONCERN STILL LIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M LOOKING AT THEIR OVERALL BILL, NOT JUST THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE, BECAUSE, UM, THE, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, IF WE DON'T TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE OTHER PIECE, I WANNA LOOK AT WHAT THEIR ACTUAL BILL IS, NOT JUST THEIR, THEIR, THEIR CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          UM, SO AT THIS POINT, I AM AT 31.3, I AM OPEN TO GOING LOWER. 
          IF I'M CONVINCED THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL REDUCTION THAT WE CAN MAKE, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WE CAN REDUCE THREE 11, WHICH IS THE BIGGEST ONE THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ARE FULLY STAFFED IN THAT, AND SO WE HAVE THOSE EXPENSES. 
          UM, AND I'M HAPPY IF FOLKS WANT TO PROPOSE VERY SPECIFIC, UM, REVENUE REDUCTION SO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE REDUCING IF WE'RE GONNA GO LOWER, UM, 
          [01:55:01]
THAN THE 31.3. 
          WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY NECESSARILY TO HAVE HEARD FROM MR. KAUFMAN, UM, AS PART OF THAT DEBATE. 
          UM, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE IN A RANGE OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 27 AND AND 31.3. 
          UM, BUT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITHOUT A SPECIFIC, UM, NUMBER. 
          I WILL ALSO SAY THAT WITH A 31.3, WHICH HAS THE GENERAL FUND AT ONE 15, I AM PLANNING TO PUT, UM, DIRECTION IN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD GET TOWARDS OUR 12%, UM, FOR OUR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, IF THE REVENUE EXCEEDS, UM, EXPECTATIONS. 
          UM, SO THAT WE ARE MAKING THAT REDUCTION TO 31.3. 
          BUT WE ARE PROTECTING OURSELVES IF, IF, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THE REVENUE INCREASES. 
          BUT I, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST MAGICALLY, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH MAGICALLY PICKING A NUMBER FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          I REALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT REDUCTION, UM, JUSTIFIED. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND, AND FROM, SO FOR ME, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE WANNA HAVE THE DEBATE OVER THE LATE PAYMENT FEE OR THE RATE CASE EXPENSES OR SOME OF THE STORM AMORTIZATION, UM, AND JUST MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE AND THEN DETERMINE IT. 
          UM, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD NEXT PLACE TO GO. 
          UM, MAYOR, I WOULD THEN PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND ASK MR. KAUFMAN TO WEIGH IN. 
          AND AGAIN, THESE WERE ALL I THINGS IDENTIFIED BY MR. KAUFMAN AND OR OTHERS AS, AS LEGITIMATE THINGS TO REDUCE BASED ON, UH, AND THOSE WERE THE LATE PAYMENT REVENUE, THE WINTER STORM AND COVID 19 EXPENSES, NOT FOR ALL OF IT, BUT JUST FOR THE OVERTIME PAY AND, UM, ADDITIONAL CONTRACT EXPENSES AND ALSO BAD DEBT, UNCOLLECTIBLE BAD DEBT. 
          AND I THINK IF WE USE MR. KAUFMAN'S CALCULATION, THAT REDUCES US BY 6 MILLION, WHICH GETS US DOWN TO 25.3. 
          AND WHEN I'VE LOCATED IT, I'M GONNA DISTRIBUTE WHAT MR. RICARDO, WHAT I REFERRED TO LAST WEEK, WHAT MR. BRACA DISTRIBUTED SENT TO ME FROM LAST TIME, SHOWING WHAT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, HOW IT WAS REDUCED BY COUNCIL LAST TIME. 
          AND IN ADDITION TO IDENTIFIED REDUCTIONS, THERE WAS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL CATEGORY FOR, UM, REDUCING RATE SHOCK. 
          I MEAN, IT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT A, IT WAS NOT TIED TO A SPECIFIC REDUCTION, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS THE COUNCIL'S ATTEMPT TO GO A BIT FURTHER TO REDUCE RATE SHOCK, UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THE NUMBERS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE EVALUATED, UM, IF THEY, IF THERE WAS, UM, AN EMERGENCY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD, I WOULD CALL MY COL COLLEAGUES ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TWO LETTERS THAT I THINK ARE SIGNIF, WELL, THREE DOC FOUR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT. 
          ONE IS YOUR REPORT, MR. KAUFMAN. 
          TWO IS THE INDEPENDENT IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S RESPONSE TO IT, AND IN WHICH THEY ACCEPTED SOME OF THESE AND, AND OFFERED CAVEATS TO OTHERS, BUT DIDN'T NECESSARILY RECOMMEND SOME OF THEM. 
          AND THEN AUSTIN ENERGY RESPONDED TO THOSE POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS. 
          AND THEN YOU ALL PROVIDED, UM, AN ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING MEMO. 
          SO I MEAN, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND THESE. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE, THAT WE REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY 6 MILLION, SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE THREE ITEMS. AND MR. KAUFMAN, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THEM? I THINK YOU SUMMARIZED THEM REALLY NICELY BEFORE THAT THEY ALL DEAL WITH ABERRATION IN THE PANDEMIC YEAR. 
          CORRECT. 
          PLEASE MAKE IT THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU COULD FOR THAT. 
          AND THEN IF AUSTIN ENERGY COULD RESPOND TO THAT, THEN WE'LL GO TO THE SECOND ONE. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO BELABOR IT MUCH. 
          I THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS IN, UH, IN THOSE, THOSE DOCUMENTS YOU REFERRED TO, UH, SUMMARIZE. 
          YEAH. 
          THE, UM, ONE OF 'EM RELATES TO ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THAT THE UTILITY, UM, INCURRED. 
          THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ONE RELATED TO, UH, COVID 19 AND, UH, WINTER STORM YURI, UH, THERE WAS, UM, INITIALLY ABOUT, UM, I BELIEVE FIVE, UH, 5 MILLION THAT WAS ABOVE, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES, UH, FOR THINGS RELATED TO THAT. 
          AND, UH, WE, UH, THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT, THAT PERHAPS ONLY THOSE RELATED TO CONTRACT LABOR AND OVER TIME WOULD BE THE ONES THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST. 
          AND SO WE, WE TOOK, WE TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND THEN COMPROMISED ON THAT ISSUE FURTHER. 
          AND SO THAT ISSUE IS, IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 3 MILLION, UH, INSTEAD OF 5 MILLION ADJUSTMENT. 
          THE OTHER TWO ISSUES, HANG ON TO THE OTHER TWO FIRST. 
          OKAY. 
          STAYING HERE ON C FOR A SECOND. 
          YOU RECOMMEND IT COMES DOWN 3 MILLION, THE REVENUE SHOULD GO DOWN BY 3 MILLION. 
          WHAT ARE THOSE THREE MAIN THAT YOU THINK SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED? THEY'RE OVERTIME, HOURS AND CONTRACT LABOR. 
          I THOUGHT YOU'D ALREADY TAKEN THOSE OUT. 
          WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE 3 MILLION WAS. 
          THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 MILLION AND AN ADJUSTMENT OF 5 MILLION WERE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT OKAY. 
          ARE YOU STILL RECOMMENDING THAT OUT OF THE 31 3 31 3 IS TOO HIGH BECAUSE IT CONSIDERS 
          [02:00:01]
SOME COVID EXPENSES? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT COVID EXPENSES DO YOU THINK ARE IN THERE THAT YOU THINK ARE OVER, IT'S THE OVERTIME AND IS IT COVID OR WINTER STORM URATE? BOTH. 
          BOTH. 
          BOTH. 
          BUT, AND WINTER STORM AND, AND IT'S THE OVERTIME CHARGE THREE ENERGY OCCURRED. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, THE SUMMARY THAT WE HAD FROM AE SAID IT WAS, I THOUGHT IT SAID IT WAS 2.5 MILLION. 
          YOU'RE LOOKING AT I GOT AUSTIN ENERGY'S CALCULATION OF THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK THEY MAY CALCULATE IT DIFFERENTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, BUT I, I THINK IT'S 3 MILLION FOR OVERTIME, OVERTIME AND CONTRACT LABOR. 
          IT'S, AND YOU CALCULATED AT 3 MILLION? YES. 
          AND CAN AUSTIN ENERGY RESPOND TO THAT? SURE. 
          UM, WHY ISN'T THAT A DEDUCTION FROM THE 31 13? WHY IS IT, WHY IS IT NOT AN APPROPRIATE REASON TO PRODUCE? SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE WORD APPROPRIATE. 
          UM, WELL, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AS A DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME AND CONTRACT LABOR, UM, WAS NOT, UH, OUT OF LINE OR NEEDING NORMALIZATION AS A RESULT OF WINTER STORM U AND IF YOU LOOK AT FOR, WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT LABOR, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS LOWER IN 2021 THAN IT WAS IN 2020. 
          IT WAS 17.6 MILLION IN 2020 AND 20 POINT 21, EXCUSE ME. 
          IN 2021 IT WAS 15.6 MILLION ON OVERTIME, UH, EXPENSE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONE UP BASICALLY EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          AND THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT WAS NOT OUTTA LINE WITH, UM, WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN, IN PRIOR YEARS EITHER. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THE IHE WAS CONVINCED THAT AE DEMONSTRATED THAT WHILE U WINTER STORM URIE WAS A SEVERE STORM WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE NEED FOR CONTRACT LABOR AND OVER TIME THAT IT WAS NOT ANYWHERE UNUSUAL, UM, RELATIVE TO OTHER STORMS THAT AE HAD, HAS EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST. 
          MAINLY BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WAS ERCOT LOAD SHED AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, A HURRICANE THAT, YOU KNOW, DESTROYED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAD TO BE REPAIRED AND AE HAD TO HIRE OVERTIME, UH, PAY A LOT OF OVERTIME OR HIGHER CONTRACT LABOR TO DO, TO DO THOSE REPAIRS. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE WERE THE MAIN REASONS. 
          THE, UM, MR. KAUFMAN, WHAT WOULD THE RESPONSE TO THAT BE? UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO SAY. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T, UM, OKAY. 
          WHAT WOULD THE NEXT ITEM BE? THERE'S A, THERE WERE A VARIETY OF ITEMS THAT WE LOOKED AT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, THE, THE 3 MILLION, UM, AND $50,000 IS JUST BASED ON AMORTIZING THE, UM, UM, THE, UM, CONTRACT LABOR AND OVER TIME, OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. 
          AND I GET THAT. 
          UM, AND THEY RESPONDED BY SAYING THERE WAS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT THAT YEAR. 
          AND THAT'S THE RESPONSE TO THAT, THAT, THAT AE GIVES GO TO THE SECOND ISSUE THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO RAISED THAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON THAT WE ASKED AUSTIN ENERGY TO RESPOND TO. 
          THE SECOND REASON THERE SHOULD BE REDUCTION FROM 31 13. 
          UM, I'M STILL NOT FOLLOWING THE QUESTION. 
          KATHY, WHAT WAS THE SECOND DEDUCTION? THREE 13. 
          UM, LATE PAYMENT REVENUE AND UNCOLLECTABLE DEBT EXPENSE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, UM, WELL, ONE OF THOSE I HAD TO STEP OFF THE DIAS FOR, NO, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT. 
          THE UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE PREDICTABLY, WAS HIGHER AFTER THE PANDEMIC AND AFTER AUSTIN ENERGY WAS NOT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT SHUTTING PEOPLE OFF. 
          UH, WE WOUND UP WITH, UM, UH, AN UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE OF 13.9 MILLION, WHICH IS THREE TIMES. 
          UM, THE NORMAL AMOUNT, OUR SUGGESTION IS TO, TO AVERAGE IT OVER THREE YEARS, WHICH WOULD GET YOU 4.5 MILLION, AND THAT'S AN ADJUSTMENT OF 1.4 MILLION. 
          SO THE UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE WE THINK WAS EXCESSIVE BY ABOUT 1.4 MILLION. 
          SO THAT'S HOW MUCH THAT IS WORTH. 
          WHAT WOULD AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE TO THAT BE? IF I MAY, JUST ONE OTHER POINT, AND IT REALLY GOES TO KIND OF ALL OF THESE, BUT I'LL TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BAD DEBT IN A MOMENT. 
          BUT ALL OF THESE COSTS ARE TRENDING UPWARD. 
          THEY MIGHT HAVE A DIP IN ONE YEAR, BUT THE TREND IS TO GO UP. 
          THE TEST YEAR AMOUNTS WERE NOT UNUSUAL. 
          AND IN FACT, WITH RESPECT TO WINTER STORM YEAR, AS I MENTIONED, THEY ACTUALLY WENT DOWN. 
          BUT WHAT THE IH ICA HAS DONE, IT SAID NO. 
          WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS TAKE A, A LONGER AVERAGE, BASICALLY WE WANT TO CAPTURE OLDER YEARS, WHICH INHERENTLY DRIVES DOWN THE AMOUNT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING BACK FURTHER IN TIME. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TREND AS WELL AS THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT, WHICH IS 
          [02:05:01]
NORMAL, UM, YOU, YOU, IF YOU, AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK FURTHER IN TIME, YOU'RE GONNA CAPTURE LOWER YEARS, WHICH DRIVES DOWN THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN RATES. 
          BUT THE TREND IS, IS TO, TO, UH, TO GO UPWARD. 
          AND SO THE EXPECTATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TEST, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY, THAT AMOUNT ACTUALLY MAY BE LOW. 
          BUT EVEN PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THE THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT, UM, WAS NOT UNUSUAL DUE TO, DUE TO URI. 
          UM, DID YOU JUST SPEAK TO LATE PANIC FEE, BAD DEBT? IT WAS THE PANDEMIC AS WELL. 
          I MEAN, IT WAS, ANYWAY, MR. KAUFMAN'S BETTER POSITION TO ANSWER IT, BUT IT WAS, AS I UNDERSTOOD THEIR ARGUMENT, IT WAS THAT ALL OF THOSE, UM, THE, THE DEBT THAT IT, THAT IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED BY PANDEMIC, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE ENCOURAGING, LOOKING AT YEARS THAT WERE NON PANDEMIC YEARS. 
          THE ARGUMENT HE MADE IT IN THE RESPONSE WAS, LOOK AT THE TREND OVER TIME. 
          THAT'S NOT TRUE. 
          WHY? AND THE RESPONSE FROM AE AND, AND THIS WAS, UM, SUPPORTED BY THE IE, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, REACHING BACK IN TIME BEFORE THE PANDEMIC DIDN'T REFLECT THE CURRENT SITUATION OR WHAT HE CHARACTERIZED AS THE NEW NORMAL. 
          UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S VERY UNLIKELY YOU'RE GONNA GET 13.9, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE. 
          I MEAN, IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, AN INCLINING TREND, UH, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE SOME MITIGATION. 
          WE FEEL LIKE WE, WE'VE ALREADY COMPROMISED SOMEWHAT ON THE NUMBER. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA BE CAREFUL. 
          WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE 13.9 IN THERE. 
          WE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT TO IT, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY WITH RESPECT TO, YOU'RE LOOKING AT LATE PAYMENT, BUT BAD DEBT. 
          DEBT, BAD DEBT, EXCUSE ME, AUSTIN ENERGY MADE A 7.8 MILLION DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE WAS A MORATORIUM ON DISCONNECTIONS FOR A PORTION OF THE TEST. 
          THEY, THEY DID, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE REFLECT THAT, I MEAN, REASONABLE PEOPLE COULD COME UP WITH A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO RESOLVE IT, BUT I, I THINK THERE'S AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS ABNORMAL IN ABNORMAL YEAR. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT, THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A 1.4 MILLION ADJUSTMENT, AND IS THAT FOR LATE FEES OR IS THAT FOR, THAT'S FOR, THAT'S FOR BAD DEBT ON COLLECT DEBT EXPENSE. 
          IT'S BUILT IN. 
          AND I THINK YOU'VE LAID OUT THAT ISSUE BOTH SIDES OF THAT ISSUE. 
          SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT ADD DEBT? UH, YES. 
          I MIGHT SAY THAT, UM, UM, THAT THE TEST, YOUR, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD? OH, I'M SORRY. 
          RUSTY MANUS, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, UM, VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE. 
          SO, UH, IN THE TEST YEAR, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS 13.8 MILLION. 
          AS MR. KAUFMAN SAID, AUSTIN ENERGY DID MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT AT 7.8 MILLION DOWN TO APPROXIMATELY 6 MILLION NET. 
          THAT IS WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR TEST YEAR. 
          MR. KAUFMAN, UH, WANTS TO GO BACK IN TIME, UH, UH, USING THE, THE, THE DATA THAT, UM, MR. MARKETTO SHOWS THAT USING AN AVERAGE AS A NUMBERS GO UP WOULD REDUCE THAT AMOUNT. 
          BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 22, THAT AMOUNT WENT UP. 
          SO ONCE AGAIN, THIS NOTION THAT SOME HISTORICAL AMOUNT IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF, OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TODAY OR IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S NUMBER IS MUCH MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. 
          YEAH. 
          THE, THE 22 20 22 NUMBER, 7.83 MILLION, THE AMOUNT THAT AE IS PROPOSING, INCLUDING RATES IS 5.994 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER THAN THAT WAS BAD DEBT. 
          WHAT WAS THE SECOND ISSUE TIED TO THAT? BAD DEBT AND LATE PAYMENT FEES, LATE PAYMENTS, YOU ADDRESS THAT. 
          THAT'S VERY SIMPLE. 
          UH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE THAT DURING THE PANDEMIC, DURING MOST OF 2020 AND 2021 OR PART OF 21, THE, THE CITY WAS NOT CHARGING A LATE PAYMENT FEE. 
          AND SO THAT'S IN THE, THE PERIOD THAT WAS AUDITED, THE TEST PERIOD. 
          AND, UH, WE, UH, WE THINK THAT IF YOU, TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE LATE, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE OF REVENUE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE THERE, THAT WASN'T THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, LATE PAYMENT FEES IS AN OFFSET. 
          AND WE THINK THAT YOU'D BE BETTER SERVED TO LOOK AT 2018 AND 2019 AS TO HOW MUCH LATE PAYMENT REVENUE THE UTILITY RECEIVED. 
          AND THE, THE TOTAL ISSUE IS $1 MILLION AND 50 $50,000. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO ABOUT $1 MILLION, I THINK, RECOGNIZES THAT THAT WAS AN ABNORMAL PERIOD WHERE THEY WERE NOT RECEIVING LATE PAYMENT FEES THAT THEY USUALLY DO. 
          BUT AUSTIN ENERGY RESPONDED TO THAT IN ITS DIRECT CASE. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY BELIEVED THAT THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT FOR LATE PAYMENT FEES WAS 3.34 MILLION. 
          AND DURING REBUTTAL TESTIMONY, THEY MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF 1.15 MILLION TO TAKE INTO AN ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF COVID AND ONE OF STORM URIE, THEIR POSITION IS THAT USING 2018 AND 2019 NUMBERS 
          [02:10:01]
CREATING AN AVERAGE, UM, IS LESS RELIABLE THAN THE TEST YEAR BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TOO FAR IN TIME. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER. 
          THE I E, UM, AGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AND SAID THAT GOING, REACHING BACK 2018 AND 2019 DOES NOT REFLECT THE IMPACT OF COVID AND THE NEW NORMAL. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT WAS THE THIRD ISSUE? KATHY, GO AHEAD. 
          I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT THIS. 
          SO WE'VE HEARD, SO THERE WAS THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBT. 
          OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE SUGGESTS TAKING IT BASED ON A THREE YEAR AVERAGE, HAVING THOSE THREE YEARS NOT BE PANDEMIC YEARS, AND AE TOOK, TOOK A REDUCTION BASED ON OF, OF 7 MILLION OR SO. 
          BUT I'M NOT CLEAR, AND I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION MULTIPLE TIMES, WHAT WAS THAT CALCULATION BASED ON? IF IT'S NOT AN AVERAGE OF YEARS, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT A CALCULATION OF? IT WAS, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THIS MORE, UM, SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT WAS TO REFLECT THAT THERE WAS A MORATORIUM, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL. 
          NO, BUT WHAT WAS THE METHODOLOGY? SO WE'VE GOT A SPECIFIC, I MEAN, IT, YOU TOOK DIFFERENT, YOU'RE SUGGESTING TAKING DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS. 
          WE KNOW WHAT THE, WE KNOW WHAT THE CALCULATION WAS FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT SHOULD BE CALCULATED BASED ON A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF NON PANDEMIC YEARS. 
          I DO NOT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE METHODOLOGY WAS FOR AUSTIN ENERGIES 7 MILLION. 
          NOT YET. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS REASONABLE MINDS CAN DISAGREE ON HOW MUCH OF A DEDUCTION TO TAKE. 
          WE KNOW HOW WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT, UM, MR. KAUFMAN'S BAS HAS ON YEAH, I I THINK THAT, SO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS 13.8 MILLION. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY MADE A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 7.8 MILLION TO REFLECT THE PERIOD OF TIME DURING THE YEAR, DURING THE TEST. 
          YOU WHERE THERE WAS NO DISCONNECTIONS. 
          I, I BELIEVE YOU TOOK THE, THE MONTHS THAT THERE WAS NO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN, BUT I, I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU DID  FOR THE 7.8 MILLION. 
          YEAH, THE 7.8 MILLION, UH, REPRESENTS THE AT T CONTRACT. 
          NORMALLY BAD DEBT IS A RESULT OF CUSTOMERS NOT PAYING THEIR, THEIR BILLS. 
          UM, IN THIS CASE, IT WAS UNIQUE IN WHICH AT AND T WHO ATTACHES INFRASTRUCTURE TO OUR POLLS AND WE ATTACH INFRASTRUCTURE TO THEIR POLLS, WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT. 
          AND SO, AS A WAY TO SET A PART OF SETTLING THIS WAS, UM, THEY AGREED NOT TO CHARGE US. 
          WE AGREED NOT TO CHARGE THEM. 
          AND SO THIS REFLECTS THE AMOUNT, UM, OF THAT AMOUNT. 
          SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CUSTOMERS OR CUSTOMERS DEBT. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT, THAT IS A SEPARATE, IT'S, I, I THINK, I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS DURING THE PANDEMIC WE DID, WE HAD A MORATORIUM AND SO YOU DIDN'T COLLECT AS MUCH IN LATE PAYMENT. 
          WE HAVE DUELING, WE HAVE DUELING, UM, PROPOSITIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH TO REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THIS IS A REALLY, MAYBE YOU COULD GET BACK TO US. 
          I KNOW. 
          I THINK THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL POINT. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, I'VE ASKED NOW AT LEAST PROBABLY TWO OR THREE TIMES WHAT THE CALCULATION WAS USED TO COME UP WITH A 7 MILLION. 
          BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK CALCULATING AND ON A THREE YEAR AVERAGE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PANDEMIC YEARS IS A, IS A PRETTY SOUND METHODOLOGY. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE THAT THESE COMPONENTS WERE VERY UNUSUAL IN THIS TEST PERIOD. 
          NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT LIKELY THE UTILITY'S GONNA FACE IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND, UM, 6 MILLION IS A COMPROMISED NUMBER FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK REASONABLE PEOPLE COULD COME UP WITH, FOR THESE THREE ISSUES, DIFFERENT DIFFERING ADJUSTMENTS. 
          I THINK THE 6 MILLION IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT FOR THOSE THREE ISSUES. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I'M TRYING TO GET ONE STEP BELOW THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT. 
          WHAT WAS AN ISSUE IN THE FIRST ONE AND THE SECOND ONE ISSUE, YOU BOTH MADE DEDUCTIONS. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA SAY ABOUT THE SECOND ADJUSTMENT? WELL, ON BAD DEBT, I, I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED IS IN ADDITION TO THE, THE SPECIFIC CUSTOMER, FIRST 7 MILLION, BASICALLY AE TOOK THE MONTHS OF THE, THE TEST HERE WHERE THERE WERE NO DISCONNECTIONS AND BASICALLY ANNUALIZED THAT AND THAT'S WHAT'S BUILT INTO THAT SEVEN EIGHT. 
          BUT WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY OF THE BRIEFS AND CONFIRM THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE WAS THOSE YOU TOOK. 
          SO THERE WERE A COUPLE MONTHS WHERE THERE WERE NO DEBT COLLECTION, AND THEN THEY MULTIPLIED THAT AMOUNT BY 12 MONTHS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BUT WE'LL CONFIRM. 
          SO, BUT YES, IF, IF, UH, BAD DEBT WAS 10 MILLION AND HALF THE YEAR YOU HAD NO DISCONNECTIONS, THEN YOU WOULD MAKE A 5 MILLION ADJUSTMENT TO GET DOWN TO 5 MILLION. 
          BUT I WILL NEED TO CONFIRM, CUZ THERE'S ALSO THIS OTHER PIECE WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC, UM, CUSTOMER. 
          YOU CAN GIVE THAT DETAIL TO US. 
          SURE. 
          WHAT WAS THE THIRD ISSUE, KATHY? I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, YEAH, WINTER, STORM YEAR, THE CONTRACT AND OVERTIME LABOR, BAD DEBT, AND THEN LATE PAYMENT FEES. 
          I, I WOULD NOTE THAT IN MR. UM, OR THE ICAS 
          [02:15:01]
NOVEMBER 30TH LETTER, THOSE THREE ADJUSTMENTS, TOTAL 5.5 MILLION, NOT 6 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          PRETTY CLOSE. 
          SO IF YOU WERE INCLINED TO GO THAT DIRECTION, I MATH. 
          SO FOR ME, HAVING HEARD THIS EXPLANATION, NOT TOO DISSIMILAR WHAT I THINK I HEARD BEFORE. 
          UH, I'M STILL COMFORTABLE WITH THE 31 3. 
          I RECOGNIZE MINES COULD DIFFER ON THOSE. 
          THE HALFWAY POINT WAS THREE. 
          THAT'S WHY I TOOK $3 MILLION OFF THE 31 3 AND SAID I'D BE WILLING TO GO DOWN AS LOW AS 28 3. 
          I'M LEANING TO THE 31 3. 
          BUT IF GETTING DOWN TO ANOTHER, UH, TO GET US WHERE WE NEEDED TO GO, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WITHIN MY RANGE. 
          UH, BUT I'M, BUT I, I'M, I WOULD NOT READILY SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT WAS LOWER THAN THE 28 3. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BEFORE WE GO TO CUSTOMER CHARGE? I HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES LEFT TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE ISSUES HERE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON UHOH. 
          I'M GONNA DO WHAT I DO CUSTOMARILY AND GO OFF SCRIPT A LITTLE BIT. 
          I GOTTA TELL Y'ALL THAT FOR A PERSON WITH ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT AT THIS END OF THE ROOM AND HAVE ALL OF THIS NOISE IN MY LEFT EAR LIKE THAT I CAN'T FOCUS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. 
          UM, SO ASIDE FROM MY INABILITY TO DO THAT, JUST SORT OF NATURALLY THIS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE. 
          I CAN'T, I I CAN'T. 
          AND YOU TRACE LINAS, I'M KICKING YOU OUT THE ROOM. 
          YOU ARE ALLOWED TO . 
          IF Y'ALL COULD BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT I REALIZE IT'S A PUBLIC SPACE, BUT WE ARE WORKING AND LIKE JUST BE MINDFUL. 
          UM, SO SOME OF MY QUESTIONS INCLUDE I WANTED TO OR NOT QUESTION. 
          I WANT A STATEMENT. 
          I WANTED IT TO SIGNAL MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT'S ON THE TABLE BEFORE US CURRENTLY, INCLUDING THE 31.3, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, I THINK THIS REVENUE REQUIREMENT WAS IDENTIFIED BY AUSTIN ENERGY AND FRANKLY INVE VETTED BY THE, UH, IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER. 
          I ALSO THINK THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE SUPPORTS OUR GOALS OF INCENTIVIZING CONSERVATION. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, UM, THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM, UH, MAYOR PRO TIM'S AMENDMENT EXPANDS OUR CAP PROGRAM TO HELP OUR MOST VULNERABLE AND IN NEED RESIDENTS. 
          I AM, UH, INCREASINGLY CONFIDENT THAT THE PROPOSAL REALLY DOES ENSURE THAT OUR UTILITY IS FINANCIALLY STABLE, MOVING INTO A VERY, VERY UNSTABLE ENERGY MARKET OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE THE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE GONE INTO THE COMPROMISE AND HOPE THAT WE GET TO CONTINUE IN THE SPIRIT INTO NEXT YEAR'S CONVERSATIONS SURROUNDING SOLAR POWER AND CONTINUING TO EXPAND THE CAP. 
          UM, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO JUST SORT OF SAY AS I'M FLAGGING AND SIGNALING MY SUPPORT, MUCH LIKE A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE CONSIDERING HERE TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR AND MOVE IT INTO THE NEW YEAR, I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A GREAT, GREAT DEAL OF COMPROMISE THAT WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO MAKE. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT THE OVERALL BIGGEST PICTURE. 
          UM, AND I KNOW I GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS SOMETIMES WHEN IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE ARGUING, UM, THEY'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO DO. 
          THEY FEEL COMPELLED TO PICK A TEAM, UM, AND PICK IN TEAMS MAKES IT SO THAT MOST PEOPLE LOSE. 
          UM, SO JUST ENCOURAGING US TO TRY TO, TO MY ORIGINAL POINT ABOUT ALL THAT BACKGROUND NOISE. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE HEARING ALSO, AND IT'S NOT HELPFUL. 
          UM, SO I THINK IF WE COULD KEEP IT REALLY CONCISE, REALLY HIGH LEVEL, NOT TOO MUCH LIKE IN THE WEEDS DELIBERATION, THAT REALLY MAKES IT SO FOLKS STOP FOLLOWING US AND ONLY LIKE PICK OUT THE PARTS THAT THEY HEAR. 
          AND WHEN YOU START CHERRY PICKING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING GOOD INFORMATION. 
          SO I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW WE RESTRUCTURE THIS WHOLE THING, BUT IT'S JUST GETTING TOO, IT'S NOT, UM, FRIENDLY IS THE WORD THAT I'M INCLINED TO USE, BUT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT MUNICIPAL POLITICS, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, WILL NECESSARILY BE FRIENDLY, BUT IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO FOLLOW AND FEEL LESS CHAOTIC. 
          IT FEELS CHAOTIC. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REVENUE? TOTAL REVENUE? I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IS, UH, UM, ARE WE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA CAP OUR, UH, TRANSFER OVER TO THE COUNCIL AT 115 MILLION. 
          UH, I BELIEVE PART OF THE DISCUSSION EARLIER THIS LAST WEEK WAS THAT, UH, THERE WAS A POTENTIAL OF 119 MILLION. 
          SO THIS MONEY THAT WE ARE, WE'RE GONNA KEEP FROM WHERE YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TRANSFER OVER TO THE CITY, IS THAT ALSO USED IN CALCULATION OF REDUCING OUR, UH, OUR COSTS COUNCIL MEMBER RENT. 
          THAT'S HOW WE GET FROM THE 35.7 DOWN TO THE 31.3 REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          [02:20:04]
MAY I, I JUST WANNA ADD, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RENT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT I'M BRINGING WOULD MAKE IT SO IF 12% OF THE REVENUE THAT WE GENERATED WAS ONE 19, UM, AND THAT WAS ABOVE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY AT LEAST THAT 4 MILLION, THAT THAT 4 MILLION WOULD GO INTO THE BUDGET. 
          I'M NOT YET SURE IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH A YEAR LAG OR NOT. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S THE POLICY THAT I'M TRYING TO WRITE IN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY, WHICH IS MORE OF A DIRECTION FOR POLICY TO THE CITY MANAGER THAN IT IS PART OF THE, PART OF THE RATE WOULDN'T GO ABOVE WHAT THE 12% WOULD BE, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW US IN THE EVENT THAT WE EXCEEDED IT TO, TO, TO GET THAT GENERAL REVENUE WHICH WE COULD THEN SPEND ON THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US. 
          OKAY. 
          SO KA TOVO MAYOR, I'M DISTRIBUTING THE DOCUMENT THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER SO THAT, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE INFORMATION THAT MR. BRACA HAD SHARED, HAD SHARED WITH ME, UM, THAT THE ORIGINAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT WAS 1 27. 
          THE COUNCIL APPROVED AS JUST IN REASONABLE 21 MILLION. 
          SO THEY WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS WHERE THEY DISAGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AND REDUCED THAT BY 21 MILLION IN THE SAME WAY WE'RE CONSIDERING REDUCING IT BY 6 MILLION FOR CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THINGS. 
          AND THEN UNDERNEATH YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER LINE ITEM WHERE THE COUNCIL APPROVED AS RATE MITIGATION AND ADDITIONAL 14 MILLION. 
          UM, SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE RATE SHOCKS. 
          SO I THINK WHAT SEVERAL OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT IS VERY, VERY CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE HANDLED THE PREVIOUS, THE PREVIOUS, UM, RATE CASE THAT THERE WERE JUST IN REASONABLE COSTS IDENTIFIED FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT ADJUSTMENTS. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THE FINAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ENDED UP AT ABOUT HALF, UM, SLIGHTLY LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD PROPOSED. 
          UM, I WANNA, I WANNA JUST HIGHLIGHT SOMETHING THAT, THAT I THINK WAS MENTIONED BUT NOT NECESSARILY UNDERSCORED. 
          SO IT SEEMS TO ME IN READING THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S, UM, STATEMENT ABOUT I THINK IT WAS BAD DEBT OR LATE PAYMENT, THEY SEEM TO CONCLUDE AS AUSTIN ENERGY, THEY, THEY AGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, THAT THIS WAS A NEW NORMAL. 
          AND I JUST WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, I MEAN IT'S, WE'RE IN A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TIME THAN WE WERE DURING THE PANDEMIC. 
          PEOPLE ARE BACK TO WORK AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, LATE PAYMENTS, UM, AND ARE ARE, I MEAN UNFORTUNATELY, PROBABLY ANYWAY, COULD YOU, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NEW NORMAL, BUT THE NEW NORMAL ASSUMES THAT FOLKS ARE, ARE, UM, OPERATING AS THEY DID DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE THE CASE. 
          CAN YOU'RE ASKING ME? YEAH, MR. COFFMAN, UH, I'M, I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          I I THINK THAT, UH, I MEAN I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE THAT THE, THAT THIS TEST PERIOD WAS UNUSUAL DUE TO COVID. 
          UM, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, OF HOW YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW HOW YOU VALUE THAT AND, AND, UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY DOUBT THAT THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE LATE PAYMENT REVENUES AND THE UNCOLLECTIBLE OR AT LEAST THE COLLECTIBLES MIGHT BE ON AN UPWARD TREND. 
          UH, AND MAYBE YOU WOULD TAKE THAT INTO SOME CONSIDERATION. 
          BUT, UM, UM, I, I THINK THAT DEFINITELY SOME ADJUSTMENT IS, IS REASONABLE HERE WHERE THERE'S 3, 5, 6, UH, THERE, THERE'S A VARIETY OF NUMBERS AND, AND THESE HAVE ALL INVOLVED SOME COMPROMISE UP TILL NOW. 
          WELL, AS WE TURN TO, TO THE NEXT SESSION, UH, KA TOVO, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S SAYING THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA LIVE IN EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WERE DURING WINTER STORM, UH, OR, OR DURING THE COVID. 
          BUT JUST THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT DRIVE THE COST, UH, ABSENT THOSE STORMS WOULD, WOULD BE THE SAME THAT WE WERE ON AN UPWARD TREND. 
          AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD THE WINTER STORM AND WE HAD COVID DOESN'T REMOVE US FROM THE TREND THAT WE WERE ON. 
          UH, WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE THINGS OUT, WE'RE STILL ON THAT TREND, UH, IN THAT, UH, THE, THE NUMBERS ARE REPORTING THAT TREND. 
          NOT THAT THOSE WERE NOT ATYPICAL TIMES CUZ I THINK EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THEY WERE, OR THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THOSE ATYPICAL TIMES WILL BE THE TIMES THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LIVING IN, WE'RE IN A NEW NORMAL, UH, BECAUSE OF THE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE TRENDS THAT EXISTED BEFORE WE HAD THOSE TWO DEPARTURES. 
          WHAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS REAL QUICKLY WAS THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A REALLY SIGNIFICANT AND POWERFUL PRESENTATION THAT'S THAT OUR PRESENTATION WHERE SHE LAID OUT THE, UM, UH, FOOD THAT COULD BE PURCHASED FOR $15 AND FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT I COULD FEED A FAMILY, UH, DEMONSTRATING $15. 
          AND, AND, UH, THAT PRESENTATION 
          [02:25:01]
HAS STAYED WITH ME. 
          UM, WHICH IS WHY I'M ALSO PLEASED THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING NOW WHILE WE WERE AT THE TIME AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY LAID OUT, ABOUT A $15 INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE THAT WE'RE NOT NOW. 
          UH, AND IT LOOKS AS IF, BASED ON THE RANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EITHER A $3 INCREASE OR A $5 INCREASE. 
          UM, AND WHICH MEANS THAT THE DELTA THAT THE COUNCIL'S DECIDING IS, IS UP TO A $2 INCREASE. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY IN FRONT OF US A, A A PLUS OR MINUS ONE OR $2 IN, IN, IN, IN GREECE. 
          UM, I DO AGREE WITH THE, UH, MAYOR PRO TAB THAT WE CAN'T LOOK AT THAT CHARGE IN A VACUUM. 
          UH, AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT CHARGE PLUS THE, THE EXTRA DOLLARS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING FOR POWER ON THE VARIABLE RATE, CUZ YOU HAVE TO PAY BOTH THE FIXED CHARGE AND THE VARIABLE RATE. 
          WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT THE CUSTOMER'S PAYING BY THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          UH, AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT ONE OR THE OTHER. 
          WHEN WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE RUNS, ALL OF THE RUNS WERE REALLY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AT THE END OF THE YEAR FOR WHAT PEOPLE PAID, ALMOST REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DID WITH THE FIXED CHARGE. 
          UM, AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, DEPENDENT ON, ON REALLY WHAT WAS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WE WERE REACHING. 
          UM, AND BY THE WAY, UH, EVEN AT 31, IF WE WERE RAISING EIGHT AND A HALF ON THE MAYOR PRO AMOUNT, MAYBE WE COULD TAKE A MILLION DOLLARS OF THAT AND NOT PUT IT TO OUT OF CITY AND TO CAP AND PUT IT TOWARD RATE RELIEF IN THOSE TWO AREAS. 
          SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME FUNCTION THAT'S STILL MET, THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS WERE OUR SUPPORT, BUT ALSO, UH, HELP BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN WHAT WOULD EFFECTIVE 28 B VERSUS ACTUAL 30. 
          BUT IN ANY EVENT, UH, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, UM, AGAIN, UH, I'M READY TO SUPPORT THE $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE OR THE PHASE IN OVER THREE YEARS OF 14, 15 OR 16 BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE RANGE PLUS OR MINUS A DOLLAR. 
          UM, UM, AND I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S OVERALL FAIR. 
          UM, AND AS IT TIES TO THE RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS AND THE BREAK FOR TIERS AND THE RATE FOR TIER, I THINK THAT'S MORE A QUESTION OF THE, OF THE, THE, THE POLICIES WE WANNA DRAFT WITH RESPECT TO ARE WE FAVORING, UH, THE LOWER RATE TIERS OR ARE WE FAVORING, UM, UH, PRICE STABILITY, WHICH HAPPENS WITH A FLATTER PLANE. 
          UH, AND WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I, YOU KNOW, I, I STILL AM HAVING TROUBLE EQUATING THE LOWER RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS WITH NEED BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE IN THOSE LOWER RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS ARE AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO LEASE THE ASSISTANCE IN OUR CITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE REALLY, WELL, THEY HAVE THE SMALL CONDOS THAT ARE THE, ARE THE MOST PROTECTED AND ARE DRIVING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RATES REGARDLESS OF, OF HOW COOL OR HOW HOT THEY KEEP THEIR HOMES. 
          UM, AND, AND SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER IN THE POPULAR PARLANCE, UM, GIVING RELIEF TO THOSE LOWER TIERS SOMEHOW IS EQUATED WITH DOING GOOD. 
          AND I JUST DON'T SEE NUMBERS THAT, THAT SUPPORT THAT. 
          SO IN THE ABSENCE OF USING THAT AS A TOOL TO DO RIGHT OR TO DO GOOD, UH, I GENERALLY SUPPORT THE FLATTER TIER, UH, OR A TIER NOT SO FLAT AS PROPOSED BY, BY THE CHAIR IN, IN HER PROPOSAL, WHICH IS NOT QUITE AS FLAT, STILL PROVIDES, UH, UH, THE STABILITY ON RATES, UH, AND DOESN'T RISK THE INSTABILITY IN ORDER TO BRING RELIEF TO, UH, PEOPLE THAT CAN AFFORD SMALL ENERGY TIGHT CONDOS DOWNTOWN. 
          UM, WHICH TO A LARGE DEGREE IS WHAT GIVING RELIEF TO THE LOWER TWO TIERS RESULTS IN. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S GENERALLY WHERE I COME ON THOSE LAST TWO OR THREE UH, ITEMS. MAYOR PROTE, JUST ON THAT POINT. 
          UM, 
          [02:30:01]
LOOKING AT, UH, A SPREADSHEET THAT I HAVE FOR THE, THE FOUR B, UM, FOR CAP CUSTOMERS INSIDE THE CITY, THERE'S A, UNDER TWO 50, THERE'S JUST, UM, 25,224 BILLS FOR THE WHOLE CITY. 
          IT'S 676,874. 
          UM, AND SO, AND IT'S SIMILAR, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEXT PHASE. 
          SO AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT, UM, TRANSLATES FOR, FOR HELPING LOW INCOME JUST TO ADDRESS THE LOWER, THE LOWEST TIER. 
          NOW I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT RATE SHOCK, MR. KAUFMAN, YOU SAID IT WAS 25%. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY TO NOT UPSET THE WHOLE APPLE CART AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE WAY THAT I SAID, I WANT NO DECREASE FOR THE HIGHEST TIER IF FOR THE LOWEST TIER SAY, UM, WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE MORE THAN A 20% INCREASE. 
          UM, IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S AN ADJUSTMENT THAT CAN BE MADE, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT'S COMING FROM NOT DECREASING THE HIGHER LEVELS, UM, BUT WITHOUT FULLY UPSETTING THE APPLE CART OF TRYING TO GET MORE PAYMENTS IN THAT EARLY, IN THAT EARLIER TIER, IF THAT'S, UM, WOULD HELP AT ALL. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AS A POLICY, IF WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANT ANY ONE CLASS TO BE MORE THAN A 20% RIGHT, CHANGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND YOU CAN DO IT ACROSS ALL OF THEM AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT ANY OF OUR, OUR TIERS TO BE THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE, THE CHARTS WE HAVE ARE ACTUALLY FROM THE ONE TO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT COMES OUT FOR ONE TO 300 IF WE'RE SAYING THAT'S THE, THE FIRST, UM, TIER. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I, I, I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO GO AS LOW ON THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AS YOU THINK IS REASONABLE TO GO. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE TIERS, BUT IT IS SO COMPLICATED TO FINAGLE WITH IT. 
          I WOULD, IF, IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE RELIEF AS I DO TO THE, UH, THE LOW USAGE, UM, SECTORS, I WOULD, UM, MAYBE JUST STICK WITH THE, THE TIERS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT LOWER THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, UH, AND GET THAT DOWN TO 12 OR $13. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, AND RAISE THE, THE VOLUMETRIC ACCORDINGLY. 
          I THINK THAT IS SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT THAT'S 20 OR 30% MOVEMENT IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR FEE. 
          I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS THE MOST UNPOPULAR RATE THERE IS. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS IN THE RECORD, IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, AND PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO DO IN RATE MAKING. 
          UM, IT ALSO TIES RIGHT INTO WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT ENCOURAGING, YOU KNOW, EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION. 
          UH, I FRANKLY, I WOULD ACCEPT A HIGHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO GET SOME CERTAINTY THAT, THAT THAT WOULDN'T, UH, THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE WOULDN'T BE GOING UP, UH, AS MUCH. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S THE LEVER THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST TO, TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF MODERATION ON THAT LEVEL. 
          AND I, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, AT $15, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO PRODUCE SOME SOME RATE SHOCK. 
          AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S NOT ALL LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS, BUT I BELIEVE THE DATA DOES SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT INCOME IS LINKED TO USAGE. 
          AND SO I THINK MOST LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE LOWER AND MOST LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IN THE CAP PROGRAM AND ARE, ARE PROBABLY LOWER USAGE CUSTOMERS THAN THE CAP PROGRAM. 
          BUT IT'S A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 
          AND I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE JUST ADVOCATING FOR LOW INCOME FOLKS. 
          I'M HERE ADVOCATING THAT YOU TRY TO MITIGATE A, A BIG RATE SHOCK FOR ANY PARTICULAR GROUP. 
          AND I THINK THE BEST WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS TO MODERATE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          AGAIN, THAT ONLY CHANGES IT IN THAT VERY LOWEST TIER, OTHERWISE IT ENDS UP PRETTY MUCH AT THE SAME PLACE. 
          AND IT IS THE ALSO THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT LEVER FOR THE FINANCIAL STABILITY FOR THE UTILITY, WHICH HAS ALREADY GONE FROM A $15 INCREASE TO AT MOST A $5 INCREASE. 
          YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T GO $1 DOWN OR WHATEVER, BUT I'M, I'M THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT GET MOVED BY THAT, AND IT'S WHAT THE CAP CUSTOMERS GET REBATE FULLY. 
          SO FOR OUR CAP CUSTOMERS WHO WE KNOW ARE LOW INCOME, THE HIGHER THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, THE MORE RELIEF THEY, THEY GET. 
          AND SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A STRAIGHTFORWARD CHOICE IN MY, IN MY MIND. 
          AND AS SOON AS YOU GO ABOVE 250 KILOWATTS AND YOU START ADDING IN THE OTHER STUFF, THINGS EVEN 
          [02:35:01]
OUT, SO IT LOOKS, IT IS A MUCH BIGGER SHOCK IN THE TWO 50 RANGE THAN IT IS ABOVE, ABOVE TWO 50. 
          THE WAY THE MATH WORKS OUT IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU SEE, SEE WITH YOUR, YOUR, YOUR BILL AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S EASY TO SAY, OH, IT'S A 20% INCREASE OR IT'S A 30% INCREASE STARTS 30% INCREASE, BUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET YOUR BILL, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY THE THING THAT'S GONNA MATTER, IT IT, ONCE YOU SET THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE GETTING THE SAME PLACE WITH EXCEPTION OF THAT UNDER TWO 50 CASPER VILLA. 
          I, UH, A AGREE WITH THOSE COMPS AND APPRECIATE IT. 
          I MEAN, JUST IN LOOKING AT IT, LOOKING AT THE RATE SHOCK AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR REVENUE AND REVENUE STABILITY, UH, BUT THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE, KEEPING THE, THE INCREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, UH, WOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR ME. 
          UH, AND AND THE OTHER ONE, I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT WOULD JUST BE KEEPING THE PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE RATES. 
          UH, I THINK, UH, THAT HAS SERVED, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY WELL, UH, AS SHOWN BY OUR VERY LOW, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO OTHER UTILITIES IN THE STATE, OUR VERY LOW AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE AND OUR LOW RATES COMPARED TO OTHER UTILITIES IN THE STATE, I THINK THAT THAT PROGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE HAS, UH, SERVED AS WELL. 
          BUT I, I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER SURCHARGE AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP THAT INCREASE AS LOW AS PO THAT'D BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF CUSTOMER KITCHEN. 
          UH, YES. 
          UM, SO ON THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE, I ALSO AGREE WITH, UM, WITH KEEPING IT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE AND I I JUST WANNA TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. 
          I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTERPLAY, UH, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE RATES AND, AND ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT IT'S THE, UM, THE BILL AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT MATTERS. 
          BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S ALSO SOME CONTROL INVOLVED WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOWER INCOME. 
          AND I, I WOULD DEARLY LOVE FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S LOW INCOME TO BE ON CAP, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION AT THE MOMENT, AND THEY ARE NOT, AND AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN, IN MAKING THAT HAPPEN. 
          SO WHEN I'M WEIGHING THE DIFFERENT POLICY ISSUES, I'M MINDFUL OF WHAT, UM, MS. AMANZA DEMONSTRATED TO US, UM, WHICH IS THAT EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS FOR A LOWER INCOME FAMILY. 
          THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONTROL THAT, AND I'M REALLY SAD TO SAY THIS, BUT AT LEAST IF A LOWER INCOME FAMILY IS TRYING TO CHOOSE ON WHAT THEY'RE GONNA PAY, THEY HAVE AT LEAST SOME LEVEL OF CONTROL OVER HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY THEY USE, WHICH IMPACTS THEIR BILL. 
          I HATE TO EVEN HAVE TO SAY THAT ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING TO MAKE THAT KIND OF CHOICE, BUT THEY DO. 
          AND, AND THE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, THE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE, THEY CAN'T CONTROL. 
          SO, SO THAT'S WHY I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, UH, FOR OUR LOW INCOME FOLKS. 
          AND, UM, SO I, I CAN'T GO WITH 15. 
          I'M REALLY HOPING TO STAY IN THE, IN THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OF WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AND WAS REALLY HOPING TO GET BETWEEN 12 AND 14 ON THAT, WHICH EVEN THAT IS A, IS A RAISE FOR FOLKS, BUT, UM, BUT I I I, I THINK THAT THAT IS CRITICAL WHEN IT COMES TO LOW INCOME FOLKS, GUYS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SIMILARLY FOR ME, WELL FIRST I JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'RE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT A $15 INCREASE TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE, SO THAT'S GREAT. 
          THAT'S PROGRESS. 
          UM, AND LOOKING AT THE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE RANGE RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS BETWEEN 12 TO $16. 
          UM, I'M WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND I, I BELIEVE CUSTOMER ELLA AND EXPRESSING THAT $15, GOING TO $15, IT WOULD BE, UH, TOO MUCH FOR ME AND FOR MY COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT, UM, OUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE HAS SHARED THAT THAT GOING TO 15 WOULD BE, WOULD HAVE, WOULD FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A QUANTIFIABLE RATE SHOCK. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN, UH, EXPLAIN THAT TO MY COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THAT DECISION. 
          UH, I THINK CERTAINLY WITHIN THE 12 TO $14 RANGE, IT, IT, IT'S ME A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. 
          AND AGAIN, JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED, UM, IN THE, IN THE JOINT PROPOSAL FROM THE INTERVENERS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN A KNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S VERY RARE WHEN YOU HAVE, UM, DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES AT THE TABLE FOR THEM TO COME TOGETHER WITH A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON PROPOSAL. 
          AND SO I I TAKE THAT PROPOSAL VERY SERIOUSLY AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME TRYING TO, SEEING THAT INCREASE OVER, UH, $3. 
          UH, EVEN, YOU 
          [02:40:01]
KNOW, I, I DID THE MATH ON THE FIRST TWO TIERS AND WE ACTUALLY GOTTA CHARGE MORE ON THOSE TWO TIERS THAN WE HAVE BEEN CHARGING OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          SO NOT ONLY THAT IT'S AN INCREASE, BUT NOW YOU'RE GONNA ALSO INCREASE THE BASE BY FOUR. 
          UH, I FIND THAT VERY DIFFICULT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MAYOR, I HAD INDICATED THIS BEFORE, BOTH IN THE SCENARIOS I'VE REQUESTED, BUT ALSO IN THE COMMENTS, BUT JUST TO, JUST BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN ANYBODY ELSE'S SUMMARIES, I WANNA SAY, SAY THAT I'M ALSO AT A 12 OR 13. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS TO GET SOME FEEDBACK TODAY SO THEY CAN START PREPARING, UM, ORDINANCES, BUT I, I THINK I HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, AND I, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T NAME A NUMBER AND THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HEAR, UM, IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING THAT. 
          AND I ALSO HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER RENT ARGUING FOR A LOWER, UH, CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE. 
          SO THAT IS AT LEAST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OF US, I BELIEVE. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, I'M IN THE 12 TO $13 RANGE. 
          I HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES IN THE 12 TO 14. 
          I THINK WE COULD SAFELY SAY 12 TO 13. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN WAS CLEARLY IN THAT SAME AREA, SO WE'VE, JUST TO PUT, PUT A POINT ON THAT. 
          SO A LUCKY, LUCKY $13 CUSTOMER SERVICE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT'S FIVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, AND MAYOR, YES, I HAD REFERRED TO A DOCUMENT EARLIER. 
          UM, TWO THINGS I WANNA MENTION. 
          UM, TTA COOPER WHO WE, WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, WHO IS ONE OF THE INTERVENERS IN TWO WR SUBMITTED SOME COMMENTS TODAY TO THE CITY CLERK. 
          SHE'S ON HOFFMAN MENTIONED, BUT SHE ADDRESSES ON PAGE TWO, ESPECIALLY OF HER COMMENTS THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF US THIS MORNING. 
          THIS QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AND OTHERS HAVE RAISED ABOUT THE REVENUES OVER TIME, UM, BETWEEN 2014 AND 2019. 
          AND I KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO LEAVE, SO WE CAN'T GET BACK TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT REALLY DOES, IT DOES RAISE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME ABOUT THE BACK AND FORTH TODAY ABOUT WHERE WE WERE BECAUSE SHE, SHE IS SAYING, UM, THAT FOR EVERY YEAR FROM 2014 TO 2019, THE BASE RATE OPERATIONS REALIZED SURPLUS AND IT ALLOWED AE TO PAY ALL OF ITS EXPENSES, INCLUDING THE GFT AND TO HAVE MONIES LEFT OVER TO CARRY FORWARD. 
          AND THEN MR. ROBBINS HAS SUBMITTED TO MY OFFICE, MAYBE TO OTHERS, UM, SOME, A CHART SHOWING WHAT THE IMPACT IS OF PROGRESSIVE RATES ON DISTRICT BY DISTRICTS. 
          UM, AND SO MR. ROBBINS, THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL INFORMATION. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHETHER THIS WAS BASED ON THE RATES THAT AE PROPOSED OR THE RATES OF THE MOST RECENT SCENARIO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, MR. ROBINS, COULD YOU DISTRIBUTE THIS TO EVERYBODY AND COULD YOU TELL US WHAT RATE IT'S BASED ON EXACTLY. 
          BUT I THINK, THINK THIS IS SUPER HELPFUL SHOWING WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON YOUR DISTRICT. 
          IT'S ON A POWERPOINT, UH, SLIDE THAT I WAS HOPING TO SHOW YOU. 
          UH, COULD YOU, UH, BRING IT UP, MAYOR, BEFORE WE GET INTO MR. ROBBINS'S PRESENTATION, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE TO LEAVE PRETTY SOON. 
          UM, I DID WANT TO WEIGH IN ON, ON MY THINKING ON WHERE THE DIAS IS AT THIS POINT AND OKAY. 
          CERTAINLY WILL COME BACK WHILE MR. ROBINS IS GETTING TEED UP. 
          UM, SO FOR THE BIG PIECE FOR ME, MAYOR, IS, IS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, THE DI IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE 31.3. 
          UH, IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS. 
          IT'S GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS. 
          CERTAINLY THAT, THAT, UM, THAT IS A BIG, UH, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT  IN MY EYES. 
          UH, THE, UM, THE PHASING IN OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, MOVING DOWN A DOLLAR FROM 14 TO 13 AND THEN CONTINUING THAT DOLLAR REDUCTION THROUGHOUT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY COMES BACK WITH THAT, BUT THAT, THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS ALSO LIKELY DOABLE. 
          UM, LOOKING AT THE COST OF THE KILOWATT, UM, HOUR AND WHERE THE TIER BREAK WOULD BE, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AUSTIN ENERGY TO RUN, RUN THOSE TO SEE HOW THOSE BREAK. 
          UM, SO WE GET TO THE 31.3 MILLION. 
          AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT? I SEE FROM, IT'S NOT A FROWN. 
          I, I'M, I'M, MY NOTES SHOW A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT, AND I DID STEP AWAY BRIEFLY. 
          I 
          [02:45:01]
DID STEP AWAY BRIEFLY. 
          SO CAN YOU CATCH ME UP ON WHAT I'M, I SHOW ON REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND OTHERS CAN CORRECT ME THAT THREE ARE AT 31.34 GAVE US A RANGE BETWEEN 22 AND 31.3. 
          OKAY, SO I WAS COUNTING SAY THAT ONE MORE THE CON SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          WOULD YOU SAY YOU HEARD, I, I MEAN MY NOTES AND, AND WE'RE NOT TAKING VOTES HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IT. 
          I, UM, UM, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, I DID NOT HEAR FEEDBACK FROM, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS, R KELLY VELA OR ELLIS, UM, BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBERS ALTER POOL, UM, AND HARPER MADISON ARE AT PROPOSAL FOUR B, WHICH WOULD BE 31.3 MILLION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND FOR THE REMAINING FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HEARD A RANGE FROM AS LOW AS 22 MILLION ALL THE WAY TO 31.3. 
          AND SOME OF US SAID WHERE, WHAT OUR RANGE, I SAID MINE WAS 25 TO 27. 
          FOR, FOR ME PLEASE. 
          I, AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST MY HANDWRITTEN NO, THAT'S GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOT THEM INCORRECT. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          THANK YOU MARY. 
          I DO THINK WE NEED TO FIRM THAT UP AND I KNOW, UM, SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES EXPRESSED THEIR POSITION ONUR, OR MAYBE IT WAS FRIDAY WHEN WE LAST HAD, I THINK, BUT I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR ANYBODY, BUT IF THOSE WHO HAVEN'T WHO MAYBE SAID SOMETHING LAST WEEK COULD, UM, GIVE US SOME THOUGHT TODAY THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR, OKAY, SO, SO IF, IF REVENUE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO BE TALKING THROUGH, LET'S FOCUS ON REVENUE HERE FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES AND SEE IF WE CAN TIGHTEN THE RANGE FOR OUR STAFF IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. 
          YES, I DO WANT AUSTIN ENERGY TO BE ROBUSTLY FUNDED AND TO BE IN GOOD FINANCIAL SHAPE. 
          SO I'M FINE WITH A $31 MILLION, UH, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, AGAIN, IT'S MORE JUST A DISTRIBUTION THAT I WOULD BE, UH, UH, CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE THEN HEARD FROM YOU. 
          DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT? WELL, I MEAN, I, I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT SHOCK FOR THEN. 
          PLUS WE ALREADY JUST INCREASED THE, UH, POWER SUPPLY AND, UH, I THINK THAT THE $3 WOULD BE FINE AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RAISE THE MONEY THAT THEY NEED, THE REVENUES THAT THEY WOULD NEED BY JUST INCREASING THAT TO THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          SEVEN THREE IS OKAY WITH GOING TO 31, BUT ONCE AN INCUMBENT DECREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER? NO. 
          DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN WHERE THEY ARE? HE WASN'T MAYOR. 
          HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          RIGHT. 
          DID YOU EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE 31 AT THE END? I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. 
          I I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY CAN GET YOU 31, BUT THE $3 IS, UH, IS UH, INCREASE WITH IS WHERE I WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AT. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR, MAY I ASK HIM THE QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY? OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, SEVERAL OF US HAVE IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, ABOUT DOWN TO 25 MILLION, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL IMPACT. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          WE'RE ALSO HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER, WHETHER WE CAN REDUCE FROM THE 30 MILLION DOWN TO 25, WHICH WOULD ALSO LOWER THE RATE. 
          I WOULD HAVE TO STUDY THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          I I REALLY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, GET YOU, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THE 31 IF THEY COULD ALSO KEEP THE CUSTOMER CHARGE DOWN LOW AS YOU WANTED IT TO BE? YES, MAY MAYOR, CAN I, I INTERPRETED WHAT YOU SAID. 
          COUNCIL, OUR KITCHEN MAYOR, I THINK THAT THE OTHER COMPONENT IS, IS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER VELA SAID, WHICH IN WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, THE RATE AT THE LOWEST TIER. 
          SO IF WE KEEP IT AT 31 AND WE LOWER, LOWER OUR CUSTOMER CHARGE, BUT WE STILL, UM, INCREASE THAT RATE AT THE LOWEST LEVEL, WE'RE STILL IMPACTING LOW INCOME PEOPLE. 
          SO WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT ONE PIECE. 
          THOSE THREE PIECES WORK TOGETHER. 
          THERE'S CERTAIN ARGUMENT THAT THE DI IS THAT PEOPLE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT LET, LET ME FINISH MY THOUGHT. 
          SO MY THOUGHT IS THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SCENARIO, IF WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T AGREE WITH 31, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS, THEN WE ALSO NEED TO SEE WHAT 
          [02:50:01]
ARE, WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE OTHER LAYERS? SO IF, SO, IF WE DO 31 AND WE DO THE THE LOWEST CUSTOMER CHARGE, THEN HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE KEEP THAT LOWEST TIER LOW? AND THAT GOES BACK TO THE CONVERSATION WE HAD EARLIER THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO RAISED, WHICH WAS ABOUT, UH, THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE, UM, FOLKS, UM, OUTSIDE THE CITY ARE REDUCED. 
          SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THREE. 
          FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, MY, MY PRIME PRIORITY IS, IS RATE SHOCK AND KEEPING THIS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE. 
          SO TO ME, THE CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGE IS, IS, IS KEY. 
          UM, THE RATES AT THE LOWEST TIER IS KEY AND THE REVENUE AMOUNT IS KEY. 
          UM, AND I ALSO LIKE WHAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO PASSED OUT TO US THAT THEY DID IN 2012, WHICH WAS A RATE MITIGATION AMOUNT, WHICH I, I THINK IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY FROM WHAT SHE SAID, THAT'S WHAT THEY ENDED UP DOING TO TRY TO REDUCE RATE SHOCK. 
          SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND I THINK IT'S GOOD. 
          I REALLY THINK IT'S GOOD TO LOOK AT THESE DISCREETLY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IF, IF OUR PRIMARY GOAL, WHICH IS MINE, WHICH IS TO KEEP THIS, KEEP THIS DOWN FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE, THAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ALL THREE, NO QUESTION. 
          I THINK EVERYBODY IS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT ALL THREE THINGS INTERPLAYED, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND WHAT FLEXIBILITY US AND HADER JAY HAS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE. 
          AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IF THEY COULD DELIVER ON RATE SHOCK AND IF THEY COULD DELIVER ON HELPING THE POOREST PEOPLE, THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THERE'S A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS DI THAT WOULD GO TO 31 3 IF THEY WERE ABLE TO ALSO DELIVER THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY CAN OR NOT, BUT, BUT IN TERMS OF PRIORITY, I THINK IT'S BEEN HELPFUL FOR THEM TO HEAR EVEN AS YOU JUST DID AMONG THOSE THREE THINGS, WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES TO, TO DO? YEAH, MY PRIORITY IS ALL THREE. 
          AS LONG AS WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE, THE LEVEL I UNDERSTAND THEY JUST DON'T, THERE'S A HARD, THEY HAVE HARD WORK TO THEM IF THEY TRY TO THEM, IF THEY TRY TO, TO DELIVER ON ALL THREE OF YOUR PRIORITIES. 
          WELL, BUT I, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA RUN SCENARIOS AFTER THIS, I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO RUN SCENARIOS THAT CONSIDER THOSE THREE ASPECTS. 
          AGAIN, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTION THAN JUST DELIVER ON ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE SOMETIMES MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 
          MAYOR PROTE, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, IF WE REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, DOES THAT RELIEF AUTOMATICALLY GO INTO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS OR DOES THAT GET TAKEN, GET SPREAD OUT? SO, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING TO, TO CONSIDER AS WELL. 
          I THINK, WELL WE, WE HAVEN'T HAD A DISCUSSION YET ABOUT THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS. 
          I MEAN THAT'S THE ISSUE. 
          WELL WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE TOUCHED ON A COUPLE TIMES BECAUSE WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING, MAYOR PRO TA, WHAT I HAD DISCUSSED WITH AUSTIN IN ENERGY WAS DECREASING OR ELIMINATING THE DISCOUNT AT THE HIGHER TIERS AND REALLOCATING THAT REVENUE. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION THE MAYOR PRO TE IS ASKING IS, IS IT POSSIBLE WHEN IN REALLOCATING THAT REVENUE TO REALLOCATE THAT REVENUE BY CLASS OR BY CUSTOMER? SO IF MY ADDING THE, THAT THEY DON'T GET A DECREASE GENERATES 8.5 MILLION. 
          AND THEN I WANNA SAY, LET'S SAY WE, WE WENT WITH A $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THEN WE HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MONEY, SOME OF THAT MONEY MAKE IT SO THAT NOBODY WENT ABOVE A 20% INCREASE, SAY, AND WE COULD SEE WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. 
          WELL, AS YOU LOWER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT COURSE, WHICH WOULD ONLY, IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE MAKING TWO 50 OR USING TWO 50 OR LESS. 
          EVERYONE ELSE IS AS YOU LOWER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THAT EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION BECOMES A LOWER NUMBER, RIGHT? SO THERE'S LESS MONEY TO, TO HAVE AVAILABLE TO, AND, AND SURE YOU, YOU CAN PUT IT, I MEAN REALLY WHEREVER YOU WANT, I MEANING YOU CAN GO, YOU CAN FUND CAP EXPANSION, ADDRESS OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMER ISSUES, LOWER S TWO AND S3. 
          SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, OR YOU COULD MOVE IT TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU COULD STILL KEEP THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AT 31 3, YOU COULD LOWER THE RATES AT THE HIGHER RATE TIERS AND IF THAT GENERATES EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, YOU COULD PUT SOME PORTION OF IT TO TO, TO ENDING THE RATE CASE AND NOT SPENDING THE NEXT YEAR ARGUING WITH STATE AGENCIES. 
          OUR FUND TRANSFER, WHICH IS A EXECUTIVE SESSION CONVERSATION, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE, THERE'S THAT ISSUE. 
          YOU COULD TAKE SOME OF THAT MONEY AND PUT IT TOWARD CAP AND THERE ARE TWO CAP CHARGES. 
          THERE'S THE ACTUAL CAP CHARGE THAT WE PAY TO CUSTOMERS THAT HISTORICALLY WE DON'T PUT MONEY ASIDE FOR. 
          WE SAY LET'S WAIT TILL WE 
          [02:55:01]
ACTUALLY HAVE CUSTOMERS MAKING THAT. 
          THERE'S THE SECOND CAP CHARGE, WHICH IS TO SAY LET'S FUND THE PEOPLE TO, TO, TO DO THE SYSTEM, TO GIVE PEOPLE THE BETTER OPTION TO BE ABLE TO APPLY. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GO FROM 23 TO 37% WITHOUT HIRING MORE PEOPLE. 
          AND THAT'S THE PAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN HOW MUCH YOU PAY FOR CAP PEOPLE. 
          AND I WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEENING THOSE TWO COSTS. 
          AND IF THE TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA PUT ASIDE MONEY TO ACTUALLY PAY PEOPLE, AT THE VERY LEAST PUT SOME MONEY ASIDE TO BUILD THE SYSTEM SO THAT YOU CAN REACH THOSE PEOPLE IF YOU'RE ABLE TO REACH THOSE PEOPLE. 
          BUT IF THERE'S AN AMOUNT LESS THAN EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, THAT LETS YOU RESOLVE THINGS WITH THE OUTER CITY PEOPLE AND BEGIN TO SET UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT TO BEGIN TO REACH MORE PEOPLE WITH THE CAP PROGRAM THAT ARE ENTITLED TO GET IT, NOT PUT MONEY ASIDE TO PAY PEOPLE. 
          CUZ THAT WOULD BE AN OUT FRONT YEAR AND LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE SEE THOSE EXPENSES. 
          IF THERE'S STILL MONEY LEFT OVER, CAN YOU APPLY THAT MONEY TO, TO HELP MINIMIZE ANYBODY GOING OVER A 20% INCREASE. 
          IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR REVENUE. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT A CHANGE IN HOW YOU'RE ALLOCATING SPENDING THAT REVENUE. 
          I'M DOUBTFUL THAT AE WILL SUPPORT IT. 
          UM, YOU MAY SEE AE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, BUT YOU COULD DO THAT. 
          OKAY, I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THAT. 
          WHY WOULD, WHY WOULDN'T AE SUPPORT THAT? IT WOULD CREATE A VERY CONVOLUTED RATE DESIGN AND SO YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF OF ADJUSTING THE TIER RATES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CREATE A POT OF MONEY OVER HERE AND THEN DO THIS OTHER ADJUSTMENT OVER HERE TO THEN AFFECT THIS TIER RATE. 
          IT'S JUST, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO FOLLOW AND KEEP TRACK OF THE FUNDS AND MY ACCOUNTING FOLKS COULD SPEAK TO IT MORE, MORE CLEARLY. 
          BUT YOU COULD CHARGE PEOPLE A HIGHER RATE IN THE HIGHER TIERS AND A LOWER RATE IN THE LOWER TIERS AND JUST THAT'S WHAT THE RATES ARE AS OPPOSED TO OKAY, HERE'S WHAT THE RATE SHOULD BE TO MEET THIS CRITERIA. 
          NOW WE'RE GONNA ADJUST THE RATE SO THAT WE COLLECT MORE REVENUE HERE SO NOW WE HAVE MORE REVENUE HERE AND WE'RE GONNA GIVE IT TO THESE CUSTOMERS. 
          OKAY, SO THE LAST THING I'M GONNA SAY BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A RATE REDUCTION. 
          I'D SUPPORT KEEPING IT 31 3. 
          I WOULD SUPPORT REJIGGERING HOW THAT'S SPENT SO THAT WE AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE OUTTA CITY PEOPLE SO THAT YOU PUT SOME MONEY TOWARDS SETTING UP THE ADMINISTRATION. 
          SO WE AT LEAST HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING MONEY TO CAP PEOPLE AND SO THAT WE MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING A RATE INCREASE OVER 20%. 
          I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WOULD COME IN FROM, LIKE DESIGN SCENARIOS. 
          UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, AND I'M GONNA TURN THE CHAIR OVER TO THE MAYOR PRO TAM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          UM, SO I WANNA JUST REITERATE WHAT MY POSITION WAS LAST WEEK. 
          WHICH WAS, I DO SUPPORT THE 31.3 UM, MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          REALLY WANNA PREVENT RATE SHOCK. 
          I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON FIXED INCOME OR LOWER INCOME WHO ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RATE INCREASE AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND I HEAR THAT ACROSS THE DAY AS I WANNA KEEP THINGS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. 
          I'M NOT A FAN OF RAISING RATES IF WE DON'T ABSOLUTELY NECESSARILY HAVE TO. 
          UM, I DO UNDERSTAND FROM OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT IF WE DON'T, THEN OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY IS GONNA BE IN A LOT OF TROUBLE. 
          AND SO IT IS A TOUGH DECISION THAT WE ALL HAVE TO MAKE TODAY. 
          UM, THIS IS DEFINITELY A COMPLICATED ISSUE. 
          AND GOING BACK TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON MENTIONED ABOUT US HAVING THESE COMPLICATED DISCUSSIONS HERE ON COUNCIL, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THOSE ARE NECESSARY. 
          BUT IF AUSTIN ENERGY COULD HELP US COME UP WITH A WAY TO MESSAGE US OUT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS SO THAT THEY COULD UNDERSTAND, THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY USEFUL FOR EACH OF US TO HAVE THAT SAME, UH, MESSAGING ACROSS THE BOARD AND SO THAT WE ARE ALL SENDING THE SAME MESSAGE OUT WOULD WOULD BE GREAT. 
          SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDED TODAY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. 
          AND REAL QUICK, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE REGARDING THIS. 
          I KNOW IT WAS NOT AN EASY LIFT AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE TO PUT INTO MAKING THESE CONVERSATIONS FRUITFUL FOR EVERYONE. 
          MAY I PUT THEM? YES. 
          UH, I WAS, UH, COULD WE ASK, UH, PAUL ROBINSONS, HE HAS, UH, SOME INFORMATION HE DISTRIBUTED AND HE WANTED JUST A MINUTE TO EXPLAIN THE SHEET THAT HE DISTRIBUTED AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IT. 
          YES, BRIEFLY. 
          WE WERE FUNNY TO COME BACK TO HIM, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPEAK BEFORE HE, BEFORE HE LEFT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF I MAY 
          [03:00:01]
JUST BRIEFLY, I WANTED TO JUST ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SAYING THAT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO ARTICULATE. 
          YOU DIDN'T GET ACROSS THAT CONTINUITY OF COMMUNICATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF COMMUNICATION. 
          I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW HELPFUL IT WOULD BE FOR US TO BE, YOU KNOW, JUST SORT OF DISSEMINATE, DISSEMINATING SOMETHING SIMILAR, CUZ THAT'S WHERE I'M FINDING A LOT OF THE CONFUSION IS COMING IN, IS THAT THERE'S TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR FOLKS TO POUR THROUGH. 
          IF WE COULD MAKE IT CONDENSED, COMPACT, UM, HAVE SOME CONTINUITY IN THAT, LIKE LITERALLY THE WORDS WE USE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE USING THIS, WE'RE USING DIFFERENT WORDS TO EXPRESS THE SAME CONCEPT, WHICH LOSES PEOPLE. 
          AND SO THANK YOU FOR ARTICULATING THAT. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S A, THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST ENOUGH OF OUR COMMS RESOURCES IN COMMUNICATING THIS VERY COMPLICATED SUBJECT MATTER. 
          I WATCH PEOPLE LIKE DO STUFF ON REALLY SIMPLE STUFF WITH GREAT SPLASHY FLASHY INFOGRAPHICS. 
          AND JUST A QUICK LITTLE TWO SECOND VIDEO WITH ONE OF THOSE $8 AMAZON MICROPHONES TO JUST WALK. 
          I JUST THINK WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB WITH MESSAGING AROUND ALL OF THIS, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING SO COMPLICATED AND THAT HAS SO MANY IMPACTS ON PEOPLE'S LIVES AND LIVELIHOOD. 
          I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE, UM, HEAR MR. ROBBINS TAKE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS AND THEN WE MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND HAVE, UM, LUNCH, I GUESS, UM, WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANNA DO THAT IN PERSON OR IN OUR OFFICES SINCE WE'RE EATING. 
          UM, BUT THEN WE CAN GET SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS ASKING MAY BEAR ON THIS. 
          AND IT'LL GIVE US A FEW MINUTES TO COLLECT OUR THOUGHTS. 
          AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON AT LEAST THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THEN WE CAN PUT THE OTHER, THE OTHER PIECES TOGETHER. 
          UM, MR. ROBBINS, COULD YOU CUE THE POWERPOINT PLEASE? UH, SECOND SLIDE. 
          UH, I, I'VE HANDED, UH, WRITTEN COPIES OF THIS TO YOU ALL AND, UH, COPY TO THE GENERAL MANAGER OF AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UH, THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF AREAS SURROUNDING COUNCIL DISTRICTS. 
          UH, IT'S AN ESTIMATE OF HOW REGRESSIVE RATES AFFECT SPECIFIC COUNCIL DISTRICTS. 
          UH, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS MORE PRECISE DATA. 
          THIS IS THE BEST I COULD DO OVER THE WEEKEND. 
          UH, I TOOK ALL THE ZIP CODES INCLUDED IN A COUNCIL DISTRICT AND CAME UP WITH A WEIGHTED AVERAGE. 
          THE SUMMARY IS THAT A REGRESSIVE RATE, UH, AS PROPOSED BY AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CLOBBER DISTRICTS THREE, FOUR, AND NINE. 
          OVER 80% OF THEIR CUSTOMERS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A REGRESSIVE RATE. 
          IT WILL NOTICEABLY HARM DISTRICTS ONE, FIVE AND SEVEN, EVEN IN DISTRICT 10, WHICH WILL BENEFIT FROM A REGRESSIVE RATE. 
          50% OF CUSTOMERS IN THE DISTRICT WILL BE HURT BY THEM. 
          THAT'S, UH, MY MINUTE SUMMARY. 
          I'M, UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE, THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE IS REGRESSIVE BEFORE US. 
          UH, I, I, WELL AS SO MANY OTHER THINGS IN THIS, UH, BUT IN TERMS OF THE RATES OF THE ENERGY USAGE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND WE CAN HAVE THAT DEBATE, BUT WE HAVE MADE IT SO THAT HIGHER TIERS ARE PAYING MORE. 
          YOU HAVE MITIGATED IT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT RESEMBLES WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL WE CAN PUT THAT COMPARISON TOGETHER AND LOOK AT THAT. 
          THANK YOU MR. ROBINSON. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ASK HIM. 
          SURE. 
          NO, YOU GO AHEAD. 
          NO, YOU FIRST. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU, YOU HAD QUESTIONS FOR HIM. 
          GO AHEAD MR. ROBINS. 
          I JUST WANNA, IT'S KITCHEN. 
          I JUST WANNA ASK, THANK YOU FOR PULLING THIS TOGETHER AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING. 
          SO THIS IS BASED ON THE IMPACT OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S RATE PROPOSAL AND YOU'VE SAID THAT IT, THAT IT, UM, IS MITIGATED BY THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US. 
          BUT DO YOU THINK, I MEAN, YOU'RE ARGUING FOR PROGRESSIVE RATES AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE. 
          THIS SEEMS TO REFLECT, I MEAN, PROGRESSIVE RATES I THINK ARE BETTER REFLECTED IN THE JOINT PROPOSAL THAT'S COME A GROUP OF INTERVENERS. 
          IS THAT ACCURATE? UH, I SUPPORT, UH, JOHN KAUFMAN'S, UH, WORK. 
          UH, AND I, I THINK HE'S DONE THE BEST COLLECTIVE JOB OF MITIGATING RATE SHOCK. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          I THINK WE DO NEED TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT HOW TO TRANS WHAT THE, WHAT THE, JUST, JUST WOULD BE THE, UH, CLARIFY. 
          UH, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD. 
          I TOOK THE 
          [03:05:01]
AVERAGE OF, UH, USAGE AND MADE THE PRESUMPTION THAT PEOPLE ABOVE THE AVERAGE USE WOULD BENEFIT FROM REGRESSIVE RATES WHILE PEOPLE BELOW AVERAGE USE WOULD BE HARMED BY REGRESSIVE RATES. 
          I DID NOT ALIGN THIS TO LOOK AT ANY SPECIFIC RATE. 
          THIS WAS, UH, FOR A, A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I, I, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IT MAY BE FOR MS. WHITE, UH, BUT, UM, BUT IT'S RELATED TO THIS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND, AND, AND PAUL THIS IS HELPFUL, UH, TO THE, TO THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR LOWEST, LOWEST TIER, YOU KNOW, AND THE IMPACT ON THAT. 
          AND SO, UM, IF YOU WOULD JUST GO OVER THE THINKING AROUND, UM, AROUND HOW WE COULD, UH, POTENTIALLY, UM, HAVE LESS IMPACT ON FOLKS AT THE LOWEST TIER, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          AND THIS ALSO GOES TO WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TIM IS, IS SUGGESTING, WHICH I THINK IS, UH, A USEFUL THING TO CONSIDER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UM, I GUESS FIRST, UH, I JUST WANNA KIND OF LIKE PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION CUZ I HEARD A LITTLE BIT OF CONVERSATION THAT THAT SEEMED A BIT CONFUSED. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, NAMELY THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST ALLOCATION BETWEEN CUSTOMER CLASSES, WHICH IS THAT PERCENTAGE CHART THAT ALL OF THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AND THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE THE MAYOR WAS INDICATING SUPPORT FOR ADOPTING. 
          AND THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE OF, UM, ONCE YOU HAVE THE AMOUNT THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, HOW THAT GETS, UH, DIVIDED UP AMONGST THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE THE TIERS AND THE FIXED FEE COME IN. 
          AND, UH, WHILE WE HAVE AND, AND DO ADVOCATE FOR, UM, A STRUCTURE THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE A DISCOUNT AT THE TOP WHILE INCREASING AT THE BOTTOM BECAUSE IT'S BAD POLICY AND BAD POLITICS, I THINK, UM, WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT ADVOCATING FOR JUST ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH THOSE PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN CLASSES AND THEN ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT MA ARE MADE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, THAT THAT MONEY SHOULD STAY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          SO IF THERE'S MORE MONEY GENERATED AT THE TOP TIERS MM-HMM. 
          , THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED TO EITHER THE LOWER TIERS OR THE CUSTOMER, UH, CHARGE, WHICH I THINK WE COLLECTIVELY AS, AS PARTIES ARE IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST PRIORITY BEING A LOWER CUSTOMER CHARGE IN THAT 12 TO $13 RANGE. 
          AND, AND THAT IS, UM, MOST IMPACTFUL TO, I THINK THE WIDEST ARRAY OF CUSTOMERS WHO ARE LOW INCOME, WHAT WE WOULD CALL WORKING POOR AND MODERATE INCOME THAT ARE GONNA BE IN THAT, UM, LOWER TO AVERAGE USAGE THAT THE LOWER CUS THE LOWER CUSTOMER CHARGE WILL BENEFIT THEM. 
          BUT I THINK THE KEY THING IS IF YOU'RE COLLECTING MORE REVENUE SOMEPLACE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, I THINK GOOD RATE MAKING PRINCIPLES WOULD, WOULD DICTATE THAT THAT MONEY BE KEPT WITHIN THAT RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, UM, SO JUST WANNA KIND OF REINFORCE THAT IDEA THAT THAT MONEY SHOULDN'T REALLY BE CONSIDERED LIKE EXTRA FREE MONEY BECAUSE IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THAT COST ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE CHART, THEN THEN IT'S NOT EXTRA MONEY, IT'S JUST NEEDS TO BE SHIFTED AROUND. 
          DOES THAT HELP? YEAH. 
          AND THAT, I THINK THAT GOES TO AN EXTENT TO OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION ABOUT, I THINK IT WAS 8 MILLION OR SO THAT WE WERE, YES, THAT'S ABOUT THE, THE 8.5 MILLION AND UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF THERE IS A COLLECTIVE INTEREST IN AND GO IN WITH THE, THE FULL INCREASE OF 31.3 MM-HMM. 
           MILLION AND IT GETS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO, UM, KEEP RATES AFFORDABLE AND AVOID RATE SHOCK. 
          UM, AND YOU NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE SHIFTING AROUND, I WOULD, I WOULD POINT YOU IN THE DIRECTION OF THE BREAK POINT BETWEEN THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH TIER. 
          I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT KIND OF THE DATA OF WHERE CUSTOMERS MAXIMUM BILL FALLS OR AVERAGE, UH, BILL FALLS, UM, WHEN YOU KINDA LOOK AT THAT, I, I THINK YOU COULD JUSTIFY MOVING THAT DOWN TO MAYBE SOMETHING MORE IN THE LIKE 16 TO 1800 KILOWATT HOUR RANGE. 
          AND WHAT THAT'LL DO IS EARN YOU A LITTLE MORE THAN 8.5 MILLION FROM THOSE, UH, HIGHEST ENERGY USERS THAT YOU THEN CAN APPLY TO THE, SAY THE CUSTOMER FEE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [03:10:01]
I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT. 
          I, I DO WANNA ECHO WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. 
          UM, FOR, FOR COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE AND THE FACT THAT THE FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE PARAMETERS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH FOR US AND, UM, AND YOU'VE GOTTEN US TO A POINT THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN WHERE WE STARTED. 
          SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE PARAMETERS, BUT I ALSO WANT, I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE HERE THAT WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, UH, TO DATE AND IT IS VERY, VERY HELPFUL IN GETTING US CLOSER TO WHAT I THINK IS EVERYBODY'S GOAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW UP ON, ON THE COMMENTS. 
          SO WHEN, WHEN I PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT SAID THAT WE WOULDN'T BE DECREASING THE FOLKS WHO WERE USING MORE ENERGY, UM, THAT CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT, AND IT, AND IT, AND IT UPSETS THE APPLE CART IN CERTAIN WAYS, UM, AS WAS DESCRIBED BY KAVA AND UM, BY AE WITH THE FOUR B PROPOSAL, THERE IS THIS 8.5 MILLION THAT THAT GENERATES, BUT IF YOU JUST REDISTRIBUTE IT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, THEN YOU'RE UNDERMINING A HUGE PART OF THIS EXERCISE, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE NEW CUSTOMERS THAT COME ON IN TIER ONE AND TIER TWO, THAT THEY'RE PAYING COST OF SERVICE. 
          UM, AND SO IT IS NOT A STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, FIX TO JUST REALLOCATE THAT. 
          UM, IT DOES HAVE THE PROBLEM OF MAKING IT SO THAT THE COST ALLOCATION TO RESIDENTIAL IF WE GO WITH THAT, UM, GOES UP. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF HAPPY MEDIUM IN THERE ON THAT, UM, IN THERE, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PUT IT ALL INTO RELIEF AND HAVE IT, UM, FUNCTION CUZ WE ALSO HAVE OUR S TWO AND S3, UM, BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN HIT WITH RESPECT TO THE COST SHARING. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHO'S EMPLOYING A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          SO, UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF VARIABLES HERE AND, AND I WANNA DO A LITTLE BIT OF THINKING AS WE, AS WE TAKE A, A BREAK TO DO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, AND WHATNOT. 
          UM, ARE THERE ANY LAST COMMENTS BEFORE I GO OVER WHAT I THINK IS THE RUN OF SHOW, MR, BEFORE WE GO TO, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? OH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA COMMENT FOR Y'ALL TO BENEFIT THE CURRENT RANGE OR THE SPREAD BETWEEN THE LOWEST TIERED RATE AND THE HIGHEST, THE LOWEST IS 2.80 CENTS AND IT GOES UP TO 10.814. 
          THAT'S A SPREAD OR A RANGE OF A LITTLE OVER 8 CENTS, 8.013. 
          UM, THE RANGE FOR PROPOSAL FOUR B STARTS AT 4.002 AND GOES UP TO 8.502. 
          SO THAT'S A RANGE OR A SPREAD OF 6.558. 
          SO BASICALLY YOU'RE GOING FROM A SPREAD OF 8 CENTS TO ABOUT SIX AND A HALF. 
          SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT STILL MAINTAINS A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF STEEPNESS. 
          PERHAPS YOU WANNA GO MORE. 
          CERTAINLY, UM, THE, THE SPREAD PROPOSED BY AE IN THEIR DIRECT CASE WAS ONE AND A HALF CENTS, A HALF A CENT FOR EACH BREAK POINT. 
          SO, UM, MAYBE BEFORE WE BREAK, IF YOU COULD JUST GO THROUGH, EVEN IF WE WENT WITH FOUR B AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT. 
          UM, JUST SO WE CAN ASSESS THAT WE HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS. 
          WE'VE GONE FROM $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE TO 14 TO 16. 
          IN THAT PROPOSAL, WE HAVE, UM, GONE UP IN TERMS OF THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE RATE STRUCTURE FROM ONE AND A HALF CENTS TO, TO 6.5. 
          UM, AND THEN THE COST OVERALL FOR THE AVERAGE RATE PAYER HAD BEEN $15 MORE AND IS NOW $9 MORE ON AVERAGE, ROUGHLY SPEAKING. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WERE THERE ANY OTHER VARIABLES THERE? UH, NO. 
          UM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO FOUR B OR THE I I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND I JUST WANT US TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH PROGRESS WE'VE MADE FOR ACCOMPLISHING SOME OF THE GOALS THAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET TO. 
          UM, FROM, FROM WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE ORIGINAL CASE, LISTENING TO THE INTERVENERS, UM, AND THE CONCERNS THAT IF WE WERE TO GO WITH FOUR B, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO GO WITH THAT ONE AND NOT MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS. 
          I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THERE'S CONSIDERABLE, UM, MOVEMENT. 
          WE'VE GONE FROM A 15 ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER CHARGE TO A FOUR TO $6 INCREASE IN CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          WE'VE GONE FROM A 
          [03:15:01]
$15 A MONTH ADDITIONAL COST TO ABOUT $9 ON AVERAGE. 
          WE HAVE A MORE PROGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE WITH A SPREAD OF SIX AND A HALF CENTS VERSUS 1.5. 
          I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T FINE TUNE THAT MORE. 
          I DO THINK, UM, THAT WE WILL NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY DRAFT UP A RATE. 
          UM, SO WE'RE, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TRY AND NAVIGATE THAT AS WELL. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT MR. BOCATA? BEFORE I GO THROUGH WHAT I THINK IS THE, THE RUN OF RUN OF SHOW, I, I THINK THE FOUR B BALANCES NUMEROUS CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN, OBJECTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS. 
          AND I THINK CERTAINLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE PUT FORWARD BY AE, UH, AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE SAID THEY CAN AGREE TO, UM, WITH RESPECT TO FOUR B, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MOVEMENT AS YOU SAID. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE IS 44% OF, OF THE $25 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          I MEAN, GOING FROM A $15 RATE IMPACT FOR AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER AT A $9 AND 6 CENTS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 40% LESS, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM PROPOSED RANGE, YOU KNOW, STEEPNESS CURVE OF A HALF A ONE AND A HALF CENT TO SIX AND A HALF CENTS IS OBVIOUSLY MATERIAL. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT AE HAS LISTENED TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY COUNSEL AND THAT'S REFLECTED IN FOUR B. 
          I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT MR. KAUFMAN AND THE INTERVENERS HAVE, HAVE MADE SOME CONCESSIONS, UM, AS WELL. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE RANGE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MUCH MORE NARROW THAN WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING PREVIOUSLY. 
          UM, BUT IT'S SEEM IT'S, WE'RE STILL NOT QUITE THERE OBVIOUSLY. 
          UM, OKAY, THANK YOU TIM. 
          YES. 
          I NEED TO CLARIFY, UM, I BELIEVE THAT FOUR B STILL RE REFLECTS A DIFFERENT COST ALLOCATION THAN DOES THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          AND I JUST WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT, UM, KABA WAS SPEAKING ABOUT A MINUTE AGO. 
          MR. KAUFMAN, CAN YOU WEIGH IN THERE? WELL, I MEAN, I, I WOULD, UH, I SHARE HER CONCERN THAT THERE'S, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION IN THE DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT THE CLASSES AND THE REVENUE. 
          I THINK YOU, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THEN, THEN PUT, PUT THE MONEY IN THE CLASSES APPROPRIATELY AND THEN WITHIN THE CLASS HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          UM, UH, BUT UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? SO THE CLASS, UM, THE CLASS ALLOCATION I THINK IS DIFFERENT IN WHAT YOU'VE REQUESTED AND IN WHAT, AND IT'S ABOUT, I MEAN, I, MY CALCULATION WAS, WAS 6.8 MILLION MORE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          UH, AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, MR. QUEDO SAYS, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS AN 88.5 MILLION, MAYBE THE 2 MILLION HAS TO DO WITH THE OUTSIDE THE CITY OR MAYBE, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT, THAT DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO PAY FOR SOME CAP ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OUT PROVIDING RELIEF TO OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS AND, UH, AND SOME RELIEF TO THE S THE UM, UH, S TWO AND S3 CLASSES, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          AND SO THAT IS, UM, THAT IS A DIFFERENCE. 
          WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE ALLOCATION METHOD THAT WAS NEGOTIATED AMONGST THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CLASSES THEMSELVES WOULD BE THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD ADOPT. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          IT WOULD ALSO BE BETTER FOR I THINK, SOME OF THE LARGER CUSTOMERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY. 
          UM, AND NOW IT IS, I MEAN, I GUESS FROM ON A PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION BASIS, IT SEEMS CLOSE, BUT THERE, THERE ARE STILL SOME DIFFERENCES AND WE JUST, UH, COMMEND TO YOU THAT, THAT, UM, THE, THE CUSTOMER GROUPS DON'T OFTEN GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER AND, AND WE HAVE COME TO TERMS AMONGST OURSELVES TO TRY TO MAKE THIS EASIER FOR YOU. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT, AND I THINK THERE'S JUST A PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, BUT AS YOU POINTED OUT BEFORE, THAT PERCENTAGE RESULTS IN MILLIONS, UM, DIFFERENCE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          I BELIEVE THAT WHEN I REQUESTED MY RUN ON FRIDAY, WHICH I THINK I RECEIVED TODAY OR OR LAST NIGHT, I HAD ASKED FOR A BLENDING OF THOSE, UH, THINGS A FOUR B BASED ON THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS THAT WERE IN THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT INFORMATION IS WHAT WE HAVE GOTTEN BACK FROM AE. 
          I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, BUT I'M GONNA FORWARD IT TO MR. KAUFMAN AND TREY AND, AND OTHERS, UM, FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT. 
          BUT HOPEFULLY THAT WILL GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT FOUR B WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE USED THE ORIGINAL CLASS ALLOCATIONS THAT THE JOINT GROUP REQUESTED. 
          IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING MR. RICARDO? OF WHAT? OF THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED BACK? I DON'T THINK IT DOES. 
          CAUSE YOURS HAS VERY LARGE INCREASES FOR, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRE FRIDAY RUNS. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT 5 0 3 I EMAILED YOU THE SCENARIO BY THE EVENING. 
          UM, AND 
          [03:20:01]
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY I REFLECTED WHAT YOU REQUESTED. 
          UM, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO BE PRECISE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. 
          I, THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS WHAT, UM, WHAT FOUR B LOOKS LIKE IF WE USE THE ALLOCATION METHODS, THE CLASS ALLOCATION METHODS THAT WERE AGREED ON BY OUR, OUR JOINT GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          AE MAY HAVE TOLD YOU IN THAT RESPONSE, IF THEY DIDN'T RUN IT EXACTLY THAT WAY, IT'S BECAUSE THEY PERHAPS SAID THAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IS, IS VERY SMALL. 
          THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGES FOR FI UH, THE INTERVENERS WOULD, WOULD ALLOCATE 49.46% TO RESIDENTIAL FOUR B, IT WOULD ALLOCATE 50.48%. 
          IT'S A DIFFERENT PERCENT FOR ALL THE OTHER CLASSES. 
          IT'S EVEN SMALLER OF A DELTA THAN THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, I MEAN THIS WAS NOT A'S PROPOSAL, THIS IS TO THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT COME FROM RESIDENTIAL WAS TO, UH, ADDRESS THE, WHAT CAVA JUST SAID. 
          I MEAN, THE THING IS, MR. KAUFMAN AND, AND CAVA DON'T NECESSARILY, UM, HAVE THE SAME, UM, STATED INTEREST AND ONE WANTS TO GET IT AS STEEP AND ONE WANTS TO, TO HAVE THOSE LOWEST BLOCKS AS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND SO, AND THAT CREATES DIFFICULTIES WHEN YOU'RE DESIGNING RATES. 
          UM, BUT THE, THE, AND I WILL SAY I THINK A'S VIEW TOO IS THAT THE, THE REVENUE ALLOCATION AGREEMENT OF THE INTERVENERS HAS BROUGHT AGREEMENT BECAUSE FRANKLY IT'S PRETTY ATTRACTIVE TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CU CUSTOMERS MORE SO THAN THE RESIDENTIAL. 
          BUT, BUT THE ICA HAS AGREED TO IT AND SO THE NUMBERS THAT FALL OUT FROM FOUR B AGAIN ARE 1% OR LESS DIFFERENT. 
          UM, SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE. 
          OKAY, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. 
          AND UM, AND WE DO NEED TO MOVE, WE DO NEED TO MOVE ON. 
          UM, I DON'T, WE'RE NOT GONNA SAY THAT MR. CCAO IS SPEAKING FOR KIBA ON THAT. 
          UM, BUT UM, I DO WANNA JUST MOVE ON CUZ WE, WE HAVE A LOT THAT WE STILL HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY. 
          WHAT I'M GONNA SUGGEST IS THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UM, AND I'M GONNA SAY THAT WE CAN GO IN FOR THE, THE PERSONNEL ISSUE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA TAKE THAT UP CUZ IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON HOW LONG THIS TAKES. 
          AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE WORK THAT WE HAVE TO DO. 
          WE, WE, WE NEED TO GET A POINT WHERE WE HAVE A, A PROPOSAL THAT THEY'RE RUNNING FOR US, YOU KNOW, FOR THURSDAY THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO WHERE WE NEED TO TO BE. 
          UM, OTHERWISE WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THURSDAY. 
          WE HAVE COLLEAGUES WHO WILL NOT BE THERE ON FRIDAY. 
          UM, AND THAT IS THE LAST MEETING OF THIS COUNCIL. 
          I DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN DEFER THIS OFF TO THE NEXT COUNCIL. 
          SO I'M GONNA TRY AND BE REALLY, UM, TIGHT ON THAT. 
          SO IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE WILL NOT TAKE UP THE PERSONNEL, UM, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          I'M GONNA READ THAT. 
          THEN WHEN WE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH AE WE WILL THEN TAKE UP, UM, PULLED ITEMS AFTER THAT. 
          UM, AND THEN WE WILL DO THE BRIEFINGS. 
          UM, THIS, WE HAVE THE TIME THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH AS MUCH AND, BUT WE HAVE A REALLY DIFFICULT, WE CAN GO OVER TO FRIDAY ON SOME OF THE PULLED ITEMS IF WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, ABSENT HAVING A FULL DIAS, BUT WE CANNOT DO THAT. 
          UM, FOR AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UM, CHAIR, YES CHAIR. 
          IF, UH, THERE'S A BRIEFING RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TESTIFY ON THAT BRIEFING ON THE NATIONAL FACILITY. 
          UH, COULD YOU GIVE US A TIME THAT YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION? UH, I HAD REQUESTED A BRIEFING CUZ I HAVE AN, UH, AN AMENDMENT ALSO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S COMING UP. 
          IT'S, UH, AMENDMENT THAT HAS TO DO WITH I BELIEVE IT, ITEM 59. 
          UH, YEAH. 
          AND, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, UH MM-HMM , IT'S GONNA BE A BRIEF ONE THAT THEY HAVE. 
          THEY'RE, THEY JUST GOT, THEY HAVE ABOUT A 15 MINUTE PRESENTATION ON THAT BRIEFING. 
          UH, BUT UH, I WAS WONDERING WHEN, WHEN WOULD THEY BE AVAILABLE TO MAKE THAT BRIEFING? IF, IF, IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THEIR, WE SHOULD GIVE 'EM THE RESPECT AND LET 'EM KNOW THAT, UH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DISCUSSING THAT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN PREDICT THIS CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT WITHOUT EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          I HEAR YOUR CONCERN, I HEAR THE NEED TO RESPECT FOLKS TIME. 
          UM, BUT WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO MOVE TO RESOLVE THIS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CAN. 
          UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE THE BRIEFINGS BEFORE THE POLL ITEMS. UM, THE, THESE BRIEFINGS, THE, THE ONE THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER IS REFERRING TO 
          [03:25:01]
AND THE ONE THAT I'VE REQUESTED ARE BOTH, UM, IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR THURSDAY AND ONES THAT WE'VE TRIED TO TEE UP, TEE UP FOR A WHILE. 
          I CAN HELP THAT BY, I PULL THE BRODY OAKS PU I WILL TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE. 
          WE DO NOT HAVE TO PULL IT TODAY. 
          WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY WHENEVER WE GET TO IT. 
          SO I'LL, I'LL TRY TO HELP FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER PULLED ITEMS ARE, UH, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT, THAT WE UH, THAT WE TAKE THOSE. 
          UM, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I'M, I'M FINE IF WE WANNA, I I DIDN'T REALIZE BOTH OF THEM HAD TO DO THE AGENDA. 
          YEAH, THEY DO. 
          SO I, I KNOW THAT ONE DID AND WAS STILL HOPING TO GET THERE. 
          UM, BUT A LOT OF THIS IS GONNA DEPEND ON HOW MUCH WE ARE ABLE SURE. 
          TO WORK, WORK THROUGH THE VARIABLES OF WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. 
          I THINK WE HAVE A LIMITED RANGE AND WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE, WHERE WE CAN LAND THIS. 
          IT'S COMPLICATED WITH MINUS TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA DO OUR BEST TO GET THERE. 
          SO 
          [E. Executive Session]
WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          UM, WE WILL COME OUT, WE WILL CONTINUE AE WHEN WE FINISH AE IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO PRESENT ARE HERE MM-HMM. 
          , MOVE TO PRESENTATIONS AND THEN IF WE HAVE TIME, WE WILL DO PULLED ITEMS. UM, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT WE MAY HAVE TO POSTPONE OR OR GONNA HAVE TO GO INTO FRIDAY IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          SO, UM, JUST WANNA WANNA FLAG THAT FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I AM NOW GONNA SAY THAT WE ARE GONNA RECONVENE OUR FOLKS COMFORTABLE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM EATING OR YOU WANNA GO INTO YOUR OFFICES. 
          OFFICES, OKAY. 
          SO COUNCIL WILL BE IN THEIR OFFICES. 
          UM, WE WILL RECONVENE AT A QUARTER TO ONE. 
          PLEASE BE ON TIME. 
          I'M RUNNING THE MEETINGS. 
          PLEASE BE ON TIME AND WE WILL, UM, TAKE, DOES THAT GIVE AUSTIN ENERGY ENOUGH TIME? ARE YOU OKAY? THEY'LL BE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP TWO ITEMS SOON TO SECTION 5 51 DO 0 7 4 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE THE CITY, YOU GUYS, I CAN'T ACTUALLY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IF YOU'RE TALKING. 
          SO THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO E THREE PERFORMANCE OF AND CONSIDER COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE CITY MANAGER. 
          AND AS I NOTED, WE WILL LIKELY NOT TAKE THAT UP. 
          PURSU TO SECTIONS 5 51 0.07, ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO, FOR A PROVEN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REVISED ELECTRIC RATES AND CHARGES FOR AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS. 
          IF THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEMS ANNOUNCED. 
          HEARING NONE, THE COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WILL RECONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT A QUARTER TO ONE REMOTELY FOR COUNSEL. 
          IT IS 2 35 AND WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION. 
          IN CLOSED SESSION. 
          WE DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM FOUR AND PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO E THREE. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS WORKING ON SOME MATERIAL FOR US, UM, RELATED TO ITEM FOUR. 
          UM, SO WE'RE GONNA SWITCH THINGS AROUND A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN KEEP MOVING. 
          UM, 
          [B2. Briefing by the Austin Economic Development Corporation regarding the Cultural Trust projects.]
AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BRIEFING BY THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING THE CULTURAL TRUST PROJECTS. 
          UH, CITY MANAGER, DID YOU WANNA THANK YOU, MAKE SOME REMARKS. 
          UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THURSDAYS COUNCIL AGENDA, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THE AUSTIN CULTURAL TRUST, WHICH REPRESENTS THE USE OF 12 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, UH, FOR CREATIVE SPACES APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THE NOVEMBER, 2018 ELECTION. 
          THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS MANAGING THE CULTURAL TRUST PROGRAM AND THERE ARE TWO AGENDA ITEMS ON THIS WEEK'S AGENDA, UH, WHICH BRING FORWARD TWO CREATIVE SPACE PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED THROUGH THIS CULTURAL TRUST PROGRAM. 
          AT THE REQUEST OF COL, REMEMBER KITCHEN AND TOVO, UH, THE AEDC IS PRESENTING A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CULTURAL TRUST PROJECTS. 
          AND NOW I'LL TURN IT OVER TO AEDC CEO AND PRESIDENT TODAY. 
          ALVAREZ, MS. ALVAREZ, AND THANK YOU. 
          HERE YOU GO. 
          IS IT ON? TEST? TEST? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? , THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME. 
          THANK YOU CITY MANAGER FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF OUR ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA THIS THURSDAY. 
          UM, ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, I AM VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY TO, UM, LEAD WITH OUR FIRST PROJECT ON YOUR AGENDA, UM, FOR THE CULTURAL TRUST. 
          I AM ESSA ALVEZ, CEO AND PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN EDC, AND I HAVE MY LEADERSHIP TEAM HERE WITH ME TODAY. 
          UM, ANN HAYNES IS BEHIND ME, UM, IS OUR CHIEF TRANSACTION OFFICER AND ALSO LEAD ON THE CULTURAL TRUST. 
          AND DAVID COLLIGAN, I THINK HAS MADE IT IS ON HIS WAY DOWNSTAIRS. 
          HE IS OUR CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND HAS BEEN WORKING YEARS TO SET UP THE, UM, AUSTIN EDC. 
          I'M GONNA START WITH OUR BOARD INTRODUCING, JUST REMINDING YOU WHO'S ON OUR BOARD. 
          OUR BOARD CHAIR IS DAVID STEIN, UM, REPRESENTING THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE. 
          OUR VICE CHAIR CARL SETTLES FROM THE ARTS COMMISSION. 
          WE ALSO HAVE FOUR OF YOUR CITY EMPLOYEES THAT I THINK ARE, I'VE SEEN SEVERAL OF THEM HERE TODAY. 
          [03:30:01]
UM, WE HAVE, UM, ACC, A I S D, UH, ARTS COMMISSION, MUSIC COMMISSION, CAP METRO. 
          AND WHAT I WANNA POINT OUT ABOUT OUR BOARD TODAY IS THAT WE'VE REALLY SPENT THE LAST SETTING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE BOARD. 
          SO THE CULTURAL TRUST PROJECT THAT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TODAY HAS GONE THROUGH OUR REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE THAT MEETS MONTHLY, UM, THROUGH OUR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE THAT MEETS MONTHLY AND THROUGH OUR BOARD. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS PLACE, UM, FOR THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CULTURAL TRUST. 
          I'M GONNA SKIP, I'M GONNA GO REALLY QUICKLY CUZ I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF THINGS ON YOUR AGENDA, BUT THIS IS JUST A SLIDE TO REMIND YOU THAT WE WERE CREATED, UM, FOR PUBLIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          WITH THIS ONE BEING COMMUNITY, UH, CULTURAL ARTS. 
          THIS IS OUR CULTURAL TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO ALSO HAD A LOT OF, UM, INPUT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. 
          AND I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL THE NAMES, BUT I WANNA SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR CULTURAL TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          AS A REMINDER, THE CULTURAL TRUST IS A PROGRAM DEDICATED TO SECURING AFFORDABLE SPACE FOR EXISTING VENUES. 
          ARTS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN, UM, DISPLACED SEVERAL TIMES. 
          THEY'RE DEALING WITH REAL ESTATE, UM, HIGH REAL ESTATE, UM, RINSE. 
          THIS IS AN ISSUE AROUND THE WORLD AND AUSTIN IS A PART OF THAT NETWORK, UM, TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          UM, WE ARE, UM, AGAIN, SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE, UM, PRIOR TO, I WANNA GIVE A BIG THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN FOR INVITING US, UM, TODAY FOR THIS, UH, BRIEFING. 
          BUT I KNOW YEARS OF SUPPORT BEHIND HER AND THE WORK THAT SHE'S DONE. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MENTION AND, AND THANK EACH OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO, WHO HAVE MET WITH, UH, MYSELF AND MY STAFF. 
          THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS GOTTEN US HERE TO DATE OVER THE PAST YEAR. 
          UM, THE RFP WAS ISSUED LAST NOVEMBER. 
          UM, IT CLOSED ON MARCH 31ST. 
          I SENT AN, UH, MEMO TO COUNCIL LAST JULY, LETTING YOU KNOW THAT 45 OF THE 45 APPLICANTS WE RECEIVED. 
          WE ADVANCED 14 OF THOSE PROJECTS, AND TWO OF THOSE ARE WHAT WHAT, UM, UH, CITY MANAGER CRONK MENTIONED WILL BE ON YOUR AGENDA THIS THURSDAY. 
          AND THAT IS, UM, RECOMMENDED BY OUR BOARD MEETING, UM, OUR BOARD THAT MET ON OCTOBER 17TH. 
          UM, THOSE ARE OUR PROGRAM PRIORITIES. 
          A LOT OF THIS YOU HAVE THIS, UM, A LOT OF THIS IS BACKUP INFORMATION FOR YOU AS WELL. 
          UM, THIS IS A SLIDE ABOUT OUR ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. 
          UM, IT'S ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET, UM, TO, TO GET THE INFORMATION TO EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT WE DID OUR VERY BEST. 
          UM, WE HAD ABOUT, UM, 80 ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE'VE, UM, SPOKEN TO 30 HOURS OF PRESENTATIONS, UM, AND EXCITED THAT WE HAD 45 APPLICATIONS. 
          AND AFTER THE DEADLINE CLOSED, WE RECEIVED ANOTHER 16, UM, AFTER THE, AFTER THE DEADLINE. 
          UM, SO DEFINITELY ARE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE, UM, THE NEEDS AND, AND . 
          I WANNA THANK THE MUSIC AND ARTS COMMISSION, UM, FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION, UM, THAT WERE WERE USED TO CREATE THE, THE EVALUATION CRITERIA. 
          I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT EVERY APPLICATION WAS EVALUATED THREE TIMES, UM, AND PART OF THE PROCESS, DIVERSITY AND EQUITY INCLUSION WAS A PART OF THE PROCESS EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. 
          THIS IS A VISUAL OF THE 45 APPLICANTS THAT WE RECEIVED. 
          UM, YOU SEE MUSIC, UH, VISUAL ARTS, DANCE CULTURE, THEATER, ABOUT A THIRD OF THOSE WERE NEW VENUES, A THIRD OF THOSE EXISTING AND A THIRD, UM, NEWLY PROPOSED. 
          ONE THING I WANNA POINT OUT IS FAR EXCEEDS THE RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. 
          WE IDENTIFIED OVER 300 MILLION OF REQUESTS AND NEEDS. 
          UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS, WHAT'S ON YOUR AGENDA, THESE FIRST TWO PROJECTS IS REALLY JUST, UM, BARELY TOUCHING THE, THE TIP OF THE PROBLEM. 
          UM, ON MAY 19TH, WE INVITED THE 45 APPLICANTS FOR AN IN-PERSON MEETING TO LEARN ABOUT THE PROCESS. 
          AND, UM, WHAT I WANNA SHARE ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CULTURAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS, ONE, TO NETWORK AND, AND BUILD THE, THE ECOSYSTEM. 
          BUT NUMBER TWO, TO, FOR US TO HEAR THEIR STORIES OF DISPLACEMENT. 
          WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT'S BEEN DISPLACED AND, AND MANY OF THEM MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          AND SO THIS IS AN, AN ISSUE THAT I KNOW WE'VE BEEN A TRYING TO ADDRESS AS A CITY, BUT THERE IS AN URGENCY TO GET THESE DOLLARS OUT OF THE DOOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          THIS IS A REMINDER OF WHAT THE DOLLARS, WHAT DOLLARS WE HAVE AVAILABLE. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST, UM, $12 MILLION OF BOND FUNDING. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S ON YOUR AGENDA ON THURSDAY. 
          THE 2.4 IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THAT, UM, FROM THAT BUCKET AT THE TOP. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THESE ARE THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF MONEY. 
          YOU HAVE, UM, 45 APPLICANTS, 14 THAT ARE IN OUR FEASIBILITY PHASE. 
          AND IT'S VERY COMPLICATED. 
          THE RESTRICTIONS ON EACH OF THESE FUNDING AND THE NEEDS THAT EACH OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE, UM, IS, IS A CHALLENGE TO, TO ADDRESS SPENDING THE MONEY THE WAY THAT IT WAS INTENDED, UM, TO BE SPENT. 
          UM, AND THEN WE ALSO, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SOME EARLY SUCCESSES SO 
          [03:35:01]
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE CITY FUNDING AND THE CITY REAL ESTATE SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO APPLY FOR GRANTS AND INVESTMENTS AND LOANS FROM CDFIS. 
          WE, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF, UM, IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN LEVERAGE THIS INITIAL, UM, INVESTMENT. 
          OOPS, MY CLICKER'S NOT WORKING. 
          OH, HERE WE GO. 
          THESE ARE JUST VISUALS I'M GONNA SKIP THROUGH. 
          THESE ARE MORE VISUALS OF THE 45, UM, APPLICANTS. 
          UM, THIS IS OUR LIST OF, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MUSIC AND ARTS COMMISSION FOCUS ON, UM, GEOGRAPHY AMENDED AMENITIES, EQUITY. 
          ALSO VERY MUCH FOCUS ON LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABILITY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. 
          THE FEASIBILITY PHASE, WE TOOK THE 14 ORGANIZATIONS AND WE SPENT THREE MONTHS FROM JULY THROUGH OCTOBER, UM, ON, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN GET ALL OF THESE PROJECTS TO THEIR MOST FEASIBLE, UM, PHASE AND, AND OF COURSE SPENDING THE TIME WITH THE FUNDING SOURCES, UM, TO MATCH THE NEEDS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS. 
          THIS VISUAL HERE, I'D LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT, BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY FOUR DIFFERENT AREAS THAT, UM, THE, THE APPLICANTS CAME FROM. 
          WE HAD APPLICATIONS FROM PAR, WE HAD EXISTING MID-RANGE VENUES, NON-PROFIT VENUES THAT ARE ALREADY ON CITY PROPERTY AND NONPROFIT VENUES THAT ARE ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. 
          AND LONG TERM, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR IS THIS YELLOW. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE LARGER YELLOW ARROW, UM, THAT'S LONG TERM THAT THOSE ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE REALLY AT THE WHIM OF THE, THE REAL ESTATE MARKET AND THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE, UM, TO THE REAL ESTATE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING. 
          UM, THIS IS A TIMELINE. 
          I BELIEVE YOU ALSO HAVE, UH, ON YOUR 2024 BOND CYCLE. 
          LOTS OF ADVOCATES, UM, WANTING TO, UM, OR WANTING TO PASS THAT. 
          AND SO THAT, I WOULD JUST SAY WITH THE $300 MILLION OF NEEDS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, UM, THERE IS A HUGE NEED, UM, FOR THOSE BOND DOLLARS, UM, AS WELL, UM, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH TWO OF THE FIRST PROJECTS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT. 
          AND THEN THE NEXT PHASE AFTER THAT WOULD BE TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. 
          UM, THIS IS 4, 5, 4 CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AND ONE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE VISITED. 
          UM, AND THESE WERE TOVO COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S RESOLUTION LAST WEEK THAT PASSED. 
          THE THREE IN THE MIDDLE WERE MENTIONED IN ITEM 41, UM, THAT PASSED. 
          AND SO WE, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER POOL YOU MENTIONED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, UM, OR ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY ARE SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES BEING LOOKED AT OVER OTHERS? AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS DIRECTING THESE SITES TO BE LOOKED AT FOR CULTURAL ART SPACE. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHY WE'VE STARTED WITH SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS. 
          THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ON YOUR AGENDA, UM, THIS THURSDAY IS THE FIRST ONE FOR PDC, WHICH WHICH WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN A MINUTE. 
          THE OTHER, UM, FOUR ARE JUST ONES THAT WE'VE, UM, LOOKED AT IDENTIFIED. 
          THEY'RE NOT FOR THESE FIRST 14, UM, APPLICATIONS, BUT WE'RE, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE LOOKING LONG TERM, UM, FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. 
          THIS IS WHAT'S ON YOUR AGENDA ON THURSDAY. 
          THE FIRST IS A REQUEST FOR 2 MILLION TO BE INVESTED IN THE PDC. 
          THIS WOULD BE, UM, FOR US TO CREATE A CULTURAL TRUST INCUBATOR THAT WOULD SERVE MULTIPLE LONG TERM. 
          AND THIS WOULD BE, UM, UH, BUILDING OUT THE PDC. 
          THERE'S A, THERE'S EMPTY SPACE THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND SO THAT 2 MILLION WOULD BE, WOULD BE SPENT THERE. 
          WE ARE, WE WOULD BE THE, UM, LEASE. 
          WE HAVE ALSO PUT IN A LEASE APPLICATION. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A SEPARATE ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA OR IF IT'S ALL TOGETHER, BUT WE HAVE PUT IN A LEASE APPLICATION AND HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY REAL ESTATE. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM IS A 400,000 INVESTMENT IN THE MILLENNIUM, UM, YOUTH INTER ENTERTAINMENT CENTER. 
          AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR THEATER SPACE. 
          UM, THIS IS, THERE ARE OTHER DOLLARS IDENTIFY, I BELIEVE, ALL FROM PAR. 
          UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS RELATED TO A LARGER AMOUNT, BUT THIS 400,000 IS SPECIFICALLY FROM THE BOND. 
          UM, AND I'M NOT SURE IF PARD IS HERE TODAY TO ANSWER. 
          I KNOW YOU HAD SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON FOR HER DISTRICT. 
          UM, BUT I DO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS AND CAN SEND THEM TO YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY, UM, THIS IS THE FIRST, UM, TWO LOCATIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS, UM, TO BE ANNOUNCED IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, SOME FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS. 
          DO YOU MIND IF I MAKE A CLARIFICATION CHAIR? DO YOU MIND IF I MAKE A CLARIFICATION THERE REAL QUICK ABOUT MY, UM, CHAIR OR, UH, MAYORAL? DO YOU MIND IF I MAKE A CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED? JUST SO MY COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND, I'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM CONSTITUENTS WONDERING WHY A E D C IS, IS THE ENTITY DISTRIBUTING THE DOLLARS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT PAR IS THE ENTITY BY WHICH, UM, THE MILLENNIUM IS, 
          [03:40:01]
IS A PART FACILITY. 
          SO PEOPLE JUST HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AND I WAS JUST ASKING IF SHE COULD OFFER SOME CLARITY THERE. 
          THAT WAS THE, THE QUESTION I HAD MORE OR LESS THAT, AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS, SOME OF THOSE BOND DOLLARS WERE ALLOCATED A LONG TIME AGO, RIGHT? BUT FOLKS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME ORGANIZATIONAL STUFF THAT HAD TO HAPPEN IN BETWEEN THAT LAST CORRECT TIME THAT THEY HEARD ABOUT BOND DOLLARS. 
          AND SO I THINK THERE'S SOME STUFF THAT FOLKS JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          PROCEDURALLY? YEAH, I THINK THE MESSAGE IS THAT OUR 400,000 IS GOING TO, UM, UM, SUPPLEMENT OR BE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DOLLARS THAT PART HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED. 
          UM, SO, UH, OVERALL IT'S MORE MONEY TO BE INVESTED FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE LIN BELIEVE IS A GOOD THING. 
          UM, FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS COUNCIL AND OUR, AND OUR FUTURE COUNCIL. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I TALKED ABOUT THE URGENCY AND THE NEED THAT WE HAVE, UM, TO ADDRESS, UM, THE LOSS OF CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT, THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT ABLE TO PAY THEIR RENT, NOT ABLE TO STAY IN AUSTIN AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE LEAVING. 
          UM, ONE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE GIVING DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO OUR BOARD, THE AUSTIN EDC BOARD. 
          UM, OUR MEETINGS ARE ALSO PUBLIC. 
          UM, WE'VE SET IN THE PROCESS WE CAN GET ON OUR AGENDA MUCH EASIER THAN WE CAN GET ON YOUR AGENDA, UM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THINGS TO BE A MUCH QUICKER, UM, PROCESS. 
          SO I'M TALKING WITH CITY STAFF ABOUT HOW DO WE DO THAT AND MY, MY BOARD MEMBERS. 
          UM, SO THAT IS, WE WERE HOPING TO ASK FOR THAT DELEGATION TODAY. 
          WE ARE NOT READY AND AT THAT POINT, BUT I JUST WANTED THAT, UM, CLEAR THAT THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART FOR US MOVING FORWARD. 
          OBVIOUSLY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO IDENTIFY MORE FLEXIBLE, UM, CAPITAL. 
          THERE IS A HUGE NEED FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, WHICH I KNOW, UM, ED D DOES THAT NOW AND I THINK WORKING IN, IN, UM, PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM IS GONNA BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, LONG TERM FOR THIS PROCESS, UM, THIS IS, I'M NOT GONNA READ, THIS IS THE ACTION THAT, UM, CITY MANAGER READ FOR THURSDAY. 
          UM, AND I JUST WANNA SH ON THIS. 
          I WANNA FOCUS ON OUR NEXT STEPS IS RETURNING WITH NEGOTIATED AND APPROVED, UM, TERM SHEETS. 
          WE NOW ARE GONNA MOVE FORWARD SPEAKING TO OPERATORS, PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, TO GET THOSE AGREED UPON TERM SHEETS. 
          AND THEN WE'RE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF ON THE STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES GOING FORWARD. 
          UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS MY LAST SLIDE, SO I TRY TO GO THROUGH THAT REALLY FAST. 
          UM, AND SO I WILL, UM, ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, COLLEAGUES. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S MY KITCHEN. 
          UM, YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, I'LL BE QUICK ALSO. 
          UM, I, UH, ONE OF THE REASONS I, UM, ASK YOU ALONG WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO TO PRESENT TODAY IS, IS, UM, I WANTED TO TEE THIS UP FOR THE, THOSE OF YOU WHO WILL BE ON THE NEXT COUNCIL. 
          UM, IT'S GONNA BE VERY CRITICAL, UH, THAT A E D C HAVE CONTINUED SUPPORT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. 
          I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE'RE ABLE TO VOTE ON THESE TWO, UH, TODAY. 
          UM, AND A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTED , THAT I WON'T BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE REMAINING, UH, $12 CREATIVE SPACE BOND. 
          BUT I TRUST THAT YOU ALL WILL, AND I KNOW THAT, UM, THAT, UH, A E D C IS, IS WORKING, UH, THAT PROCESS. 
          SO I THINK THAT GOING INTO THE FUTURE, I THINK WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THIS PROCESS. 
          WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE, UM, ABOUT THE BOND PROCESS, UM, AND WHEN THE BOND, I, I'M HOPEFUL THAT A BOND WILL BE CRAFTED IN 2024 THAT WILL EXPAND UPON CREATIVE SPACES. 
          UH, THE LAST ONE WAS, WAS VERY SMALL. 
          IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO IN 2018, IT WAS ONLY $12, 12 MILLION. 
          SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE, UH, THE NEXT ONE WILL BE MUCH BIGGER. 
          BUT I'M HOPEFUL ALSO THAT, UH, THAT THIS WHOLE, UM, UH, PROCESS OF SETTING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A E D C AND SETTING UP YOUR PROCESSES WILL STREAMLINE THE USE OF BONDS IN THE FUTURE. 
          UH, TAKING FOUR YEARS TO, TO SPEND 12 MILLION DURING A TIME WHEN OUR CREATIVE SPACE, CREATIVE SPACES ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR CULTURAL FACILITIES ARE LOSING THEIR CREATIVE SPACE AND DISPLACEMENT THAT'S GOING ON JUST IS NOT GONNA NOT GONNA WORK. 
          SO I THINK I'M VERY COMFORTABLE NOW THAT WE, WE'VE GOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. 
          AND SO, UM, I ALSO URGE THIS, THIS COUNCIL, UH, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. 
          I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, UM, SOME ACTION TAKEN WHEN YOU ALL ARE READY, UM, TO, TO AUTHORIZE THE A E D C TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY. 
          UM, ONE REASON WE CREATED THE A E D C WAS TO, UM, TO ALLOW THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MOVE MORE QUICKLY THAN WE CAN, UM, AS, AS, AS THE CITY. 
          UM, WE HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH OUR, OUR CONTRACT WITH THEM. 
          SO THE COUNCIL STILL, UH, IS RESPONSIBLE AND HOLDS THE AUTHORITY, UM, ON THE USE OF DOLLARS, BUT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN MORE QUICKLY. 
          AND I THINK STRUCTURE'S SET UP IN A E D C. 
          AND 
          [03:45:01]
SO, UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I, I'M, I'M, I'M PLEASED WITH THE, WITH THE TWO THAT ARE COMING FORWARD, UM, AND, AND HOPEFUL WHEN YOU'RE READY AND, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF THE YEAR WHENEVER, UH, WITH THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, UH, THAT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME FOR YOU ALSO TO BRING FORWARD SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TO HELP YOU, UH, TO HELP FACILITATE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE A E D C. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO, COUNCIL MEMBER OF FUS THANK YOU AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO FOR YOUR STRONG LEADERSHIP IN CREATING THE CULTURAL TRUST. 
          AND CERTAINLY I'VE ALWAYS APPRE APPRECIATED AND ADMIRE YOUR, YOUR FIERCE ADVOCACY IN THIS CREATION. 
          SO IT'S EXCITING TO SEE IT FINALLY MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE INVOLVED SOMEHOW AS, AS WE , UH, AS FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          UM, THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, UM, DIRECTOR AVA, IS, IS IF YOU CAN SHARE WITH US, YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU STRUGGLED TO GET ON OUR AGENDA AND PERHAPS THERE ARE AREAS THAT WE CAN, UM, MOVE MORE NIMBLY TO ADVANCE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          AND, AND I DO, I'M EXCITED FOR THIS WEEK'S, PARTICULARLY THE INVESTMENT IN THE MILLENNIUM YOUTH COMPLEX. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , I MEAN, THAT IS SUCH A QUINTESSENTIAL PART OF AUSTIN AND CERTAINLY TOUCHES ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          UM, BUT CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH WHAT ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT YOU'RE, THAT MIGHT, UH, THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FOR THE BARRIERS IN OUR YES. 
          IN OUR LOCAL AGREEMENT. 
          SO OUR, OUR BOARD HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THIS YEAR, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT ARE, WHAT IS IN OUR INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT MOVES THE SAME SPEED AS THE CITY AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, CHANGED. 
          AND SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF RIGHT NOW TO MEET A LOT OF THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS I WOULD SAY. 
          AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT, BUT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE, UM, A MORE IN DEPTH LOOK. 
          WE WERE, WE WERE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN ABOUT POSSIBLY PROPOSING A WAIVER, UM, JUST FOR THE CULTURAL TRUST SO THAT, SO THAT PROJECTS ARE NOT SLOWED DOWN. 
          BUT I THINK NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE WERE HOPING TODAY TO COME WITH THE FULL SLATE OF 14 PROJECTS FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND WE COULD ONLY GET, UM, TO THE PLACE OF COMFORT WITH THE FIRST TWO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE TERM SHEETS TO BRING TO YOU TODAY. 
          UM, SO HOPEFULLY NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME AS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SAID, WE'LL COME BACK WITH THAT LANGUAGE. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE IT ALL LAID OUT AND READY FOR TODAY. 
          GOTCHA. 
          NO, THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL JUST TO DAYLIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION IN CREATING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WAS SO THAT IT COULD MOVE MORE NIMBLY AND MUCH QUICKER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROCESS. 
          SO CERTAINLY I WILL KEEP THAT ON MY RADAR AND WOULD BE IN SUPPORT IF, IF YOU WERE TO BRING FORWARD A, A PROPOSAL THAT SEEKS A WAIVER FOR CULTURAL TRUST PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, JUST A COMMENT ON, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BIG, IT'S A, IT'S A MILESTONE MOMENT COMING THIS THURSDAY WHEN WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AND TAKE THE NEXT STEP IN CREATING THE CULTURAL TRUST INCUBATOR. 
          I THINK THAT IT REALLY IS GOING TO, UH, SET THE STAGE, UH, FOR, FOR AUSTINITES AND, AND DEMONSTRATING OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR, TO OUR ARTISTS AND OUR CREATIVES AND REALLY UNDERSTANDING KIND OF THE NEW AUSTIN THAT WE'RE IN POST PANDEMIC AND, AND HOW, UM, OUR CREATIVE SECTOR HAS, HAS BEEN, UM, HARD HIT. 
          SO I'M EXCITED TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          YES. 
          UM, I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT, THAT WE DID RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FROM ALL OF YOUR DISTRICTS, AND I AM SAD TO SAY THAT WE CANNOT  WE DON'T HAVE, HAVE THE DOLLARS TO, UM, INVEST IN A PROJECT IN EACH DISTRICT, BUT, UM, THE FACT THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, UM, WITH THESE TWO, WE ARE VERY EXCITED. 
          SO THANK YOU ALL. 
          COUNCIL TOVA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I TOO, UM, WANNA THANK COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN FOR ALL HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS, ON THIS ISSUE REGARDING THE CULTURAL TRUST. 
          I THINK THIS IS A VERY EXCITING NEXT STEP AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF THOSE OF YOU IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR REALLY JUST TAKING, TAKING, UM, TAKING THIS AND OTHER CHALLENGES ON. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE SOME REALLY GREAT PROJECTS COME OUT OF THIS WORK. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT LAST WEEK WHEN WE, UM, APPROVED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ITEM, WHICH I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON, IT ALSO HAS IN THERE NOT JUST DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO ESTABLISH INTERNAL POLICIES ON HOW TO WORK WITH THE EDC AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE A PARTNER ON EVERY ONE OF THEM. 
          BUT IT ADDRESSES WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD AS, AS A POINT YOU WERE MAKING COUNCIL MEMBER FUND IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT, THAT THE COUNSEL IS HEARING DIRECTLY FROM THE EDC REGULARLY, UH, AND, AND THE RESOLUTION THAT WE PASS SET ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM, FROM YOU ALL. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          SO I WANTED TO JUST, UM, ALSO CHIME IN THAT I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD. 
          I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THOUGHT. 
          UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THOUGH, IT REALLY DOES SET US UP TO GO BEYOND OUR BOND DOLLARS, WHICH I THINK CONSTRAIN US QUITE A BIT TO WHAT WE CAN INVEST IN. 
          I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHY THE FIRST FEW PROJECTS ARE IN 
          [03:50:01]
CITY VENUES, UM, FOR THAT. 
          SO, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS, LIKE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LOANS OR SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENTS OR GRANTS OR HFC, ET CETERA. 
          UM, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AND WHERE THOSE ARE ON THE HORIZON? YES. 
          SO OUR 5 0 1 C  IS PENDING. 
          WE ARE HEARING THAT OTHER PEOPLE THAT, UM, APPLIED AROUND THE TIME WE DID ARE CURRENTLY BEING APPROVED. 
          SO WE ARE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING EVERY DAY, UM, FOR OUR 5 0 1 CUN THREE TO BE APPROVED. 
          UM, SO YOU KNOW, UNTIL THAT IS APPROVED, WE THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS THERE ON THE GRANT DOLLARS, UM, AND OTHER, SOME OF THE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES. 
          BUT I THINK THAT WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO GETTING THE 5 0 1 C THREE APPROVAL, UM, WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO START ASKING FOR THE, THE, THE GRANT, THE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MENTIONED, WE NEED THE MOST FLEXIBLE DOLLARS POSSIBLE, RIGHT? UM, AND THEN WE'RE EXPLORING, UM, THE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES. 
          UM, DEFINITELY WORKING WITH AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE MIXED USE TO, TO UTILIZE MULTIPLE STREAMS OF, UM, OF RESOURCES. 
          AND SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO TO THAT FOR EACH OF EACH OF THE PROJECTS. 
          OF COURSE WE WANNA IDENTIFY SPACE FOR, FOR EVERYBODY ON THE LIST OF 45. 
          UM, BUT IT'S A CHALLENGE, UM, TO DO THAT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO HAVE THE, THE RESOURCES IN PLACE PLACE BEFORE WE CAN IMPLEMENT THOSE. 
          IS THERE A MECHANISM THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE TAX CREDIT MECHANISMS THAT WE ARE USING FOR HOUSING THAT COULD BE IN PLACE FOR THESE CULTURAL? YEAH, SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO, SOME OF IT DEPENDS ON, SO IF A LOCATION QUALIFIES FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS, THAT'S ONE THAT WE'RE EXPLORING. 
          UM, IF THERE'S HOUSING COMPONENTS, THERE'S HOUSING TAX CREDITS, NEW MARKET TAX CREDITS. 
          UM, I'M ALSO TALKING TO SOME, UM, BANKS THAT HAVE THEIR CDCS COM SEPARATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS WITH FUNDING. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE OTHER, IT, IT REALLY AGAIN, IS THE MATCHING UP, RIGHT? YOU HAVE A LIST OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND A LIST OF FUNDING WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF A PUZZLE PUTTING TOGETHER LIKE HOW DO, WHICH ONE OF THESE ARE GONNA FIT? SO THAT TAKES TIME, UM, TO DO. 
          BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. 
          I WAS JUST, I GUESS I WAS THINKING OUT LOUD, BUT WONDERING WHETHER THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO, WOULD, WOULD DELIVER SPECIFICALLY FOR, UM, CULTURAL PROGRAMS, CULTURAL, UM, TAX CREDITS. 
          UM, THIS SEEMED TO BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUE AND SO FAR AS WITH SOME OF THE, THE COVID RELIEF WE HAD, UM, SEEN OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO HELP OUR VENUES. 
          I LIKE, I WANNA SAY IT WAS CALLED SAVE, UM, THAT WAS I THINK EVEN LED IN PART BY SENATOR CORINE. 
          SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR SOME KIND OF, UM, CULTURAL TAX CREDIT. 
          SO I WANNA KIND OF THROW THAT OUT AS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PURSUE. 
          AND THEN IT DOES SEEM LIKE, UM, FROM A PHILANTHROPIC PERSPECTIVE, IF ADC AND THE CULTURAL TRUST THAT WE'VE SET UP CAN REALLY SERVE AS A, AS A CLEARING HOUSE TO, TO DO A LOT OF, LOT OF THE, THE NITTY GRITTY WORK FOR SELECTION, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME OPPORTUNITIES EITHER FOR, FOR, FOR FUNDING OR FOR CREATING SOME OF THE LOAN TYPE SITUATIONS THAT WE HAVE, UM, IN PROCESS FOR HOUSING AS WELL. 
          THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS, UM, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS FOR THE, THE, THE, THE, THE VENUE THAT HAS THE LEAST INCOME, BUT RIGHT. 
          BUT MAYBE THERE'S CERTAIN, CERTAIN VENUES WHERE JUST GETTING THOSE LOANS IN AT THAT LOWER RATE REALLY MAKES, UM, THAT DIFFERENCE. 
          I MEAN THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING WITH SOME OF THE HOUSING CUZ THAT'S ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT IS WORKING IN DISTRICT 10 TO GET MORE HOUSING IS, IS DOING THAT. 
          SO THERE MIGHT BE AN ANALOG, UM, WITH THAT. 
          UM, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, NO, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. 
          AND I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT COME HAS COME OUT OF THIS PROCESS IS JUST BEING ABLE TO SPEAK. 
          BONDS WERE APPROVED. 
          IT WAS A, WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE WAS OR HOW TO PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE TALKING POINTS FOR YOU AS COUNCIL MEMBERS IS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED OVER 300 MILLION OF NEEDS AMONG THE CULTURAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS. 
          AND SO NOW WE AT LEAST KNOW WHAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW WE'VE GOT 12 MILLION OF BONDS, WE KNOW THE NEED IS 300, SO HOW DO WE FILL THAT GAP? UM, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT WE CAN SPEAK TO IN THIS CAN SPEAK TO IN THIS NEXT BOND CYCLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, CUT TO MY OWN KITCHEN. 
          DO YOU STILL YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY AND THE BOND, THE BOND CYCLE AND THE OTHER THING WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT THE BOND CYCLE, IN ADDITION, IN ADDITION TO ESTABLISHING THE NEED IS, UH, THE WAY IN WHICH WE, UH, THE WAY IN WHICH WE, UH, WORD THE BONDS, UH, BECAUSE THE BONDS DON'T HAVE TO BE SPENT JUST ON, ON CITY PROPERTY, RIGHT? THEY, THERE'S, THERE'S LEASE ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER KINDS OF ARRANGEMENTS THAT LEGALLY CAN BE DONE. 
          UH, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE CITY BECAUSE IT'S NEW. 
          AND SO I THINK WE'VE LEARNED A LOT THERE. 
          UM, THE BONDS, I THINK 
          [03:55:01]
JUST AS WE DID WITH THE HOUSING BONDS, WHICH WERE VERY SMALL WHEN WE FIRST STARTED YEARS AGO, UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S A, A, A ROLE FOR CULTURAL TRUST BONDS IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER CREATIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, CREATIVE KINDS OF, UM, FINANCING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE IS THE ICONIC VENUE FUND, WHICH, UM, I THANK YOU CITY MANAGER FOR CONTINUING TO PUT DOLLARS IN THAT. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AS THE, AS THE COUNCIL PASSED. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA GET UP TO 15, UH, MILLION IN, IN A NUMBER OF YEARS. 
          UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S HOT TAX, BUT, UM, BUT I, I THINK WE HAVE PAVED THE WAY AND, AND, UM, AND, AND LOOKING AT THE KIND OF CREATIVE FINANCING LIKE THE MAYOR PORTER HAS MENTIONED WILL BE REALLY, UM, HELPFUL TOO. 
          KA MARTO. 
          I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE PDC, UH, RETAIL SPACE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , AND I KNOW YOU AND I EXCHANGED SOME EMAILS ABOUT IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW IT RESOLVED. 
          DID YOU EVER GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE SAME SPACE THAT HAD BEEN DESIGNATED FOR A POTENTIAL CHILDCARE? WE WERE TOLD BY REAL ESTATE, IT WAS NOT, IT WAS A SEPARATE, UH, LOCATION WITHIN THE PDC. 
          UM, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD BY REAL ESTATE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THERE WERE SOME REQU, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME, UH, CHILDCARE REQUIREMENTS THAT DIDN'T, THAT THAT SPACE DID NOT MEET. 
          SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT, BUT IT WAS NOT THE SPACE THAT MET THE CHILDCARE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, NEEDS, OH, THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          I STILL, YOU KNOW, MANAGER AS, AS YOU CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO USE THAT BUILDING, UM, THIS COUNCIL HAD IDENTIFIED THAT AS A PRIORITY FOR THAT SPACE. 
          THERE WERE SOME VERY CONFUSED CONVERSATIONS, I THINK, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS AN AREA OF, OF NEED. 
          IT IS AN AREA OF NEED, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. 
          UM, AS I RECALL THE CONVERSATIONS, IT GOT BUDGET, IT GOT SORT OF VALUE ENGINEERED OUT, AND THEN WE SUBSEQUENTLY HEARD THAT ACTUALLY THAT PROJECT CAME IN UNDER BUDGET. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS, UM, I THINK THIS, THIS MAY BE AN AREA WHERE WE WANNA SEE CHILDCARE. 
          ON THE OTHER HAND, ACCS BONDS PASSED AND, AND THEY HAD CHILDCARE. 
          AND IF THEY'RE INTENDING TO CREATE ONE AT, AT HIGHLAND, THEN THAT REALLY SOLVES THAT, THE NEED IN THAT AREA. 
          SO, BUT ANY CASE, IT'S, IT'S OUTSIDE, UM, WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          I THINK THE USE THAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING OR THE USE THAT YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH CREATING IN THAT SPACE WILL BE A REALLY INTERESTING AND, AND GOOD ADDITION TO THAT AREA. 
          YES. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CHILDCARE ADVOCATES ON OUR BOARD AS WELL, AND THAT'S DEFINITELY ONE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE EDC IS LOOKING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, ANY OTHER LAST COMMENTS? UH, THANK YOU MS. ALVAREZ, FOR BEING HERE. 
          WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF ADC. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR PROTE. 
          UM, SO 
          [A. Pre-Selected Agenda Items (Part 2 of 2)]
I HAVE BEEN ASKED IF WE CAN TAKE UP, I KNOW I'M SWITCHING THINGS AROUND, WHICH I DON'T LIKE TO DO, BUT I THINK THEY'RE WORKING ON PRESENTING US WITH SOME OPTIONS. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE UP OUR POLL ITEMS FIRST AND SEE WHERE WE GO. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          WE CAN PAUSE ON NO. 
          OR DID YOU HAVE, UH, YES. 
          UH, THE, UH, PRESENTERS, UH, HAD TO LEAVE. 
          UH, DR. 
          ANGEL HAD SOME, UH, CLASSES THAT SHE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AFTERNOON, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND REMARKS. 
          YOU KNOW, UH, COL I ASKED THE PARKS TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING TODAY, BUT, UH, SINCE, UH, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE, I'M NOT GONNA HAVE THEM COME HERE ON AGENDA 59. 
          UH, THIS, UH, THIS EARLIER THIS YEAR, I, I APPROVED THE RESOLUTION. 
          WE APPROVED THE RESOLUTION 20 22 0 6 16 DASH OH 89, DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO LOOK INTO THE VISIBILITY AND FISCAL IMPACT OF AN INTER INTERGENERATIONAL RESOURCE ACTIVITY CENTER PROGRAM AT THE NATIONAL AND BUILDING. 
          AND ALSO, UH, WHEREAS THE, UH, IDC, WHICH IS A INTER INTERGENERATIONAL DAYCARE DAY CARE ADVISORY GROUP, HAD SECURE COMMITMENTS TO MAKE THE NATION ON PROPERTY ADA ACCESSIBLE AND SECURE OPERATIONAL FUND COMMITMENT FROM THE I FOR THE I R A C PILOT PROGRAM AT THE NATION ON PROPERTY FROM FAMILY OTHER CARE AND MEALS ON WHEELS CENTRAL OF CENTRAL TEXAS, AND ALSO THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY, INCLUDING OPEN DOOR PRESCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL, PRISCILLA FLON CHILD AND FAMILY LABORATORY, THE TEXAS AGENT IN LONGEVITY CENTER, CHARLOTTE, FORMERLY DRIVER, SENIOR ST. 
          DAVID'S FOUNDATION, AND OTHER GROUPS FOR THE RY AGE AND OTHER PARTNERS HAD RALLIED BEHIND THE NOTION OF A A R A C AND SENT LETTERS TO SUPPORT THAT HIGHLIGHT THE NEED AND POTENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT THE SERVICE COULD HAVE ON OUR AUSTIN COMMUNITY. 
          YOU KNOW, ALSO, UH, WE, UH, WE, UH, THE AGE FRIENDLY ACTION PLAN RECOGNIZED THAT LOW INCOME SENIOR POPULATION IS GROWING IN AUSTIN. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, WE CURRENTLY LACK SERVICE NEEDED TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWING DEMAND, THE HOLLY SHORE VISION PLAN, ALONG WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN RECOMMENDED THE NATION ON BUILDING FOR COMMUNITY USE. 
          AND, UH, WHEN, UH, DR. 
          ANGEL FROM THE LBJ SCHOOL 
          [04:00:01]
BROUGHT THE, FORTH THE IDEA OF AN INTERGENERATIONAL DAY CENTER, IT SEEMS TO ME IN MANY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT THE USE OF THE NATION HYUNDAI BUILDING, WHEN IDC WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP IN BETTER SERVING OUR SENIOR AND CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          IN THE COMMUNITY, THE REASON INCLUDE DIRECT DIRECTLY LOCATED ACROSS FROM REBECCA BEN JOHNSON, SENIOR HOUSING, WHICH IS ALSO, UH, THE TOWN'S GONNA BE REHAB. 
          AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER 250 SENIORS MOVING IN, WHICH WILL BE A TOTAL AROUND 500 SENIORS. 
          AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY LOCATED TO OPERATE SERVICE FOR THE 7 8 7 0 2 AND SURROUNDING AREA. 
          THIS WILL CONTINUE A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          THAT STARTED IN 1912, YOU KNOW, AND AFTER READING OVER THE REPORT DEVELOPED BY STAFF AND SPEAKING WITH THE IDC ADVISORY GROUP, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE WERE NOT AVI SUFFICIENT CALIBRATION, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES THAT WERE STILL BOARD, AND THERE WERE STILL BOARD WORKS TO BE DONE. 
          SO I'M BRINGING THIS, THIS FRIENDLY RESOLUTION JUST DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO GO OUT AND WORK WITH THIS GROUP AND SEE IF THAT'S FEASIBLE FOR USING THAT LOCATION AND, UH, AND TO WORK WITH THEM AND THE OTHER GROUPS, THE NONPROFIT THAT'S SAYING THAT THEY'RE WILL BE WILLING TO, UH, SUPPORT, FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THIS GROUP. 
          THEY'RE AT THAT CENTER. 
          AND, AND, UH, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON FOR THE PRESENTATION IS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OVER THE ITEM NINE, UH, NUMBER 59 IS THIS IS THE REASON. 
          AND IT'S NOT CAUSING THE CITY ANY FINANCIAL OR ANY MONEY. 
          IT'S JUST TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO BRING THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM THAT'S DESPERATELY NEEDED. 
          AND IN THIS AREA, WHICH IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND, UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE FOOD FOREST PEOPLE AND REACHING OUT TO, UH, CENTRAL HEALTH, AND THEY'RE ALL BEHIND IT. 
          SO, UH, I, UH, THAT'S, UH, WHAT MY ITEM DOES. 
          I AM 59 MAYOR, I PRETEND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THANK YOU, COUNCIL. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING FORWARD THIS ITEM, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO OUR OLDER ADULTS LIVING IN AUSTIN. 
          CERTAINLY, THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT WE CAN BE DOING FOR OUR SENIORS, AND, UH, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF AN INTERGENERATIONAL FACILITY. 
          UM, THIS TOPIC IS A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED, AND I THINK WE CERTAINLY NEED TO HAVE A BRIEFING FROM STAFF. 
          UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AN ALTER, I THINK THEY LISTED THREE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS IN THE BACKUP FOR A PILOT PROGRAM OF THE INTERGENERATIONAL FACILITY, TWO OF WHICH ARE IN MY DISTRICT. 
          UM, SO I DO THINK THAT THIS MERITS A, A LONGER CONVERSATION, AND I REALLY LOOK AT IT FROM A PLACE OF BOTH AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE CAN HAVE SENIOR SERVICES AND, UM, AND RESOURCES TO PROVIDED TO BOTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          AND, UH, AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A, A CONVERSATION. 
          WE MAY NOT GET TO THAT TODAY, BUT PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ON THURSDAY. 
          UM, AND IF, UH, AND THEN I'LL BE SURE TO ASK MY TEAM TO CONNECT WITH YOU BECAUSE I DO HAVE A FRIENDLY, UH, WHAT I WOULD HOPE WOULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR YOUR ITEM. 
          THAT IS GREAT. 
          YOU KNOW, UH, LUCY, BEN JOHNSON ALSO WAS, UH, WHEN WE BROKE, UH, GROUND ON THE, UH, REMODELING THE, UH, THE TOWER THERE, UH, MENTIONED THAT THIS IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE YOU ACTUALLY SEE SENIORS MOVING AROUND IN WHEELCHAIRS. 
          THEY HAVE MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIR THAT TAKE CARE OF, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE TRAILS THAT WE HAVE THERE. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, OLD RESIDENTS FROM MY TIME THAT ARE LIVING THERE IN THAT AREA. 
          UH, SO, UH, I REALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING FOR, FOR OUR SENIORS THERE. 
          UH, AND THEY'RE INCLUDING PEOPLE IN MY AGE THAT, UH, ARE, YOU KNOW, FAILING SOME HARD TIMES. 
          AND THESE ARE VERY DEEP, DEEP AFFORDABLE, UH, UNITS THAT WE HAVE THERE, REBECCA, BEN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY RATE, 30% AND, AND UNDER. 
          SO, UH, I, I, UH, REALLY WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND REALLY HELP OUT THE SENIORS AND, AND, UH, LET 'EM KNOW THAT ALL THE SERVICES THAT ARE ALLOWED, UH, A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE THERE CHILDREN THAT HAVEN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HAVING TO WORK AND NOT HAVING THE TIME TO TAKE CARE OF THE SENIORS, YOU KNOW, DURING THE DAY. 
          AND THOSE WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR MY PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA THAT HAVE GROWN OVER THERE. 
          AND, UH, GENTRIFICATION HAS SLOWLY MOVED THEM OUT. 
          IT'S JUST CANNOT AFFORD TO RENT THERE ANYMORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANNA ADD THAT I'M VERY 
          [04:05:01]
SUPPORTIVE OF A INTERGENERATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER. 
          I BELIEVE THIS IS COVERED IN THE LANGUAGE CITY MANAGER, BUT PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF IT'S NOT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN EXISTING PART FACILITY THAT WAS, UM, TARGETED TO BE PART OFFICES. 
          UM, AND IF YOU SWITCH IT TO AN INTERGOVERNMENT INTERGENERATIONAL FACILITY, YOU'D BE SWITCHING THAT OVER TO AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          UM, AND YOU STILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE OFFICES. 
          UM, AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT PART IS NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT IN THE RED BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          UM, IT SAYS THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS, ET CETERA. 
          SO I'M ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU MOVE FORWARD A SOLUTION, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, UM, AS WELL. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SOLUTION IS, AND I WON'T HAVE THAT SOLUTION, YOU KNOW, FOR THURSDAY. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT, WHAT I HEARD FROM MR. ANDREA WAS ASKING FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE TO SEE IF WE CAN IDENTIFY THE RESOURCES, UM, TO MAKE IT, MAKE THIS WORK. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE RESOURCES THAT NEED TO BE GOING FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? I DON'T, COUNCIL OVER KITCHEN. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA FOR CONTINUING TO PURSUE THIS, UH, THIS CONCEPT. 
          I THINK IT'S A MUCH NEEDED CONCEPT AS, AS HE, UM, AS HE ARTICULATED. 
          AND SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT IS ON OUR POLL LIST IS ITEM 36, WHICH IS THE ETOD ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UH, YES. 
          AND I DON'T NEED A LOT OF TIME, SO I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP IF, UM, AT THIS POINT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH OUR PULLED ITEMS, WE'RE GIVING US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO COME BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE NUMBERS FOR ANY OPTIONS THAT THEY'RE SHARING. 
          OKAY? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME, BUT, BUT, CAUSE WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, THAT'S, WELL, I WANTED SURFACE THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD AND, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE OUR STAFF HERE. 
          I JUST HAVE ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I DO SUPPORT THE ITEM. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT, UM, THAT OUR STAFF HAS BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK ON IT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          UM, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ADOPTING THE FRAMEWORK, UM, AND, UM, AND THEN INITIATING SOME AMENDMENTS THAT WILL COME BACK TO COME BACK TO THE NEXT COUNCIL, UH, THAT RELATE TO CHANGES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ALIGN WITH THE FRAMEWORK. 
          UM, AND THEN THAT WE'RE ALSO, UH, MAKING A STATEMENT THAT WE WANT TO BEGIN THE PLANNING PROCESS, UH, FOR NORTH TRANSIT CENTER AS WELL AS THE CONGRESS, UM, SOUTH CONGRESS TRANSIT CENTER, UM, ALL OF WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT STEPS. 
          SO, UM, SO MY QUESTIONS ARE JUST, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO IN, IN THE, THE ACTION TO INITIATE THE, UM, UM, UH, CODE CHANGES. 
          SO THOUGH THE, THE PARAMETERS FOR THAT IS TO, UM, TO, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE PARAMETERS FOR THAT, THAT'S TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE FRAME FRAMEWORK, IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT FOR THE PLANNING AREAS OR JUST FOR THE NODES ALONG? CAN YOU, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT A BIT MORE FOR STEVIE GREATHOUSE, DIVISION MANAGER, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT? YEAH, PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY AND WITH ME. 
          I'VE GOT WARNER COOK, WHO'S THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER OVER THIS PROJECT AS WELL. 
          IF THERE'S MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T QUITE COPE WITH. 
          BUT THIS ONE, UM, REALLY THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT STAFF IS ENVISIONING WOULD BE INITIATED BY THIS ACTION WOULD BE KIND OF THREE, UM, PHASES OF AMENDMENT. 
          ONE WOULD BE MAKING THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS CALLED FOUR BY THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION TO ESSENTIALLY AMEND THE EXISTING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO, UM, IDENTIFY THE, ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL ETOD STATIONS AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA DO AN ETTO PLANNING PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. 
          THE SECOND PHASE, UM, WOULD BE MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THOSE PROVISIONS TO APPLY SOME FORM OF INTERIM REGULATIONS TO THE STATIONS, SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT APPLY IN THE EXISTING MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THEN THE THIRD PHASE, UM, IS REALLY WORKING, UH, TO, TO GO OUT AND ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP, UM, DEVELOP A PROPOSAL TO BRING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A VOLUNTARY ETO OVERLAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WHICH IS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE TOOLKIT THAT'S IN THE REPORT THAT COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE THREE, UM, THE THREE PARTS OF WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AT THE STAFF LEVEL WOULD BE DONE WITH THAT INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, SO TWO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, UH, PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS THE MAP THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE FRAMEWORK, RIGHT? WHICH IS THE, UM, THE RAIL LINES AND THE, THE TWO B R T LINES? WELL, YEAH, I GUESS YOU'D SAY TWO. 
          ONE OF 'EM SPLITS,  THE ONE, UH, THAT GOES DOWN TO OAK HILL AS WELL AS, OKAY. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, PROJECT CONNECT HAS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL, 
          [04:10:01]
UH, B R T LINES. 
          THOSE ARE IN THE FUTURE. 
          THEY'RE IN THIS LIKE A SECOND PHASE OF PROJECT CONNECT. 
          UM, WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT? UM, I GUESS, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK TO BE DONE BEFORE THIS COMES BACK TO THE NEXT COUNCIL, BUT I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND THAT, UM, WHEN IT DOES, THERE'LL BE SOME THOUGHT GIVEN TO HOW THOSE CHANGES RELATE TO FUTURE TRANSIT CHANGES WITH PROJECT CONNECT, JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO REDO THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. 
          NOW, WE KNOW THAT THOSE FUTURE CHANGES TO PROJECT CONNECTOR A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND DEVELOPMENT CHANGES AND WE MIGHT WANNA BE ABLE TO GET AHEAD OF THOSE AS A, AS OPPOSED TO BE REACTING TO THEM. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE REACTING TO SOME EXTENT TO THE, TO THE LINE TO THE LINES THAT ARE UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO DO YOU THINK THAT, IS THAT EVEN ON THE RADAR SCREEN TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU BRING THAT BACK? OR DO YOU NEED DIRECTION TO DO THAT, OR WHAT'S ELSE THINKING? I DON'T THINK WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION TO DO IT. 
          IT WOULD BE KIND OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE HAVING WITH COUNCIL LAST WEEK ABOUT THAT ABILITY CHANGES. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW AT THE POINT THAT WE'RE BRINGING THOSE CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY WHERE THEY'RE APPLYING MM-HMM. 
          , BUT I THINK WE COULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE A CONVERSATION WHEN WE BRING THE TOOL BACK ABOUT SORT OF HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT APPLYING EXPANDS INTO THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I'LL CERTAINLY LEAVE THAT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL. 
          I JUST DIDN'T, DIDN'T WANT THAT IDEA, YOU KNOW, TO GET, TO GET LOST. 
          AND I THINK IT'S WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO BRING THAT UP TO THE NEXT COUNCIL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, UH, TO SEE, TO SEE WHEN, AND HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, AND I'LL, THIS WILL BE MY LAST IN CASE OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FRAMEWORK THAT YOU HAVE HAS THIS NICE COLOR CODING  TO APPRECIATE, UM, AND, UM, AND IT HAS AREAS FOR EACH OF THE LINES, UM, IDENTIFIED BY THESE DIFFERENT COLOR CODING AND STRATEGIES. 
          SO, UM, I'M SURE THE DETAIL IS THERE AND WHAT YOU PROVIDED, BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF I'M, UM, AND, AND HOW THEY WILL RELATE TO WHAT'S RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF CODE CHANGES. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          AND I'LL LET WARNER GO AHEAD AND DESCRIBE HOW THE, THE CATEGORIES FOR THE STATIONS WERE DEVELOPED, AND THEN WE CAN BOTH TACKLE THE CODE CHANGE QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THE TYPOLOGIES? THE YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE CALLED TYPOLOGIES. 
          YES. 
          YOU KNOW, SO THOSE WERE DEVELOPED LOOKING AT THREE DIFFERENT CRITERIA NUMERICALLY. 
          SO WE HAD THE FIRST ONE BEING KIND OF THE FTAS THRESHOLD FOR THAT MODE BUS OR RAIL IN THE STATION AREA. 
          UM, WHETHER WE KIND OF HAVE THE POPULATION DENSITY THAT FTA WOULD LIKE THERE TODAY OR NOT YET MM-HMM. 
          , SO NOT SO RELATIVE TO THEIR THRESHOLD, MORE OR LESS, THAT WAS ONE CRITERIA. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          THE NEXT WAS DISPLACEMENT RISK. 
          IS IT AN AREA THAT IS ACTIVE OR VULNERABLE DISPLACEMENT RISK WITH MORE THAN 45% OF THE POPULATION KIND OF IN THAT CATEGORY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE THIRD WAS CHANGE RELATIVE TO OTHER STATION AREAS. 
          IS IT ADDING MORE JOBS IN HOUSING FASTER THAN OTHER STATIONS IN THE PROJECT CONNECT SYSTEM? OKAY. 
          OVER THE LAST DECADE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I THINK TO LOOP BACK TO THE CODE QUESTION, UM, WE DON'T KNOW YET. 
          THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE TRYING AS WE GO OUT AND ENGAGE COMMUNITY ROBUSTLY TO HELP US DEVELOP THOSE CODE PROPOSALS, IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT, THAT TYPOLOGY, HOW THOSE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE'VE CATEGORIZED THE STATIONS INTO MIGHT INFLUENCE THE CODE PROPOSAL. 
          SO IT COULD, UM, ABSOLUTELY VARY DEPENDING ON THE TYPOLOGY, BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET INTO THE WORK ON WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          SHOULD I GO AHEAD OR DO YOU WANT ME TO ? GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'VE, WE ALSO SEPARATELY PASSED, UM, A, A RESOLUTION INITIATING CODE CHANGES FOR THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING PROCESS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT BUT PARALLEL IN SOME WAYS. 
          SO, AND THAT HAS NOT YET COME BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS OR NOT. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO, IDEALLY, I THINK THAT AT THE POINT THAT THAT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL, IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THEM TOGETHER OR AT LEAST CLOSE IN TIME. 
          WHAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO, WHAT I DON'T THINK WORKS IS FOR THE ETOD, UM, PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO COME BACK BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING COMES BACK. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, SEQUENTIALLY I DON'T THINK WORKS, UH, PARTICULARLY SINCE, UM, WELL, I I, I, I WOULDN'T WANT THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING TO GET PUT BEHIND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND SO I DON'T HAVE A 
          [04:15:01]
UNDERSTANDING RIGHT. 
          RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHEN THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING, UH, UH, AMENDMENTS IS COMING BACK. 
          CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA THAT, SO WE'RE WORKING ON THE RESPONSE TO THAT. 
          UM, AND I, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE RIGHT NOW DUE TO SOME, UM, VACANCIES, BUT SURE. 
          WE'RE ABSOLUTELY WORKING IN COORDINATION WITH E T O D AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THOSE TWO RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER AND, UM, HOW WE, WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THEM. 
          SO I DON'T, IT'S THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING DEFINITELY WON'T BE DELAYED DUE TO E T O D. 
          UM, AND WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALIGNED AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT THAT'S GREAT. 
          BECAUSE I MEAN, THEY'RE DIFFERENT IN THE SENSE THAT DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING IS MORE LIKE THE KIND OF THING THAT, WELL, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE, BUT IT'S MORE LIKE TAKING A, A, A BROAD AREA LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL DID WITH THE BURN GATEWAY. 
          UM, ALTHOUGH I REALIZE THERE, THERE'S, THAT'S A TODD TOO, SO IT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE. 
          BUT ANYWAY, BUT TAKING A A, A LARGER AREA OF THE CITY, UM, AND PLAN AND APPLYING PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO IT, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THEY TAKE PRETTY LARGE AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT EVEN NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL PLANNING, IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT. 
          BUT ANYWAY, THE, THE, UH, CO THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED WAS INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS TO, TO SET UP THAT PROCESS. 
          SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND ALREADY BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ETO PROCESS AND YOU'RE ABOUT TO BRING THAT BACK AND WE DON'T HAVE THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING PROCESS SET UP. 
          SO, BUT I, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT THAT'S NOT A SEQUENTIAL ACTIVITY THAT THAT'S HAPPENING PARALLEL TO WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING ON ETO, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD TO THAT WE HAVE PLANS THAT ARE SORT OF DISTRICT FLAVORED PLANS PROCEEDING MORE SHORT TERM, UM, INCLUDING THE NORTHEAST AUSTIN DISTRICT PLAN. 
          IT HAS TOD STATION AREAS WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. 
          UM, AND WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO TAKE A, A HARD LOOK AS A STAFF ON HOW WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THE TOD GOALS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THAT PLANNING PROCESS MM-HMM. 
          , UM, BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WOULD WANNA DO IS HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT, OH, WE'RE OUT FOR A DISTRICT PLANNING PROCESS ONE WEEK, AND THEN WE'RE OUT TO DO STATIONARY PLANNING NEXT. 
          AND TO THEM IT'S ALL THE SAME GEO. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO WE'RE DEFINITELY PLANNING ON COORDINATING THOSE TWO ACTIVITIES MOVING FORWARD. 
          I THINK, UM, TO ERICA'S POINT ABOUT TIMING, UM, WE ANTICIPATE HAVING THESE CODE AMENDMENTS MOVE FORWARD, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF 2023, PROBABLY INTO 2024. 
          I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A PROPOSAL ON HOW TO APPROACH DISTRICTS COME BACK WELL BEFORE ANY CODE AMENDMENT'S GONNA COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FOR E TODD. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT WORKS GREAT, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TRANSIT EVERYWHERE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TODD IMPLICATION TO IT, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COUNCIL VELA WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, THE ETO PLANNING PROCESS, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU THIS KIND OF CONCEPTUALLY, UM, WHEN, AND AND I I SEE IN THE PLAN, AND I HAVE NOT, I'M SORRY, BEEN ABLE TO REALLY LOOK AT IT. 
          WE'VE JUST HAD SUCH A SLAM, UH, UH, AGENDA AND, AND THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF, OF WORK AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A GOOD CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT ESTABLISHING MINIMAL MINIMUM LAND USE, INTENSITY OF, OF TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE USES, UH, AS ONE OF THE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT WHEN WE DON'T BUILD ENOUGH NEW HOUSING AROUND A TRANSIT STATION, THEN THAT IS WHEN, THERE, AGAIN, PER THE RESEARCH THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH, I THINK PER THE MOST CURRENT ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, GENTRIFICATION AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS, WHEN YOU DON'T BUILD ENOUGH, UH, NEW HOUSING AROUND A REALLY ATTRACTIVE THING LIKE A TRANSIT STATION, THEN YOU PUT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF, UH, PRESSURE OF, OF PRICE PRESSURE, OF DEMAND PRESSURE ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS. 
          UH, AND SO I, I JUST REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ON THE ONE HAND WE ARE TRYING TO REINFORCE AND PROTECT THE AREAS KIND OF IN THE BROADER AREA SURROUNDING THE, UH, TRANSIT STATION, BUT I, AT THE SAME TIME, WE GOTTA MAKE SURE WE PUT A BUNCH OF NEW HOUSING RIGHT AROUND IN THAT KIND OF QUARTER MILE, UH, YOU KNOW, WALK SHED WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY GET THAT HIGH NUMBER OF, OF, OF TRANSIT RIDER. 
          UH, AND, AND AGAIN, I'M SORRY, I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT ANY KIND OF THOUGHTS ON THAT OR WHERE IS, UH, THE REPORT ON, ON THAT KIND OF APPROACH? YEAH, I THINK THE REPORT REALLY STARTS TO COVER THAT, UM, IN A, IN A COUPLE OF WAYS. 
          ONE IS JUST LOOKING AT SORT OF MAKING THE CHANGES TO OUR REGULATORY SYSTEM IN TANDEM WITH INVESTMENTS AND IN TANDEM WITH THE PRESERVATION WORK THAT WE'RE DOING, UM, IS SORT OF A HUGE THRUST OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, THE OTHER IS REALLY IN TERMS OF HOW WE'VE PRIORITIZED WHICH 
          [04:20:01]
STATIONS WE WOULD RECOMMEND FOR PLANNING SERVICES MOVING FORWARD. 
          UM, AND AS YOU DIVE INTO THE REPORT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS THAT STAFF WENT THROUGH TO IDENTIFY KINDA THE HIGHEST PRIORITY STATIONS MM-HMM. 
          , UM, FOR PLANNING, AND THOSE ARE REALLY, UM, TO US, WE'RE SORT OF LOOKING AT WHICH OF THOSE STATIONS, UM, IS THE MARKET PROBABLY ALREADY GONNA BE GOING IN AND CHURNING MM-HMM. 
           AND HOW CAN WE GET AHEAD OF THAT MARKET CHURN, UM, WITH OUR PLANNING SERVICES MM-HMM. 
           AND, AND THOSE TWO PRIORITY STATIONS WOULD BE THE NORTH LA WARREN, SOUTH LAMAR TRANSIT CENTERS. 
          UM, WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT AN, THERE'S AN INHERIT, UH, LIST AND A PORTION OF THE REPORT THAT WARNER CAN SAY WHAT PORTION OF THE REPORT , AND TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT'S ON THAT LIST, ? YEAH. 
          SO IN, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE FULL METHODOLOGY IN ONE OF THE APPENDICES, BUT BASICALLY THERE'S, UM, A LIST BROKEN OUT BY RAIL AND BUS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND THE NORTH OF MARTIN SOUTH CONGRESS, ONES THAT YOU MENTIONED, COUNCIL MEMBER, THOSE ARE ALREADY MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR PARTNERS AT CAMP METRO. 
          SO THEY'RE KIND OF IN THIS YEAR ONE WORK PROGRAM. 
          WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA BE COLLABORATING IN THOSE STATION AREAS. 
          THERE IS A HIGH, MEDIUM LOW AFTER THAT FOR ALL THE STATIONS IN THE PROJECT CONNECT SYSTEM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IN TERMS OF THE, THE 300 MILLION ANTIS DISPLACEMENT, I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN ACQUIRING PROPERTIES, UH, WITH THAT, HAVE WE ACQUIRED ANY PROPERTIES AROUND, UH, THE, THE E T O D STATIONS OR, UH, SO WE, WE MIGHT NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. 
          UM, I KNOW WE, WE HAVE A MAP OF, UH, THE PURCHASE OF THAT LAND. 
          UM, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. 
          I DON'T HAVE, UM, I CAN'T VISUALIZE THEM ON THE MAP, UM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PUT A MAP TOGETHER AND OR HAVE STUFF, PULL THE MAP THAT WE HAVE AND ADD THAT TO BACKUP FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          I, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 
          AND, AND I, I KNOW THIS IS SET FOR THURSDAY. 
          I MEAN, I, I, IT'S, IT'S A LOT TO DIGEST HONESTLY, AND, AND I, I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO, UH, TO, UH, FIGURE IT OUT, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DIG AS DEEP AS WE CAN OVER HERE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THURSDAY, BUT I KNOW IT'S A BIG ITEM. 
          UH, IT'S GOT A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND I, I JUST HAVEN'T QUITE GOTTEN MY, MY HEAD AROUND IT YET. 
          BUT, UH, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL OF, UH, STAFF'S EFFORTS AND, AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONS LOOKING AT IT AND EVERYTHING TOO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, I SHARE YOUR, YOUR DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO DIVE INTO IT MORE AND, AND, AND WILL BE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. 
          I MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THURSDAY DEPENDING ON HOW THAT, THAT GOES. 
          UM, I DID, UM, WANNA SAY THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          I BELIEVE YOUR EXHIBIT B INCORPORATES THEM, BUT CAN YOU CLARIFY WHETHER WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO ADOPT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? YEAH, SO ON TH WE ARE, UM, GOING TO BE PUTTING OUT SOME LATE BACK UNDER CHANGES, CHANGES IN CORRECTIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE REPORT BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THEM. 
          UM, AND WARNER CAN PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THAT IF WE NEED TO. 
          OH, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, I CAN GIVE YOU THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE BEEN DRAFTING RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT YES, IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO, WE SHOULD BE POSTING A NEW VERSION. 
          OKAY. 
          I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          THE EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL MADE A NUMBER, LIKE 10 PLUS RECOMMENDATIONS, SO I CAN, SO, BUT YOU'RE GONNA GIVE EACH OF THOSE, OR FOR THE, ARE THEY ALL GONNA BE INCORPORATED? NOT EVERYONE IS RECOMMENDED FOR A TECH. 
          SOME OF THEM I THINK STAFF WOULD NEED FURTHER EVALUATION OR DIRECTION IF THAT WAS THE POLICY DECISION OF COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THEY WILL BE ALL BE IN BACKUP FOR YOUR REFERENCE WITH OUR RESPONSE, WITH OUR RESPONSE OF WHICH AMENDMENTS STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE YOU OKAY IF WE JUST READ IT WHEN THEY GET IT? YEAH. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN I ALSO WANTED TO JUST ADD MY VOICE TO THE GROUP THAT WANTS THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING TO WORK. 
          THOSE OF US WHO DON'T HAVE ET A S, UM, WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE TOOLS, UM, AS WELL. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COUNCIL , THANK YOU. 
          AND COLLEAGUES, IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, LIKE EVERY, THIS HAS BEEN SHARED, BUT IF Y'ALL ARE INTERESTED IN POSTPONING THIS ITEM TO JANUARY, I WOULD ALSO BE, UM, OPEN TO THAT. 
          I DO HAVE A POLICY I'M BRINGING FORWARD AROUND, UH, LAND USE AS IT RELATES TO CHILDCARE CENTERS AND SETTINGS. 
          AND SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT. 
          MAYOR PROTE, I, I ASKED MY TEAM TO LOOK INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF, OF OUR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION COUNCIL TO SEE HOW, UM, HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER. 
          UH, BUT MY, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER SOME COMMENTS ON, UM, ON LAND ACQUISITION ALONG THE RAIL LINES. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US, YOU KNOW, MANY OF US ARE EXPERIENCING RAPID DISPLACEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES, AND PARTICULARLY LONG THE ORANGE LINE. 
          I'VE HAD A CASE IN MY DISTRICT, UH, CUSTOMER RANIA HAS HAD A, A MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY IN HIS DISTRICT WHERE WE'RE 
          [04:25:01]
ALREADY SEEING SPECULATION HAPPEN. 
          AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN MOVE MORE QUICKLY WITH OUR LAND ACQUISITION, UH, TO MITIGATE DISPLACEMENT, I AM IN SUPPORT OF AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE PROGRESS TOWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND JUST ADD WITH EARLY CHILDHOOD, IF YOU CAN GET US THOSE EDITS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN REVIEW THEM, UM, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          COUNCIL, OH, YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          DID YOU NOT HEAR ME COUNCILMAN? UM, ALSO, UM, UM, I KNOW WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE LONG STAR LINE, THE COMMUTER RAIL FROM, UH, GEORGETOWN TO SAN ANTONIO, WHICH NEVER DID GO ANYWHERE, BUT WE STILL HAD CREATED SOME TIF ALONG THE, UM, RAIL STOP. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF, UH, HAVE Y'ALL STARTED, HAVE Y'ALL LOOKED INTO THAT? BECAUSE, UH, ONCE PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A RAIL STOP, THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF PETE RUSH TO, FOR INVESTORS TO GO IN THERE AND, AND TRY TO BUY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND WHATEVER THEY DEVELOP COULD BECOME A REAL GOOD SOURCE OF FUNDING TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS INSIDE OF THE, THE TOOL KIT THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE EQUITABLE TOD PLAN INCLUDES A NUMBER OF KIND OF INNOVATION APP FINANCING AND VALUE CAPTURE STRATEGIES, UM, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY TI OR TES COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, UH, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCILWOMAN FRONT DESK FOR, UH, BRINGING UP THE POTENTIAL FOR POSTPONEMENT. 
          IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, BUT, UM, IF I'M BEING ENTIRELY HONEST, THIS, THIS, THE WHOLE ETO CONVERSATION WAS EXTREME. 
          UM, IT, IT WAS, UM, IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT THAN I ANTICIPATED COMING IN. 
          AND I THINK THE PAIN WAS THAT I WAS JUST LIKE, WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR THE BLACK LADY TO BRING AN EQUITY ITEM? UM, BUT THEN IT, I REALIZED, ESPECIALLY EVEN NOW, I'M REALIZING THAT THERE'S SOME CONTINUED CONCERNS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW WE EXECUTE IT, IN WHICH CASE I AM, IF I, IF I FEEL HESITANT AT ALL, IT'S JUST, THERE WAS LIKE 30 AMENDMENTS THAT CAME. 
          IT WAS A, IT WAS A PROCESS. 
          AND SO THAT TO SAY I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH POSTPONE IT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT, BECAUSE IT IS THAT IMPORTANT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR TRIP COMING UP TO ATLANTA, I THINK HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THOSE MARTA E TAUGHT PEOPLE WOULD BE GOOD. 
          I THINK THERE'S SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT'LL PRESENT THEMSELVES BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THIS COMES UP IN JANUARY IF WE DECIDE TO POSTPONE IT. 
          UM, IN WHICH CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE OUR COLLEAGUES. 
          I KNOW A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN POSED FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ADVOCATES, UM, TO MY OFFICE THIS WEEK. 
          Y'ALL ARE PROBABLY GETTING THE SAME QUESTIONS IF, IF WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER A POSTPONEMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THURSDAY. 
          MY HOPE IS THAT WE HAVE KIND OF A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING INTO, UM, IN BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE DO BRING IT BACK, I WANT IT TO BE RIGHT, I WANT IT TO BE GOOD, BUT I ALSO WANNA MAKE CERTAIN THAT I DIDN'T MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO ADVOCATE FOR MYSELF AND THE PROCESS, UM, AND MAKE CERTAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT WE ARE FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS GREAT BIG THING, WHICH IS WHY WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          I, I DID WANNA ASK EITHER STEVE OR ERICA TO SPEAK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME WORK THAT IS ONGOING WITH CAP METRO THAT MIGHT GET INFLUENCED ON THAT. 
          SO I, I'D LIKE SOMEBODY TO ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I WILL, UM, JUST SAY WE DO, AND ONE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE RESOLUTION IS INITIATING IS REALLY THAT WORK TO DO STATION AREA PLANNING IN THE NORTH LAMAR AND THE SOUTH CONGRESS TRANSIT CENTER, UM, CAPITAL METRO AND THEIR CONSULTANT TEAM UNDER THE FTA GRANT THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED FOR THOSE LINES, UM, EXPECTS TO BE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, BE HOPE OR HOPES TO BE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY BEGINNING THAT WORK IN JANUARY. 
          UH, I KNOW THEY'VE GOT A HARD STOP ON THAT CONTRACT. 
          UM, SO THERE'S SORT OF A GOAL OF DOING THAT WORK BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE SO THAT IT CAN COME BACK FROM THE COUNCIL AT THAT POINT. 
          CAPITAL METRO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T NEED OUR DIRECTION TO GO INITIATE PLANNING WORK, SO THEY CAN ABSOLUTELY BE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY DOING THAT WORK WITHOUT THIS ACTION BEING TAKEN. 
          UM, BUT I KNOW THE LAST TIME WE HAD A A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, THERE WAS DEFINITELY A DESIRE ON THE DIAS FOR THE CITY TO FORMALLY INITIATE ANY, UM, LAND'S PLANNING ACTIVITIES THAT WE MIGHT BE DOING OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          UM, SO THAT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE IS REALLY THE, THE PRIMARY SENSE OF URGENCY AROUND THIS ITEM IS TO KIND OF PROVIDE THE, THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO PARTNER WITH CUT METRO ON THAT WORK, UM, THAT THEY WILL BE DOING IN JANUARY. 
          NATASHA, DO YOU WANNA FINISH LESLIE? WELL, KNOWING THAT MAYBE THERE'S PARTS OF IT THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH TOMORROW AND THEN DO SOME, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE 'EM OFF. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU AND I WERE DISCUSSING IS ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, MOVE THROUGH SOME OF OF THE STUFF. 
          WE COULD ADD STUFF LATER THAT NEEDED TO, 
          [04:30:01]
TO MAKE IT MORE ROBUST THAN ASK IT TOMORROW WHAT WE CAN, AND THEN HOLD THE PIECE MEAN THURSDAY. 
          I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANNA DO IT. 
          I'VE, I'VE ASKED MY QUESTIONS, I'M FINE RIGHT NOW. 
          I HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE, BUT YOU ALL CAN DEAL WITH THAT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU WANT. 
          I, I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO BE POSTPONING THAT SOMEONE ALERT US SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE TRYING TO CATCH UP SO THAT I CAN MOVE FORWARD AND FOCUS ON OTHER THINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IF IT'S GONNA BE, IF THE POSTPONEMENT IS GONNA BE PROPOSED, THAT FOLKS WOULD, WOULD HOPEFULLY DEFER TO ME TO DO SO. 
          AND I'M, I'M, I'M OPEN TO DOING THAT AND SO AFTER I GET A CHANCE TO CATCH UP WITH MY TEAM THIS AFTERNOON, I'LL LET YOU KNOW ASAP IF WE DECIDE THAT THAT'S THE BEST PATH FORWARD. 
          AND I WOULD JUST SAY FOR ME, IT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF MAKING SURE I GO THROUGH THE . 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY, I MEAN, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE AS SMP WAS STRUCTURED AND, AND, AND HAVE THAT HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CLARITY TO IT, UM, IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND, AND WHERE WE'RE GOING. 
          UM, BUT IF, BUT I WOULD RATHER KNOW THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER IF, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION, UM, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN LEADING ON THIS WANT TO GO, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          AND COUNCIL MEMBER, WERE AVAILABLE TO HELP WORK THROUGH ANY QUESTIONS YOUR STAFF HAS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? OKAY. 
          UM, SO ARE WE READY FOR AE OR SHOULD I KEEP, OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE GOT A COUPLE MORE ITEMS. UM, SO FOR ITEM 60, I PULLED THIS ITEM. 
          THIS IS, UM, THE ITEM THAT WAS A PROPOSITION, UM, FOR THE EXCHANGE OF THE CENTRAL MAINTENANCE COMPLEX IN FOR LAND AND UH, FUNDING. 
          UM, SO IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF COME UP FOR THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. GATES. 
          UM, SO I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. 
          WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS IN QUITE, QUITE SOME TIME. 
          UM, SO CAN YOU FIRST OF ALL TELL US WHERE THINGS CURRENTLY STAND IN THE PROCESS? WHAT WORK AND CONVERSATIONS HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED AND WHAT'S OUTSTANDING? UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR TIM COUNCIL MICHAEL GATES, REAL ESTATE SERVICES OFFICE DEPARTMENT. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE WAITING ON TWO APPRAISALS FOR THE TRACK THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE EXCHANGED FOR THE CITY CENTRAL MAINTENANCE COMPLEX. 
          THOSE APPRAISALS ARE EXPECTED TO BE IN THIS MONTH. 
          AND, UM, AFTER WE GET THOSE APPRAISALS IN, UH, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE VALUATIONS AND ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THOSE WITH THE, UM, RESPONDENT'S VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON THAT. 
          AND THAT WILL SERVE THE, AS ONE OF THE BASIS MACYS FOR THE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT. 
          AND IS IT THE APPRAISALS OF THE CENTRAL MAINTENANCE CENTER OR OF THE AUSTIN DRIVEWAY THAT ARE ALREADY SHIPP? THE AUSTIN RACETRACK PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND CAN YOU TELL US WHAT OUR APPRAISALS SAID FOR THE CENTRAL MAINTENANCE COMPLEX? I CAN, THAT WAS 35.3 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WHAT DOES THAT ASSUME IN TERMS OF DENSITY THAT AND WHEN WAS IT DONE? SO THAT ASSUMES PUD ZONING, IT'S A NINE ACRE SITE, UM, AND FOR A PUD BUT IT ASSUMES THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE PUD ZONING. 
          AND THAT IS, UM, A P U D WITH 55,000 4 37 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND CLASS A MULTIFAMILY ON LEVELS TWO TO FOUR, AND THAT INCLUDES 527 DWELLING UNITS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BUMP AND HEIGHT THAT EVERYONE AROUND THERE HAS, THAT THE DOMAIN EAST HAS OR ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES FROM THE EAST RIVERSIDE OVERLAY? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THAT PROPERTY WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE EAST CORRIDOR PLAN AS IT WAS PARK LAND AND CITY OWNED. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND DO WE HAVE AN APPRAISAL OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE IF WE INCLUDED IN THAT? BECAUSE PRESUMABLY ORACLE IS GONNA, OR WHOEVER IS BUYING IT, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, IS GONNA COME AND TRY AND GET THAT, UM, ZONING. 
          WE DO NOT. 
          UM, SO THAT WOULD BE A HYPOTHETICAL. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT REAPPRAISED AND GIVE THE APPRAISER THAT ASSUMPTION TO MAKE IN THE REPORT. 
          SO THE APPRAISER IS GOING TO ASSUME, UH, WHATEVER ZONING CAN BE ACHIEVED. 
          AND, UM, THEY TOOK A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, UM, AND HAD THE, UH, 60 FEET, UM, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, BUT TO PRESUME THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EAST CORRIDOR PLAN WOULD BE HYPOTHETICAL THAT THE APPRAISER PROBABLY THOUGHT THAT WAS A BRIDGE TOO FAR TO SPECULATE WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUATION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND YOU HAD SAID THAT WHEN I SPOKE WITH YOU, YOU HAD SAID YOU HADN'T SEEN THE APPRAISAL THAT THE OTHER PARTY HAD PUT TOGETHER, BUT THEY HAD AGREED TO OURS? I WOULDN'T SAY THEY HAVE AGREED TO OURS. 
          UM, THEY INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT TOO FAR APART ON OURS WITH THEIR EVALUATION, 
          [04:35:01]
BUT I'VE NOT SEEN THEIR EVALUATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THE OUTSTANDING PART, DID WE DO AN EVA, DID WE DO AN APPRAISAL OF THE AUSTIN DRIVEWAY? WE DID. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT AGAIN? UM, SO OUR APPRAISAL, UM, HAD THE BENEFIT OF A LAND PLAN AND, UH, THE RESPONDENT'S APPRAISAL APPRAISER DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A LAND PLAN, AND WE CAME UP WITH TWO PRETTY, UM, DISPARATE VALUATIONS. 
          AND SO WE WORKED TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONDENT, UH, ON A NEW LAND PLAN. 
          SO THE APPRAISERS ARE WORKING ON THE SAME SET OF ASSUMPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE RACETRACK PROPERTY. 
          AND THUS WE EXPECT THE TWO APPRAISALS WE'RE GETTING IN THIS MONTH TO BE MUCH CLOSER IN VALUE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. 
          AND WHAT WAS OUR ORIGINAL APPRAISAL NUMBER FOR AUSTIN DRIVING? SO THERE'S NECESSARILY GONNA BE A NEGOTIATION ASPECT OF THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I, I THINK WE'RE POSTED THURSDAY FOR, FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF NEED BE TO, TO KIND OF GET INTO THAT. 
          IF, IF OKAY. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS THOUGH FOR THE AUSTIN DRIVEWAY OVER THE LAND PLANNING FOR THE INITIAL APPRAISALS YES. 
          FOR THE INITIAL APPRAISALS AND YOU'RE MOVING TOWARDS THOSE. 
          BUT FOR THE CMC THE APPRAISAL ASSUMED ONLY FOUR STORIES. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THAT WAS AT 35.3 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GET COPIES OF THOSE APPRAISALS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME? UM, WE MAY WANT TO HAVE AN NDA SIGNED, UM, IN ORDER TO RELEASE THOSE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MUCH IT WILL COST TO BUILD A NEW CENTRAL MAINTENANCE CENTER OVER IN THE, UH, OTHER LAND? I DO NOT HAVE THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF DIRECTOR MCNEILLY'S ON THE LINE SHE'S BEEN WORKING THAT ASPECT OF IT. 
          SHE HERE I CAN PING HER, SEE IF SHE OKAY. 
          IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN PING OUR, UM, I'M, I'M REALLY CONCERNED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GONNA BE RECEIVING ENOUGH IN THIS DEAL THAT WE ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD THE MAINTENANCE CENTER THAT WE NEED. 
          AND EVEN AS SUCH, IT'S ONLY, YOU KNOW, IMAGINE TO BE COVERING THE FIESTA GARDEN MAINTENANCE CENTER AND THIS MAINTENANCE CENTER. 
          SO I'LL LET DIRECTOR MCNE KNOW. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          IT'S ON, IT'S ON GOOD AFTERNOON DIRECTLY NEELY, CAN YOU, UM, TELL US HOW MUCH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO, TO BUILD A CENTRAL MAINTENANCE CENTER IN THE POSE LOCATION? THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT IS CONTINUING TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF WHAT A, UH, A CENTER, I'M SORRY, A CENTRAL MAINTENANCE COMPOUND COULD LOOK LIKE. 
          AND SO THE, UH, AMOUNTS, UH, RANGE ANYWHERE FROM 15 MILLION TO 40 MILLION DEPENDING UPON, UH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          SO WE HAVEN'T COME TO A FINAL PROGRAM YET AS WE STILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH CONVERSATIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ESTIMATES AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE ESTIMATES AND DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC VIA, UH, PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORTS AND SOME OTHER THINGS. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE A CONSISTENT NUMBER THAT YOU WOULD SEE OVER TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE. 
          CAN YOU PUT THOSE, UM, DOCUMENTS IN THE BACKUP FOR THIS ITEM SO THAT WE CAN YES, MA'AM. 
          SHE RECEIVED IT VIA A COUNSEL QUESTION, SO WE WILL ANSWER THAT COUNSEL QUESTION SIMILAR TO THAT'S GREAT. 
          UM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSALS IN QUESTION ARE PROVIDING SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR YOU TO BUILD THE CENTRAL MAINTENANCE CENTER? WE HAVEN'T, WE, ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THE, UH, PROPOSAL, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN PRICE AND LAND IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO GET US A CENTRAL MAINTENANCE CENTER, AND I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE I'M NOT PRIVY TO NEGOTIATIONS WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING IN TERMS OF AMOUNTS. 
          AND WE WENT TO THE VOTERS AND WE SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA GET THE COST OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN THIS PROCESS. 
          BUT IF, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH A MAINTENANCE FACILITY IS, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND MAKE CLEAR THAT WE WENT TO THE VOTERS WITH A PARTICULAR DEAL AND THAT HAS TO STILL HAPPEN. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          SO WE ARE, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK WITH THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE VALUATION OF THE LAND. 
          AND AS WE ARE BECOMING TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, WE ARE NOW BEGINNING THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT A CENTRAL MAINTENANCE COMPOUND COULD, WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT IT WOULD COST. 
          BUT WE ARE NOT AT A FINAL NUMBER AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. 
          WE'RE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THIS WORK IS IN PROGRESS, IT SOUNDS LIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF PIECES AND IT'S STILL BEING NEGOTIATED. 
          SO I'M 
          [04:40:01]
JUST CURIOUS, WHAT DOES THIS DIRECTION DO FOR THE PROCESS? LIKE WHAT, WHAT DO YOU TAKE AWAY FROM THIS DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD FROM THIS ITEM THAT YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE DIRECTION TO DO? I THINK THE INTENT IS TO CONTINUE TO STILL WORK TOWARDS RECONCILING THESE VALUES AND, AND FINALIZING THE PROPERTY EXCHANGE AND THE, THE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD BE CURRENTLY DOING? NOTHING OCCURS TO ME. 
          OKAY. 
          NO. 
          CAN YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE BEING OFFERED? UM, CAN YOU GIVE US DETAILS ABOUT THE LAND WE'RE BEING OFFERED, INCLUDING SENDING US A VISUAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY, SHOWING WHERE IT'S PROVIDING US WATERFRONT ACCESS AND THE QUALITY OF THAT ACCESS, UM, AND TELLING US WHAT TYPE OF WATERFRONT ACCESS DOES THE LAND THEY ARE OFFERING US. 
          INCLUDE, I CAN GET YOU SPECIFICS ABOUT THE PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALITY. 
          IT'S KIND OF A SUBJECTIVE MEASURE. 
          UM, WE CAN GET YOU AERIAL PHOTOS AND, UM, POSSIBLY SOMETHING WITH SOME DIAGRAMS ON IT SHOWING KIND OF ACCESS POINTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          IF THAT WOULD SPICE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND, AND VERY, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE ACCESS THAT WE'RE GETTING. 
          YES. 
          UM, AND WE'LL WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT WE PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE ASKED, BUT THAT WE DON'T IN ANY WAY COMPROMISE, UM, THIS PROCESS. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED, BUT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE PROCESS. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND IF I MIGHT ADD, UM, THAT, THAT QUESTION WAS ALSO PART OF A, AS I WAS SITTING, THAT QUESTION CAME THROUGH, UM, VIA, UM, A COUNSEL QUESTION. 
          SO IT'LL ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, UM, PUBLICLY PUT THAT FORWARD. 
          OTHERWISE WE'LL GET THE INFOR, WE'LL FIGURE OUT WITH THE, THE LAW DEPARTMENT HOW TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMES MORE TROUBLE. 
          UM, THANK YOU MAYOR PATAM FOR PULLING THIS. 
          I HAD, I HAD THE SAME GLOBAL QUESTION ABOUT KIND OF WHAT THE, WHAT THE ACTION THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING TAKING, WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE. 
          ONE THING I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT IS THAT IT TALKS ABOUT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IN THE FIRST QUARTER. 
          AND I WANNA ASK YOU, I MEAN, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. 
          I THINK THAT, THAT WE REALIZE THE HIGHEST VALUE FOR THE CITY OF ANY ARRANGEMENT. 
          AND SO DOES, DOES THE TIMEFRAME THAT'S LAID OUT IN THIS RESOLUTION IMPACT YOUR ABILITY TO DO THAT IN ANY WAY? SO THE PROPERTY WAS THE, THE, THE BALLOT PROPOSITION, THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED A CERTAIN WAY. 
          UM, AND IF IF COUNCIL'S DESIRE WAS TO, UH, REALIZE THE, THE MOST FINANCIAL RETURN ON THE PROPERTY, UM, THEN THAT WOULD, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE WOULD COUNSEL COULD, UH, HAVE IT ZONED AND POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, ADD IT TO THESE COURT EASTERN. 
          I'M ABOUT, I'M ABOUT TO GET TO THAT POINT, BUT, UM, OKAY. 
          YEAH, THE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING A TIMEFRAME FOR YOUR END OF DELIBERATIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO, UM, SHORTCUT ANY OTHER PROCESSES YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED. 
          SO I THINK BACK TO THE QUESTION, MAYOR PROTON WAS ASKING ABOUT WHAT THIS, WHETHER THIS CHANGE, WOULD YOU GO ABOUT IT ANY DIFFERENTLY IF WE PASS THIS THAT TALKS ABOUT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL WITH A DECISION WITH, UM, A RECOMMENDATION IN THE FIRST QUARTER? I THINK THAT'S ACHIEVABLE. 
          WE ARE EXPECTING THESE NEW VALUES IN THIS MONTH, AND SO UNLESS, UM, THE VALUES COME IN AND, UH, THE RESPONDENT, UM, THEY'RE NOT WARMLY RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT, AND WE GET INTO SOMETHING PROTRACTED, UH, THAT THAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVABLE. 
          SO ONE CONCERN, ONE MAJOR, MAJOR CONCERN THAT I HAVE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED IN EVERY CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IS JUST THE ONE YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED. 
          YOU KNOW, IT, THIS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED TO ME BY VARIOUS FOLKS, INCLUDING SOME FORMER CITY STAFF AS ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE TRACKS, CITY'S PORTFOLIO OF LAND. 
          AND IN OUR CONVERSATIONS PRIOR TO PUTTING THIS ITEM ON THE BALLOT, WE HAD REALLY EXPLICIT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT JUST THE ISSUE MAYOR PERCHE MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE TRACKS RIGHT AROUND THIS ONE HAVE REALLY SIGNIFICANT ENTITLEMENTS. 
          AND SO TO, TO VALUE THIS APPROPRIATELY, THE APPRAISER SHOULD BE LOOKING AT, AT THIS TRACK WITH THOSE EXISTING, WITH THE ENTITLEMENT THAT OTHER TRACKS SURROUNDING IT WOULD HAVE. 
          BECAUSE IF THIS IS, COULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER THOSE AND THIS COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, SO, SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, ABOUT WHAT I HEAR HERE THAT, UM, WE'RE THAT THE APPRAISAL DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE RIVERSIDE, UM, PLAN. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT WITHIN IT, BUT WE, WE KNOW THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE ACT OF COUNSEL TO GET IT THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO AGAIN, TO ASSUME THAT COUNSEL WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, UM, THAT WOULD BE A HYPOTHETICAL. 
          THE APPRAISER PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE ASSUMING, UM, AND, 
          [04:45:01]
AND ABSENT IN THE INTENT OF COUNSEL TO IN FACT INCLUDE IT, UM, THEY'RE GOING TO ASSUME JUST BASE ZONING AND THEY, THEY TYPICALLY WILL LOOK AT NEARBY PROPERTIES AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE HERE. 
          IS THIS GONE ACROSS THE STREET? UM, AND AGAIN, COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WAS PARKLAND COULD HAVE INCORPORATED INTO THE EAST CORRIDOR PLAN, DID NOT. 
          AND SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LAST KIND OF WORD ON THAT, AND THUS THE ASSUMPTION THE APPRAISER MADE. 
          I SEE. 
          BUT SINCE WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND I THINK ALSO AN OPEN SESSION MANAGER ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE VALUED APPROPRIATELY. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD PARTICIPATE IN AN EXCHANGE OR A LEASE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WITH A TRACK THAT WE KNOW IS GOING TO BE UNDERVALUED BECAUSE IT WAS VALUED AS, YOU KNOW, NOT OUTSIDE OF THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT EVERY PROPERTY AROUND IT HAS. 
          I MEAN, WE HAD THOSE VERY EXPLICIT CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S, I I MAYBE THE WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS THROUGH AN AMENDMENT TO THIS RESOLUTION DIRECTING, DIRECTING YOU ALL TO, UM, GET ANOTHER APPRAISAL THAT ACTUALLY VALUES IT BASED ON, UM, ENTITLEMENTS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE RIVERSIDE QUARTER PLAN. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT THE RESPONDENT MADE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY PREMISED ON THE VALUATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE RFP. 
          AND SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS NOW. 
          AND SO TO, TO REAPPRAISE THAT WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF ASSUMPTIONS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY CHANGING THINGS MIDSTREAM. 
          AND SO I DON'T KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OVERALL DEAL, I I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT. 
          I, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY, WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. GATES, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE PROMISED TO THE VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR THIS. 
          UM, AND, AND WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING RIGHT NOW DOES NOT MEET THE SPIRIT OF THAT. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, ON ONE HAND, YOU ARE REDUCING THE APPRAISAL. 
          ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU'RE RAISING THE APPRAISAL BASED ON LAND CALCULATIONS. 
          AND SO I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE DOING THIS PERSONALLY, BUT THE WAY THE PROCESS IS WORKING THAT'S HAPPENING, UM, AND IT MAKES ME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE. 
          BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE CONSEQUENCE OF IT IS, IS THAT THE VOTERS ARE EXPECTING THE CENTRAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF PAR IN THE NEW LOCATION. 
          AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY BETWEEN THOSE NUMBERS TO GET EVEN THE MOST MODEST AMOUNT IN THERE, UM, OF WHAT WE NEED FOR THAT. 
          AND SO SOMETHING IS OFF HERE, UM, AND, AND SO I'M JUST GONNA EXPECT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE GETTING THE VALUE FOR OUR MONEY FROM THAT PROPERTY IN THIS EXCHANGE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD WE WERE DOING ALL ALONG. 
          I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE, WE DIDN'T SEE THE RFP, WHICH IS PART OF ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS. 
          SO WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE RFP HAD AN APPRAISAL THAT HAD A FOUR-STORY BUILDING IN IT. 
          AND WE, BUT WE DID HIGHLIGHT THAT AS A CONCERN. 
          I MEAN, WE HIGHLIGHTED THAT LONG, LONG AGO AS A CONCERN. 
          AND SO JUST TO UNDERSCORE THIS LAST EXCHANGE, THE PROPERTY, THE, THE DRIVEWAY IS BEING APPRAISED AT HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AND OURS IS BEING APPRAISED NOT AT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST, I THINK IT'S OF JU HUGE CONCERN. 
          UM, IF WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD, NUMBER ONE, THESE WERE ALL CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. 
          THIS IS NOT A NEW, THESE ARE NOT NEW CONCERNS. 
          THESE WERE ALL RAISED WAY BACK WHEN, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WEREN'T COMMUNICATED EFFECTIVELY TO THE PARTY, TO ANY PARTIES WHO WERE INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR THE RFP, WHO REALLY WAS JUST ONE PARTY FOR WHOM THAT RFP WAS STRUCTURED. 
          BUT REGARDLESS, I MEAN, IF WE'RE UNDERVALUING OUR PROPERTY AND OVERVALUING THEIRS, THAT, THAT JUST AMOUNTS TO A CORPORATE GIVEAWAY THAT I, I DON'T THINK IS THE BEST WAY OF, OF MOVING FORWARD, UM, AS A CITY. 
          SO I, I DID REQUEST, I SUBMITTED SOME QUESTIONS IN THE Q AND A, UM, REQUESTING THE APPRAISALS. 
          I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND ADD SOME, I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT MR. GATES IS SAYING THAT THE APPRAISALS ONE IS IN PROGRESS, ONE IS DONE, BUT CAN'T BE REVIEWED, CAN'T BE RELEASED PUBLICLY. 
          BUT I WILL TRY TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THE MAYOR PROTON WAS SUGGESTING SO THAT WE CAN REALLY LAY OUT WHAT THE ASSUMPTIONS WERE FOR EACH SO THAT AT LEAST WE AND THE PUBLIC CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE THAT WERE UNDER GUARDING THAT. 
          AND, UH, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE DID ASK, UH, MAYOR PROTE WAS TO PROVIDE ANY ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED EXCHANGE PROPERTY, INCLUDING A MAP SHOWING THE FLOOD PLAN AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITY. 
          SO THAT MIGHT HELP ASSESS WHAT THE WATER ACCESS IS AND WHAT THE QUALITY OF THAT ACCESS IS. 
          UH, AND I, AND I ALSO JUST WANNA REMIND FOLKS, UM, THERE WERE DIFFERENT, I MEAN, THE LANGUAGE ALSO TALKED ABOUT LEASES RATHER THAN SALES. 
          SO IT, IT 
          [04:50:01]
HAS BOTH OF THOSE LANGUAGE, IT HAS BOTH LEASE AND SALE AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE REALLY SHOULD ONLY MOVE ON IF IT'S MOVE FORWARD, IF IT'S A, IF IT'S THE RIGHT DEAL FOR THE CITY AND, AND FULLY RECOGNIZES THE VALUE, UM, OF OUR PROPERTY. 
          AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES TOO, THAT, UH, THERE IS A CREEK THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          SO, UH, YEAH, IT'S NOT ALL DEVELOPABLE. 
          IT IS, UM, THERE, THERE IS, UH, SOME FLOODING THAT'S GO AROUND THERE, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO USE THE WHOLE PIECE OF, UH, THE WHOLE LAND. 
          AND THEY'RE IN DESPERATE NEED FOR ANOTHER LOCATION, LOCATION FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE YARD. 
          AND, UH, THE PARK DEPARTMENT NEEDED, REALLY NEEDED THAT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THEY WENT INTO THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING, UH, MAYBE A NEW EXCHANGE OR SOMETHING. 
          AND, UH, SO, UH, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE WENT. 
          THE VOTERS APPROVED THAT. 
          SO, UH, THEY JUST NEGOTIATED THEIR CONTRACT, SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME. 
          AND THEN WHEN THEY COME BACK UP, Y'ALL CAN MAKE THAT, UM, WHAT CONTRACT? SORRY, REMEMBER WHAT, WHAT CONTRACT YOU MEAN? I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT CON YOUR LAST COMMENT ABOUT THE CONTRACT. 
          THEY JUST NEGOTIATED A CONTRACT. 
          WELL, THEY'RE NEGOTIATING THE APPEARANCE VALUE PART OF IT. 
          SO THEY, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NEGOTIATING OVER THE APPRAISED VALUE OF, SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE AT RIGHT NOW. 
          AND WHEN THEY COME BACK, THEN Y'ALL CAN MAKE A DECISION. 
          DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW? OKAY. 
          UM, DIRECTOR MCNE. 
          UM, I STILL NEED TO REPORT, REVIEW THE REPORT TO PAR MYSELF, BUT, UM, WHEN MY STAFF REVIEWED THE INITIAL REPORT, IT, IT SEEMED TO STATE THAT THE MINIMUM NEEDED WAS 45 MILLION FOR THE CMC. 
          AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING 15 TO 45. 
          I SAID THAT ORIGINALLY THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT 15 MILLION AND THEN IT'S GONE ALL THE WAY TO 45. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT I, WE'VE, DEPENDING UPON WHAT PROGRAM YOU LOOK AT, IT DEPENDS UPON WHAT, WHAT THE, SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE RANGE, BUT WE HAVE NOT FINALIZED WHAT A PROGRAM, SO WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING FROM MINIMUM TO ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM. 
          AND, AND WE HAVEN'T DECIDED ANYWHERE WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN BETWEEN. 
          SO THERE'S STILL THE CON CONVERSATIONS AND, AND WORK THAT'S BEING DONE BY OUR OWN STAFF AND NEGOTIATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I THOUGHT IT WAS 40 MILLION, SO IF IT DOES SAY 45 IN, IN THERE, I STAND CORRECTED. 
          SURE. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS, UM, FLYING AROUND HERE WITH THIS. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANNA UNDERSCORE, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GET THESE POTS OF MONEY AND MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT WE PROMISED THE VOTERS THAT WE WERE DELIVERING ESSENTIAL MAINTENANCE CENTER OF PARTICULAR QUALITY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALSO GONNA BE DOING THE WORK AT FIESTA GARDENS, UM, TO REMOVE THEIR MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND PROVIDE SOME OF THE RESTORATION. 
          AND, AND THERE'S SOMETHING OFF IN THE NUMBERS THAT I'M HEARING AT THIS POINT, AND THAT GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE ABOUT, ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE DELIVERING WHAT WE PROMISED. 
          UM, I THINK THE, ASSUMING THAT WE ARE STILL NOT TAKING UP BRODY, THE LAST ITEM IS ITEM 74, WHICH I PULLED, UM, I'M SORRY, I PULLED 64 THIS MORNING. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'LL BE REAL FAST. 
          I JUST HAVE, GO AHEAD. 
          OH, UM, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN. 
          I WAS NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, SO I WAS JUST, I WAS WONDERING IF, UM, COUNCIL NUMBER TOVO WOULD BE, TOVO WOULD BE AMENABLE TO AN AMENDMENT WITH HER RESOLUTION THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD REGARDING, UM, PUBLIC FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS BEFORE THE CITY MANAGER BRINGS BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          UM, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN YOUR IFC. 
          SO, SO, UM, I THINK HAVING A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ABOUT STRS MAKES SENSE. 
          UH, CONSTITUENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE, HAVE SUGGESTED A RANGE OF CHANGES THEY BELIEVE ARE LEGALLY VIABLE AND REALLY NECESSARY HERE. 
          AND WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE LAST WEEK IN EXECUTIVE, LET ME JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT, THAT I THINK THEY'LL, THEY WOULD REQUIRE MORE CONVERSATION. 
          AND SO I THINK TAKING TIME ON THOSE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS MAKES SENSE, AND DOING SO IN THE COURSE OF A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WOULD BE FINE. 
          THIS, WHAT I HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD WITH MY COLLEAGUES, THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER, ILLA OTHERS, UM, DOES, DOES ONE THING VERY SIMPLY, AND IT SAYS THAT PLATFORMS, UM, SHOULD MAKE SURE, SHOULD THAT WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE LEGALLY LICENSED BEFORE THEY ADVERTISE THEM. 
          THAT IS WITHIN OUR LEGAL ABILITY. 
          AND I THINK IT IS, UM, NECESSARY. 
          AND, AND SO I'M NOT SURE 
          [04:55:01]
HOW MUCH STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS NECESSARY TO, TO JUST REQUIRE, I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MY STAFF LOOKED AROUND THE COUNTRY AT, AT DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS ALONG THOSE LINES, THERE ARE VERY LITTLE VARIATION, UM, IN TERMS OF THE REGULATION TO REQUIRE PLATFORMS TO, TO, UM, ENSURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO ADVERTISE BEFORE THEY PUT THEM ON THERE. 
          SO I CAN FULLY SUPPORT A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT NOT ONE THAT DELAYS THAT REALLY IMPORTANT PROVISION. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE LICENSED TO OPERATE, AND ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING TO THE PLATFORMS, HEY, MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO OPERATE BEFORE YOU, UM, BEFORE YOU ADVERTISE 'EM. 
          SO I THINK THAT WOULD CONCERN ME BECAUSE IT'S DELAYING WHAT I SEE AS A VERY NECESSARY PROVISION AND FRANKLY, ONE THAT, THAT A LOT OF OTHERS SEE AS A VERY NECESSARY PROVISION. 
          AND, AND ONE THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING, HAVE YOU DONE ANY, OR COULD YOU LET US KNOW AS A COUNCIL WHAT KIND OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH YOU'VE MAY HAVE DONE ALREADY WHILE MAKING THIS? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES AND WHAT THEY DID, BUT WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU ENGAGED WITH REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR IFC? YEAH, WE'VE HAD A HOST OF, WE ALL HAVE HAD A HOST OF FOLKS REACH OUT TO US AS DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS HAPPENED. 
          UM, IN LIGHT OF RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS, WE'VE HAD A HOST OF FOLKS FOR YEARS NOW, AND I THINK, UH, I THINK THERE'S SORT OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP THAT COMMUNICATES WITH OUR CITY STAFF AS WELL AS WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL OFFICES ABOUT IT. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, I MEAN, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE SUGGESTED A RANGE OF ADDITION, A RANGE OF CHANGES, EVERYTHING FROM REDUCING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE ALLOW 25% OF ANY MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT TO BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          THEY'VE SUGGESTED WE REALLY REDUCE THAT DOWN, MAYBE ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER TO CREATE MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. 
          SO THERE'S A RANGE OF THINGS THAT THAT GROUP AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SUGGESTED. 
          UM, THIS IS, THAT WILL REQUIRE MORE CONVERSATION AND, AND INCLUDING WITHIN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, MY GUESS IS, WELL THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE STEP. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE AN ORD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN EXISTING ORDINANCE ON THE BOOK, BOOKS. 
          WE REQUIRE PLACES, WE REQUIRE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IF THEY'RE GONNA OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO HAVE A LICENSE. 
          THIS SIMPLY ASKS PLATFORMS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE LICENSES BEFORE THEY ADVERTISE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EXPLAINING THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THE LAST ITEM PULLED, ASSUMING WE'RE NOT TAKING A BRODY, UM, IS ITEM 74. 
          UM, THIS WAS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S ITEM THAT I PULLED. 
          UM, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TRANSIT FORWARD. 
          CAN CAN I SPEAK TO, I I NEED TO LET, WELL, OKAY. 
          THERE'S GONNA BE SOME CHANGES, BUT GO AHEAD AND THEN I'LL EXPLAIN. 
          SURE. 
          UM, WE'VE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM TRANSIT FORWARD REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL, UM, TO NOT TAKE THIS UP THIS WEEK. 
          UM, AND FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. 
          UM, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT, UM, AND, AND WOULD INTEND TO MAKE THAT MOTION IF, IF IT COMES TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UH, YES, I, I DON'T PLAN ON POSTPONING THIS, BUT I DO, I I AM IN THE PROCESS OF, OF WORKING ON, UH, SOME AMENDMENTS WITH MY CO-SPONSORS THAT I THINK WILL ADDRESS, UH, TFA AND THEIR CONCERNS. 
          SO I FULLY EXPECT THEM, UH, TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD, UM, UH, BASED UPON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW WITH THEM AND WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. 
          SO I HEAR THE CONCERNS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT POSTPONE, BUT I'M ALSO WORKING TOWARDS, UM, UH, AN APPROACH THAT EVERYONE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          SO I HOPE TO GET THAT POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD TOMORROW SO MY COLLEAGUES CAN, CAN SEE THAT. 
          UM, AND, UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO, UH, TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT YOU PROPOSE, BUT I, I WILL JUST FLAG THAT, UM, GIVEN THESE COMMENTS AND GIVEN MY EXPERIENCE BEING ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR A NOMINATING COMMITTEE TWICE, I HAVE A LOT OF RESERVATIONS ABOUT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE CHANGING, SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'LL BE ADDRESSING THOSE AND I'M NOT IN AORM WITH YOU, SO I CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          UM, BUT I WILL JUST FLAG THAT I HAVE A LOT OF, LOT OF QUESTIONS AND RESERVATIONS ABOUT HOW IT'S DRAFTED RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE, I, I, I'VE HEARD THAT FROM A, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND I THINK WE'LL BE ADDRESSING THOSE, BUT, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WILL NOT SUPPORT, UM, POSTPONING IT, BUT I THINK, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE RAISED. 
          SO FINE IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE ANSWERING THAT. 
          UM, SO I AM GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE A, HOW ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE WILL TAKE UP AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, SO THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SLIDE THIS ROOM. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          IT'S FOUR 15 AND WE ARE BACK 
          [05:00:01]
IN THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION. 
          UH, COLLEAGUES, IF YOU ARE OUT IN THE ATRIUM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME IN HERE. 
          WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED A MINUTE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO YEP. 
          S A PAPER, IF WE COULD JUST GET, UH, KIND OF, UM, . 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, BUT THEY CAME, DID THEY, THEY CAME FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THOUGH, RIGHT? OKAY. 
          THAT I DON'T KNOW, BUT, UM, SHE SAID THAT AS SOON AS SHE'S BACK, SHE WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE TO YEAH, YEAH. 
          EXPLAIN WHAT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW. 
          UM, CAN I EXPLAIN WHAT THESE ARE? UM, SURE. 
          NOT DISCUSSING. 
          SURE. 
          WE ARE, WE ARE STILL MISSING TWO COUNCIL OVER, BUT YOU SURE CAN GO AHEAD AND MAYBE THAT'LL GET THEM. 
          YEAH, THESE ARE, I THINK ONE OF THESE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISTRIBUTED FROM AE WITH SOME OTHER SCENARIOS THEY RAN FOR, FOR ME LAST WEEK OR SO. 
          AND THEN ON FRIDAY I HAD ASKED THEM TO RUN, TO RUN A, A PARTICULAR SCENARIO, BUT USING, USING THE TIERS THAT HAD BEEN, UM, THAT WERE PRESENT IN FOUR B IN SCENARIO FOUR B. 
          SO, SO THESE ARE UNFORTUNATELY SORT OF APPLES TO ORANGES, BUT ONE, THE ONE THAT WAS RUN WITH A 22 MILLION, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT USES THE TIER AS THEY'VE BEEN RECOMMENDED TO US BY OUR OUTSIDE, UM, JOINT, BY THE JOINT PROPOSAL BY THE INTERVENERS WHO CAME TOGETHER WITH THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          THE OTHER ONE, IT USES THE TIERS FROM, USES A HIGHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT THE TIERS FROM SCENARIO FOUR B. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING BEFORE YOU HEAR AGAIN. 
          ONE OF THEM, I THINK YOU ALREADY HAVE. 
          THE OTHER ONE HADN'T BEEN DISTRIBUTED YET TO ANYBODY ELSE. 
          AND SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE FOR CONVERSATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE COMING BACK, BUT I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED AND WE'LL, WE'LL CATCH THEM BACK UP IF AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, OR WOULD YOU LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE? UH, NO, WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE, UM, SCENARIOS. 
          UM, BUT EARLIER WHEN YOU ALL KINDA WENT AROUND THE ROOM TALKING ABOUT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, UM, OUR INTERPRETATION WAS THAT THERE WERE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT, UM, UM, WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE 31.3 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN FOUR B COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS WOULD IS NOT HERE, SO WE DON'T KNOW HER POSITION. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, WE HEARD YOU ALL, UM, DISCUSS CUSTOMER CHARGE AND, UM, AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE IT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY'RE SORT OF CONSENSUS OR COALESCING AROUND $13. 
          UH, AND THEN THAT LEAVES YOU WITH THE, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF TIERS. 
          IT'S LIKE EVERYONE'S ON BOARD WITH FOUR RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS. 
          UH, AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE BREAK POINTS AND 
          [05:05:01]
THEN THE RATES AND, UH, AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HEAR A, A CONSENSUS OR A, WITH RESPECT TO FOUR B, UM, BUT WE WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THAT SO THAT AE CAN GO AND RUN THOSE IN ANTICIPATION OF, UH, THURSDAY'S MEETING. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT RESOLVES ISSUES 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          WHY DON'T YOU SAY THOSE ONE MORE TIME AND THEN PEOPLE CAN, CAN SPEAK TO THEM. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT, UM, THERE WAS A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO, UM, WERE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE 31.3 REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT'S CONTAINED IN PROPOSAL FOUR B OR SCENARIO FOUR B. 
          THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE IS, UM, DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS, BUT, UH, A NUMBER OF YOU ALL MENTIONED $13, UM, SOME MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT LOWER, GOING AS LOW AS 12, UH, NO AS LOW AS 12. 
          OTHERS, UM, SUPPORTED FOUR B, WHICH WOULD BE A THREE STEP APPROACH, 14, 15, 16. 
          UM, SO WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE THERE. 
          UH, AND THEN ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS, I THINK THAT EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT ON FOUR TIERS. 
          BUT AS FAR AS THE BREAK POINTS AND THE RATES, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OR NOT, BUT, UM, WE NEED SOME DIRECTION THERE IF WE COULD GET THAT. 
          UH, AND, AND IF THERE'S ENOUGH TO SUPPORT DOING THE, UM, RATE DESIGN FOR THAT'S CONTAINED IN FOUR B, THEN THAT WOULD RESOLVE REALLY ISSUES 3, 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT AE WOULD NEED TO GO FORWARD AND PREPARE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU ALL CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THURSDAY TRIPLE. 
          I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 
          IS, IS NOW A GOOD TIME? OKAY. 
          WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT THE PROGRAM CUSTOMERS, UM, CONTINUE TO SEE SOME PRETTY MEANINGFUL, UM, DISCOUNTS. 
          AND WE JUST SET SOME GOALS TO ENROLL 72% OF HOUSEHOLDS ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PROGRAM AND SOME ACTION THAT WE TOOK AT A PREVIOUS, UH, COUNCIL MEETING. 
          SO I WANNA DIG IN ON HOW WE SHOULD BALANCE THE FIXED RATE CHARGE WITH THE RIGHT STRUCTURE. 
          AND I'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO, UM, ASK MR. BOCATO AND, AND MS. SERGEANT, SO THE FIRST QUESTION, HOLDING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT CONSTANT, WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR CAP CUSTOMERS WHEN YOU REDUCE THE FIXED CHARGE? AND BEFORE YOU ANSWER, I WANNA SAY, I KNOW THIS ISN'T EXACT, BUT I UNDERSTAND IF WE LOWER THE FIXED CHARGE BY A DOLLAR, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY RAISING CHARGES FOR THOSE CAP CUSTOMERS. 
          THEIR DISCOUNTS ARE REDUCED BY THE DOLLAR BECAUSE THEY ARE DISCOUNTED FROM THE FIXED RATES. 
          SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR US? , EITHER YES, BECAUSE THE, UM, CUSTOMERS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR OUR CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, UM, HAVE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE OF THEIR BASE RATES, UM, WAIVED. 
          AS YOU REDUCE THAT, UM, UH, CUSTOMER CHARGE, THEN THAT AMOUNT THAT GETS WAIVED FOR THEM, UM, IS DECREASED AND IT'S COMPENSATED FOR IN THE RATES, UM, WHICH DO GO UP. 
          BUT THEY DO CONTINUE TO GET A 10% DISCOUNT AND IT EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY A DOLLAR. 
          SO WHEN WE WERE AT THE ORIGINAL $25 AND THAT WAS GETTING WAIVED FOR THEM, THEY WERE SEEING IT A SIGNIFICANT MORE BENEFIT. 
          BUT UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND JUST TO PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT A DOLLAR AND I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T MAKE MOVES THAT UNINTENTIONALLY UNDERMINE. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN AS WE TALK ABOUT TIER ONE, UH, MR. BOCATO, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING SCOTT? NO, NOTHING FOR, OKAY. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TIER ONE CUSTOMERS, I REALIZE ALL OF US ARE TIER ONE CUSTOMERS AT THE START OF THE MONTH, THAT THERE ARE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE ABLE TO REMAIN IN TIER ONE ALL MONTH BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY LOW ENERGY USERS. 
          CAN YOU TELL US THE GENERAL PROFILE OF A RATE PAYER WHO IS ABLE TO STAY IN TIER ONE? THOSE, THOSE RATE PAYERS WOULD TYPICALLY BE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN, UM, VERY ENERGY 
          [05:10:01]
EFFICIENT, UM, MULTI-FAMILY OR CONDOMINIUMS. UM, AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE SEEING BEING DEVELOPED IN THE, THE CITY IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IS MORE MULTI-FAMILY OR, OR CONDOMINIUM STYLE. 
          UM, AND THEN WITH THE BUILDING CODES, WITH OUR GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS, WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, UM, THOSE CUSTOMERS, UM, ARE IN, YOU KNOW, WOULD, WOULD BE THE BEST POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO REMAIN IN TIER ONE. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY LOWERING THE RATES IN TIER ONE PROVIDES A CERTAIN TYPE OF CUSTOMER ACCESS TO REALLY LOW RATES. 
          IT, UH, IT AFFORDS EVERYONE A TIER ONE RATE OR A RATE FOR TIER ONE THAT IS REALLY LOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THE, THE PIECE HERE THAT I, I JUST WANTED TO COMMUNICATE JUST TO REITERATE WAS, UM, WITH REGARDS TO CAP, OUR CAP PROGRAM RECIPIENTS ARE BETTER OFF WITH A HIGHER FIXED CHARGE BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETELY WAIVED. 
          UM, AND IF WE GET TO OUR GOAL OF THE 72% INCREASES, THEN THAT'S A LARGER COHORT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT, THAT AMOUNT WAIVED. 
          PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN CAP PAY, THAT FIXED CHARGE, AND WHATEVER THE COST OF THE ENERGY THAT THEY USE, THE DIFFERENCE BEING, UH, CAP RECIPIENTS, AS WE KNOW IN THE PROGRAM, DON'T PAY THE FIXED CHARGE. 
          SO I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT AND, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT ON, JUST ON THAT HOW, HOW THOSE LEVERS, HOW THOSE LE HOW THAT BALANCING WORKS. 
          AND AT A DOLLAR, IT'S, IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT. 
          I THINK THE BIGGEST SIGNIFICANCE WAS GOING FROM THE $25 DOWN TO 14 OR $15. 
          COULD I ASK A QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TIM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO MAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. 
          SO, UH, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE MATH FOR WHAT, WHAT YOU JUST SAID WITH REGARD TO ARRIVE AT A DOLLAR. 
          COULD YOU PLEASE RUN THROUGH THAT AGAIN, WHAT THAT SCENARIO WAS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? SO IF YOU HAVE A $15 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND YOU REDUCE THAT TO $14 MM-HMM. 
          , THEN WHAT'S BEING WAIVED INSTEAD OF 15, IT'S A DOLLAR LESS, RIGHT? FOR THE, UM, CAP CUSTOMERS. 
          AND SO THAT THEN GOES INTO TO, IT'S LESS OF A DISCOUNT, AND SO THEY DON'T GET THAT SAME BENEFIT. 
          THEY WOULD'VE GOT A $15 BENEFIT, NOW THEY'RE ONLY GETTING $14 BENEFIT. 
          WELL, BUT I DON'T, I MEAN, I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT MATTERS BECAUSE, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT, ARE ARE YOU TRYING, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT DOLLAR THEN IS ADDED TO THEIR BILL BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ADD IT TO THEIR RATE LEVEL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD MATTER. 
          OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE GETTING A BENEFIT WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, SO I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND HOW TO, HOW TO ACHIEVE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SURE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND USING THE FIXED COST, IF THAT'S LOWER THAN THE COST OF THE KILOWATT, THE CHARGE GOES UP. 
          AND IF THIS IS HIGHER THAN THIS GOES DOWN, IT STILL COMES OUT TO THE SAME REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          YEAH, BUT MY POINT IS, THERE'S ANOTHER LEVER. 
          SO JUST IF, EVEN IF YOU, IF YOU, EVEN IF YOU LOWER THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT LEVER HAS TO RAISE, UH, THE AMOUNT ON TIER ONE. 
          YOU KNOW? YEAH. 
          YOU GOTTA ACCOUNT FOR IT SOMEWHERE, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, UH, RAISE IT THERE. 
          SO, SO THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE LEVER LEVER HERE TO DEAL WITH TO HELP OUR LOW INCOME FOLKS STIPULATED THAT WE HAVE THE TIERS. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YES. 
          BUT AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, WE TALKED ABOUT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IN THE TIERS, SO, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION ACROSS THE, THE TIERS. 
          AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT KEEPING OUR PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION FOR OUR LOWER USERS DOWN, THEN IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY TRANSLATE TO A DOLLAR LOWER OVER HERE, GOES OVER HERE. 
          ANYWAY. 
          THE, I, I KNOW YOU WEREN'T TRYING TO DO THE EXACT MATH, YOU WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT OF, OF THE IMPACT ON A CAP CUSTOMER. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS REALLY CLEAR YEAH. 
          ON, ON HOW THAT BALANCE WORKS. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I, AND I ALSO, SO MY POINT IS JUST THAT THERE'S MORE THAN ONE LEVER TO DEAL WITH. 
          UM, AND 
          [05:15:01]
WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THREE LEVERS, ONE OF THEM BEING THE TOTAL REVENUE AMOUNT, ONE OF THEM BEING THE, UM, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, AND ONE OF THEM BEING HOW WE, UM, HOW WE HANDLE THE TIERS IN TERMS OF WHO'S PAYING WHAT. 
          SO I DID HAVE ANOTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTION AND I I APPRECIATE HEARING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE, THE TYPICAL CUSTOMER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAID TYPICAL, BUT THE CUSTOMER IN TIER ONE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND TALKED ABOUT THAT CUSTOMER BEING SOMEONE WHO'S IN A, UM, SOMEONE WHO'S IN A, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, YOU KNOW, NEWER MORE EN ENERGY. 
          BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT TALKING ABOUT TIER ONE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MUCH ENERGY THEY'RE USING, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE, THE LENS THAT I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM IS THE LOW INCOME FOLKS THAT AREN'T ON CAP, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING EVERYBODY THAT'S ON CAP. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHARACTERIZE THAT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I'M ASKING A QUESTION THAT YOU CAN ANSWER. 
          I SEE YOU PUZZLED AND THAT'S OKAY. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S OKAY. 
          IN FACT, WANTS TO HANDLE IT FIRST. 
          WELL, FOR THOSE, UM, LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS THAT ARE NOT ON CAP, RIGHT, WHETHER THEY QUALIFY OR NOT, THEY'RE NOT ON IT. 
          UM, THERE'S BEEN, THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING AND, AND EVEN BROUGHT UP TODAY SORT OF A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT IT SEEMS, BUT AS TO WHAT IS AN AVERAGE LOW INCOME CUSTOMER LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF THEIR CONSUMPTION AND ALL THE EVIDENCE AND DATA THAT AE HAS PUT TOGETHER SUGGESTS THAT LOW, LOW INCOME DOES NOT MEAN LOW USAGE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. 
          AND THEY CAN GO INTO THAT, AND I CAN AS WELL, IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          WELL, I THINK, UH, I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. 
          I, I THINK MY QUESTION REALLY IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER AND THAT'S REALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LENS THAT I'M COMING THROUGH THAT I EXPLAINED EARLIER IS THAT THE REASON I WANNA KEEP THAT CUSTOMER CHARGE LOW IS BECAUSE THERE'S A FAMILY DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          WHEREAS THEY DO HAVE CONTROL OVER HOW MUCH ENERGY THEY USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO MY QUESTION REALLY WOULD BE ONE THAT YOU COULDN'T ANSWER, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS REALLY MORE WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN, THAT YOU CAN LIVE, YOU KNOW, ON THE LOWEST POSSIBLE ELECTRICITY AND THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S RIGHT. 
          I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. 
          RIGHT? BUT I CAN'T GO BACK TO WHAT, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, WHICH IS THAT FOR AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER, REGARDLESS, IT'S GONNA BE ABOUT 9 0 6. 
          OKAY? AND SO WHETHER, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH YOU CAN CUT FROM THAT, YOU KNOW, DEPENDS ON A LOTS OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES, RIGHT? UM, BUT AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER, WHETHER THEY'RE LOW INCOME OR NOT, IS GONNA SEE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL UNDER FOUR B, UH, ABOUT A $9 AND 6 CENTS INCREASE. 
          ACTUALLY THAT, WELL THAT'S WITH A $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CHARGE, THE NUMBERS WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO AGAIN, HOW MUCH ELASTICITY THERE IS, HOW MUCH RESPONSIVENESS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, DEPENDS UPON THE INDIVIDUALS. 
          YEAH. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR POSING A QUESTION. 
          THAT'S NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW, SO, OKAY. 
          THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
          IT'S JUST ONE THAT, WELL, I MEAN IT'S ONE THAT LOW INCOME ADVOCATES AND LOW INCOME FAMILIES CAN ANSWER THEMSELVES, BUT I, I HATE TO EVEN THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE IN THAT POSITION, BUT THEY ARE. 
          SO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, I WANNA RESPOND TO YOU AND THEN I'LL CALL COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES. 
          UM, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT, UM, WHICH I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE THE OTHER ONE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT IF YOU TOOK A LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO PUT FORWARD THE SCENARIO THAT SAYS $25 MILLION BASE RATE WITH THE $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE FOUR TIERS WITH THE TIERS, THE WAY THEY ARE IN FOUR B WITH A 10% DISCOUNT, THIS IS FOR THE CAP CUSTOMERS. 
          AND YOU COMPARE THAT TO HAVING A 31.3 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT, SO A 6.3 MILLION MORE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND A $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE, THE CAP CUSTOMERS UNDER THAT SCENARIO ARE PAYING MORE IN EVERY INSTANCE. 
          NOT A HUGE AMOUNT MORE, BUT THEY'RE PAYING MORE, UM, THAN THEY ARE. 
          THEY'RE PAYING MORE UNDER TOGO'S PROPOSAL THAN UNDER FOUR B. 
          UM, JUST FOR THE CAP CUSTOMERS. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT CAP COMPANY CAP CUSTOMER, I SEEN THE NUMBER OF, THE WAY THAT THEY DID THE ANALYSIS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THEY TOOK THE NUMBER OF BILLS THAT WERE IN THAT RANGE AND CAME UP WITH THE AVERAGE BILL FOR FOLKS WHO WERE CAP CUSTOMERS WHO FELL IN THAT. 
          SO IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON OUR EXISTING CAP CAB EVEN OKAY. 
          NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, FROM ONE TO TWO 50 UNDER FOUR B IT WOULD BE 1150 AND UNDER, UM, TOVA IT'S 1157. 
          UM, 
          [05:20:01]
IF IT WAS, UM, AT THE AVERAGE THIS IS 85 70 FOR FOUR B AND 86 15 FOR TOVO JUST FOR THE CAP CUSTOMERS, SO JUST FOR THE CAP CUSTOMERS, UM, BECAUSE OF HOW THIS SHAKES OUT, EVEN TAKING OUT 6.3 MILLION OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT, YOU END UP PAYING MORE THAT WAY IF YOU USE THE SAME AMOUNT. 
          AND AGAIN, NO, WE DIDN'T USE THE SAME AMOUNT IF THE CUSTOMER 6 MILLION, NO, WE HAVE THE FOUR B HAS A $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE MM-HMM  AND TO OVOS HAS 6000000.3 LESS IN REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND SHE HAS A $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THEY ARE PAYING MORE FOR CAP IF THEY USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY. 
          I'M, UH, MY POINT IS SIMPLY, UH, THESE ARE JUST THE CAP CUSTOMERS THEMSELVES, RIGHT. 
          AND MY POINT IS SIMPLY THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UM, ABILITY A FAMILY HAS TO MANAGE THEIR, THEIR, UM, UM, TO MANAGE THEIR BUDGET, THAT'S ALL I'M TALKING, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT POINT, $14 CHARGE. 
          IF THEY DO THAT, I GUESS THE AMOUNT OF THEIR COST OF ENERGY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO LESS OF THAT BECAUSE THEIR AMOUNT OF ENERGY COST WOULD BE SOMEWHAT LOWER. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IT'S JUST, THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE CAP CUSTOMERS ARE A, A SMALL AND WE HOPE IT'LL BE MORE YEAH, I'M NOT ARGUING WITH THAT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU THE, THE DATA ON THAT. 
          AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES WHERE YOU CAN, I JUST, CAN I JUST ASK? YES. 
          WHEN YOU SAY THE TOVO PROPOSAL, SO I'VE ASKED FOR DIFFERENT RUNS. 
          NEITHER OF THESE IS A PROPOSAL, BUT SORRY, WHEN, WHEN YOU, UM, ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH ONE WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ONE THAT YOU, I WAS LOOKING AT FOUR B TIERS OR THE ONES THAT YOU, THE 25 MILLION BASE RATE WITH THE $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE TIERS THAT MATCH FOUR B. 
          OKAY. 
          AND JUST AGAIN, TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IT ARE JOINT GROUP HAS ASKED FOR DIFFERENT TIERS THAT ARE BETTER REFLECTED IN THE ONE THAT HAS IN THE OTHER ONE I DISTRIBUTED. 
          AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TEAR BREAK, WHICH WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE ONE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED WITH A 22 REVENUE REQUIRE A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 22. 
          WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. 
          WE DID ASK FOR IT TO BE RUN AT 25, BUT IT WAS, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS TOO LATE. 
          SO THE BEST WE CAN DO IS TO LOOK AT HOW THAT BREAKS OUT AT 22, UM, AND ASK THE SAME QUESTION YOU JUST ASKED ABOUT CAP WITH THIS TIER BREAKDOWN. 
          SO I JUST, I DON'T WANNA GO TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD PASS OUT. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE CAP RUN FOR THAT TIER, WHICH THEY MAY NOT HAVE RUN FOR YOU. 
          THEY MAY NOT HAVE, THEY MAY NOT HAVE RUN IT, BUT I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M INTERESTED IN THEIR ALLOCATION OF 500, 1300, 2500, WHICH MAY SOLVE THE ISSUE THAT YOU WERE, THAT YOU WERE IDENTIFYING IN IN THE OTHER ONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE EMPHASIS ON CAP CUSTOMERS CAUSE I SHARE THE CONCERN, BUT I JUST WANNA LEVEL SET THAT, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE INCOME FOR A PERSON ON CAP IS 27,000 FOR A ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLD. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE MANY, INCLUDING OUR CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO JUST GOT THEIR WAGES RAISED TO $12 DOLLARS PER HOUR. 
          SO THEY'RE MAKING 42, 40 5,000 PER YEAR. 
          THEY DO NOT QUALIFY FOR CAP. 
          AND THIS $9 INCREASE FOR THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER THAT'S A HUNDRED DOLLARS OVER THE YEAR THAT THEIR BILL IS ABOUT TO GO UP, NOT EVEN COUNTING THE PSA ADJUSTMENT THAT WE MADE A FEW MONTHS AGO. 
          SO WE ARE DIGGING INTO THE DETAILS CAUSE WE KNOW THIS IS GONNA HAVE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT FOR YOUR EVERYDAY OFF TONIGHT WHO'S BARELY MAKING A LIVING WAGE, WHO'S, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A THIRD OF THEIR INCOME IS GOING TO HOUSING AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COME UP WITH AN EXTRA A HUNDRED DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THEIR POWER. 
          UM, AND SO I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT MY, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT COMMITTED TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AT 31 MILLION. 
          UH, I THINK THAT THERE'S DISCUSSION FOR US TO HAVE ON REDUCING THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THANK YOU COUNCIL MO TOVO FOR ASKING FOR SCENARIOS MORE ALONG THE RANGE OF THE 25 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, THE $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE, UM, WILL GO A LONG WAY JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT THAT I HIGHLIGHTED, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A GAP BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY LOW INCOME WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CAP, BUT THEY'RE STILL LOW INCOME FAMILIES WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CAP. 
          AND SO HAVING A LOWER FIXED RATE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER ABLE TO MANAGE THE VARIABLES IN DECIDING HOW, HOW MUCH POWER TO USE DEPENDING ON, UM, THEIR MONTHLY EXPENSES. 
          AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE A POINT THAT LOW INCOME USERS USE LESS ENERGY. 
          UM, BUT DURING ONE OF OUR PRESENTATIONS, I JUST WANTED YOU TO KIND OF EXPAND UPON THAT 
          [05:25:01]
BECAUSE ONE OF THE, UH, SLIDES THAT YOU SHARED WITH US DURING OUR PRESENTATION SHOWED THAT BASED ON CENSUS TRACK, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHER INCOME YOU ARE, THE MORE ENERGY USE. 
          AND SO PERHAPS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SLIDE CORRECTLY, BUT I DID WANNA DIG DEEPER INTO THE ASSUMPTION THAT LOW INCOME USERS CONSUME MORE ENERGY. 
          IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE COMMENTS I MADE A MOMENT AGO TO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, I, I DID NOT INTEND TO SAY IF I DID THAT LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS USE LESS. 
          I'VE SAID THAT THERE'S BEEN A, UM, SORT OF A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT, UM, AMONGST THE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER THE, YOUR SORT OF YOUR TYPICAL OR AVERAGE LOW INCOME CUSTOMER USES LESS OR MORE THAN AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER. 
          AND I WAS SAYING THAT AE UM, PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND DATA THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT MANY TIMES, UH, LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS ACTUALLY CONSUME MORE ELECTRICITY THAN A, THAN A, UH, AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER. 
          OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT ENTIRELY HOMOGENEOUS GROUP. 
          THERE'S SOME THAT THAT USE VERY LITTLE, SOME THAT USE A LOT, SOME THAT LIVE ALONE, SOME THAT LIVE IN, UH, MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSES WITH MULTI-GENERATIONS, PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE HOME ALL THE TIME. 
          THERE ARE OTHER, UM, CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT ABLE TO AFFORD HIGHLY EFFICIENT, UM, HOUSING. 
          AND SO THEREFORE, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AS EFFICIENT, THEY USE MORE ELECTRICITY. 
          SO THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES AT PLAY, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, REALLY ALL CUSTOMERS BUT LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS AS WELL. 
          YEAH, I MEAN I GUESS I JUST WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT BECAUSE I JUST, YOU KNOW, OUR LOW INCOME FAMILIES, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THEY'RE THE ONES LIVING IN THESE HIGH ENERGY EFFICIENT CONDOS AND APARTMENTS. 
          UM, SO I'M NOT COMPLETELY SOLD IN THE IDEA. 
          SO IF ANY INFORMATION THAT YOUR TEAM COULD PROVIDE ON THAT NOTE WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          I THINK THEY WERE SAYING THE OPPOSITE, THE, THAT, THAT THE LOW INCOME FOLKS ARE NOT THE ONES LIVING IN THE HIGH EFFICIENCY. 
          AND SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR THE LOWER TIERS, YOU'RE NOT SOLVING TO HELP THE LOWER INCOME AND YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LOWER INCOME ARE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE USING, YOU KNOW, 1750 AND ABOVE, BUT THOSE ONES ARE NOT HAVING A RATE INCREASE. 
          UM, BUT THEY WERE SAYING THE OPPOSITE, I THINK OF WHAT YOU, RIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. 
          I WAS SAYING THAT THE TYPES OF HOMES AND, AND PLACES ARE THE HIRING REALLY EFFICIENT CONDOS, UM, THAT USE THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF ENERGY AND DON'T GO OUT OF TIER ONE, NOT THAT LOW INCOME STAY IN TIER ONE. 
          GOTCHA. 
          APPRECIATE BECAUSE OF THE FACTORS THAT MR. BOCATO SAID. 
          THANK YOU MAYOR TIM. 
          YES, BUT IN JUST A SECOND HERE, JUST BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE A FIVE O'CLOCK STOP, WE HAVE A COMMISSION COMING IN HERE AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND I'M MINDFUL OF NEED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND A TARIFF BEFORE THURSDAY. 
          SO I THINK TO HAVE SOME CLARITY ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING, IF I CAN TRY AND RECAP ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING, UM, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE, I'M GOING DOWN THE PAGE OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL GOT THIS MORNING WILL BE 3.1 31.3. 
          THE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE WILL BE 13. 
          THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS WILL BE FOUR. 
          THE BREAK POINT FOR TIERS, THE RATE OF TIERS, AND THE CLASS REVENUE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES WILL BE BASED ON FOUR B WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT'LL BE NEED, YOU'LL NEED TO MAKE BASED ON THE $13. 
          AND THEN WITH THE OUTSIDE CITY RATES, UM, IF THERE'S NO DECREASE TO THE INSIDE CITY, THEN THAT'S SOME ALLOCATION, SOME PORTION THAT'S GONNA GO TO THE OUTSIDE GREAT PAYERS. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STARTING WITH. 
          UM, AND WE'LL BE WORKING OFF THAT FOR THE ORDINANCE AND TARIFF. 
          SO, SO CITY, UH, SO, UM, SO, SO YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO PREPARE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT VOTING HERE, SO THAT'S NOT GONNA TELL US THAT WE CAN'T LOWER THIS FROM 31 BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENT ON THE 31. 
          I'M SAYING WHEN JUST, UH, THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GONNA DRAFT IT AND THEN YOU ALL MAKE CHANGES ON THURSDAY BASED ON THE CONSENSUS AND INFORMATION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA HEAR ON THURSDAY THAT WE CAN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T THEN HAVE TIME TO RUN A SCENARIO. 
          RIGHT? I MEAN, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT EITHER, IN WHICH CASE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE PREPARED WITH SEVERAL SCENARIOS. 
          CAN I, CAN I THIS SO GO, GO AHEAD. 
          DO WE HAVE A SCENARIO? DO WE HAVE, I MEAN, DO WE HAVE THE $13 SCENARIO FOR B RUN THAT WE CAN SEE? AND DO WE HAVE A SCENARIO AT THE, I BELIEVE THE CLOSEST THAT WE HAVE IS, IS FOUR B IN YEAR ONE WOULD BE $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          BUT 
          [05:30:01]
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE, OUR AE HAS RUN, UH, THAT'S FOUR B WITH A $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S GONNA BE CLOSE, BUT THEY'VE NOT DONE THAT. 
          I HAVEN'T DONE THIS EXERCISE YET FOR, I JUST WANNA BE, BE, SHARE ONE THING THAT I THINK IS, IS ILLUSTRATIVE, UM, AGAIN, DOING THE $14 CUSTOMER CHARGE FOUR B COMPARED TO TOVO SCENARIO WITH $25,000,013, UM, WITH THE SAME TIERS, THE MOST THAT ANYONE SAVES DOING THAT WITH A 6.3 LESS, UM, VERSION OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS $1 IN THE TIER THAT NOBODY'S IN. 
          UM, THEN THE NEXT HIGHEST IS 93 CENTS. 
          UM, AND MOST PEOPLE ARE BELOW A 50 CENT DIFFERENCE. 
          QUITE A DIFFERENCE. 
          I I'M JUST SAYING LIKE IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS FOR, FOR THE AVERAGES. 
          IF, IF OUR GOAL IS TO SAVE FOLKS MONEY, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT IT'S, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE REDUCED, UM, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IF WE ARE KEEPING THOSE THINGS. 
          SO IT MAY BE THAT WE NEED RUN, I HAVEN'T, WE NEED THE RUN WITH THE 25 MILLION, THE $13 AND THE OTHER TIERS SO THAT WE CAN COMPARE THAT AND SEE WHERE WE, WHERE WE COME OUT. 
          I, IF I MAY, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER JUST SAID? OR MAYOR PROTON, DID YOU SAY YOU WANT THE 31.3 RUN AT $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE? I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE TIER BREAKS ARE AND IF THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL. 
          UM, AND THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVEN FROM TOVO THAT WAS 22 MILLION THAT HAS DIFFERENT TEAR BREAKS AT FIVE HUNDRED, THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE THAT DOES THAT AT THE 31.3 MILLION REVENUE SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          OR AT THE 25 MILLION FOR THAT BETTER. 
          I, I'M SORRY. 
          I DIDN'T MEAN ARE YOU DONE? SO, UM, IT'S, LET ME BACK, UH, BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. 
          I'M, I'M TRYING TO, TO JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FIRST ALL, THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND WE UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR FLEXIBILITY WILL BE ON THURSDAY. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEED TO, UH, DEVELOP A DOCUMENT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS GOOD, THAT'S GREAT. 
          UH, BUT, BUT I, WHAT I WANT TO FIRST ESTABLISH THAT ON THURSDAY WE STILL HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE CHANGES IN THESE LEVERS. 
          AND IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IDENTIFYING TODAY THE NUMBER OF SCENARIOS THAT WE WANT YOU ALL TO RUN. 
          YOU'VE RUN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, SO AS THE MAYOR PORT TIM IS SUGGESTING WE PERHAPS NEED ANOTHER SCENARIO BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE US COME INTO THURSDAY AND SAY, WELL NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T RUN THAT SCENARIO. 
          SO I THINK I, I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING IS WE, WE WANT A SCENARIO THAT'S THE $13 FOR CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          RIGHT? OKAY. 
          SO WE WANT THAT, WE WANT A SCENARIO, UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT ONE ALREADY AT THE 31, BUT WE ALSO WANT ONE, UM, AT UM, I THINK IT'S 25 THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAD SUGGESTED. 
          UM, AND THEN WE, WE WANT THESE TEAR BREAKS. 
          CORRECT. 
          ACT, I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST LOOKING TO SEE WHAT I HAD REQUESTED FROM AUSTIN ENERGY YESTERDAY THAT THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THIS. 
          I'M SORRY TO MAKE THIS A LONG ANSWER, BUT I THINK, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE QUESTION OF RE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT, I DO NOT SEE THAT THERE'S, THERE'S CERTAINLY NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT FOR THE 31 MILLION AND I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD MAYOR ADLER TO SUGGEST THAT HE MIGHT BE IN HIS COMMENTS EARLIER. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE WORTH SEEING SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MM-HMM. 
          , WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU SUGGESTING AT THAT NUMBER? 25 OR 27 OR? I, I THINK THAT WE NEED A 27 AS WELL AS A 25. 
          AND THEN MAYOR ALER SAY HE WAS NOT COMFORTABLE BELOW 29. 
          I HEARD HIM SAY 28 I 28. 
          [05:35:01]
OKAY. 
          AND THEN I I, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE JUST, I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY NAILED DOWN IS THE JOINT CONSUMER PROPOSAL ON TIERS AND HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT AND IMPACTS THESE NUMBERS DIFFERENTLY. 
          SO I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET A SCENARIO, UM, EXCUSE ME, THAT WE HAVE A SCENARIO RUN THAT ALLOWS US TO SEE WHAT THOSE TIERS LOOK LIKE. 
          OKAY. 
          AT, AT A LEVEL, AT A LEVEL. 
          MAYOR PROTE. 
          WHAT I WANTED TO ASSERT AT THIS POINT IS THE TIME THAT WE HAVE, IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL SCENARIOS THAT ARE BEYOND THE ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RUN, THERE'S A LIMITED ABILITY FOR AE TO BRING THOSE. 
          SO, UM, I I THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT A SPECIAL CALL MEETING PROBABLY FOR NEXT WEEK OR RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THIS. 
          IF WE CAN'T FINISH, UH, THINGS ON THURSDAY, THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WOULD BE TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. 
          WELL IF WE, IF ALL BEFORE WE GO, I JUST WANNA CALL, LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'VE FORGOTTEN WHERE I WAS IN MY THOUGHT. 
          I DO THINK I, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN THAT WE NEED TO PRESERVE OPTIONS. 
          THERE'S NOT UNANIMITY ON THIS AND FRANKLY THIS NEEDS SEVEN VOTES TO PASS AND BE FINALIZED THIS WEEK ANYWAY. 
          AND SO ON THOSE KEY POINTS WHERE THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY UM, A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREEMENT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, SHOULD PRESERVE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SUGGESTED, I THINK THAT WE GO TO HAVE A SCENARIO AT 28 MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH, 28. 
          THAT'S SEEM REASONABLE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THINK WE NEED TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE JOINT CONSUMER, WITH THE JOINT CONSUMER PROPOSAL TIERS AND $13. 
          DOES THAT SEEM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DIGGING INTO THAT TOO. 
          DOES THAT SEEM LIKE A SCENARIO WE SHOULD SEE? YES. 
          ANY, IS THERE ANY OTHER SCENARIO THAT WE CAN, I MEAN THERE ARE OTHER SCENARIOS WE CAN ENVISION, BUT THAT SEEMS THE MOST LIKELY TO GET TO ADDRESS SOME OF, OF THE CONCERNS FROM OTHER FOLKS. 
          CAN YOU, UM, LET THE MANAGER SPEAK AND THEN IF YOU CAN REPEAT? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY CUZ IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND KNOWING THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO SCENARIOS, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A ENOUGH COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ALMOST LIKE AN IFFC PROCESS OF LIKE PROPOSING THAT SO WE COULD, UM, CONTINUE WITH THAT WORK. 
          I KNOW THE MAYOR SAID BEFORE THAT IT WOULD BE HARD FOR AE TO INDIVIDUALLY RUN SCENARIOS ONE BY ONE BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER'S REQUEST. 
          I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TRYING, BUT WE, WE KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE AT THE, BUT BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE IN A JOINT SESSION. 
          I THINK, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD, I MEAN I DON'T WANNA GO THROUGH THE NUMBERS AGAIN, BUT YOU'VE HEARD FROM MORE THAN JUST ME AN INTEREST IN SEEING THAT. 
          CAN YOU GO, I WAS GONNA SAY IT'D BE GOOD TO HEAR IF THERE WERE OTHER, IF THERE WAS MORE SUPPORT FOR THAT. 
          I SUPPORT IT. 
          SO DO I THAT'S THREE. 
          I THINK COUNCIL ELLA ALSO SHARED SUPPORT FOR THE $13 CHARGE AS WELL. 
          I DO. 
          UH, AND WHAT WAS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AS PART OF THAT 28 IS PART OF THAT SCENARIO. 
          WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT RUNNING THE SCENARIO. 
          I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH RUNNING THAT SCENARIO. 
          I THINK THAT THE MAYOR HAD EXPRESSED THAT 28 GIVEN CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES COULD BE ACCEPTABLE. 
          I, I MEAN I WOULD TAKE AE AT THEIR WORD FOR THE 31, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT FAR AWAY. 
          SO I'M FINE WITH RUNNING THE SCENARIO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SCENARIO THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING TO BE RUN IS WITH A REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 28 MILLION AND YOU WANT THAT RUN WITH THE, THE CONVENER'S TEAR BREAKS. 
          DO YOU WANT THAT? YEAH, SO EXCUSE ME. 
          SO WHAT, SO WHAT I HEAR, UM, YOU OUTLINING COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO AND KITCHEN, UH, 28 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT, $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE FOUR TIERS THAT BREAK AT 500, 1300, 2500. 
          WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE DECREASE TO INSIDE CITY? I USE CUSTOMERS, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE FOR MR. KAUFMAN THAT THIS, I MEAN IF WE HAVE ONE SHOT AT ONE MORE SCENARIO, UM, CAN YOU HELP US KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE WE WANT TO CONSIDER? AND THEN I GUESS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ITY. 
          THE, THE, I'M SORRY, THE THING I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WAS CLEAR WITH EVERYONE IS THAT WHICH CLASS COST ALLOCATION ARE WE USING? THAT'S ISSUE NUMBER SIX. 
          AND THAT THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN. 
          THAT IS WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE ALLOCATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, 
          [05:40:01]
ALL THOSE AND THE ONE THAT THE JOINT CONSUMER INTERVENERS AGREED TO IN, IN THE, THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE IS ONE THAT WOULD HAVE A 49% ALLOCATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          BUT ALL OF THE SCENARIOS THAT I HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY, INCLUDING THE ONES, UH, THAT, THAT YOU REQUESTED, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAVE A MUCH HIGHER REVENUE ALLOCATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, A 50.4%. 
          SO THAT SEEMS, IT SEEMS THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA RUN A SCENARIO, YOU NEED TO KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE, AND I GUESS THAT'S THE, THE, UH, FOUR B ALTERNATIVE CLASS ALLOCATION. 
          BUT THE ONE THAT THE, THAT ALL THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMER GROUPS CAME TOGETHER ON IS A, IS A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ONE. 
          I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT THAT REALLY HASN'T GOTTEN A DISCUSSION AND NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED ONE OR THE OTHER. 
          YEAH, I, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL SINCE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO, TO NARROW THIS DOWN THAT WE, THAT WE RUN THE SCENARIO AT THAT, UM, AT THE JOINT CONSUMER, UH, ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE ZEROING OUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING DECREASES. 
          CUZ ONCE YOU DO THAT, THAT ADDS A DIFFERENT WRINKLE TO IT. 
          WELL THAT THAT'S ONE, IT'S ONE OF THE SCENARIO, ONE OF, OF THE, UH, COMPONENTS OF THE SCENARIOS. 
          I MEAN, SO RIGHT, BUT IT CHANGES THE ALLOCATION. 
          SO THERE'S A CHALLENGE WITH THAT. 
          ONCE YOU TRY TO, ONCE YOU, YOU DO THE ALLOCATION AND THEN YOU SAY WE WANT THEM TO BE ZERO AND THEN WHEN YOU ZERO THEM OUT, YOU GET EXTRA MONEY THAT'S IN THERE. 
          THAT'S ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT COMES WHEN YOU ZERO THEM OUT. 
          BUT IF, IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY, IT WILL NOT, I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY WHICH WAY YOU, YOU WANT IT. 
          I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT THE JOINT CONSUMERS CAME FORWARD WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM IF THESE ARE INDEPENDENT DECISION TREE THINGS, YOU DECIDE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THEN YOU DECIDE THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS AND THEN YOU DECIDE THE RATE DESIGN WITHIN EACH OF THE CLASSES. 
          AND AS LONG AS IF YOU'RE REDUCING THE TIERS OR TINKERING WITH THE TIER, I THINK THAT CAN STAY ALL WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          BUT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH CLASS ALLOCATION YOU'RE GONNA USE BEFORE YOU AND WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT FROM THE, THE JOINT, UM, JOINT CONSUMER? IT, IT, IT'S A, IT'S BEEN, IT'S LISTED IN OUR JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM EARLIER, WHICH WAS THE 49%. 
          CORRECT. 
          IT WOULD HAVE THE, THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS AT 49 POINT SOMETHING INSTEAD OF 50%. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S ABOUT 6 MILLION DIFFERENCE. 
          SO IF WE'RE RUNNING A SCENARIO, IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND? YEAH, IT WAS A NOVEMBER 30TH LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED. 
          SO IF WE'RE RUNNING A SCENARIO, IS THAT WHAT YOU COULD, YOU WOULD RECOMMEND? OKAY. 
          YES. 
          SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THAT IS PROVIDING A ZERO DECREASES TO ANYBODY. 
          IT'LL CHANGE IT. 
          YEAH, I MEAN STILL NEED, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE YOU ADD ON TOP OF IT. 
          BUT I MEAN, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU START WITH A CLASS ALLOCATION THAT IS LIKE FOUR B AND WHICH IS IN ALL OF THE, THE TOVO SCENARIOS OR WHETHER YOU USE ONE AGREED UPON BY THE CUSTOMER CLASSES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, AS I SIT HERE AND I LISTEN TO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING ABOUT BRINGING FORWARD NEW, UH, OPTIONS, EXCUSE ME, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOT HAVING A LOT OF TIME TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE NEW OPTIONS PRIOR TO MAKING OUR DECISION, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR COUNCIL MEETING BEING THURSDAY AND STAFF HAVING TO GO BACK AND RUN MORE NUMBERS FOR US. 
          UM, IF WE RUN MORE SCENARIOS, I TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS SUGGESTION MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS SO THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO REALLY TALK IT THROUGH AND TALK TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. 
          UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERLY SETTING EXPECTATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHEN THIS DECISION WILL BE MADE. 
          IT DOES KEEP GETTING PUT OFF, BUT I PREFER THAT IF WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, ADDING ADDITIONAL SCENARIOS, WE SHOULD HAVE A SPECIAL CALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER VELA. 
          I, LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS THURSDAY, BUT I, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY THAT UH, THIS MIGHT BE WORTH, UH, THIS MIGHT BE WORTH A SHORT DELAY TO, UH, AND COUNCIL MEMBER POOL AND CHAIR A POOL THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTH A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. 
          AGAIN, I, I JUST HATE, WOULD HATE TO KIND OF DO IT SLAB DASH ON THURSDAY. 
          UH, IF WE CAN SET, UH, A SPECIAL CALLED, UH, A LITTLE BIT AFTER, IT'S NOT GONNA BE EASY TO DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. 
          WE DO HAVE AN AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE AT LEAST FIVE OF US WOULD'VE HAD TO BE AT, I THINK THAT'S TUESDAY MORNING OR WEDNESDAY MORNING. 
          UM, WHICH MIGHT BE AN OPTION. 
          UM, AGAIN, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO FINISH THIS WITH THIS COUNCIL. 
          UM, WE CANNOT GO BACK AND EXPECT A NEW COUNCIL, UM, TO ENGAGE ON THIS AND, AND TAKE THIS ON. 
          UM, I THINK WE ARE NOW IN A RANGE OF 28 TO 31.3 FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, 
          [05:45:01]
WE SEEM TO BE LEANING TOWARDS THE $13 WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR THAT SCENARIO. 
          UM, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU OF, OF THE DO THIS SCENARIO AND THAT SCENARIO. 
          FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, I STILL FEEL LIKE THERE'S MULTIPLE SCENARIOS THAT ARE FLOATING OUT THERE. 
          I THINK WE, I THINK WE, I THINK WE JUST SPOKE TO AN ADDITIONAL SCENARIO HOPEFULLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CITY MANAGER. 
          UM, AND SO, AND TO ADD TO THE SCENARIO THAT, UM, THAT ANN JUST LAID OUT. 
          SO, AND AS SOON AS, AS I GET THE NUMBERS ON THE 13, WE'LL PUT THAT UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD WITH THE, UH, CHARTS THAT I'VE, THAT I'VE POSTED. 
          I'M OUT TOWN FOR THE, UH, AFC MEETING. 
          YOU'RE NOT BACK YET FOR THE, SO MY QUESTION IS WAS, WAS THAT CLEAR? WE'RE RUNNING TWO SCENARIOS. 
          IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU'RE RUNNING TWO SCENARIOS, BUT THERE'S STILL TWO PIECES OF MISSING INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSAL THAT, OR THE SCENARIO THAT, OKAY. 
          WHAT IS THE MISSING PIECE OF INFORMATION? WHAT DO THEY DO ABOUT, UM, HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL? CUS OKAY, ASK THAT AGAIN. 
          I'M NOT, WHAT DO THEY DO WITH RESPECT TO HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TIER LEVEL OR WOULD THE TIERS ARE CLEAR? 5500, 1300 2504 B ELIMINATES THE DECREASE THAT HIGH USE INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD BE RECEIVING. 
          I THINK THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          YOU CAN, I WOULD ASK HOFFMAN AND OTHERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT LEAVING IT AS IT IS IN SCENARIO B OF ELIMINATING THE DECREASE FOR THE, FOR THE IN IN CITY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL? DID YOUR JOINT PROPOSAL SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE? UH, IT DID NOT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          I WOULD PREFER THAT THAT STAYED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, BUT THAT, THAT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE CLASS ALLOCATIONS. 
          AND I THINK THAT HAS TO COME, THAT HAS TO BE THE SECOND ISSUE THAT YOU, YOU ADDRESS REVENUE REQUIREMENT CLASSES AND THEN, AND THEN TINKERING WITH THE TIER. 
          I THINK WE JUST, WE GOT THAT PIECE OF IT. 
          YEAH, I THINK WE GOT THE COST. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE SHARE ALLOCATIONS. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE ALLOCATIONS. 
          AE IS FAMILIAR WITH THEM. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WHAT'S YOUR SECOND QUESTION THEN? OUTSIDE CITY RIGHTS, WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SYSTEM WIDE RIGHTS OR NOT? UH, WELL MY PREFERENCE IS TO, UM, AND IT'S JUST ME. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK TO EVERYBODY ON THAT SCENARIO. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO REDUCE THE OUTSIDE RATES. 
          UM, I THINK WE CAN KEEP 'EM THE SAME. 
          MEANING THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE REFERRED TO AS SYSTEM ODD RATES, MEANING THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, RATES WOULD BE THE SAME IN CITY AS OUT OUTSIDE CITY. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. 
          BUT I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF OTHERS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A WILL TO DO THAT. 
          AND SO I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA BE LOCKED INTO ONE SCENARIO ON THURSDAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU HAD MENTIONED TWO SCENARIOS I THOUGHT WE WERE DESCRIBING ONE. 
          UH, YOU THE HONOR BEING THE ONE THAT, UM, THE COUNCIL ATTORNEYS YEAH. 
          THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          IT WOULD, I MEAN IT IT, IF THERE IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF TWEAK THIS IS THAT IS REQUIRED, BUT IF WE WENT WITH TWO SCENARIOS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING HERE, WHAT FOUR FOLKS HAVE AGREED TO ONE WITH OUT OF CITY RATES WITH A SYSTEM WIDE RATE AND ONE WITH OUT OF CITY RATES STAYING AS AS THEY ARE, THAT WOULD ALLOW AT LEAST ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT ISSUE. 
          AND I, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR JUST ARRIVING AT ONE, I GUESS KEEP IT WITH OUT OF CITY, KEEP IT WITH OUT OF CITY RATES AS THEY'VE BEEN HANDLED IN THE OTHER PROPOSAL. 
          JUST SO I'M CLEAR RESPECTFULLY. 
          SO WE'VE GOT THE, THE, UH, SCENARIO FOUR B WITH A $13 CUSTOMER IN CHARGE. 
          THAT'S ONE SCENARIO. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN I'D SAY THEN WE HAVE NOW BASICALLY TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT YOU ALL HAVE JUST LAID OUT VERY CLOSE, IN FACT IDENTICAL EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. 
          AND ONE OF THOSE, UH, WOULD BE WHERE OUTSIDE CITY, UM, RESIDENTIAL RATES WOULD STAY THE SAME. 
          NO CHANGE AT ALL. 
          ACTUALLY ALL OF THEIR RATES WOULD STAY THE SAME. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN, UH, THE SECOND SCENARIO WOULD BE WHERE OUT CITY, UM, RATES, RESIDENTIAL RATES WOULD BE THE SAME AS INSIDE, BUT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SYSTEM WIDE RATES OR ONE SET OF RESIDENTIAL RATES. 
          IS THAT ADDING THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY? I REALIZE IT'S ANOTHER SCENARIO. 
          IT'S ANOTHER SCENARIO. 
          I MEAN I, I UNDERSTAND IT BUT I'M NOT RUNNING THE NUMBERS. 
          OH, I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE DIS I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE CONFUSION ON THE OUT OF CITY RATES CONFUSION OR, OR, OR HELP ME OUT. 
          WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WHAT, WHAT I HEARD WAS TO DO 
          [05:50:01]
THE $28,000,013 CUSTOMER CHARGE, 500, 1300, 2500 USE THE, UM, THE COST ALLOCATION MM-HMM. 
           THAT WAS PROVIDED FROM, UM, THE GROUP MM-HMM. 
           AND THEN UM, ELIMINATE THE DECREASE. 
          ELIMINATE THE DECREASE, YEAH. 
          WHICH WAS THE FOUR B SCENARIO. 
          AND IF YOU, AND IF YOU DO, IF YOU HAVE SYSTEM WIDE RATES, YOU'RE GONNA ELIMINATE THE DECREASE FOR OUTSIDE AS WELL. 
          CAUSE IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE SET OF RESIDENTIAL RATES FOR EVERYBODY, YOU'RE GONNA, AND SO ONE OF ONE WITH A SYSTEM WIDE RATE AND THEN ONE WITH THE OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMER RATES BEING WHAT THEY ARE TODAY IN THE SCENARIO, IN THE SCENARIO THAT YOU'VE DONE WITH, WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. 
          NOW I'M CONFUSED. 
          YEAH, WELL, OKAY. 
          SO YOUR CURRENT, YOUR CURRENT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, YOUR CURRENT SCENARIO IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE OUTSIDE CITY RIGHTS FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO, IF WE CHANGE THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER SCENARIO THAT YOU HAVE TO RUN. 
          RIGHT? I'M SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS YOU CAN KEEP THAT ELEMENT THE SAME AND NOT HAVE TO RUN THAT, THAT ELEMENT IN ANOTHER, IN ANOTHER SCENARIO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          BUT, UM, BUT YOU DON'T ADVISE THAT DUE TO THE TWO ADD THE TWO, UM, IF I MAY WE'LL CALL THE ONES WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH YOU FIVE A AND FIVE B. 
          ONE OF THOSE FIVE A HAS BEEN KEEP OUTSIDE CITY RATES THE SAME. 
          THE OTHER ONE HAS BEEN KEEP OUTSIDE CITY RATES, UM, THE SAME AS INSIDE CITY RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS. 
          AND NOW THIS OTHER, UH, SCENARIO WOULD BE, I'M WILLING TO DRAW, KEEP OUTSIDE CITY RIGHTS AT WHAT'S CONTAINED IN FOUR B. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT SINCE THIS IS THE SCENARIO THAT YOU GUYS WON'T RUN, THAT YOU WORK OUT THE DETAILS WITH THEM AND YOU DECIDE WHETHER IT'S VALUABLE TO HAVE THE DIFFERENTIAL FOR THE OUTSIDE. 
          IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT MAYBE A LOT OF COMPLICATED EXTRA WORK. 
          RIGHT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL HAVE A SCENARIO FOR 14 B THAT HAS A $13 FOUR B CUSTOMER CHARGE, AND THEN WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO 13 TO 14 OVER TWO YEARS IF WE WANTED, BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. 
          UM, 13 TO 14. 
          YES. 
          YES, WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. 
          UM, AND YOU GUYS WILL FIGURE OUT THAT SCENARIO IN THE INTEREST OF DEALING WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT COMPLETELY FOR THE SCENARIO WITH $13 FOR FOR FOR FOUR B. 
          CAN YOU ALSO GIVE US ONE WITH THE SAME REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU LAND ON WITH THEM IF THAT'S 28? AND CAN I ASK IF, IF YOU ALL COME TO A CONCLUSION, COULD YOU POST IT TO THE MESSAGE BOARD SO THAT WE CAN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE VARIABLES THAT WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT THE TIER CHANGES MAKE. 
          IF YOU CHANGE THE REVENUE WITHOUT THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GONNA MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. 
          SO. 
          WELL, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHERE THE TIERS BREAK, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU BREAK THEM AND WE CAN'T COMPARE THEM, IT'S GONNA BE CHALLENGING IF WE HAVE REVENUE AND BREAKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO REDO 14 B WITH THE OTHER TIERS AT THIS POINT. 
          BUT THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO THIS IS THE A IS NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANYTHING ON THE TWO SCENARIOS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND KITCHEN UNTIL WE GET NO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT THE FLOOR, THE FLOOR IS 28. 
          I JUST WANTED, I JUST FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WHAT THEY'RE WAITING ON YOU FOR THAT, BUT SURE. 
          AND WE COULD STAY THERE AND TALK ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK, I THINK WE'VE COVERED, WE DID WHAT THE MANAGER REQUESTED, WHICH IS TO INDICATE ENOUGH INTEREST TO RUN ANOTHER SCENARIO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MANAGER, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER, WHETHER A SPECIAL CALL MEETING IS POSSIBLE OR, OR NECESSARY, UM, BASED ON THE, ON THE NUMBER RUNS, UM, MOVING FORWARD. 
          YES. 
          I'M GONNA ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT FIVE 20. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          REVOLUT PASS I LOVELY. 
          I HOPE AND IT WOULD MAKE YOUR LOVE AND IF A PRINCESS, THE NEXT THING I WOULD DO IS PLAN TO CELEBRATION IN THE.
* 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.