[00:00:01]
RIGHT.LOOKS LIKE, ARE WE ALL HERE? WHO ARE WE MISSING? THANK YOU, BOBBY.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CONVENE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
[Call to Order]
MEETING HERE ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2022.THIS IS THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE BARRING, A SPECIAL CALLED SESSION OF THE, UM, ORIGINAL TEN ONE COUNCIL WITH ITERATIONS.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STAFFS AND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS TODAY DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT NORMALLY HAS, UH, PROCLAMATIONS.
UH, I'M ALSO GONNA GIVE A KEY TO THE CITY AT THAT POINT TO, TO REVEREND PARKER WHO'S SHOWING UP TODAY.
SO I INVITE EVERYBODY TO STAY FOR, FOR THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THERE'S GOING TO BE RECOGNITION OF STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A, A GATHERING, UH, THAT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL MEETING, UH, NEXT WEEK AS WELL, I THINK ON THE 15TH.
IS EVERYONE GONNA BE ABLE TO BE HERE ON THE 15TH? NOT CAN I.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BE HERE ON THE 15TH AT THIS POINT? COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON ARE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES AND COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.
I HAD SOMETHING I WANTED TO GIVE OUT TOO, AND I WANTED TO SEE WHETHER I SHOULD GIVE IT OUT TONIGHT OR WHETHER I COULD WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
UH, I WILL ALSO BE PARTICIPATING ON THE 15TH AS WELL.
UM, OTHER HOUSEKEEPING MANAGERS BEFORE I DO CHANGES IN CORRECTIONS CUSTOMER POOL.
I WANTED TO NOTE FOR EVERYBODY HERE THAT OUR SPECIAL MUSICAL GUEST AT NOON TODAY IS SHEIK RUSSELL.
AND, UM, I WILL BE, UH, OFFERING HIM THE SHEIK RUSSELL DAY RECOGNITION, AND HE'LL PLAY A COUPLE SONGS FOR US, AND I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY TO STAY AND LISTEN.
UM, HE'S, UH, A VERY WELL KNOWN TEXAS SINGER SONGWRITER, AND I'M A BIG LONGTIME FAN OF HIS, AND HE AGREED TO COME, AND, AND TODAY IS THE DAY THAT WORKED FOR HIS SCHEDULE AND OUR SCHEDULE.
SO, AT NOON, WE'LL BE HEARING FROM SHEIK RUSSELL, AND I HOPE Y'ALL WILL STAY FOR THAT, FOR THAT, UH, BRIEF MUSICAL INTERLUDE.
GOSH, I REMEMBER SHEIK RUSSELL FROM WHEN I ARRIVED IN 78, I THINK IN, IN WHAT AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TODAY.
UH, I WAS ABOUT TO COMPLAIN WHEN YOU ASKED FOR MORE THAN ONE SONG.
UM, I WAS ABOUT TO COMPLAIN WHEN I HEARD THAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR MORE THAN ONE SONG DURING MUSIC, AND THEN I SAW IT WAS SHEIK RUSSELL, AND I DECIDED I WOULD NOT RAISE IT AS AN ISSUE.
THEN, UM, FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8TH, 2022.
UH, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UH, UH, AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION.
UH, IT'S WITH GRAYSTAR DEVELOPMENT, UH, CENTRAL LLC DEVELOPMENT HAD BEEN LEFT OFF.
ITEM NUMBER 39, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIX MONTH TERM, NOT A 12 MONTH TERM.
ITEM NUMBER 66, AS ADDED, COUNCIL MEMBER VAL, AS A SPONSOR, 68, HAS ADDED COUNCIL MEMBER VANESSA OF FUENTES AS SPONSOR.
ITEM NUMBER 74 HAS ADDED COUNCIL MEMBER VALLA AS A SPONSOR.
ITEM NUMBER 86 IS IN DISTRICT ONE.
[Consent Agenda (Part 1 of 2)]
CONSENT, UH, ITEMS ARE ONE THROUGH 75, 1 THROUGH 75.I'M SHOWING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, THE BASE RATE QUESTION I PULLED AND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER PULLED, PULLED, UM, ITEM NUMBER 30, UM, THREE AND 34, UH, HAVE BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 35 HAS BEEN PULLED, PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY.
UH, I HAVE PULLED, UH, AND I HAVE, UH, A MOTION SHEET THAT IS SOON TO BE, UH, CIRCULATED, UH, ON THAT ITEM.
NUMBER 63, UH, I HAVE PULLED, AND I HAVE A MOTION SHEET SOON TO BE CIRCULATED, UH, ON THAT, UH, ITEM NUMBER 68
[00:05:01]
HAS BEEN PULLED BY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS.UH, AND THERE'LL BE A, UH, SMALL LANGUAGE CHANGE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE.
UH, AND, UM, THAT'LL BE, UH, CIRCULATED.
ITEM NUMBER 70, TWOS PULLED TO BE TAKEN UP AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, WITH ITEM 84.
UM, UH, I'VE PULLED, UH, AND I UNDERSTAND WE MAY HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS BEING OFFERED BY SOME AND BY POTENTIALLY STAFF.
I, I HOPE IF PEOPLE ARE OFFERING AMENDMENTS, THEY'LL POST 'EM ON THE MESSAGE BOARD SO THAT I CAN SEE THEM.
YEAH, I WOULD SUGGEST ANYBODY THAT HAS ANY AMENDMENTS TO GET 'EM TO THE AUTHOR
SO SHE HAS A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THEM, OR PERHAPS RESOLVE THEM OR SO THAT SHE HAS THEM AND CAN WORK WITH THEM.
ARE THERE, UM, UH, ALSO BY THE WAY, UH, CHANGES IN CORRECTION.
WE HAVE LAID BACKUP IN AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION ITEMS. SO IF PEOPLE COULD REMIND ME WHEN WE GO TO THAT MEETING TO CALL OUT THESE ITEMS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
BUT IN OUR COUNCIL MEETING, ITEMS, 4 36 52, 57, 59, 63, 74, 76, 80, 85, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99, AND 100, UH, COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ITEMS TO PULL? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY.
UM, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 69.
I HAVE A MOTION SHEET, AND, UM, THE INTENT OF THE MOTION SHEET IS JUST SO WE CAN GATHER MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE STAYING AT NORTHBRIDGE.
UM, UPON RETURN OF THAT REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER, I WILL SEND OUT THE MOTION SHEET AS SOON AS WE'VE GOT THE LANGUAGE BUTTONED UP FOR REVIEW.
AND IF YOU'D SHARE THOSE WITH ME, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO KEEP IT ON CONSENT.
IF, UH, MAYOR, IF I CAN TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
AND I'LL POST IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, SO YOU CAN REVIEW IT WHILE WE'RE IN THE YEAH.
GO POST IT SO WE CAN ALL SEE IT, BUT ALSO GET IT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.
AND THEN MAYOR, LET'S, AT THE RIGHT TIME, LET'S THINK IF IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN KEEP ON CONSENT.
FOR RIGHT NOW, I'M PULLING IT.
BUT IF YOU CAN PUT IT BACK ON CONSENT, WE CAN DO THAT.
THERE'LL BE SOME SPEAKERS THIS MORNING, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THE DEFAULT IS IT'S BEING PULLED.
I ALSO HAVE A RELATIVELY QUICK QUESTION ON NUMBER 53.
THAT'S THE ONE ABOUT THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD SPEED LIMIT.
AND I DO SEE TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION STAFF HERE ALREADY.
IS THAT A QUICK QUESTION OR SHOULD WE PULL IT? UM, WE COULD ADDRESS IT BEFORE CONSENT.
AS LONG AS I CAN ASK A QUESTION FIRST, MAKE SURE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL.
I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 59.
I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO OFFER.
THIS IS THE INTERGENERATIONAL FACILITY.
UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR MCNEELY, SO IF SHE CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE.
SO WE'LL PULL ITEM NUMBER 59, UH, NASH, UH, HERNANDEZ ITEM.
ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.
WE'RE WORKING ON AN AMENDMENT, AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ITEM 60, I'D LIKE TO PULL, I HAVE A COUPLE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED SOONISH.
UM, NUMBER 62, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO VERY QUICKLY RESPOND NOW OR WHENEVER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT THAT ITEM.
WHAT THAT OUR CARD 62, WHETHER OR NOT OUR CARD STAFF ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ITEM.
UH, I HAVE, HAVE POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 11.
I MAY, OUR QUESTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OR COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN BEEN ANSWERED, UM, BUT IN THE LATEST, UH, Q AND A, BUT I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK.
WHAT, WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT? 11.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO PULL, OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN, UM, PULL IT FOR NOW, BUT I, IT MAY BE RESOLVED.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER NUMBER? OKAY, SO, SO FAR, 8 60, 60 WAS THE, YEAH.
AND THERE WAS ONE MORE, THE QUESTION I ASKED STAFF TO ANSWER FOR 62.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PULL IT AT THIS POINT.
AND MAYOR, I THINK IT'S YOUR ITEM 67.
UM, YOU AND I HAD TALKED ABOUT SOME CLARIFICATION YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE.
DID YOU UPLOAD A, A NEW VERSION THAT I MISSED? SHOULD, SO, 60, UH, I HAVE UPLOADED A VERSION ON THAT.
WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE AND SEE IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
UM, AND IF WE HAVEN'T UPLOADED IT, WE'LL UPLOAD IT SHORTLY.
THANK FOR RIGHT NOW, LET'S PULL 67, BUT WHEN YOU READ IT, MAYBE I CAN GO BACK ON.
[00:10:01]
ITEM 11 IS A CONTRACTING ITEM.UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS KITCHEN, ASK SOME VERY GOOD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THESE ARE CONTEMPLATED AS AS CONTRACT POSITIONS.
WHEN WE'RE MOVING OUT OF USING CONTRACT POSITIONS FOR ONGOING NEEDS.
HEY, SO THE ITEMS WE HAVE PULLED ARE 4, 8, 11, 33, 34, 35, 58, 59, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 72, AND 74.
WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON 53 AND 62.
WE'RE NOT PULLING THEM AT THIS POINT.
UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND TO ASK THE QUESTIONS.
CATHERINE TOWELL 62 CAN GO BACK ON CONSENT.
UH, COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE, UM, UH, SPEAKERS TODAY, CHAIR THIS MORNING.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO PULL IT, BUT JUST TO BE CERTAIN, UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL MY COLLEAGUES ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT I POSTED TO THE MESSAGE BOARD.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, COULD YOU JUST, UM, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU POSTED, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? THANK YOU.
UH, WHAT I'M A ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH IN, IN TOTAL, OR WHAT I POSTED TO THE MESSAGE BOARD.
START WITH THE MOTION, AND THEN IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING.
SO IT SAYS, I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 36 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, AND THEN IT HAS SOME, UM, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO DID READ IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD TO WHERE YOU NEED ME TO READ THIS THROUGH? YOU DON'T NEED ME, ME TO READ IT THROUGH? YOU GUYS CAN.
YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE.
I THINK I'LL JUST PASS ON, ON, UH, NOT PULLING THIS ITEM.
AND COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M PRINTING A COPY OF IT RIGHT NOW.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PRINT A COPY FOR THE ENTIRE DAYS? OKAY.
OBVIOUSLY, AS WE GET CLOSER, IF WE CAN PUT ANY THINGS BACK ON, WE'LL, WE'LL PUT STUFF, UH, WE'LL PUT STUFF BACK ON.
UH, BY WAY OF, UH, IF I COULD JUST, AND IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOUR DIRECTION.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'LL TAKE A LONG, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'LL TAKE A LONG TIME WHEN IT, WHEN IT, WHEN IT COMES BACK.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
SO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, GIVE SPEAKERS THREE MINUTES EACH.
UH, LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ABOUT 15 SPEAKERS HERE THIS MORNING, SO WE CAN GO UP TO THE THREE MINUTES.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY HFC SPEAKERS? OKAY, WHEN WE, YES, MAYOR, WE DO, WHEN WE CALL UP THOSE TWO SPEAKERS, UM, ARE THEY HERE OR ARE THEY REMOTE? REMOTE.
UH, LET'S TAKE THEM TOWARD THE END OF REMOTE.
WE'LL CONVENE THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETING.
TAKE THOSE SPEAKERS AND TRY TO DISPENSE WITH THE AGENDA, AND THEN WE'LL RETURN BACK TO, UH, SPEAKERS.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, UM, WE CAN, UM, AFTER WE'VE DONE DONE THAT, UM, WE'LL SEE WHAT QUICK VOTES WE CAN TAKE.
I THINK MAYBE THE CENTRAL HEALTH BOARD, THE EMINENT DOMAIN MATTERS, THE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND, UM, BE QUICK ITEMS AND HOPEFULLY MAYBE WE CAN PUT SOME MORE THINGS BACK ON THE CONSENT.
UH, I MEAN, SOME THINGS THAT WERE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT VOTE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'LL DO FIRST.
MAYBE WE CAN HANDLE SOME QUICK THINGS THERE.
MY GUESS IS THAT TAKES US CLOSE TO NOON.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO BREAK TO HAVE A, A QUICK HONORING OF, UH, OF JERRY.
UH, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE, UH, UH, NOON, UH, SPEAKER, UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE SPEAKER.
UH, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE, UH, LUNCH BREAK SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, MY STAFF, CUZ I WAS GOING, I NEED TO GO TO A BOARD MEETING, UH, DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, MY STAFF'S GONNA HAVE TO RECONCILE THAT WITH MY ABILITY LI TO LISTEN TO SHEIK RUSSELL.
SO STAFF SHOULD BE WORKING ON THAT QUESTION.
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT.
YES, I JUST SAY, UM, SHEIK IS COMING IN FROM HOUSTON AND IS GONNA BE HERE A LITTLE BEFORE 12, AND THEN HE HAS TO HEAD ON FOR A GIG LATER.
AND, AND SO THE, IF WE COULD TAKE HIM AS CLOSE TO NOON AS POSSIBLE, THAT WOULD HELP WITH THAT.
UM, SO THAT MIGHT BE BEFORE, AND WE CAN TAKE HIM FIRST.
THAT CREASES MY CHANCE OF BEING ABLE TO HEAR HIM.
AND I'LL, AND I'LL HUG JERRY MANY TIMES AFTER THAT GETS ME, I THINK, TO THE BOARD MEETING.
[00:15:01]
UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS FAST ITEMS AND CONSENT ITEMS THIS MORNING.UH, THEN, UH, TAKE THE LUNCH BREAK, HOPEFULLY COMING BACK AS CLOSE TO ONE O'CLOCK AS WE CAN SO WE CAN START DEALING WITH POLL ITEMS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF THEM.
WE HAVE ZONING SPEAKERS, 25 SPEAKERS.
SO SET, UH, THAT AT, UH, TWO UH, MINUTES, UH, EACH, UH, I THINK MOST PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP ON BRODY OAKS, WHERE I ANTICIPATE US JUST GOING FIRST READING ONLY AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, I THINK HAS AN AMENDMENT, UH, ON THAT TO BE, UH, ADDED.
BUT WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THE CONSENT ZONING, UH, UH, AND, AND HOPEFULLY AS MANY OF THOSE THINGS AS WE CAN, WHICH MAY VERY WELL BE MOST OF THEM.
UM, THEN WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UH, IT'LL HIT THOSE ITEMS, UH, COME BACK OUT FOR PROCLAMATIONS, UM, WHICH WE'RE NOT HAVING, WE'RE GOING TO DO PASTOR PARKER.
UH, AND THEN, UH, UH, SOME, UH, HONORS FOR, UM, THE COUNCIL, UM, FOR BOTH THE DEPARTING MEMBERS AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE COUNCIL.
I WOULD ASK EVERYONE AND COUNCIL TO BE PRESENT, UH, FOR, FOR THAT.
UH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A OPPORTUNITY FOR THEN AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH I THINK WILL BE COMING UP LATER.
UM, AND I THINK, UM, THERE MAY BE A WAY TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, A LOWER, UM, UM, FIXED CHARGE, UH, THAT, UH, STARTS WITH 13 MAY BE ALSO A WAY TO GET BELOW THE 31.3, UH, AND GET THOSE TWO THINGS IN THE SAME THING.
UM, STILL WORKING ON THAT AND, AND CHAIRMAN AS, AS AUSTIN ENERGY AND THOMAS BOCATO AS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE SHOULD ELEVATE THAT SO PEOPLE CAN START THINKING ABOUT THAT.
UM, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CARRY OVER UNTIL TOMORROW, BUT WE'LL LOSE SOME PEOPLE.
SO, UM, BEST WE TRY TO PUSH TODAY AND, AND GET THROUGH.
UM, AS MUCH AS I LOVE BEING WITH YOU GUYS, UM, IF WE CAN GET ENDED TODAY, PROBABLY BEST.
I JUST WANTED GREATER CLARITY ON WHEN WE ARE GOING TO BE SHARING THE, UM, OPTIONS FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.
UM, UM, IF NOT BEFORE THEN, RIGHT AFTER LUNCH, I THINK.
UH, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN START THINKING ABOUT THEM BEFORE LUNCH WOULD BE GREAT.
MARY, BEFORE LUNCH WOULD BE GREAT.
SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH OUR STAFF AND, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WORKING ON THAT.
[Public Comment (Part 1 of 3)]
ALL RIGHT.UH, LET'S GO AHEAD THEN AND, AND ASK FOR THE, UH, SPEAKERS.
THE FIRST SPEAKER IS PAT VAREK.
HELLO, IS THIS YES, GO AHEAD PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I CURRENTLY LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE, AND I WANT TO, UM, ESPECIALLY THANK MY COUNCIL MEMBER KATHY TOBO, FOR, UM, HER SERVICE ON CITY COUNCIL THESE MANY YEARS.
AND I ALSO WANNA THANK THE OTHER THREE DEPARTING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, I AM SPEAKING ON ITEM TWO.
ITEM TWO IS THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN, UM, THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY.
AND I HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED THAT, UH, THERE HAS NOT BEEN MORE DISCUSSION AND ABILITY TO DISCUSS ANIMAL ISSUES, UH, ON THIS COUNCIL.
AND I'M ESPECIALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HAS HAD, UM, NO BACKUP, UH, NO SIGNIFICANT BACKUP.
BUT THE DETAILS OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING PROVIDED FOR SPAIN NEUTER IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
I HAD HOPED THAT DURING THESE YEARS, WE WOULD HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS IN SPAIN.
SO, UM, MY REQUEST IS TO THE COUNCIL THAT WILL BE, UM, THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ON THE CURRENT COUNCIL WHO WILL BE REMAINING, AND ALSO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE YET TO JOIN COUNCIL THAT IN THE NEXT, UH, SERIES OF MEETINGS, THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION ON PET OVERPOPULATION AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO SOLVE THE ANIMAL ANIMAL ISSUES PROBLEMS THAN THE ANIMAL SERVICES PROBLEMS WITHOUT A LARGER CONTRIBUTION TO STAY
[00:20:01]
NEUTER SO THAT FEWER ANIMALS ARE BEING BORN.UM, THERE'S FEWER ANIMALS ON THE STREET.
I HAVE HEARD CERTAIN PEOPLE SAY THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH HOMES TO, UH, HOUSE ALL ANIMALS.
AND IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF MARKETING AND A QUESTION OF MANAGEMENT.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT OPINION.
WE HAVE TOO MANY ANIMALS BEING BORN THAT ARE LARGE DOGS WITH BEHAVIOR ISSUES.
AND THOSE LARGE DOGS WITH BEHAVIOR ISSUES CANNOT FIND HOMES IN OUR RAPIDLY, UM, INCREASED POPULATION AND OUR INCREASED DENSITY.
WHENEVER THEY DO SURVEYS, THEY INCLUDE PETS LIKE GERBILS AND HAMSTERS.
AND, AND WHEN THEY DO STUDIES, THEY SAY THERE'S ENOUGH PETS THAT CAN FIND HOMES.
YES, CATS, SMALL ANIMALS, SMALL DOGS WITHOUT BEHAVIOR ISSUES, CAN FIND HOMES.
BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY LARGE DOGS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO FIND HOMES IN AUSTIN.
SO WE NEED TO INCREASE THE CONTRIBUTION TO SPAY NEUTER, AND WE NEED TO DO THAT BY HAVING MORE COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS ON PET POPULATION, WHETHER WE HAVE ENOUGH HOMES IN AUSTIN TO HOUSE THE LARGE NUMBER NUMBERS OF LARGE BREED DOGS WITH BEHAVIOR ISSUES THAT ARE COMING INTO THE SHELTER.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A PACKED AGENDA.
YOU'RE GONNA, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA START THE DISCUSSION ON THAT TODAY, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT, UM, SOME OF YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT TO DOING THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING WITH US TODAY ON THAT.
WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER, WENDY MURPHY ON ITEM TWO.
I'M A 30 YEAR RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FOUR AND A LONGTIME ADVOCATE FOR THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO ITEM TWO INSTEAD OF A 12 MONTH AGREEMENT.
I'M ASKING THAT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR JUST A THREE MONTH EXTENSION.
THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HOW THIS 2.5 MILLION WILL BE USED AND ALLOCATED.
THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND LOCAL ANIMAL WELFARE ADVOCATES, ESPECIALLY SPAY NEUTER ADVOCATES, SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS AND ADVOCATE PERCENTAGE WISE.
A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF THAT MONEY IS DESIGNATED FOR SPAY NEUTER.
AND IT'S PLAIN WRONG THAT WE DON'T TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND ALLOCATE MORE MONEY TOWARD A EFFECTIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE SPAY NEUTER PROGRAM.
SPAY NEUTER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE NEVER ENDING PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH PET OVER POPULATION AND SHELTER CAPACITY CRISES, PLURAL CRISES.
UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNTY HAS PERFORMANCE MEASURES ATTACHED TO THIS AGREEMENT, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM.
CAN WE SEE THEM? AND BY WE, I MEAN WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SO GREATLY IMPACTED BY THE TYPE OF DECISION, LIKE THE ONE BEING MADE CONCERNING ITEM TWO, WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SEE THE DOG GET HIT BY A CAR AND HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT DOG WAS NOT TAKEN TO AN ANIMAL SHELTER.
AND WE ARE THE ONES WHO SEE A CRUELTY CASE AND ARE TOLD THAT NO ONE'S AVAILABLE TO DEAL WITH IT.
WE'RE THE ONES WHO SPEND OUR OWN TIME AND MONEY, WHICH OFTEN WE DON'T REALLY HAVE.
WE SPEND OUR OWN TIME AND MONEY TO TAKE IN THESE ANIMALS AND TAKE CARE OF THEM, GET THEM SPAY NEUTERED, WHICH OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BE, AND FIND HUMS FOR THEM.
AND WE'RE THE ONES WHO NEED TO BE MADE MORE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON, AND WE NEED TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT'S GOING ON BEFORE THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS ARE MADE.
SO, YOU KNOW, MORE TRANSPARENT, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS IMPORTANT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TOO LATE ON THIS OR NOT, BUT, UM, IF IT COULD BE APPROVED FOR THREE MONTHS, IT WOULD GIVE US MORE TIME THAT WE NEED.
UM, SO WE'RE THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ALSO, UH, SHOULD HAVE AND COULD STILL POST THIS AND DISCUSS IT AND DEBATE IT AND MAKE IT MORE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, MAKES THE PUBLIC MORE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, THE SPAY NEUTER IS THE MOST VIABLE AND HUMANE WAY TO END ALL THESE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH, UH, THE STEM FROM THE OVERPOPULATION OF PETS.
AND AS FOR PEOPLE WHO SAY THERE IS NO OVERPOPULATION OF PETS, I GUESS, EVIDENTLY THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO GET THEIR HEARTS BROKEN EVERY DAY SEEING THESE ANIMALS OUT ON THE STREET, AND THERE ARE NO PUMPS FOR 'EM OR WHO DESPERATELY END UP KEEPING THE ANIMALS BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH THEM.
UH, THEY, I'M GUESSING THESE PEOPLE MUST NOT BE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING ANY OF THE HARD WORK, UH, BECAUSE THERE MOST DEFINITELY IS A PET OVER POPULATION PROBLEM.
AND THE ANSWER DEFINITELY IS SPAY NEUTER, AND I WAS UNABLE TO FIND OUT.
[00:25:01]
EXPIRED SURGERIES ARE, THANK YOU.MY NAME IS AKI MCCLENNAN AND I'M A DISTRICT FOR RESIDENT IN ST.
UM, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I'VE BEEN EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AT, UH, THE ST.
JOHN HO OLD HOME DEPOT PROJECT FOR A FEW YEARS NOW.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THE, THIS HAS BEEN A WHOLE MODEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE WHOLE PROCESS.
AND THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE ULTIMATELY COME TO, UM, HAS BEEN, UH, THE, THE RESULT OF A LOT OF TIME AND INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
UM, AND SO I'M, I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF PASSING THIS RESOLUTION, UM, BECAUSE I TRULY FEEL LIKE THE CONTENT, UM, HAS KEPT THE COMMUNITY IN MIND AND IS A GOOD MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD.
THINGS THAT WILL BENEFIT BOTH THE CITY, UM, PRIVATE COMPANIES AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.
NEXT SPEAKER IS SAAR ACOSTA ON ITEM EIGHT.
I'M A DISTRICT FOR RESIDENT, AND UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, I'D LIVED IN ST.
UM, AS HAKEEM HAD SAID, THIS HAS BEEN A REAL MODEL FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
SO I JUST WANNA GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO FARMER COUNCILMAN KASAR AND OUR CURRENT COUNCILMAN.
SHE, THEIR CONTINUED WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ST.
JOHN COMMUNITY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS FOR HOW THIS SPACE THAT HAS JUST KIND OF BEEN EITHER VACANT LAND OR, UH, SPOT PLACE COMPOST BUCKETS WILL NOW BE A PLACE THAT'LL HOST OVER 300 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
UH, AND THAT IS WITH THE COMMUNITY'S IN INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, FOR INSTANCE, THE NUMBER OF THREE BEDROOM UNITS THAT'LL BE IN THIS CURRENT CON UH, CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS QUADRUPLED BECAUSE OF, UH, INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS LISTENED TO.
SO I AM STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF, UH, THIS RELU, UH, THE RESOLUTION AND THE PLAN MOVING FORWARD.
I WOULD ASK THAT COUNCIL, UH, CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, UH, PARTICULARLY IN REGARDS TO CONTINUED EFFORTS TO HAVE LANGUAGE AROUND RIGHT TO RETURN AND RIGHT TO REMAIN AS WELL AS, AS, AS WELL AS MORE, UM, OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THIS IS A GREAT PROCESS AND A GOOD PROJECT, AND I'M REALLY IN, UM, PLEASED WITH HOW THINGS HAVE FORWARD, AND I HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE EMULATED AND, AND, UH, SEEN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, UH, FOR ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE FOR ALL THIS DEPARTING.
NEXT SPEAKER IS WILLIAM BUNCH, SPEAKING ON 14 38 60, 62, AND 68.
GOOD MORNING, MAYOR COUNSEL, UH, BILL BUNCH, UH, SPEAKING.
ON BEHALF OF SAVE SPRINGS ALLIANCE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 56, THE NUTRIENTS AND MICROPLASTIC STUDY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION IN, UH, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS JACKSON SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
UM, WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SPEAK OUT AGAINST SEVERAL ITEMS. FIRST, UH, ITEM 14, THE WALNUT CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, UM, EXPANSION WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF 750 MILLION, NOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT AN AGGRESSIVE MOVE TO REDUCE THE NEED AND, UH, DELAY THE NEED FOR THE EXPANSION BY INVESTING IN DECENT CENTRALIZED REUSE AND WATER EFFICIENCY AND TAKING OUR WATER FORWARD GOALS SERIOUS MORE SERIOUSLY.
UM, WE CAN SAVE MONEY AND SAVE WATER.
UH, FIRST IF IT IS GONNA GO FORWARD.
IT NEEDS TO HAVE NUTRIENT REMOVAL EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT ADDED TO AVOID VIOLATING DOWNSTREAM RIVER WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
UH, I, WE ALSO OPPOSE ITEM 60, THE ORACLE DEAL.
THIS WAS MISGUIDED FROM THE BEGINNING.
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED BY COUNCIL WITHOUT GOING THROUGH STANDARD PROCEDURES.
[00:30:01]
WHAT, UH, YOU STARTED, WHICH IS A MONOPOLY DEAL WITH, UH, A GREEDY, UH, DEMAND.UM, PLEASE COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND NOT GRANT A GIFT TO ORACLE.
UM, AND IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO FULL MARKET VALUE, YOU SHOULD NOT DO THIS, EVEN THOUGH, UH, THE VOTERS AUTHORIZE YOU TO DO IT.
UM, WE ALSO STAND AGAINST THE SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, ITEM 80, UM, UNLESS THERE IS OFFSITE MITIGATION, THAT WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE TO BELOW THE 15% IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARD FOR RECHARGE ZONE DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED.
WE ALSO STAND IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61, THE COLORADO RIVERHEAD TRAIL, UH, STUDY TO CONNECT OUR TRAIL NORTH OF THE RIVER WITH OUR TRAIL SOUTH OF THE RIVER, UH, SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF LONGHORN AND PLEASANT VALLEY.
UH, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED, NEED THIS TO HAPPEN, AND WE APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBERS BRINGING THIS BOARD AS WELL.
UM, WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
UH, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION, KIRK YOSHIDA ON ITEM 65.
GOOD MORNING, UM, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL KIRK, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 68.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE, UH, NEXT PHASE OF THE ASIAN AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER, THE A ARC AND THE NEED FOR CAPITAL FUNDING THERE.
IN 2018, THE CITY'S BOND PROPOSITION FOR LIBRARY MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS, ARTS FACILITIES INCLUDED 7 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR AN UNSPECIFIED PROJECT AT THE A A R C.
SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THAT BOND MEASURE, OUR MASTER PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND THE PROJECT, UH, PRIORITY PROJECT THAT EMERGED THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WAS ADDITIONAL PERFORMING ART SPACE.
WHAT'S NOW BEING CALLED THE ARC PHASE TWO PROJECT FOR A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER HAS AN ARCHITECT ON BOARD AND WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT.
THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED WITH A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE.
THE PROJECT'S ESTIMATED COST FAR OUT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FROM THAT 2018 BOND.
THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED PERFORMING ART SPACE IN DISTRICT ONE, WHICH I ALSO LIVE IN, AND, UH, ALSO HAPPENS TO BE AN AREA THAT HAS LOST SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PERFORMING ART SPACE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
IN ADDITION TO A 300 TO 350 SEAT THEATER, THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN INCLUDES A SEPARATE MULTI-PURPOSE SPACE THAT MAY BE USED TO SUPPORT SMALLER PERFORMANCES BY COMMUNITY GROUPS.
ALSO, REHEARSALS AND A REC, UH, STUDIO RECORDINGS.
IT WILL ALSO HAVE AN ART GALLERY.
SO THREE DISTINCT CREATIVE ART SPACES UNIFIED UNDER ONE CANOPY.
UH, THIS SPACE WILL NOT ONLY SERVE AUSTIN'S GROWING ASIAN COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ARTISTS AND PERFORMER CITYWIDE.
UH, UH, OUR COMMISSION, ASIAN AMERICAN QUALITY OF LIFE COMMISSION IS FULLY COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH STAFF AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO EXPLORE EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING TO REDUCE THE PROJECTS, UH, PUBLIC TAX BURDEN.
HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF DONATIONS, FOUNDATIONS, GRANTS AND PARTNERSHIPS, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDING WILL STILL BE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ARC PHASE TWO PROJECT.
I ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION TODAY SO THAT THE COMMUNITY DRIVEN PROJECT, ALONG WITH THE OTHER, UH, CULTURAL ARTS PROJECTS, HAVE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO BE COMPLETED AS ENVISIONED BY THE COMMUNITY AND REFLECTED IN ITS SCHEMATIC DESIGN.
UM, AGAIN, IF I DIDN'T MENTION, UH, KK CHAIR OF THE ASIAN AMERICAN QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, MAYOR.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE ONLINE SPEAKERS.
WE DID HAVE ONE H F C SPEAKER THAT HAS NOT CONNECTED, AND WE DO HAVE TWO IN PERSON.
LET'S TAKE THE AHF SPEAKERS AT THE VERY END, GIVING THAT ONLINE SPEAKER THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO CALL IN.
SO WE'LL TAKE ALL A HF SPEAKERS AT THE END, MOVING TO, UM, IN PERSON FOR
[00:35:01]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, KIBA WHITE ON DECK IS PAUL ROBBINS SPEAKING ON ITEM FOUR.GOOD MORNING, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UH, MY NAME IS KABA WHITE HERE ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC CITIZENS TEXAS OFFICE.
I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD FROM ME PLENTY, SO I'LL, UM, JUST GET RIGHT TO IT.
UH, I THINK Y'ALL DO HAVE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOCUS ON THOSE OPTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MOST BENEFICIAL TO THE WIDEST RANGE OF CUSTOMERS.
AND WE'RE SPECIFICALLY ADVOCATING FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
THERE SEEMS TO BE, UM, SOME CONFUSION OR I, I THINK MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT, UH, THE BENEFITS OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS.
AND I, I HOPE THAT Y'ALL HEARD WHAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER OF FUENTES, UH, SPOKE ABOUT AT WORK SESSION, THAT THERE ARE, UM, MANY MORE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS IN THIS CITY THAN, THAN THERE ARE EVEN CAP ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS.
AND OF COURSE, MANY OF THOSE WHO ARE CAP ELIGIBLE ARE NOT ON CAP.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS FROM RATE SHOCK, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THOSE WORKING POOR FAMILIES WHO REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH MARGIN OR ANY MARGIN NECESSARILY IN THEIR FAMILY BUDGETS.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR Y'ALL TO FOCUS IN ON SOLUTIONS TO KEEP THE FIXED FEE LOW.
WE WOULD URGE YOU TO PICK ONE NUMBER AND HAVE THAT BE THE FIXED FEE AND, AND NOT DO THE PHASE IN APPROACH.
WE THINK THE PHASE IN APPROACH IS CONFUSING AND DOESN'T ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANY GOAL, BECAUSE AT THE END IT'LL BE WHATEVER THE, THE LAST YEAR IS.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU JUST CHOOSE THE $13 FIXED FEE, UH, APPROACH AND, UM, AND, AND GO WITH THAT.
UH, WE DO LIKE THE IDEA OF
BUT, UM, I, I SUSPECT THERE'S MAYBE NOT SUPPORT, UH, FOR THAT.
AND SO WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU PRIORITIZE THE LOW FIXED FEE AS WELL AS KEEPING THE TIERS, UH, IN, UH, IN THE FIRST AND SECOND TIER LOW.
SPECIFICALLY, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ADOPT OPTION, UH, FOUR B THE TIERS THAT ARE IN THE $14 SCENARIO AND SIMPLY APPLY A $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS IS BEING OVERBUILD IN THAT SCENARIO.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS ASKING FOR Y'ALL TO USE THAT MONEY TO FUND CAP, BUT THAT IS A FUTURE EXPENSE AND THEY'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR FUTURE EARNINGS, SAY FROM THE SALE OF THEIR EXPENSIVE BUILDING, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET MANY MILLIONS MORE THAN THEY'RE GONNA SPEND ON CAP FROM.
SO IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO ACCOUNT FOR FUTURE COSTS AND NOT THOSE KIND OF FUTURE SOURCES OF REVENUE.
SO YOU DO HAVE MONEY TO WORK WITH THERE, UM, WITHIN THAT SCENARIO WITHOUT ADJUSTING.
UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT PREFERRING THE TIERS IN FOUR B.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING, UM, THE TIERS IN FOUR B INSTEAD OF FIVE A AND, AND YOU HAD, YOU WERE PART OF A GROUP THAT ADVOCATED FOR, FOR THE COST ALLOCATION IN FIVE B FIVE A, WHICH IS WHY WE RAN IT.
ARE YOU STILL SUPPORTIVE OF THE COST ALLOCATION IN FIVE A? WE, WE ARE.
AND ESSENTIALLY IF YOU REDUCED THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IN THE FOUR B $14 SCENARIO, IF YOU REDUCE, IF YOU TOOK EVERYTHING ELSE, LEFT IT THE SAME AND JUST REDUCED THE CUSTOMER CHARGE TO $13, YOU WOULD COME VERY CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL COST ALLOCATION THAT WE COLLECTIVELY AGREED TO.
NOW, WE WOULD'VE LIKED TO SEE THAT SCENARIO RUN WITH EXACTLY OUR COST ALLOCATION.
BUT, UM, WELL, I JUST WANT, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU, YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR ONE SET OF TIERS, BUT WE RAN A, A COST ALLOCATION MODEL THAT MATCHED WHAT WHAT YOU HAD REQUESTED AND SUPPORTED.
SO WHICH COST ALLOCATION METHOD ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF? WE ARE IN SUPPORT STILL OF THE AGREED UPON COST ALLOCATION METHOD.
UM, I THINK SCENARIO FIVE WOULD BE GREAT.
WE WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THAT, BUT I, I'M JUST KIND OF PUTTING FORWARD TWO OPTIONS, EITHER SCENARIO FIVE OR THE FOUR B $14 SCENARIO, BUT THEN REDUCE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE TO $13.
I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE TWO BEST OPTIONS ON THE
[00:40:01]
TABLE THAT BALANCE THE NEEDS OF AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.AND MAYOR, I'VE GOT ONE FOLLOW ON FROM MS. WHITE.
SO THE 14 TO 13 AND GRADUATED 13, 14, AND 15.
WE ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
SO 31.3 AT 13 FIXED GOING FORWARD, OR, UM, 29 AND A HALF AT THE GRADUATED 13, 14, 15, I THINK IT WAS 28 WASN'T FIVE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT SCENARIO COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ DESCRIBING.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIVE, CUZ I, I HAVEN'T.
OKAY, SO THEN, SORRY, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT THE 29? SO LOWER REVENUE, AND I DON'T REALLY WANNA GET IN, YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYOR, I SHOULD, I SHOULD BACK AWAY.
I REALLY JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE FIXED COST WAS GRADUATED OR FIXED AT 13 AND IT IS FIXED AT 13, AT THE 31 13.
REALLY JUST THINK THAT THAT'S GONNA BE CONFUSING TO CUSTOMERS TO HAVE NOT ONLY THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, BUT ALSO EACH OF THOSE TIERED RATES.
I UNDERSTAND CHANGING EVERY YEAR.
UM, OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
SO THE SCENARIO OF THE FOUR B SCENARIOS, IF WE WERE GOING WITH FOUR B, WE, WE HAVE TO DO THE COMPARISON WITH THE FIVE A.
YOU PREFER TAKING WHAT WAS GENERATED FOR THE $14 AND CHANGING IT TO $13.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU, YOU WANT FOUR B RUN WITH $13.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANNA TAKE FOUR B AND LAB OFF A DOLLAR.
WELL, IT WAS RUN WITH $13, BUT THEN OF COURSE THE TIERS GOT INCREASED.
THE TIERED RATES GOT INCREASED.
THAT'S WHY I'M, WHAT, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS, IS, IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT SAYING LET'S RUN THIS WHOLE THING AND JUST START WITH 13.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WHICH IS ESSENTIAL, WHICH YOU DON'T NECESSARILY GET TO THE 31.3 MILLION THAT WAY YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SOME OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN THE $13 FOUR B SCENARIO WOULD KIND OF BE, YOU KNOW, THE FALLBACK.
BUT BUT YOUR, YOUR FIRST PREFERENCE THAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING WITH FOUR B WAS NOT THE SAME AS 13 FOUR B RUN AT 13? NO.
WE WOULD'VE LIKED FOUR B TO BE RUN WITH THE REVENUE ALLOCATION THAT WE ALL AGREED TO, UM, SO THAT THERE COULD BE A REAL COMPARISON THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOUR INITIAL PREFERENCE WAS THERE.
YEAH, AND THAT'S REALLY LOOKING AT IT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THINGS.
I REALIZE THAT OTHER THINGS WOULD NEED TO ADJUST A LITTLE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE OTHER, UM, RATES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
SO IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO ADJUST SOME OF THOSE ON THE FLY.
YOU'LL HAVE TO HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT.
MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? OKAY.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, SO YOUR PREFERENCE IS, IS IF WE TAKE FOUR B, YOU'D, YOU'D LIKE TO SEE, UH, FOUR B WITH, UH, 13, THE $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE.
UH, DID YOU, DID YOU SAY, UH, NOT GRADUATED, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, JUST CAPPED ACROSS THE BOARD? YES, CORRECT.
WE FEEL THAT THAT IS BOTH CONFUSING AND DOESN'T REALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU END UP AT 15 OR 16 OR WHATEVER.
AND THEN THE SECOND ASPECT OF WHAT YOU SAID, JUST TO CLARIFY WITH THE, YOU MENTIONED LOWER TIER RATES.
SO CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? SO IF WE WERE, SO, UH, IF, YOU KNOW, I I I'M, I'M CERTAIN THAT THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US WILL BE FOUR B, SO WE'LL BE CONSIDERING FOUR B.
AND SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THE FOUR B I I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE 13, BUT ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO, UH, SUGGEST A CHANGE TO FOUR B RELATED TO THE, UH, TIER RATES? WELL, I THINK FOUR B DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE COST ALLOCATION THAT THE PARTIES WORK TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON.
AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WILL BE, UM, TAKE, TAKE A LITTLE WORK TO, UM, ADJUST THAT FOR EACH OF THE OTHER CUSTOMER CLASSES.
BUT ON THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CLASS, THERE'S 6.3 I THINK MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS BEING CHARGED TO THAT.
SO YOU COULD JUST, UM, MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE BY REDUCING THE CUSTOMER FEE BY, BY A DOLLAR NOW YES.
YOU THEN NEED TO MAKE THAT UP IN, IN OTHER RATES.
I, I SUSPECT THAT THAT COULD BE DONE.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO, I'M BEING EVEN MORE SIMPLE THAN THAT.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF, IF, IF, UH, SOMEONE WAS TO SAY, YES, WE WANT TO GO WITH FOUR B, UH, BUT YES, WE WANNA SEE IF IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE DIAS TO GO TO 13, THEN WOULD WE ALSO SAY YES, WE WANNA SEE IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE DIAS TO, TO,
[00:45:01]
UM, HAVE, ARE YOU SAYING THE 49% ALL COST ALLOCATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, AND THEN, UM, DO YOU HAVE A POSITION ON ANY OF THE OTHER, I THINK THERE'S A, A FIVE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED? YEAH, I MEAN I, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF FIVE.
IF THERE'S SUPPORT ON THE DIAS, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF FIVE.
YEAH, I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M STILL REALLY CONFUSED.
SO FIVE HAS THE COST ALLOCATION YOU REQUESTED? YES.
IS THAT YOUR PREFERENCE? YEAH, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF FIVE.
READ IN THE ROOM ARE THERE, IF IT'S FOUR B, THEN WE WANT $13.
BUT FIVE CAPTURES THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE SAID ARE PREFERENCES AND THEY YES.
AND THEY INCLUDE THE FIX THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST BE PUT INTO FOUR B? YES.
SO, AND, AND, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT THAT WAS, THAT WAS RUN.
I JUST, YOU KNOW, DON'T, DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY STANDS ON THOSE OTHER TIER BREAKS AND, AND THE REVENUES.
SO IF, IF THAT IS NOT AN OPTION THAT PEOPLE ARE GOOD WITH, THEN, THEN AT LEAST FOUR B WITH THE $13 CUSTOMER CHARGE, I THINK WOULD GET CLOSER.
WELL, IT SOUNDS FROM SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE JUST HEARD IN EXCHANGE WITH YOU AS IF THERE MAY BE A PROPOSAL FOR A LOWER REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT IS CLOSER TO FIVE A.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT, BUT JUST BASED ON WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAID, UM, BUT IT WOULD NOT CAPTURE THE COST ALLOCATION YOU JUST DISCUSSED NECESSARILY, RIGHT? OR AT LEAST NOT EXACTLY.
I THINK WHERE THE OTHER VOICES ARE COMING IN, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO ON THAT ISSUE, UH, WOULD BE KIND OF A CHOICE BETWEEN 31
UH, BUT IT WOULD HAVE US GOING 13, 14, 15, STARTING AT 13, BUT HAVING THE PHASED IN APPROACH THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE SUSTAINING AT 30, AT 13 FLAT, BUT THEN WITH THE HIGHER REVENUE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE, UM, VARIABLE CHARGE WOULD NEED TO BE HIGHER TO COVER THE 31 3.
SO FROM WHERE I'M SITTING WHERE CHAIR IS SITTING, UM, UH, IT'S, I THINK FOR US IT'S BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS AT THIS POINT, 31 3 13 FOR ALL THREE YEARS, 28, 29, 5, THAT'S DROPPING THE REVENUE AND THE THINKING BEHIND DROPPING THE REVENUE TO 29 5 IS, UH, A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO AS COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA, I THINK YOU POINT OUT THE MIDPOINT WAS 28.
WE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE LEANING TOWARD THE PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE OF OUR STAFF.
SO WE ASKED THEM TO RUN THE 29.5.
I WASN'T HERE FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD YESTERDAY ON TUESDAY.
UH, BUT IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE ALSO RUNNING A 29.5 13, 14 15 OPTION SO THAT WE CAN COMPARE THEM TO, UH, PUT THAT IN THE MIX WITH THE OTHER OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED.
MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WOULD BE NO ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COST ALLOCATION IN EITHER OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS.
THOSE TWO OPTIONS USE THE FOUR B COST ALLOCATION MODEL.
AND WE DO, YOU KNOW, AS WE TALK ABOUT OPTIONS, WE DO HAVE AN OPTION ON THE TABLE THAT INCLUDES THE COST ALLOCATION THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US BY THE JOINT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, WHO WE HIRED, AS WELL AS, UM, THE OTHERS WHO ARE PARTY TO THAT MANAGER.
I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WE WERE TOLD YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO RUN.
YOU TOLD ME VERY CLEARLY ON TUESDAY THAT YOU NEEDED TO SEE A SHOW OF SUPPORT BEFORE YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO RUN AN ADDITIONAL SCENARIO, WHICH WE THEN HAD TO GO AROUND THE TABLE AND GET FOUR VOTES FOR BEFORE YOU WOULD RUN IT.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE BETWEEN TUESDAY AND THURSDAY YOU'VE RUN AN ADDITIONAL SCENARIO.
UM, AND SO I JUST FIND, I JUST NOTE THAT, UM, I ALSO NOTE THAT SOME OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERVENERS WHO HAVE REQUESTED RUNS HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE A, IF THERE'S A POLICY THAT YOU NEED TO GET MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EXPRESS SUPPORT MULTIPLE, IN MY CASE WAS FOUR.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NUMBER WAS LOWER, UM, YESTERDAY.
SO I JUST, THAT THAT'S A, THAT'S A PROBLEM.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM I'M GONNA BE FACING ANY LONGER, BUT I JUST NOTE THAT AS AN ISSUE.
AND, UH, JUST TO NOTE THAT IT WAS A REQUEST, I DON'T THINK THOSE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN RUN AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ARE THEY? OKAY.
I MEAN, MY HOPE IS THAT THEY DO THAT, AND I WASN'T HERE
[00:50:01]
FOR THE AFTERNOON.I'VE BEEN ELECTED BY THE ENTIRE CITY.
UH, AND WHEN I MADE A REQUEST LIKE THAT, WHEN I WASN'T PRESIDENT AT THE MEETING, I, I ASKED FOR AND, AND HOPE THERE'D BE CONSIDERATION FOR THAT.
AND IT IS TRUE THAT WE HIRED THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, BUT WE HIRED THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE TO BE A CONSUMER ADVOCATE, NOT TO TELL US WHAT'S BEST FOR THE SYSTEM, NOT TO TELL US WHAT'S BEST FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, NOT TO TELL US WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY.
WE HIRED SOMEONE TO BE AN ADVOCATE FOR A PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF OUR GROUP, AND HE'S DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULDN'T EXPECT HIM TO TELL US WHAT'S BEST FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S BEEN HIRED TO DO.
HE'S DOING HIS JOB TO BE AN ADVOCATE FOR ONE SEGMENT, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK HE'S DOING, AND I THINK HE'S DOING IT WELL.
SO LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT SPEAKER, PAUL ROBBINS ON ITEM FOUR ON DECK IS SHANE JOHNSON.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU START THE CLOCK, MA'AM, PLEASE.
COUNCIL, I STARTED MY WORK IN 1977 AS A CONSUMER ADVOCATE OPPOSING THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT.
IT WAS A PROVERBIAL BAPTISM AND FIRE.
AUSTIN ENERGY CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THE NUKE AS IT ROSE A NET 440% ABOVE ITS ORIGINAL COST.
AND I LEARNED VERY QUICKLY THAT EXPERTS MAKE COSTLY MISTAKES.
I MIGHT ADD THAT MAYOR ADLER, WHEN HE RAN IN 2014, DISPARAGED EXPENSIVE MISTAKES LIKE THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR AND THE BIOMASS PLANT.
AND GIVEN HIS OWN EXAMPLE, HE SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO BLINDLY FOLLOW EXPERTS IN TODAY'S ELECTRIC CASE.
FIRST, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER, UH, COUNCIL'S QUESTIONS AND THE UTILITY STATEMENT IN REAL TIME, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT OCCURRED TUESDAY.
THIS ALLOWS TRANSPARENCY AND QUICKER INFORMATION FLOW.
SECOND, BOTH SCENARIOS DEVISED BY AUSTIN ENERGY WERE CAREFULLY MANIPULATED TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM PAIN, UH, TO LOW USERS, WHILE EXTREMELY HIGH CONSUMERS SEE VIRTUALLY NO INCREASE IN THEIR BILLS.
HERE ARE THE CHARTS FOR FOUR B AND FIVE, UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO INCREASE WITH HIGH CONSUMPTION.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW AUSTIN ENERGY GAINED THE NUMBERS.
THIS COUNCIL WOULD PREFER TO VOTE ON THIS RIGHT CASE TODAY.
UH, BUT IF THE DAY ENDS WITHOUT A CONCLUSION, THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH AUSTIN ENERGY.
THIRD, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIDE ISSUES.
HERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE OF THE OTHER SCENARIO.
THIRD, THERE ARE ANOTHER, A NUMBER OF OTHER SIDE ISSUES UNRELATED TO THE REVENUE AND RATES THAT HAVE LARGELY BEEN AGREED TO BY THE INTERVENERS.
THEY ARE LARGELY NON-CONTROVERSIAL, HOWEVER, THE UTILITY HAS NOT ACCEPTED THEM.
I THINK THEY'RE HOLDING THEM HOSTAGE.
UH, WITHOUT THESE ISSUES, THE CASE IS INCOMPLETE AND IF THIS DAY ENDS WITHOUT A CONCLUSION, THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH AUSTIN ENERGY.
FOURTH, UH, WHILE I SUPPORT THE 28 MILLION PROPOSAL ON THE $13 CHARGE, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL SCENARIO CREATED.
IF THE COUNCIL WANTS A $31,000,013 CUSTOMER CHARGE, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE UTILITY AND IS ABSENT, UH, NOT TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL PROPOSAL AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL IS NEGLIGENCE.
IF THE DAY ENDS WITHOUT A CONCLUSION, THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH ITS UTILITY.
MR. ROBBINS, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
I WANNA BE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT.
UM, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR CHART BELOW GOES UP TO 30% AND THE CHART ABOVE IT GOES UP TO 50%.
SO WHILE IT MAY LOOK LIKE THE NUMBERS ARE IN ABOUT THE SAME SPOT, THE SCALE IS DIFFERENT.
AND SO IN YOUR ESTIMATION, WHICH HAS THE LOWER, WHICH OF THE TWO PROPOSALS BEFORE THE ONE THAT THE MAYOR JUST DESCRIBED, UM, WHICH OF THESE TWO PROPOSALS DO YOU THINK HAS THE LEAST IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS? UH, I PREFER PROPOSAL FIVE.
AND DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HOW, OF WHETHER WHETHER THE ELEMENTS WOULD CARRY OVER WITH
[00:55:01]
THE TWO PROPOSALS THAT WERE JUST DESCRIBED, THE TWO ALTERNATIVES? DO YOU HAVE A, A SENSE OF, OF YOUR POSITION ON THOSE TWO THAT WERE JUST OUTLINED BY THE MAYOR? I DO PERSONALLY DO NOT SUPPORT A GRADUATED INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER FEE.UH, I HAVE MAINTAINED ALL ALONG THAT THIS IS ONEROUS TO LOW CONSUMERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE LOWER INCOME.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I CAN CLARIFY THAT'S HELPFUL, COUNCIL MEMBER? NO, THAT'S HELPFUL.
YES, SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIXED CUSTOMER CHARGE VERSUS THE GRADUATED.
UH, YES GUYS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE ON THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE 17 SPEAKERS LEFT TO GO, AND WE HAVE LESS THAN 30 MINUTES BEFORE NOON, AND WE GAVE PEOPLE THREE MINUTES OF SPEAKER, WHICH IS GONNA HAVE US BEG FOR TIME.
I, I'M NOT DEBATING I'M NO, NO, NO, NO.
YOU WERE ACTING PERFECTLY CORRECT.
I'M TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUES AND SUGGESTING THAT WE HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THERE'LL BE A CHANCE TO ASK PEOPLE QUESTIONS ON AUSTIN ENERGY WHEN WE GET THERE.
SHANE JOHNSON ON ITEM FOUR ON DECK IS JOHN KAUFMAN.
UH, COUNSEL SHANE JOHNSON, HE IN PRONOUNS.
I'M A DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT, AS ARE MY FAMILY, AND I'M A D FOUR, UH, DIS, UH, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONER.
AND I'LL BE, UH, USING MY TIME TO BUILD ON MY TESTIMONY LAST TIME ABOUT WHY, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL TO QUOTE UNQUOTE EXPAND CAP IS ACTUALLY A RED HERRING AND VERY HARMFUL TO MINIMIZE THE HARM TO LOW INCOME RESIDENTS, UH, OF AUSTIN.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN, NEED YOU ALL TO OPPOSE ANY CUSTOMER CHARGE HIGHER THAN $13.
IT REALLY SHOULD BE LOWER THAN THAT, BUT HIGHER THAN $13 SHOULDN'T BE ON THE TABLE.
UH, AND DO NOT INCREASE, IN PARTICULAR, DO NOT INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE HIGHER THAN THAT.
UM, AS AUSTIN INJURY HAS SUGGESTED TO ACQUIRE MORE FUNDING FOR EXPANDING CAP, THIS APPROACH IS ACTUALLY VERY BACKWARDS AND WILL HARM THE SUPER MAJORITY OF VERY LOW INCOME PEOPLE IN AUSTIN.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT WILL HARM THE SUPER MAJORITY OF CAP ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS.
AND IN GENERAL, OUTSIDE OF THIS, OF COURSE, WE SHOULD EXPAND CAP, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THIS RATE HIKE.
THE LITERAL MAJORITY OF LOW INCOME CAP ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS IN AUSTIN DO PAY THE CUSTOMER CHARGE ALREADY.
SO IT'S NOT TRUE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, ASSUME THAT NO CAP CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING THAT.
IN FACT, UH, APPROXIMATELY, UH, TWO THIRDS, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID, OF VERY LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE CAP ELIGIBLE ARE NOT ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM.
UH, AND STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LIMIT AROUND A THIRD OF WHERE IT'S REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE, UH, WITHOUT EXTENSIVE AND EXTENSIVE INCREASE IN RESOURCES TO ENROLL PEOPLE IN A PROGRAM LIKE CAP.
UM, SO WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE TWO, TWO-THIRDS OF VERY LOW INCOME PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, AND THEY CERTAINLY CANNOT AFFORD AN INCREASE.
UH, EVEN IF IT'S QUOTE UNQUOTE JUST FROM 10 TO $15, WE HAVE TO KEEP IT AS CLOSE TO $10 AS POSSIBLE.
UM, PAYING $5 A MONTH EXTRA FOR A VERY LOW INCOME PERSON, AND EVEN FOR LOW MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE.
WITH ALL OF THE, UH, INFLATION RIDICULOUS RAIN HIKES MANY OF US FACE, UH, FOR ANYONE LIVING PAYCHECK, PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK IS ALREADY HARD ENOUGH AND COULD MEAN SOMEONE GETTING, UH, DISCONNECTED FROM THEIR ELECTRICITY OR WORSE, EVENTUALLY EVICTED.
UH, UH, BUT THIS DOESN'T EXIST IN A VACUUM.
YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY PASSED ON A $15 A MONTH RATE HIKE TO ALL CUSTOMERS, UH, THROUGH THE PSA.
AND SO TWO THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO Y'ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS QUOTE UNQUOTE CAP CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY FACING, UM, AT LEAST, OR WITH A $15 A MONTH, CUSTOMER CHARGE WOULD BE FACING AT LEAST A 20, MORE, PROBABLY CLOSER TO A $25 A MONTH RATE HIKE.
AND THIS IS, UM, INEXCUSABLE AND SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T BE ON THE TABLE.
SO, UM, URGE YOU TO NOT INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE BEYOND $13 A MONTH, UH, AND AGREE WITH KABA, YOU KNOW, FIVE A, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IS THE BEST, AND IF NOT, THEN FOUR B WITH, UM, $13 A MONTH CUSTOMER CHARGE, BUT THE FOUR, BUT WHAT IS CURRENTLY LISTED UNDER THE $14 A MONTH, UH, TIERS.
[01:00:02]
NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN KAUFMAN FOR ITEM FOUR ON DECK IS ANDERS RES RASMUSSEN.UH, GOOD MORNING, JOHN KAUFMAN, INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
I SAW THE, UH, PROPOSALS THAT WENT OUT LAST NIGHT, UH, FOR THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, THE, THE FOUR B AND FIVE A SCENARIOS.
I'VE PROVIDED SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT YOU, YOU SHOULD HAVE IN YOUR PACKET OR HAVE BEEN EMAILED TO YOU.
THE, UM, MAIN THING I WANNA HIGHLIGHT IS THAT ONLY THE FIVE A OPTION, UH, DIVIDES THE OVERALL REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, AMONGST THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CLASSES, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ONLY.
THE FIVE A APPROACH DOES IT AS AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES WHO ACTUALLY WOULD BE PAYING THOSE BILLS.
UH, AND I SAW, I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE IN THE EMAIL THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DESCRIBED THAT DIFFERENCE AS DE MINIMUS.
IT IS NOT DE MINIMUS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL $6.4 MILLION TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS.
AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 49.4% OF, OF THE RATE INCREASE BEING ON THE BACKS OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND 50.4%.
UH, IT'S NOT EXACTLY CLEAR WHAT THAT ADDITIONAL EXCESS MONEY IS, BUT IF YOU GO WITH OPTION FOUR B, YOU WILL BE ADDING OVER 40 MILLION TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS.
AND SO WHENEVER, FOR WHATEVER SCENARIOS YOU RUN, PLEASE LOOK AT THE REVENUE ALLOCATION COLUMN AND THE CLOSER YOU GET THE RESIDENTIAL SHARE OF THAT INCRE, WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT YOU AGREE UPON, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CLOSER TO 49.4%.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL IS IN THAT EXTRA MONEY.
I, I THINK THAT SOME OF IT IS USED TO IS BEING PREPARED TO USE, UH, SUBSIDIZING FOLKS WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY.
AND IT HAS ALSO, I, I THINK, BEEN DESCRIBED AS POTENTIALLY, UM, UH, SOMEHOW DEALING WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE CAP PROGRAM.
I ALSO DISAGREED WITH THE COMMENT THAT THE, THAT IN SOME WAY THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS LINKED TO