[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
CALL THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE JSC TO ORDER AT 7 0 7.AND WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.
UM, THEY'RE BOTH, UM, WE'RE VOTING ON RESOLUTIONS.
ONE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN AND ONE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE FEE.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS, I'M LOOKING FOR THE ACTUAL AGENDA.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS FIRST.
OH, AND WE HAVE THE, OH, SORRY.
SO WHAT SHOULD WE, WHAT SHOULD WE START WITH? WE SHOULD JUST DO THE MINUTES.
UM, WELL JUST, SORRY, UM, DID YOU, DID JANELLE UH, GET THE LINK? DID YOU SEND HER THE LINK? LET ME DOUBLE CHECK AND SEND ONE IF I HAVE NOT.
SO I HAVE THE COPY THAT EVA SHARED OF THE GOOGLE DOC OF THE, UM, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN RESOLUTION.
DID WE, DID WE APPROVE THE MINUTES? I DON'T, I, I DON'T HAVE THE MINUTES.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE MINUTES.
THEY'RE NOT IN MY EMAIL, BUT IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE MINUTES, THAT'S OKAY.
OH, MAYBE, OR MAYBE IT'S NOT FROM THE LAST MAYBE.
IS IT, DID IT COME OUT? THEY'RE, THE MINUTES I SENT THEM MINUTES ARE OUT BY EMAIL AND THEY'RE ALSO POSTED ON THE JSC WEBSITE.
I'LL GO TO THE JS C WEBSITE AND LOOK, JANELLE SAID SHE DIDN'T GET IT.
UM, I'LL TELL HER TO CHECK HER EMAIL NOW.
HAVE YOU SENT IT ROHAN? I, I, IT'S ON THE WAY OUT RIGHT NOW.
SHE'S GIVEN ME ANOTHER EMAIL, SO I'M SENDING YOU THAT.
SO I, I'M ON THE WEBSITE WHERE THE MINUTES ARE.
[1. Approval of minutes from the June 26, 2024 meeting of the Joint Sustainability Committee. ]
ASSUMING THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THE MINUTES, UM, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.IT LOOKS LIKE JOHN, SO JOHN, I HAVE A, A, A COMMENT ABOUT THE, DOES IT, DOES IT MATTER TO LIST THE MEMBERS THAT ARE ABSENT? 'CAUSE THEY, IT SAYS MEMBER'S ABSENT AND THEN THERE'S A BLANK THERE.
SO I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THAT'S IMPORTANT OR NOT, OR NOT.
I CAN ADD IN THE MEMBERS WHO ARE ABSENT IF, UM, Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED WITH THE ABSENT MEMBERS, UH, SUPPORT THAT I WAS ABSENT.
SOMEBODY ELSE, I'LL, I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS.
SO JOHN, YOU, YOU MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE ABSENT MEMBERS BEING LISTED? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND A SECOND, IS THAT ANNA OR ANNA? AND RODRIGO.
ALL VOTING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE ADJUSTMENT AS ANNOUNCED.
IT LOOKS LIKE ALL MEMBERS PRESENT FOR VOTING TO, OH, OH, SORRY, I MISSED YOU.
[2. Recommendation of investments the City should fund as part of council resolution 20240215-025 ‘Environmental Investment Plan’. ]
LAY OUT THE, THE NEXT ITEM, THE RESOLUTION? YES, PLEASE DO.UM, WELL FIRST I'LL, I'LL START BY SAYING THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY TO, FOR, YOU KNOW, DOING, DOING THIS MEETING IN A HURRY.
[00:05:01]
IF ANYBODY HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG, THERE'S, UM, BEEN SEVERAL POSTS ON THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT BOND FUNDING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN.AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THAT MOVE FORWARD NOW IN 2024 OR WAIT TILL A LATER DATE.
UM, IT SEEMS THAT THIS BODY WAS GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF MOVING THINGS FORWARD AND, AND TAKING SOME ACTION NOW.
SO, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE NOW WAS THE TIME THAT WE NEEDED TO WEIGH IN.
IF, IF WE WERE GOING TO BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST WAS PAST THE POINT WHERE THAT WAS EVEN AN OPTION.
AND THERE IS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
ALTHOUGH THE 2024 BOND SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT POSTED ON THE JULY 18TH AGENDA, THERE IS AN ITEM, UH, THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT.
UM, AND, UH, SO I'VE DRAFTED THIS RESOLUTION THAT'S, THAT'S ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA AND I CAN, UM, CERTAINLY SHARE IT ON MY SCREEN IF THAT THAT IS HELPFUL TO PEOPLE.
UM, THAT BASICALLY JUST LAYS OUT, UM, THE, THE REASONS WHY MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE, UH, PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN EXISTING PLANS MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME NOW IS IDEA, UM, IN CASE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG, UM, THE REASON THAT THE ITEMS ARE THAT ARE IN MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS RESOLUTION ARE MENTIONED IS BECAUSE A GROUP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS ALREADY WORKING ON MOVING THAT PACKAGE FORWARD.
UM, AND IT, YOU KNOW, HAS SOLD OUT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, UM, POTENTIALLY COULD STILL BE REVIVED.
SO THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD ARE NOT ALSO IN NEED OF FUNDING.
AND THAT ITEM 93 DOES CALL FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER BOND PACKAGE NO LATER THAN 2026.
THIS IS JUST CALLING FOR, TO INCLUDE SOME ACTION NOW AS OPPOSED TO POSTPONING AT ALL.
UM, SO I'LL PAUSE THERE AND IF WOULD ANYBODY LIKE ME TO SHARE THAT ON THE SCREEN OR DOES EVERYBODY HAVE IT UP IN FRONT OF THEM? I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU CAN SHARE HOW YOU GO, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
BUT THAT, THAT AMOUNT OF TWO 50 TO 300 MILLION WAS, WAS, UH, PART OF THAT PACKAGE THAT THE SUBGROUP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS PUTTING TOGETHER? YEAH.
AND ACTUALLY INTENDED FOR THAT TO SAY 250 TO 350.
'CAUSE THAT WAS THE RANGE THAT WAS BEING, UM, DISCUSSED.
AND THAT'S SIMPLY APO ON MY BEHALF, UH, ON MY PART.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN PUT WHATEVER WE WANT IN THERE, BUT THEY WERE DISCUSSING THAT TWO 50 TO THREE 50, UH, RANGE.
AND IF FOLKS WANT ME TO SCROLL UP AND, AND GO THROUGH THE, WHEREAS STATEMENTS, I CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
UM, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH 'EM REAL QUICK.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TWO ARE JUST KIND OF ABOUT OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, COME FROM OUR BYLAWS, UM, OUR MISSION.
UM, THEN THERE'S ONE JUST POINTING OUT THAT WE'VE HAD WORKING GROUPS ON THE TOP THAT HAVE INCLUDED WORK ON THE TOPIC OF IDENTIFYING FUNDING NEEDS FOR THE PAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
AND THEN THAT'S HOW WE GOT PUBLIC INPUT SPECIFICALLY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN, BOTH WRITTEN FORM AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ALSO AT THE APRIL MEETING.
AND THAT THAT PUBLIC INPUT IDENTIFIED DIFFERENT NEEDS, UH, TO ACHIEVE ESTABLISHED GOALS THAN JUST, UM, CITING THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY RESOLUTION.
AND A COUPLE, WHEREAS STATEMENT ABOUT THE URGENCY OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
AND THEN THIS LAST ONE HERE IS, IS REALLY CALLING OUT THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT
[00:10:03]
WERE UNDER DISCUSSION FOR A 2024 BOND THAT BEING LAND ACQUISITION, SOLAR AND BATTERIES FOR, UM, AND THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING SOLAR AND BATTERIES SPECIFICALLY FOR CITY BUILDINGS AND CITY OPERATIONS, MOST PARTICULARLY AUSTIN WATER BEING THE CITY OPERATIONS AND THEN TREE PLANTING.THE FIRST TWO WOULD BE, I THINK THE BULK OF THE FUNDING AND WHAT THEY WERE ENVISIONING AND THAT TREE PLANTING WAS ENVISIONED TO, UM, BE ESPECIALLY FOCUSED ON EAST BOSTON IN AREAS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE LESS TREE CANOPY.
ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS? UH, KIVA, THIS IS GREAT.
UH, I THINK I'D ALSO BE SUPPORTIVE OF, OF POTENTIALLY INCREASING THAT, LIKE REVISING THIS TO INCLUDE THAT UPPER BOUND OF 350 MILLION BECAUSE I, BASED OFF OF THE MATH THAT, THAT I DID, UM, WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS ROUGH, I THINK THAT THAT'S KINDA THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS NEEDED TO SIGNIFICANTLY MOVE THE NEEDLE ON, ON SOME OF THESE CLIMATE PRIORITIES.
THEY, YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UM, LOOKS GOOD TO ME AS WELL.
UH, I WOULD JUST MAKE THE SMALL CHANGE OF THE THIRD.
WE'RE AS FROM THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS WE'RE AS THE CLIMATE CRISIS CONTINUES TO WORSEN EACH YEAR, WELL, IT SHOULD BE WORSEN AND NOT WORSE.
UH, WHERE IT SAYS RAPIDLY CLOSING, IT SHOULD SAY DUE TO CLIMATE TIPPING POINTS INSTEAD OF DUE CLIMATE TIPPING POINTS.
BUT, UH, THAT IS JUST MY INNER ENGLISH MAJOR.
UM, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO CHANGING THE 300 TO THREE 50, UM, THAT WAS MY INTENTION TO, I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, BUT IF, IF ANYBODY HAS OBJECTION TO THAT, PLEASE SAY SOMETHING.
BUT, UM, IS THERE LIKE A SPECIFIC, UH, DOCUMENT THAT WHERE THE, UH, 250 TO $350 MILLION PACKAGE WAS PUT TOGETHER, OR WAS THAT ALL IN LIKE A COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD EXCHANGE? UM, WELL, THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT LAID OUT THE LIST OF ITEMS, BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS.
UM, NOT THOSE AMOUNTS CAME FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WERE WORKING ON IT.
UM, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY, I THINK THEY HAD SETTLED ON AN EXACT NUMBER.
I THINK THEY HAD A SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, RESOLUTION, BUT THEY DID NOT, UM, END UP POSTING IT.
SO, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE NOT SEEN THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT, UM, OKAY.
I KNOW THE ITEMS LISTED HERE WERE INCLUDED.
I WILL SAY THERE WAS A FOURTH ITEM ENVISIONED, UM, IN THAT FUNDING PACKAGE, AND IT WAS FOR LOW CARBON CONCRETE, WHICH I KNOW WE ALL SUPPORT.
UM, HOWEVER, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR, UM, THE CITY TO, UH, HAVE FUNDING TO USE LOW CARBON, CONCRETE AND STAFF ADVISEMENT IS THAT THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT ACTUALLY A FINANCIAL BARRIER THERE THAT REALLY, IT'S A, A POLICY ISSUE.
UM, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION ON LOW CARBON CONCRETE WAS ERO HAVING AN INCENTIVE FOR PRIVATE ENTITIES, UM, WHEREAS THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PUNCH WOULD BE FOR.
SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT ONE REALLY ALIGNS.
IT WAS A SMALL, I THINK THEY WERE ENVISIONING A SMALL AMOUNT, BUT OKAY.
YEAH, THE, THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE I'M, I'M JUST LIKE READING THROUGH THE, I WAS READING THROUGH THE, UH, MESSAGE BOARD DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY THE POST, UM, AROUND THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOND MM-HMM.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THOSE, LIKE I'M SEEING LAND ACQUISITION, SOLAR AND BATTERY FOR OPERATIONS TREE PLANTINGS, BUT I'M ALSO SEEING WATER CONSERVATION.
AND SO THE WATER CONSERVATION WAS ENVISIONED, I THINK, IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
[00:15:01]
THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MENTIONED THAT THE SOLAR AND BATTERIES WOULD BE BOTH FOR CITY BUILDINGS AND ALSO FOR AUSTIN WATER OPERATIONS.UM, THE, ONE OF THE POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT, UH, FUNDING SOLAR IN THIS WAY WHERE THE CITY ACTUALLY MAKES THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO INSTALL THOSE, UH, MAKE THOSE SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BEHIND THE METER AND THEY'LL ACTUALLY ASK, BE ABLE TO OFFSET THEIR ELECTRIC USE.
AND SO THE, THE AUSTIN WATER WOULD ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY BY DOING THAT ON THEIR ELECTRIC BILL.
'CAUSE THEY DO, YOU KNOW, EVERY CITY DEPARTMENT, THEY, THEY PAY THEIR, THEIR ELECTRIC BILL TO AUSTIN ENERGY.
SO AUSTIN, THE IDEA WAS THAT AUSTIN WATER WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT ONGOING SAVINGS FROM THEIR ENERGY BILL TO FUND ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION.
AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT, UM, THEY WERE HOPING TO DO PERHAPS THROUGH, UM, UTILITY REVENUE BONDS.
AND SO THERE WERE SOME ITEMS THAT WERE UNDER DISCUSSION THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PART OF A, I THINK A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PACKAGE, BUT WOULD'VE ENDED THAT WAY.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT FIT IN.
AND THEN I GUESS THE OTHER KIND OF ANGLE ON WATER CONSERVATION, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO SIDES TO WATER CONSERVATION, OF COURSE, THE, THE USE AND THEN THE SUPPLY.
AND CERTAINLY THE LAND ACQUISITION WAS ENVISIONED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN PART BE TARGETED TOWARDS WATER, UM, QUALITY AND, AND AVAILABILITY CONSERVATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, PRESERVING LANDS THAT, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN THAT WAY, AS WELL AS CHECKING OTHER BOXES INCLUDING, UH, CARBON SEQUESTRATION, OR, SORRY, IS THERE MORE, UM, DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE WE, WE TAKE IT TO, UM, YEAH, TO THAT I ASK FOR, ASK FOR A MOTION TO VOTE AND WE DO, WE ARE MAKING THE CHANGES 250 TO 350 MILLION IN ADDITION TO THE GRAMMAR CHANGES, RIGHT? YEAH.
HOPEFULLY Y'ALL CAN SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN.
UM, I'VE MADE THE GRAMMAR CHANGES.
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY, THREE FIFTY.
AND THEN I ADD A LITTLE KIND OF TYPO HERE AT THE END OF THE WAREHOUSE WHERE I JUST HAVE LIKE A FLOATING, AND SO I PUT THE SEMI IN THERE.
SO THAT'S A, A MINOR CLERICAL CORRECTION AS WELL.
I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THIS.
OKAY, SO CHRIS, SECONDED, UH, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS UNANIMOUS WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREENER IN THE ROOM AND THE MOTION PASSES.
[3. Recommendation in support of a ‘Climate Fee’ as outlined in the staff response to council resolution 20240215-025 ‘Environmental Investment Plan’.]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS, UM, THE RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT A CLIMATE FEE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF RESPONSE.SO I, THE DISCUSSION AS I RECALL THAT WE HAD BEFORE, IT'S NOT LAYING OUT A PRESCRIPTIVE, IT IS IN SUPPORT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I WASN'T, DO YOU, IS THERE MORE YOU WANNA YEAH, I MEAN, SO I, I HEARD FROM CHARLOTTE AND ALSO FROM RODRIGO.
I THINK, UM, THE, THE CHANGES THAT, THAT Y'ALL HAD DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE THAT I WAS NOT THERE, BUT I THINK I'VE INCORPORATED THOSE AND, UM, SORRY, GET TO THE RIGHT.
I'M SH SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE CLEANED UP, CLEANED UP MY ACT.
UM, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ONE EITHER.
[00:20:01]
NOW, UM, PULLING FOR MY DIGITAL CLUTTER.UM, SO EVERYTHING IS THE SAME FROM THE LAST TIME Y'ALL LOOKED AT THIS, EXCEPT FOR THIS PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM.
UM, I MADE CHANGES BASED ON, BASED ON WHAT I HEARD FROM CHARLOTTE AND RODRIGO, IF IT'S NOT WHAT Y'ALL DISCUSSED, I'LL CORRECT IT.
AND YEAH, AND THIS IS, UM, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAD, UM, WHAT WE HAD BEEN EDITING LIVE BEFORE WE LOST QUORUM, BUT, UH, I THINK IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, BUT I, I HEAR FROM OTHERS IF, IF NOT, I THINK ALBERTA HAS HER HAND UP.
IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO, IT'S EVERYBODY SHOULD JUST SPEAK UP.
SO IF YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, PLEASE SPEAK UP BECAUSE IT, THE LITTLE SCREEN'S A LITTLE SMALL.
UM, IT SAYS PROGRESSIVE, NOT REGRESSIVE.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE PROGRESSIVE FEE THAT, AS OPPOSED TO REGRESSIVE? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? YEAH, WELL, I MEAN, WE WE'RE KIND OF SAYING THEY SHOULD BE PROGRESSIVE, NOT REGRESSIVE.
THERE'S ALSO THE LIKE, KIND OF IN BETWEEN OPTION.
BUT, UM, I WOULD SAY LIKE THE WAY AUSTIN ENERGY'S RATES ARE STRUCTURED, STRUCTURED, UM, ARE PROGRESSIVE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU USE MORE ENERGY, UM, YOU DO PAY MORE PER KILOWATT HOUR.
UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK LIKE WHAT FEES THE CITY MIGHT HAVE THAT ARE REGRESSIVE.
A LOT OF THEM ARE FLAT, SO THAT'S LIKE THE MIDDLE GROUND.
YEAH, I JUST WONDER, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT ENERGY, A LOT OF TIMES, AND I, I, AND I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IN TERMS OF, I HAVEN'T PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, A LOGIC THAT SAYS SOMETIMES FEE QUOTE UNQUOTE PROGRESSIVE FEES FOR FALL MORE DISPROPORTIONATELY ON LOWER INCOME PEOPLE GIVEN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT AND SAYING THE MORE YOU USE THE HIGHER YOUR RATES ARE, IF YOU WERE DOING THAT STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD AND YOU LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE GREAT WEATHERIZATION OR WINDOWS OR YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN OLDER HOME THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE NEWER ENERGY FEATURES, THEN YOU MIGHT BE PAYING QUITE A BIT.
SO I'M, I'M JUST NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THOSE TERMS AND IF, AND IF, AND IF, I MEAN, SINCE I WASN'T AT THE TABLE, I SUPPOSE I COULD LIVE WITH THAT.
AND I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO MAKE YOU GUYS TEAR IT UP AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I JUST WANTED TO JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
THANKS ALBERTA KI I JUST WANTED TO JUMP IN AND MAYBE OFFER, I KNOW I WAS THERE FOR THE MEETING AND I THINK THAT THOSE STATEMENTS, ALBERTA WERE A REACTION TO, UM, A PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD OUTLINING SOME OTHER CLIMATE FEES FROM OTHER CITIES.
AND I THINK OUR OBSERVATION WAS THAT SOME OF THOSE WERE, WERE FLAT OR POTENTIALLY REGRESSIVE.
AND SO I THINK OUR INTENTION HERE WAS NOT TO OUTLINE A SPECIFIC MODEL.
NOW OBVIOUSLY, IF YOUR DECISION MAKING BODY HAS, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURAL BIAS AND INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AND, AND HOW IT DEFINES THESE THINGS, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS NOT ADDRESSED IN HERE.
UM, I'D BE HAPPY IF YOU HAD SUGGESTED OTHER LANGUAGE HERE THAT THAT WOULD HELP APPLY, LIKE ECONOMICALLY RE UH, PROGRESSIVE OR,
[00:25:01]
OR OTHER TERMS. BUT I THINK THE INTENTION HERE WAS TO REACT TO A POTENTIAL SET OF POLICY OPTIONS AND TO SAY WE'D LIKE TO STEER TOWARDS THE ONES THAT, WHERE THE BURDEN FALLS LESS ON OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS.UH, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE PERHAPS THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD THING TO DO WOULD BE JUST TO ADD THAT STATEMENT, RIGHT? PROGRESSIVE WITH THE INTENT OF, YOU KNOW, ENSURING MORE OF A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON HIGHER INCOME INDIVIDUALS THAN LOW INCOME EARNERS.
IT'S JUST A DEFINITIONAL THING, REALLY.
YEAH, AND I, I WOULD MAYBE SUGGEST WE SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, IF POSSIBLE, UM, AND, AND I SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE THE CITY IS UNFORTUNATELY GONNA BE LIMITED ON, YOU KNOW, THE MOST PROGRESSIVE KIND OF TAXES AND INCOME TAX, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT LITERALLY IS BASED ON YOUR INCOME, AND THE CITY CAN'T DO THAT.
STATE OF TEXAS, LIKE THAT WOULD BE VERY LIKE, EFFECTIVE HERE.
UM, SO YOU HAVE, THE CITY'S GONNA BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO USE PROXIES FOR INCOME, AND ALBERTA IS RIGHT THAT NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE LOWER ENERGY USERS, AND NOT ALL HIGH INCOME PEOPLE ARE HIGHER ENERGY USERS.
NOW, I WILL SAY I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, THE DATA DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS, THAT, THAT TREND IN GENERAL, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS OUTLIERS AND THAT'S GONNA BE TRUE OF PRETTY MUCH ANY PROXY THAT THEY USE, RIGHT? SO WE COULD SAY, UM, A FEE ON PARKING IS PROBABLY MORE LIKELY TO, UM, BE PAID BY HIGHER INCOME PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO DRIVE A CAR, MORE LIKELY TO OWN A CAR.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT TRUE ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO STRIVE FOR, BUT PERSONALLY I THINK IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S GONNA BE CHALLENGING TO REALLY MEET THAT GOAL, BUT I THINK WE CAN STILL GO FOR IT.
I GUESS WE COULD SAY PEOPLE AND ENTITIES WITH MORE WEALTH, SINCE WE'RE ENVISIONING NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS, BUT BUSINESSES HERE.
UH, YEAH, IT'S JUST BEGINNING TO GET SO VAGUE.
I MEAN, I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT WE MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT WE MEAN, UM, WITH MORE WEALTH.
AND SO IS THAT, IS THAT ELON, IS THAT, I MEAN, IS THAT WHEN YOU SAY HIGH INCOME EARNERS AND LOW INCOME EARNERS, I MEAN, AGAIN, PEOPLE WHO ARE MIDDLE CLASS LIKE I AM HAVE AN HAVE AN IDEA, BUT TO PUT IT INTO WORDS WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHAT WE MEAN, JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S OPENING THINGS UP.
IT'S LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF PANDORA'S BOX.
LIKE I NOT AGAINST IT, I JUST CALLING IT OUT.
THAT WOULD, DOES THAT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? YEAH.
AND I WOULDN'T EVEN NECESSARILY SAY PEOPLE AND ENTITIES WITH MORE WEALTH PAY MORE, BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO BE PUNITIVE WHEN IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE OPPOSITE, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE PEOPLE WITH LESS WEALTH SHOULD HAVE TO NOT BE DISPROPORTIONATELY TAXED IS I THINK A BETTER WAY TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, MAYBE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, REFLECTS THE, UM, I WAS GONNA SAY AUSTIN'S WEALTH GAP BECAUSE THERE'S A HUGE WEALTH GAP IN THE CITY BETWEEN, UM, IF WE LOOK AT THE, UM, THE WEALTH AND OR WAGE GAP, LIKE EVEN JUST WITH THE MEDIAN INCOME, YOU LOOK AT MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND OR WHITE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IT, IT HOVERS AROUND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
AND, AND FOR THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS IS ABOUT 55 AND, AND IT'S ABOUT 64 LATINOS.
AND SO MAYBE SOME, AND I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SOUND PUNITIVE, BUT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IS EQUITABLE, THAT, AND, AND, UM, TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE WEALTH, THE, THE, UM, AUSTIN'S WEALTH GAP OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S JUST TOO MANY THINGS, BUT IT, IT, IT, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A WEALTH CAP AND THAT WAY IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO PUNISH ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE.
UM, BUT WE ARE SAYING THAT THIS EXISTS AND WHAT WE DO OUGHT TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT,
[00:30:01]
AND, AND THAT GETS BACK TO WHAT SOMEONE WAS SAYING ABOUT SYSTEMIC AND STRUCTURAL RACISM.UM, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A WEALTH GAP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO SHOULD BE STRUCTURED TO BE EQUITABLE AND RESPONSIVE TO AUSTIN'S WEALTH GAP OR GAPS.
I THINK WE SHOULD USE PERIOD HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CONSIDERATION.
I AM JUST LOOKING, I'M NOT SURE IF MY SOUND IS WORKING NOW.
IS IT? IT IS, IT'S, WE HEAR YOU NOW.
UM, I, I THINK HAVING A STANDALONE STATEMENT, LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS PAY LESS IS KIND OF STRANGE.
SO I I I WONDER IF THIS, THE FIRST SENTENCE ON ITS OWN, I THINK TAKES INTO ACCOUNT YEAH.
THAT THERE IS, I THINK WE'RE CALLING OUT THERE.
THE FEE I DO, IT, IT WOULD BE NICE IF, OBVIOUSLY THE FEE PROVIDES A PREDICTABLE REVENUE.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOOD LEGALLY KNOW.
AH, SO THEN AFTER GAPS, WE PUT IN THE WORD AND, AND THE FEE SHOULD PROVIDE REVENUE.
SO RE NOW SAYS THAT THIS NEW FEE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED TO BE EQUITABLE AND RESPONSIVE TO AUSTIN.
AND THE FEE SHOULD PROVIDE COMM AND CASE PROVIDE, PROVIDE PREDICTABLE REVENUE.
IS THERE MORE, UH, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, IS THERE MORE TO THIS? UH, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE END OF IT.
SO IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UH, THE IDEA HERE IS TO JUST, UM, HELP MOVE THIS, UH, PROCESS ALONG AND SIGNAL THAT, THAT THIS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR, I THINK, I THINK THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY IS, IS TRYING TO DO THIS WORK, AND THAT'S GREAT.
UM, BUT THIS WILL REQUIRE, OBVIOUSLY, COLLABORATION FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING LEGAL, AND SO SENDING A SIGNAL SUPPORTING THAT WORK HAPPENING.
I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH THIS TEXT, SO I DON'T WANNA CUT OFF ANY DISCUSSION, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THIS.
SO I'LL, I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION.
AND WE GOT A FIRST, A FIRST FROM ANNA AND A SECOND FROM SECOND ALBERTA.
CAN WE JUST GET THAT AMENDED PARAGRAPH READ OUT FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, PLEASE? OH, YES.
SO THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF, OF THE RESOLUTION NOW SAYS THIS NEW FEE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED TO BE EQUITABLE AND RESPONSIVE TO AUSTIN'S WEALTH GAP.
AND THE FEE SHOULD PROVIDE PREDICTABLE REVENUE, ILLEGAL ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS THAT COULD BE PAID BY RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, CORPORATIONS, AND OR VISITORS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT.
UM, CAN I GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR APPROVING THE RESOLUTION AS JUST NOW AMENDED? ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE ALL THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS.
JANELLE, RIGHT? JANELLE, YOU'RE OFF CAMERA, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
WE HAVE QUORUM WITHOUT JANELLE.
UH, SO GLAD THAT WE COULD BE SO EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT HERE.
UM, I THINK IT'S, IT'S EASY WHEN WE HAVE MONTHS, NOT YEARS OF WORK BEHIND US.
[00:35:01]
INTENTION WAS TO NOT HAVE A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING SINCE WE DID THIS ONE AND, AND KNOCK THESE COUPLE ITEMS OUT.IF THERE'S OBJECTION TO THAT THOUGH, I, YOU KNOW, SPEAK UP.
BUT THAT WOULD KINDA GIVE US, GIVE US THAT EVENING BACK ON THE 24TH, I THINK IT IS.
SO THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD BE OUR JULY MEETING, THIS SPECIAL MEETING IS OUR JULY MEETING, AND WE WOULD, UM, CANCEL NOT, NOT HAVE OUR JULY 24TH MEETING.
DO WE NEED TO YEAH, TAKE A VOTE ON THAT OR JUST MAKE IT, JUST SAY IT
WE, WE DON'T, IT'S, IT'S CHAIR'S DISCRETION.
I IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I, YOU KNOW, WANNA BE RESPONSIVE TO EVERYBODY.
IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON AT THAT MEETING, UM, I'M NOT HEARING THAT PEOPLE ARE CLAMORING FOR THAT MEETING
THIS IS, THIS IS OUR JULY MEETING.
AND DOES THIS NOW CALL? CAN I, CAN I FORMALLY CLOSE THE MEETING? ALL RIGHT.