[CALL TO ORDER ]
[00:00:11]
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2026 BOND ELECTION ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON THIS MONDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2026 AT 6:04 PM WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLE? YES.
FOR THOSE ONLINE, CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT MUTED AND WE CAN SEE YOUR SCREEN.
MARY HAGER PRESENT, FRANCIS JORDAN, ANNA GURE.
TINA CANON, NICOLE CONLEY, CHARLES CURRY HERE.
KENNETH STANLEY, RACHEL STONE PRESENT.
AND THEN WE HAVE OUR NEWEST, UM, TASK FORCE MEMBER, ANDREW COLER PRESENT.
ANDREW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST, UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE GROUP? SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
I SHOOK A FEW OF Y'ALL'S HANDS EARLIER.
CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC? OH, SORRY.
MET MET A FEW OF Y'ALL EARLIER.
BUT, UH, REAL QUICK BACKGROUND ON ME.
UM, CURRENTLY WORK FOR HEB, UM, GREW UP IN PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS.
UM, WENT TO UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND THEN MOVED BACK IN 2021 AND WANT TO, UH, I DUNNO, SEE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH I COULD HELP THE CITY.
AND I'M EXCITED TO, TO LEARN MORE AND, AND LISTEN TO Y'ALL.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ]
ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION TONIGHT? WE DO.UM, IS OUR REMOTE SPEAKER ONLINE YET? YES.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START REMOTE WITH OUR REMOTE SPEAKER.
MR. SIMON, CAN YOU HEAR US? MR. SIMON, ARE YOU WITH US ONLINE? WE CAN SEE, SEE OBVIOUSLY HE'S UP THERE.
MR. SIMON, IF YOU COULD PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND TURN ON YOUR CAMERA.
IT WAS NOT ALLOWING ME TO UNMUTE FOR A SECOND, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD NOW.
I'M, UH, WAS ON THE AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD UP UNTIL RECENTLY, AND I'M STILL INVOLVED IN THE FARMLAND PRESERVATION WORKING GROUP, UH, THAT WAS STARTED THROUGH THAT GROUP.
AND I SPOKE WITH A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES TO THE OPEN SPACES B TWO F WORKING GROUP, UM, PROBABLY LIKE A MONTH AND A HALF AGO OR SO ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FARMLAND PRESERVATION.
AND SO AS WE'RE KIND OF GETTING TOWARD THE WRAPPING UP THE B TIF PROCESS, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, RECONNECT AND MAKE SURE THAT FARMLAND PRESERVATION STAYS IN THE CONVERSATION.
SO FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T AWARE, UM, FARMLAND PRESERVATION HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF LAND PRESERVATION, UM, IN THE AREA, BUT, UH, HASN'T ACTUALLY BEEN PRIORITIZED.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN 60,000 ACRES OF LAND PRESERVED BY AUSTIN CITY OF AUSTIN, AND VERY LITTLE OF THAT HAS BEEN FOR FARMLAND IN THE PAST.
AND ACTUALLY, IF NO, IF NO EFFORT IS TAKEN TO PRESERVE FARMLAND IN PARTICULAR, UM, AT THE CURRENT RATE OF LOSS, ALL FIVE, ALL FARMLAND IN THE FIVE COUNTY REGION WILL BE DEVELOPED BY 2035.
UH, SO THE TIME TO ACT ON PRESERVING FARMLAND IS REALLY NOW.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REALLY FRAGILE FOOD SUPPLY IN OUR REGION.
UM, WE SAW THE EFFECTS OF THAT DURING, UH, WINTER STORM URI AS WELL AS COVID.
UM, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT FARMLAND IS THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS A LOT OF CO-BENEFITS BEYOND JUST INCREASING THE LOCAL FOOD SUPPLY.
[00:05:01]
WHENEVER FARMLAND IS MANAGED USING REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE METHODS, THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF, UM, BENEFITS FOR WATER, WATER INFILTRATION, AS WELL AS CARBON SEQUESTRATION THAT YOU DON'T GET WHEN YOU'RE JUST PRESERVING IT AS OPEN SPACE.SO, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL FOR, UM, FOR SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, UH, IN LAND PRESERVATION WHEN IT'S USED AS REGENERATIVE FARMLAND, UH, ARE, ARE REALLY, UM, FAR SURPASSED ANYTHING THAT JUST TYPICAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION CAN ACCOMPLISH.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S ALREADY MECHANISMS FOR PRESERVING FARMLAND IN THE AREA THAT TRAVIS COUNTY HAS PARTNERED IN AS WELL, UH, IN TERMS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS.
UH, AND THERE ARE PARTNERS WHO HAVE ALREADY KIND OF COME TOGETHER TO PRESERVE A LOT OF WIND THROUGH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN THE AREA.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A NEW PROCESS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PROPOSED.
THERE'S EXISTING MECHANISMS THAT COULD WORK TOWARD FARMLAND PRESERVATION.
UM, AND THERE'S ALSO FEDERAL DOLLARS AVAILABLE THROUGH, UM, THROUGH RCPP GRANTS.
AND THOSE WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO LEVERAGE, UM, MATCHING FUNDS FROM BOND, UH, BOND PACKAGE DOLLARS TOWARD PRESERVING MORE FARMLAND.
SO THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE KIND OF LIKE A EXPONENTIAL EFFECT, UM, IF WE WERE TO SECURE FUNDS FOR FARMLAND PRESERVATION AND THEN GO AFTER THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS AS WELL THROUGH THE USDA.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT LAND ACQUISITION IS A ONE-TIME CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
AND MR. SIMON, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT.
OKAY, NEXT WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS AND WE HAVE SYLVIA STINSON.
I WANTED TO PUT MY LITTLE TIMER ON, SO I'LL BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT.
I, HI, MY NAME IS SYLVIA STINSON.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CARVER MUSEUM.
I'M HERE AS A COMMUNITY ADVOCATE.
UM, I HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE EXPANSION OF THE CARVER COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON.
A LOT OF PLANNING HAS BEEN DONE, REPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE.
I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF FAST FORWARD THROUGH.
ON FEBRUARY 24TH, FOURTH 2026, I ATTENDED ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND I WAS SHOCKED TO FIND THAT THE CARVER WAS LEFT OFF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION LIST.
DURING THE MEETING, UM, I AND SOME OTHER CAR CARVER ADVOCATES WERE ABLE TO GET MARCUS HAMMER TO JOIN THE MEETING, AND HE TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED TO LOOP BACK AROUND AGAIN, DOUBLE BACK AND DO MORE COMMUNITY ADVOCACY.
AS OF LAST SUMMER, JANUARY, JAN, JULY 31ST, CARVER WAS INCLUDED ON THE INITIAL PROJECT REQUEST LIST.
UM, AFTER FINDING THAT WE WERE NOT ON, WE WAS LIKE, WAIT, WHAT HAPPENED? SO AFTER DIGGING THROUGH SOME DOCUMENTS, I WAS ABLE TO SEE THAT ON JANUARY 21ST, WE WERE LEFT OFF THE INITIAL DRAFT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, MEMO, AND WE WERE NOT INCLUDED.
THAT WAS SURPRISING TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO I ALSO DISCOVERED THAT ON FEBRUARY 23RD, THIS PAST FEBRUARY 23RD, UM, THERE WAS A PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE DONE HERE WITH THE BOND INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WAS PRESENTED.
AND IT ALSO SHOWED THAT WE WEREN'T HERE.
SO MY ISSUE IS HOW WERE WE LEFT OFF AFTER REVIEWING THE 2026 BOND PROGRAM PROJECT REVIEW BOARD SCORING, I SEE THAT THE CARVER PROJECT SCORED HIGHER THAN EACH OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES CATEGORY.
THAT WAS THE HAMPTON LIBRARY, THE LAND ACQUISITION ANIMAL SERVICE SHELTER, AND THE HOMELESS SHELTER.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE ARE VALID PROJECTS, BUT WHAT WAS THE POINT OF HAVING A PROJECT REVIEW BOARD SCORING, IF WE'RE GONNA IGNORE THE SCORES AND GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PEOPLE, ALL OF THEM SCORED LOWER THAN THE CARVER TO, UM, COMMUNITY CONSIDERATION CARVER WAS HIGHER.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT OUR DOLLARS, THE EFFICIENCY TOTAL AND THE TIMELINESS AND READINESS.
WE HAD, UM, I HAD PREVIOUSLY MET WITH THE CITY MANAGER AS PART OF THE CARVER AMBASSADORS, AND THEY DID REFLECT THAT THEY WERE TIRED OF SEEING AUSTIN GET PROJECTS FUND THAT COULD NOT BE CARRIED ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
SO THAT EFFICIENCY TOTAL AND THAT TIMELINESS AND READINESS TOTAL IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND WE ALSO, UM, ALIGN WITH ALL THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IN OKAY.
[00:10:01]
THROUGH.I JUST DON'T WANNA, UM, HOW AM I DOING ON TIME? UM, YES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US BACK ON.
BY THE WAY, JANUARY 21ST WHEN WE WERE DROPPED, THIS PRECEDED THE BTEF RECOMMENDATION THAT WENT OUT ON JANUARY, UM, 26TH.
SO WASN'T THIS FEEDBACK SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION? HOW DID ONE COME OUT BEFORE THE OTHER? THAT'S VERY STRANGE.
COVER PROJECTS SHOULD BE PUT BACK ON THE LIST.
YOU CAN'T PASS PROGRAMS AND NOT PASS OURS IF WE SCORED HIGHER, WHAT'S THE POINT? NEXT WE HAVE, UH, IMANI ANNU.
I'M A COMMUNITY MEMBER IN AUSTIN, AND I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 2005.
DURING THAT TIME, AS A BLACK PERSON MOVING INTO A CITY WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY LOW PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION, I WAS CONCERNED EVEN AS A DELL EXECUTIVE, THAT I MIGHT NOT FIND THE TYPE OF CULTURE AND COMMUNITY ARTS ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON WITH MY BACKGROUND FEEL COMFORTABLE, WELCOME, AND A PART OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY.
THE CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER AND GENEALOGY GENEALOGY CENTER BECAME BASICALLY A COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL HOME FOR ME.
I'M ALSO HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR THE CARVER AND TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT APPEARS TO BE, UH, AT, AT THE VERY LEAST, CONFUSION AND AT MOST, POTENTIALLY SOME MISTAKES, ERRORS IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE, UH, IN THE SELECTIONS THAT WERE MADE.
IN TERMS OF WHAT GETS CONSIDERED FOR A POTENTIAL UPCOMING 2026 BOND.
A BIG PART OF WHAT HAS GOTTEN MY AND OUR ATTENTION, UH, IS THE FACT THAT IN JULY OF LAST YEAR, THERE WAS AN INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, AND THE CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER WAS INDEED INCLUDED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT SEEMED APPROPRIATE.
HOWEVER, IN JANUARY, ON JANUARY 21ST, TWIN, A MEMO WENT OUT FROM THE, UH, BOND ELECTION ADVISORY TASK FORCE, OR WENT OUT TO THAT TASK FORCE FROM CDS.
WE NOTICED THAT THE CARVER WAS EXCLUDED.
AS SYLVIA HAS ALREADY MENTIONED, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DETAILS OF THE SCORING INCLUDED WITH THAT JANUARY 21ST MEMO PACKAGE, WE COULD CLEARLY SEE THAT WITHIN THE CATEGORY WHERE THE CARVER WAS LISTED, THE CARVER SCORED HIGHER THAN PROJECTS FROM WITHIN THAT CATEGORY THAT WERE INDEED STILL INCLUDED ON THE LISTING.
AND WE THOUGHT, HMM, PERHAPS THERE'S SOMETHING IN TERMS OF THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE SUB CATEGORIES THAT WERE WERE SCORED.
IN LOOKING AT THOSE SUBCATEGORIES, SCORINGS, THE CARVER ALSO SCORED HIGHER THAN PROJECTS THAT WERE STILL CONSIDERED ON THE LIST IN THOSE SUBCATEGORIES.
AND SO THIS IS A DISCONNECT THAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
I'M HERE TO ADVOCATE AGAIN FOR THE CARVER AND TO ASK, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THE CARVER MUSEUM PUT BACK ON TO THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOR A POTENTIAL UPCOMING 2026 BOND? AND, UH, WHO IS IT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SPEAK WITH TO ADVOCATE FOR THE CARVER'S INCLUSION? WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LISTING AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, UH, AND BY THE WAY, THE JANUARY 21ST MEMO WAS THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT WE COULD FIND ONLINE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT LISTING IS STILL IN DRAFT STATUS AND THAT THE PROCESS WILL BE ONGOING UNTIL MAY, WHEN A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION IS MADE TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER, I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF IN-PERSON MEETINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF ACME, INCLUDING ANGELA MEANS, CANDACE, CARVER, UH, COOPER, EXCUSE ME, MARJORIE FLANAGAN, UH, WITH DISTRICT ONE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
I REALIZE MY TIME IS UP TO SUFFICE IT TO SAY WE'VE MADE SURE TO ENGAGE WITH WHO WE THINK ARE THE RIGHT PEOPLE, VERY OPEN TO ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON WHO WE SHOULD BE TALKING WITH.
WE DO WANT THE CARVER INCLUDED BACK ON THAT PROJECT LISTING.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE, OF THE SPEAKER? IF IT'S A CLARIFYING QUESTION, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION.
CAN YOU JUST RE THANK YOU FOR, FOR COMING OUT AND ADVOCATING.
UH, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS AND WHAT THE PROJECT WAS THAT WAS RECOMMENDED? UH, THE AMOUNT FOR THE CARVER THAT WAS INITIALLY INCLUDED IN JULY OF 2025 WAS 6 MILLION.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT AMOUNT WAS IN ERROR ON THE JANUARY 21ST, 2026 MEMO.
THAT AMOUNT HAD BEEN UPDATED TO 12 MILLION AND UM, OF COURSE THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED WAS 12 MILLION.
THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY FUNDED WAS ZERO.
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF ACME, INCLUDING MARJORIE FLANAGAN, WE'RE TOLD THAT THAT ACTUAL NUMBER, THE CORRECT NUMBER, SHOULD BE 17 MILLION.
AND WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION TO THAT EFFECT AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT.
[00:15:01]
YOU.THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
CAN I SCOOT THIS DOWN HERE REAL QUICK? YOU CAN JUST RIGHT HERE.
I'M MONICA GUZMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR AT GAVA.
AUSTIN BAO AUSTIN, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AVA'S RESIDENT URBAN HEAT MITIGATION GROUP, GAVA RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE RUNDBERG AREA, A COMMUNITY WITH INCREASING URBAN HEAT AND URBAN CANOPY DEFICIT AND LIMITED ACCESS TO WALNUT CREEK METROPOLITAN POOL HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR A SPLASH PAD AT THE GARCIA REC CENTER FOR OVER THREE YEARS.
WHEN GAVA PREPARED THE FISCAL 24 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS, I CONTACTED PARKS AND REC FOR INFORMATION ON THE COST OF A SPLASH PAD.
IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT AQUATIC FACILITIES HAVE TWO FUNDING SOURCES, GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR MAINTENANCE.
UPON LEARNING THIS RESIDENTS PIVOTED.
DURING THE FISCAL 24 BUDGET PROCESS, RESIDENTS MET WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS PRIVATELY ADVOCATING FOR REDUCED OR FREE POOL ADMISSION, RESULTING IN ON AUGUST 8TH, 2023, COUNCIL APPROVAL OF WAIVED POOL ENTRANCE FEES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT SEASON.
RESIDENTS HAVE CONTINUED TO ADVOCATE FOR A SPLASH PAD AT WELL PROMOTED OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
AND I STRESS THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN WELL PROMOTED.
I AND A GAVA ORGANIZER LIFTED RESIDENT VOICES AT THE FEBRUARY 24TH VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE.
ONE RESIDENT JOINED BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE DUE TO LACK OF INSTRUCTIONS ON ACCESSING THE SPANISH INTERPRETATION CHANNEL.
I AM HERE TO SHARE THEIR MESSAGE SINCE THEY AREN'T ABLE TO PARTICIPATE TONIGHT.
THEIR QUESTION, WHY ISN'T THE NEED FOR A SPLASH PAD AT GARCIA SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED AN EXTREME CRITICAL NEED, UNQUOTE, AS DEFINED BY PARKS AND REC ON THEIR PRELIMINARY BOND RECOMMENDATIONS? LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR OVER THREE YEARS, SO WE HAD HOPED THEY HAD HOPED THAT SOMEONE HAD BEEN LISTENING.
BOND FUNDING IS SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL.
IF VOTERS APPROVE, THEY SHOULD BENEFIT FROM THE TAXES THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY.
WHILE I EMAILED A HANDFUL OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS LAST MONTH, WE ASK EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A SMALL GROUP TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO HEAR FROM THEM DIRECTLY.
PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME DIRECTLY EITHER HERE TONIGHT OR BY EMAIL, AND I WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR A VIRTUAL MEETING.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO WHAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT TODAY.
UM, FIRST IS THE PROCESS FOR THE BOND COMMITTEE.
I WENT TO THE NORTHWEST REC CENTER TO THE OPEN HOUSE, AND I ALLUDED TO THIS VIRTUALLY, BUT I WANNA CYCLE BACK TO THIS POINT.
UM, AT THE OPEN HOUSE, THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE DISCUSSING WERE NONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE SAW HERE.
SO FOR THE COMMUNITY, AS SOMEONE THAT'S TRYING TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, IT'S VERY CONFUSING.
YOU'RE MANAGING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE COMMUNITY IS WHO IS GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THIS.
SO IT, AT SOME POINT IT NEEDS TO BE CONSOLIDATED BECAUSE I AM VERY CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU WANT FEEDBACK ON.
UM, AT THAT MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS AN, UH, HAMPTON BRANCH LIBRARY, UM, BIG SIGN ABOUT A PROPOSAL AND A CERTAIN MILLION OF DOLLARS.
ONE, THAT LIBRARY WAS RENOVATED FIVE TO SIX YEARS AGO.
SO WHY ARE THEY GETTING RENOVATED AGAIN, AS WAS TOLD BY SOMEONE IN MY COMMUNITY, BUT YOU CAN VERIFY THAT.
BUT TWO, THAT WASN'T WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.
WHEN I CAME TO THIS MEETING IN FEBRUARY, THERE WAS A COLONY PARK, AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH, UH, DUAL MULTIPURPOSE SPACE.
SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN PROVIDE FEEDBACK, BUT I WANNA KNOW WHAT ARE WE PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL? BECAUSE THE OPEN HOUSE IS FOR NOT, IF WE'RE NOT PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY GONNA HAPPEN OR TRUE CHOICES, UM, I WANNA TALK ABOUT NORTH OF 180 3, NORTH OF 180 3 NORTH AND NORTHEAST.
AUSTIN IS LACKING IN INVESTMENT AND SLATED TO BECOME MORE AND MORE DENSE WITH THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY CORRIDOR.
I 35 CONSTRUCTION IS MAKING IT HARDER TO MOVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SENIORS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD YEARN FOR COMMUNITY AND CONNECTION.
MANY OF THEM THAT I ARE NOW, MY DEAR FRIENDS, HAVE TO
[00:20:01]
SIT IN THEIR GARAGE FOR COMMUNITY.IT'S VERY HARD FOR THEM TO DRIVE.
THEY GET VERY NERVOUS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY.
WE COULD DO MULTIPURPOSE WRECK CENTERS IN NORTH AUSTIN, NORTH OF 180 3.
I KNOW THERE'S ONE IN GUS GARCIA, BUT FURTHER NORTH WE ARE SEVERELY LACKING.
PARKS, SPLASH PADS, UPGRADED POOL FACILITIES.
BUT WE'RE NOT EXPANDING OUR RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND IT MIGHT SEEM SMALL, BUT WHEN DOHERTY ART CENTER HAS 167 PERSON WAIT LIST FOR SUMMER CAMP, THE DEMAND IS THERE.
AND I'M PART OF THE CONAN COUNCIL OF NORTH AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
I HAVE A FRIEND WITH ME HERE TODAY THAT WASN'T ABLE TO SPEAK BECAUSE THE SLOTS ARE FILLED.
BUT WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING TAXES, DOING TAX REELECTIONS BOND ELECTIONS AND NOT SEEING SERVICES MOVE FURTHER NORTH.
WE'RE LACKING SERVICE UPGRADES.
WE DESERVE THOSE THINGS IN OUR AREA.
THE COLONY PARK, UH, LIBRARY THAT Y'ALL ARE PROPOSING, COLONY PARK IS SIX MINUTES FROM THE UNIVERSITY HILLS LIBRARY.
THEY DON'T NEED TO CROSS I 35, THEY HAVE TO CROSS 180 3, BUT IT'S VERY CLOSE.
SIX MINUTES, TWO MILES NORTHEAST.
SO THE TECH RIDGE, HARRIS BRANCH, EAST PALMER, WEST PALMER AREA, NOTHING.
SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE THIS EQUITABLE AND LOOK AT HAVING SERVICES FOR ALL PEOPLE.
NEXT, NEXT WE HAVE AUBREY REED.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE TREES IN NORTH AUSTIN.
IN TEXAS, IT IS EXTREMELY HOT, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER.
PEOPLE AND PETS SIT UNDER TREES BECAUSE IT'S COOLER LIKE A HOUSE.
MY FAMILY AND I LIKE TO WALK AND BIKE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE SUMMER, BUT IT'S TOO HOT TO GO OUT BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH TREES.
TREES ARE LIKE MAGIC, BUT PEOPLE ARE CUTTING THEM DOWN.
SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED MORE TREES IN NORTH AUSTIN.
LIKE TREES, POOLS KEEP US COOL IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE BIRTHDAY PARTIES AT POOLS.
PLEASE GIVE US MORE POOLS, SPLASH PADS, AND MAYBE EVEN A WATER PARK IN NORTH AUSTIN.
I KNOW WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME TODAY.
ALRIGHT, I LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING FOR YOU FOR MAYOR ONE DAY.
THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT TODAY.
I HAVE SOME NAMES THAT I DIDN'T.
UH, IS MEL LEBLANC HERE? RICHARD BREWER, LISA KNAPP AND MIGUEL BRIANIS.
I SAW SOMEBODY WALK OUT BUT HE DIDN'T CHECK IN WITH ME, SO I DUNNO IF HE WAS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.
WELL, IF HE COMES BACK WE CAN OKAY, WE CAN HEAR FROM HIM.
[1. Approve the minutes of the 2026 Bond Election Advisory Task Force Regular Called meeting on February 23, 2026. ]
OKAY, MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE ON THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.UM, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE B TIFF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 23RD.
ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MINUTES? LOOKING ONLINE FOR ANY HANDS? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS COME UP.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 23RD, 2026 MEETING.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND KEEP 'EM UP FOR NICOLE ACCOUNT.
I SEE EVERYBODY ONLINE HAS THEIR HAND UP ALMOST TODAY.
[2. Discussion of Initial Recommendations from Working Groups. ]
MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO OF THE AGENDA, DISCUSSION OF THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUPS.SO AS OF THE END OF THE MEETING LAST TIME, WE HAD HEARD FROM ALL FIVE OF THE WORKING GROUPS WITH THEIR PRELIMINARY UH, NUMBERS.
AND I SENT AROUND A SPREADSHEET LAST WEEK, OR I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT IT FRIDAY, THAT TOTALED UP ALL OF THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE THAT THE, THE WORKING GROUPS GAVE US HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, I INCLUDED THOSE.
AND THE TOTAL BOND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE, THE VERY, VERY LOWEST
[00:25:01]
CURRENTLY IS AT 961.8 MILLION, WHICH FAR EXCEEDS WHAT WE'VE ANTICIPATE TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE 600, 650 MILLION ECHO.ANYWAY, SO, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO GET A RECOMMENDATION IN PLACE BY MAY THE FOURTH WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
AND SO I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO FRANCIS, UH, OUR VICE CHAIR TO, UH, FACILITATE A DISCUSSION ON HOW WE, HOW WE GET THERE.
UM, BARRY AND I, UM, AS YOU ALL CAN SEE WITH THE SPREADSHEET, UM, THERE'S QUITE A BIT TO GET DOWN TO THE 650 MILLION AND WE WERE TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN HAVE A FACILITATED CONVERSATION.
UM, SOME OF YOU MIGHT KNOW MIGHT NOT HAVE REALIZED BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK WE DO WITH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE FALL.
LAST YEAR, I ACTUALLY DIDN'T ATTEND ANY WORKING GROUP MEETINGS.
I DIDN'T ATTEND ANY WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AND I HELPED FACILITATE THE CONVERSATIONS DURING THE 20 20 22 A ISD BOND.
AND SO WE WANTED TO, ME AND MARY TALKED ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF NEGOTIATION TO DO AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AMONGST OURSELF.
THERE IS NO STAFF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY TO HELP US DISCUSS THIS.
SO, UM, THAT MEANS WE NEED SOMEONE WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE ENGAGING IN THE CONVERSATION.
AND I REALLY WANT THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WHO'VE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT TO REALLY BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE, BUT WE HAVE TO KIND OF SET SOME PARAMETERS AROUND.
AND SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF IDEAS THAT WE WANNA TALK THROUGH.
THEY'RE NOT LIKE SET IN STONE, BUT AT SOME POINT THE, THE REMAINING MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE GOT TO GET IT DOWN TO 650 MILLION.
AND I KNOW THAT, UM, AS SOME OF THE GROUPS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A LOWER NUMBER BECAUSE SOME OF THE GROUPS GO AHEAD.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY, I I'VE HEARD SIX 50, I'VE HEARD 700, I'VE HEARD SEVEN 20, WHATEVER THE NU WHATEVER THE NU WE NEED TO DECIDE ON THE NUMBER FIRST.
I THINK BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE.
WELL, I THINK WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT PRESENTING MORE THAN ONE NUMBER.
I THINK ANYTHING IN THE SIX 50 I THINK WAS SORT OF THE MIDDLE, LIKE 600, 6 50, 700.
BUT I AGREE, I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO GET DOWN TO A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER EITHER BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A REAL HARD CONVERSATION NO MATTER WHAT.
IT'D BE NICE TO, WELL HAVE AS A LESS HARD CONVERSATION AS POSSIBLE
I THINK IF WE TARGETED SIX 50 IN OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY AND WE SENT AFTER THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO THE WORKING GROUPS TO, TO LOOK AT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AGAIN WITH A TARGET OF THAT.
AND THEN WE LEAVE OURSELVES SOME ROOM TO POTENTIALLY GO TO 700 OR SIX 50 OR 600.
AND WELL EITHER WAY, I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT 700, THAT'S STILL $260 MILLION MORE THAN THE LOWEST EXAMPLE.
AND THAT'S IF YOU CHOOSE, IF WE CHOOSE THE, I MEAN THAT'S JUST WHAT SHE PUT INTO THE SPREADSHEET, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT, IF WE HAD TO NARROW DOWN WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS WOULD RECOMMEND AND THEN WHAT WE AS THE, A WHOLE B TIFF HAVE TO DECIDE TOGETHER OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF US HAVE TO VOTE.
SO BEFORE I KEEP GOING, I WANT TO LOVE TO HEAR PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ABOUT, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO, WE WANTED TO BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE I TECHNICALLY AM ON THIS WITH YOU ALL, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED A FACILITATED CONVERSATION, UM, AND BACK AND FORTH IN ORDER FOR MORE THAN ONE MEETING AS WELL.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN IN ONE MEETING.
SO, AND I'LL ALSO JUST SAY TO TO, TO JCS POINT, IF, IF THE GROUP THINKS RIGHT NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ESTABLISH A NUMBER, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.
AND I I WELCOME OTHER FOLKS ONLINE OR, UM, AND IF MAYBE YOU COULD SHOW US THE ONLINE PEOPLE NOT THE SPREADSHEET FOR A LITTLE WHILE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SO I CAN SEE THEIR HANDS UP
UM, SO I'M HAPPY TO, I'M HAPPY TO TO DO THAT.
UM, I WASN'T CALLING FOR THE DISCUSSION NECESSARILY.
IF PEOPLE WANNA HAVE IT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT, UM, I JUST DIDN'T WANNA ARTIFICIALLY CAP US BELOW WHAT OUR ACTUAL BONDING CAPACITY IS.
WE SHOULD GO RIGHT UP TO THE LIMIT, IN MY OPINION.
UM, LET ME CATCH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ONLINE, UH, ON THIS SUBJECT.
DAVE, DAVE SULLIVAN FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GET DONALD AND I
SO IT LOOKED LIKE FROM THAT SPREADSHEET THAT NOT ALL GROUPS HAD DONE A HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW AMOUNT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AS OF THE LAST PRESENTATION, YES.
AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING ELSE.
WELL, ASKING, ASKING A COUPLE OF THOSE GROUPS THAT DID NOT DO THAT, TO DO THAT, THAT WOULD LOWER THE TOTAL ON THE LOW END.
I MADE THAT REQUEST LAST TIME AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED UPDATED TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION IS WORKING ON IT.
OUR LOW END WOULD BRING US DOWN TO ABOUT THE SEVEN 50 RANGE, UM, WE'RE MEETING THIS WEEK.
[00:30:01]
UH, YEAH, JUST IN, UH, WELL, AND THIS IS JUST A SMALL NOTE JUST IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, THE, THE, THE SORT OF LOW END, UH, RECOMMENDATION AS AS, UH, SOMEONE WAS STUDYING, YOU KNOW, GOING UP TO THE BONDING CAPACITY, UM, SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PLACE TO TARGET FOR THE LOW END OF LEAST.UH, AND THAT'S CURRENT, UH, A ACCORDING TO THE FINANCE PRESENTATION ON THIS, THAT'S THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS LIKE, UH, THE ONE THAT THEY GAVE TO COUNSEL REGARDING THE, UM, REGARDING THE BOND THEY RECOMMENDED CAPPING IT AT, UH, SEVEN 50.
SO SEVEN 50 IS KIND OF THE, LIKE, DOESN'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STUFF.
UH, OR, OR, OR THE ONE THAT THEY RECOMMENDED CAPPING OUT IF IT HAPPENS THIS YEAR.
SO, UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO A HIGHER END AND A MEDIUM AND A LOW END AS WELL, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING LOW END, I WOULD SAY I WOULD AGREE WITH, UH, OUR COLLEAGUE WHO SAID WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD GO AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
KABA, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I DON'T THINK SHE CAN HEAR.
ANYONE IN THE ROOM? SO WHAT I THINK I HEARD FROM DONALD WAS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, I DON'T THINK I'D HEARD THAT UPDATED NUMBER.
SO SEVEN 50 BEING SORT OF THE MAX AND I BELIEVE THE CITY'S LIST WAS 600 WITH THE, I THINK MARCUS LAST TIME SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, SIX 50, GO FOR IT.
UM, SO BETWEEN SIX 50 AND SEVEN 50 BEING THE RANGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, ANYBODY ELSE WANNA WEIGH IN ON THAT CITY RECOMMENDATION? SEVEN.
YEAH, I'M FINE AT, I THINK IT'S 700 BEING A CAP AND USING SEVEN 50 AS THE MEDIUM RANGE RIGHT NOW IN 700 AT THE LOW RANGE.
I THINK WHAT REALISTICALLY, I MEAN OTHER THAN THAT, 'CAUSE EVERY $50 MILLION RIGHT NOW, THAT'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS IN THOSE $50 MILLION.
THAT'S A LOT OF A LOT OF PERSONALITY.
UM, NO ONE REALLY COMMENTED ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO THINK I, AS THE GROUPS WE NEED TO DECIDE ON TOP, ON TOP OF MAKING SURE EVERYONE HAS A LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH THERE IS GOING TO, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SOME EXTENT TO HAVE SOME STAKE IN THE GROUND IN THAT IF EACH GROUP WANTED TO, I KNOW THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT TRICKY FOR THE HOUSING GROUP, UM, BUT ALSO WE NEED TO CONSIDER ARE THERE NON-NEGOTIABLE, LIKE A NON-NEGOTIABLE PROJECT OR PROJECTS IN THE GROUPS.
BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN KIND OF NEGOTIATE DOWN OR LIKE HAVE A DISCUSSION IS LIKE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN AGREE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT THE LARGE AMOUNT THAT THE WORKING GROUPS WANNA PUT FORWARD.
OR WE AS A GROUP DECIDE THAT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START SAYING THIS, THESE THINGS ARE FOR SURE IN, AND THEN SOME OF THESE THINGS CAN MAYBE BE ON LIKE A WAITING AREA AND WE HAVE TO KIND OF LIKE TALK THROUGH THOSE OUT TOGETHER.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK ONE OF, I, WE WANTED TO BRING IT UP JUST BECAUSE I'M ON THE B TIFF AND THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER RESOURCES TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FACILITATE THIS CONVERSATION.
I KNOW YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER, BUT NO ONE REALLY COMMENTED ON WHAT I, I ASKED.
SO YEAH, I, I, I, WELL CHAIR GO.
I, I, I DIDN'T KNOW WHO THAT WAS ONLINE.
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY MICROPHONE.
'CAUSE IT'S RACHEL A. LITTLE CRAZY.
RACHEL DID, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING? SORRY, I I CAN WAIT.
I JUST WANNA ALSO CLARIFY THAT THIS ONE, THE NUMBER GIVEN TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT HOW IT WILL BE PORTRAYED ON THE BONDS AND IT'S NOT ACTUALLY MONEY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE IT STILL HAS THE HOMELESS SHELTER IN IT, WHICH WILL TECHNICALLY BE UNDER FACILITIES.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO START RECOGNIZING THAT EVEN THOUGH OUR GROUP, UM, DETERMINED IT, BUT IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO WE SHOULDN'T PORTRAY IT THAT WAY ANYMORE.
UM, SO I'D, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT OVER TO FACILITIES WHERE IT ACTUALLY GOES.
SO ON THE SPREADSHEET WHEN I INCLUDED IT, I INCLUDED YOUR NUMBER, YOU'RE SAYING THAT NUMBER OKAY.
BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OVERALL NUMBER RIGHT NOW.
IT'S JUST IN THE WRONG RIGHT? IT DOESN'T, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ACCURATE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT PERCENT WE HAVE ON THERE IS NOT ACTUALLY GONNA BE GOING TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, SO IT, IT IS A CITY FACILITY THAT IS BEING REQUESTED.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE LOW IS EVEN LOWER THAN WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, NEED.
YEAH, SO IT WAS, UM, I'M HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH, I DID MEET WITH PART AND I WAS JUST TELLING, UH, COMMITTEE, UH, COMMITTEE CHAIR MERIT ABOUT THAT, UH, LAST WEEK AS PART OF ANOTHER MEETING.
AND WE DISCUSSED THE NUMBERS AND
[00:35:01]
I THINK AS WE COME BACK TO COMMITTEE, WE WILL ALL REINTRODUCE THAT NUMBER.AND WHETHER, I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE STAFF IN THE DEPARTMENT AT THESE DISCUSSIONS AT THIS POINT IN THAT WAY IT CAN HELP.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT AND THAT WE DON'T TIE THEIR HANDS TO SOMETHING THAT WE AREN'T FULLY INFORMED ABOUT.
UM, AND I THINK THAT COULD HELP.
SO NORMALLY WE'VE BEEN HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH, ONCE WE STARTED ACTUALLY NEGOTIATING AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER WITHOUT STAFF THERE MM-HMM
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AS WE GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEES AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU WOULD INCORPORATE STAFF.
I KNOW THAT WE'LL DO THAT WITH, UH, WATERSHED AS WELL ON THAT COMMITTEE.
AND I'M HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH, WE'LL SAY REFINED NUMBERS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE OVERALL TOTAL WILL CHANGE, BUT MAYBE THE PLACEMENT OF WHERE PROJECTS ARE AND THE SPEND MIGHT CHANGE.
BUT THAT, THAT'S UP TO THE COMMITTEE.
GARY, THE PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE DOES HAVE A WORKING GROUP MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY, THREE TO FIVE.
IT'S NOT ON THE CALENDAR, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BY EMAIL.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DID MAKE THE REQUEST TO GET A CALENDAR INVITE FOR THAT TIME SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE TOPICS.
SO IT WOULD BE, I THINK EVEN IF WE ALL WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS IN EACH OF THE COMMITTEES, WE'RE STILL KIND OF SHOOTING AT A, A, A, A, A NUMBER THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
SO IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL OR YOU TELL ME IS IF WE DID THE LOW END NUMBER AT THE, WHATEVER, THE SIX 50 TO REALLY START TALKING ABOUT PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS IN EACH OF THE CATEGORIES THAT THIS GROUP WOULD AGREE ON AS PRIORITIES OF PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS.
AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN BACK INTO WHAT A TARGET NUMBER IS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES RATHER THAN JUST ALL KIND OF GUESSING AND COMING AT IT AGAIN.
I THINK HAVING, UH, THANK YOU TINA.
I THINK HAVING SOME, UM, SOME IDEAS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO STRUCTURE AND I'M, UH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ONE TO THINK ABOUT.
UM, ANYBODY HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT ATTACKING IT FROM A, UM, CATEGORY PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES AT THE OUTSET? ANYBODY? I SEE LUKE'S HAND.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO DO IT OR NOT, BUT IT OCCURS TO ME THAT ONE OPTION WOULD BE WE ALL VOTE FOR OUR PREFERRED PERCENTAGES AND THEN AVERAGE IT OUT TO FOR ALL TASK FORCE MEMBERS AND THEN APPLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT PERCENTAGE TO EACH WORK GROUP.
SO OFFLINE OR RIGHT NOW, EVERYONE GIVES THEIR WEIGHT, THEIR PERCENTAGES OFFLINE.
AND THEN WE CAN REPORT BACK TO WHAT THAT WAS.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON, UM, RIGHT NOW I THINK I'M JUST THROWING, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR IDEAS AND WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST ONE WAY WE'RE GONNA COME AT THIS, BUT MULTIPLE WAYS WE'RE GONNA KIND OF SPICE AND DICE.
SO I'M OPEN TO FRANCIS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME LIKE YOU NEED TO JUMP IN.
I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO NARROW IT DOWN CLOSER TO BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION.
BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA MATH OUR WAY INTO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE AS A GROUP AND HAVE AND DISCUSSION.
I MEAN, UNLESS YOU ALL THINK THAT WE CAN DO IT BY PERCENTAGE AND NUMBERS ONLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR SOME OF US TO SELL IN THE COMMUNITY THAT, HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS NUMBER? WELL, WE ARBITRARILY CAME UP WITH A PERCENTAGE THAT WE FELT THAT WE JUST THOUGHT THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BE GOOD RATHER THAN HAVING A CLEAR DEPICTION OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND REALLY WHAT WE HAVE A NEED AND THAT WE BROKE IT INTO OUR INDEPENDENT COMMITTEES AND THAT THEY PRIORITIZE AND WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AND CAME UP WITH THAT SORT OF RATIONALE.
AND, AND IF WE HAVE A FACILITATED CONVERSATION, I DO THINK IT'S ALSO ABOUT, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IN THESE MEETINGS WE'RE SPEAKING WITH PAPERS, BUT WE NEED SOME, SOME BOARDS AND LIKE, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE THINGS IN COMPARISON, I FEEL LIKE IN THIS MEETING TO KIND OF GET TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF TALKING ABOUT, ESPECIALLY 'CAUSE THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE KIND OF WORKED IN THEIR, IN THEIR SPHERE.
SO THAT, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CONSIDER.
WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT AND KIND OF USING A SPREADSHEET AND ACTUALLY DOING IT IN REAL TIME AND ACTUALLY ADJUSTING THE NUMBERS BASED ON WHAT WE FEEL ABOUT THE PRIORITIES, RIGHT? SO WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED THOSE ARE PRIORITIES IN PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
RIGHT? WE HAVE THE VALUES THAT WE WORKED ON FOR A FEW MONTHS THAT KIND OF HELPED US DIRECT OUR WORKING GROUPS, WHICH WE COULD REVISIT.
UM, I'M SEEING A HAND ONLINE FOR, UH, LUKE AND THEN I'LL GET RACHEL, LUKE.
YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, UM, ON THE PERCENTAGES THING, I, I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT FROM MY, UH, VIEWING OF THE, UH, RECORDING, IT SEEMED LIKE STAFF HAD BASICALLY ARBITRARILY DONE THE PERCENTAGES BASED ON OUR PAST BOND ELECTIONS AND PURE CITIES IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A PERCENTAGE FRAMEWORK FOR EACH WORKING GROUP.
[00:40:01]
UM, I, I DON'T THINK OUR, YOU KNOW, US DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR, UM, IS AT LEAST IN TUNE WITH WHAT THE CITY STAFF ARE DOING, EXCEPT OURS WOULD BE NOT BASED ON WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, BUT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE ALL LEARNED THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY AND, AND, AND MAKING THE PERCENTAGES BASED ON WHAT AUSTIN WANTS AND NEEDS, NOT WHAT SAN ANTONIO'S DOING.UM, FRANCIS, I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT, LIKE IF YOU WERE PART OF THE, UM, ANOTHER BOND PROCESS, WHAT KIND OF FACIL, LIKE WHAT STRUCTURE WAS THE FACILITATION THAT YOU'RE THINKING WOULD BE? YEAH, LIKE IS IT JUST THAT, SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT CONFUSED HOW HAVING A FACILITATOR WOULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THINGS.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU, YOU'RE NOT OR YOU ARE, SORRY, I'M NOT, I CAN'T, I'M HAVING TROUBLE IMAGINING IT.
IF YOU COULD LIKE MAYBE, UH, SHARE WITH WHAT THAT EXPERIENCE WAS LIKE AND WHAT, WHAT KIND OF VALUE IT BROUGHT.
WELL, AND IT WAS, IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN HOW THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED.
SO THEY HAD, UM, A ISD HAD COMMITTEES AS WELL AND THEY WERE ABLE TO COME OUT AND HAVE PARTICULAR PROJECTS.
ONE THING THAT THEY DID DIFFERENTLY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO DO, UH, APPLES TO APPLES, IS THAT THEY KIND OF COMBINE LIKE STAFF INPUT WHILE ALONGSIDE AND KIND OF STARTED ACTUALLY PUTTING TOGETHER MOCK, UM, UH, WHAT'S IT CALLED? PACKAGES.
AND WE ACTUALLY KIND OF DIS DISCUSSED THEM, BUT IT WAS BASED ON KIND OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COMMITTEES ALL HAD ONE OR TWO, LIKE FOR SURE PROJECTS THEY GOT IN.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS IDEA OF THINKING ABOUT SOME STUFF THAT FOR SURE GETS IN.
SO YOU, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE YOUR FIRST BUILD OF IT, RIGHT? SO WE KNOW, AND THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE FACILITATION PART.
IT'S LIKE THIS IDEA THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE A BASE.
SO SAY WE DECIDE TO HAVE LIKE A NON-NEGOTIABLE IDEA THAT GETS US TO LIKE 400 MILLION OR 500 MILLION, RIGHT? AND THEN THAT LAST 200, 100 MILLION IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE USING OUR VALUES AND HAVE A DISCUSSION WHERE WE TALK THROUGH.
AND THERE'S SOME OF IT IS JUST KIND OF BASIC VOTING, RIGHT? SO SOME OF THE THINGS ARE LIKE, I MIGHT BE SUPER PASSIONATE ABOUT SOME FACILITIES OR A MAJORITY OF US ARE, AND A FEW PEOPLE OF DISAGREEMENT.
BUT IT'S THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO KIND OF THAT LAST, THAT'S WHY I DO THINK THE PERCENTAGES IDEA COULD BE UP UNTIL A POINT, BUT THAT LAST A HUNDRED MILLION MIGHT NEED TO BE DISCUSSION AND BACK AND FORTH.
AND IT PROBABLY WOULD TAKE A FEW MEETINGS TO KIND OF BASICALLY GET A CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN PASS AS A A GROUP.
SO IT'S REALLY, THE FACILITATION REALLY IS JUST ABOUT GOING THROUGH EACH PIECE AND MAKING SURE WE FEEL LIKE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE WANT IS THERE.
RIGHT? THERE'S NO, IT'S NOT GONNA BE PERFECT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REALLY EXPLAINED IT, BUT IT'S THIS IDEA WE DO NEED TO KIND OF GET A GOOD AMOUNT OF IT FIGURED OUT.
AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH WORK DONE TO DO THAT PIECE.
IT'S REALLY THAT LAST PART THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO FACILITATE.
SO IF I, LEMME JUST SEE IF I UNDERSTAND A COUPLE THINGS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT HERE.
ONE IS TO HAVE THE GROUP, UM, WEIGH IN ON WHERE THEY THINK THE PRIORITIES ARE AMONGST THE CATEGORIES.
AND THEN I'M ALSO HEARING A POSSIBILITY WOULD BE THAT WE, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THAT SPITS OUT, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GIVING EACH WORKING GROUP THEIR, UM, AND IT'S A LITTLE TOUGH WHEN WE'RE HAVING TO TALK ABOUT PROGRAMMATIC BUCKETS, BUT YOU KNOW, THEIR ONE WISHLIST ITEM, LIKE THERE'S THIS NON-NEGOTIABLE.
I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE HARD WITH THE BUCKETS JUST BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR WISHLIST MAY BE YOUR, YOU KNOW, FUND FULLY FUNDING IS NOT, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS PICKING A, A FACILITY THAT'S YOUR WISHLIST PROJECT.
BUT I'M HEARING, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WAYS SO FAR THAT WE CAN KIND OF DICE THIS UP.
UM, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON ANY OF THAT? JC SORRY, JC SORRY.
UM, WE ALREADY HAVE AN IMPRESSION FROM THE GROUPS THAT HAVE DONE THE LOW, MEDIUM HIGH OF WHAT THEIR WISHLISTS ARE IN, IN THAT THE LOW IS LIKE THE BARE BONES VERSION OF WHAT THEY WANT, RIGHT? SO DO WE, ARE ARE WE SUGGESTING GOING FURTHER THAN THAT AND DOING A, A VERY, VERY LOW VERSION FOR EVERY GROUP? NO, I, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT DOING A LOW, IT'S LIKE IF, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION TOO.
LIKE, I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY, BUT EVEN IN THE LOW CATEGORIES, EVERYONE'S STILL NOT GONNA GET WHAT THEY WANT.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, AS A GROUP OUTSIDE OF THE WORKING GROUPS TOGETHER ARE GONNA HAVE TO DECIDE SOME OF THE LOW TO GET DOWN.
SO LIKE THAT 900, LET'S LOOK AT THE 900 MILLION, RIGHT? TO GET THROUGH TO THE 700 MILLION.
SOME OF PEOPLE, SOME OF THE ITEMS ON PEOPLE'S LOW ARE GONNA GO AWAY.
IDEALLY WE'D LIKE TO NOT GET RID OF SOME OF THE GROUP'S NON-NEGOTIABLES.
CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
WELL, WHEN TRANSPORTATION COMES BACK WITH OURS, UH, HOPEFULLY, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AS A FULL GROUP, BUT IN OUR LAST MEETING WHEN THE FULL GROUP WASN'T PRESENT, UM, WE GOT DOWN TO, UH, OUR LOW I THINK WOULD'VE PUT THE TOTAL AT ABOUT 700.
SO THAT ALMOST GETS US WHERE WE'RE GOING.
RIGHT? AND IF, AND IF WE'RE REALLY CLOSE, THEN WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SUPER INTENSIVE, YOU KNOW, FACILITATION PROCESS.
AND, AND WE HAVE, WE HAVE MULTIPLE MEETINGS SET UP.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO ITERATE.
[00:45:01]
UM, IT MAY BE WE TAKE THIS IN STEPS, SEE WHERE WE COME OUT, HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE FIRST, YOU KNOW, CRACK AT IT AND THEN WE REVISIT IT.WE HAVE THREE, FOUR MORE MEETINGS LEFT.
THE LAST ONE IS WE'RE JUST ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION.
IF WE CONTINUE FOLLOWING THE LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH KIND OF METHODOLOGY WITHIN OUR WORKING GROUPS, UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A CHANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT INFORMATION AND SEEING WHO HAS AND WHO HASN'T HAS WORKING GROUPS SUBMITTED THAT THERE'S A CHANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE ADD UP OUR, OUR LOWS TOGETHER, IT COULD BE AN ACTUAL LOW THAT'S UNDER OUR, OUR CAP THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION COULD COME FROM A, A MIX OF LOWS AND MEDIUMS, AND THAT MAY BE THE CON CONVERSATION THAT DEVELOPS.
BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE SUMMARY OF THAT, THAT FIRST TAB ON THE, ON THE SPREADSHEET, UM, YEAH, LIKE I, I THINK WE SHOULD WORK ON GETTING LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH FROM, FROM ALL THE WORKING GROUPS.
AND THEN I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANNA BRING UP IS THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE LOW CATEGORIES, I MEAN TOO, WE HAVE TO AGREE, WE STILL HAVE TO AGREE ON THAT, RIGHT? WE JUST HAVE IT HERE ON THE SPREADSHEET, RIGHT? SO I THINK THAT'S THE OTHER PART ABOUT THE DISCUSSION IS LIKE, IF EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THESE BREAKDOWNS, IS THIS WHAT WE FEEL IS ALIGNED? AND I THINK PEOPLE WILL NEED TO EXPRESS THEIR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
CAN I ADD ANOTHER DIFFICULT DIMENSION TO IT? RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL KIND OF OPERATING IN A NAMED PROJECT MINDSET AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF IS A DESIRE FOR KIND OF THE BUCKETS, UH, APPROACH.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY TO IT.
RIGHT? AND MAYBE I'LL TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO ADDRESS THAT.
WHAT I THINK THE GAME PLAN WOULD BE IS TO, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE NOT LIKE I THINK THE FACILITIES HAS NAMED PROJECTS AND, AND THAT'S, I DON'T THINK CHANGING, BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE AUTHORIZING OR ARE DISCUSSING A BUCKET OF MONEY WITHOUT PARTICULAR NAMED PROJECTS FOR PURPOSES OF ABIDING BY THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ADVICE WE'VE GOTTEN, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPPORTUNITIES IN WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN, AND WE, I, OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL INCLUDE DATA THAT COULD BE USED IN THE, A CONTRACT FOR VOTERS OR A SUPPLEMENT THAT WOULD SPELL OUT THE, UH, ALTHOUGH, ALTHOUGH NOT LEGALLY BINDING IN BALLOT LANGUAGE, IT SPELL OUT THOSE PROJECTS THAT EACH OF THE WORKING GROUPS HAS IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY.
SO ULTIMATELY WE WILL END UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, SOME OF WHICH WILL BE JUST BUCKETS AND SUPPLEMENT WITH THAT, THE IDENTIFIED PROJECTS BY THIS GROUP THAT WE RECOMMEND USING THE BUCKET OF MONEY FOR.
YES, HAYDEN? UM, I THINK I HEARD BEN SAY IT, BUT I I AM NOT LOOKING AT THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS LOOKING AT IT EARLIER TODAY.
UM, AND I KNOW TRANSPORTATION'S MEETING ON WEDNESDAY TO, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT COMING UP WITH THREE BUCKETS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT EVERY WORKING GROUP IS DOING THAT.
'CAUSE I, I, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT NOT ALL THE WORKING GROUPS HAD HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW.
AND IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THOSE NUMBERS AT THIS POINT.
THE FACILITIES AND ASSETS AND HOUSING GAVE US HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW.
EVERYONE ELSE FOR THE MOMENT DID NOT DO THAT.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IS WORKING ON THAT OR WILL BE WORKING ON THAT.
I HEAR TRANSPORTATION HAS GOT IT'S COMING AND STORM WATER, I THINK RICH ALSO MENTIONED THERE WOULD BE A SMALL, SO WE WILL, I GUESS THE GOAL, THE TARGET WOULD BE, WE WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION BY THE NEXT MEETING.
ALL THE WORKING GROUPS COULD EITHER, I THINK GET IT TO ME EARLY AND I CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT FOR PEOPLE TO BE LOOKING AT IT BEFORE THE MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE GREAT.
ANYBODY ONLINE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON OTHER THOUGHTS ON WAYS IN WHICH WE MIGHT, SORRY, ANALYZE.
I, I KNOW OVER THE COURSE OF THE TWO OR THREE MEETINGS WHERE WE WERE HEARING PRESENTATIONS, THERE WERE QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF WORKING GROUPS THAT WERE, OR LISTENING TO PRESENTATIONS OF WORKING GROUPS THEY WERE NOT ON.
AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS IN THERE OR WHY IS THAT NOT IN THERE? SO I THINK THERE STILL REMAINS AN OPPORTUNITY OR SHOULD REMAIN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE.
AND THIS IS A QUESTION REALLY FOR THOSE FOLKS NOT ON THE WORKING GROUPS WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER PRESENTATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, THERE STILL MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY OR DESIRE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ON THOSE WORKING GROUPS TO, UM, QUESTION WHAT'S ON THE RECOMMENDED LIST FROM THOSE WORKING GROUPS.
SO I THINK WE STILL NEED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
I THINK, FRANCIS, YOU MENTIONED THAT IN THE FORMAT ABOUT A FORMAT OF WHICH THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.
WE'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT JUST KEEP THAT UP.
[00:50:01]
RESOLVED ON WHAT MAKES UP THE SMALL, MEDIUM LARGE FOR SURE.UH, LUKE, YOU WANT YEAH, JUST, UH, TWO THINGS.
ONE, CLARIFICATION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION WORK GROUP DID DO A, A HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW, BUT, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, LOWERING IT EVEN FURTHER, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION.
THEN THE SECOND POINT IS THAT, UH, WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UM, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY AN INHERENT STAKE IN IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF A WORKING GROUP IN PROMOTING YOUR SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP.
AND THE WAY WE'RE STRUCTURING IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY WORKING GROUP WOULD, YOU KNOW, GET, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A CHUNK OF THE MONEY, WHICH MIGHT BE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO KIND OF HOLISTICALLY LOOK AT ALL THE PROJECTS, UM, AND DECIDE WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE DO IN THIS NEXT BOND PACKAGE.
AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME WORKING GROUPS WOULDN'T BE, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T MAKE IT, UH, TO THAT OR, UM, THEIR, EVEN THEIR MUST HAVES WOULDN'T MAKE IT.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T WANNA SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, HAVE EVERYONE, EVERY GROUP HAS THEIR LOW AND IT ADDS UP TO 700.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE PRESENT TO COUNCIL.
THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, DOING THE, THE DEEP ANALYSIS FROM JUST ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT THAT WE, WE DO.
AND JUST BY DEFAULT, EVERY WORK GROUP GETS, YOU KNOW, A CHUNK OF MONEY, SO, RIGHT.
WELL, AND THAT'S, THAT WAS LIKE KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF NOT WHEN I, WHEN WE WERE JUST, WE WERE JUST USING AN EXAMPLE OF LIKE A NON-NEGOTIABLE BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE DECIDES STILL NEEDS TO BE UP FOR DISCUSSION.
WE WERE JUST THINKING A ONE WAY TO POTENTIALLY IS TO THINK ABOUT A NON-NEGOTIABLE THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AS A GROUP TO SEE MM-HMM
SO, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN EVEN, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S JUST A STARTING POINT.
AND I WOULD SAY I THINK THAT NON-NEGOTIABLE IS SORT OF IF WE CAN'T OTHERWISE AGREE, RIGHT? I I FEEL LIKE WE'RE WALKING, WE'RE, WE'VE GOT A START OF A PROCESS TOWARDS A PLACE WE MAY, MAY DEVELOP AGREEMENT ON, BUT THAT IS A GOOD WAY OF, UM, SOLVING A PROBLEM THAT WE MAY FACE DOWN THE ROAD.
I WILL, I WILL USE AN EXAMPLE OF THE CARVER MUSEUM.
UM, THE FACILITIES AND ASSETS GROUP HAS THE CARVER MUSEUM ON ITS LIST.
UM, THAT GROUP, THE LARGER GROUP HAS ON, HAD A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK AIRING, HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING THE THINGS THAT WE MAY HAVE MISSED AND OR NOT MISSED IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD OF FROM A LOT OF FOLKS ABOUT NORTH OF 180 3.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR, OUR, OUR, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARE THEY REFLECTING SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE ARE HEARING REPEATEDLY? SO I THINK WE STILL HAVE A FEW MORE LAYERS, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO SAY.
WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC, UH, COULD WE ASK STAFF TO RETURN WITH SOME CLARIFICATION, UH, ON THE ACTUAL COST OF GEORGE CARVER WASHINGTON MUSEUM PHASE ONE A AND B ONE B? IS IT SIX, IS IT 17? UM, AS WE HEARD IN TESTIMONY TODAY, LIKE I, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ACTUAL, UH, UPDATES ON THE NUMBERS.
DOES THE GROUP MIND US SPENDING A FEW MINUTES TO, UH, IS THERE SOMEONE CDS WHO COULD ADDRESS THIS? THANK YOU.
YOU YEAH, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION.
I SHOT IT TO MIC TO NICK NICOLE.
I, I HAD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION.
ERIC
UM, ERIC BAILEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL DELIVERY SERVICES, GOOD TO BE HERE.
UM, CHANDLER'S LOOKING UP THAT NUMBER RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, 17 MILLION IS THE NUMBER ON THE PROJECT AND THERE'S ANOTHER MILLION IN THERE FOR ESCALATION COSTS, I BELIEVE.
BUT SHE'S JUST CONFIRMING THAT RIGHT NOW.
SO WE'LL GIVE HER A SECOND TO MAKE HER COMPUTER WORK.
SO YOU SAID 17, SORRY, I'M SORRY.
JUST CONSTRUCTION COST OR IS THAT ALSO, UM, ONGOING, UH, OPERATIONS, NO, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OPERATIONAL IMPACT.
UM, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, UM, AS WE DID THE CDS INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
AND I WILL SAY, AGAIN, THIS IS AN INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRB SCORING WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACT AND ONGOING COSTS TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF STAFFING FACILITIES FOR THE CARVER MUSEUM, AND PARTICULARLY HAVE AN EXISTING PROJECT THAT'S IN THE DESIGN PROCESS NOW.
SO THE PROJECT READINESS PIECE OF IT WASN'T QUITE THERE WHEN WE CAME TO OUR OVERALL, UH, ANALYSIS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF WORK.
UM, THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF EXECUTING THAT DESIGN CONTRACT, SO THEY'RE STILL, UM, A COUPLE YEARS AWAY FROM HAVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS READY TO GO, WHICH
[00:55:01]
MEANS THAT THAT PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE A GOOD, UH, POTENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SUBSEQUENT BOND PROGRAM.BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE FULL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IN THAT SIX YEAR TIME WINDOW.
SO, I HAVE A QUESTION, FRANCIS.
YEAH, SO THEN I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.
'CAUSE I, I DEFINITELY FEEL LIKE WHEN I'VE BEEN IN A PART OF A BOND PROCESS, SO ARE THERE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY MIGHT NOT MAKE IT TO THE BALLOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FEASIBLE ACCORDING TO THE CITY? LIKE, ARE WE GOING TO BE PROVIDE AS WE ARE REALLY STARTING TO DIG DOWN AND GET TO A BOND PACKAGE THAT THIS B TIFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND? I MEAN, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT GONNA ADJUST, BECAUSE I KNOW FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF THIS HAPPENS AND THEN WE ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO VOTE, WE WANT AS MUCH AS THE WORK WE DO TO KIND OF MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S LIKE WE'RE JUST THROWING PROJECTS IN THAT THE CITY DECIDES THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THE COMMUNITY.
I THOUGHT THAT THE LIST FROM THE CITY WAS SUPPOSED TO VET AND SO THAT THERE WEREN'T GONNA BE PROJECTS ON THERE THAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE DONE IN SIX YEARS.
WE CAN'T TAKE COMMENTARY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW.
UM, WE CAN, I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU AFTERWARDS.
SO THE, IN TERMS OF READINESS, YES, PROJECT READINESS WAS ONE OF OUR KEY CRITERIA.
IT'S NOT THE ONLY SCORING CRITERIA THAT WAS OUT THERE THOUGH.
UM, BUT IT WAS A, A RANKING BASED ON, UM, WHETHER IT WAS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT IN THE SIX YEAR TIMEFRAME.
UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE DETERMINATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT MOVE FORWARD FOR BOND ELECTION.
THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INPUT FROM, UM, STAFF, FROM, UH, THE BOND TASK FORCE FROM COMMUNITY CONSTITUENTS, UM, BEFORE THEY ULTIMATELY PUT THE BOND LANGUAGE TOGETHER AND INDICATE THE PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING ON THE BOND ELECTION.
SO THIS GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION, LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, IDEALLY IT WILL LINE UP WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IT MAY NOT ALWAYS LINE UP WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THE COUNCIL IS THE GROUP THAT ULTIMATELY PUTS THE, UH, BOND LANGUAGE TOGETHER AND SELECTS THE PROJECTS THAT ARE GONNA BE ON THAT BALLOT.
SO OUR, THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS EARLIER, THE CONFUSION, OUR PROCESS, OUR LIST IS NOT TIED TO THE CITY'S LIST.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALMOST PARALLEL PROCESSES HAPPENING, BUT WE RELY ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT CITY'S PROVIDING AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO HELP INFORM US.
BUT I GUESS, BUT OKAY, I JUST FEEL THAT IF WE, IF, IF, IF THE STAFF WHO ARE IN THE BEST KNOWLEDGE IN TERMS OF PROJECT READINESS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, I GET THAT IT'S CITY COUNCIL WHO'S ULTIMATELY GONNA PUT THE VOTE UP.
BUT IN TERMS OF PROJECT READINESS IS LIKE A REALLY KEY PIECE TO THIS AND STAFF AND THERE ARE GONNA BE PROJECTS THAT ARE LOWER.
I'M JUST, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE IF IT MAKES SENSE.
I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEGOTIATING DOWN 300, $400 MILLION.
WE, WE WOULD WANNA PUT THE BEST, I GUESS I'M JUST THINKING IN MY HEAD, WE'D WANNA PUT THE BEST PROJECTS UP FOR, I GUESS THAT'S MY, I JUST, I THINK THAT'S THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THE WORK GROUP TOOK THAT DEFINITELY INTO CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE STORY.
I MEAN, WAS THIS A CHANGE WITH THE CARVER THAT IT'S SUDDENLY NOT CONSIDERED READY OR A CHANGE FROM WHAT, TAKING THEM OFF THE LIST FROM WHEN WE WERE, HAD PRESENTATIONS FROM THE, THE, THE GROUPS, JULY NEEDS ASSESSMENT HAD THE CARVER ON THERE, THE JANUARY INITIAL, AGAIN INITIAL DRAFT LIST DID NOT HAVE THE CARVER ON THERE.
AND THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS OF GOING FROM THE $4 BILLION TO THE 700 MILLION INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
ONE OF THE KEY PIECES IN THERE IS THERE'S AN EXISTING PROJECT OUT THERE FOR THE CARVER THAT IS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS THAT HAS YET TO, UM, EXECUTE A DESIGN CONTRACT.
AND THEREFORE THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR THAT DESIGN IS STILL SEVERAL YEARS OUT.
AND AS WE WERE EVALUATING THE PROJECTS THAT WERE GOING ON, THE INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, THAT ONE FELL OFF OF THE LIST BECAUSE OF ITS PROJECT READINESS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JC SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED A BEAT.
UM, THE ACTUAL CARVER NUMBER IS 17, RIGHT? 17 PLUS 1 MILLION FOR ESCALATION? YES.
UM, WHERE DID THE SIX COME FROM? IS THAT A, A DEFINED PORTION OF THE PROJECT OR? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR KAPA KABA, YOU WANNA THE WEIGH IN?
[01:00:01]
SORRY, JC, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? UH, THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDED 6 MILLION FOR CARVER.I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE THE $6 MILLION NUMBER CAME FROM.
I THINK THAT WAS ON THE JULY LIST AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORKING OFF OF.
IT WASN'T BECAUSE IT WAS PHASE ONE A AND ONE B OR IS ONE, I'M ASSUMING ONE A IS WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
I'LL PULL UP THE LIST RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I THINK WE WERE JUST WORKING DIRECTLY OFF OF THE JULY LIST.
UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH ABOUT THIS PROJECT READINESS THING BECAUSE WE'RE, I THINK TOLD THE LAST MEETING THE SAME THING ABOUT THE ANIMAL SERVICES CENTER.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP.
AND IT, I THINK KIND OF FOR, FOR ALL OF US, JUST, IT DIDN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE THAT LIKE THESE PROJECTS THAT WERE, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF THE INITIAL VETTING.
UM, SO IS IT THAT THEY CAN'T BE DELIVERED IN SIX YEARS OR THAT JUST THAT THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS FAR ALONG AS THE PROJECTS THAT DID GET ONTO THE JANUARY PRIORITY LIST? IT'S THAT THE CONSTRUCT, IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETE WITHIN THE SIX YEAR TIMEFRAME.
AND HOW DID THEY GET, LIKE HOW DID THESE PROJECTS ALL GET ON THE LIST INITIALLY? WASN'T THAT PART OF THE INITIAL SCREENING? THE INITIAL LIST WAS THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENTS.
SO WE WOULDN'T MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THAT POINT.
IT'S VERSUS A NEED VERSUS ABILITY TO COMPLETE.
SO THE 4 BILLION LIST THAT WAS IN JULY WAS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THE CARVER HAS NEEDS ANIMAL SERVICES, HAS NEEDS, ALL THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE NEEDS.
WE WEREN'T, UH, CUTTING PROJECTS BECAUSE OF THEIR, UM, ABILITY TO BE COMPLETED AT THAT POINT.
UM, THERE WERE SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE IN, INITIALLY THAT LIST THAT WE GOT WAS $10 BILLION.
AND SO THERE WERE PROJECTS THERE THAT WE MADE AN INITIAL CUT OF.
THIS IS NOT A REALISTIC PROJECT, IT IS A, A PIPE DREAM THOUGHT KIND OF THING.
UM, BUT THEN THE, UM, SO THAT WAS THE 4 BILLION NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
AND THEN IN THAT, UM, EVALUATION OF THAT 4 BILLION TO AGAIN, REACH THE INITIAL DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, ANOTHER WE TOOK ANOTHER LOOK AT AT ABILITY TO COMPLETE AND PROJECT READINESS.
THAT WAS NOT AT ALL CLEAR FROM THE MINI PRESENTATIONS WE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT, LIKE, WE DEFINITELY WERE KIND UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE WERE, THESE WERE ALL LIKE QUALIFIED PROJECTS THAT, UH, WERE IN NEED.
UM, BUT I DID JUST LOOK AT THAT JULY LIST AND YES, IT HAD 6 MILLION FOR BOTH ONE A AND ONE B.
SO THAT'S THE ANSWER TO WHERE WE GOT THE NUMBER FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT'S 12 TOTAL, THEN SIX EACH? NO, IT, IT JUST SAYS IT'S ON ONE LINE AND IT SAYS 6 MILLION.
AND IT ALSO, BY THE WAY, I WILL NOTE THAT COLUMN WITH THE AMOUNTS SAYS SIX YEAR PRIORITIZED DEPARTMENT REQUEST, WHICH SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT IT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR THE SIX YEAR PERIOD.
SO THE NUM THE UPDATED NUMBER IS BASED ON ADDITIONAL, UM, REVISED COST ESTIMATING THAT WE DID AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO THE, IN THAT, UM, INITIAL NUMBER THAT WAS ON THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT LIST CAME FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
BUT THEN AS WE VETTED THOSE PROJECTS AND WENT THROUGH AND DEVELOPED A MORE REALISTIC COST ESTIMATE OF THE SCOPE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT AT AS A FINAL TASK OF THIS TASK FORCE, WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW BOND TASK FORCE ARE, UH, EXECUTED IN THE FUTURE.
UM, THIS, I HAVE PURPORTED TO COUNSEL, BUT THIS HAS BEEN QUITE A, I DON'T WANNA SAY INSULTING PROCESS, BUT I DO NOT FEEL LIKE ALL OF OUR TIME WAS UTILIZED VERY WELL OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF IN TERMS OF INFORMATION PRESENT HELD UP THE WAY THINGS HAVE GONE FROM THE POWERS THAT BE LIKE WE ARE A DEDICATED GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LOT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION AND THEN ASKED TO BE IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC WITH NOT GREAT.
AND I'M NOT TALKING TO CAPITAL DELIVERY SERVICES SPECIFICALLY, BUT JUST THIS AS A CITY PROCESS AT LARGE HAS NOT STOOD UP VERY WELL.
AND I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE THAT WAY.
[01:05:01]
DIFFERENT AND COULD SERVE AS A BETTER MODEL.BUT CONFIRMED WHAT? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT, THAT WHERE THE SIX CAME FROM, SO THAT PROJECT WAS IN JULY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF WHILE THEY'RE SITTING HERE? THANK YOU.
SO I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT, UH, AND I APPRECIATE RACHEL, UH, YOUR STATEMENT, UM, NOTED.
WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD FROM THE PAST 45 MINUTES IS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE EACH WORKING GROUP GO BACK IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR SMALL, MEDIUM LARGE TO TRY TO, UH, TARGET NO MORE THAN 750 MILLION FOR A FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE WILL POTENTIALLY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RECOMMENDATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
BUT SEVEN 50 MAYBE BEING THE MAX, UM, WE WILL PULL OR SOME OTHER WAY OF GETTING EVERYONE'S INPUT ON HOW THEY WOULD PRIORITIZE BY CATEGORY, BY WORKING GROUP.
JUST AS A FIRST, UH, STAB, UH, FOR DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK WITH OUR, NOT NEXT WEEK NEXT MEETING WITH OUR REVISED WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE PEOPLE WANT TO YES.
YES, CHARLES? SO PART OF THE DISCUSSION I JUST HEARD WAS ABOUT A PROJECT HAVING OPERATING COST.
UM, IS THAT A PLUS OR A MINUS? AND IS IT BEING APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE BOARD? I HEARD IT BEING USED AS A QUESTION ON ONE PROJECT, BUT THERE ARE PROJECTS ON THE STAFF LIST THAT HAVE OPERATING COSTS AS WELL.
SO IF WE'RE RULING OUT PROJECTS BECAUSE OF OPERATING COSTS, I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING IT ACROSS THE BOARD AND NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE PROJECT OR ANOTHER.
SO WHEN WE WORKED THROUGH THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN WE WERE FIRST TALKING ABOUT THE VALUES, WE SPENT A BIT OF TIME DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A QUESTION OR A WAY WE COULD, UH, ANALYZE PROJECTS BASED ON O AND M IMPACT.
THAT DID NOT END UP BEING IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE COUNTED IN THE SCORING.
THAT'S JUST FOR FYI LIKE HIS HISTORY OF OUR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW, I, I DON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE SCORING BY INDIVIDUAL WORKING GROUPS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE INPUT ON THAT? I, I WOULD SAY THAT'S, I MEAN, OURS HAS JUST BEEN LIFE SAFETY AND KIND OF LIKE A REAL BASIC, SO THE M AND AND WE DON'T HAVE, I WOULD SAY THAT WE, THERE'S PROJECTS WE COULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT WOULD HAVE AN M AND O COMPONENT, UM, BUT THEY JUST HADN'T MADE THAT LOW.
LIKE PARTICULAR IN PARKS AND REC WHERE WE JUST STARTED THE GROUND FLOOR AND WE'RE GONNA ADD BASED UPON WHAT COMMUNITY WAS COMING IN AT.
SO WE, WE STARTED FROM A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD'VE ADDED BASED UPON COMMUNITY INPUT WOULD'VE HAD, IT WOULD'VE HAD, UM, M AND O COMPONENT, BUT AT LEAST PARTICULARLY THE O MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WOULD HAVE AN M JUST TO, JUST TO NOTE FOR THE HOUSE, FOR THE HOUSING WORKING GROUP.
AND, AND THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE FOR THE HSO COMPONENT, BUT JUST FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT THERE.
GIVEN THE WAY, GIVEN THE WAY THE FUNDING IS DONE, THERE WOULDN'T BE, THERE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY ADDITIONAL OPERATING OR MAINTENANCE COST ON THE PART OF THE CITY FOR, FOR THOSE PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S DONE GENERALLY WITH DEVELOPER PARTNERS.
SO THERE'S O AND M IN TERMS OF EXISTING STAFF, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE REFILLING EXISTING PROGRAM FUNDS WITHOUT NECESSARILY ADDITIONAL STAFF TO BE ALLOCATED TO IT.
SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ADDITIONAL O YOU KNOW, OM FOR THAT.
IT'S, IT'S CAPITAL COST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH FAIRLY TIGHT STATE REGULATIONS ON WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE SPENT.
FRANCIS, ANYTHING ELSE? I KNOW I, GO AHEAD.
I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION LIST NOW, AND THERE'S ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM ABOUT THE WORKING PLAN.
UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE, I KNOW FOR ME IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THINKING ABOUT THE JOBS OF THE TASK FORCE OF SOME OF THE WORKING GROUPS TO BE THINKING ABOUT THE NEXT THREE MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE.
YEAH, WE CAN UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS
[01:10:01]
THAT NOW OR WE CAN TAKE IT UP ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.ANYBODY EL ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANNA ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS ITEM? YEAH, I MEAN, SURE.
[3. Approve revisions to the Bond Election Advisory Task Force Work Plan. ]
UH, LET'S DISCUSS THE WORK PLAN, WHICH IS ALSO ITEM, I BELIEVE IT'S ITEM FOUR.LET'S SEE ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA.
SO YOU HAVE IN, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT ON THE SCREEN.
SO WE, ON MAY THE FOURTH IS OUR LAST MEETING.
SO THAT MEETING HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE DELIVERABLE, THE WORK PRODUCT THAT WE WILL BE DELIVERING, UM, TO COUNCIL.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'D BE DOING MUCH WORK ON THAT MEETING.
SO WE HAVE THREE MEETINGS LEFT.
UM, BETWEEN NOW AND I THINK PROBABLY THE MEETING ON THE 27TH, THE WORKING GROUPS ARE GONNA BE COMING BACK WITH THEIR, YOU KNOW, REVISED.
SO ON MARCH 23RD WE WOULD SEE REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS WITH A NEW SMALL, MEDIUM LARGE AND REVIEW OF THE POLLING DONE ON PRIORITIZATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT AFTER THAT THE WORKING GROUPS NECESSARILY WILL CONTINUE TO WORK.
I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THE TWO MEETINGS IN APRIL ARE THIS WORKING GROUP, THIS GROUP TAKING WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE DONE AT THAT POINT.
THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE APPROPRIATE, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP.
THAT WOULD BE KIND OF WHERE I SEE IT.
CAN YOU SHOW THE ONLINE FOLKS SO I CAN BE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T ANY HANDS UP? OKAY, TINA? YEAH, SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO PAUSE FOR A MINUTE.
YEAH, SO IF WE'RE, WE'RE DELIVERING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON MAY, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL MEET MAY 7TH, OR ARE WE AIMING FOR TO IT TO GET TO COUNCIL IN TIME FOR THEIR MAY 21ST DISCUSSION? THE LATTER.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A MEETING SET FOR MAY 28TH AS WELL, JUST IN CASE WE NEEDED TO BUY AN EXTRA WEEK.
OUR GOAL, OUR PLAN IS TO BE DONE ON THE FOURTH AND THAT GIVES STAFF ENOUGH TIME TO, YOU KNOW, INCORPORATE WHAT WE'VE DONE INTO THEIR FINAL WORK AS WELL.
DOES THAT ANSWER THAT QUESTION, GARY? OR DO YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PLAN? YES, THAT DID ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND IT.
SO AT OUR MEETING, OUR NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING ON MARCH THE 23RD FULL, THE BIP MEETING ON THE 23RD.
WE'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING AT THAT MEETING THAT WE'LL HAVE ANY VOTING ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'RE, ARE WE GONNA BE THROWING UP A SPREADSHEET AND STARTING TO CHANGE THINGS AROUND? I BELIEVE PROBABLY YES.
WE START THAT WE WILL HAVE HOPEFULLY IN ADVANCE MM-HMM
THE SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, SO THAT THE GROUP, BY THE TIME THIS, YOU KNOW, FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING, YOU'LL HAVE IT AND THEN WE WILL AT THE FOLLOWING, AT THAT MEETING AND THE FOLLOWING TOO, BE WORKING IN THOSE NUMBERS.
AND THEN FOR THE FINAL PRODUCT, THE FINAL DELIVERABLE, WE'LL HAVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAYBE MULTIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WILL WE ALSO, WILL, WILL THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE A SPACE IN THAT FINAL DELIVERABLE FOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? AND IF SO, HOW WOULD THIS BODY LIKE TO RECEIVE AND CONTEMPLATE THOSE? GREAT QUESTION.
YES, THE DELIVERABLE, LIKE AT THE OUTSET, I THINK I SAID THAT WE WILL WANT TO BE GIVING OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATION AND IDENTIFIED PRO UH, PROJECTS.
UM, IF YOU HAVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK, UM, I WOULD RELY, I WOULD WANNA RELY ON THE WORKING GROUP.
I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH DISCUSSION OF POLICY THAT MAYBE THE WORKING GROUPS GIVE TO THE GROUP UNLESS THERE'S JUST REAL OBJECTION.
BUT HOPEFULLY WE WOULD HAVE IT JUST FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES FOR THE WHOLE GROUP IN THAT FINAL, UH, DOCUMENT.
THE TIMING OF THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'LL HAVE TO, MAYBE WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT WEEK AND SORT OF GETTING INTO THE NITTY GRITTY OF HOW THAT FINAL PRODUCT IS DELIVERED.
THEN, THEN THAT MAKES, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, THAT THAT ALSO MAKES ME THINK THAT THE WORKING, CERTAINLY THE WORKING GROUPS IN WHICH I'M INVOLVED, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO MEET WITH THEM IN APRIL TO BE WORKING THROUGH THOSE THINGS AS THE FINAL NUMBERS FEEL LIKE THEY'RE COMING TOGETHER.
THERE MAY BE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL WANT TO TALK ABOUT AS A WORKING GROUP TO FOR SURE.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE WORKING GROUPS CAN CONTINUE TO MEET, UH, TO THE EXTENT THEY NEED TO.
OR THERE'S NO, UH, END TO THAT.
SO BIG PICTURE, IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE WAY THIS COULD SHAKE
[01:15:01]
OUT WOULD BE ON THE 23RD, WE ALL HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF US, THEY'RE ALL FINAL, FINAL AS FAR AS THE WORKING GROUPS ARE CONCERNED.AND AT THAT POINT, WE COULD USE THE BULK OF THAT MEETING TO COME UP WITH OUR PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT TODAY FOR HOW WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS AND WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA LOOK LIKE.
THEN ON THE 13TH, WE COULD HAMMER OUT THE BIG PICTURE STUFF, DO DETAIL WORK ON THE 27TH, AND THEN THAT LEAVES THE FOURTH FOR POTENTIALLY A LITTLE MORE DETAILED WORK, BUT ALSO DISCUSSION OF THE POLICY RIDERS.
I THINK THE FOURTH IS THERE'S, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRODUCT IN FRONT OF US TO APPROVE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DELIVER IT THAT DAY.
SO THEN THE POLICY RIDER WOULD NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.
POLICY NEEDS TO, ON THE 27TH NEEDS TO BE AHEAD OF THAT.
AND THAT CAN, SORRY, FRANCIS, YOU BROUGHT TO SAY SOMETHING.
WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY, IF WE FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED TO HAMMER OUT IF WE'RE GONNA START TALKING NEXT MEETING, THEN THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO MAYBE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE POLICY IN APRIL.
AND SO WE COULD MAKE SURE TO HAVE A, LIKE A MORE IRONED OUT PROCESS.
WE JUST WANT TO GET YOU ALL'S THOUGHTS ABOUT IT TODAY.
BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND IRON THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT.
UM, I GUESS COMPLETELY SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT? SO MM-HMM
SO WE'RE GONNA WORK OUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS GONNA BE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, OR WE'RE GONNA WORK IT OUT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I'M JUST HAVING, I THINK WHAT WE WANNA DO IS SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS GIVE US BACK AND HOW, WHAT A PROBLEM WE HAVE, HOW FAR ARE WE AWAY FROM, RIGHT.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP DICTATE SOME OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AT THAT POINT.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WILL GET, UM, WE WILL DISCUSS THAT FEEDBACK, DISCUSS THOSE CHANGES, DISCUSS PROCESS IN MORE DETAIL.
WE'VE GOTTEN SOME GOOD INPUT FROM THE FOLKS HERE.
AND IF YOU, IF THERE'S MORE PLEASE SHARE.
AND THEN I THINK IN THE, THE TWO APRIL MEETINGS, WE WILL BE, UM, HAMMERING OUT POLICY FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO GET TO A MAY 4TH MEETING WHERE WE ARE, YOU'VE SEEN IT AHEAD OF TIME, WE NOW HAVE A PRODUCT, WE'RE JUST TAKING A FINAL VOTE ON IT.
AND WE HAVE THAT MEETING IF THINGS GO OFF THE RAILS.
AND WE CAN ALSO CALL LIKE A SPECIAL MEETING, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE 28TH IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING AND CRANK IT OUT THE NEXT WEEK.
ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THAT? I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE IDEA THAT LUKE BROUGHT UP ABOUT VOTING PERCENTAGE.
WHY IS IT, UH, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S NOT, WE DIDN'T REALLY MENTION THAT PIECE.
DO WE DO, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'D WANT TO DO? AND HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT, WE WOULD NEED TO, I MEAN, GO AHEAD AND SET UP A POLL AND GO AHEAD AND, I MEAN, SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND KIND OF MAYBE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M, I'M WONDERING 'CAUSE WE, I GUESS WE DON'T WANT TO DELAY ON THAT.
SO I WASN'T SURE IF, I THINK, I THINK I, I THOUGHT I MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD TAKE THAT UP.
MAYBE THAT'S JUST A GOOD READ OF THE GROUP.
IT'S DATA ABOUT HOW WE'RE, WHERE WE'RE SITTING.
SO LUKE MODELING, RICH, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? CONNECT AND MAYBE WE, I WAS GONNA SAY LUKE AND I CAN CONNECT AND JUST SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS.
I'M JUST SAYING WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND GET IT MOVING.
YEAH, I MEAN, JUST ON A, AS A PLANNING TOOL, I, I REALLY DISLIKE IT.
UM, I'D RATHER JUST SEE WHERE THE NUMBERS COME IN FIRST, BUT IT, IT'S LIKE, WHAT IS, I GUESS IT'S LIKE GOING TO VEGAS ON THE PERCENTAGE, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, JUST, IT FEELS MORE RANDOM AND UNINFORMED.
IT'S PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS IT'S INFORMED TO THE DEGREE IN WHICH I CAN GO BACK AND, I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL LOOK AT THE LOW END ON EVERYBODY WHAT'S SUBMITTED AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT TO SIGN IN A PERCENTAGE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA SUBMIT TO EVERYBODY.
BUT I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A, I'M JUST PROVIDING INPUT.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU'LL IMPLEMENT HOW YOU SEE FIT.
YEAH, I'M JUST, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, A GOOD PLANNING TOOL.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONLY TOOL.
UH, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A, A, UH, A QUICK POLL OF THE GROUP TO DISCUSS THAT, THAT, UH, PROPOSAL THAT WE ALL SUBMIT FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF OUR INDIVIDUAL PRIORITIZATION OF THE CATEGORIES OF THE WORKING GROUPS.
AND I'LL OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION.
WELL, AND I THINK, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE RANDOM.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE, I THINK RICH, THIS IS LIKE THE, THE PLACE TO PUT THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE'VE HEARD.
SO IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN CATEGORIES BEING MORE IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC, THEN THIS PERCENTAGE THING IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT'S REALLY GONNA SHOW UP.
I, I, TO ME THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOT, NOT JUST LIKE CHOOSING OUTTA A HAT.
ANYBODY ELSE WANNA WAVE ON, WEIGH IN ON THAT? YEAH, SORRY.
UH, I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, I THINK I ALSO, UH, HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE THINKING
[01:20:01]
ABOUT IT JUST AS PERCENTAGES IF, I GUESS I'M THINKING MORE ABOUT LIKE LINE ITEMS, LIKE PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS. UM, I WONDER IF SINCE WE HAVE THE SHORT LIST THAT CAME FROM THE WORKING GROUPS, IF WE COULD, INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING GROUPINGS WE COULD WEIGH IN ON THOSE LINE ITEMS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE MEANINGFUL TO ME AND I THINK WOULD MAYBE HELP US IN OUR DECISION MAKING MORE.BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT MIGHT BE THAT WE NEED TO LEAVE CERTAIN SPECIFIC ITEMS BEHIND IN ORDER TO FIT WITHIN THE BUDGET.
AND I, I THINK WHAT I'M, I'M GONNA TRY TO SUMMARIZE.
I THINK J C'S INITIAL, MAYBE IT WAS JC THE INITIAL COMMENT WAS, WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS GROUP TO HAVE A, AN IDEA BASED ON OUR CONSENSUS OF WHAT EACH WORKING GROUP, WHAT PIECE OF THE PIE THEY'RE GONNA GET? AND I THINK THAT WAS THE DID I, DID I MIS MISCHARACTERIZE THAT? WELL, NOT YOU
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS MY, YEAH, NO, NO, THAT WAS DEFINITELY, YEAH, IT WAS ME.
LIKE, LIKE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO RACHEL'S POINT OF, TO BE ABLE TO WALK BACK INTO A COMMUNITY MEETING AND SAY, WE HEARD YOU WHEN WE HEARD FROM ALL THE SURVEYS THAT WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU ALL AS A COMMUNITY WAS X AND WE WAITED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS ONLY A 2% OVER ANOTHER CATEGORY, BUT WE AT LEAST TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN SOME PLACE AND PUT THAT VALUE SOMEWHERE.
AND JUST, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL AS A DATA POINT, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE THAT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS, DAVE? WELL, ONE POINT IS THAT WITH HOUSING, WE DON'T HAVE AN EXPLICIT LIST OF NEW HOUSING PROJECTS.
SO WHAT I WAS GONNA PROPOSE TO RACHEL, UM, MAYBE YOU AND I COULD TALK TO WALTER AND, UH, PHYLLIS AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT HOW MANY BEDS, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL BUY.
YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING LOW SPREAD OUT ACROSS SIX YEARS IS AN EXTREMELY LOW AMOUNT OF UNITS.
IT'S, IT'S MUCH, IT'S MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, BUT STILL WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO GET UNDER THE $700 MILLION CAP.
SO THE POINT IS WE'LL COME BACK WITH, UH, INSTEAD OF JUST, UH, THIS FACILITY, THIS FACILITY, THIS FACILITY, BECAUSE WE CAN'T PREDICT THAT WE'LL COME BACK WITH A NUMBER OF BEDS FOR, UH, FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
WELL, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT I GUESS I WAS SAYING IS I THINK WE SHOULD COME BACK WITH A TENTATIVE IDEA OF A PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THE NEXT TIME AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A TENTATIVE IDEA OF THIS PERCENTAGE THING.
'CAUSE WE WOULDN'T DO IT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.
RIGHT? WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE COULD YEP.
JC UM, ALL DATA IS GOOD, RIGHT? AND, UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO FILL OUT A SURVEY LIKE THAT PROVIDED THAT IT WASN'T GONNA, YOU KNOW, RAILROAD US INTO A SPECIFIC OUTCOME.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S JUST A DATA POINT THAT'D BE HELPFUL TO US.
AS WE KIND OF GAUGE OUR GROUP AND WHERE WE'RE SITTING.
SORRY, TO ME THE, I'M NOT POINTING TO ME, THE WORKING GROUP DESIGNATIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY.
THERE'S, THERE'S CERTAIN BUCKETS THAT COULD BELONG IN MULTIPLE GROUPS.
YOU KNOW, WE IN THE TRANSPORTATION DID TRAILS, BUT TRAILS COULD ALSO THEORETICALLY BE PARKS, LAND ACQUISITION COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO, AND I DON'T, I'M LISTENING HARD TO THE PUBLIC, BUT I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY FEEL ABOUT LIKE WASTE WASTEWATER, RIGHT.
SO FOR ME IT'S NOT SUPER HELPFUL, BUT IT MIGHT BE GOOD JUST TO GET A SENSE OF THE GROUP.
I WOULD LOVE TO PAIR IT WITH SOMETHING LIKE, WITH WHAT KYPO WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF RANKING OF PROJECTS OR I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CAPACITY WE REALLY HAVE HERE, BUT, WELL, LET ME ASK THAT BECAUSE WHEN I REVIEWED THE, UM, WORKING GROUP PRESENTATIONS, UH, QUITE A FEW OF THEM HAD A RANKING IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD, YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE PROJECTS DROPPED OFF.
AND SO I INTERPRETED THAT AS THOSE ARE THE WORKING GROUP'S.
PRIORITIZATIONS ARE ALREADY KIND OF IN OUR, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, THAT WAS MY POINT TO FRANCIS EARLIER.
LET ME GET, BEN, I KNOW YOU, I HAD YOUR HAND UP.
YOU SAID A MOMENT AGO, THE WHY NOT? UM, I WOULD SAY MAYBE I WOULD ANSWER IT, UH, A NOT YET, OR I WOULD DO THE SURVEY.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M REALLY, UH, RESONATING WITH WHAT RICH WAS SAYING EARLIER.
LIKE, I APPROACH IT FROM TALKING ABOUT WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITH THIS MONEY AND NOT KIND OF THE, THE PIE WEDGE SIZE.
UH, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR ME TO FILL OUT SUCH A SURVEY IF I HAD THE LOW, MEDIUM HIGH FROM
[01:25:01]
ALL THE WORKING GROUPS.UM, AND LIKE LOOKING AT THE PRIORITIZATION THAT YOU SAID IS KIND OF BAKED INTO IT ON THEIR TABS.
UM, AND BEARING IN MIND THE CONTEXT OF THAT, SOME OF THE WORKING GROUPS LIKE HOUSING, IT'S NOT A NAMED PROJECT IN THAT, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 50 MILLION OF THAT IS PROBABLY SHOULD BE UNDER FACILITIES FOR THE, UH, HSO, UH, PORTION OF IT.
SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT IN A DISCUSSION WE COULD HAVE OR IN BETWEEN MEETINGS IF ONCE WE HAVE THOSE LOW, MEDIUM HIGHS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FAIR.
I MEAN, IF IT, THAT'S NOT A, I MEAN I'M NOT A SURVEY, UH, MONKEY PERSON, BUT I, I CERTAINLY CAN SAY THAT THAT'S NOT A DIFFICULT THING TO THROW IN AFTER WE'VE MET NEXT TIME.
LIKE IF WE, IF WE THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
IF IT'S TOO EARLY TO DO THAT NOW OR THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO DO IT WHEN THE GROUP, UM, I THINK IT COULD BE A USEFUL TOOL.
I'D STILL LIKE TO DO IT AND HAPPY TO WAIT UNTIL WE'VE HAD OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE WE HAVE SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ANYONE.
YEAH, IT'S THE, I DUNNO IF HE'S IN THE ROOM, BUT IT'S THE OLD ED VAN, NEW DOLLAR BILL BUDGET PROCESS, RIGHT.
OF YOU HAVE A DOLLAR BILL AND YOU'VE GOTTA KIND OF CHOP IT UP AND TO, YOU KNOW, HOW, WHICH DEPARTMENT GETS HOW MANY CENTS.
AND I JUST, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO AT LEAST GET AN IDEA OF WHERE PRIORITIES ARE.
I JUST, I FEEL LIKE IF WE HAVE TO CUT DOWN, THEN WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE GROUP WANTS TO CUT DOWN WITHIN A BUCKET, NOT JUST THE BUCKET.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A DOWNSIDE TO JUST ADDING ALL THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE WE HAVE VERSIONS OF IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I JUST, I'M TRYING TO THINK LIKE, HOW, HOW ARE WE GOING TO UTILIZE THE INFORMATION WE'RE GONNA SAY, OKAY, X BOOK IT NEEDS TO CUT, BUT THEN THERE'S LIKE FIVE ITEMS IN IT.
WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? UM, MAYBE WE DO ANOTHER SURVEY OR WE COULD JUST LIKE PUT THEM ALL IN THE SURVEY.
MY THOUGHT IS THAT, UM, WE'D HAVE THE PERCENTAGES AS AGREED TO BY THE WHOLE GROUP AND THEN THE WORKING GROUP WOULD SAY, OKAY, THE, THE WHOLE GROUP HAS DECIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION GETS 15% COME BACK TO US WITH YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GETTING 15% OF THE MONEY.
YEAH, I THINK I'M, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM IS SCHEDULE LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH OFF OF THAT PERCENTAGE.
RIGHT? SO LIKE, LET'S TAKE THAT EXAMPLE OF TRANSPORTATION AT 15.
I WOULD PROBABLY SAY TRANSPORTATION SHOULD DO A LOW AT 10 AND A HIGH AT 20 AND A MID AT 15.
AND THAT GIVES US SOME WIGGLE ROOM THAN WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL AS A WHOLE, AS AN ENTIRE GROUP OF WHERE WE LAND.
BUT OTHERWISE, I'M JUST KIND OF SHOOTING BLANKS AND NOT KNOWING HOW MUCH WE'RE CUTTING, NOT CUTTING, ADDING TO EACH WORKING GROUP UNTIL WE HAVE AT LEAST SOME SEMBLANCE OF A TARGET.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT? DONALD? UH, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT TINA WAS JUST SAYING.
SO ARE YOU SAYING, SO LIKE THE FIVE WORKING GROUPS SHOULD DO LIKE, UH, 10, 15 AND, AND 20 OF THE SEVEN 50 TOTAL AND THEN START FROM THERE AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST IT FROM THAT? OR, I MEAN, AT LEAST IT GIVES US A STARTING SPOT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THOSE, YOU KNOW, SERVING EVERYBODY OF WHAT PRIORITIES ARE.
BUT BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIMITED NUMBER OF STRENGTHS, FIVE GROUPS, AND I THINK EVERYBODY CAME IN AT A LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH WITHIN THOSE PERCENTAGES.
AT LEAST IT GIVES US A STARTING POINT TO START MIXING THE BUCKETS TOGETHER.
SHE'S SUGGESTING, AS OPPOSED TO TAKING A POLL, CAN YOU SPEAK OH, AS OPPOSED TO TAKING A POLL, JUST GOING AHEAD AND DOING WHAT, YOU KNOW, A NOT A DIRECT EVEN SPLIT IS, BUT LIKE SHE WAS SAYING 10, 15, 20 AND YOU, WE WOULD JUST SEE WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE FOR THE GROUPS.
OH, I DIDN'T FOLLOW ON THAT, BUT IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU PUT IN.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU PUT INTO THE 10 15.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE ACTUAL NUMBER, RIGHT? CORRECT.
YEAH, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST SAY I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD APPROACH.
I HAVE A LITTLE FEAR THAT IF WE DID SURVEYING FOR LIKE EVERY BUCKET, THAT IT COULD JUST, IT, IT COULD RESULT IN LIKE, UM, PERVERSE INCENTIVES.
AND I THINK IF YOU JUST HAVE A FLAT, LIKE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT FIN, AND I'M GONNA KEEP REPEATING THIS AND I'LL FIND THE PRESENTATION AND SHARE IT FROM SOMEWHERE.
'CAUSE FINANCE SAID SEVEN 50 AND I DON'T WANNA LOSE THAT 50.
UH, BUT IF WE TAKE, WE, IF WE ALL DID 10, 15 AND 20 OF THE SEVEN 50 FOR EACH WORKING GROUP AND THEN, AND THEN LOOKED AT IT IN THAT CONTEXT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, HELPFUL AND LIKE PRETTY, PRETTY FLAT AND ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY, LIKE TINA'S TALKING ABOUT CHARLES, CHARLES MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.
[01:30:01]
ARE WE SAYING WE'RE GONNA TAKE SEVEN 50 MILLION AND EACH GROUP IS GONNA TAKE 10% OF THAT AND GIVE YOU A, A NUMBER, 15% OF THAT AND GIVE YOU A NUMBER AND 20% AND GIVE YOU A NUMBER? I'M WITH YOU CHARLES.SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE THAT, THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT WE'D PURPOSELY DIVIDED THE WORKING GROUPS AS BEING ALL EQUALLY NEEDING TO BE FUNDED IN THE BOND ELECTION.
AND THE IDEA, DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WHEN WE SET UP THE WORKING GROUPS.
I'M TRYING TO GET OUR, OUR LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGHS TO AT LEAST MATCH UP IN A WAY THAT THAT'S FAIR FOR EACH GROUP.
SO THERE ARE FIVE CATEGORIES, SO STARTING AT 20% AS A BUCKET FOR EACH, AND THEN YOU WOULD DO A LOW BELOW 20% AND A HIGH OVER 20%.
AND SO THEN WHEN EVERYBODY'S COMING BACK TO THE TABLE, NOW WE CAN START MIXING THE, THE PIECES A LITTLE BIT MORE COHERENTLY AS OPPOSED TO LIKE TRANSPORTATION.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING ON 31%, RIGHT.
THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF BALANCE FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT IF ONE GROUP COMES IN AT 15, ONE GROUP ENDS UP COMING AT 25 AND THAT'S WHAT WE ALL COLLECTIVELY AGREE ON, THEN THAT MATH MASS.
AND IT ALSO MAKES SENSE WITH THE PRIORITIES THAT WE ARE PICKING FROM THOSE GROUPS, BUT TO JUST SAY, GO FIND A LOW, MEDIUM AND A HIGH.
I NEED AT LEAST A FRAMEWORK OF A LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH.
AND THE TRICK WOULD BE PEOPLE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECTS TO FILL UP, LIKE WHAT THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BE.
SO IT WOULDN'T JUST BE, IT WOULDN'T JUST BE AN EXERCISE OF LIKE, OF LIKE BASIC MULTIPLICATION.
IT'S LIKE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE BUCK OF BUCKETS, OF THOSE SIZES, I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING LIKE A 15 TO 20 IS THE FLAT AND THEN THE 25 IS LIKE THE HIGH THEN, THEN WE CAN START SITTING DOWN, TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PROJECTS WOULD BE AND THEN WE COULD SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT NEEDS THE PRIORITIES FOR THOSE LEVELS.
YEAH, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
AND, AND THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
LET ME, LET ME ONE ASK A QUESTION SINCE I'M, I'M FEELING DENSE.
ARE WE DOING THAT, THAT EXERCISE ON THE LOW OF THE LOW, MEDIUM HIGH OR THAT'S THE EXERCISE ON EACH OF THE LOW, MEDIUM HIGH.
RIGHT? THAT PUTS US ALL AT EFIN KEEL AND THEN, OH, YOU'RE TARGETING OUR, YOU'RE TARGETING OUR ME.
SEE, AND THEN, THEN YOU COME IN WITH A LOW AT 15 AND A HIGH AT 25, AND THEN YOU SORT OUT WITHIN THE WORKING GROUPS, WHAT ARE THOSE PROJECTS UNDER EACH OF THOSE THREE? AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK TOGETHER AS A GROUP, THEN WE HAVE A GENERAL, UM, A CLOSER IDEA OF HOW CLOSE WE ARE AND WE START KIND OF PRIORITIZING EACH OTHER'S WORKING GROUPS AS, AS A GROUP.
UH, JUST HOLD FOR JUST, ANDREW HAD A COMMENT.
IF THERE WAS, IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT PERFECT.
IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL DATA ON PREVIOUS BOND ELECTIONS AND WHAT THAT IF WE HAD COMPUTED WHATEVER THE DISTRIBUTION WAS, THEN WE DO HAVE THAT SOME KIND OF A PROXY.
I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE, UM, HELPFUL, AT LEAST IN SOME RESPECT.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT PERFECT, IT'S GONNA HAVE NOISE, BUT UM, WE DEFINITELY HAVE THE HISTORIC CATEGORIZATION.
I BELIEVE THIS IS KIND OF A UNIQUE ONE IN THE SENSE THERE'S SO MANY BUCKETS, LIKE HISTORICALLY, RIGHT? WE HAD A HOUSING BOND, RIGHT? THAT WAS PRIMARILY HOUSING.
THEN WE HAD A TRANSPORTATION BOND THAT WAS FULL ON TRANSPORTATION.
SO WE MIGHT HAVE SOME DOUBT AROUND THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, WE'LL HAVE ENOUGH.
THIS IS KIND OF A, ALL THE EGGS ARE IN THIS BASKET.
BEN, BEFORE I SAY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY, AGREE WITH TINA THAT IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE'RE DOING AN EVERYTHING BOND.
UM, THAT, THAT'S, THAT ADDS COMPLEXITY.
ANOTHER WAY OF PHRASING WHAT, WHAT TINA WAS DESCRIBING ON HOW TO DO IT IS IF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOUR WORKING GROUP WAS FLAT, WHAT COULD YOU DO IN YOUR CATEGORY WITH 150 MILLION, THAT'S YOUR MEDIUM.
WHAT COULD YOU DO WITH, YOU KNOW, 112.5 THAT'S YOUR LOW.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD YOU DO WITH 187, YOU KNOW, ROUND FIGURES THAT'S YOUR HIGH AND WHICH ONES WOULD YOU PRIORITIZE? YOU KNOW? RIGHT.
IF, IF, WELL TO, UM, SORRY I INTERRUPT YOU.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IF YOUR WORKING GROUP LENDS ITSELF TO THAT, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT DON'T BECAUSE OF JUST THE NATURE OF IT.
I WANNA TAKE THIS, UH, CONCEPT THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD AS ALL THE WORKING GROUPS.
SO I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO VOTE ON WHETHER THAT TINA'S SUGGESTION ON HOW TO AT LEAST TAKE THE FIRST CRACK AT THE WORKING GROUP, UH, RE-ANALYSIS AND, AND, UH, FEEDBACK.
SO IT, THE IDEA WOULD BE THE WORKING GROUPS GO BACK, THEY'D START WITH A, YOU KNOW, THE 15, 20, 20 5%.
THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE GONNA, UH, OF, OF EACH OF THE 6 50, 700, 7 50.
[01:35:02]
I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA GIVE IF WE'RE DOING THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS.DID I DO THAT RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.
OR SHOULD WE JUST PICK THE, THE HIGHEST START WITH SEVEN 50? YEAH, LET'S START WITH SEVEN.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME, UM, UH, FIGURE THAT OUT OUT LOUD.
AND THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FINANCE OFFICER FOR THIS.
OKAY, SO MARY MAY BE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STILL A LITTLE SKETCHY ON IT, BUT I'M GONNA TAKE A
BUT JUST WAIT, JUST LET, LET'S JUST DO A PRELIMINARY VOTE ON THE, THE ON THE TABLE IS THE WORKING GROUPS WILL GO WITH 750 MILLION AND COME BACK WITH A 15, 20 AND 25% RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT BEING OUR MARCHING ORDER FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S THE END ALL, BE ALL THAT MEANS THAT'S HOW WE'RE GETTING TO THE NEXT LAYER OF DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
HOLD IT UP UNTIL NICOLE CAN COUNT.
HOW MANY DO WE HAVE IN ATTENDANCE? NO, IT HAS TO BE BASED ON THE QUORUM.
I KNOW HOW MANY ARE HERE AND IT'S THE MAJORITY OF WHO'S HERE.
NO, IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE COURTROOM.
NO, IT'S THE MAJORITY OF WHO'S HERE VOTED ON.
IT'S SO DIFFERENT RACHEL, NOT TO BE HERE ANYMORE.
DID YOU COUNT? OKAY, HOW MANY DO WE HAVE HERE? HOW, OKAY, THAT DOES NOT PASS.
YOU CAN COUNT ME AS A YES ON THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION THAT I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE ME ANSWERED BEFORE.
UH, WE VOTED, BUT YOU GOT MY VOTE ANYWAY.
UM, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE MORE PROGRAMMATIC MONEY THAT LIKE YOU CAN SCALE BACK MILLION BY MILLION AND YOU CAN STILL DELIVER ON.
WHEREAS, UM, YOU KNOW, FACILITIES, UH, I THINK REALLY STANDS OUT AS, AND, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT LIKE ALL THE PROJECTS ARE PROJECTS.
SO I WOULD LOVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE BEFORE WE GO DO OUR EXERCISE AS TO LIKE, IS THERE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY OR IS IT LIKE IF WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DOLLARS IN OUR 15 OR YEAH.
OR 15%, THEN WE SHOULD SCRAP THE WHOLE PROJECT, YOU KNOW? NO, I, I THINK FLEXIBILITY, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING WITH SORT OF ARBITRARY 15, 20, 25 TO JUST GET US TO THE NEXT STAGE OF DISCUSSION.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT, THEN 15% OR 20% DOESN'T GET TO YOU THIS LAST THIRD OF ONE.
I THINK YOU COME TO US, YOU, YOU BRING, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT YOU MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT DESIGNED FOR PERFECTION THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET, UH, YOU KNOW, ADVANCE THE DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE HAVE A I THOUGHT I SAW A HAND GO UP.
I JUST THINK WE SHOULD, I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS TINA'S GIVING ME THE THUMBS UP.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? I JUST THINK WE, I JUST THINK WE MIGHT WANNA JUST EMAIL THIS TO THE GROUP TO MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND.
YEAH, THAT WAS JUST THE FINAL SUGGESTION.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND I WILL TRY TO GET A SUMMARY OUT.
NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM.
I THINK THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
ANY I, UH, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS NEXT MONTH WE'RE GONNA HEAR, UH, CPIO IS GOING TO, UH, GIVE US THEIR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK FROM THE FEBRUARY SESSIONS AND WE WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE THE NEW INFORMATION FROM THE WORKING GROUPS TO TALK ABOUT.ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? NOPE.