* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:03]
          OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2026 BOND ELECTION ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON THIS MONDAY, APRIL 27TH, 2026 AT 2:01 PM UH, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ORDER, CALL THE ROLL. 
          YES. 
          MARY HAGER. 
          PRESENT. 
          FRANCIS JORDAN. 
          PRESENT. 
          ANA AGUIRE. 
          PRESENT. 
          TINA CANNON. 
          NICOLE CONLEY. 
          HERE. 
          CHARLES CURRY. 
          HERE. 
          RICHARD DE PALMER. 
          PRESENT JC DWYER? HERE. 
          ROBERT LER. 
          HERE. 
          JEREMIAH HENDRICKS. 
          DONALD JACKSON. 
          PRESENT. 
          ANDREW COLER. 
          NOLITA LUGO. 
          LUKE METZKER. 
          HERE. 
          GARY MERRIT? HERE. 
          KATRINA MILLER. 
          KENNETH STANLEY. 
          HERE. 
          RACHEL STONE. 
          BEN SBY. 
          HERE. 
          DAVID SULLIVAN. 
          HERE. 
          HAYDEN WALKER. 
          HERE. 
          KABA WHITE. 
          HERE. 
          JUST A REMINDER FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE ONLINE WITH US, IF YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO NICOLE'S EMAIL REGARDING ANY ABSTENTIONS OR CONFLICTS, YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT EMAIL BEFORE YOU CAN VOTE ONLINE DURING THE MEETING. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
TO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL START WITH OUR REMOTE SPEAKERS. 
          YOU CAN JUST PICK ONE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          KATERINA HARRIS, ARE YOU WITH US AT THIS? CAN YOU UNMUTE MS. HARRIS? ARE YOU WITH THIS MS. HARRIS? OKAY. 
          HEATHER, ARE YOU WITH US? AMANI? IMANI, ARE YOU WITH US? CAN YOU HEAR US? AMANI? THANK YOU. 
          I CAN HEAR YOU. 
          ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UH, THANK YOU NICOLE. 
          AND THANK YOU TO THE ENTIRE BOND ELECTION ADVISORY TASK FORCE FOR, AGAIN, ALLOWING ME TO COME BEFORE YOU AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER. 
          I REALIZE THAT YOU'RE AT THE LATTER STAGES OF YOUR OVERALL PROCESS, AND I ALSO WANT TO, AGAIN, GIVE YOU ALL OF THE THANKS AND GRATITUDE AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER FOR ALL OF YOU VOLUNTEERS WHO'VE WORKED YOUR WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          I WANT TO, I, I THINK THAT, UH, MOST EVERYONE BY THIS POINT IS AWARE THAT I FIND IT DEEPLY CONCERNING AND PROBLEMATIC THAT THE CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER, WHILE ON THE JULY, 2025 LIST DID NOT MAKE IT TO YOUR MORE RECENT JANUARY, 2021 LIST. 
          AND I AM HOPING THAT AS A RESULT OF MY ADVOCACY AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY UP TO THIS POINT, YOU HAVE RECONSIDERED. 
          I KNOW THAT YOU'RE REWORKING YOUR PROCESS, BUT YOU HAVE RECONSIDERED AND GIVEN SOME SERIOUS REFLECTION TO THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING SUPPORT FOR THIS IMPORTANT INSTITUTION IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AS I MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE PRIOR MEETINGS, THE CARVER IS A FACILITY THAT NOT ONLY SERVES 
          [00:05:01]
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN, WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN AT RISK OF A RATIO THROUGH THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND GENTRIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING AT A FASTER PACE IN RECENT YEARS, AND I MIGHT SAY AT A FASTER PACE THAN WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER MAJOR CITIES. 
          THE CARVER IS AN INSTITUTION THAT ALSO IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND ETHNICITIES WITH ITS PROGRAMMING. 
          IT ENSURES THAT IT PROMOTES AND AMPLIFIES BLACK AUSTIN'S HISTORIES, BUT IT ALSO TELLS ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND WELCOMES ALL ARTISTS AND ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO BRING FORTH ALL OF THE DIVERSE CULTURES FROM AROUND AUSTIN AND TO SHARE THOSE CULTURES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER BETTER THROUGH UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER'S HISTORIES AND CULTURES. 
          THE CAR MUSEUM IS A VERY WELCOMING AND COMMUNAL PLACE, AND I HOPE THAT WHILE THIS TASK FORCE IS WEIGHING A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PRIORITIES, YOU DO NOT MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIGHLY PRIORITIZE SUCH AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION THAT DEALS WITH THE ENRICHMENT AND CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMUNITY, DIVERSE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE REPRESENTED HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          SO, I'M FOR YOU TO PLEASE PUT THE CARBON MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER BACK ON THE LIST, A PROJECT THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL TO BE SUPPORTED, UH, FOR THIS UPCOMING BOND ISSUE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE SHE SAID SHE WASN'T UNMUTED. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO. 
          CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? HI, MS. HARRIS. 
          YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          HI. 
          OH GOODNESS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED THERE. 
          I WILL BE BRIEF WITH MY COMMENTS. 
          UM, MY NAME IS KATERINA HARRIS AND I WANTED TO THANK THE BONDS COMMITTEE SO MUCH FOR YOUR TREMENDOUS WORK AND TIME AND FOR LISTENING TO OUR COMMENTS. 
          AS I'VE BEEN JOINING MORE OF THESE MEETINGS REMOTELY, I HAVE A NEWFOUND TREMENDOUS APPRECIATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING FOR OUR CITY AND CONSTITUENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AS A REFRESHER, I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM GARRISON POOL IN 7 8 7 4 5 WITH MY TWO YOUNG KIDS, UH, WHO ARE STARTING SWIM LESSONS THERE. 
          ACTUALLY, IN TWO WEEKS, I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO RECOMMEND GARRISON RENOVATION AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          FRIENDS OF GARRISON HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING WITH ASHLEY, WELL THE AQUATICS DIVISION MANAGER LAST WEEK TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE POOL, AND IT WAS A REALLY HELPFUL MEETING. 
          AS YOU CONSIDER YOUR DECI DECISION, I WANTED TO SHARE SOME THINGS WE LEARNED IN THAT MEETING. 
          REPLACING GARRISON IS NOT JUST A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT. 
          IT SUPPORTS THE CITY'S BROADER AQUATIC SYSTEM AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. 
          GARRISON IS ONE OF ONLY THREE 50 METER POOLS IN AUSTIN, MAKING IT A UNIQUELY IMPORTANT FACILITY FOR AQUATICS CAPACITY AND PROGRAMMING. 
          TEACHABLE WATER IS LIMITED CITYWIDE AND GARRISON IS A KEY FACILITY THAT SUPPORTS SWIM INSTRUCTION AND WATER SAFETY PROGRAMMING. 
          GARRISON IS ONE OF ONLY EIGHT POOLS WITH A REQUIRED DEPTH FOR LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATION AND IT HAS TO SURFACE AREA NEEDED TO SUPPORT BOTH TRAINING AND PUBLIC YOUTH. 
          MAINTAINING THIS FACILITY HELPS STRENGTHEN AUSTIN'S ABILITY TO RECRUIT AND TRAIN LIFEGUARDS, WHICH IMPACT POOL OPENINGS ACROSS THE CITY. 
          INVESTMENT IN GARRISON ENSURES CONTINUED EQUITABLE ACCESS TO PRODUCTS, AMENITIES IN SOUTH CENTRAL AUSTIN AND SUPPORTS LONG-TERM SERVICE RELIABILITY. 
          RENOVATING AND REPLACING THE POOL NOW IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AS DELAYING WILL INCREASE COST AND RISK EXTENDED CLOSURES. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE FULL AMOUNT REQUESTED BY THE AQUATICS DEPARTMENT THROUGH PART FURTHER RENOVATION OF GARRISON BE RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THE BOND PACKAGE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          HI, HEATHER, ARE YOU WITH US? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          HI EVERYBODY. 
          MY NAME IS HEATHER VAN D**E. 
          I AM ALSO ONE OF THE ADOPTERS OF GARRISON PARK AND I'VE LIVED IN THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, UH, STREET TO GARRISON PARK FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS. 
          MY BACKYARD LITERALLY CONNECTS TO THE PARK AND WE USE THE PARK WITH OUR DOGS AND THE 3-YEAR-OLD ALL THE TIME FOR THE TRAIL, THE PLAYGROUND, AND THE POOL. 
          WHEN WE FIRST MOVED TO THIS AREA SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THERE WERE NO YOUNG KIDS ON OUR STREET, AND NOW THERE ARE AT LEAST 30 FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ON MY STREET AND THE NEXT TWO STREETS OVER ALONE WHO 
          [00:10:01]
ALL SIMILARLY RELY ON GARRISON PARK IN THE POOL. 
          AND SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, THE GARRISON PARK POOL IS ONE OF TWO SEASONAL POOLS THAT ACTUALLY OPENED TODAY. 
          UM, AND IT'S THE ONLY ONE IN SOUTH AUSTIN. 
          GARRISON PARK POOL IS ONE OF THE FEW MULTI-GENERATIONAL GATHERING PLACES IN OUR AREA FOR SWIM LESSONS, NEIGHBORLY CONNECTION, ACCESSIBLE EXERCISE, LAP SWIMMING, SUMMER HEAT RELIEF. 
          THE LIST GOES ON. 
          UH, BACKYARD POOLS IN OUR AREA ARE VERY ATYPICAL, SO WE ALL RELY HEAVILY ON THE CITY POOL FOR ALL OF THE FEATURES THAT ARE OFFERED. 
          UH, MANY OF US WILL MEET AT THE POOL AND THEN GRAB A BITE TO EAT IN ONE OF THE AREA BUSINESSES. 
          SO THERE'S A KIND OF INTERCONNECTED ECOSYSTEM THAT TAKES PLACE. 
          OUR FAMILY HAS SIGNED UP FOR SWIM LESSONS THAT START IN JUST A FEW WEEKS, ALONG WITH MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AND WITHOUT QUESTION, THIS POOL SERVES OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITY. 
          SO I'M HERE TODAY TO ADVOCATE FOR INVESTMENT IN GARRISON PARK POOL IN THE 2026 BOND PACKAGE AND THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED, UH, THROUGH THE AQUATICS DEPARTMENT. 
          THE POOL IS AGING, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST. 
          WITHOUT THE FUNDING, WE'RE LOOKING AT CLOSURE. 
          AND FOR OUR COMMUNITY, THIS HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, UH, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE BRUTAL SUMMERS HERE. 
          AND OUR COMMUNITY IS, IS INCREASINGLY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT RESOURCE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO US TO MEET THE GROWING DEMAND IN OUR AREA. 
          IF THIS POOL IS CLOSED, WE REALIZE THERE ARE MANY COMPETING PRIORITIES ACROSS THE CITY, BUT WITHOUT THIS FUNDING, WE WILL BE LEFT WITH AN EMPTY POOL SURROUNDED BY A BARBED WIRE FUND, WHICH SEND THE MESSAGE TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE JUST ARE SIMPLY NOT WORTH IT. 
          INVESTING IN THE POOL ENSURES A MODERN BASE AQUATICS FACILITY THAT PROVIDES EQUITABLE ACCESS TO SUMMER RELEASE WHILE INTO THE FU INTO THE FUTURE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND OPPORTUNITY, UH, AND FOR CONSIDERING GARRISON PARK POOL IN YOUR FINAL BOND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JOHN HARRIS, ARE YOU WITH US? I THINK THAT'S IT. 
          ME? OKAY. 
          YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UH, JOHN HARRIS HERE. 
          ALSO A MEMBER OF FRIENDS OF GARRISON, THE ORGANIZATION THAT ADOPTED THE PARK THROUGH AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION. 
          UM, HERE AGAIN, UH, TO JUST SHARE SOME UPDATES. 
          YOU'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR, UH, SOME OF MY TEAM MEMBERS THAT GAVE YOU SOME UPDATED INFO AND SHARED SOME KEY POINTS. 
          I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT, UH, THIS, UH, YOUR, YOUR VOTE IN FAVOR OF, UH, SAVING THE GARRISON PARK POOL IS, UH, MEANS A LOT TO EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE AUSTIN AQUATICS DIVISION THAT DEPENDS ON IT SO HEAVILY FOR THEIR OPERATIONS. 
          UM, JUST WANT TO, UH, JUST MAGNIFY A KEY POINT THAT DURING THE SUMMER, UH, THE GARRISON POOL IS REALLY THE DRAW TO THE GARRISON PARK. 
          THAT IS A, A CRITICAL RESOURCE THAT, UH, GIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES KIDS A REASON TO BE OUTSIDE. 
          SOMETHING THAT WE FIGHT FOR AS PARENTS AND FAMILY MEMBERS ALL THE TIME IS TO FIND GOOD, SAFE PLACES FOR KIDS TO GET OUTTA THE HOUSE AND HAVE SAFE PLAY AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS, UM, AND GET AWAY FROM TV SCREENS. 
          AND WHEN IT'S SUPER HOT, THE THE POOL IS REALLY THE THING THAT KEEPS THAT PART GOING DURING JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST. 
          UH, AND TO LOSE THAT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THE COMMUNITY FOR THOSE REASONS. 
          UH, LAST THING I JUST WANNA SAY, WITHOUT TAKING UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME, IS THAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT FISCAL FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE DECISION TO MAKE. 
          THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN REPLACING OF AN EXISTING FACILITY FOR THE CITY, WHICH MEANS THAT IT SHOULD NOT COME WITH THE ASSOCIATED INCREASES IN OPERATING EXPENSES. 
          YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ADD OR HIRE A BUNCH OF NEW STAFF MEMBERS OR MAINTAIN NEW FACILITIES. 
          THIS IS JUST UPDATING SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY SPEND MONEY ON TO OPERATE AND, UH, SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A JUSTIFIED INVESTMENT FOR DECADES THAT WE JUST WANNA KEEP GOING. 
          UM, THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO SAY, AND JUST THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          ONE MORE TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT, WE WILL MOVE INTO IN-PERSON, AND FIRST WE WILL HAVE, UM, JEANETTE VE HELLO. 
          [00:15:01]
YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS GOOD AFTERNOON TO EVERYBODY. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS JANET, I DEL NORTE AND I LIVE IN THE NORTH AREA IN THE 7 8 7 5 4 ZIP CODE. 
          I AM STRONGLY ADVOCATING FOR, FOR YOU FOR THE USE AND INSTALL OF SPLASH PADS. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AT THE GU GARCIA FOR SPLASH PADS AT THE GUS GARCIA RECREATION CENTER. 
          AS IT'S ONE OF THE HOTTEST AREAS IN THE CITY. 
          IT'S, AGAIN, ONE OF THE HOTTEST AREAS IN THE CITY, AND IT WOULD HELP OUR COMMUNITY MITIGATE THE HEAT IN THIS AREA A BIT. 
          I URGE YOU TO SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ASKING THEM TO INCLUDE THE WATER PLAY AREA ON THEIR PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2026 BOND. 
          AND I REPEAT BECAUSE IT, IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS THAT IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS THAT IS THE HOTTEST. 
          PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          NEXT, IN PERSON WE HAVE BARBARA SCOTT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE CHAIRPERSON IN THE BOND TASK FORCE, THE COLONY PARK SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN PROCESS IDENTIFIED KEY PRIORITIES TO GUIDE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AMONG THE MOST URGENT, WE'RE IMPROVING ACCESS TO QUALITY EDUCATION AND EXPANDING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. 
          ADDRESSING THESE PRIORITIES REQUIRES MORE THAN INCREMENTAL CHANGE. 
          IT CALLS FOR INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY CENTERED INVESTMENT. 
          ONE PRACTICAL SOLUTION IS, IS A COMBINED LIBRARY AND AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITY WITH A STRONG FOCUS ON CHILDCARE AND EARLY EDUCATION. 
          THIS INTEGRATED MODEL WOULD ADDRESS LONGSTANDING SERVICE GAPS IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN, ESPECIALLY IN COMMUNITIES EAST OF 180 3. 
          FOR DECADES, THIS AREA HAS EXPERIENCED SYSTEMIC UNDERINVESTMENT. 
          IT IS TIMED THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO FULLY INCLUDE THESE COMMUNITIES, NOT ONLY IN FUNDING DECISIONS, BUT IN HOW ESSENTIAL SERVICES LIKE EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE ARE DELIVERED. 
          THE URGENCY IS CLEAR. 
          SEVERAL SCHOOLS EAST OF 180 3 HAVE RECEIVED FAILING GRADES, HIGHLIGHTING THE NEED FOR STRONGER EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT BEYOND THE CLASSROOM. 
          HEALTHCARE ACCESS IS ALSO CRITICAL. 
          WHILE CENTRAL HEALTH SERVES INDIVIDUALS AT OR BELOW 200% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. 
          AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH SERVES ALL RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF INCOME OFFERING PREVENTIVE CARE SUCH AS IMMUNIZATIONS, STI TESTING AND PRENATAL SERVICES. 
          DESPITE RECOGNIZING THE NEED SINCE 2005, THERE ARE STILL NO PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE EASTERN CRESCENT. 
          CO-LOCATING PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES WITH A LIBRARY WITH IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND REDUCED BARRIERS TO CARE. 
          ADDING WIC SERVICES WOULD FURTHER SUPPORT FOOD ACCESS AND FAMILY STABILITY FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. 
          EQUALLY IMPORTANT, THE NEED FOR LICENSED CHILDCARE AND EARLY LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES REMAINS EXTREMELY LIMITED IN THE AREA. 
          THIS CREATES A CHALLENGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES AND IMPACTS EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT. 
          BY EMBEDDING CHILDCARE AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING INTO A SHARED PUBLIC FACILITY, THE CITY CAN SUPPORT BOTH CHILDREN AND CAREGIVERS WHILE BUILDING A FOUNDATION OF LONG-TERM SUCCESS. 
          THIS PROPOSAL IS ABOUT MORE THAN ENGINEERING OR EMPLOYMENT. 
          IT IS ABOUT EQUITY. 
          A JOINT LIBRARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITY CENTERED ON EDUCATION, CHILDCARE, AND PREVENTIVE CARE WOULD BE A MEANINGFUL INVESTMENT IN A HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY. 
          THE VISION IS CLEAR AND THE NEED IS URGENT. 
          [00:20:01]
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. 
          WE THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS PROJECT, A MUCH NEEDED PROJECT. 
          WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE, PLEASE PUSH THIS FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL THAT WE MAY BE SERVED AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT WE HAVE LAURA BENNETT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I AM LAURA BENNETT. 
          I AM SPEAKING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE HOMELESS RESOURCE CENTER AND CAMPUS PROJECT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE FOR AN UPCOMING BOND ELECTION. 
          I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY IN A DOWNTOWN HIGH RISE ACROSS FROM THE CENTRAL LIBRARY. 
          I'M REMINDED OF THE CHALLENGES OF HOMELESSNESS, MITIGATION EVERY TIME I LEAVE MY APARTMENT. 
          WHEN PROP Q FAILED IN NOVEMBER, IT PROMPTED A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS AUSTIN DOING IN TERMS OF HOMELESSNESS MITIGATION. 
          NO ONE KNEW. 
          SO I SET OUT TO FIND OUT. 
          FOR THE PAST FIVE MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN WORKING ALONGSIDE WITH THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE AND SHELLY KILDAY WITH THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE LANDSCAPE. 
          WE TOURED AUSTIN'S CURRENT SHELTERS, MET WITH E-M-S-A-P-D, INAUGURAL CARE CENTRAL HEALTH EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF THE MAJOR NONPROFITS IN THIS SPACE. 
          LIKE CARITAS COMMUNITY FIRST SUNRISE NAVIGATION IN ESPERANZA. 
          WE'VE ATTENDED THE POPUP RESOURCE CLINICS AND INTERACTED WITH PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS. 
          WE TOURED THE SHELTERS IN SAN ANTONIO AND DALLAS TO COMPARE NOTES, OBSERVE BEST PRACTICES, AND LEARN WHAT THEY WOULD'VE DONE DIFFERENTLY. 
          I COULD TALK FOR AN HOUR ABOUT WHAT WE LEARNED, BUT FOR TODAY'S PURPOSE, I WANNA SAY THAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION, EVERYONE AGREED THAT THE MOST BURNING NEED IN AUSTIN TODAY IS MORE TEMPORARY SHELTER BEDS. 
          THERE IS CURRENTLY A THREE MONTH WAIT FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER BED. 
          UM, THERE'S NO DESIGNATED PLACE WHERE A HOMELESS PERSON CAN GO FOR THE DAY AND GET OUT OF THE WEATHER TO GET WATER OR USE THE RESTROOM NOWHERE. 
          SO OFFICIALLY, WE ARE DIRECTING PEOPLE TO OUR LIBRARIES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, CAUSES A SITUATION THAT I SEE EVERY DAY WHEN I LEAVE MY APARTMENT. 
          WE CAN DO BETTER. 
          THE THREE EXISTING CITY SHELTERS TOTAL 600 BEDS. 
          OUR PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A CAMPUS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, BUT WITHIN A 15 MINUTE DRIVE. 
          AND ON BUS ROUTES, IT WILL HAVE 1200 BEDS DOUBLING THE CURRENT CAPACITY. 
          IT WOULD HAVE SPACES FOR PEOPLE TO COME DURING THE DAY, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT SLEEPING AT THE SHELTER. 
          THE CITY IS WORKING WITH INTEGRAL CARE AND CENTRAL HEALTH TO FIND A LOCATION ON THIS CAMPUS. 
          THERE WILL BE A NAVIGATION CENTER THAT UPON ARRIVAL, GETS CLIENTS ENTERED INTO THE HMIS DATABASE, ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT FAMILY, GETS THEM CONNECTED WITH THEIR BENEFITS, AND GETS THEM AN ID. 
          THERE WILL BE A HEALTH CLINIC, MENTAL HEALTH CARE, RESPITE BEDS, PHARMACY, PET KENNELS, SHOWERS, A MAIL ROOM, COMPUTER ROOM, AND SPACE FOR 40 OR 50 NONPROFITS WHO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT HELP PEOPLE GET BACKED INTO HOUSING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          WE WILL COLLABORATE WITH ALL THE EXPERTS IN THIS AREA AND USE BEST PRACTICES WITH TRAUMA-INFORMED DESIGN TO MAKE THIS SPACE WORK FOR THIS POPULATION. 
          WE PRESENTED THIS TO THE MAYOR A FEW WEEKS AGO AND HE SAID THAT THIS WAS THE MOST REFRESHING THING HE HAD HEARD IN A LONG TIME AND WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE. 
          THE CITIES THAT HAVE DONE THIS TYPE OF CAMPUS PROJECT, WELL HAVE COMBINED CITY MONEY WITH PHILANTHROPIC DOLLARS FROM THE COMMUNITY TO BUILD THE CAMPUS. 
          MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE RAISED OUR HAND TO LEAD THAT FUNDRAISING, FUNDRAISING EFFORT IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED. 
          I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL APPEAL TO BOTH CONSERVATIVES AND PROGRESSIVES ALIKE, WHICH IS REFRESHING. 
          WE ALL WANNA SEE A DAY WHERE WE CAN WALK DOWNTOWN WITHOUT SEEING PEOPLE WITH NOWHERE TO GO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT WE HAVE ADAM GREENFIELD. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON TASK FORCE MEMBERS. 
          ADAM GREENFIELD HERE WITH SAFE STREETS AUSTIN. 
          HOPE YOU HAD A GREAT WEEKEND. 
          UM, WE HAVE A VERY SIMPLE MESSAGE. 
          UM, WE NEED TO FUND THE SIDEWALKS, BIKEWAYS URBAN TRAILS, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS AND VISION ZERO PROGRAMS AT CURRENT LEVELS. 
          UH, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED RECENTLY SOME, UH, RECOMMENDED FUNDING LEVELS FROM THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, AD HOC, UH, BOND, UH, GROUP. 
          AND WE THINK THOSE ARE GREAT NUMBERS AND, AND YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THEM. 
          UH, WE HAVE MADE STUNNING PROGRESS IN AUSTIN IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. 
          UM, BECAUSE OF RECENT TRANSPORTATION BOND INVESTMENTS, THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM HAS INVESTED IN OVER 250 MILES OF SIDEWALKS. 
          THE BIKEWAYS PROGRAM, OVER 100 MILES OF NEW BIKE LANES, SAFE ROUTES OF SCHOOL, IMPROVED ACCESS TO 120 PLUS SCHOOLS, 
          [00:25:01]
REDUCING COMPREHENSIVE CRASH COST SAVINGS OF $47 MILLION ANNUALLY. 
          VISION ZERO INTERSECTION PROGRA PRO, UH, PROJECTS ALONE ARE REDUCING CRASH COSTS BY ANOTHER $78 MILLION ANNUALLY. 
          UH, WE HAVE HEARD FROM DOZENS OF RESIDENTS ACROSS AUSTIN ABOUT HOW THESE INVESTMENTS ARE AFFECTING THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES. 
          AND I'M JUST GONNA READ YOU A COUPLE OF THEM. 
          UH, THERE'S PEOPLE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. 
          HILLARY SAYS, I GAVE UP TRYING TO USE A BIKE TO GET AROUND AND FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS OR SO, AND SADLY RESIGNED MYSELF TO BEING EMOTIONALLY CAR PERSON. 
          BUT LATELY I HAVE BEEN, I HAVE SEEN SO MUCH INVESTMENT IN BIKE LANE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND TOWN. 
          A FEW MONTHS AGO, I WANTED TO LOOK INTO BUYING AN E-BIKE AND I REVISITED THE AUSTIN BIKE MAPS. 
          WOW. 
          A LOT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS. 
          I'VE BEEN RIDING MY NEW BIKE NEARLY EVERY DAY. 
          MY MENTAL HEALTH IS BETTER. 
          I HAVE A BETTER CONNECTION WITH MY COMMUNITY. 
          I SEE THE CITY IN A WHOLE NEW WAY. 
          I CANNOT OVERSTATE HOW MUCH AUSTIN'S INVESTMENT IN BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE HAS MADE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT IN MY LIFE. 
          THESE INVESTMENTS ARE ONE OF THE MANY THINGS THAT MAKE ME PROUD TO CALL AUSTIN MY HOME. 
          I COULD GO ON ALL DAY READING THESE COMMENTS. 
          THEY FLOODED IN TO SAFE STREETS AUSTIN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. 
          AND I THINK ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THINGS THAT I'VE TAKEN AWAY FROM THOSE COMMENTS IS THEY'RE REALLY REDEFINING WHAT AUSTIN IS. 
          YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY PEOPLE HAVE SAID AUSTIN IS A DRIVING CITY, AND THAT IS CHANGING EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF THESE STUNNING PROGRAMS. SO WE JUST NEED TO KEEP GOING. 
          THEY'RE DELIVERING REAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, REAL SAVINGS. 
          WE ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY THE MORE WE SPEND ON THESE PROGRAMS. AND THEY'RE IMPROVING EVERYDAY AUSTINITES QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          SO WE HOPE THAT THIS TASK FORCE WILL SUPPORT FUNDING THESE INCREDIBLE PROGRAMS AT CURRENT LEVELS MOVING FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE TED SIF. 
          HI TASK FORCE MEMBERS. 
          THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY AND DEEP THANKS FOR THE MORE THAN YEAR AND A HALF THAT YOU'VE SPENT ON THIS TASK. 
          I'M TED SIFF AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S AD HOC BOND COMMITTEE. 
          AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS A COALITION OF BUSINESSES AND NONPROFITS THAT CHAMPIONS PUBLIC FUNDS THAT GET US ALL CLOSER TO NATURE. 
          AS YOU HAVE SEEN, THE AD HOC BOND COMMITTEE OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE SENT YOU RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL SUB QUORUMS APRIL 20TH POST. 
          I NEED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS SEPARATE FROM YOUR EXPECTED AND SCHEDULED, UH, BOND, FULL BOND PACKAGE RECOMMENDATION OF 700 TO $750 MILLION. 
          THIS SUB QUORUM ASKED YOU TO MAKE THEM RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG THE LINES OF THEIR POST. 
          AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE AS A AD HOC BOND COMMITTEE IS SUGGESTED FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND THE PARK PROGRAMS THAT WERE REFERRED TO IN THAT POST. 
          UM, I HAVE ONE SPECIAL REQUEST THAT'S PERSONAL AND THAT IS WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, PARK FUNDING LEVELS. 
          YOU'LL SEE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS AS THOSE PRO AS PART OF THE PARK FUNDING PROGRAMS AND WHATEVER LEVEL YOU RECOMMEND FUNDING IT. 
          HERE'S MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THE SEVERAL ARTICLES THAT HAVE OCCURRED JUST IN THE LAST MONTH ABOUT UNUSED AUSTIN PARKLAND THAT HAS BEEN OWNED FOR YEARS, HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF UNUSED PARKLAND. 
          THIS PROBLEM IS FIXABLE. 
          THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT HAS A POLICY OF QUICKLY OPENING ITS NEW ACQUIRED PARKLAND. 
          AND, UH, IN A MESSAGE THAT I'VE SENT TO STAFF, THERE'S A LINK TO THAT NEW POLICY, BUT IT'S BASICALLY CREATING A PARK OPENING IN PHASES. 
          THE FIRST PHASE WITHIN 18 MONTHS CALLS FOR IN THE PTPW POLICY, BIRDWATCHING, UH, WALKING, UM, HIKING, THOSE, THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE MINOR COST NATURE AND RECREATIONAL TRAIL INVESTMENTS. 
          AND PERHAPS SOME TREES WHERE NEEDED. 
          WITH THAT KIND OF PHASE ONE APPROACH, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT COULD SHIFT ITS POLICY AND HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO THIS 
          [00:30:01]
VERY, UH, STRONGLY EXPRESSED PUBLIC CONCERN WITHOUT A SHIFT IN POLICY BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT LIKE THIS. 
          MY OBSERVATION IS THAT ANY PARK BOND ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT IS AT RISK OF FAILURE. 
          THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND NEXT WE HAVE PHILLIP MARTIN. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          UH, MY NAME'S PHILIP MARTIN. 
          UH, I'M WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND. 
          AND I WANTED JUST GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS ON, UH, EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THERE'S A SLIDE DECK HERE, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THESE NOTES HERE IF YOU AS WELL. 
          UH, THE CITY IS WORKING ON A TRANSITION PLAN SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 189 REFUGE, UH, TRUCKS THAT ARE HERE IN THE CITY. 
          UM, THE PROPOSAL YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU KIND OF ADDRESSES HOW YOU CAN REACH THOSE, THE CHARGER NEEDED FOR THOSE TRUCKS BY 2033 OR 2034. 
          UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A STUDY DONE AND PRESENTED, UH, WITH A FELLOWSHIP IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY, UH, LAST FALL THAT, UH, IDENTIFIED ALL THE NUMBERS OF TRUCKS NEEDED, EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. 
          THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA GO INTO A LOT OF THOSE EXTRA DETAILS TODAY, BUT TO KNOW THAT ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE EXISTING ROUTES TRAVELED BY COMPOST REFUGE OR GARBAGE TRUCKS IN THE CITY ALREADY MEET THE DUTY CYCLE NEEDED FOR THE TYPE OF CHARGING WE'RE DESCRIBING TODAY. 
          SO, WHICH IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO GET YOU TO THE YEAR 2033. 
          UM, EXCUSE ME, THIS IS A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE LOOK AT. 
          UH, EDF HAS PUT THIS TOGETHER BASED ON, UH, INFORMATION FROM BLOOMBERG, MCKINSEY, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. 
          GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE TO NEED IF YOU'RE JUST TO BUILD A SINGLE SITE WITH ONLY ABOUT FOUR CHARGES. 
          THE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT ARE IMPORTANT TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE, UH, HARDWARE AND EQUIPMENT EXPENSES, UH, THE AMOUNT FOR TRENCHING AND CONDUITS, CONCRETE PADS, ET CETERA. 
          UH, INSTALLATION AND SOFT COSTS. 
          THE RANGE YOU SEE THERE, UH, THE NUMBER ON THE LEFT IS KIND OF THE GENERAL NUMBER THAT IS USED. 
          THE RIGHT IS A VERY HIGH END NUMBER. 
          UH, WE'RE BASING THE $150,000 YOU'LL SEE IN A SECOND ON THE HIGH END, JUST TO BE CAUTIOUS ALSO, BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER IS KIND OF A NATIONAL AVERAGE COSTS, UH, FOR LABOR FOR THE CITY. 
          UH, I THINK Y'ALL PAY BETTER THAN OTHER CITIES, UH, FOR WORKERS IN SOME PROJECTS. 
          SO THAT'S GREAT. 
          WE ENCOURAGE THAT. 
          BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU SAW THE RANGE AND FOR ALL THESE TYPES OF THINGS. 
          GOING ON TO THE SLIDE AFTER THIS, THESE ARE THE EXISTING LOCATIONS. 
          THIS IS FROM THAT STUDY I REFERENCED THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE OF JOINT SUSTAINABILITY. 
          THESE ARE THE THREE LOCATIONS WHERE, UH, FLEET MOBILITY SERVICES CURRENTLY, UH, HAS THEIR REFUSE TRUCKS, UH, HOUSED AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED NORTH AUSTIN TRANSFER SITE. 
          THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE CITY AT THE TIME OF HOW MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHARGERS WOULD BE NEEDED. 
          JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE REFERENCING HERE. 
          AND THEN THIS IS THE TIMELINE IN THAT SAME PRESENTATION THAT TALKS THROUGH HOW MANY CHARGERS WOULD BE NEEDED BY YEAR. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE ORGANIZED BY EACH SPECIFIC TRANSFER STATION. 
          AND I PUT THE SPECIFIC TOTALS THERE ON THE RIGHT. 
          THE REALLY BIG DISTINCTION HERE IS BETWEEN 2033 AND 2034, UH, AN EXTRA 46 CHARGERS WOULD BE NEEDED AT THE, UH, NORTHEAST SERVICE CENTER SITE IN 2034. 
          THAT'S A DECISION FOR THIS TASK FORCE TO MAKE. 
          I DON'T, UH, WHATEVER YOU ALL DECIDE TO DO, HOW FAR OUT YOU WANNA PLAN FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IF YOU WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT OR NOT. 
          SO, BECAUSE THAT IS A DECISION TO MAKE, I WANTED TO GIVE YOU BOTH SETS OF TOTALS, WHICH IS HERE. 
          UH, IT'D BE ABOUT 13 MILLION, 50,000 FOR ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT ALL THE TRUCKS. 
          THE CITY IS PLANNING OR HAS THE GOALS TO PURSUE BY 2033. 
          IT'D BE AN EXTRA 4,060,000. 
          UH, IF YOU WERE TO GO THROUGH 2034, THAT SQUIZ IN GENERAL, THESE DISPENSERS COST ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND EACH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. 
          UH, APPROVE THE MINUTES INTO THE 2026 BOND CHAIR. 
          SORRY, CHAIR. 
          CAN WE, CAN WE ADD, UH, RACHEL MODE? UH, SHE IS NOT ON THE LISTED IN A PANEL YET. 
          SHE'S TRYING TO GET IN. 
          SORRY, WHAT? RICH RACHEL, SHE ADDED. 
          OH, UH, RACHEL MODE IS, YEAH, SHE'S TRYING TO GET ACCEPTED INTO THE PANEL OR WHATEVER WE'RE AT. 
          APOLOGIZE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKS LIKE SHE'S ON. 
          OKAY. 
          [1. Approve the minutes of the 2026 Bond Election Advisory Task Force Regular Called meeting April 13, 2026.]
UH, ITEM ONE, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 2026 BOND ELECTION ADVISORY TASK FORCE REGULAR CALLED MEETING FROM APRIL 13TH, 2026. 
          I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. 
          SO MOVED. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          I BEAT YOU BEN. 
          SECOND,  SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE. 
          IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE PUT YOUR CAMERA ON. 
          MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          SORRY. 
          ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE MINUTES? I DIDN'T 
          [00:35:01]
PAY ANY ATTENTION. 
          ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO 
          [Items 2 & 4]
ITEM 2, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX. 
          UM, , UH, NOT EXACTLY BUT, UM, TWO AND THREE ARE ON THE AGENDA AGAIN BECAUSE WE TABLED THEM AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ITEMS TWO AND FOUR TOGETHER, WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND JUST TO SET THE, THE TABLE A BIT, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR, UM, SECOND TO OUR LAST MEETING. 
          WE HAVE, UM, WE'VE GOT A TARGET, A, UH, A DATE TO GIVE OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE NEXT MEETING ON THE FOURTH. 
          SO MY HOPE IS THAT TODAY WE, I'M GONNA BE REALLY OPTIMISTIC AND THAT WE MAKE MOST OF OUR PROGRESS AND WORK TODAY AND NEXT WEEK IS EITHER NOT NECESSARY OR IS JUST A FORMALITY IN TERMS OF FINAL VOTES. 
          BUT ALSO SINCE WE LAST MET, AS YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR HAS WEIGHED IN ON THE BOND. 
          THE SUB QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL HAS WEIGHED IN MAKING A REQUEST. 
          SO WE FACE, HAVING WORKED FOR 18 MONTHS TOWARDS A POTENTIAL 750 MILLION, $700 MILLION BOND PACKAGE, WE'VE BEEN ASKED NOW TO ADD TO OUR WORK TO, UM, CONSIDER ANOTHER SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, A SMALLER, FOR A SMALLER BOND. 
          AND SO TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE, UH, WORK THROUGH THAT. 
          UM, I KNOW TODAY WE ARE PREPARED TO TALK THROUGH, UH, THREE OPTIONS AT THE $750 MILLION RANGE, WHICH ARE RELATIVELY SIMILAR. 
          THEY'RE WITH SOME SMALL DIFFERENCES. 
          AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD A GREAT DISCUSSION, GOT THROUGH ALMOST EVERYTHING BUT TRANSPORTATION AND STORM WATER. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'D LOVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO WEIGH IN ON THOSE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW WE GET OUR WORK DONE. 
          AND, UM, ALSO, FRANCIS SENT OUT IN THE MATERIALS AHEAD OF TIME TO POTENTIAL SUB QUORUM, UH, SUGGESTIONS. 
          SO YOU HAVE COPIES OF THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU AND ONLINE. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, MY, MY SUGGESTION AND I JUST WANNA KIND OF TAKE A, THE PULSE OF THE GROUP IS, YOU KNOW, IF I MADE A MOTION TO, UM, NOT ADOPT A $750 MILLION PACKAGE AND FOCUS SQUARELY ON THE SUB QUORUM, WOULD ANYONE SECOND THAT I WOULD ANYONE WANNA DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL OF NOT ADOPTING A $750 MILLION BOND PACKAGE? IT, I GUESS IT'S RELATED. 
          I SAW THE MESSAGE BOARD POSTS FROM THE SUB QUORUM, BUT I MISSED THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS. 
          I JUST PULLED UP THE MESSAGE BOARD. 
          OR ARE THOSE COMMENTS THERE? OR WOULD YOU MIND SUMMARIZING? SO WE HAVE CONTEXT? OH, I, HOPEFULLY I WON'T DO A JUST DISSERVICE, BUT IT WAS A WATSON WIRE IN WHICH HE BASICALLY WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, JUST BEST PRACTICE AND WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO DO A BIG BOND. 
          AND I'M USING THESE TERMS VERY, UH, LOOSELY. 
          I DON'T WANT TO, I'M NOT QUOTING HIM AT ALL MM-HMM . 
          BUT THE IDEA THAT MAYBE NO BOND IN 2026 AND A POTENTIAL IN 2028, I THINK IF I, IF, IF ANYONE AGREES THAT, THAT'S GENERALLY HIS COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          NICOLE. 
          I I I WILL, I COULDN'T COME UP WITH THAT. 
          I I WILL JUST ADVISE THAT, UM, IT WOULD NEED, YOU WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER AS WELL AS THE MAYOR TO, TO, TO SUPPORT THAT ACTION FOR A SMALLER PACKAGE. 
          UM, SO THE FULL COUNCIL HAS NOT NECESSARILY SAID YES TO THAT SMALLER STRATEGY. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE'RE SORT OF ON A, A PATH WITH MOMENTUM HERE IN, IN GETTING TO THE SEVEN 50 THAT RECOGNIZES ALL THE AREAS OF NEED ACROSS THE CITY. 
          UM, AND CERTAINLY, UM, THE COUNCIL CAN TAKE SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO RE TO REDUCE IT DOWNWARDS. 
          UM, BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS COMMITTEE, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING FOR US TO COME OUT WITH A SUB QUORUM AMOUNT HAVING DONE ALL THE WORK IN OUR RESPECTIVE WORK GROUPS AND HEARD FROM ALL THE CITIZENS AROUND THE, THE, THE AREAS OF IDEAS, UM, WHICH NEED INVESTMENT. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT TO THE OKAY. 
          SUB QUORUM JUST GONNA . 
          I, I AGREE WITH NICOLE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE CERTAIN AREAS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE PARKS WAS, YOU KNOW, THE HEAVY FOCUS. 
          UM, AND IT WAS FRANKLY MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, THAN MAYBE WE WOULD'VE OTHERWISE, UH, PUT FORWARD IN THAT CATEGORY, I THINK. 
          UM, AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY THEY'VE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE INFORMATION, UH, THAT WE HAVE, HAVE LOOKED AT. 
          AND I, I SAY THAT BECAUSE I DID REACH OUT TO THAT, UH, GROUP AFTERWARDS AND UH, YOU KNOW, GOT A RESPONSE BACK FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I, I WAS ASKING IF THEY, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THEY HAD LAID OUT SOME OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION, UM, SPECIFICALLY. 
          AND SO I ASKED IF THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY, UM, NOT INCLUDING ELECTRIFICATION, KNOWING THAT SOME, SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY FOCUSED 
          [00:40:01]
ON EMISSIONS REDUCTION. 
          AND THE ANSWER WAS JUST THAT THEY HADN'T EVEN LOOKED AT WHAT WE HAD DONE YET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T THINK THEIR, THEIRS WAS NOT A RESPONSE TO US. 
          UM, SO I JUST, I THINK WE'VE DONE SOME VALUABLE WORK. 
          I I HOPE WE DON'T LEAVE IT BEHIND. 
          AGREED. 
          OTHER. 
          AND, AND I GUESS JUST TO ADD THAT HE, YOU KNOW, HE WAS, UH, SUPPORTIVE OF US, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRIFICATION. 
          I DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL THE OTHER THINGS. 
          THEY, THEY MIGHT ALSO BE SUPPORTIVE OF IF WE GAVE THEM JUSTIFICATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND JUST AS A RE RIGHT, THE, THE, I WAS TRYING TO, UM, I'LL LET OTHER PEOPLE TALK, JUST KIND OF NIP IN THE BUD A CONCEPT OF ONLY LOOKING AT A SUBGROUP QUORUM. 
          BUT I, SO I WANTED TO SORT OF TAKE THAT TEMPERATURE BEFORE WE MOVED ON. 
          ANYONE ELSE WANNA WEIGH IN ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? I'D SEE RICH RICH'S HAND UP. 
          GO AHEAD, RICH. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, HI THERE. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, SO IT'S, IT, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN I DO AS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER'S APPOINTMENT. 
          AND SO HE'S BEEN BRIEFED AND WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ON EACH ASPECTS OF THIS. 
          ELECTRIFICATION WAS INCLUDED IN HIS RECOMMENDATION TO ME AS FAR AS WHAT HE WAS HOPING I WOULD SUPPORT. 
          SO I, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE INTERESTING. 
          UM, I KNOW MIKE MCGILL IN HIS OFFICE IS LISTENING RIGHT NOW AND, UM, HE'S BEEN FOLLOWING MOST OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS. 
          THEY'VE BEEN REALLY ACTIVE RELATING TO THIS BOND. 
          SO I THINK I, I AGREE WITH TAKING UP TO 750,000,001, BUT THEN I DO AGREE OF PROVIDING THE ALTERNATIVE AND LET IT BE IN THE COUNCIL. 
          SO I GUESS THE, IF THERE'S FIVE VOTES ALREADY AND THERE'S ONLY NEEDED SIX AND THEY CAN'T HAVE A WALKING FORUM, ASSUMING THERE'S A SIX VOTE OUT THERE, BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERED ABOUT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BOND, I'D RATHER US HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALSO INFORM THE 400 AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT'S 400 MILLION OR WHATEVER. 
          IT'S FOUR 40 OR WHATEVER, 85, THAT PARTICULAR BOND. 
          OKAY. 
          AND KNOWING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL FUNDING, YOU KNOW, PAYING DOWN OUR DEBT SERVICE AND EVERYTHING IN TWO YEARS, AND THEY'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH, UM, FINANCIAL SERVICES. 
          CAN I JUST CLARIFY, CAN WE LET SOME OTHER PEOPLE GO? WELL, IF IT'S A DIRECT RESPONSE, I'D LIKE, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I THINK THAT WE HAD THIS, THIS GOT THE SAME RESPONSE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, WHICH WAS SUPPORT FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION. 
          SORRY IF I WAS UNCLEAR WITH MY WORDS, I, UH, I TAKE THE POSITION THAT I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT, GOT COUNCIL MEMBERS ASKING IT, POSTING IT PUBLICLY ON A MESSAGE BOARD ASKING US TO DISCUSS IT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT, IT HARMS THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE. 
          I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY IN A VERY GOOD POSITION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IF YOU GO 700, 7 50, DO THESE THINGS, IF YOU GO SMALLER, DO THESE THINGS. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT'S A VALID CONVERSATION TO HAVE. 
          AND, AND WE CAN INCLUDE IN THAT SOME OF THE TRADE OFFS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME. 
          LIKE, HEY, MOVING SOME OF THE STORM WATER STUFF TO BEING FUNDED BY A MECHANISM OUTSIDE OF THE BOND SO THAT THEY CAN ACT ON IT FASTER AND NOT, NOT BE TIED TO THIS SIX YEAR CYCLE. 
          FRANCIS. 
          YEAH, MY ONLY THOUGHTS ARE IN INTEREST OF TIME WITH FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH THE SUB QUO AND THE MAYOR'S POSITION, THAT DOES EQUAL A CERTAIN NUMBER. 
          AND SO I THINK THE IDEA OF DISCUSSING THE SEVEN 50 COMING TO A TERMS AND THEN ALSO DISCUSSING THE SUB QUO AND COMING TO AGREEMENT, I'M JUST, I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY IT'S LIKE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SEVEN 50. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF MEETINGS AND MINUTES AND STUFF. 
          IT'S JUST IF WE WANT TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUB QUORUM, I JUST THINK IT'S A LOT TO DO IT WITH THE SEVEN 50. 
          AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A DEBBIE DOWNER, BUT I DON'T FORESEE THE SEVEN 50 MAKING IT TO THE BOND. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION IS LIKE, WOULD WE LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE SUB QUORUM, WHICH I THINK FEELS MORE REALISTIC, BUT I I, WE WANTED, I KNOW I WANTED TO HEAR IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NOT VOTING FOR A SEVEN 50, WE DON'T WANNA DISREGARD TO EVERYONE'S POINT, THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE THUS FAR. 
          ROBERT, I AGREE WITH FRANCIS. 
          UM, WE, UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE NOT GONNA HAVE A SEVEN 50 BOND PACKAGE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE SMALLER. 
          I DON'T THINK WE'RE THAT FAR ON THE SEVEN 50. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD WRAP THAT UP RELATIVELY QUICKLY AND THEN WE SHOULD FOCUS THE REST OF THIS MEETING ON WHAT WE CAN DO FOR A SMALLER PACKAGE. 
          LUKE? UM, YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, INTEREST IN JUST FINISHING THE SEVEN 50. 
          I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THEN THAT WE DO THE SUB QUORUM FIRST, SINCE THAT MIGHT TAKE LONGER. 
          UM, AND THEN WE GET TO THE SEVEN 50 AFTERWARDS AND THAT WE DON'T SPEND A TON OF TIME ON IT SINCE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S, UM, POLITICALLY VIABLE AND WE'RE ALREADY PRETTY CLOSE. 
          SO LET'S NOT THE PERFECT, LET THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD HEARD DONALD. 
          I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE WAY RICH WAS FRAMING IT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD ACTUALLY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DO THE SEVEN 51ST AND JUST WRAP IT UP. 
          I THINK WE ARE CLOSE TO IT. 
          UH, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SUB QUORUM. 
          I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AS THOUGH 
          [00:45:01]
NOW THAT THERE'S A SUB QUORUM, THIS IS THE MORE LIKELY TO PROCEED. 
          I'M JUST GONNA BE REAL. 
          THIS CAME OUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE OUR FINAL MEETING. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ACTUAL CLARITY ON WHAT'S GONNA, THINGS ARE GONNA LOOK LIKE IN THREE MONTHS. 
          AND I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE AND FINISH UP THE WORK WE'VE DONE AND THEN WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SUB QUORUM. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'LL, THAT'S GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE WAY THE SUB QUORUM SEEMS TO HAVE ACHI, UH, COME UP WITH THEIR AMOUNTS WERE TO JUST CUT OUT MAJOR CATEGORIES. 
          SO LIKE THAT, THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S KIND OF THE MAIN, IT, IT'S NOT GONNA TAKE A LOT TO GET TO RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THEIR CATEGORICAL UH, PREFERENCES. 
          SO I THINK WE SHOULD FINISH UP THE SEVEN 50 AND THEN WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SUB QUORUM. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST QUICKLY, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE WAS TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH A $750 MILLION BOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          I DON'T THINK WE, THE MOTION I MADE WAS TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH SEVEN 50. 
          SO THE VOTES FOR THAT. 
          YOU GOT 'EM, NICOLE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I, UH, I GUESS WHAT WE NEED, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST IS SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION ON AN ADOPTION OF THE $750 MILLION BOND THROUGH ONE OF THE PACKAGES. 
          ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          AND WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. 
          THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR. 
          WE CAN RIFF OFF OF THAT. 
          CAN WE, CAN I INSTEAD MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, TAKE A SUB? CAN I INSTEAD MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE UP THE SUB QUORUM DISCUSSION FIRST? AND IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? I WON'T DIE ON THE HILL, BUT, UH, IF THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THAT, THAT WOULD BE, IS THERE A SECOND FOR TAKING UP THAT SECOND? OKAY. 
          ROB, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO TAKE UP THE SUB QUORUM FIRST BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT MOTION CHAIR? I GOT A A A POINT OF QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          UM, IF WE, ONCE WE APPROVE THE SEVEN 50 BY VIRTUE OF THIS, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, DO WE DISSOLVE AT THAT MOMENT OR IS IT ONCE THE RECOMMENDATION GETS A NO FORMAL DOCUMENT? 'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONCE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND SO WE'D HAVE TO TIE 'EM TOGETHER. 
          THE SEVEN 50 AND THE FOUR, THE, WHATEVER THE, THE SUB QUORUM, UM, AS A, A SINGLE RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEN I, LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT'S TRUE. 
          LET'S ASSUME IT'S TRUE THAT WE, WE DON'T WANNA ACCIDENTALLY DISSOLVE OURSELVES BEFORE WE DO THE WORK WE WANNA DO. 
          SO WHAT WE WOULD, BEFORE WE TOOK A FORMAL VOTE ON APPROVAL, WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT MOTION INCLUDED A $750 MILLION PACKAGE AND A SUB QUORUM PACKAGE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING RICH'S CONCERN CORRECTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION ON LUKE'S MOTION TO, TO UH, TAKE UP THE SUB QUORUM FIRST HEARING. 
          NO MORE DISCUSSION. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF TAKING UP THE SUB QUORUM FIRST AND UNDERSTANDING, WE HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES LEFT IN THIS MEETING. 
          PICK UP THE SUB QUORUM. 
          FIRST, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE AN APPROVAL OF THE SUBC. 
          QUORUM BEING FIRST. 
          I THINK WE'D NEED NINE TO PASS. 
          IF YOU'RE ONLINE AND YOU'RE VOTING, PUT YOUR VIDEO ON NINE MOTION PASSES. 
          WE WILL START WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE SUB QUORUM. 
          UM, I'M GONNA TURN THIS OVER TO FRANCIS, WHO PUT TOGETHER TWO POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR THE SUB QUORUM, WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKAGE FOR DISCUSSION. 
          YEAH, AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WE TECHNICALLY ACTUALLY SENT ONE SUB QUORUM OPTION AND THEN HAYDEN RESPONDED KIND OF WITH SOME THOUGHTS, I THINK FROM THE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP, WHICH BASICALLY JUST, UM, AND I, I'LL JUST SHOW, CAN YOU ALL, CAN THEY SEE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT I PRINTED AS WELL? YEAH, BUT I'M GONNA SHOW THEM REALLY IS MY, THE WORKING GROUP DID NOT MEAN JUST TO BE CLEAR. 
          YEAH, YEAH, NO, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          HAYDEN PROVIDED SOME THOUGHTS. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL WALK THROUGH THAT REALLY QUICKLY. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUB, YOU ALL CAN SEE THE SCREEN UP THERE, UM, WHAT THAT MEANS IN SUB QUORUM. 
          OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO HAVE THE SAME ITEMS FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AND FACILITIES AND ASSETS WITH JUST, I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST SAY THIS REAL QUICK. 
          IN PARK AND OPEN SPACE, 75 MILLION FOR BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS. 
          A HUNDRED MILLION IN PARK GLEN ACQUISITION, 50 MILLION IN EQUALITY PROGRAM, PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM AS 15 MILLION. 
          AND THEN RECREATION AND SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENT AT 20 MILLION. 
          AND THE FACILITIES AND ASSETS, THE COLONY PARK PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER AT 42 MILLION IN THE ANIMAL SERVICE CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS AT 3 MILLION. 
          AND SO IN THE OPTION ONE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S 45 MILLION MILLION IN NEW SIDEWALKS, 25 MILLION IN THE VISION ZERO PROGRAM AND 10 MILLION IN THE LOCAL MOBILITY URBAN TRAILS. 
          AND IN THE SUB QUORUM OPTION TWO, YOU SEE THE MONEY FOR TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION SPREAD OUT OVER MORE ITEMS. SO THEN YOU HAVE 30 MILLION FOR NUDE SIDEWALKS, 16 MILLION FOR VISION, ZERO 8 MILLION FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, 8 MILLION FOR URBAN TRAILS, 9 MILLION 
          [00:50:01]
FOR BIKE WAVES PROGRAM, AND 3 MILLION FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM AND 3 MILLION FOR EV CHARGING. 
          AND THAT, THAT AS A TOTAL OF 382 AND THE FIRST ONE HAD A TOTAL OF 385 WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT ONE OF THOSE. 
          I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS PROPOSAL. 
          I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY, HAYDEN, LIKE THESE NUMBERS IN NO WAY REFLECT WHAT WE ALIGNED WITH AS A WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS WHY, WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT. 
          AND I THINK IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME TIME. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'RE ENCOURAGING. 
          LIKE I DON'T THINK, YEAH, I MEAN IF IT'S NOT A MOTION TO ACCEPT ONE OF THESE, I THINK IT'S A MOTION TO MAYBE, MAYBE TO DISCUSS, TO FINALIZE ONE SUB QUORUM OPTION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE ACCEPTING ONE OR TWO. 
          WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT A SUB QUORUM OPTION. 
          AND I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS, I MEAN I GUESS WE CAN'T DO THAT 'CAUSE WE NEED TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT, WELL, I THINK THAT'S THE POINT YOU I MOVE TO ADOPT ONE OF 'EM AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT IT. 
          I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT, UH, OPTION TWO. 
          IS IT OUR SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. 
          LET'S DISCUSS. 
          SO NOW WE'LL DISCUSS OPTIONS. 
          NOW WE DISCUSS, DISCUSS, DISCUSS. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IT AS WE CAN CHANGE IT. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? WHERE WERE THESE EMAILED OUT? I'M NOT SEEING IT IN MY EMAIL. 
          THE OPTION SUB QUORUM OPTION ONE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SPREADSHEET THAT WAS EMAILED OUT. 
          SUB QUORUM OPTION TWO WAS NOT, BUT IT IS PRINTED HERE AND THEY CAN SEE MY SCREEN. 
          YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE MY SCREEN. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WE, AND IT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS AT THE NINTH HOUR AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO HAVE IT READY FOR TODAY. 
          'CAUSE THE, IDEALLY THE IDEA IS THAT THIS BEING THE REASON WHY I'M SHARING MY SCREEN SO WE CAN MAKE CHANGES LIVE. 
          UM, AND JUST TAKE THE INPUT DIRECTLY. 
          SO NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING SUB, SUB QUORUM OPTION TWO AND I WILL, UH, OBVIOUSLY LUKE SAND. 
          WELL I WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE ALSO HAVE A, A THIRD SUB QUORUM OPTION FROM AUSTIN OUTSIDE. 
          UM, AND I WOULD LOVE US TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY FROM BOTH, UH, SAFE STREETS, AUSTIN AND AUSTIN OUTSIDE. 
          UM, BOTH GROUPS THAT REPRESENT UH, VERY UH, HAVE GREAT REPRESENTATION OF THE PARKS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITIES RESPECTIVELY. 
          UM, AND SO I'D, I'D GIVE GREAT DEFERENCE, UH, TO THEIR RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALTHOUGH I WOULD DEFINITELY ADD MONEY TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AS WELL. 
          AND JUST SO I HAVE THIS UP HERE, IT'S IN OUR EMAIL. 
          THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDING. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE TO TAKE SOME OF THAT TRANSPORTATION, I MEAN SOME OF THE PARK'S DOLLARS AND PUT IT TOWARDS LOCAL MOBILITY, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, UM, FROM, SO, UM, AND SO THEN 30 230 MILLION, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY SEPARATE. 
          SO JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT AND SEND OUR EMAILS, DAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          WELL THE POINT IS THAT WE COULD STILL GO AFTER SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS IN TWO YEARS. 
          AND SO WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE ASKED FOR OR WHAT PEOPLE ASK FOR IN OTHER OCCASIONS IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE GOING WITH A SMALLER BUCKET IN 2026, BUT THEY COULD, WE COULD STILL GO FOR MORE THINGS, UH, FOR TRAILS AND PARKS AND WHATNOT AND OTHER FACILITIES IN TWO YEARS. 
          ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON, I I WANNA JUST BRING UP THOUGHTS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE I, I MEAN I DID TAKE WHAT THE COUNCIL, I JUST WANT I, I KIND OF PUT SOME OF THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER. 
          SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, AND I THINK GARY HAS BEEN SAYING THIS AS WELL, AND I THINK WE HEARD THIS. 
          I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING PARKLAND ACQUISITION AT A HUNDRED MILLION WAS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS KIND OF WHAT MAKES THE PARKS PACKAGE WHAT IT IS. 
          LIKE IF WE TAKE 30 MILLION OFF, IT WOULD POTENTIALLY COME OUT OF THAT. 
          THAT'S THE ONE THAT I REALLY PUT IN. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, IF, IF THERE'S GONNA BE A SMALLER BOND, WE KNOW ACQUIRING PARKLAND NOW IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I SELECTED AND KIND OF JUST THROW THOSE NUMBERS OUT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA TALK ABOUT IF ANYONE WANTS TO PLAY AROUND WITH THE NUMBERS, THAT'S JUST KIND OF THAT BIG NUMBER WE WOULD KIND OF NEED TO LEAVE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES. 
          WE WOULDN'T WANNA REDUCE AQUATICS, RIGHT? WE REALLY WANT THAT TO BE 50 MILLION. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP ABOUT WHY THAT NUMBER IS WHAT IT IS. 
          BUT I THINK UP FOR DISCUSSION, ROBERT, I HAVE A A JUST A QUESTION ON, WE'RE DISCUSSING SUB QUORUM TWO TWO, THE ON THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, THE BUILDING IT HAS IS THAT 75 MILLION FOR THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS? YES. 
          AND I THOUGHT IN THE MEMO IT SAYS 250 TO 260 MILLION FOR PARKS PROJECTS, NOT INCLUDING ANY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES. 
          AND AND I MEAN IS THAT MAINTENANCE FACILITY THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INCLUDED IN THAT? OH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I THINK SO. 
          I THINK I DID LEAVE IT IN THERE. 
          I DID. 
          SO THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANT. 
          SO THAT COULD BE MONEY THAT WOULD, THEY STILL WANT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THEY STILL WANT THE YEAH, THAT RICH PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER THAN I DO, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING 
          [00:55:01]
FROM BEING ON THE WORKING GROUP WAS THAT THERE'S DISCUSSION OF MOVE THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY IS THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, BUT 'CAUSE IT'S A WONKY HARD TO DEAL WITH THING, THEY WERE GONNA MOVE THAT TO A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION INSTEAD OF A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. 
          UM, SO THAT MEANS IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THIS SPREADSHEET. 
          YEAH. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULDN'T BE ON THIS THAT IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF SEPARATELY FROM A GENERAL OBLIGATION V VOTE. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TOO. 
          SO DOES THAT MEAN IT'S ZERO OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE ON THERE THAT WAS IN THAT POCKET OF MONEY? THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER NEED IN THAT CATEGORY. 
          I DON'T THINK I WOULD WOULD ZERO IT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, I THINK THE THEN THE BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE 50 45, 50 MILLION, 55 MILLION. 
          YEAH. 
          WHICH IS DOWN HERE. 
          BUT THE NUMBER THAT WE HAD IN THAT CATEGORY WAS NOWHERE NEAR MEETING THE NEED UNDER. 
          YES, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO I, SO IF WE, SO I'M GONNA JUST DO THESE KIND. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT DOWN TO 55, WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO THAT THEN TAKES US DOWN TO 360 2. 
          SO THAT'S 20 MILLION THAT IS NOT, UH, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE NUMBERS LIVE, SO I JUST WANNA JUST TRY TO CATEGORIZE IT. 
          SHOULD WE TAKE IT DOWN 20 MILLION OR 50 MILLION? IF YOU'RE REMOVING THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, YOU REMOVE IT, YOU MAY YOU MOVE IT DOWN A LOT MORE THAN THAT. 
          OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID, I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT 20 MILLION. 
          NO, NO, IT WAS 55. 
          HOWEVER, THANK, SORRY, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REDUCE IT BY 55 BECAUSE WE ONLY CAME TO THAT SMALLER NUMBER FOR MAINTENANCE OF EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THAT ONE BIG ONE WAS LIKE THIS TOP PRIORITY NEED THAT WE COULDN'T AVOID. 
          SO YEAH, BUT THERE WAS, THERE WERE OTHER NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          SO, AND I CAN APPRECIATE IT TODAY. 
          THERE'S A PARK PARKLAND, I MEAN A PARKS BOARD MEETING. 
          AND SO THEY CA THE STAFF HAS PROVIDED RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, LIKE PULLED DOWN FOR THIS $250 MILLION SCENARIO. 
          THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT EVERYBODY'S CORRECT THAT THE, THE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GONNA BE TAKEN CARE OF OR NOT TAKEN CARE OF AT ALL. 
          AND SO NOW THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP, UM, UNDERNEATH THE, LOOKING AT THE PARKS, UH, RECREATION BOARD MEETING. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE COMBINED BUILDING RECREATION AND SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AT A TOTAL OF 65 MILLION. 
          UNDERNEATH THAT IT INCLUDES UH, GUS GARCIA EXPANSION, DORIS MILL AUDITORIUM RENOVATION, WHICH DEFINITELY HAS A LOT OF ISSUES. 
          AND THEN, UM, THE FACILITY REHABIL REHABILITATION AT MAYFIELD. 
          SO THAT HAS IT AS A TOTAL OF 65 MILLION. 
          COULD TAKE IT DOWN. 
          OA HAS IT, YOU KNOW, AROUND 30 MILLION. 
          UM, AND THEN SO THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY. 
          PARKLAND ACQUISITION, I THINK EVERYBODY FEELS REALLY COMFORTABLE LIKE THAT $50 MILLION RANGE IS REALLY KINDA WHAT WE'RE IN THE BEST POSITION, PARTICULARLY EVERYTHING THAT OA HAD TALKED ABOUT. 
          BUT THIS GIVES US THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT LINEAR PARK SYSTEM THAT WE SO BADLY WANT AROUND TOWN LAKE OR A LADY BIRD AS WELL AS UM, DOES RATES SOME FILL IN SOME GAPS FOR THAT WE HAVE FOR POCKET PARKS AND SOME NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. 
          AND THEN, UM, ALSO HAS LAND ACQUISITION FOR A NEW SOUTHEAST RECREATION CENTER IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, SO BE, THAT'D BE PART OF A, A FUTURE BOND. 
          AND THEN JUST RUNNING THROUGH REALLY QUICK, THEY HAD PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR $25 MILLION. 
          SO THIS IS A POINT OF A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD BETWEEN THAT AND THE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE $25 MILLION. 
          IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT OA HAS THEIRS AT 50 MILLION AND THIS IS IN THE PLAY SCAPES, TRAILS, PARKING LOTS, ROADWAYS, ATHLETIC FIELDS, FACILITIES, GOLF FACILITIES, CITY CEMETERIES. 
          AND THEN, UM, A LOT OF PLAY SCAPE REPLACEMENTS INCLUDING THE ONION CREEK ALL ABILITIES, PLAYGROUND, NEW FACILITY AS WELL AS THE PLAYGROUND, UH, REPLACEMENT OVER AT SILVER METRO PARK IN SOME SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND THEN WE GO TO AQUATICS THAT THEY LIST AT 65 MILLION. 
          I CAN, I JUST ASK IF YOU KIND OF GIVE US NU WITH WHAT YOU'RE EXPLAINING, I THINK WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, I ONLY HEARD ONE NUMBER IN THERE. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          COULD 'CAUSE WITH SOME OF YOUR EXPLANATION, ARE YOU SUGGESTING NUMBERS FOR US TO LOOK AT WITH SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION WHAT PARKS IS LOOKING FOR NOW. 
          AND SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST REPRESENTATION OF THIS, WHAT THE PRESENTING TONIGHT. 
          SO I'M HAPPY TO ASSIST WALK THROUGH, UM, HOWEVER, WHATEVER BEST WAY YOU SEE, UM, VICE CHAIR, I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO GO THROUGH EACH CA AT THIS POINT TO GO THROUGH EACH CATEGORY REALLY QUICKLY TO HAVE DISCUSSION AROUND EACH COMPONENT AND TRY TO GET A NUMBER SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF GET TO A NUMBER THAT THIS GROUP IS AGREEING ON. 
          SO WE'RE TAKING, WE ALREADY SAID TOOK 20 MILLION OFF THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENT. 
          BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE NUMBER TO RECOMMEND FOR THIS ONE ORIGINALLY YOU'RE SAYING THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY WAS 55 MILLION AND YOU DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T WANNA DROP IT TO 20 MILLION BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER NEEDS. 
          WHAT'S ANOTHER BASED ON JUST, I MEAN, JUST THE GUT CHECK. 
          SO IF WE INCLUDE, IF WE INCLUDE BILL, WHAT I, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BREAK IT DOWN, BUT IF WE WANTED TO FOLLOW THE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION, WE 
          [01:00:01]
HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AHEAD AND COMBINE BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS ALONG WITH THE SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL OF 65 MILLION, UM, 65 MILLION. 
          SO THERE'S A, WE'LL SAY A $10 MILLION SAVINGS AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. 
          AND THEY'RE HOPING THAT WE WOULD REINSTITUTE THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WE HAD NOT, WE HAD NOT FUNDED PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, BUT GIVEN A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HEARING WHERE, UM, WE HAVE PARKS THAT ARE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT BEING USED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACCESSIBLE, THEY'RE NOT BEING IMPROVED. 
          THERE'S NO PHASE ONE OR NO PHASE TWO THAT WOULD SOLVE A LOT OF THAT ISSUE. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, IF WE ADD PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS BACK INTO THE CATEGORIES, THAT WOULD BE AT 45 MILLION IF WE LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT AND IT'D BE 60 MILLION IF WE TOOK, UM, OAS RECOMMENDATION. 
          HEY RICH, COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR? CAN YOU JUST QUICKLY TELL US WHAT THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS FOR BUILDING RENOVATION AND REPLACEMENTS? WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE REC CENTER? YES. 
          WHAT NUMBER IS THAT TO BUILD? UM, THAT'S 65 MILLION. 
          I'M SORRY, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. 
          65. 
          65 MILLION. 
          OKAY, SO WE'RE TAKING THE, OKAY. 
          AND THEN PARKLAND ACQUISITION, WHAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? 50 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE AQUATICS 65 MILLION. 
          AND THE PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE, 25 MILLION PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT'S. 
          45? CORRECT. 
          AND THEN WE HAD A COLUMN FOR RECREATION AND SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AT 20 MILLION. 
          WE'RE ZEROING THAT OUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADDED IT INTO THE 65 MILLION. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S THOSE NUMBERS. 
          I JUST, I JUST THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO, TO, TO HAVE FRANCIS PUT THOSE NUMBERS UP THERE SO THAT WE CAN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS, BUT WE CAN SEE WHAT, SO WE WOULD BE, I APPRECIATE REDUCING THE PARKLAND ACQUISITION WITH THESE SPREADSHEETS. 
          EMAIL TO US. 
          THEY WERE FROM BY WHO? I'M JUST LOOKING IN MY EMAIL TRYING TO FIND, OKAY, SO THE, UH, NICOLE SENT AN EMAIL WITH 750 MILLION OPTION 1, 2, 3 AND SUB QUORUM OPTION ONE ON THE 20TH, I WANNA SAY AROUND OF APRIL, SUB QUORUM. 
          OPTION TWO HAS NOT BEEN EMAILED. 
          THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED. 
          AND THAT'S HAYDEN'S RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          HAYDEN'S SUGGESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME. 
          BUT THE, SO I'M SORRY. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, CAN YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION AS LISTED HERE IS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT RICH? JUST SORT OF WHAT'S, WHAT'S REC, WHAT'S LISTED THERE IS NOT, WHICH SHE GOT EMAILED ON THE 20TH, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY THERE WAS FRANCIS'S. 
          MM-HMM. 
          NO, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE STAFF LINE THAT'S RIGHT HERE. 
          OH, STAFF LINE BELOW HIM. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK RICH IS TALKING ABOUT A MORE UPDATED DISCUSSION AROUND SOME OF THESE ITEMS. IS THAT CORRECT, RICH? 'CAUSE THE CORRECT, YEAH, CORRECT. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          AND IT'S BASED UPON THAT WHOLE, THE SUB QUORUM, UM, RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? AND SO STAFF HAS PREPARED IT FOR THE PARKS BOARD AND THAT'S WHAT I'M PEELING OFF OF. 
          AND THE LAST THING, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO I'VE ADDED THE NUMBERS BASED ON WHAT MARY GAVE ME. 
          65 50. 
          YOU NEED THIS ONE IN HERE. 
          OH, IT'S 45 FOR IMPROVEMENTS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A COLUMN FOR THAT. 
          THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED AS A COLUMN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS SHOULD BE CALLED PARK. 
          I WAS LIKE, WE'RE MISSING NUMBERS. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT WAS MY QUESTION ACTUALLY. 
           AND THIS TOTAL WOULD BE 250 MILLION. 
          UM, AS FAR AS THE HIGHER CAPITAL PROGRAM, I HAVE 235. 
          SO LET ME MAKE SURE MY NUMBERS ARE CORRECT. 
          I HAVE 65 MILLION UNDER BUILDER RENOVATIONS REPLACEMENT, 50 MILLION UNDER PARKLAND ACQUISITION. 
          MM-HMM . 
          50 MILLION UNDER AQUATICS. 
          THAT UP TO 65 AQUATIC. 
          65 MILLION. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          NO, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          THEN 25 MILLION UNDER PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THEN 45 MILLION? YEAH, IT'S EQUALS TWO 50. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I GET, I GET 2 0 5 FOR THE STAFF NUMBER UNLESS I'M TOTALLY MISSING SOMETHING. 
          SO 60, IT'S UP. 
          SO IT'S 65 MILLION FOR BUILDING RENOVATIONS REPLACEMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          50 MILLION FOR PARKLAND ACQUISITION, 65 MILLION FOR AQUATICS, 25 MILLION FOR PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. 
          AND THEN I JUST ADDED A NEW CATEGORY CALLED PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS 45 MILLION. 
          BECAUSE WE, WE DID NOT, THIS, THE, UH, WORKING GROUP DID NOT INCLUDE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT RICH WAS ADDING. 
          I IS THE SENIOR CENTER COLUMN STILL THERE FOR 20 MILLION? IT'S UH, HE ADDED IT TO THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          I GOT, SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S YEAH, AND THAT'S A PRIORITY 
          [01:05:01]
FOR, UM, THE DEPARTMENT. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY FUNDED, UH, THE WAY THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, THAT'S PART OF IT NOW. 
          THAT'S MORE THAN WHAT WE HAD EARLIER. 
          BUT, UM, SO YEAH. 
          WELL THIS WOULD BE LESS THAN, THIS IS LE SORRY, UM, VICE CHAIR. 
          THIS WOULD BE LESS THAN THE SUB QUORUM REC OPTION RECOMMENDATION. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS THEIR, THEIRS IS BASED UPON COUNCIL'S SUB QUORUM. 
          YEAH. 
          WE ORIGINALLY HAD 2 35 THOUGH WHEN WE SENT IT. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. 
          OH, I HAD TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          I'M LOOKING AT ONE THAT HAD TWO 60 FOR IT. 
          YEAH, THEY DID. 
          THEY DID UP TO TWO 60. 
          I DIDN'T DO TWO 60. 
          I DID 2 35. 
          THAT'S ALL I JUST WANTED TO, NICOLE. 
          UM, I WANTED TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS PROPOSAL TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS ACROSS THOSE LINE ITEMS TO FIND CAPACITY FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          UM, AS WE GOT BACK FROM STAFF, THERE'S SOME TIME CERTAINTY AROUND THE NEED TO HAVE A HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          UM, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS IS ACTUALLY WE HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK. 
          AND SO I FEEL REMISS IN NOT ADVANCING A, A PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES, UM, SOME SET ASIDE AMOUNT, AT LEAST THE 25 MILLION FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGIES OFFICE, UM, WITH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA HAVE JUST CONTINUITY IN SERVICES. 
          I SECOND THAT. 
          WOULD YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON WHERE YOU MIGHT FIND THAT 25? UM, I WOULD S WELL, UH, ACROSS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, I'M LOOKING, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES OF PARKLAND ACQUISITION, UM, AND, AND, AND ANOTHER PART OF CATEGORY TO SEE IF THERE'S, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT MISSION CRITICAL AND THINGS. 
          I DON'T WANNA TO LOSE GROUND IN TERMS OF SERVICE PROVISION WITH THE HOMELESS STRATEGY. 
          AND THAT'S A GREAT NEED THAT'S NOW, AS OPPOSED TO PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE. 
          AND SO I WOULD MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT THERE IF WE TOOK 5 MILLION OFF OF EACH OF THOSE FIVE BUCKETS THAT WE, THAT RICH JUST LAID OUT, THAT WOULD GET US TO 25 FOR THAT. 
          THAT'S AN IDEA. 
          OH, THAT'S AN IDEA. 
          THANK YOU MA'AM. 
          HEY, UH, , SORRY. 
          I GUESS I'M, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE THERE COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED AND I MEAN WE'VE ADDED, I THINK WE HAD NOTHING FOR PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT? SO THERE IS 45 MILLION. 
          THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE WAS 50, RIGHT? NO, 20. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO DO 25 MILLION BASED ON THE LAST TWO MEETINGS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED THE FULL 50 MILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE IS THAT, THAT THEY DON'T, I WASN'T HAVE THE IMPRESSION THEY NEEDED 50 MILLION, BUT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DEAL WITH 25 MILLION. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. 
          THAT. 
          SO IT IS A CUT TO, SO THEY NEED 50 MILLION. 
          THE NEED IS 50 MILLION AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          BUT STAFF CAN CLARIFY THAT. 
          BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S 50 MILLION. 
          I MEAN THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD ALL ALONG, BUT WE CAN BE UTILIZED AT WITH 25. 
          BUT I GUESS I'M SAYING WE HAVE 45 HERE THAT WE'RE ADDING THAT WE'RE NOT PRIORITY SPENDING IN THIS CATEGORY. 
          LIKE I WOULD SUGGEST, I WOULD SUGGEST WE FUND THE HOMELESS STRATEGIES OFFICE A GET OUT OF THE CATEGORY. 
          THAT WAS NOT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY, MEANING THE WORKING GROUP DID NOT HAVE THAT AMOUNT. 
          SO THE ID, THE IDEA IS TO USE THAT AMOUNT RATHER THAN OKAY. 
          ANY, UH, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND UP. 
          UH, I WAS GONNA OFFER SOMETHING A A LITTLE MORE BLUNT, A LITTLE LESS, UH, ARTFUL AS THEY JUST DISCUSSED. 
          UM, BUT I MIGHT AS WELL TIP MY HAND NOW. 
          I WAS ENJOYING OUR CONVERSATION ON PARKS AND THEN I WANTED TO KEEP ON GOING DOWN AND DO FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION AND THEN I WAS GONNA LAY ON THE TABLE, SAY, HEY, I WANNA DO HOUSING AND I WANT TO DO THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          CAN WE DO A HUNDRED FOR HOUSING? AND CAN WE DO 50 ON TOP OF THAT AND KIND OF HAVE A SUB QUORUM PLUS THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEEPLY FELT NEEDS. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA PROPOSE. 
          SO LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO DERAIL US WORKING SPREADSHEET 'CAUSE I'M ENJOYING THIS AND I THINK IT'S GOOD WORK . 
          UM, AS, AS TO UM, THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, I THINK WHAT RICH IS GETTING TO AT IS THE CITY OWNS LAND AND WE'RE TRYING TO UNLOCK THAT LAND THAT WE'VE ALREADY BOUGHT IN PREVIOUS BONDS MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. 
          UM, AND HAVE THAT PHASE ONE, HAVE THAT PHASE TWO POSSIBLY EVEN THAT MAKES US LIKE UTILIZING THINGS WE ALREADY OWN. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DRIVE OF THAT PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT IS. 
          BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF THE HOUSING AND THE HOMELESS STRATEGY, IF WE WANNA ADD THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING, I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE. 
          I THINK HOUSING IS WHY WE STILL WANNA PASS THE SEVEN 50. 
          'CAUSE I THINK ANYTHING ABOVE OUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE STILL WANNA PASS IT. 
          'CAUSE WE STILL WANNA SAY WE WANT THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR HOUSING. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO ADD HOUSING TO THE SUB QUORUM OPTION PER SE. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO PUT FORTH THE SEVEN 50 OPTION AND A SUB QUO. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA BLUNTLY SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO WHAT THE SUB QUORUM SAID IN THOSE, THOSE RANGES TWO 50 TO TWO 60 FOR PARKS, 50 TO 60 FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND 75 TO 80 MILLION FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND ADDED IN 
          [01:10:01]
A HUNDRED AND 150, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED HOUSING, 50 HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE, THAT GETS US AT FIVE 50. 
          UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, WHERE I WAS DRIVING AT DAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          WELL THE THING IS THAT, UM, THE HOUSING HAS 160 MILLION THAT CAN BE SPENT OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. 
          SO IT'S NOT REALLY AS IN AS CRITICAL AS SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS. 
          AND THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE, UM, WE DECIDED TO PUT THAT IN THE FACILITIES BECAUSE IT IS A FACILITY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE IN AS AS, AND HOUSING ISN'T, AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DID SEND STAFF AN ANGRY EMAIL EARLIER TODAY THAT THERE WAS NOT HOUSING IN THIS. 
          BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS BECAUSE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SMALLER BUCKET. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S ALL I GUESS I WAS SAYING IS I THINK WE WANT TO GET A SUB QUORUM OPTION WITH THE SMALLER BUCKETS, BUT WE WOULD STILL BE PUTTING OUT A RECOMMENDATION FOR HOUSING, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING. 
          AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS ADDING THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE TO THE SUB QUORUM THAT WOULD FIT INTO THE 385 MILLION, WHICH I THINK IS FINE IF THAT'S WHAT WE AGREE. 
          AND I DON'T THINK 3 85 IS A HARD NUMBER, RIGHT? LIKE NO, IT'S NOT BE, I'VE HEARD LIKE 50 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WANT ME CALL ON LUKE? SORRY, MY EYES SAID TERRIBLE. 
          SO, UM, WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE SOMETHING FOR PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT OR NOT. 
          I THINK IT WOULD HELP IF THE GREEN AND THE RED WERE LIKE LIGHTER NOR MUTED SHADES. 
          IT'S REALLY HARD TO READ. 
          YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WE, WE STARTED OUT WITH RICH'S DESCRIPTION OF THE BUCKETS THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE AND PART OF THAT IS PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS AT 45 MILLION, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION. 
          I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS TAKING THAT 45 MILLION. 
          I SEE. 
          AND, AND PUTTING IT IN A HOUSING STRATEGY OFFICE BUCKET ON THE SUB QUORUM, THE SMALLER VERSION. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO I WOULD, UM, I THINK WE NEED MONEY FOR PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE, UM, AS UH, TEDS TESTIFIED, YOU KNOW, THAT AUSTIN CURRENT ARTICLE, UM, HIGHLIGHTED JUST HOW MUCH LAND IS OUT THERE THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A LOT OF, UM, UH, PEOPLE UPSET ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, AS HE WARNED AND I THINK SOMETHING, A WARNING WE SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY, THE WHOLE BOND PACKAGE, YOU KNOW, COULD BE IN JEOPARDY IF WE'RE NOT DEMONSTRATING TO VOTERS THAT WE'RE OPENING UP THE PARKLAND THAT THEY'VE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FUNDING FOR. 
          UM, SO, UH, I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT, UM, YOU KNOW, FUNDING FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          UM, I THINK BEN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE SUGGESTING BASICALLY, UH, HAVING ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON TOP OF, UM, THIS THE KIND OF THE AMOUNT IDENTIFIED BY SUB THE SUB QUORUM, WHICH, UM, I THINK I, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO AS OPPOSED TO TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT TO FUND IT. 
          ANY OTHER, I ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IDEA OF MOVING THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT MONEY TOWARDS THE HOUSING STRATEGY OFFICE? I THINK THERE WAS ALSO THE SUGGESTION THAT WE TAKE MAYBE 5 MILLION OFF OF EACH OF THE PARK CATEGORIES IN LIEU OF TAKING IT ALL FROM PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE 25 MILLION THAT WE WERE HOPING TO GIVE TO HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          OBVIOUSLY THEY WANT MORE, BUT THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY I'D RECOMMEND GOING WITH THE FIVE OFF AND NOT REMOVING ALL THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT FUNDING AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. 
          UM, JUST TRIMMING IT FROM THE OTHERS AND THE STRATEGY OFFICE, UH, SEEMS, UH, TO HAVE A, A STRATEGIC NEED FOR IT THAT IS OF HIGH LEVEL OF URGENCY. 
          I WILL, AND I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR 'EM, BUT I BELIEVE SINCE I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION A MOMENT AGO, UH, BEN WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE HOUSING STRATEGY MONEY OR HOUSING MONEY FROM PARKS AND OTHER PLACE. 
          HE WAS SAYING ADDING ON TO IT. 
          UM, SO MAKING IT MORE OF A 500 MILLION THAN A, THAN A WHATEVER THIS IS THREE 50 SOMETHING THAT THREE 80 I THREE. 
          SURE. 
          I I THINK THESE ARE ALL PRETTY, I I'LL, I'LL BE HONEST, I FEEL LIKE WHERE COUNCIL'S COMING FROM IS, IS, IS A LITTLE ARBITRARY AT THIS POINT. 
          SO I THINK BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, I I THINK GOING FOR 500 IS FINE, BUT IF WE, IF WE JUST STICK TO THE SUB QUORUM GUIDANCE, THEN I WOULD, I WOULD SECOND THE ORIGINAL SUGGESTION TO FIND SOME FUNDING FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          SO I JUST REDID THE NUMBERS HERE. 
          UM, AND IT'S NOT THAT, I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T DO A 500 AND OPTION. 
          I THINK THE IDEA IS WE JUST KIND OF WANNA APPROVE A SUB QUORUM AND THEN FINALIZE THE, WE CAN DO A 500 OPTION IF WE WANT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW USEFUL THAT IS FOR US TO DO IT. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, CHARLES, IF YOU DO A 500, YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO ANOTHER BOND ISSUE IN TWO YEARS. 
          DO WE REALLY THINK THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER ONE IN TWO YEARS ANYWAY? I DON'T, I DO. 
          I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO LIMIT IT SO THAT THERE, 
          [01:15:01]
YOU CAN, YOU AT LEAST HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING A LARGER BOND ISSUE IN TWO YEARS, BUT IF YOU INCREASE THAT FIRST BOND BOND ELECTION, THEN IT PASSES. 
          YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SELL THOSE BONDS AND BE READY FOR ANOTHER BOND ELECTION IN TWO YEARS. 
          NOT AT 500 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE TAKE A LOOK AT FACILITIES AND ASSETS NEXT? WE, WE WORKED THROUGH THAT. 
          PARKS DID. 
          I MEAN, WE DIDN'T VOTE ON, WE'RE NOT VOTING, WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING AND MORE IDEAS. 
          NOT SURE THAT THE NUMBERS CHANGED. 
          WELL, THEY CAN KEEP CHANGING. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS, THIS IS JUST, UH, I I THINK I'M MAKING NOTES. 
          FRANCIS IS MAKING NOTES. 
          WE, NOTHING'S SET IN STONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF WHERE WE'RE HEADING. 
          IT'S JUST FRANCIS. 
          IT'S, IT'S A CURRENT DISCUSSION OKAY. 
          WHERE WE, WHERE WE AND WE MAKE CHANGES BEFORE WE MAKE ANY VOTES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, BUT I WANNA HEAR ON THIS SUB QUORUM CONCEPT, IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FACILITIES AND ASSETS AND TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRIFICATION. 
          I MEAN, I, AND I CAN JUST PUT THIS IN HERE. 
          I MEAN, I, I JUST KIND OF WAS TYING INTO WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS' NUMBERS AND I THOUGHT I, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THE HEALTH CENTER STUFF THAT WE'VE HEARD. 
          AND I THINK THOSE DEPARTMENTS SEEMS TO BE EFFECTIVE AND ALL. 
          WE ALREADY HAD, WE WERE GONNA HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE M AND O ANYWAY, SO I THOUGHT THESE WERE, BUT IF WE WANNA ADJUST THIS, I THINK, BUT IF, I THINK IF WE FEEL GOOD WITH THIS, I, I THINK IT MIGHT BE WORTH TO GO TO THE NEXT SECTION. 
          SO, SO ARE WE ADDING THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE TO THIS SECTION? I DID. 
          I THE NUMBER I CAN CHANGE THIS COLOR SO IT'S CLEAR YOU ADDED IT AT 25 MILLION. 
          I DID. 
          RIGHT. 
          CAN WE ADD THAT AT 50? SINCE THAT'S WHAT THEY ACTUALLY NEED. 
          SEE I THOUGHT THIS WAS ALL GONNA GO THROUGH C THOUGH. 
          I MEAN, AND THEN WE WERE LOOKING LAST TIME I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA FUND THE STUDY, UM, RIGHT. 
          WAS 25 MILLION. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT 25. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I THINK IS THAT'S NOT STUDY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I THINK IF THERE'S MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN 25 MILLION, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSENSUS AROUND 25 MILLION. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION HERE. 
          DO WE WANNA FUND THE HOMELESS STRATEGY? ARE THERE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN, UH, FUNDING THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE AT 50 MILLION VERSUS THE 25 MILLION, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS? 50 MILLION? THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL THE POINT IS IT'S GONNA DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF BEDS MM-HMM . 
          AND THEY ALREADY, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE CAN DO. 
          SO I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DO 50 MILLION FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          YEAH, NICOLE, I WOULD AGREE. 
          AND ALSO IF, IF STAFF IS STAFF HERE TO CLARIFY, CAN WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH 25 VERSUS THE 50 MILLION? SHALL WE, SHELLY? THANK YOU. 
          I'LL ADD, I REALLY LIKE THE EMAIL RESPONSE THAT WE GOT THAT DISCUSSED IT. 
          HI, I'M SHELLY . 
          I'M WITH AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES. 
          I'M NOT WITH THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE, BUT I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM. 
          UM, SO HOPEFULLY I CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION ADEQUATELY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ALWAYS THE MORE THE BETTER FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS. 
          UM, I THINK AN EARLY SIGN OF COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY TO THIS WOULD HELP WITH THEIR FUNDRAISING AS WELL. 
          UM, I, SORRY, I'M JUST BLANKING. 
          , WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT? WHAT CAN THEY DO WITH 25? YEAH, WHAT CAN THEY DO WITH THE 25? UM, I THINK IF A SMALLER AMOUNT OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, IF WE WERE TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP BOND ELECTION 2028, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THE CONCEPT FURTHER ALONG, BUY LAND IF WE NEED TO DO OUR DESIGN, DO OUR FUNDRAISING, AND IF THERE WAS A GAP, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ALSO PUT A SMALL AMOUNT ON A 28 BOND. 
          SO THAT'S HAVING SOMETHING SOONER IN THIS ONE IS IT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. 
          AND IF WE COULD GET 50 IN THIS ONE, WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO THE WHOLE PROJECT AND BE IN CONSTRUCTION. 
          YOU KNOW, SO THE NEED IS REALLY AROUND 50 MILLION. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THEN I THINK WE SHOULD INCLUDE IT AT 50 MILLION. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I'LL, I'LL SUPPORT 50 MILLION BOTH FOR THE MATH REASONS, YOU KNOW, AND THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT EMAILED TALKING ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, NEW SHELTER CAMPUS THAT WOULD HAVE 1,090 ADULT BEDS CLOSING SYSTEM GAP THAT NEEDS 500 AND REPLACING LOSS OF THE ARCH EIGHTH STREET MARSHAL YARDS. 
          UH, AND AND ALSO, I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST, HOW CAN I SHOW MY FACE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IF I'M ADVOCATING SPENDING MONEY ON RECREATION STUFF THAT I'M GONNA USE AND NOT HOUSING, UH, OR NOT HOMELESS SHELTERS AT A POINT WHERE IN OUR CITY WHERE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO, WE TELL 'EM TO SHUFFLE ALONG AND KICK 'EM OUT OF THE LIBRARY OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO LAND. 
          UM, I THINK THAT ALSO RELIEVES A PRESSURE ON FACILITIES THAT WE ALL PAY FOR AND PEOPLE WANT TO USE, BUT SOMETIMES FEEL HESITANT BECAUSE THEY'RE UNHOUSED PEOPLE THERE. 
          SO LIKE, I THINK THIS IS ALSO MUCH LIKE OUR, OUR, UH, 
          [01:20:01]
OUR DISCUSSION ON THE PARKS, LIKE UNLOCKING THINGS THAT WE ALREADY OWN. 
          THIS IS GONNA HELP US DO THAT. 
          YES, ANA, I I HAVE A COMMENT, UM, REGARDING HOMELESSNESS IN REGARDS TO WHERE WOULD THIS FACILITY GO? UM, BECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT I HEARD EARLIER WAS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. 
          WELL, THE RESOURCES ARE DOWNTOWN AND IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT A HOMELESS FACILITY IN AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERSERVED, WHICH USUALLY ENDS, ENDS UP HAPPENING, THEN THOSE POPULATIONS ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO BE VULNERABLE AND ADD TO THE BURDEN THE CURRENT IN ALREADY THOSE SUBER UNDERSERVED AREAS THAT ARE GONNA BECOME VULNERABLE EVEN MORE SO. 
          SO THE CHALLENGE THAT I HAVE HERE IS WHERE'S THE SOCIAL JUSTICE, WHERE YOU'RE GONNA PUT THESE PEOPLE AT AND WHERE'S THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THOSE UNDERSERVED AREAS WHERE THESE HOMELESS, UH, YOU KNOW, FACILITIES END UP AT BECAUSE IT'S LAND IS CHEAPER, WHATEVER THE SITUATION MAY BE. 
          BUT WE NEED TO BALANCE THIS. 
          THE RESOURCES ARE DOWNTOWN AND I WORRY WHEN IT'S COMMENTS ARE MADE ABOUT OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, BECAUSE I KNOW SUBTLY WHAT THAT MEANS, WHAT THAT TRANSLATES TO. 
          AND IT IS NOT GOOD. 
          I'M IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING, BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO BE SETTING THEM UP AND PUTTING THEM IN AREAS WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE UNDERSERVED BECAUSE THEY RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED ARE NOT GONNA BE THERE. 
          SO I WANT IT, IT NEEDS TO BE BALANCED. 
          WE NEED TO BE INFORMED, WE NEED TO BE FAIR TO BOTH POPULATIONS, THOSE WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE, THAT NEED THE SERVICE AND WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE PUT. 
          BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, I ALREADY KNOW ARE GONNA BE UNDERSERVED. 
          I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN AND IT'S HAPPENED IN OUR AREA. 
          LOOK AT WHERE THE LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC RENT RENTAL PLACES ARE AT. 
          EVERYTHING GETS PUSHED OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE AND OUTSIDE. 
          AND THERE'S NO RECREATION, THERE'S NO PARKS, THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE. 
          SO IT'S NOT RIGHT TO MOVE IT OUT OF DOWNTOWN WHEN THE SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? I WHAT I, IF I'M A, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I WISH THIS GROUP HAD MORE INPUT ON THAT DECISION. 
          UM, IF I'M FOLLOWING THE BOUNCING BALL, THERE'S $25 MILLION OVER WHAT THE SUB QUORUM, YOU KNOW, I THINK HAD, WE CAN ALWAYS DO A SUB QUORUM OPTION THAT'S JUST 25 MILLION MORE, OR SOMEONE CAN SUGGEST A WAY TO CARVE 25 MILLION MORE OFF OF ANOTHER CATEGORY. 
          AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF PEOPLE ONLINE. 
          IF SOMEONE'S GOT THEIR HAND UP, PLEASE HELP ME. 
          RACHEL. 
          WHO? RACHEL. 
          OKAY. 
          RACHEL. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT THE, YOU KNOW, DOING THE MONEY FOR THE, THE HOMELESS SERVICES. 
          I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT SOUNDED VERY NECESSARY, SO THANK YOU. 
          I THINK IF WE COULD, OH, I'M NOT ON. 
          IF WE POTENTIALLY WANTED TO, IS THERE ANYWHERE IN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LIKE THAT HAS, IF WE WANTED TO SHAVE OFF A LITTLE BIT MORE IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES? I MEAN, BACK TO THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          I MEAN, I THINK YEAH, THAT WAS THE ONE THAT THE WORKING GROUP AGAIN DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ON THE LIST. 
          SO IF YOU MOVED THAT TO 2015, IT TOOK THE 25 OFF OF THERE OR 15. 
          YOU NEED 25 THOUGH, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO IF YOU TOOK, IF YOU MOVED THAT TO 20, I'M JUST COMING UP IDEAS NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU'D GET THE THREE 50, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          THE SUBOR REQUEST WAS ARRANGED THOUGH. 
          COULD WE, COULD WE GO WITH THE 25 THAT WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF GIVEN A HAIRCUT TO THESE PROJECTS AND THEN JUST ADD 25 RATHER THAN TRYING TO CUT MORE? YEAH, NO, THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE RANGE? SORRY, I'M NOT, I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          UM, I DUNNO. 
          I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. 
          SOMEONE COULD LOOK THAT UP REALLY QUICK. 
          I CAN, AND I'LL JUST ADD IT HERE. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER, I HAVEN'T JUST THERE THE POST SAYS 250 TO 260. 
          IT'S NOT A BIG RANGE FOR PARKS PROJECTS, NOT INCLUDING MAINTENANCE FACILITIES. 
          WHAT'S THE WHOLE IT WAS THE WHOLE, THE 2,400, UPPER 400 BE UPPER END. 
          OH, 400. 
          YEAH. 
          2 60, 60 AND 80. 
          YEP. 
          KEPT CHECK MY MATH, BUT I THINK THAT'S FINE. 
          SAID SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          402 6 UPPER ENDS. 
          2 60, 60 AND 80. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO 400 MILLION IS THE TOP OF THE RANGE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEN THAT STILL HAS US, 'CAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY AT 3 77 AND THAT'S WITH THE 50. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, COULD WE PUT THE, SOME OF THE 45 MILLION BACK INTO PARKS AND REC? I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE PARKLAND AT 50 ACQUISITION. 
          CAN WE 
          [01:25:01]
WAIT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH TRANSPORTATION TO DO THAT? I WANNA ADD MORE TO TRANSPORTATION. 
          YEAH, SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY DISCUSSION ON FACILITIES AND ASSETS? WHAT DID I DO? UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TALKED TO THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          OKAY. 
          TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION, SUB QUORUM. 
          TWO FOR A TOTAL OF 77 MILLION. 
          ANYBODY WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT ONE? I KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE IF WE CAN. 
          I KNOW WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION. 
          I KNOW THERE WERE A COUPLE PROPOSALS WHERE WE HAD IT AT 6,000 AND 12,000. 
          NOTHING MAJOR, BUT I THINK MILLION, RIGHT? SORRY, . 
          I MEAN SADLY 6,000 WON'T GET YOU MUCH. 
          I WAS EVEN, I, BECAUSE I KNOW I GOT THIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          I KNOW WE HAD IT 77, BUT EVEN IF WE MADE THAT THREE MORE THOUSAND, IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 80,000, WHICH I THINK WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I JUST THINK, EVIE, THAT WAS ONE THING I WAS THINKING WE COULD AT LEAST MAKE THAT AT THREE MORE MILLION FOR IT TO BE 6 MILLION, WHICH IS I THINK WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL OPTION. 
          SO THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST. 
          ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS ON THOSE ITEMS? TRANSPORTATION? WELL, I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY IN CASE SOMEBODY DIDN'T SEE MY EMAIL, MY INTENTION WAS NOT TO  COME UP WITH A BOND BY MYSELF, BUT WHEN I SAW THE SPREADSHEET AND SAW ALL THESE PROGRAMS THAT WE'D SPENT MONTHS AND MONTHS TALKING ABOUT, UM, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE HAD THE MONEY THAT ARE ALLOCATED ACROSS THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE SPENT THE LAST 18 OR 20 MONTHS TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY ONLY GOAL WAS TO TAKE, WE HAD DONE SIX DIFFERENT PACKAGES, I THINK. 
          AND SO I JUST TOOK ALL THOSE DIFFERENT PACKAGES AND DIVIDED THEM BY SIX, ASSUMING THEY WERE SIX YEAR PACKAGES TO SEE WHAT THE ANNUAL WAS AND THEN MULTIPLY 'EM BY TWO TO, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE, WHAT A TWO YEAR PACKAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE BASED ON ALL OUR DISCUSSIONS. 
          THANKS, HAYDEN. 
          I GUESS WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY SOME OF THESE SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE CUT IN HALF AND OTHERS WEREN'T. 
          YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM. 
          I, I SENT A LINK. 
          I DID IT IN A GOOGLE SHEET AND I SENT A LINK THAT HAS EVERY SINGLE PACKAGE. 
          WOULD YOU MIND RESENDING? I GUESS I JUST, SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          LET ME LOOK FOR IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION BUCKETS? ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, I, I DEFINITELY SUPPORT INCREASING THE, THE EV CHARGING. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THE 6 MILLION AS WE'RE SEEING FROM THE INFORMATION WE'RE PROVIDED TODAY IS NOT, DOES NOT MEET THE NEED. 
          AND THIS IS BY FAR OUR MOST COST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR REDUCING NOT JUST GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, BUT AL ALSO LOCAL AIR POLLUTION. 
          UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE US TO PUT MORE INTO THAT. 
          UM, AND, AND I KNOW, UM, OH, GO AHEAD. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU. 
          NO, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          SO IN THE INTEREST OF, I JUST WANNA LAY OUT AN OPTION, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO, THIS IS A GOOD, IT'S, IT'S THREE 30 AND I DO THINK WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THE SEVEN 50 OPTION. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE CAN'T VOTE ON THIS AS A OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IN THE SENSE OF LIKE, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON A IDEA. 
          WE COULD KIND OF SAY YES TO WHERE THIS IS RIGHT NOW. 
          WE COULD SLEEP ON IT. 
          WE HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK BECAUSE I THINK IDEALLY NEXT WEEK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE SUB QUORUM OPTION AND VOTE ON THE SEVEN 50. 
          IT MIGHT BE GOOD JUST TO STOP HERE WITH THIS AND COLLECT THOUGHTS. 
          I THINK IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS, IT'S GOOD TO SEND THEM AROUND TO THE GROUP LIKE HAYDEN DID. 
          I MEAN, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE NEED TO BE SHARING THOUGHTS IN BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND NEXT MEETING. 
          AND SO I'M SUGGESTING THIS DO YOU STOP? GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, REAL QUICK WHILE YOU'RE TALKING, COULD YOU ZOOM OUT SO I CAN SEE WHAT, WHERE WE'RE AT ON THE TOTAL NUMBERS? SO 205 MILLION CAN YOU ON THE SCREEN, CAN YOU MAKE IT SMALLER SO WE CAN SEE THE TOTAL DOWN HERE ON THE BOTTOM GRAND TOTAL? THE GRAND TOTAL IS 380. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? ZEKI? ARE WE GONNA BUMP THAT TO 400 MILLION? WE CAN. 
          YOU MIGHT AS WELL. 
          THEY GAVE US THAT LEEWAY. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE US TO THEN CONSIDER PUTTING THE 13 MILLION THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE HEAVY DUTY ELECTRIFICATION IN THIS TIME PERIOD. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I'D RATHER GO BACK, HAVE SPACE FOR THAT SINCE WE'VE BEEN TASKED FOR SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS UNDERNEATH THE SUB QUORUM ONE, I'D RATHER KEEP THE MONEY IN PARKS AND REC. 
          I AGREE. 
          ALREADY EXPANDED OUTSIDE OF THAT SCOPE. 
          I, THAT'S WHY YEAH, I THINK LET'S PUT THE 20, THE FIFTH, THE 25 BACK. 
          AND SO WE COULD PUT 50, THE PARKLAND BACK TO 50, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD PUT MORE AN AQUATICS. 
          WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY WE CAN PUT THE AQUATICS BACK TO 65, WHICH IS WHAT BRIDGE HAD TOLD US. 
          SO PUTTING THE 
          [01:30:01]
PARK LANE AND THE AQUATICS BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND SO THAT LEAVES US WITH STILL 10 MILLION LEFT. 
          WE COULD PUT THAT BACK TOWARDS THE PARK LANE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          I, I WOULD GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OR A, UM, YEAH, OP AUSTIN OUTSIDE THE RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD PUT IT THE REST TO THAT. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE NOT COMPANY, WE'RE CLOSE TO THAT RECOMMENDATION AND IT'LL BE A MAJOR PART OF ANY EFFORT. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARK LANE IMPROVEMENTS? YEAH, YOU'RE YEAH, YEAH. 
          PLACED THERE. 
          PUT US RIGHT AT 400. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT PUT US RIGHT AT 400 WITH THE BIRTH CATEGORY. 
          WAS THAT MERGING TWO CATEGORIES? YES. 
          YES. 
          WHAT CAN, CAN SOMEBODY SAY AGAIN WHAT THAT INCLUDES NOW? 'CAUSE IF A BIG CHUNK OF THAT IS FOR A BUILDING IS THAT, YEAH, IT WAS THE SENIOR CENTERS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT GUS GARCIA. 
          DORIS MILLER, AUDITORY RENOVATION, UM, RENO REHABILITATION, THE MAYFIELD PARK FACILITY ARE THE PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE LISTED OUT AS WELL AS, UM, SAFETY AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN A DA AND THAT CAME TO HOW MUCH? 65 IS WHAT? 65? YEAH, BUT WE'VE GOT 60 PRESENTED. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE WE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHER NEEDS THAT WEREN'T ON THAT LIST, THAT WERE PERHAPS SMALLER LIKE RESTROOM FACILITIES AND THAT KIND OF STUFF AT PARKS. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE STILL UNDER BUDGETING IN THAT CATEGORY FOR EXISTING PARKS, WHICH WE HEAR ALSO FROM PEOPLE A LOT. 
          THAT MAINTENANCE WITH THIS OPTION, IT GETS US TO FOUR MIL, 400 MILLION, UM, WITH 225 IN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. 
          THAT'S 60 MILLION IN BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS. 
          50 MILLION IN PARKLAND, 65 IN AQUATICS, 20 MILLION IN PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE AND 30 IN PARKLAND. 
          IMPROVEMENTS IN FACILITIES AND ASSETS THAT ALLOWS US TO HAVE 42 MILLION FOR THE COLONY PARK HEALTH CENTER, 3 MILLION FOR THE ANIMAL SERVICE CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND THEN 50 MILLION FOR THE HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE. 
          AND THEN THE TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, IT'S AT 80 MILLION AND NEW SIDEWALKS, 30 MILLION VISION ZERO, 16 SAFE ROUTES, 8 MILLION URBAN TRAILS, 8 MILLION BIKE WAYS PROGRAM, 9 MILLION TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, 3 MILLION, AND THEN EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 6 MILLION. 
          AND SO IF WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT JUST THIS BEING AN OPTION RIGHT NOW TO MOVE TO THE SEVEN 50 MILLION DISCUSSION. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          WELL, UM, THE SUB CORPS HAD SUGGESTED WHAT, 50 TO 60 FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WE ARE ONLY AT 45. 
          UM, SO I, I'D LOVE TO GET SOME MONEY FOR THE CARVER, UM, LIBRARY IF WE'RE ABLE TO INCLUDE, WE'RE AT THE $400 MILLION MAX OF WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. 
          THAT'S WHY WE, WE WERE, SO WE WERE SAYING YOU WERE ADDING ANOTHER WELL, AND THEN MAYBE WE'D IN ORDER WE'D FOLLOW THE SUB QUORUM RECOMMENDATIONS OF TWO 50 TO TWO 60 FOR PARK, 75 TO 80 FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND THEN FOLLOW THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES BECAUSE WE DON'T, THEY, THEY SUGGEST LIBRARIES AND CULTURAL ARTS, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY IN FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          YES. 
          BUT I THINK WE'RE, I I MEAN I THINK THIS IS A DISCUSSION FOR GROUP. 
          I THINK THE, HE, I MEAN WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH FOR FACILITIES AND ASSETS AND I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN DO A LIBRARY, BUT I THINK A HEALTH CENTER, RIGHT. 
          AND ALSO WE COULD PREPARE FOR A LIBRARY LATER WHEN WE DO THE COLONY PARK HEALTH CENTER. 
          NO, I'M, I'M SORRY, I I SHOULD HAVE SAID CARVER VIEW MUSEUM, NOT LIBRARY. 
          OH, I'M SORRY, YEAH. 
          COLONY PARK. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I MEAN THIS IS JUST, I MEAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT WHAT, LIKE VINCE SAID EARLIER, I CAN'T IMAGINE RECOMMEND, I MEAN, I LOVE MY LOCAL LIBRARY, BUT IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A HEALTH CENTER FOR A COMMUNITY ON THE EAST SIDE AND A LIBRARY, I WOULD GLADLY PURSUE A HEALTH CENTER. 
          THAT'S JUST WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE AS A GROUP. 
          THAT'S MY WELL, YEAH, BUT WE'RE RECOMMENDING BUILDING OUT NEW PARKS INSTEAD OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO, I MEAN, I HEAR YOU. 
          I THINK THERE'S NO NEW PARKS. 
          THAT'S PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          THAT'S EXISTING PARK LAND, BUT NOW GETS IMPROVED IN DUAL PARK, WHICH THE WORKING GROUPS DID NOT HAVE ANY. 
          THAT WORKING GROUP HAD A ZERO FOR THAT. 
          JUST AS A REMINDER, BEN, MINE'S GONNA BE SPICY. 
          SO GO AHEAD. 
          , HAYDEN, YOU CAN BE SPICY. 
          THIS IS THE TIME. 
          I'M NOT GONNA BE SPICY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT ON THIS SHEET THAT THEY HANDED IT TO US ABOUT COLONY PARK ON THE BACK, THEIR COSTS AND THERE'S, THERE'S A REALLY SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS IN BUILDING THE LIBRARY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND DAYCARE ALL AT ONE TIME. 
          I KNOW WE'RE OUTTA MONEY. 
          I I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THAT. 
          I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT, THAT THAT'S A REALLY CREATIVE SOLUTION AND IT FEELS LIKE KIND, MAYBE A MISSED OPPORTUNITY IF WE DON'T AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT WE PROVIDED THIS. 
          I THINK THE THING IS WE DON'T HAVE THE, I THINK IT WAS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CALLING PARK NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER. 
          WE HAVE THE TWO, WE HAVE THE TWO NUMBERS FOR THEM SEPARATE, RIGHT, 42 MILLION 
          [01:35:01]
FOR THE HEALTH CENTER AND THEN IT'S 58 MILLION FOR THE LIBRARY. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? LIBRARY LINES IS 54 54 HEALTH CENTER AND DAYCARE TOGETHER ARE 42. 
          LIBRARY HEALTHCARE, DAYCARE IN TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS IS 92. 
          BUT LIBRARY HEALTH, A PHI DON'T HAVE THAT. 
          PUBLIC HEALTH DAYCARE IN ONE BUILDING IS 85. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY A SAVINGS OF AN 11 MILLION. 
          I'M, I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND WE JUST MADE UP A NUMBER. 
          WE ASKED, WE ASKED STAFF TO GET BACK WITH US ON THE POSSIBLE SAVINGS FROM COMBINING COLONY PUBLIC HEALTH AS WELL AS THE LIBRARY. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WE HEARD FUNDAMENTALLY FROM STAFF, A NUMBER FROM STAFF. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, AND SO WE NEVER REALLY MOVED, BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALES IN TERMS OF SAVINGS IN BUILDING THE PROJECT ON THE SAME SITE. 
          SO I THINK THAT STAFF MIGHT BE HERE IF WE WANTED TO ASK. 
          IS STAFF AWARE? OKAY, GOOD. 
          HELLO EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS PHILIPPE ICHAN. 
          I'M WITH AUSTIN PABLO HEALTH. 
          I'M A FACILITIES PLANNING MANAGER. 
          FIRST THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT. 
          LIKE THIS. 
          YOU GUYS ARE DOING AMAZING. 
          UH, IT IS CORRECT, WHICH YOU SAID WE GOT THESE ESTIMATES FROM CAPITAL SERVICE DELIVERY TO PROJECT MANAGERS. 
          UH, THEY BUILD HALF OF THE THINGS IN THE CITY OF OUR LAST 30 PLUS YEARS. 
          SO WE TRUST THEIR JUDGMENT. 
          UH, SEPARATELY, UH, HOW DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL IS 42 MILLION. 
          UH, IT WOULD INCLUDE CHILDCARE CENTER AND ALL FIVE SERVICES THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER. 
          UH, BUT ALSO A LAND PURCHASE OF $8 MILLION, UH, COMBINED WITH THE LIBRARY CHILDCARE CENTER THAT'S NOW UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, AND AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE JUST IN ONE FOOTPRINT. 
          ONE BUILDING IS 85 MILLION. 
          SO THAT IS THE, ON THE GIVEN SITE. 
          SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO USE THE FUNDING FOR PURCHASING THE SITE. 
          WE WOULD USE THE EXISTING FUNDING. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, HOW WELL YOU DO THE PLANNING, UM, WHERE YOU DO THE FUTURE PHASE FOR THE LIBRARY. 
          AND SO THE WAY YOU CAN STILL HANDLE A LOT OF THE DESIGN WORK AND YOU'RE JUST DOING CONSTRUCTION ON PHASE ONE. 
          WELL, WE DIDN'T DO THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS AT ALL. 
          THAT GETS US TO 72 MILLION, WHICH IS 13 MILLION SHORT, BUT GIVES A LOT MORE MONEY TOWARDS THE 85 MILLION. 
          THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WERE ASKING. 
          CAN WE, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, LIKE THE PARKLAND WORKING GROUP DID NOT RECOMMEND THEM AND NOW THEY'RE ON HERE. 
          HOW DID THEY GET ON OUR LIST IF THEY YEAH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION CAN SPEAK. 
          UPDATED STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          WE WERE ORIGINALLY PLANT, UH, BEING REALLY, UM, THRIFTY. 
          I MEAN THAT'S HOW I WAS, UH, WE WERE TRYING TO BE REALLY, YOU KNOW, BRING DOWN THAT NUMBER KNOWING THAT WE WERE GOING FOR A $750 MILLION BOND AND SO PRIORITIZING BASED UPON A SEVEN $50 MILLION BOND. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE LIKE, I KNOW I WENT AHEAD AND ACCEPTED THE CUT OF PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, BUT NOW IF WE'RE BEING, IF WE'RE FULFILLING WHAT THIS SUB QUORUM ISS LOOKING FOR, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. 
          AND SO HAVING IT BACK IN. 
          UM, SO THAT'S REALLY THE ANSWER, JUST LIKE ANY, ANYTHING ELSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FROM THE SEVEN 50 TO THIS NEW, THIS NEW, UM, STRATEGY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND DID WE HEAR REASONING ABOUT WHY THEY, THEY JUST GAVE US, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T GET TO SEE THIS EMAIL. 
          THEY, THE SUB QUORUM, DID THEY PROVIDE A REASON WHY THE PARK AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS WAS SO NECESSARY AT THIS TIME? NO. 
          THEIR'S IS OVERALL, UH, INFORMING THE PARKS. 
          SO WE HAVE THE CATEGORIES IN WHICH THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT PARK IMPROVEMENTS, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT LOOKING AT THE, SO STARTING THE STARTING POINT DEPARTMENT WHO ALWAYS FELT THAT THEY NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE, UH, MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ACQUISITION AND OTHER PARCELS AND THAT WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED A TRAIL OR THAT WE DID, YOU KNOW, THAT ACQUISITION COULD BE THAT CONNECTIVITY WHEN WE HAVE AN URBAN TRAIL. 
          UH, BUT SOME OF IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT WALTER E, LONG BOMB ROAD DISTRICT PARK AND OTHERS WHERE THE ACQUISITION IS THERE AND WE'RE JUST NOT IMPLEMENTING EXISTING MASTER PLANS THAT ALREADY, ALREADY IN PLACE. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE MINDSET. 
          I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE MINDSET OF, UM, OF OUR TESTIMONY WHO HAD ACTUALLY ALAR LOT A LARGER NUMBER TODAY AT 60 MILLION VERSUS THE 45. 
          AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE FOR YOU, RACHEL, IS THAT IT'S ALSO BECAUSE EVERY COMMITTEE DID 150 MILLION AND IN THE SUB CORE OPTION THEY GAVE 110 MILLION MORE FOR THE PARK PARK. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE ADDING NUMBERS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY, YES, THERE WASN'T A RECOMMENDATION FOR PARK LANE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ORIGINAL, BUT THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THERE WASN'T, THE POT OF MONEY WAS SMALLER AND WITH THE POT OF MONEY BEING LARGER AND TRYING TO UM, FIND A SUBOR 
          [01:40:01]
AND THAT'S WHY IT HAS MONEY FOR THE PARK LANE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE USING RICH'S NUMBERS 'CAUSE HE GOT THAT UPDATED NUMBER FOR STAFF TO MEET THE INCREASED NUMBER. 
          BASED ON THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION OR THOUGHTS AROUND THE SUB QUORUM OPTION, CAN WE UH, CONSIDER MOVING ON TO THE 750 MILLION LEAVING THE SPREADSHEET AS IS FOR NOW, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WILL SORRY BEN, YOU WERE GONNA GET SPICY. 
          I FORGOT. 
          NO, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT WAS EXACTLY MY MOTION. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY CAN WE JUST CALL, I MOVE, WE CALL THIS SUB QUORUM OPTION TWO AND MOVE ON OUR DISCUSSION FOR THIS. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOME SPICY OBJECTION . 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST DISCUSSION. 
          WE'RE STILL IN THE DISCUSSION MODE THAT THAT'S THE OPTION FOR DISCUSSION. 
          AND SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE $750 MILLION PACKAGES. 
          WE HAVE THREE THAT WE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, UM, PROPOSED. 
          AND UH, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSING IF SOMEONE WANTS TO START WITH ONE OF THE OPTIONS AND UM, DISCUSS IT OR DISCUSS GENERALLY, COULD YOU POSSIBLY LAY OUT THE BASIC DIFFERENCES OR YEAH, WHERE DID THESE COME FROM? UM, WHICH ONE IS THEIR DEFAULT THAT WE STARTED WITH? I THINK SO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO TRANSPORTATION AND STORM WATER, I DID JUST DO SOME GUESSING ON KIND OF BASED ON THE DISCUSSION. 
          SORRY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WE DIDN'T GET TO THEM BECAUSE WE DID SUBMIT AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          AT THE LAST MEETING WE GOT AS A GROUP, WE DISCUSSED THE FIRST THREE, WE DIDN'T GET TO THE BOTTOM TWO. 
          LIKE AS A GROUP. 
          WE TALKED IN PRETTY DETAIL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKS AND FACILITIES AND ASSETS AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          AND WE DIDN'T GET TO GO INTO A DEEP DISCUSSION 'CAUSE WE RAN OUTTA TIME, BUT DID YOU USE THE 20% NUMBERS THAT WE PUT TOGETHER? YES. 
          YES. 
          EXCEPT FOR IN OPTION ONE I JUST TOOK A STAB AT REDUCING NUMBERS TO SHOW AN OPTION THAT HAD SMALLER TRANSPORTATION NUMBERS, BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE WE REALLY DIDN'T REDUCE THEM IN OPTION TWO AND OPTION THREE WE KIND OF KEPT THE TRANSPORTATION NUMBERS AS IN THE ORIGINAL KIND OF RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK, SO LEMME JUST WALK THROUGH IN OPTION ONE, WE KIND OF, THE, THE COLORS REALLY MATTER HERE. 
          WE UPPED AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO 1 75 THEN IN PARK AND OPEN SPACE. 
          THIS IDEA OF ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION, A LITTLE BIT MORE TO AQUATICS AND THEN A REDUCTION IN THE PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM THEN FOR FACILITIES AND ASSETS LEFT A PRETTY IT PRETTY MUCH TOGETHER, WHICH YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LATER ONES. 
          AND THEN KEPT THAT HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE AT 25 MILLION AND THEN MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS ACROSS TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION AND IN THE STORM WATER KIND OF, THERE WERE SOME THAT WE KIND OF PUT TO ZERO AND THAT WAS, ONCE AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE A FULL ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. 
          SO JUST TOOK A COUPLE OF, SOME OF THE LARGER ONES, THEY AN OPTION TWO, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IF YOU GO BACK UP TO THE TOP, YOU CAN SEE DIDN'T CHANGE HOUSING FOR THAT ONE AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS IN DIFFERENT PLACES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO FACILITIES AND ASSETS, YOU CAN SEE REMOVING THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER AND MAKING SURE THE COLONY PARK BRANCH LIBRARY HAD THE FULL 58 MILLION. 
          UM, AND THEN ACTUALLY ADDED SOME DOLLARS UNDER TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS PROGRAM AND CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THIS WAS REALLY JUST SUPPOSED TO PEAK CONVERSATION. 
          AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, A FEW OMISSIONS IN STORM WATER, UM, FOR THAT ONE. 
          AND THEN LASTLY IN OPTION THREE, I WENT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD. 
          AND THEN EQUALLY ADJUSTED NUMBERS THERE. 
          AND THEN LIKE THERE WERE VERY LITTLE CHANGES TO TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION IN THAT PARTICULAR COMPONENT. 
          AND THEN A, A LITTLE BIT MORE ON STORM WATER. 
          AND SO THESE WERE JUST US TO KIND OF GET US TO AN OPTION THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD AND ADJUST AND, UM, HAVE DISCUSSION. 
          KABA YOUR HAND IS UP. 
          I HAVE TO TO ADMIT I'M A LITTLE BIT, UM, ESPECIALLY TRYING TO  LOOK THROUGH THESE, UH, TINY LITTLE CHARTS HERE. 
          UM, FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO, TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE CHANGES. 
          AND SO I GUESS I, I WOULD LIKE US TO JUST START WITH THE 20% OPTIONS THAT WE PUT TOGETHER AND THEN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FROM THERE. 
          I DO SUPPORT PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I, I GUESS I AM, I'M JUST STRUGGLING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE CHANGES IN THIS FORMAT HERE. 
          SO I THINK THE THING IS, WE CAN GO BACK TO THE 20, UH, PERCENT OPTION, BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF THE ONE TOO IS LIKE, IT'S KIND OF, IF YOU JUST LOOK WHERE THE COLORS ARE THE, LIKE THE LIGHT, THE GREEN AND THE RED, AND I WAS, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO SEND IT EARLY FOR PEOPLE TO REVIEW. 
          IT'S LIKE IF YOU'RE KIND OF, IF WE'RE KIND OF INTERESTED IN LIKE UPPING HOUSING AND IN THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE AND WE'RE, I MEAN I THINK IT'S LIKE OPTION ONE, THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS IN SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AND OPTION TWO IS THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS IN SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AND I THINK, BUT I'M ALSO SEEING LIGHT COLOR. 
          WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ADDITION MAYBE. 
          SO THE GREEN IS ADDITION FOR 
          [01:45:01]
PLUS AND THE LIGHT RED IS, IS IS REDUCTION ABOUT THE WHITE? LIKE I SEE THAT THERE'S MONEY FOR PARKLAND INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT IN THERE OR NOT. 
          YEAH, NO, I DO THINK WHAT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THE WHITE MEAN? THAT MEANS IT WOULD, IT WENT DOWN, IT WENT DOWN FROM WHAT WAS IN THE 20% PACKAGE. 
          YES. 
          THIS IS THESE UP AND DOWN IS BASED ON THE 20% RECOMMENDATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHITE MAIN STAFF, BEN, I MOVE THAT WE START OUR DISCUSSION AT OPTION THREE, STARTING AT THE BOTTOM AND WORKING OUR WAY UP THE CHART AND BEGINNING WITH A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF AVAILABLE, IF IS IT POSSIBLE TO FUND ALL THE STORM WATER, YOU KNOW, REQUESTED STUFF THROUGH A MECHANISM OUTSIDE OF THE BOND? IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. 
          DISCUSSION STARTING WITH OPTION THREE. 
          AND LET'S JUST PAUSE ON THE, OKAY. 
          LET'S GET STAFF TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD AND REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE. 
          IS THERE A WAY TO FUND THE STOR NECESSARY STORM WATER STUFF, UH, THROUGH ANOTHER MECHANISM OUTSIDE OF THE BOND? UH, JANAE SPENCE AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION, I ALSO HAVE ALBERT WITH ME TODAY, HE'S OUR FINANCE PERSON SINCE Y'ALL HAD A AND DUFF PERSON SINCE Y'ALL HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LAST TIME. 
          UM, SO FOR THESE PARTICULAR PROJECTS, WE COULD FUND THEM EVENTUALLY WITH A INCREASE IN OUR DRAINAGE UTILITY CHARGE. 
          THE ISSUE IS HOW LONG IT WOULD BE. 
          A LOT OF THESE ARE AT 90% REALLY READY TO GO INTO CONSTRUCTION. 
          AND SO WITH BONDS, WE GET THE MONEY ALL UP FRONT, RIGHT, READY TO SPEND WITH THE D INCREASE, IT'S OVER TIME. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE MAY NOT HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BANK UNTIL YEAR SIX, YEAR EIGHT. 
          IT DEPENDS HOW MUCH WE INCREASE THE D AND THERE'S ALSO ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UH, POLITICAL APPETITE FOR HOW HIGH THAT CAN GO. 
          IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING, FEEL FREE. 
          SURE. 
          I WILL JUST SAY, UH, ALBERT CASTRO, FINANCIAL MANAGER FOR WATERSHED. 
          SO THE DRAINAGE UTILITY CHARGE DOES FUND OUR DEPARTMENT AND OUR OPERATIONS. 
          AND SO THAT'S A BIG CHUNK OF WHAT THAT COMES IN. 
          WE BRING IN, I ESTIMATED BRING IN THIS YEAR AT 122 MILLION OF THAT, UH, 2020 3 MILLION WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CIP. 
          AGAIN, THAT CIP DOES INCLUDE OTHER THINGS ON TOP OF, UM, JUST BUILDING, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          IT ALSO INCLUDES, UH, IT AND, UH, EQUIPMENT NEEDS. 
          I WILL SAY THAT YES, WE, THE DUFF IS A MECHANISM TO FUND PROJECTS. 
          HOWEVER, FOR THESE LARGER SCALE PROJECTS AND THESE BIGGER, UM, THIS WORK, THE DUFF JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR OPERATIONS BUDGET IS AROUND A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          WE'RE TRANSFERRING 23 RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, LESS THE OTHER OBLIGATIONS AND DEBT SERVICE, I THINK YOU'LL TRANSFER WHAT, 18 OR THIS YEAR? MM-HMM . 
          UM, WILL ACTUALLY GO TO ACTUAL PROJECTS. 
          SO 18 ON AVERAGE EVERY YEAR. 
          UM, WELL I GUESS YOU COULD SEE LIKE HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE TO FUND SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND THAT MONEY'S ACTUALLY ALREADY BEING USED FOR A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, QUICK RESPONSE EMERGENCY WORK THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS BOND WORK. 
          SO WE ALREADY HAVE OUR FIVE YEAR CIP WHERE A LOT OF THAT MONEY'S ALLOCATED OUTSIDE OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          THESE ARE ONES THAT ARE TOO BIG FOR US TO FUND THROUGH THE DUFF. 
          AND SO WE COME TO BOND, UH, FUND FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE, UH, CAME AND TOLD US IN 2018 AFTER THE LARGE FLOODS, WE HAD THE TASK FORCE THAT WAS, UH, PUT TOGETHER AND THEY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SPOKE TO THAT OF LIKE, THE LARGE SCALE PROJECT SHOULDN'T BE DONE WITH THE OPERATING OF THE DUCK OF THE DUFF, BUT SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH BONDS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANKS JESSE. 
          I, I HAVE ONE. 
          UM, I SEE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE PUTTING IN ARTIFICIAL TURF AND THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          SO ARE WE LOOKING AT INCREASING THE DUFF FOR PEOPLE WHO PUT IN ARTIFICIAL TURF ON THEIR LAWNS? SO THE CHARGE IS BASED ON YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER AMOUNT, UM, AND ALSO THE PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT YOU HAVE. 
          SO DEPENDING ON HOW, YOU KNOW, DECKS ARE CONSIDERED, 50% TURF IS CONSIDERED AT THE A HUNDRED AND WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE POROUS. 
          SO YES, IT WOULD BE CHARGED AT, BASED ON WHATEVER THE TURF IS CONSIDERED AS FAR AS PERCENT OF PERUS VERSUS IMPERVIOUS. 
          AND HAS ANYBODY BEEN, HAS ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER BEEN CHARGED MORE BECAUSE THEY'VE PUT IN ARTIFICIAL TURF YET? YES, AND THIS GETS CHECKED EITHER THROUGH PERMITTING BUT ALSO YEARLY THROUGH, UH, DRONE DATA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU DONALD. 
          I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND UP, DONALD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND THIS MAY BE, THIS MAY BE TOO IN THE WEEDS FOR THIS CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT, BUT I WAS WONDERING WITH THIS SCENARIO, THIS WALNUT CREEK PROJECT HAD BEEN ZEROED OUT. 
          THIS COLORADO RIVER WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ZEROED OUT AND THIS WALNUT CREEK WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ZEROED OUT. 
          I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE LEVEL OF URGENCY WAS FOR THOSE THREE PROJECTS. 
          UH, SPECIFICALLY, UM, AND ESPECIALLY SINCE FOR THE WALL CREEK, WHEN IT SAYS ALL THREE PHASES WOULD BE FUNDED ONE THROUGH THREE, WHICH IS A LITTLE, WHICH IS, UM, NOT QUITE WELL. 
          [01:50:01]
YEAH. 
          JUST WONDERING HOW URGENT ALL OF THESE ARE AND IF ANY OF THESE ARE LIKE A PHASE WOULD BE MORE RELEVANT THAN DOING THE WHOLE THING AT ONCE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, GREAT QUESTION. 
          SO THE, IF IT'S THE WALLER CREEK GUADALUPE PROJECT, IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YEAH, SO THAT ONE, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT ONE'S ACTUALLY A 10 PHASE PROJECT AND IT TAKES ABOUT 300 HOMES, UH, TO HAVE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION IN THE GU GUADALUPE AREA. 
          AND SO THE FIRST PHASE IS JUST PUTTING IN A BIG DETENTION POND, AND THEN THE NEXT FEW PHASES, TWO, THREE AND FOUR, YOU START REALLY GETTING A FLOOD BENEFIT. 
          AND THEN FROM THERE YOU CONTINUE TO GET MORE FLOOD, FLOOD BENEFIT EVERY PART THAT YOU ADD. 
          BUT IT'S ABOUT 120 MILLION ALTOGETHER. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO FUND IT ALL WITH ONE BOND. 
          IT'S A PHASED APPROACH. 
          SO IF WE DON'T START THEN IT'S, YOU KNOW, CONTINUES ALL THAT PHASE 10 IS EVEN FURTHER OUT IN THE FUTURE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, THE CAPEX ONE IS PART OF THE I 35 PROJECT WHERE, UH, THEY ARE PUMPING THEIR WATER TOWARDS THE COLORADO RIVER. 
          UM, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MEET THE SAME TREATMENT STANDARDS THAT WE DO. 
          SO IF WE DO NOT BUILD IT, THEY WILL PUMP THE WATER THERE REGARDLESS AND IT WILL GO, UM, I WON'T SAY UNTREATED, BUT LESS TREATED, UM, THAN WHAT WE WOULD DO UP TO OUR STANDARDS. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE THAT CONDITION UNTIL WE HAD THE MONEY TO BUILD THE PROJECT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE LAST ONE DID YOU SAY WAS VASSAL? IT'S WALNUT CREEK NORTH, WALNUT CREEK NORTH. 
          I CAN GO BACK AND SEE HOW MUCH THAT WAS. 
          LET SEE. 
          LEMME GO. 
          I'M, I'M JUMPING SO I CAN NORTH ACRES, STORM CREEK. 
          OH, NORTH ACRES. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          YES. 
          UM, NORTH ACRES IS ONE THAT IS IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN THAT IS ABOUT 20 MILLION. 
          UM, THAT ONE WE CAN ALSO PUT INTO DIFFERENT PHASES. 
          THE HARD THING IS THAT ONE'S A PARTNERSHIP WITH AUSTIN WATER AND SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF WATER LINES THAT ARE BREAKING IN THE EXACT SAME STREET MM-HMM . 
          AND SO IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD, THEN THEY'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECT ANYWAY AND THEN WE'LL MISS THE OPPORTUNITY OF DIGGING ONCE AND ONLY DIGGING UP THAT STREET ONE TIME. 
          WHAT WE COULD DO IS PHASE THAT AND DO JUST THAT STREET FOR AROUND 7 MILLION. 
          OR WE COULD DO THE FULL PROJECT FOR 20 MILLION, BUT IF WE ONLY, IF WE HAD LESS, THAT WOULD BE THE PIECE I WOULD PRIORITIZE TO DO THAT. 
          DIG ONCE. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST SO EVERYONE HAS, SO I HAVE THE NUMBERS RIGHT HERE. 
          THAT FIRST ONE SHE MENTIONED, THE WALL CREEK GUADALUPE, THAT WAS 35 MILLION. 
          THE CAPEX WATER CONTROL WAS 21 MILLION AND THEN THE NORTH ACRE STORM DRAIN WAS 21 MILLION. 
          AND SO THOSE WERE THE LARGEST, THOSE WERE THE THREE LARGEST PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY, DEPENDING ON THE DISCUSSION, THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T GET TO DISCUSS THIS. 
          SO IT COULD, THERE WAS, YOU WOULD A LOT OF, THERE'S A LOT OF SMALL ONES THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY NOT DO AND DO ONE OF THE BIGGER ONES. 
          SO, AND I WOULD SAY GUADALUPE COULD BE BROKEN DOWN FURTHER IN THE PHASES. 
          UM, CAPEX REALLY CAN'T 'CAUSE IT'S THE BIG POND AND THEN THE OTHER ONE NORTH COULD BE BROKEN DOWN, AS I SAID, 7 MILLION AND THEN THE 13 FOR THE OTHER, UH, REMAINING PIECE. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          RICH ON, THANKS. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          ON THE D ON HOW IT'S CALCULATED, UM, LIKE IS THERE, LIKE HOW MUCH IS THE BOND OFFSETTING? WHAT SHOULD BE MAYBE IN THE FEE? Y YOU MEAN LIKE HOW, SO WE GET 122 MILLION PER YEAR FOR DUFF AND THEN THE BOND WOULD BE DEPENDENT. 
          I'M SORRY, ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. 
          SO YEAH, IT'S REALLY MORE ON LIKE THE, I FEEL LIKE THE, THE BOND SUPPLEMENTS WHAT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR IN THE FEE, RIGHT? UM, AND SO IF WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO WHERE OUR FEE WAS ACT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MOVING TAX DOLLARS AWAY, SO IT'S, IT'S BOND OVER HERE OR IT'S COMING IN THROUGH THE FEE WE'RE DOING AS A FEE TO REALLY MEET THE NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. 
          HAS THERE BEEN A CALCULATION OF WHAT THAT FEE SHOULD LOOK LIKE? UM, LIKE WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IT WOULD BE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE FEE OR A PURPOSE WOULD BE YES, WE CAN MODEL THAT OUT. 
          HOWEVER, UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE UM, RUN AROUND ADVERTISING LIKE THAT IS NOT, UM, OUR, WE DON'T WANT TO JUST RAISE THE FEE, RIGHT? UH, UM, AND JUST CONTINUE TO DO THAT. 
          UH, I WILL SAY THAT LAST YEAR WE ROSE THE FEE 5% AND THE AVERAGE MEDIAN HOMEOWNER SAW THEIR BILL INCREASE, UM, BY A DOLLAR, UH, PER MONTH. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH WE WOULD NEED, WATERSHED HAS $2 BILLION IN PROJECTS IN BACKLOG , WE WOULD, THAT THAT FEE, UM, WOULD BE A VERY, VERY HIGH IN ORDER TO TRY TO MEET THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE ON AT WHAT TIMEFRAME ARE WE MEETING THAT, ARE WE MEETING THAT, BUILDING THAT WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS, 40 YEARS, 50 YEARS? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SO, UM, OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT FOR THE, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK FOR THIS DISCUSSION THE FEE IS ALSO ASSESSED BY COUNSEL AND IT'S ASSESSED ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER FEE THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS PUT UP DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS. 
          AND SO ALL OF THAT, IT PLAYS A TRIGGER INTO IT. 
          SO EVEN WATERSHED, 
          [01:55:01]
WE CANNOT JUST PROPOSE A FEE TO SAY, WELL, IF WE HAD IT AT THIS HIGH RATE, THIS IS WHAT WE COULD BUILD. 
          UM, YEAH, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT ALBERT, THAT YOU CAN'T PROPOSE THE FEE, BUT I KNOW THAT WE WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING RECOMMENDATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE DUFF IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE INCREASING THE FEE BECAUSE THE BOND IS ALREADY INCREASING TAXES, SO ON PROPERTY TAXES, SO IF WE'RE GONNA INCREASE THE FEE 10%, WHAT'S THE ANTICIPATED REVENUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD RECEIVE PER YEAR? , I I WILL SAY I'VE LOOKED AT IT OF IF WE HAD, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THERE WAS 120 AND JUST 'CAUSE IT'S EASY NUMBERS IN THE BOND FOR, UH, STORM WATER, ASSUMING THAT'S 20 MILLION PER YEAR, I DID JUST A QUICK LOOK AT IF I HAD 20 MILLION PER YEAR PER YEAR IN MY CIP WHAT I COULD DO AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIME WHEN I GET THE MONEY, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE PROJECTS WOULD BE DELAYED ABOUT THREE TO FOUR YEARS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WOULD BE DELAYED ALL THE ONES IN THE FIRST COUPLE YEARS, BUT A LOT OF THE FURTHER ONES OUT, UM, THAT I COULDN'T DO FOR A WHILE WOULD BE DELAYED FOR THREE TO FOUR YEARS. 
          UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THAT DELAYS OTHER PROJECTS. 
          WE WOULD BE STARTING IN KIND OF SNOWBALL EFFECT. 
          I DID A SIMILAR THING FOR IF I ONLY HAD 10 MILLION EXTRA DOLLARS PER YEAR, WHICH IS CLOSER TO THE 10%, 10 PERCENT'S ABOUT 12 MILLION EXTRA, IF IT WAS INCREASED THAT MUCH. 
          UM, AND I HAD OVER 10 YEARS THAT THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE DELAYED. 
          SO I WOULDN'T BE STARTING ANY NEW PROJECTS BECAUSE THIS WOULD BASICALLY BE MY LIST FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN IT'S STILL NOT NECESSARILY AN ANSWERING THE QUESTION. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS, ONE, NOT SAYING WE TAKE AWAY ANY OF YOUR CIP RIGHT NOW, UM, KEEPING CIP BECAUSE OF THAT TRANSITION, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS ISSUE FOR THE NEXT TIME THIS COMES AROUND FOR A BOND. 
          IT WOULD BE IDEALLY THAT YOU ALL ARE SELF SUSTAINING AT THAT POINT. 
          WE'VE GIVEN THE ON-RAMP IN SIX YEARS WHERE YOU'RE BRINGING IN THE REVENUE AND IT DOESN'T BECOME A PART OF THE DEBT SERVICE THAT WE'RE GIVING FOR GEO. 
          AND THAT'S THE NUMBER I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SO WHEN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OUTSIDE OF THE CIP, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE GIVING. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. 
          AND I THINK THE QUESTION IS, UH, HOW QUICKLY DO YOU WANNA HAVE THOSE, UH, PROJECTS BUILT? SO YOU COULD SAY SELF-SUSTAINING, WE CAN BUILD ALL OF OUR KNOWN STUFF WITHIN 300 YEARS AND THEN WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING TO GET THERE VERSUS DO WE WANNA BUILD IT IN 50 YEARS? DO WE WANNA BUILD IT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE NEXT STORM'S GONNA COME. 
          BUT THAT I CAN'T REALLY GIVE YOU THE NUMBER OF WHEN WE'RE SELF-SUSTAINING UNTIL I KNOW WHEN DO YOU WANNA HAVE ALL THIS STUFF BUILT SOONER OR LATER. 
          ISN'T HE SAYING LIKE, IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY FOR THIS STUFF NOW AND THEN RAISE THE FEE TO START LIKE COVERING FUTURE? I DON'T KNOW, I MAYBE I'M JUST INTERPRETING, BUT I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT RICH WAS ASKING. 
          UH, IF WE GOT THE MONEY NOW AND THEN LIKE IF YOU GOT THE CAPITAL MONEY NOW TO CLEAR THE DECK AS IT WERE AND THEN RAISE THE FEE TO MAKE IT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IN SIX YEARS YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK FOR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, FOR ANOTHER. 
          SURE. 
          THAT'S DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY. 
          AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING OF HOW QUICKLY DO WE WANNA BUILD THE REMAINING PROJECTS AFTER THIS ONE OF LIKE, WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD NEED TO BE. 
          NOW IF WE WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WITHIN 500 YEARS THAT WE'D BUILD EVERYTHING OUT, THEN WE COULD, YOU KNOW, PARSE IT OUT. 
          BUT IF WE WANTED TO SAY WE'LL GET TO A 10 YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE BY THIS YEAR, THERE'S JUST A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO CUT, TO CUT IT. 
          UH, AND RICK, I'M HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE THIS COPY TO TALK MORE AND GIVE YOU WHAT YOU NEED AS WE KIND OF WORK THROUGH IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. 
          OH, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WE ALSO, CHARLES YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL COUNSEL, WE'LL GET, I'LL GET RIGHT TO YOU. 
          OKAY, ANNA? NO. 
          SO JUST MY COMMENT, UM, I'M THINKING OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN FOUR FOUR IN THE BRASS SEAWOOD AREA THAT ARE CLEARLY IN A FLOODPLAIN. 
          AND IF WE HAVE A RAIN BOMB IN THAT AREA, THOSE HOMES ARE GONNA BE DESTROYED. 
          WE MAY EVEN LOSE LIVES. 
          SOME, A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS ARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR US TO GO AROUND THINKING, OH, WE'LL JUST FIX IT LATER. 
          WE'LL FIX IT LATER. 
          BEING ON THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE, THERE WERE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED BACK THEN THAT STILL ARE NOT FIXED NOW. 
          SO HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE GONNA KICK THIS BUCKET DOWN THE ROAD AND NOT GET THINGS DONE AND CONTINUE TO PUT PEOPLE'S LIVES IN DANGER OR THEY LOSE THEIR HOME PLUS FLOOD RATES, YOU KNOW, FLOOD, UM, INSURANCE IS GOING UP. 
          WE MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE IF WE ARE IN A, IN A FLOODPLAIN. 
          SO THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. 
          I KNOW IT MAY NOT BE A PRIORITY FOR SOME PEOPLE, MAYBE NOT EVEN FOR SOME OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THOSE AREAS OR LIVE DOWNSTREAM AND ARE GONNA LOSE, THEN WE CAN'T HELP THEM IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DO SOMETHING. 
          THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. 
          AND YEAH. 
          SO I KNOW YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I'M GONNA STOP. 
          CHARLES, IS YOUR QUESTION FOR STAFF? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [02:00:02]
UM, I, GOING ALONG WITH THAT, I THINK COUNCIL ASKED US TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS. 
          YOU SPOKE TO THE PRIORITY, THEY DIDN'T ASK US TO ADVISE THEM WHETHER THEY NEEDED TO RAISE FEES OR PROPERTY TAXES. 
          SO I THINK IF WE WOULD STICK TO PRIORITIZING PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO GIVE COUNCIL ADVICE ON SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR, MAYBE OUR JOB WOULD BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          AND I AGREE WITH PRIORITY. 
          ANA, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? JUST A MINUTE, RICH. 
          GIVEN WHAT YOU SAID, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT OPTION THREE RIGHT NOW, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC CHANGE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO WHAT'S SHOWN ON THERE? THAT'LL HELP. 
          I JUST SEE WE NEED TO FUND THESE PROJECTS FULL BLOWN. 
          I MEAN, I'M JUST THE RED, THE ONES THAT ARE IN RED. 
          YES. 
          AND ALSO, UM, YEAH, AND ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE COORDINATING A PROJECT WITH ANOTHER, FOR EXAMPLE, STATE PROJECT. 
          YOU WANNA DIG ONCE AND FIX EVERYTHING AT ONCE. 
          YOU'RE MAXIMIZING THAT TAX DOLLARS AND BEING SMARTER IN USING, USING, DOING IT. 
          AT THE SAME TIME. 
          WE SHOULD NOT BE LETTING ONE ENTITY FIX SOMETHING AND THEN US HAVE TO GO BACK AND DIG AGAIN TO FIX SOMETHING ELSE. 
          WE, IT NEEDS TO BE COORDINATED. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT IS, IS DOING AND THEY'RE LOOKING AHEAD IN, IN PLANNING THAT. 
          SO JUST, UM, QUICK MATH, THE THREE PROJECTS THAT ARE READ ON THAT OPTION THREE, UH, IT'S LIKE 70 MILLION. 
          70 MILLION. 
          WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN TAKING ANY OF THE STORM WATER NUMBERS FROM THE, SOME OF THE OTHER BUCKETS TO FUND THAT? I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. 
          YES. 
          AND CONSULT WITH STAFF AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          CHARLES? I WOULD PROPOSE TO REDUCE, UM, FACILITIES AND ASSETS BY ELIMINATING THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER. 
          THAT'S, UM, 51 MILLION I THINK WOULD COVER AT LEAST TWO OF THOSE PROJECTS. 
          I THINK BUILDING AND BRINGING ONLINE TWO PUBLIC HEALTH CENTERS IN THE SAME BOND ELECTION IS PROBABLY, PROBABLY A CHALLENGE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND IF WE DID THAT AND WE TOOK 50 MILLION, UM, I THINK, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE CAPEX NEEDS THE FULL AMOUNT. 
          THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, WHICH IS 2160. 
          YEAH. 
          GOT THAT. 
          SO I'M GONNA COPY AND PASTE THAT REALLY QUICKLY AND THEN WE COULD SPLIT THE REMAINDER REMAINDER BETWEEN WALLER CREEK AND WALNUT CREEK. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          IF THERE'S A, GO AHEAD. 
          SORRY. 
          I FELT IMPORTANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING. 
          UH, WE WOULDN'T NEED CAPEX TILL MID OF 2027. 
          WE'RE IN DESIGN RIGHT NOW AND SO THAT MAY BE ABLE TO BE A GOOD TIMING FOR A FUTURE IF, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER PACKAGE LATER. 
          SO JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE VERSUS FUNDING THE OTHER TWO. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
          I REALLY, WHO'S YOUR FAVORITE BABY? TOO MANY EGGS IN THE FUTURE BOND PACKAGE. 
          I WOULD BE, IF IT'S A TWO YEAR, THEN I THINK THAT THE CAPEX, THAT ONE WOULDN'T BE READY TILL RIGHT BEFORE IT WOULD STILL BE DELAYED, BUT ONLY SIX MONTHS VERSUS OTHER ONES THAT ARE MORE SHOVEL READY. 
          WELL, IF WE FULLY FUND THE CAPEX AND WHAT'S LEFT IS 31 MILLION, YOU COULD SPLIT THAT AMOUNT AMONG THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS, WHICH YOU SAID YOU COULD PHASE OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          SO 31 MILLION IF YOU DIVIDE IT BY TWO, ARE YOU PUTTING THAT INTO OPTION THREE? YES. 
          SPREADSHEET FOR US. 
          LET'S, YEAH, WHICH WOULD BE, OKAY. 
          15 5 7 FOR THOSE THREE. 
          SO THAT TOOK MONEY OUT OF THAT OTHER, UH, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER. 
          DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO DOING THAT? NICOLE? I I, I HAD A COMMENT. 
          YEAH, SO I HAD, I WAS THINKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS JUST TO MODIFY ON THIS IS, UM, I'M NOT AVERSE TO TAKING OUT THE, THE PUB, THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER, BUT I, I AM AVERSE TO TAKING OUT THAT AND THE CONLEY PARK LIBRARY. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE YOU REPLACE IT TO FIND CAPACITY, UM, TO, TO, UM, TO FIND CAPACITY FOR THE PROJECT. 
          IT JUST SLIPPED MY MIND OF FOR CARVER. 
          CARVER FOR CARVER. 
          UM, AND YOU DO COLONY PUBLIC HEALTH, YOU DO CARVER BECAUSE THERE'S SOME EFFICIENCIES THERE IN THE ANIMAL SERVICE CENTER. 
          AND THEN YOU BUMP UP THE HOMELESS STRATEGY CENTER. 
          OTHERWISE, I WOULD SAY DO THE COMBINED 85 MILLION, UM, COLONY PARK AND THE, THE, THE, THE, THE LIBRARY TOGETHER TO REALIZE THE 80, THE 11 MILLION SAVINGS AND UTILIZE THAT TO FUND CARTER CARVER. 
          SO THE MONEY THAT WE SAVED TO PUT INTO STORM WATER IS NOW GOING TO COLONY PARK INSTEAD OF STORMWATER. 
          YES, IT EITHER OR OR YOU COULD JUST, I WOULD SAY FIND CAPACITY TO, 
          [02:05:01]
IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO THE COLONY PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY, FIND CAPACITY TO DO CARVER AS WELL. 
          WELL, SO YOU HAVE TO ADD 43 MILLION TO DO THE COLONY PARK HEALTH CENTER AND LIBRARY. 
          AND I THINK THE CARVER LIBRARY IS, WAS IT 18 MILLION? NO, I THINK IT'S 17. 
          17 OR SO. 
          17 . 
          UM, OR CARVER MUSEUM. 
          RIGHT? CARVER, YEAH, SORRY, CARVER. 
          I GUESS THE, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK THE, THE HEALTH CENTERS WERE IMPORTANT, BUT I, I THINK I'M CONVINCED THAT PERHAPS THE, THE STORM WATER NEEDS ARE, UH, EVEN MORE URGENT. 
          UH, SO I DO I GUESS SUPPORT THAT SWAP. 
          HOWEVER, UH, I, I HEARD THAT FOR THIS WALNUT CREEK NORTH ACRES, ACRES STORM DRAIN, IT SOUNDED LIKE 7 MILLION WAS THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD KIND OF BE A, A PHASE ONE THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          IF WE WANNA MAKE IT. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE, UH, USE 7 MILLION IN THAT AND THEN SAVE SOME MONEY TO PERHAPS BOOST UP THE ELECTRIFICATION, UH, UH, CATEGORY TO GET CLOSER TO WHAT THE, UH, NEED IS THERE OR WHATEVER ELSE WE DECIDE. 
          BUT I, I HEARD THAT 7 MILLION NUMBERS, SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A, MAYBE A PLACE TO START WITH THAT PROJECT. 
          I WAS, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT. 
          IT PROBABLY ISN'T EVEN APPROPRIATE, BUT, UM, I WAS INVITED TO BE SPICY EARLIER, SO I'M GONNA BE SPICY FOR A MINUTE. 
          UM, I FIND IT UNCONSCIONABLE THAT THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WOULD SPEND $5 BILLION ON EIGHT MILES OF HIGHWAY AND NOT ADEQUATELY TREAT THEIR STORM WATER OR FILTER THEIR STORM WATER BEFORE THEY DUMP IT INTO THE COLORADO RIVER. 
          AND THAT THEY PUT THAT ONUS BACK ON THE CITY AND IT'S MAKING US CUT IMPORTANT PROGRAMS FOR THE CITY OF BOSTON. 
          I JUST FIND IT HORRIBLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I AGREE. 
          YEAH. 
          AT WHICH ONE OF THESE CAP, THE CAPEX, CAPEX, CAPEX. 
          FRANCIS, DO YOU WANNA KINDA RECAP WHERE WE, WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT? WELL, THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA SAY ABOUT, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR OPTION, KABA, WE HAVE ELECTRI, UH, TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION AT 150 MILLION, WHICH IS THE FULL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 20%. 
          SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT REMOVING SOME FROM OTHER AREAS TO ADD MORE TO TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, UNLESS WE WANTED TO REDUCE SOMETHING ELSE IN ELECTRIC. 
          WELL, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING, RIGHT? WE'RE TAKING OUT FACILITIES, RIGHT? NO, I'M SAYING IS THERE A WAY WE COULD MOVE JUST WHAT'S AROUND IN? SURE. 
          I'M JUST SAYING WHY CAN WE MOVE FROM FACILITIES TO ONE AREA AND NOT ANOTHER? I'M JUST, I'M JUST, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE, IF WE'RE TAKING OUTTA FACILITIES, THAT WE SPREAD THAT MONEY TO TWO DIFFERENT AREAS, NAMELY STORMWATER AND TRANSPORTATION. 
          YEAH. 
          IS ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN THAT? I, I'M SAYING I I THINK WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. 
          THAT'S ALL I GUESS I WAS SAYING. 
          I WAS SAYING I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. 
          WELL, WE'VE GOT ONE SUGGESTION IS THAT WE MOVE SOME OF THE MONEY FROM THE HEALTH CENTER TO CARVER. 
          SO WE, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS I THINK ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW THAT ARE UNRESOLVED IN WITH RESPECT TO, IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER OUT, WHICH IS WHERE THIS STARTED, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT 51 MILLION? UH, WE'VE, I THINK MOVED 7 MILLION POTENTIALLY TO THE WALNUT CREEK UNMET BUCKET. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE PUT 15, SHE'S SAYING MOVE THAT DOWN TO 7 MILLION TO ADD TO THE ELECTRIFICATION. 
          WELL, JUST A MINUTE, JUST HOLD ON WITH ME. 
          SO 7 MILLION IF THAT CORRECT. 
          WOULD FUND THE FIRST PART OF WALNUT CREEK? IS THAT NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          I HAD, I HAD PUT 15 MILLION, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO SAY, BUT STAFF DID JUST TELL US THAT 7 MILLION WAS WHAT WOULD FUND THE FIRST. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WHAT WE JUST WANTED, WHEN WE TOOK OUT THE NORTHEAST, WE FULLY FUNDED CAPEX AND THEN I SPLIT THEM EVENLY AGAINST THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS. 
          SO I JUST DID THAT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T REMOVE 7 MILLION, BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S 15 MILLION. 
          'CAUSE WE, I SPLIT THEM AMONGST THE TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT LET'S, BUT WHAT DO WE, WHAT IF WE, LET'S JUST DO A LITTLE EXERCISE. 
          WE TAKE THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER OUT. 
          I DID THAT RIGHT? OKAY. 
          WE PUT 7 MILLION IN WALNUT CREEK. 
          RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I HAD JUST ALREADY PUT SOMETHING IN THERE. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN HOW MUCH WOULD WE HAVE TO FUND OF WALLER CREEK? WHAT WOULD YOU PUT IN THERE? HOW MUCH WAS THE CAPEX? WELL, SEVEN MILLION TWENTY ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY IS WHAT I WROTE DOWN FOR THE CAPEX. 
          I ALREADY PUT THE CAPEX IN THERE AND I ALSO PUT 15 MILLION IN THE WALLER CREEK GUADALUPE'S STREET FOR HOW, HOW MUCH DID YOU PUT IN CAPEX? THE FULL AMOUNT, THE 21.65. 
          'CAUSE SHE SAID THEY REALLY NEED THE FULL AMOUNT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE PUT IN SOMETHING FOR WALL CREEK. 
          SO THOSE ARE THREE ARE FUNDED IN A CERTAIN, THERE'S THOSE THREE ARE FUNDED SOMEWHAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WE COULD REMOVE THE WALNUT CREEK NORTH ACRE STORMING BACK DOWN TO 7 MILLION, WHICH IS THE KATA SUGGESTION, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD ONE. 
          I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WANTED TO PUT THE OTHER 7 MILLION INTO TRANSPORTATION. 
          ELECTRIFICATION IS WHAT I WAS JUST SAYING. 
          [02:10:01]
OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S 7 MILLION IN WALNUT CREEK THAT WE COULD MOVE OR NOT MOVE. 
          I'M HEARING THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THEN WE'RE STILL, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LEFT FROM THE 51 MILLION? HAVE WE SPENT IT ALL? WE'RE AT 758. 
          NO, FROM, FROM THE 51 WE TOOK OUT OF THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT OR HAVE WE DISTRIBUTED THAT OUT? I DID. 
          AND ACTUALLY WE'RE ACTUALLY 8 MILLION OVER. 
          OKAY. 
          I DID SOMETHING YES, IF, OH NO, 'CAUSE I ADDED CARVER MUSEUM. 
          I ADDED THE CARVER MUSEUM. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS THE, THAT THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT, UH, NICOLE WAS ASKING IF WE, AND I PUT IT IN BLUE, SO NOT SAYING IT'S IN FINAL, BUT THIS IDEA IF WE AND HOW MUCH? 17, 17 MILLION. 
          AND THAT PUTS US AT WHAT AMOUNT FOR THE 700 AND DID YOU SAY WE'RE WE'RE 8 MILLION OVER RIGHT NOW? THAT'S FINE. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA, SORRY, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT . 
          I JUST THINK IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE CUTTING OUT THINGS THAT WE'RE HIGHER PRIORITY THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ADD IN OTHER FACILITIES THAT WERE, THIS WAS, I JUST WANNA BE HONEST, THIS WAS MY CONCERN ABOUT GOING. 
          WE HAD A, LIKE IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE IF WE WERE DOING SEVEN 50 TO SPEND THE WHOLE TIME DOING. 
          THIS IS A LOT OF, I THINK THIS IS A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO A SEVEN 50 EVEN NUMBER. 
          AND WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO RECOMMEND 750 MILLION, WE CLEARLY HAVE THE NEEDS US GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS IS GOING WITH IT POTENTIALLY NOT BEING ON THE TABLE FOR, I STILL FEEL LIKE WE STILL HAVEN'T REALLY FINALIZED A SUB FORM OPTION. 
          WE JUST STOPPED BECAUSE WE FELT GOOD ABOUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          WE STILL HAVE TO FINALIZE THAT. 
          AND I JUST THINK AT THE NEXT MEETING, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GONNA SPEND TIME WHEN THIS SEVEN 50 MILLION OPTION, WHEN IT'S REALLY NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR ALL THE TIME WE'VE SPENT, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A, A SUB QUO OPTION THAT THIS BODY FEELS MOSTLY GOOD ABOUT VERSUS US GOING IN BACK AND FORTH AND TRYING TO FINALIZE A 750 MILLION OPTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO UH, WE HAVE UP ON THE BOARD CURRENTLY 758 MILLION FOR A $750 MILLION PACKAGE. 
          SURE. 
          BUT CAN YOU ALSO DO, SINCE YOU'VE THROWN IN WHAT ONE PERSON ASKED TO PUT IN THERE, WILL YOU THROW IN WHAT I ASKED TO PUT IN THERE AND PUT THE ELECTRIFICATION AT 13? I MEAN, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND MAYBE. 
          I DON'T EITHER. 
          DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA MAKE NECESSARILY A DIFFERENCE. 
          IT'S NICE. 
          THAT'S FUN. 
          JUST PUT 13 MILLION ELECTRIFICATION AND WE'LL FIND. 
          BUT WHERE DOES THAT GO? I DON'T EVEN KNOW. 
          WHERE DOES THAT GO? INTO THE EV CHARGING? YES. 
          YEAH, SO CHANGE SIX TO 13 AND, AND GET US CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEVEN 50 FUNDING SINCE WE'RE IT SAID 7 65 NOW SINCE WE'RE 15 MILLION OVER. 
          AND WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR WALNUT CREEK? 7 MILLION FOR THAT ONE. 
          BUT THERE'S TWO WALNUT, THERE'S A WALNUT CREEK AND THERE'S A WALLER CREEK. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT WAS PHASE ONE COST FOR WALLER? I DON'T KNOW IF, I THINK SHE MIGHT'VE LEFT. 
          OKAY. 
          SHE DID WELL. 
          UH, SO I COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION JUST TO ADOPT. 
          SO MOVED SECOND. 
          I DISCUSSION THIS, THE 7 65 UHHUH . 
          ANY DISCUSSION? THIS IS JUST FOR TODAY? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT DISCUSSION? I MEAN WHAT, TELL ME WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF WHAT? WAIT, SHOULD WE FINALIZE A RECOMMENDATION, NOT FINALIZING RECOMMENDATION NOT FINAL. 
          WE'RE NOT FINALIZING WE'RE WE FOR TODAY? TODAY, YES. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I AM, I MOVE. 
          WE CALL THIS OPTION THREE. 
          CAN WE CALL IT OPTION THREE AS IS? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS IS OPTION THREE. 
          WELL, WELL I THINK WE SHOULD USE THE SUB QUORUM OPTION FOR USE. 
          AND I THINK THE SUB, THIS OPTION THREE BECOMES WHAT WE'RE USING AND WE WILL USE THIS SEVEN 50 OPTION AND THE SUB QUORUM OPTION TO THEN FINALIZE A RECOMMENDATION NEXT WEEK. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S REALLY WHAT I, I'M TALKING BECAUSE WHEN THE SUB, IF THE SUB QUORUM OPTION IS APPROVED, THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THIS OPTION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAVE A, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE A MOTION. 
          THESE ARE THERE. 
          THIS IS THE RESULTS OF OUR DISCUSSION. 
          WE CAN COME NEXT TIME. 
          WE SHOULD JUST MOVE TO ADJOURN. 
          WELL, I SECOND WELL WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. 
          REAL QUICK. 
          SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE'LL TAKE THIS OPTION THAT WE FOR SEVEN 50 AND THE SOAP QUO AND WE'LL SEND IT OUT AND I, I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD START SENDING THEIR THOUGHTS TO THE FULL GROUP SO THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS CONSIDERED SO THAT WE CAN SEND WELL WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OPEN, OPEN MEETINGS. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE TO SEND 'EM TO NICOLE WHO WILL SEND 'EM TO US. 
          SEND NICOLE AND SEND IT TO EVERYBODY. 
          WE CAN'T SEND THEM OURSELVES, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          CLOSE TO NICOLE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, I WANNA MOVE TO 
          [6. Approve revisions to 2026 Bond Election Advisory Task Force Work Plan.]
ITEM NUMBER SIX WITH THE LAST I KNOW WE'RE OVER. 
          THIS IS APPROVED REVISIONS TO THE ADVISORY ADVISORY TASK WORKFORCE WORK PLAN. 
          RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE A MAY 4TH MEETING ON THE AGENDA. 
          IT IS MY PROFOUND HOPE  THAT ON MAY THE FOURTH WE RECOMMEND SO THAT THE STAFF CAN KEEP THEIR, UM, UH, SCHEDULE AND WE CAN KEEP OUR SCHEDULE. 
          SO WITHOUT ADDING A MEETING, I'M NOT SUGGESTING ADDING A MEETING. 
          SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE WORK PLAN. 
          BUT I WANT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DISCUSS THAT IF THEY FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT THE CITY STAFF NEEDS TO PUT TOGETHER FOR US. 
          OR ARE WE ALL ON BOARD? 
          [02:15:01]
I'D SAY MAY THE FOURTH BE WITH US. 
          SO WE WRAP UP. 
          I WAS HOPING YOU SAY THAT . 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MOTION TO AJOUR FOR HAPPY SINK. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          IT'S SORRY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I DO HAVE A QUESTION 'CAUSE I MIGHT NOT BE THE ONLY ONE, BUT ARE WE, IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE ON THE MAY 4TH MEETING, ARE WE ABLE TO CREATE, HAVE A PROXY FOR OUR VOTE? I'LL OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, WE'RE ADJOURNED. 
          MOTION TO ADJOURN. 
          DAVE, TELL ME WHAT TODAY. 
          . 
          CAN I DO? YOU CAN SAY WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          WE'RE ADJOURNED WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          WE ARE AJOUR. 
          OH, I DID. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          15. 
          I.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.