4. Briefing on legislation filed in the 86th Regular State Legislative Session. [Carlos Contreras, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Coyle, Director, Government & Public Affairs]

[4. Briefing on legislation filed in the 86th Regular State Legislative Session. [Carlos Contreras, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Coyle, Director, Government & Public Affairs]]

MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL MOVE NOW TO OUR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION, BEGINNING WITH ITEM 4.

ITEM NO. 4 IS A BRIEFING ON LEGISLATION FILED IN THE 86TH REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

JEFF COYLE WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT.

IT HAS BEEN ABOUT A MONTH SINCE WE'VE BRIEFED YOU ON THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

WE HAVE BEEN MEETING AND BRIEFING THE IGR COMMITTEE WEEKLY.

BUT A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE WE'VE TALKED IN EARLY MARCH, SO WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON ALL OF THE LEGISLATION THAT THE CITY IS DEALING WITH AND WORKING ON.

SO FIRST OF ALL THERE'S BEEN ABOUT 7500 BILLS FILED.

THE FILING DEADLINE HAS PASSED, SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY REAL NEW BILLS AT THIS POINT.

THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS WHERE THEY CAN ADJUST THE RULES.

BUT THAT TYPICALLY WON'T HAPPEN AT THIS POINT.

SO WE'RE IN THAT PERIOD OF THE SESSION WHERE EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE.

AND NO DEADLINES HAVE HIT YET THAT START TO CAUSE BILLS TO DIE.

SO WE'RE FACING ALL OF IT RIGHT NOW.

AND LET ME BACK UP AND SAY THERE'S LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF BILLS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, TRYING TO CHANGE LANGUAGE ON, TAKE POSITIONS ON.

THE PRESENTATION HERE IS FOCUSED ON OUR HIGHLIGHTS.

AND I'M GOING TO START WITH THE ITEMS THAT ARE OUR PRIORITY ITEMS IN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT YOU APPROVED LAST YEAR.

SO THE FIRST, OF COURSE, IS THE PROPERTY TAX REFORM BILLS.

FROM A HIGH LEVEL, HB2 IS EXPECTED TO BE HEARD NEXT WEDNESDAY.

IT'S THE THIRD IN A SEQUENCE OF MAJOR PIECES OF LEGISLATION BEING CONSIDERED BY THE FULL HOUSE.

IT WAS THE BUDGET TWO WEDNESDAYS AGO.

IT WAS SCHOOL FINANCE LAST NIGHT.

AND IT WILL BE PROPERTY TAXES NEXT WEDNESDAY.

AND I'LL COME BACK TO WHAT EACH OF THESE BILLS DO AT THIS POINT.

THE SENATE BILL APPEARS TO STILL BE HUNG UP WITHOUT THE SUPPORT TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR A FULL SENATE VOTE.

IT WAS YESTERDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME PLACED ON THE SENATE INTENT CALENDAR, WHICH IS A NOTICE, ESSENTIALLY.

YOU HAVE TO WAIT TWO DAYS.

IT HAS TO BE ON THE CALENDAR FOR TWO DAYS BEFORE IT CAN BE HEARD.

THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN IT WILL BE HEARD IN TWO DAYS.

IT'S BEING PERCEIVED LARGELY AS A BIT OF POSTURING BY THE SENATE IN ITS SORT OF CONTEST WITH THE HOUSE ON THIS LEGISLATION.

NONETHELESS, IT IS ON THE SENATE INTENT CALENDAR.

SO HB2, OVER THE COURSE OF ABOUT A MONTH, WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE IN HOPES TO HELP ACCOMPLISH THE PROPERTY TAX REFORMS THEY SEEK WHILE ALSO NOT HARMING CITY FINANCES.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE PROPOSED WERE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS, THINGS THAT ARE SHARED PRIORITIES.

ALSO, ACCOUNTING FOR LOCAL TAX RELIEF TO ACCOUNT FOR OUR SENIOR AND DISABLED EXEMPTIONS AND FREEZES AND SHOULD THERE BE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT DIDN'T WORK AGAINST US IN THE FORMULA BUT RATHER CITIES GOT CREDIT FOR IT AND WERE STILL ALLOWED TO HAVE THE GROWTH NEEDED IN REVENUES.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL CAME OUT

[00:50:01]

LAST WEEK WITH VIRTUALLY ALL OF THOSE SUGGESTIONS NOT IN IT.

IT REMAINS AT 2.5% ROLLBACK RATE FROM THE CURRENT 8%.

AND IT ADDED CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION TO THE M&O, NON-VOTER APPROVED DEBT THAT THE CITY USES TO MAKE MAJOR TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES, TO DO STREET PROJECTS AND THINGS IN BETWEEN THE FIVE-YEAR BOND PROGRAMS WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE M&O TAX RATE.

THE 2.5 IS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN 2.5 IN REALITY.

THAT BILL AGAIN WILL BE HEARD NEXT WEDNESDAY.

WE EXPECT A HEALTHY SESSION AND A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS ATTEMPTED.

BUT THIS APPEARS AT THIS POINT TO BE DRIVEN BY THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP.

AND A BIT OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE WORKING WITH CITIES TO TRY TO GET THIS IN A GOOD PLACE.

SENATE BILL 2 IS ALSO A 2.5%.

IT APPLIES AUDIO] AND LEANED HEAVILY ON THEM TO VOTE FOR SB2 AND MOVE FORWARD.

AND THE REPORTS OUT ARE THAT IT WAS IN THE SENATE OVER THIS BILL AND AN UNWILLINGNESS TO MOVE IT TO 2.5.

EVEN IF THE HOUSE VERSION DOES PASS NEXT WEDNESDAY AT THAT NUMBER IT RUNS INTO THE SAME PROBLEM IN THE SENATE AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER THAT HOLDS.

SCHOOL FINANCE LAST NIGHT WAS A HISTORIC VOTE FOR THE HOUSE.

148-1 PASSAGE OF HB3.

OUR REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL IS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE SCHOOL FINANCE COMMISSION, HAS BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, DESERVES A TON OF CREDIT FOR WHAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

ESSENTIALLY IT PUTS $9 BILLION MORE INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

IT INCREASES THE BASIC ALLOTMENT FOR STUDENTS.

IT INCREASES THE FORMULA, SO THIS IS NOT A ONE-TIME FIX.

THIS IS AN ONGOING INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IT PROVIDES FULL-DAY FUNDING FOR PRE-K, FOR ELIGIBLE STUDENTS FOR DISTRICTS WHO TAKE ON FULL-DAY PRE-K.

IT INCENTIVIZES TEACHERS TO GO TO CHALLENGED DISTRICTS TO LOWER PERFORMING DISTRICTS TO TAKE JOBS THERE.

AN AMENDMENT LAST NIGHT ADDED AN $1850 PAY RAISE FOR ALL FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.

AND IT BUYS DOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX RATES BY ABOUT FOUR PENNIES, WHICH RANGES SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $40 AND $80 A YEAR PER 100,000 VALUATION FOR OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

NOW, IT'S NOT A GUARANTEED REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE THERE'S NO CAP ON IT, SO IN THEORY DISTRICTS COULD RAISE RATES IN THE FUTURE AND EAT UP THE FOUR PENNIES THE STATE HAS BROUGHT DOWN.

BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS INCREASE THE STATE'S SHARE OF FUNDING TO LOWER THE LOCAL TAXPAYER'S SHARE OF FUNDING AND TRY TO CORRECT THAT IMBALANCE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT.

THE SENATE VERSION HAS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY.

IT ALSO IS A $9 BILLION INCREASE, BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FORMULAS, THE BASIC ALLOTMENTS.

MOST OF THE BILL -- ABOUT HALF OF THE $9 BILLION IS FOCUSED ON A $5,000 ACROSS THE BOARD PAY RAISE FOR TEACHERS.

TEACHERS' UNIONS HAVE LOVED THAT, THE HOUSE HAS OPTED FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY TO REWARD HIGHER PERFORMING TEACHERS AND NOT A BLANKET PAY RAISE.

WE'LL SEE NOW AS THE TWO BILLS CROSS WHERE THEY SETTLE.

ON OTHER CITY-RELATED ISSUES, I THINK WE'VE TALKED IN THE PAST ABOUT SOME BILLS THAT WILL TRY TO UNDO ELEMENTS OF THE ALAMO MASTER PLAN THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED AND THE ALAMO -- ALL THE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT HAVE REVIEWED THE PLAN HAVE APPROVED.

THERE WERE ACTUALLY AMENDMENTS FILED TO THE HOUSE BUDGET TWO WEEKS AGO THAT WOULD HAVE SORT OF CREATED A TEST VOTE ON THE ISSUE.

IT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED STATE FUNDING FROM BEING USED TO MOVE THE ALAMO CENOTAPH.

OF COURSE THE ALAMO CENOTAPH IS CITY PROPERTY AND THERE ISN'T STATE MONEY PLANNED, BUT IT WOULD HAVE SENT A SIGNAL AS TO WHAT THE HOUSE'S POSITION ON THE ISSUE WAS.

ULTIMATELY AT ABOUT 11:45 THAT NIGHT THE AMENDMENTS WERE PULLED DOWN BY REPRESENTATIVE KYLE BEETERMAN IN EXCHANGE FOR A HEARING THAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK ON TUESDAY AND AN AMENDED BILL, THE ORIGINAL HB1836 WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED MOVING THE CENOTAPH UNLESS THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, HOUSE SPEAKER, AND

[00:55:01]

LAND COMMISSIONER ALL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE, AND IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE GLO, THE STATE AGENCY, EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY, TO SEIZE ALAMO PLAZA FROM THE CITY AND PREVENT US FROM HAVING ANY FURTHER CONTROL OVER THAT PROPERTY.

THE BILL WAS CHANGED TO A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM TO ESSENTIALLY SAY NO MOVING THE CENOTAPH FOR TWO YEARS WHILE I ASSUME THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE DEBATED IN THE INTERIM.

LORI HOUSTON WENT UP AND TESTIFIED FROM THE CITY AND DID AN EXCELLENT JOB CONVEYING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RECLAIMING THAT THE CENOTAPH'S NEW LOCATION 500 FEET AWAY WOULD BE MORE PROMINENT THAN IT IS TODAY.

THERE WERE WITNESSES FROM THE GLO AND ENDOWMENT, OUR PARTNERS, AND THERE WERE 27 WITNESSES WHO SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE BILL WHO WERE OPPOSED MOVING THE CENOTAPH.

THE BILL REMAINS PENDING IN COMMITTEE.

WE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT OUR CHANCES AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO BE MONITORING US CLOSELY AND TALKING TO THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE.

PAID SICK LEAVE TOPIC.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF BILLS AND DEVELOPMENTS ON THAT.

NUMBER ONE, THE PRIMARY BILL ON THE SENATE SIDE WAS SENATE BILL 15.

WHAT IT DOES IS PROHIBIT CITIES FROM REGULATING PRIVATE EMPLOYERS, TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT IN FOUR AREAS.

LEAVE, BENEFITS, SCHEDULING, AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS OF APPLICANTS.

THE ORIGINAL FILED BILL HAD A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES.

IT SPECIFICALLY SAID THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-DISCRIMINATION.

THAT WAS TAKEN OUT WHEN THE BILL WAS HEARD IN COMMITTEE, AND THAT CREATED SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION FROM ACROSS THE STATE FROM FOLKS CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO DISCRIMINATE.

IT DOES NOT UNDO OUR -- IT DOES NOT PREEMPT OUR NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE.

OUR ATTORNEY HAS PROVIDED A LEGAL OPINION.

OUR NDO DOES NOT ADDRESS PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.

SB15 HAS ESSENTIALLY STALLED IN THE SENATE AND NOT MOVED.

THE LATEST STRATEGY THAT EVOLVED LAST WEEK WAS IT WAS BROKEN UP INTO FOUR SEPARATE BILLS.

SENATE BILL 2485 THROUGH 88 YOU SEE UP THERE.

IT BASICALLY TAKES EACH OF THE FOUR NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES ACROSS THE STATE.

ATTORNEYS OFFICE DRAFTED A LETTER AND WE IS ADMITTED IT THIS YEAR THAT WE WERE SPEAKING ONLY TO OUR ORDINANCE AND THE IMPACT ON OUR ORDINANCE.

AND IT DOES NOT WEIGH IN ON OTHER CITIES' ORDINANCES.

AND THOSE FOUR BILLS ARE BEING HEARD THIS MORNING.

AND IF THEY ATTEMPT TO USE SAN ANTONIO AS A TOOL TO ARGUE THAT IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE IN OTHER PLACES, HE WILL SPEAK UP AND PROVIDE LEGAL CLARIFICATION.

BACKING UP A BULLET, THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BILL HAS NOT YET BEEN HEARD.

IT STILL DOES HAVE THE AUDIO] FOR NDO, SO IT'S PURELY A PAID SICK LEAVE PREEMPTION AT THIS POINT.

HOUSE BILL 3728, AND THERE'S A SENATE COMPANION AS WELL, THOSE ARE BILLS FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL AND SENATOR MENENDEZ AND THEY CREATE A STATEWIDE PAID SICK LEAVE MANDATE THAT PRIVATE EMPLOYERS MUST PROVIDE IT.

TO BE HEARD NEXT WEEK.

THERE WAS -- I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS.

A BILL THAT WAS BROUGHT, I BELIEVE BY THE SIDING INDUSTRY IN TEXAS PREEMPTED CITIES FROM DICTATING THE TYPES OF MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT WAS GREAT CONCERN TO OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, TO PLACES LIKE OUR RIVER OVERLAY AND OUR WORLD HERITAGE BUFFER AREAS IN WHICH WE DO REGULATE AND WON'T ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, A CORRUGATED STEEL STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE OF THE RIVER AND THAT SORT OF THING.

WE HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THOSE ADVANCING THE BILL AND THE TWO SPONSORS AND THEY HAVE PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT EXEMPTS SPECIFICALLY DISTRICTS THAT WERE CREATED FOR HISTORIC, CULTURAL, OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.

AND SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT WORLD HERITAGE AND THE RIVER IMPROVEMENTS OVERLAY THAT WE HAVE AS BEING EXEMPTED.

SO WE BELIEVE WE ARE GOOD WITH THAT BILL.

WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING IT BUT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT ANYMORE.

[01:00:01]

THE NEXT ITEM, THE CABLE FEES, IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ITEM, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPERTY TAX DISCUSSION.

THESE ARE TWO BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE BY THE CABLE INDUSTRY, BY SPECTRUM, COMCAST.

AND THEY ESSENTIALLY ALLOW A TELECOM COMPANY THAT DOES BOTH TELEPHONE SERVICE AND CABLE SERVICE TO ONLY PAY ONE OF THE TWO EXISTING FEES THAT ARE IN STATUTE TODAY.

THEIR ARGUMENT IS WE'RE BEING DOUBLE TAXED.

THE REALITY IS THE STATE LAW WAS CREATED SO THAT THEY PAY A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUES.

IT IS A RENTAL FEE TO USE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO ADVANCE A FOR-PROFIT OTHER TELECOMS ARE ABLE TO STOP PAYING ONE OF THE TWO FEES WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE $8 MILLION HIT TO THE CITY'S REVENUE.

ALMOST ALL OF IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND.

AND WE HAVE TESTIFIED AGAINST IT AT BOTH COMMITTEE LEVELS, MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN UP THERE.

BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILLS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TWO RELEVANT COMMITTEES.

AND IT'S ALREADY MOVED OUT OF SENATE COMMITTEE.

SO WE ARE GREATLY, GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

WE'VE COMMUNICATED TO -- WE'VE SAT DOWN WITH THE CABLE INDUSTRY AND SAID WE UNDERSTAND THAT STATE LAW HAS DIFFERENT FEE STRUCTURES FOR WIRELESS, FOR TELEPHONE, RESTRUCTURING THE REGIME TO CREATE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

BUT THIS IS NOT IT.

THIS HAS BEEN A -- SORT OF A SNEAK ATTACK BILL.

THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN THE INTERIM LEADING UP.

IT WAS FILED AND WE'RE FORCED TO FIGHT.

BILL -- THIS IS THE BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW A CITY TO REDUCE THE PRIMA FASCIA SPEED LIMIT.

THE DEFAULT URBAN SPEED LIMIT FROM 30 MILES PER HOUR DOWN TO 25.

IT'S A KEY COMPONENT OF THE VISION ZERO MOVEMENT NATIONALLY.

THE HOUSE BILL HAS RUN INTO TROUBLE BECAUSE IT'S STATEWIDE AND THERE ARE OTHER CITIES WHO DON'T WANT IT.

AND OUR ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH THEM ON LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.

WE ARE EXPECTING THE SENATE BILL, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD, TO BE HEARD NEXT WEEK.

AND THAT ONE APPLIES ONLY TO THE TOP FOUR CITIES IN THE STATE, DALLAS, HOUSTON, AUSTIN, SAN ANTONIO WHO ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS.

AND SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THAT BRACKETED VERSION WILL HAVE BETTER LUCK.

ON THE BUDGET, THE ONLY MAJOR BUDGET ITEM THAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON WAS FUNDING FOR MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS, THE DEAG PROGRAM.

WE'RE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE HOUSE BUDGET THAT HAS PASSED THE FULL HOUSE HAS $50 MILLION FOR DEAG.

THAT'S THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE LAST TWO SESSIONS THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WHICH WERE $30 MILLION AND $20 MILLION COMBINED.

IT'S $50 MILLION IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND WE AS A COMMUNITY HAVE BENEFITED GREATLY FROM THOSE GRANTS OVER THE YEARS.

THE SENATE VERSION IS LESS.

IT'S 20.

BUT I WILL SAY AT THIS POINT IN PAST SESSIONS IT'S BEEN ZERO IN BOTH BUDGETS AND WE HAVE HAD TO FIGHT HARD AT THE LAST DAYS OF THE SESSION TO GET IT INSERTED.

WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT WE MADE GOOD PROGRESS ON THAT ITEM.

ON THE TRANSPORTATION FRONT, THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE WOULD ADD A $10 LOCAL FEE TO THE EXISTING LOCAL AND STATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES.

IF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUT IT BEFORE THE VOTERS AND IF THE VOTERS APPROVED IT.

IT WAS HEARD IN COMMITTEE LAST NIGHT AND THE COUNTY TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT, AND WE REGISTERED SUPPORT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF BUT DID NOT HAVE A WITNESS.

AND THEN THE SALES TAX THAT WOULD ALLOW A BUSTING THE SALES TAX CAP BY UP TO A HALF CENT WITH THOSE REVENUES GOING TO THE ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT.

WE CONTINUE TO PUSH AND CONVEY OUR SUPPORT FOR THAT.

THAT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL.

BUT THE SENATE AND THEN SOME OTHER RELATED ISSUES.

I'LL MOVE THROUGH THESE.

THE BILLS THAT WOULD PREVENT ANY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON LOBBYING, ANY INFLUENCING OF THE DEFEAT OF LEGISLATION, OTHER THAN ELECTED OFFICIALS GOING UP AND ADVOCATING ON THEIR OWN, HAS PASSED THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.

WE UNDERSTAND IT WAS SOME DEAL THAT WAS CUT TO PULL DOWN A BAD AMENDMENT ON THE BUDGET, BUT IT REMAINS PENDING IN THE CALENDAR'S COMMITTEE TO POTENTIALLY BE SET FOR A FULL HOUSE VOTE.

[01:05:01]

AND THE SENATE BILL -- DID YOU TELL ME THAT'S BEEN PAST COMMITTEE OR THE FULL SENATE? AND THE SENATE VERSION HAS ALSO PASSED ITS COMMITTEE AND IS WAITING FOR A FULL SENATE VOTE .

THERE'S A BILL ADDRESSING NOXIOUS PLANTS THAT SAYS CITIES CANNOT PREVENT LAND OWNERS FROM REMOVING PLANT SPECIES.

IT IS TO REMOVE ASH JUNIPER BECAUSE OF ITS DRAW ON WATER SUPPLY.

WE HAVE GONE UP THERE WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOLKS AND LET THE SPONSOR KNOW THAT WOULD CREATE A BIG PROBLEM FOR US IN OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT THE WARBLER HABITAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AS WELL AS CAMP BULLIS.

WE HAVE PROVIDED LANGUAGE FOR THEM TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION FOR US AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK YET.

WE CONTINUE TO ASK FOR THAT.

SENATOR CAMPBELL HAS A BILL, SENATE BILL 422, THAT PROHIBITS A CITY FROM CHARGING FEES OR FINES IF AN AREA HAS VOTED NOT TO BE ANNEXED.

AND HER INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO SAY IF SOMEBODY DECIDES NOT TO BE A PART OF THE CITY, THEY SHOULD NOT THEN HAVE TO FACE FEES AND FINES FROM THE CITY.

WE AGREE WITH THAT PREMISE.

WE DON'T DO THAT HERE.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS THE CARVEOUT IN LAST SESSION'S ANNEXATION REFORM BILL AROUND THE MILITARY BUFFER AREAS.

AND THOSE AREAS, AS YOU ALL KNOW WELL, VOTED NOT TO BE ANNEXED.

AND WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS.

AND THE WAY YOU REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IS CHARGING PERMITTING FEES AND INSPECTION FEES TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW PROJECTS ON THE FRONT END.

AND ASSESSING FINES ON THE BACK END.

SO, IN FACT, THE MAYOR AND I HAVE MET PERSONALLY WITH SENATOR CAMPBELL.

SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT AND HAS AGREED TO, IN CONCEPT, TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT PROTECTS THAT.

WE HAVE OFFERED THREE OR FOUR VARIATIONS AND THEY HAVE BEEN UNACCEPTABLE TO HER.

I ACTUALLY TESTIFIED ON THE BILL THIS WEEK TO SAY THAT THAT REMAINS A BIG CONCERN FOR US AND THE MILITARY.

AND THAT WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT SHE WILL BE ABLE TO SETTLE ON SOME LANGUAGE THAT WILL PROTECT THE EFFORTS MADE TO PROTECT OUR BASES.

HISTORICAL DESIGNATIONS BILLS.

BASICALLY SAY THAT IF A COMMUNITY TRIES TO DESIGNATE A PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT CONSENT, THAT IT AND A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY VOTE AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AND THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AT THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT OUR PROCESS IS TODAY.

TOBACCO 21 BILLS HAVE BOTH BEEN PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE.

SENATE YESTERDAY.

THIS APPEARED INITIALLY TO BE AN INNOCUOUS BILL AND UPON FURTHER STUDYING OF IT, IT WAS VERY PROBLEMATIC.

BEEN PERCEIVED LARGELY ACROSS THE STATE AS BEING A PERMISSION TO DISCRIMINATE.

IF SOMEONE HAS A STATE LICENSE AND REFUSES TO PROVIDE SERVICE MAY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEONE'S RIGHTS, THE STATE WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

BUSINESS GROUPS AND LARGE COMPANIES AND OTHER ADVOCACY GROUPS ACROSS THE STATE HAVE COME OUT IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO IT.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH IGR LAST WEEK AND PROVIDED SOME FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION THIS WEEK, AND WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN OPPOSE THE BILL UNDER THE EXISTING ITEM IN OUR AGENDA THAT SAYS WE WILL OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT HARMS THE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS OF THE STATE.

IF IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY THAT WE HAVE DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES HERE AND IS BAD FOR BUSINESS THEN WE WOULD CERTAINLY OPPOSE THAT.

AND THEN JUST TWO OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON MY LIST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF.

THERE'S A BILL BEING HEARD TODAY TO CREATE A STATEWIDE LAW AROUND SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

IT IS 95% WHAT OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS.

IT ALLOWS US TO PERMIT STRS, TO REVOKE PERMITS IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW OUR ORDINANCES.

IT DOES NOT -- IT TELLS US THAT WE CAN'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PERMITS WE GIVE FOR STRS THAT ARE PRIMARY RESIDENCES.

IN OTHER WORDS, TYPE ONES.

AND IT ONLY ABOUT TYPE TWOS SAYS WE CAN'T FLAT-OUT BAN THEM.

[01:10:02]

SO IT LEAVES OPEN FLEXIBILITY FOR US TO HAVE THE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE IN OUR BOA PROCESS TODAY.

THE ONLY AREA THAT DIFFERS FROM OUR ORDINANCE IS THAT IT SAYS WE CANNOT LIMIT THE NUMBER OF STR PERMITS WE ISSUE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

SO IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CREATE A DENSITY RESTRICTION.

WE WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW AS MANY STRS AS APPLY FOR PERMITS.

WE'RE MONITORING THAT BILL AND WATCHING IT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GET WORSE.

BUT WE GENERALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S A PRETTY GOOD STATEWIDE FRAMEWORK THAT IS BEING NEGOTIATED RIGHT NOW.

IT WAS ACTUALLY HEARD YESTERDAY.

IT ALSO GIVES US A LOT OF LEEWAY TO REGULATE IT.

IT MOSTLY CREATES THE FRAMEWORK AROUND THE TYPES OF SCOOTERS, THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, THE AGE AT WHICH YOU HAVE TO BE TO USE ONE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT SOME CONFLICTING LANGUAGE THAT IN ONE PLACE SAYS CITIES CAN RESTRICT SCOOTERS IN ANY LOCATION, AND ANOTHER THAT SAYS WE CAN RESTRICT THEM ON STREET SIDEWALKS AND HIGHWAYS IF THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN.

WE ARE SEEKING CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE WANT TO SAY LIKE ALAMO PLAZA THAT MIGHT NOT JUST BE PUBLIC SAFETY BASED BUT ALSO THE REVERENCE OF THE SITE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WE HEARD THAT THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT BILL MAY BAN CITIES FROM PROHIBITING SCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS, WHICH WOULD BE COUNTER TO OUR ORDINANCE.

WE'VE NOT SEEN THAT VERSION YET.

HE DID NOT HAVE IT READY AT THE HEARING YESTERDAY, THIS IS SENATOR ROYCE WEST OUT OF DALLAS.

SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT VERSION OF THE BILL AND WE'LL CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL PAUSE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> HALL: THANK YOU, JEFF.

WE APPRECIATE THE REPORT AND THE UPDATE.

I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WITH ANY COMMENTS.

OH.

WE DO HAVE CITIZENS? WE DO HAVE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

IF WE COULD HAVE JOLENE GARCIA, JESSE, GLORIA, AND JESSE GUTIERREZ, IF WE COULD COME FORWARD

>> THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY THE MAYOR STEPPED OUT.

BUT MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK HERE TODAY ON THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO STAND UP FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS AND FOR LOCAL CONTROL HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

SB15 AND EACH OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN REPACKAGED AS SB15 ERODE THE VERY RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS IN SAN ANTONIO AND THROUGHOUT TEXAS.

BECAUSE IT LIMITS GREATLY OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS AND TO ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE CLOSER AND MORE IN TUNE WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

WE SHOULD RETAIN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS AT THIS LEVEL TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS.

SO JUST MAKE NO MISTAKE, SB15 AND ITS MANY VERSIONS, THEY MEAN LIMITATIONS TO THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE HERE AND ACROSS THE STATE.

AND IT MEANS THE REMOVAL OF WATER BREAKS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN DALLAS.

AND, YES, IT MEANS TAKING AWAY PAID SICK TIME HERE IN SAN ANTONIO AND IN AUSTIN.

BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THESE RIGHTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL OR ACROSS THE STATE.

AND I ACTUALLY DO FIND IT TROUBLESOME THAT OUR LOCAL WE KNOW THE SAME PEOPLE ATTACKING LOCAL CONTROL ARE ALSO DOING SO TO TARGET BOTH THE LGBT COMMUNITY AND WORKING FAMILIES ALL AT ONCE.

THEY'RE THE SAME FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO DO ALL THREE THINGS.

AND EACH OF YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE LGBTQ AUDIO] WE ARE ASKING YOU TO AUDIO] AND DEFEND THE LAWS THAT

[01:15:01]

WE PASS HERE AT A LOCAL LEVEL.

HERE TODAY WE HAVE MEMBERS FROM LOCAL UNIONS, FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT STOOD TOGETHER TO PASS THESE LAWS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST WANTING TO ALSO STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS THAT PETITION OUR GOVERNMENT AND TO SEE THAT WHEN WE PETITION OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WHEN YOU PASS A LAW YOU WILL DEFEND IT AND DEFEND OUR RIGHTS AT THE STATE CAPITAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING.

PARENTHOOD TEXAS VOTE.

AND WE DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE STAND WITH THE PAID SICK COALITION.

AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD OPPOSE EVERYTHING THAT JOLENE STATED.

AS A MEMBER OF THE AUDIO].

WHEN WE THINK OF OUR FAMILIES, WHEN WE THINK OF AUDIO] SOME LAWS THREATEN SOME PEOPLE.

AND THE PASSING OF SB17, THAT'S ANOTHER AFFRONT TO THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.

SO TO SEE SB15 THREATENING THAT AS WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER BLOW.

THAT'S ANOTHER AFFRONT.

I WOULD HOPE TODAY THERE'S CONSENSUS TO STAND AGAINST SB15, TO PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE ME IN THE COMMUNITIES LIKE ME AND TO KNOW THAT THE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU HOPE FOR YOUR FAMILY ALSO EXTEND TO PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

AND SO WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND STAND IN OPPOSITION TO SB15 AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

>> HELLO AND GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS ISAAC GARCIA AND I AK TIME.

NOW WE HAVE THE RIGHTS OF MY FELLOW LGBTY COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

AND ALSO THIS IS CONNECTED, PARENTS HAVING TO TAKE TIME OFF TO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO THE DOCTOR.

A LOT OF THE TIMES THEY ARE SICK BECAUSE OF ASTHMA RELATED REASONS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE CLIMATE ACTION ADAPTATION PLAN WOULD ADDRESS, HAD YOU VOTED ON IT ON MAY 16, BUT IT'S PUSHED BACK.

SO EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED AND WE NEED TO

>> THANKS FOR LETTING US SPEAK TODAY.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SAN ANTONIO TEACHERS ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL.

TODAY WE JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS ON HOW TEACHERS ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO PAID SICK LEAVE, BUT MANY FAMILIES ARE NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT TO PAID SICK LEAVE.

AND WHEN YOU SEND A SICK KID TO SCHOOL YOU INITIALLY PUT OTHER KIDS IN THAT HARM'S WAY AND CONTINUING THE CYCLE.

SO TEACHERS STAND AGAINST SB15.

AGAIN, LIKE JOLENE SAID, ALL THE OTHER BILLS THAT ARE AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE.

THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS JACOB TUCKER.

I'M WITH UNITE HERE LOCAL 23.

WE'VE COMMITTED SEVERAL -- MANY RESOURCES TO THIS ISSUE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THROUGH OUR CONTRACT AND THROUGH OUR EMPLOYER WE HAVE SIX DAYS OF PAID SICK.

WE UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE HAVE IT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE IT.

AND LIKE THE ALLIANCE REPRESENTATIVE SAID, MY WIFE IS A TEACHER.

SHE SEES KIDS COME IN SICK OFTENTIMES BECAUSE THEY'RE PARENTS ARE UNAVAILABLE TO TAKE

[01:20:01]

THE TIME NECESSARY TO PULL THEIR KIDS OUT OF CLASS, CREATE SITUATIONS WHERE OTHER KIDS GET SICK IN CLASS.

SO WE ASK YOU TO DEFEND WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY PASSED.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.

WE HOPE YOU ALL WILL TAKE THESE WORDS TO HEART AND KNOW THAT WE WANT YOU, AS OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, TO STAND WITH US AND TO REPRESENT THE FAMILIES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: I'M SORRY.

ONE MORE.

JACK FINGER IS ALSO SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM.

>> WELL, MAYOR NIRENBERG AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JACK M. FINGER.

WELL, I NEED TO GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT HERE.

WE ARE THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO.

A LONG TIME AGO WE AGREED TO PAY TAXES TO HELP THE CITY GOVERNMENT DO THE THINGS THE CITY GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

POLICE, FIRE PROTECTION, HEALTH, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND OUR TAXES HAVE BEEN GOING UP STEADILY FOR YEARS.

NOT BECAUSE YOU'VE RAISED TAX RATES LIKE YOU SAY YOU HAVEN'T, BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO GO UP WITH THE -- WELL, THE PROPERTY TAX RATE LEVIES.

THE PROPERTY VALUES GO UP, TAXES GO UP AND YOU THE CITY COUNCIL DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.

YEAH.

WELL GO TO PAY ALL THE BASICS FOR CITY SERVICES.

WE LEARNED THEY ALSO GO TO PAY FOR LOBBYISTS.

LOBBYISTS THAT GO UP TO AUSTIN AND LOBBY AGAINST US.

LOBBY FOR WHAT YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT LOBBY AGAINST US THE CITIZEN TAXPAYERS WHO PAY THE FREIGHT ON ALL THIS STUFF.

YOU HAVE LOBBYISTS THAT GO UP TO AUSTIN TO SAY, NOPE.

DO NOT GIVE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, OR AT LEAST ADJUST IT SO IT ISN'T AS LOW AS 2.5% BEFORE IT GOES TO THE VOTERS THERE.

YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO TO US, THE GUYS THAT PAY THE BILLS.

WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE TIRED OF THAT.

WE DON'T LIKE THAT.

WE DON'T LIKE OUR MONEY GOING AGAINST OUR INTERESTS.

WHAT ELSE ARE YOU -- WHAT ELSE ARE WE PAYING FOR? WELL, THE LOBBYISTS TO TELL US ABOUT THE ALAMO.

WE DIDN'T WANT THE CENOTAPH REMOVED AT ALL.

NOT EVEN AN INCH.

WHAT ARE THE LOBBYISTS SAYING AND DOING? OUR VERY OWN CITY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS GOING UP THERE AND SAYING, OH, YEAH.

IT'S OKAY.

MOVE THE ALAMO.

IT'S OKAY.

WE HAVE A PLAN FOR THESE THINGS.

NO! WE DON'T LIKE THAT! WE DON'T LIKE OUR TAX DOLLARS GOING AGAINST US AND THE THINGS THAT WE HOLD DEAR.

SUCH AS THE ALAMO.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I DON'T SEE ANY AMENDMENTS ON THE HORIZON FROM YOU GUYS.

SORRY TO SAY.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. FINGER.

COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, JEFF, FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK AND YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY.

I JUST HAVE ABOUT THE CABLE FEES FOR SB1142.

HOW ARE THE OTHER CITIES WEIGHING IN ON THIS? DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN AUDIO].

>> I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY TESTIFY, MAYOR TURNER IN HOUSTON HAS WEIGHED IN ON IT.

THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS IN THOSE CITIES ARE EVEN GREATER THAN HERE.

IN HOUSTON THE ESTIMATE IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN $17 MILLION AND $21 MILLION A YEAR.

FRANKLY WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST IS A HANDFUL OF CITIES UP THERE FIGHTING FOR THIS AGAINST IN AUDIO] ON THIS ISSUE FOR SURE.

BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS.

A NUMBER OF SMALL CITIES CAME UP AND TESTIFIED AS WELL.

IT'S A BIG DEAL AS WELL.

THE CITY OF PEARSALL HAD SOME OFFICIALS AT THE HEARING THIS

[01:25:01]

PAST WEEK.

>> SANDOVAL: AND SO IT LOOKS LIKELY TO PASS?

>> IT'S HARD TO PREDICT.

I NEVER WANT TO PREDICT AT THIS POINT, BUT THE FACT THAT TWO CHAIRS OF THE RELEVANT COMMITTEES HAVE BROUGHT THESE BILLS DON'T BODE WELL FOR US.

>> SANDOVAL: ALL RIGHT.

AND IN TERMS OF THE BILL REGARDING SCOOTERS -- OH, YOU DIDN'T LIST IT, BUT HOW DOES THAT ONE LOOK?

>> WELL, SO IT GIVES A LOT OF LEEWAY LOCALLY.

IT ESSENTIALLY CREATES SOME STATEWIDE FRAMEWORK BUT THEN HAS A LIST OF, I BELIEVE, SEVEN ITEMS THAT IT SAYS CITIES CAN DO.

AND SO IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE CAN RESTRICT.

SO IN GENERAL THE BILL IS INTENDED TO GIVE LOCAL CONTROL, A STATEWIDE FRAMEWORK BUT LOCAL CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO REGULATE AS APPROPRIATE.

I MISSPOKE A SECOND AGO ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS PIECE.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE IS NOT THAT IT WILL PROHIBIT CITIES FROM REGULATING SCOOTERS ON THE SIDEWALK, IT WILL ACTUALLY PROHIBIT SCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS, SO IT WOULD CREATE A STATEWIDE MANDATE THAT THE SCOOTERS HAVE TO BE IN ROADWAYS AND ON BIKE PATHS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

IN GENERAL IT IS A BILL THAT IS INTENDED TO ALLOW FOR LOCAL REGULATION WHILE CREATING SOME SORT OF BUMPERS FROM THE STATEWIDE REGULATORY LEVEL.

>> SANDOVAL: GREAT.

AND IF WE WERE INTERESTED IN REQUIRING HELMETS, LET'S SAY.

WOULD WE STILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT?

>> I BELIEVE SO.

I WOULD HAVE TO GO LOOK AT IT AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IS THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION THAT WE'RE EXPECTING, WHICH I WILL DEFINITELY SHARE WHEN IT COMES.

I THINK SO.

THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF AREAS WHERE IT SAYS WE CAN'T DO THINGS.

SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE THAT ABILITY.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

AND BACK TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

I UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE LOCALLY IS WE CAN'T GET THE ONLINE PLATFORMS TO AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAW HOT.

SO WOULD THAT BE --

>> NO, THIS BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THE TAXES PART, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ALREADY STATE LAW.

SO THIS BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FINANCE PIECE.

WHAT IT DOES SAY ABOUT THE PLATFORMS IS THAT IF AN STR -- IF WE HAVE A PERMITTING REGIME AND THE STR DOES NOT HAVE A LOCAL PERMIT IT IS PROHIBITED FROM LISTING THAT PROPERTY.

IT SORT OF REQUIRES THEM TO COME TO US.

BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE TAX PIECE AT ALL.

>> SANDOVAL: IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE TAXES BUT THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW THEM AUTOMATICALLY.

>> YEAH.

TROY'S DEPARTMENT DOES THE COMPLIANCE PIECE ON THAT.

BUT THE BILL DOESN'T.

>> YES, MA'AM.

WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION WITH THE PLATFORMS. THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAW THAT.

THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THE NUMBER OF PLATFORMS AND REACHING AGREEMENTS WITH THEM.

MANY PLATFORMS WILL WITHDRAW IT BUT THEY WILL NOT PROVIDE US THE DATA AS FAR AS WHO HAS PROVIDED THE SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

SO WE'RE PLANNING ON HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS PROBABLY LATER ON IN THE YEAR, BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, TROY.

JUST A FEW MORE COMMENTS.

COUNCILMAN SALDANA COULDN'T BE HERE, AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE'S GOT A BABY WHO'S SICK.

AND HE WAS POSTING SOMETHING FROM THE HOSPITAL SAYING THAT HE FEELS REALLY PRIVILEGED AND BLESSED THAT HE DOES HAVE PAID SICK LEAVE BECAUSE HE CAN BE THERE WITH HIS CHILD.

BUT HE KNOWS THERE ARE MANY PARENTS THAT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND SO HE WISHES THAT HE WERE HERE BEING ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM.

SALDANA WANTED THE DISCUSSION TO COME HERE AND NOT JUST AT IGR BECAUSE HE REALLY WANTED TO HEAR FROM ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO I WILL WEIGH IN.

I HAVE EXPRESSED THIS BEFORE BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE SAME COUNCIL THAT DID VOTE FOR PAID SICK LEAVE NOT LONG AGO.

I THINK THE ONLY PERSON WE HAVE HAD CHANGE IS OF COURSE COUNCILMAN HALL.

SO I GUESS I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE NOT STANDING BY OUR DECISION THAT WE MADE AT THAT

[01:30:05]

DO THAT BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU CAN STAY HOME AND TAKE CARE AUDIO] A FRIEND IN AUDIO] WHO WAS A PH.D.

STUDENT, AND PH.D. STUDENTS ARE NOTORIOUS FOR HAVING TO WORK 24 HOURS A DAY, AND FOR THEY BEING FREE LABOR FOR DOCTORAL RESEARCHERS, AND HE WAS -- HE WAS SICK AND HE WAS SURPRISED AUDIO] SO NICE, HE WAWNGS ME -- WANTSME TO GET BETTER, AND N PROFESSOR HEEMAN SAID I WANT YOU TO GET BACK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO I CAN GET THE MOST OUT OF YOU.

I CAN'T GET VERY MUCH OUT OF YOU WHEN YOU'RE SICK.

PEOPLE ARE HEALTHY.

I'M ALSO REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NDO PORTION THAT'S BEEN FOLDED INTO ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS.

I BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE BLIND EYE TO THE COMMUNITIES IN OTHER CITIES AND IF THOSE CITIES HAVE MOVED FORWARD ON THEIR ORDINANCES, I THINK CITIES NEED TO STAND TOGETHER.

WE DID ON A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES.

SO I -- FOR THAT REASON I ALSO SUPPORT US TAKING A POSITION.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS CONFUSING IF -- IF SOME MEMBERS OR SOME ORGANIZATIONS ARE TAKING OUR WE SHOULD SUPPORT THE OTHER BILL BY COUNCILMAN BERNAL.

I'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL SAY IT'S NOT A LOCAL ISSUE.

IT SHOULD BE A STATEWIDE ISSUE.

WELL, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE CAN ALSO WEIGH IN, IF WE REALLY [INDISCERNIBLE] ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO.

I MEAN, NO OFFENSE AT MY -- I WANT TO HEAR YOURS AND HAVING AN OPEN DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS, AND I'D ALSO BE INTERESTED AUDIO].

>> WHILE I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT, I DO THINK THIS STILL NEEDS SOME WORKING AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, AND I LITTLE -- I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE GOOD DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR SAN ANTONIO DELEGATION UP IN AUSTIN BEFORE -- AS PART OF THAT COMMITTEE WORK, AND SKIPPING THAT PROCESS TOO IS I THINK DETRIMENTAL TO THE WORK THAT WE DO, IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE CIRCUMVENTION OF THAT PROCESS.

AND SO I'M GOING TO ALSO URGE THE COMMITTEE TO REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE REASONS -- I'M SORRY THE COUNSELOR WILL REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE COMMITTEES IS SO THAT WE CAN BE MORE TRANSPARENT, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS THAN LESS, AND, YOU KNOW, ASKING US TO HAVE THIS DEBATE TODAY BEFORE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, A ROBUST DISCUSSION AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, I THINK CHEATS THAT PROCESS AND THAT OPPORTUNITY.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

COUNCILMAN COURAGE?

>> COURAGE: YEAH, I ORIGINALLY WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE BUT I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE SO I'LL MENTION MY FEELINGS ON IT.

YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T TOO LONG AGO THAT BUSINESSES WOULDN'T HIRE WOMEN BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BECOME PREGNANT AND THEY'D MISS WORK AND SO THE BUSINESS WOULD LOSE OUT, AND SO THAT WAS A REALTY DILEMMA FACING A MAJOR SEGMENT OF OUR WORKFORCE.

BUT NOW PEOPLE HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOWING EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKFORCE.

I THINK THE SAME THOUGHT

[01:35:01]

PROCESS NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PAID SICK LEAVE.

I JUST THINK THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT PARENTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN IF THEY'RE SICK OR TO TAKE CARE OF SICK FAMILY MEMBERS OR TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.

AND THE PROSPECT OF LOSING THEIR JOB OR LOSING THEIR INCOME AND THEIR FINANCIAL STABILITY BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OR SICKNESS, YOU KNOW, IS CONTRARY, REALLY, TO THE WELL-BEING OF ALL OF US, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, IF YOU DON'T COME TO WORK YOU DON'T GET PAID.

IF YOU MISS FOUR OR FIVE DAYS BEING SICK I CAN'T KEEP YOU ON, I NEED SOMEBODY ELSE TO TAKE THE JOB, YOU'RE FIRED, THAT JUST MEANS THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEND KIDS TO SCHOOL SICK, WHICH I SAW AS A TEACHER FOR 27 YEARS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE WORKERS GO TO WORK SICK AND SPREAD SICKNESS THROUGHOUT THE WORKPLACE AND TO THE CUSTOMER BASE BEING SERVED BY THOSE WORKERS.

THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME.

AND THAT WAS THE FOUNDATION OF MY ORIGINAL SUPPORT FOR PAID SICK LEAVE, AND, YOU KNOW, I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT WE SUPPORTED WAS PUT UPON US, THAT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE GENERATED AS A COUNCIL.

MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE BUT WE DIDN'T, AND I THINK THAT IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US, EVEN THOUGH WE PASSED IT AS AN ORDINANCE, TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTORS THAT WE CAN, TO ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE AND GROW AND POSSIBLY GET BETTER THROUGH MORE ATTENTION BY STAKEHOLDERS, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT EFFORT GOING FORWARD, BUT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE STATE TAKING AWAY OUR OPPORTUNITY AND RIGHT AS A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT TO GO AHEAD AND DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE.

COUNCILMAN TREVINO?

>> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I TOO WANT TO CONTINUE THOSE COMMENTS.

THIS IS -- THIS IS ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL, AND WHILE I DO RESPECT THE COMMENTS ON PROCESS, I THINK WE'RE BEING ASKED TO ALSO EXPRESS OUR POINT OF VIEW HERE, AND THIS IS -- THIS IS IMPORTANT HERE.

I DO STAND BY OUR DECISION BELIEVE THAT SB 15 DOES UNDERMINE US IN MANY WAYS, AND WE HAVE A PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW HERE WHEN IT COMES TO LOCAL CONTROL, AND WE'RE CLOSEST TO THE ISSUES.

WE'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, AND SO I WANT TO EXPRESS MY -- MY CONCERN OVER SB 15, SPECIFICALLY ON PAID SICK LEAVE.

I THINK ALL OF US HAVE COMMON STORIES TO TELL ABOUT WHY THIS IS JUST COMMON ESSENTIAL.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT, AND PROBABLY THE HARDEST STORIES ARE THOSE WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, WELL, THEY HAVE PAID SICK LEAVE, BUT KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S HARD FOR OTHERS NOT TO.

WELL, I THINK THIS IS THAT MOMENT WHERE WE TALK ABOUT WHAT'S -- WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US AND HOW WE STAND UP AND HELP BE A VOICE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT HAVE SPENT A LOT OF EFFORT COLLECTING, YOU KNOW, THAT -- THAT WHICH WE VOTED ON, AND I THINK I WANT TO STAND BY OUR DECISION.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE NDO PORTION OF IT IS ALSO TROUBLING, AGAIN, TO SAY, WELL, IT DOESN'T AFFECT US BELIEVE IN LOCAL CONTROL AND WANT TO SUPPORT BERNAL'S BILL REGARDING THIS ISSUE AS WELL.

THIS IS -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

IT IMPACTS THEM IN WAYS THAT SOME MAY NOT CONNECT TO, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY WHEN YOU -- WHEN WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS WE LEARN THAT IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL RELATE TO AND BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO PUT OUR RESOURCES BEHIND BEING RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN TREVINO.

COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES?

>> GONZALES: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS, JEFF, SO I KNOW WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN INTERNAL COMMITTEE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON BECAUSE, AS WAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THIS CAME TO US ORIGINALLY AS A PETITION.

WE DECIDED TO ADOPT IT AS AN ORDINANCE, BUT THE ENFORCEMENT PART AND HOW WE WOULD COMMUNICATE TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WERE IMPACTED STILL NEEDED TO BE DETERMINED.

WE DON'T HAVE THE PROCESSES IN THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOW WE WOULD WORK THROUGH THOSE ISSUES.

SO WE HAVE OUR SMALL

[01:40:02]

COMMITTEE THAT COUNCILMAN PELAEZ IS CHAIRING, AND WE -- SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPLEMENTATION WILL LOOK LIKE.

SO THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE IS ALREADY IN EFFECT.

IT WAS IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S IN EFFECT BUT IT WILL START FULLY IMPLEMENTING IT SOMETIME IN AUGUST.

SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONFUSION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, OUR COMMITTEE, USING OUR LEGISLATIVE TERMS, BUT, YOU KNOW, OUR COMMITTEE, THERE WAS NOT A CONSENSUS IN THE IGR COMMITTEE TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY, BUT WE DID PASS AN ORDINANCE, AND WE ARE WORKING ON IT INTERNALLY THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT COUNCILMAN PELAEZ IS CHAIRING.

SO WHAT KIND OF DIRECTION DO YOU NEED FROM US TO PRIORITIZE IT? I THINK THIS IS WHERE THERE IS SOME CONFUSION, YOU KNOW, EVEN AMONGST US ON THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA WANTED TO MAKE -- PERHAPS MAKE A MOTION, BUT WE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION ON ALL OF THESE --

>> NO.

>> GONZALES: OR HAVE WE, COULD YOU ELABORATE?

>> YES, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WHAT GUIDES OUR ACTIVITIES AT THE CAPITOL IS OUR STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WHICH YOU ALL ULTIMATELY AS A BODY APPROVE.

WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE AGENDA THAT SAYS WE WILL FIGHT FOR LOCAL DECISION-MAKING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR ITS COMMUNITY.

INEVITABLY EVERY SESSION THERE ARE ISSUES AND BILLS THAT COME UP THAT DON'T NECESSARILY FIT NEATLY IN THE BOXES OF OUR PROGRAM AND WE SEEK DIRECTION FROM THE IGR COMMITTEE FOR HOW TO HANDLE THEM.

ON THE ISSUE OF PAID SICK LEAVE, WHEN WE CAME TO THE COMMITTEE, OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO -- TO NOT TAKE A POSITION ON IT, TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN TESTIMONY AS TO THE HISTORY OF THIS ISSUE, THE PETITIONS THAT WERE GATHERED BY THE COMMUNITY, THE SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL APPROVAL, THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE IN PLACE WORKING -- CONTINUING TO WORK ON IT, AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE WATCHING CLOSELY THE LEGAL FIGHT OVER THE ISSUE, THAT IT'S BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE AUSTIN CIRCUIT.

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US BUT IT'S PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, AND IF THEY TAKE IT UP IT WOULD BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME WAS LET'S MONITOR THIS CLOSELY.

LET'S WATCH IT.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO REPORT TO YOU, BUT NOT TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST.

THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SPOKE UP AND DISAGREED WITH THAT, SO WE TOOK THAT AS DIRECTION THAT -- THAT THAT'S HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THIS ISSUE.

NOW, THESE THINGS ARE FLUID.

THIS BILL IS FLUID, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH THE NDO EXEMPTION BEING IN IT AND OUT OF IT AND THAT SORT OF THING, SO WE ARE CONTINUING TO WATCH CLOSELY.

I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT WE'RE NOT, BUT AT THIS POINT WHEN IT'S BEEN HEARD IN ONE BODY, WHICH IS IN THE SENATE, WE DID NOT REGISTER A FOR OR AGAINST POSITION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

WE HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND WEIGHED IN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT AFFECTS OUR NDO, WHICH IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY.

>> GONZALES: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL NOW MANY YEARS.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS THAT SOMETHING WAS SUPPORTED IN A COMMITTEE AND THEN THE ENTIRE BODY DID NOT SUPPORT THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHO'S THE ONE TO PROPERLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

DOES IT REQUIRE A MOTION? I THINK THAT THERE'S PERHAPS SOME GATHERING ON THAT SIDE.

SORRY TO -- I DON'T KNOW IF --

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: I CAN ANSWER THAT, COUNCILWOMAN.

>> GONZALES: OKAY, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE'RE HAVING A BRIEFING RIGHT NOW SO JEFF CAN GET CLARITY ON OUR POSITIONS AS COUNCIL ON ANY CHANGE IN POSITION.

SO IF YOU HAVE A POSITION ON SB 15 YOU SHOULD VOCALIZE THAT TO JEFF AT THIS TIME.

>> GONZALES: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND SO THEN IN THIS CASE IT WOULD REQUIRE ACTION.

BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS WHERE I'M A LITTLE BIT STILL NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE --

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ACTION.

HE JUST NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL -- DOESN'T NEED TO TAKE THE FORM OF AN ACTION, THOUGH.

>> GONZALES: EVEN THOUGH THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T RECOMMEND --

>> WELL, THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM THAT THE FULL COUNCIL DID PASS DOES AUTHORIZE US TO GO DEFEND DIRECT POSITION ON THIS.

BUT IT DOES NOT TAKE FURTHER ACTION.

IF THE BODY OF THE COUNCIL -- IF THE DIRECTION FROM THE FOR US TO THERE'S JUST BEEN A LACK OF CLEAR DIRECTION ABOUT THE

[01:45:02]

ISSUE TO THIS POINT, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE -- WHICH IS WHY WE'VE TAKEN THE ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE UP TO THIS POINT. ISSUE, THEN THAT WILL BE ENOUGH AUDIO] THE EXISTING AGENDA.

>> GONZALES: OKAY, WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO I DO SUPPORT US MAKING THAT A COUNCIL PRIORITY.

I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT IN A NUMBER OF WAYS BY CREATING THE ORDINANCE.

IT'S CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.

WE HAVE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO TRY TO GET IT RIGHT AT OUR LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY CLEAR ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ALSO OVERSIGHT AND AUTHORITY -- JUST SIMPLY HOW ONE WOULD COMMUNICATE WITH OUR BUSINESSES THAT THIS WAS A NEW ORDINANCE.

SO ALL THOSE THINGS I FELT LIKE SHOULD STILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AT A LOCAL LEVEL BUT THAT WE WOULD PRIORITIZE THIS AS DIRECTION FROM OUR -- FROM YOU AS OUR LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE THAT A PRIORITY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES.

COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MENTIONED THIS BILL, THE ONE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER -- SORRY, REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL WAS DOING ON NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> RIGHT.

>> VIAGRAN: DID YOU MENTION THAT --

>> I DID.

THERE'S BEEN NO UPDATE.

UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS NOT GOTTEN A HEARING YET IN COMMITTEE.

I KNOW HIS OFFICE HAS BEEN ASKING THE CHAIR TO HOLD THE HEARING.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROCESS IS THAT EACH CHAIR GETS A WHOLE BUNCH OF BILLS REFERRED TO THEIR COMMITTEE AND THEY'LL PRIORITIZE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

SO TO THIS POINT IT HAS NOT BEEN HEARD.

>> VIAGRAN: AND THAT -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT BILL WAS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?

>> SURE.

IT ALLOWS US -- WELL, ACTUALLY IT'S NOT US.

IT'S A STATE LAW RELATED TO THE SCHOOL PROPERTY TAXES, BUT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS FOR A TAX SOMEONE HAS BEEN IN THEIR HOME FOR, I BELIEVE IT WAS -- SHOOT, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME.

>> I THINK IT'S 15.

>> I THINK IT'S TEN YEARS OR MORE -- YOU'RE RIGHT, 15 YEARS AND HAS SEEN VALUES GO UP BY 100% OVER THAT TIME, THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW -- SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY A TARGETED RELIEF TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF LONG TIME RESIDENTS SEEING VALUES GO UP AROUND THEM THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, AND IT ADDRESSES THE SCHOOL TAX PIECE OF IT.

>> VIAGRAN: RIGHT.

OKAY.

CORRECT.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP OUR EYES FOCUSED ON THAT ONE BECAUSE AUDIO] RESIDENTS FOR OUR LEGACY HOMEOWNERS AS WELL.

AND THEN FINALLY I THINK JUST TO -- WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THIS -- THIS AREA.

JUST TO BE CLEAR TOO, A STATEMENT THAT MY COLLEAGUE MADE ABOUT WOMEN GETTING PAID IF THEIR PREGNANT.

WOMEN STILL AREN'T GETTING PAID IF THEY TAKE MATERNITY LEAVE.

IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THE TEACHERS THAT ARE TAKING LEAVE, THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE DAYS AS WELL.

SO THEY'RE NOT GETTING THOSE DAYS PAID FOR.

SO LET'S JUST ALSO TALK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SEE WHAT -- AND THE STATE TO SEE -- FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AS WELL TO PAY FOR OUR TEACHERS AND THEIR MATERNITY LEAVE TOO.

I THINK WHAT OUR GROUP BROUGHT UP WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ABOUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT BILLS.

THERE'S SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT MACHINATIONS OF THE SB -- SB SA 15-THAT'S COMING UP HERE -- SB 15 THAT'S COMING UP HERE AND I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET -- MAYOR? MAYOR? I THINK WE DO NEED TO GET THE -- WHEN WE GET A BRIEFING IN IGR WE NEED TO HAVE IT HOLISTICALLY LOOKED AT WITH ALL OF THESE VARIATIONS OF -- WHAT WAS OUTLINED HERE -- THE SB 15, HB 1654, SB 24585, 3728 AND HOW THEY ARE CONNECTED IN SOME WAY TO SB 15.

BECAUSE I THINK WE AS A CITY, IF WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENT, I GUESS, WAYS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO APPROACH THIS, I THINK IT WILL HELP US IN OUR POSITION OF GOING FORWARD AND DEFENDING THE CITY AND DEFENDING OUR POSITION -- OUR CITY PRIORITY AND POSITION.

SO I THINK WE DO NEED TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY, BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED FULL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW ALL THESE PIECES ARE GETTING PLAYED TOGETHER AND OUR LINE OF DEFENSE IF WE NEED TO PLAY DEFENSE.

BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY BUT I

[01:50:01]

ALSO THINK WE NEED TO GET MORE INFORMATION OUR IGR COMMITTEE AS FAR AS HOW ALL THESE PUZZLE PIECES WORK TOGETHER.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN VIAGR.

COUNCILMAN HALL?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND I DO THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING AND LANGUAGE GETS PUT IN OTHER THINGS AND SO FORTH.

SO I APPLAUD THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S VERY COMPLICATED IN FOLLOWING THIS STUFF, BUT THEN ALSO MAKING LAW.

AND SO ON THE CITY LEVEL, I JUST THINK IT'S -- THE BETTER APPROACH IS TO TALK ABOUT GENERAL -- GENERALITIES IN CONCEPTS AS OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC DETAILED LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THE DETAILS CHANGE, AND SO IF WE HAVE AN OVERALL PERSPECTIVE AS TO AN APPROACH, THAT'S THE APPROACH WE SHOULD TAKE.

SO I LIKE THE NOTION OF, ALL RIGHT, LET'S FOLLOW THIS CONCEPT OF LOCAL CONTROL AND IT MAY APPLY TO LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE CAN KIND OF DEAL WITH THOSE AS THEY COME UP BUT LOCAL CONTROL IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL SUPPORT.

NOW, THAT SAID, LOCAL CONTROL DOES HAVE LIMITS.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR A REASON.

WE'VE GOT A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR A REASON.

WE'VE GOT SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR A REASON.

EACH OF THEM HAVE AREAS OF AUTHORITY, ET CETERA, AND SO IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MY POSITION ON IT, MY POSITION IS SIMPLE.

I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF MINIMUM WAGE, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF PAID SICK LEAVE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT FROM MY VIEW THAT'S NOT A LOCAL CONTROL ISSUE.

THAT'S -- THAT SORT OF ISSUE, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS, BELONG AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL, WHETHER STATE AND NATIONAL OR OTHERWISE.

SO THAT'S MY GENERALLY PERSPECTIVE ON IT.

I DO THINK WE CAN GO OUT AND ADVOCATE AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF WHERE THAT DECISION IS BEING MADE.

I DON'T MIND DOING THAT, BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER WE SHOULD DO IT AS A CITY, I JUST -- I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S PART OF OUR PURVIEW AS A CITY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HALL.

COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: I JUST SORT OF ALONG THE LINES OF COUNCILMAN HALL, HE SAID IT'S GOOD TO START WITH A GENERAL DIRECTION BUT THEN THERE ARE NUANCES AFTER THAT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, JEFF.

WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT THIS FULL COUNCIL ADOPTED, AND WHAT WAS THE POSITION WHEN IT CAME TO LOCAL CONTROL ON THAT?

>> EDUARDO, YOU DON'T HAVE IT WITH YOU, DO YOU? THE LANGUAGE? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT WE SUPPORT AUDIO] OF THIS BODY, OF THE ABILITY TO -- FOR THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PASS ORDINANCES AND RULES AND POLICIES THAT THEY BELIEVE ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR COMMUNITY, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES.

>> SANDOVAL: WHICH AT THE TIME WE HAD WHEN IT CAME TO PAID SICK LEAVE AND WHICH OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE WITH THEIR DIFFERENT NDOS.

SO RIGHT NOW WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THESE BILLS WE ARE NOT TAKING -- WE'RE NOT BEING CONSISTENT, I THINK, WITH -- WITH THAT AGENDA AS IT WAS LAID OUT, IT SEEMS TO ME.

>> WELL, I THINK COUNCILMAN HALL'S COMMENTS ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

THERE IS A PLACE WHERE STATE LEADS -- LOCAL LEADS INTO STATE.

I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE.

I JUST MENTIONED TOBACCO 21.

IF WE WERE TAKING A RIGID POSITION THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEFEND LOCAL DECISION-MAKING, THAT'S IT, WE WOULD FIGHT A STATEWIDE SMOKING AGE OF 21.

BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

WE HAVE A LOCAL ORDINANCE.

THERE IS A STATE LAW THAT IS GENERALLY THE SAME.

IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME THING IN -- AS OUR ORDINANCE, BUT IT WOULD CREATE A STATEWIDE CONCEPT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY -- MIRRORS WHAT YOU ALL HAVE ASKED FOR LOCALLY, SO WE SUPPORT THAT.

>> SANDOVAL: BUT IN GENERAL THAT PROPOSAL ON WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD IS THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SB 15 IS NOT CONSISTENT AND IT DOES OVERRIDE LOCAL DECISION-MAKING POWER.

>> YEAH.

>> SANDOVAL: SO I THINK THERE IS -- WELL, A, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF CONSISTENCY HERE, BUT I APPROVED A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT SAID WE WOULD SUPPORT LOCAL AUDIO] DECISIONS AUDIO] WHAT'S THE PROCESS WHEN WE DEVIATE FROM OUR LOCAL ADOPTED AGENDA? IS THERE A SPECIFIC ACTION THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OR -- WE'RE KIND OF LOOSEY-GOOSY ON IT? WHAT --

>> NO, I THINK WE -- WE'VE GOT OUR -- WE'VE GOT OUR DIRECTIVES FROM YOU ALL IN THE APPROVED PROGRAM.

WHEN THE NUANCED TOPICS COME UP THAT LEAVE QUESTION MARKS IN BETWEEN THOSE STATED POSITIONS, WE SEEK DIRECTION FROM YOU.

IT DOESN'T -- IF IT'S A CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE BODY, THEN I'D SAY WHAT I SAID BEFORE, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO VOTE TO AMEND OUR PROGRAM.

IF IT'S NOT CLEAR, THEN PERHAPS THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT WE -- WE CONTINUALLY ARE CHECKING IN WITH IGR WEEKLY

[01:55:02]

SO THAT THEY KNOW THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE TAKING UP THERE AND CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE AS TO OUR CONSISTENCY WITH THE AGENDA.

CERTAINLY IF THEY -- IF THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES WE'RE BEING INCONSISTENT THEY WILL TELL US AND WE'LL CHANGE OUR ACTIONS THERE.

NO, AS I MENTIONED WHEN I BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP, THE COMMITTEE DID NOT DISAGREE WITH OUR POSITION TO MONITOR IT, SUBMIT THE WRITTEN HISTORY OF THE ISSUE AND -- AND NOT REGISTER FOR OR AGAINST.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

SO IT WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOT TO TAKE A POSITION?

>> THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT THE HEARING WAS COMING UP THE NEXT WEEK.

WE SAID, HERE'S WHAT WE RECOMMEND.

WE WILL SUBMIT TESTIMONY THAT SUMMARIZES THE BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE AND WHERE WE ARE ON IT, AND WE'LL REGISTER ON THE BILL, MEANING WE'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION BUT NOT SAYING WE'RE FOR OR AGAINST, AND I THINK THE COMMITTEE AGREED WITH THAT DIRECTION, SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

AND THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH OUR -- WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WHICH --

>> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA'S COMMENT, ABSOLUTELY.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SAW SANDOVAL.

COUNCILMAN COURAGE?

>> COURAGE: THANK YOU, I HAD A QUESTION ON ANOTHER TOPIC AND IT WAS ON EDUCATION, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT TWO BILLS THAT MAY BE COMING TOGETHER AROUND SOMETHING LIKE $9 BILLION TOWARDS HELPING PUBLIC EDUCATION.

AND I'M JUST ASKING YOUR VIEW OF WHAT YOU THINK YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS OF THESE BILLS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ARE THESE GUARANTEED FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS? AND I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW SO MANY TIMES IN THE PAST THE STATE HAS SAID WE WANT TO MANDATE PAY INCREASES, OR WE WANT TO MANDATE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOING X, Y OR Z, AND THEY SAY THE VALUE IS X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, BUT THEY'VE NEVER REALLY COMMITTED FUNDS TO GUARANTEE THE STATE'S PORTION OF THAT.

AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU'RE SEEING A STRONG GUARANTEE BY THE STATE IDENTIFYING WHERE THOSE EDUCATIONAL FUNDS ARE COMING FROM TO ENSURE THAT THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GET TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

>> THE HOUSE VERSION ABSOLUTELY DOES DO THAT.

IT IS A CHANGE IN THE FORMULA.

IT IS AN INCREASE IN THE BASIC ALLOTMENT PER STUDENT, AND THEY'VE RUN -- I GUESS THEY CALL THEM RUNS, ON EACH OF THE DISTRICTS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE -- THEY COME OUT AHEAD.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS BECAUSE, TALK ABOUT LEGISLATION CHANGING AND BEING FLUID.

THIS IS A BIG COMPREHENSIVE BILL, AND THEY'VE GENERALLY PREFERRED THE HOUSE VERSION, WHICH GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE LOCAL LEVEL.

THE SENATE VERSION IS MORE OF A -- AS I MENTIONED, ACROSS THE BOARD TEACHER PAY RAISE AND NOT A SUSTAINABLE CHANGE IN THE FORMULA.

IT'S SORT OF A ONE-TIME SOLUTION.

NOW, THAT MAY CONTINUE GOING FORWARD, BUT IT ISN'T A CHANGE IN THE FORMULA PER SE FOR THE DISTRICT.

I BELIEVE WITHOUT WANTING TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT LIBL THE SUPERINTENDENTS HAVE PREFERRED THE HOUSE VERSION.

AND THE HOUSE VERSION CREATES A PERMANENT STRUCTURAL CHANGE FOR FINANCE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE?

>> BROCKHOUSE: JEFF, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THOUGHTS.

OBVIOUSLY I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY'S SUPPORTING ITS OWN LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.

I PREFER WE DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN HERE, AND WE CONTROL THAT, WITH LIMITED INTERVENTION AS POSSIBLE, UNLESS WE STEP OUT OF SOME SORT OF BOUNDARY THAT VIOLATES THE STATE LAW.

I CAN SEE AUSTIN INTERVENTION THAT WOULD MATTER, BUT FOR THE MOST PART I TEND TO FALL ON THE SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL AND OUR ABILITY TO REPRESENT OUR CITIZENS AND DO THE THINGS WE THINK IS BEST FOR OURSELVES.

I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU ABOUT THE MIXED MESSAGING, RIGHT? THE FUNNY THING ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL IS YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT LOCAL CONTROL FOR.

THAT'S THE MESSAGE WE'RE PUTTING OUT THERE, RIGHT.

>> IT'S LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO -- AUSTIN'S GOING TO FIX IT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT PAID SICK LEAVE BECAUSE AUSTIN IS GOING TO KILL IT FOR US.

PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PASS PROPERTY TAX RELIEF HERE, BUT AUSTIN'S GOING TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR JOB.

LOCAL CONTROL DOESN'T APPLY TO THOSE TWO ISSUES.

BUT I THINK WE'LL APPLY LOCAL CONTROL OVER HERE.

SO, YOU KNOW --

>> NO, I AGREE.

>> BROCKHOUSE: IT'S A DANGEROUS MESSAGE TO BE PUTTING OUT WHEN THE BODY CHOOSES WHAT IT WANTS TO ENFORCE LOCAL CONTROL ON AND WHAT IT DOESN'T BECAUSE IT MAY NOT FIT SOMEBODY'S POLITICAL AGENDA.

I THINK IF WE HAVE TO HAVE THE

[02:00:08]

DISCUSSION, I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE IGR BROADCAST ].

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE, RIGHT? WHERE THAT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT ABOUT GOING AND WRITING THINGS THAT MAY APPEAR AS THOUGH YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR A POLICY THAT THE BODY HAS NOT VOTED ON, OR GIVEN YOU CLEAR DIRECTION ON.

BUT THAT COLLEAGUE CAN ALSO BRING THAT UP TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

THAT'S HIS RIGHT.

HE CAN BRING IT UP TO US, FORCE A FLOOR VOTE ON IT, THAT'S HIS RIGHT AS WELL.

IF WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION NEXT WEEK, SO BE IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK MY ONLY PIECE WOULD BE CONSISTENCY.

I THINK THE MESSAGING LOOKS BAD BROADCAST ].

ONE OF THE ITEMS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHEN WE CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY ON, AND WHAT ITEMS WE DON'T WANT TO, BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT POLITICS OR VOTES OR WHATEVER.

SO I THINK, AGAIN, I'LL FALL ON THE SIDE OF GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE LOCAL CONTROL OF THE CITY AND DO OUR OWN POLICY MAKING.

AND WE CAN FLESH IT OUT OVER TIME, BUT I HOPE WE HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ITEMS THOSE ARE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

BROADCAST ].

TENTACLES ARE ATTACHED TO THE BILL, SO THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND IT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND I THINK IT'S A WORTHY CONVERSATION.

APPRECIATIVE OF THE WORK.

GREAT BRIEFING TODAY.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN PERRY?

>> PERRY: YES, I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE JUST SAID.

I SIT ON THE IGR.

DON'T YOU SEND THIS AGENDA OUT AND HAVEN'T YOU BEEN WELCOMING THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO COME IN AND SIT IN, AND LEARN ABOUT THIS STUFF EVERY WEEK?

>> AND WE'VE BEEN SENDING A WEEKLY MEMO TO THE FULL COUNCIL AS WELL WITH UPDATES ON BILLS AND SO FORTH.

>> PERRY: AND YOUR BRIEFINGS TO THE IGR ARE VERY THOROUGH.

I HAVEN'T BEEN CONFUSED ABOUT IT.

I'VE BEEN PRETTY IMPRESSED WITH HOW YOU PRESENT IT, AND, YOU KNOW, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

AND WE ON THE IGR MADE A DECISION TO GO ALONG WITH THAT, AND THERE'S A PROCESS.

THIS PROCESS, AND ABSOLUTELY COUNCILMAN SALDANA CAN BRING THIS UP TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THE IGR MADE A DECISION TO STAY NEUTRAL, GO ALONG WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND IF SOMEONE DOESN'T AGREE WITH THAT, THEY CAN SKEDADDLE TO AUSTIN AND GO TALK ALL THEY WANT TO AS A RESIDENT OF SAN ANTONIO, NOT AS AN IGR CHAIR, OR EVEN MEMBER OF THE IGR.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROCESS WITH ALL THIS.

AND WE DO HAVE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, GET OUT THERE AND VOICE OUR OPINIONS, OR DISAGREEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS AT THE LEGISLATURE.

YOU KNOW, I FULLY SUPPORT IT, WHICH Y'ALL RECOMMENDED, AND AGAIN, I THINK YOU'VE BEEN VERY OPEN TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL TO COME IN AND SIT IN AND, IF THEY'VE GOT QUESTIONS, ASK THEM.

THAT'S WHAT THOSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE FOR.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEFF, FOR YOUR DETAILED INFORMATION AND BRIEFINGS AT THOSE IGR MEETINGS.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

>> PELAEZ: I'M WORRIED ABOUT TWO THINGS.

ONE OF THEM IS THAT WE'VE GOT THIS NEED TO BE CONSISTENT AT ALL COSTS, LET'SEN CONSISTENT IN TERMS OF WHAT COMES ADVOCATIVE IN VERY GENERAL TERMS. BROADCAST ].

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO BROADCAST ].

NO NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.

THE IRONY IS THICK.

BECAUSE CONSISTENCY HERE, BUT NOT CONSISTENCY THERE IS, IN MY OPINION, SILLY.

TWO, I'M REALLY WORRIED, FOR THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER THE WORDS [INDISCERNIBLE], AND HAVING THIS ADHERENCE TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IS ALSO INCORRECT.

BECAUSE WHAT IS NOT IN THE DOCUMENT IS EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT.

WHAT'S NOT IN THE DOCUMENT WAS FASHIONED, AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF LONG DISCUSSIONS, RIGHT? WE COULD HAVE ADDED A LOT MORE IN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, BUT WE DIDN'T, RIGHT? AND WE MADE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION, BECAUSE WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WAS PRINTED UP, WASN'T B-15 ALREADY FILED, JEFF? OR WASN'T THERE --

>> NO.

[02:05:01]

THE BILL WASN'T, BUT CERTAINLY WE KNEW ABOUT THE ISSUE.

>> PELAEZ: AND THE GOVERNOR ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT.

LOTS OF SENATORS HAD ALREADY SHOWN THEIR CARDS AND SAID THIS IS THE FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO FILE.

>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT, WE DON'T PUT SPECIFIC BILLS IN THE AGENDA ANYWAY, IT'S GENERAL CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES THAT WE AGREE TO SUPPORT.

AND THERE ALWAYS IS NUANCE IN BETWEEN.

WHICH IS WHY WE REPORT TO YOU ALL WEEKLY AND HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS.

>> PELAEZ: AND EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE, EVERYBODY, I'M SORRY, ON THIS COUNCIL, KNOWS THAT WE DISCUSSED PAID SICK LEAVE AT THE IGR COMMITTEE.

AND EVERYBODY UP HERE ON THIS DAIS KNOWS WE EXCLUDED THAT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR ONE VERY IMPORTANT REASON, AND THAT IS, BECAUSE THERE WAS A WAIT-AND-SEE RECOMMENDATION FROM IGR, AND EVERYBODY HERE VOTED ON THAT WAIT-AND-SEE, YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL.

IT'S NOT LIKE THIS LOCAL CONTROL THING SUDDENLY JUMPED UP AND APPEARED AND SOMEBODY INVENTED IT NOW.

WE ALL KNEW WHAT LOCAL CONTROL WAS WAY BACK THEN, AND WE ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EDIT THAT LEDGE SLATIVE AGENDA, AND WE CHOSE NOT TO.

TO SUDDENLY SAY, WAIT A SECOND, WE'VE GOT A LOCAL CONTROL EMERGENCY? IT BEGS FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, GIVE ME A BREAK.

IT'S NOT TRUE.

SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENCY IS A VERY CONVENIENT WORD THAT'S BEING THROWN AROUND UP HERE.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT, BE CONSISTENT TO THE ONE THING WE'VE ALL AGREED IS A SOUND PROCESS, WHICH IS GOING TO COMMITTEES AND LETTING THE COMMITTEES WORK OF VETTING THIS KIND OF ISSUE, RIGHT? WHICH IS WHY I'M GOING TO URGE US, YOU KNOW, TO SEND THIS CONVERSATION BACK TO COMMITTEE, NOW THAT WE HAVE A MATERIAL CHANGE ON THE FLOOR AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL.

BECAUSE IT CLEARLY REQUIRES SOME MORE VETTING, RIGHT? AND WHAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IS FOR US TO HAVE A DEBATE TODAY ON THE DAIS JUST TO SATISFY A FEW PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

THANKS.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

JEFF, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON A NUMBER OF TOPICS.

CAN YOU GIVE US A STATUS UPDATE AGAIN ON SB-1152? WHAT IS THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND WHERE DOES IT STAND AT THE HOUSE?

>> IT WAS JUST HEARD THIS WEEK, MONDAY, IN THE HOUSE, AND IT WAS LEFT PENDING IN COMMITTEE.

THAT'S STANDARD PROCESS, YOU KNOW.

AS OPPOSED TO HERE WHERE YOU ALL DEBATE AN ISSUE AND THEN VOTE THE SAME DAY, OFTEN AT THE LEGISLATURE, A BILL IS HEARD, AND THEN LEFT BROADCAST ].

TO GO BACK AND TALK TO MEMBERS OFFLINE AND SEE WHETHER THE VOTES ARE THERE.

ONLY IF THE SUPPORT IS THERE IS A BILL THEN BROUGHT BACK UP AT A LATER COMMITTEE MEETING AND VOTED ON.

SO IT'S STANDARD PRACTICE FOR IT TO BE LEFT PENDING IN COMMITTEE.

THAT'S WHERE IT IS ON THE HOUSE SIDE.

SENATE SIDE IT PASSED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE EASILY AND I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE SENATE INTENT CALENDAR NOW.

SO TWO DAYS FROM NOW, IT COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A FULL SENATE VOTE.

BROADCAST ].

I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE TOO LONG WHEN I FIRST WENT THROUGH IT, BUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATE LAW THAT DICTATE TELECOM RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES.

IF YOU'RE RUNNING A TELEPHONE ACCESS LINE, STANDARD TELEPHONE LINES IN OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE'S AN ACCESS FEE.

IF YOU RUN CABLE LINES FOR CABLE SERVICE, IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE.

THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT.

FOR YEARS IT'S WORKED THAT WAY, AND IT'S BASED ON, THAT YOU HAVE TO -- THERE HAS TO BE A FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.

IF THESE CABLE COMPANIES DIDN'T HAVE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEY WOULD GO NEGOTIATE WITH THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS, AND CERTAINLY THOSE LANDOWNERS WOULD EXPECT FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THEIR PROPERTY OF LAYING THE LINE BROADCAST ].

THEY'VE BEGUN TO BUNDLE THESE SERVICES, AND AT&T, OR SPECTRUM OFFERS BOTH PHONE SERVICE AND CABLE.

THEY'VE CONTINUED TO PAY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND UNDER EACH OF THE REGIMES.

THE ARGUMENT ON THEIR SIDE IS THAT, THEY'RE OFTEN ONLY HAVING TO RUN ONE CABLE NOW, SO THEY SHOULD ONLY PAY FOR THE USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ONCE.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT IS, BUT YOU'RE STILL PROVIDING BOTH SERVICES.

THE CUSTOMER IS NOT GOING TO HAVE TO NOT PAY FOR CABLE ANYMORE, OR NOT PAY FOR PHONE, AND IT'S BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE REVENUE OR THE FEE FOR SERVICE.

SO YOU ADD IT ALL UP, WHAT THE BILL DOES IS LET A COMPANY ONLY PAY THE LARGER OF THE TWO FEES.

IF YOU'RE AT&T, YOU'LL PAY LAND LINE ACCESS FEES, IF YOU'RE SPECTRUM, YOU WOULD PROBABLY PAY THE CABLE FRANCHISE FEE AND NOT PAY THE OTHER ONE.

WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, ABOUT

[02:10:02]

80% OF IT IS THOSE TWO COMPANIES, AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT AN $8 MILLION REDUCTION IN OUR REVENUE.

WE DO DIRECT THAT TO GENERAL FUND, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PEG FEES WHICH PAY FOR ALL THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THAT ALLOWS THE BROADCASTING OF THESE MEETINGS AND THE EXPANSION OF OUR BROADCASTING OF ZONING AND PLANNING LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

THE REST OF IT, THOUGH, IS GENERAL FUND, NON-TAX REVENUE.

IT'S USERS OF THOSE SERVICES ULTIMATELY WHO ARE PAYING THEM, NOT EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE COMMUNITY.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

BUT THAT GENERAL FUND IS ALSO FUELED BY SALES TAX, CPS REVENUES AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

HAVE WE SHARED OUR IMPACT WITH THE TELECOM COMPANIES AND REPRESENTATIVES IN TOWN?

>> WE HAVE.

WE HAD A STAKEHOLDER MEETING WITH THE CABLE BROADCAST ].

AND AGREED TO WORK WITH THEM.

A POINT WAS MADE -- ONE OF OUR CONSULTANTS HAS DECADES OF HISTORY IN THIS AREA, AND HE MADE THE POINT THAT EVERY TIME THERE'S BEEN LANDMARK LEGISLATION AROUND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS, IT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH INTERIM STUDY BROADCAST ].

THE SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE BROUGHT THE ISSUE UP TO CITIES PRIOR TO THE SESSION.

WE FEEL LIKE IT'S AN ISSUE -- IT'S A MATTER OF THE CITIES BEING DOWN RIGHT NOW.

THE LEGISLATURE SORT OF BEATING UP ON CITIES.

AND COMPANIES PILING ON TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

I WILL SAY, IT'S BEING PUSHED BY THE CABLE INDUSTRY, I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

THE TELECOM INDUSTRY HAS BASICALLY SAID WE'RE NEUTRAL.

WE'RE NOT ADVANCING IT.

WE'VE GOT COMMUNICATION FROM AT&T EARLY ON SAYING THIS IS NOT OUR BILL.

BUT THEY WILL BENEFIT NONETHELESS.

IT ALL FACTORS INTO THE LOST REVENUE TO THE CITY.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

AND IF I RECALL, AN $8 MILLION IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND IS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX RATE REDUCTION THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON IN 2016.

SO IN EFFECT, THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS CONTEMPLATING ERASING THE IMPACT OF THAT TAX RATE REDUCTION ON HOMEOWNERS AND JUST GIVING IT RIGHT OVER TO SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES, JUST BY VIRTUE OF THE BILL THAT THEY'VE WRITTEN.

SECOND QUESTION IS THE HB 2 SB 2.

HAVE WE SHARED THE FISCAL IMPACT IN OUR DATA WITH OUR STATE DELEGATION?

>> ABSOLUTELY, YEAH.

THE VERY DAY THAT IT CAME OUT, I SENT AN UPDATED E-MAIL TO THE WHOLE DELEGATION.

WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT.

IF YOU RECALL, YOU KNOW, TO REALLY MEASURE THE IMPACT OF A BILL LIKE THIS, WE GO BACKWARDS, WE LOOK BACKWARDS, BECAUSE THEN WE KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE FLUCTUATIONS WERE AS OPPOSED TO FORWARD, WHERE WE JUST REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET WILL DO.

AND SO THE ORIGINAL 2.5% BROADCAST ].

OUR GENERAL FUND THIS YEAR WOULD BE $80 MILLION LESS THAN IT IS.

WHICH IS THREE-QUARTERS OF THE STREET'S MAINTENANCE BUDGET, EQUIVALENT TO 800 POLICE OFFICERS.

AND THE SAVINGS OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE AVERAGE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD, WHICH IS ABOUT $179,000 IN OUR COMMUNITY, WOULD HAVE BEEN $3.77 BROADCAST ].

SO ALL OF THAT REMAINS.

THE ONE UNKNOWN IS THAT NOW IN THE HOUSE VERSION, CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION ARE ALSO ADDED TO THAT CAP, WHICH MAKES THE CAP LOWER.

IT'S HARDER TO ESTIMATE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THE NET EFFECT WILL BE CITIES WILL BE DISCOURAGED FROM USING CMOS TO MAKE MAJOR PURCHASES IN BETWEEN FIVE-YEAR BONDS.

THE CHAIRMAN SAID AT THE COMMITTEE THAT HE INTENDED FOR IT TO APPLY TO FUTURE CFO ISSUES, NOT EXISTING ONES.

SO I THINK RATHER THAN NUMBER, Y CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN HOW THE CITY FINANCES MAJOR PROJECTS AND SO FORTH.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OUR RATE OF GROWTH WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY ZERO ANNUALLY.

>> PRETTY CLOSE TO IT.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WHAT IS THE RATE OF GROWTH OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET?

>> JUST UNDER 6% HISTORICALLY.

5.8%, I BELIEVE IS THE -- THE PAST -- THE PRIOR 10-YEAR PERIOD BEFORE WE WERE IN THIS EVERGREEN STATUS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THINGS ARE A LITTLE BIT OF AN OUTLIER RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF EVERGREEN, BUT IF YOU LOOK BACK BEFORE THAT, IT WAS ABOUT 5.8% OVER 10 YEARS.

IF YOU TOOK THE WHOLE 15 YEARS, I THINK IT'S 5.2%.

SO EITHER WAY, IT'S MORE THAN TWICE THE 2.5% RATE OF GROWTH THAT THE BILL ALLOWS.

AND WE'VE HAD LEGISLATORS SCOFF AT THE IDEA THAT, OKAY, IF YOU

[02:15:03]

HAD TO MAKE CUTS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE CUTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: NO.

>> BUT THE REALITY IS THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET IS TWICE OUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS ALREADY.

IN FACT, OUR PROPERTY TAXES ONLY PAY FOR ABOUT HALF OF OUR ENTIRE PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET.

SO CERTAINLY IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THAT, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER LARGE PRIORITIES IN OUR BUDGET.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

AND AT PRESENT, THE TWO BILLS, BOTH IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, DO NOT MAKE ANY EXCLUSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OR --

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'VE TRIED AND I EXPECT THAT ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, MEMBERS WILL TRY THOSE AMENDMENTS AGAIN.

THEY TRIED THEM IN COMMITTEE, AND THEY WERE VOTED DOWN BY PARTY LINE.

SO THE BILL CAME OUT WITHOUT THEM.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

WELL, I HEAR THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS OF SB-15, AND I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES WHO RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE THIS BACK UP IN IGR.

BROADCAST ].

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO DEFEND OUR NDO IN OTHER CITIES AS WELL.

TO THAT EXTENT, WE'RE WATCHING VERY CLOSE LY ON BOTH THE SENAT AND HOUSE SIDE.

BUT THE FACT THAT THE THREE -- OR THE BILL HAS NOW BEEN BROKEN UP INTO SEVERAL PIECES MAKES THIS RELEVANT, I THINK FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION WITHIN THE IGR.

SO LET'S TAKE THAT UP THERE.

AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES NOW FOR US TO MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE BUSINESS SECTION OF TODAY.

WE'LL TAKE UP NOW ITEM 28.

THANK YOU, JEFF.

[6. Ordinance approving an Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to provide a comprehensive study of local ad valorem property tax appraisal for a one year term commencing not later than April 8, 2019, in an amount not to exceed $79,780.00. Funding for this contract is included and available in the FY 2019 General Fund Budget. [Ben Gorzell, Chief Financial Officer; Troy Elliott, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Finance]]

OH, I'M SORRY, ITEM 6.

>> ITEM 6 IS THE ORDINANCE APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF LOCAL AD VALOREM TAX APPRAISAL FOR A ONE-YEAR TERM COMMENCING NOT LATER THAN APRIL 8TH, 2019, NOT TO EXCEED 79.

FUNDING FOR THIS CONTRACT IS AVAILABLE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR RECUSAL.

SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 6.

>> MAYOR, MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE'S A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 6.

COUNCILMAN VIAGRAN?

>> VIAGRAN: JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS THE SAME ITEM WE POSTPONED BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET BEXAR COUNTY TO PAY FOR SOMETHING, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> VIAGRAN: WHAT HAPPENED?

>> THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS UNABLE TO FUND A PORTION OF THE STUDY, OR ANY PART OF THE STUDY.

BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, THEY ARE WILLING TO COLLABORATE WITH US AND WORK TOGETHER IN PUTTING -- IN CONDUCTING THE STUDY.

>> VIAGRAN: WHY WERE THEY UNABLE TO FUND THE STUDY?

>> THAT I'M NOT CLEAR ON.

I THINK THE RATIONALE IS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN LEGAL PROHIBITIONS FOR THEM TO FUND ANY PART OF THE STUDY.

>> VIAGRAN: OKAY.

SO I'M HOPING THAT WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FINALLY, THAT WE CAN GET SOME SORT OF FINDINGS OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP OUR -- TO HELP BRING SOME TAX RELIEF TO OUR RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

COUNCILMAN PELAEZ?

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, WE HEARD THIS ITEM IN MARCH -- I'M SORRY, IN FEBRUARY, RIGHT? I REQUESTED -- WE HAD UNANIMOUS ENTHUSIASM FOR THIS.

AND I REQUESTED A DELAY ON THE VOTE SO THAT WE CAN GIVE BEXAR COUNTY BROADCAST ].

WE HAD SOME VERY FRUITFUL MEETINGS.

ANDY SE GOVIA AND CITY STAFF, MYSELF AND COUNCILMAN PRE VINO SAT DOWN TO KIND OF SPITBALL HOW IT IS WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER ON THIS.

WHAT WE WALKED AWAY FROM BROADCAST ].

THEY'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE PART OF THE RECORD, AND I'LL READ IN PART OF IT.

YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE, BUT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WELCOMES THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS COMMISSIONED BY THE CITY.

AND AS WELL AS A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES WITH OTHER LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN TEXAS.

THAT'S BIG OF THEM.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS ONE.

[02:20:01]

HER'S NOT AT THE DAIS BECAUSE CLEARLY HE'S GOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

BUT WHAT HE'S DONE IS HARD WORK IN MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE BCAT BOARD UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A THREAT.

AND THAT IT'S HEALTHY TO GET THE OCCASIONAL CHECKUP.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS, JUST TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE STAND AS COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES.

SO THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE PATIENCE AND FOR THE HARD WORK IN FASHIONING THIS.

AND MAYOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS, TOO.

I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT GETTING BEHIND THE EFFORT TO COLLECT DATA, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

COUNCILMAN PERRY?

>> PERRY: I, TOO, WANT TO SAY THIS IS GREAT.

I THINK WE NEED TO SHED THAT LIGHT ON THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME I GO TO COMMUNITY MEETINGS, AND EVEN WITH THE BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT COMING IN AND EXPLAINING THEIR PROCESS, AND HOW THEY GO THROUGH WITH THE APPRAISAL, AND HOW IT ALL EQUATES INTO TAXES, THERE'S CONFUSION.

PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT COMES DOWN TO GOING DOWNTOWN EVERY YEAR TO PROTEST YOUR TAXES.

THAT GETS OLD, FOLKS.

WE NEED TO GET AROUND THAT SOME KIND OF WAY, TO MAKE IT EASIER, MAKE IT MORE STREAMLINED, SO THAT THAT KIND OF THING DOESN'T HAPPEN.

BECAUSE IF YOU MISS ONE YEAR IN THERE, THAT TAX IS GOING TO JUMP UP TO MAKE UP FOR THAT LOSS THAT THEY SUFFERED BECAUSE YOU CAME DOWN THERE TO PROTEST ONE YEAR.

SO I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

I THINK THAT'S MONEY WELL SPENT FOR OUR TAXPAYERS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

AND I JUST WANT TO PUT IN ANOTHER PLUG FOR THE -- WITH THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WOULD OFFER MEANINGFUL RELIEF AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING FOR.

I HAD SOME COLLEAGUES JOIN COUNCILMAN COURAGE AND MYSELF TO KEEP PUSHING THIS FORWARD, BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, PRIMARILY FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE BEING DISPLACED.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WANT TO CONCUR.

I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS THAT HOMEOWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HAVING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

REALLY, THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PLAN TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL TAX RELIEF THAT YOU'VE HEARD COUNCILMAN PERRY TALK ABOUT, AND COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HOUSING POLICY TASK FORCE, AND I BELIEVE OUR EFFORT TO ALSO BRING ALONG A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WILL REALLY PROVIDE SINCERE RELIEF, AND I HOPE WE'RE ABLE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTORS IN THE PROCESS THAT'S CAUSING THESE VALUES TO RISE SO QUICKLY.

AND MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO GO AHEAD AND AMEND THAT PROCESS, AND MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD EXPENDITURE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE.

COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I ALSO WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION TODAY.

YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO I WAS DOING AN ENDORSEMENT INTERVIEW, AS MANY OF US DO, AND I WAS ASKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD I DO ABOUT RISING PROPERTY TAXES.

AND THE TRUTH IS, NONE OF US IN THAT INTERVIEW HAD AN ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION.

COUNCILMAN PERRY, YOU PROBABLY DID.

YOU HAD AN ANSWER FOR THAT.

ABOUT HOW WE WOULD ADDRESS IT.

BUT ONE THING I DID SAY WAS, I DON'T FEEL WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS -- OR EVEN ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THIS STUDY WILL HELP US WITH THAT.

SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

AND COUNCILMAN PERRY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO PROTEST YOUR TAXES.

IT'S SURPRISING, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND THOSE WHO DO NOW MAY FIND IT INTIMIDATING, OR HAVE TRIED IT AND BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.

MY OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING TO BRING THAT EDUCATION OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.

LAST YEAR WE SCHEDULED TWO WORKSHOPS ON HOW TO DO YOUR PROTESTING INFORMATION YOU NEED.

THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY FILLED UP TO CAPACITY, SO WE HOSTED FOUR.

THIS YEAR WE'LL BE HOSTING ANOTHER FOUR AS WELL.

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S A WAY TO BRING SOME IMMEDIATE RELIEF TO OUR RESIDENTS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN VAND OH VAL.

THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND FOR APROFRL OF ITEM NUMBER 6.

PLEASE VOTE.

[28. Ordinance extending the professional services agreement with EnSafe Inc. to provide Occupational Health and Safety Management System Consultant Services to the City for an additional four years for an annual cost of $25,000.00 not to exceed $100,000.00. The FY 2019 cost will be allocated from the Workers' Compensation Fund FY 2019 Adopted Budget and subsequent funding is contingent upon future budget appropriation. [Ben Gorzell, Chief Financial Officer; Debra M.]

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 28.

>> ITEM 28 IS AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INSAFE

[02:25:03]

INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONSULTANT SERVICES TO THE CITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOUR YEARS, FOR AN ANNUAL COST OF $25,000, NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.

THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 COST WILL BE ALLOCATED FROM THE WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND FISCAL YEAR 2019 ADOPTED BUDGET.

AND SUBSEQUENT FUNDING IS CONTINGENT ON FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATION.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

THIS ITEM IS IN NO WAY CONTROVERSIAL, I SIMPLY WANTED TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION.

I'VE REVIEWED IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO ANSWER ALL MY QUESTIONS, BUT WHAT I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT IS HOW THIS SYSTEM HAS HELPED US REDUCE ACCIDENTS HERE AMONG THE WORK FORCE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AND IS HELPING OUR WORK FORCE STAY HEALTHY.

SO THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> DO YOU WANT TO GO UP TO THE PRESENTATION?

>> GOOD MORNING.

THE PRESENTATION IS ON THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR CONSULTING SERVICES.

JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THE SMS PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK TO IDENTIFY AND MANAGE OUR RISK AND OUR SAFETY EXPOSURES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS.

IT ALSO PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE THESE EXPOSURES.

SO ESSENTIALLY, THE SMS ALLOWS US TO STANDARDIZE ALL OF OUR CITY PROCESSES, OUR PRACTICES, IT ALLOWS US TLLO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF OUR WORKPLACE INJURIES, AND IMPROVE OUR OVERALL SAFETY CULTURE ACROSS THE CITY.

THE INSAFE CONSULTANTS WILL ASSIST US WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE OVERALL SMS SYSTEM.

LAST YEAR WE BEGAN THE IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN OUR SOLID WASTE DIVISION.

ON YOUR SLIDE 3, COUNCILWOMAN, YOU WANTED TO SEE WHAT THOSE OUTCOMES WERE.

SO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU HERE ON THIS SLIDE IS ON THE LEFT SIDE, ARE THOSE ELEMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

AND ON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS YOU THE ACTUAL OUTCOME OF EACH ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS.

I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS OUR TOP MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP, AND TOP MANAGEMENT PROMOTING SAFETY CULTURE WITHIN THE SAFETY -- WITHIN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

WE ALSO GO THROUGH A COMMUNICATION PROCESS, A CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION OF ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES BY WAY OF SURVEYING OUR EMPLOYEES ON THE ONSET, HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SAFETY, HOW ARE YOU PARTICIPATING IN SAFETY, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON SAFETY, HOW CAN WE HELP YOU IMPROVE DO YOUR JOB SAFER.

SO WE TOOK ALL OF THAT INFORMATION BACK FROM ALL OF THE SO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE REST OF THE SYSTEM.

ANOTHER KEY ELEMENT WAS THE EFFECTIVE PROCESSES TO IDENTIFY HAZARDOUS AND CONTROL.

THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS, WHERE WE DO RISK ASSESSMENTS IN SAFETY IN SOLID WASTE.

WE LOOK AT ALL OF THEIR OPERATIONS, EVEN NEW OPERATIONS AS THEY COME ONBOARD.

WE ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR CONTRACTORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CONTRACTORS AND VENDORS ARE ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFETY STANDARDS.

THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT WAS A RESULT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SMS FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO SAY WE'RE THE FIRST MUNICIPAL ENTITY TO QUALIFY FOR THE ISO CERTIFICATION.

THOSE OTHER OUTCOMES RESULTED IN A 50% REDUCTION IN WORKPLACE PREVENTABLE COLLISIONS WITHIN ONE YEAR.

THEY WENT FROM HAVING 140 COLLISIONS TO HAVING 7, AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY AT-FAULT COLLISIONS.

THROUGHOUT ALL OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT'S DIVISION.

WE INCREASED THE SAFETY AWARENESS OF ALL EMPLOYEES, NOT JUST THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT JOB REQUIRES THEM TO BE INVOLVED IN SAFETY.

WE PROMOTED THE INDIVIDUAL RISK ACCOUNTABILITY BY WAY OF SURVEY AND WE ALSO ENSURED THAT EACH EMPLOYEE WAS INVOLVED OR IS INVOLVED IN THEIR SAFETY DECISIONS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.

ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS AS WELL I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WERE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE ACTUAL AUDIT IN WHICH THEY RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.

SO OUR NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS WE'RE GOING TO BE ONBOARDING TCI NEXT, FOLLOWED BY BESD, PARKS, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

[02:30:03]

DEPARTMENT WITH THE SMS. THOSE WILL BE COMING UP EACH YEAR.

AND SO THEREFORE WE ARE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THIS CONTRACT TO CONTINUE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE NEXT FOUR-YEAR PERIOD AT A COST OF $100,000.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 28.

>> SANDOVAL: I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMAN.

>> SANDOVAL: SO THE NEXT DEPARTMENT THAT YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH IS TCI.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

SO THAT ONE'S HUGE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY EMPLOYEES? THERE ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED.

800? SO ONE THING THAT SOME FOLKS OUTSIDE OF THE COUNCIL HAVE SUGGESTED TO ME IS -- OR ASKED ME ABOUT IS WHAT KIND OF SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE FOR THE CONTRACTORS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT TCI BRINGS ON, BECAUSE THEY DO SOME SIMILAR WORK TO OUR OWN STAFF AT TCI WHEN WE OUTSOURCE SOME OF THAT STUFF.

I REALIZE THAT'S OUT OF THE SCOPE OF TODAY'S ITEM BUT AT SOME POINT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT, EITHER WITH YOU OR WHOEVER IS UP FOR THAT.

>> CONTRACT AND SAFETY IS A COMPONENT.

>> SANDOVAL: OH, IT IS?

>> YES, IT IS.

SO WE WILL BE WORKING WITH TCI TO IDENTIFY THE CONTRACTORS, WHAT TYPE OF WORK THAT THEY ARE DOING FOR THE CITY AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE SAFETY COMPONENTS IN PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ISO STANDARDS.

>> SANDOVAL: THAT WILL BE A CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY WITH TCI.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND SOLID WASTE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS.

>> SANDOVAL: THAT'S GREAT NEWS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

COUNCILMAN PERRY.

>> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

THIS PIQUED MY INTEREST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ISO CERTIFICATION.

HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST US TO BE CERTIFIED THROUGH ISO?

>> WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ACTUAL FEE BUT THE COST THAT'S BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENTIRE SMS HAS BEEN THE CONSULTANT AND THEN WE ACTUALLY PAID THE AUDITOR.

THE AUDITOR IS ALSO ON YOUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.

LET'S SEE IF THE WE CAN FIND THAT AMOUNT.

SO THE AUDITOR IS FOR 119,000 OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD.

>> PERRY: AND MY QUESTION IS CAN'T WE DO THESE SAFETY PROGRAMS AND, YOU KNOW, REDUCE OUR RECORD WITHOUT THE ISO CERTIFICATION? BECAUSE PART OF THAT CERTIFICATION PROCESS YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK TO PREPARE FOR IT, PULL THE INFORMATION TOGETHER.

THAT TAKES TIME.

THAT'S PROBABLY NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST IN THIS CERTIFICATION, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> PERRY: TAKE A WILD GUESS.

HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO APPROXIMATE THAT.

WE HAVE STAFF TIME.

LIKE YOU SAID, THERE IS STAFF TIME INVOLVED.

>> PERRY: IT'S A LOT OF STAFF TIME.

>> WE HAVE AN SMS MANAGER.

THEY PARTNER WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THEY IDENTIFY A CORE TEAM, WHICH IS USUALLY ABOUT FIVE EMPLOYEES THAT HELP US MAKE ALL THE CHANGES THROUGHOUT.

SO THERE IS A SOFT COST INVOLVED, BUT ALSO I THINK, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OPERATIONS WITHIN EACH OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE SAFE, NOT JUST FOR OUR EMPLOYEES BUT FOR OUR CITIZENS AND CONTRACTORS AS WELL.

>> PERRY: AND I DON'T DOUBT THAT AT ALL.

I HAVE BEEN IN VERY MANY SAFETY PROGRAMS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ISO CERTIFIED TO EXECUTE THESE PROGRAMS. AND MY CONCERN IS -- BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE, WE'RE STARTING TO GET ISO CERTIFIED IN AREAS THAT, TO ME, IS JUST A TITLE.

I WANT TO KNOW HOW WE'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING, AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR MR. WALSH TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

WHAT'S IT REALLY COSTING US TO BE ISO CERTIFIED IN THESE DIFFERENT AREAS? I THINK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS APPLYING FOR THE ISO CERTIFICATION AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT CHEAP.

WE CAN IMPLEMENT THESE PROGRAMS WITHOUT BEING CERTIFIED.

THAT'S MY POINT.

>> YES.

>> PERRY: THIS CERTIFICATION IS JUST SOMETHING THAT'S -- OH, THAT'S COOL.

THEY'RE ISO CERTIFIED.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW MUCH IT'S REALLY COSTING YOU, ARE WE REALLY GETTING A RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THAT TITLE? WHEREAS IF YOU IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAMS, I SAY YOU GET THE SAME RESULTS, OTHER THAN THAT CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET THAT INFORMATION, HOW MUCH IN STAFF TIME, SUPPORT, SUPPLIES, ALL THAT STUFF.

HOW MUCH IS IT COSTING US TO GET THAT?

>> WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU, SIR.

[02:35:02]

>> PERRY: GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 28.

PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION CARRIES.

[30. City Manager's Report]

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER'S REPORT?

>> WALSH: YES, JUST ONE ITEM.

THIS PAST WEEK THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE ANNOUNCED THAT SAN ANTONIO WAS ONE OF 20 FINALISTS FOR THE 2019 ALL AMERICA CITY AWARDS.

FOR CONTEXT OVER THE LAST DECADE, THE CITY HAS WON THIS AWARD FOUR TIMES.

THIS YEAR'S CATEGORY HIGHLIGHTS COMMUNITY-WIDE VISION PROGRAMS THAT DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF USING EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CHALLENGES.

AND WE HAD A GREAT TEAM MADE UP OF METRO HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AND GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS THAT PARTNERED ON THE APPLICATION.

THEY HIGHLIGHTED A NUMBER OF OUR PROGRAMS. THE FINALISTS WILL BE SELECTED AFTER PRESENTATIONS IN JUNE IN DENVER, COLORADO.

AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RECENT TRACK RECORD OF THESE ALL-AMERICAN CITY AWARDS AND IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HIGHLIGHT A LOT OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING HERE LOCALLY, ON THE NATIONAL STAGE, AND I DEFINITELY WANT TO THANK DR. BRIDGER, MELODY WOOSLEY AND JEFF COYLE AND HIS STAFF.

THEY PUT TOGETHER A GREAT APPLICATION AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION IN JUNE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, ERIK.

COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

>> VIAGRAN: I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS SATURDAY IS ALSO THE SAN ANTONIO BOOK FESTIVAL, SO PLEASE BE SURE TO GET OUT THERE SATURDAY MORNING.

AND TOMORROW IS THE BOOK APPETITE LUNCHEON WHERE THE AUTHOR RON CHERNAL WILL BE, SO PLEASE BE SURE TO CELEBRATE THIS FREE EVENT.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE HAVE A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE TIME IS NOW 11:52 A.M.

THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE C ROOM FOR CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTO

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

CITY COUNCIL IS RECONVENED FROM ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION.

NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN.

TIME IS NOW 2:06 P.M.

[Zoning Consent Agenda]

WE'LL BEGIN OUR ZONING AGENDA AT THIS TIME.

TODAY LISTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ARE P-1 AND Z-2, Z-10, AND Z-11, ITEM Z-1 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED TODAY.

AND ITEM Z-9 HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED TODAY.

SORRY, JACK.

SO AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS FROM WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA WHICH IS ALL ITEMS SAVE FOR P-1 Z-2 Z-10 AND Z-11.

>> SECOND.

>> OKAY.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA.

THERE ARE NO ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, IN WHICH PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE NOW.

PLEASE VOTE.

[Items P-1 & Z-2]

[VOTING] MOTION CARRIES.

ITEMS P-1 AND Z-2.

>> P-1 AND Z-2 AMENDING THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FROM C-2NA AND O-1 TO IDZ WITH U.S. PERMITTED FOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE, ENDOOR THEATER WITH TWO OR LESS SCREENS AND STUDIO FINE OR PERFORMING ARTS LOCATED AT 741 AND 725 WEST ASHBY.

STAFF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL, 21 NOTICES MAILED, ZERO IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED AND 23 OUTSIDE THE 200-FOOT ARE IN SUPPORT.

ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.

>> COUNCILMAN TREVINO.

>> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

IN THIS PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A NEW THEATER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CURRENT LOCATION.

THE SHOW WILL -- THIS WILL SHOW THAT THIS -- THIS MOVE FROM THE HISTORIC THEATER BASEMENT TO THE NEW BUILDING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS THE ZONING CHANGES AFTER MANY CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED.

ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ARRIVED TO A CONSENSUS OF SUPPORT WITH THE IDZ ZONING.

I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANTS.

WE HAVE GEORGE GREEN HERE AND MARCELO MARTINEZ, AND I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR ALL

[02:40:02]

THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD CERTAINLY APPRECIATES YOUR EFFORTS AND REALLY, WE WANTED TO JUST SIMPLY SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD, AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTING THIS, IS THE RENDERINGS OF THE ACTUAL NEW BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE IN PLACE, AND THEREFORE I MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS P-1 AND Z-2.

BEFORE WE TAKE THE SOAT, THOUGH, I'D ASK -- VOTE, I'D ASK OUR AV STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND ROLL THE TRANSLATION SERVICES.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS P-1 AND Z-2.

PLEASE VOTE.

[VOTING]

[Z-10. ZONING CASE # Z-2019-10700024 CD (Council District 5): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "C-2NA CD]

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEMS Z-10.

>> Z-10 FROM CTNA CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, CD NA WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT 2634 SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET.

STAFF AND SOAJ COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES, A 6-FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO THE REAR AND SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, DOWNWARD FACING LIGHTING AND 22 NOTICES MAILED, ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMA.

>> GONZALES: THANK YOU, MAYOR, MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AS READ.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SECOND.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS Z-10 WITH CONDITIONS AS READ.

PLEASE VOTE.

[Z-11. ZONING CASE # Z-2018-900029 S (Council District 7): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from “C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District to “C-2 S AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District with Specific Use Authorization for a Carwash on Lot 9, Block 2, NCB 12472, located at 7350 Callaghan Road. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval with Conditions. (Continued from March 21, 2019)]

[VOTING] MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM Z-11.

>> Z-11 FROM C-2 TO C-2 S WITH A SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FOR A CARWASH LOCATED AT 7350 CALLAGHAN ROAD.

STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.

HOURS OF OPERATIONS ARE 8:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M.

SOLID SCREEN FENCE, LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF 15 FEET.

9 NOTICES MAILED, ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

I'LL CALL HIM NOW.

IAN COCHRAN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS IAN COCHRAN.

I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT.