Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. 18-3756 Briefing on proposed amendments to the Ethics Code and Municipal Campaign Finance Code. [Kevin Barthold, City Auditor]]

[00:02:40]

>> SCULLEY: WITH KEVIN BARTOLD, OUR --

>> THERE'S THE ETHIC CODE AND THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE IF YOU DO WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. GARCIA, SHE'S BEEN IN THE CHAIR FOR A FEW YEARS NOW.

SHE'S LED THE COMMITTEE THROUGH THIS, A LONG EFFORT, BUT ALSO A VERY THOROUGH AND DETAILED EFFORT.

SHE'LL COVER SOME OF THAT AS SHE GOES THROUGH HER PRESENTATION.

DR. GARCIA?

>> THANK YOU, KEVIN.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE AND HONOR OF WORKING WITH SOME OF THE MOST DEDICATED AND SMART INDIVIDUALS THAT I'VE EVER MET, AND TODAY I GET TO COME BEFORE YOU REPRESENTING THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD.

ETHICS REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE ONE OF THE MEMBERS WHO'S HERE TODAY WHO'S THE VICE CHAIR AND THAT'S MRS. PAULA MCGEE.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK CITY AUDITOR KEVIN BARTHOLD, CITY ATTORNEY SEGOVIA, AND CITY CLERK AND THEIR TEAM FOR THEIR SUPPORT.

THE ERB WAS TASKED WITH SEVERAL ITEMS. THE FIRST WAS TO REVIEW THE CURRENT ETHICS CODE AND MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE

[00:05:03]

FOR POTENTIAL [INAUDIBLE].

DURING THIS REVIEW PROCESS, WE SEEK INPUT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY AUDITOR, THEIR EXPERIENCE IS INVALUABLE OVER WHAT HAS COME UP OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.

THE MEMBERS OF THE ERB REVIEW CODES INDIVIDUALLY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SOMETIMES QUESTIONS MADE BY BOARD MEMBERS LEAD TO REVISION TO CLARIFY SECTIONS OF THE CODE.

DURING THIS REVIEW PROCESS, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ALSO ASKED US TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW THREE CCRS.

WE ALSO RESEARCHED A REQUEST FOR AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS OFFICE OUTSIDE THE CITY STRUCTURE, THE PROCESS STARTED WITH THE FORMER CHAIR SAM MILLSAP.

ALSO THE REQUEST MADE BY SANDOVAL REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DISCLOSURES.

THE OVERALL GOAL OF OUR PROCESS IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AS APPROPRIATE, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY TO FOLLOW-UP ON SOME ITEMS THAT YOU-ALL HAVE ASKED US TO CONSIDER.

THE GOAL OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD IS TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICES.

WE ARE ALSO TASKED WITH BRINGING CLARITY TO ITEMS THAT MAY NOT BE SO CLEAR.

AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CONSISTENCY IN PRACTICES.

THIS LEADS TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITH RESULTS IN GAINING PUBLIC TRUST.

ANOTHER GOAL IN REVIEWING THE ETHICS CODE IS TO CODIFY CURRENT PRACTICES.

OUR PROCESS AS A CITY MANAGER MENTIONED WAS EXTENSIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE.

WE MET MORE THAN 24 TIMES ENTERING THIS PROCESS, I CREATED THREE DIFFERENT PANELS, ONE TO ADDRESS ETHICS CODE CHANGES, ONE TO ADDRESS CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE CHANGES AND ONE SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK AT THE CCRS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.

AFTER THE PANEL MEETINGS CONCLUDED, EACH PANEL BRIEFED THE FULL BOARD AND SKINS -- CONSIST TENSE WAS MADE ON THE CHANGES.

WE CONTACTED 26 DIFFERENT CITIES TO UNDERSTAND THEIR PROCESS AND STRUCTURE REGARDING ETHICS BOARD REPORTING WITHIN THE CITY, APPOINTMENT PROCESSES AND LEGAL COUNCIL RELATIONSHIPS.

THE CITY CONSTITUTED A GOOD REPRESENTATION ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MANY ORIGINATING FROM A LIST PROVIDED BY COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S OFFICE.

THE TEXAS CITY'S LEAD CONTACT INCLUDED AUSTIN, DALLAS, HOUSTON, FORT WORTH AND EL PASO.

WE PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE AND AT THAT MEETING COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL -- IN AUDIO] -- SUCH AS THOSE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE HOUSING TRUST AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENTITIES.

THE FULL BOARD REVIEWED THAT REQUEST AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ETHICS CODE AT ITS OCTOBER 17TH MEETING.

THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, WE HELD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND WITH THE COUNCIL DURING B SESSION AS REFERENCED EARLIER.

I ALSO MET INDIVIDUALLY WITH EACH COUNCILMEMBER AND THE MAYOR TO DISCUSS OUR PROPOSED CHANGES.

THE RESULT OF OUR RESEARCH AND DISCUSSIONS LEAD US TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WE PRESENT TODAY.

AS A REMINDER, THE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS -- THEY'RE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

HOUSEKEEPING AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.

FOR THIS PRESENTATION, WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES; HOWEVER, THE RED LINE VERSION YOU-ALL HAVE BEEN PROVIDED INCLUDES ALL CHANGES.

HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES INVOLVE MINOR REVISIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGING THE WORD "DONATIONS" TO "CONTRIBUTIONS" OR REVISIONS TO FURTHER CLARIFY EXISTING PROVISIONS.

THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES PROPOSED TODAY WILL IMPACT THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE CODES.

I'LL BEGIN WITH THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES.

WE PROPOSE THAT A CODE DEFINE A CLIENT TO INCLUDE ANY BUSINESS, FINANCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO WHICH A DUTY OF CARE, CONFIDENCE, TRUST OR PRIVILEGE APPLIES.

SECOND, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ENTERTAINMENT BE ADDED TO THE CODE AT THE SAME LEVEL OF MEALS.

THIS MEANS THAT GIFTS OF ENTERTAINMENT IN EXCESS OF $50 PER OCCUR LEARNS RENS -- OCCURRENCE WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

ENTERTAINMENT MIGHT INCLUDE CONCERT TICKETS, SPURS TICKETS OR RODEO TICKETS.

CURRENTLY THERE ARE LIMITATIONS FOR MEALS AND OTHER GIFTS, BUT NOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT.

NEXT WE RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO ALLOW AND ENCOURAGE SELF-REPORTING OF AN ETHICS CODE VIOLATION AFTER OCCURRENCE AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE THE ERB OPTIONS TO TAKE IN RESPONSE TO SELF-REPORTED PAST ACTIONS.

CURRENTLY THE CODE ONLY ALLOWS THE ERB TO SECURE POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTIONS WHEN GIVEN A SET OF PROVIDED FACTS.

WE ALSO RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF SELF-REPORTING TO THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO HONOR THE

[00:10:03]

ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVILEGE.

CURRENTLY IF AN OFFICIAL REPORTS TO AN ATTORNEY, A CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED RELATIONSHIP IS FORMED SO WE'RE CLARIFYING THAT THE SELF-REPORT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COMPLIANCE AUDITOR OR BE MADE TO THE ERB SO THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND CAN ADDRESS IT ACCORDINGLY.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY CLERK NOTIFY A RESPONDENT, THE PERSON BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT, THAT A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED.

CURRENT CODE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THIS AND HAS CREATED INSTANCES WHERE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT LEARNED ABOUT THE COMPLAINT FROM THE MEDIA R ZERO OTHER OUTSIDE SOURCES WHICH IS UNFAIR TO THE RESPONDENT.

THE E RB IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT ALL COMPLAINTS BE FORWARDED NOT ONLY TO THE COMPLIANCE AUDITOR AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BUT TO THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE ERB.

AGAIN, THIS ENSURES THAT THE ERB SEES ALL COMPLAINTS AND HAS THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN INDEPENDENTLY ON THEM.

REGARDED REQUESTED WAIVERS TO THE ETHICS CODE, WE RECOMMEND THAT INCLUDING LANGUAGE THAT ANY WAIVER REQUESTS MUST FIRST BE HEARD BY ERB, AND THAT COUNCIL TAKE ACTION ON A WAIVER ONLY AFTER A RECOMMENDATION BY ERB.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CCR REQUEST BY COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA AND THEN COUNCILMAN, NOW MAYOR ANYWHERE NIRENBERG.

THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST TO NOT ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO GRANT WAIVERS, HOWEVER SINCE THE COUNCIL IS THE RULE-MAKING BODY, LEGALLY THEY CANNOT BE PRECLUDED FROM GRANTING WAIVERS TO THE CODE IT CREATED.

WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THE REQUIREMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PARTIES SEEKING RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OR NO OBJECTION FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TAX CREDITS OR APPROVAL OF REVENUE BONDS THROUGH HOUSING TRUSTS OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY OR THROUGH THE CITY CREATED ENTITIES.

REGARDING ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS, CURRENTLY DURING THE ZONING CHANGE PROCESS, THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE AND OWNERS OR OFFICERS OF ENTITIES REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; HOWEVER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE ZONING APPLICANT, INCLUDING LOBBYISTS, ATTORNEYS OR CONSULTANTS NAMED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT ARE NOT CURRENTLY PRECLUDED FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS.

WE RECOMMEND EXPANDING THE PROHIBITION TO INCLUDE LOBBYISTS, ATTORNEYS AND CONSULTANTS RETAINED FOR THE ZONING CHANGE PROCESS.

MOVING FROM THE ETHICS CODE TO THE MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE.

THE ERB RECOMMENDS INCREASING THE FREQUENCY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCING REPORT FROM SEMIANNUALLY TO QUARTERLY.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING REPORTS WOULD NOW BE REQUIRED IN APRIL AND OCTOBER OF NONELECTION YEARS IN ADDITION TO THE JANUARY REPORTS.

IN MAY ELECTION YEARS, AN OCTOBER REPORT WILL NOW BE REQUIRED.

THESE ADDITIONAL REPORTS WILL PROVIDE TIMELY DATA.

WITH THIS IN MIND, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF THE THREE-DAY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

THIS REPORT IS CURRENTLY FILED THREE DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION DATE, AND ONLY INCLUDES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BUT NOT EXPENSES.

THIS REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE, AND SEEMS EXCESSIVE, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE ALSO 30-DAY AND EIGHT-DAY REPORTS WHICH CAPTURE BOTH CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES.

REGARDING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, WE RECOMMEND SPECIFICALLY ADDING SUBCONTRACTORS TO THE LIST OF PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTORS DURING THE HIGH-PROFILE SOLICITATION PROCESS.

WE KURNLTLY DISSAL -- CURRENTLY DISALLOW SUBCONTRACTOR CONTRIBUTIONS SINCE THEY ARE INDIRECTLY SEEKING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD MAKE THAT PROHIBITION CLEAR.

ALSO REGARDING THE CONTRIBUTION PROHIBITION, WE RECOMMEND EXPANDING THE CURRENT PROHIBITION OF SPOUSES TO FIRST DEGREE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD.

THIS CONTINUES TO EXCLUDE SPOUSES, BUT ALSO EXPANDS TO EXCLUDE PARENTS OR ADULT CHILDREN IN THAT SAME HOUSEHOLD.

SHOULD YOU ALL ACCEPT ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION FOR THESE ITEMS WOULD BE SPLIT BASED ON WHO IS IMPACTED BY THE RECOMMENDATION.

THOSE CHANGES THAT ARE HOUSEKEEPING IN NATURE, OR CODIFYING CURRENT PROCESSES WILL BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.

THOSE INVOLVING ONLY INTERNAL PROCESSES WOULD ALSO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST.

CHANGES REQUIRING OUTREACH TO STAKEHOLDERS, UPDATING OF NECESSARY FORMS AND APPLICATIONS AND I.T. CHANGES RELATED TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST OF 2019.

THIS WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR EDUCATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND REQUIRE TESTING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM.

NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO TAKE THESE FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO A SESSION FOR FINAL DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION

[00:15:01]

TODAY.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE ERB'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

I AGAIN, WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE ERB WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PROCESS.

MAYOR?

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

THANK YOU ADRIANA.

THAT WAS A WHOLE LOT FOR US TO TAKE IN IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO LET'S GO BACK REAL QUICK TO THE PROCESS.

WHEN ARE WE SUGGESTING THIS IS GOING TO A SESSION?

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, JUNE 21ST.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: NEXT WEEK?

>> SCULLEY: MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT'S TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR NEXT THURSDAY.

WE'LL WAIT FOR YOUR INPUT AND FEEDBACK TODAY AT THIS B SESSION BEFORE POSTING THAT THIS WEEK.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL?

>> SANDOVAL: SURE.

I'LL GO FIRST.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU DR. GARCIA FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND FOR REVIEWING SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE MADE HERE, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE.

I KNOW YOU WENT THROUGH A LOT OF WORK WITH KEVIN.

WE SAW IT AT B SESSION A WHILE BACK, WE GAVE YOU MORE WORK TO GO BACK TO DO, AND WE SAW IT AT GOVERNANCE, AND I THINK -- I WOULD SAY WE'RE KIND OF READY TO GO, BUT CERTAINLY OPEN TO HEARING THE DIALOGUE FROM MY COUNCILMEMBERS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA?

>> SALDAÑA: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND DR. GARCIA THANK YOU FOR TAKING SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR ENERGY INTO PUTTING TOGETHER THE PRESENTATION AND OUTLINING A LOT OF WHAT WE BELIEVE -- THE GREAT BULK IS ADMIN STEERIAL BUT THE GREAT PIECES WE REALLY RAISE OUR EYEBROWS ABOUT IS MAKING SURE WE'RE BEING AGGRESSIVE IN NATURE AND AGGRESSIVE IN TRANSPARENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE ARE GOING THROUGH THINGS LIKE ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY, THAT THOSE ARE TRANCE PARENT, THAT THOSE -- TRANSPARENT, THAT THOSE HAPPEN AS OFTEN AS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DO WE KNOW WHO IS GIVING CONTRIBUTIONS OR ARE WE DISCLOSING WITH ENOUGH TIME THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO MY REPRESENTATIVE.

AND I THINK YOU'VE GIVEEN US SOME REALLY IMPORTANT SUGGESTIONS HERE.

I TEND TO AGREE WITH MOSTLY ALL OF THEM.

I THINK I HAVEN'T DISAGREED WITH ANY OF THE POSITIONS THAT YOU'VE TAKEN.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVEN'T HEARD YOUR PRESENTATION MIGHT DIG INTO, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ASK DETAILED QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT," IF WE'RE TO TAKE IT UP NEXT WEEK.

SO ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS I MIGHT LIKE TO ASK, DR. GARCIA, IS ADD ANY FIRST DEGREE MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLD FOR CONTRIBUTION PROHIBITIONS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT ON THE FIRST BLUSH, SO IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT TO ME, I'M SURE I CAN GET A GRASP OF IT.

>> SURE.

THAT'S ANYONE LIVING WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD.

SO ORIGINALLY IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY ADULT, LIKE A GRANDPARENT THAT COULD BE LIVING IN THE HOUSEHOLD OR AN ADULT CHILD, SO WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THAT.

>> SALDAÑA: SO WHAT'S THE AIM OF THE RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY WHO IS IN YOUR HOME IS NOT INVOLVED WITH CONTRIBUTIONS OR WITH CONTRACTS? I GUESS THAT'S --

>> IT'S SPECIFIC TO CONTRACTS.

>> SALDAÑA: OKAY.

SO IN THE EVENT THAT YOU -- WHAT YOU READ BEFOREHAND WAS JUST A SPOUSE? WE ARE ADJUSTING IT --

>> GARCIA: YES, IT SPECIFICALLY SAID.

LET ME FIND THE EXACT ITEM.

SO ORIGINALLY IT SAID THE SPOUSES OF ANY PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THAT PERIOD.

WE'RE NOW ADDING FIRST DEGREE MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR ANY PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS AS WELL.

>> SALDAÑA: OKAY.

SO A -- LET'S USE THE SPOUSE EXAMPLE.

A SPOUSE IS MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO A CANDIDATE OR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AT A TIME THAT PERHAPS THEY'RE INVOLVED WITH A CONTRACT, SO THAT'S HOW LOOPING BACK IN THE CONTACT PIECE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> GARCIA: CORRECT.

>> SALDAÑA: MAYBE YOU CAN DO IT ON THE MIC SO WE CAN GET IT ON THE RECORD.

>> SPECIFICALLY HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO.

>> SALDAÑA: OKAY.

AND WHILE IT MAY NOT BE FUN FOR ME -- JUST SWITCHING SUBJECTS, IT MAY NOT BE FUN FOR ME TO HAVE TO DO MORE WORK ON REPORTING, I CAN SEE THE VALUE IN GETTING MORE REPORTS QUICKLY OUT TO SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE A SENSE -- WHO WANT A BETTER SENSE THAN JUST ONCE OR TWICE EVERY YEAR TO DO THAT.

SO I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AS WELL.

SO, AGAIN, THANK YOU TO DR. ADRIANA AND TO THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER WHOSE HAVE BEEN REALLY DILIGENT FOR COMING UP

[00:20:01]

WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA.

COUNCILMAN COURAGE.

>> COURAGE: THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOU AND THE COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE FOR US.

I THINK THESE ARE TIGHTENING SOME OF THE THINGS WE WERE UNCONCERNED ABOUT.

I KNOW AS A NEW CANDIDATE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS WAS REALLY CHALLENGING.

ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO CLARIFY THOSE IS CERTAINLY WELCOME.

I WAS WONDERING, THOUGH, IS THERE MORE THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT TO HEAR ON CAMPAIGN FINANCING FROM TASK FORCE AND WHEN WE MIGHT BE HEARING THAT?

>> YES, SIR.

THE CAMPAIGN TASK FORCE THAT WAS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR HAS MET.

THAT WILL ALSO BE GOING TO THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE NEXT WEDNESDAY AND TENTATIVELY BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THAT, THAT COULD ALSO BE GOING TO A SESSION ON THE 21ST, THE VERY NEXT DAY.

BUT, YEAH, THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN LIMITS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES.

YOU'LL HEAR THAT AT THE GOVERNANCE NEXT WEDNESDAY.

>> COURAGE: THANK YOU.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR?

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN PERRY?

>> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

SO WE HAVE ANOTHER GROUP, ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT'S PUTTING TOGETHER RECOMMENDATIONS?

>> YES, YES, SIR.

WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD SPECIFICALLY ON CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO RAISE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, DR. GARCIA AND THE ERB, THEY LOOKED BACK AT HOW THAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY.

IT WAS NOT DONE BY THE ERB, BUT IT WAS DONE BY A TASK FORCE THAT WAS CREATED.

SO THEY RECOMMENDED TO THE MAYOR TO FOLLOW THAT SAME PROCESS.

THE MAYOR DID APPOINT A TASK FORCE.

THEY'VE MET THREE TIMES, I BELIEVE, AND THEY'RE COMPLETE WITH THEIR WORK AND SO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE COMING TO GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY NEXT WEEK.

THAT IS -- IT GOT SPLIT, THAT'S THE PROCESS.

AND THEN ALL RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE COMING BACK TOGETHER THEN FOR ONE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO BOTH THE ETHICS CODE AND THE FINANCE CODE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

SO I'M TRYING TO GET THIS SORTED OUT.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH OF THESE PORTIONS COME TOGETHER AT A B SESSION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT HERE BEFORE IT GOES TO A SESSION?

>> THE PROCESS GOT SPLIT DURING -- YOU KNOW, THE OTHER ONE WENT TO GOVERNANCE, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S JUST WHERE WE ARE.

I CAN'T -- TO DISCUSS IT, YES, WE COULD.

OBVIOUSLY THE CHAIR OF THE OTHER TASK FORCE IS NOT HERE.

WE CAN'T DO IT TODAY.

>> PERRY: WELL, AND --

>>

>> PERRY: WELL, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THESE TWO COME TOGETHER AND COME BACK TO THE B SESSION TO DISCUSS THIS ALTOGETHER INSTEAD OF SPLITTING IT, AND ONE -- YOU KNOW, COMING TOGETHER AT THE A SESSION.

I'D RATHER US GET IT ALL HERE IN THE B SESSION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT, ASK QUESTIONS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ALL AT ONE TIME INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS COMING AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES, COMING TOGETHER AT THE A SESSION.

>> AND I UNDERSTAND.

I WILL SAY THAT THE SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES ARE WITH THE ERB RIGHT NOW.

THE TWO THAT WILL BE COMING THROUGH THE GOVERNANCE IS INCREASE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AS WELL AS THE DISCLOSURES.

SO THOSE WILL HOPEFULLY BE A SHORT CONVERSATION BUT A VERY DIRECT CONVERSATION.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THE COMPLEXITY THAT THIS HAS.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

>> PERRY: I MEAN, IS THERE SOME RUSH TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE THIS JULY BREAK?

>> FROM -- YES AND NO.

NOW --

>> PERRY: WE DON'T HAVE AN ELECTION.

>> NO, BUT LET ME SPEAK -- YOU CAN STOP ME IF I SHOULDN'T GO HERE, ANDY.

ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, OBVIOUSLY, AND Y'ALL HAVE READ ABOUT IT AND I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE THEY WILL BE RECOMMENDING INCREASING THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

IT LODGELY MAKES SENSE FOR THAT TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON JULY 1ST.

A VERY QUICK TURNAROUND, HOWEVER THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION CYCLE, WHICH IS WHEN YOU WANT TO INCREASE SOMETHING AND DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

DELAYING THAT AND TRYING TO HAVE THAT IMPLEMENTED MIDCYCLE, I THINK, WOULD BECOME VERY PROBLEM PROBLEMATIC, AND IT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE DELAYED POSSIBLY TO THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT'S SOME OF THE REASONING WHY THAT WOULD ONE BE A LITTLE MORE CRITICAL TO GET THAT TIMELY.

THE ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IT'S COUNCIL'S DECISION.

>> PERRY: YEAH.

WELL, THAT WOULD BE MY PREF RENS.

I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION -- I MEAN, THE CONTRIBUTION CYCLE, IF IT FALLS TO THE NEXT CYCLE, IT FALLS TO THE NEXT CYCLE.

BUT I WOULD -- YOU KNOW, LET'S DO THIS AS ONE WHOLE INSTEAD OF PIECEMEALING THIS THING BEFORE IT GOES TO A SESSION.

THIS IS WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU KNOW, ASKING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERING AND SURE YOU CAN DO THAT IN AN A SESSION, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT FORMAT, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS -- THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT HERE.

THAT'S MY 2-CENTS WORTH ON IT.

I'D RATHER DO IT IN THAT FASHION

[00:25:01]

THAN SPLITTING IT UP LIKE THIS.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN?

>> VIAGRAN: HI.

QUESTION ABOUT -- FOR CLARIFICATION, AGAIN, ON SLIDE NUMBER 14 ABOUT THE FIRST DEGREE MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS.

IS THAT FOR JUST THE SUBS OR IS THAT FOR HIGH-PROFILE, OR IS THAT FOR ALL CONTRACTS.

>> AGAIN, THIS IS FOR HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS WELL AS THE SUB.

IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PARTIES OF A HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT.

>> VIAGRAN: GOT IT.

GOT IT, GOT IT.

THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT -- SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS LOOKING AT THE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I UNDERSTAND DISCLOSURES.

AND APPROVAL OF REVENUE BONDS THROUGH THE HOUSING TRUST AND THROUGH CITY CREATED ENTITIES.

AND IF WE MOVE THIS FORWARD NOW WHEN WE ARE STILL HAVING CONVERSATIONS AND HAVING HAD ANY -- IF WE'RE LOOKING TO IMPLEMENT THIS ALL NOW BEFORE JULY 1, OR YOU-ALL ARE, AND WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A REALLY BIG ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR'S HOUSING TASK FORCE TO SEE HOW THE HOUSING TRUST IS GOING TO BE USED, BECAUSE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY WANT TO UTILIZE THE HOUSING TRUST AND THE PFC A LOT WITH THIS, AND -- WITH OUR NEW POLICIES MOVING FORWARD, AND THEN WHEN WE STILL HAVEN'T CONFIRMED WHERE WE ARE WITH ICRIP OR CCHIP, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND NOT KIND OF PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

AND I NEEDED TO VOCALIZE THAT, PUT THAT FORWARD, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO THEN VOTE ON SOMETHING, TIE OUR HANDS UP AND THEN CERTAIN THINGS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IN THE FUTURE AS COUNCIL OR ELSE WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE, OH, WAIT, WE'VE BEEN IN VIOLATION OR NOT, WITH UNINTENDED VIOLATIONS.

SO THAT IS MY POINT OF PAUSE, ESPECIALLY ON THAT PORTION HERE.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S DISCLOSURE, SO IT WOULDN'T PROHIBIT ANYONE, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT NARRATIVES TO BE CREATED THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED.

AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF HAVING THOSE NARRATIVES CREATED.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS HERE.

I WILL AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PERRY, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FULL DISCUSSION WITH BOTH THIS NEW TASK FORCE AND THE ERB.

IF THEY ARE GOING -- IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, A BIG CONVERSATION, I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE IT, BUT I'D ZERO LOVE TO HAVE THE ERB HERE AND THE NEW TASK FORCE HERE SO WE CAN SEE WHERE WERE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION OF BOTH.

BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE NEW TASK FORCE HAS DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WHAT THE ERB SHARED AND WAS STUDYING.

SO THOSE WOULD BE MY -- THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU.

>> THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, SO --

>> VIAGRAN: SO WHAT ARE YOU -- SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE $100 DISCLOSURE IS NOT DIFFERENT -- BECAUSE IT IS? THE ERB RECOMMENDED NO, BUT THE OTHER ONE RECOMMENDED.

>> NO RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THAT DISCLOSURE, SO YOU COULDN'T SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AND THEN IT WENT TO THE TASK FORCE ENTIRELY TO DO WITH THE CAMPAIGN.

>> VIAGRAN: SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW LIKE WHERE WERE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION AND WHY, OR NOT.

AND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU USED, DR. GARCIA, WHERE DID YOU GATHER THAT INFORMATION, TO SHOW US THAT THERE IS A CHILLING EFFECT OR NOT A CHILLING EFFECT, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE DATA AND WHERE IT COMES FROM.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

COUNCILMAN PELAEZ?

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

LESS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT YOU'VE PRESENTED.

I THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF MEMORIALIZING THIS MOMENT AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT, WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO TAKE A LOT OF CREDIT FOR THE WORK THAT COMMITTEES DO.

AND SO I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT CITY COUNCIL THAT'S COMING UP WITH THESE SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW, OR THESE PROPOSALS.

THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT AUTONOMOUS BODY, RIGHT, HEADED BY YOU AND VICE CHAIRED BY PAULA MCGEE WHO CAME UP WITH THIS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF -- I DO THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO THANK YOU GUYS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT, YOU KNOW -- AND TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING, YOU KNOW, YOU AND PAULA MCGEE AND WADE SHELDON AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON HERE, YOU GUYS ARE PARAGONS OF SCRUPLES AND VALUES, AND Y'ALL HAVE

[00:30:01]

REPUTATIONS FOR THAT, RIGHT? FOR ETHICS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE KNOWN YOU-ALL TO BE COMPLETELY DEVOID OF [INDISCERNIBLE] AND SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND YOU REALLY DO DESERVE, YOU KNOW, OUR APPRECIATION FOR THIS.

AND DESPITE MY HAVING SAID THAT, WE'RE STILL PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR ALL OF IT, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE NOT FORGOTTEN ABOUT.

THANKS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

COUNCILMAN TREVINO?

>> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION AND CERTAINLY WE KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

>> TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

>> TREVINO: YEAH.

AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, I THINK, THE SPIRIT OF ALL OF THIS AS WELL.

SO I JUST HAVE ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION, SO THAT I'M CLEAR.

AS FAR AS THE CONTRIBUTIONS RULES AS THEY APPLY, IS IT BOTH FOR THE INCUMBENTS AND CANDIDATES AS WELL?

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTIONS, THE NEW PROPOSED ONES?

>> TREVINO: CORRECT.

>> SO, YES, THE TASK FORCE IS RECOMMENDING THAT ON THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ON THE 20TH.

SO THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PUBLICLY DISCLOSED JUST YET, OTHER THAN THE TASK FORCE, RIGHT? SO YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT IT AT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.

BUT CORRECT.

>> TREVINO: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE ABOUT THIS.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN TREVINO.

COUNCILMAN PERRY.

>> PERRY: YES, SIR, THANK YOU.

JUST GOING BACK ON THE REPORTING BUSINESS HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN -- RIGHT NOW ARE WE MEETING THE STATE REQUIREMENTS?

>> YEAH.

>> PERRY: WE ARE MEETING THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

ARE WE OVER THE STATE REQUIREMENTS?

>> BY THE THREE-DAY -- THE THREE-DAY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I BELIEVE -- WE'RE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO AWAY WITH THE THREE-DAY IF WE GO TO THE NEW REPORTING CYCLE.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

WHY DO WE HAVE THE THREE-DAY REQUIREMENT?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

>> IT WAS IMPLEMENTED MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, AND WE'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION AND WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN A CLEAR REASON TO -- SO I DON'T KNOW.

>> PERRY: IF YOU GOT RID OF THE THREE-DAY REQUIREMENT, WE'D STILL BE MEETING THE STATE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT?

>> BARTHOLD: CORRECT.

THAT IS THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE OVER AND ABOVE THE STATE REQUIREMENT.

>> PERRY: SO YOU'RE RECOMMENDING INCREASING IT BY TWO?

>> BARTHOLD: GOING TO QUARTER REPORTING ONION ELECTION YEARS.

REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL REPORT TO BE FILED ON APRIL THE 15TH AND OCTOBER THE 15TH.

ON ELECTION YEARS, WITH THE MAY ELECTION, AN ADDITIONAL REPORT WOULD BE FILED ON OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR.

SO WE'RE INCREASING IT BY THREE OF THE QUARTERLY, HOWEVER ELIMINATING THE THREE-DAY REPORT.

>> PERRY: WHAT IS THAT GAINING US? WHY MAKE THE CHANGE? I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING WHY WE WANT TO GO ABOVE STATE -- YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING TO -- ANOTHER 10 YEARS FROM NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WENT TO THAT.

>> PART HOLD: HOPEFULLY NOT.

>> PERRY: LIKE THE THREE-DAY.

WHO IS THIS MAKING THIS EASY ON? I'M LOOKING AT IT FOR MYSELF, I DO THESE THINGS MYSELF, AND THEY'RE NOT EASY.

IT'S VERY COMPLICATEED.

AND TO LOAD THAT INFORMATION IN, WE'RE ADDING A BURDEN TO OURSELVES AND I DON'T SEE WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT GOOD IS IT DOING.

WHAT MORE IS IT GOING TO GIVE SOMEONE THAT'S INTERESTED IN THESE REPORTS THAT THEY CAN'T WAIT UNTIL WE GET IT IN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING.

>> BARTHOLD: THE BENEFIT, IT'S MORE TIMELY REPORTING.

WE'LL NO SOONER.

>> PERRY: WHO'S "WE"?

>> BARTHOLD: SPECIFICALLY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR MY OFFICE.

>> PERRY: I'M SORRY.

WHY DO I WANT TO TAKE ON SOMETHING MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.

>> BARTHOLD: IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF CONVENIENCE, IT'S AN ISSUE OF WHENEVER WE'RE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS IS SPECIFICALLY WHERE WE USE THESE.

ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS IS THERE'S CAMPAIGN PROHIBITION PERIODS DURING -- FROM 10 DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS -- THE PROPOSAL WAS SENT TO 30 DAYS AFTER APPROVAL BY COUNCIL.

RIGHT NOW WHEN WE DON'T GET INFORMATION FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS, WE'RE SOMETIMES IN THE PROCESS OF THAT PROCUREMENT IS TAKING ONLY FOUR MONTHS, AND HAPPENS TO BE WITHIN A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, WE CAN'T -- WE CAN'T DO THAT REVIEW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

>> PERRY: BUT THE REVIEW WILL

[00:35:01]

GET DONE.

>> BARTHOLD: AFTER THE FACT.

>> PERRY: YEAH, AFTER THE FACT.

>> BARTHOLD: EVENTUALLY AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN LET.

IT WILL BE DONE.

SO IN THE PROCESS OF CATCHING IT AHEAD OF TIME, IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY CONCERNED.

BECAUSE THE RESULT OF THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DURING BLACKOUT FROM THE MEMBERSHIP, THE CONTRIBUTION NEEDS TO BE RETURNED FROM THE BIDDER'S PERSPECTIVE, IT'S DISQUALIFICATION.

>> PERRY: YEAH.

AND, YOU KNOW --

>> BARTHOLD: THAT'S THE BENEFIT.

THAT'S WHERE IT BENEFITS US WITHIN THE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTING PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION'S COMING.

>> PERRY: I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

>> BARTHOLD: I UNDERSTAND.

>> PERRY: WE SEEM TO DO OKAY AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE ALREADY EXCEEDING THE STATE REQUIREMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH THE THREE-DAY AND GO WITH WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES.

I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HERE.

THANK YOU, SIR.

I'LL PROBABLY HAVE MORE COMMENTS, TOO.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL?

>> SANDOVAL: I'M JUST LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUE, AND I THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME TO -- THAT'S WHAT B SESSION IS FOR, RIGHT, TO DISCUSS ANY CHANGES WE WANT TO MAKE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, SO I WOULD -- I'D HAVE COMPANION PERRY, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE WHATEVER CHANGE IT IS, BUT I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PERFECT -- GOD, I HATE USING PLATEAUEDS, BUT ISN'T PERFECT THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

I WORKED AT A -- AND I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME, WHEN I WORKED IN THE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, THE POINT OF MY PREVIOUS JOBS, WE PROBABLY SPENT ABOUT EIGHT YEARS TRYING TO MAKE A NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM, A PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND $10 MILLION, AND BY THE TIME WE GOT HALFWAY THROUGH WHAT WE WERE AIMING AT WAS OBSOLETE.

AND, YES, SHERYL, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN UNDER YOUR WATCH, BUT WE KEPT TRYING TO DO ALL THE PIECES AT ONCE AND MAKE IT PERFECT, AND WE NEVER GOT THERE.

SO REALLY THE WAY TO -- I THINK THE WAY TO DO THINGS AND ACTUALLY MAKE PROGRESS IN A CHANGING LANDSCAPE AS REAL LIFE IS, IS TO MOVE FORWARD ON WHAT WE KNOW IS GOOD AND WE'RE READY TO ADOPT, AND MAKE THE OTHER CHANGES AS WE GO ALONG.

ONE OF OUR FIRST B SESSIONS WE WERE IN HERE AND DR. GARCIA, YOU WERE LISTENING TO -- YOU WERE PRESENTING ALMOST EVERYTHING IDENTICALLY TO WHAT YOU'VE DONE TODAY, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE GAVE YOU AT DPOF VER NANS, AND THEN WE GAVE YOU MORE HOMEWORK AND HERE WE ARE NEARLY A YEAR LATER AND WE STILL HAVEN'T ADOPTED SOME OF THESE HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES.

AND SHAME ON US FOR NOT DOING THAT.

I AM CONCERNED THAT THE LOOK IS THAT BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD, THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE REGULATED.

AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU FEEL, BUT, GUYS, THAT'S WHAT THE OPTICS ARE GOING TO BE.

SO I AM SAYING LET'S MOVE FORWARD ON THE THINGS THAT ARE COMMON SENSE, CLEANUP.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO PULL OUT FOR LATER, LET'S PULL IT OUT, BUT THERE IS -- THERE'S NO NEED TO STOP PROGRESS.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL.

COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE?

>> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WANTED TO JUST CHIME IN AND REITERATE SOME POINTS THAT COUNCILMAN PERRY WAS MAKING.

NUMBER ONE, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF OUR REPORTING PERIODS.

WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THAT SINCE WE MET A YEAR AGO, TO COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL'S POINT.

THE INCREASING OF THE REPORTING POINTS, I DON'T SEE IT AS A POSITIVE GAIN.

WE'RE TALKING SIX MONTHS HERE, I GUESS -- GET IT.

IT'S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL WORK.

I WOULD BE CONSIDERED ABOUT IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ARE WE ERRODING OR DISCOURAGING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OR PUBLIC TRUST AS A RESULT OF [INDISCERNIBLE] PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE ALL THAT INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE TO THEM.

I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT, LET'S TOTALLY OPEN UP THE FREE-FLOWING INFORMATION SO THEY CAN HAVE EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH CITY HALL.

THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT.

EVERY SIX MONTHS THE AUDIO -- TO KEVIN'S POINT ABOUT WHAT HE'S DOING, HE'S ALREADY SUCCESSFUL AT IDENTIFYING IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE DONATIONS WITHIN A BLACKOUT OR HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT PERIOD.

HE'S ALREADY SUCCESSFUL AT DOING THAT.

SO I MEAN, TO ME, WE'RE FIXING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BROKE, RIGHT? LIKE WE'VE GOT A GREAT KNACK FOR GOING OUT AND CREATING NEW POSSIBLE WAYS TO MUK UP A PROCESS.

I THINK THE PROCESS IS ALREADY SOLID.

IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING MAYBE HELP THE CITY CLERK WITH A MORE ROBUST PROCESSING SYSTEM SO IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR CANDIDATES

[00:40:03]

TO APPLY, YOU KNOW, EASIER THAN THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET SYSTEM.

PROBABLY COULD USE SOME FUNDING IN THERE TO CLEAN UP THE SYSTEM, MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE USER FRIENDLY AND SO THAT IT IS MORE QUICKER AND MORE READILY AVAILABLE.

I DON'T MIND MORE INFORMATION COMING OUT ABOUT WHO'S DONATING, THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME.

IF I'M GOING TO GIVE MONEY TO A CANDIDATE, OR IF I'M GOING TO ACCEPT IT, I'LL PUT THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE.

I DON'T MIND GETTING MORE STRINGENT ON THE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS OR MOVING FORWARD ON THE THINGS WE CAN GET DONE NOW.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO RUSH ACCEPTING DONATIONS BY JULY 1ST.

YOU KNOW, IF THE EXTENT OF MY RELATIONSHIP IS 250 BUCKS I'M A DEAD MAN WALKING WITH WHOEVER'S DONATING THE MONEY, RIGHT? SO GOING FROM 500 TO 750 BUCKS, IF ANYBODY OUT THERE THE 250 BUCKS IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

SO WHETHER IT HAPPENS JULY 1, OR WHETHER IT HAPPENS JULY 1, '19, IT'S KIND OF IRRELEVANT.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO RUSH THAT PIECE.

I'VE GOT REAL CONCERNS ABOUT RAISING THE LIMITS IN ANY EVENT.

I WANT TO DIG DEEPER AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT PRESENTATION.

I'M NOT A YET OR NO.

I -- YES OR NO.

I DON'T SEE A RUSH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN TO JULY 1.

IT'S AN ODD NUMBER TO INCREASE IT BY -- IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE WANTED TO KEEP IT AT 500, SOMEONE WANTED TO GO TO 1,000, AND THEY SPLIT THE BABY, THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME.

IT'S NOT REALLY AN ANSWER, LET'S JUST MEET IN THE MIDDLE.

SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO DIG DEEPER ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE PIECES OF IT.

BUT THE ELIMINATE THE THREE-DAY, THE THREE-DAY IS A JOKE ANYWAYS.

I THINK IT'S JUST WHO GAVE YOU SOME CASH AND THAT'S IT, OR I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER.

THAT REPORT TAKES A FEW MINUTES.

BUT LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OUT THERE CREATING -- YOU KNOW, FIXING PROBLEMS THAT DON'T EXIST.

IF THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING SMOOTHLY, IF IT'S BEEN WORKING, IF THE CITY STAFF IS SUCCESSFUL IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, WE DON'T NEED TO INCREASE IT TO CREATE OR FIX SOME PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE, AND LET'S GET ONTO THE BUSINESS OF GETTING SOME WINS AND SOME THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE.

SO MY POSITION WOULD BE LEAVE THOSE ALONE.

DON'T MOVE FAST ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WHILE IT MAY BENEFIT COME JULY 1 PERSONALLY, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTERMENT I DON'T CARE, ELECTION'S ELECTION, IT WILL BE WHAT IT WILL BE.

I'M ON BOARD TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL'S POINT, CAN WE MAKE SOME THINGS QUICKER, SURE? I DON'T THINK WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT BE QUICKER, WE'RE TRYING TO BE PERFECT.

WE'RE TRYING TO BE RIGHT.

PERFECT AND RIGHT ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.

IF IT TAKES SOME TIME, IT TAKES SOME TIME.

IF SOMEONE AT THIS TABLE LOSES PERFECTIONISM AND WE ALL WALK AROUND AS HAPPY LITTLE CAMPERS AND EVERYONE'S BUDDIES.

THAT'S NOT THE REAL WORLD IN POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE.

IT'S TOUGH.

WE'RE HERE TO DO AS CLOSE TO RIGHT AS POSSIBLE.

AND I HOPE WE CAN TAKE THAT FORWARD INTO YOUR ETHICS PIECE, WHICH IS YOU'RE KIND OF THE ARBITER OF RIGHT AND WRONG.

SOME OF THEM ARE TOUGH DECISIONS.

THANK YOU FOR THE WORK, YOU'VE BEEN VERY UP FRONT TO BRINGING THE INFORMATION AND BRIEFING IT AND KEEPING US INFORMED.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT A VERY IMPORTANT TASK, ADRIANA, WHICH IS MAKING SURE THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT IN THE WORLD WE'RE DOING TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, AND I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT.

IT WAS GOOD WORK AND I APPRECIATE SEEING MORE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE.

COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES?

>> GONZALES: SO I JUST ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY DESIRE NOT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL REPORTING.

I KNOW, YOU KNOW, AS COUNCILMAN PERRY MENTIONED, I DO HAVE TO HAVE PROFESSIONALS REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THEM RIGHT.

AND AS ANY PROFESSIONAL, THE FEE IS AT LEAST $100 AN HOUR, JUST TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE A STRONG DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M IN COMPLIANCE ANY TIME I REPORT SOMETHING.

I DON'T WANT TO GET SOMETHING RETURNED BECAUSE I FORGOT TO DOT AN I OR CROSS A T, AND THERE'S EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AS THERE ARE JUST IN HAVING EVENTS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE REPORTING EVERYTHING.

AND SO ANY TIME THAT THERE'S THESE ADDITIONAL BURDENS THAT IT PLACES ON US, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE ARE NOW PAID PROFESSIONALS, WE -- THERE'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, THIS SORT OF OPPORTUNITY COSTS IN SERVING.

AND SO ANY TIME WE ADD ADDITIONAL THINGS AND THOSE OF US THAT WANT VERY MUCH TO BE IN COMPLIANCE ARE BURDENED WITH TOO MANY REPORTING PERIODS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE ONLY REPORTING THAT I HAVE TO DO IN MY LIFE, AS OTHERS PROBABLY -- YOU KNOW, I -- IT'S NOT ALSO NOT FREE.

SO THE OTHER THING, I WANT TO -- I HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT EVEN YOU KNOW, REGARDING ADDING SUBCONTRACTORS TO THE LIST OF PERSONS AND ENTITIES PROHIBITED FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE HIGH-PROFILE SOLICITATION

[00:45:02]

PROCESS.

AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THIS IS BECAUSE I JUST -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

SO WE RECENTLY HAD THE STAFF COME AND REVIEW ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS THAT WAS DOING THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PIECE FOR OUR SA TOMORROW PLAN.

AND MULTIPLE TIMES THE STAFF CAME AND PRESENTED WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN THE SA TOMORROW PLAN.

AND IT WAS 1.1 MILLION, SO IT HAD TO HAVE GONE THROUGH HIGH-PROFILE.

BUT IN THAT 1.1 MILLION, THERE WERE SEVEN SUBCONTRACTORS.

WELL, WE HAD NO IDEA HOW MANY SUBCONTRACTORS THERE ARE IN THOSE, AND SO HOW -- I MEAN, IS EVERYBODY INFORMED? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE AS COUNCILMEMBERS ARE NOT USUALLY U INFORMED ABOUT ALL OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THE POTENTIALLY SMALL CONTRACT? SO HOW DO WE -- I MEAN, 1.1 MILLION IS ENOUGH TO GO TO HIGH-PROFILE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY BIG IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SEE ON THE CITY ON THE DAILY BASIS.

I MEAN, HOW TO WE KNOW AND HOW DO THEY -- I MEAN, DO THE CONTRACTORS ALWAYS KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN THE BLACKOUT PERIOD?

>> BARTHOLD: IT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS ESPECIALLY WITH HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS THAT THE DISCLOSURES APPLY TO THE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS.

THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT TO THE CODE IS ACTUALLY CODIFIED OR CLARIFYING OUR EXISTING PRACTICE, WHICH RIGHT NOW OUR PRACTICE ALREADY PROHIBITS SUBCONTRACTORS FROM MAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE BLACKOUT PERIOD.

>> GONZALES: THEN WHY IS IT ADDED.

>> BARTHOLD: AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY.

THE LEGAL PROCESS OF WHY THEY'RE PROHIBITED, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE THAT SAYS ANY CONTRACTOR WHO HAS A FINANCIAL GAIN OR FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A CONTRACTOR, WELL, THAT APPLIES TO SUBS.

EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE WE STILL GET THE QUESTION DOES THIS APPLY TO SUBS BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR.

SO HERE, WE'RE JUST MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IT APPLIES TO SUBS.

>> GONZALES: THAT'S CONFUSING NOW TO US WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE WHEN YOU SAID ADD SUBCONTRACTORS, BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WAS GOING TO BE EDITS.

WHEN YOU PRESENT IT LIKE THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE AN EDIT. IT'S NOT AN EDIT, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE CONFUSING TO A PERSON WHO'S TRYING VERY HARD TO COMPLY.

>> BARTHOLD: RIGHT, IT'S FOR CLARIFICATION.

BUT, THEN AGAIN, GO BACK TO THE OTHER QUESTION, THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, IT IS VERY CLEAR.

THE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT ARE BIDDING WITH GENERAL CONTRACTORS, THEY KNOW OR HAVE BEEN GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE BEEN TOLD OF THE PROHIBITION RULES IN HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, DIFFERENT SET OF RULES AND DIFFERENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

>> GONZALES: RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT EXPECT US TO ALWAYS BE INFORMED ABOUT THIS.

>> BARTHOLD: NO, AND WE DON'T.

>> GONZALES: SO, I GUESS THAT, AGAIN, CAN BE CONFUSING.

AND EVEN HERE ADD FIRST DEGREE MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLD, THAT ALSO HAS ALREADY BEEN IN PLACE, RIGHT? IS FIRST DEGREE PERSON MEMBER, HASN'T THAT ALWAYS BEEN THERE?

>> BARTHOLD: NO, THAT AS JUST BEEN SPOUSES.

NO IT WILL APPLY TO PARENTS OR ADULT CHILDREN THAT ARE IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD GONZALEZ BONS --

>> GONZALES: SO ADD ANY FIRST DEGREE MEMBER.

SO -- ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS WHAT MY CONCERN IS WHEN WE GO TO CHANGING A LOT OF TIMES, IN MY OPINION, I DIDN'T THINK WE HAD A BROKEN SYSTEM.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING CURRENTLY WRONG WITH OUR -- THE WAY THAT WE PRESENT.

I KNOW THAT I TRY VERY HARD TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES THAT ARE PRESENTED.

AND SO SOMETIMES WHEN WE CHANGE IT, ESPECIALLY A SYSTEM THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE IS BROKEN, THEN IT GIVES MORE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE MISTAKES.

AND THIS IS WHAT I'M AFRAID OF AS WE CONTINUE TO MAKE CHANGES AND ADD MORE REPORTING OR DETRACT REPORTING OR ADD THINGS THAT ARE PERHAPS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM THIS WAS, BUT IT JUST -- I MEAN, I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I SAY THAT WE TRY OUR VERY BEST TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES.

AND I GET NERVOUS WHEN YOU START TO CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

SO I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HERE, EVEN WITH THE ETHICS CODE AND SELF-REPORTING, I OTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE ETHICS CODE HERE.

SO REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PARTIES SEEKING, THERE WAS ONE HERE REGARDING NOTIFYING IF THEY WERE -- FOR EXAMPLE, ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS CURRENTLY INDIVIDUALS APPLYING PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNER OFFICER FOR THE ENTITY APPLYING ARE PROHIBITED TO CONTRIBUTIONS.

ISN'T THAT -- HASN'T THAT ALSO ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

ISN'T THERE A BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR PEOPLE ASKING FOR ZONING CHANGES.

>> BARTHOLD: CONSULTANTS, ATTORNEYS, LOBBYISTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROHIBITIONS FOR THOSE DISCLOSURES ON ZONING CASES.

[00:50:01]

THIS IS ADDING THE DISCLOSURE COMPONENT FOR THOSE PROFESSIONS.

>> GONZALES: I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS, A 30-DAY PERIOD BEFORE AND AFTER A ZONING CHANGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN'T -- SO, YEAH, CONTRIBUTE.

SO I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, BE VERY RESPECTFUL OF THAT.

AND DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS, ATTORNEYS, CONSULTANTS, RETAINED RELATED TO ZONING CHANGES, SO ALSO, THAT'S ON US TO KNOW IF THEY'RE A LOBBYIST OR ATTORNEY INVOLVED? BECAUSE, AGAIN, SOME OF THESE ARE -- LIKE I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE.

>> BARTHOLD: AGREED.

IN THE ZONING PROCESS, MUCH LIKE THE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THERE'S NO WAY Y'ALL CAN KEEP TRACK OF ALL THIS STUFF.

IF THERE'S A DISCOVERY THAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE IN A BLACKOUT PERIOD, HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS OR ZONING, THE CURE FOR THE COUNCILMEMBER IS SIMPLY TO BE NOTIFIED AND THEN TO RETURN THAT CONTRIBUTION, END OF STORY.

FOR THE CONTRIBUTOR, NOW, THAT -- THOSE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE MORE SEVERE.

AGAIN IN THE CASE OF HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, THEY COULD BE DISQUALIFIED.

CASE OF ZONING, THE ZONING CASE COULD BE CHANGED OR DROPPED.

THERE'S -- I'M NOT 100% FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING PROCESS.

BUT THERE'S -- THE POTENTIAL -- THE CONSEQUENCES ARE REALLY GEARED TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE GIVING.

AND, AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO EDUCATE SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE BLACKOUT PERIOD, WITHIN THE BLACKOUT PERIOD THEY SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO THE ONUS IS ON THE CONTRIBUTOR.

>> GONZALES: OKAY.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN.

REAL QUICK, I WANTED TO GO BACK -- THANK YOU THAT WAS VERY GOOD INFORMATION, COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES.

JUST TO BE CLEAR AND TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK TO WHAT COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL WAS MENTIONING, IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH TO PULL THEM OUT.

ONE OF THE THINGS -- SO AS NOT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THINGS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND OR TALK ABOUT IS THAT WHAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE HOUSING TRUST, THE CITY INCENTIVES AND THE HOUSING -- AND THE TAX CREDITS.

TO PULL THEM OUT AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEM AFTER WE GET CITY COUNCIL -- WE GET THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CITY STAFF, WHAT'S MOVING FORWARD, AND AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF WHATEVER ELSE IS COMING UP.

SO THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

COUNCILMAN PERRY?

>> PERRY: MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED.

THANK YOU, SIR.

APPRECIATE IT.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK Y'ALL FOR THE JOB THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE, AND I'M ALL FOR THE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, BUT, YEAH, I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THESE OTHER ITEMS, AS YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

THANK YOU AGAIN, DR. GARCIA.

QUICK QUESTION, DID YOU-ALL CONSIDER THE DEFINITION OF HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

>> NO.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

SHERYL?

>> SCULLEY: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE RULE OR THE DEFINITION TODAY IS A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION OR THAT WHICH IS HIGH-PROFILE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY WIDE, HIGH-PROFILE IN TERMS OF THE POLICY ISSUE CONVERSATION AND IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE TOPICS THAT GO TO THE HIGH-PROFILE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED WITHIN THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

WELL, I MEAN, I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES ALREADY.

MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE PRETTY SIMPLE AND THEY'RE CONSISTENT, I KNOW, WITH GUIDANCE FROM COMMON CAUSE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED OVER THE LAST YEAR.

BUT IT IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE STRUCTURAL CHALLENGE WE HAVE, AND, AGAIN, I THINK REINFORCES THE NEED FOR US TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS REVIEW BOARD AND INDEPENDENT ETHICS CODE.

THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE -- OR SHOULD NOT BE DELIBERATING ON THESE RULES.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS WHOLE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, PRECIPITATED A DEEP DIVE IN THE ETHICS CODE IS ON PAGE NUMBER 10, WHICH IS THE BOTTOM BULLET, REQUESTS FOR WAIVER CAN ONLY BE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ERB.

IT SPEAKS TO THE NOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OFFICIALS, THE GOVERNING BODY SHOULD NOT OFFICIATE ITS OWN RULES.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE -- IT'S HIGH TIME FOR US TO MOVE THESE THINGS FORWARD TO A SESSION AND TAKE A VOTE ON THEM.

THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS WILL

[00:55:01]

COME IN DUE COURSE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE DOES AT THAT POINT, BUT, YOU

[2. 18-3822 Briefing on options related to military installation mission protection for property within a five mile radius of military bases. [Peter Zanoni, Deputy City Manager; Bridgett White, Director, Planning]]

KNOW, THESE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK ADD TO OUR LEVEL OF DISCLOSURE, WHICH IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING IN MY MIND FOR PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.

SO IF THAT IS IT, I WOULD ASK THAT THE CITY STAFF WORK WITH THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PARTICULAR ITEMS ON THIS, SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSENSUS ON THOSE ITEMS THAT I THINK ARE PRETTY LOW-HANGING FRUIT FOR US.

THANK YOU, AGAIN, DR. GARCIA, FOR YOUR CONSISTENT PATIENCE.

>> NO PROBLEM.

SORRY I'M NOT TALKING TOO MUCH.

I HAVE BILATERAL VOCAL NODULES AND I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THIS RESCHEDULED, SO THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT.

THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER TWO.

>> SCULLEY: THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AND BECAUSE THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT HOUSING TASK FORCE, JUST A REMINDER FOR THE COUNCIL THAT NEXT WEEK'S B SESSION IS FULLY DEVOTED TO THE HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS WILL BE HERE TO PRESENT THEIR WORK OVER THE PAST NINE MONTHS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE ICRIP RECOMMENDATIONS, THE INNER CITY REINVESTMENT AREAS WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL IN AUGUST AND WE WILL BE INCORPORATING THE POLICY GUIDANCE WE RECEIVED AT THE GOAL-SETTING SESSION ABOUT INCORPORATING HOUSING INTO THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

THAT WILL BE, OF COURSE, PRESENTED AS PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET.

SO SINCE THOSE QUESTIONS CAME UP AND WERE REFERRED TO, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT PROPOSED TIMELINE.

THE SECOND ITEM ON OUR B SESSION CALENDAR FOR THIS AFTERNOON IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO PROTECTION OF OUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

LET ME JUST SAY, AND, OF COURSE, BRIDGETTE WHITE, OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, IS GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXATION THIS AFTERNOON, BUT LET ME SAY, TOO, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEWER COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE JUST SERVED OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE ANNEXATION CONVERSATION AND ANALYSIS POLICY DISCUSSION HAS OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

SO WE BEGAN THIS CONVERSATION SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND ACTUALLY COMPLETED WHAT WAS CALLED A 360 ANALYSIS.

THAT IS, WE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE CITY COUNCIL GAVE STAFF POLICY DIRECTION IN TERMS OF AREAS TO STUDY.

WE DID THAT, AND THEN THE COUNCIL -- AFTER -- BASED UPON SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, THE COUNCIL DECIDED WHICH ONES TO PURSUE IN TANDEM, THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONSIDERED ANNEXATION OVER THE PAST SEVERAL SESSIONS, HAS MADE CHANGES INTO THAT WHICH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CAN AND CANNOT ANNEX, AND SO WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE.

IT'S ALL RATHER COMPLICATED, BUT WE HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THREE AREAS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON, AND THESE ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND WHAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CAN AND WHAT WE RECOMMEND SHOULD DO IN TERMS OF PROTECTING THOSE.

BRIDGETTE IS HERE, IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION, AND, OF COURSE, JUAN AYALA IS HERE AS WELL, OUR MILITARY AFFAIRS DIRECTOR WHO CAN ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BRIDGETTE WHITE, OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR WHO OVERSEES OUR ANNEXATION PROGRAM.

>> WHITE: GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AS SHERYL MENTIONED, BRIDGETTE WHITE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

LAST YEAR COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT WE COME BACK TO YOU WITH OPTIONS RELATED TO POSSIBLE ANNEXATION AROUND MILITARY BASES TO CONTINUE THE CITY'S GOAL OF PROTECTING OUR MILITARY MISSIONS.

STAFF FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUDGET DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND OFFICE OF MILITARY AFFAIRS IN COOPERATION WITH JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO AND THIS AFTERNOON WE HAVE MEG [INDISCERNIBLE] WHO IS THE COMMITTEE INITIATIVES DIRECTOR AS WELL AS CRAIG CARPENTER, SENIOR CIVILIAN ATTORNEY HERE WITH US THIS AFTERNOON.

WE'VE ALL BEEN COLLABORATING OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS TO DELIVER ACTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

TODAY'S BRIEFING WILL CONTAIN A SHORT UPDATE, UPDATES RELATED TO SENATE BILL 6, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW LAST YEAR AND AN OVERVIEW BETWEEN THE OUTCOMES OF DECISION BETWEEN THE CITY AND JBSA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH OPTIONS SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO PROCEED WITH POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AROUND OUR MILITARY BASES.

AS A MATTER OF BACKGROUND, THE AUTHORITY ANNEX IS GRANTED BY THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

IT ALLOWS THE CITY TO ANNEX OR EXTEND ITS MUNICIPAL SERVICES, REGULATIONS, VOTING PRIVILEGES AND TAXING AUTHORITY TO NEW

[01:00:01]

TERRITORY.

THE CITY'S EXTRATORIAL JURISDICTION, OR E TJ, IT INCLUDES ALL UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN ANOTHER CITY'S ETJ.

IT'S THE AIR IN WHICH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS WHERE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS THE ONLY AUTHORITIED ENTITY ABLE TO ANNEX LAND.

LANDS -- CREATING EFFICIENCY AND FOR PROTECTING AND EXPANDING OUR TAX BASE.

THE TYPES OF ANNEXATION INCLUDE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION IN WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS MAY PETITION THE CITY TO ANNEX THEIR PROPERTY.

WE HAVE FULL-PURPOSE ANNEXATION WHERE A CITY PROVIDES FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES, ASSESSES TAXES AND ENFORCES CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS.

IN THIS CASE, RESIDENTSES MAY VOTE IN ALL CITY ELECTIONS AND RUN FOR OFFICE.

AND FINALLY, WE HAVE LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION, WHICH EXTENDS OUR ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT; HOWEVER, WE COLLECT NO TAXES IN LIMITED PURPOSE AREAS.

WE DO NOT PROVIDE ANY MUNICIPAL SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE OR FIRE PROTECTION.

RESIDENTS MAY VOTE IN CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS, BUT CANNOT VOTE IN BOND ELECTIONS OR RUN FOR OFFICE.

THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THE GROWTH OF SAN ANTONIO BY SQUARE MILES.

IN 1940 THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL LIMITS WERE APPROXIMATELY 36 SQUARE MILES.

TODAY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS 514 SQUARE MILES.

SO IN 2012 THE CITY COUNCIL BEGAN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF IMPLICATIONS RELATED TO TIM MENS GROWTH THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THE CITY'S ETJ.

IN 2013 THE ANNEXATION POLICY WAS UPDATED AND COUNCIL GAVE US DIRECTION TO BEGIN STUDYING THE ETJ TO BRING BACK AREAS FOR POTENTIAL ANNEXATION.

SO THROUGH OUR ANNEXATION 360 PROGRAM THAT MRS. SCULLEY MENTIONED WE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL A YEAR LATER FIVE AREAS FOR POTENTIAL ANNEXATION.

IDENTIFICATION OF THESE FIVE AREAS DID NOT, HOWEVER, PROHIBIT OTHER AREAS FROM BEING ANNEXED.

AND ALSO IN THE FALL OF 2015, IT WAS DETERMINED TO FURTHER STUDY ANNEXATION AS PART OF THE SA TOMORROW PLANNING PROCESS TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT WITH THE COME PR -- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE SIX AREAS REVIEWED RECOMMENDED THE AREAS BE REDUCED IN SIZE AND ONLY INCLUDE THE MOST STRATEGIC AREAS.

THE FIVE AREAS RECOMMENDED IN THE 360 STUDY ARE SHOWN HERE.

OF THE FIVE AREAS SHOWN, WE HAVE COMPLETED ANNEXATION EFFORTS WITH TWO, THE 281 NORTH COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND AN APPROVED INTERLOCAL IN THE I-10 EAST AREA.

ADDITIONAL ANNEXED AREA INCLUDES 25 SQUARE MILES IN SOUTH SAN ANTONIO.

IN 2017, CITIES COULD ANNEXATION AREAS IN THE PROVISION OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

THIS ALLOWED FOR AREAS OF LESS THAN 100 ROOFTOPS TO BE AN NEXT IN A SHORTER TIME FRAME THAN LARGER AND MORE POPULATION ANNEXATION AREAS.

THE SEVEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IN OUR PLACE THAT COUNCIL CONSIDERED LAST YEAR WERE DONE UNDER THIS PROVISION OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

OF THE 19 SQUARE MILES PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION AT THE TIME, COUNCIL ANNEXED 8.2 SQUARE MILES, ONE COMMERCIAL BORDER AND THREE ENCLAVE AREAS.

I ALSO WANT TO KNOW THE I-10 WEST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WAS INITIALLY ONE OF THE CORRIDORS BEING CONSIDERED BUT WAS REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION AUGUST OF 2017.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: BRIDGETTE, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT IT'S RAINING.

SO... CARRY ON.

[LAUGHTER]

>> WHITE: SO TWO OF THE AREAS ANNEXED IN THE CITY AT THAT TIME WERE ADJACENT TO THE CAMP CAMP S AND LACKLAND AIR FORCE AND IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGE RELATED TO STATE LAW ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION OPTIONS AS IT PERTAINS PROTECTING THE MILITARY MISSIONS OF THESE TWO BASES.

>> SECTION 43 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW TWO THINGS TO OCCUR: FIRST, THE CITY CAN ANNEX FOR FULL OR LIMITED PURPOSES WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE BOUNDARY AS A REMINDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE STILL ALLOWS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO REQUEST VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A CITY TO ANNEX A PROPERTY OR TERRITORY IN ITS ETJ OUTSIDE OF THE FIVE-MILE MILITARY BUFFER, AS LONG AS AN ELECTION IS HELD.

HOWEVER, IF THAT VOTE FAILS, NO LAND USE CONTROLS CAN BE ENFORCED.

FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION, THE AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION ARE WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE CAMP BULLIS MILITARY BASE AND THE

[01:05:03]

LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE ANNEX.

THE WORKING GROUP IDENTIFIED THREE POSSIBLE OPTIONS AROUND EACH MILITARY INSTALLATION BASED ON SERVICE COVERAGE.

WE IDENTIFIED ONE LARGE AREA, OPTION ONE.

AND TWO SMALLER AREAS, OPTIONS TWO AND THREE.

FOR EACH AND THEN THE NEXT SIX SLIDES HIGHLIGHT THOSE AREAS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE AREAS IDENTIFIED.

SO FIRST CAMP BULLIS OPTION ONE.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE MILITARY BASE IS NOTED IN GRAY AND THE RED LINE REPRESENTS THE FIVE-MILE BUFFER.

THIS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 22.4 SQUARE MILES WITH 18,000 RESIDENTS.

THERE ARE ALSO OVER 7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS, AND THE AREA IS ABOUT 65% DEVELOPED.

THE SECOND OPTION FOR CAMP BULLIS IS ALONG THE I-10 CORRIDOR AND IS ABOUT 5.3 SQUARE MILES.

THERE ARE OVER 9400 RESIDENTS AND SLIGHTLY OVER 3100 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

THIS AREA IS ALSO ABOUT TWO-THIRDS DEVELOPED.

THE THIRD OPTION FOR CAMP BULLIS IS WITHIN THE FIVE-MILE BUFFER BUT NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BASE.

GIVEN THE LOCATION, THIS IS THE LOWEST-RANKED OPTION.

THIS AREA HAS ALMOST 9,000 PEOPLE AND ABOUT 3400 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS.

AND THIS AREA TOO IS ABOUT TWO-THIRDS DEVELOPED.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN LOOKING AT THE AREAS AS THEY WERE BASED ON FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE COVERAGE, THE AREA IDENTIFIED FOR OPTION TWO PLUS THE AREA IDENTIFIED FOR OPTION THREE DO NOT TOTAL THE LARGER AREA IDENTIFIED IN ONE.

SO TWO PLUS THREE DOES NOT EQUAL ONE.

TO THE LACKLAND AREA WE ALSO HAVE THREE OPTIONS.

THE MILITARY INSTALLATION IS SHOWN IN GRAY AND THE FIVE-MILE BUFFER IS SHOWN IN RED.

THIS FIRST AREA IS THE LARGEST AREA AND IS APPROXIMATELY 20.3 SQUARE MILES, OVER 40,000 RESIDENTS.

41% OF THE AREA IS DEVELOPED.

FOR OPTION TWO, THE AREA ALONG 1604 AND NORTH OF 90 IS ABOUT FINALLY, OPTION THREE IS ABOUT 12.4 SQUARE MILES WITH OVER 4700 RESIDENTS AND IS ABOUT 45% DEVELOPED.

AS DONE WITH ANY PRIOR ANNEXATION INITIATIVE THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE AREAS WAS EVALUATED BY LOOKING AT REVENUES AND EXPENSES OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

REVENUES INCLUDE PROPERTY AND SALES TAX WHILE EXPENSES INCLUDE FIRE, POLICE, AND STREET MAINTENANCE.

IN LOOKING AT THE CAMP BULLIS AREA, THE 20-YEAR NET ENDING BALANCE RANGES FROM $8.4 MILLION FOR OPTION ONE.

NEGATIVE AND FOR THE LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE ANNEX AREA THE 20 YEAR BALANCE RANGES FROM A NEGATIVE $196.6 MILLION FOR OPTION ONE.

NEGATIVE $74.7 MILLION FOR OPTION TWO.

AND A NEGATIVE $166.6 MILLION FOR OPTION THREE.

IF AN ELECTION WERE TO BE CALLED AND THE VOTE IS YES, THE CITY WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANNEXATION.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO HAVE A LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE SERVICE AND ONLY EXTEND ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT.

AT THE END OF THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD, CITY COUNCIL MUST FORMALLY FINALIZE THE ISSUE BEFORE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA CAN BE COMPLETED.

HOWEVER, IF AN ELECTION IS CALLED AND THE VOTE IS NO, PER THE SENATE BILL 6 A MUNICIPALITY WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT AND ENFORCE ORDINANCES REGULATING LAND USE IN AREAS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MOST RECENT JOINT LAND USE STUDY.

SO WHAT IS A JOINT LAND USE STUDY? SO THE JOINT LAND USE STUDY IS A STUDY COMPLETED BETWEEN A MILITARY INSTALLATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

A J LUS IS INTENDED TO RESOLVE ENCROACHMENT ISSUES BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND ITS NEIGHBORS.

THE CAMP BULLIS JLUS WAS ADOPTED IN 2009 AND THE LACKLAND JLUS WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2011.

STAFF WORKED WITH JBSA TO COMPILE EACH STUDY'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

FIVE LAND USE CONTROLS WERE IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT.

THESE LAND USE CONTROLS INCLUDE LAND USE PLANNING, LIGHTING, NOISE, SAFETY, AND HEIGHT.

HOWEVER, THE WORKING GROUP DETERMINED THAT ONLY CERTAIN CONTROLS WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR EACH OF THE MILITARY BASES GIVEN OTHER WORK UNDERWAY, THE LOCATION OF THEIR FLIGHT PATHS ON THE BASE, OR ADDITIONAL WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED.

ALTHOUGH EACH JOINT LAND USE STUDY MENTIONS LAND USE

[01:10:01]

CAPACITYIBILITY IT DEFINE COMPATIBLE LAND USE WHICH CAN BE APPLIED IN A BROAD RANGE OF CLASSIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY.

THE DESIGNATION OF LAND USE ON ITS OWN DOES NOT PROVIDE THE REGULATORY TOOLS FOR THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT JLUS STRATEGIES, EXAMPLE ZONING.

IN OUR DISCUSSION IT WAS DETERMINED IN ORDER TO HELP US FIND BETTER A PART OF THE STUDY WILL PROVIDE A MORE PRESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION FOR GUIDANCE OF COMPATIBLE LAND USE.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THIS STUDY WILL BE COMPLETED IN MID JULY.

IN THE CASE OF CAMP BULLIS, THE WORKING GROUP DETERMINED THAT TWO OF THE FIVE LAND USE CONTROLS COULD APPLY.

LAND USE PLANNING AND LIGHTING.

THE CITY'S NORTH SECTOR PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2010 AND IDENTIFIES LAND USE WITHIN THE CITY'S ETJ.

ANY LAND USE PLANNING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ENFORCE WOULD REQUIRE COLLABORATION WITH BEXAR COUNTY.

WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY SO ANY POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE JOINTLY CONSIDERED.

IN REGARDS TO LIGHTING, CITY COUNCIL JUST APPROVED THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT LAST WEEK AND BEXAR COUNTY IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THEIR COURT ORDER APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH SHOULD BE COMPLETED SOMETIME NEXT MONTH.

IN REGARDS TO THE AREA AROUND LACKLAND, THE WORKING GROUP IDENTIFIED TWO LAND USE CONTROLS IN ADDITION TO LAND USE PLANNING AND LIGHTING.

WITH NOISE THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS A MILITARY SOUND ATTENUATION OVERLAY, WHICH WAS A ZONING DISTRICT.

AS WE CANNOT IMPOSE ZONING IN THE COUNTY, WE COULD ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CREATING A ZONE WITH SOUND STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO THE MSAO.

SIMILARLY WITH HEIGHT, THE AIRPORT HAS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A ZONING DISTRICT, SO THE CITY WOULD NEED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CREATING A ZONE WITH EQUIVALENT HEIGHT STANDARDS TO THE AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT.

TODAY STAFF IS SEEKING COUNCIL DIRECTION IN ORDER TO PROCEED.

FIRST, DOES COUNCIL WISH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION? SECOND, IF SO, WHICH AREAS WOULD COUNCIL OPT TO FOCUS ON? THE INFORMATION PRESENTED DOES SHOW THAT THERE ARE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO ANNEXING THE AREAS.

HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE NEED TO PROTECT THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS PROVIDED BY THE STATE WE CAN ENFORCE LAND USE CONTROLS.

IF A VOTE FAILS WE WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THIS INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

GIVEN THE FINANCIAL, MILITARY, AND LEGISLATIVE COMPONENTS.

IF COUNCIL OPTS TO MOVE FORWARD, THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ELECTION SCHEDULE.

IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BALLOT ON THE NOVEMBER 6 ELECTION.

THE LAST POSSIBLE DAY FOR COUNCIL TO CALL THE ELECTION IS AUGUST 2, WHICH IS YOUR FIRST A SESSION MEETING IN AUGUST.

IF COUNCIL APPROVES A RESOLUTION ON AUGUST 2, THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER WOULD BE SPENT PREPARING ELECTION MATERIAL AND NOTIFICATIONS PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 6 ELECTION.

BASED ON THE WORKING GROUP'S DISCUSSION, THAT BEING CITY STAFF AND JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO REPRESENTATIVES, IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO CALL THE ELECTION, THE PRIORITY WOULD BE WEST, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF VACANT LAND.

THE AMOUNT OF VACANT LAND AND THREE OPTIONS RANGES FROM 45% TO 59%.

ALSO IN REGARDS TO THE LAND USE CONTROLS REVIEWED, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE BASES, THERE'S A GREATER ABILITY TO IMPOSE LAND USE CONTROLS IN THE LACKLAND AREA.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE ALL HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION, BRIDGETT.

HAS THE OFFICE OF MILITARY AFFAIRS REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

YES, WE HAVE.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND AS BRIDGETT WAS STATING MY CONCERN OR OUR CONCERN WAS TO PROTECT THE MILITARY MISSION.

AND I THINK THE OPTION THAT SHE PRESENTED WILL DO THAT WITH THE PRIORITY BEING ON LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE.

I THINK A LOT OF BULLIS AND THE AREA SURROUNDING CAMP BULLIS IS ALREADY DEVELOPED.

WE HAVE ALREADY GOT AGREEMENTS IN PLACE WITH NOT ONLY LOCAL BUSINESSES AROUND THERE BUT ALSO THE MLOD, THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE THAT CAME INTO VIEW.

MY CONCERN AND THE MILITARY'S CONCERN -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CRAIG, IS NIGHT VISION TRAINING, WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT.

AVIATION MISSIONS ARE NOT THAT FREQUENT.

ESPECIALLY AT CAMP BULLIS.

SO FOR US IT'S LACKLAND, THE LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE AREA.

I THINK WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB, THE CITY HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN THE PAST OF PROTECTING THE MILITARY MISSION AT BULLIS.

I ASKED SPECIFICALLY -- WE WERE DOING THIS FOR JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO, WHAT'S GOING TO PROTECT OUR MISSIONS SO WE WILL NOT LOSE

[01:15:02]

ANY MISSIONS WE ALREADY HAVE AND PROTECT OUR INSTALLATIONS TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB MORE MISSIONS.

LACKLAND, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

CRAIG, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? SIR, CRAIG CARPENTER.

COME HERE.

COME ON, PLEASE.

CRAIG CARPENTER IS JBSA'S, ONE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS.

>> I'M CRAIG CARPENTER, SENIOR CIVILIAN ATTORNEY AT JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO.

YOU GUYS PROBABLY CONSIDER ME A DIRT LAWYER.

I HANDLE ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, SO I HANDLE THE LEGAL SIDE OF ALL THAT FOR OUR CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP AS WELL.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY STAFF EVER SINCE JANUARY AND BEFORE REGULAR MEETINGS.

AND THE BRIEFING ACCURATELY SUMMARIZES OUR INPUTS AND INJECTIONS INTO THAT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD THERE.

QUITE FRANKLY AROUND CAMP BULLIS, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB ALREADY OF SUPPORTING THE MILITARY MISSIONS AT ALL OF OUR LOCATION.

AT CAMP BULLIS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE TOOLS THE STATE HAS PROVIDED YOU, YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN WITH THOSE TOOLS PRETTY MUCH TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN.

WHAT WE HAVE LEFT ARE THE FRAGMENTED AREAS WHERE THERE ARE AREAS WHERE WELL, TWO ISSUES.

WE HAVE THE ISSUE WITH TOO MANY BIRDS COMING ON OUR POST AND TOO MUCH LIGHT COMING ON OUR POST.

THAT'S WHAT WE FOCUS ON.

WITH REGARD TO THE BIRDS, WE PROTECT THEM AS WELL AS WE CAN WITH THAT, WITH ALL THE THINGS THE CITY HAS DONE TO SUPPORT US.

WE COULD GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL BUT IT'S A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT AND IT'S REALLY GOOD.

AND THE LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

SO THE BEST ABILITY TO AFFECT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS DOWN AROUND THE LACKLAND AREA.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, CRAIG.

I HAVE TO SAY I'M NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT THAT THE STATE WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW US THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD FOR SO MANY YEARS.

SO THE ABILITY TO ADVANCE LAND USE REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE GUIDANCE FROM JLUS TO PROTECT THE MILITARY BASES TO ME IS THE REASON WHY WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

AND CERTAINLY IT'S THE REASON WHY WE ARE ABLE TO GET WHAT WE DID GET FROM THE LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF THE FIVE-MILE BUFFER, WHICH WAS A HUGE LIFT.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT.

THERE'S MASSIVE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT OUR ANNEXATION POLICY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY.

THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE TO ME ARE SO UNPREDICTABLE BECAUSE OF THE KINDS OF MANDATES WE CONTINUE TO SEE COME DOWN FROM THE STATE LEVEL TO THE LOCAL LEVEL.

BUT THE COMPELLING REASON AGAIN FOR US, THE NON-NEGOTIABLE, IS CAMP BULLIS AND LACKLAND.

THROUGH THAT LENS I WANTED TO ASK YOU WHERE IT SAYS PERCENT VACANT PROPERTY.

IS THAT DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY? HOW IS THAT DEFINED? BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH HAPPENING OUT I-10 WEST, EVEN IF IT'S --

>> YES.

SO THE AREAS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS VACANT THAT IS DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY.

YOU WILL NOTICE WITH THE PERCENTAGES IN CAMP BULLIS YOU HAVE LESS PROPERTY THAT'S VACANT VERSUS PROPERTY THAT'S VACANT IN THE LACKLAND AREA.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

YOU KNOW, I WASN'T THERE WHEN YOU DID THE CALCULUS BUT I WOULD CONSIDER A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY ALONG I-10 AS DEVELOPABLE TO BE HIGHLY ATTRACTIVE PROPERTY AND POTENTIALLY, YOU POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, TO THE MISSION OF CAMP BULLIS THAT ENDED UP BEING HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

>> I AGREE AND WHEN WE WERE AT THE 85TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD BRING OUT IS THAT THAT'S PROBABLY SOME OF THE HIGHEST PRICED REAL ESTATE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS RIGHT NOW.

SO IT IS VERY DESIRABLE.

I AGREE.

A LOT OF THE WORK WE DO -- AND CRAIG MENTIONED THIS, AND I DIDN'T SEE IT UP THERE, BUT IT'S ENVIRONMENTAL.

A LOT OF THE WORK THAT'S DONE BY THE BASE IS TO PROTECT THE WARBLER.

BUT, ANYWAY, THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.

AND WE WORK REAL HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THAT HABITAT.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: DO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS THAT WERE PERMITTED INCLUDE THE TREE ORDINANCE?

>> NO, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE TREE ORDINANCE.

SO AS WE WENT THROUGH THE LAND USE CONTROLS FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS WE LOOKED AT WHAT WE ALREADY HAD.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THE REASON WHY I ASK IS THEY HAVE MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ETJ AND

[01:20:01]

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

THE ETJ IS MORE LIKELY TO DROP OFF THAN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

IF WE HAVE THOSE LAND USE PROTECTIONS, THAT'S PRETTY CRITICAL FOR BULLIS.

>> SCULLEY: MAYOR, JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, THE TREE ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT IN THE ETJ.

BUT YOU POINTED OUT THE LEG COULD TAKE THAT AWAY.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ARE RECOMMENDING BECAUSE THE TREE ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE IN THE ETJ.

>> I GUESS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IF THERE WAS A NO VOTE -- IN FACT, IF I HAD MY WAY WE WOULD PUT THAT THERE AND THEY WOULD VOTE NO AND WE WOULD ADVANCE THE LAND USE PROTECTIONS JUST TO GET PROTECTIONS FOR BULLIS AND LACKLAND.

I CAN GUARANTEE THOSE FOLKS DON'T WANT CITY TAXES BUT THEY DO WANT THE PROTECTIONS OF LAND USE REGULATIONS AROUND BULLIS AND LACKLAND.

BUT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IF WE WERE TO ADVANCE LAND USE REGULATIONS AFTER A NO VOTE, WOULD THAT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE TREE ORDINANCE?

>> YES, SIR.

WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE LAND USE?

>> FOR EXAMPLE WITH CAMP BULLIS THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED.

WE STARTED OFF WITH A TABLE OF WHAT DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY, WHAT APPLIES, WHAT APPLIES IN THE ETJ AND IF THE VOTE WOULD FAIL WHAT WOULD APPLY.

WE LOOKED AT THINGS WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE NOW.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THIS MIGHT BE FOR JEFF.

JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THERE IS NOT AN OPTION TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND JUST DO THE NO VOTE SCENARIO TO ADVANCE THE PROTECTIONS BUT NOT THE CITY'S JURISDICTION, RIGHT? IT'S EITHER YES OR NO.

>> IT IS YES OR NO.

THAT OPTION IS THERE, THAT ABILITY -- I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, YOU'RE ASKING SORT OF BELT AND SUSPENDERS PROTECTION.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE ETJ, BUT IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY.

IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IS IT'S IF WE HELD AN ELECTION AND THE ANSWER WAS NO, THEN WE WOULD BE GIVEN A SECOND AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TREES.

AND IF THEY TOOK IT AWAY IN THE ETJ, IT WOULD REMAIN BECAUSE WE HAD HELD THE ELECTION AND GAINED THAT ABILITY.

IS THAT?

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: YEAH.

AND JUST SO IT'S VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW ANNEXATION CONVERSATIONS TEND TO DRAW A LOT OF ATTENTION, THE GOAL HERE IS TO PROTECT OUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

THAT'S WHY THE FIVE-MILE BUFFER EXISTS.

THAT'S WHY THE LEGISLATURE GAVE US THAT AUTHORITY AND THAT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT TO PROTECT JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO.

KNOWING THAT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO DIG INTO SOME OF THE BACKGROUND DATA IN TERMS OF COSTS.

BECAUSE THERE IS A RISK HERE FOR THE CITY IN MOVING FORWARD, EVEN IF OUR HOPE FOR IS WE DON'T EXTEND THE CITY'S JURISDICTION ENTIRELY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST BLUSH I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF BOTH OPTIONS.

ONE, BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO IN THE NO-VOTE SCENARIO.

COUNCILMAN SALDANA.

>> SALDANA: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

LET ME SLIDE OVER TO SLIDE NO.

25 SO I CAN MAKE A COMPLICATED ISSUE SIMPLE.

YOU'RE ASKING US TWO QUESTIONS.

DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ELECTION? I WOULD SAY FOR MY PIECE THAT I DO.

AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THE SECTIONS, SO LET ME SPEAK TO THE ONE I KNOW WELL, THE AREA NEAR LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING WE GO FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION TO DO.

SO THE QUESTION ON MY HEAD, OR THE QUESTION ON THE MINDS OF SOME FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING IN IS, OH, THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION TO ANNEX.

NOT NECESSARILY.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ACTUALLY POSE A QUESTION TO THE FOLKS WHO LIVE NEXT TO THAT LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE.

SO JUST TO TURN THE PAGE AND TRY TO DESCRIBE WHAT'S OUT THERE, WE HAVE TAKEN TOURS.

I KNOW MEG IS HERE AND MEG HAS OPENED UP THE MILITARY BASE FOR US TO SEE WHAT THE MILITARY IS ASKING FOR.

SO THE REASON WE WANT TO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME REGULATION OVER LAND USE IS BECAUSE IN THE TOUR WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THE FIRING RANGE THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THAT GATE WHERE THERE MAY BE DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE NOT BE DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE JUST SUGGESTING THAT DEVELOPMENT BE COMPATIBLE.

AND THE WAY WE CAN REQUIRE THAT COMPATIBILITY THAT GOES ALONG THE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE JOINT LAND USE STUDY IS TO HAVE SOME LAND REGULATIONS.

SO WHAT DOES LAND REGULATION MEAN? IT MEANS DOWN LIGHTING TO SUPPORT THE NIGHTTIME MILITARY MISSIONS, THE NIGHT VISION GOGGLES IN USE IN LACKLAND NEAR

[01:25:04]

THE BORDERS OF MY DISTRICT.

THE REASON I'M SUGGESTING WE MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION, I'M GOING TO APPROXIMATE 2,000 FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.

WE COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME SAY WITH LAND USES.

WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY LOOKS LIKE.

THAT CAN'T BE SAID FOR THE OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED PRETTY QUICKLY.

SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION.

THAT'S NOT ONLY ME SPEAKING, THAT IS THE MILITARY SPEAKING.

THAT IS OUR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION SPEAKING.

BECAUSE IF I WERE TO PREDICT AND PUT A CRYSTAL BALL IN FRONT OF US AND SAY WILL THE 2,000 VOTERS IN THIS AREA WANT TO BE ANNEXED IN THE CITY? MY SUGGESTION IS THEIR ANSWER WOULD BE NO.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF A NO VOTE IS BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATION WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESCRIBE AND REQUIRE THINGS LIKE DOWN LIGHTING IN THOSE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT FOLKS WILL DEVELOP IN THAT AREA.

BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE MILITARY'S ASKS OF US.

YOU HAVE FLIPPED OVER TO A SLIDE THAT OUTLINES THOSE SPECIFICALLY.

THOSE AROUND NOISE, HEIGHT, LIGHTING, AND LAND USE PLANNING.

SO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS YES, WE DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTION FOR THIS AREA.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OTHER AREAS BUT I KNOW THAT IS YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND I WOULD JUST STRONGLY SAY AS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS GONE OUT THERE AND TOURED THE AREA, WHO HAS TALKED TO FUTURE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE ALREADY INTERESTED IN PURCHASING PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE GATES OF THE FIRING RANGE AND NIGHT MISSIONS EXISTING ON LACKLAND, THEY WILL DEVELOP.

THE QUESTION WILL BE WHETHER THEY WILL DO IT IN COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT THE MILITARY IS LOOKING FOR.

IF THEY VOTE NOT TO BE ANNEXED WE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE MILITARY WITH WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.

THAT'S MY SIMPLIFIED WAY OF SAYING I DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ELECTION NEAR LACKLAND.

DO I GIVE THAT A DESIGNATION? I KNOW YOU HAD A FEW ONE, TWO, THREE, FOURS UP HERE.

>> COUNCIL CAN DECIDE IF IT'S OPTION ONE, TWO, OR THREE.

EACH OF THE AREAS ARE A DIFFERENT SIZE.

THERE'S A FISCAL IMPACT TO THE THREE AREAS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED QUITE DIFFERENTLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, OPTION TWO YOU WILL NOTICE THERE ARE A LOT MORE LINES SO THERE'S A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO OPTION THREE.

>> SALDANA: JUST FOR MY COLLEAGUES, I'M DECIDING ON OPTION THREE, WHICH IS BELOW HIGHWAY 90.

THOSE DARK LINES IN THE RED SECTION ON OPTION TWO ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED.

HOUSING, FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE IN THE COUNTY FOR DECADES.

YOU DON'T SEE MUCH OF THAT IN OPTION THREE, WHICH IS WHY THE CITY IS INTERESTED, WHICH IS WHY THE MILITARY IS INTERESTED SO THAT WE CAN CONTROL COMPATIBILITY.

THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> COUNCILMAN SALDANA, I WILL ALSO ADD THAT A LOT OF THE LINES YOU SEE IN RED, A LOT OF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR OPTION TWO, SO THAT AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPING QUICKLY AS WELL.

>> SALDANA: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SALDANA.

COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN SALDANA, I WOULD TO AGREE WITH WHAT HE IS SAYING.

WE KNOW THESE OPPORTUNITIES ARE GOING TO BE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

SO I THINK IF WE HAVE AN OPTION AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT OUR MILITARY BASES WITH THIS LAND USE MANAGEMENT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT MOVING FORWARD.

AND WITH OPTION THREE, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, BRIDGETT OR PETER, DON'T WE HAVE SOME NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS IN AND AROUND THIS AREA ALREADY? YES OR NO? AND WHAT KIND OF -- BECAUSE I SEE THAT THIS AREA, OPTION THREE OF LACKLAND, THE PERCENT VACANT IN THE GREEN AREA IS 55%.

AND SO THE REMAINING AREA -- SO DO WE HAVE SOME NON-ANNEXATION AREAS?

>> WE DO HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN ALL THE AREAS, ACTUALLY.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION.

>> VIAGRAN: BUT ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THAT GREEN OR NOT?

>> AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THIS GREEN.

SO WE JUST HIGHLIGHTED THE AREAS THAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING.

BUT, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

WE HAVE TO TALK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> VIAGRAN: SO THOSE WOULD BE POCKETS OUT?

>> YES.

>> VIAGRAN: WE WOULD HIGHLIGHT THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED.

>> RIGHT.

SPECIFICALLY IN OPTION THREE YOU MAY RECALL WESTLAKE OR WEST POINT, WHICH IS AROUND THIS AREA HERE.

SORRY, AROUND HERE AND HERE.

SO CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A TENTATIVE PID WITH THE DEVELOPER.

HOWEVER, WE ARE HEARING THAT THE

[01:30:01]

DEVELOPER MAY NOT PURSUE THAT.

COUNCIL APPROVED A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT TO DO ONE AND WE DIDN'T APPROVE A FINAL ONE YET.

THAT'S ON HOLD RIGHT NOW WITH THE CHANCE IT MAY NOT PURSUE FORWARD.

>> VIAGRAN: I REMEMBER FROM THAT CONVERSATION, THOUGH, WE DID HAVE -- THEY HAD AGREED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE THE MILITARY LIGHTING AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT JLUS HAD REQUESTED.

>> THE DEVELOPER DID AGREE TO THREE THINGS.

ONE, LOWER DENSITY BY ABOUT 3,000 LESS UNITS.

KEEPING COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CLOSEST TO THE BASE.

AND THEN HAVING DOWNWARD LIGHTING AS WELL.

HOWEVER, THAT THE DEVELOPER'S LEGAL TEAM IS TELLING US HE MAY WITHDRAW PURSUING THAT ANY FURTHER.

>> VIAGRAN: SO THEN REMIND ME -- SO ON SLIDE NO. 26 THEN WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SEE THIS AGAIN AT COUNCIL TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS ON AN AGENDA OR ON AN ELECTION.

>> SCULLEY: THAT'S CORRECT.

AND TO PUT IT ON A NOVEMBER BALLOT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED BY AUGUST 20.

>> AUGUST 2.

>> SCULLEY: WELL, 16TH IS THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, BUT AUGUST 20TH IS THE DEADLINE YOU CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.

>> VIAGRAN: THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.

COUNCILMAN COURAGE.

>> COURAGE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

LET ME ASK IF WE WERE TO ACTUALLY HOLD AN ELECTION AND PEOPLE SAID, YEAH, I WANT TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY, YOU HAVE SOME FINANCIAL MODELS HERE.

DID THOSE FINANCIAL MODELS INCLUDE ESTIMATES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS OR JUST BASED ON THE STABLE POSITION THEY ARE IN TODAY?

>> OUR BUDGET DIRECTOR IS HERE BUT IT DOES INCLUDE PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH IN THE FUTURE.

THE 20-YEAR MODEL WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY AND IT ASSUMES A LEVEL OF GROWTH, NOT ONLY IN POPULATION AND CITY SERVICES NEEDED, BUT ALSO IN REVENUES.

>> COURAGE: OKAY.

HAS THERE BEEN A FINANCIAL MODEL BASED ON LAND USE? IF WE ONLY -- IF THEY REJECT AN ELECTION AND WE JUST GO INTO A LAND USE AGREEMENT, WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS FOR THE COST TO THE CITY FOR DEVELOPING THE LAND USE IN THESE AREAS?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, COUNCILMAN.

ARE YOU SAYING ASSUMING THE LAND USE WOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED?

>> COURAGE: WELL, ASSUMING THERE'S AN ELECTION AND THE PEOPLE SAY WE DON'T WANT TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY.

SO THE CITY SAYS WE'RE GOING TO INSTITUTE LAND USE REGULATIONS.

IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY FOR DOING THAT AND DO WE KNOW WHAT THOSE PROJECTIONS WILL BE?

>> NOT MUCH.

AS YOU WILL NOTICE IN ONE OF THE SLIDES, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DEVELOP PARTICULAR ORDINANCES TO BRING TO COUNCIL.

SO SPECIFICALLY FOR SAY THE NOISE AND THE HEIGHT, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AN ORDINANCE, TAKING IT THROUGH THE PROCESSING, AND BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION.

>> COURAGE: BUT THERE'S NO DOLLAR COST, USUALLY.

>> STAFF.

>> COURAGE: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KEY LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE CAN REQUIRE? JUST THESE RIGHT HERE? IS THAT WHAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED? ARE THERE SOME OTHERS BESIDES LIGHTING, NOISE, HEIGHT? IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS.

>> THE KEY TO THE STATE LAW IS WE HAVE TO TIE IT TO THE JOINT LAND USE STUDY.

WHAT WE DID WAS WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND COMPILED ALL THE STRATEGIES OR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE IN THE JOINT LAND USE STUDY.

AND LOOKING AT WHAT CAN BE APPLIED IN THE ETJ IF THE VOTE WERE TO FAIL, WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE FIVE CATEGORIES.

BUT THEN WE HAD TO TAKE THAT A STEP FURTHER.

WHAT WOULD APPLY TO CAMP BULLIS.

THERE WERE TWO.

AND THEN WHAT WOULD APPLY TO LACKLAND.

WE CAME UP WITH FOUR.

WE HAD TO BE VERY SPECIFIC BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS YOU NEED TO TIE IT TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT LAND USE.

>> COURAGE: THAT WOULDN'T GO INTO ANYTHING ELSE LIKE ZONING OR PLATTING.

>> WE CAN'T ZONE IN THE COUNTY.

IF THE VOTE WERE NOT TO PASS WE WOULD HAVE TO USE OTHER CONTROLS.

>> COURAGE: ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE PUT THIS -- IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT UP TO A VOTE TO THE COMMUNITIES AND THEY REJECT IT, AFTER REJECTION CAN IT BE BROUGHT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS LATER? IF THEY REJECT BECOMING PART OF THE CITY CAN WE TRY AND ANNEX THEM IN THE FUTURE AS THEY DEVELOP? WHAT ARE THE TIMES ON THAT?

>> NOT FOR ONE YEAR.

>> COURAGE: JUST A YEAR.

SO TWO OR THREE YEARS LATER WE COULD TRY IT AGAIN?

>> YES, SIR.

>> COURAGE: OKAY.

WELL, I CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR ON OPTION ONE FOR BOTH OF THOSE TO GIVE MAXIMUM PROTECTION.

YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO BECOME PART OF THE

[01:35:01]

CITY, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY, $196 MILLION, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IF WE EVER LOST LACKLAND OR THOSE FACILITIES THE LOSS WOULD BE GREATER THAN THE EXPENSE TO KEEP IT IF THEY DECIDE TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY.

I SUPPORT BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD WITH AN ANNEXATION ELECTION.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE.

COUNCILMAN PERRY.

>> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

BRIDGETT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT WHAT'S OUR TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE CITY FROM THE MILITARY PER YEAR? GENERAL, YOU PROBABLY HAVE THAT IN YOUR HIP POCKET THERE.

>> THE LATEST STUDY FROM THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER, $17 BILLION TO THE CITY, APPROXIMATELY.

$49 BILLION TO THE STATE OF TEXAS.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

>> THIS IS ALL JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO.

I THINK THOSE NUMBERS MIGHT BE LOW.

WE HAVE AIR NATIONAL GUARD HERE AND OTHER ASSETS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT IT ALL THE TIME.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

AND ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE? I MEAN, HOW MANY MILITARY ARE EMPLOYED HERE IN TOWN AND LIVE HERE IN TOWN? MILITARY AND CIVILIANS?

>> ONE IN EIGHT IN BEXAR COUNTY HAS A TIE TO THE MILITARY.

THE LAST NUMBER I SAW -- GO AHEAD.

>> HELLO.

FOR THE MILITARY, ACTIVE DUTY ARE STUDENTS AS WELL AS CIVILIANS AND CONTRACTORS, ABOUT 80,000.

WHEN YOU PUT YOUR DEPENDENTS AND RETIREES AND VETS, HALF A MILLION.

>> WHEN YOU ADD THE FAMILIES, THE OTHER IS ABOUT 300,000.

WITH OUR PROJECTED GROWTH AND THE NUMBER OF RETIREES AND VETERANS THAT COME BACK TO THE CITY IN 2040 IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE.

WE ALWAYS TAKE THESE NUMBERS INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OUR VETERAN SUPPORT AUDIO].

>> PERRY: THANK YOU, GENERAL.

TO ME THOSE ARE STAGGERING NUMBERS HERE ON WHAT IMPACT THE MILITARY HAS HERE TO SAN ANTONIO.

AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.

WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THOUGH, JUST ADDING UP THE NUMBERS HERE.

CAMP BULLIS, $180 MILLION.

LACKLAND, $435 MILLION.

THAT'S A TOTAL OF $600 MILLION FOR THAT 20-YEAR ENDING BALANCE.

SO YOU TAKE THAT.

THAT'S ABOUT $30 MILLION A YEAR.

SO -- YES?

>> THE SIX OPTIONS IS THREE FOR CAMP BULLIS, THREE FOR LACKLAND.

YOU WOULDN'T ADD THOSE UP.

THEY ARE ALL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

OPTION ONE ON EACH OF THOSE, YOU COULD ADD UP OPTION ONE FOR CAMP BULLIS, OPTION ONE FOR LACKLAND TO GET A TOTAL, IF YOU WANTED TO.

BUT YOU WOULDN'T ADD THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS TOGETHER.

>> PERRY: OH, ALL INCLUSIVE.

GREAT.

THAT'S EVEN BETTER.

[LAUGHTER]

>> PERRY: I WAS GOING TO OPTION ONE, TWO, THREE, AND ADDING THEM ALL UP.

THAT MAKES IT A BETTER NUMBER FOR ME.

>> YEAH.

>> PERRY: AND WHAT I'M GETTING AT FOR THAT COST VERSUS WHAT WAS IT? $17 BILLION A YEAR FOR SAN ANTONIO? THIS IS, TO ME, IT'S A RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

TO ME, THAT IS AMAZING THAT WE WOULD IGNORE SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND NOT GO AFTER ANNEXATION FOR THOSE AREAS.

SO I'M ALL SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T AND IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT GOES FROM ONE STEP TO ANOTHER WHERE THINGS DON'T GET APPROVED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORS AND THOSE AREAS AND WE DON'T CARRY THROUGH WITH THESE PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE AREAS, WE KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE.

IT'S A DOMINO EFFECT.

IT'S NOT JUST CAMP BULLIS BUT IT WOULD INCLUDE FORT SAM AS WELL.

MEDINA, WOULD INCLUDE LACKLAND AS WELL.

IT'S A DOMINO EFFECT AND WE CANNOT AFFORD THOSE KIND OF IMPACTS HERE ON THE CITY.

SO I'M SAYING, YES, LET'S GO FOR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA HERE AND GO FOR IT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE.

>> BROCKHOUSE: IT RAINED TODAY AND I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PERRY.

LIKE, WOW, WHAT AN ODD SITUATION HERE.

NO, I MEAN, I HAVE SAID BEFORE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION, NEARED.

I'LL JUST REITERATE THAT REQUIREMENT .

HOW MUCH DOES THE ELECTION COST ON OUR SIDE? IS IT NEGLIGIBLE?

>> FOR EACH AREA YOU'RE LOOKING

[01:40:02]

AT $250,000.

>> BROCKHOUSE: SO HOW MANY AREAS? TWO?

>> THOSE TWO AREAS.

>> COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE ONE --

>> IT'S NOT AN ENTIRE CITY-WIDE ELECTION.

>> BROCKHOUSE: SO 500 GRAND TO RUN THE ELECTION? OKAY.

SO WE KNOW IT'S A NO-VOTE.

I MEAN, THE ONLY THING MORE CERTAIN IS THE GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS WINNING AN NBA CHAMPION, MAYBE.

BUT NO ONE'S GOING TO VOTE TO BE ANNEXED.

I'M SORRY BUT NOBODY WANTS THOSE RESTRICTIONS, I DON'T CARE WHAT THE RESTRICTION IS.

THEY ARE OUT THERE FOR A PARTICULAR REASON AND THEY DON'T WANT THEM.

THEY DON'T WANT THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS.

THEY DON'T.

THAT'S WHY THE RESIDENTS ARE THERE.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PROTECTING THE MILITARY MISSION.

THERE'S FOUR OF US ON THIS COUNCIL WORE THE UNIFORM.

WE GET THAT.

I GET IT.

I SERVED, AND I SERVED AT LACKLAND AND MEDINA BASE.

I GET IT.

IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST KIND OF LOATHE TO EXTEND THAT.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PAYING THE MONEY SO WE CAN IMPLEMENT THE RESTRICTIONS.

WE ALREADY KNOW THE VOTE.

WE DISAGREED LEGISLATIVELY IN AUSTIN.

WE FOUGHT THAT FIGHT.

IT SEEMS LIKE TO BE A CONTINUAL GRAB OR ATTEMPT TO ANNEX AND I'M OPPOSED TO IT.

THE RESIDENTS WILL VOTE NO, WE'LL SPEND THE 500K AND WE'LL EXTEND SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

HAVE WE CROSSED EVERY BRIDGE POSSIBLE WITH THE COUNTY, WHOEVER, TO HIT THE ITEMS HIT ON THE JLUS AVAILABLE RESTRICTIONS? I HAVE CONCERNS.

WE DON'T KNOW THE DENSITY RESTRICTION.

THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW HERE.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING OUT THERE, BUSINESS, DEVELOPERS, FAMILY, PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT THERE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING AND DENSITY.

SO HOW FAR REACHING -- I WOULD WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WE'RE IMPLEMENTING.

YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE THAT SAYS LAND USE PLANNING.

IT'S PRETTY VAGUE.

YOU KNOW, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD NEED TO COLLABORATE WITH BEXAR COUNTY TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS IF ANY.

THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST.

MANNY PELAEZ COULDN'T LEGALESE THAT BETTER.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IN THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE THERE IF WE HAVE SO MUCH PLANNING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT.

>> SO IN THE TWO AREAS WE HAVE, THE CAMP BULLIS AND LACKLAND AREA WE DO HAVE WHAT WE'RE CALLING SECTOR PLANS.

SO THE CITY DOES HAVE SECTOR PLANS THAT LOOK AT LAND USE IN THE ETJ.

IF WE WERE TO ANNEX, AS YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS, YOU HAVE A PLAN AMENDMENT, THE AREA COMES INTO THE CITY, WE HAVE TO ZONING IT.

IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE PLANNING, WE REALIZED THAT IN ABOUT LAND USE PLANNING HAVING SOME SORT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO WE'RE ABLE TO AT LEAST TIE THE LAND USE, AT LEAST OUR SECTOR PLANS TO THAT PORTION OF THE JLUS.

BEXAR COUNTY, AND I'LL ASK DSD TO COME UP IN A MINUTE.

WE DO HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH BEXAR COUNTY.

IN LOOKING AT OUR SUBDIVISIONS AND TREE ORDINANCE.

IN TERMS OF LAND USE PLAN WHEN IT RELATES TO SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE THERE'S AN ILA OR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM AND LOOK AT WHAT WE AS THE CITY WOULD BE IMPOSING OR CONTROLLING IN THE COUNTY.CO BECAUSE IF THE AREA IS NOT ANNEXED IT'S STILL IN THE COUNTY.

SO WE CAN'T DO ZONING FOR ONE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T ZONE IN THE COUNTY.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ILA IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.

THAT'S WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WITH LAND USE PLANNING.

BECAUSE THE JLUS TALKS ABOUT A MASTER PLAN OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE HAVE THAT, WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK AND SAY WE CAN DO SOME SORT OF LAND USE PLANNING.

WHAT'S INTERESTING TOO IS THE JLUS, AND I MENTIONED THIS IN THE PRESENTATION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO -- WE CAN'T ZONE IN THE COUNTY AND THE JLUS DOESN'T TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, THE NOISE STUDY WITH AACOG, THEY ARE LOOKING AT HOW TO BETTER DEFINE THAT, SO IT GIVES THE CITY MORE TEETH IN WHAT WE CAN DO.

>> BROCKHOUSE: THAT WAS A GOOD ANSWER.

BASICALLY WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LAYER IN WITH REGARDS TO ZONING AND DENSITY UNTIL IT IS NEGOTIATED?

>> IN TERMS OF ZONING, IF THE NOISE STUDY COMES BACK AND THEY ARE ABLE TO DEFINE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO DENSITY OR THEY WANT CERTAIN UNITS PER ACRE WITHIN ONE MILE OR THREE MILES OR FIVE MILES OF THE BASE, THAT HELPS US A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT WE CAN'T ZONE.

THE CITY CAN'T SAY IN AN AREA THAT'S IN THE ETJ WE'RE GOING TO ZONE IT RESIDENTIAL OR R-4, BECAUSE WE CAN'T ZONE IN THE COUNTY.

>> BROCKHOUSE: I GUESS IF WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT GETS SHOT DOWN 90/10 AND WE TURN

[01:45:03]

AROUND AND START TO IMPLEMENT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT RESTRICTION-WISE IN THAT LAND USE PLANNING PIECE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT, SO WE'LL DETERMINE THAT OVER THE COURSE OF TIME ONCE IT'S PASSED.

>> THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

>> BROCKHOUSE: ONCE THE VOTE OCCURS AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT LAND USE RESTRICTION-WISE.

>> THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE WORKING GROUP.

WE HAVE BEEN HANDED A TOOL TO USE.

BUT IN LOOKING AT HOW TO USE THAT TOOL IT WAS A VERY COMPLICATED IMPLEMENTATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO BE VERY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF GOING THROUGH ALL THE LAND USE -- GOING THROUGH ALL THE JLUS RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN SPECIFICALLY DO.

SO IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE PLANNING WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE OUR SECTOR PLANS AND THAT TIES TO THE JLUS.

OTHER THINGS WE HAVE THE MSAO, WE HAVE THE HEIGHT.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN PLACE WITHIN THE CITY.

WITH THE CHANGE IN SECTION 43 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IT SAYS THE CITY CAN ADOPT AND ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHY WE WOULD HAVE TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A ZONE TO HAVE STANDARDS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY.

WE CAN ZONE IN THE CITY BUT NOT IN THE COUNTY.

>> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU FOR THE WORK.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I JUST DUG IN A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT REALLY WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AND AT WHAT TIME.

I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SPENDING $500,000 JUST SO WE CAN GET TO IMPLEMENT IT.

I THINK THE CASH SPENT IS PRETTY HEAVY WHEN WE ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.

IT APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER ANNEXATION LAND GRABBY -- GRAB BY THE CITY.

I HAVE SAID THAT WE TEND TO USE THIS MILITARY, THE MISSION AS A WEAPON TO GET THINGS PASSED.

WE LIKE TO TOSS THAT AROUND WITH THREATS.

I DON'T THINK THE MILITARY DOES BUSINESS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE BEEN AROUND THEM, I SERVED, I HAVE BEEN THERE.

I KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS WORK AND I HAVE BEEN AROUND THOSE FOLKS AND THOSE LEADERS FOR 25, 30 YEARS IN THAT AREA WHEN I SERVED ON THAT BASE.

YOU KNOW, I JUST GET REALLY LEERY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING THE MILITARY WILL DO TO US WHEN WE DON'T DO WHAT THEY SAY.

THESE ARE JOINT RELATIONSHIPS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

I'M JUST LOATHE TO GRAB IT.

I HOPE WE HAVE EXHAUSTED EVERYTHING THE COUNTY CAN POSSIBLY DO WHEN IT COMES TO LIGHTING AND NOISE.

I KNOW THEIR LAND USE RESTRICTIONS ARE MINIMAL TO IF NOT NON-EXISTENT BUT I KNOW THEY CAN COURT ORDER THINGS TO DO PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS THAT AVOID THIS ENTIRE ANNEXATION CONVERSATION, THIS MONEY GRAB, TO BRING THIS COMMUNITY.

I THINK CREATING A PROBLEM THAT MAYBE DOESN'T EXIST -- WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK BETTER WITH THE MILITARY BASE, PERHAPS.

BUT I WOULD CAUTION TO STOP PITTING THE CITY AGAINST THE MILITARY MISSION IF WE DON'T DO EXACTLY -- YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

THE MISSION IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL THERE FOR YEARS AND DECADES.

WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO FOSTER THAT RELATIONSHIP AND OFFER OUR LEADERSHIP POINTS ON IT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK.

I JUST DISAGREE ON THE ANNEXATION PART, ALTHOUGH I APPEAR TO BE IN THE MINORITY ON THAT ONE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT.

I WOULD ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND WHEN IT GETS SHOT DOWN I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN POKING AROUND THE EDGES THERE WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO WORK THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE.

GENERAL AYALA, ARE YOU STILL THERE?

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST.

WHAT IS THE GUIDANCE FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO FROM A PHYSICAL GROWTH STANDPOINT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR BASES? CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THE JOINT LAND USE STUDIES?

>> YES.

THE JOINT LAND USE STUDY IS A COMMUNITY EFFORT.

YOU GO BACK THROUGH THE ANNEXES AND THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES.

IT INCLUDES ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM THE CITY, THE COUNTY, BUSINESS COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, LAND DEVELOPERS. R.

THAT MATRIX STUDY WAS OVER A YEAR -- SOMEBODY HELP ME HERE, WAS OVER A YEAR.

THEY LOOK AT 19 OR 20 THINGS THAT COULD AFFECT THE MILITARY MISSION.

SO IT'S VERY COMPREHENSIVE.

IT'S A COMMUNITY AUDIO] THEY ARE AGREED UPON AND OF COURSE THEY ARE PASSED HERE THROUGH COUNCIL.

SO THEY ARE VERY COMPREHENSIVE WHEN THEY LOOK AT THAT.

ONE THING THAT I KEEP HEARING IS PITTING THE MILITARY AGAINST THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S NOT A FACT AT ALL.

THE MILITARY CANNOT ADVOCATE AND

[01:50:02]

TALK ABOUT ANNEXATION.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE HAD TO TAKE THE WORD ANNEXATION OUT IF WE WANT THE MILITARY TO COME TESTIFY AT OUR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.

THE MILITARY'S POINT ALWAYS HAS BEEN IS THAT ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS BE ABLE TO TRAIN AND TO DO SO SAFELY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE MILITARY.

AND SO THAT'S THEIR DIRECTION.

THE MILITARY, THEY CAN'T ADVOCATE FOR ANNEXATION.

I MEAN, THEY CALL IT COMPATIBLE LAND USE, WHICH IS THE SAME THING.

THEY CAN'T BUT WE CAN.

AND BELIEVE ME, THEY WANT TO STAY IN SAN ANTONIO, THE ONES HERE.

AND BEHIND THE SCENES THEY DO TELL ME THAT THEY DO NEED THESE PROTECTIONS IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE MISSION.

WE JUST HAD A BIG THING ON MARTINDALE, AS YOU KNOW, ON ROTARY WING TRAINING HERE.

AND SO THAT'S THE POINT.

THERE'S NO OFFICIAL GUIDANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INTO THESE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.

I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, AND YOU AND I WENT TO THE PENTAGON, MAYOR.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE SENIOR AIR FORCE OFFICIALS ASKED ABOUT IS HOW ABOUT ENCROACHMENT AND LAND PROTECTION? HOW IS THE MISSION GOING.

THEY ARE VERY CONCERNED.

IN MY 36 YEARS IN THE MARINE CORPS, AND I COMMANDED ALL 24 BASES.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE, COMPATIBLE LAND USE.

WE DEALT WITH EVERY COMMUNITY IN THOSE BASES TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT MISSION, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THAT IT WAS SAFE NOT ONLY FOR THE SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN, BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT SAFETY, BUT ALSO FOR THE COMMUNITY.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WAYS THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE BASES FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE LEADING TO LIGHTING ORDINANCES TO TREE ORDINANCES TO COMPATIBLE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND SO FORTH.

AND I WOULD CONSIDER IT GROSS NEGLIGENCE IF WE DON'T MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR BASES TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN JUST CHECK THE BOX ON.

WE KNOW THE CITY IS GROWING BY 66 PEOPLE PER DAY.

AND THE AREAS AROUND THE BASES ARE DENSE FYING LAND BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE.

WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT AND WE TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.

I APPRECIATE THE WORK, GENERAL.

>> ONE MORE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY.

I TALK TO THE MILITARY ALL THE TIME.

THE MILITARY IS NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT.

ALL THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO IS TRAIN, SO IT'S COMPATIBLE LAND USE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT.

I MAKE IT ALL THE TIME TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHETHER IT'S HERE OR IN AUSTIN.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH MILITARY OFFICERS.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY.

THANK YOU, GENERAL.

SHERYL.

>> SCULLEY: BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED TODAY, THE STAFF AND MILITARY RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE THREE ON THE LACKLAND PROPOSAL.

BASED ON THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL TODAY, WE WILL CONTINUE STUDYING CAMP BULLIS AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATIVES THAT THE COUNCIL IDENTIFIED THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO ACTION IN AUGUST.

JUST TO SUMMARIZE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: I WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE LACKLAND AREA, THOUGH.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT THAT'S DEVELOPABLE.

I HEARD THAT FROM A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE.

>> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFY, GENERAL.

I'M NOT SAYING THE MILITARY DOES IT, I'M SAYING ELECTED OFFICIALS DO IT.

THE MILITARY, I UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE.

THEY DON'T ENGAGE IN THAT.

I'M JUST SAYING PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIKE TO DO IT.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR IN THAT.

AND IT'S NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

WE HAVE SERVED MULTIPLE ENTITIES HERE.

YES, WE SERVE AND PROTECT THE MILITARY COMMUNITY.

THOSE OF US WHO WEAR THE UNIFORM KNOWS THAT.

THAT'S NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

THAT INCLUDES RESIDENTS WHO ARE NON-UNIFORMED PERSONNEL.

I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE SOMETIMES WORDS ARE USED IN HERE THAT MAKE IT SEEM PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPORTIVE OF THE MILITARY.

THAT'S NOT IT.

MILITARY HAS THEIR ROLE AND THEY DON'T INTERVENE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, THEY DON'T.

I HAVE NEVER HEARD THE MILITARY THREATEN, SAY ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE IT KIND OF FELT THAT WAY.

THIS WASN'T A MILITARY DISCUSSION.

THIS WAS ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO LIKE TO UTILIZE THAT TOOL TO GET THEIR PERSONAL ISSUES, WHETHER IT'S ANNEXATION OR SOME POLICY INITIATIVE, SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS LIKE TO USE THAT AS A TOOL.

BECAUSE IF IT'S SOME MEANS TO THEIR END, THEY WILL SAY THE MILITARY IS GOING TO DO THIS AND WE HAVE TO GRAB THE LAND.

I'M JUST PUSHING BACK TO SAY, TAKE OUR TIME, THINK ABOUT IT.

WE CAN PROTECT THE MISSION AND FIND OTHER WAYS TO SAVE CASH,

[01:55:01]

MONEY, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY.

NOT A MILITARY ISSUE ON THOSE, GENERAL.

IT'S A PUBLIC SERVANT ISSUE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS.

AGAIN, THE LENS THROUGH WHICH WE LOOK IS HOW WE CAN PROTECT OUR

[Executive Session]

MILITARY BASES, WHICH IS A SAN ANTONIO ISSUE.

THE TIME IS NOW 4:07 P.M. ON THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CHAPTER 551 IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.087, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072, REAL PROPERTY.

LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO FOSTER ROAD PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.

AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO PAID SICK LEAVE INITIATIVE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.

>> WE ARE RECONVENING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[3. 18-3592 Public Hearing for the FY 2019 Action Plan and Budget totaling $21,134,235 for the four federal grant programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), HEARTH Emergency Solutions Grant (HESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. [Peter Zanoni, Deputy City Manager; Verónica R. Soto, Director, Neighborhood and Housing Services]]

NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, AND NOW WE'LL BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALL UP PETER ZANONI.

NO? OKAY.

I'M GOING TO REFER TO --

>> IT'S ITEM NO. 3, AND IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET TOTALING $21,134,235, FOR THE FOUR FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS FUNDED BY THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HUD, WHICH INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, CDBG, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, HOME, HEARTH EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT, HESG, AND HOUSING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS, HOPWA, PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU, LETICIA.

WE HAVE MARK PEREZ.

MARK PEREZ? AND FOLLOWING MARK PEREZ WE HAVE NATALIE GRIFFITH.

>> IS THIS THE PUBLIC --

>> MR. PEREZ, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> THIS IS THE SAHA? AS YOU KNOW, MY NAME IS MARK PEREZ, AND I'VE BEEN -- THIS IS THE GRANT MONEY THAT'S COMING IN FOR THE HOUSING.

AS YOU KNOW, THE HOMELESS PROBLEM AS WELL.

I WAS LOOKING -- I DIDN'T GET TO GET ANY INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE VICTORIA COURTS.

IN 1946 THERE WAS A GRANT ISSUED FOR THE -- TO HELP OUT UNFORTUNATE FOLKS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY WHAT SITS OVER THERE IN VICTORIA COURTS PROPERTY? IT SURE AIN'T HELPING THE -- YOE PRICES, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IT COST TO GO LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE HOMES OUT THERE? AND THAT WAS FUNDED PROPERTY FROM THE HOUSING.

MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE HOUSING PROJECTS, WE DO HAVE TODAY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE WAY THEY WERE BUILT AT ONE TIME ALSO.

MANY OF THEM HAD ASBESTOS, SO THEY TORE THEM DOWN AND EVERYTHING.

BUT ANYWAY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FEDERAL FUNDING, YOU KNOW, FOR HOUSING, WHO LOOKS AT ALL THAT, WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING? WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT? AND LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE 1946 WHEN THEY BUILT THE VICTORIA COURTS AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT FEDERAL FUNDING AND HOW IS THE CITY ABLE TO BENEFIT WITH DEVELOPERS TO CHANGE THE USE TO -- TO MIDDLE CLASS OR HIGH INCOME FOLKS? INSTEAD OF -- YOU KNOW, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHELTER OUT HERE IT'S IN POOR CONDITION.

I'M PRETTY SURE Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO FERRIS HODGE WHEN HE WAS COMING TO ALL OF YOU, MR. ZABAHA AND THIS HAVEN FOR HOPE, IT CREATES TOO MANY PROBLEMS. AND NOW I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'RE MOVING THESE PEOPLE OUT OR WHERE YOU'RE THINKING OF PUTTING MORE AFFORDABLE AT, BUT AS YOU KNOW MANY OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND SAN ANTONIO ARE VERY CONTAMINATED.

VERY CONTAMINATED HERE IN OUR CITY.

IT'S JUST LIKE WITH THE VICTORIA COURTS AND THE ALAMO IRON WORKS, THAT WASN'T A GOOD MIXTURE AND THE FOLKS BLANKETED WITH ALL THE HAZMAT AND STUFF LIKE

[02:00:02]

THAT.

AND AS YOU KNOW, IT WAS THE OLD DAYS.

CITY PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING, LIKE THEY KNOW TODAY.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S MANY PEOPLE THAT MAKE VERY, VERY GOOD MONEY, AND ARE THEY STILL QUALIFIED? YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I DO HAVE -- YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS SOME AGENDAS THAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, FROM OLD, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WE RECEIVED THE CITY $100,000 FROM THE SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS, AND I DON'T SEE NO SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS IN THAT MONEY, AND I TELL YOU, THERE'S A LOT OF BANKING.

MANY OF Y'ALL MAYBE GO TO FINE RESTAURANTS WITH THAT MONEY, BUT WHO WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THIS GRANT MONEY COMING? NOBODY KNOWS? HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO SOMETHING, MAKE A BETTER CHOICE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PEREZ.

NATALIE G GRIFFITH?

>> THANK YOU.

SO FIRST I WANT TO -- I WANT TO OFFER A HEARTFELT THANK YOU TO EVERYONE AT THE CITY FOR ALL OF THE VERY MEANINGFUL ATTENTION THAT BOTH CITY STAFF AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE GIVING TO THE HUGE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR CITY.

IN THE PAST 24 YEARS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, I'VE NEVER SEEN A MORE SINCERE EFFORT FROM BOTH CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY STAFF TO FACE OUR HOUSING ISSUES HEAD-ON AND WORK SO HARD TO COME UP WITH REAL SOLUTIONS.

SO I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND BOTH YOU ALL AS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OUR CITY STAFF FOR THEIR DEDICATION TO THIS REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU ALSO FOR HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW THEY WOULD DIVIDE UP THE FEDERAL HOME AND CDBG FUNDS.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAS PROVIDED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIVIDING UP THE PIE, AND WE'VE ASKED THE PUBLIC TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THEY SUPPORT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CONSTITUENTS FROM EVERY COUNCIL DISTRICT ARE RESPONDING.

TODAY EACH OF YOU RECEIVED A PACKAGE OF LETTERS FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND YOUR DISTRICTS THAT ECHO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

COLLECTIVELY YOU RECEIVED OVER 400 LETTERS TODAY.

THIS BOX IS WHAT HAS COME IN SINCE THIS AFTERNOON.

SO I'M GIVING YOU THE WARNING, I'M EXPECTING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECEIVE A FEW THOUSAND PUBLIC COMMENTS BY THE TIME THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED INCREASING HOME FUNDS PROVIDED FOR BOTH RENTAL AND HOME OWNERSHIP, NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OF ALL KINDS, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED RENTAL, EVEN THOUGH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOCUSES ON HOME OWNERSHIP.

THE GREAT THING IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN RENTAL AND HOME OWNERSHIP BECAUSE BOTH CAN BE DONE THIS YEAR WITH THE INCREASED FEDERAL FUNDING THAT'S ALLOCATED.

HABITAT WILL CONTINUE TO ADDRESS SAN ANTONIO'S DECREASING HOME OWNERSHIP RATES BY PROVIDING MODEST BUT DECENT AND HIGH-QUALITY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE AFFORDABLE FOR OUR SERVICE WORKFORCE.

AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP REVITALIZES COMMUNITIES AND IT PROVIDES THE STABILITY THAT NEIGHBORHOODS AND FAMILIES NEED TO THRIVE.

IT ALLOWS PARENTS TO BECOME SELF-RELIANT AND FOCUS MORE ON THEIR JOBS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

DECENT, STABLE, QUALITY HOME OWNERSHIP PROVIDES THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO BREAK THE CYCLE OF POVERTY FOR OUR CITY'S LOWER INCOME FAMILIES.

SO PLEASE SUPPORT OUR REQUEST ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

THANK YOU, AND I WANT TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL ASKED ME ABOUT HOW WE GOT THE LETTERS FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.

THAT ACTUALLY CAME ON-SITE.

THOSE ARE PEOPLE FROM YOUR DISTRICTS THAT CAME ALL THE WAY OVER TO DISTRICT 6 AND ARE WORKING IN DISTRICT 6 ON A NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

SO THIS ISSUE, IT CROSSES BOUNDARY LINES.

THANK YOU.

>> AND MAYOR, MAY I ADD, WE RECEIVED 31 WRITTEN TESTIMONIES IN SUPPORT OF INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS BEING ALLOCATED FOR CHDO SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION.

>> TREVINO: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORD, AND I THINK THAT'S THE END OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WILL NOW BEGIN CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.