[00:00:07]
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR TODAY AT 2:00 P.M. REGARDING TWO VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS.
I'LL RECOGNIZE OUR CITY CLERK AT THIS TIME TO GO AHEAD AND CALL ROLL.
WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL B SESSION PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF JUNE 5TH, 2019.
>> CLERK: MAYOR, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
THE TIME IS 2:05 P.M. ON THIS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5TH, 2019.
THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4526 SOUTH LOOP 1604 IS NOW OPEN.
I'LL ASK OUR CLERK NOW TO PLEASE READ THE CAPTION.
[Additional Item]
>> CLERK: AND, MAYOR, BEFORE I READ THE CAPTION, THERE IS ONE HOUSEKEEPING ITEM WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF.
AS YOU REALIZE, SHIRLEY WAS NOT ABLE TO BE WITH US LAST WEEK, SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE, AS I'VE ALREADY ADMINISTERED THE STATEMENT OF OFFICE TO HER.
>> CLERK: LACE -- RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND THEN JUST REPEAT AFTER ME.
I, STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO AND WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE SO HELP ME GOD.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: BEFORE WE RESUME OUR PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU'D ALLOW ME A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, IN ADDITION TO BE SWORN IN LEGALLY TO RESUME HER CHAIR AT THE DAIS, COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY GONZALES WAS ALSO CELEBRATING A BIRTHDAY THIS WEEKEND, SO AS WE TRADITIONALLY DO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SERENADE HER WITH HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE IS CAKE IN THE BACK.
[2. 19-3909 First public hearing regarding the proposed annexation of a 150.26 acre property located at 4526 South Loop 1604, which is contiguous to the city limits of San Antonio and located within the City of San Antonio’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) in southeast Bexar County, as requested by the property owners, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., near City Council District 3. [Lori Houston, Assistant City Manager; Bridgett White, Director, Planning Department]]
ALL RIGHT.WE'LL RESUME OUR PUBLIC HEARING NOW, AND, AGAIN, THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY AT 4526 SOUTH LOOP 1604 IS NOW OPEN.
AND THE CLERK WILL READ THE CAPTION.
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A 150.26-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4526 SOUTH LOOP 1604 WHICH IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN ANTONIO AND LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN SOUTHEAST BEXAR COUNTY AS REQUESTED BY PROPERTY OWNERS HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, NEAR CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS MAY DO SO.
COMMENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO MATTERS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND EACH GROUP WILL HAVE UP TO NINE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS.
MENTIONING OF ANY OTHER MATTER OR SUBJECT MAY RESULT IN TERMINATION OF YOUR ALLOTTED TIME.
DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? IF YOU CAN GIVE US A SUMMARY PRESENTATION, SINCE THERE IS NO -- THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM.
>> SO AS THE CLERK MENTIONED, THIS IS THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES.
IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL WORKING WITH HALLIBURTON VOIDED OR TERMINATED THE IDA.
SO AT THAT TIME, THEY REQUESTED A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
GOING THROUGH OUR PROCESS, THIS WOULD GO TO COUNCIL ON
[00:05:01]
JUNE 20TH WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1ST.AT THIS TIME, HAVING HEARD ALL COMMENTS FROM THOSE PERSONS WISHING TO BE HEARD AT THIS TIME, ACTUALLY THERE ARE NO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4526 SOUTH LOOP 1604 IS NOW CLOSED.
COMMENTS FROM ANY PERSONS WHO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER AT TONIGHT'S CITIZENS TO BE HEARD WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD AND CITY COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON THIS ITEM AT THE JUNE 20TH, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING STARTING NO EARLIER
[3. 19-3945 First public hearing of a proposed annexation as requested by the property owner, Charles A. Timms, of 124.405 acres generally located southwest of the intersection of Somerset Road and Fischer Road, which is contiguous to the City limits of San Antonio and located within the City of San Antonio’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) in southwest Bexar County. [Lori Houston, Assistant City Manager; Bridgett White, Director, Planning]]
THAN 9:00 A.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.MOVE ON NOW TO THE PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER TWO REGARDING THE TIMMS PROPERTY.
THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOMERSET ROAD AND FISHER ROAD IS NOW OPEN.
AND CITY CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE CAPTION.
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF A PROPOSED ANNEXATION AS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER CHARLES A. TIMMS OF 124.05 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOMERSET ROAD AND FISCHER ROAD WHICH IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN ANTONIO AND LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN SOUTHWEST BEXAR COUNTY.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS MAY DO SO, COMMENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO MATTERS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND EACH GROUP WILL HAVE UP TO NINE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS.
MENTIONING OF ANY OTHER MATTER OR SUBJECT MAY RESULT IN TERMINATION OF THE SPEAKER'S ALLOTTED TIME.
CAN WE GET A SUMMARY PRESENTATION ON THIS AS WELL?
>> SO THIS PROPERTY REQUEST IS ALSO FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PARCEL IS ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY, SO HE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE REMAINING PORTION WITHIN THE CITY FOR CONSISTENT LEVEL OF SERVICES, SIMILAR TO HALLIBURTON, THIS WOULD BE ON YOUR AGENDA AT THE JUNE 20TH MEETING WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1ST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MRS. WHITE.
THERE BEING NO PERSONS WISHING TO BE HEARD, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOMERSET ROAD AND FISHER ROAD IS CLOSED.
COMMENTS FROM ANY PERSONS WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER AT TONIGHT'S CITIZENS TO BE HEARD WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
CITY COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON THIS ITEM AT THE JUNE 20TH, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING STARTING NO EARLIER THAN 9:00 A.M. IN THESE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS MOMENTARILY AND RECONVENE IN THE B ROOM TO CONTINUE THE AGENDA.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
WE HAVE JUST ONE ITEM TODAY ON OUR B SESSION AGENDA, WE'RE RECONVENING FROM OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS ITEMS 2 AND 3.
SO WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM ONE AT THIS TIME.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN SINCE OUR MEETING HAS ALREADY CONVENED BUT I DID WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE AND A MEMBER OF OUR STATE DELEGATION AT THIS POINT, OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM 125, RAY LEE.
>> PELAEZ: IS WITH -- RAY LOPEZ IS WITH US TODAY, RAY?
[1. 19-4396 Briefing on legislation filed and passed in the 86th Regular State Legislative Session and its impact on the City of San Antonio. [Carlos Contreras, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Coyle, Director, Government & Public Affairs]]
>> THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR GOOD WORK THIS YEAR, RAY.
WE'LL MOVE NOW TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.
>> WALSH: MAYOR AND COUNCIL, GOOD AFTERNOON.
TODAY'S BRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY JEFF COYLE.
IN A RECAP IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOTH HERE AS WELL AS A SESSION.
I DID WANT TO ON THE FRONT END, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STAFF MEMBERS AND FOLKS THAT WE WORK WITH THAT WILL BE HERE AS PART OF TODAY'S RECAP, BUT I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A NUMBER OF STAFF WHO SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME UP IN AUSTIN, JEFF, MEGAN, CHRISTINE, A LOT OF RESOURCES, ALSO WANT TO THANK A NUMBER OF YOU WHO MADE TIME TO GO TO AUSTIN AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA AS THE CHAIR OF THE IGR COMMITTEE.
IT WAS -- THESE -- THIS COMES AROUND EVERY TWO YEARS AND THERE'S A LONG LEAD TIME TO PREPARE, AND -- SIX MONTHS SOMETIMES GOES BY -- IT FEELS LIKE IT'S GOING BY REAL FAST AND OTHER POINTS OF TIME IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S DRAGGING A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE TEAM AND THANK THEM FOR ALL THE WORK.
IT WAS -- IT'S A GRIND, AND WE ALL KNOW IT, AND WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THEM UP FRONT.
SO JEFF IS GOING TO WALK US THROUGH A RECAP OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
ON ONE PARTICULARLY TOUGH DAY DURING THE SESSION, I MUST HAVE COMPLAINED TO ERIK DURING ONE OF OUR 10:30 AT NIGHT
[00:10:01]
DAILY PHONE CALLS ABOUT HOW ROUGH THINGS WERE, BECAUSE THE NEXT MORNING THERE WAS A DIRECTOR'S MEETING -- DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING GOING ON HERE THAT I WAS MISSING, AND ERIK MUST HAVE RELAYED TO EVERYBODY THAT I COULD USE A LITTLE BOOST OF SUPPORT.AND SO I WAS GETTING READY TO GO TO AN 8:00 A.M. HEARING AND MY PHONE WITHIN TWO MINUTES STARTED GOING DING, DING, DING.
I HAD MAYBE THREE OR FOUR DOZEN TEXTS IN A ROW FROM ALL COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE CITY EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT, 'ATTA BOY, KEEP GOING, KEEP FIGHTING FOR US.
SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION AS TO WHAT KIND OF LEADER ERIK IS, I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES IT WELL.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK A FEW PEOPLE BEFORE WE START.
CHRISTINE WRIGHT OF THE 140-DAY SESSION EASILY SPENT NORTH OF 100 OF THOSE DAYS AT THE CAPITOL IN AUSTIN.
DAYS WHEN I COULDN'T BE THERE, SHE WAS STILL THERE.
>> COYLE: EDUARDO CAROSCO WAS HANDING ALL OF THE DIALOGUE AND COMMUNICATION WITH ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS, ANALYZING THOUSANDS OF BILLS TO BE ABLE TO INFORM OUR EFFORTS.
MEGAN DODGE, IN ADDITION TO PICKING UP ALL THE DUTIES THAT I WAS DROPPING BY BEING UP THERE, WAS HANDLING ALL THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION THAT WE WERE CONSTANTLY DISTRIBUTING UP THERE, SO OUR TEAM DID A LOT OF WORK, AND I WANT TO THANK ALL YOU GUYS.
>> COYLE: IN CASE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM, A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF OUR LOBBY TEAM ARE HERE AS WELL, SNAPPER CAR, CARRIE SIMMONS, MARK RODRIGUEZ AND JESSE ANCIRA, AT A TIME WHEN BEING A CITY LOBBYIST IS NOT THE MOST POPULAR JOB IN THE CAPITOL, THESE GUYS WORKED REALLY, REALLY HARD FOR US, AND THEN ALSO ERIK MENTIONEDDAL OF OUR PARTNERS.
WE HAD A GREAT SESSION WORKING WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW IS HILLARY FROM THE RIVER AUTHORITY, SETH, DEB AND NAOMI FROM -- ASHLEY, ALBERT FROM UTSA, JAIME, PETE FROM VIA, SOPHIA FROM THE PORT, STEPHANIE FROM THE CHAMBER, VICK FROM SAM COAND VICK FROM THE FIRE AND WAR PENSION.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF YOU.
AND THEN THE MAYOR ALREADY MENTIONED IT, OUR REPRESENTATIVE LOPEZ WAS FABULOUS IN HIS SHORT FIRST SESSION.
AND YOU'LL SEE IN MY REPORT HERE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT.
SO FIRST OF ALL, AS AN OVERVIEW, THIS SESSION SAW JUST OVER 7500 BILLS, WHICH IS TYPICAL.
IN THE END, UNDER 15 -- LESS THAN 1500 OF THEM PASSED.
SO LESS THAN 20% PASSAGE RATE, WHICH EXEMPLIFIES IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET LEGISLATION THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS.
OUR CITY TRACKED ABOUT 1600 OF THEM.
WHAT I MEAN BY TRACKED IS IDENTIFIED A BILL THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CITY, SENT IT TO DEPARTMENTS TO ANALYZE FOR OUR EFFORTS, MONITORED AS IT MOVED ALONG IN THE PROCESS, AND THEN PARTICIPATED THROUGH TESTIMONY OR WRITTEN SUPPORT OR OTHERWISE WHEN NECESSARY.
NOW THAT THE SESSION'S OVER, THE GOVERNOR HAS A PERIOD TO SIGN OR VETO BILLS OR JUST LET THEM GO INTO LAW, AND THE DEADLINE FOR THAT IS SUNDAY, JUNE 16TH.
AS YOU RECALL, THIS COUNCIL PASSED OUR LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM LAST YEAR.
IT WAS STRUCTURED WITH OUR -- WITH SIX PRIORITIES FIRST.
SECOND, THE INITIATIVES, THE BILLS THAT WE TAKE FORWARD, AND THERE ARE VERY FEW OF THOSE.
THE ENDORSEMENTS, OUR SUPPORT FOR THE EFFORTS OF OTHER PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
PROTECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY INTERESTS, WHICH IS OUR CATCH-ALL OF ALL THE BILLS THAT WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY SPELL OUT, CAN AN PATE, BUT NONETHELESS -- CAN ANTICIPATE, BUT NONETHELESS COME UP AND FINALLY HAVE TONE GAUGE ON, AND -- HAVE TO ENGAGE ON AND REPRESENTING OUR COMMUNITY'S INTEREST.
I'M GOING TO STRUCTURE OUR REPORT BASED ON THOSE PRIORITIES IN THE PROGRAM.
OUR FIRST PRIORITY WAS MEANINGFUL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.
WE SAID WE'RE SEEKING MEANINGFUL RELIEF THROUGH A COMBINATION OF RELIEF FROM MORE STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS.
THERE WERE THREE COMPONENTS OF THAT.
THE FIRST, OF COURSE, WAS AN INCREASE IN THE STATE'S SHARE OF PUBLIC ED, WHICH TAKES THE BURDEN OFF LOCAL TAXPAYERS.
I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THAT HB3 PASSED.
IT WAS THE PRIORITY LEGISLATION FOR THE HOUSE THIS SESSION.
IT PROVIDES MORE THAN $11 BILLION IN NEW FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
6.5 OF THAT IS DIRECT MONEY TO ISDS, SO THAT'S FOR TEACHER RAISES, THAT'S FOR EXPANDING PREK TO FULL DAY FOR ELIGIBLE KIDS, IT'S MORE MONEY FOR DUAL LANGUAGE, IT ALSO CREATES A MORE FAVORABLE FORMULA FOR AT-RISK COMMUNITIES AND STUDENTS.
AND THEN THE OTHER 5 BILLION OF THAT 11.5 IS PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.
AND THAT'S ACCOMPLISHED BY THE STATE CAPPING SCHOOL DISTRICTS
[00:15:02]
AT 2.5% IS THE PERCENTAGE THEY CAN GROW IN M & O PROPERTY TAX REVENUES WITH THE STATE INTENDING TO MAKE UP THE LOST REVENUE.THEY'VE DONE THAT WITH THIS -- FORWARD IS WHAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
THERE WERE NO NEW FUNDING SOURCES CREATED FOR IT, SO THAT'S THE LOOMING DISCUSSION TWO YEARS FROM NOW.
WITH WHAT THEY DID THIS SESSION, THE STATE'S SHARE OF LOCAL EDUCATION -- OF STATEWIDE EDUCATION FUNDING HAS INCREASED FROM 38 TO 45%, SO VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE WERE HOPING TO SEE OUT OF THIS LEGISLATURE.
THE SECOND PIECE WAS MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR YOU-ALL TO TARGET RELIEF.
THERE WERE BILLS TO CREATE ANCHOR NEIGHBORS, WHICH WOULD FREEZE TAXES FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THEIR COMMUNITIES FOR A LONG TIME, MORE FLEXIBILITY AROUND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS TO OFFER FLAT RATES, FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF JUST -- FLAT AMOUNTS INSTEAD OF JUST PERCENTAGES.
THOSE BILLS DID NOT PASS THIS SESSION.
AND THEN THE THIRD PART OF THIS PRIORITY WAS THE CITY BEING OPPOSED TO A REDUCED ROLLBACK RATE THAT PROVIDED LITTLE RELIEF TO TAXPAYERS BUT WOULD HURT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE CRITICAL SERVICES.
AS YOU ALL KNOW AS WELL, SB2 PASSED.
THAT WAS THE PART AND PARCEL TO HB3, THE SCHOOL FUNDING BILL AND THE PROPERTY TAX BILL.
AND WHAT SB2 DOES IS REDUCE THE CURRENT ROLLBACK RATE OF EIGHTH% TO 3.5%, SO IT WOULD TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC ELECTION IF OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES WERE TO EXCEED 3.5% IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.
IT EXCLUDES JUNIOR COLLEGES AND HOSPITAL DISTRICTS AND ANY TAXING UNIT THAT ASSESSES LESS THAN -- HILLARY, WHAT IS IT, .25 -- 2.5%? DID I SAY IT RIGHT? OKAY.
IT INCLUDES A CARRY FORWARD PROVISION, WHICH IS THE PIECE WE FOUGHT HARDEST TO GET INCLUDED.
THAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A TAXING UNIT TO BANK ANY UNUSED TAX RATE INCREMENT.
SO IF THE CAP IS AT 3.5% AND WE ARE AT 2.5% IN ONE YEAR, WE CAN BANK THAT 1% OF CAPACITY FOR UP TO THREE YEARS, AND USE IT TO EXCEED THE 3.5% IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHOUT THAT AUTOMATIC ELECTION.
SO WHAT IT DOES IS SMOOTH OUT THE UPS AND DOWNS THAT YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH IN TERMS OF PROPERTY TAXES.
IT ALSO ENDED UP CUTTING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE CITY IN ABOUT HALF.
AND SO THAT LAST POINT RIGHT THERE SUMMARIZES THAT; IF A 3.5% HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE PAST DECADE, FROM '09 TO '19, THE CITY WOULD HAVE LOST $81 MILLION IN REVENUE OVER THOSE 10 YEARS.
THE AVERAGE SAVINGS TO THE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST ABOUT 1 DOLLAR PER MONTH; BUT THOSE NUMBERS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER -- WELL, THE LOST REVENUE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER WITHOUT THE CARRY FORWARD.
IT WAS 137 MILLION, AND THE SAVINGS STILL JUST $1.65 TO THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER.
SO THE IMPACTS OF THIS OBVIOUSLY WILL BE FELT GOING FORWARD.
IT WAS TALKED ABOUT EXTENSIVELY AT THE SESSION.
WHAT THIS IS IS A CAP ON FUTURE GROWTH IN PROPERTY TAXES, AND I SUSPECT THAT AS YOU ALL MEET TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL POLICIES AND, OF COURSE, THE BUDGET IN THE COMING WEEKS, THE IMPACTS OF THIS BILL WILL BE CERTAINLY FRONT AND CENTER.
OUR SECOND PRIORITY WAS PROTECTING THE TAXPAYER'S INVESTMENT IN OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES, PRIMARILY THERE WAS DISCUSSION BEFORE THE SESSION ABOUT CPS ENERGY AND POTENTIALLY A DIVERSION OF THE CITY'S RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT FOR OWNING THE UTILITY.
THERE WAS A BILL FILED THAT DIDN'T DO THAT EXACTLY, BUT IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE COUNTY TO ASSESS FRANCHISE FEES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OUTSIDE THE CITY.
THAT BILL DID NOT GO ANYWHERE, AND SO WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS PRIORITY IN TERMS OF PROTECTING OUR UTILITIES.
OUR THIRD, AND THIS IS REALLY THE BIG CATEGORY, CHAIRMAN SALDAÑA, THE PRESERVING LOCAL DECISION-MAKING.
THIS IS WHAT WE SPENT MOST OF OUR TIME ON, WHICH IS FIGHTING FOR THE ABILITY OF YOU AS THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT YOU THINK ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
SO THE BIG LOSS IN THAT CATEGORY WAS RELATED TO RIGHT OF WAY FEES.
THE CABLE INDUSTRY, AS YOU KNOW, BROUGHT A BILL FORWARD THAT RELIEVES THEM OF PAYING ONE OF THE TWO RIGHT OF WAY FEES THAT THEY CURRENTLY PAY TO USE OUR PUBLIC PROPERTY TO RUN THEIR FOR-PROFIT SERVICE.
IN STATE LAW, THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS, THERE'S ONE FOR CABLE FRANCHISES, THERE'S ONE FOR TELEPHONE ACCESS LINE, AND HISTORICALLY, THEY'VE BEEN TWO DIFFERENT REGULATORY REGIMES.
WITH SOME COMPANIES, THE BIG ONES PRIMARILY, OFFERING BOTH PHONE AND CABLE SERVICES, THEY CAME TO THE CAPITOL MAKING THE
[00:20:01]
ARGUMENT THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY BOTH SERVICES ANYMORE, THEY SHOULD JUST PAY ONE.AND THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THAT PASSED.
THE IMPACT TO US IS ESTIMATED TO BE $7.3 MILLION TO OUR GENERAL FUND, AND UNLIKE THE PROPERTY TAX, WHICH WILL BE A FORWARD-LOOKING IMPACT, THIS WILL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY WITH THE START OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
THOSE -- WE WILL SEE A REDUCTION IN REVENUE FROM OUR FRANCHISE FEES OF ABOUT $7.5 MILLION.
WE ANTICIPATE LITIGATION FROM CITIES AFTER THE SESSION.
THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE THAT SAYS WE ARE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING AWAY PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT FAIR COMPENSATION FOR IT, AND THERE'S ALSO A PENDING LAWSUIT FROM THE LEGISLATION, THE SESSION BEFORE, OVER THE SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ANTICIPATE WILL BE AMENDED TO BRING THIS PIECE INTO THAT.
ALSO UNDER THE LOCAL DECISION-MAKING, OF COURSE, WERE AT LEAST FOUR BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE INTERFERED WITH OUR ALAMO MASTER PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE PLANS TO MOVE THE CENOTAPH 500 VETO A MORE PROMINENT LOCATION IN THE PLAZA.
ALL FOUR OF THOSE BILLS WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL.
A COUPLE OF THEM WE AM MEMBEREDDED TO -- SO -- AMENDED SO AS TO NOT HARM THE PLAN.
A FEW OTHERS WOULD HAVE, AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN STOPPING THEM.
SENATOR MENENDEZ WAS AMONG MANY WHO FOUGHT VERY VALIANTLY TO DEFEND THE PLAN THAT HAD GONE THROUGH SUCH EXTENSIVE PUBLIC OUTREACH ALREADY.
AND THEN HERE'S JUST THE BEGINNING OF A LONG LIST OF OTHER BILLS THAT DIED THAT WOULD HAVE HURT LOCAL DECISION-MAKING, A BILL TO PROHIBIT ANY TAXPAYER EXPENDITURE ON LOBBYING AT THE CAPITOL, TO MAKE US GO UP THERE AND BE THE ONLY ONES WITHOUT RESOURCES TO FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT.
BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN AWAY OUR ETJ AUTHORITY, BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE PREEMPTED THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ORDINANCE, THERE WAS A SUPER PREEMPTION BILL THAT WOULD HAVE DONE AWAY WITH ANY ORDINANCE THAT'S THE STATE DOESN'T BLESS, BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE PREEMPTED OUR TREE ORDINANCE, OUR 'EM MEANT DOMAIN AUTHORITY.
WE RESOLVED AN ISSUE WITH THE COUNTY OVER FIRE AND FOOD INSPECTIONS IN COUNTY FACILITIES.
THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF BILLS RELATED TO ELECTION LANGUAGE AND DEBT.
SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS BOND PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE 51%.
OTHER BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE BALLOT THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT VERY PROBLEMATIC, AND ALL OF THOSE BILLS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.
THERE WERE FEW THAT PASSED THAT WERE NOT PROBLEMATIC.
THEY REQUIRE THINGS THAT WE ALREADY DO, LIKE PRODUCE A VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE AND GROUP OUR PROJECTS IN SPECIFIC CATEGORIES THE WAY WE DO ON OUR BALLOTS.
THERE WAS A BILL THAT IMPROVES THE WORKER'S COMP STATUTE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN CANCERS THAT ARE PRESUMED TO BE WORK-RELATED FOR FIREFIGHTERS, BUT THERE'S BEEN LITIGATION IN OTHER CITIES, NOT IN OURS, OVER WHAT THAT STATUTE MEANS.
THE STATEWIDE FIRE ASSOCIATION BROUGHT A BILL FORWARD TO PUT THE SPECIFIC CANCERS IN THE STATE OF THE UNION TO -- IN THE STATUTE TO END THE DEBATE OVER THAT.
AND IN THAT PROCESS, WE WORKED HARD WITH THEM AND NEGOTIATED A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARTIES THAT WE THINK ARE BETTER.
FOR EXAMPLE, CURRENTLY WHEN WE GET A WORKER'S COMP CAME FROM A FIREFIGHTER OF CANCER WE HAVE TO RESPOND YAY OR NAY WITHIN 15 DAYS.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REVIEW MEDICAL RECORDS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
SO WE'VE WORKED NEW LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND A REQUEST FOR THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE CASE AND SO FORTH.
SO IN THE END, IT WAS AN AGREED-TO PIECE OF LEGISLATION WITH US AND THE STATEWIDE FIRE UNION AND I THINK ALL WALKED AWAY HAPPY.
THERE WERE A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS RELATED TO OUR BUILDING REGULATIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ONE NOTABLE ONE THAT PASSED PROHIBITS CITIES FROM REGULATING THE TYPE OF BUILDING MATERIALS USED.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN'T SAY YOU MUST USE BRICK IN THIS AREA OR YOU CANNOT USE SIDING IN THIS AREA.
WE WORKED HARD WITH THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL TO ADJUST THE LANGUAGE AND WERE SUCCESSFUL IN EXEMPTING OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, OUR WORLD HERITAGE BUFFER AREAS, OUR ALAMO, OUR RIVER OVERLAYS, OUR DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDE AND OUR DARK SKIES ORDINANCE.
SO LARGELY SUCCESSFUL IN MITIGATING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE; HOWEVER, WHAT THAT DOES MEAN IS THAT OUTSIDE OF THOSE SPECIALLY ZONED AND DESIGNATED AREAS, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN TYPE OF MATERIAL IN FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.
THERE WAS A PREEMPTION BILL THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN US OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF LICENSING OR REQUIRING ANYTHING OF THOSE WHO ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE.
[00:25:02]
STATEWIDE REGULATION, AS DID A SOLID WASTE PREEMPTION OF OUR LOCAL FEES.AND THEN FINALLY THERE WAS A BILL RELATED TO ESDS THAT SAID IF WE ANNEX AN AREA, WE OWE NOT JUST THE PROPERTY TAX FOR THAT TAX BASE TO THAT ESD, BUT ALSO SALES TAX, WHICH WOULD HAVE UNDERCUT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO MANY YEARS AGO BETWEEN THE CITY AND ESM -- ESDS IN BEXAR COUNTY AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET AN EXEMPTION IN THERE THAT ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED THOSE PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS.
CONTINUING ON OUR PRIORITIES WITH SUPPORT FOR MILITARY CITY USA, THIS WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL ACROSS THE BOARD.
$30MILLION PUT INTO THE STATEWIDE GRANT PROGRAM DEAAG.
SNAPPER AND HIS TEAM OUTSIDE OF HIS WORK FOR THE CITY ALSO REPRESENT A COALITION OF MILITARY CITIES ACROSS THE STATED AND WORKED VERY HARD OF IT.
THAT NUMBER WAS 20 MILLION LAST YEAR, SO THAT'S BEEN AN INCREASE.
AND THE PORT ALSO WORKED VERY HARD ON THAT.
THE PORT ALSO PUSHED SOME CHANGES TO A REVOLVING LOAN FUND THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY UNUSED BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN MORE COMPETITIVE LOANS TO BE HAD IN THE PRIVATE MARKET THAN WHAT THE STATE OFFERED.
SO THROUGH SOME TWEAKS TO THAT, WE EXPECT THAT PROGRAM TO BE BETTER, TO BORROW MONEY, MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FOR OUR BASES, AND THEN HAVE THEM BE PAID BACK OVER TIME.
WE STATED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO ANY LEGISLATION THAT THREATENS OUR MISSIONS, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT AROUND THEM.
AND A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE BASICALLY UNDONE OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE PROTECTIONS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE AROUND CAMP BULLIS AND LACKLAND THROUGH THE ELECTION LAST NOVEMBER, WE WERE FINALLY, LATE IN THE SESSION, ABLE TO AMEND ON THE HOUSE SIDE, SO THAT IT EXEMPTED OUR AREAS, AND THEN IN THE END, THE BILL DIED ANYWAY.
OTHER COMMUNITIES FOUGHT IT AND IT DIED.
I'LL MOVE A LITTLE FASTER HERE.
OUR NEXT PRIORITY WAS KEEPING SAN ANTONIO COMPETITIVE FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT.
A BILL PASSED THAT ALLOWS THAT IT CONTINUES THE SUNSET OF THE STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS US TO USE STATE SALES AND HOT TAXES TO DO PROJECTS AROUND THE CONVENTION CENTER THAT SUPPORT THE CONVENTION CENTER.
THAT WAS TO BE SUNSETTED LATER THIS YEAR.
IT WAS EXTENDED AND WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
150MILLION IN TOTAL IS IN THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE FUND.
THAT'S THE STATE'S PIECE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES.
50MILLION WAS PUT INTO FILM INCENTIVES FOR THE STATE, WHICH OUR ARTS AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT.
AND, OF COURSE, NO BATHROOM BILL.
THAT REALLY DIDN'T COME UP THIS SESSION, WHILE THAT WAS SUCH A BIG FOCUS LAST SESSION.
ALSO THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENTS THAT WE OFFER AS PART OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEALS ARE IN STATE LAW, IN THAT CHAPTER 312 WAS SET TO EXPIRE LATER THIS YEAR.
IT DOES HAVE A NEW REQUIREMENT THAT ANY DEAL THAT WE BRING TO COUNCIL RELATED TO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TAX ABATEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE.
THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT MAKING US UNCOMPETITIVE WITH OTHER STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO MIGHT SEE A DEAL THAT'S BEING MADE HERE AND TRY TO UNDERCUT IT, BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION THAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE ABATEMENTS EXTENDED.
AND THEN NO CHANGES TO THE MAJOR EVENTS TRUST FUND OF NOTE.
ON THE TRANSPORTATION FRONT, WE SUPPORTED ANYTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW LOCAL OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPTIONS, REPRESENTATIVE MENJARES FILED TWO VERY GOOD BILLS RELATED TO AN OPTIONAL COUNTY VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE AND A POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING THE SALES TAX TO SUPPORT THE ATD.
SHE WAS ABLE TO MOVE BOTH THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND THE ATD BILL, WHICH WAS A VIA BILL, ALL THE WAY TO THE HOUSE FLOOR BEFORE IT RAN INTO SOME TROUBLE THERE AND SHE ULTIMATELY TABLED IT FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION.
SO I THINK VIK WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO TELL YOU THAT THESE THINGS TAKES MULTIPLE SESSIONS.
HER HAVING MOVED IT ALMOST ENTIRELY THROUGH THE HOUSE REALLY STARTED AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT WE HOPE WILL BE CONTINUED NEXT YEAR, ESPECIALLY AS WE LOOK FOR FUNDING NEEDS FOR CONNECTSA AND OUR LONG-TERM GROWTH HERE AND THEN SAM CO FOUGHT VERY HARD TO EXTEND PROP 1.
THAT WAS THE STATEWIDE VOTER APPROVED FUNDING SOURCE FOR TXDOT.
THAT HAS NOW BEEN EXTENDED TO 2034.
SO IT'S A LONG-TERM FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.
OUR ONLY INITIATIVE UNDER THAT CATEGORY WAS A BYTE STICKS BILL WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFERS TO CARRY A DEVICE THAT COULD BE USED AS A DETERRENT TO A DOG ATTACK WHEN INSPECTING PROPERTIES.
VERY QUICKLY, I'LL GO THROUGH A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS
[00:30:02]
OF INTEREST.TOBACCO 21 HAS BECOME THE MODEL FOR THE STATE.
THAT BILL IS HEADED TO THE GOVERNOR, THAT THE SMOKING AGE WILL BE 21.
IT IS GOING TO BE A STATEWIDE OFFENSE NOW TO COMMIT MAIL THEFT, AN ISSUE THAT THE POLICE CHIEF AND THIS COUNCIL TALKED ABOUT.
SUTTON, WHICH SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL FOR A WHILE, IS EAST SIDE STATE OFFICE BUILDING THAT WENT VACANT YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH THE STRUCTURE.
WE HAD GOTTEN MONEY IN THE STATE BUDGET TWO SESSIONS AGO TO HAVE IT REBUILT, AND IT WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR.
AND SINCE THEN NOTHING'S HAPPENED.
AND SO REPRESENTATIVE HAWKINS GOT A BILL THROUGH THAT ALLOWS THE STATE TO SELL THAT PROPERTY SO THAT IT CAN BE REDEVELOPED AND PUT INTO PRODUCTIVE USE.
OUR AIRPORT WAS SUPPORTIVE OF A BILL THAT PROTECTS SAFETY, IT PROHIBITS GUNS IN SECURED AREAS OF THE AIRPORT.
THERE'S A PARKS FUNDING BILL THAT ENSURES THAT THE SALES TAX THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE FOR PARKS GOES TO IT, IS DEDICATED TO ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.
AND I'LL JUST MOVE OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE.
TUITION REVENUE BONDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS AT OUR UNIVERSITIES WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
SOME REFORMS TO OUR LOCAL, FIRE AND POLICE PENSION FUND WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL.
A PRY MA FACIA LOWERING OF THE STATEWIDE DEFAULT SPEED LIMIT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
THE PAID SICK LEAVE PREEMPTION FAILED AND A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED TETHERING OF ANIMALS, SIMILAR TO OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT STATEWIDE FAILED ON A POINT OF ORDER ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
CPS ENERGY HAS ADDED THEIR UTILITY WORKERS TO THE UTILITY WORKER SAFETY STATUTE.
IN OTHER WORDS WHEN YOU PASS A CPS OR A SAWS WORKER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN AND PROVIDE SAFE PASSAGE FOR THEM.
BROOKS FOUGHT VERY HARD FOR STATE FUNDING FOR A NEW STATE MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL, AND SENATOR FLOOR REST -- FLORES WAS THE CHAMPION FOR THAT BILL AND THERE IS $200 MILLION IN THE BUDGET TO ALLOW FOR A NEW STATE HOSPITAL RIGHT NEAR BROOKS.
SAWS WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING SOME REFORMS TO GROUNDWATER DISTRICTS THAT ALIGN TRANSFER PERMITS WITH PRODUCTION PERMITS SO THAT THERE'S A RELIABLE SOURCE OF WATER WHEN TRANSFERRED INTO THE REGION.
THERE WAS A THREAT TO TOURISM FUNDING, UNUSED HOT FUNDING THAT VISIT SAN ANTONIO ENGAGED ON, AND THAT WAS DEFEATED, SO THAT MARKETING FUND REMAINS.
THERE'S AN AIR QUALITY FUNDING PROGRAM FOR NEAR NONATTAINMENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS, ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNOR VETOED IT LAST SESSION.
WE ARE NOW IN NONATTAINMENT, SO WE'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS BUT ACOG WORKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SEVEN SURROUNDING COUNTIES COULD STILL ACCESS THOSE DOLLARS.
SARAH FOUGHT HARD FOR A STATE FUNDING PLAN AND AN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ABOUT 3 BILLION FROM THE RAINY DAY FUND BEING DIVERTED TO A FLOODING INFRASTRUCTURE FUND STATEWIDE AND ON THE HIGHER ED FRONT, THE FORMULA FUNDING WAS INCREASED ACROSS THE BOARD.
UTSA, FOR EXAMPLE, IS GOING TO GET A 13.5% INCREASE IN STATE FUNDING, ABOUT $26 BILLION, ALBERT? OVER THE NEXT BYENIUM RESULT OF THAT.
SO A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FOR OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
IN SUMMARY, SENATE BILL 2, THE PROPERTY TAX BILL AND SENATE BILL 1152, THE FRANCHISE FEES FOR TELECOMS BOTH PASSED AND WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL FISCAL EFFECT ON THE CITY.
MOST OF THE PREEMPTION BILLS THAT WE FACED WERE EITHER FIXED THROUGH LANGUAGE OR DEFEATED, AND OVERALL WHEN WE LOOK DOWN AT THE LIST OF LEGISLATION THAT WE ACTIVELY ENGAGED ON, EITHER THROUGH TESTIMONY, THROUGH LOBBYING EFFORTS, THROUGH WRITTEN EFFORTS, WE WALKED AWAY WITH A ROUGHLY 83% SUCCESS RATE THIS SESSION.
SO ALL TOLD, WE'RE PLEASED THAT IT'S OVER.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEFF, FOR THE GREAT WORK YOU AND YOUR TEAM, MEGAN, CHRISTINE, EDUARDO, ALL THE GOOD STUFF THAT HAPPENED UP THERE UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SURE.
I DO WANT TO ALSO THANK OUR DELEGATION, RAY, ALONG WITH HIS COLLEAGUES AND OUR AGENCIES WHO HAVE BEEN UP THERE, VICK, SAM CO VIA, BEXAR COUNTY, CPS, SO MANY OTHERS TO THANK FOR THEIR COOPERATION.
I DO HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, TWO YEARS AGO THE EASIEST APPOINTMENT I EVER MADE WAS TO APPOINT COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA AS CHAIR OF OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS EFFORT.
THERE WASN'T -- PROBABLY THE BEST PREPARED CHAIRMAN, I THINK, IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF KNOWNS.
WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE UP AGAINST IN TERMS OF PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY TAXES.
[00:35:02]
WITH CHANGING PERSONNEL, A NEW SPEAKER, AND COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA HANDLED ALL OF THAT IN STRIDE AND DID VERY, VERY WELL.I THINK AN 83% SUCCESS RATE, WE DON'T KNOW THE METRICS INVOLVED IN THAT, BUT CERTAINLY WE WALKED AWAY IN FAIRLY GOOD SHAPE ALL TOLD, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR GREAT WORK, REY.
AND I'LL ASK HIM TO GO INTO DEPTH, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION A FEW THINGS, THOUGH.
YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE MAJOR OUTCOMES, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IT WAS HISTORIC IN THE SENSE THAT WE FINALLY TURNED THE TIDE ON SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM.
AND I THINK IT WAS IN NO SMALL PART DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS CITY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY MEMORY, TREATED ITS PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AS A MEMBER OF ITS DELEGATION.
I THINK YOU MIGHT REMEMBER A LOT OF FOLKS MIGHT REMEMBER IN THIS ROOM A YEAR AND A HALF AGO OR SO WE CONVENED ALL THE SUPERINTENDENTS TO TALK ABOUT OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES IN GENERAL, AND WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE PROPERTY TAX DISCUSSIONS, MULTIPLE BILLS BEING FILED, BUT WE MAINTAINED THE COURSE AND I THINK CONVENED OTHER CITIES AROUND THE NOTION THAT IF WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR TEXAS PROPERTY OWNERS, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME IN THE FORM OF SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY ONE OF OUR VERY OWN FORMER COLLEAGUES DEE AGO BERNAL PLAYED A HUGE ROLE IN THAT, IN THE FACT THAT STATE PRO POTION OF FUNDING IS GOING UP FROM 38% TO 45% IN ONE YEAR IS A HUGE STEP FORWARD SO THANK YOU TO COUNCILMAN BERNAL -- REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL, TO REY, TO OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO FOR PLAYING A HUGE ROLE IN THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE.
IF THAT'S A CONTINUED EFFORT IN THE NEXT COUPLE SESSIONS, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE TURNING THE CORNER FOR BETTER SCHOOL OUTCOMES WHICH WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR EVERYBODY.
I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK QUESTIONS AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO OUR CHAIRMAN.
IT ALSO IS NOTABLE THAT DR. BRIDGER AND HER TEAM PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF OUR AGENDA AS WELL, AND I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT WE LED THE CHARGE HERE IN THE CITY WITH THE ADOPTION OF TOBACCO 21, BUT ALSO NOW PROBABLY SHOCKINGLY SO SUCCESSFUL AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT IT'S NOW ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK.
WHAT'S YOUR PROGNOSIS FOR THAT BILL BEING SIGNED? THUMBS UP?
THE LAST ONE -- THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD, JEFF, IS THE LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING THE RIGHT OF WAY.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: IF THERE WERE NONE, IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND THERE'S NO LEGAL QUESTION THAT ARISES, WE'RE TAKING AN $8 MILLION HAIRCUT IN THE FY '20 BUDGET, RIGHT?
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: SO WHAT'S GOING ON LEGALLY WITH REGARD TO THAT BILL? WHAT'S OUR ROLE IN IT? HAS SOMEONE ALREADY FILED? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?
>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF CITIES EITHER JOINTLY OR INDIVIDUALLY CHALLENGING THAT, MAYOR, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
WE'RE MONITORING THAT AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL PRETTY SOON.
BUT MOVING FORWARD, ERIK, INTO THE BUDGET SESSION FOR '20, ARE WE PREPARING TO BACK OUT THAT REVENUE?
>> WALSH: YES, SIR, AND YOU'LL RECALL WHEN WE DID THE FINANCIAL FORECAST HERE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WE ASSUMED THAT THAT BILL WOULD MAKE IT THROUGH, SO WE'VE MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FORECAST, BUT IT IS A SIGNIFICANT HIT.
WELL, CONGRATULATIONS, EVERYBODY.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE LOT WORSE.
I CALL THAT SUCCESS AT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 2019.
BUT REALLY, THOUGH, THANK YOU, REY, IN YOUR LAST YEAR AT COUNCIL, I THINK DID HUGE WORK TO MAKE SURE IT WAS A SUCCESSFUL SESSION FOR US.
SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS, CHAIRMAN.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY -- I THINK YOU'RE OVERSELLING THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT THAT I SHOULD GET WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS WEARING THE SAN ANTONIO TAG, JEFF AND HIS TEAM OF WHICH SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO WE'VE HIRED ON AS THE LOBBYISTS WHO WOULD CARRY THE WATER FOR A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO ARE HERE WITH US AS WELL BUT CHRISTINE AND MEGAN AND JEFF ARE THE TIP OF THE SPEAR.
TO JUST BE THANKFUL TO GOD THAT WE ONLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS.
IT'S 140 DAYS OF HAIR-PULLING AND REALLY DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS.
YOU HAVE TO BE AN EXPERT IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, TRACKING, WHAT, 1600 BILLS JUST FOR OUR CITY.
AND I WANT TO MAYBE TAKE A MOTION TO ASK ABOUT ONE OF THEM.
AS IS HUMAN NATURE, YOU REMEMBER YOUR LOSSES MORE THAN YOU DO YOUR VICTORIES, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO TRY TO DISSECT OR JUST HAVE A CONVERSATION, JEFF, AND IF YOU NEED TO BRING IN HELP TO ANSWER THIS, THE QUESTION ABOUT SB 1152, WHICH IS THE
[00:40:01]
UTILITIES.AND IN MY MIND, IT SPEAKS TO THE WORST KIND OF POLITICS THAT FOLKS TYPICALLY THINK ARE THE WAY THAT WE TELL THE STORY AROUND BIG MONEY, MULTIBILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS INDUSTRY WITH ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERY LOBBYIST IN TOWN TO GET THEIR WAY, DID SO, AND SB 1152 IS PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THAT, WHERE THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY IN JUST SAN ANTONIO'S CASE, YOU KNOW, TAKING A STRAW TO OUR REVENUE AND SUCKING OUT $8 MILLION THAT OTHERWISE COULD GO TO JUST AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE PROBABLY PUT ABOUT $15 MILLION INTO SIDEWALKS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, THIS IS ABOUT $7 MILLION WORTH OF WHAT COULD HAVE GONE INTO SIDEWALKS.
YOU ALL ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION MIGHT COST THE CITY AT WHATEVER RATE, BUT LET'S JUST TAKE ONE, I THINK ONE WAS LIKE THE ONE CENT ON ONE%, I CAN'T REMEMBER, THAT ACCUMULATED TO $5 MILLION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE.
THIS IS THE UTILITIES WITH A LOT OF BIG MONEY COMING IN AND JUST TAKING THAT REVENUE FROM THE CITY.
AND WE'RE NOT EVEN THE BIGGEST HURT BY THIS.
IT'S HOUSTON THAT'S LOSING 25 MILLION.
THIS IS THE QUESTION OF CABLE COMPANIES SAYING, YEAH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE CHARGED US FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE, SO WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE ARGUMENT AND PAY FOR IT UP IN AUSTIN.
SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, I DON'T -- I DON'T REMEMBER HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT AS A THREAT EARLY IN THE SEASON.
>> SALDAÑA: AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN PLAYED BY THE TIMING OF THIS, BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF PREPARATION FOR IT.
WE WERE SCUTTLING A LITTLE BIT AT THE END, ON PURPOSE I'M SURE FROM WHAT WE WERE COMPETING AGAINST, BUT WHAT DID WE LEARN? HOW DID WE MISS THAT? IS IT JUST A QUESTION OF TRACKING SO MANY BILLS AND THIS JUST BEING SNUCK UP ON US.
>> COYLE: WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK SNAPPER TO COME UP, WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THESE RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES SINCE 2005 OR BEFORE EVEN, BUT LET ME ANSWER THAT DIRECTLY ON THAT PIECE.
EVERY OTHER MAJOR REFORM TO RIGHT OF WAY LAW IN TEXAS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, NEGOTIATED BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS, USUALLY SOME AGREEMENT REACHED IN THE INTERIM AND THEN A BILL BROUGHT TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY.
THERE WAS NO DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS LEADING UP TO THE SESSION, NO COMMUNICATION FROM CABLE COMPANIES THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM OR THAT THIS WAS COMING.
I PERSONALLY AM SHARING MY OPINION HERE, BELIEVE IT WAS A MATTER OF A SESSION WHERE CITIES WERE DOWN AND FOLKS KNEW IT, AND A BILL WAS BROUGHT FORWARD THAT -- RIGHT WHEN IT WAS FILED, WE KNEW WHAT THE IMPACT WAS, BUT STOPPING IT AND AS YOU MENTIONED THE WELL OVER -- WHOLE OTHER MATTER, AND SO...
AGAIN, I'M SNAPPER CARR, ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE CITY AND HE WAS KIND.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON MUNICIPAL RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES AND ALL THESE SYSTEMS SINCE 1995 AND HELPED NEGOTIATE ALL OF THE CURRENT SYSTEMS ON BEHALF OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND OTHER MEU THIS PALTIES. BEGINNING -- WELL, BACK UP REAL QUICK TO NOT THIS SESSION BUT THE SESSION BEFORE LAST WITH SENATE BILL 1004, THAT WAS A BILL LED BY THE TELECOM INDUSTRY PRIMARILY AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT CITIES WERE DEFEATED.
TO JEFF'S POINT, THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AGREED TO BILL WITH INDUSTRY WHERE WE HAD A SYSTEM THAT SAID HERE'S WHAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAID FOR THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
WHEN A PERSON IN -- LET'S -- I'LL BE REAL CANDID AND CLEAR ABOUT THIS, THE USERS OF THE CABLE SYSTEM PAY FOR IT, MUCH LIKE THE USER OF A TOLL ROAD PAYS FOR THE TOLL.
SO THOSE THAT USE THE SERVICES PAY THE TOLL AND THE RENTAL.
THE REST OF THE CITIZENS BENEFIT FOR GETTING A PROFIT AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT WE DO ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS.
YOU'RE VERY CORRECT TO SAY ALTHOUGH A FEW OF US THAT WERE DEEP IN THE UTILITY DISCUSSIONS WERE CONVINCED THAT SOMETHING WOULD BE PUT FORWARD, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE DEALING WITH YOUR PEG FEES, THE 1% PEG FEE THAT THE CITY GETS, THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT, NOT SOMETHING AS GRAND AS LITERALLY WIPING OUT LARGE, LARGE SECTIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY REVENUES THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 20 YEARS.
THEY'VE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 20 YEARS.
I THINK THE MAIN THING, IF YOU WERE TO DISSECT IT, TO YOUR POINT, THAT WAS DISAPPOINTING, ONE, THAT A GREATER DISCUSSION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THIS WERE NOT BROUGHT FORWARD.
AND THEY SEEMED TO BE FASCIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SOME REGARDS.
SECONDLY IS THAT THIS WAS BILLED AS A BIG BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS, THAT YOU AND I AS CUSTOMERS WILL SEE A BIG DECREASE.
UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE ATTEMPTS TO SIMPLY -- BECAUSE STATE LAW -- FEDERAL LAW PREVENTS CABLE AND TELECOM RATES FROM BEING REGULATED; THUS, THERE WAS NO WAY TO ENSURE THAT ANY REDUCTION THAT WENT AWAY WAS ACTUALLY PUT INTO THE POCKETS
[00:45:02]
OF THE CONSUMERS AND NOT TO THESE MULTIBILLION NATIONAL CORPORATIONS LIKE COMCAST AND CHARTER THAT LED THIS EFFORT.AND SO THERE WERE AMENDMENTS, SOME, THAT THIS DELEGATION PUT FORWARD THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED REPORTING OF BASE RATES TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, SO WE COULD ACTUALLY TRACK WHEN SAN ANTONIO TAKES THIS $8 MILLION HIT, IF THE CONSUMER SAW ANYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE, OR IF THAT JUST WAS A WIND FALL FOR THE CORPORATIONS -- AUDIO] -- AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WE IN WORK AND REPRESENT UTILITIES IN AUSTIN AND AT THE UTILITY COMMISSION IS THAT THE INDUSTRY CHOSE NOT TO COME TO THIS COUNCIL OR TO THE COUNCIL IN HOUSTON WHERE THEY SEND A REPRESENTATIVE EVERY WEEK AS CHARTER CABLE DOES TO BRING THAT FORWARD, KNOWING THE MASSIVE HIT THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BUDGETS.
AND TO SAY THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY A -- YOU KNOW, THEY COME TO AUSTIN AND SAY THEIR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE WOULD EXPECT MORE OF OUR PARTNER.
AND SNAPPER, THIS IS NOT A ONE-TIME LOSS OF REVENUE, THIS WILL BE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THAT IT IS GOING TO GO UNREALIZED FOR THE CITY.
AND IF THOSE REVENUES WERE TO GROW, IT WOULD HAVE -- THEY'RE TAGGED TO HOW MUCH PROFIT OR REVENUE IS GAINED OFF OF THE USE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY.
NOTHING REQUIRES PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES TO USE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THEY CAN BE FREE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ALL THE PRIVATE LANDOWNERS IN A COMMUNITY TO PLACE THEIR FACILITIES, UPON WHICH THEY DO, AND THEY OFTEN PAY THEM MUCH GREATER THAN SOME OF THE FEES THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RECEIVE FOR THE SAME TYPES OF LAND.
BY WAY OF FULLBACK GROUND, I AM ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS ON THE SUIT, ON THE 1004 LITIGATION.
WE'LL BE VISITING WITH YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT OUR EXPECTATIONS.
THAT COALITION HASN'T DECIDED YET, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY LOOKING AND INDICATED WHEN WE PASSED OUR TRIAL SETTING, WHICH WAS SET FOR ON THE SENATE BILL 1004 SUIT, WE, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, PASSED THAT SETTING IN ANTICIPATION OF HAVING TO AMEND THOSE PLEADINGS TO BRING THIS STATUTE INTO IT.
>> SALDAÑA: WELL, THANK YOU, SNAPPER.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.
AND JUST ANOTHER QUICK COMMENT.
IT'S UPSETTING TO ME FOR ONE OF TWO REASONS, ONE OF WHICH IS I CAN'T GO BACK AND NO MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION CAN GO BACK AND TELL THEIR RESIDENTS THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE ARGUMENT.
THEY FELT LIKE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO PAY TWICE BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING CABLE AND PHONE.
THESE RESIDENTS WHO ARE PAYING FOR SPECTRUM OR CHARTER ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CALL UP THEIR CABLE COMPANY AND SAY, HEY, I DON'T THINK I SHOULD PAY FOR BOTH MY CABLE AND MY PHONE BILL.
WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE A PAGE OUT OF YOUR BOOK AND PAY FOR ONE.
>> SALDAÑA: THE SECOND PIECE OF WHY I'M UPSET ABOUT IT IS, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO PREPARE A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WE'RE GETTING OUR DELEGATION PREPPED TO HAVE THE CITY'S POSITION ON IT, AND IT FEELS LIKE WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET A FAIR SHAKE OR FIGHT IN THIS.
I WANT TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO ALL CHIMED IN, SENT MESSAGES TO OUR DELEGATION.
BUT WHEN YOUR WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS SO QUICK, AT THE END WHEN THIS SNEAKS UP ON YOU WHEN COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN OR COUNCILMAN PELAEZ SENDS MESSAGES TO OUR DELEGATION, YOU CAN SENSE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION.
WE DIDN'T HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT EVEN AMONG OUR DELL GAITION, AND I THINK THAT IS FIXED WHEN YOU HAVE MORE TIME.
YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THE LEGITIMACY OF NOT HAVING $8 MILLION IN OUR GENERAL FUND.
THAT'S 75 POLICE OFFICERS THAT WE COULD REALIZE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS OR THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
I HATE TO HARP ON IT, BUT YOU ALWAYS REMEMBER YOUR LOSSES MORE THAN YOU DO YOUR WINS, AND IT'S JUST TOUGH TO HAVE THAT LOSS BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING, WE'LL JUST TAKE A LESSON FROM IT AND MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT SESSION KNOWING THAT FOLKS WITH, YOU KNOW, MULTIBILLION DOLLAR BUSINESSES WHO PROFITED FROM THIS ARE GOING TO DO IT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR RESIDENTS, OUR TAXPAYERS AND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES, SO I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THAT.
THE OTHERS -- LET ME JUST HEIGHT -- HIGHLIGHT SOME REALLY IMPORTANT WORK.
TO ECHO WHAT THE MAYOR HAS SAID, IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE SESSION FOR A GREAT DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC EDUCATION.
IT HAS TO DO A LOT WITH REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL, FOLKS WHO REALLY BUILT OUT OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS THIS CONVERSATION THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION SHOULD BE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
AND IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE YOU GET STRANGE BED FELLOWS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND WANTING TO REALLY REDUCE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TAXES, BECAUSE THE TWO GO HAND IN HAND AND YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS AT THE LEGISLATURE TO SAY WE DO WANT TO SUPPORT INCREASING FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND WE THINK AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE PEOPLE'S LARGEST SHARE OF THEIR PROPERTY TAX, AND WE'RE GOING TO BUY DOWN THAT TAX COMPRESSION.
BUT I JUST USE THE MOMENT TO SHOUT OUT TO ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SAN ANTONIO DELEGATION, WHO'S NO LONGER A MEMBER OF
[00:50:01]
THE SAN ANTONIO DELEGATION WHO STARTED THIS CONVERSATION OFF WHICH WAS SPEAKER STRAUS, REALLY SETTING UP THAT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE RIGHT BEFORE HE LEFT, WAS PROBABLY THE BEST BOOKMARK THAT THIS DELEGATION, LEGISLATORS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS PICKED UP ON, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CREDIT IS WHERE CREDIT IS DUE WITH REPRESENTATIVE AND SPEAKER STRAUS FOR HAVING STARTED THAT CONVERSATION.I THINK WE'RE IN A BETTER PLACE TODAY OND OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE ALL MAKING SENSE OF THE NEW LEGISLATION, AND I THINK I, AMONG OTHERS, ARE REALLY GRATEFUL TO SEE THAT THAT -- YOU KNOW, WHICH IS A VERY HEAVY LIFT GOT PASSED IN THIS SESSION.
AND FINALLY, MAYOR, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO GO ON, BUT I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE WAY THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO HANDLE A REALLY COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUE, WHICH WAS THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE.
WE PASSED THAT IN AUGUST, THERE WAS THIS SENSE THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, DEAD ON ARRIVAL IN AUSTIN, AND I THINK WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN THAT OCCURS IS THAT FOLKS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SERIOUS ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PROGRAM.
AND SO NOW WE GOT PASSED THE SESSION, PAID SICK LEAVE WAS NOT KILLED IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND THERE'S THIS SENSE OF REALITY THAT, YOU KNOW, AUGUST IS THE NEXT DEADLINE THAT WE SET FOR OURSELVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS, AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE COMMITTEE THAT IS CHAIRED BY COUNCILMAN PELAEZ IS TRULY THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO MAKE THIS WORK.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY HOW WE PASSED IT, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY IF IT WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE WAY THAT WE PASSED IT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MARKER FOR SUCCESS, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK -- IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT, THEN MAKE IT PUBLIC, MAKE IT TRANSPARENT AND MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.
IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT I'D LIKE, BUT I WANT TO HAVE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WEIGH IN TO HOW WE TRULY IMPLEMENT AND EXECUTE A PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE NOT SHUTTING DOWN SMALL BUSINESSES, WE'RE NOT FORCING BUSINESS IN GENERAL TO HAVE TO CONTRACT, BUT BENEFITING BY IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM AND BENEFITING WHAT I THINK IS A 300,000 SAN ANTONIANS WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO PAID SICK LEAVE.
AND WE GOT PASSED THIS SESSION.
I THINK IT WAS A POSITION THAT NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE BET WOULD HAPPEN, BUT I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE TRIED TO THREAD THE NEEDLE HERE WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE -- OR WITH THIS COUNCIL, ANT WE -- AND WE SAW THAT THROUGH.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA.
THERE'S STILL BILLS ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK, RIGHT?
>> PELAEZ: ARE YOU EXPECTING ANY OF THE ONES ON HIS DESK NOT TO GET SIGNATURES?
WHAT DO YOU -- LET ME ASK OUR TEAM.
>> PELAEZ: AND SNAPPER IN PARTICULAR OR MARK WEB BER, SPECIFICALLY ONES THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH TODAY.
>> YOU SAID 1152, THE TELECOM, THE CABLE FRANCHISE BILL HASN'T BEEN SIGNED BUT WE DO EXPECT THAT TO BE SIGNED.
OF THE ONES THAT WE WATCHED AND CARE ABOUT THAT ARE ON HIS DESK, I -- I MEAN, IT'S -- I HATE TO PREDICT, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN LAST-MINUTE OVERNIGHT VETOES BEFORE THAT WE DIDN'T EXPECT, BUT THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONCERN AROUND THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE.
>> I'M SURE THERE WILL BE VETOES AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TALK MORE BROADLY, BUT...
>> PELAEZ: MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT 1152, ARE WE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE EDUCATING THEM ABOUT THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON US AND EXPRESSING THE CONCERNS YOU JUST HEARD FROM COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA?
WE MET WITH A GROUP OF ATTORNEYS THAT WERE PREPARING, OF COURSE, THE GOVERNOR BEING A FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT HE WILL TAKE -- AND HIS STAFF WILL TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND THE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT THAT WE HAVE IN TEXAS THAT IS DIRECTLY ON POINT WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE.
THAT WAS THE OTHER ISSUE, THAT -- AND I SAID THAT WAS DIRECTLY ON POINT WITH THIS ISSUE, THIS WAS CHARACTERIZED AS ATTACKS.
AND REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A STATE SUPREME COURT CASE FLEMMING VERSUS HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER THAT SAYS THAT A FOUR% GROSS REVENUES FEE IS FOR USE OF YOUR PUBLIC STREETS SH IT'S A RENTAL FEE, JUST LIKE A PRIVATE SECTOR, IT'S NOT A TAX.
AND THERE'S MULTIPLE DECISIONS.
UNFORTUNATELY WITHOUT HESITATION IT WAS CALLED A TAX.
ON THE FLOOR IT WAS CALLED A TAX REDUCTION.
WE'RE HOPING THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL LOOK AT THIS FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
WE'VE SUBMITTED BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THAT COALITION AND ON BEHALF OF TML, HE'S HAD IT FOR A WHILE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT FOR THAT, BOTH FROM MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND WITHIN OTHER
[00:55:01]
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS.YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING OR NO? OKAY.
AND THEN, JEFF, JUST TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE WE KEEP SAYING THE TELECOMS AND THE TELECOMS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECTRUM, FORMERLY TIME WARNER CABLE LOBBYING THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET TO USE OUR SIDEWALKS AND OUR STREETS AND OUR TELEPHONE POLES OR WHATEVER, OUR LIGHT POLES WITHOUT PAYING THE PUBLIC BACK FOR MAINTENANCE OF THOSE ASSETS?
>> WELL, IT'S NOT A COST-BASED FEE.
IT'S NOT A COST RECOVERY THING, IT'S A MARKET VALUE -- IT'S A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION'S WRITTEN, SO IT'S NOT JUST ON THE EXPENSE SIDE OF IT.
BUT IT IS BASED ON THE FOR-PROFIT SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE.
SO THE CABLE FRANCHISE FEE BILL, FOR EXAMPLE, IS -- CABLE FRANCHISE FEE IN EXISTING STATUTE IS 5% OF GROSS REVENUES, SO THE REVENUES, THE COMPANY BRINGS IN, THEY PAY 5% OF THAT TO THE PUBLIC ENTITY WHOSE LAND THEY'RE USING.
TELEPHONE COMPANIES PAY A PER LINE ACCESS FEE.
AND SO WHAT THE BILL DOES IS IF YOU DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, YOU ELIMINATE THE LESSER OF THE TWO.
SO THE -- YOU'VE MENTIONED SPECTRUM, CHARTER, COMCAST IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
AND LET ME BE CLEAR TO YOUR FIRST PART, IT WAS THE CABLE INDUSTRY THAT BROUGHT THE BILL.
STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION AND THOSE COMPANIES, WE SAT ACROSS THE TABLE FROM THEM EARLY IN THE SESSION WITH HOUSTON AND DALLAS AND A FEW OTHER BIG CITIES, SO THE CABLE COMPANIES WOULD NO LONGER PAY THE PHONE LINE FEE TO PROVIDE PHONE SERVICES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
THE TELEPHONE INDUSTRY, WHICH WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SAY THEY WERE NEUTRAL ON THE BILL, IS ALSO GOING TO BENEFIT GREATLY BY NOT PAYING FOR THEIR VIDEO SERVICES, NOT PAYING CABLE FRANCHISE FEE FOR THE PROVISION OF THOSE.
>> PELAEZ: SO JUST TO GET THIS STRAIGHT: HAVE WE SEEN OR HAVE WE HEARD FROM SPECTRUM OR ANY OF THE OTHER COMPANIES THAT THEY HAVE AN INTENT OF PASSING ON THESE SAVINGS TO THE CONSUMERS? IS.
>> THE COMPANIES DID SAY THAT.
THEY WOULD NOT COMMIT TO IT, AND AS SNAPPER MENTIONED BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION, THE STATE LAW CAN'T REQUIRE IT, BUT THE QUESTION WAS POSSED BY US IN MEETING WITH THEM AND BY OTHER MEMBERS ON THE FLOOR, THAT IF THIS WAS ALL ABOUT RETURNING THAT FEE TO THE CUSTOMER, THEN WHY WAS THE INDUSTRY SO INTERESTED IN IT.
THERE CLEARLY WAS A BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY BESIDES THAT.
AND THE WAY IT WOULD HAPPEN -- SO THESE FEES ARE PASSED ON TO ALL OF US.
YOU LOOK AT YOUR CABLE BILL, YOU SEE A MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE FEE ON THE BILL.
THOSE -- THAT FEE WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE BILL, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THE BASE RATE OF YOUR CABLE SERVICE TO GO UP.
AND, IN FACT, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SESSION, CONSUMER REPORTS CAME OUT WITH A NATIONWIDE STUDY SAYING THAT CABLE FEES WERE ON THE WAY UP EVERYWHERE.
T SO THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACK, BACK TO SNAPPER'S POINT.
>> ONE LAST THING, BECAUSE IT WAS RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT JEFF WAS SAYING.
MOST COMPANIES DO BREAK THAT OUT IN LINE ITEM, THE LARGER ONES.
WE HAVE CABLE COMPANIES ALL OVER TEXAS, AND IT WAS ASKED UNDER OATH IN THE HEARING WHAT ABOUT THE CABLE COMPANIES THAT DON'T BREAK THOSE OUT, THAT THEIR BILL IS 100 BUCKS AND IT INCLUDES THIS FEE? DO THOSE COMPANIES PLAN ON REDUCING THOSE BASE FEES AND THE ANSWER FROM THE CABLE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT WAS NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
I THINK THAT IS A MORE CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO GO THAN WHERE A LINE ITEM THAT THEY CHOOSE TO BREAK OUT TO A BILL THEN THAT CAN BE RAISED -- AT ANY TIME.
>> PELAEZ: SO THE LARGE -- I MEAN, FOR ME, THE BIGGER PICTURE HERE IS THAT WE'VE GOT A LOCAL COMPANY WHO'S WORKING REALLY, REALLY LARD TO MAKE SURE TO SAVE A BUCK BY USING CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ASSETS AND ABSOLUTELY NO COMMITMENT TO HELP BENEFIT THE PEOPLE OF SAN ANTONIO FROM WHOM THEY MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, SPECTRUM CAME TO ME EARLY ON WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE AND WAS A LITTLE MIFFED BECAUSE, HEY, WHENEVER YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, ALL YOU GUYS DO IS MENTION GOOGLE AND MICROSOFT AND YOU NEVER MENTION US.
>> PELAEZ: AND I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT -- I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP TO SORT OF NOT COMMIT TO HELPING PEOPLE WHEN YOU'RE ACTIVELY LOBBYING TO DENY THE CITY THE ABILITY TO HELP US MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND STREETS AND ALL THAT.
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE POINT OF THAT.
WHEN WE DID MEET WITH THE CABLE INDUSTRY AND THE LARGE COMPANIES, WE ACKNOWLEDGED -- THEY LAID OUT THAT THE PRIMARY CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE TECHNOLOGY HAS EVOLVED AND ADVANCED AHEAD OF WHAT STATE
[01:00:01]
LAW SAYS IN TERMS OF REGULATORY REGIME.AND SO WHAT WE PROPOSED TO THEM WAS TREATING IT LIKE EVERY OTHER REFORM TO THIS LAW OVER THE YEARS AND WORKING ON IT IN THE INTERIM AND CREATING SOMETHING THAT WAS FLAT AND EQUAL ACROSS THE BOARD, SO WHETHER YOU'RE A REQUIRELESS COMPANY OR A TELECOM OR -- WIRELESS COMPANY OR A TELECOM OR A CABLE COMPANY YOU'RE COMPETING ON THE SAME LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, PAYING THE SAME AMOUNTS TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY AS THE COMPETITORS.
THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THIS, THEY'RE ALL COMPETING WITH SORT OF A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE.
AND THE ANSWER WE GOT BACK, WE AGREE WITH YOU, WE'D LOVE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BILL.
THEY'D ALREADY HAD THE CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FILE THEIR BILLS AND THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY AND THEY WEREN'T GOING TO STOP THAT TO HAVE THIS BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT A REFORM TO THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T PASS AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU DOWELED -- COULD TELL ME -- AUDIO] -- IT'S ON SLIDE SIX.
>> COURAGE: COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT WAS GOING AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT HAD ANY LEGS AT ALL? BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT -- OR GROUPS HAVE COME TO US, YOU KNOW, OUR AREA IS GOING WAY UP BECAUSE OF THIS GOING ON IN OUR AREA, HOW CAN WE PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES FROM GOING UP LIKE THIS.
>> COURAGE: AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT
>> COYLE: IT DID GET A HEARING BUT DIDN'T MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE.
REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL FILED IT IN THE HOUSE, SENATOR MENENDEZ IN THE SENATE.
BASICALLY SAID IF YOU HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PROPERTY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND SEEN VALUES GO UP AROUND YOU BY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT YOUR TAXES WOULD BE FROZEN.
IT'S TO PROTECT THE PROVERBIAL EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO IS BEING TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOME BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THEM.
THE SHORT ANSWER TO ALL THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION ON SB2 AND PROPERTY TAX, SENATOR BETTENCOURT WAS THE SPONSOR.
THAT WAS THE MESSAGE ALL SESSION, THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT TARGETED PEOPLE IN SOME AREAS NEEDING RELIEF.
THIS IS ABOUT EVERYBODY PAYING WAY TOO MUCH AND SEEING TOO MUCH INCREASE IN THEIR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.
SO WITH SO MUCH FOCUSED ON THE STATEWIDE REFORM THERE JUST REALLY WASN'T AN APPETITE TO RIFLE SHOT SOLUTIONS.
AND IT DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF LEGS.
IT DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TRACTION.
NOW WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ARGUMENT OFTEN IS, THAT PERSON IS SEEING THEIR VALUES GO UP AND CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
THIS IS INCREDIBLY SMART LEGISLATION.
IT TACKLES THE PROBLEM WITHOUT BUT THERE WASN'T CAPACITY FOR IT THIS SESSION.
KNOWING THOSE TWO MEMBERS, I SUSPECT THEY'LL BE BACK WITH IT IN FUTURE SESSIONS.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO TARGET IT.
IT'S NOT JUST THE LONG-TIME HOMEOWNER BUT IT'S VETERANS.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER SORT OF TARGETED RELIEF THAT UNDER STATE LAW WE CAN'T PROVIDE RIGHT NOW.
>> COURAGE: ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS I THINK THE SUPREME COURT THREW OUT SOMETHING ABOUT WALKING QUORUMS. AND I THINK SOMETHING WAS PENDING IN THE LEGISLATURE TO CORRECT THAT.
CHRISTINE, CORRECT? THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BILL.
>> COYLE: I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT, CHRISTINE? SENATE BILL 1640 PASSED.
>> COYLE: I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A WALKING TROUBLE.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
>> SALDANA: I WANTED TO FORECAST ON TWO ITEMS TO THE NEXT IGR COMMITTEE, SOME THINGS THAT I THINK ARE VERY EASILY GETTABLE, AND THEN ONE CAUTION.
THE ONE THAT WE MISSED OUT ON, WHICH I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY, WAS THE PRIMA FASCIA, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SIGNS POSTED.
AGAIN, ONE OF THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINTS THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IS YOU NEED TO GET PEOPLE TO SLOW DOWN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE TELL THEM WHEN THEY ASK WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.
WE SAY IF IT'S NOT POSTED, IT'S 30.
IF YOU EVER TEST THAT THEORY AND GO 30 IN A NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'LL
[01:05:02]
GET A LOT OF FRIGHTENED PEOPLE.WE WANT TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 25?
>> SALDANA: THE REASON WE WANT PRIMA FASCIA, IF I CAN EXPLAIN IT SHORTLY, IF IT IS NOT POSTED AND YOU WANT IT TO BE 25, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE POSTING AND THE CITY HAS TO GO AND PUT SIGNS EVERYWHERE THAT IT NEEDS TO OR OTHERWISE THE PRIMA FASCIA IS THE STANDARD 25 ACROSS THE BOARD.
HOW DO WE GEAR UP FOR SUCCESS? I KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE LOPEZ IS HERE AND WE KNOW THAT AS A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S SOMETHING WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT.
THAT ONE SHOULD BE AN EASY WIN.
AS YOU RECALL WE BROUGHT IT UP TO THAT BALLROOM FULL OF CITIES LAST SUMMER.
AND THERE WERE SOME CITIES IN THE ROOM WHO DIDN'T WANT IT.
SO WE WENT INTO THE SESSION WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH HOUSTON, DALLAS, AUSTIN, AND SAN ANTONIO TO BRACKET A BILL ONLY TO THE FOUR LARGEST CITIES IN THE STATE AND HAVE THAT PRIMA FASCIA REDUCTION ONLY APPLY TO US.
WE HAD THAT BILL FILED BY OUR MEMBERS.
MEANWHILE, A MEMBER OUT OF AUSTIN FILED A STATEWIDE BILL, WHICH HE HAS FILED IN SESSIONS PAST.
AND THE STATEWIDE BILL GOT HEARD FIRST.
AND OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT DIDN'T WANT IT SPOKE UP ABOUT IT AND RAISED CONCERNS.
AND THERE IS SUCH A THING, I THINK, AS MOMENTUM IN THE LEGISLATURE.
AND WHEN THE STATEWIDE BILL WENT FIRST AND LANDED WITH A THUD IT ELIMINATED SOME OF THE CAPACITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO LATER HEAR THE TARGETED ONE.
THEY HAD KIND OF MOVED ON FROM THAT ISSUE.
SO I THINK NEXT SESSION WE'LL HAVE TO WORK REALLY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS THAT BRACKETED BILL THAT GETS THE ATTENTION OF THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE AND NOT THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO DRAW OPPOSITION FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.
WHY THOSE OTHER CITIES ARE OPPOSED TO IT, WE'RE NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR, BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE LOCAL DECISIONS ARGUMENT.
IF THEY DON'T WANT LOWER SPEED LIMITS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORCE IT ON THEM.
WHICH IS WHY WE TOOK THE TARGETED APPROACH.
YOUR SUGGESTION IS FOR THE NEXT IGR COMMITTEE THAT WE DO THE BEST WE CAN TO GET A BRACKETED VERSION OF PRIMA FASCIA.
>> COYLE: THAT'S WHAT WE DID THIS SESSION BUT THAT'S NOT THE BILL THAT GOT HEARD FIRST.
WE NEED TO PUT THE STATEWIDE DISCUSSION ASIDE AND FOCUS ON THE BRACKETED PIECE.
>> SALDANA: AND THE CAUTION I WANTED TO GIVE THIS COMMITTEE AND MAYBE THE REST OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THE FUNDING, I WAS JUST TEXTING HERE WITH COUNCILMAN PERRY.
I ASKED HIM WHAT YEAR HIS CORVETTE WAS.
HE'S GOT A BEAUTIFUL 2017 STINGRAY.
I'M THINKING TO MYSELF IF I REALLY WANTED TO I THINK I COULD BUY A 2017 STINGRAY.
THE PROBLEM IS IT'S MORE CAR THAN I CAN AFFORD AND PROBABLY MORE CAR FOR THE KIND OF MUSCLE THAT IT'S GOT.
IT'S MORE CAR THAN I COULD AFFORD AND IT'S SORT OF THE WAY I THINK ABOUT THE WAY WE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED PUBLIC EDUCATION AND A COMPRESSION ON THE TAX.
IF YOU LOOK AT $11.5 BILLION, THAT MONEY CAME FROM SOMEWHERE.
AND I ACTUALLY THINK THEY BOUGHT MORE CAR IF THEY CAN AFFORD, IF I CAN KEEP THE ANALOGY.
BECAUSE IF THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BUY DOWN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHOLE.
AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE DIDN'T COMPLETELY SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
I THINK WE'RE RELYING ON A TEXAS ECONOMY THAT CONTINUES TO HUM.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY MARKETS WORK.
BUT I KNOW IF SOMEBODY MAYBE WANTS TO JUST HELP ME.
>> SALDANA: I DON'T WANT FOLKS TO FEEL LIKE WE CLOSED THE BOOK AND EVERY PROBLEM IS SOLVED.
SETH, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US A DOSE OF REALITY.
THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMAN SALDANA, FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
WE ENTERED THE SESSION WITH A $9 BILLION SURPLUS.
THAT CAME FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE SALES TAX REVENUE.
THE TOTAL PACKAGE AT THE END IS ABOUT $11.6 BILLION .
THERE WERE A COUPLE NEW STREAMS OF REVENUE THAT CAME IN BUT THEY WERE MOSTLY ONE-TIME BOOSTS.
THERE WAS A SUPREME COURT DECISION LAST YEAR CALLED THE WAY FAIR CASE WHERE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND WAY FAIR HAD GONE TO COURT THAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THAT STATE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COLLECT THE SALES TAX.
NEW HAMPSHIRE WON THAT CASE ANOTHER SOURCE OF REVENUE BUT THAT ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE ALONE.
AND RIGHT NOW ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY MADE IN DETERMINING HB3 IS THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO HAVE 4% SALES AND PROPERTY TAX GROWTH YEAR OVER YEAR.
IF THE NUMBERS ARE HIGHER THAN THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THE PROPERTY TAX GROWTH IS HIGHER THAN SALES TAX GROWTH WE NEED TO FIND ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF STATE REVENUE TO COME IN AND PLUG THE
[01:10:02]
GAPS IN WE WANT TO KEEP ON REDUCING PROPERTY TAXES.WE EXPECT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE INTERIM ABOUT LOOKING AT THIS BUT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A FORMAL SCHOOL OF FINANCE COMMISSION LIKE THERE WAS THIS PAST INTERIM.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE RATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.
>> SALDANA: THANK YOU FOR THAT, SETH.
IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED, SETH IS THE SMARTEST GUY I KNOW ON THIS ISSUE AND IF YOU WANT TO GET A DOWNLOAD, HE'S AVAILABLE.
YEAH, I'VE GOT A '77 CORVETTE, WHICH IS 50 YEARS OLDER THAN THE 2017 IN THE PARKING SLOT THAT COUNCILMAN PERRY HAS.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE STATE CAN AFFORD TO DRIVE THIS CORVETTE THEY BOUGHT FOR THE BIENNIUM AND WE'LL FIND OUT IF WE CAN AFFORD THE COMPRESSION TO THE SCHOOLS THAT WE'RE LAYING OUT.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO THINGS.
THANK YOU, SETH, AND THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY, FOR LETTING ME USE THE EXAMPLE.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SALDANA.
>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THANK YOU, JEFF AND THE WHOLE TEAM FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.
I KNOW I'VE HEARD STATE REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL OFTEN SAY THAT IT'S HARD TO WORK AT THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME HOME AND SAY, HEY, I HAD A GREAT WIN -- OR AT LEAST IN PAST SESSIONS IT'S MOSTLY I SAVED THIS DISASTER FROM HAPPENING TODAY.
BUT THIS TIME HE DID GET A WIN, SO THAT'S GREAT.
SO TO CLARIFY THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU WERE JUST HAVING, THE ROLLBACK RATE GOES FROM 8% TO 3.5 BUT THE ASSUMPTION IS PROPERTY TAXES WILL -- OR VALUATIONS WILL INCREASE BY 4%?
I'LL LET SETH ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT THE ROLLBACK ONLY APPLIES TO THE LOCALS.
THE STATE BUDGET ITSELF IS RELYING ON A 5.5% GROWTH THIS YEAR.
>> YEAH, SO THE STATE, FOR THIS BIENNIUM THEY ARE PROJECTED IN FISCAL YEAR '20.
THEIR FISCAL YEAR STARTS SEPTEMBER 1.
THEY ARE PROJECTING 6.7% GROWTH AND THEN 4.1% FOR FISCAL YEAR '21.
AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO ASSUME A 4% GROWTH BEYOND THAT.
OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THE ECONOMY A LOT OF TIMES IS GOING TO GO FASTER THAN THAT.
IT COULD GROW SLOWER THAN THAT.
YEAH, I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU A BETTER ANSWER.
>> SANDOVAL: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.
>> US IN THE ISD WORLD ARE NERVOUS.
BECAUSE IF THE ECONOMY GROWS TOO QUICKLY THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE FOR TAX BUY DOWNS OR IF THE ECONOMY GROWS TOO E SLOWLY, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ANY REVENUE
JEFF OR TO STAFF, IN TERMS OF THE ROLLBACK RATE, DOES THAT IN ANY WAY AFFECT OUR CREDIT RATING OR OUR ABILITY TO ISSUE BONDS OR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION?
>> COYLE: BEN, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT?
>> WALSH: JUST REAL QUICK, COUNCILWOMAN.
YOU KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT NEXT WEDNESDAY ARE FINANCIAL POLICIES.
AND SO EVERY TEXAS CITY AND COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THEIR FINANCIAL POLICIES AND TO DO SO, NOT JUST FROM AN ANNUAL BUDGET AND FINANCIAL POSITIONING, BUT I'M SURE THAT THE RATING AGENCIES WILL BE ASKING TEXAS CITIES -- AND WE'LL BE HERE, THEY'LL BE HERE IN JULO MANAGE THROUGH THAT.
SO THAT'S PART OF NEXT WEEK'S CONVERSATION.
THAT'S THE HIGH-LEVEL ISSUE THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH IN ABOUT A WEEK OR SO.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMAN.
I THINK ERIK SUMMED IT UP WELL.
I THINK MOODY PUT SOMETHING OUT LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL AND IT BEING A CREDIT NEGATIVE ON ENTITIES IN TEXAS.
THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT GOING TO DOWNGRADE YOU.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ACTION.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
THEY CERTAINLY THAT TAX CAPS MATTER AND THEY AFFECT WHAT WE CAN DO AND HOW WE CAN DO IT.
SO I THINK THE CONVERSATION WE START TO HAVE NEXT WEEK IS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE OUR FISCAL REALITY, THE PARAMETERS WE HAVE OPERATED IN HISTORICALLY HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ADJUSTING WITHIN THOSE NEW PARAMETERS.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AT HOW WE DO THAT AND HOW WE PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD.
THAT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION WITH YOU ALL WITH THE POLICY BOARD AS WE GO OUT FOR OUR NEXT ISSUANCE OF BONDS.
>> SANDOVAL: WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, AND WE CAN SAVE PART OF THIS FOR NEXT TIME.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AND WE HAVE THIS CAP THEN OUR OTHER PRACTICES BECOME MORE IMPORTANT OR HAVE A HIGHER WAITING WHEN THEY DETERMINE WHAT OUR CREDIT RATING IS, LIKE OUR CONTINGENCY
[01:15:02]
OR THAT KIND OF --SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THAT, GOING BACK THROUGH THE METHODOLOGY, STAFF IS, WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISERS.
WE'RE GOING TO BRING FORWARD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS HOW WE ADJUST TO THIS NEW FISCAL REALITY.
SOMETIMES RATING AGENCIES WILL SEE SOMETHING CHANGE IN AN INDUSTRY AND THEY MAY TAKE ACTION ACROSS THE BOARD.
I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING SO FAR -- AND I HOPE IT STAYS -- IS THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT US ON AN ENTITY BY ENTITY BASIS.
THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT IS SAN ANTONIO GOING TO DO, WHAT DO YOUR FINANCIAL POLICIES LOOK LIKE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE IN THIS NEW FINANCIAL WORLD AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE THEIR ASSESSMENT BASED ON THAT.
>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BEN.
I ALSO SUPPORT REVISITING THE SPEED LIMIT ISSUE NEXT TIME AROUND.
SO LET US KNOW HOW WE CAN HELP IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN REGARDING THE TELECOM AND THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO FOR TELECOM COMPANIES THAT RIGHT NOW ARE UTILIZING OUR RIGHT OF WAY, IT MEANS WE STOP COLLECTING ANY REVENUE FROM THEM.
>> COYLE: NOT ANY REVENUE BUT THE LESSER OF THOSE TWO FEES THAT THEY CURRENTLY PAY.
AGAIN, IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO A COMPANY THAT'S DOING BOTH CABLE SERVICES AND TELEPHONE.
AND WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT REVENUE ON THE LESSER OF THOSE TWO FEES.
SO FOR AN AT&T, THAT MEANS THEY WOULDN'T PAY THE VIDEO SERVICE FEE.
AND FOR THE CABLE COMPANY THEY WOULDN'T PAY A PHONE ACCESS LINE FEE.
>> SANDOVAL: AND SO I GUESS -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS -- BUT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY WANT TO EXPAND AND USE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY AS THEY GROW, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US IN TERMS --
>> SANDOVAL: ARE WE STILL GOING TO BE --
>> COYLE: LEGALLY WE'RE REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, CORRECT?
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, JEFF AND THE ENTIRE TEAM AUDIO] APPRECIATE IT.
AND TO MY CHAIRMAN'S POINT, THINGS MOVE VERY FAST AND SO WHEN WE HAVE TO GET OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND OUR DELEGATION ON THE PHONE JUST TO TALK TO THEM, THANK YOU FOR JUST CALLING US SO WE CAN MAKE THE CALLS THAT WE NEED TO AS WELL.
A QUESTION ABOUT MEANING PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, THE HB3, NO. 5 AGAIN.
IN IT IT TALKS ABOUT THE $11.6 BILLION IN NEW FUNDING FOR PUBLIC ED.
WONDERING, HAVE WE ALREADY MAYBE HAD A DEBRIEF WITH ALL OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE AREA, SEEING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE -- HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE TRANSLATING OR IMPLEMENTING, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING THAT.
I KNOW THEY'RE STILL PROBABLY TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, BUT HAVE WE GOTTEN ANY INDICATION OR DEBRIEF FROM THEM YET?
>> COYLE: IN REGULAR DIALOGUE FROM THEM AND ONE OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE PAPER LAST WEEK SAID IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A WHILE TO UNPACK THIS WHOLE THING.
IS THAT A GOOD SUMMARY? WE'RE TALKING WITH THEM BUT I DON'T THINK THAT ALL THE ISDS HAVE DETERMINED HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
>> COYLE: I GUESS SETH HAS SOMETHING.
>> I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A SUPER HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW FOR SAISD REAL QUICK.
WE HAVE ABOUT $36 MILLION EXTRA FROM THIS BILL.
THAT'S GOING TO BE KNOCKED OUT THROUGH THIS, WHICH IS GREAT.
THERE'S A FEW MORE TECHNICAL DETAILS, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE -- OUR BOARD IS GOING TO VOTE ON JUNE 17 AND THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE ABOUT $15 MILLION WORTH OF RAISES AND THERE'S GOING TO BE EXTRA MONEY LEFT OVER FOR SOME PROGRAM.
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> COYLE: IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE THING.
A LOT OF IT IS DEPENDENT ON RULEMAKING.
THE AGENCY IS GOING TO HAVE TO ESTABLISH THE RULES OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT WAS SO IT WON'T BE KNOWN FOR MONTHS, IN SOME CASES.
>> VIAGRAN: TO THAT POINT TOO, ON HERE IT SAYS $6.5 BILLION TEACHERS' RAISES, PRE-K AND DUAL LANGUAGE.
PRE-K, WILL THAT IMPACT OR HAVE ANY IMPACT ON PRE-K AND HOW THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH PRE-K 4 SA?
>> I THINK CARLOS JUST STEPPED OUT.
I THINK THE BIGGER PICTURE ANSWER IS TO BE DETERMINED.
BUT WHAT IT DOES IS PROVIDE -- SO FIRST OF ALL THE STATE PROVIDES FUNDING, AS DOES OUR PRE-K PROGRAM, FOR CERTAIN ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.
THE STATE HISTORICALLY HAS PROVIDED HALF-DAY FUNDING TO A LOT OF THE DISTRICTS.
OUR PRE-K PROGRAM TENDED TO FILL SOME OF THAT GAP AND PROVIDE THE
[01:20:02]
FULL-DAY FUNDING.WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS PROVIDE FUNDING FOR FULL DAY.
IT REMAINS LIMITED TO THOSE ELIGIBLE SETS OF STUDENTS.
AND I THINK THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THEMSELVES ARE STILL DETERMINING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO OFFER.
I BELIEVE SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH ARE PART OF IT.
>> COYLE: WILL BE REQUIRED BY LAW.
IT'S OFFERED AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL.
>> VIAGRAN: SO IT WILL STILL BE -- IT'S STILL GOING TO BE DETERMINED FOR US AS TO HOW THAT WILL RELATE WITH US AND OUR CONTRACT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS?
>> COYLE: YEAH, THAT'S PENDING CONVERSATION.
AND THEN, FINALLY, THAT SAME SLIDE.
YOU SAID 38 TO 45% STATE FUNDING HAS INCREASED.
BUT YOU ALSO MENTIONED IN YOUR COMMENTS -- SO YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE STATE IS INTENDING TO FILL THAT GAP.
AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, STATE INTENDING?
>> COYLE: MAYBE INTENDING IS NOT THE WORD.
SO THE WAY THEY'RE LOWERING PROPERTY TAXES BY CAPPING DISTRICTS -- AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND COPPER PENNIES, BUT THE STATE IS COMPRESSING LOCAL TAX RATES AND THAT PUSHES THAT PERCENTAGE FROM 38 UP TO 45.
SO HOW IT GOES AFTER THAT I THINK GOES BACK TO SETH'S COMMENTS EARLIER IN TERMS OF WHAT THE STATE CAN AFFORD -- OR CHAIRMAN SALDANA'S COMMENTS GOING FORWARD.
THAT'S THE WAY THE TWO WORKED TOGETHER.
IN HB3 THEY COMPRESSED TAX RATES, PUT MORE MONEY IN.
IN SB2 THEY COMPRESSED CITY AND COUNTY TAX RATES AND WE MAKE IT UP LOCALLY OR DON'T.
THERE'S NOT STATE FUNDING TO CLOSE THAT GAP.
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I THANK YOU FOR AGAIN ALL OF OUR PARTNERS WHO WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH US TODAY.
THANK YOU TO OUR LOBBYING TEAM.
GLAD WE CAN KEEP YOU ALL ON BOARD AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE NEXT SESSION.
BUT FOR FUTURE IGR MEETINGS, MAYOR, I'LL JUST SHARE THIS WITH YOU RIGHT NOW, AND MAYBE FOR YOU, JEFF, THAT WE CAN GET A BRIEFING FURTHER DOWN THE LINE OR EVEN IN A MEMO FORM ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSE JUST PASSED YESTERDAY, THE DREAM AND PROMISE ACT.
AND SEE WHERE WE, AS A CITY, CAN WORK ON THAT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.
THAT'S IT FOR OUR BRIEFING TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEFF AND YOUR TEAM.
AND OF COURSE GREAT RESULTS IN
[Executive Session]
AUSTIN.>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BRIEFLY.
THE TIME IS NOW 3:36 P.M. ON THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2019.
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 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.