[00:00:14]
>> GOOD MORNING. I WILL BE OPENING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MEETING. CURRENTLY THE CHAIR IS EN ROUTE SO WE WILL BE SELECTING A CHAIR PRO TEM UNTIL HE ARRIVES AND THEN HE WILL TAKE OVER THE MEETING.
SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO SELECT A CHAIR PRO TEM? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MOVE TO
SELECT COUNCILWOMAN MARINA. >> VIAGRAN: I SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. ACTUALLY, THE CHAIR HAS JUST WALKED THRWAOUGH THE DOOR, SO WE
WILL NOT NEED A VOTE. >> PELAEZ: I HOPE YOU USED YOUR POWERS FOR GOOD AND NOT
EVIL. >> CLERK: I WILL CALL ROLL, SIR.
>> PELAEZ: GREAT. SALLY, YOU'VE GOT A BRIEFING FOR US.
>> CLERK: I'M GOING TO CALL ROLL.
[Briefing and Possible Action on ]
SIR, WE HAVE A QUORUM. >> PELAEZ: GREAT. SALLY.
>> BASURTO: SALLY BASURTO, DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.
LET'S GET THE PRESENTATION UP HERE. THANK YOU.
SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, JANUARY 14TH KICKED OFF THE 89TH ST STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. IT IS IN FULL STEAM AHEAD MODE, AS YOU KNOW.
SO LAST WEEK ON MARCH 14 WAS BILL FILING AND THERE ARE OVER 8500 BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED. WE HEARD FROM TML EARLY YESTERDAY MORNING THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST -- I LOST COUNT AT ABOUT A THOUSAND BILLS BETWEEN THURSDAY AND FRIDAY.
SO THE LAST TWO DAYS SO MY TEAM IS PROBABLY IDENTIFYING CLOSE TO 500 ADDITIONAL BILLS THAT WILL BE REVIEWED, ANALYZED, AND ALSO SHARED WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SO THAT 1,000 BILL MARK THAT THE GA TEAM AND THE CITY LIAISONS ARE TRACKING WILL DEFINITELY GROW BY AT LEAST ANOTHER 400 TO 500 BILLS.
SO THIS IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THOSE SESSIONS WHERE THE BILL FILING IS IN FULL STEAM AHEAD AND THE NUMBERS ARE REALLY TRIPLING FROM PAST SESSIONS. THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE ARE BEING HEARD SO WE ARE TRACKING AND MONITORING, ATTENDING, AND WORKING WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS ACROSS THE STATE TO MONITOR AND BE PRESENT AND PROVIDE OUR POSITIONS FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS. NON-EMERGENCY ISSUE BILLS CAN BE PASSED NOW, NOW THAT WE'RE PAST THE MARCH 14TH DEADLINE.
AS PROMISED, WE HAVE THE COSA BILLS REPORT ON THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WEBSITE. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE ARE TWO REPORTS TO DATE THAT WE HAVE UPLOADED ON TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO GO IN AND SEE THE VARIOUS POSITIONS THAT WE TOOK, EITHER IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION OF THE VARIOUS BILLS, CAN GO INTO OUR GA WEBSITE, LOOK AT THE REPORTS.
THE INFORMATION WILL BE POSTED WEEKLY AS WE OPPOSE AND SUPPORT VARIOUS BILLS.
AS YOU SEE ON THE REPORT HERE, IT WILL INCLUDE THE BILL NUMBER, BILL AUTHOR, SUMMARY OF THE BILL, AND THE STATUS OF THE BILL WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS. ON THE BILL NUMBER, THAT IS A SECTION WHERE YOU CAN CLICK ON THAT AND IT WILL TAKE YOU TO TLO, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE ONLINE WEBSITE. AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON THAT BILL. THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS TEAM WILL BE UPLOADING THESE ON A WEEKLY BASIS. AS YOU ALL RECALL THE GOVERNOR SHARED HIS VISION FOR A CYBER COMMAND INSTALLATION IN SAN ANTONIO THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM.
GREAT NEWS TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY. THE CYBER COMMAND BILL DROPPED LAST WEEK ON MARCH 1 AND IT IS MOVING QUICKLY. HB 150 BY CHAIRMAN CAPRIGLIONE HAS BEEN FILED AND THERE IS AN IDENTICAL BILL ON THE SENATE, WHICH IS GREAT.
IT ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISHES THE CYBER COMMAND AS A COMPONENT INSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM. THIS NEW ENTITY WOULD ASSUME SPECIFIC CYBERSECURITY
[00:05:03]
RESPONSIBILITIES CURRENTLY MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES.THE CYBER COMMAND WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CYBERSECURITY THREAT INTELLIGENCE CENTER IN A CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE UNIT.
ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE CYBER COMMAND THAT THIS INITIATIVE WILL INCLUDE, BEGINNING WITH A LEADERSHIP IN OVERSIGHT. THERE WILL BE A CHIEF THAT WILL LEAD THESE OPERATIONS AND WILL OVERSEE ALL THE CYBERSECURITY GOALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THERE WILL BE EXTENSIVE COLLABORATION AMONGST THE ENTITIES, INCLUDING WORKING CLOSELY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, PRIVATE ENTITIES, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, IN PARTICULAR FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CYBER. THERE WILL BE A FOCUS ON ENERGY FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, HEALTHCARE, AND PUBLIC SAFETY NETWORKS.
ANOTHER COMPONENT WILL BE INCIDENT RESPONSE. IT WILL HANDLE INCIDENTS, INCLUDING BREACHES, RANSOMWARE ATTACKS AND OTHERS TO SAFEGUARD INFORMATION FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. ANOTHER COMPONENT IS POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS COMMAND WILL ESTABLISH POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.
FINALLY, EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS PART OF THE UT SYSTEM. IT WILL ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED THAT THIS BILL WAS FILED. IT IS MOVING QUICKLY. IT WILL BE HEARD TOMORROW TOMORROW MORNING. WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY AND IN COMMUNICATION WITH OUR UTSA PARTNERS TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE AS POSSIBLE. AND SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDING UPDATES FOR YOU IN THIS SPACE. THESE ARE A FEW PRIORITY BILLS THAT I WANTED TO PUT ON YOUR RADAR TODAY. HB 23, THIS IS BY HARRIS.
APPLICANTS MAY REQUEST A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS OR LAND IMPROVEMENTS BY CERTIFIED ENGINEER OR BUILDING INSPECTOR.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A BILL THAT WE OPPOSE BECAUSE IT WOULD BYPASS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT THESE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS. WE PROVIDED TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF IT LAST WEEK IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER CITY -- LARGE CITY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS TEAMS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAMS. WE DID WORK WITH THE CHAIR AND WE DID ALSO WORK WITH THE BILL SPONSOR. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT IS BEING WORKED ON AND WE HOPE THAT WE WERE HEARD AND OUR COCOUNTERPARTS WERE HEARD. SB 15 PROHIBITS MUNICIPALITIES FROM REQUIRING MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL LAND AND OTHER ZONING RESTRICTIONS FOR SMALL LOTS, LOTS SMALLER THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET. IT WAS HEARD AT SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ON 3-10. ON TO EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS.
THESE ARE TWO BILLS BY OUR REP, PHIL CORTEZ. HB 377 PROHIBITS MUNICIPALITIES FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER BEFORE 90 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF ANNEXATION. IT RESCINDS ANY SERVICE AGREEMENTS ENTERED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS EXTENSIVELY WITH REP CORTEZ AND REACHED OUT TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER BILL AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AMENABLE TO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY. SO WE WILL BE WORKING TO OBVIOUSLY OPPOSE THIS BILL AND FIGURE A POTENTIAL STRATEGY FORWARD. YES, SIR.
>> SO, COUNCILMAN, CURRENTLY WE HAVE EXISTING SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT GO OUT 30 YEARS BACK. AND SO THIS PARTICULAR BILL WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING. WE WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO SERVICE AGREEMENTS 90 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF ANNEXATION. AND SO EXISTING SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE WOULD RESCIND THOSE AGREEMENTS. I CAN ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE
INTO THE WEEDS. >> YEAH, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY DONE 30 YEARS AHEAD OF TIME AND THE 30 YEARS AHEAD OF TIME WE WORK ON OUR SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THE SERVICES AGREEMENT IS
[00:10:02]
BOUND TO ALL SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY OWNERS AFTER THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SOLD.WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT SERVICES AGREEMENT BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY ANNEX THE PROPERTY.
WE WOULD HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE ALL THE SERVICES AGREEMENTS 30 YEARS LATER AT THE END OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. >> PELAEZ: WITH A 30-YEAR -- I THINK IT EXPIRES IN THE EARLY 2030S. THE AGREEMENT AT THE TIME WAS WE WILL NOT ANNEX THIS PROPERTY. YOU WILL DEVELOP IT OUT AND AT A POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE WE WILL BRING THAT PART INTO THE CITY.
SO THAT'S AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED MANY YEARS AGO. MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING HERE, IS THIS LEGISLATION WOULD UNDO THOSE PAST AGREEMENTS, NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE THEM ANYMORE AND ESSENTIALLY OUR SIDE OF THAT, OUR BENEFIT OF THAT DEAL, MEANING THAT AREA COMING INTO THE CITY AND BEING A PART OF THE CITY'S TAX BASE, WOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. >> PELAEZ: SO WHO DOES THIS BENEFIT?
>> BASURTO: THE ESD. >> PELAEZ: IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY BENEFIT HOMEOWNERS OR BUSINESS OWNERS, IT BENEFITS OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND? >> IT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO
REMOVE TERRITORY FROM AN EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT. >> EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS ARE CREATED OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THEY COLLECT A PROPERTY TAX IN THOSE AREAS TO PROVIDE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES IN THAT AREA.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IT IS ALLOWING THEM TO MAINTAIN THAT TAX BASE AND THEIR FOOTPRINT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY AND A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT TO BRING PROPERTY IN AT A DATE
CERTAIN. >> PELAEZ: BUT TO BE CLEAR, NOBODY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE IS ARGUING TO THESE TWO LEGISLATORS THAT THIS HELPS PEOPLE, RIGHT?
>> JUST EMERGENCY SERVICES. >> PELAEZ: IT JUST HELPS A TINY GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HELPING
PEOPLE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HELPING ESDS. >> BASURTO: THAT IS OUR
INTERPRETATION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> PELAEZ: THANKS. GO AHEAD.
>> BASURTO: HB 2345, ALSO BY CORTEZ. THIS PROHIBITS MUNICIPALITIES FROM REMOVING TERRITORY FROM AN ESD AND BEING THE SOLE PROVIDER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
SO THIS ESSENTIALLY CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THERE COULD BE DUPLICATE SERVICES IN NEWLY-ANNEXED TERRITORY. TO FOLLOW UP ON A COMMENT YOU JUST MADE ABOUT THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS, SO IN THIS CASE ESSENTIALLY THE RESIDENTS WOULD RECEIVE TWO BILLS FOR SIMILAR SERVICES. SO OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE RESIDENT. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CAN EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WE WOULD STILL BILL THE RESIDENT BUT THEY WOULD ALSO GET A SECOND BILL FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES FROM THE ESD, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE RESIDENT GETS TWO BILLS.
WE WOULD STILL BILL THE ESD BILLS AND THE RESIDENT HAS TO PAY TWICE FOR EMERGENCY
SERVICES. >> PELAEZ: PHIL CORTEZ AND DONNA CAMPBELL STILL REPRESENT
SAN ANTONIANS, RIGHT? THAT HASN'T CHANGED? >> BASURTO: THEY DO.
>> PELAEZ: THANKS. >> THIS IS THE NORMAL PROCESS THAT WE HAVE WHENEVER WE ANNEX A PROPERTY. WE REMOVE IT FROM THE ESD, THAT WAY WE CAN PROVIDE ALL SERVICES. THIS WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT AND MOST LIKELY INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO NOT COME INTO THE CITY BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY BOTH ESD AND THE CITY FOR
THESE EMERGENCY SERVICES. >> BASURTO: MOVING ON TO A FEW LAND BILLS USE BILLS.
1509 BY BETTENCOURT PROHIBITS ENFORCEMENT OF MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS IN THE ETJ.
OF COURSE, THIS WOULD IMPACT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ANY FULL-BLOWN BILL THAT AIMS TO REMOVE ENFORCEMENT OF MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS IN ETJ WOULD BE OF CONCERN TO THE MILITARY COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT WOULD IMPACT THE OPERATIONS OF OUR BASES IN SAN ANTONIO. THE BILL HAS BEEN REFERRED TO SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE WORKING WITH GENERAL AYALA TO COORDINATE OUR EFFORTS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL AUTHOR UNDERSTANDS THE CONSEQUENCES THAT IT WOULD MAKE ON MILITARY COMMUNITIES. IN ADDITION, WE ARE GOING TO BE ENGAGING OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO ALSO BE INVOLVED AND HOPEFULLY GET THEIR SUPPORT TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.
[00:15:04]
SB 1160 BY SENATOR CAMPBELL, THIS INCLUDES SERMON CHANGES TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING REGULATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHANGES, SPECIFICALLY IT EXPANDS THE SIZE OF THE AREA THAT CAN PROTEST CHANGE FROM 200 FEET TO 1500 FEET. AND SO THIS WOULD INCREASE, RIGHT OFF THE TOP, COSTS TO DSD AND APPLICANTS DUE TO INCREASED MAILING COSTS.EVEN THOUGH THE IMPACT WOULD BE MINIMAL, WE'RE STILL WATCHING THIS ONE CLOSELY.
SB 854 BY MIDDLETON AND ITS COMPANION, HB 3172 ALLOWS MIXED-USE IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ON RELIGIOUS-OWNED LAND, REGARDLESS OF ZONING OR LAND USE LIMITATIONS.
THIS WOULD PROHIBIT CITIES FROM REGULATING THESE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ON RELIGIOUS-OWNED LAND. THE LAND MUST BE OWNED BY THE OWNER, THE RELIGIOUS OWNER, AT LEAST 40 YEARS BUT IT DOES PROHIBIT ANY OF THE AREAS THAT WE NORMALLY, UNDER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGULATE SUCH AS HEIGHT LIMITS, SETBACKS, PARKING, DENSITY, AND ALL THE OTHER AREAS UNDER THE DSD OPERATIONS. WE SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND WE HAVE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS IN WRITING TO THE BILL AUTHORS. SO THE LAND HAS TO BE OWNED BY THE RELIGIOUS ENTITY A MINIMUM OF 40 YEARS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BUILDING MIXED-USE AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ON THIS LAND. THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD APARTMENTS, YES, OR MIXED-USE FACILITIES WITHOUT ANY CITY RESTRICTIONS. UNDER THE MISCELLANEOUS COLUMN, WE HAVE HB 2736. AS YOU MAY RECALL DURING THE STATE OF THE STATE, THE GOVERNOR MADE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR TWO-THIRDS VOTER REQUIREMENT FOR CITIES. IT PROPOSES THREE MAIN RULES FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS INVOLVING BONDS OR TAX INCREASES. NUMBER ONE, IT REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOTERS TO MOVE FORWARD. ELECTIONS MUST TAKE PLACE ON THE NOVEMBER UNIFORM ELECTION DATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT ISSUE BONDS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. THIS WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019 WHERE CITIES ARE ALREADY CAPPED AT 3.5%, THE REVENUE CAP BILL THAT PREVENTS US FROM RAISING REVENUE ON ANY GIVEN YEAR BEYOND A 3.5% INCREASE OR IT TRIGGERS A VOTER ELECTION.
SO THIS WOULD BE ON TOP OF WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE LAW FOR CITIES TO RAISE ANY FURTHER REVENUE OR INVOLVING BOND ELECTIONS. SB 533 BY SPARKS REQUIRES AN ELECTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS OR TAX INCREASES MUST BE HELD IN THE NOVEMBER UNIFORM DATE. THIS BILL IS PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE BILLS OUT THERE TRYING TO UNIFORM THESE TAX INCREASE ELECTIONS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS OVER TO -- ROLLING THEM OVER TO NOVEMBER AND NOT HAVING THEM AVAILABLE FOR MAY ELECTIONS. AS YOU KNOW THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY HAD BOND ELECTIONS IN MAY SO THIS WOULD REDUCE THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND IT WOULD REQUIRE CHANGES TO THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT FOR US AND FUNDING OF CAPITAL PROJECTS, AS WE HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY DOING THIS IN MAY. SB 1059, CITY COUNCIL CANNOT PUT AN INITIATIVE OR CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT IF THE PROVISION CONTRADICTS STATE LAW. AGAIN, THIS ONE IS VERY LIMITING.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY LOCAL -- ANTI-LOCAL CONTROL BILL AND IT ERODES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO HAVE LOCAL CONTROL. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THIS CONCLUDES MY
PRESENTATION. >> PELAEZ: THANKS. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SHE'LL COME BACK AROUND. COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO.
>> GAVITO: YEAH, IT A FEW QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, SALLY FOR ALL OF THIS WORK. QUICK COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
[00:20:04]
THANK YOU FOR THE DASHBOARD. IS THERE A WAY WE CAN HAVE A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE DASHBOARD FOR -- TO SOME HIGH-PROFILE BILLS, KIND OF LIKE YOU LAID OUT FOR THECOMMITTEE? >> BASURTO: A SHORTER VERSION?
>> GAVITO: IT'S 1,000 BILLS. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE CAN FIND THE HIGHLIGHTS.
>> BASURTO: SO THIS PARTICULAR DASHBOARD OR REPORT ARE FOR PRIMARILY BILLS THAT WE HAVE OPPOSED OR SUPPORTED ON A WEEKLY BASIS. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SHORTENED VIEW OF BILLS THAT EVERY WEEK WE WORK WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHERS TO
OPPOSE A BILL OR SUPPORT A BILL. >> COYLE: I'LL ADD, COUNCILWOMAN, THIS IS THE REPORT THAT OUR TEAM USES SO IT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY FOR THEM, AS BUSY AS THEY ARE TRACKING ALL THESE THINGS, TO BE ABLE TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE WHAT WE'VE SUPPORTED AND OPPOSED. IT WILL GROW OVER TIME, OBVIOUSLY, AS WE TAKE ON MORE BILLS. BUT AS THE WAY THE SESSION WORKS, OUR LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT WILL START GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER AS TIMELINES RUN. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THAT PERIOD WHERE EVERYTHING'S BEEN FILED. NOTHING'S DIED. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE KEY ONES HERE. BUT YOU'LL SEE, AS WE HAVE THESE BRIEFINGS, THAT WE'LL
REALLY BEGIN TO NARROW THE CONCERNS AND FOCUS. >> GAVITO: THAT MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU. REGARDING SLIDE NO. 4, I'M LOOKING FOR WHAT COMES FROM THE TEXAS CYBER COMMAND BILL. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR SAN ANTONIO.
LAST WEEK DURING SPRING BREAK I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SPEAKING AT THE UTSA PANELS LEVELING UP TEXAS TALENT, BUILDING AN UNMATCHED TECH WORKFORCE, AND WE HAD A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION WITH UTSA ABOUT HOW TEXAS IS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE IN TECH IN CYBERSECURITY.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO OBVIOUSLY CAPITALIZE ON THIS. I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING A GOOD JOB. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW I CAN BE FURTHER HELP WITH THAT. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT ANY UPDATES TO HB 2101, WHICH IS REP CAMPOS' BILL REQUESTING A STUDY ON UNREPORTED GUNSHOTS DETECTED USING GUNSHOT DETECTION
TECHNOLOGY. >> BASURTO: I CAN HAVE THE STAFF LOOK THAT UP TO CHECK THE STATUS. WE HAVEN'T TRACKED IT. WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE 1,000 BILLS, THOSE BILLS WE'RE CLOSELY TRACKING IT TO MAKE SURE ONCE THEY GET ASSIGNED FOR A HEARING THEN THAT TRIGGERS OUR WORK ON THEM. WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT SO WE
HAVEN'T TRACKED IT. >> COYLE: IT LOOKS LIKE -- SO ON THE 14TH, I THINK THAT WAS FRIDAY, IT WAS REFERRED TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE. REPRESENTATIVE LOPEZ IS ON THAT COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE. THAT'S IT. IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE. HASN'T BEEN HEARD YET. >> GAVITO: YEAH, THAT'S ONE
THAT WE'LL JUST WANT TO STAY ON TOP OF. >> BASURTO: OF COURSE.
>> GAVITO: THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
THANKS, CHAIR. >> PELAEZ: COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN.
>> VIAGRAN: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: NO THANK YOU. >> KAUR: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. REAL QUICK WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT OUR STANCE IS ON THAT? >> BASURTO: WHAT WAS THE
QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN? >> KAUR: ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THE CHANGE TO -- LET ME TELL YOU WHICH ONE THAT WAS. >> BASUR 15 --
>> KAUR: YEAH, SB 15. >> BASURTO: 1509? >> KAUR: NO, JUST SB 15.
CAPS MINIMUM LOT SIZE. I THINK IT'S ON SLIDE 5. >> BASURTO: ABSOLUTELY, YES.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. YEAH, THIS ONE CAPS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND OR OTHER ZONING RESTRICTIONS FOR SMALL LOTS. SO NOT THAT IT'S GOOD NEWS BUT
IT APPLIES TO UNDEVELOPED. >> KAUR: LET ME UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING ON A POLICY FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS WOULD IMPACT THAT. SO IF WE HAVE A LOT SIZE -- WHAT IS THE -- I GUESS THAT IS MORE UPDATED THAN THIS. SO THAT SAYS 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE -- >> BASURTO: SO CITIES CANNOT REQUIRE LOTS LARGER THAN 1400
[00:25:04]
SQUARE FEET. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH WOULD BE 20 FEET AND DEPTH WOULD BE 60 FEET. WE MUST ALLOW 31 HOMES PER ACRE IN DESIGNATED EASIER AND THE REGULATIONS ON SMALL LOTS ARE CONSIDERED 4,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.>> CO >> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WHAT ARE OUR MINIMUM LOT
SIZES AND -- >> KAUR: HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO DEVELOP
MULTIFAMILY ON -- >> BASURTO: WE CAN GET THE COMPARISON, COUNCILWOMAN, ON
THE SPECIFIC IMPACT AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. >> KAUR: I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT DENSITY AND THE ABILITY TO DO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
AND THEN I THINK ON THE SAME LINE THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE WHERE IT'S THE ZONING NOTICE.
OUR CURRENT ZONING NOTICE IS 200 FEET. THIS IS 1160.
IS IT 200? >> COYLE: AND WE FOLLOW THE STATE LAW FOR THAT.
>> KAUR: THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. >> BASURTO: IT WOULD EXPAND,
YES, THE AREA AROUND UP TO 1500 FEET. >> KAUR: THAT WOULD BE FOR
EVERY SINGLE ZONING CASE? >> BASURTO: YES. >> KAUR: AND HAVE WE TAKEN A
STATEMENT ON THAT? >> BASURTO: SO THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR WAS JUST REFERRED,
SO IT HAS NOT BEEN HEARD YET. >> KAUR: OH, I SEE. AND WHAT WOULD OUR STANCE BE ON
THIS? >> BASURTO: SO WE WOULD OPPOSE THIS ONE.
AND WE'RE WORKING WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
OPPOSE. >> KAUR: OKAY. >> BASURTO: THIS WOULD BE AN IMPACT ACROSS THE STATE TO CITIES, SO WE'RE COORDINATING WITH THEM AS WELL AND TML.
>> KAUR: I UNDERSTAND THE POSITIVE COULD BE YOU'RE INCLUDING MORE VOICES BUT IT MAY NOT BE THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE CURRENT POLICY ALLOWS FOR IS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED BY A ZONING CHANGE.
I WORRY THIS COULD HAVE A LARGER IMPACT ON OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LIKE WE SAW EARLIER -- OR LAST YEAR WITH ONE OF OUR CASES. SO THAT WAS MY THOUGHT BEHIND
THAT. >> BASURTO: YOU'RE RIGHT. BECAUSE IT GOES WAY BEYOND THE
IMMEDIATE AREA IMPACTED. >> KAUR: RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO DO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REZONING, THIS COULD -- SOMEONE OR A GROUP FROM THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD SAY NO TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THAT IS WHY I WOULD CHANGE THAT. AND I DO STILL THINK THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL LEAD, THEY ARE NOT JUST LIMITED TO 200 FEET OF LISTENING TO CONSTITUENTS. SO THEY CAN -- WE AS LEADERS CAN STILL LISTEN TO OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND THEN MAKE THE DECISION THAT WE THINK WILL HELP PUSH OUR COMMUNITY FORWARD. OKAY. THOSE ARE THE TWO COMMENTS THAT
I WANTED TO MAKE. THANKS, CHAIR. >> PELAEZ: GOOD JOB, SALLY.
THAT'S IT. I'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
[Approval of Minutes ]
TELL YOU WHAT I THINK. WE DO NEED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR JANUARY 14TH INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> UNANIMOUS. AND SO WE ARE ADJOURNED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.