[00:00:09]
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I APOLOGIZE, WE HAVE A GROUP OF 20 EIGHTH GRADERS DOWNSTAIRS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THEM WITHOUT THEIR LAST QUESTION. THE TIME IS 2:12 P.M. ON APRIL 30, 2025. WE'LL CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER.
MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU READ THE ROLL? >> CLERK: ROMAYOR, WE HAVE QUORUM. WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO OUR B SESSION, WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, THE UPDATE TO OUR 89TH SESSION.
>> WALSH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. JEFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE TODAY'S UPDATE. SALLY IS UP IN AUSTIN. WE ARE AT THE POINT OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHERE OUR -- WE'RE DEALING MORE DEFENSIVELY ABOUT -- WITH BILLS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, PRIMARILY THE FOCUS TODAY, AS IT'S BEEN IN MY VIEWPOINT FOR THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF, TWO WEEKS, A LOT OF POTENTIAL BILLS THAT WILL IMPACT US FISCALLY.
AND SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY PART OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION.
JEFF WILL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON SOME OF THE LARGER LEGISLATIVE ISSUES AND WHAT THE STATUS IS TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE WANTED TO CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE BILLS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH OVER THE LAST WEEK. I DID SEND YOU ALL AN E-MAIL ON FRIDAY WITH SOME HIGHLIGHTS ABOUT ONE OF THE BILLS IN PARTICULAR, HB 19, AND JEFF WILL UPDATE YOU ON OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE -- WITH THE SPONSORED LEGISLATOR EARLIER THIS WEEK AND ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN SINCE THEN. SO JEFF?
>> COYLE: THANK YOU, ERIK. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO HB 19 THAT ERIK JUST ADDRESSED, AND I'M GOING TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON THIS SLIDE, BUT ESSENTIALLY, IT IS A BILL THAT PLACES SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO ISSUE DEBT TO MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN THEIR SCHOOLS, COMMUNITIES, HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, ET CETERA.
SO IT'S CITIES, COUNTIES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS, HOSPITAL DISTRICTS, IT APPLIES TO ALL OF US.
IT DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS. THE FIRST AND GREATEST CONCERN OF ALL OF IT IS IT CAPS -- IT PLACES A VERY SEVERE CAP ON HOW MUCH DEBT WE CAN ISSUE. IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS, YOU KNOW, THE EQUIVALENT OF OUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT, EQUAL TO 20% OF YOUR PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS IN A YEAR.
ACTUALLY, IT'S AN AVERAGE OVER THREE YEARS. WE'RE ALREADY ABOVE THAT CAP, AS MANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ARE. SO BY THE FILED VERSION OF THE BILL, IF THIS WENT INTO EFFECT, WE ESTIMATE THAT WE WOULD NOT FALL BELOW THAT CAP, MEANING RETIRE DEBT ENOUGH TO FALL BELOW THAT CAP UNTIL 2036. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO NEW BOND PROGRAMS, NO OTHER CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. THERE IS A REVISED VERSION OF THE BILL FLOATING AROUND THAT KEEPS THAT CAP, ONLY APPLIES IT TO NEW DEBT. SO IT ESSENTIALLY PUSHES THE PROBLEM A LITTLE BIT DOWN THE ROAD FOR US, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST DELAYING THE INEVITABLE.
WE WOULD RUN INTO THAT SAME CAP IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, AND BE HANDCUFFED IN OUR ABILITY TO MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH. THAT'S THE BIGGEST PIECE OF IT.
WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR -- THE CHAIRMAN, THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE, NOTE THAT IT'S A LOW BILL NUMBER, HB 19, WHICH TYPICALLY MEANS A PRIORITY OF THAT CHAMBER, AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY THREE MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE, TREY MARTINEZ FISHER, BARBARA GERVIN-HAWKINS AND DIEGO BERNAL. THEY FACILITATED A MEETING WITH US AFTER TROY ELLIOTT, OUR DEPUTY CFO TESTIFIED AGAINST THE BILL LAST WEEK.
WE WENT AND MET WITH THE CHAIRMAN THIS WEEK, AND EXPLAINED THAT SAN ANTONIO IS ONE OF THE BEST FINANCIALLY RUN CITIES IN THE COUNTRY, THE ONLY AAA BOND RATING OF ANY MAJOR CITY, OUR VOTERS APPROVE OUR BOND PROGRAMS AT ROUGHLY 70%. OUR DEBT TAX RATE HASN'T GONE UP SINCE 2004.
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM HERE THAT THIS BILL WOULD FIX.
IT WOULD, IN FACT, CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
WE PROPOSED TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT THEY CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO HAVE THE CAP ONLY APPLY TO DEBT THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED BY VOTERS, BECAUSE IF THE
[00:05:04]
VOTERS OKAY A BOND PROGRAM, THEN WHY SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE BE STEPPING IN AND SAYING, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. SO FAR THAT CHANGE HAS NOT BEEN MADE, BUT WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLE ONE.AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO MAKE THE CASE. I'LL JUST ADD, BEFORE I MOVE ON FROM THAT POINT, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES CONCERNED.
OBVIOUSLY ALL THE TAXING ENTITIES ACROSS THE STATE THAT I MENTIONED ARE AS WELL.
ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS WHO RELY ON PUBLIC WORK, CHAMBERS WHO WANT TO SEE US INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY, MAJOR EMPLOYERS AND SO FORTH.
WE HAVE A LOT OF ALLIES, BUT -- BUT WE'RE STILL FACING A VERY BAD BILL THAT RIGHT NOW HAS NOT BEEN FIXED. SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, IF THE STATE CHANGES THE RULES, WE'LL ABIDE BY THEM. THEY WANT TO MAKE BOND ELECTIONS HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER, NOT MAY. THEY WANT TO SAY THAT IF A BOND ELECTION FAILS, THEN YOU CAN'T ISSUE DEBT FOR THAT SAME PURPOSE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.
THERE'S A CURRENT PETITION THRESHOLD IN STATE LAW THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PROTEST AN ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEY NEED FIVE% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS, THEY WANT TO LOWER THAT TO 2.
SO ALL OF THAT IS TO TIGHTEN UP LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ISSUANCE OF DEBT. THE OTHER MAJOR POINT, THOUGH, I'LL POINT OUT, IS THE THIRD BULLET. IN BETWEEN OUR FIVE-YEAR PROGRAMS, AS BEN AND TROY TALK ABOUT OFTEN, WE USE OTHER DEBT INSTRUMENTS TO MAKE MORE SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS, SUCH AS SOFTWARE FOR CYBERSECURITY OR STREET MAINTENANCE, PRIMARILY, RIGHT? A FACILITY IMPROVEMENT AT ONE OF OUR CITY FACILITIES. THEY -- THIS BILL SIGNIFICANTLY CURBS WHAT WE CAN USE COS AND TAX NOTES ON.
YOU SEE THE LIST RIGHT THERE. PARKING, AIRPORTS, JUDICIAL FACILITIES, ANNAL SHELTERS, LIBRARY, PARKS, ALL THAT, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THOSE DEBT INSTRUMENTS FOR. THAT'S THE SECOND MAJOR PIECE OF THE BILL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE ON TO SOME OTHER ONES. BOTH OF THESE BILLS HAVE TO DO WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FEES THAT WE CHARGE TO COMPANIES TO USE OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU KNOW, THE LINES THAT ARE RUNNING UNDER OUR STREETS TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS.
THE FIRST BILL ON THE LIST RIGHT THERE WOULD MAKE A VERY SIMPLE CHANGE THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY DEVASTATING CHANGE TO US.
RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE DO A ROAD PROJECT, LET'S TAKE BROADWAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECONSTRUCT A ROADWAY, IT IS UP TO THE TELECOM THAT IS USING OUR RIGHT OF WAY TO RELOCATE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE ON THEIR DIME, NOT OURS, TO FIT INTO THE NEW PROJECT. THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE IT SO THAT IF WE DID A ROAD PROJECT THAT REQUIRED THE RELOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE ON THE CITY'S DIME, NOT THEIRS.
AND FOR -- BY ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LOWER BROADWAY PROJECT, THE COST TO AT&T ALONE WAS $4 MILLION TO RELOCATE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE, ONE PROJECT, ONE AREA, OF WHAT THE COSTS WOULD BE IF THAT BILL WAS PASSED.
IT WAS HEARD IN COMMITTEE, HAS NOT BEEN VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE, SO THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. THE SECOND BILL HAS A NOT HARMFUL INTENT, BUT POTENTIALLY UNINTENDED, COULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT FOR US.
CABLE COMPANIES THAT USE OUR RIGHT OF WAY TO RUN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE PAY US, AS I SAID, BOTH A FRANCHISE FEE AND A FEE THAT SUPPORT -- A PEG FEE THAT SUPPORTS OUR TVSA PROGRAM. THIS BILL CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF CABLE SERVICE TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO A VIDEO SERVICE, INCLUDING STREAMING CONTENT. ON ITS SURFACE, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. A DIRECTV OR A HULU OR YOUTUBE TV THAT OFFERS YOU SERVICES AT HOME THAT DOESN'T USE OUR RIGHT OF WAY DOESN'T PAY A RIGHT OF WAY FEE. THE PROBLEM IS MANY CABLE COMPANIES HAVE MOVED IN THE DIRECTION WHERE THEIR SERVICES ARE BLENDED. THEY DO USE OUR RIGHT OF WAY, THEY DO PROVIDE TRADITIONAL CABLE, BUT THEN THEY ALSO OFFER THOSE, WHAT ARE CALLED "OVER THE TOP" SERVICES. WE AND MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE CONCERNED THAT THAT DEFINITION WOULD ALLOW CABLE COMPANIES TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE OFFERING VIDEO SERVICES AND STREAMING SERVICES, THAT THEY NO LONGER NEED TO PAY OUR FRANCHISE FEE. IF THAT WERE THE CASE, IF ALL THE CABLE COMPANIES THAT CURRENTLY PAY US A FRANCHISE FEE WERE NO LONGER DOING SO, IT WOULD COST 7.4 MILLION PER YEAR IN FRANCHISE FEES THAT GO TO OUR GENERAL FUND, AND $1.7 MILLION IN PEG FEES THAT GO TO OUR TVSA PROGRAM, SO A LITTLE OVER
[00:10:04]
$9 MILLION A YEAR. AS I MENTIONED, THAT FIRST BILL HASN'T LEFT COMMITTEE. THAT SECOND BILL HAS. IT ALREADY PASSED THE ENTIRE SENATE, IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A HOUSE HEARING THIS FRIDAY ON MAY 2ND. ON THE PROPERTY TAX FRONT, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST, THE MAJOR PUSH FROM BOTH CHAMBERS, AND I BELIEVE THEY'VE ALREADY PASSED IT ALL, IT HAS TO DO WITH HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS ON YOUR SCHOOL TAXES THAT DOESN'T AFFECT US. SECONDARILY TO THAT, BOTH CHAMBERS HAVE FILED LOW BILL NUMBERS THAT WOULD INCREASE THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR PRODUCING INCOME.ESSENTIALLY, IT'S CALLED THE INVENTORY TAX. RIGHT NOW, THE EXEMPTION IN STATE LAW IS JUST $2,500, A BUSINESS CAN EXEMPT THE FIRST $2,500 WORTH OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE. THIS WOULD -- ONE OF THOSE TWO BILLS WOULD INCREASE THAT $2,500 TO $250,000, THE OTHER WOULD BE TAKE ONE ZERO OFF THERE, $25,000. SO IT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE EXEMPTION FOR BUSINESSES AND THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY.
RIGHT NOW, ABOUT 8% OF OUR TOTAL VALUATION ACROSS BEXAR COUNTY IS MADE UP OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX VALUE, AND IF THAT -- THE LARGER OF THOSE TWO BILLS WENT INTO EFFECT, IT WOULD HAVE A $13.6 MILLION IMPACT TO US PER YEAR IN TERMS OF OUR PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS.
THE SMALLER VERSION WOULD BE A $3.4 MILLION IMPACT.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, BOTH BILLS HAVE PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE CHAMBERS, SO THEY'LL HAVE TO BE RECONCILED THROUGH A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AT SOME POINT DURING THE SESSION. I WENT UP AND TESTIFIED LAST TUESDAY ON A PAIR OF BILLS THAT ESSENTIALLY DOUBLED DOWN ON WHAT YOU ALL KNOW AS THE DEATH STAR BILL, HOUSE BILL 2127 FROM LAST SESSION.
THEY'RE SWEEPING SUPER PREEMPTION BILLS 2127 FROM LAST SESSION HAS BEEN DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE COURTS AND IS BEING -- IS STILL CAUGHT UP IN LITIGATION. THESE TWO BILLS ADD TO THAT, ADD NEW STATE CODES TO THE AREAS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REGULATE ACTIVITIES, SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE ELECTIONS CODE, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, THE PENAL CODE. THE SECOND ONE IS A WHOLE SERIES OF CHAPTERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANNEXATION, OUR ETJ, MANY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
I WON'T -- JUST LIKE LAST TIME, BEGIN TO SPECULATE ON WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN TO US. IN FACT, IT'S THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE BILLS THAT CREATE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. BUT WHAT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME IS THAT IT'S NOT THE COURTS WHO WOULD DECIDE, IT'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINE THAT WE HAD VIOLATED ONE OF THOSE CODES BY DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS REFERENCED IN A STATE CODE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE -- THE AG AND THE STATE WOULD BE ABLE TO WITHHOLD OUR SALES TAX -- SALES TAXES FROM US, FREEZE OUR PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS AND CUT OFF ALL STATE GRANT FUNDING UNTIL THE ISSUE WAS RESOLVED. SO VERY, VERY PUNITIVE FROM A FISCAL STANDPOINT WITH ■THE ACTIONS ESSENTIALLY BEING INITIATED BY THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. TWO MORE WITH A FISCAL IMPACT.
ONE HAS TO DO WITH DISANNEXATION. WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE LONG STANDING PREMISE IN STATE LAW THAT IF A CITY AN EXES AN AREA, THEY MUST PROVIDE FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND IF THEY DON'T, THAT AREA CAN PETITION TO BE DISANNEXED. THE CHALLENGE IN THIS BILL IS THAT IT CREATES SOME NEW -- PRIMARILY IT'S SETTLED AROUND WATER AND WASTEWATER. ESSENTIALLY, IF WE ARE NOT PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER IN ONE PART OF TOWN THAT WE ARE IN ANOTHER PART OF TOWN, THE PART OF TOWN THAT DOESN'T GET THOSE SERVICES WOULD BE ABLE TO UNILATERALLY DISANNEX FROM THE CITY. THERE ARE PARTS OF OUR CITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING SEPTIC TANKS AND ARE NOT ON THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM, SO OUR CONCERN -- AND THIS BILL REALLY ISN'T ABOUT SAN ANTONIO. IT'S ABOUT A FIGHT IN NORTHWEST OF AUSTIN SOMEWHERE, BUT OUR CONCERN IS THAT AREAS THAT DON'T RECEIVE WASTEWATER SERVICES THROUGH OUR MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY, WOULD BE ABLE TO DISANNEX THEMSELVES FROM THE CITY AND REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THE TAX BASE. THAT'S THE END OF THE FISCAL ONES, JUST A COUPLE OTHER BILLS TO NOTE.
JUST THIS WEEK THE DANGEROUS DOG BILL WAS HEARD IN COMMITTEE.
HEARING WENT WELL. AS A REMINDER, IT DOES -- IT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. IT -- IF A DANGEROUS DOG BITES AGAIN, IT MAKES --
[00:15:02]
MOVES IT FROM A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR TO A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, MEANING POTENTIAL JAIL TIME. AND SECONDLY, BRACKETED SPECIFICALLY TO SAN ANTONIO, IF ANIMAL CARE OFFICERS INVESTIGATE AN INCIDENT FROM A DANGEROUS DOG AND DO NOT HAVE A WITNESS AFFIDAVIT, THEY CAN RELY ON OTHER INVESTIGATORY RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE.SO WE THINK GOOD NEWS, THE BILL WAS HEARD. IT SEEMED TO BE WELL RECEIVED. IT IS LEFT PENDING IN COMMITTEE, THAT'S A NORMAL PROCEDURE, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING FOR IT TO BE MOVED RELATIVELY QUICKLY. AND SINCE I'VE GIVEN YOU A LOT OF BAD NEWS, I'M GOING TO END ON A FEW GOOD-NEWS BILLS. THE BILL THAT ALLOWS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OFFICERS TO ESSENTIALLY ACT AS PEACE OFFICERS ONLY ON FEDERAL PARK PROPERTY, LIKE AROUND OUR MISSIONS, HAS PASSED THE FULL HOUSE. THE BILL THAT MORE THAN DOUBLES THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR FILM IN THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE AND HAS NOW PASSED THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, SO IT IS MOVING.
IT'S, I THINK, $500 MILLION INVESTMENT IN OUR FILM INDUSTRY, WHICH WE SUPPORTED. AND THEN THE LAST ONE, I THINK ONE OF YOU ASKED ABOUT IT LAST WEEK, MAYBE COUNCILWOMAN ROCHA GARCIA, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT THE GREAT SPRINGS PROJECT, WHICH NOW THE LEGISLATION IS CALLING THE TEXAS BICENTENNIAL TRAIL, FORGIVE ME, SORRY, COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, THIS BILL THAT DIRECTS THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE TO ESSENTIALLY COORDINATE AMONGST ALL THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES UP AND DOWN THE CORRIDOR AND MAKE THE TRAIL HAPPEN BY THE BICENTENNIAL IN 2036 HAS PASSED ITS HOUSE COMMITTEE AND GOTTEN A HEARING IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE, SO THAT WOULD CREATE A CONTIGUOUS TRAIL ALL THE WAY FROM THE ALAMO TO THE STATE CAPITOL, SO WE'RE WATCHING THAT, AND VERY HAPPY TO SEE IT MOVING.
I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING, AS ERIK MENTIONED, WE'RE IN THE HOME STRETCH, THE SESSION ENDS JUNE 2ND, SO WE'RE FOUR AND A HALF WEEKS FROM THE END. SOME OF THESE BILLS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT MAY JUST DIE BY VIRTUE OF THE CALENDAR. WE HOPE.
BUT THE PRIORITY ONES HAVE A WAY OF BEING FORCED THROUGH AT THE LAST MINUTE, SO THIS IS OUR SHORT LIST OF REALLY CONCERNS FOR THE CITY AND OUR FISCAL PICTURE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEFF, AND THANK YOU TO YOU AND SALLY AND THE IGR NOT A WHOLE LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
I HOPE PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE FACING WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THIS LEGISLATION, WHICH IS REALLY ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACHES TO GOVERNANCE BETWEEN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MORE RURAL IN NATURE AND CITIES LIKE OURS WHICH ARE A HANDFUL IN TEXAS, THAT ARE LARGE, URBAN AREAS WITH THEIR OWN UNIQUE ISSUES. AND THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE, IN MY PERSPECTIVE, ARE GOING TO BE OF GREAT CONCERN TO LOCAL RESIDENTS, IF THEY DO COME TO PASS. IN THIS WAY: WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THROUGH BROAD PREEMPTION STRATEGIES AND A DESIRE TO CONTROL THE FINANCING ABILITY OF A CITY LIKE OURS IS UNDERMINING THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO DECIDE HOW THEY MANAGE THEMSELVES, TO DO THE THINGS LIKE BUILD STREETS AND PAVE STREETS AND ADD TO OUR PATROL UNITS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AS IT RELATES TO THE WILL OF THE PUBLIC, WHICH WE HAVE DONE, I THINK, A VERY GOOD JOB IN LISTENING TO OVER THE YEARS.
WHETHER IT'S THE BROAD PREEMPTION STRATEGIES OF WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE DEATH STAR BILL OR THE THINGS LIKE WHAT YOU LED WITH, JEFF, IN TERMS OF RESTRICTING CITY'S ABILITY TO FINANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS, THESE ARE SIMPLY UNDERMINING THE VOICE OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE LOCAL VOTER. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT PERHAPS WE FOUND SOME WAYS THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION TO THE BILL AUTHORS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO OUR COMMUNITIES, BUT I HOPE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE THAT THEIR VOICE IS BEING MUTED WITH THESE KINDS OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
THE SAME PUBLIC THAT WE SERVE THAT IS GOING TO BE ASKING US TO FULFILL REALLY IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF THEIRS DURING OUR BUDGET SURVEY, THE SAME PUBLIC THAT IS GOING TO NEED THEIR STREETS REPAIRED FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, OR MAYBE A NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTED THROUGH A BOND PROGRAM, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE ON THE LINE WITH LEGISLATION THAT'S FILED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE CONNECTION, IF ANY, TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND OTHER MAJOR METROS LIKE US.
SO APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY. YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW,
[00:20:03]
JEFF, THE BEST POSITION THAT WE CAN BE IN TO HELP DEFEND OUR PRIORITIES AND THE AUTHORITY THAT OUR LOCAL CITIZENS HAVE, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE WORK. WE'LL GET ON TO THE DISCUSSION.COUNCILMEMBER ROCHA GARCIA. >> GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU TO JEFF AND THE TEAM.
I APPRECIATE THE HEADS UP THAT YOU ALL GAVE US WITH THE INFORMATION IN WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING TO KIND OF SOFTEN THE BLOW. AND I'LL START OFF WITH THE OBVIOUS ONE, SB 19, AND I'M JUST REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE CITY'S ECONOMY WILL BE IMPACTED, ESPECIALLY DURING A POTENTIALDOWN TURN, RIGHT? AND SO I FEEL LIKE OUR BONDS ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESSES AND WORK ESSENTIALLY TO COME OUR WAY IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION AND JUST -- JUST A LOT OF THINGS. AND SO IT'S REALLY, TO ME, CONCERNING. AND SO I'LL START OFF JUST BY ASKING A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE THAT IF WE COMBINE THIS WITH WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH TAX EXEMPT BONDS AS WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON REALLY HARD WITH NLC FOR THE LAST YEAR, SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KNOW THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ESSENTIALLY, KNOWS HOW TO CONTROL THEIR FINANCES BEST.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON MAKING SURE THAT WE PRESERVE THAT -- PRESERVE AND RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO MAKE OUR OWN FINANCIAL DECISIONS, BUT -- SO IT REALLY FREAKED ME OUT WHEN YOU ALL SENT THIS OUT.
AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE'S JUST SO MUCH GOING ON.
I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.
AND SO I KNOW THAT'S HOW BEN AND TROY USE A LOT OF THAT FINANCING, THEY'RE ABLE TO GET CREATIVE. IN PARTICULAR, IF THIS IS PASSED, HOW MUCH OF THIS -- WOULD WE HAVE TO -- WOULD WE BE PROJECTING TO RAISE OUR SALES TAX ESSENTIALLY OR WHAT OTHER REVENUES TO GENERATE THE DIFFERENCE TO PAY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE CITY WOULD WE HAVE TO CONSIDER?
LIKE WHAT DO WE DO? >> WALSH: WELL, WE'RE AT THE STATE MAXIMUM FOR
SALES TAX, SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL -- >> GARCIA: THAT'S TRUE.
>> WALSH: AND THIN THEN ON THE OPERATING SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TAX, WE'RE LIMITED IN TERMS OF -- OF HOW HIGH THAT CAN GO, TO 3.5% PER YEAR. ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A PROPOSITION IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS TO APPROVE. SO THERE'S VERY LIMITED ABILITY TO -- TO RAISE REVENUE IN ORDER TO MAKE UP FOR THIS.
I THINK THAT MAY BE THE POINT OF THE EFFORT. YOU KNOW, THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION -- AND EVERY ENTITY'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT FOR US, THOSE ARE THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON FIRE STATIONS AND LIBRARIES AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE -- ON THAT SLIDE, THE LANGUAGE ON THAT SLIDE IS FROM THE BILL.
WE DON'T BILL -- WE DON'T HAVE WORSE DOCS, WE DON'T BUILD JUDICIAL FACILITIES, ANIMAL SHELTERS AND NEW LIBRARIES ARE GENERALLY BOND FOR US, BUT WHAT WE DO USE THEM FOR ARE FOR STREET MAINTENANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION, CYBERSECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES.
AND IF -- IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS OPTION, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE REALLOCATIONS AND REDUCTIONS ON THE OPERATING SIDE OF THE
HOUSE. >> GARCIA: WOULD WE ALSO -- I KNOW WE HAVE SOME OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE ON THE TABLE WITH JCB AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU ALL MENTIONED, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE THINGS, COULD WE GET THINGS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE ON THE LINE FOR?
>> WALSH: YES, MA'AM. ABSOLUTELY. >> GARCIA: I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT AMOUNT. AND THEN ALSO WOULD OUR CREDIT RATING BE DOWNGRADED AT SOME POINT, OR WHEN WOULD THAT AFFECT US, BEN, IF THIS PASSES?
OR HOW FAST, I GUESS. >> GORZELL: I THINK, COUNCILWOMAN, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT VERSION OF THE BILL PASSES, IF SOMETHING PASSES.
>> GARCIA: OKAY. >> GORZELL: YOU KNOW, ANY TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARBITRARY LIMITS THAT GET PLACED ON US, THAT BECOMES REALLY A NEGATIVE CREDIT FACTOR, THAT'S SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN THE NEGATIVE COLUMN. JEFF MENTIONED THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE BILL, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ISSUE ANY PROPERTY TAX SUPPORTED DEBT FOR PROBABLY A DECADE. IF OTHER VERSIONS OF THE BILL, THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WE'VE SEEN EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT I KNOW THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S GOING TO LAND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY DEFER THAT OUT INTO THE FUTURE A LITTLE BIT, IT WOULD BUY US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THIS 20% CAP STAYS IN PLACE, THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, OUR TAX RATE IS BROKEN UP BETWEEN M & O AND THE DEBT SERVICE RATE. ABOUT 40% OF OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE GOES TOWARDS SUPPORTING DEBT, AND WE -- WE MANAGE OUR CAPACITY INSIDE OF THAT RATE. WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THAT RATE SINCE 2004.
WELL, THIS IS 20%. SO THAT 40%'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET DOWN TO 20%, WHETHER IT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR OR WHETHER IT HAPPENS OVER TIME, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE IMPACT. SO IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING FROM BOND PROGRAMS TO WHAT WE DO IN THE BUDGET, TECHNOLOGY,
[00:25:03]
CYBER, STREET MAINTENANCE, THAT POT OF MONEY, THAT CAPACITY ISESSENTIALLY GETTING CUT IN HALF. >> GARCIA: IS THERE ANY OTHER DEBT INSTRUMENTS THAT YOU COULD BE LOOKING AT TO KIND OF HELP US?
>> GORZELL: TO MITIGATE THIS? >> GARCIA: YEAH.
>> GORZELL: NO, MA'AM, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING. AS ERIK MENTIONED, WE'RE PRETTY RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN DO UNDER STATE LAW.
THERE ARE PARAMETERS THAT ALLOW US TO ISSUE CERTAIN TYPES OF DEBT FOR CERTAIN THINGS. WE WOULDN'T HAVE REALLY OTHER OPTIONS TO MAKE UP
THIS KIND OF A DIFFERENCE. >> GARCIA: OKAY.
I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY, HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ALSO LIKE INTEREST RATES OR, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL, LIKE WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO US. OUR -- YOU KNOW, I'M JUST VERY WORRIED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN IT. >> GORZELL: CREDIT RATING WOULD BE A NEGATIVE FACTOR. THAT WOULD BE ONE ISSUE.
YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY SEE A RATING IMPACT IN THE FUTURE WHICH WOULD DRIVE UP OUR INTEREST RATES. IF THAT CAP DOESN'T CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO REALLY BE LIMITED TO WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET GOING FORWARD.
>> GARCIA: I THINK THE OTHER THING THEY'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IS, FOR INSTANCE, BONDS REALLY HELP CITIES PUT THESE PROJECTS IN PLACE, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT WAS CREATED, I THINK THAT BANKS GET CREDIT FOR EVEN BONDS THAT THEY ALLOW US TO -- OR THAT THEY ISSUE BONDS FOR US, CORRECT? AND SO I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD MAYBE WORK WITH SOME LOCAL INSTITUTIONS TO SEE WHAT WOULD AFFECT THEM SPECIFICALLY, LIKE IN TERMS OF DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR CRA, BECAUSE WE HAVE CRA OFFICERS FOR EVERY BANK IN TOWN.
HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THEM, BECAUSE THAT'S MONEY THAT -- WHILE THEY'RE ALLOWING US TO BORROW THAT MONEY AND THEN WE'RE PAYING IT BACK, THEY'RE ALSO REINVESTING THAT INTO A PORTION OF THEIR PROFITS INTO THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY SERVE. SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE ON THAT AS WELL, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY GET HELP FROM THE CHAMBERS AND SOME OF THE LARGER BANKS TO HELP US ADVOCATE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE SPEAKING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, RIGHT? SO BEYOND WHAT IT DOES TO -- I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO CONTROL THE CITY A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK IT'S OVERREACH. I THINK THAT THE MARKET REGULATES ITSELF IF YOU ASK BANKERS, AND SO I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED THEIR HELP RIGHT NOW TO HELP ADVOCATE AGAINST THIS.
>> WALSH: THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT, AND WE HAD LAST THURSDAY AN ALL CALL WEBEX WITH ALL THE CHAMBERS AND A NUMBER OF THE LARGER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO SHARE THIS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED. AND THE BANKING INDUSTRY IS CERTAINLY CRITICAL. COUNCILMAN PELAEZ MENTIONED THAT TO ME AS WELL RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, AND THEY DEFINITELY ARE IMPACTED
BY THIS. >> GARCIA: UH-HUH. >> WALSH: AGAIN.
THIS IS -- THIS IS JUST NOT A BILL AGAINST MUNICIPALITIES, IT'S THE HOSPITAL DISTRICTS, THE ALAMO COLLEGES, THE COUNTY, IT'S EVERY PUBLIC ENTITY THAT ISSUES DEBT. SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND VALID PROVISIONS IN FRONT
OF VOTERS, IT AFFECTS EVERYBODY. >> GARCIA: YEAH.
SO I THINK THAT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN KIND OF LIKE GET EVERYBODY BEHIND ON ON ADVOCATING AGAINST IT, IT MIGHT BE THIS ONE, RIGHT? AND SO IT MIGHT HAVE TO BE DONE A LITTLE BIT SOONER THAN LATER. I SAW THAT THE TML -- DID Y'ALL PROVIDE THE LETTER THAT TML SUBMITTED? SO TML SUBMITTED A LETTER, AND SPECIFICALLY THEY WERE CITING THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT TEXAS CITIES ARE DELIBERATELY STACKING BOND ELECTIONS IN MAY. AND SO I APPRECIATED THAT LETTER FROM T ML. AND HOW ARE WE WORKING WITH TML ON THIS ONE.
>> COYLE: THIS IS PROBABLY EVERYBODY'S TOP CONCERN OUT THERE.
SO ALL THE OTHER CITIES ARE -- GOVERNING BODIES KNOW, THEY'RE TALKING TO THEIR BUSINESS COMMUNITY PARTNERS, THEY'RE RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE BILL.
THE POINTS YOU'RE MAKING ARE SPOT ON. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL KNOWS THAT TAXING ENTITIES DON'T LIKE THIS. AND HE TOLD US THAT. I THINK WHAT WILL CHANGE IT IS OUR COMMUNITY AND ALL OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS SPEAKING UP AND SAYING WE SUPPORT VERY MUCH CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
>> GARCIA: IT'S PROBABLY ALL OF HIS DONORS THAT WOULD BE AGAINST THIS, RIGHT? AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST, AGAIN, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. THESE PEEP REALLY NOT JUST ONLY HELPING OUR COMMUNITIES, BUT... ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN ROCHA GARCIA.
COCOUNCILMAN PELAEZ? >> PELAEZ: AFTER WE GOT TO SPEAK, JEFF AND ERIK, I STARTED CALLING SOME OF THE LARGEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES IN TEXAS WITH WHOM WE DO BUSINESS, WE HAVE DONE BUSINESS, THAT I'VE DONE WORK IN THE PAST, AND THEY ALL EXPRESSED ALARM AT WHAT THIS MEANS, RIGHT, FOR THEIR SECTOR. AND SO FIRST, I WAS COMMENTING TO ERIK
[00:30:03]
THAT -- THAT IT'S ALMOST AS IF THE AUTHOR AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING THIS ON DON'T LIVE IN CITIES, AND THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS THAT THEIR ROADS WERE BUILT OR HOW IT IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO FLY IN AND OUT OF AIRPORTS OR HOW THEIR KIDS ARE SAFER BECAUSE HOSPITAL DISTRICTS ARE STRONG. AND SO IT'S -- I DON'T GET IT.BUT FOR -- IN CASE ANYBODY OUT THERE'S WONDERING, RIGHT, THE BONDS THAT WE'VE USED -- SO I'M JUST GOING BACK TO THE LAST BOND PACKAGE, WE USED BONDS AND WE USED CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION TO IMPROVE A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND DRAINAGE AROUND MILITARY CITY USA'S BIGGEST ASSETS, RIGHT, OUR BASES. AND WE DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY OF INOCULATING OUR CELLS FROM A FUTURE BRACK ROUND, AND JBSA HAS COMMUNICATED THAT EXPLICITLY TO US, RIGHT? NUMBER TWO, WE'VE, OVER THE YEARS, INVESTED IN THE MEDICAL CENTER TO INCREASE CAPACITY ON THOSE ROADS SO WE CAN GET AMBULANCES IN AND OUT FASTER. WE -- YOU KNOW, COUNCILWOMAN ROCHA GARCIA REMEMBERS THAT BEFORE THE DRAINAGE PROGRAMS AT THE PORT, THE PORTS WERE UNDER WATER WHEN IT RAINED HIDE. THIS IS OUR CYBERSECURITY ASSETS LITERALLY UNDER WATER. AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE OF C OR OS AND BONDS. THE ALAMO PROJECT, BRINGING MORE TOURIST AND ENHANCING THE ALAMO EXPERIENCE AND PROTECTING THAT ASSET IS PAID FOR BY BONDS AND CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATIONS. TOYOTA'S ORIGINAL PROJECT, RIGHT, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE CITY'S LEVERAGING OF DEBT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. AND THAT ECONOMIC HAS EXPANDED. IF THEY EVER WANTED TO EXPAND AGAIN, WE WOULD NEED THOSE TOOLS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THAT. WE USE OUR BONDS AND CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS SO THAT WE CAN CONTRIBUTE IN THIS THING THAT IN AUSTIN THEY CALL THE TEXAS MIRACLE. THERE WOULD BE NO TEXAS MIRACLE IF LARGE, URBAN CITIES WEREN'T ABLE TO PULL FROM EVERY LEVER TO FINANCE PROJECTS. WE -- TEXAS A&M, ON -- IN D3 AND D4, THAT EXISTS, I WORKED ON THAT PROJECT MANY YEARS AGO, THAT EXISTS IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF CITY C OF OS AND FINANCING AND BONDS, POLICE STATIONS, FIRE STATIONS AND EXPANSION OF SHELTERS FOR VERY VULNERABLE PEOPLE WERE PAID FOR WITH CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AND BONDS.
AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL REMEMBER, THAT HEADACHE OF REHABBING THE BEND OVER AT THE RIVERWALK, YOU KNOW, THE CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RIVERWALK, RIGHT? THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS THAT IS REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED WITH OUR ABILITY TO PULL FROM EVERY LEVER AS IT RELATES TO FINANCING.
AND SO AS I WAS THINKING THROUGH THIS, BEFORE THIS MEETING, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN REFUTE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HURT NEIGHBORHOODS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN REFUTE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HURT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS. YOU CAN'T REFUTE THAT IT'S GOING TO HURT OUR UNIVERSITIES TO EXPAND AND ATTRACT MORE STUDENTS AND MORE INVESTMENT TO TEXAS. IT'S GOING TO HURT MILITARY BASES AND OUR ABILITY TO NOT HAVE TO EXPERIENCE ANOTHER LACKLAND OR ANOTHER BROOKS CLOSURE. IT'S GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE DOWNTOWN TIRZ OF INDUSTRY, HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, BARS, WHO RELY ON INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO COME AND SPEND MONEY IN TEXAS. IT'S GOING TO HURT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER AND DESIGN INDUSTRY, ZACHARY, ZUNDT, HNTB, WHITING, TURNING, SPAW GLASS, ALL THOSE COMPANIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO A CONVERSATION WITH OUR EMPLOYEES ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DO, RIGHT? AND THOSE ARE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT GOOD JOBS. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF JOBS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE. LABOR YOU UNIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE, TOO. PIPEFITTERS AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND WELDERS ARE GOING TO BE HURT BY THIS BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF WORK, AND
[00:35:04]
LASTLY, YOU KNOW, THE FROST BANK PEOPLE, IBC, BROADWAY BANK, ALL THE OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG KICK IN THE GUT TO THEM. AND THEN, I'M NOT EXAGGERATING WHEN -- I'M HOPING, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE UNION AND THE POLICE UNION ARE WATCHING HERE, THIS IS GOING TO EAT INTO GENERAL FUNDS, AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PAY FOR ALL THIS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SO THE NEXT TIME THEY COME TO NEGOTIATE A NEW CONTRACT, AND IF THIS BILL, HB 19, IS SIGNED INTO LAW, THAT IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT PILL FOR THESE UNIONS TO SWALLOW. AND IF THEY DON'T SPEAK UP NOW, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT JUST A TAXING ENTITY THAT DOESN'T LIKE HAVING ITS ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY THREATENED, LIKE LITERALLY THE PEOPLE I LISTED OFF, OUGHT TO BE REALLY SOBER ABOUT APPROACHING THIS BILL AND REALIZE THAT THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF PAIN.NOW, ERIK, JUST ADDED A LITTLE LEVITY WHEN WE SPOKE AND HE DID MENTION, AROUND I AGREE WITH HIM, THAT THE ONLY SILVER LINING ON THIS ONE,ER AREIC, IF THIS PASSES, WE WON'T HAVE TO PAY OUT ON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION GRANTS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY CONSTRUCTION, BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER SILVER LINING.
SO I'M -- THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, MAYOR. THANKS.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER PELAEZ.
COUNCILMEMBER ALDARETE GAVITO? >> GAVITO: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANKS, JEFF, FOR THIS PRESENTATION.
AND, AGAIN, THANKS TO THE WHOLE TEAM. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A BUSY SESSION. REALLY MY ONLY COMMENTS ON HB 19 ARE OBVIOUSLY IT'S CONCERNING FOR OUR ABILITY TO INVEST IN OURSELVES AS A CITY AND ALSO TO HAVE PROJECTS DONE QUICKER, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE -- AUDIO] -- FIGHT ON THAT. REALLY QUICK ON THE DANGEROUS DOG BILL, DO WE ANTICIPATE SUPPORT IN THE COMMITTEE? OR HOW DID THAT GO?
AND, SORRY, I COULDN'T JOIN ON THAT DAY. >> COYLE: I THINK SO.
IT'S VERY HARD TO FORECAST WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CONVERSATIONS THE MEMBERS ARE HAVING AMONGST EACH OTHER. THE HEARING WENT WELL. AS YOU ALL KNOW WELL, A SIMILAR BILL WAS VETOED LAST SESSION BY THE GOVERNOR.
>> GAVITO: SURE. >> COYLE: WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO MEET WITH NUMEROUS STAKEHOLDERS, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, OTHER MEMBERS, TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THIS BILL THREADS THE NEEDLE AND GETS WHAT WE NEED TO GET DONE WITHOUT CREATING OPPOSITION. I THINK WE'VE LANDED IN THAT PLACE. IN FACT, SOME LANGUAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE
BILL TO ALLOW US TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD. >> GAVITO: AND ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THAT, DOES THIS VERSION OF THE BILL STILL INCLUDE
THE RESTRICTIONS ON OWNING THE ANIMAL. >> COYLE: NO, THAT WAS TAKEN OUT. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM US WAS IF SOMEONE HAS BEEN CITED FOR A DANGEROUS DOG INCIDENT MULTIPLE TIMES, THEY LOSE THE RIGHT TO OWN A DOG, AND IT WOULD MIRROR THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATUTE IN STATE LAW. WE GOT FEEDBACK THROUGH OUR AUTHOR, FROM OTHER MEMBERS, I GUESS, THAT THAT WAS A CONCERNING PIECE, SO THAT'S NOT IN THERE NOW, BUT THE OTHER TWO POINTS I MENTIONED ARE STILL.
>> GAVITO: YEAH. AND I MEAN, I LIKE THAT PIECE, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND TRYING TO GET IT TO PASS. SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S TWO COMPANION BILLS FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ AND THESE BILLS HAVE SOME OVERLAPPING LANGUAGE. HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT --
>> COYLE: THOSE OTHER TWO BILLS HAVEN'T HAD A HEARING IMRET.
YET. THIS APPEARS TO BE THE ONE THAT'S MOVING FORWARD. WE'LL SEE. BUT WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT IN THE SESSION WHERE BILLS REALLY NEED TO HAVE GOTTEN A HEARING IF THEY HAVE ANY HOPE OF GETTING OUT OF COMMITTEE AND MAKING IT TO THE
FLOOR IN TIME. >> GAVITO: ON. THANKS FOR THAT.
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANKS, MAYOR. .
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ALDARETE GAVITO.
COUNCILMEMBER VIAGRAN? >> VIAGRAN: YEAH. THANK YOU, JEFF.
I THINK WHERE HOUSE BILL 19 IS, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, HE'S OUT OF THE DALLAS AREA, HE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T LIKE HOUSTON, THE VALLEY OR ANYBODY THAT'S NOT -- ANY AREA THAT'S NOT DALLAS. I THINK WE NEED TO WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE SOUTHERN SEC SECTOR AND HOUSTON, THE ABILITY OF THE COS FOR WHARF DOCS, IT'S SO SPECIFIC, IT'S PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING IN COMPETITIVE CITIES. I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THIS WAS IMPACTING -- WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT FORT WORTH ALSO, SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN YEARS PAST AND CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE THE STORY OF THIS IS JUST A POWER GRAB BY A CERTAIN REGION TO KIND OF HARM THE CITY'S TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
AND ACTUALLY TO THE -- TO THE NORTHWEST. I THINK ABOUT LUBBOCK
[00:40:04]
ALSO, BEING UP THERE AND HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THEIR GROWTH ALSO, IF THIS PASSES. SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. REALLY HOPE WE CAN COMMUNICATE AND WORK WITH OTHER CITIES ON HOW THIS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR GROWTH AND THEIR PROJECTS, AND SPECIFICALLY INTO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SOUTH TEXAS. I THINK -- OH, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE ALAMO. THIS IMPACTS OUR ALAMO PROJECT, TOO, SO LET'S REMIND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ABOUT THAT. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THE DISANNEXATION PORTION, I THINK WE DO NEED TO LOOK, THOUGH, AT OUR UTILITIES AND HOW -- WHAT WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE.AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO -- IF WE CAN LET THEM KNOW, WE PLAN TO HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT OUR UTILITIES ARE OFFERED TO OUR RESIDENTS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A LARGER CONVERSATION THAT WE MAY NEED TO HAVE IN COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE OFFERING -- OFFERING SERVICES. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON A SEPTIC TANK, AND HOW WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, THAT WILL COME WITH -- AUDIO] -- FEEL LIKE IT'S A WAIT AND SEE GAME, IF YOU CAN JUST KEEP US POSTED ON WHAT SORT OF SUPPORT HB 19 IS GETTING FROM HOUSTON, AND SPECIFICALLY FROM THE VALLEY AREA, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE CAN BE
HELPFUL. >> COYLE: I'LL TELL YOU, COUNCILWOMAN, THEY ARE ALL INVOLVED. AND ASIDE FROM JUST THE CITIES THEMSELVES, THEY'VE FOLLOWED OUR LEAD ON THE VIRTUAL CALL THAT ERIK MENTIONED THAT WE DID LAST WEEK, PULLING OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY PARTNERS TOGETHER, THAT THEY'RE DOING SOME OF THE SAME. AND WE'VE SEEN LETTERS COMING FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. WE HEAR THE COMMITTEE IS HEARING FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS BILL, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A HEAD DOWN DESIRE TO JUST GET SOMETHING PASSED AND MOVE IT, AND THAT'S OUR CONCERN. BUT THE OTHER AREAS ARE ALL DEFINITELY INVOLVED, AND I JUST -- WHILE I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, I WANT TO SAY OUR MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING. THERE WERE THREATS -- RUMORS THAT THIS BILL WAS GOING TO BE VOTED OUT LAST WEEK, AND OUR SAN ANTONIO MEMBERS STEPPED UP AND ASKED THE CHAIR, NO, NO, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT YET. YOU NEED TO MEET WITH OUR FOLKS, AND SO THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR US, BUT SO FAR THE BILL THAT WE'VE MENTIONED IS THE BILL
THAT'S ON THE TABLE, SO... >> VIAGRAN: AND THE GOVERNOR AND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, HAVE THEY CHIMED IN ON THIS?
WAS THIS BROUGHT BY EITHER OF THEM, OR NO? >> COYLE: NOT PUBLICLY.
>> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. IT JUST SEEMS REALLY INTERESTING, BECAUSE THEY -- THEY HAVE -- THEY REPRESENT THE WHOLE STATE OF TEXAS, AND THEY HAVE SUCH INTEREST THAT I DON'T SEE WHY THEY'D WANT TO DO SOMETHING SO HARMFUL TO AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE DA DALLAS/FORT WORTH AREA THAT ARE GROWING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER VIAGRAN.
COUNCILMEMBER COURAGE? >> COURAGE: I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO KEEP WATCHING THESE COUPLE OF BILLS. HAVE WE GOT ANY INDICATION OF WHEN THEY MAY BE, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD?
WHEN'S THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETINGS? >> COYLE: ON HB 19?
>> COURAGE: YEAH. >> COYLE: THEY MEET ON MONDAYS.
THEY DIDN'T VOTE IT OUT THIS MONDAY. WE'VE HEARD EVERYTHING FROM YESTERDAY TO TODAY TO TOMORROW, THEY COULD CONSIDER A NEW VERSION.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT VERSION YET. IT'S -- THIS IS THE TIME OF THE SESSION WHEN RUMORS FLY, AND YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY FACT. BUT THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T NEED TO HOLD ANOTHER HEARING. THEY DID THAT. TROY WAS THERE AND TESTIFIED. THEY WILL -- THEY WILL DISTRIBUTE A NEW VERSION OF THE BILL AND CAN DECIDE TO GET TOGETHER AND VOTE ON IT AT ANY
POINT. >> COURAGE: WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE SENATE SIDE FOR
THIS? >> COYLE: WELL, THAT'S THE ONE UPSIDE ABOUT THIS BILL, IS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE A SENATE COMPANION. NOW, THAT SAID, IF IT GETS THROUGH THE HOUSE QUICKLY, IT CAN BE PICKED UP BY A SENATOR AT ANY POINT, AND THEY CAN MOVE IT AS WELL, SO THAT DOESN'T INSULATE US FROM THE CONCERN, BUT AT LEAST IT IS ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE HEARINGS HAPPENING
ON EACH SIDE. >> COURAGE: RIGHT. THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS ON THE SENATE SIDE AND EVERYTHING UNLESS --
>> COYLE: THEY WOULD. >> COURAGE: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER COURAGE. COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE?
WHI >> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR. FIRST QUESTION IS, WE TALKED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO ABOUT THE CITY HAVING A WEBSITE OR AN INTERFACE WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN TRACK ALL OF THE BILLS AND THE CITY'S POSITION ON THOSE BILLS EVERY WEEK. IT'S UNDER THE STATE LEGISLATURE PORTION OF THE GOVERNOR AFFAIRS PAGE, AND IT'S A LISTING OF EVERY BILL OPPOSED,
[00:45:06]
SUPPORTED BY THE CITY TEAM. >> WHYTE: OKAY.
AND I'VE HAD SOME FOLKS ASK ABOUT IT, AND I GUESS WE NEED TO FIND IT AND THEN BE ABLE TO BETTER DIRECT THEM THERE. ON SOME OF THESE PARTICULAR BILLS, I'M JUST -- ONE OF THEM, THIS TAX EXEMPTION FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY, IS THE CITY SUPPORTING OR AGAINST THAT?
>> COYLE: DID WE REGISTER OPPOSITION? I DON'T THINK WE -- WE DIDN'T REGISTER A FORMAL POSITION. WE'VE JUST BEEN WATCHING IT AND HAVE RUN THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO US TO SHARE WITH YOU HERE.
>> WHYTE: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO REGISTER SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION FOR THAT? >> COYLE: I THINK THE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELD, SO I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
SO I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY
COMMUNICATE WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE. >> WHYTE: HOW DOES STAFF -- I MEAN, LET'S TAKE THAT BILL, FOR EXAMPLE.
HOW DOES STAFF DETERMINE WHETHER TO SUPPORT IT OR NOT? DO THEY RUN IT -- DO THEY RUN IT BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, OR WHO FIRST? BECAUSE, I MEAN, Y'ALL TALK SORT OF NEGATIVELY ABOUT THIS BILL, RIGHT, I GUESS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE A $13.6 MILLION IMPACT ON OUR BOTTOM LINE, BUT I SEE THE TAX EXEMPTION AS BEING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY POSITIVE FOR BUSINESSES. SO HOW -- HOW WOULD YOU
GUYS DECIDE WHETHER TO SUPPORT IT OR OPPOSE IT? >> COYLE: WE -- I THINK YOU'RE ANSWERING THE QUESTION THERE. THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T REGISTER OPPOSITION FOR IT. IT'S -- THE STATE PROGRAM LAYS OUT THE POSITIONS WE TAKE, AND IF THIS BODY TOLD US TO GO OPPOSE
THAT, WE WOULD, BUT WE HAVEN'T YET. >> WHYTE: AND SO WHAT ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES, THESE FISCAL BILLS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT?
>> COYLE: YES. THE TWO TELECOM ONES THAT WOULD SHIFT COST TO US OR R REVENUES, WE HAVE REGISTERED OUR OPPOSITION TO.
>> WHYTE: AND SO WERE THOSE SOMETHING THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH OUR -- WITH OUR -- WHAT'S THE COMMITTEE CALLS, MANNY, THAT YOU CHAIR.
>> PELAEZ: IGR. >> WHYTE: WERE THOSE DISCUSSED WITH IGR AND THEN SOME SENTIMENT GATHERED AND THEN YOU GUYS GO AND DO WHAT YOU
DO? >> COYLE: IT'S NOT JUST THE IGR COMMITTEE TELLING US YEA OR NAY, IT'S THE LANGUAGE IN OUR STATE PROGRAM.
WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT A CLEAR IMPACT ON REVENUES TO THE CITY AND FINANCIAL COSTS TO THE CITY AND SO FORTH.
THOSE ARE ONES THAT'S -- NEITHER OF THOSE IS A -- IS A RELIEF TO OUR RESIDENTS IN ANY FORM. THAT IS A -- THAT IS AN EROSION OF REVENUE TO US,
OR AN ADDED COST TO THE CITY. >> WHYTE: YEAH.
WELL, I MEAN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS COUNCIL GETS TO WEIGH IN ON SOME OF THESE, RIGHT, AND THE PROPERTY -- THE TAX EXEMPTION ONE, I THINK, IS PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE ON THIS LIST HERE. BECAUSE THERE MAY BE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON THAT, OR REALLY ANY OF THESE. AND SO BEFORE THE CITY GOES AND ADVOCATES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR SPENDS TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO HIRE A LOBBYIST TO ADVOCATE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THIS, I THINK COUNCIL SHOULD -- SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME INPUT.
SO I'LL -- AFTER THAT, MY COMMENTS ARE BRIEF. I MEAN, LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT -- ABOUT SOME OF THESE BILLS, BUT FRANKLY, I THINK, A LOT OF THIS IS A REACTION TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS SEEING FROM CITIES, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING OURS, AND ACACROSS THE STATE.
AND A LOT OF CITIES ARE RACKING UP LARGE AMOUNTS OF DEBT, AND THE LEGISLATURE OBVIOUSLY WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE PREEMPTION BILLS, I MEAN, THIS IS A -- THIS IS A REACTION TO CITIES STEPPING OUT OF THEIR LANE ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING. AND, YOU KNOW, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THESE TWO YEARS, IN MY OPINION AS WE'VE SEEN THAT ON THAT HEAT ORDINANCE THAT WE DID A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND THEN, OF COURSE -- OF COURSE, THE OUT OF STATE ABORTION FUND THAT WE DID A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
AND SO THE STATE IS SAYING THAT, LISTEN, MUNICIPALITIES, NEED TO STAY IN THEIR LANE AND FOCUS ON CITY ISSUES AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. SO THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS.
THANKS, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
WHYTE. COUNCILMEMBER KAUR? >> KAUR: THANK YOU, MAYOR. INTERESTING HOW SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES CAN JUSTIFY ANYTHING THAT THE STATE DOES. JUST A FEW -- FIRST OF
[00:50:01]
ALL, JEFF, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION FOR STEPPING UP AND PROVIDING IT TODAY. I JUST HAVE A FEW OVERALL COMMENTS AND JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR -- I'LL JUST START WITH HB 19, SINCE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT A LOT TODAY. THE HOUSING BOND THAT WEUSUALLY PASS, WOULD THAT NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE? >> WALSH: ANY PROPERTY
TAX SUPPORTED DEBT TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. >>
>> KAUR: RIGHT. YEAH, THIS IS JUST THE WORST THING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN EVER. THE MAYOR AND I JUST GOT TO GO TO THE ARBORS AT WEST AVENUE, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS THAT WERE FUNDED THROUGH THE FIRST HOUSING BOND THAT HE PUSHED FORWARD THIS WEEK, AND IT WAS AMAZING TO SEE. A HUGE COMPLEX, 243 UNITS, I THINK, THAT WERE COMPLETELY REDONE FROM 30 TO 80% AMI AND WE GOT TO HEAR FROM RESIDENTS THERE, IT IS TRULY AMAZING THE WORK THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO WITH THOSE HOUSING BOND DOLLARS THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD NOT DO OTHERWISE.
AND SO IF WE -- THIS -- WE JUST HAVE TO GO AT THIS WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN. I KNOW YOU ALL ARE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE HOW IMPACTFUL THIS WOULD BE. TRULY, THE NUMBER ONE THICK THAT WE GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT, AND ERIK KNOWS THIS, IS HOW BAD OUR STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARE, PARTICULARLY IN THE OLDEST PARTS OF OUR CITY, RIGHT, THE PARTS OF THE CITY THAT ARE OVER 100 YEARS OLD. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE STREETS COULD USE REPAVEMENT, AND COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE -- SORRY, I'M NOT [INDISCERNIBLE] OTHER COLLEAGUES CAN AGREE WITH THAT, THAT OUR STREETS AND SIDEWALKS NEED A LOT OF WORK, AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO THAT WORK. AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S SO INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT THIS. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IF -- IF FOR SOME REASON IT DOES MOVE FORWARD, WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO TRY TO RECOMMEND A -- I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT CITIES -- BUT -- OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE IN BAD BOND RATINGS.
COULD IT BE -- WOULD IT BE WORTH TRYING TO PURSUE AN AMENDMENT THAT ANYONE THAT'S TRIPLE C RATED, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE ENTITIES?
>> COYLE: ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF AMENDMENTS WE CAN TRY IF THE TIME COMES. AND THAT TIME WOULD BE IF IT MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE AND WAS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, AND I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF BILL THAT'S CAUGHT ENOUGH ATTENTION, THAT THERE WOULD BE AMENDMENTS COMING FROM EVERYWHERE. NOW, WHETHER THEY GET THE APPROVAL OF THE FULL HOUSE AND GET ACTUALLY ADDED TO THE BILL IS A WHOLE OTHER SITUATION, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.
IT IS A POWERFUL CHAIRMAN AND A LOW BILL NUMBER, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE OUR CASE AND INFLUENCE THE LANGUAGE AND HAVE IT BE LESS -- LESS HARMFUL
THAN IT IS NOW. >> KAUR: OKAY. APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S WORK ON THIS. FOR HB 9, THE OTHER MEYER BILL, WOULD THIS -- IS THIS BASICALLY TRYING TO BE A PROTECTION FOR AIRBNBS, OR FOLKS THAT
OWN SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES? >> COYLE: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK IT'S A BUSINESS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.
>> KAUR: OKAY. >> COYLE: PRIMARILY. >> KAUR: BUT NOT
RESIDENTIAL? >> COYLE: IS PERSONAL PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL, TOO? IT'S FOCUSED ON COMMERCIAL.
>> WALSH: MAINLY COMMERCIAL. >> KAUR: CAN WE JUST VERIFY IF IT MOVES FORWARD IF IT WOULD IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO COLLECT HOT TAX FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES.
>> COYLE: NO. >> KAUR: EVEN IF IT'S UNDER AN LLC?
>> COYLE: NO, I DON'T THINK -- IT'S PURELY A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.
>> WALSH: RIGHT. >> COYLE: AND IT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY TIED TO
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME. >> KAUR: OKAY.
I JUST NEEDED TO CONFIRM THAT. ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE LUJAN BILL FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES WITH THEIR OWN WAGE COMPENSATION, WHAT DOES THAT IMPACT FOR US? NOT THIS ONE, IT'S THE 3171.
>> COYLE: OH, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL?
>> KAUR: YEAH. >> COYLE: IT'S A BILL OUT OF AUSTIN TO CODIFY IN STATE LAW SOME CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT WAS PASSED THERE, SIMILAR TO PASSED HERE, WHICH WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT LEAVES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE CHARTERS, SORT OF AN OPEN-ENDED PIECE THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR A TWEAK TO THAT LANGUAGE FROM REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN, BUT GENERALLY, THE PRINCIPLE
OF THE BILL IS NOT -- IS NOT SOMETHING WE OPPOSE. >> KAUR: OKAY.
AND THEN DO YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO SALLY ABOUT THIS ONE, BUT THERE'S A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WE WORK WITH, STRONG TOWNS, THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTING HB 24, AND THAT'S THE -- LIKE THE -- THE CAPACITY TO BLOCK HOUSING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN -- IT MIGHT NOT BE IN A BACKUP SLIDE. SALLY'S BEEN WORKING ON IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO
[00:55:06]
KNOW -- >> COYLE: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> YES, WE'VE BEEN TRACKING IT, COUNCILMAN, AND WE'LL SEND OUT AN ALERT TO OUR MEMBERS TO
SUPPORT THE BILL WHEN IT'S ON THE FLOOR. >> KAUR: SO WE DO SUPPORT
IT. >> IT'S ON BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE.
>> KAUR: CAN YOU DO A LITTLE BIT OF A SNIPPET FOR THINK COLLEAGUES OF
WHAT THAT IS. >> OKAY. THIS BILL BASICALLY SAYS IT'S THE PETITION PROTEST. IT INCREASES THE THRESHOLD FROM 20% TO 60% -- REMEMBER IF THEY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THE COUNCIL'S SUPERMAJORITY ALL TOGETHER OR NOT. I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT
PERTAINS TO. >> KAUR: OKAY. GREAT.
>> INITIALLY WE HAD NOT -- THERE WAS SOME EXTRA LANGUAGE IN THE BILLS THAT WE WERE NOT OKAY WITH, SO WE'D BEEN WORKING WITH THE AUTHORS, BUT IT'S AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE OKAY WITH IT AND WE'LL ASK OUR MEMBERS TO
SUPPORT IT. >> KAUR: OKAY. THE REASON WHY STRONG TOWN IS SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT A CRISIS WE ARE WITH HOUSING RIGHT NOW, WE WANT COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND INPUT, AND WE WANT THAT POINT, AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALL OVER THE CITY. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SUPPORTING AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO WRITE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THEM AS WELL. THE LAST THING I WANT TO MENTION IS -- IT'S HERE, THE VOUCHER BILL, DID PASS THE HOUSE FLOOR SIX DAYS AGO, AND SO NOW IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BECOME LAW BECAUSE IT'S WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFF F OFFICE, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE, LIKE -- I KNOW IT'S ONE OF THOSE [INDISCERNIBLE] BILLS I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO START THINKING ABOUT JUST LIKE LARGER COMMUNITY OUTCRY TO START THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT OUR CONSTITUENTS AND HOW -- WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS A COMMUNITY TO WRAP AROUND T SUPPORTS THAT ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO NEED IN IN THE UPCOMING YEAR. IT'S GOING TO LAUNCH IN THE '26-'27 SCHOOL YEAR, AND IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A HUGE IMPACT, PARTICULARLY FOR OUR SPED KIDS. SO JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT OUTCRY TO ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
THANKS, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER KAUR.
COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO? >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THANK YOU, JEFF AND TEAM FOR THE PRESENTATION. I BELIEVE THE DEATH STAR BILL, SIMILAR TO THE DEATH STAR BILL SENATE BILL 2858 AND SENATE BILL 3016 WORK TO UNDERMINE CITIES AND COUNTIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENCY, AND BOTH, I BELIEVE, CONTRADICT THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WHICH ESTABLISHES THE HOME RULE PROVISION, AND THAT WAS A PROVISION APPROVED BY TEXANS AND VOTERS, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.
IT ESSENTIALLY STIFLES DEMOCRACY AND PREVENTS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LOCAL ELECTEDS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS, SO I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THOSE MOVE ALONG. BUT IN TERMS OF HOUSE BILL 19, I ALWAYS BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO GOVERN AND I THINK WHILE WE HAVE BUDGET CONVERSATIONS AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS BILL WILL GO, SIMILAR TO THE DEATH STAR BILL IT MAY GET REFASHIONED WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT BACK. I THINK AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WE SHOULD BE GOVERNING BY THOSE CRITICAL NEEDS THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ASK FOR VERSUS BENEFICIAL PROJECTS FOLKS MAY HAVE IN MIND. A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES IS ENSURING WE ARE INVESTING IN OUR PARK SYSTEMS. ENSURING WE HAVE A STRONG PARKS SYSTEM ENSURES THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS GET TO BE ACTIVE, MOVE AROUND, HAVE THEIR HEALTH NEEDS MET.
BENEFICIAL IS WHEN I THINK OF SPORTS DISTRICTS. THINGS THAT OUR CONSTITUENCIES CAN'T NECESSARILY AFFORD TO ATTEND AND ARE LIKELY GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYER.
I THINK WE NEED TO START GOVERNING FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS BENEFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE WE NEED TO PLAN FOR DISASTER AND BY ENSURING WE'RE INVESTING IN THAT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE I THINK WE COULD ALLEVIATE A LOT OF THE CONCERN AND CONTINUING TO PLAY DEFENSE EVERY LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
BUT THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAMS DO.
>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO. COUNCILMEMBER PELAEZ.
>> PELAEZ: I THINK IT'S WORTH REMINDING OURSELVES OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE DID APPROVE WHEN WE APPROVED THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND IT'S REALLY QUITE EXPLICIT.
WE AGREED THAT THE AGENDA SHOULD SUPPORT LEGISLATION, THAT MAINTAINS THE AUTHORITY OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE TO CREATE NEW ORDINANCES AND PROTECT EXISTING ONES TO MEET THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY TOO.
THAT WE WOULD OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY'S INTERESTS. INCLUDING MANDATES THAT INCREASED COSTS TO CITIES.
THREE, OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ERODE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.
[01:00:03]
UNDER THE MILITARY SECTION WE ALSO ALL AGREED THAT WE WOULD OPPOSE LEGISLATION AND UNDERSTOO UNDERMINE I THINK THAT THE ADVOCACY THAT YOU'RE DOING UP THERE IS IN KEEPING WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS. I HAVE YET TO HEAR YOU TAKING A POSITION THAT IS CONTRARY TOTHIS AND SO THANK YOU FOR THE FIDELITY TO THIS DOCUMENT. >> COYLE: IT'S A CHALLENGE.
THOUSANDS OF BILLS BUT OUR GUIDING LIGHT, OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE IS THAT DOCUMENT.
>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: TH THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER PELAEZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. THANKS VERY MUCH, JEFF.
WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY. WE DO HAVE A 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC
COMMENT. >> PUBLIC HEARING. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:00 SO WE DO NEED FOLKS TO SHOW UP. PLEASE BE THERE AT 5:00.
3:18 P.M. ON APRIL 30, 2025. B SESSION IS NOW ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.