Sep 30, 2026 Sesión Especial del Consejo de la Ciudad

[00:00:04]

>> MAYOR JONES: GOOD MORNING. THE TIME IS NOW 10:05 A.M.

ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO SPECIAL SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER. MADAME CLERK, PLEASE CALL ROLL.

>> CLERK: MAYOR, WE HAVE QUORUM. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

THIS MEETING WILL INCLUDE A BRIEFING ON THE 2027 BOND PROCESS.

ERIK, OVER TO YOU. >> WALSH: GOOD MORNING, MAYOR.

THANK YOU -- GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. YES.

THIS MORNING'S PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

I KNOW -- SORRY. PROPOSED BOND PROGRAM. I KNOW WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU ALL ON MONDAY A LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS. MIKE IS GOING TO WALK THROUGH HOW THEY WERE ASCERTAINED. REALLY, IN WORKING WITH EITHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED NEEDS WITHIN THEIR DEPARTMENT'S ADOPTED PLANS, GOALS THAT WE HAVE SET FOR CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE.

MIKE IS GOING TO WALK THROUGH THAT ENTIRE PROCESS WITH YOU THIS MORNING.

I AM LOOKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL BECAUSE I DO WANT TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, LIKELY ON OCTOBER 14TH. AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS A MAY 2027 BOND PROGRAM, THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS -- I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST BUT IN TERMS OF PLANNING HORIZONS, WHAT IS THE COUNCIL COMFORTABLE WITH IN TERMS OF TIMELINES, BOTH MAY OF '27 AND NOVEMBER OF '27 HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT IN THE PAST. LOOKING FOR SOME CLARITY ON THAT STANDPOINT.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS, I'LL CUT TO THE MEAT OF THE ISSUE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE PURSUE A BOND PROGRAM FOR $442 MILLION AT THE EXISTING DEBT SERVICE TAX RATES. WE'LL WALK THROUGH THE REASONING BEHIND THAT WITH YOU ALL. THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE SENT TO YOU EARLIER IN THE WEEK. TOTAL IS $5.8 BILLION.

THERE WILL NEVER -- OUR NEED WILL ALWAYS OUTWEIGH OUR CAPACITY AND SO THE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS, THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, YOUR FEEDBACK IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL TO THAT. AND THEN LASTLY, WE ADDED A SLIDE LAST NIGHT TO THE VERY END OF THE PRESENTATION THAT JUST IS A STARTING POINT FOR THE COUNCIL IN TERMS OF ALLOCATIONS. AND WE TOOK THE LAST THREE YEARS' WORTH OF AVERAGES IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSITIONS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, USING THAT LENS, 260 OF THE 442 WOULD BE DEDICATED TOWARDS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND BRIDGES.

AND THEN THE BALANCE FOR THE OTHER PROPOSITIONS. THAT IS THERE MERELY AS A STARTING POINT FOR YOU ALL BUT LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL SO WHEN WE COME BACK ON THE 14TH WE CAN LAY OUT A DISTRIBUTION AND BEGIN THE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS WITHIN EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES.

MIKE, I GAVE PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT GO AHEAD. >> SHANNON: THANK YOU, SIR. MIKE SHANNON, DIRECTOR OF THE CAPITAL DELIVERY DEPARTMENT. EXCITED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS IN OUR 2027 BOND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES THIS YEAR ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THIS IN DIFFERENT FORMS. BUT LET'S JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. SO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE BOND PROGRAM OVERVIEW A LITTLE BIT AGAIN. AS ERIK MENTIONED, WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING SOME TIME LOOKING AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND SOME PROJECT REQUESTS FROM BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS. WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR SOME KEY POLICY AND PRIORITY GUIDANCE. SOME OF THEM ALREADY DESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.

WHAT THAT COULD AND SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND ANY NEXT STEPS AS WE MOVE TO -- AND WE'RE PLANNING TO BE BACK HERE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED GUIDING PRINCIPLES, POTENTIAL BOND PROPOSITIONS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU AND TRIED TO TAILOR HOW WE GOT HERE TO THAT

[00:05:04]

WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS, COMMUNITY PARTNERS, COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS. WE'VE BEEN INVITED TO SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH YOU, WITH SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. WE SPENT TIME -- CITY STAFF HAS -- WORKING AT PROJECTS, SCOPING AND ESTIMATING. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. THE LIST YOU SAW OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS INCLUDE SOME ESTIMATES AS TO WHAT A STREET PROJECT HERE COULD LOOK LIKE OR FACILITIES, ET CETERA. AGAIN, I THINK THE FIRST START WAS DEVELOPING THAT POTENTIAL LIST. THAT POTENTIAL LIST IS NOT OUR RECOMMENDED LIST, IT IS A POTENTIAL STARTING POINT. AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, IT'S $5.8 BILLION OF IDENTIFIED NEEDS. WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS THIS YEAR SO FAR.

THAT'S A STARTING POINT TO SEE WHAT WE CAN FIT INTO OUR NEXT BOND PROGRAM.

SO JUST TO STEP BACK, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS SLIDE A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE AND MANY OF YOU REMEMBER BUT THIS JUST GIVES SOME CONTEXT OF THE LAST THREE BOND CYCLES. THE BOND IN 2012, 850 IN 2017, AND $1.2 BILLION.

A LOT OF THINGS DIFFERENT NOW, OUR ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT DIFFERENT BUT WE WANTED TO PUT THIS UP HERE BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE SLICED UP THE PIE.

STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, ANYWHERE FROM 39 TO 56% OF THOSE BOND PROGRAMS. AVERAGING JUST UNDER HALF. DRAINAGE, ABOUT 17% AVERAGE. PARKS, ABOUT 20%.

FACILITIES, ABOUT 4%. AND LIBRARIES, 4%, PUBLIC SAFETY.

I KNOW THE HOUSING ONE'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE, 12% LAST TIME BUT ABOUT 7% OVER THE LAST TWO. THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE END OF THE CONVERSATION WHERE WE ASK FOR SOME FEEDBACK ON TO HOW DO WE DIVVY UP OUR PRIORITIES AND THE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR EACH OF THE CATEGORIES.

AS THE CITY MANAGER ALREADY MENTIONED, WE'RE PROPOSING A $442 MILLION BOND PROGRAM.

THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS WITH YOU ALL OVER THIS PAST YEAR.

A LOT OF CONVERSATION SIMILAR TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.

ABOUT A MONTH AGO WHEN TROY WAS UP HERE TALKING ABOUT DEBT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND I WAS UP HERE TALKING, WE WERE AT THE 450 NUMBER. BUT THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS, BUDGET AMENDMENT PROCESS, THE CIP DOLLARS AMENDMENT HAPPENED, SO THAT DID TAKE US DOWN TO 442 CAPACITY. THIS WOULD BE MAINTAINING THE TAX RATE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, I'M SURE.

BUT THAT'S HOW WE WOULD START. THOSE ARE THE PROPOSITIONS THAT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY WORKED THROUGH AND THE FEEDBACK THIS PAST YEAR SAID KEEP WORKING OUR STREETS NEEDS, DRAINAGE, PARKS, FACILITIES, AND CERTAINLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO BACK IN MAY WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. SOME OF THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PAST BOND CYCLES.

AND OTHERS WE ADDED OR TWEAKED. AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THESE PROJECTS IDENTIFYING NEEDS, NOT NECESSARILY WISH LISTS BUT WHAT ARE THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE.

IS IT ALIGNED WITH OUR MANY PLANS? WE HAVE DOZENS OF PLANS.

CERTAINLY THE BIG MASTER PLAN, SA TOMORROW, BUT A LOT OF OTHER PLANS.

HOW ARE WE ALIGNED WITH OUR PLANS THAT WE HAVE SPENT YEARS AND YEARS IN THE MAKING WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT WITH THIS COUNCIL OR PAST COUNCILS.

SOME HELP GUIDE US. CERTAINLY PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE NUMBER ONE ON THIS LIST BUT SAFER STREETS, SAFER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, SAFER FACILITIES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE IMPROVEMENTS. ALL OF THOSE ARE ALIGNED WITH THAT.

CERTAINLY RESILIENCY. WE NEED TO BE RESILIENT TO ADAPT TO DIFFERENT THINGS, WHETHER IT BE NATURAL WEATHER EVENTS, WHETHER IT BE ECONOMIC CRISES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOME OF OUR DISCUSSION.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY. THIS IS ONE WE TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT BACK IN MAY.

AS WE THINK ABOUT PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IN OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND OUR PREDICTIONS, HOW DO THESE PROJECTS HELP US MAINTAIN ■ECONOMIC&-ÚVIABILI, OTHERS ARE GOING TO COME WITH SOME MANDATED COSTS. IF WE BUILD SOMETHING, WE BUILD A NEW FACILITY, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, WHAT ARE THOSE MANDATED COSTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CARRY IN A FEW YEARS ONCE IT'S BUILT. THAT PROCESS HAS HAPPENED EVERY BOND CYCLE. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T BUILD OR DO ANYTHING NEW, IT JUST MEANS WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND WE WILL AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS. THEN, OF COURSE, COUNCIL INPUT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WANT TO HAVE A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT YOU AGREE WITH AND VOTE ON TO BRING TO THE PUBLIC VOTE IN MAY. SO THAT'S KIND OF LOOKING

[00:10:03]

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN MAY AS WELL. THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO DETERMINE THE PRIORITIES. THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT HELP US PRIORITIZE PROJECTS. IF IT'S PART OF A MULTI-PHASED OR CONTINUED PROJECT. WE'RE WORKING ON A PHASE 1 OF A TWO OR THREE-PHASE PROJECT, THAT'S CERTAINLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER. DESIGN COMPLETE. WE DO HAVE SOME SHOVEL-READY PROJECTS. WE HAVE PUT DOLLARS IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM TO THE DESIGN, POSSIBLY, SO IT WOULD BE SHOVEL READY. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A COMMITMENT OF DOLLARS TO THAT. THAT MIGHT HELP US PRIORITIZE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. WE HAVE A LIST OF AUDIO] BY THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES FROM THE '22 BOND PROCESS THAT WERE QUOTE, UNQUOTE BELOW THE LINE. THEY WERE JUST BELOW THAT $1.2 BILLION NUMBER THAT WE HAD. NOW, I WILL SAY THERE WAS 40-SOME ODD PROJECTS THAT WE LOOKED BACK ON. SOME OF THOSE SMALLER PARKS PROJECTS WERE DONE WITH CIP FUNDING FROM ONE OF YOU OR ONE OF YOUR PREDECESSORS SO WE DON'T STILL HAVE 40 BUT I PUT THAT ON THERE AS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH SEVERAL CITY BOARDS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT AND THE LIBRARY BOARD WORK TIRELESSLY ON PRIORITIZING LEADS FOR THE LIBRARY.

WE HAVE A STORMWATER BOARD AND STREETS ADVISORY BOARD THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH LOOKING AT POTENTIAL DRAINAGE AND STREET PROJECTS.

AND THEN LASTLY -- AND THERE'S OTHERS BUT I JUST USE THOSE AS AN EXAMPLE.

LASTLY, CERTAINLY LEVERAGE FUNDING. THIS IS ALWAYS SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT. IF WE CAN GET LEVERAGED FUNDING FROM A PARTNER, WHETHER IT'S A STATE AGENCY, FEDERAL AGENCY, GRANT, OTHER PARTNERS THAT CAN MAKE OUR DOLLARS GO FURTHER, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CONSIDERATION.

NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PROJECT INVENTORY. THIS LIST WE SENT IT OUT ON MONDAY NIGHT. IT WAS REVISED LAST NIGHT WITH A COUPLE OF TWEAKS.

THIS IS US GATHERING UP FROM CITY STAFF PERSPECTIVE, SOME OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ALL, COMMUNITY PARTNERS, INFORMATION WE GET FROM THE PUBLIC THROUGH 311 OR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE BOARDS. WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO TALLY UP THESE ARE POTENTIAL PROJECTS -- IN TALKING WITH YOU OR A COUPLE OF YOUR STAFF YESTERDAY, WE MADE A FEW TWEAKS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE ARE.

REALLY, THERE'S OVER $5.8 BILLION OF POTENTIAL NEED ON THAT LIST.

OVER 300 PROJECTS, 304 TO BE EXACT. THOSE ARE THE NEEDS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED FOR THIS ROUND. CERTAINLY HOW DO WE FIT THAT ALL IN THE 442 POTENTIAL BOND PROGRAM. SO, THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES IS REALLY JUST US TALKING ABOUT WHERE THOSE NEEDS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE $5.8 BILLION, 2.1 ARE STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALKS PROJECTS.

DRAINAGE, $2.5 BILLION. FACILITIES, OVER $550 MILLION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS. PARKS AND RECREATION, $465 MILLION POTENTIAL PROJECTS. AND THEN CERTAINLY HOUSING. HOUSING WE PUT IN THE NEED.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS FURTHER DOWN ON THE SLIDE DECK PRESENTATION.

BUT $150 MILLION, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE LAST BOND.

BUT RIGHT NOW IN KIND OF FOLLOWING THE SHIP GOALS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, 150 NEED WAS PLUGGED IN FOR HOUSING. IF WE CATEGORIZE THOSE A LITTLE BIT -- YOU SAW THE SPREADSHEET THAT WE SENT OUT.

WE JUST WANTED TO IDENTIFY THAT $5.8 BILLION AND HOW WE DICED IT.

WE HAVE COUNCIL DISTRICTS -- SOME ARE ALLOCATED TO COUNCIL DISTRICTS.

I WANT TO SAY JUST, BUT THAT'S HOW THEY ARE CATEGORIZED.

THERE'S THE 150 FOR HOUSING BUT SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT -- I THINK THIS WAS IN JANUARY BUT I THINK ALSO IN MAY. IT'S BEEN PART OF OUR BOND PROGRAM NOW FOR A COUPLE OF CYCLES IS WHICH PROJECTS ARE REALLY A CITYWIDE PROJECT VERSUS MORE OF A COUNCIL DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT OR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.

RIGHT NOW WE STARTED WITH CATEGORIZING $798 MILLION. JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE . WE ALSO HAVE OUR LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS.

FOR 25 YEARS, THAT'S BEEN A PRIORITY. THERE'S $95 MILLION LEFT TO COMPLETE THE RING AND THE FEW EXTENSIONS THAT GO INTO THAT.

BUT ABOUT $95 MILLION WORTH OF NEED. WE ALSO PULL OUT A FEW PROJECTS THAT ARE CALLED REGIONAL. WE HAVE OUR SA TOMORROW PLAN. WE HAVE OUR 13 REGIONAL CENTERS BUT THERE'S ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF NEED IN THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS, CITY STAFF, AND/OR OUTSIDE AGENCIES. SO A FEW POLICY ISSUES WE

[00:15:01]

BIKE FACILITIES, BIKE NETWORK PLANS. WE HAVE SEVERAL CONTINUATION OF MULTI-PHASE PROJECTS AND MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH, ESPECIALLY THE STREET, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, ROADWAY WIDENING.

HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT SAFER AND FASTER FOR THEIR DAILY COMMUTES.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FAILED STREETS. JUST HOW WE CAME UP WITH SOME OF THESE NUMBERS. I THINK THIS IS THE SLIDE OR THIS TABLE WAS PRESENTED IN ART'S PRESENTATION DURING THE BUDGET. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR 4300 MILES OF STREETS AROUND TOWN DIVVIED UP BY YOUR COUNCIL DISTRICTS, THERE'S THE BREAKDOWN. WE GOT ABOUT 385 OR 9% OF THAT IS IN THE FAILED CONDITION. THAT'S OUR CURRENT STATE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THEN THE ESTIMATED COST -- IF WE WERE TO SAY WHAT IS OUR NEED? WHAT IF WE WANTED TO GET RID OF THEM IN ONE SWOOP? IT'S $744 MILLION.

IT'S ABOUT $2 MILLION A MILE TO DO THOSE, ON AVERAGE, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. BUT THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. THAT'S IN THAT $5.8 BILLION AS OUR NEED. WE DID PUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP AT THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO IF WE WANTED TO GET EVERY DISTRICT, IF OUR GOAL IS TO GET EVERY DISTRICT BELOW 10% OF THEIR STREETS TO BE IN THE F CATEGORY, IF THAT WAS OUR TARGET, THE ESTIMATE THERE IS ABOUT $100 MILLION.

SOME OF THE DISTRICTS HAVE SOME OF THEIR STREETS OVER 10% IN THE FAILED STATE.

OTHERS LESS. NOW, I THINK THE OTHER CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP DURING BUDGET WAS WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET US TO 5%? THAT'S ABOUT 350-PLUS MILLION DOLLARS TO DO THAT. THAT'S A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF THE CHALLENGE WE'RE DEALING WITH BUT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR FEEDBACK AS TO SHOULD FAILED STREETS BE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF OUR BOND STREETS ALLOCATION AS IT WAS IN 2022.

NOW DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL. CERTAINLY A LOT OF NEEDS THERE. I SAID $2.5 BILLION ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE -- LET'S SAY 2.1 FOR THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE I GET TO THE OTHERS. THIS IS NO SECRET.

WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF DRAINAGE NEEDS IN OUR CITY AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THINGS. WE HAVE OUR HAZARD MITIGATION, THE STATE FLOOD PLAN. WE HAVE I THINK 17 PROJECTS NOW ON THE STATE FLOOD PLAN THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED. WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PROJECTS THAT ARE CONTINUED AND MULTI-PHASED. OUR SEELING CHANNEL. WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON PHASE 4. PROBABLY AT LEAST ANOTHER COUPLE OF PHASES TO COMPLETE THAT REGIONAL ONE. WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT ARE SHOVEL READY AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH OUR STORMWATER ADVISORY BOARD AND PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO HELP PRIORITIZE. I THINK THERE'S ABOUT 108 PROJECTS IDENTIFIED ON THAT LIST OF 304 THAT ARE JUST DRAINAGE-TYPE PROJECTS.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE SOME FEEDBACK ON TODAY OR SOME GUIDANCE. BACK IN JANUARY, WE TALKED ABOUT OUR STORMWATER FEE.

IT'S ONE OF THE FEES THAT WE CURRENTLY CHARGE. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION -- WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL OPTIONS OF INCREASING THAT TO CREATE MORE CAPACITY. WHEREAS DRAINAGE PROJECTS MAY BE PULLED INTO BEING PAID BY THAT STORMWATER FEE RATHER THAN THE BOND OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

BUT THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE FOUR OPTIONS BACK IN JANUARY.

THIS IS THE LARGEST INCREASED OPTION THAT WE HAD SHARED.

BUT WE COULD INCREASE OUR STORMWATER FEE IN A CERTAIN WAY.

THIS ONE PROPOSES 5% FOR TWO YEARS AND 2% AFTER THAT FOR A TOTAL OF ABOUT 16% INCREASE. THAT COULD CREATE APPROXIMATELY $175 MILLION WORTH OF REVENUE CAPACITY THAT WE COULD USE FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

NOW, THE THING THERE THAT I WILL ADD IS THE ESTIMATES, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- I THINK THIS WAS ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS BACK IN JANUARY.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL BILL. THIS MONEY IS ON YOUR SAWS' BILL. BUT THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PAYS JUST UNDER $5 A MONTH ON THEIR SAWS' BILL THAT IS ALREADY THERE. IT'S ABOUT $60 A YEAR.

[00:20:04]

BY THE END IT COULD GO FROM 60 TO $70 A YEAR. A $10 INCREASE.

WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PROPOSING THIS TODAY BUT WE WOULD LIKE SOME GUIDANCE AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE OPTIONS TO CREATE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS, THAT'D WHAT WE WOULD DO BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK.

MUNICIPAL FACILITIES. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ AND OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. EARLIER THIS YEAR WE LOOKED AT OUR INVENTORY FOR FACILITIES. WE HAVE ABOUT 1,000 FACILITIES AND ASSETS THAT WE TRACK -- AND I'LL MENTION THAT IN THE NEXT SLIDE. BUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT NEEDS THAT WE PUT OUT IS ABOUT 289 IN NEW FACILITIES THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED. WHETHER IT'S COMMUNITY CENTERS, CULTURAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACS FACILITIES, POLICE, FIRE.

RENOVATION OF FACILITIES, $164 MILLION. THAT'S ACTUALLY REHABBING SOME OF THE FACILITIES YOU SEE UP THERE THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT OLDER AND NEED SOME RENOVATION. AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE ABOUT 355 -- WE CALL THEM PRIMARY BUILDINGS. THOSE ARE A REAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT. WE HAVE ANOTHER 650 ASSETS THAT WE TRACK.

WHETHER IT BE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, SHADE STRUCTURES, SOME KIND OF NONHABITABLE STRUCTURES AND PARKS THAT WE HAVE AROUND THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT WE WORKED ON WITH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS YEAR. WHAT YOU SEE THERE IS OUR '26POTENTIAL PROJECTS. WE DIVVY THEM UP BY THE DEPARTMENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ACS RENOVATING THE CATTERY BUILDING IS ON THERE AND TWO POTENTIAL PROJECTS ARE ON THAT LIST FOR A NEW KENNEL AND STORAGE WAREHOUSE ON CAMPUS.

THAT GIVES YOU SOME CONTEXT OF WHAT THAT TABLE ON THIS SLIDE MEANS.

SO I WANT TO TALK -- I MENTIONED THE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS PROJECT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE INVESTED NOW FOR 25 YEARS.

LAST BOND WE HAD OVER $100 MILLION DEDICATED TO CONQUER 25 MILES OF THAT PROJECT . THAT'S WELL UNDERWAY BUT THERE'S ABOUT 17 MILES LEFT.

I THINK HOMER MIGHT HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING HIS BUDGET PRESENTATION A FEW WEEKS BACK. BUT ABOUT 17 MILES LEFT AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE THE KEY CONNECTIONS ARE BUT THAT NEED TO COMPLETE ALL 17 MILES IS ABOUT $95 MILLION. AGAIN, JUST SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THAT.

17 MILES THAT ARE FUTURE UNFUNDED OF OUR 161 PLANNED MILES.

THAT'S JUST TYING IT INTO THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH HOMER DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS IN OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT. I'LL TALK ABOUT QUICKLY ABOUT HOUSING. WE ALL KNOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A SIGNIFICANT NEED AND A PRIORITY OF OUR CITY. IT HAS BEEN FOR QUITE A WHILE. THIS TABLE SHOWS THAT, LOOK, IN 2021 OUR SHIP GOALS WE HAD ABOUT 28,000 WAS OUR GOAL. MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR TARGETED PRODUCTION. WE HAD DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL TIMES. WHETHER IT'S RENTAL PRESERVATION, PRODUCTION, HOME OWNERSHIP PRODUCTION OR PRESERVATION.

THESE ARE THE CURRENT GOALS. IF YOU LOOK ON THAT SLIDE, THOUGH, WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS AND WE'VE HIT THE TARGETS ON SEVERAL OF THOSE. THE TOTAL NUMBER AS WELL.

SO AS PART OF THIS CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD, WE WANT TO HAVE -- IT'S ALREADY STARTED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL WITH VERONICA AND HER TEAM -- IS HOW DOES THIS BOND OR ANY FUNDING HELP US CREATE NEW DRAFT GOALS OR WHAT IS OUR NEXT NEED AND WHERE DO WE PUT THAT MONEY. SO OUR PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED IS $150 MILLION IN THAT POTENTIAL LIST. THIS IS KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE SHIP WHERE WE WERE IDENTIFYING TRYING TO GET $150 MILLION IN 2022 AND ANOTHER $150 MILLION IN 2027. CERTAINLY, THAT WAS THE GOAL OR TARGET BACK THEN. THINGS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, OF COURSE.

STILL FOCUSING ON RENTAL HOUSING, ACQUISITION, HOME OWNERSHIP, PRODUCTION.

THAT'S STILL PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH, NOT ONLY WITH THE BOND BUT CERTAINLY WITH ALL OF OUR HOUSING GOALS. I LIST HERE, AS WE GET TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, I LIST HERE OUR REGIONAL CENTER PROJECTS. THESE ARE OUR 13 REGIONAL CENTERS.

IF YOU TAKE ALL THOSE OUT FROM THE 5.8 LIST, IT'S THE $1.1 BILLION.

[00:25:04]

THOSE ARE ECONOMIC GENERATORS. SOME OF THEM ARE GROWING SIGNIFICANTLY. OTHERS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DRIVING FOOTPRINT THAT'S CONTINUING TO GROW. SEVERAL PROJECTS ARE IN THOSE AREAS THAT WOULD HELP MEET THOSE NEEDS. SO I KNOW ONE PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT FOR QUITE A BIT OF TIME IS OUR SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS.

THIS SLIDE HERE I WANT TO PRESENT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT.

LOOK, THE CITY, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION IN THE PAST YEAR WITH OUR PARTNERS AT TXDOT AND A FEW OTHER PARTNERS, AND I WANT TO THANK THEM.

THEY ARE GREAT PARTNERS TO WORK WITH. THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS, WE DO ANTICIPATE TXDOT FUNDING TO SUPPORT SEVERAL OF THE PROJECTS IN AND AROUND THE DISTRICT. IT'S KIND OF THE BOTTOM RIGHT PROJECTS THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT. BUT THOSE AROUND THE HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS, IH-37, DURANGO. THERE ARE SOME HIGHWAY EXITS AND ONRAMP INTERACTIONS.

THOSE ARE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NEEDED TODAY. THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSING HISTORICAL AND CURRENT NEEDS, ESPECIALLY ON EVENT DAYS.

BUT WILL BE FURTHER NEEDED WITH OUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.

WE ARE ANTICIPATING -- WE HAVE REQUESTED FROM TXDOT -- AND WE'RE ASSUMING AN 80/20 SPLIT. 80% TXDOT, 20% CITY MATCH. ALL OF THAT WILL BOIL DOWN TO OUR NEED FOR THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PROJECTS, WOULD BE $35 MILLION IN THE NEXT BOND. IF YOU LOOK AT NUEVA, THAT GOES THROUGH HEMISFAIR BOULEVARD AND NUEVA. WE DID NUEVA IN THE 2012 BOND PROGRAM. AND DURANGO FROM I-37 TO ALAMO, THAT WOULD BE A STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR A PEDESTRIAN AND BETTER BIKE MOBILITY IN AND AROUND THE DISTRICT. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE ON THE LAST SLIDE THERE, THERE ARE SEVERAL PROJECTS.

LAST YEAR THERE WAS A NUMBER OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS OF 220 OR $250 MILLION WORTH OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED. THIS NUMBER HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED, AS YOU CAN SEE. A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE SOME OF THE PROJECTS HAVE FALLEN OFF. FOR EXAMPLE, $85 MILLION OF THAT ORIGINAL NUMBER WAS A PARKING GARAGE AND A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE HIGHWAY.

OVER JUST SOUTH ON LOT A OF THE ALAMODOME. SO KIND OF ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING. THAT IS NOT PROPOSED AND NOT BEING CONSIDERED NOW. ANOTHER ONE WAS -- THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED A SPUI, ONE OF THOSE NEW FUNKY INTERCHANGES RIGHT AT I-37 AND NOW DURANGO.

THAT'S REALLY AN UNFEASIBLE PROJECT. WE HAVE WORKED WITH TXDOT.

THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO TAKE APART THE HIGHWAY AND WIDEN IT AND BUILD IT BACK.

THAT'S A VERY UNFEASIBLE PROJECT. BY CHANGING IT TO A DIFFERENT DESIGN, STILL GETTING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, WE THINK WE CAN SAVE 16 OR $18 MILLION OFF OF THAT ORIGINAL CONCEPT.

AND THEN LASTLY, EVEN THE DURANGO PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT NEED TO COMPLETELY REDO DURANGO, LIKE WE DO WITH SOUTH ALAMO AND OTHER PROJECTS DOWNTOWN. WE REDUCED THE SCOPE OF THAT.

THAT HAS SAVED US ABOUT $25 MILLION OFF OUR ORIGINAL ESTIMATE.

I OFFER THOSE AS SOME OF THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST YEAR TO KIND OF REDUCE OUR -- NOT ONLY THE COST BUT BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR ACTUAL NEED WITH THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. JUST TO HIGHLIGHT SEVERAL OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE NEEDED TODAY IN TERMS OF THOSE MOVEMENTS IN AND AROUND THE HIGHWAY DURING OUR EVENT DAYS. SO, ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS I WANTED TO TOUCH UPON. AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE DO GET REQUESTS FROM, YOU KNOW, OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS AROUND THE CITY THAT LOOK TO LEVERAGE BOND DOLLARS FOR THEIR PROJECTS SO THEY CAN INCREASE THEIR ABILITY TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAD A NUMBER OF REQUESTS, WIDE-RANGING REQUESTS. ABOUT $600 MILLION WORTH OF REQUESTS THAT CAME IN. WE'VE JUST LISTED THOSE TO GET THE DISCUSSION STARTED, BUT THAT $600 MILLION IS PART OF THE $5.8 BILLION. YOU CAN -- LOOK, SOME OF IT IS ROADWAY WIDENING. SOME OF IT IS FUNDING FOR TRAILWAY CONNECTIONS AND PARK EXPANSION. SOME OF IT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY LANDMARKS OR HEADQUARTERS OR MUSEUMS. IT RANGES AND IT'S ON THAT LIST THAT WE HAVE SENT OUT. ANOTHER THING JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DISCUSS IS OUR

[00:30:05]

THE WAY THAT WORKS OUT IS IN 2022, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY PROPOSITION BUT FOR THE HOUSING PROPOSITION, WE TOOK 1.5% OF THOSE DOLLARS AND WE ALLOCATED TO SOME PUBLIC ART. THOSE DOLLARS WENT TO PUBLIC ART PROJECTS.

NOT EVERY PROJECT GETS SOME PUBLIC ART. IT'S MORE WHERE IT'S ALLOCATED. BUT THAT FUNDING IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE.

SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE GET CONCURRENCE ON THAT MOVING FORWARD. WE DO LIST A COUPLE OF CITIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT RANGES OF A PERCENTAGE FOR ART. SO AS WE KIND OF WRAP IT UP, THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. YOU HAVE SEEN THIS SLIDE. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN 2022. WE HAVE BOND COMMITTEES. WE HAVE APPOINTMENTS OF 163 PEOPLE. YOU ARE ALL FINDING PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED AND WILLING TO SERVE ON A LOT OF MEETINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS. LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS -- AND WE CAN AND STILL ARE PLANNING TO DO THAT.

ONE THING I WOULD ASK FOR US TO CONSIDER IS THERE A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT? SHOULD WE BE DOING IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY? IF THE BOND CAPACITY OR THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS IS LOWER THAN IT WAS LAST TIME AT $442 MILLION, SHOULD WE BE THINKING OF LESS BOND COMMITTEES IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS? SHOULD WE DO A DIFFERENT PROCESS? MAYBE GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. THE BOND COMMITTEES ARE CENTRALLY HOUSED DOWNTOWN SOMEWHERE. I THINK IT WAS AT THE CONVENTION CENTER LAST TIME.

WHERE WE WOULD BRING PEOPLE IN, GO THROUGH THIS MEETING, FORMALIZED MEETING PROJECT, AND WRESTLE THROUGH THE PROCESS. I'M LOOKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK. DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITIES, MAYBE LIKE THE BUDGET TOWN HALL PROCESS OR SOMETHING SOME BOND DISCUSSIONS LIKE THAT TO IDENTIFY PRIORITIES? WHAT I THINK THE IMPORTANT PIECE IS WE DISCUSS WHAT WE WANT TO DO SO THAT WE DO IT RIGHT.

AND AGAIN, I PUT THAT UP THERE AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE DID LAST TIME AND BE HAPPY TO HAVE SOME FEEDBACK THERE. THIS IS OUR TIMELINE.

ON THE BOTTOM OF THE FAR RIGHT, THAT'S THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM YOU ALL EARLIER THIS YEAR. HEY, THE PUBLIC VOTE IN MAY. I THINK MOST OF US WANT TO DO, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. HOWEVER, IF WE GO BACKWARDS, WE'RE AT THE SECOND BULLET RIGHT NOW, SEPTEMBER 30TH. I'M TALKING TO YOU, AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, WE'LL BE BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS TALKING AGAIN, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK YOU GIVE US TODAY AS WE START WHITTLING DOWN POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO POSSIBLY RECOMMENDED PROJECTS. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I'LL CERTAINLY HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU INDIVIDUALLY AS TO ANY THAT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON OR CONCERNS OR PRIORITIES ON ON THE LIST THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU. THEN WE'LL HAVE COMMITTEE BOND OR PROCESS.

BY JANUARY WE HAVE TO HAVE CONSENSUS ON THE LIST OF PROJECTS SO YOU ALL CAN CALL A VOTE IN THAT FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY. THOSE ARE STATE STATUTORY GUIDELINES IF WE WANT TO HIT THE MAY VOTE. YOU HAVE SEEN THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES ALREADY THIS YEAR. ALL RIGHT. NOW LASTLY SOME FEEDBACK.

I THINK I SAID "LASTLY" THREE TIMES NOW. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IF IT'S $442 MILLION, AS WE'RE RECOMMENDING, HOW DO WE START IDENTIFYING THE PRIORITY BUCKETS OR THE CATEGORIES WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT MONEY.

THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST A CONVERSATION STARTER. BUT AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, IF WE TAKE THE LAST THREE BOND CYCLES AND WE AVERAGE UP THE BREAKDOWNS --I SHOWED YOU THAT SLIDE EARLIER ON. BUT STREETS AVERAGED ABOUT 49% OF THE LAST THREE BOND CYCLES. THAT'S WHAT THAT PROPOSITION OR CATEGORY LOOKED LIKE AND THE MONEY WAS ALLOCATED ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN DRAINAGE, 17%. PARKS AVERAGES 20%. YOU GO DOWN THE LIST, 4% FOR LIBRARIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, ET CETERA. AND HOUSING OVER THE LAST COUPLE WAS 7 OR 8%. BUT IF WE DO THIS, THIS IS A PROPOSED WAY TO DO IT.

IF WE WERE TO TAKE OUT THE STORMWATER PROJECTS AND DO A STORMWATER FEE INCREASE AND PULL THOSE OUT OF THE CONVERSATION OF HOW DO WE DIVVY UP 442.

THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. THAT'S THE FEEDBACK I NEED PART ONE, WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER. PART TWO IS, WELL, I COULD TAKE THAT DRAINAGE MONEY FROM THE BOND AND START REALLOCATING IT BACK TO STREETS, PARKS, AND FACILITIES. SO DOING A LITTLE OVER HALF OF THE BOND IN STREETS OR BRIDGES AND SIDEWALKS. THAT'S $260 MILLION.

[00:35:03]

THIS IS THE TIME WE START HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. AGAIN, THIS WAS JUST TAKEN HISTORICALS AND TRYING TO USE THOSE WITH THE 442 BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL SCENARIO OF TAKING OUT THE 175 FROM DRAINAGE THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE WITH A STORMWATER FEE INCREASE. OKAY. THERE'S A LITTLE MATH THAT WE WERE WORKING ON LAST NIGHT, BUT THERE IT IS. THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I'M HERE TO ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS AS WE CAN.

WE HAVE SOME DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP AS WELL. BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS, MIKE. >> WALSH: ONE THING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE LIST THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED IS A LIST OF -- THAT HAS NOT BEEN SCRUBBED IN TERMS OF SCOPE OR REVIEW. WE'LL BE DOING THAT BUT WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU AN INITIAL LIST. BUT THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO GO ON IN TERMS OF SCALE AND SCOPE AND WHAT THOSE NUMBERS AND THOSE PROJECTS MEAN. AND THAT'S WORK THAT WE'LL BE DOING OVER THE NEXT

COUPLE OF WEEKS. >> MAYOR JONES: GREAT. THANK YOU.

ACTUALLY, LET'S START THERE. THANKS AGAIN, MIKE, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THIS LIST, DOES THIS INCLUDE EVERY PROJECT THAT DID NOT MAKE THE 2022 BOND?

>> SHANNON: THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. AND THAT'S BECAUSE I THINK I MENTIONED IT WAS 46 OR 47 BELOW THE LINE PROJECTS. BUT SEVERAL OF THEM HAVE

BEEN COMPLETED WITH OTHER FUNDING. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

>> SHANNON: SOME OF THEM ARE ON THERE BUT OTHERS HAVE BEEN FINISHED ALREADY.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE 2022 BOND AND THEY WERE NOT PAID

FOR OR COMPLETED ELSEWHERE, THEY ARE ON THIS LIST? >> SHANNON: CORRECT.

>> WALSH: WOULD IT BE HELPFUL, MAYOR, ON FUTURE LISTS IF WE DENOTE ON THOSE

PROJECTS THAT THEY WERE ON THE '22 LIST? >> MAYOR JONES: SURE.

AND I'VE GOT SOME OTHER FEEDBACK. TO YOUR POINT, MIKE -- BECAUSE EVEN ON THE STORM FEE, IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME OPTIONS. BUT IF SOME OF THAT MAY ALREADY NEED TO BE, FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE, TAGGED FOR CONTINUANCE OF OTHER PROJECTS, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS EATEN UP. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, ERIK, IF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE ON HERE ARE A PART OF -- OR FOLLOW ON OR NECESSARY FROM A PREVIOUS BOND.

THANK YOU. IN TERMS OF SCRUBBING IT, SCRUBBING THE LIST AS WELL, MIKE, JUST SO WE CAN APPRECIATE IT. TO YOUR POINT, HOW WE EXPLAIN TO THE COMMUNITY, EVEN WITH A SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY, HOW WE HAVE PRIORITIZED THE LIST. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, FOR THOSE INVESTMENTS -- FOR EXAMPLE, IN DRAINAGE OR IN OTHER THINGS WHEREBY NOT ADDRESSING THOSE THINGS LEADS TO A RELATIVELY HIGH FREQUENCY OF PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE NECESSARY. SO TO THE EXTENT WE HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH OF THESE PROJECTS ARE -- SHOULD BE HIGHER -- PRIORITIZED HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE OTHER COST OF PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE NEEDED IF IT'S NOT ADDRESSED.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN HELP US ON THIS LIST ALSO IDENTIFY?

>> SHANNON: YES. I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME PRIORITIZATION ALREADY DONE IN TERMS OF SOME SORT OF SCORING SYSTEM. I THINK THE STORMWATER BOARD AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM HAS CREATED A REVISED SCORING SYSTEM AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WOULD HELP PRIORITIZE A PROJECT.

SOME OF IT I MENTIONED ALREADY. I HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE IN TERMS OF LOW-WATER CROSSINGS AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND

TRY TO BRING YOU SOMETHING. >> MAYOR JONES: WE WANT TO SHOW THE PEOPLE NOT ONLY HAVE WE HEARD YOU BUT WE KNOW, BY MAKING THIS INVESTMENT IN PARTICULAR, SAVE OURSELVES SOME TIME AND ADDRESS SOME PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IF WE ADDRESS THIS DRAINAGE PROJECT, AS WE LOOK ACROSS OTHER ONES AS WELL. WHEN WE LOOK -- I KNOW YOU WANT SOME FEEDBACK ON THE -- RATHER, I KNOW THERE'S SOME INTEREST IN A DIFFERENT BOND AMOUNT. CAN WE LOOK AT THE -- HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE OTHER

[00:40:03]

OTHER FEEDBACK. >> SHANNON: YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE DEBT

SERVICE TAX RATE FROM THE BILLION DOLLARS -- >> MAYOR JONES: PLEASE.

>> SHANNON: WE HAVE SOME BACKUP SLIDES THAT TOUCH UPON THAT.

>> ELLIOTT: WE HAD A COUPLE OF BACKUP SLIDES. IF WE CAN BRING THOSE UP.

SO LAST TIME WE SPOKE IN THE WORK SESSION, WE PROVIDED A COUPLE OF OPTIONS OF HOW WE WOULD GET TO A BILLION OR $1.2 BILLION, POTENTIALLY USING A VARIABLE TAX RATE.

THESE SLIDES THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP IN THE BACKUP SLIDES, WE DID PROVIDE A BILLION-DOLLAR EXAMPLE. I CAN KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE.

FIRST, WE LOOK AT THE BACKUP SLIDES. THIS ONE YOU SAW IT AS WELL.

THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT OUR FORECAST IS IN TERMS OF TAXABLE VALUES.

FOR 2027, WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR BASE VALUE DECLINING, WITH OUR NEW IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE 2.7% OVERALL DECLINE. WE'RE FORECASTING 0% IN '28 AND THEN WE HAVE SLIGHT GROWTH MOVING INTO '29, '30, 'AND 31.

THAT IMPACTS OUR VALUES AND CAPACITY. TO MOVE TOWARDS A BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM -- WHAT THIS IS GOING TO SHOW IS TWO OPTIONS.

UTILIZING OUR FINANCIAL FORECAST IN THE MIDDLE AREA. AND THEN AN ILLUSTRATED GROWTH OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET TO A BILLION-DOLLAR PROGRAM.

SO LOOKING THROUGH THE FISCAL YEARS OF FINANCIAL FORECASTS THAT GOES THROUGH THOSE OPTIONS I JUST MENTIONED, IT SHOWS WHAT IT WOULD TAKE IN TERMS OF A TAX RATE, USING OUR FINANCIAL FORECAST TO ACTUALLY LEVERAGE A BILLION DOLLARS.

SO STARTING AT 21 CENTS, BASED ON THIS ESTIMATE, CITY COUNCIL WOULD BASICALLY TAKE A VOTE IN '28 FOR A POTENTIAL TAX RATE INCREASE. THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN 2029. GOING TO 21 CENTS. THEN THAT GROWS TO 23 CENTS THROUGH 30-33. TO THE FAR RIGHT LAYS OUT ILLUSTRATIVELY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TAXABLE VALUES ON THE DEBT SIDE, TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST -- AND YOU SAW IT ON THE PRIOR SLIDE -- IS OUR TAXABLE VALUES TEND TO REBOUND FAIRLY QUICKLY. WE JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT WOULD TAKE IN TERMS OF A GROWTH RATE TO MAINTAIN THE 21 CENTS. ON AVERAGE, STARTING ESSENTIALLY NEXT YEAR, IT WILL TAKE 3.75% OF OUR GROWTH.

ON AVERAGE. THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS SOMETHING VERY, VERY SIMILAR. SHOWS OUR FINANCIAL FORECAST GROWTH RATE.

IDENTICAL TO THE PRIOR SLIDE. BUT ALSO SHOWS KIND OF A MORE REALISTIC ASSUMPTION. IT STILL GETS TO THE AVERAGE 3.75%.

BUT WHAT IT SHOWS, TO MAINTAIN THAT TAX RATE IN 2029, ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD SEE A GROWTH RATE ON VALUES OF 5% TO MAINTAIN THAT 21 CENTS.

5% THE FOLLOWING YEAR. 4.5. THEN WE MODEL 3.5% OUT.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO REACH A

BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM. >> MAYOR JONES: SO, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR TO SUMMARIZE FOR THOSE WATCHING. THE FIRST SLIDE THAT YOU DID ON HERE -- SORRY. THE NEXT ONE AFTER THAT. THIS IS IF YOU WANTED TO GET A BILLION DOLLARS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THE PROPERTY TAX IN '28.

TO DO THIS SCENARIO. AND THE NEXT SCENARIO YOU SHOW HOW WE GET TO $1 BILLION AND WHAT THE ECONOMIC TRAJECTORY

INCREASE AND STILL ACHIEVE A BILLION DOLLARS. >> ELLIOTT: YES, MA'AM.

AND THE TAX RATE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN 2029. COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO VOTE

IN '28. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. >> WALSH: MAYOR, CAN I ADD A COUPLE OF ISSUES -- OR ADDED COMMENTS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE CONVERSATION YOU ALL JUST CONCLUDED WITH THE BUDGET. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A ONE-YEAR TIME.

WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTIPLE YEARS OUTWARD JUXTAPOSED WITH OUR PROJECTIONS OF WHERE WE THINK TAXABLE VALUES WOULD GO. THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE THINGS. IT'S NOT A ONE-YEAR BUDGET THAT YOU VOTE ON ONE AND DONE. IT IS -- THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ACTUALLY COMPOUND BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. THERE'S ONE DISTINCTION I WANTED TO KIND OF LAY OUT.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT ABSENT THE CONVERSATION ABOUT $442 MILLION OR $1 BILLION. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE OUTSTANDING DEBT AND IF WE

[00:45:05]

WE WOULD EXTEND MATURITY OF DEBT TO LESSEN THAT PAYMENT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE NEEDED TO, YOU ALL WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE TAX RATE IN ORDER TO PAY BACK BONDHOLDERS. NOW, THAT'S IN AN APOCALYPTIC SCENARIO BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE THE CONTEXT THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BONDHOLDERS AND SO THAT'S AN ADDED LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY WHEN WE PROJECT OUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT.

IT IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN A ONE-YEAR BUDGET. JUST ADDED CONTEXT, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR JONES: APPRECIATE IT. AND I THINK -- WELL, WE'LL JUST LAY FLAT THE RECENT INCREASE IN THE INTEREST RATE, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO

YOUR PROJECTIONS? >> ELLIOTT: WE HAVEN'T MODELED THE INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES. WE WOULD MANAGE -- TO ERIK'S POINT.

WHEN WE ACTUALLY ISSUE THE DEBT, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT HOW WE STRUCTURE THE DEBT.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MINIMAL OVER TIME. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND ISSUE A 442 BOND.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT SEVERAL OPTIONS OR THOSE LEVERS ERIK MENTIONED.

FIRST, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE ACTUAL PROGRAM AND HOW WE ARE SPENDING AND HOW WE SLOW THAT SPENDING DOWN. DO WE DELAY PROJECTS? DO WE LOOK AT RESTRUCTURING OUR DEBT, THE MATURITY ERIK TALKED ABOUT. THE LAST LEVER WE WOULD PULL WOULD BE A TAX INCREASE AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SEVERE. WE HAVE NOT MODELED A CHANGE

IN INTEREST RATES. >> WALSH: LET ME BRING IT FULL CIRCLE HERE.

THAT'S WHY OUR BOND RATING IS CRITICAL. BECAUSE THAT TELLS EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF THOSE THREE AGENCIES THAT RATE US THAT WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEASURES IN PLACE. WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL POLICIES IN PLACE.

WE FINANCIALLY MANAGE WELL. THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE CITY IS WORKING WELL.

ALL THOSE THINGS HELP US NEGOTIATE THOSE INTEREST RATES WHEN IT COMES TIME TO SELLING BONDS. AND PUTS US IN A BETTER POSITION TO MITIGATE

INTEREST RATE EXPENSE. >> ELLIOTT: THE OTHER THING I WOULD MENTION, MAYOR, IS WHEN WE ARE BUILDING OUR ASSUMPTIONS, WE ARE MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE AND WE'RE USING RATES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT ARE BEING ESTABLISHED

BY THE FED TODAY OR THE MARKET. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

SO THE $442 MILLION BOND CAPACITY, THAT IS YOUR MODERATELY-CONSERVATIVE

RECOMMENDATION? >> ELLIOTT: YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR JONES: SO $1 BILLION, EITHER VIA RAISING PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OR HOPING THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER IS WILDLY OUTSIDE OF MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE?

>> ELLIOTT: WE'RE STILL BEING MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE IN THOSE PROJECTIONS BUT I CAN'T ANTICIPATE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ACCURATELY.

>> MAYOR JONES: LAST TIME I ASKED WHAT A THREE-YEAR BOND MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

>> ELLIOTT: GOING BACK TO THAT FORECAST SLIDE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF GROWTH IN '28 AND '29 THAT IMPACTS CAPACITY. IF YOU DID A THREE YEAR, MORE AT $100 MILLION.

>> MAYOR JONES: IF YOU DID A THREE-YEAR BOND WE WOULD BE AT $100 MILLION?

>> ELLIOTT: YES, MA'AM. IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROWTH AND THERE'S NOT A

WHOLE LOT OF GROWTH IN THOSE EARLY YEARS. >> MAYOR JONES: SO EVEN WITH A FIVE-YEAR BOND THEN, GETTING TO 442, WE'RE REALLY ASSUMING A SIGNIFICANT

INCREASE IN THE OUT YEARS? >> ELLIOTT: WE ARE ASSUMING THAT AFTER THIS

FORECAST, WE'RE AVERAGING IN EXCESS OF 3%, ON AVERAGE. >> WALSH: WHICH IS MORE IN

LINE WITH HISTORICAL. IT'S NOT -- >> ELLIOTT: THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS LOOKING BACK HISTORICALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S GROWTH -- AND I MENTIONED THIS. WHEN YOU HAVE AVERAGE GROWTH ON THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE, IT'S BEEN IN EXCESS OF 6%.

WHEN IT TURNS, IT TENDS TO TURN VERY QUICKLY AND I THINK WE'RE STILL BEING MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE. THE OTHER THING THAT WE DO ON A REGULAR BASIS, WE PAY OFF OUR DEBT VERY, VERY FREQUENTLY AND QUICKLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT

LEVERAGING THE FUTURE YEARS. >> WALSH: YOU KNOW, SO THE OTHER THING -- NOT TO COMPLICATE AN ALREADY-COMPLICATED ISSUE. WE DO BOND PROGRAMS EVERY FIVE YEARS. THAT'S A SELF-IMPOSED PROGRAM THAT WE DO.

WE DO NOT DO WHAT OTHER MAJOR CITIES DO IN THIS STATE WHERE PRACTICALLY

[00:50:04]

WE DO IT OVER FIVE YEARS AND WE DO IT FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE THAT BY THE TIME VOTERS GO BACK TO THE BALLOT THAT 90% OF THE PROJECTS ARE COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS COUNCIL FROM -- IF WE SEE A CHANGE IN TIDE FROM DOING SOMETHING SOONER THAN 2032.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSERVATIVE AND FOCUSED ON WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. BUT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN ISSUE, IF WE SAW A RECOVERY SOONER THAN WE EXPECTED OR MORE THAN WE EXPECTED, THEN THAT GIVES YOU ALL THE ABILITY OR THE ORGANIZATION THE ABILITY TO MAYBE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL FIVE-YEAR PROCESS.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. ON THE DOWNTOWN SLIDE -- I KNOW WE JUST GOT THIS YESTERDAY. SOME QUESTIONS ON IT. ON THE DOWNTOWN SLIDE, EVEN THE $35 MILLION, IS THAT POSSIBLE TO PAY FOR THAT OUT OF THE PFC?

>> SHANNON: I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE I'LL ASK BEN TO HELP ME WITH THAT ONE.

>> GORZELL: GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO IN TERMS OF THE PFZ AND USING THAT FOR THE $35 MILLION THAT'S ON THE SLIDE, THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS TO THAT. ONE IS MEETING THE STATUTE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S LEGALLY REQUIRED, IN TERMS OF RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT IS FACT-SPECIFIC.

I THINK THAT PROBABLY SOME OR ALL OF THAT WOULD BE PFZ ELIGIBLE BUT I WOULD WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PROJECT SPECIFICALLY TO DETERMINE THAT.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THAT SIDE.

ON THE FINANCIAL SIDE, THEN IT COMES DOWN TO DO WE HAVE CAPACITY IN THE PFZ TO DO IT. LAST SUMMER, AS WE BRIEFED Y'ALL ON THE ARENA FINANCING TERM SHEET, WE TALKED ABOUT AN EXPANSION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER.

WE TALKED ABOUT SOME ALAMODOME NEEDS. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXCESS PFZ REVENUE AS WE MODELED ALL OF THAT LAST SUMMER, LAST FALL.

WE ARE COMING BACK TO YOU ALL AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, OCTOBER 27 OR 28TH, I THINK, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE PROJECTS, THE FINANCIAL

PROJECTIONS, AND ALL OF THAT LATER THIS MONTH. >> MAYOR JONES: I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, NOT ONLY THE $35 MILLION, BUT ALSO IF THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS ON THE LIST THAT QUALIFY FOR EITHER PFZ OR IF THEY FALL WITHIN A TIRZ. AND IF THE TIRZ WOULD LIKE TO PAY FOR THEM OR CONSIDER PAYING FOR THEM. THEN, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. I THINK AS WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT HOW DO WE GET AS MUCH DONE HERE, LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS POTS, WE WANT TO ALSO EXPLAIN TO FOLKS, HEY, WE HAVE TAKEN THOSE THINGS THAT CAN BE PAID FOR WITH OTHER POTS OF MONEY.

WE HAVE DONE THAT TO PROTECT AS MUCH OF THE BOND CAPACITY AS POSSIBLE.

I WOULD APPRECIATE THE UPDATED LIST. REFLECT THAT.

THANK YOU. AND I KNOW ON THE SLIDE IT SAYS CITY -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, MIKE AND JOHN. BUT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT.

ON THE SLIDE IT SAYS -- THIS IS SLIDE 23. THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SLIDE. IT SAYS CITY ANTICIPATES. AND SO THAT SEEMS NOT YET CONFIRMED. WHEN MIGHT WE HAVE CONFIRMATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT -- WELL WHETHER IT CAN BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE PFZ.

IF NOT, WHEN MIGHT WE HAVE SOME CONFIRMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE

NEED >> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION IN THE LAST YEAR WITH TXDOT. WE RECENTLY GOT A LETTER FROM THEM THIS MORNING SAYING THEY'RE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO PARTNER WITH US ON THIS. I THINK WITHIN ABOUT A MONTH OR SO IS WHEN WE ARE ANTICIPATING HAVING MORE OF A COMMITMENT ON OUR ASSUMPTIONS THERE AT 80/20, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, CONVERSATIONS DAILY IF NOT MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK. SO I THINK THAT'S OUR CURRENT EXPECTED TIMELINE FOR THAT

INFORMATION. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. AND WE UNDERSTAND THE MOBILITY STUDY IS STILL ONGOING AND IS NOT YET COMPLETE. SO WHEN WILL WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THAT AND HOW WILL THOSE FINDINGS BE ABLE TO INFORM THE ASKS HERE?

>> THAT'S ON OCTOBER 28TH AS WELL, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: UNDERSTOOD.

SO, HOW WILL THAT INFORM THE BOND, WHAT IS ASKED FOR OUT OF THE BOND?

[00:55:01]

>> THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THAT PROJECT SO FAR IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE WORK THAT

MIKE AND JOHN HAVE DONE WITH TXDOT. >> MAYOR JONES: BASED ON THAT STUDY, THE BOND ASK, IF

>> I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT NUMBER BEING HIGHER BASED ON THE WORK THEY'RE DONE SO FAR ON THE

STUDY. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. THE LAST BULLET, IF YOU'D BRING IT UP, THE SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING THAT HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS CLOSELY, THE NUMBER -- THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC NUMBER WAS 220-250000000 FOR THE FIRST BOND. THIS IS A SMALLER NUMBER. YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME OFF. SHOULD FOLKS UNDERSTAND COME OFF AS IN WILL NOT BE DONE EVER, OR ARE BEING DEFERRED, OR HOW SHOULD THEY UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE

PROJECTS? >> FOR RIGHT NOW, THE EXAMPLES I SHOWED YOU, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

SAVINGS THERE. >> MAYOR JONES: DOES THAT MEAN EVER, OR WE'RE DOING IT LATER?

>> WE DON'T ANTICIPATE WE'RE DOING -- >> WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING

IT, PERIOD. >> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S HELPFUL.

>> WE ARE NOT PLANNING ON BUILDING AN $85 MILLION PARKING GARAGE AT THE ALAMO DOME, UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES. WE'RE NOT PLANNING OR ANTICIPATING THAT.

>> MAYOR JONES: FOR TRANSPARENCY OFF JUST NOT HAPPENING, AND IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS IN WHICH, IF IT'S DEFERRED, WE'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

THANKS, MIKE. LASTLY, YOU MENTIONED 17 FLOOD PROJECTS.

LAST TIME WE DID THIS -- JUST REMEMBERED THIS, WE WENT TO THE LEDGE, IT WAS 14 STATE PROJECTS.

HAVE WE IDENTIFIED THREE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS? >> I ASKED TO SEE HOW WE'VE

IDENTIFIED THE THREE ADDITIONAL, BUT IT'S EVER-CHANGING. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

>> GOOD MORNING, ART, PUBLIC WORKS. STATE FLOOD PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2024. SINCE THAT PERIOD, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH A PROCESS OF AMENDING THE PLAN ANNUALLY, THREE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS HAVE BEEN ADDED.

THE TOTAL INCLUDED IN THE PLAN IS 17 PROJECTS, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THAT LIST OF

DRAINAGE PROJECTS THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU ALL. >> MAYOR JONES: THE PREVIOUS

COST WAS 411. >> THE 17 PROJECTS TOTALING NOW -- SOME OF THESE OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS HAVE BEEN REFINED, SCOPE HAS. OF THE 2.1 BILLION, 840 MILLION

IS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE 17 PROJECTS T. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT. TURN TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE. COUNCILMEMBER VIAGRAN, PLEASE.

>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. SO, I WANT TO THANK CAPITAL DELIVERY AND MIKE FOR THEIR WORK AND COMING OUT TO MY RESIDENCE ON THE UPCOMING 2027-2032 BOND. SO, WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU ARE RECOMMENDING AN AMOUNT -- BOND OF 442 MILLION. I WOULD LIKE, THE LAST TIME WE HAD A BOND, AT THE AMOUNT OF 442 MILLION, HOW MANY PROJECTS GOT DONE AND IN WHICH DISTRICTS THOSE PROJECTS WERE IN. WHAT I ALSO HEARD IS YOU WANT DIRECTION ON THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND, THE DATE OF THE ELECTION, DRAINAGE FUNDING CAPACITY FEES, AND I WILL TELL YOU I WANT NOTHING LESS THAN $1 BILLION FOR THE BOND. I WANT THE DATA OF ELECTION -- DATE OF ELECTION IN MAY OF NEXT YEAR. THAT'S WHAT -- I FELT LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING WE TOLD THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THEM, BECAUSE WE MOVED OUR ELECTION TO NOVEMBER. AND IN TERMS OF THE DRAINAGE FUNDING CAPACITY FEES I AM NOT GOING TO GUARANTEE A TAX RATE -- A FEE INCREASE WHEN WE CAN USE THE MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE $1 BILLION BOND. IF WE GROW BY 4%, OR 5% HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, WE WILL NOT BE BURDENING THE TAXPAYER. WE WILL NOT HAVE TO LEVY THAT TAX INCREASE.

I UNDERSTAND IN THE YEARS I WORKED WITH THE CITY, IN THE YEARS I'VE SERVED ON THE COUNCIL, WHAT MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE MEANS -- WHAT MODERATELY MEANS TO YOU IN TERMS OF CONSERVATIVE. I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE TO THE VOTERS A BOND THAT DOES NOT TAKE US BACKWARDS, A BOND THAT MOVES US FORWARDS AND PROVIDES MORE PROJECT COMPLETION CITYWIDE. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS REGARDING THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, BECAUSE THAT INCLUDES THE CONVENTION

[01:00:05]

BUT LET'S LEVERAGE IT WITH 1 BILLION. TXDOT JUST PROVED IT.

THEY CAME IN, WE'LL DO 80/20. MY VOTERS AREN'T GOING TO SAY NO TO THAT.

BUT I WANT TO GIVE A BETTER BOND FOR THE HOUSING. TO ASK ME TO LOOK AT $180 MILLION TO DIVIDE IT BETWEEN PARKS, FACILITIES, AND HOUSING? YEAH. AND WE HAVE DONE SO MUCH WORK ON HOUSING.

SO I APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITIES, ERIC. I HEAR THEM.

I APPRECIATE -- YOU KNOW I APPRECIATE YOU, BEN AND TROY, AND YOU'RE MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE.

LEADERSHIP SITTING UP IN THIS DAIS TO GO OUT AND BUILD THE GROWTH, BUT THAT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, AND THAT OF THE VOTERS TO SAY IN MAY, YES, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. AND THAT'S THE THING. IT IS THE CITY'S JOB TO, KIND OF, BE THE BUREAUCRAT. GIVE US THE NUMBERS. AND I APPRECIATE IT.

BUT IT IS OUR JOB TO MOVE THIS CITY FORWARD AND GROW THIS CITY. AND I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SO, AGAIN, MY QUESTIONS ARE, LET'S JUST GET THE BOND PROGRAM OUT OF THE WAY. 202022 TO 2027, THAT SAW APPROVAL -- THE BOND IS DIVIDED INTO HOW MANY THIS YEAR, MIKE? HOW MANY CATEGORIES IS IT GOING TO BE DIVIDED INTO?

>> RIGHT NOW WE STILL HAVE THE FIVE CATEGORIES. I'M COMBINING FACILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION. BUT DRAINAGE, STREETS, PARKS, FACILITIES, AND HOUSING.

THOSE ARE THE STILL THE FIVE BUCKETS. BUT BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION TODAY, AND CERTAINLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH STORMWATER FEE INCREASE, DO WE WANT TO MOVE THOSE OVER THERE OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, IS FUND THOSE FIVE CATEGORIES.

>> VIAGRAN: AND I WANT THE -- I APPRECIATE THE -- SO THE ONE CATEGORY FROM LAST YEAR THAT'S NOT THERE IS LIBRARY AND CULTURAL FACILITIES? WE DIVIDED THEM UP?

>> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. FOR TODAY, I'M COMBINING FACILITIES. WHEN WE WENT OUT TO THE VOTERS, WE DIVIDED LIBRARY AND CULTURAL FACILITIES INTO ONE PROP. AND WE DID THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IN ANOTHER PROP.

THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, THOUGH, WE COMBINED THAT. WE HAD THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE. I'M ACTUALLY JUST COMBINING THEM, MEANING THEY'RE ALL IN ONE BUCKET FOR NOW, HOWEVER WE WANT TO DO IT MOVING FORWARD.

>> VIAGRAN: IF WE STAY AT 1 BILLION, I THINK WE NEED THE COMMITTEE SET UP AS WE HAVE.

AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACILITIES THERE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE BOND PROJECT IS, IN TERMS OF THE AGE OF SOME OF THE FACILITIES, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THEM. AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT THEY DISCUSS IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL GROWTH THAT WE SEE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF PLANNING NEEDS TO GO OUT THERE AND SAY THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE QUEUE FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT, AND HAVE THAT AS THEY MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THERE. THE OTHER ASPECT THAT I WANT TO OF COURSE STRESS IS, IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE 22. SLIDE 22 YOU SAID THESE ARE --

[01:05:01]

AND THEN ON SLIDE 23, THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR AND GOING TO BE AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR. AND THE 80/20 IS KEY TO THAT. WE JUST DID RIBBON-CUTTING FOR SOMETHING, AND TXDOT IS EAGER TO MAKE THEIR MARK AND WIN AWARDS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

SO WHAT THEY CAN DO TO HELP THERE, I APPRECIATE. AND THEN ON SLIDE 28, IF WE COULD GET SLIDE 28 BACK UP. THIS ONE IS WHAT'S TROUBLESOME WITH ME.

WE HAD A $100 MILLION HOUSING BOND. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IF THAT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE STORMWATER RATE INCREASE FEES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE LEADERSHIP HERE ALONG WITH THE LEADERSHIP IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND OUR ADVOCATES THERE CAN WORK AT THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO BRING OUR DOLLARS BACK HOME.

BECAUSE THEY'RE OUR TAX DOLLARS, BACK HOME TO HELP WITH PROJECTS IN DRAINAGE BEFORE WE ASSESS THAT FEE TO OUR RESIDENTS. I'M NOT SURE -- I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT GOING TO COME, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS AT LEAST GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY THIS SESSION AT THE STATE AND THEN TO TRY AFTER NOVEMBER AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO BRING THOSE DOLLARS HOME.

SO THIS IS WHY I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF A $442 MILLION BOND. AND I DO WANT THE STATS IN TERMS OF WHO THAT -- WHEN IT HAPPENED LAST AND WHO WOULD BENEFIT. BECAUSE I THINK IT'S 17 YEARS THAT WE WERE AT 596 MILLION. WE'RE NOT EVEN THERE. 850 MILLION FOR THE 2017.

THIS IS MY SECOND BOND. AND I WAS PRIVILEGED TO BE PART OF THE $1.2 BILLION BOND, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST THE CITY HAD SEEN. AND DISTRICT 3 BENEFITTED FROM IT GREATLY. BUT I DO NEED TO SEE CONTINUED GROWTH IN THE TEXAS A&M AREA WITH THE PARKWAY, WITH THE SOUTH TEXAS PARKWAY, AS THEY CONTINUE TO INNOVATE. MY CONCERN IS, WHAT ARE WE COMMUNICATING TO THE CITY.

WE'VE DONE THIS. THERE IS COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO ECONOMIC CRISIS IN THECITY OF S.

WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR PLACE AS THE SIXTH-LARGEST CITY AND WE HAVE TO LEAD.

>> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO, PLEASE. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I DO APPRECIATE THE INITIAL LIST. I WILL SAY THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS MISSING.

WE WOULD ONLY FUND OUT OF A BOND PROGRAM. IT WOULD BE HELP FUL TO INCLUDE WHICH ARE COUNCIL REQUESTS FROM THIS COUNCIL AND WHICH ARE REQUESTS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCILMEMBERS, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS SOME OVERLAP WITH PROJECTS THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE 2022 BOND. ALL THAT SAID, I COULD SUPPORT THE INCREASE TO STORMWATER FEES.

I DO BELIEVE IT'S CLEAR AND DIRECT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO BE INCREASING THIS FEE.

BUT AS A RESULT, WE'RE FANNING O BE FUNDING DRAINAGE PROJECTS. I THINK THAT'S THE BASIC EXPECTATION THAT PEOPLE HAVE WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING FEE INCREASES.

I CAN ENTERTAIN IT IN THAT WAY. I'LL ALSO ADD THAT WITH MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES' SUPPORT, IF Y'ALL WOULD PROVIDE THIS FEEDBACK, I COULD REMOVE SOME DISTRICT 2 PROJECTS IF WE FUNDED SOME OF THEM OR LEVERAGED TIRZ DOLLARS TO DO SO. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO THE SAME WITH OTHER TIRZ'S.

CONVENE THE BOARD AND WE COULD IDENTIFY SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE BELIEVE WE WOULD SUPPORT.

I STILL EXPECT EQUITY OUT OF THE BOND. SO IF DISTRICT 2 IS GETTING LESS OF A SPECIFIC PROPOSITION BECAUSE WE'RE FUNDING THEM ELSEWHERE, I EXPECT IT TO BE MADE UP IN ONE OF THE OTHER PROPS, SUCH AS STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALKS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO FUND PHASE TWO OF THE LIBRARY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE MAKE UP FOR THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND ANOTHER DISTRICT CAN BENEFIT FROM HAVING A FACILITY PROJECT AS A PART OF

[01:10:04]

SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE ZOO WERE TO REQUEST -- THE DISTRICT 2 PORTION OF THE ZOO WERE TO REQUEST FUNDING, I AS A COUNCILPERSON WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE AM I GOING TO SUPPORT THE ZOO GETTING BOND FUNDING OR ANOTHER PROJECT IN MY DISTRICT. THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD VIEW EVERY PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. DO-DO-DO. I WOULD ALSO SAY THE WAY THAT WE HANDLE FUNDING GETS TRICKIER. IF DISTRICT 9 WANTS A $40 MILLION POLICE SUBSTATION IN STONE OAK, THAT'S MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT WE COULD DO OUT OF THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION.

HOW DO WE ENSURE EVERY OTHER DISTRICT HAS THE ABILITY TO FUND LIBRARIES, SENIOR CENTERS, AND FIRE STATIONS. DO WE THEN SAY, NO NEW FACILITIES, ONLY RENOVATIONS? I KNOW THAT'S NOT QUITE WHAT MANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE AS AN EXPECTATION OF A BOND PROGRAM. THERE'S NEW SENIOR CENTERS TO BE BUILT.

THERE'S PARKS AND LIBRARIES THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO BUILD AND RENOVATE AND EXPAND.

I DO FIND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT -- THERE'S GIVE AND TAKE THERE. THAT SAID, WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT EQUITABLY FUNDING THE ENTIRE BOND SO SCHOOL DISTRICTS -- DISTRICTS WITH GREATER NEED RECEIVE A GREATER SHARE OF THE PROPOSITION, BUT A FAIR SHARE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT ALLOCATED, WHETHER THAT'S GREATER DRAINAGE NEEDS AND INCREASED FLOOD RISK, OR GREATER PARKS NEED, THIS IS HOW WE LOOK AT WHAT EQUITY MEANS FOR EACH OF THESE PROPOSITIONS.

FOR DRAINAGE YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE HIGH-RISK FLOOD AREAS. FOR PARKS YOU WOULD LOOK AT OUR TEN-MINUTE PARK SCORE, THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. FOR STREETS, BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF FAILED STREETS, SIDEWALK GAPS, THE OVERALL PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX AND AN ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES TO DETERMINE FUNDING FOR EACH.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE ANY SUCH INDEX FOR BRIDGES. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD TACKLE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE. THAT IS OPTION ONE, WHICH I AM OKAY WITH, BUT REQUIRES A LOT OF DISDISCUSSION. THE SECOND ROUTE WOULD BE TO INCREASE OUR CAPACITY TO 1 BILLION OR 1.2 BILLION. I SAY WE WOULD CAP OUR PROPOSITIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKS, AND FACILITIES AND THE REST OF THAT BILLION BE ALLOCATED TO STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALKS. WE'D FUND 600 TO $800 MILLION IN STREETS AND BRIDGES, A THIRD OF THE NEED THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY.

SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY $150 MILLION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 150 MILLION IN PARKS, 150 IN FACILITIES, UP TO 800 MILLION ON STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALK.

AND IT SAYS IN THE EVENT WE ARE INCREASING OUR CAPACITY BEYOND THE 442 MILLION WE WOULD HAVE TODAY, AT LEAST EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ADDING ON TOP OF THAT IS STRAIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE.

LASTLY, IF THIS BECOMES TOO CONTENTIOUS, I HAVE ANOTHER OPTION.

Y'ALL, HEAR ME OUT. WHAT IF WE MADE THIS THE F STREET BOND, FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL FAILING STREETS, THE COUNCIL THAT ELIMINATES FAILING STREETS.

THAT $700 MILLION IN NEED, IN ADDITION TO $175 MILLION IN DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE COOL IF WE WERE THAT COUNCIL. I KNOW IT'S NOT QUITE THE LEVEL -- I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF VISIONARY THAN SOMETHING LIKE INVESTMENT IN SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT OR REGIONAL CENTERS, BUT IF WE SAID WE WERE ABLE TO FUND OUT OF THIS BOND ALL THE FAILED STREETS AND YOU WEREN'T GOING TO DRIVE ON MESSED-UP ROADS, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING OUR RESIDENTS COULD GET BEHIND. AND EVEN NORTHSIDE COLLEAGUES COULD GET BEHIND SUCH A CONCEPT. EVEN IF WE DO THE 1 OR $2 BILLION BOND OR TARGET SHOULD BE TO ELIMINATE HALF OF ALL FAILING STREETS, TARGETING THE A AREAS THAT NEED IT THE MOST.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES' THOUGHTS. WE NEED A BOND PROGRAM.

I'M WILLING FOR COMPROMISE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

COUNCICOUNCILMAN WHYTE, PLEASE. >> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN, YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND RESPECT YOU, BUT IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO ME THAT DURING THE BUDGET CONVERSATION, WHEN

[01:15:05]

WE NEED TO LISTEN TO CITY STAFF. THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING.

WE NEED TO DO THE TAX HIKE. AND THEN TODAY, WE HAVE NO, WE DON'T NEED TO LISTEN TO ERIC.

WE NEED TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND AND PUT OUR CITIZENS AT RISK OF WHAT COULD BE AN EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT TAX HIKE TO OUR RESIDENTS. THAT DOESN'T.

>>FLY WITH ME.MY OPENING WORDS O LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS. ERIC MIGHT HAVE SAID IT BEST OR BETTER WHEN HE SAID WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. AND TO THINK THAT WE WOULD RAISE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TAXES AGAIN AFTER JUST DOING SO A WEEK OR SO AGO, JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO SPEND MORE MONEY AND TAKE ON MORE DEBT, I THINK IS -- WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE MISTAKE.

IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO DO THAT TO THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO. AND AGAIN, THE IMPACT HERE, THE RISK AND THE DEBT THAT WE WOULD TAKE ON BY DOING A BILLION-DOLLAR BOND IS SIGNIFICANT. AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK ERIC AGAIN TO EXPLAIN WHY THE

RECOMMENDATION IS TO STICK WITH THE $442 MILLION. >> IT GOES BACK TO THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THE MAYOR HAD AT THE BEGINNING. THIS IS A COMPLEX FINANCIAL CALCULATION THAT IS STEEPED WITH MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES.

IT IS NOT A ONE-YEAR BUDGET DECISION. IT IS RESTING UPON OUR PROJECTIONS AND MODELING THAT WE DO AFTER RECESSIONARY PERIODS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT IN A RECESSION. AND SO WE'RE MAKING CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE GOING OUT MULTIPLE YEARS. AND I THINK THAT'S AN ADDED LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY THAT MAY BE TOO GREAT OF A RISK FOR US TO DO. AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WITH $5 BILLION WORTH OF NEED THAT DOING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IS IMPORTANT.

BUT I CAUTION AGAINST DOING IT AT ANY EXPENSE. BECAUSE IT WILL REQUIRE, AS TROY LAID OUT AND A COUPLE -- AT LEAST TWO SCENARIOS -- IT WILL REQUIRE AN INCREASE, AND POTENTIALLY A MULTIYEAR INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF RISK THAT WE'RE TAKING. I THINK IT PUT PUTS US IN A BETR POSITION TO BE ABLE TO, IF AND WHEN WE HIT RECOVERY FOR THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AT THAT POINT DURING RECOVERY, BECAUSE AS TROY SAID, FROM A HISTORICAL STANDPOINT, WHEN IT RECOVERS, IT RECOVERS STRONGLY. DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE AT THAT POINT FOR ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT. AND I THINK THAT KEEPS THE COUNCIL IN A POSITION OF LATITUDE TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. AND SO THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE 442. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED AT LEAST THREE TIMES THIS CALENDAR YEAR ON THE BOND PROGRAM. BUT TWO OF THE EARLIER CONVERSATIONS WERE BEFORE WE HAD THE TAXABLE VALUE FINALIZED AT THE END OF JULY. AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT WE HAVE. NOW, A COUNCILPERSON HAS ASKED ME, IF IT'S ONLY $442 MILLION, SHOULD WE DO IT. WE SHOULD, BECAUSE WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE NEED.

AND IF WE DON'T CHIP AWAY AT IT, STAY ON A SCHEDULE TO CHIP AWAY ON IT, THAT NEED JUST GOES UP IN

TERMS OF COST. >> WHYTE: THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BOND, AND THE BUDGET, OF COURSE, IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. BUT THE UNDERLYING ISSUE HERE TO ME IS REALLY THE SAME. AND AGAIN, IT'S LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS.

WE HAVE TO GET CONTROL ON WHAT WE SPEND AS A CITY GOVERNMENT, AND WHAT DEBT WE TAKE ON.

AND SO, HERE AGAIN, AS WE'VE HEARD, THE RISK TO OUR CITIZENS OF A COMPOUNDING RATE HIKE, AGAIN, ON TOP OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE, THE INCREASED LIVING COST, THAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE -- WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

WE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING IT. WE NEED TO STICK WITH THE 442 AND GET AS MUCH DONE WITH THAT MONEY AS POSSIBLE. THE COUNCILMAN'S PROPOSAL OF THE F STREETS AND TAKING CARE OF ALL

[01:20:05]

HOW MANY OF THE PROJECTS FROM THE 2022 BOND ARE COMPLETE, AND HOW MANY ARE STILL IN DESIGN?

>> I'LL GET YOU THE COMPLETE NUMBER. WE'VE AT 79 COMPLETE OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION, JUST A LITTLE OVER 20% STILL IN DESIGN. I CAN GET YOU THE BREAKDOWN,

CERTAINLY. >> WHYTE: WE TAKE THESE THINGS TO THE VOTERS.

WE TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE WE ARE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND COMPLETE EVERYTHING WE ARE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DO IN A TIMELY MANNER. THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROJECTS ON THIS LIST WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE -- AND ONE OF THEM IS IN DISTRICT 10. IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE QUOTED ONE COST FOR IT AND THE VOTERS VOTED AND APPROVED THE PROJECT AT ONE NUMBER.

AND THEN NOW IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED MORE MONEY TO COMPLETE THE SAME PROJECT, OR THERE WERE CONTINGENCIES, OR OTHER ISSUES THAT CAME UP THAT NOW MAKE THE PROJECT MORE EXPENSIVE.

IS THAT TRUE? >> WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THIS MORNING. APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTIONS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO DELIVERING THESE PROJECTS ON TIME, WITHIN BUDGET. AND SOMETIMES THAT MEANS THE SCOPE NEEDS TO CHANGE. IN THIS PROJECT'S CASE -- THERE WERE TWO PROJECTS GOING DOWN DUAL PATHS. I DID SOME HOMEWORK. THERE WAS A DRAINAGE PROJECT AND A STREET PROJECT. THEY WERE MARRIED. WHAT GOT APPROVED WAS JUST THE STREET PROJECT, NOT THE DRAINAGE PROJECT. IT GOT CUT FROM THE EVENTUAL APPROVED LIST. THAT'S A GREAT MOMENT FOR US TO REVISE THE SCOPE AND SAY, WE CANNOT DELIVER THE PROJECT THAT WAS A PART OF THAT LIST. WE'RE GOING TO AGGRESSIVELY DO THAT THIS TIME. THERE'LL BE PROJECTS THAT FALL ON AND OFF THE LIST BASED ON NEEDS AND WANTS OF THE COMMITTEES AND YOU ALL. AND WHEN MONEY IS TAKEN FROM A PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE LIMITS MUST CHANGE AND THE SCOPE MUST CHANGE MOVING FORWARD. I'M NOT SURE WE DID 100% OF THAT LAST TIME, BUT WE WILL DO IT THIS TIME. YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT ONE OF THOSE CASES.

>> WHYTE: I APPRECIATE YOU GETTING THAT INFORMATION. I KNOW WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE 100% PERFECT. BUT WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT WHEN WE'RE PRICING THESE THINGS OUT AND TAKING THEM TO THE VOTERS AND SAYING, HERE IS WHAT'S GOING TO GET DONE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND HERE'S WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE, THAT WE NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN CAN NAIL

THAT. >> WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE GREAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH SUBMITTING THESE PROJECTS. I WILL COMMIT THAT WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR TO GET IT

RIGHT -- POWER TO GET IT RIGHT. >> WHAT THAT MEANS IN THIS CASE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO LESS.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE FACE THOSE ISSUES WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND IT'S ABOUT PRODUCING.

AND I GET -- WE'RE ON TRACK ON 2022. IT'S A FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM.

IT'S NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LAW AND ORDER WHERE THE CRIME, THE ARREST, AND THE CONVICTION ALL HAPPEN IN 45 MINUTES. THE BOND PROGRAMS TAKE TIME. AND FIVE YEARS, WE ARE ON TRACK.

WHEN WE DO HAVE ISSUES, THEN WE TRY TO MITIGATE THEM, WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL ISSUES LIKE WE HAVE WITH BRACKENRIDGE THAT HAS DELAYED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE BOND PROGRAMS. WHEN WE REDUCE THE SCOPE, WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE SCOPE IN ORDER TO DELIVER A PROJECT THAT

IS WORTHY AND IS WITHIN BUDGET. >> WHYTE: AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO ITIZENS THEY'RE GETTING ONE THING WHEN THEY GO TO THE POLLS, AND THEN A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THEY FIND OUT THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET.

SO I KNOW Y'ALL ARE DOING IT, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE ALL EFFORTS, AS I'M SURE YOU ARE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR IS AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET. AND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT . . . I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE. BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT MORE OFFLINE. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT EVERYBODY HAS DONE ON THIS.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS. COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ, IT'S ON SLIDE 13, COUNCILMEMBER

[01:25:05]

442? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: EITHER WAY WE SHOULD BE TACKLING F STREETS.

WHICHEVER DOLLAR AMOUNT, WE SHOULD DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT IF WE WERE TO DO A BILLION-DOLLAR BOND, EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT $442 MILLION WOULD BE ALLOCATED JUST FOR STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALKS. AND THEN WE WOULD TARGET AT LEAST HALF OF F STREETS WITH THAT AMOUNT. THE SECOND OPTION THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP, OR THIRD OPTION, WAS THAT $744 MILLION THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY TO ADDRESS ALL F

STREETS IN THE CITY. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. SO $744 MILLION.

>> OKAY. THEN WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, TO BE CLEAR, WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IS USING THE 442 ON THE F STREETS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE 358 WE COULD

KNOCK IT DOWN TO 5% OR WE COULD KNOCK OUT 5%. >> WE WOULD GET IT DOWN TO 5%.

>> WHYTE: WE WOULD GET IT DOWN TO 5% IF WE SPENT 358 MILLION.

>> EVERY DISTRICT WOULD HAVE 5%, OR NO MORE THAN 5%? >> DOUBLE CHECK.

THE 358 MILLION NUMBER, EVERY DISTRICT WOULD BE AT OR BELOW 5%.

SOME ARE ALREADY BELOW 5%. IT WOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE OTHER DISTRICTS TO GET THOSE THAT ARE

OVER 5% UNDER 5% OF THEIR OVERALL NETWORK. >> T

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MUNGIA. >> MUNGIA: THANK YOU.

WE ACTUALLY HAD THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS ABOUT THE BOND. IT'S BEEN THE FIRST TIME RESIDENTS IN D4 HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND DISCUSS BOND PROJECTS AND IDEAS BEFORE THE BOND VOTE. THANK YOU, MIKE, FOR BEING THERE.

OUTSHOUTOUT TO OUR IN-HOUSE CONSULTANT. AS YOU SAW, IT'S BEEN GREAT TURNOUT FOR D4. BETWEEN THE THREE MEETINGS, I'VE HAD 200 FOLKS IN ATTENDANCE, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD FOR OUR DISTRICT. AND SO, RESIDENTS IN D4 ARE REALLY PLUGGED INTO THIS CYCLE OF THE BOND. AND THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY UNIQUE FOR OUR DISTRICT.

VERY PROUD OF THAT WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. BASED ON WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ADVOCATING FOR A BILLION-DOLLAR BOND. THE BEST TIME TO PLAN AN OAK TREE IS 20 YEARS AGO. THE SECOND-BEST TIME IS NOW. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR PROJECTS.

THE BEST TIME TO HAVE DONE ALL THESE STREETS AND PROJECTS WAS 20 YEARS WHEN YOU COULD DO IT FOR A LOT CHEAPER, BUT HERE WE ARE. SO TO WAIT ANOTHER FIVE OR TEN YEARS FOR INFLATION TO INCREASE, AND FOR AREAS TO DEVELOP FURTHER IS GOING TO SET US BACK EVEN MORE. IF YOU LOOK AT 410 SOUTH TO THE PARKWAY, DOWN TO APPLEWHITE IT IS A MESS OF A STREET. TOYOTA HAS NOT DONE THE SECOND PHASE OF THEIR PROJECT.

JCB HAS NOT OPENED. A&M IS GROWING. THE HOSPITAL HASN'T OPENED YET.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION ON THAT ROAD WITH THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME, PURE VOLUME THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. SO, TO WAIT ON THAT PROJECT ALONE FOR ANOTHER 5-10 YEARS IS ON CONSCIONABLE FOR THAT AREA. DRIVE DOWN THERE DURING TRAFFIC TIME AND TRY TO NAVIGATE THAT AREA. IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS. AND SO, WE GO TO SLIDE 18. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF MY PROBLEM WITH THE CONVERSATION ABOUT RESTRICTING THE BOND OR REDUCING IT, OR GOING WITH WHAT ERIC IS SAYING. WE'VE SEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE BOND GO TO SEVERAL PROJECTS IN THE CREEK WAY. WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE SALES TAX MONEY, $190 MILLION THAT WAS DONE IN 22 YEARS FROM 2000-2022. NOW THAT IT IS ACTUALLY MY TIME, THE D4'S TIME, THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF TOWN'S TIME TO GET THE INVESTMENT FOR LEON CREEK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING THIS BACK.

THIS IS THE LAST PART OF LEON CREEK THAT NEEDS TO GET DEVELOPED.

SO FOLKS ARE SAYING, STAY IN OUR MEANS. SOME COMMUNITIES HAVE MORE MEANS THAN OTHERS. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO THAT'S BEEN LEFT FOR DEAD LAST ON THE CREEK WAY TRAILS TO BE TOLD, NOW'S NOT THE TIME, WE'VE GOT TO CUT BACK, WE'VE GOT TO DO OTHER THINGS. THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE.

[01:30:03]

I THINK THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THAT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING TO SEE.

THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I'M ADVOCATING FOR MORE MONEY TO GO. WE DO NEED TO TAKE AWAY CITYWIDE. AND EVERYTHING IS PLACE-BASED, EVERYTHING IS IN A COUNCIL DISTRICT AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH. SO, I DON'T BUY THE CITYWIDE ARGUMENT. EVERYTHING IS IN A COUNCIL DISTRICT.

THAT'S AN INVESTMENT I NEED TO TELL MY FOLKS THIS IS THE INVESTMENT, THESE FOLKS ARE GETTING IN ANOTHER DISTRICT, AND WE NEED TO ADD THE ACTUAL DISTRICT IT'S IN.

SO THE REGIONAL CENTERS, THAT'S GREAT. THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS, I GET IT.

BUT THEY'RE ALL IN ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTED SO WE CAN BE FAIR ABOUT WHERE THE DISTRIBUTION OF DOLLARS IS GOING. I WILL ALSO ADVOCATE FOR A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM. I THINK WE NEED THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE.

WE'VE GOT TO CONTINUE ADDING AND INVESTING IN OUR HOUSING BOND. THE RETURN IS 7:1.

THAT'S GREAT. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENT THAT HAS GONE INTO MATCHING WITH THAT BOND. SO WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF OUR COUNCIL DECIDES TO SHORTCHANGE RESIDENTS AND DO A $400 MILLION BOND. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING FOR HOUSING JUST TO KEEP UP WITH THAT. AND IF WE GO TO SLIDE 13, WHICH WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT STREETS, AND WHERE THE F STREETS ARE, BRINGING IT DOWN TO 5% IS ONE THING, BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO INVEST HEAVILY IN DISTRICTS 1-5.

THAT IS VERY SAD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE -- I REMEMBER WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT F STREETS AND ADDING THAT, THERE WAS A GOAL AT SOME POINT TO BRING THE AVERAGE DOWN BY DISTRICT TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. I FORGOT WHAT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY. THAT WAS THE LAST BOND, IT DIDIDHAVE A SIGNIFICANT F STREET INVESTMENT. DISTRICTS 1-5 TO STILL BE DOUBLE DIGITS IS VERY SAD.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AREAS ARE HEAVILY FOCUSED ON THE MOST AND INVESTED IN TO BRING DOWN THAT ABILITY. THE OTHER THING THAT WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY, AND A FEW FOLKS HAVE MENTIONED LEVERAGING OTHER BUCKETS OF FUNDING. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MIDTOWN TIRZ. I BELIEVE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE EXTENSION OF 2060 THERE IS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS THAT IS PROJECTED TO BE RAISED AND UNCOMMITTED.

IS THAT T ACCURATE? >> CONGREI BELIEVE THAT'S THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT.

THE CHALLENGE IS OTHER THE NEXT -- I'M LOOKING -- I DON'T HAVE THE SHEET.

BUT OVER THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS IT'S REALLY COMPRESSED AND THERE'S REALLY NO ROOM TO ISSUE

ADDITIONAL DEBT. >> MUNGIA: RIGHT. >> THAT 500 MILLION IS MORE

CUMULATIVE AND IS MORE ON THE BACK END OF THAT TIMEFRAME. >> MUNGIA: I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, IF WE ARE TO EXTEND IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OFFSET SOME THINGS ON OUR DEBT BOND TO FUND THROUGH THAT, OR TO TAKE OUT DEBT FOR THAT. SO, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA ANALYSIS ON THAT COULD HELP US

FIGURE THAT OUT? >> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. I CAN TELL YOU BECAUSE OF THAT COMPRESSION ON THE FRONT END IT WOULD LIKELY -- IF YOU WANTED TO NOT HELP THIS BOND PROGRAM, BUT

A FUTURE BOND PROGRAM. >> MUNGIA: ABSOLUTELY. >> WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND

INCLUDE THAT IN T A FOLLOWUP. >> MUNGIA: THESE ARE 10-20 YEAR PROJECTS.

IT CAN'T BE HELPED WITH THIS CURRENT BOND, UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT WE'RE PLANNING FOR MORE THAN JUST FIVE YEARS HERE. SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT. APPRECIATE IT.

SO, I AM INTERESTED IN THE ABILITY TO INVEST MORE INTO STREETS, THAT COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ WAS TALKING ABOUT. WE DID OUR COMMUNITY SURVEY AND STREETS, PARKS, DRAINAGE, WERE CERTAINLY THE TOP RECOMMENDED INVESTMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND THE OTHER INVESTMENT THAT I KEEP TALKING ABOUT, AND TO SOME FOLKS IT MAY SEEM FRIVOLOUS, BUT WE HAVE ONE COMMUNITY POOL IN D4. AND THAT'S NEAR HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS I'VE BEEN TALKING TO FOLKS, WE HAVE A POOL DESERT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. I GUESS THE NEXT ONE TO US IS KINGSBOROUGH, D5 IS THE NEXT

[01:35:02]

IN 2007? >> SORRY. 550.

>> MUNGIA: $550 MILLION. SO MY SHARE WAS 41. SO OUR ABILITY TO DO STREET PROJECTS, TO DO A POOL, TO DO CREEK INVESTMENTS, TO DO F-STREETS IS SEVERELY LIMITED.

OUR AREAS OF TOWN, DISTRICT 1-5, SOME PARTS OF 6 NEED THE MOST INVESTMENT.

WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE DISCUSSING EQUITY AS NEED-BASED AS POSSIBLE TO HELP OUR

RESIDENTS. SO, THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN GALVAN. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE TALKED WITH US.

I WANT TO THANK THE FINANCE TEAM FOR PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER AND GETTING ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GET FROM US ABOUT HOW WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE DELIVERING ON SOME OF THESE KEY CAPCAPITAL INVESTMENTS, THAT OUR RESIDENTS EXPECT, WHETHER IT'S STREETS AND ROADS, MAKING THINGS SAFER ON THE TR STREETS AND ROA, INVESTMENTS IN RECREATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE, AND WE'LL SEE THIS WEEK IN PARTICULAR, DRAINAGE INVESTMENTS. THOSE ARE KEY THINGS WE HEAR IN DISTRICT 6 ALL THE TIME. WE TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES OUR CITY NEED.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR FROM THE BOND, DRAINAGE IS TOP OF MIND.

WE HAVE SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS LOW-WATER CROSSINGS IN THE CITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE CLOSED OVER THESE NEXT FEW DAYS BECAUSE SIGNIFICANT STORMS ARE GOING TO HIT.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOMES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREAS AROUND HEATH ROAD. WE'LL SEE PENN ROAD CLOSE. HOPEFULLY NOBODY GOING INTO THAT AREA, BECAUSE OF INVESTMENTS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER ON, MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE SAFE.

WE TALK ABOUT AREAS IN OUR CITY THAT ARE EXPECTING SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE KEY ISSUES THAT ARE JUST DAILY NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE KEY ONES HERE. BASED ON JUST THE ONES LISTED IN THE $5.1 BILLION NEEDS, DISTRICN OF DRAINAGE NEEDS ALONE. THAT IS AN INCREDIBLY HIGH NUMBER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT ALL, EVEN IF WE EXPAND TO $1 BILLION.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S ONLY MORE MY DISTRICT -- FOR MY DISTRICT.

THERE'S SIGNIFICANT NEEDS ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL. NO MATTER WHO'S IMPACTED, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE NO ONE IS AT RISK OF DROWNING IN OUR CITY, NO ONE'S PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED BY NOW MORE FREQUENT CATASTROPHIC RAINSTORMS THAT WE KNOW ARE IMPACTS OF OUR CLIMATE.

THESE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO INVEST IN AND LOOK AT PARTNERSHIPS.

I KNOW WE DO WITH SARAH AND OUR STATE GOVERNMENT AS WELL. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO LOOK AT FOR THE TOTAL CAPACITY, THAT'S FRONT OF MIND.

BEYOND THAT, THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS IN OUR CITY, MAJOR CORRIDORS THAT ARE SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS IN THE ENTIRE CITY AND STATE. RUN THROUGH DISTRICT 6, THE WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. I THINK ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MARBACH, HIGHWAY 90, THAT WE CAN SAVE LIVES WITH CAPITAL INVESTMENTS. THERE'S ANOTHER GIANT POT OF MONEY WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DELIVER ON THOSE SOLUTIONS WE KNOW WE NEED, THAT RESIDENTS SEE AND UNDERSTAND, RISK GETTING HIT, WALKING, BIKING, DRIVING. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT NEW GROWTH IN DISTRICT 6, FURTHER OUT, WE SHARE A ROAD WITH DISTRICT 4. SAME KIND OF ISSUES HERE.

UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THESE OLD ROADS BECOME SAFER FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS HERE. IN ADDITION OF THAT, THINKING ABOUT PARKS AND QUALITY OF LIFE

[01:40:05]

THOSE ARE AT THE EDGE OF MY DISTRICT ON THE FAR WEST, AND THE INNER WEST SIDE.

BOTH WHEN YOU WALK IN, YOU GET TIME WARPED INTO A DIFFERENT MOMENT IN TIME BEFORE I WAS BORN IN TERMS OF FACILITIES, IN TERMS OF THE AC QUALITY. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF WORK TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE MAINTAINED, BUT IT FEELS AS THOUGH, OFTEN TO RESIDENTS, WHEN WE LOOK AT OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY, OTHER QUALITY CENTERS, THESE HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT FOR A WHILE. WHEN I'M LOOKING AT, WHAT AM I GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR MY COMMUNITY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HIGHER PRICE TAG, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

TO DO THESE MASSIVE INVESTMENTS, IT'S NOT JUST AN AC REPAIR, NOT JUST A DOOR FIX, NOT JUST A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL. THESE ARE MAJOR INVESTMENT TOS MAKE SURE FOLKS ARE ABLE TO STAY SAFE, HAVE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE, AND ALL PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

I SUPPORT LOOKING AT WAYS TO GET TO THE $1 BILLION MARK TO MAKE SURE WE'RE STILL BUILDING UPON THE INVESTMENTS WE DID IN THE LAST TWO BOND CYCLES, THAT WERE SOME OF THE HIGHEST WE'VE EVER HAD, TO DELIVER ON THE RESOURCES RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR. THE STORMWATER FEE I'M INTERESTED IN. I'VE BEEN ASKING A LOT ABOUT IT FROM PUBLIC WORKS FOR A WHILE.

I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION Y'ALL HAVE GIVEN US OVER THE PAST YEAR AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR MORE NOW WITH THAT ONE IS -- MAYBE IT'S BOTH, THAT ONE AND THE VARIABLE TAX RATE. WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST OF BOTH OF THOSE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED TODAY? IF IT'S -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER, 175 FOR THE STORMWATER TOTAL REVENUE THAT WOULD GENERATE, WHAT DOES THAT COST TO A MEDIAN HOMESTEAD FOR THE CITY AND BY DISTRICT. AND WHAT IS THAT COMBINED WITH THE SAME KIND OF EVALUATION FOR A VARIABLE TAX RATE INCREASE. WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT TODAY.

SHOWED UP HERE IN THE BACKUP SLIDES, WE CAN WORK ON THAT. >> GALVAN: HERE'S THE THING WITH THIS ONE. I THINK -- THANK YOU, MIKE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING A VARIABLE TAX RATE ON THIS OR A STORMWATER FEE INCREASE, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S POINT. SOME OF THESE ARE SPECIFIC TO PROJECTS. THIS IS GOING TO GO OUT TO PUBLIC VOTE.

IT'LL BE UP TO OUR RESIDENTS TO SAY DO I FEEL THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME FOR US TO INCREASE THESE RATES TO DELIVER THOSE PROJECTS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS PENN ROAD'S FLOODING, THE COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES, WE'RE GOING TO INVEST IN THE STADIUM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ENSURE A DISINVESTED NEIGHBORHOOD IS ABLE TO BE REVITALIZED AND CONTINUE TO BE A CORE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. IF ALL THOSE THINGS ARE PRIORITY ENOUGH, WE CAN VOTE FOR IT AND WE'LL UNDERSTAND THE COST. HAVING AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE, WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT WE AGREE UPON TO SEND OUT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE UP TO US FULLY. I FEEL CONFIDENT TO SAY LET'S GET THE NUMBERS OUT, MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE WE PUT IT OUT TO THE BALLOT, AND LET THEM MAKE THAT DECISION. I TRUST THAT RESIDENTS WILL MAKE THAT DECISION TO THE BEST OF THEIR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ANY OTHER FEEDBACK HERE.

I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS ON THE SPORTS DISTRICT FROM MY COLLEAGUES.

VERY INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THE TIRZ-ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHIN THAT.

ON THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION. MAYBE IT'S FOR BEN OR TROY ON THE VARIABLE TAX RATE RISK TO BOND HOLDERS, I HAD A QUESTION, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO FLAT OR KEEPING IS THE SAME? CREDIT RATINGS AS WELL?

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT? >> GALVAN: WHAT'S THE RISK OF DOING A VARIABLE TAX RATE FOR THE BOND INSTEAD OF KEEPING IT THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT ALL THE TIME FOR OUR BOND SHAREHOLDERS,

OR OUR CREDIT RATING OVERALL? DO WE EXPECT ANY IMPACT THERE? >> IF WE MOVE TO, FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, NOT HOLDING THE TAX RATE STEADY AND ASSUMING WE CAN INCREASE IT, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON OUR CREDIT RATING, BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE IN THAT CASE SAYING WE'LL INCREASE THE TAX RATE TO WHAT WE NEED TO TO COVER THAT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD NECESSARILY PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON OUR RATING.

>> GALVAN: GOT IT. THAT'S HELPFUL. OF COURSE IF WE SEE ECONOMIC GROWTH OR PROPERTY TAX VALUE GROWTH, OVER THE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM, DO WE ANTICIPATE THE VARIABLE TAX RATE WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE, OR WOULD IT MATCH THE LEVEL OF GROWTH

NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE TOTAL BOND? >> I THINK WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WAS THAT AS THINGS RECOVER, YOU'D HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST.

[01:45:02]

BUT ALSO, JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR AND I THINK ERIC SAID THIS, IS THAT EVERY BOND PROGRAM WE'VE DONE SINCE 2007 AND BEFORE THEM, INCLUDING THE ONE WE'RE PROPOSING AT 442, OBLIGATION TO BONDHOLDERS, TALKING ABOUT RISK. IN THAT ORDINANCE, IN THAT PROPOSITION IS SAYS WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE TO WHAT WE NEED TO TO REPAY THAT DEBT. GOING TO A HIGHER BOND PROGRAM WOULDN'T NECESSARILY PUT PRESSURE ON OUR RATING, BUT THERE IS MORE RISK THAT OUR MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE TAXABLE VALUATION PROJECTIONS ARE WRONG. AND THEY'RE NOT MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE, AND THINGS GET WORSE. WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE HIT THAT. IF IT'S WORSE THEN YOU'VE GOT TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE MORE TO SUPPORT THAT LEVEL OF DEBT. FOR PROJECTS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW YOU MANAGE THAT AT THAT POINT. THAT'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE RISK CHANGING A LITTLE BIT. &-Ú.

>> YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGE WITH WHERE WE ARE NOW IS IF YOU LOOK AT THAT CHART THAT TROY HAD UP THAT TALKS ABOUT TAXABLE VALUATION GROWTH GOING BACK, YOU LOOK AT 2007, '12, '17, '22, WE WERE IN A GROWTH PERIOD, COMING OUT OF A RECESSION, IN A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE HAD RUNWAY.

WE ARE IN A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE DON'T RIGHT NOW. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU, NOBODY CAN TELL US WHEN DOES THIS START TO RECOVER. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS HAS A BIG IMPACT ON TAX RATE, HOW MUCH BOND CAPACITY YOU HAVE, ALL OF THOSE FACTORS.

IT'S REALLY DRIVEN BY THAT TAXABLE VALUATION. SO WE'RE IN THE SPIRIT OF TIME,

NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHEN WE COULD COME OUT OF THAT. >> GALVAN: I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'LL WRAP UP. IT REMINDS ME, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE'S HOME BUDGET, FIGURING OUT WE HAVE A LOT OF NEED TO MAKE SURE OUR HOME IS MAINTAINED AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO AFFORD MAINTAINING THIS BUILDING. SO DOES THAT MEAN HAVING TO FIGURE OUT NEW REVENUE SOURCES

FOR IT. THANK YOU, BEN. >> MAYOR JONES: ERIC OR BEN, IF THE VOTERS TURN DOWN THE BOND, WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT?

>> THE CITY HASN'T LOST A BOND ELECTION SINCE 1979. AND I THINK THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE PROBABLY LESS FINANCIAL AND MORE TOWARDS CONFIDENCE THAT WE AS AN ORGANIZATION CAN PUT FORTH A PROPOSAL TO THE VOTERS THAT IS WORTHY OF THEIR CONSIDERATION. I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THIS IN SOME LOCAL ENTITIES WHERE BOND ELECTIONS HAVE PASSED THAT HAVE CHIPPED AWAY AT THE CONFIDENCE OF -- IN THOSE ENTITIES AND HAS FORCED THOSE ENTITIES TO GO THROUGH, KIND OF, REVISED PROPOSALS THAT THEY COULD PUT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS. BUT I THINK IN EFFECT, IT WOULD BE A COOLING-OFF PERIOD THAT WOULD EXIST FOR US. AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS CONTINUE TO BE INCREASED. SO, LESS FINANCIAL, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR JONES: SO, NOTHING -- IN YOUR ESTIMATE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY

>> WELL, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR-CUT.

I MEAN, IF THE COUNCIL PUT FORTH A BOND PACKAGE TO BUY, YOU KNOW, 14 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING UNREASONABLE. THEN WE MAY GET CRITICIZED. BUT IF WE GO THROUGH OUR COMMITTEE PROCESS, OUR PRIORITIZATION PROCESS, LOOK AT PLANS, MATCH IT UP AGAINST NEEDS, THEN I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE THAT BIG OF AN IMPACT, BUT COULD POTENTIALLY.

>> MAYOR JONES: IT COULD. THANK YOU. AND AS YOU AND I DISCUSSED, SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER. BUT, THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING US FROM DOING 442 TODAY AND IF THE ECONOMY IMPROVES, DO A BOND IN '29.

DO A BOND -- THAT'S AN OPTION, CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM.

AND I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER. THE DOING 442 PRESERVES Y'ALL'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT LATITUDE TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST TO A CONDITION. BECAUSE THE FIVE-YEAR BOND PROGRAM WE HAVE IS A SELF-IMPOSED FIVE-YEAR BOND PROGRAM.

THE STAY LAW DOESN'T MAKE -- STATE LAW DOESN'T MAKE US DO THAT.

IT'S NOT THE BOND RATING AGENCIES. IT'S SELF-IMPOSED.

[01:50:01]

>> MAYOR JONES: SO WHILE WE HAVEN'T TRADITIONALLY HAD AN OVERLAPPING IN BONDS, THAT'S NOT

SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT OR IN ANY WAY -- >> NO, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCCOUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ. >> GONZALEZ: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATIONS. I'LL START WITH THE STORMWATER FEE.

I SUPPORT RAISING THE STORMWATER FEES. I THINK WE ASKED -- YOU ASKED ABOUT THE ELECTION IN MAY OF 2027. I THINK THAT'S WHAT VOTERS HAVE BEEN USED TO. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BEST PLAN FOR.

SO, I AM INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT BILLION-DOLLAR BOND PROGRAM WOULD LOOK LIKE. I THINK THE NEEDS ARE CLEARLY THERE.

IN 2022, WE HAD A PROJECT REQUEST INVENTORY WAS AT ABOUT $2.8 BILLION.

AS I RECALL. AND IT'S SINCE DOUBLED. AND SO CLEARLY, THE NEED IS THERE FOR BASIC IMPROVEMENTS. OUR COMMUNITY IS GROWING. AND SO I SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T JUST NOT LOOK AT. I THINK THAT WITH EVERY PROJECT THAT WE POSTPONE, WE'RE REALLY JUST DELAYING THOSE INVESTMENTS. AND I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK -- AND I THINK IT WAS STATED HERE THAT THEY DON'T PRESERVE OUR RESOURCES. I THINK IT JUST COMPOUNDS ON WHAT WE WILL OWE. AND SO, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT SOME COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE RAISED, BUT I ALSO SEE MY DISTRICT GROWING IN FRONT OF ME, AND MY CITY GROWING IN FRONT OF ME. AND SO MEDICAL CENTER IN ITSELF, I DO THINK IT IS A REGIONAL CENTER. AND IT IS A CITYWIDE INVESTMENT. AND I GUESS SOME CLARIFICATION ON, HOW -- WHAT MAKE ITS IT A CITYWIDE INVESTMENT? HOW ARE Y'ALL DEFINING THAT, BASED ON WHAT? TRAFFIC? IS IT . . .?

>> SO, THERE'S MORE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THAT, BECAUSE AS I THINK BACK, THE LAST THREE BOND PROGRAMS THE DEFINITION OF CITYWIDE HAS BEEN LIBERALLY DEFINED.

AND SO, TO ME, A CITYWIDE INVESTMENT WOULD BE KIND OF WHAT COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN MENTIONED WOULD BE AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR, IF ANYTHING. THAT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE IN OUR HISTORY. IT WOULD BE MY STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT IF WE DID A CITYWIDE CATEGORY THAT IT BE VERY TIGHTLY DEFINED AND BE ABLE TO TIE BACK TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THOSE AREAS THAT ARE GENERATING OR WOULD HOPE TO CONTINUE TO GENERATE

ENHANCED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. >> GONZALEZ: AND THE FIVE-YEAR, I GUESS, INCREMENT, OR I'M SORRY, THE FIVE-YEAR CYCLE, THAT SELF-IMPOSED CYCLE IS BASED ON ESSENTIALLY OUR CAPACITY TO -- OR WHAT'S THAT BASED ON ENTIRELY?

>> SO, IT'S BASED ON OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER ON PROJECTS. AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, EARLIER THIS SUMMER, THERE WAS A MAJOR CITY IN TEXAS THAT BROUGHT FORTH A PROJECT TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL UTILIZING 2002 BONDS. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF FLAK GIVEN. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE PLAN TO EXECUTE OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD SO THAT THE VOTERS WHO APPROVE IT SEE THE TANGIBLE BENEFITS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. WE DON'T ISSUE DEBT AND HOLD ON TO THAT MONEY.

WE KEEP IT IN PRODUCTION. SO, THE FIVE-YEAR TIMELINE, WHETHER IT'S 596 MILLION OR 442 MILLION OR 1.2 BILLION, WE SCALE APPROPRIATELY TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THOSE.

AND WE DON'T DO THAT JUST IN-HOUSE. YOU ALL WILL RECALL WE GO THROUGH A PRETTY MASSIVE SELECTION PROCESS ON THE FRONT END TO IDENTIFY ALL THE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTS SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN DESIGNS IMMEDIATELY FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT DON'T HAVE IT SO THAT WE ARE CONSTRUCTION-HEAVY AT THE END OF YEAR THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE.

>> GONZALEZ: OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO -- I THINK JUST LIKE WE WENT THROUGH OUR BUDGET PROCESS AT SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON TO GIVE US JUST A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE 442 LOOKS LIKE VERSUS 1 BILLION, SO THAT WAY WE HAVE THE FULL PICTURE FRONT OF US. IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. AND TO KNOW WHAT PROJECTS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT BILLION DOLLARS. ON SLIDE -- I THINK IT'S SLIDE -- WHERE IS THAT, THE POTENTIAL PROJECT INVENTORY OF THE 5.7 BILLION, COULD YOU BREAK

[01:55:03]

>> WE CAN. >> GONZALEZ: I'M SURE THERE'S OVERLAP BETWEEN 311 AND CITY COUNCIL OR CITY STAFF? GO AHEAD. I'M ASSUMING THERE MIGHT BE SOME

OVERLAP BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC, AND. >> --

>> ATTACHED IS A LIST OF EVERY REQUEST WE KNOW ABOUT. WE TRIED TO CATEGORIZE THOSE BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE. SOME ARE GENERATED FROM YOU ALL. WE WOULD S COULD SORT THEM.

>> ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE PROJECTS THAT MAY BE GENERATED BY MORE THAN ONE REQUESTER?

>> GONZALEZ: YEAH. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

GOT IT. >> GONZALEZ: THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.

>> MAYOR JONES: FIRST OFF, MIKE AND TEAM, THANKS FOR ALL YOUR WORK. THIS IS A GREAT PRESENTATION.

IT WAS REALLY THOROUGH AND EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO GUIDE THE CONVERSATION.

SO, THANKS FOR THAT. I AGREE WITH CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE A $442 MILLION BOND. IT IS NOT THE TIME TO BE RAISING OUR DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE ON RESIDENTS. WE OBVIOUSLY JUST HAD THE PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE.

WE KNOW SOMETHING IS COMING UP. ALAMO COLLEGE, SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY, ALL OF THESE THINGS, RESIDENTS ARE FEELING THE BURDEN. THEY'RE TELLING US THEY'RE FEELING THE BURDEN. TO RAISE IT EVEN HOWEVER MORE SLIGHTLY IS SOMETHING THAT'S OFF THE TABLE FOR ME. I DID APPRECIATE THE MAYOR'S QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE -- IF THE BOND ELECTION FAILS. AND I THINK THAT -- I KNOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IN A LONG TIME. I THINK WE ARE SEEING SOME DANGEROUS TIMES IN OUR ECONOMY.

BUT WE'RE ALSO SEEING SOME DIVISIVE TIMES, TOO. I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE WHAT WE DO PUT FOR THE RESIDENTS TO VOTE FOR SHOULD BE REASONABLE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- I KNOW IN THE PAST, I THINK THE LAST BOND WE HAD WAS 1.2 BILLION. THAT'S EXCITING AND SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO, BUT THESE ARE HARD TIMES FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN PUTTING SOMETHING FORWARD TO THE VOTERS. SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT AND IT'S A TRICKY BALANCING ACT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF. I DO -- I DID WANT TO MENTION, I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR AND MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUE IN DISTRICT 6 ABOUT FOCUSING ON DRAINAGE PROJECTS. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO MENTIONED IT, BUT THAT BEING A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. THIS IS -- THESE ARE THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS THAT WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT RESIDENTS PASSING AWAY BECAUSE OF A LOW-WATER CROSSING, THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE CITY, BECAUSE THOSE ARE OUR RESIDENTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DISTRICT THEY'RE IN.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO WORK OR WHERE THEY'RE GOING. THAT IS DEVASTATING NEWS TO OUR ENTIRE CITY. SO, YOU KNOW -- DISTRICT 7 HAS HORRIBLE DRAINAGE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY SUPER DANGEROUS LOW-WATER CROSSINGS. BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE AS A CITY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MY TEAM AND I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT -- AND THIS IS JUST TO TAKE AWAY FOR ANOTHER OFFLINE CONVERSATIOO INCREASE THE FREQUENCY -- AND I'D LOVE MY COLLEAGUES' FEEDBACK ON THIS NOW OR LATER, MAYBE WITH YOU, MIKE, OR ERIC, IS FOR US TO INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF MOWING SCHEDULES ON THOSE GREENWAY TRAILS. WE GET A LOT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON IT.

I THINK RIGHT NOW Y'ALL MOW ONCE A QUARTER. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT ONCE EVERY TWO MONTHS. WE JUST HAD A DEVASTATING CASE IN DISTRICT 7 WHERE A LITTLE GIRL GOT LOST AND FELL THROUGH THERE. BUT WE GET A LOT OF CALLS ON THEM, TOO, BECAUSE MAYBE HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THE DRAINAGE AREAS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, TOO. SO, I KNOW THAT OUR TEAM HAS WORKED WITH ART TO SEE WHAT THAT INCREASE WOULD LOOK LIKE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A 50% INCREASE.

I'M NOT -- I DON'T WANT TO PASS IT ON, THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FEE, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE

[02:00:04]

TACKING ON AN ADDITIONAL STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE FEE THERE IS NOT GREAT, IT'S NOT IDEAL TO ME. MY QUESTION IS, WHY I'M RAISING THIS, IS THERE OTHER WAYS WE CAN MOVE FUNDS AROUND IN THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER -- I WOULD SEE THIS AS A CORE SERVICE.

WE'RE HAVING TO MAINTAIN OUR GREENWAY TRAILS A LOT MORE FREQUENTLY NOW BECAUSE OF

WEATHER. ERIC? >> CERTAINLY, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING IN THE GENERAL FUND TO MOVE, WE CAN DO THAT.

THE STORMWATER FEE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WHICH INCLUDES THE MOWING AND THE CLEANUP. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILIZING IT TO ISSUE POTENTIAL DEBT FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS. AND THE JUXTAPOSITION THAT YOU ALL ARE IN IS THAT THIS AFTERNOON YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN UPDATE FROM SOMEWH SAWS WITH A FOUR-YEAR RATE INCREASE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEED. TO BE ABLE TO DO EITHER ENHANCED SERVICES OR MORE DRAINAGE PROJECTS, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO UTILIZE A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE.

AND SO OPEN TO CONVERSATION, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO LOOK AT OPTIONS.

THAT MONEY'S GOT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. IT'S APPROPRIATELY.LY FROM THE STORMWATER FEE. RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO PAY DIFFERENT THAN A COMMERCIAL SITE

THAT'S GENERATING MORE RUNOFF. >> ALDERETE GAVITO: TOTALLY. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS BE CREATIVE SO THAT RESIDENTS DON'T SEE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE ON THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FEE AS WELL AS AN INCREASE TO THEIR SAWS WILL. IT'S A TOUGH TIME.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOVING DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF MONEY AROUND.

JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE SPURS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT SLIDE IT IS, 15 OR SOMETHING, 35 MILLION. I THINK IN THE BEGINNING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 250 MILLION. SO I DO APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP WITH TXDOT ON THIS SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT 35 MILLION. BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT IS A TRANSFORMATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY. AND SO, I'M EXCITED THAT THAT NUMBER WENT DOWN. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION IS IF IT'S POSSIBLE, MIKE, TO DO AN ANALYSIS FOR THE LAST DECADE OF WHERE OUR BOND DOLLARS HAVE BEEN DEDICATED BY DISTRICT. AND THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR THAT IS BECAUSE I GET REALLY FRUSTRATED WITH THE BANTER BACK AND FORTH FROM DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE DAIS ON, WELL, WE HAVEN'T INVESTED IN THIS, AND HAVEN'T INVESTED IN THAT. RICK AND I -- SORRY, COUNCILMAN GAL VGALVAN AND I WERE JUST TAL, DISTRICT 7 DOESN'T HAVE A TIRZ. I DON'T HAVE A REGIONAL CENTER.

FOR ALL OF US TO SEE WHERE BOND INVESTMENT HAS HAPPENED, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF OUR WORK, FROM OUR PREDECESSORS' WORK. MAYBE WE BEAT THAT UP IN EXEC SESSION AND NO LONGER POINT FINGERS AT EACH OTHER AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE AISLE. AWESOME.

SOUNDS GOOD. THANKS. LET'S SEE.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL MY QUESTIONS. I DID APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FAILED STREETS. IT'S IMPORTANT.

I SEE DRAINAGE AS A HIGHER PRIORITY, BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. >> YOUR QUESTION -- I THOUGHT OF AN ADDITIONAL POINT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT IF A BOND PROGRAM FAILS. IT IS CRITICAL. IT WILL BE CRITICAL THAT YOU 11 ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, ABSOLUTELY. IT IS CRITICAL.

AND THERE ARE OTHER CITIES NORTH OF HERE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE. AND I THINK THAT LENDS ITSELF TOWARDS THE PROCESS AND THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMUNITY COMMITTEE PROCESS. BUT FROM MY STANDPOINT, THAT'S A

CRITICAL PIECE OF IT AS WELL. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO, PLEASE.

>> CASTILLO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, MIKE AND BEN.

AND TROY FOR THE CONTEXT ON THIS ITEM. A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT MOVING PIECES. YESTERDAY, DISTRICT 5 HAD A TOWN HALL IN AN AREA WHICH LACKS, JUST LIKE A GOOD AMOUNT OF DISTRICT 5, LACKS ACCESS TO BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS IS THAT WE ARE AN OLDER PART OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, SO WE WERE BUILT BEFORE CITY CODE WAS ADOPTED. WHAT THAT OFTEN LOOKS LIKE FOR

[02:05:05]

I ALSO THINK ABOUT THE WESTWOOD SQUARE NEIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC, WHO HAVE BEEN ADVOCATES FOR INVESTMENT ON A ROAD WHERE THERE'S HIGH TRAFFIC, CONCERNS WITH FATALITIES AND PEDESTRIAN INJURIES. BUT THIS IS A BOND-SCALE PROJECT THAT OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS EXPECT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DELIVER AND ENSURE THAT WE CAN ALLOW PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, EVERYONE ALIKE TO SAFELY COMMUNITY AND GET ACROSS THESE MAIN CORRIDORS.

BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE COSTS IN THE MILLIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MATERIALIZING THESE PROJECTS. SO, THESE ARE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF EXPECTATIONS THAT DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS HAVE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BOND CONVERSATIONS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE KNOW THAT GOING BACK TO THE SIDEWALKS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE A FUND FOR PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY, BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER SIDEWALKS IN OUR AREA AND, OF COURSE, THE MULTIPLE POLES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CENTER OF THOSE SIDEWALKS AS WELL. IT'S SOMETHING MY CONSTITUENTS EXPECT.

YOU ALL WERE ALL OF BUDGET TOWN HALL, BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE TOP REQUEST IN TERMS OF WHEN AM I GOING TO HAVE A FULLY RECONSTRUCTED STREET, SIDEWALKS INSTALLED IN OUR COMMUNITY. WHEN MY TEAM AND I ARE OUT FOR OUR OFFICE TO THE PEOPLE, OFTENTIMES WE'RE THERE CHECKING IN TO CONNECT WITH THEM TO -- CONNECT THEM TO SERVICES AND UNDERSTAND THEIR NEEDS. TOO MANY DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS WILL SAY, HOW DID YOU WALK UP TO MY HOME? WAS THERE A SIDEWALK? I EXPECT A SIDEWALK. I NEED A SIDEWALK. SO, I THINK THE CONVERSATION ABOUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME, THE TIME TO INVEST IN DISTRICT 5 AND 1-5 INFRASTRUCTURE WAS YESTERDAY. ENSURING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS CONVERSATION TAKES ME --

>> CASTILLO: THE AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN DISTRICT 5.

BUT THAT WAS A HUGE DEBATE AND A CONVERSATION. AND THAT WAS INVESTMENT THAT WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR THAT WASN'T JUST GIVEN TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE AN INVESTMENT, BUT THAT WASN'T GIVE TO DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS.

THAT CAME WITH DEBATE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RECEIVED THE INVESTMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL IN PARTICULAR. AND WE'RE IN NEED OF MUCH MORE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

MY EXPECTATION BASED OFF THE NEEDS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IS THAT WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS A BILLION-DOLLAR BOND BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MUCH NEED IN OUR COMMUNITIES THAT RESIDENTS GET CONTINUE TO GET TOLD TO WAIT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FLOOD CONTROL, INVESTING IN REDUCING THE FLOODPLAIN IN OUR COMMUNITY, THAT STARTED DECADES AGO. SO WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO LAG AND WAIT ON THESE PROJECTS. THAT IMPACTS THE PROPERTY VALUE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.

THAT IMPACTS THEIR LOAN IF THEY HAVE A LOAN ON THEIR HOME. AND EVERYONE DESERVES ACCESS TO SAFE, QUALITY STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. AND FOR D5 RESIDENTS THEY'VE BEEN WAITING TOO LONG AND THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE'RE DELIVERING TO THEM WITH THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, PARKS CONTINUES TO BE A TOP PRIORITY.

YESTERDAY AT THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH CONSTITUENTS, THE REQUEST WAS FOR MARTINEZ PARK AND ANOTHER PARK, AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR PUTTING A NEW NET ON THE BASKETBALL COURT. IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF SPLASH PADS AND AWNINGS IN TERMS OF OVER THE BASKETBALL COURTS. AND I HIGHLIGHT THOSE TWO THINGS THAT MAY SOUND MINIMAL, BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA IN WHICH OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS DON'T TURN ON THEIR AC BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR UTILITY BILL WITH CPS ENERGY, THEY'RE GOING TO THE PARKS POOLS. THEY'RE GOING OUTSIDE TO STAY OUT OF TROUBLE AS WELL. SO I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT WITH THE PARKS PROPOSITION, THAT WE CONTINUE TO SEE A HEALTHY BALANCE THERE AS WELL. I APPRECIATE THE PROPOSALS THAT

[02:10:01]

I DID WANT TO HIT ON THE HOUSING BOND. IN DISTRICT 5, 2022 BOND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING OVER 700 AFFORDABLE UNITS. IT ALLOWED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ONE OF ONLY MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO INVEST IN RETROFITTING PUBLIC HOUSING AND MAKING SOME OF THOSE MINOR MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE KNOW THERE'S TOO MUCH DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IN TERMS OF OUR PUBLIC HOUSING NEEDS. SO MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO INVEST IN A HOUSING BOND. IF WE FAIL TO INVEST IN THESE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, WILL -- HOUSING, STREETS, BRIDGES -- IT'S GOING TO COST US MORE IN THE LONG RUN AND WE'RE GOING TO GET LESS FOR MORE IN TERMS OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED PROJECTS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION ON THE PROJECT MARBLE COMPONENT. I'M GRATEFUL TO SEE THAT IT'S BEEN DWINDLED DOWN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS ITS OWN PROPOSITION TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SAY YEA OR NAY IN TERMS OF THIS ITEM. I WANT TO BE MINDFUL IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE LINE ITEMS ARE FOR THAT DISTRICT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN LAVACA, EAST OF DOWNTOWN, THAT STRUGGLE TO GET IN AND OUT AND TO THEIR HOME. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT'S NOT COUPLED INTO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE WITH PROJECT MARBLE WHEN THERE ARE VERY REAL NEEDS DOWNTOWN FOR THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A BRIEFING IN TERMS OF WHAT'S NEW BECAUSE OF PROJECT MARBLE AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS WITH OR WITHOUT A PROJECT MARBLE. BECAUSE CONGESTION, PARKING IS AN ISSUE, WITH OR WITHOUT THE EXPANSION. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE ITEMS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

I WAS CURIOUS IN TERMS OF THE FACILITIES. I SEE NOW THERE'S A PROPOSITION -- I'M THINKING OF LAST YEAR. THERE WAS PROPOSITION E FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PROPOSITION D. AND WE'VE MERGED THEM.

BECAUSE IT'S A SMALLER CAPACITY? >> IT'S ONLY BEEN COLLAPSED FOR THIS CONVERSATION.

IT WAS SPLIT OUT BEFORE. IT REALLY DEPENDED ON THE FINAL LIST, BECAUSE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ARE THEIR OWN PROPOSITION. LIBRARY AND CULTURAL FACILITIES ARE A SEPARATE PROPOSITION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF AT THE END OF THE DAY THE COUNCIL JUST HAD LIBRARY FACILITY PROJECTS, THEN IT WOULD BE A LIBRARY AND CULTURAL FACILITIES PROPOSITION AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY PIECE. OR IF ONLY THE KENNEL AT ACS WAS ON THE FACILITY, IT WOULD BE UNDER PUBLIC SAFETY. JUST FOR EASE OF INITIAL

CONVERSATION, WE'VE COLLAPSED THEM. >> CASTILLO: UNDERSTOOD.

IN TERMS OF THE MEETINGS, I DO BELIEVE THERE'S VALUE IN ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS CONVENING IN ONE LOCATION, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN HEARING THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN THE VALUE AT THE LAST CONVENINGS, YOU HEAR FROM RESIDENTS FROM DISTRICTS 1, 10, ETC.

IT'S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SHOWCASE WHAT THEY MAY BE ADVOCATING FOR, A BOND LINE ITEM. I FEEL LIKE WE TAKE IT TO DISTRICT SPECIFICS.

WE MISS THAT. AND THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN COUNCIL AND THE BOND COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDERS HEARING FROM OTHER AREAS AND WHAT THOSE NEEDS MAY BE.

LET'S SEE. I'M THINKING ABOUT THE LARGER CONVERSATION.

57 SECONDS. THE LARGER CONVERSATION IN TERMS OF EQUITY.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE IT EVERY FISCAL YEAR PARTICULARLY AARON AROUNDPUBLIC WORKS.

I'VE TALKED TO MIKE ABOUT THIS. THE CCR. I FEEL LIKE THAT CONVERSATION IS LONG OVERDUE, BECAUSE IT CONTINUES TO BE DISTRICTS 1-5 THAT GET TOLD WAIT WHEN TOUGH DECISIONS COME TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. AND WHEN I SEE THE CARRY FORWARD OF DISTRICTS THAT ARE SAYING NO TO EVERYTHING THERE'S NO REASON ANY DISTRICT SHOULD BE SITTING ON NEARLY A MILLION DOLLARS WHEN THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ALL THROUGHOUT THE EAST, THE WEST, AND THE SOUTHWEST SIDE AND THE COSIEDSOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. IT'S FISCALLY UN-RESPONSIBLE TO SIT ON THAT WHEN THERE'S SO MUCH NEED. UNDER-INVESTMENT IS A CHOICE AND FAILING TO ADVOCATE AND SAY THAT WE NEED TO MOVE TO A BILLION-DOLLAR BOND IS CONTINUING TO UNDER-INVEST IN DISTRICTS 1-5. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, PLEASE. >> KAUR: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MIKE AND TEAM FOR THE WORK YOU'VE DONE ON PREPARING FOR THIS SESSION AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AGAIN. IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF DIFFERING

[02:15:02]

WE'RE SHORT-STAFFED. I'M TRYING TO RELIVE SOME OF THE STRESS -- RELIEVE THE STRESS.

I TOOK A CALL FROM A RESIDENTS WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE, THE SAWS INCREASE, AND WANTED TO KNOW MY OPINION. I EXPLAINED SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE FACING IN THE COMMUNITY AND WHY WE NEEDED SAWS WORK.

I LOOKED UP HIS HOUSE AND SAID YOU'RE OVER 65. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. IF THE HOME VALUE IS 135K. BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, I SAID ARE ON THE UPLIFT PROGRAM? IT WILL MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCREASE YOUR PAYMENT AND PROBABLY WILL DECREASE YOUR SAWS BILL. HE SAID HE'D LOVE TO LEARN MORE.

MY TEAM FOLLOWED UP WITH HIM. ALL OF THAT TO SAY, AN INDIVIDUAL THAT STARTED OFF SUPER FRUSTRATED ABOUT ALL OF THE INCREASES REALIZED THAT THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, I THINK MOST OF US HAVE TRIED TO WORK REALLY HARD TO PROTECT, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTANTLY GETTING GYPPED, AS HAS BEEN SAID, FROM IMPROVEMENTS. AND I THINK THAT OVER TIME, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE LAST -- I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT 2017 AND 2022 BOND PROGRAMS. I WANTED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THE SAUSAGE WAS MADE. AND THERE WAS A JOKE MADE EARLIER.

WHO'S SITTING IN THE SEAT AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES IS A LOT OF WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT THE RESULTS ARE. AND I JUST -- BREAKING DOWN ON STREETS, CAN YOU BRING UP SLIDE 13? SLIDE 13 SHOWS YOU THE INEQUITY THAT EXISTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS WHY I'M DEALING WITH ORANGE CONES ALL THE TIME.

AND THE NUMBER ONE CALL I GET EVERY DAY IS WHEN IS MY STREET GOING TO GET PAVED, WHEN IS MY SIDEWALK GOING TO GET PAVED. THE AMOUNT OF MILES THAT EXISTS IN THE STREETS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF FAILING STREETS IS ALL IN 1-5. IT YOTHE OTHER DISTRICTS, IT ISO MUCH SMALLER. AND YET PEOPLE WILL BE LIKE, THEY ARE BIGGER DISTRICTS.

WHY IS THAT? A LOT OF THE STREETS IN THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN ARE ACTUALLY BOUGHT BY THE DEVELOPERS THAT BUILT THEM. THEY ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEM. WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO ON A ROLLERCOASTER EVERY DAY. ALL OF THE STREETS IN THE URBAN CORE ARE LITERALLY AS COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO ECHOED, AND I'M GOING TO REITERATE HER POINTS, ARE THE OLDEST STREETS IN THE CITY AND THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN THE MOST FORGOTTEN.

IN 2017, DISTRICT 1 -- SORRY, 2022, THE ENTIRE STREETS PORTION OF THE BOND WAS 471 MILLION.

DISTRICT 1 ONLY GOT 22 MILLION OF THAT. ON THE CONTRARY, DISTRICT 8 GOT 44 MILLION AND DISTRICT 10 GOT 51 MILLION OF THOSE STREETS PROJECTS.

THERE WERE SOME CITYWIDE. IN THAT YEAR THERE WAS TWO PROJECTS THAT WERE BETWEEN SEVERAL DISTRICTS AND SOME CITYWIDE AND SOME REGIONAL. I DIVIDED THAT OUT TO ALL OF THE DISTRICTS BASED ON WHAT -- HOW MUCH PERCENTAGE THEY WERE GETTING.

SO DISTRICT 1, 7% OF THE STREETS BOND DOLLARS IN 2022. DISTRICT TEN GOT 12%.

THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO EQUITY. I JUST DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE KIDS SAY -- MAKE THAT MAKE SENSE. I'M FIRED UP A LITTLE BIT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM WHO HAS A TREMENDOUS JOB ON THEIR HANDS. I FEEL LIKE I'M THE BIGGEST NAG FOR THEM, PUT TOGETHER THIS COOL NEW MAP. IT SHOWS US ALL OF THE FAILING STREETS ACROSS THE DISTRICTS. AND IT SHOWS THEM -- ALL THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PCI SCORES, WHICH MY TEAM HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS. WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY IS, YOUR STREET IS NOT GOING DONE BECAUSE YOUR PCI SCORE IS A 60, VERSUS THE STREET NEXT TO YOU IS A 30. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP -- IT SHOWS RED, YELLOW, GREEN.

YOU WILL SEE ESSENTIALLY THE EQUITY ATLAS REPLICATED, WHERE THE NORTH SIDE IS MAJORITY GREEN, AND EVERYTHING ELSE HAS SO MUCH RED. AND SO ALL THAT TO SAY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO HERE TODAY, IF WE DON'T DO IT BASED ON THE NEED, WE'RE FAILING AS A BODY. SO AS I TALK TO THAT RESIDENT, I'VE BEEN DEBATING.

I TALKED TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE NORTH SIDE SAYING, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT FINANCIAL STABILITY. THAT'S MY SECOND THING I ALWAYS SAY.

I LOVE OUR AAA BOND RATING. WE CAN'T CHANGE IT. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I APPRECIATE, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN ASKED, THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE IF WE

[02:20:04]

SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID FOR THE PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE WHERE I COULD CALCULATE, IT HELPS TO BE ABLE TO TELL A RESIDENT YOUR RATE INCREASE, IF WE DO A BILLION DOLLARS, COULD POTENTIALLY BE ANOTHER $3 A MONTH. OR -- AND THEN THE FOLKS THAT ARE -- IF I CAN GIVE THEM THAT, THEY CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION OF YOU'RE GOING TO GET MY STREET PAVED, I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK. I NEED IT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT THE CHANCES ARE THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND WHAT THAT IMPACT WOULD LOOK LIKE. IS THERE A WAY TO GET THAT FOR THE OCTOBER 14TH SESSION?

MAYBE THAT'S A BEN OR TROY QUESTION. >> YES.

YES, IT IS. AND WE CAN DO PART TWO OF THAT, ON WHAT ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON RATE CHANGE WOULD BE BY HOUSEHOLD. WE'LL WORK ON THE FIRST PART OF THAT. BUT MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE AS WE ARE, WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A RATE INCREASE. WE'RE NOT BETTING THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOVER 12 MONTHS FROM NOW. WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT ANY

MONEY ON THAT BET. >> KAUR: I APPRECIATE THAT. YOUR JOB IS TO BE CONSERVATIVE.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER LOOKS LIKE. >> WE WILL SHOW YOU WORST-CASE

SCENARIO. >> KAUR: AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT FOR THE -- MILLION DOLLAR, SORRY. BILLION-DOLLAR BOND AND THE $1.2 BILLION BOND.

WHAT'S THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FOR EACH OF THOSE. IN THE CURRENT $442 MILLION

SCENARIO, IS HOUSING BOND EVEN INCLUDED IN THERE? >> YES.

>> KAUR: OKAY. >> IT'S IN THAT CATEGORY, ON THAT LAST SLIDE WHERE WE LUMPED

IN, JUST AS A DISCUSSION POINT. >> KAUR: THE FACILITIES? I SEE.

I'M SORRY. >> YES, MA'AM. >> KAUR: CAN YOU PULL THAT SLIDE UP? THE HOUSING SLIDE THAT'S UP -- SLIDE 21.

SO THIS IS SAYING THAT THIS WAS -- WHAT THE SHIP GOALS ASSUMED.

BUT THE PRESENTATION WE GOT AT PCDC, I THINK THE TEAM ASSUMED HALF OF THE 150,

RIGHT, FOR THE NEW GOALS? >> CORRECT. THAT WAS WHAT THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WAS WAS ADJUSTING SOME OF THE GOALS DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.

OTHERS GO UP AND THE FEEDBACK WAS DON'T GO DOWN SO MUCH ON HOME REHAB, AND ESPECIALLY ALSO ON 0 TO 30% RENTAL PRODUCTION. SO THIS IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT WE SHARED WITH PCDC. BUT THAT LAST BULLET ACKNOWLEDGES WE WANTED TO HEAR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK AND WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO PCDC WITH ADJUSTMENTS AND CONSIDERING YOUR FEEDBACK THERE. WE ASSUME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SHIP OF $150 MILLION SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THOSE GOALS CLOSER TO

WHAT THE ORIGINAL SHIP ADOPTION WAS. >> KAUR: GREAT.

SO YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BRING THAT BACK IN DECEMBER? >> YES.

WE'LL COME BACK TO PCDC IN OCTOBER. THERE'S ONLY ONE COUNCIL DATE IN NOVEMBER SO REALISTICALLY PROBABLY DECEMBER FOR FULL COUNCIL.

>> KAUR: BUT THEY ARE CONTINGENT UPON EACH OTHER. YOU ALL NEED THE AFFIRMATION THAT YOU'RE GETTING $150 MILLION TO REVISE THOSE GOALS.

>> YES. WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW, IDEALLY, WHAT THE HOUSING BOND AMOUNT IS IN ORDER TO TRY AND GO BACK TO THOSE ORIGINAL SHIP GOALS FOR HOME

REHAB, HOME PRESERVATION. >> KAUR: I'LL LET THE OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SPEAK UP BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT WHAT 150 LOOKS LIKE.

WE ALSO HAVE THAT UPCOMING PENDING CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW MUCH WE COULD TAKE FROM MIDTOWN FOR HOUSING, SO MAYBE THERE'S A WAY WE CAN OFFSET SOME OF IT.

AND NOT TO MAKE Y'ALL DO ANY MORE WORK, BUT IS THERE AN OPTION WHERE YOU COULD BRING BACK WHAT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FOR A $750 MILLION BOND WOULD BE?

>> WALSH: YES ON THE 750. >> GORZELL: COUNCILWOMAN, ON THE MIDTOWN TIRZ -- I DID GO BACK AND CONFIRM. THERE'S COMPRESSION ON THE FRONT END.

THAT DOESN'T HELP US FOR THIS BOND PROGRAM. IT WOULD BE 2031, 2032 WHEN THAT PARTICULAR TIRZ WOULD OPEN UP AND YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO SOMETHING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ ASKED THAT EARLIER SO WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT BUT THERE'S VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR THAT FIRST FIVE YEARS.

[02:25:04]

>> KAUR: I'LL JUMP BACK IN BUT THE LAST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THE ART SLIDE. I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO GO UP TO 2%.

LIKE THOSE OTHER CITIES ARE SO MUCH SMALLER AND WE'RE 1.5% AND EVERYONE IS HIGHER THAN US AND I HATE BEING LOWER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SUPPORTIVE OF THE MAY ELECTION TIMELINE.

INTERESTED IN THE F STREETS CONVERSATION FOCUS WITHIN THE $1 BILLION RANGE.

OF COURSE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MIDDLE GROUND ON THE DRAINAGE FOCUS AS WELL.

I SHARE A LOT OF THE SENTIMENTS THAT COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO SHARE.

INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE MOWING COMPONENTS AS WELL, WHETHER IT'S MOVING THE MOWING SCHEDULE FOR TO MORE RAINY SEASON AND NOT LOSING THE STORMWATER FEE FOR THE BOND CAPACITY IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT ROUTE.

ON THE DRAINAGE, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS LISTED, I DIDN'T SEE TOO MUCH -- MAYBE I DON'T SEE THE FULL DETAILS JUST YET.

BUT THINKING ABOUT UPSTREAM VERSUS DOWNSTREAM EFFORTS ADDRESSING IN SOME OF THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS WE'RE SEEING ALONG THE MAJOR FLOODPLAINS.

HOW HAS THAT BEEN LOOKED AT WITH SARA OR OTHER ENTITIES WHAT THE COST LOOKS LIKE LARGER INLETS OR OTHER DRAINAGE METHODS WITHIN THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WITH THE QUESTION I'M ASKING? >> YES, COUNCILMAN.

YOU'RE DISCUSSING MAYBE DETENTION OPTIONS UPSTREAM VERSUS CHANNELIZATION PROJECTS. THE LIST OF 100 OR SO PROJECTS WE PROVIDED, THOSE ARE BASED ON KNOWN FLOODING ISSUES. AS WE GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE, SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN STUDIED FURTHER AND LOOK AT MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD INCLUDE UPSTREAM DETENTION OR CHANNELIZATION.

IT REALLY IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS THAT'S DONE BUT THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE LOOK

AT. >> GALVAN: I'M ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE BOND COMMITTEE PROCESS AS WELL. BUT ULTIMATELY I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE MY EXPECTATION AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO SOMETHING UPSTREAM WE CAN REDUCE THE IMPACT OVERALL AND REDUCE THE COST FOR A

PROJECT THAT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. >> YEAH.

SO THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE LISTED ARE ONES WE HAVE VETTED OUT MORE THOROUGHLY THAN OTHERS. SO AS WE GO THROUGH OTHER REQUESTS, YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE TO DO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES THAT LOOK AT A VARIETY OF ALTERNATIVES. THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

THESE WE HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT AND DETERMINED WHAT THE BEST APPROACH IS FOR THAT

PARTICULAR AREA. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS OF COURSE -- I HAVE SAID THIS SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE -- INCORPORATING AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN COMMUNITY HEALTH, HOW WE CAN INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCY AS WELL AS COMPLETE STREETS EFFORTS. WHETHER IT'S WITHIN ROAD MAINTENANCE OR WITHIN OUR FACILITIES OR PARKS SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM COSTS AND REDUCING THOSE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR ANY OF OUR PROJECTS

WOULD BE A PRIORITY OF MINE AS WELL. .>> SHANNON: THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF RESILIENCY.

THEY HELP US SCORE AND PRIORITIZE AND THINK OF WAYS TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THOSE

ELEMENTS. THEY'RE PART OF THE PROCESS. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MIKE. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SUPPORTIVE OF LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN BEST UTILIZE SOME OF THOSE ACCESSIBILITY, THE FAIR ACCESS SCORES AROUND URBAN HEAT ISLAND, TEN-MINUTE WALK TO A PARK TO SEE HOW -- PARTICULARLY FOR OUR COMMUNITY BOND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, TO SEE HOW THEY ARE EVALUATING THESE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE HERE TO THE BEST ABILITY POSSIBLE.

I WOULD SAY I THINK INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THOSE FAIR ACCESS OR EQUITY SCORES ACROSS ENTIRE DISTRICTS AND AVERAGING IT OUT, HOW WE CAN LOOK AT SUBAREAS BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT DISTRICT 6'S OVERALL -- AND OTHER NORTH SIDE DISTRICTS AS WELL.

THERE ARE SOME PARTS THAT SIMPLY ARE NOT FULLY REPRESENTED WITHIN THAT.

I THINK ABOUT THE EDGEWOOD AREAS. I THINK ABOUT WESTWOOD.

PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE ANY AQUATIC RECREATION SPACES BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR HOAS HAVE GONE UNDER. BUT THERE ARE GAPS IN PLACES THAT AREN'T FULLY REPRESENTED LOOKING AT IT SOLELY BY INCOME OR BY AMENITIES IN THE AREA.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW WE CAN ADD SOME OF THAT WEIGHT WITHIN THAT AS WE LOOK AT MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES HERE WITHIN THE BOND ITSELF.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY FOLLOW-UPS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> WALSH: MAYOR, JUST ONE SECOND. I THINK MIKE MENTIONED THIS

[02:30:04]

AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER CRITICAL FACTOR OF INTERSECTION THAT THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER. BECAUSE WHILE THOSE THINGS ARE CRITICAL TO THE COMMUNITY AND VERY IMPORTANT, THEY ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR O&M BUDGET, WHICH AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE, IN THE SHORT-TERM, HAVE CONTINUED CHALLENGES.

>> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT AS WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THIS LIST.

HOW MIGHT WE HAVE SOME OF THAT, AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN A COUPLE OF

WEEKS? >> WALSH: OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE NOT DONE AN O&M ANALYSIS ON ALL 300 OF THOSE PROJECTS BUT I THINK WE CAN, IN THE NEXT LIST, MAYBE DENOTE THOSE PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON O&M, DEPENDING ON SCALE AND SCOPE.

IF WE'RE RENOVATING SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS, THEN THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE AN O&M IMPACT. IN FACT, IT COULD HAVE, LIKE IN THE CASE OF BOB ROSS, COULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON O&M BECAUSE OUR MAINTENANCE COST WOULD GO DOWN. SO WE CAN START TO DENOTE THAT ON THE LARGE LIST.

AS THAT LIST GETS CULLED DOWN, DO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS.

>> MAYOR JONES: TO THE EXTENT THERE'S ANY PROJECTS, ACTUALLY, THAT DON'T HAVE AN O&M. LIKE, WHAT DOES THAT BUCKET LOOK LIKE?

>> WALSH: IT'S GOING TO BE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECTS ON THAT LIST.

>> MAYOR JONES: THAT DON'T HAVE O&M. >> WALSH: THAT DON'T.

THERE'S PROBABLY 25% OF THEM MAYBE OR LESS THAT WOULD HAVE AN O&M IMPACT.

BUT THAT'S ALSO THE $5.8 BILLION LIST THAT'S GOING TO GET CULLED DOWN.

>> MAYOR JONES: YEAH. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER KAUR, PLEASE.

>> KAUR: SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE CITYWIDE REGIONAL CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENING. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO FOR HER POINTS. CAN YOU BRING UP -- I THINK IT'S THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT SLIDE. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT NUMBER IT IS. IF ANYONE FINDS IT FASTER THAN ME.

OKAY. IT'S 23. SO -- OH, DO I HAVE A DIFFERENT -- YOU'RE ON 20. ON SLIDE 23, THE DURANGO PROJECT FROM ALAMO TO 37.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES MY RESIDENTS FACE IS GETTING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LABOR STREET, A NEW LIGHT AT LABOR STREET HAS BEEN SOMETHING AT THE TOP. DOES THAT $35 MILLION INCLUDE A NEW LIGHT AT LABOR

STREET? >> YES, MA'AM. >> KAUR: OKAY.

SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I THINK TO THE POINT -- I WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE SPECIFICALLY THAT FOR DISTRICT 1, IF THAT ARGUMENT WAS MADE. BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.

AND ACTUALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS. FOR THE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE BRIDGE, I'M CURIOUS HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHICH DISTRICT GETS TO USE THAT? I WENT TO A CONFERENCE -- I'M ON THE NLC TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE AND I WENT TO A CONFERENCE WITH COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN IN LOUISVILLE AND THEY HAVE THIS AMAZING SHARED-USE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE BRIDGE THAT LITERALLY PEOPLE ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE COME AND USE.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHO IS ACTUALLY BENEFITING FROM THAT PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE BRIDGE? I WOULD ARGUE THE BIKE COMMUNITY PROBABLY WOULD SAY THE WHOLE CITY WOULD APPRECIATE THAT SUPPORT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE CITYWIDE REGIONAL CONVERSATION, I THINK YOU RUN INTO A SLIPPERY SLOPE IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER A GOOD DEFINITION FOR CITYWIDE THAT WE ALL AGREE UPON.

I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PROJECTS IT ALSO BECOMES CHALLENGING BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD SAY, OH, IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER THEM -- WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IF WE ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDE THAT WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING ANYTHING CITYWIDE AND REGIONAL? WE'RE GOING TO START HAVING AN EVEN BIGGER DIVIDE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE COMMUNITY OF SAYING, OH, THAT'S A SOUTH SIDE PROJECT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SIDE PROJECT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR MY FELLOW COUNCIL COLLEAGUES BUT I THINK IT BECOMES VERY TRICKY WHEN YOU SAY, OH, THIS THING THAT COULD BENEFIT THE WHOLE CITY AT-LARGE IS NOW BEING PUT INTO A SPECIFIC AREA. SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE CONSIDERED REGIONAL AND CITYWIDE WERE THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY STREETS. HEMISFAIR BOULEVARD, PHASE 3 WAS CONSIDERED REGIONAL.

[02:35:05]

NORTH ST. MARY'S. O.P. SCHNABEL PARK WAS ALSO CONSIDERED.

ROOSEVELT AVENUE. AND THEN BROADWAY, WORLD HERITAGE TRAIL.

WURZBACH ROAD. ALL OF THOSE WERE CONSIDERED REGIONAL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THERE IS HISTORIC PRECEDENT AND IT HELPS

IMPROVE THE ENTIRE CITY. >> WALSH: JUST TO FOLLOW UP, COUNCILWOMAN.

YOU GAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THE HISTORICAL -- AND THE DEFINITIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR I

THINK IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE CITYWIDE? >> KAUR: I WOULD AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT IF IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT THAT THE ENTIRE CITY IS USING VERSUS LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

CITYWIDE. >> WALSH: GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR JONES: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ. PLEASE SIGN IN. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: OH, MY LAPTOP'S NOT PLUGGED IN. I WOULD LIKE, WHY IS IT NOT CONNECTING? I GUESS TO START OFF, I'LL CHALLENGE THAT A LITTLE BIT IN THAT FOR ME SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE GOING TO VIEW PROJECT MARVEL AS THIS CITYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GEM AND INVEST IN IT AS IT'S CITYWIDE.

IF MY RESIDENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET TO IT, IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE AND IT IS NOT FOR THEM.

AND YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AND SAY HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY JOBS DO MY RESIDENTS NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ACROSS TOWN BECAUSE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT 2 IS ALONE AND SO THOSE AREN'T TREATED AS CITYWIDE.

THOSE JOBS ELSEWHERE THAT THEY HAVE TO GET TO ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THEM.

EDUCATION IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. GROCERY STORES, HOSPITAL FACILITIES.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS. IT'S -- YOU HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE AND BLIGHTED NEIGHBORHOODS TO GET TO THEM.

AND SO UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE AND ACCESS IS EQUAL ACROSS ALL DISTRICTS, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MEDICAL CENTER IS ENTIRELY -- I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A BAD EXAMPLE.

THE MEDICAL CENTER IS CITYWIDE. SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IS CITYWIDE. I THINK MAYBE IF WE WERE TO BE SPECIFIC AND SAY PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES. IF WE WERE GOING TO SAY THE MEDICAL CENTER BECAUSE IT SERVES ITS PUBLIC HEALTH PURPOSE, THAT IS CITYWIDE. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

SOMETHING THAT IS ENTERTAINMENT, I DON'T QUITE KNOW AS MUCH.

TO THAT END, IF WE WERE TO GO THE ROUTE OF IDENTIFYING CITYWIDE PROJECTS, THERE'S A BUNCH OF THEM I COULD SAY IN DISTRICT 2 THAT WE SHOULD THEN CONTEMPLATE ADDING BACK INTO THE BOND PROGRAM, POTENTIALLY. OR THAT WE SHOULD DO -- I GUESS, FOR EXAMPLE, SAGE. THERE'S $100 MILLION IN REQUESTS THEY HAVE.

THEY'RE ONE OF OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS AND FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THRIVE ON THE EAST SIDE, THEY'RE SAYING WE NEED THIS $100 MILLION PLUS INVESTMENT. WHY CAN'T WE TAKE THAT AS A CITYWIDE INVESTMENT? AND SO IT BECOMES THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE NOW WE'RE NO LONGER THINKING ABOUT THINGS AS THINGS, HEY, THE EQUITY FRAMEWORK SHOULD SAY THESE DISTRICTS ARE RECEIVING AN ALLOCATION THIS WAY. WE'RE NOW PUTTING THINGS ASIDE AND SAYING THESE THINGS ARE CITYWIDE SO THEY GET PRIORITIZED.

AND THEN WHATEVER WE USE FOR EQUITY FUNDING OR THE EQUITY FRAMEWORK, THAT'S GOING TO BE A SMALLER PORTION OF THE PIE. AND SO IN THE EVENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, I THINK WE MOVE TOWARDS HAVING THE -- ANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.

THOSE ONES ARE GOING TO BE VOTED ON AS A SEPARATE PROPOSITION.

I THINK IF NOT, THEN, YOU KNOW, IF DISTRICT 1 HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN -- HAS $40 MILLION TO WORK WITH OUT OF THE BOND AND $37 MILLION OF THAT IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS THIS SORT OF DISTRICT, I THINK IT IS UP TO THE COUNCILPERSON, UP TO THE COMMITTEE, UP TO THE CONSTITUENTS TO DECIDE ARE WE GOING TO PRIORITIZE OUR $40 MILLION HERE OR ARE WE GOING TO SAY INSTEAD WE WANT TO FUND PROJECTS THROUGHOUT DISTRICT 1? AND THAT'S NOT -- IS THAT THE FAIREST CONVERSATION? I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE. MAYBE NOT.

IS THAT THE CONVERSATION WE SHOULD BE HAVING? LIKELY SO.

BEYOND THAT, I GUESS THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON CITYWIDE RIGHT NOW.

BUT ERIK, I GUESS WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IN THE CONVERSATION, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON? WHAT DIRECTION ARE WE GOING?

[02:40:01]

I'M HEARING EVERYTHING. >> MAYOR JONES: LET'S GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE

COMMENTS. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: IF I'M TO BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK OR IF THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, I WANT TO KNOW CAN MY COMMENTS BE ASSISTIVE OR IS THERE NOTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE SAID THAT'S GOING TO -- SO EVERYBODY WENT AROUND AND GAVE ONE ROUND ON THEIR GENERAL THOUGHTS ON

THE BOND. >> MAYOR JONES: UNDERSTOOD.

>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MY SECOND ROUND I AM HOPING TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK THAT IS HELPFUL TO THIS CONVERSATION. WE WERE JUST -- I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS ABOUT THE CITYWIDE AND SO I PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THAT.

I'M NOW ASKING ERIK IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S WISHY WASHY IN THE MIDDLE THAT IF I TAILORED MY COMMENTS TO IT MIGHT HELP STEER DIRECTION SOME WAY?

>> MAYOR JONES: GO AHEAD. >> WALSH: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE -- FACILITATE MORE CONVERSATION FOR YOU ALL. THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF YOU THAT WANT TO REACH HIGHER THAN THE 442. THERE ARE SOME THAT DON'T WANT TO. I THINK THERE'S A MIXED BAG, IN TERMS OF FEEDBACK I HAVE RECEIVED ON STORMWATER. AND I'M GOING TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THAT AS WE MOVE TO OCTOBER 14TH. THAT'S REALLY TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AS YOU HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS.

WE HAVE A SLEW OF FOLLOW-UP WE NEED TO DO. THE NEXT ROUND THAT WE WILL PROVIDE YOU -- BECAUSE WE DIDN'T -- THAT PROJECT LIST WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROJECTS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU GUYS TO HAVE THAT BASIS AND THAT GIVES MIKE AND VERONICA AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THE ABILITY TO AT LEAST GIVE YOU, AFFORD YOU THAT VIEWPOINT INTO IT. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE -- I THINK I'M GOING TO NEED MORE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS. WE WILL DO THE EXAMPLES ON TAX IMPACT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORST-CASE SCENARIO THAT I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD PLAN FOR BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASSUME THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THE RECESSION OR THE HOUSING MARKET IS GOING TO CHANGE OR TAXABLE VALUE CHANGE.

WE'LL BASE IT OFF OF THE FORECAST AND DO A RANGE OF ABOVE AND BELOW THAT FOR YOU. SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SHOOTING FOR MAY 27.

AND WE GOT A LOT MORE WORK IN FRONT OF US. WE WILL WORK ON A CITYWIDE DEFINITION, BASED ON ALL THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED. AT LEAST SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO CHEW ON AND REACT TO. THAT HAS BEEN A POINT OF CONTENTION IN PAST BOND PROJECTS BUT IT'S BEEN A DIFFERENT DEFINITION EVERY TIME.

WHATEVER WE END UP DOING, WHATEVER YOU ALL END UP DOING, IT SHOULD BE NARROW AND TIGHT. THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. WE WILL WORK ON PFZ AND TIRZ APPLICATIONS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PRESSURE POINTS THAT WILL RELIEVE US OF SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS. THAT'S KIND OF MY SUMMARY OF WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS POINT

IN THE MEETING. >> MAYOR JONES: YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF FOLKS THAT STILL

NEED TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MY QUESTION THEN, MAYOR -- I HAVE A THOUGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE PRODUCTIVE IN THIS SPECIFIC FORMAT FOR THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.

AND I'M WONDERING IF IT -- I KNOW -- MORE THAN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY FIRST OR SECOND BUDGET SEASON WE HAD A MUCH MORE INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BUDGET, WHAT PRIORITIES WERE. AND I WONDER IF MAYBE IF COUNCIL MEMBERS CAME -- NOT NECESSARILY THIS FORMAT WHERE IT'S 10 MINUTES AND 5 MINUTES BUT MORE LIKE A -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THE TABLETOP EXERCISE WENT.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WOULD FATHOM MIGHT BE MORE PRODUCTIVE, ESPECIALLY IF WE IDENTIFIED, HEY, THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FUNDED.

IF WE ALL SAW THAT, VERSUS THIS -- >> WALSH: HUGE LIST.

>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: $76 BILLION LIST. THAT MIGHT HELP US, I THINK

NARROW A LITTLE BIT MORE. >> MAYOR JONES: LET ME HEAR FROM COUNCILWOMAN

VIAGRAN, PLEASE. >> VIAGRAN: I DON'T JUST WANT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. I APPRECIATE THE MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE BUT I THINK THAT I NEED YOU TO DO WHAT OTHER CITIES DO. SO WHICH CITY IN TEXAS OR THAT IS COMPETITIVE WITH US -- BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE -- DOES NOT DO MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE? I WANT THOSE NUMBERS TOO WHEN YOU BRING US THE SCENARIOS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

THE OTHER THING I THINK WE'RE LOSING AT THIS POINT IS THIS ISN'T A BUDGET, IT'S A BOND, AND IT GOES TO THE VOTERS. DO I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT WE CONSIDER CITYWIDE, WHAT WE CONSIDER REGIONAL? YES. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, TO MAKE THIS EQUITABLE FOR

[02:45:01]

YOU CAN PUT FORWARD WHAT PROJECTS YOU LIKE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT PROJECTS THAT GROUP OF 30 AGREE UPON.

AND I HAVE SEEN RESIDENTS, IN MY YEARS AS AN EMPLOYEE, MOVE FROM YOU THINK THIS PARK'S GOING TO GET IT AND THEN THEY END UP GOING TO A PARK THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SHADE STRUCTURE. AND THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND. THE RESIDENTS CHANGE THEIR MIND. AND I FEEL LIKE THE MORE DIRECTION AND THE MORE WE MICROMANAGE, THE LESS THE VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT. AND LEGALLY I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN SEPARATE THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT BECAUSE IN TERMS OF SLIPPERY SLOPES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WE DO WITH THE TIRZ? SEND IT TO THE COMMISSION AND LET THEM DECIDE. WE GIVE THEM PARAMETERS OF WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE FOR WHAT WE CONSIDER CITYWIDE, WHICH I CONSIDER IT AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR AND AT LEAST COVERS MORE THAN THREE DISTRICTS.

THREE OR MORE DISTRICTS. AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THEY FIND IT REGIONAL OR CITYWIDE. SO AND WE MIGHT HAVE A LOT MORE CITYWIDE THAN WE EXPECT. BUT LET THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT AND LET US GET THE APPOINTMENTS AND THAT UNDERWAY. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST MAKING THIS PARTICULARLY LONGER THAN IT NEEDS TO GO. SO AGAIN, $1 BILLION, MAY ELECTION. LET THE VOTERS AND THE COMMISSION HAVE THEIR SAY.

THANK YOU. >> WALSH: COUNCILWOMAN, ARE YOU SUGGESTING ALSO THAT MAYBE WE MOVE UP THE PROCESS TO HAVE YOU ALL APPOINT AND HAVE THEM DO THAT WORK?

>> VIAGRAN: I THINK WE CAN HAND THEM PARAMETERS FOR WHAT WE THINK CITYWIDE IS AND THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION WHEN THEY SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL.

AGAIN, THEY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL.

WE LOOK THAT OVER AND WE ARRANGE WHAT GOES TO THE VOTERS.

BUT RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUTTING OUR HANDS TOO EARLY BEFORE WE EVEN HEAR -- I KNOW WHAT PROJECTS I LIKE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY THE PROJECTS MY

RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO WANT. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. ACTUALLY, ANDY, JUST TO ADDRESS THE POINT ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF A SEPARATE PROPOSITION.

I KNOW YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THAT. IF YOU WANT TO REITERATE THAT HERE, PLEASE? BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL SPECIFICITY ON WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED HERE AS PART OF THAT. CAN YOU JUST ANSWER THE

COUNCILWOMAN'S QUESTION? >> SEGOVIA: REAL SHORTLY, THERE ARE LEGAL RISKS, MAYOR. I WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THOSE IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. MORE IMPORTANTLY IT'S THE FINANCIAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS THAT ERIK WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT REALLY DICTATE WHAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD DECIDE AND NOT THE LEGALITIES OF IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. AS YOU'VE SHARED WITH US, THOUGH, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO

THAT? >> SEGOVIA: CONCEPTUALLY, YES.

>> MAYOR JONES: CONCEPTUALLY, YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZALEZ, PLEASE. >> GONZALEZ: THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY -- I THINK ERIK MENTIONED BRINGING BACK STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THAT BASED ON PROJECTS IN THE -- I GUESS IT'S BASED ON

THE $442 MILLION PROGRAM? OR JUST -- >> WALSH: THE ENTIRE LIST.

>> GONZALEZ: THE ENTIRE LIST. AND THEN ON THE -- MAYBE THIS IS OFFLINE BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ON THE TRANCHES THAT WE -- WHEN WE ISSUE THOSE BONDS. IF WE ISSUE THEM IN SMALLER AMOUNTS, DOES THAT MATTER OR

CHANGE THE -- >> GORZELL: COUNCILWOMAN, ONCE YOU DECIDE ON THE BOND

[02:50:09]

PROJECTS BUT WE CAN'T GIVE THEM THE FUNDING UP FRONT. >> GONZALEZ: I GUESS THE

FIRST ISSUANCE FOR THIS ONE WOULD BE IN '28? >> GORZELL: I'LL LET TROY

GIVE YOU THE DETAILS ON IT. >> ELLIOTT: SO WHEN WE MODEL IT, THE FIRST ISSUANCE WOULD BE TO SUPPORT A VERY SMALL PIECE IN 2027. HE'S GOING TO NEED ABOUT $40 MILLION, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS, TO DO THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING WORK.

>> GONZALEZ: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST AND THEN BUT THOSE ARE HARD DATES IN '27 THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN. COULD THEY BE MOVED TO '28

OR '29? >> ELLIOTT: IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BOND PROGRAM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PLAN INCORPORATED INTO OUR MODEL.

HAS A VERY SMALL ISSUANCE IN THE BEGINNING TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING. AS THEY SPEND AND GET INTO CONSTRUCTION, THEN THOSE

ISSUANCES INCREASE OVER TIME. >> GONZALEZ: WHAT'S THE

PLANNED ISSUANCE FOR 2022, THAT LAST TRANCHE? >> ELLIOTT: THERE'S ABOUT $270 MILLION LEFT IN THE 2022 BOND PROGRAM. AND WE HAVE PROGRAM TWO ISSUANCES LEFT. I THINK WE HAVE $150 MILLION IN 2027 AND THE BALANCE IN

'28. >> GONZALEZ: OKAY. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY

QUESTIONS. >> GORZELL: COUNCILWOMAN, IN ALL OF THOSE BOND PROGRAMS, IF YOU GO BACK HISTORICALLY, THEY'LL HAVE THAT SAME SHAPE.

THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER IN THE FRONT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ISSUE.

A LITTLE BIT LIKE A BELL BUT IT'S PUSHED TO THE BACK. AS THEY MOVE FROM DESIGN TO CONSTRUCTION, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ISSUING MORE TO SUPPORT THEM.

THIS ONE IS BUILT THE SAME WAY, SIMILAR, BUT WE WOULD NEED -- THEY WOULD NEED FUNDING TO DO THE DESIGN AND SOME OF THAT EARLY WORK TO KEEP IT ON TRACK TO TRY TO

GET IT BUILT WITHIN THE FIVE YEARS. >> GONZALEZ: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR JONES: THE COUNCILWOMAN LEFT BUT JUST FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION, THERE'S THIS REFERENCE TO WHAT OTHER CITIES DO AND HOW THEY'RE DOING IT.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IF OUR PROCESS IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OTHER

MAJOR CITIES ARE DOING TO HELP LAY FLAT? >> ELLIOTT: I THINK THE LAST TIME I PRESENTED AT THE WORK SESSION I BROUGHT UP TWO SLIDES AND IT SHOWED OUR COMPARABLE CITIES IN TEXAS AND IT SHOWED WHAT THOSE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.

WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ALIGNED WITH -- I BELIEVE IT WAS CORPUS.

AND SOMEWHAT ALIGNED WITH FORT WORTH. THE OTHER CITIES, REALLY THEY MANAGE THEIR TAX RATES ON A VARIABLE STANDPOINT. SO THEY BASICALLY DEVELOP A BOND PROGRAM AND THEY DEVELOP A TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THAT BOND PROGRAM.

WE CAN RESURFACE THOSE AGAIN, IF WE NEED TO. >> WALSH: BUT WE ARE THE LARGEST CITY, BASED ON THAT ANALYSIS, THAT ISN'T UTILIZING THAT AS A TOOL.

>> MAYOR JONES: BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE PUT FORTH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO

CONTINUE TO NOT USE THAT PROCESS? >> WALSH: YES, GIVEN WHERE

WE'RE AT AT THIS POINT IN THE ECONOMY. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE, PLEASE. >> WHYTE: YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M NOT FOR SPEEDING THINGS UP AND NOT GOING AND HAVING MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHERE WE ARE ON THIS. I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO -- PEOPLE ARE TICKED OFF.

I MEAN, I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE REACHED OUT TO MY OFFICE IN THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE GOING UP. WHEN THEY START TO REALIZE THAT IT MIGHT BE HAPPENING AGAIN, ALL WITHIN THE SPAN OF A MONTH, I MEAN, THE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR IT THE BETTER.

AND WHEN YOU, ERIK AND YOUR TEAM, SHOW THESE NUMBERS ON WHAT THE IMPACT COULD BE TO THE RESIDENTS -- I MEAN, THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO NEED TO SEE THAT.

AND WHAT I THINK WE'RE STARING DOWN, IF WE GO AND WE RAISE THE AMOUNT OF THIS BOND BY INCREASING TAXES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING OF A HOLY WAR ON OUR HANDS OVER THIS BOND PACKAGE. I I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL ARE HEARING IN YOUR DISTRICTS, BUT THE FEEDBACK I'M GETTING FROM THAT PROPERTY TAX L HIKE, MORE PEOPLE ARE UPSET MORE MONEY IS BEING TAKEN FROM THEM, AND HOW WE ARE ANOTHER TO LINE IT UP AGAIN A MONTH LATER BECAUSE WE WANT TO SPEND MORE ON PROJECTS AROUND THE CITY. I THINK THE MORE CONVERSATION IS BETTER.

[02:55:03]

RAISING THE TAX RATE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GAVITO, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I ABSOLUTELY HEAR AND UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT YOU ALL SHARED OF LIKE "NOW'S OUR TIME," AND I'M SORRY, TO BE CLEAR, OF MY COLLEAGUES IN DISTRICT 1-5, NOW'S OUR TIME. A LOT OF MAKE-UP WORK NEEDING TO BE DONE.

AS I THINK COUNCILMEMBER KAUR POINTED OUT, IT'S NOT US, PREDECESSORS.

MAYBE D8 AND D10 GOT A CHUNK OF THE BOND. THAT SUCKS, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, ALL OF THAT TO SAY IS RIGHT NOW IS THE TIME FOR US AS A BODY TO BE STRATEGIC AND SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IS, WHAT THE APPETITE OF THE VOTERS IS.

BECAUSE WE COULD SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT. IF WE GO AT A $442 MILLION BOND, NO TAX RATE INCREASE, MAYBE THAT'S THE APPETITE THAT VOTERS HAVE, WHICH I'M GUESSING THAT THEY DO; VERSUS IF WE OVEREXTEND OUR ASK AND ASK FOR $1 BILLION BOND, $1.2 BILLION BOND, WITH AN INCREASE. GUESS WHAT? NONE OF OUR DISTRICTS ARE GETTING A DIME. SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND OUR RESIDENTS, UNDERSTAND THE PINCH THEY'RE FEELING.

OBVIOUSLY WE RAISED THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX RATE. WE KNOW CPS AND OTHER THINGS ARE COMING UP. PUT OURSELVES AND THINK ABOUT IT FROM ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS' PERSPECTIVE AND ASK OURSELVES, LIKE, DO WE WANT TO SHOOT FOR THE $1.2 BILLION AND THEN AGAIN NONE OF US ARE LEFT WITH A DIME BEING INVESTED? AGAIN, I'M THINKING THAT VOTERS' APPETITE, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW IS MORE OF A $442 MILLION BOND WITH NO TAX RATE INCREASE.

AT LEAST THAT'S THE FEEDBACK WE'RE GETTING FROM DISTRICT 7. I DON'T THINK I SAID THIS IN THE FIRST ROUND. ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT MAY OR NOVEMBER?

I'M GOOD WITH MAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER HMONG G MUNGIA, PLEASE. >> A HOLY WAR? I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVER HEARD THAT UP HERE BEFORE. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

I THINK PEOPLE CERTAINLY WOULD BE FRUSTRATED BUT THINK, AS I HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UPSET, I EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT WOULD BE CUT NEXT. THEY MAY NOT BE HAPPEN BUT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. OBVIOUSLY THIS INCREASE WOULD BE A LOT SMALLER STILL INCREASE BUT WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, RIGHT? LIKE THE WAY YOU HAD IT FOR THE BUDGET, WHAT WOULD THIS KIND OF POTENTIAL INCREASE LOOK LIKE FOR FOLKS? ESPECIALLY WITH THE STORMWATER -- BUT YOU KNOW, SOMETHING MY PREDECESSOR USED TO ALWAYS SAY AND ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS SO TRUE.

SHE WOULD SAY FOR SOME OF US, IT'S HURRY UP AND WAIT. SO IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, JUST HURRY UP AND WAIT. WE CAN'T DO THIS RIGHT NOW. YOUR TIME WILL COME LATER.

YOUR INVESTMENTS WILL COME LATER. JUST WAIT IT OUT.

AND THAT'S ... A FAIR THING TO SAY ONCE YOU'VE GOTTEN YOURS. I MEAN, AS COUNCILMEMBER KAUR POINTED OUT, SO MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN INVESTED IN HOAR DIS-- OTHER DISTRICTS ALREADY.

THAT'S GOOD. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S BAD. EVERYTHING AND ALL THE PROJECTS ARE NEEDED AND DESERVED. EVERYBODY NEEDS THAT. WHAT YOU HEAR SOME OF US SAYING IS WE ALSO NEED THAT ON OUR SIDE OF TOWN, AND MAYBE BECAUSE THIS BEING DISTRICT 4 COUNT JOURNAL MAN'S DREAM JOB, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE DECISION ABOUT THE ELECTION TO COME.

THAT MAKES AT IT POLITICAL DECISION AND NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS RIGHT AND JUST IN OUR JUDGMENT. WE HAVE A FOUR-YEAR TERM. WE HAVE A LONG-TERM STRATEGY WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT CITY COUNCIL, AND PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT WE THINK VOTERS MAY OR MAY NOT AC ACCEPT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY GOOD BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE FOLKS AND THE ENTIRE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF THAT IF THEY DISAGREE. I IMAGINE, I'M SURE, IF WE HAD A $1 BILLION BOND OR EVEN 400 -- PEOPLE WOULD BE SAYING NO AND CAMPAIGN AGAINST IT.

EVEN IF WE DID A $400 MILLION BOND, THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE, I'M SURE, OUT THERE SAYING THIS IS RESULTING IN TAX INCREASE AND DON'T TRUST THEM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE SAY UP HERE.

THAT'S A FACT. EVERY BOND CYCLE, THERE ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN A TAX INCREASE, SO THAT'S NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY. BUT YEAH, AS THE COUNT JOURNAL MEMBER SAID, LET'S GET THE TALLIES AND SEE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, ADJUST FOR INFLATION, REALIZING WE'RE GONNA GET LESS WITH MORE MONEY SPENT, AND WE'VE GOT TO COME TO

[03:00:05]

I HOPE WE CAN ALL COME TO AN AGREEABLE CONSENSUS ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WHAT FOLKS NEED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES VERSUS WANTS, UNDERSTANDING SOME HAVE GOTTEN A LOT ALREADY AND MAYBE WE NEED TO SHIFT THAT OVER A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER MEMO OR SPECIAL MEETING AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE THIS IS A GENERATIONAL INVESTMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. I'M TALKING ABOUT GETTING STREETS DONE, PARKS DONE, AND IF ANY OF YOU DOUBT THAT, I WILL GLADLY SHOW YOU THE PARKS IN D4 THAT HAVE ALMOST NOTHING OUT THERE FOR FOLKS. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE POOREST ZIP CODES IN MY

DISTRICT, SO THEY DESERVE THAT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

YOU HAVE SPOKEN TWICE. COUNCILMEMBER KAUR, GO AHEAD. >> THANKS, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT -- BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT WE DID HAVE A PROPERTY RATE INCREASE IT WAS MENTIONED WE HAD A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.

I WANTED TO REITERATE ERIC'S POINT MADE EARLIER THAT REGARDLESS, THIS DISCUSSION IS IMPORTANT, AND WE'RE GOING TO COME TO SOME KIND OF CONCLUSION.

IF WE GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND JUST BASICALLY CRITICIZE ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY OF US DECIDE, NOTHING WE DO IS GOING TO WORK.

AND THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO, NOBODY IN THE COMMUNITY BENEFITING, IS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT. WE SAW THAT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AFTER THE BOND RATE VOTE, AND I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE WE ARE -- AT THE END OF THE DAY -- YOU WILL HATE THIS ANALOGY. WE'RE A TEAM, AND WHAT WE MAKE A DECISION OF 11 AND WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT GETS MADE AND MOVE TOGETHER FORWARD. I REQUEST AFTER WE DO MAKE THAT FINAL VOTE THAT ALL OF US COMMIT, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, COMMITS TO MOVING FORWARD

TOGETHER. THANKS. >> OKAY.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.

I'LL JUST CONFIRM. COUNCILPERSON CASTILLO? WE JUST WANT TO CONFIRM.

THANKS. WE WERE JUST MAKING SURE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ERIC, YEAH, PRETTY CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND I THINK THE RISK.

I THINK THE CONVERSATION TODAY HAS LARGELY CENTERED ON INEQUITIES AND THINK THAT'S FAIR. I THINK ABSENT SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE RISK, THOUGH, INVOLVED WITH A HIGHER OPTION, WE THEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW WE ARE GOING AGAINST YOUR FINANCIAL ADVICE, THAT WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED IS MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE.

SO HELPING SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT NARRATIVE IS AND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT, I THINK, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

BECAUSE WE HAVE THE OPTION TO LOOK AT $442 MILLION AND THEN REVISIT AN ADDITIONAL BOND WHEN WE HAVE MORE CLARITY ON THE ECONOMIC SITUATION, I THINK WHAT IS THE MOST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AT THIS POINT WOULD BE GOING AHEAD WITH $442 MILLION, UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD ALL COMMIT TO LOOKING AT AN FY '29 BOND, RATHER, AND UNDERSTANDING WITH BETTER CLARITY WHAT THE SIZE OF THAT COULD BE. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS.

I MEAN, THIS IS -- AGAIN, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OVERLAP THESE THINGS SO YOU GET SOME OF THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU WANT THEM. AND FRANKLY, THEN, WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE RISK WE WOULD BE ASSUMING AT THAT POINT AS WELL.

VERONICA, TO HELP OUR CONVERSATION, WHAT I APPRECIATE IS ALSO UNDERSTANDING HOW ELSE MIGHT WE ACHIEVE, IF WE WERE GOING TO DO $150 MILLION OR $75 MILLION TOWARDS A HOUSING BOND, HOW ELSE COULD WE ACHIEVE THOSE HOUSING GOALS, ABSENT MONEY FROM THE BOND? I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS UP HERE WAS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO PLAN BASED ON WHAT YOU GET OUT OF THE BOND BUT I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME WE CAN ONLY MEET THOSE GOALS WITH BOND MONEY.

[03:05:02]

THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO -- I APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN MCKEE RODRIGUEZ, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR PROJECTS. I FULL LITTLE SUPPORT THAT TO THE GREATEST EXTENT. I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE HAD AS WELL IN TERMS OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE INVESTED IN JUST REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER, WHICH IS BRINGING FORWARD THE TIMELINE BY WHEN THE MIDTOWN TOURS ENDS. AS CLEAR, THERE ARE THINGS WE NEED TO INVEST IN EITHER AS PART OF INFORM OR THE O&M RELATED TO SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, SO ENDING ON TIME MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. OKAY.

I'M -- IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE OF THE BOND, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOVEMBER, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO WITH WHAT THE CONSENSUS HERE OF MAY, AS MENTIONED. $442MILLION.

ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WITHIN SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS WE REVISIT THE TYPES OF THINGS WE'RE INVESTING IN. I HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION WITH VERNON DO AND HER -- VERONICA AND HER TEAM. I TODAY THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE TYPESES OF HOUSING OPTIONS THAT BENEFIT THE MOST PEOPLE AND IN MY MIND THAT MEANS, FRANKLY, NOT ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO HOME OWNERSHIP PRODUCTION.

WE'RE JUST NOT IN THAT MOMENT IN TIME. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT RENTAL PROPERTIES, POTENTIALLY SMALLER UNITS, THAT HELP BRING DOWN THE COST, BUT RALE IN TERMS OF DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY IS WHAT I WOULD ARGUE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE.

I WILL HOLD OFF ON PROVIDING COMMENT ON THE STORM FEE RIGHT NOW, ERIC.

I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY -- BEFORE DOING THAT, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH MONEY IS FREED UP FROM THE BOND BY LOOKING AT WHAT CAN BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE PFC AND THE TOURS.

ON THE LIST OF FACILITIES, I THINK IT WOULD BE ALSO VERY HELPFUL AS WE'RE KIND OF NAVIGATING THIS LIST THAT I KNOW YOU WILL UPDATE, BUT PLEASE ALSO IDENTIFY NOT ONLY CAN IT BE PAID OUT OF THE PFC AND OUT OF THE TOURS BUT ALSO ON THE FACILITIES, THERE'S FACILITIES THAT ARE ALL LUMPED IN TOGETHER. YOU'VE GOT A SUBSTATION AND THEN A PRIVATE ENTITY. SO I'D LIKE THOSE TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S A CITY FACILITY, MY FOCUS, VERSUS SOME OF THE PRIVATE FACILITIES. SO PLEASE UPDATE THE LIST TO REFLECT THAT. THANK YOU. AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, FRANKLY, THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE -- I MEAN, ADDING JUST PROJECTS, $430 MILLION TO THE PREVIOUS FLOOD LIST. I WANT TO MAKE SURE, COUNT JOURNAL MEMBER MCKEE RODRIGUEZ IF WE HAVE UNINCORPORATED THAT INTO OUR ASKS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THE STATE. OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD THEIR SPECIAL SESSION LAST YEAR.

WE GOT NOTHING OUT OF THAT SO REUPING THE ASK IS IMPORTANT. TROY AND BEN, IN THAT UPDATE, WHEN WE DO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT FINANCIAL RISK, YOUR ANALYSIS WILL THEN ALSO INCLUDE A REFLECTION OF THE INTEREST AND INTEREST RATE, CORRECT? AN INCREASE IN THE INTEREST RATE, CORRECT? AND WHAT THAT MEANS? YOU SAID IT DIDN'T INCLUDE TODAY BUT GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT CAN INCREASE AND THAT AFFECTS, WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT

MEANS. >> CITY THINK, MAYOR, I THINK, MAYOR, WE CAN -- THE FINANCIAL MARKET, MOVED. WE'RE PAYING MORE FOR THAT. WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT IN THERE. AND AT LEAST BEEN THE BUMP IN THE FED FED RATE AND INFLUENCES MORTGAGES AND BORROWING INDIRECTLY. THAT'S HARDER TO TIE TO

VALUATION BUT WILL TAKE A LOOK. >> OKAY. I APPRECIATE IT.

AS CLEAR AS A PICTURE WE CAN HAVE IS VERY HELPFUL. OKAY.

ERIC, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RECAP, GO AHEAD. >> WHAT PRIVATE FACILITY ARE YOU

TALKING ABOUT ON THE LIST? >> SO -- LET ME SEE HERE. >> THE OUTSIDE AGENCY REQUEST?

[03:10:06]

>> YES. >> THERE'S NO CLEAR DENSE TENSION BETWEEN MUNICIPAL

FACILITIES AND OUTSIDE AGENCY LIST, IN MY MIND AS WELL. >> ON THIS IS JUST CALLED

FACILITY ON THE CATEGORY. >> THE TITLE OF THE PROJECT? >> THE MUSEUM OF ART CAMPUS

RENOVATION FOR $10 MILLION. >> YEAH. THAT'S OUTSIDE AGENCY. WE'LL MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. AND THEN LET ME DOUBLE BACK, MAYOR.

THE DIRECTION I RECEIVED FROM THE COUNCIL THREE WEEKS AGO WAS TO LOOK TO SEE BOTH MIDTOWN AND INNER CITY HOW WE MOVE THOSE, BRING BACK OPTIONS BY THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR FINANCIALLY ON HOW WE END THOSE EARLY. IT WAS NOT JUST MIDTOWN. I'M TAKING THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE RODRIGUEZ MADE EARLIER THAT THERE MAY BE SOME FLEX IN THAT? I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I TOOK WHAT HE SAID, IF THERE'S A WAY GOOD BOND PROJECTS ON THAT, THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY AND THEN WOULD TAKE THE SAME APPROACH WITH MIDTOWN. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DISTINCTION.

>> OKAY. GO AHEAD, COUNCILMAN. >> OKAY.

GOT IT. AND THEN ALTHOUGH IT SAID OCTOBER 15 ON MIKE'S SLIDE, IT'S GOING TO BE OCTOBER 14 BECAUSE WE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE SCHEDULE, SO WE WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU AND DO THE FOLLOW-UP AND GET IT TO YOU PRETTY QUICKLY.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US. THANKS, MAYOR.

>> APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. THE TIME IS NOW 1:17.

THIS MEE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.