Oct 14, 2026 City Council B Session

[00:00:51]

>> MAYOR JONES: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE TIME IS NOW 2:08 P.M.

ON WEDNESDAY, 2014, AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO B SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL ROLL.

>> CLERK:

[ BRIEFING ONLY  ]

ERIK, OVER TO YOU. >> WALSH: YEP. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO TODAY'S CONVERSATION ON THE BOND, I WANT TO KIND OF LAY OUT BEFORE MIKE GIVES THE PRESENTATION THERE EETION A COUPLE OF THINGS WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM YOU AND THE COUNCIL. ONE IS AN AGREEMENT ON AN AMOUNT.

AND THAT COULD BE IN TERMS OF -- OF MAYBE TWO OPTIONS, PREFERABLY ONE OPTION. SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE THE NEXT ROUND THAT WILL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON 10/29. AND SO WE'LL WALK THROUGH THAT. WE HAVE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ALL AS A STARTING POINT. I DO -- I DO CHARACTERIZE IT AS A STARTING POINT, BECAUSE I THINK IT JUST GIVES THE COUNCIL SOME CONCEPT OF WHAT A SPLIT COULD LOOK LIKE. SO I'M LOOKING -- THE SECOND THING I'M LOOKING FOR TODAY IS KIND OF AN APPROPRIATE SPLIT BY PROPOSITION AND THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU ALL INDIVIDUALLY. AND THEN LASTLY, FEEDBACK ON THE COMMUNITY COMMITTEE PROCESS. THAT PROCESS, GIVEN A MAY 2027 BOND PROGRAM, WE'LL NEED TO BEGIN THAT SOON, AND WANTED TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL SO THAT WE COULD NAIL THAT DOWN AND START TO LAY OUT A TIMELINE, APPOINTMENTS AND MEETING DATES.

AGAIN, WE ARE PLANNING ON COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 29TH WITH ANY HOMEWORK THAT YOU ALL GIVE US TODAY SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BOND CONVERSATIONS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN

IT OVER TO MIKE TO BEGIN. >> SHANNON: THANK YOU, ERIK. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AGAIN, MIKE SHANNON, CAP DAL DELIVERY DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.

AS ERIK MENTIONED, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FOCUS ON A FEW KEY ISSUES AGAIN AND LOOKING TO GO OVER SOME -- GET SOME CLARITY ON A FEW OF THOSE.

SO WE'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. SO WE HAVE -- WE'LL GO OVER THE BOND PROGRAM AGAIN, SOME OF THOSE KEY PRIORITIES, AND AS ERIK MENTIONED, THAT COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE I'LL THROW OUT THERE A LITTLE BIT LATER, AND THEN TALK ABOUT OR NEXT STEPS.

SO, YOU KNOW, TALKING A COUPLE WEEKS AGO -- WE WANTED TO CLARIFY -- SO IF YOU LOOK ON THIS SLIDE, IT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A $617 MILLION INVESTMENT IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND, AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE $442 MILLION OUT OF THE 2027 VOTER-APPROVED BOND PROCESS IN MAY, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $175 MILLION FROM A STORMWATER FEE INCREASE, AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER TODAY IS POSSIBLY A LARGE PORTION OF THAT, 300 MILLION, IN STREETS.

OF THAT 300 MILLION COULD BE DEDICATED TO F STREETS, THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN 2022. WE APPROPRIATED $1 MILLION TOWARDS THE F STREET REALLY JUST FIXING OUR FAILED STREETS. AGAIN, I MENTIONED $175 MILLION IN DRAINAGE PROJECTS FROM A STORMWATER REVENUE FUND -- REVENUE FEE INCREASE. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. I'LL TALK ABOUT A PROPOSED BREAKDOWN STARTING WHEN WE GET INTO PARKS AND FACILITIES AND HOUSING.

SO HERE ARE SOME NUMBERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU AND TACK TALK

[00:05:01]

HERE I'M SHOWING 40 MILLION IN PARKS WITH 10 MILLION OF THAT WOULD BE IN THE LINEAR CREEKWAY GREENWAY TRAILS, 52 MILLION IN FACILITIES AND 50 MILLION IN HOUSING. ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC ART PORTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCE.

HERE'S A FEW OF THE ISSUES. YOU'LL HEAR ME TALK ABOUT THESE THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME KEY ISSUES, AGAIN OUR CATEGORY BREAKDOWN, DHOW WE DIVVY UP THE PIE, WE'LL LOOK FOR SOME FEEDBACK. CERTAINLY, AGAIN, YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE STORMWATER FEE INCREASE. WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION -- I THINK WE SENT SOME INFORMATION LAST WEEK TO YOU ALL BASED ON SOME QUESTIONS TWO WEEKS AGO. FAILED STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.

WE HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ABOUT THE NEED, DEFINITELY A NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY, ABOUT 9% OF OUR STREETS THROUGHOUT THE CITY ARE IN THAT FAILED STATE, SO HOW DO WE ATTACK THOSE AND PRIORITIZE THOSE, AS WELL AS SIDEWALK GAPS. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE SIDEWALK GAPS AND HOW THOSE ARE ALL BROKEN DOWN U , HOW WE COULD INVEST IN FILLING IN THOSE GAPS ACROSS THE CITY.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT OUR LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS, WHAT OUR NEED IS AND WHAT WE CAN INVEST TO KEEP THAT PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CITY-OWNED FACILITIES. WE HAVE A BUNCH OF FACILITIES OUT THERE THAT ARE CITY OWNED, CITY RUNNED. SOME ARE FACILITIES THAT HAVE REQUESTED SOME INVESTMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. AGAIN WE AYE'LL TALK ABOUT REGIONAL CENTERS, THE PUBLIC ART AND THE COMMUNITY PROCESS. THIS IS TBRAFIC TO HIT HOME JUST THE POINT THAT ERIK JUST MENTIONED BUT REALLY AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST TIME, IF WE PROPOSE A $442 MILLION BOND, WHICH WE HAVE, AND WE DID A REVENUE FEE INCREASE FOR THE STORMWATER FEE FOR THE 175, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS WE'D HAVE FOUR PROPOSITIONS THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE BOND PROCESS TOWARDS A VOTE IN MAY.

WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY PULL OUT THE DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS THAT, WOULD BE A COUNCIL-LED VOTE, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY GO TO THE VOTERS, BUT WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS THAT THEY GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS -- REALLY AT THE SAME TIME. WE WANT THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, WE WANT PRIORITIZATION, WE WANT YOU ALL TO SELECT THAT AS THE $617 MILLION INVESTMENT IN TOTAL, BUT JUST TO KNOW -- WHICH I'M TRYING TO SHOW ON THIS SLIDE, IS THERE WOULD BE TECHNICALLY TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS THERE. ONE WOULD BE A PUBLIC VOTE ON THE LEFT AT 442.

AND THE OTHER WOULD BE A COUNCIL VOTE AT THE END. SO HERE IS JUST, AGAIN, SHOWING THE PIE OF THE '27 BOND AND THE STORMWATER REVENUE BOND, THAT'S REALLY THE REVENUE OF THE 617 ON THE OUTER RING, BUT HERE IS A PROPOSAL OF HOW WE WOULD SLICE UP THAT PIE. SO MOST OF IT, ALMOST HALF OF IT, $300 MILLION SHOWN IN THE STREETS, BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, CATEGORY, DRAINAGE, AGAIN, THAT 175 WOULD EQUATE TO 28%.

AND THEN WE LOOK AT HOUSING, PARKS AND FACILITIES AT EIGHT, SEVEN, EIGHT% IN THOSE NUMBERS THERE AND HOW THEY WO WOULD REFLECT THAT 617. WE'D LOVE SOME FEEDBACKS IF YOU LIKE THOSE NUMBERS, HATE THOSE NUMBERS, HOPEFULLY LIKE THEM, NOT HATE, BUT THAT'S THE FEEDBACK WE'RE GOING TO NEED. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN, FOR THAT CHUCKLE. SO LET'S JUMP INTO IT. LET'S TALK ABOUT DRAINAGE. OKAY? SO $175 MILLION.

THIS WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A FEE INCREASE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. THAT'S THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE, THAT'S WHAT WE PAY ON OUR SAWS BILL. IT'S BASED ON TIER, BUT WE HAVE AVERAGES OF AN AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION, BUT -- AND THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO OUR TEAM, STRECTLY OUR PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER TEAM, ART, JESSICA, MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD THAT WAS CREATED A FEW YEARS BACK BUT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PRIORITIZING PROJECTS AND WHICH PROJECTS WOULD BE MORE PRIORITIZED OVER OTHERS AS WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE THIS, DINED OF GEARING UP FOR THIS.

SO I'M GOING ZERO SHOW YOU A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD RELATIVELY EQUATE TO 175 OR 200 MILLION ON THE NEXT SLIDE, AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO IDENTIFY THEM BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED BEFORE, OUR STORMWATER PROJECTS, WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE ON OUR STATE FLOOD PLAN.

I THINK ART MENTIONED LAST TIME, IT WAS A QUESTION, MAYOR, YOU ASKED, WE HAVE CURRENTLY 17 POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOR THE STATE FLOOD PLAN TO TRY TO GET SOME POTENTIAL FUNDING THERE.

WE ALSO HAVE SOME CONTINUATION PROJECTS ON THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT. WE HAVE A FEW OTHERS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTION READY.

ALL OF THOSE TEND TO ELEVATE SOME PRIORITIZATION OF THE NEXT STAGE OF PROJECTS. SO THIS IS JUST A LIST HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE, I THINK I SENT THIS OUT THE OTHER NIGHT, BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER ON THE LEFT

[00:10:04]

THERE'S A FEW OTHERS BELOW. THAT EQUATES TO ABOUT $200 MILLION THERE. THE LINE REPRESENTS THE 175.

AND THIS IS HOW WE WOULD RECOMMEND WE START THE PROCESS WITH THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. ALTHOUGH TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ADJUST THIS AS WE COME BACK IN A COUPLE WEEKS, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE OR THE PROCESS THAT THE DRAINAGE COMMITTEE -- COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS WOULD HAVE WOULD START WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND START WORKING WITH IT FINE-TUNING IT TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL IN JANUARY.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION AGAIN ON THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE INCREASE. I THINK MANY OF YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IF WE DID THE PROPOSED APPROXIMATELY 16% INCREASE ON THE AVERAGE BILL THAT OUR RESIDENTS WOULD SEE.

SO THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY IMPACT, SO IF YOU THE NEXT FIVE YEARS LIKE THAT, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT WILL EQUATE AT THE END OF THAT FIVE YEARS TO AN 84 CENT ON AVERAGE INCREASE PER MONTH TO YOUR BILL WHICH HAS ABOUT AN AVERAGE OF 4.94. OKAY? AGAIN, I'M USING AVERAGES, BUT -- IN RESIDENTIAL, MOST OF THEM FALL INTO THAT -- MOST OF US FALL INTO THAT TIER 2 CATEGORY, SO, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT THAT INCREASE WOULD LOOK LIKE. NOW, FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL, WE ALSO LISTED THAT. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP A LITTLE BIT BACK IN THE JANUARY TIME FRAME, BUT WE WANTED TO SHOW SOME NUMBERS THERE.

BUT THE AVERAGE WOULD BE $19 -- A LITTLE OVER $19 A MONTH ON THOSE COMMERCIAL BILLS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, I DON'T THINK WE HAD THIS LAST TIME, BUT THEY HAVE FOUR TIERS, NOT THE THREE. AND THE AVERAGE MONTHLY FLAT FEE -- OR THE AVERAGE MONTHLY FEE IS $112, THERE'S A FLAT FEE, AND THEN A TIERED FEE ADDED TO THAT. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THERE.

AND WE CAN TALK MORE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. SO I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR STREETS. $300MILLION IN STREETS, I THINK WE SHOWED OVER $2 BILLION WORTH OF STREETS NEEDS.

CERTAINLY WHENEVER I TALKED TO YOU ALL, CERTAINLY YOUR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, FAILED STREETS, THOSE STREETS THAT ARE JUST TOUGH TO DRIVE DOWN THAT WE KNOW WE JUST NEED TO, YOU KNOW, REDO THEM.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FAILED STREETS FOR A LONG TIME WITH THE CITY, BUT HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE THAT INVESTMENT AND WHERE DO WE PUT THAT MONEY? CERTAINLY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, I MENTIONED THAT, AND THEN STREET PROJECTS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO CERTAIN AREAS, WHETHER IT'S DOWNTOWN AND REGIONAL AREAS, CONTINUATION OF PROJECTS WE'VE ALREADY STARTED, WHERE WE'VE ADDED CAPACITY OR MAYBE SOME BIKE LINES, COMPLETE STREETS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD START PRIORITIZING THE 300 MILLION. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF FOCUS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON FAILED STREETS. SO THIS LIST -- THIS TABLE SHOWS SOME INFORMATION I SHARED LAST TIME.

I THINK ART HAS SHOWN THIS IN HIS PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET PRESENTATION, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN OF HOW MANY MILES OF STREETS YOU HAVE IN EACH ONE OF YOUR DISTRICTS, WHAT PERCENTAGE THAT IS IN THE OVERALL NETWORK, AND THEN HOW MANY F STREET MILES YOU CURRENTLY HAVE BASED ON THE LAST ASSESSMENT. IT ALL EQUATES TO ABOUT 9% OF THE OVERALL NETWORK, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT IN EACH AREA. SO THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ABOUT, WELL, HOW WOULD WE DISTRIBUTE IN WE HAD A BUCKET OF MONEY OR WE ALLOCATED, LET'S SAY, $100 MILLION FOR F STREETS, ONE OPTION WE COULD DO IS OPTION 1 THERE.

OPTION 1 IS WHAT WE KIND OF USED LAST TIME IN 2022, IT'S MORE OF A ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE KIND OF METHOD WHERE WE WOULD TAKE -- THERE'S AN EQUATION YOU COULD DO, LIKE 50% BASED ON THE SIZE OF YOUR THE STREETS IN YOUR NETWORK IN THE DISTRICT, AND 50% BASED ON THE CONDITION IN YOUR DISTRICT, AND WE WOULD HAVE SOME LEVEL OF ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE ALLOCATION OF THAT $100 MILLION. SO YOU CAN SEE IN DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 5 WHO HAD THE MOST F STREETS IN THIS EQUATION THERE WOULD GET THE MOST, BUT THERE WOULD STILL BE SOME WORK DONE ON THE F STREETS IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS AT THOSE LEVELS THERE. SO THAT'S JUST ONE WAY OR ONE OPTION WE COULD CONSIDER. THAT WAS GENERALLY THE OPTION -- HOW WE IDENTIFIED THE PROJECTS AND ALLOCATED THAT FUNDING IN THE '22 BOND CYCLE. OPTION 2 WAS ONE THAT SOME OF YOU -- I THINK ASKED ABOUT, I THINK WE MENTIONED THIS, SO WHAT IF WE JUST SET THE GOAL THAT EVERYONE GOT BELOW THE 10%, RIGHT?

[00:15:04]

ALL OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS ARE AT OR BELOW 10%.

WE WOULD ALLOCATE -- WE WOULD NEED TO ALLOCATE A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS IN THE 4 OR 5 IN THAT SCENARIO, BECAUSE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, SOME OF THOSE STREETS WOULD DEGRADE PROBABLY TO THE F CONDITION, SO WE'D HAVE TO TACKLE A COUPLE OF THOSE, AND THE SAME IN DISTRICT 10.

THAT WAS ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE LAID OUT. SO OFFERING THAT UP FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. NOW, SIDEWALKS -- AGAIN, SIDEWALK GAPS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT, WE HEAR ABOUT THAT IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WE GO, I THINK DISTRICT ONE HAS TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT ONCE OR TWICE, BUT THAT'S OUR SIDEWALK GAPS. WE HAVE 1500 MILES OF SIDEWALK GAPS, WE HAVE ALMOST 6,000 MILES OF SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY, BUT STILL, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW GAPS. AND WE JUST PUT THIS SLIDE UP HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDED NUMBER RIGHT NOW BUT WE WANT SOME FEEDBACK ON SHOULD WE BE PUT AG POT OF MONEY IN THIS BOND PROGRAM TOWARDS ELIMINATING THOSE GAPS. A COUPLE THINGS TO HIGHLIGHT HERE, THE BUDGET YOU JUST ALL APPROVED, DID APPROVE ABOUT 12 MILES OF NEW SIDEWALKS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET.

SO THERE WAS SOME NEW SIDEWALKS BUDGETED AND SOME REPAIRS, BUT I DO -- WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. THE CONTINUED TALK -- I THINK WE WOULD CONTINUE TO TALK PRIORITIZING AROUND SCHOOLS, BUS STOPS OR OTHER HIGH-TRAFFICKED AREAS IN AND AROUND YOUR COMMUNITY.

AND THEN I JUST HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN 2022, WE DID ALLOCATE ABOUT $28 MILLION IN COMBINATION OF PED MOBILITY AND SIDEWALK PROJECTS, IT WAS ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS EACH, BUT THROUGH THE PROCESS, DISTRICT FIVE, WE ALLOCATED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DIS DISTRICT FIVE AND THEN DISTRICT 7, THERE WAS A REQUEST, ADDED AN ADDITIONAL $16 MILLION TO THE $1 MILLION DURING THAT PROCESS THAT WAS PRIORITIZED IN '22. SO I ALSO WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THIS SLIDE AGAIN. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, BUT, AGAIN, IN THAT 300 MILLION, WE WOULD STILL PROPOSE THE $35 MILLION NEEDED IN AND AROUND THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.

THOSE WERE THE PROJECTS THERE. THIS SLIDE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION, IN WORKING WITH TXDOT, CONTINUING TO WORK WITH TXDOT, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AND ASSUMING PARTICIPATION FROM TXDOT AT AN 80/20 SPLIT, 80% TXDOT, 20 PERCENT CITY. WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT 80/20 SPLIT APPLIES TO THE IH-35 ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, THE PED AND BIKE PATH, WHICH IS ABOUT 21 MILLION OF THE 35. THE OTHER $14 MILLION IS THE DURANGO AND NUEVA STREET PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED THERE, SO THOSE AREN'T TXDOT FACILITIES, SO THAT'S NOT THE 80/20.

WE HAD QUESTIONS ON THAT SINCE MY PRESENTATION, SO WE WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR. I'LL JUST STATE IT AGAIN.

CERTAINLY THOSE AREAS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE ADDRESSING -- ESPECIALLY THE IH-37 ACCESS ONES, ADDRESSING CHALLENGES WE HAVE TODAY WITH EVENTS TODAY IN AND AROUND THE DOWNTOWN ALAMODOME, CONVENTION CENTER, HEMISFAIR, SO I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT THAT ONE MORE TIME.

SO, AGAIN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ANOTHER HIGH PRIORITY, CERTAINLY A VERY HIGH PRIORITY FOR EVERY ONE OF YOU HAVE TALKED TO ME IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND THIS PROPOSAL, $50 MILLION WOULD BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS HOUSING. AGAIN, I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE SUGGESTED DIFFERENT NUMBERS, HIGHER. THIS IS 50 MILLION REPRESENTS ABOUT 12%, JUST UNDER 12% OF THE PROPOSED 442 BOND PACKAGE. WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM, THE $1.2 BILLION ALLOCATION IN 2022, 12% OF THAT WAS THE $150 MILLION HOUSING BOND. SO THIS NUMBER JUST KIND OF REPRESENTS ABOUT THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS WE DID IN 2022. THE KEYS HERE, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU ALL AND -- WHETHER IT'S THE HOUSING COMMITTEE OR THE HOUSING COMMISSION, WHATEVER WE DO, THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, WHERE WOULD THE MONEY GO FROM THIS BUCKET? RENTAL HOUSING, PROPERTY ACQUISITION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, HOME OWNERSHIP, THOSE BUCKETS, PLUS OR MINUS, WOULD BE THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD WANT TO WORK THROUGH ONCE WE -- ONCE WE IDENTIFY THE NUMBER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

PARKS AND RECREATION, STILL A HIGH PRIORITY FOR A LOT OF OUR AREAS.

YOU KNOW, IN THAT PIE I SHOWED YOU, ALLOCATING 40 MILLION, WE TALKED LAST TIME, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, ABOUT THE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS AND THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE WORKED ON FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS NOW THROUGH A VARIETY OF MEANS. STILL A LARGE NEED.

THAT NEED IS ABOUT $95 MILLION TO FINISH THE PROJECT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE 95 MILLION IN THIS SCENARIO, BUT WHAT IF WE

[00:20:03]

CERTAINLY MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED AND SOME OF YOU -- MANY OF YOUR RESIDENTS HAVE MENTIONED WATER FEATURES, WHETHER IT BE POOLS OR SPLASH PADS IN AND AROUND SOME AREAS THAT HAVE HAD POOLS SHUT DOWN, WHETHER IT BE PRIVATE POOLS OR THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. I THINK COUNCILMAN MUNGIA, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT LAST TIME.

SO THAT'S STILL PROBABLY IN THE PRIORITY OF SOME OF THOSE, AND CERTAINLY SPORTS COURTS AND SHADES. PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE VERY POPULAR. SHADES OVER EXISTING SPORT COURTS VERY POPULAR AMENITIES NEEDED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO I'M GOING TO SHOW THIS SLIDE AGAIN. THIS SLIDE IS KIND OF THAT GREENWAY TRAIL LOOP THAT WE ESTABLISHED AT THE GOAL. YOU'LL SEE MOSTLY IN THE BOTTOM LEFT, I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT REDDISH AREA IS WHERE MOST OF THAT 17 MILES IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE. IF WE DID $10 MILLION, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, WORKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WE WOULD COMPLETE A COUPLE OF SECTIONS IN AND AROUND PEARSALL PARK, RIGHT? THERE'S A LITTLE OVER 2 MILES THAT WE WOULD DO, MAYBE A MILE OR SO ON THE NORTH, A MILE OR SO ON THE SOUTH OF PEARSALL PARK, AROUND LEON CREEK, BUT THAT WOULD BE A PROPOSAL THAT WE WOULD VET THROUGH THE PROCESS, NOT ONLY THROUGH YOU ALL BUT THE COMMUNITY PROCESS.

SO THAT'S ONE WAY THAT WE COULD DO IT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT FACILITIES AGAIN. $52MILLION POSSIBLY IN FACILITIES, AND SOME OF THE PRIORITIES WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU ALL AS WE'VE BEEN KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THIS AND HOW WE WOULD SELECT PROJECTS FOR THIS.

CITY-OWNED FACILITIES, SOME OF YOU HAVE SAID CITY-OWNED FACILITIES ONLY, WE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO SUPPORT OTHERS. IS THAT THE WAY WE WANT TO GO? THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES OUT THERE THAT SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY THAT DO GOOD THINGS THAT HAVE REQUESTED BUT WHERE DO WE GO WITH THAT? SO WE'RE LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT CITY-OWNED FACILITIES, AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT MORE REPLACEMENT OR RENOVATIONS. REPLACEMENT OR RENOVATIONS HAVE THE PRIORITY -- HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF, YOU KNOW, BUILDING SOMETHING NEW, REPLACING SOMETHING, BRINGING IT UP TO NEW STANDARDS, ET CETERA, BUT DOESN'T BRING A LOT OF MANDATED COST TO THE FUTURE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND THE FUTURE VIABILITY, SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.

WE ALSO HAVE SOME SHOVEL-READY PROJECTS IN THIS CATEGORY AS WELL, SO CERTAINLY THAT'S ONE WHERE WE WANT TO MAYBE LOOK AT SO WE CAN HIT THAT QUICKER. AS WE GET TOWARDS THE END, REGIONAL CENTER PROJECTS, I JUST PUT THIS ON THERE AGAIN. THERE ARE SEVERAL REGIONAL CENTERED PROJECTS ON THAT ORIGINAL LIST FROM LAST TIME, AND, LOOK, THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT REGIONAL CENTERS.

WE WENT THROUGH A HUGE PROCESS WITH THE SA TOMORROW DEVELOPMENT A DECADE PLUS AGO, AND WE'VE BEEN INVESTING IN A LOT OF THOSE FOR A WHILE. BUT WHAT IS -- WHAT IS THE -- WHAT IS THE PRIORITY OF CONTINUING TO INVEST IN ONE OR MORE OF THOSE AS WE PICK THESE PROJECTS? I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ART ALLOCATION. I MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, I GOT A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK FROM YOU, BUT, LOOK, THE 1.5%, THAT'S A CITY ORDINANCE.

THE CITY ORDINANCE SAYS CAPITAL PROJECTS, I THINK OVER $500,000, SHOULD HAVE 1.5 OF THAT MONEY -- 1.5% OF THAT MONEY ALLOCATED TOWARDS IT.

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, WE'VE GOT TO ASK OURSELVES AS WE DO THIS MOVING FORWARD. CERTAINLY PROPOSING SOME SORT OF PUBLIC ART ALLOCATION IS IMPORTANT. 1.5% OF THE 442 MILLION WOULD BE $6.6 MILLION THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS PROJECTS IN AND AROUND THE CITY, AND MAYBE SOME SMALLER PROJECTS IF IT'S A SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY THIS TIME OR A FEW BIGGER PROJECTS, WE WOULD WORK WITH OUR ARTS AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT, THEY LEAD THAT EFFORT, COMMUNITY-LED EFFORT AS WE DEVELOP EXCELLENT PUBLIC ART IN AND AROUND THESE PROJECTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER -- THAT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE 20/22 BOND AND THE 2017 DID NOT APPLY THAT 1.5% TO THE DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO THE HOUSING BOND, BOTH IN '17, I THINK IT WAS THAT $20 MILLION FOR GAP FUNDING, BUT ALSO THE 150 MILLION. AND THEN THE QUESTION WE'LL HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE $175 MILLION ON THE STORMWATER FEE INCREASES, LIKE WOULD WE ALSO ALLOCATE THE 1.5% TO THAT BUCKET OF MONEY OR NOT, AND WE'D HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FROM YOU ALL OR CERTAINLY THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO, AGAIN, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO WORK ON IS IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. I THINK I'VE LAID OUT FOR YOU SEVERAL TIMES WHAT WEAVE DONE IN THE PAST HAVING, YOU KNOW, FIVE COMMITTEES, 163 APPOINTMENTS AND TRICHAIRS AND CHAIRS OF EACH COMMITTEE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I DID SAY LAST TIME THAT THERE'S POSSIBLY SOME

[00:25:02]

WE COULD DO IT THE SAME AS LAST TIME OR WE COULD MAYBE DO THIS WAY OR ANOTHER WAY, BUT ONE IS, WELL, WHAT IF WE COMBINED STREETS, FACILITIES AND PARKS? WHAT IF WE CREATED ONE COMMITTEE AS OPPOSED TO THREE? WOULD THAT BE MORE APPROPRIATE IF WE HAVE LESS PROJECTS TO REALLY PRIORITIZE, DEBATE OVER, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? YOU TAKE THOSE THREE BOXES ON THE TOP, KIND OF CREATE ONE COMMITTEE, AND YOU WOULD TAKE ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER.

ONE IS WE COULD UTILIZE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD THAT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER DEPARTMENT, YOU ALL HAVE PEOPLE ON THOSE COMMITTEES, THEY HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR ABOUT SCORING SYSTEM AND KIND OF PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS, THEY'VE LOOKED AT THAT -- THEY'VE SEEN THAT LIST OF 100 PROJECTS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THEY'VE BLESSED OR APPROVED THAT, THEY HAVEN'T YET, BUT THEY'VE SEEN THOSE NEEDS IN AND AROUND OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S ALREADY STOOD UP. SO WE COULD HAVE THAT COMMITTEE RUN THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS, ALONGSIDE THE OTHER COMMITTEES.

WE COULD ALSO UTILIZE THE EXISTING HOUSING COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE, IT'S BEEN STOOD UP FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THEY COULD RUN THE HOUSING PORTION OF THE PROJECTS AND PRIORITIZATION.

SO THAT IS -- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER.

NO MATTER HOW WE DO IT, THE COMMITTEES, THEY'LL RECEIVE PRESENTATIONS FROM STAFF, ALL THAT STUFF IT WILL BE ALL THE SAME, AND THEN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL COME BACK TO YOU ALL IN THAT JANUARY SO WE CAN HAVE THE MAY ELECTION. SO NOW TALKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, SO JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, WE HAD THE COMMITTEES, LAST TIME, I THINK I SHOWED THIS A COUPLE OF SLIDES, A COUPLE OF PRESENTATIONS LAST, WE'VE HAD BOND TRICHAIRS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL BOND CYCLES, SO I JUST PUT UP THE LAST 2017 AND 2022 BOND CHAIRS, JUST REMEMBER THE BOND TRICHAIRS THEY WERE SELECTED REALLY TO PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT OF THE EXCITE TEE INPUT PROCESS, RIGHT? AND THE COMMITTEE COCHAIRS THAT WERE SELECTED FOR EACH COMMITTEE, ALONG WITH THE TRICHAIRS SERVED AS -- I THINK THEY REFERRED AS THE BOND COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE TEAM. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY WOULD MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AS TO WHAT THE PROCESS CAME OUT. YOU I'D STOP LISTENING TO ME, I KNOW YOU LOVE THESE PRESENTATIONS, THANK YOU, BUT YOU WOULD GET PRESENTATIONS ON THEM ON WHAT CAME OUT OF THE PROCESS AND THEN YOU COULD DELIBERATE ON THAT. EVERYBODY AGREED WITH THAT COMMENTED.

THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IT.

NEXT STEPS. WE REALLY NEED TO FINALIZE THE BOND CAPACITY AND THE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN. WE REALLY NEED TO START WORKING ON THAT DECISION SO THAT WE, STAFF, CAN PROVIDE YOU OUR RECOMMENDED LIST OF PROJECTS IN EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES, RIGHT? WE KIND OF STARTED WITH AN EXAMPLE OF DRAINAGE TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT WORKED ON A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE HAVE TO GET TO THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, AND THEN CERTAINLY WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT COME BACK TO YOU? JANUARY FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FEBRUARY CALL OF ELECTION -- APPROVAL AND CALL OF ELECTION. SO THAT KIND OF WRAPS IT UP FOR ME.

I JUST KIND OF WENT OVER THE TIMELINE. THERE IT IS.

AND I THINK I'M JUST SUMMARIZING MYSELF AGAIN, BUT IF YOU CAN STAY ON THIS SLIDE FOR A WHILE AND GIVE US FEEDBACK ON ALL NINE OF THESE, OR MOST OF THESE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY.

AND I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> SEGOVIA: MAYOR, IF I MAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN WE ASKED FOR FINALIZED, WE'RE LOOKING FOR INPUT. NOTHING'S BEING FINALIZED TODAY.

>> SHANNON: THANK YOU, ANNDY. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU, ANNDY. THANKS, MIKE, FOR THE PRESENTATIONS, IN LIGHT WITH THE PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TRICHAIRS, I LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT EARLY NEXT WEEK. ERIK, I DO WANT TO INFORM THIS CONVERSATION OF THE FINANCIAL RISK WITH SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE RECOMMENDED. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ADEQUATELY WEIGHING THAT AND INCORPORATING THAT INTO OUR FEEDBACK ON EACH -- ON POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF A BOND.

SO EITHER YOU OR BEN, IF YOU'D PLEASE GIVE US SOME MORE CONTEXT AND DEPTH ABOUT FINANCIAL RISK ABOVE THE 442 FROM THE BOND.

AGAIN, ABSENT THE 175 FROM THE STORM FEE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE BOND CAPACITY, BUT REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE

FINANCIAL RISK OF A BOND OVER 442 MILLION. >> WALSH: SO WE'LL TAG TEAM THIS. AND BEN CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR, BUT LET ME -- LET ME PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT. WE HAD NEGATIVE TAXABLE GROWTH OF 2.7% IN OUR -- FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. WE ALWAYS CARRY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL RISK IF -- IF VALUES COME IN LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED OR THERE'S SOME SORT OF CALAMITY THAT HITS THE ECONOMY BECAUSE OUR DEBT

[00:30:07]

SO RIGHT NOW, IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS, WE HAVE THAT RISK.

IT IS ABOUT MANAGING THE RISK GOING FORWARD. IN A SCENARIO THAT IS OVER $442 MILLION, ANY SCENARIO OVER $442 MILLION, THE RISK GETS MITIGATED, NOT ELIMINATED, BUT MITIGATED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE WILL NEED TO INCREASE.

IT WON'T HAVE TO INCREASE IMMEDIATELY, BUT AS WE SCALE PROJECTS WITH THE ASSOCIATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE COMMITTING THEMSELVES TO, THAT MITIGATES SOME RISK.

BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE SOME BEARING OF RISK. AND I'LL LET BEN PROVIDE

A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR INTO THAT. >> GORZELL: SO, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I THINK ERIK SUMMARIZED I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS AND MAYBE ADD IN A LITTLE BIT. SO AS HE SAID, ANY TIME WE DO A BOND PROGRAM AND WE HAVE DONE THEM IN THE PAST, WE ALWAYS HAVE AN ORDINANCE AND A PROPOSITION THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE IF WE HAVE TO TO PAY FOR OUR DEBT SERVICE. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE, THAT OBLIGATION EXISTS TODAY. BUT WHAT WE HAVE TOLD THE COMMUNITY IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE DONE BOND PROGRAMS IS WE DON'T HAVE -- WE DON'T PROJECT ANY INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE FOR THE BOND PROGRAM THAT WE'VE PROPOSED. THE RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT WE PUT FORWARD A COUPLE WEEKS AGO IN THE 442 BILLION IS BASED ON THAT SAME ANALYSIS AND ASSUMPTIONS, THAT WE BELIEVE, NOT A GUARANTEED. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT WE COULD DO 442 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS AND NOT HAVE TO INCREASE THAT DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE.

THAT ASSUMES THAT WE HIT THOSE -- IT SAYS VALUATION PROJECTIONS THAT WE GAVE YOU. IF IT'S WORSE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT CHANGES WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO, AS IT WOULD HAVE IN THE PAST.

ANYTHING, AGAIN, ABOVE THE 442, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU THAT WE THINK WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO RAISE THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE. BASED ON AURASSUMPTIONS, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. SO I'LL JUST TOUCH ON THE ECONOMY A LITTLE BIT AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE ASSESSED VALUATION PROJECTIONS, AS ERIK SAID, WE HAD NEGATIVE GROWTH THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, WE EESH ASSUMING WE GET BACK TO BREAK-EVEN NEXT YEAR, SO OUR NEW IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE STILL ASSUMING SOME BASE VALUE LOSS, BUT NEW PROPERTIES COMING ONTO THE TAX ROLL WILL OFFSET THAT NEGATIVE GROWTH. WE'LL HAVE A SLOW RECOVERY AFTER THAT. HALF A PERCENT, A LITTLE OVER 2 PERCENT, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THREE AND A HALF PERCENT. THE CHALLENGE WITH THE WINDOW THAT I'M GOING TO CALL -- THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE GO THROUGH ECONOMIC CYCLES ALL THE TIME, WE HAVE SINCE 2004 AS WE'VE DONE THESE BIGGER BOND PROGRAMS, IS WE'RE IN A CYCLE WHERE WE'RE NOT IN A RECESSION, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY -- OUR SALES TAX AND REVENUES ARE NOT RETRACTING, THEY'RE NOT LESS THAN THEY WERE IN PRIOR YEARS BUT THEY'RE NOT GROWING VERY FAST EITHER.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE OVER 2% GROWTH FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. IF YOU LOOK AT IT HISTORICALLY GOING BACK TO 2006, WE'VE NEVER HAD A PERIOD OF TIME FIVE YEARS IN A ROW WHERE IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT. YOU LOOK AT WHERE INTEREST RATES ARE, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE INCREASING RATES BACK IN SEPTEMBER BY A QUARTER PERCENT, THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT WILL HAPPEN, SOME TYPE OF INCREASE, PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN IN DECEMBER. I SAW INFLATION NUMBERS CAME OUT TODAY, THEY WERE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED, SO THE ECONOMY OVERALL, GDP GROWTH, CONTINUES TO BE STRONG, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO WORRY ABOUT INFLATION. THAT TYPICALLY MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO BE INCREASING THE RATES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT KIND OF ENVIRONMENT. ONCE THAT LEVELS OFF, AS WE'VE TALKED TO ECONOMISTS AND OTHERS, I THINK THE SENSE AND THE FEELING IS THAT AS THEY START TO TAPER RATES BACK DOWN, WHENEVER THAT STARTS TO HAPPEN, IT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN SLOWLY AND IT PROBABLY WILL NOT BE QUICK.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND WE CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW THIS IS GOING TO TURN OR WHEN IT'S GOING TO TURN.

IT WILL TURN, THE ECONOMY'S ALWAYS BEEN RESILIENT.

I THINK THAT'S STILL THE CASE, AND IT WILL TURN AT SOME POINT, BUT THE CHALLENGE IS WHEN. AND THE ONLY TWO LEVERS WE HAVE REALLY, THE PRIMARY ONES, ARE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH ASSESSED VALUATION GROWTH AND WHAT'S THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE ASSUMPTION. AND IF WE ASSUME THAT'S NOT CHAIGING, THEN IT'S ALL ABOUT AV GROWTH. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE TAKING THIS APPROACH IN TERMS OF THE $442 MILLION AND WHAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN DO OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE WOULD UPDATE YOU ALL AS WE DO EVERY YEAR ON THE DEBT PLAN, THE BOND

[00:35:01]

>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS, BEN, I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS KIND OF STAYING WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN REVISITING THIS CONVERSATION, RIGHT, IN '28, TO MAYBE LOOK AT A '29 BOND, RIGHT? IF THE ECONOMIC -- ASSUMING THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HAVE IMPROVED, WE COULD DO ANOTHER BOND, RIGHT? IF THEY -- LET'S JUST -- I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD YOU TO IT, BUT I THINK WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF HOW YOU SEE IT NOW, THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SCENARIO LIKE THAT, IF THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS -- I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT'S, WHAT, IN LIKE -- NOT EVEN 24 MONTHS FROM NOW, RIGHT, SO IN 16, 17 MONTHS FROM NOW IF WE'RE KIND OF IN THE SAME SITUATION, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A '29 BOND, CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT CAPACITY

MIGHT BE LIKE AT THAT POINT? >> GORZELL: SO, MAYOR, IF WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THOSE AV PROJECTIONS THAT WE KIND OF LAID OUT WITH THE FORECAST, YOU WON'T SEE MUCH -- YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.

>> MAYOR JONES: GOT IT. >> GORZELL: JUST A LITTLE BIT ON TIMING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES, THEY LAG WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE ECONOMY, SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT OUR ASSESSED VALUATION WILL BE FOR FY 2028, BEXAR APPRAISAL WILL DO THAT EVALUATION BASED ON THE PROPERTY VALUES OF JANUARY 1, 2027, SO ROUGHLY THREE MONTHS FROM NOW.

WE DON'T EXPECT A LOT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS.

IF YOU GO TO FY '29, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VALUES ON JANUARY 1 OF 2028, SO ABOUT 15 MONTHS FROM NOW. THINGS WILL -- WOULD HAVE TO TURN QUITE A BIT TO BUILD SOME CAPACITY FOR 2029.

I MEAN, IF HISTORY'S GOING TO BE AN INDICATOR OF HOW THIS RECOVERY WOULD HAPPEN, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE WE'RE SHOWING YOU.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HALF A PERCENT, 2 PERCENT, THREE AND A HALF PERCENT, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIGGER JUMP IN THERE WHEN IT RECOVERS.

ONCE THAT PENT-UP HOUSING DEMAND AND ALL OF THAT MOVES FORWARD AND PEOPLE START BUYING MORE HOMES AND YOU START TO SEE THAT STUFF MOVE, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIGGER JUMP. WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN OR BY HOW MUCH.

AND THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. >> MAYOR JONES: IN CASE ANYONE HAD -- DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, ERIK? OKAY. JUST BECAUSE -- FOLLOW ON QUESTIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED WAS IF 35 MILLION COULD COME OUT OF THE PFZ, SO WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE NOW.

AND THEN THE OTHER OPTION BEING, YOU KNOW, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE -- IF IT CAN'T COME OUT OF THE PFZ IN THE NEAR TERM JUST BASED ON THE MATURITY OF THAT ACCOUNT, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE SPURS OWNERS TO PAY FOR THAT 35 MILLION AND THEN BE REIMBURSED FROM THE PFZ ONCE THE ACCOUNT

IS ABLE TO DO SO? >> GORZELL: SO ON THE $35 MILLION, KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WAS THERE'S REALLY TWO PIECES TO THAT.

THERE'S THE LEGAL PIECE THAT WE SAID WE WOULD GO LOOK AT, SO THOSE EIGHT PROJECTS, SIX TXDOT T TWO OTHER PROJECTS THAT MIKE MENTIONED, DO WE BELIEVE THOSE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PFZ REIMBURSEMENT? WE DO.

WE SENT THAT BACK, I THINK, WITH A FOLLOW-UP MEMO ON FRIDAY.

THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT IS DO WE HAVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE TBRO FINANCIAL PLANS THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING ALL OF THAT TO LOOK AT OUR FINANCIAL CAPACITY, TO LOOK AT WHAT DOES A FEASIBILITY LOOK LIKE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. WE'RE WORKING ON ALL OF THOSE UPDATES. WE WILL HAVE THOSE FOR YOU ON OCTOBER 28TH AS PART OF OUR B SESSION. ONCE WE ASSESS CAPACITY IN THERE, WE CAN THEN TELL YOU HOW THAT IMPACTS MAYBE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, OR MAYBE IT DOESN'T IMPACT -- I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT, BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO BETTER ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, MAYOR, IN TERM OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHETHER THAT'S REALLY AN OPTION OR NOT.

>> MAYOR JONES: SO I'M GOING TO PLAY BACK WHAT I HEARD, IT SOUNDS LIKE, ONE, THEY DO, THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES QUALIFY.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S CAPACITY IS PARTLY A MATH EXERCISE BUT IT'S ALSO POTENTIALLY UP TO THIS BODY IF WE WANT THERE TO BE CAPACITY BASED ON AN ALLOCATION FROM THE ACCOUNT? >

>> GORZELL: CERTAINLY YOU COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON THE 28TH FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE. WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO TELL YOU WHAT WE THINK THE IMPACT WOULD BE SHOULD YOU WANT TO MOVE FOR FORWARD WITH THAT -- IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. THANKS, BEN, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I KNOW OTHERS WILL HAVE -- I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, BECAUSE I THINK OTHERS MAY HAVE THE SAME EXACT SAME QUESTIONS, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, MIKE, HOW WAS IT DETERMINED ON THE DRAINAGE LIST THAT YOU'VE GOT ON SLIDE 8, HOW WAS IT DETERMINED THAT DISTRICTS 2 AND 6 WOULD NOT BE ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS?

>> SHANNON: I THINK -- IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE SLIDE.

>> MAYOR JONES: SLIDE 8, YEAH. >> SHANNON: WHEN WE

[00:40:02]

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE STILL NEED TO EVALUATE. YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY LAND RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THERE'S STILL THE PROCESS TO BE HAD, WHICH IS CONVERSATIONS HERE, CERTAINLY THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, AND THEN BACK TO THIS OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE

ARE RIGHT NOW WITH THAT. >> MAYOR JONES: ASSUME THAT THOSE ARE THE TOP FOUR PROJECTS ON OUR LIST TO THE STATE OR.

>> SHANNON: I MIGHT NEED SOME HELP ON THAT ONE. ARE THESE THE TOP FOUR,

I'M NOT SURE. >> NO, MAYOR, WE WERE SIMPLY TRYING TO SHOW THE CORRELATION BETWEEN POTENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AND THE PROJECTS THAT WERE ALREADY INCLUDED ON THE STATE FLOOD PLAN.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. THERE MAY BE PROJECTS ON OUR SUBMISSION THAT ARE ON THE STATE'S FLOOD PLAN THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED HERE.

SO THE FOUR HERE THAT WE SEE MIGHT NOT BE OUR TOP FOUR ON THE STATE'S

LIST? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S CURRENTLY 17 REGIONAL PROJECTS IN THE STATE FLOOD PLAN. FOUR OF THOSE ARE ON THIS

LIST. >> MAYOR JONES: NO, UNDERSTOOD.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE RANKED THEM ON THE LIST, RIGHT, THE TOP FOUR ON THAT LIST FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THESE FOUR HERE, AND THEN IF IT'S NOT, HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NOT.

>> SURE. GREAT EXAMPLE, OUR TOP RANKING CITY PROJECT IN THE STATE FLOOD PLAN IS CONCEPCIÓN CREEK. THAT PROJECT ALONE IS PUSHING $200 MILLION, SO THAT WOULD EAT UP THE ENTIRE RECOMMENDED BUDGET

HERE. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. SO HIGHER PRIORITY PROJECTS NOT HERE BECAUSE WE CAN'T NECESSARILY AFFORD THEM, GIVEN KIND

OF WHAT THE BUDGET IS NOW. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND JUST, AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT BEING INCLUDED IN THE STATE FLOOD PLAN OPENS UP ANOTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITY, SO THAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING

THOSE ON THERE VERSUS THE LOCAL FUNDING. >> MAYOR JONES: WE CAN CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THEY FINDLY DO THAT. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH, UNDERSTOOD. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.

GREAT. IF YOU WOULD, YEAH, PLEASE BRING UP THE SLIDE THAT MIKE ASKED ABOUT, THAT WE PROVIDE FEEDBACK.

I'D ALSO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO WEIGH IN ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FOLKS' FEEDBACK ABOUT THE IDEA OF UTILIZING THE PFZ FOR THOSE QUALIFYING EXPENSES, AGAIN, TO PRESERVE THE BOND AMOUNT. I WOULD -- I WOULD PUT A MORE REFINED DESCRIPTOR ON THE CITY FACILITIES, IN THAT THEY BE CITY-OWNED FACILITIES THAT DON'T CHARGE A FEE. AND THEN I'D WELCOME FOLKS' FEEDBACK ON UTILIZING THE HOUSING MONEY TOWARD ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO BUILD FOR THOSE THAT ARE LESS THAN 30% AMI VERSUS THE HOME OWNERSHIP.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ?

>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK Y'ALL FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK Y'ALL FOR ALL Y'ALL'S WORK ON THIS BOND PROPOSAL AND ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I KNOW YOU'VE HAD AND I KNOW YOU'RE BEING GIVEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT DIRECTION. JUST AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMITTEES, I WOULD RECOMMEND FOUR, STREETS, BRIDGES AND SIDEWALKS, I THINK IS CONSISTENT. PARKS AND FACILITIES, I WOULD SAY WE COMBINE THE PARKS' PROPOSITION AND THE FACILITIES PROPOSITION IN ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED FUNDS TOGETHER SO THAT DISTRICTS CAN DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER FUND -- IT GIVES THEM THE CAPACITY TO FUND A LARGER PARK PROJECT OR A LARGER FACILITY PROJECT AND DOESN'T TIE THEIR HANDS TO SMALLER AMOUNTS FOR BOTH PROPOSITIONS. FOR DRAINAGE, I WOULD SAY THAT COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD EITHER APPOINT THEIR STORMWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER OR THEY SHOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO APPOINT SOMEONE ELSE, AND THEN FOR HOUSING, AS LONG AS THERE IS REPRESENTATION ACROSS ALL DISTRICTS WITH EACH DISTRICT SELECTING A HOUSING COMMISSIONER IF

[00:45:01]

MY CHIEF OF STAFF SENT OUT A MEMO TO EVERYONE'S OFFICE WITH THREE SCENARIOS, I'LL PUT THEM ON THE SCREEN. Y'ALL KNOW ME I'M A HIGH SCHOOL MATH TEACHER. I'M ALSO PROBLEM-ORIENTED AND I WANT TO -- OR SOLUTION AND OUTCOME ORIENTED AND BASED OFF OF WHAT I'VE HEARD, THERE HAS BEEN A LARGE CONFLICT BETWEEN $442 MILLION, WHICH IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND WANTING TO STICK WITHIN THOSE MEANS AND NOT HAVE TO ASK RESIDENTS FOR A TAX RATE INCREASE, AND THEN THERE'S THE DESIRE FOR A BILLION DOLLARS RECOGNIZING THE NEED THAT WE HAVE ACROSS OUR CITY.

I'VE ALSO HEARD THE NUMBER 750 THROWN AROUND.

AND SO THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT PROPOSE THREE DIFFERENT SORT OF ALLOCATIONS. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS, I WOULD SAY WE DO THREE THINGS: WITH STREETS, BRIDGES AND SIDEWALKS, I KNOW ON HERE I MENTION F STREETS, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS WE SHOULD ALLOCATE IT BASED OFF OF THE S & P ALLOCATION, SO EVERY DISTRICT, BASED ON WHAT THEY WOULD GET THROUGH THAT EQUITY LENS FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, THAT'S HOW WE DISTRIBUTE THOSE DOLLARS.

THAT WAY EVERYBODY GETS SOME, EVERY -- IT'S NOT -- IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM ANYONE, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S SOME EQUITY WITHIN THERE.

WHATEVER THE PARKS AND FACILITIES ALLOCATION BECOMES, EVERY DISTRICT SHOULD GET AN EVEN PORTION OF THAT. AND THEN EVERY DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE, AM I GOING TO MOVE SOME MONEY FROM STREETS AND SIDEWALKS TOWARDS PARKS AND FACILITIES OR CAN I MOVE SOME FUNDING FROM PARKS AND FACILITIES, SO IF I WANTED TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING -- I WANTED TO DIRECT THAT TOWARDS F STREETS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO BEFORE WE GET TO -- WHENEVER WE'RE READY TO FINALLY SEND THIS TO EITHER THE COMMITTEE OR TO VOTERS OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER THAT TIMELINE TAKES PLACE. SO EVERY DISTRICT MIGHT GET A DIFFERENT AMOUNT BASED OFF OF THEIR PRIORITIES WITH THIS LIMITED -- WITH THESE LIMITED DOLLARS. THAT BEING SAID, MY PRIORITY WOULD BE -- I WOULD LEAN FIRST ON SCENARIO A, JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, AND I THINK WE CAN GET SUPPORT, I THINK THERE COULD BE ENOUGH FOR EVERY DISTRICT TO GET SOME OF WHAT THEY NEED.

NONE OF THESE SCENARIOS IS GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY WHAT THEY NEED OR EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT, BUT IF WE CAN ALL MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER AND AT LEAST GET SOMETHING AND COME BACK IN 2029 WITH AN ADDITIONAL BOND PROGRAM, THEN U THINK THAT WOULD BE MY PRIMARY GOAL.

MY SECOND PREFERENCE WOULD BE THE 750 MILLION, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN SCENARIOS A AND B, THE 442 MILLION AND THE BILLION DOLLARS THAT FOLK ARE DISCUSSING. WITHIN THOSE TWO OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIE AND THIS IS WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO MY COLLEAGUES. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO ME THAT MUCH HOW MUCH GOES TOWARDS STREETS AND PARKS AND FACILITIES, AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY WITHIN OUR OWN ALLOCATIONS TO MOVE THINGS AROUND. THE LAST POINT I WOULD MAKE AS IT RELATES TO DRAINAGE, I UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF PUT TOGETHER A LIST BASED OFF OF THE STORMWATER COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT I WANT TO PROPOSE -- THE QUESTION I WOULD POSE TO MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT WE DON'T RANK ALL OF OUR CITY'S STREETS AND GO DOWN THEM IN THAT ORDER. WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS, YES, AN EQUITY COMPONENT, BUT WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GETS SOMETHING OF IT. AND SO I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT DISTRICTS 2 AND DISTRICT SIX DON'T GET A DRAINAGE PROJECT.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BOND CYCLES IN A ROW WE'VE HAD WHERE SOMEONE SAYS, HEY, WE DIDN'T GET A DRAINAGE PROJECT LAST GO-ROUND, IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS. AND WE NEED TO MITIGATE THAT PROBLEM.

EVERYBODY SHOULD GET AT LEAST ONE, IF IT MEANS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT'S FUNDED RIGHT NOW GETS DESIGNED FUNDING AND THEN MORE MONEY IS ALLOCATED TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRICT TWO AND DISTRICT SIX BELOW-LINE PROJECTS, AS LONG AS EVERYBODY GETS SOMETHING, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM ANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS WITHOUT GETTING ANYTHING UNLESS IT WAS THEIR SOUL DESIRE TO FOCUS ELSEWHERE. ALL THAT SAID, I LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSION ON THIS. I LOOK FORWARD TO US COMING TO A CONCLUSION AT LEAST NARROWING IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN MUCH MORE FRUSTRATING THAN IT NEEDS TO B I THINK THIS IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF REALLY LARGE PROJECTS IN OUR DISTRICTS, AND SO WHATEVER PATH FORWARD WE GET TO, WE JUST NEED TO

MOVE TOGETHER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN, PLEASE?

>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. EVERY DISTRICT HAS SPECIFIC NEEDS AND PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND DRAINAGE IMPROCHMENTS, PARK ENHANCEMENTS, HOUSING GOALS AND FACILITY NEEDS. I WANT US TO APPROACH THIS BOND PROGRAM WITH A FAIR OPPORTUNITY THAT MEETS THE PRIORITIES AND NEEDS OF ALL 10 DISTRICTS. WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY IS A BOND PACKAGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN THIS LOW SINCE 2007 WHERE IT WAS 500 MILLION.

WE HAVE A 442 MILLION INVESTMENT THAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO CONSIDER -- OR THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION. I STILL WANT US TO

[00:50:04]

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN IMPACTFUL INVESTMENT TOWARD OUR CITY'S FUTURE. THE ARGUMENT ABOUT TAX INCREMENT AND TAX GROWTH, AND, BEN, YOU CAN ASK THIS QUESTION, OR CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF WE -- WE HAVE TO ISSUE DEBT OR WE HAVE TO HAVE A TAX INCREASE IF WE DO NOT GROW BY 0%, EVEN IF WE DO THE 442 MILLION. IS THAT CORRECT? LET'S SAY WE ARE NEGATIVE 1.5 NEXT YEAR, WILL WE HAVE TO ISSUE A TAX

INCREASE TO MEET OUR DEBT FOR THE BOND IN 2029? >> GORZELL: WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE PASS THIS 442 BOND PACKAGE, YES, IF WE'RE NOT MEETING THOSE ASSESSED VALUATION PROJECTIONS AND WE'RE RUNNING UNDER THAT, THINGS HAVE GOTTEN WORSE, IT'S LIKELY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A TAX RATE INCREASE TO SUPPORT THAT DEBT, AND THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS SLOW DOWN THE PROGRAM AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE, BECAUSE YOU SET THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE EVERY YEAR AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

>> VIAGRAN: THAT'S THE THING, IF WE CAN DO 750 MILLION, AND THEN SLOW DOWN THE PROGRAMS, IF WE KNOW BY YEAR 2 WE'RE NOT MEETING THAT GROWTH. BECAUSE THE QUESTION FOR ME, AND THE CHALLENGE FOR ME OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS WHILE I'M HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY GROWS. AND HOW DO WE DO THAT? AND I BELIEVE WE DO THAT BY INVESTMENT AND LOOKING AT WHERE WE HAVE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES.

SO IF YOU ARE ASSUMING WITH THIS $442 MILLION BOND THAT WE GET TO ZERO

NEXT YEAR, CORRECT? >> GORZELL: CORRECT. >> VIAGRAN: AND THAT'S -- AND IF -- BUT IF WE DON'T, BECAUSE WE WERE NEGATIVE 2.7 THIS YEAR,

WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO ISSUE DEBT? >> GORZELL: SO --

>> VIAGRAN: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES.

>> GORZELL: SO THE -- IF YOU DIDN'T HIT ZERO NEXT YEAR AND IT REBOUNDED THE FOLLOWING YEAR, THE 442, WE DON'T REALLY START TO ISSUE A LOT UNTIL 2028, SO NOT NEXT SUMMER BUT THE FOLLOWING SUMMER, THERE WOULD BE A SMALL AMOUNT THERE. IT WOULD BE MORE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR, BUT ALSO THE FOLLOWING YEAR BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN REALLY YOU WOULD START TO

SEE MORE OF AN IMPACT. >> VIAGRAN: I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'VE COME TO KIND OF A DASH I DON'T WANT TO SAY AN IMPASSE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS CITY CAN GET TO A MEANS WHERE THEY CAN DO THE 750 MILLION TO A BILLION. THE REASON I STICK WITH 750 MILLION IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW AT THIS RATE WITH THE LABOR ISSUES THAT WE CAN DO THE PROJECTS THAT WE PROMISE AT 1 BILLION. SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LOWER DOWN TO 750 MILLION. BUT AT THIS RATE, THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING. AND YOU CAN SIT DOWN, BEN, BECAUSE THAT'S IT FOR THAT. THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE A 750 MILLION INVESTMENT RATHER THAN A 442 MILLION; HOWEVER, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. HOWEVER -- AND IF THERE ISN'T SUPPORT FOR A HIGHER BOND, I WILL ACCEPT THAT.

BUT I WANT TO CHALLENGE YOU NOT TO MAKE THIS ABOUT A TAX INCREASE.

IF WE CONTINUE AT THE RATE WE ARE CONTINUING IN THIS NATION, IT MAY NOT BE THROUGH THIS BOND ISSUANCE, BUT ODDS ARE THAT THIS COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO RAISE TAXES AGAIN TO MEET THE GROWING NEEDS OF THIS CITY.

AS LONG AS WE HAVE TARIFFS, AS LONG AS WE'RE AT WAR, AS LONG AS THINGS ARE GOING ON, ECONOMICALLY WE ARE GOING TO BE UNSTABLE.

SO I WANT -- I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE THE TAXES. I WANT TO ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. AND MY GOAL IS TO SUPPORT A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO EVALUATE ALL OPTIONS AND IDENTIFY A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH THAT BEST SERVES THE NEEDS OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT INCLUDES ALL 10 DISTRICTS. I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THIS PRESENTATION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT DIVIDED THE CITY INTO TWO GROUPS, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT A BOND IS. THAT COULD BE WHAT A BUDGET IS, BUT IT IS NOT WHAT A BOND IS. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS, NUMBER ONE, PROPOSED CAPACITY IN GENERAL CATEGORY BREAKDOWN, AGAIN, I'VE JUST STATED, I THINK IT'S LOW. I THINK WE SHOULD GO FOR THE 750 MILLION. I THINK -- I BELIEVE THAT IF THIS COUNCIL WORKS HARD ENOUGH AND THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THAT WE NEED TO HIT THAT 0 PERCENT OR GROW BY 1%, WE CAN GET IT DONE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

IT SETS A GOAL AND CAUSES ACCOUNTABILITY TO HAPPEN.

STORMWATER FEE INCREASE, THIS WILL BE THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL.

[00:55:02]

FAILED STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, THEY'RE ALWAYS WITH US.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT GOES TO COMMITTEES, TO THE BOND COMMITTEES, TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO PRIORITIZE THERE, AND I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY WITH SAWS AND CPS AS THEY BUILD NEW LINES AND WE GET NEW BUSINESSES IN THAT BUILD INTO SEE WHAT FAILED STREETS AND SIDEWALKS THEY CAN HELP WITH, OR SIDEWALKS IN PARTICULAR.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S WHY -- IT'S TOO LOW. I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE. BUT IF WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE OUR OWN HOUSING COMMITTEE. THE CURRENT COMMITTEE THAT -- THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. AND I'LL BE -- YOU'VE GOT ROD SANCHEZ ON THE COMMITTEE, AND I LOVE ROD, BUT HE'S CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FORMER EMPLOYEE. SO I NEED -- I NEED COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THERE. I NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE TIES TO THE CITY BECAUSE HE KNOWS HOW THIS WORKS. AND HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE BEEN THROUGH BOND? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IN TERMS OF COMMITTEES, IT SHOULD NOT BE ANYTHING THAT'S ESTABLISHED, PEOPLE CAN INDIVIDUALLY PUT IT WHAT WE NEED THERE. CONTINUE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS INVESTMENTS, WE DO NEED TO GET THAT COMPLETE.

UNTIL WE GET IT COMPLETE, WE DO NOT HAVE A GRASP ON HOW MUCH IT WILL COST TO MAINTAIN. AND ONCE WE GET THAT GRASP ON HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO MAINTAIN, WE CAN GET PRIVATE-PUBLIC DOLLARS TO MAINTAIN THOSE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS. CITY FACILITIES, PRIORITIZE REPLACEMENTS.

PLEASE DO NOT COME TO ME AND TELL ME YOU'RE GOING TO RENOVATE ANOTHER 1980 BUILDING THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE OR TAKES FOREVER TO AIR CONDITION. SO I WOULD RATHER SEE REPLACEMENTS RATHER THAN RENOVATIONS. REGIONAL CENTERS, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEM IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT.

WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO THAT. PUBLIC ART, AT 1.5%, YES, OF COURSE. AND THEN, OF COURSE, AGAIN, THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ THAT STREETS CAN BE ONE, FACILITIES AND PARKS CAN BE ANOTHER, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COULD BE ONE, AND THEN DRAINAGE COULD BE ANOTHER, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE FROM THE 15 -- OR THE 12 PEOPLE WE SEND THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY AND CAN GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. IN THE END, THIS BOND PACKAGE HAS TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS. SO WE NEED TO BE VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT WE PLACE ON THIS LIST AND WHAT WE REALISTICALLY BELIEVE WE CAN DELIVER IN FIVE YEARS. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT A $1 BILLION BOND REALISTICALLY, ASIDE FROM DO WE RAISE TAXES OR NOT, WE CANNOT GET DONE. SO IF THAT 750 MILLION AND WE HAVE SHOVEL-READY PROJECTS, WE SHOULD MOVE THERE. THIS IS FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE. THIS IS FOR OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO COME AND TALK ABOUT. SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, THE THINGS THAT I LIKED ARE -- SO REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES, SHOVEL-READY PROJECTS. ALL THE OTHER SUGGESTIONS YOU GAVE ME FOR FACILITY PRIORITIES, YOU CAN LEAVE. /PADS AND WATER FEATURES, SHADE AND SPORTS COURT UPGRADES, REGIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS, THAT ONE WAS A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE DOWNTOWN AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS, BECAUSE THEY CAN LEVERAGE FUNDS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRIVATE DOLLARS, AND THE CONTINUATION AND MULTIPHASE PROJECTS.

THE PROBLEM I HAD WITH YOUR ONLY CITY PROJECTS IS IT WASN'T WELL DEFINED. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FACILITIES WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S -- YOU PUT A LOT ON THERE THAT WAS VERY VAGUE.

AND I DON'T APPRECIATE VAGUE, SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CONVERSATION HERE, I WOULD MUCH RATHER US GET INTO COMMITTEES AND ALLOW OUR RESIDENTS TO GIVE THEIR INPUT AND SHARE WHAT THEY FEEL THE PRIORITIES ARE.

THANK YOU. >> WALSH: COUNCILWOMAN, MAYOR, IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT LAST PART. THE -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY RENOVATIONS ARE ON ACTUAL CITY FACILITIES, WHETHER THEY'RE THE LIBRARIES, COMMUNITY CENTERS, PARKS AND REC, FIRE STATIONS, PURE AND SIMPLE. AND SO THAT LIST HAS A LOT OF STUFF ON THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF NEED. AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT -- ARE CITY-OWNED, BUT NOT OPERATED BY THE CITY.

AND SO -- BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE PRIORITY SHOULD BE OUR OWN

[01:00:04]

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. I THINK THAT -- THE POINT THERE IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF HOW ARE WE DEFINING THE CITY-OWNED FACILITIES. I MEAN, SOME OF YOU MAY ALSO BE RECEIVING THE SAME LETTERS WHERE, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING ASKS FOR BOND SUPPORT.

SOME OF THOSE THAT WERE JUST RECIPIENTS FROM THE MIDTOWN TIRZ AND, AGAIN, THE DISCUSSION THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, IF WE HELP THEM THROUGH THE MID MIDTOWN TIRZ THEN THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT WE DON'T SEE THEM AGAIN AS PART OF THE BOND. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT MESSAGE GETS ACROSS LOUD AND CLEAR, SO I'D WELCOME HEARING THAT FROM MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

BEN, JUST FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES, PLEASE, BECAUSE I THINK THE POINT THAT THE COUNCILWOMAN MADE, WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE ENGAGING WITH US, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEFORE THEM. SO THE IDEA OF IF THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, IF THE GROWTH EXPECTATIONS DON'T MEET EVEN WHAT WE THINK THEY WILL BE NEXT YEAR, WE WILL HAVE TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES. HOWEVER, THAT IS DIFFERENT IF YOU'RE AT A $442 MILLION BOND CAPACITY VERSUS IF YOU'RE AT A $750 MILLION BOND CAPACITY OR EVEN A BILLION.

SO CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, IF YOU'VE GOT 442 OR IF YOU GOT 750, IF WE DON'T HIT GROWTH EXPECTATIONS, WHAT IS THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE LOOK LIKE IF YOU'RE AT 442 VERSUS IF YOU'RE AT 750?

>> GORZELL: SO, MAYOR, I'M GOING TO TRY AND FRAME IT THIS WAY.

SO THE 442 MILLION, BASED ON OUR GROWTH PROJECTIONS, WE BELIEVE WE DON'T NEED TO INCREASE THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE.

AND THE OTHER BAISES LINE IS THAT WE GAVE YOU ON FRIDAY WAS IF YOU WENT TO 750 MILLION, WE WERE -- BASED ON THAT SAME ASSESSED VALUATION GROWTH PRO JEK SLUN, WE WOULD NEED TO INCREASE THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE -- THEN '31, ANOTHER HALF A CENT. SO ABOUT A PENNY AND A AND A HALF OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. IF WE DON'T HIT THOSE GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND THINGS GET WORSE, THAT MEANS THAT THE 442 BOND PROGRAM, WE WENT FROM NOT NEEDING TO INCREASE TO FINISH OFF THE '22 BOND PROGRAM PLUS THE NEW PROGRAM. IF YOU DO THE 750, WE'RE INCREASING IT BY MORE THAN THE 1.5 CENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO UP TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEBT.

>> MAYOR JONES: I WANT YOU TO GIVE US A SENSE OF SCALE. HOW MUCH MORE WOULD YOU HAVE

TO INCREASE IT BY IN ORDER TO MEET THE 750? >> GORZELL: I DON'T KNOW, MAYOR. DID WE RUN -- I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK WITH YOU ON THE SENSITIVITY PIECE. IF WE WERE A COUPLE OF PERCENTAGES UNDER THAT, HOW

MUCH MORE DOES THAT INFLUENCE THE TAX RATE? >> MAYOR JONES: CORRECT.

I UNDERSTAND YOU HAD 442. BASED ON GROWTH PROJECTIONS, YOU DON'T EXPECT YOU'LL HAVE TO DO IT. HOWEVER, IF THEY DON'T MEET THOSE EXPECTATIONS, YOU'LL HAVE TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES TO COVER THAT. THAT'S AT 442.

WHAT WOULD IT BE IF IT WAS 750 OR A BILLION? I THINK WE NEED TO MANAGE

EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT GROWTH COULD LOOK LIKE . >> WALSH: MAYOR, PART OF THAT, GIVEN OUR GROWTH PROJECTIONS, BEN JUST SAID WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR 750.

BASED ON OUR GROWTH PROJECTIONS, IT WOULD BE HALF A PENNY INCREASE IN '29. ANOTHER HALF A PERCENT IN '30 AND ANOTHER HALF A PERCENT IN '31. REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY AMOUNT OVER 442, BECAUSE THEY'RE TIED TO OUR GROWTH PROJECTIONS, WE SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR THAT WITH THE PUBLIC THAT THE PROGRAM WILL REQUIRE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN BET THAT THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO RECOVER IN 2029.

IT COULD BUT IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION OF THE BOND PROGRAM.

WE SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW BASED ON OUR CURRENT

PROJECTIONS. >> MAYOR JONES: UNDERSTOOD.

I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, TO YOUR POINT, WE'RE MAKING THIS AS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE LISTENING AS POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT WE WILL RAISE THEM OR WE DON'T HAVE TO. UNDERSTOOD. BUT WHAT'S THE GRADE TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ, PLEASE.

>> GONZALEZ: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I GUESS I'LL START WITH SLIDE 4 AND STAY THERE. I DO THINK -- AND I ACTUALLY WANT TO TOUCH ON COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S SCENARIO A. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. I THINK IT ESSENTIALLY JUST TAKES $100 MILLION FROM THE

[01:05:05]

THAT'S A BIG MOVE ON THAT ONE? >> WALSH: YES, MA'AM.

>> GONZALEZ: I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD ON. IN THAT SAME VEIN, I ALSO THINK BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A SMALLER CAPACITY AND WE'RE IN THE FINANCIAL CLIMATE THAT WE ARE IN, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO PRIORITIZE LEVERAGED PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE AND FINAL-PHASE PROJECTS. I KNOW A LOT OF US HAVE THOSE FINAL PHASE -- I HAVE A PHASE 3 PROJECT THAT'S PART OF A REGIONAL CENTER BUT MY REGIONAL CENTER, WHICH IS U.T. SAN ANTONIO, OR ONE OF THEM A STREET AWAY IS TWO LARGE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABSOLUTELY NEED THE BABCOCK AND 1604 PHASE 3 PROJECT TO HAPPEN.

YES, IT IS PART OF THE REGIONAL CENTER BUT THOSE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO PRIORITIZE THOSE FINAL-PHASE PROJECTS AND ANY LEVERAGED PROJECTS THAT WE DO HAVE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

ANY MONEY THAT'S HELPING US THROUGH THIS IS LESS MONEY WE'RE HAVING TO SPEND.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE. I DO SUPPORT SCALING DOWN THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES DUE TO THE LOWER NUMBER OF PROJECTS WE HAVE. HOWEVER, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR RESIDENTS THAT DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO SERVE ON DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT WE HAVE, THIS IS THAT AVENUE FOR THEM TO SERVE.

AND SO BUT I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A SMALLER NUMBER OF PROJECTS AND I THINK UTILIZING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION IS BENEFICIAL.

IF THERE'S STILL OPPORTUNITIES IN THOSE OTHER COMMITTEES TO BRING ALONG OUR RESIDENTS, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I COULD SUPPORT THE $50 MILLION. I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT OTHER AGENCIES HAVE BONDING CAPACITY TO HELP US GET TO THAT 100? I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE HOUSING TRUST WAS THE ONLY ONE I COULD THINK OF.

WHAT IS THEIR BONDING CAPACITY? >> THEY TEND TO ISSUE BONDS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOUSING PROJECTS. IF THEY WERE TO ISSUE A GENERAL BOND SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO FOR A HOUSING BOND, THEY LOOKED AT THIS MAYBE A YEAR AGO. NO MORE THAN $10 MILLION. SINCE THEN THEY HAVE TAKEN OUT SOME DEBT TO PURCHASE SOME LAND IN THE CATTLEMAN SQUARE AREA.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO RERUN THAT ANALYSIS. BUT DEFINITELY NO MORE THAN WHAT IT WAS THEN. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT ANALYSIS ALSO AUDIO] WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER 18, $19 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE OVER 20 YEARS.

IT WOULD COST THEM A LOT MORE DEBT SERVICE THAN THE COST OF WHAT WE WOULD GET.

>> GONZALEZ: I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. FOR THE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS, WOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT. MAKING SURE OUR TRAILS ARE CONNECTED ALL OVER THE CITY. I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CITY-OWNED FACILITIES.

IS THERE A WAY -- AND SOMEBODY MAY HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP.

BUT THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPERATE OUR FACILITIES, THOSE OUTSIDE AGENCIES, IS THERE A WAY TO CREATE A CAVEAT THAT IF THEY DO ASK FOR MONEY IT'S FOR THE FACILITY ITSELF? IS THAT WHAT THEY DO NOW? YEAH.

IF WE CAN CLARIFY THAT. >> SHANNON: YES. THE REQUESTS THAT WE GET USUALLY ARE ENHANCING, EXPANDING THEIR FACILITIES --

>> GONZALEZ: OUR FACILITIES. >> SHANNON: OUR FACILITIES THEY MANAGE FOR US. YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES THEY ARE ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE

ON. >> GONZALEZ: REGIONAL CENTERS.

SUPPORTIVE OF CONTINUING THAT BREAKDOWN. I'M ASSUMING -- I'VE GOT TWO REGIONAL CENTERS IN DISTRICT 8. THEY REALLY DO IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO HEAR FROM THE REGIONAL CENTERS BUT I HEAR JUST AS MUCH ABOUT THE SAME PROJECT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THERE.

THERE IS NOT ONE MORE THAN THE OTHER. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.

I THINK PUBLIC ART IS STILL IMPORTANT AND WE CONTINUE THAT PATH AT THE 1.5.

AND THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS. I THINK I SAID THAT EARLIER WITH THE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN IS MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS. SO UNDERSTAND THE STORMWATER AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION BUT WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT -- SO IT WOULD BE TWO OTHER COMMITTEES ON TOP OF THAT IF WE DID GO WITH SCENARIO A. HOW WOULD THAT BREAKDOWN FOR

A COMMITTEE? >> SHANNON: THAT WOULD BE THE COUNCILMAN'S SCENARIO A?

>> GONZALEZ: MAYBE HE CAN HELP ME. >> SHANNON: I DON'T KNOW

[01:10:03]

IF IT'S SEPARATE. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: SO IS THE QUESTION WHAT WOULD THE COMMITTEE FORMAT LOOK LIKE UNDER THAT SCENARIO? SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS 2022 WHERE WE HAVE A STREETS, BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS. WE WOULD HAVE DRAINAGE AND WE WOULD HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT WE WOULD CONSOLIDATE THE PARKS COMMITTEE AND THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE INTO ONE GROUP.

AND THEY WOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THE FUNDS. >> GONZALEZ: SO THERE'S STILL OPPORTUNITY FOR STREETS, BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, AND PARKS AND FACILITIES TO HAVE THEIR OWN COMMITTEE? AND THAT'S THE WAY WE DID IT LAST TIME?

>> SHANNON: YEAH. WE COULD SEND SOMETHING TO YOU BUT I THINK WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN -- AND COUNCILMAN, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS -- LAST TIME I SHOWED YOU A SLIDE THAT SAID EACH OF YOU ALL WOULD APPOINT 15 MEMBERS, THREE TO EACH OF THE FIVE COMMITTEES. THAT WOULD CHANGE TO THREE TO EACH OF THE FOUR COMMITTEES. SO THE TOTAL NUMBER WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT LESS BUT WE WOULD BE RUNNING FOUR COMMITTEES, NOT FIVE.

YOU WOULD OWE US 12 NAMES. IS THAT RIGHT, COUNCILMAN? THANK YOU.

>> GONZALEZ: SO 12. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO, IF WE GO WITH THE SCENARIO A OR REALLY IT'S ITER THE 617 NUMBER. I WOULD LIKE TO ROUND THAT UP TO 650. I THINK THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERN THE COUNCILMAN BROUGHT UP REGARDING DISTRICT 2 AND 6 NOT HAVING DRAINAGE PROJECTS. IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

>> WALSH: YES, MA'AM. >> GONZALEZ: 650. I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

IF WE ASSUME THE 16% RATE INCREASE OVER FIVE YEARS FOR THE STORMWATER YEARS, HOW MUCH OF THAT 175 WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH FEES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS?

ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GETTING UP. >> WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO

FOLLOW UP WITH THE SPECIFICS ON THAT. >> GONZALEZ: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT. AND THEN WHAT WOULD THE DRAINAGE ALLOCATION LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE INCREASE TO THOSE FEES? WHAT WOULD THE DRAINAGE ALLOCATION LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THAT INCREASE, THAT 175 INCREASE?

>> SHANNON: I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE 442 OR WHATEVER NUMBER WE CHOOSE. AND IT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, THE STREETS OR THE PARKS AND THE FACILITIES, THE HOUSING. IF WE WENT WITH $175 MILLION OF THE DRAINAGE. IT WOULD BE TO DIVVY UP THAT PIE OF 442 DIFFERENTLY.

>> WALSH: IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 175, FOR SURE. >> IT'S A PRETTY SMALL NUMBER, COUNCILWOMAN. WE CAN GET IT WITH YOU. I CAN CHECK WITH TROY AND

BEN. >> GONZALEZ: I THINK SOMEBODY MAY HAVE ASKED THAT BUT ON THE HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN, ARE THERE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRANT

FUNDING FOR THESE PROJECTS? >> WALSH: YES ON THE GRANT.

SPECIFICALLY, THROUGH FEMA. >> GONZALEZ: DO WE HAVE A BALLPARK OF THE DOLLAR

AMOUNT OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE? >> WALSH: NO.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ALLOCATE BUT EVERY YEAR WE ARE APPLYING FOR FUNDING

THROUGH THAT PROGRAM FOR THOSE DRAINAGE PROJECTS. >> GONZALEZ: OKAY.

>> ELLIOTT: ON THE STORMWATER INCREASE, WE HAD PROVIDED A PRESENTATION EARLIER. WITH NO RATE INCREASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT, WITH A 25-YEAR

TERM, $9.8 MILLION IN BONDING CAPACITY. >> GONZALEZ: OKAY.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

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

>> CASTILLO: THANK YOU, MIKE FOR THE PRESENTATION, AS WELL AS TO ERIK AND THE ENTIRE TEAM. LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS CONVERSATION.

I THINK WHILE WE ARE IN A LIMITED POSITION IN TERMS OF BOND CAPACITY, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TYPE OF PROJECTS THEY CAN EXPECT AND WHAT ARE THE PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE BEEN WAITING ON THAT MAY BE ON THE LINE IF WE DON'T TAKE THIS CONVERSATION SERIOUSLY. I UNDERSTAND THE HESITANCY TO MOVE TO THE $1.2 BILLION CAPACITY SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE $750 MILLION RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE INCREASE THE HOUSING COMPONENT. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT STAFF HAS LAID OUT IN TERMS OF WHAT TO SUPPORT. MY ASK WOULD BE IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK TOWARDS CONJUGATE HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE JUSTICE INVOLVED AND HOW CAN WE SUPPORT THOSE SMALLER LANDLORDS THAT ARE PROVIDING DIFFERENT HOUSING OPTIONS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I SEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HERE, JUST THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE VERY VALUABLE, PARTICULARLY IN THE URBAN CORE WHERE WE HAVE MANY VACANT LOTS. GRATEFUL FOR YOU ALL FOR BUILDING THOSE AFFORDABLE HOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO MOVE FROM RENTER TO HOMEOWNER IN AN AFFORDABLE MANNER. BUT CONNECTING THAT TO SOME OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY GOALS IN TERMS OF VACANT LOTS, VACANT STRUCTURES AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY CAN SERVE

[01:15:02]

I WANT TO ENSURE WHETHER IT'S HAVEN FOR HOPE, MERCED, OR THE MEXICAN AMERICAN UNITY COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE THE OPTION FOR SINGLEFAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP WITH THE PROPOSED BOND. SINCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LIMITED CAPACITY WITH THE HOUSING BOND, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE HOUSING COMMISSION PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT SPENDING FRAMEWORK. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE TAKING A SYSTEMS APPROACH AND GIVEN THAT IT IS A REDUCED HOUSING BOND, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO STICK AS CLOSE TO THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PLAN AS WE CAN AND I TRUST THE HOUSING COMMISSION TO HELP US REACH THOSE GOALS WITH THIS LIMITED BOND FUNDING. WITH THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE AS WELL WITH UTILIZING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD. AGAIN, THESE DRAINAGE PROJECTS ARE VERY COMPLEX, NOT SEXY AT ALL, AND CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL. AND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IS ONE OF THE FEW COMMITTEES THAT EVERY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR HAVE FILLED THAT POSITION AND HELPED SHAPE THAT SCORING CRITERIA WHERE WE CAN BE INTENTIONAL WITH THE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE BEING REMOVED OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, HOW MANY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND SO FORTH. I BELIEVE UTILIZING THAT COMMITTEE WE WOULD BE MORE INTENTIONAL. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S RECOMMENDATION OF MERGING THE FACILITIES AND PARKS COMMITTEE. GIVEN THE LIMITATION AND CAPACITY, I THINK THERE WOULD BE MUCH OPPORTUNITY THERE.

I DID SEND AN E-MAIL TO MIKE IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING AND/OR EARMARKING FUNDING FOR POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND/OR CONSTRUCTION FOR JAIL DIVERSION. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY -- I BELIEVE IT'S A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

AND THERE'S AN INTEREST OF PURCHASED PROPERTY AND EXPAND.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT JOINTLY WITH THE COUNTY AND/OR EARMARK SOME FUNDING TO CONTRIBUTE. THIS CONNECTS TO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY GOALS IN THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE AN INDIVIDUAL AND GO BACK INTO THE FIELD. AND OF COURSE REHABILITATE THE INDIVIDUAL WHERE WE'RE SAVING COSTS IN TERMS OF AN INDIVIDUAL BEING AT THE JAIL OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO THAT'S AN ASK THAT I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES CAN SUPPORT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS LONG OVERDUE AND THE BUDGET, WHETHER IT'S THE COUNTY OR THE CITY, WE'RE ALL RUNNING A TIGHT BUDGET AND THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO EARMARK TO MOVE TOWARDS THAT GOAL. EMPHASIZING THAT IT IS OUR SHARED CONSTITUENCY AND WE HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO INVEST IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL.

WITH THE FAILED STREETS, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION 1. DISTRICT 5 HAS OVER 44 MILES OF F STREETS AND THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO TACKLE $11 MILLION OF FAILED STREETS AND IT ALSO ENSURES THAT EVERY COUNCIL DISTRICT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAXLE THE FAILED STREETS. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I DID WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE ARTS COMPONENT. WHAT WE LEARNED FROM OUR ARTS ROUNDTABLE WAS JUST THE VALUE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ENSURING WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEAVE IN ART PROJECTS THROUGH THE BOND ITEMS. BUT WHAT WE HEARD WAS A DESIRE SPECIFIC TO THE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HOPE WE CAN SEE .

AND I ALSO WANTED TO EMPHASIZE, IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS, I WOULD PROPOSE RECOMMEND MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES WHO MAYBE SERVE AS CHAIR OF TRANSPORTATION, PCDC, AND AUDIT TO SERVE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE TO VET TRI-CHAIRS FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION. I WOULD SUGGEST AN ORDINANCE TO HELP SUPPORT THAT ACTION AS WELL. BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO THE OVERALL COUNCIL CONVERSATION BUT MY EXPECTATION IS WE MOVE TOWARDS THE 750 AND ALLOCATE FUNDS TOWARDS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND. I WILL COME BACK IN FOR THE SECOND ROUND.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ -- GO AHEAD.

>> WALSH: I WAS JUST GOING TO -- COUNCILWOMAN, THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE DIVERSION CENTER, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY.

HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT SHARED FUNDING

AND COMMITMENT TOWARDS THAT? >> CASTILLO: CONVERSATIONS.

I HAVEN'T MADE COMMITMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. >> WALSH: IF THAT IS SOMETHING MORE OF YOU WEIGH IN ON, WHAT IS THE COMMITMENT? BECAUSE WE WOULD BE BUILDING A COUNTY FACILITY AND IF IT'S A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MONEY LAID OUT AT THE TABLE, TO BE

QUITE HONEST WITH YOU. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. >> MAYOR JONES: THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW LEADERSHIP HERE SHORTLY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HEAR

[01:20:02]

THOSE THOUGHTS. COUNCILMAN GALVAN, PLEASE. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, MIKE FOR THE PRESENTATION AND ALL THE WORK Y'ALL PUT TOGETHER FOR THIS. A COUPLE OF THINGS.

SUPPORTIVE, OF COURSE, THE BREAKDOWN THAT COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ LAID OUT FOR THE OPTION A. ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE OPTION B1.

I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THE 442 IS STILL TOO LOW FOR THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK -- THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT DISTRICT 6 NEEDS --T STREETS AND SOME OF THE FOCUS ON THE F STREETS, WE'RE TALKING MORE ABOUT MOVING TO THE FOLKS ON THE PCI SCORES VERSUS SOLELY F STREETS.

WHAT I GET NERVOUS ABOUT IS AS WE'RE LOOKING AT SOLELY FOCUSING ON F STREETS, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE DRAINAGE PROJECTS LISTED HERE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT SMALLER AND SMALLER SCALE FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES, A LOT OF DISTRICT 6 AMENITIES WILL BE LEFT THE WAY THEY ARE. WHETHER IT'S THE DRAINAGE SOLUTION THAT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED ALONG FRENCH CREEK FOR NEIGHBORHOODS COMPLETELY SUBMERGED UNDER THE FLOODPLAIN RIGHT NOW OR IT'S LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STREETS THAT ARE NOT QUITE IN THE WORST CONDITION BUT COULD STILL BE IMPROVED.

OR FACILITIES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN UPGRADED INTERNALLY IN TERMS OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THE '80S AND '90S. ALL THOSE WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE WITH THE 442 OPTION, FOR THE MOST PART. THE DISTRIBUTION LAID OUT BY COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ IS HELPFUL TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AT THE MOMENT. I THINK TO GET AT MAKING SURE THERE'S MORE CHANGE FOR OUR RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY THE CREATION OF NEW PARKS FOR THE 2022 BOND, BEING ABLE TO EXPAND THOSE AMENITIES THERE WILL REQUIRE A HIGHER CAPACITY HERE.

SUPPORTIVE OF THE 442. 750, SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AS WELL, GIVEN THE GENERAL LOW IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE COST BUT ALSO FOR THE MAJOR TRANSFORMATION IT CAN PROVIDE IN THE PARKS FACILITIES PORTION, IN PARTICULAR.

I KNOW ON THE BIG LIST THAT MIKE, YOUR TEAM PRESENTED TO US.

FRENCH CREEK IS ON THERE. HEATH ROAD IS ON THERE AND IT'S A $67 MILLION PROJECT.

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IDENTIFIED ONE AS WELL. THERE WAS SOME RESEARCH I WAS DOING ON THE RIVER AUTHORITY'S REPORTS IN 2025 AND THEY MENTIONED THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF WATER COMING DOWN FROM AND HOW THOSE DO MERGE TOGETHER AND CREATE FURTHER STORMWATER ISSUES DOWNSTREAM. I KNOW THERE'S ALSO A STATE FLOOD PLAN IDENTIFIED PROJECT ALONG CULEBRA CREEK. CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT WHY BOTH OF THOSE ARE NOT RECOMMENDED WITHIN THE LARGER FRAMEWORK? MAINLY BECAUSE I KNOW COST IS A BIG ONE BUT ALSO WITHIN THAT REPORT FROM SARAH, IT MENTIONS A LOWER NUMBER FOR

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS. >> SO THE QUESTION IS WHY AREN'T THOSE ON THE SLIDE THAT WE SHOWED? THE EXERCISE WE PERFORMED TO STAFF IS IF WE HAD $175 MILLION, WHAT WOULD WE RECOMMEND. AS MIKE DESCRIBED, WE WENT DOWN THE LIST OF PROJECTS ONGOING FROM THE '22 OR 2017 BOND PROGRAM.

FINISHING THOSE OUTS. AND ONES THAT ARE SHOVEL READY .

IF WE HAD 200, WHAT ARE THOSE TOP-SCORING PROJECTS THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS. WHEN WE DEVELOPED THAT SCORING RUBRIC.

THAT'S WHERE THE DISTRICT 2 AND 6 PROJECTS. THEN WE LOOKED THE FUNDING AVAILABILITY. THE LARGER ONES YOU MENTIONED EXCEED THAT

CAPACITY AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT ON THE LIST. >> GALVAN: I GUESS WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER WE'RE LOOKING FOR RELATED TO THE COST?

>> SOME OF IT GOES BACK TO WHAT THE CAPACITY COULD BE. IT'S BASED ON AN INCREASE IN STORMWATER FEES AND WHAT THAT CAPACITY COULD BRING IN.

AS WE TALK ABOUT INCREASING THAT, WE WOULD NEED BEN, HIS TEAM, AND TROY TO RERUN THE

NUMBERS TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT CAPACITY COULD BE. >> GALVAN: IS THERE ANY REASON THAT THERE'S A COST DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT THE RIVER AUTHORITY IS PROPOSING AS WELL AS THE 6, $7 MILLION FOR THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ON THE HEATH ROAD

PROJECT. >> THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED AREAS OF NEED.

THE SPECIFIC PROJECT IS REALLY THE NEXT STEP AND THAT'S SOME OF THE WORK OUR

TEAMS HAVE DONE. I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH YOU. >> GALVAN: YEAH.

I GUESS I FEEL THERE'S A BIT OF A DISCREPANCY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STATE FLOOD PLAN ALONG ONE AND ALSO THE MITIGATION PLAN ON ANOTHER STREAM AND THEY BOTH

[01:25:01]

IT SEEMS TO BE ONGOING WORK BUT WE KNOW THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED CURRENTLY IS NOT GOING TO FULLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF OUR RESIDENTS BEING COMPLETELY FLOODED. I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS

BUT I WANTED TO VOICE MY THOUGHTS. >> ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT WITH THE STATE FLOOD PLAN. THERE'S CRITERIA.

THEY'RE GENERALLY REGIONAL PROJECTS SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NOT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS WE SUBMITTED . WE HAVE A LOT OF LOCALIZED NEEDS.

THOSE AREN'T ELIGIBLE FOR A STATE FLOOD PLAN. THEY WILL SHOW UP IN OUR HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS BOND PROGRAM BUT NOT THE

STATE FLOOD PLAN. >> GALVAN: TO CLARIFY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RIDGE RUN

ON A DIFFERENT CREEK WILL THEN CONVERGE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S A LARGER PROJECT, LARGER COST AS WELL. IT WAS TOO LARGE TO FIT INTO

THE POTENTIAL $200 MILLION. >> GALVAN: GOT IT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. ON THE HOUSING COMPONENT, I ALSO AM SUPPORTIVE OF FOCUSING ON THE 30% AMI. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT PCDC.

WITH SOME OF THE HOME REHAB, HOW MUCH OF THAT COMES FROM THE BOND VERSUS GENERAL FUND

DOLLARS? >> SURE. SO RIGHT NOW WE SPEND ABOUT $15 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND HOME REHAB. MAYBE $18 MILLION FROM GENERAL FUND AND FEDERAL FUNDS COMBINED FOR HOME REHAB.

AND THEN ON THE BOND WE SPEND ANYWHERE FROM 5 TO $7 MILLION A YEAR.

>> GALVAN: I KNOW 30% AMI AND DEEP AFFORDABILITY REQUIRES MORE SUBSIDY.

WE TRY TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS AND SEE WITH THE GENERAL FUND WE CAN FOCUS THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT NEED THAT SUPPORT. THAT'S WHERE MY THOUGHTS ARE AT THE MOMENT. I WANTED TO ASK THAT TO BE CLEAR ON THE NUMBERS.

THANK YOU. ON THE COMMITTEES, COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS LAID OUT HERE AND APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZALEZ'S CLARIFICATION ON IT, ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELECT SOME OF THE FOLKS THERE. I MISSED A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE TRI-CHAIR COMPONENT BUT OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THE COUNCIL CAN HAVE SOME CONVERSATION ON THE TRI-CHAIR APPOINTMENTS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE ARE IN ALIGNMENT AND STILL HAVE THE CO-CHAIRS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR.

PFZ, IF WE CAN USE THAT ON SOME OTHER PROJECTS. HAPPY TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO WITH IT. THE ONLY OTHER PIECE I WOULD SAY, IF WE'RE DOING 750, INCREASING THE PARKS FROM 250 TO 275 AND THEN MAYBE ALTERING THE HOUSING COMPONENT . I APPRECIATE THE FOLLOW-UP LAST WEEK FROM THE CONVERSATION WE HAD, IN PARTICULAR THE POINT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BOND FAILS. WE WON'T SEE AN IMPACT TO OUR CREDIT RATING.

THERE COULD BE IMPACTS TO US HOW WE SELL OR TALK ABOUT THE NEXT ONE IN PUBLIC.

BUT I THINK THERE WAS A POINT THAT RESONATED WITH ME FROM CITY STAFF SHARING THE FINANCE TEAM WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF DEFERRING MORE AND MORE OF THESE PROJECTS. NOT JUST BECAUSE THE VOTE FAILS BUT I WOULD ALSO EXTEND THAT TO THE LOWER CAPACITY WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE EXPANDED CAPACITY, OF COURSE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT COST AND HOW HEAVY THIS MAY BE ON SOME RESIDENTS BUT I THINK I WOULD BE WORRIED AS WELL -- AND I AM WORRIED -- ABOUT NOT ONLY OUR CREDIT RATING BUT THE COST OF NOT DOING THESE DRAINAGE PROJECTS TO THE FULL EXTENT. OF NOT DOING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR FACILITY PROJECTS TO THE FULL EXTENT TO MAKE SURE OUR CITY FACILITIES ARE WELL MAINTAINED. IT'S TRUE FOR HOUSING, I THINK. SO JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE THERE.

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

>> KAUR: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE AND ALL OF THE TIME THAT Y'ALL HAVE SPENT TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US AND SHOW US REALLY WHAT FINANCIAL PICTURE THAT WE'RE IN. THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE TOUGHEST BACK AND FORTHS THAT I HAVE HAD REGARDING FINANCIALS IN MY LAST THREE YEARS HERE. AND I THINK THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE ARE UNCERTAIN THAT WE CAN PAY FOR.

SO WHEN WE HAD OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION, WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE BUDGETING FOR THIS YEAR AND WHAT THAT WOULD COST. IN THE SCENARIO RIGHT NOW, WE ARE UNSURE. SO WHEN WE'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS, I FELT THAT IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT. SO I'M JUST SHARING SOME OF THE BACKUP SLIDES THAT

[01:30:04]

IN BIG RED LETTERS. ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THESE ARE ALL ASSUMPTIONS.

NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BEN IS NOT A GURU THAT CAN COMPLETELY PREDICT THE FUTURE. BUT ASSUMPTIONS BASED.

WHAT'S PROJECTED HERE IS A HALF A PERCENT INCREASE IN 2029.

2.5 INCREASE IN 2030. AND 3% INCREASE IN 2031. THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS GOING TO OCCUR. ON THE OTHER SIDE, IN ORDER FOR US TO NOT RAISE TAXES AT ALL, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE A 3% GROWTH RATE YEAR OVER YEAR.

AND SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT RATE MEAN FOR RESIDENTS? ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE SEE THAT IF WHAT WE PROJECT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ACTUALLY HAPPENS FOR A $750 MILLION BOND, THE ANNUAL IMPACT FOR AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUE HOME OF 231K IS BASICALLY $12. SO THAT IS A THIRD OF WHAT WE PROPOSED FOR THE BUDGET THIS YEAR. IT'S A DOLLAR A MONTH IN THIS SCENARIO.

WHAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE AS A BODY IS ARE WE WILLING TO -- IN ORDER TO THINK BIG, ASK OUR RESIDENTS FOR THREE YEARS, '29, '30, ', AND '31, IF YOU LIVE IN AN AVERAGE HOME, PAY ONE DOLLAR A MONTH. I'LL SHOW YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS JUST SO IF FOLKS ARE WATCHING CAN SEE IT. THE BILLION DOLLARS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I THINK IT'S WAY TOO RISKY. THIS IS THE PROJECTION THERE. WE WOULD HAVE TO HIT ALMOST 4% GROWTH PER YEAR AND THEN THE IMPACT ON THE NEXT SLIDE WOULD BE BASICALLY $17 IN '29.

IT'S MORE SIGNIFICANT. IT'S DEFINITELY MORE SIGNIFICANT.

IT'S $60 AND IT WOULD TAKE FOUR YEARS VERSUS THE THREE YEARS IN THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE. SO I THINK WHAT IDEALLY WE COME TO AS A CONSENSUS AS A BODY TO GO OUT AND SUPPORT THIS. THERE ARE VOTERS THAT WILL ASK US, DO YOU SUPPORT THIS BOND? AND IF YOU SAY NO -- AND YOU CAN ONLY SAY NO ON YOUR OWN TIME. I KNOW NOT ON CITY TIME. BUT IF YOU SAY NO, THAT DECREASES THE CHANCES OF THIS BOND FAILING. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T, AS WAS JUST SAID, IT DOESN'T IMPACT OUR FINANCIAL RATING BUT IT IMPACTS OUR COMMUNITY. IT IMPACTS OUR ABILITY TO DO PROJECTS.

AND TO ME, WE'RE BASICALLY ANALYZING WHAT IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO.

AND IF FOLKS TRULY DON'T THINK THEY CAN ASK THEIR RESIDENTS FOR A DOLLAR OR TWO MORE A MONTH TO FIX FAILING STREETS, TO FIX PARKS AND FACILITIES, THEN WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. I WOULD LOVE TO SAY I SUPPORT SCENARIO B AND GOING FOR A $750 MILLION BOND. BUT I CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS MY COLLEAGUES COMMIT TO NOT ANTI-CHEERLEADING. WHAT'S THE OPPOSITE? TO NOT BOOING THE BOND. SABOTAGING, THANK YOU. NOT SABOTAGING THE BOND.

ENGLISH IS MY SECOND LANGUAGE. ALL OF THAT TO BE SAID, I'M LAYING THAT OUT SO THAT FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND WHY I FEEL LIKE I CAN ONLY SUPPORT 442 WELL. I WANTED TO COMMENT. COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ PROPOSED THE IDEA TO GOING UP TO 650. I'M GOOD ON THAT NOW.

THANK YOU. TO 650. THAT WOULD MEAN THE BOND

WOULD BE 475 IF WE INCREASE IT TO 650. >> WALSH: NO.

I THINK THE COUNCILWOMAN'S POINT WAS ADJUSTING ON THE STORMWATER SIDE.

>> KAUR: SO INCREASING THE FEE. I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.

>> WALSH: IT WOULD MEAN -- I THINK IN MIKE'S SLIDE THE 442 PLUS THE 175 WITH 617.

WHAT I HEARD COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ SAY WAS ADJUST AND ROUND UP AND GET IT TO 650. IT WOULD BE 442 PLUS 208 FOR STORMWATER.

>> KAUR: ADDITIONAL STORMWATER FEE. DID I UNDERSTAND THAT,

COUNCILWOMAN, CORRECTLY? OKAY. >> KAUR: BECAUSE THE STORMWATER FEE IS FIXED. IT IS FOR SURE YOU KNOW IT'S HAPPENING SO IT GOES TO THE POINT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR. I DO THINK IF WE PUT THAT $33 MILLION IN THE BOND, YES, IT' NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE FINANCIAL MODELING SAYS BUT IF AN EXTRA ALMOST

[01:35:08]

I WOULD SAY FOR THE $100 MILLION, IF THAT'S WHAT GOES TOWARDS F STREETS, THAT THAT GETS ALLOCATED FOR OPTION 2. AS FAR AS SIDEWALKS, IF WE HAVE $250 MILLION FOR STREETS AND SIDEWALKS -- CAN YOU BRING UP THE SLIDE -- SORRY. I'M MAKING YOU POP BACK OVER.

SLIDE 12. SO ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IS SAFE PASSAGEWAY TO SCHOOL. AUSTIN HAS A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM IN THEIR BOND THAT'S BASICALLY LIKE WHAT OUR MOBILITY SIDEWALK WAS. AND IT'S SAYING WE PRIORITIZE AROUND SCHOOLS AND BUS STOPS. BUT THIS IS A PRIORITIZE AND IT'S NOT A FORCED -- LIKE HAS TO BE. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE US, IF IT'S $25 MILLION OUT OF THAT 250, SAYING THAT IT'S A SAFE PASSAGEWAY TO SCHOOLS AND FROM BUS STOPS LINE ITEM. SO THAT IT HAS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR SCHOOLS AND BUS STOPS. AND THAT IT NOT JUST BE ALLOCATED FOR GAPS. BECAUSE WHAT WE ALWAYS HAVE SEEN IS WHERE THERE ARE GAPS DOESN'T MEAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY NEED THE SIDEWALK THERE BUT A LOT OF TIMES WHERE WE HAVE BROKEN SIDEWALKS, LIKE WE SAW WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS JUST DONE, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE WORSE. THOSE TRIP HAZARDS ARE WORSE THAN JUST FILLING GAP MILES.

TO ME, FILLING GAP MILES ISN'T THE BIGGEST ISSUE, IT'S FIXING BROKEN SIDEWALKS. SO I WOULD SAY SAFE PASSAGEWAY TO SCHOOL, $25 MILLION. AND FOCUS THAT ON BOTH SIDEWALKS AND SHARED-USE PATHWAYS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ALL THE WORK BEING DONE WITH THE BIKE LANE NETWORK AS WELL. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE SHOULD, FOR THE LAST 50.

IF WE'RE TAKING 250 FOR STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, WE'RE PUTTING $25 MILLION EXTRA INTO HOUSING. SO THAT WOULD BE $75 MILLION INTO HOUSING.

I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED THE HOUSING TRUST DOESN'T HAVE THE FULL CAPACITY TO TAKE OUT BONDS. WE'RE LOOKING AT MIDTOWN TIRZ.

BUT WANTING TO SEE IF WE CAN INCREASE THAT. AND THEN PUT THAT EXTRA 25 BACK INTO PARKS AND FACILITIES SO FOLKS THAT I KNOW HAVE PRIORITIES FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES COULD INCLUDE THAT. TECHNICALLY WOULD BE 33 IF WE INCREASED JUST THE BOND VALUE TO 475. I'LL WRITE THAT DOWN AND SEND IT TO YOU BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF NUMBERS.

BUT I THINK THAT IS MY PROPOSAL AND PITCH TO ALL MY COLLEAGUES.

THANKS, MAYOR. >> WALSH: JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

COUNCILWOMAN, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS UNDER OPTION A, 250 FOR STREETS AND 75 FOR HOUSING. THAT $75 MILLION WOULD COME FROM THE PARKS AND FACILITIES? I'M LOOKING AT COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S

INFOGRAPHIC. IT WOULD COME FROM THE 192? >> KAUR: EXACTLY.

AND THE OTHER 25 -- YEAH. >> WALSH: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES:

COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO, PLEASE. >> GAVITO: THANK YOU.

IT'S BEEN GOOD TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES' FEEDBACK. I DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE I ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, ERIK AND MIKE. KEEP ME HONEST IF I DON'T.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY NONE OF US ARE HAPPY WITH A SMALLER BOND BUT I DO THINK IT CALLS FOR ALL OF US AS A BODY TO BE STRATEGIC ABOUT WHAT OUR RESIDENTS WILL HAVE AN APPETITE FOR. AND I JUST FEEL IN TODAY'S ECONOMY AN INCREASE, A TAX RATE INCREASE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL IT IS IN TODAY'S ECONOMY IS JUST NOT GOING TO FLY. SO I DO THINK THAT, YES, 442 DOESN'T COVE COVER, YOU KNOW, A FRACTION OF THE NEED OUR CITY HAS. WE LOOKED AT DISTRICT 7 BOND

[01:40:04]

SO A $442 MILLION BOND FOR THE WHOLE CITY, YES. NOT IDEAL.

BUT AGAIN I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE TO STEP BACK AND BE STRATEGIC ABOUT WHAT RESIDENTS HAVE AN APPETITE FOR. I DON'T FEEL THAT THEY HAVE AN APPETITE FOR A TAX RATE INCREASE. AND I DO JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE STRATEGIC ABOUT WHAT WILL GET US OVER THE FINISH LINE TOGETHER.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE OUR HEAD IS. I AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN KAUR THAT NO MATTER WHAT WE VOTE, WHETHER THE VOTE GOES TO A 442 OR 750, A BILLION, $1.2 BILLION, WE ALL HAVE TO GET IN LINE AND MARCH TOGETHER ON IT TO GET WHATEVER BOND PASSED. WE CAN'T HAVE ANY OF US BREAKING FROM THAT, WHETHER WE VOTED FOR IT OR NOT. WE CAN'T, AS A BODY, SABOTAGE OUR OWN ASK.

I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THAT. I DO WANT TO THANK COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ FOR HIM AND HIS TEAM'S WORK IN OUTLINING THESE OPTIONS, A, B, AND C. I'M DEFINITELY IN LINE WITH OPTION A BECAUSE IT IS 442.

AGAIN, I DO THINK -- I JUST WANT TO STRESS I'M FOR THE $442 MILLION, NOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ADDRESS OUR NEED. WE HAVE WAY MORE NEED THAN THAT.

BUT 442 IS WHAT I FEEL OUR RESIDENTS WILL HAVE AN APPETITE FOR, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW. SO I DO LIKE OPTION A. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS TOO IS FOR HOUSING. I DO THINK THE $50 MILLION FOR HOUSING IS IMPORTANT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE DISTRICT 7 TEAM IS PARTNERING WITH COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO'S DISTRICT 5 TEAM. COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO AND THE DISTRICT 5 TEAM ON IS VACANT PROPERTIES. AND WE HAD A GREAT MEETING YESTERDAY.

THERE IS SO MUCH INVENTORY IN VACANT HOUSING AND VACANT BUSINESS BUILDINGS THAT WE COULD BE REPURPOSING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR JUST FILLING THESE VACANT PROPERTIES IN GENERAL. AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME OF THE HOUSING BOND GO TO TURNING OVER THOSE PROPERTIES. IT'S ALWAYS FRUSTRATING WHEN WE HAVE DEVELOPERS IN ONE EAR TELLING US TO CUT DOWN TREES AND GREEN SPACES WHEN WE KNOW THOSE GREEN SPACES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO RESIDENTS AND YET WE'RE SITTING ON THIS INVENTORY OF VACANT PROPERTIES THAT WE COULD BE FILLING UP.

I THINK WE NEED TO THROW OUT HOW WE UTILIZE THOSE VACANT PROPERTIES TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. I AM FOR THE STORMWATER FEE INCREASE.

THIS IS NOT A FUN THING TO VOTE FOR. BUT I DO THINK THAT THE NEED IS OBVIOUSLY THERE. WE HAVE SEEN SOME HORRIFIC INCIDENTS HAPPEN.

I MEAN, IN DISTRICT 7 WE'RE CONSTANTLY DEALING WITH BODIES BEING FOUND AT WOODLAWN LAKE. SO THAT UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR INVESTMENT THERE.

I ALSO AM SUPPORTIVE OF A COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO SELECT THE TRI-CHAIRS.

I THINK THIS MAKES THINGS FAIR. I WANT TO STRESS THAT NO MATTER WHAT THIS OUTCOME IS, RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN THE SAUSAGE-MAKING PROCESS.

THINGS ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH BUT WE DO ALL HAVE TO COMMIT TO WHATEVER THE VOTE SHOWS AND MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER. THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS

FOR NOW. THANKS. >> MAYOR JONES:

COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS, PLEASE. >> SPEARS: THANKS, MAYOR. I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY MYSELF. IT'S NO SECRET I'M FOR THE SMALLER BOND OF 442. I CAN SEE HOW SCENARIO A COULD WORK.

I WOULD RATHER SEE THE $50 MILLION IN HOUSING GO BACK TO PARKS AND FACILITIES AND STREETS AND BRIDGES, SINCE THAT'S SUCH A NEED ALL OVER THIS CITY.

I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FOCUS ON CORE SERVICE. PUBLIC ART, TO ME, IS A PLACE WE NEED TO CUT. I'M CONFLICTED ABOUT COMBINING COMMITTEES.

I HAVE A ROSTER. PEOPLE SIGNING UP SINCE APRIL FOR BOND COMMITTEES.

A LITTLE CONFLICTED THERE. I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE STORMWATER IDEA BUT I'M UNSURE. I WANT TO GIVE THEM A VOICE BECAUSE SOME OF THEM WANT TO BE INVOLVED BUT THIS IS A SMALLER TIME COMMITMENT AND SO THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, BE

[01:45:02]

THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFLICTED. THE TRI-CHAIR SUBCOMMITTEE IDEA.

I CAN GET BEHIND THAT WHERE WE GET A SUBCOMMITTEE TO HELP PUT THAT TOGETHER FOR EFFICIENCY. THE $35 MILLION THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND DURANGO, I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THIS BEFORE WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. I KNOW WE NEEDED IT AROUND THE ALAMODOME ALWAYS.

TO ME, IT'S PART OF THE BOND. THAT'S JUST HOW I SEE IT THIS IS NEEDED, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYTHING GOING ON. DID I MISS ANYTHING?

>> WALSH: NO, THAT WAS PRETTY EFFICIENT, COUNCILWOMAN.

>> SPEARS: DONE. THANKS. >> SHANNON: WHAT FEE

INCREASE? >> WALSH: THE COUNCILWOMAN SAID SHE WAS UNSURE OF IT.

>> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMEMBER MUNGIA, PLE PLEASE.

>> MUNGIA: THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE I'LL BE QUITE AS EFFICIENT AS COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS BUT I'LL TRY. THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ FOR DRAFTING THIS. PERSONALLY, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION B, WHICH IS $750 MILLION. I DO THINK FOR PURPOSES OF HOMEWORK FOR THE TEAM, AND OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS WE SHOULD HAVE A PRESENTATION OF BOTH OPTIONS, A AND B. I THINK AT THIS POINT YOU KNOW PROJECT PRIORITIES AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE AND EACH CATEGORY PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO ACHIEVE.

I THINK YOU COULD COME BACK WITH OPTIONS A AND B WITH THE ACTUAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDED. OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND WE WANT THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS TO OCCUR BUT I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LOSE OR GAIN BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WHAT THE COST OF THAT WOULD BE. SO OBVIOUSLY 750, THERE WOULD BE A COST TO ACHIEVE THAT BOND. BUT TO COUNCILMAN GALVAN'S POINT, WHAT WOULD BE THE COST FOR NOT DOING SOME OF THESE STREETS LATER ON? EVERY YEAR WE DEAL WITH INFLATION. EVERY YEAR PROJECTS GET MORE EXPENSIVE TO DO SO THE COST OF A PARTICULAR DRAINAGE OR STREET PROJECT THAT WON'T GET DONE IN THIS BOND, THAT WE WOULD WAIT ANOTHER 5 OR 10 YEARS TO DO IS CERTAINLY GOING TO COST MORE AND IT'S GOING TO EAT OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND. WITH ALL THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH OUR BUDGETS, WE DO HAVE TO REMEMBER A TIME BEFORE '22 BOND, WHAT F STREETS WERE PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. THERE WAS A PROCESS AND A MOVEMENT TO MOVE THAT OUT TO KIND OF HELP THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HAVE A SMALLER BOND, WE'RE HAVING TO PUSH OUT THE GENERAL FUND ON THAT.

AS FAR AS WHAT'S DIGESTIBLE AND WHAT THE PUBLIC WOULD WANT, I DO THINK THIS SATURDAY WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A BOND MEETING. I'M GOING TO ASK RESIDENTS MYSELF . IF YOU WERE TO PAY $35 OVER THREE YEARS AND YOU COULD GET THESE PROJECTS ADDED TO OUR COMMUNITY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT? I THINK THAT'S A SIMPLE WAY. I WANT TO HAVE SOME PROJECTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE COULD OR COULD NOT GET OUT OF THOSE TWO SCENARIOS. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE TERMS FOR FOLKS WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM AND MAKING SURE IT HITS ALL DISTRICTS. CERTAINLY DISTRICTS 2 AND 6 NEED A DRAINAGE PROJECT OUT OF THE STORMWATER ASSESSMENT. IT WAS COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ'S IDEA TO ADD MORE TO INCREASE CAPACITY, WE NEED TO DO THAT SO AT LEAST ONE DISTRICT HAS AT LEAST ONE DRAINAGE PROJECT. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, CONSIDERING THE WEATHER THAT WE'RE HAVING. I DO OF COURSE SUPPORT HAVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND, TO SOME CAPACITY. I THINK WITH THE LEVERAGED DOLLARS THERE WE NEED TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN. ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF CONTINUING THE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAIL SYSTEM. 26 YEARS OF INVESTMENT.

IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE TO CEASE THAT INVESTMENT, ESPECIALLY AS WE MOVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME DID MAKE A PROMISE TO VOTERS BY SHIFTING THE SALES TAX IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE TRAILWAYS.

THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF TOWN WERE TOLD. CERTAINLY, THAT'S AN EXPECTATION FROM FOLKS. FOR THE FAILED STREETS, I THINK OPTION 1 IS IMPORTANT.

EVERY DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE STREET PROJECT AS PART OF THEIR BOND PACKAGE. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I CERTAINLY THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT PFZ FUNDING FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT-RELATED PROJECTS.

WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THAT WILL PAN OUT AND IF WE'LL BE ABLE TO USE PFZ DOLLARS TO MATCH A STATE GRANT.

IF WE COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

[01:50:03]

SO WHAT YOU SAID TO US EARLIER WAS THAT FOR THE PAST SEVERAL BONDS, BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE HAD, WE HAVE TOLD RESIDENTS THAT THEY WOULD NOT EXPECT A TAX INCREASE. AND OBVIOUSLY IF WE WERE TO HAVE A LARGER CAPACITY OF 442 THIS TIME, WE WOULD DO THAT. BUT EACH BOND CYCLE WAS ABLE TO INCREASE PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. AND SO WE DID THAT WITHOUT A TAX INCREASE. HOW WERE WE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT INCREASING OUR

PROPERTY TAX? >> GORZELL: SO COUNCILMAN, THE ABILITY TO DO THAT WAS THROUGH GROWTH AND ASSESSED TAXABLE EVALUATIONS. WHAT WE SAID IS WE DON'T PROJECT AN INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE. WE WERE USING VALUATION GROWTH AND BEING ABLE TO USE THAT TO FUND OUR BOND PROGRAMS.

>> MUNGIA: BECAUSE THE MARKET WAS GROWING. >> GORZELL: YOU HAD CYCLES GO THROUGH THAT. I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS CLOSER TO THIS WAS THE ONE IN 2012. WE WERE JUST COMING OFF THE GREAT RECESSION, IF YOU WILL. BUT EVEN GOING INTO THAT ONE, WE WENT FROM 550 TO 596. A LITTLE BIT OF GROWTH. BUT WE ALREADY KNEW WHEN WE WERE PLANNING FOR THAT 2012 BOND THAT WE WERE CYCLING OUT OF THAT RECESSION.

WE COULD KIND OF SEE THE TREND. WE COULD SEE THE ECONOMIC INDICATORS WERE THERE. SALES TAX WAS PICKING UP SO WE SAW THAT WINDOW OPENING BACK UP INTO A GROWTH MODE SO THAT MADE THAT A LITTLE BIT EASIER.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT IN THIS WINDOW AT THIS POINT. >> MUNGIA: BECAUSE OF INCREASING VALUES AND ESSENTIALLY RESIDENTS PAYING MORE BASED ON THE VALUES THAT THEY WERE SEEING, WE WERE ABLE TO SUSTAIN LARGER BONDS OVER TIME.

>> GORZELL: THAT'S CORRECT. THE GROWTH AND VALUATION AND MANAGING THE DEBT. WE TALK ABOUT IF WE'RE EXCEEDING PROJECTIONS DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER, WE HAVE ACCELERATED OUR DEBT AND PAID IT DOWN MORE QUICKLY, WHICH SAVES COST. DURING SOME OF THOSE SLOWER PERIODS, WE HAVE EXTENDED AND PUSHED THAT OUT A BIT SO WE CAN MANAGE IT WITHOUT IMPACTING THE DEBT SERVICE RATE. IT'S MANAGING THOSE TWO PIECES THAT HAVE ALLOWED US TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OVER THESE PAST SEVERAL BOND CYCLES.

>> MUNGIA: THANK YOU, BEN. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED YOU TO ANSWER FOR ME.

AS THE MARKET WAS GROWING AND VALUES WERE INCREASING NATURALLY, WE WERE HAVING THESE LARGER BONDS, AND THAT WAS OKAY. AND NOW THAT THE MARKET IS TAKING A DIFFERENT TURN AND WE WANT TO BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND KEEP THE PROGRESS GOING FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ENJOY, IT'S NOW A BAD THING. AND SO I REJECT THAT. ALSO WOULD NOT WANT TO SUPPORT SOMETHING BASED ON MY FEAR OF SOMEONE UP HERE, YOU KNOW, GOING AGAINST WHAT WE VOTE ON. I THINK I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S BEST FOR D4 RESIDENTS. I THINK HAVING MORE PROJECTS IS IMPORTANT BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE, EVEN WITH 440. I THINK FOR SOME FOLKS THAT VOTE AGAINST 750 THEY WILL HAVE PROJECTS IN THEIR DISTRICT THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CHAMPION OR SAY NO TO.

DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF YOUR SUPPORT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S NOTED AND HOW THAT'S BEING FAIR. FOR COMMITTEES, I DO THINK REDUCING IT DOWN BY ONE. MERGING PARKS AND REC AND FACILITIES INTO ONE IS GOOD.

FOR THE DRAINAGE, I DO SUPPORT THE STORMWATER FOLKS WORKING ON THAT.

IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR DIVERSION CENTER FUNDING, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THE CITY HAS TO MOVE ON TO GO FORWARD. FOR ARTS FUNDING, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU LOOK AT -- I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ARTS FUNDING IN THE BOND TO BE MORE OF A FUNCTIONAL PIECE OF ART VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S JUST MAYBE LOOKED AT I THINK IS IMPORTANT AND COULD BE A GOOD CONSIDERATION. IF YOU GOOGLED MILLERS POND BENCHES, THE ART PROJECT THAT WE'RE DOING THERE, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STORY ABOUT A WOMAN WHO IS AN ARTIST AND WAS GIVEN A NEW LIFE IN HER CAREER BECAUSE OF THAT ART PIECE AND IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL AND CONTEXTUAL FOR MILLER POND. I THINK THERE'S WAYS TO MAKE THOSE PROJECTS NICE AND USEFUL FOR FOLKS. THOSE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS FOR

ME. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN WHYTE, PLEASE.

>> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR. I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK AS WELL.

THANK YOU TO STAFF AND REALLY NO OTHER PLACE TO START THAN THANKING COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ. THIS IS REASONABLE WHAT YOU PUT FORTH IN OPTION A AND SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR WORK AND LEADERSHIP ON THAT.

I DO SUPPORT OPTION A WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HOUSING COMPONENT.

[01:55:01]

I'M ALSO -- AGAIN, IF WE HAD ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD TO DO HOUSING AND PUBLIC ART, IT WOULD BE GREAT BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WITH THE 442, I THINK THOSE DOLLARS SHOULD BE PUT INTO THE STREETS DEPARTMENT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION A. WE GOT -- A TAX INCREASE ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE OFF THE TABLE. WE'VE GOT TO STOP PUTTING OUR HANDS IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS AND TAKING THEIR MONEY. AND THE THOUGHT, WELL, IT'S JUST A DOLLAR HERE. HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT? WE'RE JUST TAKING A DOLLAR HERE, $5 THERE UP HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF PEOPLE'S POCKETS AND THAT'S GOT TO STOP. WE NEED TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS AND OPTION A HERE DOES THAT. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE SUGGESTION FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO APPOINT THE TRI-CHAIRS.

I THINK THAT'S A WAY TO DO IT. ON THE TXDOT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, I THINK THAT SHOULD STAY RIGHT WHERE IT IS IN THE BOND. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR MENTIONED THE SIDEWALK MONEY BEING SORT OF FOCUSED ON SIDEWALKS LEADING TO SCHOOLS. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AS WELL. COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ TALKED ABOUT FOCUSING ON LEVERAGE PROJECTS. I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TOO.

ON THE DIVERSION CENTER, I THANK COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO FOR HER LEADERSHIP THERE.

IT'S SOMETHING I'M INTERESTED IN. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MAKE THE DOLLARS WORK BETWEEN US AND THE COU COUNTY BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAINAGE PROJECTS, I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT EVERY DISTRICT GETS A DRAINAGE PROJECT. THAT'S WHERE I AM ON THIS BIG PICTURE AND I THINK I

COVERED IT. THANKS, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

MIKE, ON THE ART PIECE, WHAT ASSUMPTIONS DO WE MAKE ABOUT MAINTENANCE FOR THAT? THAT WAS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE BUDGET. AS WE CONTINUE TO DO ART, HOW ARE WE ACCOUNTING FOR THE MAINTENANCE? WHAT ASSUMPTIONS DO WE MAKE

FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT? >> SHANNON: I'LL ASK SOMEONE FROM OUR ARTS

DEPARTMENT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS KIMBERLY AND I MANAGE THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM.

SO AS WE ARE CONSTRUCTING PUBLIC ART PROJECTS, MAINTENANCE, SUSTAINABILITY ARE A PRIORITY FOR US SO WE GO INTO A DESIGN PROJECT THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN MAKE IT LAST AS LONG AS WE CAN. AND WE HAVE OUR MAINTENANCE STAFF MEMBER REVIEW THOSE PROJECTS AND THEN OUR INTENTION IS THAT WE ONLY DO LIGHT MAINTENANCE. SO CLEANING, DUSTING, THAT SORT OF THING, FOR AT LEAST

15 TO 20 YEARS. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. SO THE 1.5% HERE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THAT MAINTENANCE. THAT'S JUST THE

CONSTRUCTION. >> CORRECT. >> MAYOR JONES: AND THEN

WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MAINTENANCE IN THE BUDGET. >> WALSH: WE DO.

YOU'LL REMEMBER, MAYOR, THERE'S A COMBINATION IN THE HOT FUND --

>> MAYOR JONES: $500,000. AS WE CONTINUE TO DO THE ART PROJECTS THE MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO INCREASE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP MAINTAINING THEM AFTER 15

YEARS. >> WALSH: THAT'S CORRECT. >> MAYOR JONES: HOW WE CAN BE THOUGHTFUL -- WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE IN TERMS OF THOSE KINDS OF PROJECTS.

IF THEY'VE DEVELOPED KIND OF ENDOWMENTS AS TO -- IF THAT'S MAYBE A JOINT PROJECT, THEN THEY HAVE DONE SOME FUNDRAISING TO HELP WITH THE MAINTENANCE SO THAT DOESN'T CONTINUE TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. I WOULD ASK WE LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL SUPPORT ART BUT THE MAINTENANCE COULD VERY QUICKLY BE QUITE EXPENSIVE. SO I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A LOOK AT THAT, ERIK. OKAY. ROUND TWO.

COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO BE SURE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR EACH DISTRICT HAVING A DRAINAGE PROJECT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE ONE IN DISTRICTS 2 AND 6.

I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION BY DR. KAUR IN TERMS OF INCREASING AS WELL TO THE PARKS BUCKET AND TO SUPPORT THE LINEAR GREENWAY ASK.

I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, QUINTANA, THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO ADVOCATE TO ENSURE THAT THE SOUTH SIDE HAS THEIR COMPLETION OF THE LINEAR GREENWAY TRAILS. JUST WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO EMPHASIZE THOSE TWO

POINTS. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES:

[02:00:04]

COUNCILMEMBER KAUR, PLEASE. >> KAUR: THANKS, MAYOR. OKAY.

WE'RE WORKING ON A NEW OPTION. SO LOOKING AT THE STORMWATER FEE. THE STORMWATER FEE IS 84 CENTS PER MONTH EVERY MONTH.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU'RE IN TIER 2 STORMWATER RATE?

>> SHANNON: YES, MA'AM. >> KAUR: THAT'S WHERE THE MEDIAN IS? THE MEDIAN AVERAGE HOME. EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I'M EXPLAINING IT.

>> SHANNON: YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, 84 CENTS IS AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEARS.

IT GROWS TO 84 CENTS IN THOSE FIVE YEARS. >> KAUR: BY THE END OF IT, IT WILL BE 84 CENTS AND IT WILL STAY THERE FOREVER AT 84 CENTS.

>> SHANNON: IT WILL STAY THERE, YES. >> KAUR: THAT'S CORRECT,

RIGHT? >> WALSH: YES. >> THE AVERAGE BILL RIGHT NOW IS $4.94 ON THE AVERAGE RESIDENT. BY THE END OF THIS INCREASE,

IT WILL HAVE GONE UP BY 84 CENTS PER MONTH. >> KAUR: AND IT WILL STAY

THERE? >> YES. >> KAUR: FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE SAYING NO TO A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE BUT WILLING TO INCREASE A FEE EVERY MONTH IN PERPETUITY, YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

LET'S ELIMINATE THE DRAINAGE STORMWATER FEE, KEEP THE BOND AT 750 AND INCORPORATE THAT 175 INTO THE 750 MILLION. THEN YOU'RE AT 275 FOR STREETS, BRIDGES, AND SIDEWALKS. 175 FOR DRAINAGE.

150 FOR HOUSING AND 150 FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES. YOU ARE INHERENTLY DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. YOU'RE TELLING THE RESIDENTS WE'RE IN BOND SITUATION, IT'S A POTENTIAL. WE ARE TAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT POTENTIALLY FOR THREE YEARS. IN THIS BOND SITUATION, IF WE DO $750 MILLION TOTAL, THE DOLLAR RATE INCREASE WOULD ONLY BE FOR THREE YEARS.

RIGHT, BEN? THAT'S THE SLIDE WE SHOWED. IF IT GOES BY THE MEASURE,

IT'S FOR THREE YEARS. >> COULD BE MORE. >> KAUR: IT COULD BE MORE BUT BASICALLY OUR MODELING IS SHOWING US A DOLLAR A MONTH FOR THREE YEARS VERSUS 84 CENTS BY THE END OF YEAR FIVE IN PERPETUITY. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE IN OUR BOND PACKAGE. WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE IN HOUSING. AND MORE IN PARKS AND FACILITIES AND STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. AND WE'RE STILL MOVING WHERE WE NEED TO FORWARD.

THAT IS MY -- OH, ALSO I NEEDED TO COMMENT ON I DO SUPPORT COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO'S IDEA ABOUT THE TRI-CHAIR NOTION AND WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO MOVE FORWARD. OH, AND FOR BOND COMMITTEES -- SORRY.

I DO THINK FOR EVERY PROPOSITION THERE IS, THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST SOME COMMITTEE. I AGREE WITH THE HOUSING. I AGREE WITH THE STORMWATER BUT IF IT'S A PROPOSITION, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD COMBINE STREETS, PARKS, AND FACILITIES IF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SEPARATE PROPOSITIONS.

BUT IF PARKS AND FACILITIES IS GOING TO BE ONE, I SUPPORT HAVING ONE COMMITTEE FOR THAT. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANKS, MAYOR.

>> WALSH: MAYOR, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. AND MAYBE IT WAS JUST THE WAY YOU SAID IT. BUT IF WE, BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS, THE COUNCIL INCREASES THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE, THAT'S NOT JUST FOR THREE YEARS, THAT'S GOING FORWARD. NOW, IF VALUES SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD ARE HIGH, THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO REDUCE IT BUT IT'S NOT JUST ONE AND DONE THREE YEARS.

>> KAUR: BUT TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT, WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE CHART WAS IT WAS THREE YEARS, LIKE $35 FOR THOSE THREE YEARS TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT.

>> WALSH: WE'RE JUST SHOWING YOU THE FIRST FIVE YEARS.

>> KAUR: THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT FOURTH YEAR. >> WALSH: THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL INCREMENT. GO AHEAD, BEN. MAYBE I'M EXPLAINING IT

WRONG. >> GORZELL: SO IT'S SHOWING YOU THAT IN YEAR FOUR THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL TAX RATE INCREASE.

THERE'S NOT ANOTHER INCREMENT. >> MAYOR JONES: WHAT SLIDE

IS THAT, BEN? >> I GOTCHA. >> GORZELL: THIS IS THE $750 MILLION SCENARIO. THE LOW SIDE SHOWS THE FINANCIAL FORECAST.

YOU SEE THE TAX RATE GOING UP FROM 21.15 CENTS, BY HALF A CENT IN '29.

HALF A CENT IN '30. HALF A CENT IN '31. AND IT'S HOLDING AT .2265 CENTS. THERE'S NO INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN YEAR FOUR BUT

[02:05:06]

SO YOU THEN HAVE A CHOICE OF ARE YOU BUILDING IN FUTURE BOND PROGRAMS? DO YOU WANT TO LOWER THAT? FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, AS WE TALKED ABOUT FLEXING THAT DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE, YOU CAN FLEX IT UP AND DOWN BASED ON WHAT VALUES ARE

DOING AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH YOUR BOND PROGRAMS. >> KAUR: THANK YOU.

IN EFFECT, IT WOULD BE FOREVER. THANK YOU.

I STILL PROPOSE IT AS AN OPTION. >> MAYOR JONES:

COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN, PLEASE. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.

WHAT I'M GOING TO NEED BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING IS WHAT IF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE BOND FAILS? RUN THAT SCENARIO FOR ME. AND THEN I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO ON GETTING OUR TRI-CHAIRS. AND I THINK IF WE DO A SUBCOMMITTEE WE CAN GET THEM --S AND SO YES. I'M FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSITIONS, I'M CONFUSED ON WHAT I'M HEARING ABOUT THE COMMITTEES. I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE REPRESENTATION.

SO I WOULD MUCH RATHER GO BACK TO WE JUST HAVE FIVE COMMITTEES AND IF Y'ALL WANT TO DO PARKS -- IT CAN BE THE SAME PEOPLE FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES BUT Y'ALL NEED TO DESIGNATE WHEN Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT PARKS AND WHEN Y'ALL ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT FACILITIES OUT OF THAT ONE COMMITTEE. THOSE ARE THE THINGS I WANTED TO CLEAR UP. I'M STILL NOT SURE. THE HOUSING COMMISSION, WHICH ONLY SITS WITH TEN, IS NOT SUFFICIENT REPRESENTATION FOR THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND I NEED TO SEE THE WATER ADVISORY BOARD LIST AND I WOULD NEED TO SEE THE ATTENDANCE RATE FOR THE MEMBERS OF BOTH OF THOSE

BOARDS. THANK YOU. >> WALSH: MAYOR, I'LL ADDRESS THE LAST ISSUE AND BEN WILL ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION.

I THINK SUFFICIENTLY WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE FOUR COMMITTEES WITH A COMBINATION OF PARKS AND FACILITIES.

AND RECOGNIZING THE POINT -- YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT THE ONLY ONE, COUNCILWOMAN -- THERE'S PROBABLY A HYBRID BETWEEN STORMWATER, THE HOUSING COMMISSION, AND RESIDENTIAL.

I THINK WE CAN WORK THROUGH THAT AS WE COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND TALK TO YOU IN THE INTERIM TO MAKE SURE THAT INDIVIDUALLY YOU ALL HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU NEED AND WHAT YOU WANT ON THE COMMITTEE. AND THEN BEN WILL ANSWER THE

FIRST QUESTION. >> GORZELL: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BOND PROGRAM DOESN'T PASS? I'LL TELL YOU GENERALLY AT THAT POINT WE HAVE $280 MILLION STILL TO ISSUE. A LITTLE MORE THAN $280 MILLION LEFT TO ISSUE FROM THE 2022 BOND PROGRAM. WE WOULD ISSUE THAT NEXT YEAR, PROBABLY THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THAT PROBABLY HOLDS THE TAX RATE AT THE 21 CENTS.

THE REST WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL. IF IT FAILED, THEN YOU WENT BACK OUT AND IT PASSED, THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT. IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO A BOND PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING, THAT TAX RATE WILL EVENTUALLY START TO FALL BECAUSE OUR DEBT IS FALLING OFF AS WE'RE PAYING THAT OFF. AND THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, TRUTH IN TAXATION, WE SET THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE.

WE CAN ONLY SET THAT RATE IF WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE TO COVER THAT.

WE CAN'T -- THERE CAN'T BE ANY EXTRA ROOM IN THERE. IT'S SET BASED ON THAT.

>> MAYOR JONES: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ROUND TWO?

COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A FULL ROUND TWO. AS IT RELATES TO THE TRI-CHAIRS, BECAUSE I'M HEARING SOMETHING FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS BUT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT NEXT WEEK YOU WOULD PUT OUT THE MEMO ANNOUNCING --

>> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S CORRECT. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: IF WE DO A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DELAYING THAT. I WANT TO GET AN IDEA FROM MY COLLEAGUES, ARE YOU TRYING TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS OR TRYING TO GET

COUNCIL TO HAVE A GREATER ROLE IN IT? >> MAYOR JONES: I'M NOT GOING TO HIDE THE BALL. THERE'S TWO FOLKS THAT YOU ALL KNOW AND ARE WELL RESPECTED IN THIS COMMUNITY. JUST WAITING ON THE FINAL PERSON TO DO KIND OF THEIR OWN INTERNAL CHECKS LEGALLY, TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE OKAY. THEN WE WOULD BE READY TO DO THAT. THIS TIMELINE IS WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE PREVIOUS BOND SO WE'RE NOT BEHIND IN ANY FORM OF FASHION. AGAIN, THE NAMES WON'T BE A SURPRISE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR BACKGROUNDS. WOULDN'T BE IN ANY WAY

SURPRISING. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ENTIRELY NECESSARY TO MUDDY THE PROCESS FURTHER. I GUESS WE HAVE A SENSE NOW OF WHAT THE COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO BE. WE NEED TO JUST WORK ON APPOINTING OUR OWN PEOPLE AND NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO HIJACK THE MAYORAL

[02:10:03]

APPOINTMENTS. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE FLEXIBILITY IN ANSWERING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS. I REMAIN WHERE I'VE BEEN, WHICH IS I THINK WE NEED TO BE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE IN LIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND IN LIGHT OF THE UNCERTAINTY AND IN LIGHT OF THE OPTION THAT YOU ALL HAVE LAID OUT. OH, ON THE SECOND ROUND -- OKAY.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. THAT WAS YOURS? OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO.

ANYONE ELSE ON THE SECOND ROUND? GO AHEAD.

>> GAVITO: REALLY QUICK. DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE DIVERSION CENTER AND WHAT WE NEED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE AN OVERALL CITYWIDE BENEFIT. I DO AGREE WITH DRAINAGE PROJECTS BEING IN EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT. I BELIEVE IT WAS 2 AND 6 THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY.

AND THEN ALSO TOO ON THE BOND COMMITTEES, I SUPPORT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.

WE ALREADY HAVE MOST OF OUR SLOTS FILLED SO I WOULD HATE TO DISRUPT THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME FOLKS VERY EAGER TO GIVE INPUT THAT WAY. THOSE ARE ALL.

THANKS. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK THAT I RECEIVED ON THE FRAMEWORK THAT I PUT FORWARD.

AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FRAMEWORK THAT COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ PUT FORWARD AS WE ARE ALL TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING, WHICH IS FIGURE OUT WHAT IS A PACKAGE THAT, ONE, IS GOING TO MEET THE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY AGAIN IN DIFFERENT WAYS, GIVEN OUR DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF HOW WE CAN BEST MOVE IT FORWARD IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE.

AS WELL AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE NEED TO HAVE IT PASSED AND MAKE SURE IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN GET BEHIND AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH, NOT ONLY IN WHAT THEIR COMMUNITY IS RECEIVING BUT ALSO IN WHAT THEY POTENTIALLY MAY HAVE TO PAY IF THE ECONOMY DOES NOT IMPROVE. SO WITH THAT, I'M STILL AT $442 MILLION. I DO SUPPORT THE $175 MILLION FROM THE STORM FEE. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE NEEDS AS WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY REAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINAGE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO --T KIND OF A JOINT STATEMENT AT THIS POINT -- I KNOW WE'RE GETTING MANY OF THE SAME CARDS AND LETTERS ABOUT REQUESTS FOR SUPPORT FROM SOME OF THESE OUTSIDE AGENCIES TO INCLUDE CITY-OWNED FACILITIES THAT CHARGE A FEE.

I THINK WE SHOULD JUST SAY MANAGE PEOPLE'S TIME AND SAVE THEM AN E-MAIL THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS BOND. THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS PROVIDED BY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES. IRONICALLY, WE COULD GET TO 650 IF WE JUST INCLUDED THAT $35 MILLION IN THE BOND ITSELF VERSUS -- RATHER IF WE USED THAT $35 MILLION TO BE COVERED OUT OF THE PFZ. AS I SHARE THIS SENTIMENT WITH COUNCILMAN WHYTE, WE NEED TO BE SURE WE'RE PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RESOURCES AND THE WAY TO DO THAT IS USE MONEY THE STATE HAS AFFORDED US IN WAYS WHICH CAN ONLY BE AFFORDED, WHICH IS SOME OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE DOWNTOWN.

AND I HOPEFULLY WILL GET AN ANSWER FROM TXDOT HERE SHORTLY ABOUT THEIR COMMITMENT TO THAT 80%. SUPPORT THE UTILIZING THE CURRENT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE.

I THINK THE MORE PARTICIPATION IN THAT THE BETTER, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FEWER RESOURCES. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I SUPPORT 442 BECAUSE I COMMIT TO LOOKING AT ANOTHER BOND IN FY '28.

IF THE CONDITIONS IMPROVE THEN WE WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

THAT'S ULTIMATELY HOW WE MAY GET TO 442. IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SPEND THAT MONEY AS QUICKLY AS WE LIKE, GETTING WHAT WE CAN NOW, BEING ABLE TO TELL FOLKS WE'RE NOT GOING TO RAISE THEIR PROPERTY TAX, WE'LL REVISIT IT AND 442 IS A SMART APPROACH THAT FOLKS CAN GET BEHIND . OKAY.

I WANT TO REITERATE IN TERMS OF THE HOUSING BOND. I DON'T SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATING RESOURCES FOR HOME OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE SO MANY FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE REALLY STRUGGLING AT THE 30%, 50% AMI.

AS MANY RESOURCES AS WE CAN ALLOCATE TO THAT PRODUCTION, I WOULD SUPPORT.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

[02:15:02]

ERIK, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED? >> WALSH: I THINK BUT I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO WE'RE COMING BACK TO YOU ON 10-29 FOR A BOND UPDATE. AND BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON $442 MILLION. WE ARE GOING TO RELOOK AT THE STORMWATER AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY BASED ON MAKING SURE THAT EVERY DISTRICT HAS A DRAINAGE PROJECT. AND I THINK THAT FITS HAND IN GLOVE WITH WHAT COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ TALKED ABOUT. SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT.

WE WILL WORK AND FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICES ON COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND TIMELINE IN ADVANCE OF 10-29. WE WILL -- I'D LIKE TO -- WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO HAVE --F THE PROCESS ON THE TRI-CHAIR SELECTION. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WE COULD -- THAT COULD BE AN ORDINANCE.

THAT COULD BE A CHANGE. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THERE IS SOME DESIRE TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS. AND SO I WELCOME SOME FEEDBACK ON IS THAT AN ORDINANCE PROCESS? BECAUSE WE COULD BRING THAT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING HAPPENS TO BE THE NEXT TIME WE TALK ABOUT THE BOND. HOW DO WE INTEGRATE THAT POTENTIALLY WITH WHAT YOU'VE DONE, MAYOR. I THINK WE CAN FOLLOW UP AFTER THIS CONVERSATION TO SEE THAT. BUT I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE THAT I'M HEARING THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO

>> WALSH: SO LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK IN THAT AREA.

>> MAYOR JONES: LOOK, I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE TRICHAIRS ARE QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS WITH A BACKGROUND THAT WOULD BE COMMENSURATE TO THE TASK BEFORE US. AND SIMILARLY IN LINE WITH HOW PREVIOUS MAYORS HAVE DONE THIS, THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY'RE SELECTED TO ONE, NOT ONLY OVERSEE THE PROJECT, BUT THEN, OF COURSE, ACCOMPLISH THE KEY T TASKS OF FUNDRAISING AND COMMUNICATING TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE PROJECT. ENGAGE WITH EACH OF THE OFFICES INDIVIDUALLY AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY HEAR FROM YOU DIRECTLY. I DO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR ANOTHER STEP THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN HOW PREVIOUS MAYORS HAVE DONE IT, IN LIGHT OF CERTAINLY MY DEMONSTRATION OF THE COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES THAT ARE ABOUT EQUITY AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE BEING SMART AND JUDICIOUS AND REALLY PRIORITIZING THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE REFLECTIVE IN THE NAMES THAT YOU SEE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, COUNCILMAN

WHYTE? GO AHEAD. >> WHYTE: I'LL DEFER TO

COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO, FIRST. >> CASTILLO: YES, IN TERMS OF CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE THROUGH ORDINANCE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS, ENSURING THAT IT'S CODIFIED THAT COUNCIL DOES HAVE INPUT ON THE TRICHAIR SELECTION PROCESS. I AM OPEN TO HEARING FROM THOSE WHO EXPRESS SUPPORT TO THE CONCEPT TO SHARE IF THEY WOULD LIKE SPECIFIC TRICHAIR -- SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, RATHER, TO HELP VET THOSE

POTENTIAL TRICHAIRS FOR COUNCIL ACTION. >> MAYOR JONES: IF I'M -- JUST FOR THE PUBLIC THAT'S WATCHING, BECAUSE FOR SOME OF THEM, THIS CONVERSATION MAY SEEM LIKE DEJA VU WHERE IT WAS PUT FORWARD AND THEN VOTED DOWN, SO IS THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE DIFFERENT THAN THAT? THAN THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN.

>> CASTILLO: ERIK, DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION.

>> MAYOR JONES: I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT

THIS IS DIFFERENT. >> VIAGRAN: POINT OF ORDER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN AGENDIZED TO DISCUSS, SHOULD WE PAUSE AND -- THIS IS NOT AGENDIZED.

>> THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING TODAY IS TO GET A CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THE CITY MANAGER IS RUNNING DOWN ON HIS LIST TODAY.

>> WALSH: I'M CLEAR IN WHAT YOU SAID, COUNCILWOMAN.

>> CASTILLO: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I NEED. THANK YOU.

>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: CAN I POSE A PROCESS-RELATED QUESTION, IN THAT TYPICALLY SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD COME ABOUT VIA CCR, ANY TYPE OF ORDINANCE LIKE THAT. IF THE MAYOR MAKES AN APPOINTMENT NEXT WEEK BEFORE WE HAVE TIME TO DO THIS PROCESS, THEN WE REVOKE THOSE POSITIONS? LIKE WHAT ARE WE DOING THEN IF NOT DELAYING THE BOND PROCESS? IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ORDINANCE, I WOULD SAY WE DON'T DO IT IN THE MIDDLE OF BOND DISCUSSIONS, I WOULD SAY WE DO IT FOR

[02:20:01]

FOR THE FUTURE. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. OKAY.

APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I -- YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED, ERIK.

WE'LL FOLLOW UP. I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO TO THE NEXT TOPIC.

>> WALSH: OKAY. I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR, BUT I THINK I HAVE AN IDEA OF

WHAT I NEED TO DO. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. >> WALSH: THANK YOU.

COUNCILWOMAN ALAMODOME . >> GAVITO: I THINK COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO MENTIONED PCDC, TRANSPORTATION AND SOMEONE ELSE. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. MAIRNDLE GO AHEAD,

COUNCILMAN WHYTE? >> WHYTE: YEAH, YEAH, I AGREE.

AND I THINK THAT -- WHAT DID YOU SAY, THE 29TH. >> WALSH: TWENTY-NINTH,

YES, SIR. >> WHYTE: I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DONE BY THE 29TH, AND I THINK THERE'S AMPLE OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF NEXT WEEK TO PICK THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND LET THEM CONSIDER SOME OPTIONS, AND THE MAYOR OBVIOUSLY CAN BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS, AND THEN WE GET

IT DONE BY THE 29TH. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. OKAY.

WHAT I -- WHAT I PROPOSE IS, AGAIN -- BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE THREE NAMES BY EARLY NEXT WEEK, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, THAT THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENGAGED AND ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AND ARE PROFESSIONALS AND LEADERS IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE NOT KIND OF BLINDSIDED BY A NEW APPROACH AS OF TODAY, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR WHAT IT'S BASED ON. SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS ALLOWING -- IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON AN ORDINANCE, PUT IT ON AN ORDINANCE.

BUT WE CAN DO THAT -- IT'S GOING TO BE -- I WILL PUT FORWARD THE NAMES THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED, AGAIN, THAT HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS, HAVE THE LEADERSHIP NECESSARY TO DO THIS. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT -- YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS UP HERE ABOUT UNITY AND GOING TOGETHER FORWARD AND WHATNOT, AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTEREST OF DOING THAT, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO KIND OF SET ASIDE SOME OF THE PETTINESS HERE, MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE TYPE OF LEADERS THAT ARE GOING TO SEE THIS BOND FORWARD. SO IN THE SPIRIT OF MOVING FORWARD, LET'S DO THAT, HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE NAMES NEXT WEEK, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN ORDINANCE, AND IF FOLKS SUPPORT THOSE FOLKS, THEN THEY CAN SUPPORT THAT ORDINANCE AND IF THEY WANT TO VOTE IT DOWN, THEN THEY CAN VOTE IT DOWN. DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU

NEED, ERIK? >> WALSH: YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

NEXT TOPIC. THTHANK YOU, AMIN. GO AHEAD.

>> TOHMAZ: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

MY NAME IS AMIN TOHMAZ, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS FOR DATA CENTERS. AS YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED A CONSIDERATION REQUEST LAST YEAR IN OCTOBER AND THERE WAS TWO MAIN REQUESTS, ONE IS TO GO TO B SESSION FOR BRIEFINGS FROM SAWS, SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEMS, AND CPS ENERGY FOR UTILITY POLESIS. ALSO FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO CONDUCT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS TO IDENTIFY WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE NEEDED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DATA CENTERS.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED FOUR MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS FROM MAY TO SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AND WE TALKED ABOUT MEASURE OF ITEMS, THE FIRST ONE WAS ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AGREED ON THE EXISTING CODE DOES NOT REGULATE DATA CENTERS, AND WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME REQUIREMENTS. THE DATA CENTER INDUSTRY, THEY WANT SOME CERTAINTY AND PREDICTABILITY SO THEY CAN PLAN FOR THEIR PROJECTS AHEAD OF TIME. IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THEM TO PLAN THOSE PROJECTS THAT THEY WANT SOME CERTAINTY. THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT -- AND CONCERNS ABOUT WATER USAGE AND POWER USAGE AS WELL. WE TALKED ABOUT SPECIFIC AND REASONABLE DISTANCE FROM THOSE PROPERTIES NEXT TO ANY HOUSING OR SCHOOLS AND FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, MAINLY THE NOISE ISSUE. WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE DATA CENTERS ARE ACTUALLY LIMITED TO AN INTENSE ZONING DISTRICTS TO MAKE SURE WE MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION SHOULD

[02:25:04]

COUNCIL -- CITY COUNCIL HAD A SPECIAL SESSION IN AUGUST ON AUGUST 25TH, AND THAT WAS DUE TO A SUBMISSION OF A THREE-SIGNATURE MEMO THAT WAS REQUIRING TO ADOPT A BUILDING PERMIT MORATORIUM ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PURSUE THE MORATORIUM AT THAT TIME, AND THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TO RESUME GOING FORWARD WITH THE UPDATES TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT THE MAIN THING THAT WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL WAS THE REQUEST TO HAVE SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION ON EVERY SINGLE CASE TO COME BEFORE YOU, AND THAT WAY YOU GUYS CAN MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS. SO WITH THAT SAID, WE CAME UP WITH TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS. OPTION 1 IS MAINLY CAME OUT OF THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND OPTION 2 CAME OUT OF THE SPECIAL SESSION THAT WE HAD IN AUGUST. SO OPTION 1 IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING BASED ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE STAKEHOLDERS IS TO ALLOW DATA CENTERS BY RIGHT IN C3, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, THOSE ARE THE HEAVIER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH FOUR DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST ONE IS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 500-FOOT FROM ANY BUILDING OR POWER GENERATOR BUILDING FOR THE DATA CENTER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE SECOND REQUIREMENT IS TO HAVE A MINIMUM TYPE D LANDSCAPED BUFFER YARD. THAT MEANS MINIMUM 25-FOOT DEEP BUFFER YARD, AND THAT HAS TREES AND SHRUBS, BASICALLY. THE THIRD REQUIREMENT IS MINIMUM 50-FOOT SETBACK FOR ALL BUILDINGS AND ANY POWER GENERATOR SYSTEM TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE LAST ONE IS KNOW NO DATA CENTERS ARE ALLOWED IN THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT. IF THE DATA CENTER DOES NOT MEET ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY WOULD COME BEFORE COUNCIL TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION. SO THAT'S OPTION 1. OPTION 2 IS REALLY FOR ANY DATA CENTER TO BE ALLOWED IN C-3 AND INDUSTRIAL, THE SAME ZONES, DISTRICTS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABILITY, BUT THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL EVERY SINGLE TIME. AND OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNCIL CAN IMPOSE ANY CHANGES ON IT BASED ON THE DISTANCE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THEY CAN COME UP WITH CERTAIN DISTANCES FOR NOISE RAMIFICATION, THEY CAN ASK FOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN ASK FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, INGRESS/EGRESS LIMITATIONS, NOISE BARRIERS, PARKING STANDARDS. AGAIN, NO MATTER WHAT, THEY CANNOT BE IN THE EDWARD RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT EITHER WAY.

SO THIS OPTION WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBLE FOR EACH LOCATION T, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT WILL HAVE LESS PREDICTABILITY AND CERTAINTY FOR THE DEVELOPERS OR DATA CENTER OPERATORS TO DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD.

SO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL PRESENT BOTH OPTIONS TO THE ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 20TH AND COME BACK TO COUNCIL A SESSION ON THE 29TH.

THAT IS MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> MAYOR JONES: GREAT, THANK YOU, AMIN. IN THINKING ABOUT THE TWO OPTIONS PRESENTED, I PUT SOMETHING ON YOUR -- COLLEAGUES, I PUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF YOU. ONE, FOR THOSE THAT WERE SIMILAR LIQUEUR ROUSE ABOUT WHO THE STAKEHOLDERS WERE, THAT'S THE LIST THERE. FOR THOSE -- I DIDN'T KNOW STREAM, STREAM IS ALSO ANOTHER DATA CENTER. BUT JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR FOR THE STAKEHOLDER CONVERSATIONS, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE STAFF FOR CONVENING THOSE FOLKS AND ENSURING THEY WERE HEARD.

IN LIELGT OF THE TWO PRESENTATIONS AND IN LIGHT OF THE FEEDBACK WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, LET ME ALSO THANKS COUNCILMAN GALVAN FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS TOPIC AND CONSTANT ENGAGEMENT, I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE CONSIDER THAT PROVIDES SOME OF THE PREDICTABILITY THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR AS WELL AS THE REALLY STRONG OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT AS WELL AS FOR COUNCIL DISCRETION.

SO IF YOU'D PLEASE GO TO THE OPTION -- THE SLIDE. OKAY.

LOOK, I THINK IN OUR COMMUNITY WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DATA CENTERS. WE HOST NSA WEST, WE HOST THE HEADQUARTERS FOR AIR FORCE CYBER COMMAND, AND SO WE KNOW THESE ARE IMPORTANT FOR OUR ECONOMIC AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. I THINK WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT THE EXPERIENCES IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AS WELL AS IN COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THAT HAVEN'T HAD SUFFICIENT GUARDRAILS

[02:30:05]

AND SO I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GOVERNOR'S KIND OF RECENT PIVOT ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL AS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, I WANTED TO OFFER ANOTHER APPROACH FOR FOLKS' CONSIDERATION.

SO THIS BALANCES, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KIND OF -- OR AT LEAST TRANSPARENCY THAT WE WOULD SEEK FROM THE DATA CENTERS IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THEY WOULD PROVIDE INITIALLY. SECONDLY, WOULD PROVIDE FOR KIND OF A PUBLIC REVIEW OF ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, AND THEN, THREE, WOULD COME TO COUNCIL FOR THE S CODE DESIGNATION THAT, AGAIN, ORIGINALLY WAS PUT FORWARD BY COUNCILMAN GALVAN.

SO JUST TO RUN THROUGH SOME OF THESE QUICKLY, AS CURRENTLY -- SO THE THREE THINGS THAT ARE THE SAME FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO OPTIONS, PROHIBITED OVER THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE, CURRENTLY PROPOSED NOISE LIMIT RESTRICTION, SO DURING THE DAY, 63. NORMALLY IN COMMUNITIES YOU ALSO HAVE A MINUS 7 IN THE EVENINGS. OUR CODE IS NOT EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT, SO THIS WOULD MAKE IT EXPLICIT. AND THEN CURRENTLY -- AND THEN IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOSAL REGARDING THAT TYPE OF LANDSCAPING WHICH WOULD BE TYPE D.

I THINK WE OVERWHELMINGLY HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY A DESIRE TO HAVE MUCH MORE LEAD TIME IN TERMS OF WHEN THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY COME INTO THE COMMUNITY, SO AS PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR AN S CODE, ONE OF THE THINGS I'D RECOMMEND IS A 45 HIGH DAY PREFILING NOTICE.

THE APPLICATION WOULD ALSO COME WITH, YOU KNOW, A CLEAR ARTICULATION FOR PLANS OF AT LEAST TWO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS IN THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS POST FILING, WITH AT LEAST A SEVEN-BUSINESS DAY LEAD TIME SO THOSE COMMUNITIES CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT. I THINK WE DO NEED TO INCREASE THE SETBACK TO 1,000 FEET. THIS IS IN LINE FOR WHAT WE HAVE FOR DETENTION FACILITIES. IF THERE'S ANYTHING I KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEAR A DATA CENTER OR AN ICE FACILITY, SO KEEPING IT FROM 1,000 FROM THE PERIMETER, I THINK MAKES SENSE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GREENSPACE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND FRANKLY, THE DESIRE TO HAVE MORE AND IN LIGHT OF OUR AIR QUALITY NEEDS, I THINK SOME REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE WILLING TO REPLACE TWICE AS MUCH GREENSPACE THAT WAS ELIMINATED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN CITY LIMITS. AIR QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH TCEQ REQUIREMENTS.

ANOTHER THING THAT I'VE HEARD PRETTY FREQUENTLY FROM OTHER MAYORS IS THE ROLE OF THE BACKUP GENERATORS AND REQUIRING THAT THOSE BE ENCLOSED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UNDERSTANDING THERE ARE SOME CODE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU DO THAT. BUT WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT NOISE AND THE AIR POLLUTION AS IT RELATES TO THOSE THINGS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THOSE SURROUNDING -- WHETHER THEY WILL CONSENT TO PUBLIC DISSLOW THUR OF ENERGY AND WATER USAGE.

OF COURSE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT, WE CAN ASK, THOUGH, IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SHARE THAT. AND THEY CAN ARTICULATE THAT IN THEIR S CODE APPLICATION. AND THEN LASTLY, WE CAN INQUIRE AS WELL AS TO THEIR ARTICULATION OF THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.

AGAIN, NONE OF THE -- NONE OF THE -- THE APPROVAL, RATHER, FOR THE S CODE DESIGNATION WOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON ANY OF THESE THINGS, BUT RATHER, WE'RE SAYING IN OUR COMMUNITY, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THIS, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE -- THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO AT LEAST ASK YOU TO GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THEM. SECONDLY, AS PART OF THAT, THEN THE PUBLIC CAN REVIEW THE APPLICATION FOR AT LEAST 10 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE COUNCIL TAKES ACTION, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE LAST STEP IS THE COUNCIL TAKES ACTION. I THINK THIS IS AN APPROACH THAT IS KIND OF A NICE HYBRID BETWEEN THE TWO THAT GIVES US TRANSPARENCY IN TERMS OF WHAT THE DATA CENTERS WILL AND WILL NOT SIGN UP FOR, HITS ON ALL THE POINTS THAT ARE MOST CONCERNING IN THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF AIR QUALITY, NOTICE, ET CETERA, AND THEN AFFORDS THEM SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE PUBLIC RATHER TO REVIEW THOSE THINGS BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION. I APPRECIATE LEGAL'S REVIEW OF THIS AND EXPLANATION AND CLARIFICATION THAT ALL THESE THINGS ARE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE AS WE LOOK TO MAKE SURE WE ARE SUPPORTING, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES THAT DATA CENTERS FACILITATE, BUT ALSO BEST SUPPORTING THE ECONOMIC NEEDS AND THE CONSIDERATIONS OF OUR -- OF OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHERE THESE ARE VERY LIKELY TO GO, THE PARTS OF TOWN WHERE THESE ARE VERY LIKELY TO BE SET UP. SO I WELCOME FOLKS' FEEDBACK ON THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD HERE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN GALVAN,

[02:35:05]

PLEASE? >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, AMIN, FOR THE PRESENTATION AND FOR ALL THE WORK DONE WITH DSD STAFF AND THE TASK FORCE THAT CAME TOGETHER OVER THUS PAST SUMMER, EVERYONE WORKING THROUGH THESE CONVERSATIONS. ALSO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, SAWS AND CPS STAFF AND THEIR TEAM WHO HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLE WORK ON THIS IN ASTI ASSISTING MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE INFORMATION WE NEED FOR DATA CENTERS. THANK YOU FOR STAYING VERY LATE WITH ME LAST NIGHT AT THE TOWN HALL. I WANT TO, OF COURSE, JUST THINK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE, RIGHT? OF COURSE, DATA CENTERS HAVE BEEN HERE IN SAN ANTONIO OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS, FOLLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NSA BUILDING IN DISTRICT SIX, AND THEY'VE ALL -- PRIMARILY HAVE LOCATED THEMSELVES IN DISTRICT SIX, IN THE WESTOVER HILLS AREA AND THE FAR WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO.

WITH OVER 28 HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, 19 OF THEM ARE LOCATED IN MY DISTRICT, IN NEIGHBORHOODS, PRIMARILY.

LIVING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. FEELING THE IMPACTS OF THEM, AND IT'S BEEN INCUMBENT UPON MYSELF AS I WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE TO MAKE SURE I'M REPRESENTING MY CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE BEEN FEELING THE DIRECT IMPACTS OF DATA CENTERS FOR OVER 15 YEARS AS WELL AS SEEING THE RAPID GROWTH OF THEM, AS WE SEE THE AI INDUSTRY BECOMING ONE OF THE MOST -- THE WEALTHIEST INDUSTRIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

WE'RE SEEING EXPANSION NOT ONLY IN OUR CITY BUT FURTHER IN THE COUNTY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO SEE THEM AS CPS PRESENTED TO US BACK IN MARCH THROUGHOUT NOT ONLY DISTRICT SIX BUT EVEN FURTHER INTO OTHER DISTRICTS HERE IN OUR CITY. WHETHER IT'S DISTRICT 7, 8, 3, 4, 2, ALL ACROSS THE CITY SEEING NEW DATA CENTERS COME THROUGH.

I THINK THE LANDSCAPE HAS SHIFTED AT THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL AS THESE ARE IMPACTING RURAL AREAS AND COUNTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ZONING ABILITIES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE EXPERIENCING AS IT RELATES TO DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR AREAS. SO THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO HAVE A SAY IN ANY NEW DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS HERE IN OUR CITY. MY COMMITMENT AND MY GOAL HAS ALWAYS LISTEN TO ENSURE THAT AS DATA CENTERS ARE PROPOSED HERE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE AN ABILITY TO HEAR FROM THEM DIRECTLY, ASK QUESTIONS DIRECTLY, GET FEEDBACK, GIVEN PUT, HEAR ALL THE DIFFERENT DETAILS THEY NEED TO HEAR RELATED TO THE DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, HAVING A SITE PLAN CLEAR AND CONCISE, NOT ONLY WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED IN THAT MOMENT BUT IN THE LIFESPAN OF THAT FACILITY.

IT'S CRITICAL, TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS RESIDENTS IT WON'T BE A ONE-STORY BUILDING FOREVER, IT MAY BE MULTIPLE STORIES, IT COULD IMPACT THE TREES IN THE AREA, THE NOISE IN THE AREA, COULD IMPACT ENERGY AND WATER USE IN THE AREA, ALL THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS NEARBY.

AND BEYOND THAT, TO ENSURE THERE'S EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY ON THIS, IN MY BELIEF IT IS ALIGNING MYSELF THE OPTION 2 AND POTENTIALLY OPTION 3 AS WELL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THESE SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATIONS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ALL NEW DATA CENTERS TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A VOTE. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS ENOUGH FOR RESIDENTS JUST TO KNOW ABOUT THE PROJECT, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEIR PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO ALSO MAKE SURE WHERE THEY STAND ON THEIR PROJECT AND TO MOVE IT FORWARD OR NOT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CONVERSATIONS LOOK LIKE.

WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THE BEST CONVERSATIONS COME THROUGH WHEN THOSE THINGS ARE TAKING PLACE, WHEN DEVELOPERS ARE ABLE TO TALK WITH OUR COMMUNITIES AND THAT'S THE SAME FOR DATA CENTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

MICROSOFT HAS CONTINUED TO STAY IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES WHO GO TO THEIR MEETINGS EVERY SINGLE TIME, ANSWER QUESTIONS, ADDRESS THE LIGHTING CONCERNS, ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALE ISSUES AND CONTINUE TO TAKE FEEDBACK FOR WHAT COULD BE DONE BETTER FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. THOSE ARE GOOD PARTNERSHIPS WE NEED TO HAVE AND IF THEY'RE NOT BEING MET, THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUSH BACK. THAT DOES NOT EXIST NOW. OPTION 1 FOR ME IS A COMPLETE NO-GO. I APPRECIATE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON IT, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THINK BY RIGHT FOR DATA CENTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN OUR CITY. WE HAVE SEEN THE IMPACTS ACROSS THE STATE, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND WE FEEL IT HERE. MY CONSTITUENTS FEEL IT RIGHT HERE, AND I KNOW MORE OF THEM WILL THROUGHOUT OUR ENTIRE CITY. AND SO I THINK THIS IS INCUMBENT NOT TO JUST SUPPORT DISTRICT SIX RESIDENTS BUT RESIDENTS ACROSS OUR CITY TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE VOICE IN THIS PROCESS.

JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN PUSHING ON THIS, AND TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE SUPPORTED MOVING THIS ITEM THROUGH SINCE LITERALLY LAST YEAR, GONE THROUGH THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, GONE THROUGH PCDC, GONE THROUGH A TASK FORCE CONVERSATION, GONE THROUGH A SPECIAL SESSION TO GET TO THE EXACT GUIDANCE THAT OUR CITY STAFF NEEDS AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL AS WELL WHICH I

[02:40:04]

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN,

PLEASE? >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD. COUNCILMAN WHYTE, MYSELF AND COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS WANTED TO HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION. MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO STATE'S -- THE STATE'S INPUT ON IT. SO IF WE GO TOO FAR, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT WE HAVE TO WALK BACK, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE CONFUSING. THE OTHER IS FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, MY TEAM AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING CONSISTENTLY WITH SUSTAINABILITY TEAM AND THE TEXAS A&M COLLEGE STATION ENERGY INSTITUTE TO MOVE SUSTAINABILITY CONVERSATIONS, RESILIENCY CONVERSATIONS FORWARD. SO WE WANT TO CONNECT WITH OUR STRONG SAN ANTONIO STAKEHOLDERS, AND I THINK THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE PART OF THIS PROCESS, THE COMMUNITY AND COLLABORATING WITH MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, WHICH I'VE DONE SINCE LAST YEAR. WE NEED TO MAKE THIS A CITY THAT MOVES FORWARD IN A HOLISTIC AND EDUCATED AND COLLABORATIVE WAY, AND AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, SOME OF YOU HAVE MET DR. DIRE. FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, HE'S DONE A DEEP DIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO ON OUR FOOD, ENERGY AND WATER NEEDS, AND WHAT A DATA CENTER COULD MEAN.

AND SO PART OF THE SURVEY WE DID, WHICH HAD OVER 1,000 RESPONDENTS, WAS THE RESULT OF THE DATA CENTER AND CONVERSATIONS THAT CAME FROM OUR SUSTAINABILITY. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED IN DISTRICT SIX TO MOVE FORWARD. I THINK AMIN AND LOGAN, YOUR TEAM, WHICH YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD HERE, IS -- IS A NICE KIND OF NEUTRAL POINT WHERE WE CAN SAY, WE'LL DO OPTION 2, AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT THE STATE LEVEL. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD AND WE CONTINUE TO MAKE INTENTIONAL DECISIONS AND NOT JUST STOPPING WITH ONE OPTION. JUST THIS PAST SEPTEMBER, THE RIVER AUTHORITY RELEASED AN ARTICLE WHERE THEY CONFIRMED RIVER OTTERS ARE RETURNING TO OUR SAN ANTONIO RIVER. THIS IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INTENTIONAL. THIS IS BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THE CLEANING, THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT CARES ABOUT RESILIENCY.

TALKING TO OTHERS, THEY SAID WATER -- WATER IS EMOTIONAL.

THIS IS WHO WE ARE IN THE CITY, SO I WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO MISS THE WATER PIECE EITHER. SO I'M GOING TO ASK DR. DIRE, JUST TO EXPLAIN -- HE'S WORKING ON A HANDBOOK FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND I DO HAVE -- IF YOU COULD PUT THIS UP, IT'S THE KIND OF 9-ISH SHOES THAT CAME FROM THE RESULTS. WE KNOW -- THANK YOU.

WE KNOW THAT THIS CITY HAS A PROBLEM WITH DATA CENTERS.

THEY'RE VERY SUSPICIOUS OF THEM, THEY WANT TO KNOW.

SO HERE ARE SOME OF HIS FINDINGS, AND DR. DIRE, IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK TO -- AND I KNOW YOU'VE TALKED WITH AMIN AND THE TEAM ABOUT CODE BEING ONE ISSUE, BUT WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU GOT FROM OUR INPUT ON THE -- FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE SURVEY THAT YOU HAVE HERE AND JUST GIVE A BRIEF LITTLE SNIPPET ON EACH OF THEM.

>> SURE. THANK YOU. AND GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. AS COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN JUST MENTIONED, WE CONDUCTED THE SURVEY THE PAST THREE MONTHS, WHICH RESULTED IN MORE THAN 1,100 RESPONSES ACROSS ALL 10 DISTRICTS IN SAN ANTONIO, WHICH REALLY HIGHLIGHTED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT ARE ON RESIDENTS' MINDS ACROSS THE 10 DISTRICTS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION. SO BEYOND THE CITING AND ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION QUESTIONS, SEVERAL ISSUES EMERGED FROM THAT SURVEY INCLUDING POWER AND GRID-RELATED QUESTIONS, WATER-RELATED QUESTIONS, ENVIRONMENT-RELATED QUESTIONS, JOB AND LOCAL COMMUNITY, TRANSPARENCY AND VERIFICATION, DURABILITY AND EXIT OF THE FACILITIES. I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AMONG THE CLOSE TO 11,000 SURVEYED, MORE THAN 80% SHOWED OPPOSITION TO DATA CENTERS AND FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

[02:45:01]

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE HANDBOOK THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING RIGHT NOW IS ON EACH OF THESE NINE TOPICS, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE KEY TRENDS THAT WE SEE ACROSS TEXAS AND IN SAN ANTONIO SPECIFICALLY. WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY TOP KEY QUESTIONS THAT LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD ASK, AS WELL AS BENCHMARK BEST PRACTICES ON EACH OF THESE TOPICS. SO THAT, AGAIN, LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE A SUITE OF OPTIONS AND DIFFERENT BEST PRACTICES THAT THEY COULD USE TO NEGOTIATE DEALS THAT ARE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE.

SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS HANDBOOK -- THIS WOULD BE AN INTERPRETIVE PROCESS AND DONE COOPERATIVELY WITH THE UTILITIES AS WELL AS MANY OF YOU WHO ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND CONTRIBUTE TO THAT HANDBOOK.

THE GOAL IS FOR THIS TO REALLY BE CUSTOMIZED TO SAN ANTONIO-RELATED ISSUES SO THAT IT BECOMES USEFUL FOR ALL OF YOU ACROSS YOUR DIFFERENT

DISTRICTS. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. AND -- THANK YOU, DR. DIRE, FOR THAT. I JUST WANT TO CAUTION -- WHILE SOME OF THESE -- SOME OF THE OPTIONS IN 3 TOUCH THE ISSUES, WE DO NEED A SAN ANTONIO SOLUTION. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO GET THE HANDBOOK DONE, A DRAFT IN NOVEMBER THAT WE'LL SHARE WITH THE ENTIRE COUNCIL TO SEE.

THE OTHER THING -- THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR AMIN -- THANK YOU, DR. DIRE. YOU CAN SIT DOWN. AMINAMIN, IF WE COME WITH -- IF WE MOVE FORWARD IN OCTOBER WITH OPTION 2, CAN WE ADD, AS WE FIND OUT FOR THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, IF WE FIND OUT THAT FOR DISTRICT SIX IT REALLY IS THE SETBACKS AND THEY WANT MORE, OR IT'S THE NOISE IN CERTAIN OTHER DISTRICTS, CAN WE COME BACK AND CREATE ONE LARGER OR WILL IT BE -- WILL IT BE BETTER TO JUST TAKE IT A CASE-BY-CASE AND THEN HAVE THE COUNCILMEMBERS ASK THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY

KNOW WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE GOING INTO? >> TOHMAZ: SO IF YOU GO BY OPTION 2, IT ALLOWS COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND MAKE DECISIONS ON EACH CASE, CASE-BY-CASE, SO THE REQUIREMENTS MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT ON

EACH ONE. >> VIAGRAN: YEAH, SO THAT'S THE ONE THING IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED, BUT, AGAIN, THE RECHARGE ZONE. THAT IS A LOT IN CERTAIN MEMBER'S DISTRICTS, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE DATA CENTER ASK THAT MAYBE 4 AND 3 WOULD.

BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AND ASK ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE IN CONJUNCTION TO THE WATER SOURCES IN MY AREA, HOW THEY'RE USING WATER, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WOULD THAT BE DONE WITH AN OPTION 3? BECAUSE OPTION 3 SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE MORE

RESTRICTIVE THAN OPTION 2. >> TOHMAZ: SO, YEAH, OPTION 3 IS A HYBRID BETWEEN, I GUESS, BETWEEN 1 AND 2, SO IT DOES HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS ALREADY IN IT. IF YOU GO WITH THAT OPTION, THEN IF YOU DEVIATE FROM THOSE RESTRICTIONS, THEN YOU NEED THE S AND THEY WOULD COME BEFORE COUNCIL. BUT, AGAIN, OPTION 2 IS

-- IT'S CASE BY CASE. >> VIAGRAN: CASE BY CASE.

SO -- AND THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT I THINK WE -- I THINK WE NEED A HANDBOOK. AND HE CAN -- DR. DIRE AND HIS TEAM, YOU CAN -- DR. DIRE -- LET ME ASK DR. DIRE A QUESTION. DR. DIRE, CAN YOU AND THE RESEARCH TEAM BREAK IT OUT INTO DISTRICTS? CAN YOUR TEAM WORK ON

[02:50:04]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA CENTERS? >> ABSOLUTELY.

ON THE SURVEY SIDE, WE ALREADY HAVE INPUT FROM RESIDENTS' PERSPECTIVES, CONCERNS, REQUESTS PER DISTRICT. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THE WATER-RELATED REALITIES, THE NATURAL RESOURCES, AS WELL AS THE LOCAL ECONOMY WITHIN EACH OF THESE DISTRICTS AS WE -- AS WE CONDUCT OUR

ANALYSIS. >> VIAGRAN: YEAH. SO I -- BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CHIME BACK IN BECAUSE I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.

I JUST WANT Y'ALL TO CONSIDER THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE NEED TO CAN, ASK, WE ARE UNDER CONTRACT -- I WAS JUST DOING THIS FOR DISTRICT THREE, BUT NOW HE'S DOING IT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, SO THIS IS A RESOURCE THAT YOU ALL HAVE AND WE ALL HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD AS WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DR. DIRE. COUNCILMAN

MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ, PLEASE? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU.

I'LL TRY TO SET A RECORD IN BREVITY. I AM IN SUPPORT OF ANY DESIGNATION THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO US FOR FINAL APPROVAL, SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION 2, ULTIMATELY SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION 3 AS WELL. SO WHATEVER IS THE STRONGEST WE CAN DO WITH THIS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, I'M INTO. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. LET ME -- LET ME JUST CLARIFY WHAT [INDISCERNIBLE] SAID. OPTION 3 REQUIRES THE S CODE DESIGNATION, THE ONLY THING THAT OPTION 3 DOES THAT OPTION 2 DOESN'T DO IS INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY QUITE DIFFERENT IN THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE ON THAT LIST SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. I WILL SAY, IN CASE IT HELPS ANYONE ELSE'S COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THAT THEY MADE EARLIER WAS THAT THESE ENTITIES -- AND CERTAINLY WE DO -- WANT TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY IN THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REVIEWING AS PART OF THESE APPLICATIONS. AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS ALSO REVIEWING AS PART OF THESE. WE SHOULD KNOW AUTOMATICALLY, RIGHT, ARE YOU WILLING TO ABIDE BY THE NOISE LIMITATIONS, ARE YOU WILLING TO ABIDE -- OR AT LEAST CONSENT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ENERGY, WATER -- ENERGY AND WATER USAGE. SO WHAT IT DOES IS REALLY PUT THE ONUS ON THE DATA CENTERS TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT INFORMATION VERY EARLY ON, AND NOT PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO NEGOTIATE THESE ONE-OFFS. UNDERSTOOD -- YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND SOME COUNCILMEMBERS SEE BENEFIT IN THAT.

I THINK WHAT IS OF BENEFIT IS BEING ABLE TO SAY AS A COMMUNITY, WE UNDERSTAND -- THIS IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SIGNED ON, YOU'RE NOT JUST IMPACTING THE DISTRICT -- YOU KNOW, DISTRICT THREE WATER, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL OF SAWS' WATER.

YOU'RE NOT JUST IMPACTING CPS IN DISTRICT THREE, THAT'S THE ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO I THINK OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY ABOUT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'VE ASKED IRRESPECTIVE, SO THAT WE DON'T FALL INTO THIS KIND OF NARRATIVE WHERE, AGAIN, SOME DISTRICTS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OTHERS. SO THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SOME COMMON RESTRICTIONS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

COUNCILWOMAN ALDARETE GAVITO, PLEASE? >>

>> MAYOR JONES: GO AHEAD, YEAH. >> I THINK THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IF WE LOOK AT OPTION 2 AND 3, OPTION 2 PRESENTS TO THE COUNCIL A SET OF TOOLS THAT YOU'RE USED TO SEEING. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT EVERY CASE INDIVIDUALLY, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE THE SETBACKS, THE STANDARDS, THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THE BUFFER YARDS, THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE USED TO SEEING ON EVERY SINGLE ZONING AND LAND USE AGENDA. OPTION 3 STILL HAS EVERY DATA CENTER CASE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, BUT IT INTRODUCES INTO THE CONVERSATION ELEMENTS THAT YOU ARE NOT USED TO SEEING.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT. IT'S JUST -- THERE ARE AREAS THAT WE DON'T TYPICALLY TOUCH. SO, YOU KNOW, PLANS FOR AT LEAST TWO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS. IN 2022, WE UPDATED OUR UDC FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. WE HAVE REQUIRED THAT APPLICANTS SHOW STAFF PROOF THAT THEY ATTEMPTED -- AT LEAST ATTEMPTED TO MEET WITH THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BEFORE WE EVEN SCHEDULE THEM FOR ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS, SO THIS ADDS AN ADDITIONAL MEETING ON TOP OF THAT.

REPLACING TWICE AS MUCH GREENSPACE AS WAS -- OR ASKING THAT THEY PRESERVE TWICE AS MUCH GREENSPACE, THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING MORE RESERVED FOR A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAN IT IS A ZONING ORDINANCE, SO THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AIR QUALITY MONITORING WAS BROUGHT UP, IT'S TYPICALLY A RESPONSIBILITY RESERVED FOR TCEQ, SO WE MAY BE ABLE TO MONITOR IT, BUT WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TEETH TO REQUIRE THAT THEY CHANGE ANYTHING BASED UPON WHAT WE MONITOR. AND THEN LASTLY, REQUESTING THAT THEY

[02:55:01]

WE CAN'T REQUIRE A COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT AS PART OF A CHANGE OF ZONING. THE LAST THING I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IS IN ADDITION TO THESE OPTIONS, WE WILL PRESENT THESE TO THE ZONING COMMISSION. WE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY, BASED ON THAT, COME BACK TO YOU WITH AN OPTION 4, WHICH IS WHAT THE ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMNDS.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S LIKELY OR FEASIBLE THAT ZONING COMMISSION IS -- EVERYONE'S GOING TO COMMIT TO SUPPORT 1, THIS MAY GET A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX AS WE COME TO YOU ON THE 29TH OF WHAT THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY SEE -- I SEE SOMEBODY HERE FROM CPS, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL -- DO YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE. OH, THANKS, MATT. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE THINGS, AS WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, ARE -- FRANKLY, ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN REALTIME, RIGHT, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT VANTAGE DATA CENTERS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A POTENTIAL ISSUE AS WELL WITH A DATA CENTER TAPPING INTO KIND OF A POWER SOURCE.

BUT YOU CAN -- AGAIN, THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL VERY CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT THESE DATA CENTERS ARE AND ARE NOT GOING TO DO.

CAN WE -- CAN YOU SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE

VANTAGE DATA CENTER ISSUE RIGHT NOW. >> I DON'T THINK I'M PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THAT IN THIS MOMENT RIGHT NOW.

>> MAYOR JONES: NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK TO IT? >> NO.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. OKAY. WELL, FOLKS, GOOGLE THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS ARTICLE. LET ME TURN IT OVER TO

COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN. GO AHEAD. >> GALVAN: I'LL JUST SAY BRIEFLY I THINK THE VANTAGE ONE HAS PICKED UP A LOT OF NOTORIETY, GIVEN THE FACT IT'S ON ROGERS ROAD. THEY CANCELED THEIR MOST RECENT MEETING BACK IN AUGUST WHEN WE HAD OUR SPECIAL SESSION ON THIS FOR REASONS UNKNOWN. THAT MEETING WAS MEANT TO HAVE RESIDENTS GIVEN PUT ON HAVING SEVERAL DIESEL GAS BACKUP GENERATORS ON SITE WHICH WOULD VIOLATE OUR AIR QUALITY HERE, THE CURRENT RATE OF AIR QUALITY THAT WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT. SO THERE'S A CURRENT LEGAL ACTION AS WELL TAKING PLACE ON THAT DUE TO THE LACK OF PERMITTING ON THAT AND ALL TCEQ PERMITS HAVE BEEN PAUSED BASED ON THE GOVERNOR'S REQUEST.

YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE EMISSIONS COMING FROM IT AT NIGHT.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS, COUNCILMAN GALVAN. AGAIN, AS YOU ARE REPRESENTING KIND OF THE LION'S SHARE EXPERIENCES ON THIS, WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PUT IN SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AS BENEFICIAL TO THEM AND COULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR US AS WELL. OKAY.

COUNCILWOMAN ALDARETE GAVITO, PLEASE? >> GAVITO: THANK YOU.

I DO WANT TO THANK COUNCILMAN GALVAN FOR BRINGING FORTH THIS CONVERSATION. IT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. WE KNOW THAT DATA CENTERS HAVE, YOU KNOW, MOVED IN AND WE DO NEED TO BE STRATEGICS, I FEEL, AS A CITY FOR HOW AND WHERE THEY ARE PLACED. WE DON'T WANT THEM IN RESIDENTS' BACKYARDS. WE DO NEED TO MONITOR THE NOISE.

THAT'S WHY I WAS ACTUALLY HAPPY TO SEE STAFF'S PROPOSAL OF OPTION 1.

I THINK IT PROVIDES SOME CONSISTENCY FOR -- IT APPEALS TO WHAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT SETBACK, THEY'RE ASKING FOR NOTHING OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT -- I THOUGHT IT HAD DONE A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING THAT. WE ARE ALSO -- I THINK COUNCILMAN MUNGIA MENTIONED, WE'RE ALSO HAVING COFFEE WITH THE COUNCILWOMAN ON SATURDAY, AND SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG TOPIC, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING OUR RESIDENTS' FEEDBACK ON IT.

BUT SO FAR THE FEEDBACK I HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS, DEFINITELY LEANS WITH OPTION 1. I WAS DEFINITELY NOT IN FAVOR OF A MORATORIUM, A MORATORIUM ON ANYTHING JUST MEANS THAT SAN ANTONIO IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS, AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.

AMIN, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO THESE THINGS THAT ARE POPPING UP OF THESE MICRODATA CENTERS, AND -- AUDIO] -- SO, ONE, HOW ARE WE DEFINING A BIG DATA CENTER IN SAN ANTONIO? AND, LIKE, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COULD HAVE A SERVER ROOM AT THEIR WORKPLACE.

LIKE HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT REGULATING THAT, BECAUSE THAT OPENS

UP A WHOLE NOTHER CAN OF WORMS? >> TOHMAZ: YEAH, NORMALLY ANY TIME WE LOOK AT ANY USE, NOT JUST DATA CENTERS, WE LOOK AT THE PRIMARY USE OF THAT PROPERTY. SO IF YOU ARE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN AREA WITH SOME SERVERS, THE WHOLE THING GETS PERMITTING BUSINESS, BUT

[03:00:01]

BUT WHEN YOU BUILD A FACILITY AND THE PURPOSE IS PUTTING SERVERS IN IT, THAT IS A DATA CENTER. THAT'S THE PRIMARY USE, NOT THE ACCESSORY USE OF

THE ACTIVITY. >> GAVITO: SO THEN WE'RE NOT DEFINING THE DATA CENTER USAGE BY SQUARE FOOTAGE OR MEGAWATTS THEN?

>> TOHMAZ: MIGHT HAVE SMALL DATA CENTER THAT, AGAIN, THE MAIN USE IS FOR SERVERS TO BE STORED IN, BUT IT MIGHT BE SMALL.

IT MIGHT BE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OR LESS. I MEAN, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE SIZE, IT'S THE MAIN USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

>> GAVITO: I'M GOING BACK TO MY RACKSPACE DAYS, WINDSOR PARK MALL, WE HAD A SMALL DATA CENTER ON SITE, WHAT WOULD WE DO THEN BECAUSE THEIR BUSINESS IS EMPLOYMENT, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOSTING A BIG DATA CENTER

ON IT. >> TOHMAZ: RIGHT. AGAIN, AS LONG AS THE FACILITY'S MAIN USE IS TO HAVE SERVERS, THAT IS A DATA CENTER.

>> GAVITO: WELL -- THEM ARE LOOKING AT EITHER THE SIZES OF IT OR THE MEGAWATTS, SO JUST SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

I'D HATE FOR A BUSINESS'S SERVER CLOSET TO ALL OF A SUDDEN BE BANNED ON THAT. AND ALSO, TOO, LIKE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IF A FIVE MEGAWATT DATA CENTER FACES THE SAME ZONING RESTRICTIONS AS 100 MEGAWATT DATA CENTER, LIKE THAT COULD BE -- THAT COULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE, AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIT EITHER OF THOSE IN OPTION WNS, 2 OR 3. I JUST SAW OPTION 3 TODAY. YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS -- AGAIN, I'M DEFINITELY LEANING TOWARDS OPTION 1 SO THERE'S SOME KIN CONSISTENCY, BUT I'D ASK THAT AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WE'D LOOK AT HOW WE'RE DEFINING THESE IN THE FIRST PLACE EITHER THROUGH THE SIZE OF THE LOCATION OR THE MEGAWATTS, JUST SO THAT WAY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONSISTENCY WHEN WE'RE SLIDING INTO OPTION 1, 2 OR 3. THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS

RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. >> TOHMAZ: THANK YOU.

COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS, PLEASE? >> SPEARS: THANKS, MAYOR. I MAYBE SEE THIS COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY FROM ANY IN THE ROOM, BECAUSE I SEE THIS AS THE NEW FRONTIER FOR OUR COUNTRY AND IT'S COMING, AND I SEE SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR US HERE TO BE THE LEADERS ON HOW WE NEGOTIATE THIS. DR. DIRE, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IT'S AN HONOR THAT YOU'RE HERE, AND YOUR HANDBOOK -- I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT, BE INVOLVED IN THAT, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE WORKED REALLY HARD ON IT. AND YOU HAVE REALLY STUDIED DATA CENTERS AND AI FACTORIES AND EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO AT THE CITY LEVEL TO DO THIS WELL. I THINK WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE START OVERRESTRICTING OURSELVES IN OUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE BY PUTTING SETBACKS, OVERARCHING SETBACKS AND ZONING.

I JUST THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HURT US, BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING SO FAST HERE THAT WE CAN'T KEEP UP, EVEN WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT LAID BEFORE US, THESE THREE OPTIONS. I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO CONSIDER WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US IN OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS JOBS. AND, YES, CONSTRUCTION JOBS AND, YES, ANY -- ALL THE JOBS THAT THIS CAN BRING. AND THEN ALL THE PIPELINE INDUSTRY, EVERYTHING THAT SAN ANTONIO IS GOING AFTER, THE INDUSTRIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT INVOLVE DATA CENTERS. AND SO WHILE I'M SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE FUTURE. AND IF WE PUT TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS HERE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO LOOK AT US. THEY'RE GOING TO GO, NO, I'LL JUST GO TO MEDINA COUNTY AND THEN I'LL PUT WHAT I WANT THERE AND THEN IT STILL AFFECTS YOUR AIR QUALITY AND IT STILL -- OR PRESUMABLY AFFECTS YOUR AIR QUALITY. I -- WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S A HARD THING TO MEASURE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU HAVE NO CONTROL AND THEN YOU'VE LOST YOUR OPPORTUNITY THERE, AND THEY'LL JUST COME UP AROUND US. IT'S A LOT LIKE OIL AND GAS IN MY MIND, EXCEPT IT'S MORE SUSTAINABLE AND SOMETHING WE CAN GRAB ONTO PUT AND WHAT WE WANT AND HAVE A LOT MORE CONTROL OF. WE'VE GOT NUCLEAR ENERGY ADVANCEMENTS IN OUR REGION, IN SAN ANTONIO, AT OUR MILITARY MISSIONS, AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO BE REALLY MINDFUL OF IS WHAT THIS CAN DO FOR OUR MILITARY MISSIONS, TO BE THE LEADER ON DATA CENTERS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE MOVING WITH MEDICINE. IT'S AI, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY -- THE WAY THAT THE MEDICINE IS MOVING IS TOWARDS

[03:05:08]

AND DO THIS ON A CUSTOMIZABLE WAY FOR EACH -- EACH DATA CENTER THAT COMES UP. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE THROUGH THAT SPACE. AND WE SHOULD. THERE'S A LOT WE CAN ASK FOR. NOW, LISTEN, I KNOW THAT MY DISTRICT IS ON THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, BUT THAT ALSO MEANS I LOSE OUT ON A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD OUT INFRASTRUCTURE, ASK FOR FIRE TRUCKS, ASK FOR ROADS, ASK FOR THE THINGS THAT WE NEED, BECAUSE THEY WILL DO IT.

THEY WILL DO IT AND NOT BLINK AND SAY, YES, AND THANK YOU, AND LET'S DO THIS. LET'S BE GOOD PARTNERS. WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING THAT. AND I THINK WE CAN NOW. AND I'M SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING, RIC -- OR COUNCILMAN GALVAN, I AM.

I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE CAN'T LOOK AT THIS IN A NEW WAY, GRASP THE OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT HANDCUFFING THIS INDUSTRY FROM COMING TO SAN ANTONIO AND THIS REGION, BECAUSE THEY WILL. THEY'LL JUST GO TO ATASCOSA, SOMEBODY ELSE WILL SAY, SURE, I'LL DO IT. AND I DON'T WANT TO MISS OUT. I WANT US TO BE THE LEADER ON IT.

I JUST -- I'M HESITANT TO MAKE ANYTHING MORE RESTRICTIVE AND, AGAIN, TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT HERE, AND THEY ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. THEY DON'T WANT TO USE OUR NATURAL RESOURCES EITHER, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY LIMITS THEIR ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. SO THEY STAY ON THE CLOSED LOOP SYSTEMS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S DOING ANYTHING ELSE ANYMORE.

I -- WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS PLASMA VERY SOON, VERY FAST, BEHIND THE METER ENERGY IS COMING. IT'S -- IT IS MOVING SO FAST THAT WE CAN'T POSSIBLY REGULATE OURSELVES TO KEEP UP. AND IT JUST MEANS THEY WON'T LOOK AT US. SO I ACTUALLY LIKE OPTION 0, IS THERE AN OPTION 0? I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THEM. SO THANK YOU.

COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ, PLEASE. COUNCILMAN WHYTE,

PLEASE? >> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE GOT PUBLIC COMMENT. WE NEED TO HAVE COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS IN OUR CODE. WE NEED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT ALL COSTS. LET'S PUT ALL THESE REGULATIONS IN, AND THEN ALLOW IT BY RIGHT AS OPTION 1 SETS OUT.

I CAN'T SAY IT BETTER THAN COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS AND COUNCILWOMAN ALDARETE GAVITO SAID IT. THESE PLACES NEED TO HAVE CERTAINTY, OTHERWISE THEY WILL GO LOOK ELSEWHERE. AND ERIK, I MEAN, TELL US.

I MEAN, WE HEAR IN SAN ANTONIO STAND TO BENEFIT EVEN MORE THAN SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE 14% OF REVENUE WE GET TO OUR GENERAL FUND FROM CPS ENERGY, SO AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THESE DATA CENTERS ARE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GENERATORS FOR THE CITY?

>> WALSH: THEY WOULD, BECAUSE OF OUR OWNERSHIP OF CPS AND HOW THE FLOW

OF REVENUE WORKS. >> WHYTE: YEAH. AND SO, I MEAN, LOOK, WE'RE IN FINANCIALLY DIFFICULT TIMES NOW. IF ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE NOT COMING HERE AND WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE, I MEAN, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE CITY. SO, AGAIN, PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS NUMBER ONE. LET'S GET ALL THE REGULATIONS IN THERE, BUT THEN PROVIDE THE CERTAINTY THE DATA CENTERS KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY LAND IN DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CITY. THAT SORT OF UNCERTAINTY IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD. AND I DON'T THINK HAVING CITY COUNCIL ZONING BATTLES OVER THESE THINGS EVERY TIME IS A GOOD IDEA EITHER.

SO THAT'S WHERE I AM ON THAT. NUMBER 2, AND COUNCILWOMAN ALDARETE GAVITO BROUGHT IT UP, AND I'VE PASSED THESE OUT TO AND I TALKED WITH COUNCILMAN GALVAN ABOUT THIS, WE NEED TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A DATA CENTER IS BECAUSE AS THE ORDINANCE READS NOW, IT COULD COVER TELEPHONE CENTRAL OFFICES, MOBILE SWITCHING CENTERS, A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REGULATE HERE.

OTHER CITIES HAVE FACED THIS SAME ISSUE AND HAVE GOTTEN SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE. AND REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO PUT IN THERE IS WHAT A

[03:10:04]

AND THEN SECONDLY, A SERVER ROOM OR EQUIPMENT ROOM THAT IS AN ACCESSORY TO AND PRIMARILY SUPPORTS THE ONSITE OPERATIONS OF A PRINCIPLE USE ON THE SAME PREMISES. SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE JUST TAILOR THE DEFINITION SO WE'RE STRICTLY REGULATING WHAT I THINK COUNCILMAN GALVAN'S INTENT WAS AND WHAT THIS BODY'S INTENT IS TO REGULATE.

>> WE'LL CERTAINLY PRESENT IT TO THE ZONING COMMISSION, WE SUPPORT THAT CHANGE AND REPORT BACK TO Y'ALL THEIR FEEDBACK BHIEZ APPRECIATE THAT. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM ON THIS.

THANKS, MAYOR. COUNCILMAN WHYTE, WHAT'S THE SOURCE OF THAT DEFINITION, EITHER AN ENTITY OR AN ORGANIZATION OR A FIRM.

>> WHYTE: NONE OF THE ABOVE. THIS WAS JUST TALKING WITH SOME FOLKS IN THE DATA CENTER INDUSTRY BUT ALSO TALKING WITH FOLKS, YOU KNOW, SUCH AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE PERHAPS APPLYING TO THEM WHEN THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR

INTENTION IS. >> MAYOR JONES: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT DEFINITION IS USED. THE IDEA THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN WHAT A DATA CENTER IS AND THEN LESS RESTRICTIVE IN WHAT WE WANT THAT ENTITY TO BE HELD TO, I THINK, KIND OF GOES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF WHAT THE PUBLIC IS TELLING US THEY WANT. SO I'D WELCOME UNDERSTANDING WHERE ELSE THAT DEFINITION IS BEING USED AND HOW THAT RESTRICTS OUR CURRENT ABILITIES. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO,

PLEASE? >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, AMIN AND LOGAN FOR THE PRESENTATION AND CONVENING ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS WITH THESE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS.

I'LL SUPPORT EITHER ITEM THAT HAS SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION AS AN APPROACH, WHETHER THAT'S OPTION 2 AND/OR 3. I THINK EITHER OF THE OPTIONS ALLOW COUNCIL TO TAKE THESE ITEMS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND BOTH ALSO ALLOW FOR THE BUDDY, NEIGHBOR AND THE COUNCIL OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. I'LL BE BRIEF AND THOSE ARE THE TWO SUGGESTIONS THAT I HAVE. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN MUNGIA, PLEASE? >> MUNGIA: THANK YOU.

I'LL ECHO THOSE REMARKS. I THINK SOMEWHERE BETWEEN OPTIONS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPORTANT. THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN MOBILIZED ON THIS TOPIC, AND DR. DIRE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

I GOT TO GO TO THE MEETING A WHILE BACK AT COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN'S OFFICE. IT WAS A VERY INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION THAT YOU'VE DONE. YOU SAID LOCALLY THERE WAS ABOUT 80% OPPOSITION TO DATA CENTERS, VERY SIMILAR NATIONAL POLE ABOUT ASKING CONGRESS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT AI, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY VERY CLOSELY RELATED TO THE DATA CENTER THING, SO IT'S A NATIONAL TREND, IT'S A NATIONAL CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THERE WOULD BE GREAT. AND AMIN, DID YOU COME UP WITH THE STAKEHOLDER

PARTICIPANTS LIST? >> TOHMAZ: DID I COME UP WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS? NO. WHAT WE DID IS WE POSTED FOR THE MEETING ON ALL SOCIAL MEDIA AND EVERYWHERE, AND WE E-MAILED ANYBODY WE KNOW AND IT GREW ACTUALLY, SO TWO MORE PEOPLE. THE MEETINGS WE HAD, WE HAD ABOUT 80 PEOPLE IN EVERY IMMEDIATING, SO IT WASN'T PICKED LIKE INDIVIDUALLY. IT WAS MORE PUBLIC NOTICE.

>> MUNGIA: OKAY. THAT'S -- I JUST THINK MAYBE IN A FUTURE CONVERSATION WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE DIVERSITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WOULD BE GOOD, SO JUST AN ADDED NOTE ABOUT THAT.

>> TOHMAZ: YES, SIR. >> MUNGIA: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL.

>> IF I MAY AS WELL BRIEFLY, I KNOW THAT LIST THAT WE POUT TOGETHER WAS A GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT PARTICIPATED. BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY

[03:15:02]

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FIRST ROUND, THE COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, PLEASE?

>> KAUR: I JUST WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. HE WAS -- MY CHIEF OF STAFF WENT TO AN EVENT THAT HIS TEAM HELPED HOST LAST NIGHT AND THERE WAS ABOUT A THREE-HOUR LONG CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND FROM WHAT I HEARD COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN DID A SUPERB JOB OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND SAYING THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE'S BEEN ADVOCATING FOR, SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE YOUR LEADERSHIP AS A BRAND-NEW ROOKIE ON THIS ISSUE AND PUSHING US FORWARD.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR BRINGING US OPTIONS THAT I THINK ARE BOTH MEASURED AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SIT WITH YOU, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO GET TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE WORK AND I LOVE HEARING COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS SO PASSIONATE ABOUT -- SHE WAS REALLY PASSIONATELY ADVOCATING FOR HER POSITION ON THIS AS WELL.

I'LL BE TRANSPARENT, I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN A CONFLICTED PERSON TODAY.

I DON'T HAVE DATA CENTERS IN DISTRICT ONE, AND SO I HAVEN'T HAD AS MUCH EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE FROM RESIDENTS ON WHAT'S GOING ON.

I DO HAVE ONE. SORRY, I HAVE ONE. MY BAD.

IT'S A TINY ONE. MY BAD. >>

>> KAUR: MY BAD. I TAKE THAT BACK. WHAT I AM COMMITTING TO DO IS CONTINUING TO LEARN MORE. I LEARNED THAT -- I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WATER AND ELECTRICITY USAGE AND I UNDERSTAND AT LEAST THE WATER SIDE IS A LITTLE BETTER NOW WITH THE RECYCLED LOOP SYSTEM WHERE I LEARNED THAT A SMALLER SYSTEM COULD BE USING AS MUCH AS A RESIDENTIAL POOL. BUT I THINK THERE WERE ISSUES AROUND ENERGY THAT STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ANSWERED AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT. I'M GOING TO DO A SITE VISIT AND HERE IN A COUPLE WEEKS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT ZONING COMMISSION HAS TO SAY. I WILL THROW OUT SOMEONE SUGGESTED TO ME, I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT ON THEM, BUT A POTENTIAL NOTHER OPTIONS. I'M JUST OPTIONS ALL DAY TODAY, BUT IF IT IS OPTION 1 FOR INDUSTRIAL AND OPTION 2 FOR C-3, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE C-3 THAT IT'S EXISTENT IN MY DISTRICT AND I KNOW IT'S VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE KEEPING IT CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL, SO JUST THROWING OUT ANOTHER OPTION THERE. THANKS, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR JONES: ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FIRST ROUND?

OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ? >> GONZALEZ: CAN SOMEONE PULL UP OPTION 3? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

>> MAYOR JONES: CAN YOU SHOW OPTION 3 ON THE PROJECTOR, PLEASE.

>> GONZALEZ: WHERE IS IT. >> MAYOR JONES: IT'S A

HANDOUT. >> GONZALEZ: NEVER MIND, GOT IT.

SORRY. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE -- I GUESS THE GREENSPACE POINT, IF SOMEONE COULD JUST EXPAND ON THAT.

>> MAYOR JONES: YEAH. SO. YEAH, WHEN I PUT IT IN THERE -- WHEN I PUT IT IN THERE, I MEAN, I LOOK AT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HUGE DATA CENTER OFF OF 151. AND TO THINK THAT THEY DIDN'T -- THERE WAS NO GREENSPACE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT, EITHER ONE FOR ONE.

I MEAN, IF WE'RE ASKING, WE MIGHT AS WELL DO A TWO FOR ONE.

AND I SAY THAT IN LIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OUR WATER, THE FACT THAT WE OWN OUR POWER, WE ARE -- AND WE HAVE LAND, WE ARE A VERY ATTRACTIVE PLACE FOR THESE DATA CENTERS, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL ASK FOR WHAT WE KNOW THEY CAN AFFORD AND DOUBLING THE GREENSPACE THAT THEY ELIMINATED TO CONSTRUCT THE DATA CENTER I THINK IS FAIR, IN LIGHT OF OUR AIR QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS, BUT ALSO THE AESTHETIC.

I THINK OUR COMMUNITIES WOULD WANT US TO FIGHT FOR.

>> GONZALEZ: OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M -- YEAH.

>> GREENSPACE DEDICATION -- LIKE E MENTIONED BEFORE, IT'S GENERALLY SOMETHING WRAPPED INTO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, NOT OUR ZONING ORDINANCES, AND GREENSPACE DEDICATION IS TYPICALLY RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE AN ACRE OF GREENSPACE FOR EVERY 75 UNITS, SO THIS WOULD BE -- IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE ONLY USE THAT WE REQUIRE NONRESIDENTIAL TO DEDICATE GREENSPACE. I WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO KIND OF GAUGE THE LONG-TERM LEGALITY OF THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE UNIQUE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. MAIRNDLE

[03:20:05]

>> MAYOR JONES: THIS WAS REVIEWED BY LEGAL F YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, PLEASE DO SO.

>> THERE'S USUALLY A SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING. SO HAVING IT -- WHILE THE INCLUSION OF GREENSPACE MIGHT BE OKAY, THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY OR ETJ WOULD

BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT. >> I THINK --

APPRECIATE THAT. >> ONE AREA WHERE I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS CERTAIN AUTHORITY IS TO IMPOSE BUFFER YARDS THAT WILL BE PLANTED, LANDSCAPED AND OPEN, MAYBE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS THAT WE REGULATE FOR SAWS, THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOK. BUT TO REQUIRE DEDICATION OF GREENSPACE OFFSITE WOULD BE UNIQUE FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE OFFSITE, IT WOULD JUST BE WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

GO AHEAD. >> GONZALEZ: OKAY. I THINK FOR ME -- AND I QUICKLY SUPPORTED THIS CCR WHEN COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN BROUGHT THIS TO ME, AND I THINK -- I DO APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS IN THIS, AND IF ANYBODY GOES TO DISTRICT SIX, YOU CAN'T UNSEE ANY OF THIS, RIGHT? IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DISTRICT SIX THAN IT WAS 15 YEARS AGO, AND I WAS ABLE TO TAKE A TOUR WITH HIM AND SOME OF HIS TEAM, AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, AND I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR COMMUNITY IS DEALING WITH FIRSTHAND.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT DISTRICT AICTZ IS DEALING WITH, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I HEAR ABOUT THIS AT EVERY SINGLE HOA MEETING, I HEARD IT YESTERDAY. AND IT JUST -- IT COMES UP EVERYWHERE WE GO IN DISTRICT EIGHT. AND SO I HEAR MY RESIDENTS, I KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE THE APPETITE FOR AND WHAT THEY DO NOT, AND SO WITH THAT, OPTION 2 IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD ON AND I THINK IT HITS ALL THOSE -- EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS, BY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, BY RESIDENTS. AND I DO THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, NOT -- THIS INDUSTRY IS CHANGING SO MUCH AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE BEST OPTION

FOR US AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.

ON THE SECOND ROUND, COUNCILMAN GALVAN, PLEASE?

>> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR INPUT ON THIS MATTER. I REALLY APPRECIATE SUPPORT TO ENSURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE, NO MATTER WHERE THESE POTENTIAL DATAHAVE TO MEET WITH -- OR WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET WITH DATA CENTERS' DEVELOPERS, UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT, SEE THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AND OF COURSE HAVE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WEIGH IN.

WE DO THIS FOR SO MANY THINGS WHETHER IT'S FOR BARS, NIGHTCLUBS -- WELL, WE DON'T DO CARNIVALS THAT MUCH, BUT CAR WASHES AND PLENTY OF OTHER USES THAT COME TO CITY COUNCIL WHERE THE DEVELOPER NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT THIS SITE WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE, H ALL THE DIFFERENT BENEFITS THAT CAN COME WITH IT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE RESIDENTS NEARBY WILL ASK OF THEM AND THEY WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THEM. I THINK WE CAN HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONVERSATION AND COMMUNICATION WITH SOME -- WITH THE WEALTHIEST INDUSTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

I THINK THAT'S -- THERE'S NOTHING TOO SHORT FOR SAN ANTONIO TO PUSH ON, I THINK ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW, GIVEN THE CONTEXT, I HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT MOVING TOO QUICKLY, I HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL ON IT, I HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT LEGALITY TOWARDS IT, I HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY MOVING TOO QUICKLY.

THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. SHOW US EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE, LET US UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S -- HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY, LET US SEE HOW WE CAN ADDRESS IT, AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY, THIS BODY HAS THE ABILITY THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE NOW TO PUSH BACK, OR TO GO FORWARD. RIGHT NOW, MOST OF THE DATA CENTERS IN DISTRICT SIX DID NOT HAVE TO GO FOR ANY KIND OF ZONING CHANGE. THEY WERE ALLOWED TO GO IN BY RIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMERCIALLY ZONED. THE SAME IS TRUE IF WE ADOPT SOLELY OPTION 1, OR DO NOTHING AT ALL. FOR ANY PART OF OUR CITY THAT'S IN A COMMERCIALLY ZONED LOT. I BELIEVE C-2, CURRENTLY STILL, IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. AND OUR RESIDENTS WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS, WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEVELOPER, TO NEGOTIATE. THERE WOULD BE NO NEGOTIATING TABLE TO BEGIN WITH. THIS ALLOWS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND ITS RESIDENTS AND IT'S WORKERS AND IT'S EDUCATORS AND ALL THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO BRING ALONG REQUEST THIS THANK TO THIS NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AREA. IF WE WORRY THAT WE'RE MOVING TOO QUICKLY ON THIS, WE COULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE MORATORIUM BEFORE.

IF YOU'RE WORRIED THAT WE'RE MOVING TOO QUICKLY ON THIS, THIS WAS FILED

[03:25:01]

WE HEARD FROM CPS AND SAWS ABOUT THE WATER IMPACTS AND THE ENERGY IMPACTS, I HAVE THE PRESENTATIONS FROM BEFORE STILL WITH ME.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF MEGAWATTS NEEDED HERE IN OUR CITY, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE TOTAL PEAK FOR CPS'S LOAD IS, WHAT, SIX GIGAWATTS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING CITIES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THE WATTAGE NEEDED FOR THIS.

SO IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO LEARN ABOUT THIS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT ALSO WHAT THE STATE IS THINKING ON THIS.

BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE SEEING IT COMING TO ALIGNMENT.

WHEN TALKING TO THE LEGISLATORS HERE IN OUR AREA, WE'VE COMMUNICATED MAKING SURE THERE'S LOCAL CONTROL THAT'S PRESERVED HERE AND WE THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT NOT ONLY FROM THE FOLKS IN OUR AREA, BUT ACROSS THE STATE, IN THE RURAL COUNTIES THAT ARE ASKING OUR STATE LEGISLATORS TO GIVE THE RURAL COUNTIES THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

THAT'S WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE. AND THE CONCERN ABOUT IS THIS GOING TO BE TOO MUCH, ARE WE GOING TO GET PUSHBACK LATER ON.

BEFORE WE HAD THIS FIRST MEETING, OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID CLEARLY NOTHING ON DATA CENTERS, NOT A WORD ON HOW WE ARE -- HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON US. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET THE STANDARD HERE IN SAN ANTONIO ON WHAT REGULATIONS ON DATA CENTERS CAN LOOK LIKE IN OUR STATE, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MISS THE CHANCE.

WE COULD HAVE HAD THIS DONE A MONTH AGO. WE'RE HERE NOW BECAUSE OF SPECIAL SESSION THAT WAS REQUESTED, WE ALREADY HAD THE SPECIAL SESSION ON THIS ON AUGUST 25TH, AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT ON AUGUST 29TH, IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL AND WE GET SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS, GO THROUGH THOSE DETAILS, THAT WE CAN APPROVE REGULATIONS THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR, NOT JUST MINE, BUT BASED ON THE SURVEY CONDUCTED WITH CITY RESOURCES, THAT 80% OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SECOND ROUND? COUNCILMAN WHYTE?

>> WHYTE: YEAH, JUST BRIEFLY ON THE DEFINITION, MAYOR.

YOU ASKED HAS IT BEEN USED ANYWHERE ELSE, TOO. MY TEAM DID HAVE THIS FROM THE CITY OF BOSTON, WHO PUT IN SOME STRICT REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DATA CENTERS, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED IN HERE THAT THE DEFINITION OF A DATA CENTER WOULD NOT INCLUDE A SERVER ROOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROOM, NETWORK CLOSET OR OTHER COMPUTING EQUIPMENT THAT IS INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL PURPOSE USED AT THE PREMISES, A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY USED TO PROVIDE TELEPHONE, RADIO, TELEVISION OR CABLE OR INTERNET TRANSMISSION SERVICES, OR A RESEARCH LABORATORY OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITY IN WHICH COMPUTING EQUIPMENT IS AN ACCESSORY.

SO, AGAIN, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO REGULATE HERE. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE REST OF THE COUNCILMAN'S COMMENTS, I, TOO, APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN GALVAN'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS, AND I THINK HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND COUNCIL'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO MAKE SURE WE PUT SAFEGUARDS IN FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

WITHOUT QUESTION. I BELIEVE WE CAN PUT THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING SOME CERTAINTY FOR THESE DATA CENTERS WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT SAN ANTONIO AS A POTENTIAL HOME.

SO LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE SAFEGUARDS ARE, LET'S MAKE THEM AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, LET'S PROVIDE CERTAINTY SO THAT WE DON'T LOSE OUT ON THE POSSIBILITY OF, AGAIN, THE REVENUE AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THESE FACILITIES CAN PROVIDE FOR OUR CITY. THANKS, MAYOR. COUNCILMAN WHYTE, WAS THAT AUSTIN OR BOSTON. BOSTON. OKAY.

I'LL HAVE MY TEAM PULL WHAT RESTRICTIONS THEY'VE GOT ON DATA CENTERS THAT MATCH THAT DEFINITION SO WE'RE ALL TALKING AND SPEAKING FROM THE SAME PAGE. ERIK, DO WE HAVE SOME ANALYSIS OR MAYBE THE ZONING TEAM HAS DONE THIS, DO WE HAVE SOME ANALYSIS THAT HELPS US UNDERSTAND -- AND MAYBE IT'S FROM OTHER COMMUNITY'S EXPERIENCES THE WAYS IN WHICH DATA CENTERS AND KIND OF WHERE THEY'VE SET UP HAVE IMPACTED THE PROPERTY VALUES OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES? BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN THINK ABOUT THE 14% REVENUE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, DEPRESSING PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH, OF COURSE, AFFECTS, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL FUND, BUT ALSO IMPACTS THOSE FAMILIES AND THEIR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN WEALTH, SUSTAIN WEALTH, PASS ON WEALTH.

YEAH. PLEASE. >> TOHMAZ: WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT ANALYSIS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO.

>> MAYOR JONES: THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE SECOND ROUND? OKAY.

THANKS, AGAIN, STAFF. APPRECIATE IT. THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, A TIMELY CONVERSATION. THANK YOU, DOCTOR, FOR JOINING US.

APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, AND, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE AN APPROACH THAT IS AS SPECIFIC TO OUR COMMUNITY AS POSSIBLE, I THINK YOUR RESEARCH HAS SHOWN, AS HAS OTHER LITERATURE ON THIS, THAT MANY OF THE COMMUNITIES ARE FACING THE EXACT SAME ISSUES. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY

[03:30:01]

WE'RE ALL OPERATING OFF THE SAME INFORMATION AS WE THEN, YOU KNOW, VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT S CODE. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY HAVE TO GO INTO THIS. THERE'S BEEN -- YOU KNOW, IN OTHER AREAS, LOTS OF PROMISES MADE AROUND THESE DATA CENTERS THAT HAVEN'T NECESSARILY COME TO FRUITION, SO I THINK WE, YOU KNOW -- BE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR APPROACH, WO, TO BEST ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ALL HEARD IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND HAVE A POLICY THAT AT THE VERY END OF THE DAY BEST PROTECTS US.

AND IF WE DON'T NEED THOSE PROTECTIONS, THEN OKAY.

BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE THEM IN PLACE IF NEEDED. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO FOLLOW ON DISCUSSIONS AND I'M A ACTUALLY -- WE'VE GOT 25 FOLKS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW I'M SURE THEY WILL MAYBE BE ONE OF THOSE TOPICS. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE CONVERSATION.

ERIK, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED ON THIS. >> WALSH: YES, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. THE TIME IS NOW 5:39 P.M.

THE MEETING'S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.