Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) Meeting Transcript – 2/19/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 2/19/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 2/19/2025 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [9:29:25 AM] call to order the audit and finance committee of the Austin city council for this regular scheduled meeting of the audit and finance committee. We are meeting in the city council chambers, which is located at city hall at 301 west second street, and we have a quorum of the audit and finance committee present. Members. The first thing we'll do is we will go to general public public [9:30:26 AM] general public public communication, and then we will from that point, we will go to items one and two. I will call on Marc may. Hi. >> Good morning. My name is Marc may. I actually live in d5. I wanted to talk to you today about some concerns I have about the non profit partners we have with the park. So you know as we know, part has actually outsourced many of its functions and services due to finance problems and budget. These include the trail of lights that you know of course does lights. You know Austin parks foundation that does parks projects, and the trail conservancy that does a work on the butler trail. I believe many, many of these deals are not actually ending well for the city or the public. [9:31:27 AM] well for the city or the public. I'll show you some of the details about trail of lights and apf. I think it's in the best, you know, the best interests of the city and of the public for the city to audit and look at what it is actually giving versus what it's getting from these deals. All of the numbers I'll show you, I believe are correct and are based on public public information from the nonprofit websites as well as irs filings. Okay. Trail. Trail of lights. The city actually subsidizes trail trail of lights by waiving and not billing fees of over $1 million in 2020 through 2023. During the same time, trail of lights profit and loss showed a gain of 1.4 million. During this time, they also violated their contract in many ways. First, they overcharged for general general admission. The contract plus the fee schedule sets a $5 [9:32:28 AM] plus the fee schedule sets a $5 max. They charge over ten. They overcharge for parking. There's a max of 25. They charged 31 charge of contract. Clearly states they can only charge admission on half of the nights. Even details of the contract that say that they have to submit a ticket manifest that's signed on company letterhead. They couldn't do. Austin parks foundation. C3 paid about a $7 million fee for a for a zilker park to apf. This this includes one and a half that they pay to repair the park during this year. They also paid themselves $2.3 million in salaries. By my math, that's more than the entire council makes. During this time, they also increased their financial assets to over $2,020 million. And what did our [9:33:28 AM] $2,020 million. And what did our parks get during this time? Less than 300 K in festival grants and 1.3 million in park in park improvement projects. So the city is ceding maybe $5.5 million in fees and getting maybe $2 million back. I think we're a city of processes and rules. Contracts should mean something, and I think we can do better than this. Thank you. >> Thank you, mister may. Members, we will now go to item number one, which is the approval of the minutes of the audit and finance committee meeting of December 11th, 2024. I'll entertain a motion to approve the mayor pro tem moves approval. It is seconded by council member duchen. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. The minutes are approved. Item number two is to amend the 2025 audit and finance committee calendar so that what we would do is we would add March 26th, 2025 and remove March 19th, 2025. The reason we're doing [9:34:31 AM] 2025. The reason we're doing that is March 19th is the week of spring break. And it didn't. It's people have other plans during that week, but then the 26th would work as well. Do I have a motion to make that amendment to the calendar? The motion is made by council member vela, seconded by the mayor pro tem. Is the discussion hearing? None. The motion is adopted. Members. What I think we all ought to do for staff purposes and moving forward is we will now take up item number six, which is succession planning. The succession planning audit of the city's measures to address projected employee turnover. And I will ask our staff to address that item. >> Hello. My name is Christina kern, and I was the auditor in charge for this project. >> Thank you. >> Succession planning is an important component for any employer. Part of our city's strategic plan states that the city of Austin embraces and embraces the dual responsibility [9:35:32 AM] embraces the dual responsibility of being responsive to emerging challenges, while also dialing up efforts to prevent problems on the front end. Succession planning speaks to the latter piece in that statement. It is a process that requires proactivity for the city of Austin. It's important for us to be mindful of succession planning because we have, as have other cities, had challenges in retaining employees. Some departments have vacancy rates of over 15%, and 12% of our civilian workforce is able to retire today, with that eligibility number doubling over the next five years. During our research, we found many best practice elements in the succession planning space and identified the five key common and actionable elements of the best practice models to help measure the city's efforts, as shown here. You may also notice on this slide a photo of some of our city employees. Sometimes we may get caught up in the theory of succession planning, but it's important to remind ourselves that the heart of this work is to support our employees and their career paths. This slide shows the city's progress when [9:36:37 AM] shows the city's progress when it comes to these best practices for succession planning. Although Austin has not been able to implement an integrated approach nor developed a written framework around succession planning, the city has taken some steps to assess city needs, capture knowledge, and train and develop employees. We also connected with six peer cities. Austin is comparable to the peer cities and that most peer cities succession planning efforts are not well defined. With that said, two of the cities we spoke with seem to be making progress to formalize their efforts. Our audit found that the city does not have a common definition or written framework for succession planning, to ensure sufficient staffing and knowledge are in place to meet community needs. Having a framework for all departments could help create a more integrated approach to succession planning. As of now, departments may offer different or different opportunities for employees. For instance, some departments have focused on ways [9:37:37 AM] departments have focused on ways to train their employees in ways that could help them move to a new role. Some departments have cross-training, while others have created their own training to help employees practice their interviewing skills. Some departments have also worked to develop standard operating procedures to capture knowledge, with a common definition and a written framework for departments to utilize. The city can become more equitable in supporting the careers of all employees, regardless of the department that they're in. One key component that was mentioned multiple times during our audit was that perception that the succession planning was unable to be implemented because of municipal civil service rules. These rules are a set of rules that govern the city's process for hiring and promotions, as well as other processes. Some managers have believed that if they were to conduct succession planning, it may be viewed as favoritism to others, and therefore managers have felt that their hands have been tied by mix. However, after reviewing the rules and consulting with [9:38:39 AM] the rules and consulting with the law department, departments can conduct succession planning within the municipal civil service system. Currently, there is a lack of clear city guidance provided to departments with a common definition and written guidance about what is allowed to be conducted while following mix requirements. Managers may feel more empowered and more capable to conduct succession planning. Our second finding states that the city's data systems are not connected in a way that enables effective succession planning efforts. However, the city is transitioning to a new centralized human resource management system that includes succession planning tools. Our recommendations are that the human resources department work with the city manager's office to align the city's approach to succession planning with best practice elements. These recommendations were shared with the human resources department, and manager has agreed with our recommendations. Thank you for listening, and at this time, [9:39:39 AM] listening, and at this time, I'll answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Members. Do you have any questions on this item? Yes. Council member duchen. >> So I had a chance to visit with Corey and Jason yesterday, and I'm trying to figure out since you were the one that performed the study, I asked them kind of where they thought we were relative to those six peer cities, and they said probably like a 2 or 3, whereas maybe some of those peer cities might be farther along in the process, might be a four. Why is everybody so behind in this process? Is it a resource issue, or is it because we've got high priority issues because we're dealing with covid? I don't want to speculate, but I'd love to get your thought on why. It seems like across the board cities are struggling with this. >> That's a great question. Based off of interviews that we had with peer cities, I would say that it is based on priorities and having to respond to lots of things. This is something that requires the [9:40:40 AM] something that requires the planning piece, and in a lot of instances, operations are responsive and having to respond to major things. So yeah, that's that's my assessment of it. >> So a lot of it is circumstantial. >> It's that because there are other major issues going on in cities, it's hard to prioritize the planning piece. Because it requires that instead of just like that strategic plan states that, you know, we respond to those emerging challenges while also planning and trying to prevent. So it's the reactive piece. Instead of that proactive piece. Yeah. >> From the cities that you looked at, are they also in the same place where upwards of a quarter of their, their civil workers are eligible to retire in the next five years? How severe is that across the board? >> That's a great question too. [9:41:41 AM] >> That's a great question too. I would have to visit with those peer cities again to know. I do know, based off of one of the interviews that we had, that yes, as we were talking, one of those peer cities is in the process of formalizing those efforts because they observed that their eligibility retirement was about a quarter of their workforce. And then they and that's when they realized, like, it would be important for us to take time to develop a succession planning framework. Yeah. >> One last question, which is you also mentioned that there's a sense it sounds like there was a prevailing attitude that people couldn't, well, I guess embark on a succession plan because of civil service rules or maybe perceived as favoritism or something along those lines. That seems like a behavioral change or a cultural change. How difficult has that do you suspect that's going to be to, for us to move on? >> I'm not sure I would say. I think there's always been this perception. And so managers have [9:42:43 AM] perception. And so managers have felt that their hands are tied and are unable to conduct succession planning. And so I think with direction from the centralized human resources department saying you can do these things, I think would yes, it'd be a change for sure. But I think as I stated, I feel like they feel more empowered if they know I am allowed to do this. >> Yeah. And in terms of the consequences of losing institutional knowledge, when you were investigating this, was there any way you were able to quantify what that looks like? If we were had all these people that were eligible to take retirement and potentially not be able to transfer their knowledge and skills onto new, you know, successors or new team members. What's what's the consequence of that? Can you expand on that? >> Okay. So I would say we were not able to quantify as far as institutional knowledge walking out the door. However, when succession planning is not in [9:43:44 AM] succession planning is not in place, there is that risk that we've left a gap of knowledge. And then we as a workforce are trying to, you know, reduce that gap. And so the consequences are, is that we have. Not as great of operations going on because we weren't actively trying to plan for those those gaps and those vacancies. >> All right. Thank you so much. Thanks for your work on this. >> Thank you. Council member. The council member harper-madison. For the record, council member Ryan alter, who's a member of this committee has has joined, is joining us virtually, as is council member harper-madison and council member harper-madison. I'll recognize you since I think you raised your hand for a question. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Or chair, I, I can't hear the dais. I can hear the podium, but not the dais. And I'm turned up all the way on the device and within the webex app. Is there [9:44:45 AM] the webex app. Is there something y'all can do to adjust my volume? >> We'll try that. Can you hear me? We can't hear you now. >> Question I'll go ahead and pose the question while I have the time. Has to do with something I observed recently was there was a memo that went out that talked about specific training protocol per department, and there were a couple where there was no training specific protocol by way of the department, one that was of a special interest to me was around the succession planning that my office is doing. And you know that I hope we as a council adopt recognizing that as an extension beyond city of Austin employees, we don't have succession planning protocol for council offices, which I think is [9:45:46 AM] offices, which I think is problematic in something that we can remedy with us all moving, you know, in the in the same direction in terms of how to mitigate that, that issue. So that said, I just wonder how we can incorporate the data that was uncovered with this audit into why we don't have council office specific training regimen. Not I'm sorry, I take that back. Not why we don't have how we can have more effective council office training, dedicated time and resources. And then most importantly, in my opinion, how we can work on some codified succession planning protocol. I mean, we could just save so much in the way of time and frustration and public trust if new council members are coming in on solid footing. And I have lots of ideas around how we can do that, the community has lots of ideas on how we can do that. But instead of starting a separate conversation, I [9:46:48 AM] a separate conversation, I wonder how we can incorporate that into this conversation. And I don't know that that's a question for staff so much as just presenting that information for my colleagues. >> Thank you for doing that. And we ought to we can we can look at the recommendations and the responses we got from management and see how that that might apply to council offices. So thank you for that. One last thing is on the on the timing, the proposed implementation date, it's far off into the future. Talk to me a little bit about why it's been set and that. And I'm giving you a knee jerk reaction. There may be a very good but that's December 26th and March 27th seems a long way off. >> Yes. And we have a representative from the human resources department, and they can answer that question. >> That'd be great. >> Yeah. >> Hi. Rebecca Kennedy with the human resources department. We [9:47:49 AM] human resources department. We are in the process of implementing a pretty massive human capital management system with the within the city, and that is set to be in place by summer of 25. This this timeline essentially started with us trying to take a look and look at the software and what it can do to help us with succession planning. And so we're trying to get this massive. Got it software up and going on the ground off. And then we'll take a look at the succession planning recommendations. >> What I would ask you to do is, is and we don't need to make it a big formal deal. But as you get a little bit further in that you know where you are and you get you get everything implemented with regard to the software, we might just let me know. So we might make it an agenda item so you can report back if there's any change in how you see those timelines. >> Okay. Yes, we can do that. >> Great. Members do you have anything else on this item? Thank you all. Thank you both very much. Thank you for the report and thank you for the [9:48:50 AM] report and thank you for the response. Members. That'll take us to item number five, the future role of the audit and finance committee in developing city's budget process and other financial matters. And I'll recognize Mr. Benigno. After that, we will go to item number three. >> Good morning. >> Committee members. My name is Ed Benigno, chief financial officer for the city of Austin. So I'm sure you've all seen the email that the mayor sent out to the committee members proposing some new directions for the audit finance committee, particularly particularly related to the finance side of the equation. In the email, things were discussed, such as the city's annual budget process, the arpa cliff that we've talked about before with the full city council, and the fact that we had a lot of federal funds come in to elevate spending on certain programs, and that funding is about to end at the end of 2026, revenue caps [9:49:50 AM] at the end of 2026, revenue caps and other legislative actions that could be coming from our legislature, the 2026 bond tree. So a lot of topics that really do have importance from a financial perspective for the city and make sense to come through the audit and finance committee. But using that email as an outline city staff, I sat down with Kerri Lang from the office of budget and organizational excellence, and with Kim Olivares from the financial services department, with Corey stokes, our city auditor, to discuss what would a work plan for the audit finance committee potentially look like? That addresses a lot of those important topics that were outlined in the email from the city manager. And so that is what is before you. This was late backup. So we apologize for the lateness of it, but we were working on it up to the last minute to try to come up with an agenda for the committee that we thought addressed all of the topics that were of interest. And of course, we're interested in hearing from the committee. Any other topics that you would [9:50:50 AM] Any other topics that you would like to see added to this work plan? Generally, we have planned for two hour meetings. In our experience somewhere around for audit and finance related items. They typically take in the range of 20 to 30 minutes per item, so we might be able to fit a fifth item in, depending upon if some of them are quicker, but sometimes that's hard to judge. Plus there's other items that just come up. So, you know, we have things like on today's agenda related to municipal civil service interviews and selection, you'll see items that come up related to committee appointments, for example, to our retirement system committees. If we have citizen appointees. This body makes recommendations related to those appointments. All the bylaw changes to our boards and commissions come through this committee. We also have executive session updates on information security matters from time to time. So there's other things that come up. So generally we think about four issues per meeting is a manageable amount. And that's what we've laid out on this [9:51:51 AM] what we've laid out on this agenda. So looking at March 26th and I'll focus mostly on the finance item, although we've also listed audit items that we expect this could move. That's why it says draft. But some of these things can move. But these are audits that we would expect to come up at these different meetings. And again though I'll focus on the finance related items. First for the March 26th meeting, we have legislative updates on finance related bills. Obviously, the legislature is in session. There will be thousands of bills filed, and many of those bills will impact local government finances. Things like annexation restrictions, revenue caps, restrictions on the allowable uses of certificates of obligation are all bills that we've seen in the past, and bills that we would expect to see again here coming up this legislative session, things that would impact the city's finances. And so we propose giving you an update on those matters. There has been some talk about the impact of the 3.5% revenue cap that was passed in 2019, and how that impacts the city's finances and the [9:52:51 AM] the city's finances and the ability for us to maintain a balanced budget, in addition to being able to fund new community priorities and the potential need for a tax rate election to do that, we would talk we would think about putting together in March 26th a framework for those conversations, essentially taking a look at how can we strategically structure tax rate elections in a way that not only allow us to address new priorities from the city council and from the community, but to also to keep our budget in balance over the long haul and what kind of cycle we might predict for those or project for those types of things. So just real quick, for example, it doesn't help us. We have a structural issue with the 3.5% revenue cap. So to pass a tax rate election to fund important new community priorities, that only then creates this being in balance the next year, because we have a structural deficit with the 3.5% creates challenges. So we think there's a framework that we could put [9:53:51 AM] a framework that we could put together that addresses that structural imbalance. In addition to council's priorities that you would like to see funded in future budgets. >> And Mr. Fanning, if I might interrupt you and council members as part of part of that discussion, would include, I think, at least two other aspects. One is how that structural imbalance, how it plays out in the numbers, how how how the public can see that, that it creates that, that, that structural issue. The second is that it's going to be important, I think. And he's already mentioned a couple of things, but it's going to be important, I think, for us to see how things over the past few years have impacted that cap. So for example, the impact, the impact of having the arpa money come in, what has that done to the way we see our tax rate? And in fact, could you calculate the [9:54:53 AM] fact, could you calculate the role that the arpa money has had in, in that 3.5%? You hadn't had to do anything with it because you've had the arpa money. And can we calculate what it would have been had we not had the arpa money? What might we have done under those circumstances so that that there's a more general feel about the overall sense of the budget and the role those things play as we go forward during this process. So I just want to highlight and by the way, part of that he mentioned, you know, he mentioned the arpa money and the one time money and some of the one time money has been used for ongoing expenses. One of the things that we're going to want to have this finance committee look at is how much of that has happened, right? And get a feel for it. And I would see us probably subject to the chair of the public health committee agreeing to this, having maybe a joint meeting of the public health committee and the audit [9:55:55 AM] health committee and the audit and finance committee, where we talk about that, the role of that in funding homeless services, which has been, I think, probably the biggest use of the arpa money, including the biggest use of one time money for ongoing expenses. But do that together so that we're all looking at the same data as we go along. So anyway, sorry to interrupt. >> Yeah. And thank you for that. And that leads in though to I also added to the work plan before you in this kind of orangish colored font. Those are other key dates that financial matters are going to be looked at by the city council body as a whole. So part of what we're trying to do here is to say, timing wise, relative to these already fixed budget and financial forecast dates. When does it work for the audit finance committee to lean in to certain conversations? So on April 8th, you can see on this is when our financial forecast presentation to the full city council will be at that financial forecast presentation, we will lay out the city's five year revenue and expenditure projections. We will bring up [9:56:56 AM] projections. We will bring up the issue of the arpa cliff, and so that will be discussed there, along with various initiatives from council resolutions that have been passed that have funding consequences and our ability to address those or not address those in our financial projections. To the mayor's point, specifically on the arpa items that may make that would be a good timeline, probably is after that financial forecast, but before the next audit finance meeting might be a good time to have that joint committee discussion that goes more in depth on the arpa challenges that we're going to be facing. That then would lead us up to an April 16th audit finance committee meeting, where staff would envision coming back with a more detailed analysis and discussion of a prospective tax rate election for 2025 at. At that point, we would have a better sense of what the legislature, what legislative bills might be passed that might further cap revenues. We'll have laid out the city's financial forecast and projections. We'll have had some discussion about [9:57:56 AM] have had some discussion about the arpa challenges and other council priorities. And so by the 16th, I think, would be a good time for the committee to have a robust conversation around a second conversation around tax rate elections and to get your feedback about a prospective election in 2025. That is also the date April 16th, when we would have deloitte and touche would come and present the financial audit. That's something that's required by the city charter. So they would come and provide both the comprehensive financial report and the single audit report to the to the committee. Moving on to may 28th, which is your next meeting? One of the duties of this committee is to review the city's financial policies and to recommend any changes to the city council. So staff, typically in may, tries to come to the committee to present any [9:58:56 AM] to the committee to present any proposed changes to our city financial policies. We would get feedback from the from the committee and make adjustments based upon that feedback, leading to council approval of those in the fy 26 proposed budget. Quite a number of audits. And so we have a lot of audit work that we foresee coming to fruition in may. And so that would probably be an audit heavy meeting. You can see on July 15th that after the may 28th meeting, there is the council break over summer, June and July budgets being developed. Back on July 15th at a full city council meeting to present the fy 26 proposed budget to the full council the very next day. The committee is at work on July 16th. Given that there are so many budget dates at that time, and if you just let me focus on those, July 15th is when the proposed budget is presented. We have council budget work sessions planned for the 23rd, 24th, 29th, 31st, August 5th and [9:59:56 AM] 24th, 29th, 31st, August 5th and seventh, and then budget adoption for August 13th through 15th. So there's a lot of budget dates at that time where the budget will be discussed thoroughly through the with the full council, through the work sessions that have been planned. So on July 16th, we think it would be a good opportunity for us to highlight not so much budget matters since there's so many things that are already going on related to budget, but to move on to some of the other topics the mayor brought up related to our public facilities corporation and projects that are going through there. So of course, you're familiar with the acquisition of a new public safety headquarters campus, the public safety warehouse, our northeast service center, which is a joint Austin resource recovery fleet services service center that is currently in progress and is being managed by our new public facilities corporation, which was set up and approved by the council as a more streamlined way to deliver these large scale public projects. Also, at that date, we [10:00:58 AM] projects. Also, at that date, we would envision coming to council with an update on our 2026 bond program development and any changes that staff is seeing in regards to bonding capacity that might be available for such a bond program. And also, of course, taking into account considerations that council will have to decide in regards to cap and stitch and how all that plays together in terms of the city's overall bonding capacity. Looking further down the line, we just have more conceptually at this point. But for the final four meetings of the audit finance committee in August, September, October and December, we would envision providing updates to the committee on financing plans for some of the large multi-billion dollar projects that are going on, including the convention center, the airport expansion project, connect, potentially cap and stitch if additional work is needed on that, updates on key redevelopment projects and facilities governance planning. So there's a lot that's going on [10:01:59 AM] So there's a lot that's going on in that arena. Of course, colony park is a huge project. The Mueller project is still going on, and we could provide an update on that, as well as potential prospective redevelopment opportunities with the acquisition of a new public safety headquarters, for example, the police headquarters will be vacated eventually. What are the plans for that and what are the potential redevelopment opportunities for that site, the old municipal court facility up on eighth street is another facility that soon will be. City staff will be relocated out of, and that will be a site that's available for redevelopment. So a lot of exciting redevelopment activities that we think would make a lot of sense to bring to this committee for consideration. And then finally, an update on the fiscal year 25 financial close. So we're currently in fiscal year 25. When council adopts the budget, there will be a lot of projections made about how revenue trends are going to play out for the remainder of the year. We won't have perfect information in August when you're presenting the budget. And so we would come back to the [10:03:00 AM] And so we would come back to the committee most likely in December with an update on how our current fiscal year closed out relative to what we had projected when council proposed the approved the budget. And if there's any significant variance, that variance is there what the plan is for addressing them, particularly if things aren't closing out as good as we had projected. So that's our thoughts on it. But absolutely, we'd love to hear the feedback. >> Thank you. Members. Do you have any feedback on on that that tentative proposal? Yes. >> Thank you for the layout. The proposal looks great. I think the discussion again needs to probably start sooner than later. So we can think that through very thoroughly. Quick question on the arpa funds. Again, most of them, my understanding is that most of them were used ultimately for capital projects. A lot of the permanent supportive housing that we're constructing is using that. But I have heard again, [10:04:00 AM] that. But I have heard again, anecdotally really, but that some long term grant recipients from the city, you know, funding recipients from the city that they were moved from general fund to arpa funding. And now with arpa funding ending, we would potentially have to again figure that out. Essentially, it is that the case? What do you are you aware of kind of shifting moneys around that was, you know, again, done a few years in the past in order to free up general funds by using arpa funds? And do you know what the extent of that was? >> No, I don't have that. That is not something that I recollect, but certainly something that we need to analyze as part of coming back to this body with with that arpa analysis. And really that would be what we would do at the financial forecast in April is to lay that out. But no, off the cuff. I am not aware of taking general fund funded projects and [10:05:00 AM] general fund funded projects and moving them to arpa. Arpa funded, and there may be general fund funded programs that we elevated for sure, that we elevated based upon this influx of federal funding. So I can't say for certain whether or not that shift occurred or not, but we'd have to I'd have to have some look into that. >> Got it. Appreciate that. >> Yeah. And I might just to add to that, I think that that one of the things that gets said anecdotally a lot are things like that and things that we also know to be true, which is one time money got used for ongoing expenses, things of that nature. The sooner we can maybe get that in a in the form of a report. And how much even if it even if we wait until the April meeting to actually go through those items probably would be helpful so that that and that's one of the things that I really want to see this committee do is [10:06:02 AM] want to see this committee do is dig into some of those items, ask questions about them. Because when we talk about the arpa cliff, that's a big part of it. And so the sooner we can do that, maybe with the goal of either using it as Mr. Avanzino is pointing out, as part of a joint meeting with the public health committee, or that that April meeting where the five year financial forecast, and we just have a segment set aside so that the public is aware of that, I think is a good idea. >> Got it. >> Other questions or thoughts? Yes, mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> Benigno, for this work plan. I do want to share some feedback here, but just know I think we just received this 30 minutes before, so it's very, very fresh on the mind. But I think overall I want to first appreciate you and your team's work because this is very comprehensive and I really appreciate laying out the committee's work in this manner, [10:07:02 AM] committee's work in this manner, because it is it's covering every facet of our local government. I think that's going to be important for this committee to really lean into areas that I want to comment on. As far as the joint committee between audit and Austin public health, I think that makes so much sense. We have a memo coming back to us by the end of March. I think us meeting in April to go through the departmental homeless strategy office assessment on the cost, modeling how much it would cost for permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, all of the different components. So teeing that up in that April timeline, I think our committee meets the first Wednesday of the month, might be a good time for us to have that joint committee. The question I have for you on the strategic the city's strategic plan, how does that fit in with the work plan that you have laid out here for us to go through the targets and measurements that were laid out by the manager as part of the citywide plan? >> Yeah, that's not currently on here, but certainly something [10:08:03 AM] here, but certainly something that we could add to the agenda, if that's a and it will come up throughout the budget process as well. >> Okay. It might just be good to weave it in somehow, since that's such an important guiding lens for us. And most certainly, I'm sure during the budget process it will have a focal point. The arpa cliff, that area I cannot underscore enough. We've gotten kind of bits and pieces here and there from work sessions. I remember one work session from last budget cycle where we got some more understanding, but really just want to emphasize the importance of us to understand the impact of the cliff that is looming and how we're able to leverage those dollars and what it would have been if had we not had those dollars and allocated the majority of it to homelessness, what that would have meant for our community, that information is going to be key. So I really just want to encourage our city staff for that work session on April 8th to have a robust presentation for us. Certainly, I want to understand what the impact is, but also have [10:09:03 AM] impact is, but also have recommendations from our city administrators as to how to best go about or how to approach budget. With the understanding of the lack of funding we are will be confronting. And last but not least, one other update for the committee to consider is an update on our current bond projects from the 2020 mobility bond 22 housing bond and of course, the previous one you might want to just get. Usually we have a touch base on those projects, but I can't remember when the last one was. >> That's a good idea. We let's talk about when we can put in there for our capital delivery services report. Because that will play a role in everything else we're trying to decide. So that's a good another good catch. Thank you. Anything else on this item. Oh yeah. Sorry. Vice chair of the committee. No worries. Is it past your bedtime [10:10:03 AM] worries. Is it past your bedtime where you are? >> Very much so. >> Yeah. Go Ed add to the length of your day. Go ahead. >> That's right, that's right. On the arpa cliff element. I think there's one nuance that I don't know will necessarily show up in your report. And maybe we can kind of have a conversation as it relates to the report that council member Fuentes was talking about for the cost. But we spent a lot of that, that money on capital projects. As vela mentioned, the permanent supportive housing. But then, as I know, you identified last budget. There's a lot of services that are associated with those capital projects. So we might have spent a certain amount of money on the capital, but now we're needing to provide services in an ongoing manner, and that those services aren't arpa dollars, but they're tied to an arpa project. And so just kind of how we think about those ongoing expenses, even though [10:11:05 AM] ongoing expenses, even though the arpa money was spent on a capital project. The other thing that I would love to figure out how we might look at as a committee is a little more in depth in some of our department budgets. You know, we get the budget presented to us, and it's not very in-depth as it relates to what certain departments are doing. And so if we're having to make decisions about prioritizing this spending program over that program, we often don't have the insight into the departments. And then we end up with this very long unmet needs list. And so I don't know if there's a way to either start with that unmet needs question and then ask what departments are doing aside from that or, you know, addressing the unmet needs within the budget process after it comes out. I don't have that really [10:12:06 AM] out. I don't have that really worked out in my mind, but it's something that I think this committee could address. >> Yeah, I agree. In fact, that was one of my frustrations during the last budget cycle was we would get into the budget and then get a list of what were labeled unmet needs. I'm not sure that's the right term, but but that's the term that gets used. So do you understand what the issue is there? Mr. Benigno? >> I do, and we do have a lot more work sessions planned this year than we have in the past, and so we will have more time on the agenda to get into those topics. Now, the timing is those work sessions have been planned for after the budget comes out in July. Leading up to that, we have the financial forecast. And then, you know, council has gone for a long period of time over June and July leading up to the budget coming out. So right now they're planning for after the. >> Budget. Let's let's visit and take into account what the vice [10:13:07 AM] take into account what the vice chair said, because we might try to put some of that into one of these other meetings as we go along. Okay. Is that is that good? Did you have something else? No. Okay. Good discussion. This is what I was hoping we would do with with this. So thank you all very much. And thank you, Mr. Benigno, I appreciate that. Thank you. Members that will take us to item number. >> We do have one speaker. >> Signed up for this item. >> You're right. We do. Thank you for calling that to my attention. Miss Joseph. >> Thank you. Mayor, council I'm Zenobia Joseph. My comments as it relates to the budget. First of all, Mr. Benigno should put this in back up for the public. It's like a public private meeting that you're having right now, because we're not able to see what it is that you're looking at. I would ask you to recognize the audit connection [10:14:09 AM] recognize the audit connection to the budget process and specifically the public information request. I'm just going to refer you to the audit from August 2023, which says the city of Austin does not take proactive measures to make it easy to access the information. So I would ask you to look at your law department to see if you need more staff there. Generally, public information requests are responded to within ten days. I put in a request January 30th, 2025, and they have estimated that they will respond by February 28th, 2025. Your next meeting before that would be the day before. I've asked for the cost estimate for Mr. Yancey's work at the Austin convention center. I asked specifically under government code 55 2.023, special right of access for information bearing my name that specifically relates to this family and friends option. I would ask you to visit this family or friends option. Greg Mccormick mentioned it. It's for people who are [10:15:09 AM] it. It's for people who are homeless and incentive to get their family or friends to take them in, but then Mr. Mccormick never responded back. So I would ask you to look at if you only have one bed for every five people who are homeless, that there perhaps needs to be some type of incentive for the family or friends who do take these individuals in. I would ask you to recognize specifically that in the government code, there's a handbook 2024, and it specifies promptly means as soon as possible, under the circumstances, that is within a reasonable time without delay. And the language that your law department is using is reasonable. And so perhaps that's a loophole in the law. I'm not sure how much it would cost you, mayor. I would just ask you, as you're looking at the homeless issue, to recognize the audit from September 2021, to update that audit and to recognize the cost of rapid rehousing, it may be better to actually pay part of a person's stay at a hotel, as opposed to [10:16:11 AM] stay at a hotel, as opposed to just spending all the money on one individual. And I say that because I know individuals who live at the hotel and it's like $1,700 and more. So it would be helpful if the city subsidized that particular information. I would ask you to host some kind of forum and have the community give you solutions. There needs to be microwaves for people. I don't think you want to eat cold food all the time. There needs to be showers that are actually usable things of that sort. And lastly, we need transit. I know you know that it's in the city charter. And so I want you to recognize your obligation to get people on. Palmer Laine between Samsung and apple, it was $4.7 million for the metro rapid that would have been there. And so I would just ask you in this historic budget that you passed to recognize that individuals can't even get to the three. And I would ask you to recognize the need for there to be some type of health care center, a neighborhood center north of us [10:17:11 AM] neighborhood center north of us 183. If you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them at this time. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. >> You're welcome, Mr. Mayor. >> We're going to take up item number three. So if you would like to speak on item number three, which you've also signed up on, I'll recognize you on that right now. >> Yes, mayor. Thank you. Item three relates to your committees, task forces and boards. I just wanted to call to your attention. There's some inconsistency as it relates specifically to the African American resource advisory commission. The meetings are not always recorded. And on June 6th, 2023, when Lianes banks actually briefed the reduction in Austin transit partnership, the light rail system, it was Greg Smith, the commissioner, who recognized that northeast Austin would never have rail in his lifetime. The staff posted part of the audio, but then it spliced right when he asked the question. So it's viewpoint discrimination. I would just ask you to recognize that there needs to be some parity, and that when you do revisit your rules, I would ask you to [10:18:12 AM] rules, I would ask you to recognize the remote speakers, because for today's meeting, I'll just use that as an example. I did email you and I emailed the staffer, Guerrero, and it says online that you can only register for action items. I was here in time to speak on the public comment. I mentioned it in the email, but technically I guess I couldn't sign up remotely, even though it was in advance of the 45 minutes before the meeting. So the lawsuit that was filed by bill bunch didn't acknowledge any of the remote speakers. And I want you to recognize that it's inconsistent. So I'm not sure what needs to happen as far as making it equitable. But the communication between when you're not at the meeting and when you are in a meeting physically present is disturbing. The other commission I would ask you to recognize is the community development commission. Specifically, it is connected to the hud funding. I would get you to recognize July 18th, 2024. That was when you actually submitted the [10:19:13 AM] actually submitted the consolidated plan to hud, approximately $70 million over five years. But the community development commission, according to the public. There's a public participation statute or ordinance that would allow the comments in advance, but Brandi Demayo just unilaterally submitted it, ran out the clock. The same thing happened with the project connect community advisory committee. So if there's going to be transparency, there's going to be a process for the community, then our input needs to be taken into consideration as opposed to staff being able to just run out the clock. And if not, then there needs to be some void ability where that item is delayed so that you can consider what we say. But those are just two specific examples. And it has happened consistently with the community development commission. I would just ask you to recognize that that's a good time now, because they're changing chairs to actually revisit what the rules are. I know you just amended some of the rules, but that would be helpful because it's pretty inconsistent and it's deeply [10:20:14 AM] inconsistent and it's deeply disturbing because these are volunteers. And so it feels like we're just engaging in a mere exercise in futility. And I recognize that you would not want us to just waste our time or yours. But if you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them at this time. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you for being here. >> Certainly. >> Alejandro de la Vega. Speaking on item three. >> Good morning. So I'm here to talk to you about saving the bicycle advisory council. Today is a proposal to merge the back with the urban transportation committee as part of a goal to sunset inactive, ineffective and redundant boards and commissions. And you specifically say that this will actually reflect the importance of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as key to mobility. However, I think this is wrong because the back is highly active and does not meet criteria for elimination. Merging with the utc would actually diminish, not amplify cyclist representation, and the back has been recognized [10:21:14 AM] back has been recognized officially by the city of Austin in a city resolution as a citizen led organization with city staff liaison and the Austin bicycle, and includes an action item to continue supporting bicycle advisory council. And I will note that the bicycle advisory council is highly active and well supported. We don't suffer from frequent cancellations, lack of quorum. We are self elected body. We regularly receive over 50 applications for 12 positions, and in the recent audit, they actually found that the back passed 18 recommendations in the time period that only 7.5 were passed on average. We also received over 300 signatures in five days in support of keeping the back. And our role is really unique and important in my opinion. We have a community focused model which allows us to tackle issues that are granular level that utc would probably overlook. And so just in the last two years, we've passed ten unique items that were not covered by the utc. And I'd really like to highlight these Wright and reviews. So we actually went out and like rode some infrastructure that was implemented, like the airport boulevard corridor project, neighborhood bikeways. And we've [10:22:14 AM] neighborhood bikeways. And we've also looked at many other projects that are design level level, which the utc would probably not be able to do, especially as a sovereign condition, as busy schedule. It makes it really ill suited for this type of design level feedback. And what's really at stake is that the city has ambitious climate and mode shift goals, like 5050 mode share by 2039, doubling the all ages and abilities network by 2033. And we have major infrastructure projects along the pipeline. And this is especially important because bicycle design standards are still evolving. So I think dissolving the vac would remove a key resource for city staff when it's most needed. So I ask you instead to reform instead of eliminate the back. So I asked you to make a motion to propose an amendment to the current action to maintain the vac. And instead we can update the bylaws of the vac to clarify our mission, differentiate from the utc, and strengthen our ties between the utc and the back. For example, if there are policy level items, I think that's something the utc should take up. If there are design level and staff level feedback, the back is better suited for that, and we can save staff time by [10:23:15 AM] and we can save staff time by reducing duplicate presentations and for example, formalizing the joint back and pack meetings, which we currently do around 50% of the time in an effort to save time. So yeah, I'll take any questions. >> Thank you members. Any questions. Thank you for your input. Appreciate it. Those are all the people that have signed up to speak on item number three. So I'm going to turn to council member alter and recognize him on item number three. And then we'll have a discussion with regard to item number three. Do you want to. >> Thank you very much. >> Hang on one second. Hang on one second. Before we do that, let's have staff lay out the item and then I'll call on you. I apologize, I'm just trying to get you. I'm just trying to get you to bed. >> Sure, chair members, I'm Myrna Rios, city clerk. With me is Stephanie hall, who manages the boards and commissions, processes and the city manager's [10:24:16 AM] processes and the city manager's chief of staff, genesis gavino. We're here to present your or our findings on the direction regarding the review of the boards and commissions structure. Okay, so the city manager and the city clerk were instructed to report to this committee the following feedback to be gathered from all bodies listed in appendix a to develop a review process for governance bodies to regularly evaluate their scope and duties. To create an ordinance in the city code outlining council responsibilities for intergovernmental by appointments body appointments. Create a website to archive recommendations to the mayor and council from boards and commissions, and to assess the translation services needs of governance bodies and offer recommendations for the fiscal year 2025 2026 budget. With that, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Stephanie hall [10:25:17 AM] turn it over to Stephanie hall to present on the rest. >> Thanks, Myrna. >> Stephanie hall, city clerk's office I just wanted to quickly cover the some of the things in this directive that we are already doing, and some of the stuff that we have taken care of. The first is the translation services. This is something that we already offer and provide. We provide interpretation services to both members of commissions as well as members of the public upon request as needed. We also do provide translation services for written documentation as needed when requested. Just for your information, an approximate cost of typical interpretation for a single meeting is about $600. The second was the recommendation archive. While this is something that's already been available in the public search to locate board and commission recommendations, we have created a new page that offers some more robust search options. Looks a lot more like the database for memos to mayor and council. And that page is actually live as of this morning. So you can find it on the board and commission web page. I think we even kind of [10:26:19 AM] page. I think we even kind of highlighted it there. So you can click that and search through all the archived recommendations. The next is the appointments to intergovernmental bodies. The intention here is that we add a section of code to establish that process, to codify the process. And our goal is to mirror what is already outlined for the membership of council committee. So we'll create a new section of code that mirrors that to codify how we make the appointments of council to intergovernmental bodies. The next couple things are are directly related to some of the proposed suggestions in the appendix that was included in the resolution. Resolution. This first page here is talking about the bodies that will be dissolved because of inactivity. These are bodies that have been inactive for some time, and it's just a matter of cleaning those up. Noting that on the web page. Et cetera. Et cetera. The next is the recommendations. And these are the recommendations based on the updated appendix. So there were some slight changes to the original appendix a that was included in the resolution as the is [10:27:19 AM] resolution as the is now. So that is what we're looking at here. These are just some of the outlines that are in that appendix. First we would create an urban mobility commission that would incorporate the urban transportation commission, the pedestrian advisory, and the bicycle advisory council. Next, we would create an economic opportunity commission by incorporating the which is now called actually the technology commission, the economic prosperity commission, and the small business enterprise advisory committee. And the other piece, too, is to bridge the bond oversight into the planning commission. A couple more recommendations that are in that revised appendix a would also be to merge into the downtown commission, the south central waterfront advisory board, and the tourism commission. There's also a recommendation to update some membership requirements on the airport advisory commission. There is like an outline of the membership requirements in this body, and they're a bit outdated from when this commission first started. So we would like to review those and update those memberships as well, those requirements. And then finally [10:28:20 AM] requirements. And then finally there's a request to reassign the roles in both the planning commission and the zoning and planning commission. This is something that does require some additional steps, as it would require some updates to the land development code. And with that, I will turn it over to genesis, who will talk about the feedback in the survey. >> Good morning, chair. Members of the committee, genesis gavino, chief of staff to the city manager. So as directed in the ifc, we conducted or solicited feedback from members of the impacted boards and commissions, and we received 48 responses during the two week period from January 15th through January 31st, in which we distributed the survey. Now, I will note that we use the original list in the appendix a, and so there are more responses than the summary of the upcoming slides, because additional boards and commissions were included in the original distribution, but they were removed in the second round of the appendix a that was posted, [10:29:21 AM] the appendix a that was posted, I think, a few a few weeks ago by council member alter's office. So we asked three key, three key questions in the survey. Is there another body that aligns with or is similar to, the role and work of the board or commission you serve? Do you see the potential merger of certain boards or commissions as positive, negative or neutral? Do you see any gaps in important policies that are not currently covered by a board or commission? The next few slides will go over the responses by the impacted boards and the updated appendix a to the resolution. So the first one is the airport advisory commission, which is going to change to update the current needs for the commission. We received two responses, and I'm going to focus on the impact or the how, whether or not they see the potential merger of the certain boards or commission as positive, negative or neutral. In this instance, both responses indicated they saw the merger as neutral. The. Although one noted [10:30:23 AM] neutral. The. Although one noted that residents and businesses adjacent to the south will be silenced. For the bicycle advisory commission, we received three responses. As a reminder this would be moved or merged into the urban mobility commission. So we receive three responses, all negative, primarily indicating that the lack of specificity and detail analysis would not be would not be possible by merging the bicycle advisory commission into just one into the urban mobility commission. The next is the merging of or the incorporation of the bond oversight commission into the planning commission. We received a total of four responses. Two were positive, one was negative, and one was neutral. The next is the now named technology commission, where we received one response. This commission would be merged into the economic opportunity commission. They noted that [10:31:23 AM] commission. They noted that their response was neutral, but they provided further feedback into the third question, saying that and in the first question that this is the only commission that focuses on digital equity related initiatives and on technology and innovation projects in the city. Next is the downtown commission, which received four responses. As a reminder, this one would be absorbed or the downtown. The downtown commission would actually absorb the south central waterfront advisory board and the tourism commission. It received four responses. Three were positive and one was neutral. Next is the economic prosperity commission received two responses. Both indicated it was negative. Again, this would be absorbed into the economic opportunity commission in conjunction with the technology commission and the minority business, enterprise and small business commission. Next is the pedestrian advisory council. We [10:32:26 AM] pedestrian advisory council. We received one response. Again, this would be incorporated into the urban mobility commission. The one response was neutral to the incorporation. Next is planning commission. This again would absorb the bond oversight commission. We received four responses. Two were negative and two were positive. Then the next would be the south central waterfront advisory board being merged into the downtown commission, receiving one response in stating it was neutral. Next is the tourism commission, which received four responses. Two were negative and two were positive. Again, this is going to be incorporated into the economic opportunity commission. The next one is the urban transportation commission. It received three responses. This again would be incorporated into the urban mobility commission. Two were negative and one was positive. And finally the zoning and planning [10:33:28 AM] finally the zoning and planning commission received three responses. One was neutral and two were positive. So the next few slides that I will go over is the review process, as requested, to create a framework of how we assess sunsetting some of the boards and commissions. We already do have a process as per the city code. One is if a commission has failed to convene a meeting for a period of six months, the audit and finance committee shall make a recommendation to the city council on whether or not to continue the board. And then the second one is that every board or commission is required to file an annual internal review and report detailing the board's action in furtherance of their mission during the year, as well as the goals and objectives objectives for the coming year. The next few slides, I said. So we modeled the this proposed assessment framework after the state of Texas sunset advisory commission and revised some of the questions to really fit what our boards and commissions do. So I'll walk us very quickly [10:34:30 AM] So I'll walk us very quickly through the proposed language. The first one is really identifying boards or commissions for review. Questions include does the board or commission serve an important public purpose? Has the board or commission been subject to regular review and assessment by city council? The second is a self evaluation. What is the board or commission's overall performance in meeting its objectives? How effective and efficient is the board in delivering on their services? The next section would be public input and stakeholder consultation. Are there any significant concerns or recommendations from the public or impacted groups about sunsetting these boards or commission? Is the board or commission meeting the needs of its beneficiaries or are there gaps in service? The next is evaluation of boards or commissions performance. Are there resources being used efficiently? What performance metrics or data indicate whether the board or commission is successful? The next is legal [10:35:30 AM] successful? The next is legal and regulatory considerations. Does the board or commission have any legal mandates or statutory obligations that must be addressed before sunsetting? Section six would be assessment of need and public value. Could other boards or commissions take over the functions or services of this board or commission? The next would be impact on public services and equity. Will eliminating or restructuring the board or commission harm vulnerable or marginalized groups? And then the final recommendations and legislative action would be should the board or commission be restructured or abolished entirely, or are there improvements and reforms needed for continued services? So again, those last few slides for the proposed framework are just that. Proposed frameworks for city council or for the committee to consider that they're not set in stone. Staff is open and ready to work with city council to revise that, to fit the needs for how they want [10:36:30 AM] fit the needs for how they want to review our boards and commissions. And again, that assessment would be used by internal staff and the boards and commissions themselves in responding to their effectiveness, doing self evaluation that such. And so with that, I want to go back to slide two, just to go over the ifrc in terms of next steps. >> Okay. >> There we go. Okay. Just a reminder of where we are and actions requested of the resolution. The first one we did conduct the survey. We solicited feedback the sunset review process. That is the proposed assessment framework. That is [10:37:32 AM] assessment framework. That is before you coming. Coming before us in the future will be that draft ordinance for the single section for the appointment to intergovernmental bodies. We have completed item number four, developing that single website that archives the recommendations. And then number five, we have existing translation services as indicated by the clerk's office. So with that, that concludes my presentation. Mayor. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you very much. Thank all of you for that presentation. Anybody have questions? Yes. Council member. >> Thanks. Genesis. One quick question. It looks like you did a pretty thorough job. From what I can tell of querying the responses for people about the individual board and commission changes. Did you ask anybody about some of the rule changes that have been proposed? Also, in terms of changing final agenda approval. >> That was not part of the survey? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. Yes, mayor pro tem. [10:38:32 AM] >> Thanks. Yes, mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. On that note, I just not to derail us on this topic, but in the work plan where we had clerk updates, I think that item from the city clerk's office would be good to come to this committee, and we should vet the clerk's recommendations through this committee before it comes to a council agenda. And so I just want to flag that particular item. I think it is posted for next week for council consideration. But for this. Thank you so much. I'm really pleased to see the memo. I mean, the recommendation from the boards and commission tracker online, I think that is going to go a long way with the public and will be appreciated by colleagues, my concerns with the recommendations that are provided in here, I'm sure you all have heard from members of the public. We had one person testify today. I've heard from mycommissioners around some of these potential mergers, so I certainly cannot support merging some of these commissions and would like further consideration of how that should look like. More time for the community to [10:39:32 AM] More time for the community to weigh in. I think we're posted for possible action today on this item, but just wanted to flag that. We've had several commissioners speak out against these potential changes, and I would feel uncomfortable moving forward with this recommendation at this time. >> Thank you. What I'm going to do is go to council member alter for any comment. And councilmember harper-madison, I see your hand up after we finish some of the some of the committee members, then I'll recognize you if that's alright. Council member alter. >> Thank you very much. You know, we really wanted to start a process to kind of continue on the good governance trend. We have been on over the past two years, whether that's our rules or charter amendments, just really making sure that our government is operating effectively and efficiently. And so, you know, that's why this list was put forward. And we did get a lot of public feedback. [10:40:32 AM] get a lot of public feedback. And so wanted to kind of, as we did, trim the starting point for discussion. But it is just a starting point. You know, you I heard some of the same concerns that I know councilmember Fuentes is just mentioned. And ultimately, you know, it would be my desire and suggestion at this stage of the process to move forward with the types of things where there's general consensus. I think, you know, there will always be potentially 1 or 2 individuals who might disagree. And we have to make a decision as a body if we're going to require unanimity amongst the public or if we can have a little bit of detraction. But otherwise, I think that that the staff has really laid out a great process for us to review these bodies, whether it's for [10:41:32 AM] these bodies, whether it's for future consolidation or just scope adjustment, that will allow for these boards and commissions to ultimately be more effective. And that's the goal, is to not get rid of anybody's board or commission, but to make their work more effective and to make it so that staff is not having to go to three different bodies and make the same presentation. It takes a lot of time, a lot of resources for staff to go to these 50 plus boards and commissions. And so I think we should continue to try to make sure that that work is as valuable as it should be. And that's pretty much all I've got. I don't know how we want to move forward if we I don't think we have to make any kind of recommend recommendation today. If there is broad consensus, great. If not, I think we can work through these issues as, as [10:42:34 AM] work through these issues as, as a committee and then ultimately make recommendations to the council. >> Thank you. Councilmember. My suggestion, my sense is that that we're is that there needs to be some additional work done before we go forward on this, but we ought to have the discussion as much as we can. And, councilmember harper-madison, you had your hand up, and I do appreciate your participating in the committee meeting, particularly as a non committee member. So thank you for being here. Do you wish to say something? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate being recognized and thank you all for having me join your meeting this afternoon. So my comments are in alignment with mayor pro tem comments, but I spoke to them explicitly on the message board this morning. So my specific concerns were around the combination of the community technology committee and the economic commission and the economic commission, and then subsequently the resource [10:43:35 AM] then subsequently the resource management commission being combined. Forgive me, the commission. It was proposed to be combined with the slip in my mind right now. But the combination of the two, I think, is not congruent with the purpose of the body. So to your point, Mr. Mayor, I think there's more work for us to do just in consideration of council member and vice chair alter's contribution, which I really appreciate that, he said. This is just the start. I think it's a continuous conversation that we should be having. I certainly intend to be having in the next two years. As I close out my term around efficiency and protocol, and I really appreciate that. I feel like, Mr. Mayor, between you and the manager, that's a lot of the direction we're taking in 25, and I really appreciate the energy. I also wanted to say that I appreciate the tracker opportunity. I think that's going to be really critical for the community and for us to be able to track recommendations. But then I also wanted to recommend or request rather some joint committee meeting [10:44:39 AM] joint committee meeting opportunities, specifically based on future agenda items for this body to consider. They include the northeast service center, which obviously is directly reflective of concerns that I have as a council member, but also for the chair of the housing and planning committee. I'd say this the northeast planning district triggers are directly affected by northeast service center considerations. So for your July 16th meeting on PFC projects, I really love the opportunity to either contribute like this or considerations around a joint body meeting. The same for prospective redevelopment opportunities in context with colony park and any additional unforeseen projects that the cfo and the mayor will be bringing forward on August 20th. Just to the vice chairs point, any opportunity for us to consolidate the expression of concerns and considerations and [10:45:42 AM] concerns and considerations and presentations by staff. I'm all the way here for. So I just wanted to bring those things to y'all's attention. Thank you for the time. I appreciate it. >> Appreciate you. Thank you very much. Well, let me ask a couple of questions about moving forward, because I don't want to just leave it that we're we're not doing something today. First of all, it's my sense and I'll ask the committee if they agree with this, but it's my sense that that you all did a good job of reaching out as the ifc requested you to, but you did a really good job of saying, all right, we're open for survey responses. Here's a survey. And now we need your input. But yet my sense is based upon the number of commissioners we have and the response we got. It was a relatively small response of something really big and important. And then once that was over and it looked like something might happen, then we [10:46:43 AM] something might happen, then we got a lot of response. That at least is my sense. My question would be, and it's really just a question trying to get your advice is now that that a step, another step has been taken where there's even, you know, some proposed tentative recommendations. Would there be a way and how much pain would this cause for us to say, all right, we really do need we really do need your input. And here's, here's another survey that gets input from you. So that we would have that as we try to make the decision going forward. >> Can I respond. >> Mayor, please. >> Can I offer. >> Begging you to. >> With the proposed assessment framework, I say we finalize that with the committee moving forward, then with the impacted boards and commissions, use that finalized framework and work directly with the chairs of [10:47:44 AM] directly with the chairs of those boards and commissions to then put it on their future agenda and be responsive to those assessment questions, gives us more of a bigger picture of the work that they do and the impact to our communities if they are dissolved or incorporated into another board or commission. >> Well, I think that's a far better recommendation than my rambling question had. So, I mean, members, how do you all feel about that? Comments on that? That sounds good. Okay. Yes. Council member duchen. >> So I'm just wondering, is it possible for us to at least make a recommendation on the appendix a items that. >> Say that again. >> I'm sorry, is it possible. >> For us? I think maybe the reason she couldn't hear you. Yeah. You're talking so softly. >> Yeah. Sorry. I'm wondering whether we can make a recommendation on the appendix a items which I can't imagine are particularly controversial. And I've heard no feedback on that. Suggest that that would be a, you know, bad direction for us to proceed in versus getting more information from other members or consolidating the [10:48:45 AM] members or consolidating the feedback that we've collectively heard from our own appointees and people in the community, like, can we can we at least take action on that item at this stage? >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure I understand what it is you're saying. Do you want to vote on all of these recommendations? >> No, there's appendix a, which is just the inactive commissions that don't I'm not sure makes any sense to continue those. >> I've got two appendix a's apparently. >> Oh okay. Then then that's I'm referring to the appendix inactive bodies. >> You're talking about the just removing the inactive bodies. >> Yeah. That seems like low hanging fruit from my perspective. >> Let me ask this question. The determination that they are inactive, at least the document I'm looking at. And this may be a summary document that I'm looking at. So it says it's per the clerk's office that this is inactive. Does that follow the process that you've outlined for a sunsetting okay. >> They don't these are bodies [10:49:46 AM] >> They don't these are bodies that just have been inactive for some time, either formally or informally. >> So my only recommendation would be that if staff is recommending a process for sunsetting, in other words, letting the sun set on them, we follow that process and make sure it fits that process before we take that action. I'm not opposed at all to taking action on some an entity that's been inactive, but if we're getting ready to create a new process for sunsetting, I think we ought to follow that process. Does that make sense? >> That makes sense to me, too. >> Okay. Yes. Councilmember vela. >> Again, I would want to thank council member alter for initiating this item. Honestly, this is something that that has been discussed for a long time. I think there's been a number of audits on this issue as well with recommendations to consolidate. It is a real burden on staff and not just on staff, but on the public to, you know, [10:50:46 AM] but on the public to, you know, whether they want to follow an issue. And that same issue went to three different committees boards. So it gets complicated. And people don't know that this committee has jurisdiction over that. And I want to discuss two possible. Ideas. First of all, I I'm a former planning commissioner, and I never really had a good sense of why. We have a planning commission and a zoning and planning commission, which do the same thing, but for different parts of the city. I understand why the technical reasons why when that happened, who knows, 25 years ago. But I don't. >> Think careful, be careful when you start just quoting numbers out there. >> Yeah. I don't know if that is justified moving forward. And I think of those are two commissions that are very that that handle a lot of stuff. But my sense is that we should really just have one commission [10:51:46 AM] really just have one commission that handles our kind of planning, zoning and land use. That would be, to me, a really quick and easy and simple way to consolidate the commissions. And it would cut staff's work in half. And I don't again, looking, thinking about the recommendations, putting the bond oversight commission into the planning commission, I consider those kind of two completely different functions. And that one, I don't really understand where we're going with that one. But but again, I think we need to continue to talk about it. And the other one, just to give an example, I know council member harper-madison mentioned the resource management commission, but I just want to read its advise the city council in developing and reviewing city plans and programs in the area of alternative energy technologies, renewable energy sources, and on energy and water [10:52:46 AM] sources, and on energy and water conservation. We have an electric utility commission that essentially does that same thing. I mean, the electric utility commission works with Austin energy to discuss the same kind of alternative energy technologies, renewable energy sources, those kinds of things like that. We also have a water and wastewater commission, which focuses on, again, water and wastewater, trying to conserve water and conserve resources. And then we have an environmental commission, which also has jurisdiction over those same two issues. So again, that's an area where we just have multiple commissions that are really kind of doing the same type of work, and I don't really see what ultimately, you know, we or the public are, are getting from that, that overlap between those again just to give a couple. So I agree with the idea of sunsetting the resource management commission, because we already have commissions that [10:53:47 AM] we already have commissions that handle those specific areas and those specific duties. So I just wanted to put those out there as, as, as suggestions and ideas. I do think we need to continue to, to talk about this, but there is an opportunity to consolidate some of these boards and commissions and, and save, you know, staff work and make things simpler for, for the council and for the public at large. >> Thank you for that. I'm going to recognize the mayor pro tem in just a second. But let me, as I try to organize everybody's thoughts on this, what what I think we may want to do is utilize this good discussion today to ask staff to do the following two things. One is, as you have just outlined, a process for additional input that we ask you, the committee, [10:54:48 AM] that we ask you, the committee, the audit and finance committee ask you to go back and do that as you outlined it to get that additional input. That's item. That's request number one. Request number two would be unless there's objection by a member of the committee to the sunset process that was outlined for us is go back and apply that sunset process to two categories. Category number one would be those that have been labeled inactive based upon professional knowledge about their activity. But walk us through that process so that we're actually following the sunset process on the so-called inactive. None of us are going to be surprised about the outcome, but I think it's important for us to utilize whatever processes we're talking [10:55:48 AM] whatever processes we're talking about. And then the second category would be where there has been recommendation or suggestion related to consolidation, because in effect, what you're doing is part. And I actually served on the sunset commission at the state level. You're doing two things potentially. One is you are sunsetting something one or the other, or as part of the sunset review process, you are trying to build in an efficiency. And let's make sure we're doing that. If we leave here today with those two items that you will bring back to us as part of that, then this has been a productive first big step. As the vice chair has indicated. So that's not a that's not a complete thought. But before I recognize the mayor pro tem, I wanted to get that kind of out there about where we might head today. Mayor pro tem. [10:56:48 AM] might head today. Mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. Mayor. I think that makes sense. I agree, certainly with the, you know, moving forward on the sunset review process for the inactive bodies and just want a little bit more clarification on the framework for additional input, because I think there is. Councilmember vela, you know, you mentioned the resource management commission, but I don't see that proposed consolidation on this sheet. And so some of the hesitation that I have with saying staff, yes, go work with the chairs on these potential mergers, is that there not there may not be alignment on some of the recommendations. And I know another one that I want to flag that council member harper- madison flagged, for example, the merger of the mba, the economic prosperity and the community technology and telecoms commission, that one. I also don't feel comfortable, you know, even approaching them to have that conversation. I mean, I'm fine if we want to have that conversation, but I just want to [10:57:50 AM] conversation, but I just want to say, like, I don't want these commissions to think of it, that the council is unanimous in saying, we do want you to consider what this potential merger would look like. So I would like some clarification as to how which commissions will be approached in that framework. Or is it is it understanding that all of the commissions will be approached with this framework. >> Right now, unless the body tells us specifically which boards or commissions to approach, we would go with the list in appendix a, the updated one, because I think the resource management one was in the original appendix a, but it's no longer in the updated one. >> Yeah. Okay. And the framework that you would approach the commissions with that is the proposed language slide that you have on here. Okay, okay. And last question on the proposed changes to the airport commission regarding membership requirement. What exactly are the proposed changes for membership? >> Give me just a second. >> Okay. [10:58:51 AM] >> Okay. >> This one would actually require a little bit of work because the current requirements are just a bit outdated. So we would need to review the actual airport commission and what the needs are right now. So we would probably need to reach out to the airport commission and talk about what their needs are, and then bring back proposed recommendations for changing what the membership requirements are. >> Okay, okay. Thank you for that clarification. That certainly makes sense to approach the commission and talk about their membership requirements and what that should be. And last and not least, just want to share my gratitude to councilmember alter for his leadership on this item. I mean, already we've seen significant headway with initiating this review process with the launching of the recommendation tracker online with the development of the sunset review process. So I just want to thank my colleague, councilmember alter, for his leadership on it. And certainly I know that while the adjustments we make as a result of it may not be as wide or as grand as initially thought of, really good work is happening because of this review process [10:59:51 AM] because of this review process and there's value in that. >> Well said. All right. Yes. Councilmember harper-madison. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be brief. There was one other part that I wanted to address, and that's about bylaws, I appreciate that one of our speakers earlier brought up addressing the bylaws. I wonder if it's appropriate to consider updating bylaws as a part of some systemic process. So, for example, the African American resource advisory commission, I haven't had an opportunity to speak with them about this. So I'm using this exclusively as an example, not proposal for clarity, but as a part of their bylaws, their purview includes recommendations and just shy of management of specific facilities, including the carver, the. Millennium youth entertainment complex. I can't recall offhand, but there are [11:00:51 AM] recall offhand, but there are some city held assets that are specifically as a part of their consideration as a body under their purview. I have some questions about whether or not we should revisit bylaws. Generally, as of 2025, update of sorts, and then have a process moving forward for updating bylaws to reflect the appropriate task assigned to that body and along along those lines of revisiting bylaws and or purview. I wonder if that particular example is one that would be considered under the manager's newest proposed venues management opportunity internally. And then lastly, and this may or may not be adjacent to this specific work, but because we do lean so heavily on community contributions and I'm talking neighborhood associations, teams, small area planning teams, etc, I would [11:01:53 AM] planning teams, etc, I would really like for there to be some unilateral protocol around expectations for the contributions of those bodies, the makeup of those bodies, what is expected. It's sort of the wild, wild west out there for that. And that said, I think there's so many opportunities for those bodies to contribute to our processes, both boards and commissions, and to council as a body, that there should be something in the way of considerations around who is contributing, who they proclaim to represent, and whether or not that's factual. I'm finding too much in the way of inconsistency by bodies who proclaim to represent communities and community members who don't, in fact, subscribe to that body and what it is that they bring to council. I think there's just no rules and no protocol, no, you know, real way to follow up a real good example is, you know, whether or not elections are being held lawfully enough [11:02:53 AM] being held lawfully enough members of the body present for, you know, the conglomerates that represent multiple neighborhood associations, making certain that there's representation for all the bodies that they claim to represent within that process of consideration is something that's really top of mind for me. And again, I recognize that may not be a point of consideration during the course of this process, but it's certainly something I'd like to highlight for the clerk's office. >> Thank you. Appreciate you calling attention to both those. What I would ask that is that we first finish out this ifc and that would not include the bylaws aspect of that. And it would not include looking at the myriad homeowners associations and groups that pop up, however, and the jurisdiction of this committee as it relates to oversight of boards and commissions. That may be a separate I'll get some clarity on that council member. However, at some point we can look at potentially bylaws. But I would [11:03:56 AM] potentially bylaws. But I would like to finish out this ifc council member alter, I'm going to call on you to close. I and what I would also ask is that you address the kind of direction I generally gave as we move forward. Since you're the author of the ifc. >> I appreciate it and really appreciate the conversation today. I think one issue, as we talk about future, whatever our calendar looks like on this, the planning commission, zoning commission piece is, I think, somewhat unique. There is, you know, I think a bottleneck there or they have a lot of work the planning commission does. And I do have a concern of giving them all the work at zap as well, with as much as we ask of them to do right now, I'm not opposed to exploring that as part of [11:05:01 AM] to exploring that as part of this process. I just kind of want to voice that potential concern about giving them that much more work when they're already so overworked. But talking about next steps, I think this all makes sense. I think it would be really helpful to have a clear understanding of how many of these boards and commissions are we going to take a deep look at each year? You know, I don't think we have the ability to do a deep dive into all of them, nor probably should we in a year, just kind of like we did in the sunset process up at the state. Right. You have a calendar of these ones will go this year, these ones will go next year, and so on and so forth. If staff could kind of figure out if there's an appropriate grouping of things so that we're considering like boards and commissions, you [11:06:02 AM] boards and commissions, you know, just like councilmember vela mentioned, if we looked at the RNC environmental commission, uc, it makes sense to have those grouped together. If there are others like that, where they could kind of calendar out the years just so not only ourselves, but the public and those serving on these commissions have an idea of when they are going to go through this conversation. >> So that's good, that's good. >> But I, I appreciate all the, the, the thoughts. And like I said this, this was the starting point. And now I think we're we're taking great next steps. And, and this will be a process that ultimately I think we can be really proud of. >> One thank you. And thank you for your work on this. The one of the things that he just mentioned that might be helpful is I have some vague memory of the decisions that were being made around planning commission [11:07:03 AM] made around planning commission versus zap. I also have a less vague memory of what my feelings were at the time when they were making those recommendations, but we'll we'll reserve those for another day. But it would be helpful, I think, for a little bit of historical research be done just to give us insight about what was being said at the time about why that was being done, because it's entirely possible that at the time it was the right thing to do, but we've morphed it in some way over over two decades, and we ought to look at whether or not we need to make sure we go back to what was originally intended. So if you would do that as well, and then I'll ask, are you do you feel comfortable or clear on what the guidance of the committee is about? Next steps. >> Absolutely, mayor, if I can reiterate the direction from earlier, the first one was to use the assessment framework for the ones identified in appendix a, the newer version. And then [11:08:03 AM] a, the newer version. And then the second one is to apply that same sunset process to the inactive ones that were identified, and then those that were recommended or suggested by body members of the body that. >> Yes. And. Look at also the concept of consolidation. If there was whether or not that that. It would not make sense to not consolidate that sort of thing, but utilize the process that you're you're creating here. >> Duly noted. Mayor. And if would it be feasible to then report back by the end of summer? >> Is that. Well, yeah. Let me ask the committee about what the timeline is. I think with everything else that we've got going on, and as big a deal as this is, I don't have a problem with that. But I'm not sensing any great objection. Okay, good. >> Thank you sir. >> There you go. Thank you. And to the staff. Thank you. This [11:09:04 AM] to the staff. Thank you. This was this is really good work and very organized and very helpful members that ought to take us to item number seven and that is to discuss nominations to fill a vacancy on the municipal civil services commission. Without objection, the audit and finance committee will go into an executive session pursuant to section 5.51074 of the Texas government code to discuss personnel matters, and that that will be the nominations to fill a vacancy on the municipal service civil service commission for the public. We will go into executive session. I'm not sure how long this executive session is going to be. We have no real business other than to act on anything that comes out of the executive session, but we will come back in order to adjourn or to take up that item. Without objection, we are going into executive session pursuant to section 5.51074 of the Texas [11:10:05 AM] section 5.51074 of the Texas government code to discuss personnel matters at 11:10 A.M. i will now call up item number four, which [4. Nominations to fill a vacancy on the municipal civil service commission.] Is nominations to fill a vacancy in the municipal civil service commission. We are going to postpone that item to a future meeting of the audit and finance committee members. There being no further business to come before the audit and finance committee at this regular scheduled meeting of the audit and finance committee. Without objection, we will adjourn the meeting at 11:26 am there being no objection. We are adjourned at 11:26 am thanks everybody.