Housing and Planning Committee (HPC) Meeting Transcript – 9/16/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 9/16/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 9/16/2025 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. [1:02:30 PM] good afternoon, folks, and welcome to city hall. It's going to be a couple of minutes as as per usual. I'm having a little bit of tech trouble this morning. Listen, Erica bad [1:05:32 PM] Listen, Erica bad said, an analog girl in a digital world. Good afternoon everybody. How y'all doing? I'm Natasha harper-madison, and welcome to city hall here at 301 west second street. And we are calling to order the housing and planning meeting today. It is September 16th, and it is officially 1:05 P.M. We are convened here in city hall chambers. The committee may go into closed session today under the open meetings act, section 551.071 of the Texas government code to receive advice from legal counsel on any item on the agenda. A quorum of the council is present. A quorum of the committee is present. Thank you guys for joining us this afternoon. It appears as though we don't have any public communication. No speakers today. >> That's correct. No speakers. >> Thank you. See what you get for making fun of people's allergies are instant. Don't encourage me. Caleb. Okay, so [1:06:33 PM] encourage me. Caleb. Okay, so under our committees rules, up to five speakers were going to have the opportunity to speak just for folks in the room who aren't familiar with the process up to three minutes each, but we don't have any speakers today, so we're going to move forward past speakers. And our first agenda item is approval of the minutes from our June 12th, 2025 meeting of the housing and planning committee. Do I have a motion moved by council member or committee member vela and seconded by committee member Ellis bum bum bum. All in favor? Looks like the item passes unanimously with everybody on the dais that the. So our motions being are our minutes rather being approved. They'll be filed with the clerk in accordance with city code. Our next item is discussion and possible action on the status and timeline of amendments to the land development code. So it looks like y'all are back with us again. Good afternoon. [1:07:33 PM] with us again. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair committee members Steve Greathouse I'm a division manager in the city of Austin planning department with you this afternoon to provide an update on all things land development code amendment. And great to be with you. In the backup for this item, you will find a memo that includes the September 2025 version of the land development code amendments timeline Gantt chart. Since we last briefed the housing and planning committee in June, staff have made adjustments to the timeline to reflect a number of considerations, including probably the biggest impact, which is the impacts of senate bill 840 on our regulatory framework. No actions were taken since the June meeting to adopt amendments to the land development code, as council worked through a number of other priority items over the summer, including adoption of a budget for the city, staff [1:08:35 PM] budget for the city, staff currently anticipates that we will be bringing forward one land development code amendment to council by the end of this year, 2025. That amendment is needed in order to address the impacts of senate bill 840 on sites zoned central business district within downtown Austin. Staff are developing a proposal that would create a base height limit within the central business district zone. That new height limit would address the effects of the removal of floor area limits for residential and mixed use development. Under senate bill 840, downtown projects would continue to be able to opt to participate in the downtown density bonus program to exceed the limits of the central business district base zone. Under the proposal, staff anticipates presenting the proposal for consideration at a special called meeting of the codes and ordinances joint committee on September 24th, planning commission on October 14th, and city council on October 23rd. Detailed information about the proposal will be available online via the land development codes updates speak up page later [1:09:36 PM] updates speak up page later this week. Looking ahead to the end of the year and into spring of 2026, we anticipate a number of code amendment related activities that are shown on the timeline. Austin watershed protection staff expects to bring forward land development code amendments related to parkland drainage easements in January of 2026. Work is currently underway. As I mentioned at the meeting in June on a study that will provide an evaluation and recommendations related to possible new mixed use and missing middle zoning districts. And we hope to present the results of that study no later than January of 2026. The timeline for delivery of the study was pushed back to allow time to make necessary adjustments based on the requirements of senate bill 840. In the event that council chooses to initiate code amendments based on the study, those amendments would come back in late 2026. However, staff is also evaluating potential phasing options and may be able to bring back an initial phase of the work [1:10:37 PM] initial phase of the work earlier in the year. Staff is also working to identify modifications that need to be made to existing zoning regulations, to address consistency with the requirements of senate bill 840, and to adjust sort of minor issues that come up as we apply that senate bill within Austin's code. And we anticipate bringing back a tranche of amendments in early 2026, potentially with consideration by council in February, as indicated in the memo that was sent out to council on July 28th, staff continues to evaluate the impacts of senate bill 840 on our ability to incentivize affordable housing through citywide density bonus programs, and we anticipate bringing back a comprehensive package of recommendations, including potential amendments to our citywide density bonus programs by may of 2026. This slide shows the detailed schedule that is attached to the memo included in backup. As we move further into 2026, folks will also see that staff expects to conduct multiple rounds of public engagement and bring [1:11:38 PM] public engagement and bring back recommended amendments to the east Riverside corridor plan and regulating plan by late 2026. We also continue to expect that a broader update of the downtown density bonus program would move forward in tandem with a potential update to the downtown Austin plan through the central city district planning process in 2026, and then looking forward in 2020 to 2027. Staff anticipates working to update or replace our legacy transit oriented development regulating plans, potentially using the new zoning tools that we hope to get on the books in 2026. As you review the timeline, you will also notice a number of amendments for which timelines are yet to be determined, as specific timelines are developed for those items, the overall schedule will be adjusted and the schedule reflects an ambitious work program. And as processes move forward, staff will continue to make adjustments while working to identify specific review and adoption dates for the proposed timelines shown on the chart. For more information, including this timeline, which will be posted later today. If it's not [1:12:38 PM] posted later today. If it's not being posted at this moment as I speak, folks can visit speak up Austin edc updates. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. I'm going to defer to my colleagues. I'll take a moment of personal privilege, though, to give a shout out to who's ever responsible for getting our speak up Austin page out there in these streets. I was in an Uber this weekend, and we were jamming to the Mexican channel that what's the punto com? What's the zero zero? The one we were. >> One of 1.90. >> No, it doesn't matter. Spanish channel. Excuse me. And it was so it was poignant to to know that our message is getting out. And so the gentleman he asked me, my driver asked me in Spanish whether or not I knew what they were talking about when they were talking about the speak up Austin page. And so he was informing me and I was like, do tell. And so no, I just think it's really great that that [1:13:39 PM] it's really great that that we're doing our job. So thank you for that. Colleagues, does anybody have any questions for division manager Greathouse? Please do. >> Can you repeat what you were saying about missing middle zoning districts? >> Sure. So the new zoning district study that we expect to release by by no later than January of 2026 will be providing recommendations for both new mixed use, transit oriented base Zones that we could create, as well as new missing middle zoning districts that we might want to create. And then we would be working if council initiated the work. That kind of the study will be describing and providing more information about. We would be working to create those zoning districts and put them on the books in 2026. >> Okay, fantastic. So the work that we had done on site plan light and existing missing middle zoning districts, all of those properties are allowed to use the new drainage requirements. It's just that there may be more districts coming online that folks can utilize. >> Correct. And the idea is that we'd be able to provide some more kind of custom built [1:14:39 PM] some more kind of custom built zoning districts that work better for actually delivering missing middle housing. >> That's great to hear. And then my second question will be, I know that capmetro has some upcoming work around the oak hill metro rapid. What is the land planning conversation look like at this point? I know that they're looking at doing kind of a an intermediary 15 minute bus route until they can get a true metro rapid running. But the land use is obviously a big conversation. I want to make sure we're prepared when that does come down the line. >> Yeah. And we through our equitable transit oriented development work that does continue. We continue to partner with capital metro to try to make sure that we're kind of aligning our planning efforts with their system planning efforts. The oak hill station continues to be on a list of priorities for kind of where we turn our attention to next as a city, and we hope as we get a little bit further into launching the east Riverside corridor planning initiative and update, that will put pen to paper on a schedule for kind of what comes next, and hopefully look to seeing that item on that [1:15:39 PM] seeing that item on that schedule. >> Fantastic. We're very excited about the other two. Metro rapid, as we know that those corridors are putting through a lot more riders with capmetro, but ACC pinnacle now has bond dollars, and we wanna make sure that that whole corridor has access to public transportation in the way that it will very soon need over the next couple of years. Thank you. >> Committee member. >> Quick question on the sb eight 4840 went into effect September 1st. >> That is correct. >> February seems like a long time. I mean, that's just my first blush reaction would be because I mean, my again, my kind of first blush reaction to sb 840 is that it really? For example, our our V our oh my lord, our traditional, our oldest, the 10% affordability. Oh my god, what is that program at 80% of the the one. [1:16:39 PM] at 80% of the the one. >> That vmu. >> Vmu. Lord have mercy. Yes, the traditional vmu. We've forgotten about it because we don't talk about it as much anymore. But like I don't think that that would be really you know, one would do you know vmu at this point with sb 840, I mean, that's my kind of, you know, back of the envelope analysis. >> We've definitely been continuing to look at it and looking at what the the application of the 54 dwelling units per acre requirement will do to kind of existing uptake of our programs. That work is happening actually as part of the the overall work to develop tiered density bonus programs and update both db 90 and potentially update vmu on that spring time line of work. I don't think, given the fact that we're trying to kind of do that as a coordinated program in the context of other housing incentives, that there's necessarily a quick fix to that. However, if there is a quick fix to it, we'd certainly are open to hearing it. And considering the, you know, potential change that could happen as that first tranche of [1:17:40 PM] happen as that first tranche of amendments that comes in the February timeline is really designed to hopefully get some more understanding and information about how the new notification requirements of hb 24 are going to impact Austin, and we want to make sure that we know the answer to that question before we roll forward with amendments that affect specific properties across the city, is kind of why that January February timeline is where it's being shown on the chart, but definitely open to conversation. If there's low hanging, like truly low hanging amendments that can be made, we can continue to have the conversation with city leadership about whether anything can be expedited. >> We probably need to think about it honestly. We've been kind of caught up with other, you know, stars and before that budget. But we we definitely want to engage on the sb 840 stuff. We just haven't really kind of done our due diligence either. The the other one, the citywide density bonus. I mean, I feel like we kind of they're almost linked at the hip. Right? [1:18:41 PM] almost linked at the hip. Right? The sb 840 updates and the citywide density bonus, like, you know, we don't know what to do with our density bonus programs until we kind of understand the sb 840. So any sense of again, I guess that's you're saying here that sb 840 needs to come first before the citywide density bonus. >> So the amendments that we're envisioning for the January February package of amendments would really be sort of amendments to make it clear how we are applying sb 840 in our code, because. Right. You know, right now, if somebody comes to the development review counter, yeah, they've got the city of Austin code and then they've got sb 40 state law that they get to, we get to evaluate against. And that's not that's not an ideal practice from a development review perspective. So I think our initial tranche is really making sure that our code provides the instructions that needs to to the developers and our own staff on kind of what it means in the context of 840 and that we get those amendments in place and that we fix some kind of minor issues with base Zones and how they sort of interact with the requirements of sb 840. And then we would be coming in after that with the amendments [1:19:43 PM] after that with the amendments to the city wide density bonus programs. And we are already doing starting to do the analysis around kind of the impacts of the the real estate market economics of senate bill 840 on those programs, and what we would need to do to make sure that those programs are all successful. >> Okay, okay. >> Yeah. >> It's a lot. And I acknowledge that. >> And have we have we received any sb 840 application development applications under sb 840? >> I actually I don't know if they've got development services and we aren't specific. Okay. We I did not know that we have. >> Okay. And that would be my sense. Again I guess the only thing that's working in our favor right now is that the development activity has slowed substantially. So maybe people are kind of holding up. Great. Thank you. >> Councilmember Siegel. >> Did you have any questions? You're welcome. Thank you. Yeah. And I think your response is [1:20:46 PM] And I think your response is appropriate because we just don't know. Right. But I on behalf of my family members, we got some plans for February. So if we could. Yeah, I'm thinking to your point, if we could be thinking in advance of but also to your point, though, if you don't know whether or not there's any truly low hanging fruit, we sure as heck don't. So maybe that's the. I think there's probably some further discussion that we should. >> Absolutely. And I think the goal with that would be to have that that information out well in advance of February. So it wouldn't just be kind of and that we would be able to have the continued conversation with council offices and city executives and what needs to go on the list of fixes for the February. >> Yeah, because you said minor fixes, but do we know that? And I certainly don't want to catastrophize. But I'm just yeah. But in advance of all of the other potential concerns, the one that we can look forward to hearing about is the central business district. Yes. [1:21:48 PM] central business district. Yes. Would you mind elaborating just a tiny bit? You said something about the base height zoning, considering. >> Yeah. So there will be more information that's provided in the speak up page about the actual proposal later this week. But the issue. Is you said the issue that's trying to be solved is that our central business district zone right now relies on floor area ratio as its limit. And under sb 840, if you are constructing a residential or mixed use residential project as defined by the bill, there is no floor area ratio limit to those you. A city cannot apply a floor area limit to those projects. Oh wow. And that is how our code historically has limited kind of the height and form of downtown buildings. And so. >> Are there any other areas. >> Outside of the central business district that rely on the fa to to make any determinations or that, or is that exception out of the bill at the state level only applicable to our central business district? [1:22:48 PM] business district? >> So many of our commercial Zones have floor area limits in addition to height limits, but that that height limit in that the commercial zone will continue to apply. In that case, central business district is a unique commercial zone and that it has a floor area ratio, but for the base development does not have a stated height limit. >> In which case, you know, for all intents and purposes, that most affects council member qadri, in which case, as you guys are making the assessment throughout the course of this, you know, sort of data analysis, if there are council members for whom, you know, there are certain aspects of district one that don't affect district ten at all, and vice versa. If there's any one particular district that's going to have some glaring impact, I certainly hope that staff will work with that council member just to make sure that, you know, they're getting out in front. >> Of it. That is the plan. >> So you said something about mixed use districts and you said it plural. And so I was thinking in my head, what can you give just a general if you could pluck apart a town, give me an example of what a mixed [1:23:48 PM] me an example of what a mixed use district that we the things that you could do within a mixed use district. Can you name a place in town so I can visualize what a mixed use district looks like? >> Well, the mixed use district that I'm referring to is really a zoning district that would have a set of rules for what a property owner could do on that site, related to providing a mix of uses. We have Zones right now that if you have a base zone, a commercial base zone, plus a mixed use overlay zone, for example, that allow a mix of uses but don't necessarily speak to any kind of specific requirement of having active uses on the ground floor and residential upstairs that maybe don't have the the heights set quite appropriately. And so that's the but in terms of the locations of those districts might be applied to like any of our transit. >> No, actually. >> My question was I was just trying to visualize what what are the considerations when you go through the list of specific bulleted items? What are the [1:24:49 PM] bulleted items? What are the list of considerations? But I think I might hear you saying we don't have a specifically established mixed use district protocol. >> We current in our current zoning code did not have any base Zones that are strictly a mixed use base zone. >> So we're just making it up. That means I get to submit a wish list. >> No, that's what the study is going to be kind of providing back to you all is really a recommendations on if we were to create mixed use base Zones, what would make sense? Okay. To get us to the outcomes we want to achieve. >> In which case yes to my wish list. But I don't necessarily expect anything so much as maybe this can be helpful to, you know, to show them what our constituents are asking for in mixed use spaces. >> I would say certainly when the the board, when the committee receives the zoning district study, that's a great time to bring up some of those ideas. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think the last question that I had for you, or maybe not even a question so much as a comment as it related to councilmember Velez comment, I, I could imagine a universe [1:25:50 PM] I could imagine a universe where we have a special called housing and planning meeting. I'm wondering, are there any bodies outside of housing and planning that you think sb 840 will have enough direct impact bodies, as in committees, to where we should be looking at another committee for a potential joint special calls. I don't want to waste anybody's time. We don't want to have to do it more than once. But I certainly can see how this committee is going to need a meeting before our next meeting about the implications of sb 840. It's already touching my district, so I can very quickly. >> Yeah. In terms of just general information about sb 840, I don't have any strong recommendations one way or the other in terms of I mean, we definitely we have material. There's an information sheet that has been made available via the city's website that folks can review and share with, with interested members of the public and property owners that ask about it. And we definitely have received some requests from kind of downtown commission and other boards and commissions to speak to sb 840, [1:26:51 PM] commissions to speak to sb 840, and our staff will be working to incorporate that into briefings that we make to those bodies on request. But in terms of like which bodies need that briefing, I don't really have a it's kind of up to the. >> I don't know that I was saying which bodies need the briefing so much necessarily. >> As which bodies might have questions for you that but it sounds like. You your efforts are going to be pretty duplicative and you're going to give the same presentation everybody. So maybe the question is how do we support that effort and make sure that we're all operating with some degree of continuity and sharing the same information? >> Yeah. And we can certainly make the slide deck available when we have. >> That'd be great. I think that might be a thank you. Appreciate it. And yeah, that was literally my last question. So if there are no other questions thank you I'm sorry. Thank you manager greatly appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> You said for. >> Oh. >> All right. So we're moving [1:28:02 PM] >> All right. So we're moving on to item number three. And it looks like we have a briefing on this one. Item number three is a briefing on the tenant notification and relocation ordinance. I think council member vela, it was you in large part that was bringing this up. I was probably last year though, so finally made it around. So for the record, tenant relocation policies are authorized. Am I saying the wrong one? Okay, tenant relocation policies are authorized under city code title 25 and reinforced through ordinance (202) 208-8817. Dash zero four. Representation will be provided by Suzanne Watkins, division manager with the Austin housing department, and take it away, Sam. >> Okay, good. Good afternoon. >> Afternoon. >> Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for having me. I'm Susan Watkins, division manager in the housing department, and I am here to introduce and provide context for the tenant relocation cost study, which will include going over the ordinance and the tenant [1:29:02 PM] ordinance and the tenant relocation program. So we'll go over the key developments that kind of got us to where we are today. And we'll review the notification process, the tenant relocation program. And then I'm going to turn the presentation over to our consultant, eco northwest. They're on the line right now where they'll present the findings of the cost study. So we really want to highlight today the tenant notification and relocation ordinance. It's meant to ensure that tenants receive notice when there's demolition or renovation of multifamily redevelopment, and also applies to redevelopment of mobile home sites. Staff is working to make sure that that proper notice is given working across departments. And because it really does take several different departments working together to to ensure that that notice is there. And the council directed this study a few years ago, and it's now complete. And it supports the planning for the tenant relocation program. So this is a a timeline. It has a lot of [1:30:05 PM] a a timeline. It has a lot of information on here. There are a lot of different events that happened that brought us to where we are today. In 2016, the tenant notification and relocation ordinance was adopted. And in 2017, the program rules for the relocation program were are also in the land development code. In the code, it outlines a city funded program and also a developer funded program. And at the at that time, we thought we would be able to understand what the costs were and assign a fee to developers for this tenant development induced displacement. And so a nexus study was requested to understand if there were a fee, what would what would that be? Also around that time, there was state legislation that came into place that no no longer allows us to do a developer funded program. And so we are now doing a city funded program. And so a few we there was engagement that was done in 2018, 2019 and some more changes were made. Updates to [1:31:07 PM] changes were made. Updates to the ordinances after challenges to implementation were identified. And in fiscal year 23, the the city funded the relocation program and also kind of re-upped the study and said, we still even though we can't charge this fee, we want to understand what those costs are. And so let's do the tenant relocation cost study. We had a solicitation for a consultant who is econorthwest. That's with us today, and they completed the study at the end of 2024. And that kind of brings us up to now where we're going to go over those results. Just to go over the requirements on the tenant notification side that are in the ordinance. And this does apply to all redevelopment. So not just developers that are in the incentive programs. We've had some discussions around that recently, but this is kind of our overarching ordinance that applies to all redevelopment that falls in these categories of five or more units. On the multifamily side. There's a definition for that in the ordinance that was recently updated, demolition or [1:32:09 PM] recently updated, demolition or major renovation permits is what triggers that notification requirement. And then on the mobile home side, a site plan change of use for mobile home developments and a rezoning of that manufactured housing district. This slide goes over the process that we have in place to ensure that that notice is given when the ordinance is triggered. So a developer will fill out an application with development services if they are meeting those requirements as outlined in the ordinance for notification. Development services will let the housing department know, will review and make sure that that notification meets all the requirements and issue a certification letter that yes, the notification was requirements were satisfied and the developer will continue through the permit process. This is a just a snapshot from the analysis that is in the report. It's attached as back up. I meant to say that at the beginning, but the econorthwest [1:33:09 PM] beginning, but the econorthwest did an extensive demolition analysis to kind of understand what that looked like over time. This is just a more recent snapshot. It kind of illustrates that we've seen a decline recently of demolition permits, and we also want to highlight when we talk about redevelopment, we find out about potential redevelopment earlier in the development phase than the ordinance is triggered. So we've heard of some recent cases where there's been rezonings land use entitlements changing on an older multifamily site, and that's potential redevelopment. Tenants do find out that that redevelopment might happen. And at that time, we've seen some developers do tenant agreements. But the notification process that our ordinance has is is at the demolition phase. So the much further, sometimes years later after the rezoning process of these sites. And because of that lag in time, we [1:34:12 PM] because of that lag in time, we are we're trying to keep track to make sure that we're not missing these opportunities for notification. We're we're kind of, you know, making lists like this is where we think potential redevelopment might happen, and we're going to be on the lookout to make sure that we're catching if the ordinance is triggered and the planning department does an excellent job of sending those zoning cases over to us, so that we know that an older multifamily complex is now has more entitlements or is going through that process internally in the housing department. We have our incentive team. They're communicating with us. We're talking about, you know, those requirements for relocation that are now in that part of their incentive program versus what we're doing on the notification side, how do those work together? So we're trying to maintain and understand where that redevelopment potential is. And then we on the city funded tenant relocation program. And from 2023, that is a program that's [1:35:12 PM] 2023, that is a program that's being administered right now by Levere logics. The eligibility for the program is outlined in the ordinance. It is different for multifamily residents and for mobile home residents. 70% Ami for multi-family residents, 80% for mobile home residents. And some of the services that are included in the relocation program include a housing locator assistance, up to 50 miles, moving and storage, rental payment assistance and these are some of the things that were looked at in the tenant relocation costs study to kind of give us an understanding of what those costs look like in our region. And also there are case studies in other cities that eco northwest will highlight. So at this time, I'm going to turn the presentation over to eco northwest and to present the findings from the tenant relocation cost study. >> Thank you all for joining us. If we understand correctly, you're on the line. Hi there. Good afternoon. Welcome to Austin, Texas. >> Thank you very much. My name is jade Aguilar. I am a partner and project director for this [1:36:15 PM] and project director for this from Oregon, and we were really thrilled to be able to do this work with you all and kind of share what we found. And it sounds like Amanda, you are going to try and share now. Okay, well, it worked great. >> It worked. >> So go to the next slide. And Susan said a really great context for what our project was. But just to kind of clarify what our goals were, it was really to gather more information about the current rental market in Austin that displaced tenants had to navigate. So if they're, you know, if they were evicted and for for their home to be, you know, built into something new, how did they manage that process and what was the conditions that they were working under? Understanding the past redevelopment trends to in form future program planning. So how do we make sure that this program for the city is kind of functioning as needed for the folks that need the most support? What were [1:37:16 PM] the most support? What were what are the costs of this, this relocation, and how can we better understand what that might look like for different families and different households? And then right now, the ordinance geography is with with 50 mile radius around Austin and just doing some analysis of whether that was the appropriate like space to be covering in terms of, of where these folks are going to be able to move to. And so that's those were the questions that we started with. And I will hand it over to Amanda to to take it from here. >> Thanks, jade. So we're going to be covering just the highlights of our study today. But the background materials for this meeting include our full report. And we've also created a public summary as an online story map with which staff will be able to share with you. So as jade said, we began the cost study looking at the current rental housing market in and around the city to provide context for the specific costs, pardon me, and [1:38:16 PM] specific costs, pardon me, and challenges people could face when looking for replacement housing. So we know there is a significant mismatch between renter incomes and available housing. And we can see here in the chart on the right that most rental units are priced for households earning between 60 to 80% of the area median income, while most renters in the, as shown in the chart on the left, have either very low or very high incomes. And we can see how this mismatch plays out by looking at household income compared to what those households actually pay in rent. And so in this chart, we see that higher income renters frequently occupy units that are affordable to lower income households. We call this renting down. And it's shown here in purple. Renting down reduces the availability of these units for households that need them the most and intensifies affordability challenges. And we also see large shares of households renting up, which is shown here [1:39:16 PM] renting up, which is shown here in green. These households are paying more for housing than they can afford based on their income, and many of these households would be classified as cost burdened. So there are a lot of reasons that people rent up and rent down, and there will always be some amount of mismatch in the rental market. But we think this data helps illustrate why renters experience such an acute shortage of units affordable at the middle of the market and at the bottom. Even if that middle tranche sort of forms the bulk of the rental housing supply. We also looked at these same dynamics within a 50 mile radius of Austin, which is the radius of the ordinance. We saw similar dynamic to what is happening in the city. So although housing is generally more affordable outside Austin, with a lot more units affordable for people making 60% of Austin's area median income, it can still be really challenging for lower income households to find affordable housing at prices that are [1:40:16 PM] housing at prices that are affordable to them. And of course, we know that black and brown households disproportionately experience the effects of a limited supply of affordable housing, including higher rates of cost burden and difficulty finding replacement housing if they are forced to move due to redevelopment. So the second component of understanding what is and has been happening was to look at past displacement trends. Before we dive into those findings, just want to make clear the specific activities and indicators that were included in our study. So want to acknowledge that tracking residential displacement with accuracy is extremely challenging. A relatively small share of people who experience displacement do so in a direct and documented way, such as an eviction notice. We know many households face displacement pressure from a variety of sources, including rent increases, owners or managers, managers neglecting critical repairs, harassment or loss of local community, businesses and [1:41:18 PM] local community, businesses and cultural assets. So to understand displacement trends related to redevelopment, we looked specifically at permits filed for demolitions for multifamily properties and mobile homes, and we use this data to examine where demolitions have been concentrated and trends in the number of units that have been lost. And we also map this demolition data against changes in household income and broader migration trends. To understand some of these dynamics in different parts of the city. So this chart uses those demolition permit records to estimate the cumulative loss of multifamily and mobile homes between 2006 and 2023. So Susan chart was showing the number of permits filed. This is actually counting up the number of units that were listed as being marked for demolition in those permits. So we see that there's variation from year to year and that activity. But over this time period, Austin saw a total cumulative loss of over 1800 [1:42:19 PM] cumulative loss of over 1800 units and an average loss of about 102 units of this kind of housing each year. To compare this demolition data to other demographic shifts in the city, we focused on the period between 2012 and 2022, when we map this subset of the demolition data, we see that 50% of all of the units demolished in that ten year period occurred in the neighborhoods of central and south Austin, which are in districts one, three, and nine. And overall, about 95% of apartment and mobile home demolitions were concentrated in neighborhoods within six miles of downtown. When we consider both demolitions and changes in median household income, we see that areas that have lost the most rental units have also seen some of the largest increases in median income, which is marked here in dark purple. This level of [1:43:20 PM] dark purple. This level of positive income is higher than what we would expect from inflation over this time period. So this change suggests substantial in-migration of higher income households. And given the demolition trends in these areas, this in-migration might also have been accompanied by outmigration of lower income households due to direct and indirect displacement pressures. One issue to highlight for Austin specifically, is the overall growth in median household income during this period. Because of the scale of in-migration citywide, there are no clear trends when we disaggregate this change in income by race and ethnicity. So higher income households in all racial and ethnic groups have moved to Austin, which makes it difficult to distinguish trends between longtime and newer residents when we are using census data. So we also try to determine to the best of our ability, what happened on the lots that had [1:44:21 PM] happened on the lots that had recorded demolition permits by looking at construction permits for the same addresses. This chart categorizes the type of housing that existed before demolition and afterward, including all the units that were created through more dense multi-family development. So in total, more than 1100 units were demolished and not replaced with new housing by 2023. That is shown here on the right side as lost housing, but on parcels where housing was demolished and replaced by a new housing. The majority were rebuilt as multi-family housing with five or more units, and for sites that had existing multi-family housing that was replaced with new apartments. The density of those lots increased by a factor of six, so overall about two homes were added for every demolished unit. And while this increase in density and housing supply can help alleviate housing shortages overall, newer rental housing is very likely to be [1:45:21 PM] housing is very likely to be more expensive than the housing that was demolished, leading to an overall loss of affordable housing. So to try to discern any trends in where people have been moving, we looked at migration trends for areas with that more concentrated demolition activity. So this map represents changed home locations between 2020 and 2020. For that window of time is driven by the source of the data we use to estimate these shifts. So this does not capture relocation trends that happened before 2020. But we see here that overall, people who used to live in the Orange zip codes tended to move immediately south. And for those that left Austin, they moved nearby south to Buda, Kyle and the San Marcos area. So I am going to turn it over to jade to focus on the findings of our cost analysis. >> Thank you Amanda, thanks for that recap on sort of what's [1:46:21 PM] that recap on sort of what's been happening in Austin and where folks who are being displaced are moving, but I want to focus now on the program itself. And as Susan pointed out earlier, the program that the city currently has in place is eligible. The people who are eligible are qualified for this assistance. Earn up to 70% of the area median income. And if they are mobile home owners, then they can be up to 80%. And they also have to live in a multifamily property with at least five units. So that puts about 35% of Austin's rental households, which is about 100,000 folks as as folks who would qualify for the or. Sorry, not folks, 100,000 households, excuse me, would qualify for that tenant relocation program based on their income and the type of housing that they're living in. And then more than a third of those households are extremely low income. So that means that they earn 30% or less than the [1:47:22 PM] they earn 30% or less than the area median income. And this is the summary here is just kind of a breakdown of of where those households are. A lot of those households are in 50 plus unit structures. And there's very small proportion of them that are actual mobile home users. About 2% of households are are eligible that are the mobile home owners. The households that are eligible also tend to be disproportionately either 1 or 2 person households. So you see on the chart on the left, the dark green is folks that are those are one person households, and then the Orange is two two person households. So that's 80%. And then they also tend to 86% of those households don't have children in them. So we do know that there are families who are being displaced. But by and large, we're seeing small 1 to 2 person households without children. Okay, so then we did a deep dive into like what? [1:48:25 PM] a deep dive into like what? What would what does it cost to to relocate in the city of Austin right now? And we inquired in to a bunch of different resources, people that help folks move and also moving companies and you name it. So we looked at kind of a range of costs. So one was like professional moving costs. The other was, well, what would it cost if you did it yourself? You know, getting your own boxes and your rent the truck and pay the gas. We also included for the for the mobile homes only. We included what it would cost for a month of storage in a storage container, and then potentially temporary lodging for a month. If you know there's a gap between finding a place and having to leave the new housing application fees, security deposits, first month's rent and then mobile homes are notoriously difficult to move. So we're looking at the relocation services. So these are we looked at locations like what would it take to move [1:49:28 PM] what would it take to move between 5 and 25 miles from within Austin or to San Marcos or Georgetown? Those are the kinds of costs that we were estimating. And what we came up with is in the next slide, sort of an estimate by housing unit. So for the smallest housing, which is a studio or one bedroom, at the low side, we're estimating around 3100. And at the high side 6300. Whereas if you go to a mobile home, the low estimate there is 9000 and the high would be 15,000. To integrate all of those moving costs into the total total cost. So as you can see, the unit size is the key driver of of the relocation cost differences. And right now the current program cap of $6,000 per household is unlikely to meet the relocation needs of mobile home owners and those larger households. But a lot of the folks that are that qualify for [1:50:28 PM] folks that are that qualify for this are in that smaller range anyway. And so in that they might need less than the $6,000 to cover the relocation expenses. So sometimes developers have, by their own accord, offered assistance packages to tenants, and they have looked different, but have included free rent for the last three months before the building was going to be demolished. Sometimes they've offered the first month's rent at a new location, or some kind of moving assistance from 500 to 3000. This has been, you know, up to the the developers and themselves, but these have been around 6 to $7000 per unit in total in total assistance. And this would probably if this was being offered, the folks might not be, you know, able to qualify for the for the city program as well. We did a comparison cities across, you know, the the west in terms of what they're [1:51:31 PM] in terms of what they're offering in Seattle. They have an assistance program that's half paid by the property owner and half paid by the city. It's for folks at or below 50% of the area median income, and the total assistance is 5000. You can see that in San Antonio. There's a program that the city is paying for, and it gives folks 2200 to 3500 for renters and up to 7500 for for mobile homes. And then, you know, on the other end of this is Palo alto, California, where the property owners are responsible for the assistance, and that can be up to almost $20,000 for a three bedroom house or home. So our considerations for the tenant relocation program here's sort of the main takeaways. The households of different sizes have different relocation costs. Whereas the, you know, the mobile home owners are facing the highest [1:52:32 PM] owners are facing the highest relocation costs. And one of the things that we couldn't really account for in a, in a kind of quantifiable way is the challenge of finding affordable rental housing. So these folks have been evicted from their homes. It's not easy to find available adequate apartments, as we saw from those charts where that folks can afford. And so that, you know, it takes a lot of time and effort to to find that some households have additional needs, like accessibility requirements that make finding housing new, you know, more challenging. And then those extremely low income households, which we saw, you know, were a 30% of the qualifying households, may need additional support to access, you know, regulated affordable housing that the city might be providing. And our final recommendations is to, you know, consider adjusting the current compensation award by the size and type of housing. We saw that the range of costs was was different depending on the [1:53:33 PM] different depending on the household size. We feel like the 50 mile limit is adequate at this point and is, you know, mostly meeting the needs of the folks who are using the program to stay in the city. We recommend that you continue or start tracking relocation outcomes by location. How much new rental costs are just continue to keep this data fresh so that we, you know, you're meeting the needs of the folks who are participating in the program and continually audit and revise those costs. And then ideally, it would help to extend the notification timeline for the tenants because it is a challenge to find housing. And, you know, the more time they have to to be locating that, the better. At this point, we've shared a lot of information with you, and I'm open to any questions that you all might have for us. >> Thank you very much for the presentation. You go northwest. What's the weather like in Oregon today? >> It is beautiful here. [1:54:33 PM] >> It is beautiful here. >> Listen, we don't need your pacific northwest stuff over here, colleagues. Any questions? Please go ahead. >> Vice chair. >> This would be a question for staff. More what? How much money do we have budgeted for tenant relocation assistance. And again I'm having to go back and think. But I think we had about $700,000 or so in a fund, but we didn't have rules or, you know, an application or anything like that. And what what do we have in terms of relocation assistance? >> So when the 700,000 was budgeted, we did a solicitation, a competitive solicitation for a vendor. And that vendor did put together. I mean, there are program rules in the land development code, but the vendor has since put together the application, the intake process and connection with other vendors that might be needed, and community organizations. And and as was mentioned, there's a $6,000 cap [1:55:33 PM] mentioned, there's a $6,000 cap right now per household on the relocation. >> And what is the income cap for the program? >> For the multifamily residents, it's 70% of the Ami, and mobile home is 80% of Ami. >> Okay, that that honestly seems quite reasonable. And are we budgeting 700,000 per year in that program? >> This one is a little bit tricky because it's kind of as we can't it's hard to predict when the fund will be accessed and when these mass displacement events or redevelopment events will occur. And developers have been offering things to tenants. So which is not an agreement that the city is a party to. Sure. But so the budgeting for that we have there was 700,000 that one year, 250 was added to that from a previous amendment. And then we have additional funding that was added in fiscal year [1:56:33 PM] that was added in fiscal year 25. >> And about how much are we using that entire 700,000 per year, or how much are we tapping per year? >> We and I do have the program manager for the program here, Ursula Henderson, and we're happy to bring this back. Right now we have a referral process from community organizations, because it's been a little more one off than assisting an entire development. And so we we'd have to bring the figure of what we're using per fiscal year, but we're not assisted. We have not expended it. >> Okay. That that was my sense. And again, this is not just anybody who's displaced. This is someone who is. >> You know. >> Remodeled or demoed out of their prior home. Right? Okay. So we've got a limited population. The first place that that that is even eligible for us. Okay. Thank you. >> Colleagues. Any other questions? I thank you very much for the presentation. I actually just had. So when you said extend the notification [1:57:35 PM] said extend the notification timeline, what's being what's the current notification timeline and what's being recommended? And can you tell me how we got to that number on the latter end, the what's being recommended? Or maybe that wasn't you. I'm sorry, that was the northwest. The people who brag about whether. >> I can speak to the current requirement is 120 days for the multifamily redevelopment, and then 270 days for the mobile home. >> And and there was some mention of like one of the potential modifications to make it more usable in the future is to extend that note. I'm just curious what the extension would. >> Look like. >> Yeah. Amanda. >> Yeah, we did not provide necessarily a specific timeline, but in our conversations with service providers and some of the engagement that was done even prior to the ordinance or early days of the ordinance and the revisions, we just hear continually that it's very hard for people to find new housing even in three months. So just recommended that as a [1:58:37 PM] recommended that as a consideration for future program updates. >> Right. And which I really appreciate. And it's one of those things, you know, I think oftentimes sometimes folks are really good at expressing their discomfort, but not necessarily articulating what specifically would make it better, in which case the recommendations we make to staff or the experts or whatever the thing is doesn't necessarily translate. In which case I was hoping that with you guys, you know, with your finger on the pulse of what's going on, maybe folks were telling you, if I only had 90 more days, it would have been okay, kind of a thing. But if that's not something you were able to ascertain, it was a curiosity more than anything. >> Thank you. >> And then the other question I had. When we were talking about all of the the data that was collected, you know, it was movers, it was, you know, doing the cost comparisons and this kind of thing. I'm just sort of curious about, you know, it just seems like there's a cooperative for every other thing. And it just struck me as curious. You know, we have sort [1:59:38 PM] curious. You know, we have sort of the good hands. Good work. Austin folks who are sort of around the restaurateur space. And I just wonder if we have a similar collective effort where, you know, like a cooperative group of folks could be if we could get folks painting hot asphalt in Texas when it's 145 degrees, I bet we can get them to help folks move. So I just wonder what what community resilience resources were not tapping when it comes to that. So I'm just curious about how what opportunities may lie there and how we would even collect that data. Just curiosity. And then. Oh, I really appreciated that there was a differentiation between the 70% and multifamily and then the 80% at mobile home. I'm curious how y'all I think that's totally appropriate, but I'm just curious how you did the data to make the adjustment there. >> And that was done at the original implementation of the [2:00:40 PM] original implementation of the ordinance in 2016. >> Okay. I didn't realize that. I think it's appropriate. I'm glad that you noticed. >> That, too. >> And then with. Tenant relocation, one of the questions that I had there or I'm sorry, actually, no, no, the question that I remembered that there was one from miss Greathouse that I forgot. >> To ask. >> So this one isn't for you. So that was all. Thank you. We really appreciate the presentation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, just a moment. Let me get us all caught up. Oh I did oh, we lost the eco northwest folks. I did have the. And I'll just go ahead and say what the question was just to put it down. For the record, the 50 mile radius thing had a question. Are they still there? Hey. [2:01:40 PM] Hey. >> They are still here. >> My bad. So I was curious about this 50 mile radius assessment. So I got the impression that right now that sounds sufficient. But you know, just having watched the trends over the last. So I was elected in 19. And so watching the trends from 19 to now, it was like, you know, when I was saying, well, folks, you might as well strap in and get ready for the regional, you know, exploration. You'll be in niederwald before you know it. And now niederwald is San Marcos. And now you know pflugerville is Harker heights. So that 50 mile radius, I just sort of wonder if in six years there was that much of a noticeable difference in terms of people's geographic shifts based on affordability. If Taylor Tyler are already getting to the point where they're becoming unaffordable, then that means creed more than you know. Like I know regionally what our little spots are, and I don't think 50 miles is going to cut it for long. So I'm just curious how quickly we might be able to [2:02:42 PM] quickly we might be able to make an adjustment there, just, you know, based on inflation and the rate of speed that people are moving here and moving out of here. >> I think a little bit of the detail about our recommendation around tracking outcomes is also tracking outcomes for people who apply for the program and end up not receiving assistance because they move outside of that 50 mile radius. So I think having that follow up with the administrator Luper logics and really understand whether people are losing their eligibility because of where they find housing, will be a really important data point going forward to make those adjustments. >> Thank you. I appreciate that and that I promise you that was really my last question. You thank you very much. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. Council members. >> So so we have one more. So item number four is coming up. And prior to item number four coming up, council member Siegel would like to take some [2:03:43 PM] Siegel would like to take some time to address the matter before we move into council member Siegel, you got the floor. >> Thank you so much, chair. And I guess the presenters are free to come forward, but I just want to thank you, chair harper-madison for putting this item on the agenda. And thank you to Basta, which is a local community based organization. Building and strengthening tenant action is the acronym. But thank you all for coming in to present information to council. The genesis of this item was a March 2025 report published by Basta, which unfortunately shows that evictions reached a record high of over 13,000 filings in Travis county for 2024. And this is obviously an issue of major public concern and all of our council districts. And so the goal today is to learn more about this aspect of the housing crisis and to inform the work of council in the days to come. So with that, I'd like to welcome Shoshana Krieger from Basta and look forward to your presentation. >> Thank you very much. And I'll just just for the record, [2:04:43 PM] I'll just just for the record, I'll introduce us real quick. So we're moving into item number four, where we're going to get a briefing on the building and strengthening tenant action eviction dashboard report. That's pasta. And thank you, miss Krieger. It's good to see you again. So we will hear from Shoshana Krieger, the director of the building and strengthening tenant action project, and yield the floor. And. >> I. We're good. >> Now I can. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Councilmember harper-madison and council member Siegel for your kind words. As you all know, my name is Shoshana Krieger, and I'm the project director of Basta building and strengthening tenant action. We're currently a project of Texas Rio grande legal aid, and I'm excited to talk to you today about evictions in Austin. I'm not excited about the numbers, but council member Siegel mentioned it's an incredibly important issue relates to the last presentation we just heard. And I think there's a lot of opportunities for us to be [2:05:45 PM] opportunities for us to be making inroads on this issue in Austin and Travis county. So, oh, it worked great. So today I'm going to first talk a little bit about evictions in Travis county and our 2024 snapshot, which we released back in March. With that, I'm going to do a quick overview of the eviction process and talk about where the data comes from, and then talk about key findings. Then I will talk about the current eviction protection landscape in Austin and in Texas, and then to add some kind of nuance to the data points, talk about some tenant stories and what we can learn from those stories and how we can hopefully craft interventions which happen upstream before a tenant is facing eviction. So our 2024 snapshot, as council member Siegel mentioned was released [2:06:47 PM] Siegel mentioned was released in March. I have some copies here too, if folks want them, and it's a follow up to our 2023 eviction report, we get data from the courts in Travis county. So our insights are only right now for Travis county. Building out data sets for hays, Williamson, other central Texas counties is something we would like to do. We got the data from the courts on a weekly basis. We have address information. So we geocode that, which allows us to be able to understand the geographic distribution of evictions. We also have on our website, which you can get to with the qr code, a eviction dashboard, which is updated every week with new filings. So it provides a kind of live information about the eviction [2:07:49 PM] information about the eviction crisis that we're experiencing in our city. And it also allows you to filter or download that data on the census tract level. So before I dig into the findings, I do want to speak briefly about the eviction process, since that undergrads, the findings were going to talk about. So the eviction process starts for a tenant with a notice to vacate, which is a notice from their landlord saying you need to leave the property. And then if the tenant doesn't leave, the landlord can go to court, file an eviction, and then we have an official record that there has been a filing and a potential forced move out. If the tenant loses what they either move out or the constable shows up and forcibly removes them from their home. I do want to note, though, where that red line is on the slide [2:08:51 PM] that red line is on the slide that is between notice to vacate and an eviction filing, and we don't have any data before the red line on notices to vacate. And the majority of tenants move out before there actually is a filing. So it's important in terms of our understanding of how do we craft interventions for evictions, that we don't just look at filings because we know that the filing number masks the true the true number of evictions in Austin? I know my team has been out door knocking at night at properties where we have tenants associations, and they've seen tenants frantically packing boxes, saying that the manager threatened to call ice if they didn't move out the next day. Right. And so, like all of those stories aren't captured in the numbers that I'm about to talk about. The other caveat and we'll talk about this in a minute. But there was a recent [2:09:51 PM] minute. But there was a recent bill passed in the legislature, sb 38, the Texas apartment association named it a squatter bill. It had nothing to do with squatters, but everything to do with making an already easy process easier for landlords to evict tenants. And that's going to change some aspects of this timeline. It's going to tighten timelines, change the way in which tenants can receive service, and also change the appeals process. So going on to our findings and finding number one, the slide should have a header which says finding number one 2024 was the highest filing had the highest filings ever. And then the next one was going to say 2025 isn't looking much better. So in 2024, we had the highest filings we've ever had with 13,210 eviction filings. That's that Orange line. The red line is our 2025 [2:10:51 PM] line. The red line is our 2025 number. I looked up the numbers right before coming here. We have had thus far to this point in the year, 10,554 or 10,545 evictions. And that compares to last year's 9305. So we are on track to surpass last year's numbers. One thing you'll note is on this graph, we do not have the lines for 2020 and 2021, when there were eviction moratorium in place, which. This council was definitely actively engaged in. Those those conversations and passing those policies at the time, and those were relatively flat, which is just a reminder that if we as a community want to intervene and change this trajectory, we can. So going to finding number two, this is about the median judgment [2:11:54 PM] about the median judgment amount. So this year we were able to splice the data to get a sense of what is the average judgment amount for a tenant. And the average judgment amount is the amount the tenant owes in rent plus attorney's fees and costs. And what you'll see here is that judgment amounts seem to be tracking more or less with the cost of rent, and that with the trends in rent amounts, which isn't super surprising. But you do see, between 2019 and 2022, again, 2020 and 2021 aren't on this graph because that skews everything. You see that rents really jumped dramatically, and that means median judgments also increased dramatically. You also see that as rents have softened a bit, on average, the judgment amounts have come down. Finding number three is that it's super quick to be evicted [2:12:55 PM] it's super quick to be evicted once you are filed against. So the typical duration of a case in 2024 was a mere 20 days between filing and judgment. This is very contrary to the narrative which the apartment association put forth at the legislature this past session. We actually see in Travis county that 99% of cases were disposed of within 60 days. This also points to the fact that if we are serious about intervening with evictions, we have to do so before a filing, because as soon as we're at a filing, everything goes super quick. And with sb 38, it's just going to get quicker. Finding number four is that top evicting properties file at least one eviction for every five households. So when we look at properties which have the highest number of evictions [2:13:58 PM] the highest number of evictions filed every. That means if you're a tenant in the in the property, it's about a 1 in 5 chance that you will receive a eviction, a formal filing that year. And when we think about why is that happening, I think it's probably a property by property analysis. But we do know that some properties use the filings as a collection method, so they will then dismiss it. If the tenant repays rent, pays an eviction fee, penalty, pays for costs, other other things like that, which makes the tenant who's already in secure housing and secure more housing insecure. And it's a it's a way for them to both collect rent and also make a little bit more money. This is a chart of the top highest filers in Austin will go into Orange, Travis county. [2:14:58 PM] go into Orange, Travis county. We'll dive a little bit deeper into that in a second. This year a belly of flats was our number one Victor with a filing rate. So that's number of evictions divided by number of units of 38%. And that's in council district ten. Finding number five is that tax exempt private partnerships which we are calling taps, have a higher eviction filing rate than the citywide average in taps, which include Austin housing finance corporation and some other local entities give their tax exemption in exchange for the production of affordable housing. There's going to be a larger report, which is going to be released by UT law housing policy clinic. But I wanted to include this piece and talking about evictions, because this is an area where there's opportunity, right? Like if we are giving public benefit, then we can also [2:16:01 PM] benefit, then we can also implement things like eviction prevention plans at these properties to try to get these these rates lower. And one local tap, strategic housing finance corp, has actually started to incorporate eviction data in their risk assessment of their portfolio. And we have a special dashboard for them. And they're really working with their partners to try to lower eviction rates. Finding number six, which corresponds with something the last presenters indicated, is that we're seeing eviction evictions shift outwards towards the outskirts of Travis county. So this map is a map of eviction rates. So it's not raw numbers of evictions. It's the number of evictions divided by renter households in the in the areas. And traditionally we've seen eastern crescent is where there's more concentration of [2:17:03 PM] there's more concentration of evictions that tracks with national research, which finds correlation between a stronger correlation between communities of color and evictions than poverty with evictions. But we're seeing now it move to the outskirts. That could be because lower income folks are moving towards the edges of Travis county. Other possible reasons could be that there are a few higher high evicted properties in those areas, and there are fewer renters overall, but it's something we think to dig in more. And then just since we are in city hall and y'all are probably curious about what's happening in your district, on our dashboard, you can delve deeper into each district. But this is just every council district, over time, and you can see council member vela you win with the [2:18:05 PM] member vela you win with the highest number of evictions in your district. You have some of the worst offenders in terms of like big properties with highest rate of evictions. And then d3 comes in next. D3 actually saw the largest increase from 2320 23 to 2024, with a 40% increase in evictions during that time. Okay. The next slide. So this is that same graph before of the top ten evictors. And you can see and this may be one of the reasons why a d4 was so high that d4 also has some of the top evicting properties. So perhaps interventions with those specific properties could result in lower numbers. We also had d7 represented, so council member Siegel. There you go. District ten. In district three. And these are [2:19:07 PM] district three. And these are just pictures of some of the properties, a starburst apartments, which is in d4 and has a sister complex, orbit, have for a long time been on the top, top of the list. Okay, so looking at the eviction protection landscape in Austin. So as you all probably know, the process is mostly governed by state law. So there are limitations on what interventions policy interventions citywide the city can do on just from a regulatory standpoint, a regulatory regulating how much notice is given. As the third bullet here says, back in 2022, y'all, including council member harper-madison and council member Ellis. When you're on council, then y'all pass a local right to cure ordinance, [2:20:08 PM] local right to cure ordinance, which gave tenants seven days to repay rent. When we crunch the data, it actually seemed like that did have an effect on eviction filings in this city compared to eviction filings outside of the full purpose jurisdiction. But it was only in place for, I want to say, around nine months before the state came in and preempted it so we no longer have the ability to do that. Sb 38 actually does create a very limited right to cure. We're a little concerned it may actually trip up tenants because it's kind of onerous and not we aren't sure how many people will take advantage of it. So we're working on a whole educational campaign around sb 38. So tense. No. The changing and the rights landscape. One really important one, which we know is going to have a big effect, is notices to vacate [2:21:09 PM] effect, is notices to vacate can now be given by email. And we know a lot of people don't check their email or things get buried in email. So we think that there may be a lot of tenants who actually would have moved out if they got the notice to vacate, but then end up having a filing against them. Right. And then that's just burdening our courts. It's causing unnecessary headaches. So we want to make sure all tenants are educated about that, and also that we are tracking what are the trends? There are also potential protections because of government involvement or subsidy. So public housing hud housing has a special protections. Also y'all's local rental housing development assistance program has additional eviction protections, like requiring landlords to meet with tenants and giving additional time and providing a right to cure. Unfortunately, it does not appear that many properties are [2:22:11 PM] appear that many properties are actually giving out the addendum with the protections or following it, and there's hasn't historically been enforcement of it. So that that is definitely an area which could result in fewer evictions if those policies were followed. And then this slide is really about the resources available to tenants in Austin. So bossa does a lot of outreach and education to tenants facing eviction. We have a a early notification system where we email and text tenants facing eviction. We do call clinics to call tenants with resources. We have a website. Eviction is not a cure. Com which has a community resource guide. And we also do a lot of community education with interactive skits and other such things. Then we have legal assistance. The primary providers are Texas [2:23:12 PM] The primary providers are Texas Rio grande, legal aid and volunteer legal services. And then of course, there's rental assistance, which y'all have included in your budget. The county has some. And then a lot of local churches really are a lifeline for a lot of tenants. There also are local vouchers and then federal section eight vouchers. Right now it seems like there could be some major funding cuts to the federal vouchers. And that provides as opposed to emergency rental assistance, more long term stability. So just some of the challenges. And then I'll get to a few stories and wrap up. So one of the challenges we see, which is probably the biggest challenge, is the lack of support services or eviction prevention plans at properties. And that includes a lack of a management ecosystem, which is really focused on housing [2:24:12 PM] really focused on housing stability, of talking to tenants and trying to resolve issues, trying to work with tenants on payment plans, trying to avoid getting to the step of filing eviction and eviction. And this really gets to how do we develop upstream solutions. We're also, as I mentioned in the previous slide, seeing that landlords aren't always following or honoring protections that exist. A protection or a law is only as strong as the enforcement of it, right? So that's something which is important. And then this is a huge challenge, which is which you all all know is the continually increasing army. So army has increased about 77% in the last ten years. But then when we look at the cost of living increases for folks on fixed incomes, that has only increased by 37%. So so long as we're tying affordability to army, we're going to be just [2:25:13 PM] army, we're going to be just exacerbating a problem. And no amount of emergency rental assistance is going to fix an ongoing huge gap, which just increases. And that is a that that requires a rethinking of how we are providing affordable housing and using army in our affordable housing programs. So I just talked a lot about data, but behind every data point, right, is a person. And behind every eviction file is a person, a filing is a person. And so I want to talk a little bit about some of the people who are impacted by eviction, and what we can learn from their stories to identify what are some points of intervention so that we can have upstream interventions in the process to prevent the filing and mitigate the impacts of evictions. And the stories I'm going to share [2:26:15 PM] the stories I'm going to share are from Arbors at creekside. Some of those tenants are here today. Shout out Arbors tenants. The property is actually recently been renamed. I'm not going to use that name though, because the new name is deeply offensive to many of the tenants there, especially the elderly black seniors who live there. And the association is right now starting a campaign to stop that renaming. So I'm going to refer to it as Arbors. This is a property on Clayton Laine. It's behind capitol plaza, and it's the home to hundreds of seniors. It's affordable housing with tax credits, and it's owned by the city of Austin with the supposedly mission based national church residences has had the privilege of organizing there since 2016. One thing to note is that the city has was supposed to be giving out those lease addendums with the city based protections, and had not [2:27:16 PM] based protections, and had not been for some time, and we don't think are currently complying with the steps they're supposed to be taking for evicting tenants. My original plan for this presentation was to paint a full picture of each person's lives with pictures, and and you know more about each tenant than the eviction, which is a particularly painful moment in their lives. But understandably, folks were hesitant to be named publicly. And I think this speaks to a larger challenge of the need to reframe evictions from an individual failing of a person to a systemic failing. Right. And so I'm not able to paint the picture quite as vividly as I'd like, but I want to share a few anecdotes about how these seniors found themselves facing eviction or evicted, and what are some small things we could have done to prevent needless stress and the needless costs on our social service infrastructure [2:28:17 PM] social service infrastructure and using precious city resources to prevent housing instability. So one tenant we spoke to had been hustling to make ends meet for some time. He got about $400 behind on rent at some point, and he had been chipping away at that $400 every month by just paying a little bit more. But then Arbors changed its policies and stopped accepting partial payments, meaning that he didn't have the full amount and so they wouldn't accept what he tried to pay. And this resulted in a snowball effect, because when you're barely able to make ends meet and have more money in your account and you're struggling, it makes sense that you may dip into that extra money your landlord isn't taken. So he ended up with a notice to vacate, and he says that when he went to the management office and said, I can through friends find some money, pay the full balance, they said, no, we just want you to go. And [2:29:17 PM] we just want you to go. And we've heard from many tenants at Arbors that this change in refusing to accept partial payment really had a detrimental impact and started the downward spiral to them being not just 200 or $300 behind, but a thousand 2000, and then that amount just seems insurmountable. And so a simple practice such as partial accept partial payments paired with reasonable payment plans Wright could prevent that. Another tenant who we spoke to who got behind on rent. She's constantly behind on rent because her income isn't going up as her rent is, but she hustles, finds rental assistance a little bit here and there. When she went to the office with rental assistance, they wouldn't take it because it wasn't the full amount. Through some advocacy, we were able to get them to take it. But so this story highlights the need for accepting partial payments, but also her income [2:30:18 PM] payments, but also her income does not meet her rent amount to be able to live in an affordable senior property. So this points to the need for solutions like voucher program for seniors and affordable housing. Wright how are we going to cover the gap between the army base rent and the realities of our seniors? We also spoke to a tenant who likely was in his 60s or 70, but he can't afford to live alone, so he lives with a roommate, and his roommate was paying half the rent directly to the management office, and then stopped paying and didn't tell him. The roommate threw out the couple of notices they received. They were in English. Both of them speak Spanish, and an eviction was filed. Once the primary tenant found out about it, he was able to hustle and talk to family and friends who are able to come up with that amount, work something out with the office. But now he has an eviction filing on his record [2:31:19 PM] eviction filing on his record and there was no reason to get there. They could have picked up the phone. They could have tried to talk to him. If he would have, there would have been an actual conversation. This is an eviction which maybe could have been averted. Another story that was shared was a tenant who was being evicted for not having electricity and stealing electricity, and the reason he was stealing electricity, and I'm doing that in air quotes is because he was told he couldn't get utility assistance until his electricity was turned off, so he stopped paying his utility bill so that he could get that utility assistance. It was like 2 or 3 days. He didn't have electricity during that time. He plugged in an extension cord in the hallway, then got the assistance. It was turned back on, but the complex continued to seek an eviction against him. Right. And that's a problem of let's help people navigate our utility assistance programs and understand what the process is and how how we can support this man, as [2:32:22 PM] can support this man, as opposed to just say, nope. Too bad. So sad you're stealing from us. And then finally, there was a story of a couple in their 80s and they were evicted. They hadn't received the notices. None of these tenants had received the notices. They should have, as required by the city. And the constable came to remove their items. This is probably a situation where the there wasn't an easy, oh, it's $500, we can fix it situation, but the constable put all of their belongings on, you know, out in the parking lot and they were going through their belongings trying to, you know, identify their most precious things that they wanted to keep with them. And the manager chased them off the property, and then they came back to try to check their mail. Lots of seniors got their medications in the mail, and the manager chased them off the property. And I think from this story, it's there may be times [2:33:23 PM] story, it's there may be times when we can't prevent the eviction, but how are we both treating people with dignity in this really horrific moment? And how are we also creating a social safety net where there are people who can help this couple who are in their 80s, who have lived their lives in Austin, who are our elders, not be sleeping in the car and they're sleeping in their car right now. So I think that Arbor's a property owned by the city and with a nonprofit. Ownership is a place where we can do better and we can do all of these things, and we can think about how we can creatively intervene and how we can come up with innovative solutions so that we can turn the tide on evictions at Arbor's, turn the tide on evictions more broadly in our city. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, miss Grieger. Any questions? [2:34:24 PM] Grieger. Any questions? Councilmember Siegel? >> Well, yeah, I'll reiterate, councilmember, thank you so much for this presentation. Gave us a lot of food for thought, a lot of really important information and analysis. I had one clarifying question then kind of more of a global question of the properties that were listed on those two slides of kind of most filings and most evictions. Are any of those properties, as far as you know. >> Oh. I don't think they are. >> Okay. Well, if yeah, if you learn more about that please let. >> Us know. Yeah. We have in the top report it has the top top filers. So that will have a list of them okay. >> Great. And then I mean I feel like you dropped a lot of, you know, nuggets about different ways the city could support reducing evictions and supporting tenants. I heard you mention eviction protection plans just requiring information in multiple languages, offering the [2:35:25 PM] languages, offering the opportunity to pay partial rent with a with a payment plan. But I guess if you could just, you know, take a little bit of a step back and share, you know, any best practices that Basta has identified for municipalities that want to reduce the rate of evictions, especially if there's any, you know, best practices in Texas that are legal in this state. Any suggestions? As we kind of engage in policy making in the days ahead? >> Yeah. So I think eviction prevention plans probably are the kind of the thing with the most, the most potential to to confront this problem here. They could be adopted legally by the city and incentive programs. And they really look at Boston has had great success with it. Chicago has experimented a bit. Indiana, Indianapolis has done some work on them, and it's really working on changing the culture and management offices to be [2:36:26 PM] and management offices to be more problem solving and connecting tenants to public benefits resources. Right. And how are we not just putting a band-aid of emergency rental assistance on things? Because that band-aid is only going to stick for that long. So we have to do we have to change the larger systems or have a larger ongoing income supplement to be able to to really, really intervene. So I think there are some creative things we can do with eviction prevention plans. I also think that the enforcement of existing protections, which exist within Rhoda properties, city funded properties, could go a long way. And then there are some other like the Rhoda lease. Addendum right now doesn't require the acceptance of partial payment or doesn't require the acceptance of rental assistance from third parties. That's something we've seen where landlords will just say, nope, [2:37:27 PM] landlords will just say, nope, not going to accept rental assistance. Right. So some of those like it's pretty like low hanging fruit and for most people would be like, well, obviously like they're going to give money. Why are you going to refuse the money? Right. Some of some of kind of those tweaks could be an opportunity. >> All right. Well, thanks again to you for coming down and for all the tenants for for showing up and participating in this. I really appreciate it. And I think as you're aware, several of our offices are working on some of these tweaks that you're suggesting and look forward to doing better in the years ahead. Thank you. Chair. >> Councilmember. >> A quick question for you on the partial payments. Is that something that state law speaks to at all? Are you familiar or can you guide us on what it says or doesn't say? >> Yeah, it doesn't it doesn't say anything about partial payments, but because of hb 2127, it that there's probably there's no I don't think there's any citywide. Like like council couldn't pass a [2:38:29 PM] council couldn't pass a citywide. You have to accept partial payment. But the city also could do things of broader rental assistance dollars. Right. Like you could also say like, okay, if you there are some landlords who really love to accept rental assistance and love to accept it without strings. So you could say something like, okay, if you accept city rental assistance, that means you have to agree to accept have policies related to X, Y, and Z at your property. So I think it probably would be thinking creatively about how to leverage some of the investments y'all are already making in this space. >> That's helpful because I thought maybe state law had spoken to it already. I live in an apartment that at one point partial payment was fine, so my husband and I were able to just say, okay, here's we're going to split payment, no big deal. And then as the apartment got bought and sold a couple of times, the policy changed and we weren't notified until it was time to make the rent payment. And all of a sudden, you know, you've got families [2:39:31 PM] you know, you've got families that are dealing with moving money around or, hey, if I had known this 2 or 3 weeks ago, it would have helped sync up the different payments. And, you know, having to kind of make sure that one person can foot the entire bill for the whole apartment is just probably not feasible for many families or any situations where there's multiple roommates trying to contribute to that. So I look forward to hearing what it sounds like there is a sub quorum working on to to help make sure that at least the properties we have more control over are doing everything we can to help people in that situation. >> Yeah, and on the partial payment issue, one thing we saw at Arbors was they changed the well, they said that the policy I think was always the policy, but they changed the enforcement of the policy and they hadn't notified people. So people came in with money orders. And when you pay by money order, anyone who's tried to get money back from a money order knows that ain't easy. So then you have these folks don't have an extra $1,000 laying around, and there are $100 short with their money order. How do you, you know, get that [2:40:32 PM] How do you, you know, get that back. And so there was, you know, panic setting in. Right. So it's it's one of those things which from a I think kind of corporate standpoint, they're like, oh yes, this makes sense. And then the reality on the ground is a lot trickier. And there's so many different ways it plays out. >> Right. Rent's due on Friday. And then by the time you drop it off, you realize something's not correct and you may not be able to get it rectified until Monday. Now you're dealing with late payments. Yeah. And I believe it is actually in state law now that after day three you can be charged 10% of the total cost of rent, which is. >> 12% if you're in a single family house. >> Really? >> Yep. >> That's just wild. I mean, it used to be lower. And so thinking that families have that much flexibility and keeping the roof over their head is to me, totally out of touch with the everyday reality of people in Texas across the entire state. >> Well, and then on the issue of like, that kind of gets into the issue of junk fees. And one thing which we've seen is there are all these fees related to like eviction prevention fees. [2:41:33 PM] like eviction prevention fees. So will be we won't file this eviction if you pay us $200 more. And they can be called different things. And like right now in y'all's rotor program, there's no prohibition on doing that. Right. So it's and every time you like restrict something right. Like it's playing whack a mole a bit. So there also could be a just eliminate any additional fees. Right. So tenants know what they're going to be paying upfront. >> I appreciate the insight. Thanks for the work you do. >> Thank you. >> Yes, very much I appreciate it. And along those lines, yes sometimes it's wow. Right. I also just wanted to say shout out to the Arbors residents. You know, Shoshana, you know, in the early days when we went over there, I, I, my office had been called by the residents and the pool was literally she said, the pool is green. And I was like, the pool was literally green. And so I really do appreciate the progress that's been made. But [2:42:33 PM] progress that's been made. But I think it's fair to say that even at a city owned property, there's more that we could do. And I think that's a really good place to start from, because when we identify that we're the problem, we can be the solution. And we can also be the example, the template for private actors over the course of the years, you know, the mount Carmel situation and then the and then the and then the and then just realizing, you know, applying a little pressure. We never actually even had to call the big dogs and have you yell at them. We just said, hey, this is not okay. My name is, you know, and they were the private actors, even the ones that are in new York or wherever. The they were quick to try to reconcile, if for no other reason. I think a lot of folks don't recognize when they have that hud arrangement. It's like their golden goose they know they're getting. Each rental unit is going to be paid for every month. But something that has occurred to me in terms of consideration, I don't know if you remember when the mount Carmel thing was happening. Folks were like, they're freezing us out so they could take this place. I was like, no, not yet. However, now that I'm taking into consideration some [2:43:34 PM] taking into consideration some of the implications around sb 840, you mentioned a couple sb or bs, but the the one that I'm concerned about has to do with. So the way that that works with, you know, the the hud properties, those applications only last so long. The hud application eventually expires at which point folks could make their otherwise income restricted housing market rate housing. And we haven't had that discussion yet. And so as we continue these discussions, I'd like very much to make sure that we discuss that. And then to your point about sort of shifting that culture with management, I sometimes find that there's this inadvertent management versus tenant, you know, sort of contention. And some of those managers live on the property, in which case I'm like, dude, same Jersey. Like, you guys are against the same bad guy. So that said, I wonder if you have any ideas for. So when I watched you guys come [2:44:34 PM] when I watched you guys come and organize the folks at mount Carmel like watching it unfold and then watching here almost four years later, almost three years later, they're really still going strong. I'm curious to know, to your point about education, I think a lot of folks really don't know how powerful they are when they unify, and how our citizenry, you guys absolutely can change the winds of a vote. When you come into this room and you look at the folks up here and they say yes or no to a thing when they look at it real people's eyes and can hear their real stories. I guess the point I'm getting at, though, is I also do appreciate not needing to, you know, offer your story, individual story in order to inspire people in order to, you know, I guess, change the winds. I'd like to I'd like to think through a way for us moving forward. To your point, it shouldn't be the [2:45:34 PM] point, it shouldn't be the personal story. It should be the eviction story. I'd like for us to think through a way for us to really talk about that, because I don't want us to gloss over the implications there. What does happen when folks experience this? We shouldn't have to say their name until their specific story to talk about what the outcomes are. >> Yeah. And I think that there's a lot of the amount of trauma associated with experiencing eviction or even just seeing a neighbor experience eviction like we were. I was talking with some of my team members earlier this week, and they were talking about being at a property where they were kind of constantly seeing the Orange notice on a door. Right. And that that feeling of what? Like, what does that do just in terms of your day to day of feeling like, oh, I'm at risk. The rug can be pulled out from me at any minute. And I, I don't think we talk as much as we should about the mental health impacts and the importance when we're calling people facing eviction. Oftentimes the biggest benefit [2:46:35 PM] Oftentimes the biggest benefit that we have isn't the resource guide we're given isn't anything else. It's just calling and being like, you're not alone and this isn't your fault. Like and that other people also have experienced this and that. This is a result of systems. And that's an important part that's not going to like magically, you know, create interventions to solve the problem. But I think that's shifting the culture and also allowing people to speak of their experiences. So we also can identify where are the where are those points of intervention. >> Well, and this will be my last point, and I really appreciate that you offered that segue there because you said something earlier about navigation. This is something I say all the time. I came into this position as a policymaker, as a person who had never considered running for office because I was a community advocate. And what I recognized was we had these fully funded organizations fully funded, fully staffed. They have everything. And then you have the people who need what it is that they offer, and then there's no bridge to connect [2:47:36 PM] there's no bridge to connect the two, in which case they're not meeting their milestones. There's some specific requirements for getting that funding. They're not meeting their milestones. And the folks who need the services aren't getting it. So you said something about navigation services. I think navigation services there, navigation services, frankly, for homeowners who, you know, an idea that I had early on was for every sign that says we buy ugly houses, we should plant one that says, don't talk to them until you talk to us. And here's the navigation service, right? Like if we embed and in fact, I'm inspired, I'm going to bring the idea and I trusted my colleagues will be into the community city hall, because that's one of the things that would be offered Wright, including taking those actors that are within the ecosystem and allowing them the opportunity to think bigger about how they can better utilize their time and talent. That apartment locators, folks who work in the real estate space who can offer you advice, good unsolicited advice that's, you know, sort of neutral third party advice. All those things being in one building where you plant that sign that says, [2:48:37 PM] plant that sign that says, don't talk to them people until you go to this address, this day and time. You know, that level of continuity of service. Then people start to trust it because to your point, you can only be traumatized so many times before. You don't trust the system. So I really appreciate that that you're saying that because as we do move forward with this effort, I think a part of it is thinking through how we can do some integration, how we can do some navigation, how these dollars that address mental health or even private endowment dollars that address mental health, you know, are offer a little more flexibility for, you know, we're just going to have to put all the pieces together and see what kind of goulash we come up with, but it's worth a try. So thank you again to council member Siegel's point. Thank you. It's been an honor to watch you fight and then sometimes stand behind you because those swings are wild, so I don't want to catch one, but thank you. I really appreciate what it is that you unbossed to do. And watching y'all. Really, I think oftentimes when people think of poverty, they assume that there's a desire for assistance, [2:49:39 PM] there's a desire for assistance, and that's because they've never been poor. The desire is not for assistance. The desire is to be left the hell alone and mind your own business and take care of your stuff. But the need is for a little supplement, a little sustenance to help get you by and maintain your agency and dignity which you are entitled to and deserve. So again, thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you. Anything else? Anybody? I think the last thing on our item is to talk about future items for consideration. Number five nada, nada. Well you guys know what I'm going to do. Are rakem left that can speak to land banking, but I'm going to bring back up land banking, I think, if for no other reason, as we are considering all of our unique opportunities, recognizing that the city of Austin does have the opportunity to expand our acquisition dollars, buy in land and banking it for the purposes of creation of perpetual affordable housing. So that's something I'd like [2:50:40 PM] So that's something I'd like very much for a future meeting. And if that is all you guys, at 2:50 P.M. We are adjourned. Have a good day, everybody.