Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) Meeting Transcript – 1/14/2026 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 1/14/2026 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 1/14/2026 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [9:29:29 AM] well good morning everybody. It's 930 on January 14th, 2026 and I feel compelled to say happy new year, since this is the first time many of us have been on the dais and been back in council chambers in the new year. So welcome everybody and [9:30:31 AM] happy new year to you. I will call to order the audit and finance committee of the Austin city council on this January 14th, 2026. We are meeting in city council chambers, which are located in city hall at 301 west second street, and we have a quorum of the city council present the committee members present. And we have we are also joined by two other members of the two other members of the city council that are not on the committee, councilmember Laine and councilmember Ellis. We appreciate them also being with us. If I call somebody by the wrong name, it is because I'm not used to where everybody's sitting yet. So when I when I look and call you by the wrong name with that, we will let me outline how I think we'll move because we have a very strong agenda, a lot, a lot on the agenda. We'll go to item one, which is the draft minutes in just a second. Then what I thought we would do is go to item five, which is the financial report from our [9:31:32 AM] director. Then item seven, which is a report on the speed reduction audit. Then we will go to item three, item four. And then since item six is so closely related to item number two, I'm going to bring those up together. I'll bring up six and then two. So 157346 and two is the way we will go. Like I say, it's a full agenda. So I anticipate we'll need to we'll need to keep that in mind as we try to keep everybody kind of on their schedules for the day. The first item on the agenda is we will hear from speakers that have signed up prior to the meeting being called to order, and I'll ask that you call the name of the speaker. >> Jeffrey Bowen. >> Mr. Bowen, welcome. Happy new year to you. Well I'm alright, see how you whether you keep me in that mood. Well we'll try. No promises I [9:32:33 AM] appreciate it. Glad you're here. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chair. There you go. Yeah, I've been off of it for a while too. So happy new year. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members Jeffrey Bowen, resident of district eight. And I'm here representing myself and myself only. So I'm here to speak on number on item number four, which is actually the audit. And for many people know that I have been a very staunch advocate for an audit for, for some time. And in dealing with this, I recently got a new one of the district newsletters, which I get all of them that are out there. And of course I always try to pull out some highlights and and one of them that I sent out, I put a little note on there that said, once again, the council does not have a spending problem. The budget issue was caused by the others, state, federal and the lack of the voters to understand our financial issues. [9:33:33 AM] Little thought of the impact of the 20% tax increase of the citizens of Austin. Increasing property, increasing tax. Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. Increasing taxes makes Austin more affordable. How? Now, in that regards, I got an answer back from one of the 200 people that are on that. That's a neighborhood friend that was been around for a long time. And she wrote back and she said, regardless how the mayor and the council try to explain away their loss of public support and failed financial planning, you and others strong voices are pushing transparency and accountability to the forefront. Thank you for the work that you do for us. A serious review of the government decisions. I know the city leadership are still trying to stay on a predetermined path, but it does feel that there is a modicum of acknowledgment that some course correction is required, even as people's voices are stronger, [9:34:34 AM] big money still talks. Your work to balance the scales is making a difference and is much appreciated. This goes back to the same thing that the mayor has talked about is the lack of trust. There is still a lack of trust, and the constant reminder of how do we rebuild that trust. I really appreciate the work going into the ordinance, which is calling for an audit and those changes. But as many know, I'm also a supporter of the other, the one for the charter amendment. I still believe the charter amendment is the best way to go, because there are an opportunity that nine people can override the ordinances, and we've already had ordinances that are on the books that are not being done, not being accomplished, being ignored. And yet I still believe that there's many items in both of these that overlap [9:35:36 AM] each other. They talk about the same thing we need to. It's my determination and I really, truly believe this. This needs to be part of the charter amendment. >> Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. Those are all the speakers have signed up. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> That's correct. Good deal. Thank you, Mr. Bowen. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Members that will take us to item number one, which is approval of the draft minutes. Let me first ask if there are any council members or members of the committee that have any proposed amendments to the. I said, I hope I said draft minutes, not amendments to the the draft minutes. I would suggest that in at the top of the minutes, it has additional committee members that were present that should be changed. That should be edited to be additional council members present. And it listed councilmember Laine. And then under item number one, approval of the minutes. This is just a minor deal. Just [9:36:39 AM] second paragraph. The minutes were approved on this. The third I would add an D after the three. So third day with those two proposed amendments to the minutes is there. I would offer that up and seconded by councilmember vela. All have made the motion. Is there any discussion? Without objection, the minutes with those two amendments is adopted are adopted. That will take us to item number five, which is the financial report. And I will ask our director to come forward and give us a financial report. And happy new year to you. >> Happy new year. Glad to be back. >> Really. >> Yes, I hope so. >> Well, good morning, mayor, mayor pro tem and council. I'm Kerri Lang, the director of Austin budget and organizational excellence. And today I will talk through the [9:37:41 AM] fourth quarter financial report. We distributed the report yesterday evening to the council. So you'll have all that backup detail to read today. We'll just do a high level highlights from the report. And then of course if you all have any questions I'm happy to answer those questions. I know we are short on time, so I'll kind of go through this quickly and see if you all have any questions. I do want to reiterate that these are our unaudited numbers. Austin financial services will be providing the full fiscal year 25 final numbers in the annual comprehensive financial report later this year. And so I do want to talk about, as we as we look at our financial reporting, as I talk through this presentation, and when you look at the report, I want to make sure we all understand that when we are creating our budgets, the timeline that we're looking at and how we're talking about this, we're going to talk a little bit about how fiscal year 25 ended compared to their current year estimate. And then there are some conversation, of course, as [9:38:42 AM] looking at how we ended compared to our adopted or amended budget for fiscal year 25. When we do that, it's because we want to give a clear picture of what was budgeted. But our current year estimate is a really important number as well, because we use that in order to build the fiscal year 26 budget. And so this slide just kind of talks through where talking about our current year estimate, whether we do, how we do compared to that current year estimate, can impact what we're seeing in fiscal year 26 for our adopted budget, as well as what we how we transfer our talk through the rest of this fiscal year as we monitor fiscal year changes. So when we look at our general fund highlights for fiscal year 25, I think there are some key takeaways that we want to make sure everyone understands for revenue. We did end revenue above our estimate 0.6 million or $600,000 above the estimate. Our general fund expenditures as a whole were 3 million below our estimate for the fiscal year. Overall, in the end of the fiscal year, we are moving [9:39:44 AM] $3.6 million to our reserves for this for fiscal year 25, when we look at our reserves level, we are ending the year. We're projected to end the year at 16.2%, compared to the 16.7% that was budgeted for fiscal year 25. And most of that change that reduced reserves amount is because of the anticipated FEMA payments that we thought we were going to get in fiscal year 25. That has not come in yet. So we'll move on to revenue highlights. This chart here is just showing you our different major revenue sources. And then walking through again our amended budget for revenue, looking at where we are year to date. Our current year estimate for as of the end of June or early July for our estimate, and then the percentages that we came in compared to our budget. I will note that the sales tax revenue includes two months of accruals. As we those as you all know, those revenues come in on a lag. [9:40:46 AM] Some key takeaways for our revenue. Our sales tax. We are 11.9 million below our budget for fiscal year 25, but we are 3.5 million above our estimate for fiscal year 25. So we did better than we estimated during the the proposed budget process. We are continuing to see flat revenue in sales tax, and we're continuing to monitor that. And we'll be providing updates as the year goes forward in our ems billing. As we've mentioned over the last several months, ems did receive additional revenue over what was budgeted. They actually did better than their by about 1.2 million over their CI. They've continued to work on building efficiencies over the last several years, and also they had a increased revenue from central health higher than anticipated, as well as their charity care came in higher than budgeted. This slide again goes through our our general fund departments so that you can see the the [9:41:47 AM] changes for fiscal year end as well as compared to the amended budget and our estimate. And this just gives each department so you can see the numbers that they came in compared to what was budgeted and estimated. If we look at the highlights of the key takeaways for that, we identified in fiscal year 25, a 1.5% budget savings for the fiscal year to help make sure we were balanced in by the end of 25, eight of the 12 departments reached that target. So they reached that 1.5% savings, and then those four that did not as animal services, fire, parks and recreation and police. However, animal services also exceeded their appropriation or their budget. For fiscal year 25, they went about $275,000 over budget, and that was primarily due to some of the long term or responses to animal care at the shelter that caused an increase. Expenses for last fiscal year. [9:42:47 AM] Our social service contracts came in at 99.62, so pretty much spent all of our social service contract dollars for fiscal year 25. And then we look at our overall appropriation. We came in at 98.8% of our total appropriation for last fiscal year. Again, the one 1%, about 1% savings in department savings. And then we had 2.8% savings in our non-departmental appropriations. When we look at our enterprise departments, our fourth quarter report and all of our reports include our major enterprise funds, they include convention center resource recovery, Austin energy, Austin water, aviation development services, transportation, public works, and watershed protection. And so when you look at those major funds, all of those other funds besides development service permitting fund came in according to their planned budget and appropriation and current year estimate for fiscal year 25. So there's nothing major that happened on [9:43:48 AM] most of our enterprise departments in our permitting fund and development services. They continue to see a reduction in revenue. So they were $6.4 million below their budgeted revenue and then their but their expenditures were also below their budget. So as we're continuing to see a constriction in our decline in our development, our department is really working to reduce the expenditures along with that, to make sure we offset that revenue decline. And then the last thing that I'm going to talk about are our vacancy rates. When we look at fiscal year, the end of fiscal year 25, we had a vacancy rate citywide of 9.1%. That is the lowest citywide vacancy rate that we've had since 2019. We are continuing to see lower civilian vacancy rates is at 7.7. Our capital delivery services department does have a [9:44:49 AM] 15% vacancy rate that they're working on. Ongoing recruitment efforts to address that, that increased vacancy rate for cds. And then when we look at our sworn vacancies, we have 16.6% for ems, 5.4 for fire and 17.8% for police. That is my presentation for today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Mayor pro tem. >> Just a quick one. It's not it's a great presentation. Greatly appreciated. I don't see it in the in the backup on the on the audit and finance committee website. I just wanted to note that and get it back there for the public. >> We will make sure it's added to backup. >> Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? Councilmember Laine. >> I have I have primarily thank you. Thank you for this really helpful report. I just I wanted to daylight that we are working out agenda items on for the public safety committee, one of which will likely include an agenda item for vacancy rates on those highlighted agencies. >> And oh good. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember alter. [9:45:49 AM] >> I also want to go one thing that we've asked for future quarterly reports that I think will be helpful for all, all of us to have the information, is the overtime spending for our three public safety departments, just so we can keep a close eye and not be surprised. Come August and July of, oh, they're either over or under by significant amount. So appreciate going forward in the next quarter. That information being included. >> Yes. That will be included in our beginning in fiscal year 26, our first quarter, we wanted to close out fiscal year 25 in the same format. And then we'll transition for fiscal year 26. >> Thank you, councilmember duchen. >> Thank you, mayor. And thank you, Carrie, for the the updates. I just had two questions. One is I noticed in addition to the ems spending that you touched on or, sorry, the ems revenue, you touched on, [9:46:49 AM] that it looked like almost all of our finding categories are well above what we projected for revenue in terms of other funds, library funds, parking violations, etc. Some of these are significant. I think parking alone was $3.7 million above what we originally projected. Who would I talk to about why? It seems like that was a major additional source of revenue this year. Well, above all projections across all categories. >> Let's connect after the meeting. And now we'll walk. We can walk through it and get you some details. >> Thank you. Second question was just on the cip bond update Paige. It looked like financial services was way off. I'm just assuming that's a typo. Can you confirm that? >> Okay, let me look. Yes. [9:47:52 AM] >> 18.6 million. >> In the year to date that I think that is a. >> Type of 4 million. >> I think that is a typo. Let me look at that and I'll get it updated. >> Okay. That's all I had. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thanks, councilmember. Any other questions of the director? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Members that will take us to item number seven, which is a report on the audit and speed reduction efforts. It's all yours. >> Great. Good morning everyone. My name is Sam sokolow and I'm here with the Austin city auditor's office to present an audit that our audit conducted, office conducted on the city speed reduction efforts. The objective of this audit was are the city speed reduction efforts working effectively? Although speed and contributes [9:48:52 AM] to numerous serious and fatal injuries in Austin and the United States overall, even small reductions in speed can mitigate or prevent them. For example, as the graph here shows, as speeds rise, the chance of a fatal injury also rises. Additionally, a speed rise crashes can become more frequent. Us communities have traditionally approached traffic safety from the lens of the three E's of education, enforcement, engineering. The Austin police department, or APD for short, oversees the city's enforcement efforts, and the Austin transportation public works department, or dpw for short, largely oversees the city's education and engineering efforts. Although engineering is the main lever that they use to promote traffic safety. For our first finding, we found that the city has a proactive approach to speed reduction. Also, most projects that we reviewed resulted in lower speeds. There are several city transportation entities play a role in speed reduction, but the city's speed management program is most directly involved with this work. The efforts fall into two main buckets speed limit changes and implementing traffic calming projects. While [9:49:52 AM] the city's traffic calming projects are mainly located in neighborhood settings, their work involving speed limit changes has a much broader citywide impact. We found that the city has a risk based approach to identifying locations for traffic calming projects, where residents can communicate possible locations for projects to staff factors such as speeds, crashes, and the presence of sidewalks, among others. Ultimately shay prioritization. As part of our work, we looked at several of the city's traffic calming projects from the past few years. When looking at all segments across the projects, we found that speeds went down most of the time. Also, we observed that speeds went down by a larger amount in projects with speed cushions, and that these projects tended to be less costly compared to projects without tb cushions. Projects without speed cushions tended to involve other transportation assets geared toward other mobility priorities, such as pedestrian safety and multimodal transportation. While such projects help calm traffic, they may not contribute to the same degree of speed reduction and can be costlier. First. Second finding. We found that the city does not document key [9:50:53 AM] information related to selecting and delivering projects. Atpp has documented aspects of the decision making process regarding project selection and delivery decisions, but other aspects of the process are done more informally. For example, we would like to see atw formally document why each project gets picked. Use cost and speed data from past projects to help inform project selection and set formal financial tolerances and decision points regarding project costs and who constructs the project, whether that's internal staff, contractors or a mix of both. As costs for projects continue to rise, making improvements in these areas should help the city optimize project selection and delivery decisions for last finding, we found that the speed manager program has not established a maintenance plan for their assets. The speed manager program and the signs and markings division manage many of the city's key speed reduction assets. The signs and markings division has conditioned standards and maintenance plan for the assets that they oversee, whereas the speed management program does us that their maintenance, sappi, cushions and homies is mainly reactive, which is something that we also [9:51:55 AM] heard from staff at peer cities. For another aspect of our work, we visited speed reduction assets throughout Austin and observed their condition. We noticed that most assets appear to be in relatively good condition. However, while assets such as speed cushions are durable and should last about 20 to 25 years, they do wear down over time, as shown by some of the images on this slide. There's also a picture of a flattened delineator post, but the city has a plan in place to replace assets like this one. In the absence of condition, standards and maintenance plan, it's unclear how the city will balance deploying new speed cushions and other assets while simultaneously maintaining and potentially replacing existing ones. Another element of our work involved engaging with transportation staff and other large cities in Texas and other states. Based on the review comparing Austin to the cities that we met with, we found that Austin is unique among these cities and that they use bonds to fund projects like other cities we met with. Austin primarily uses contractors to physically construct projects, although some cities have their own internal staff do this, which may result in cost [9:52:56 AM] savings. Furthermore, Austin has opportunities to identify different funding sources and project delivery methods for traffic calming projects, which is important within the context of rising project costs. And since existing bond funds for traffic calming projects have already been allocated. As noted, speed cushions are effective at lowering speeds, but they're not suitable for all road settings, such as those with higher traffic volumes like arterial roads such as 2222 or Lamar boulevard. Enforcement is vital in these settings, but it has remained limited in Austin for the past several years, as APD has had limited traffic enforcement capacity. For example, according to vision zero, speeding citations have decreased by 90% since 2015. There are indications that some austinites would like to see more traffic enforcement. We issued a total of three recommendations to help improve the city's speed reduction efforts, involving project selection and delivery, as well as asset management maintenance. Atb has agreed with these recommendations and they've communicated preliminary next steps regarding implementing them. I'd like to thank atb for [9:53:58 AM] all of their support and cooperation throughout this audit, as well as all the great work with speed reduction and beyond. That's the presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Great. You want to add anything? Okay. Anybody have questions? Councilmember. Councilmember. Laine. Councilmember Fuentes. >> First of all, thank you so very much for this audit. It is a timely and helpful. I also I want to daylight that and I don't know if councilmember Ellis will end up having something to add on after I finish this, but mobility committee has taken up some of these issues, and I also want to really thank transportation and public works for the private conversations we've had around these issues. On speeding enforcement all year, speeding enforcement, mobility, and particularly vision zero who has come once or twice to mobility committee in the last couple of in this last year. And you know, that program being an inter-departmental effort. I personally have been diving into that and also speaking with councilmember Velasquez, chair of the public safety committee, about bringing a vision zero topic [9:54:59 AM] now to public safety, because we have seen some just some trends that I find interesting, such as a decrease in the number of mortar murders, but as significant increase in the amount of traffic fatalities in the last five years. So it's very much a public safety issue. And also because we have had the benefit of some of these, this presentation, what's come to mobility committee, the public safety agenda item will look, take a more interdepartmental approach. And will daylight issues that aren't yet noted in the audit. And so once again, I wanted to raise that. I'm trying to get that into public safety committee as a true interdepartmental look, because I have seen some issues around how things are ranked. Data is received and used that can be improved and will be directly responsive to some of your findings. So I wanted to highlight that and thank you very much. Perfect timing. Thanks so much. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you. Good morning. I was looking to see if tpw or [9:55:59 AM] someone from the tpw department can speak to the recommendations, and which of these recommendations city staff will be moving forward with. If council direction or action is needed to get some of these recommendations going and just generally want to highlight, you know, I hear quite often from my community in district two about wanting more speed cushions. And so to hear that it's actually cheaper and safer when we put speed cushions in our community, that I'm very curious to see if we can really ramp up that level of safety treatment. >> Thank you. Councilmember Richard Mendoza, director for transportation and public works, and thank you for the opportunity to come and respond to the audit regarding our speed management program. I'm also joined by our division manager over transportation engineering division, Mr. Eric Bolick. And yes, we our department greatly appreciates the work that the city auditor's office has conducted to review our speed management [9:57:00 AM] program and evaluate its effectiveness. In terms of the three recommendations, I can report that I do support all three recommendations wholeheartedly. In fact, their findings and recommendations actually validate some of the work that we have initiated and began even prior to this audit report. So, you know, speed management, we get quite a few calls on speeding issues throughout our community in all districts. We take an engineering approach and prioritization process based on data that we do speed surveys, we do traffic counts. And but we understand that we could have a more formal, data driven process regarding how we prioritize and select projects going forward. These traffic cushions are not inexpensive. They're about 6000 per location [9:58:01 AM] to to effect a reduction in speed, you actually have to engineer the spacing and location of these appropriately. We also have to do quite a bit of vetted community and stakeholder involvement. These are not popular on every street in our community. I've had the honor of being in multiple town hall meetings where I've heard from community members on the location of these speed cushions, and I've had to reiterate that they are there for the community safety, for their children's safety, and that we take an engineering and objective approach to these treatments. So with that, I'll hand it over to Eric. If I missed any major points. >> Part of the report, I see that. >> The management response that there is a proposed implementation date of the three recommendations by December of 2026. So just want to also check in if that is a [9:59:01 AM] feasible time in which we can expect that these recommendations are implemented. >> Good morning. Eric Pollock, managing engineer. >> At bw. Yes, we think those are feasible at all. All three will have different timelines, but we expect to be updating and checking in, you know, as the year progresses. >> So very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember. Councilmember Ellison. Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you very much. I wanted to see if if anywhere in your audit, you got into the the volume of requests for traffic calming versus our ability to deliver or put something on the ground. >> Yeah. So we did look into that a little bit. It definitely seems that there's a lot more demand than there is supply, in terms of the number of projects that can be facilitated in a given period. So we did notice that in the audit. I'll defer to Eric here [10:00:02 AM] in case there's anything he'd like to add. >> Sure I can give you more specific numbers. So just based on customer service requests that come in past three years, we average about 1200 a year. And that can include everything from just the speeding concern. That'll always necessarily mean there individual new requests for traffic calming, because we're also maintaining a very long list of ranked streets. And so, you know, a portion of those 1200 or so could be, oh, we already have the data. And this is where you rank. Sometimes it could be new requests that will take in in account in the upcoming year. And sometimes they might be on streets that aren't necessarily directly eligible for, say, like a cushions, because they might be on a more major street. And so we don't necessarily know how many of those 1200 are, you know, specifically for neighborhood streets that could result in, you know, new projects. But it gives you a sense of how many we get per year. >> Yeah. And like councilmember Fuentes mentioned, you know, I hear from many of my [10:01:04 AM] constituents that, you know, in neighborhoods where, you know, kids are playing and just it's not a a 22, 22 style street. Right? This is a very much a neighborhood street where the neighbors would really like to have some of that. And the answer almost always is, you know, this is number 300 on the list and we're really never going to get there. And so I don't know if that's really a question. More for the conversation we're going to have later about how we get the capital funding necessary to do this. If it is, you know, if you even had that funding, if you have the personnel to get it on the ground. But I would like for us to figure out a way to have communities be able to implement these types of changes. And I know not everyone will always love it, but if a majority of. >> But we'll honor you by sending you to talk to us. >> That's right, that's right. We'll tell them it was your idea. For those who who aren't so happy. But, you know, I can [10:02:05 AM] think of a very calm residential street that right now a bunch of people are cutting through because of I- 35 construction. And that's going to happen up and down that portion of the city. As we move that project along. And we need to recognize that you're going to have people rushing to work. And that is the same time kids are going to school. And so while that might be number 400 on the list, what can we do to help facilitate a cost effective way to to lower speeds? So I look forward to talking with you more about that. And, and we can talk about that. >> Whatever. When he was talking about dropped from 300 to 400 while he was talking. So we need to look at that. I've got other people, councilmember Ellis, then councilmember duchen, followed by the mayor pro tem. And councilmember. >> Thank you, mayor. I had a bit of a background question. I think this might be best for the director. I know the conversation around speed bumps has changed a lot over the past, you know, 15 or 20 years. Can [10:03:05 AM] you give us a very short synopsis? At one point they were very popular, and then it switched gears where either the residents didn't ask for them as much, or council or staff had decided at some point that that may not be the best pathway forward can do. You remember you you've been here long enough. You know the history. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Yes. In fact, next week you'll be nine years with the city of Austin. >> Yeah. You were transportation, public works and then public works and now transportation public works again. >> Yeah. You know, speed humps. We don't like to call them speed bumps. Speed bumps are the treatments you see in parking lots at grocery stores much too drastic for our public roadway. I know our Austin fire department chief, baker, and they would have issue if I put speed bumps on our streets. So we like to refer them as vertical speed humps, or speed tables or speed cushions. They're designed in a fashion that allow the wider emergency vehicles to straddle them, and it doesn't impact their response time. But traffic [10:04:07 AM] calming has been around for for quite a while. In my 25 years of being a public works director, those those vertical infrastructure elements are only one tool in our toolbox for affecting speed management. And I do have to first say that I applaud the city of Austin for being one of the first major communities, metropolitan cities to adopt a vision zero policy. So this all goes to support our vision zero goals. In addition to speed cushions or speed humps, of course, traffic enforcement. And I know we just saw a presentation where our APD still has 300 plus vacancies. I am encouraged by a conversation meeting I had with chief Davis, where we are starting to put more emphasis as we get resource on traffic enforcement. So there's the deterrent to speeding, there's the vertical elements and then [10:05:09 AM] there's education. What we're really trying to do here is effect change in people's behaviors to respect their their neighborhoods and the safety of their community. So we do a social media, a pretty intense social media vision zero campaign before we put these traffic calming devices in a neighborhood street, we do a pretty vetted neighborhood and stakeholder outreach. However, in the past, these used to be driven and used to be required to have a certain polling of acceptance from the adjoining property owners. And typically that would be 6,075% signed petition. We've moved away from that because we understand that while they may not be popular from an engineering perspective and a speed management perspective, there needs to be objectivity in placing these treatments. If [10:06:09 AM] we are ever to achieve our our end goals. Another important point that that was mentioned today is a lot of speeding in neighborhood streets is a consequence of cut through traffic. And so from our traffic management perspective, we have a pretty aggressive retiming. So we want our folks to stay on arterial roads to get to their final destinations. The advent of the apps of wayfinding, and I think has a lot to do with the the cut through traffic, but we need to make sure arterials are functioning properly to to cause folks to stay out of neighborhoods, to cut through for their destination. So in short, yes, we've evolved. We've evolved from the petition base to an engineering and safety based approach to [10:07:09 AM] traffic calming. >> I appreciate that response. And then on the topic, since trying not to get into our mobility Laine trying to stay on our audit and finance Laine, are these at all movable or able to be relocated? I'm thinking about, you know, one of my colleagues just mentioned cut through traffic for highway construction. I know I've had some because of the white oak hill construction. Are these the type of devices that instead of putting them in place once and maintaining them and having to do it year over year, that they could be in a condition to be moved around as the traffic needs of the city change. >> So there are treatments that can be portable. You've seen them, they look more like a composite treatment, and then the ones that are more permanent are fabricated out of hot mix asphalt. We've moved towards a hot mix asphalt because of maintenance considerations. Those composite speed cushions have a tendency to get ripped up by heavy [10:08:09 AM] trucks hauling low profile trailers. We do have an inventory of those, and I do understand with the incoming I-35 project, we're starting to receive calls of folks finding alternative means to reach their destinations. And so I'm working with my staff to see if we can use those as an interim approach. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Thank you, thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen, the mayor pro tem vela, and councilmember Lang. >> Thank you, mayor. First, thank you, audit team, for this report. And in particular, thank you for including the sections on innovation, opportunity and additional observations and talking about how you looked at peer cities to understand how they are funding similar kinds of work. But I'm curious about if either you or the director can update us on how much, what resources [10:09:10 AM] we have in our bonds that are unexpended for these kind of projects at this stage. >> I can ask my engineer manager to address that. Thank you. >> Wright. When looking at the at least the 2020 bond money and even prior, all of our money has been appropriated, so we still have about ten or so projects that kind of ranked at the highest of our list that we saw money to design, but we don't have money to construct those ten. So those sort of we'll have the designs ready, you know, if and when we get more money. Those can be early outs to construct. But but we also don't want to because I said the 1200 a year, you know, if we just sort of say, well, the door is closed, we won't take any other requests. We're trying to have that balance to still be receptive to our residents, but just also trying to be as transparent as we can say currently out of money, but doesn't mean we won't necessarily collect more speed [10:10:11 AM] and data if needed. So that's kind of the status of the program is right now. >> I would. Also like to add I'm sorry. I'd also like to add that we are exploring alternative funding possibilities for the program to continue it. >> Thank you. Just curious if between either the audit office or you all want to touch on some of the recommendations that you all have for how to continue funding these kind of projects? >> Yeah. So one of the recommendations that we have here regarding like using data from past projects to help optimize decisions, as well as the one regarding like setting final formal financial tolerances and decision points. Those recommendations are geared toward optimizing how the program spends money towards projects. So it's our hope and expectation that those should help produce some savings and possibly help get more projects on the ground and [10:11:12 AM] make sure that we're picking the best ones to reduce speed. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yes. Unless the director or his team can expand on any of the opportunities they're looking at to continue to fund these kind of projects. Also. >> Most certainly, you know, there is potential for utilizing street impact fee money, of course, but that would take support at the state legislature. And we have been talking with our governmental relations office, putting together a list of department priorities for the next session. And this would certainly be one of those. >> Thank you so much. >> Thanks. Councilmember. Mayor pro tem. >> Thank you very much, mayor. First of all, I just do want to recognize, again, I know we're we're here as an audit committee and we're here to, you know, critique and improve and whatnot. But that Austin really has done a tremendous job on traffic design, [10:12:15 AM] engineering, vision zero fatalities. We still do. We have too many fatalities, but the vast majority of those are on our major highways. In terms of our streets, it's impressive, and the city has stuck to it for decades at this point. And I just wanted to acknowledge that and say that I appreciate that as a as a, you know, as an individual and as a parent with, you know, teenagers driving around, I really appreciate that. Just wanted to ask about on that exhibit three, you list of the 16 projects we reviewed, speeds decreased in 27 to 32 overall segments. Could we get or I should say, could I get a list of the individual segments so that we can kind of see on an individual basis which streets and what effect is that available? >> Yes, we can provide you with that. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks. Mayor pro tem councilmember Laine. [10:13:17 AM] >> Thank you so much. Related to some of the questions you've just been getting, a specific bond that funded the top ten high end intersections and the high injury road network. I'm wondering if you could just describe what that list is, because I think it's%-pwhat you all are looking for, and also, what year was the bond, which bond was it that funded that top ten? I think you'll know that. And if you also know when the money from that bond for that purpose ran out, that'd be helpful, but not necessary right now. Needed. >> Okay. >> If you don't know. >> So yeah, for the 2020 bond we have, you know, various programs if you will. One is called vision zero. And included in that is major intersection safety. I'm not sure if that's the list you're referring to, but we have. >> The high injury road network list I think is what it's called. It may be part of the it may be. >> It may be so. Yeah. And so that's that's part of the, the funding we have to to focus [10:14:17 AM] really look at the data driven approach to kind of guide us to where we need to put our money in terms of like the more major streets, which they tend to be at intersections with kind of the, you know, the problem locations rather than sort of mid-block along the streets. >> Sure. Thank you. So 2020 bond. I can say with certainty that when I arrived in office a year ago, that money had already been fully encumbered. Or at least I was told that. And I will just give an illustration, because you're talking about 304 hundred on the list, you know, have a neighborhood that's been working with the city for a decade to make their streets safer, and they were at 11th on that list, so they were not eligible for that bond funding. And then as this work on the bond has been on, the possible upcoming bond has been undertaken, that list got updated. They jumped to six, but there's no money until another bond passes. And at this stage I would say we don't know when that is. And so I just want to really highlight we're not necessarily talking about 300 or 1200 down. We're talking about number six. And at this point, number one and I [10:15:19 AM] will say tpw has phenomenal at working with me and this neighborhood, doing the appropriate type of community engagement, getting temporary improvements on the ground to try to assist. And that is greatly appreciated. I understand the constriction of resources, but I also want to highlight that even though speeding enforcement long term is more expensive, these are very expensive and we don't currently have bond funding for them and targeted enforcement. The motor enforcement unit that was disbanded in covid five years ago, I do believe is a significant contributor to the increase in these types of injuries. And it's really important to do the vision zero work of the interdepartmental look at the prioritization and having that be data driven, which is why I'm very excited about the public safety committee agenda item. When this comes around, we will try to alert all of you when that happens. But I also want to highlight that in addition to so we you know, we're talking about the cost of installation for the speed humps. But [10:16:20 AM] cushions, the speed cushions. But also we think back to our budgeting process and the money to catch up on repairs for sidewalks, you know, didn't come in where it needed to be. Well, if we can't do speeding control, it's extra important to have sidewalks. There are long stretches of streets that don't have crosswalk or or sidewalks at all. We need some money for targeted flashing crosswalks, a variety of. And that's where I say like this overall inter-departmental look, I haven't seen happen at the committee level. And obviously there's not adequate time in audit and finance, but there's a lot at play there that all gets to the bottom line of people are getting hurt more, more often on these neighborhood streets. And it's not. It is motor enforcement. So far it's only happening on highways. And it's not. It's just begun to happen on signalized streets. But the street I'm referring to and the streets that are most commonly elevated in my district are stop signs. They're not even the cut through traffic is on stop sign level streets. So [10:17:21 AM] like we we desperately need a targeted approach and it's going to take some money finding some money, including possibly for a pilot to increase the motor enforcement in certain areas. So I didn't ask my second question, but I could I could just stop there. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. Thank you all very much. And thanks for the report. Appreciate it. Thank you. Members that will take us to the next item that will take up, which is item number three. And that relates to council office spending policy. You'll recall that we took this up previously. We walked through at the last audit and finance committee a and took discussion from different members. We posted on the message board on December 19th, a new proposed policy. As was indicated at that time. The goals of that policy were their [10:18:23 AM] numerous goals, but two primary goals. One was to craft a single policy that compiles and incorporates information from the various and numerous administrative bulletins and governing policies that relate to mayor and council office budgets and how and staff spending. The. As we discussed at the previous audit finance committee meeting, we we were we are unique by comparison to some other cities in terms of the sheer number of places one would have to look in order to find all of the different policies that apply to spending. So one goal was to get this all into a single place as best we can. Second was to provide some more precise definitions and greater clarity on permissible and impermissible uses of funds. What we did is we took the [10:19:23 AM] recommendations that council members made at that previous meeting and put those into the version that you that we put on the message board on December 19th. So what I would like to do now, I mean, you've had it. And just so that we can move with some dispatch on this, what I would recommend we do is the following, because and I appreciate in the last couple of days there have been some message board posts about how to approach different things, what I think we ought to do and subject to the, excuse me, the committee and other council members that are joining us today, how you want to approach what I would suggest we do is this is we have a discussion about those parts of it. I hate to do it from a negative standpoint, but those parts of the proposed policy that perhaps you have a question about or a difference on that you would like to see changed. So we can have that discussion a little bit. And then what I'm [10:20:24 AM] going to recommend so that it is on the agenda that we have told the public that we think we could make, which is January 22nd. Agenda. The best way I think to do that is to have it come as a recommendation from the committee, with the recognition, with the recognition that we're going to need to have amendments. And since a lot of the message board. I say we're going to need to we're going to need to discuss potential amendments. And since those amendments have not been put forward as amendments, what I would recommend we do is that we have the we ask that those amendments be presented by, say, Tuesday of next week, which is two days before the meeting, it coming as a recommendation from a committee means it is. We can always pull it, of course, if we're on the consent agenda, but it's automatically not on the consent agenda under those circumstances. And we'll take it as a we'll take it up as a standalone item. But that way we can have a discussion today. We can have it on the agenda [10:21:24 AM] for next week, and we can have everybody take the time to get their amendments drafted so that then everybody will have a chance to look at them. So with that. I'll just go in the order of people that signed up on the message board. If if that's okay with everybody and councilmember alter, I'll look at you first. >> Sure. One clarification that I think was intended within this, but has been further refined, I know by councilmember Ellis is just on utilizing the office funds as a transfer to another department to accomplish whether it is some of the speed mitigation that we talked about today or in our case, you know, we were able to support some parks items in district five. I think that is something that we should be able to continue to do. And whether it is as part of the budget process or through an ifc, I think both make sense to me. So it would be just interested in that discussion, but not having a [10:22:25 AM] wholesale prohibition on that, I think, is important for being able to realize certain district level projects. >> And I'll comment just because I've been spending a lot of time with my, you know, I've got dirt under my fingernails on this. And part of the reason the recommendation was made the way it was, is to make us more consistent with other cities. You don't see the ability, you know, as as I understand it, where it was reported to me, you don't see the ability to make office holder. And I hate using that word because that always takes us over into campaign expenditure. Mayor and council member, you don't see the situation of being able to utilize funds directly for payment outside of a budgeting process, or you have a unique situation in in the city of Houston. But that's a unique situation. That's not a council manager form of government, where the manager is offering up the budget opportunities and [10:23:26 AM] the kinds of changes that might be made in specific districts. So just so that you'll know how it got to this point, that was the approach that was taken as it is, as you indicate, as it has evolved in terms of the message board, including with the response, I think, by councilmember Laine to yours, and then the response of councilmember Ellis to both of them. If we are going to allow for appropriated money for a budget office. And by the way, that would make the council unique, it no other department can can do that. So we would that's another that I should have mentioned that that's another reason that we the draft you have, the proposal you have is as specific as it is. But if that were the case. My recommendation might be that we do it through the budgeting [10:24:26 AM] process so that you're getting the recommendations from management. And the whole council is getting an opportunity to look at what other needs that money might be if a council office has. And I'm just going to make up a number, $25,000 that it doesn't need that. In other words, we appropriated $25,000 more than that office needed, making the determination about where it goes ought to be part of the, in my view, ought to be part of the overall budget process. And at a time when we're looking at the overall budget process. In fact, you did some of that at the very end of our budget process this last time. So that's that's not an argument. Maybe it is an argument one way or another, but it's also to explain how we got to the point that we got to councilmember Laine, you were the next one to post. So I'll turn to you and then I'll go to council member Ellis. >> I'd actually love to council member go next and then. [10:25:28 AM] >> I'll we'll let you run the show. There you go, councilmember Ellis. >> Thank you. I'll felt like a game of popcorn. Yeah, I will start on that topic simply because it's timely. But I wanted to tell a quick story about how we've allocated our office overage dollars in the past. In 2022, we had such significant overage that we were able to add $100,000 into dick Nichols park, and we did that by piggybacking that work into a plan that the parks department already had. So they were going to be going into that park and making some improvements. And we said, what if we sweetened the pot a little bit and added some more office dollars and really did support court resurfacing and a couple of other things, including trees and fixing one of the water features that's there. So in that regard, it was helpful to be able to be nimble with the dollars. And so I just worry that there may be a moment if we only do it during budget or mid- year budget amendments. You tend to [10:26:28 AM] miss a cycle or end up with something where you're tasking a department that they then have to go into permitting, and all of a sudden your project that might have been quicker deployed is something that's taking a year or longer to get underway. And so I, I would prefer something that's a little more flexible. I think there's been at least three council members, including council member alter, that have have put significant contributions into parks in their districts, which is something I think that our constituents really appreciate. So I'll work on some language for that, and I'm open to other conversations around how we need to word that. There's also a section that I put in here about, yeah, permit a transfer to city department for clearly defined purposes, the timeline and how we get to allocate that, whether that's by ifc or at specific times of year. Unexpended balance the clarification that unexpected unexpended funds that are carried forward should not be used for ongoing expenses, such as regular employee personnel. I have an employee on my staff [10:27:29 AM] that is part time, temporary, and so we have been able to use our one time dollars to be able to staff that person, and that's something that's really helped us in the meantime, to be able to fill a a skill and asset that we needed within our city office and then software and it services. I think, you know, as much as we try to make sure that our software programs are things that the entire city is using, I realize there is an it assessment currently ongoing right now about how do we make, you know, autocad. We shouldn't have departments with their own different types of licensing. And we need to make sure our gis components are all functioning so that we can get the best rate. I think that's a really good advantage for a city as large as ours, with as many departments and staff members as ours. But I know that sometimes our offices are utilizing software programs such as canva, where it's just easier for us to be able to carry our own standalone license and to be able to quickly deploy some of the work that we're doing. So those are the things that I've run through on the message board. I'm open to. We'll work on some [10:28:30 AM] language and I'm open to other tweaks as we move through this process. >> And again, this is by way of explanation. One of the things on software was, well, there were actually two things that I'm remembering as part of what the process. One was to make sure that you don't get into a loop where the city's paying for something because we're, for whatever reason, that office, whoever the maybe the person that was in charge of the software in that office isn't paying attention to the renewal, and you're getting automatic renewal. So we're paying for something that's not even being used. And that's that's part of what the, the, the centralized. The second is, of course, the savings. As I listen to you talk, it's the first time I've had this thought. So it may not be a good thought, but it's the it follows up on what you're saying. And that. Is this the way we approached furniture was to say that you could do additional. You could do furniture off the main deal if [10:29:30 AM] you could show that it saves money and that sort of thing. So what we might want to look at is language with regard to software, because I had not thought about it until the way you just described it. So let us we'll also look at that and maybe get back to you on that. So that and and I agree with you that the, the ability to be nimble is is important. What I want to make sure is that as we go forward with this policy, that the public knows how we're spending this money, it's very transparent and we're not over appropriating to council offices if if what we're doing is we're appropriating so much money to council offices that could be going to parks to begin with. And we need to we need to figure out how we do that. And so that's the one concern I always have about doing it just as a standalone ifc. But I hear you, I hear [10:30:30 AM] what you're saying with regard to the to the nimbleness of it. And then you had one other point that I wanted to address, which was, oh, the, the, the overage amount and how it gets used that, that I get that that's very important. We are again unique in we would be the only if we if we allow for unexpended money to be utilized to, to roll over, we again would be one of the unique cities in Texas. As I as I understand the report I received, in fact, I think that what I received told me that the only place that gets to do that is the Texas senate. And and that's limited to $20,000. There's a reason for that. And that is I think and that is because, again, if you're over appropriating that, money could [10:31:31 AM] be utilized for other things, speed humps or otherwise, if you're over appropriating the council offices. By the same token, goodness gracious knows we all know that something happens where you have. You have less people. It takes a long time to hire the right person. You have reasons that you may. You're frugal, you know, goodness gracious, you're frugal. And so you have some unexpended balance. And what we don't want to do is create the. The wrong desire, which is, okay, now I've got to spend everything right. And and I will tell you my experience in the Texas senate. That was what some members said, you know, spend it all because otherwise they're going to take it and they're gonna spend it on something you don't want. Well, the good news is we kind of all want what we're we going through the budget process a little bit different. But my point being, what we attempted to do with the $50,000 is what [10:32:33 AM] we attempted to do. There was we attempted to come up with some sort of balance. And it's always going to be a let's be candid about it. It's going to be an arbitrary number. If you're trying to balance between the unintended consequence of having people spend money they shouldn't be spending. And. Having too much, in other words, over appropriating too much. And that's how we came up with that. So just and to your point about how it gets spent, I, I think we need to talk a little frankly, I need to hear a little bit more on that to talk a little bit more about that. And again, I'm not arguing one way or another. What I'm trying to do is just give you the background on how much effort went in to try to come up with with a number. >> And I certainly appreciate having this much framework and, and guidelines to be able to work within, because I know a lot of work has gone into it, you know, at this stage of of where I am in, in this term, we are now at like 96% personnel. So a bulk of the office allocation is going to salaries [10:33:34 AM] and health care and other sorts of things that are specifically related to personnel. In years past, I had vacancies where I could accrue some of that money and deliver something big for the district. But I also know that you know what district eight asks for in improvements that aren't necessarily at the top of the list for the departments may be very different from what everybody else's district is needing. And so I know that council member Fuentes, that also had an item a while back about how do we better deliver for our districts and make sure they know that government is being responsive to the needs? >> And one of the thoughts that I, in preparation for today, one of the thoughts I had about this unexpended balance amount and and council member Velasquez had also posted something on the message board about this. I want to call out that he also was thinking about this, but one of the thoughts was that it not be we don't we start applying this in the next budget cycle so that what we do is we don't start from a standing start on that item. We [10:34:37 AM] go ahead and start it with the next budget cycle that there would be the limitation. So hold that in mind too, because that may be another way to to. Do it the right way. But by but but ease into it to make sure we get it right. But mayor pro tem vela followed by council member duchen. >> Thank you mayor, and I appreciate the kind of the unique nature of the of the rollover and the ability of council officers to use the unexpended funds for district project or a specific project. However, other cities do have funds where they give, let's say, each council office a certain amount of money. Knowing that, you know, people have kind of specific district level projects that their [10:35:37 AM] constituents really want. I know council member Fuentes had a budget item on that, and I support that in principle, because if there is a some kind of logjam in projects or, you know, I really need to get some shade over this playground at this, you know, it's something like that where a council office can step in and say, you know what, we have $40,000, you know, to to get that project done. I appreciate that. I think that's probably a good thing overall. And again, since given the budget situation right now, I don't think we're going to be able to budget, you know, half $1 million for each, you know, council district to, to go to parks improvements or speed cushions or whatever the case may be. And so the rollover amount kind of fills that need to a certain extent and lets individual offices decide, you know what, maybe I want to go low on personnel because I want to save up for this one thing that needs to happen in the park. So I just [10:36:39 AM] wanted to to, to to mention that otherwise I think this is a good policy. I appreciate the changes and I but but I think we're on the the right track here. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem councilmember duchen followed by councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you for bringing this forward, because I think it makes a lot of sense to try and consolidate this policy in one place and be transparent about it. I just wanted to add a brief comment and build on the carryover discussion. As a newer council member, it doesn't particularly impact me as much, but I can appreciate for some of my colleagues that have had a specific vision for these dollars or have had accrued a fair amount of carryover over the years, that it's a much more critical item for them just to build on the mayor's point, just to be creative about how to approach this, whether it's grandfathering in some way, some of the existing council members, or delaying the when this takes effect. I'm [10:37:40 AM] just hoping that we can be creative to try and figure out how to accommodate those folks that are in a different place than I am right now, so that's all I wanted to add. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember Fuentes. Then, councilmember Laine. >> Thank you. And colleagues. Just want to add my thoughts on the the ability to use our office dollars for district based projects. That is something that I know is in need for our community. It's part of the reason why I brought forward policy, which was unanimously, unanimously adopted by city council to establish district service funds. It gets to the fact that there are district specific projects in our areas that we know that we're able to deliver on. We can restore and improve confidence in local government, and we can show how we're making positive impacts in our communities. We are not alone in that effort. All the major cities have some type of district service funds, and it's set up as an it's a, you know, it's set up so that each office is has it available. Each office can participate. There's public dashboard, there's reporting requirement, [10:38:41 AM] it's transparent. There's an incredible way to do it. And it's something that this council has supported. The manager has put out a memo as an update to that resolution. And so right now we're at the stage of identifying funding for us to be able to move forward on that program. So just wanted to highlight that we do have policy on the books that gets towards that need. And my question on on this framework is really just the implementation date, when, how soon and when it would take effect. And mayor, you covered that. And the last thing I want to highlight on the software is that there are opportunities for us to better align and streamline our office expenditures. When it comes to software, I know that my office and a couple other offices have constituent service management, crm software for constituent cases, and it is pretty pricey, and it would be great if we could align all of our office accounts to perhaps get a better deal on it. So there are instances like that where we could work together. >> Great. Yes. Thank you. Okay. [10:39:44 AM] Councilmember Laine. >> I wanted to add some just additional context related to my district and some of the broader issues. First, in relation to the ability to transfer savings to district level priorities. As I noted the last time we discussed this, first of all, very appreciative of this work. So important. I love the direction that it's going, but as I noted in the last meeting, I think that it is very worthwhile to put focus on what are the allowable uses. Well, before implementing any kinds of caps or eliminating carryovers. And I also want to recognize the city manager. And so many of us of the assistant city managers for the work and our deputy city manager for the work they've been doing to reorganize, to streamline it, to bring us to the point of being able to provide data driven spending on city services in a much more meaningful way than we ever have before. But let's recognize that that's not complete yet. And so I, as a [10:40:44 AM] council member, for example, am trying to serve a district that has been on the, you know, the the seats on the spots on the high injury road network are have gone from 11th to sixth. It's been a decade. There's no speed cushion. I might want to use allocate some funds towards a speed cushion at that intersection. It's been so long. Coming up another example. So those types of we need we need flexibility and timeliness. As as the mayor pro tem vela said, to be able to be responsive, particularly as we know it may take a while for new bond funding to come in. There's the need to be able to attract new partners. Now for those who represent primarily central areas of the city, this isn't such an issue. We've worked with Travis county for a long time. We've worked with aid for a long time. We've worked with the nonprofits that are active in our areas a long time. All of this is underrepresented for my district entirely. And so I it is very important to have the flexibility to be able to bring some amount of funding [10:41:44 AM] to even some of these small projects, like the Charlie center showers. If we can't find another way to be able to expend a few thousand dollars to help that nonprofit do such important work, where once we get to the point that we have these consistent, data based measures of our effectiveness around homelessness and so many other things, I we will find that they are a very efficient service provider. I've looked at the data, and so to be able to help them over humps when the broader city isn't quite ready to prioritize is important. So in addition, I think to talk to identifying these core values or the uses, there would be the ability to, for example, at the end of the year, I understand it is very uncommon to allow an account to get bigger and bigger at the end of the year. I personally am not very familiar with entities that allow that, but I also know we're talking about a multiyear process before we truly get data driven and have funding for things that have been missed for some time, I'll just say that. And so I think there is a possibility of [10:42:45 AM] transferring out of the council, mayor and council office budget to a line item that designates that it was a rollover purpose that the city manager, for example, could put a rating of importance level. The council member for that district could put a rating of importance level, and it could go to the council for approval, like there are processes that can remove it out, but still allow that to accumulate and be put to effective use. And sometimes I will need to allow it to accumulate because there are some extremely unsafe spaces for our school children that have not been addressed, that are going to take a little chunk of change to address. And so I'd really like to have that flexibility. And then if we also look at the ways in which or think about the ways in which the outlying areas have in many ways neglected or in some ways neglected, at least in certain parts of the city, it. I will give the example of the district six council office that was established in the year that this council went to ten one because of the challenges of our constituents [10:43:45 AM] connecting with the city, and it remained an item that came out of council budget until I eliminated it, because the rent was going up to 18,000 a year. Plus, I would have needed to fund capital improvements in order to update it, and it is an expense that no other council office bears. So that, I think, is important to have timeliness and flexibility, as long as it's leading to a more sustainable structure solution. So that band-aid didn't lead us to a solution. So I don't want to keep expending that as a unique expense for my office to bear. I want us to find a solution. But currently what is required, because there are not very many city owned facilities, is that I spend more money on community engagement. I'm at this point relying on goodwill of businesses and nonprofits that we have cut funding for as a city to find community meeting spaces that are appropriate, even for such important topics as the budget town hall. So this is different from the rest, I understand, [10:44:46 AM] and we have, and on a broad level talked about how there are different situations of each council office. But I want to highlight some of the very meaningful ways in which it is important to take some time to at least see how this is being used. And we have a city manager now who is so and, and the specific projects that are being worked on around data are so taking us in the right direction. We have the opportunity to see what council members are indicating is their highest priority, and use that to inform planning. That possibility has never been available or I don't see it being available in the recent history, and I think we would be missing an opportunity that matters to our city and to its ability to meet longstanding needs of our residents. If we just cut off the possibility as a no longer. Instead, I really would support a a policy that allows us to see how the funds are being used and directs to appropriate uses. So I hope those few examples are helpful [10:45:47 AM] on that. My other comments are briefer. I also will say that I think that there are, even though we may not see peer cities having a fund in this exact format, we do see peer cities who have district specific infrastructure funds that they those council members can use in a similar way, and we don't have access to that. That was eliminated. And so some time back. So I do think it's important. Onto the cap on the dollar amount. I have covered that already. You'll be happy to hear. I want to mention on software. As you know, I bring in a different experience than we've had on council before, and I'm going to give an example of a resource that provides data on housing, on apartments all over the city, from affordable to student to conventional, all different types of apartments around the city that I don't. And it is an extremely effective data source for planning, and I haven't I've [10:46:48 AM] mentioned it in a lot of different meetings across departments and other agencies. I haven't seen this resource being used, and I think it could really save time and money for our city. And so, you know, I've secured a subscription so that I can refresh on how it works and start to share that information more concretely with others. I'll tell you what, it is definitely on my list to get that looped into the city subscriptions at the point at which a decision is made on how effective it is, but having the flexibility to be able to grab the data and deliver it to capmetro upon their request is it makes us more effective as a city. So I really would like to preserve the flexibility and timeliness of response that's possible. And this is the role of our council members to elevate constituent concerns that, in our view, have from having been on this council are significant and merit quick resolution as long as that's being used to inform our city manager's decision making going forward. So those are my [10:47:49 AM] thoughts on that. >> Thank you. And the only thing I'll add to that is that key among that of course, is making sure and I think go back to what we tried to do on the furniture. Thing is we were looking for a way to allow for something unique, but also save the money. So, so everything you just said, you mentioned all the benefits, but it could happen. Not you, but somebody, somewhere, sometime in the future might say, well, I've got this benefit and I've put this benefit over the fact that it's ten times the cost. And so we need to we need to figure out as we do some of these things like this, figure out what the right mechanism is to make sure that it is consistent with the overall city goals, even though there are specific district goals, and we make sure we do it in a way that is cost effective. So with that, what I, I appreciate the [10:48:50 AM] conversation. That's what I was hoping would happen today. So what I would suggest is I'll go back to where we were before. I would suggest that what we do is we take a motion that the audit and finance committee recommends adoption of the proposed mayor and council office expense and spending policy, recognizing the opportunity for the full council to offer amendments at the full council meeting on January 22nd. It's made by council member Fuentes, seconded by the mayor pro tem members. What I would well, is there any more discussion on that item? Councilmember duchen yes. Councilmember Siegel I. >> Thought I would press the button. Can I just offer one comment? >> Sure. >> Just and it's kind of the prior conversation before the vote on the the, the software and it services item. By the way, I also very much appreciate this whole effort and support it. On the second [10:49:50 AM] bullet on the software and it services item, there were two elements that I wanted to flag that coordination with. Austin technology services is currently a requirement to download a new app, but it can be very cumbersome. Sometimes it can take months. So I would just ask that on the manager side of the of the equation, that at's kind of have a more rapid response. And then in the definition of duplicate resources, as long as we're saying like don't buy a license that's already bought by the city, that makes 100% sense. But you know, the Microsoft office suite application sometimes do things, but not as well as another app could. And I want that kind of situation not to be considered duplicate. >> But as someone who really doesn't like Microsoft teams and all that you're talking, I think you just got me. Yeah. No, I that's a very important point there. And and sometimes that gets lost in the, the when we talk about cost effectiveness, the the the efficiency of the system sometimes gets lost. So [10:50:52 AM] thank you for bringing that up. Councilmember duchen I don't know whether you're still there, but we're getting ready to vote. So I'd ask that if you can turn on your camera, if you if you wish to be voting on this, good. There you are. If there's any, is there any further discussion with regard to the motion as I read it? Then without objection, we will recommend adoption of the proposed mayor and council office expense and spending policy. Recognize an opportunity for the full council to offer amendments at the full council meeting on January 22nd, and that that passes without no vote. With that being said, again, what I would ask everybody to do is, is provide on the message boards your proposed amendments by Tuesday so that we'll have an opportunity to do this efficiently. I'm I'm very pleased. I will say that we're down to just a couple of items and their legitimate discussion items. Right. So I'm I'm pleased to see us doing that. Let me also, before we move to the next item on our agenda, I [10:51:54 AM] want to say a big thank you to Carrie Rogers, our intergovernmental relations officer, and Diana Thomas, the deputy chief financial officer, for the help that they've provided on all of this and the the ability to track down information and seek answers to questions about different things that might be going on in different places. They as I said in the message board post, they've been great. And I think I wrote that, well, they've been great. So thank you very, very much. I appreciate what you all have done and the whole council does. All right. So that takes care of. Item number three. Item number four will be the next item we take up. Hang on one second and I'll get us to that. [10:52:57 AM] Members. Item number four relates to a passage of an ordinance to create a comprehensive, comprehensive efficiency assessment. And a couple of things I won't talk. I've I've said a lot about it and and put a lot on out there on this. But let me mention a couple of things before we begin the discussion. And on this, I know that you all join me in a very determined effort to safeguard public confidence and assure that we're providing operational efficiency, but also and also with the opportunity for continued improvement in how we provide our services. And we do that in a way that provides the best value and lives within our means. What this is intended to do is put us in a situation to do that. It is a program. The [10:53:58 AM] purpose of this is to provide a program that offers conspicuous Independence and a concrete declaration of how we want to achieve those things. It offers, hopefully, what it offers and the goal that we ought to all, when we work on this together, be seeking to achieve, is appropriate specificity of the work that will be done. But care regarding that specificity so that we don't go so far as we we we mess up the ability to do things that might be helpful to the process. And or we interfere with the Independence that we want to, to achieve. So one of the things that one of the goals of what we've done with this is we've worked to avoid overreaching and mandates of methodology and again, leave that to the expert, which is the the city auditor. And [10:54:59 AM] that's how we've set that up. The way it's it's the goal of this, is to have it set up so that it's anchored in best practices, it's benchmark. So it will have benchmark driven prioritization and it will have implementation reports so that it has the kind of transparency and accountability that an audit like this ought to have. There will be enterprise benchmarking to identify hotspots, areas of large cost centers. It will have a then have be in a position to allow the auditor to have targeted assessments. As I've indicated, it's independent in that it's auditor led and and workable. The the ordinance that you have in front of the proposed ordinance that you have in front of you is one that was drafted with the help of the manager's office, finance, the [10:56:02 AM] auditor's office, certainly. And and legal to get us to this point. I would encourage everybody that looks at this, to look at it from the standpoint of now we're going to begin the process of making sure we we try to improve on that. The timeline that we're looking at is I wanted us to have a I wanted to lay it out at this meeting so that we could have the first discussion so that we would be in a position to have at least two work sessions between now and the time we might vote on this. The earliest vote would be February, the February 5th meeting. That would allow for two work sessions, so that additional work by the council can be done on it. Because we want to try to get this right, but we don't push it too far down the road because one of the advantages I see to having an ordinance approach is that it gets us there sooner rather than later, and therefore we [10:57:03 AM] might be able to utilize aspects of it sooner rather than later. I will say to you that our review puts us in a situation where there have been one off type of audit programs done in different places at different times. But what we're attempting to do in order to assure the confidence of our citizens and the folks that rely on us, is probably close to being unprecedented. And so. I think that's a good thing. I think that is where we want to be, but we're going to need to let the process work, and there will be times when that process we will need to figure out where that didn't work, and we're going to try something else. So I also encourage everyone not to jump ahead to a preferred area. This is where I want to audit. I hope we see this audit here first or I hope we see this audit. We don't that area doesn't need to be [10:58:04 AM] audited. Again, I want to leave it. And I think we all do to our expert and that is the auditor. The other thing that is key to this is that we will still have the audit program that the auditor's office does, but this allows for us to have a citywide, systemic and systematic transparent audit process across across the board. I will say that since Mr. Bowen testified, I will emphasize there are a lot there's we all know that there's other things happening with regard to potential audits. There is a lot of overlap. There's some areas that it doesn't overlap. And but but there is a lot of overlap because there's a lot to like about both of these things. So what we're after is a good efficiency assessment [10:59:06 AM] process. So I'm going to quit talking with that. Just keep in mind we have a couple of times to go through this, but I wanted to now open it up. I want to ask the manager and I want to ask the auditor if they have anything that they want to say before we go to questions and thoughts by members of the audit and finance committee or members of the council that are here. Okay. All right then, councilmember alter, I'll call on you. Okay. >> Thank you very much. I have well, first off, I think this is really going to provide a lot of value, not just to dollars and cents value, but really to help us just operate better and get the type of delivery that the public really does deserve. So really appreciate you pushing this forward. And and where this is headed. I wanted to ask kind of disparate questions here. So forgive me for jumping a little [11:00:06 AM] bit around, but I think at the highest level, something the manager and I have talked about and I may have talked to others about, it is I think it's really important not only to measure just how we're operating from a operational efficiency perspective, but really how what we're doing and what we're focusing on is our advancing the goals of the city. Right. We could be doing a really good job of. Let's just, you know, say putting in speed bumps. But if our goal is to put in pedestrian beacons, right, like we're not advancing the goals of the city. And so what I want to make sure and I'm curious from the auditor's perspective, as you understand this, you know, we have our strategic plan and we've set forth a number of goals within that and measurable goals within that. Do you see within [11:01:09 AM] this that you would be looking to not only is the parks department well organized and operating efficiently, but the work they're doing is advancing the goals that have been set forth by the council and management. >> Jason hadavi, city auditor. It's a complicated question. I think that there will be degrees to which the the assessment can address what you're talking about. I don't think that I don't think that a project that goes across the entire organization, the city is a large, complex organization. I don't think that we can give assurance that we're advancing every single goal, every single effort and following every single policy. So I think that when we look at benchmarking against peer city and their key performance indicators, what we're achieving. So I, I believe that there will be some level of effectiveness addressed within this assessment. But I would I [11:02:11 AM] would stop short of saying that's going to guarantee that we're achieving everything we're supposed to be achieving and doing it as cheaply as we possibly could. >> Yeah. >> And I think one thing for us as a council that overlaps with this, but is its own type of work and project is for us to both look at the strategic plan and figure out are those still the right goals that we have as a body? But how are our then spending decisions pointed towards those goals? Right. If we have a goal related to homelessness, are we funding that goal or are we funding the thing that is kind of the hottest item of the day, instead of what is our more strategic type of plan? So I think that's something that I know. Manager, you mentioned in Dallas, you all had a retreat. And then mayor, you talked about that at one point, you know, is that something that we need to do to spend a day to really look at our, our goals or just what might be the setting to do that? But I think [11:03:11 AM] that would overlap really well with this work to make sure not only we're operating efficiently, but we're doing it in a way that advances the goals that we want to advance as a city. I do want to ask specifically as it relates to on line 32, this is subsection C two as talks about an analysis of city contracting practices and opportunities for increased efficiency. Will that look at and I guess also within subsection three, the determination of uniform standards? I guess I just want to make sure that captures if we have a contract to accomplish X, that is going to look at their work and make sure that they are meeting or that their work is advancing that contract, not just, you know, I got a little confused when we talked about the uniform standards. You know, a contract for mowing the lawn is [11:04:11 AM] very different than a contract for providing homeless services. How do we measure, from your perspective under this ordinance? >> Well, I think we'll we'll look at it segment by segment. So the one of the benefits of this approach is breaking up the city into different portions, looking at department by department, fund by fund. And so those those standards are going to vary depending on what we're looking at. So when we're looking at Austin energy standards related to electric utilities are going to differ from other parts of the city. And so we this language is broad enough that allows us to adjust for the portion of the city that we're addressing at that time. So I think those standards are going to adjust depending on which portion we're assessing at any given time. >> Okay. And when we look at how the timeline of how we're doing that right now, when you are looking at a next year, you have an audit plan. And and you develop that in coordination with the council ultimately for our approval. Are you thinking [11:05:12 AM] that would be the same type of process where y'all would, you know, you know, what's out there you would kind of develop? Here's what we think should be done and then coordinate or and I, I don't know, mayor, your vision as well. Is this a the auditor puts it forward and we where do we step in or not. Where should we step in or not? I don't know what's appropriate here and what is best practice. I'd be curious to know the vision and the thought. >> My thinking as as I outlined previously, would be that the auditor would be the one looking to win. You're going to do something and what's going to be done. Otherwise you lose the Independence of what's happening. And that's what part of the reason I said what I said as I laid this out, which is we don't want to jump to that. So, so the key to a, a key to having Independence is [11:06:14 AM] that the independent auditor has to be the one in the position to make that. But as indicated in the ordinance, there are reports the way it the current ordinance is written. Is it report? There's a report to the council on at least an annual basis or as requested by the council. And there is a report to the audit and finance committee. At least twice a year, or as requested by the audit and finance committee. So what that does is that allows for some oversight. And if we have questions about how something is being done or what's being done, we're in a position to to to talk about that. I think it also will allow for opportunities to do what along the lines of what you ask in your previous question, which is, how does this how is what you are doing? [11:07:15 AM] How does that compare to our stated strategic goals? It will also that'll be obviously one of the questions. I think you you use a word frequently that I think is a good word for how we want to approach it, and that's effectiveness, which is different from efficiency. I mean, I can argue that's different from efficiency, but that's I think that's what you're you're you're looking for. And I think that creates the opportunity for us to be asking the questions, are we being effective that also importantly, I think allows and I think both this and the proposed charter provision, all this will always allow for the council to say, okay. Yeah. I mean like kind of like the discussion we've just had about software. Right? Okay. That you've come back and you've shown us and we do this, by the way, with the audits that they currently do the on the specific items that we bring up, [11:08:15 AM] that they come back and they say you could save money if you do this. But what it doesn't do is it doesn't provide the service we want. And so we make a decision about that. And I think I think that would be a role that ultimately plays that. Now we're going to have to be responsive to the constituents. I mean, part of the part of the value of having a review like this or an assessment like this is that and we're going to talk about that here in a minute. When we get to the decision TRE, you actually have the data and discussion about specific items. You may make different decisions based upon that. And that will mean you need to be responsive to the constituents that may say, well, I just want it to be based upon something wrote, but the process is set up, I think with the auditor being independent, to pick, choose, talk about how it's going to be done. The manager and the manager's office cooperating and the council being there to look at how it's going as it goes along and with [11:09:17 AM] input about effectiveness and including the the cost benefit, I guess would be the way I'd say it. I'll say one other thing about that is the ordinance is specifically written, and I want to say this very clearly so that the manager is in a position to make changes without the need of an audit and without having to wait on an audit. I worry a great deal about that is I think the manager probably does too, which is that the manager's doing a lot of important things right now and really good things that we want to do, but we don't need to wait. He needs to manage and he needs to be manage. The audit needs to be to to help with that, not to get in the way. Yeah. >> And as we look at that schedule, I'm curious from your practice with our previous audits, I think about if we're looking at let's just take the parks department that takes, you know, however long that's [11:10:17 AM] going to take, maybe a year to from the review to the putting the document together to then presenting here the the proposed changes. And then how long have you experienced from your audits for departments to really implement those changes. >> And walk him through the what we've talked about in terms of the time to implement, which is one of, by the way, which is also one of the concerns by comparison to other proposals. We've tried to build some of that into this. That's a very important question. >> Sure. So I'll start with the recommendations. The the time to implement varies pretty significantly, and not even department by department, but recommendation to recommendation. Sometimes we're issuing recommendations that are pretty pretty big lifts. They're heavy lifting. And other times, like we saw in speed reduction today, there was the recommendations were were not not that heavy because the department is they're pretty far along. They're doing a really good job. And so these [11:11:17 AM] were small changes to make. So it's going to vary pretty significantly. And I don't want to I don't want to use just a department's average time to implement. In order to set the stage for this, I think we need to look at it based on what the assessment finds. So the way I envision this happening is we would break up the assessment cycle over multiple years, because the city is so large and complex. I don't I don't want to try to tackle the entire city in one year. That's just not feasible. That's not realistic. I think if we were to do it that way, you're just barely scraping the surface and you're not really getting a good return on your investment there. So if we break it up and we do a portion of the city one year, second year, third year, break it up over five years, the way the ordinance is written is there's a three year break in between assessment cycles. And I think that's really important because the and addresses what you're talking about. It gives the manager time to implement those recommendations. Some of them may be heavier recommendations [11:12:18 AM] that are going to take longer than just a year. And it gives them time to observe the benefits. Once those recommendations have been implemented and make sure that we got it right and frankly, come up for air, because this is a lot of auditing, no one's ever excited to see us come around. So we're going to be we're going to be in this. >> You should, as the. >> Director of public works transportation, you should always consider it an honor. >> Yes. Yeah, I think it's an honor. I just don't think they do. >> Absolutely. And as you talked about kind of that that cycle, I'm curious from your perspective, if three years is enough, like if we have one year of auditing, one year of implementation is one year of observation to know if that worked, is that enough time? Should we be thinking, you know, four years? I just want to make sure we're not auditing a department who's just finally implemented our changes, and we have no clue if those changes [11:13:20 AM] are working. >> Totally understand. And I think that's that's going to be determined by this. I think we're going to learn a lot of lessons along the way. And, you know, excuse me, one of the things I'm committed to is ensuring that we we use good professional judgment in how we move about this. So you talked about where to start. One of the big variables is where are we already making changes? Managers started a shared services optimization improvement. So they're doing a lot of work. I would not want to start with our internal services fund. It doesn't make sense. Let those changes take place. And then maybe in year three we come in and say, hey, they made this really efficient and there's not a lot for us to do here and we can move on to something else. So I want to you know, the ordinance talks about collaboration between the manager and the auditor and the external consultant. And so I don't want to step on his toes. I want to be able to go in and assess and and make improvements and recommendations where appropriate. And so that that [11:14:20 AM] target might move. We might learn things in year one that we say, you know what, we intended on doing this in year two, but we're going to pivot because we just learned this lesson. And so I think that flexibility is really critical. >> Pivoting a little bit on the the funding element of this. And, you know, we're trying to set up something that's going to hopefully outlive all of us. That's going to continue to improve upon itself for many years to come. You know, right now, the auditor's budget is included in the manager's proposed budget. You are not a department of the manager. You are direct report for a reason. The municipal courts, a direct report for a reason that's set forth in the charter. And my understanding is back in the city's history, your department was funded separately. You had your own kind of budget that you brought to council, and [11:15:20 AM] council approved it for that Independence. And I am curious for the council to think about. I don't have a suggestion one way or the other today, but we are going to be talking about funding some of these audits and these reviews and how your office may whether we're doing how much we can do internally, how much we do externally, the costs associated with that, the savings hopefully associated with that. But it can lead to some friction with your office and management of this city. And I'm not suggesting that the manager would would. >> Start a fight. Start a fight. >> But I do think in terms of the long term question of of this, should there be some level of separation between your budget and the general city budget? I just want us to think about that moving forward. And if you have any comments. [11:16:20 AM] >> I haven't seen a need for that. I've been I've been handling our budget for a long time. That was that was something that Corey didn't want to deal with. So that's been my responsibility well before I was city auditor. I've got a great relationship with Carrie. And and so we've we've never had an issue there. I've, we've got a line item in there for when we have to hire an external investigator and that's, you know, that that would be for city management. And we've got that money. We haven't had any issue. So I haven't asked for anything that we haven't gotten. And it's been a it's been a productive relationship and I would expect that to continue. >> I think councilmember alter was offering part of his budget. >> I was going to bring it back to. >> The the last time I gave you all a little bit of my budget for this. >> Is a solution. Anything that you guys save could come directly to the auditors for safekeeping, and then we could move forward. >> Absolutely. >> Mr. Benigno, you've taken a seat that looks like you want to say something. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor and chief financial officer. And I was here when at times when there was a lot more tension [11:17:21 AM] regarding the budget for the city auditor and the city manager. Under our charter, the city manager is required to recommend a budget to city council. And that's what staff you know, you know, the city manager and staff have always worked on and have always. And that includes the city auditors budget. Even though the city auditor doesn't report to the manager and includes the budget for the municipal court, even though the the clerk and the judges don't report to the city manager, he is, by charter, required to make a recommendation to you. The level of the budget for the auditor is always in council's hands to adjust as they see fit. >> Yeah. And and I think that's a fair point as well as food for thought. And while you're here, the last question I have is something that we may, a number of us have seen suggested looking to San Diego has an independent budget analyst that provides some something like a, you know, the Independence of an auditor, but a counter voice or even an affirming voice for what the [11:18:22 AM] budget office has put forward. Now, there are not a manager form of government. They that office reviews the mayor's budget. But I'm curious if that's something that you have any familiar with familiarity with or Mr. Derby as well. And, and could that provide some of what we're trying to accomplish here, which is a different voice looking at what we're spending on and how we're spending and making alternative suggestions? >> I mean, I do I was living in San Diego and they changed their form of government from strong mayor to from a council manager form of government to strong mayor. And it was with that change in government that they brought in the independent auditor. That was in 2008. And I know that because I considered applying for the job. But I ended up here in Austin instead, and I'm happy that I did. But I think, you know, if you look at what they did and it's not uncommon to see a structure like that in a strong mayor form of government, where the mayor is responsible for presenting the budget to the [11:19:22 AM] city council and then the city council, you know, they want to have their own professional staff who can provide recommendations, you know, because there's a kind of a disconnect between the the power that the mayor has and the power that the council has in that form of government. You know, here that that's the job of the city manager is to make sure you have an objective view of the budget. And that's just my thoughts on that. I'm not I've never seen anything like that in a strong mayor or city manager form of government. Okay. >> That's it. Thank you. Councilmember alter. Councilmember Fuentes, followed by councilmember Laine. >> Thank you. Thank you, councilmember alter, for your questions. I did want to pick up a a line of thread there on the budget for the city auditor's office. I mean, knowing that you would be taking on in an outside review of our city departments, and it says specifically in this proposed ordinance that it would entail external [11:20:22 AM] consultants. And I think when we think of external consultants, we automatically think of high price tags that come along with external consultants. So can you talk us through how much are we talking about when we as is proposed, as this ordinance is written and proposed before us, what is the expense that would be associated with these external audits? >> Yeah, I, I can't really say we don't know that yet. This is as the mayor pointed out, this is unprecedented. There's been some organization wide reviews in other cities, but nothing like this before. So I can't really speculate as to what the if we went out for bid, what those bids would look like. That's that's something that's going to be determined. Once we once we get going, we have some funding available for outsourcing work. Whether or not that's sufficient or not would we'll find that out once we once we start soliciting the bids. >> I'm, I'm a little uncomfortable because in a way we vote on this ordinance and [11:21:22 AM] we're it's kind of like a blank check. It's saying, okay, city manager and city auditor go out and set forth on these external assessments. I would like some sort of financial understanding of what the impact would be to the city. And so if there's a way that staff could compile a reference, a recommendation, how it would impact our most immediate fiscal year, because this ordinance will take effect. When is this coming before council? >> Well, the goal has been February 5th. >> Okay. >> So it would have an impact to this year's fiscal year budget. And then a proposal for for next year. >> Okay. >> The other question I have is manager, just wanted to see if you could lend your your thoughts on this proposed ordinance. You know, you have laid out a four pronged approach that you're taking in, in optimizing city services and going through a variety of assessments within the city. One that's top of mind and pressing for me is the social [11:22:23 AM] services reset. So I just wanted to see from from your perspective, how does this ordinance that's focused on the external assessment of city departments, how does that fit in to what you have laid out? >> Thank you, councilwoman, and I appreciate the discussion as well as Jason's comments and thoughts around kind of how we go forward as it relates to the 4 to 5 pronged approaches that we're taking, whether the internal service fund, the social service fund, retooling and recalibration, and or the it audit and the department reviews, I don't see any conflict in how we're going to proceed, at least on the administrative side. I think there is an item and a section, I believe H of 2-39, that really speaks to the lack of interference. As I shared with the mayor, I don't want to wait and or have to wait on certain [11:23:24 AM] audits, particularly since these may be multi-year in approach given all the departments that we have to implement things that I believe are important and conducive and actually aligned with trying to get to results that I think this council and or our community would expect. So I don't see any conflict and or anything getting in the way of what we're doing. I think to Jason's point earlier, is that he may actually then come back and review and assess how we went about determining what course we were going to take and or measure any effectiveness or the efficiencies of the things that we may have done. So I think this really fits hand in glove, and it allows two individuals that I think the council is responsible for giving guidance to, to work at the same pace and or one working faster than the other, but also ensuring that we are collaborating when necessary to the good of the city. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you mayor. I support this [11:24:25 AM] ordinance establishing a comprehensive efficiency assessment for the city of Austin. I think for me, just kind of the big thing that I want to make sure that we have a really good understanding. Is the financial cost associated. >> With it. Good. Okay. Council member Laine followed by council member Siegel. >> Thank you. I want to take councilmember Fuentes's first question and take it even a step further. I'm not sure if this is a question for you, Jason, or for our city manager, but I would find it extremely helpful if it's possible to see, preferably fine to have it in follow up after this meeting, preferably at least a couple days before it comes to council. See some sort of a cost estimate for full implementation as proposed, versus the scope contemplated in the charter language. So that would be two different cost estimates. And then I personally would also welcome, if you find it desirable to share it with us, a single [11:25:28 AM] additional cost data point on what a scaled back or spread out proposal would look like, because I don't know where these cost figures are going to come in, so I don't really know how important it would be to know what plan B would be around. My thinking is that something that is possible to provide prior to the next? When it comes to council. >> We can certainly do some some research on potential cost estimates. I have a little bit of hesitation with it because if if we're talking about where we think this might fall, then we might be setting a benchmark at a dollar point that we could have gotten quotes lower than that had we not put that dollar amount out there. So that is that is one caveat with the cost estimates of the ordinance. You mentioned the cost of the the scope and the charter. I don't know that we that I could come up with that because if I'm if I'm not mistaken, the the petition for the charter amendment has a provision that the the consultant will continue doing an assessment [11:26:28 AM] until they've identified sufficient savings to pay for the assessment. >> It's not quite that it is a commitment that they have to they would have to commit that they find more savings than the cost of what they're doing. Right. And you might comment on what that means. >> And that that's that's a concerning piece of language to me, because that could mean an assessment in perpetuity, if they're identifying savings that never exceed the cost of the work that they're doing. And so it may what it looks like in one year is may not be a significant amount, but then the, the, the way that it's worded is they're going to continue working and it just it never ends. >> So just to thank you, that was very helpful to put it right out there at this point. Just to clarify a little bit, like I'm not looking at it will be net will benefit from it, but what is the cost of [11:27:28 AM] securing that information? Because I imagine that as we get information from this proposal, we will also implement savings, I hope, in excess of what we're spending. Certainly. And I understand the challenges. I hear you on that. I think that this is a request that, much like many of the other things that are being requested in this policy, is it's a different request than what we have fulfilled in the past. But it it goes to the very foundation of what everyone is trying to accomplish, from those advocating for the charter amendment. To all of us who support an internal, not internal, but this comprehensive efficiency assessment approach. But bottom line, I completely agree with the mayor pro tem. On the one hand, this is critical for for increasing transparency, reestablishing public trust, finding the quantitative measures that will allow us to to measure the the benefit of the resources that we are [11:28:28 AM] dedicating to everything from efficiency to the programs at hand. But we shouldn't write a blank check for that. With this, as with our other departments, we need some sort of benchmark and measurement. And so given what how you have responded, I think I would request that my office has a briefing at least a couple of weeks before it arrives. >> To keep in mind, we purposely done this so that we have a couple of opportunities for that. So we'll and we'll work and try to make sure you get everybody gets that. That's a fundamental question. Everybody understands the need for that. So we'll work on that okay. >> And the reason I'm suggesting is because a conversation might illuminate some more of the thinking. So thank you. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem vela followed by council member Ellis. >> Thank you. Mayor. I wanted to follow up a little bit on on councilmember alter's comments. That and just to understand the three year cycle, are we [11:29:30 AM] talking about a three year cycle where we're auditing all of or at least most of the city departments? And then at the end of that three year cycle, we immediately begin a new three year cycle or what? What's the kind of the the framework for that? >> It's three years between cycles. Okay. So a cycle I, I'm thinking that we would need to do, do the city over the course of like a five year cycle. So we, we assess and and follow up on hotspots like the mayor mentioned over the course of five years. And then at the conclusion of that, we have a three year break and let recommendations and changes be made. Recommendations be implemented before we start any further assessments. >> And again, just to to to clarify. So then we're talking about and and that goes to my concern. Let's take the audit that you all just reported on [11:30:31 AM] today. Tiny part of a large department. The speed cushions and the speed controls I mean that that you know, again like I said, that's one tiny. And I look at y'all's audit schedule and your your proposed audit list. That's a lot of work. You currently have a staff of about 30. I just it's hard for me to imagine kind of doing a think about Austin energy, for example, a huge department with just so many kind of different areas and very, very kind of specific issues and needs that that where you really need a professional that has experience in that subject matter area to be able to come in and kind of give you any advice worth that's going to be worth anything. So are you. Then we're envisioning kind of a five year cycle to get audits [11:31:32 AM] of a citywide level of audits, then a three year pause to implement and I guess review the audits and then begin the cycle again. Is that the kind of the framework? >> Yes, that's exactly it. >> And I would thinking about the cost also, I'd rather spread that out over five years and three years. I mean, first of all, I don't know if it's realistic to do in three years. It's just too large of a city. And I mean, we'd have to hire like every consultant out there to come in and and get that done within a three year time frame. And then also, I just I would rather, from a cost perspective, spread that out over a longer time period so that we don't have to, you know, throw a huge chunk. We can take nibbles instead of taking kind of huge bites in terms of the costs. So and then the last thing I would just mention is I, I share your concern with the, the, the kind of allegedly the [11:32:35 AM] charter amendment paying for itself by recommending, I mean, again, that's easy to do. You know, they might recommend oh, we just close this library branch hard to implement their, you know, their I would like to be much more strategic and kind of cautious and careful about those kinds of things where we're truly finding efficiencies and not just, for example, just kind of closing popular programs and cutting kind of libraries, parks, pools, those kinds of things. That's definitely not what I want to come out of this, this audit cycle. But largely I support it. It's ambitious, but I understand where we're going and if we can achieve the savings and efficiency and have a more effective government than, than, let's do it. >> Thank you, mayor pro tem councilmember Ellis. >> Thanks, mayor. I'm not sure [11:33:35 AM] if this has been determined yet, but would love to at least further the conversation before we take a vote on the fifth. How would this factor into the timelines of groups like our public safety departments have their contracts up for renewal every four years, and also our public utilities? We do rate cases about every five years. How will this information help advise where they're performing really well, or where perhaps some adjustments could be made as we approach those timelines. >> Those kinds of additional timelines and deadlines, milestones would be taken into consideration when we're meeting with the external consultant to decide where to start first. So if we knew that there was an upcoming milestone and we wanted to get an assessment done before then in order to inform decision makers going into that process, we could take that into consideration. That would that would be another variable in considering which portion of the city to assess next and, and how quickly we need to get that work done. [11:34:36 AM] >> That's helpful. >> That's helpful. And then my last question is going to be the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Trying to really balance the dollars spent versus how effective our departments are. You know, there are some creativities that our leaders have been able to take throughout the years, and I want to make sure that we're not sacrificing a great result for our constituents as opposed to the cheapest result for our constituents. >> Absolutely. So when when we're looking at this, we will take into consideration what what policies have been set, what goals have been set in different parts of operations. And there may be there may be mention of if the goal was set lower, you could achieve this efficiency. But because of community demand or, you know, council desire this goal, you keep that goal. And we we forego those efficiencies. So there's room in all of this for those types of considerations. >> And I'll just say from my perspective, I think timeliness and responsiveness is something that our constituents expect. [11:35:37 AM] And the more they can communicate with us that they have a need. And those departments are quickly deploying something that helps those constituents is going to go a long way. Rather than saying, you know, we could save a little bit of money, but you're not going to see that pothole get fixed for two years and it's going to be worse, right? That's going to end up costing us money and causing frustration in the long run. >> I think that's where the benchmarking that's built into this helps paint a clearer picture. Maybe we're spending more on widgets in this department than our peer Texas cities, but we're also providing this service in a more effective fashion. Or we're we're responding to citizen requests quicker. And so that's why we're spending more. It's where we're spending more and not achieving that level of service that we're aiming for, that we would want to have some discussion about how to how to make changes. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. Councilmember. Good discussion. Councilmember. Councilmember. Duchen I'm sorry. Please. >> Thank you. Mayor. First, I want to acknowledge the [11:36:39 AM] tremendous effort. At least I assume that the mayor has poured into this for the last couple of weeks. And just generally, our approach to address this with urgency and thoughtfulness and detail in terms of the conversation we're having right now since we raised this opportunity back in August, I know we've looked at a number of cities, how they've approached this kind of process. I know that from our conversation with Jason, he's looked at Sacramento and other places. We looked closely at Houston. We found that some cities even have specific teams that focus exclusively on kind of internal business process improvement and efficiency, and I just wanted to relay at the outset I'm I'm very hopeful that we can come to a solution that works for Austin and us, and addresses the lion's share of community concerns and desires around this. I want to start by just asking and really [11:37:39 AM] noting. This is obviously going to be a very complicated process, as this discussion has already shed some light on. We're really planning to look under the hood of a very large city, large, complex entity, and we've had a lot of discussion about the audit cycle, but I want to drill in on what this initial assessment might look like. And I've heard calls to complete this initial effort in six months, maybe three months. In your view, does the timeline proposed here roughly one year, strike you as the right balance for a first step? >> I don't think it's restricted to to one year. So it just it specifies that it gives us freedom with the cycle. And I think it would be a multiyear cycle. I don't think that an assessment of this nature across the entire city can be done effectively within a one year time frame. I think [11:38:40 AM] that is too tight of a timeframe to get really valuable results. I think you could identify some superficial areas to to make changes, but I don't think that it would be as fruitful an endeavor as if we broke it up into multiple portions. I'm envisioning it fund by fund. We can do it a different way, but if we looked only at the general fund in one year, I think that an assessment of this type only focused on the general fund in a year gives us more freedom to to have a more effective assessment done and to come up with more valuable recommendations or areas for further evaluation. >> Okay. Thank you. Jason, can you speak at all to or maybe the city manager, his team speak to that? We've got these different proposals in front of us a charter amendment, an ordinance. Are there any specific challenges or legal exposure, etc. That we could [11:39:41 AM] avoid with one route versus the other? >> I don't know who wants to talk to that, but I'll speak a little bit to that, not with regard to the legal aspect of it, but a couple of things. One is the charter, and this is this is my my position. But have the charter is meant to be a framework for how government operates, not how government operates. Now there are aspects to a charter that have more, more detail, but an ordinance, part of the advantage, I think, to having an ordinance over a charter provision is that the ordinance. The ordinance is a is is more than a framework. It is how you are going to operate. And so we can put that in the detail and not have to worry about the framework. The second thing is that there are [11:40:44 AM] provisions in the way the charter that that charter amendment, there's a lot that I agree with in it. But one of the things that we've been talking about is this one year requirement that that creates that creates a real difficulty in terms of practical, we might all like it to be done that quickly, and we might see that as a political advantage to say we're going to get it done that quickly. But I'm not sure it can be done as as well as what we we ought to be trying to achieve. A third part about that is what we've already talked about in terms of having to have a commitment from the party, the third party that says. You you have to commit, that you're going to find funding, you're going to find savings that cover your contract. Well, two things about that. One is at least two things. One is that it creates [11:41:44 AM] almost a conflict of interest. Are they going to be making the best recommendations, or are they going to be making recommendations that get them the contract and get them to where they can comply with their contract? An additional part of that is, as as Jason has pointed out, is that it creates a situation where part of that conflict of interest, those may not be the best recommendations, but by golly, we're going to keep going at it until we can get it cut down enough. And then what happens under circumstances when you have the recommendations that are made and you're going into the next cycle and you've already done the things, what are you going to be doing now in order to meet that contract? So and finally, I go all the way back to what council member alter was, was asking questions about, and that everybody I think is in agreement is that there may be. And the mayor pro tem also talked about it. There may be instances where you're not going to utilize those cuts [11:42:44 AM] because you've made a value judgment that spending a little bit of extra money gets you a better form of government. And we all know we can all point to situations in that regard. In fact, we had a big discussion about it and something specifically with regard to public safety in the last budget cycle. In addition to that. So so that's another another issue of concern. Now, on the flip side, one of the issues of criticism, I think, and I think it's legitimate to call it a criticism, is, well, if you put it in the charter, it can't be changed. And and it then survives this. If this council does this, this relatively unprecedented thing and passes an ordinance, what what keeps the next council from doing away with it? Well, I would respond to that in two ways. And I wasn't prepared to do all this. But I'm kind of [11:43:46 AM] doing this off the cuff. But one of one of my responses to that is, keep in mind all of these practical questions that the council is asking. The public will also be asking, what? How do you do this? How do you do that? You want to be in a position where you might need to make some tweaks in the way it gets done, in order to make it an effective audit or efficiency assessment process? And so you don't want to have to go back to the voters every time in order to make practical fixes that the voters would want you to make. The second part of that is that we have written the ordinance to require a big supermajority in order to do away with it. It would require nine votes under the way. This ordinance is drafted for any council to come in, and they're going to have [11:44:46 AM] to come in and vote nine, 2 to 9. I guess in order to be in a situation where they could change nine to, to, to, to change, to do away with this ordinance. That is not something we typically do with ordinances, of course. And the reason is if this ordinance passes, we are showing that we are we don't we we do want it to survive this. Mayor and council, by the way, it has another provision that if we want to make those kinds of practical changes, that that still requires a supermajority, that still requires a supermajority, but it would require eight, as opposed to nine being required in order to do away with the ordinance. So I hope that answers. That's off the cuff. Just just being trying to be responsive. The other thing is, and I want to piggyback on a previous question, that council member Ellis asking that our auditor answered, and that is with [11:45:47 AM] regard to timing. Yes, it will take a while to get some of this done, but by doing this by ordinance early in this year with what the manager is already working on and with, hopefully the speed with which we can get this in place, there may be suggested changes, even though it's not final in terms of an audit report that will be able to take, but put into place, hopefully have some benefit in this next budget cycle. With regard to the charter provision, you've got a situation where that election won't be until may, assuming there is an election, that election won't be until may, and then you've got a period of ramp up and that sort of thing. So you lose a lot of time that that. But that's just a benefit. That's not to your question about negative repercussions. [11:46:49 AM] That is just one of the benefits of moving forward with an ordinance. The bottom line to it is, I think, an ordinance as as a function of government and day to day operation of government serves us better in these circumstances and creates less, less need for something, even things that you might agree with. And by the way, the things we agree with, we've tried to incorporate into the to the ordinance. I hope that even came close to answering your questions. >> That did. That's great. That was what I was hoping you could you or somebody could outline and you've actually addressed a couple of my other questions about the flexibility between the approaches and so on. So I want to I want to then pivot to seeing if maybe Mr. Van van eenoo or Broadnax could maybe speak to to what extent we could continue to, you know, the existing efforts that we've undertaken already, the forensic audits we do, the shared services, centralization of it and. What can all this be [11:47:50 AM] done concurrently with conducting the efficiency audit? >> Thank you, councilman, and I think I mentioned earlier that yes, these actions and activities can be conducted concurrently. Quite frankly, the expectation and councils, I think guidance helps me do that. My role is to ensure that our operations and the services we provide are providing the most effective and efficient manner, and so that will continue. I think, as indicated in the memorandums that have been produced and shared, that are financed and budget teams are working on, we're currently doing that and we will continue to do that, whether when in fact, this council adopts such a ordinance and or as Jason and his team work to implement that and the current audits that his team performs. We're always continually working to get better and provide the most for [11:48:50 AM] taxpayer resources that we receive, so nothing will inhibit us from doing that. Quite frankly, I look forward to working beside Jason and his team to ensure that as we're moving through our processes and making the changes that we're getting it right, and someone is being able to document and share that with the public, probably better than we can in an independent fashion. So again, nothing in this ordinance that would prohibit and slow us down. I don't know if you have more to add. Ed. >> I would only add that I don't view this any different than what we currently have with audits. The city auditor does audits across the city. City staff don't. We? Don't sit on our hands waiting for the auditor to tell us what to do. We have internal audit functions. Austin energy, Austin water, the financial services department. We're auditing payroll records and timekeeping records to make sure that our internal controls are being met and adhered to. So I view it as synergistic, and I don't see any conflict with city staff and management continuing to push for efficiencies and and ways to [11:49:51 AM] cut costs at the same time that the auditor is bringing their perspective and expertise to the table. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, both of y'all. Last question, and this is to build on councilmember alter's question that you raised earlier about the analysis of outcomes and uniform standards. It made me think about the other city audits that we've done, including the one shared today, the kind of recommendations that we get from those audits. My understanding is that these efficiency audits won't set the priorities, but instead measure, I guess, the department's capacity to meet those priorities effectively. And so, like, for example, the speed cushions versus sidewalks that might have come up earlier. And my understanding is that our goal as a council or as a city is to not merely produce more cushions or sidewalks, but to [11:50:52 AM] reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities. And so I bring this up because, as reviewing the other city's efficiency studies, I noted that when we report kpis, often we're they're not just reporting outputs. You know, the number of speed cushions constructed, but they're also reporting outcomes in terms of pedestrian injuries from collisions or 301 calls that might have been prevented or decreased, or some other traffic outcomes. Can you speak to the different kinds of kpis? We could work with departments to meet not just the output of a department, but the outcomes in relation to what residents here are expecting us to work towards. And when I say that, or ask this, I'm also asking in relation to connecting with the [11:51:54 AM] new work the manager has done on performance. Austin, Texas, which seems like a really good start or platform we could use to report some of the findings in this process. >> I'm sorry. I want to make sure I understand you're you're asking about how we could use this in order to report the the kpis that are coming out of the department. >> Right. And when we're doing that, not just saying, oh, we issued this amount of citations this year or a we, you know, how do we actually connect it to the actual work that people are helping us? Like, like for example, I mentioned, we're not just building safety features, road improvements. We're actually trying to bring down fatalities and vehicular and vehicular wrecks. So, you know, do you have any thoughts on how we can get this information out there or connect it to goals and utilize the the platform I think the manager started with? [11:52:54 AM] And that might be a question for him as well. >> And so I guess I would start by saying the the ordinance requires that I, I display the progress and the status of all of this in a public facing format. And so what I'm envisioning is use of the open data portal. And there was a motion from council member alter during the the budget process that talked about an efficiency dashboard. And so I'm, I'm picturing these things living next to each other under one umbrella. And as it relates to this ordinance, when the consultant goes in and does an assessment of any one portion of the city, it wouldn't just be the performance measures that we that we include as part of the budget process, but it would be taken into consideration what what strategic plans are out there, what community plans and input, what council resolutions, where you've set goals for them. All of that would be factored into that. So where we're we would want to connect those dots. I think to your point that we're [11:53:56 AM] not just looking for how many speed cushions we can install, but how are we impacting traffic, serious injuries and traffic related fatalities. So all of that could be connected there. And comparing and contrasting how our metrics compare to peer cities across Texas and other states, and what those costs look like within Austin and in those peer cities. >> Thank you. Jason, if I can just piggyback on your answer, maybe I can ask you a slightly different question about this, which is, you know, the manager started this site. It's got some kpis on it. There's some missingness in the data, but it seems like a really healthy first effort. Can this efficiency study help us generate useful kpis going forward to either supplement what you're talking about in the open data portal on performance and Austin, Texas gov. Or, you know, can we use this to figure out what we need to be measuring? >> Yeah. [11:54:56 AM] >> For sure. I think one of the things that would come up in the benchmarking is we might identify some metrics that every other city is using that we're not utilizing. I don't think that's a realistic situation. I think that there's going to be some some differences. But to the degree that we we were missing a certain aspect of a portion of city operations that other cities are utilizing and focused on, then I think this would highlight that. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Councilmember duchen members, really good discussion. Thank you. We're as I indicated, the timeline is this is the first. So we're this is the way this process ought to work. So I appreciate everybody's level of detail and thought. And let's just keep rolling. As I indicated, we have the possibility for two work sessions between now and a February 5th date as a potential target for passing such an ordinance. So we will [11:55:58 AM] probably utilize those in some way. But y'all utilize the message board to share thoughts and and let us let me know and let the manager and Jason know about where we are on things. So we would be in a position to to make sure we're answering the questions that you might have. Again, I want to end this by saying thank you to the folks that have helped us get this proposed ordinance in front of you, and get it in front of you as quickly as we have. And so I thank the manager and I thank Mr. Hadavi and legal and for for the the insight and others that have provided me insight. So without objection, thank you. And we'll move on to the next agenda item. Members. The next agenda item will be item number six, which is an update on debt capacity calculations regarding 2026 bonds. And that will then roll [11:56:59 AM] into discussion on item number two, which is a discussion regarding bond programs. And that's going to be primarily related to the decision TRE. Let me just say I don't anticipate that there will be any that not only do I not anticipate, I can't imagine that we would have any sort of action on that. It is so that we can have the discussion and we will we have some time on that. So I want to make sure that everybody has feels like they're getting all the time that they need. With that, you have the floor, miss Olivares. >> Good morning everyone. >> Kim Alvarez, director of financial services. So it is that time of year to provide another capacity update to council. To start out just this list of common terms. I've used this in some prior similar presentations and it seemed like folks appreciated it both internally and externally as just a point of reference. Since we do use a lot of wonky terms in our world. So first, I [11:58:01 AM] want to start out with kind of the current state of affairs relative to our existing bond programs and the associated debt requirements. So the slide you have in front of you here shows the the historic bond elections going back to 2006. The blue bars are the comprehensive programs, while the green bars are are one the one off elections that have occurred. Those one off elections and in general, plus the the amount and the frequency of them is truly an abnormality relative to what we have seen historically, even going before 2006. And then what we have in terms of our financial policies, the current bond program balances the oh six, ten, 12, 13 are all generally just are complete. There's small bits and pieces [11:59:01 AM] here and there, but so it's not surprising to see the 26 through to the 2022 programs to indicate or to show the greatest balances remaining. 2022 was affordable housing in 20 and then 2016. Transportation related 2018 is a comprehensive program, so the large the bulk of your remaining funds lands within the transportation category of spending, which you see here with this version of the of the program based on categories. So the the majority of the remaining is with mobility and transportation, about $400 million remaining to obligate and or spend and then also affordable housing, which that 188 million is coming from the 2022 program, largely so with all of our existing bond programs and the debt that we have sold to support those programs. We currently have about $2.4 billion in [12:00:02 PM] outstanding debt. We do our issuances once per year, usually in the August September time frame. We do have with the geo debt. The revenue pledge is the full faith and credit of the city of Austin. That is what the general obligation credit is. There are three types of debt that we utilize within these geo sales public improvement bonds, certificates of obligation and contractual obligations, public improvement bonds and certificates of obligation have significant similarity. The main difference is certificates of obligation are non voter approved debt. We also have contractual obligations which are also non voter approved debt, but a much shorter time frame for payback. We are using those for much shorter asset life type expenditures such as vehicles, information technology systems. That was a fairly recent change in state law, because the cost of some of these systems is so [12:01:03 PM] significant. We now have the ability to issue these short term debt to cover and spread that cost out over a number of years with our policies for when we issue debt is to do a level debt service. As a result with our current outstanding debt. That's why you see such a lovely slope, negative slope that reflects that 20 year paydown. The main thing to take into account with our current bond programs is that we have authorized but unissued debt, meaning we have bonds that have been approved prior by voters, whether it's voter approved debt or non voter approved debt, we do not issue it until after we have spent it. It's on a reimbursement basis. So the authorized but unissued highlights, a little over a billion of that is related to public improvement bonds, prior voter approved bond programs. About 850 million is for CEOs for various facility acquisitions. There's also land [12:02:04 PM] acquisition. There's tax supported, but there's also non-tax supported. So walnut creek, for example, is is supported. It's paid for from the revenues from the tax increment reinvestment zone. But it is issued against our geo credit rating. So with CEOs there's like I said there are some that are tax supported from the debt service tax rate. But other large components that are non-tax supported. And then finally contractual obligations approximately 200 million. When you add all those authorized but unissued bonds into the mix. That's why you see such a significant increase on the curve going up to about 3.5 billion in 29, 20, 20, 30 time frame. But then you still then you see that that that level debt service come into play and all of it being paid off in that 20 year period. Now, as we look at future bond sales and our capacity analysis, I wanted [12:03:05 PM] to provide an overview of the assumptions that we use for assessed valuation growth. We conservatively assume 3% growth year over year. We also have conservative borrowing rates at 5% coupon that we are fortunate to receive in each of our sales each year. Generally, our coupon rate is is lower than 5%, but it is always a concern that we need to to make sure that we're conservative in those projections. Also, we use multiyear forecasting for the capacity. We look at our council financial policies. We want to make sure that we're having we continue to use of level debt service. And level debt service means we're paying the same amount per year for that particular issuance. So the, the, the paydown over the 20 year period for $20 million in debt would be the million per year principal and then an associated interest for to keep it kind of simple, we also when [12:04:07 PM] we look at our authorized but unissued bonds, we are modeling those according to department spending plans. So this is where we preach regularly to the project managers throughout the various departments delivering upon these projects, that their spending plans are incredibly important to our analysis. For us to understand how much debt will likely need to be issued in any given year, we for the proposed bond scenarios that I'll review here in a moment. We modeled those to be sold over the course of the program. So it's about a six year program. So we modeled accordingly. That also helps spread out the tax rate impact over several years. You'll notice when we have to go to voters for a bond program. State law requires that the the ballot language provide. What is the impact. As if we were to issue all the debt all at one time. So we we do those the ballot language in compliance with state law. But in reality we never issue the debt all in [12:05:07 PM] one time. It's spread. It's spread out over several years. And finally continue utilize reimbursement resolutions to fund projects. We are fortunately in a situation where we are able to pay for the we have the cash flow where we can cover the expenditures related with each of these projects, and then issue the debt on an annual basis to reimburse us. That essentially allows us to. The example I give, why would you start? Why would you be paying the mortgage on a house you don't even own? So in this case, we're able to delay having to actually start paying back on bond dollars until we have issued them. When we look at the tax rate, it's important to note that it is actually two parts. So there's the o&m side of the house. And then there's debt service. Under state law, we have the ability to set the debt service rate at the amount that will bring in the amount of revenue required to meet our debt service obligations. So that number can is not subject to the 3.5% voter approval rate [12:06:09 PM] and things like that. That's important to ensure that we're not risking an event of default, things like that. So there's there's reasons why that cap does not exist. When we look at our current debt service requirements for our current bonds and the authorized but unissued in fy 26, the typical taxpayer is paying approximately $450 of their tax bill is devoted to debt service. So this is not representing the entire tax bill. It is just the the debt service portion of it. Then if you look at the going forward because of the authorized but unissued, that dollar amount does go up. But also recognize that we had we included the assumptions about growth for assessed value, which makes adjustments to what that typical taxpayer their home's assessed valuable assessed value will be any given year. But at this current rate, it's about $1,414.34 for [12:07:11 PM] every $100 million of debt that you issue. That impacts the taxpayer on an annual basis. So based on the current projections, and we only go out to 2030 to stay in alignment with the operating budgets, financial forecast, we're looking at about $614 for by fy 30, just to cover our current and our authorized but unissued debt. As we look at. So I have three different scenarios for you here. If we were to assume that current Abu plus 500 plus 750 million and then plus 1 billion, so that this you can see how what the how that stacks up each with each scenario. We were looking at 614 hundred, $614 for just the current geo debt and authorized bond issued. If you tack on a $500 million program, that 614 goes to 686 by 2030. Then if you are looking at 750, it [12:08:13 PM] would it would peak or it would go up to about $722 for the typical taxpayer. And that there we go. And then for the $1 billion scenario, you're looking at about $758 for the typical taxpayer by fy 30. So I the way I did these charts is I broke them out so that you can kind of see how it how it goes. Year by year. So it keeps the red for the 500, the green for the 750 and the yellow if for that additional 250 million, that gets you to the billion dollar point. So some additional considerations for the committee and for the full council. We do need to consider what's happening on a statewide basis amongst what are we seeing happen amongst cities, counties, school districts across the state? In November 2025, there were 14 cities that held bond elections. Of the $852.7 million proposed to voters, only 30% of it was [12:09:16 PM] ultimately approved. The county. There were only four county bond elections, but it was a similar state of affairs where 43% of the 527 was approved. School districts fared much differently. They took $10.4 billion to voters across the state and amongst 67 school districts, and about 64% of those funds were approved statewide. If there's a desire to see some of the details behind that, I can definitely provide that. The state does maintain a quite useful data portal for downloading all of the election results. Also important for you all to consider are your adopted financial policies related to bond elections. First, for the timing of those elections, we we need to be looking at the current authorized but unissued bonds remaining to be sold. There's we we recommend that you have not more than an estimated two years of abuse before you have an election. That's why in the 20 2223 time frame, that's when we were [12:10:16 PM] that's why we were suggesting 2026 at that point, because at that point, the spending plans indicated that a 26 election would be at that point where we'd have the two years remaining. That has shifted since then. We also recommend with those financial policies that you don't do a dollar amount, that that would take longer than six years to, to deliver upon. Also, credit rating considerations. So we are very fortunate that with S&P and Fitch we are triple-a rated moody's. We're aa one. Fitch actually upgraded us this past geo sale from aa to aa. Much of that is due to the extensive work that that our cfo at Benigno and many others have been doing with the state legislature to address the the fiscal health of our pensions. And we have essentially become kind of the poster child of how to fix your pension systems and make them fiscally sound. As a result, fish upgraded us again [12:11:18 PM] back to aa. When we look at the different bond scenarios smp, their scorecards are the most easy to utilize externally, as opposed like the. The Fitch and moody's scorecards are a little more wonky, so smp makes it a little bit easier for us to do some analysis on our own. The three metrics that we generally focus on when it comes to our bond program considerations is annual liabilities as a percentage of revenue, net direct debt per capita, and net pension liabilities per capita. So up above on the top right, you can see that based on our current debt load and and abuse are are sorry. Based on our current debt load, our our current debt per capita is just over $2,200, which puts us at a assessment category three. And then our liabilities as a [12:12:18 PM] percentage of revenues is 25.9%, which puts us at a assessment category five, which is definitely on the higher end. And as you can see, you go through each of those those scenarios where it's no bond election, but we're adding in our authorized but unissued, we estimate we'll go up to just over $3,000, and then so on with the 500, 750 and $1 billion scenarios. What really helps us in this situation, because we are already on the high end of this scale, when the credit rating agencies are doing their reviews, they are not looking at debt and isolation. They're not looking at any component of the organization in isolation. It's a comprehensive review of economic conditions of our community, our management practices, our operating budget practices, but and our debt and our pensions. It is a full, comprehensive review. So fortunately we are doing much [12:13:18 PM] better in other areas of the review. And that helps balance things out relative to our scores on this front. When we look at our debt per capita numbers, we also from a competitive standpoint, we look at how our peer cities are doing right now. Our current debt per capita is just, again over $2,200. We're just above Dallas. The all the other cities are are below $2,000. We're not able to do projections for the out years of the other cities, since we're not privy to all of their particular debt plans. But we did provide on the right here, just the comparison of where we are at the baseline in 27, 28 through 2032, and then the 500, 750 and and $1 billion scenarios. So some final considerations for the affordability, the typical taxpayer impact. As I noted [12:14:20 PM] earlier, every $100 million of additional debt equates to approximately $14.34 to the annual tax bill. At this point in time, that number changes whenever we do this analysis. That number can change because conditions change. So that's why if you look at where I've done a presentation like this in prior months or years, that's why the number is not going to be the same at any given time, because it is reliant upon what our typical taxpayers assessed value is, so on and so forth. So if you're looking at just our current and authorized but unissued, the debt service portion of the tax bill will increase by about $165 between now and fiscal year 30. It's important to consider our competitiveness, among other large Texas cities, also important for us to consider the ability and our capacity to deliver projects in a timely manner. This is why we don't recommend doing one off bond programs, because that can provide a significant challenge to the departments, the affected departments, and their [12:15:20 PM] ability to deliver those projects relative to the comprehensive bond programs that we have every six years. So as we look at how what's next, what can we do moving forward? Recommendations. If the council chooses to continue forward with the 2026 bond program, we do recommend that you not exceed $750 million for that program. Other options you have you could delay if you were to delay until 2028. It obviously allows for us to continue progress on our existing bond programs. It also, if you look back at the the charts with our our debt obligation, debt service requirements, you can see that that puts us into a better spot relative to our overall portfolio. And so you might see some better bonding capacity at that point in time. Or another option might be that you consider a smaller program for perhaps for those departments that have utilized all their funds from the prior comprehensive program and do a [12:16:21 PM] smaller amount now for those and a larger program at a later date. So there are a lot of options. The bond election advisory task force considers continues to have their conversations. But we're staff. We are obviously available for any questions or analysis that you might like to see as you consider the bond program going forward. >> So great. Thank you. Members. Let's open it up for questions with regard to this, this item and the presentation that she's made. Councilmember Laine. Councilmember duchen, I'll get you next. >> Thank you so much. So many very helpful slides in this presentation. I just I just have one question. To many, it is no mystery that I am skeptical of a bond coming so soon. But there is one area that I recently came to mind, and I'd love to know if it's been part of the mix of the discussions. >> Please don't say speed humps. >> I know. [12:17:22 PM] >> I'm teasing. I'm teasing. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt. >> Thank goodness. Right. You haven't heard me in mobility committee. I know you're glad. Okay. But back to being focused here. Have has there been any discussion of structuring a small bond that would be economic development focused, a jump start to the new type of focus that I hope that our city, I believe that our city is bringing to those areas. And certainly given the capacity for revenue generation, might be palatable to the public, I don't know if that's in the mix right now. >> So and if my colleagues might want to add in on this, there amongst the task force, the conversation from city staff has largely been around like needs, infrastructure needs, facility needs to support our our various existing projects and things like that. There's definitely been some conversation about economic development driven. Some of that has come from external folks. But also [12:18:22 PM] there's definitely been conversation internally. As you may recall, I've when we've had various conversations on other projects, I've noted that certificates of obligation non-waterproof debt, you're prohibited from using that for economic development purposes. Voter approved debt opens the door for other utilization scenarios. So that's there are definitely other cities in the state that have incorporated funds for those types of purposes in their programs. >> Okay. I'd like to respond to that. I can see that you also would like to add some more. I think that whether or not that comes to pass as a specific focus, including in the rating and ranking metrics, the extent to which it has this economic development benefit and perhaps considering it being an unusual feature of bond funding to not include some positive economic impact in that way. It's just a [12:19:23 PM] thought. >> Yeah. Eric bailly, deputy director of capital delivery services, pleasure to be here. Specifically, a solely economic development impact bond project is not or has not been considered. I think that would be something that would come through the bond election task force. That would probably be the best place to develop the considerations on that front. >> One thing, one other thing I would add, and this is where doctor Johnson comes into the mix as we're having significant conversations about how do we address our long term needs in terms of, of value on the ground that can support overall city service needs? I think that's something as part of the economic development strategy, that he and his team have been working very hard to develop that something that you would want to incorporate into the mix. So it's not just there's funds to use for things, it's funds to use for things that directly relate to this strategy, these goals, these [12:20:25 PM] objectives. >> So good. >> Thank you. Very helpful context. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen. >> Mayor. And thank you, Kim, for this very detailed cip update presentation. Three very quick questions. One, just confirming my math that based on what you just shared, the average family would experience roughly 105 $110 increase in their tax bill. If we went to the max recommendation that you shared, and that's on top of the 165, that would be added to as we build up to 2030, is that roughly correct? >> So you're looking if we were to do $1 billion, is that what you're asking? >> I'm sorry. The 750 million that you recommended okay. >> Six. Yes. For the F by fy 30, you're you're looking at roughly 105, 108 bucks additional for the debt service portion of the tax bill. Yes. [12:21:26 PM] >> On top of the increase that's already coming, essentially correct. Okay. Second question. You mentioned that the two year Marc shifted since you first did the analysis in 2022, so that the original target for 2026 has been pushed back. What is the current projection for our two year target of authorized and issued? >> So at this point, if you look at slide ten, can we pull the up. Oh, I was clicking to sorry. If you look at slide ten, we we kind of hit our peak around 2029, 2030 with our current debt obligations and authorized but unissued. So you really you're looking at more like a 27, 28 where you get that to that two year authorized but unissued point [12:22:27 PM] audit. >> Okay. And then the last question is, when you did the city analysis, were there any takeaways that you were able to glean for how long it was taking other cities to spend down their bonds, especially for the categories that seem to have taken longer for us, like mobility improvements. >> We've not done that kind of analysis. It's there's in order to maintain an apples to apples comparison, you're limited on the different metrics that allow for that. Since each city is going to be a little bit different in their strategy around what kind of projects they're funding with bond programs at any given time, it's a little bit harder to do that analysis. But there are if you just look at geo debt in general, it is there's there's ability to do comparison there of of what how you're impacting the, the, the tax bill of those of those residents. So for us [12:23:28 PM] to do to dig down into what kind of outstanding debt exists amongst those other cities, that would take a little bit of time for us to to pull that information together. >> But I'll follow up to see what maybe realistic there. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember followed by councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you very much. I'm just going to go in order of the slides here on slide number five. I was just curious for the affordable housing bond 2022 affordable housing bond, the $187 million that is marked as balance is any of that. Does that include commercial paper that we're floating? So it really has kind of already been or is that the encumbrance piece? >> No. So we don't utilize commercial paper for our, our affordable housing. But so that 187 million is is split amongst its the different program programs or categories that affordable housing uses for homeownership rental assistance, things like that. So I can I [12:24:30 PM] can pull that information up pretty quickly on the fly. But they if if you're looking at that 2022, even though it was an off cycle bond issuance, if you look at that with a six year delivery time frame as well, they're actually at a good spot. They're at about halfway in that six year period, and there's about half the balance remains. So they are they're definitely very careful about managing their funds to be spread out over a number of years. >> And that brings me to a point that I was going to talk to you about or ask about later, but understanding that there are different, different types of projects spend their money very differently, right? Like an affordable housing project. We write a check and it's out the door, right? When we buy land, we write a check and it's out the door. Those we have not had issues with spending the money over the proper timeline. The question is really or the issue has been on really the mobility projects. Some of the drainage projects is that. >> Yeah, the largest amount beyond your the affordable [12:25:31 PM] housing dollars, the largest amount of remaining funds is associated with transportation projects. And there's a lot of different there's not a one size fits all kind of answer as to why some have and haven't moved forward at the same pace. They're some of them are very complicated projects, so I don't want to suggest that it's just a we just haven't gotten it done. But they also have received a significant amount of funding from the 2016 and the 2020 off cycle. Programs like that is over $1 billion. So just those two transportation mobility related propositions were the equivalent of what you might see in a comprehensive bond program. >> And I think that that ability and where we find ourselves today and how the money is spent and being spent, is a really important piece of when we get to the decision TRE topic of, you know, this two year authorized but an issue conversation, making sure that we don't have a single department that is holding up [12:26:33 PM] the needs of other departments. Right? If one department gets so backlogged for one reason or another that we don't so tightly hamstring our ability to move forward because of one issue or another to spend those bond dollars on that slide. I was also curious just to follow up with us, can you get us? I know for the various in the balance category, while it's it hasn't been spent, the departments have those dollars kind of earmarked for various projects. Could you just send us what those are? And that might be a delivery services question, but so we can get a sense of what is left to be done within the open balance of our bonds. >> We can absolutely. And we'll share that. And there's also there's options for the public to be able to dig into that from some various sites that we have. So we'll make sure to share that. >> And of course, within that, the 2012 and 2006, obviously very small amounts, but I can't [12:27:35 PM] imagine those are ever going to come to fruition. So I'd be curious to know what kind of repurposing is available, if at all. You know, $14 million, but not nothing. You could do real things with $14 million. >> Speed up. >> That's right. That's a lot of speed humps. I'm flipping along here. Sorry. My notes. I was also curious if you could get us information. Your the 5%. Borrowing rate. Could you just get us like what our issuance have looked like over the past 5 or 10 years? To understand how conservative you are being in in that number, because that obviously has a huge impact over 20 years. >> We could definitely get that. It's it's in the four. Like on if you're looking on average fours like 4% range. But it's [12:28:37 PM] especially on these days like the markets. >> I know it's. >> A it is a Vegas nightmare. So we have to just be very careful. >> Oh for sure I know the bond market is not acting as it has historically, so we have to be very considerate of that. And same question for assessed valuation growth. Right. We have I know seen lots of swings. But if you could help us understand where 3% kind of falls in to maybe the last ten years, that would be helpful. >> To do that. Yeah. And that 3% is also in conjunction with how budget organizational excellence as they do their forecasting, we want to maintain consistency with the same that assumption. So they utilize the 3% as well. >> Okay. And then moving along to slide number 21. And when we start talking about the credit rating considerations and even the debt per capita conversation with slide 22, I don't want it to be written [12:29:37 PM] about or somehow characterized like we are so far and above our peers. We are we do have a lot of debt, but we also have value that Dallas and San Antonio and El Paso don't have, you know, our commercial tax base is quite significant. And and we don't pay debt per capita. We pay debt per value of your property. And so to say that we are so much higher than Fort Worth, for instance. Well, Fort Worth doesn't have near the tax base we have. And so it's just a very different conversation to be had. And I hate that. That's one of the things that S&P uses because it doesn't make sense. But I get it. That's that's way out of our control. I am curious though as you have provided the assessment scores, were you that that is accounting for [12:30:38 PM] your projections of that 3% value growth or is that a static okay. >> Yes. Those are yes. The same assumptions slide components apply here as well. >> And what are your population projection increases because if we're talking a per capita then we're going to have to assume some growth or none. >> Let me see if I have that on hand. I might have to. >> You can follow up. That's fine. >> Follow up with you on that one because that's something that I know there's always significant conversation about that to make sure that we're not getting ahead of ourselves. So yeah, I'll have to get back to you on that one. >> So for the annual liability as a percent of revenues, when we talk about revenue, that's property taxes, right? Or do we consider non property tax revenues as well. >> That's everything. >> That's everything. >> All revenue. >> And reading this just for I know it's on the page but just for abundance of clarity. No matter whether we do nothing or we go all the way to a billion, [12:31:40 PM] our annual liability as a percent of revenue will stay in the same category. We will move in that category, but it will stay within the same category. Correct? Okay. We're almost finished here. Just make sure. The last question I have and is related to kind of some of your recommendations here, whether we go forward or we do some kind of delay or a skinnying down, I want to understand the if we have 750, as you've put forward the recommendation here today to in debt capacity, put aside our ability to deliver projects. If we wanted to say we we were going to design a four year bond program and let the mobility projects catch up or, you know, let some of the others and have it focused on maybe everything but mobility or just a little bit of mobility that like the [12:32:41 PM] sidewalks that we've proven, we can spend that $750 million, would that still be the same amount available? It's just the calendar with which we issue it. I'll just I'll stop the question there. >> If you're if you're still looking at the same dollar amount, but you're adjusting the time allowed for the to program to be delivered, you're either just you're you'll still have the same kind of financial effects on the typical taxpayer. It just kind of slightly shrinks it or extends it depending on which way you go. If you go four years, it just compresses it, but you're still going to have generally that same kind of impact. >> And so you wouldn't have you wouldn't say just because we're cutting it a third year, we're down to 500 in capacity. We're still at that. It's just it's it's the delivery aspect is what we have started talking about. And then the calendar with which we issue that debt. >> It wouldn't it wouldn't change largely. It would not change that much. I there were slight adjustments. But again, [12:33:44 PM] like when we're doing the modeling, if we're if we when we look at it from a six year perspective, we, we spread those issuances out over that six year period accordingly. Kind of. There's just that nice little bell curve that usually occurs for the spending. So it's just kind of just shifting it a little bit one way or the other. >> Okay. The last comment I'll make, I think it's adjacent to this. But as we have the bond conversation, the financial policy that we have around the two years authorized, but an issued it's it's not ultra clear in the actual financial policy as you as you read it. Is it two years of our ability to deliver those projects? Is it two years that it means, you know, a certain percentage of like, you know, a third? I just think we could do a little tweaking to that financial policy to to make that a little more clear. >> If I might comment on that. I don't disagree with that, [12:34:45 PM] because, as you've pointed out, and some others I think have have raised the issue of you say it's a six year program, clearly that six year program has been violated over time. Several people have questions I think have had questions about, well, the two year factor. But but does that is that programmatic? Does that make sense if intuitively that makes sense if it's programmatic. But as you point out, you don't want one department to hamstring the whole program. There needs to be some clarity because it's not about the specific projects, it's about the whole program. And so it does hamstring the whole program. If, as she's pointed out, you have a 2016 off year election, you have a 2020 off year election, and you add all that money to transportation. I mean, I remember people talking about this is the biggest in [12:35:46 PM] the history of the city. Well, great, I guess, but now what it's doing is it's hamstringing other parts of the program, if we're going to be disciplined and follow the city policy, you have to. I mean, it requires some discipline. So now we're stuck with I can't remember what slide it is, but with that mountain that's still going up, go back a couple that look at that. So so we're not to the top of the mountain yet. And so when we talk about the two year and the six year yeah it hamstrings the whole program. But the reason it hamstrings the whole program is you have to follow those policies. Because when you don't follow those policies, it hamstrings the whole program. And, and and you know, as she's pointed out, we don't get to the top of the mountain until 2030. And then we start coming down on. So [12:36:47 PM] clarity might need to be there, but it also requires us in in asking the questions we're going to be asking. And, you know, we're probably not going to get to the full discussion of the decision TRE today, but that's why that's in that. That's why that is clearly in that decision TRE. And it is saying to us, we're going to ask this publicly and we're going to ask it transparently, so the public can have confidence that we're going to follow our own policy so we don't end up hamstringing the whole program. So thanks for letting me piggyback. Councilmember Fuentes. Let me before before she starts speaking, let me just say that this meeting has gone longer than what we intended. And so what I'm going to recommend we do because of people I know having to go to other places is is what we'll do is we will finish this item. We're N objection, what we'll do is we'll finish this item. And then I'm going to work on coming up with [12:37:48 PM] another date for a special called meeting of the committee, so that we can bring up the decision TRE. And that will also allow, I think, because I will say, based upon just my feeling that people kind of woke up to the decision TRE this week, and this will give everybody a little bit more time to to think about it. And we can have a more thorough discussion than what I think will be able to have if we start at 1245 today. So with that, councilmember Fuentes, thanks for letting me interrupt and I'll call on you. >> Very good. >> If we can put up slide ten back on the screen, please. I just wanted to drill down on understanding the change in recommendation date, or I guess, providing it as an option for us to consider the bond program at a later time, given the increase on our debt issuances over the next 3 or 4 years. Miss Olivares, you know, originally staff had recommended 26 as the target date. Now it's changed a couple of years. Can you speak to what [12:38:50 PM] impacted that? What? What to what extent specifically did the I-35 foundational beam structure impact? I know that was one of the big certificate of obligation debts that we took on. We also purchased the new public safety headquarters. We had a couple of big purchases these last year and a half. Were those the reason why your recommendation of a later bond date is now included? >> It's a combination of progress on existing bond program projects. Some panned out, some did not. So it's combination of both voter approved bonds as well as those certificates of obligation for other needs. So it's not all because of of one particular project or thing, but it's it's a combination of those items. >> But it was primarily because our debt I mean, there's I guess a delay in our delay in our debt issuances. >> So when we're when we look at our debt issuances, it's based on the spending plan. So [12:39:51 PM] we authorize the debt and the appropriation to utilize those funds on a project. But we do not issue the debt until it's a lag. It's basically when your lag. So if a project has a delay in spending, well, last year or the year before, we thought that the all these projects were going to be spent down within two years. But various things have happened to delay their progress, then that shifts their spending out and we shift our debt modeling accordingly. We don't keep our debt modeling static. We make sure we're still we're staying in alignment with those spending plans. >> I guess I'm just trying to get a better sense of because, you know, as we look, we vision out the city over the next 2 or 3 years as we have opportunities to acquire land properties or, you know, I know there's conversation before council around continuing funding I-35, cap and stitch. I want to know to what extent do those authorizations of those [12:40:52 PM] big ticket infrastructure projects impact our ability to go out for bigger bond programs? >> They most definitely do impact it. If, I mean, when we redid our original recommendation of 750 a year or so ago, then there was the the vote on the cap and stitch, the vertical infrastructure. And so and our message was, well, that that reduces that 750 down accordingly. And since then, as we've updated our analysis, we're actually back to that 750 amount. So so there's that. So but that was if I recall 60 some million dollars in for that particular project. So you just each project has its unique facets from a spending perspective, from a just a timing perspective. I would also recommend or that when we look at those kind of projects, we also consider a context of what they may help us achieve. [12:41:53 PM] So for example, certain acquisitions may help us create other opportunities from a monetization or whatever perspective. So every it's the apples to apples comparison is challenging amongst all of the the the expenditures, the project types, but not impossible. >> And thank you. I just want to underscore the comment that you made that while us authorizing the the vertical beam structures for the I-35 captain stitch program staff's recommendation is still at the $750 million max for a 2026 potential bond package. So I think that's a really important consideration for us to to acknowledge and to share out. The other question I have is on the credit rating consideration on slide 21. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. So our because we went from the debt per capita, the assessment score associated with the debt per capita is that currently at a [12:42:53 PM] three. But even without a bond election, we would go up to a four for next year. Is that right? >> Okay. >> Yes. Well that so those numbers are looking at the peak level so that that 2030 20, 31 time frame. Because each of those. Like next year we would with our current stuff, we would probably be more still likely in the three. But if we look at our entire authorized but unissued total, then that peaks around that 2030 time frame. So that's why you that's what we've used for the time frame consideration of these various categories. >> Okay. >> And last question on my end is just on the mobility bond, you know, acknowledging that we still have 400 million authorized but unissued mobility bond related funds. From my understanding, there's still components within the mobility bond issue areas. For example, on trails, on sidewalk [12:43:54 PM] maintenance and the safe routes to school program, that those dollars have been completely expended at this point. And so with that, just knowing that that is the case, you know, I do. Well, I know mobility bond holds the largest amount of our debt right now that hasn't been issued. There are still needs within mobility that I think are worthy of consideration. And we'll just have to talk through that as we move forward. Thank you. >> And if I may, before we leave this topic, going back to slide ten, I did just want to provide clarity for the committee members and community members. These projections right here do include related cap and stitch. The $63 million, I believe, of certificates of obligation related to the roadway elements, the vertical infrastructure. It's that 63 million of certificates plus a $41 million state infrastructure bank loan that gets us to the 104 million it. [12:44:55 PM] There's nothing in this graphic right now that reflects general obligation bonds related to the caps themselves, or the amenities that would go on to the caps. We're still working through financing options on that philanthropy possibilities, federal grants, other financing options. But to the extent building the caps and the amenities on the caps does require voter approved bonds, you know, this this chart would change accordingly. >> Thank you. All right. I promise I'll just have a couple quick questions because most of my questions have been asked. But I want to stick on ten for just a second. And I think I know the answer, but I want to I want to make sure that we ask the question, what happens? What happens to the fiscal impact of the typical homeowner in 2031, if that? If we get to the top of that mountain and we start sliding down. >> If, well. >> If we do nothing else. >> If you do nothing else. So [12:45:56 PM] the right now, the, the 20 that 2030 impact with just our current Abu gets you up to about $614 by fy 30. And then if assuming we never issue debt again, then it would start to slide down from there. >> But my point, my point being that that when we get to the top of the mountain, that's when you can stop adding the numbers of what we're doing to the typical homeowners taxes. >> If we. If we add additional debt, no, it would still, I'm not sure I'm answering. Understand your question correctly. >> I'm sorry. Well, I'm just saying that if if we compared if we overlaid that on to the typical homeowners taxes and we did nothing more, part of what that shows us is when taxes would start decreasing for the homeowner if we weren't issuing more debt. [12:46:56 PM] >> Correct. >> Right. The second question I've got then goes to that that question of the cost, because I want it to be I want to make sure that and when we all understand this, but I want as we're looking at how we go about this, the the change for the typical homeowner that you show on slide 14, I guess it is. And that is just current and we don't issue we current and the approved but not issued. Those taxes go up if we don't do anything at all. >> Correct. >> So. Okay. And then on repurposing, I've asked this question before and I want to ask it again is are we doing that. Are we looking to see where we can repurpose. So for example, where you and I have had conversations where we have [12:47:56 PM] an area that needs sidewalks, an area that needs speed humps. And I heard today we don't have any more money on speed humps, but are there other aspects to the program, the past, that can be repurposed in such a way that while they weren't necessarily for this specific project, they fall broadly in the category because as some of those bond elections were, they were just we're going to put X number of dollars into something. And there wasn't the specificity. Or have we done that exercise? >> So when we do any of our programs, the the ballot language is such to be more programmatic based as opposed to name projects. Right. The reason behind that is so that you're able to make those kinds of adjustments, you can do those reallocations if you have a project that has ends up not costing as much as we thought it would, then the savings there can be reallocated to other projects within that same kind of category. So it gives you some flexibility to do that. [12:48:58 PM] What we've seen in the more recent bond programs was also this contract with a voter concept that tied, that created much more specificity around very specific dollar amounts to specific projects that ties your hands. So if. >> You not only were they one offs, then their hands got tied. In addition to that. >> It's it's dedicated to that project. >> So so it creates challenges. Not only do we have the mountain we have to climb, but we're told a specific trail. Okay, well members, you got anything else before council member duchen? We've been looking at graphs and so we haven't been able to see you. Do you have anything that you want to add or we covered? We got your questions right. >> My questions. Thanks for checking in though. >> Sure thing. Good deal. All right. With that being said, members, I'll I'll send out notice of some form about potential dates so that we can go over the decision TRE, because while we're not under a gun right now to get that done, [12:50:00 PM] I do want us to to be thinking about that so that the public will know and have confidence that we're looking at the right questions and trying to approach that in the right way. So with that being said, unless there's any further business anybody wants to bring up that's posted, I'll we will without objection, we will adjourn at 12:50 P.M. So the Austin audit and finance committee at the Austin city council is adjourned at 12:50 P.M. Thanks, everybody. Good meeting.