City Council Work Session Transcript – 5/26/2026 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 5/26/2026 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 5/26/2026 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. [9:00:09 AM] Council members it's 9:00 on may 26th, 2026, and I will call to order this city council work session. We have a quorum of the city council president, and we are meeting in the city council chambers located in city hall at 301 west second street in Austin, Texas. This is a work session, and what I thought we would do is we will just go straight through the items in the order that they are on the agenda. So we will first take up the pre-selected items and talk about the I 35 cap and stitch program. Then we'll go to briefings. We have two briefings today. One is a consideration and development of the 2027 state and federal legislative priorities. And the second one is looking at community engagement and cost assessment for renaming Cesar Chavez street in Austin, Texas. So unless there's questions or objections, we'll just go straight into the pre-selected agenda item. Members, I pulled this item because we have it on [9:01:10 AM] on the agenda for Thursday, and it's an item that I brought forward really, because as we get right down to the lick log or whatever is the phrase somebody wants to use about having to start spending money, some additional money, with regard to deadlines that we have on the cap and stitch program, there were really two goals. One is based upon what I'd been hearing from the community and frankly, based upon how well this council works together. And this item had quite a bit of division on it. I wanted to look to see if I could lay out something that would get us to a good result that might be different than what we originally had talked about. And frankly, part of the impetus for that was that there's been some change. There's been some change since over a year ago when we made those decisions, and including the TRE election and other things. And I thought we ought to take a moment to look at that. So what I would like to [9:02:12 AM] do is I've got a couple of questions. I want to tee this up and ask a couple of questions of I, I guess the assistant city manager, Rogers and maybe txdot. And then we'll open it up for additional questions if people have other questions. Thank you sir. Would you remind us about the upcoming deadlines that we have in order to make decisions related to the cap and stitch program? >> Thank you. Mayor. We have right now, we're at a point where we need to sign advance funding agreement with the with txdot. And June is the time frame in which we are are looking to sign that advance funding agreement. >> And tell me what the advance funding agreement does. >> Advance funding agreement is, is the agreement in which we will pay for the future [9:03:14 AM] proofing. So based on the resolution that that took place, I believe, in 2025 to future proof all the locations we have to now basically sign the financing agreement that's associated with the future proofing. >> Okay. You know, I screwed up, which by the way, that's the only time you'll hear me say that today. I screwed up and should have had speakers. So if you don't mind, let's let's stand down. And why don't you call the speakers? I apologize, council, I just moving forward. Yeah yeah. Very excited. Always at work sessions. >> Mayor we have one remote speaker for item a 60. Andrew clements. >> Hello, this is Andrew clements. I thank you for the opportunity to come before you again today on this issue. [9:04:15 AM] Doesn't seem that long ago that the proponents of the caps were before you. And we worked hammered out the agreement in one day, which was heartening. And I want to come before you and say the same arguments hold today. I hope you don't claw back. The. It's not a small amount of money, and I understand the budget tensions, but the amount that would be necessary to future proof. So we ensured the ability to build a cap someday is still worthwhile, and the strongest argument that can be made is that especially the northern cap, which is probably the one that seems to be on the chopping block, is offers the strongest argument for recapture from surrounding development, especially with the rail station. So I would I [9:05:15 AM] would ask you to, to not revisit reducing what was achieved that day in the resolution that did future proof for the building of the caps in the future. And and re realize that they're going to pay for themselves, especially the northern cap with the redevelopment potential around that cap. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And we have two in-person speakers for item a 60, Tom Wald and Fred Richardson. >> You'll come forward, grab a microphone. >> Please state your name for the record. >> Hi. I need to yeah, yeah. >> Hi. My name is Tom Wald. I'm the executive director of the red line parkway initiative, and I'm here to speak to encourage you to keep the [9:06:15 AM] initial investment of 104 million for all the caps and stitches that have been dedicated so far. I think there's gonna be other speakers or other letters and other other stakeholders who will speak on other ones, but I especially want to speak for the red line parkway stitches and cap. We're it's hard, I think, for for anyone, let alone a planning professional, to project out an entire 36 mile corridor of a new greenway. And really our one and only chance for a greenway stretching across the city from downtown to the north for that length. And so when we saw this opportunity, we had to take advantage of it. But understanding that it's hard to make investments that are several years out, possibly 20 years out. So I would encourage you all to support, as I said, all the initial investments, but the red line parkway stitches will see thousands of users per day based on the the density that exists, whether it's downtown eastside or [9:07:17 AM] future density. As it develops at the Leif Johnson Ford site. Other places dellwood center, the Hancock station, Hancock center expecting to see a baseline of 3000 users per day, possibly up to 10,000 as the example in Atlanta. With the beltline there, we need to treat people well, and this is the way we do it, by creating an experience that treats them with respect. Shields them from the highway below. Encourage you to keep the investments. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Fred Richardson. Okay. >> Mayor, that concludes all speakers. >> Great. Thank you. And again, I apologize to the speakers that I jumped ahead. I want to ask about. So one of one of the things that's in this proposal was trying to get something more immediate, if you will, so [9:08:17 AM] that current taxpayers are going to bear a burden with regard to all this in terms of payments. And that happens anytime we have something that we're making investments in. And I get that, but something where we might have the ability for them to get a benefit at the time the road project is completed, as opposed to having to wait for sometime in the future. As was just pointed out by Mr. Wald. So, Mr. Rogers, can you explain why the. And if we need to get txdot up here, we'll do that. Why the 160 foot cap that's part of this proposal can be fully built today within that within that area versus any of the areas that were adopted by the council back in may of 2025. >> Thank you. Mayor. So just to reiterate, you said why the 100 and what the 160 foot cap can be built today, right, with the with the funds that we've [9:09:18 AM] committed already, if we were to somewhat scale that down a bit, not only could you future proof this particular area at at palm park, but you could also build the cap. You could actually build something on top of that. And there are different various examples of, of things that have been built on caps around that size throughout the country, but with the, with the smaller amount, you could actually not only future proof, but actually build something. And that would be completed when the I-35 capex project would be completed. >> And that one is different than the previous caps that were that we that the council voted to future proof back in may of 2025 in the as I understand it, in the sense that it actually goes over the frontage roads and would create [9:10:20 AM] a complete land bridge as opposed to just being a cap over the sunken lanes. >> That that is correct. So it would be a complete connection all the way across the freeway and the frontage roads. Prior you had boulevards that were in in those particular areas, but this would be a cap that could be a complete integration of east to west. >> And it would tie into palm park and then the Waterloo greenway. >> That is correct. Yes. >> You mentioned that. Amenities. There's been some suggestion that 160 foot cap, like what we're talking about couldn't have amenities. Can you talk more about that? >> Sure, sure. Our staff has looked at various examples throughout the country, and we've seen a few examples in Columbus, Ohio, where they've they've put a one story [9:11:20 AM] facilities on top of the caps or, or the stitch. We've also seen elevated green space within those areas. I believe the the staff may even have some pictures of if if folks want to, to be able to see that I wears our team. But there has been examples of, of different things that can be done on the smaller caps. >> While they're doing that, because I don't want to cost time. Talk about sound, sound, because it's also been suggested that that this would not minimize sound. That 160ft is not big enough to to minimize sound. Can one of you comment on that? >> I I'll refer to txdot on that one. >> Good morning, mayor tucker Ferguson, Austin district engineer for txdot. The sound will be minimized basically throughout this entire quarter. [9:12:21 AM] By lowering the highway, much of the sound will be be impeded, but with a 160 foot lid on top of that lowered highway, there would be some sound mitigation along with that. But by virtue of lowering the entire highway through the downtown core will achieve some sound mitigation through throughout. >> Is there any industry standard about how big you'd want that cap or lid to be to address environmental and and sound? >> It's all scalable based on the length of it. What I will say is the, the 160 foot cap is still under the threshold. That would require jet fans, which really adds to the cost. So any any adjustment of what's been being proposed, as long as it remains under a total length of 800ft, would not require jet fans, which brings the profile up and does save cost on on the construction of it. >> With regard to financing. [9:13:22 AM] You have slides there. >> They are coming up. Okay. >> With regard to financing of this. The total cost of the proposal that's in front of us right now is, is the is $41 for the 160. I'm sorry. My good friend Jeffrey Bowen is going to call me out on that, won't he? $41 million. Otherwise I'd just pay for this thing, $41 million. And the $41 million would get us roughly with, I think it's 41.3. And then to future proof, 11th and 12th streets. That would. How much would that be? >> The future proofing for 11th and 12th is about $8.5 million, which would be the only. The foundation elements. >> So at around 50 million. And currently we've got $104 million obligation. So that [9:14:22 AM] would that would save us around $50 million if we did just those two things. >> That is correct. >> Do you have something you want to show us, mister Rogers? >> Yeah. Do we have do we have the video yet? Do we have the images? Okay. So we're still okay. Well, then. >> We may. Members, I'm going to stop asking questions for right now. But let me tell you what the proposal, the thought process was. And this is a decision. I mean, it's obviously a decision that we've we we have to make. And we're making it at a time when we've got other big decisions to make when it comes to money. But a key part of it was to give the taxpayers something. Now, if we could, I want I worked with txdot, and I want to say thank you to txdot, by the way, for. And also Mike Rogers and his team, I want to we worked very [9:15:23 AM] hard to try to make sure that any investment we made got enhanced, and by that, that's what we did with the 160 foot cap is we wanted to enhance it by putting it, tying it to something that already exists, Waterloo greenway. So it ends up basically being more than just 160 foot cap. It's tied into the parkland and creates that bridge. Some have referred to that cap as just a stitch, but at 160ft, it is five times what the stitches are a little over five times what the stitches are, the 30 foot stitches that we'll see on both sides of the east west roadways, and it's four times the size of the Pfluger pedestrian bridge at its widest point, where it crosses lady bird lake. Additionally, because of listening to the community and by the way, for decades, me [9:16:25 AM] trying to also do something that would tie this community back together, I, we looked at trying to do it where you would have the greatest potential historical significance. And that palm park is obviously part of that. Tying the Mexican American cultural pathway that has been dedicated. The 11th and 12th street cap. I will just tell you, that's the. That's where I had the most heard, the most passionate pleas that we do something to tie the community together. And then finally, it was a consideration of the money situation. And that's going to be a recurring theme. I think, this this week. And as we get into the budget process where we have a lack of funds and we have very serious immediate needs, just in the last two weeks, we've had another item come up, and that's the settlement of the yogurt shop case, $35 million item that's going to require us to borrow money to in order to be able to do that. So I wanted to create [9:17:27 AM] an opportunity, at least for us to have another discussion about this before we have to sign these long term contracts and agreements. So with that, why don't you show us what you've got, and then we'll go to other folks that want to talk? >> Sure, sure. Staff is is really looked at a lot of the other areas throughout the country that have similar sized caps or stitches. And we found that Columbus, Ohio, is, is a city that has multiple caps along its freeways. And here was an example of long street bridge and some of the things that they were able to do. And this is this is an example of hundred. And I believe this is 170, 170ft and which they've added a lot of cultural amenities along the way. Green space, bike lanes over I 71 and [9:18:31 AM] here's another example. Actually, it's 150ft from edge to edge with a lot of other amenities that are there. And these are in existence today. Here's another location that we were able to to find also in Columbus, Ohio, that is also around. This is 170ft across here, which actually has structures on one, one, one level structures, which we basically have the ability to put a one story structure on our facilities as well. So there's a couple of examples here of, of different things that have been done throughout the country, one with the structure on top of it and another one without a structure, both in Ohio. >> Great. Thank you. All right. I'm going to mayor pro tem. I'm you've punched your button. [9:19:32 AM] >> We are calling this a cap. And right away I just have a real problem with that because you talked about the 800 foot length and the jet fans, the caps that we were discussing before, all of those were more than 800ft lengths in length. Mr. Tucker, the. >> The action that council took last year to future proof, the 104 million that we're talking about in this vicinity between Cesar Chavez and it would have gone to seventh street, which is, well. Potentially potentially, which is well over 800ft. And even Cesar Chavez to fourth street is over 800, which would require a lower profile. And being a tunnel defined as a tunnel, would need those jet fans in lower profile. And the fire life safety systems. >> You know, and council had looked at the possibility of stitches specifically on Woodward, end up on 51st street. There was some discussion, and [9:20:33 AM] I'll stick to 51st street right now because that's in in my district, the one on 51st street would have built basically kind of again, I guess I would call it a stitch. That's what we called it during this entire time. And I think it's important to be clear and careful about the terms that we use and not mislead the public. The how big was that 51st street stitch? >> We'd have to look that up, mayor pro tem, but it was it was probably, I'd say less than 300ft because we've sort of made cap and stitch 300ft. But that's, that's the the labels we put on them 300 less 300 has been. >> In other words, less than 300 would be a stitch. Typically, we're calling less than 300ft a stitch. And anything that would be larger, we're going to call it a cap. Again, I know that these are not scientifically defined terms, but I just want to be consistent with the language that we have used in the past to discuss this with the public, that if I if I remember correctly and I'm sorry, I couldn't quite find the old presentations, but I believe that 51st street stitch was [9:21:35 AM] over two acres. I think it was in the two and a half acre or so. Do you remember. >> Again, I'd have to go back and look at those documents. >> And at the time we decided as a council, and again, this is in my district, and I went back to my constituents to talk about this. And essentially I was, you know, what do you all think about this was the question. And there was almost universal feeling that there was not really a lot of utility to be gained from putting a stitch at that particular location. And then there was the Woodward street crossing, which again, if, if, if I remember that being a little under two acres and the one point probably about the size of this stitch, what's the acreage of the proposed stitch here? >> You have that on your graph. >> This is. 1.21. Yeah. 1.1. [9:22:39 AM] >> 1.11 acre acres. I mean, from my discussion with parks about various projects that they have anything under two acres, they consider it a, a pocket park, which is kind of a smaller park, again, not in and of itself useless. You know, just because it's small doesn't mean it, it has no use, but of, of limited, you know, there's only so much you can do with a 1.1 acre park and what kind of buildings would be possible at with a 1.1 acre park, it's about a 160ft across, right? >> Correct. >> I mean, what, what would we even envision as going there? >> Well, looking at the structural capacity, it would need to be limited to about one one story, but the use of that building, I would coordinate that in whatever the city would want. >> This is more than to city staff, what kind of buildings are we even talking about? Because again, this is the first I've ever heard of, of buildings on a very, very small [9:23:39 AM] stitch. >> Right. All right, all right, mayor pro tem. And that's why we wanted to bring examples of some others that are very similarly sized. As you can see, this is a very similar size, about 1.1, 1.2 acres right here. And they've chosen to do these types of structures which are one. One stories. >> Yeah. And if I may, Marc Gilbert with Hyatt brown assisting the city on this project there, there's a few different tenants in what you're looking at here. There's actually three tenants on one side. It's predominantly a steak house. On the other side is also food and beverage split into two. They're fairly narrow, but just like the 1.1 acre cap opportunity in Austin, it is 250ft long. So you do have a lot of the length to work with, even though you have kind of a narrower depth and you wouldn't, unlike the Columbus examples, have vehicular traffic because it would be a closed off kind [9:24:39 AM] of flea market type of opportunity, right? Because you'd have a multi-modal crossing at third street. So you actually can go into the right of way more than you could if it were a two way vehicular street. >> Yeah. The high street crossing, though, that is bookended by a very dynamic urban environment on either side of that stitch. I mean, the reason that it's successful, and again, I think a better parallel for the high street crossing would be putting a stitch on sixth street where, you know, you have a vibrant urban environment. On one side, you have a vibrant urban environment on the other side. And then in between those, you can put a little stitch there to kind of recreate a vibrant urban environment. But here we're talking about a stitch that's going to have a park on one side and then leading into the other side, what would be on the other side. >> So third street is going to go right into the new convention center. It's kind of like the front door on the west side of the convention center [9:25:40 AM] redevelopment. And then on the other side there is a church and there are some small commercial properties, but it is, you know, just behind the whole foods. That's between fifth and fourth street. So there's kind of a natural opportunity to connect there. >> The how far away is this stitch from Cesar Chavez, or how far away would it be from Cesar Chavez? >> As two city blocks? >> And and on the other side, how far away would it be from the red line? >> One, one city block and then one in? >> You know, the other conversation that we had is that stitch. There is what stitches can do is mobility opportunities, particularly in parts of I-35. For example, in my district between 51st street and the, you know, and 290, it's about a mile without a pedestrian and bicycle crossing. And if you go [9:26:43 AM] north from there between 290 and Ramberg, I think it's closer to two miles without any pedestrian or bicycle crossing. I think what stitches can do is create mobility opportunities, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, in areas that lack crossings, that lack mobility type crossings. But given that there's already excellent connectivity in this area, we're going to have Cesar Chavez right there with the enhanced crossings. And Mr. Tucker, could you remind me how big are the the pedestrian and the sidewalks essentially going to be there on Cesar Chavez. >> All of our cross street bridges that we are rebuilding will have a 30 foot space outside the travel lanes. And we're looking at that 30 foot space as being 20 foot buffer with some plantings and landscaping and a ten foot shared use path on either side of the roadway. >> And what about the the red line crossing right there just [9:27:44 AM] north of the of the proposed stitch. >> That does have the same accommodation of the of the 30, the buffer, correct? Yeah. >> So it would have a 30 foot on either side essentially of the of the, the railway there. >> It's just a pedestrian bridge since the train is coming through there. >> Yeah. And I know one of the, the, the purported benefits of the, of the stitch, the proposed stitch is that it would have a direct crossing that you could get from basically west of the highway to east of the highway, and not have to cross any, any of the access roads or anything like that. Doesn't the red line do the same thing? >> The red line will be. So what were the. >> In other words, you're not going to have at grade vehicle crossings. You're. We're solving for that problem at the red line. >> That is correct. We are taking all the the main lanes and the frontage roads under [9:28:45 AM] the red line. So we're eliminating that. Pedestrians will cross where the red line crosses. >> Yeah. And in other words, the pedestrians crossing at the red line will not have to cross the access roads. They'll be going over the access roads. Is that correct? Correct. Again, I understand the desire to spend less money. Again, completely agree. But I think we get to a situation where, you know, you, you you don't want to be a penny wise and pound foolish where we're going to do something to say we did something that actually does not bring any value to the, the, the area that does not bring any additional mobility value, that does not have any economic value. In fact, the Hyatt brown study, I think, was very negative on the economic impacts of really all of these caps. I think you identified the you I please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you [9:29:46 AM] identified the Cesar Chavez as the most the highest return of of all the caps. Was that correct? >> That had that had the benefit of a the federal grant put into the roi. But yes. >> In other words, the roi, even for the full size cap from the Hyatt brown analysis. And again, I disagreed with a lot of that analysis, but let's stick with it for now. The Hyatt brown analysis on that was, was, was negative that it was a negative roi on that. Right. So how much more negative would it be at this point? I mean, because again, the full cap we were talking about, you know, some, some impressive features, you know, a full size, basically kind of four acre ish park, again, right next to the convention center could host major events. There's some underdeveloped properties right around there that that might actually benefit from that. What would be, and again, I'm sure you haven't been able to work up a full analysis, but what would where would the stitch fall into that economic analysis? [9:30:46 AM] >> It's a great question. I have to say that the smaller stitches and caps have a better return on investment, because they have somewhat similar impacts on land values within a quarter to a half a mile radius that you're capturing, you're similarly providing an amenity that's making redevelopment potential of adjacent properties of interest. And you're still not capturing a ton of commercial on site revenue because whether it's a large cap or a small cap, we've looked at that. It's probably only a two story maximum construction. >> And which stitches would return a high return on investment. Which stitch is that you're thinking about? Nationwide would have generated some kind of economic impact. >> They would be ones like capital crossing in Washington DC that built a high rise on top of it, completely privately financed. >> Capital crossing was a unique venture. I mean, I completely agree with that. Capital crossing was very impressive where we they put a cap on the highway, but then they put high rises on the cap. [9:31:47 AM] We are Mr. Rogers, we're not proposing that kind of superstructure where, you know, again, we're talking about the smallest of of buildings that we're proposing on there. >> Mayor pro tem, we are not proposing anything like a high rise. >> And on the contrary, you T again, my understanding from following them, they are proposing caps that will hold, you know, larger again, multi-story ten story or so buildings. Is that my that's my understanding. Is that correct? >> That that is my understanding. >> Yeah. >> I'll is it it's just sorry, just for future proofing. That's all that that. >> That's the UT is doing right now. In other words, they are in a not so different situation than we are where they don't have the money to go kind of all in at this point, but they're wisely deciding to future proof large portions of I-35 right next to the campus. Again, UT is, you know, 100, what, 50 years old, pretty [9:32:47 AM] close to 150 years old. You know, they're thinking decades ahead and they know that they're going to need more room. They know that they have significant investments, right? They're the, you know, the moody center, the the football stadium, the soccer and track and field stadium, the baseball and softball right across the way. There's a lot of opportunity. And they are, I think, very wisely looking to to future proof it. I think that's a great example and a great model for us to follow. I think we did that when we voted to future proof a large portions of I-35 as much as we could. And I just I think going in this direction, I just don't see any significant benefits. I see a very minor mobility gain. I don't see this cap leading to some kind of like large economic development anything like that. Adding to the already pretty robust economic development in the area. And I would just urge [9:33:48 AM] council, again, I know we don't want to spend any more money than we need to. We have so many competing projects. But, you know, we're cutting the what we're spending in half. But what we're getting from this is, I think, virtually zero. >> Thank you. Thank you. Mayor pro tem councilmember Siegel council member Laine. >> Thank you, mayor, I just want. >> To thank you for proposing a solution. >> That would actually deliver a benefit to the community that I would likely see in my lifetime. I mean, to me, that means so much. And when you talk about it being four times as wide as the Pflueger bridge, I mean, that's one of my favorite amenities in the city. And so the idea that we wouldn't be getting anything to me is just not a fair assessment. And the, the opposite potential here, that we would spend over $100 million and not see something that any of us could enjoy. To me is not acceptable. So thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember Laine. >> Thank you mayor. I first want to thank my colleagues. I know we've had a lot of [9:34:48 AM] discussion on how much we should spend and what it should look like before I was on council and since I've been here, and I completely agree with the mayor's assessment that our council works well together. And I think it's important as things develop and change, to have an open conversation about the costs and benefits that each time we do, this is actually a fresh look. If we end up where we started, so be it. I think we'll all get behind it. But I do think it's important we have a new option before us that we haven't looked at previously, and I think we owe it to ourselves and to our city to give give all of the options before us, full consideration. So with that, I wanted to ask Mr. Griffin, have I understood correctly? There will be no on the mayor's proposal that he's worked out with you guys, which I'm a co- sponsor on. Have I understood correctly that we're looking at no vehicles. We're looking at bikes and pedestrians, perhaps some one story buildings and some park [9:35:51 AM] amenities. Anyone? I won't call on people by name. You guys can decide. Okay, okay, so. >> That is that is correct. With the with the smaller stitch that the mayor has looked at, it would be something that that would not necessarily be auto centric. It would be people centric. And so pedestrians also has the potential of a one story structure or continuing to be all green throughout that. But no, it would not be auto centric. >> Okay. That's a great opportunity. I think members to fully bridge the lanes and have a completely protected opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists with a one story building that, as the Columbus example serves, you know, has food and drink. We could have tourist connections there. We [9:36:52 AM] could also have cultural information that relates to the historical importance of bridging the divide. There's a lot of potential there. Yes, these are potentially one story buildings instead of am I remembering correctly that with what we've previously passed, it would be four story buildings that could go on a full cap. Please help me recall. >> It's still predominantly two two story max everywhere. >> Oh, so we could have a much larger cap, but max of two stories versus this is one story. So I would, I would really I would also I am troubled by the characterization that this is not useless. I mean, that's true. It's not useless. It is true. It's limited use. But we're talking about a difference between one story and two story buildings, which in the universe of land development, finding new land that can be used downtown is nothing like the potential of building a high rise, where simply comparing 1 to 2 story. And we would be getting. I [9:37:53 AM] believe I'm looking at the picture here as an example. Tell me if this is accurate. So we would have the potential to put one story on this new proposal, one story on both sides of the crossing. Is that accurate? Plus some green space. >> So actually over the main lanes of the highway, you can still do presumably a two story building even on this stitch, just not over the frontage roads where you'd be limited to one story. >> Wow. So the potential is actually quite similar. And would it be possible to do two stories on both sides? >> Yes. >> Okay. So we have already heard from Mr. Ferguson from txdot that lowering the lanes in itself will provide a lot of sound protection. And then if we think about the impact of, for example, these mid-rise buildings that have gone adjacent to our highways in Austin, and then there are homes behind it, the sound dampening effect of having a is significant as well. So if we were able to do one [9:38:54 AM] story building, 1 to 2 story buildings on both sides of this proposed land bridge that was fully human centric pedestrians and bikes, and it could generate rental income, serve our tourists, serve as a very meaningful connection point. I would say potentially, if you're looking at a two story building, you could even put some cultural exhibits on the second story. So it really becomes an attraction in and of itself that is fully protected from sound noise, highway pollution. Am I giving a realistic description of the potential on this bridge? >> I think so, okay. >> That's very helpful to me. I really appreciate the the picture that's been presented. So members, before I returned to Texas, where I grew up, I [9:39:56 AM] spent many years living in Boston. I lived in Boston before the big dig occurred, and I've been back many times. I still have friends and family that live up there, and I've seen the transformative effect that the big dig has had on the entire part of downtown, where the highway was lowered, but also beyond. And what the big dig is, is a continuous linear park. It does not have any buildings on it. It has recreational amenities, but it is a true connector that goes continuously through downtown. Now, none of the options that I've seen, the money that we're spending doesn't create that opportunity. We haven't dug a tunnel. We are simply building some bridges. And so I want to emphasize that I fully agree that what the options we're looking at can be transformative. But for me, the most important thing is that we are providing substantial [9:40:58 AM] increased connectivity for our people. And yes, we need to generate some revenue so that we can pay for maintenance. There will be some philanthropy, but in the extended time period that we've been discussing these options and that started before I arrived on council. We haven't had any philanthropy step forward. So if we are looking at the city being on the hook for all the cost increases that could potentially happen, which we've well established, it's important to really focus on the return on investment, and I appreciated the way that the mayor laid out the various benefits of these connections. And as Mr. Griffin noted, that the roi tell me if I'm wrong on this, but the roi is better on this proposal than previously because it's less expensive while bringing the similar benefits. Thank you. So I wanted to also ask a couple questions related to the construction timeline, probably [9:42:00 AM] Mr. Ferguson, but y'all feel free to pass the baton however you like on these questions. So just to start with, can you lay out the timeline txdot construction timeline and however that relates to this new option. >> We have our capex central project broken up into about nine different construction projects contracts right now, four of which are currently under construction. Two will go under construction in in early 2027. And then the larger projects into the 2028 2029 timeframe. And that's what we're talking about here, designing these, these features into our construction project. And even though it may not go into construction for 3 or 4 years, our designers are working very hard right now to put these design packages together, which takes about two years. And it's not only designing the the physical features of that. That's actually probably the easiest part of it. But once they [9:43:00 AM] design those, they also put together schedules on how it's going to be built. So all of the activities on the entire project are all intertwined in. The schedules are put together. So our our contractor understands how the sequencing and how all of these different pieces. And with the roadways and the, and the foundations and the bridges and everything that happens work together. In addition to that, they put together traffic control plans for each one of those phases. So all of the elements of these projects are intertwined, which is why it takes so long to design it and, and why they're, it's, it's critical that we get decisions made today or this month so we can complete our design to get ready to go to construction in 2028 and 2029. >> Okay. That was very helpful. So if we were to decide on Thursday to shift to this option, how would that impact txdot? Would that is this an acceptable timeline to make this change? >> It is in that time is now. [9:44:01 AM] So we have been doing designs based on the 104 million that was passed last year for, for lowering the roadway lower than this would be. So we'd have to make some adjustments. We have some redesign we would need to do, but we are at a point where we can do that. But we are coming to the end where any future adjustments could be made, because again, this is a a two year design to incorporate all those elements together to get into our construction package so we could make the adjustment. But we are at the end of that time frame where, where any changes going forward would need would be able to be made. >> Okay, I appreciate that. One of the concerns that I've heard, as we were in the lead up to this meeting, and I share this concern, but your answers already your has already started to answer is ensuring that we maintain a strong, positive relationship with txdot, and that making changes late could be damaging, potentially to the relationship. So what I'm hearing from you, correct me if I'm wrong, is that any decision made this week shifting to this option or maintaining what we've already [9:45:02 AM] voted on would be acceptable. And as long as we continue to work together effectively, not damaging to our relationship with txdot. >> Well, I'm not going to say we're ever going to damage our relationship. We have hard conversations all the time. That's part of of what we do, but we are at a point where to stay on schedule for our project. We need to have some decisions made. And again, we could adjust. We could adjust to this, this new proposal and still maintain our our our schedule. But anything future is going forward. And later in the year or even next year, we just wouldn't be able to do it. We wouldn't be able to incorporate into our project. >> Okay. This next. Thank you so much. This next one might be a question for Mr. Rogers. So if we were to shift to this option, when would be the delivery date of something that looked and if we could put the slide up again, that relates to Columbus and shows those buildings. When would the completion date be for something like this? >> The completion date for the [9:46:05 AM] entire project, starting with 2028 would be. >> Well, we're under construction right now. Yeah. So we'll do future projects that this location will be in the 2029. We would bid it in 2028 2029 time frame. That's when construction for the overall project would start again. This would be an element intertwined with all the other construction activities. Total completion of the entire project, where this would be available would be about 2033, 2034. >> Okay. And then that's great. So this definitely is something that could be delivered not just in our lifetimes, but in the short to medium term. And we this is very helpful. Thank you for letting this out. I think that I may be at the end of my questions. I guess the only other thing is I know that whatever the city decides to do, whether it's what's previously been voted on or this now, there will come a year when there will begin a ten year [9:47:06 AM] moratorium on any further construction. So if we were to move forward and build structural elements without caps, because we don't have the funding for the caps, when would that ten year moratorium begin? >> We would start that ten year moratorium when we complete the project. And really, the reason for that is this will be difficult construction with or without any caps or stitches. It I-35 construction is going to be disruptive. We don't want to finish that up, get the benefit of the new highway system and how it's operating, and then go right back into construction. So we would like to see that exist and operate for about ten years before we would start to put those lids on top. >> Yes. And I would say we talk about benefits to our community. I completely agree, no matter what we pass, having ten years without construction on this stretch of I-35 will be welcomed by everyone. So I think that's a great plan. And I do think that this really comes down to, are we going to deliver something that we ourselves can enjoy, or are we [9:48:08 AM] going to build structural elements with no delivery, potentially until long after those of us here have all retired? Will we get more complete access for people without the intrusion of vehicles? This plan looks like that accomplishes that to me. Are there things that are different from what we've already passed? Yes, and I look forward to hearing the other questions from my colleagues to hear more about that. Thank you so much for everything you've shared so far. >> Thank you, councilmember, councilmember alter, councilmember duchen. Councilmember qadri. >> Thank you very much. I, I want to go back and I forgive me you. You said it already, but I, I was taking notes. What did you say was on the cap in Columbus? I think you mentioned a steakhouse. >> Yeah, it's pretty much entirely food and beverage. >> Okay. And I was, I was [9:49:09 AM] looking at the economic analysis done by the group that the daa contracted with. And one of the interesting lines in there is that signature urban public spaces generate outsized fiscal, economic and quality of life impact. And really the focus on this signature urban public space. And I just don't think a steakhouse is a signature urban public space. We have quite a few of those downtown, and people don't, you know, take a lot of effort to go to, you know, might be a nice date night, but that's not a signature urban public space. Like, let's just say some of these other caps we've seen, whether it's klyde Warren or others. And that's really important because that's what we're trying to create here. We're not trying to create just a new commercial building. And [9:50:10 AM] I think that's somehow this conversation has gotten so twisted into how tall the building can be. So how many shops we can put in there, how much monetization we can have. The idea of this space was to be a public signature space. And I if if we could pull up the the renderings that have been part of this conversation for, you know, year and a half now. Just want to kind of create the contrast here of. The steakhouse versus. What we have been thinking about. And it's always takes longer than you want it to. But we're almost there. So scroll down just a little bit to that first, that first picture for the Cesar Chavez to fourth that [9:51:13 AM] you've got green space, you've got area where families can go and play. I've been to klyde Warren park. I've seen families go and play. Forgive me. I don't see families going and playing at the steakhouse. This is the kind of space that is worth investing in, and this is what I think we can deliver if we have the long term vision. And it's hard right now when we don't have the thing in front of us. And we have to be optimistic and have to plan to have this kind of public amenity, but it's something we can deliver if we stick through the hard part here and then put a plan in place. I'm curious, Mr. Ferguson. I know you are our Austin guy, but I also know you have familiarity with what goes on around Texas and wanted to ask you about Halperin park. I'm curious from your vantage point, really, this question might even be most appropriate [9:52:14 AM] for someone sitting to my left who was in Dallas when this was going on, but they just built this five acre park. Have having built klyde Warren park. Correct. Which is a new cap, correct? >> That is correct. >> And I'm curious from your vantage point, why didn't they just save the money and, and build a little bridge? >> Well, thank you for acknowledging my expertise around the state, but that is actually not correct. And I been to I've driven under the klyde Warren park understanding. They had a. >> Lot of. >> A lot of community input and, and private investors of how they, of how they did that. So I, I would need to defer to someone who may have spent a lot more time in the Dallas area than, than I have, but it has been very successful. We've heard some testimonies from the community and surrounding areas of how successful it has been for the community, but not [9:53:14 AM] being directly involved with it. I don't have those details. >> Well, and this is a genuine question. I'm curious. Manager, you were there. You were part of the conversations. Why did they decide after having klyde Warren park to invest that kind of money in a new cap? That's five acres. What was what was the driving conversation and why? Why another park space of that size? >> Thank you, councilman. And in Dallas particularly, it relates to the southern gateway, as it was initially called. And Al Halperin, it was a concept that was similar to klyde Warren, but one that meant quite a bit to the southern part of Dallas. The park itself was adjacent to the city zoo, and so it was viewed as a connective opportunity, particularly in that particular corridor, as they were reconstructing I-35 with the sense of bridging one, the community back together, as [9:54:14 AM] well as providing an opportunity to bring economic vitality adjacent to where the particular zoo was, as well as look at how it might impact many of the communities to the east and the west. So it was a vision, but also, I think, similar to the success of klyde Warren, the individuals, particularly of interest in the southern part of Dallas, wanted to see the same kind of opportunity there to bring the community back together and demonstrate that southern Dallas was worthy of investment. >> I think it's interesting to talk about that connection, and that's something that I know. I think we all share. The mayor talked about that desire to connect east and west and and yet they decided to build this large public space, not just a bridge to connect. Right? This is a and it's adjacent to a zoo. You could say, well, they've already got a zoo. Why would we have another public space next to a zoo? Well, this is an area [9:55:15 AM] and I, I wish we had that. But when you pull up the the website for Halperin park, the very first image you see is of kids playing in a splash area. Like this is an area that families go and enjoy. And I think we owe it. We have the opportunity. Why would we not seize that opportunity? It may be hard, but it's worth it. And, and I, you know, we get so hung up on roi and roi is focused on your commercialization of the space, your economic generation on the space. But. You build a larger park. It has a lower roi. Parks always have a negative roi. They are investment in for public good, not for dollars out. That's the point. And that's what we can do. I find it remarkable that some of my colleagues who just last year [9:56:15 AM] were saying, we can't pay for all of it, look at all these other communities, and 20% is the max they've paid, are now willing to pay 100% of the cost because, quite frankly, it's less so. We just we twist ourselves around to get to the conclusion we want. And I, I know I'm not going to change any minds here today, but I think it's worth just thinking about. And you know, the comment, forgive me, councilmember Siegel, but walking over the pflugerville bridge, it's so awesome because of the view and the the environment that you're in, not how wide that bridge is, but the, the you're viewing downtown, you're over the water. I don't think a wider bridge over the highway is going to have that effect. It's going to be when you have those public spaces, those green spaces, that's what gives the area quality. And, and so I just, I [9:57:17 AM] think it's worth the investment. They. Last question I have and then a comment when we talk about the sound issue, which has come up a couple of times without the caps, are there going to be sound walls at all on either side of the project? >> There are sound walls and strategic or warranted locations, but along the entire corridor not, but it will be depressed 2030. So they essentially almost act as walls because the highway will be depressed. >> But like, let's say between Cesar Chavez to seventh, will there be any of those walls that were we've seen in other places, like you said, strategically, but in certain places to help mitigate the sound impacts. >> Not between first and seventh, with some specifics on the east side, along down near holly street, but not typically along the. You won't have walls extending above the lowered highway. >> Okay. And with the caps on [9:58:18 AM] them, what does have. Have you ever done an analysis of that sound differential? You know, if I'm I'm thinking about the the home who might be one block in east of the highway, you know, what kind of sound difference you would have with a full cap versus not? I mean, I know you've said you're already going to have a lower sound, but what is that difference when the cap is in place? >> I don't think we have that that analysis of the decibel level since the walls weren't warranted. We don't have it with a lid or without the lid. Gotta have that. >> Okay. I was just curious if that was ever last. I will just say, you know, we've talked about being able to, to deliver this and somehow because the money hasn't shown up today, it's never going to show up. And so we're never going to see anything in our lifetime. Well, you know, I see our friends from the da who are here today who have stepped up and said, if we will give them some certainty of what they can go ask the business community to get, they will finally be able to start doing the type of [9:59:19 AM] fundraising that needs to happen for this. It it hasn't happened yet because we have not given them that certainty. We have not even signed the a F a. And so when they go and talk to business partners, business partners say, I don't know what I'm investing in. You have the council has not made a decision yet, but if we can say, okay, this is the vision and we want to really focus in on, let's say, Cesar Chavez to fourth. And we challenge the business community to say, come up with $50 million and they can leverage that hopefully off of a new federal grant. If a federal grant doesn't come through, then maybe that's enough to pay for the fourth or fifth or fifth or sixth. But we can get something. And I know I'm very confident with them leading the way that can happen. And once again, we get that space delivered by the end of construction 2033 2034. So to just say that the only way we get something for today is to, you know, downgrade, I don't think that's a fair assessment [10:00:20 AM] of where we are from a financial perspective. They've got realistically, four years to go out to the business community and do the fundraising and come back to do a change order. Is that correct? >> Yes, that would be correct towards the end of the project. >> Okay. So that's that's a long time. And I think if I know someone who has determination, it's Mr. Barber and he can go do it. And I appreciate him being here today. >> I think he just made a commitment for you. >> And so I just I'm hopeful we can we can stick to it. This is this is the hardest part in any project is when there's nothing tangible. But I'm hopeful that we can deliver something like that for the public because they deserve it. >> Thank you, councilmember. And one thing I'll say before I call councilmember duchen is it got mentioned that there was a steak house on one. Nobody's promoting a steak house, and that keeps getting brought up, [10:01:21 AM] but nobody's promoting a steakhouse. And especially from somebody who I've known now for 15 years, I guess. And I don't think I've ever seen him eat a steak. So the the guy he eats. So he eats so well, he I've never seen him eat a steak, but it's not a promotion of a steakhouse on this piece of property, even though that keeps getting said over and over again. Councilmember duchen. Councilmember zo qadri. >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you for the updates today. I've got a couple of questions about finances. I might Eid miss Olivares in the back there to help me understand some questions about our debt capacity. I'm trying to figure out when we last talked, we talked about the need to try and identify the phase two piece of this, the cap piece of this, the dollars for that, which then was about $366 million sometime in the next four years. And I want to try and understand where does this [10:02:22 AM] money come from? Our debt capacity, if we identify it, where, where, where else might we identify phase $2 for this project? How do we fund those dollars? >> So ideally, it's coming from other sources such as private donors and sort. But one of the challenges we have with the the deck structures in general right now, and this is something we've discussed previously, is we are using a combination of cib loan and certificates of obligation for the vertical roadway structures, certificates of obligation as they are non voter approved debt. Economic development is disallowed on them. So that is something that we will be having to work through internally on how our payoff schedule for those CEOs to be able to allow for economic development to occur on those those cap deck structures in the future. Beyond that. So in order to do the economic development itself, if it's [10:03:23 AM] having to come from city funds, it would have to be coming from public improvement bonds, the non or the the voter approved type of general obligation bonds. The. Any other sources? I mean, there's a there's a variety of other spots that could that could fund this. But the full dollar amount you're looking at, you. It would be chipping away at a very slowly. We also did provide in a prior communication to council and prior briefing information and response to a variety of other sources that were proposed to help pay for the cap deck development. There were some options that wouldn't be available for many, many years, others that were problematic for a variety of reasons. I would need to pull that back up to be able to kind of speak to any details around that. >> And the mayor's proposal, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it stage the doesn't it [10:04:27 AM] stage the investment so that most of the investment happens after 2029? So regardless of our bond discussion this year, most of those dollars, except for I think the first 3.5 million are being spent in 2029 and beyond. Is that right? >> Right. When when we were doing our debt capacity analysis for the bond program purposes, we've been including the the debt associated with the 104 million and all of that analysis. So it's, it's covered, for all intents and purposes, through the cib loan and the CEOs. >> Got it. Okay. So making sure I understand we might be reliant. Maybe there's even a good chance we're reliant on voter approved debt to fund future phases. And if that's the case, my understanding is our current debt capacity without impacting our credit rating this year is about $750 million. That moves up to about $1 billion in 2028. Any sense of what that would be in 2030? If that's our four year deadline? >> It's it's hard to to [10:05:28 AM] speculate on that one on the fly. But I mean, considering going from 750 to 1 billion in two years now, it all depends on if, if, if the bond election is called for the fall, which I know is still under discussion, if that 750 is is taken to the table or any dollar amount, then that obviously impacts your down the road. If you are waiting until 28, then there's the billion. If you didn't and after 28 it you wouldn't have a ton of capacity in 2030 beyond that billion. >> Yeah, that's the math I'm struggling with right now, which is the idea that this $366 million means eating into, I suppose, either 2028 or 2030. Whenever we go out for bonds, that that would significantly impact whatever our capacity is at that at that time, knowing that we might even have a bond this year, that we'd be [10:06:28 AM] increasingly constrained. Plus, we've talked about the 104 plus, and I'm assuming also maybe a good question to get clarity on both the cib loan and the co part are impacting our debt capacity. >> Also correct. Because they are being would be repaid from the debt service portion of the tax rate. >> Got it. So when we talk about ask the mayor mentioned the yogurt shop settlement. That's another 35. Any other items on the horizon that I'm not thinking of we haven't talked about today that would also be impacting. Debt capacity in the future. >> I mean, there's a variety of different facility improvement needs that are on the horizon that will be those numbers are being firmed up. So that's the only other thing I can think of. >> Okay. Mainly, I guess my major takeaway here is this that we're thinking about, let's just call it a $390 [10:07:28 AM] million bond. This year. We're talking about $104 million for cib and co that would impact our capacity. We're talking about another 35 for yogurt shop settlement. And then at some point in the next 2 to 4 years, you're talking about another 366 to cover phase two. Is that. Is that a somewhat outside of what you just mentioned a moment ago, is it a somewhat comprehensive understanding of what our future commitments look like without talking about anything else that's not included in the, say, the $390 million proposal? >> If the direction was to for the city to fund that 366, then yes. But I mean, again, ideally, we're looking for philanthropic and other mechanisms to fund that. >> Got it. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Olivares, any updates you can share with us on the status of the UT caps? [10:08:31 AM] >> Well, from all that I know at this particular time that they are looking at future proofing those those locations at this particular point, I have not heard of any any type of structure actually being proposed on those cap locations. >> Do they have the same deadline we do for future proofing? Mr. Ferguson? >> I I'd have to defer that over to you. >> T yeah, yes, sir, they do. >> Okay. So in the next month we will probably get some indication about their commitment. Got it. >> Yes, sir. >> Have any of the roi numbers changed since the analysis last year? We talked about this a few months ago. >> Marc Gilbert brown the major change was the loss of the $105 million federal grant on Cesar Chavez to fourth, which put it in a worse place. >> Got it. Thank you. I [10:09:31 AM] understand one of the challenges of this project has been finding these non city dollars, and Kim just spoke to that a little bit for that. Other similar projects around the country apparently have had success securing. Are you aware of anybody kind of in the wings preparing to step forward or had conversations around them for potential partners at this stage? Acm Rogers. >> We are we are in conversations with da at the at this particular point, da as we as we've heard a little bit earlier, we're trying to work on a mou with them to ensure that they are a partner that is looking at the funding of the the on top of whatever on top of the lids. Yes. >> Does that mean da would still be a partner to help fund them using their public improvement dollars and the city dollars that we fund them [10:10:32 AM] with? >> Not necessarily, not necessarily. They would they would use their resources to look for others, other potential partners that that could help us to raise the funds for the the lid. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they would be the ones that would do that. >> In your view, is it easier, straightforward, better success options? If we first build out a full cap versus have five potential future caps that we haven't built that at all, is that does it make it easier to go raise money or build out those partnerships in your, in your experience? >> Well, I think when there when there is a prototype of something, even using southern gateway as an example, southern gateway, they saw they saw klyde Warren as, as, as an example of what they wanted to do. And they then put together the organization. They had all [10:11:32 AM] of the community meetings. They, they got around the concept of, of tying in both sides of the freeway. And the nonprofit was able to raise the funds necessary to get enough funds to, to put that structure, or at least to operate that structure that's going to be on top of the freeway. >> Got it. Thank you. In the in the plan for last year, if the city were to identify some of those future dollars we just talked about a moment ago, the $360 million phase, $2 and maybe even more, maybe even the the, the amenity phase dollars, which I think is over $250 million. Have any decisions been made or plans been crafted, or suggestions even for how to prioritize construction for the five future cap stitch that we otherwise would be looking at building sometime in the future? >> Councilman, I think I think [10:12:32 AM] it is important to, to have these partners partnerships, and that's what we're ultimately looking for, is I know that with da, they're looking at certain areas to prioritize. That doesn't preclude us from looking at other partnerships for other areas. And say, for instance, if there's others that that want to take a lead in trying to help organize, raising the funds in, in any particular area that we future proof, I would think that would be a wise thing to do, just as the model in in Dallas with the model in Dallas a little bit different. But, you know, each area had pretty much their own funders. >> Okay, I'm asking this because, you know, we're, I think somewhere in this discussion, we're talking about building an admittedly smaller cap. But that potentially creates a pathway for and a real roadmap for building out a [10:13:34 AM] future capital 11th and 12th street, which is different from what I'm hearing you say we currently have, because one advantage I see with this approach is we're sort of punting this future question of where does the investment happen to a future council, where they are going to have to, I would imagine, have a some kind of a discussion, if not struggle to figure out where do we know that we've got five potential places to go invest in? Where does that happen? Where does if we if we do identify the full 366 or some piece of it. What, you know, we're going to we're sort of pitting different bridges and crossings and caps against one another to figure out who gets the money first or does that where where's the most lucrative place perhaps to invest in? I don't even know what the criteria would be for that conversation, but that's why I'm trying to figure out, have any preliminary discussions happen for building a roadmap for where you start to partition out future dollars [10:14:35 AM] for investment. Otherwise, it does seem like there's an advantage here that you've got a very clear roadmap for where to invest in. >> Well, with the, with the, the total future proofing, we are there. The roadmap would be based on who steps up to the table, who steps up to the table, who raises the potential funds at this particular point. Prioritizing one area over the next, and you don't have the funds doesn't get you anywhere. And so I think it's very important for us to really look at where, where the funds are going to be. Because if that's if and now that's where your priorities lie at that particular point. And so it does. Then when you do have an example of something that's out there, it does lead to others saying, you know what? I want to be just like that. I want to do something just like that or [10:15:36 AM] have a version of something like that as well. So I think that's, you know, the situation in Dallas is that folks saw something and they said, we want something very similar to that to, to weave in our, our long standing issues that we've, we've had within the community. >> Thank you, acm Rogers. I'm also curious if you can help me understand what ways this particular plan tries to connect palm park and Waterloo greenway. How is that area connected in the plan that we passed last year? >> Those areas, those areas are are fairly connected as well with with the east avenue trail as well. So we have we have with the future proofing plan that we have, there are trail connections that are, are, are very robust throughout here. So [10:16:36 AM] this is an, an area that is going to be extremely walkable and bikeable with the future proofing that that took place. >> Got it. Okay. I'm just going to flag 1 or 2 comments here real quick, which is based on some of the answers we just heard. One is that I worry that we're resting on a very kind of optimistic financial forecast where these partners emerge, where in some cases, it doesn't seem to me like there's been tremendous interest over the last 5 or 10 years for this kind of contribution. Nor is it clear to me where we get the $366 million to in the next four years. And if we do, that eats into a large part of our debt capacity that we need for many other purposes for the city. It also concerns me that in this time of constraint, it does feel to me like there is this hyper investment going on in a few square blocks where we've got project connect, the convention center, I-35, Waterloo greenway, to name a [10:17:37 AM] few. That are that we're investing maybe in, sometimes in conflict with other needs across the whole city. And if we are going to invest in the caps, it makes sense to me to invest in spaces that connect key resources, which it does seem like we've heard today between the convention center, red line, palm park, etc. We'd be we'd be doing. The last thing is I'll flag another another point that hasn't come up, which is we've talked about. I think we collectively understand that there's been some challenges, maybe even struggle to spend down our bonds in a timely way that's complicating what otherwise would be. I think very simple decisions for having public bonds, what would be what we'd be doing this year or in the future. And my sense is the last thing that we need is another project where we invest, where we see the actual returns potentially decades later, if they happen at all. As [10:18:39 AM] councilmember Siegel mentioned, we I think we need some wins. And if we deliver on projects. I'd love for them to be in a timely way where we're able to enjoy them, you know, in the next 5 or 10 years, rather than having an albatross or a money pit or being in the same conversation in cities that made some really bad parking meter decisions. So, and, and then with councilmember alter's, I mean, we're still investing in the cap, we still have amenities. And that's a conversation for everybody here to talk about what's possible and what makes sense. And if we can get that right, then I think it opens up a future conversation for 11th and 12th street, where, you know, which would be the real space for all the things that you couldn't otherwise fit in this cap. And so I do sense that there is still an opportunity to get what you want, because in the in the plan that we're otherwise passing from last year, all of that's indeterminate from both the money amenities and timeline [10:19:40 AM] perspective. From what I'm seeing, at least a roadmap seems better than no roadmap. Thanks. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember qadri. >> Thank you mayor. I really enjoyed the conversation today. We're not always going to agree, but I think it's been said many times, as long as we kind of all come together at the very end. And I know regardless of what side folks are on, on this very important issue, we all care deeply about the city. We just might have a different way of of connecting, you know, the city together. I just had a few questions. Sorry. I just had a few comments, no questions on my end. You know, myself and councilor vela share the north loop neighborhood, and we both often go to the neighborhood association and the, the most you know, the number one issue that folks bring up is the work that we've done around cap and stitch. I go to other neighborhoods in the in the district, you know, cherrywood, Hancock, dellwood, the downtown [10:20:41 AM] folks. And I know there's folks that other council members, other neighborhoods, other council members have. And the number one issue during neighborhood meetings is, is the cap and stitch. And I just think it would be a huge loss if we don't kind of continue, you know, you know, with the original item that we passed a while ago and I, and I worry about saying yes to what's proposed today is denying so many folks, so many parts of town. And it's, it's a, it's a thing that's been said throughout. It's, you know, you know, it's something that we're not going to see necessarily during our time in office or, you know, in our lifetime. But, but for me, it's always about laying the foundation like, yeah, we might not see it in the next 4 or 5 years or we might not see it in eight years. But I want to make sure that we have something in place that when people look back at this council, they don't say, wow, they really had an opportunity and they blew it just because it's not something they were going to see during their time in office. I hope to live a [10:21:42 AM] decently long life. But even hypothetically, if I knew the exact day and time that I was going to pass, I still would want to make sure that the work that we do on the council and something that we brought forward, even if it was going to help people, that I would never be able to see or meet or know, I would I would want to make sure that, you know, we, you know, whether it be called future proofing it or whatever word you want to use, I would want to make sure that we, you know, kind of kind of do the work because I think it's also been said that it's, you know, the whole concept about bringing communities back together. And I think that's what this is. And, you know, I think myself and council member alter might be the two biggest foodies, foodies in, in city hall. I mean, we, I mean, we like no other. So but but that all that being said, you know, I, you know, it's not about a steakhouse, but it's about making sure that we have a place for the community to kind of come together. So that's my time. >> Thank you, councilmember qadri. All right, I'll close this out. And I'm sorry, [10:22:42 AM] council member Ellis. >> Thank you. I just I really appreciated council member Cordray's comments, and I know I haven't asked a bunch of questions up here today, and I'm not part of either of the sub quorums that appear to be coalescing around this issue, but I just wanted to flag. I think this is one of those. We're all between a rock and a hard place on this one. I think we're trying to balance the desire to deliver a meaningful project, whether that is sooner or later, to be able to point to something later on down the line and say that we can be proud of what we've done, that we have been able to reconnect the community back together. I've also had some productive conversations with stakeholders that are very interested in seeing what, what decisions made and what the future looks like for I-35 in downtown Austin. And I, and I will just reiterate, I think we're kind of looking at, hey, do we make a decision now and have something beautiful to look at in ten years? Or is it an opportunity for other people to have many beautiful things to look at many decades down the road? In all likelihood, this highway expansion is going to last for 75 years for the life [10:23:44 AM] of that project, once it's completed, potentially longer than that, depending on how how things hold up. So there will be many, many generations. And perhaps by the end of it, you know, none of us will be around to be able to appreciate it. But we know that future generations care a lot about this. And the hard part is, if this council is not in a position to spend more money, which it doesn't seem like we want to do, and anybody else wants us to do that. We're looking at having to take away opportunities for the future, to be able to do something we can point to in the next ten years. And so that's a very difficult decision to make. I do think that this council and future councils are going to be visionary and want to be visionary, but with limited dollars and without extra support from the state or federal government through grant opportunities, we don't know what that looks like. And I would hate for us to find ourselves, you know, 20 years down the road with a lot of federal grants, trying to reconnect communities together and to have foregone that opportunity for a future council to decide what to do with those dollars. And so I'm [10:24:45 AM] still going to be crunching numbers and still going to be having conversations over the next two days, but just wanted to flag, you know, that I think if everybody had their own wish, there would be more money available to be able to do all of these projects. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Yeah, I'll just close it out and then we'll go to the next next item on our work session agenda. Look, the reason we're having this discussion is we are facing a time deadline with a big financial issue at a time when we have a number of financial issues that we're going to be discussing and facing, including the budget process that's upcoming. This has not been one of those items. At least it hasn't been from the perch that I sit on in a situation where we made a decision and then everything was static. I have continued to hear from people through the public and on a variety of issues, and we have had things happen since may of last year [10:25:45 AM] related to our finances. So I felt a sense of obligation to have us look at this before we hit this important deadline. And that is why I spent the kind of time I've spent to try to come up with at least some alternatives, some potential compromise that I, you know, clearly we're trying to thread a needle. I think council member Ellis says it well, there is somewhat of a rock and a hard place or somewhat of being stuck between a highway and a cap and stitch. I don't know how we might lay that out, but the point being, we're at we're at at a deadline. And I think it is incumbent upon us to have these kinds of discussions. And that's why I, like I say, I felt a sense of obligation. In addition to that, I will say that because we were divided on the issue and because things weren't static and things have changed over time, I wanted to make sure that all of us, as a council, had an opportunity again, to think through these these items, particularly as we deal with [10:26:47 AM] our city finances. And as I know, we are cognizant of the finances of our residents. So that's why the proposal is out there. And I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate all the council members participating in the way that they have. And with that, we will go to the next item on our agenda unless there's objection. Good deal. Thank you all very much. Mr. Ferguson. 75 years ago, when you tear up I-35 again, we're going to be looking for you. Thank you very much for the amount of time you've given us today. And by the way, I didn't say it as I began, but I ought to say thank you for the amount of time you've given. In looking at how we go about doing this. We couldn't be doing this without txdot as a partner in it, and we deeply appreciate it. So thank you and thank you, Mr. Mr. Rogers. All right. Speaking of Rogers, welcome, miss Rogers. >> Thank you so much, mayor. No relation. Good morning, Carrie [10:27:48 AM] Rogers. I am pleased to serve as your legislative director. And today we're going to go through a draft legislative priorities for you. Do I have a clicker or y'all, is this one mine? This is mine. Okay. Are you fixing that? There we go. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge here we have our assistant director of government relations, who's also serves as our grants officer, Erica Zangari, just over my right shoulder, and our state and federal legislative coordinators, Chris Chen and Gary and Allison Ross are with us today for hard questions. So, as you know, the mayor and city council adopts state and federal priorities in advance of each session. In order to do that, government relations develops a work plan to engage departments and our stakeholders to bring those priorities forward to you. We're looking at our timeline. This is where we are right now. You'll recall we did a call for [10:28:49 AM] legislative priorities back in November. I believe that call for priorities went to the mayor and city council, to our external stakeholders, including our legislative delegation, key committees, boards and commissions, our departments. And then, of course, through you as the elected officials to residents. And here's a quick snapshot of our stakeholders who we visited. So when we talk about developing our legislative priorities, we had done that call for priorities back in November, and we received a good long list of folks of particular items to look at. In January, Austin government relations broke out into working groups and began reviewing each of those items to determine what would likely be a high priority for city council. And then we applied what I like to call the legislative lens. And so that legislative lens is looking at our current environment. So getting the weather report of what's going on politically, [10:29:49 AM] what are the legislature's priorities, of course, your priorities as our mayor and city council and then the history of any one of those particular items? How have they fared before in prior sessions, and is there a different appetite in the coming session? So once we've moved through that process, we've identified the highest priorities, and those are what we have before you today. Before we begin, I want to note, you know, what we can expect in this coming legislative session here. We see a lot of the same issues as in prior sessions. I've been doing this for a really long time, and I know the legislature can always surprise you. There are some things that we will see. Recurring preemption of local control, land use and housing. I always tell our governing body to expect the unexpected. There will be some new issue that will undoubtedly suck up all the air in the room, and that appears right now to be data centers moving. Here is our [10:30:50 AM] draft potential state legislative priorities. We broke these out into seven strategic themes, and you'll see here responsible use of taxpayer dollars and efficiency, which of course includes maintaining local authority. I also want to note, I also want to note here the inclusion of supporting science backed addition of covered line of duty illnesses. This was something we've heard from council previously. Through resolution. Next, we have housing access and affordability. I don't have to tell you all. Austin continues to lead the nation in growing our affordable housing availability, and that will continue to be an issue. The city was a leader on this issue. In the last session. We have continued that role throughout this interim, and we will expect to see it again this coming session and in interim hearings. Also under housing [10:31:50 AM] access and affordability. I want to make sure that I note here the support for FYI vouchers. And I think doctor Liz Schoenfeld is here still there she is. Fi vouchers. We've spent an extraordinary amount of time, both locally and at the federal level, meeting with our delegation members and partners in housing at the U.S. Department of housing and urban development. Mayor Watson met with secretary turner a number of weeks ago to underscore the importance of of these fi vouchers. And our push at the state level will be to seek additional support of funding for those housing vouchers. Mental health, homelessness and public safety. I'm going to take up these two items together, and this item is particularly important today. We are in mental health awareness month. Over the last year, the city has had an extraordinary focus on this complex intersection of public safety and mental health, which [10:32:51 AM] often results in homelessness. And so the items that we have been working towards over this interim and to bring to you for your consideration, is strengthening that crisis response. And that includes closing those gaps between service points and also seeking additional funding for a transitional or step down mental health facility. You all know there is no public mental health facility here in the city of Austin. And so this there's actually an article in the statesman this weekend talking about the growing mental health need here in our community and the decreasing number of mental health beds. Public infrastructure. Austin and central Texas. Continued success means planning for essential necessities, and that includes critical infrastructure and services, and then also promoting responsible innovation. And so you all know we are the [10:33:51 AM] incubator for innovation here in the state of Texas. I think we're proud of that role, but we want to make sure those partners are are operating responsibly here in our community. And we've had a great reception there here locally and with our legislators at both the state and federal level in that capacity. And then I want to close out with our public health and quality of life, strengthening our public health systems, and enhancing community resources, including support for funding parks, recreation, open space and trails. The next slide is our federal legislative program. You'll see most of these items are similar to state. A couple of items I do want to note under this first bucket here is the city's support for continuing tax exempt municipal bonds and also restoring the city's ability to refund or do advance funding for municipal [10:34:52 AM] bonds, housing affordability, again, a big focus for us modernizing the home and cdbg programing and supporting putting some of those decisions back at the local level. Public infrastructure, the new surface transportation reauthorization bill, the draft came out last week. Build America 250. You'll see a summary of that in our legislative memo. That should be out sometime this week. A lot of wins in there for local government in terms of putting decisions back into local hands and funds being determined by local entities. I will note they had a couple of provisions related to autonomous vehicles, but they were for heavy truck and freight autonomous vehicles and putting in a consistent framework for those for those vehicles. We are emphasizing emergency preparedness and climate resilience. And finally, [10:35:53 AM] we're recommending strong federal investment again, as we did at the state level in our public health systems. And so these seven federal priorities reflect the needs that we're hearing from our city council, from our departments and from the community. We believe they position Austin to secure resources and protect our local authority, and we look forward to your guidance on these particular items over the next several months. This is just a quick you know, how we plan to be getting this done. You all will recall we were very heavy on communication during this last legislative session, and we have been that way through the interim. When we get into the session, you'll be getting regular updates from our office. You'll recall I mentioned we had an extensive amount of communication with our legislative delegation and those beyond on key committees. One of our roles was, of course, we would never oppose a bill or put in a cart of opposition without visiting with authors in advance, letting them know [10:36:54 AM] our concerns, and offering some proposed solutions. And so we will continue that practice. Again, here's our timeline. Our next steps are to incorporate any city council feedback today. Of course, we don't have action. We're currently on the July 23rd city council agenda for planned action, and we will continue our stakeholder outreach in the interim. With that, I'm pleased to take any questions. >> Thank you, councilmember qadri. >> Great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Carrie, just a quick question on the last slide that you just showed, where it talks about council action on July 23rd, 2026 council meeting. When can council expect any draft versions of the state and federal legislative priorities to come before us before we adopt on July 23rd? >> So the slides that where you saw the state and federal programs, those would be our proposed draft programs. Got it. And we have had them. These are mocked up based on your [10:37:56 AM] feedback today. But you'll remember last legislative session, we just had a one pager that was hitting those key strategic areas at a very high level. And we'll do something like that. Similar again. But the priorities that we're recommending are those on the state and federal slides today. I apologize if that wasn't clear. >> And I appreciate the clarification. >> Thank you, councilmember councilmember Ellis. >> Thank you. Mayor, I know you mentioned autonomous vehicles. Can you go into a little more detail about state or federal topics outside of freight? I'm thinking more like passenger vehicles. >> Yes. And so I believe it was in 2017. And then this last session there were at the state level, there were bills that were passed that prevented local governments from being able to regulate autonomous vehicles. We have fortunately or unfortunately, been in the position to have a lot of real time experience with those in our community. We have been meeting with our legislators across the state to help them [10:38:57 AM] understand what have been the challenges here, but also opportunities. One of the things that we've emphasized to them is because we are ground zero, if you will, for the use of autonomous vehicles. We have a unique perspective that I think not only would benefit the state, but would also benefit our peer cities. I know visiting with our transportation partners here, transportation, public works here at the city of Austin, they have put forward a few suggestions based on how we might better provide enforcement and interactivity with those autonomous vehicles when they're operating in our space. And so I think we've had a good reception thus far with members. There is a new senate transportation chair this coming session, senator tan parker, and he is having a hearing specifically on passenger autonomous vehicles. I think it's July 29th. Is it? Yes, July 29th. And the city is expected to testify at that [10:39:59 AM] hearing. >> That's great to hear. I know we've been having some conversations with you and other folks at the city a couple of weeks now, and I've really been thinking about this from a public safety standpoint. I know that we're going to see new technology in Austin, Texas. That's just part of what it means to be a city like us. But at the same time, I know there's been software recalls. Now we're seeing vehicles enter low water crossing Zones, and I really want to make sure that we're not putting our first responders in danger, trying to protect folks that may end up in that situation. And so I understand there is a need for consistency across the state to make sure that anyone who's utilizing these devices understands how they should behave, especially in large cities. But I would love to see what those conversations move forward to look like, just so that we know something is being addressed regarding the public safety aspect of of new technologies, whether that's autonomous vehicles or or anything else. >> Thank you, council member. With that additional feedback, we'll have a few more [10:40:59 AM] conversations internally and we'll bring something back with you. The council will get the testimony, etc. That will provide for the committee and make sure the full city council has that. >> That is great. I know that you mentioned parks and trails, and just really wanted to reiterate how much we care about open space conservation, and I've seen some successful initiatives at the state level and at the county level. I know we've had our own here at the city level, but really want to make sure that we have a lot of tools in the toolbox to be able to protect open space. I think it's not only good for residents who live nearby, but also in making sure that we are resilient, that we're having minimal flooding and that we've got enough open space to be able to counteract some of the issues that we've seen with weather events lately. Thanks. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. Councilmember councilmember alter. >> Thank you very much. I just first want to take a quick moment to thank you and the mayor. I know y'all have been doing a lot of work as it relates to that mental health, what we call transitional step down. I don't know what what [10:42:01 AM] the name is of late, but the work around having a facility where we can do that so needed. And I know it's not easy moving the needle up there and y'all really have, which is just incredible. So I want to just take a moment to, to say a public thank you for that. >> And while I appreciate being included, miss Rogers has been relentless. >> Yes. Just wear them down. The I was curious. >> I meant that in the highest compliment. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you sir. I took it. >> That way. Charm you to death. As it relates to. It's, I guess, kind of more on the federal side. I'm thinking about the FYI vouchers and our ability to maximize those. Really draw them down here locally. Do they come directly or do they pass through thc or any kind of state? >> Thank you for the question. They come from hud down to the through D F department of [10:43:02 AM] family protective services to the housing authority. So here it is, the city of Austin housing authority that receives those vouchers that are then pulled down from organizations like lifeworks. >> Okay. I know that that has been one of the areas where the federal government has actually been willing to do some expansion. And so whatever we can do to foster that, you know, no pun intended there. But if if we need to provide, you know, if we get a little bit of dollars in and a lot of dollars out, right, the that kind of match or leverage, what a smart investment for us to, to utilize. So just, I don't know if that's worth calling out specifically or not, given that we know that is something that's being discussed. But I would love for us to just be able to really try to tap into the energy that is seems to be around those vouchers. >> Yes, sir. There is a lot of momentum around that issue. One of the things that we're [10:44:02 AM] looking at federally is to remove the cap from the number of vouchers. I think each region can draw down 50 and Liz can correct me, can draw down 50. There are some areas, such as the city of Austin and our community that have been really effective at using those vouchers. And so if there are other communities in Texas or elsewhere who have not been able to deploy those, we want to remove that cap and then also get access to those unused vouchers at the state level. What we're trying to get is an appropriations match for those supportive services. The city of Austin, I think, puts in just a shade under $1 million for those matching education workforce skills services. We want to see the state put in funding to help then leverage drawing down additional vouchers. >> Very good. Can you talk a little bit about the state of the conversation around the ems mental health holds? I know that bill has made, you know, [10:45:03 AM] had some movement, but never quite gotten all the way there. What is the what's your take on that issue and where if the hang ups have been successfully addressed, or if the same challenges persist? >> Yes, sir. So representative Howard has filed that bill the last couple of sessions, and I think got so far as it had passed one particular session and then was vetoed. I will tell you the narrative around mental health as as you noted earlier in our work with the legislature has evolved considerably. Representative Howard does plan to file that bill again, and she has been leaning on the city of Austin to perhaps provide some additional angles that might be more palatable to leadership. We have met with the governor's office, the lieutenant governor's office, senator parker, who's been leading a lot of the mental health and homelessness work, senator Cole [10:46:03 AM] course office, who's been great and chairs senate health and human services. And so what I would say directly to your question is I think folks are more open to it. There's still a concern about ems being put in tough situations, perhaps, that they might not otherwise be in. If a police officer were there for the entire duration of someone's intake, if you will. But there was a bill that changed last session that was passed by senator zaffirini that allows police officers to do the emergency detention and then ems to do the transport, so it frees up the officer once that emergency detention order has been issued, so we can expect to see the bill filed again. And we're continuing to socialize the concept with members to to hear what their concerns are and address that feedback. >> Okay. Well, if it would help for for us to be vehemently opposed, then you can. [10:47:05 AM] >> You're coming out in opposition. >> Yeah. My last question is, what is the conversation at the capitol around sheltering? I know at least I don't know if it was last session, a session before there was seemed to be a lot of conversation around haven for hope. And, you know, would the state want to look at that model and maybe invest in that model? Is that where are where are those conversations if they're even being had? >> So the conversations around sheltering that we have had with the legislature have largely centered on those who are at that intersection of mental health, public safety, and homelessness. So not what I would call traditional emergency sheltering that is overseen by Mr. Gray in the homeless strategies office. I do think that there is a significantly larger understanding among the members [10:48:06 AM] that there are a couple of distinct populations who were looking at. Those are the top percentage that are in this complex situation. No easy place to go. The bottom third who may not want to be housed and who David has been working on, which is that middle third of those needing emergency shelter. I think the legislature understands that, and they understand that the city has what I say. The city has taken it as far as we can, and this is where we need state help to get us the resources that we need to help all, all sectors of this particular population. Okay. I think they've been positive. >> Okay. Well, I appreciate I appreciate the work you're doing. It's tough work, but it's important. So keep at it. >> Thanks, councilmember. But I as a follow up to that, just a couple of comments. One is senator parker. Now he's chairing transportation, but he has been extraordinarily [10:49:07 AM] helpful in terms of discussions about how we approach some of these things. And I, I really appreciated his openness to different ideas, particularly from those of us at the local level that are having to deal with it on a day to day, these issues on a day to day basis. I also want to kind of piggyback on what something that miss Rogers said and the question you were asking with regard to the Fye program. I will say that the conversations with the secretary of housing and urban development were very good, and I must admit, I kind of pitched the idea of a cause of the ten, the ten point plan that life works and the city of Austin has done, which is, I think, extraordinary. If you if you people want to take a look at that. But the the what I was pitching was the idea that maybe you pilot something. We work directly with hud to see if there's something we might can do together and experiment [10:50:07 AM] a little bit more on some of these things, particularly since we already have this excellent foundation in the work that life works and the city's done. And we specifically as, as Kerry points out, talked about the cap and how we deal with that and how that would help us. We believe in preventing homelessness, especially since the state of Texas. And we talked specifically about this, this the state of Texas exceeds the national average on the number of young people coming out of foster care that end up finding themselves homeless. And I must admit, since I had him with with me, I asked him, as a former member of the legislature, ask the secretary of hud as a former member of the legislature, to help us with the legislature on some of these issues as well. So it was a very productive. But we'll see how productive. But it was a really a very open and helpful conversation. With that, I also want to publicly say [10:51:09 AM] thank you for the good work you do. And and I'm in a minute ago when I used the word relentless, that was a that was a intentional word. And, and we appreciate you doing it that way. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Members, that will take us to our next item, which is a briefing on community engagement plan and cost assessment for renaming Cesar Chavez street. >> Welcome. And if y'all go ahead and launch right into discussion whenever you're ready. >> Wonderful. Well, good morning everyone. My name is doctor Lindsey Wilson. I'm the director for Austin equity and inclusion, and I am joined by several colleagues. Director king with Austin communications [10:52:10 AM] and engagement, also Austin transportation and public works and Austin economic development. And so as you'll see on this second slide here, just a high level overview of what we'll be covering today, starting with some background information leading into the community engagement plan and outreach. Talking a bit about the process and cost analysis. And so if I take us to slide three, this really level sets us on the April 3rd memo that we received from mayor pro tem and three council members that directed the city manager to take a cross-departmental approach to develop a plan that that does three specific things. The first thing is it assesses the potential costs for the city and operating businesses along the street, as well as do a [10:53:11 AM] inclusive engagement approach, making sure that we center those closest impacted to Cesar Chavez street, and then finally, to identify a timeline for this entire process. On this slide, you'll also see that we have, just for historical context, what the street was originally named, which was water avenue, then was changed to water street or first street in 1887, and now Cesar Chavez street. And so with that being said, I'm going to pass it to director king, and she will walk us through the community engagement and outreach plan. >> Good morning, council members. Excuse me, Jessica king, communications and engagement. So our goal is to always provide an equitable, inclusive, transparent and reliable engagement process that, in this particular case, will help us understand the community's views on whether or not to change the street name [10:54:11 AM] and then, if so, identify the community informed options for a new name. Our target audiences will be the stakeholders along the east west Cesar Chavez corridor, including current, previous and displaced residential property owners and tenants corridor institutions such as schools and churches, and then of course, businesses along east and west, Cesar Chavez. And then, given the fact, given the history of the street reaching out to labor unions and Latino community members. The plan includes three engagement opportunities, two in-person meetings at locations to be decided, but will focus, of course, along the Cesar Chavez corridor and then one virtual meeting. The meeting structure will be centered as an open house, basically providing information about the history of the street and the street name, and then costs and impacts comment cards to collect feedback, and then an opportunity to complete survey through speak up. Austin, the [10:55:11 AM] street names that we've seen so far include east first street, Dolores Huerta, and George Pastore. Keeping in mind, too, that when we go, I bring these names up in large part because as we go through the survey process, one thing that we really like to do, instead of just asking broadly, what are names that you would like to consider? We do like to give some examples of names that are already presented, so that we can really focus the conversation around, around what we're looking for. But in terms of the survey, it has it obviously has not been developed yet. And we'll go through that process with the community. The timeline for community engagement is first receiving feedback from this body in terms of the direction and guidance they'd like to see for the community engagement plan, and that will occur. Then we'll work towards finalizing the materials, securing the locations, working through the meeting design through the month of June, in July and August is when we aim to [10:56:12 AM] conduct the stakeholder outreach and promote the opportunities for community meetings and the survey, September will be able to compile and analyze and give you a public engagement report that summarizes our findings. We anticipate, obviously, coming back to council and sharing that report and asking council to consider the next steps. And so with that, just one clarification on the engagement opportunity. We'll be leaning on economic development to help us with outreach to the business community. >> Good morning council. Matthew Schmidt with economic development economic development, conducted an analysis of all of the businesses on the corridor and identified about 153 brick and mortar, and that's probably a minimum of what those businesses are outside of at home businesses along the corridor as well. And these businesses represent a really diverse mix of businesses, from independent operators to even our public assets, like the Austin public library. Looking at what those costs could be [10:57:13 AM] associated with an address change, we've identified that those include administrative costs of just business filings. Bulk of that is going to be the physical and marketing costs associated with materials that those companies have developed, including their digital and online presence, as well as opportunity costs. And that is the time that the staff is taking to actually dedicate to updating these records, as well as the customers who may have been lost during that address change during review of prior impacts. During the manchaca road renaming process, we had collected some information from businesses that noted estimated of tens of thousands of dollars to do their rebranding and updating costs related to this work. As >> As Jessica mentioned, we will be doing a engagement process in parallel with the community wide and making sure that it's aligned specifically with the messaging that we have conducted throughout this, this process. The engagement will include our utilization of our [10:58:14 AM] existing relationships within the economic and cultural districts, such as the east Cesar Chavez association, surveys and information sessions, mirroring what is going on in the community engagement process as well. And now I will hand it off to demonstrate the area. >> Good morning council. Amir Madyun with the Austin transportation and public works department. On this slide we have the map of the potentially affected area. Cesar Chavez runs from mopac to 183. The red section is city owned, and the portion from Lamar from Lamar to north I-35 frontage is txdot owned. That shouldn't be an issue. Texas transportation code allows grants municipalities control over their streets. This control. This control extends. Assigning street names. The general street renaming process is a proposed street name. Majority property owner. Support. To [10:59:14 AM] submit an application. Department and emergency service review to ensure that there are no safety confusion concerns. That's a point of of potential thing to look at for the first street. If they wanted to rename it first street. City council resolution approves. Oh go ahead. >> I don't understand why. >> So since we already have south first street, the concern is if we go back to first street, if there's an emergency situation, being able to address that in a timely manner. >> So yeah. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. >> No problem. City council resolution approving a name. And city council may also waive portions of the city code as needed. And I also wanted to point out, between the September 26th community engagement report and city council approving a name, there will be needed. There will need. We will need time for a few of the items, such as department and emergency service review. Next slide. This is just a list of the Austin city code portions of street renaming. Mentioned in the previous slide that legal would be able to [11:00:14 AM] work with you when it comes time for resolution and looking into what could be waived or what would be waived. The first one is 1452 application and fees. There's an application processing fee of $1,600. Owner notifications currently tcad, there's over 300 addresses that have been found, 153 businesses and 265 parcels. And then the recommendation to council and council action. If any abutting property owner opposes the proposed name change, council would hold a public hearing before taking action. Next slide is the. Here's our current cost analysis. So 11,200 for the city city street sign fabrication and installation of 35 overhead and 42 ground mounted signs. We're estimating a cost of 400 to 1.2 million for txdot and qadri signs. There's 34 total between mopac 183 I-35 and highway 71. [11:01:15 AM] This estimate includes the large highway signs, tolling signs that are digital design costs and traffic control costs for installation. The ssr Chavez economic district is one of the most one of the city's oldest economic districts. Custom signage in the area would cost approximately $10,000 to redesign and install, and community community engagement will be completed through shared responsibility across departments for cost of 10,000, and the notification mailings would be about $2,500 and occur after the name change happens. And then an additional note is that tpw, or the Austin transportation public works department is working with txdot to look into the possibility of implementing a partial sticker type adjustment, not a full replacement at no cost to the city. On those 34 signs. >> Great. So as we close out, really just want to highlight four key considerations, and the first being the [11:02:15 AM] significance to the community, both cultural and historical Kahn the second is the cost. Looking at several hundred thousand dollars, the business impact as we heard it, will have an impact not only on our residents but also on businesses rebranding. And then finally, the coordination between the city and txdot, recognizing that they own partial of that street. If we go to next steps, it's really to open it up, of course, for questions and hear feedback from you all today, and then firm up any engagement materials and logistics. With a start of community engagement happening in July and being able to return to city council towards the end of September. And so with that being said, I'm happy to open it up for questions. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Thank all of you for your [11:03:15 AM] presentation. Council members questions. Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you. I just have two questions. One is. When do we get clarity on. Given that it's the. There's a large variance there on the txdot Katy costs. >> It's listed as 400,000 to 1.2. >> Yeah. >> Those those discussions are happening now. I I'll let Richard speak. >> To that. >> Good morning. Richard Mendoza director. >> For transportation and public works. So txdot actually reached out to me and for guidance on in coordination on a potential name change. They've received direction from their administration to effectively change the name of their portion of Cesar Chavez. So initially, they've shared that they could conduct that change with just sticker blanks, not replacing the signs [11:04:16 AM] wholesale. The cost estimates that you see for the 400 up to a million are actually in the event that we had to wholesale change out the physical sign. >> He's asking, when will we know? Oh. >> They're waiting on us for actually a name to move forward. So basically, at the time that we city makes our decision for a name, we coordinate with them. Then we would know if they were still able to put the sticker or if they're going to have to move forward with full scale replacement. >> Even though we don't have an estimate for the sticker option, it sounds like we just have the. >> Sticker option would be no charge to. >> The city. Okay. Got it. Yeah. And the second question I've got is the community engagement piece. I don't know if miss king or somebody can speak to that. What is that? I know you're reaching out to the business community and other communities. What is the $10,000 being spent on? >> Sure. So there when we break [11:05:17 AM] down the costs, the primary. There's an even split generally between the cost of renting venues. Providing food for the event normally will occur in the evening. There will be two evening events likely, or if we get a weekend, it just depends on the dates and times that makes sense for the community. In addition to that interpretation for asl and Spanish, bare minimum would be Spanish interpretation and asl at the meetings. And that would have to cover actually three meetings, because it would be for both the two in-person meetings as well as the virtual meeting. And then postcards, direct mailers in addition to that. So those three breakdowns, about 2500 to 3000 each for those types of costs. >> Okay. Thank you for stepping through that. So just to make sure I've got it. That outside of the interpreters, there's no other staff time that's really budgeted in the $10,000. >> No, this will incorporate this as part of our responsibility. So we have a community engagement team where we have iap2 certified staff who will be able to help us facilitate meetings. We'll use existing staff to help ensure, as part of their jobs, to [11:06:19 AM] conduct the meetings. >> Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Councilmember Ellis. >> Thank you mayor. I did promise some folks that I would communicate that there are folks out there that are wanting to see water street again, so I don't I know that when you put the portal together and you start taking feedback, we want to make sure that all the options are on the table and that may not be the one that wins. But I think there's a lot of folks that really like that name, since it is along the river and just wanted to put a plug in that it'd be one of the options that folks have to choose from. >> Thank you councilmember. Yes, councilmember Siegel. >> Thank you mayor. I just want to make sure that staff was aware that there's been statements put out by the Dolores Fugitt Dolores Huerta foundation that she would not like to be like the fallback if Cesar Chavez is removed. And it's fun to kind of share that for awareness that there's been some public objections to like, you know, reverting to another individual from the farm workers movement. And I think her foundation asked that, okay, if we're going to rename it in [11:07:20 AM] that spirit, it'd be in honor of farm workers generally, not her specifically. But if you haven't seen that, you could look it up. Dolores Huerta foundation statements. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember qadri. >> Yeah, I was going to kind of go off of that as well. I have a mutual that that knows Dolores Huerta, and she had mentioned that she doesn't want it to be named after her, but she wants to be named after one of the five martyrs who were killed during the farm workers strikes. And then she named the the five individuals who were who were killed. So I just want to echo what councilmember Siegel already said. >> Thank you, councilmember. I want to go back to the stickers versus the signs because I don't understand. First of all, let me ask, as txdot taken a position on what it will, it's willing to do. Is it is it stickers? Is it signs or is there waiting on something? >> So txdot to me, mayor, that [11:08:21 AM] if we were to coordinate a name right now, they're in a position to go apply stickers at no cost to the city, but they have not given me a timeline by when they need that. >> And I see Mr. Ferguson still in the audience. So I may ask him, but I'm interested in knowing what it is about. What are the metrics that need to go into that decision making? Is it the name? If they like the name, they're going to go with stickers. If they don't like the name, they're going to go with something else. If if is the name too long, is the name too short? If we wait ten years, then. Are we asking for caps on Chavez? You know, I tell me what goes into that. Aren't you glad you stayed? >> Well, I saw this on the agenda and I was interested because we we. >> Have no, no, I'm appreciative, I'm teasing. I'm [11:09:21 AM] I'm appreciative. >> Of course, of course we were asked to to make the sign change a few weeks ago. And I did communicate with Richard that if a name could be established quickly, we would bear the cost of the stickers of the overlay panel, whatever. Now, the changing of the sign, depending on what the name is, if it's too long, the sign may need to be changed out because there are certain standards on letter height and. And how many words can go on on a line. So it sort of does depend on what the name is, but not necessarily. We're not going to approve the name. >> So so you want to rule out calling it the mopac to seventh street roadway. >> Probably would exceed the capacity of our son. >> Yes. Very good. But but what is the time frame that you're now talking about? Because you just heard a discussion about the time frame to go to the community and visit with that? What's the time frame and why does time matter under those circumstances? >> Well, I'll have to take that information back and communicate with our folks to see if that's a time frame that [11:10:23 AM] we would continue to do that. So I can't give you an answer on that today. >> Fair enough. Okay. Yes. Councilmember duchen. >> Just to follow up, is there a circumstance where you'd use the stickers and then as you, I guess in the course of regular recapitalization of those signs, then upgrade them later? So it's essentially kind of much far reduced, if not no cost, because part of your routine process. >> Yeah. All, all of our signs have a life cycle and they're it's many years, but they're all replaced at some point. So this would get us through that to the next replacement cycle. If, if that would be acceptable, then we would just replace that as, as our normal cycle would go. >> And I would assume that would dramatically lower the cost that's listed there from the 400 to $1.2 million. Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. I appreciate you letting us harass you a little. Anything else you all want to add? >> Just sorry, councilmember. [11:11:23 AM] Primarily, we are looking to get some guidance on how you'd like to proceed, because in order for us to begin the engagement process, we'll need this month of June to anchor down locations and start communicating to the public. >> Well, let me let me say something out loud and see mayor pro tem, I didn't see that you punched in Justin. >> I just. >> I don't have a problem with the timeline and the process and everything that. >> They're that's what I was going to say. And unless somebody has some objection, I think it's a detailed process that you've outlined and one that is necessary, particularly when you have this number of locations and businesses. And so unless somebody has some objection, I think that that probably the feeling is we need you to go ahead with that process and the timeline, particularly with what we're dealing with in terms of budget, budget timelines, June being what June is, those sorts of things. I think that's probably well stated. [11:12:26 AM] >> Thank you sir. >> Okay. Anything else folks? Nice job. Thank you all. And Mr. Ferguson, again, thank you for hanging around members. That concludes all of the items on the agenda for this city council work session. I appreciate everybody's comments. I appreciate the work session. If unless there's objection and I don't hear any, the city council will adjourn this city council work session at 11:12 A.M. We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.