City Council Regular Meeting Transcript – 7/23/2026 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 7/23/2026 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 7/23/2026 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. [10:00:07 AM] Good morning everybody. I will call to order the Austin City Council meeting for July 23rd, 2026 at 10:00 in the morning. We are meeting in city council chambers, which are located in city hall at 301 west second street in Austin, Texas. And we have a quorum of the Austin city council president, as I call this meeting, to order. What I'll do, what we'll do first is we're going to we've got a very short meeting today. So let me get that out of the way. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to walk you through what the order of business is going to be for the day. In a general sense. And then we will get right down to it in just a moment. I'm going to read changes and corrections into the record so that we have those. We will also then go to our consent agenda members. Right now the items that have been pulled from the consent agenda are item 68, items 14, 15, 75, 76, and 142. I believe item 86 is being pulled, but [10:01:10 AM] I'll confirm that shortly. We will. And if somebody else has something else that they want to pull, please let me know. We will then have a vote on the consent agenda and brief comments from council members with regard to consent agenda. At some point after 1030 in the morning. But as close as we can do it to 1030, we will have the Austin housing finance corporation board of directors meeting for the public public's information. What will happen is we will recess the city council meeting. I'll call to order the board of directors meeting of hfc will conduct that meeting. Then we'll adjourn it and we'll come right back to the city council meeting. We have a number of non consent items other than those that have now been pulled, but we have items from council. That's item number 91. We have three eminent domain matters items 92, 93 and 94. We have a number of public hearings. Those are items 96 through 110. Around noon. We will have general public communication. What we'll do is as close to noon as we can make it. [10:02:12 AM] Wherever we are in the agenda, we will pause whatever we're doing, take up the 12:00 time certain of public communication. We also have set a time certain at 230 for zoning matters. We'll we'll figure out what we do when we get around to that time. We will not be having music this week. Council members. So what will happen is we will just go straight from the general public communication into other items on the agenda. With that, unless there are any questions or comments, let me read the changes and corrections. Yes, councilmember. >> Alter, I know we're not having music this week. Today is a very special day. >> It is, and I was going to get to that. >> Oh, okay. I didn't know that I you get into business. >> Take it away. You're recognized. >> Well, there's a birthday down the way over here. The Jose Velasquez. So just wanted to say happy birthday. I'm not gonna sing. I'm gonna keep it a no music day. >> There you go, mayor. >> I was just I was just [10:03:13 AM] excited that all these folks showed up on my birthday to. >> See me. That's why. >> Thank you all for being here. I appreciate y'all for real. >> That I trust. That's why they're here. And by the way, this suits older than Jose. So all right, with that we will I'll read the changes of corrections in the record. The item number 58 at the very end. It should read access easement across 13017 Bob Johnson road, unit B, and the word from should be put in there from little bear orchards LLC. And then continuing forward items items. 426, 53 and 70 have been withdrawn. Items four, 26, 53 and 70 have been withdrawn. The reason I emphasize that is if you're here to speak on items. Four, 26, 53 or 70, they have [10:04:14 AM] been withdrawn from the agenda, so they will not be called up for you to speak on those items. So please make note of that again. I'll I'll read again the items that have been pulled from the consent agenda. 14, 15, 75, 76 and 142, item 68, and item 86. With that members, unless there's any other items that somebody wants to bring up right now, what we will do is we will rapidly go into our consent agenda, and we will start calling the speakers for the consent agenda, and I will turn to the city clerk to please help us navigate that. >> Thank you. Mayor, starting with item number two, bill bunch. On deck is item six, Paul Robbins and Craig Nazar. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. We have a number of speakers today and we [10:05:15 AM] want to be efficient with the speaker's time. So when she calls your name, don't wait in your seat. Please come forward and take a seat if one's available so that we can be expeditious in allowing you to testify. Mr. Bunch, you have the floor. >> Good morning, mayor, council members, thank you for your service to our community. Bill bunch, executive director, save our springs alliance district five resident for decades. This item is calling to move oversight of events in our public parks out of the parks board and the parks department's hands and into the new culture, music and entertainment world of the city's government. We're. We oppose that. This is, you know, speaking loud and clearly that now we're going to manage our parks for commercial profit making ventures, whether. And [10:06:18 AM] some of those are under the label of for profits, like the live nation ticketmaster monopoly that goes under the the, the local friendly rubric of Austin city limits and C three, but it's really live nation, ticketmaster and then others that are view our parks as just a for profit money making enterprise. Please keep this oversight in our parks so that we're managing our parks for as public parks where we escape the city commercialization and a world of profit making first and foremost with occasional special events. Thank you for your consideration. >> Mr. Robinson. Before you start, is Greg nazer here? Okay. Four minutes for Mr. Robbins. >> And what items this is on item six. >> Yes. >> Mayor, if you don't mind, Mr. Robbins, if you if you [10:07:18 AM] don't mind, I'm going to ask legal to come up on item number five. >> Go, go. Sure. >> Okay. Don't mean to upset you, Mr. Robbins. >> Not upset. >> Okay. Members, item number five is a proposal for a settlement of a lawsuit. So I'm asking legal, and I want to take it in order. Please. >> Good morning, mayor. Mayor pro tem. >> I don't think your speakers on. >> Hello. There you are. Good morning. Mayor. Mayor pro tem council members. I'm assistant city attorney Jeremy Thompson, and I'm here today to recommend that you approve a settlement payment in a personal injury lawsuit that appears as item number five on your agenda today. Item number five is Mitchell versus city of Austin. We recommend that you approve a payment totaling $175,000 to settle the Gregory Mitchell versus city of Austin lawsuit. This lawsuit relates to a December 2023 accident [10:08:19 AM] involving an Austin water manhole, where the plaintiff seeks payment for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. In exchange for the payment, the plaintiff will release any and all claims against the city from the accident and will also dismiss his lawsuit filed in the district court of Travis county. The Austin city attorney's office recommends that you approve payment based upon these terms, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you, sir. Members, you have any questions at this time? All right. Thank you, Mr. Robbins. You now have the floor. Thank you for your patience. >> Good morning. Council. I want to start by with sincere thanks. Last winter, resource management commission passed a resolution warning that residential rate increases Austin energy recommended were affecting some city council districts more adversely than others. We recommended that if there were future rate increases, all rate components, [10:09:21 AM] including the base fee and four tiers, be kept raised at the same level to prevent future discrimination in rate increases, and this appears to have happened in the new city budget. I do not know who in this room was responsible for this, but I am grateful for your action. The item we're concerned with here is about battery storage, and you may be wondering how these two subjects of rates and battery storage combined. They relate because the commission I serve on is willing to investigate matters that Austin energy does not normally tell the public. Austin energy will not discuss the economics of battery proposals that it brings to council. Given our reputation for asking hard questions, the [10:10:21 AM] utility is deliberately avoiding our commission. The contract before you is $320 million over a 20 year period. This is $300 for every person currently living in the service territory. Maybe the investment will pay for itself. Maybe not. But Austin energy is intentionally being nontransparent council. No one could expect that upon your election you would become immediate energy experts. But we did elect you to be street smart. If an agency is hiding basic information, it should raise your suspicion. If you study the history of Austin utilities, you know there have been some major failures. The Austin dam cracked in 1900, only five years after it was [10:11:22 AM] built because of poor engineering. The nuke was 460% over budget in eight years. Late in completion, a half billion dollar water treatment plant was built a generation before it might be needed, but all of these were endorsed by the city's experts. In an effort to unravel the economics, I personally asked to see past solicitations and bids. That is, after the bid was awarded for batteries, and Austin energy refuses to provide even these. It's an educated guess that there was no bid to determine if the city's ownership or pre owned units might have been less expensive than this contract. If this contract is such a great deal, why not boast about it? In closing, I really do not want to come back here and say that I told you so. [10:12:23 AM] But if you continue down the road of non-transparency, the odds of a bat in outcome increase. Thank you. >> Thank you, miss robin. >> For item ten. I have kaiba white. Then item 13, Stephanie Hoffman and Virginia palmer. Item 11. My apologies, Catherine o'connor. Ma'am, what's your name, ma'am? >> What's your name? >> Rachel. Doctor. Rachel. Scott. >> And what number? What item are you wanting to testify on? >> Item 11 and several others. >> Okay, well, you didn't sign up for item 11. >> Dogshit. I'm here for dogshit. >> Well, we're not dogshit. Item number 11 has been pulled. And so we're just doing the the 1111111111 item 111 has been pulled. And so we're not calling those yet. The way we [10:13:23 AM] do this is we call people's names in the order of the items that we're taking up on the consent agenda right now. >> Yes, sir. My my apologies. >> No problem at all. >> But would you like me. >> To please. That way the seats will be available for people who are on. >> The item. I was misinformed, thank you. >> That's all right. Thank you. Miss white. You'll have the floor whenever you're ready. >> Good morning. Mayor. Mayor pro tem council members. My name is kaiba white. I'm speaking on behalf of public citizen's Texas office. Sorry to be out of breath. It was hard to get in here. I won't take a lot of your time, but. And I. You know, I expect you're probably going to pass this and approve the the new agreement, but just did want to remind you all that the resource management commission did make a number of recommendations as it pertains to the Texas gas franchise. And to my knowledge, I don't think really any of them have been executed. A couple that I'll [10:14:23 AM] highlight are on leak detection and really ramping up the efforts to do leak detection and repairs. I'm sure you all are aware that, thankfully, I think it's mostly been in other cities. There have been a number of natural gas, you know, distribution level pipeline and, and other system explosions and that have cost lives. So this is not only an environmental issue but also a safety issue. The other one that I'll call attention to is the conservation, so-called conservation programs that Texas gas runs. Unfortunately, most of their programs are actually focused on increasing the use of natural gas in homes. And they do that by providing lavish incentives for new natural gas equipment where none exists that, you know, think about the incentive to get a natural gas dryer. I [10:15:24 AM] routinely see them layering a second large incentive already on top of a pretty generous incentive for the dryer itself, and then also paying to get the plumbing, the natural gas, plumbing done to switch from electric to natural gas for that appliance. That's just one example, and it is contrary to city priorities. So I would encourage you to take another look. >> Thank you. >> Catherine o'connor for 11 or Stephanie Hoffman and Virginia palmer for 13. >> This is Catherine o'connor. I made a mistake and signed up for 11. I'm speaking on 14 now. >> Moving on to item 16, Jeff Dickerson and then item 22, Jeff Dickerson. Item 23, Sharon [10:16:29 AM] Blythe. >> Good morning, mayor, council members. Jeff Dickerson district five. The council is approving authority before applying the financial terms for this item, I ask the mayor and council to vote no on item 16, or at least postpone it until the city, as well as the taxpayers, receive a complete financial analysis. This proposal asks the city to borrow $14 million for solar panels based on projected future savings. But looking at the backup documents, they do not provide any basic business case that every major investment should include. Where is the payback period? Where is the independent validation that these savings will actually cover a 15 year loan? There is none. Austin taxpayers are already facing budget pressures and additional borrowing for other priorities. Borrowing capacity is limited. [10:17:31 AM] Every dollar committed here is $1 less for other infrastructure needs. Water road and what have you not. Staff also states that they are rushing because of federal tax deadlines. Deadlines should not replace sound financial decision making. If this project slips so we taxpayers will lose the benefits and will still pay for the full cost of this loan based on the prior projects. I don't see success in this. Council has already approved a solar contract worth $76 million. Why don't you prioritize this money before taking on more debt? Good government means verifying the numbers before borrowing more money. To summarize, the concern is not about borrowing $14 million for these solar panels. It is that councils being authorized to authorize [10:18:32 AM] the application without any business case showing any expected savings. >> Thank you. >> Sir, thank you. >> Miss Blythe. >> Sharon, Sharon Blythe in district six. I was down here yesterday saying that your agenda was not specific enough to even inform the public what was going to happen. Happened yesterday. And the same happens today, that your agenda does not tell what the public's you're going to discuss. And you laid out yesterday a bunch of future meetings to different, different departments. But I don't believe yesterday you even mentioned the parks department in any of those meetings. So I'd like to know when you're going to discuss the budget for the parks department. >> Well, we've posted all of that. And yesterday we discussed some of those aspects of it. But in every one of these meetings is an opportunity for you to ask questions about the parks department or hear specific and you can talk more. >> But when are you going to discuss the budget for the parks department? >> We. Part of it was yesterday. [10:19:32 AM] >> Well, I think that. The parks. If I understand the budget for the parks department. They are proposing to buy new park land, land and funded that and put in a budget and a budget for that, but not taking care of their current current assets, such as the city of cemeteries. So y'all need to think about that when you're doing the budget, not being buying more park land, but actually taking care of the stuff that you already have. That's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I one five kat Garcia and then item 33, Scott Cobb. [10:20:39 AM] >> Hello, my name is Scott Cobb and I'm here to speak today on the number 33. Has to do with a contract for dental benefits provided to employees. I want to make sure that this includes temporary employees who work less than 30 hours per week. These benefits were taken away last year by director hr Susana since and I do not know if they were returned, there was a vote. I'm not sure what the result was, but it was very important that if you get health insurance and we used to be able to get health insurance, if you had worked less than 30 hours a week. She also took that away. But when you're a lifeguard, for instance, or a temporary employee and you're sitting on the stand and you have dental pain, you cannot concentrate on your job. One time I was working at deep eddy and I was cleaning. I scrubbing [10:21:40 AM] the pool till about midnight. All day long my tooth had been hurting. I had at that point, no dental insurance. What I had to do was get up at 4 A.M. And go to stand in line at one of the free clinics and get care. I think if you take someone's labor, you benefit from that labor. You need to provide them benefits, particularly benefits that make them do their job in a healthy manner without suffering dental pain or health issues, and excluding them from benefits. When it was taken away last summer, it was taken away by fiat, by the hr director, even though city council had already voted for it and approved it several years before when I advocated for it. So make sure it's back in this contract. [10:22:43 AM] >> Item 43 Zenobia Joseph and then item 44, Zenobia Joseph on deck 47. Bill bunch. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Miss Joseph, are you here? Miss Joseph? Mr. Bunch, please come forward. All right. Thank you sir. >> You also signed up for item 58, Mr. Bunch. >> For that task. Further. >> Item 63, Jeffrey Bowen, followed by item 64, Zenobia Joseph. >> Miss Joseph, you come forward, you'll be called on after Mr. Bowen. [10:23:56 AM] >> Mayor. Her, sir. Okay. Morning, ladies and gentlemen. What a packed house. Nice to see that. I kind of hard to get down here, mister. Mayor, council members. Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. I'm actually talking on this about. We can spend 20%, which is about roughly on this one was $5,000. And this is on the this is on the operation budget revenue that we're going to get from txdot. Please, let's spend a little to get some more money from them that we can use. I appreciate it, and I'll cut it out there since we have a bunch of people here. >> Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Very thoughtful, miss Joseph. >> Thank you. Mayor council, I'm speaking on item 64 and 65. Is that what you call me for? >> Calling on 64. And we'll call you for 65 when we get to 65. >> Did you do the 40s already? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll call you out your name [10:24:56 AM] several. >> Times, mayor. They don't let us in because you're at capacity. >> There's always a problem, miss Joseph. >> Okay, mayor. Yesterday, respectfully, I went to mail. Yeah. I just want you to. Understand your time. No. That's fine. Use my time. I want you to understand that I asked the bar to disbar you, so I'll give you a copy of the certified receipt as it relates to item number 44, which is what was on the screen. I'm going to ask the staff to put the slides back. Thank you. Item number 43 and 44 are specifically related to munitions contracts. 43 is specifically $45 million and specifies 88 Americans with disabilities act. I just want you to recognize that the work that's being done by this contractor is substandard. If it's northeast of U.S. 183, if it's on the rail line, you can [10:25:57 AM] see the terracotta sidewalks below on the left. You'll see it specifically from February 13th, 2026. I actually put in an open records request and asked Mr. Munez to actually tell me who is designing the discrimination. I think it's Eric bailly, but it's really under the transportation and public works. So the assistant city manager, Mike Rogers, is equally complicit in the discrimination occurring in the city of Austin. I certainly respect him, but this is the outcome. They have since repaired this area by harmony public schools on Rosenberg near middle Ville, and the next item is 43 on their contract as well. So I'll just speak to the rest of the slides then. >> Item 65 bill bunch, Jeffrey Bowen, Zenobia. Joseph. >> Mr. Bunch, are you speaking? Miss Joseph, you have the floor. >> Okay, mayor, if you would [10:26:58 AM] just put the slides back up. I'll just oppose your federal and state legislative agenda. 64 is the federal specifically 44. And I did register in advance. You shouldn't dock us for time when we're standing outside. And they won't let us in the chamber. Specifically, the next slide, your priorities talk about mobility. Next slide. But specifically, what I want you to recognize is that you don't have the best interests of the low income riders. This is Ramberg station as chito vela is well aware. But if you look to the right, this is downtown. I want you to remember that that climate pollution reduction grant is specifically, it has language for capital metro to use that money throughout the city, but yet they use the 801 northeast, north, south, excuse me to get the funding. Who lives northeast? Well, it's the immigrant gateway to the city mayor. You know the area well, because it took approximately 30 years to get a sidewalk from [10:28:00 AM] north Lamar transit center to the affordable housing in your senate district 14. And so I get it. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The city was segregated when you were mayor in 1997, and it's segregated today. So next slide. I want you to remember this is what the priority should be. But if you go down north Lamar today, loop 275, Nunez is actually working on the area by the Muslim church. So, Mike Siegel, I respectfully appreciate that you're doing something for them. But I want you to remember it was January 30th, 2016 when Donald Norton was killed in his wheelchair and his service dog live. So the priorities are not there. And specifically, I want to remind you that the $888,000 that you paid lobbyists is against the federal law, the consolidated appropriations plan, and the $1 million that capital metro paid in 2021 is a violation as well. If you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them at this time. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. Mr. [10:29:00 AM] Bowen. >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, council members, I actually I'm on this item 65. I really want to commend staff and the council for actually providing us with an actual list of what the items are. For once, I really greatly appreciate this. For too many years I've always wondered, okay, where can we find these ideas of what the city's state legislative program is? But I want to call a note to the very first line where it says, responsible use of taxpayer dollars in efficiencies. I would really hope that we're taking some of this serious at our level, not just at the state, but also looking at how we are dealing with our own responsibility here within city hall and the city of Austin for responsible use of taxpayer dollars and efficiencies. We went through this just the other day at the audit and finance committee, which I found that to be very [10:30:01 AM] interesting and actually pointing out. So that was just one of the steps for towards trying to deal with our really some of our efficiencies that seem to not be relevantly apparent. So please just take to heart that first line in that where it says responsible use of taxpayer dollars and efficiencies. We're in the middle of a budget season, and it would be greatly appreciated by the taxpayers for you to take that into account. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Item 67, chase Wright chase, are you here? He is. Time donated by Kermit. Hyder. Kermit, are you here? >> Well, then he can't donate time if he's not here. >> Good morning. I'm chase Wright, the executive director for the hungry hill foundation. I basically just came to let you guys know that we are in support of our ecosystem. Like [10:31:02 AM] I said, we don't have that much time, so I guess I can paint the picture like this. In your childhoods, we played a game called jenga or jenga, the jingling little tower, right where you pull a piece of the block out. And that's the objective, right? To not make the tower fall. Right now, you guys are pulling some pretty bad pieces out of this puzzle, and our ecosystem is falling. I want to say thank you to our watershed department, George morales. It's the watershed department. Why are we having to get unhoused individuals out of our ecosystem and out of our water supply? Possibly because some of the decisions that we made with our homeless strategy office, moving these individuals from where they are back further into the woods, back to these watersheds where we're having to continuously keep them clean, but also helping people navigate to find housing within these places. They are finding their safe Zones and watersheds. Last week we experienced well, two weeks ago, we experienced so much rain. How many individuals do you think we have to go get out of those water creeks so that they didn't drown themselves hiding from homeless strategy, APD and the rest of these people? I'll leave it right there. Please do not continue [10:32:03 AM] to pull out of our infrastructure, the most important pieces of our social services here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item 69, Zenobia Joseph and then 73 bill bunch. >> Miss Joseph. Miss Joseph. All right. Mr. Bunch, do you wish to speak on 73? >> I'll pass on that. >> All right. >> Item 73 Zenobia Joseph and 74 Zenobia Joseph. >> Miss Joseph. [10:33:14 AM] >> Thank you, mayor. Council, I appreciate your patience. Item 69 is under housing. It's specifically the city's fiscal year 2026 2027 action plan, which goes to the U.S. Department of housing and urban development. But I want you to understand is that when this plan went before the community development commission, they didn't have anything in the backup. And so what I want you to recognize that you're just checking the box. But more importantly, what I want you to understand is that this plan identifies veterans as a special population. But I want you to remember that your homeless strategy office doesn't even include veterans in their strategic plan. And so what I want you to understand is that you are deliberately leaving veterans on the street. City manager. It costs no money to get reallocated. Veterans affairs, supportive housing vouchers from hud. And so you could do more with what you have. And you are doing a [10:34:14 AM] disservice to the military veterans who are sleeping on the streets unnecessarily here in the city of Austin. And so I oppose this plan, and I would ask you to table this item and find out if you can submit it to hud at a later date, because you did not get the appropriate input from the citizens participation policy as it specified online. Aside from that, I want you to recognize that there is a need for you to look at how much funding is being allocated to women and children, because the funding that is allocated through this program goes to the women and children, and you have a number of organizations like mama Santa who target women as well. But yet you have nothing dedicated or allocated for veterans. I want you to understand that these beveren deals, through the housing authority of the city of Austin, cost veterans with vouchers to. And so I would ask you, mayor, since you reappointed the chair there to ensure that there is some transparency so people with vouchers know where they [10:35:14 AM] can go and live. >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. >> You're welcome. She called me for another item. >> She called you for 73 and 74. Well. >> I'm not sure why. 70, 73 and 74. 073 is project connect. Okay, so this on on the surface specifies the ordinance number. Austin light rail. And it says that you are correcting an Austin water infrastructure and non Austin water infrastructure item. I just want to remind you, as I always testify in the context of title VI of the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin. You cannot cherry pick when to comply with the federal law. And specifically, I want you to [10:36:16 AM] recognize that you conflated ridership and coverage when it went before the voters. And so, mayor, you recognize that December 17th, 2018 is when the project connect long range plan went before capital metro. And you testified right along with Sarah Eckhardt and other elected officials. And so anything related to project connect and the wasted funding, the $194 million that they will get this year, I opposed. And every person who lives northeast of us 183 and northwest as well. Samsung to apple, the billion dollar corridor. And I want to thank Krista Laine for actually laying out that you are not investing in far northeast, not northwest as well. And so I want you to recognize that while you're certainly looking only at the water, you cannot discriminate against the minorities, but that's who you used in order to get the federal funding. And so anything that I say I understand will jeopardize your $4 billion. But I just want to remind you that it was California whose $4 billion got [10:37:18 AM] cut for their rail boondoggle. And that is exactly what this is. And so I'm going to continue to fight you. And I hope the citizens who oppose this will as well. If you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them at this time. But just want to remind you that it's Hyde park. That's where it will terminate. And that was developed in 1889 to 1924 exclusively for white people. And it's no different today. And I want you to remember that, mayor, on March 12th, 2020, when you had an opportunity to put affordable housing council, put a one acre detention pond instead. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. >> I have a remote speaker for item 78, Angela Benavides Garza. Miss Garza, please unmute. [10:38:19 AM] Moving on to item 83, I have bill bunch, Zenobia Joseph, and Rita Thompson. >> Mr. Bunch, miss Joseph. Welcome. Miss Thompson. Yes. Just state your name for the record, please. Item 83. >> Rita Thompson, district five. I want to be clear that I asked to comment on this, not because I have an issue with any particular board or commissioner. I'm sure they're all lovely. I've never met them. It's more in the light of transparency and representation. It's been very disheartening for me. I've been coming down here since the early 80s, and there seems to be a real lack of trust right now in our boards and commissions. And I think one of the things that would help with that is when [10:39:19 AM] there's waivers requested in the backup, there's an explanation of what's informing that. I also think it's an opportunity to do an ethics review and make sure that people are not being blocked on commissions or boards for a political reason. Perhaps it might be that somebody can argue there's an overrepresentation of a particular interest or area of perspective. I know that in my profession as a social worker, I bring a particular perspective that may be somebody in the other health professions, or a real estate lawyer might have a different point of view. I don't think one's better than the other. I think they're just different, and I think they all need to be represented on our boards and commissions. So I just ask that y'all consider looking at how you're appointing, making sure you're keeping good balance so that you can have perspective and representation. And when [10:40:20 AM] you ask a waiver that you hold yourself accountable to explain why you're requesting that and why you think that's in the best interest of the civics boards and commissions. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for being here. Miss Joseph. >> The staff has my slide. Yes. Did the clerk not send it to you? >> I'll just pull it up. >> Excuse me, mayor, for another item. >> Do you wish to speak on 83? >> Yes. 83 is specifically related to boards and commissions, intergovernmental relations and all. I just want to remind you, mayor, that you have failed to comply with your own publicly promulgated rules, regulations and procedures. And [10:41:22 AM] specifically, I just want to call to your attention the need to be a little more transparent and consistent as it relates to these exceptions that you make. I want you to recognize that miss Maynard is actually posted in here for the joint sustainability committee. She's a nice person. However, I want you to remember she is a person that actually donated time to Carmen Lianes improperly, and you made an exception as it relates to miss Maynard, respectfully. And the committee community development commission. As I tried to expound on the need to focus on northeast of us 183, she actually wanted to broaden the scope to other parts of the city, but I would just remind you that the Austin strategic mobility plan walk bike roll on page 37 specifically mentions acknowledgment of Austin's discriminatory practices. And so if you cannot put people on these boards that will actually look at the research and look at the data that you have already stated is happening here in the city, then they [10:42:22 AM] don't need to be on there. I'll remind you as well that it was March 4th, 2021 when you apologized to black people for intentional discrimination, and specifically as it relates to signing up for remote testimony, I would just remind you that on July 16th, I was here, I signed up for remote testimony, didn't say anything to the clerk, and actually was called yesterday. I did what you said I didn't do. I actually told Rachel in the lobby. I asked her to tell the clerk and instead the clerk going to verify the process. You sat here and you berated me. So here is my certified receipt of me actually writing yesterday specifically to the state bar of Texas chief disciplinary council. Austin, Texas, 78711 to request your disbarment. This viewpoint discrimination is uncalled for and I didn't appreciate you trying to berate me. >> Item 87 I have remote [10:43:23 AM] speaker Camille cook. >> Can y'all hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank you. My name is Camille cook. I'm calling in in favor of item 87, and I appreciate the city council and Austin water taking steps to advance water conservation and non-potable water use by large volume users, with emphasis on commercial and industrial users. The amount of water being used for advanced manufacturing chip fabs, and possibly data centers warrant specific and transparent management to protect our water supply and affordability for residents. This item is a good phase one, and I hope in the near future, we see the council adopt the recommendations from the water task force that are not included today, specifically, a mandate for closed loop cooling, non portable non-potable water only for cooling and definitely transparent city council review of service expansion requests for large volume water users. As all of these data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities come in, it's going to be more and more important [10:44:24 AM] that we have proper oversight of water usage from these facilities. So I'd really encourage that. But thank you. >> Thank you. >> I also have some in-person speakers for id 87. Bill bunch, Craig Nasr, Elizabeth Levins, Valerie. Valerie Menard and Cameron Shaw. >> Welcome. Mr. Naseer, why don't you begin? >> Craig Nasr, Sierra club and Austin environmental Democrats. We have to put some rules around data centers, particularly concerning their energy and water use. We support this item as a good start in that direction. Moving forward. There are three basic forms of data centers to be aware of. There's internet data centers, basically cloud storage, which are relatively small and have been around in Austin for years. There is ai, which has also been around for [10:45:25 AM] years and has both good and bad aspects. It needs more rules and its massive use of water and power needs limits. But it has a place in modern America. We need to be very careful where we put it. Then there is crypto. Crypto is a Ponzi scheme and doesn't deserve the energy and water it uses. Please keep crypto out of Austin. Thank you. >> Mr. Bunch. >> Good morning. Bill bunch, executive director, save our springs alliance district five, generally in support of the fine work that your Waterford task force committee put forward. It's very unfortunate to see the resolution. They recommended being substantially watered down, including. And I'm looking at your version two redline that. I assume that's the working draft right now. The very first thing is you're [10:46:26 AM] striking out the reference to the extreme consumption of water by data centers. Why would you do that? Going down to the to the meat of the resolution, you're also striking out a very specific recommendation to require closed loop cooling systems for large volume water users, data centers, robot factories, perhaps, etc. Why would you strike that out? We're not even we're doing nothing to protect our ratepayers. Further going down. You also struck that out. The resolution called very clearly to tell the city manager to come back and tell us what these large volume use demands are doing to the ratepayers, the other [10:47:27 AM] ratepayers. How much are we being forced to pay for y'all to give away our water supplies and our sewer service? You don't want to even know what the answer to that is. This is very unfortunate. Please go back to what your committee recommended to you. Thank you. >> I have one more remote speaker for 87, Sarah Foust. Miss Foust, are you there? Okay, moving on to the next item, which I believe is 144. I have Jeremy Hendricks, Cameron Dodd, agnetha Selig, sivalingam, Mike [10:48:29 AM] Weston, and kaiba white. >> Why don't you begin? >> Good morning, mayor and council members. I'm Jeremy Hendricks, a district four resident, a proud member of liuna and also president of the central Texas building trades council. And I'm here in support of item 144, which is the geothermal resolution. If we're serious about addressing climate change, strengthening our energy system, protecting austinites, and growing our economy, we need every tool available. Geothermal can be another tool in our clean energy toolbox. Geothermal has the potential to accomplish several goals all at once improving our grid reliability, reducing carbon emissions, creating good family sustaining jobs, and for labor, one of the most exciting aspects of geothermal is absolutely the workforce opportunity. I think a lot of folks in this room wish we would switch from a petroleum based economy, but we must recognize that many of the skills used in geothermal are [10:49:30 AM] directly transferable from the oil, gas and pipeline industries. So as our economy evolves, we should ensure experienced energy workers have pathways into the next generation of energy jobs. And that's just what a just transition looks like. Labor also appreciates that this resolution recognizes that success requires bringing people together. It directs the city to bring together labor, environmental activists, industry experts, Austin energy and other stakeholders to identify opportunities and challenges. It recognizes that workers must always be a part of the conversation, and that our community must come together to support something this important. So, on behalf of liuna and the central Texas building trades council, we ask for your support of item 144 to help build our clean energy future. Thank you and solidarity forever. >> Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. Why don't we start with miss white? We'll move down this direction. >> Good morning. Kaiba white. On behalf of public citizen's Texas office, we are in support [10:50:31 AM] of this item, as we do see it as a really good direction to move in for energy efficiency. Geothermal heating and cooling is highly efficient. It does require more upfront infrastructure investment. So it is not is you know, I think readily used is some other technologies such as air source heat pumps, but it is highly effective over the long term in terms of cost reductions. So I just wanted to suggest that, you know, this might be a good application to add on to for Austin energy's district cooling kind of branch of their, of the utility, because it does require that kind of upfront investment and also, you know, potentially maintenance over time. And we have seen, you know, that these, these systems can be used for individual homes and businesses, but they can also be very effective in an aggregated kind of setting. [10:51:33 AM] I know whisper valley has used it. I think they may have had some issues. So there is, I think, still some potential kinks to work out, which might be a good reason to have the utility invested in some research in that area, but would suggest that you ask Austin energy to engage in this as a potential added business to the district cooling system. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please just state your name for the record. >> Hi there. My name is Mike Weston. I'm an apprentice inside wireman with the international brotherhood of electrical workers, local union 520 here in Austin. And I'd like to speak in favor of this proposal as a construction worker. Union construction jobs are a path to economic security for a lot of working people, and this proposal would only lead to the creation of more of those jobs. In addition, as a resident of Austin, I want to [10:52:34 AM] live in a city that invests more time and money into renewable energy sources and lessens our reliance on oil and gas. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Good morning, mayor and council. My name is Cameron Dodd. I'm a district two resident, a journeyman inside wireman, and I serve as the political director for local 520 of the international brotherhood of electrical workers. We've got 2300 members here in Austin who are working hard, building data centers and Tesla and other infrastructure for Austin's 21st century economy. But like many other Texans, we share concerns about the effects these projects have on our water and air, and the rates homeowners are paying for electricity, bringing geothermal harvesting and storage capacity to the Austin energy service area could help us address many of these growing concerns, as well as create a lot of good union jobs. Geothermal energy is clean, available 24 over seven, and of the renewable energy [10:53:35 AM] technologies, it's among the lowest in carbon emissions, land footprint and environmental contaminations. Harvesting and storing these energy. This energy uses utilizes technology and skills that could directly transfer from an industry that Texans know very well, which is drilling for oil. But this is a much cleaner form of energy. According to the university of Texas energy institute, with with purposeful, interdisciplinary collaboration and bold leadership by the state of Texas, geothermal energy could be quickly scaled to the terawatts of output globally. I hope you'll pass this resolution and put Austin at the forefront of that bold leadership. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Please. >> Good morning. I'm Cynthia shivalingam and I'm the deputy director of policy and research at the Texas climate jobs project. I'm here today in support of this resolution and as a pro-worker pro-climate organization, we see the value in cities taking steps to expand clean energy infrastructure, geothermal energy and heating and cooling are emerging as an important part of our energy mix and [10:54:36 AM] likes. Folks mentioned. These technologies are firm, which means they're always on and they'll follow demand, and they produce very little to no carbon emissions. And then also they have a very small surface footprint, which means they're underground and weather resilient. And these technologies are especially promising for Texas. A Cornell university study found that Texas has 384gw of potential geothermal energy, and installing just five of those gigawatts could significantly reduce emissions and generate over 62,000 direct jobs over ten years. And not only does Texas have the geology to support this technology, it already has the drilling infrastructure and workforce needed to make the transition more cost effective and efficient. Many of these technologies and practices developed in the oil and gas sector can be readily adapted for geothermal applications, and this presents a really great opportunity to transition skilled oil and gas workers into the clean energy industry. To this end, it's critical that labor leaders have a seat at the table in conversations [10:55:36 AM] about the energy transition. And when labor and climate advocates work together, we can build a cleaner, resilient and more equitable future for Austin. This is why I'm urging council to vote in support of this resolution, which will bring stakeholders together to understand the opportunities, challenges and feasibility of expanding geothermal in Austin. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you all, mayor. >> All speakers have now been called members. >> As you just heard, all of the speakers signed up on the consent agenda have been called. Let me ask council, are there any other items that anyone wants to pull from the consent agenda? All right. I'm going to take a motion here in just a second, but I want to be clear about the motion on two items. On item number two, council member Ellis has suggested some additional language, and I'm going to recognize her. The language that she is going to read in the record will be part of the motion on the consent agenda. Councilmember. You're recognized. >> Thank you. Mayor. The language reads the city manager is directed to provide city council and the public with a [10:56:37 AM] memo within 60 days that documents how nonprofit park partners and their agreements with the city will be recognized by acme under the revised special events ordinance. >> Thank you. Anybody have any questions, councilmember Ellis, on that. The motion that I'll ask for when we move to adopt the consent agenda, that will be part of item number two with regard to item 141, this came to us very late. I posted on the message board how it how that process is supposed to work. It came to us late and I've given information with regard to that. But I want to be clear that the red line version that you have in your backup is the one that will be on the consent agenda, and that is to deny the request. And I'll add that staff has no objection to the denial of this request. I just want to make sure that that's clear on the record on item 141. With those two things being pointed out, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as read? It's made by councilmember [10:57:38 AM] harper-madison. Is there a second there, a second, second by councilmember qadri? I'll now recognize people that want to speak with, regard or discuss the item. >> Even before I press the button. Thank you mayor. Well, great to see everybody here today. Big exciting meeting. My office brought forward two resolutions that are on the consent agenda. The first one was discussed a little bit earlier, item 87, which concerns what we call large volume water users. And we felt this was an important item to bring forward today because there's a lot of concern about the water supply here in central Texas, and also how that has been impacted by the spread of data centers and other big industry. And we do have a small number of Austin water customers who use at least 85 million gallons of water per year. And we know that one of the concerns about dogs head was that it might include a data center, and that these so-called hyperscalers can use 1 to 5 million gallons [10:58:40 AM] of water per day. And so council does already have a plan to go deeper into data centers next month. And multiple departments will be bringing forward recommendations. And also there will be a committee presentation on this policy in December. But we wanted to bring attention to large volume water users as a class today, given the concerns about dogs head. And what this policy does is it creates new requirements for large users. Before they can access water, they'll have to commit to a water conservation plan. There's also reclaimed water requirements through our purple pipe system, and it creates data reporting and transparency rules as well. The overall message is that Austin is looking very carefully at water usage, and if you want to use a lot of water, you'll not only have to pay your fair share for water and infrastructure, but you also have to conserve as much as possible. So a big thanks to a lot of people who helped on this Austin water staff, the water resource planning community task force co- sponsors alter Velasquez Ellis and qadri and Heidi Sloan in the district seven office who brought it all together. [10:59:42 AM] The other item I've sponsored is on geothermal. We heard some nice testimony about that. This resolution, item 144, seeks to promote and expand the use of geothermal storage technologies in the Austin energy service area. Geothermal energy has the potential to move us closer to our goals of decarbonizing our infrastructure and our economy, while creating jobs that can provide a just transition, just transition to Texas workers who have been previously employed in the oil and gas industry. So this was brought forward thanks to Texas climate jobs project, Austin energy, Austin climate action and resilience, and co-sponsors mayor Watson and council members alter and Velasquez. Thanks to everyone for supporting this effort that will spur innovation and energy resilience through geothermal energy. And also a big thanks to district seven, Heidi Sloan for pulling it together. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you, councilmember Siegel, councilmember Ellis, councilmember Velazquez, councilmember alter. >> Thank you. Mayor. I wanted to start my remarks with an item that's very important to me. Item number 60 is authorizing the extension of [11:00:43 AM] line of duty illness for one of our firefighters. Lieutenant Suzanne la Follette has been battling reproductive cancer. And while the federal government has been able to update their presumptive cancer list for firefighters, we haven't been able to do that at the state and local level yet. And so our firefighters do a lot for us every single day. They encounter very dangerous conditions. They inhale toxins and chemicals. And it's unfortunate that while the list of presumptive reproductive cancers does include cancers >> Is that males have. It is something that is not been listed for women that are firefighters. So I know this is something that this council supports. It's something that I care very deeply about to make sure that our public safety first responders are able to access the benefits that they deserve. After serving our city so I have another item. Two items are road renamings. Item number nine is paisano. In 2019, city council resolution called [11:01:43 AM] for renaming city assets that honor the confederacy and the institution of slavery. And so through that work, there's been another street in my district, which is item number 100. It is named plantation road. So many years ago, we got together and said, we don't want to have signs of the confederacy on our street signs in Austin, Texas. And so a number of them had been renamed throughout the years. So number 100 is plantation road. We are set to rename it to honor Tommy Lee Wyatt, and he is an Austin civil rights activist, business leader and publisher. Plantation road is shared by districts five and eight, running through what was once the freedmen's colony of kingsville. Founded in 1865 by former enslaved person Thomas kincheon and his wife, Mary. Eventually, the kinchin family transformed the 300 acre farming community into a pioneering residential development, becoming a center for south Austin's black community. So we're very excited to be moving forward with this today. A number of months ago, we were engaging [11:02:44 AM] with the Zion rest missionary Baptist church, and they came up with an idea that instead of having that name on plantation road and changing it, they wanted to change the name of the street that they resided on, which is in the exact same neighborhood. And so we will be renaming that to Zion rest Laine. And I'm very excited to be honoring the black community in south Austin, southwest Austin, south central, these neighborhoods and these streets do dissect districts five and eight. So I appreciate the collaboration with council member Ryan alter. We were able to go into that community on foot in the rain and go talk to neighbors about making sure they were comfortable with changing the name. And the response we got was an enthusiastic yes, that they wanted to see those streets renamed. And so I'm glad to see this about a year later, taking effect and helping us make our community better and reflecting the good parts of it and not the bad parts of it. And then I will close on item number 88 is a fee waiver for the trail conservancy's moonlight margarita run. They still have [11:03:46 AM] about $10,000 of public safety costs that they are trying to offset from the moonlight margarita run. So I know I put this on the message board yesterday, but if anyone has any extra fee waiver dollars as we get closer to the end of the year, I would appreciate consideration to help support our nonprofits that help better our park spaces and make sure that our trails and event spaces are well maintained so that people can enjoy the lovely trail around downtown Austin. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember, councilmember Velazquez, councilmember alter, councilmember Laine. >> Thank you mayor. So there are a number of things that I'm excited about that we just were passing on this consent agenda, and I think they all serve as a. Maybe they were all just birthday gifts to me. So we're just, we're helping out with that today. >> Take it in that sentiment. >> Yeah. No, no. And so fee waiver for lowrider show in in at the south Austin recreation center. A donation from our office to the montopolis recreation center to help kiddos with their backpacks at their back, their annual backpack drive at montopolis rec. And the biggest one, and [11:04:47 AM] this is the one that I'm really, really excited about, is today we are conveying over six acres at 4800 balm road to the a hfc for affordable housing. Now, I don't know if folks remember this, but that was one of the very first things that I passed when I got to this dais, because I grew up not too far from from where this site was. And earmarking the city property for affordable housing was, was one of the very first things that we brought. And seeing the meaningful repurposing of a site that represents and represented environmental injustice to many of my east Austin neighbors brings me a lot of joy today. So thank you to director Dean Mandy Demayo, Michael Gates, and our real estate office and all of the housing staff that work diligently to make this a reality. It really, really means a lot that it's landing today because it was a it's been a long time coming. And, and just a reminder that the the mayor that condemned that property 20 some years ago was mayor Watson. >> Thanks for the reminder. >> Thank you. [11:05:48 AM] >> Thank you, councilmember, councilmember, councilmember Laine. Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you very much. Not much left to be said about item 87 that council member Siegel talked about, but I do want to take a moment first to thank councilmember Siegel and his office for their very thorough work on this, and really also take a moment to thank the water force task force member from district five, Sarah Foust. I know she couldn't be. Oh, okay. Well, now the spotlight's on us. That's right, that's right. >> The lights go out. >> I know she couldn't be with us today, but appreciate her years of work on protecting our water supply. And some of that work has found its way here. And this is really just a phase one. As councilmember Siegel mentioned, there's going to be more work done on this in the coming months. And really, at the end of the day, you know, we want to make sure that if [11:06:48 AM] you are a large water user and you're coming to Austin, that you recognize that you're going to have to use reclaimed water, you're not going to be able to just suck this most precious resource away from the rest of us who need it. You know, the Lakes may be full today, but anyone who's been here a minute knows they can dry up just as fast. And so this is a critical, critical resource for our region. And we're going to do everything we can to protect it. So appreciate the work and look forward to seeing phases two and three as we move forward. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Laine. Council member duchen. >> Thank you, mayor. Building on that, I had the great pleasure to attend a proclamation today for distinguished service award and learn much about the history of the protection of this very precious natural resource. I represent district six, which would include the headwaters of [11:07:49 AM] bull creek, except that's in the etj, I believe, but very close to my district in bull creek, and its watershed runs through my district in all the beauty that that it brings to our city, we have much of the balcones canyonlands preserve, and even so, one of the reasons that doesn't come out of hasn't come out of my mouth on the dais yet. For moving towards city council, was being able to actually see the deterioration of water quality in the parts of bull creek that are in my district. And, and knowing and believing in the importance of sustaining this natural resource. And so while those are issues of water quality, also water usage, I would like to. Regarding item 87, I'd like to thank council member Siegel for bringing item the item forward. Responsible water usage becomes increasingly critical as our city grows and the pressure increases on our water infrastructure and water usage capacity. Developing the right way with thoughtful [11:08:50 AM] consideration of our community's values, while ensuring that the message is clear that Austin is open for business. Includes coming up with new and creative ways to conserve and protect our resources in collaboration with our business community. So thank you again for bringing this item forward, and I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> Without objection, councilmember Laine be added as a co-sponsor. >> Thank you. With respect to item 100, I'd like to thank council member Ellis for for her important words on the importance of renaming what we need to in order to enable more of our community to know that we all know this is your home and we cherish your presence here. And so I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor on that. Sorry I missed the Rainey walk, but these are the kinds of things I do enjoy joining. >> And without objection, councilmember Laine be shown as a co-sponsor of that item as well. >> Thank you. And as it relates to fee waivers, I would like to pitch in $500 for the trail conservancy, and I would like [11:09:50 AM] to pitch in $500 for the lowrider show, like an invite. Thank you. That's all I have today. >> Thank you. Council member. Council member duchen. >> Thank you mayor. I'm going to keep my comments as brief as I can because I know we've got a long day ahead of us. I'm going to flag item 21, which of course is the reason everybody is here today. This is a credit card processing contract. Here's the issue. My understanding is that we just awarded a new citywide contract to provide these services that included the requirement to process things like authorized.net transactions. And yet the contractor informed the city they could not handle those kind of transactions. These are the types of actions that concern me regarding not holding our contractors and contracts accountable as we should, especially in this era or moment of financial constraint. That's why I can't support this item. Thank you. [11:10:59 AM] >> Any other discussion? Members? The motion has been made and seconded with regard to the consent agenda, is there anyone wishing to abstain from a vote on any of the items on the consent agenda? Anyone wishing to be shown recusing themselves from a vote on any item on the consent agenda. Anyone wishing to be shown voting no. Will you state again? Okay, council member duchen will be voting no on item number 21. Is there anyone else wishing to be shown voting no on any item on the consent agenda? Seeing none. Without objection, the consent agenda is adopted, with councilmember duchen being shown voting no on item number 21 and councilmember Fuentes absent. All right, that concludes the consent agenda. Members, unless there's objection, what I'll do is recess the meeting of the Austin city council so we can take up a hfc, but without objection, the Austin city council is now in recess at 11:11 A.M. I will now call back to order the regular meeting of the Austin city council for July 23rd. It is 1117 members. What I'm going to do is I'm going to try to take up some of these items where I know we just have 1 or 2 speakers and move those forward. The first item will be item number 91. Item number 91 is an item that comes. It is a non consent item because it is an item that comes from a council committee. And it is to approve an ordinance amending city code section 21206 revising the council committee that nominates an individual to [11:18:07 AM] the joint sustainability committee. We have a speaker and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> For item 91. Bill bunch. >> Mr. Bunch passes. Those are all the speakers on item number 91. As the chair of the audit and finance committee, I move approval of item number 91. It is seconded by council member Siegel. Is there any discussion with regard to item number 91? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 91 is adopted. Wow. Can everybody see that? Fliers that just me. Sorry. Good. Yeah. I'm not sure what I did to deserve that, but here we go with council motion that is approved and item number 91 is adopted, with council member Fuentes being absent. For the record, councilmember Fuentes will not be with us today. And by the way, I'll just take a second to say it's been a year of great highs for her and a year of significant lows. And I know everybody joins me in [11:19:09 AM] congratulating her on the birth of a baby girl and the pride and joy that comes with that. But also, everybody joins me in wanting to lift her up and embrace her as she goes through the fight that she's going through right now. So, yeah. She'll be she'll be back with us next week, as I understand it, but she's not here with us today. I'm not going to call out on each vote the absence. We'll just let the record reflect that she is not going to be here today and she will be absent. With that being said, item number 91 is adopted without objection. Item number 92, 93 and 94 members. Those are eminent domain items. And what I'm going to do before I call for a motion is ask the clerk to call the speakers on item 92, 93, and 94. >> I have a speaker for 93, Craig Nasr and 94 Zenobia Joseph. [11:20:11 AM] >> Mr. Nasr, you're recognized. Miss Joseph, if you're within the sound of my voice, please make your way forward if you wish to speak. >> Craig Nasr and I live up close to this. Property. This item is in my neighborhood, and I've watched it for years. It is an example of what happens when impervious cover limits are not taken into account, and it can be devastating for homeowners. Around 1990, Braker Laine was extended between north Lamar and Merrick boulevard through the old Gracie farms dairy. It is now a six Laine divided highway. They have built Mcbee elementary school with an undersized rainwater detention pond. The increased water runoff, which sometimes floods Braker Laine to a depth of one foot, was forced down a formerly small stream into a torrent, undermining garages and houses on Eubanks drive. 20 years ago, [11:21:14 AM] I walked the creek myself. It was a horrible situation with trees down and massive erosion. The neighbors were told they all had to chip in $50,000 for a fix, because the creek itself was their property line, so there was no city property there. Some neighbors did not know what they were going to do. I'm glad that something is finally being done. I'm assuming the city buying the property will make a good fix easier, but in this case, people lose their property and the taxpayer pays the bill. If impervious cover issue had been figured out ahead of time, all this could have been avoided. Please don't let this lesson be lost on future city development. >> Thank you, Mr. Nazar. Miss Joseph on item number 94. >> Thank you, mayor council, I'm Zenobia Joseph. Item number 94 is eminent domain specifically in the Rutland area. Chito vela is specifies a [11:22:16 AM] half a mile from the park deficient area. And while I certainly don't oppose having access to park, I want to remind you chito vela, that it was you who actually decommissioned the art over at the ymca in the same vicinity. So if you care about the people in that area, I would ask you to restore route 240 Rutland, which served saint David's north. I want to remind you that it was $945,000 for people to actually ride that bus, 20.3 riders an hour. Instead, capital metro eliminated the route, created the 318 and slaughter Laine for twice the cost, half the riders 10.3 riders an hour. So advocate for access to the park on the bus. I just will remind you specifically as my title six testimony always is in the context of title six of the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. I'll just tell you [11:23:17 AM] specifically. Additionally, the civil rights restoration act of 1987 defined the word program to make clear that discrimination is prohibited throughout an entire agency. If any part of the agency receives federal assistance. And so I would ask you to distribute the resources equitably to include the rundberg north Lamar Rutland area. You know, that's right on the side of the HEB. Rundberg. There. Chito. Vela. And so what I want you to recognize is today, yes, terracotta sidewalks and a little mixed use path is being constructed. But I want you to recognize that where people are being killed on north Lamar Rosenberg, north Lamar Yeager that is not the same. And so certainly I think people should have access to the park. But I also think you need to look at the system in its entirety and to recognize your obligations under title six and to recognize the fair housing act of 1968 as well. If you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. >> That's all for those items, mayor members. [11:24:17 AM] >> Those are all the speakers on items number 92, 93 and 94 with respect to items 92, 93 and 94. Those are nonconsent condemnation items. The motion that I would ask for is to the effect that the city council of Austin authorizes the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire the property set forth and described in the agenda for the current meeting for the public uses that are described therein. Is there such a motion? Motion made by council member Ellis, seconded by the mayor pro tem. Is there discussion? Without objection, items 92, 93 and 94 are adopted, subject to the motion that I. That I read into the record. That will take us to item number 96. Item number 96 is a public hearing because it's a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 96. The public hearing [11:25:19 AM] is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> I have a remote speaker, Ron thrower. >> Mayor, council members, Ron thrower. This item is up for postponement. So we're going to defer discussion on this until it comes up for discussion. Thank you. >> I have one in-person speaker, Victoria Haas for item 96. Micah. That's all speakers for 96 mayor. >> Miss harden, could you come forward? You seem to be as confused as I might be. >> This item is actually an item from the Austin development services department, not Austin planning, but I am aware that the neighborhood requested a postponement to the August 27th or September [11:26:20 AM] September. Sorry, this is not my item. To the September 9th council meeting, so this item should be up for postponement to the your council meeting of September 9th. >> Is there anybody that. Has. Can somebody help me out here? Is that is that accurate? Yes. Okay. >> Yes it's accurate. This should have been on changes and corrections to your September 9th council. >> Very good members. The motion I'll accept. >> September 10th. There's not a council meeting. So sorry. This is not my item. September 10th council meeting. >> Is this your item? >> No. I want to make sure it would not be like this. The September 10th council meeting. >> Okay. Very good. Members. That should have been on items and corrections. Mayor pro tem moves that item number 96. Well, first of all, let me without objection, we'll close the public hearing on item number 96. The public hearing is now closed. Mayor pro tem moves and council member Siegel seconds that we postpone item number 96 until September 10th, 2026. [11:27:21 AM] That will take us to item number 97, which is also a public hearing. Without objection, we'll open the public hearing. The public hearing is now open on item number 97, and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> For 97. I have bill bunch. >> Mr. Bunch. You wish to be heard in this public hearing? >> Mayor, council members, bill bunch, executive director, save our springs alliance. This item and the next item is consistent with a few others you've approved in recent months to review, remove and deregulate property on east Riverside. Most much of it either directly on lady bird lake or very close to it, so that the owners can [11:28:21 AM] basically build whatever they want. And this was after and removing it from a plan that was a developed by community engagement to provide consistent standards and orderly development in the east Riverside corridor. Don't know why y'all think this is like good for the community. You can say the word affordability, you know, 6000 times. It doesn't make it. So this is just gross developer deregulation, you know, consistent with Ronald Reagan policies that have been shown to fail for decades. So we're against it. >> Thank you, Mr. Brunch. >> That's all for now. >> That concludes all the speakers on item number 97. So without objection, we'll close the public hearing on item number 97. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a [11:29:22 AM] motion to approve item number 97. Motion made by the mayor. Pro tem seconded by council member duchen. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 97 is adopted. That'll take us to item number 98, which is another public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 98. The public hearing is now open. >> I have two speakers for item 98, bill Bunge and Amanda swart. >> I have to say. >> Mr. Bunch is waiving his right to speak on item number 98. Is Amanda Swarr here? Amanda Swarr. All right, that concludes all the people that signed up to speak on item number 98. So without objection, we'll close the public hearing on item number 98. The public hearing is now closed, and I'll entertain a motion with regard [11:30:24 AM] to item number 98. Is there a motion motion made by council member duchen. It is seconded by council member. Harper-madison. Is there discussion? Without objection, item number 98 is adopted. Item number 99 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 99. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers for 99 members. >> There are no speakers at the public hearing on item number 99. So without objection, we will close the public hearing. The public hearing is now closed on item number 99. I'll entertain a motion with regard to item number 99. Motion made by council member Ellis. It is seconded by council member Siegel. Is there discussion on item number 99? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 99 is adopted. That'll take us to item number 100, a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 100. The public hearing is now opened and I will turn to the city clerk. >> For 100. I have Zenobia, Joseph. >> Miss Joseph, miss Joseph, [11:31:29 AM] miss Joseph. All right. Folks, one of the things while she's coming forward, let me let me just say that the fire marshal has indicated that it's better if you're. We don't have as many people standing in the back that way. So if there's a seat that you could take, I would really encourage you to do that. Thank you for doing that, miss Joseph. You'll have the floor on item 100. >> Thank you. Mayor. Council item 100 is the renaming of plantation road to Thomas Lee Wyatt Laine, Tommy Lee, Wyatt Laine. Well, I certainly do respect the work that Mr. Wyatt did, and his son continues that legacy. I just want you to recognize that my opposition is not to the person himself. I think that it asks the question about Thomas and Mary kitchen road, which would have been a little bit more appropriate. [11:32:30 AM] Mr. Wyatt is deeply rooted in east Austin, so why would the west Austin members think that it would be appropriate to name the road after him there? That's what white privilege looks like. Seven, eight, seven, five, three. They had one survey respondent. And so I would ask you to table the item and to find an appropriate site in district one to honor Mr. Wyatt appropriately. I get it. It says in the back of Wyatt. Yes. I'm assuming you asked his son and he said, okay, but he didn't live there. He didn't advocate for there. And so it's deeply disturbing that you would just put a name and think that because it's a black person that you're renaming this road after, it's okay. It's not don't distort the history, call it what it is. Go back and look at kitchen Ville or look at something that's more related to that area. So I would ask Ryan alter southwest [11:33:35 AM] Paige Ellis, since they're the sponsors of this item. How many black people did you talk to? Did you go into east Austin? Because according to the survey data, it shows like seven, eight, seven, four, nine one person and then it has seven, eight, seven, four, 922. So Natasha harper-madison glad you're here today, but could you please remind them that the Austin villagers in east Austin. Thank you, thank you. >> Thank you, miss Joseph. >> That's all for this item. >> Members, those speakers that have signed up to speak on item 100. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 100. The public hearing is now closed and I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 100. Council member Ellis moves approval of item 100. It is seconded by council member harper-madison. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 100 is approved and we will now [11:34:37 AM] go to item 101, which is also a public hearing. Mayor. >> May I say something briefly about item 100 wahab. I missed my chance. >> To speak. Now please go ahead. Okay. Let me know when you want to speak on something. >> Sorry. Yeah. I just want to thank you for raising these concerns in the public hearing. I want you to know that you're heard, and I know that I, speaking only for myself, will take these considerations into account in the future. So thank you for allowing me to learn from you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember, item number 101 is also a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item 101. The public hearing is now open. And I will turn to the city clerk. >> For 101. I have bill bunch and Molly prim. >> Mr. Bunch, do you wish to be heard on at the public hearing on item number 101? >> Just show me against. >> Mr. Bunch will be shown against it. Miss, miss prim, Molly prim, she's passing. That [11:35:39 AM] concludes all the speakers that have signed up to speak at the public hearing on item number 101. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 101. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 101. Is there a motion? Motion made by council member? Duchen is seconded by council member Ellis to approve item 101. Is there any objection? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 101 is adopted. Item 102 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 102. The public hearing is now opened and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers members. >> There are no speakers at the public hearing on item number 102. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 102. The public hearing is now closed, and I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance in 102. Is there a motion? Motion is made by council member Laine seconded by council member alter. Is there discussion? Without objection. Item number 102 is adopted. Item 103 is another public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number [11:36:41 AM] 103. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers. >> There are no speakers for the public hearing on item number 103. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 103. The public hearing is now closed, and I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 103. Council member harper-madison moves approval of the ordinance on item 103 at second by council member Ellis. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 103 is adopted. Members, that will take us to item number 104. Item number 104 is also a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 104. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers members. >> There are no speakers on item number 104 for that public hearing. So without objection, we will close the public hearing, and the public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion to approve the ordinance on item number 104. Council member Ellis moves approval is second by council member harper-madison. Is there discussion? Without objection, item number 104 is adopted. Item number 105 is a public hearing. Without objection, we [11:37:41 AM] will open the public hearing on item number 105. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers members. >> There are no speakers for the public hearing on item number 105. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on 105. It is. The public hearing is now closed. Council member Siegel moves approval of the ordinance. It is seconded by council member alter. Is there any discussion? Without objection, item number 105 is adopted. That'll take us to item number. 107. Members, hang on one second. I want to double check something. Yes, that'll take us to item number 107. Item 107 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 107. The public hearing is now open. I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers members. >> There are no speakers for the public hearing on item number 107. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 107. The public hearing is now closed and I'll entertain a motion [11:38:42 AM] with regard to the ordinance. Council member duchen moves approval of the ordinance. It is seconded by council member Laine. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 107 is adopted. Item number 108 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 108. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> I have a remote speaker for 108, James Smith. >> James Smith. >> Attorney for the petitioners. In item 108. We support the item and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I also have bill bunch. >> Mr. Bunch, do you wish to be heard on item 108? He's he's waving his right to speak on item 108. >> That's all. Speakers. >> Members, those. That concludes all the speakers on item number 108. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 108. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. Council member duchen moves approval of item number 108, a second by council member qadri. [11:39:43 AM] Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 108 is adopted. Item number 109 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 109. The public hearing is now open and I will turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers. >> Members. There are no speakers for the public hearing on item number 109. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 109. And the public hearing is now closed. And I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. It is a motion made by council member Siegel and a second by council member duchen for approval of the ordinance in item number 109. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 109 is adopted. Item number 110 is also a public hearing. The public hearing with regard. Without objection, the public hearing on item number 110 is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> There are no speakers members. >> There are no speakers for the public hearing on item number 110. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 110. The public hearing is now closed on item number 110. Council member duchen moves approval of the [11:40:44 AM] ordinance. It is seconded by council member Siegel. Is there a discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 110 is adopted. Members that will take us to item number 68. Item number 68 was pulled by council member Velasquez off the consent agenda. And we have. I'm going to recognize council member Velazquez and then we will have public testimony with regard to item number 68. Let me just say before we begin that I anticipate that that public testimony will take us to our noon time, certain at wherever we are in that public testimony on item number 68, we will pause very close to noon to do our time, certain public communication, and then we will come back to item number 68. Council member Velazquez, you pulled item number 68, so I'll [11:41:45 AM] recognize you. >> Yeah, mayor, I pulled this item to to bring a motion forward. The the I'm bringing the motion to 68 that provides direction for the city manager to do three things. It releases data collected by zo on services and housing outcomes delivered by sunrise. With this renewed contract in the I 35 area cuauhtli, it shares feedback mechanisms and past past between the community, the city, a P, D, a, I, S, D and many other organizations with whom a zo coordinates and it directs the city manager to prepare a report detailing what eviction prevention and diversion diversion services are offered to our neighbors and families families experiencing homelessness. >> Thank you, council member members, you have been supplied. It's in backup and you've been supplied. The yellow sheet, which is the more detailed version, it's the more detailed version of what council member Velasquez just laid out. It is labeled for clarity purposes. Item 68th July 23rd, 2026. Council member Velasquez. [11:42:46 AM] Version two. Version two is the one that you should be paying attention to. With that, I will turn to the city clerk and ask the clerk to call on the speakers that have signed up on item number 68. >> Thank you mayor. I have a remote speaker, Erica Shadburn. >> Hello, mayor. City council members Erica shabani here. I'm an old neighbor in district nine and also a member of the south Austin neighborhood safety alliance. And our group is in support of item number 68 with the motion as proposed by Jose council member Jose Velasquez. We feel that street outreach homeless services along the corridor are essential. But before the funding is approved, the contract is approved. We'd like to see council member Velasquez's motion added. We feel that this kind of data [11:43:47 AM] collection and transparency is really important to making sure that the program is effective, and also building trust with the community. As an educator, I want to encourage sunrise and any service provider to talk to the families, students and educators in the area. And before anybody gets on the streets there along the corridor, I highly encourage you to talk to the life, a new life, a new trusted messengers. They are working closely with the community and with the students, and they are boots on the ground every day. And they will be able to guide you as to the services that are needed in the area. We are very pleased that this motion from council member Velasquez and support item number 68. Thank you. >> Moving to speakers for item 68, I have Malcolm Yates, shilpa, Andrea bajia and Michael Ibarra. Michael, are [11:44:47 AM] you here? Yes. You have time. Donated by Patricia Henry. Patricia, are you here? Okay. You will have four minutes. >> The proposed extension of the outreach contract for homeless services that sunrise will provide to the east Riverside area. The east Riverside community welcomes any program that could help to reduce or avoid homelessness. This original sunrise contract, however, really needed some work. We appreciate the work that the council district three office has done to add the requirements that we requested. Now, however, this on the fly creation process is no way to run a contract. Zo and sunrise [11:45:52 AM] should have reached out to the community and aid before placing this contract on the agenda. Explain the goals, methods, and metrics of the program and then ask for support of the community with feasible, specific program goals and metrics. The community support for this contract would be overwhelming. Thank you for your support. >> Good morning. My name is shilpa and I manage the la quinta hotel at the corner of I-35 and oltorf. I'm not here because I don't care about the people struggling with homelessness. I'm here because this location does it wrong. The APD's own October 2025 report says it all. Within one mile of this site, APD logged in 4835 calls for service already this year on pace to match or exceed last year's [11:46:53 AM] 7200 number, over 1700 offense, reports. APD's own analysts called Burton, parker and oltorf, a known open air drug market already fueling meth use and sales at the hotels along I-35 and royal hill drive. APD's own officers flagged the risks. Pedestrian crashes on a high speed interstate proximity to Travis high school and heritage oaks park, a quality of life crisis for neighbors already fighting, trespassing and camping that will only get worse. And just this week, community impact reported a city audit found non- profits running Austin social services missed 44% of their performance goals and got paid in full anyway. No consequences, no corrective action. We're being asked to absorb all the risk for a program built on a contracting system. The city's own audit says doesn't work. I'm not asking Austin to abandon people who need help. [11:47:53 AM] I'm asking the council to delay the vote on this outreach contract until the location is reconsidered and real accountability is built into it. Don't vote yes on a site ABC's own data says isn't ready, and a system the city's own auditor said isn't working. The data is from APD's site. The audit is the city's. The choice is yours. Thank you. >> I'm Michael Ibarra from district nine, and I'm also here on behalf of sansa, the south Austin neighborhood safety alliance. We're here today to support items 66, 67 and 68. The first two were easy foundation communities and integral care will do excellent work as they always do. And we also support sunrise and item 68. Council member Velasquez's motion makes it much easier to do that, I think because there [11:48:54 AM] was a big gap between what zo said they would ask sunrise to do and what will actually go in the contract. Zo says that item 68 is about outreach to two distinct groups unsheltered individuals and families with children. That sounds great until you read the fine print, zo says. The family housing piece will happen only when possible, quote unquote. It's optional, not mandatory. And those of us who live in south Austin have learned the hard way that if it's not in the contract, it doesn't happen. If the goal really is to have sunrise serve families and children in our neighborhood, please put it in the contract. And frankly, this is part of a larger pattern. The city's existing agreement with sunrise doesn't restrict outdoor services, doesn't define what services are and aren't appropriate next to schools, and doesn't require coordination with law enforcement. It does not, for some reason, include a good [11:49:55 AM] neighbor agreement, and we can all see the results of this hands off approach. So when zo brings you a sunrise item and is missing the exact same things, the question isn't just about this contract. It's about whether or not anyone is ever going to require those things from our homeless service providers. Zo won't do it on its own, and sunrise won't volunteer it. Y'all are the only ones who can make sure this is done right. And so today we're asking you to approve item 68, but with direction to staff on three things. And I believe these are all covered in council member Velasquez's motion. But we're looking for segregated data collection. So you all can see that the family services piece is real eviction prevention services, specifically for families in our community, and formal coordination protocols with APD and aid, plus a robust community feedback mechanism. That's it. It's [11:50:57 AM] three things. It's still a yes vote. It just makes the product match the sales pitch. This is census bottom line on all of this. And if you hear nothing else from me today, please hear me on this. Homeless service providers must help our unhoused neighbors and strengthen the neighborhoods where they work. With community support. They can do both and they must do both. And today's your chance to start putting that principle in writing. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continuing with item 68, Rebecca Marc. Naya Shaw, Tanya Hughes. Chase Wright. >> If your name is called, please come forward. >> Problem in. >> The building. >> At this time. Give me a time. >> Who is that? >> Mr. Van eenoo? >> I don't have that recorded [11:51:58 AM] for this item. >> 6768 donated time. I can't let these extra two minutes go. I did the first time. >> Hang. Hang on. >> I don't have donation of time for this item. >> Well, we have a process that we follow. Will you go over? We'll go ahead and give you your four minutes. But if you'll go ahead and so we can have a record of this. >> Wright executive director of the hungry hill foundation. I'm also a valuable partner in our organization, has been a valuable partner for four years with multiple districts. Here. I relinquish to say which districts because you know who you are, right? We are in support of item 68. Why? Because it's a big part of our ecosystem. When you talk about street outreach, when we look at street outreach right now, those are your front line individuals, right? The only thing that I would recommend is that if you have the time in your day, I ask that you go out and how about you take a tour? How about you go with these outreach workers and actually see what they're doing, see the impact that they're making, because no way someone can come in this room here and paint a [11:52:59 AM] picture or paint a story of the importance of this service. And this service has been been done before the city of Austin. I believe. Now, we still don't have an outreach team for the city of Austin. We depend on our nonprofit partners right to deliver the metrics that are needed for us to even continue these programs. It's all lost in transition, right? Nobody wants to go to these homeless encampments. Nobody wants to go out there and actually see what these individuals need, the services that they need. They don't want to see the delays that they experience. But your front line nonprofits do. Hungry hill stands with sunrise. We stand with our other partners, which is its multiple partners, right? And we stand with as much as I want to say, we stand with our homeless strategy office, right? We understand they're they're dealt a hard task to, to handle. Right. But it's left up to our council members to, to, to, to hold a fair ground, right, to make sure that there's a level playing field. No offense to district three, right. But you're not the only district that experienced homeless issues, right. There's other districts out here. Northeast Austin right now have individuals sleeping on bus [11:54:00 AM] stops at the top of the of the ceiling. They're in hammocks, right? I have individuals that are referring back to our local parks, where we removed over 120 individuals from 2021 all the way to 2023. These people have come back. Why? Because they're stating that they don't have the service help, that that initially has been set down here. Right? The investments that we've already made are not showing its fruits. They're actually being routed. Every single time we come here for a budget. It's deep rooted. Now that we have a new city manager here, once again, our process is being rerouted. What it's causing is our department heads to to to go for a scramble. Right now they want to only play safe bets. Safe bets have not always been what has helped, right? You have to go back to your grassroot organizations, the individuals that will still continue to do the work because they're driven by passion, not by money. Right. And this is also coming from a nonprofit that doesn't receive, do not receive, not even 5% of our budget at hungry hill from the city of Austin. The community helps us, right? I know a lot of y'all looking like, how is he still standing? How is he still here? Right? It [11:55:01 AM] wasn't the city of Austin. Unfortunately, as much as we've been in these watersheds, as much as our unhoused individuals have took the time out their day to empower themselves so that they're not considered homeless in our house, but they started working in these same parks. We have forgotten what adding community looks like, y'all. And I don't want y'all to get wrapped up in the data because if you go look at the data for yourself, it's not even measured. It's not even measured because the amount of money that's provided versus the services that are being put out, they're not equal. We have to depend heavily on philanthropy to, to, to fill those gaps for us. And you know what's funny? All the meetings I've had with philanthropic members of our community this year, I've seen somebody from your office, they're asking our same community members to help fill these gaps for us. Right. Let us start with the stuff that we already have. Let us go back and clean up some of the assets that we already have. Let's invest in some of the stuff that we've already invested in so that we can see the fruits from our labor. Y'all, we, we, we cannot continue to point blame. I don't know where this audit came from, but I'm assuming it's only the audit for the individuals that the city fund, right. And they say [11:56:01 AM] that deliverables wasn't met. They say metrics wasn't met. I argued to say, how about you come find out for yourself if they were met. We are working with watershed right now vigorously. Their executive directors are walking in these watersheds right now with us to see the problem for themselves. So they know that they're making the correct investments. 2,000 pounds of trash a week removed from our watersheds in east Austin, from givens district to the oak springs corridor. And furthermore, I challenge you to come out. >> Thank you. Please go ahead. >> Hi. Good morning mayor. Good morning, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tanya Hughes and I'm the community engagement manager at echo or the ending community homelessness coalition. I'm also a person with lived experience of chronic homelessness, substance use and mental health challenges. And I'm also a resident of south Austin district five. I'm here to express echo support for the new south Austin navigation center and the proposed [11:57:02 AM] operator, sunrise navigation center. We urge you to approve this contract so people can begin accessing the services as soon as possible. Sunrise is a trusted partner to providers and our unsheltered neighbors alike. The trust has been built over years of consistently showing up and walking alongside people to provide them what they need. One of the most important things sunrise provides is a place where people can simply be. People experiencing homelessness are told every day where they cannot be. Sunrise is a place where for just a few hours, people can just exist. They can shower, they can get food and water. They can store their medications and their documents. They can receive mail, charge their phones and access medical care housing assessments, and find respite from the heat. But but sunrise provides more than just services. They provide dignity. Sunrise hires people who have experience homelessness, including people [11:58:03 AM] who once received services from them. That creates purpose, hope and a pathway forward. And because many staff understand homelessness personally, people are met with respect and compassion. When I walk into sunrise, I feel like I'm walking into a family. People are welcomed and treated with love, dignity, dignity and respect. We understand the concerns raised by people living near the center and the proposed new location, and those concerns should not be dismissed. But true public safety also means people having access to what they need to live healthy, fulfilling and dignified lives. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continuing with 68, Zenobia Joseph and Christopher Causby. >> Miss Joseph Christopher Coursey. I don't see anybody moving forward. >> All speakers for item 68 have been called. Mayor. >> Thank you very much. So that concludes the public testimony on item number 68. [11:59:05 AM] Councilmember Velasquez, I'll recognize you for a motion. >> Yeah, so I'll make that motion. I want to thank director David gray and Michael Ybarra and samhsa for working closely with our office on this motion today. They, director gray and zo always take the time to work with our office and help ensure that we're serving our neighbors, all of our neighbors, with dignity, diligence, and care. So I just wanted to extend a thank you to them. >> Thank you. Second by councilmember qadri. All right. Motion has been made by councilmember Velasquez, second by councilmember qadri. I want to say that that I've been working. My office has been working closely with councilmember Velasquez's office with the Santa report and working with the manager's office. And we're in the process of the phrase that got used by somebody just a moment ago about strengthening neighborhood needs to be part of it was you, sir, needs to be part of it. There's a clear recognition that if we're going to if we're going to ask for things to be located in certain [12:00:06 PM] places, we ought to go in on the front end and do what we can to strengthen. And so just be prepared that the manager's office is going to be reaching out shortly. We're organizing things so that we can reach out again and make sure that we frankly, I've been doing this long enough to recognize that that we have made what are clearly maybe some mistakes in the past of not not paying attention on the front end so that you don't add to issues that already exist. And I feel pretty strongly about that. So thank you for your time. Thank you for the report. Thank you to councilmember Velasquez and his office for the work that they're doing on this. And like I say, the mayor's office, councilmember Velasquez office are working pretty closely on that. Councilmember Laine, did you want to be recognized? Councilmember Laine you're recognized. >> I want to thank councilmember Velasquez's office for this very thoughtful guidance. As you all know, the issue of youth and children and [12:01:06 PM] the skyrocketing, skyrocketing rates of homelessness that they are experiencing is important to me, and I really appreciate the work that you and the mayor have done to provide a model for how we can provide data to the public and to our council on this issue, and and also drawing recognition to the fact that all of those who are homeless in our city are not other. They are us. When I did my first point in time count, I saw people that I'd seen on the on the streets of my neighborhood, never guessing they were homeless for years. That, it turned out, were. And so this is critically important. I really would doubt if there's a single school in our city that doesn't have children who are homeless. I know that our schools are public schools have also had issues with how to do things like repair and reopen after an emergency, when there [12:02:07 PM] are members of the homeless population living nearby. And so looking at these impacts on our schools and how we coordinate with our schools, also very important. So I'm really happy to have this model to follow in other parts of the city, and just wanted to raise my voice in support of this effort. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember qadri. >> Thank you. Mayor. I just wanted to take time to thank councilmember, your office on y'all's work on this. I had a chance to meet with Michael and Erica around the samhsa proposals. Really appreciate all the work that y'all have put forward for that. And I think ultimately, I think councilmember Laine had a lot of points I was going to hit. But, you know, the work we do is for love of community, love of neighbor, and our neighbors are our neighbors. So thank you all for everything they all do. And thanks for the folks on this dais. And thanks to director gray and his team as well. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember harper-madison. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be brief. I'd just like to be added as a co-sponsor of the birthday boy will allow me. >> Without objection, councilmember harper-madison will be shown as a co-sponsor [12:03:08 PM] of item number 68. Thank you members. The motion has been made and seconded to approve item number 68, and it includes the direction that councilmember Velasquez has laid out in what is marked as councilmember Velasquez version two. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, item number 68 is approved. Members that will take us to our 12:00. Thank you all for being here in your work, councilmember. That will take us to our 12:00 time. Certain. Which is public communications, and I will turn to the city clerk members signed up for public communication. You kind of know where you are on that list. So if you can start making your way forward and you'll be available and we can call on you, and you can start speaking just as soon as your name is called, we would appreciate that. So if you know, nobody's moving. >> First speaker is Christian Bowen, followed by David [12:04:09 PM] Weinberg. And marilla Thorne Thompson. >> Christian Bowen, David Weinberg and then marilla Thorne Thompson. Mr. Weinberg, why don't you begin? >> Thank you. Thank you, mayor and council members, before I say what I wanted to come here and say today, I. I wanted to echo the some of the remarks the mayor made a little earlier. I'm sure that many of you have known councilwoman Fuentes and her husband, Curtis Smith Smith, much longer than I have, but I have found them both to be incredibly friendly and generous and kind and helpful to me in my time in Austin, Texas. So I wanted to wish them the best for their family and a speedy recovery. I wanted to talk at a council meeting earlier this year, when a rezoning project was up dealing with the rosedale neighborhood. [12:05:09 PM] The council meeting ran late and I wasn't able to stick around for that. But here's here's the punchline. The decisions this council makes policy wise on land use do not exist in a vacuum. With voters in the city of Austin. I think what's happening in rosedale right now, or it's a continuing sort of process, but you have a neighborhood of people who are feel like they've been left out of a conversation about rezoning in their neighborhood. They are upset because they thought they had an agreement with the developer. And then things changed. And they are now in a position where earlier in the year, they had to sweat out whether this council was going to go ahead and push through that rezoning before there was some sort of consensus with the developer and with the neighbors. And on top of that, they are also being sued by the school [12:06:11 PM] district over a matter regarding deed restrictions. >> I cannot imagine how the people in the neighborhood of rosedale. When it comes time later, maybe this year, to vote on a bond election, or maybe in another year to vote on a tax rate election, are going to be feeling magnanimous and are going to be feeling excited to be giving more tax dollars to the city of Austin. So I think that's a really great case study of of ways that things need to be done better in my final, you know, half minute here, I'll say a good transition. This particular matter is in council member Segal's district. But there are other big public policy questions which are similar. In effect, all of you later today, we're going to be talking about dogs head. And I suspect there are a lot of people in this room and elsewhere, Democrats, [12:07:12 PM] liberals, Progressives, democratic socialists who may be pretty upset with how this council decides to vote on that matter. So please keep that in mind. Thank you. >> Please just identify yourself for the record. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Marilyn thorn Thompson. Austin has been my home since 2001. I'm. I reside in district eight. I'm here to make sure you are aware of how spectrum and their subcontractors lja engineering and quest utility construction construction are treating residents of Austin. The threats they pose to residents safety and the damage they cause to city infrastructure, protected trees, private property. Despite my, myself and my husband's repeated protest verbally and in writing over multiple days prior to this meeting, I shared a detailed overview of my situation, as well as multiple [12:08:13 PM] news articles and investigative reports that I'll share that share stories alarmingly similar to mine, council member alter. I'll call to your attention. This also involves your district. In the email and attached documentation, I provide my reference numbers. Reference numbers for the three city permits granted by the city of Austin. My 311 calls over many weeks, and for service, request tickets to draw your attention to what's happening, I ask that this incident be reviewed by the city attorney. I'm happy to provide additional documentation, including text messages to the crew foreman and supervisor. On September 20th, September 15th, 2025, where we clearly inform them they are operating outside of the easement, which were acknowledged by the crew, and they continued operating outside of the easement for roughly seven more hours that day. I'm happy to share over 200 photos and videos I have of the crew as they continue to [12:09:13 PM] ignore our protests. On September 16th, 2025. When the crews returned the next day, I was advised to call 911 by my APD district representative. Responding officers issued a criminal trespass notice to spectrum and their contractors. Almost one year later, my backyard is still a crime scene with an open trench, crew, debris, etc. I have a deep appreciation for every city employee I have spoken with on this matter, but I've yet to speak to the person whose job it is to do something to hold them accountable. Thank you for your time. I'm ready and willing to support you however I can in the service of my fellow austinites. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here, mayor. >> Very quickly, I just wanted to ask the speaker if you could stick around. I want to make sure we can get your information and help you. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Ruben Rivera, Clemente Lianes, papa. Nicola, Philip. [12:10:15 PM] Gerald. Justin Strader. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Please just take a seat and state your name for the record and begin speaking. >> Yanni papanicolaou, district eight. I'm here to talk about transit. >> I'm sorry. Say your name again, please. >> Yanni. Papanicolaou. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Oh my god. Sorry. >> You're doing fine. >> I'm. This is J ust. Sorry. I'm. This is nervous. >> It's all right. [12:11:17 PM] >> Can you come back to me later? >> I sure will, sir. If you'd state your name for the record. >> I just want to say. Is this on? No. Is this on now? Okay, cool. Hey, my name is Philip Fitzgerald. I'm a resident of district one. It's my first time speaking ever. If you guys want to give me a round of applause. Thank you. Yeah. So I was born and raised across the Austin metro. I've always lived here. I've known different parts of the Austin metro. Growing up in north Austin, one of the things that I loved was the diversity of my classmates, which is not something that you'll find in a lot of places in Austin. In high school, I, I spent time in Round Rock, and obviously they're known for their great schools. In college, I went to Texas state down in San Marcos, and it was my first time living in a walkable area, which I thought was was phenomenal. And now living on the east side, what I found is a community that has a ton of [12:12:18 PM] energy and excitement and pride, something across all these areas that that I've found love in is my ability to walk around these, these areas. Growing up, I would wait for my parents to get home from, from work. You know, I'd be after school, we would eat dinner and then we'd put on our shoes and we'd go walk two, three, four miles together. And in high school, my friends and I would would walk to school or walk to each other's houses because we didn't have a car. Obviously, you know, in college, you could walk to the bars, you could walk to the restaurants, you could walk to the stores. It was great. Now, on the east side, every day I'm out there walking to the coffee shops and to the to the local businesses and to the gym and just really anywhere. But the issue is, since 2019, since we introduced scooters, our sidewalks have just been swamped with them. And anytime you go outside, as you can see in some of these pictures, they're they're just [12:13:19 PM] everywhere. And it's made walking across our city more difficult. So I as, as an example, whenever I'm out on, on east, I don't know if you guys ever go out, I'm sure you do secretly, but you know, you're out with friends, you have a few drinks, you leave the bar and then you step outside and you see a scooter and you go to step over it and you bang your ankle and your first thought is, who put that there? Right? Why is that there? And I use that as an example. But, but my, my point is that that scooter on the ground, it screams to us that we need to do a better job of making this city walkable. And that includes getting obstructions out of the way. And we have examples of other cities like Seattle and Los Angeles, where they build these boxes, where the scooters are required to be put there. And they they university of Texas has fines up to $150 for people that park inappropriately. And I know a few years ago we passed some regulations, but we don't enforce the fines and we don't enforce, you know, require [12:14:19 PM] these to put them in the boxes. I walk around the city all the time, and I don't even see the boxes anywhere. And in the early 2000, we had the great streets program that still continues to this day. >> Thank you sir. Good first effort. Appreciate you. Please. >> I'm feeling better now. What you said about the walkability thing actually works really well with transit. We need to we need to do better, a better job as a city and investing in both walkability and transit, because it's just so much better for everyone. And. I, I would really appreciate of if I didn't have to drive everywhere. Like I live, I live in circle C, and there is a bus that goes downtown, but it only operates [12:15:22 PM] two times every day and it's in the early morning, so it's not useful at all. I wish there were more busses that could get to downtown and other places that go to my neighborhood and every other neighborhood, so that we don't have to drive as much. And also about the the light rail that y'all are planning to build, I hope, I hope it doesn't do the same damage that the interstate highway did 70 years ago, because that is really devastating. Land is not meant to be stolen. So we need to be very careful about it. And also. I think the network needs to be bigger. One line is not enough and it never will be. We need [12:16:24 PM] to start drawing more transit for the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good job. >> Paul Carmona, Reese Armstrong and kaiba white signed up remotely but has not dialed in. >> For. For. Scheduling purposes. Let me let council know and and others that what we'll do at the end of public communications. We're going to take up pulled item number 86. Whenever you're ready just state your name. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and city council members. My name is Paul Carmona. I've never addressed the city council, but I have sung to this city council. Some years ago, when the mayor declared Austin's that day bar and grill singers day. I have been in Austin [12:17:26 PM] since 1985, lived here and was born here in 64 and held hostage in Dallas till I could get back here. I run a lot. I live in district eight. I run down to the trail. I submitted these documents to the to the mayor and city council. There's this ordinance, 8544, which prohibits jumping from bridges into town lake or Barton springs. And I've run. I took these pictures on Saturday. I ran there, Sunday I ran there, Monday I ran there, Tuesday I'll run there this afternoon. I run down to the trail. I run across that footbridge right over the Barton creek inlet. And during the summer months, it started about ten years ago. There's these huge crowds. You can see the rest of the pictures that gather on this bridge. And the city ordinance says it is a violation of city ordinance to jump from the bridge. And so, yeah, I understand and having listened to a lot of these issues today, that there are much bigger fish to fry for this city. But I [12:18:28 PM] have seen, as you can see in some of these pictures, I've actually had it happen to me where I'm trying to get across this bridge. There's a large crowds of people. Someone who's very wet climbs onto that rail and slips back and landed on me, and then I've seen it sometime on that rail slip and fall into a mother pushing a stroller. I've seen the jumpers jump into the creek below, where there's kayakers and paddle boarders and so on, and have some near misses. I attached to my submission articles from 2018 and 2014, where the city has been made aware of this, and there's just no enforcement. I've called 311 to say, look, I hate to be the old guy shaking his fist at the sky about an issue, but this is a hazard. It's dangerous. And I know the mayor, from your days as a plaintiff's attorney, would not would not with stand up for the idea that there is a risk and [12:19:29 PM] that it's going to take a child in a kayak being paralyzed, or worse, when a jumper lands on top of them. And if you go out there on the weekends, there are hundreds of people gathering in the middle of town lake on their paddle boards, on their kayaks and their canoes, and I applaud that. It's a great way to celebrate our city, but to get there, most of them have to go under this bridge and seeing 20 or 30 or more people jumping off this bridge, they attach rope swings and land into the water below. I just think it's a hazard, and it would be a shame for the city to see something happen to a resident who's injured by this. If you're not going to enforce the ordinance, then repeal it and take the signs down. Or better yet, start charging tickets for the jumpers. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carmona. Good to see you. Does anybody miss white. >> Can you go to the last slide [12:20:30 PM] please. Good afternoon. My name is kaiba white and I work for public citizens Texas office. We remain very concerned about the lack of transparency with how the city council is making decisions about Austin energy matters. Following the secret vote to approve the purchase of gas burning speakers in may, an Austin energy spokesperson stated that voting in secret and Austin energy issues is not infrequent, but that it's always posted in the minutes after Katy, reporters did extensive, extensive research and found that not to be true, the spokesperson changed his story and said that, quote, the fact that minutes do not reflect that a vote was taken does not mean that a vote was not taken. That means that Austin energy residents and Austin energy and Austin Austin residents and Austin energy ratepayers have no true transparency with what the utility is spending money on. Back to slide two, please. This lack of transparency by Austin [12:21:31 PM] energy was on display at the electric utility commission this week. A utility representative made a presentation on Austin energy's proposed budget. I asked what projects? Not the details about them, just the list were included in the power production capital budget. Circled in green here, and I was told that it was a competitive matter and wouldn't be shared. How could a simple list of projects be a competitive matter? Austin energy did confirm that the gas speakers were in that line item. Back to slide one, please. I compared the values shared for fy 27 with those shared last July for fy 26. The difference in the power production capital budget from 2026 to 2030 is an eye popping $1.3 billion. Slide three please. Given Austin energy's refusal to confirm any projects other than the 400mw of gas speakers, I'm left to assume that is the projected [12:22:32 PM] cost of purchasing and installing them $1.33 billion. Wow, so much for affordability. It's spending like this that leads to 5% per year rate increases, spending 1.33 billion without any transparency is unacceptable. So is any other decision made in secret, especially if it isn't posted on an agenda? Austin energy customers might have their power on, but we're still being kept in the dark. And while we sit in the dark, our Austin energy rates are going up. It's well past time for a full rate case with a consumer advocate and an independent hearing examiner. As has been the past tradition, Austin energy customers deserve better than annual rate increases with no transparency. Please stop making decisions without posting them on an agenda. And please make all votes in public. And please reject Austin energy's latest [12:23:32 PM] request to increase rates by another 5% until after a full rate case. Thank you, thank you. >> Mayor. All noon. Public communication has been called. >> All right, members, everyone that's been that signed up to speak on this has been called. I said we're going to take up item number 86. But the person pulled is not here. So. Tell you what. Why don't we take a five minute break. Because I want to take up out of 86. And I'm trying to do this in an organized way. Take up item 86 before we then go to the next big item. That's going to take so much time. So why don't we do this? It's 1224. Without objection, we are recessed until 1235. Without objection, we're recessed until 1235. It is 12:24 P.M. [12:35:13 PM] That got almost no reaction. Very good. It's now 1235. And I will call the Austin city council back to order. After a brief recess, we're going to take up item number 86, item number 86 was is a an item that was pulled by council member duchen. I'm going to recognize council member duchen as the person that pulled the item, and then we'll have whatever we need to have. We have public comment on this as well. But I also want to recognize you for having pulled the item, why you pulled the item, and then we're gonna go to speakers. >> Thank you mayor. I'll try and be as brief as possible. We recognize that there were some concerns that we learned from from AFD and other fire and code experts about this item that I don't think have been addressed yet in the current version. And so my hope is that we can call on our chief building official, mister cox [12:36:16 PM] Wilcox, and and chief oak from the from AFD, to help get clarity on some of those concerns. >> Thank you. What I want to do is first go to the speakers and then we'll have discussion. Councilmember Laine is the sponsor. Do you want to say anything before we go to speakers? >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, council member duchen, for raising your concerns. I'm happy that we were able to handle some of them through the message board that's publicly available. I also would like to move through this as quickly as possible, but I do want to say about a way out, a little bit of information. I'm proud to sponsor this item. I really want to thank staff for the work they've done to get us to this point. This council has also, before I arrive, done the hard work of legalizing, taking legal steps to make the missing middle housing legal in Austin. But legalizing housing is only the first step. We must also remove the barriers that make it difficult or uneconomical to build. One of those barriers is our building code, and we have control over that. Today, any building with three or more units is treated as an apartment building. That means [12:37:17 PM] a triplex or a fourplex on a small residential lot is typically reviewed under the same code framework as a downtown high rise, bringing with it significantly greater cost and complexity. It also affects our construction workforce. We have a large number of builders and tradespeople who are licensed and experienced under the international residential code, but not under the international building code. As a result, they are effectively discouraged or prohibited from building four homes instead of two. With that work going to large, statewide or national companies instead of our homegrown businesses here in Austin, this topic hits particularly close to home for me. I think of the piece family housing project. One of the first items that I spoke about from the dais after I took office a year and a half ago. It's a four unit home for families experiencing homelessness in the district six etj it is approximately the same general scale and scope of a similar single family erk house renovation costs to prepare this unused church [12:38:17 PM] building for families to move into were originally quoted at less than $1 million by a residential builder, but the increased requirements of the ibc code resulted in higher cost subcontractors, additional engineering and design costs required city council vote, site work and price escalation during the longer multi-year permitting and review process that nearly doubled the cost. I was the third city council member who had been in office since they started trying to get that project done, which ultimately improves the environmental condition of the site. All of this could have been avoided and more dollars made available to support the families who are experiencing homelessness who so desperately need that help. I also want to be clear. I also want to be clear about what this resolution does not do. It does not increase allowable density anywhere in the city. Unit counts remain a zoning decision. It also does not change the building code today. It's simply direct staff to evaluate whether there is a safe, appropriate path to modernize [12:39:17 PM] our code while maintaining strong life safety standards. Austin would not be the first city or state to take this approach. North Carolina raised its threshold to four units statewide in 2024. Memphis increased its threshold to six units in 2021. Dallas is at eight. A four unit threshold is a measured, conservative place for Austin to begin exploring this issue. It is also the unit threshold that the real estate sector uses as a dividing line between residential and commercial. My staff has engaged with fire who approved of. You know, I'm going to stop right there. Yeah, I'm gonna stop right there. >> Good deal. Very good. Thank you. Both council members. Now, what I'll do is turn to the city clerk. Please call the speakers, and then we'll take up the item. At the conclusion of that. >> For item 86. Jason Hoskins, [12:40:19 PM] Zachary Faddis, Victoria kidder, Angela Garza. >> If your names and call, please come forward. >> Howdy, mayor and council members. My name is Zach Faddis. I'm a resident of district nine and president of aura, a grassroots organization focused on housing and transportation advocacy in Austin. We are strongly in favor of item 86. I want to focus on the feedback I've heard from council member duchen and the city bureaucracy regarding safety. I can't dispute their claims, but I want to point out that their analysis is incomplete without considering how these building code changes will affect vehicular safety. When we make it illegal and infeasible through our building code and zoning laws to build dense, walkable, transit supportive and mixed use communities, we are condemning our citizens to live in sprawling suburbs where every trip outside their home will be mediated by a car. This is not only expensive and harmful to our climate, it is [12:41:21 PM] dangerous. In the last decade, traffic have. Traffic has claimed more deaths than fires at a rate of about 25 to 1. This does not mean that fire deaths should not be taken seriously, but it must be put into the context of a world of trade offs. I believe a world of drastically fewer traffic deaths is possible. But to achieve this, we must build communities that enable car trips to be shortened or displaced, making it cheaper to build multifamily housing, as this item would do, is a necessary step in the fight to end traffic deaths. The safest building is one that's never built, and the safest car trip is never taken. It is much easier, and looking at the data, a much greater safety imperative that we displace car trips instead of making infeasible the building of multifamily housing. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. Please just state your name for the record. >> Good afternoon, mayor Watson and esteemed Austin city council members. My name is Victoria keter, and I serve as the government relations and outreach manager for the home builders association of greater Austin. I'm testifying today in [12:42:22 PM] favor of item 86, a resolution directing staff to expand the scope of the international residential code, or irc to include small multi-unit residential buildings known as house plexes of up to four attached dwelling units. Currently, buildings of four units or more must comply with the international building code, which is designed primarily for commercial occupancies and large multifamily construction. This mismatch has contributed to the cost and difficulty of building smaller scale missing middle housing types. That is why the hba strongly supports item 86, which addresses this issue in the following ways it right sizes, engineering, permitting and subtracting costs subcontracting costs for smaller scale residential buildings. It aligns with existing city policies such as site plan, light utility provisions and driveway standards, and it builds upon previous council initiatives such as the missing middle and [12:43:23 PM] mixed use zoning resolution home one and two, and the etod overlay policy plans. This resolution serves as a strong step forward. However, the hba further encourages council to consider exploring the extension of irc eligibility to buildings of up to six units to further expand access to missing middle housing, as many of our peer jurisdictions across the United States have done, the hba stands ready to partner with the city as these efforts move forward. Thank you for your leadership. >> Thank you. >> Chris Gannon, Josh Goldenberg, and Greg Anderson. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. We'll start here and go this direction. So thank you. All right. [12:44:23 PM] >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Council. Appreciate council member Laine for bringing this item forward. This is a meaningful amendment that will lower the cost of housing for the smaller, missing middle apartment buildings that we're trying to get built here in Austin. Everyone said pretty much everything I was going to say, so I'm going to skip forward to some of the more juicy data bits. Is the irc safe? That's kind of what this whole piece hinges on. And the answer is yes. The irc contains provisions for both active and passive fire safety provisions and life safety provisions. The active protections include requirements for sprinklers and an interconnected alarm system. The passive protections include fire rate, fire rey, dwelling unit separations, fire separation, distance, fire rated doors, floor assembly, membrane protections, fire blocking and draft stopping, and emergency escape and rescue openings. It's a safe code and [12:45:26 PM] for units is a conservative number. Six eight units would would be very well covered by this code. Four units make sense for Austin because of all of the site plan light driveway allowances, trash allowances. There's a lot of things that align up for units. The nfpa has published data on their sprinkler systems. There's three types of sprinkler systems that are available. The ones that we're proposing are the nfpa 13 D. That's the domestic ones. These do not have provisions for interior shared common spaces. So in response we're proposing that the house plex not include those spaces. Let's conform the building to the sprinkler code. Instead of trying to twist a building into something that maybe is not properly covered. And I have seven seconds left, there's a presentation that's in your email box. There's a lot more juicy data. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Anderson. Why don't you [12:46:26 PM] go? >> Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor council, I'm Greg Anderson with Austin habitat for humanity, and we strongly support item 86. Cities like Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, jurisdictions across California and many other communities have modernized their code to make it easier to build smaller multifamily housing while maintaining strong life safety standards. Austin should do the same. Condominiums and small multiplexes are increasingly becoming the starter homes of the 21st century. Every unnecessary code requirement ultimately shows up in the price of a home. I'd argue also to encourage you to consider expanding this from four attached units to six. One point I'd ask you to keep in mind, austinites don't suddenly become safer because we've made efficient, more affordable housing harder to build. Too often, those families are simply pushed further away, leading to longer commutes, more traffic, and less walkable communities. Austin fire department's job is to focus on fire safety. That's exactly what we want them to do. But your job is broader. We've seen AFD push for wider streets to [12:47:27 PM] accommodate apparatus. While well-intentioned, wider streets increase vehicle speeds. Impervious cover development costs make our street conditions less safe for motorists, walkers and cyclists. That's why we elect you all to balance these priorities. Item 86 does exactly this it preserves life safety while reducing unnecessary barriers to building the kind of homes Austin desperately needs. We hope you'll support it and consider expanding it up to six dwelling units. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. State your name for the record. >> Josh Goldenberg and I am an elected member of the Austin youth council, representing district ten, and I am also a member of the Austin working group. I'm here today speaking on behalf of myself and strongly in favor of item 86. We've heard a lot of the more technical arguments already, so I want to focus my testimony on the more human effects of what this policy will bring. So as a [12:48:29 PM] young person who was born and raised in Austin but also wants to build a future in Austin, we I believe that we need Moe affordable housing within the city proper, and we need to build. And as part of that, we need more dense infill housing. And that includes missing middle housing. The. The the changes to the development code proposed in this item would do that really well. And I really and I highly encourage you to, to consider increasing the number, increasing the maximum number of units on the in the house plexes to six to allow for even greater density within our existing neighborhoods. I would also like to throw my full support behind the provision in the draft recommendation or the draft ordinance to direct the city manager to consider figuring [12:49:30 PM] out how we can expand this, expand this policy to affect units up to 15 units, and how we can simplify the ibc to make it easier to build those sorts of units. We can't let the population growth is going to come. And if we want if we're serious about reducing urban suburban sprawl, then we have to invite more residents into the city. And missing middle is the way to do this. Please support. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. I'll. Speakers for item 86 have been called. >> Thank you members. All the speakers have been called on item number 86. I want to say for the record there. This item has a version two. I want to make sure everybody is aware of version two and that that is when I call for a motion momentarily. That is the the what the motion will be based on version two. Councilmember Laine, I will recognize you for a motion. We'll get a motion out on the table and then we'll [12:50:32 PM] have discussion. >> So moved. >> Council member Laine moves approval of version two of item number 86. Is there a second to the motion? Second by the mayor pro tem, if you want to talk about this, I'm going to recognize council member Laine briefly, and then we'll have further discussion. And then I'll ask you to close at the appropriate time. >> Thank you. Do you have the ability to ask a couple questions of. Sure. It adds director Keith Mars. Thank you in my remarks that I've given so far, I. And I wish that I had been saying this as you were walking down, but I commented on the impact to affordability. Just with the example of a single construction contract to renovate a property. I myself [12:51:32 PM] spent a decade working in the field of housing, and I did a. I did as a real estate appraiser. I no longer wear that hat, but I can speak from my own experience about just one fee that's related to a four unit property. If I were a residential appraiser today, I don't know what the fees are now, but back in my day it would have cost $450 to get an appraisal. But from a residential appraiser for a fourplex, once I put on my commercial real estate appraiser hat, it was $4,500. There are so many fees and expenses that are associated with housing, and just that one is a ten fold increase. And so with those two examples in mind, I also would like to ask director Mars, can you explain how the contemplated change would impact housing affordability in your view? >> Mayor council. Keith Mars, [12:52:34 PM] director, Austin development services. >> Department I'm not sure you're on. If you are, you need to speak up. >> Thank you mayor. That's better. Thank you sir. Afternoon, council. Mayor Keith Mars. Director. Austin. Development services department. So the the fee structure of the city is residential permitting, commercial permitting. I can tell you that we understand council's direction on this matter, which is to make four units look more like a residential product, both in the construction methods and in the permitting approach that that we will take. So, yes, there is a distinction in the fees between commercial and residential. >> Is there also. So there's a significant difference in the fees and the process. Is there a difference in the amount of time it takes to go through the process? >> I will ask our chief building official to provide some better input on that. >> Mayor and council Todd Wilcox, city's building official on residential plan review. Usually seven business [12:53:34 PM] days on a commercial plan review of something of this size. It would also be seven business days. Okay, great. >> That's great news. I like those those numbers. How does this approach fit in with our missing middle goals? If you have anything to add? >> Sure. So currently single family, for example, single family sf three is is up to three units. And then we see zoning categories that then are generally more units. So we understand that this missing middle housing type of four, five, six units. Et-cetera. The intention from the council is again to make it look more like a residential product and less like a larger multifamily construction, primarily the stick, the, the, the wood construction is going to be similar of what you would see with a fourth unit, as you would expect, with 1 or 2 units. >> Thank you. If this if we were to move forward, can you lay out the process between here and ordinance adoption? Which departments would be involved, how it might come back to the public's view, that [12:54:36 PM] sort of thing. >> I'm gonna ask the chief building official lay out the specifics of the process, but I do want to to state that we again, we understand the direction. I think that we collectively and working with stakeholders need to take the. Through the process, we may discover that there's a different pathways or better pathways to achieve the outcome that the council is looking for. So we'll take that into consideration of, again, understanding of trying to make this look more like single family construction, residential construction from fees, process and requirements. In terms of process, I'm going to ask the chief building official, can I weigh. >> Something before we move on? Because I really liked that response. I, as a sponsor, I'm not looking for a preordained outcome. I'm looking for engagement by our professional staff to come out with the most effective recommendation possible. So I really appreciated that. Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> As far as the overall process, it would be similar or [12:55:38 PM] exact same as all the other technical code amendments we've done. I would establish a working group of city staff, come up with the appropriate language, decide which direction we're going to go and what recommendations we'll make will engage outside stakeholders groups. We'll have, you know, public and virtual stakeholders meetings doing affordability impact statement. Go to the appropriate board for recommendation to come back to council and bring the recommendation back to council after that recommendation. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. I, I want to I'm finished with my questions for the two of you, I appreciate it. I want to make a couple of additional additional comments as it relates to fire safety. You know, I so much information that I haven't shared. And here it comes, even on a busy council day. So, you know, as someone whose family home burned down and was a total loss, the original home in the Austin neighborhood that [12:56:40 PM] I graduated from high school in, no sprinklers. And then I watched the entire process of rebuilding. And even though a residential home doesn't require sprinklers, you can bet that my family had sprinklers in it. And so I, I only mention that because fires touch us so much in the city of Austin, wildfire concerns a variety of ways. And, and I, I want to share that I do not bring this forward because I am cavalier as it relates to fire safety. It is important that we craft effective policy that also maintains safety. And so I'll also let you all know that in the development of this ifc, my staff, my staff engaged with the fire department who approved the language before we brought the item, we thought we were bringing an item on consent that would move fairly quickly. We did come to learn that fire department has their thoughts have shifted, and we have a pulled item and more discussion than any of us [12:57:41 PM] particularly wanted on this extremely busy council meeting day. But I'm fine with that because what we need is we need a robust. This is not a sign of the process not working. It is a sign of the process working. We brought this forward where the public could see where fire, could see, where all of us could see. And what we are trying to do is kick off a robust consideration among our professional staff, not slowed down by the political winds, where you can speak directly and bluntly with each other and come back with a recommendation. So this ifc does nothing but initiate an exploration and a conversation, and direct the city manager to put together an inter departmental task force in a city that sometimes struggles to work effectively. Interdepartmentally. That is an important step to give that direction. So I will hold further questions until I see where this discussion goes. >> Thank you. >> Very much. Thank you. >> Council member Ellis. >> Thank you. Mayor, I want to [12:58:41 PM] extend my appreciation to council member Laine for bringing this item forward and for the other co- sponsors. I think that it builds really, really well on some of the work that we've done as a council over the years. I know in December of 2022, we authored site plan light, which was right in line with this conversation. It was looking at the single unit and duplex units being treated one way. And then once you hit the third unit, you were in a full site plan like big, large scale apartment complexes like the one that I live in. So I think that this builds on that work. We've been routinely trying to chip away at what makes housing harder to build and how to blend our communities back together. And so I think that this is perfectly in line with those initiatives that previous councils have adopted, as well as some of my other policy areas. And on that note, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> Without objection, councilmember Ellis be shown as a co-sponsor of item number 86. Is there any further questions that any members of the council have? Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Keep keeping in mind [12:59:42 PM] everybody what's in front of us. >> Yeah. >> So I've got a few questions for staff. I realize this is a very technical matter, and I'm. In your experience as the chief building official, Mr. Wilcox, is it typical for code changes like this to be initiated by the council versus professional staff? >> Recently, there have been several code amendments initiated by council that that is your prerogative. Typically, the code cycle is generated through the icc. The state and the cities adopt the model code with their local amendments. So I it's it's normal. It's becoming normal. It is more normal than it used to be. So I don't know what typical would be, but that's it's it's normal. >> Okay. Well, broadly speaking, what's the difference between the ibc and irc as far as sort of what sort of structures do [1:00:42 PM] each apply to? >> So they're both books are structured differently. The irc encompasses mechanical, electrical, and plumbing on top of all the building regulations. It's intended for one and two family dwellings and townhouses up to three storeys toward the ibc covers all building types. In the irc, there is no rie use classifications in the ibc, there is R one, two, three, and four, and so residential would be broken up between one of the R one, two, 3 or 4. >> And so which are which are stronger. >> The the building code has language to build any building. So generally it's considered stronger. >> The irc or the ibc. >> The ibc. >> Okay. Got it. So one of the very specific instructions in this item is to recommend the use of nfpa 13 D rather than 13 R. Can you help me understand what the difference is between [1:01:42 PM] these two systems? >> I could explain it, but I think it would be better for the fire chief. >> Please go ahead. Chief. >> Chief of staff, Austin. Fire. So typically. >> Can I interrupt? I apologize all three of you, for some reason, feel the need to talk very quietly today. And I and I know all three of you. And I don't know why that's the case. So speak directly into the microphone and help us out a little bit. >> Absolutely. Sorry, mayor. So 1313 R is going to be a more robust system that we would see typically in a commercial building. And a 13 D is designed mostly just for escape for individuals in a home. And so it's not necessarily designed to protect the structures designed for folks to be able to get out of the building safely in case of a fire. >> Okay. So what effect these different safety systems have regarding fire spreading or the speed and intensity of a fire? >> So with a 13 R, we would expect the fire to potentially be put out by the sprinkler [1:02:43 PM] systems. And with the 13 D, we would expect it more to be kept in check for the fire department to get there and finish putting it out. There's less guarantee of structural protection in the 13 D okay. >> And I guess 13 D are more likely to be taken over by a fire compared to those of 13. R is what I'm hearing you say. >> Theoretically, yes. So obviously there's a lot of circumstances that that go into that. >> What about when you've got a large building like a fourplex? I'm assuming that burns up faster and hotter. Wouldn't that increase the risk of a fire spreading in a denser area? >> It depends on a lot of factors. How close are the buildings together and and what other construction materials are used in the building? What exterior materials are used in the building? Are there windows facing each other on each side of the building? So there's a lot of factors that go into that. But theoretically, yes, you would expect better coverage from from a 13 R. >> Okay. Well let's focus on the sprinkler system since that's what a lot of this is [1:03:44 PM] about. Would the code change require the use of the sprinkler systems in all instances of fourplex? Are there going to be exemptions? How's that going to work? >> I would I would love for us to be able to work through the process with development services to figure that out, because I think that we can get to, to a good spot with it that we can all live with. Obviously, we want them to be affordable, but we want them to be safe as well. >> Okay. And fourplexes are currently permitted in city code, right? Correct. Well, Mr. Wilcox, >> As the chief building official. What's your experience? What, in your experience is the primary limiting regulation of fourplexes, for instance? Is it building code? Is it zoning? Is it some other? Is it something else? >> In my experience in recent history, it would be a zoning. Zoning is what restricts fourplexes at this point. >> And in your discussions with builders and contractors on this issue, did. Did builders [1:04:44 PM] and construction workers identify ipc as a cost driver? It like Mr. Mars has already said so, but I want to make sure that's you're in agreement. >> From the contractors. I've spoken to. The code that's used to build a building doesn't isn't a cost driver for the product, like insurance or something else. >> It's not a cost driver. >> Well, there there would be more material in a fourplex than it would a three plex. So that would drive the cost, but not necessarily the code that's used. >> Okay. I might have to come back to that distinction. In my understanding is this item was supposed to be taken up yesterday by the building and fire code board of appeals, for which I think you serve as the secretary, but they didn't make a recommendation. Can you expand on what happened when the board took up the item yesterday? >> Yes. Yesterday's item on the agenda was not for action. It was just for discussion. When the when the item was brought up for discussion, three of the board members left the room, [1:05:45 PM] which which eliminated the quorum. So the meeting had to stop. >> Okay, I want to just get in your own words, chief. What is your central concern around this item right now? >> My, my, my central concern with just making sure that we would that whatever we do, we don't compromise the safety with it. And so I think that there's a path forward for us to be able to do that. >> What do you think the best pathway is? >> I would I would need to look at everything. And based on the design, whether, you know, a 13 D may work based on the design, a 13 R may be the best choice. So we would like to be able to look at every piece of it and you know, make a make an informed decision. >> Is there anything in this ifc that keeps you from doing that as it goes forward? >> No. >> Okay. >> I'm going to conclude, and I appreciate your your answers there. I want to just read some [1:06:48 PM] comments of somebody that couldn't be here today to testify very quickly as a district ten resident and also a nationally recognized expert in code and fire safety, and I believe was working with the sponsors to try and get some of these issues resolved. But the language that's still not changed in the first section of this regarding house plexes with 3 or 4 units, he refers to as the most alarming part of this. He writes the directing that three and four unit buildings be permitted with a two hour separation versus sprinklers represents a dramatic reduction in safety to Austin residents who will occupy these buildings versus what is required by model codes, by the vast majority of jurisdictions throughout the country. There's no allowance for stacking of units beyond two without sprinklers, period. The two hour townhouse separation that you are apparently modeling is for side by side units, not stacked beyond two. We've already heard [1:07:48 PM] the narrative over and over smoke kills much more often than fire. Two hour fire assembly is not a smoke separation. And in this type of construction, there is no realistic way to seal smoke from vertical transit. The higher you are in the building, the more at risk you are of not getting out from a fire below. I have worked in fire fatality cases in two storey single exterior exit apartments in which the stairway was compromised by smoke and fire coming from a broken window or left open door below. Children, elderly and people with limited mobility impairments will not be able to use an escape window, and relying on the fire department to rescue them is not a good plan. I'm not a fan of pm 2024 002 in general, but I will point out that it is not specifically allow three stack units, and nevertheless, it always requires sprinklers. If you're going to reference that as a basis for this resolution. How do you justify a policy requiring sprinklers in three unit buildings, but then having provision in the resolution for [1:08:48 PM] fourplexes that don't always require sprinklers? Also, I find it highly misleading to reference sprinklers many times in the preamble, but that insert a non sprinklers option in the resolution. Bottom line nobody wants to occupy unsafe affordable housing. This resolution, as it reads, reduces the level of safety to Austin residents who will occupy these buildings versus what is provided today. And as compared to most jurisdictions around the country, not recognizing the increased hazard of stacked units is grossly negligent when it is common knowledge that smoke rises and smoke kills. These are single exit buildings that could have escaped windows as high as the fifth story. I urge, with the utmost concern, the suggested allowance to permit three plus dwelling units in a building without fire sprinklers be reconsidered. While other issues are not unimportant. The non sprinkler option in that first section should be a nonstarter for anyone who believes that affordable housing should also be safe. I'm just going to ask chief or Mr. Wilcox if they [1:09:50 PM] would generally agree with that concern. >> So I would recognize the concern and welcome the ability to address it in the process moving forward. >> Mr. Wilcox? >> We would address that in our working groups as we move forward. >> Okay. All right. That's all I got. Thank you. Mayor. >> Mayor pro tem. And then I'm going to call on the sponsor to close so we can move on. >> Just I'm a co-sponsor and it's an excellent item. I think that we get too strict on that small scale building. And it drives up costs and it hurts affordability. Again, I just appreciate all the time and effort that council member Laine has put into it that her staff has put into it. And again, this is one of those kind of small changes with potentially big results in terms of adding affordable kind of small scale missing middle housing. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem council member Laine, you can close. >> Thank you so much. In my opening, when I when I noted [1:10:51 PM] the importance of giving our professional staff the space, the time to have a robust internal discussion and to have that out of the way of the political winds. This is exactly what I was talking about. Coming from the wild west of Austin district six. I've seen lots of attempts to break quorum in order to stop discussion. That's a political maneuver. It's a it's an appropriate one in some cases. But that's not what we want to get our professional staff held up in. We even lost quorum here, and it delayed the discussion here. I'm not here for that. I'm here for more efficient government. I'm here to work to solve problems, to increase affordability without sacrificing safety. The idea that I would bring forward at all and try to try to force something so negligent as to endanger our families. When I [1:11:51 PM] have both professional background and personal lived experience as it relates to this, and my district is firmly between where the steiner ranch fires were and the more recent grass fires in Avery ranch. So I'm going to dial it back down, and I'm going to note just how large our audience is here today. Now that I'm on the dais as an elected official, my role is to hear from the community. It is not to get into the technical weeds in a council meeting. You all know me well enough to know that I could ask a lot of technical questions. >> I know. >> Yep, I know right? A few of them drafted by myself. >> You don't even really give long closings. >> Well, this this is actually the job I'm in now though, is the words. So, you know, some of those drafted by my staff and many of them coming directly from me. But I am going to skip all of that. I'm not going to ask any more questions. I'm going to ask my colleagues to consider moving straight to vote. Let's pass [1:12:52 PM] this so that we can hand it off to our professional staff and hear back their strongest recommendation for us. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, council member members. The motion has been made and seconded to adopt item number 86, version two. Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, those in favor signify by raising your hand up. Those opposed? All right. The item is adopted, with council member duchen being shown voting no. That concludes item number 86. Members. We're now going to go to what is broadly referred to as dogs head. We have a number of items on dogs head, the order in which we're going to go, and this has been worked out with legal staff is we're going to go item number 142, 111, 15, 14, 75, 76 and 106. The way we're going to do [1:13:53 PM] this is we're going to call up each item and we'll take it up with with comment and then and, and then action on the item individually as we go along. So the first item is number item number 142, followed by number one, 11, 15, 1475, 76, and 106. We have a very large number of speakers and of course everybody's entitled to do that to speak. And we're happy to have you here. What I would ask though, is if you're just generally in favor or generally opposed, and you've signed up to speak on number 142, and you then don't need to speak on each of the additional six items, just let us know you're speaking once and doing it that way. That out of respect for the people that are coming behind you, that are also wanting to speak on those, on those items. The way we'll do it is, as we typically do, I will call on the city clerk's office. They will call out your [1:14:53 PM] names again. If your name is called, don't just stay in your seat. If your name is called, please make your way forward. A that tells us that you're here and we'll look for you. But B it also, again, out of respect for the people that may be here a long time after you, because of the number of people that have signed up to speak, it will help us be more efficient in getting to the speakers. So the first item we will take up is item number 142, and I'll turn to the city clerk to please start us with our speakers. >> We have two remote speakers. I have kalu James for item 142. Colleague. >> Mayor and councilman and everyone involved with this. My name is James and I live in district nine. I definitely call and urge to reject the execution of the amendment to the development agreement. The [1:15:53 PM] current agreement was negotiated behind closed doors without a public access, and was approved before many nearby residents even knew it existed. The current agreement includes no cap on impervious cover, no height limits, broad zoning permissions, major floodplains and critical water qualities and modifications and administrative variances. Without meaningful public oversight. And all those are increasing risks from flooding, erosion, polluted run off TRE and habitat loss, and urban island effects. So I urge you to reject exemption, execution of the amendments to the development agreement. And I do believe that east Austin residents deserve more than one week's notice to review the terms of the development agreement. And I know that we have a bunch of other items coming up under this, so I will use my time while I wait for the rest to come in. Thank you. [1:16:59 PM] >> Also, also on item 142, remote speaker Francis Acuna. >> This is Francis Acuna, and I want to speak in his one time and all the items as well. My name is Francis Acuna and I am here to speak against the dog head development items. As you know, flooding and displacement has been what we all have been fighting against. And I'm sorry, we've been fighting against flooding and displacement forever. And this project you are looking to approve over 2600 acres of development, of which 1700 acres will be impervious, cover the massive development will have a huge [1:18:01 PM] impact on the development and the environmental environment, traffic, infrastructure, wildfire, wildlife and quality of water along the Colorado river that will be impacting bastrop's drinking water. We are looking at 45 year development agreement with tax giveaways that were that will come from tax payers. We are already fighting against the 2600 acres of data center. Plus we already have airport, the airport and Tesla discharging contaminated runoff water from the. To the Colorado river, affecting wildlife and human life. You will need to look at what is going on downstream to prevent adverse flooding, impact and displacement. [1:19:02 PM] Consider speaking to the community experts downstream and don't approve this development without considering the capital loss. The wildlife loss, the environmental. >> Laws. >> And the human law. Thank you. >> Continuing with in-person speakers for item 142, we have Rita Thompson, Josh Goldenberg, Susana Almanza, Ben Thompson. If I've called your name, please come forward, state your name for the record. >> Josh Goldenberg, district ten on this specific item. I'm going to pass because I have a lot more detailed comments about one, 11 and 15, but please note that I'm in favor of 1475 and 76, and I don't [1:20:02 PM] have specific comments. Thank you. >> Please. >> Hello. Rita Thompson, district five. Please vote no on these amendments. I went ahead and attempted. I am not a lawyer. I went ahead and tried to look at the land development code. I looked at the subsections and I looked at the changes that were proposed, but I just stopped in my tracks when it actually read that there would be no compliance. It states, according to doghead development developers, that we will not be complying with environmental criteria, but we'll get back with you at a later date. I'm not a lawyer, but that was the gist of it. So we're talking about significant environmental risk here. It is not gone before any environmental commission. This is unacceptable. This is some of the I'm so disappointed in the city of Austin because this [1:21:03 PM] is some of the worst public policy I think I've seen in a long time. I mean, there's been disappointments and there's been betrayals and there's been differences of opinions. But this just this just floored me. I used to come down here a lot in the 80s and subsequently later years, but this just feels like bad old days where we were like, what is happening and where are these deals being made? It hasn't felt this bad in a long time. There's a way to just stop. When in doubt, stop and look to your colleagues with Travis county. They looked at this. They would not feel good about these amendments at this juncture, and they were open to say they would reconsider. But they're just do not rush this. And even if there were some agreements made legally but ethically questionable, let let them know that now that you've had more [1:22:04 PM] public input, you need to revisit it. Thank you. >> Please begin. >> Mayor. >> Council. Ben Thompson, district two resident. I'm generally here. I'm here generally opposed to all of the dog's head items before you today. I do a lot in the community, but today I'm here representing only myself, my family and my friends who are avid users of the Colorado river. We've hunted and fished there and canoed, swam for years, and enjoyed the fact that we have such a treasure in central Texas. And first, I want to acknowledge my own friends and mentors who, primarily during the 1980s and the 1990s, worked tirelessly to protect the water quality and the river downstream from Austin, protecting both the wildlife, the downstream users who rely on the water for for [1:23:05 PM] drinking, etc. But without dwelling too much on the past. I want to point out something that we seem to kind of lost. And that was an idea in the 1990s that seemed pretty obvious to most correct thinking. People call them liberals or leftists or Progressives, but I think it was all of the country that truly understood that trickle down economics is a scam. And I know a lot of you on the dais say a lot of those kind of things. Yet nevertheless, here we are today by the maybe hundreds, begging you not to give another billion dollars to a bunch of billionaires. Jeff bezos, Jeff bezos doesn't need a handout from Austin taxpayers. And we should not be subsidizing entities, companies, people who seek to exploit our natural resources in our community. Thank you. [1:24:09 PM] >> For. 142 Beatrice Anderson. >> Please repeat the names. >> Item. 142 Beatrice Anderson. >> Please call more than one name. >> Richard suttle. Are you present? Oh, is this Beatrice? Beatrice has time donation from Kristen and Monica Guzman. Are Kristen and Monica present? >> I see miss, yes they are. >> Okay. So please set the timer for six minutes. >> Please begin. >> Good afternoon council Beatrice Anderson, save our springs alliance for the first time since hearing about this deal in may. I almost had a sliver of hope seeing that there was an amendment going to be considered. Because lord knows, the development agreement as it stands is a complete disaster, both environmentally. It is a [1:25:10 PM] disaster for transparency and public trust in all of you and for the community who it will be displaced by. This project will be at higher risk of flooding and has had no say in what the future of their community is going to look like. That hope faded when there is no amendment posted, there's nothing for us to review and we still don't know what that what these changes that you are contemplating are. And there is still no public engagement. You have everyone here today telling you to and begging you to listen to them and design the community that they live in and will continue to live in around the need, the needs of the community who lives there. They're telling you what they want and we are asking you to listen. You have the opportunity with this amendment to heed our cries and do the right thing and change this [1:26:11 PM] development agreement to better protect our waters, to better protect the people, to better protect our air, and better protect the culture of Austin. One thing I find well, council member vela is not with us, but he did recently post on Facebook and it is clear that he is not even aware that this property is already annexed. So it is confusing to me how votes are being made by council members who have not read the agreement and don't even know what is going on. It is incredibly frustrating. If I showed up to my job and I had not done my homework, I showed up that level of unprepared that I did not even know that this land was annexed. I would not have a job. >> That's right. >> Another thing that council member vela said in this illuminating Facebook post is that, you know, we did this in the Miller development. We can [1:27:11 PM] do it here. You cannot just copy and paste developments all over town. The Miller development is not on top of an alluvial aquifer. The Miller development is not on top of the drinking water source for bastrop and Maynor. The Miller development is not almost entirely in a floodplain. The Miller development is not surrounded on three sides by the Colorado river. The. The pristine, free flowing section of the Colorado river. You cannot copy and paste. Thank you for joining us. The Miller development on the dog's head. >> Shea. Shea. >> You cannot copy and paste Miller here because the land is not the same. The people are not the same. The needs of the community. There are not the same. The needs of the river, the needs of the environment. There are not the same. And we are here urging you again to do [1:28:14 PM] the right thing and go back to the drawing board. You have appointed commissioners for their expertise. Lean on them. We can go to the final slide. You have incredible city staff behind you. You have the community. These are just the people who have the privilege of being able to take off of work and show up here today. There are so many more of us. You have the whole community of Austin here to guide you, listen to us, and you have billions of dollars of investment. Endeavor is again, they are sophisticated developers. I refuse to believe that this is the best that you can do, the best that they can do, and the best that we as a city can do. We can come up with something more creative. That's it. >> Please begin. [1:29:16 PM] >> Mayor, before Mr. Suttle begins, he has time donated from Amanda moreau. Is she here? >> Yes. >> Okay, so Mr. Suttle will have four minutes. >> Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Richard suttle. I'm here on behalf of endeavor, the owner of the dog's head. You know, we're in a really unique position, and it's it's ironic because. But for the annexation of this property, we wouldn't be here today. Our our whole our whole conversation with our community is because endeavor voluntarily came to you and said, would you annex the property? In a word, in a world where most people on this agenda are dis annexing and leaving our city, and in a world where most people are getting out of the etj where they can endeavor, voluntarily came in and reached an agreement with you on the annexation. Now, what folks, look, our democracy allows a lot of. >> Comment. >> But let's be whether you're. >> For something. >> Or you're against something, [1:30:17 PM] let's act like we support our democracy and we allow for people to speak without interrupting them. And you can kiss me all you want, but but. >> Corporations aren't people. >> Well, this person is speaking, and that's who you need to allow to speak. Otherwise you're speaking might be interrupted as well. So please, let's just act like Austin ought to act and allow everybody to comment whether you agree or not. So by voluntarily coming into the city, they voluntarily submit to Austin's jurisdiction, the city regulations, the environmental regulations, the zoning, the transportation. They agree to pay taxes, full taxes, increase the tax base, do floodplain improvements, access to the river that doesn't exist today. Along this tract, six miles of trail that doesn't exist. And many good things come out of this, but [1:31:19 PM] also with annexation comes for the city, the obligation by state law to provide services to this property and to provide services requires infrastructure. There's virtually no city infrastructure in this area. So in the old days, when cities were allowed to just annex without the consent of the landowner, cities would actually extend infrastructure. And that's virtually all this agreement does, is provide for a mechanism for our city to extend infrastructure so that development can occur. Tax base can be created, more taxes can be collected, and more things that we all know and love about Austin can be accomplished, such as social service funding. The way this process works is endeavor takes the risk, pays for the infrastructure, installs the infrastructure, and if and only if assessed valuation on their property goes up, and if and only if the [1:32:19 PM] tax value is sufficient to to support a reimbursement, then they get reimbursed. Not for all of it, but a portion of the infrastructure that they've put in the ground. And that's virtually what we're talking about today. Now, I've been accused of saying that this is a bombed out mine pit. Well, I stand by that. And, and we we had some bad information on when we could load a video for you. We've got a 2.5 minute video for you that if you're interested in seeing it, I'll need permission from you to ask the city clerk to load it. If you if you didn't get it, it's a 2.5 minute video drone video that shows you the beautiful river frontage that we all agree on needs to be protected. It also shows the areas that have in are in mining, reclamation or have been reclaimed. And you'll see a stark difference between the two. And I think we can do a responsible job of the [1:33:19 PM] reclamation and redevelopment of the reclaimed area, as well as the protection and providing access to the people. Are the people of Austin to the river along this property? Murray there's a lot, a lot of items today. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the on 142 there are amendments that we've all agreed are a good idea. And if you have any questions for me later on, please call me up. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next set of speakers are bill bunch, Jane doe, Craig nazer, Stephen brown, Lee Edwards, robin Schneider, all. >> Please come forward. Folks, I apologize, but the fire marshal says that having that many people standing in this area is a danger. And so if you can take a seat. I know we're full up pretty much, but if you can take a seat, I would encourage you to do that. Thank you. [1:34:27 PM] >> Bill bunch, executive director, save our springs alliance on this proposed measure to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute amendments to the agreement that this body approved. There's no resolution in front of you. There's no draft amendment. You're not allowed to delegate your ordinance making powers to the city manager in the back room with Richard suttle. You have to do that up here on the dais. And clearly, since there's no draft ordinance, you're not ready to do that. Going to some of the details, I mean, this is picking around the edges. Okay, we're going to go from 100% impervious cover to 79% gross site. That's almost all of it. And the the remaining 21% is [1:35:28 PM] almost certainly the most severe floodplain that you can't build in anyway. So literally, we're getting nothing here. This letter from Richard suttle, they're going to give us 100 zero zero $0 for displacement and needs assessment, 100 000 bucks. We're giving them how many billions? 1.2 billion, 3 billion, 5 billion. The agreement is a percentage. There's not it's not even capped. You don't even know how much money you're giving away. And it's over 40 years. 45 years. Excuse me, 35 years for the development for the tirz, 45 years for the development agreement. This is not a pig in a poke. This is a giant pig farm in a poke. You are absolutely clueless and giving [1:36:31 PM] up your powers that we gave you. >> Hello, Craig. Nazer, Sierra club and Austin environmental Democrats and I have never been so disappointed in Austin in my life. I it's it's it's it's painful. But on the other hand, this is a community. These people are a community. I have met with them. I met new friends, young people, people who weren't even born in 1990 at another meeting that was very similar to this. Now, do you want to split Austin in this way? I know a lot of you. I know you're well-meaning. I [1:37:32 PM] don't know why you've agreed on such a terrible process. We have no input. I mean, Richard suttle, I'll get in trouble for saying this. I like Richard suttle. He's a nice guy. He really is, and he believes what he's saying. I have no doubt about that. But for seven years they planned this. Did they ever come to this community saying, hey, we got some ideas for the spot? You want to talk about it? No. And you know, why not? I'll tell you what I think it is. I think it is how you value money or how you value community. And then how do you value the environment? How many of you have been to the dog's head? Don't raise your hands. You don't. How many of you have been to the dog's head? I've been down there. The first store I ever went to in Austin was Callahan's in 1978. Don't [1:38:37 PM] do this. I'm asking you not to do this. I don't have enough time to go in to the details. Maybe I'll have later. Thank you very much. >> Good evening. My name is Stephen brown and I'm a lifelong east austinite. I've lived in d1 district one. I'm here today to oppose the tirz in the dogs head development and this whole process. I am tired of seeing public pain used for public gain. I say that again. I am tired of seeing public pain being used for public private gain. I've. I've watched lifelong friends and neighbors get pushed out by gentrification. I've talked to hard working families every day that are struggling to make ends meet here in the city that they helped build. They asked [1:39:38 PM] me a simple question is Austin still a place for me? So I have this simple question for this council. Where are the tax breaks for the working families? What where are the incentives for the teachers and first responders and for the construction workers, small business owners that make Austin what it is? Where are their tax breaks? Instead, we're preparing to give millions, billions in public tax dollars to a wealthy developer. Last year, we were told that Austin desperately needed approximately $109 million through prop Q, and the voters said no. And guess what? Austin is still standing. And now we're being told that if we don't do this deal, we're going to lose an opportunity. And I just don't believe that. I believe that we can work and figure out something a lot better that will put money back [1:40:38 PM] in hard working families pockets and not just developers. I'm asking y'all to use your conscience. Trust the people. We don't need to pay so much in construction, in consulting. If we just listen to the people. >> Rachel Scott, Robert hill, Harper Higginbotham, Betsy Greenberg, Harris Andrews, Harris are you here? Is Carson Gilchrist here? Okay, y'all have donated time. >> I am here. My name is Robert hale. I'm here to speak, but I have donated time on item 111. And so I'm going to wait to speak on item 11. So I have more time because I need to speak multiple times. So since I've only got two minutes now and I'd have four minutes, then I'm going to wait and speak on the next item of the series [1:41:40 PM] that are related. >> Oh that's fine. So you're waiving your, your right to speak right now. >> Because I've got more time on the next item. I didn't have time donated on each one and I need to speak multiple times. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Please go ahead. >> My name is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. This item is to authorize the negotiation and execution of amendments to the dog's head agreement. I'm opposed and hope you will vote no on all the dog's head items. I will have more to add on other items. If you pass this item, please remove the words and execution as was done with the circuit of Americas agreement to kick back hotel occupancy taxes to the owner, a revised agreement should without a doubt be reconsidered by the council and transparent to the public when the agreement is amended. I hope, among other things, you [1:42:42 PM] will add a prohibition of the data center use and remove. And remove language, including as determined by dog's head and similar phrases that give the developer license to do whatever they want. Please vote no. >> Good afternoon. My name is iris Andrews. I currently work with save our springs, but for today I am just representing myself and my personal capacity. I live in district four. So Mr. Vela, you are my representative. You may have seen me when I spoke at Travis county where I said that endeavor is treating all of us like dogs, but in fact we are not dogs. I stand by that statement. Today. It is clear that this agreement unamended, is flawed. That's why these amendments are up for discussion in the first place. You know it. Travis county commissioners court knew it. Our brothers and sisters in the unions here today know it, the developer knows it, and we the people know it. I am ecstatic [1:43:43 PM] that you are considering amendments. I really am, because it shows that at a minimum, you are hearing some of what we are saying. I will say, though, I am saddened by the fact that the proposed amendments from endeavor haven't been published and weren't published for the public to review until moments before taking up this item, I think that if this language had been available to review sooner, we all could have saved a bunch of time and we could have tailored our concerns to these new amendments, rather than coming up here and talking to you about the original development agreement and the tirz, which you're about to change, I want to be as explicitly clear as I can. I'm so happy that our brothers and sisters in the unions were given the opportunity to table, to spell out their concerns, to be heard, and to get their interest ultimately represented in endeavor's proposed amendments. I cannot express any more support for that, but that is what the core of why many of us are here to be treated the same, to be given the chance to not only say what we need to say, but to actually be heard, to work with the council and the developer to build a better future with a better future together for Austin. But we weren't afforded the same opportunities or given [1:44:44 PM] the same trust that our concerns are real and valid. I really appreciated the commissioners court in Travis county, speaking about the letters and emails they've received and taking a really critical approach to this development agreement to try and find out ways that everyone can get something out of it. I wish I could feel the same about this council. I feel quite upset to have been accused of spreading misinformation about this whole development by my fellow citizens and some of my elected representatives. That is unacceptable. I started working on this project less than ten days after the agreement passed, and I haven't stopped. I've read the agreement forwards, backwards, upside down at work and at home. I know what the agreement says and more importantly, I know what it does not say. There is some truth in claims of misinformation there. There has been some going around about this project. I want to talk mostly about the amendments that endeavor has presented to you that you only posted again moments before discussing this item. Endeavor presents you with a strong arm agreement. They have presented amendments to get in your good graces and say that they want to do the right thing. However, endeavor doesn't want to do the right [1:45:44 PM] thing. They are making these amendments only if you ignore our concerns and you accept the tirz right now, here today, endeavor only now has put in worker protections, a displacement needs assessment, and barely lowering the impervious cover limit to only 79%, which is still too much and barely dropping the tax increments from 85 from 80% to around 70 to 66% over the course of the tirz. The true misinformation going around is that endeavor wants to actually do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. They have presented you with paltry amendments so they can give an inch to turn around and take 3000 acres. The truth is that these amendments should have been required in the first place. Commissioner Shea said it best there was a whole lot of, trust me, from the developer. But the fact is, there are and still are no agreements or guarantees in the agreement as written. The fact is, many people still don't understand what the development agreement is going to do, especially our neighbors downstream in bastrop who don't even know this development is coming. I know you all are working on this amendment. I know you all want to get this [1:46:44 PM] done. You want to build a better Austin, and so do we. I want to believe the mayor, when he said that the council should take responsibility to make sure that they do, they pay attention on the front end to make responsible decisions first, so we don't have to come back and fix mistakes later. I hope each of you would reject the amendments that endeavor has put forward today, that you reject the tirz and you reject dogs head until the people have an actual meaningful say in crafting the amendments with you and working together to build a better Austin. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, miss Almanza. >> Good afternoon. I'm Susan Almanza with poder. First, I want to wish councilman Jose Velasquez a happy birthday boy. Estamos en la Sierra de la decision del consejo municipal sobre aprobar nuestros ingresos fiscales el proyecto llamado dogshit del Lado de los scenarios O del medio ambiente de la gente van a Tener con Su [1:47:46 PM] plan maestro de mil veintiocho de desplaza a las personas de bajos ingresos Y las comunidades de color. Ma mas si elle est Y buscando instalaciones toxicos en sus comunidades, se pueden del Lado de la gente O de los multimillionaires. Este consejo sigue voltando a favor de los hijos de promotores Y mobiliarios Y los propios en Lugar de la necesidad de necesidades de la gente del Pueblo no regala nuestros ingresos fiscales a los multimillionaires no regala. Nuestros impuestos vote no. Today we're waiting. The city council's decision on whether to approve using our tax dollars for urban development project, known as dogs head, will they side with billionaires or with environmental. And the people. Will they continue? The 1928 master plan of displacing low [1:48:47 PM] income individuals and communities of color further east and placing toxic facilities in their neighborhoods? Will they stand with the people or with the billionaires? The council keeps voting to line their pockets of real estate developers and their own. Instead of addressing the people's needs. Don't give away our tax dollars to billionaires. Don't give away our tax money. Vote no. Thank you. >> Katy Gaar, Craig Janowski, Alexis Willis, Barbara Macarthur, Stephan Faris. >> If your name is called, please come on down. >> Hi. >> I'm Craig Jankowski, district ten. I'm going to defer to issue 111. >> Okay. Thank you sir. >> Thank you all for your time today. My name is Katy gay, and I'm here on behalf of evergreen Austin, a local women led nonprofit organization working [1:49:48 PM] to expand and protect the green spaces that make Austin and Travis county distinctive, healthy, and livable. We urge you to vote no or postpone the dog's head items. This false sense of urgency to develop has been happening for years in Austin with the same cast of characters, and it needs to stop. The development agreement is not good for people or the natural resources in the area. The city and county also need to stop making plans that they have no will to prioritize and finance, such as the 2012 Colorado river corridor plan that includes dogs, head and states, and, I quote, to provide orderly growth to preserve and enhance the area's many valuable environmental, economic, recreational and cultural resources. What happened to this plan? Mayor Watson at the recent national greater and greener conference hosted here in town? He said that Austin's biggest challenge is funding parks and green space, which is exactly why we proposed exploring a parks district, a tool designed to create dedicated funding for the. Parks are growing city [1:50:49 PM] needs. Yet this agreement, approved by you and council, originally allowed for 100% impervious cover with no meaningful commitment to new public green space now amended to 79%. How will you make sure this doesn't just include medians? I remind you that no parkland will be dedicated for 15 years in this 45 year buildout. I promise you, this vote will not be forgotten. With half of city council up for election, austinites will be paying attention to how you represent them and their interests here today. People won't remember the item number, but they will remember you ushering in yet another giant corporation into our land. Roberta crenshaw's legacy was protecting lady bird lake. Is this going to be yours? >> Wu. >> Go ahead ma'am. >> Hi. My name is Barbara Macarthur and I live in district seven. As far as I know. I think endeavor and Amazon are for profit companies [1:51:50 PM] that make very huge profits. I think our elected officials job is to support the people who live here and not rape the community. Thank you. One thing I'd like to say, and I'm saying this for the people who apparently did not completely read the agreement, is that signing this agreement, you gave away a lot of the city's rights. You've already given those away. For example, you've given away the right when they have a development application for you to ask for any requirements that aren't in this existing agreement, you have no right to change things. Then here. A provision for the city council's adoption of a regulating plan for the dog's head property has to be acceptable to dog's head, as determined solely by dog's head. You don't have input, they have [1:52:52 PM] to accept it. A provision for the city council's adoption of an ordinance opposing a tirz project and financing plan, in accordance with section 311 of the tax code on terms acceptable to dog head, as determined solely by dog's head. So you have already ceded your right to have anything that they don't agree to. And I'm asking you not to approve these amendments, which just popped up a few minutes ago. You didn't give the public time to look at these amendments. And yet perhaps you're going to vote on them soon without us knowing. This is kind of an abomination of what should be a public process. Please don't vote. >> Good afternoon. I am Alexis Willis and I am a resident in district eight. I'm going to [1:53:52 PM] reserve my right to speak now and on another number of the items, and I'll come back at to speak just a 15 to give everyone else back time this afternoon. I am here in favor of all of the amendments and in favor of the tirz being voted yes so that we can keep Austin open for open for business. >> Thank you. >> Marc Orth, Jeff Mccrary, Cecilia Smith, Lou pasetto, Garrett tongue, Elizabeth Levins. >> Welcome, welcome. If you're ready, you want to go ahead? >> Yeah. I'm gonna postpone until or pass until item 111. >> All right. Thank you very much, sir. >> What's your name, sir? >> Jeff Mccrary, district eight. >> Thank you. >> I'm Sheila Smith, and I'm going to wait until amendment 111 comes up. >> Thank you very much, ma'am. [1:54:53 PM] Sir. Here to my left. To the far right. Do you want to start or whoever's ready. >> Two will wait till item 111 shows up. >> What's your name, sir? >> Lewis pasetto. >> Thank you. >> Thank you sir. >> Hi, my name is Garrett tongue. I live in district three. We are here today to approve a tirz that would give endeavor and Amazon $1.2 billion of our taxpayer money, so they can build a 300 acre site to create, conservatively, 300 jobs. That is a job per acre. That is not great. That's not job growth. That is not economic development. It's corporate welfare. That does not signal that Austin is open for business. It shows that Austin will bend over for business. >> Good afternoon. My name is [1:55:53 PM] Marc Austin, resident since 1989, homeowner and district eight. I've owned and operated a software company here in Austin for 20 years, and that employed about 30 software engineers. Currently, I'm a chief technology officer at a marketing research firm. Outside of work, avid cyclist, photographer, and a frequent trail user. I love all of Austin's outdoor spaces, but especially our hike and bike trail. I access that on my bike directly from my home in the spyglass neighborhood. I'm on it all the time. I'm here to voice support for the dog's head project because to me, it represents an outstanding opportunity for Austin to strengthen our economy while expanding parks and trails and public access to the Colorado river now and for future generations. Like my two daughters, I support this project because of what. To me, it says about Austin's future. Austin has always been a leading city for technology and innovation, which is the field that I'm in, and it has driven the spectacular growth that I [1:56:54 PM] have witnessed firsthand in my 37 years here. It's what makes Austin the best place to live anywhere in America. I support dog's head project because it's going to restore previously disturbed land. It's going to enhance my public access to the Colorado river through new parks and trails. And importantly, it's going to create outstanding jobs, housing and infrastructure. We have a great reputation for attracting the best and most innovative companies, while still protecting the quality that makes people want to live here in the first place. I believe this project represents an outstanding opportunity to invest in both. I respectfully encourage you to vote yes on this proposal. >> Thank you sir. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Lisa Levins and I live in the dog's head neighborhood. I'm speaking neutrally on item 42 because I appreciate any effort to strengthen the environmental protections and drainage drainage standards. Those are important goals, and I hope this amendment genuinely [1:57:55 PM] approves improves both. That said, I think today's item also illustrates why so many residents have been asking council to slow down and proceed carefully. This project is incredibly complex. Environmental protections, drainage, development standards, transportation and the proposed tears are all intertwined. When pieces of the agreement continue to change, it's difficult for the public to fully understand the long term impacts or to evaluate whether the protections being added are sufficient. As someone whose home and neighborhood are directly affected, I want to know that these standards are not just well-intentioned but enforceable. I want confidence that drainage requirements will account for increasing severe storms, that environmental commitments will be monitored over time, and that these protections won't be weakened through future amendments. Ultimately, good development is about more than what gets built. It's about building public [1:58:56 PM] trust, transparency, accountability and meaningful public engagement are what give communities confidence that decisions are being made in the public's best interest. I encourage council to ensure that these amendments truly strengthen the agreement and provide lasting protections for both the environment and the people who already call this area home. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Carlos pinon, David seeds, Shane. Johnson, Kaya Denson, Patrick rose. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Please go ahead and again whenever you're ready. Yes. >> Hello again. My name is Kaya Denson. District two, born and raised austinite one mile from the new Amazon site. I am [1:59:56 PM] technically here neutrally for 142 because I would say something is better than nothing. But I spoke to you Tuesday about my flooding and drainage concerns, specifically how and if the plan would impact the floodplain in the Carson creek watershed and our 45 year old family business, shady springs, which was significantly damaged in the 2015 Halloween floods. That remains my biggest fear, but I'm not actually against all of this. If it's done right. I am, however, concerned about the residents and city's ability to protect ourselves once this agreement is in place. I've seen other large technology projects make assurances that later changed through the permitting process. I'm not saying Amazon or endeavor have nefarious intentions, but the broader statewide pattern deeply concerns me. If a tirz is to happen, and if you want your constituents on board, we need very specific guardrails that are transparently documented. First, if the developers agree in writing to build out their project [2:00:57 PM] according to our city's development standards and environmental flood and drainage criteria, then they can have the tirz. I don't understand why this feels so complicated and sticky. It doesn't make any sense to me as a taxpayer and business owner, to do it the other way around. This whole thing is highly conceptual and mutable, which makes sense for something of this scale. But that's precisely why we need all the regulatory guardrails in place in advance. And then from there, y'all can move things around as needed and we can all sleep a little better. I understand the job in front of you isn't easy. I also understand that we are all here for a reason. Practicing democracy together in a public forum. Some compromise is required here, but it's not right to compromise our essential regulatory standards for anyone. So I'm just asking for these commitments and protections to be put in writing now. While the public can still shape the agreement, not as an amendment afterwards for negotiation behind closed doors. Thank you. >> Thank you. Miss Schneider. >> My name is robin Schneider. I was called before and I was [2:02:00 PM] reviewing the Colorado river corridor plan that the city and Travis county worked on with people, businesses and residents in that area a few years ago. And the number one goal was to conserve and protect natural resources, the natural areas, the water quality, integrate floodplain management with natural area preservation, enhance conservation of limited ground and surface water supplies. If we're going to spend a lot of time and effort of not only staff here and at the county, but also community people to come up with plans, we should look at those plans before we do anything in that area. I want to take just a minute to read something from someone I know, Linda Scott Solomon from district five. She couldn't be here today, she said, as an owner of a residence on the Colorado river in bastrop county and a 45 year resident of Austin, I am enormously concerned about any proposed development that would endanger [2:03:01 PM] our precious Colorado river and the homes of residents who live on the river. We've already experienced the tremendous devastation caused by river flooding. Now is the time to turn towards preserving our environment rather than toward big business or land developers whose business is about amassing money. Making a bad deal with developers is the wrong choice. We can be better and more creative solving our Austin financial issues than this. Honestly, this feels more like making a deal with the devil. Have we lost our way? >> Thank. >> You, Mr. Ross. >> Patrick rose, proud supporter of the dog's head. I know how much you you are juggling by way of speakers today, so I'm going to reserve my comments for a subsequent item. >> Thank you. >> Richard Jarnigan, Gary Merritt, Cameron Shaw, Jeremy martin, Bobby lavinsky. [2:04:14 PM] >> Why don't we begin here and we'll just work our way down the row. >> Hello, my name is Richard Jarnigan, district eight resident. I am asking that you reject the dogs head development and protect the Colorado river corridor. I am not against responsible development. I am not against jobs or economic growth. I do understand that Austin must plan for its future, but planning for the future means looking forward beyond the promises being made today. It means asking who receives the benefits, who carries the risk, and what choices we are taking away from the future councils and future residents. Dogs head, final scale environmental effects, public costs and community benefits have not been settled. That is exactly why council should be more cautious now. As you know, Amazon's robotics division has chosen the site as a manufacturing facility. Amazon itself says Austin is already a great place to do business and [2:05:15 PM] points to the enormous investments it has already made here. So council must answer a basic question would this development truly not happen? But for public subsidies, everything we know suggests that private investment is coming. This land is near one of the fastest growing areas in central Texas. Amazon and endeavor are not being asked to rescue an unwanted property. They do not need Austin taxpayers to buy them a golden saddle so they can ride away with the profits. That may be a colorful way to say it, but the principle is simple private profit should not depend on the public carrying private risk. Council member Ellis, I am speaking directly to you as my district eight representative. I am asking you to use your experience with environmental compliance, development and transportation planning to insist on a higher standard here. Please do not approve a [2:06:17 PM] decades long commitment before Austin is completely, truly open. >> Thank you sir. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Jeremy martin. I am speaking in favor of the proposed hogshead development, but I will reserve my comments for a later item. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Hello mayor and council. My name is Cameron Shaw. You'll hear from me a couple of times today. And this one is specifically about the agreement. I've been a small business owner for about ten years here in Austin, and I love following land development. There's so many people that are excited about this development, and they've been coming here to tell you that this this ain't the way. About two months ago, I was just reading the council meeting agenda items and said an annexation of dog's head. Holy crap. That's incredible. And then I started reading the contract. And as a business owner that writes contracts, I said, this is insane. You know, this is, this is. And then I came down on the 21st. That was my first time to ever set foot [2:07:17 PM] in city hall. And I said, y'all should be announcing this decision with cutting ribbons and popping champagne. Like, this is such an exciting development for this city. And there's no one in here that's more excited about it than I am. And this just ain't the way. Two months now, people have been telling you saying, hey, there haven't been sufficient environmental studies. We need to take this a little bit slower and you guys and endeavor, y'all are all going to bat for Jeff bezos. Richard suttle sat right here two months ago and said, hey, we need to go really fast. And he said, the city has been unbelievable in working with us on that. And this is for Jeff bezos. This is the Colorado river we're talking about, and everyone's telling you your own environmental commission is telling you you're moving too fast and you're just taking too much risk. And we just have to look at a few things. I'll come back later and tell you about some of my specific concerns about the water. There's an alluvial aquifer there that's very poorly understood and it matters a lot. And endeavor, y'all are burning through all your goodwill by trying to push this through so quickly. People, [2:08:19 PM] people like you, you're a well-known, you know, you're a well-known developer, you're respected, you're and, and you're just, you're trying to move so fast for this first deal that you're burning through all your, all the goodwill that you've built up over the years. And it's just not too late to take this whole thing from the top. We can restart the development agreement, get an operating plan in place, and then vote on a tirz. >> Mr. Lubinsky, please begin. >> Thank you, mayor and council. My name is Bobby lavinsky. I'm the senior staff attorney for save our springs alliance. I'm really concerned about that. You're not getting the message that this needs to be a public process. Under the terms of the development agreement, the tirz and its financing plan does not need to be approved until March 31st, 2027. So the idea that you have to agree to these amendments today or they don't happen is just completely ridiculous. There's time to have a public process, and the only public meeting that I'm [2:09:20 PM] aware of that's been held has been held by us, the community, out on the dog's head. And none of you attended. Both the Austin environmental commission and the joint sustainability committee have passed unanimous actions asking you to stop, to involve the community and work through the boards and commissions process to actually help you get this right. When this property was annexed, the environmental regulations got made worse. And we tried to warn you about that, but you continued to rush forward. You reduced the setback from the Colorado river that protects it from 400ft to 200ft. And yes, you are proceeding with an amendment that partially restores that. But again, it would have been left better left in the county. The city made the environmental situation worse by rushing with this development agreement, and we need you to fix it by saying no to the tirz. Oh, that's [2:10:27 PM] supposed to be a video. I'll have to try it with another of my time. But this area is rapidly developing and it has been for decades. That was a time lapse from 1984 to 2022 that shows how this area has been developing and what's driving it is the airport sh130 and Tesla, which has already been approved and only cost the county $14 million, not half a billion and not 1.2 billion. >> Gary farmer, Briggs Mitchell, Michelle Teague, David dawa, Roy Whaley. >> Mr. Whaley, why don't we start with you and we'll work down the row that direction. >> Pardon me, sir. >> Why don't we start with you and we'll work down that direction? >> Okay. My name is Roy Whaley. I'm a longtime environmental activist here in central Texas and Austin, and also a [2:11:29 PM] political activist. And I was glad to hear you mention democracy earlier. I'm a big believer in democracy, part of the democratic process. Small D and Austin has been to go through the boards and commissions to go through the commissions, not to come here and say, do this and ignore everyone else. We haven't done that. People haven't had a chance to have their say, as they do at the commission meetings. They haven't had a chance to engage in this because in part it came up so quickly. Even though they've been buying all this land and say, well, we've been doing this for a while. We didn't know about that. So it's not really democracy in action here. It is two washingtonian. To me, it is too much like the federal government saying this is the way it's going to be. Now, I am [2:12:29 PM] a longtime political activist in central Texas. I think I've worked on many of your campaigns and supported them anyway. This is going to be a political issue. I remember back in the early 90s when it was a different political issue. But I'm saying in 2027, we're going to have five new members on the dais because. People are paying attention. I get around town, I'm not riding my bicycle as much as I wish, but I get in on different conversations or just overhear different conversations, and people are just finding out about this. And the tirz, it's not understood. This is seen right or wrong as a huge giveaway. I have more to say later and thank you for hearing me. >> Look forward to seeing you. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor. [2:13:34 PM] City council members, my name is Briggs Mitchell. I'm a longtime Austin resident, and I ranch on around 250 acres within the dogs head directly neighboring the 2600 acre endeavor project. As a neighboring property owner, where some of my partners families have been since the early 1850s, I care deeply about what happens on this land. Development of this size will no doubt affect the surrounding areas, so it's critical that it be planned carefully and supported with adequate roads, drainage, water quality utilities, parks, trails and other public infrastructure. I don't take it lightly, and I and I mean, when I say this is truly my life's work and I take it very seriously. That's why I'm here today to support the creation of the dogs heads. Tirz the question before you today should not be whether this part of Austin will grow. Growth is already happening all around us. As many have pointed out, the question before you today should be will that growth be coordinated and and and properly supported at scale by the city, or will it continue to happen piecemeal [2:14:36 PM] with individual landowners and projects without the infrastructure that this area desperately needs? I can testify firsthand that today, those of us that work and live in the dog's head are left with inadequate and unsafe mobility. We literally go from stop signs onto the open highway, as anybody that's been in the area would know, we have, you know, we've been living around open pit strip mining, rock crushing operations, all of which can be addressed and I believe are. But they can only be addressed with the scale, vision and the support of this private public partnership. The proposed tirz provides a practical way to build the infrastructure we desperately need, using a portion of the new tax revenue created only by the development itself, with the cost fully funded by the dog's head developers. This gives the city a meaningful role in shaping the area, while helping ensure that the existing residents and property owners are not left dealing with the consequences of unplanned growth, as we have for decades. Thank you sir. Thank you. Please. [2:15:37 PM] >> Gary farmer in support of the tirz, I will defer comment to a subsequent item. Thank you, thank you. >> David Jabbour. >> In favor, chair elect of the chamber of commerce, Austin chamber of commerce and will defer to a later item. Thank you. >> Ellie Davis, Claire Davis, Catherine brown, Zenobia Joseph, Brad Massingill. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Why don't we start here and we'll go this direction. So whenever you're ready. >> Hi, I'm Emily Davis. We actually donated our time to other people who are speaking on this matter, but I am in opposition to all of the items on dogs head in opposition to the tirz and opposition to the development plan as it stands and the contract. Thank you. [2:16:39 PM] >> Okay. You're not. If you speak, you can't donate time, so take care if you want to donate time. >> Okay. Well, my name is Claire Davis and I am donating time. Yeah. >> Please. >> Hi, my name is Catherine brown. I've spoken in front of you all many times already. I think today, although I'm signed up to speak several times, I think for particularly item 142, I take a neutral stance on this simply because we need dialog, we need discussion. Although the amendments I understand have been just recently published, they. This gives an opportunity to us to have discussion and expand on them. For example, I know that there's been some discussion already about the. The walk back on the percentage of of impervious cover and also [2:17:40 PM] Mr. Suttle describing it as a bombed out area. I think if it is and I, I have no doubt there is issues about it being a brownfield site, it is imperative that we take time and we assess what's there. We do the proper core analysis. As a scientist, we should be evidence driven on what we do with this property without appropriate environmental assessments, ecological assessments and everything else that goes along. We don't know what we're dealing with, and we don't know what they're dealing with. In particular, I think if deed, if it is bombed out, then we need to have the information in front of us. As far as the 79% setback, obviously, one of the things if people would really consider this holistically in terms of flood management, you would have realized that the river itself and the land next to it is part of the flood management. Those trees, the riparian environment helps manage the floods. So [2:18:41 PM] stepping back to include all of it shouldn't have even been a question to begin with in terms of the impervious cover. It was mentioned the other day about large cities like London, Paris, Mexico City. I looked up the evidence there. At most, it's 70% impervious cover, and I can talk about that a little bit later. >> Thank you, Mr. Massingill. >> I'm Brad Massingill, I'm on the board of the south Austin creek alliance, and I represent bar south Austin on the Austin neighborhoods council. I'm here speaking for myself. I was talking to a friend the other day in Montana and he, he told me about. Someone who bought up several ranches and farms up there, like 7000 acres, and came to city council, like with 2 or 3 days warning and proposed something similar to this secret donor secret. And [2:19:43 PM] the whole thing is just like, this is a playbook. This is super important to us here, but this is all part of a bigger scheme that's going on across the whole country. Y'all are being played. They're they've been these billionaires have been pitting communities against each other to go for the lowest, lowest you can go to get in. They're competing for who knows what. They did this in the in the teens in California, they drove communities into the ground, made them totally unaffordable. There's this whole scheme to build these private corporate cities all over the country that have their own sets of rules. You know, we can we can the way this is set up right now, these people can eventually disagree with the city enough to again, to disincorporate and get a divorce just like these other corporations have. There's no guarantees here. I want y'all to really take a step back and do a macro search of some of these other cities that have [2:20:44 PM] been going through this and see what the results have been. It's not been satisfactory. I don't think this is fair. And y'all need to chill. >> Thank you. Mayor council, I'm Zenobia Joseph. I just want to express my opposition at 142 respectfully, mayor, we can't trust Richard suttle, nor can we, nor can we listen to anything that ever does. So I just want to say that history matters. And to Marc duchen, here's your two cities, the tale of two cities that you mentioned. It was March 2nd, 2017, when plaza saltillo was being deliberated right here. I want to remind you specifically that it was Richard suttle and endeavor who stood here and couldn't make the deal work for [2:21:45 PM] six two bedroom units. And I want you to remember that they wanted to put affordable housing someplace else, not in that project. And so today, next to the tend, $20 million is a 27 units for our senior citizens, about $734,000 per unit for rental. I want you to recognize I do believe, mayor, that this is just a boondoggle. I think it's really just for you to inflate project connect. Yes, it's ten minutes from the airport, but respectfully, you've done nothing for the people at the marshaling yard, which are not that far away. And while Mr. Suttle put in back up a late document that talks about this six miles of trail, remember east village, the 425 acre development has five miles as well, and you've provided no transportation. We just simply can't trust them. Look at plaza saltillo capital. [2:22:45 PM] Metro owns it. And you've done nothing for the people except a boondoggle. So I would just ask you to vote against this project. If you have any questions, I'll gladly answer them at this time, but I want you to recognize the 27 units, $20 million, and they couldn't make the deal work to put affordable housing on site. >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. >> I have a remote speaker, Claudia Voyles. >> Hello, mayor and council. Happy birthday, Mr. Velazquez. My name is Claudia Voyles. I was in my car, but it was 111 degrees. So now I'm under a TRE. I am a resident. I live on hergott Laine hergott Laine, about a quarter mile away from the beginning of the dog's head development on what we often call the dog scruff. I'm a member of the neighborhood [2:23:46 PM] association and I am asking you to delay or deny this tirz agreement. Mayor Watson, I recently got an email from you that ended by saying Progressive government should be accountable. Government, and I believe that that is true. I don't think this deal is a good deal, and I don't think it's good in terms of financial accountability. And I really think it's a bad deal in terms of ethical, moral and conservation accountability. So I'm asking you to slow down and make it right. The plans, as they stand, are talking about sacrificing not only nature, but also my neighborhood. My neighborhood has many families and businesses that have been there for, for generations and for the convenience of big business, possibly a data center potentially not committed to, but potentially [2:24:47 PM] residents downstream. They're asking to plow montopolis through our neighborhood, which is going to directly affect many of my neighbors, their quality of life, if not their direct displacement and their health. So I'm asking you, begging you, beseeching you to slow down and do this right and get a better relationship with commitments and more protections and more information and community buy in before going forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> David Ross, Andy pastor, Zach Bialas, Mariana Krueger, miss Ramos. >> If your name has been called and you wish to be heard, please come forward. >> Also, Jennifer Barnes, kaiba white and Heather Bernecker. [2:25:50 PM] >> Thank you. I'll be waving my time on this item, speaking on 111 and then donating time on other items. >> What's your name, ma'am? >> Oh, I'm sorry, Mariana Krueger. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anybody that wishes to be heard, that's name has been called. Please come forward on item 142. >> I've called all names for 142 mayor. >> Thank you very much. All right, members, all the names have been called on item number 142. That's why if your name has been called, that's why I ask you to come down. So we know you're doing it. >> All my stuff together, I apologize. >> That's alright. Please, please, please go ahead. Ma'am, you indicated earlier you wanted to speak on 111. >> I signed up to speak on each of the dogs. >> Had name called on 142. >> I. I'd like to speak. Yes, I would like. >> To speak if your name was [2:26:50 PM] your name called on 142. >> It was not I don't know why not. I, I, I signed up in advance a couple of days earlier to speak on each of these issues regarding. >> What is your name? >> My name is doctor Rachel Scott. >> Would you check and see whether she's signed up for that. And and we'll go ahead and begin with you. Yes. Okay. Good. And here's what we'll do. We'll start with you. And then we'll go to miss white and then we'll come down the line. >> Okay. My name is Heather baker. I'm responding to this agenda item, which is to approve no authorize negotiation and execution of an amendment. It's unclear what it's going to be except for drainage and environmental protection, development, land standards and tax, and creating the tirz. So I'm going to focus on the land development standards. CLA city of Austin has several different ways that they use developments in order to give money, tax incentives, [2:27:50 PM] refunds, bonuses. They have incentives and agreements. So smart development's regulating plans, density bonuses, affordability unlocked value vertical mixed use density bonus 90. Downtown density bonus. University neighborhood overlay. Also like chapter 380. All these different ways that you're allowed to give businesses money. And I think that that is a serious concern with people in this development because those are being used and misappropriated to a company that we now know as Google, Amazon robotics, and that has money. And yet there's all these deficits in the budget where we can't give money to like social services and all these other things. All these companies that have money and are going to be continuing to make money in indemnity, let's say. And there's no way for us to see how the, you know, land development standards aren't going to work against us [2:28:51 PM] and how they are not going to give any money back to the community. And not only that, but it's going to be, you know, 4,000,000ft S of industrial space. They say they're putting in single family homes. Who wants to be next to 4,000,000ft S of industrial space? Who wants to be next to 6200 multifamily units and all this over the people that actually live there. >> Thank you, miss white. >> Good afternoon. Kaiba white for public citizens Texas office. I'll be brief here. I still feel that the community input is is. Well, I think there was some effort to hear some of the input. Perhaps it is not truly being incorporated and is still being done in a very rushed way. And, you know, I was listening earlier, you know, to the description of the site and how, you know, [2:29:52 PM] development could be done in these areas that have been mined and, you know, preserve the other areas. That sounds nice. And so I just wonder, you know, I think some speakers have talked about, you know, why then if this has been under development, you know, this, this agreement for seven years, why then has the community not been truly involved? And I was, you know, trying to look and see, you know, just kind of what the changes are. And it, it just still looks to me like in the areas that are going to be allowed to be developed, that it's going to be just encourage that the brakes be put on this and it be done in a way that actually is a process that the community can get behind, because it's very possible that some portion of this site could be developed with community support, if it was done in a more transparent and inclusive way. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please begin. [2:30:52 PM] >> My name is Jennifer Barnes, and I'm going to hold my time for 111. >> Okay. Thank you. Please. >> Good evening. Good afternoon again, mayor Watson, members of the city council, miss Thomas. I'm having a little trouble speaking because at this point, I'm just so angry. It's hard. It's hard to even get the words out in a polite way. I. I am just that angry dog's head is an alluvial plain. An alluvial flood plain. It's there because the Colorado river is a huge, powerful river that floods. When a powerful river floods, people die. People lose their homes, people lose everything. [2:31:54 PM] This is not dog's head is not the appropriate place to put any kind of industrial development. I don't know what you were thinking doing this behind closed doors without even consulting the city of Austin residents, people like myself who have lived here and own a home and have been here for years. We love this city. I know all of you love this city. What were you thinking? What were you thinking? How could you swallow? What in espanol is mierda? This. This is not this is not a project that, by any stretch of the imagination, [2:32:54 PM] makes any sense what so ever. You cannot. You cannot by any stretch of the imagination, say this is a viable project that will work for anybody. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. All speakers for 142 have been called. >> Thank you all. Thanks, everybody. Members, that concludes all the people that signed up to speak on item number 142. So we will now take up item number 142. Item 142 is, as has been indicated, an authorization and negotiation for negotiation and execution of an amendment to the development agreement to amend things so that we will allow for better drainage and environmental protections, land development standards, and a tax increment reinvestment zone. I'll entertain what I'll suggest we do, because we have a couple of proposed amendments, is that I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 142, and [2:33:55 PM] then we'll go to the amendments. Mayor pro tem moves approval of item number 142. It is seconded by councilmember harper-madison. Folks, folks, let us now deliberate. We've had the opportunity for public comment. And let us now deliberate. And that's the way this process is supposed to work. All right. We have a motion and a second on item number one, 42 members. There are two proposed amendments to item number 142. They're both amendments that come from me. And I want to start with the first amendment. It is labeled and you have the amendment. It's labeled item number 142. Mayor Watson on July 23rd, 2026, the one that I'm going to show offer up as Watson amendment number one is the critical water quality zone amendment, just so that you'll know, amendment number two is the one related to impervious cover. The critical water quality zone amendment is the [2:34:56 PM] one that I talked about the other day where what we will be, we will be amending the main motion so that it it sets forth that there will be a total acre amount of water of land set aside from the Colorado river of 236.78 acres, so that the average will be a 300 acre buffer on the Colorado river. There have been a couple of other amendments added to that. For example, street and rail or rail crossings. We added language about related appurtenances for that. The same thing is on green water quality facilities, the green stormwater quality facility and related appurtenances can be constructed. Same thing with playgrounds, a playground and related appurtenances, boats and marinas, again related appurtenances. And it speaks in terms of a bathroom. But where [2:35:57 PM] those would have would have to be located away from the ordinary high water Marc of the Colorado river for environmental purposes. And it indicates that ongoing reclamation activities that restore the land to a pre-construction level or a natural state are allowed. With that, I move approval of Watson amendment number one, related to the critical water quality zone, and a second by the mayor pro tem. Is there discussion with regard to the motion to amend. We will vote on the motion to amend. First. Mayor pro tem. >> Mayor, I just wanted to clarify. There is a map attached to your amendment amendment with kind of a shaded yellow zone along the entire property, and I just want to clarify that what we're doing here is taking, I think, what I've heard called the riparian zone, which this is a land that has not been mined. This is land that is largely in its natural state. And designating that as a critical water quality zone. >> Yes. But let me make sure [2:36:58 PM] that legal answers your question. To make sure we get you the specific answer to your question, because that's what they were working on to make sure we did it. But I'll have them respond to it. >> And just to follow, because we had a a fixed number buffer and but that left out chunks of green because obviously the green is not is not fixed. It kind of, you know, weaves in and out. So I just, I appreciate the approach. I think this kind of really captures the sensitive environmental area that we want to protect. >> With the law department. That is correct. Council member they will have essentially 236 acres of critical water quality zone on the site. >> Great. And just to be clear, this is not this is separate apart from the 260 acres of parks. >> So there is open space of 266 acres. The developer would have to explain how much overlap there may or may not be. [2:38:00 PM] >> Okay. >> Will you do that? >> Can you restate the question? >> Yeah. This is and if I'm looking at it, it's about 236 acres. Mr. Miss link. >> Right at 237 acres, 236.7 acres. >> This is is this in addition to the 260 acres of parks? >> No. This includes the 260 acres of parks. >> Yeah. >> It's it's designated as open space. So under the concept that the middle of the dog's head is already been mined and we're going to prepare the right, we're going to preserve the riparian zone and buffer [2:39:01 PM] Zones around the floodplain that would be included in the number. And then we would have to add to it to, to get to the number that we committed to. >> So do we know then outside of this area, how many acres of parks we have? >> We do not because it has not been planned. >> Council member there will be a minimum of 29 acres in addition to get to the 266, but where they'll be located and if there will be more, is, I think, what Mr. Suttle is saying they're not sure of. >> So under the state law, what is required to do is 10% of the of the whole area, 260 acres. That's that's all that anybody can require of it. We're going to be above that, but we're going to include that area along the river and the trails that are going in, and the parks are going to be placed along the river. If in the [2:40:02 PM] regulating plan, that would come before you, if you pass these if in the regulating plan, we want to put a fine point on that, we can discuss that in the regulating plan. >> And the the. My thought is that, again, a lot of this riverfront land is floodplain land. That's not developable. Is that accurate? >> No, that's not accurate. There's there's a there's there's a significant portion of it, but there's a lot that's not the banks are high enough that it's out of the floodplain. >> Do we know how much of the 230 some odd acres are developable are in the floodplain, and which ones are not? >> I could probably get that number to you. If I get a hold of my engineers. I'm not sure of that right now. >> All right. >> Thank you. But tell me what what what? Help me with your objective so that we can keep a list of what your objective would be. >> Well, my understanding, my objective would be to. I thought that 260 acres were additive to the land that we [2:41:04 PM] were preserving here, especially when we were talking about the 200 foot boundary, I thought that the 200 foot boundary was that the parkland was outside of the 200 foot boundary. And I understand that we're expanding the amount of the critical water quality zone substantially. But I so the trade off with the open space is, is a is a concern. >> So first of all, it. It's important to note that the obligation to do open space or parkland is triggered by a formula that is based on the number of residential units you have. We don't know what that number is going to be, but the commitment was a minimum amount under the development agreement, a minimum amount on any circumstance would be the acreage that you referenced, and we included that in the parkland that we anticipate being much like we have [2:42:04 PM] parkland down down here along the river. That would be part of it. Along the six acres, there will be more, but but it was a the obligation to do a minimum is how we started the conversation. And the minimum is more than what's required today. >> Now, I understood it would be it would be good to put a finer number on that. Again, I know we're talking about 40 year. Time frame and. And there's a lot of unknowns out there. But but it would be good to, to because I, I feel like a one for one trade on the, on the, the, especially the part that we know is not developable within the, the, the riverfront and the 260 acres. Again, I feel like that that kind of. 260 minus two, 36 is a concern. I'll just leave it there. Mayor. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem further comment or discussion [2:43:06 PM] on the Watson amendment number one, which is related to the critical water quality zone. All right. Hearing no further discussion on Watson. Motion to amend number one critical water quality zone. Without objection, the motion is a motion to amend is adopted. Members that will take us to Watson. Motion to amend number two. This is for item 142. This is labeled item number 142. Mayor Watson July 23rd, 2026. And it is late. Related to impervious cover setting the maximum amount of impervious cover for the grow site area within dogshit property at 79%. I'll move approval of Watson motion to amend number two impervious cover. Is there a second? Seconded by mayor pro tem discussion with regard to motion to amend number two for [2:44:06 PM] item number 142. Hearing none. Without objection. Motion to Watson. Motion to amend. Number two. Impervious cover for item number 142 is adopted. Members, that will take us back to the main motion as amended. The main motion is on item number 142, as amended by the two Watson amendments. Mayor pro tem vela, did you wish to be recognized? >> That was okay. >> I'm sorry. Council member Siegel. Thank you, mayor. I do think this deal is in better shape than when it was first presented to council. Because of the amendments my colleagues have proposed, including the one just adopted. But I don't think this is the best deal the city can get. And. I. I don't think it lives up to the expectations of the people of Austin. I, I do want Austin to [2:45:06 PM] be open for business. I agree we can't send the message that Austin is unready for growth, that we're unready for innovation or jobs or investment. But what I think city management got wrong is how we responded to this opportunity. If I had to sum up my belief, it's that the city negotiated from a place of weakness. Austin is strong Wright people want to be here. Businesses want to be here. This is a beautiful place. We have tremendous natural resources, including our river and creeks. We have great people. We have great universities and educational institutions. We've got many, many attractive assets, whether it's our neighborhoods, our cultural institutions, our skilled and educated workers, our innovative, innovative and creative businesses, our network of nonprofit and social service providers, our diverse cultures and communities. For many reasons, Austin is great. We are a destination and we should not sell ourselves short. In this deal. The way it was [2:46:07 PM] negotiated, I don't see confidence. I see weakness. For one, the secrecy, the idea that we didn't disclose Amazon until two days ago, that's not the Austin way. If a big business wants to come here, let's invite them in the front door, not sneak them in the back. To the rush process. This was a deal that was years, if not decades, in the making. Why was council set up to work through so much information in so little time? Why haven't we reassured the neighbors that we will protect them from gentrification and displacement? This is a community that values process and participation, but the city did not honor that. Three the environmental aspect. Why was there ever a document published that said 100% impervious cover? Just from a factual perspective, that was never going to be true, but this signaled little awareness of our proud tradition here in Austin of fighting to protect our land and water and [2:47:09 PM] demanding that growth be consistent with our environmental values. This deal has gotten better, and I do appreciate that. But the starting point was so far behind. Fourth, there's a labor piece. The deal council was presented with had no regard for the workers who are going to be asked to build over $5 billion in infrastructure. There weren't wage guarantees or job safety protections. There was no guarantee that austinites will get these jobs. And thanks to the labor unions, the building trades, the afl- cio, the deal is going to be better. But I don't like that the focus was so much on economic development that workers were forgotten. And finally, and you'll see this later on the on the tirz item, the money though for the first ten years, the city barely breaks. Even the second ten years, it's decent, but it doesn't change the economics of our development fund. You have to get 25 or 35 years out before the projections show the city really adding revenue beyond the cost of servicing 2700 new acres. And why is the money so meager? Well, here's [2:48:10 PM] my take. It's because of the secrecy. It's because of the rush process. It's because of how this was negotiated without prioritizing the environment. It's because of how this was negotiated, without prioritizing the workers who will build this new part of town. We didn't involve the people of Austin in the negotiating process. We didn't involve our environmental community. We didn't involve the labor movement. We didn't involve transportation advocates who know how to design accessible, attractive neighborhoods. We didn't involve the people who make Austin strong. And unfortunately, today, we're also being asked to vote without even knowing whether the county is involved, without having our sister governmental agency as a collaborative partner and a funding partner. And that's why I won't be giving my vote to this deal. >> Thank you all. >> Not not because I'm certain [2:49:10 PM] the city will lose money because I'm not. I do trust our financial staff. When they say they negotiated the best deal they could, because that's probably true. Our negotiating team was sent in with two hands and one leg tied behind their back. They were asked to get the best deal possible without any of the power. That is latent in our community, without our environmentalists, without our union leaders, without our transportation specialists, without our residents. I can only imagine what we would have in front of us if the people of Austin had been a part of this deal instead of an afterthought. So for myself, I want to move with the people of Austin. I want to be a representative. But we didn't bring the people with us in this deal. And that's why I have to vote no on dogshit today. >> Thank you, council member members. The vote will be the vote will be on item 142, as amended. With that, I would ask those in favor of item number 142, as amended, to raise your hand. Well, I'll call him out. [2:50:16 PM] I'll call him out. You can yell at us later. I'll call him out. Mayor pro tem. >> If I may, I'd want some clarification on the parks question. And is there any way that we could get clarification on the parks question. >> Before a vote? Now. >> I'm sorry to to jump in the middle of the vote, but that that's an important question. >> Well, it is, but I'll ask but but I mean, we started a vote. >> Yeah. Then I would ask if we could continue the item. I know there's a motion on the table and it's been seconded and whatnot, but. >> Well that that let me ask the question how long will it take to get an answer? Or is it part of the planning process is what I. [2:51:22 PM] >> Guess is the question. How much of the. Critical zone that's counted towards parkland is floodplain. >> That would be the the question. In other words, a more solid idea of what the parks number will be post dedication in terms of how many acres would be remaining. >> Out of the out of the floodplain, you mean? >> Yes. >> So we will try to get that number when with the open space. Remember, we're. Are you wanting to do things in the open space because we're limited to 20% impervious cover in the open space, whether it's floodplain or not. I guess I'm trying to figure out I want to make sure I'm responsive to your question. I guess. >> The question would be yes. How many how much parks is left after the deduction for the the, the floodplain. So exactly that. [2:52:22 PM] That's really kind of the >> Remember that I would like to get. So we could have a better sense of what the kind of the required parkland dedication would be excluding the the, the flood zone. >> Okay. Because oftentimes open space is. >> And agreed. And we have many some of our best parks are our floodplain, but just for the overall calculation, okay. >> We can find that out probably. I'm gonna see if I can get a head nod. >> Mayor. >> Mayor, apologies. >> I know we're in the middle of the motion, but is there any way we could table or pause the item until we get a answer on that? >> Mayor, mayor, folks, let let us do our work, please. Councilmember Laine and then I'll answer your question. >> I'd be happy to give a few remarks. >> I know that might give them a lot of time. Why don't we pause for just a second? What what I'm going to do is the the motion is on the floor. And we'd started a vote. And [2:53:24 PM] typically you don't interrupt a vote. But this is important. And unless there's objection from the council, I'm not going to do this. This may be the only time I ever do this because I but but but unless there's objection from the council, what I would recommend we do is we pause and pause the vote and we pause the vote. And don't try to restart the vote. Don't stop the vote. We just pause the vote. And we take a 15 minute recess to see if we can get an answer to the question. And unless there's objection from the council, we'll pause the vote at this point in time. If that's the case, then the city council of Austin is in recess. It is 2:54 P.M. We will be in recess until one, three, ten. [3:11:34 PM] All right. I'm going to call the Austin city council back to order after a short recess. It's 3:11 P.M. We we have followed a. It ain't Robert's rules of order. It's old Robert's rules of order and Robbie Robbie's rules of order, and we have. We have suspended the vote. For a moment, Mr. Suttle, I'm assuming that you three wouldn't be sitting there if you didn't have an answer to the mayor pro tem question. >> We. We do have an answer prefaced with. We thought this conversation on where the exact open space and parks would be would be handled in the regulating plan. So we were not prepared to have minute numbers figured out on what floodplain, what's not. But I think what and this is Andy pastor and Josh Lichty with endeavor, in case you got questions, you don't want to hear from me. Of the 236 acres of critical. We were counting that towards the [3:12:35 PM] initial open space requirement. >> Can you get closer to the microphone? People are having difficulty hearing you. >> Which is not usually a problem for me. Without doing all the calculations, what we've what we think we're hearing is you want more open space. And so what our proposal is to only take credit for half of the critical zone towards our open space commitment, which is 118 acres. There will be 148 acres outside of the critical zone. So there's a net increase now of what is it, Josh? >> About 120 acres. >> More than what we talked about originally. >> Yeah. Above the minimum. >> So I'm sorry. >> Could you repeat that? >> So the critical is 236 acres. We have proposed. What we were proposing for the regulating plan was 108. Taking credit for [3:13:36 PM] 118 of that for open space, potentially using 118 of that for open space. So half in addition to that, because of the minimum of 266 acres that we've agreed to, 148 would be outside of the floodplain and critical water quality zone. If you add up all of the critical water quality zone and the additional 148 acres, which will be done outside of the critical, that's 384 acres of critical plus parkland. >> Okay. And that is because, again, I know it's a little bit of a of a dynamic, you know, consideration here because at first we were talking about a smaller critical water quality zone. You know, I know the mayor's amendment added a lot of land. So that's exactly the calculation that I was looking for. Mayor, I'm comfortable moving forward. Again, I don't have language I can apologize and you'd like us to. But with that understanding that those acreage that is within the [3:14:37 PM] critical the floodplain, I guess the critical water quality zone, would they get credit? I'm sorry, that's outside of the credit, but the land that is out of the critical water quality zone, that's, you know, buildable land, essentially. And they should get credit for dedicating that as a parkland. So I'm comfortable with with that calculation moving forward. >> Said another way half of the critical zone will be counted towards the commitment. The other half will be not in the critical zone. >> Yeah. And and just to clarify. I know this is not all the parks that are going to be. And and again, I well understand that again, y'all are trying to build a first class type development in, in those kinds of developments. People want open spaces, public spaces. So some of these may be, you know, privately owned public spaces a la the domain, you know, where they have kind of parks built into the, into the middle of the property and [3:15:38 PM] different things like that. So I just want to clarify that, that I do understand that I just wanted to make sure that that, that I had that misunderstanding about the credit between the, the water quality zone and the parks. But I think that clarification, I'm perfectly comfortable moving forward with that. >> Also, for clarity, with this motion, you've increased the critical zone buffer zone, and you've increased the open space. If this passes. >> A plus. >> So so. >> I want to say something about that. Remember that what we're voting on is an amendment that was to improve that the development agreement. My two amendments then add what I consider to be additional improvements to the improvement. Councilmember Laine. >> Thank you. So I represent district six north, the far northern suburbs of Austin and northwest Austin, with a very high concentration of people who work in stem related [3:16:39 PM] industries, electrical engineers, computer programmers, as well as an increasing number of families who've been displaced from central Austin. And because of the challenges of transportation and the realities of our district, find themselves in moving lower and lower income as the years go by. I know that this is a room that can understand that. Absolutely. I myself moved here because I really wanted a city that my elderly parents could afford to live in, that my children and grandchildren would live in. And that's not the reality that we find ourselves in, in Austin right now. But finally, I'm on this dais to represent district six with the most authenticity that I possibly can. And I have spent the last. I have two children in high school. I have spent the last decade organizing youth mentoring opportunities, specifically as it relates to the robotics community here in Austin. And I have seen firsthand the excitement of children who have hands on learning experiences [3:17:40 PM] and opportunities to learn about and work on and work with professionals as mentors in some of these areas. And so I know that in my district, there would be strong support for a first tenant like Amazon robotics. >> In your district. >> Ma'am, if you can't follow the rules of decorum, then you can't stay. >> So I'm here to represent both my district and the city, and I also know how hard it can be without transit. And this type of first tenant would have kids from my district coming to this area for opportunity. And I don't say that because I want kids from all over the city to be coming to any particular part of the city. I simply say that because from where I sit, [3:18:42 PM] it looks like this looks like opportunity. This looks like jobs that can help people own their homes and stay rooted in their community. But I'm just one person and I only see it the way I see it. I understand there are different perspectives in the room, and I know that we're here to, to, to vote today. So I will say that there is one very significant consideration that I have heard from my constituents, and it leads me to ask this question. We are extremely concerned about data centers. In my district. 60% of my district is in Williamson county. You all may have heard about some of the organizing that's been going on in Williamson county, including more rural and fast growing cities in Williamson county. And I hear from my constituents about it quite frequently. So I've also heard from the unions before we got, I'm sure council member Siegel gave us some rousing words, and I'm sure that he worked very hard to get the union [3:19:43 PM] concessions that he got. And I have heard from some of the unions about the speed with which endeavor provided responsive changes to what they were doing. Now, once something passes, there are no guarantees. We all know that none of us are in our first rodeo. I can only take the information that I've heard as this has progressed. So I have a question for you. As I said in district six, the most consistent issue concern that we've heard about this potential development is the concern about a data center going on the site. I understand why it's such a significant concern. I know everyone on this dais does, and everyone in this room does. At least I hope they do. Given the potential environmental impacts and effects on our neighborhoods, on our river, on our aquifer. Having listened to today's discussion, it's clear that this issue is front and center for our community. And we all know why. Because we know what's going on around us. For me to support this item, I have [3:20:44 PM] a question for you. Can you make a clear verbal commitment today that this property will not be developed as a data center for at least the next decade? >> I'm sorry. Some somebody was yelling about the time you got in the middle of it. Can you can you repeat the question? Yes, please. >> Absolutely. Just in case anyone's wondering, I'm not a lawyer. Okay, we got enough of those on the dais. Okay, so. But I am familiar with repeating the question. So here we go. I would like to know if you're willing to give a clear verbal commitment, that this property will not be developed as a data center for at least the next decade. >> Can we qualify it? >> So I have the floor, and it's the question I've asked, and I would like the chance to hear an answer. Thank you. >> So the the answer is going to be yes, but I need a qualifier. We currently Roig. >> I need to be able to hear it [3:21:45 PM] too. I have the floor. Thank you. >> We have we have data centers all over the city currently. Some many of them already built, some of them to be built. The commitment that we know is we have no intent on. Dogs head to go after a data center as a primary use, nor do we have any intent to go after a hyperscaler. And if you. I think the council is in the process of defining data centers. We will comply with your code when you come out with your data center uses. I'm hoping that you differentiate between data centers that are part of another business and ones that are standalone, because we have no desire to do a standalone data center out there. There are some that are connected with other businesses that we don't want to inadvertently take a business off the table just because they may have their own small data center in it. >> So, so if I if I might say [3:22:47 PM] we've already passed a request to the city manager to bring back to us in August a policy related to that data centers that that council member Siegel brought, that was here today that deals with high end water users by their being annexed into the city, they're going to have to follow our requirements. So we get to say what that is. >> Right. >> And I understand. Thank you. So, council member Siegel, may I imagine correctly that you're working on the data center item? Is that an okay question? >> I'm not okay. >> That's fine. Mr. Suttle, since I'm the one who asked the question and you gave me the answer, I'd like to stay in touch on this. And I'm happy. I am happy with that answer [3:23:48 PM] because this is in. In the city, they'll have to comply with code by the time any user besides Amazon can be in that in place, the code will be in place. And therefore I am happy with this and I will continue to work on it. Thank you for allowing me to ask the questions that matter to my constituents. I'll stop there. You'll be happy to hear. Although I. >> Thank you, councilmember. Okay. I'm going to recognize councilmember alter, but then we're we had suspended a vote and we're going to go to a vote. >> I just there's there's so many things going on here today, so many different items. And you touched on this, but I, I, I just want to add clarity that this particular item is not the tirz item. It's not how any of these dollars are going to flow. The sole issue of this item is the development agreement and an amendment potentially to the development agreement to add [3:24:49 PM] impervious cover protections and to increase the water quality zone or the buffer zone. Excuse me. And, you know, I have I have worked in government long enough to see votes taken that you didn't get right the first time, that the language wasn't perfect. And you can do two things. You can dig your heels in and say, well, that was the vote we took. Or you can recognize that you didn't get it completely right the first time, and you can come back and you can try to fix it. And that's what we're doing here. I will be the first to admit we should not have put in 100% impervious cover in the first deal. And today we're we're fixing that potentially here in this vote. There are going to be other votes today. And I know there are a lot of opinions on those other items, but just this discrete vote here right now is just on whether or not we improve the development agreement, nothing [3:25:49 PM] else. So I just I think it's important to clarify. >> With that. I'm we're going to complete the vote. I want to make sure I've got the vote right. So those that were on item number 142, as amended, those in favor of item number 142, raise your hand. Those opposed, raise your hand. There being there being seven votes in favor, three votes. No. And one absence. The motion on item number 142, as amended, carries members. What I'm going to do, unless there's objection, is some we we can get some other business out of the way, is I'm going to pause for just a second and go to what was our. [3:26:49 PM] Now our 326 and 57 second time. Certain of zoning items and. And I believe this will go fairly quickly. And then we will go back to item number one. 11 miss Hardin, let's see how fast you can do this. >> Thank you, mayor and council. I'm joy Hardin, acting assistant director with Austin. Planning your zoning and neighborhood planning. >> Folks, please keep your voices down so that we can do this work. Thank you. >> Your zoning and neighborhood plan amendment agenda begins with item 112npa2024000 5.01. This item is offered as an indefinite postponement by the applicant. The related rezoning is item 113 C one four, 2024 0099 and get. This is. This is offered as an applicant. Indefinite postponement an award 14 is C one 420 260006. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 115 is na202600 21.02. [3:27:50 PM] This item is offered for consent on all three readings. The related rezoning is item 116, C 81420080087.02. Again, this item is offered for consent on all three readings, and I do have a motion that I'd like to read into the record. And it. >> Reads, hang on one second. Everybody that's talking that isn't named joy Hardin. Please stop. Thank you. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but, miss Hardin, you can talk now. >> So on 116, let me read the motion to the record, which reads amend part seven, section K of the draft ordinance to add new subsection C and D as follows. C the maximum building coverage is 90%. D the minimum setbacks are one zero for front yard, two zero for street side yard, three zero feet for interior side yard and four zero for rear yard. And again with that item 116 is offered for consent on all three [3:28:51 PM] readings. Item 117 is C one 420 250121. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 118 is c14h20260013. This item is offered as a neighborhood postponement to your August 27th council meeting, and 119 is na202600 21.01. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. The rezoning is item 120 C eight one for 2025 0111. Again, this item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 121 is C one 420 250089. This item is offered as a staff postponement to August 27th. Council meeting item 122 is C one 420 250080. This item is offered as an indefinite postponement by the applicant. Item 123 is C 814 2018 0122.03. This item is offered for consent second and third readings. Item 124 is npa20240018 .01. This item is [3:29:52 PM] offered for consent first reading only. The related rezoning is item 125 C one 420 240036. Again, this item is offered for consent first reading only, and please know that we'll be bringing both these cases back. Meeting items 124 and this item 125 back at your August 27th council meeting for second and third reading consideration item 126 is npa20250016 .02. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. The related rezoning is item 127, C one 420 250125. Again, this item is offered for consent on all three readings with the following motion that I'd like to read into the record, and it reads. Amend part two of the draft ordinance to add the following conditions and reorder the remaining subsection accordingly. A a 50 foot building setback shall be established and maintained along the property line adjacent to east fourth street and the property line adjacent to linden avenue. Buildings or structures may be located within the 50 foot setback. If [3:30:52 PM] the total linear length of any portion of the proposed vertical buildings within the 50 foot setback, as measured parallel from fourth street and linden avenue, does not exceed 30% of the combined linear length of the property lines adjacent to fourth street and linden avenue. And with that, again, the item 127 is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 128 is C one 420 260021. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 129 is C one 420 260023. This item is offer for consent on all three readings. Item 130 is C one 420 260001. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 131 is C one 420 26002 for this item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 132 is C one 420 260009. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. A related zoning item to this is item 133 C one 420 260025. [3:31:53 PM] This item is also offered for consent on all three readings. Item 134 C one 420 260002. This item is offered as a neighborhood postponement to August 27th. Council meeting at 135 is C one 420 260007. This item is offered as a neighborhood postponement to your August 27th council meeting. Yes. Item 136 C one 420 260005. This is offered as an applicant postponement to August 27th. Council meeting item 137 is C one 420 250003. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 138 is C one 420 250123. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 139 is mpa20230014 .04. This item is offered as a postponement to August 27th. Council meeting and the related rezoning is item 140 C one 420 250065. Again, this is offered as a postponement to August 27th council meeting. This [3:32:53 PM] concludes the reading of your zoning and neighborhood plan amendment agenda. And as always, this is at your discretion. Thanks. >> Anybody have questions, miss Hardin, at this time? Okay, with that being the case, let me read the consent agenda and I'll accept a motion with regard to the consent agenda. And then we'll go to public comment items 112 and 113 indefinite postponements items one, 14, one, 15, 116 and 117 all on all three readings. Remember that item 116 has language read into the record by miss Hardin. Number 118 postponement to 827, 19, 119 and 120 on all three readings. 121 postponement to August 27th. 122 indefinite postponement item 123 second and third readings 124 and 125. First reading only 126 and 127. 126127, 128, one, 29, one, 31, 31, one, 32, and 133 are on all [3:33:54 PM] three readings. 127 includes the motion that was read into the record by miss Hardin. 134, 135 and 136 a postponement to August 27th. 137138 all three readings 139 and 140. Postponement to August 27th. Members. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as read made by council member Ellis, second by council member Velasquez. Now I'll turn to the city clerk. >> Thank you, mayor, for item 114. I have Evan Taniguchi, Lang ki Wu, Sheila Lyon, Chen Nguyen, Mike Barnhart, and Donna Osborne. >> If your name has been called and you wish to be heard, please come forward. I see some of you in the room, but you're very good. Okay. >> Okay then for item 116, I have Malcolm Yates and Gail Joffe or Gough. [3:35:06 PM] >> My name is Malcolm Yates. I'm the chair of the east Riverside oltorf combined contact team. The iiroc contact team voted to support this proposal for item 116 for the amendment of the south shore pud. Part of this proposal is for the developer to buy the abandoned strip of land adjacent to the heritage oaks park and give it to the city as part of the parkland dedication requirement. The contact team has been asking the city to buy this property for many years. This property came up for auction on may 5th of this year, but the parks department was unable to purchase it because of legal constraints. The purpose of the purchase of this property is important for more than just addition to the park. This property has been the center for crime in this area for years. The city cannot find an owner to sign a trespass form, so the police cannot enforce trespass laws on this property. This property [3:36:08 PM] continues to be a source of criminal activity in the east Riverside area. This property is next to the new children's play area in the heritage oaks park. The residents do not use this area because of the criminal activity that is only a few feet away. Please support this amendment to the planned unit development approved by the planning commission. Thank you for your service. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Hello, mayor and council. My name is Gail Gough. I've been a member of the rock contact team since it began in 2003. Since we received an email from the parks department in August 2024 that they were not interested in acquiring this tract. And because Iraq has watched for years the parkland dedication fees generated by projects in our area shift away from our area. We were interested in working with Michael Whalen and [3:37:09 PM] the south shore pud to acquire this property for the park. Whalen's team worked diligently to locate ownership, follow the case through to the county attorney's office when it was cited for default on taxes owed and showed up at the auction to acquire the tract. So we're hoping you'll support us in approving the addition to heritage oaks park. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Speaking to the merits of the postponement for 118, I have Blair Pena, Gavin Villarreal, Mary kell, Chris Gannon and Scott Menzies. >> If your name has been called and you wish to be heard, please come forward. >> Hi, I'm. >> Scott Menzies, I'm the president of Robertson hill neighborhood association and east Austin. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. I'm [3:38:10 PM] here representing neighboring residents in east Austin, including the Robertson hill neighborhood association. While I'm not speaking on behalf of sweet hill neighborhood, I'm here to support the request for postponement. Many of the sweet hill neighborhood members are currently out of town on previously planned summer travel, and aren't able to be here today. The property has clear historic significance at 907 east 13th street and deserves the opportunity to be present and make its class case before action is taken. A short postponement will ensure that those voices are heard, and that the council has a benefit of hearing directly from the community, which, with the deepest connection to this historic resource, city council has a long standing practice of granting reasonable postponement requests. As a courtesy to neighborhoods. We respectfully ask that you do the same today. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> For item 119 Amanda Swarr. >> Pass. >> Thank you. Item 120 Amanda Swarr. [3:39:12 PM] >> She's still passing. >> Item 123 I have some remote speakers. Laura turner. Miss turner, please unmute. Juan Rodriguez mora. >> Hello. I'm here. My name is Juan Rodriguez. Thank you so much, mayor and council. My name is Juan Rodriguez and I serve as a project manager for the del valle community coalition. I'm here today to support item 123 and the proposed partnership between city rida and circuit of the Americas. At DCC, we work with families throughout the valley and the surrounding communities. One thing we hear over and over is that our community wants the same opportunities that many, many other parts of Austin already have. We want places where families can gather, where young people can find [3:40:13 PM] jobs close to home, and where residents don't have to drive across the city just to enjoy basic amenities. Our support for this project isn't about financial gain, it's about what this investment represents for our community. We see an opportunity to bring new jobs, new recreational spaces, new restaurants, new event venues and increased visibility to an area that has historically been overlooked. We're especially encouraged by the commitment to creating hundreds of new jobs, to the partnership with the United States, and by the inclusion of nearly 12 acres of parkland and soccer fields. Those aren't just amenities. They're investments in our families, our youth, and our future. We also hope this project serves as a catalyst for. For too long, del valle has lacked many of the services and investments that other communities take for granted. We hope developments like this encourage additional businesses, infrastructure and community resources to follow, creating more opportunities for the residents who already call del valle home. Qureshi benefit the people who live here today, and we believe this project moves us in that direction and we have our city. I respectfully [3:41:13 PM] ask for your support of item 123. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Sarah Ledesma. >> Hi. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Sarah Rodriguez for sybesma, and I serve as the director of development for del valle community coalition, or dpc. Every day. My job is to build partnerships that help bring programs, resources and opportunities to families families throughout del valle those partnerships allow us to provide scholarships, homeowner assistance, security programs, financial education, and community events that would not be possible without organizations choosing to invest in our community. That's why I'm here today in support of item 123. We had the privilege of working alongside Cota Cota, or circuit of the Americas for many years, and we have seen firsthand what can happen when a business chooses to become a part of the community, instead of simply operating within it through community events, volunteerism, and local partnerships, they [3:42:15 PM] have helped create opportunities for del valle families. We encourage we're encouraged that Rita is choosing to invest here as well. This project represents more than a hotel. It represents jobs, new amenities, public park space, recreation for our youth, and the type of investment that allows residents at del valle is worth investing in. Those investments create momentum not only for economic growth, but for stronger community partnerships and greater access to resources for the people who already live here. As someone, as someone whose responsibility is to secure resources for our community, I know that visibility matters. When responsible organizations choose del valle, it opens the door to new conversations, new collaborations, and future investments that can strengthen our neighborhoods. We know there is still work to do, but we believe this project is a positive step in the right direction. We appreciate the opportunity to partner with organizations that recognize the potential of del valle, and are willing to invest in its future. On behalf of vbc, I [3:43:16 PM] respectfully ask for your support of item one. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Laura turner. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Laura turner and I am the vice president of the del valley community coalition. I'm here today to express our strong support for the proposed development project at circuit of the Americas, or Cota. We recognize that growth and development can bring legitimate concerns, especially in communities that have too often been left behind for decades. The del valley area has experienced significant underinvestment. When the city annexed Cota, the surrounding community did not receive the same level of investment, leaving residents with limited access to jobs, amenities, recreation and economic opportunities. We believe this project is an opportunity to begin correcting that imbalance. Over the years, Cota has been a collaborative community partner and together with Rita development, this project has the potential to deliver meaningful long term benefit to [3:44:17 PM] del valley. The nearly 12 acres of public parkland, including two full size soccer fields, will help address the long standing lack of recreational space in southeast Austin, while creating new opportunities for youth sports and community programing. Just as important, the hotel will create year round jobs, career pathways, and with the labor peace agreement in place, access to quality employment with benefits and opportunities for advancement for our young people, this project creates opportunities that are often unavailable close to home, including internships, hospitality and event management, experience and career exposure without having to travel across the city. It also has the potential to become the economic anchor our community has long needed, attracting additional business service, businesses, services and amenities that have historically bypassed del valley. This project is an opportunity to begin making up for decades of underinvestment and to ensure that the community surrounding Cota finally shares in the prosperity it has helped create. I respectfully encourage the Austin city council to support this project in item 123. Thank [3:45:17 PM] you for your time and consideration. >> Let me go to in-person speakers for this item. Susan Spataro and Sharon Blythe here, and Jeffrey Bowen. >> They're both here. >> Okay. Miss Spataro will have six minutes. >> Susan Spataro, I live in district eight, and I just wanted to come today. I mean, there's a lot of angriness in our community today, and I think this is just an incredibly good plan. And we've talked a lot about investment in industrial. This is different. And you know, when you think Cota what you immediately think is f1. And that's how it started out. And we were so lucky to get that. There are countries around the world that wish they had. Our track drivers feel it's the number one track in the world. We have people all over the world coming into Austin to come to that event and other [3:46:19 PM] international this item right here is a change in zoning, and the pod really allows just a redistribution or a redesign. And the reason for that is that Cota, I think, has been very, very judicious in going from kind of a racetrack to a family entertainment center. And I think we need that. I think it's good for jobs. I think it's good for people and it's good for our community. And that's what this does. And for for those of you who don't know, because I think this is interesting and that is that we started with f1. And then Cota opened the germania amphitheater with a 14000 guest capacity. They moved then for a karting track for those that like to drive themselves, and then a kids Carter track for the little seed speed demons that like to drive a cart. Then they have a campground. Mini [3:47:19 PM] golf is out there. There were initial Cota land for kids under the age of seven, and now they're going to to put the new amusement park out there with additional 30 rides. And there has been no incentives. That's totally been paid for by Cota. Then we did have a soccer stadium out there, and I actually almost tears came to my eyes when when the, you know, msl team basically drove out the team at Cota because the people in southeast Austin loved it and their children loved it. But I am happy that with this agreement, you're going to have two two soccer fields out there for kids to play. And I think that's a good thing. Then they have car condos. So this really has become a family friendly destination. And Cota has very carefully managed that. And so what they're looking at now is what other things can we do. And the hotel has come out. I think it's a great idea, but [3:48:19 PM] there are more things. And what this does is just allow a framework for them to look and to plan what they're going to do out there. One of the things, a couple of things I wanted to talk about here is, you know, we talk about community contributions. And usually, you know, it's kind of a, you'll do this or we won't give you this, but I want to I told you the last time I was here, some of the things that Cota has done, this was just at the end of June. I think you're going to like this. There was a letter from the head of the dps motor training unit to Cota and. And this is what it said. I wish to thank you for allowing us to use your facility again. I wish I could convey how much our partnership in the last two years has meant to us, with last Friday being the largest law enforcement motorcycle training ever put on in the nation and how fast it has spread over the weekend, I'm funneling through emails and calls asking for the next curve class. This is a good place for [3:49:21 PM] us to be regarding training, and it couldn't have been possible without your support. I really can't thank you enough. I love that code is the kind of organization that helps governments and helps people, and I think this is a really good thing. And it also, by the way, makes state officials kind of like Austin more. So this is the kind of things that they do right now. They are donating thousands of backpacks and school supplies for kids, and they love their facility to be used for distribution. So they they step up when the community needs them. Why do they do that? Because that's who they are. The investors live here. This is their home. They like the community and they want it to succeed. And I think they have done an incredibly good job. One thing I would like to ask you, as you are supporting this, and I hope you will, is that although they are paying a very large, there's a huge amount of sales taxes. And by the way, [3:50:22 PM] Cota was financed privately and they pay property taxes, unlike many of these groups. But but what has happened is, even though, you know, their business generates 1% sales tax to capmetro, there is no cap metro service going out there, although they pay 20% of their taxes for the >> City toward project connect. That's not going out there. And if you could help us in any way get public transportation out there, because the kids that want internships, they need transportation. The kids out there don't have cars of their own. The workers and the people that are attending events. So it seems to me a bit unfair that we don't have public transportation out there. So anything that you all can do to help that. Thank you very much. Thank you for supporting this. And it's the right thing to do. Cota brings joy to our community. Thank you. >> Thank you, miss pitaro. [3:51:24 PM] >> For item 126, Valerie Minard. >> Good afternoon council. Today I'm here to speak to you representing the Johnston terrace neighborhood plan contact team. And we're going to talk about the planned proposal for brook elementary and and we are offering our support for this plan. If with two caveats. And councilmember Velasquez just, just or maybe our planning person can let me know. I heard that the 50 foot setback is is going to be included. I did not hear if the arrangements for traffic signal warrant analysis were included, so I don't know if. If so, unless. So we. So our approval of this project is based on including those two components [3:52:27 PM] for this plan. And I also wanted to be here to. To, to offer a warning to other neighborhoods across town that have are home to schools that are stated for closure slated for closure. So be prepared, be organized because this is going to happen in your neighborhood while we are giving approval. And we appreciated the setback and the traffic warrant analysis, the biggest issue for the neighborhood was height. And there was no there was no change in height for that. This is going to be a five story construction. So I want neighborhoods to imagine, look at the school that in front of your home that's going to be redeveloped. Imagine five stories. So just be prepared. And if you, you know, maybe you can get some more compromise for whichever developer comes your way. But that didn't happen here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Speaking on the merits of the postponement for 134, I [3:53:27 PM] have doctor Deborah Murphy, Chris Gannon and Alex Alexandria Anderson. >> Does anybody want to speak on the merits of the postponement? Okay. >> For the merits of the postponement for item 135, I have Alexandria Anderson. Nadia Barbeau. Merits of the postponement for 136 Harvey Atkins, Lucia baker, Nadia Barbeau, Zenobia Joseph. >> If your name has been called and you wish to be heard, please let us know. Okay. >> Merits of the postponement for 139 Brad Massengale. [3:54:34 PM] >> I'm here speaking today on behalf of the south congress contact team. We support the this postponement. We actually don't support the zoning change here. This this property is on south congress between a Stanton and William canyon. It used to be a a a 60 to 80 a space mobile home park that was basically they quit renewing people's leases there and shut it down. And now they're wanting to turn it into a vmu, Texas has a lot of people living in mobile homes. Austin. We have a shrinking number of mobile home parks. When we're talking about changing ordinances to make. Tiny homes and all these different things, and we're getting rid of deeply affordable houses like mobile home parks, we can't be [3:55:35 PM] rewarding speculators. This this is wrong. We we need to preserve all the mobile home space we have. If whether we have to turn it into a tiny home parks or take advantage of the new legislation passed federally that allows for different types of mobile homes without metal wheels on metal frames underneath them. This this, this is a vital place. It's right near a school. It's on a transit line. It doesn't need to be folded off into another corporate boondoggle. So thanks for postponing it. And please, whenever it comes up, keep this stuff in mind and do some research on it. Thank you. >> Mr. Massengill, do you want to speak on the merits postponement for 140? >> It's basically the same thing. Don't, don't don't let the zoning change happen. I mean, I'm I've been in front of this body many times discussing [3:56:36 PM] the coupling of zoning changes along with the planning, the change, changing the future land use map. I don't think those two things should come up here together, because it's assuming that one's going to happen when it all the money has been spent by the developer at that point, that there's no wiggle room for the neighborhoods because there's just so much on the line at that point. We need to have it do the future land use and neighborhood plan amendments separately. You know, do em two weeks apart, whatever. But, you know, it'd be better even farther apart. But in personally, I think that's a that's, it's not the right way to logistically to handle that. Thank you. >> Mayor. That concludes all zoning speakers. >> Thank you. Members, we have a motion and a second on the consent agenda. Let me ask for any discussion. Councilmember Velasquez. >> Yeah, thank you. Mayor, I [3:57:36 PM] wanted to to thank Malcolm Yates, Gail Gough and the east Riverside oltorf contact team for their persistence and advocacy in helping secure some much needed parkland for the Riverside area. And to Michael Whalen for working with our office in Iraq to get that done. I knew it took a little time and some maneuvering, but greatly appreciated on all sides. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. Council member, council member, mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. Mayor. I just wanted to take a moment to highlight items 124 and 125. These are three properties that are grouped together very close to the corner of Guadalupe and airport that are within the E tod, and that will soon be developed into the. Today we're only passing on on first reading where we're working with the owner to the properties, back up to the highland neighborhood park. We want to get an easement through that property to the park. So people west of of Guadalupe can access the park more easily. [3:58:38 PM] We're just trying to kind of work through those details with watershed and parks, and so we're just passing it on first reading today and look forward to to taking it up again in the future. But I just wanted to let the public know that we're working on that, that easement. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there anyone wishing to abstain from a vote on the consent agenda as it's read, anyone wishing to recuse themselves from a vote on the agenda, anyone wishing to be shown voting no. Councilmember duchen. >> On 124125. >> Okay. Anyone else in that case? Without objection, the consent agenda is passed with councilmember duchen being shown voting no on items 124 and 125. Thank you members, members that will now you want to be recognized. >> Only if we're moving on to past zoning. >> We're moving on to item one. 11. >> Can I ask for a five minute [3:59:39 PM] recess, a true five minute recess? To 405? Not a second later. >> Without objection, we're in recess until 405. Everybody be back at 405. It's 4:00 pm. [4:05:04 PM] Saying, I'm just pointing out. I'm just pointing out for the fun of it that it's 405. >> Let me. Oh. Okay. Sorry. >> All right. I'll call back to order the Austin city council at 4:05 P.M. After a brief recess, we are now going to go to item number 111. Item 111 is yeah. >> Do two, three, four, five, six. >> All right. The purpose of item number 111 is to conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance, because it's the conduct of a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 111. And the public hearing is now open. And we will turn to our city clerk to begin the process of calling people that want to be heard during that public hearing. >> Thank you. Mayor. I'll start with remote speakers. Truman [4:06:05 PM] Matheny. >> My name is Truman Matheny, district eight, and I am in directly in opposition to this. I think specifically what most irritates me as much as I'm horrified by the economic sorry environmental implications, is that we are offering such absurd subsidies. I'm not in favor of subsidies for corporations at all. The fact that we are giving them $1 billion, over $1 billion to do this to our natural resources is absurd to me. If we are doing this as a way to get more jobs, we are doing this to the wrong company. This company has a history of underpaying its workers and denying them restroom breaks. This is a horrible company to be doing [4:07:06 PM] this with. I just don't understand why one of the most powerful companies in the entire world needs our handouts. Our handouts should be going towards people in need. We should be helping the middle class and the lower class. We should not be giving handouts like this to Jeff bezos. If he wants our land, he better pay top dollar for it. I think this is ridiculous and I think it's a terrible deal. And I definitely think the reservations for data centers should be much higher. I was not satisfied by that statement. And I think we need a full commitment of zero data centers whatsoever. That's all. Thank you very much for your time. >> Grace. Tomek. >> Hi, mayor and council [4:08:06 PM] members. My name is Rachel. Mike and I live in district four. I signed up to speak on all items related to dog's head, but I was disconnected briefly during item 142. So apologies if I missed my time then, but I would like to speak one time to express my opposition to all the items related to dog's head. As a resident of Austin and Travis county, I urge you to reject the proposed development of dog's head. I strongly oppose the use of city of Austin and Travis county tax dollars to subsidize the development that disregards public input, undermines environmental protections, and prioritizes development developers and corporations profits over the public good. I urge you to, at minimum, postpone the vote and otherwise reject it. Thank you. >> Sarah Foust. >> Hello. My name is Sarah baker. I'm a district five resident. This is my 50th year as a city of Austin taxpayer. I [4:09:07 PM] am eager for the corporations building in the dogs head to have the same opportunity I've had of contributing to the general fund needs of our community. As such, I urge you to reject the proposed tax increment reinvestment zone. Nothing about the status of this land or the claimed economic benefits qualify for our public funding. If anything qualifies for a tirz here, it will be when we have to buy out and redevelop flooded properties when the developers are long gone. Mayor, earlier you asked the audience to act like Austin ought to act. I asked the same of this council today. Councils and citizens, before you fought for environmental regulations and fiercely negotiated with developers for the standards that characterize our city today, this project sets a new low for environmental standards, for transparency, for stakeholder input and corporate tax giveaways and basic legal compliance. The finding that this property would not develop on its own is totally unsupportable. Act like Austin ought to act and reject this tirz and start over with an environmentally sound [4:10:08 PM] development that east Austin and our general fund deserve. Thank you. >> Rasika Mathur. >> Good afternoon, mayor Watson and council members. My name is rasika Masur, district eight. I'm a proud graduate of UT Austin, class of 98. Hook em horns. I live and work here in Austin, Texas, and I urge you all to vote no on any remaining dogs head items. I appreciate councilman Siegel and councilwoman lane's earlier comments regarding responsible water usage from developers and council listening to constituents to make any amendments today. But tweaking deals aren't enough. We need a full pause. If you look down the corridor at cities like San Marcos and San Antonio, they are stepping up and hitting the brakes to steady water and land impacts. That is conscious leadership. Austin is marketed as a tech hub, but more than that, and before that, we've been known for green spaces and [4:11:11 PM] ecological stewardship. If we cannot balance tech explosion with simultaneously protecting our resources, that's not smart growth. That is cutting off our own legs to run faster. And you can't do that. I stand with our environmental commission. Delay this vote until January 2027 for a full assessment. We cannot grant 100% impervious cover or gamble with the Colorado river for Amazon or anybody else. Let's adopt the commission's recommendations and back this unfinished science project until the right research is done. And you heard them, they don't have the whole plan nailed down yet. Okay. And honor the slogan, don't mess with Texas. Thank you. >> Rebecca eufrasio. [4:12:11 PM] >> Hello, mayor. And I am here to express my opposition. I am a district three resident that just moved here right out the Gates of dogs head. And I really commend what councilman Siegel mentioned. Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking, and I just really hope that you guys vote against this because we're clearly not prepared to to sign off into a 45 year commitment. And I please urge you guys to reconsider. We can still scale this back and do this the right way. Thank you. >> I'm going to transition over to in-person speakers. Beatrice Anderson, Josh Goldenberg, holly reed, Susana Almanza, [4:13:12 PM] Susana, are you here? Is Carlos pinon here? And Katherine panic. Yeah. Was that a yes on Katherine? Okay. Six minutes for you. >> Good afternoon again. Council. Beatrice Anderson, save our springs alliance. First, I really want to urge you to look at the materials that were sent to you by Bobby lavinsky. He can't be here right now, but please take a look at those for more information. Okay. A tirz is supposed to be a very narrow exception, and it is subject to the very specific legal test that. But for taxpayer dollars reimbursing this developer, private development would not otherwise occur. That's that's it. That is the test for the dog's head. A mud was already established as a viable alternative to bring development and infrastructure to that area that is already in place. Development is happening there. Like this was approved [4:14:15 PM] previously. Texas gas is already running gas lines out there. Did they started that two years ago. Development is already happening in this area. Endeavor has been buying this land up for seven years, planning for the expectation that development is happening in this area and with this mud in place, additional public funding is simply not necessary. We already have these structures and the tax taxpayers do not have to reimburse this developer for this. There are other ways. Suttle mentioned earlier that, you know, they are the ones taking on the risk here, but how is it their risk when it's our money? >> Yeah. >> If this is going ahead, let them use their own money. Let them use the existing structures that are in place to fund it. A tirz is simply not appropriate here. So I urge you to take that into account. Follow the law. It doesn't satisfy the but for test, [4:15:15 PM] please vote no. >> Please go ahead. >> Hi, my name is Josh Goldenberg. I'm a member of the Austin youth council, elected member for district ten. But today I'm here speaking on behalf of myself. Well, first of all, I want to say thank you for the previous speaker. I think she changed slightly some of the comments that I want to make, but I want to start off by saying that if the tirz is not accepted under state law, unfortunately, the developer could annex itself from the city. And if we want any of the things that people are asking for today, if we want that community engagement, if we want the land to be protected, that can't happen. If the developer de annexes, and I'm scared that if the if the tirz is not approved, then the developer will annex and will will annex and will get a lot worse of a development than we [4:16:16 PM] would have otherwise without the community engagement that will come with the regulating plan, which will go through a full process, and which will decide how the project is developed. My views or my dreams for dogs head, I think are pretty similar to a lot of people here. But if we want to work towards that goal of preserving the land that's still natural and and taking advantage of the opportunities we have to provide affordable housing and build a really good world class neighborhood, then we can't let the developer, the developer dis annex. And I think that's something that a lot of the people here should consider. And also I want to. Also speak on some of the funding that will be going to that will be used as a result of this tirz there. If you read the project and financing plan, the preliminary projects and [4:17:16 PM] financing plan, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars are allocated to land management and to water quality protection. And that is something we simply do not get with the tirz. I would be in favor of accepting or delaying. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Zamesnik. >> Good afternoon. I'm Susana Almanza with poder mayor and city council members, and I want to just get a little bit of background. In 1928, the city of Austin adopted the master plan, and in that master plan, it decided that all the people of color and even the poor whites would be relocated to east Austin. But that wasn't the final thing. It also said that all the unwanted industries, those polluting industries, would also follow us. In east Austin, we had the tank farm, the fuel storage facility that was contaminating the land, the water and the community there. We had bfi browning-ferris industries recyclables. Over 350 000 recyclables were coming to our communities, and people didn't even know that we had the holly [4:18:18 PM] power plant, the largest stationary source of nox emission electric magnetic fields, sounds, noise that exceeded hud and EPA standards. We had the people that were being impacted by this. Then we had pure casting with all its chemicals next to Zavala elementary and in a residential area for that work together with other groups. And we rezoned over 600 properties in the gold valley Johnston area that were not compatible to residential standards. And after we did all of this cleanup, guess what happened? Gentrification came upon us. The colonization moved like a wave that we'd never seen before. The first to go was the Cesar Chavez neighborhood, then the holly neighborhood, the go valley Johnston, and of course, now montopolis is the last ones to be colonized. But now when we had I-35 was our border wall when we relocated. Now we've toned that. We've been told [4:19:18 PM] that highway 183 is our new border wall, that the new east Austin that we used to call east Austin is now central Austin, east Austin is highway 183 now going east. What does that mean? That means that we have a billionaire like Elon Musk that has made promises of an eco paradise, of hiring people from the community, of working with the community, but is discharging into our sacred Colorado river park. What employees have died and so forth, where he tore down a lot of native plants, herbal plants that could have been used and put up all of the impervious cover. Now we have the next billion dollar Jeff bezos coming to east Austin. I mean, you're slaughtering east Austin, you've got billionaires. You're talking about building a bridge so they can come from Tesla [4:20:18 PM] over to Amazon, hooking them together. And then you're talking about housing. This is the continuation of the 1928 master plan. You need to see this because now you're talking about putting housing next to all these manufacturing and polluting facilities. That's a continuation of the master plan. And then you talk about you act like Amazon is in cahoots with the department of defense and ai. Let's be real about what's happening here. And and you can talk about robots. This is not little children robots. This is not little robots that you do in class or that you have little science fair. You're talking about robots with ai. They're going to replace humanity. The only jobs, the only jobs that are coming, is to construct the building, to construct the building. We have to be really careful when we talk. We know that an Amazon is anti-union. It's anti-union. And how are we saying union [4:21:19 PM] workers are going to come and support this because they're temporary jobs only. They're not permanent jobs at all. And and it is linked to ai. What do you think is going to run the robots? Okay, wake up here. We're talking about temporary jobs and very being replaced by robots. We already saw the lift workers. The Uber workers lose their jobs to what? Waymo. Nobody's driving in those cars. Nobody's driving in those cars. And we've already said fast food people, the lowest class workers losing their jobs because ai is now taking orders. Okay, let's look at what really is happening in our communities, in our society. And I don't think that we want billionaires in east Austin already seeing their worker. We see what Tesla has done to boca chica. Just look at what they've done to Brownsville, to that community. We don't want that in east Austin. We don't want it in [4:22:21 PM] east Austin. I think we've had and been overburdened by more than anybody else in the whole city. We are the fence line communities. And you know, and I know that this would never happen in west Austin. >> Never. You would not build over the Edwards aquifer. >> Why would you do it over the alluvial and carrizo? It. It's what is. Water is sacred to us no matter where it's at. But you think it's not that you think that pollution will not. Will stop at highway 183. You're wrong. You're very wrong. And so I say you need to vote no. You need to vote no on this. It's time that we look. We put people first, profits later, and especially millionaires and billionaires. We do not need to be giving them our tax monies, our revenues, when we're cutting social service programs here in the city. That is a disgrace. That is a disgrace. [4:23:23 PM] >> Thank you. >> Jonathan Davidson, Ben Thompson, max Hausmann. Jonathan Davidson, Ben Thompson, max Hausmann, Richard suttle, Richard suttle and as Amanda moreau here. Okay, there's time donated to Mr. Suttle. >> My name is John Davidson. I live in district three. Happy birthday. >> So far. He's really enjoying it. >> I am, I'm hopeful and thankful that some of the members of the council have started asking some questions. Finally. There's some terms that are being thrown around by by the the developer in this project. And I think that some of the questions haven't been asked about what these terms [4:24:23 PM] mean, like open space does not mean park. That could be a divide divided highway. That could be a grassy knoll. The parkland in this deal is all said to be managed by the property owners association. So we don't know who that is either. Like there is no parkland here really. It's private property that's being shared. What are the terms of that? We have no terms of that. The other thing on this tirz, there is currently a $9 billion military maritime drone manufacturer that just opened its headquarters in the dog's head. They also own, own and run property further into the dog's head neighboring on the very property that is already under significant stripped Earth development by the developer. So if there is no development that's ever going to happen here without a tirz, then that's kind of a hard question to to answer honestly, because all of the development [4:25:25 PM] that's happening there now is so obvious to those of us that live within the dust bomb that's being created by this whole thing. So I just, I'm probably more passionate than many about it because I live within sight, within the halo of light created by this, this facility that will likely use as much power and water as 8000 households per year. I haven't heard anyone talk about that. So, you know, slow this down, get a good deal and do what you should. Thank you. >> Good mayor. Members of the council. My name is Richard suttle. Again, I'm here on behalf of endeavor. Just wanting to clear up each time there's something said that isn't altogether true. I just want to clear it up. The [4:26:26 PM] gentleman just spoke before me, talked about annick. It's the company that builds the autonomous boats. It's not in the dog's head. It's at the corner of 183 in Dalton. It's. It's not in the dog's head. It's not in what you're considering today at all. There's. >> Go go ahead folks. >> It's it's. >> Really please, I ask you to show the decorum that's worthy of having public discussions and debate like this. And you're not doing that right now. So please, you may disagree. You may disagree very aggressively. But that's this is not the forum to do that. >> The other thing that needs to be cleared up is on the taxes. Several people have said, we're giving away our taxes. Endeavor voluntarily submitted themselves to pay tax to pay full tax. There's been some talk about tax breaks for [4:27:27 PM] Amazon. Amazon will pay their full tax bill. There's no incentives. There's no tax being rebated. The tirz is simply a mechanism, just like we use cip bond funds to extend infrastructure to newly annexed areas, to provide the services that are required by state law. When a city annexes land. And so all we're doing is taking a portion of the tax that that endeavor is volunteering to pay. And if the the appraised value on the land goes up, and if the taxes go up, a portion of those taxes would then be used to reimburse the money that was put that was outlaid to build the infrastructure that normally the city would build. So with that, I'll just close. That's the whole purpose of this tirz is to just extend the services that a city would normally extend into a newly [4:28:28 PM] annexed area. We probably haven't had this conversation much because the city has not annexed many areas in recent in the recent recent history, and they sure haven't annexed a Greenfield site that has absolutely no infrastructure. Now, with that, I'll close. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on. Angela van, bill bunch. Mr. Bunch, are you here? >> I'll be here in a moment. >> He has time donated by Rita Thompson. Is Rita here? Okay. And then Joe Jane doe and Stephanie Hoffman. >> Jane doe to keep showing up. >> Come. >> I'm going to call a few more names. >> Please call some other names while we're waiting on him. >> Bill? Oliver? Bill, are you here? >> Yes, he was earlier. >> Is Virginia palmer here? Okay, then you'll have four [4:29:29 PM] minutes. And Zachary Faddis and Betsy Greenburg. >> If you're if if your names been called, please come forward. Thank you. Mayor. Council members bill bunch, save our springs alliance. Although let me clarify that I want to speak as an individual taxpayer on this. I also have a point of order. The state law calls for a public hearing that's separate and apart from your rules. This is an incredibly complicated 45 year, 35 year deal. So I'm asking for at least three minutes per person. And your rules say two minutes is supposed to be a minimum. You never, ever give anybody more than two minutes. [4:30:30 PM] So it's time for you to exercise your discretion and comply with state law and give people at least three minutes in this public hearing. Could I get could I get a ruling on that, please, and and not have it come out of my four minutes that I. >> The speaking time is two minutes, Mr. Bunch, but you go ahead. >> Another point of order. I filed some written comments. You should have them. That needs to be in the record of this public hearing. I hope you all have them. I didn't ask for them to be displayed on the board. The state law is very clear and it starts with the constitution, which requires fair and uniform taxation. This is nowhere close to being fair in uniform taxation. If you do this deal for them, you have to do it for every other developer. Your own economic development officer said, hey, this is telling everybody else we're in [4:31:32 PM] business. So you do this deal, here they come. You got to be fair, right? It's not fair. If you're going to give tax breaks, you need to give it to workers. As the speaker said earlier today, the state constitution also prohibits gifts. You're just giving away this money. The the agreement that y'all signed off on has so much vagaries and so much leeway combined with the statute. If you read the statute, they can do all kinds of spend this money 15 different ways, and it doesn't even have to be in the project plan or the financing plan that's in the statute. Chapter 311 of the tax code. It also says you can override the charter on dispensing and managing land. So you're [4:32:33 PM] talking about getting rid of your obligation to let us vote when you alienate parkland. And this plan is calling for paving parkland for at least one of the bridges and probably more. You have development exploding out there. And I want to also point into this record essentially every issue the office Austin business journal for the last three years that talks about yet one opening after the next after the next big projects, many of them without any public subsidies, including just last week's a bj6 hundred zero zero zero square foot takedown of a speculative industrial building by Tesla, two miles away from this site. Just a little bit up towards decker lake. Y'all know about that Easton park exploding one Tesla across the [4:33:34 PM] river. And as Susana said, this is destroying jobs. This whole project for Amazon. This is the fourth richest man on the planet who is anti-labor across the board. And in fact, today's Washington post has a big article that Amazon employees are having to take down federal. Thank you, welfare aid snap. Thank you. And medicare because they're not getting paid. Thank you. Mr. Is that what you want for this community, Mr. >> Fuentes? >> Howdy. Howdy, council members and mayor, so I my name is Zach. My my name is Zach Faddis. I'm a resident of district nine and president of aura. I am actually neutral on this item. Aura does not have an official stance on whether or not we should accept any agreement or develop the dog's head, but we do have opinions on if we are going to things we would like to see to ensure the [4:34:35 PM] best outcomes for the city and for the future residents there. So, and I'll send you a letter. I'll be reading an abridged version of that letter. I encourage you all to read the whole thing. So dog's head must be mixed use and high density conventional low density single use pattern squanders the site in the public funding behind. It then sees what makes the housing, the tax base and the transit all work. It must be tax. It must be walkable and transit oriented. That means a connected street grid with sidewalks and protected bike lanes and right of way that support high frequency transit, not six Laine arterials that carve apart the neighborhood fabric. This should include ideas such as the dogs, the dog door busway, which you can read about on our blog, and it is a option for a low cost, transit only connection. Letting busses bypass the us 183 exchange linking the dots directly towards downtown with high frequency transit and creating opportunity for future transit access and connectivity. It must be fiscally responsible for the city, because the tirz will capture the majority of the city's tax increment for 35 years. Austin's return depends [4:35:37 PM] entirely on what gets built and what the increment buys. Compact development requires less infrastructure and enables more efficient delivery of services per resident than sprawl development. Accordingly, we ask council to take three actions today and in the future one commission a fiscal analysis at different density levels. Two is to add explicit language to the tirz and preliminary project and financing plan requiring reimbursable transportation infrastructure, be walkable and transit supportive. The third is to include a voting cap metro representative on the tirz board. We look forward to working with y'all in the future and ensuring the best outcome for the city and future residents. Thank you. >> Thank you, thank you, Mr. Patterson. Miss Greenberg. >> My name is Betsy Greenberg. I live in Austin, district nine. I'm opposed to the tirz for ducks head for the same reasons you've hearing over and over, including the reduction of land use regulations and environmental protections in a sensitive area. The Austin city council negotiated the [4:36:38 PM] annexation and development agreement behind closed doors with very limited public notice or process. The development was acclaimed for the tax revenue that the project would generate and its ability to attract a fortune 100 advanced manufacturing employer. Now, a tirz increment reinvestment zone funding mechanism is being considered by you now. So instead of generating tax revenue for the city's strained budgets, the funds will be kicked back to the wealthy. Developer. Endeavor would not have acquired this property if it wasn't a good location. The property will redevelop even without the kickbacks. In fact, crews are already leveling and preparing a 300 acre plot for an advanced manufacturing site. This developer always wants tax breaks, whether it's for luxury shopping at the domain prized waterfront property in central Austin, or in this location for [4:37:39 PM] a fortune 100 tenant owned by the fourth most wealthy person in the world, please vote no to this tax kickback. Thank you. >> Thank you, thank you, miss Greenburg. I know the mayor said that we weren't going to have music, but apparently we are going to have some music, so. >> Mr. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Oliver, the floor is yours. >> So decisive around here. Well, thank you very much, folks. District three, happy birthday. Oh, let's see here. Oh, what do I have here? The Austin chronicle, 2007 Halloween cover featuring our charming Richard suttle. For some of you newbies here, I've done this before, but it was almost 20 years ago and he's. This is by the way, he was [4:38:39 PM] joined before this. This honor is given to other charmers like Gary Bradley and Jim Bob Moffett. My word. What's the connection here? What's the thread, I wonder? It's not exactly a compliment on his charm. The. It was about content. Well, from the air it looks like a great dog's head shaped by the Colorado river bed, a giant peninsula, a fertile land sold down the river. Secret plan, longhorn dam, the Hornsby bend, beaver and river otter swim where sand and gravel meet black land, Wright prairie and prairie, where waterfowl land. When folks find out what you're giving away. When folks find out, here's what they'll say. When folks find out. They'll let out a howl. Because you, my friends, are in the doghouse now. You're in the doghouse. [4:39:40 PM] Now you're in the doghouse. Now, to be blunt, this dog don't hunt. You move out. The locals, those who care, bring in a robot's jobs. Beware. Slow on facts. Big on Hayes data center and Diaz. Give away the tax. Give away control to a mystery client. Non-disclosed. A bridge sized bribe to be delivered to a fat muskrat right across the river. When folks find out what you're giving away, when folks find out, here's what they'll say. When folks find out. They'll let out a howl. Because you, my friends, are in the doghouse now. Yeah, or in the doghouse now. You're in the doghouse. Now, to be blunt, this dog don't hunt. It's [4:40:48 PM] another east Austin injury, another back room conspiracy. Full speed ahead. What we see more of the same old misery blow dog whistles make us bark, sniff. But fours in the park. You can Polish your story, Polish the truth. You can Polish the tirz, but it's still poop. You're in the doghouse now. You're in the doghouse. Now bow wow wow wow. You're in the doghouse now. And to be blunt, this dog don't hunt. It's quite a stunt. But this dog don't hunt. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Oliver. Hope that was clear enough, Craig. And so if you guys don't [4:41:49 PM] vote the right way, we may just haunt you. For 45 years of bad dog songs right here. 45 years. >> Craig Naser, Kristen viotto, Garrett tung, Stephen brown, Elizabeth Levins, are you here? Is Audrey Stanton here? Okay. You all have four minutes. >> Craig Naser. Austin. Sierra club. >> And Austin environmental Democrats. And one of the things that is disturbed me this afternoon. I told you that I don't like the process, but listening to the questions and it doesn't seem like everyone understands the agreement that was written. And we pointed out there really is no parkland. [4:42:51 PM] And one of the reasons that I don't think in this disagreement very well understand it, is because of the way this came about. Now, I have a lot of friends who work in the city. We have some very great city departments, and we have some very intelligent people who work for you, and they haven't been consulted. I mean, watershed, how many people do you think in watershed were asked about people who know about the floodplain and could answer these questions? Very, very few. They were angry. A lot of them are angry. And parkland was hard contacted. I know they weren't. They weren't contacted. Neither was transportation. And then I found this out just because I was on the zero waste advisory commission for a while. They haven't been consulted. Resource recover has been consulted. They're concerned about how they're going to pick up the trash on here, all the [4:43:53 PM] extra money it's going to get for them to do this. Well, you don't know a whole lot of what's going on, but you're rushing ahead to do it. And we're asking questions and getting answers from the developer. I mean, I understand that I'm not saying that they're lying to you, but they might color what they tell you, you know, in one way or the other. And this just doesn't make any sense. And then on the environmental aspect of it, sometimes I wonder, well, I'll have to do that. Another item. Thank you. >> Hello, council members and mayor. My name is Garrett tongue. I live on hergatz Laine in district three. Today I want to talk to you about displacement exhibit D from the original dogs head development agreement showed hergatz Laine my street being widened to 92ft. Hergatz Laine is currently 30 to 40ft wide. If you widen it to 92ft, you are taking everyone out. Everyone will [4:44:55 PM] lose their homes. The roads map on page 56 of the agenda backup we are discussing discussing today still shows hergatz being widened to 92ft. Endeavor has told us it's the city's map. The city has told us it's endeavors map. It's been two months. No one has changed it. No one has updated the graphic. But fortunately for us, we get an endeavor funded displacement assessment that will come after the deal has been approved, letting us know who and what will be displaced after they've already begun displacing people. That is backwards. The bottom line is, if you all wanted to go fast, you needed to be ready to make things right fast. We have been seeking answers for two months. We have nothing in writing, assuring us that we are going to keep our homes. I ask that you reject or delay this tirz until after displacement. Risks have been studied and the community has been involved. Thank you. >> Thank you. [4:45:55 PM] >> Please begin. >> And I believe I have four minutes. >> You do? Okay. >> Good evening. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Lisa Evans and I'm asking you to postpone item 111. This item would create a 2645 acre tax increment reinvestment zone for dogs head establish boundaries, set the city's participation rate, and appoint its board. That's not a routine administrative action. It is a creation of a major public financing structure that could shape this area for decades. Yet the agenda states that this item has no fiscal impact. That doesn't make sense. A tirz redirects future property tax revenue into a designated area. It influences which infrastructure projects receive public funding, what revenue remains available for other city priorities, and how much financial risk tax taxpayers may ultimately carry before [4:46:56 PM] council creates this zone. The public deserves clear answers to some very simple questions. Why is a tirz necessary? What development would not happen without this public financing? Which infrastructure costs belong to the developers and which could eventually fall to taxpayers? What is the city's total anticipated commitment over the lifetime of this zone? What protections exist if the promised public benefit never materializes? And most importantly, what exactly is this tier's intended to support? During discussion earlier, representative Laine asked whether data centers would be built in this area. The endeavor attorney. The endeavor attorney's response was that there would be no standalone data centers. That doesn't mean no data centers that answer raise more questions than it resolved. No, standalone data centers is not the same thing as no data centers. If Amazon or another major technology company is expected to [4:47:56 PM] establish a campus or facility in this area, the public deserves to know whether whether that development will include a data center infrastructure, and whether this tears will help pay for roads, utilities, drainage, power capacity or other infrastructure that benefits it. That language matters, matters. A data center does not stop being a data center simply because it is incorporated into a larger campus. If this tirz does not and is not intended to support data center development, then the city and the developers should be willing to put that commitment in writing. If it is, if it is intended to support infrastructure that will benefit Amazon or another large corporate user, then the council and the public and the public deserve to know that before this vote, not after. Austin residents should not be asked to approve a massive financing mechanism based on the carefully narrowed answers and undefined future uses. [4:48:58 PM] That's exactly why item 111 should be postponed. My neighbors and I understand that this area will change, and we're not asking you all to stop development. We're asking you to create the financing structure before we're. We are asking you to not to create the financing structure before the planning, environmental review, infrastructure analysis and meaningful community engagement are complete. The people who already live in dogs head are being asked to absorb the consequences of decisions largely made around us. We are facing possible road widenings trail alignments, increased traffic, flooding concerns, environmental impacts and the potential loss of yards, land and even homes. The black prairie and its wetlands in this area are not empty space waiting to be monetized. They're part of a living landscape and they deserve to be studied before financial commitments create pressure to push development forward. Once the tirz is established, the momentum to justify it and spend spend through it will [4:49:59 PM] only increase. The city should not approve the financing structure first and answer the difficult questions later. >> Thank you. >> Please state your name for the record and begin. >> Hello council members. My name is Kristen viotto. I am of district two. This is my very first time coming to a council meeting. Thank y'all. I'm representing a lot of my neighbors and friends in several neighborhoods down in south Austin that cannot be here because they have to work, and I was able to take a day off and to go away from my vacation later on in the year. So with this potential terrible deal that we're having to, to now all sit through this tax, this the dog's head. One of the things that we, we have been saying over and over again is that it's a backhanded deal [4:51:00 PM] just amidst the frenzy to capitalize on everything that's industrial, that's in ai. We are going back towards what Austin. I thought when I moved here was what Austin was all about. When I have traveled all over the world, I have. And when I talk to people, oh, there's three places in the world that I would live. It'd be London, Austin or Singapore. Because I thought that, I thought that Austin incorporated values that were going to be weird and that were going to be natural, that we're going to be also for the right kind of development for the people. But I am finding myself so disappointed today, just absolutely devastated that we are not getting any of the environmental impacts that we are looking to pay out for times that probably not, maybe a few of us might actually live through. Nobody on the dais, probably none of us here. 45 years, I'm not going to be here. So like this is these actual events that y'all are putting into place. And the blackland [4:52:01 PM] prairie took over a million years to create. Just wipe it out. Everything that this has happened has seemed backwards and wrong and unethical. And a pause just just to have a look at it further. That's that's what we're asking, really. None of us are saying like, end it. We're saying pause and please have a look. >> At it. Thank you. >> Marianne Sanchez, Lee Edwards, Lee, are you here? Yes. Is odd. Sorry. Is Bronwyn reeve here? Bronwyn reeve okay, four minutes for Lee Valerie Menard. Is Pedro Hernandez junior here? Okay. Valerie, you also have four minutes. And jade Fusco. >> If your name has been called, you wish to be heard. Please come forward. [4:53:02 PM] >> Scared him off, did I? >> No. I think they're following you. Okay. Please, just state your name for the record and you'll have four minutes. Okay. >> I'm Lee Edwards, I'm a resident of district three. Jose, thank you for your advocacy. We need your advocacy more than ever. I'm president of the southeast Colorado river neighborhood association. Live less than three football fields from the development area. I will be impacted. My wife will be impacted. My neighbors will be impacted. At least one of my neighbors, maybe more, will have land taken away by the plan as it is in the backup today. Also in the backup today, there are three contradictory maps of exactly what it is you're voting on. Garrett tongue. My neighbor spoke to one of them black electrical tape showing that my road is extended to such an extent that all of our homes get bulldozed. Yet the tirz plan says no persons will [4:54:02 PM] be displaced. This is a sloppy agreement. It contradicts itself. It's an unethical process and a bad plan. We can do better than this. My essential question is can't we, Austin, Texas, do a lot better than this? Is the best we can do? Limited community engagement and ndas for city staff. Is hamstringing the planning and the environmental commission. The best that we can do is skipping the environmental impact survey and the traffic impact analysis. The best that we can do is developing four square miles without one square inch of committed parkland. The best that we can do is allowing a data center, even if not invited, in an area that's wrapped in three sides by the Colorado river. The best that we can do. Is touting the affordable housing benefits, [4:55:03 PM] when actually there is no commitment to affordable housing because there's no commitment to housing. The best that we can do. Is the billions for billionaires program that's being proposed. The best we can do is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can do? Hell no. I am asking you to say hell no to this. We can do better. We're Austin, Texas. We are amazing. We can do better. >> Yes, we. >> Oh, I hate having to follow that. That's not fair. Hello, mayor. Council members. My name is Valerie Menard. I'm the project director for poder Colorado river conservancy. I'm here to speak on several items, but I'd like to start by sharing a recent experience that may offer some insight. Today, I was in San Antonio [4:56:04 PM] this week for the one water leadership institute, an event established by the us water alliance that brings together stakeholders involved in all aspects of water. The keynote >> Speaker was Robert Puente, president and CEO of San Antonio water system. He also served in the Texas house and is credited with writing landmark legislation regarding water conservation. He shared that San Antonio used to rely completely on the Edwards aquifer, but in the 70s began to look at diversifying. The first plan was an above ground reservoir, but San objected to it and voted it down. Even though the city had begun construction. Next came a lawsuit from the Sierra club. Because the city's overuse of the aquifer had exposed habitat for the endangered Texas blind salamander and other species. These two knows, said Puente, caused us to pivot and look at why we had failed. Realizing that they needed community buy in to succeed, they initiated a community engagement strategy that continues today. They also learned that no wasn't [4:57:05 PM] necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it was the best thing. It happened. The best thing that happened, it forced them to look at other options. And today, the city has diversified to seven sources of water, created the largest recycled water program in the nation, and designed an underground reservoir of water stored in the carrizo aquifer that we're about to develop on top of. At the may 21st city council meeting this year, folks, especially those living in the dog's head, were shocked to learn that a 45 year contract had been already negotiated behind closed doors, with endeavor giving them carte Blanche to. To develop the 2600 acres of the dog's head. However, they chose to. Despite hours of testimony asking you to postpone the vote to allow for more review as is required on the west side of town and community input, you ignored community and approved the contract anyway. Adding insult to injury, you set out to create a tirz to give endeavor billions of taxpayer dollars to build their infrastructure in response to community organized meeting in their in homes [4:58:06 PM] across town and and and supported by by partners who had heard similar arguments before. Like this development is too good to pass up and false narratives in this case, that developing the abandoned aggregate mines would restore the environment. But having lived there for decades, even generations, residents knew that the riparian ecosystem was flourishing and that 100% or 79% of impervious cover would be much more damaging than the mines. Next community spoke at the county commissioners meeting against your request to have the county give up half of its property taxes for the tirz. But this time commissioners listened to community, and they agreed that too many facts were missing from the agreement for them to approve the tirz, so they punted it back to you. Listening to community concerns for the environment, the environmental commission, led by its chair, miss Krueger, created a working group to come up with recommendations to forward to council today that reflected their concerns and unanswered questions regarding the tirz. While some discussions with city have come up with promises from endeavor to do this and that the same [4:59:06 PM] threats still exist, they have carte Blanche for 45 years to do what they will, and there is no mechanism to enforce the promises they may have made this week. Community has returned to ask you again to reject the tirz and address the concerns. So, council, what do you say? Are you listening? King county council member Velazquez. You are the only council member with constituents in the dog said. Thank you for meeting with them and lobbying for more affordable housing. Endeavor may have said they will build some, but there's no mechanism mechanism to ensure they will. And I didn't hear any affordable housing added to the amendments approved today. Vote no today and save taxpayer dollars to pay for something that we need, like land to build more income. Single family housing like the project you just announced today. Thank you and happy birthday. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Please begin. >> Hello. It's the musical. Our. My name is jade Fusco. I live in district five, and I am against this. And I ask you to [5:00:08 PM] please vote no. Or at the very least, postpone until we can get a full environmental assessment. Because there's just too much at stake. And I just hope that with our world leaders actively destroying the our planet and our wildlife and our natural spaces, I feel like we have the opportunity to be an example of what it's like to take this land and actively not only restore it, but also regenerate it. You know, food, forests and community gardens and educational parks and spaces like let's grow food on this land. Let's we can go above and beyond. There's so many other more awesome options than what is being proposed in this deal. And without further ado, I'm going to sing the song. Oh, I'm a little out of tune. Forgive me. They want 2.2 [5:01:10 PM] billion of our taxpaying dollars. To pay 2000 acres with cement. It sucks. And industrial life along seven miles of the river. With 45 years of no accountability and no respect for the land. We don't want this. We the people do not consent. We don't need this. What we need. Is. What we need is our water to flow free and clean. We need our winding rivers. We need our crystal stream. >> Thank you. >> Ma'am. >> Thank you. Your time is up. [5:02:15 PM] >> Philip Fitzgerald, Rachel. Scott. Robert. Heal. >> Please say the names again. >> Yes, mayor. Philip Fitzgerald, Rachel. Scott. Robert heal, are you here? Yes. Is Monica Guzman here? Okay. Mr. Your four minutes. >> Should begin. Just state your name for the record. Okay. Thank you. >> My name is Robert hale, and I'm here to speak on this item. But more broadly on the Doggett development. I'm a professional planner, worked for the city of Austin for 30 years in the planning watershed and housing departments, and I'm a happy district resident. So all seven items are related to the same development deal. You know, we're making a deal with endeavor and we've done that before. We made a lot of deals with the city, with endeavor, the domain up in near council member Laine. We've got [5:03:15 PM] Robinson ranch underway and now we're looking at another one. And but but the difference is the scope of the deal that that's being proposed today is unprecedented. It's unprecedented in the time scope. It's unprecedented in how it's being rushed through. And it is unprecedented in what we're giving up. A lot of the objections that have been raised today are being sort of waved away. Displacement. Well, it's not that many people. And I think we've got a plan. There's environmental impact. Well, you know, we're going to save the riparian corridor. In the center is like chernobyl and the flooding. Well, you know, that's that's just an engineering problem. You move enough dirt, you pour enough concrete, the flooding won't be a problem. So why are we why are we doing it this way? Well, I mean, it's because it is growth and that's good for the city. It will eventually, if everything goes according to plan, result in tax revenue for the city, a lot of it. And in [5:04:16 PM] the long term, 20, 30 years, maybe if everything goes according to plan, the city will get some revenue out of it. And that's a good thing, and that's why you're considering it. Cool. But what about the rest of it? Like, is there going to be housing? Maybe, you know, is it going to be environmental protection? The environmental commission was very clear. No, the environmental protections that have been proposed are not adequate. And water supply. The council has done an admirable job of of of securing long term water rights for the city. But the other side of that is usage. And I really commend council member Siegel to looking at high water use users. But the thing is, with the right of capture, they can go straight into the aquifer, use groundwater, completely unregulated as much as they want. So the fact that we're might be restricting how much city water they can use does not in any way mitigate their impact on the aquifer they'd be sitting on. My main. My main [5:05:20 PM] real objection is all of the benefits to developer are clearly spelled out in black and white and all of the developments. All the proposed benefits to the city are in the terms of projections and goals and good intentions. And. And why is that? You know, what is the rush? We've had amendments that were posted just today, and they're good amendments, but they were just posted today. Council itself was a little unclear on the impact. The developer was like, I'm not really sure. Let me look at that. But the public is supposed to understand these comprehensive amendments where we're just posted today. What is the rush? Well, okay, so the arguments are, you know, if we don't build it, if we don't take this agreement now, nothing's going to be built there. But endeavor is run by a bunch of smart people. They've been quietly investing in years. They see the potential if they lose this Amazon customer, they'll get another one. If we [5:06:20 PM] don't build it now, we're going to lose it to Nashville. That's negotiating from a position of weakness. That's a race to the bottom. We are waiving enormous amounts of regulatory oversight and development standards in exchange for a water hungry robot factory and a bucket of fuzzy promises. We can do better. Just slow the process down, do a full environmental impact statement, and allow more public input. Thank you, thank you. >> Please begin. Please begin. >> Hi there. My name is Philip Fitzgerald. Oh, a little closer to the mic there. So as everyone has pointed out, the speed that this project has moved with, I'm here to talk about the urgency that it that it's come with the urgency to annex this land and add it to Austin, the urgency to create this new tax zone. It's it's incredible. I've never seen projects move this quickly in Austin before. You know, when we when we see our homeless [5:07:22 PM] neighbors on the streets asking for help, when we have teachers that can't afford to live in our city, we can't build affordable housing. When we have businesses that have been open here for 20, 30 and 40 years having to close because they cannot meet their property tax bills, there's no urgency to help those people. This this area in particular is a Greenfield site, as some have pointed out, including the endeavor guy, which means all of the roads, the water piping, the electricity infrastructure will need to be laid. And he's right, they will pay for that up front. But the problem is all the maintenance and perpetuity will be covered by us hiring fire, police. Ems will be covered by us, and for the next 35 plus years, most of that tax money created in that area is not going to go to pay for those services, which means everyone not living in dogs head will have to subsidize that area. Another huge issue is there's no requirement for [5:08:23 PM] affordable housing. They're promising about 20%. There's a lot of people that have worked in Austin and lived in Austin for a long time that can't afford to live here. I know $1,600 a month is not a lot for some of you, but it's a lot for a lot of people. We have to have requirements that they hire people from Austin and miss Laine explained earlier she's doing it for her constituents. Her constituents will not work those jobs. Those are 300 jobs. They hire people from Seattle, from New York, from Phoenix, from California to staff those jobs. They will not hire austinites. >> Rich Hamman, rich are you hear? Is robin Schneider here is Escott here? Okay, rich will have six minutes followed by Harper Higginbotham, cat Garcia, [5:09:24 PM] Bianco Guerrero and Catherine o'connor. >> And I have some slides. >> Yes. >> Hello. >> Good afternoon. My name is rich Heyman. I'm a resident in district nine. My comments are specifically about the terms of the tirz agreement. This agreement is a bad deal for the people of Austin. As Mr. Oliver said earlier, this dog don't hunt. It will cost us more money than it will bring in straining the city budget for decades and causing higher taxes for existing residents or cuts to services. Next slide please. >> Are the slides up? Sorry. >> It's paused. Everybody calm down. [5:10:26 PM] >> Okay, so. >> We've been told this project will bring in $1.7 billion over 35 years. As this chart shows, this figure is misleading as the vast majority of revenue will not go to the general fund, but will go to the infrastructure costs for dogs head the blue. These claims are also misleading because new general fund costs associated with the development have not been accounted for. It was not until this past Tuesday at the council work session that we got the first staff projections of these costs, estimating that revenue to the general fund would be only $133 million over 35 years, or about $4 per person per year. That's the so-called benefit to the rest of us in Austin. Even these cost projections are underestimates. The only. They only account for the use of police, fire and ems, which is only about 60% of what the city spends per person. Now, these [5:11:27 PM] figures average out to an equivalent of spending about $835 per person annually. Currently, in 2026, we spend approximately $1,455 per person if we use the actual spending figure of $1,455 per person, and the figures in staff's preliminary project financing plan, which is the backup for today's item number 15, we see that the new projected residents of dogs head will end up costing the city $237 million over 35 years, or an annual deficit of $6.8 million. >> Excuse me. >> Using these same figures we see that the development will not start producing a positive revenue stream until 2056. And it will not pay for itself until 2063, two years after the tirz agreement ends. The terms of the tirz means that the new [5:12:28 PM] residents and businesses and dogs head will not be paying their fair share of taxes current residents would pay to make up the deficits created by new residents or suffer reduced services. We have also been told that this development is a generational economic opportunity, because it will increase the city's tax base by some $26 billion, and that this increased tax base will benefit the people of Austin. This argument was repeated at Tuesday's council work session. In this exchange between council member alter and director Olivares, council member alter said, my neighbor or whomever in the community, they want to know why is this benefiting me? As an austinite? We want economic development because it grows the tax base, because the broader the tax base, the less burden on one individual. Is that a correct statement? Director Olivares yes. CM alter so when someone says, why does this benefit me? One answer is, well, you're going to be shouldering less of [5:13:29 PM] the burden of paying city services. Director Olivares. Yes, yes. This is a failed economic development model. Today, our general fund budget is approximately $1.6 billion for a population of 1.1 million, or about, as I said before, $1,455 per person annually. In 2010, the general fund budget budget was just $650 million for 970 000 people, or about $825 per person annually, or $1,262. Adjusted for inflation, it's gone up by 13% since 2010. Now, these numbers aren't on the slide, but the tax rate in 2010 was 43.2 cents per $100 valuation. Today it is 57.4 [5:14:31 PM] cents. That is 33% higher than it was 15 years ago. We know that over the past 15 years, the city has grown enormously. The tax base has more than doubled since 2010, yet tax rates have gone up in the city. And we are spending more money per person now than we were then. Growth costs. It has cost to the people who live in the city. It is not automatically a benefit. This kind of economic development does not benefit the working people of Austin. Instead, it costs us money. Dogs head agreement will not benefit the people of Austin. And despite what staff says, this deal is a massive subsidy for bezos endeavor and their lobbyists vote no on this boondoggle. >> Why don't you go next? Just state your name for the record, please. >> My name is cascadia. I live [5:15:32 PM] in district ten. Born and raised in Austin, I probably am not the most informed person. I leave the testimony to everyone else here who's contributed all of the pieces that we've put together about what this deal is and how egregiously bad it is for us as the community. And I just want to point out a couple of things. First, you're being paid to be here today and listen to us, and I do appreciate you all being here and listening. Also, endeavor is standing to profit from being here today, but we, the community, are not being paid to be here. We are here because this impacts our lives. Okay? We are in a budget deficit as a city and we are being told by y'all, we don't have $5 million to fund services for sexual assault survivors. We don't have it. We simply don't. But we have $2 billion to give away. How about you take 5 million back from that offer and put it toward the services that we [5:16:33 PM] need? You are in a position of power in this agreement and you are not negotiating as such. We are an impressive city and this is impressive land that is extremely valuable. It does not qualify for a tirz that is a misuse of the property. And another thing in our budget that is not being met is that I know our first responders are asking for help. We don't have the funds that we need for our ems and for our firefighters. And I'm sorry, but when someone calls for help and we don't have the staff to show up and help them, they don't that that person is going to die. They don't have time to wait 45 years for this project to benefit them. Something that will affect our city and our populace for decades that probably most of y'all will not outlive, the consequences or benefits of, is something that deserves more than two months notice. Please postpone this. [5:17:34 PM] >> Please go ahead and begin. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Bianca Guerrero. I am a staff member with Beaudet Ed, and I'm here representing district three. I'm here in strong opposition of items one, 11, 14, and 15 authorizing a tax increment reinvestment zone for over 2600 acres in the dogs head bend. It's a reckless move when our eastern communities are already facing an active public health and water safety crisis. This entire 2600 acre tract, it sits along the Colorado river, sitting directly above the alluvial aquifer, and this aquifer feeds the drinking water for Austin's colony. Maynor and bastrop. Austin's colony is already dealing with substandard, compromised water quality. UT just published a peer reviewed academic research that showed lead, arsenic and other heavy [5:18:35 PM] metals above limits. This. The situation is so severe that this very weekend the city of Austin is having to team up with local partners just to distribute clean water, clean drinking water and conduct emergency lead testing for affected families. People in our community turn on their taps with zero confidence right now, paving over thousands of acres in the dogs head area will generate massive amounts of urban runoff, pushing heavy metals, fertilizers and pollutants straight into the exact same alluvial aquifer and river systems. How can we justify pouring millions in public tax initiatives into a massive new development that will inevitably degrade the water supply even further? You cannot build a prosperous future for Austin on top of contaminated water for east Travis county. Before you subsidize 2600 acres of new growth, you must protect the public health and basic water security of the people already living here. Vote no on items one, 11, 14 and 15. Thank you. [5:19:35 PM] >> Thank you. >> I'm Kathryn o'connor. I am speaking as a citizen, a native austinite and a landscape architect who has practiced in our community on civic and institutional projects for over 30 years. Every project, every project that I have worked on has adhered to to the environmental criteria manual. But in this agreement with endeavor, there are concerning compromises that have been made. The TRE preservation portion of the manual has always been a cornerstone of best practices for Austin's environmental health. In fact, we have named our soccer team or labeled our soccer team with a TRE. Current agreement states that the TRE survey is only applicable to [5:20:36 PM] the critical critical water quality zone. Aerial imagery indicates that at least 92 acres of TRE. That there are at least 92 acres of TRE communities. Why is the city abolishing these critical standards for dogs? Head. I'm waiting for people to listen. Why is the city not protecting or mitigating existing site trees? Why is the city waiving its long standing commitment to protect heritage trees? It's an egregious mistake. It sets a terrible precedent for similar waivers in the future. Even with today's amendments, this agreement still remains too much of a compromise. And I am a very reasonable person. More work is to be done. You need to listen to the environmental commission's recommendations 400ft back from the high, [5:21:38 PM] whatever you call it, the for the river, the turrets. The turrets is your leverage to do this for us. >> Carson Gilchrist. Are you here? Carson is Chris. I mean Chris Andrews here. Okay. Four minutes Kahn Frazier. Kia Denson. Katy Gaar and Craig Jankowski. >> I'd like to begin by ensuring that we have a quorum. >> You do? >> It's an important part of the city council procedure. Okay. >> You have one. >> Good evening, mayor Watson and council members. My name is Carson Gilchrist, district nine. [5:22:39 PM] I'm here speaking against item number 111. As a law student at Texas law, I know very well how complicated the law can be, but it is not complicated. Here. Under chapter 311 of our Texas tax code, a tirz is an area where future increases in property tax revenue are captured and redirect redirected away from the general fund. That's away from the county, away from school districts, and funneled instead into subsidizing a private development project. This is not sound community development. It is reaganomics. This increment does not go to the schools that Austin's children attend. It does not go to the fire station that serves our neighborhoods. It goes to endeavor real estate group, one of the largest private developers in the state. Put plainly, we have these Zones for areas that are truly desperate for growth when people are fleeing town and no developer wants to be anywhere near the area, their purpose is [5:23:40 PM] not to facilitate growth that would occur anyway. Now, section three, 11.003 of our tax code sets out the legal standard a, but for test, it is the relevant legal standard that a municipality must apply in establishing a tirz to grant a tirz, it must be impossible for development to occur unless the tirz is granted. That is a threshold question. When talking about a tirz, we're talking about a shell game that is being played to launder taxpayer dollars to companies like Amazon through endeavor as an intermediary. If the. But for test means anything at all, it must mean something here. Today, Texas has led every state in the country and population growth. It has nearly 400,000 new residents in a single year this past year. We're talking about 31 million people and counting. All five of America's fastest growing cities are here in Texas, businesses are falling over themselves. To get here. I will [5:24:40 PM] echo councilman Siegel from earlier today and saying that Austin is strong. We should not sell ourselves short. We just crossed 1 million residents for the first time in our history, where the 12th largest city in America and the bureau of labor statistics says that we're the number one large metro area in the country for job growth. We can zoom in and look directly at the area around state highway 130 that we're talking about here today. We have Tesla, we have Samsung, we have caterpillar, we have applied materials. They're all already here. The commercial real estate firm transwestern reported a 445% increase in industrial space under construction along this corridor compared to pre-pandemic levels. To act as if this but for test will be failed, and to say that we don't have sufficient development right now unless we pay them is absurd. We're talking about Amazon here. A tirz is like a life raft that is meant to save a drowning economy. Considering the [5:25:41 PM] immense growth in this area, we are deciding whether to throw a life raft to Michael Phelps as he sets world records at the olympics. Approving this turd is not does not unlock development. It shifts taxpayer taxpayer dollars away from local businesses, away from residential neighborhoods, away from schools and public safety. It hands them to endeavor and Amazon they would build here anyway. Endeavor has been buying up land in this area for seven years. This is not economic development. It's corporate welfare to a gigantic estate developer and one of the wealthiest companies in human history. I also want the council to note that Bobby lowinsky of save our springs has submitted a document showing the current site plan for the Amazon site, along with news articles showing that endeavor has been purchasing properties for seven years. I urge you to vote no on item 111. >> Thank you. >> Come on, we go here. Please state your name. >> Thank you again. My name is Katy Gaar here on behalf of evergreen Austin gathering [5:26:42 PM] place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, downtown Cary park in north Carolina, the riverfront in Omaha, Nebraska. These are three examples of projects that other cities completed to revitalize an area and stimulate economic opportunity amidst green corridors in their cities. I wanted to share these with you to paint a picture of the missed opportunity here in dogs head. Each of these sites, including dogs head, follows the same cadence. An underutilized or damaged site gains attention from local players and is turned into something with multiple uses to solve multiple problems. We have one trillionaire and at least 13 billionaires in Austin. Keeps me up at night thinking how we still can't seem to fund social services, sustainable development and green space properly in this city. Gathering place in Tulsa was funded in part by the George Kaiser foundation to invest in their city's future by treating nature like it matters, no matter how urban an area is. The riverfront in Omaha attracts 2.5 million visitors and $1 billion in economic impacts. Each of these places involves public private partnerships and allows for businesses alongside green [5:27:43 PM] space to be assets for people. I want that for dogs head, which has been appraised 17 million. We should think carefully about what visitors arriving from the austin-bergstrom airport will see when they enter our city. City manager Broadnax also commented at the national greater and greener conference hosted in Austin, saying cities cannot continue to grow unless their park system grows along with it. Let's make that happen. >> We'll go here. And why don't you state your name for the record, please? >> Hi, my name is Kaya Denson. I live on Carson creek in dogs head district two. If the tirz passes, will there be more opportunities to add amendments? Dogs head currently is essentially has like no impervious cover. As Richard suttle has explained to us previously, dog's head is like a bowl and they want to fill it well. What do bowls hold water? And what happens if you fill the bowls with dirt and cover them in concrete? The general [5:28:46 PM] public doesn't really understand which regulatory exemptions were given or why, myself included. So I want to know, do you truly understand and feel confident about the consequences of these exemptions? Money is replaceable, but we can't get back the land and the regulations that we relinquish the future regulating plan we supposedly get to be a part of is based on the original development agreement, which has all the exemptions. So why should that make us feel any better? I feel like we're getting run around in circles and it feels really unnecessary. I personally would like to know what the drainage situation is, because on page two of the preliminary thing, it shows like 150 wide line going all the way from the middle of the plan down to 183 in patent Laine, which is the Carson creek watershed and a critical floodplain. What does it mean? How does it work? Because to me, it looks like dumping water [5:29:48 PM] right into that area. But I don't know. All I know is endeavor is allowed to modify the floodplain, and they are exempt from some kind of drainage criteria. And neither of those things were included in the amendments you just drafted. So will we get more if this passes? Are you protecting Carson creek and my property? Until I know more, I cannot say yes to items 11, one, 11, 14 or 15. And it's for these reasons that you shouldn't either. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, council and mayor. My name is Craig Jankowski, and I respectfully ask you to support approving the tears for dogs head. I'm a 40 year Austin resident currently living in district ten. Worked and raised my family here. I run and hike on the trails and creeks and I share with many in this room the things that make Austin special. The way we protect our land and not just develop economic opportunity. In my work experience in the years living in Austin, I've seen how [5:30:49 PM] important it is to thoughtfully plan ahead. If we want to attract good planning, good paying employment and retain our quality of life. I think this dog said project provides a practical framework to do that. I trust the city, the city in their way, and I appreciate the fact that this brings this tract of land out of the county and into the city. Governance, grow jobs, business and entertainment for Austin citizens while expanding access to open spaces for our community. As a taxpayer, I love the fact that the tirz provides a built in funding mechanism for the infrastructure that the city would otherwise pay, based on the value that this development brings to our community. And it doesn't ask Austin taxpayers to pay for that up front. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the idea of a growth that pays for itself and further enables funding for critical city services, which many have talked about today. There are a couple of things that jump out to me. I appreciate the community calls. I appreciate [5:31:49 PM] the provision the Colorado river trails and access, the preservation of the non-motorized elements that I read in the agreement. Mitigation and restoration for the impact of decades of mining. There's a lot of vague language about working in partnership to deliver both the affordable, affordable housing that's committed, plus the additional pieces consistent with our goals to make Austin affordable place to live, work and play. You have a responsibility here today to make investments that preserve and improve our city, to leave our city a little better. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Alexis. Willis. Mariana Kruger. Mr. Kruger, are you here? Okay. Is Matthew Kennedy here? >> Yes. >> And Sarah Williams. Okay. Miss Kruger will have six minutes, then. Barbara Macarthur. [5:32:50 PM] >> Okay. >> Good afternoon. My name is Mariana Kruger, and I'm proud to consider you all my friends, colleagues and mentors. As a friend, I can see that you all are under an immense amount of pressure, tasked on this issue with making decisions and forming opinions in a far too short amount of time, with far too little information while facing public scrutiny and private coercion. I imagine if I were in your position that I would be feeling overwhelmed, anxious and unsure of whom to trust. When I'm up against that kind of pressure, I think about my greatest teacher and inspiration, my father, Bob Kruger. As many of you know, he was the last democratic congressman to represent the 21st congressional district. In his first year, the New York Times named him the most influential member of congress, calling him, quote, the startling new man from Texas. [5:33:50 PM] He was making strides and earning accolades from his party leadership. Then, in 1975, the extension of the voting rights act came before congress, legislation that would expand critical voting protections for language minorities. His elders in the delegation said Kruger, don't stick your neck out of line. You've got a bright future in this party. Just keep your head down on this one. But above everything else, my father was principled. He broke rank and joined Barbara Jordan as the only two members of the Texas delegation who voted in favor of its passage. Not only was that the right moral decision, but despite his colleagues warnings, it was the right political decision. He went on to serve as Texas railroad commissioner, U.S. Senator and a three time U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Botswana and Burundi. It was during his time as U.S. Ambassador to [5:34:51 PM] Burundi that he faced some of his toughest challenges. Tensions between hutus and tutsis escalated into a genocide, and my father became the most outspoken, if not the only diplomatic leader, calling attention to the atrocities and demanding international intervention, he called upon the U.S. State department, president Clinton and chronicled and documented death counts and maimed bodies himself. He sent memos, made phone calls, gave press interviews, and was told, quote, Kruger, don't stick your neck out of line. This is not how we do business here. It's not as bad as all that. Ultimately, the two leading newspapers in Burundi, led by the oppressive ethnic group, called for my father's death. His convoy was ambushed. There was an assassination attempt against him. Two in his party were killed and several were wounded. The U.S. State department wanted to evacuate him from the country, and he said, no, that sends the wrong message. It says that the United States of [5:35:52 PM] America can be bullied. And if we don't help these people, who will? While we may not be talking about the same circumstances today, we are talking about power and the courage to challenge it. The courage to step out of line to help the people, the land, the air, the water and the wildlife. Because if you don't help us, who will? >> Wu. >> Wu. >> You have a choice today. And I do believe it is a career defining, legacy defining choice at a time when vital social services are being cut, do we give taxpayer handouts to multi-million and billion dollar corporations? Do we sacrifice transparency, public engagement, oversight, and critical labor and environmental protections? And if so, in exchange for what? [5:36:54 PM] Inevitable workplace violations, increased flooding, polluted air and water, fewer trees and less green space, more car centered development, no legal assurances of affordable housing. The answer to me is clear. I hope you have the courage to vote no. And when you do know that there are legions and legions of people, myself included, ready to support you and stand alongside you, you are not alone, and it is not too late to achieve a better outcome together. I believe in you. Thank you. >> Please begin. What's your name please? >> Mayor Watson and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Alexis Willis and I am the director of predevelopment at hunt real estate, where I lead public private partnerships [5:37:54 PM] that turn underutilized land into community assets. I've spent my career working alongside cities and counties to build infrastructure, housing and public spaces that genuinely strengthen communities. But I'm not here today as a developer. I'm here as your neighbor. We've heard a lot of concerns today, and many of them are valid questions about growth and the environment and the future of our city deserve thoughtful decisions. But when you look at the work that's gone into this process, many of these concerns have actually been addressed. This is not a zoning case. This is a development agreement made possible because the property owner voluntarily chose to annex this private land into the city of Austin. And that's highly unusual. And I believe this is an incredible opportunity for the city, city council or council member Siegel suggested earlier that Austin wasn't in a strong negotiating position, and I respectfully disagree. I commend this council for recognizing the opportunity to negotiate meaningful public benefits that simply wouldn't exist if this property remained outside the city's jurisdiction. We've talked about many of [5:38:55 PM] those benefits today, restoring land that's been disturbed for decades, preserving and enhancing the Colorado river corridor, expanding public spaces to the river, creating parks and open space, and the potential for more than six miles of trails that can one day connect Austin's broader trail system. Those aren't those are not incidental benefits. They are results of deliberate process. I also keep coming back to something that we've heard from speakers on both sides today. Many people aren't opposed to development. The real question is how will Austin develop? I know it seems like a lot of people are against this because of who was able to be here today. But if you look at the total sign ups in favor of this, it's 181,386 people in favor and 585 against. A lot of austinites want this because they see the opportunities and know what can be done responsibly. Thank you for having me and I hope you vote yes. >> Thank you, miss Mcallister. >> I'm Barbara Macarthur and I'm in district seven. I'm [5:39:56 PM] asking you to not approve the tirz. Please be brave. We know how we value property. We value property by location. We value property by the entitlements we give that property. This location is across from Tesla. And the development agreement you signed has given it unencumbered entitlements in many ways, and also removed a lot of the environmental protections. Even in the beginning of this tirz it says the purpose is to enhance the value of the real property, enhance the value of the property for whom? Not for the citizens of Austin, where the majority of the or 75% of the tax revenue is going to be put back in the development for the developers. Let me tell you about the census tract where this is occurring. It's census tract 2310. There are 3251 residents in that census. Even though you might have been told [5:40:57 PM] there's only ten people living there. I will say the agreement also says that can extend it. They can extend it wherever they want to. The average salary of those residents is $36,991, and it's 89% hispanic. How many benefits are they going to get from this? Or just a quick exit? So my name for the council now, after the way this is proceeded so quickly is your logo should be move fast and break things because what you're breaking is the east Austin community and the environment. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Stephan Faris. Stefan. Okay. Is Josh Lickteig here and Andy pasztor okay, six minutes then Marc fareth, Jeff Mccrary and Silas Smith. [5:42:00 PM] >> Please just state your name for the record and begin. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem council members. My name is Stephan ferris and I'm a registered landscape architect, proud Austin resident. And for the past 27 years, my professional life has been dedicated to the planning, urban design, and stewardship of central Texas landscapes. Throughout my career, I've operated at the intersection of conservation and development. I've worked to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of land through conservation, while simultaneously designing thousands of acres of land to build sustainable communities. I take great pride in knowing that for every single acre of land I have planned for development, I've helped put at least 2 to 3 acres into permanent conservation, open space or public parkland. One of my specific expertise lies in the reclamation of quarries and sand and gravel mines. Because of that experience and knowledge, Travis county, with technical assistance from the city of Austin and lcra and [5:43:02 PM] engaged my team to spearhead a vision plan for the 30,000 acre Colorado river corridor stretching from U.S. 183 to the Travis county line to the east. I've had a lot of heard a lot of people today talk about what that plan means, and I'm here, hopefully to shed a little light on that. The experience I had with it leading up to the corridor plan, the communities in this area were grappling with heavy environmental costs of legacy mining, declining groundwater quality dry wells, severe erosion, windblown debris, and roads degraded by relentless truck traffic. Many of those issues still exist today. The fascinating paradox of these concerns is that the mining companies hadn't encroached, had not encroached on most of these communities. These communities had encroached on the mining. Our region's rapid expansion drove people to the doorstep of our industrial mineral basket in search of affordable housing or rural lifestyle. And, of course, [5:44:04 PM] the natural beauty of the Colorado river itself. When we completed the Colorado river corridor plan in 2012, a staggering 36% of that 3000 acre corridor, or 11000 acres, was owned by mining interests. I'm not sure what the number is today. Historical mines in that Austin area gave us the great lawn at zilker park, the large lagoon at the end of lady bird lake, across from the Oracle campus. And that brings us to dogs head, a four square mile area that has served as a literal mineral basket of our city since the 1930s. For nearly a century, this land gave its weight so that Austin could grow. When this council unanimously approved the corridor plan in June of 2012, the executive summary explicitly anticipated the moment we're at today, the plan states, and I quote, once the mining operations are completed, the land may be repurposed for new community uses. Large areas of the corridor can thus transition from mining uses to [5:45:06 PM] future urbanized areas made of schools, neighborhoods, businesses, and services, all integrated into a network of parks, green belts and farmland. I began studying the dogs head in 2017, and today I'm working to help create the vision plan. If you walk that land right now, you will see the scars of the past are still present. We're. Legacy from old dragline strip mining, a severely fractured ecological system, degraded roadways, and an entirely absent riparian drainage corridor within the property itself, to name only a few of the issues that exist. This land is not pristine. It is not a static moment in time to be protected. It is a degraded industrial site that desperately needs to be healed. We have a rare opportunity now to fulfill the promise of the corridor plan. We can turn these industrial scars into a [5:46:06 PM] vibrant, mixed use, mixed income community. We can create a new destination for Austin, one that balances industry and walkable neighborhoods connected by parks and trails, one that restores missing riparian corridors for wildlife, solves regional mobility issues, and brings grocery stores, health care, and schools to community that has long been left behind. But standard development tools cannot fix 90 years of heavy industrial mining. The sheer scale of the ecological degradation, the infrastructure deficit and the erosion control required on this site is immense. We cannot expect typical private development to absorb the cost of reclaiming a century's worth of mining impact. That is precisely why we need the tirz. For the dogs head, the tirz is the exact mechanism designed for this challenge. It allows the city to leverage the future value by creating this project to fund the massive foundational public infrastructure and [5:47:06 PM] environmental restoration required today, without affecting the general fund. By approving this tirz you're not just approving a project, you're choosing to heal a degraded landscape and turn Austin's historical mineral basket into a resilient public asset for the next century. Thank you. >> Sir. >> Good afternoon, mayor Watson and city council members. My name is Jeff Mccreary, and I've proudly called Austin home for about 40 years now, currently in district eight. And I'm here to express my support of the dogs. Ed tirz. Growing up here gives you a certain perspective, and I've watched Austin grow from a much smaller city into one of the most dynamic communities in the country. Not every change has been easy, but I've also seen how thoughtful investment has helped make Austin the city so many of us love today. I've also watched some of the same groups oppose project after project over the years, often arguing that growth always comes at too [5:48:08 PM] great a cost. I respectfully disagree with them. I've learned that thoughtful growth and environmental stewardship don't have to be at odds with one another. When we carefully plan and hold projects to high standards, we can create jobs and opportunities for residents while enhancing the natural beauty of our city in a way that benefits all of us. Austin isn't standing still. Our city continues to grow. The question isn't whether growth happens. The question is whether we shape that growth responsibly. That's why I support the dogs. Ed tirz. This project takes land that's been used for industrial purposes for decades and creates something better. This would also create a much needed and new tax base to help support public services. Our growing city depends on. To me, that's responsible growth. And as a father, I want to. I want future generations to inherit a city that continues to embrace common sense solutions and protects the things that make [5:49:08 PM] Austin special. I believe this project reflects that balance, and I ask you for your support. >> Thank you, thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Sheila Smith and I'm a eighth district district eight Austin resident and a proud grandmother. I don't usually come to city halls to speak, but I felt this project was important enough that I wanted to share my thoughts. As a grandmother, I spent a lot of time thinking about the future. I want my grandchildren to grow up in a city where they can find good jobs, afford a home, and enjoy the same quality of life that has made Austin such a special place to live. When I look at this project, I see opportunities for families and [5:50:10 PM] for my grandchildren. I see jobs for people who need them. I see much needed housing. I see parks, trails and open spaces where families can spend time together. I see new tax revenue that helps support the public services. Our community depends on. Austin has changed over the years and I know it will continue to grow. My hope is that we choose projects that help our city grow responsibly, while creating opportunities for future generations. I truly support the dog's head project because I believe it benefits not just today's residents, but tomorrow's as well. Thank you for your time and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you again. >> Thank you. [5:51:12 PM] >> Lou pasetto. David. Sides. David, are you here? >> Yes. >> Is David Ross here? >> I'm here. Yes. >> Okay. David sides gets four minutes. Chris Gannon Jason and Nia Shaw. >> Sir why don't you begin? >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lou pasetto. I am presently employed by one of the airlines here in Austin as a customer service agent. So I am somewhat familiar with this area. As I commute back and forth to work. I am also a resident of district number eight, and I thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding the future plans for this dogs hedge project. I look forward for the project being approved. We have at hand investors who [5:52:16 PM] who see tremendous potential not only for their business, but also for the entire city and state. After all, Austin is the capital of Texas. Let's be that. This this project is the future of Austin. We have at hand numerous career opportunities for many of our college students and grads in the area, as well as those of the of a variety of different construction and other trades. The project also provides residential communities as well as riverfront parks and trails. This is something every family wants. I respectfully ask for your support in the dog's head project, and let's continue to make Austin great. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Yes, sir. I believe you have four minutes. [5:53:17 PM] >> Good afternoon. Sit on. >> You're not on. >> It's not on. >> I think maybe you are now. >> It is on. >> It is. >> Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is David sides. My family has lived on our dog's head property since 1979. While many of today's speakers live around the edges of the dog head, my family lives in the heart of the proposed development area. For nearly 47 years, we've been one of the very few families to call this place home. Living here has never been easy. We provide our own water, our own sewer, our own trash service, and our own internet. Because city utilities have never reached us yet. We stay because we love living in the dogs head. The name dog's was actually coined by my father, William sides, in 1979, after he looked at an aerial photograph and noticed the shape of the river around the property. Since then, I have believed that this land was something special. For [5:54:18 PM] almost five decades, I've hoped that if it were ever developed, it would be through a thoughtful master plan, not through piecemeal, unplanned growth, but instead through a vision worthy of its unique location and potential. Over those years, I've watched this property be mined, disturbed, and used for a variety of industrial purposes. I've lived through the dust, the heavy equipment, the trespassing, and the challenges that have come along with an area that has never had a comprehensive vision. In my opinion, the only question isn't whether this land will eventually change. The question is, does that change happen through a carefully planned community or through continued uncoordinated development? Like many of my neighbors living around the periphery of this development, I have questions and I believe those questions deserve thoughtful answers. Supporting this project does not mean every question has already been answered. It means allowing the planning process to continue so those answers can be developed [5:55:19 PM] in a transparent and responsible way. Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to get to know the people at endeavor. I found them to be open, responsive, and willing to listen. More importantly, I have watched them spend years studying and carefully reclaiming land that for most part was mined out decades ago. Their actions, not simply their words, have given me confidence that they genuinely want to create something exceptional here. I also believe this project represents a tremendous opportunity for the city of Austin. Endeavor did not have to partner with the city of Austin, but they chose to do so. As Austin continues to grow and faces increasing demands on its infrastructure and public services funding. I believe responsible development that expands the tax base and creates long term economic opportunity is important for Austin's future. For nearly half a century, I've watched [5:56:20 PM] this land and wondered what it could become. Today, for the first time, I believe that vision is within reach. I respectfully ask you to approve the tax increment reinvestment zone and allow this project to continue moving forward. I truly believe that the dog's head has the potential to become a crown jewel for the city of Austin, a place that future generations will be proud to call part of their community. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you sir. Please just state your name for the record. >> Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Natasha and I'm here as a concerned resident of district three. Happy birthday, council member Velasquez. I'm one of the tech workers who moved to Austin ten years ago. I work in tech. I don't own a car. I rely on transit. So I just want to say this is not a yimby versus nimby conversation. This is, quite frankly, a public interest versus corporation handout conversation. I want [5:57:21 PM] you to reject this tirz because one, it is not a good deal. And second, this is your last negotiating chip to get better amendments passed in the future. What we all witnessed here in the last, I don't know, 4 or 5 hours, especially with the amendments discussion, was honestly a little terrifying. And clearly more work needs to be done on this deal. And also, may I remind you that none of us would have to be here this long if you all hadn't rushed into the agreement on may 22nd that caught everyone, seemingly yourselves as well, unaware. You know, there's a saying that my dad likes to say called with friends like these, you don't need enemies. I kind of feel like Austin's in that kind of relationship with the endeavor group. I can't stop thinking about the comment or Mr. Richard suttle made earlier about how this is a bombed out mine pit, and it almost reminds the same kind of cartoon villain that we're seeing from a federal government. When they earlier removed protections on [5:58:21 PM] national parks in Utah and dismissed it as like, well, no one lives there. No one can really walk there. Is this really happening in Austin as well? So I ask you to vote with your values. The values that represent Austin represent all of us here in Austin who love this city and show some respect to public, public people here who are taking time out from their lives, from their jobs, from responsibilities to have you do the right thing. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Patrick Ross. Patrick, are you here? Yes. Is Briggs Mitchell here? Okay. You all have four minutes, then. Jerry wheat, Richard Jarnigan, Stacy Smith, and Dan foster. >> Mr. Rose. Take it away. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Patrick rose. I office here in Austin, and my family and I live south of here in San [5:59:21 PM] Marcos. I greatly respect your individual and collective service, and it's my honor to be here in support of dogshit. While these comments are made in my personal capacity, I bring several perspectives that inform my wholehearted support of this generationally significant project. First, I support dogshit as an active volunteer and contributor to the region's economic development efforts, the jobs and quality of place that will be created are once in a lifetime in nature. Second, I support dog's head as the former chair of the Austin airport advisory commission. The proximity of this project to our world class international airport is extraordinarily impactful. Third, I support dog's head as a believer in transit and founding board chair of transit forward. This will provide such connectivity across the east side of Austin and Travis county. For our friends at capital metro and perhaps atp. [6:00:21 PM] And fourth, I support dog's head as an active parks and trails infrastructure volunteer and board member of the great springs project. This presents a tremendous opportunity from a trail connectivity and Colorado river access standpoint. While these perspectives are important to our community, I want to focus the balance of my remarks on something that might seem less outwardly related to the project. The tremendous impact dogs head will have on the city of Austin's ability to increase services to those most in need. Over $570 million in net new tax revenue to the city over the next 35 years. That is a game changing number. As some of you know, I used to serve as chair of the human services committee in the Texas house. This service shaped my understanding of the importance of early childhood education, mental health services, the chip program, and so many other [6:01:23 PM] issues that because the state under invests in these priorities, cities and counties are left as the safety net. Important to note the city clerk has confirmed that those who registered in favor of the dogs head package of items today outnumber those who oppose them by 2.3 times. City clerk confirmed 1386 comments in favor registered in favor 585 against. Why a city sponsored tirz? Because tirz funded public infrastructure equals greater density, which equals greater. Which equals increased tax revenue, which equals better funding for the social services that are so important to our community. I appreciate your consideration and I very much appreciate your service. [6:02:23 PM] >> Thank you. There you go. >> Council mayor, my name is Dan foster. I'm district nine. I want to thank you for hearing me out on the dog's head. I'm here to support it. I you know, as I've said here today, I'm reminded of the diversity of opinions we have in our community. And that's a strength of Austin. And I think for me, when you think about how things go forward, the one thing I've learned in my life is that all of our opinions are informed by our experiences, and I have experiences related specifically to dogs head. I early on, when I was a baby lawyer, I had a matter that allowed me to tour this entire property. And I remember going out there and thinking at the time, wow, what are these families ever going to do with this property? It's as if all it did was hold the world together with all the mining [6:03:24 PM] pits. And then in subsequent years, I had the good fortune of representing two wonderful ladies who had inherited some of the land out there. And it was one thing after another that I had to take care of. For them it was difficult. The land was filled pits and they didn't know what to do with it, and it came with a whole bunch of issues. And so when I think about the opportunity that's sitting in front of you, I think what a great, amazing chance to do something wonderful for this area. And when you look at it, if you think about the individual things that we've been talking about today, they don't seem that controversial. If you went out on the street and asked someone, would they like to have hundreds of acres of new parks with trails along the river and places that were previously inaccessible to the public? The answer would be, of [6:04:24 PM] course, if you said, would you like to have new housing in our city that's so desperately needs new housing? The answer would be yes. So I vote. I urge you to vote yes. >> Appreciate you. Thank you. Please. Yes. >> Hello, this is Jerry wheat. I just want to start off by saying if housing and parks were actually in the tirz, then that would be great, but it doesn't seem like they are. >> All right. Amazon. One of the largest corporate empires in history, >> 1.6 million employees, many hundreds of warehouses, hundreds of millions of square feet of industrial property, the largest cloud computing platform on Earth, and nearing a million robots. By no means a struggling business endeavor. One of the largest private real estate developers in Texas, the company behind some of Austin's biggest commercial developments. A well-established business [6:05:24 PM] with billions of dollars in projects and decades of experience. Between one of the world's most powerful corporations and one of Texas largest developers, I simply cannot justify asking taxpayers of Austin to help carry the cost of their private development. I understand this agreement reimburses infrastructure costs, not corporate operating expenses, but we're still committing hundreds of millions of dollars in future public tax revenue to lower the cost of a private development, in hopes of attracting one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. Austin has set a dangerous precedent, allowing some of the world's largest corporations to dangle the promise of development in exchange for valuable public resources. We have done it before with Tesla, and here we are doing it again. I moved here because it is the live music capital of the world, and because of catering to the [6:06:26 PM] interests of billionaires, it is becoming increasingly difficult to support yourself as a musician in this city. Yet the title remains what will you call it when no one can afford to play music here? Austin, where live music died in the interest of shareholders. Thank you. >> Gary Merritt. Cameron Shaw. Cameron, are you here? Cameron? Oh, I think I see him coming in. Is miss Ramos here? Okay, then. Just the two minutes. Jeremy martin, Bobby Levinsky and Gary farmer. >> Please. Just state your state. Your name? Yes. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. My name is Gary Merritt. I live in D seven. I am the CEO of great springs [6:07:28 PM] project, and I'm here today to talk about the lower Colorado river trail. Great springs project is a nonprofit that protects the natural resources and iconic springs from Austin to San Antonio, and is delivering a 100 plus mile hike and bike trail that connects Barton springs with San Marcos springs, comal springs and San Antonio springs. Anchored by the Alamo and the Texas capitol, we worked closely with staff and electeds from five counties and 12 cities, along with dozens of conservation, trail and civic nonprofits, the business community and literally hundreds of private landowners. At every step, our imperative is to deliver the transportation, recreation, and conservation conservation benefits that the community is asking for. The lower Colorado river trail is exactly that type of project. This trail extension from longhorn dam downstream to almost the bastrop county line, will provide important connections for the recreation and transportation infrastructure [6:08:28 PM] in east and southeast Austin. Some pieces of that infrastructure exist now, and some are on the way. And the trail through the dog's head and other developments will be a connector and a catalyst for this extensive trail network. Great springs project is currently engaged in a big stakeholder initiative for the lower Colorado, called the wrap water restoration and access plan that is exploring how trail connectivity along the river can help protect the river. This trail will also support the great work and investment by the city of Austin and Travis county on onion creek for both recreation and flood mitigation, and the work being done on Gilleland creek. As development continues in that watershed. To conclude, we are grateful for the commitment for connected trail and protection for the Colorado river that will be provided by this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Mr. Why don't you go ahead? >> Hello, mayor and council, and I'd like to point out that everyone speaking for this item, most of us, we all want those [6:09:29 PM] same things. We all want trails. We all want parks. We all want development of some sort. We want housing. We want schools. We want libraries. We want the city to make money on taxes. We want the developer to make money on their investments. We're not here to fight that. We're here to fight the way that this is happening and the timeline that this is happening. On growing up, I saw a river die. My family's from out in west Texas, and every year or two we'd go out, back out there and, and look at the Pecos river. A couple hundred years ago, it was 100ft wide and ten feet deep, and you had to go miles to find a place to cross it. And that land is still in my family today. That river is ten feet wide, ten inches deep, and is a salty, sludgy brine. That whole region has dried out and died. Okay, so listen, like if you come. Yeah. So there was a meeting. What happened to it? Many, many things. And it takes a lot to kill a river. And living in Texas, there's also [6:10:29 PM] comanche springs, five hours west of here, had triple the flow rate of Barton springs. And that was killed by a single rancher who tapped it and sold the water. Living in Austin, we protected Barton springs in the 90s. We recognized that we needed to study the hydrological system and protect it. Okay. And a long dog's head. The river is fed by an alluvial aquifer. There are dozens of seeps and springs all along that 6.5 mile length of the river. We have not studied how much of the surface flow comes from underneath dog's head. We need to study the system before we build on it. The river is fed by it. It is a shallow water bearing formation that does not exist in Austin or does not exist in Texas. Very often the river is a gift, not a promise. Please protect it. >> Thank you. >> Sir. >> Are you? >> Good afternoon, mayor [6:11:29 PM] council. >> My name is Jeremy martin. I am president of the Austin chamber of commerce and a resident of district nine. I am in favor of proceeding with the dogs head because adopting the tax increment reinvestment zone, along with the development agreement, will allow the city of Austin to partner with other jurisdictions to shape Austin's future and move forward with a generational investment that will create new employment centers that will connect austinites to new jobs and career paths, and create opportunities for desperately needed housing options, and expand services where they need, where they're needed most. Through this tirz, you can ensure a higher standard of development and quality infrastructure that will serve austinites for many years to come. Please vote yes. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you sir. Mr. Farmer. >> Mayor council, thank you very much for your service. My name is Gary farmer. I'm a 51 year resident of Austin and I live in district eight. I am [6:12:30 PM] here because in the 1990s, the environmental community and the development community came together in a city sponsored process to solve the riddle of where development should be encouraged and where it should be discouraged. That process was arduous, passionate, difficult, but ultimately, people of good faith on both sides, environmental side and development side, came up with a framework that the city adopted. That framework yielded the drinking water protection zone, where development should be discouraged, and the desired development zone where development should be encouraged. Dog head sits in the desired development zone. That area was used, abused and abandoned in an era long gone, we would never allow to happen today. What happened then? But even though the the land set in the desired development zone, no one stepped forward. To my knowledge, endeavor is the [6:13:31 PM] first group with the courage, the vision, the experience, and the expertise to put this together. For the citizenry of Austin. This. They want to repair, restore and rejuvenate an area where our families can live, work and play. This is not a developer giveaway. This is a reimbursement. The tirz will reimburse. Endeavor accepts all the risk and if the development does not produce the tax base and the tax receipts, then they'll never get reimbursed. We need to grow our tax base, not raise our tax rates. We have an opportunity here to create jobs for families. Return for taxpayers will support the citizens who need services in this growing dynamic city. I urge your support of this item and I thank you for your time. >> Thank you sir. >> Gina Fuentes, David Jabbour, [6:14:32 PM] Daniel Lowe, Melissa Hernandez, and Roy Whaley. >> If your name has been called, please come forward if you want to be heard. >> Hi, I'm Daniel Lowe. You should have received in your inbox some supporting graphics. I live adjacent to the dog's head and the area bound by hergatz and Thompson streets. Historically, this was a freedmen's neighborhood. Many of my neighbors are still descendants of the Burdett and Tannehill plantations, and it remains one of the oldest, most socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods in the city. The dogs head roadway plan will cut this neighborhood in two in the pro and in the process, displays many of my neighbors. The montopolis extension, reminiscent of the I-35 corridor that separated east Austin, will be six lanes wide and 154ft wide. Most [6:15:35 PM] frustrating for us is when we met with the developer. They claimed the proposed roadway map was what the city wanted when we met. When we then met with the city's transportation department, they said no, this is what the developer provided to them. So now we're stuck in this endless roundabout that nobody's willing to stand up and accept responsibility for this map. In light of this, we made our own roadway map and submitted it to the transportation department, one that removes the montopolis extension and proposes patent Laine, which is land owned by the developer as a main arterial connector in and out of the dog's head. Logistically, this also makes the most sense as it lies at the 18371 intersection. So if the dogs had anti-displacement, efforts espoused by this council are genuine, then rerouting the montopolis extension should be at the top of the to do list. This is currently the biggest [6:16:35 PM] concern for our neighborhood. We've been working with council member Velasquez, but we'll need support from more of you to ensure we aren't literally run over by this development. Please pump the brakes on the dog head. Tirz. >> Mr. We'll go to you. Please just state your name for the record. >> Buenas tardes. I'm like, I already forgot what time it is right now. I've been here forever, but my name is Melissa Hernandez. I am a native austinite born and raised in montopolis 78741. Jose isn't here, but happy birthday Jose. I'm all about celebrating people in life so it's been a long day. This is my first time here talking to y'all and. I'm probably going to cry. It's okay. I this is as Susana [6:17:35 PM] Almanza said earlier, this is a continuation of the 1928 master plan. Y'all already put it on the Bob bullock museum. It's on the last floor. And I was like, oh, wow. Amazing. So this is I don't know why it's there because we continue to do y'all continue to do things without the community's consent, without coming out and talking to the residents. There is a four fourth generation disabled veteran who lives on her gods Laine. That's. That's my daughter's great grandfather. And he is not aware of he was not aware of this as all the other community on her gods was not. He's currently fighting cancer. Stage four. My daughter grew up in his house. You know, [6:18:36 PM] I want her to be able to spend her time there later in her years, and I urge you to vote no. If you can see the difference between the people voting yes and the people voting no, y'all are not even in district three. That's it. >> Thank you. Mr. Jabor. Good evening. >> Good evening. My name is David Jabbour and I'm the owner of a third generation family business that's called Austin home for generations. I'm also chair elect of the Austin chamber of commerce. I live in district ten and do business in each council member district. My family has watched all Austin evolve over the decades. We've seen tremendous change, but we've also seen something else. When the community plans thoughtfully and invests in the future, Austin becomes stronger. [6:19:37 PM] To me, that's what today's vote is about. It's about making sure Austin continues to grow in a way that creates opportunity, while protecting the qualities that make this city special. What I appreciate is about the project is that it looks beyond the property itself. It creates jobs and investment while restoring land that has already been disturbed. It expands public access to the Colorado river, invests in infrastructure, and helps generate the tax base that supports parks and other community priorities. As someone who helps lead a family business that's been here for three generations, I think a lot about the future. I want Austin to remain a city where businesses choose to invest, where people can build careers, and where the next generation has the same opportunities. My family has found here. I believe that projects like dogs [6:20:38 PM] head help us move in that direction. I respectfully ask your support. >> Mr. Whaley. >> Howdy, y'all. Roy Whaley, still a longtime environmental activist. Have to question some of these numbers about the supporters. How many of these supporters work for endeavor? How many of them work for Richard? How many of them even live in Austin? How many of them are children? Okay, they got all of their employees to sign up. I don't know if they got a free Turkey out of the deal or what, but I think those numbers are bogus, and the people that care are here speaking. They didn't sign up and keep working. The people that care are here and they're speaking. So that's that's one of my first big beefs right there. I really want to push again on. Oh my gosh, this is [6:21:43 PM] overwhelming. Anyway, council member Laine, I appreciate you and respect you. But again, this is this is not your district. You know, I know you're here to serve all of Austin, but this is not your district. You. I would wish everyone would listen to the people in the district council member Velasquez. You know what I'm talking about. I've walked with you, marched with you, planted with you. I hope you're going to do the right thing and say no. You know, in 1849 at Sutter's mill in California, they didn't have to offer money to get people to come. There was a gold rush. Everyone keeps talking about Austin and the gold rush. We don't have to offer welcome. I don't have anything against this business. Welcome. Come on in. But pay your own bills. Don't ask me to pay for you to come here. And I. You know the tax increment [6:22:43 PM] thing. Most people don't understand that. I think there are people on the dais that don't truly understand it. >> Thank you, Mr. Whaley. Thank. >> People are going to be paying attention in November. >> Thank you. Mr. Thank you. And for the record, Jane doe still hasn't shown up. >> Next set of speakers is Catherine brown, Ali Hoffman, Greg Anderson, Kim Vasquez, and Zenobia Joseph. >> Please come forward. If your name has been called and you want to be heard. Mr. Anderson, we'll start with you and we'll work our way down. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Mayor. Good evening, mayor council. My name is Greg Anderson and I live in a tirz. I got to say, it is great to see so many new faces in the audience. I first snuck on to the dog's head as a teenager, remembering just why such a massive mine. A mine, [6:23:44 PM] could be located right on, right in the middle of the city, right next to just the incredible Colorado river and minutes from downtown. The riverfront is beautiful here, and this is our chance to protect it and to make sure that it's accessible to more austinites. Please don't lose sight of what's what a no vote means here. It doesn't mean preserving untouched nature. This is a century old mine. It means Austin could lose the chance to shape thousands of homes, parks, 6.5 miles of waterfront protections, mobility improvements, water quality investments, and long term affordability. A tirz isn't a giveaway. It reinvests future tax growth from this area into public infrastructure that Austin will own. I know it isn't an easy vote, and some of you may hear criticism either way, but that's why we elect you to balance housing, the environment, transportation, jobs, creation of tax base, and Austin's long term future. Opportunities like this are rare, and I hope you'll vote yes. Thank you all. >> Thank you. Please just state your name for the record. [6:24:45 PM] >> Yes. Hi. Good evening council. My name is Ali Hoffman. I am here in opposition to the dog's head development. My biggest concern really is transparency. I'm not anti-development, but endeavor really lost my trust with the the bombed out mine pit comment they made earlier because I played in the dog's head like you as a young person. And I remember, you know, swimming, fishing, you know, getting mustang grapes and stuff like that. And it definitely wasn't a bombed out mine pit. So why would a deal that is good for Austin be shrouded in lies like this? And das last minute hearings, secret votes. Why vote before people who've signed up for items 14 and 15 have had a chance to make their voice heard? That's low. Why give endeavor veto power to contradict the city council [6:25:46 PM] that we elected? Tc gets paid literally like 525 times what I do, and he has shown up to less meetings about dog's head than I have. At least the meetings were being told about which we were giving, given a two day heads up for. By the way, I also resent the false dichotomy being presented that is either more infrastructure and we roll over for endeavor completely, or we delay the deal and get no infrastructure for the area. I find this false choice particularly ridiculous, because if the tirz is approved, the only infrastructure being funded will be for Amazon's benefit, not ours. Delay this deal so that there can be proper democratic oversight over whatever happens at dog's head. Please. This is supposed to be a democracy. I don't expect everything to go my way every time, but I feel patronized by this council. And there needs to be a serious reevaluation of the processes that led us to this point. This experience has made me actually [6:26:46 PM] prefer the commissioners court, which is crazy. So please delay. Thanks. >> Please begin. >> Hi Catherine brown, I live in district nine. However, my father's house is on hergatz Laine. I've had it in our family for over 30 years and I've been in this city for almost 60 years now, I think over 60 years. What I guess, you know, I've spoken to you numerous times about not just the public health issue, but I think really about getting independent evidence and opinions on the development itself. We even heard today, for example, during the amendment process, this complete confusion about how much of the land was truly in the riparian zone. And instead of thinking, well, let's go to an independent person, an expert who could tell us the ask was to the developer. And [6:27:48 PM] this was very frustrating, you know, because I feel like what we need here to actually move forward on both sides is, is some objective evidence, some independent objective assessments of what really is going on here. Both, I say from the environmental side, but also from the ecological from the human side. It's not clear to me, for example, as a resident there, that engagement, spending money on an engagement fund is really going to prevent displacement and gentrification. I've lived through that in east Austin, and just an engagement group doesn't seem to have that sort of agency when it comes to what really might happen in the future. Here we hear on one side about what sounds like dogs had like almost a dream land for some people and then for others, you know, they're concerned is, well, what about the impact on the local environment, on my home, on flooding? And yet all we hear is speculation or description, [6:28:50 PM] but no real numbers, no real models, no real data to back up either side. I think what we need is an independent assessment so we know where we're going. >> Thank you. Please just state your name for the record. >> Yes. Hi. Good evening. My name is Kim Vasquez. I am in district three and I do live adjacent to the dog's head along hergatz Laine neighborhood, and I am. I oppose the items on today's agenda. That's all related to the dog's head and the tirz creation. So I request that the tirz creation be delayed until a full engagement. Community engagement has been has has gone through the process. That includes the planning commission, urban transportation commission and the environmental commission to understand more like how does the city determine that the development or redevelopment will likely not occur through private investment alone in a reasonably foreseeable future? [6:29:52 PM] Time frame for this tirz creation or this reinvestment zone to be created? The developer has repeatedly told our neighborhood that there are no plans that they have right now that are not in the near future, that it may take many years before this happens, before development happens. The development agreement allows for up to 45 years to complete open space commitment. Mind you, open space, not park land. Also, 15 years to complete trail easements commitment is this within reasonably foreseeable future? It requires timeline for. It does not require timeline for housing. If that's for development. If. If housing is not guaranteed, then how would affordable affordable housing development be met? Is this within the reasonably foreseeable future that that we are trying to create this reinvestment zone? So neither the neither the development agreement nor tirz plans addresses the impacts of the environment and the communities, including the adjacent [6:30:52 PM] communities that I live on. Despite the developer calling this blighted or bombed out mining pits, this is a river corridor with pristine water quality that we live there. We see it. We are in the waters and abundant wildlife species. There's protection needed for. Thank you. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Brad Massingill, Ben. Livingston. Robin. Robin. Rather. Aaron. Gonzalez, Jennifer. Barnes. >> Mr. Massengill, we'll start with you. Please. >> When I was here before at the work session, I, I, I mentioned to you all about robstown, Texas, in nueces county where the Tesla plant there within a month of being [6:31:53 PM] open, got busted by some county employees for leaking some unknown substance out into the environment. The the whole. Problems compounded by the fact that drainage permits, at least in this case, are. State issue and the county was not advised what kind of things could be dumped or not dumped. So there was no. The two things didn't connect. A loophole that left a dump dumping situation. That's really critical. And when we're talking about a robot factory out here, we're talking about some ground penetrating chemicals that are out there that are known to create toxic plumes. These things like tce, you know, they get in the ground and they penetrate and they bubble back up and forth before they're there in such lockdown fashion that they can't be removed easily. These [6:32:55 PM] are the types of chemicals that are involved in this. When we're talking about alluvial floodplain, that doesn't mean that water just comes over it. It means that water is coming up from underneath it, rising in and falling with the water table. It's it's kind of breathing. So when we're talking about drawing these things down into the, well, water of bastrop down all the everything downtown, I mean, downstream, this is something that y'all wouldn't be able to do 2 or 3 years ago when the EPA was in. In effect, y'all are taking advantage of of the current federal administration to bend rules that you couldn't have meant before. And I think y'all need to do a little soul searching. And, and I really want to thank Josie for standing up. >> Thank you, miss brethren. >> First of all, I want to say to council member Fuentes, if she's watching and I hope she's not that we're thinking of you [6:33:56 PM] and we miss you and our heart is with your family. I also want to say happy birthday to Josie and Mike Siegel. That is the single best speech I've ever seen in this house. And I I've been coming here for 30 years. Thank you for saying everything that the community is thinking, and thank you for standing up for us. You all are in a tough spot because Austin is a world class city, and we need a world class economic development strategy and implementation. But this is not a world class deal. You guys deserve a world class deal. You can't have a world class deal with zero environmental analysis, zero flood mitigation analysis, zero climate mitigation analysis, zero environmental racism analysis. If you can't understand the depth of why people are so frustrated about this, it's because we could have had we should have a world class deal. [6:34:59 PM] You can't sit on sit in this room yesterday and talk about cutting social services and today talk about giving a huge corporate advantage to the world's biggest company, the world's biggest billionaire and the top developer who who's so much more capable than this. You guys cannot do this. You please don't do it. I really am asking you. Austin needs you to hold a much higher standard, get us a world class deal, and we'll come down here and cheer for you. Don't do it like this. Please don't do it like this. >> Our mayor. Council, I'm asking you to vote no. Or at least postpone this item until well into 2027. We've been told that this project gives no tax breaks, no tax incentives. But when the land value is frozen at $17 million for 45 years, I'm having a hard time [6:35:59 PM] understanding how both the developer and the proposed tenants of this property don't benefit from that. I'm concerned that rushed, opaque process may become the norm for companies like this. I I'm deeply concerned at the impact that we're actively entering into an agreement, knowing that tenants like Amazon robotics and their strategic partners, Tesla, that they're having already on our water supply at the time when data center companies are seeing Texas's open season, if we're willing to scrap environmental protections now that endanger people's drinking water, flood safety, what does this say to other billionaires that say Austin is open to exploitation? What will be on the chopping block next? We're told how many jobs this will create, but we're actively thinking about, you know, while we're actively thinking about making social service cuts. School closures are ongoing. The public has received inadequate proof that this will bring in new money when the tax is frozen. What to [6:36:59 PM] me, this is saying is that residents in the surrounding areas across the city are going to be picking up the tab. Raise. This is going to be raising displacement, concerns of areas, proximity and proximity to the tirz people that would be contributing taxes to this city if they were not included in this zone, is how I'm seeing it. Ultimately, this benefit comes at a time when I have to ask you this, you know, where's the tax relief for small and medium sized business owners? >> That's right. >> This year alone, across the United States, small businesses have comprised 96% of the net jobs created in this country. I think ultimately, when we invest in those that's going to make our and our city a lot more resistant. >> To this. >> Council. Mayor Ben Livingston, long time taxpayer and voter from district five. I agree with every word that robin said. And, Mr. Siegel, [6:38:01 PM] that was a terrific speech. I like you better. I wouldn't vote for you still, but I do like you better. I'm speaking against item 1415 and 111 because this ordinance creates the tax increment reinvestment zone that makes the dog's head project possible. The agenda says this item has no fiscal impact. That may be true today, but that's not the whole story. A tirz is the financing mechanism that redirects future tax revenue away from general city services and towards a single development. Once this framework is in place, the public has already lost much of its leverage. This project covers more than 2600 acres and over six miles of the Colorado river frontage. We now know that Amazon is at the center of this development. Before creating a special tax district. The public deserves complete transparency about why one of the wealthiest corporations in the whole wide world needs this [6:39:01 PM] kind of a public assistance. Assistance history should make you very cautious. When Amazon searched for hq, two cities entered a bidding war offering billions in public incentives. The result was a race to the bottom, with taxpayers asked to shoulder the risk while Amazon raped. Whoops reaped the benefits. Austin shouldn't repeat that mistake unless you can clearly show us. Taxpayers will receive. We will receive more value than if those future tax dollars were invested in parks, flood protection, public safety, libraries and transportation that benefit everyone. I also want to address the claim that the city was outbid when it had the opportunity to acquire the important riverfront property. >> This Thuesen. >> What part of this do you not understand? [6:40:16 PM] >> My name is Jennifer Barnes and I am a resident of the Austin etj just north of district seven. I'm here today to state that as an Austin, etj resident, when I learned about the process through which the annexation of the dogs had happened, I was horrified. Until this went ahead, the people the dogs had. And I had more in common politically in Travis county than we do with the city. The utter lack of transparency, the. How poorly informed the residents were, if at all. Before the annexation happened, these people's rights were violated and in some ways the people of the etj rights are being violated anytime that the city goes ahead with this, especially when it is. In the name of a corporate development that is not going to help or improve the lives of the people who live there already. If you [6:41:18 PM] if you didn't get get it already. I am against approving of the tirz. There's no good reason to move forward with approving it and creating this tax district. It's not needed for development to happen. It's a misuse of an economic tool to wave a coupon at Amazon. You know, and I've I've heard that Amazon claims they're looking at another city. If they want to go somewhere else, let them be someone else's problem. Because anywhere that Amazon's facilities go, whether it's a warehouse or a robotics facility, they are a problem. >> Yes. >> I live up near pflugerville, and we know. We know that personally in pflugerville, where they they built before we got we got their tax incentives. They didn't need them. They didn't really care about them. There were no. There were no requirements for what people were going to be paid. People who work there do not live in pflugerville because they can't [6:42:19 PM] afford it off of what Amazon pays them. >> Thank you very much. >> I'm going to call the last three speakers. We have Julia Sikora, kaiba white and Heather bunker. Are any of you all here? Yes. >> Why don't we start with you and we'll go this way. So please begin. >> My name is Julia Sikora and I'm a resident of district two. I'm asking the council to vote no on item 111. Austin has become a hub for development. We've all seen the city change, and change is inevitable. But the development of dogs head is a change for the worse. Thank you. Bye. Choice. Texas operates on an isolated power grid, which has caused [6:43:20 PM] devastating losses for its residents. How much energy will be needed for the development of this land and when the development is completed, how much of our resources will be drained by the corporations there? We learned this week that Amazon will be one of the clients in this development deal. When we look at the dogs head tires, it is clear that a $2 billion tax incentive is not needed because in 2025, Amazon's gross profit was $360 billion. After paying all of their employees and expenses. So Amazon and the other billion dollar companies in this deal do not need a tax incentive or reimbursement, as Mr. Suttle put it. If if you were getting paid by the parties that benefit, maybe you could afford to prioritize the needs of corporations over the people that live here. But austinites cannot afford to pay an extra $2 billion in taxes. The. The city represented by this [6:44:21 PM] council is made up of people, not corporations. And it is your responsibility to serve our needs. What we need are social services, public transportation, low cost housing, and environmental regulations that keep us safe. Your community does not need land development along the Colorado river that has been approved with reduced water quality protections. This is a shady deal that you know is not ethical because you chose to conduct it behind closed doors. Please vote no on this item. Thank you for your time. >> As I stated, when you guys, as I stated, when y'all first presented this, the plan that the city manager gave to you guys to accept it's against the strategic management system. Austin strategic plan, the water forward plan 2018. There's a disregard and lack of [6:45:23 PM] short range and five year forecast budgets. When it's against the open meetings act and the development plan needs full review by all applicable city departments federal, state and local regulation. I do not think that every one of these people and all of the people that participate in applicable city departments, boards, commissions, advisors and consultants can say that they are representing any of the interests of Austin in this project. Its constituents or resources are much less than the best, which it should be. I'm requesting that the item 111 we do not accept the tirz. This is because all of these people in the city should be following the same applicable standards of every other project, and I don't think that they have. It goes against the city and our values and it [6:46:24 PM] needs proper revision. I think that everyone should get together and document how this is good for the city via those established parameters, receive public feedback and give transparent information, then make an informed vote in accordance with our charter and not before. >> Mayor. All speakers have been called for. >> 111 thank you very much, members. You just heard all the speakers have been called for the public hearing on item 111. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 111 and the public hearing is now closed. What I'll do is I would like to entertain a motion and get a second if there's a motion. And second, with regard to item number 111 and then we'll go to discussion. And there's one proposed amendment. Council member harper-madison moves approval of item number 111 and a second by council member Ellis. With that being said, if [6:47:25 PM] you want to be heard, let me know. And councilman duchen, I got you. But I'm going to quickly just say a couple of things before on the discussion, because I want to clarify some things that I worry there's some confusion about. First of all, there is no public assistance for Amazon. Amazon is receiving no incentives and Amazon is receiving no reimbursement under under the tirz. So, so so I'm telling you that's the case. There may be some misunderstanding, but Amazon receives no public assistance assistance instead or not. Maybe instead. But it is in it is an entity that is indicated. It wishes to come if and be located in this space. If this space can be developed in a way that would allow it to come. Importantly, and that is important because it is an entity that what it's going to [6:48:25 PM] develop will create tax base, that tax base. Because in some, I think there's been some misunderstanding to at least based on some of what I've heard here today, some people have been concerned about school districts. Well, in fact, the school district will receive 100% of the taxes it's entitled to receive. It is not impacted by this. Tirz. So the del valle independent school district will receive property taxes from this development. Whatever the ultimate value of let's just use Amazon as an example. Amazon builds its facility with no incentives from the city and no reimbursement. Amazon builds that, whatever the taxable value of that is. Now, it will pay 100% of its property taxes to the del valle independent school district. It will also pay 100% of the property taxes to the to central health, which is the Travis county health [6:49:25 PM] care district and Austin community college. In addition to that endeavor, endeavor will pay 100% of the property taxes that it's required to pay and to the to those entities as well. So the school district, the health care district, all of those will not be losing any tax dollars. In addition, there's been some discussion about. How that when some one person indicated there will be no new taxes out of this. So we're not going to get any new taxes. The fact is that if there aren't new taxes that come out of it, there's misunderstanding because there will be taxes raised as a result of this. But those if they're not, then, then there won't be sufficient to reimburse. And we're only required. The city will only be required to reimburse if the growth covers the requirement, [6:50:27 PM] so recovers covers the amount needed to reimburse. If what happens is we pass a tirz here tonight and in and let's say Amazon decides it doesn't want to be here, or an endeavor falls flat on its face and trying to develop something. If it doesn't generate the revenue necessary to be reimbursed, there will not be a reimbursement. So the bottom line is the the hope is that by creating, utilizing one of the few tools that city governments have in order to build infrastructure, it builds the infrastructure. It is then we're then in a position to allow for that tax base to grow, and it will benefit the citizens of the city of Austin, the del valle independent school district, the central health and and Austin community college as well. So I just want to make sure there's clarity on some of those points, because I [6:51:28 PM] think there's there's some either misinformation or disinformation in that regard. Council member duchen, you're recognized. No, no, no, no, no, we've had our public comment. It's now time for us to deliberate, provide some clarity, if that's what we think we need to do. And that's what we're going to do without people crying out from the audience. Council member duchen, you're recognized, followed by councilor qadri and then council member harper-madison. >> Thank you, mayor. I've got some questions for staff and I've got some questions for endeavor. If they can come up here, please. And while they're doing that, I'm just going to go ahead and make a few comments. I have been more conflicted about this decision than any other I could think of for the last year and a half, and I fully came here today with every expectation to not support this tirz agreement. And despite believing, as I do, that this has the potential to be a transformational deal for Austin. And despite believing, as I do, that we need to [6:52:28 PM] support economic development if we want to pay for the many things that residents want. And we've heard that today, from parks to transit to social services, we need to have a real economic development strategy, something that we have not had for ages. And now we have back to back significant budget shortfalls, tens of millions of dollars of systemic budget deficits. And I can't help but think that there is a relationship there. This agreement could serve as an important step in changing that trajectory. And without it, we're arguably pulling the rug out of our economic development plan before it's even started. And that's going to have real consequences for our budget and for the services people expect and rely on from the city. We've heard criticism that we're cutting social services while this is happening, but from my vantage point, the stark reality is it's going to be really hard to have it all [6:53:30 PM] or otherwise. We're making painful choices to live within our means. My core feeling is that of deep frustration, if not outright anger, because I've watched the stakeholders consistently struggle, even outright fail, to explain the fundamental parts of this agreement. And in the absence of that, for two months, people have filled in the gaps with fears and worst case scenarios. Yesterday, I heard from constituents worried about humanoid robots that are going to take our jobs. I don't think that's true. That doesn't square with any information we've been told by staff, the developers, the tenant, or any experience that I have. And even if it somehow turns out to be true, we doesn't change the fact that we've done an abysmal job transparently clarifying the details of what this agreement means for people. This is, by the way, not [6:54:31 PM] entirely on the developers or Amazon. Some of this is on our staff. A month ago, I requested more public facing information and details to be shared, frequently asked questions or a landing page, what I believe to be a fairly modest request. And despite my team working or being aware of this project updates almost every day, we were told this information was completed and available a few days ago was news to us. It was buried in a hard to find city website and also buried in attachment on a memo. And you had to know where to look. It's not the engagement and communication we need for a pothole, never mind a 2600 acre transformational project. I want to read a text or share a text from a constituent that I think represents a reasonable, balanced interpretation of what's transpired up until now, as well as what needs to get fixed. Quote. I'm sending a request to slow down the dog's head process to allow for [6:55:31 PM] community engagement. The 45 year agreement is very concerning, with no guardrails for community spaces, parks, green spaces and infrastructure. We were told by the city that there would be community engagement on this during the tirz process, and now we are here. No community meetings, no details on what flood, fire and environmental or green space protection. I'm all for developing dogshit and incorporating the city of Austin, but we have to balance to ensure safety >> Flood protections. There are none now and community buy in, and I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. We haven't adequately explained environmental green space flood, fire and community spaces. We haven't explained why a tirz may be different from a tax subsidy. We haven't explained how the city's conservative numbers don't even include Amazon in its calculations. Instead, we've allowed a vacuum to be filled, which has turned into widespread fear and the largest game of telephone I think I've ever seen. What also [6:56:32 PM] isn't understood is that if we pass in this deal, this will develop in a very different way. It's likely going to become mud and in all likelihood, luxury single family neighborhoods. And the city is going to have no control of key environmental features and get no taxable revenue. And make no mistake, the area will be still developed in time, but probably isn't going to be the success story that some people imagine it will be. And this is maybe the most crucial part of my comment in several months. The next piece of the agreement comes before council. There's another critical choke choke point for the council to consider that could just like today, mean the end of this deal where it reverts to a mud. And I'm again going to reinforce there are two critical pieces coming to council have to be approved for the deal to move forward. One in a few months, the regulating plan and one in March, which is the final financial plan. And with this in mind, I've got [6:57:32 PM] some questions and I think I gave them plenty of time to get down here. So for staff, I'm going to ask what we had some discussion on Tuesday, but I'm curious what safeguards and monitoring are currently planned out to ensure that the infrastructure built is going to be reasonably priced, properly constructed, how do we know that we aren't going to be reimbursing, like golden pagodas or shoddily built wastewater pipes? >> Kim lavar is director of financial services. So in our negotiations with endeavor, we specifically discussed the the types of public infrastructure that would be constructed and how that might impact the city long term. So we essentially we said, and I apologize, I'm trying to find the language very quickly here. Here's. The [6:58:33 PM] city. And dogs had agreed that design of all public improvements will account for efficient, long term operating and maintenance costs, to the extent that it does not otherwise significantly increase initial design and construction costs. So we specifically had a conversation about not creating infrastructure that becomes far too expensive to maintain over the long term, since we will have ownership of that infrastructure. We also have discussed, as part of the financing agreements that there and as they're going through this construction of this, there's there's design reviews and permitting and things like that, all the things that you would expect. So there is there's significant oversight in the design and construction. And as we moved through the financing and years from now, reimbursement capability, we will continue to have reviews and assurances to, to when it comes to the, all the dollars [6:59:36 PM] that they're asking for reimbursement for, we will have review procedures, we will have mechanisms in place to ensure that everything, every T is crossed, every I's dotted, everything is handled properly. >> Thank you for clarifying that. That would be great to get more visible information about those kind of answers. And really questions for endeavor. For Mr. Suttle and pastor, I'm not sure who wants to field these, but I'm going to ask him, do you feel like you've done an excellent, fair, poor or worse than poor job communicating with the public about this potential development? >> We could have done a lot better. We've done poorly. We've. >> Has anybody from the city discussed with you the fact that you need to provide information to the public, and [7:00:37 PM] if so, when did that happen? >> I don't know when, but we've we've all talked as this project has evolved and it went faster than a lot of things we're used to in Austin. There were multiple reasons for that. One is one of which is we don't have an annexation process in the books and a meeting process, but we've all now that we've had a chance to review it, I wish we'd had more time, and I wish we would have had more interaction. And I hope to have more interaction as we go the next step. If this were to happen to pass. >> Well, let me ask, was time the problem or the strategy? The problem. >> Was not strategy. It was. It was time and effort and was not strategy. >> So if this moves forward, we're going to see you again in the fall for another approval for the next phase of the plan. I want you to know that if we're back here and we're still [7:01:37 PM] seeing the same amount of confusion and concern and distrust in this process, I'm assuredly voting no on this. Here are some of the things that I'm hearing right now, including the last 24 hours. I'm hearing this as a $2.2 billion tax giveaway. We're giving away residents. That's hard earned tax dollars to millionaires and billionaires at Amazon and endeavor. We're hearing the city is going to lose money hand over fist in this deal. We're hearing humanoid robots are going to take people's jobs. We're hearing that Mueller and other deals have had more park and green space. And this is a raw deal from a parks and green space perspective. We're hearing all the usual committees and processes got bypassed. We're hearing people got displaced. Trails are being planned through people's homes. We've heard that they're getting you guys are getting the full sales tax as part of this deal. For 35 to 45 years, we've heard about data centers and military contractors. We've heard about rampant water and [7:02:38 PM] energy use and industrial chemicals and on and on. And even if some of these criticisms aren't entirely rooted in some of the same facts that I'm familiar with, they do underscore deep, underlying, and real concerns about this project. And if I had to put things into the buckets, I'd say it would be guardrails, flooding, environment, green space protections, and economics that make sense. And so I came in here ready to vote no. But I can't do that without considering that. This could also be a transformational moment for the city, that a no vote also is tantamount to what will likely be luxury single family neighborhoods, since, unlike Mueller, city doesn't own the land to negotiate with. So I want your committee commitment that after today, your principal work is going to be communicating with the community, communication with my constituents. I want people from across town riding to my [7:03:38 PM] office saying, gosh, I wish Richard suttle and Andy pastor and endeavor would just go away because their team were always meeting with. >> I'll say that now. >> Yeah, they're always meeting with my neighbors. They're holding listening sessions. They're trying to show me a great website with robust information, information that's been validated by third parties and reports. Can I have that? >> We will not disappoint you or the rest of the council members or the mayor. We will make certain that that happens and try to fix what is not happened leading up to this. >> Because what I just heard is we've done a poor job. And so the next question is going to be, are you an endeavor equipped and capable of delivering that? >> Yes. >> We've also heard from even a speaker a little while ago. If you're needing to move fast, which sounds like you are, you need to fix things fast. Can [7:04:39 PM] you do that? Yes. >> We will. >> You're asking to be our neighbor and we're making we're here to make sure that you're a great one. If this moves forward. If I don't see better accurate information and robust engagement the next time you're here, I'm voting no on your next request. And if we don't fix the process the next three months, I'm voting no on the next request. This cannot continue. This is also can't be how we, as a city approach economic development. And the notion that we're in the process of building out an economic development strategy is terrifying to me right now. So last thing I'll say, consider this a stay of execution. Otherwise, I'm back in several months to vote against this and likely kill this deal. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember, councilmember qadri. [7:05:39 PM] Councilmember harper-madison, the mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. Mayor, I just have one question of clarity which might lead to more questions, but for for director Mars, what happens in a world that endeavor decides to annex? >> Keith Mars, director, Austin development services department should they annex and release from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, then? We have no land use controls. We would still be obligated to provide water and electric to the property. Directors can speak to that matter as well, but we would lose essentially everything that development services does in terms of the permitting and all of the the building standards that the city has would no longer apply. >> So, so just to confirm, if I'm understanding correctly, we would still be on the hook for paying for water, electricity, other other infrastructure. What what would that cost look like on a, on a yearly basis? I don't know if you all would have that, but if you all did. [7:06:40 PM] >> Councilmember, I think the answer to the question is more about we would be required to provide services. Sure. So it will always be water. It will always be electricity. They are part of our service area. They've been part of our service area since apparently the mid 70s. And so regardless if this land is annexed, if they release from our etj, they will still receive city services because we have an electric, an electric utility and a water utility. Additionally, they will be subject to county regulations and county regulations do will allow for 100% impervious cover. Counties don't regulate land use the way that we do. They don't have zoning powers. So the data center can can go in. So this is and those are things that will tax can tax our water and our electric infrastructure. So those that is kind of the how it flows down. If this does not move forward. [7:07:41 PM] >> So just to confirm if if in a hypothetical world that this doesn't go forward, you're saying it would be, I guess, easier or there would be no guardrails for data centers to pop up. And a lot of the things that a few months ago when, when the original item came forward, military install, like anything could go there. >> Correct. There are no the counties cannot regulate land use the way that we do. >> Got it. Thank you. >> I might add that one of the things that and council's aware, one of the things that the city is looking at is how we're going to deal with data centers inside the city. And one of the key aspects of that is how we utilize, in fact, the the resolution that was unanimously passed by the council directs the city manager to look at means for regulating data centers that include land use. And one of the things that staff, professional staff is currently looking at is how we might create a separate zoning. [7:08:44 PM] When it's not decided yet, it will come to the council, but we might even create a separate zoning category that deals with certain data centers. And and that is different because there is no zoning requirements, no zoning regulations for counties. Councilmember harper-madison followed by mayor pro tem vela. >> Thank you, mayor, I appreciate it. I've modified my talking points, specifically address some things that happened during the course of the discussion. I. First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming out and participating. It's critical. I mean, this is what democracy looks like. And everybody doesn't do democracy the same. Some people hiss and boo. Some people don't. You know what I'm saying? And it is what it is. That's what democracy looks like. And democracy doesn't look like consensus all the time either, by the way. So in that to testify on matters with dog's head or otherwise, some of y'all is not your first time [7:09:44 PM] here. You've often lynched your voices, which are very valuable. I think sometimes you don't think we're listening, but I promise you, we are. And some of you, it's your first time. And I'd like to thank you for having the courage to do that and participating. For those present. One reminder, because democracy means that every voice in the room gets the right to be heard. I watched people's testimony get compromised by the way that clapping and screaming and like well into their time, and that's not fair. And so I just want us to be cognizant of the fact that this is a relatively sacred space and we can't be in an echo chamber, and we have to give everybody their time. That's just fair. I feel like a lot of the folks in the room, y'all are people who fight for justice and fairness and are thoughtful and believe in humanity. So give everybody [7:10:44 PM] that opportunity, whether they agree with you or not. Moving forward, I, I firmly believe that we are all obliged to participate, to participate in civic discourse. This is how the world goes around. With that said, I want to speak further to clear community benefits that I think this project will bring. I think it's important to say that this is not, to the mayor's point, not a tax giveaway. I think it's also important to say that this is not environmental racism. And I'll tell you why in a moment. It's a term that gets thrown around real Loosey goosey. And when you look like me, it feels a way. What this development is, however, it's a once in a lifetime, a generational opportunity. I think Austin has long been committed to job creation, housing affordability, green space. The Austin public has made it very, very clear that they support dog's head as a [7:11:46 PM] vehicle for delivering even more of these services, I believe. So today at city hall, we may have heard an overwhelming majority speak against dog's head, but if I could please have the clerk's office. Can you pull up the image that we pulled out? >> She's just made a request that you pull up an image. >> I want to point out, which has been pointed out already. And this is I know Mr. Mr. Whaley thinks it's fake news, but I want to point out that I literally talked to constituents all the time who don't testify because they're terrified of getting his debt. They're terrified. They have social anxiety. They don't want to speak. But this hostility in the room, they don't want to be a part of that. And they don't want to be a target. I don't want you guys to discourage people's participation. That's all I'm asking. So those numbers there, as you'll see, [7:12:46 PM] those who took a stance on dog heads, not just those who vocalized this is this is the perfect example of like the vocal minority according to these numbers. And and I'm put. Disregard because some people are just committed to thinking what they think. I'll move on to my talking points about environmental racism. I'll tell you what it means. Environmental racism is a term coined by doctor Benjamin Chavez Jr, the current president and CEO of the national newspaper publishers association and association of African-American newspaper publishers from across the country. Doctor Chavez has been a lifelong advocate for the black community and other marginalized groups. He has been called the grandfather of environmental justice movement to honor the work that doctor Chavez has done throughout his life. I want to educate everybody about what environmental racism is and what it is not. Environmental [7:13:47 PM] racism is the disproportionate exposure of marginalized communities to environmental hazards like toxic toxic waste sites, landfills, industrial pollution. It is discriminatory policies, unequal enforcement of regulations, and the intentional placement of hazardous facilities and marginalized neighborhoods. Environmental racism is not nimbyism dressed up as social justice. Using the term for this project is a dog whistle, and it cheapens the experience of true systemic environmental injustice. I'm going to assume that the community members misusing this term are so fortunate as to not have experienced systemic racism, and are unable to recognize it when it happens and understand what it is and what it is not. I support the dog's head development and the opportunities it will bring to our community. Not only will this development bring new places to live, work and play, it will also bring [7:14:48 PM] opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurship. Two things that are very near and dear to my heart. Austin is growing and evolving and I look forward to seeing what comes. Furthermore, I want to use this conversation about dog's head to highlight not just the benefits to Austin as a whole, but specifically those with living within the bounds of the northeast planning district. Somebody made reference to one of my colleagues earlier, this not being her district. Well, it is mine. For those who are not familiar, the northeast planning district is a joint effort between the city of Austin and Travis county addressing infrastructure, mobility and housing needs in historically underserved area of Austin. The northeast planning district covers nearly 30mi S of northeast Austin and eastern Travis county, roughly bounded by the Colorado river. U.S. 183, U.S. 290 and sh 130. For years now, this effort has been aimed at meeting this effort that my team and I have worked on for over six years. [7:15:49 PM] This effort has been aimed at meeting the needs in a rapidly growing area to ensure. And this is what we're talking about. You can get. You can't stop gentrification. It's formulaic, but you can get out in front of it and put protections in place. And that's why we came up with the northeast planning district in the beginning, ideally so aimed at meeting the needs in a rapidly growing area to ensure that growth benefits existing residents rather than driving them out very intentionally. By bringing major development to four square miles directly adjacent to the northeast planning district area, we can continue to reconnect east Austin to the rest of the city in a meaningful, tangible way. The new street network trails utility corridors that will be included in dogs head will not stop at that property line, but will create and improve new means of accessibility into and out of an area of district one [7:16:51 PM] that has been historically disconnected, neglected, disinvested more broadly, having a mixed use district of this scale so close to the northeast planning district area will increase housing opportunities at a variety of income levels, because that's what neighborhoods look like, diverse like us. This room. Jobs, public infrastructure, which will give district one residents more opportunities to live, to work, and to access services without traveling across the city. The dogs had. Development will also provide opportunities for east Austin residents who have long lived near and around areas zoned for industrial uses to enjoy more natural amenities along the Colorado river. In these ways, dogs head helps to ensure that east Austin residents are included in the city's [7:17:53 PM] infrastructure growth, not boxed out of it, though they may be more may be separate efforts. There will be no doubt. There is no doubt they will in no doubt reinforce one another and help shape a more connected east Austin. I'd like to add a few other things. I'm freestyling here. I'm an austinite and I'm a black American, so whoever booed at me, I want you to recognize what it looks like to publicly serve in central Texas and look like me. You sit in this room, you're talking about injustice, racism, and then come for me. Make it make sense. I didn't I'm not friends with Richard. I cuss him out all the time. Well, I do, but that said, I saw this as an opportunity. I saw this [7:18:53 PM] as an opportunity to connect the area of town that I committed to serve. I'm not a politician. I fell into policymaking because I wanted to make my city, my hometown, a better place for my children. I'm not here because I want to go to the state or wherever. I don't have political ambition. Not everybody does. Some people just choose to serve, and it's not fair for you to abuse public servants, and that's what it is. It's absolute abuse. And so I'll close by saying this. I never thought I'd say this. I agreed with everything, council member duchen said. In the sense that the process was flawed critically and along this path. Some of the things that said to Richard included that more consideration, more transparency. What are y'all doing? Who did you call? Who [7:19:54 PM] did you talk to? And those are things that needed to be considered that were neglected, and they've readily admitted that. But I also want to say something I heard during the course of the commentary. There was a gentleman, I can't recall his last name, but he sat right there and he said dog's head was named by his father, that his family's been there since 1979. That means they were there when operations were happening. He approves of and looks forward to this project, a comprehensive opportunity. And y'all still came up and said what you said, even though 1979 dog's head, named by his father, he's in support. I recognize that not everybody's going to be in support of the item, but I want us to at least be operating with factual information to start. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for laying out the facts. I also want us to be open to open to the fact that [7:20:55 PM] what you thought it was, maybe it's not what you thought it was. You don't always have to be right. Do you understand? I I'll close now, I really will. I just I there was so much intention and so much thought behind my support for this item. I know y'all were going to drag me and it was worth it. I've served this city for seven years. I'm done in January. You think I want to get dragged when I only got five months left? But it was worth it because it means long term opportunity for my city. I believe in the opportunity. And are there some complications? Certainly. But how many people knew what a tirz was before you heard about this? Honestly, it's no, you don't have to raise your hands. I'm saying that some of this is like relatively obscure subject matter. Some of it is really. And I know that the inclination to want to protect our water, to want to protect nature, to [7:21:56 PM] want to protect our environment. That's listen, we don't we aren't in disagreement there. So why are we fighting? I think generally speaking, we probably agree on most of the things that you all are in opposition of to this project, but you didn't take the opportunity to even recognize that because you don't want to have a conversation, you want to have a fight. We don't have to fight all the time, y'all. Sometimes we can have real discourse, real dialog. And I hope moving forward that we have the opportunity to have these discussions and we don't have to agree. I don't mind if you don't agree with me. In fact, I, I fully support you and you should support me as well. I have my opinion on the matter. There are things that I've taken into consideration. Somebody said earlier, more often than not, how we decide things is based on our lived experiences. I don't know yours, but guess what? You don't know mine either. So don't make assumptions. What I'm saying is [7:22:57 PM] moving forward with a project that offers an opportunity, an opportunity of this scale and size. With that level of impact, I think it's important to our city, and I believe in the project, and I fully intend to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, council member. Mayor pro tem vela and then council member alter. >> Thank you very much. Council member harper-madison. I really appreciate your thoughts and words, and I agree with basically everything you said. I did want to dovetail right off of that because I know that you, the county via commissioner Jeff Travillion, the the mayor, the county judge, have been heavily involved in the northeast planning district, which is just on the other side of the river from dogshit and just north of there is Walter E long lake, which is a [7:23:57 PM] phenomenal city asset that is extremely underused. I mean, everybody I've heard people talk about it that that should be zilker park east. It's not right now, but it needs to be. And these types of regional plans, dog's head, the northeast planning district are what will get us to where eastern Travis county has the same opportunities and amenities and quality that western Travis county does. So I just I really appreciate the tying the dog's head and the northeast planning district together because they really ultimately, over the long term, will work hand in hand. Obviously dogs heads moving quick, but northeast planning district still working on it. But but I think we will get there next. Mayor, I appreciate you laying out all the other entities, the government entities that will benefit from the tax value. And there was [7:24:59 PM] one that you didn't mention, and I got to throw them in because I'm on the board and it's a mission that's very close to my heart. And that's capital metro. If we do not annex this area, then none of that sales tax money in the dogs head goes to capital metro. And just as you mentioned, with a, C, C and with del valle and the others that are going to be getting this full on, there's no tirz, there's no redirection of anything. Capital metro is in that same position where every single penny from every dollar spent in the dog's head is going to go to capital metro to provide transit service, not just in the dogs head, but, you know, throughout its entire service area, which goes all the way up to Leander and out east to Maynor, the capital. Metro needs the revenue. We need them to service the dogs head. That doesn't happen unless capital metro does not serve an area. It serves cities [7:26:01 PM] within its jurisdiction. So again, that's just something that's kind of foundational to me. I don't think that we can build the kind of project, the kind of housing, the kind of neighborhoods that we want to build without transit. And that's really the choice that we have before us. The development is going to move forward one way or the other. This kind of, you know, and again, we this is not a visioning exercise in the sense of like, let's kind of like the way that Mueller was where, you know, we got that land and we could do anything we wanted on that land. This is a completely different situation. The laws are different. Everything about it is different. It's going to move forward. I think the only question here is, is this going to move forward as suburban sprawl? That is very, very car dependent, relatively low property value per acre. And that's only going to house, let's say, I don't know, you know, 5000, 6000 people or [7:27:01 PM] something like that. Or is this going to be a dense urban development within the city of Austin that really ultimately generates a lot of property taxes and a lot of good for the the public at large? God, I'm going to quote this and I'm, I'm 90% sure it's right. But, you know, downtown folks, and this is a conversation that we've had a lot on the dais about how downtown, I believe it's 1% of the of the geography of the city of Austin. And if I'm correct, I believe it generates about 10% of the property taxes that kind of fund the city of Austin. We need more downtown's, we need more downtown so we can service all the other neighborhoods, because I know folks pay a lot of property taxes, but that's a lot of times we have large neighborhoods where we really don't collect enough property taxes to provide the level of service that we do. We've got to have other parts of town [7:28:02 PM] that do generate a lot of property taxes to fund those parts of town that don't generate a lot of property taxes. And again, we're not going to have a lot of these opportunities. The domain which endeavor was was responsible for is one of them. I think that's been a a real big success. This is another one. And again, this is a tremendous opportunity, I think to pass it up would be would would not be in the interest of the city of Austin. And finally, I'll finish with with two things we have in my time on the council. We have entered into economic development agreements where we are giving money directly back to the company, strictly for their profits. That was the southwest deal where southwest agreed to, to do a lot of things and bring their employees and base them here and create a lot of good jobs, and we gave them a portion of their tax revenues back to them that I think there might be one more that that we've done, but we rarely the city of Austin [7:29:04 PM] rarely, rarely does that that one, you can call it whatever you want a giveaway, a this or that. It is what it is. A tirz is not that a tirz pays for public infrastructure that benefits the public, that that will be owned by the city. Again, I don't know if we don't do a tirz, how do we develop the infrastructure that's going to make the dog's head a nice place to live and to work and to enjoy? And there's no there's no magic pot of money out there. We have to build the road, you know, we have to make it happen. And that's what we're doing. And again, I fully support the tirz. I also want to say, I mean, the initial terms of the tirz I was concerned with through the negotiation. And again, I appreciate our our partners in the negotiations and our staff very much. So we've gotten it to a place where I think we are in the black. The city is in [7:30:05 PM] the black throughout the entire period. And then when the tirz goes away, that's a lot of money going into our general fund for our children, for our grandchildren, to pay for the critical city services that they need. Finally, when we annex that land, we also extend all of the Austin protections that so many of us have fought for on this Dyess, the rent protections, the freedom city policies, no marijuana arrests, no these kinds of arrests, those kinds of all of that kind of good stuff that our our extremely energy efficient building standards, making sure that everything that's built there is to the very strict Austin code standards, there are huge benefits that are not obvious, that are kind of built into the, the, just the way that the city does business that are going out there. And I don't want to discount those. You know, we fight hard to protect our people here, our immigration policies, our our [7:31:05 PM] APD does not ask anything about immigration status. When we annex land, the people in that area are also protected by all those policies that we fought for so hard to get. So I'll leave it there. Mayor, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem members, I want to recognize councilmember alter for comments, but on item 111, he also has a proposed amendment to item 111. You have that and it's marked item one. 11th July 23rd, 2026 councilmember alter one. And so I'll ask him to comment, make comments, and then offer that amendment. >> Thank you very much. I'm going to echo one or multiple comments, but councilmember harper- madison was saying, you know, we don't always agree on the the dais. And I think it's Marc often finds himself on the lonely end over there. But as he was speaking, I, I was in [7:32:05 PM] not only full support, but, you know, you go Marc go get them. That's what needs to be said. But it was, I think, focused rightfully on one party to this agreement. But we're the other party. And this process was broken from our side as well. We is not endeavor's job to educate the public. They're not the public's representatives. We are. It is not their job to hold a commission meeting. That's why we have our boards and commissions. We are with ensuring that this city is the best place it can be for its residents. That's not the job that they have. And so I think this process has not lived up to what it needs to. From our side, we we should have [7:33:08 PM] required more required, more public engagement, required more information. And we didn't. And normally I would say. That is grounds to hit the brakes. And let the process play out how it should have. But there's a big but and we've talked about it here today. There is an opportunity on the doorstep that if we delay, will not come to fruition. And we might disagree on whether or not it's a good thing to have this advanced robotics facility come. I it's fully reasonable to have differing opinions, but what we know is that this facility wants to come online very soon, [7:34:09 PM] that if it does, they're talking about multibillion dollar investment. And that is money that we can have available in our budget in two years time. And we had a speaker come here and talk about how can you do this while you're cutting social services? Well, that's exactly what I'm thinking about. If we had this money this year, we would be able to avoid any cuts to behavioral health services, any cuts to homeless services, any cuts to violence prevention and basic needs, things that keep people fed, keep people sheltered, keep people alive, and usually do it in a way that makes your quality of life and your cost of living a little bit lower. Because we're not responding to people with police, we're putting them in housing, we're getting them fed. [7:35:10 PM] And so that's the urgency. And we are going to have more process here between now and March, and we'd better do a better job. But in the meantime, we are setting the stage to be able to have the resources a growing city like ours needs in order to meet the needs of the community, because the state certainly isn't going to do it. And that is why I am planning to vote yes. Why we need to move forward on this. With that, I do have an amendment, and this amendment. Is to take a portion of the revenue that the city is going to be receiving from this, and dedicating that revenue to affordable housing and to our parks. These are two [7:36:14 PM] things that enrich our community that build Austin. And I want the public to be absolutely clear why this is a benefit for our community. With these dollars, we will be making Austin more affordable and more livable by using this money for that purpose. So with that, I would move to amend item 111 with councilmember alter one motion. >> She councilmember councilmember alter moves approval of alter one amendment to item number 111 second by councilmember qadri. Discussion on the motion to amend. We're going to vote on the motion to amend as mayor pro tem. >> Thank you, mayor. Questions for staff. In terms of. Again, we want to make sure that we [7:37:15 PM] are keeping the city in the black in the sense that we want to make sure that the property and sales taxes that are flowing out of dog's head are enough to pay for any services that we will have to provide to dogs head. And let me just say, I agree. Conceptually, I really like the idea and I like the, the amendment. My, my gut sense would be the 5% property tax in years one through 20. That that doesn't really give me a lot of heartburn. The 14% in years 20 to 35. Again, I know y'all are working on the fly here, but any thoughts on, on how that affects the, the kind of the revenues and our ability to maintain services? >> So when I did the, the quick math on this years fy 49 through 2052, there's, it creates some negative balances [7:38:18 PM] at that point. That being said, we'll let's 20 plus years from now, we also. So I think as we continue to work towards the final project and financing plan, we can continue to collaborate and make sure that we're keeping that whole. But in the. It's it's not for 20 years from now. >> And obviously we can amend this at any time. The council can amend at any. >> Time and depending upon what you're doing in housing anyway, you might reduce reduce one pot for this pot to fill that in. >> Yeah. And I thought about that. Money's fungible, you know, and so money that's going %-pinto the housing trust fund might be kept in the general fund from another kind of it all kind of, you know, goes into ultimately the, the same pot. All right. I'll leave it at that. I appreciate the, the, the, the analysis. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. Further discussion on alter amendment number one to item 111, hearing [7:39:20 PM] none without objection, you count you as a no. Yes. All right. Alter amendment number one is adopted with councilmember duchen being shown voting no. Members. That will take us back to the main motion, which is to approve item 111, as amended. The main motion is to approve item 111, as amended, and I'll ask that you for a show of hands, those in favor of item 111, as amended. Please show your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. Members there being seven votes in favor and three in opposition and one absence, item number 111, as amended, passes on all three readings. That will now take us to item number 15. Two down, five to go. [7:40:20 PM] We'll go to item number 15 and I will turn to the clerk's office to begin. Speakers on item number 15. >> Thank you, mayor Rita Thompson, Josh Goldenberg, luzano Almanza. Susana, are you here? >> When she calls your names, if you want to be heard, please come forward. >> Okay. I'm not seeing Jonathan Davidson. Ben Thompson. >> I'm not seeing anyone come forward. >> I'll keep going. Max Hausman, Richard suttle. Mr. Suttle, are you here? You have time donated by Amanda morrow. Is Amanda still here? Okay. Four minutes. Adam. James, Angela van Aken. >> Mayor. Members of the council. Richard settle, just briefly, I want to touch on [7:41:20 PM] again it's it's a reimbursement it's not a tax subsidy. And following up with council member duchen request, we will start that community engagement tomorrow. But the one thing I want to get on the table right away is the folks on hergatz were taking that road out of there, and we're not going to take out that business coming through. Montopolis thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continuing on bill bunch, bill Oliver, Zachary Faddis, Stacey Schmidt, Betsy Greenberg. >> Bill bunch, silver. >> Springs. >> District five. >> This is for the project plan and project financing plan. Preliminarily, nothing in there is set in stone. It can be changed at any time. So you're given a false sense of being told what the hell you're doing. [7:42:22 PM] You're really talking about committing five over $5 billion of money, setting up a board structure where endeavor has a veto. Three and three members. It's unconstitutional. Delegation of your governmental powers to private entity to do that. In my legal opinion, the money in here is just ridiculous. I mean, there's a over $600 million of contingency. There's no you have no independent analysis of whether the numbers that were fed to you, of what it cost to build the sewer lines, the parking lots, the parking garages, the driveways, the water lines, the roads, every little driveway, all they're defining all public infrastructure as almost [7:43:22 PM] everything except the buildings and the robot machines inside the buildings. We saw this with endeavor at the statesman put these giant parking garages that have a few places for the public, but are mostly for their for profit use. We're defined as public facilities. Sidewalks. Behind locked Gates were public facilities. That's what you're doing here. So you really should vote no on this. Voting yes, though, doesn't mean what you think it does. It can be changed at any time. >> Good evening. Now, mayor. Mayor pro tem council members, I'm Stacy Schmidt with opportunity Austin, and I'm here to encourage you to approve not only this item, but all the dogs had items. I'm trying to be cognizant of your [7:44:24 PM] time, and I appreciate all of your attentiveness. All day long. It's clear that this is an important moment for the city. Austin has long succeeded by making thoughtful, forward looking investments that strengthen our economy while enhancing the quality of life. The proposed dogs head, tirz, follows that same approach and aligns with the vision in the city economic development framework that you all adopted in may. This tirz is more than a single project. It's an opportunity to transform the underutilized land in this mixed use district with housing, employment opportunities restored, open space, expanded public access, and more than six miles of hike and bike trails. As mentioned earlier, and time and fiscal constraints. Approving the tirz and this financing plan will help expand our tax base, generate new revenue for the infrastructure and city services, and create lasting value for our community. As mentioned, by expanding the [7:45:24 PM] tax base, the city will be in a better position to provide many of the services that have been mentioned several times today. Companies across the country and around the world seek Austin for our talented workforce and our innovative ecosystem to remain competitive with cities for significant private investment, we must demonstrate our commitment to projects that enable growth. The company considering initial investment, will strengthen our position as a global leader in advanced manufacturing and create hundreds of high quality, good paying jobs for austinites and and note the financials that are in this packet. Don't even include this project or any of the future projects that may come here. This company has commitments to higher education partnerships. >> Thank you, thank you. Appreciate you being here. Thank you. >> Craig nazer is Escott here? Okay, just two minutes then, Mr. Nazer, Garrett tung, [7:46:26 PM] Stephen brown, Marc Duvall. >> Craig nazer, Austin Sierra club and Austin environmental Democrats. This comment is for the cameras. There has been no serious discussion about flooding at any dog's head meeting. I am not a hydrologist. You have some very good hydrologists in Austin. Watershed protection. Unfortunately, you have cut most of them from this discussion. This major flaw could lose the taxpayer millions of dollars or even lose their life. Virtually all the dogs had a seizure, either in the 100 year floodplain or the 500 year floodplain. A 100 year flood is not a flood that happens once every hundred years. What it means is that based on rainfall amount averages that were obtained over a fixed 30 years, in any given year, there is a 1% [7:47:26 PM] chance of having a 100 year flood and a 0.2% chance of having a 500 year flood. This does not take into account the nonlinearly rising rainfall rates of climate change, as it assumes the chances are fixed. For the years 1989 to 2019, which is already seven years. In the past, there have already been three 100 year floods in the dog's head. Over the past 15 years. When? When do you want to bet the next 500 year flood will come? Flood risk for downtown Austin was mitigated by the construction of the Hyland dams. Longhorn dam is a flow through dam and is in need of repair. It exerts very little control on flood water conditions below it. Without the Hyland dams, we could not be meeting here right where we're sitting. The longhorn dam cannot provide the same control for the dog's head. Both the city and the county will pay the high costs of more major flooding, which makes a 45 year [7:48:26 PM] horizon. Tirz for this development by either the city or Travis county. A very bad financial risk for the people of Austin. >> Please. >> Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Marc Duvall. I'm the president of the greater Austin Asian chamber of commerce. I live in district six, and I'm here to urge you to vote yes on all the dog's head items. We recognize the anxiety around the development. We recognize many of the concerns around environmental protection, information availability, community engagement, affordability. All of these things are important, but we have confidence in you, Mr. Mayor, this council, city manager and staff. We've also got confidence, tremendous confidence in this city and all the institutions and organizations to come together to work together with the county to make this incredible opportunity work. So we believe in the potential of this project and our ability to deliver. Bottom line is that bringing this city, this land, into the city gives us a clear [7:49:27 PM] framework to ensure the adoption of stricter environmental standards as well as developmental developmental standards. The project transforms disturbed land, encourages responsible, long term strategic economic development, replaces inefficient, fragmented growth with intentional planned growth, actually creates an unmatched opportunity to engage local, environmental, community and business groups. It also facilitates the deployment of coordinated, modern, efficient, world class infrastructure and world class environmental solutions across this area well into the future. Approval today sends a very strong message, of course, but ensures that we move forward with real economic development momentum, and that's important. Austin is open for business and we welcome premier quality global investment. Tirz is a common tool, and this one seems to be doing exactly what it >> Should do. >> Create a transparent mechanism to help the development. Pay for some of the infrastructure without touching the general fund. This is not unusual. It's important. [7:50:29 PM] If Austin wants to remain competitive and sustainable, we must unlock this project. Please vote and ideally do so with Travis county. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Lisa Levins. Is Audrey Stanton here? No she's not. Okay, just two minutes, then Mary Ann Sanchez and Valerie Menard. Valerie, are you here? >> Doesn't appear to be. >> Okay. Robin Schneider. >> Ready? Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Levinson. I live in. I live near the dog's head. I'm asking you to vote no on item 15. Even if someone believes that a tirz could be appropriate under the right circumstances, today's financing plan still raises an important question. Where are the safeguards for taxpayers? This plan commits the city to a financial structure that could shape public investment for years to come. Before taking that step, I believe council should demand answers to [7:51:31 PM] several basic questions. What specific public benefits are guaranteed rather than simply anticipated? That trail is private, by the way. What protection exists if project timelines change? What measurable benchmarks must be met before. For additional public investment occurs? And most perhaps most importantly, how will the public know whether this tier is actually succeeded? Every investment should have measurable outcomes. If we're redirecting public revenue, then we should know exactly what taxpayers are buying. The public deserves more than promises. We deserve accountability. I've heard this project described as a partnership. Partnerships require shared risk. Right now, it appears that much of the certain certainty flows to the developer. While the uncertainty remains with the public. That imbalance should concern every single member of this council. This is not. This isn't simply about one [7:52:31 PM] development. It's about. It's about precedent. If Austin approves financing plans without demanding rigorous financial accountability, future developer developers will reasonably expect the same treatment. You have an opportunity today to set a higher standard, require independent verification, require measurable performance, require enforceable accountability. Public incentives should be earned through demonstrated public benefit, not assumed because a project is large. As someone who lives in the area most affected, I also want to emphasize that trust has been one of the biggest casualties in this project process. >> Schneider. Please. >> My name is robin Schneider. But what I want to start with is a statement by a dog's head resident, Frederick Williams. And this is his spouse, Lee Williams. She's too nervous to testify and didn't sign up. So I'm reading a statement that her spouse wrote. I'm an [7:53:33 PM] African American, Vietnam. I'm sorry. African American marine veteran who served my country faithfully and honorably for 20 years upon retirement and returning to the state and city of my birth. I acquired the American dream that I finally. That I faithfully defended. Now, the very council that I expect to work for the people is looking to strip me of my fulfilled American dream. Most of my neighbors are Spanish speaking people who are live below the poverty line. They are trying to take advantage of this. Please oppose the dog's head development and the metropolis extension, which will require the demolition of my home. My American dream. Most of the people. Council member harper-madison that spoke who live in the area are opposed to this. One person, at least one person was on the other side, but most were [7:54:34 PM] opposed to this. Speaking for myself, I would hope council member harper-madison and and council member alter who you said support what council member duchen outlined that you also will be executioners of this project. If the demands for community input and transparency are not met when this comes back. If you truly supported what council member duchen said, I hope you will fulfill that promise that he made. Also, there's no guarantee of housing in this. There's no guarantee we're going to have an a downtown in the dog's head. Let's be clear about what our fantasies and reality. >> Thank you. >> Lynn Wong Yuen. Rachel Scott, Robert hale, Pedro Hernandez, Jr, Harper. Higginbotham, cat. [7:55:36 PM] Garcia. Matt. Patton. >> Sure. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Hello. My name is cat gorilla. So what I've heard today is that pretty much everyone in this room is in agreement with what we want. We want to see environmental protections and affordable housing and parkland and all of these good things. I want those things. Absolutely. I think what we are in disagreement about is what is written in paper in front of y'all today to sign off on whether that upholds and represents accurately what we all want or not. That's what we're in a disagreement about, from what I see. And the thing that I really don't understand from this council in particular is what the urgency is. So we've heard that the urgency is that a client might leave the client [7:56:37 PM] that is not your client. We are your client. Okay. So that's that's why it's very difficult to accept words and promises and assurances and questions when they are not written down in paper. The county commissioners asked really, really good questions and they did the honorable thing, which was to say, we need to review these answers and we need to get better answers before we sign off on this. And that's all we're asking you to do today. That's all I'm asking you to do today is get some solid answers on paper, come back to us, and then make these decisions, because this is a lot of money and this is 45 years, and it's a really big decision. No matter how you split it. It seems like what endeavor has achieved today is two dogs heads. They have obtained this property and they will develop it no matter what. Although I appreciate that we want to have some say in how [7:57:39 PM] they say it and how they develop that, but unfortunately, they're throwing you scraps and we can do better. And that's that's what we're all here to say is give it some time and make it better. >> Good evening. My name is Pedro Hernandez junior, and I'm a resident of the montopolis neighborhood and the transportation coordinator with poder. And I'm here to urge you to vote no on the dog's head items. My colleague Adrian Macias and I regularly test water quality in the Colorado river under the montopolis bridge. Through that work, we have seen firsthand how important it is to protect this river. The stretch we monitor is considered one of the cleaner and more pristine sections of the Colorado river, and that is something we should be fighting to preserve. The development of this size will have lasting impacts on the watershed, increased runoff and and environmental stressors do not stop at the property line. [7:58:39 PM] They move downstream, affecting communities that depend on this river for their quality of life and their drinking water. For me, this is personal. My daughter and my grand, my daughters and my grandchildren live in bastrop. They, along with thousands of other Texans, depend on the Colorado river. They deserve clean, safe and usable water, just as we do today. We have a responsibility to think beyond immediate development and consider the long term the long term consequences of our decisions. Once the river is degraded, restoring it is difficult, expensive, and sometimes impossible. I refuse to stand by while decisions are made that can threaten, that could threaten the health of the Colorado river for future generations. Please protect the Colorado river, protect downstream communities, and vote no on the dog's head items. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Brie. Gordon. Gordon. Gordon. I'm sorry with that one. David Weinberg. David, are you here? [7:59:40 PM] Is holly reed here? Okay, then you will have four minutes. Bianca Guerrero. Andre Patterson icin eta. >> Please begin. >> Good evening. >> I'm David Weinberg. >> I'm a resident of Austin city council, district five. Two things can be true. Economic development is important. Part of your job is economic development. Also, what has happened today at city council is bad government. I didn't think Austin was a place that, you know, back in may. We've got Jeff bezos on the phone. So we got to ram through this annexation before we go on our summer recess. But I guess [8:00:42 PM] I guess it is the city that I live in. I think there's been there's been a lot of hand-wringing, wringing. There's been a lot of beating about the bush. Well, how how did this car crash happen? I want to suggest to you that one of the reasons why we are where we are. And council member duchen expressed his frustrations is because I think the developer and the developers applicant may be exercise a little too much power with the city council. Maybe they did a rotten job at public outreach because they didn't think they had to. I know that I'm not. I'm not talking about real estate and development writ large. I'm just talking. Those two companies have donated tens of thousands of dollars to many members of the city council. I know that I know that my city council member has taken about $30,000 in his campaign from those two companies alone. And it sort of begs the question, [8:01:43 PM] if, if, if these rezoning cases and development cases come before this council and they're never voted down, what's the incentive for companies, for companies like this to think that they have to go through a good faith public process and engage the public and be transparent? I don't think there is. And that is very problematic. So what I would ask all of us to do tonight, those on the dais, those from industry, those other citizens who have come here to talk is we need to do better. This is a city that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I've done a lot of work at the capitol, up the street. I've seen, oh, we have big donor on the line. We got to get something done for him or her asap. That should not be how we do business in Austin. So I [8:02:43 PM] appreciate your time. And I would hope that in the future, the sort of mechanisms of local government here work and look a little different. Thank you. >> Wu. >> Angelos Angelou, Peter Dutton, Derrick white, Harris Andrews, uc Mccoy. You see, are you here? Is rich Hayman still here? Okay, you'll have four minutes. >> I guess I'll begin. I am not. Is this on? Okay. Perfect. >> Yeah. There you go. >> I am not entirely surprised at what just happened. I have to say that we heard through the grapevine exactly what was going to happen. Some votes shifted around. >> What's your name? >> Oh, I'm Erin Andrews. Some votes shifted around, which we didn't anticipate. We got spoke [8:03:43 PM] to about issues like respect and respecting each other as people. Constantly. I have seen most of the chairs above be empty when most people are out here speaking for what they believe in. I don't think that's very respectful. I understand we all need a potty break. We all need a little snack sometimes, but I think that is where you know you're supposed to come together and say, let's take a break. Let's all reset and come back. There was a time in which more than the majority of those seats up there were empty, and watching that was quite disturbing. I didn't enjoy it. I don't think anybody enjoyed it. On the actual preliminary project, council member duchen and many of you agreed with him that there were huge mistakes made without thinking about them in the first place. And now you all believe, and we all believe that going forward, you need to do better. That doesn't look [8:04:46 PM] like storming through and approving each of these things immediately. You want endeavor and all of you to do better. That starts by taking the time now to pause and think about it. Make actual things, go into writing, and make sure that you take the time now to not waste our time again. You want to do better going forward. That starts right now with this vote to vote no. Pause and just get clear plans now so that you don't have people spreading misinformation about what it is, or you don't sit there and not know if parkland is open space or this, that. And the third, we're all confused. >> Thank you. >> Start now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Whoever wants to go next. >> I think I had time donated. Me too. Okay. From rich Hayman. I had two minutes. Okay. Thank you. >> Is he still here? >> Yes. Hi. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is uzi Mccoy. I'm an organizer, [8:05:47 PM] hashtag thought leader and d5 resident. I study economics and government. Austin is a growing city and I love that growth doesn't scare me at all. I'm not a nimby. Don't listen to the rumors. I want us to keep welcoming new neighbors and building more businesses and housing. But growth has to reflect the values that we claim to stand for. Development paired with real environmental risk is just not it. This isn't just a subsidy for one project. It's a commitment that will shape Austin's finances for a generation. We shouldn't lock ourselves into decades of corporate welfare for Amazon, a corporation that's faced repeated criticism over labor practices and workplace safety, and whose CEO maintains a strong relationship with our white supremacist and war mongering president. Whether or not you agree with that criticism, taxpayers shouldn't underwrite billions in infrastructure for one of the wealthiest corporations on Earth. And as a student of economics, I'll add this. The economic benefit these deals get sold on is almost always the gross number jobs promised and spending projected, not the net. It rarely subtracts what [8:06:47 PM] the subsidy itself costs us in foregone revenue. The public services and the new. The. The new development will demand or the displacement costs that are borne by existing residents netted out. And it's rarely the. When it's marketed as. Look at a map of Austin's parks and protected land. West Austin has about 12 to 15 dedicated spaces. You can think of the wildlife basin preserve. You can say balconies, you can think along east. Austin doesn't really have that much. Why do we keep treating the east side as nothing? Why do we keep telling black people, brown people and poor people, that they deserve dirty water and dirty air, and to be and to be victims of negligence, negligent businesses, and bad jobs? And why are we considering this in the middle of another budget deficit, when most of that revenue would go to a private development instead of our financial challenges? And I know this vote isn't easy. I know many of you want our city to grow, so do I, but this project has no guarantee, legal or otherwise. As confirmed by commissioner Shea, to build housing, affordable or otherwise. And there's also [8:07:48 PM] still no understanding of whether or not a data center is underway. I'm pro housing and I'm pro growth, and I'm also anti-displacement and anti-environmental harm, and I refuse to accept that those can't coexist. I also recognize the position this council is in. Every member on this dais except councilman Laine Laine paying her that much has taken thousands in. Contribute in contributions from endeavor or the law firm Armbrust and brown that represents them. Whether or not that influences your vote today, the public deserves confidence that this is being made solely in Austin's best interest. I urge you to follow our environmental commission and our communities of color and delay or vote no. And instead, let's build a greater, greener and growing Austin. Thank you. >> Please. >> Okay, so I thanks. >> To. >> Your reorganizing of the agenda, mayor had a wonderful narrative. I was going to start with item 14, go to 15, then go [8:08:48 PM] to 111. But you kind of messed it around. So I had to cut and paste and come up with something that. >> I didn't mess it around, whatever. >> So I had to. >> Reorganize my thoughts based upon needing to pass something before we pass something else. >> So okay, so yeah. >> She'll get. >> Her time anyway, so. >> Calling me. >> Out, I'd like to still talk about what I had intended to. And also, since I believe miss Monica gave me some extra time, I think I have four minutes. So. >> Monica yes, four minutes. >> So I wanted to talk. I started talking about San Antonio and this experience that I had in San Antonio. It is my hometown and I was just so impressed with their water utility CEO because of his admission that they didn't take the nos that they got from community as a challenge. They, they, they took time to think about it and figure out what did we do wrong. And they did not go to community. You didn't do that again today. I mean, so that's why we're here. You [8:09:50 PM] don't listen and you continue to make the same mistakes. And the another example I was going to give was code next. You didn't include community and in fact, you ignored community. And so we forced a vote on it. And we, we, we, we ended code next or, or rejected code next. But what did you do? You went ahead and enforced your will, passing zoning changes under the table quietly so no one knew until it was too late. And then you passed home, got folks thinking that this unregulated development was going to answer the question of affordability. But it isn't. And it won't, because all these new units are at market rate, most of them very few at affordable rate. And even the affordable definition is questionable. So we still don't have we still have a big issue with affordability. But guess what? That's something San Antonio does not have. They do not have an issue with affordability. Yes, they have folks working for lower wages, but the cost [8:10:50 PM] of living is so much better there. And guess what else they have in San Antonio that we don't have there traffic flows, but we have toll roads. And I think you are part of that, mayor, when you are a state senator, insisting on those toll roads that have not done anything to alleviate traffic. But San Antonio, one and a half times larger than Austin has flowing traffic. So because they're listening to their community, their their livability is better. I would say they have a world class utility. So do we. And I also wanted to talk about I was going to speak on the water issue and talk about how we, I, the our water Austin water has done a good job and they are working with community. And the watershed department has done a wonderful job and they are engaging community. But you didn't include the watershed department. You have your experts and I'm sure their hair is on fire about this, this plan. I'm sure the lcra hair is on fire about this plan, but where is their input? It's the whole lack of getting of that [8:11:52 PM] process. And because you're rushed, and I guess Mr. Suttle had to get Amazon to do what Amazon said. But so much of this process was different from what it would have been on the in the west side. So I take issue with with the council member harper-madison saying this is an environmental justice. Excuse me. Yes, it is because the process that are required in west Austin would have said, you have to have a review by the environmental commission. You have to have a review by the planning commission. I sit on the community development commission, and we were about to to endorse what the environmental commission had passed the recommendations. So there is a much more of a process that could have been done so that folks could have been much happier with the result today. So yeah, there's more process to come. But I guess what I'm saying is that you keep making these decisions that down the road don't help us, and now we're giving up for five years. I'm not going to be here. Most of you won't be here. We're not going to know. And that's such a terrible release of our of our power. >> So anyway, thank you. [8:12:53 PM] >> I. >> Kaya Denson Katy Gaar Craig Jankowski. Alexis Willis, Barbara Macarthur, Stephan Faris, Marc fareth, Jeff Mccrory. Cilla. Smith. Lou pasetto. >> Hi again, Kaya Denson. I don't really have anything planned for this. I have just been listening to what has been said. I think something that's really frustrating is these like false dichotomies that have been have been set up. And just to echo what people have [8:13:53 PM] already said, like so much of the yeses and the nos have been kind of like saying the same thing, like we want this like beautiful, amazing, like money making awesome, like urban area. And I, I live right, like a mile away from it. Like I want it to be successful. I have a family business. Like it's an event facility. Like we have company picnics out there. Like I want, like, I want this to work, you know, but I also don't want to get flooded. And according to like these plans that I don't know how to read, like, I don't know, I don't know if water is going to get dumped into Carson creek and I feel like a broken record player. But like, can someone like, why is there nobody here that like knows this stuff that can like assure me that like this part of the code is not going to screw you over? Like the exemptions that are happening? That's not it. You don't have to worry about that. Like, and, you know, people are saying things like, oh, we want the yeses are like, you know, [8:14:55 PM] we're looking forward to this high standard, world class environmental solutions. And I'm like, what are you talking about? Like, there are no world class environmental solutions. You took them all away. And it's just so frustrating because like, we're just not listening to each other. Like we, we want something really great. Like, why is it so hard to just like, say, okay, you guys just, just go by our code and then you can do whatever you want. Just make sure it's within the rules that we set up for everybody else in the city. Like, I just don't get it. Please make it make sense. Thank >> Thank you. >> Carlos pinon, David sides, Chris Gannon, Shane Johnson Natasha. Carol Phillipson, Alexandria Anderson, Richard. [8:15:57 PM] Jarnigan, Daniel. Low, Ryan. Austin, Stacy. Smith, Gary. Merritt, Cameron Shaw. Cameron, are you here? Okay. It is Beatrice Anderson here. Yes. And Mariana Kruger, Mariana Kruger. >> I'm good, thank you. Okay. Cameron. >> Okay. >> Was that Cameron waving away? >> Okay, okay. >> So those two people donated time to Cameron. >> Cameron speaking. >> I okay, did you want to did you want to speak the ones that donated time? >> No, she already spoke. >> Okay, okay. Jeremy martin, Bobby Levinsky, is Bobby here? No. Okay. Gary. Farmer. Stacy. Roan. Stacy, are you here? Okay. [8:17:00 PM] There is time donated by Cameron. Morgan. Cameron, are you here? What about a Darius Ross? Okay. Did I get both? Okay. Six minutes. >> You'll have six minutes. >> I have been here since 930 and. Wow, it's a lot to unpack. So thank you, council, for being here. I know how hard it is to sit here for this long and, and listen to the comments that everybody has to say on both sides. I always have to qualify what I say. First and foremost, I am an austinite. I have been in this community all my life. I'm a fourth generation austinite, an lbj jaguar. Like our council member from district one. And I have listened today, and I want to say that first you took most of my thunder, councilman. Councilwoman, because I have been insulted as I've watched the conversation today as we talk about environmental racism [8:18:02 PM] in this city. As I've said here, I come from a generation of that 1928 plan. Both my grandparents on each side were part of wheatville Clarksville man, mason town. Those Freeman communities that were pushed into east Austin. And while you might not think that's valid, as we talk about the dog heads project, it's really valid because my family and many who were here today, we had over 50 people in a contingency here from district one who wanted to talk about these issues and who were afraid, and who were signing their time over to me to talk because they didn't want to sit here and be hissed at or yelled at or booed at. But at the end of the day, they have experienced racism from every aspect of life, and it's very difficult to watch a community of people who don't live the experience of racism every day and haven't been through the generational racism [8:19:02 PM] that has taken place for this project to be called that, because it's not. It's an economic opportunity. But what opportunity does my community get out of this? And so let me just speak to the 1928 plan that everybody's been so excited to talk about and say that this falls into place of 1928, plan. In 1890, 40% of Austin was African American, 40%. By 1928, we were 19% pushed out of this community. Today we are 7.5%. Those are drastic numbers, very drastic numbers. And so when we look at economic opportunity that comes to areas near district one and east of 35, because that's what pushed us here in the first place. And we've been blocked in by 130, which that is something I participated in fighting against putting sh 130 through colony park. And I'm sure many of you have heard of colony park and worked to fight [8:20:05 PM] landfills in our community and worked to help develop brownfields so that they would not be in our community. These are the things that we don't want to see, but the things that we do want to see is economic development opportunities. And so the large contingency that we had here today was to speak, yes, to support dog head, but why do we support dog head? Because just as my council member said, we want to see affordable housing. We want to see workforce opportunities. We want to see small business opportunities located in this development. The development of the domain. You don't see businesses owned by people who look like me or small businesses. You don't see that. And we also want other opportunities for contracting. And that's very important because when you look at large contingency of minorities that work in construction, not just black but brown, we want to see those opportunities. And so I [8:21:06 PM] support this measure. And the people who were here asking me to speak in their stead because they were afraid to speak, because this is the first time they ever had come here to even hear a city council meeting we supported because we want to see those opportunities. So when I speak of endeavor, I would like to see endeavor. Yes. Look at the environmental concerns that might take place that can impact the community, but that are not necessarily environmental racism. But I also want them to focus on the economic opportunity. And so if we have time to do that, I think this is something that we would love to see come into this community, and I would really appreciate your support, but also putting in those things that would make a difference for all communities and also give us a chance, as this council did a few months ago. I believe you adopted an economic development plan. You adopted an economic development strategy, and without these measures, that strategy will [8:22:06 PM] not work. I believe that was a council member, alter who indicated that these measures will not change this community unless things like tirz, which are used in other communities, are used for a project like this. But I do believe that endeavor needs to be held accountable as well as city staff, which I know city staff. I've seen you year after year after year on a number of projects, make projects happen like the community wants. And so with that, I want to say that I will yield my time, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak. >> Thank you, miss Rowan. >> Hello again, Beatrice Anderson, save our springs alliance. This is going to end up being off the cuff. I really appreciate a lot of what councilwoman harper-madison had [8:23:07 PM] to say. We. I think we are all arguing at cross purposes here. We. Everything that the last speaker said. We want that the community. And in terms of who is here to speak, the majority of the people I have spent. So much time over the last two months speaking to the people who are impacted by this, who also do not feel comfortable coming up, I had I have someone who is going to be displaced. The developers are trying to buy their home. They found out she was coming to speak at council today and started blowing up her phone. Hey, can you call me? Can you call me? I saw that your name was on the list. Can you call me? That's intimidation. She's not here. Most of the other people we spoke to have jobs that do not allow them to come here. I've been here for almost 13 hours because I have. I recognize that is a privilege. Everyone [8:24:09 PM] here, these are just the members of the neighborhood who have the privilege of being here to speak. But we have organized for weeks talking to everyone. We had members canvasing every single house on the dog's head, where these roads are going to be widened and people's homes are going to go away. We just are asking to be included in the conversation. We want. We don't want to fight. We want this to be a conversation. But we have been excluded from the conversation from day one, and we're still excluded for the next 45 years. Any variance to the land development code has become an administrative process. Your own city staff are excluded. It doesn't have to go through a public process for boards and commissions. It's administrative. Thank you. That's not a conversation. >> Thank you. >> Hedrick. Roan. Andrew. Travillion. Hassan. Lewis. Briggs. Mitchell. David. Jabbour, bay. Luhrmann, [8:25:13 PM] Jeffrey. Bowen, Melissa. Hernandez, Catherine. A brown, Ali. Hoffman, Kim. Vasquez. >> Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, council members. So yeah, it's been a long day for a lot of us. But on this item, it talks about the preliminary project and the plan. And I had many thoughts throughout this entire process, based upon my many years of working in the business, developing, looking at long term plans for construction stuff and items. And one of the things that that jumped out with me was your economic development plan, Mr. Mayor, and hopefully this is meeting some of those goals, even though that has not put into process yet. But I'm [8:26:14 PM] hoping that that is part of it. But I've noticed that through this entire process, that both sides have taken some responsibility for the communications process. Many of us have said the system in the communications process has been broken for quite some time, and I would love to see that be corrected, because the misinformation that you've had to clear up would not have to be there if there was open, honest communications. That can't be done in a two minute time setting here. So there's a lot of unintended consequences that I see in the long term for this. Mr. Naylor talked about it in the fact that it's not part of this process, but what happens when the longhorn dam, which has already got issues coming up because of of some of the flood Gates on it, how is this going to impact this [8:27:16 PM] project here going to impact that? Is that going to have to speed up the process of trying to get something done on it before we have an issue with that that can affect this entire thing? Also, the existing laws when it comes to annexation and annexation, which is affecting us, and also with the tirz, I just would like to make sure that everything is being taken care of. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please. >> Catherine brown, resident of district nine, my father's home is on her Laine in district three. I am still here, I feel, because I'm partly a lifelong girl scout. You know, you you've got to just stick with it and hang in there even when things are tough. And today has been a very tough day, and I have been very grateful for the respect that people have shown when I've spoken and tried to do the same for others here today too. So was very grateful for your comments from the [8:28:19 PM] member on district one. Very appreciative of that. I would like to say that, okay, on item 15, like all the other items, my plea has been for objectivity and accountability in this process. And although we are now sitting at a point where it's very unlikely, I feel that this would be a no vote, I do want to understand, for example, when district ten Marc duchen said, well, when you come for the next ask in maybe three months, let's see what that is. I would like to understand what these statements mean in terms of communication from your side. What are your expectations now? I think we felt that both sides have not met the expectations in communication and engagement. And as someone who is liked to see also, my father's home is very near this development. I am not against a very thoughtful development that could be of great economic [8:29:20 PM] benefit, particularly as an east Austin or myself who grew up on the edge of poverty. I would really like to see a difference here, but I would like to also understand expectations from both sides. So moving forward, maybe we could have some additional communication on those along those lines. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Zenobia Joseph, Brad Massingill, Ben Livingston, David Ross, Andy pastor Kathy, panic, panic, Aaron. Gonzalez, missile Ramos. >> If your name has been called, please come forward if you wish to be heard. If you don't come forward, we're going to assume that you don't want to be heard. Mr. Massingill, you have the floor. >> Heck of a way to spend your birthday. Council member Velasquez, I do want to [8:30:20 PM] personally express. Appreciation for how engaged you've been today. You've been here the whole time listening that that's important. You know, this is in your district. 110 is supposed to work. It should be balanced in your favor for for ruling on this stuff. But apparently that's not how it works. I'd also like to, to commend you on, on taking time to start learning more about the watershed. I mean, we live in a dynamic river valley, you know, and taking the time to, to understand how things work. You know, when, when I hear council member vela. Just now learning about what riparian means, we this is a riparian city. We need to learn a lot of terms. Y'all don't know, you know, or apparently aren't familiar with how the water shed works here. We need to. [8:31:20 PM] I'd like to challenge y'all to actually go out in the watershed with with me and some other people and take some field trips to go to some of these places that are, are pertinent. And so you can understand how the watershed actually works. It's not just a backdrop to the city, it's the primary function of the city. We're here because of that. You know, we can be. A parasite or we can live with the city, and the city can benefit us. You know, we can't just keep extracting and not understand where we live. It has everything to do with everything from up oak hill and the recharge zone, all the way down to where it comes out at the, the what we can consider the headwaters of the free flowing Colorado. We're responsible for that. We need to be on top of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Massingill. >> Jennifer Barnes, bronwen [8:32:21 PM] reeve, Sarah Williams. Is Lee Edwards here? Yes. What about Roy Whaley? >> I don't see Mr. Whaley. >> Okay, miss Williams, you have four minutes and then Heather Bonker bow anchor. >> Can I kick out my time right now? >> If you go over there and register, we'll let you do that. There's a process for this, but. Well, I understand, but. You'll have six minutes. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Sarah Williams. I'm a nurse here in Austin, Texas. I've lived here for about 15 years. I've lived in district one. I've lived in district four. I've lived in district seven, and I believe district nine because I'm a renter. And for the first time, I was able to buy a home not in Austin because it's not affordable here. I now live in pflugerville, but I came to talk to y'all because I was really concerned about the human health impacts. As a [8:33:22 PM] public health advocate of a development that has basically no restrictions. And I'm really sad to have to pivot because mayor Kirk Watson, who's no longer with us, as many of these seats have been empty, wanted to call out the democratic process. Does this feel democratic to y'all? We're upset about boos and hisses and claps. That's all we have. That is all we have, because you're going to vote however you vote. And I'd like to highlight why people have called attention to the fact that endeavors has donated to every one of your reelection campaigns. Interestingly, between February 2022 and October 2024, Mr. Watson took $561,000 from real estate, generally, 70,845 of those dollars were from endeavor and 49,000 from their lawyers. Natasha harper-madison took 58,000 in that same time frame from real estate, 22 550 were from endeavors, and 15,495 were from their lawyers. Every other yes vote also took this [8:34:24 PM] money. I think it's really important that we talk about what the democratic process looks like, because we don't have a voice, y'all. You get to sit up there and take a couple tens of thousands of dollars for reelection and sell out our habitable future. So now I'm going to move on to what I intended to talk about, which is the health and habitability of our planet. Dog's head is on an aquifer, which gives drinking water to many, many people in this region. Aquifers are vital to be open, not covered, and any amount of impervious cover is a risk to our drinking water. Without water, humans die. In this waterway we have muscles. Muscles are super important for cleaning water. In fact, muscles are able individually to clean about 8 to 15 gallons a day as we damage this with industrial runoff, because we have no guarantees that there's going to be housing, as everyone has this pretty vision of the parks that they aren't actually obligated to build and the housing that they're going [8:35:24 PM] to provide for us, we are going to see industrial runoff from something like a robotics facility. And to the point that it's Amazon, I'm sure there will be no accountability and the highest intentions to skirt paying taxes on any damages that they do to our region. Those muscles are going to die, and our drinking water is going to get worse. Presently, they did us blood test data from about 1999 to 2020 on human beings, and our bicarbonate levels rose about 7% in close parallel with rising atmospheric CO2. At the current rates, the upper limit for the healthy range for human beings is going to be hit. In 2076. I could still be alive, but if I am so lucky as to have children, they might not have a habitable atmosphere. This is not even including the fact that data centers alone are going to produce 32.6 to 79.7 million tons of CO2 emissions annually. What are we doing? Like, do you want to be good ancestors? Because I do. I want to leave a habitable planet for our [8:36:24 PM] children. And what are we voting for? For the people who said yes, the what is it? Silent majority of yeses here. We're seeing lawyers. We're seeing folks in really fancy clothes from real estate developers. And I'm sorry, every single person that lives in that neighborhood, barring one person whose father had the namesake, let's think about who named this land right now, the names we use, because it's not the people that were here whenever it was colonized. It's not the names that we use. I live in pflugerville now. I live off settlers boulevard. It has an intersection of, I think it's called champions way with Indian run. The people who named that stuff are gross, and they're not the people that we should be looking to for policy decisions. I'm so tired of old white dudes making an uninhabitable planet for the rest of us and for our children, because what's going to happen is we can't use money to replace the ecosystems. And this is on a native blackland [8:37:24 PM] prairie, which has less than 0.1% of its existing land. It's one of the most critically endangered ecosystems in north America. And I'm trying to do a pocket prairie of my tiny backyard in pflugerville that I can barely afford so that I can work on restoring it. You know, what endeavors is going to do? They're going to pave some stuff. They're going to promise housing right now. They're going to have one trail in the area that they weren't able to develop anyway. And y'all are up here not understanding what's going on. I heard Mr. Vela talk about the annexation that already happened. Babe, where are we? Are we here right now? Are we worried about the future for our children because it does not seem like it, and it hurts me so deeply because we are stewards of the land, and we are ruining our chances at preserving a habitable future for human beings. The manager's office already did annex the land that happened well before this was brought to public comment. And when we talk about the breakdown of who truly is for and against, people don't know this is happening. I had to call out of work today. I'm on a sick day and everyone I talked to was [8:38:25 PM] like, wait, what? And they're horrified, y'all. But they don't have the privilege to be here and sit for 14 hours today to wait to speak because I'm super lucky and I can. But I promise you, we will remember as the residents of the Austin area and none of y'all who are voting yes to stuff like this are ever going to see a term here again. Thank you. >> Wu mayor. All speakers for item 15 have been called. >> I'm sorry I wasn't able to hear you. >> All speakers for item 15 have been called. >> Thank you members. As you've heard, all the speakers on item number 15 have been called. So what we'll do is I'll remind everybody that the terms are in your backup on staff number 15, version two, I will seek a motion to approve item number 15. We have a motion and a second. Then we have a number of proposed amendments. I think there's six proposed. I may be wrong about that, but I think there's six proposed amendments [8:39:26 PM] to item number 15. Is there a motion? Mayor pro tem moves approval of item number 15. Is there a second? Second by council member harper-madison? What we'll do now is we'll go to the proposed amendments. The first two will be proposed by me. You have them. Item number. This is a motion sheet. Number one amendment to to add a needs assessment, it's labeled. Mayor Kirk Watson, July 23rd, 2026. Motion sheet number one, my proposed motion to amend item number 15 would amend the preliminary project financing plan to incorporate a requirement for a recognition of Austin's experience with regard to gentrification and displacement, and require that the dog's head, the developer of this opportunity, will provide the city of Austin with funding to conduct a [8:40:27 PM] comprehensive needs assessment of the area immediately adjacent to the dog's head boundaries. Within 30 days of the city council approval of the final project and financing plan. With that, I move to amend item number 15 with Watson. Motion to amend number one. Is there a second? Second by councilmember qadri? Let me ask if there's any discussion. Hearing none, without objection. Motion Watson motion to amend number one to item number 15 is approved. My second proposal is labeled motion sheet number two. It is to make an amendment regarding affordable housing reporting. And what this would indicate is that on or before December 1st and June 1st of each calendar year, the developer will prepare and submit to the city an affordable housing report covering the prior six month period motion. I make the motion seconded by council member Ellis. Is there discussion with regard to the proposed amendment? Hearing none. Without objection. Watson. [8:41:28 PM] Amendment number two to item number 15 is adopted. That'll take us to council member qadri proposed motion to amend item number 15. Councilmember qadri, you're recognized. >> Thank you, mayor. And before I lay out the motion, I just want to give all the love to councilmember harper-madison. I know it's not easy. I remember when I first got elected, I think I don't know if you remember this, I we're I think we met in person in your district and I was, I was recounting a story of, of how, how, how an opponent had talked to me and you stopped me and you said, don't let them treat you like you're a white man. And that stuck with me. And even now, being in the in office and going about this city, the good, the bad, the ugly. And I think unfortunately ugly comes and hits folks in the face. But I just, I just wanted to just wanted to say that because I you're human. We're all human. Everyone in this chamber is human, regardless of what side of the issue you're on. So I just wanted to acknowledge that I [8:42:28 PM] have a motion sheet right here. Everyone should have it in front of them. It's labeled item 15 motion. Further discussion on tirz project and financing plan. We worked with land use and transportation advocates on this motion, and I appreciate staff and the developer support on this. The item ensures that transit supportive infrastructure is included as part of the project plan, and since the tirz is now moving forward, I want to ensure the taxpayer dollars created by new development in dogs head and reinvested in this area align with our shared goals and have more people walking, biking and taking transit. My motion also requests an update on this matter in the fall when the regulating plan returns. And my hope is we can consider this item at a future mobility committee meeting as well as council members. It's our civic responsibility to remain engaged, and I know I know we will be. And on top of this, to ensure we get what we can out of the site. Thank you. >> Councilmember zo qadri moves approval of qadri motion to amend item number 15. Number one is second by council member Ellis. Is there discussion on council member qadri? Yes, [8:43:28 PM] mayor pro tem. >> I just want to thank council member qadri for his amendment. It's a really good amendment. And again, I know I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and kind of planning all the details out, but we've tried to roll in through project connect where we can transit, kind of connect transit and development. In other words, if there's a building going up, maybe that's where the bus can pull in and, you know, actually physically into the property, or we can host kind of transit supportive infrastructure, shared space with the private sector to just kind of help us more effectively and efficiently manage our infrastructure. So I think this is the kind of planning we'd like to see. And I appreciate his amendment. >> Thank you. Thank you. Mayor pro tem hearing no further discussion. Qadri motion to amend number one for item 15 without objection is adopted. That'll take us to three proposals by council member alter and council member alter. [8:44:28 PM] I'm going to go in this order. If that's okay. The first one will be alter motion to amend number one for item number 15 is direction. It's labeled direction, patent and drainage. And you're recognized on your motion to amend item number 15. Number one. >> Thank you very much. What this motion does is ensures that the earliest dollars into the tirz that are used are used for environmental improvements. It's going to help the stormwater management at Carson creek and the montopolis tributary, not flood homes in this area and in in so doing, improve the environmental quality of this area. So I think it's really important that our first priority be on the environment. And that's what this motion is doing. >> Councilmember alter moves to amend item number 15 with alter number one. It is seconded by council member harper-madison. Is there discussion hearing [8:45:30 PM] count? Mayor pro tem. >> Just again, I just want to reiterate another good amendment. The especially the emphasis on the 50% housing. That's an excellent. Sorry. >> My bad. You didn't want to get ahead of yourself on the other one, but you did on this one. All right. Any any discussion on this amendment hearing none. Without objection. Alter amendment number one to item number 15 related to patent and drainage is adopted. That will take us to alter proposed amendment number two to item number 15 labeled direction affordable housing percentages. Hang on, mayor pro tem. >> I was gonna say he might just lay this out for me. So what this is doing is when we finalize the project and financing plan, I think it's really important for us to focus on 50% and below units instead of those 60% units. The market is just not building enough of this deeply affordable housing. And so what we're going to do is focus on that level of affordability [8:46:32 PM] instead of that higher 60% level, and I move adoption. >> Councilmember alter moves adoption of alter number two, motion to amend number two to item number 15. And second by councilmember Velasquez. Is there discussion? Mayor pro tem, I'll recognize you. >> Thank you. Sorry to get ahead of of the amendments there. Just really agree. Right now I believe it's a 10% 60%, 60% is a good number. But honestly, we're producing a decent amount of housing at 60%. Mfi right now it's at 50% and under number. That is the tricky and especially if we're building transit supportive housing, that really helps the economics where someone can live there without a vehicle, get downtown, get to jobs, get to schools, that kind of stuff like that. So again, I really appreciate the the effort by council member alter. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem any further discussion? Hearing none. Without objection. Alter [8:47:35 PM] amendment number two to item number 15 labeled direction affordable housing percentages is adopted. That will take us to council member alter's proposed amendment number three to item number 15. It is labeled amend check in amount if only city participates. >> Thank you very much. What this does is takes the reimbursement amount, which is the total 1.5 billion, and just bifurcates it for responsibility. And the responsibility of the county is going to participate in this or not. And so what we want to do is make sure that we're not having to wait as if they were participating. We want to just focus on how much we're bringing to the table. And once we've done that, then that triggers the check in >> Whether or not we should change the tirz contribution percentage. >> Councilmember. Councilmember alter moves approval of alter amendment number three to item number 15. Second by councilmember qadri. Is there any discussion with regard to alter proposed amendment number [8:48:35 PM] three to item number 15? Hearing none. Without objection, alter amendment number three to item 15. Labeled amend check in amount. If only city participates is adopted. I'm going to ask legal to come up because I was reading from something that said, and I said, as we were calling this, that it was labeled version two, but I'm told that it's not labeled version two. >> Mayor Trish link with the law department. The the preliminary plan is in the backup. And there is a document marked as the preliminary plan version two. It is actually a supplement. It is just mistitled. >> All right. So members, the for purposes of our record, the motion to approve item number 15 that was made and seconded and that we've now amended its labeled version two in the backup. But as you just heard, it is not a version two. It is a supplement to the original [8:49:35 PM] version. So just for clarity purposes and for the record, I want to make sure that that's clear. Is that clear with everyone? All right members, we will now go back to the main motion on item number 15. And we will be voting on item number 15 as amended, item number 15, as amended. And that would include the original version and the supplement that is mislabeled version two in the backup. Is there any discussion with regard to item number 15 as amended without objection? Item number 15, as amended is adopted. Let me know if there are people that council member Siegel wishes to be shown voting no. Anyone else? Council member Velazquez wishes to be shown voting no. Members on a vote of eight in favor, two opposed and one absent item 15 passes. We will now go to item number 14. Which is [8:50:39 PM] related to the participation agreement, and I will turn to the city clerk to call on speakers for item number 14. >> Adrian Macias, Josh Goldenberg, Susana Almanza, Jonathan Davidson, Ben Thompson, max Hausmann, Richard suttle, Adam James, Angela van Aken. Phil bunch. Stephanie. Hoffman. Bill. Oliver. Betsy. Greenberg. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Otherwise, we'll assume that you don't wish to be heard. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council. >> Okay. >> Richard suttle on this item. We've got some work to do with [8:51:39 PM] the county along the lines of the communication and would welcome any help that you all can provide to to help us out. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Bunch. >> Is Rita Thompson here? Okay then. Just two minutes. >> You'll have four minutes if you want, Mr. Bunch. >> I don't need that. So, as you all are aware, the Travis county commissioners court didn't didn't bite on this ridiculous, shameful deal. And I can't imagine that they're going to. All of your discussion tonight is completely avoided. The actual question of whether this is legal or moral. To give away all this money to one of the [8:52:39 PM] wealthiest developers in the country and some of the richest corporations in the country. You know, mayor Watson, you're saying that none of this money is going to Amazon is ridiculous. You know, it's a false it's prevarication. It's building all the stuff they need for them on our dime that normally they would have to pay for themselves. You know that. Why are you misleading the whole city? >> You're misleading. >> On something this basic. Every other developer, big or small, builds their own roads, their own streets, their own driveways, their own parking garages, their own parks. Their own landscaping, all of that themselves. And then when once [8:53:39 PM] it's completed to our standards, they give it over to us and we take care of it, and we only pay for what is actually public. Instead of calling private facilities, public facilities, public infrastructure. Those parking garages at the statesman pod endeavor statesman pod. That's public infrastructure, private parking garages costing tens of millions of dollars. This is exact same thing. Read the development agreement. Read the statute. They can even take the tax kickbacks and turn around and use it to pay their monthly bills to Austin energy or Austin water paying for city services. No, no other businesses get to do that. We don't get to do that at our houses. This is this is [8:54:41 PM] straight up gifts to giant mega corporations who don't need our money. Except they're greedy and they don't want any regulation, and they don't want to pay any taxes. And you guys need to say no, or you're going to get out of here. The people aren't going to put up with it and they're catching on. If you haven't figured that out, they're catching on. You can pretend like you're Progressive Democrats. You can pretend like you care about fair and equal taxation. You care about workers who are going to be losing jobs from these projects because of robotization. Ai. All of this is aimed at getting rid of jobs. I mean, look at Amazon. Give me a break. You think you can sell this to the [8:55:41 PM] voters? I don't think you can. But we're going to find out here pretty quick, aren't we? >> Thank you, Mr. Bunch. >> Craig nazer is is right here. Kundala. Okay, just two minutes, Mr. Nazer. >> I'll give him my time. >> Kristen. Garrett tongue. Steven brown, Marc Duvall. >> My name is Craig nazer, Sierra club and us environmental Democrats. And what I find really amazing is there's really two different conversations going on here. The conversation, and not entirely, but there's a conversation going on there that's very concerned about the [8:56:42 PM] finances, and there's a conversation going on here where people have different concerns. And one of the major concerns is, of course, why I'm here is the environment, because I think the environment drains our resources when we treat it poorly. And I think we're doing that. And I think from the federal to the state to the local level, we're not doing enough. And it's continuing to drain our resources. You are in here in this nice air conditioning. Do you know how hot it was outside today? So when I come to these places, I come for some information and for some discussion. And usually there's some discussion. But once again, I had to call. I know a lot of people work in the city, call them up, get them to talk for Austin, environmental Democrats, everything. They don't want to talk about some of this stuff [8:57:43 PM] because it's so controversial. So where do we get our information? I mean, we pay for their salary, don't we? Don't some of us. So here's a point, environmental point. And the state, there are water, groundwater, conservation districts. And what they do is set up, you know, the state out in the middle of nowhere, rancher wants to pull down and pull much water. He wants out of the ground and nobody hassle him. But you can't do that when a lot of people are going in one, you know, aquifer. And so you set up these groundwater conservation districts where it matters. There is no groundwater conservation district. Out at the dog's head. There are two aquifers out there. There's a the carrizo Willcox, which is very deep, which San Antonio is now tapping. There's also the Colorado river aquifer. People have mentioned it. It's like the base flow, what watershed we'll call base flow under a [8:58:44 PM] river. And that's where where bastrop gets its water from. Well, if there's no groundwater conservation district out there, what's to prevent some company from coming in there and pumping as much water as they want, essentially out of the Colorado river? Is this possible? I don't know, I've been making call after call after call, trying to find someone who could tell me this. This is something you should want to know. Wright don't you think I know there are water rights out there? I've talked to some people who know there are water rights out there. What are those? Water rights? We haven't even gotten to talk about that. Don't know when you're dividing up the money and everything and someone moves in and I don't know. So I mean, that's my frustration. I'm sitting here. And the other thing I want to say is the young people. I am not going to [8:59:48 PM] see the worst of climate change. And that may be a very good thing. They will got sons, daughters, grandchildren. This dog's head, riverine ecosystems, healthy ones with trees and soil and everything they're finding. They suck more and more carbon out of the air. Our TRE canopy. We've talked very little about trees, our our TRE canopy. We need more. We need to talk. >> About Natasha. >> Lisa Levins. Marian Sanchez, Virginia palmer, Lee Edwards, Lee, are you here? >> I pass, thanks. >> Thank you. >> Valerie Menard. Lynn. Yuan. Rachel. Scott. Marc. Wheeler or [9:00:51 PM] whaler. Robert hale, Pedro Hernandez Jr. Rich. Hayman, Cameron. Morgan. Harper. Higginbotham, Matt. Patton. Heretic. Bianca. Guerrero, Carl. Spencer, Dwight. Lawson. Angelou. Angelou, doctor. Terry. Flood, Ron. Zell. Fort. Harris. Andrew. Carson. Gilchrist. U Z. Mccoy. Kia. Denson. Katy Gaye. >> Please begin. >> Thank you. Harris Andrews. Once again, 14 is about the [9:01:54 PM] tirz with Travis county. You guys don't know if they're going to approve it. We don't know if they're going to prove it. It's all sort of up in the air. What I really respected about what Travis county did and what other people have said today, is that they recognize that they had to pause, think about it, and they wanted to wait for you guys to pause also and make some amendments, which I know that you guys have passed many amendments today, and I think pretty much all of them have been beneficial towards what this is. I think they recognized over there, Travis county, that there are important things that need to be in writing that we unfortunately didn't see get set in stone today. Particular concerns that I would like to read from the record of the commissioners court judge brown wanted in writing guarantees for affordable housing. We see affordable housing check ins with Mr. Alter's amendment, but we don't see the guarantee to actually build it. Guarantees for community input, environmental protections, robust economic growth, and great transportation access. That's what judge brown wants to see. Commissioner morales [9:02:54 PM] warned against gentrification, which I understand what we're trying to do with this displacement and needs assessment. I understand that we are trying to address those things. Commissioner Shea has been this environmental supporter so far, requesting guarantees for strong flood control, flood protections and strong worker protections. I'm hopeful that since the tirz passed today, that endeavor sticks to their word. In their letter that they emailed you of saying their union, osha, osha, and labor protections that they said that they would give you if you pass the tirz today, that I hope that they stick to that. And we get that in writing sooner rather than later. All in all, I really respected what Travis county did. I'm confused as to why we didn't pause. Take time for these amendments to be put out into the public before you guys voted on them. I think that's really important, important part of this process. I hope that they don't bite into this, but they probably will, because you guys have made some changes that they wanted to see. I hope you make more. Thank you. [9:03:58 PM] >> Craig Jankowski, Alexis Willis, Barbara Macarthur, Stephan Faris, Marc fareth, Jeff Mccrory, cilla Smith. Lou pasetto, Carlos pinon, David sides, Chris Gannon, Shane. Johnson, Nia. Shaw, Alexandria Anderson, Richard. Jarnigan, Daniel. Lowe, Stacy. Smith, Dan. Foster, Gary. Merritt, Cameron Shaw, Jeremy. Martin, Bobby. Lavinsky. Alvin. Dedieu, Gary. [9:05:01 PM] Farmer. Stacy. Rohan. Carrick. Roan. Andrew. Travillion. Haston. Lewis. Briggs. Mitchell. David. Jabbour. Scott. Nye. Jeffrey. Bowen. Melissa. Hernandez. Roy. Whaley, Katherine. Brown, Monica. Guzman. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members, on this item, I actually had a conversation with one of the county commissioners, and there was a lot of concern over the that they were looking for decisions and with some of the things that were being made [9:06:01 PM] tonight, I hope this can get worked out, but I'm still concerned over the amount of transparency that may be available through this. We already know, as I've already noted about the as council member, alter said, there was lack of information on both sides. It was brought out, so to speak. So hopefully we will also know what's going to be done with Travis county because that affects us as city members. Also, since we also live in the county and take care of pay those taxes again, Mr. Bunch was very right. When it comes down to what typically developers do, we go in and build infrastructure, we do the whole thing and then we turn it over. Unless it's on private property and go from there, or the property gets turned over to some entity and we we fork out that money. I've built many a of many a piece of [9:07:02 PM] infrastructure that that was, that was serving those type of things. And then it gets turned over. So I, I still have my concerns and there's not a, I understand these people's questions or the reason for their questions, but please make sure that we are all aware of what deals you're making or what type of agreements you're making with the county, because that that's a double hit for, for some of us. Thank you. >> Miss brown. >> So actually, my comments were going to be very similar to the one that the previous speaker. I think it's been very clear that we have needed improved communication, transparency. My feeling on this is that if there we don't know whether or not you will have the county on board or not on board, but whatever comes out of it, it would be extraordinarily useful to understand what that means in terms of the timeline of events, [9:08:04 PM] what this means, and how the it's going to be impacting the community. And this builds a much better bridge of communication between everyone. When we do know what's going on at the moment, we don't. And I think the opportunity. There's a word negotiation here. This gives an opportunity to think about how we come to potentially other address other issues that the county brought up in terms of areas of their concern. You've tried to do what you can today, tonight, this long evening, on including amendments to try and mitigate against some of the concerns of the community. You get to the point of negotiation with the with the county. This is yet another opportunity to consider how you might want to further mitigate their concerns and then communicate it back to everybody in a way that maybe will allow at least, if not some community engagement, some [9:09:04 PM] more discussion about the process as it progresses. Thank you. >> Thank you, miss Guzman. >> Good evening. I'm Monica Guzman, Garza policy director, speaking in opposition to item 14 on Tuesday, July 14th, Travis county judge brown, an esteemed commissioners heard many urging they delay their vote on the tirz. In the end, they decided not to vote because they questioned what they heard during the city tirz briefing. They had questions and wanted more information. They decided to watch the city of Austin to watch you. Mayor Watson, mayor pro tem vela and council. Instead of a blanket approval move to postpone the tirz until at least 2027, allowing time for the environmental commission's recommendations. Language accessible community engagement, especially those who will be negatively, negatively impacted. Prioritize deeply affordable housing. The strategic housing blueprint ten year goal is to [9:10:05 PM] produce 25,000 units for people earning 31 to 60% median family income mfi and 20,000 for those earning 30% below, according to the scorecard. From 2018 to 2023, only 9668 units have been produced for the 30 to 6, 31 to 60% mfi and 426 units for 30% below. That's only 2.13% of its goal for residents at this level, Garza is in solidarity with the southeast Colorado river neighborhood association. Save our springs Boulder community powered atx lone star Sierra club environmentalist, labor activists and organizers, subject matter experts and other community organizations and individuals in our collective opposition to the proposed tirz do what's right for Austin residents, environment and neighboring municipalities impacted by your votes. Postpone the tirz vote. Thank you. >> Thank you. [9:11:08 PM] >> I have a remote speaker on the line, Richard Bremer. >> Yes, my name is Rick Bremer. I'm with district six. And I believe that despite the assurances of the director of finance a couple of days ago, the tirz is currently proposed is seriously flawed. As I've pointed out in discussions with several members of the council, it does not represent the best deal the city could have negotiated with endeavor, nor does it is it in the best financial interests of the citizens of Austin. It lacks definition of critical terms, is poorly organized, lacks backup support for numeric data. Allows for increase in tirz funding without public input. Does not take into account state plans for property tax restrictions, and does not provide for financial cap for tirz funding, and allows the lgc to increase the amount of [9:12:08 PM] bonds issued without a specified limit. Also, the environmental and affordable housing concerns raised by council and its message board and the environmental commission are not adequately or specifically addressed. One final point I would like to thank the members of the 1990 council mayor. Mayor pro tem shipman council members barnstone Nofziger, Carl Mitchell and Humphrey and Ernie for their courage to stand up against Jim Bob Moffett on the evening of June 7th, 1990 and listen to the voices over a thousand citizens and vote unanimously against the construction of the park and creek poured over the Edwards aquifer. The pub was positioned to save the Austin's finances from collapse. At that time, the council was told by developers that if the pub was turned down, the city's growth would stop. I think Austin has done pretty well with the [9:13:10 PM] Barton without the Barton creek, but thanks and have a great evening. >> Beatrice Anderson. >> I didn't hear my name called, but correct. >> You had donated some to someone else and they declined. >> Arellano. >> Okay. Is that okay, mayor? >> Sure. >> Okay. Four minutes. Beatrice, holly Hoffman, Greg Anderson, Kim Vazquez, Zenobia. Joseph. Brad. Massingill. >> Hello again. Council. Beatrice. Anderson. Save our springs alliance. I want to continue my last comment about having this be a conversation and it being a privilege for me to be here and speak on behalf [9:14:10 PM] of the community members who I've spent the last six weeks getting to know, and I'm doing my best to represent the things that they have told me they want here. Everyone is excited for an opportunity to uplift this area. No one. I'm not sure where we are getting lost in this. No one is saying, leave it as is. You know what? Let's not invest in this area at all. No one is saying that we want to be a part of this conversation. We want a say in what this development is going to look like. This is going to be double the size of downtown. Is is it radical? Are we being unreasonable to say we want to participate in the design of that? We want to make sure it's serving the the people who live there. I'm, you know, I'm I'm here at work, but I also live in district three. I'm five minutes away from this. I'm on the river five times a week at least. Is that radical to say? I want to make sure it's [9:15:10 PM] protected. I want where I spend the most time in my personal time to look a certain way, and then talking about privilege. There's also a major power gap here in terms of information. You know, how is this a public hearing when these amendments weren't posted until moments before the first item I spoke on, I, I had I had reloaded the page. I hadn't seen them yet. How how is that a fair public hearing to me? How is that a conversation? And then when they are posted, I've had time to go through them. I don't know if you can tell from the bags under my eyes. I've been reading and I really appreciate that you guys are asking questions now and you're proposing these amendments, but some of them don't even make sense. And how is that when when you are the ones negotiating this and you have had access to this information, council member alter you were talking about, you want to, you know, change the financing plan to ensure that the tirz was going to, you know, set aside a portion to reimburse parks and [9:16:12 PM] things like that under the financing plan. That's something that they currently have to pay for. That was one of the few costs that's excluded from the tax payer reimbursement. Why do I know that? The. >> Parks and affordable housing outside the zone, not inside the zone. So that's the difference. >> Okay. But then that is but then this is still an unfair conversation because when we talk about the people who are impacted, we're told, well, they're outside the zone. So. So which is it? What are we talking about? Are we talking about only within the bounds of the tirz or are we not? I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly unfair response. Again, how and when there is this level of of confusion between y'all and the public and between endeavor, how is this a public hearing? Can we not take a pause and get on the same page? This is [9:17:14 PM] double the size of downtown. This is ten times the size of the domain. Guys, this is going to be huge. We want it to be great. Can can we together? It's not just we the people versus you. You're also the people. Can we together make this something great? Are you willing by taking a no vote on this, by taking a pause, you're showing that starting the conversation that that is meeting us to have a conversation so we don't have to come here and fight. I'm tired. Vote no. Have a civil conversation with us. Meet us at the table. Allow us into the room where the tables, even at that is not a radical ask. Thank you. >> David Ross. Andy pastor, miss ale Ramos, Jennifer Barnes. [9:18:16 PM] Mayor. That's all speakers for item 14. >> Thank you members. As you heard, that's all the speakers on item number 14. So let's go to item number 14 for discussion. First I'll entertain a motion with regard to item number 14. Motion is made by councilmember Laine to adopt. Item number 14 is second by councilmember harper-madison. Members. I don't have any or don't believe I have any proposed amendments to item number 14. So with that being the case, I'll call for discussion on item number 14. Is there any discussion with regard to item number 14? In that case, item number 14 is adopted without objection with councilmember Siegel and councilmember Velasquez being shown voting no. Is there anyone else wishing to be shown voting no on item number 14? All right. On a vote of 8 to 2, item number 14 is adopted. That [9:19:16 PM] will take us to item number 75. And I'll turn to the city clerk. >> For item 75, Rita Thompson, Stacy Schmidt, Beatrice Anderson. Beatrice, are you still here? Is Carson Gilchrest here? Monica Guzman okay, four minutes. And Josh Goldenberg. >> I think it's I think it's okay. >> And I just want to point out for the record that this this is not the way the rules operate. I'm allowing this to happen. But it's not the way the rules operate. And what will happen is there will come a time when you're not going to want me to do it this way, and you're going to point out that I shouldn't do it this way, but I'm going to go ahead and do it even though. But that's this is not we're not following the rules, but I'm doing it as a courtesy because I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to say their piece. >> That that is very much appreciated. Thank you. [9:20:19 PM] >> She'll have six minutes. >> Okay. And I've never done the powerpoints here. This is the clicker. I just clicked the green thing. Okay. You will have to give me a minute to get myself together. >> Mr. Mayor, if I may, while Beatrice is getting it together, a member of my staff just said something that I wanted to point out because I feel the same way, he said. I really want to say that I admire these young folks showing up and fighting their off, because when I was their age, I didn't care. I, I feel exactly like he does. And so I just wanted to make sure to point that out. Thank you. >> All right, let's give this a go. So item 75 and 76. I'll speak on both, but kind of talk to them all at once. 75 they are wanting to vacate. They're [9:21:21 PM] asking the city to vacate the right of way on a portion of hergatz Laine. And then 76. They're, they want all of. Edwin Laine. This is in an area where they are also claiming that no infrastructure exists. That's part of their justification for the tirz. But they're also asking you for a right of way vacation so they can remove the existing infrastructure. It's not just a road we're talking about. There are also utilities that have to be moved around there. There's like pipes going to a man's house on the corner of the hergatz Laine one, but it's again, we're talking about there is a real confusion with the information going around. There's no infrastructure, but they're removing roads. There are no utilities. But the backup for 75, it talks about working with that neighbor to move his his pipes around. So is are there utilities there? Is there infrastructure or is there not? And there have been no traffic studies done for either of these right of way vacations that was admitted. That was something the planning [9:22:22 PM] commission really grilled them on, and they had no answers for whatsoever. And yet the planning commission moved forward because they said it was going to get kicked to council. And so they were looking to you to to kind of look into this more, whether you were going to require something like a traffic study and let's, you know, this is what is being considered. There's the whole dog's head. And like that area in red, that's the portion of her guts Laine which is wants to be vacated. And this is for the Amazon site. They need these roads to be gone so they can put the Amazon track right on top of it. This creates a dead end condition and a turnaround for the Dalton neighborhoods and the hergatz neighborhoods. It doubles the distance to move from one neighborhood to the other instead of being able to cross hergatz Laine all the way over there. If, say, for example, you wanted to go to the hope outdoor gallery there, you now have to turn around, go all the way down to the highway and around on 183, turn around [9:23:23 PM] on 71 and come back up to Dalton. There is no time requirement for for the developer to put in an alternate access route. That's also something that we asked about at the planning commission. And the, the only the only thing they said is that, well, eventually other roads will be put in, but there's no traffic study. And so how are neighbors going to be impacted in the meantime? Is, is this is this fair? Is this fair to do without any study justifying it? I'm not saying this is the wrong thing to do, but why? Why do we not have more justification? Why can we not have more evidence that this is the best possible? Or it's so necessary that we have to go forward with it? The right of the right of way vacation? Yeah, is going to be built for the Amazon site. How [9:24:24 PM] it usually works is the developer will pay for that right of way vacation, how the development agreement structures it is that instead, they're going to give the city back a right of way of equivalent value at some point when other roads are built. What happens if the development agreement falls apart? What happens if they leave before that right of way of equivalent value is given back to the city? And also if they leave, and if this doesn't go forward, like who restores public access? They have said that the minute this is approved, they will close the road. Where does that leave the public? Who lives there and the residents? She drives this road every single day. There are so many. There's so many questions that we want answered here. And I really hope, again, we brought these up at the planning commission. And the reason given by so many [9:25:24 PM] of the commissioners for why they voted yes, despite all of their doubts and all their questions, was because it was coming to you because they they were pushing it on to you to ask these questions and to put this in the development agreement account for these contingencies, ask, well, what happens if X and plan for that? As a lawyer, it's my job to think of the worst case scenario and plan for that. Make sure we have the right indemnifications and things like that. That's what we're asking for. You make sure this is a really tight agreement. If if there is no way to stop this and this is where we're going forward, then can we at least strengthen it and like, answer these questions? I think that's all for me. Thank you. >> Josh Goldenberg, Susana Almanza. Jonathan Davidson, Ben [9:26:28 PM] Thompson, Richard suttle, bill bunch, Betsy Greenberg, Craig nazer. Kristen viotto, Garrett tung, and Steven brown. >> Craig Nasr, Austin, Sierra club, lone star, our us environmental Democrats. Okay, so another environmental question about the roads. Okay, no land is absolutely flat, but a lot of times developers like to make it that way. Let's just make it flat, you know, and they go out there, particularly when they're filling in big holes and everything and make it flat, but it's not flat where places really are flat. You go out there, look there, it's not really flat. So, you [9:27:28 PM] know, in the middle of Nebraska and flat field, you find a little area that's muddy and mucky, and there's marsilea fern, clover leaf fern, really interesting species growing up there where the bison's wallowed. And in my neighborhood. And when in my house, they made it flat. And with increased rains of climate change, there was water running down the side of my house, more and more across the street, down the neighbor's house. I said, here, put some big Boulders, make a little things so it can flow in it so it doesn't wash your yard away. Well, she did that. Then I got the 1950 aerial photograph of the Gracie farms before there were any houses and there was a creek there. They just filled it in and made it flat. These road maps, you can see when they do them like this, you know, like that. What is what is the water runoff really going to be up there? We don't know. And you could put all these flat roads and the [9:28:28 PM] pervious cover calls, the road, the water even run off more. We don't know. I mean, this is just this road map. Will this work in the long run? Will this create flooding down the. We don't know because nothing has been with nothing's been done there or looked out after that. This is an environmental issue and it matters where you put your roads. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Mayor. Richard suttle here on behalf of endeavor, these road vacation, I'm gonna speak to both road vacations in this one matter. So you only have to listen to me once. Both these road vacations have had public hearings at the urban transportation commission, which passed it. Then we went on to the planning commission, had a hearing and passed it. Basically, what we're doing one one road is, is, is a segment of road that connects to and we're vacating it completely. And then the section of hergot. So we're talking about, we're actually relocating, it'll [9:29:31 PM] improve connectivity, it'll improve the grid pattern out there. It's the beginning of adding public infrastructure. These are small county roads that we are actually redoing. And to assuage some of the concerns of the previous speaker, these will go through the full city of Austin permitting process, full environmental process for the review and approval of the plans. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Suttle. Do we have any questions from the dais? Council member duchen. >> Thank you, mayor pro tem. My understanding is this is going to limit the options for certain residents or certain residents to a rather than having two options, which they currently have now to a single option for ingress and egress. Is that incorrect? Is my. Do I misunderstand what the plan is? [9:30:32 PM] >> There will be a period of time on hergatz when. While we're building the new hergatz, there will be a period of time where they'll have to use the primary way they get out and not come across hergatz until we get the reroute of hergatz done and then their access will be re put back. >> So is that a during that window? Is that a safety issue? >> No. >> How how is that possible? >> Because you have two ways out instead of three. >> Okay. So the second way that I'm not aware of. >> Yes. >> Versus the two ways I thought there were reduced down to one. >> Yes. Well, there's, there's three now it could go down to two for a while until we get it rerouted. >> Okay. Thank you. [9:31:37 PM] >> Thank you. Council member duchin. Any other comments then on item 75 I would entertain. >> We I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We do have more speakers. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Lisa Levins, are you here? >> Lisa yes, I passed. >> Okay. Audrey Stanton donated time, so I just want to make sure. Does Audrey, is Audrey here? Does she want to speak? No. Okay. Lee Edwards, robin Schneider, Rachel. Scott. Robert heal. Harper. Higginbotham. Harris. Andrews. Kiya. Denson. Craig. Jankowski. Alexis. Willis. >> Robin. Schneider. District three. It seems to me, council member duchen, that you didn't ask a critical follow up [9:32:38 PM] question, which is how long is it going to take to get that road back in shape? Because the resident who I've been sitting with says it's impossible to get out of her street already. So I was wondering if someone can please ask the endeavor people when that is anticipated and if you can get it in writing. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, ma'am. >> Harris Andrews. Once again, there was a maybe many of you did not see this, but there was a meme in 2020 of Bernie Sanders sitting in the cold with his mittens on. And then he posted that he was running again for congress and he said, or for the president again. And he said, I'm once again asking for your support. And that's how I feel sitting here. I am once again asking for a pause to just think and get the critical answers answered in front of the public, not at a time when people have to be home or they're asleep, or they're doing all these other things after a 14 hour day, I'm [9:33:39 PM] once again asking just for a pause on this so that we can get the residents to actually be here for this, to see when their access may be impeded, to see when or if it really is two lanes or three lanes or four lanes or 12. There are critical questions here that need to be answered that I, I would really prefer that we get answered in another time when more people are actually able to be here again after, you know, maybe not, hopefully a 15 hour day. I'm really worried about these residents, this amount of trust that we are putting in to the things that are said right here, as opposed to the things that are actually in writing, the things that are not in writing. Most importantly, I really wish once again that we would just take a second vote no on this, get it before the public one more time, and make sure that you're vacating the right thing. You're doing the right amount of roads. You're getting a [9:34:41 PM] clear publishing notice for when people are going to have access impacted by this. I really think that once again, we should just pause for one second before steamrolling through another vote to just say yes and just keep saying yes. I'm I'm really shocked that there isn't more vocal questions from the council, and I wish you would ask more questions before voting. Thank you. >> I believe I have four minutes. >> I donated time. >> And. >> I. I don't see that. Tell me your name again. >> We are Sandra clinic. >> Yeah, we did it at the desk over. >> There. Might be on 75 or 76. [9:35:42 PM] You don't see it. >> I don't see it on 75. >> 76. >> Your two minutes. And if it's on 76, you'll have four minutes. >> Okay. Hi, it's Kaya Denson again. Nobody notified us of the right of way vacancy requests for Edwin and Hergert. I know legally, they only had to inform properties within 30ft. But it's a rural area. So, you know, these kind of roads affect more than just the properties within 300ft. Other businesses and residents on Dalton Laine use her goats to enter and exit dogs. Head via Thompson, and we should have been notified. If they absorb Hergert and Edwin, we will be cut off from our one and only cross peninsula road and Dalton, a narrow two Laine shoulderless road will be a dead end street. This would have serious limitations and consequences for local business, emergency services, access, safety and daily life, especially with the addition of construction traffic for the manufacturing site. It would be a mess for many years. I don't understand [9:36:42 PM] how they can take our one and only thoroughfare, especially before they give us an alternate one. Everyone's been talking about the limited infrastructure out there, but did anybody think about this? What is your plan? Our business was incredibly inconvenienced, almost to the point of closing for a season during the construction of and around the saronic warehouses and before that, when a culvert was being installed on Dalton. But we had our back roads. I cannot even imagine years and years of an even worse situation. I realized one day, this is going to have to happen if this Amazon thing gets built, like they're gonna, you know, whatever. But like, this is not an urgency. Like you don't have to do this right now. Like I get that the tirz has, but like, they're still moving dirt. I've been watching them move dirt for months. Like they don't need to do this right now. They can have little people with the stop signs and we can keep going until there's a solution. But like, we will seriously be affected. When Carson creek ranch has events, we have been blocked in for like hours and that was with two entrances. So like, what are we going to do, [9:37:43 PM] you know, and, and oh, the third way that he was talking about is a little cut through the Richland estates neighborhood that no trucks are allowed on. I talked to Jimmy Evans and Marcello's. They are both about this and didn't know. So thank you. >> Barbara Macarthur, Stephan Faris, Marc firth, Jeff Mccrary, zillah Smith, Lou pasetto, Carlos pinon, David sides, Shane. Johnson, Gary. Merritt, Cameron Shaw, Jeremy. Martin, Gary. Farmer, Briggs. Mitchell, David. Jabbour, Melissa. Hernandez, Roy. Whaley, Catherine. Brown, Zenobia. [9:38:45 PM] Joseph, Brad. Massingill, David. Ross, Andy. Pastor, missile Ramos, and Jennifer Barnes. >> Please. >> All right. So in this case, I'm going to speak as my experience of a local resident whose family has been on her guts for 30 years. We live in a different part of her guts, yet we also use these roads sometimes because where we are located by Thompson or the exit to hergott Thompson during certain parts of the day because of the traffic will be built up for you could you could spend easily half an hour waiting to get out of Thompson. And you can't actually get in the direction you need to unless you use these backroads as well. I also have concerns because the lack of a study or any sort of assessment there in terms of emergency services, emergency services, this area [9:39:47 PM] relative to a lot of parts of Austin, is somewhat remote and somewhat difficult to access, especially given the state of the roads as well as the way the communities are built. I just think it would be prudent, if nothing else, to to pause on this one, just so you understand what the real issues are, instead of letting the property developer just simply say it's fine. There are two routes. These routes are not equivalent at all. It's not like you have three equal roads here. And I really feel, especially in terms of both commuting for the people who live there and access to emergency services, and that could be anything from the police to the fire trucks to an ambulance. You really need to think about this carefully. And also, it would be great again to have an understanding of what the plan is for the alternative route. Before you close one road, we see the road closing. I didn't see the [9:40:48 PM] alternative route and again, a time scale. Inform the local community. Again, this could be another example of serious breakdown in communication and actually would have an immediate impact on the local community if we don't think about this carefully. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. All speakers for item 75 have been called. >> All speakers have been called on item number 75. I'm going to entertain a motion on item number 75 and we'll go to a discussion. Is there a motion on item motion is made by mayor pro tem to approve item number 75. Second by council member harper-madison. I don't have any proposed amendments on item number 75. I want to say I'll recognize council member duchen. Just a second. >> Thank you. I've got some questions. >> Before you do that, I want one one second. I just want to say this does seem like something that more ought to be worked out. I mean, you know. [9:41:53 PM] This isn't a question of misinformation. This isn't a question of disinformation. This is a question of not understanding. This is day to day life. And if that level of non-communication has occurred with these folks, that's just kind of humanity. >> I'm Josh Lickteig, endeavor real estate group mayor, mayor, pro tem council. I wanted to give a little more context here. >> If it's an excuse, I don't want to hear it. >> There's no excuse. We we have worked with tpw. We have gone to urban planning, transportation committee and planning commission to work through all of these roads. We're not only replacing the hergatz and we're in for permits. So as soon as the city will issue us permit, we will start construction. >> Blame us. >> Yeah, exactly. We will be building the hergatz connection and the new patent Laine, which will increase connectivity, which is not currently on the site. And all of that stuff [9:42:55 PM] will happen immediately as soon as the permits are issued. So there may be, as Mr. Suttle said, some downtime where some roads are missing. But that's pretty typical for there to be a couple of months of interim time. But my expectation is that all these roads are built within the next 6 to 9 months. >> It's the downtime that people are upset about. It's not when you when you're done, it's going to be the downtime. So if you can't, you ought to be trying to figure out how you're going to work things out so that their day to day life, which you're getting a lot of votes here. Understood already that it's going to be disruptive. At a minimum, you should be looking at ways to minimize that disruption. >> I totally agree with you. We have been in contact with the neighbors most disrupted like Mr. Sides and some of the neighbors further out, but we will gladly be in touch with the hergatz neighborhood and make sure that they are aware of the timelines. >> It's not the timelines. It's fixing ways to make it easier. [9:43:57 PM] Sure. >> And we will minimize the amount of downtime for those roads as much as humanly possible. >> Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you. I had some questions for staff or if anybody's here. >> Members, as we proceed, we have this item and two others. So what I would request, and we're going to come up on a violation of our rules here in just a second. So what I'm going to suggest, as you know, my position has been and I think the council has agreed with me each time that we don't vote on major items in the middle of the night. We're just not going to do that. I don't think that's where we're headed. But our rules do require that the meeting be ended by 10:00. We need to suspend that rule so that we can take up the other two items. I don't anticipate we'll be here past 11, but. And if we don't suspend the rules, [9:44:57 PM] then we'll have to conclude the meeting at 10:00 and come back tomorrow morning. So my recommendation would be that we vote to suspend the rules and and complete the agenda. Motion made by council member qadri. Seconded by mayor pro tem that we suspend our rule that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 so that we can complete the meeting. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. Without objection, the motion to suspend the rule that we end at 10:00 is approved. And now, councilmember duchen, you have the floor. >> Thank you. Staff, I want to follow up on a couple of items that we've heard about. One is I want to make sure I understand from y'all's perspective and your communication with either residents or endeavor, how long can residents expect to be in a place where they have fewer access points, fewer roads? >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Richard. >> Mendoza. >> Director for transportation. >> And public works. Yes, we have been in pretty intense [9:45:58 PM] conversations with the developer to examine and review the overall network for this potential development. And in terms of the timing, I'm going to ask assistant director Burrough to go into more specifics on those conversations. >> Thank you Richard. Good evening, mayor and council. With respect >> To the roadway network adjacent to the right of ways that are being vacated. There are alternate ways to get into those residents, and in addition to that, there are two site plans currently with the city to permit additional improvements and additional connections to that. One is the patent avenue that is currently under review, and the other one is Dalton Laine. That is also under review. So those are going to be two additional connections that are going to be provided in that area. >> During the window in which they've got limited egress or they're working on the main road. [9:47:00 PM] >> Council member there is going to be some inconveniences during construction, but based on our discussion with the developer, they are trying to expedite the construction as much as possible. And our belief is that the window is going to be short. I think they are trying as much as they can, and they're working very closely with us to get the approval on the site plan and get the construction going. >> And so I'm just, again, trying to understand what is the timeline look like when you say words like short, what does that mean? >> I would rather have the applicant respond to that question because as soon as we issue the permit, I think they have a better idea about the timeline. >> Okay. While they're coming up, I've got one other question for you, which is we heard a concern around emergency service access. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is the emergency service access that we need during this time of construction or any other time. >> Based on our assessment, there is going to be a [9:48:02 PM] continuous emergency access even during construction. >> And that's even even that. We've heard some of those other roads are smaller than the, the the main roads that they'll be using right now. Is that correct? >> Yes. That is going to be alternate access point to provide the emergency services even during construction. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Suttle. >> It's unfortunate we didn't have the chance to go out there and take a look at these roads. These are small roads. There will be. There's no question there will be some inconvenience. But these roads sit in the middle of the of the proposed Amazon facility. Amazon came to us saying that they weren't going to ask for any incentives, but they asked for speed in the permitting process. So we have already put in all the permits to get this [9:49:03 PM] grid pattern or this road pattern back into place. As soon as we get the permits, the construction starts. But if the roads aren't vacated tonight, then construction is impeded on the Amazon site because these roads go right through the middle of the facility. >> So if I understand you, it's not possible to do a change of order of operation where you first build out the solution before tearing up the road. >> Well, that'll be going on simultaneously with Amazon's work on their on their facility. And it's not like we're, we're taking complete access away from these folks. It's just like when you and I drive downtown and the Laine gets closed off for a road gets closed off, or sixth street gets closed off for city infrastructure. There will be a time where there will, they'll have to go a different route, but it's not they're not getting the route cut off. They're getting they're having to go an alternate route, and it'll be for a shorter period of time as we can manage. [9:50:03 PM] >> Do you have again, any, any window, any specific window or just vague window? >> From the day we get the permit to the day road cars are back on the road. I would estimate 3 to 6. >> Yeah, three. >> 3 to 4 months to get the road rerouted and back in place. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Members. There being no further discussion on item number 75, without objection, item number 75 is approved with council member Siegel and council member Velazquez being shown voting no. On a vote of 8 to 2. Item number 75 passes on all three readings. I hope you all hear how fast you need to work. Item number 76. I'll call up item number 76 and turn to the city clerk. [9:51:03 PM] >> Rita Thompson. Beatrice Anderson, is Carson Gilchrist here? No. Monica Guzman. Okay. Four minutes. Josh Goldenberg. Jonathan Davidson. Ben Thompson. >> Go ahead and begin. >> Hello. Beatrice Anderson. Save our springs alliance. Still me. Guys, what the heck? Yeah! We were. We were clapping for you. Like, that was such an amazing response to ask those questions. And then you still vote it through their poor planning on this should not like the burden of their poor planning. The fact that if they don't get this today, Amazon has to stop construction. That is not our problem. Why is that now? The burden of the residents when we're. We could [9:52:05 PM] take a week. You could, you could you could say, hey, come back to us in one week, like with an alternate access route here. And then and then we could approve it. Amazon can't afford to pause one week. And again, there's some of the things I my jaw was dropping with some of these answers. They didn't have time to go out there and look at the roads. >> He was making reference to some council members not having time to go out there. It was not. He's been out there. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> And Deborah's been out there. >> So I go back to my initial point of the last one. How are any of these questions even being answered? What are they pulling from to where are the where are they pulling these time frames out of? Where are they pulling the people aren't going to be impacted. There have been no studies. And then they're talking about talking to residents. Endeavor bought up all the property here. So [9:53:06 PM] yeah, who do they have to notify when they own the property? They're the only people who need to be notified in that 300 foot buffer. And no, Mr. Suttle, this is not like sixth street because you don't own sixth street. If this were happening downtown, how many property owners would have had to been notified? What would the process have looked like? But because it's, it's, you know, it's a relatively small neighborhood where they're not being given the same process. Like this is this is wild to me. And for, for the alternative to be, oh, well, don't worry, we're going to have major construction happening on all the surrounding roads to improve connectivity. How when you take away that access route, you, you make that turnaround condition and then have ongoing major construction on the two through roads that they are saying are the alternate access points here that makes that [9:54:07 PM] makes no sense. I just really I really wish there were more pushback here for just a ask them to provide one alternative to you. Up front. Amazon can wait. Like who, who should be, who should be bearing the burden of this. We're not willing to make Amazon, but you're willing to make your constituents bear the burden like I was. I was so shocked that that just passed. I had I had so much hope there on the front. Gosh. Okay. And then Edwin, this is again, with the lack of infrastructure or infrastructure not existing out there. But then now they're removing that. Edwin is, is I've driven every single street of the dog said, by the way, Edwin is such an important one because that's where you can really see the construction that they are doing. That takes you to almost the farthest part into the dog's head that you can go, and you can look at their construction site, the other side of Edwin, which [9:55:07 PM] we're all going to lose access to. So you will not have the option to go out there and see this for yourself. But I have. When you turn to the other side of Edwin, it is like rolling, not rolling fields, but it is like wildflower meadow over there with a beautiful view of downtown, which again, just really you could have had the opportunity to see that it's not a bombed out mine pit entirely. There are like reclamation needs to happen, but it's a portion of the site. >> Thank you ma'am. >> This removes that opportunity. >> Richard suttle and is Amanda still here? Okay, four minutes if you'd like bill bunch. Betsy Greenberg, Craig nazer. Is ishrat Kunda Wala here. Okay, just two minutes. And Kristen viotto. >> Craig Nasr. It's interesting to get to talk to you guys so [9:56:09 PM] much. So I'm just trying to get my head around this. The fourth richest guy in the world, one of the richest companies in the world. They say we need this. What do you do now? Why federal government cut millions of dollars? Okay, we have a crazy president that perfectly acceptable the state. I argued against the the park set aside from commercial development for Sierra club a couple years ago. I argued forcefully against that. And and all these people are conspiring against you, and they put you in this place where you're having a problem with money. And I get it, I get it, but I don't know. Where's your line? Mike Siegel thank you. Where's your line? Where's your line? Jose Velasquez thank you. Zo. Thank you. Okay. Now, [9:57:10 PM] as a music history professor, there was a woman named Katharine Lee bates who who she was one of the first women college professors in literature. And she took a trip to pike's peak in 1893. And she went up to the top of pike's peak, and she wrote a beautiful poem. But then a bunch of, I think some guys got together and wanted to make money off that poem. They had to rewrite it three times, and finally they made it into America the beautiful. The original version. Here's a verse. O beautiful for glory. Tale of liberating strife. Where once and twice for man's avail. Men lavished human life. America, America. God shed his grace on thee so selfish gain no longer stain the banner of the free. [9:58:12 PM] >> Garrett tongue. Stephen brown, Liz Levins is Audrey Stanton here? No. Okay, just two minutes. Lee. Edward. Robin. Schneider. Rachel. Scott. Robert hale. >> Please begin. >> Good evening. Council. I've been here since 930 this morning. I'm a physical therapist. I'm a pelvic floor physical therapist. This is not in my wheelhouse. And now I'm speaking off the cuff. It's really not in my wheelhouse. I've prepared everything that I've said to you all. I'm just so flabbergasted. I can't. I can't just sit by and watch you all do this a second time. You have a chance to help us out. You haven't helped us all night. Not once. But you can now. Please, please don't cut off our third access point. You see where our the way our neighborhood is laid out, those two exits that we have, they basically exit and like they jump onto 183. This is our only way of crossing the peninsula. [9:59:13 PM] That is the dog's head. Please don't don't give it to them. Please let us keep that way until they can provide us with some other way of, of getting across this place that we live like. It's just kind of crazy to, to have been here for hours and just watch the same crap happen over and over. Please stand up for us. Please stand up for us, mayor. Thank you. >> Robin Schneider. I was told by by the neighbor that I've been staying, you know, hanging out with today. Lee, that there's what they haven't told you yet. Is that their patent Laine that they keep talking about? There's a person that owns property on that Laine doesn't want to sell. So they [10:00:17 PM] sound like, oh, we'll be done 3 or 4 months. There could be complicating factors that they're not telling you, and you're not asking, and you're not giving people the time to get this sorted out appropriately. Thank you. >> Harper Higginbotham, Harris Andrews, Kaya Denson, Craig Jankowski, Barbara Macarthur, Stephan Farris, Marc firth. >> Eric Andrews. Once again, I hope y'all don't bet. But if you do, you can bet on what I'm gonna say right about now and make a lot of money. Okay, I agree with mayor Watson earlier you said, I mean, this affects real people's lives. It's not about speculation of a tirz or this, that and the third that's gone now. We've already steamrolled past that. This is real people. Again, what I [10:01:18 PM] really am struggling to see here is there has been a constant theme all day of good questions coming from most of you to the developer. And then the developer says one thing assuage your fears and all of a sudden you don't need evidence, you don't need backup, you don't need data, you don't need to see that stuff before you vote. And that's how this entire tirz has operated on the trust of they're going to do it correctly. When all day today. Y'all have said from the moment this development agreement has come before you, before y'all even agreed to it, the moment that started until literally today, they have not been doing the correct things the whole time. And now it's the same thing over and over and over and over again all day. Oh, we have big major concerns that really affect people. Don't worry about it. Okay? Vote yes. We have major concerns that are cutting people off from access. [10:02:20 PM] Don't worry about it. Pinky swear vote. Yes. It's it's been all day today. Many of you have had very valid questions that need answers. And you sit here and you say, and you say out loud and tell us that you care and you really want to get this right, and you want to get started on moving forward on a better foot. And you want to, you know, move past all the, the issues that have plagued this whole thing from the beginning. And you sit here and you do the same thing. You all said you wanted to do better. It doesn't start by trusting everything that they say with no data to back it up in front of you. That's all we're asking for you to get, and you're just going to vote it through again. Please don't. Thank you. >> Kaya Jensen. This is my first time doing any of this and I am just like, I can't I feel like I'm in a movie. Like this is totally insane. I born and raised austinite my whole [10:03:21 PM] life and I had like, I can't believe this is how it works. Like I'm, I don't want to make enemies with these guys. Like, I'm gonna have to be living next to all of this for a long time. Like, I don't, I don't want to not like them. I don't want them to not like me. Like I just want our business to like, be able to function, you know, like, I don't want to feel stuck in my road because Carson creek is having a party like a big event and like, I can't get out. And you know what? If there's flooding, what if there's severe weather? What if a TRE falls down somewhere and like, we can't get out? This is what I mean by emergency services. Like you can't predict like the road. There is no shoulder on that road. Like respectfully, these guys who are talking about it do not know what they're talking about. They don't know what it's like to live out there. They don't know what the roads and the experience and the daily life is like. And they say, oh, there's an alternate route. It is one way in and one way out, and it hits out on the old bastrop highway. Or if you get to go around to [10:04:22 PM] Thompson, then you get like dumped out over by montopolis. Like that's it. And it's just like, I'm insulted. I'm so insulted by you guys. Like this was the easiest thing to say no to. It would not have hurt you at all. Amazon can wait. They can build a little side road. That's not going to scare them away. You know, like I just like, oh, and the public hearings, who was there? Them sides. Whittlesey maybe that's it. Carson creek guys like nobody told us. So they're saying they did a lot of things and they're telling you a lot of stuff, but it doesn't make sense. And it's not real. It's a 3 to 4 months. Is it nine months? What's the alternate route? There is no alternate route. Like where are they going to put it? And when they're constructing on Dalton Laine at the same time. >> Jeff Mccrary, Silla Smith, Lou pasetto, Carlos pinon, David sides, Shane Johnson, [10:05:25 PM] Gary Merritt, Cameron Shaw, Jeremy martin. Bobby lavinsky, Gary farmer, Briggs Mitchell, David Jabbour, Melissa Hernandez, Roy. Whaley, Catherine. Brown, Zenobia Joseph, Brad. Massingill, David. Ross, Andy pastor, Mariana. Krueger, Michelle Ramos, and Jennifer Barnes, miss. >> Brown, >> Miss. Doctor. Brown, I know I've said that several times. Again, I'm going to speak as someone who has lived out in that area, and I have to echo everything that Kyle just said. This is a it feels like you're talking about Austin, but not realizing how rural this area is, how difficult it can be to [10:06:28 PM] travel around there during the day. During the night. The other day I was stuck. I had to go actually around this other route because of an accident on Thompson. Yeah. It doesn't take much to actually cause those roads to get shut down for however, amount of time that is unpredictable without having many alternative routes. In terms of the emergency services, they say, okay, there is a route. I would like to just simply see the map. I would like to be informed about what our choices are because, you know, if it's your friend, your grandmother, your child who needs help, you want to know what the system is in place, what it's going to take. Don't let something like a tragedy be the reason that you come back and you say, oh, you know, we could have waited. We could have just figured this out again. You've already talked about the importance of communicating with the residents. This is something [10:07:28 PM] which will have immediate impact on the residents, and we should communicate. It just feels like for something like this, common sense could just prevail. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. All speakers for item 76 have been called. >> Thank you. All speakers have been called on item number 76. I'll entertain a motion with regard to item number 76. Is there a motion? Mayor pro tem moves approval of item number 76. Is there a second? Second by councilmember Laine. I don't have any proposed amendments that I'm aware of on item number 76. So with that discussion on item number 76, without objection, item number 76 is adopted with councilmembers Siegel and council member Velasquez being shown voting no. And councilmember harper-madison temporarily off the dais, that being a vote of seven to 2 to 1 [10:08:29 PM] with one absence. >> If that's Natasha harper-madison, she moves a little slower after her knee surgery. >> I thought I thought councilmember alter maybe was just was pulling a trick on me. All right. How would you like to be shown voting on item number 76? Yes, she is voting yes. There being eight votes in favor, two in opposition and one absence. Item number 76 passes on three readings. Members, that will take us to item number 106. And I'll call on the clerk to call speakers. >> Rita Thompson, Beatrice Anderson, Josh Goldenberg, Jonathan Davidson, bill bunch, Betsy Greenburg, Craig nazer, [10:09:29 PM] Kristen viotto, Garrett tung, Stephen brown. >> Before you start speaking, one of the things I forgot to do, and I apologize for this is item number 106 is a public hearing. And so without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 106. And the public hearing is now open. She's already called the first number of speakers that wish to be heard during the public hearing, and they'll be heard as part of the public hearing. So, miss Anderson, if you'd like to begin. >> Sure. Hello, Beatrice Anderson, save our springs alliance. I don't have a ton to say on this one. You know, I might. You know, we're we're willing to we're willing to meet you. So, you know, I, I, I don't hate this. This is better than the original annexation. I will give, I will give you that. This isn't immediately attached to the development agreement. And, you know, I, I hope that we're going to see a service plan agreement. I don't know [10:10:36 PM] what to say. I, I literally don't know what to say this. Would it matter if I really I am leaving today feeling like. It wouldn't matter if we showed up to that conversation because this is us trying. And yeah, I have not seen a aside from some really great questions and like, thank you to those having, you know, the spine to vote no. But otherwise I'm really leaving this feeling like not heard at all. Like our voices do not matter. And that's why we keep coming back and fighting. And it makes us seem confrontational and anti-development. We're not anti-development. We are pro inclusion, we're pro conversation like this. This is just wild. But anyway, yeah, I, I hope, I hope to see a service [10:11:37 PM] plan agreement. I hope to see some transparency with, with this additional annexation. I don't think this is really unlike the other things that we that you voted on today that had real impact, you know, whatever this is 37 additional acres to 26, 45. This isn't really moving the needle. That ship has sailed. So. >> Craig Nasr, Sierra club, Austin environmental Democrats. Now, I think at the end of the night, I, I see the two separate spheres almost going on. And, you know, I taught university for years. I had young people who'd come in love, loved it. And they'll have a future and they're looking forward. And what's life going to be like? And I was that age once, too. And I've been an [10:12:38 PM] environmentalist from the start, realizing how that affects my life. Not so much the money thing. I came from a wealthy family until I told him I wanted to be a musician. Then I got thrown out. But you know, I, I made it, but it's. The environmental thing has been with me from the start and through it. And I just keep thinking about the dog's head and what's going to happen and the I mean, and, and all I can think of is I music again is a song by the doors that came out in 1967 when the mayor was nine years old. It's called when the music's over, and this little section of it. What have you done to the Earth? What have you done to our fair sister? Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her. Stuck [10:13:39 PM] her with knives in the side of the dawn and tied her with fences and dragged her down. Since that time, we have lost 73% of biodiversity on the planet Earth. I mean. Well, actually mass of trees and flowers in that time. I'm a bird watcher. You know how many bird species I don't see anymore? >> Thank you madam. >> This matters. >> Thank you. >> Lisa Levin's. LI Edwards, Robert Schneider, Rachel Scott, Robert hale, Harper. Higginbotham. Eris. Andrews. Kya. Denson. Craig. Jankowski. Alexis. Willis. Barbara. [10:14:40 PM] Mcarthur. >> Harris. Andrews. Once again. Hey, guys. Brand new day. This is the opportunity to start over and get it right. The first time. You initially annexed almost 3000 acres under a shady development deal with no oversight, and all of these issues that have plagued you for 16 hours today. Let's just avoid that part this time. Luckily, there's no shady development agreement yet. And if anybody wants to put this land into the development agreement, just say no before we have to drag out another hearing all day long. Guys, this could be the chance. Annex land, do it right, develop on it without strings attached or Amazon up your behind telling you when you have to do stuff and when you can't do stuff. This is how it's supposed to be. Land gets annexed. You're going to develop on it no matter what. You get city services out there. [10:15:42 PM] This tax land or this new land is fully taxable at 100% and not, what, 35% for the next 35 years. That's again, not a good deal. But again, that ship has sailed with bright colors today. This is the way we do it out of every single vote today. Like this is the only one that you should feel. No regrets about voting unanimously. Yes. For this land is is just. It can be brought into the city. It can be taxed fully. It's not attached with all the problems that are bringing, you know, the environmentalists that hate development, that it's first off, those don't exist. But that is the reason everybody was here for 16 hours. Just bring the land and vote yes unanimously. You're gonna do it anyways. I mean, does it matter if we say don't do it? No. You annex 3000 acres. We didn't get to say yes or no to that. What's 36 more? You can tax it 100%. Don't put it in this [10:16:43 PM] development agreement and don't put it in the tirz. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Stefan ferris Marc farrera. Jeff Mccrary, cilla Smith, Lou pasetto, Carlos pinion, David sides, Shane Johnson, Gary Merritt, Cameron Shaw, Jeremy martin, Bobby lavinsky, Gary farmer, Briggs. Mitchell, David. Jabbour, Melissa. Hernandez, Roy. Whaley, Catherine. Brown, Monica. Guzman, Zenobia Joseph, Brad. Massingill, Andy. Pastor, Marianna. Kruger, missile Ramos and Jennifer Barnes. [10:17:44 PM] >> Miss brown, it's all yours. >> Thank you. It's odd to be thinking that maybe I'm the last person who has the last word on all of this. >> Sounds like you might be. >> I think so, too. I have to say, this has been hard. It's been hard. And I know what hard is because I too, like the women on district two and currently fighting breast cancer. That is hard. This is hard too, because I've been trying to fight for my city, the city I grew up in, and trying to do absolutely the right thing. I feel like at the end of the day, I did mention about common sense prevailing here. There's been a lot of promises made today, especially in terms of trying to have communication, trying to be admitting that both the city as well as the developer have made a lot of mistakes, and that's fine. I feel we can move on from them in a very productive [10:18:46 PM] way, in a way that could be helpful, proactive community. But I really have to say I have to leave it up to you all to get everyone to hold to the things they said they're going to do today, that the developer is going to communicate more effectively, that in three months time, district ten duchen is going to come back and say, have you met the requirements that I can say continue to say yes to or no? You know, we need to see more evidence. We need to have more information and more transparency on this. As someone said, you know, if the information had been there, maybe we could have come to a more equitable agreement and understanding between all these groups a lot sooner, with a lot less pain. I can only hope that, you know, the future will be better than what I've seen today. I have to hope so. Thank [10:19:48 PM] you all again. It's the last word for tonight, I guess. >> Thank you mayor. >> All speakers for item 106 have been called. >> Members. As you've heard, all the speakers on item 106 has been have been called. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 106. Now the public hearing is closed. I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 106. Is there a motion? Councilmember alter moves approval of item 106, seconded by the mayor. Pro tem is there discussion on item 106? Hearing none. Without objection, item 106 is adopted with councilmembers, Siegel and Velasquez being shown voting no, that being a vote of 8 to 2 with one absence. Item 106 passes on three readings members. That completes all of the items that are on the agenda for this regular meeting of the Austin city council on July. Oh yes, hang on before I adjourn, as the manager would like to say something. [10:20:49 PM] >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you, council. And I want to thank all of the residents that and some non residents who came out and spent the day with us. I know 12 hours is pretty grueling, I think not simply for the council and our team, but I know the public who doesn't get paid to come out and share their thoughts and or their concerns, I would say one, it was a long agenda, but I think the last seven items demonstrated quite a bit to me, and I heard a lot coming across the dais. I think that was negatively, in some cases, aimed at this council who had to take some tough votes. I think probably many votes that they wish they didn't have to take. I, as the city manager, feel some responsibility to when you do have to take difficult votes to ensure that [10:21:50 PM] you've got the information that the processes and or the engagement that I think you expect from us throughout what I often see our staff doing that you commend us for and our professionalism and how we approach it, that make those decisions and opportunities to talk with the public a lot easier, I would admit, and have to take responsibility as the city manager to say that we did not do what we typically do when it comes to how we engage with residents. While the process of annexation is very different than the typical planned unit development and other rezonings, and we did not have to follow those same processes, doesn't mean we could not have done something different that allowed for the input that I believe this community believes that they're accustomed to. And I think that has caused some feelings as if we have been doing things, [10:22:52 PM] whether behind closed doors or that are not as transparent as historically they've been done. And so I will own that. As the city manager, I will continue to work with my team with some of the comments and many of them by this council of expecting more from us going forward. I will be working with my team, as well as the developer, to figure out how we can be more informative, provide the types of insights and information that the community is asking for, doesn't mean we're always going to agree or it's going to be possible. But I think what I've heard loud and clear today, obviously, is they just want to make sure that they understand what we're doing and have a voice in the process. And so I will take that responsibility going forward. But I didn't want today to end with the council not at least hearing from me that I will say we will do better going forward. We must, and I hate to have put you all in a situation where you had to make excuses for us, [10:23:53 PM] and that is never something that I am excited about. But just know that I appreciate the long day, appreciate your consideration and all the confidence that you have in our team, but we've got to do better and we will do better going forward. So thank you, mayor, for giving me the chance to share that. >> Sure. Thank you. Manager. All right. With that being said, there's no further business to come before the Austin city council at this regular meeting of the Austin city council on July 23rd, 2026. So without objection, the Austin city council is adjourned at 10:24 P.M. Thanks, everybody.