B.4 - C14H-2008-0037_1300-02 E 4th St_Citizen Comment — original pdf
Backup
All documents
B.4 - Texaco Depot - Plans — original pdf
COSMIC CONCEPT RENDERING FOR REFERENCE ONLY VICINITY MAP . l a n o i s s e f o r P n g i s e D e h t t c a t n o c , e r u t a n g i s r o l a e s e h t f o y t i l i b a c i l p p a r o y t i d i l a v e h t y f i r e v o T . t n e m u c o d h c u s f o e s u d e z i r o h t u a n u r o , n o i t p u r r o c , n o i t a c i f i d o m t n e u q e s b u s l y n a r o f e b i s n o p s e r t o n s i e l t t i L & n o t y a C l . e l t t i L & n o t y a C y b d e h s i l l b u p y l l i a n g i r o s a t n e m u c o d s i h t f o n o i s r e v t a h t o t s a l y n o e v i t c e f f e s i e r u t a n g i s r o l a e s i c n o r t c e e s ' l l a n o i s s e f o r P n g i s e D e h T : M P 1 0 5 0 : 1 0 2 0 2 / 5 1 / 5 | e l t t i L & n o t y a l C © PROJECT TEAM OWNER COSMIC 121 PICKLE RD. AUSTIN, TX 78704 STRUCTURAL DUFFY ENGINEERING ENGINEER 6207 BEE CAVES RD. AUSTIN, TX 78746 PATRICK DEAN 915.261.6136 PATRICK@COSMICCOFFEEBEER.COM JOHN MAGGIO 512.402.0074 JOHN@DUFFYENGINEERING.COM ARCHITECT CLAYTON & LITTLE 2201 N LAMAR BLVD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705 SKY CURRIE …
B.4 - Texaco Depot - Project scope description from architect — original pdf
P R OJECT SC O PE DES C RI PT I O N Project (#) Date To From Cosmic Coffee (19051) 04.17.20 City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission Clayton & Little - Sky Currie Regarding Cosmic Coffee – Project Scope Overall Proposed Work: Existing exterior materials to be preserved, repaired as needed. Metal siding to be cleaned, graffiti to be removed and the historic Texaco related signage preserved. Roofs to be repaired, replaced as needed. Windows to be repaired or replaced with replicas; all to be reglazed with new insulated lites. New windows are proposed to be aluminum clad wood, with muntin and sash profiles similar to existing windows. New storefront system to be steel and glass, with thin muntins and frames. New exterior doors to be steel and glass, with lites or flush (painted) hollow metal. The existing building exteriors are to be left mostly intact, except for proposed new openings and repair work noted above. Proposed ground level decks, vertical circulation and a new roof deck to be minimally attached to the existing structures. Location of Proposed Work: Buildings A (1300 E. 4th St.) & Building B (1302 E. 4th St.) Proposed Material(s): Metal Siding (to match existing material and profiles), Painted Wood Trim, Painted Wood Windows (existing), Aluminum Clad Wood Windows, Steel and Glass Storefront System and Doors, Flush Metal Doors, Asphalt Shingle Roof, Metal Roofing (to match existing material and profiles), Metal Gutters, Metal Downspouts Proposed Work: New wood & steel fence with metal gates. Location of Proposed Work: At perimeter of Site, where buildings do not exist. Proposed Material(s): Stained Wood, Raw Metal Proposed Work: New Roof Deck to float above the existing low metal roof of Building A. Roof to be supported by columns that will penetrate the existing roof and floor and be supported by a new foundation. If desired, the roof deck could be disassembled and the existing building forms would remain as they presently exist. Location of Proposed Work: Above low roof of Building A 1 of 2 New MEP equipment will ne necessary to support the new function of the buildings, some exhaust vents and rooftop HVAC Proposed Material(s): Ptd. Stl., Perforated Sheet Metal, Stained Wood Proposed Work: New Stair, Elevator Shaft & Water Tower. Location of Proposed Work: North of Building A Proposed Material(s): Ptd. Stl., Perforated Sheet Metal, Mtl. Panels Proposed Work: units are anticipated. Location of …
Item 3.a.: Staff Memo to SCWAB — original pdf
South Central Waterfront Advisory Board To: From: Alan Holt, Principal Planner; Planning & Zoning Date: May 14, 2020 RE: Project Updates & Communications from Staff To keep the May virtual meeting of the SCWAB focused on time-critical issues, I am providing this brief update memo instead of the usual staff presentation. Updates on recently presented draft materials: So far in 2020, key first draft deliverables have been posted as backup to meetings to the SCWAB. These materials are milestone deliverables in themselves. These important materials are also foundational prerequisites to updating the Financial Framework and to completing the draft Regulating Plan. As indicated in the memorandum to the SCWAB at the April virtual meeting, staff has improved these first drafts deliverables to correct errors and clarify information. These improved updates have been completed and are posted as backup for this agenda item. Outlined below is a summary of the corrections/modifications that have been incorporated into the update d deliverables: Package 1: This packet specifically addresses the updates only to three previously shared draft deliverables, listed below. The fully revised deliverables are now available as whole documents. The updates that are addressed in this packet include: 1. 2020 Update: SCW Street Typology and Sections (draft 2: May 18, 2020 – full document available) a. What’s highlighted in this packet: Changed from the draft 1, January 10, 2020 version: Armadillo Drive (AD1 & AD2) has been changed from a Collector 1 Street to a Local Street. 2. 2020 Update: SCW Physical Framework & Project Costs Estimates (draft 2: May 18, 2020) a. What’s highlighted in this packet: Changes from the draft 1, March 12, 2020 version: i. Adjust cost for Armadillo Drive from a Collector 1 Street to a Local Street (very small cost impact) ii. Correct costs for open spaces inputs for direct costs (construction costs) only. iii. Inclusion of a pie chart to show total district project costs as allocated into components (e.g., Open Space, Streetscape Improvements, etc.) 3. 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework & Project Costs Estimates (draft 2: May 18, 2020) a. What’s highlighted in this packet: Changes from the draft 1, March 12, 2020 version: i. Ditto from 2ai ii. Ditto from 2aii iii. Ditto from 2aiii Package 2: SCW Buildout Scenarios for Financial Analysis (draft 2: May 14, 2020). What’s highlighted in this packet: Changes from draft 1, March 16, 2020 version: 1. 2020 Updated Buildout: …
B.4 - Texaco Depot - Project scope description from architect (updated) — original pdf
P R OJECT SC O PE DES C RI PT I O N Project (#) Date To From Cosmic Coffee (19051) 05.18.20 City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission, et. al Clayton & Little - Sky Currie Regarding Project Scope Texaco Depot Buildings Built Circa: 1912 Address: 1300 & 1302 E. 4th Street General History: The Texaco Depot buildings are comprised of two historic structures, Building A (1300 E. 4th St.), a one - & two-story wood framed structure and Building B (1302 E. 4th St.), a two-story wood framed structure. Building A was constructed in the industrial warehouse style that was prevalent in the area during the early 20th century, with the two-story portion being used for Offices & Storage, and the one-story portion for Oil Storage. Building B was constructed as a pole barn and was used for Oil Storage and “Pump”, per the 1935 Sanborn Map. The buildings appear to have not been in use for some time and are in significant disrepair. Proposed Work: Building A: The exterior of the structure will be maintained (will be repaired for weather-tightness, as needed). The Interior will be remodeled to accommodate a new Restaurant & Bar function. Existing metal roof on one story portion to be removed, repaired and reapplied, once tapered insulation has been added. New asphalt shingle roof to be applied to the two-story roof, color, size and pattern to match the existing shingle roof. Existing windows to remain will be repaired as needed, or replaced with a replica. New windows, with proportions to match existing, are proposed for the West elevation of the one-story portion; the existing aluminum windows in this location do not date to the original construction and are in poor condition. New fenestrations are planned for the East, North and West facades. Existing exterior deck areas to be modified and added to. New accessible vertical circulation tower, new roof deck over part of the one-story portion of the building and a new exterior egress stair with a dormer addition are proposed. Building B: Building will be stabilized, as the existing structure leans to the West, and repaired for weather-tightness. The Interior will be remodeled to accommodate a new Restaurant & Bar function. Existing metal roof to remain, be repaired, as needed. Existing windows to remain will be repaired as needed, or replaced with a replica. New fenestrations are planned for the East, North …
Item 2.a.: Consultant Presentation on SCW Financial Framework — original pdf
2020 SCW Financial Tool and Key Takeaways South Central Waterfront Advisory Board May 18, 2020 Financial model implications Financial model overview Affordable housing discussion Observations from modeling Agenda 2 SCW District Feasibility 3 Methods Update of 2016 modeling for Framework Plan to provide Council with directional indicators when considering policy options Parcel-based pencil-outs that consider plan entitlements, infrastructure costs, affordable housing, and bonus participation fees A snapshot look at the district build out, as though all development delivered simultaneously 4 Methods 2020 financial model accounts for: 2016 SCW Framework Plan entitlements Late 2019 market conditions (costs and revenues) 305 S Congress (Statesman) PUD proposal More precise infrastructure costs, including proposed Statesman site plan Bonus participation fees Affordable housing (including multiple OTC options and Statesman targets) 5 Financial Evaluation - Key Takeaways Developments of the scale contemplated in the 2016 SCW Plan may be financially infeasible, even before accounting for infrastructure and affordability requirements New development that matches the City’s vision will require public subsidy Infrastructure investments will require coordination between public and private sectors Achieving the 20% housing affordability target is infeasible without public subsidy 6 Affordable Housing – Key Takeaways 2016 Framework Plan: Achieving goal requires substantial project-by-project subsidies Updated 2020 Financial Tool: Reaffirmed 2016 results. Most feasible development types are low- and mid-rise 100% affordable rental projects: In the OTC parking lot In adjacent neighborhoods, without requiring onsite units for condo buildings 7 Financial Model Tour 8 Model Multiple inputs allow for the creation of “policy scenarios” 9 Model Three buildout scenarios are modeled based on: (1) 2016 Plan; (2) Statesman PUD proposal & Crocket w/ site modifications, and (3) A hybrid Statesman PUD proposal limited to 2016 plan heights & modified Crocket site 10 Model Outputs show development feasibility, district feasibility gap, and affordable housing shortfall (if any) for the District for each set of “input scenarios” 11 Nine different scenarios are modeled for One Texas Center to consider options: • Rental / ownership • Low-Mid-High rise • 100% affordable / mixed-income Model 12 Includes summary of parcel-by-parcel performance, which can be compared to 2016 analysis Model 13 Affordable Housing 14 2016 Framework Plan Affordability 20% of housing should be income restricted 100% affordable building on the OTC parking lot Affordable …
Item 3.a.: Packet 1 - 2020 SCW Street Typology and Sections — original pdf
Notice: This Draft 2 (April 13, 2020) document is believed to be compete and accurate but may be subject to further modification before the Final Draft version is ready for adoption. The Final Draft version of this document will replace the 2016 SCW Appendices I: Street Sections. 2020 Update: SCW Street Typology and Sections (draft 2: April 13, 2020) The update was produced by PAZ staff in cooperation with Austin Transportation Department (ATD), Public Works Department (PWD), and the Capitol Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capitol Metro). The update incorporates latest ATD policies and best practices, accommodates the Project Connect Blue Line, and integrates recommendations from the Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative. Significance: 1. This document forms the basis for updating cost estimation for all SCW streets and streetscapes – both for construction of new streets and for upgrades to existing streets. These costs are reflected in the 2020 Update to the SCW Physical Framework and Project Cost Estimates. 2. This document is referenced in the pending SCW Regulating Plan to identify requirements for the location, type, and design of new streets on redeveloped properties and for upgrades to existing public streets adjacent to redeveloped properties. Draft 2_April 13, 2020 DRAFT Street Key Map Waterfront Park (OS1) Crockett Square (OS4) C A 1 A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 EB1 EB2 EB3 EB4 C A 2 C1 C2 D1 D2 D3 M L 1 M L 2 Green Connector (OS2) ER1 ER2 E1 C A 3 S F 1 Barton Springs Rain Garden Plaza (OS5) Bouldin Creek/TSD Trail (OS3) WR1 S F 2 1 B W W R2 HA1 A D 2 2 B W AD1 TL1 TL2 S F 3 New Street Shared Street Street A Local streets Street B Street C Street D Street E Texas Loop A1, A2, A3 B1, B2, B3 C1, C2 D1, D2, D3 E1 TL1, TL2 Haywood Avenue HA1 Armadillo Drive AD1, AD2 Collector Streets East Barton Springs Rd EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4 Moton Lane ML1, ML2 West Barton Springs Rd WB1, WB2 Core Transit South First Street SF1, SF2, SF3 Congress Avenue CA1, CA2, CA3 West Riverside Drive WR1, WR2 East Riverside Drive ER1, ER2 Draft 2 p.1 - 04/13/2020 DRAFT 6 Ty pical Street S ecti ons Shared Street Collector New - 2 Local Street Collector Existing Collector New - 1 Core Transit p.2 - 04/13/2020 DRAFT Streetscape Improvements S F 1 2 …
Item 3.a.: Packet 2 - 2020 SCW Physical Framework and Project Cost Estimates — original pdf
Notice for Packet 2: This Draft 2 (May 18, 2020) document is believed to be nearly complete and accurate except one needed technical update. This update is not expected to affect the overall project cost, or only very insignificantly. A Final Draft version will be issues, ready for adoption. The Final Draft version of these two documents will replace the 2016 SCW Appendices II: Detailed Cost Estimates. 2020 Update: SCW Physical Framework & Project Cost Estimates (draft 2: May 18, 2020) This document provides an update to the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Plan, following exactly the arrangement of streets and open spaces as proposed in the 2016 Illustrative Plan. This direct translation of the 2016 plan provides a basis for comparing proposed future modifications to the physical framework to the original 2016 plan. The cost estimations cover all components of the SCW Physical Framework (2040 buildout) including utilities infrastructure; streets and streetscapes for both new streets and improvements to existing streets; and the open space system (i.e., parks, trails, plazas, and other open spaces). This work was accomplished accordingly: • • Open Space Designs: This update includes schematic designs for four key open spaces in the SCW Plan, including the Park @ the Statesman site, the Green Connector, Crockett Plaza, and the Bouldin Trail @ the Texas School for the Deaf. The schematic open space designs were produced by PAZ consultants1, with additional review by Watershed Protection Department (WPD), Park & Recreation Department (PARD), PWD and others. These schematic designs provide details for accurate preliminary cost estimation and provide a benchmark for evaluating open space proposals that may be submitted as part of a development proposal. Cost Estimate Database: This database provides estimated costs for the complete physical framework as envisioned in the SCW Plan for buildout on both private and public lands. A cost estimating consultant2 provided estimates for all open space components. PWD, with support from City departments, supplied all cost estimates for streets/streetscapes/utilities. All costs are integrated into a single interactive database, created by PWD and PAZ. The database provides depth details for quantities, specifications, and direct costs3 for all components of the physical framework. Additionally, the database provides a generator for adding indirect costs4 for either a privately-built or publicly-built project. Costs reflect January 2020 dollars for Austin construction; however, the database is interactive and can be adjusted to account for inflation, unit price fluctuations, and …
Item 3.a.: Packet 3 - 2020 SCW Buildout Scenarios for Financial Analysis — original pdf
Notice for Packet 3: This Draft 2 (May 18, 2020) document is believed to be nearly complete and accurate except for needed corrections for inputs regarding at least one of the “tipping parcels.” These corrections are being addressed but the corrections are not available at the issuing of Draft 2. However, these corrections are likely to affect the overall district buildout projections in this draft by less than 2%. A Final Draft version will be issued, ready for adoption. 2020 Buildout Scenarios for Financial Analysis (draft 2: May 18, 2020) Within the physical framework of blocks and green infrastructure, the SCW Plan modeled potential building developments on properties in the district. This exercise involved creating site-specific building designs (i.e. schematic building footprints, sections, and heights) on specific properties. This exercise was completed for “tipping parcels” – that is, parcels that were envisaged for redevelopment for the financial analysis. When this original work was done in 2015-16, tipping parcels were determined by (1) evaluating likelihood of redeveloping within the next twenty years, based on land value to building value; (2) age of current development; and (3) owner’s willingness in having their property evaluated. In the 2016 and the 2020 Update Buildout scenarios, ten properties 1 were designated as “tipping properties,” collectively representing about half of the gross acreage of all private properties in the SCW district. For tipping parcels, a future potential development proposal was modeled with a site -specific building footprint, with an assumed potential building height, massing and program of uses (i.e., square feet of Office, Retail, Residential, Hotel), as well as a calculation to assign a parking requirement. Site-specific schematic designs included accommodating the parking demand, schematically designed in a combination of podium and below grade structures. The Buildout Scenarios are a key input into developing site-specific proforma analysis to test the financial feasibility of potential developments. Three Buildout Scenarios have been modeled: 2020 Update: SCW Plan Buildout: This is identical to the 2016 Buildout except that the 2016 Buildout factored in two future buildings that are entitled under existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreements. In the 2016 analysis, the buildout scenarios for parcels were incorporated into a proforma spreadsheet analysis to test the financial feasibility of a development on a property. In this new deliverable, the 2020 Update takes the 2016 buildout information only, minus the PUD properties, and consolidated it into a simpler table. The …
Item 3.a.: Packet 4 - SCW Physical Framework Funding Sources — original pdf
Notice for Packet 4: This Draft 2 (May 18, 2020) document is believed to be nearly complete and accurate except for needed corrections to update the Buildout Scenarios input (See notice for Packet 3). Once the updates to the Building Scenarios are complete, the corrected inputs to this document can be finalized. The impact of these pending corrections/additions should not change the overall district costs. Instead, these updates will change the calculation for impact fees associated with two “tippin g parcels.1” Although these needed adjustments may have noteworthy impacts to the individual parcel calculations , these adjustments should have minor impacts to the districtwide Baseline Development (i.e., impact fees) that are part of this document. Nonetheless, staff will make needed corrections and issue a Final Draft of this document in time for the June SCWAB meeting. PHYSICAL FRAMEWORK FUNDING SOURCES This new single-source document consolidates and refines information that was previously embedded in the Physical Framework and Project Costs Estimates. To provide more clarity and functionality, this new document draws from information that has now been updated in Draft 2 of the Physical Framework and Project Costs Estimates spreadsheets, and Draft 2 of the SCW Buildout Scenario for Financial Analysis spreadsheets. Using information linked to those sources, this new document does two things: (1) It tabulates all Physical Framework and Project Costs for the full district, and (2) It identifies potential sources of funding for addressing those costs. Drawing from the Physical Framework and Project Cost Estimates spreadsheets, this new document tabulates potential funding that has been identified as within existing Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) and estimates from what utilities might contribute for service extensions. What is new in this document is how the contributions from “Baseline Development” are calculated. For this document, “Baseline Development” are costs that new development might be expected to cover through contributions, either in-kind or in fee, for Physical Framework improvements in the district. Baseline Development is a contribution that would be expected before consideration of “Bonus Fee” requirements. What is new in this document is how Baseline Development contributions are calculated. This document uses existing and pending City policy and methodology to calculate impact fees. Staff has coordinated with the following City departments to estimates impact fees as follows: Coordinated with Austin Transportation Department (ATD) to use the methodology from the Street Impact Fee Study Report to calculate the developer’s baseline contribution (before-bonus …
UPDATED: Item 3.a.: Staff Update Memo to SCWAB — original pdf
South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Project Updates & Communications from Staff To: From: Alan Holt, Principal Planner; Planning & Zoning Date: May 18, 2020 RE: To keep the May virtual meeting of the SCWAB focused on time-critical issues, I am providing this brief update memo instead of the usual staff presentation. Updates on recently presented draft materials: So far in 2020, key first draft deliverables have been posted as backup to meetings to the SCWAB. These materials are milestone deliverables in themselves. These important materials are also foundational prerequisites to updating the Financial Framework and to completing the draft Regulating Plan. As indicated in the memorandum to the SCWAB at the April virtual meeting, staff has improved these first drafts deliverables to correct errors and clarify information. These improved updates have been completed and are posted as backup for this agenda item. Outlined below is a summary of the corrections/modifications that have been incorporated into the updated deliverables: Package 1: 2020 Updated: SCW Street Typology and Sections (draft 2: April 18, 2020) Changed from the draft 1: January 10, 2020 version: Armadillo Drive (AD1 & AD2) has been changed from a Collector 1 Street to a Local Street. Packet 2: This packet combines two previous draft deliverables, both of which provide detailed cost estimates for the proposed SCW Physical Framework (streets, streetscapes, open spaces, utilities infrastructure) at full buildout (2040). The two documents include: 2020 Updated: SCW Physical Framework & Project Costs Estimates (draft 2: May 18, 2020) Changes from the draft 1: March 12, 2020 version: a. Adjust cost for Armadillo Drive from a Collector 1 Street to a Local Street (very small cost impact) b. Correct costs for open spaces inputs for direct costs (construction costs) only. c. Inclusion of a pie chart to show total district project costs as allocated into components (e.g., Open Space, Streetscape Improvements, etc.) 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework & Project Costs Estimates (draft 2: May 18, 2020) Changes from the draft 1: March 12, 2020 version: a. Ditto from 2ai b. Ditto from 2aii c. Ditto from 2aiii Package 3: SCW Buildout Scenarios for Financial Analysis (draft 2: May 18, 2020). Changes from draft 1: March 16, 2020 version: 2020 Updated Buildout: a. Revised district framework map showing proposed bonus building heights for all “tipping parcels” from the SCW Plan. b. Summary table of modeled entitlements (heights and uses) for all “tipping …
20200518-2.a: Negotiation and execution of Amendment No. 1, to the Agreement Concerning the East 11th and 12th St. Urban Renewal Plan — original pdf
URBAN RENEWAL BOARD RECOMMENDATION 20200518-2.a Seconded By: Vice-Chair Evans Date: May 18, 2020 Subject: Negotiation and execution of Amendment No. 1, to the Agreement Concerning Implementation of the East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Plan with the City of Austin to include an 18-month renewal with an expiration date of September 30, 2021, relating to roles, responsibilities and processes for the redevelopment of the East 11th and 12th Street Revitalization Project. Motioned By: Commissioner Watson Recommendation Authorize the negotiation and execution of Amendment No. 1, to the Agreement Concerning Implementation of the East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Plan with the City of Austin -to include an 18-month renewal with an expiration date of September 30, 2021, relating to roles, responsibilities and processes for the redevelopment of the East 11th and 12th Street Revitalization Project. Vote For: 7 Against: Abstain: 0 Absent: Attest: Sandra Harkins, Board Liaison 0 0 1 of 1 5/18/2020
Draft City Council Resolution Regarding CARES ACT Allocations - referenced by Sylnovia in the May 18 Arts Commission meeting — original pdf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on March 6, 2020, the City of Austin and Travis County both declared a local state of disaster due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and issued measures to reduce the possibility of exposure and promote the health and safety of City of Austin/Travis County residents; and WHEREAS, On March 13, 2020, Governor Abbott declared a state of disaster for all Texas counties due to the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, in alignment with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and advice from local health authorities, subsequent executive orders in the City of Austin, Travis County, Williamson County, and the State of Texas have limited business operations and human social interactions to protect and promote public health; and WHEREAS, these and other necessary measures taken by jurisdictions across the United States and the world to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have limited public interactions, closed schools and businesses, and resulted in economic uncertainty that has left an unprecedented number of Austin residents facing unemployment or underemployment; and WHEREAS, since the beginning of the crisis, the City Council of the City of Austin has responded to this through several actions , including Ordinance No. 20200326-090 and Resolution Nos. 20200326-091, 20200326-092, 20200409-079, 20200409-081, 20200409-086, and 20200423-040 each of which respond to needs of Austin residents amid the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, and open a path toward relief in economic strain for individuals and businesses during this crisis; and 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 WHEREAS, the City has been able to launch several programs to date, however, currently launched programs have already received more requests for assistance than there are available funds; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act, was signed into law, which authorized $2 trillion in federal economic relief through a stimulus infusion into housing and public health programs, as well as direct financial assistance and additional unemployment benefits to individuals, allocating $170 million to the City of Austin with an additional tens of millions to our partner counties; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2020, federal guidelines for expending the CARES Act funding were released, helping to lay out the …
Item 3.a.i - Hotel Occupancy Tax Presentation — original pdf
CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM FUNDING – HOTEL O CCUPAN CY TAX ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY 18, 2020 C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 2 C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 3 C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 4 C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 5 DRAFT DRAFT Cultural Arts Fund Beginning Balance 4,518,915 3,215,422 2,960,636 1,758,364 (1,564,286) Revenue Interest Total Revenue Transfers In Other Funds Convention Center Total Transfers In Total Available Funds Program Requirements 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2019-20 2020-21* Actual Actual Estimated Amended Proposed 56,500 56,500 70,152 70,152 38,500 38,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 11,231,717 12,639,480 8,245,008 11,880,629 9,304,634 0 0 0 3,144,447 0 11,231,717 12,639,480 8,245,008 15,025,076 9,304,634 11,288,217 12,709,631 8,283,508 15,050,076 9,329,634 Cultural Arts and Contracts 12,677,444 13,001,908 12,808,430 12,808,430 Total Program Requirements 12,677,444 13,001,908 12,808,430 12,808,430 6,835,302 6,835,302 Total Requirements 12,677,444 13,001,908 12,808,430 12,808,430 6,835,302 Excess (Deficiency) of Total Available Funds Over Total Requirem ents Adjustment to GAAP Ending Balance No te: Numbers may no t add due to ro unding. (1,389,227) (292,277) (4,524,922) 2,241,646 2,494,332 85,734 37,491 0 0 0 3,215,422 2,960,636 (1,564,286) 4,000,010 930,046 ** **PLEASE NOTE: The Proposed FY21 ending balances reflects a 10% reserve. EDD is working with the Budget Office to identify additional revenue for FY21 that will allow for level funding. C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 6 QUESTIONS? C I T Y O F A U S T I N E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 7
20200518-002b: Fair Lending Practices and Consumer Protection — original pdf
Recommendation
Video -Special Called PSC mtg for May 18, 2020 — original link
Play video
Public Safety depts final budget presentation-May 18-2020 — original pdf
Austin Police FY2020-21 Preliminary Proposed Budget May 18, 2020 City of Austin, TX Police Department Budget Overview FY2021 Preliminary Proposed Budget FY2021 Preliminary Proposed Budget $446.8 Million* FY2021 Positions 1,989 Sworn 737 Civilian Police FY2021 Preliminary Proposed Budget Highlights Personnel Cost Drivers Interfund Transfers Contract & Operating Increases Capital & Non-Capital Replacement Items $9.6M $802K $1.3M $641K Total $12.3M* or 2.8% *Estimate: The FY2021 Budget Forecast is still under development, pending CM review and City Council approval. Council Initiatives & Other Budget Items Under Review Addressing Violent Crime in Austin Cadet Salary Increase 4 Civilian FTEs Records Management System Replacement $1.5M Helicopter Replacement Total $5.5M $1.5M $406K $1.3M $10.2M Police Sworn Attrition Rate by Month for FY 2016-2020 APD Sworn Attrition Rate by Month for FY16-FY20 October November December January February March April May June July August September YTD Totals: October - March April - September Annual Average FY2016 2 3 9 5 3 4 5 2 8 11 4 7 63 4.3 6.2 5.3 FY2017 5 3 9 3 6 6 4 5 3 11 8 11 74 5.3 7.0 6.2 FY2018 1 6 33 6 2 11 8 1 5 9 3 6 91 9.8 5.3 7.6 FY2019 9 12 9 10 2 5 5 3 1 8 6 9 79 7.8 5.3 6.6 FY2020 7 5 9 18 19 5 11 74 10.5 Police Cadet Classes 141st 142nd M 143rd 144th 145th 146th 147th 148th M Orientation 5/21/2019 9/17/2019 1/21/2020 6/22/2020 10/12/2020 2/1/2021 5/24/2021 9/13/2021 Start Date 6/24/2019 10/14/2019 2/18/2020 7/20/2020 11/9/2020 3/1/2021 6/21/2021 10/11/2021 Graduation 1/31/2020 1/31/2020 9/25/2020 2/26/2021 6/18/2021 10/8/2021 2/4/2022 2/4/2022 Police Sworn Position Justifications City Council Resolution No. 20181213-043 acknowledges the APD Chief’s recommended staffing plan for sworn personnel and recognizes the staffing plan as a core component for consideration in FY2020 and subsequent budget proposals and sets a goal and commitment to approve future budgets that address sworn officer staffing with the aim of meeting public safety outcomes outlined in SD20203. If the 30 Sworn positions (6 months funded) are removed from the Fy2021 budget, it impedes APD’s ability to recruit and plan for the 147th, 148th and future cadet classes . 6 of the Sworn positions are specifically authorized for Investigations (Detective positions), so the removal of those positions affects the workload, investigation and clearance rates of …
Meeting Video — original link
Play video
20200518-01A: Tower 5C Recommendation — original pdf
David Carroll, Chair Martha Gonzales, Vice Chair Melissa Henao-Robledo Aan Coleman Beau Frail Samuel Franco Ben Luckens Josue Meiners Jessica Rollason Evan Taniguchi Bart Whatley Jorge Rousselin, Executive Liaison Aaron D. Jenkins Staff Liaison Patrick Colunga City of Austin Design Commission DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20200518-01A Josue Meiners Seconded By: David Carroll Design Commission recommendation for the Tower 5C project, located at 415 Colorado Street. Date: May 20, 2020 Subject: Motioned By: Recommendation: The City of Austin Design Commission recommends that the Tower 5C project, located at 415 Colorado Street, as presented on May 18, 2020, substantially complies with the city’s Urban Design Guidelines. The Commissions further recommends that the ground floor lobby retail space is open to the public and not reserved for solely for the building users. Rationale: Dear Director of Planning and Zoning Dept., This letter is to confirm the Design Commission’s recommendation that the Tower 5C project, located at 415 Colorado Street, as presented on May 18, 2020 substantially complies with the Urban Design Guidelines as one of the gatekeeper requirements of the Downtown Density Bonus Program. Our review found the following: 1. The lobby retail space will serve to energize the ground floor as long as it is open to the public. 2. The proposed outdoor space, and landscaping, will activate the streetscape. 3. Above ground parking is mechanically ventilated and completely hidden behind glass façade. 4. Additional comments can be found in the Planning & Urban Design Working Group Memo, dated March 4, 2020. Respectfully, City of Austin Design Commission Vote: For: David Carroll, Aan Coleman, Evan Taniguchi, Melissa Henao-Robledo, Josue Meiners, Samuel Franco, Beau 7 - 0 - 0 Frail Against: None Absent: Bart Whatley, Martha Gonzalez, Ben Luckens, Jessica Rollason Attest: David Carroll, Chair of the Design Commission 1 of 1 Design Commission - Recommendation for 5th and Colorado Page 1
20200518-01B: Firehouse/ Travis County EMS Station Recommendation — original pdf
David Carroll, Chair Martha Gonzales, Vice Chair Melissa Henao-Robledo Aan Coleman Beau Frail Samuel Franco Ben Luckens Josue Meiners Jessica Rollason Evan Taniguchi Bart Whatley Jorge Rousselin, Executive Liaison Aaron D. Jenkins Staff Liaison Patrick Colunga City of Austin Design Commission DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20200518-01B Date: May 20, 2020 Subject: Design Commission recommendation for the Travis County Fire/EMS Station project located at 5410 W. Hwy 290 Service Road. Aan Coleman Seconded By: Beau Frail Motioned By: Recommendation: The City of Austin Design Commission recommends that the Travis County Fire/EMS Station project, located at 5410 W. Hwy 290 Service Road, as presented on May 18, 2020, conforms with City Design Standards. This recommendation comes with the stipulation that 1) the proposed public sidewalk, leading from the Service Road to the building, is relocated further west away from the private drive where it will provide safer access for pedestrians and 2) that shade trees be appropriately placed along the length of this sidewalk. Rationale: This letter is to confirm the Design Commission’s support of the Travis County Fire/EMS Station project, located at 5410 W. Hwy 290 Service Road, as presented on May 18, 2020. Our review found the following: 1. The landscape design, and meadow restoration, provides a nice amenity for building users as well as the future users of the planned urban trail. 2. The project will not increase the existing impervious cover. 3. The project proposes to reduce the number of existing curb cuts on the Service Road. Respectfully, City of Austin Design Commission Vote: For: David Carroll, Aan Coleman, Evan Taniguchi, Melissa Henao-Robledo, Josue Meiners, Samuel Franco, Beau 7 - 0 - 0 Frail Absent: Bart Whatley, Martha Gonzalez, Ben Luckens, Jessica Rollason Attest: David Carroll, Chair of the Design Commission 1 of 1 Design Commission - Recommendation for the Travis County Fire/EMS Station Page 1