ITEM03 C15-2025-0019 LATE BACKUP JUN9-SUPPORT LTR — original pdf
ITEM03/1-LATE BACKUP-IN SUPPORT ITEM03/2-LATE BACKUP-IN SUPPORT ITEM03/3-LATE BACKUP-IN SUPPORT ITEM03/4-LATE BACKUP-IN SUPPORT ITEM03/5-LATE BACKUP-IN SUPPORT
All documents
Play video — original link
Play video
Part 1 — original link
Play audio
Part 2 — original link
Play audio
Part 3 — original link
Play audio
Item 2. ATCFPB Staff Briefing on Food Plan - June 2025 — original pdf
Austin-Travis County Food Plan ATCFPB June 2025 – Staff Update City of Austin Food Plan Updates Food Plan Dashboard Now LIVE City Staff Report Back to Council ● City staff will provide another Memo to Council in October 2025 ● City staff will provide a summary of the Food Plan Memo to the CWEP (Climate, Water, Environment, and Parks) Council Committee in fall 2025 Implementation Collaborative ● City and County staff developed an Interlocal Agreement to support a Food Plan implementation collaborative (Strategy 9.1) ● On May 8th, City Council approved an RCA to negotiate a contract with the County ● On May 13th, Travis County Commissioners Court approved the ILA with the City ● City staff are developing an RFP for support of an implementation collaborative. Will be released in mid-2025. ● Consultant should be on-board in fall of 2025. Food Plan Implementation Convening ● First Food Plan Implementation Convening occurred on May 9th ● Considering additional options for summer 2025 ● Next Convening in fall of 2025 Travis County Food Plan Updates Nothing new to report Thank You! Travis County Environmental Quality: Sustainability Programs www.austintexas.gov/food /austinsustainability
Item 3. Agricultural Valuations, Ian Dill - June 2025 — original pdf
AGRICULTURAL VALUATIONS IN AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY Ian Dill - COA Office of Climate Action and Resilience Background Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) creates the criteria for Agricultural Valuations based on primary use and property history. The State Comptroller releases guidelines for all Texas counties based on 1966 and 1978 Constitutional Amendments. Properties must pass 3 tests to qualify: “Principal Use” Test “Degree of Intensity” Test Time Period Test TCAD Structure TCAD has a big Board of Directors which is elected and run by a Chief Appraiser The Director appoints the Agricultural Appraisal Advisory Board, at least 2 of which are recipients of an Agricultural Exemption This has no decision-making authority over Exemptions! They advise on intensity standards Any issues with specific appraisals are handled by the Appraisal Review Board Appraisal Review Board members are private citizens appointed by TCAD Defining the Problem 3 main problems with Agricultural Valuations in Travis County: Agricultural Valuations ought to help stop the loss of Travis County Farmland. 1. Farmers in Austin/Travis County have trouble getting an exemption. 2. Not well aligned with goals in the Food Systems Plan. 3. Conspicuous properties are receiving valuations for land on or around large developments. Travis County has lost 11% of its farmland acreage and 21% of its farms since 2017. Average farm size has grown by 13% since 2017. Properties receiving a 1-d-1 exemption in the City of Austin (2023) 1-d-1 --- Open Space Agricultural Use (Dry Cropland, Pasture) 1-d-1B --- Beekeeping 1-d-1E --- Ecological Lab 1-d-1W --- Wildlife Conservation Barriers to Farmer Accesss The guidelines offer no way to measure intensity for a huge share of our crop mix! As of 2022, $14 million in crop sales out of the total $63 million are vegetables, melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes, nurseries, greenhouses, floriculture, or sod. Negotiations and challenges to appraisal process are complex and time-consuming. Food Systems Plan Alignment Stated Goals The Food Systems Plan (2024) aims for a diverse food inventory (Goal 4) and support regenerative food production (Goal 1). Assessment Process Assessors seem to take a snapshot of farms which misleads them about the intensity and farming techniques being used. Program-Wide Trends Even if only farms or conservation lands get exempted, the fact that the largest exempted properties are attached to a new factory and a racetrack indicate that the program is currently a development incentive. Recommendations - TCAD 1. Update and clarify intensity and size …
Play video — original link
Play video
20250609-003: Commissioners Email Communication Policy — original pdf
ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20250609-003 Date: June 9, 2025 Subject: Use of personal email addresses by City of Austin volunteer commissioners Motioned By: Commissioner Kaiba White, Vice Chair Seconded By: Commissioner Raul Alvarez Recommendation Allow for communications to and from City of Austin volunteer board and commission members to go to both official city email addresses and personal email addresses. Description of Recommendation to Council: The Electric Utility Commission respectfully requests that the Austin City Council amend the city code to allow volunteers serving on city commissions to use a combination of personal and city email accounts. Specifically, commissioners and city staff should be explicitly allowed to copy personal email addresses when emailing commissioners at city (BC) email addresses. A commissioner’s official city email address should still be included on all official communications. Rationale: The City of Austin Clerk’s Office has begun informing staff liaisons for City of Austin boards and commissions that they must only use commissioners’ official city email addresses, due to a requirement in city code. Prior to this recent guidance, some commissioners had requested that correspondence be directed to both their city email address and a personal email address that they check more frequently. This enabled volunteer commissioners to avoid missing communications from liaisons, other city staff, fellow commissioners, and the public. Making communicating with staff and fellow commissioners easier can make serving boards and commissions more accessible and allow commissioners to be more productive on behalf of the City of Austin. Many volunteer commissioners are also working at least one full-time job. Many also have other family and community responsibilities and commitments. Many already have more than one email account to keep up with and adding another can be a significant burden for some commissioners. Commissioners are informed during the mandatory trainings for commissioners that all communications about board or commission business are subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, regardless of what communication channel – city or personal – that the commissioner uses. Vote: 10-0 For: Chair Dave Tuttle; Vice Chair Kaiba; Commissioner Raul Alvarez; Commissioner Lauren Bellomy; Commissioner Cesar Benavides; Commissioner Johnathon Blackburn; Commissioner Al Braden; Commissioner Chris Gillett; Commissioner Chris Kirksey; Commissioner Cyrus Reed Against: None Abstentions: None Absent: Commissioner Joshua Rhodes Attest: Nici Huff Nici Huff, Staff Liaison
20250609-006: Hiring New Austin Energy General Manager — original pdf
ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20250609-006 Date: June 9, 2025 Subject: Hiring New Austin Energy General Manager Motioned By: Commissioner Kaiba White, Vice Chair Seconded By: Commissioner Dave Tuttle, Chair Recommendation Establish decarbonization experience criteria for candidates and host public forum for finalists. Description of Recommendation to Council: The Electric Utility Commission recommends that the following be included in the hiring process for the next Austin Energy general manager: 1. Establishment of clear criteria for experience that align with the decarbonization goals of Austin Energy, as established by the City Council. 2. One or more hybrid format public forums for a short list (3-5) of finalists for the position that are open to the public and recorded. Attendees should have the opportunity to ask a question of the candidates. Rationale: The general manager of Austin Energy needs to be prepared for more than just operating an electric utility. Austin Energy is different from many utilities because it is publicly owned. And it is different even from many publicly owned utilities because of the priorities of the Austin community and the Austin City Council. The Austin City Council has repeatedly adopted plans that envision the phasing out of fossil fuels at the utility. Doing so will require several changes in programs, operations and policies at the utility. The next general manager must be someone who embraces this challenge and is eager to find solutions to difficult problems. The Austin Energy general manager must be comfortable with responding to the public in a productive way in times of crisis and as a regular course of business. The Austin Energy general manager at times becomes the most visible face of the city government. Engaging the public in a way that builds trust is essential. Participating in at least one public forum prior to being hired is one way to get a taste of how a candidate will approach responding to the public. Vote: 7-0-3 1 of 2 For: Chair Dave Tuttle; Vice Chair Kaiba; Commissioner Raul Alvarez; Commissioner Lauren Bellomy; Commissioner Cesar Benavides; Commissioner Al Braden; Commissioner Cyrus Reed Against: None Abstentions: Commissioner Jonathon Blackburn; Commissioner Chris Gillett; Commissioner Chris Kirksey Absent: Commissioner Joshua Rhodes Attest: Nici Huff Nici Huff, Staff Liaison 2 of 2
Customer Energy Solutions FY 25 Savings Report — original pdf
Energy Efficiency Services EES- Appliance Efficiency Program EES- Home Energy Savings - Rebate EES- AE Weatherization & CAP Weatherization - D.I. * EES- School Based Education * EES- Strategic Partnership Between Utilities & Retailers * EES- Multifamily Rebates EES- Multifamily WX-D.I.+ EES- Commercial Rebate EES- Small Business Energy Efficiency TOTAL Demand Response (DR) - Annual Incremental DR- Power Partner DR- Commercial Demand Response (frmly Load Coop) Demand Response (DR) TOTAL Green Building GB- Residential Ratings GB- Residential Energy Code GB- Multifamily Ratings GB- Multifamily Energy Code GB- Commercial Ratings GB- Commercial Energy Code Green Building TOTAL MW Goal 2.50 0.90 0.70 0.30 1.75 0.65 1.00 6.00 2.00 15.80 MW Goal 6.40 2.00 8.40 MW Goal 0.35 1.48 1.34 4.41 4.60 1.71 13.89 MW To Date 0.84 0.17 0.59 0.09 0.80 1.61 0.77 0.90 0.38 6.15 MW To Date 3.33 3.33 MW To Date 0.20 0.92 1.56 3.30 1.83 1.07 8.87 Thermal Energy Storage TOTAL 0.00 0.00 Non-Public - AE# Customer Energy Solutions FY25 YTD MW Savings Report As of April 2025 Percentage 34% 19% 85% 29% 46% 247% 77% 15% 19% Percentage 52% 0% Percentage 56% 62% 116% 75% 40% 63% Participant Type Participants To Date MWh To Date Rebate Budget Customers Customers Customers Products Products Apartments Apartments Customers Customers 1,217 165 735 2,043 127,072 4,142 3,451 65 30 11,848 1,701.98 236.95 1,116.32 458.57 6,494.81 3,047.05 2,352.20 1,890.81 802.15 18,100.84 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 5,450,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 15,850,000 Spent to Date $ 541,863 $ 375,318 $ 6,672,807 $ 100,863 $ 670,723 $ 1,285,851 $ 1,096,222 $ 824,219 $ 238,338 $ 11,806,204 Participant Type Participants To Date MWh To Date Rebate Budget Devices Customers 2,344 2,344 0 0.00 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 254,230 $ 254,230 Participant Type Participants To Date MWh To Date Rebate Budget Spent to Date Customers Customers Dwellings Dwellings 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 253 1,180 3,495 6,353 2,713 3,974 11,281 0 229 1,279 3,614 3,705 5,107 3,466 17,398 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 $ - $ - CES MW Savings Grand TOTAL Residential Totals Commercial Totals MW Goal 38.09 MW To Date 18.35 Percentage Participant Type Participants To Date MWh To Date Rebate Budget 25,473 35,499.15 $ 19,450,000 Spent to Date $ 12,060,434 16.03 14.06 9.32 15.75 58% 112% 142,602 16,534 16915.52 15985.67 $ $ 14,100,000 2,002,693 $ $ …
Item #3 Animal Services Office Strategic Plan Update — original pdf
Animal Services Office Strategic Plan Update Juany Torres Strategic Plan Project Manager June 9, 2025 Background The City of Austin Animal Services Office (ASO) launched a strategic planning process in June 2024. This planning process was initiated in response to two 2023 reviews of ASO by the City of Austin Auditor’s Office and the National Center for Animal Shelter Evaluations. In March 2025 City Council adopted the plan. ✓ January 2025: Finalize and Design Strategic Plan ✓ February 10, 2025: Animal Advisory Commission meeting discussion and recommendation ✓ March 5, 2025: Public Health Committee Briefing ✓ March 27, 2025: Austin City Council Meeting for consideration and adoption of Strategic Plan ✓ April 29, 2025: Travis County Commissioner’s Court presentation of Austin City Council approved Strategic Plan ✓ May 2025: ASO has launched implementation of Strategic Plan June 2025: First update on Austin City Council approved Strategic Plan to Austin Animal Advisory Commission 14 Strategic Planning Process Overview STRATEGIC PLAN PREPARATION Apr to Jun 2024 PHASE 1: ASSESSMENT Jun to Aug 2024 Purpose: To map out the strategic planning process. External consultant Dr. Larry Schooler hired • • Planning Team and Working Group members identified Purpose: To understand ASO's current state and gather feedback from stakeholders, including staff, volunteers, partners, and the community to ensure the strategic plan is responsive to the needs, priorities, and aspirations of stakeholders. • Conducted a community survey with 2,041 participants • Held four listening sessions with 40 ASO volunteers • Held nine listening sessions with 94 ASO staff members Interviewed 10 ASO leadership team members Interviewed 11 community partners • • • Reviewed prior audits, reports, and surveys • Benchmarked similar animal welfare organizations • Compiled two comprehensive reports of survey and listening session findings 3 Strategic Planning Process Overview Continued PHASE 2: STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT Aug 2024 to Jan 2025 PHASE 3: STRATEGIC PLAN FINALIZATION Jan 2025 to May 2025 Purpose: To create a strategic plan that addresses audit findings, fulfills ASO’s mission, and effectively balances stakeholder needs and aspirations while building trust among Working Group members. Purpose: To share, finalize, and adopt the strategic plan. • Held five initial workshops with the Working Group • • Held staff town hall to gather feedback on Shared draft focus areas and goals with stakeholders draft framework • Conducted community survey to gather feedback on • draft framework Feedback shared with the Working Group and …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Play video — original link
Play video
Play audio — original link
Play audio
ITEM02 C15-2025-0007 DENIED DS — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 02 DATE: Monday June 9, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0007 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Niccolo A Sacco (D6) OUT ___-____Sameer S Birring (D7) OUT ___Y___Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) OUT ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) OUT APPLICANT: Jay Hargrave OWNER: Hans Vaziri ADDRESS: 601 KINNEY AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code 25-2-492 Site Development Regulations (Maximum Height Requirements) & Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 2, Development Standards Section 3.4.1 (Height) to increase the height on a flat roof from 32 feet (maximum allowed) to 42 feet (requested), in order to complete a remodel/addition to attach a bedroom to an existing single- family residence in an “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. NOTE: LDC 25-2 Land Development, Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 2: - Development Standards, Section 3.4.1 – Height. Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and lowest grades adjacent to the building to: A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping; B. For a mansard roof, the deck line; C. For a pitched or hip roof, the gabled roof or dormer with the highest average height; or D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building. BOARD’S DECISION: April 14, 2024 Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne motion to Postpone to June 9, 2025; Board member Michael Von Ohlen second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO JUNE 9, 2025. June 9, 2025 Postponement request by applicant was Denied by Board member Michael Von Ohlen, Board member Maggie Shahrestani second on 9-0 vote (Board member Thomas Ates-late virtual due to technical issues). The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Deny; Board member Jeffery Bowen second on 10-0 votes; DENIED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair …
ITEM03 C15-2025-0019 DENIED DS — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 03 DATE: Monday June 9, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0019 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Niccolo A Sacco (D6) OUT ___-____Sameer S Birring (D7) OUT ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) OUT ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) OUT OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathryn and Rafael Reyes ADDRESS: 7211 RIDGE OAK RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from six (6) feet (maximum allowed) to eight feet four inches (8’4”) feet (requested), in order to erect a fence along both interior side property lines and rear property line in a “SF-2-CO-NP”, Single-Family-Conditional Overlay-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (West Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan). Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid material to open space of not more than one to four; and (2) a solid fence is a fence other than an ornamental fence. (C) The height restrictions of this section do not apply to an ornamental fence. (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed a height of six feet measured from the natural grade up. (E) If there is a change in grade of at least one foot measured along any run of a solid fence along a property line, then the portion of the fence where the grade change occurs may be constructed to a maximum height of seven feet. (F) a solid fence along a property line may be constructed to a maximum height of eight feet if each owner of property that adjoins a section of the fence that exceeds a height of six feet files written consent to the construction of the fence with the building official; and (1) there is a change in grade of at least two feet within 50 feet of the boundary between adjoining properties; or (2) a …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Approved Minutes — original pdf
Animal Advisory Commission Minutes June 9, 2025 ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 9, 2025 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on June 9, 2025, at 301 W. 2nd St. in Austin, Texas. Parliamentarian Norton called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Erin Ferguson, D8 Dr. Paige Nilson, D4 Jo Anne Norton, D7 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Koby Ahmed, Mayor Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Nancy Nemer, Travis County Whitney Holt, D5 Commissioners Absent: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Heather Myers – Heat, euthanasia notices, UPL Rochelle Vickery – Thanks to Austin Pets Alive! Max Oliver – Duties of AAC Julie Oliver – Issues at AAC Matt Oliver – Issues at AAC Caroline Clay – Foster barriers at AAC Angela Pires – Euthanasia notices for space APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on April 14, 2025. 1 Animal Advisory Commission Minutes June 9, 2025 The minutes from the meeting on April 14, 2025, were approved on Commissioner Nilson’s motion, Commissioner Ferguson’s second, on a 7-0 vote. Commissioners Holt and Nemer were off the dais. Commissioner Clinton was absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Services Office. The presentation was made by Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer, Animal Services Office. 3. Staff briefing regarding an update on the implementation of the Animal Services Office Strategic Plan 2025 to 2030. Presentation by Juany Torres, Strategic Plan Project Manager, Animal Services Office. The presentation was made by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Animal Services Office and Juany Torres, Strategic Plan Project Manager, Animal Services Office. DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding the 2024-2025 Annual Internal Review for the Animal Advisory Commission. Discussed. WORKING GROUP UPDATES 5. Update from the Community Cats Processing Working Group regarding the work completed since February 2025. Commissioners Holt and Huddleston provided an update. 6. Update from the Long Distance Adoption Working Group regarding the work completed since March 2025. Commissioner Holt provided an update. 7. Update from the Good Fix Marketing Working Group regarding the last three meetings and accomplishments so far. Commissioner Nilson provided an update. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 8. Approve updates to the membership of the Good Fix Working Group. The motion to approve Commissioners Nilson, Ferguson, Herrera, …