Posting Language ..Title Approve a resolution authorizing the filing of eminent domain proceedings and payment to acquire the property interests needed for the Cap Ex South, CKT987 & 1031 Structure Relocation 2021 Project for the public use of relocating various structures along the existing circuits 926, 927, 987, and 988 requiring relocation to accommodate the Texas Department of Transportation expansion of Interstate Highway 35 (I- 35) as part of its I-35 Capital Express program, requiring the acquisition of a Permanent Electric Transmission and Distribution Easement, consisting of approximately 0.168 acres (7,319 square feet) of land being a portion of Lot 23, Block “A”, Circle “S” Ridge Section 1, a Subdivision recorded in Book 4, Page 285 Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, currently appraised at $1,026,386 subject to an increase in value based on updated appraisals or a Special Commissioner’s award. The owner of the needed property is Long Real Estate Holdings, LLC. The property is located at 7008 South Interstate Highway 35, Austin, Texas 78745. The general route of the project is along Interstate 35 from State Highway 71 south to State Highway 45. Funding: $1,026,386 is available in Capital Budget of Austin Energy. ..Body Lead Department Financial Services Department Fiscal Note Funding is available in the Capital Budget of Austin Energy. For More Information: Michael Gates, Financial Services Department, 512-974-5639; Brandon Williamson, Financial Services Department, 512-974-5666; Amy Everhart, Austin Energy, Director, Local Government Issues (512) 322- 6087; David Tomczyszyn, Austin Energy, VP Electric Systems Engineering and Technical Services, (512) 322-6821; Tina Little, Austin Energy, Director, Electric Systems and Shared Services, (512) 322-6396. Council Committee, Boards and Commission Action: March 10, 2025 - To be reviewed by the Electric Utility Commission. Additional Backup Information: Various structures along the existing circuits 926/927, 987, and 988 require relocation to accommodate the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) expansion of Interstate Highway 35 (I-35) as part of its I-35 Capital Express program. TxDOT’s I-35 Capital Express South project runs along I-35 from State Highway 71 south to State Highway 45. The relocation of the circuit adjacent to the property at 7008 South I-35 requires the City to purchase an electric easement across Lot 23, Block A, Circle S Ridge Section 1, a subdivision of record in Book 4, Page 285 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas. The City previously acquired through condemnation a waterline easement across the same area through condemnation …
ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICE STRATEGIC PLAN 2025-2030 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION BY CITY MANAGEMENT AND AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. MARCH 5, 2025 DRAFT. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .............................................................................................2-4 Message from the Chief Animal Services Officer ...........................................5 Strategic Planning Background & Overview .............................................6-9 ASO Strategic Plan 2025-2030 ..............................................................10-21 Humane Care................................................................................10-12 Spay Neuter.......................................................................................13 Open Intake...................................................................................14-15 Live Release..................................................................................16-17 Public Health & Safety...................................................................18-19 Staff & Volunteers .......................................................................20-21 Acknowledgements..............................................................................22 Appendix..........................................................................................23-32 Measuring Success......................................................................23-30 Glossary..............................................................................31-32 2 INT RO DUCT IO N ABOUT THE AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICE The City of Austin Animal Services Office (ASO) operates the Austin Animal Center, the municipal shelter for the city of Austin and unincorporated Travis County, one of the largest no-kill shelters in the nation. Throughout the year, the Austin Animal Center is a temporary home for thousands of pets, working to place all adoptable pets in homes. Animal Services emphasizes a prevention based, educational approach by enforcing animal- related ordinances and by connecting residents with resources to care for animals in the community. WHAT IS THE ASO STRATEGIC PLAN? The ASO Strategic Plan provides a clear and actionable framework to guide the organization’s efforts in achieving its goals and realizing its vision over the next five years. ASO staff and City of Austin leadership will use this plan to: Establish a roadmap for departmental initiatives Guide operational, resource allocation, and budgeting decisions Track and evaluate progress toward goals and performance targets Communicate ASO’s vision and priorities to stakeholders Identify opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders to advance ASO’s goals and vision INT RO DUCTION 3 COMPONENTS OF THE ASO STRATEGIC PLAN THE ASO STRATEGIC PLAN INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS: VISION: A shared idea of what the community will experience when ASO implements this plan. MISSION: The core purpose and role ASO serves in supporting the community and achieving its vision. ASO’s mission was not updated as part of this process. FOCUS AREAS: This plan has six focus areas representing ASO’s high-level priorities. These foundational elements guide ASO in advancing its mission and achieving its vision. DESCRIPTION: A brief overview of each focus area. GOALS: Each focus area has three to four goals. Goals are the specific end- results that ASO envisions, plans, and commits to achieve. STRATEGIES: Each goal has several strategies. These are the actionable plans or methods that ASO will take to achieve its goals. MEASURES: Each goal has associated measures which can be found in the …
Animal Services Office Bond Development Status Jason Garza Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer March 10, 2025 1 City of Austin Animal Services Office Bond Funding History COA Bond Election Needs Assessment for Town Lake Animal Center, 2005-2006 COA Bond Election Advisory Committee: Report and Recommendation, 2006 Health & Human Services Animal Shelter - $12,065,000 • Cost estimate to build replacement for Town Lake Animal Shelter on HHSD Campus Includes 34,000 SF of enclosed space Includes 28,000 SF of kennel space • • • O&M Impact - $307,000 • O&M FTEs - 8 2 City of Austin Animal Services Office Guiding Principles Community Trust and Relationships Social Equity Innovation Affordability Proactive Prevention Sustainability and Resiliency 3 Bond Program Guiding Principles • Equity • Affordability • Innovation • Sustainability and Resiliency • Proactive Prevention • Customer Trust and Relationships Technical Criteria Development • Equity – ensure that services provided from project is accessible to all. • Affordability – the services provided by the project does not create a hardship for future pet owners. • Innovation – the project will advance animal welfare in Austin. • Sustainability and Resiliency – Project will help reduce carbon footprint for the organization but also to residents of Austin. • Proactive Prevention – the project will affect pets in a positive aspect, as well as have a positive impact on overall shelter operations. • Customer Trust and Relationships – the projects will increase public trust and relationships that may be strained due to current gaps in service. Animal Services Office – Technical Criteria • ASO developed the following as technical criteria: • Enhanced services for residents • Improvement to ASO operations • Promotes safety and wellbeing to humans • Promotes enhanced animal welfare • Each criteria is scored based on how the project relates to the guiding principles • All projects may score a maximum of 100 points Animal Services Office – Scoring Matrix • ASO’s numerical breakdown in relation to the guiding principles • Equity – 10 points • Affordability – 15 points • Innovation – 10 points • Sustainability and Resiliency – 5 points • Proactive Prevention – 30 points • Customer Trust and Relationships – 30 points Next steps scoring matrix • Brief Bond Election Advisory Task Force on technical criteria and • Develop projects for consideration • Determine if there is alignment or overlap with other departments • Present recommendations to City Manager’s …
To: Commissioners of the Board of Adjustments From: University Hills Neighborhood Plan Contact Team Date: March 5, 2025 Re: Case Number: C16-2024-0001 The University Hills Neighborhood Plan Contact Team met February 19, 2025, to review the above-referenced case that is a request for a variance to erect a McDonald’s sign that would be larger and higher than current regulations allow. The community was informed of the variance request and contact team meeting via email notifications to the University Hills Neighborhood As- sociation and to other individual stakeholders and groups in this area. After review of the applicant’s case materials available from Board of Adjustment, the group dis- cussed the request, and a vote was called by Contact Team Chair Seth Fowler. The vote was unanimous to oppose the applicant’s request to increase the height and the size of the sign above what is allowed by the current regulations. Comments and concerns include: An excessively high and very large brightly lighted sign would negatively impact the new residen- tial development being built at Loyola Lane and Ed Bluestein (Hwy 183). Such a brightly lighted sign will disrupt the quality of life of the people who live in nearby homes, especially if raised higher and made larger. The larger and higher sign does not fit in with the UNWP Neighborhood Plan approved by the City Council in August 2007. Allowing the increase in height and size there could cause a competitive escalation of heights and sizes as companies jockey for visual advantage. Promotion of this commercial operation could be done without increasing the impact to area res- idents by obtaining space on one of the highway department signs that lists such businesses as restaurants, hotels, and gasoline a mile or two in advance of the business. Again, the UHNPCT and area stakeholders oppose allowing the increase of the sign size and height. Thank you for your consideration. Seth Fowler, Chair UHNPCT ITEM02/1-LATE BACKUP MAR10
Electric Utility Commission RECOMMENDATION 20250310-14 Date: March 10, 2025 Subject: Austin Energy Budget Recommendations Recommendations on the FY 25-26 Budget Description of Recommendation to Council Motioned By: Kaiba White Seconded By: Cyrus Reed 1. The Customer Energy Solutions department is responsible for Austin Energy’s demand- side programs, which include customer-sited solar energy, community solar, energy efficiency, demand response and transportation electrification. The success of these programs is essential for meeting the goals of the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, and for maintaining affordability and customer satisfaction. The roles that the teams within Customer Energy Solutions have been expanding and will continue to expand as these Council-adopted plans are implemented. It is essential that staffing keep pace with the need and demand for this important work. For example, the Solar Standard Offer program for commercial customers has launched and an expansion is being discussed and is envisioned in the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan. While the private sector will do most of the work to deliver energy through that program, Austin Energy staff play important roles in making it and other solar programs a success. They respond to questions from the public, review applications, conduct inspections and run payments. Staff are also working to implement a distributed energy management system that will allow the utility to utilize customer-sited batteries and are going to implement a Passive House pilot program to incentivize energy efficient building techniques. The teams within Customer Energy Solutions that are working to implement these new programs, as well as the many existing programs, must grow to effectively and efficiently do this important work. The Electric Utility Commission recommends that FTEs be added to implement the customer energy solutions goals in the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan. 2. Austin Energy is charged with developing and implementing, with the Developmental Services Department and City Council, the adoption, implementation and enforcement of energy codes. It is expected in 2025, the City Council will adopt new energy codes. The EUC recommends additional funding for FTEs for outreach, implementation and enforcement of the new energy codes. Vote: 9-0 For: Chair Dave Tuttle; Vice Chair Kaiba White; Commissioner Raul Alvarez; Commissioner Lauren Bellomy; Commissioner Jonathon Blackburn; Commissioner Al Braden; Commissioner Chris Kirksey; Commissioner Cyrus Reed; Commissioner Joshua Rhodes Absences: Commissioners Akande and Benavides Against: None Abstentions: None Off Dais: …
Austin-Travis County Food Plan ATCFPB March 2024 – Staff Update City of Austin Food Plan Updates Report back to Council in Spring 2025 ● City staff will provide a Memo to Council in spring 2025 ○ Updates on Strategy progress including defined leadership roles and responsibilities for implementation of the various strategies within the Plan ○ Funding needs in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget for investment in and implementation of the Plan and to identify strategy priorities to be included as part of the next bond package ○ Updates on a Food Plan Dashboard ○ Updates on an Implementation Coalition Dashboard Preview - Now LIVE Implementation Coalition ● City and County staff are developing an Interlocal Agreement to support a Food Plan implementation coalition (Strategy 9.1) ● Staff are scoping and negotiating specifics and hope to have an Interlocal Agreement complete in spring 2025 ● RFP for support of an implementation coalition will be released in mid-2025 Travis County Food Plan Updates Exploring Departmental Alignment ● Travis County Staff Food Plan Team Updates ○ Current step: outreach to departmental staff leaders to explore Food Plan goal & strategy alignment with departmental goals ○ Goal: share top-aligned goals & strategies with Commissioners Court members, Spring 2025 Thank You! Travis County Environmental Quality: Sustainability Programs www.austintexas.gov/food /austinsustainability
Addressing Unmet Needs for Goal 3 Strategies in the Austin-Travis County Food Plan Good Work Austin (GWA) is committed to advancing the strategies outlined under Goal 3 of the Austin-Travis County Food Plan: Improving farm worker and food worker livelihoods by ensuring a safety net, defining career pathways, expanding training opportunities, and strengthening opportunities for advancement across the local food system. This proposal outlines the unmet needs required to address these strategies and the resources needed to achieve meaningful progress in FY 2025-2026. Strategy 3.1: Define the criteria for a livable wage in the food service industry to enhance the participation of restaurants and other food businesses in incentive programs using frameworks such as One Fair Wage, MIT Living Wage Calculator, or United Way's ALICE. Unmet Needs: 1. Staffing: $13,000 to fund GWA staff to utilize their evaluation expertise and data management tools to develop and adapt a livable wage framework specific to the local food system, leveraging models like One Fair Wage, Chicago’s One Fair Wage ordinance, and the MIT Living Wage Calculator. Impact: These efforts will directly benefit the over 65,000 food workers in Travis County by making it easier for businesses to begin the path to increasing wages and ensuring fair compensation practices. Phase 1 (2025-2026): 1. Research and Framework Development (30 hours): Study and adapt existing models like One Fair Wage, Chicago’s One Fair Wage ordinance, and the MIT Living Wage Calculator to the local food system. 2. Business Engagement, Data Collection and Analysis (70 hours): Engage with 50 local food businesses (with an emphasis on small businesses), and city and community partners, through meetings, interviews, and workshops to gather feedback. Gather and analyze regional data on cost of living and wages to inform the framework. 3. Documentation and Reporting (30 hours): Compile findings, feedback, and the finalized framework into a report for stakeholders. Total Estimated Hours: 130 hours. Phase 2: Implement adoption through targeted campaigns and resources for businesses to adopt living wage criteria. Provide consultation (a part of strategy 3.6) to support businesses to adopt liveable wage models and education for consumers. Strategy 3.2: Conduct a regular survey to assess needs, work environment, and career outlook to inform programs and policies affecting food and farm workers. Unmet Needs: 1. Staffing: $23,000 to fund GWA staff to utilize their evaluation expertise and data management tools to research and develop, implement, and report findings of a …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet – SIGN VARIANCE ITEM02 DATE: March 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2024-0001 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Michael Everett OWNER: Rowdy Durham ADDRESS: 6320 ED BLUESTEIN BLVD SB VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-123 (Expressway Corridor Sign District Regulations): (B) (2) (a) to exceed sign area from 60 square feet to 210.36 square feet (B) (3) (a) to exceed sign height of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 60 feet (requested) for a Freestanding sign in order to provide signage for a McDonald’s in a “GR-MU-CO-NP”, Community Commercial – Mixed Use – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (University Hills Neighborhood Plan), Expressway Corridor Sign District. Note: The Land Development Code Sign Regulations 25-10-123 Expressway Corridor Sign Regulations (A) This section applies to an expressway corridor sign district. (B) This subsection prescribes regulations for freestanding signs. (1) One freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. Additional freestanding signs may be permitted under Section 25-10-131 (Additional Freestanding Signs Permitted). (2) The sign area may not exceed: (a) on a lot with not more than 86 linear feet of street frontage, 60 square feet; or (b) on a lot with more than 86 linear feet of street frontage, the lesser of: (i) 0.7 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or (ii) 300 square feet. (3) The sign height may not exceed the greater of: (a) 35 feet above frontage street pavement grade; or (b) 20 feet above grade at the base of the sign. (C) A roof sign may be permitted instead of a freestanding sign under Section 25-10-132 (Roof Sign Instead Of Freestanding Sign). (D) Wall signs are permitted. (E) One flag for each curb cut is permitted. (F) For signs other than freestanding signs or roof signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed 20 percent of the facade area of the first 15 feet of the building. Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 9, 8-28-17. BOARD’S DECISION: December 9, 2024, POSPONED TO JANUARY 13, 2025 RENOTIFICATION -VARIANCE REQUEST: …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item03 DATE: Monday March 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0005 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Maximiliano Martinez OWNER: Death and Taxes ADDRESS: 2136 7TH ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, space from one (1) (required) to zero (0) (requested) and minimum on-site accessible space from one (1) (required) to zero (0) (requested) in order to remodel an existing restaurant in a “CS-CO-MU-NP”, General Commercial Services-Conditional Overlay-Mixed Use-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Central East Austin Neighborhood Plan) Note: Per Land Development Code: Section 25-6-474 (Parking Facilities for Persons with Disabilities) (B) to reduce the Section 25-6-471 (Off-Stret Parking) (B) to reduce the minimum on-site accessible Except as provided in Subsection (B), off-street motor vehicle parking is not required. This article shall govern over a 25-6-471 – OFF-STREET PARKING. (A) conflicting provision of this title or other ordinance, unless the conflicting provision is less restrictive. This article applies to all uses and to specific regulating plans, Transit Oriented Development areas (TODs), and Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCDs) that incorporate this chapter by reference. A planned unit development (PUD) that includes specific off-site parking requirements controls over this article. A person may appeal the requirements of this section to the Board of Adjustment. A minimum of one on-site accessible space is required. The minimum number of accessible spaces is calculated by taking 100 A variance granted under Subsection (C) applies only to the use for which the variance was granted and does not run with the (B) percent of the parking previously required for the use under Appendix A (Tables of Off-Street Loading Requirements and Former Off- Street Parking Requirements) and using that result to determine the number of accessible parking spaces required under the Building Code. Source: Section 13-5-97(f), (g) and (i); Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031120-44; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20231102-028, Pt. 41, 11-13-23. 25-6-474 - PARKING FACILITIES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. (A) A site must have: (1) a parking facility that is accessible to a person with disabilities; (2) routes of travel that connect the accessible elements of the site; and (3) the number …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item04 DATE: Monday March 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0006 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jennifer Hanlen OWNER: David and Stephanie Goodman ADDRESS: 3706 MEADOWBANK DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 2, Development Standards Section 2.1 (Maximum Development Permitted) to increase the F.A.R from 40% (required) to 41.3% (requested), in order to complete a remodel/addition to include a garage to an existing single family residence in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family- Neighborhood Plan zoning district (WANG Neighborhood Plan). NOTE: LDC 25-2 Land Development, Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 2: - Development Standards, Section 2.1 – Maximum Development Permitted. The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross floor area, as defined in Section 3.3. Floor-to-area ratio shall be measured using gross floor area as defined in Section 3.3, except that the lot area of a flag lot is calculated consistent with the requirements of 25-1-22 (Measurements). BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Deny; Board member Maggie Shahrestani 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 the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair Diana Ramirez for
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number 20250310-07: Improve Conditions for Food System Workers WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed RESOLUTION NO. 20210610-039, which directed the City Manager to initiate a planning process for an Austin Food Plan in June 2021 to support a more resilient, equitable food system for the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan was developed through comprehensive and collaborative community workgroups across five identified issue areas, including 1.) Food Access and Consumption, 2.) Food Markets and Retail, 3.) Food Production, 4.) Post-Consumption and Food Waste, and 5.) Food Processing and Distribution, as well as input from a Community Advisory Committee, Community Food Ambassadors, planning teams across both City and County offices, and broad public engagement; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, approved by the Austin City Council in October 2024, outlines strategic, measurable, ambitious, realistic, time-bound, inclusive, and equitable objectives, goals, and strategies to be accomplished within the next five years to create a more just, accessible, and culturally diverse food system for Austin and Travis County that supports and sustains thriving communities, healthy ecosystems, and solutions to climate change where all individuals can reach their full potential; and WHEREAS, Goal 3 of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, "Livelihoods," seeks to improve farm worker and food worker livelihoods by ensuring a safety net, defining career pathways, expanding training opportunities, and strengthening opportunities for advancement across the local food system; and WHEREAS, over 65,000 people (7.5% of residents) are employed in the food sector across Travis County, many of whom earn some of the lowest wages in our local economy1, making the implementation of Goal 3 essential to supporting economic stability, worker well-being, and a thriving regional food economy; and WHEREAS, successful implementation of Goal 3 requires specific actions based on the strategies listed in the food plan, including: 1 City of Austin (2022), State of the Food System Report. ● 3.1 Defining criteria for a livable wage in the food service industry using nationally recognized frameworks, paired with business engagement and data analysis to create a regionally appropriate standard; ● 3.2 Conducting regular, culturally appropriate worker surveys and focus groups to assess needs, work environments, and career opportunities to inform responsive policy and program development; ● 3.3 Establishing a commission or working group under the Austin/Travis County Food Policy Board to address food and farm worker rights, including benefits, …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number 20250310-07: Improve Conditions for Food System Workers WHEREAS, Travis County Commissioners Court passed a Resolution in support of the Austin Travis County Food Plan on October 29th 2024; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan was developed through comprehensive and collaborative community workgroups across five identified issue areas, including 1.) Food Access and Consumption, 2.) Food Markets and Retail, 3.) Food Production, 4.) Post-Consumption and Food Waste, and 5.) Food Processing and Distribution, as well as input from a Community Advisory Committee, Community Food Ambassadors, planning teams across both City and County offices, and broad public engagement; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan outlines strategic, measurable, ambitious, realistic, time- bound, inclusive, and equitable objectives, goals, and strategies to be accomplished within the next five years to create a more just, accessible, and culturally diverse food system for Austin and Travis County that supports and sustains thriving communities, healthy ecosystems, and solutions to climate change where all individuals can reach their full potential; and WHEREAS, Goal 3 of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, "Livelihoods," seeks to improve farm worker and food worker livelihoods by ensuring a safety net, defining career pathways, expanding training opportunities, and strengthening opportunities for advancement across the local food system; and WHEREAS, over 65,000 people (7.5% of residents) are employed in the food sector across Travis County, many of whom earn some of the lowest wages in our local economy1, making the implementation of Goal 3 essential to supporting economic stability, worker well-being, and a thriving regional food economy; and WHEREAS, successful implementation of Goal 3 requires specific actions based on the strategies listed in the food plan, including: 1 City of Austin (2022), State of the Food System Report. ● 3.1 Defining criteria for a livable wage in the food service industry using nationally recognized frameworks, paired with business engagement and data analysis to create a regionally appropriate standard; ● 3.2 Conducting regular, culturally appropriate worker surveys and focus groups to assess needs, work environments, and career opportunities to inform responsive policy and program development; ● 3.3 Establishing a commission or working group under the Austin/Travis County Food Policy Board to address food and farm worker rights, including benefits, unfair labor practices, and workplace safety; ● 3.4 Researching and recommending incentives such as tax rebates and wage supplements to support food system employers who provide livable …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number 20250310-09: Expand Benefits and Access to Nutritious Food WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report Strategy 6.5 calls for expanded benefits and access to nutritious foods through programs that amplify and supplement the purchasing power of individuals and households facing food and nutrition insecurity and explore the feasibility of creating a locally funded nutrition incentive program with less restrictive eligibility criteria than SNAP/WIC. WHEREAS, food insecurity disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in Austin/Travis County, creating significant barriers to nutritious food access for individuals and households with limited resources; WHEREAS, where value multiplying programs are an effective model of extending purchasing power for nutritious foods, allowing SNAP and WIC recipients to double their spending on fruits and vegetables at local farmers markets and retail locations; WHEREAS, the need for culturally relevant nutrition education and cooking skills training, can empower community members to make healthy, affordable food choices; WHEREAS, current food assistance programs often have restrictive eligibility criteria that exclude many community members experiencing economic hardship; WHEREAS, technological barriers and limited digital literacy can further complicate access to food assistance resources and online food shopping options; WHEREAS, language and disability barriers continue to create additional challenges for individuals seeking food assistance and nutrition support; WHEREAS, there are existing successful local programs that provide valuable frameworks for expanding food access and nutrition education so new programs can and need to be created; WHEREAS, these recommendations align with the city's commitment to the food plan, health, and community support. Further recognizing that according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes access to nutritious food as a fundamental human right; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board recommends the City of Austin expand and enhance nutrition incentive programs, building upon successful value purchasing models to create a locally funded nutrition incentive program with more flexible eligibility criteria that complement existing federal/state/local assistance programs. These efforts could provide additional purchasing power for nutritious foods, particularly fresh produce and local agricultural products and create mechanisms to support both farmers and food-insecure households. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board encourages Austin City Council to provide funding for nutrition education and skill-building initiatives to increase utilization and health among vulnerable populations. BE IT FURTHER …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20250310-06A: Support for Agricultural Land Acquisition and Preservation in Austin, Texas WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report indicates that less than 0.6% of the food consumed in Travis County is produced locally, and that approximately 16.8 acres of farmland are lost daily to development pressures, underscoring the critical need for dedicated agricultural land preservation efforts; and WHEREAS, land in Austin-Travis County is continuing to increase in value and decrease in quantity, it is imperative to act quickly as the cost of action will only increase over time; and WHEREAS, agricultural lands are vital to local food security, environmental sustainability, emergency preparedness, and climate resilience; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, approved by the Austin City Council in October 2024, includes strategic, measurable, and time-bound goals and strategies to strengthen food security, promote environmental sustainability, and address climate change; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan’s Goal 1 prioritizes expanding community food production, preserving agricultural lands, and increasing the amount of farmland dedicated to regenerative food production long-term in Austin and Travis County; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.1 of the Food Plan calls for the preservation of land for food production in Central Texas through conservation easements, fee-simple purchases, and land-banking, ensuring that farmland remains dedicated to agricultural use; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.2 directs the City of Austin and Travis County to pursue capital funding sources to finance the conservation of land for agricultural use through conservation easements or direct purchases; and WHEREAS, preserving agricultural land also supports the goals of the Austin Climate Equity Plan by promoting sustainable land use, strengthening local food systems, and reducing carbon footprints through localized food production; and WHEREAS, Natural Systems Goal 2 of the Austin Climate Equity Plan aims to protect 500,000 acres of farmland across the five-county region through legal conservation or regenerative agriculture programs by 2030; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin currently lacks a dedicated mechanism to effectively manage and prioritize the preservation of agricultural lands; and WHEREAS, there is a lack of coordination among City departments acquiring land for various purposes, such as water quality, flood control, and green space development, undermining the potential to support the City’s food and climate resilience goals, including agricultural production and carbon sequestration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board encourages the Austin City …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20250310_6B: Defining and Supporting Regenerative Agriculture WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report indicates that 21% of all greenhouse gas emissions in our community are related to the food supply chain; and WHEREAS, implementing Regenerative Agriculture supports the goals of the Austin Climate Equity Plan, which aims to ensure that by 2030, 100% of Austinites, especially those who are food insecure, can access a pro-climate, pro-health food systems that prioritize regenerative agriculture; and WHEREAS, the goals and strategies in the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, approved by the Austin City Council in October 2024, prioritize regenerative agriculture implementation, with reference to “regenerative agriculture” and food systems occurring 44 times throughout the document; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan states that a specific definition of Regenerative food production may need to be adopted to implement strategies under Goal 1, which pertain to agricultural land use (1.1,1.2) and community food systems support (1.6,1.12); and WHEREAS, a more specific definition is contained within the Resilient Farm Planning framework, which utilizes Conservation Practice Standards codified by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and quantifies the resulting greenhouse gas benefits; and WHEREAS, the Resilient Farm Planning process has seen wide adoption and proof of concept in California for over a decade, with 137 Resilient Farm Plans (called Carbon Farm Plans in California) encompassing 71,440 acres; and WHEREAS, the Resilient Farm Planning process can be also be applied to outdoor spaces such as parks, flood plain, and greenbelts; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin Office of Sustainability has previously allocated funds for Texas’ First Resilient Farm plan at the Refugee Collective Farm, written and implemented with technical assistance from National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) and Carbon Cycle Institute (CCI). This establishes a precedent of city support for collaborative plan implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin currently lacks a dedicated mechanism to assist with the writing and implementation of Resilient Farm Plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin Food and Climate Equity (FACE) Grant is a current funding mechanism available to farmers that supports a more just and resilient Austin by providing direct funding for community-led solutions that enable transformative change in the areas of food, climate, and resilience; and WHEREAS, the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board’s Recommendation Number 20240318-7 urged the City of Austin to allocate funds and create …
