3621 Windsor Tarrytown Case 1 Tarrytown Case Summary The owner has requested a demolition permit for 3621 Windsor Rd., a Tarrytown residence. 2 Tarrytown Case Summary The owner has requested a demolition permit for 3621 Windsor Rd., a Tarrytown residence. Staff has argued that the structure may meet the architectural and historic association criteria. 3 Tarrytown Case Summary The owner has requested a demolition permit for 3621 Windsor Rd., a Tarrytown residence. Staff has argued that the structure may meet the architectural and historic association criteria. However, the structure has been meaningfully expanded and changed over time – and staff’s basis for historic association raises equity-related policy questions. 4 This Tarrytown residence was owned by oilwoman philanthropist Alma Thomas. It was built in the late 1940s for $52,500 – roughly 12 times the median home value at that time. This is the structure as it existed the year Alma Thomas passed – it included a main house and servants’ quarters. 6 This is the structure as it today – meaningful work has been done to expand and change it. 7 Historic Association Rationale: Equity Implications Staff argues that Alma Thomas’ status as an oilwoman and local philanthropist is sufficient to warrant historic designation for this structure. 8 Historic Association Rationale: Equity Implications Staff argues that Alma Thomas’ status as an oilwoman and local philanthropist is sufficient to warrant historic designation for this structure. However, adopting this rationale would disproportionately favor historic designation in affluent West Austin, where residents had a much greater capacity to participate in large-scale philanthropy. 9 Historic Association Rationale: Equity Implications Staff argues that Alma Thomas’ status as an oilwoman and local philanthropist is sufficient to warrant historic designation for this structure. However, adopting this rationale would disproportionately favor historic designation in affluent West Austin, where residents had a much greater capacity to participate in large-scale philanthropy. This would also provide these affluent areas with tax exemptions and abatements. In other words, past wealth would be used as a basis for shifting today’s tax burden onto less affluent Austinites. 10 Already, there are six historic landmarks with a half-mile of this property. 11 Supporting Conditions Alma Thomas Has Been Appropriately Honored by Southwestern University. Southwestern University has honored Thomas with the Alma Thomas Fine Arts Center, connecting her to the work she did and the causes she supported. Alma Thomas’ Granddaughter Opposes Historic Designation. Thomas’ granddaughter has …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Epps, Patience L Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:25 AM PAZ Preservation Protest to the demolition permit application for Case No. GF 22-001028 607 E. 38th St. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Allen, I am emailing to protest the demolition permit application for Case No. GF 22‐001028 607 E. 38th St. I live within 500 feet of this property. This is a historic house that offers an affordable rental option, which is becoming more and more rare in our neighborhood. The planned demolition and new building will compromise the character of the neighborhood and will undoubtedly further limit the affordable housing options in the area. All best, Patience Epps 508 E 38 1/2 St Austin TX 78751 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
LIBRARY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20220124-5a: Eliminate Late Fees at Austin Public Library Seconded By: Commissioner Infante Date: January 24, 2022 Subject: Eliminate Late Fees at Austin Public Library Motioned By: Commissioner Smith Recommendation Eliminate Late Fees at Austin Public Library Description of Recommendation to Council Requesting that the Austin City Council use their budgetary authority to eliminate the collection of fees for Austin Public Library materials that are returned late. Rationale: The Austin Public Library vision statement assures that “all members of the Austin community have equal access to Library services and programs.” But the practice of assessing fines for overdue materials presents a barrier to that vision. Overdue fines are a regressive and unnecessary policy that most negatively impacts the Austinites in each Council District who are least able to pay. Accumulated overdue fines lead to blocked library accounts, further restricting access to libraries over what are often small amounts of money. Once users accrue just $25 in fines, they are referred to outside collection agencies, enriching these private entities at taxpayer expense and further damaging the credit standing of our city’s residents in pursuit of an unnecessary fee. Recognizing that late fees disproportionately affect low-income patrons, the American Library Association passed a resolution in 20191 urging libraries nationwide to actively move towards eliminating these fees. Studies have consistently shown that discontinuing the assessment of fines for overdue materials does not decrease return rates, and in fact may increase library card adoption and library usage. In 2019, APL eliminated overdue fines for children’s materials with no negative effects. 386 U.S. city library systems have now taken this simple and practical step to serve their populations more equitably. Among some of the larger metropolitan libraries eliminating late fees include systems in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. Here in Texas, the public library systems in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth and New Braunfels have stopped assessing late fees. 1 of 2 Users w Overdue Fees, 2018-21 COA District APL Users with Overdue Fees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,409 1,127 1,811 939 1,852 1,312 1,705 1,455 2,526 1,443 In light of the City’s goals to increase equity and access to services, it is also time for Austin to make this change. Libraries are one of the last free public spaces open to all Austinites. Limiting their use by lower-income Austinites to maintain an …
The City of Austin Public Safety Commission The Labor Contract Bargaining Process – Briefing – January 24, 2022 Background associations 1. State law authorizes labor contracts with public safety employee 2. Two types of labor contract bargaining: • Meet and confer – sworn Police and EMS employees • Collective bargaining – sworn Fire employees • City’s bargaining process historically the same for both types 3. Current labor contracts all expire on 09/30/2022 • APD: agreement extends automatically to 03/31/23 • AFD and EMS: parties can extend past 09/30/22 by agreement in 30-day increments if actively negotiating (max. extension = 6 months) -1- The Bargaining Process 1. Request for bargaining – notice given by Association ~ 9-12 mos. before current agreement expires 2. Preparation for bargaining – parties review issues arising during current contract and evaluate wage/benefit issues for next contract 3. Bargaining sessions – negotiating teams conduct contract negotiations in public sessions 4. Tentative agreement – if negotiating teams reach agreement on all topics: • Tentative agreement must be approved by Association and City Council • Agreement becomes effective upon approval by both -2- End of Briefing Questions -3-
M E M O R A N D U M Mayor and Council Members TO: FROM: Rey Arellano, Assistant City Manager DATE: SUBJECT: Update on Disaster Preparations and Winter Storm Uri After Action Tasks January 19, 2022 The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on actions taken to prepare the City for complex, cascading disasters and the strategy to continue addressing Winter Storm Uri-related after action tasks. The Winter Storm Uri After Action Corrective Action list identifies a myriad of tasks stemming from a large-scale natural disaster layered on top of a year-long global public health crisis. Winter Storm Uri occurring at the same time as the COVID pandemic served as a catalyst for new tasks and a renewed, holistic disaster preparedness approach to serve our quickly growing community. City-wide Approach Continuous improvement, especially around disaster and emergency response, is a regular practice by City staff, and most certainly by emergency management staff. After an emergency, all involved departments undergo their own internal departmental review and participate in a cross-departmental After Action review led by the Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) Department. An After Action Report (AAR) is prepared and shared with all departments to prioritize specific tasks using an “all-hazards” lens. To oversee citywide implementation of AAR tasks, the City Manager established a core team of executive leaders from: • City Manager’s Office o Strategic Outcome: Safety o Strategic Outcome: Health & Environment, and Culture & Lifelong Learning • City Departments o Austin Energy (AE) o Austin Resource Recovery (ARR) o Austin Water (AW) o Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) o Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) • City Offices o Communications & Public Information Office (CPIO) o Equity Office o Resilience Office (once established) o Sustainability Office The Core Team considers the following information in its decision-making process: • City of Austin After Action Report • Austin Energy After Action Report • Austin Water After Action Report • Questions Raised during After Action Report Presentations to Council • Status of previous After Action Reports • Auditor’s Report • Winter Storm Uri Review Task Force Report • Pandemic Equity Committee Report • FY22 Budget Riders • Resolutions since 2019 related to Resiliency Hubs Priority initiatives have been identified and the Core Team is in the process of designating lead staff to address each initiative. The Core Team is also focusing on clearly defining essential City- …
AUSTIN FIRE Public Safety Commission Meeting FY21 Q4 Chief of Staff Rob Vires 1 D a t a T r e n d s F i s c a l Y e a r s 2 0 1 9 , 2 0 2 0 , 2 0 2 1 Requests for Service (All incidents & priority levels) FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 92,465 89,833 103,626 90th Percentile Response Time (Emergency Incidents) 9:32 9:58 10:28 • Due to COVID-19, overall call volume and emergency incident response times were impacted in FY 2020 and FY 2021. • Winter Storm Uri caused call volume in FY 2021 Q2 to increase by approximately 24% compared to FY 2020 Q2. 2 Ruben M. Espinoza #6108 Senior Police Officer – Region II District Representatives Austin Police Department 512.974.4289 | ruben.espinoza@austintexas.gov REQUEST FOR SERVICE Q4 COMPARISON FY2020 Q4 FY2021 Q4 3,219 3,196 2,896 2,648 2,760 2,500 2,443 2,306 2,298 3,461 2,879 2,441 2,469 1,435 1,024 1,614 1,392 2,360 1,920 1,760 1,519 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 3 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 District 10 *Requests for Service are all INCIDENTS, regardless of priority. REQUEST FOR SERVICE FY20 & FY21 COMPARISON 14,000 FY 2020 FY 2021 12,000 11,848 11,762 10,248 10,000 10,564 10,598 9,237 9,248 9,319 9,979 9,116 7,925 12,573 10,974 10,628 6,935 5,599 6,748 5,603 5,225 4,571 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 *Requests for Service are all INCIDENTS, regardless of priority. 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 4 R E Q U E S T F O R S E R V I C E Q 4 C o m p a r i s o n 1,188 1,262 4,678 472 155 5,583 490 180 13,967 18,065 Fire Medical Rescue Hazmat Other Fire Medical Rescue Hazmat Other FY 2020 Q4 FY 2021 Q4 5 *Requests for service are all incidents, regardless of priority. *”Other” (e.g., smoke investigations, fire alarms in buildings, unlocking buildings, etc.) R E Q U E S T F O R S E R V I C E F Y 2 0 & F Y 2 1 C o m p a r i s o n 5,654 4,587 18,726 1,747 548 57,236 23,873 2,050 582 Fire Medical Rescue Hazmat Other Fire Medical Rescue Hazmat Other FY 2020 FY 2021 6 *Requests for …
` PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 6, 2021 Queen Austin Michael Sierra-Arevalo Rebecca Webber Amanda Lewis Rebecca Bernhardt The Public Safety Commission convened a hybrid in person and videoconferencing meeting Monday, December 6, 2021 at City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Commissioner Nelly Ramirez called the Board Meeting to order at 4:06 p.m., standing in for Chair Gonzales. Board Members in Attendance: Kathleen Hausenfluck Nelly Ramirez John Kiracofe Rocky Lane Cory Hall-Martin Board Members Absent: Chair Rebecca Gonzales Staff in Attendance: Joseph Chacon, Chief, Austin Police Department Robin Henderson, Assistant Chief, Austin Police Department Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief, Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services Rob Vires, Chief of Staff, Austin Fire Department Citizen Communications - Citizens signed up to speak: none 1. Approval of Minutes – Commissioner Ramirez called for approval of the minutes by asking for any edits/changes, questions concerning the draft minutes of the November 1, 2021 meeting. Hearing no edits from the board, she deemed the minutes approved. 2. NEW BUSINESS a. Public Safety Organizations Quarterly Report – Austin/Travis County EMS (sponsors: Commissioner Hausenfluck and Gonzales) 4:08-4:16 1 Vice Chair Ramirez welcomed Teresa Gardner, Assistant Chief, Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services to the meeting and invited her to begin the EMS quarterly stats presentation. She stated it had been a long time since she’d presented and was happy to see everyone. She began with presenting the response performance by month, with districts and response times for Priority 1 incidents. She acknowledged they had already been presented with this information and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners may have had. One questions was asked: What makes Priority 1 in compliance, what’s the timeframe? Asst. Chief Gardner responded that the time frame was 9:59 for their highest priority incidents, such as cardiac arrest. There were no further questions on this topic. Asst. Chief Gardner presented an update on staffing. She elaborated on current staffing levels, vacancies, and projections for incoming staff, including promotions and academy cadets. There were Q & As from commissioners regarding filling those vacancies and onboarding new staff, and what obstacles to filling those positions may exist. Asst. Gardner responded that there were currently 14 cadets, that academy levels may fluctuate due to the holidays, and that they were reviewing applications to be able to move forward with more candidates after the holidays. Commissioner Lane asked how EMS was preparing …
UPDATE: EQUITY-BASED HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Historic Landmark Commission – January 24, 2022 Photo: Joe’s Bakery, joesbakery.com bit.ly/ATXpresplan PROCESS GOAL Replace Austin’s 1981 preservation plan with an inclusive, equity-focused, and community- oriented process and outcome VISION Historic preservation in Austin actively engages communities in protecting and sharing important places and stories. Preservation uses the past to create a shared sense of belonging and to shape an equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and economically vital future for all. VISION Community heritage survey Nearly 170 responses VISION Community heritage survey Nearly 170 responses WORKING GROUP SCHEDULE Essential background and process April Processes and fees July ‘21 Introduction and goals May Outreach, education, engagement Aug Equity workshop Sept Decision-making Topics Oct Community heritage survey Vision for the plan / Heritage in Austin Nov Tangible heritage Dec Intangible heritage Feb ‘22 Incentives March Enforcement and protection Review and next steps June July Review recommendations Final review, next steps Focus group meetings: 1) Collect input for working group discussion 2) Get feedback on draft recommendations MEETING 4: HERITAGE IN AUSTIN MEETING 5: TANGIBLE HERITAGE MEETING 6: INTANGIBLE HERITAGE PROCESS Background presentation Discussion + direction Recommendations Drafting Committee Equity framework Working Group reviews draft recommendations + feedback Icons from the Noun Project: group by mikicon, hammer by David Khai Feedback on draft recommendations - Preservation Plan Comm. - Technical Advisory Group - Department leadership - Focus groups PROCESS Background presentation Discussion + direction Recommendations Drafting Committee Equity framework Working Group reviews draft recommendations + feedback Icons from the Noun Project: group by mikicon, hammer by David Khai Feedback on draft recommendations - Preservation Plan Comm. - Technical Advisory Group - Department leadership - Focus groups WORKING GROUP SCHEDULE Essential background and process April Processes and fees July ‘21 Introduction and goals May Outreach, education, engagement Review and next steps June July Review recommendations Final review, next steps Aug Equity workshop Sept Decision-making Topics Oct Vision for the plan / Heritage in Austin Nov Tangible heritage Dec Intangible heritage Feb ‘22 Incentives March Enforcement and protection MID-POINT CHECK-IN • 6 working group meetings • 4 focus group meetings • 900+ staff hours • 430+ hours from working group members • 30+ hours from focus group members MID-POINT CHECK-IN From mid-point working group survey: MID-POINT CHECK-IN What change(s) would you like to see to make the planning process more effective? • More focused discussions • Discussion of idealism vs. pragmatism in …
CITY OF AUSTIN DESIGN COMMISSION DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20220124-1B January 28, 2022 Date: Subject: Design Commission recommendation for the Waterloo Greenway- Creek Delta project, located at Waller Creek. Commissioner Taniguchi Seconded By: Commissioner Whatley Motioned By: Recommendation: The City of Austin Design Commission recommends that Waterloo Greenway – Creek Delta project, as presented to us on January 24, 2022, complies with the City of Austin’s Design and Sustainability Standards. Rationale: Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council, This letter is to confirm the Design Commission’s support of the Waterloo Greenway – Creek Delta project, as presented to us. Our review found the following positive attributes: 1. Proposed design will achieve Sustainable Sites Certification. 2. Project conducted extensive community outreach. 3. Proposed design will enhance tree planting. 4. Proposed design will help mitigate erosion and protect soil and vegetation. 5. Project will enhance pedestrian connectivity across the creek with elevated walkways and bridges. Respectfully, City of Austin Design Commission Vote: For: Chair Carroll, Commissioner Salinas, Commissioner Franco, Commissioner Meiners, Commissioner Henao- 11- 0 - 0 Robledo, Commissioner Taniguchi, Commissioner Weaver, Vice-Chair Rollason, Commissioner Coleman, Commissioner Whatley, Commissioner Luckens. Against: n/a Attest: David Carroll, Chair City of Austin Design Commission 1 of 1 Melissa Henao-Robledo David Carroll, Chair Jessica Rollason, Vice Chair Aan Coleman Samuel Franco Ben Luckens Josue Meiners Jon Salinas Evan Taniguchi Jen Weaver Bart Whatley Jorge E. Rousselin, Executive Liaison Aaron D. Jenkins, Staff Liaison Art Zamorano, Staff Liaison Design Commission Recommendation 20220124-1B Waterloo Greenway Creek Delta Project
David Carroll, Chair Jessica Rollason, Vice Chair Melissa Henao-Robledo Aan Coleman Samuel Franco Ben Luckens Josue Meiners Jon Salinas Evan Taniguchi Jen Weaver Bart Whatley Jorge E. Rousselin, Executive Liaison Aaron D. Jenkins, Staff Liaison Art Zamorano, Staff Liaison CITY OF AUSTIN DESIGN COMMISSION DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20220124-1A January 28, 2022 Date: Subject: Design Commission recommendation for the Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 project, located at 600 Red River. Seconded By: Vice-Chair Rollason Commissioner Franco Commissioner Coleman Motioned By: Amended By: Recommendation: The City of Austin Design Commission recommends that the Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 project, as presented to us on January 24, 2022, complies with the City of Austin’s Design and Sustainability Standards. This endorsement comes with the additional recommendation that a stronger pedestrian connection be made between the Butler Hike & Bike Trail and Rainey Street and that this connection does not have to pass through the building or the Zocalo. Rationale: Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council, This letter is to confirm the Design Commission’s support of the Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 project, as presented to us. Our review found the following positive attributes: 1. Proposed design reflects the community’s input from a thorough outreach effort. 2. Proposed design has a stronger relationship to the Hike & Bike Trail than current design. 3. Addition is great solution to preserving the existing structure, while better defining the zocalo, and creating a 4. Proposed design will change grade of Hike & Bike Trail, making it more accessible. 5. Heritage trees will be preserved onsite. powerful statement. Respectfully, City of Austin Design Commission Vote: For: Chair Carroll, Commissioner Salinas, Commissioner Franco, Commissioner Meiners, Commissioner Henao- 11- 0 - 0 Robledo, Commissioner Taniguchi, Commissioner Weaver, Vice-Chair Rollason, Commissioner Coleman, Commissioner Whatley, Commissioner Luckens. Against: n/a Attest: David Carroll, Chair City of Austin Design Commission 1 of 1 Design Commission Recommendation 20220124-1A Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 Project
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO. 20220124-02b January 24, 2022 WHEREAS, the City of Austin is committed to the Reimagine Public Safety Initiative, WHEREAS, the City of Austin operates the Austin Police Department, which currently Proposal that the Austin City Council create an Austin Municipal Court Marshal Office Date: Subject: Motioned by: Rebecca Bernhardt Seconded by: Rebecca Webber Recommendation: The Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council reject the proposal to create a Marshal Office within the Austin Municipal Court and Downtown Austin Community Court. provides security to the Austin Municipal Court and Downtown Austin Community Court; which is a holistic approach to assessing and evolving public safety systems. Reimagine Public Safety is supposed to go beyond the scope of law enforcement, to design community centered interventions to reduce harm and address the root cause of systemic inequities which often lead to crime; for decades and continues to need reform to stop deepening poverty for Austin’s low-income residents; Court and Downtown Austin Community Court, will worsen inequities, increase criminalization and undermine the progress that has been made in reforming the Austin Municipal Court; be approved and finalized in advance of the creating a new Marshall Office. reimagining of the Austin Police Academy to create a pool of law enforcement officers to align with Reimagining Public Safety efforts. WHEREAS, creating a new police force, a Marshal Office within the Austin Municipal WHEREAS, the City of Austin and Austin Police Department are undergoing a WHEREAS, the Austin Municipal Court has been a driver of inequity for the City of Austin WHEREAS, processes around training, accountability, oversight and operations could not WHEREAS, the Austin Police Department has the tools and capacity to provide for the security needs of the Austin Municipal Court and Downtown Community Court and creating a new police force for the courts is unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT: • the proposal that the City create a Marshal Office within the Austin Municipal Court and Downtown Austin Community Court be rejected; and • The City of Austin continue to provide for the security of the Austin Municipal Court and Downtown Austin Community Court with Austin Police Officers. Vote: Unanimous For: 11 (Commissioners Gonzales, Ramirez, Husenfluck, Austin, Kiracofe, Lewis, Lane, Sierra- Arevalo, Hall-Martin, Webber, Lewis) Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Attest: [Staff or board member can sign] __________________________________ ,PSC …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Resource Management Commission Recommendation No. 20220124-010 Resolution on CenterPoint Energy’s Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Pilot Program Whereas a representative from CenterPoint Energy presented its proposal for a pilot energy efficiency program at the November 16, 2021 meeting of the Resource Management Commission; and Whereas on September 30, 2021, the Austin City Council adopted the Austin Climate Equity Plan; and Whereas the Austin Climate Equity Plan includes the Sustainable Buildings goal that by 2030 “All new buildings are net-zero carbon, emissions from existing buildings are reduced by 25%, and all natural gas-related emissions are reduced by 30%” and includes energy efficiency and building electrification as key strategies to meet this goal; and Whereas the pilot energy efficiency program must be approved by the Austin City Council prior to implementation; Whereas prior to the pilot program being considered by the Austin City Council, the Resource Management Commission has been asked to provide feedback and recommendations regarding the pilot program proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Resource Management Commission recommends that the Austin City Council approve the CenterPoint Energy Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Pilot Program, with the following modifications and observations: 1. The pilot program as written indicates that new construction projects are not eligible for natural gas equipment rebates. The Resource Management Commission strongly recommends that the Austin City Council should ensure the exclusion of rebates for natural gas equipment in new construction remains, as incentivizing natural gas use in new construction is not compatible with the City’s Climate Equity Plan targeting net zero carbon by 2040, including the focus area of Sustainable Buildings. Specifically, the plan has the following goal by 2030, which is incompatible with encouraging fossil fuel combustion in new construction: “All new buildings are net-zero carbon, emissions from existing buildings are reduced by 25%, and all natural gas-related emissions are reduced by 30% “ (https://www.austintexas.gov/page/austin-climate-equity-plan) 2. Recommend CenterPoint to include rebates for Duct Sealing and Ceiling Insulation and other cost-effective weatherization measures and to coordinate with other utilities for program implementation. 3. Cooperate with local Water Utilities for Home Conservation Improvement Products Program and Commercial Direct Install Program, as rebates for these programs are focused on water-saving technologies such as Showerheads and Aerators. 4. Encourage CenterPoint to consider the substitution of Duct Sealing, Ceiling Insulation, and cost- effective weatherization measures instead of central furnace and water heater rebates. For: Commissioner Jonathon Blackburn, Chair; Commissioner …
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 24, 2022 The Resource Management Commission convened a Special Called hybrid meeting on Monday, January 24, 2022 in accordance with social distancing protocols necessitated by the COVID 19 pandemic. Commissioners in Attendance: Jonathon Blackburn, Chair (District 8) Commissioners in Attendance (Virtual): Kaiba White, Vice Chair (District 2); Charlotte Davis (District 1); Sam Angoori (District 3); Shane Johnson (District 4); Tom “Smitty” Smith (District 5); Louis Stone (District 6); Dana Harmon (District 9); Rebecca Brenneman (District 10);Lisa Chavarria (Mayor) Commissioners Absent: Kelly Davis (District 7) CALL TO ORDER – Chair Blackburn called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: Paul Robbins- CenterPoint Conservation Programs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve minutes of the November 16, 2021 meeting. The minutes for the November 16, 2021 Resource Management Commission were approved on a 10-0 vote with Commissioner K. Davis absent. NEW BUSINESS – CONSENT ( ) = Target Council Meeting Date; [ ] = RCA Type A motion to recommend items 2-8 was made on Commissioner White’s motion; passed on a 10-0 vote, with Commissioner K. Davis absent. 2. (2/17) [ Austin Energy] Approve issuance of a capacity-based incentive (CBI) of $268,960 to the Mothers’ Milk Bank @ Austin, hereinafter referred to as “the Customer” for the installation of solar electric systems on their facility, located at 5925 Dillard Circle, Unit A, Austin TX 78752, in District 4. 3. (2/17) [ Austin Energy] Approve issuance of a capacity-based incentive (CBI) of $141,750 to the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation (MSDF), hereinafter referred to as “the Customer” for the installation of solar electric systems on their facility, located at 4417 Westlake Drive, Building B, Austin, TX 78746, in District 10. 4. (2/17) [ Austin Energy] Approve issuance of a capacity-based incentive (CBI) of $80,190 to Saint Edwards University, hereinafter referred to as “the Customer” for the installation of solar electric systems on their facility, located at 3001 S Congress Ave OPS, Austin TX 78704, in District 3. 5. (2/17) [ Austin Energy] Approve issuance of a capacity-based incentive (CBI) of $252,780 to Westminster Manor, Inc, hereinafter referred to as “the Customer” for the installation of solar electric systems on their facility, located at 4232 Bull Creek Road, Austin, TX 78731, in District 10. 6. (2/17) [ Austin Energy] Approve issuance of a capacity-based incentive (CBI) of $273,240 to the YMCA of Austin, hereinafter referred …
