Sunset Valley City Council

I agree with reducing the water subsidy for residents but believe the current proposal to raise average monthly charges by 37% (with similar increases in next few years) is too rapid of an increase. I suggest a slower rate of increase over a longer period of time to allow families to adjust more easily. Thanks to everyone on staff and council for putting this plan together.

Posted by admin on behalf of resident:

I understand that the City Council is considering whether to reduce the water (and related) subsidy for the Sunset Valley residents that is collected through sales tax, despite having ample extra cash. My first question is why this subsidy and not the others? The City currently subsidizes xeriscape, for example, for a huge $10,000, provided the homeowner has enough resources to contribute an additional $10,000. Not all families can afford this, so the subsidy leans towards the wealthier households. In fact, if every household did use the subsidy, it would cost 10x what the water subsidy costs, so basically 10 years of subsidy. In addition, there are, or have been, subsidies for rainwater collection systems, large appliances, solar panels, Artfest, and farmer's market. The water subsidy is much more egalitarian than these other subsidies, as they apply to all households regardless of wealth. Note too, that larger households already pay more per gallon than smaller households due to the progressive nature of the rates, so families with children or live-in parents pay more per person for a gallon of water than single or dual resident households. (This should be fixed.)

The water subsidies were in effect when most of us bought homes in SSV, and were a consideration for moving here. They used to be more generous than they are now. The financial amenities contributed to paying more for homes in SSV than equivalent homes in Austin or in the county, so to reduce the subsidies should be voted on by the residents. (The other subsidies come and go, so could be reduced if necessary to continue the
water subsidy.) Otherwise, it feels like people were lured here with promises that were then broken.

Finally, the money collected by SSV belongs to all the residents and not just to the Council members. To change the rules that were in place when people moved here should at least be done with a vote of the residents. If people think subsidies are unfair, then we should eliminate them all
and reduce the sales tax back to what it was when I moved here, 7.75%. If it is merely a matter of resources, then perhaps we could reduce some
of the large multi-million dollar projects that SSV is considering, like Reimagine Brodie. At a minimum, give us a say in what gets subsidized,
either by poll or by vote. (Resident-Meadows)

A correction to my previous message earlier this afternoon.
I mentored at Becker Elementary in past years, and when I think of Austin ISD elementary schools that's what always come first to mind. I meant to say that I think subsidies from SSV to the Sunset Valley Elementary PTA should be a lower priority than subsidies for the citizens who actually live in the city. It is my opinion that, while donating to schools is a nice thing to do, it's really beyond the purvue of the SSV city council.

Regarding Agenda Item #5 for the council meeting to be held on 3 September, 2024.
Most of the increas increases seem ill-advised and totally unnecessary. City spending (that is, citizens' money) is being increased in numerous areas. To my understanding the proposed budget increases monies going to The Arts Commission, Becker Elementary PTA, The Farmer's Market, Reimagine Brodie and others. These subsidies help specific groups but not necessarily all residents of Sunset Valley. The water and other subsidies contribute more equally to everyone's benefit. The subsidy for water usage below 3,000 gal/mo particularly encourages water conservation. I cannot help but believe that such a subsidy, which benefits all residents, is of greater value than other more frivolous activities I listed above. The same goes for increasing the base water rate and solid waste collection. Funds collected by the city should benefit ALL citizens first, and THEN use what's left over for cosmetic or entertainment activities.
I certainly don't think it is appropriate to provide increased subsidies to specific groups while reducing those for the general citizenry of Sunset Valley.

As a 21 year resident of sunset valley, I appreciate the good intensions behind increasing the Utility Infrastructure Reserve to $500k annually. I dislike moving, enjoy this area, and will likely spend the next 21 years here as well so I am fully invested in having a sustainable approach to our essential utility infrastructure.

Having said that, contributing $500k for the next 6 years to fund an estimated $5M in utility infrastructure expenses between 2030-2040 is arguably ill-advised though well intentioned. Hording that much capital in anticipation of the spike in utilities expenses in the 2030s is possibly not the best idea as we likely go through a historically high currency debasement over the next decade.

May I suggest that council consider a once-every-30-year bond to smooth out the spike in expenses the city will predicably experience every 30 yrs rather than accumulating even more stale capital than we already store.

Continuing to be pay-as-we-go is still directionally correct and a great idea for the annual budget, but for this one and only Once-per-30 year spike in expenses, a bond offers a useful tool to maximize both the value of our capital allocation and minimize the shock to our budget planning.

Posted by admin on behalf of a resident:

For the City Council meeting on 8/27/2024.
Regarding agenda item 6.

I am requesting an increase from the Venue Funds for the Planning and Environmental Budget for the upcoming fiscal period. Specifically, I’m requesting that the funds for the prairie restoration projects be increased from the current $40,000 to $60,000.

While some planning was completed this year, no actual restoration took place; it will begin this next fiscal year. I believe that next year’s test plots are to be established on three tracts: 37 Lone Oak, The Manly tract, and the Indiangrass prairie. Because there are various soil conditions on these tracts, multiple test plots will be required for each tract. Also, invasive plants will have to be controlled. These are physically intensive projects and the volunteer pool has been shrinking in Sunset Valley.

Much of the budgeted amount for restoration this fiscal year remains in the Venue Funds. Perhaps the Council could take this fact under consideration when making its decision.- Burton Pierson

Images

Please submit images for consideration that best represent your art, space, exhibition, or experience you would like to have included on the tour. Because of the short turnaround, no image placeholders will be allowed. One of your images will be featured in the catalog - the rest will appear on the Austin Studio Tour website and app. Big Medium has the final selection of catalog images. Please submit your images in order of your personal preference (catalog image first).


Images Must Meet the Following Specifications

Name image files accordingly: FirstName_LastName_Image # (i.e. Hollis_Baxter_1.jpg)

JPG ("Quality" set to Maximum).

300dpi for print

Images must be at least 5” or 1500 pixels wide.

No logos, please! Do not submit images with text overlaid on the image, or images with multiple pictures collaged together to fit more images into one.

Blurry or poor depictions of art will not be printed or put on the website, nor will images taken in poor lighting or with very distracting surroundings.

Please note that if your image does not conform to the specifications, Big Medium reserves the right to adjust your image accordingly.

Images for catalog and website (Artists and Temporary Art Experiences)

Image 1

This should be the preferred catalog image, but please understand that Big Medium reserves the right to make the final selection on catalog images.

Image 2-6

These additional images will be for the website, and/or alternatives for the catalog image.

Headshot and Studio Images

These images are to help our audience engage with you and connect you to your work.

Agenda Items #8 & #9; I strongly support the recommendations of the Zoning Commission and the Planning & Environmental Committee to reclassify the Uplands tract to Parkland zoning. I was part of the City elected official team who acquired this property as part of a larger development deal to offset increased impervious cover. It was open space we got to enhance quality of life for us and our children and to protect water quality and the environment. It was never acquired as real estate for public/private development schemes. The Parkland zoning is wholly consistent with why we acquired this land and will help protect this public land resource in the future. Please make it so. -former Mayor Terrence Cowan

Posted by admin on behalf of resident:
Agenda Items #8 & #9; I strongly support the recommendations of the Zoning Commission and the Planning & Environmental Committee to reclassify the Uplands tract to Parkland zoning. I was part of the City elected official team who acquired this property as part of a larger development deal to offset increased impervious cover. It was open space we got to enhance quality of life for us and our children and to protect water quality and the environment. It was never acquired as real estate for public/ private development schemes. The "Parkland "zoning is wholly consistent with why we acquired this land and will help protect this public land resource in the future. Please make it so.
-former Mayor Terrence Cowan

Posted by admin on behalf of resident:

Agenda Items #8 & #9; I strongly support the recommendations of the Zoning Commission and the Planning & Environmental Committee to reclassify the Uplands tract to Parkland zoning. I was part of the City elected official team who acquired this property
as part of a larger development deal to offset increased impervious cover. It was open space we got to enhance quality of life for us and our children and to protect water quality and the environment. It was never acquired as real estate for public/ private development schemes. The "Parkland "zoning is wholly consistent with why we acquired this land and will help protect this public land resource in the future. Please make it so. -former Mayor Terrence Cowan

I wanted to write in support of 7/16/2024 Agenda Items Nos. 8 and 9 related to the rezoning from GUI to Parkland.

I am writing in support of the zoning change for the Uplands tract as proposed. I have. been a SSV resident for 22 years and find the nearby wildlife a large part of my enjoying my living space. I see the proposal as a boon to that value.

Jeff Thorne, Lone Oak Trl.

Resident of SSv for 22 years now--and I fully and enthusiastically support the zoning change for the Uplands tract. The health of the nearby wildlife is a large part of what makes living in SSV special and I see this as a great way to foster that value. Jeff Thorne Lone Oak Trl

Resident of SSv for 22 years now--and I fully and enthusiastically support the zoning change for the Uplands tract. The health of the nearby wildlife is a large part of what makes living in SSV special and I see this as a great way to foster that value. Jeff Thorne Lone Oak Trl

I am against the rezoning of the Uplands Tract for the following two reasons.
The arguments for changing zoning for the uplands presented in the Zoning Board meeting included preservation of habitat for 50 species of birds, wildflowers etc., i.e., a park vs commercial development. Yet comes now a project for a pavilion and parking lot and clearing for farmers market tents. This development is contrary to greenbelt and parkland usage. It involves partial destruction of the very habitat used to argue for the zoning change. Can the exclusive park zoning property be used for a commercial enterprise? I have heard in response that the farmers market is non-profit, which is obvious since SSV has to subsidize its existence. Does the non-profit designation make it any less a commercial enterprise.

My second point which was also offered at the Zoning Commission meeting is that neither Zoning nor Council need change any designation to use the Uplands as a Park. The current zoning GUI has “Park” specifically designated in the allowable uses. Of course, GUI also allows for medical and other uses, which options would be negated by a more restrictive Park Only zoning change. Logic dictates that a Council exercising its fiduciary responsibility to its citizens would keep all options available. There is no sound reason to further restrict this property’s zoning use other than to add another hurdle in the process for future Council should changes in circumstances dictate an alternate use of this property. Even this argument is specious since any sale of the property for commercial use would necessitate a zoning change from either Parks or GUI.

Dear Mayor & Council,
I strongly support the zoning change to Parkland discussed in agenda items #8 & #9 regarding the proposed rezoning of the Uplands tract. The previous Councils who helped design the newer neighborhoods of the Meadows and the Villas ringed them in green for good reasons. It's beautiful, good for residents, wildlife and the environment. Efforts were also made to ring the entire city in green. The entrance properties at Jones and Westgate, the pocket park at ERW, the properties on Brodie, and most noticeably the Triangle area and the Uplands were all part of that effort. The forward thinking Mayors and Councils of the past did this for future generations to enjoy. It is part of what makes this city so wonderful and has led to increased property values and greater quality of life.
Sincerely,
Melissa Gonzales
26 Reese Dr

I am against the rezoning of the Uplands Tract for the following two reasons.
The arguments for changing zoning for the uplands presented in the Zoning Board meeting included preservation of habitat for 50 species of birds, wildflowers etc., i.e., a park vs commercial development. Yet comes now a project for a pavilion and parking lot and clearing for farmers market tents. This development is contrary to greenbelt and parkland usage. It involves partial destruction of the very habitat used to argue for the zoning change. Can the exclusive park zoning property be used for a commercial enterprise? I have heard in response that the farmers market is non-profit, which is obvious since SSV has to subsidize its existence. Does the non-profit designation make it any less a commercial enterprise.

My second point which was also offered at the Zoning Commission meeting is that neither Zoning nor Council need change any designation to use the Uplands as a Park. The current zoning GUI has “Park” specifically designated in the allowable uses. Of course, GUI also allows for medical and other uses, which options would be negated by a more restrictive Park Only zoning change. Logic dictates that a Council exercising its fiduciary responsibility to its citizens would keep all options available. There is no sound reason to further restrict this property’s zoning use other than to add another hurdle in the process for future Council should changes in circumstances dictate an alternate use of this property. Even this argument is specious since any sale of the property for commercial use would necessitate a zoning change from either Parks or GUI.

I am against the rezoning of the Uplands Tract for the following two reasons.
The arguments for changing zoning for the uplands presented in the Zoning Board meeting included preservation of habitat for 50 species of birds, wildflowers etc., i.e., a park vs commercial development. Yet comes now a project for a pavilion and parking lot and clearing for farmers market tents. This development is contrary to greenbelt and parkland usage. It involves partial destruction of the very habitat used to argue for the zoning change. Can the exclusive park zoning property be used for a commercial enterprise? I have heard in response that the farmers market is non-profit, which is obvious since SSV has to subsidize its existence. Does the non-profit designation make it any less a commercial enterprise.

My second point which was also offered at the Zoning Commission meeting is that neither Zoning nor Council need change any designation to use the Uplands as a Park. The current zoning GUI has “Park” specifically designated in the allowable uses. Of course, GUI also allows for medical and other uses, which options would be negated by a more restrictive Park Only zoning change. Logic dictates that a Council exercising its fiduciary responsibility to its citizens would keep all options available. There is no sound reason to further restrict this property’s zoning use other than to add another hurdle in the process for future Council should changes in circumstances dictate an alternate use of this property. Even this argument is specious since any sale of the property for commercial use would necessitate a zoning change from either Parks or GUI.

The following comment regards the City Council meeting on 7/16/2020, agenda items 8 and 9.

We are currently in the sixth mass extinction of species that has occurred during the history of Life on earth. One of the most concerning aspects of this global event is that the mass extinction is attributed to the activities of our own species, Homo Sapiens, in spite of the fact that the literal translation of this Latin name is wise man. We depend on biodiversity services for our survival. Our species does not have the technological capability to provide the essential services necessary for human life. It is biodiversity that provides these services. We are the cause of this mass extinct and we are the only species that can stop it, before the quality of our lives becomes unbearable and our own species becomes extinct.

The primary way in which humans cause this extinction is by destruction of natural habitat. The quality of our lives and our very existence requires that we not only stop the destruction of natural habitat immediately, but that we also restore habitats as fast as possible. When species become extinct, we lose the essential genetic information necessary to restore the habitats! Any amount of habitat destruction contributes to the problem and all habitat destruction is local to some locality; therefore, let’s do our part to live up to the meaning of our species’ name. I strongly support zoning of The Uplands as parkland!
Burton Pierson, Ph.D.

I wanted to write in support of 7/16/2024 Agenda Items Nos. 8 and 9 related to the rezoning from GUI to Parkland. Our city has historically supported seen the promise in using the Uplands as a park or community center, from the time of the 2008 Uplands committee, the 2015 City Council direction to allocate funds in the budget for design of a community use at the Uplands, the 2017 Asakura Robinson Uplands plan, to the 2022 Asakura Robinson Parks and Open Space Plan. Numerous committees have indicated their support of developing the Uplands as a park, including Planning and Environmental Committee and the Arts Commission. The Asakura Robinson plans included numerous opportunities for public outreach including surveys and meetings to gather opinions and take the City's pulse regarding parks and green spaces in the City. The city's consensus has largely been to use the land as a park. We have been sitting on this piece of property since 2006. However, the Uplands is one of the hubs of our city that could be used to showcase our city and draw visitors here. It could entice new shoppers to our farmer's market. We could host shows in a pavilion. We could add additional trails and outdoor art opportunities. It was a wonderful site for the Adventure Playground aspect of Artfest. We could add additional benches and make it more of a destination. The Uplands has limited commercial use due to its proximity to the elementary school and restrictions on impervious cover. Few businesses that would generate sales tax would be able to use the property due to restrictions on the parking area. But it would make a wonderful park for our city.

We have so few opportunities to add land to our city. If we sell or develop this land for commercial use, we will never get it back. We should embrace it as a park and zone it accordingly.

Regards,
Zoe Trieff
1031 Sunflower Trail

Posted by admin on behalf of resident:

Dear Mayor Bruner & Councilmembers.

I would like to write in FAVOR of agenda items #8 & #9 regarding the proposed rezoning of the Uplands tract to Parkland.

It is an excellent opportunity to have usable green space with natural landscaping and trails, a playground, a pavilion structure (to house the farmers market, ARTFEST, and other events that enhance the culture of our City), seating areas, and other landscape beautification.

In a day and age where trees are being cut down and meadows are being mowed away, I strongly urge City Council to NOT allow Sunset Valley to become another cookie-cutter suburb of Austin. We, as a City, should be committed to protecting and preserving the Uplands for now and for our future generations to enjoy.

Thank you!
Supriya Kharod, 36 Lone Oak Trail