For no other reason than trying for the safety reason and not use that as a way to intimidate.

Yeah.

Uh and I'm trying to find the right words.

Maybe a little bit of what Council Mr.

Salute is saying is maybe put some of those limitations as to how high the load is.

If it's something that is not, you know, if we figured something like that out so that way we could ensure again that we are being mindful of it as well.

Yeah, I'm open to that.

I mean, we had that discussion when we met, we talked about that in terms of are we talking about if it's high, you know, a pickup truck is a pickup truck, right?

We put stuff on the back of it, but if you're talking about something that's above the let's say the bed of the truck.

Well the height of the cab.

You know, say we we we had those discussions.

So I mean, I'm open to whatever uh that we could do that we could all agree on, but I I think that I don't want to minimize the the the life we should not minimize anybody's life with the fact that that could cause death.

Mr.

Hawthorne, he could have got killed.

Yeah, no, several people.

So I don't want to minimize that in exchange because unless you experience that like you did, you lost three tires, ran over something with your family, which could have caused, you know, movement, you couldn't get to another lane to miss it or whatever.

Could have been at night.

So there's a lot of variables in my mind to what this would be about.

But no, I'm I'm open to any of that situation.

Again, I'd like to see you know what those stops would be like.

Um I think back to whenever uh I was younger, and usually it was for moving um, you're moving from one place to the next.

Sure.

So you try to stack up as much as you can.

Yes.

Get your get your uh moving as quickly as possible, um, especially if it's uh an uncle that you're borrowing the truck for a moment.

I understand.

Um so I think uh again, uh it'd be good, it'd probably behoove us to think through it a bit more.

Uh just in sure to ensure, like I said, ask me two years ago, I wouldn't be asking this question.

Uh but right now, um, I think it's important that we definitely have that that open conversation around abortion.

Sure.

Thank you, Councilmember Davis.

There are no more council members in the queue.

We have three public speakers signed up.

Call the first speaker.

Dominic Mazoch.

Dominic Mazot.

That's right.

Uh Landon Hawthorne.

Landon Hawthorne.

He already came up, so we'll okay.

Uh Marion Wright.

You have two minutes.

Hi.

Um, so I didn't print out pictures, but I've sent them to Councilmember Davis so he can share it with anyone if anyone wants to see.

I was driving home with my husband and my son after a hockey game at Memorial City Mall, which hopefully they'll still keep the hockey rink open for a little bit longer.

But anyway, um on I 10, there was a car with a mattress and a box spring.

Not a car truck.

The box spring flew off of the back of the truck.

It wasn't secured in any way, shape, or form.

The car that was in the lane next to it hit it, it then came into our lane.

The wood from the box spring went through the radiator.

It also, right?

So we had to pull over, we had to break the part that was there.

We managed to get home, but it caused a lot of damage.

And um it was a scary situation.

The truck kept going.

This is something that three council members have already said that y'all had issues.

So it's not like something that's foreign to any of this.

Any of us can go in the interstate any day right now.

And I promise you, we will find vehicles that are my husband's an engineer.

So he's always looking saying, oh my gosh, can you believe that?

Look at that.

That should be blah, blah, blah.

And it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

But we all know it exists, right?

Are we really afraid of HPD pulling over people just to pull them over?

Is that why we wouldn't do something?

Is that really really a concern of ours?

I'm asking because I trust HPD.

I do.

Um, as far as uh case of water in the back of a car, I mean, in fact, cases of water can cause damage.

You know, if the wind picks up under it and fly, if it should be secured.

You know, do you really think that HPD is gonna pull over a truck because they have a case of water in the back of it?

Is that the HPD that you know that I know?

Not the HPD that I know.

So anyway, um, I don't know if there's tweaks and things that we can do.

But the damage that this caused for outweighs, in my opinion, the risk of HPD abusing something.

I don't know.

Uh Councilmember Carter.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Marion, for coming to speak on this, and I can add my experience too.

It took out a radiator, air conditioning, everything, and my car was unfortunately not drivable.

So I I concur with your sentiments, and I also I appreciate Councilmember Davis bringing this forward.

But I think that um I too, uh, Councilmember Martinez would just like to see if a bit more parameters, you know, a few more parameters put around defining secure and what we secure, because you're right, everything can cause damage, but um, you know, I would be in favor of of this if if again a more closely defined, because I think there is a need, and I think we can all agree.

Thank you.

Well, that's what this committee is for, is for tweaking, right?

Right, and making it better if we can.

So but yeah, but thank you for bringing it, and hopefully something will happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There are no more public speakers.

So at this time, um, we can decide.

Uh, council member Davis, would you like to make a motion to vote it out of committee the way that it is, or do you want to keep working?

I like to uh I like to I like to go further.

I think that in my opinion, I think it's something that's necessary.

I hope that we as citizens and many of us would understand the danger of it, and uh if it goes through, so be it.

If not, you know, but I like to go forward with it.

Okay, and so would you are you making a motion to vote this item out of committee?

Yes.

Is there some I'll make a motion that we voted out of committee?

Second, second.

Uh motion made and seconded.

Discussion.

Oh, Councilmember Ramirez.

Point of order.

So is the vote to uh send it to the full council with uh approval or just to send it to the full council?

So if we vote this out of committee, then it will go on the agenda as it's written.

If we think that there is more tweaking that needs to be done or more discussions that need to be had, then we would vote not to because uh I guess if it's not voted out, then um the proponent would have to either uh change it in some way or get to sponsors.

I got right okay, Councilmember Peck.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I have a question for Councilmember Davis.

Um, you know, if this does go to full council, sounds like there's still some concerns about definitions, a few other things.

Are there um are you willing to look at maybe some amendments to your item going to full council and then maybe just tweaking a few things before it gets there or amendments as it gets there?

I would I would have to go on the agenda of the way.

I would submit to making some changes.

Uh you know, I I think that would be proper because I I deem it that serious enough that everybody's concerned, and I'm I I'd certainly uh would hope and pray that uh whatever we do would be to safety for the entire city and certainly not to harm or hurt anybody, but no, I I would agree to that.

And so just to clarify what what I'm hearing that you're saying, so are you gonna withdraw your motion?

Withdraw it.

Okay.

I would draw it.

All right, thank you.

Um take this off again.

Or just all right.

At this time, um, the next item on the agenda, I'd like to welcome Councilmember Salinas for your presentation.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Everyone hear me okay?

All right.

Go to the next slide.

That is someone else's slide.

All right.

So we are here to discuss the right to air conditioning ordinance that myself, Councilmember Alcorn, Councilmember Castillo, Councilmember Pollard have put forth for uh consideration by council.

Um, as I think will be reflected throughout this presentation, this is not radical policymaking.

This is not requiring an HVAC system retrofitted in every building in the city of Houston.

This is simply saying that a basic health and safety requirement that we are seeing passed throughout the country, including in the state of Texas, be met for all tenants.

Um I'm gonna walk through the base the the basic uh overview of what the ordinance does, some of our supporters, but I want to mostly leave time, and I hope you will give very serious consideration to the public speakers that are here today.

We have over 19 individuals that signed up to speak from the more than two dozen community organizations that have endorsed this ordinance.

Um, so I hope you will give their testimony very serious consideration, and of course, I'm happy to answer any questions at the end.

So, next slide.

Pause.

Can everyone in the audience hear?

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So under the current ordinance, this is all that you are required to provide to keep any of your buildings cool.

The code says you can provide mechanisms to cool a unit or a screened in window.

I don't know about any of you all, but I've never been in a space where I have felt that a screened in window provides the same protection from the external heat as mechanisms by which to cool a unit, whether it be a wall unit, central AC, a fan, some other mechanism to cool.

The main objective of this ordinance is to wipe out that loophole.

A loophole that that's my research and my team's research we cannot find exists in any other major city.

And all we are simply trying to do is ensure that all Houstonians, even the least among us, have access to this basic health and safety requirement, I think is particularly important as we all know as we're entering these days, we are in 100 degrees again and again and again.

Next slide.

This provision and the way it's drafted, again, not radical or new policy making.

The requirement that you provide some type of mechanism to cool the unit is already a part of our minimum standards code.

And if you look above the one that is highlighted, section seven, you see a nearly identical requirement as to heating.

Notably, that heating requirement has no exception for a screen and window.

It doesn't say you have to provide some type of mechanism to heat the space or a screened in window.

It rightfully says provide some mechanism to heat the space when appropriate, and all this does is bring the cooling provision in line with the heating provision that had already existed in our code.

Next slide.

Why is this ordinance needed?

Well, like I said, there is the obvious uh common sense that if anyone's living in the city of Houston, you would agree that you need some reprieve from the heat.

And making sure that people can come home to a space where they have that reprieve is essential.

According to 2023 census data, across the Houston metropolitan area, there are over 20,000 people that reside right now without air conditioning.

Now, obviously, that number is broader than just the city of Houston, but it we have to assume that there are at least thousands of people currently living in Houston without AC.

And this ordinance is intended to provide the much needed protection for those people.

And as we will see in a map that's towards the end of your presentation, this disproportionately affects the black and brown neighborhoods in the city of Houston, which is terribly unfortunate, and something that we can address and remedy with the passage of this ordinance.

I don't have to run the stats by you, but you all know Houston is getting hotter.

Houston is getting hotter because of climate change.

Houston is getting hotter because of the way we are developing the city because there are less trees and more concrete.

And so while it may have been possible for some people 50 years ago not to have AC, that is not the Houston we live in today.

And I will tell you that myself and my team went out and visited people who currently live in complexes without AC.

And not one of them said, no, that's okay.

I'm I'm good with that condition.

They all demanded that we as a city do something to ensure that they have this basic health and safety protection.

Next slide.

Now, as I alluded to, we would not be the first in removing this loophole.

But what we would be doing is falling in line with what cities across Texas and across the nation have done.

In fact, just this year, uh, as Councilmember Alcorn and I have discussed, the City of New York has passed a right to AC.

We all know New York is much cooler, but yet even they recognize that this is a necessary need as climate change continues to have its impact on our nation.

We have many other cities, including many cities in the state of Texas, like Dallas, Austin, and El Paso have already passed.

Next slide.

Now, you may be wondering well, is this going to hurt the least among us?

Is this going to have an unwanted effect of negatively impacting them?

And I will tell you that the data, which is what we can rely on, says absolutely not.

When this passed in Dallas nearly a decade ago, there was no documented cases of its increase in rents.

And when the city of Austin considered this matter just last year, they actually commissioned to study to see would there be some type of increase in rents.

And as you can see in some of the smaller language, which is an excerpt from the report, the proposed changes would have a neutral impact on development cost.

And the proposed changes would have a neutral impact on affordable housing.

This is very powerful.

This tells us that when this issue is studied, the data uniformly shows that we are not going to see a significant increase in rent.

And I'll tell you, as we have started speaking to folks in community, I'll tell you the reason why.

I was at a civic club last week.

And a landlord said, I've heard about this proposed ordinance.

And I think the best way to implement it is I'm going to split the cost with my tenants.

So I'm going to absorb half of the cost of putting in a wall unit, and I will pass on the other half to them.

A wall unit is about 150 dollars.

That means it'll be a few dollars a month that they will take on.

But those few dollars are going to give them the ability to turn on the AC when it is a hundred degrees day in and day out.

But again, you don't have to take my word for it.

We've got a lot of advocacy groups here today, and I've when I finish my presentation, I'm going to hand it over to Judith O'Donne from Texas Housers, one of the preeminent organizations on tenant advocacy to speak to you as to why, even for the least among this, this is such an essential piece of legislation.

Next slide.

So how will this ordinance be enforced?

Again, we are not in reinventing the wheel.

This will be enforced in the same way any other building standards and codes are enforced.

Now, this will actually be enforced by the Houston Health Department rather than HPW.

But based on all of our discussions with departments, the enforcement process is the same.

So there is a 90-day period that we have written into the ordinance that will allow landlords to come up to code.

After that period has ended, then a res then a tenant could call and say, my landlord's not in compliance.

Then the department would send an inspector out, evaluate, determine whether or not that is in fact the case, and then give them usually between a 15 to 20 day window to come in compliance.

If they do not come into compliance, then the department will go back out there, usually around a month after the report, and issue a citation.

That citation will then direct the landlord to go to court and pay a fine that can range.

I don't believe it goes more than a couple than $2,000, but it can be as lower.

And then they would go to court, and the court could decide whether or not to impose that penalty.

And if the landlord remained out of compliance, then they could be cited to get it again.

But as we've just discussed, um you could fix this by buying a hundred and fifty dollar unit.

And so it seems like the most likely outcome is that if we got to that stage, landlords would opt to instead go ahead and install the wall unit rather than continue to incur these citations.

But nothing is different, nothing is controversial.

This would be imposed and regulated the same way we regulate all other building code in the city of Houston.

Next slide.

As I said at the start of my presentation, no, we are not requiring that HVAC be added to every building in the city of Houston.

And so we do not see some huge development cost being passed on to renters.

Next slide.

And as you can see, this disproportionately affects the black and brown neighborhoods in the city of Houston.

Next slide.

And this slide just gives you a preview.

Like I said, there are over two dozen community organizations that have endorsed this ordinance, and I'm going to hand over the remainder of my time to one of them.

But I just want to list some of them to note for the for the committee.

The African American Health Coalition, the Coalition for Environmental Equity and Resilience, the Houston Apartment Association.

I know there was some discussion and debate about how they felt about the last apartment ordinance we passed.

We had extensive discussions with them as we were deliberating and drafting this ordinance, and they were on board from the beginning, and we're very proud to have their support.

The Houston Food Bank, the Houston Eviction Advocacy Center, the Houston Tenants Unit, Texas Housers, and numerous super neighborhoods, some of which I know are here present today to testify.

I see Lindsay Williams in the audience right now.

So I'm happy so I will pass it over to Judith if she would like to come up.

But I so appreciate the committee's consideration, and I so appreciate uh my colleagues for co-sponsoring what I think is a very important health and safety ordinance.

Thank you so much for joining me.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh hello everyone, how are you?

My name is Julia Arduin with Texas Housers, and um our focus is low-income housing.

I've been here uh for the last year talking about the apartment ordinance and how important it is to live in dignified housing and air conditioning is one of those things.

As the council member has said, we are getting hotter and and we know this.

And so as we were looking at the map, if we wanted to go back to that slide, I think it's also really important to think about the other things that are happening in this map that we know to be true.

One of the things that we can talk about is uh social vulnerability index.

And so our SBI is really considering uh people's health, people's wellness, people's access uh to amenities and their income.

And so if we're looking at that map and looking at the map that we have in front of us, we do see a significant overlap in where these neighborhoods and uh census tracts have uh with social vulnerability index.

The city of Houston also has a map of where affordable housing units are located, and we also see some overlap with these units as well with this map where we see that there is lacking air conditioning.

We do hope and I do believe that most low-income taxing housing credit properties, the LITEC properties do have HVAC and do have access to ACs.

But we also think about units that are those NOAA housing, the natural occurring affordable housing units.

And so Kinder has data on where the NOAA housing is within our city, and we do also see significant overlap in those, including uh areas such as A Leaf, Sharpstown, Pasadena, Greens Point, and Gulfden.

And so this is a significant issue for people within the community and also those with lower incomes.

As our council member said that, you know, an AC unit is a couple hundred dollars for a smaller unit.

If you're trying to uh cool a larger room, you might spend 600, 700 on a large unit.

But if we're really trying to think about the dignity and the health of our people in our communities, I think what that's one of the things to really consider.

Um, especially if we're thinking that there are over 20,000 units without air conditioning at this point.

There was an initiative by uh the Houston Alliance HTX, formerly known as the Houston Housing Authority in 2023 to put air conditioning units in all of their uh housing units, and we have heard or I have heard from people in CUNY homes that have seen the difference between what it was living without uh AC unit or having to bring your own unit or having one allowed in and given to you as well.

I think this also could be an opportunity to the for the city can to consider some type of uh community development and a revolving loan for smaller local landlords because they are incurring this cost.

So, how is it something that the city can continue to support, get that money back, and then maybe continue to support other people?

I know revolving loans have been something that the city has considered in other methods.

And I guess I'll just share that you know, I came home yesterday uh from a long trip.

My neighbor picked me up.

I took uh the metro down from the airport, and I walked into my house that was 88 degrees, and yesterday, you know, it wasn't that hot, but it was kind of warm, and we know last week we opened cooling centers because of this high heat, and we we've all been feeling the heat.

So, how do we continue to live and and support each other as residences and as neighbors in the city of Houston?

So I welcome these opportunities, and and I do think that these are uh great steps forward in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, Councilmember Salinas, how did you how did we arrive on the 90-day timeline for implementation?

That's that what other cities have done.

That was a number we discussed with the Houston Apartment Association.

They felt that was an appropriate timeline by which to give folks the opportunity to come into compliance.

And then um looking at the ordinance, when it says um the responsibility of the owner, and here we're talking specifically about rental properties, but would this ordinance apply to every property?

It says, you know, any owner of a property shall comply with the subsection.

Yes, so the the building code, which we which is on another slide, the complete code applies to all properties.

But in effect, I'm not gonna call the city on myself to say that my property is not in compliance.

In effect, the way all building code is in force is against rental properties.

Thank you.

Councilmember Pack.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember, for the proposal.

In 2011, when the city adopted air conditioning requirements, and it shows that the window screens are the exemption.

Do you know why that happened in 2011?

I'm not sure.

Did you find anything on that?

Because that seems very interesting that they put that exemption when no other cities have that.

I I don't know of any uh folks here were around in 2011.

We looked through the public record, we could not find any contemporaneous notes that explained why the exception was put in.

Um but like I said, we cannot find any support or basis for it in any other city.

Okay.

But we did we did look to what was publicly available and we could find no explanation for why the screened and window exception was created.

Thank you.

Councilmember Carter.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Salinas uh for bringing this forward.

I truly understand and appreciate um the intentions of the ordinance.

Certainly, um, you know, Baker Ripley, who is the largest um low-income, they run the low-income uh home energy uh assistance program.

And so last year, 2025, a hundred thousand applicants, 95 percent were turned away because of lack of resources.

And so, and often we see, you know, we just passed a five dollar trash fee and then backed it up with uh a fund to support because people can't afford the five dollar increase.

Um, as the utility bills start to increase, not only the potential cost or or maybe a portion of the cost of a window unit, but as the utility bills start to increase, what is the plan for these people who are literally paycheck to paycheck and they're one step away from homelessness on any given day?

My concern is the very people that that you're trying to assist, you're gonna push right out the door.

Um, because you know, often people you know the last thing to go is their utilities, but when the utilities are cut off, you know, it's a struggle to get them back on.

And um, you know, there are millions of dollars across the greater Houston area annually dispersed by assistance ministries, churches, all kinds of pools for utility assistance.

And I think this will be maybe a tipping point.

Um when folks rent a uh a space, they know if it has uh if there's you know central AC, a window unit, window screens.

Um and it seems uh it seems like we're going to to we're really trying to hurt the in result will that we will do damage to those we're trying to protect with cool air.

Uh I I don't know there was a question there.

If your question is, are we trying to hurt the people we're trying to help?

Well, the question is how do you you know if not if 95% of for I'm sorry, I didn't pose the question exactly, 95% were turned away from Baker Rip Baker Ripley by Baker Baker Ripley in 2025 for utility assistance.

This will increase, I would think, the need for utility assistance due to increased bills.

How how are we how are they supposed to pay for this if they can't afford you know just day-to-day living?

What when was that Baker Ripley number from?

2025.

Okay.

So a couple of things.

One in the FAQs that I know uh my team sent to your your staff, the average cost of running an AC, a wall unit a month would be $36.

So we are not talking about let me just I'm gonna say give a few points in response.

Um so we are not talking about some huge significant increase in in cost.

I I recognize $33 can still be significant for some folks, but it is not a very large increase.

That's point one.

Point two is the whole point of this ordinance is that we are empowering tenants to have the choice.

Right now, there are tenants in the city of Houston that do not have the choice as to whether or not they want to turn on the unit because their landlords gave them this.

And so we are disempowering thousands of Houstonians by not allowing them to have the choice whether or not to turn on the AC.

I would also say that in talking to to small landlords that provide would be considered affordable housing.

Many of them all it some units provide low-income housing, provide a wall unit, and cover the utility, and they're still able to provide rents at $700 a month.

And so it is possible to provide low-income housing to cover the utility and to cover a wall unit.

The fact that some landlords have chosen not to do so to spread their profit, it's not something it's not policy making.

I think the city of Houston needs to ensure to protect.

If units are being provided right now in the city of Houston for $700 with utilities covered and a wall unit, why shouldn't we ensure that that is a basic standard that all Houstonians get to provide just and not just so that are lucky enough to meet a good faith landlord that wants to ensure that they're providing equitable and safe housing.

And with regards to Baker Ripley, we are more than happy to work to partner with them.

I will tell you, I'm using my council discretionary funds to buy ACs and will provide them to the community.

I know the mayor has a program.

I know council member uh Commissioner Bayonis has a program, Commissioner Garcia's got a program, and so there are a number.

May I finish?

There are a number of programs available uh where people can access ACs, but the data is there that affordable housing can be provided, utilities covered, and a wall unit can be provided.

All this ordinance does ensure that all Houstonians are lifted to that basic health and safety standard.

And I would just say, lastly, all of the tenant advocacy groups we have spoken to, all of them that are committed to fighting for low-income tenants, the same people I know you and I are committed to fighting for, all of them have uniformly said this is a good thing for tenants.

Not one organization, not one person that I met that lives in those conditions said, I don't want that protection.

I think that would be a bad thing.

I don't want to be empowered to make that choice.

So there is just no data, there is no organization, even the Houston Department Association, the Houston Food Bank, all agree that this is a positive step in the right direction.

Councilmember Davis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Salinas for your presentation.

And I must say that anything and all things that pertain, and you put the emphasis on black and brown communities, but I like to see things, all of Houstonians who experience it no matter what your race or ethnicity is.

I think that's the cause.

My concern is you talked earlier on, you talked about the increase of heat in Houston.

Yes, sir.

When those of us who lived in this town all their lives as myself, and I lived and was born in a community where there were no window unit air conditions, okay.

Um but with that, of course, we did survive.

And that's not to say that people don't deserve it.

I think it's a very compassionate effort that you're bringing this forth.

But to assume that having a window unit for all residents uh by and large is a affordable is and putting that weight upon the landlord, then to me that's a little misleading.

Because one, as people, I don't live in a hospital window unit, I'm sure you don't as well, but I do know one thing, would it with it or without it, your bill is going up.

And those of us who understand that know that when heat goes up, the power to use goes up.

Now I have here, you were speaking about a map.

Let me I was looking at this was a map produced by Kendra Institute.

It also showed a map that in the Harris County 2024, the eviction of people in the city is very high.

If you do some research on evictions, and that's my concern, because the cost affordability.

Now, you you you you you're saying the landlord is going to take this bill on, the landlord is going to provide this convenience, and if they move that cost, if you are in the business of renting, you would move that cost to the person that lives in that unit.

That is a concern because eviction rates in Houston Harris County has gone up tremendously.

Three times higher of evictions.

Now, when a person is evicted, that's just the beginning, because that eviction goes on a record in terms of their credit scores and the ability to move in another place.

So, though I can concur with the compassion and the concern for that, but I'm also concerned that as much issue has been raised by five dollars across this chamber that we discuss and how much went around that cost of five dollars, particularly for seniors.

So now, if we're talking about having a window unit in a home or in the rather than a community that you're referencing, then those people are struggling now with just making the rent as is.

Okay.

So if my utility to pay is going to go up, now I'm dealing with a different issue.

And I think the data also shows that disproportionately in the black and the Hispanic brown communities, that rent is extremely high.

People now, I don't know.

I have family members that rent and they have to pay.

Do you know what the rate of the rent is now?

You pay the first or the last and a deposit.

So you're paying almost three times the amount of what it costs with your monthly rate.

My concern with that, and trust me, I I think I get the idea.

I think it's a great idea, but I'm really concerned with affordability.

And we I to me can't, I would not put a stigma on what data says of affordability when utilities are going up all the time.

Well, council member, I I appreciate your recognition of uh the um the compassion that drives the ordinance.

Uh but this ordinance or anything I've done on council is not driven purely by emotion.

I just laid out a litany of facts in response to council member Carter to explain why the affordability concerns are unfounded.

I've walked through how little they would cost to run a unit per month.

I've talked about the fact that there are currently units available today for $700 that provide AC and cover utilities.

If I may finish, sir.

I hear your concern about evictions.

There is a group that is focused on that effort, the Houston Adviction Advocacy Center, and they have endorsed this ordinance.

Numerous groups, I don't know if Tammy Rodriguez is here, Tammy.

Tammy, if you want to come up and join me, she has done a great deal of work in the Golfton area to support low-income tenants.

And she works with these folks probably far more than you and I, council member.

She's boots on the ground, and she is a strong advocate of this ordinance.

So, Tammy, you'd like to share why you support the ordinance and believe it would support low income Eastonians, please, I only needs.

One being a resident in the low income.

The other is I have 35 years and experience in multifamily.

So I have worked in Golfton, where in that population alone, without census, but with the knowledge of how many occupants live in an apartments, we're looking at 80,000 residents in three miles.

So in that being said, when a resident is being in an apartment, we usually have like seven days to do a repair.

And this heat and this time is not the same concept.

If you do not have, and I'm speaking on multifamily, we have the actual residents without ACs in that neighborhood that will not be able to survive.

Now for them to incur any type of cost in buying an AC unit for a multifamily, that is capital improvement.

That is not for that resident.

That resident gets evicted or moves out, that AC stays.

So it's a different concept when it comes to multifamily.

But if you utilize it in the previous, I've noticed and I've I've experienced managers have used that as a collection towards rent that is not old, you know, that is owed, and they turn off the ACs in order for them to collect rent to stop the eviction to that the landlord would incur to pay for the eviction fee.

There's so many, so many factors in this that is still being practiced today.

Reason being is that they the residents are afraid to being retaliated against.

The other is because of what we're living in today that they're afraid of immigration.

So there are so many factors that put the residents back in to poverty, but they pay the rent and it the AC is included in where they live.

And they should not be, you know.

I'm just I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit passionate here.

There is so many people that live without ACs because they have a choice whether they want to turn it on or not because of that expense that we're incurring with the increase of electricity.

So that is their choice.

It is not something if you don't have a choice if you don't have an AC.

But if it's up to them to save that money, that five dollars on the on the water bill, well, that's also paid and is allocated throughout the apartments and one bill for that owner, then that's what they pay.

If they incur that five dollar fee as well, then they do that.

But if they choose not to turn on their AC, put fans on, and utilize any other option, that is up to the resident.

But that is not a choice if you don't have one, if you don't have an AC.

And I would chat, I would just add two points to thank you so much, Tammy.

I really appreciate that.

One to reiterate, it's about protecting tenants from retaliation.

And two, we have to decide, because this argument can go down a slippery slope.

Because we can say, well, it might cost uh a landlord money to fix a rat infestation.

So we shouldn't have them fix that because that might cost the rent to go up.

Well, they have a mold infestation.

We shouldn't cause them to fix that because that might cause a rent to go up.

We shouldn't require them to provide heating because that might cause a rent to go up.

There is a whole list of things that we still require, even though we know even though we know there's a possibility that it could potentially result in a few additional dollars or some increase in rent, but we still require it because we believe in basic standards for all Houstonians, no matter who you are, no matter where you come from.

And so we as a council as a city need to decide.

Is this a part of that basic requirement?

And I think the standard, the lip's test is would you want to live in those conditions?

Well, I don't if I may finish, I wouldn't want to live in those conditions.

And I think we should not impose that limitation on Houstonians just because we are behind the times for what so many other Texas cities have already adopted.

Well, I don't like to council, I respect that, but be mindful that you know I'm not one for making always comparison what other cities do.

I've said that repeatedly before.

And again, like I say, what is mandatory in my opinion, is mandatory.

We can make demands on a lot of things as a council in terms of people who have facilities.

And I'm certainly not opposed to people having air conditioned, but there's a difference in the convenience.

There's two sides to the argument.

What is convenient, what is convenient?

We people choose places where they live based upon what's affordable.

Let's don't I'm and don't get me wrong.

I do want to say the young lady was saying, and I'm sure she's right in some places.

I understand it.

But let me say this the question to you, and I'll be done.

What happens if the air conditions get stolen?

Is a landlord required to replace it or how many times?

Yes, it's I mean, if someone breaks your so now you're talking about excuse me.

Now we're talking about a cost.

You don't think that if I replaced an accredited unit and it was stolen, that it that cost multiplied at times whatever number of units I have.

Do you honestly don't think that that landlord is not going to move that?

It's good that those that come to support you in this matter.

That's fine.

But there are people that has to incur that cost.

And we live in a real world.

And the real world is somebody had to pay for it.

And if your constituent funds is going to help people, I think that's a good thing to it.

But how many places and how many areas would that satisfy?

Well, council member, I would direct you to the preeminent organization that advocates for those people, and that is the Houston Apartment Association.

And they believe and they and as you know, they support this ordinance.

So I'm sorry, just to be mindful of everyone's time.

We have still a lot of council members in the queue, and we have a lot of people.

We have a lot of people signed up to speak to, and we want to make sure that we get to them all before public session starts.

My apologies, Chair.

Council member uh Martinez.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Uh Council Salinas, thank you for this ordinance.

I think I think we can all agree that you know it's a basic, it is a basic right, it should be a basic right.

We also understand that there's slum lords, just to be quite frank, that live amongst us.

Um just to clarify, I and I appreciate you giving of your council office budget, not CDSF.

I know all at large council members wish they had council district service funds, but y'all don't.

Uh, but just to clarify, it's your council office budget, uh, anything that exceeds uh or anything that you save on that you don't spend.

Uh secondly, um again, I I and I and I hear what my colleagues are saying, and when you we had this huge campaign about a regressive tax, five dollars, sixty dollars a year for an admin fee.

Um, I I also just want to make sure that um we're just having this, and I want to go on the record, having this honest conversation about what it could cost, right?

So from five dollars having challenges about what that looks like to $36 on average.

Um that's not accurate, sir.

It but well, it's what you have here about $36.70 a month for what it costs to run an AC unit, roughly.

Yes, I'm not sure where you're getting the five dollars from.

Five the five dollar administrative fee that we were talking about.

A separate fee.

A separate fee.

The regressive tax that everyone was speaking.

Yeah, I know.

But let me can I have my time.

So the five dollar administrative fee that we just passed with the budget, there's a regressive conversation, and I was getting pulled by a whole bunch of community folks talking about seniors and whatnot.

And I was making the argument, look, it's five dollars, I get it, and it's tough.

Um and oh ultimately, my hope, because I've been a proponent of a trash fee, hopefully see a trash fee and with um uh ways where we could be able to address uh seniors, veterans, so on.

So we're still have that's side conversation, but as we had that conversation, as we're having this one now, uh to pay $36 plus uh a month for lecture bill.

I I it does bring some concerns.

Um I know there's a smaller number of targeted folks where uh maybe they have window uh you know screen uh window screens instead of an AC unit.

And I think we should do something, we should do this to some extent, but also um on an on another uh uh parallel, you know, kind of experience that I've had or past experience I've had.

I work for neighborhood centers now Baker Ripley and taking referrals or getting getting referrals to folks about utility assistance, and it would it would be heartbreaking.

I'll say I'll tell you this that maybe before the summer uh they ran out of utility assistance because uh there was not enough money coming in.

Um so there is a huge need for utility assistance overall.

So I appreciate uh uh Julia coming up here and talking about a program.

I'd love to see what that looks like.

Um that brings in public-private partnerships, mostly private, because on the public side we know we and I'm I'm glad we're addressing the finances now.

But historically we've had 150 million deficit for 13 years.

We can't continue to do that.

So what does that look like?

Um and then when you look at uh uh a place where again these are slum lords, bottom line.

That's whoever's not doing this, they're slum lords, and we gotta call it what it is.

Um and so those that have all bills paid, um, you know, folks don't you don't see it until they get the the rent and then that bill ultimately now you're paying a hundred dollars you know it's our summer bill goes up almost, you know, you know between eighty to a hundred dollars uh during June, July, August.

Do you have Central Air?

Yes.

Okay, so that's different.

It is, but again, you but you also have window units that you turn on and you leave on however long you you need to.

So it is different, but it's not.

If I've lived in a house with no AC with an AC window unit and central air.

So I get it.

The bill goes up no matter what, is what I'm trying to explain.

So I hope you understand that, and I think you do.

Um so again, it's uh um I want to see this happen.

I think we all want to see it happen, but I want to go on the record because you know, speaking to the Houston Apartment Association as well, um they have concerns, and I think they've they made some of it public to you as well or at least shared it with you as well.

They don't have any issues because most of their or all of their uh membership aren't part of this problem, so it won't ultimately address anything that or harm their membership.

That's why I think they've been supportive, and I think it's important to share that as well.

Um so again, I just want to make sure that on the record that this on average from what you shared $36.70 a month, almost $450 a month.

Folks will see that as a utility cost.

So it's uh council.

I don't know if you're getting a lot of folks will see that as a utility cost, and I want to make sure that folks know that as we move forward with this prop A and eventually it happens.

What are we gonna do?

How can we help address utility assensus progress?

Because again, I picked up the phone several times working at bake at neighborhood centers saying, I'm sorry, Miss Smith, we are no longer have funds for utility assistance.

And it's uh it's a heartbreaking conversation to have sometimes.

But I just want to again just put it on the record.

I'm good with I've heard your responses to everyone else, so don't need a response really.

I just wanted to put on the record that this is a concern for me about $450 utility increases for someone that might not necessarily have had it.

Uh how we get this, let me know how it could be helpful.

Um I want to see everybody have a window unit at minimum and then allow them to decide whether I turn it on today or not, depending on what the bill looks like for that month, groceries, gas, everything else that comes with it.

Again, but uh the other thing, then I'll just close with this is uh you know it was hard to explain why this quote unquote regressive tax was being implemented for solid waste.

Um and I just want to make sure that we have a hard conversation, gut gut check conversation about $450 a year, utility increases and the So I think what we were trying to clarify is that is uh a cost imposed by the city of Houston.

As we all know, the city of Houston does not run your utility.

That is a totally separate cost and charge.

Right.

Um but all that to say, we have a choice as a city.

Either we're gonna require this and work together to try to make it as affordable as possible, or we're gonna say for some Houstonians, that is your problem.

And I you don't take for me, I want to invite Lindsay Williams, a super neighborhood president in your own.

She's one of the speakers.

And I know that she is supportive.

And I think we're gonna have public comment in a bit.

And I think we're gonna have public comment in a bit, and she's signed up.

Okay, and I want to make sure that we just continue removed the meeting as quickly as possible as well.

Point of order, because we do want to hear from every speaker before we run out of time.

So can we um can we finish taking council member comments before we have any other public speakers come up?

Is that okay?

I'm I'm happy to wait, but I'm happy I don't know if you want to do your two minutes now.

There's like six more people on the queue.

We have a few more council members in the queue.

Councilmember Panzarella.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Councilman Salinas, thank you for for for being here and putting this together and to the other sign-ons to this prop A.

Um I just want to start by saying it is uninhabitable to live in Houston without an AC.

Uh my AC went out over the July 4th weekend.

We had to get an emergency repair crew to come in.

And in just that 24 hours without having it, it was really difficult.

And so to see these numbers is quite frightening, and and I think this is gonna go a long way to fixing that.

I want to quickly talk on the five dollars to $36, you know, regressive tax and whatnot.

The $5 fee didn't necessarily have an immediate improval of living standards among Houstonians.

I think we all recognize that solid waste will not get immediate improvements because of the $5 fee, as opposed to this ordinance, which there would be an immediate improvement to quality of life because you're making an uninhabitable space habitable with AC, which is really important.

And then I also just want to note that um when I look at the graph of the other major metros that have these um ordinances adopted without any exemptions, it makes me feel a lot more comfortable that this has already happened.

I do not think we saw mass um evictions in 2016 when Dallas put this forward.

I don't think we saw mass evictions in 2025 when Austin put this forward.

And then just another note on the broader conversation about affordability in Houston.

The only major metros that have seen decreases in uh housing costs throughout the nation are Austin and Phoenix, which are on this list, and that's because they have built tons and tons of multifamily residential.

So I recognize that there might be some hitches moving forward if this is to pass.

Um but when we talk about affordability, we should be talking about the broader conversation of how are we building that mixed-use multifamily housing throughout the city as opposed to providing a true necessity in apartments?

Thank you.

Councilmember Flickinger.

Thank you.

Uh first of all, uh like every council member on here, we all wish every unit had air conditioning.

We all wish that there were no rodent infestations, no roach infestations, no sewage coming up.

I mean, we all want it to be nice for all Houstonians.

Nobody disagrees with that.

Um there's a number of issues though.

The air conditioners, they typically draw nine to twelve amps each.

Um, the location y'all told us you all looked at was 3502 Campbell.

What happens if you put an air conditioner in every one of those units that didn't have one before, they're all drawing the additional amps.

Will the electrical handle it at that location?

We have no reason to believe that it would not based on current electrical code.

Now, if a building was not up to current electrical co-camp was built.

Excuse me, sir, let me finish to answer your question.

If a building is not on up to current electrical code, that is a whole different problem that this ordinance obviously does not address.

But if a building is up to code, which regardless when it was built, it has to remain up to electrical code.

We see no reason why, and have not heard anything identified from any of the advocacy groups, or in talking to Austin that commissioned the study on the impact to suggest that it would not work.

So a building built 60 years ago, when we changed the code, has to go in and change their electrical?

Buildings need to remain up to code, sir, yes.

Okay.

And and they've all done that.

Well, I I would assume they we'd expect them to.

It's not as if we've stopped updating the electrical codes because we don't want it to apply to retroactively.

Okay.

I thought most of the changes in the codes did not apply retroactively.

Electrical codes are my understanding applied to all buildings.

Okay.

I would like to get that question answered because I think we're going to end up.

I mean, can legal tell us our electrical codes not apply to all buildings in the city of Houston?

Retroactively.

Well, yeah, retroactive uh well, typically when you when you uh you can have grandfather in, but if you if you update typically when you update a building, any updates require uh coming up to call.

So it depends on if what usually once you open a wall, you you have to update the the the building.

So if you haven't made any re renovations, if you haven't, then possi it is possible.

So if you have not made any renovations, then it will not be up to the current code.

So yeah, if it if it's not a I I'll double check, but if it's not typically if any any updates done to it have to be up to that, that's my understanding as well.

Unless you make updates to it, you don't have to go up and update to code.

Once you make updates, then you've got to go up to code.

So some of these buildings are gonna have to not just purchase air conditioners, they're also going to have to completely redo their electrical.

Is there anything in here to account for the 90 days?

Is or are they going to be out of compliance?

Well, Councilmember, there is just simply no evidence to suggest that our current that any building would not have sufficient electricity to support these additional wall units to be installed.

Well, it isn't the sufficient electricity, it's being able to handle the additional amperage coming into the building.

We have never come across any evidence, nor in talking to all the advocacy groups ever heard the concern.

And when Austin studied this issue, they said they when they implemented this code, they also implemented changes to their electrical code, and they said the changes to their electrical code would cause additional increases, but not the AC ordinance in of itself.

So the data strongly suggest that there is no indication that currently exist would increase the charge.

Since you brought up the data in Austin up, I'll take issue with that as well.

Um rents are tied very closely to housing prices.

Uh because that's what they're competing with.

As housing prices go up, rents go up.

The housing prices in Austin's have gone down.

So I don't know how you extrapolate this air conditioning piece and say, oh no, air conditioning didn't cost anything because rents didn't go up.

The odds are rents would have gone down more if you did not have the air conditioning piece, because that that is an added expense.

And here, this 3502 Campbell, when y'all gave us this, we went and looked in their marketing, they actually say that the tenants are responsible for the gas, electric, and the air conditioning.

So this isn't a bait and switch.

The people that chose to live here knew this up front and are getting exactly what they paid for.

I didn't suggest that it was a bait and switch.

I didn't say you did, okay.

I'm just making the point that the tenants made that choice.

I assume the reason they made that choice is that the rent at that location is $800.

The average rent for Interloop East, which is what Houston Apartment Section has broken up down to.

There's 50 different subdivisions they broke it into, so it's very localized.

They'd have to pay 50 percent more.

The average rent is 1220.

They're paying 800.

I assume they made that choice because that's what they could afford.

So when you talk about you're giving these people a choice, no, you're taking that choice away.

They already had the choice to get into that apartment.

And in fact, there's a hundred thousand vacant apartments as we speak today.

There was plenty of choices they could have made to do it.

I assume they knew their life situation better than you and I do, and they made that choice that I want to spend less money and go into this.

Thank you.

Councilmember Castillo.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Salinas, for doing all the the heavy lifting on this proposition A.

It is one that uh I signed on to because I do believe in it.

And uh your presentation today, I think was um very strong in the need, but also some of the issues that we're hearing about affordability, which is a concern for everyone.

Uh we have talked that through on a number of issues that we've faced.

But when you look at what was done in other cities and how that has rippled through those cities, you can see exactly what the impact was or wasn't on affordability.

And I think that we have some very strong examples here.

Dallas, Austin, El Paso, Denton, and Texas that have adopted this.

Um where there were no documented rent increases tied to the proposals.

Um the study that was done in Austin showed the neutral impact on development and the neutral impact on affordable housing.

So yes, it's good for us to think through how this is going to impact affordability in Houston, but we have some very clear examples to turn to to see how that has happened in other cities.

Um I think it's a good exercise for us to continue to work through ways we can reassure folks that this isn't going to uh drive up costs significantly, that there may be other ways to strengthen uh assistance out there for people that are vulnerable, because when you look at who is impacted by this, it is vulnerable Houstonians.

Um extreme heat impacts two groups significantly, the elderly, and then when you couple in chronic conditions, they're impacted even more.

And youth.

Um and when is it the hottest in the summer when kids are not in school?

So looking at the map there, where you see the red and the yellow, there's a lot of overlap with district H.

Uh, it's an issue that is important to me, and as someone who comes from a public health background, this is a public health issue.

Um, our building codes are meant to ensure structures are safe.

That's why we have them.

That's why we do inspections to make sure when you're constructing, you're doing it properly and you're not going to cause a harm to people who occupy that.

This falls in line with that.

This is keeping a structure safe so people can occupy it.

When we know in the summer, it is incredibly hot in Houston, and we are dealing with more longer periods of extreme temperatures.

So this is not gonna go away.

Um can we work a little more on the reassurance for affordability?

Sure, and and I think we should.

But I do think that we as a city setting this minimum is very important in demonstrating that we are going to make sure all Houstonians are protected and that our building codes reflect that.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you.

Councilmember Alcorn.

Thank you.

Quick league.

I know we want to get to public speakers, but um I was happy to sign on to this.

I think this is a basic right in a city as that gets as hot as Houston.

It also, like Councilmember Panzarella gives me great comfort that we are an outlier here with other cities, that we are an outlier.

We are like the only ones that have this weird screen thing.

So uh, you know, I think this is the right thing to do.

Um I I was a big proponent of this coming to committee because I want to hear everybody's feedback, and I think the affordability discussion, like councilmember Castillo says, we we hear it in every conversation we have, even um when we're talking about the open space ordinance, and people are like, well, worried about you know the increase of cost.

I think that that renters want more than just the cheapest rent.

They want to live in a place that they can survive in and be healthy and the proposition eight committee meeting, and thank you for being here.

The time is two o'clock on July 28th, and I call this meeting to order.

As a reminder, public speakers will be called up after each presentation.

Public speakers will have two minutes to speak.

We have a long list of speakers today, so please be respectful um of everybody's time.

Today in chambers, we are joined by Councilmember Castillo, Councilmember Carter, Councilmember Salinas, Councilmember Alcorn, Mayor Pro Tim, Cassex Tatum, Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember Davis, and we have staff from Councilmember Tiffany Thomas's office, and staff from Martinez's office, and we have Vice Mayor Pro Tim Pack in attendance.

Um before we begin, I understand that the legal department would would like to provide a brief kind of refresher on some of the proposition eight committee rules.

And so I would like to um entertain a motion to move the legal presentation to the top of the agenda.

Tech move.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Um in favor.

Okay, Mr.

Norris.

There we go.

Can y'all hear me?

Can we move it up?

Yeah.

How about now?

Oh, yeah, that'd be great.

I'm doing that.

That's good.

I can't find that's fine.

Okay, we'll leave it there.

I can see it.

Don't adjust it anymore.

Might might end up in a ceiling.

So, how's everybody doing?

All right, I'm going to go over uh a couple things.

Um, just a couple things with ProPay.

Um, it was some things that we noticed.

Uh, it's been a little over a year since I gave you guys a presentation when I first got here.

A couple things that we've noticed we wanted to kind of update you on.

Also, um, and it's it's one of those things we actually got and we have a couple of new council members as well since I've given this presentation.

So, I want to kind of give you guys a quick refresher.

Uh, I do have some things on on there, and I want to make sure that you guys knew some things.

So I'll be brief.

So, next slide, please.

So, a couple things.

We'll talk about the guidelines that are available now, uh, quick refresher, some things that we look at in the legal department, some observations that we've noticed so far, and any uh questions you have for us.

So next slide.

All right, next slide.

So there are a set of guidelines.

Uh if you you guys should have everybody should have access to them.

When we ask hits, everybody either in uh the council member, every council member and every council member staff should have access to all the the guidelines.

There is a long form and a short form.

So the long form for those of you who are curious about what the rules are and why they are.

For those who just want the quick and dirty version, there is a uh a short form version of it as well.

There is a the quick guide.

So it's a two-page version.

Just if you're just I need to know what I need and move on.

But everybody should have access to it, and it's on SharePoint.

Next slide, please.

And next slide.

Uh with regards to proper, this was well, this was last time, but the the same things that you were considering beforehand, uh, like where departments are affected, uh, how long it's gonna take, what all those things, those still apply.

Next slide, please.

Uh and we did this a little bit more in depth last time.

But you know, uh big big picture item.

If you're trying to have an item to go straight to the agenda, you need three signatures is rule 28.

I'm sorry, rule 23 from uh section two two of the code.

If you want to have committee, which is where we are now, it's rule 24.

Uh, but typically you do rule 23 and you're when you're ready to go right to the agenda.

You need the three signatures to go forward.

If you're still working on your proposal, you want some input, you want to go to committee, it's rule 24.

Next slide, please.

Um big reminder for uh for rule 23, just make sure you do not talk about it with more than eight of you at the time.

You do not want to walk in quorum issue when you're dealing with it.

But for the most part, it's three signatures and and written requests.

Um those are the guidelines, those are all in the guides, uh, not a big deal.

Um, one of the other things to note, I think um some there's some confusion sometimes with rule 23.

If you're gonna get your three signatures, there will be a memo that comes out.

If it comes to committee, there will not be a memo.

It's just if it's legal, it'll come to the committee and we'll talk about it.

If it's not legal, we'll we'll kind of flag you in the legal department.

But there is no memo that comes out with rule 24.

So if it comes to committee, there will not be a memo.

We'll just basically say it can go on the agenda, no issues.

Next slide, please.

Uh next slide.

So uh of course, uh when we're looking at things in the legal department, big thing, of course, is it lawful.

Uh if there's a lawfulness issue, like stop right there.

Let's let's make sure we don't go any forward.

We don't go for it at all.

Uh and and let's uh either re redesign whatever you're trying to do or or uh or figure out or just maybe drop it.

Um also uh uh issue with implementation.

So a lot of the language that's used, and we'll talk about it probably some.

I think uh for those uh with the one of the items we talked a little bit about the language.

The language that's used is very important because a lot of times it's a matter of how the departments actually enforce it.

Uh is whatever's written is what they have to actually go by.

That's that becomes the uh the law of the of the of the city.

So uh how do you actually implement it?

So making sure we have the proper language to be sure make sure it's implementable is a very big thing.

And of course, um legal exposure.

We want to make sure that if we do this, we do not get we do not get sued, or if we do get sued, we have the legal uh we have legal standing on our side.

So what is the legal exposure?

So those are our big considerations typically when we get in the legal department.

Next slide.

And next slide.

All right, so observations.

Uh one of the one of the big observations is that, and one of the questions I remember uh actually Councilmember Murray asked when we uh when we talked about this early on was is my position a gatekeeper?

And the answer remains no.

I am not a gatekeeper, but I am a guide.

Uh and one of the things that I think we I had this discussion with Councilmember Huffman about this presentation is that uh when you guys, if you guys submit anything, if it does not come through me, it it goes to general counsel.

So we have it set up where basically um your legal your lawfulness and memo is come through general counsel, but for my position, it's supposed to work with you on the front end of all issues.

So making sure that language is right, making sure all those things are proper.

Uh but uh when it goes to general counsel, they have seven days to have a response.

And so that it so they don't have time to tell you, well, you should have fixed this or you should have used this wording.

They're just gonna say it's lawful or it's not, and and that's gonna be the end of it.

So it is it's it's highly suggested that if you have even if you have an idea, just give me a call.

Uh you might have everything worked out, that's fine, but just give me a call.

Uh I can I can let you know, and if there is some other issues that need to be addressed, or if we need to have like some language change or some things like that, we can work on that on the front end to make sure there are no no no issues that that happen there.

Uh and we don't want to have the surprises.

If you get a surprise on legality, we have not I have not been able to help in that regard.

Also, batch submissions.

Please do not submit too many submissions at one time.

If you submit five submissions, uh general counsel basically says they will not be able to do it in seven days.

There's no way they can do seven memos uh or of or more typically if it's more than one memo at a time, because they all have to stop dropping uh and and do whatever uh whatever comes through the door.

So if there's multiple ones, they're pretty much gonna say we're not gonna be able to do all of them.

Just let if you do have to do more than one, at least let them know what's the priority.

If this is number one, fine, uh, but let them know so they can know which one to work on first.

Uh but let them know so they can know which one to work on first.

They're gonna probably say we're not gonna be able to do this in time, typically.

Also, with regards to any outside organizations, uh I I know all your positions are outside facing, like you guys get questions all the time, but when it comes to any advice we give, we give it to you guys directly.

Like if if there is a any groups outside of the city, we can uh we can talk to you, but we do not give counsel to anybody outside of organizations.

I do understand that happens sometimes, and sometimes I know people get pulled outside, but just note that we can't advise anybody other than you guys and your staff specifically on these issues.

And that is mainly it.

Any questions?

Um so just to clarify what you're saying is that even if you know if a council member wants to go forward with the three signatures and put it on the agenda, they could still utilize you on the front end, even if that's how they're planning to go.

Yeah, if it yeah, beforehand, so uh basically if you have any so even if you're like okay, we got this, we're only changing one word in the code, that's fine.

It probably won't be a major issue.

But just let me let me see, because if there is uh if there happens to be any any issues or if there happens to be any other things, a lot of times I do understand you guys are you guys are coming up with the ideas, that's fine.

Uh but sometimes this word implicates this, and and then now this these three departments have to figure out how to make that work.

So uh, and that's just usually not in the scope of what you know, you guys are here to to make it work.

You guys are not worried about making the sausage.

You guys, so we're here to make the sausage, so we want to make sure you're able to make the sausage properly.

So, yeah, just let me know and we will work out whatever, whatever kinks or whatever, whatever you're going over and and make sure it goes through smoothly.

Okay, council member Salinas.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, I just had two clarifying questions about some statements you made.

First, um you said part of your job is to evaluate whether or not this can be implemented by departments, and that was separate and apart from your lawfulness review.

And I don't see anything in the code that says you are supposed to conduct a review as to how it would be implemented by a department.

So, where in the code is the basis for that part of your review?

Well, typically it's it's just a matter of uh it's not in the code, it's really just a matter of uh practicality.

So as in So you're not saying that you would indicate that an ordinance should not move forward because you have thoughts about implementation.

You're just saying you may offer views on it, but that would not be a basis by which an ordinance could not move forward.

No, the the ordinance is always you guys' decision.

So it's always a it's always a you decision.

It's you sometimes it's usually a matter of talking to the department, making sure that they can actually is it a matter of can it be done or if it can be done, it's just a consideration point for you.

It's like have you talked to them?

If they can do it, fine.

If they can't, it's really ultimately that that's a that's not us a decision.

That's uh that is a well I just want to clarify because we've all seen an instance where a legal opinion prevented an ordinance from moving forward.

Okay.

And so I just want to clarify you are not suggesting that you would have the authority to prevent an ordinance from moving forward because you had questions about how it would be implemented.

No.

Is that right?

No, we don't know.

That's not a legal job department.

We we really just asked for the question of we asked for the purpose of have you thought about it more.

It's more have you thought about it.

Ultimately, the decision is always you guys.

No, it's not.

You all, as we all recall, you issued a memo where you said that part of the ordinance was not permitted to move forward.

So the legal department has issued opinions that has prevented parts of ordinances to move forward.

And I just want to make sure it's clear for the public that you're not suggesting that the legal department can hold up an ordinance because you have questions about implementation.

Is that correct?

Not on not on implementation, no.

It is uh it is only for lawfulness.

We uh the legal department only gives uh opinion on lawfulness.

So if it if there is a lawfulness issue, that is the it that is the opinion that the legal department gives, as in this can be applied or this is not this is either lawful or not lawful for XYZ reason.

Okay, and then my second question is you made a comment about the advice you providing is for the council members but not the public.

But you would also agree that since the council members are the recipients of the attorney client advice, we have the ability at any point to break the privilege and share the advice you are giving us with the public.

And so you cannot preclude us from sharing the legal advice that you're providing with the public and if they want to give any background, if they want to give any feedback or offer scrutiny on the advice you're providing.

We typically just don't advise it.

Um but do you agree with me that you cannot preclude any council member from sharing the advice you provide with the public because we are a party to the privilege and we can break the privilege at any time again?

We we typically don't advise that.

Um for the purpose of for the purpose of uh we typically don't advise that.

I would say, but that's my my question is can a council member share any advice if they choose to with the public yes.

I I suppose so.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Danny, thank you for the presentation.

I appreciate you and uh your assistance to the council.

Um just just to be clear, your presentation um reflects uh your best advice on how to handle prop A's uh at the council level.

Is that right?

Yes, sir.

Okay, and the actual rules that must be followed would be in the code of ordinances.

Correct.

Yeah, rule 23 and 24 are the other actual rules.

Yes, sir.

So okay.

Um I had a question about one of your slides in and I I haven't seen it prior to the meeting, but it I think it was the one that had Rule 23 and Rule 24 on it.

If we could go back to that slide, yeah.

I wanted to ask you this one.

Okay, I think it's that one.

Um so uh Prop A submitted to General Counsel um have the lawfulness review done by general counsel.

General, so yeah, the way the way it's structured, the way that that it was decided to be structured was that uh lawfulness, the lawfulness memo itself comes from the from general counsel.

So when it so it I work with you guys on front end, general counsel is usually the last stop.

It is the stop, the the stop via uh for the actual lawfulness memo, correct?

And and so if something goes the rule twenty-four route through committee, at what point is the lawfulness review done?

There uh typically I typically it's a um before it before when it comes in, it comes via email or if I if I've been like ideally, uh we've talked about it already, and I've had a chance to work with talk to you, talk to whatever council members about the lawfulness.

But if if that does not happen, uh typically when it before it makes the agenda, that's why we said we we recommend giving a three we have a three-week window, so you have a week to uh a week to make sure that it's there's no lawfulness issues, and then there's the two-week uh two-week period that you guys get for uh for all committee agenda items.

So um sorry, Councilmember Demirs, just to clarify, the code actually says they're required to provide a lawfulness feedback within seven days, even if we go the committee route.

It's it's in uh section 24A1.

Thank thank you for that uh colleague.

Um so did I maybe I misunderstood you, but uh in order for something to appear on a committee agenda, not the full council agenda, but the committee agenda, must someone in legal determine that it's lawful uh initially before it ends up on a committee agenda.

Yes, so it's typically yeah, so but typically it's a lawfulness, it is a lawfulness review, but typically as long as there isn't that so far, so far at least there has not been a issue of lawfulness, as in like nobody has submitted anything to the committee so far that has not been flat flagged as in this will not be lawful, period.

And and uh I take it then if someone in legal thinks a prop A is not lawful, it won't even end up on a committee agenda.

Is is that correct or not?

Correct.

If if there was a true lawfulness, like as in like if somebody tried to propose something that was was absolutely not going to be lawful, we would we would advise to not because you guys can vote from here.

Ideally you can actually vote from here right to the agenda if you to the city council agenda if you wanted to so wanted to.

So typically that's why the lawfulness determination.

There's no memo, but there is a lawfulness requirement as a lawfulness, uh a lawful assessment required for for Rule 24.

Thank you.

Councilmember Salinas.

Okay.

All right.

It doesn't look like there's anybody else in the queue.

Thank you, Mr.

Norris for coming.

Thank you.

All right.

Since we began, we've had uh we've been joined by Councilmember Flickinger and Councilmember Martinez.

Welcome.

I just want to remind everyone that there is a sign-up for public speakers um on the table over there.

So if there's somebody in this room that would like to sign up to speak, uh go ahead and sign up now.

Just a reminder that if we don't have a quorum that we can't take action on any of the items um in the committee.

So I want to encourage everyone to stay for the duration of the meeting out of respect for councilmember Davis and Councilmember Salinas's items.

And now I would like to recognize Councilmember Davis if you'd like to give your presentation.

Do you want to come here?

Do it from here.

Thank you, madam chair, and to colleagues.

We are I am very, very excited about this presentation because I think it is something that certainly for myself that I have uh personally experienced, and I think this is something that the city of Houston, being that the size and the largeness of our city is a necessary matter for public safety to all of us.

And so this presentation of this amendment today is to protect Houstonians and certainly many of us, because our roads and highways, expressways, are generally congested quite often throughout the day, starting from early in the morning into the late in the evenings.

So I am very proud to have to make this amendment in this presentation.

My staff and I have worked diligently and uh we followed this.

I have followed this, taking photos and others for the past two years, on top of the fact of having a personal experience myself way before I was on council, and ever since then I thought it was something that the city of Houston should take into consideration.

Also, I do want to say that we did a lot of covering and investigating this issue, which is an enormous issue across not only Houston but the state of Texas, and there's thousands of injuries and some deaths and other things that have happened in regards to this.

I've been told, and we found out that Houston is the only city thus far with this type of a proposal in regards to this.

This is an amendment to establish what is called the local load securment standards for passenger cars and trucks.

Um this will be presented as section 45 45 load securement.

I want to thank um Danny Corse working with us.

We went through the steps uh he just spoke about in regards to this process, as well as we did with HPD and with the city attorney's office.

The load securement is the as by definition is the following words on the for section 45-45.

The following words, terms, and phrases when used in this section will have the meanings set forth in this subsection, except when the context clearly indicates a different meaning, and which it states says that load or cargo means by any material, object, equipment, tool, debris, appliances, goods transported in or on a motor vehicle, or attached trailer, regardless of weight, but does not include live animals.

Number two, securement devices means straps, tie-downs, ropes, nets, bungee, cords, ratchet, mechanisms, chains, containers, tarps, cargo boxes, or any manufacturing approved means used to prevent movement of a load.

Number three, movement means shifting, sliding, tipping, leaking, spilling, blowing, or falling from a motor vehicle in a manner that may create a hazard.

And B of the load secure me definition, general load securement requirements.

Number one, it shall be unlawful for any person to transport, carry a cause to be transported or carried any load or cargo in an unenclosed open area of a motor vehicle or attached trailer, unless such load or cargo is secured by a secure device sufficient sufficient, I'm sorry, to prevent its movement.

Number two, any person who violates any provisions of this article shall be guilty of an offense and open conviction thereof shall be punished and provided in section one six of this code.

Each violation of this article shall constitute and be punishable as a separate offense.

So that was the draft proposal, Madam Chair and colleagues that we presented in regards to this after doing our homework.

Now, in the presentation, um, as I stated earlier, um, the objects that we run into on our expressways are generally dangerous.

And those objects of drive-by carrier that would not even know what damage he or she did, because they're going on down the road.

And I didn't know the car was on fire because it connected to my catalytic converter.

And of course, when that happened, uh I was only notified by the people who were driving by me pointing down at my car, and I didn't know why.

But my car is on fire, so I had to immediately draw attention, pulled over, and that was my vehicle on fire.

Naturally, uh, thank God I found something on the side of the highway that I could knock the objects loose.

So, so by experiencing myself, I know exactly what kind of damage or fear it can bring.

So, background.

The uh slide first slide that you see is background.

Nearly every Houstonian has seen or driven behind a vehicle that appeared to be to have an improperly secured load, or has had to severe swerve, I'm sorry, to avoid road debris that fell off of a vehicle.

There is currently no language in the Texas Transportation Code, chapter 725, nor the Houston Code of Ordinances, Chapter 45, Article 2, that specifies the type of device that should be utilized to secure a vehicle's load.

Next slide.

Background.

This ordinance amendment seeks to establish the types of securement devices and include more specific securement requirements than the existing language in the Texas Transportation Code.

Next slide.

Uh 17,000 32066, 311 requests routed to HPW related to road debris in 2023.

17,000 pieces of debris collected by HCTRA since 2020.

1,500 vehicles crashed in Texas in 2023, caused by road debris tracked by uh triple A.

3% yearly increase in road debris since 2020, according to Text Dot.

So just going over the amendment language I just read earlier, slide six.

In the media, let me just say Houston in the media, Houston City Council considers secured load ordinance making unsecured cargo illegal.

ABC Channel 13, I witnessed news reported by Kelvin Henry, which he I had an op also an opportunity.

He asked if I would interview with him concerning uh this amendment.

And uh I think we do have the recording of the interview.

Uh, if we do, if they could just run that.

It looks like we're having some technical difficulties, but we have the link uh in the presentation.

We have to make it, yeah, they can get it.

So also we just go to um slide uh um, but before, yeah, let's go to slide seven.

Let's do that that way.

If it's the technical issue, maybe they could clear it up before.

Here's here's the enforcement.

Um, in addition to having been reviewed by the legal department, this ordinance amendment has been vetted by Houston Police Department Traffic Enforcement Division.

Um, and uh this amendment empowers law enforcement to crack down on offenders operating vehicles with unsecured loads.

And uh I do we do have a representative here today from HPD who will uh address that uh for us.

Yes, Sergeant.

Hector, Officer Garcia is here.

Yes, come on, Cap, I'm sorry.

Sure.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for allowing us to participate in this process.

When the council member uh Davis asked us to uh look into this, we thought it was a great idea because of course our number one job is to keep everybody safe.

Uh we've all heard similar stories about uh unsecured loads on the streets and highways.

Uh we believe that this ordinance is going to be another tool in our tool belt that will add to the state law.

Um we believe that officers do an excellent job investigating uh incidents, uh crashes caused by debris.

Unfortunately, by that time it's too late, the accident already happened.

We also have an excellent uh commercial truck enforcement unit that uh they use their training and they keep those commercial vehicles in line.

Those commercial vehicles have a totally different set of rules.

We can stop them, we can do an inspection on them.

The issue was with the private vehicles.

Yeah.

The privately owned vehicles that are transporting uh material.

And that is where this ordinance creates a bridge.

It will allow us to uh have our officers out on the street uh looking for unsecured loads and being preventive and proactive uh with these crashes.

Uh we discussed in our meetings that the purpose of the Houston Police Department to maintain people safe and educate them.

It would be in the best interest of everybody if we had some sort of grace period where if the ordinance is passed, before we issue any citations, before we we stop people and give them a ticket, we would actually give them a warning and tell them look, the reason why you were stopped is because your load is not secured properly.

Right.

Um we want you to um find some rope or find something, tie it up a little so it doesn't move, so you can be on your way.

Um, and that's it.

That's that would be the end of the uh interaction with the citizens.

Um eventually, after the grace period, of course, um it'll be the discretion of the officers if an issue uh if a citation is issued or not.

But again, this would be bridge the gap that most officers have when they they're driving and they see a vehicle, uh a load and it's moving a little bit, but maybe you know, do I have a probable cost to stop the vehicle or not?

You know, this this would help officers make that decision more than anything to make the driver aware that their vehicle um that their load is unsecure.

Yes.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Captain.

And and if I may too, Madam Chairs, before we close, I do have uh in the interview that we were going to present, and that interview was done and conducted July 9th of this month.

And the gentleman that this interviewed was centered around is here.

And we asked him to be president, Mr.

Hawthorne is here where we there we is.

If he would, I'm asking him to come up because his he is actually one of the main reasons why this process need to be looked at very seriously in regard, no matter what part of the city you're in.

And I like part of the interview was for him to share that experience that he just recently had this month.

Come on, my friend.

Good afternoon, counsel.

Yeah, just go right now.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh as we all know, sometimes we think that things don't happen to us in general until it does happen to us.

Um, like he said on the 9th, I was heading home from work.

And it was like the movie final destination where you see something just out the blue pop out to you.

Well, about 14, 15 cars got caught into that situation.

It scared me.

Um, it caused a lot of rigs.

People were doing not the normal to try to avoid it.

It cost me a lot.

Uh one of the main things was it made me more aware of the situation about what's going on on the freeways.

Uh and made me pay more attention to it.

So after that situation, it seemed like every day something happened on the freeway dealing with debris.

Um in the process uh of this situation happening.

In the process of this situation happening, I called the police, and the police said that they couldn't do anything unless it was thrown off on purpose.

So we ended up being on the side of the freeway for about 30 minutes while traffic was going by.

Some of the cars, uh the drivers were young adults that didn't know anything.

So the police officer, he did help and told them to stay inside of vehicles until we got up the side of the freeway.

Well, in the process, it hurt me financially.

Something that I have to deal with myself, my personal self.

But it shouldn't have happened in the first place because we all travel every day.

We're aware of what's on the road in front of us, but we don't know how it's going to happen or affect anybody.

Because of the unsecured loads, it cost, and it's still costing everybody from day to day.

We have businesses to take care of.

I'm sorry.

But the thing is is how we do it and being accountable for it.

And that's one of the main things that that would help.

The accountability.

Thank you for coming forward.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Brother.

Appreciate it.

That would damage due to this very unsecured load vehicle.

Didn't come to find out that the vehicle, once the police department, it was indicated that the vehicle didn't have a license plate.

And that's whether the person took it off in the process of them finding it.

But that experience was very dreadful.

And to think that that these objects, according to the presentation by Channel 13, that these auto these items were falling off the truck like bowling balls.

Metal objects hitting the cars and damaging them.

And the driver kept going.

So Madam Chair colleagues, that that's generally my presentation.

And I hope that this is given some great consideration for the public safety of all of our city.

And um, and that's it's my presentation.

Thank you very much.

We have um Mayor Pertan Casax Tem in Q.

Councilmember Davis, thank you for the work that you've done on this.

I I have a question now.

So if someone's driving a load and it's loose and it's shaking right now, what happens?

What happens?

Yeah, what happens right now without this?

Without this, it just it will the potential um thing that it could come off the vehicle and it could literally take a life or damage someone's vehicle, and there's absolutely nothing you can do.

I don't know if there's nothing you can do, but because the person that drives and and it falls, they would have some responsibility for it, right?

Yes, yes, actually, yeah, yes, they would.

Yeah.

So I and then what happens to, I mean, my question is um, I got the draft proposal, and it says um it shall be punished and provided in section one six of this code.

What does section one six say about the punishment?

What would be the violation according to the proposal?

Yes, Danny.

I think that's up to 500, I think.

Let me double check.

I think it was it's the general basic uh the basic uh and I think it's a 500 fee.

It's just whatever the basic code is, uh, the basic, it wasn't a health or safety because I think we were considering if you want to go up to 2,000, because it is a health and safety issue, but I think he's I think it's the original, I'll double check, but I think it's a $500 fee, as what is the basic.

So if somebody's driving down the street, they have a load that's loose, the police is gonna stop them.

Right up to $500 and say your load is loose.

I'm gonna give you a citation for $500.

It's up to up to.

So they I'm gonna give you a citation.

Now you gotta go to court and then the judge will determine up to $500.

Correct.

The fee.

Correct.

Okay.

And the damage may protect me.

No, I get it.

Yeah.

I get it.

I just, you know, I'm I'm just kind of torn about.

I mean, I don't think anybody intentionally wants their load to fall off.

And I guess I'm just putting myself, if I was carrying something, would I try to secure it?

Absolutely.

Um I guess everybody.

I don't know.

I'm I'm I'm just torn about another opportunity.

Um stop, a citation of this when if I'm carrying something, yes, I would be very upset if if something fell on me.

Sure.

Um there's a recourse for that.

I I just really want to talk through, you know, is this something that we need to do as a as a council body.

Um I'm not saying it's not.

Sure.

I just really want to hear something that would make it convince me that we need to have this on the books as something that's a need.

I mean, I saw the statistics with the number of the debris that's on the road.

I mean, there's a car crash in the city.

I mean, they don't even pick up the bumpers half the time.

You see those in the street, but that didn't fall off a load that debris is in the street.

Um I'm I'm still just kind of struggling through the process.

So if I may if I may repro Tim, I think I think your concern is legitimate, but I think that on the flip side of that, there's no accountability.

This I think makes the person accountable.

If you take the chance of putting objects on the back of a vehicle like a mattress, right.

And you know in all situations, that mattress come off of that vehicle.

It can cause an accident.

It can cause an accident and or death.

Now, the countability is the person should have taken in consideration when they put that mattress, and we've seen mattresses not only the back of vehicle, we've seen mattress tied on the top of people's cars.

And of course, when the wind, anyone knowing thing about wind and force, it's kind of hard to hold down.

We've seen people on the back of vehicles trying to hold a mattress.

So I think my my concern, my concern is it's the accountability, and we discussed that.

That's why when I asked him, but when you asked the code, the up to $500 now on the books is if something were to come off.

And um, I mean, imagine like Mr.

Hawthorne was indicating the damage to his vehicle bridges way above $500.

Did he have any opportunity to file a claim on the person that dropped the stuff that caused the damage to his vehicle?

Did they try to find it, Mr.

Hawthorne?

No.

They couldn't find it.

Couldn't locate the person.

It couldn't.

You took his license plates off.

So they they couldn't and I think um the person that I think identified the truck was someone that was out of the city.

Yeah, it was a visitor who was in the city and was able to identify the truck.

But once that was located, it was a lot of junk on the truck, right?

But the truck had removed the license plate.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Alcorn.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Davis.

I too have had something fall under off something and under my car to a great expense, never on the freeway, never to be seen again, the person who dropped it.

So I appreciate what you're trying to do here.

I am looking at uh the Texas Transportation Code 725.021 to the mayor.

Pro Tem's point, there is a law in the books about securing um loose vehicles.

It does stop at my reading of it, I'm not a lawyer, but it's it does stop short of the straps and everything.

It says it says to make sure that um it equipped and maintained as required by the section to prevent loose material from escaping or by blowing or spilling.

It talks about no holes or cracks and you know, making sure the panels are up, making sure the tailgate's out.

Right.

Um, but I guess I I ask legal, um is this like uh this isn't we're not preempted by the state code.

We can amend the state code to make more stringent, like more uh we can add um language to make more make it more stringent.

We're talking about um tying things down and straps and things like that.

That's that's within our purview, obviously, if it made it to committee.

Correct.

Yeah, so yeah, the straps are the big difference.

So a lot of it, a lot of it has been uh they have been enforcing commercial is what what what it says though on Section E of that, it says if the vehicle I'm I'm thinking it's like a regular car because it's on Section E at the bottom of the 752 725021.

It's it's if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle transporting lease material, the load shall be covered and the covering firmly secured at the front and the back, or shall be completely enclosed by the load carrying compartment.

But I think all the stuff before that, all the sections before that would apply to any vehicle.

So I guess my question is, it if with this law on the books, uh and somebody gets pulled over, you know, they actually catch somebody or or what they they are probably fined under this code too, right?

I mean, there is probably a punishment um for violation of this code, 725021.

And and from what would so it's possible that it's not done as is not typically done.

And that's one of the things that should be.

So you're saying that this this part of the transportation code is really they really only apply it to commercial vehicles.

It locally, that's how it's been applied.

So and typically what what Captain was explaining before is that a lot of times they will, when they see a Sanford to Sun looking truck that has stuff that's bouncing around, a lot of times they do not they wait until the actually falls off or something that actually falls off before they before they will go after the person typically as a I see.

So that's the difference in this.

Yes.

And we're not in any way.

But they felt like it is.

If it falls, I mean, so it's is really is it's a discretion.

So they it kind of gives more teeth to the idea of of secure, like making sure that it is actually secured as and not just the hand holding or whatever, making sure the match is.

Do we know the fines associated with this part of the code of the State Code?

Oh.

Uh that I'm not sure.

Okay.

You can get back to me on that.

Thank you.

Because I I do want to uh uh Councilmember Alcorn, that was one of the things that we our team and I we looked at the state law in regards to carrying loads of that, but that was no specific in terms of the strapping, you know.

So that that was the biggest thing.

It did it it is there indicated as a law illegal to that, but that was no specific as to what strap it is, how is it?

Right, yours goes far farther.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Councilmember Flickinger.

Thank you, Chair.

Um similar Mayor Pro Tem's comments.

I've got some concerns about, you know, just how strictly this is enforced and used.

And um although I've certainly some seen some people going down the road that what they're doing is so egregious that they need to be stopped and find and change what they're doing immediately before the stuff gets out of the road.

And I'm kind of wondering about the word sufficient uh in here.

What if we even did something that was a little more halfway and did it to where the people that did nothing to secure those their load and start with those people rather than you know having to worry about what is sufficient and what's not sufficient, that type of thing.

Well, I think Captain Garcia addressed the fact that that was going to be a grace period in regards to uh people becoming educated about what need to be uh sufficient time for folk to be notified that you ought to secure your load.

I'm assuming that's what you asking regarding.

Well, part of my issue is I think there's a little bit in the eye of the beholder is what is sufficient and what is not sufficient.

Whereas if you you know said that you have to have something.

Yeah.

And I think there's plenty of people out there doing this with nothing, that you know, we can possibly solve quite a few of the problems if we just focused on those rather than going the next step.

Just a suggestion.

Okay.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And uh, Councilmember Davis, thank you for bringing this forward and trying to address uh some of the hazards on our roadways.

Uh, I do I do have a little bit of concern following up on Councilmember Flickinger and the Mayor Pro Tem's uh comments about whether this may be a little bit broad.

Um as I read it, it it would criminalize loads or cargoes that are not secured by secured device sufficient to prevent movement, and then movement would be defined as shifting, sliding, right, etc.

And then the language in a manner that may create a hazard, which which um seems to me to be um kind of broad.

Um in just looking at this, uh maybe some concerns would be addressed if instead of May it said something like, in a manner reasonably likely to cause to create a hazard, right?

So in other words, less less broad um and and a higher, a little bit of a higher uh standard for someone to be uh stopped and fined.

Then the other thing uh that comes to mind is looking at secure device, securement device, it uh appears to be limited to those devices spelled out here to the exclusion of any other means of securing a load, right?

So um I know it says straps, tie-downs, ropes, nets, bungee cord, ratchet change, et cetera, or any manufacturer approved means used to prevent movement of a load.

Um, but I I wonder if there might be other means of securing loads that are not mentioned here that's what would that be that might be extended.

In your mind.

Uh I you know, I that's that's the the danger in um in limiting it to uh the the means uh outlined here.

Uh there could be other means.

So those are a couple of couple of uh things that come to mind.

Sure.

Well, good con great concern, but I think that now we have nothing as it is right now in these list of different objects and items that could be used at the at the expense right now, we have nothing at all.

And that's why I was addressing um Mayor Pro Tim's concern, which is I think legitimate.

But the reality is right now there's nothing on the books that protects anyone or give them any definition of what they can use.

You understand?

And and and like you say, I don't know, maybe I was understanding maybe what you suggested.

These items may not go further enough, or if that's gonna secure it, and that would depend upon the the items that's on the back of the vehicle.

You know, like the gentleman, Mr.

Hawthorne, would he experience I don't know what the truck looked like, I don't know what all of whether or not that was something to cover it, a tie down, but we do know 14 cars got damaged.

That's what we do know.

And so I I just think that um this is my intent was to focus on making people accountable, the danger of unexposed tie-downs, unexposed something to secure what you're doing.

I think that is more of a threat and a danger than you know um than what we have on the books present.

Council Member appreciate that.

Yeah, that's fine.

Councilmember Castilla.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Davis for your work on this.

The grace period that will um be used for the educational component.

Yes.

Can you uh talk through what that looks like, what kind of outreach is gonna be done, how long is it gonna last, et cetera?

Very good question.

We discussed that, we talked about a grace period because we didn't want to make it appear that we was trying to give people citation just to give citations.

So Captain Garcia and the HPD, we when we met, we discussed it like a 90-day grace period, you know.

Uh that's three months of people becoming aware of the fact that you know, and and of course beyond that, if they if they even got council member, if they got a citation and they went to court, then it would be the discretion of the judge in terms of what the fine, you know, may be based upon who they're talking to or what the circumstances are.

I mean, we didn't my objective was not to go out there and hit somebody with a five thousand dollar fine, and then that was not the objective.

The more of it was to do something that would make that person accountable for the potential of danger of tan blocking down the freeway.

I mean, we've seen objects that was not properly tied that shut down the whole entire freeway for hours.

And the the education component is when someone gets stopped with an unsecured load, instead of getting a citation, they get a warning probably yes, informed of the new rule.

Yeah.

Any anything beyond that in terms of education engagement outreach?

Um, I would I would just public information, I think uh, as most, you know, we have so many laws and things that we do have on the book, and how people generally find out about it is when they violate the law.

But I think the grace period would be to educate people and make it aware of it that the loads are being tied down.

But but yeah, I don't I don't know of any method I'd hadn't really given that deep consideration.

But it would be whatever way necessarily we could get the general public to know that it would be proper to tie down your objects, I think would be necessary.

And and I would advocate for that of if this is adopted a very robust engagement period and effort that included, you know, civic club, super neighborhood, yes, yes, multiple languages.

All kinds of water bill notices, I mean you name it, all of the above kind of approach.

Right, yes, I would I would welcome that, absolutely.

Because I think it would be it would be it would be beneficial for all of us to make our general public aware, whether it be through civic associations and by process to let them know that this is now books uh on the law um that is not in the books that if you don't properly tie down and what those specifics are, then you have the potential of being given a citation.

Thank you.

Sure.

Council Member Slanis.

Councilmember Davis, just want to start by saying I'm so excited that you brought a proposition A.

I think all of us should be using proposition A, and I just I want to thank you for for doing this work and bringing this to our for our consideration.

Thank you.

Um I I had two questions for you.

The first, I just want to make sure I understand how this would be implemented.

If I have a pickup truck and I had a case of water in the back, that case was not sticking out of the truck in any which way.

If I had that case without securing it in some way in the bed of my truck, would that subject me to a $500, potentially a $500 fine?

If right now, according to the law, as to the unsecured, because right now there's nothing on the books that would make you require you to secure that cases of water if it fell off the truck, that's nothing now.

Yes, sir.

Well my question is if the ordinance passed as it's currently raised.

If the ordinance passed.

Would someone if just say how one case of water in the back of the truck, could that person be fined up to $500?

I would think not.

Not with one case of water.

And and I guess I I would agree with you, and I'm so glad to hear I I just worry that how where is that reflected in the code?

Because it would seem that a loose case of water would arguably be a violation of the ordinance as written, but maybe I'm misreading it, sir.

Well, I think what you you'll the tie-down secure means straps, tie-downs, and it was applied to any moving objects.

It used that, and that's just one of the the things inside the truck.

As we do know, most vehicles that end up losing loads is never something as simple as a one case of war.

And it's never something that's just routed.

Most of the people we see with these loads are stuff sticking out of the vehicle.

So which is worse, the one case of water in the back of the truck or a truck that's full of stuff on the back with no laws to tie down.

You have to say and to your excellent point, sir.

Um, would it make sense or had did you consider language that limited the application of the code to instances where materials were sticking out of the truck?

Because I completely agree with you.

Something sticking out of the truck that presents a real potential safety concern.

Um, did you consider language to that effect?

Yes.

When we had our meetings, when we got with HPD and we got with the attorney's office, we were trying to put it in the wording that would specify the type of load that you carry and how that load need to be tied down.

The objects on the back, I wouldn't think that the present this proposal would any officer would stop a person with that minimum amount of loading.

You understand?

I I get your your point.

I do, but I don't think that would be something that would potentially present a threat and a safety to the general public with a person carrying one or two cases of water.

I think the objective, what I'll a total objective was that we would have something that would secure loads that potentially become a danger to the general public, which we see every day.

And that was really the intent of that, and that was so that people could be more accountable, how they put stuff on the back of a vehicle unsecured, and sometimes less secure.

I mean, I I be to be honest, I've seen people put things on the back of vehicles and cars.

It was not as dangerous, but the potential was there because it was not secured at all.

So I think that was that was really the point.

Would you would you consider language um that would limit the application of the ordinance to trucks that have material sticking out?

Or are you wholly against that and want to keep the language as is?

I'm I'm just sort of trying to understand.

No, no, no, no.

I no, I appreciate the question.

I I would that would be that would be something that I would give consideration to, but I think the the the gray area to that is I would rather leave that open-ended in the fact that if you got lows.

If you start getting into the particulars of what the load is versus what the load can do, I think you we get into uh an area that would I don't know, we could write up a bunch of stuff in my mind, but but I think and I appreciate the concern of all of my colleagues in it, but I think that we may be missing the objective to secure me.

Because the ordinance, the it's an amendment to establish load securement.

You know, that's that's the standard.

We just trying to give a standard to load securement as the people who carry it, Councilmember Salud, in that they need to be more thoughtful, and I think that's really what my objective that a person, even this is me, if I'm hauling something, a lot of people can't afford, you know, madam chair, or you haul or some vehicles with they can't afford it.

Because it's costly to do it.

So some people say, oh, well, I use my pickup, I use a friend, they load it up, but it's not secure and can cause damage.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Councilmember Martinez.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, Council More Davis, thank you for um working on this.

And I know we've spoken about it uh for for a few months already, or several months.

Um, and if you were to ask me about this maybe about two years ago, uh I would I would have been saying the same thing.

I think this is a great idea.

Yeah.

Uh the one thing, and I don't know if this is what Mayor Pro Tem was alluding to, but uh I do have concerns, especially now with more interactions with stops uh by HPD.

Um, and so in this specific um uh prop A that one extra stop to you know interact with folks that might be in uh a certain status, uh it concerns me.

Um, and not sure if there's ways that we could work towards addressing uh this main concern that you're looking at, because I think uh I've actually and I shared with you, I was with my family a couple years back, and we ran over some four by four, uh two by two by two by two or four by fours.

Yeah.

Um and yeah, we lost three tires.

Wow.

You know, we it was scary, we had our kids with us.

Um so again, I think there's some validity to what you're trying to do, but I also want to make sure that we don't create unintended consequences as well.

Um, and so as I've heard my colleagues speak about um, you know, some of the you know their support, but also some of the concerns I would like to, you know, really talk to you a bit more.

Um, you know, we can have a conversation here, but also as well with Lee Wand and HPD on what what those stops would look like.

Um, how can we ensure that uh folks uh aren't being having that extra tail light issue that ultimately ends up in something else that might be uh that we might not be really trying to do?

Yeah, well, I I concur with you on that.

I I would hope that no one would take this as an opportunity or an advantage, yeah.

You understand, to and they want to live near a nice park, and they want, I mean, of course, affordability is important, but I think like you said, um it is it is some it's a choice, and we can argue whose choice it is, but it's a choice to have air conditioning and have that be uh the law just like all these other cities is is the right thing to do, and and I hope we can get there.

Vice Mayor Pro Ten Peck.

Thank you, Chair.

I had a few follow-up questions based on some of the comments that I heard.

Um do you want me to answer those?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so the first question is um so the code to um Chair Huffman's comment about it applying to all property owners and not just rental properties.

Um and I know you wouldn't call on yourself to report yourself that you're doing something not up to code.

My concern is if an individual owns a house and they don't have AC and they go to sell their home and now their home isn't in compliance with COUN ordinances, and then what's gonna happen at that sale?

Are they not gonna be able to sell their home because now they have to install some kind of AC unit before they can sell the house?

Um and so, and that's something that an inspector would come in and say, hey, you don't, you know, you're not up to code on this.

And so I could see that being a potential issue.

Is there a way to amend this just to apply to rental properties only?

And would you be agreeable to making that change?

Well, I I guess my view is if someone chose someone can sell their property, it's not as if our law prevents someone from selling a property that's not up to code.

So if I wanted to sell my house and didn't have AC, it was violating the Houston ordinance, I could still sell my home.

There would be nothing precluding me from doing so.

I'd obviously I'd probably have to disclose it given that it's not in in compliance, and it'd probably be good if anything, when you're making that sale that is disclosed, hey, this is generally required, this does not exist.

But I'm not aware of any law that precludes a sale or inhibits it in any way if it's not up to a particular code.

In fact, I was just looking at houses of my wife, and they listed the things that were not up to code in a building, and then they said if you buy, you'll have to do XYZ to bring this into compliance.

Yeah, and I'm not suggesting that they couldn't sell their house.

Right.

But any realtor would say you shouldn't buy a house that's not up to code unless you're willing to, you know, spend the money to get it up to code, that kind of thing.

So I could foresee circumstances where this could be an issue for properties that aren't rental property.

So is there a way that we could tweak it?

Because if the goal here is for people who are renting to make sure that they have access to AC, then could we narrow that scope, you know, just for rental units?

Is there a way to do that?

And then also would you be agreeable to making that change?

I'm I'm certainly open to considering it, and given that we have enough signatures, we don't need this voted out of committee.

It would just go straight to a vote.

But I'm certainly happy to have a further discussion with you.

I think my um principle is that there's nothing, there's no reason why they couldn't sell the property now.

And so I I don't see why that would change um the ability to engage in the sale.

I'm not sure I'm not aware of any realtors that would refuse to work with a seller uh because something wasn't up to code.

Like I said, I've I have visited homes where they was just disclosed to me that it was not up to code.

So I'm not aware of it prohibiting any transactions.

And I think this is bigger than just renters.

It's about sending a message in the city of Houston.

We have basic health and safety standards, and this would be one of them.

Okay.

Um I mean, I would like to work with you further on just narrowing the focus to what we're trying to accomplish here.

Um, and then on that same line, for that particular code, is that only applying to residential properties?

This isn't applying to any commercial properties.

Is that correct?

This well, it's uh building.

So this is all this is multifamily residential.

Uh so yes, it's this this applies to that.

But commercial properties other than apartment complexes, if it's a warehouse or something like that.

It's a part of the it's part of the I believe it's defined as a dwelling unit under the housing code.

Yes, under the housing code.

So travel space.

Okay, great.

Um and then the other item I wanted to follow up on is um to Councilmember Flickinger's point about 90 days.

If if the concern is that there could be some apartment complexes that might have to do some kind of electrical work, and 90 days might not be enough time.

In 90 days, we're gonna start getting to the point where it's starting to get a little bit cooler, a little bit cooler in Houston.

Could we extend the time maybe a little bit um to just ensure that certain apartment complexes could get up to code, or you know, if there's some electrical work, 90 days might not be enough time.

I know in other cities um, you know, they've given more time than that too.

So um absolutely, council member, I'd be happy to work with you to think about an appropriate timeline.

Again, 90 days was what we had discussed, and the Houston apartment association had blessed, um, but happy to work with you if you felt a little bit longer time would be appropriate.

Yeah, I mean, only because we're we're gonna start getting outside of somewhere at that point anyway.

So if we can give people some more time, definitely before next summer, you know, to make sure that they have the AC.

So okay.

Certainly happy to work with you on that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Appreciate the discussion.

Um earlier you mentioned uh concern about retaliation, and I didn't quite follow.

Can you elaborate on on what you were talking about there?

I think the point Ms.

Rodriguez was making, and something we've heard in talking to the advocacy groups is if right now it's the choice it's it's on the the renter to bring the unit, or as we had discussed, council member, if there was a choice in the matter, if it said you may provide the unit.

Because I'm gonna I'm gonna put penalize you in some way, I'm gonna make your life difficult in some way.

Let's not force the land the tenant to be the person having to make the choice.

Let's force the landlord to provide it to take away that ability to unduly influence or retaliate against the tenant.

Okay.

And in regards to uh Councilmember Flickinger's line of questioning, do we have any idea how many properties would have to do uh some more extensive rewire in order to handle the added um needs of the air conditioners to be installed?

We have not come across a shred of evidence that would suggest that any building would require some type of electrical rewiring.

And and if that were to be needed, I mean I live in a house that's uh 70 years old, right?

And and when I purchased it, uh I I knew it wasn't like brand spanking new and and you know, buyers and sellers can negotiate things, repairs and and so forth.

Uh but with a landlord tenant situation, that negotiation process sometimes end up, if you want to call it that, sometimes ends up in in higher rents and passing those costs along.

So if if you have a property that requires that needs to be rewired, you know, that's that's going to involve a cost as well as whatever costs are associated with with the elect electricity needs.

Um what what what about that?

Do you do you have any concern about that?

Uh again, uh this discussion of potential electrical work is entirely theoretical.

We have not come across any evidence to suggest that that would be required for any building to come up to code to install a well unit.

And so I, you know, if you're asking me theoretically, could that increase the cost to accept that premise?

I accept that the theoretical premise, but there is just no evidence to support it.

Um like Councilmember Peck suggested, I'm more than happy to work collaboratively.

If there's a longer process, we think that would be appropriate.

But um, you know, there's just I think we have to work in facts as a council.

And and I understand sort of the perception that these things may cause all of these negative outcomes, but the facts we have just do not support that.

Okay, and earlier you mentioned as well the Kins Kinder Institute.

I don't know if you've had any conversations with them or any of the other think tanks in town, you know, Baker Institute or so forth.

Have you had any conversations about about this particular proposal or idea?

I believe my team has been in touch with um Baker Ripley.

I don't think they make it a habit of endorsing public policies, but the Houston Food Bank, which is also not a group that often in towards his policies, has come out and supported it, and Texas Housers and many of the uh Houston eviction groups that we've noted in our list, I do think are some of these pre-eminent think tanks on uh tenant rights, and they all have uniformly supported it.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh staff from Councilmember Thomas's office.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember, for the presentation.

And I know that your team has been working uh diligently to you know bring this to uh committee.

Um Thank you for recognizing them because they get all the credit.

I get none, so thank you for recognizing them.

Um how is a habitable space defined?

So the way the are you talking about in particular proposed provision?

So it sets it at to provide and maintain um the ability to maintain a maximum temperature lower than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

So no higher than 80 degrees, similar to the heating code that I believe is tied to 70 degrees.

Okay and the 20 degree marker, which is the same as the the cooling uh code.

Sure.

So in an apartment, a two-bedroom apartment with a den and a kitchen, is each of those spaces considered a habitable space that would require their own cooling unit, because cooling units, of course, you know, they're small, medium, large with varying degrees of BTUs and how quickly they can extract the heat from the room, et cetera.

So with this language, is the owner only required to provide one cooling unit for the entire apartment, or is it each habitable space kitchen, living bedroom, bedroom, bedroom?

How is that?

So it it's it's intended like the heating code to provide a mechanism by which to cool space uh for living, sleeping, and eating, and bath uh bathrooms, uh storage rooms, closets, halls, utility rooms are all exempted from it.

So if you have an open space apartment where the kitchen extends into the living room, it could very much be that you have one unit of living room and that would extend to the kitchen.

But it's in those spaces uh where one is predominantly in, as long as there is some mechanism by which to cool it, much like you have with the heating, some mechanism by which to cool the space.

Um we what we are not suggesting that every single room would have to have its own unit, but there'd need to be some mechanism, which is why I think the code is written the way it is to cool the space that is uh habitable.

So does this only require the owner to provide cooling in one of the multiple potential multiple habitable spaces in an apartment?

Yes, it would be very possible to be in compliance, depending on how the apartment is laid out.

Um yes, it would it would seem it would be entirely possible to be in compliance by providing uh one unit for the entire space.

Okay.

So if the two bedrooms have a screen currently and the living room, the apartment owner may be permitted to just provide, say, a unit in the living room.

If that would provide sufficient cooling, then yes.

And is there going to be a recommendation from the inspector or the or code enforcement to suggest that based on the number of habitable spaces in each apartment, what the owner should be providing and sizing as well, because I know that um you all provided $36 a month per wall unit, but how many BTUs is that associated with?

Because if you're cooling for a kitchen living space, you would need a larger unit than for a bedroom.

Um so is code enforcement gonna be providing those recommendations to the owner, and will they then double check that that appropriate size unit has been installed?

Yeah, so we'd be happy to work with code enforcement on what they think is the most reasonable way to implement.

Um I think we would turn to the mechanisms they currently use to enforce the heating code to apply a similar metric to apply for the cooling code.

Okay.

And um how many rental units currently rely on the screen exemption?

So we don't have the uh presumably all the units that are without AC, I assume provide a screening unit, and that's why they're able to remain in compliance with the code.

And so I would refer back to the census data, which of course is a metropolitan area, um, which is 20,000, but given that we'd have to assume that there's at least several thousand in the city of Houston.

Okay, so City of Houston, we don't have an exact number of units that are currently only utilizing a screen.

We do not have a precise number for the city of Houston, only for the metropolitan area from the census.

Okay, and that just leaves me to my last question about community engagement.

I know you have a number of um organizations that have endorsed what are the community engagement, what is the plan to notify residents, especially considering we don't have an exact number of people who are currently only provided um screens.

Is there um yeah, if you could speak a little bit to I know you've done some engagement and you know the folks you mentioned boots on the ground, right?

They have um an acute awareness of particular neighborhoods, but citywide, since we don't have an exact number, what is the sort of community engagement plan around notifying if this were to pass?

Yeah, so I think it's very similar to what we've done around the apartment ordinance, which is it's gonna be incumbent on all of us to make sure that we're engaging with community stakeholders, we're engaging with community leaders to make sure the word gets out there.

We will certainly do our part, do this the rounds with super neighborhoods and civic associations.

As you mentioned, there's a lot of groups here that are focused in on these communities and will certainly help us promote it.

The city of Houston also has a directory of all apartment complexes, so it would not be too difficult to send an email to all of them indicating, hey, there is this new code that's going to come into place.

And I will tell you, like I mentioned, I was at a civic club, had not spoken to these tent this landlord owner at all, and he was already aware based on the initial outreach we had done that this ordinance was being considered by council was supportive and explained his plan for implementation.

So I look forward to learning from your incredible boss on the best ways to do engagement, but I am very confident working together collaboratively with the department um and all the stakeholders to ensure that this word gets out in the city of Houston.

Sure, thank you.

And I would, I mean, if there is any engagement with public works and code enforcement on the recommendations, just because the operating costs for different sizes of units varies just so you know the conversation about affordability remains in place to hear how they plan to make their recommendations on what size units and the operating costs around those.

So it would be the health department, but but certainly um if you all have any questions and we're happy to schedule a meeting to to talk to to the council member or yourself about it.

Yeah.

Councilmember Flickinger, are you back in cue?

Just a couple quick questions.

Make sure I heard this right.

So you haven't worked with code enforcement to see how this would be implemented.

No, we we have reached out to the Houston Public Works and the Houston Health Department.

Okay, and you all figured out how it's gonna be implemented?

It would be implemented the same way any other house any other housing code is as it's written in the statute.

And we've walked I've walked through the steps at the beginning of my presentation.

Okay.

Also I'm happy to do so again, but I want to let the public speakers um, my office is also checked on the 3502 Campbell.

There's been no renovations since 1968.

So unless the electrical put in in 1968 is adequate for additional amperage going through, they'll have to do rewiring.

And if they do, then absolutely there's going to be cost.

Those costs will be passed to the tenants.

I don't believe there'll be mass evictions.

But the idea that, you know, a month ago, we said five dollars was terrible for some of these people.

But now we're saying these costs are irrelevant.

It's difficult to understand.

And Councilman Brothers said if you have any specific data or go to the building and they explain to you that the building could not support it, I'd be happy to see it.

Um but also I would encourage you to go to the building and speak to the let me finish, sir.

Go to the building, speak to the tenants, and ask them how they feel about this.

Again, what I said was if the electrical in 1968 is adequate, then they'll be fine.

I have my doubts.

Well, I encourage you to go explore it, sir.

And if you find specific evidence, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Okay.

And you know, again, all these people made these choices to begin with.

They'd have to pay 50% more in rent to live in an apartment that had air conditioning in that same area.

And I think we have a fundamentally different view about what a basic health and safety requirement is in the city of Houston.

No, again, I I wish they had air conditioning.

But you don't say that's the requirement, which is perfectly fine, and I think the majority of the people.

What I'm saying is when they chose 50% less rent, that's why they chose it.

And I think that they know their lives better than me and you do.

I respectfully disagree, and I think um it's a question of what kind of city we're gonna be.

So you know their lives better than they do.

That's not what I said, sir.

Okay, so all right.

So um seeing that there's no more council members in queue, let's go ahead and start with the public speakers.

Each person has two minutes to speak.

However, we have a hard stop at five o'clock because that's when public session is starting.

So if you'd like to take less than two minutes, um, please do.

Um call the first speaker.

Dominic Mazok, who's not here.

Uh Lindsay Williams.

Hey, y'all, it's a good thing I talk fast, right?

Um my name is Lindsay Williams, and I'm president of Super Neighborhood 64 and 88, which is greater eastward Laundale Wayside.

Before I go into my statement, I have two residents within our super neighborhood, Roy Hirsch and Ian Lavachek, who plan to speak in support of the AC ordinance, but unfortunately they received the uh some sad news of passing of a family friend.

So they're gonna be following up with an email.

I just want to make sure that that support is recorded.

Um I'm here because our super neighborhood formally voted on June 2026 meeting to support the right to AC ordinance, and we're proud to stand alongside more than two dozen community organizations and fellow super neighborhoods across Houston who've done the same.

From my own personal experience, I've been a landlord before, and I know what it means to put improvements in that are tax write-offs.

Air conditioning units need repairs, sometimes copper is stolen, but that's not isolated air conditioning units.

I can't tell you how many appliances I've replaced for tenants, and I've never raised their rent because of it because it's just part of being a responsible landlord.

For me personally, I think it's residents.

I think about residents a lot with their rising costs.

In my mind, there are differences between the required five dollar fee versus an HC utility fee that a resident can adjust based on their ability.

When my bill is high, I make adjustments.

When it's been interesting to hear the fear about affordability now and not during the butt the budget season.

I've sold more houses than I care to admit, and I've never been forced to bring a home up to code after an inspection, after I've made other repairs and more repairs demanded by an HOA than a city ordinance.

For our community, this is a community, this is a continued equity issue.

Census data show that thousands of renters in the Houston area still live without air conditioning, and those renters are disproportionately in black and Latino neighborhoods.

Neighborhoods like ours, where 63% of our super neighborhood is Latino.

For far too long, some of our neighbors have been left out of the basic protection that most of us take for granted.

And this ordinance simply brings the standard up so that everyone is included.

Like Councilmember Castillo said, this is about public health.

Harris County reported more than 7600 deaths of heat-related illnesses in the recent years, and Texas summers are only getting hotter.

Dallas, Houston, I'm sorry, Dallas, Austin, and Denton already require AC in rental units, and Houston renters deserve nothing less.

We urge we urge the committee to support the right to AC ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

David Breslauer Good afternoon.

Um I'm here with the Houston Tenants Union, and I'm here to ask that you please uh pass the AC ordinance as soon as possible.

This is a loophole that simply should not exist.

Um Texas has has you know hundreds of very preventable heat-related deaths every year.

We should be trying to get that number to zero.

Um, and it seems that many of Houston's landlords, as others have said, are taking advantage of this loophole, particularly in black and brown in our most disadvantaged and poor neighborhoods.

Um but this is not just about preventing death.

This is not just about compassion.

This is about Houston's standard of living and how, and yes, how that does compare to other cities.

That is important.

Um as this city continues to grow more and more affordable, I mean unaffordable, which it's going to happen anyways, it's happening anyways, it's happening constantly.

Uh, we cannot continue to maintain this status quo of having an unacceptable standard of living.

Um, just in context, Houston just got done with a number of series of events that I like to call the supercon Rodeo Cup bowl, um, that the city loves to prioritize.

Seems that we prioritize people coming here, passing through, but not the people who live here.

You have striking hospitality and concession workers.

Those people are going home.

In fact, I talked to some of them, going home to homes without AC.

This is because cannot continue to continue to be the city of get your own transportation, get your own ride, get your own AC, get your own child care, get your own special education.

Um, I also want to say I thoroughly object, reject the idea that people are choosing to live without AC, that people are making choices to live in cancer alleys or to live where they where their kids go to underfunded schools.

Such choices are also are always made under coercion.

Um that's not a choice that we're that we're giving people by letting them not have AC.

Um, and I would also ask that you use all measures possible to enforce this ordinance, including the new apartment inspection ordinance.

Um I would also ask you look into similar ordinances to workplace um in workplaces, which account for a significant number of the heat related deaths.

Um and so, yeah, this should be an easy yes.

You will rarely ever find us on the same side of an issue as the Houston Apartments Association.

So let's do this.

Let's not let this get caught up in legal like the apartment inspection ordinance did.

Um, like I said, this should be an easy yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Cameral Anderson.

Camel Anderson, next speaker.

Oh, she's back there.

I'm sorry.

To be followed by Susanna Duran.

Good afternoon, Camp Council members.

My name is Cameron Anderson, and I'm an early childhood development specialist with more than 20 years of experience working with families with young children.

And I'm here today to talk for those children.

Um members have mentioned that they grew up without air conditioning and they survived Houston without air conditioning, but the question today isn't whether or not we can survive with air conditioning.

I know I grew up surviving many things.

I wouldn't want my children to survive now.

So today's Houston is not the same as it was 60, 50 years ago.

It's a lot hotter, hotter.

We have a lot more asphalt, more buildings, um, that collect that heat and then release it at night.

Opening windows in the law in no longer provides the cooling that it once did.

As someone who works in early childhood development, I know that excessive heat doesn't just increase the risk of heat illness, it disrupts sleep.

And healthy brain development happens when children sleep.

Overheating chronically, they struggle to learn, regulate emotions, and engage with their caregivers.

Heat also increases stress for their parents and fatigue.

It makes it harder to provide the nurturing interactions that build healthy brains.

So for today's Houstonians, air conditioning is not a luxury.

For our youngest residents, it's a basic health necessity.

I support this amendment.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Susan Adodan.

I'm the organizing manager at Workers' Defense Action Fund, and we're a membership-led organization that fights for working immigrant families in Texas.

We are in full support of this right to see ordinance.

Since April, we've been canvassing work sites and hormonal corners with hydration kits and talking to workers on how to recognize treat and handle signs of heat stroke.

We've spoken to workers who labor in the heat who may or may not have hydration or rest breaks, who have to prepare their own electrolyte solutions to make it through the day and otherwise have no escape from the sweltering heat during the workday.

I'm sure we're all gonna look forward to the cool embrace of the air conditioned air hitting our faces when we open the doors home.

Unfortunately, for many Houstonians, home is not safe and a cool reprieve as it is for you and me.

And even during the mild summer that we're having right now, we've already reached 102 degrees.

This isn't just a public health issue for Houstonians, it's about dignity.

The dignity to be home, the dignity to be in a safe and soft place to rest and cool down, to recharge and focus, to recover.

The right to AC is the right thing to do, and it's about recovery from the heat, restful nights in a safe and cool place to call home.

And I have to just kind of go off script here because I'm so appalled and shocked and disheartened to hear the line of questioning that is so paternalistic, cold, callous, and cool disguised as curiosity of economics and the finances of this proposal.

My background in economics, specifically, I was a former field economist for the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I measured the price data for good services and rental housing.

The line of questioning allegedly, because there's like there's care and curiosity for the affordability of this measure and the economics and the rent is just so fundamentally wrong that I'm just astounded that there are people here on city council who are uh elected here to safeguard our public money and our public resources, not to mention worst of all, people die from heat stroke.

People die in these conditions, and we're concerned about electrical coating and whether or not something is affordable.

That's so paternalistic.

Let people decide what they're willing to afford or not.

Thank you, next speaker.

Monica Quayar, followed by Jordan Picelli Everett.

Good afternoon.

My name is Monica, and I'm a resident of East End and an organizer with the Houston Tenants Union.

I'm here to express my support of the AC ordinance.

Uh with all the information that has been given so far, I hope that you all see that the passing of this ordinance would be a benefit to all tenants all across Houston.

I have three in-wall outdated AC units, two that work, one that doesn't, and it's still hot in my apartment.

We are in the process of getting it fixed, but we have an irresponsible landlord, and he's dragging his feet on it.

And me and my housemate, we know how to advocate for ourselves.

So I can only imagine how hot and how hard it is in people's homes that doesn't have ACs at all and are afraid of landlord retaliation.

So if this ordinance passes, it would give tenants the opportunity to advocate for themselves and not have fear of landlord retaliation.

I think this ordinance is the bare minimum that can be passed to set the standard for public health and safety for Houstonians.

As the data shows, and has and as speakers have already said, extreme heat is a serious public health and safety risk.

So to live in the state of Texas with this hot weather and without the proper amenities is a risk to one's life.

Landlords should not be able to keep tenants in unsafe housing conditions while they have all their aminentees in tech.

That is not humane.

We all deserve AC, and we all deserve uh safe housing conditions.

And the city needs to adapt to the changing climate conditions so that we all have dignified housing.

And this ordinance would be a good step forward.

Uh I would like to thank Council Member Salinas for bringing this matter forward, and I strongly urge all council members to support this ordinance.

Thank you.

Jordan Picelli Everett, followed by Javon Tyler.

Good afternoon.

My name's Jordan Picelli Everett.

I'm a licensed social worker in the state of Texas, and I work for Prevention Institute or National Public Health Nonprofit.

And I'm also a member of the Key Paris House Coalition, where we focus on eviction prevention.

I'm here today to urge you to close Houston's windowscreen loophole and ensure every tenant in our city has the ability to stay physically and mentally safe with a cool place to live.

We know from listening to tenants and advocates about the many issues Houston renters face, rising rent and utility costs, exploitative fees, discrimination, intimidation taxates, and unhealthy living conditions, including mold, pests, water damage, and lack of air conditioning.

And as other speakers and council member Salinas has mentioned, these arms are not felt equally but disproportionately in black and Latino neighborhoods, impacting everyone, but most dangerously babies and seniors.

With no state law guaranteeing Texas renters a right to AC, we must join other Texas cities by strengthening our local AC regulations.

In Dallas, code officers respond to AC complaints within 24 hours, and landlords must repair the unit or provide a temporary solution within 24 hours of the code officer's visit.

Because the fee is nearly $700 for not complying, landlords in Dallas typically remedy an issue swiftly.

Houston should also strive beyond the Dallas ordinance, which requires that air conditioning and rental homes cool to at least 15 degrees below the outside temperature.

I think someone mentioned last week it was 102 degrees here, so an AC unit would only then have to cool someone's home to 87 degrees, which is still very hot.

Um our partners at Texas House, you heard from Julia earlier recommend a cooling standard should require an AC system to sustain a maximum inside temperature of 78 degrees.

Houston tenants deserve better.

I appreciate your time and consideration of this ordinance.

Thank you.

Um next speaker, and as we call the next speaker, if you hear that you're next step, kind of move towards the front of the room so um we can cut down on the time of walking back and forth.

Kivon Tyler, followed by Ian Klavichek.

There's an old truth in public life.

A government's first duty is the comfort, is the comfort and the safety of its own people, especially those that have lease cushion against hardship.

Councilmember Salinas' right to air conditioning audience answers that duty.

No family should have to lie awake in the summer heat, wondering if tonight is the night in which they experience dangerous heat.

We cannot claim to care about the vulnerable in one breath and expose them in the next.

This compassion written in policy, and I support it without reservation.

Typically, I I I come up here and I do platitudes and I do really wonderful, friendly kind of let's get this uh let's do what's right for Houston.

But I agree with some of the speakers who've said that some of you all in your questioning not only were condescending, but you just had a bit of arrogance about those that this ordinance is being rent to help protect.

You know, uh I think y'all should take uh council member Selena's up on her offer to go to some of these places where those folks live.

Go into those apartments.

Uh uh, I'm sorry that that these folks here decided that it was good to uh leave, but hopefully they will hear my message because you all represent Houston.

Some of y'all said nothing when the budget came came through.

Not last year, not this year.

Their city parks closed.

I had no question about that.

Some of the same people said nothing about the five dollar uh uh uh a trash fee.

Said nothing about that either.

But suddenly we have a proposal to help folks, and you have the unm unmitigated gall and audacity to ask a question, and not ask a question because you're trying to seek a solution, but you're asking a question because you're just being plain mean.

Thank you for your time.

Oh, wait one second, sir.

Councilmember Flickinger.

Just wanted to FYI.

I was actually working on a proper amendment to set up a similar fund for the trash as to the water, actually, before councilwoman Salinas was, because I do think uh an extra fee on people that are barely making it is a problem.

Well, we agree on that, sir.

Thank you, next speaker.

Ian Lavachek, followed by Cheryl Henderson.

Uh Ian's not here.

Cheryl Henderson.

Cheryl's Cheryl.

No.

Oh, yep.

Okay.

Followed by Sarah Montgomery.

Hello, how y'all doing?

Thank y'all for giving me the time to speak to you.

Well, I am a resident of third ward, and I stay on the top floor, and I have two weather units, and they're not big.

And in the evening time, the heat rises, and I'm still fighting to stay cool, and I have health issues.

I'm on disability and everything.

I have issues with my lungs.

My uh group that I'm in that, they uh let me borrow um a portable AC unit.

I have to get it installed in one of my windows, so it can help me have the cool air.

I get it.

Everybody have y'all's opinion on the affordable and all this and that, but I understand about the uh electric going up and everything.

I see it every month because I have to keep my units going.

I have to keep my ceiling fans going, the little fans I have in there to keep the air going for me to survive because me ending up in the hospital is not gonna be good for me because of what's going on.

And I've seen a lot of people on the news, babies dying from heat stroke, people not having the AC units and everything, and I commend them on talking about providing it to the people that need it as well.

I even tried to uh get an organization, the agent of disability to ask them for a portable AC unit.

They told me no, because I stay upstairs.

And I said, what that have to do with it because I'm on disability and I need this for me to survive.

No, you got to be on the ground in order for us to give you this unit.

And it's not fair.

And they say you got to be in a house.

What do a house in an apartment got to do with it when you need somebody?

You're supposed to be helping somebody to stay cool at nighttime, even during the daytime because of this heat.

We got a lot of these these programs that's going on, but they're giving you difficult times on getting what you need to survive.

And it's hard.

Me, I don't have the answers on what she was asking and everything, but I didn't live it.

I live with our AC units in when growing up and having the fans in the windows and everything to stay cool.

But this time, this day and time, the climate changes changes so bad.

It's getting hotter and hotter and hotter every year.

Thank you, Ms.

Henderson.

We have Councilmember Martinez in the queue.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Uh, and thank you for coming and sharing your specific story, because it sounds like it's tough.

And it sounds like you have a slum lord at the other day.

And I think uh, you know, Councilmember Panzerolo speaking to this.

Um it's a larger conversation we'd also need to have.

I again I'm supportive of this, but I also want to be realistic, and I'm glad you're sharing that.

You know, it is tough.

It is tough to pay a light bill at the end of the day, and and your voice matters as well.

Um, I can appreciate a super neighborhood coming here and speaking on behalf of maybe about a good 40, 50,000 residents.

Uh, but at the end of the day, I think uh your voice matters just as much as any one of them.

Uh the other thing that I just you know the more we can continue to do affordable housing and affordable housing options, uh, that we need to start having that conversation about uh ADUs and digital dwelling units.

How do you bring that back into the to the fold of of what housing looks like in Houston?

Um again, um my hope is that whoever you're renting from, um, that they need to do the right thing.

That is that at the end of the day.

If you have two AC units and it's still warm, and yeah, I can only imagine what another AC unit in your in your apartment would look like if you if you had one or if you need another.

Uh, but again, I I appreciate what you just shared.

It sits with me as well.

Thank you, Councilmember Flickinger.

Yeah, I just want to confirm you already got two AC units and still keeping it.

They small.

I have one in my living room and I have one in my bedroom.

Okay.

I used to have a big one that had the heat, it was it had AC and heat on it, but the compression went out on it.

And they must have been replacing it with another big one, but they put the small one in the living room and I have that one in my bedroom.

And I have to close my door to my bedroom just to get it to keep that heat out to keep me cool at nighttime.

Okay.

In order for me to breathe without me using my asthma pump in my at bear all the time.

Okay, appreciate it, ma'am.

Thank you.

And next speaker.

Sarah Montgomery, followed by Michael Deplan.

Hello, I am a resident of the East End District I and a member of the Houston Tenants Union.

I am speaking in support of the AC ordinance, which will benefit thousands of Houston tenants, including tenants in my neighborhood who are currently forced to endure the brutal Texas summer heat without adequate AC.

Um, the loophole that allows landlords to neglect residents' basic needs must be closed.

We know this issue disproportionately affects Houston's poorest and most vulnerable residents, including seniors, families with children, people with disabilities, and our undocumented neighbors who often endure these kinds of conditions because they do not have alternatives, even though they're at the most risk of heat-related uh illness, or that live under the threat of constant uh detention and deportation.

As a public health professional with an MPH, I know the dangers of extreme heat, heat-related illness, and death clean lives, many lives each year, and these tragedies are preventable.

Guaranteeing access to AC is the least we can do to protect these tenants.

Um this is not a luxury, this is essential for survival.

On the point of housing affordability, I agree that rent is too high.

I like many tenants live paycheck to paycheck, and I talk to many tenants who experience and use services like Baker Ripley.

There are other things that city council could and should do to help lower the cost of rent, but allowing this loophole to continue is not one of them.

Can you imagine what it must be like to live in a unit that has not been renovated since 1968?

That is not a choice.

That is something that someone does when they have no other option.

And frankly, to what council members have been saying about the cost to landlords or owners, if $200 or $600 for a window unit costs too much for a landlord, then maybe that landlord needs to get their money up or sell their property if they cannot afford the cost to provide habitable living, habitable housing for their tenants.

I want to thank Council Member Salinas for introducing this important ordinance, and I earn every I urge every council member, including my representative, Councilmember Martinez, uh, to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Michael Deplin, followed by Diana De La Tor Panado.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Deepland, and I'm here on behalf of Texas Housers, the statewide advocacy and policy group that focuses on low-income in communities and fair housing.

Our organization is focused on the issue of air conditioning around the state for the better part of the decade, including a report that we authored in 2023, which explored the absence of a fundamental right to air conditioning for renters in Texas, the insufficient legal and administrative systems that fail to help tenants when their air conditioning is not working, the challenge of paying high cost of energy for low-income households, and the ongoing struggle to get air conditioning in all public housing and income-restricted rental units in the state of Texas.

We have copies available for you to share.

I also want to send high-res uh versions to you all of your offices.

Houston's window screen loophole, which we explored in the report years ago, is a particularly harmful policy to residents in the metropolitan area, which routinely hosts among the highest sustained temperatures across the entire nation.

Well, most cities and states, including Texas, have agreed that heat should be a requirement in rental units since the early 1980s.

That would be January 1, 1984.

That's when it went to the Texas property code.

Uh when these property codes updates were drafted decades ago, they could not have anticipated the rise in temperatures that would adversely see many heat-related illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths now being a major concern.

And yet, other cities have managed to pass legislation to mitigate these very present issues.

Um while within our own state, including Dallas, Austin, and Denton, who speaking statistically and personally as a Houstonian, do not hold a candle to the heat here in Texas.

Uh, but they've managed to pass legislation on this issue without the window screen loophole.

Uh it is imperative that we, as the largest city in Texas, and arguably the largest city population in the nation to deal with this level of consistent months-long extreme heat, take the lead as vanguards to pretend protect our renters, in particular our low-income renters, seniors, and people with disabilities, who ultimately are the first and most severely affected.

Thank you, next.

Diana De La Tor Panado, followed by Andy Escobar.

No, Diana Andy Escobar.

To be followed by Roy Hirsch.

Hey y'all, um, Andy here.

Um I'm with Sear.

We're one of the co-sponsors of this ordinance, and you know, I want to start off by saying that you know, we need to get that data from the city.

What are the buildings that don't have AC?

Um, it's a little silly that we don't have that when we know that that's a direct threat to people's health.

And I also think it's embarrassing that we have this loophole for the screen uh doors.

Uh we know that um this is one of the coolest summers that we'll probably have for the rest of our lives.

It's only gonna get worse.

And you know, I do agree with the concerns about affordability, and Sear was really proud to actually work with Baker Ripley on their um utility assistance program and their home weatherization programs.

And we know that it's not enough.

We need more programs, we need more Baker Whipley, we need more center point.

This is a yes and the AC ordinance is a step in the right direction.

We need weatherization.

We need home retrofits, right?

I recognize that a lot of our homes were built decades ago, and they need a lot of maintenance.

Um, but we absolutely need more programs, and I believe that we can pursue this ordinance and pursue well building weatherization as a way to reduce costs and not have any wasted energy in homes.

And lastly, I mean public policy is supposed to be a yes and, right?

So we can support this ordinance.

We can seek out solutions for the simultaneous poverty energy energy poverty issues and affordability issues.

And I also think this is about changing our culture.

We can change our culture and the city of Houston to one of care, compassion, and where we look out for each other and not where we expect people to um just have all the money that they need.

So thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Roy Hirsch to be followed by Sandra Edwards.

No Roy Hirsch.

Sandra Edwards to be followed by Juan Rubio.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Sandra with some community activists and fields of what and I want to talk about the air conditions.

I want to talk about the slum lows and field.

If you could move in front of one of the mics, we could hear you a little bit.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

You're fine.

I thought my mouth was big enough.

Okay.

I want to talk about the slum lords of fearful water.

We have a lot of them.

And I'm fighting with one right now to get this lady out because her we had a reporter from New York coming in.

Her house was almost 180 something degrees when he did the temperature doing the heat test, and the little air conditioning she has is not doing her no good, and she has a little uh nine-year-old baby in there.

Okay.

And um for y'all over there that won't think that it's an expense or choice, the living heat.

That's crazy.

That's crazy as hell.

Because who lost the debt?

I'm just gonna show you a picture.

Let me just get into the real talk.

I lost two people.

August, I lost this man August 13 last year.

He wanted a air conditioner the city refused him.

I found him in this house dead.

August 25th this year, across the street.

I found my neighbor in the house dead.

Two people dead from heat.

And this, the one across the street, I'm gonna blame the city for it because we asked them to shut this house down.

They told this lady to shut this house down.

The little guy was staying at my house.

I got him his social security chick.

The lady put him back in that house, no water, no tub, no bathroom period, no air condition.

I found him in the house dead.

I'm blaming the city because they say they shut that house down.

She shouldn't have had him in the house.

He's dead now.

Nobody's doing nothing.

The house still sitting across the street from me, still with his order in it coming out, didn't clean the house up or nothing when they took the body out.

I walked the house down because she should have had at least an air conditioning now for him.

It's people around me in Fifth War dad every day.

And I have to be the one they call.

I'm the president of the Civic Club, and they calling me, and I have to go identify bodies because of heat.

Last year I was in the hospital for heat.

I have a house.

I have an air conditioner.

Well, I had one air condition last year.

I wound up in the hospital from heat, from heat out of my own house.

So think about these slum lords putting people in houses with that air condition.

That's wrong.

Next speaker.

Juan Rubio to be followed by Rose Sampson.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Juan Rubio, and I am the policy coordinator at Workers' Defense Action Fund.

We're a member late organization which fights for the rights of immigrant workers and their families.

We please support Council Member Thirdness's proposed ordinance.

One of the primary threats of the health and safety of our membership is extreme heat.

Houston is one of the hottest cities in the lower 40 age and has a fourth most intense urban heat island effect in the entire country.

The urban heat island effect is not simply a force of nature.

It is something that's amplified by decades of development decisions and urban design, which prioritize extending pavement over protecting people who live there.

Because these conditions are created through public policy and local development.

Construction workers spend their day working extreme heat.

Recovery after work in a cool environment is a crucial part of preventing cumulative heat stress.

Heat safety does not stop at the door when a worker goes home for the day.

Safe workplaces and safe houses are complimentary public health protocols.

Over 20,000 renter households across the Houston metro area lack air conditioning, and the households most likely to struggle with accession are often those which are least capable of purchasing cooling equipment.

That's low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, and of course immigrant households.

Every Houston deserves a safe place to recover from the dangerous heat.

Please vote to keep Houston healthy and safe from the heat.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Rose Sampson to be followed by Audrey Nath.

Good evening.

My name is Rose, and I advocate for my community.

First off, there's no price limit to saving taxpayers' lives.

It is super important that the AC ordinance becomes priority because too too many elders and kids are passing away due to heat stroke, especially since tenants are being overcharged and still making minimum wage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Audrey Knath to be followed by Tammy Rodriguez.

My name is Audrey Knath.

I am co-chair of the Houston Progressive Caucus, and I'm also a physician.

One, this is a public health issue that affects a vulnerable population.

I've taken care of many children who have respiratory illnesses and asthma exacerbations due to the presence of mold in rental units.

And I bring this up because according to the EPA, mold grows rapidly when indoor humidity is above 60%.

And in Houston, the average humidity is right around 75%, and it's often higher than that.

So with the screen and humidity equilibrating between the outdoors and indoors, uh, that's the perfect setup for a lot of mold problems.

Um and that leads to my second point, which is that AC units are much cheaper than professional mold remediation.

Uh professional mold remediation first starts with an inspection, that could be hundreds, and then the actual uh fixing of the walls, which could be thousands of dollars.

So, in short, I support the AC ordinance because it helps a public health issue, and renters have three times the rate of being uninsured compared to homeowners, and two, it makes fiscal sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, uh Miss Rodriguez, I see that you're on here again, but you've already had a chance to speak.

Because we are running up on a time limit.

Is there something you'd like to say, Miss Rodriguez, or could we go ahead and move forward?

Can I just do real quick?

Sure.

I just wanted to mention in the apartment industry and the apartment in uh experience that I've had.

I've had uh managed properties that were built in the 60s.

Every single property does have ACs, and whenever there was a city ordinance passed that where uh code was either changed or implemented, the apartment communities actually had to come up to compliance at the owner's expense.

So whenever they had the locks where they had to put in the keyless locks, that was implemented, they were done.

Uh fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, they were done.

So there was nothing implemented in the apartment industry.

Any codes that had to be changed, they were implemented.

But every single apartment community that I worked on in the 60s all the way up that were built last A, C D E F.

They all had AC units.

So they could be compliant.

This concludes our list of speakers.

At this time, would you like to make a motion to vote this out of committee?

I don't think we have forum, but not every council member clack on the time and then bringing up vertical vote on the agenda for sponsoring.

Okay, great.

Well, we did it.

We did it before five o'clock, and so I just want to thank all of you for coming, participating.

Your voices are heard.

What a great discussion today.

Um our next meeting is going to be August 25th at 2 p.m.

And um meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.