Good afternoon, everybody.

It is a packed house today.

The time is now 2 02 PM on June 2nd, 2026, and we'll call this meeting of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee to order.

Madam Clerk, please call roll.

Councilmember Corr.

Councilmember Mungia.

Councilmember Aldarete Gavito.

Here.

Councilmember Spears.

Chair McKee Rodriguez.

Present.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

We're going to start off with approval of minutes.

I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

We do have a couple members of the public time to speak.

You'll each have three minutes to speak.

We have two.

We'll start off with Art Martinez, followed by Andres Hernandez.

And both are speaking on item four.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Art Martinez Devada.

I represent uh Yellow Rose Horse Carriage, HRH, Blue Bonnet, and Lollipop horse carriage companies.

I'd like to thank you for your attention to this matter today.

Just following up from the last meeting, we'd like to just re-urge our request for an extension of time in our negotiated window time frame to account for the loss of this past holiday season.

If you recall, staff came and admitted that there were issues with the implementation, allowing access and even enforcement of certain loading areas that prohibited uh the horse carriage operators from uh fully operating during that time, which is the vast majority of their annual income.

Uh additionally, I know there was this discussion of a pilot program to discuss electronic carriages.

Uh, we're willing to participate uh and give that a uh a fair evaluation, but again, we think we need a uh a short extension of time to play that through.

Uh any pilot, uh, even if it is successful, is gonna require tweaks and challenges, uh, lead time to purchase and deliver and that type of thing, and we're we're kind of running short on time.

And lastly, we'd just like to again re-urge uh our request for a consistent public policy from the city regarding working animals, uh, just as the city is investing in things like annual rodeo venues, uh, you know, uh working animals with our PD and law enforcement and in events such as trail rides, which which which follow along our same rights.

We would ask to have those same uh public policies with regard to working animals also apply to horse carriage operators and allow us to continue long term uh to operate uh uh in our in our in our beloved city.

So thank you for your time today and we're uh willing to work with uh with you uh on these matters.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Andres Hernandez.

Hi, good afternoon.

Uh my name is Andrés Hernandez.

I am the president of CTA uh Schooper Transportation uh here in San Antonio, Texas.

Um born and raised in San Antonio, and uh been in the industry for over 20 years and with uh my current company uh that I started in 2014, so uh 12 years there.

Uh this is in reference to the attachment to this meeting for uh regarding the limousine industry, and I do just want to say on behalf of my company um I very much do support the recommendation that is listed in the attachment and just want to make that known and you know the journey here's been uh in an interesting one to say the least, but I am I am very happy to see the recommendation that came out from the uh meetings leading up to this, and also uh simply to say that um you know safety uh above all is gonna be paramount, and I would also ask that uh serious consideration be given to uh enforcement of um the chapter 33 as it's written today uh and also include that this change that's recommended.

Um, you know, we I I've seen firsthand a lot of operators out there that do not have their proper insurance uh proper safety in place, and I have to tell you it's pretty scary, and you know, God forbid if there's ever an accident and uh they only have personal insurance.

The personal insurance carrier is not gonna support them because it's for hire, so there is no coverage.

They're very clear so uh but overall, I love the um direction this is moving and just want to say I very much support it.

So thank you for y'all's time.

Thank you.

Thank you both for uh coming out to speak and for being engaged on these issues.

Uh, we really do appreciate it and we hear uh both of your feedback.

Uh, we're gonna start off with um we have three separate items.

We're gonna take them as three separate discussions.

Um, following each presentation, each council member will have two five-minute rounds to speak, and then we'll move on to the following item.

Uh, we'll start off with item two.

Madam Clerk, can you please read the caption?

Council consideration request by council member Jalen McKee Rodriguez on the creation of a real time notification system for train trains approaching or stopped at railroad crossings.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief update and uh the track that we're heading, and yes, that's some train humor.

If uh y'all got that, you pay attention, there's more coming.

So all right, so just a little bit of a recap uh of the CCR.

So the council consideration request was filed back in uh February by Councilman McKee Rodriguez with the goal of developing a real-time information system specific to block crossings uh on our railways.

And so the the CCR focused on a handful of key items, uh, one developing strategic partnerships but locally and then also with third party, potentially third party providers and applications uh for navigation systems, also looking at advanced technologies uh for detection purposes, and then piloting uh specific technology and high-impact corridors, uh and then ensuring equitable implementation and really focusing on those areas that are rail adjacent, often in underserved areas as well.

So, since the governance committee briefing in March, we actually partnered with the ITSD emerging technologies team.

And if you're not familiar with that team, uh the team sort of evolved out of the Smart Cities group about three years ago, really focused on early early deployments and prototyping technology.

It's it's a city team, and you'll hear from them shortly.

Um, also looking at try to foster a collaborative environment of uh the local equals ecosystem of technology improvement.

So over the last few months we've been working uh both within public works and the emerging technology team on this, and we're gonna provide a brief recap of the research.

Uh and I'm gonna pitch it here to Matt Reed with uh the ITSD team uh to really talk about some of the research they've helped us with, and then I'll close it out with the next steps.

Thank you, Art.

Um and council members, good afternoon.

Uh, thank you for hearing a little bit about the work that we've got for you today.

Um when we took on the analysis for the railroad crossing initiative that that you put out, councilman.

We determined that there were three layers or areas that we wanted to try to focus on.

One would be the detection piece, so getting technology that can sit there and look and determine that there's a train.

Um the second piece would be a data prediction layer so that we would be able to not only identify that a train is crossing at an intersection, but how fast is that train moving, how long is it, so that we can do some predictive modeling around it.

And then the final layer would be the communication piece.

So once that information is processed, then we want to push that out to various channels.

Those channels could be uh SMS push messages uh for text messaging, it could be to our CAD system for first responders, um, it could be to uh residents that may be using Google or Ways or something like that, and to be able to publish that information on our city websites.

Um, so with those three layers in mind, what we looked at was are there solutions out there that can do this.

Our research did not find that there was any single solution that could handle all three of those layers.

So, with that in mind, we decided from that research that a prototype might be the best course of action for us.

And so with that, there are three, there's five different um considerations.

If we could go to the next slide, please.

Oh, this one.

Sorry, y'all.

Um, there are five different areas of of challenge, risk, and and also opportunity that we'd like to bring forward.

One, as we mentioned, there's no single vendor solution.

Um, so what we would need to do is potentially try to build that, which is kind of a cool uh, you know, opportunity for us here in San Antonio.

Uh the second part is that the railroad uh companies have limited information that they're willing to share.

There are certain security risk around some of that information.

So we're not able to know from Union Pacific in example, for example, when a train may be crossing with that kind of uh fidelity or sp specificity of information.

So we're gonna need to rely on on sensors to be able to determine that.

Um being able to then the third piece is one of the areas of consideration is being able to take the information in and being able to disseminate that to our public in whatever form that may be.

So we'll have to look at that.

That has been something that some of the companies that we've talked to have also expressed a little bit of a challenge around.

And finally, which is I think a very positive thing for us, is that we do have an infrastructure built out, and what we would like to do is take some of the technology that we have on some of our infrastructure and see whether or not we can apply uh certain kind of solutions to be able to build this out.

The pilot would then allow for us to look at that total cost of ownership, because there's a lot there that we would need to try to determine, not only cost of devices, cost of compute, cost to our networks, and that sort of thing, but the pilot should give us a enough granularity around that that further decisions could be made.

And so with those considerations in mind, um I'm gonna turn it back over to Art to talk a little bit more about how we would suggest that a prototype could work.

Thank you.

So as Matt mentioned, we we've done a fair amount of research.

The research we've had um different conversations with a variety of folks.

We've had conversations with some third-party uh technology providers, uh, Waymo as an example, East End uh district out of Houston, which uh no councilman referenced the train info, uh our train watch program out of Houston.

Uh ultimately we had several conversations with Southwest Research here locally, and so in those conversations, we learned about some of the the great advancements they've made sort of in this realm.

One of those being their Activision technology.

And I should mention we do have a couple of representatives from Southwest Research here for uh with us.

But Activision is a basically an AI uh camera-based tech uh detection system that's been developed uh across the country for a variety of uses, not yet train train detection, but looking at wrong-way driving, pedestrian detection, stalled vehicles, wildlife to be uh as it's some examples.

So it's a technology that Southwest Research has developed, and they own that technology, and so we thought that this could potentially be a use case for that.

Uh concurrently, they've also worked on data exchange and communication platforms, primarily for Florida Department of Transportation.

Uh they have a technology capability to communicate outwards to third party providers.

So these two systems don't currently speak to each other, but that might be something we can explore through this process.

So, like I said, Activision is owned by Southwest Research.

Um the data exchange communication is it was it's owned by Florida DOT, but they do allow sharing of that infrastructure to other agencies, and the beauty of that is it's collaborating collaboratively developed among agencies.

So if we're working on something that could enhance a system, then others could use it as well.

So the pilot we're recommending that we would move forward with a pilot with Southwest Research on a couple high impact uh locations.

And so we basically dividing this into three steps.

So one would be piloting the detection.

So as I mentioned, the Activision, it's uh it's a proven technology, but not yet uh for detecting trains.

So it would be there would be some time to quote train the model.

That's my second train humor uh to detect trains that we would have to work through with them, and then uh trying to get information from that, whether it's just detecting a train or is it looking at uh the arms that come down or flashing lights, so working through that process that's a several month process.

Uh then also working with the team to develop a kind of a predictive algorithm.

So uh if a train is detected at one location, then using some logic to to know when that train may be at the next downstream intersection, et cetera.

So uh working together on that, and then ultimately with those two steps complete, then working on how do we get that information out and whether that's just internally to the city to then display somewhere else, or potentially to the third-party uh software solutions.

So those are the steps that we're recommending moving forward with.

Uh, we are finalizing kind of that pilot approach uh internally and with Southwest Research, and then kind of the plan would be to work start working on that over the next several months and report back by the probably by the end of the calendar year to the committee on on the progress and where we're at uh and then moving forward.

So, with that uh, that's the last slide we can answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate uh the presentation.

And I want to also um express my gratitude for how quickly you guys have been able to uh move one of this and the research that you've conducted and how thorough you've been.

I filed the CCR at the end of February, and I feel like we've reached a really uh solid point and I'm uh eager to accept staff's recommendation today.

Um when I first announced uh the C CCR that we had filed and posted uh about it on across social media, we've received over 700 comments from residents who from all over the city who expressed their frustration uh as they approach trains and how sometimes they're stuck for an hour at times, and it's really inconvenient.

Uh just the other day I was on Eisenhower and it was about 8:30 in the morning.

So I'm on my way to a session, and many people are on their way to work and there's a train moving.

And we understand that at the city we get concerns from you about Union Pacific all the time about trains, and there's very little uh that we can do by way of regulation.

Um, you know, of course, we'd love to have the overpasses, we'd love to reroute the trains.

We know that ultimately that's a multi-billion dollar expense that we would be looking at, and it's not quite feasible to uh to alleviate that infrastructure uh across the city.

And so we have to look at short-term and more cost-effective approaches to uh to the issue, and so I am this is this presentation was really exciting to me, and I can't wait to provide this update to certainly my constituents and uh to any of those around the city who are interested in this.

Uh what's also interesting to me on slide five, you mentioned that it, you know, the data exchange and communication piece, and that this is potentially uh potentially a solution that will have a statewide impact.

How would that I guess how does that work?

So we've got the statewide system on the depot system as Southwest Research calls it.

Uh so they are working with uh Florida Department of Transportation and using that as a solution.

I think they've also activated this uh in Pennsylvania for an agency.

So uh what we would be looking at here locally is just with the city, and then of course that could be scaled in the future, uh working with other agencies.

For sure, I so I guess the to get to that end, right?

Is the city of San Antonio implements this, we get to a really strong place, and then ultimately other cities can then opt into a solution that's already pretty much fleshed out.

Yeah, so one of the the thoughts with with this versus maybe a pilot with a private entity uh is that this is is more uh scalable to to government agencies.

So uh, like I mentioned that the technology that's owned by FDOT, that's uh they're through a sort of uh an agreement can be used elsewhere as well.

So uh that same mindset would be could be deployed across the state or other states uh versus someone having to go with a private uh firm or uh company to implement that type of technology.

For sure.

And Councilman, I want I just want to you you mentioned the speed that we're moving.

I just want to give also uh you heard from Matt, but also Lauren and Matt's team did a ton of research for us, so I just want to give her a shout out, and then of course, Mark operating our signals knows uh a bunch of I has a bunch of ideas on on how we can do this.

For sure.

Thank y'all for the tremendous team effort effort, and I know it's gonna uh be very impressive moving forward, and that y'all are only gonna continue to uh hone in on that collaboration.

So I'm excited about that.

Uh, on slide six, the recommended pilot, um, can you tell me a little bit about cost of the pilot and what we might be looking at and any decisions we might have to make in the budget and then scaling it upwards once it's beyond a pilot, what is something like that look like so we can do it long-term.

Yeah, so we we're still finalizing exactly that amount.

Um it I'll be honest, it's a cost that I'm looking to try to cover through operations because it'll be a smaller deployment.

Uh, that way we can get everything figured out and then come back to you uh as council uh if we were to consider a full scale, that would be probably for the the 28 budget.

Um, but that will give us time to kind of work out the kinks and come up with a plan.

Uh so we are still working out what that cost would be with Southwest Research, um, but looking for to try to just move forward with this with current operations.

That's really exciting to me, and I'm wondering, um, I guess what I'll be interested in feedback for uh for the committee.

We've heard this, this is the second uh meeting we've had about this topic.

Do we want it to con do we want the update to come to transport transportation infrastructure after the pilot, or do we want uh a B session?

So uh any council comments, discussion?

Council Member Spears?

Um I think it's great.

I I love that you moved so fast.

Um it's maybe the fastest I've seen us do anything to date.

So I'm really impressed by how quickly the CCR came together, really.

Um, how are I want to see how to in the pilot how you're gonna evaluate the impact of the pilot in the public eye?

Like, it's we're not integrating yet into software necessarily, which I predict it probably will.

Sweary's, you know, gonna do a great job with it and everything.

I just wanted to know if you had any idea how we'll be able to.

I mean, I guess there's the awareness campaign first, too, and and try to can you speak to that a little bit of how you see this kind of rolling out?

Yeah, I think right now our goal is is to provide a concept that we're able with the technology to number one detect the trains and then secondly get that that message out there to a platform.

Uh so that's our immediate steps is to get that accomplished, and then we would come back.

Um, but certainly as we would maybe roll this out in the future, then we need to work on that aspect.

So I think as we're we're going through this process on the technology aspect, we can also be fleshing that out as far as okay, once we get to that point, then what are those next steps?

Yeah, um but really we want to get these uh working stuff was getting the technology going and seeing how that that rolls out.

Okay, um, yeah, I think and then I am interested to see the financial plan moving forward.

I love that it is collaborative with other governmental entities.

Love that so much.

And um, you know, I agree it's problematic to sit at a train for a very long time when you're already late, which is usually the case.

So I think it's really a great idea, and um I would say I'd like to see the pilot first before it gets to a B session that way, because I think they'll have a lot of the same questions we will have, and then we're already have them answered.

So I think it's great work.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Adrian think we though.

Thank you, Chair, yeah.

Just wanna uh ditto a lot of the comments.

I love it is great work.

Um I love that we were able to move so fast.

I love the partnership with SWURI.

Um, all good, and yeah, I would like for it to come back here before B session.

Thank you.

Councilmember McGill.

Thank you.

Yes, I think it's great.

Is there an opportunity eventually to have it um, you know, like your Apple Maps, for example?

So as you navigate Apple Maps now, it'll tell you there's like a crash ahead or something.

Is there a way to integrate that into the apps like that?

Yeah, we we've talked with Waymo as an example, you know.

They have a connection with Waze, but that's just one platform, so yeah, absolutely.

Um that's uh a goal for a variety of things uh, you know, off topic, but the bare flow.org that's now speaking to Apple Maps as an example.

So that's a goal of ours just in general, is to get information out there, whether it's through this pilot or through our street closures uh for construction and other updates.

That's great.

I think what I could also do, because I had the situation happen in my district where a uh it's a quiet zone and the train was blowing the horn for months, right?

It's keeping people up.

I got a lot of calls about it.

So we are able to track down UP and get to them.

It was probably like a sensor issue or something that hadn't been replaced.

So out of safety issues, they they had to blow the horn all the way through.

But even things like that, people didn't know where to go.

They were blaming our office for for that.

Um so I think it also help with when there's problems with actual you know quiet zones or something like that that people could actually see what's wrong with it.

Yeah, and you mentioned quiet zones, councilman.

What some of the vendors we talked to, they're their detection is more acoustic based, which could pose a challenge for the areas that we have quite zones.

So that's one of the reasons we were also looking at more of the visual camera-based.

Right, yeah, but also when when things happen with intersections, uh letting people be able to know that there's a problem with it, so they're not just thinking the conductors blowing a horn or something just because they want to.

Uh and that was a problem we had was that there was nowhere for people to go to to figure that out other than to call us and then us to call Union Pacific.

So I would just add that as you're going through that.

What's possible?

Uh, but yeah, I think it'd be good to have it back at the committee just as the final review.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any further questions, comments?

I undertain a motion to accept uh staff's recommendation.

So we have a motion.

Oh, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Uh Madam Kirk, can you read the caption for item three?

Briefing and update on the conditions of city owned facilities to include use type, age, and historical investment.

Alright, good afternoon, council members.

Mike Shannon, I'm going to give you an update of city facilities.

This is us coming back to you.

We were back here a few months ago.

So a little background on this is a conversation that you asked about back in January.

We were here, we were talking about city facilities.

We talked about our existing processes of how we maintain them, how do we prioritize, how do we pick funding sources?

We went through a whole presentation talking about things like we have a lot of facilities, a lot of departments, we have an annual budget process, we have the bond process, certainly the conversation that we're having now, getting ready for the next bond.

We have all different types of buckets of money, whether it's called deferred maintenance or bond money, non-bond money, capital improvement dollars.

So we kind of went through that a little bit, and your request for me was to come back with a more comprehensive list.

Said, hey, we know we have hundreds of facilities.

Can you put together a list that that identifies the age of our facilities, the type of facilities?

Last major renovations was something you asked about.

So I'm gonna go over a little summary of that, and then we'll we'll share with you the list, because I think that'll be something that we'll be using uh not only in the budgeting process as we figure out what projects to do, but certainly in the bond process uh moving forward.

So a little bit of um kind of our facilities at a glance.

So these are some big numbers.

Um we have almost 900 facilities that we um have on our books, and and what this means is we we gathered all of our city uh departments, uh we talked about um all the list that you have of all your city facilities, some of them major, some of them not major, uh, but at just under 900, so 898 total um we call them uh structures or facilities.

Really, though, that's just over 300 buildings, right?

322, we call them primary buildings.

Uh so not everything is a primary structure, so think of a park, may have a bunch of shade structures.

Those are super important investments we've made to big and small parks.

So we certainly want to catalog those.

We have those in our inventory.

We will maintain those uh over time, of course.

But I think when we talk about city owned facilities or city facilities, a lot of times we're thinking of police stations, fire stations, libraries, community centers, the buildings like this, city hall.

So I just a little bit of context, about a third of those are actual buildings or structural structures.

Um a little bit of context.

We know we have a lot of old buildings.

We have one, um, our oldest building uh on the books is the Spanish governor's palace, right?

Uh, which is over 300 years old, 1722.

So I just threw that up there.

Uh, but uh, I'll have another slide.

We talk about the age of facilities, certainly some that are very old, some that are middle aged, and some that are newer, but I'll show you that in a second.

Another number just to throw out there.

Um, one of the buckets of funding that we use to maintain our facilities is called our deferred maintenance um uh uh bucket or deferred maintenance projects.

Uh, really about five million dollars a year or so, plus or minus.

Uh if you look at the last 10 years, about 56 million dollars.

That money is really just to keep the buildings operated, maintain a little roof repair, maybe an HVAC replacement, maybe work on some plumbing, electrical, carpet, painting, those type of jobs.

Not really a complete renovation like you would see in a bond or large-scale capital, um, but we have a lot of projects uh that are on that list of things that we need to do, but not unlike your home or if you own a small commercial building.

Uh you're constantly maintaining your building to keep it going.

Uh so we do have that, and that's just the last 10 years or so.

Not included in the 898 facilities are some city-owned facilities, 124 that we lease out to um others.

So we do keep track of that.

Each one of those has a lease agreement with whoever the tenant or tenants are.

It does describe who is responsible for maintaining what in that facility.

Some of those are different.

We usually have some responsibility, and then the tenants have some responsibility, and those vary.

And then we actually have 53 spaces that we lease from others, right?

So we may have a small uh clinic space that we're leasing from another owner.

So there's about 53 of those.

So the the list that we have will show all of those.

Um, and just wanted to give you some uh context.

But again, uh over a thousand facilities or structures that we're um we're looking at uh that we maintain.

So uh this is just a list of uh city owned facilities by kind of that primary accessory structure that I just talked about.

And you look at uh fire department, C CDO, parks and recs, aviation, all the way down.

Uh there's the 322.

We have another in there, which some of our um uh departments may only have uh half a dozen or a dozen or so, uh so we just lump them the last 25 in there.

Uh what you will see is the accessory structures have had 576, but you also see I use parks and rec as one of my examples for the accessories.

Certainly they have the most accessory uh structures, playground equipment, shade structures, those type of things fall under that.

Um, but you know, all those departments generally have something that's primary accessory, and you'll see they all add up to that almost 900.

Uh you asked about the age of facilities, so we went back and looked at when they were built, and you look at, you know, I just kind of put them in buckets of uh 25 years or less, maybe 26 to 50, and then older than that.

You can see the breakdown.

But we clearly have a lot of older facilities, you know, 51 years or more, that's over 130 of them.

Uh, and then uh 90 plus in that middle-aged group, and uh, and then some of the newer facilities, uh, just under 100 right there.

But I mean, this is not surprising.

We know we have a lot of older facilities, uh, not just the 300-year-old one that I talked about, the Spanish uh governor's palace, uh, but many that have been around for 50 plus, 70, 80 years uh and more.

Uh, but we're constantly bringing on new facilities, right?

So uh we see that uh in in just about every bond cycle.

We have fire stations that we're building, uh, those type of things.

World Heritage Center was just recently built, uh, those type of things.

So uh we do have a mix of ages, and uh certainly I think we all know the the the older a building gets it usually takes a little bit more uh love and care and money to maintain so uh but again that's the breakdown of the facilities there.

Now I wanted to share a little bit because uh you asked me about uh, well, what have we been putting our money into?

What facilities have um have had investments either maintaining or renovating, or we have new ones that have come online as well.

This just represents that $56 million of the deferred maintenance.

So in about 10 years' time, uh these are where some of that money has gone.

You know, parks has all those facilities, but we just kind of summed it up for you by department.

Uh the detailed list will have detailed facility investments that we have going back about 10 years from that fund.

So uh we just listed them out there.

Uh and then when we talk about facility improvements, the deferred maintenance fund that we look at each year.

Uh, that I talked about the general maintenance uh for buildings, like I said, roof replacements, some HVAC stuff.

When we look back about 10 years' time, out of those 322 primary facilities, those buildings, really the buildings that we're talking about, over 200 of them have had some recent completed improvements on our books, right?

Um that's over 300, almost 350 million dollars of approximate investment right there.

Now that doesn't include the things that haven't been completed yet.

So we're not talking about the new aviation terminal, we're not talking about uh the new fire stations that are currently under construction, the new police station that's under construction, the Ella Austin project that's under construction.

I haven't put those in this list yet, but that money and investment has been allocated towards those.

I think we can continue to grow this list to maybe account for those, but those will certainly come online or when they're finished, and they'll be counted in the recent investment.

Um, and again, the funding that I'm talking about, it utilizes many different uh uh varieties, whether it be the deferred maintenance, there's certainly the bond into the facilities, and then any other capital budget that we do each year.

Uh you remember each year in our budget, we look at that six-year capital uh capital budget, and we're kind of planning out some of these big projects each year going down six years down the road.

So this is just a summary of some of what we're looking at.

Um, but I will say uh we again just to summarize, almost 900 facilities.

Most about a third of those are actually buildings.

Uh we have some lease facilities and we lease out a few spaces.

Uh but I think what you all brought to us uh back in January was, and I think I shared this with you, a lot of different departments had a lot of this data.

And I think gathering all this uh was it was it was a pretty challenging exercise, actually.

I have a lot of the departments here, we had several meetings, uh, working through several databases and systems to try to grab this data.

I think what we need to do is continue to prioritize the maintenance investments, uh, not only through the annual budget and the and the bond cycles, but continue to refine this list, right?

This list really should be maintained, kind of consolidated, be readily available for not only you but us and and the public to see you know what is our inventory of assets, buildings, facilities, accessory, not and then as we bring new assets online or we renovate uh do large investments, we update that list so we can use it making decisions moving forward.

So I think that's what's gonna come out of this uh from our end anyway.

Uh, but be happy to answer any questions you have.

And again, I think the list we have a list of 898 facilities.

We'll share that all those details with you.

Uh, but uh certainly wanted some feedback today on anything that I shared.

So, thank you.

I really appreciate y'all's work on this.

This was uh another one of my priorities when I became chair of the of this committee.

Um, to me it was a little wild that we didn't have a comprehensive list and they were being managed so separately.

And I think it's great that we're now in a position where uh we can compare across across departments, across the districts, you know, how are the facilities uh being maintained and are they, are there any blind spots that we've had previously?

And my hope is that um you know we are able to review some of this information going into of course the budget.

I don't know how much we're how much we're gonna be able to get done through the budget, uh, but of especially during our uh our discussions on the bond.

Um and so I did um I neglected to read council members core memo uh core's uh comments on uh item two.

I'll submit the her memo that her office submitted uh for the record.

Um but for this one, you know, she wishes to reiterate the request.

It sounds like um uh what Dr.

Core wants to see is uh a spreadsheet that includes the building, which department is using it, what the condition of the building is, um, what the last time the maintenance was performed, cost estimate for any maintenance needs in the next five years, and cost estimates on the next 10 years.

It sounds like to me uh in this, you know, you obviously weren't able to put 900 structures in a in a presentation for us, but you do have a spreadsheet.

Do you have that information?

Most of that information available, and is there any gaps?

I think uh the first half of what she's asking for, I think we have.

I think estimating out five or ten years some maintenance needs.

I think we have some ideas, but um we probably have to work on that uh through the 900.

We can start with the buildings and you know that maybe the 300 buildings.

Um we do have some needs that we know of, but um I'd probably want to think about it with our teams about you know, thinking 10 years down the road.

For sure.

I do think that's um, I think that's an important component, and it will certainly be important as we get into the uh the bond program.

We only have it every five years, right?

And so to know what our needs are in five, ten years allows us to think hey, is there a project that's going to at some point need two phases worth of worth of improvements?

And what do what are the low-hanging fruits?

How do we prevent some of the needs from uh getting worse through investment now and over the next few years?

Uh so I think all of that is gonna be uh important if we can if we can add that on as a recurring uh sort of recurring process that takes place.

Sure.

And then how soon can you get us the spreadsheet and is it pretty user-friendly?

I would say it probably about a week to make it user-friendly.

I think I want to give it to you so it's sortable and all that other stuff.

But we have we have the nuts and bolts of it, so I think this week or early next week I can get you the list.

Okay, and if you could uh email it to each of us that excellent.

Um, any council member comments?

Council member Aldera de Govito.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mike.

Um, we'll look forward to that spreadsheet.

Thank you for making sure that it is usable.

That's important.

Um, no, I just also wanted to thank you and your team's work for helping us find a new home for Fire Station 10, which I know was part of the um uh 2017 bond project.

So I know that we've been meeting just to let you all know with Mike and his team almost weekly on this, so that way we're getting some progress on it because it's much needed in our area.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Spears.

I appreciate this a lot.

Um, because it all I I can't wait to see the spreadsheet.

I do like to look at a good spreadsheet, so um I would think that what councilwoman Core said we needed to see is um is really good, but I'm also curious about um with buildings, you know, there's that sweet spot where hurry up and fix it, or it becomes too much to fix it or not worth it, we can't afford to tear it down or we can't remediate it.

Like those are some things I'm interested in knowing too.

Um then also if there's a recommended use, like maybe there's some leases that we could move into an existing building that we have that when we did the lease, we didn't think it worked, or we didn't need that much space, or we don't need as much space.

Recommended use would be helpful to me, or if it's just a straight up tear down, that would be helpful.

And um did I also wanted to know some of these are gonna have statutorily required updates?

Are we up to date on that, especially when it's regard to the police and fire stations, or is that something that we consider separately, or how do you handle that?

Well, I would I would say um all of our buildings generally have uh uh like a there there is some required maintenance by our local ordinances or state law that say these systems or these parts of the building have to be maintained regularly, whether it's through inspections or testing or anything like that at a could be quarterly, annual, biannual basis.

So I think of think of our safety systems in buildings like this, uh they're constantly being maintained and or fixed if needed, uh just just to meet state code or local code.

Uh so that's happening with every building.

Um, but if if you're thinking of any other state statutes, um I'm not sure off top of my head, but I could certainly ask our teams or get with you separately to talk about that.

Yeah, no, well, and what also I'm thinking like with the 900 buildings, there's gonna be some that we go, this is just a lost cause, you know, and then there's some where we say if we invest now, we can really rehab this and make it usable and having an understanding of that, and then can we sell this to somebody and they use it and it's not really great for us anymore?

And then the ones we can repurpose, we've been talking about housing a lot.

You know, some of that can be things we consider.

I'm just I'm just trying to think of like we have 900 buildings, are we using them efficiently?

And some of them are dogs, I know, and that's just how it is.

But I mean, especially in a city with so much history, we have a lot of buildings like that, right?

But then there's some that we could just put a little bit more into and then it becomes the perfect thing for whatever we need it to be.

So um those are the kinds of assessments I'm trying to to look at without having to go look at 900 buildings myself.

That would take a while.

But I appreciate it a lot.

This is really good information, and I'm glad you did it.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um that list are you also gonna have the uh council district that the buildings are in.

Oh, yes, okay.

We have uh all the pertinent information, uh address, um, council district, those type of things.

So, great.

Yeah, I appreciate Councilman Corps' um specificity on the what has been fixed at each building, right?

Because you could see, you know, like a seven hundred thousand dollar price tag at let's just say Miller's Pond versus, you know, sixty K at Stone Oak library, but this was to fix a restroom and that might have been to add something nicer or something to the building enhancement.

So I think that's important.

I also wonder if we have uh across the board some sort of minimum standards for buildings so that we say, you know, before we add or or do something new, we want every building to have a roof that lasts for this amount of time, AC for this amount of time.

Uh just make sure that all the buildings are at the same level standard before we go and do bigger and better things in other places.

Is that something that you've seen?

I know you're pretty new to this role, but yeah.

I I don't know if we have a you know, like a minimum score for building what we do have, um, kind of thinking of my old role.

Um we certainly have property maintenance standards, we have building and fire code, electrical codes, all of those are minimum standards that all of our buildings have to meet.

So there's one level right there just to be uh safe, compliant.

Um we do have buildings uh when we when we build a new building, the code's a little bit more stringent, right?

Um, and then when we assess a building, um, you know, to you know determine any priority upgrades uh either internally or we bring in some consultants, engineers, architects, those type of uh people to assess, you know, help us prioritize if the AC is I don't know on its last leg, or can we put a little more duct tape on it, or do we have to really repair it to get another 10 or 20 years life on it?

Um I mean that's the kind of process we use, but um I haven't seen a let's say a scoring system for each building.

Uh it reminds me of a question at the B session a couple weeks ago when we were talking about um you know things for like community centers or libraries.

Is there a standard for the facility itself in terms of operational standards?

Uh, but it's something we can certainly look at and maybe bring back to the committee.

Yeah, I think that's important because there's uh a lot of competing interest.

I mean, 900 buildings, everybody wants something at each of those buildings.

Uh, but you know, what happens a lot of times is they'll say, Okay, great, we got the AC fixed at uh Johnson Library, but I was across town at Cody, and they have all this new stuff that they just got.

So, you know, we want to make sure that there's some sort of equity uh when it comes to buildings in general, not just location, but for the facility itself, that it's up to standards.

Uh even when we build new buildings, right?

I heard from an officer who was going to be transferred to the St.

Mary's station, uh, didn't have a parking spot or a desk.

Brand new building, and we were under, we were um over capacity already, right?

And so I think that's just a question of staffing appropriateness over there.

But uh, you know, we want to make sure when we invest millions of dollars that it's exactly what we need at the end of the day.

Um, and so I think that's important to make sure that we have uh balance across same thing, right?

We have the South, the Mayfield substation on the south side, two new police stations, and that one I think has been untouched since probably the nineties.

I joked that it's like someone have law and order.

I mean, it looks like an old police station there, it's very it's like from a movie, uh, but it doesn't really work for the people there anymore, right?

So we probably need to do something different.

Uh it might just be a lost cause, like Councilman Spears said, or uh there's not enough room, I think, to grow that facility there.

So I just want to make sure that no buildings getting left behind on these other newer and bigger things.

So appreciate that.

Thank you.

And to uh Council Member McGee's point, um, I think the original intent behind my request for this sort of index was hey, as we get into the the bond discussions, how do we make sure that we are we're approaching it with through a lens of equity?

Wherever the greatest need is is where we should be allocating the greatest amount of our funding.

So to that end, I think without seeing it, I'll say that it seems like we're at a great phase one.

Uh it would be nice ultimately to get to a point where we can provide something similar to our pavement condition index score where we index a building based off of you know, is it going to be in a solid place that requires minimal investment for 10 years or is it in critical need and need something within the next two, three years, or else you know all hell breaks loose.

And so, do you think it's possible that some at some point within the next several months we can create a process through which we begin those to that that can happen?

Yeah, I think we can start those conversations.

I mean, to do something in a few months might be a little tough because I think what we're talking about either developing the index is one thing, but actually.

I just watched R and Matt get me a whole system ready.

Yeah, but Councilman, I think I think that's important here to understand that we'd have to set up what the standard is to be able to grade something, right?

And so I don't think those standards that you're speaking about and that you're articulating have been established.

And so, in order to be able to know that we're meeting them, we're gonna have to establish them.

I think it's gonna take some some way in from you all as well, you know.

Around, for instance, the senior center, what is the standard, right?

And so I we can commit to doing it, don't get me wrong, but I just I don't know if it's a quick uh understanding of what that standard is.

Sounds good.

So it cannot be within a few months, but within a year, we can make something like that happen.

We can commit to that.

Wonderful.

All right.

This you gotta you got a reverse engineer the answer you want to get to.

Um I think as well as a part of this, um, what I would do you know when the next um council discussion on the bond is going to be.

I think we talked uh a couple weeks ago about probably in August.

Um, I think shortly after I think uh the proposed budget.

Um, but I think shortly after that, we'll probably next time standing up with you, talking about potential projects, uh what we think is priority, what we used for priority indexing, if you will, um, and then presenting it to you all.

For sure.

My request will be that um as you get the spreadsheet user-friendly and user ready for uh each of us that you set up time to meet with each council office uh to go over it so that because ultimately you would like for every council member to get a robust view of what the all the facilities in their district, what the need exists so that they can start to think about you know, certainly they've received constituent calls and feedback on on some needs.

They've you know spoken to city staff, uh, but it's good to get a very clear picture from departments about the entire point.

Yeah, we'll set up a meeting with each one of you and uh your colleagues that aren't here as well, just so that they know what we're giving them, how to use it, how to sort, you know, all that stuff so they can hopefully answer any questions they have.

Perfect council member Spears.

Could you then add fairly easily the useful life left on each of the buildings as a column?

Since it should already be in the budget.

Useful life, yeah.

We can look at that, yeah.

Okay, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh so this one doesn't require any action, but we'll um I guess I'll look for as a part of the bond discussion.

If you could roll this in, let everybody know this is something that's available that exists.

I would like this to at some point become uh public facing, so that almost like every other dashboard we're creating.

Yes, okay.

I figured you'd say that.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to you all.

Thank you so much.

We'll move on to item four.

Madam Clerk, can you read the caption?

Oh, it's a long caption.

Briefing on the San Antonio Police Department recommendations outlining the requirements for an individual or company to obtain a limousine permit, transition from a horse drawn carriage to electric vehicle services permit, and lower the insurance requirements for petty cabs and group cycles.

All right, so good afternoon, Councilman Chair, and uh council members.

Uh my name is Rick Riley.

I'm the assistant director for the San Antonio Police Department, and today I'm gonna present a briefing on something that we're all too familiar with, and this is staff's recommendations to change uh some things in the limousine industry, the horse carriage transition, as well as petty cab and group cycle insurance requirements.

So, quick overview of today's briefing.

Uh, first we're gonna move into uh the limousine industry operations and recommendations, uh move on to horse carriage transition, and then end up talking about insurance requirements for both petty cabs and group cycles.

So I'm gonna start with a brief overview of the limousine service.

Uh, you can see there permits have been issued since 1989.

A quick definition of a limousine service is exactly what you would expect it to be.

The majority of the discussion has centered around the permit requirements to enter into uh the limousine industry.

Currently, those permit requirements you'll see there.

An owner operator has to have at least two stretch limousines or a single stretch limousine and two luxury vehicles or SUVs.

So, as I mentioned, we've had a lot of discussion about this.

It's centered on getting into that, as well as uh the naming of the limousine industry.

Should it still be limousine service or should we change it to something else?

So today, staff's gonna make a couple of recommendations recommended changes to the limousine service, uh chapter 33564 there.

Uh, for your discussion and consideration.

Uh the first of those being uh what does it take to enter into a luxury vehicle or limousine uh permit?

Uh currently, as I mentioned, you have to have two stretch limos or one stretch limo and two luxury vehicles.

Today, staff's recommending changing that to be the two stretch limos or two limo buses or two limo vans or a combination of each.

So you could have one limo bus, one limo van, or one stretch limousine, and a single bus, or a single limo van, and two luxury SUVs.

Um, both of those, the addition is to that limo bus and limo van.

Just so you get a picture in your mind, a limo bus is something that you would see at the airport to take you to and from uh the rental car facility if if that's how you choose to go, uh a limo van is your sprinter van, and we've seen an increase in desire to use those.

We get about a call a week at the ground transportation unit inquiring into how do I get permitted as a limo company.

We think this may allow additional companies to come in and still have the commitment monetarily to purchase one of these vehicles.

The second recommended change that staff is making today is to amend the name of Chapter 33, Article 5, changing it from limousine service to luxury vehicle service, which we think more accurately reflects the way the industry's moving with black cars, black sedans, whatever the case may be that people use, as well as the limo vans and limo buses.

It would also require a name change in the rules and regulations.

So you'll see there rather than limousine tours and charters, we'll call it luxury vehicles tours and charters.

The second area that I'd like to talk about is some staff recommendation recommendations to aid in the transition of the horse carriage industry.

Much like limousines and any vehicle for hire, chapter 33 governs the operation of horse carriages.

In December of 2024, council approved an ordinance that wound down the horse carriage industry and prohibited certain operations, and all of that comes effective January 1st of 2030.

The first thing was a reduction in hours.

Those reduction in hours start in June of next year, and then yearly after that until January 1st of 2030.

Immediately following the passage of the ordinance, there was a moratorium on new carriage permits and horses, horse license, additional horse licenses were prohibited.

Status today of the horse carriage industry.

There's 25 permits issued.

Those permits are owned by five companies.

Each company has five permits.

What's interesting in there, and we've had this discussion is those five companies are owned by three owners.

So that brings the biggest challenge that we've had in how do we allocate this fairly amongst all of those owners.

So staff today is recommending what you'll see here, which is to authorize 21 new electric vehicle for hire permits to current horse carriage permit holders to exchange their horse carriage permit for this electric vehicle permit.

And so to make it fair, we took each owner and we said, okay, you can receive seven.

We're gonna have to test it out, but this allows people to buy to get one or two.

One hook in there is that once a horse carriage permit is turned in for that e-vehicle electric vehicle permit, the horse carriage permit is void and shall not be reissued back to the original permit holder.

Additionally, we're recommending a change in insurance requirements for electric vehicles.

What you see there is the current requirement, which is a million dollars in liability and property damage, plus the state minimum of 30 60 25.

So 30 for bodily injury, 60 per accident for a total, and then the property damage of 25,000.

In working in collaboration with the Office of Risk Management, risk management has recommended that we move the requirements closer to a commercial insurance.

You'll see there, 200,000 for bodily injury, 500,000 total for an accident, and 200,000 for property damage.

The last area I'd like to discuss is the petty cab and group cycle.

A quick overview, and this really is in the insurance requirements for both of these industries.

You'll see there that right now for petty cabs, there's 15 permits maximum allowed by the by the code.

Three companies have those, those are split two, six, and seven if you're interested.

What we see is petty cab drivers that will come from Austin or Houston for big events that want to operate a petty cab but can't get a permit.

So one of the things that is unspoken here is thinking about a possible change to the number of permits in the pedicab industry.

It's rare that we see all those on the road at the same time, sometimes at big events, sporting events, concerts, something big downtown, you'll see a lot out there.

Group cycles, no max on the permits for group cycles, and there's really hasn't been any need as there are two permits issued right now.

Two companies have one permit each.

You can read there what the difference is a group cycle.

Basically, the motor can't be the primary mode of transportation for either petty cabs or group cycles.

It can be an assist, but can't be the primary uh function.

So as I mentioned, we are making a recommendation today to change that insurance for both petty cabs and group cycles to bring them in line with everything else.

You'll see there again the million dollars for liability insurance, and again working with the Office of Risk Management.

Risk management came back and said we think 350,000 uh per occurrence for bodily injury, total per accident and property damage is more in line with what we should see for both petty cabs and the group cycle industry.

That concludes my brief and the recommendations, and uh await your guidance and how you'd like us to proceed.

Thank you so much.

Before I forget, I'll read uh council member core's uh request.

Uh previously she had asked for ridership data on limousine, petty cab and horse-drawn carriage and electric vehicle operators to know how many people are currently utilizing these transportation options.

Uh so she'd would like this information to be shared ahead of any B session.

If you could share that, uh, have that data and information ready to go for uh for each of us.

Um, and then do do do.

I know she had also asked for information on requests for um for permits for petty cabs and those other micro mobility options.

And and so the petty cabs I can talk to group cycles we haven't had any interest in.

Petty cabs, um, so that you know we've had about four people inquire about getting out those permits, but because they're maxed out right now, we're not able to issue them, and that's my comment about if council wants to increase those permits from say 15 to 20, 15 to whatever that number is, then that's a possibility, and we'll have to figure out how do we make those permits available to somebody who doesn't currently have a permit because there's always the fear that the guy who already has seven comes in and swoops up the 10 available or whatever the case may be.

I guess that's um, what that brings to mind, and that's where it's it goes back to the conversation we've had about the horse-drawn carriages and those permits.

What is the system that established, especially for petty cabs?

What is the system that established what the limit was, what was appropriate, and how many operators there should be?

Because there's got to be a science or an explanation behind it, and I'm interested in a little bit of background on how we got to where we are today with the pedicabs.

So I can answer partial that, which was a it was a council decision to set that at that limit.

I'll have to go back and see if I can research the history to see how did council get there.

Was there a study done that we could support this many petty cabs, this many group cycles, whatever the case may be.

So I can bring that back to a B session if that's where we end up going, Council.

Thank you.

I do appreciate today.

These are all three of these are pretty um heavy items that are light today because of the conversations that we've been having.

And then on this item specifically, you know, these are three distinct uh discussions that we're having with regard to the limousine service recommendations.

Um I'm supportive of staff's recommendation, and I look forward to uh more conversation.

I appreciate Andres for coming and sharing his support for staff's recommendation as well with the horse carriage permits.

Uh again, I'm supportive of staff's staff's recommendation.

What I would be interested there is which of the operators fall within a TERS or some sort of zone that would allow for some sort of financial assistance in acquiring the e-vehicles, the e-carriages, and then I think we still need there will have to be an ordinance authorizing the e-carriages specifically.

And so, and so how long will it take to have staff create something like that?

It should council approve this.

So I I suspect that we can bring a uh draft to the B session when we go there to just kind of outline hey, this is what this is going to look like.

It's going to mirror the electric vehicle, the difference.

One of the big differences is if you see the electric vehicles on the road today, uh, the little runner, for example, it has a front windshield.

The electric carriage isn't required to have that front windshield.

So uh details like that.

Otherwise, it will pretty much mirror the electric vehicle requirements as far as safety equipment, brake lights, slow-moving vehicle sign, blinkers, safety belts, all of that in order to get uh licensed and registered permitted.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I appreciate y'all y'all's work on all of this.

I will say I think it is strange that um SAPD is sort of leading or responsible for this discussion.

I would like to and I do appreciate y'all's work on it.

I think it's for me, I think it's strange for SAPD to be focused on the non-public safety related portions of these discussions.

And so, is it SAPD's role to have discussions about the classification of limousines and the naming or uh insurance requirements and pilot programs for micro mobility?

I do feel like this discussion should fall within the transportation department.

Um again, I appreciate the work that y'all have done thus far, and I think maybe as we move forward, it might be good to begin transitioning to that lens because of course I would love for y'all to be focused on the conversations that most directly impact public safety.

Uh, but again, appreciate y'all's work thus far on this.

Um, this was three different conversations that were spurred by three different council members.

So, of course, the uh e-carriages was a priority of mine.

Uh Petty Cabs was uh Dr.

Core and Limousines, uh, Council Member Mughea.

So I'll turn the floor over to him.

Thank you very much for this discussion.

I do want to say thank you for the recommendations on the limousine service.

I think that's a really that's a fair compromise compared to what the stakeholders were asking for.

Um, and I know it's a very sensitive subject because it's people's businesses and livelihoods who want to make sure that we're very careful about making any changes to that.

So I do support that.

I think it's it's nice to spread that out to say, you know, you don't have to have a stretch to have that, and I do think uh amending it to a luxury vehicle service is probably a way to go for the future.

It's not just limousines that people are asking for these days, it's luxury, and it's also making sure that when you expand that definition, have that, you might get more people getting into the permits situation, which I think you talked about, right?

It's better if there's something goes wrong in that situation, that car ride, they are able to contact the city and file a complaint, which doesn't exist if you're just on the private market side.

Um so I do think that's a pre- I appreciate that.

And I sorry I had to step up, but I did I'm gonna did miss the horse carriage overview, but I am you know sensitive to the fact that it was a slow season, so I'm not sure what the ongoing dialogue has been with the operators and the transition to um the electric vehicle permits.

So I look forward to to hearing a little bit about that.

And I do think uh just for staff too, it is maybe a good transition time for this to be into the transportation department, um, especially when you talk about pedicab and group cycles and we're gonna have that conversation about downtown mobility in the next few months.

I think that's important uh not that you haven't been doing a good job on this, but I do think it's it's a little outside of SAPD's wheelhouse to to be managing this.

Um, so that would be also be my recommendation too on the city side.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember authority to be.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you, Rick, for the presentation.

I I wanted to thank my appointee on the transportation advisory board, George Murray.

I'm not sure if he's here.

I thought he was, but maybe not.

Also, too, I did just want to clarify that um staff's recommendations were the ones that were approved by um the transportation advisory board.

Is that correct?

Transportation advisory board recommended that we continue to move forward with uh status quo.

So we met with those stakeholders, that's what they wanted to do.

Uh, we've also met with people who want a change to the stretch limousine requirement so that they can enter the industry.

Um, staff, in its opinion, uh, and you know, really, I'll take that.

Uh felt like hey, we need to grow this industry, and we're moving away from stretch limousines to what we see is the sprinter van being used, the limo bus being used, and the luxury vehicle people requesting those, and as the airport grows and we continue to see more passengers that come in for hopefully more events.

That'll give more options to potential riders to get from the airport to their destination.

So, okay.

So, so then we're so then what I'm hearing is staff recommendations just kind of expanded upon the transportation advisory boards.

Staff's recommendation was to change the requirement to only have stretch lemos and to add limo buses and limo vans to that requirement.

So it gives another entry point for those.

Okay, got it.

Sounds good.

Um, well, yeah, I think that was it.

Thanks.

Um, with this, yeah.

I'm I'm ready to move forward on it too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Spears.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Rick.

Um, but I'm supportive of the change to the uh chapter 33 name, and I do think expanding it makes sense.

Um, so I'm supportive of that as well.

So on the electric vehicles and the carriages.

I I was asking, I'd been asking, do you have a business plan for them or or where do they even order these from and how long does it take to get here, or and which one would be an approved electric carriage?

So we have contacts that we have shared because uh two of the current owners have expressed an interest to go to the electric carriage.

Uh, Mr.

Dodd, who owns Lollipop and Blue Bonnet, as well as Ronnie White that owns Lode Star, have both expressed an interest to give it a try.

Um, and we have provided the those individuals with that contact information as to where do you order them from, how do you get them, and that kind of thing.

So, yes, ma'am.

How long do they take to get here?

We've heard anywhere from three to six months because one hasn't been ordered or assembled.

I it would be a guess on my part and a speculation, so that's the best I can do for you.

And do you know how much they cost?

About $20,000.

Twenty thousand.

And then um I I would be supportive since they were hit hard during the holiday season, uh to some sort of extension there, just so that they can then purchase potentially purchase some of these electric vehicles.

One of the questions that I have is like how is this supporting our broader transportation and mobility goals?

So, the electric vehicle when when councilman McKee Rodriguez talked about micromobility and council member, both on the pedicabs and group cycles, that's why we bought the electric vehicles to begin with.

Um, the goal, part of the goal when we did the horse carriage transition was how do we get these extremely slow moving vehicles off the road because they tend to clog up intersections and etc.

is what the feedback that we were getting from residents.

Um, the electric carriage I've ridden in one, there's actually two right now in San Antonio that they use for private events.

Um, it moves like a golf cart, it turns like a golf cart, it's got a steering wheel, so it could be much quicker.

Um, I don't know how we solve that final mile problem from via to downtown, let's say.

I think that's a wider discussion between you know if PD keeps the vehicle for hire piece and transportation and C C DO and probably all have to get together and figure it out.

I mean if it was traffic calming or impeding traffic, a golf court or a horse carriage to me.

I don't I don't I don't see a difference.

It'll still be in the way.

You know what I'm saying?

A vehicle is a vehicle, I think is where you're going, ma'am.

Yeah, yes.

I guess to that point.

So, and we're getting back into a little bit of the discussion of years ago when we passed this.

We're not gonna relitigate it.

Um there could potentially be a well, I just don't want to come back and say, okay, now this is in the way, we need you out.

I guess there is a big difference in the speed of uh horse, and especially if you've been stuck behind one of them versus one of these e-carriages.

And so they do have the capacity to go much faster.

And I won't get into any of the other issues, but that's there is a pretty big speed difference between the two of them.

And so if the issue is a horse is going three miles per hour in front of you and you're stuck behind it, you can't get around it, you're getting, you know, drivers are getting frustrated and acting a little bit recklessly.

That's different than if you're behind a vehicle that can go up to 20 miles per hour ultimately.

Okay.

Um I guess I I feel I disagree, but I understand it's already been voted on.

I just want to make this as easy as possible on these people.

I really do.

I just feel so much hesitation about taking away their earning capacity, and I want to make it as easy as possible.

So as much information as can be provided, um, care in showing them how to run this new business model in a metropolitan area versus the examples we're given of parks that we because we don't have it's my recollection you said that this hasn't been done in a metropolitan area.

So that's correct.

Philadelphia is as close as it's gotten, and it's in a test bed right now.

So I just want to make it as easy as possible and be willing to be as flexible as we can and supportive as we can in doing it.

Um I understand the intent.

Um I think they're charming, and I'll miss them, but um, I understand your intent behind it.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I guess to that point right now, where it stands, the horse, the horses are leaving.

And so the conversation that we're now having is how do we introduce a new opportunity for these businesses that are being phased out.

There is no work around to that.

And so to that end, I support, you know, and that's why one of the questions is how can we financially support the acquisition of the e-carriages?

We know that long term it'll probably be a much more cost-effective model than uh horses, and I think as quickly as we can possibly get this through, I'd love for um some of the e-carriages to be able to be online by the winter season.

And so to that end, I do have a question about reality and how we practice the going from five to seven or in some cases ten to seven.

So currently it is based off of business, not ownership.

So I'm gonna separate the owner from the businesses.

There's two business, there's a business that has five permits, they have the ability to operate five horse carriages, they can then uh add two e-carriages on top of what they're already doing for a total of seven, and eventually they will begin as they phase out the horses, they'll begin to be able to add more of the e-carriages so that they maintain that seven.

In practice, one owner has ten, ten horse carriages, and so because they operate two businesses.

Are we going to say you have to get rid of four of your horse carriages so that you can get one e-vehicle?

So the way that we envisioned it and and you hit the nail on the head, we had this conversation for a very long time.

Is how how do we how do we continue to be fair to the owners, you know, because um I I don't know that there's any good way somebody's gonna leave unhappy.

Um, we kind of envisioned it as if if you were an owner and you had 10, you could theoretically turn seven of those into e-carriages, and you could continue to operate the horse carriages until that ended.

And and that's a discussion.

I think I don't want to kick the can down the road, but maybe a B session with you know, a lot of smart people in the room, we solved the riddle of okay, do we allow those to can to get an additional three and give the gentleman who currently has five and a total of five, so he has ten, because then we run into councilwoman Spears' question of we've just added five more vehicles to the road.

And and is that where we want to go?

So I I'm not prepared to answer that or speculate out on that, Councilman, but um I it it's something that I think we all need to kind of noodle about and figure it out.

For sure, I'll say for all of the challenges that we have identifying ways to be fair and equitable throughout all of this.

I do think that's that approach is probably the best.

Where each operator, you know, is able to operate the 10 total for a limited amount of time.

It's only gonna be a few more years, and then eventually they work their way down to seven.

I think that would ultimately be the I think that's the sweet spot, and I'd like to see us get to that point.

Um to that end.

I think we've had this conversation probably enough at our commit at the committee level.

I think we've worked through uh the kinks that we can, and I you know I would entertain a motion for this to go to uh B session if there's not any further discussion or comment.

We need a motion to be we need a motion.

Uh move to send uh these items to uh next available B session.

We have a motion and a second, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, three ayes, one opposed, motion carries.

Thank you so much, and thank you for everybody who uh attended all the work from city staff, and I look forward to continuing this discussion.

The time is now 3.16 p.m.

on June 2nd, 2026, and this meeting is adjourned.