Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon. The time is now 2.08 p.m., and we're going to go ahead and call our public safety committee meeting to order. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Council Member McKee-Rodriguez?

Present.

Council Member Castillo? Here. Council Member Spears? Here. Council Member White?

Here.

Chair Kaur?

Here.

Ma'am, we have a quorum. Okay, great. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from June 16th, 2020-26, 2026 meeting. Any comments or changes that need to be made to the minutes? Motion? And a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No abstentions. Motion carries. Okay. Second item on the agenda is a briefing and possible action on City Council action request, the Love and CCR, looking out for our vulnerable impacted neighbors. We know we have a lot of stakeholders here, so we'll get to public comment in just a second, but we'll hear the presentation first, and then folks that are here for public comment will have three minutes to speak.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Dr. Jennifer Mata. I am here to present on the Looking Out for Vulnerable Impacted Neighbors, or the 11CCR. It was assigned to my department, the Compliance Opportunity and Access Department. The Levin CCR was submitted by Councilman Jalen McKee Rodriguez on April 9, 2026. The CCR request seeks to protect transgender, non-binary, and intersex San Antonians from discrimination and barriers to services. The request includes exploring programs to allow for both self-selected name and self-selected gender options and ensuring residents can obtain accurate forms of ID. Also, ensuring city personnel protect personal health information or personally identifiable information of transgender, non-binary, or intersex individuals seeking healthcare or access to public facilities and services. Lastly, it encourages the addition of more single user restrooms and changing facilities in city owned and privately owned buildings and spaces, which benefits all people by creating additional spaces where people can use facilities privately and safely, in addition to ensuring that city policy reflects that every person is able to access public facilities. The CCR was assigned to COA, and we will need to include coordination with departments that oversee specific items in the request. These include DHS, Metro Health, HR, BESD, and ITSD. COA presented to the Governance Committee on May 13, 2026. The Governance Committee recommended referral to the Public Safety Committee. Privacy and protection of personal and health data. Metro Health protects all protected health information, or PHI, in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and the HITECH Act. Additional protections include AD 4.67, equal employment opportunity, anti-harassment affirms the city's commitment to foster a work environment free from employment discrimination harassment and sexual harassment, including but not limited to gender identity and gender expression harassment. This AD also stipulates that all persons shall be addressed according to their expressed gender preference, including chosen names and pronouns. Refusal to do so may be considered a violation of the city's AD. When an employee's chosen name differs from their legal name, the city will make every reasonable effort to keep legal and former names confidential. AD 7.12 Data Governance establishes a comprehensive framework for managing, securing, classifying, and sharing data across all city operations. This directive sets clear standards to ensure the quality, integrity, usability, and accessibility of city data while emphasizing the protection of individual privacy. AD 7.12 also provides structured protections for personally identifiable information, or PII, and sensitive personally identifiable information, or SPII, including medical. These data types are classified and confidential data and safeguarded under federal and state laws such as HIPAA, HITECH, and the Texas Medical Privacy Act. The directive strictly prohibits the release of SPII, including medical information, under the Texas Public Information Act. By minimizing the collection of personal data, enforcing strong security controls, and requiring compliance with privacy regulations, AD 7.12 ensures that sensitive personnel and medical information is protected throughout city operations. Facility and restroom access. The NDO ensures equal access to all city buildings and spaces. Just wanted to point that out that we do have the standing NDO. In anticipation of the effective date of the legislation, SB 8, the city coordinated efforts across departments including compliance opportunity and access, building and equipment services, human resources, city attorney's office, communications and engagement, and information and technology service. Key actions included posting standardized notices about the city's compliance with state law, An SB8 webpage and an inventory of single user restrooms. QR code stickers with a list of single user spaces on city properties were also posted in restrooms. The SB8 facility inventory indicated that there are 406 single user bathrooms across city property. Future work in this area could include the inventory of restroom facilities in city leased buildings or privately owned buildings who receive city funding. In addition, the inventory may need to be reviewed to determine restroom facilities that are restricted to staff use and public use. It is also recommended that the city consider prioritizing single user restrooms. This includes the city formulized the ongoing inventory and the expansion of single user restrooms across city facilities to ensure that all people can access restrooms privately and safely. The action recommended includes adding single user restrooms to the construction of future city facilities and major renovations and future bond projects and major renovations of city facilities included in the capital budget. Thank you and I am available for questions.

Thank you, Dr. Michael, for the presentation. We're going to go ahead and start with public comment. You'll have three minutes to speak, and if you're joining in a group, just let us know, and so we can make sure we get you up at the same time. First up, we have Sofia Sepulveda with Equality Texas. And after that will be Drew Norris.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Sofia Sepulveda. I'm a proud District 1 resident and a 30-plus year resident of this beautiful city of San Antonio, Equality Texas Field Director, and I'm here to support and urge you to vote in support of the Loving CCR. Protecting our communities, both immigrant and trans matters. So this ordinance is an important step to protecting the privacy of our communities, both medically and as a resident of San Antonio. During the last legislative session, we saw the attack on marginalized communities. in full throttle. Trans communities, which has made our state hostile, both on immigrants and trans communities, which has made our state hostile for us. A small community that continues to put into the economy through our work, businesses and taxes. We are seeing our attorney general demanding medical records from other states and those states fighting back through HIPAA, which clearly states that my record should be private. My documents, whether medical or not, should be private unless I specifically get permission to give them. This ordinance will ensure just that, that our information as residents of San Antonio remains private. When it comes to single-use restrooms, I really think it's idiotic. to continue talking about this, yet here we are thanks to SB8. I have peed in women's restrooms since my transition and even before that. My femininity was always outward and my face has never changed, never had any surgeries on my face. And so every time that I tried to go to a men's bathroom, men always told me, this is not your bathroom, go to the other bathroom. So I was always told to go into the wrong restroom. When I tried going to the male space, I have never had an issue until politicians made it an issue. Let's make this clear. I'm going to the restroom to pee and wash my hands, nothing else. Our public buildings will need a single use restroom to ensure safety of our trans siblings. We do have bodily functions just like everybody else. And this ordinance will ensure we get to pee or poop. In peace and without fear. We are not here to take from you, just here because when we help the most marginalized, our black, immigrant, trans people, all of us benefit. Maya Angelou said, if it's true that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, isn't it also true a society is only as healthy as its sickest citizen? and only as wealthy as is most deprived or as weak as the most vulnerable. Let's not continue to build our community on a weak foundation. Let's strengthen it by a foundation that is uplifting the most vulnerable. I urge you to vote yes on the law in CCR and move forward with Inclusive City. We all helped create. Thank you. Thank you, Sophia.

Drew Norris. And next up will be Dominique Huerta.

Good afternoon. I'm a resident of District 10 named Drew Norris. I asked the Public Safety Committee to consider passing the 11 ordinance. Because of my appearance, especially in some work uniforms, I've been questioned before when using the women's bathroom. I would greatly benefit from broadened access to single-use bathrooms in public and private spaces. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Dominique? And then next up will be, is it Rachel Gundy or Raquel Gundy?

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Dominique Huerta, and I am here representing myself and the ACLU of Texas to indicate our support for the Looking Out for Vulnerable Impact Neighbors Love-In Proposal. One of the measures that the Love-In Proposal calls for is adoption of gender-neutral single-user restrooms in both city and public buildings in response to the SB-8, the anti-transgender bathroom bill. Forcing transgender Texans to use multi-stall restrooms that don't match their gender identities in government buildings increases the odds of harassment and violence against them and decreases the odds that they will feel comfortable entering those buildings in the first place, even when they need help. Creating more single user restrooms in these buildings not only gives transgender visitors a safer place to use the facilities, but offers the same comfort and safety to cisgender people who express their gender in ways that differ from what is considered usual. It's shameful that the bathroom bill has made this issue so much more dire, and this solution is an important way the City of San Antonio can offer transgender people and others affected by SBA safety, accessibility, and privacy while following the law. The right to privacy is one of the main goals of the Levin proposal, as so many laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by state leadership have eroded the right for many transgender, non-binary, intersex and gender nonconforming Texans. In addition to offering privacy through single-stall restrooms, Lovin calls for the City of San Antonio to rigorously enforce rules and laws around discrimination, harassment, and gender policing, and unlawful invasions of privacy in government buildings. This will serve to protect the right to privacy for all visitors, including men who may wear robes for religious reasons, lesbians with a more masculine gender expression, and moms like me. It also calls for the City of San Antonio to protect the identity of transgender, non-binary, or intersex people seeking health care or access to public facilities and services by redacting information that might be used to harm them while they lawfully access these services. No one should feel as though they cannot access public services because their identities or medical information may be given to those who would harm them. That is no longer public service, but privileged service, and Texans deserve better. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, is it Rachel or Raquel? How do you say your name?

Rachel. Rachel. Thank you. hi i'm rachel cundy and i live in district 7. i'm here today because i believe everyone should feel safe accessing city facilities and services as a medical student here in san antonio i regularly see the health consequences that occur when san antonio residents put off seeking health care whether they're worried about their privacy discrimination or or just aren't aware that services are available to someone like them, these delays can cause treatable problems to spiral into crises that are much harder to manage. I think the same pattern applies to many city services. The earlier we reach out for help, the easier it is to resolve the problem. We need everyone to feel encouraged to enter city facilities without waiting until they're desperate. That's why I'm asking the public safety committee to move the 11 ordinance forward to protect the privacy and safety of all San Antonians. When we make it clear that our most vulnerable communities are welcome, everyone knows that they're welcome.

Thank you. Kate Sanchez. And Kate, you'll be followed by Leo Castillo, former council member Leo Castillo-Agnano.

Yay. Hey, friends. My name is Kate Sanchez. I'm here representing Planned Parenthood South Texas. I'm the senior manager of organizing and advocacy. I live in District 2. And I am here to advocate for the 11 CCR. So the CCR asks for a few very simple things, access to safe bathrooms and the right to privacy. Apparently, in 2026, we do have to ask for these things. So we are asking for these things. Why are we asking for these things? Because right now, safe bathrooms and privacy have been taken away from some of our neighbors who are experiencing a reignited violence. In our city, over the last several years, there have been multiple documented instances of trans people being assaulted or even murdered for just existing. Rest in peace to Hallie J. O'Regan, among others. In addition, parents, some of them US citizens, are being detained and taken away by ICE, leaving their children behind. So what can we do to protect San Antonians? We keep it simple, and we responsibly respond to the violence that we're seeing. Right now, data shows that the safest bathrooms are single-user restrooms with the ability to lock a door and reduce verbal and physical harassment. Right now, policies around data redaction and keeping personal health information to those authorized to access it within city personnel use evidence-based ways to protect people's right to privacy. Levin is the solution without the politics. This is not political. This is about safety. This is about dignity. Some folks might hear undocumented or trans and feel a certain way, but the reality is these communities are experiencing violence at a rate that is ever increasing and or state sanctioned. As our elected officials, we hope to see you step up and provide the type of leadership that the vulnerable San Antonians need right now, because I promise you we are paying attention. And when it comes to public safety, Levin is the least that we can do. And I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Castellaniano? Yes. Oh, no. Okay. Okay, he's okay, he's okay. All right, Lindsey Andrews? Okay, Lindsey Andrews? Okay, Tracy Bradley? Tracy will be followed by, oh, by Nico Bonner.

Hi, I'm Tracy Bradley. I live in District 8. and I'm a member of the LGBTQ community. I'm also a registered nurse, retired, and I would like to talk today about a privacy issue that I think hasn't got a lot of attention, but there are a number of people in our community who have issues that are health related. I have a grown daughter who has recently been diagnosed with celiac disease, In addition to this, there are a lot of people who have IBS, Crohn's disease. There are people who rely on appliances like ileostomies and colostomy bags, not to mention the people who require assistance just to go to the bathroom, you know, and these are people who, you know, would appreciate having a little additional privacy, you know, to do something that probably a lot of us don't really think about much. So I just think that this is a way to respect people's privacy that we could advance easily. And, you know, I think it's something that we could consider. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Nico Bonner. And then last up will be Ananda Thomas.

Good afternoon. My name is Nico Bonner. I'm a native Texan and a proud resident of San Antonio District 1. As a supporter of the Levin CCR, I want to ensure we all recognize the importance of this moment and the opportunity standing in front of us. Opportunity is not just a concept. It's a specific moment in time where we choose whether or not to act for the common good. We are all human. And with that shared humanity comes an expectation of decency, safety, protection, and access. Yet, right now, standard multi-stall facilities can become flashpoints for conflict, harassment, and safety concerns. Not only for our transgender, intersex, and gender nonconforming neighbors, but for parents with young children, the elders, requiring care, individuals with disabilities, and able-bodied neighbors who simply value personal privacy. Public safety is not just about emergency response. It's about the proactive environment we build in our city facilities. When a resident walks into a municipal building, a library, or a park, their physical security and personal privacy must be guaranteed. A public restroom is not a luxury. Privacy is not a privilege. They are basic, fundamental human needs. This ordinance is not a burden. It's an extraordinary opportunity. It's an opportunity for this committee to strengthen municipal safety, reduce friction in public spaces, and stand directly beside the full diversity of the population you were elected to serve and protect. I urge you to vote yes on advancing 11 CCR. Thank you.

Thank you. Ananda Thomas.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ananda Thomas. I serve as Executive Director of Act for SA, San Antonio's criminal justice organization committed to accountable, compassionate, and transparent public safety for every member of our community. I'm here today in support of the Loving Ordinance because safety in San Antonio means more than fire, police, and EMS. Real safety means every resident can access healthcare, public facilities, and essential services without fear. At Act for SA, we organize alongside people harmed by a system that often exposes their personal information and uses it against them. Families who've lost loved ones to police violence, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented neighbors, trans and non-binary community members, and survivors of violence. and they've all told us the same thing. They do not feel safe in a city where walking into a city facility to use a bathroom can lead to harassment or violence. They do not feel safe in a city where they fear their identifiable information will be documented and used against them down the road simply for living in their full authentic truth. This is a public safety crisis. Privacy is a public safety issue. When someone's immigration status, gender identity, HIV status, or home address becomes visible to the wrong person, that exposure can lead to deportation, harassment, family separation, eviction, or violence. These are documented outcomes for our community members living with this every day. Single user restrooms are part of this solution. A parent with a child who needs assistance, a caregiver helping an elderly parent, a person with a disability or a trans neighbor avoiding harassment, all of them deserve the dignity of a private space. This is basic infrastructure for a city that claims to value every resident. We know the data. Communities with strong non-discrimination protections experience better economic outcomes, better health outcomes, and stronger public safety. The Loving Ordinance is not about carving out special treatment for one group. It's about building a city where privacy, safety, dignity, and access are protected for everyone. We at Act for SA refuse to accept a San Antonio where vulnerable neighbors must risk their safety to use a public restroom or even check out a library book. We refuse to accept a city where people cannot feel safe to be who they truly are, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. I am asking the committee to support the loving ordinance and move it out of committee today. When we make San Antonio safer for the people who are most vulnerable, we make San Antonio safer for everyone. Privacy, safety, and dignity should not depend on who you are. They should be something that every San Antonian can count on. For these reasons, please support the loving ordinance moving out of committee today, and thank you.

Thank you. Did everyone that wanted to speak on item two get a chance to speak?

Okay.

I'm going to turn it over to Council Member McKee-Rodriguez as the signatory on this, or the creator of the CCR.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you to everyone who came out to speak. This is a packed house and a lot of great items. So thank you all for making time today. I'll start off by saying that this is a very mundane issue that we're talking about if we take it at its face. And it's basically reaffirming our privacy and safety administrative directives, and ensuring that everyone has access to a restroom, especially as we move forward in new bond projects and renovations to facilities, we wanna make sure that any facility that people have access to, that they also have access to a restroom. And this would not be and I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues about what's this all going to cost at the end of the day if we're adding new restrooms? And this wouldn't be a discussion that we'd be having if not for the unnecessary targeting and attacks on our trans and non-binary And it's based off of this idea that it is unsafe to be in the restroom with a trans person, which we know is untrue as trans members of our community are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than any of their counterparts. And that they're also more likely to be victims of property crime as well as others. And so when you look at what started this scare, what prompted all of these crazy people to take on the job as potty police and to do their transvestigations outside of restrooms with video cameras. It's this unnecessary dogpiling that our state and federal lawmakers are taking part in and really leading the charge on. And so today I'll absolutely support this moving forward. I would ask that staff brief all of our council colleagues individually, and then we move it to an A session directly, because again, this is really mundane, simple things that we should be doing as quickly as possible. especially as we begin to have conversations about the bond in just a couple days. So I'll make that motion at the end, but again, I want to thank everybody who came out to speak and support, everyone who's been playing an instrumental role behind the scenes, particularly council member Leo Castillo-Anguiano, who originally authored this, and then, you know, I came back, and so now I filed it, as well as all the organizations, Equality Texas, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Thrive, I'm going to I try not to name organizations because I'm going to miss a few, but there was a ton of hands on this. And so we're really looking forward to us doing the simplest, rightest thing today. Thank you.

Thanks, Council Member. Council Member Castillo, would you like to say something?

Thank you, Chair. We have a really robust agenda today, so just thank you for your leadership with these items. And thank you, Dr. Mata, for the presentation, and Councilman McKee-Rodriguez and Leo Anguignano for your leadership. I really valued the roundtable that y'all hosted off of Maine to engage community. on what the goal and expectation was with this proposed council consideration request. So I'm looking forward to supporting this ordinance, would echo the urgency of moving this along, especially as we move into bond conversations and how this can inform what proposed bond projects should include. So supportive of this item, wanted to also thank the members of the public, Sophia, always for advocating, whether it's housing, healthcare and inclusion, just thank you for your leadership and as well as to all the members that gave comment today. I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU.

THANKS, CHAIR. I GOT SOME QUESTIONS. THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR YOU, MARIA, OR FOR WHO, BUT THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE VOTING ON TODAY?

The action that's recommended is the construction of future city facilities and major renovations to add a single user restroom in all of our future bond projects and any major renovations at city facilities that's included in the capital budget.

Okay, but so are we only talking about city facilities here?

We are, Councilman.

because the backup documents are really confusing because they talk about a much, much broader scope, including private, it talks about private businesses that receive city funding.

Can you clarify which backup documents you're discussing?

I mean, I don't know, but I looked at them literally within the last hour.

I'm missing it.

But, I mean, I don't think I...

The list that I had seen was the list of all of the facilities that includes the addresses for which facilities have single .

It talks about private businesses that may receive city funding through bond projects that those would be subject to I guess whatever we're going to do here in terms of requiring them to have a single user restroom.

Councilman, if I may, so I think you're referring to the actual CCR that was filed.

No, it was in the backup document.

Yes, we attached that to the documentation for this item. the language that you're reading is from that initial CCR. The staff recommendation is for city council consideration of city facilities only.

All right, so city facilities only and only those that are done through bond projects?

or major capital projects. The idea is that when there is a renovation that's occurring that we would correct fit it. Is that right?

That is correct. So for example, City Hall, when we did the major renovation of this building, we incorporated single user restrooms as part of that renovation. So that would be similar. If we were to renovate a city facility to the extent that we did City Hall, we would incorporate single user restrooms. Mm-hmm.

And has anybody run the numbers on what the proposed additional cost is here?

We have not, Councilman. As we begin the discussions of the bond program on Wednesday, we have not finalized those projects. So as that work progresses in terms of selection of projects, we will incorporate the estimates related to any projects CITY FACILITIES THAT ARE PART OF THE BOND PROGRAM. RIGHT NOW IN OUR CAPITAL BUDGET, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS ANY FUTURE RENOVATIONS OR RETROFITS OF CITY FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO THIS WOULDN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CURRENT PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S GOING TO ADD COST TO ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROJECTS DOWN THE LINE.

RIGHT.

Meaning it has to.

Potentially, that could be true. But in some cases, the configuration of the restrooms could accommodate what we're talking about. There may be a minimal cost, but it depends on the facility that we're talking about.

What does that mean?

That means that if there is space for a restroom, adding a wall and having a separate door to that space, there is some incremental cost, but not necessarily a huge difference in the capital outlay that's happening, right? As you build restrooms, we always in the past have been building two. If we were to build three and have one stall in it, it's not an astronomical exponential increase is what I'm saying.

I mean, I am bothered by the path that this sets us on. And I'll be honest with you, the backup documents that talk about a much broader scope is honestly what concerns me because when the day comes that we are telling private businesses that they won't get city funding unless they spend additional dollars to add restrooms to their facilities, I think that would be a bad day. And this CCR, I'm not going to opine on what the motives were for the CCR in the first place. I believe that every human being should feel comfortable using the restroom. But this is one of those things to me that the intent and where I think some folks want this to lead is evidenced in those backup documents. And we take this step today and then six months from now or a year from now, we're voting on making this a requirement for private businesses. and I don't want to see that. Thanks, Chair.

So, thank you. Would you like to go first or would you like? Okay, go ahead, Council Member.

Thank you. You missed a little bit of what I said during my first round of comments. One thing I'll say is that if your primary concern or if anyone's primary concern is what is this gonna cost and are we imposing this on private businesses and how dare we have requirements of those who are getting taxpayer dollars? That's the, there's a, a cognitive dissonance there that says that I am going to be okay with giving taxpayer dollars to private entities, but I'm not going to hold them to the same standard that we hold ourselves to. If every resident has to follow a city ordinance when they're doing their a renovation on their own property, why would we not require that those who are receiving taxpayer dollars in the hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, why would we not require that they do what we ask of them, that they make their restrooms accessible to those that that are asking and beyond that it's this is again and what many of us said this is an issue that's very mundane it's not sexy it's not something any of us wanted to do this year next last year five years from now but because the state as was just that has made this an issue where there was none, there were not trans people posted up in restrooms assaulting people. That was not happening. What was happening and what continues to happen is trans people being assaulted in restrooms for existing or being held up outside of restrooms with cameras and being threatened with violence for existing and trying to use the restroom. That is what exists right now and that is what we are solving for. So that's why this is here and that's why it's so important. And so the cost of a few thousand here in exchange for a million dollars in city funding, I think we can make that work. So even though this is not calling for that right now and that's not what staff is recommending, we should absolutely get there in a year or so. So.

Thanks, Council Member. I'll just say that the purple lining of the situation for those that are here, because we do have a really heavy agenda, is that you do, I believe this will go to City Council and will pass as it's currently stated. I wish we could be doing more already. I know the ID component was something that was really critical as a part of this ordinance, but we want to make sure at the same time that we are keeping everyone safe and not creating additional eyes on folks that we don't necessarily want from the state, so I'm glad that we're at least doing this, especially as we head into a bond program, because that means we'll be able to see some of this impact immediately. One thing that I'd like to add, Dr. Mata, when you guys bring this to a session, is a tracker or some kind of goal that says how quickly we're tracking towards 100% of all city facilities having at least a single user restroom, and so what percentage are we at right now, and maybe we could see that progress after this capital project session, year, I guess, for fiscal year 27 and then for our bond program in 27. Oh, go ahead, John.

Absolutely, we can work on a tracker with Dr. Mata's team. I just want to be clear that this is future looking, right? So the things that have been designed now and the things that are under construction now are in progress, right? So I don't know that there's a chance for altering those. So I just want to be really clear that if passed, it'll be, you know, once passed, the things we're working on in the future.

Yeah, and so, like, for example, I'll give you the example of Kenwood Community Center. I know they added a family room, and it was just an incremental cost because that was the feedback that we got from the advisory group. But a family room counts as a single-user restroom, right? Sure, sure, sure. And I know that, like, we're going to construction on that already, but we did add that for Kenwood, so that would count. And as I look at the list, the one other request... The backup document that I was looking at was all the city facility lists. It would be great if we could say where in the facility that it has that single user restroom. Right now it just has the address, but if we could say entryway or first floor, if it's a multi-floor building, that way it's really clear for folks. Um, okay. Those were my only really big comments on this. I wanted to just like really quickly say that we appreciate your advocacy. We understand that sometimes it feels annoying to have to advocate for something so small, but the fact that we all, you all showed up and had this ordinance drafted with council member and moved it forward is awesome. Uh, I also had a just quick, really quick story. I had a young, um, a young kid who had seen our signs change. So we had I commend city staff on how they implemented SB8 in our buildings because it was done, I think very strategically, not to say any more than that. And I had in some of our other city facilities, the signs looked different where they were like clarifying biological and we had a young kid see that and then report that to us and we were able to change that. So at the end of the day, I think I just wanna say that advocacy matters and I appreciate you all. So I'll take a motion, sorry.

So just to be clear, because there was a lot in that CCR, but today we are voting on what's here on action recommended.

Can you bring up slide six for us, please? The slide that says action recommended.

And this is to move it to what?

Yeah, okay. Great, I'll take a motion.

Thank you. So I move to forward this recommendation to an A session with staff providing individual briefings to all council members. Second.

Great. Great. We have a motion and a second. I believe we've already had enough discussion. So we're going to take a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Any abstentions? We don't have anybody else. So motion carries. Great. Thank you. Okay, we're going to go on to item number three, and I hope that those of you that are here will stay because this is a really important conversation too, and it's an update from the committee on a diversion center that Councilman Castillo has been spearheading. So we'll hand it over to Maria.

Members of the Public Safety Committee, I'm going to go ahead and introduce this item and then just give a quick update on the work that we have done since the CCR was approved. So we can go to the first slide. So the CCR was submitted by Council Member Terry Castillo in October of 25. We took it to governance in December of 25 and then brought it to the Public Safety Committee in January for discussion. After that discussion, we presented it at a Council B session where the discussion with the full city council with support for the creation of an ad hoc committee co-chaired by the city and the county to discuss the potential feasibility of a diversion center and the options on how we could potentially have add one to San Antonio. So since, on the next slide, the ad hoc committee that has Again, as co-chair by Councilmember Terry Castillo and Bexar County Commissioner Justin Rodriguez has met several times. The committee members included our representatives in the City of San Antonio side. We have the Police Department, our Metro Health Department, Homeless and Strategy, and Municipal Court. On Bexar County, we have the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney, the 379th Criminal District Court, justice intake and assessment annex, reentry program, the probation office, and public health. We also have stakeholders outside the county and the city that include our Center for Healthcare Services, which is our mental health authority for Bexar County, the Alamo Area Council of Governments, University Health, and Centro. The committee had developed a roadmap to begin our discussions on the feasibility of a diversion center. The Center for Healthcare Services prior to the CCR had started work about discussions about having a feasibility study and the city is participating in that process. We are supporting the program financially and the actual study has started. and they have an update today for the committee. So the faces that you see on the slide is looking and defining the central mission of the Ad Hoc Committee, how we are looking at the landscape within our city and county government in terms of the services that we provide. There are several programs that both the county and the city have to divert individuals from jail. And we have discussed that we've also are identifying gaps and opportunities for both the city and the county to collaborate. So on the following slide, you can see the times that we have met so far. We have met four times. We also, through the leadership of Councilmember Castillo, we have visited other facilities in Texas and our own facilities here in San Antonio. So what we're gonna do today is we have our Center for Healthcare Services on the following slide who's gonna be providing a presentation that is gonna focus on a pilot program to begin the diversion program. One of the things that we have discussed at the task force and the AHA committee is the benefit of the work that CHCS is conducting in terms of that feasibility study for a permanent facility. But given the need and the opportunity that we have today, CHCS has taken the lead to develop a pilot program that you're gonna be brief on today. We have had conversations with the AHA committee to consider a six month pilot program. And that is this particular program, this pilot program is funded by the city, the county, and University Health. Those are discussions that we have had. What we are recommending to the Public Safety Committee is that we move this pilot program and the funding associated with this request, which is roughly about $625,000 from the city for a total of six months, and in conversation with Councilmember Castillo, we can fund this from the Westside TURS, so there's no additional cost to our general fund. So that is a consideration for today. So what we are gonna do next is, Ms. Jalene Burley from Center for Healthcare Services will provide a presentation, and then the action will be to forward this to our full council as part of the police department budget work session that is scheduled for next week. Tomorrow we have a briefing to the council about our different tours, and you'll see this item as potential action for council to consider on September the 10th. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jalynn for the presentation. And after that presentation, both Jalynn and I will be available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Maria. Good afternoon. If you would flip to the center presentation. Thank you. So I asked that this single paper be passed out because slide 19 is an eye chart, and so I'm sharing it just to show you the, illustrate the metrics that we're talking about for our law enforcement partners for the pilot. So when we were before you in January this year, we discussed the plans for the Center for Healthcare Services to begin work with a feasibility study and a plan for treatment center that would be available for individuals who are eligible for diversion from our jail uh... we reported that there had been a lack of diversions from the bear county jail post and evaluation of the operation at our jail intake center there was a move to streamline those operations and since that time individuals have not been able to be diverted after arrest and processing at our jail intake center at that time we also referenced you can advance we also reference several studies that have been conducted one that was sponsored by bear county it was the evaluation of our jail intake annex as well as a study commissioned by university health and there were several findings in that study one was to improve the health facilities at our jail The second was to create a diversion center, a treatment center for those individuals who are eligible for diversion from the jail. And finally, a psychiatric hospital for our general population here in Bexar County. So the landscape since then has changed. We have experienced the closure of 330 beds at our Lowell Ridge hospital, uh, which CHCS contracted 22 of those beds for individuals who are unfunded. I apologize that jails deaths are in red. There was no emphasis there. It's just a mistake, but we are monitoring those deaths that have occurred at the jail. And we're looking at the profiles of those individuals. And we do believe there were opportunities for many of those individuals to be diverted from jail and into treatment. So we want to thank you because the city of San Antonio has been a partner with this work group in looking at the feasibility for a treatment center. And so that diversion center planning is underway. So this afternoon, I'm going to share with you the status of the work group and how we are working in alignment with the ad hoc committee. and then present the proposal for a pilot. So first I'll give you an update on the work plan. So we hired the University of Texas at Houston, their School of Public Health. They are our consultant working on this project. We designed a six-meeting plan for this work group. We were ensuring that we are in alignment with the overall work that's happening with the city county ad hoc committee as they are looking at all opportunities for diversion. We are currently halfway through the planning process. We are currently conducting stakeholder interviews. We've had a tremendous response to all of the individuals desiring to be interviewed to gather feedback on the potential for this treatment center. And I would say the overriding responses, there are those who have indicated there is a need and there is support for it. And if there's anyone else who would like to be interviewed or provide that feedback, certainly still time to do so. We estimate that we will be completed with the recommendations in early 2027, so around the January at the beginning of the year. So the Center for Healthcare Services is the convener for this group.

Can I use this too?

Okay. Nope. Too far. So we are the convener for the work group. And as I mentioned, we do work to stay in alignment with the work that the ad hoc city County committee is taking on. The work group includes participation by the city of San Antonio, the departments listed by bear County university health, UT health at Houston, our Strack and central San Antonio. The participation of STRAC is very interesting, and I'll explain later why. So I wanted to give you a synopsis of the work plan. So we have met three times. In our first meeting, we established guiding principles for this plan development. We also talked about the benefits of having a treatment center. the gaps in our current services. We talked about the eligibility and target population, the medical complexity of this population, how we would navigate those individuals through the system, the community and political considerations for operating a treatment center such as this, as well as infrastructure required to support this effort. In our second meeting, we talked about the types of arrest data, the volume of arrest, the kinds of offenses that we were seeing, the highest frequency offenses. We reviewed our frameworks for managing this population. So we looked at the sequential intercept model. We also looked deeply at our current law enforcement navigation system that is managed by STRAC. So we took a look at the booking timelines that individuals who are arrested and waiting to be magistrated, we looked at that entire process. We looked at the fragmentation of our current systems. We also looked at who is screening, how those individuals are screened, all of the workflows, who is accountable for all of the processes, as well as sought the district attorney's office involvement. And then our third meeting, um, we began to collect all of the data necessary to help us and inform us in the permanent plan. And so we, we just last week reviewed, uh, all of the legislation that could possibly be a barrier to this treatment center. We found very few. Uh, we also looked at information that we gathered from San Antonio police department, as well as the bear County sheriff's department, uh, on low level charges. we looked at some criminal history research trying to understand recidivism rates with the criminal history of individuals uh... we talked about the themes that we were seeing in our stakeholder interview process as i mentioned earlier there seems to be overwhelming support to support a treatment center like this uh... so now we're beginning we did look at some operational workflows at our current GIA We did talk a bit about a pre-arrest pilot and I'm going to give you some details on that. Transportation for these individuals and just the whole continuity of care. So coming up next, In our fourth meeting, we're going to give ourselves more time. We've been meeting about once a month. We're going to expand this next timeframe to about six weeks, because this is where we begin to analyze all of the data, the stakeholder interviews to arrive at some original recommendations for this treatment center. And we want to begin to define the clinical wraparound service array, look at the staffing model for the facilities. We think by that time we may arrive at an actual size or number of beds for a permanent facility, understanding that we have opportunities at pre-arrest. We have opportunities during the intake process, and we want to make sure we capture any other opportunity we have in the community to divert a person and get them into treatment at the right time at the right facility. So that's what is occurring now in anticipation of coming back together in a mid-October timeframe to complete that work. And then what we have left ahead is our fifth and sixth meetings looking at the aftercare process and the community resources that will need to be available for this population. And so we're beginning to engage our social services community so that we can understand some of the barriers and challenges they have because we will certainly need to navigate and connect these individuals to all of the services that we have available here in San Antonio. And then finally, in our final meeting, we'll be determining estimated cost, the scope and service levels for this facility, or for the entire continuum of care, both the treatment initially for diverted individuals, the aftercare, and then their navigation with social services to get them on their way. we think will culminate by the end of the calendar year and we'll be in a position to share this plan at the beginning of 2027. So I'm gonna share with you some of the data that we began to collect. So when we were at our second ad hoc meeting, I shared with the ad hoc committee just pulling the Bexar County information from the jail from January at that time through May. And we could see it was very high level. It was anybody in the jail currently in those months with a screened mental health diagnosis or substance use diagnosis and having violated a low level criminal trespass offense. And you can see the numbers for January through May. So from that, we arrived that there are about 56% of those arrested from that time frame 56% of them with a low level criminal trespassing charge had a mental health need and it averaged about 78 individuals per month. So we began to see that there are, there is justification for an opportunity to divert individuals out of the jail, which would aid in reducing law enforcement time with the individuals, as well as reducing some of the overcrowding that we experienced in our jail. This information was provided by San Antonio police department. It is their misdemeanor arrest for 2025. And I would just call your attention in the first area, just criminal trespass alone. We had 1700 arrest in this first sample of individuals for table one and table two, those with a mental health flag, that number was 612 for criminal trespassing. In table number three, for those individuals who are flagged as unsheltered with criminal trespass violation, 805. And then in table four, we're illustrating those with a mental health and or unsheltered flag, criminal trespassing at 1,120. So you can see we are certainly have a number of individuals who fall into this eligibility criteria that we are proposing as we go forward. When you look at the arrest to booking time for those individuals in Table 1 for criminal trespass alone, arrested, no warrant charge, it's about eight hours to be the time from arrest to booking. And then if you look at Table 2, criminal trespass again, arrest, No warrant. It's a little over 12 hours to be processed time from arrest to booking. So those slides show that for the three offenses currently, it takes about eight hours for bear County sheriffs and about 12 hours for SAPD to go from arrest to booking at our jail intake center. That's about eight to 12 hours that an individual. while going through that booking process can risk worsening their mental health and or substance use and will decompensate, can decompensate and present health challenges. What we are proposing to do would allow this person to get into treatment much earlier and get them into treatment at the right place at the right time and so what we are proposing would be a pilot to practice some of that so it can better inform our ultimate recommendation for a permanent treatment center. We believe this would also aid in the return to service time for SA police. They have shared with us it's about a 15 minute target to get them back into service. We have very good success with the sobering center that we operate at 601 Frio. It's a center for public intoxication. law enforcement brings an individual there in between five and 10 minutes, we take demographics and those individuals are exchanged and they are left with us. Law enforcement can then return to service. So I'm going to move now and talk a little bit about the pilot. When we met at the, at the Strat facility, um, we, we talked at length about an opportunity for a, a grant. to help fund this. While we agreed not to pursue that grant, we did want to look for other opportunities to investigate and determine eligibility criteria and try a pilot because while we have visited other facilities in Harris County, we're planning another visit in September to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There's nothing like trying something piloting it so that it is more focused for this community. And while there are many similarities in the population, um, we're different. And so we want to make sure that we are proposing a plan that works for this community and works with this community. And so we are recommending that we test this pilot for six months. We test the intercept model. Uh, we're targeting at its early opportunity for pre-arrest. We are proposing a specific geographic area for law enforcement, which would include the central and downtown substations with SAPD. And we are looking at two very low-level offenses, non-residential criminal trespassing and non-residential theft. We're proposing the pilot be held at 711 East Josephine Street. This facility is located in District 2. We currently operate it as a crisis respite center. We currently operate 16 beds there. The SMART team is housed out of this facility as well as other functions for CHCS. Years ago, it functioned as our children's outpatient clinic, but we have moved that in years. And so we currently operate this as a crisis respite center. Individuals stay with us on an average of seven days. It's a step-down facility. Many hospitals refer individuals there. We do have individuals that are referred from our 601 Frio location, which is our psychiatric emergency center. Um, so it is a facility that is in use with a very similar purpose. And so we have a, an available wing and we are recommending that 15 beds be dedicated for this pilot. As I mentioned earlier, the pilot focus area would be our central and downtown police substation response area. The eligible offense agreed upon by San Antonio Police Department, Bexar County, and the DA's office is non-residential criminal trespassing, as well as non-residential theft under $100 value. The diversion action would be a pre-arrest and coordination. So when law enforcement engages an individual that has violated these two offenses, he would then, or he or she, would contact MEDCOM. We have clinicians that are located at MEDCOM and they would go through a screening process with law enforcement and the individuals, and the goal would be to have voluntary admission to the treatment center at Josephine Recovery Center. The average length of stay at most of the diversion centers starts out at 14 days, and we are holding with that standard. We do know through experience those stays are shorter. Um, and we do, we are proposing an aftercare goal of up to 90 days for these individuals. We were asked by the IHOP committee to recommend a governance structure for this pilot. And our goal would be this governance structure would then transition with the permanent plan as well. So, as I mentioned, um, Strak was an important component of this pilot. We are recommending. that this program be treated as an additional tool in our crisis care continuum, and that STRAC would be the convener. We have proven results with them as a collective impact effort, pulling health professionals and law enforcement professionals and funders together, working to secure our crisis continuum. We can pivot very quickly and make process changes when we find something is not working as we originally anticipated. And so we think this will be very successful. Law enforcement works a lot with MedCom today through law enforcement navigation. It is a credible source for law enforcement. And we think with the use of the clinicians, we can assist law enforcement in determining whether an individual should be arrested or this individual is eligible for diversion to treatment. and not put all of that onus on law enforcement. Um, we have proven success record with the development and consensus on shared goals as we've worked through our crisis continuum. So we are, we are recommending Stratton be the convener and the governance structure would include the representatives that you see on this slide. So I want to update this slide because we shared this information with city staff on Friday and we've been working with STRAC because we had a last minute request of STRAC to be the convener. And so the average bed day rate is not 682. It is 699. And the monthly operational cost having STRAC as a convener is $319,185. So that's six month cost. is 1.9 million and one third of that is $638,370. The annual cost for this current location would be $3.8 million, but we are not recommending a 12 month operation. We're recommending six months at this time. So the item that I handed out is a copy of the metrics. So we have gone over with law enforcement, um, and our partners at ad hoc. In fact, the metrics that would be collected by Strack for these individuals that we're engaging for diversion to treatment, there will be outcome measures as well. However, once this governance structure is established, those at the governing table will determine what outcome measures we want to track and how we want to report the results of this program. So again, we are recommending Strack as the convener for this new program. We do have an outreach plan. I did not want to get out ahead of the council or District 2. This facility is located off Josephine Street at 711, but we do have an outreach plan that would meet with the neighborhood organizations, let the neighbors know what's going on. We're not proposing law enforcement would be with sirens on and blazing to the facility. They visit the facility every day today. As I mentioned, our SMART team operates out of that facility. The SMART team is the team of EMS clinicians in Bexar County. It's much like your core team, but it has Bexar County law enforcement attached to it, and we have individuals that live there all the time. But we do want to reach out to the residents and businesses of the area to make them aware of what we're proposing, and we are ready to initiate that plan once we get your feedback. Uh, as I mentioned, um, there are some one-time improvements that we need to make at the facility. CHCS is pursuing philanthropic funding for those one-time improvements. So we're not asking the city county or university health to participate in those one-time fundings. Um, and we think we can implement the changes because it will be 24 seven. It will be a secure facility. We will have staff there 24 seven, much like we do today. and we think we can complete that work by the end of the calendar year and be ready to accept clients in early 2027. So we are asking to go to the full council and secure funding for this pilot, and I will stop there and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, JoLynn, for the presentation. We do have one person signed up to speak, and that's Alex Hester with UT Health.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Alex Hessa. I'm an associate professor at UT Health Houston and the contractor for the feasibility study. I just wanted to make three brief points in support of the pilot program. First, as mentioned, As part of the feasibility study, I've been talking with a large amount of stakeholders in the city. I've conducted 35 interviews in the past month. It's been a busy month. That includes individuals who work in law enforcement, who work in various health agencies, work for nonprofits, and it includes individuals with lived experience of incarceration. Across the board, all these individuals are supportive of having a diversion center here in Bexar County. And they've really emphasized the need to start on this and start trying it and testing it to see how it would work. Second part, as we heard from the presentation, ad hoc committee, Councilmember Castillo and Commissioner Rodriguez, the co-chair, has been meeting and has made great progress toward understanding how a diversion center could operate and whom it could serve. I feel like there has been a framework that just is getting ready to be put into test to see how the actual operations work. The final point I want to make is that as part of my study, not only have we visited numerous diversion centers throughout the state, but I've talked with the directors of all other diversion centers in the state. That includes in Harris County, Tarrant County, Dallas County, and Travis County that's currently piloting their program. Across the board, when I ask them for advice, all of them say the same thing. While planning is important, you'll never really understand how your diversion center works and the best practices until you start piloting it. They all recommend moving toward a pilot as quickly as possible. Well, plan a bit, but move to the pilot and understand your operations. Don't waste time because that's when you really learn how your diversion center works and how you have to tailor it for your specific community and your specific community's needs. So I wanted to bring forth that message that the other diversion centers in Texas have learned from their practices for operating for several years and give that advice here to Bexar County. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Alex. And can you just really quickly clarify if they also recommended six months? Did other diversion centers give you any timeline recommendations?

No other diversion centers gave a clear timeline recommendations. For instance, in Harris County, they stood up their diversion center quite quickly, so they had a pretty short pilot period. They were working under a quick period of time. I think that each, in my experience talking to them, each city is unique in terms of their level of funding, their overall resources, and so I think each community needs to do what works for them.

Great, thank you so much for your support on this. I also want to enter into the record a letter of support from Commissioner Grant-Mudy, Precinct 3, and I'll just read a quick sentence that he has in the letter for the folks here. As the challenges facing our jail and criminal justice system require action on multiple fronts, we need better medical screening, treatment, gender, behavioral health, competency, restoration capacity, appropriate diversion, and a plan to address our facility and bed space needs. And he shouts out Council Member Castillo and Commissioner Rodriguez as well. I also had a verbal support from Jordan Gowey that's representing STRAC as they also demonstrated support for this moving forward. I'm going to hand it over to Councilwoman Castillo to give her comments.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Maria Angeline, for the presentations. I also wanted to express my gratitude to Maria Vargas who has been helping us facilitate these conversations and has been lending her expertise in terms of just her institutional knowledge of other gel diversion centers throughout the state of Texas and across the United States. I would be remiss if I didn't express my gratitude to the working group, so the Center for Healthcare Services, for being that convener and engaging a wealth of experts in terms of where is there opportunity for the City and Bexar County to move forward and of course the Ad Hoc Committee as well. It's a very robust group of individuals but I wanted to highlight Trish DeBerry for being very involved and engaged prior to this work talking about the need to provide access to care and how we can increase the amount of psychiatric beds and just the need to connect residents to much needed services that are limited. So I wanted to express my thanks to each and every one of the ad hoc and working group community members. I know many of the folks in the room are well aware that Bexar County is one of the remaining major counties that does not have some type of diversion center and or access to care and while bear county and the city of san antonio do have forms of jail diversion such as specialty courts as well as community courts we do not have a pre-arrest diversion program so what we're talking about here is that pre-arrest approach ensuring that before an individual in need hits a magistration process whether that's with the city and or county is diverted based off of the criteria that was laid out today and agreed upon by the District Attorney, the BCSOs and of course the SAPD would potentially be diverted and connected to access to care. I think as Dr. Testa mentioned, what's unique about what's being proposed today is that it's tailored for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio There is no copy-paste approach in providing access to care because we each have our own unique populations and then each county has their community assets. I'm grateful at the ad hoc committee, Dr. Potter with Be Well presented just a wealth of resources that exist throughout Bexar County and how there's further opportunity beyond deflection, pre-arrest deflection and diversion to connect individuals to much needed care. But I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the role of our public safety officials. So grateful for Chief Jansen and Chief Salome for their leadership and convening with the district attorney's office to discuss what is the expectation of our public safety officials. with moving forward in this discussion and this direction. As the commissioner laid out within his letter, there's just so much of a need for us to explore all forms of diversion and pre-arrest reflection for a number of reasons, right? We know rehabilitating individuals has cost savings in terms of how much it costs to incarcerate an individual, whether it's at the Bexar County Jail, and or within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. And it's good for the individual and there's cost savings, right? We know every city of San Antonio resident is a Bexar County resident. And right now, the last numbers I saw, I'm grateful that we aren't seeing as many inmates housed at Kerr and Burnett County, but there are costs associated with us having to send inmates elsewhere. So just highlighting that connection in terms of the cost, we're all experiencing a deficit, and this has more return in the long run, right, because we're either going to have to pay for services down the road or now by connecting folks to much-needed rehabilitation. So I'm eager to see the development of what a long-term plan looks like, grateful for the recommendation of Center for Healthcare Services and what their pilot's going to to look like what it's going to address. I'm hopeful as things evolve, we can explore including vacant lots. For example, I see right now it's limited for no trespassing for commercial property. Within District 5 and near the central substation, for example, we have vacant lots that are residential, right? So I want to ensure that those individuals that may have the police caught on them have an opportunity for pre-arrest deflection as well. So I understand it's what's currently proposed was agreed upon but I'm hopeful as it evolves that there's opportunity to expand it to provide more opportunity for folks to receive much needed care. Um, those are my comments for now. Um, grateful that city staff has identified, uh, the West side tours. I'm supportive of, uh, and I shared that I would be supportive of using the West side tours to support the pilot. Um, but I'm hopeful that, uh, our county partners and university health will, uh, jump on board with funding the pilot as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilwoman, um, council member white.

Thanks, Chair. Begin by just thanking Councilwoman Castillo for her leadership on this. I think that this is gonna be really good for the community if we do it properly, and she spearheaded this from the get-go, and I think this is really, really good work on behalf of you and your office, and so thank you for that. Quick questions. One, the funding the Councilwoman mentioned, this is Westside TURs funding?

That is correct, Councilman. And tomorrow you're going to see that on the briefing that we have to the Council on all the different city-initiated TURs. And you will also see in that presentation that we're recommending Council action on this funding on September 10th.

Okay, great. Yeah, I think this is good use of those TERS dollars and one of the reasons that we have these TERS. So thank you for that. Definition of success here. Have we set out like what are the metrics we're looking at in terms of, you know, after this pilot program is put into place for six months or so, whether it's worked, whether it's improved public safety, whether it's reduced the burden on SAPD and the jail, how are we gonna measure all that?

So what we're proposing is once that governance, if that is approved, the governance group will sit down and determine what success looks like using the metrics that are before you when we engage those individuals, but we did not wanna get out ahead of all of the parties that are being proposed to be a part of that governance structure.

Okay, and I do wanna note that, because I think that's important. Let's just not go into this and then get six months down the road and say, is it good or is it not? Let's get some clearly defined metrics in place to see if this is working. I guess if the pilot ends up getting extended, we would deal with how it's funded at that point? That is correct, Council Member. Okay, so we're not committing to anything right now, but we'll look at it then.

Yes.

Next thing, and it's on one of the slides, the folks, the criteria for entering this program.

For the pilot? For the pilot.

On 15, non-residential criminal trespassing and non-residential theft under $100. Yes. That's it?

Correct.

Because I know one of the slides up there dealt with drugs, but that's not in the pilot.

That's correct.

Got it. Second question there, what about people that repeatedly commit you know, a crime, whether it's criminal trespassing or continually have theft offenses under a hundred dollars. Can they get, go through diversion every single time, no matter how many times they do it or what's our, what's the rules there?

So if you will notice on the metrics we're capturing, it's on the right side, we're capturing whether individual is there two times or three times. So we're going to begin to evaluate that data so that we can determine what is the what are the after consequences of cycling through the process. Our intention is that we will work with those individuals and motivate them to stay in treatment. We do expect relapse because that's a part of this population, but we are tracking that data so that we can get an understanding of what's happening here and then determine what those consequences are.

commit six thefts under $100 and get sent to diversion every time?

You can have six engagements with law enforcement with this eligibility criteria and bring you to the treatment center and you can walk out and we're going to, yes.

Who ultimately determines whether the person's eligible?

So law enforcement would contact MEDCOM. There will be a screening protocol that's agreed upon, and so that law enforcement officer will work with the clinicians and MEDCOM on that screening protocol, and they will assess and say, yes, this individual is eligible from a mental health and or substance use standpoint. Obviously, law enforcement will determine whether they have violated the offense, and then jointly, the goal would be for that person to voluntarily go to treatment. If not, they would go to jail.

So, officer... Stop somebody on the street.

Officer responds to a call.

Committing a theft.

Criminal trespassing.

Calls MedCom while they're detaining the person. Correct. They talk it out and then officer says they committed the offense. MedCom says yes or no and then that's how it proceeds.

MEDCOM says or assists the officer in screening for mental health and substance use. Only the officer can determine the offense.

Okay, right.

And they use MEDCOM today for law enforcement navigation for emergency detention orders.

Got it. Okay. All right. Those are my questions. I think this is certainly worth... Yeah, Chief.

just want to clarify some of those questions so yeah that is a that is the call that the officer has to make they will determine if that individual has To me that the offense that's eligible within the central and the downtown service area that is a volunteer program, so the individual has to agree to participate. The officer will then we're going to work on the training to give them that option to go to the diversion Center. And at that point of the if that's what the individual wants to do the officer will then call med COM and then go to that screening process to make sure that they meet the other requirements of the diversion Center that that person's eligible. And we're going to look at those other things we've had a lot of discussions with the da's office about those repeat offenders. that's something that we're going to look at because that's going to help inform how we build this pilot or the effectiveness of this pilot and so. That's one of the things that we've talked about with regards to our folks that are going to be in and out of that facility. But there may be some of that at the beginning initially because we need to figure out what works, what that cutoff point is. It doesn't mean that it's a get out of jail free card. It's a charge that we can potentially follow up on later with the district attorney.

Yep, thank you, Chi. Again, those are the issues I think that really need to be fleshed out in the pilot. But again, Councilwoman, this is great work and happy that we're gonna, I'm happy to support it today.

Thanks, Councilmember. I think that's why they're recommending a pilot. Councilmember McKee-Rodriguez.

Thank you, and shout out to Council Member Castillo and Commissioner Rodriguez and all of you all for your work on this. I am, okay, so by the end of this, my hope is to tweak the, pilot and maybe some of the funding mechanism just a little bit, but ultimately we'll be supporting whatever we come up to. So the center is proposed to be located in Government Hill. However, the border of the downtown substation stops just before Government Hill, Dignity Hill and Denver Heights, which I think would be strategic choices for a pilot program like this. And so for the pilot, it was stated the focus areas are downtown and central substations. So does that mean that only individuals in those areas will be transported to the diversion center?

Yes. And we chose that area.

That's the area we chose because that's the highest incidence of those particular areas. Categories of the two categories and and we're looking at that particular area. It's it's close It's convenient and it allows us to kind of make make rational decisions moving forward Cost analysis of what it might mean to include individual zones such as and I I don't know if the

if safe zones right now is an appropriate example, but if you look at the safe substation map zones, three and four would include those neighborhoods. Do we know what it might cost to add in individual zones like that versus the entire substation?

No, we don't. I think I guess just because of the sort of the space limitations that we're looking for now, I think we've got enough of a clientele potentially that will help us to either if we need to expand because we're not able to get in reach enough folks that are filling the beds over the space over there. And I think that's something potentially we can look at and kind of expand maybe either zones or even particular, you know, other substations within, you know, sections of substations even.

I want to be as helpful as possible. And so Government Hill, I'll give an example. So Town Twin Village was proposed to be in District 2. It is a District 2 facility doing fantastic work with our unhoused community and getting folk off the street and into housing, getting the resources they need. A big challenge when it was first proposed and what I think some of the hesitancy in supporting facilities like that and facilities like this is you know, we're going to put this facility in our side of town or in our neighborhood, but then it's not going to help address any of the issues in our side of town. And so this, I worry, is a clear example of that. And what I would wonder is if I'll move over to funding. So I'm going to propose an idea. So this facility does not sit in the west side TURs or in any TURs. It's actually the immediate property right outside of the midtown TURs and sits just above the inner city TURs. And a large portion of the focus service areas fall within midtown, Houston, and hemisphere TUR zones. I am wondering what factors led to the decision to fund this program out of the Westside TURs versus any of the other zones, specifically noting that Westside is maybe not as healthy a fund.

I appreciate that, and I think it is important to consider as we expand the program how it can accommodate more. The argument and justification for the Westside TURs is that the targeted area with the downtown and central substation are within the Westside footprint, so where the pilot would begin Essentially, it's economic investment, economic development, right, fits the call for TERS by connecting individuals within the Westside TERS footprint or the downtown and central footprint, which is within the Westside TERS, to access to care.

So I am understanding that there is probably enough people within these two substation service areas that you wouldn't need to expand it in order to reach more people. But I do wonder if, say for example, I am looking forward to extending some of the tours in the next, Less than two weeks and I'm wondering if we committed inner-city tourist funds and potentially some other source funds To extend the zone and the timeline and maybe split some of those resources a little bit more equitably So it doesn't all have to fall on the west side tours Is that something that we can do in exchange for including those two zones?

Which would include the government Hill neighborhood that would house the facility councilman and your question is to do that for purposes of the pilot program and Jillian, I defer to you in terms of capacity.

It's unknown because it's a pilot, but we're not in the business of turning clients away. So we're going to find a way if SAPD encounters them in that zone, we're going to find a way to take the individual and get them in treatment. But I don't have any idea of the volume. I'll have to work with SAPD to see what their arrest data looks like. But we've got 16 beds on one wing and 15 beds on the other. We're going to find a way.

Council Member, can I propose something? Would you all be open to coming back in three months and giving us a progress update, and then we could determine if we needed to make any changes at that point?

Sure. And I would say, hypothetically, if this is funded by the other two partners that we're requesting funding from, CHCS and STRAC are ready to start the program January 1. So we have some time to do further study if we needed to. So yes, we could come back. Three months roughly would be maybe November before we start the pilot program, unless the desire of the committee is that we come after we start the pilot program. But either way, we're happy to come back for further discussion.

So the pilot is supposed to start January of next year or November of this year.

That is a tentative date based on CHCS. Yeah.

Improvements at the facility to get ready to receive these clients. So we're, we're estimating around January, we'll be ready to receive clients.

So then, yes, it would be nice if we receive an update and then I would be interested in, and I can, I think we have the means within the intercity tours to provide some support, even if it's disproportionate that we could I wouldn't mind splitting the cost 50-50 right if the Westside Tours is paying that portion then paying just as much or paying enough to where the burden is not so heavily placed on the Westside Tours and then we just include those two zones if that makes sense.

We'll be happy to look at it I think everybody's just nervous about being successful with this pilot but we'll look at it we'll figure it out.

And I think what might be helpful in that discussion is on that slides, I think like nine and 10 to help out, help understand what the sample size is for the central and downtown substations plus the zones. You know what I mean?

I'm thinking specifically with these two zones that I'm proposing that we add. It includes the Hay Street Bridge, it includes the Salvation Army, Haley Murphy Park, under the highways. I think it makes sense. And so I'd like to, I feel like I would not be doing my duty if I did not do everything to try that. And especially if it's going to make it more popular and more okay for the folk who will be living immediately around this facility.

Is that all? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And sorry to interrupt you so much. Thank you again, Councilman Castillo and you all, the whole team for your work here. I mean, I'm going to start with slides 9 and 10. I just think this is so interesting. And you guys know I love looking at numbers. But on slide 9 with the data, or maybe I'm off on my slide. Maybe it's 10. Sorry, it is. I'm off by one. I apologize. Why did you guys decide? So obviously there's five that we looked at. Are these five what other diversion centers actually use for their basis or how did this these five get to the short list?

I'll talk about other diversion centers and then I'll let Chief Salome address the eligibility criteria that was agreed upon for the pilot. So we're seeing a variety of charges or offenses that are eligible for diversion. And we're seeing a variety of methods on what to do with them if they leave. So whether the charge reapplies, or it doesn't, they all operate differently. But we wanted one, we want it to be successful. We want it to be very straightforward and simple with the pilot so we could educate our community, educate law enforcement, make sure that we were successful with the pilot before we came up with the permanent recommendation. So we were looking at just the volume of low-level offenses in the jail, and it's pretty significant, averaging just from January to May, 78 a month, criminal trespassing with mental health. And so when, and I'll let Chief Salome address when he met with the district attorney's office, Bexar County and SAPD, they came up with those two for this pilot.

Dr. Testa, would you like to say something as well?

Sure. I'm sorry.

I was just here in case I analyzed the data, so in case you have any questions on them. But just to add some clarification, This was in some of our initial discussions when we were trying to identify which cases could be eligible. And so what was provided here, when you look at the first number, the 31,130 up in the top corner, that's all misdemeanor arrests where there's no associated felony with them. So somebody was arrested by San Antonio Police Department in 2025, but purely for a misdemeanor. like no felony charge associated with it. So started with that and then started to look at kind of some of the top offenses that fell like within those categories to look at some of the, you know, areas that we want to target where we most commonly see that. And kind of through an iterative process, we started to weed out some offenses that would not be considered eligible for diversion. Maybe they have some violent aspects in nature and they weren't a good fit. And that's kind of how we landed with this top five for consideration. And as the Chief can talk about, through conversations with BCSO and the District Attorney's Office, kind of further narrowed that down to some offenses that fall in here.

Fascinating. and the pre-arrest. Jalynn just said that they were looking at the pre-arrest mode as opposed to all of those cases as well.

So the main thing for us is we were looking at the most low-level, nonviolent offenses that we can try. And so when you look at that list, know the one that stands out is the criminal trespass obviously that's the the assumption that we all had the data has proven that to be correct that is a class b misdemeanor and so the individuals that we are seeing that were being arrested and that were languishing in the in the jail the majority of those folks were for criminal trespass and they had low level dead bonds that they just didn't

Right, and a lot of it is our house. It's like one out of every five is our unhoused populations. Correct. And what is drug paraphernalia? Sorry, I don't know what that classifies.

So that's anybody that's possessing like something that could be used to ingest illegal drugs. So that could be like a needle to shoot up. That could be like a pipe to smoke. So that's typically a class C misdemeanor, but we're giving you kind of the universe. That's something that an officer would cite for, potentially arrest for, but they would not leave the city facility. They would go for a Class C at the city facility.

And then if you go to the next slide, this is the one that was like, oh my goodness, because you might say they're being arrested, but half of these people, almost half of these arrests are not actually turning out any warrant charges. And so, I mean, like this absolutely, I think this is the entire case for the diversion center right here in terms of warrant charges and then hours being spent. So like think about, you know, we talk about our 60-40 ratio. Think about how many hours we're going to be able to get back in police time for folks that are, to be able to go back on patrol. I'm just, this is not, I'd love to better understand, Chief, at a different time why the median hours is so different for BCSO versus SAPD, but I know that's a different conversation and I won't.

Totally different conversation.

We can have that a little bit later. Anyways, I wanted to, I had one last question, sorry. How many beds are you guys retrofitting for or fitting the 50? 50. And 50 for 14 days is like? 15. Oh, 15. One five. Oh, okay. So then we really don't have a lot of capacity for expanding. I didn't realize that. Okay.

Yeah.

And that's based on space limitations, I'm assuming.

The permanent plan will determine how large a facility needs to be for this community. But right now we had a wing available and we can accommodate 15 and still be able to accommodate all genders and occupancy in that wing.

Okay. All right. Well, here we go. Councilwoman, would you like to make a motion?

Yes. So our, plan is to begin that briefing tomorrow, because we already included that as part of the tourist conversation. And then on, and Jesse help me, I think it's September 8 or 9.

For our budget presentation, I think it's the 9th.

September 9 when...

Okay, I'm sorry, the 8th.

The 8th. Chief Salameh presents its budget for fiscal year 27. We are going to brief the entire council at that meeting. The actual action for the council on the funding is September 10th. So you can make your motion to consider this on the September 10th A session to support the funding for the pilot program.

Do you want to make that? I make a motion to support the funding for the pilot program at the September 10th meeting. Okay, so Councilwoman Castillo, I got it. Councilwoman Castillo made a motion to APPROVE THE FUNDING FOR THIS ON THE SEPTEMBER 10TH A SESSION AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE SECONDED. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?

WE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN THE OUTREACH EFFORT TO INFORM THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND BUSINESSES. IF YOU'RE OKAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO START THAT WORK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK WITH THIS APPROVAL, YOU HAVE THAT. REAL QUICK, ONE THING, CHIEF SOLOMON, WHEN YOU PRESENT AT YOUR BUDGET SESSION, CAN YOU INCLUDE, EVEN IF HALF OF THOSE 15 FOLKS ARE FROM Um sapd, which is actually probably more because you guys have more of these charges. So maybe three-fourths of them come from sapd What how many hours of time you all will save even just for the pilot for 15? Folks that are constantly does that make sense what i'm asking?

Yes, ma'am, and we'll work with uh, chief salome. I I don't know if it's going to be savings of officer time because right now we would be um, taking those individuals to the diversion center instead of the detention center. But we will evaluate that if there's any opportunity there.

Okay, just wanted to make sure we got that. All right, we've had discussions, so let's say all in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, motion carries. All right, thank you all so much for those of you that came. We're gonna really quickly just give you a brief, real high-level overview on the update for the Public Safety Committee with the Elder Abuse and Interpersonal Subcommittee. Maria's going to do that. There's printouts on the side over there if anybody wants a copy of what it is, but we gave this memo as an update to Mayor and Council, and so we're just sharing that publicly, and then we'll move on to item number five.

Thank you, Councilwoman, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time on this just to tell you that the work continues to ensure that we are doing what we can to inform our senior population of the services that are provided to the city to prevent abuse. On the interpersonal violence subcommittee, we are working with school districts to have a curriculum this fall semester. And we're happy to maybe include a presentation at the next public safety committee, so we won't spend a lot of time on the details. But the memo provides a good summary of the work that has been completed as directed by the subcommittees of this public safety committee.

Thank you, Maria. I'm excited to see the pilot for the students curriculum that the Interpersonal Violence Subcommittee is doing this fall. So thank you to DHS for your work on that. All right, we're going to go to item number five, which is the SAPD Graffiti Ordinance. I'll just give some color that Councilmember McHugh, you guys had brought this to me as a CCR and I really didn't think there was a huge need to change something that seemed like already had the right appropriate levels of address. I do think SAPD has done a good job of correcting with their officers things that might be occurring. I also know that folks are calling in on themselves to try to like rile up SAPD officers. So I want to make sure we have a robust conversation or have a conversation here to clear up any miscommunication that is actually occurring and just clear up where SAPD officers stand. I will also say that Chief Salome only oversees SAPD. So he does not

Oversee DPS or any of the other state officers that you might see in videos that are being posted So I'll pass it over to you Chief Salome All right, good afternoon chair and members of Public Safety Committee today I want to walk you through the current graffiti ordinance specifically the issue surrounding the definition of a graffiti implement with respect to chalk and So the goal here today is not to change our approach to graffiti enforcement really about making sure that the ordinance is clear practical and aligned with what we're trying to accomplish so just i'll cover five things today the legal definitions under the state law in our city ordinance what qualifies as a graffiti implement under the current ordinance third what our enforcement data is telling us and fourth some considerations and finally the clarification we're recommending So at the state level, the Texas penal code defines graffiti and identify specific implements, including things like paint, indelible markers and engraving. Our city ordinance goes a little bit further. The ordinance defines graffiti and graffiti implements more broadly than it does in the penal code. And the ordinance also establishes that graffiti is unauthorized and refers back to the penal code for the applicable penalty. And lastly, the ordinance addresses unlawful possession of a graffiti implement under certain circumstances. So the issue that we're gonna try to address today isn't whether graffiti should be enforced. It absolutely should, and it will continue to be enforced. The question is whether the current definition of a graffiti implement is broader than it needs to be, particularly when it comes to chalk. So looking at graffiti implements, the current ordinance defines a graffiti implement to include aerosol paint, felt tip markers, paint sticks, etching tools, and adhesive materials. The ordinance then defines a paint stick broadly enough to include a solid form of paint, chalk, wax, epoxy, or similar substance that can be applied by pressure and leave a visible mark. And because chalk falls within that definition, it could potentially be treated as a graffiti implement under the possession ordinance. And this creates a distinction that I think is important for us to address. So we want our officers focused on intentional, damaging and permanent graffiti. We don't want them spending their resources treating an ordinary piece of sidewalk chalk the same way we would as a marker, a paint or etching tool. So we looked at what this actually looks like in practice. So from 2024 to 2026, year to date, SAPD recorded 147 class C offenses related to graffiti They were under the graffiti statute of those 136 involved graffiti under the penal code while only 12 involved possession of graffiti implements under the city ordinance. So possession cases are relatively uncommon. And that's important because it tells us that this isn't a major enforcement tool that we're taking away from officers. We're simply talking about clarifying a provision that is used relatively infrequently. Um, you can see that enforcement is not evenly distributed across the city. The largest number of reported cases are occurring in districts one and five. So we also looked at what happens after these citations are issued. And since 2024, 22% of the graffiti related class C citations resulted in a conviction. The remaining cases resulted in other outcomes, a deferral, uh, dismissals or diversion. So again, I think this just reinforces a point that we should be thoughtful about where we're directing our enforcement efforts and make sure that the ordinance is accomplishing what we actually intended to. So here's some... Hold on, let me pass one up. So our considerations, I think first, the enforcement for unlawful possession of graffiti implements is relatively infrequent and the conviction rate is low. So second, We believe removing chalk from the paint stick definition gives our officers a more practical enforcement tool and allows us to focus on the types of graffiti that cause the greatest damage to property. And third, removing chalk from this particular definition does not mean that every situation involving chalk is automatically beyond police enforcement. If a non-permanent marking like chalk creates a legitimate public safety or criminal issue, the penal code provides other potential avenues including criminal mischief, and disorderly conduct depending on the circumstances. And again, this is just really about making sure that we're distinguishing between graffiti that causes damage and something that can be washed away. So here's a, based on that review and discussion with the city attorney's office, we're recommending a clarification to the ordinance. The proposed language would clarify the definition of graffiti and importantly modify the definition of a paint stick so that the substance must leave a visible and indelible mark when applied. That gives us a much clearer distinction between something like permanent paint or another substance designed to leave a lasting mark versus ordinary chalk that is designed to be temporary and removable. Importantly, this change still allows us to enforce possession of items capable of making a more permanent markings under the circumstances described in the ordinance. So in simple terms, we're just clarifying the ordinance so that our enforcement efforts are focused on graffiti that actually damages property. And so again, we believe this clarification that we're being presented here today will make the ordinance more practical, gives our officers clearer guidance, and allows us to focus our resources on the types of graffiti that creates real property damage and quality of life concerns. That concludes my presentation. I'll take any questions.

Thanks, Chief. Just a really quick clarification. The slide five is total graffiti. This is not chalk graffiti.

Correct. That's total. That's total graffiti cases.

Got it. And there's no we don't have a way to look at chalk graffiti cases, right?

No, ma'am. Not specifically. Yeah.

OK, let's go to public comment and then we'll whip around a council discussion. Pedro Ruiz.

Hello, City Council. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion that chalk art is not a crime. My name is Pedro Ruiz, and I'm with Project Unidad. And we provide mutual aid at 3523 Crosspoint every Tuesday for the past 12 weeks. And sometimes we draw on the sidewalks with chalk art and bring messages of hope to make immigrants great in America. ICE should not criminalize us as an organization or any organizations for drawing on public sidewalks. No human being is illegal. Immigrants make America great. And I just want to let you know before I say thank you for your time, I just want to let you all know that I also participate at Chalk It Up. every October downtown. So nobody's criminalized there. And everybody draws on the sidewalk. And there's lots of artists, a lot of people coming around in San Antonio for that event. And for the last year, there was about four people that died at Woodlawn Lake. There was one this weekend. So what I do is I used barbecue charcoal briquettes that people leave there, and I'll go draw big emojis to the area where the bodies were found. And so it's in a way kind of like chalk art, but you use the barbecue briquettes. So I take pictures of my emojis after I created them. So it's in a way kind of like chalk art. But with the rain, it's going to go away. And I just want to let you know that I support art. I support chalk art. And it's not a crime. Thank you.

Hello, I've spoke at city council about this 24 times. Those possession of graffiti implements charges, I'm pretty sure those are all me. Because whenever they write these citations, sometimes they write 21-281, which is graffiti, but they know that that won't stick because in Leon Valley, they wrote that for me as well, and I... was arrested for a few minutes, and I want a settlement, and all of local news, KSAC, KINS, San Antonio Express, San Antonio Current, SA Report, several of them covered it in the news. They threw Leon Valley under the bus, and Leon Valley said, hey, we're sorry. Police chief apologized. The city manager apologized. They realized this is not a good use of our money. This is bad for how our police officers are judged. Just this year, I've had over 30 million views, making San Antonio law enforcement look really, really bad. And SAPD got blamed for a lot of it. And, you know, I have an issue with some of the officers, but SAPD has not written me one of these citations in... I think the last time they wrote me a citation for chalk, it was in 2024. It's been San Antonio Park Police who wrote me these citations. And San Antonio Park Police, I think they're doing this because maybe y'all told them to. I don't know, like possession of sidewalk chalk in a public park. is a very strange ticket to get. Like SAPD sees it, no issue. I've done hundreds of art pieces throughout the whole city. Most of the time I'm not messed with. SAPD, like I've said, has not been messing with me for so long. San Antonio Park Police. There was a shooting over there at the basketball court in Hemisphere Park. I went there yesterday and I did the paces from the basketball court to the San Antonio Park Police headquarters. It is 21 paces, 60 feet. There was a shooting 60 feet from Park Police headquarters. There's been multiple shootings over there. You can't stop the shootings but send three and four police officers at me at once. Multiple times there's been like two sergeants and two officers. And this is so weird to me because I'm like, I'm not a big dude, I'm a tiny guy. Oh, I need to cover the most important thing. The ordinances it's written is perfectly fine. It does mention chalk within a device. And I bought in an example of that This is a chalk marker. If I were to mark on concrete or on any porous surface in here with this chalk marker, it would leave a mark that would break Texas Penal Code 2808. And then there's also the thing that like, even if y'all were to try to make sidewalk chalk illegal, I don't understand law, I'm not a lawyer, but there is like local government code 51.002 which stops the city from making ordinances that like go over the Texas Penal Code that are more strict than that. And that's a pretty new thing. It just came out in 2023. I don't know if I'm understanding it right or not. But like in 2024, I was put in jail for 20 hours over sidewalk chalk. And I was arrested in Cattleman Square. That's the District 5 one up there. And If any of y'all have been to Cattlemen's Square, there's human feces all over the place. There's property owners. The Rich Book Building is owned by, I think David Adelman is his name. He's on the board for Centro San Antonio. Like there are poop stains going down this man's house. There's a porta potty in that area that's right by a convenience store. The porta potty doesn't have a roof. So like a person could, I don't know, pleasure themselves in there or a person can be using the restroom in there and peek over. I've already said everything so much. Thank you for time to speak.

Thank you. Michael Pacheco.

Good afternoon, committee members and committee chair, deputy city manager, and the chief. My name is Michael Pacheco, and I'm the general manager for Central San Antonio and the ambassadors, right? They're cleaning ambassadors downtown. I'm here today because of this item, the fence of being supportive and not being supportive of this because of the obstacles we have to, that we run across in District 1 downtown and part of District 5. But I wrote down some things that maybe can clarify our stance that could be helpful. We support public art and creative expression. But before the city approves an unrestricted sidewalk chalk, council needs to consider the sanitation, maintenance, accessibility, public safety, and financial consequences, especially in downtown San Antonio Central Public Improvement District. Or maybe we should restrict the PID from having chalk art. We have thousands of people and visitors downtown that are walking and walking You know, it's just really busy times for us. The downtown reality is Central Public Improvement District ambassadors pressure wash and disinfect downtown sidewalks five nights a week, including 92 bus stops. The central pressure washing team has cleaned and disinfected 32,888,932 square feet of sidewalk year-to-date for fiscal year 26. They are heavily used public walking spaces where our Central Bachelors encounter food, waste, trash, body fluids, animal waste, and unsanitary material. Adding chalk creates another maintenance issue that needs to be addressed. I ask, the Constantine's probably asked themselves, what qualifies public art, and then how do we address hate speech when it's written on public sidewalks? Who removes the chalk and when? So there's got to be a timeline. Once it's on there, is it on there forever? There's also concerns that when it rains, the chalk goes into the storm drains. We recapture our water to prevent anything from going there, including bird fecal matter. When downtown, the clean contractor, us, when are we expected to remove it once it's on the ground? And again, the time frame. Our team is on a schedule and cannot stop to determine, I don't want them to stop to determine if they need to go around the chalk. They're instructed to follow the schedule. And so we're disinfecting as much as we can. My first figures of 32 million square feet, that's all disinfected, has to be. How will the ADA ramps, tactical warning surfaces, crosswalk approaches, and pedestrian safety be protected? Will bus stops be excluded? Will council designate areas rather than unrestricted chalking downtown? Council should consider chalk doesn't stay on the sidewalks, right? Thousands of pedestrians walk across the sidewalks every day. Chalk can be tracked from the shoes, from the businesses, restaurants, hotel offices, creating cleaning problems for private property owners. If business owners just say, hey, your sidewalk chalk is tracked into my building, who's going to clean it? Who pays for that? I had more, but thanks.

And if you'd like to submit them, you can submit your comments if you'd like. You can submit your comments if you'd like. OK. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and start off discussion. And clarifying, if we move this to an A session, when does this go into effect? It's 10 days or so after the A session?

Liz says yes. Okay, sorry.

I should be looking at Liz. Yes, okay. And so that's the action that we'll be considering today, right? Yes, to move it to an A session. Okay. And I'll just say that I know you guys have already been working with SAPD and Park Police, but just doubling down on making sure we are enforcing for the right reasons. And at the same time, I want to make it very clear that we should be treating all of our officers with the same respect we want them to treat us with. And so mutual respect is really important when we're walking into office buildings and yelling and screaming in people's faces. It doesn't make anybody want to work together in a collaborative way. So just want to reiterate that we should be treating everyone with mutual respect. And also hopefully this will allow everybody to know that circles and et cetera are okay. But at the same time, again, I want to make sure we know that we're not going to tolerate any kind of hate speech written in chalk. And so that is all still going to be offensible. But at least we will make crystal clear that if it's sidewalk chalk that can be washed off, that it will be acceptable and they will not be arrested solely on the fact for doing sidewalk chalk.

Let me make a point of clarification. Let me make a point of clarification. So as it relates to the graffiti ordinance and the definition, that's the proposal that we're changing. There is a situation, there are certain circumstances where sidewalk chalk can be considered a violation. It would be a criminal mischief. for the owner, so that would be a substantial inconvenience to the owner. So there may not be a monetary amount that's set in the statute, but for somebody like the gentleman was describing the, the inconvenience having to go out there and clean it up could, uh, result in a citation and or a rest potentially for sidewalk.

But that would be on private private property, not on city right away.

That would be on, on property. Yes. That belongs to an owner or a situation where somebody has, um, the authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Right.

So not on city right away, not typically on city right away, unless there's a, unless there's somebody from the city. With maybe Public Works or something saying hey, we this should not be here for to the example Maybe it's something that it's not butterflies and rainbows, but it's something that's offensive Okay.

All right. I think that's all of the questions. I have councilmember white Thanks chair.

Yeah, that was really my question here is is somebody Takes chalk and draws a pornographic picture or something on a sidewalk. What what happens? I

violation. It could be, you know, there's, you know, something that's a utter disorderly conduct, like an infant, uh, an offensive, uh, gesture or display. That's a violation. Um, if somebody sees it and complains about it and, or an officer comes up on it. So that would, that's a violation of for sure. Disorderly conduct.

Okay. And curse words to not necessarily curse words.

Um, it really just depends on the, you know, curse words at the, at the park where kids are playing potentially. Yes.

Yeah, so if it's next to a park and it says, you know, some curse word and some sort of saying or whatever it is, that could still be a violation of something?

Yeah, potentially either disorderly conduct or potentially criminal mischief, depending on the implement and how it's displayed.

And what if it's not close to a park where kids play? It's just on a random sidewalk in downtown San Antonio.

if there's a complaint about it and somebody is responsible for that, if it's in front of somebody's store or somebody's shop, they're writing on it, potentially they're the complainant. But if it's a random sidewalk or across San Antonio and somebody wrote it and we don't know who wrote it, I mean, there's not much we can take a report, but I don't know that it's potentially a violation of anything.

I'M LOOKING AT THE RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE CLARIFICATION ON SLIDE 8, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT VOTING ON WHEN WE SEND THIS TO AN A SESSION. SO, YOU KNOW, THE GRAFFITI PORTION UP TOP, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY major change there, I don't think, right? It's down below, right? Chalk's eliminated and it says that these devices that are being prohibited, they have to be devices that leave an indelible mark, right? Meaning it can't be washed away. Correct. So I guess my question is just what changes here? No, yeah. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah, so what I just want to make sure is not going to happen is that all of a sudden chalk or anything that's not permanent can be used to say a bunch of things on our streets and sidewalks and public infrastructure that we don't want up there for people to see. Is all of a sudden this going to become even more widespread than it is today and then we're going to be using city resources to get out there and have to clean it up everywhere? Or are we even going to use those resources to clean it up? Who makes the determination what we wash off and what we don't?

No, and I can say we can bring it back to maybe if it is if we see an uptick in this we can bring it back to a public safety committee and actually address it. The reason why I don't think there was anything in this before is there's not a lot of people that are doing sidewalk chalk.

And so, but it may be because there's an ordinance against it. I don't know that that's the case. I mean, I'm just saying, don't we think we might need further consideration on some of these issues that Central raised and that I'm raising now? I mean, again, what gets washed off and what doesn't?

Yeah. Good afternoon, Councilmember. Savita Rai with the City Attorney's Office. I was just reminding Chief Salome that right now this is the issue before you is the possession of chalk. but as far as markings that are made either via chalk or permanent marker, code enforcement through the remainder of Article 10 under Chapter 21 has the authority to abate graffiti on public and private property.

Okay, so nothing, and I appreciate that, so just so we're clear, nothing that we would do by changing this ordinance would change our policies with respect to what we're abating? No. Right, okay. So all that we are doing here is making it, it's a violation now of the ordinance to possess chalk if it's, if it's, or, or, or how, how would you explain it?

We're just making it no longer illegal to possess chalk and, and, and, and right on a, uh, on a surface is not an indelible marking. So on, under the graffiti, um, ordinance, We have, there are other mechanisms to enforce a violation or if somebody has writing that's done that they don't want on there or an offensive display. There's other statutes, there's other codes that fit that. This is way too broad. And so the issues that we were having is it was providing unclear direction to the officers. And so they were issuing citations under graffiti and those citations were getting dismissed because they don't meet the letter of the law as it relates to the state statute. So it was too broad, the code was too broad, and so by changing this, we align it more to what the state statute is.

So let me ask you this, before doing this, okay, if there was a chalk smiley face on a sidewalk, would that be something we would abate?

I guess if somebody complained about it and wanted it off, we would send If we send code out there to remove it potentially. Yes.

And after this ordinance, if we change it, if there's a chalk smiley face on it, are we going to bait it?

If somebody calls and tells code to go clean it up? Yes.

Okay. So either way, somebody calls it's going away, regardless of what the picture or words are. Yes. You don't like my questions?

Great questions. I'm just checking in.

Are you ready to go?

That's all I have, Chair. Thanks, Council Member. Councilwoman Castillo.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chief, for the presentation. I appreciate in terms of the consideration that you all have highlighted that there are avenues in which if we do see hate speech in chalk that there are methods of accountability. I know in District 5 we have had examples of hate speech with graffiti, with spray paint, Not chalk specifically, but a concern I did have was, does this mean folks are now going to potentially use chalk to put hate speech in understand the process in which folks can report it. If someone caught in a concern of obscene photos, I would just go and dump water. It's not that hard of a solution. But again, going back to the point, grateful that you all are taking consideration on how to hold individuals accountable if necessary. I did a quick skim of Joshua's Instagram and grateful to see that I didn't see any incidences or change with SAPD. GRATEFUL THAT YOU ARE FOCUSED ON THE RIGHT THINGS IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF AND JUST WANTED TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR AGENDIZING THIS ITEM. THANK YOU.

THANKS. COUNCILMEMBER MCKAY-RUGIS.

YES, THANK YOU. AND I WAS FULLY PREPARED TO NOT SAY ANY COMMENTS AND JUST MOVE THIS FORWARD. Now there's a conflict that I want to raise and I think it speaks to the bigger issue. So I am a fan of activism, performance, art, whatever someone has to do to make their point. And sometimes that's upsetting to folk. And when I heard Centro come up, and say that the inconvenience is that people are walking, you know, people have to walk through sidewalks and they might walk into a business with sidewalk residue on their feet. I'm just not, that doesn't resonate with me, nor does, you know, we have to go out and wash this art. It feels like a conflict between Joshua and Centro and there's a this really is not a big issue that is widespread that everybody is dealing with. It is something that is happening in isolation and it is almost entirely between Centro and Joshua. And so I guess what's frustrating to me is that the idea that anybody could call SAPD, anybody could call Parks Police and say, hey, there's chalk art, can y'all come wash this off? Or that Centro receiving public funds is washing it themselves. And I've seen videos as well. Did a little scan of Lakey360 on Instagram, right? And you see him circling blood with chalk. You see him circling human excrement. He's doing that and saying, hey, it's been this long since this has been cleaned up. I'm doing this, and now it's being cleaned up by Centro. And some of that could be exaggerated. It might not be. I have nothing but what's been shown to me and what's been shared. And it also does sound like Centro is calling very frequently about this with this one person. And I'd rather y'all just, I don't know, somebody's got to grow up. because there's no reason to be offended by circles, there's no reason to be offended by butterflies, even if you get into political messaging. And I remember when I was first circling a CCR on this issue, and it does mention, except for in instances of hate speech, which would already be, it already comes with its own mechanisms of accountability I still had people asking I couldn't get signatures because folk were asking oh what if someone writes in chalk free Palestine it's like that's not hate speech and what you're trying to do is stifle political expression which I think move pivots away from the true intent of that law and of any of this and so that's the real rub I have right now I don't know that this solves it but I mean I do think it's an it's a issue of language that needs to be clarified and addressed. And so I want to move it forward, ideally to an A session as quickly as possible, but it's not going to solve the bigger issue and the bigger conflict at hand. And it's really frustrating to me that public resources are being used in this way. This is really, really silly in the same way that we have to put ordinances forth to make sure that everyone has access to a restroom. I find this extremely silly and frustrating. I'm sorry you have to spend your time on it. I'm sorry that this has become what it is, but somebody's gotta, someone's gotta resolve it. All that said, I move to send this to SEPTEMBER 10TH A SESSION.

Okay, thank you all. I will just comment that I want to extend, I think Centra does a really great job downtown. I have talked to many of your ambassadors, and I really appreciate the ambassadors. I think they're always so kind and smiling and ready to help whomever. And so I'm not going to sit up here and make accusations for anyone, but all I will say is that the video that I saw last that was sent to me was a DPS officer. and no one in this room can control anybody in DPS, unless, I mean, maybe somebody, just kidding. So I just wanna clarify that I know that our community wants to work together to make sure that downtown is a safe, place for all and inclusive for all. And at the end of the day, I'll just mention again, as Council Member White clarified several times, that if someone comes and says we want this chalk cleaned up, it'll get cleaned up, just like Council Member Castillo mentioned about the graffiti, right? If someone puts something on that wants to be abated, graffiti gets cleaned up quickly. I know chalk will work with all of our downtown partners to do the same. All right, barring another discussion, all discussion's been had, let's take a vote. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you, Chief. At 4.24 p.m., we will conclude the Public Safety Committee meeting.