>>GOODMAN: I CAN TELL YOU THAT MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING CHANNEL 6 AND THEY WILL HEAR YOUR WORDS. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE INVOCATION, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.
>> LET US PRAY. YOU NEVER TOLD US LIFE WOULD BE EASY, LORD AND OFTEN IT'S NOT. YOU GUIDE US US, STRENGTHEN US. THEREFORE YOUR GRACIOUS AND LOVING GOD WE GIVE PRAISE FOR THESE AND OUR LEADERS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THOSE WHO HAVE GREAT TRUST AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS CITY, THAT THEY STRIVE FOR ANSWERS THROUGH SOMETIMES DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, THAT THEY SEEK SOLUTIONS FOR AND CONSENSUS IN REGARD TO COMPLEX ISSUES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GUIDE THIS CITY THROUGH THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE. AND LORD IN THE SPIRIT OF OF YOU.
>> DISCUSS TRAVIS COUNTY HAVE THEY BE LOVERS OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE, COMMITTED ALWAYS TO FULFILLING THEIR ROLES OF GOOD AND FAITHFUL STEW WARDS WITH THE POWER AND AUTHORITY WE HAVE ENTRUSTED TO THEM. IN THE MIDST OF DEBATE AND DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW, GRANT THEM THE SENSITIVITY TO CARE, THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN, THE WISES DOM TO DISCERN, THE COURAGE TO ACT AND THE DETERMINATION AND UNITY OF PURPOSE TO WORK THROUGH ANY ISSUES THAT MAY DIVIDE THEM. IN THE END THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN PRESENT AND FUTURE MAY BE BEST SERVED. GUIDE THEM, OH GOD, AS THEY GO ABOUT THEIR DIFFICULT AND OFTEN IMPORTANT WORK. BLESS THEM WITH YOUR FIRM AND LOVING PRESENCE AND CAUSE US TO BE APPRECIATIVE OF THEIR EFFORTS. WE ASK THIS THIS IN YOUR HOLY NAME. A MEN.
>>GOODMAN: WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 13TH, 2000, IF EVERYBODY IS READY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS ARE IN THE BUILDING. I FORGOT TO SEE IF ANYBODY KNEW. DO WE SEE ANYBODY? WHAT WE COULD DO JUST WITH THE QUORUM, IF NOBODY HAD OBJECTION, IS WE COULD GO AHEAD AND -- REVEREND KARLI WENT AHEAD AND GAVE THE INVOCATION AND I ASSURED HIM THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE WATCHING DOWNSTAIRS ON CHANNEL 6. BUT THE FIRST THING IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAYBE WITH THE QUORUM.
>>GARCIA: SO MOVE.
>>SLUSHER: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. AND COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN AND GRIFFITH ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT. WHAT WE COULD DO -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT WE COULD FIND OUT IF ANY ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED COULD BE PUT BACK ON OR ITEMS THAT ARE ON COULD BE PULLED. AND LET ME READ THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT I THINK ARE CONSENT AT THIS MOMENT. 13, 14, 15, 17,.
>>GARCIA: WHAT WAS THAT?
>>GOODMAN: 15. 17, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, AND 65.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THREE OF THE ITEMS BACK ON CONSENT. 21 AND 26. I HAVE A COMMENT ON 26 AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. AND 32 WITH A PROPOSED CHANGE.
>>GOODMAN: 32?
>>GARCIA: 32. AND IF YOU RECOGNIZE ME AT THE APPROPRIATE I'M, I'LL HAVE A COMMENT ON 26.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM? I'LL PUT NUMBER 20 BACK ON.
>>GARCIA: WHICH ONE DID THE CITY MANAGER POINT OUT?
>> 33 IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE -- THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.
>>GARCIA: OKAY. I HAVE 12 AS TIME CERTAIN.
>>GOODMAN: YES. THE REQUEST WAS FOR 7:30 FROM COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. OKAY. LET ME GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGAIN THEN. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 WITH A COMMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, 28, 29, 32 WITH AN AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE, FROM COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, AND 65.
>>LEWIS: DID YOU SAY 43?
>>GOODMAN: 43 IS ON CONSENT.
>>LEWIS: 45?
>>GOODMAN: NOT 45.
>>LEWIS: 46?
>>GOODMAN: PULLED.
>>LEWIS: 48?
>>GOODMAN: YEAH, THAT'S CONSENT.
>>LEWIS: DID YOU SAY 47 AND 48?
>>GOODMAN: 47 AND 48 ON CONSENT AT THE MOMENT. AND ON ITEM NUMBER 49, THERE WERE MAPS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO OUT, AND I HAVE EXTRAS IF YOU DIDN'T GET THAT ON WHERE THE WOLF TRACT IS. AND A COUPLE OF ISSUES ABOUT IT RELATIVE TO THE BCP'S. THIS IS AT THE REQUEST OF SOME CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE WANTING TO TRY TO ACQUIRE THAT BUT IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR US TO LOAN, SO WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT WE CAN ENTER INTO. AND JEANNIE PLUMBER IS HERE FOR LATER IF YOU WOULD STILL LIKE FOR THAT TO BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM? 7:30 IS -- [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: ALL THREE. WELL, LAMAR HAS TO BE AT 7:30 BEFORE CRYSTAL BROOK, SO LAMAR WOULD GO FIRST.
>>LEWIS: WE CAN DO TWO AT 7:30.
>> YOU HAVE TO DO THEM IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
>>LEWIS: PARALLEL TRACTS.
>> I'M FOR DOING THAT, HEARING THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
>>GOODMAN: ARE WE COMFORTABLE GOING AHEAD WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE FOUR OF US?
>> MAYOR PRO TEM, WE HAVE SOME ORDINANCES ON THE AGENDA THAT WE HAVE TO MEET BY VOTE.
>>GOODMAN: YOU'RE INVITE, YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> HAVE WE CHECKED TO SEE IF THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS ARE HERE?
>>GOODMAN: ALTHOUGH HAD WE TRIED TO DO THAT, I'M SURE -- [EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE]
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME RUN THROUGH FOR YOU THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AND SEE IF ANY OF THOSE ARE ONES YOU WOULD RATHER PULL OR ONES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT BACK ON. ARE YOU READY? 13, 14, 50, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 WITH A COMMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, 28, 29, 32 WITH AN AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48 AND 65.
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WHICH I THINK WE CAN CLEAR PRETTY QUICKLY ON 41 AND 48. THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REASON TO TAKE THEM OFF THE CONSENT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SEVERAL QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT ON THIS CASE.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY.
>>SPELMAN: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE CONSENT AGENDA UP FIRST AND THEN I CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS? IT WILL ONLY TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
>>GOODMAN: PULL THEM OFF?
>>SPELMAN: YEAH.
>>GOODMAN: GOOD FROM OUR LIST DELETE 41 AND 48 FOR THE MOMENT. IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE OTHER CONSENT ITEMS?
>>GARCIA: SUE MOVE, MAYOR PRO TEM
>> DISCUSS TRAVIS COUNTY AND I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
>>GOODMAN: MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA RKD SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: I'LL START FROM THE BOTTOM UP, NO. 65, OUR APPOINTMENT TO THE M./W.B.E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOES NOT LIVE IN THE CITY AND I AM REQUESTING THAT WE BRING A WAIVER TO THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AT FUTURE MEETINGS SO THAT HE CAN STAY IN. HE IS BASICALLY THE CHOICE OF THE ASIAN CONTRACTORS. I'M OKAY WITH IT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET A WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND I THINK THE CITY CLERK CAN DO THAT.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GARCIA: IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, SURE.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GARCIA: SO THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT HE IS GOING TO BE APPOINTED TO THE M./W.B.E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. PART OF HIS APPOINTMENT IS A WAIVER OF RESIDENCE RI REQUIREMENTS.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GARCIA: NOW, ON NUMBER 32, IT SAYS THAT THE FEES ARE GOING TO GO TO THE PROGRAM. THIS IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, $450, SO I'M PROPOSING THAT THE FISCAL NOTE SAYS -- [INAUDIBLE].
>>LEWIS: IT SAYS WHAT?
>>GARCIA: $450, PROCEEDS TO REMAIN WITH THE MUSEUM.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>GARCIA: ON ITEM NUMBER 26, NO CHANGE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS ONE. AND THAT IS THAT THE CHANGE ORDER, THEY TELL US THERE'S TWO MORE. I REALLY DON'T LIKE TO SEE THAT MANY CHANGE ORDERS. I KNOW THEY'RE NECESSARY AT TIMES. AND I THINK IN THE SECOND GROUPING OF CHANGE ORDERS THAT WERE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, THEY WERE DONE WITHIN A 100,000 CONTINGENCY FEE, AND THE LAST ONE PUT US OVER AND IT WAS DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. SO THIS PARTICULAR MOTION WOULD BE TO RATIFY THAT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE GO OVER THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT THAT IT COMES TO COUNCIL SO THAT WE APPROVE IT HERE.
>> THAT'S FINE, BUT ALSO THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT. WE HAD TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR.
>>GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND APPROVE THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNTS, THEN BRING IT HERE SO WE CAN APPROVE IT.
>> THAT'S FAIR. WE NEED TO DO IT.
>> YEAH. THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY WANTS THE CON CONTINUE SENT SI POWER AND IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK TO CHANGE THAT PROCESS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
>>GARCIA: AND THE -- WITH A CONTRACT OF THIS SIZE, ONCE I THINK WE GO OVER THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT, I THINK WE SHOULD BRING IT BACK, THE CHANGE ORDER THAT PUT IT PAST WAS FOR 35,000. I KNOW -- I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER THE -- IT STARTS FROM ZERO.
>> WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT YOU GET SOME OF THESE CONTRACTS YOU APPROVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONTINGENCY AND THE STAFF HAS USED THAT PLUS THE 39,000, SO IT'S IN EFFECT MY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US ONCE WE COME UP NEAR OR USE THE CONTINGENCY TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL, WE CAN DO THAT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IS WHERE PROJECTS HAVE SEVERE TIME CONSTRAINTS WHERE WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET THE CONTRACTOR NOTICE TO PROCEED SO WE CAN GET THAT NEXT PHASE DONE, IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ALLOW US THE LEEWAY SO WE CAN ON DO IT AS A MEMORANDUM.
>>.
>>GARCIA: THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. GOOD COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?
>>LEWIS: YOU YOU SAID THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR WAS REMOVED.
>> HE TOOK OVER.
>>LEWIS: WHY WAS THE ORIGINAL UNABLE TO PERFORM?
>> THEY WERE UNABLE TO PERFORM UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND SO THE SURETY TOOK OVER AND PROPOSED THAT THEY BE THE REPLACEMENT CONTRACTOR.
>>GRIFFITH: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION OR DOING THINGS IN THE FUTURE, WHAT I'D SUGGEST IS THAT WE JUST DEAL WITH THIS UP FRONT AND HAVE A POLICY DRAFTED THAT DEALS WITH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CON CONTINUE SENT SI ON -- CONTINGENCY IS MET AND ON WHAT BASIS THE 39,000 IS MET SO THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. DID THAT MAKE SENSE? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WE NEED THAT?
>>LEWIS: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
>>GOODMAN: ON ITEM 65 -- IF WE'RE THROUGH WITH COMMENTS ON THIS.
>>GARCIA: YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: ON ITEM 65, ONE OF MY APPOINTMENTS DIDN'T MAKE IT ON TO THE YELLOW PAGES, AND SO I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT MY APPOINTMENT TO THE MUSIC COMMISSION IS LARRY CORDELL -- CORDLE. IT'S A REAPPOINTMENT. IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>> MUSIC COMMISSION?
>>GOODMAN: MY REAPPOINTMENT OF LARRY CORDLE. IT DIDN'T MAKE IT ON TO THE YELLOW.
>>GARCIA: THAT'S FRIENDLY FOR ME.
>>LEWIS: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THE MUSIC COMMISSION? WHO IS IT?
>>GOODMAN: LARRY CORDLE. IT'S A REAPPOINTMENT. OKAY. LET ME CALL THE SPEAKERS FOR CONSENT ITEMS. FIRST IS JOHN FOGERTY. FOLLOWED BY RICHARD TROXELL.
>> GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JOHN FOGERTY. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH TIME WARNER AND SPEAKING ON THE ITEM REGARDING THE FRANCHISE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT NETWORKS. WE HAVE A -- WE HAVE A LETTER FROM LYDIA GRAVES, BUT I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE EXTREMELY HARD WORK OF MICHAEL PARKS, A NOTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY, IN TRYING TO FASHION A FRANCHISE FOR WIN IT IS FAIR AND AS A MODEL TO THE OTHER NEW FRANCHISES THAT ARE COMING ALONG, FAIR TO CONSTITUENT AND FAIR TO TIME WARNER AS THE INCUMBENT FRANCHISEE. MR. PARK AND HIS STAFF WERE ALWAYS WILLING TO LISTEN TO OUR CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS. THEY DID NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH OUR SUGGESTIONS, BUT I THINK IN THE END THEY HAVE -- TIME WARNER'S VIEW THEY HAVE FASHIONED A FRANCHISE THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY THAT CAN PROVIDE THE FRAMEWORK FOR A COMPETITIVELY NEUTRAL COMPETITIVE SITUATION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN IF -- AND THAT'S AN IF THAT WE WISH TO EMPHASIZE, GOING FORWARD THE CITY EXERCISES ITS ROLE IN ADMINISTERING THE FRANCHISES IN A COMPETITIVELY NEUTRAL MANNER. WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE INTENTION OF MR. PARKS AND HIS CURRENT STAFF, AND AGAIN, WE WANT TO THANK THEM FOR AN EFFORT WHICH WE BELIEVE TRULY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND IN TERMS OF TIME AND EFFORT. AND ALSO TO THANK THIS COUNCIL FOR ITS DIRECTION TO STAFF AND COMMITMENT TO FAIR COMPETITION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT READ EVERY WORD IN THE FRANCHISE, WHAT MR. FOGERTY REFERS TO IS A 257 MILE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE FINANCE AND THE OTHER PROVISION HAS TO DO WITH WHAT NEEDS COUNCIL APPROVAL AND THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN A SMALL PROVISION, BUT IT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. RICHARD TROXELL, FOLLOWED BY SYLVIA AROZACO.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M PRESIDENT OF HOUSE THE HOMELESS. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON ITEM 18, A CONSENT ITEM THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON CONSENT. IT'S ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF POWER, WHICH IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE PUBLIC. AND THE REASON I COME TODAY TO SPEAK IS BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC. HOUSE THE HOMELESS IS A NONPROFIT. THE ITEM WILL TRANSFER THE SOLICITATION BOARD PROCESS IN TERMS OF WHO GETS APPROVED TO PRACTICE SOLICITATION PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THEY WILL TRANSFER TO THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU. THAT IS A TREMENDOUS SHIFT IN POLICY FROM WHAT CURRENTLY CONSISTS EXISTS. HOUSE THE HOMELESS IS APPROVED UNDER THE SOLICITATION APPLICATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU IS WILLING TO PICK THIS OPERATION UP AND TO NOT CHARGE THE NONPROFITS FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS, BUT THE CHARGE IS NOMINAL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS IN PLACE, WE'RE JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU DOING THAT. THE REASON BEING IS WE SEE A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE APPROVING OTHER BUSINESSES APPLYING TO DO BUSINESS. THAT IS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH REGARD TO HOUSE THE HOMELESS, WE HAVE JUST LOST THE 44TH STREET NEWSPAPER IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THREE MONTHS. A NEWSPAPER. WHAT IF A YEAR FROM NOW OUR READER SHIP SKY ROCKETS AND WE BECOME A DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER LARGER EXISTING NEWSPAPERS? WHO THROUGH THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T WANT US TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS CITY. THEY HAVE THE POWER OF '88 OR NAY AND THEY ALSO WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE FOR THE FUTURE. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE EXISTING GROUP? NO. I JUST SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT OF OSHA, WHO IS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. I SPOKE TO THE ACLU YESTERDAY WHO IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. I'VE SPOKEN TO CANDIDATES IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WHO IS VERY CONCERNED. HOUSE THE HOMELESS IS CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE RESCISSION OF THIS ACTION. WE ARE CALLING FOR A LETTER TO GO OUT TO THE CITY TO STATE ITS POSITION AND TO CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS SO WE CAN HAVE BOTH SIDES HEARD. WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S POSITION. WE THINK IT'S ADMIRABLE THAT THERE ARE STANDARDS THAT PEOPLE MEET AND GROUPS MEET SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF FUNDING -- MONEY THAT'S RAISED GOES TO THOSE INTENDED. THAT'S ADMIRABLE. WE SUPPORT THAT. WE JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE FOX LEADING THE CHICKEN HOUSE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT EXISTING BUSINESSES SHOULD NOT BE VOTING TO DECIDE ISSUES ABOUT WHO CAN AND CANNOT DO BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>> HOUSE THE HOMELESS.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S NOTHING TO RESCIND YET. SO LET ME ASK AFTER OUR LAST TWO SPEAKERS ON CONSENT IF THE CITY CLERK WILL GIVE US A BRIEF EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID WAS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. SO I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU, MR. TROXELL.
>> THANK YOU. I'M SURE THE CITY HAS ITS POSITION AND WILL PRESENT IT WELL. OUR POINT IS WE HAVE A POSITION WELTED LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT IT AS THE CITY'S NONPROFIT. THANK YOU.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM FROM THE MIX IS A CAR AT A MUSEUM AND I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE MUSEUM AND ALSO TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE PERMIT THAT WE'RE GETTING FOR OUR CASE IN MOTION CO-AND WAIVE THE FEES OF OUR PROCEED. THE EVENT IS A BENEFIT FOR THE MUSEUM. THE EVENT IS A TASTE OF MEXICO AND I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE EVERYONE. IT'S GOING TO BE A FOOD TASTING OF 30 DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS HERE IN AUSTIN AND WILL FEATURE FIVE RESTAURANTSES FROM SALTILLO, MEXICO, OUR SISTER CITY. WE WILL ALSO FEATURE A BEAUTIFUL PAINTING, A MAJOR WORK. SO THAT'S ON MAY THE FOURTH AND I'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO COME. THANK YOU.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. MR. ROBBINS?
>>. [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: GOOD MORNING.
>> I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY. IN THE NEW WORLD OF AUSTIN'S UTILITIES, INFORMATION IS A WHOLE LOT HARDER TO GET THAN IT USED TO BE, SO I WANTED TO ASK JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT THIS NOW THAT ARE VERY ACADEMIC, BUT SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO NEED TO KNOW TO DO ENERGY ANALYSIS IN THE FUTURE. SIMPLY, WHAT IS THE CURRENT COST PER UNIT OF GAS UNDER THIS NEW CONTRACT? SECOND, WHAT IS THE COST PER UNIT OF GAS UNDER THE FORMER CONTRACTS. AND THIRD AND FINALLY, WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF GAS THAT WE WILL BE PURCHASING?
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. AFTER WELL, IN ORDER, I THINK I'D RATHER BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS. MS. BROWN, COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THE SOLICITATION PERMITS AND COMMISSION PROCESS?
>> YES. THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO COUNSEL'S ATTENTION WAS MY CONCERN THAT A CONTRIBUTOR IN AUSTIN WOULD PERCEIVE OUR PERMIT AS HAVING SORT OF EQUAL VALUE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF SOMEBODY COMES TO US AND SAYS 90% OF WHAT I'M GOING TO RAISE I'M GOING TO PUT IN MY POCKET AND ONLY 10% IS GOING TO MY CAUSE, WE STILL UNDER THE LAW HAVE TO GIVE THEM A PERMIT. AND SO THE PERMITS HAVE EQUAL VALUE EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER ORGANIZATION WOULD COME IN AND 90% OF WHAT THEY RAISE WOULD GO TO THE CAUSES FOR WHICH THEY'RE RAISING IT. SO THAT WAS ONE ISSUE THAT CONTRIBUTORS DIDN'T WANT THE CITY TO BE ENDORSING A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION JUST BY SIMPLY GIVING THEM A PERMIT. THE OTHER THING IS IN WORKING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED IN COURT HOUSES -- COURT CASES, IN FEDERAL COURT CASES AND FOUND TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE SOLICITOR. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ORDINANCE COULD BE ENFORCED IN COURT IF IT WERE CHALLENGED. AND THE THIRD REASON IS THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT WE'RE TAKING IN IS LESS THAN WHAT WE'RE SPENDING TO RUN THE PROGRAM. SO IN EFFECT, TAXPAYERS ARE SUBSIDIZING THE SOLICITORS FOR HAVING THE RIGHT TO SOLICIT IN THE COMMUNITY. THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WAS THE LEAD AGENCY IN COMING TO THE CITY YEARS AGO WHEN THE SOLICITATION ORDINANCE WAS FIRST ADOPTED AND ASKING FOR THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF -- TO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE HISTORY IS THERE WERE A NUMBER OF FRAUDULENT SOLICITATIONS GOING ON WHERE ORGANIZATIONS WERE MISREPRESENTING THEMSELVES. AND SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOME CONTROL. AND THAT THEIR VERY ACTIVE PARTNER, THEY ALREADY RECEIVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ON SOLICITORS AND THEY RESPOND TO CITIZENS CALLING IN ASKING IS THIS A REGISTERED ORGANIZATION? THE PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS PURELY VOLUNTARY. THE ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT. AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS BUILD IN THERE AN INCENTIVE THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO. THEY'RE GOING TO USE A NEWLY DEVELOPED WEBSITE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE INDEED REGISTERED AND MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT'S BEEN SET. SO IT'S A PURELY VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. I'D BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THOSE ARE ARE JUST MY CONCERNS THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE?
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: DOES THAT MEAN IF AN ORGANIZATION DOESN'T WANT TO REGISTER WITH ANYBODY, THEY CAN STILL RAISE FUNDS IN THIS CITY?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. NOW, AGAIN, THE INCENTIVE THAT THEY'RE WILLING IN, I THINK THE ORGANIZATIONS ARE GOING TO WANT TO. THE PURPOSE OF THE SOLICITATION ORDINANCE IS TO PREVENT FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES. AND THERE'S ALREADY A NUMBER OF LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT IF ANYONE PERCEIVES THAT AN ORGANIZATION IS GIVING OUT FRAUDULENT INFORMATION, THAT THEY'RE MISREPRESENTING THEMSELVES, THEY CAN ALREADY GO TO THE STATE. SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE AS AN ORGANIZATION WERE ADDING VALUE TO THE PROCESS. WE WERE BEING REDUNDANT OF WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE IN THE STATE. AND OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL ORGANIZATIONS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE TAKING 90% OF THE FUNDS AND POCKETING THEM, YOU KNOW, ONLY GIVING 10%, WE COULDN'T CONTROL THAT ANYWAY. ALL WE COULD CONTROL IS WHETHER THEY WERE BEING HONEST ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WERE RAISING FUNDS FOR. BUT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GIVE THEM A PERMIT.
>>GARCIA: DO WE GET A LOT OF CALLS WITH REGARD TO, LET'S SAY, ABUSIVE PROCEDURES THAT PEOPLE USE? AND HAVE WE SANCTIONED ANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT -- FOR SUCH PROCEDURES?
>> ABUSE IN TERMS OF THEY WERE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN TRYING TO GET --
>>GARCIA: WELL, PEOPLE REPORTING THEM, SAYING THIS ORGANIZATION IS DOING THIS AND THAT AND EVERYTHING. HAVE WE EVER SANCTIONED ANYBODY OUT OF YOUR OFFICE?
>> TYPICALLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS SOMEONE WILL CALL AND SAY IS THIS ORGANIZATION THAT JUST KNOCKED ON MY DOOR, ARE THEY REGISTERED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THEM REGISTERED, WE WILL CONTACT THEM RIGHT AWAY AND TELL THEM THEY NEED TO STOP THE SOLICITATION PRACTICE UNTIL THEY COME IN AND GET REGISTERED. BUT TYPICALLY THEY RESPOND TO THAT. ARE THERE SOLICITATIONS TAKING PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY BY UNREGISTERED PEOPLE? ABSOLUTELY. ONES THAT WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT, IT OCCURS ALL THE TIME. AS SOON AS WE HEAR, WE TRY TO CONTACT THEM AND PUT A STOP TO IT.
>>GARCIA: SO NOW THAT WE'RE NO LONGER -- WE NO LONGER HAVE TO DO THIS, IS THE BUSINESS -- AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN YOUR OFFICE. IS THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU ABLE TO BRING ABOUT MORE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES THAT WOULD BE -- THAT WOULD PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST?
>> I DON'T KNOW BETTER. IN ORDERS, THEY STILL WILL HAVE TO REGISTER THOSE AGENCIES THAT ARE POCKETING 90% OF THE FUNDS THEY RAISE. YOU CAN'T STOP THAT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. BUT THEY WILL -- THE TYPES OF INCENTIVES THEY WILL OFFER IS BEING ABLE TO ALMOST HELP THE NONPROFITS MARKET THEIR FUND-RAISING EFFORTS BY PUTTING IT OUT ON THEIR WEBSITE AND SAYING THAT THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION -- AND TRULY THE GOOD ORGANIZATION. AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU WANT SOME PROCESSES IN PLACE. YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE GOOD ORGANIZATIONS. OTHERWISE YOUR COMMUNITY STOPS GIVING BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE BEING ABUSED IN THE PROCESS. AND SO WHAT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WILL BE ABLE TO SAY ON THEIR WEBSITE IS WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS AGENCY IN LOOKING AT THEIR FINANCIAL REPORTS IS GIVING 80% TO THE CAUSE OR 90% TO THE CAUSE. AND THEY REALLY NEED SOME VERY HIGH STANDARDS, THAT KIND OF THING.
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RESCIND SOMEBODY'S LICENSE?
>> IF AN ORGANIZATION WERE MISREPRESENTING WHAT THEY WERE RAISING THE FUNDS FOR. MAYBE IF IT'S NOT REALLY A KNOT-FOR-PROFIT KIND OF THING. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. AND EVEN THEN THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WOULD GO BACK TO THE STATE AGENCIES AND ASK TO USE THE LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS FOR FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION. SO I CAN'T ENVISION, NOR DID WE REALLY HAVE THE POWER TO RESCIND ANYONE'S. WE WE COULD HAVE SAID, WELL, YOU DIDN'T GIVE US YOUR FINANCIAL REPORTS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT IT WOULD BE VERY LIMITED. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 600 REGISTERED PEOPLE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN SAY, WELL, WE REALLY LIKE YOUR CAUSE AND THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A PERMIT, BUT WE DON'T -- WE DON'T GET INTO THAT. IF YOU REGISTER, YOU PAY YOUR FEE, YOU GIVE US YOUR FINANCIAL REPORTS, YOU'RE WITHIN THE FEW LAWS THAT YOU CAN ENFORCE, THEN I WOULD GIVE IT TO THEM.
>>SPELMAN: SO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY, EXAMPLE, IN THE SITUATION THAT MR. TROXELL HAS LAID OUT, JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT DIDN'T WANT ADDITIONAL COMPETITION, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND HOUSE THE HOMELESS'S LICENSE TO SOLICIT? DO WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING IN ANY FORM? IS THERE A STANDARD OR SOME RULES THAT'S WRITTEN DOWN OR THAT BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS AROUND THE COUNTRY USE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHER COMMUNITIES -- WHEN WE INVESTIGATED, WE WERE ONLY ONE OF TWO TEXAS CITIES THAT EVEN HAD AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS JUST BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE COMPLICATIONS OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE HAD. SO --
>>SPELMAN: MY QUESTION WAS WHAT DO WE -- WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WILL IN FACT RUN THE PROGRAM IN THAT WAY?
>>GARCIA: THEY HAVE VERY EXTENSIVE PROCEDURES. THEY HAVE VERY EXTENSIVE PROCEDURES. AND JOHN ETCHISON IS VERY ACTIVE IN A PARTICULAR AREA. SO THEY RUN A GOOD PROGRAM.
>> I KNOW THEY'D BE WILLING TO SHARE -- THEIR PROGRAM IS REALLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN A 40,000-DOLLAR CONVICTION TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE AND SO THEY'RE WAITING TRYING TO TIE ALL THIS TOGETHER. BUT I KNOW THEY WOULD BE GLAD TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH ANY CRITERIA AND GET YOUR APPROVAL ON IT. I JUST KNOW THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE WITH THEM.
>>SPELMAN: I WAS NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT. IF YOU COULD CONTACT THEM AND HAVE THEM COCK BACK WITH SOME MATERIAL, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE ALL OF US FEEL BETTER ONCE WE KNEW IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN AND WE COULD HOLD THEM TO IT.
>> GLAD TO DO IT.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE OR WITH THE I.R.S.?
>> MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE, PARTICULARLY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND THOSE KINDS THAT ARE DOING SOLICITATION, BUT NOT ALL ARE. I.R.S., THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BECOME A 051-C-3 ENTITY, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT THE REGISTRATION THAT MR. TROXELL IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE VOLUNTEER REGISTRATION THAT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WILL PUT IN PLACE.
>>LEWIS: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE -- AND YOU MAY ASK THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU IF THEY WOULD LIST ALL THAT THEY HAD AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY REPRESENT, THAT WAY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW WHEN THEY COME UP ON -- WHEN THEY PULL UP THE SITE WHETHER OR NOT AN ORGANIZATION IS DONATING 80%, 50%, 90% OR 10% TO THE ORGANIZATION. BECAUSE THAT -- YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION, SO WHEN PEOPLE CALL ME, MY FIRST QUESTION TO THEM IS WHAT IS YOUR PERCENTAGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS? AND THEY'RE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DIVULGE THAT. AND IF THEY TELL ME OVER 50%, I JUST -- OF COURSE, THAT'S ME. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T ASK THAT QUESTION. BUT IF THEY HAD IT ON THE WEBSITE, THEN ANYONE THAT WAS PULLING IT UP COULD SEE RIGHT AWAY WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY'RE DONATING.
>> I CAN FIND OUT FROM THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WHAT THEY INTEND TO PUT ON THEIR WEBSITE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF IT.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM? BEFORE I CAME TO THE COUNCIL I WAS ON AN ADVISORY GROUP TO THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU ABOUT THIS VERY THING. WOULD IT BE, MAYOR PRO TEM, APPROPRIATE TO INVITE MR. ETCHISON TO COME AND DISCUSS THESE VERY QUESTIONS WITH US?
>> IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE. AND I WAS GOING TO ASK COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN AND LEWIS IF WHAT WE WERE HEARING WAS A PREFERENCE TO POSTPONE THIS ONE WEEK AND FOR THOSE VERY ANSWERS AND PERHAPS IN THE MEANTIME, TOO, OUR CLERK COULD MEET WITH A GROUP OF NONPROFITS SO THAT WE COULD EXPLAIN IN DETAIL FOR THEM WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE AND ARE NOT. IF THAT'S OKAY. BECAUSE I PERSONALLY HAVE CONTACTED A FEW THAT I KNEW AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE PROBLEM, BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, I'M SURE THAT'S A VERY -- OKAY.
>>SPELMAN: I DON'T SEE A PARTICULAR NEED TO POSTPONE THIS ACTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MR. ETCHSON BACK TO DISCUSS WHAT THESE ISSUES ARE PERHAPS NEXT WEEK. I HAVE NO CONCERNS ABOUT VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS TODAY.
>>LEWIS: YEAH. IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE CAN ALWAYS PUT ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, IF THAT'S SO, THAT'S FINE. I WOULD ASK TO POSTPONE BEFORE THE ACTION JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNEW, BUT I ALSO CAN COUNT. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ITEM 13, WHICH IS THE FRAN CHRIEZ, WE'RE APPROVING SECOND READING. AND ITEM 14
>> DISCUSS TRAVIS COUNTY WHICH IS A FRAN FIEZ FOR WESTERN INTEGRATED NETWORK IS ON THIRD READING.
>>GOODMAN: AND LET ME TOO BEFORE I VOTE, I FORGOT TO READ IN THE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, SO LET ME GO QUICKLY THERE. AIRPORT ADVISORY BOTHERED, HERMAN IS THE APPOINTMENT. ARTS COMMISSION, LORETTA LEWIS IS BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS REPLACING BEA PFEIFFER. BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL OVERSIGHT IS JANE DERCY, AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY CONSENSUS. THE CHILD CARE COUNCIL HAS REAPPOINTMENTS OF JOAN BURN HAM, DON GOODMAN, MR. GARCIA, JILL MAC RAY BY SLUSHER, LEONARD SLICE BY SPELMAN. DR. TIM MY BARREN HOFF BY CONSENSUS. DR. LYLE LA CARL BY CONSENSUS. DEBRA THOMPSON, CONSENSUS. ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS SHAN IN A GOGCAR BY CONSENSUS. MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND SOLAR BOTHERED HAS POWELL HOVEY, A REAPPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. MICHAEL PRATHER, A REAPPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. ON THE M./W.B.E. WE ALREADY MENTIONED, IT IS AN APPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. WHERE WE WAIVE THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. ON ROBERT MUELLER AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT IS MIKE LEBRICK, A REAPPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS, A RAY ABDULLA, A REAPPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. THEY ARE FROM THE PARKS BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESPECTIVELY. MUSIC COMMISSION, LARRY CORDLE BY GOODMAN. SO WITH ALL THOSE CHANGES AND NOTING THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE PASSING 18, WE WILL HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHERE WE GET INPUT FROM THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU AND FROM THE OTHER ISSUES WE'VE RAISED AND MS. BROWN HAS AGREED TO -- I THINK SHE NODDED. I THINK HAS AGREED TO MEET WITH THE FOLKS FROM THE NONPROFIT COMMUNITY WHO ARE WONDERING AND A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACTION WE'RE TAKING.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM? I WANT TO ASK MISS BROWN A QUESTION ON 19. IT SAYS IN THE BACKUP IS TALKS ABOUT 89 AGENDAS DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD. BUT THE CONTRACT PERIOD IS FOR A YEAR. IS THAT FOR MORE THAN JUST THE COUNCIL?
>> 89 I BELIEVE IS REFERRED TO THE NUMBER EACH WEEK THAT WE'RE REVIEWING.
>>. [INAUDIBLE]. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE PROCESS WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. TROXELL. YOU WERE OUT OF ORDER. SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S OKAY.
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S WRITTEN, BUT THAT'S THE NUMBER WE PREPARE EVERY WEEK THAT GO OUT TO PEOPLE.
>>SLUSHER: SO THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
>> RIGHT.
>>SLUSHER: I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT SEEING THIS ITEM MAKES ME MORE THAN EVER WANT TO GET BEHIND MS. BROWN'S EFFORT TO DO THE ELECTRONIC AGENDA BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AGENDA PACKAGE FOR THE COUNCIL AND IT GENERATES 2.2 MILLION PAGES A YEAR. SO THAT'S A LOT OF PAGES.
>>LEWIS: THAT'S A LOT OF TREES.
>>GOODMAN: --
>>SLUSHER: AND THIS CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE THEREFORE RECYCLED PAPER.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. DOES ANYBODY NEED TO GO BACK OVER WHAT'S CONSENT NOW?
>>SPELMAN: ACTUALLY, IF I COULD REPLY TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAID. WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE WERE IN A POSITION TO GO TO A FULLY ELECTRONIC AGENDA, FULLY ELECTRONIC BACKUP, COULD WE DO THAT?
>> WE'RE IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW, COUNCILMEMBERS, OF HIRING AN INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR. THAT OUGHT TO BE DONE HERE IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO. AND ONE OF THE THINGS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT EVEN THE COMMITTEE INDICATED THAT WE NEEDED AN INFORMATIONS OFFICER BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY WE HAD IN BRINGING UP MAJOR SYSTEMS. AND I ASK THAT WE LET THAT INDIVIDUAL GET ON BOARD BECAUSE THESE SYSTEMS, THOUGH APPEAR TO BE AT THE TOUCH OF A BUTTON EASY, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOT OF MISSTEPS AND SHORTLY THAT INDIVIDUAL WILL GET ON BOARD AND DEVELOP A REALISTIC BUDGET AND TIME FRAME TO GET THIS DONE.
>>GOODMAN: AND I ASSUME WE'RE TAKING NOTE OF THAT IN THE DESIGN OF THE NEW CITY HALL SO THAT WE DO ENTER THAT CITY HALL IN THE 21ST 17 INDUSTRY TRI?
>> YES. WE'D LIKE IT TO BE A VIRTUAL CITY HALL, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET IT.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IF FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE? OPPOSED?
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: WE KIND OF JUST DID.
>>SLUSHER: MOVE TO RECONSIDER 18.
>>GOODMAN: THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>>. [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE].
>> BY TELEPHONE NOR BETWEEN THE HOURS OF NINE P.M. TO NINE P.M.: I WOULD NOT WANT SOLICITATION BY TELEPHONE AT ANY TIME.
>>. [INAUDIBLE]. I THINK THE INTENT WAS DURING THE NINE P.M. TO NINE A.M. PERIOD. [INAUDIBLE].
>>SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL.
>>GOODMAN: THERE IS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND SECONDED BY SPELMAN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THAT CHANGE AS OUTLINED BY CITY LEGAL. AND -- WERE YOU ONLY DOING 18 OR THE WHOLE CONSENT AGENDA?
>>SLUSHER: I MOVED TO RECONSIDER ONLY 18.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WITH THAT CHANGE THEN, BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU MEANT THE WHOLE GROUP. ON ITEM NUMBER 18 READY FOR THE VOTE WITH THOSE CHANGES, AND PLEASE VOTE I'M ABSTAINING ON THAT. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? I'M ABSTAINING AND THE MAYOR IS ABSENT. OKAY. SO WE CAN NOW GO TO OUR BRIEF -- NO, WE HAD QUESTIONS. I FORGOT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS. MR. MANNING, DO YOU WANT TO JUST INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE BEGINNING OF YOUR BRIEFING?
>> GOOD MORNING MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL. I AM CHUCK MANNING, GENERAL MANAGER OF AUSTIN ENERGY. AND WE'RE REALLY GLAD TO BE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT AUSTIN'S CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS. BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. ROBBINS RAISED. WE CANNOT RELEASE THAT DATA. ONE, THE GAS CONTRACTS AND GAS PURCHASES GOING FORWARD WILL BE THE MOST COMPETITIVE ISSUE IN THE UTILITY MARKET. EVERY NEW PLANT IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT JUST IN TEXAS, THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED IS A GAS-FIRED POWER PLANT. THE TRANSPORTATION OF GAS, THE PURCHASE OF GAS, GAS BEING BOUGHT ON THE SPOT CONTRACT MARKET, NO ONE RELEASES OF AMOUNTS THAT THEY WOULD IDENTIFY OR THE THEY WOULD ENTEND TO PAY BECAUSE MOST GAS IS PURCHASED ON THE SPOT MARKET AND IS PUT IN ADVANCE. SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS IN PUBLIC.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, CAN YOU SAY ROUGHLY WHETHER WE'RE SOMEHOW GETTING A WORSE DEAL?
>> NO. WUL BE VERY PLEASED, NOT ONLY WITH THE GAS PURCHASES, BUT WITH OUR GAS TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS. AND WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE INTO THE STAFF BRIEFING. AND I MENTIONED, WE ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR COMMITMENT, NOT ONLY TO CONSERVATION, BUT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY. AND TO VOLUNTARILY MEETING OUTPUT OR CONTAMINANT REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF THAT AND TAKEN THE LEAD AND VOLUNTEERED TO DO THINGS AS A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN. WE'RE DOING THAT AT BOTH THE DECKER AND HOLLY POWER PLANTS. IN ADDITION, YOU WILL SEE IN THE PRESENTATION THIS MORNING NOT ONLY ARE WE DOING CONSERVATION RENEWABLES AND REDUCTIONS IN AIR POLLUTION, BUT WE'RE ALSO INCREASING EFFICIENCY OF THESE UNITS WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS. WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK ROGER DUNCAN, OUR VICE-PRESIDENT, TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, I AM ROGER DUNCAN, VICE-PRESIDENT OF CONSERVATION RENEWABLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOR THE UTILITY. AND AS CHUCK SAID, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO BE MAKING THIS PRESENTATION THIS MORNING BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A CONSERVATION PROGRAM NOW THAT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST AGGRESSIVE IN MY MEMORY AND VERY MUCH A NOOL LEADER IN THIS AREA. I'VE HANDED OUT TWO ITEMS THIS MORNING. FIRST IS OUR PRESENTATION ON CONSERVATION AND SECONDLY I'D LIKE TO GO OVER THE MEMORANDUM THAT WE GAVE TO COUNCIL YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO SOME QUESTIONS OF A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO BY MR. ROBBINS. OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE OFFERING MORE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMS THAN EVE EVER OFFERED IN THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN ENERGY TO DIFFERENT RATE CLASSES, TO DIFFERENT NICHE MARKETS THAT WE HAVE NOT REACHED IN THE PAST. AND WE'RE ALSO FOCUSING ON THE SUPPLY SIDE AS WELL AS THE DEMAND SIDE FOR EFFICIENCY. AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND YOU MAY RECALL ONE OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE MADE WHEN THE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS WERE INTEGRATED INTO AUSTIN ENERGY WAS THAT WE NOT ONLY WERE GOING TO SUSTAIN OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, WE WERE GOING TO EXPAND THE CONSERVATION EFFORT TO INCLUDE ALL ASPECTS OF THE UTILITY. NOT JUST THE DEMAND SIDE PROGRAMS, BUT THE SUPPLY SIDE AS WELL. AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT ARE RATHER DRAMATIC IN WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS ARE GENERALLY EXCEEDING OUR GOALS FOR THE KPEER YEAR, PARTICULARLY OUR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME LOAN PROGRAM IS GETTING A HIGH NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS. MOST OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS ARE PRETTY MUCH ON TARGET AND WE EXPECT AT THE END OF THE YEAR TO HAVE SLIGHTLY EXCEEDED OUR GOAL FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS. THE COMMERCIAL PROGRAM, THE COMMERCIAL REPAY PROGRAM STARTED OUT SLOW IN THE YEAR, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY IMPROVING. IN THE MONTH OF MARCH WE RECEIVED 118 APPLICATIONS, WHICH ARE MORE APPLICATIONS THAN WE RECEIVED THE FIRST FIVE MONTHS OF THE YEAR TOTALLY. WE GOT ANOTHER APPLICATION IN JUST LAST WEEK THAT IT'S 500 KW OR HALF A MEGA WATT IN ONE APPLICATION. WE GENERALLY EXPECT THIS PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE ABOUT FIVE OF THE EIGHT MEGA WATTS THAT WE HAD PROJECTED, AND DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF THE NEXT 60 DAYS, A SPECIAL REBATE OFFER THAT WE ARE PUTTING OUT, WE COULD MEET OR EXCEED IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR PROGRAM. THE OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMERCIAL EFFORT ARE DOING EXTREMELY WELL. WE HAVE INCREASED THE ADVERTISING FOR THIS PROGRAM. WE SENT OUT DIRECT MAIL PIECES. WE'VE ADDED ANOTHER $20,000 ON TOP OF THE 40,000 WE ALREADY HAD IN ADVERTISING FOR PRODUCTS, PRINT ADDS, AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED PEOPLE TO THIS EFFORT. WE'VE TRANSFERRED SOME ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL INTO THIS PROGRAM TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE. IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS, WE'RE DOING NEW PROGRAMS THAT WE ARE DOING TO INCLUDE POWER PARTNERS, THE DIRECT LOAD CONTROL PROGRAM THAT COUNCIL AAPPROVED A FEW WEEKS AGO TO CYCLE OFF AIR CONDITIONINGS, RESIDENTIAL AIR CONDITIONERS DURING OUR PEAK HOURS. WE ALSO ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NEW CYCLE SAFERS PROGRAM WHERE WE PLACE MECHANICAL TIMERS ON WATER HEATERS IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES TO AGAIN CYCLE THOSE WATER HEATERS OFF DURING OUR PEAK LOAD PERIODS DURING THE SUMMER. WE HAVE A NEW PROGRAM AIMED SPECIFICALLY AT TENANTS, RENTERS AND OWNERS OF RENTAL PROPERTY OTHER THAN APARTMENT COMPLEXES. WE'VE HAD CONCERN ABOUT THIS FOR SOME TIME. NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE OF A DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE FROM TCAD, WE CAN TARGET THE RENTERS AND THE OWNERS, MORE IMPORTANTLY THE OWNERS OF THE RENTAL PROPERTY. IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW PROGRAMS. COUNCIL HAS APPROVED ENERGY AND MANAGEMENT INTERLOCAL CONTRACT WITH TRAVIS COUNTY, AISD AND LAKE TRAVIS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. IN AISD WE HAVE ALREADY AUDITED 35 SCHOOLS THIS YEAR AND ARE COORDINATING LIGHTING VENDORS FOR THE SCHOOLS IN ASSISTING AISD IN GETTING SOME MONEY FROM THE STATE TO RETROFIT THESE EFFORTS. WITH TRAVIS COUNTY, TRAVIS COUNTY JUST RECENTLY APPROVED US PERFORMING THROUGH CONTRACT SERVICES A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXPOSITION CENTER AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT HE TRO FITTING THE EXPOSITION CENTER FOR ENERGY SAVINGS. WE HAVE A NEW LOAD CO-OP PROGRAM IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR WHERE WE ARE GETTING BUSINESSES TO AGREE TO CURTAIL SOME OF THEIR PROCESSES AND IN SOME CASES START UP THEIR STAND BY GENERATORS DURING OUR HIGHEST LOAD PEAK PERIODS DURING THE SUMMER. WE EXPECT TO GET 10 MEGA WATTS FROM THIS PROGRAM AND JUST IN THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF DISCUSSION WITH VENDORS BUSINESSES, WE ALREADY HAVE SIX MEGA WATTS OF THAT 10 THAT LOOK LIKE GOOD PROSPECTS FOR CLOSING. DISTRICT SCHOOLING, YOU'VE HEARD US SAY BEFORE, IT'S ALREADY EXCEEDING OUR EXPECTATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE CFC THAT YOU'RE WELL AWARE OF. YOU'VE ALREADY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH AUSTIN MARKETPLACE. WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COOLING PROJECTS AND WE'LL BE BRINGING IN A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE TO MEET THE INCREASED DEMAND THAT WE'RE GETTING FOR THAT PROGRAM. IT'S BEEN A VERY EXCELLENT PROGRAM FOR US. THE NEXT PAGE JUST DETAILS THE OPERATING AND INCENTIVE BUDGETS MEGA WATT SAVINGS THAT WE HAVE IN THE PROGRAM. AGAIN, WE GET ALMOST ALL OF OUR MEGAWATT SAVINGS DURING THE LATE SPRING AND SUMMER MONTHS. IF YOU ADD UP THOSE FIGURES THEY COME TO OVER 22 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO THE CONSERVATION EFFORT THIS YEAR, WHICH IN PART EXCEEDS THE NORMAL CONSERVATION EFFORT PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE TO LAST SEVERAL YEARS. FINALLY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS A BRIEFING ON CONSERVATION, I WANT TO UPDATE YOU ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH GREEN CHOICE, OUR RENEWABLES PROGRAM. IT CONTINUES TO BE, AGAIN, I THINK FAR EXCEEDING OUR ORIGINAL EXPECTATIONS. AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE COMMITTED 7.8 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR TO PURCHASE WIND AND BIO GAS POWER. AS OF TODAY WE HAVE OVER 900 SUBSCRIBERS SIGNED ON SINCE WE STARTED THE PROGRAM IN MID JANUARY, NINE LARGE COMMERCIAL SUBSCRIBERS -- AND ACTUALLY THAT FIGURE IS OUT OF DATE. AS OF THIS MORNING I THINK WE HAVE 11 LARGE COMMERCIAL SUBSCRIBERS AND I'VE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION WILL BE 100% GREEN POWERED UNDER OUR PROGRAM. WE HAVE ALREADY SOLD MORE THAN 20% OF THE CAPACITY THAT WE AGREED TO PURCHASE EARLIER, AND THE PROGRAM IS DOING EXTREMELY WELL. WHAT I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP WITH IS A RESPONSE TO THE -- PER COUNCIL REQUEST, A RESPONSE TO THE SPREADSHEET THAT WAS HANDED TO YOU A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO BY MR. ROBBINS COMPARING OUR ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS THIS YEAR TO THE YEAR 1995. WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY. AND TO REPORT BACK TO YOU. FIRST THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SPREADSHEET FOR THE YEAR 2000. THE COMMERCIAL LOAD COOPERATIVE PROGRAM THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, 10 MEGAWATTS WASN'T INCLUDED. IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE PEAK LOAD REDUCTIONS WE'LL BE GETTING THROUGH OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT COUNCIL APPROVED EARLIER. THOSE TWO TOGETHER IS AN ADDITIONAL 10 AND A HALF MEGA WATTS FOR THIS YEAR THAT WERE NOT COUNTED IN THE SPREADSHEET. THE ENERGY SAVINGS FROM THE DECKER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS IS ABOUT 27 MILLION INSTEAD OF THE 11 MILLION THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL SPREADSHEETS. AND A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLY SIDE. IN 1995 THE MEGAWATT ISSUE. IN 19 -- 1995 WAS A VERY UNUSUAL YEAR FOR THE PROGRAM BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS THERE. IT WAS A YEAR THAT WE HAVE HAD THE GREATEST ENERGY SAVINGS IN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS UP UNTIL THIS YEAR. AND IT'S BECAUSE WE HAD A COUPLE OF MAJOR PROJECTS COME ON LINE, A M.D. AND APPLIED MATERIAL, NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND WE PAID HIGH REBATES FOR THAT. WE PAID OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN REBATES JUST FOR THOSE TWO PROJECTS, BUT WE GOT A LOT OF ENERGY SAVINGS, ALMOST FIVE MEGAWATTS ON THOSE TWO PROJECTS. THAT WAS ALSO THE YEAR THAT WE GAVE A 60-DAY REBATE SALE, IF YOU WILL, ON OUR COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS AND WERE FLOODED WITH APPLICATIONS. IT TOOK ALMOST THREE YEARS TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK. BUT THOSE CAME IN DURING THAT YEAR. SO IT WAS AN EXTREMELY STRONG YEAR FOR US. EVEN GIVEN THAT, WE'VE EXCEEDED THAT THIS YEAR. WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OPERATING EFFICIENCY AND LOOK AT THE NEW SPREADSHEET THAT WE HAVE GIVEN YOU AND YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OPERATING EFFICIENCY THAT WE PUT IN PLACE AT OUR POWER PLANTS, THIS YEAR WE WILL ACHIEVE 90 MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY VERSUS 39.2 MEGAWATTS IN 1995. AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE LAST SUMMER THERE WAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. AND THE EVENT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN WAS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO PURR TAIL OUR CUSTOMERS -- CURTAIL OUR CUSTOMERS, AND IT WAS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WE WERE THE ONLY MAJOR CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT DID NOT HAVE TO CURTAIL OUR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS DURING A HOT SUMMER AFTERNOON. EVERY OTHER CITY HAD TO DO THAT. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE DO THAT IN A LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE 350 MEGAWATTS THAT WE HAD OF CONSERVATION POWER THAT WE HAD INSTALLED OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS, AND THE PROGRAMS WEREN'T RANDOM PROGRAMS FOR JUST SAVING ANY KIND OF ENERGY. THEY WERE TORE GETTED -- TARGETED AT REDUCING OUR PEAK LOAD. THEY WERE PROGRAMS THAT WERE TARGETED TO SAVE ENERGY ON A HOT SUMMER AFTERNOON. AND THAT'S WHY MEGAWATT DEMAND IS THE PERFORMANCE MEASURE THAT WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THIS NEXT SUMMER IS ALSO GOING TO BE TIGHT AND THE SUMMER AFTER THAT AND THE SUMMER AFTER THAT. AND IT'S NOT THE TOTAL KILOWATT HOURS THROUGH THE WHOLE YEAR THAT WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT SAVING, IT'S THE MEGAWATT DEMAND ON THE HOT SUMMER AFTERNOONS. AND THAT'S WHAT OUR PROGRAMS ARE TARGETED FOR AND WHAT'S THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. AND WHETHER YOU GET THAT MEGAWATT REDUCTION BY REDUCING A RESIDENTIAL AIR CONDITIONER OR GIVING A REBATE TO A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER OR CHANGING THE OPERATING EFFICIENCY OF YOUR POWER PLANT, IT'S ALL THE SAME. CHANGING THE OPERATING EFFICIENCIES OF A POWER PLANT SAVES FUEL, IT REDUCES YOUR AIR EMISSION COMING OUT OF THE PLANT AND IT ADDS CAPACITY TO YOUR SYSTEM DURING THOSE HOT SUMMER AFTERNOONS. IT'S ALL THE SAME MEASURE. AND WHEN YOU PUT THOSE TOGETHER, WE'RE ACHIEVING 90 MEGAWATTS THIS YEAR, WHICH JUST IS AN OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PROGRAM. AND EVEN IF YOU DECIDED TO DISCOUNT THE OPERATION EFFICIENCY OF THE POWER PLANT AND COMPARED 1995 TO THE OTHER TRADITIONAL DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, YOU'LL SEE THAT FOR THIS YEAR WE'RE ACHIEVING 35.8 MEGAWATTS AS OPPOSED TO 39.2 IN 1995, WHICH IS ONLY A 3.4 MEGAWATT DIFFERENCE IN THE HISTORICALLY GREATEST YEAR THAT WE EVER HAD IN STRICTLY DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. SO WE THINK THAT IN ESSENCE THE PROGRAM IS VERY AGGRESSIVE, ONE OF THE MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE COUNTRY AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF OUR CONSERVATION ININCENTIVE. THAT'S MY PRESENTATION, COUNCIL. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHIILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE] [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHIILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]
>> THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO WITH OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IS TAKE PARTICULAR MEASURES THAT WILL REDUCE BOTH THE MEGAWATT DEMAND AND KWH. AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE IS AN AIR CONDITIONER. THAT'S OUR KEY THING IN THIS CITY AND OUR SOUTHERN CITIES. SO HIGHER EFFICIENCIES DURING -- FOR OUR AIR CONDITIONERS DURING THE PEAK LOAD GOES RIGHT AT MEGAWATT DEMAND AND KWH. AS OPPOSED TO ELECTRIC HEATING. AND ELECTRIC HEATING IS NOT VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT. IS DOES USE UP KILOWATT HOURS, BUT IT'S DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PEAK. AND SO IF YOU PUT MONEY INTO THAT PROGRAM, YOU WOULD BE REDUCING YOUR TOTAL KWH, BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE HELPING YOUR PEAK LOAD REDUCTION.
>> AND YOU WOULD ALSO REDUCE KWH WHERE YOU HAVE GAS. THERE'S MANY HOURS THAT WE SERVE, MANY OF OUR CUSTOMERS DON'T HAVE GAS, SO THE GAS WATER HEATER IS NOT AN OPTION. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE LOAD CONTROL PROGRAM ON WATER HEATERS IS THERE'S NO LOAD DURING PEAKS BECAUSE THAT'S THE REAL NICE THING ABOUT A TIMER. THEY'RE TURNED OFF. WHEN WE DO THAT, YOU ELIMINATE THAT PEAK REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER.
>> THAT'S WHY WE HISTORICALLY HAVE ADDRESSED PEAK LOAD IN OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND IT PAID OFF LAST SUMMER AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONTINUING TO FOCUS ON THAT RATHER THAN GENERAL KWH.
>>SPELMAN: THE WAY PROBABLY ANY -- THERE ARE PROBABLY ANY NUMBER OF WAYS YOU CAN COMPLICATE THIS. YOU CAN HAVE PEAK KWH AND REGULAR KWH AND OFF PEAK KWH, BUT IT WOULDING YOUR PART AS TO HOW ALL THESE THINGS FALL OUT. BUT YOU'VE SEPARATED THE MEGAWATTS INTO KWH AND THE MEGAWATTS OF WHAT YOU'RE USING AS THE MARKER FOR PEAK KILOWATT HOURS AS WELL AS CAPACITY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE REPORT BOTH, BUT OUR FOCUS ON OUR PROGRAMS IS MEGAWATTS.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY. COULD YOU COME UP -- IS THERE A ROUGH ESTIMATE FOR DOLLARS -- HOW MUCH IS IT WORTH FOR US IN THE COMMUNITY TO PAY FOR MEGAWATTS?
>> WELL, TO GIVE A ROUGH COMPARISON, IF YOU LOOK AT A POWER PLANT IN TERMS OF DOLLARS PER KW, WHICH CAPITAL COST SO CONSTRUCT IT, I BELIEVE THAT OUR CURRENT MARKET OUT THERE IS AROUND $450 OR SO PER WKW IN CAPITAL COSTS THAEND YOU HAVE TO PAY FUEL ON COP OF THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU NEED FUEL TO OPERATE THE PLANT. AND IT WILL RUN IT UP, OH, SOME FIGURE WELL ABOVE THAT FOR THE DOLLAR PER KW. OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS RANGE FROM AS LOW AS $100 PER KW FOR SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS TO UP TO AROUND 450 OR SO FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS. AND AGAIN, THERE'S NO FUEL INVOLVED. SO THAT'S THE CRITERIA WE USE FOR MAKING SURE OUR PROGRAMS ARE COST EFFECTIVE.
>> ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU TALKING ABOUT PLANTS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LIFE OF 30 TO 40 YEARS AND YOU TALK ABOUT AMORTIZING THE COST OF THAT PLANT OVER A 30 OR 40 YEAR PERIOD AND HOW IT MIGHT DOUBLE THOSE TOTAL COSTS, FOR EXAMPLE. IS IT CUFFLY DOUBLING, IT ADDING -- ROUGHLY DOUBLING, IS IT ADDING PER KW?
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
>> ANDY RAMIREZ IS HERE AND CAN ANSWER THAT.
>>SPELMAN: AFTER I GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, I'LL LET YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> I THINK IT'S ROUGHLY 13 THUN DOLLARS PER K -- $1300 PER KW?
>>SPELMAN: OVER THE LIFE OF THE PLAN?
>> RIGHT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACKUP OVER THE PROJECTS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICES IN THE BACKUP YOU HAVE THAT FIGURE AND I THINK IT WAS 1329 PER KW.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY. SO 1329, THAT'S OPERATION AND FUEL AND I ADD TO THAT THE 450 CONSTRUCTION COST TO --
>> NO, THAT'S TOTAL.
>>SPELMAN: SO IF I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR SAVE KILL WATTS, IT OUGHT TO BE ANYTHING LESS THAN 1329 IS GOING TO SAVE US MONEY IN THE LONG RUN?
>> POSSIBLY. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE INCREMENTALS ARE. AND IF YOU HAVE TOIN VEST IN MEGAWATTS, HOW MANY YOU NEED TO INVEST IN, SO YOU NEED TO INVEST IN BOTH SIDES OF THAT, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUY A MEGAWATTS AT A TIME.
>>SPELMAN: THEY COME IN BUNDLES. WE MIGHT SOME DAY.
>> SOME DAY. FUEL CELLS, NO PROBLEM. THAT'S WHEN WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT -- THAT TECHNOLOGY AND HOW THAT COMPARED TO THE LOADED COST OF OUR BASE OPERATING UNIT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SPEND THE THOUSAND, $1200 ON BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THE MEGAWATT PURCHASE.
>>SPELMAN: I'M ALMOST DONE WITH THIS SEGMENT, SO COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, I'M ALMOST FINISHED. IF WE'VE GOT $100, IF WE'RE SPENDING $100 FOR EACH COMMERCIAL KILOWATT AND 400 GIFT FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL KILOWATT, THAT'S SAVING US -- 450 FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL KILOWATT THAT'S SAVING US 800, 900 DOLLARS ON THE RESIDENTIAL STUFF EVERY TIME WE DO THAT?
>> THAT'S CLOSE, YEAH.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: OKAY. YOU CALCULATED FUEL COSTS AND WHAT IT COSTS US PER MEGAWATT AS KILOWATT.
>> CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: DON'T THE CUSTOMER PAY FUEL COSTS?
>> IF YOU CAN ELIMINATE THE NEED TO SELL THAT KW, YOU ALSO ELIMINATE THE FUEL COST TO GENERATE THAT KW.
>>LEWIS: BUT REGARDLESS, IT'S ON THE CUSTOMER'S BILL FOR THE FUEL COST. IT'S PROCEED RATED FOR THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT THE CUSTOMER USES FOR THE COST FOR FUEL, RIGHT?
>> THE FUEL IS A DIRECT PASS THROUGH. YOU SPEND $100 IN FUEL, YOU PASS THAT $100 ON TO ALL THE CUSTOMERS.
>>LEWIS: SO WE CAN ELIMINATE THE FUEL. THE FUEL IS NOT A COST TO THE PLANT.
>> IT'S NOT A COST TO -- IT'S A DIRECT CUSTOMER COST.
>>LEWIS: RIGHT. IT'S NOT A COST TO PLANT, TO THE OPERATING OF THE PLANT, THOUGH, RIGHT? AND THEN THE OPERATING COST IN THE PLANT PER KW WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS BECAUSE YOU DO A PASS-THROUGH WITH THE FUEL. AND MY QUESTION -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVING A POWER PLANT. ON DO WE HAVE ANY POWER PLANTS THAT'S RUNNING IN THE RED?
>> NO.
>>LEWIS: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M -- YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SAVING MONEY, IF WE'RE NOT RUNNING IN THE RED, THEN WE'RE MAKING MONEY, SO IF WE BUILT ANOTHER DECKER POWER PLANT, ANOTHER 350 KW POWER PLANT, WE STILL -- YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE COST, BUT WE WOULD STILL BE MAKING MONEY ON IT. SO I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVERY TIME WE TALK ABOUT THE KW'S, WE TALK ABOUT SAVING IT, BUT IT'S A DIRECT PASS THROUGH TO THE CUSTOMER. SO WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT SAVING ANYTHING EXCEPT WE DON'T HAVE A LIABILITY, AUSTIN ENERGY DO,. AND WE TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN ALL THE DUAL SYSTEMS WHERE YOU HAVE GAS AND ELECTRIC. WELL, THERE'S AREAS HERE IN TOWN THAT DON'T HAVE THE AVAILABILITY OF GAS. I MEAN, NOT IN THE HILL COUNTRY, BUT HERE IN THE CENTRAL CITY. AND MY QUESTION IS WHY THE RATE DIFFERENCE JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO GAS LINES TO THESE PROPERTIES?
>> WELL, THE RATE'S NOT DIFFERENT. THE CUSTOMERS PAY THE SAME RATE WHETHER HE THEY HAVE A GAS APPLIANCE OR AN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE.
>>LEWIS: I'M TALKING ABOUT AN ALL ELECTRIC UNIT THE RATES ARE DIFFERENT THAN A MIXED UNIT.
>> NO, THEY'RE THE SAME. THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY CONCERNED. A HOME THAT'S ALL ELECTRIC, THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU GET A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOT HOUSE, DESIGNED THE SAME, AND IT WAS ALL LEM LEK ANDY YOU HAD ONE THAT HAD BOTH GAS AND ELECTRIC, THEN THEIR ENERGY CONSUMPTION WOULD BE LESS. DEPENDING ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THEIR AIR CONDITIONERS, THE AGE OF THEM, ETCETERA.
>>LEWIS: YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE CAUSE FOR -- COST FOR KILOWATT HOUR AS TO WHAT COST WE'RE REFERRING TO BECAUSE THE COST THAT'S DIRECTLY PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMER IS REALLY NOT A COST. BECAUSE ON TOP OF THAT COST, WE CHARGE A PERCENTAGE WHICH IS CONSIDERED PROFIT TO AUSTIN ENERGY.
>> AUSTIN ENERGY MAKES NO PROFIT ON FUEL.
>>LEWIS: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FUEL, I'M TALKING ABOUT TO PRODUCE A MEGAWATT -- A KILOWATT HOUR, AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT RUNNING IN THE RED.
>> NO, SIR, YOU'RE CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: WHEN WE SAVE TRX WE'RE NOT SAVING AUSTIN ENERGY ANY MONEY IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> WELL, YOU'RE SAVING THE COPY COSTS -- CAPITAL COSTS OF INVESTING IN THE EQUIPMENT IN YOU DON'T NEED IF. YOU'VE AI HAD VOIDED US TAKING CASH OR BORROWING MONEY TO FINANCE THAT PLANT. IF YOU CAN AVOID ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, THAT'S WHERE YOU AVOID COSTS TO US. BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE WHAT WE NEED TO THINK OF IS IN 2002 OR 2006 WHEN RATES OR COSTS OF ENERGY ARE GOING TO BE PRICED DIFFERENTLY, CERTAINLY OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN IF YOU WERE IN DALLAS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRICING OF THE PRODUCT THAT'S GOING TO BE SOME GENERATION COST, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME WIRES COST, A FUELS COST, THERE'S GOING TO BE A NUMBERS OF COST COMPONENTS THAT GET DELIVERED. SO WHEN YOU LOOK INTO THE FUTURE, IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY WE PRICE TODAY IN EITHER US OR SOMEBODY IS BUILDING IT AND HOW THEY MAKE MONEY ON THAT INVESTMENT. IN THE PAST THE TRADITIONAL UTILITIES WOULD MAKE MONEY BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL THEY INVESTED TO SUPPLY THAT SYSTEM, THEY GET A RATE OF RETURN ON THAT. SO THAT WON'T OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. SO LOOKING AT YOUR TRUE COST AND LOOKING AT YOUR TRUE INCOME AND YOUR MARGINS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. BUT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVINGS. WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SAVINGS GOING TO? TO THE CUSTOMER?
>> TO THE CUSTOMER.
>>LEWIS: BECAUSE I KNOW ON MY BILLS, I GET A FUEL COST. AND THE FUEL COST IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONED TO THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT I USE.
>> CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FUEL COSTS TO AUSTIN ENERGY, IT'S A PASS-THROUGH. AND IF YOU'RE DOING BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU BUILD ANOTHER PLANT, IF YOU'RE IN THE GREEN, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU HAVE A DEBT SERVICE OR NOT. IF YOU CAN MANAGE TO SERVICE THAT DEBT SERVICE AND MAKE A PROFIT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T SAVE MONEY BY NOT BUILDING IT, YOU JUST HAVE -- YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE DEBT SERVICE. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN COVER THE DEBT SERVICE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE IT OR NOT. AND I THINK WE SOMETIMES CONFUSE THE ISSUE OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVINGS AND NOT HAVING TO BUILD ANOTHER PLANT. BECAUSE IF WE BUILD IT, IF WE WERE GOING TO RUN IT IN THE RED, IF THE PLANT WASN'T GOING PRODUCE ENOUGH ENERGY OR WE COULDN'T SELL ENOUGH SO WE COULD SERVICE THE DEBT SERVICE, THEN I WOULD SAY YES, DON'T BUILD IT. BUT IF WE CAN BUILD IT AND STILL MAKE A PROFIT OFF OF IT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS OPERATION. YOU JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN DO -- THAT IT COVER THE DEBT SERVICE. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THESE, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT 55 KW DECKER ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS. WHAT DID WE DO AT DECKER TO DO A 55 KW MEGAWATT IMPROVEMENT?
>> WE REDUCED THE AIR INTAKE TEMPERATURE SO WHEN THE UNIT RUNS WE COOL THE AIR AND A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF BURNING THE FUEL. WE'VE LOWERED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE AIR TO YOU GET MORE ENERGY FOR THE FUEL CONSUMED. WE HAVE RETUBED SOME -- I THINK IT'S EITHER DECKER ONE OR TWO, WE'VE DONE SOME RETUBING THERE AND WE'RE OPERATING OUR FEED WATER INTO DECKER 2 UNDER HIGH LOAD CONDITIONS DIFFERENT THAN WE HAVE BEFORE SO YOU INCREASE THE CAPACITY IN THE OUTPUT OF THAT UNIT BY BETTER MANAGING WHAT'S COMING INTO THE SYSTEM.
>>LEWIS: I HAVE JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION. WHEN WE -- I'M LOOKING HERE AT ALL OF THE OPERATING BUDGETS FOR RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL. AND THE AMOUNT OF THE INCENTIVE BUDGET. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCENTIVE AND OPERATING BUDGETS?
>> YES, SIR. THE INCENTIVE BUDGETS ARE THE REBATES THAT WE GIVE. FOR INSTANCE, IN -- WITH THE COMMERCIAL YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS. ONE IS THE AMOUNT OF REBATES THAT WE GIVE TO A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER FOR PUTTING IN AN ITEM AND ALSO INCLUDED IN THE INCENTIVE ON THE COMMERCIAL IS THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE REPAYING THE STATE FOR A FOUR PERCENT LOAN IN PREVIOUS YEARS TO RETROFIT OUR CITY BUILDING FOR ENERGY.
>>LEWIS: SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET HERE, ON YOUR HANDOUT YOU SHOW 1.1 SAVING FOR RESIDENTIAL, AND IT SAYS BUDGET A DOLLAR PER KILOWATT INCLUDES TOTAL COST OF FREE WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM. AND YOU HAVE INCENTIVE BUDGETS 5.8 MILLION.
>> YES, SIR. THE 1.8 MILLION ARE ALL THE OPERATING BUDGET COSTS OF PERSONNEL, SUPPLIES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THE 5.8 MILLION ARE THE REBATES, FOR INSTANCE, OF YOUR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS THAT WE PAY TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE CONTRACTORS FOR STRAIGHT UP REBATES IN THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. THE BUDGETED DOLLAR PER KW TAKES THAT TOTAL COST AND DIVIDES THAT BY THE NUMBER OF MEGAWATTS WE GIVE AND THAT'S YOUR 484 PER KW.
>>LEWIS: SO IT COSTS 484 >> THAT'S CORRECT. GENERALLY THE ITEM THAT YOU'RE DOING IN A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ARE MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU CAN GET A NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM IN A COMMERCIAL SETTING. THAT'S THE $100. OUR AVERAGE COMMERCIAL IS, AS YOU SEE, 260. IT'S ONLY IN THE CASE OF NEW DESIGN THAT YOU GET AS LOW AS $100 PER KW.
>>LEWIS: IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IN THE SAVINGS TO DATE COLUMN, IF WE'RE AT .2 IN COMMERCIAL AND 4.7 IN RESIDENTIAL, WF A WIDE DISPARITY IN THAT SAVINGS?
>> AS I SAID EARLIER, WE GET ALMOST ALL THE IN LATE SPRING AND SUMMER. THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE'S AIR CONDITIONERS START GOING OUT AND YOU'RE RETROFITTING FACILITIES AND IT IS NOT SPREAD EVENLY THROUGH THE YEAR. THE FIRST QUARTER OR SO OF THE YEAR YOU GET VERY LITTLE SAVINGS. THIS IS ABOUT A MONTH OUT OF DATE NOW FROM OUR LATEST FIGURES, BUT AS I SAY, -- AS I'VE SAID, WE HAVE 118 IN NEW APPLICATIONS COME IN LAST MONTH IN COMMERCIAL. WE HAD HALF A MEGAWATT PROJECT COME IN JUST LAST WEEK AND THIS IS THE TIME OF YEAR THAT WE START TO ACHIEVE THE FULL SAVINGS FOR THE YEAR, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST BEING THE BIG ONES.
>>LEWIS: I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THIS: [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHIILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]
>>SPELMAN: I HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT ANY OF US HAD WITH RESPECT TO CONCENTRATION PROGRAM THIS YEAR IS THE SLOWNESS WITH WHICH THE COMMERCIAL PROGRAM GOT STARTED, AND I THINK YOU'VE ADDRESSED THAT. ARE WE STILL ON TRACT TO GET ABOUT 10 MEGAWATTS OR SO BY THE END OF THIS? I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, BUT I WANT TO NARROW IT DOWN.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL REBATE SECTION OF THE PROGRAM, WE MAY BE A COUPLE OF MEGAWATTS BELOW THAT. IT'S HARD TO SAY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE -- WE INSTITUTED A 60-DAY PERIOD OF DOUBLE REBATES, AND THE PERIOD IS APRIL AND MAY. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL THE END OF MAY IF THAT'S GOING TO GET THE RESPONSE WE THINK IT WILL. IF IT DOES, WE PROBABLY WILL MEET THE PROGRAM GOAL. IF NOT, WE'LL BE OFF BY ONE OR TWO MEGAWATTS. THAT SHOULD BE MORE THAN AN OFFSET BY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS, LIKE THE COMMERCIAL LOAD CO-OP PROGRAM WHICH WE'RE GETTING 10 MEGAWATTS AND IT'S GOING EXTREMELY WELL.
>>SPELMAN: PART OF THE CONCERN HERE I GUESS IS JUST THE NUMBERS AREN'T THERE YET. AND PART OF THE CONCERN I THINK IS THAT THIS PROGRAM HAS GONE THROUGH A COUPLE OF CHANGES. AND THE CUSTOMER MAKES IS UNCLEAR AEZ TO WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. ARE WE GOING TO PURSUE THE ENERGY SERVICES? IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE ENERGY SERVICES, BUT NOW WE'RE BACK ON REBATES AGAIN AND IT MAY BE AWHILE BEFORE THE CUSTOMERS GET USED TO THAT. IF YOU COULD KEEP US FOCUSED ON THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. SPEAK SPELL THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE HERE. THAT IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DECKER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON BALANCE THE FOCUS ON MEGAWATT SAVINGS. THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE TO ME AND I CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY THAT'S A SIMPLE MEASURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SUCH A DIFFICULT ACCOUNTING CHORE TO CONSIDER ON THAT AND FOCUSING ON MEGAWATTS SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE BEST SINGLE THING TO DO. ON THE OTHER HAND, KILOWATT HOURS ARE IMPORTANT TOO, SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO BE POINTING OUT. YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT.
>> YES, WE WILL BE REPORTING THAT.
>> ESPECIALLY IF IT'S OF BENEFIT TO THE CLIENT, THE KILOWATT HOURS.
>>SPELMAN: AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
>> CORRECT.
>>SPELMAN: MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT MEGAWATT SAVINGS IS THE DECKER IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH LIKE A M.D. IN 95 IS A ONE-TIME ONLY THING. HAVING PLUGGED THE LEAKS IN THAT AS WE WERE, THEN THERE'S PROBABLY NOT THAT MUCH TO BE GAINED BY MOVING BACK TO DECKER AND LOOKING AT IT ANY FURTHER?
>>.
>> NO. BUT YOU'VE GOT THE 55 MEGAWATTS NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT NEXT YEAR. SO IN LIEU OF GOING TO THE MARKET AND BUILDING 55 MEGAWATTS, YOU'VE AVOIDED THAT.
>>SPELMAN: PARTICULARLY IF IT ONLY COSTS 24 BUCKS KILL WATTS AND WE'RE GAINING ON MEGAWATT, THAT'S A TREMENDOUS GAIN. ARE THERE OTHER LOW HANGING FRUIT LIKE THE DECKER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN COUNT ON IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
>> WE MET YESTERDAY. THERE'S WHAT WE CALL THE POWER FACTOR OR EFFICIENCY IN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. HOW MUCH ENERGY IS LOST THROUGH HEAT AND RESISTANCE, THROUGH CONDUCTED MOTORS THAT ARE NOT AS EFFICIENT AS THEY CAN BE. WE'RE PURSUING THAT RIGHT NOW LOOKING AT HOW WE AND OUR CUSTOMERS CAN MAKE THE WHOLE SYSTEM MORE EFFICIENT, WHICH REDUCES, AGAIN, THE MEGAWATT NEED BECAUSE YOU GET MORE OUTPUT EFFICIENCY FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DEALS WE WILL BE LOOKING AT WATER AND WASTEWATER WITH AND HELPING THEM ON SOME OF THEIR LARGE MOTORS AND PUMPS THAT WILL MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT WHICH WILL LOWER THEIR CONSUMPTION ALSO. SO YES, WE ARE LOOKING CERTAINLY INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY. IT'S A REAL BROAD APPROACH WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE IN EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FRUIT WE CAN FIND.
>>SPELMAN: GIVING HOW KEEP THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LOW HANGING FRUIT WAS, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. AND YOU'RE EXPECTING FOR NEXT YEAR THE KPERBL PROGRAM WOULD BE BACK UP AROUND 10 MEGAWATT SAVINGS IN TOTAL?
>> AND AGAIN, WE'RE BRINGING COMMERCIAL UP MORE. THE COMMERCIAL REBATE PROGRAM ITSELF WILL PROBABLY STILL BE AROUND 10 MEGAWATTS. THE TYPE OF MEASURES THAT THAT PROGRAM ARE JUST NOT AS AVAILABLE AS THEY WERE IN PREVIOUS YEARS. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF LOW HANGING FRUIT THROUGH THAT REBATE PROGRAM. WE NEED OTHER TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS TO PICK UP THE SLACK.
>>SPELMAN: COOPERATING WITH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, FOR EXAMPLE?
>> RIGHT.
>>SPELMAN: BUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WE GET FROM COMMERCIAL SOURCES, REGARDLESS OF HOW WE GET THEM, YOU'RE PROJECTING WILL BE SOMEWHERE AROUND THE NUMBER WE GOT IN 199995 OR THEREABOUTS?
>> YES.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
>>GOODMAN: ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M LOOKING AT THE SCHEDULE CALLED SAVINGS SUMMARY AND COMPARISON. AND YOU MAY HAVE COVERED THIS, BUT -- COVERED THIS, BUT I'D LIKE TO GO OVER IT ONE TIME. ON THE COMMERCIAL CONSERVATION FOR THE YEAR 1995, WE SAVED 74 MILLION,400 IN KILL WATTS AND THEN WE WENT UP TO 76, WHICH IS ABOUT -- 96, WHICH IS ABOUT ONE-THIRD. IS THIS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DOING THE CONSERVATION THEMSELVES OR -- I DON'T REMEMBER THAT THIS COUNCIL MADE A DECISION TO USE COMMERCIAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS.
>> NO, SIR. AND IT'S NOT. THERE WAS NOT A REDUCTION THERE IN TERMS OF EFFORT. TWO THINGS WERE DIFFERENT ABOUT 1995. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAD A COUPLE OF LARGE PROJECTS, LIKE A M.D. AND APPLIED MATERIAL THAT CAME ON LINE THAT WE GOT ABOUT FIVE MEGAWATTS OF THAT AMOUNT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF THOSE PROJECTS COMING IN THIS YEAR, THESE EXTREMELY GOOD COST SAVINGS. SECONDLY, YOU HAD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LIGHTING PROJECTS COME IN THAT YEAR. 96% -- WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS RIGHT OFFHAND, BUT A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THAT 24 MEGAWATTS, AT LEAST TO THE 74 MILLION KWH, WERE LIGHTING PROJECTS THAT CAME IN IN 1995. A MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE OF THE 10 MEGAWATTS WE'RE GETTING HERE ARE LIGHTING PROJECTS. AND THE LIGHTING HAS A MUCH HIGHER KWH THAN OTHER TYPES OF EFFICIENCIES. SO JUST THE MIX OF THE MEGAWATTS JTS FOR A LOT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE -- ACCOUNTS FOR A LOT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 74 AND THE 26.
>>GARCIA: ARE YOU SAYING WE HAVE BASICALLY REACHED THE POINT WHERE WE'RE STOPPING OUT AS FAR AS LIGHTING?
>> YES. THAT WAS THE OTHER POINT I WAS GETTING TO. YOU'VE GOT A SATURATION EFFECT. WE HAVE HAD -- WE'VE BEEN DOING THE COMMERCIAL REBATE PROGRAMS FOR 15 TO 20 YEARS NOW. AND IN 1995 IN PARTICULAR WE GAVE A HUGE REBATE AMOUNT AND GOT A LOT OF THAT PENITENTIARY UP DEMAND OUT OF THE WAY. AND -- PENT UP DEMAND OUT OF THE WAY. AND IN THE CONSTRUCTION SINCE THEN, THE LIGHTING THAT'S GOING INTO BUILDINGS IS HIGHER EFFICIENT THAT THAN WHAT IT WAS AND WERE REPLACING IN 1995. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE JUST ISN'T AS MUCH POTENTIAL OUT THERE FOR THE TYPE OF CONSERVATION THAT WE REACH THROUGH A COMMERCIAL REBATE PROGRAM AS THERE IS TODAY.
>>GARCIA: IS THIS THE LIGHTING OR IS THIS IN A BIG PROJECT LIKE THE ONES THAT YOU MENTIONED, A M.D. AND APPLIED MATERIALS?
>> IT'S IN THE LIGHTING. AND WE ARE DEPENDENT ON BIG PROJECTS COMING IN AND GETTING WITH US AT THE BEGINNING. SAMSUNG WAS A GOOD PROJECT FOR US. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR, WE DON'T HAVE A PRONL THAT'S BEING COMPLETED THAT WORKS WITH US THAT GIVES US TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE MEGAWATTS.
>>GARCIA: OKAY. DELL IS NOT IN THE -- IN OUR SERVICE AREA?
>> PART OF DELL IS.
>>GARCIA: PART IS. AND WE DIDN'T COMPLETE ANY IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2000? I GUESS NOT?
>> I THINK WHAT ROGER IS SAYING AND I WOULD AGREE WITH, A LOT OF THE NEWER BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY BEING DESIGNED AND BUILT SO THAT THE --
>>GARCIA: RIGHT.
>> SO THE FORMER MARKET IS SHRINKING AND THE NEW MARKET IS BEING BUILT WITH MUCH MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE NEW BUILDING TO GO AFTER TO GET A RETROFIT TWO YEARS AFTER THEY BUILT IT.
>>GARCIA: YOU MODIFIED THIS WITH THE WORK THAT -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE EXPLANATION, HOPEFULLY YOU SAID.
>> WHATEVER THE BUILDING CODES ARE, I'M SURE THEY'RE WILLING TO THE BUILDING CODES. OUR GREEN BUILDER, WE HAVE 589 HOMES I THINK LAST YEAR GREEN BUILDING THAT WERE CERTIFIED.
>>GARCIA: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL, NOT RESIDENTIAL. YOU'RE SAYING THESE NEW BUILDINGS HOPEFULLY ARE BEING BUILT USING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. DO WE KNOW THAT?
>> WE KNOW THAT THE CODE IS HIGHER AND THAT THEY ARE BEING BUILT MORE EFFICIENT. RECALL, HOWEVER, THAT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE WE DO NOT COUNT IN OUR NUMBERS AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT EITHER AS BUILT OR RETROFIT UNLESS THEY COME THROUGH OUR PROGRAM. SO WE DO NOT -- WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS WE DO NOT HAVE A LARGE PROJECT THAT CAME THROUGH OUR PROGRAM THIS YEAR.
>>GARCIA: THEY DON'T REPORT TO YOU IF THEY'RE DOING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>>GARCIA: LAST QUESTION. ONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY VIF ACTIVITIES HAS MADE THE ROUNDS AROUNDTY HALL AND SAID THESE ENERGIES ARE NOT QUITE CORRECT. HAVE YOU -- THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT QUITE CORRECT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO MEET AND DISCUSS WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN THEM, WHAT HE'S SAYING AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> THE LAST DISCUSSION I HAD WAS ABOUT TWO HOURS AGO.
>>GARCIA: ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A RECONCILIATION WORKSHEET THAT SHOWS WHAT HE SHOWED AND WHAT YOU ON SHOW AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE RECONCILING ITEMS ARE? BEING A CPA, I HAVE TO HAVE RECONCILIATION.
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS MEMO IS ATTEMPTING TO DO. THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF THE MEMO EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIS SPREADSHEET AND THIS SPREADSHEET. AND I THINK THAT WE'RE CLOSE. THIS MORNING THERE WAS AN ITEM ON THE WAY THAT THE KWH FROM DECKER WAS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR, I THINK, BUT I WILL NOT SPECULATE ON WHETHER WE WILL HAVE A COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
>>GARCIA: ONE FINAL QUESTION. I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I WAS THROUGH. ON THIS WORK SHEET THAT YOU HAVE IN THE OTHER PACKAGE, YOU HAVE OPERATING BUDGETS AND INCENTIVE BUDGET. IS THE INCENTIVE BUDGET IN THE OPERATING BUDGET?
>> NO. THE INCENTIVE BUDGET -- WELL, ACTUALLY, IN THE TOTAL BUDGET GOING TO COUNCIL, IT IS. WE'RE SEPARATING IT OUT HERE TO SEPARATE OUT REBATES. IT'S SOMETHING --
>> IT'S DIFFERENT KINDS OF --
>> ALL OF THIS IS IN THE APPROVED BUDGET. IT'S NOT CIP. IT IS ALL BUDGET. BUT WE SEPARATE OUT THE REBATES FROM THE OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.
>>GARCIA: SO THE OPERATING BUDGET IS TO OPERATE THE PROGRAMMING. AND IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA YOU INDICATE HERE THAT -- LET'S SEE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THAT. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM IS SLOW, BUT IMPROVING.
>> YES. WE STARTED OUT BEHIND THE CURVE AND WE'VE TAKEN ABOUT SEVEN MEASURES IN THE LAST MONTH TO GET THAT PROGRAM UP TO WHERE WE THINK IT SHOULD BE. AND WE'RE STARTING TO GET A LOT OF APPLICATIONS IN IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
>>GARCIA: AND THIS INCENTIVE COULD BE -- OWE WOULD BE HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING FOR A BUDGETED KILL WATTS IN THE AMOUNTS HERE? 40084 FOR RESIDENTIAL, 273 FOR GREEN BUILDING AND 260 FOR COMMERCIAL? IS THAT THE --
>> THAT'S THE AVERAGE.
>>GARCIA: WHAT WAS THE TRADITIONAL AMOUNT THAT WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT?
>> WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT COMPARING IT TO THE STATE-OF-THE-ART COMBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINE PLUS FUEL AND ANDY A MOMENT AGO SAID THAT TOTAL COST IS AROUND 13 $1300 PER KW.
>>GARCIA: THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
>> WE ARE SPENDING 7.8 MILLION DOLLARS ON RENEWABLES AND OTHER SOURCES WHICH ARE ALSO CONSERVATION OF OUR TRADITIONAL FOSSIL OUT PUTS AND UNITS.
>>GARCIA: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>>LEWIS: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU. DURING THE PROCESS OF CALCULATING THE SAVINGS OVER THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS, ARE WE STILL WORKING WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT WE'RE WORKING TO TAKE DECKER -- I MEAN, HOLLY OFF LINE IN 2005?
>> OUR BUSINESS PLAN STATES THAT WE'LL BE BACK BY 2003 ONCE WE SEE HOW THE ENERGY MARKET UNFOLDS IN TEXAS. WHERE ARE THOSE PLANTS, WHAT IS THE ACCESSIBILITY TO HAVE THAT ENERGY COMING TO AUSTIN. THE MARKET IS SO VOLATILE RIGHT NOW THAT YOU HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO MAKE THAT DECISION, BUT THAT IS A CONSTANT UPDATE. WE'RE CONSTANTLY IN THE MARKET LOOKING AT WHAT ARE THE SUPPLIERS GOING TO HAVE AVAILABLE. SO CERTAINLY BY 2003 OR SOONER WE EXPECT TO HAVE THAT BUSINESS DECISION MADE.
>>LEWIS: BUT MY QUESTION IS ARE WE WORKING WITH THAT IN MIND? ARE WE WORKING WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT WE MAY HAVE TO KEEP DECKER ONLINE RATHER THAN WE CAN REMOVE IT OFF LINE?
>> WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE SCENARIOS AND CERTAINLY CONSIDER HOLLY NOT BEING THERE, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE AND WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO REPLACE THAT ENERGY. SO THE ANSWER IS YES AND YES.
>>LEWIS: OKAY. BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN ONE PERSPECTIVE, YOU DO ONE THING. AND IN ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE, YOU MAY DO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. BECAUSE IF YOU STICK TO THE TIME LINE WHICH THE COUNCIL GAVE IN REMOVING IT IN 2005, WE MAY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT IF WE HAVE A MIX AND WE SAY, WELL, WE MAY BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT AND KEEP IT ONLINE, THEN WE DON'T DO SOMETHING IN THE MEANTIME. AND MY QUESTION GOES RIGHT BACK TO ARE WE WORKING ON THE PROVISION THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REMOVING IT OFF LINE IN 2005?
>> WE'RE WORKING ON BOTH OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT YES, WE WOULD CLOSE IT OR WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CLOSE IT DEPENDING ON THE MARKET OR WHAT GENERATION IS AVAILABLE AND WHAT IT WOULD COST THE CITY TO DISPLACE IT EXACTLY ON THAT DATE.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT I WOULD DO IS TRY TO REPHRASE AND CLARIFY WHERE THE DISCREPANCIES WERE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, BUT I THINK IF NOBODY OBJECTS, WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE DO IS ASK MR. ROBBINS FOR ONE MINUTE, 60 SECONDS' WORTH OF ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION FROM HIS SIDE AND ONE MINUTE, 60 SECONDS, IN RESPONSE TO IT FROM MR. MANNING AND DUNCAN. IF THE COUNCIL IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, CAN WE GIVE THEM TWO MORE MINUTES? A FINITE TWO MINUTES?
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: UNLESS I HEAR AN OBJECTION --
>>SLUSHER: WE USUALLY DON'T DO THAT AT THESE BRIEFINGS.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT I'VE DONE BEFORE, THOUGH, IS ASK THE SORT OF INITIATOR OR INSTIGATER OF MY REQUEST FOR A BRIEFING TO SPEAK AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END.
>>SLUSHER: AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT STIPULATION WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT TO DO IT AT EVERY BRIEFING.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>SLUSHER: IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE DEAL. [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. IF COUNCIL --
>> AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BACKED BY ANYBODY.
>>SLUSHER: IF IF IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN TOO.
>>GOODMAN: WITH THAT OBJECTION, THEN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>> SET IT FOR THREE MINUTES, READY, SET, GO. [LAUGHTER].
>> I WAS HOPING THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THIS MIGHT BE MORE TO THE BIGGER ISSUE OF ARE WE SAVING ENOUGH. AS I SAID BEFORE, OUR USE IN ENERGY HAS GONE UP 33% PER CAPITA SINCE THE ENERGY CRISIS BEGAN IN 1972. AND I'M HOPING WE COULD DECIDE AMONGST ALL OURSELVES WHAT CAN WE DO TO INCREASE SAVINGS TO SOMETHING MORE MEANINGFUL. ENVIRONMENT AND CUSTOMER TERMS WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT WHERE TO PUT THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TIE TUNE IN THIS CASE. MEGAWATTS DO SAVE PEAK. I'M INTERESTED IN PEAK. MR. DUNCAN AND MR. MAN -- AND MANNING FORGET THAT I HELPED START THESE PROGRAMS AND WE COULD SAVE ENERGY AND WELL AND WE COULD SAVE MORE PEAK. REGARDING THE PARTICULARS, THE MOST EGREGIOUS THINGS THAT I'VE FOUND IS THEY'RE MAKING ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DECKER WHICH IS REALLY FOR REPAIR. THE TUBING -- [BUZZER].
>> THAT WASN'T -- WAS IT? DECKER RETUBING IS FROM WEAR AND TEAR ON THE PLANT. AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING, AND I CONFIRMED THIS WITH TWO PEOPLE AT THE UTILITY, IS TAKING UP THE PLANT'S CAPACITY BACK TO WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS. IT'S A GOOD THING. I'M GLAD THEY'RE DOING IT, BUT IT IS NOT CONSERVATION PER SE. THERE ARE SOME SMALLER MEASURES THAT DO SAVE ENERGY, ABOUT SIX MILLION KILOWATT HOURS ACCORDING TO MY CALCULATIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY CONFIRMED BY UTILITY STAFF. REGARDING PEAK EFFICIENCY, I'M BEWILDERED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT I HEARD APPROXIMATE MR. MANNING SAY, WHICH IS THAT WATER HEATER SAVINGS FROM ELECTRIC CAPACITY DON'T SAVE PEAK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU FUEL -- WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF YOU TAKE AN ELECTRIC WATER HEATER OFF THE GRID, YOU'RE SAVING ABOUT ONE KILOWATT PER HOUSEHOLD. AS FAR AS THE 22 MILLION DOLLARS IN -- THIS IS THE MOST WE'VE EVER SPENT ON CONSERVATION. IT'S AN UNFAIR COMPARISON BECAUSE A GREAT DEAL OF THAT MONEY IS CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING PLANT, THE CSC-CITY HALL COMPLEX OR THE DECKER RETROFITS. FINALLY, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAVING ARE OVERLOOKED. MY POINT IS AS VALID AS IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ENERGY SAVINGS FROM DECKER AND FROM CONSERVATION, IF YOU TAKE THE -- WHEN YOU TAKE SUPPLY SIDE, YOU'RE SAVING ABOUT 130% MORE ENERGY IN 95 -- [BUZZER]. WHEN YOU TAKE ABOUT DECKER AND THE SUPPLY SIDE, YOU'RE DOUBLING THE ENERGY SAVINGS THAT WE HAD IN 1995 COMPARED TO THIS TIME.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>> WHAT CAN WE DO TO INCREASE THIS? THANK YOU.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD GIVE YOU THREE MORE MINUTES OR ASK FOR A SHORT RESPONSE SO YOU CAN DO THE RESEARCH.
>> I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE CAN RESPOND RATHER QUICKLY. I THINK THERE IS AN OVERSIGHT, WHETHER IT'S CAPITAL OR OPERATING, THE CITY HAS A GOOD INCOME STREAM STREAM TO WORK FROM AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DO EVERY SINGLE THING WE CAN FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FOR CONSERVATION. BUT TO SAY THAT SPENDING MONEY ON THE DECKER OR SOMEWHERE THAT YOU GAIN EFFICIENCY OR IMPROVEMENT ISN'T OF VALUE TO ME DOESN'T ADD UP. WE HAVE CONSERVED -- WE HAVE TO SRVE THE CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE BOTH CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY. WE HAVE TO DO THAT. AND AGAIN, I THINK -- I THINK THAT'S A SUFFICIENT RESPONSE.
>> WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE WATER HEATING SAVINGS. THEY DO SAVE PEAK AND PAUL IS RIGHT ABOUT ONE KW PER HOUSEHOLD.
>> AND WE DID NOT SAY THEY DIDN'T. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF YOU TURN IT OFF YOU HAVE NO CONSUMPTION OF GAS OR ELECTRIC DURING THAT TIME.
>> AND I CERTAINLY DO WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO MR. ROBBINS ANZ BEING ONE OF THE CREATORS OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT IN AUSTIN. I BELIEVE AS EVERYONE KNOWS, ENERGY SAVINGS ARE UP HIGHER, AS MR. ROBBINS POINTED OUT IN HIS OWN REPORT, THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE LARGER HOISS THAT ARE BEING BUILT. AND THERE WERE SEVERAL FACTORS, SUCH AS USE OF THE INTERNET AND THE COMPUTER USE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY JUST DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.
>>GOODMAN: I THOUGHT ONE OF THE IRNZ, THOUGH, ABOUT THE DECKER -- THE PLANT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE CALCULATED MORE AS A RECLAMATION SAID INSTEAD OF A NEW ENERGY SAVINGS.
>> WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THERE IS IT IS STILL ADDING CAPACITY TO OUR SYSTEM FROM WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY. IF YOU FOLLOW THE ANATIONAL SI FURTHER, IT SHOULD ALSO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT OUR AIR CONDITIONING REBATES BECAUSE THE AIR CONDITIONING THAT WE ARE REPLACING, WHICH MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN A SEVEN OR EIGHT OR NINE SEER ARE DOWN TO A FIVE OR SIX WHEN YOU REPLACE THEM IN EFFICIENCY. SO I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT SPLITTING HAIRS TO SAY THAT THE REALITY IS WE'VE GOT 11 MORE MEGAWATTS OF CAPACITY. TODAY IN DECKER THAN WE DID LAST YEAR BY THESE EFFORTS.
>>GOODMAN: GREAT. THE OTHER COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS IS IN LOOKING AT WHERE THE CAPS WERE PLACED ON COMMERCIAL REBATES.
>> I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT'S A POLICY ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO INTERNAL. WE STILL ARE A PUBLIC UTILITY, SO I WOULD LIKE, WITH OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, TO HAVE THAT BE BROUGHT TO US IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU WANT TO CHANGE SO THAT WE CAN ALSO BE PRIVY TO THE ISSUES THAT WE DO TO THAT RECOMMENDATION OR DECISION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, OF COURSE WE CAN DO THAT. LET ME EXPAND ON THAT A MOMENT BECAUSE EVERY YEAR THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT WE CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO MARKET. COUNT IS ONE OF THEM, THE AMOUNT OF REBATE PER TYPE OF MEASURE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE DOLLARS THAT YOU GET TO A 12 SEER AIR CONDITIONER AS OPPOSED TO A 13 OR 14. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS SHIFTED FROM THIS PROGRAM TO THAT PROGRAM BASED ON PARTICIPATION LEVELS AT THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE MOVE AROUND INTERNALLY AND HAVE HISTORICALLY EVERY YEAR IN THESE PROGRAMS TO RESPOND TO WHICH PROGRAMS ARE DOING REALLY GOOD AND WHICH PROGRAMS ARE NOT DOING REALLY WELL. IN THE PAST WE HAVE ALWAYS OPERATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT COUNCIL WOULD SET THE MEGAWATT THAT WE WERE TO GET AND THE ACCEPT THE TOTAL BUDGET. AND TO USE OUR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO MEET THESE GOALS THAT THE COUNCIL SET.
>>GOODMAN: THE OTHER THING THAT'S BEEN DONE HISTORICALLY, TOO, THOUGH, IS COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS HAVE CENTERED AROUND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE REBATE PROGRAM, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. AND PHILOSOPHICALLY THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS IN COUNCIL MEETINGS ABOUT WHAT IS JUST TOO HIGH A CAP FOR AND WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE CAP FOR COMMERCIAL. SO I THINK THAT EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU KNOW THE MARKET ISSUES THAT YOU WANT TO BRING FORWARD IN CONSIDERATION OF THAT, IT IS STILL IN MY OPINION A POLICY ISSUE AND HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. SO NOW THAT WE'RE HAVING A NEW WAY OF GETTING READY TO DO BUSINESS, IF THERE'S SOME OTHER FASHION OF GETTING US THAT INFORMATION RATHER THAN HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING OR HAVING IT BE PART OF THE BUDGET, I STILL THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD KNOW AND HAVE INPUT ON THAT.
>> WELL, I GUESS LET ME ASK. ARE WE SUGGESTING -- WE'LL DO THIS DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.
>> WE'LL DO IT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE MADE A CAP MOVE EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE SENT A MEMORANDUM TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL STATING THAT THE CAP WAS GOING FROM THIS AMOUNT TO THAT AMOUNT.
>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. BUT IT WAS YOUR CHOICE. YOUR ACTION. NOT YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: I HAVE A COMMENT. I APPRECIATE THE UTILITIES COMING IN AND GOING THROUGH THIS FOR THE COUNCIL. TODAY. I THINK THE ARRANGEMENT WHERE THE CONSERVATION AND GREEN PROGRAMS ARE IN THE RENEWABLES PROGRAMS ARE IN THE UTILITY, I THINK THAT'S WORKED AND IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT TO BE. THERE WAS SOME CONTROVERSY OVER THAT AT THE TIME, BUT I THINK AS LONG AS THE CITY COUNCIL IS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF CONSERVATION AS WE'VE SEEN TODAY FROM THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCILL IS, THEN I THINK THE UTILITY IS GOING TO CARRY OUT CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IT NO MATTER HOW, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE IN THE UTILITY. I THINK THE KEY THERE, WHAT WE HAVE GOING NOW IS -- AND I CONGRATULATE YOU ON THIS, MR. MANNING, IS THE FOLKS AT THE UTILITY REALIZE THAT IT IS THE CITY -- THE CITIZENS' UTILITY AND THE CITIZENS' GOAL HERE IS ENERGY CONSERVATION. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM IN CARRYING THAT OUT. AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT MR. ROBBINS IS -- WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING SOME OF THE PROGRAMS STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THAT'S TRUE. I THINK A LOT OF US KNOW THAT. WHAT SOME PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T REALIZE, ESPECIALLY THE NEW FOLKS IN THE CITY THAT MR. DUNCAN WAS A COUNCILMEMBER. HE MAY NOT BE MINDFUL OF THAT. -- HE WAS. HE ALSO GOT ELECTED EARLIER IN HIS LIFE THAN ANY OF US THAT ARE UP HERE RIGHT NOW, BACK IN 1981, AND HE WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM STARTED AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND NOW IS OVERSEEING IT AS A UTILITY AND I CAN'T THINK OF ANYONE BETTER SUITED TO DO THIS.
>>GOODMAN: AS LONG AS WE'RE REMINISCING, I'M JUST REGISTER THAT ROGER AND PAUL USED TO BE LIKE THAT? -- [LAUGHTER].
>> ON JUST SO I'M IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. WE HAVE THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET AT THE END OF JUNE, FIRST PART OF JULY. THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MANAGERS COME OUT AT THE END OF JULY, FIRST PART OF AUGUST. SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND HAVE IT BE A FULL FOCUSED DISCUSSION OF THAT.
>>GOODMAN: I DO. I THINK THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE CAN SAY IN PUBLIC.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR TIMING WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTED.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT WE CAN DO -- OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. AND MR. ROBBINS AS WELL. WHAT WE CAN DO IS GO TO 41 AND 48, WHICH COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON. AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT, WE CAN DO 37 BEFORE WE BREAK TO CHANGE LOCATIONS. AND LET ME ALSO REMIND ANYBODY WHO'S HERE OR LISTENING THAT NEVER AGAIN COME HERE ON THURSDAY. WE WON'T BE HERE. WE'LL BE ON -- WE'LL BE AT ONE LOCATION, LCRA, 37 HUNDRED LAWN BOULEVARD, AND IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER I THINK FOR PEOPLE TO FIND US IF WE DON'T HAVE TWO PLACES TO GO. OKAY. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHIILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE] SPELL SPEAK I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT EITHER. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M HOPING WE CAN GET GEORGE W. TO DO IT FOR US, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. ALSO, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS IF -- ON THE MASTER PLAN, YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND YOU WILL CHANGE IT SO THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN?
>> YES.
>>SPELMAN: WE CANNOT FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE ON THE ROADWAY PLAN, BUT YOU HAVE PLANS RIGHT NOW OR DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE PLANS RIGHT NOW TO PUT IN A SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THAT SECTION WEST OF THE RAILROAD, THE RAILROAD TRACKS SAY OVER THE NEXT TWO ARE OR THREE MONTHS? DO YOU KNOW.
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE ARE -- THERE ARE SOME PLATS IN RIGHT NOW. WHETHER THAT'S PART OF -- THAT'S PART OF THE COMMUNITY OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY IS A QUARTER OF THE COMMUNITY. AND WE'RE REAL ANXIOUS TO GET STARTED, BUT I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING AND I WILL SAY THAT IF COUNCIL ADOPTS IT AND IF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADOPTS PART OF THIS ROADWAY PLAN, WE WILL REVISE OUR PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
>>SPELMAN: AND AGAIN, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING, BUT FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, I WOULD TAKE IT AS A PERSONAL FAVOR IF YOU COULD HOLD YOUR CLIENTS OFF ON SUBMITTING SUBDIVISION PLATS ON THE SECTION WHERE ARTERIAL A IS LIKELY TO GO UNTIL WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY FIGURE OUT WHETHER ARTERIAL A IS NECESSARY AND HOW BIG IT OUGHT TO BE AND WHERE IT WILL GO.
>> I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT, BUT I'LL TALK TO THEM. AND SOME OF THEM ARE HERE NOW AND HEARING THAT.
>>SPELMAN: I APPRECIATE THAT. IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT AS EASY AS THE -- TO THE DEVELOPERS AS POSSIBLE, MR. CITY MANAGER, I THINK IF YOU AND THE STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO GET CLOSURE ON THE ARTERIAL A ISSUE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. WE HAVE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES TO LOOK THROUGH. THE QUICKER WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK THROUGH IT, THE QUICKER MR. GILMORE'S CLIENT WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET CLOSURE ON WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE UP AND THE EFFECT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE ON THEIR OTHER PLAN.
>> WE'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, COUNCILMEMBER. AND I WAS TOLD YESTERDAY, I'M NOT TALKING THAT MYSELF, BUT OUR OUR STAFF IS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER -- I THINK THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IS AND ISN'T NEED AND I THINK WE NEED TO WORK FROM THAT FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE SO WE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE RIGHT NOW.
>>SPELMAN: DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE BEFORE WE HAVE AN ITEM COME BACK?
>> IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE IN OUR ROADWAY PLAN OR NOT? FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAMPO'S TIME FRAME IS?
>> CAMPO WILL BE MAKING A DECISION ON THE 12TH OF JUNE.
>> MY SENSE -- HOW QUICKLY CAN YOU GUYS GET TOGETHER, 90 DAYS, 60 DAYS?
>> COUNCIL, THANK YOU. I'M TERRY MCMAN NIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE CAN PROCESS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ROADWAY PLAN WITHIN 30 DAYS AND AN EXPEDITED PRICE PROCESS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, ONE HERE AT COUNCIL, ONE AT PLANNING COMMISSION:AND WOULD RESULT IN A RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT THAT CAN BE ANALYZED BY ALL OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND AGENCIES THAT ARE INVOLVED. THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ROADWAY PLAN, NOT THE CAMPO MEP PLAN AT THIS TIME?
>> WOULD YOU WAIT UNTIL CAMPO HAS MADE THAT DECISION --
>> NO, CAMPO WILL NOT ACT ON THEIR PLN UNTIL JUNE 12TH. AND WE CAN INITIATE AT YOUR DIRECTION AN EXPEDITED PROCESS TO AMEND THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ROADWAY PLAN AND BRING A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU WITHIN 30 DAYS AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE ROADWAY, ADDRESSING THE PARKLAND, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND COST PARTICIPATION ON THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF. AND THEN THAT ACTION BY US, THAT RECOMMENDATION TO CAMPO WOULD BE THE IMPETUS FOR THEIR CHANGING THEIR PLAN AND HAVING HAVING --
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW FROM WHAT I HEARD EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT WE CAN -- THAT 30 DAYS IS -- THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THIS AND I'D LIKE TO CERTAINLY TALK WITH PEOPLE BEFORE WE SET OFF AND MAKE A COMMITMENT TO 30 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD BY MS. FUTTRELL EARLIER THIS WEEK.
>> THERE WOULD BE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CAMPO PROCESS AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROCESS. IN FACT, CAMPO HAS ASKED THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND CEDAR PARK TO WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE ROADWAY ISSUE FOR ARTERIAL A.
>>SPELMAN: 30 DAYS, AS WE DISCUSSED, IS A LITTLE BIT -- I'M THINKING 30 DAYS IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IF IT WERE A -- IF IT WERE BASED ONLY ON TRANSPORTATION. GIVEN THAT WE'VE GOT AT LEAST THE POERBLT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PARKS AND REKREEX DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE TO GET IN ON THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT RATHER THAN DOING THIS THING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN POSSIBLY DO IT THAT MAEKING SURE THAT IF THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD HAS TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, IF THERE ARE PARKS ISSUES THE PARKS BOARD HAS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT T I THINK GETTING ALL THE DUCKS LINED UP SO THAT A DECISION THAT EVERYBODY HAS HAS CLOSURE BEHIND IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
>> CERTAINLY.
>> I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THE COUNCIL IS OFF IN JULY, AT LEAST MOST OF THE DATES IN JULY. I'VE GOT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH TOBY IN TERMS OF OUR SCHEDULE TO SEE WHETHER WE CAN PUT OURSELVES TOGETHER A 60 DAYTIME FRAME OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE LONGER.
>>GOODMAN: AND ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT CAMPO ALSO AMENDS ITS PLAN FROM TIME TO TIME, SO IT'S NOT AS IF JUNE 12TH IS THE ONLY DATE THAT SHOULD THIS DECISION BE MADE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT UP. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: THE ISSUE OF WHETHER CAMPO HAS ASKED THE CITY TO DO SOMETHING, LET ME TELL YOU, THAT'S A FACT THAT THE POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS JUST HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE DID NOT GIVE INSTRUCTIONS ON ANYTHING ABOUT WORKING COOPERATIVELY ON THIS. THE CHAIRMAN OF CAMPO ANNOUNCED THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IN MAY AND THEN A DECISION FRAMEWORK IS FOR JUNE THE 12TH. SO FROM MY SPEAKER SPEKT ACTIVE, I THINK THAT THE CITY OUGHT TO TAKE ITS TIME AND LIKE COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN SAID,, BECAUSE THIS IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT INVOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND WE TAKE OUR TIME DO IT RIGHT. 30 DAYS TO ME IS A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME TO ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT. THERE'S REPORTS OUT THERE THAT THE BRIDGE WOULD COST EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS. AND UNLESS CEDAR PARK IS WILLING TO PUT THEIR SALES TAX INTO THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE CITY WILL BE SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY BUILDING A BRIDGE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND IN THIS DAY THAT'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE ELEVATION FROM ONE SIDE OF THE CREEK TO THE OTHER ARE ENORMOUS. SO THOSE ISSUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE CITY AND I THINK WE OUGHT TOO TAKE OUR TIME TO DO IT RIGHT.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: I'D HAVE TO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA AND SPELMAN AS FAR AS WE SHOULD TAKE OUR TIME TO CONSIDER THAT. ALSO I'M HAPPY THAT THE DEVELOPERS, THE APPLICANT IN THIS INSTANCE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BRINGING A ROAD THROUGH THERE. AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ASKING THEM TO HOLD OFF ON FILING PLATS. CITY ATTORNEY, COULD YOU -- I KNOW THERE WAS A WAY OF STATING IT THAT WE WERE OFFICIALLY REQUESTING THAT, BUT COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD WAS JUST A REQUEST. AND SOME DEGREE OF ASSURANCE, BUT NOT THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF ASSURANCE FOR HENRY THAT HE WOULD DISCUSS THAT WITH HIS CLIENTS.
>>SLUSHER: BUT WHOA COULDN'T DO THAT. WE -- WE COULDN'T DO THAT. WE COULDN'T OFFICIALLY DO THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE INS AND OUTS OF THAT WITH YOU IN SOME FORM OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT'S BEING TAPED. BUT --
>>SPELMAN: CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL REQUEST AT ALL. IT'S JUST THE ATTORNEY WAS THERE AND WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE. BUT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY WHATEVER TO REQUIRE HENRY OR HIS CLIENTS TO HOLD OFF ON THAT AT ALL.
>>GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER AND THE GROUP THAT IS PUSHING FOR ARTERIAL A, I'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS AND I'M SURE THEY'LL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. REPRESENTATIVES FROM THAT GROUP ARE HERE. AND SO I'M SURE THAT -- I WANT TO ASK HENRY A QUESTION. IS THIS THE SAME GUY THAT WE KNOW FROM THE CHRISTIAN COALITION?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. HE CERTAINLY HAS FOOLED ME. [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: DO WE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
>> NO. I WAS GOING TO TONGUE IN CHEEK IT. THE LAST TIME WE ASKED TO DO AN ALIGNMENT ON THE BRIDGE, IT HAS TAKEN US 24 MONTHS AND WE'RE VOTING ON IT TODAY. SO WE HAVE NOT EXACTLY MOVED SWIFTLY ON THESE THINGS.
>>SLUSHER: IS THAT TONGUE IN CHEEK? [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. ON ITEMS 41 AND 48, THE AVERY RANCH, BOTH ZONING AND ANNEXATION, IS IT THERE A MOTION? SPELL MOVE PROFL.
>>GOODMAN: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. FURTHER DISCUSSION? FRING ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS.
>>GOODMAN: LET'S GO TO 37, WHICH IS THE METER READING. AND ACTUALLY, WE'RE TOLD BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS THAT WITH ONE QUESTION ANSWERED, WE CAN ALSO GET RID OF ITEM NUMBER 31 BEFORE WE BREAK. FOR LUNCH. AND IF WE WERE TO HURRY, WE WOULD HAVE AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTES' BREAK. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: RIGHT. THIS IS OUR UTILITY METER READING CONTRACT. AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE WERE APPROVING IT EARLIER -- I GUESS A YEAR AGO, BUT THE LAST TIME WE HEARD ABOUT IT POSSIBLY BRINGING IT AND HOW ARRIVE READ THE MATERIALS YOU'VE PROVIDED ON THAT AND BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURE TO BRING IT IN-HOUSE, ESPECIALLY AN INITIAL EXPENDITURE. AND THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE WAYS OF DOING THIS IN THE CITY INDUSTRY ARE RAPIDLY CHANGING AND WE DON'T WANT TO INVEST IN ONE PARTICULAR WAY OF DOING IT BECAUSE WE MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THAT TO KEEP UP WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WITH -- MY CONCERN IN FARMING IT OUT IS THE SALARIES THAT ARE PAID AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE WORKERS HAVE BENEFITS. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THOSE ISSUES?
>> YES, SIR, I CAN SPECIFICALLY SPEAK TO -- THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS WE'RE BRINGING BACK AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT IS THE CONTRACTOR HAS ASKED FOR THE ONE CENT SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE BENEFITS THAT WERE DISCUSSED LAST YEAR AT THE APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL CONTRACT. SO THAT BENEFIT AND THE COST OF THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THIS WOULD BE FULL MEDICAL BENEFITS ALONG -- SIMILAR TO WHAT IS PROVIDED TO CITY EMPLOYEES?
>> I CANNOT SPECIFICALLY ANSWER THAT.
>> THE COMPANY HAS PROVIDED US WITH AN APPLICATION FORM THAT THEY GIVE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES WHICH DOES COVER MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR FAMILIES. WE HAVE REQUESTED A FULL COPY OF THE POLICY, BUT THEY ARE RECEIVING MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR SPOUSES, CHILDREN, WHICH AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS COMPARABLE TO THE CITY.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE WHOLE POLICY? I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT DOESN'T END UP ADDING UP WHAT YOU WOULD DO ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME?
>> WELL, AT ANY TIME THE CONTRACT CAN BE MODIFIED. WE'RE JUST MODIFYING IT TODAY. THIS IS A PROGRAM -- IT'S A NATIONAL COMPANY OFFERING THESE BENEFITS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THE COMPANY, LIKE THE CITY, THE COMPANY IS INVESTING IN THE PAYING PART OF THE PREMIUMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
>> YES, THAT'S TRUE. AND THAT'S THE PORTION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING AN INCREASE ON IN THIS MODIFICATION, THAT THEY WILL BE ALLOWED A DIRECT PASS-THROUGH OF THEIR COSTS TO THE CITY. SO THEY'RE NOT MAKING AN ADDITIONAL PROFIT OFF OF THIS PROGRAM.
>>SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND. I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO -- SINCE YOU AREN'T TOTALLY SURE WHAT'S BEING OFFERED AND WE'RE GETTING READY TO APPROVE IT TODAY, THAT JUST MAKES ME NOT -- KEEPS ME FROM BEING TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH IT. SO IS THERE ANY -- I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY MODIFY THE CONTRACT, SUPPOSE IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY'RE PAYING 10 DLARS A MONTH FOR THE EMPLOYEES OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES AND IT'S REALLY A HEAVY BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYEE TO BUY THE INSURANCE? WHAT COULD WE DO ABOUT IT AT THAT POINT?
>> IT WOULD BE OPEN TO -- NEGOTIATION AND MODIFICATION AGAIN IN THE FUTURE IF THE CITY IS NOT SATISFIED WITH IT.
>> WHY DON'T YOU ASK US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE POLICY AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE COVERAGES ARE AND ENSURE THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CITY COVERS, WHAT THE EMPLOYEE COST IS FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND SEE IF IN FACT THAT MAY BE SIMILAR. I'LL SAY OUR CITY'S POLICY IS A PRETTY GOOD ONE AND OURS WOULD ARRIVAL VALUE MAJOR CORPORATIONS IN THIS CITY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIZE OF THIS COMPANY IS OR IF IT HAS GOT THAT KIND OF A CAPITAL OR NOT, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT IT IS. AND IF WE FEEL THAT THE POLICY PROVISIONS ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH THAT, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND TALK ABOUT MAKING FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. AND HOW SOON COULD WE HAVE A LOOK AT THAT?
>> WE WILL BE ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK THE -- I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC BENEFITS ARE, BUT WE WILL GET IT AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. THE ISSUE WE FACE RIGHT NOW, ONE IS THE MAY 5TH RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT. BUT LOOKING AT WHAT CAROL HAS SEEN AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS APPEAR TO BE -- SOME OF THE BENEFITS MAY NOT BE EXACTLY COMPARABLE, BUT WE WILL GET THAT FOR YOU.
>>SLUSHER: AND I UNDERSTAND THEY MAY NOT BE EXACTLY BECAUSE THE CITY DOES HAVE ONE OF THE BETTER BENEFITS PACKAGES, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING AT LEAST CLOSE TO COMPARABLE TAKING CARE OF THESE FOLKS MEDICALLY. WHAT ABOUT THE HOURLY?
>> WE WILL XEROX THIS AND I ASSUME THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO READING WHAT WE WERE JUST HANDED. IT IS $15. PHYSICIAN OFFICE VISIT FOR INNETWORK PROVIDER IS $15. A DEDUCTIBLE IS $250. CO-INSURANCE, 80% INSURANCE ACH DEDUCTIBLE.
>>SLUSHER: AND WHAT ABOUT THE PART THAT COMES OUT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CHECK AND THE PART THE COMPANY PAYS?
>> I'M ASSUMING THE EMPLOYEE IS ALMOST FULL SUBSIDY AND THEN YOU'RE PARTIAL SUBSIDY FOR THE SAME.
>> I DON'T SEE IT ON HERE.
>> THOSE COVERAGES ARE KOFERM RABL TO OUR INSURANCE.
>>SLUSHER: I SEE THAT.
>> THIS -- THERE'S ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, THERE'S GROUP LIFE, LIFETIME MAXIMUM BENEFIT ON THAT.
>> ANY IDEA WHAT THE PREMIUMS ARE? DO YOU GUYS HAVE WHAT THE EMPLOYEES PAY? WHAT DO THE GEESE PAY? -- WHAT DO THE EMPLOYEES PAY? PER MONTH.
>> FOR THE EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION PER MONTH IS APPROXIMATELY 60 DOLLARS.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S COMPARABLE. AND THE COMPANY PICKS UP THE REST. OKAY. AND WHAT ARE THE HOURLY RATES FOR THE WAGES?
>> THEY'RE BETTER THAN OURS. [LAUGHTER].
>> 10.25.
>>SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT. I MOVE APPROVAL.
>>GARCIA: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM 37. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. THANK YOU. WITH ONE BRIEF QUESTION FOR CHIEF MCDONALD, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS I'M TOLD WILL BE COMFORTABLE PASSING ITEM NUMBER 31.
>> I CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER IT. [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: WE CAN'T ASK THE DEPUTY CHIEF IF HE'S FAMILIAR WITH 31?
>> YES. MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, ITEM NUMBER 31, THE REASON -- WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS AN INCREASE OF $40,000 OVER LAST YEAR'S AMOUNT, WHICH WAS 40,000 FOR MEETING PURPOSES. LAST YEAR -- THE LAST MEETING CONFER PROCESS, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE -- PERFORMED MORE THAN A SUPPORT ROLE, ASSISTED US IN CONTRACT LANGUAGE, RESEARCH AND ADVICE. DURING THIS SESSION THE ATTORNEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE PERFORMING A LEAD NEGOTIATING ROLE. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80,000 AND THE INCREASE REPRESENTS THE INCREASE OVER THE CONTRACT DURING THE LAST MEETING CONFER PROCESS.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. WELL, IN THE BACKUP IT JUST INDICATED THAT -- AND I COULDN'T FIND WHERE WE HAD -- THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL. AND IT INDICATED THAT THEY'RE GOING FROM 40 TO 80 AS IF THE CONTRACT WAS ALREADY LET. AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION. BUT AS YOU EXPLAINED, THE 40,000 WAS LAST YEAR'S CONTRACT. AND HAD THEY JUST LEFT THAT OUT AND SAID WE'RE SEEKING A CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED 80,000, THEN IT -- THEN THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A QUESTION. BUT THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>>GOODMAN: WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE A MOTION THEN?
>>LEWIS: I MOVE APPROVAL.
>>SLUSHER: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE AN UPCOMING AGENDA ITEM.
>>GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN AND I WILL BE PUTTING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA EITHER NEXT WEEK OR MAYBE AFTER TO ADJUST THE SALARY AND CAR ALLOWANCE FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO GIVE EFFECT -- COMPOUND THE PPI SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT THE SALARY AND THE CAR ALLOWANCE WERE SET. I THINK THAT WAS 1987. AND I FOR ONE, AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN FEELS THE SAME WAY, CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF OF COURSE, FEEL THAT THAT SALARY IS INADEQUATE GIVEN THE DUTIES OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS, SO WE WILL HAVE THAT ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. AND CITY ATTORNEY, IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO INFORM OUR OFFICE. DO IT BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME OF IT. AND LET ME TELL YOU, THIS WOULD TAKE EFFECT JULY 2ND OF THE YEAR 2000, WHICH MEANS THAT BOTH THE -- BOTH OF THE SPONSORS OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION WILL NOT BENEFIT. ONE DOESN'T BENEFIT AT ALL AS WE SPEAK. [LAUGHTER]. BUT I WILL NOT BE AROUND TO COLLECT THAT COMPENSATION PACKAGE.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RETROACTIVE? [LAUGHTER].
>>GARCIA: IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RETROACTIVE. AND LET ME TELL YOU THAT I PICKED JULY 2ND BECAUSE THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF A PAY PERIOD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT ITEMS FOR THE 20TH FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE HAVE SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES COMING UP. ON THE 20TH YOU HAVE THE HOME DEPOT ITEMS, YOU HAVE THE BENNETT TRACT ZONING ITEMS, YOU HAVE SOUTHPARK MEADOWS, YOU HAVE THE CONTRACT FOR THE KPANTION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER AND YOU HAVE THE ITEMS FOR SMART HOUSING AND THERE'S A ALSO A VARIANCE REQUEST. AND THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT WE THINK -- THE STAFF THINKS ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND WOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS DIFFICULT. IT THE CONTRACT FOR EXPANSION. IT'S ABOUT 80 MILLION DOLLARS.
>>GOODMAN: I NOTE THAT COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. LET ME ASK FIRST COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN IF YOU HAD WANTED TO COMMENT ON YOUR JOINT PROJECT.
>>SPELMAN: I DID, BUT THEN GUS ADDED HIS COMMENT SO I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY. [LAUGHTER]. IT'S NOT GOING EFFECT ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? WE WILL ALSO HAVE AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE GREEN BUILDERS TASKFORCE UP TO NOVEMBER THE 2000 AND YOU AND I ARE GOING TO SPONSOR THAT. THAT WILL BE NEXT WEEK.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, THANKS FOR WAITING.
>>LEWIS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER WITH THE AGREEMENT ON THE HOME DEPOT, YOU KNOW, AND WITH THE BENNETT TRACT, WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE SO LONG? UNLESS YOU KNOW SOMETHING THAT I DON'T.
>> WELL, IN AUSTIN WE NEVER DO THINGS EASY. AND I SUSPECT THAT THERE WILL BE LOTS OF PEOPLE WANTED TO OFFER COMMENTS AND THEY BE ALLOWED THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND ON BENNETT, I WAS TOLD THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS THERE AND THEN NOW THERE'S SOME -- THERE'S SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS. SO IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE WORK THOSE OUT BETWEEN NOW AND 20TH, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TO SPEAK OR JUST A FEW PEOPLE.
>> ON THE BENNETT TRACT, WE WILL BE REVISING THE SCHEDULE SLIGHTLY BECAUSE WE JUST MET WITH THE ECONOMIC ANALYST YESTERDAY. WE'RE NOW GOING TO SEND IT OUT TO THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE.
>> GOOD.
>>GOODMAN: IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE CAN RECESS AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT 1:30 IN THE BOARD ROOM AT THE LCRA BUILDING, HANCOCK BUILDING, 37 HUNDRED LAWN BOULEVARD. THERE'S A MOTIONLY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
>>.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION TO DO SO, THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND TO RECONVENE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. LET'S GO DIRECTLY TO CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS. WITH THOSE -- WITH THOSE FOLKS ARE HERE. LET ME CALL IS JENNIFER GALE HERE YET? JENNIFER GALE? ROBERT KLINE? COME ON AHEAD AND SPEAK, IF YOU WOULD.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN:.
>> OH, MS. GALE.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS. GUS GARCIA. DARYL SLUSHER, BEVERLY GRIFFITH.
>> SURE.
>> BILL SPELMAN AND WILLIE LEWIS. MY NAME IS JENNIFER GALE, I AM A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I'M SORRY I'M OUT OF BREATH, I JUST GOT HERE. THE -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A NEW -- A NEW ERA IN OPEN GOVERNMENT. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE OUR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS HELD OUT IN THE OPEN. SO THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN GET A CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT PROJECTS WE ARE PUTTING FORTH AND HOW WELL WE ARE DOING WITH -- WITH RUNNING OUR CITY. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE SOME PROPOSALS. THEY ARE HEALTH CARE. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO -- AUSTIN AUSTINITES NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WHERE THEY PAY $20 A MONTH AND HAVE DENTAL WORK UP, EYE EXAM, KNOWING THAT THEIR HEALTH IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AFTER BEFORE ANY EMERGENCY MIGHT HAPPEN. I WANT TO HIRE BETTER EDUCATED POLICE OFFICERS THAT HAVE A DEGREE BEFORE THEY ARE ON THE FORCE SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE LAWS THAT THEY ARE UPHOLDING. I WANT TO CREATE TOWNS AND VILLAGES SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE OPEN GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE WILL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEIR PORTION OF THE CITY THAT WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES HERE IN AUSTIN. SO ANY INFORMATION COMING FROM THE CITY COUNCILL THROUGH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE WILL MAKE IT TO THE VILLAGE OF THE TOWN -- OR THE TOWN AND THE PEOPLE OF THAT AREA WILL COME TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND WILL BE ABLE TO HELP OUT IN THOSE PROJECTS. I WANT AN AUSTINITE OWNED NEWSPAPER. I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO REAP THE REWARDS OF HAVING UNBIASED JOURNALISM. AS YOU HAVE SEEN, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE NEWSPAPER FROM THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE CONCERNING THE MAYORAL RACE. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH AMY SMITH ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND SHE HAS SAID NOTHING TO ME ABOUT THE UPCOMING MAYORAL RACE. I WANT TO CREATE BIKE AVENUES SO OUR CHILDREN CAN HOP ON A BIKE AVENUE AND RIDE RIGHT ON OUT INTO THE COUNTRY. THIS WILL GIVE -- THIS WILL GIVE A CHANCE FOR OUR ELDERLY TO GET THE EXERCISE THAT THEY CAN ENJOY FOR A HEALTHIER LIFE. I WANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR CHILDREN HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION IN PHYSICS, LAW, CHEMISTRY AND CALCULUS. I WANT TO CREATE A 32-1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHERE THERE'S ONE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR EVERY 20,000 PEOPLE. AND I HOPE YOU ENJOY THE UPCOMING EASTER HOLIDAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. MR. KLEIN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M ROBERT KLEIN FROM THE GALINDO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I AM ASKING YOU TO OPPOSE THE REZONING MOTION FOR HOME DEPOE PROPOSED AT WOODWARD AVENUE AND I-35 IN SOUTH AUSTIN. IT WILL BRING MORE TRAFFIC TO AN ALREADY HEAVILY USED INTERSECTION AND HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON BLUNN CREEK. IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS OPPOSED IT AS WELL. WITHIN THE TWO MILE RADIUS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WE ALREADY HAVE A LOWE'S, FURROWS, CALCISHUE, AUSTIN LUMBER COMPANY, EAST END LUMBER, McKAY LUMBER PER, PACKS AND WOODCRAFTERS AND A NUMBER OF PAINT STORES. THIS PROPOSAL IS INTRUSIVE AND UNNECESSARY. WE ALL APPRECIATE HOME DEPOT'S VALUE AND APPROACH TO THE RETAIL MARKET. I AM GUESSING WE ALL SHOP AT HOME DEPOT. I DO AND I LIKE HOME DEPOT. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THEY BRING A HUB OF ACTIVITY THAT ANY SUCCESSFUL CHAIN IS GOING TO BRING TO THEIR SITES. THE ZONING AND NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS WERE DRAFTED TO AVOID SUCH INTRUSIONS AS THIS PROPOSAL WILL BRING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A POOR SITE FOR HOME DEEB POE. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE THAT'S COMING UP PERHAPS NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU. I ALSO HAVE SOME HANDOUTS FOR MR. -- MR. ROLANDO PINA WILL TALK ABOUT. HE'S ALSO FROM THE GALINDO ELEMENTARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. JOOM THANK YOU, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD I BELIEVE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SOUTH FIRST. THIS IS PROPOSED FOR I-35?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU, ROB. MY NAME IS ROLANDO PINA PRESIDENT OF GALINDO ELEMENTARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OUR BOUNDARIES ARE WEST OF I-35, FROM SOUTH FIRST STREET ON TO -- ON THE EAST, THE RAILROAD TRACKS ON THE WEST, ON THE SOUTH WOULD BE OLTORF AND ON THE NORTH -- I MEAN ON THE SOUTH WOULD BE BEN WHITE AND ON THE NORTH WOULD BE OLTORF. THERE YOU GO. WE ARE HERE TO ASK YOU TO KEEP THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY IN REFERENCE TO THE HOME DEPOT THAT IS PROPOSED. WE WILL COME BEFORE YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE. WE NEED YOUR HELP IN A CRITICAL ZONING CASE THAT WILL AFFECT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HOME DEPOT WANTS TO BREAK A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ESTABLISHED BY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OVER A DECADE AGO. AND BUILD A GIGANTIC STORE AT THE CORNER OF I-35 AND WOODWARD STREETS RIGHT NEXT TO ASSUMPTION CEMETERY. ALMOST TWO MONTHS AGO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD 7 TO 1 AGAINST BREAKING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THIS MATTER WILL COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCILL I BELIEVE ON THURSDAY, APRIL 20TH, 2000. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE AND WE NEED YOU TO COMMUNICATE TO CITY STAFF AND YOU AS WELL THE FOLLOWING. WE SAY NO TO THE ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER AGREED TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1987 TO KEEP THIS PROPERTY ZONED GR WITH THE RESTRICTIONS. HOME DEPOT WANTS THIS CHANGE TO CS. THEIR STORE WILL PRACTICALLY BE ON TOP OF ASSUMPTION CEMETERY WITH LOADING DOCKS WITHIN FEET OF HEADSTONES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 7 TO 1 TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT MEANS TO KEEP THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY. WE ARE SAYING NO TO MORE TRAFFIC ON WOODWARD. IF YOU GO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF BEN WHITE, THERE'S ALREADY SPEED BUMPS BY THE DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON LIGHTSSEY STREET. WE ARE SAYING YES TO DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS, YES TO DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES. WE DO SAY YES TO RESTAURANTS AND OFFICES. WE HAVE PLENTY OF TWO-BY-FOURS LIKE WHAT ROB WAS SAYING. AVAILABILITY AT LOWE, FURROW'S, McCOY'S, AUSTIN LUMBER BEER, EASTERN LUMBER, ... A NUMBER OF PAINT STORES. PLEASE HELP US TO SAY NO FOR ALL OF THE REASONS ABOVE. I ASK THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY SOUTH AUSTIN PEOPLE TO COME OVER AND EXPRESS THIS CONCERN, APRIL 20TH, 2000. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PINA.
>>LEWIS: MAYOR PRO TEM? JOOM COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU SAY YOUR BOUNDARY TO THE EAST IS WHAT?
>> TO THE EAST IS SOUTH FIRST STREET.
>>LEWIS: SOUTH FIRST?
>> YES. TO THE WEST, THE RAILROAD TRACKS. HOWEVER, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ADJACENT TO DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND -- WHICH IS SOUTH FIRST AND THEN IT GOES ON TO CONGRESS. ALL THE WAY TO CONGRESS. THE OTHER SIDE OF CONGRESS IS SOUTH RIVER CITY SDENGS OF WHICH WE ARE IN SOLIDARITY IN SUPPORTING THIS AND KEEPING THIS RESTRICTION. SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS ALSO OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRAVIS HEIGHTS WOULD WORK -- THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT WOULD BE ON THE CORNER OF WOODWARD AND I-35 AND THAT IS WOODWARD STREET, THAT'S FOR ALL OF YOU THAT MAY NOT KNOW WHERE WOODWARD IS, IT RUNS IN FRONT OF ST. EDWARD'S UNIVERSITY. ONCE THAT STREET GOES OFF TO THE WEST, CROSSES CONGRESS AVENUE, WOODWARD BECOMES LIGHTSEY. THAT'S DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEY HAVE SPEED BUMPS THERE.
>>LEWIS: YEAH. BUT YOU -- YOU SAID THAT IT'S NOW CS?
>> IT IS NOW -- THE PROPERTY OWNER AGREED TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, GR, YES.
>> YES, THAT IS GR. SOMETHING MORE -- AS FAR AS TRAFFIC, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, HOME DEPOT ALSO WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW THEM TO WAIVE THE $670,000 TRAFFIC IMPACT SAWED THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE 87 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
>> SO IF -- ARE YOU SAYING IF THE ENTRY AND EXITS IS ON -- ON WOODWARD, THEN IT WOULD PUT TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT IF THE ONLY ENTRANCE AND EXIT IS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD?
>> IT WOULD STILL PUT TRAFFIC ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BECAUSE I-35 -- IT'S ALL ONE-WAY HEADING NORTH.
>>LEWIS: SOUTH.
>> I MEAN, I'M SORRY, SOUTH. THIS BUILDING HERE IS -- MAKES ME -- ANYWAY, IT'S ALL TRAFFIC HEADING -- IT'S ONE WAY HEADING SOUTH. SO PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO EXIT WOODWARD, THAT IS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE EITHER NORTH OR THE EAST SIDE IF PEOPLE LIVE -- SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- HOWEVER, PEOPLE WHO LIVE SEE, THERE'S A HOME DEPOT ALREADY -- AT SUNSET VALLEY, FIVE MINUTES AWAY FROM THIS INTERSECTION. I WAS THERE THIS MORNING?
>>LEWIS: IN WHICH TRAFFIC?
>> BEN WHITE IS REALLY EASY ACCESS.
>>LEWIS: I AM JUST SAYING IF THE ENTRY AND EXIT IS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD FOR 35, THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD GO WOULD BE SOUTH, YOU WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO WOODWARD TO GO BACK THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO SOUTH TO BEN WHITE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF PEOPLE WOULD BE LEAVING HOME DEPOT, BUT IF THEY WOULD BE --
>> EVEN IF THEY ARE COMING TO IT.
>> IF THEY ARE COMING TO IT, THEY WOULD BE COMING TO IT FROM WOODWARD.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, THEY COULD COME TO IT FROM WOODWARD OR FROM THE EAST SIDE OF 35. I AM JUST TRYING TO GET A BEARING OF WHAT TRAFFIC PEOPLE ARE REFERRING TO.
>> HOMETOWN PEOPLE, LIKE GRASS ROOTS PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SOUTH CENTRAL AUSTIN, WE DON'T USE I-35, WE USE CONGRESS, SOUTH FIRST. IF WE LIVE -- LIKE MY SISTER LIVES ON WOOD HUGHE, SHH COME TO MY HOUSE, SHE DON'T GET ON I-35. SHE GOES ON CONGRESS. SO SAY SHE SAYS SHE WANTS TO GO, WELL, HOME DEPOT. SHE'S NOT GOING TO GO TO I-35. SHE'S GOING TO MAKE A RIGHT ON WOODWARD TO GO TO THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT.
>> MAKE A RIGHT ON 35.
>> EXACTLY, YES.
>> AND WHERE -- THE WAY YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE, THEY WILL CONGEST THE ALREADY CONGESTED -- Y'ALL NEED TO VISIT -- VISIT HOME DEPOT. I WAS THERE THIS MORNING. IT IS MASSIVE. I MEAN, BIG.
>>GOODMAN: LET ME INTERJECT THAT THIS ITEM IS COMING UP IN THE FUTURE AND SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS ARE WORKING ON IT WITH HOME DEPOT.
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND I WAS THERE AND -- AT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING LAST THURSDAY. AND, WELL, WE ARE IN SOLIDARITY WITH THEM. AS FAR AS THE SPECIFICS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.Ni
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALTHOUGH I DOUBT IF ROLINDO'S SISTER HAS BEEN USING SOUTH CONGRESS LATELY. TEXDOT WILL LET US KNOW WHENEVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO USE THAT ROAD AGAIN. THERE WAS AN ITEM THIS MORNING THAT WE PASSED WHICH WAS POSTED ERRONEOUSLY. THAT WAS THE FIRST ACTION ITEM OF APPROVING A SET OF MINUTES WHICH IS POSTED AS MARCH 30TH, WHEN IN FACT WE WERE DOING APRIL 6TH. SO IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION.
>>SLUSHER: MOVE TO RECONSIDER
>>GRIFFITH: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: MOTION AND SECOND TO RECONSIDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. IF OUR MOTION COULD BE INSTEAD OF MARCH 30TH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL THE 6TH.
>>GRIFFITH: SO MOVE.
>>SLUSHER: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: MOTION AND A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND SLUSHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2ND, 2000.
>>GARCIA: SECOND. APRIL 6TH OR SECOND?
>>GOODMAN: 6TH.
>>GARCIA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APRIL 6TH?
>> AYE.
>>GOODMAN: WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. OKAY. AND I'M NOT SURE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE STILL HAVE FOR DISCUSSION, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS READY TO PUT ANY OF THOSE BACK ON OR THINKS THAT THEY COULD BE BRIEF AND WE COULD TAKE CARE OF THEM QUICKLY. OF THE ITEMS STILL ON THE DISCUSSION LIST WE HAVE NO. 16, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30 AND 44. ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE THAT -- THAT EITHER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OR WE COULD GO QUICK -- OH, THERE'S ALSO 45, 46, 49. BUT ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT MIGHT BE BRIEF ONES THAT COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE PULLED?
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM ITEM 16 WILL BE BRIEF, BUT I AM STILL WAITING FOR INFORMATION THAT MY AIDE HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR. AS SOON AS I GET THAT, I WILL BE ABLE TO BRING THAT ONE FORWARD.
>>LEWIS: ITEM 25 WOULD BE A BRIEF ITEM. I GUESS SOMEONE FROM REAL ESTATE WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO -- TO ANSWER THAT.
>> MR. AMILE IS HERE FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
>> IF WE COULD GO TO ITEM 25.
>> OKAY.
>>GARZA: HE'S HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, SIR.
>>LEWIS: THE THIS IS A VACANT LOT THAT'S .99 OF ONE ACRE, ALMOST ONE ACRE. AND IN THE BACKUP IT SAYS THAT IT APPRAISED AT 204 THOUSAND DOLLARS.
>> YES, SIR.
>>LEWIS: WHAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS LOT THAT MAKES IT APRAISE SO HIGH OTHER THAN THE WATER PLANT?
>> THIS PROPERTY IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WESTLAKE. AND LAND VALUES IN WEST AUSTIN ARE EXTREMELY HIGH. THIS PARTICULAR LOT WAS ON THE MARKET FOR $180,000, BEING MARKETED FOR SALE. WE HAVE A CONTRACT ON IT FOR $180,000. SUBJECT TO THE PROPERTY APRAISING FOR AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT. THE APPRAISAL ON THE TRACT CAME IN AT $204,000.
>>LEWIS: THE -- THE BACKUP SAYS THAT WE ARE USING IT, WE ARE GOING TO PURCHASE IT AS A BUFFER AND MY QUESTION IS IF WE DON'T PURCHASE IT AS A BUFFER, WHAT -- WHAT WILL IT BE USED FOR?
>> THE PROPERTY WAS ON THE MARKET FOR SALE AS A ONE-ACRE TRACT FOR A HOUSE. YOU COULD BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT LOT.
>>LEWIS: WELL, THEN IT WOULD -- IF SOMEONE ELSE PURCHASES IT AND BUILDS A HOUSE, IT WOULD STILL BE A BUFFER FROM THE NEXT LOT OVER, RIGHT?
>> HISTORICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER, WHENEVER A PIECE OF PROPERTY COMES ON THE MARKET, WE HAVE ACQUIRED THREE TRACTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA TO USE AS A BUFFER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS. WE -- WE ACQUIRED AN ENTIRE SUBDIVISION OUT AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE NOISE AND ODORS THAT ARE EMITTED FROM APPROXIMATE SOME OF THE PLANTS. WHENEVER A PIECE OF PROPERTY COMES ON THE MARKET THAT WE THINK WOULD CREATE A GOOD BUFFER FOR OUR CITY FACILITIES, WE ATTEMPT TO ACQUIRE THOSE. IT'S NO DIFFERENT IN THIS AND THE DAVIS PLANT, WE BOUGHT THE PLAT PROPERTY OUT AT HORNSBY BEND TO CREATE A BUFFER FOR THE HORNSBY PLANT OUT THERE. WE ALSO BOUGHT THE FIVE ACRE RANCHETTES OUT AT CZAR SO THAT -- OUT AT SAR SO THAT WE COULD CREATE BUFFERS FROM THE SOUNDING PROPERTIES.
>> WHAT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY IS WHAT, A WATER TREATMENT PLANT?
>> YES, SIR, THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE YOU WILL RICK TREATMENT PLANT. -- ULRICH TREATMENT PLANT.
>>LEWIS: SO WHAT NOISE AND FUMES AND ALL IS COMING FROM THIS PLANT THAT -- AND IF IT WAS ON THE MARKET FOR 180,000, IF SOMEONE WAS GOING TO BUY IT, THEY KNOW THAT THE TREATMENT PLANT IS THERE ALREADY, RIGHT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS WE ARE NOT GOING TO EXPAND INTO -- WE ARE NOT GOING TO USE IT FOR EXPANSION AND SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF US BUYING IT JUST TO USE AS A BUFFER?
>> WE WOULD PROBABLY USE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS OFF OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE UL ULRICH PLANT. WE DO HAVE PLANS TO EXPAND THAT PLANT IN THE FUTURE.
>>LEWIS: WHERE WOULD WE EXPAND IT TO? WOULD WE EXPAND IT ON THIS PROPERTY OR WE WILL EXPAND IT IN ANOTHER DIRECTION?
>> CHRIS LIPPY IS HERE, HE CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ACTUALLY THERE IS NO ATTENTION TO -- INTENTION TO EXPAND THIS PLANT. IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE SITE AND IT WILL SERVE AS A BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>>LEWIS: WHY DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE SITE?
>> BECAUSE THERE ARE PLANS TO EXPAND THE ULRICH WATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM ITS CURRENT CAPACITY. LOOSE HOUSTON WHAT AM I SAYING WHAT ARE WE GOING TO -- WHERE ARE WE GOING TO EXPAND IF WE ARE THOUGH THE GOING TO USE THIS SITE, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO EXPAND.
>> ON THE EXISTING SITE. BUT THE EXISTING SITE IS ALREADY FAIRLY WELL DEVELOPED, SO WE ARE CLOSE TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS AND BY ACQUIRING THE SITE WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THE EXISTING FACILITY AND ADD BASIN TO BASIN OR FACILITY TO FACILITY, EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL SITE WOULD BE HIGHER WITH THIS ACCUSATION, THE OVERALL SITE STILL WOULD MEET ALL NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS.
>>LEWIS: WELL, YOU KNOW, TO SPEND $180,000 JUST FOR A BUFFER WHEN IF SOMEONE ELSE BOUGHT IT IT WOULD STILL BE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PLANT AND THE NEXT PROPERTY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR THEORY IS ABOUT -- UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO BUY PROPERTY THAT'S SURROUNDING ALL OF OUR PLANTS.
>> AGAIN, THE BUFFER IS ONLY ONE FUNCTION. WHAT THE PROPERTY ALSO DOES IS INCREASES THE OVERALL SITE OF THE ULRICH WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THEREFORE IF YOU JUST WANT TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE. 15% OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET FOR EXAMPLE, IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU WERE TO ACQUIRE ANOTHER 100,000 SQUARE FEET, EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE IT, WE CAN USE 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE ORIGINAL SITE VERSUS JUST 15 AND STILL MEET ALL IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS UNDER APPLICABLE ORDINANCE GOES. SO IT JUST INCREASES OF THE OVERALL SITE AND THEREFORE THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENTABILITY OF THAT PROPERTY.
>>LEWIS: PROVIDING WE CAN COME BACK AND PART OF THE SITE THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT TRACTS NOW.
>> RIGHT, RESUB DIVIDE IT.
>>LEWIS: YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESUB DIVIDE THE TWO TRACTS TO MAKE IT ONE TRACT.
>> WE WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROPERLY, ABLE TO TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE ORDINANCES.
>>LEWIS: WELL, HOW MANY OTHER -- HOW MANY OTHER PLANTS HAVE WE BOUGHT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO OUR WATER TREATMENPLANT?
>>GARZA: HAVE WE DONE THAT AT DAVIS?
>> MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL, I AM CHRIS LIPPE WITH THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRING SOME BUFFER ZONES AROUND SEVERAL OF OUR PLANTS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. AT THE DAVIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AS LARRY MENTIONED, WE HAVE ACQUIRED A COUPLE OF TRACT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. WE HAVE ACQUIRED THREE OTHER LOTS ALONG THIS WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE ULRICH WATER TREATMENT PLANTED. THIS LAST LOT THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TODAY COMPLETES A STRIP OF BUFFER ZONE OF WOODED AREA THAT WILL GIVE A VISUAL AS WELL AS A DISTANCE BUFFER BETWEEN THE NEXT RESIDENCES AND OUR OPERATING PLANT. THERE ARE NOISES OF MOTORS AND PUMPS AND LIGHTS THAT ARE -- NEED TO BE LEFT ON AT NIGHT FOR THE WORKERS AT THE PLANT. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THIS JUST PROVIDES SOME ADDITIONAL DISTANCE. THE EXPANSION THAT'S COMING UP IS NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY USE THIS SPACE, BUT IT WILL ENCROACH A LITTLE CLOSER TO THAT FENCE LINE AND SO IF WE DID NOT ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY AND A RESIDENT WERE TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE, THEY WOULD BE RIGHT UP ON THE FENCE LINE, NOT TOO FAR FROM THE EXPANSIONS THAT ARE COMING.
>>LEWIS: WELL, THAT GETS ME BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. WHAT IF THE PROPERTY HADN'T BEEN ON THE MARKET? WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE THEN FOR A BUFFER?
>> WE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRING PROPERTIES --.
>>LEWIS: ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. HADN'T IT BEEN ON THE MARKET, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE FOR A BUFFER IN THAT CASE? WOULD WE HAVE CONDEMNED THE PROPERTY AND WENT TO -- AND PURCHASED IT?
>> WE WOULD CONSIDER IT CONDEMNING -- WE WOULD CONSIDER CONDEMNING THE PROPERTY. WE KNOW THE NEIGHBORS, WE KNOW THE OWNERS. JUST BY KEEPING AN EYE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WE KIND OF KEEP AN EYE OPEN FOR OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS.
>>LEWIS: BUT, YOU KNOW, IT STILL DON'T -- I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE PLANT HAS BEEN OPERATING THERE ALL THE TIME, AND THAT IS A ONE ACRE TRACT, WHAT HAVE THE NEIGHBORS BEEN DOING IN THE PAST AND WHY HAVEN'T BECONDEMNED IT BEFORE? THAT'S MY QUESTION. BECAUSE I'M SURE WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY MORE NOISE NOW THAN WE MADE LAST YEAR OR THEEAR BEFORE AT THIS PLANT.
>>GARZA: WELL, IN 1997, THE VOTERS AUTHORIZED THE EXPANSION OF THIS PLANT ALONG WITH OTHER PROJECTS RELATED TO ULRICH. I THINK THE ENGINEERING ON IT WAS DONE OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 24 MONTHS OR SO, WHAT I AM ASSUMING IS WE DID THOSE ENGINEERING PLANS TO DETERMINE THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE COULD BE EXPANDING TO. WE IDENTIFIED THIS PARCEL OF LAND AS ONE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ACQUIRE TO ENSURE WE DIDN'T ENCROACH ON SOMEONE BUILDING A NEW HOME OR SOMEONE BUILDING ANOTHER KIND OF IMPROVEMENT ON THAT. I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. ONE IS YOU AVERT THAT CONSEQUENCE OF SOMEBODY BUILDING A HOME ADJACENT TO WHERE YOU ARE EXPANDING THE FACILITY. THE SECOND THING IS TO MEET OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS, THAT GOES INTO THE OVERALL CALCULATION THAT ALLOWS US TO STAY AT I THINK IT WAS SAID 15% OR SO WE ACHIEVED BOTH OF THOSE OBJECTS. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR UTILITIES. IN CORPUS CHRISTI WE DID THE VERY SAME THING. WHEN WE BUILT OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT WE BOUGHT IN EXCESS WHAT WE NEEDED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GIVE OURSELVES, ONE, ROOM TO GROW, TWO SEPARATING DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OPERATION OF OUR PLANT AND NEIGHBORS. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON, SOMETHING THAT'S DONE AT OTHER UTILITIES AS WELL.
>>LEWIS: I DON'T QUESTION THE FACT IF WE ARE STARTING A PLANT THAT WE NEED TO ACQUIRE A BUFFER AREA. BUT IF WE ALREADY THERE, AND THE NEIGHBORS WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING, YOU KNOW, TO SPEND THIS TYPE OF MONEY IS -- I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE DO WE HAVE A BUFFER COMPLETELY AROUND THE PLANT? AND IF SO, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE BUFFER?
>> THERE ARE SOME NATURAL BUFFERS AROUND THE PLANT. RED BUD TRAIL ON ONE SIDE, THERE'S A CREEK ON ANOTHER SIDE. THERE'S ANOTHER STREET, FOREST RIDGE DRIVE ON ONE SIDE. THIS IS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PLANT IS THE ONLY PLANT THAT ABUTTS A NEIGHBORHOOD OR POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THESE ARE VACANT LOTS AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE HAD OCCASIONS WHERE WE HAVE HAD TO CONDEMN AND PURCHASE A LOT WITH A STRUCTURE ON IT, THAT'S OF COURSE MORE EXPENSIVE. SUCH AS AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLANT WHERE WE CONDEMNED 200 ACRES AND 20 HOUSES. THAT GETS EXPENSIVE. SO IT SEEMS PRUDENT TO PURCHASE THE LAND BEFORE THERE'S SOMEONE WHO BUYS IT AND BUILD A HOME ON IT.
>>LEWIS: BUT THAT SOUTHWEST TREATMENT PLANT, THAT'S A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: WE DID IT BECAUSE OF THE SMELL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE NOISE.
>>GARZA: YOU DID IT FOR BOTH REASONS.
>> NOISE, LIGHTS.
>>LEWIS: WE NEEDED ROOM TO EXPAND. AM I CORRECT? I MEAN THAT'S THE REASON WE --
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: ACQUIRED 200 ACRES WAS FOR EXPANSION.
>> IT WAS FOR A COMBINATION. EXPANSION IN THE FUTURE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME WE WERE HAVING -- THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT NOISE, LIGHTS, ODORS, JUST HAVING A LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEXT TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO -- BUT IN PART IT WAS FOR -- IT WILL BE USED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AS WELL, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK LOOKING AT THIS, TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S SURROUNDING IT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DIDN'T PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY, I CAN'T SUPPORT PURCHASING A PIECE OF PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE WE MAY NEED SOME -- SOME IMPERVIOUS COVER TO -- TO EXPAND. BECAUSE WE -- YOU KNOW, YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? IF THE -- IF WE DO THIS IN EVERY CASE, WHERE WE HAVE A FACILITY, IT WOULD BE OKAY, BUT I KNOW IN SOME FACILITIES WE DON'T PURCHASE. WE DON'T CONDEMN PROPERTY THAT WE ARE NEXT TO WHERE THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN. SO THIS IS -- THIS IS MY PROBLEM. AND I HAVEN'T HAD ONE CALL IN MY OFFICE FROM ANYONE CONCERNING THIS PLANT.
>>GARZA: IF I UNDERSTOOD RIGHT. IT'S NOT MAY. WE WILL EVENTUALLY NEED THIS FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT. THE SECOND THING IS YES YOU HAVE A WATER TREATMENT PLANT MAYBE THERE'S NOT THE SMELL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, BUT YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF NOISE, SLUDGE TRUCKS, 18 WHEELERS THAT HAVE TO PULL IN HERE HAUL OUT THE SLUDGE FROM THE TREATMENT PROCESS, DOES CREATE AN INTRUSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, GETS NOISY AND CREATES TRAFFIC. THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND IT. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE PURCHASE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>>LEWIS: I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT IF IT WAS -- IF WE WERE STARTING UP BUT SINCE THE DAVIS TREATMENT PLANT HAS BEEN THERE FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE CITIZENS, I CAN'T SEE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING OUT AND PURCHASING IT. I WILL -- I WILL LEAVE IT WITH THAT.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS, CITY MANAGER. THE RATIONAL FOR PURCHASING IT IS BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSIONS TO THE PLANT. WE WANT TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY SO THAT THE CITY CAN COMPLY WITH OUR OWN IMPERVIOUS COVER REGULATIONS. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO BUY IT LATER, THERE'S NO TELLING HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST. IT'S AVAILABLE NOW. YOU MENTIONED CONDEMNATION, BUT THINK WE WILL WANT TO AVOID THAT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
>> BUT THE CITY CAN DO THE SAME AS OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, WE DON'T HAVE TO BUY ADJACENT PROPERTY. IT MAY BE PROPERTY OUT THERE MORE SENSITIVE THAN THIS PARTICULAR TRACT THAT WE COULD PURCHASE AND USE IMPERVIOUS COVER RIGHTS FROM IT. THIS IS MY POINT.
>> IT'S NOT OUR POLICY THAT WE ALLOW SOME DEVELOPERS TO DO THAT, LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS AND WAIVERS.
>>LEWIS: I AM SAYING IS THIS THE MOST SENSITIVE TRACT IN THAT AREA, ENVIRONMENTALLY. IF IT'S NOT, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT BUYING THE MOST SENSITIVE TRACT TO USE AS IMPERVIOUS COVER RIGHTS RATHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR TRACT.
>> ALSO WHAT MR. LIPPE JUST SAID A MINUTE AGO, WE ARE GOING TO EXPAND THIS FACILITY, IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDED TOWARD THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, TO SELL A PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR $180,000 FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A HOME, I'M ASSUMING THE HOME IS GOING TO BE WORTH MORE THAN $180,000 OBVIOUSLY. EXPENSIVE HOME WITH AN INDUSTRIAL OPERATION VERY CLOSE TO IT. I EXPECT IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE OUR EXPANSION IS COMPLETE THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING -- NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO BE LIT, GOING TO BE MAKING NOISES 24 HOURS A DAY. I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THEM COME IN HERE AND SAY WE WANT YOU TO BUY OUR HOUSE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALIZE THIS UNTENABLE SITUATION WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING. IT'S A PRUDENT THING FOR US TO DO.
>>SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT THERE ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE MOST SENSITIVE TRACT. BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE OURSES FROM OUR OWN REGULATIONS TO DO THAT, THOUGH. PLUS I THINK THERE'S A GOOD NEIGHBOR ISSUE.
>>LEWIS: I'M NOT SAYING VIOLATE THE GOOD NEIGHBOR ISSUE. BUT ANYONE THAT'S GOING TO SPEND $180,000 FOR A ONE-ACRE TRACT, SURELY THEY ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT AND FIND OUT WHAT'S NEXT TO IT. YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SPENDING $180,000 FOR A ONE-ACRE TRACT TO PUT A HOUSE ON THAT'S -- THAT THE $180,000 IS GOING TO REPRESENT 20% EVER THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOUSE IS BUILT. THAT'S -- THAT DON'T HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO INVESTIGATE WHAT'S AROUND IT.
>>SLUSHER: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. I JUST THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO GO FORWARD ON THIS. AND DESPITE THAT.
>>LEWIS: THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE, MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: WAS THERE A MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: SURE.
>>GOODMAN: IS THERE A SECOND, I WILL SECOND IT.
>>SPELMAN: WHAT'S THE MOTION.
>>SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL.
>>SPELMAN: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN. FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE, OPPOSED?
>> NO.
>> ABSTAINING, NONE WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. OKAY.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, WE CAN TAKE UP -- IS IT 30 THAT I PULLED? YEAH, 30, WE CAN TAKE THAT UP.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THE FOLKS FOR NUMBER 44 AND 49 ARE HERE, ALSO, SO THOSE POSSIBLY WOULD BE QUICK ONES. THIS WON'T TAKE LONG IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE MAYOR PRO TEM. MY MAIN CONCERN ON THIS, MR. REIKE, WAS THAT THE STAGING OF THE CONTRACT WAS THIS CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS COMPANY WOULD DO THIS PORTION OF THE CONTRACT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINATED?
>>SLUSHER: YES, SIR.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS P PRENTED TO THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL.
>>LEWIS: WHICH ITEM IS THIS?
>> 30.
>>GARZA: BARNES ARCHITECTS.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION, I WILL SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS DID YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS?
>>LEWIS: NO, I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION ON ITEM 30.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. IF THERE ARE I KNOW FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION -- ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED, ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. ANY PARTICULAR DRUTERS FOR THE NEXT ITEM? DRUTHERS FOR THE NEXT ITEM? 23, CONTRACT WITH EXCEL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS PULLED THAT ONE.
>>GARZA: YES@r
>>LEWIS: MY WE ON 23 WAS THIS WAS A LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AND THE -- THE BIDS THAT CAME IN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS -- OR WAS 3 --3 BIDS WITH TWO NON-COMPLIANCE. AND IN THE BACKUP IT DON'T REALLY GIVE ME A GOOD -- A GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY THE OTHER TWO BIDDERS WAS NON-COMPLIANT.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS IS THAT THEY DID NOT MEET GOOD FAITH EFFORT.
>>LEWIS: OH. WELL, THE ONLY OTHER BIDDER THAT WAS -- THAT WAS APPROVED -- THE MWBE PARTICIPATION IS WHAT 4. --4.78 TOTAL.
>> THE PARTICIPATION IS 3.28 AND -- IF YOU COMBINE IT, IT IS 5.04.
>>LEWIS: 5.04 OUT OF WHAT, 28, 30, 40 POINT 08?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>LEWIS: AND --
>> HOWEVER, COUNCILMEMBER, THIS BIDDER, EXCEL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES WAS IT IS LOW RESPONSIVE BIDDER. AND WAS COMPLIANT IN THAT THEY HAD DONE THEIR GOOD FAITH EFFORT. WHEREAS THE OTHER TWO BIDDERS WHO WERE ACTUALLY HIGHER WITH THEIR BIDS WERE BOTH NON-COMPLIANT SO THERE WAS NO OPTION FOR US TO CONSIDER EVEN AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO FIRMS.
>>LEWIS: BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER TWO BIDDERS BID IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE -- WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS. AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A JUSTIFICATION TO WAIVE THE PART THEY DIDN'T COMPLY WITH.
>> NORMALLY, JUST TO GIVE THAT AS A GENERAL GUIDELINE, WE WILL SHOW BIDDER'S NAMES IN THE SEQUENCE OF THEIR LOW OR HIGH BID RESPECTIVELY. AND WE WILL JUST -- WHENEVER THERE'S A NON-COMPLIANT BID, WE WILL SHOW NON-COMPLIANCE. LET'S SAY THE FIRST BIDDER IS NON-COMPLIANT, WE WILL PUT THE NAME OF THAT BIDDER AND NON-COMPLIANT ON TOP OF THE LIST. THEN THE SECOND LOW BIDDER WOULD BE SHOWN AS THE SECOND ONE, IF THEY ARE COMPLIANT WE WILL SHOW THE DOLLAR FIGURE. BY THE WAY IT IS LISTED, YOU CAN TELL HOW THE RESPECTIVE BIDDERS CAME IN AS FAR AS THE RANKING BASED ON THEIR BID AM IS CONCERNED.
>>GARZA: WAS THIS THE LOW BIDDER?
>> IT WAS THE LOW BIDDER, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I JUST EXPLAINED TO COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. THIS WAS A LOW BIDDER. WE HAVE NO OPTION, THEY WERE COMPLIANT.
>>GARZA: UNDER THE RULES, YOU WAIVE -- IF THE LOW BIDDER IS IF NON-COMPLIANT, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO WAIVE TO GO TO THE SECOND BID OTHERER OR THIRD BIDDER. IT WOULD BE -- YOU DON'T HAVE A PROVISION TO WAIVE A LOW BID SO YOU GO TO A NON-COMPLIANT SECOND OR THIRD HIGHER BIDDER. YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE ORDINANCE.
>> WELL LOOK LOOKING AT THIS, THE WORK THAT WE ARE DOING WITH THE M.B.E. W.B.E. SUBCOMMITTEE, LOOKS LIKE WE ARE SPINNING OUT WHEELS AND NOT MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE OUT OF 40%, WE GET 5. I DON'T SEE HOW IT JUSTIFIES ME SPENDING MY TIME IN A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS WHEN WE COME BACK AND CONSTANTLY ACCEPT CONTRACTORS THAT DON'T COMPLY. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I JUST CAN'T SEE THE JUSTIFICATIONS IN IT. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WORK AND THE DIFFERENT SCOPES OF WORK THAT WE HAVE AND WE HAVE A -- A 1.6 W.B.E., 1.76 W.B.E. PARTICIPATION, IT DON'T -- YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY UNACCEPTABLE. LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS OF 53% OF NON-W.B.E. SUBCONTRACTORS. YOU KNOW, FOR SOMETHING AS CONSIDERABLE AS BUILDING A LIFT STATION WHICH IS CONSTRUCTION. I COULD UNDERSTAND IT IF IT WAS HIGH TECH OR IN THE ENERGY FIELD. WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PARTICIPATION. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ELECTRICAL PEOPLE AND WE HAVE REINFORCING STEEL SUPPLIES AND THAT TYPE OF THING THAT IS IN CONSTRUCTION THAT COULD BE USED. I KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. BECAUSE WHEN WE GET THESE BIDS WE ACT AS IF WE HAVE TO DO IT WITHOUT REBIDDING ANYTHING. I DON'T THINK IN THE LAST THREE YEARS WE HAVE SENT BUT ONE OR TWO ITEMS BACK THAT THE COUNCIL DIDN'T ACCEPT. AND I THINK THAT WHAT IT IS IS THAT WE ARE JUST GETTING INTO A HABIT OF ACCEPTING EVERY BID, EVERY LOW BID THAT COMES ALONG, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT MEETS OUR SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS OR WHATEVER AND BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP IS TO SAY IT'S TIME SENSITIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE. BECAUSE OTHER ENTITIES THEY COMPLY. OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY, PEOPLE COMPLY WITH THE REQUESTS. BUT FOR SOME REASON, WITH THE CITY, WE JUST GO AHEAD AND I'VE HAD CONTRACTORS SAY, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, YOU GUYS ARE LOW BID, YOU GET THE CONTRACT MAY. THIS IS WHAT I KEEP TELLING THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBER, WE MIGHT AS WELL TAKE THIS ITEM OFF THE LIST. THEN WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. BECAUSE WHATEVER COMES UP AND IT'S NOT MET, WE DON'T DEAL WITH IT ANYWAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. MR. CITY MANAGER I'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONTRACTORS CONTACT ME AND SAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE CITY IS SAYING THE SAME THING IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. THEY ARE SAYING WHAT THEY WANT AND THEN THEY GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW? WE NEED TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND FIND OUT IF WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP THIS AS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT OUT ON THE R.F.P. OR R.F.Q. AS TO WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IT SERVES ANY PURPOSE.
>>GARZA: COUNCILMEMBER, I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. IN THIS INSTANCE YOU HAVE A BIDDER THAT DID DO EVERYTHING THE ORDINANCE ASKED HIM TO DO. I REALIZE THAT [INAUDIBLE] THE PROJECT SPECIFIC GOALS MAY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT THE ORDINANCE THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN ALLOWS YOU TO TREAT THOSE AS GOALS, PROVIDED YOU MAKE THE CALLS AND PROVIDED YOU MAKE A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT THAT'S WHAT WE EVALUATE. ONCE THEY HAVE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT WE CHECK OFF ON THAT. I WILL GET THE COUNCIL REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS WE HAVE REJECTED. I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT. WE PROBABLY HAVE NOT REJECTED A WHOLE LOT, BUT WE HAVE REJECTED SOME SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS PART OF YOUR COMMITTEE DELIBERATION OF THE M.B.E./W.B.E. ORDINANCE.
>> I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT'S PEOPLE M.B.E. FIRMS OUT THERE THAT'S WILLING TO EVEN WORK WITH THIS FIRM, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I KNOW I'VE HAD CONTACT WITH SOME M/W.B.E. FIRMS THAT THERE'S FIRMS THAT THEY WON'T BID WITH BECAUSE IT'S TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM. BUT WHEN THESE TYPE OF THINGS COME UP, I KNOW -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT, BUT I AM SURE THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DIDN'T GO BACK AND REBID IT. BECAUSE IT DON'T SAY HERE, IT DON'T GIVE ME IN THE BACKUP EXACTLY WHAT THE BUDGET FOR THIS -- FOR THIS IS BECAUSE ALL IT -- WELL, IT TELLS ME WE HAVE $18 MILLION OR $73 MILLION THAT WE ARE USING. SO ... THE -- MR. REIKE, ON THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, IT TELLS ME THAT WE HAVE 12 MILLION-6, WITH AN END CUSTOM BRENS OF 702,000.
>> THAT'S UNENCUMBERED BALANCE.
>> THAT'S AFTER THE, WHAT, 5 -- WHAT IS THE BID? 569,000?
>> THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, EXCEPT IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED. MAYBE CHRIS CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION BETTER THAN I CAN.
>>LEWIS: BECAUSE IF WE ONLY HAVE THE REMAINING BALANCE OF 557,000, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO DO THE BID WITH.
>> THE FUNDING IS DIVIDED INTO TWO DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES. THE ONE THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS 145,000 OF THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN FROM THAT FUND. THERE'S A SECOND FUND, WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS CITY-WIDE FROM THE CURRENT REVENUE OF THE CURRENT CAPITAL BUDGET AND THAT'S FOR THE REMAINING 425 THOUSAND DOLLARS. THE REMAINING BALANCE OF 15 MILLION. SO THERE'S ADEQUATE FUNDING.
>>LEWIS: I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT IF YOU UNDERSTAND, WE SPEND TIME DOING THESE DIFFERENT SUBCOMMITTEES, WE SPEND TIME DOING THESE THINGS, THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO MAKE A DECISION, WE DISREGARD EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED OR TRIED ACCOMPLISH SO FAR. WHEN WE DO A WAIVER, WE DO IT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. I AM SAYING THAT WE SHOULD DO SOME IN REVERSE. YOU KNOW? GO BACK AND REBID SOME OF THESE THINGS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING BETTER. EVERY TIME THAT WE DID IT IN THE ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT, WE CAME BACK WITH A BETTER BID. SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT SOME POINT THAT WE TRY IT ANYWAY. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET A BETTER BID. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TO LOSE, EITHER. I WILL YIELD, MAYOPPR TEM, FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>SPELMAN: DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I LIKE, EITHER, THIS COMPANY HAS DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN REALISTICALLY ASK IT TO DO, SO I WILL MOVE APPROVAL.
>>SLUSHER: SECOND.
>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 23 BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>>LEWIS: YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE IN A RESULT OR SOMETHING THAT EVERY BID WE BRING IT FORWARD. AND I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT THE -- THAT THE STAFF HAVE REJECTED AND WENT BACK BASED ON WHAT THE COUNCIL REQUESTED IN THE PAST. I WOULD THINK AT THIS POINT THAT UNLESS THE STAFF CONTINUES TO TRY TO MAKE THE JOB EASIER AND WOULD SEND SOME OF THESE BIDS BACK AND HAVE THEM REBID IT, RATHER THAN BRINGING THEM TO COUNCIL, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BID ON THEM.
>>GOODMAN: THAT'S NOTED BY ALL OF US, I THINK, AND THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>> OPPOSED? ABSTAINING?
>>LEWIS: NO.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS VOTING NO. AND THE MAYOR ABSENT. DO I UNDERSTAND THEN THAT ALL OF THE REST OF OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE JUST ABOUT OF EQUAL LENGTH? NOBODY FEELS LIKE ANY OF THEM WOULD BE BRIEF? IN WHICH CASE, I THINK THAT I JUST ASK THAT WE TAKE 49 UP AT THIS MOMENT. SO THAT JEANIE CAN GO TO --
>> SHE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND ALL DAY WITH US.
>> IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS PULLED ITEM NO. 49.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, WELL, WE HAVE A MAP. LET ME FIND MY MAP HERE. THE WOLF TRACT. IN THE BACKUP IT SAYS THIS TRACT IS 1,043 ACRES; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>>LEWIS: AND THAT'S MINUS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR THIS PLATTED AREA THAT'S IN THE -- I GUESS IN THE SOUTH, SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE TRACT? IS THAT MINUS THAT OR DOES IT INCLUDE THAT WHITE AREA.
>> SIR, THE WOLF TRACT, THIS IS BEE CAVES, HERE'S QUERNAVCA, COMMONS FORD ROAD, DOWN TO THE PARK THERE, DOES THAT MAYBE HELP YOU MORE IN DIRECTION?
>>LEWIS: IS THE WOLF TRACT JUST THE PINK AREA THAT YOU HAVE THERE?
>> YES, SIR. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER MAP. I TRIED TO DO -- WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS WHAT WE CALL THE TCAD MAPS, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT LARGER MAP HERE.
>>LEWIS: WHAT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES DOES THIS TRACT HAVE?
>> THIS TRACT IS LOOKED AT, I THINK, IN PARTICULAR IN REGARDS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES, THE BLACK CAPPED VIREO, GOLDEN CHEEKED WARBLER, ALSO IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO EXISTING PARKLAND. I WILL SAY THAT THIS TRACT FROM THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE LISTING BROKER IS THAT THE ASKING PRICE IS $31 MILLION FOR THIS PARTICULAR 1,043 ACRES, WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER 29,000 AN ACRE.
>>GOODMAN: AND COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS IF I CAN JUMP IN AT THIS TIME I MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU WITH THE BACKGROUND OF THIS REQUEST. WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR 8 AND A HALF BY 11 MAPS IS A MORE CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE SAME THING JEANIE IS SHOWING US. IT IS AS PART OF THE BCP AND CONSTITUENT REQUESTS THAT WERE -- THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS. BECAUSE OF THE VERY HIGH COST OR THE BUYER'S ASKING PRICE, I MEAN SELLER'S ASKING PRICE, WE DON'T CONTEMPLATE THAT THE CITY COULD DO THIS ON ITS OWN. BUT IT IS A VERY NICE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I WILL REFER YOU TO A LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM FISH AND WILDLIFE FROM DAVID FREDERICK ABOUT THIS LAND, SO WE WILL PUT IT IN EXACTLY THE PERSPECTIVE THAT ITS VALUE ALLOWS. LAND -- I WILL JUST TAKE THE LAST PARAGRAPH. THE LAND WOULD BE A SUITABLE ADDITION TO THE BALCONES CANYON LAND PRESERVE AS WELL AS HELPING PROTECT WATER QUALITY IN THE LAKE AUSTIN WATERSHED. IT WOULD NOT REPLACE, I WILL PARAPHRASE, ANY OF THE MACRO SITES THAT WE HAVE ON OUR PRIORITY LIST. SO THIS WOULD BE EXTRA. THIS IS GOOD HABITAT LAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE FULLY SUPPORTS THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO ACQUIRE, BUT BY PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA FOR US TO LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF WE CAN BRING TOGETHER MULTIPLE RESOURCES TO EITHER ACQUIRE ALL OR PORTIONS OF IT, THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES VALUE OF THIS PARTICULAR TRACT. SO THIS IS TO INITIATE ACTION TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S SOME WAY THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING RELATIVE TO ACQUIRING SOME GOOD LAND. IT'S GOOD LAND.
>>GARZA: DID FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFER US -- OFFER US SOME MONEY? [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: I SAW NO MONEY THERE.
>>LEWIS: THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. ARE THEY WILLING TO HELP PURCHASE ANY OF IT? BUT I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THIS TRACT, HOW MANY ACRES WOULD THE CITY OWN IN THE BALCONES CANYON PRESERVE?
>> I WILL GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT WE ARE SOMEWHERE AROUND 13,000, I BELIEVE FOR THE -- FOR THE CITY'S PORTION AND I BELIEVE TOTAL IN TRAVIS COUNTY WE ARE SOMEWHERE IN THAT 22 TO 23,000 ACRES. THE TOTAL GOAL FOR THE BALCONES IS 30,000.
>>LEWIS: DO WE HAVE ANY PARTICIPATION FROM THE STATE AT ALL IN THE ACQUISITION OF THIS --.
>>GARZA: OF BCCP OR THIS?
>> IN THE BCP? THERE HAS BEEN NO PARTICIPATION BY THE STATE TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
>>GARZA: I THINK THE REQUEST IS FOR US TO GO IDENTIFY WHO WOULD ASSIST US IN FUNDING THIS, WOULD THE COUNTY, WOULD WESTLAKE, ROLLINGWOOD, OTHER ENTITIES THAT MAY BE OUT THERE THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO HELP FUND SOME OF THIS. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S THE SPIRIT IN WHICH WE WILL TAKE THIS, JUST TO DETERMINE WHAT ENTITIES OUT THERE BESIDES THE CITY OF AUSTIN ARE POISED TO HELP US SPEND $30 MILLION FOR THIS.
>>GRIFFITH: 31 MILLION DOLLARS.
>>SPELMAN: 31.
>>GOODMAN: AND IN THE PAST CITY, COUNTY, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEIR ATTORNEYS, VARIOUS INTERESTED PEOPLE HAVE MADE A TEAM FOR PRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON AND WE HOPE TO HAVE A LITTLE HELP THROUGH THE STATE FROM FEDERAL DOLLARS, BUT IT STILL WON'T BE ENOUGH TO FINISH OUT BCP. SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR EVERY AVAILABLE MEASURE WE CAN FIGURE OUT.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM?
>>GOODMAN: XHRBL.
>>SLUSHER: MS. PLUMBER, DID YOU SAY THE COUNTY THAT PURCHASED 7,000 ACRES FOR THE BCCP.
>> NO, SIR, THAT WOULD INCLUDE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE LCRA, MITIGATION TRACTS LIKE RIVER -- RIVER PLACE, STEINER, SOME OF THOSE ACREAGES, ALSO.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE COUNTY HAS PURCHASED?
>> I BELIEVE THEY HAVE 500 ACRES EXISTING. I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ALSO SOME, LOOKING AT ONE TRACT UNDER CONTRACT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS IN FACT CLOSED.
>>SLUSHER: SO LESS THAN A THOUSAND ACRES THAT THE COUNTY HAS PURCHASED.
>> YES, SIR.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH --
>> THEY ARE KIND OF A SILENT PARTNER.
>> VERY SILENT.
>>SLUSHER: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME NOISE ON THAT. BUT I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT QUESTION NEED TO HAVE SOME OF THE NEARBY JURISDICTIONS STEP UP TO THE PLATE HERE. WESTLAKE, ROLLINGWOOD, I THINK IF WE WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE, IF THIS -- LET ME PHRASE THAT DIFFERENTLY. IF THIS TRACT WAS ABLE TO BE ACQUIRED FOR PRESERVATION, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE IN THE REGION. THAT'S TRUE OF THE TRACTS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ACQUIRED, THE 15,000 ACRES FROM PROP 2, THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT, THE BARTON CREEK WILDERNESS PARK, BCCP WHICH IS THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF IT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, STATE -- 22 MILLION.
>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU, BARTON CREEK WILDERNESS IS 20 MILLION, 65 MILLION FOR PROP 2. WE HAVE ACQUIRED OTHER INDIVIDUAL TRACTS AND, STILL, WE HAVEN'T SEEN COUNTY, SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS OR CERTAINLY NOT THE STATE STEP UP TO THE PLATE, SO IF WE ARE GOING TO ACQUIRE -- ONE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD TO THAT, ALTHOUGH THIS WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO EVERYONE I THINK IN THE AREA IF SOMEHOW THIS TRACT WOULD BE PRESERVED, THAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE CALLING FOR IT, THE STRONGEST, LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY, DON'T PAY CITY TAXES, LIVE IN THE COUNTY JURISDICTION. SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE UNLESS SOME OF THESE OTHER JURISDICTIONS STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND IT SORT OF CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME THAT EVERYTHING JUST CALLS ON THE CITY TO CARRY OUT ALL OF THESE PURCHASES BECAUSE THERE'S CERTAINLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FUND THERE.
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, JUST QUICKLY, MS. PLUMBER, I AM FASCINATED BY THE 500 ACRES. WHERE IS IT? THAT THE COUNTY HAS PURCHASED? THIS IS A NEWS FLASH.
>> I KNOW WHERE IT IS IN MY MIND, I'M SORRY I CAN'T DESCRIBE IT. IT'S CLOSER TO THE LAKE.
>>GRIFFITH: TO LAKE AUSTIN?
>> WE WHEELIS.
>> A W TRACT.
>> IT'S AN EXISTING TRACT OF LAND THAT WE'VE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME
>>GRIFFITH: CLOSE TO LAKE AUSTIN.
>> YES, MA'AM, I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF IT
>>GRIFFITH: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT IF.
>> THAT HAPPENED EVEN BEFORE WE BEGAN OURCAL BONES CANYON LAND EFFORT
>>GRIFFITH: A PREEXISTING ONE THAT WE ARE COUNCILING. DID NOT ONE THAT THEY BOUGHT TO BECOME PART OF THE BCP, IT WAS ALREADY COUNTY LAND BEING COUNTED IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE LCRA PARKS ARE.
>> YES, MA'AM
>>GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT THE COUNTY HAS DONE, THOUGH, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR BOND ISSUE DID NOT PASS AND THEY COULD NOT CONTRIBUTE WHAT HAD ORIGINALLY BE ENVISIONED FROM THEM IS TO TRY TO BROKER AND FIND THE INCENTIVE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENTER INTO -- ENTER INTO OUR TNA PROCESS THROUGH THE BCCP. THEY HAVE ALSO PLAYED A PART IN KEEPING MOTIVATED MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONAL GROUPS READY TO GO TO WASHINGTON AND TRY TO GET OUR FOLKS THERE --
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING ON THAT COMMITTEE AND TRYING TO CATCH ANYTHING THAT MOVES TO BECOME PART OF THE BCP AND COMPLETE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE -- ALL OF THE EFFORT THAT YOU ARE PUTTING IN THIS AND HAVE.
>>GOODMAN: I APPRECIATE IT. AND THE COUNTY IS ALSO COUNTING ON THEIR TIF, THEIR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING.
>> THEY DO HAVE A VERY SIGNIFICANT TRACT UNDER CONTRACT IN THE CYPRESS CREEK AREA THAT DUE TO SOME LEGAL CONSTRAINTS HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE CLOSED.
>>GOODMAN: SO ALTHOUGH IT'S TRUE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE DONE THE LION'S SHARE OF, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SITTING BACK AND DOING NOTHING. RELATIVELY.
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM?
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: THIS LOOKS JUST FROM WHAT LITTLE I KNOW OF IT, LIKE A FINE TRACT FOR US TO BUY. ALTHOUGH AN EXPENSIVE ONE. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SYSTEM OR THE LACK OF SYSTEM WITH WHICH WE ARE PURSUING IT. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]
>> AND I COULD EASILY BRING BACK ABOUT BALCONES CANYON LAND MAP AND SHOW YOU EACH OF THOSE MACRO SITES AND WHAT IS LEFT THERE THAT IS UNDEVELOPED, BUT WE DO PRETTY MUCH KNOW EACH TRACT AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT AS FAR AS BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE FOR THE BALCONES.
>>SPELMAN: GIVEN THAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THE WORK AND EVEN IF IT'S NOT A MATRIX IN NUMERICAL FORM I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT SO LONG AS YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. COULD YOU COMPARE THE WOLF TRACT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN COMPETING FOR THAT MONEY?
>> THE BEST COMPARISON I HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS MY CONSERVATION WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE. AND THEY SAID THIS WAS A SUITABLE TRACT AND THEY DO LOOK AT THIS TRACT, BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TWO REMAINING MACRO SITES UNDER THE BALCONES CANYON LANDS.
>>SPELMAN: THIS IS NOT IN EITHER OF THE TWO MACRO SITES?
>> NO, SIR, IT IS NOT. TECHNICALLY THIS IS NOT EVEN IN WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE PRESERVE DESIGN. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE PRESERVE DESIGN. A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN BEE CAVES YOU HAVE YOUR SOUTH LAWN MACRO SITE. ACROSS ALMOST DIRECTLY FROM COMMON'S FORD IS YOUR NORTH LAWN MACRO SITE.
>>SPELMAN: SO FROM FISH'S POINT OF VIEW, IF WE HAD 30 MILLION DOLLARS TO SPEND, THIS WOULD NOT BE THEIR PREFERRED PLACE TO SPEND IT.
>> WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT IN QUITE THAT WAY. WE JUST DISCUSSED IT BUY LODGELY WHAT ROLE IT PLAYED WITHIN THE WHOLE PRESERVE DESIGN. OF COURSE, EVERY ACRE WITHIN THE BALCONES CANYON LAND IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. THEY DID SAY IT WOULD BE A SUITABLE POSITION, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE OTHER TWO MACRO SITES.
>>SPELMAN: DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE WOULD BE PAYING FOR THE RANCH LAND AND OTHER MACRO SITES? IS THIS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRICES WE FIND, HIGHER OR LOWER OR WHAT?
>> THOSE PRICES HAVE INCONTINUED TO ESCALATE TREMENDOUSLY FROM WHAT WE'VE PAID IN THE PAST.
>>SPELMAN: TO IT'S MORE THAN THE 12 OR 15 THAN WE'VE BEEN PAYING IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE?
>> YES, SIR. YOU'RE IN EXTREME DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IN THOSE TWO AREAS.
>>SPELMAN: THIS IS ABOUT -- THIS ISN'T ABOUT 30 PER ACRE?
>> 29.
>>SPELMAN: THAT'S ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE OTHER TWO MACRO SITES.
>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY TRACT APPRAISED THERE, BUT I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING IN TWO SMALLER SITES ON MAY 11TH. THOSE APPRISE PRAISED FOR 25,000 AN ACRE. THERE'S ALWAYS A DIFFERENCE IN ACRE BETWEEN THE SIZE OF YOUR TRACT. A SMALLER TRACT WILL BE MORE PER ACRE THAN A LARGER TRACT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS TRACT WOULD APPRAISE FOR 31 MILLION.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER, IF I COULD --
>>SPELMAN: SURE.
>>GOODMAN: ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT A MACRO SITE, YOU MAY REMEMBER WHAT WE ULTIMATELY CAME DOWN TO FOR ENVISIONING A COMPLETED BCP WAS A MUCH REDUCED AREA. AND EVEN THOUGH I ALSO WANT TO VERY MUCH EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE MACRO SITES REMAINING, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THIS IS SOME SORT OF FRIVOLOUS PROPOSAL. THIS IS CONFIRMED HABITAT AS WELL. THERE ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRES HERE WHICH ARE DIRECT HABITAT AND WASHLERS ARE THERE AND SIGHTED AND DOCUMENTED. SO IT'S NOT JUST A PIECE OF DIRT. THERE ARE ALSO WATER QUALITY ISSUES THAT COULD BE BENEFICIAL TO US BY ACQUIRING SOME PORTIONS OF THE LAND. AND THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, CALVES AND THE LIKE. -- CAVES AND THE LIKE.
>>SPELMAN: EVEN IF IT IS ONLY SOME THAT ARE CONFIRMED FOR WARBLERS, IT WOULDN'T SHOW UP BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SUR ROUNED BY DEVELOPMENT ON ALL SIDES.
>>GOODMAN: IT DEPENDS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP. THIS PARCEL IS ALSO NEXT TO SOME OTHER PARCELS WHICH ARE VERY MUCH IN THE WAY OF UNDER DEVELOPMENT AL PRESSURE AND FUTURE PLANS. SO AS A PLANNING TOOL RELATIVE TO BUFFERING AND SUPPORTING THE BCP, THERE MIGHT BE SOME STRATEGY VALUE THAT WE COULD LOOK TO FROM THIS PARCEL TOTALLY ASIDE FROM THE AESTHETICS AND FROM THE DIRECT HABITAT THAT EXISTS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS I THOUGHT TO LOOK AT ANY WAYS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCEIVE OF ANY WAYS WE MIGHT HAVE OF TRYING TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. IT WAS WORTH LOOKING AT MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTION OR WHATEVER WE COULD THINK OF. AND IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE, BUT IF WE DON'T ACT, IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE POSSIBLE.
>>SPELMAN: UNDERSTANDABLE. WOULD THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAVE AN OBJECTION TO -- I THINK THIS WOULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE JUST DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DO IS LOOK AT DIFFERENT WAYS OF ACQUIRING THE TRACT. IT LOOKS LIKE A THOUSAND ACRES MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR US EVEN WITH A LOT OF PARTNERS TO MUNCH ON IMMEDIATELY. BUT IF THERE ARE PIECES OF THIS WHICH ARE ESPECIALLY CRITICAL FROM THE HABITAT POINT OF VIEW OR WATER QUALITY POINT OF VIEW, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET A LOT OF THE VALUE BY FOCUSING ON THOSE PIECES OF IT. IT'S UNLIKELY THE DEVELOPER WOULD TRY TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE THOUSAND ACRES WALL TO WALL ANYWAY. SO WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE HAVING IT READ INVESTIGATE ALL POSSIBLE AVENUES OF ACQUIRING ALL OR THE MOST CRITICAL PARTS OF THE WOLF TRACT? OKAY. I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT AS A FORMAL AMENDMENT.
>>LEWIS: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THE MOTION?
>>SPELMAN: IS IS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE?
>>LEWIS: NO.
>>SPELMAN: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR THAT AMENDMENT?
>>LEWIS: I'LL SECOND IT.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ON THIS. SO DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM?
>>LEWIS: OKAY. BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ANYWAY.
>>GOODMAN: HANNAH BIRD? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK. DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK, BUT YOU ARE IN FAVOR.
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU WITH YOUR HAIR LIKE THAT. OKAY. HANNAH BIRD IS IN FAVOR. CINDY SYMINGTON? PLEASE APPROVE THE RESOLUTIONS. SUPPORT IT. NICK SYMINGTON, DID NOT WANT TO SPEAK, URGE APPROVAL. BETSY MOON? PLEASE PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. MS. SOLADE? PLEASE PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. HAROLD -- I'M NOT SURE -- LAKE. CAROL LAKE. IS IN FAVOR OF PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY. JERRY ROAN? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>>GARCIA: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE, MAYOR PRO TEM, IS -- TO ASK THE SPEAKERS IF THEY HAVE VISITED WITH THE ROLLING WOODS CITY COUNCILL OR THE WESTLAKE SKOUNZ, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, THE LAKEWAY CITY COUNCILL TO SEE IF THOSE ENTITIES ARE EVER GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS. MOST OF THE E-MAILS THAT I GOT, MOST OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN.
>> I LIVE IN THE AREA, SO I DRIVE AROUND THE THING ALL DAY LONG. SINCE I MOVED TO AUSTIN, THE QUALITY OF MIKE --
>>GOODMAN: COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. ISSUES SINCE I MOVED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE QUALITY OF LIFE HAS CONTINUED TO DECLINE BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. AND I KNOW IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, BUT IT'S WHERE I LIVE. AND I DO KNOW THAT THE WARBLERS AND THEY'RE IN MY BACKYARD EVEN THOUGH THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE LINE THAT SOMEONES THAT DRAWN THAT THEY DON'T LIVE IN. SO THE HABITAT WAS EXTREMELY RICH WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO AUSTIN AND THE ANIMAL -- THE CREATURES THAT LIVE IN MY BACKYARD HAVE DECLINED TO ALMOST NOTHING IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND IT'S DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE OVERDEVELOPMENT. AND THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WHERE A DEVELOPER WAS COMING IN AND CLEARING CEDAR TREES TO DO HIS WHOLE THING AND RIGHT DURING THE TIME WHEN YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. I CALLED FISH AND WILDLIFE. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. I THINK THE SUPPORT FOR THE NATURAL HABITAT IS NOT THERE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING IF YOU COULD -- USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE SOME OF THAT AND MAYBE GO THE OTHER WAY.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>>LEWIS: I HAVE A QUESTION.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN AUSTIN.
>> ABOUT 10 YEARS.
>>LEWIS: AND YOU SAID THAT THE -- THE NUMBER HAVE DECLINED. DON'T THESE BIRDS MIGRATE DURING THE WINTER?
>> NOT SO MUCH THE BIRTHS. IT'S EVERY OTHER CREATURE THAT'S OUT THERE. WHEN I MOVED HERE THERE WERE ALWAYS DOOER IN THE ROAD, THERE WAS REHAB BATS, RACK COONS.
>>LEWIS: SO YOU'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT BIRDS.
>> RIGHT, NOT JUST BIRDS.
>>SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY IT IS WE'RE GOING TO REVERSE THAT WE'RE BEING CALLED ON TO REVERSE. THIS COUNCIL AND SEVERAL BEFORE US HAVE SPENT A LOT OF ENERGY, TIME AND MONEY TRYING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, SO I DON'T REALLY FEEL IT'S ACCURATE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO COME DOWN AND SAY WE NEED TO REVERSE THE WAY WE'RE DOING THINGS AND START ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
>> THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
>>SLUSHER: SIR, I JUST -- THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BEING DONE ON THAT. I THINK WHAT THREE OR FOUR OF US HAVE SAID UP HERE ALREADY THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO SOME OF THE OTHER CITY COUNCILS IN THE AREA. THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL OR THE CITY GOVERNMENT SPENT 20 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE BARTON CREEK WILDERNESS PARK IN THE DECADE -- PREVIOUS DECADES, THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE WILDERNESS PARK AND THE WILDERNESS PARK IS ADJACENT TO IT, SPENT MANY MILLION DOLLARS ON THAT. IT'S AN INCREDIBLE RESOURCE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS REGION, WHETHER OR NOT THEY LIVE IN THE CITY AND PAY THOSE CITY TAXES OR NOT, THE CITY GOVERNMENT PUT IN 20 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE BALCONES CANYON LAND PRESERVE. SO I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THAT IN PART THE QUALITY OF LIFE HAS REVERSED, BUT I DON'T REALLY THINK THE PROBLEM LIES RIGHT HERE. AND I'M SURE WE'RE NOT PERFECT, SO MAYBE -- THOUGH MAYBE SOME OF US DOES, BUT I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT WAS QUITE A SWEEPING STATEMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FIRED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
>> I'M NOT FIRING AT YOU. JUST THAT THE QUALITY OF THIS HABITAT HAS --
>>SLUSHER: I THINK WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. BUT THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN PUT TOWARDS LAND PRESERVATION. I THINK WE'RE BUMPING UP AGAINST THAT LIMIT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- AND ALSO, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO FOLKS DOWN AT THE CAPITAL BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE DOING PROP 2, WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE COUNTRY. I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE SOME OF THAT WITH YOU. BUT STATES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY IN ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING MANY SOUTHERN STATES, FLORIDA. THERE WAS AROUND A BILLION DOLLARS THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS SPENDING TO PURCHASE LAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE FOR THE CITIZENS AND OUR STATE HASN'T PUT IN ANY, AND YET THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS REALLY STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TO PURCHASE LAND IN THIS AREA, AND IT'S REALLY TIME THAT -- IF NOT THE STATE, THEN SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS AROUND HERE STEP UP AND START PARTICIPATING IN THAT.
>> I AGREE COMPLETELY. SURE.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. JANET ROESLER? I MAY BE MISPRONOUNCING THIS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: PARDON?
>>. [INAUDIBLE].
>>GOODMAN: I DON'T HAVE A CARD FOR SUSAN. SHE WOULD NEED TO SIGN UP. LET ME CALL BRODIE BELI? IS THAT PERSON HERE? AND SUSAN, IF YOU WANT TO TALK, SHE'S JUST GIVEN YOU HER TIME. SO JUST SIGN A CARD AFTERWARDS, OKAY, SO WE CAN -- YEAH, SUSAN RAY. AND YOU WOULD HAVE SIX MINUTES IF YOU NEEDED IT.
>> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T GET HERE ANY SOONER, SO I'VE MISSED OUT IT ON EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID. I JUST TOOK MY DAUGHTER TO MY HUSBAND FROM SCHOOL. BUT DID YOU ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER FROM TERRY AND FROM DAVID, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND ONE FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT WE WERE HOPING THAT YOU COULD ACCOMPLISH WOULD BE IF YOU CAN DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE ALL AVENUES TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY, MAYBE THOSE AVENUES COULD INCLUDE COORDINATING WITH THE OTHER CITIES THAT YOU MENTIONED. IF WE COULD PULL TOGETHER IN A MORE REGIONAL EFFORT. I KNOW FUNDS ARE LIMITED AND AUSTIN HAS DONE A LOT IF TRYING TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE. THE ONLY ISSUES THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM ANYONE ON WOLF RANCH AS A PROBLEM IS ACQUIRING THE FUNDS TO PRESERVE IT, NOT THAT THERE'S LACK OF INTEREST, NOT THAT IT'S NOT GOOD HABITAT. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A WEALTH OF WILDLIFE ON IT. AND IT'S IMMINENTLY THREATENED WITH LOSING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BUY IT BECAUSE AN OFFER HAS BEEN MADE ON IT AFTER IT'S BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR SIX YEARS. SO TIME IS REALLY PRESSING. THE OWNER IS WILLING TO GIVE US THE EXTRA TIME TO COME FORWARD WITH FUNDING ON IT. IF WE SHOW HIM THAT WE ARE INTERESTED ALL IT WOULD TAKE IS A LETTER TO THE OWNER STATING WE VERY MUCH WANT TO PRESERVE IT, WE'RE EXPLORING ALL AVENUES AND WE'LL GIVE US A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. BUT THE KEY ISSUE HERE I THINK IS PULLING TOGETHER VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES AND, AS MR. SLUSHER JUST SAID, THE CITY HAS GONE A LONG WAY IN BUYING PROPERTIES, BUT I THINK AS MORE AND MORE CITIZENS DO COME INTO THE AREA, IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT LATELY, IT'S VERY OVERUSED AND LOOKING AT IT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, THE GREATER POPULATION IN THIS AREA HAS, THE MORE THREAT THERE IS TO THAT HABITAT AND THAT WATER QUALITY. SO WE NEED TO TRY AND COME FORWARD WITH ANOTHER SPACE JUST TO RELIEVE RELIEVE OVERCROWDING AT THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT. I BELIEVE IT WAS LOUISE ESPECIALLY STEIN THAT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THAT PROPERTY PURCHASED YEARS AGO AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE, SORRY FOR BRINGING UP ANY NAMES, BUT I KNOW THAT --
>>SPELMAN: THAT WASN'T THE FIRST ONE TO COME TO MIND, I THINK.
>> I KNOW THE PRICE WAS HIGH AND AT THAT TIME THAT WAS PAID FOR THE PROPERTY, JUST AS THIS PRICE LOOKS HIGH RIGHT NOW. BUT IN RETROSPECT IT WAS A WONDERFUL THING THAT THE CITY DID PRESERVE IT. AND I WOULD HOPE THE SAME FOR WOLF RANCH. BUT IF WE CAN DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE ALL AVENUES OF COMING UP WITH THE FUNDING FOR IT THAT WE'LL NEVER REGRET IT. AND THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN WILL THANK YOU FOR YEARS TO COME. HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO THIS PROPERTY? I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT IT THAT WE DO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND TO REITERATE, THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT, BETWEEN THE RANCH AND THE LAKE, IS CITY OF AUSTIN, IT'S THE BAL FOUR PAD AND COMMON'S FORD PARK IS CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE LAKE SHORE ALL ALONG HERE IS CITY OF AUSTIN. SO LOTS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK TO YOU ARE EITHER IN THE ETJ OR THEY ARE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I WOULD JUST STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLEASE DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TOWARDS THIS VENUE. AND I'LL VOLUNTEER ANY SERVICES AND ANY TIME THAT I CAN TO DO FOOTWORK OR MAKE PHONE CALLS AND TRY TO PULL TOGETHER OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING, BINGE IF WE COULD GET A PUBLIC/PRIVATE FUNDING MOTION GOING, MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKE IT HAPPEN FOR THE CITY.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? LET ME TELL YOU MY CONCERN. THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ABOUT A 50 CENT PER 100-DOLLAR VALUATION TAX RATE. SOME OF THE CITIES TO THE WEST HAVE NINE CENTS. SOME HAVE ZERO. SOME HAVE 20 CENTS. AND THE CITIZENS FROM THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THOSE CITIES AND FROM THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS ARE THE ONES THAT USE THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN. WE INVESTED 107 MILLION DOLLARS ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN AND NOBODY ELSE HAS DONE ANYTHING. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN THAT PAY A HIGHER TAX RATE TO BE INVESTING THAT IF THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT. SO YOU GUYS WHO LIVE OUT THERE NEED TO GO TELL THEM SO THAT THEY CAN GET -- JOIN THE BAND WAGON AND LET'S USE A REGIONAL APPROACH TO THIS THING SO WE CAN PROTECT IT ON A REGIONAL BASIS.
>> AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO CONTACT THE OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA ON MY OWN. AND MAKE THAT EFFORT. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS THE BIGGEST CITY IN THE AREA WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE LEAD IN THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME COOPERATION FROM THE OTHER CITIES. ONE KEY AND IMPORTANT ERB HERE IS CITY OF AUSTIN DRINKING WATER. THE MAJORITY OF IT COMES OUT OF LAWN. WOLF RANCH HAS THREE MAIN CANYONS THAT LEAD DIRECTLY INTO LAWN AND A LOT OF THE LAND PURCHASE THAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE BARTON SPRINGS WATERSHED, NOT ON THE LAKE AUSTIN WATERSHED. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD FIND SOME FUNDING SOURCES TO DO SOME LAND PRESERVATION IN OUR DRINKING WATERSHED. I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL ISSUE AS WELL AS THE HABITAT ISSUE. MR. LEWIS ASKED ABOUT THE MIGRATING BIRDS AWHILE AGO. THE WARBLE RECHLT DO MIGRATE BACK TO MEXICO IN THE WINTER AND COME BACK HERE IN THE SPRING. NUMEROUS PAIRS OF THEM HAVE BEEN FOUND EVERY YEAR THAT THEY'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT WOLF RANCH. EVERY PLACE WE WERE OUT ON IT WE HEARD THEM, IN ADDITION TO THE RED AND GRAY FOXES AND THE WOLVES AND COYOTES AND THE OTHER WEALTH OF WILDLIFE. SO IT'S REALLY KEY HABITAT WILDLIFE AREA AS WELL AS DRINKING WATER PROTECTION AREA. AND A LOT OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED RECENTLY WAS A 65 MILLION DOLLAR BOND PACKAGE HAVE NOT REALLY HAD PUBLIC ACCESS. THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE WERE HOPING WOLF RANCH COULD OFFER WOULD BE HABITAT PRESERVATION, DRINKING WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND A PLACE FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN TO GO AND WALK IN THE WOODS. AND I THINK THAT'S MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT. WE'VE ALL SEEN HOW RUDE THE TRAFFIC HAS GOTTEN ON THE ROADS AND HOW CROWDED IT IS. PEOPLE'S LIFESTYLES ARE SO MUCH FASTER PACED THAN THEY USED TO BE. IT'S HECTIC WND WE NEED A PLACE TO GO DESTRESS. I THINK IF WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO A PLACE TO JUST GO AND WALK AND GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH NATURE AND GET AWAY FROM THE RAPID PACE AT WHICH WE ALL LIVE THESE DAYS, IT WOULD REALLY ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE ENTIRE TOWN. AND MR. GARCIA MAKES THIS SOUND LIKE IT'S A LONG WAY AWAY, BUT IT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE CENTRAL TO AUSTIN. WE CALL THIS THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE, NOT THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE OUT HERE, BUT IF YOU DRIVE OUT THIS WAY VERY OFTEN, YOU WILL SEE THERE IS SO MUCH BUILDING ACTIVITY IN THE ENTIRE AREA.
>>GARCIA: I CAN'T GET THERE. FROM WHERE I LIVE I HAVE TO TRAVEL MOPAC TO GET THERE AND THEN 2244. I GET THERE. IT WILL TAKE ME TWO HOURS TO GET THERE.
>> BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET BACK INTO TOWN TO GO TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND IT USED TO TAKE ABOUT 15 MINUTES AND NOW IT TAKES ABOUT 45 BECAUSE OF ALL THE SUBDIVISIONS AND TRAFFIC COMING IN TO AUSTIN FROM 2244 AND HIGHWAY 71. SO THAT'S ONE MORE ISSUE TO ADD TO THE LIST. SO I ASK ALL OF YOU PLEASE, I'M VOLUNTEERING ANY HELP I COULD GIVE TO DO ANY OF THE FOOTWORK OR TRY TO PULL IN ANY OF THE OTHER CITIES OR REGIONAL AUTHORITIES TO HELP WITH THIS PROJECT. BUT IF YOU GUYS WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE LEAD AND JUST MAKE A COMMITMENT TO EXPLORING FUNDING SOURCES, WE'LL GET A LOT OF VOLUNTEERS TO JUMP IN THERE AND TRY TO PULL IN OTHER CITIES AND PRIVATE CITIZENS AND FUNDING SOURCES AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>GOODMAN:.
>>GOODMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO THANK SUSAN FOR ALL THE PASSION AND DEDICATION THEY PRISON TO THIS. SHE DOESN'T SIT ON THE EDGE AND DOESN'T DO ANYTHING NOT TO TRY TO BRING THE REGIONAL RESOURCES TOGETHER. SU U.T. FOR THAT. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>LEWIS: THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION.
>>SPELMAN: I BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I BELIEVE I MADE THE MOTION AT THE SAME TIME THAT I SUGGESTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>>GOODMAN: WHO WAS THE SECOND? DO YOU RECALL?
>>LEWIS: I SECONDED IT.
>>GOODMAN: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. AND THERE WAS THAT ONE AMENDMENT TO THE LANGUAGE. FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS?
>>SPELMAN: A QUICK QUESTION. IF FOR SOME REASON WE WERE UNABLE TO ACQUIRE THIS TRACT AT ALL AND THE DEVELOPER WERE ABLE TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE THOUSAND ACRES, IF THIS WERE DEVELOPED UNDER CITY ORDINANCES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE SOME PORTION OF THIS TRACT AS PARKLAND, WOULD THEY NOT?
>> JULIE, I'M GOING TO LET YOU HELP ME WITH THIS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO TWO THINGS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MITIGATION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SET ASIDE LAND FOR HABITAT IN ADDITION TO FOLLOWING OUR RULES. AND IS IT 50% OF THIS TRACT COULD BE DEVELOPED? IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD UNDER THE 10-A. IF THEY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT PROBABLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT HALF OF THE TRACTS THAT WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED. ALTHOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN A 10-A PERMIT APPLICATION AND THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HEARD. IF REGARDS TO YOUR PARKLAND, WHEN YOU SUBDIVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, THEN BASED ON THAT DENSITY CALCULATES INTO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACRES FOR PARKLAND. THAT'S WHAT I CALL MANDATORY PARKLAND, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION PORTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>>SPELMAN: IF 50% THEN GETS PUT OFF AS MITIGATION LANDS AND DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED FOR THAT PURPOSE, DO WE HAVE ANY SAY OVER WHICH 50 PERCENT OR IS IT JUST 50% OF THE GROSS SITE AREA AND THEY FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.
>> THAT WOULD BE UNDER YOUR APPLICATION WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE.
>>SPELMAN: IT WOULD HELP THEM FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS THAT GETS PUT OFF FROM THE BEGINNING?
>> YES, SIR.
>>SPELLMAN: SPELL IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 500 ACRES AT OUR USUAL, WE'RE TALKING MAYBE 2,000 UNITS. ABOUT HOW MUCH PARKLAND WOULD WE EXPECT IF THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN 2,000 UNITS?
>> I HAVE NO WAY TO ESTIMATE. I JUST DON'T KNOW.
>>SPELMAN: I WAS THINKING THE UNITS WOULD BE --
>> NO. IT'S BASED ON DENSITY AND THERE'S A CALCULATION THAT WAS DONE FOR THAT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR UP LAND AREA AND KIND OF THE WHOLE PACKAGE OF IT. I'D LOVE TO ESTIMATE FOR YOU, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW.
>>SPELMAN: NO PARTICULAR REASON TO DO IT NOW. ALL I'M THINKING IS AS PART OF THIS MOTION, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A FORMAL PART OF THE RESOLUTION FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE TRACT OR THE PIECES OF THE TRACT WHICH ARE MOST CRITICAL FROM A HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY POINT OF VIEW, IF THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO PROTECTING THOSE SECTIONS, IN ADDITION TO JUST BUYING THEM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE 10-A PERMIT MIGHT PROVIDE US SOME MEANS OF DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT SOME SOME PARTS OF THIS TRACT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO DO LESS HARM TO ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU CAN INVESTIGATE THOSE AS PART OF THIS RESOLUTION, I'D APPRECIATE THAT.
>> CERTAINLY.
>>SPELMAN: GREAT. THANKS.
>>GOODMAN: FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? ABSTAINING?