Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 09/07/00

>>MAYOR WATSON: HE IS GOING TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION, WE WILL APPRECIATIVE THAT YOU ARE HERE.

>> OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE GRACIOUS BLESSINGS THAT YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US, THANK FOR YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THIS CITY AND IN DOING SO TO SERVE YOU. AS WE BEGIN A NEW DAY'S WORK, I ASK THAT YOU WOULD GRANT US THE COURAGE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES FORTHRIGHTLY, GIVE US WISDOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, GRANT US UNDERSTANDING TO ACT JUSTLY AND FAIRLY AND COMPASSIONATELY, GRANT US HUMILITY TO SET ASIDE OUR PERSONAL MOTIVES AND TO SEEK THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. LORD, DON'T LET THIS PRAYER BY BE A MERE FORMALITY. LET FAITH RISE IN OUR HEARTS, THE POWER OF YOUR SPIRIT BE MANIFESTED AMONG US. TOUCH WITH YOUR PRESENCE THOSE WHO NEED YOUR HELP TODAY. BRING DELIVERANCE TO THE BOUND, BRING HEALING TO THE HURTING, PEACE TO THE TROUBLED. IN EVERY SITUATION, HELP US TO RECOGNIZE YOUR AUTHORITY, AND YOUR WILL IN JESUS NAME I PRAY, AMEN.

>>MAYOR WATSON: AMEN BEING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL. A REGULAR MEETING, THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2000. WE ARE MEETING IN THE BOARD ROOM AT THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY HANCOCK BUILDING, LOCATED AT 3700 LAKE AUSTIN BOULEVARD. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 31ST, 2000, AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE BY XHRX THERE IS A SECOND?

>>THOMAS: SECOND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES WITH MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS? COUNCIL, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS FIRST TAKE UP THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE WE GO DIRECTLY INTO BRIEFINGS. LET ME CALL OUT THE THAEMS HAVE BEEN PULLED. -- THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 54, 57, 58, 64, 65, 67, 68, AND THOSE -- THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED. 54 CAN -- I'M SORRY, 57 CAN BE PUT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>>WYNN: CORRECT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ACCORDING TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT CAN BE PUT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

>>ALVAREZ: [INAUDIBLE] CAN GO BACK ON THE CONSENT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALREADY, 31 BACK ON CONSENT. LET ME ASK A QUESTION. IS MR. GUERNSEY AVAILABLE? COUNCIL, ON ITEM NO. 31, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A GROUP OF PEOPLE, THE PART OF THE WAY THIS CHURCH IS GOING TO GET BUILT, FOLLOWING THE PASSING OF THIS, IS KIND OF AN OLD STYLE BARN RAISING SORT OF DEAL. AND THERE'S A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE COMING INTO TOWN ON A SPECIFIED DATE TO HELP BUILD THIS CHURCH. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THESE PEOPLE IS IF WE PASS THIS ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OPPOSED TO OUR TYPICAL -- THE TYPICAL LAW ON THAT. MR. GUERNSEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ITEM NO. 31 BEING PASSED ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS?

>> NO, I DO NOT MAYOR, I HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO PASS OUT TO YOU THAT COULD MAKE THAT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. COWBOY, ON -- COUNCIL, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHEN WE TAKE UP ITEM NO. 31, THE MOTION TO PASS ITEM 31 ON CONSENT WOULD ALSO BE TO PASS ITEM 31 ON SECOND AND THIRD READING ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED?

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR? I THOUGHT 73 WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM TO DO WITH THE -- WITH THE BUDGET AND REVENUE FORECAST. I -- IF NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ON IT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. PROBABLY SHOULD BE, MY NOTES DIDN'T INDICATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. LET ME READ YOU THE CONSENT AGENDA. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 ON ARM AN EMERGENCY ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 6, 60, YOU 61, 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>>WYNN: MY APPROVE.

>>SLUSHER: SECOND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? ANYONE THAT WISHES TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ANY DISCUSSION?

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

>>SLUSHER: ON THE 26, THE INTERLOCAL WITH TRAVIS COUNTY FOR THE ELECTION, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IN ADVANCE THAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT WE CAN EXPECT THOSE VOTES TO BE COUNTED VERY LATE IN THE EVENING MAINLY DUE TO THEIR LACK OF MODERN EQUIPMENT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT IN ADVANCE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I'M SORRY, DID SOMEBODY --

>> MAYOR, CAN I SPEAK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM NO. 51, JUST REAL BRIEFLY?

>>MAYOR WATSON: CERTAINLY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MY NAME IS JEFF HOWARD, I REPRESENT RIVER BEND CHURCH, ITEM NO. 51 IS TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING RAERG ANNEXATION OF RIVER BEND CHURCH AND SOME OTHER PROPERTY ON 360. RIVER BEND IS NOT OPPOSED. RIVER BEND CHURCH DID SEND A LETTER TO COUNCIL EXPRESSING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE EFFECT OF ANNEXATION WOULD BE ON FUTURE LAND USES. WE HAVE HEARD FROM STAFF ON THAT MATTER AND WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH STAFF TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR THAT RIVER BEND HAD SOME CONCERNS, BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CITY, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. NO MOTION CARRIES WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. THAT WILL TAKE US TO BUDGET BRIEFINGS. WE WILL START WITH AFFORDABILITY. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER.

>>GARZA: MAYOR, LET ME ASK MR. STEVENS AND MR. CURRY TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE SCORE CARD, THIS ONE IS WITH -- WITH HAVING TO DO WITH AFFORDABILITY. WE WILL DO A REVENUE UPDATE AFTER THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WILL PRESENT THEIR BUDGET, WATER AND WASTEWATER WILL FOLLOW, SOLID WASTE SERVICES, WE WILL DO ALSO HOUSING AND THE PAY AND BENEFITS, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THIS AGENDA AND THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO REQUIRE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION, SUFFICE IT TO SAY WE HAVE SENT A MEMO TO THE COUNCIL SAYING BASICALLY WE ARE WORKING WITH AFSME IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE ISSUES, I BELIEVE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS MOST OF THOSE CONCERNS, A MEMO WILL BE FOLLOWING LATER THIS MORNING. I WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT PRESENTATION SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE TIME TO DO OTHER THINGS. IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE DETAILED PRESENTATION, WE WILL DO THAT. I WILL LEAVE THAT TO YOUR DISCRETION.

>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL, WE ARE GOING TO START A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY WITH THAT LAST WORK SESSION. WE ARE GOING TO START BY TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL REVENUE AS OPPOSED TO EXPENDITURES. EACH YEAR IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, AS YOU GET RIGHT BEFORE BUDGET ADOPTION, WE GO BACK AND TAKE ONE LAST LOOK AT OUR PROJECTIONS, OUR ESTIMATES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND ALSO OUR PROJECTIONS FOR NEXT YEAR. AND TRY TO BRING YOU THE MOST UP TO DATE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE. AND SO THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS. WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE REVISED ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, THE '9'9-2000 FISCAL YEAR. ALSO THE REVISED PROJECTIONS FOR THE 2000-2001 BUDGET YEAR, THE BUDGET THAT YOU WILL BE ADOPTING NEXT WEEK. LOOKING FIRST OF ALL AT THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, WE ARE REVISING OUR ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND INCREASING THAT ESTIMATE BY ABOUT 1.$8 MILLION. THIS -- BY ABOUT $1.8 MILLION. THIS SHOWS YOU DIFFERENT REVENUE SOURCES THAT ARE GOING UP. PROPERTY TAXES CONTINUE TO INCREASE ALL YEAR, THE -- THE LARGEST SINGLE SOURCE OF REFUSE FEW THAT YOU SEE HERE IS OUR E.M.S. BILLING UNDER THE CHARGES FOR SERVICE, THAT'S $1.2 MILLION. WE HAD REPORTED TO YOU EARLIER, WE HAD LOWERED OUR ESTIMATE OF THIS REVENUE SOURCE BECAUSE OF -- BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH OUR BILLING SYSTEM. WE HAVE GOTTEN THOSE PROBLEMS CORRECTED AND ARE ABLE TO READVISE THIS REVENUE ESTIMATE AND SO THE -- REVISE THIS ESTIMATE, SO THE TOTAL OF THOSE SOURCES IS $1.8 MILLION. THE ONE SOURCE OF REVENUE THAT HAS DECREASED SINCE WE HAVE PUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TOGETHER IS THE SALES TAX PAYMENT. OUR SALES TAX PAYMENT IN THE -- FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS IN AUGUST AND ALSO THE ONE WE RECEIVED THIS MONTH HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN WHAT WE HAVE PROJECTED. AND SO YOU SEE ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS COMING OFF OF OUR REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR SALES TAX. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENTAL SAVINGS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THIS IS PRIMARILY DUE TO VACANCY SAVINGS AND YOU SEE IN THIS SLIDE THE DEPARTMENTS ARE REPORTING THOSE ADDITIONAL SAVINGS. WHEN YOU PUT THE TWO OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER, THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND THE ADDITIONAL SAVINGS, WE ARE INCREASING OUR ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR GENERAL FUND BY $2.2 MILLION. IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES TO THE CURRENT YEAR, WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN A LAST LOOK AT -- AT NEXT YEAR'S REVENUE. WHEN WE -- THE MANAGER PRESENTED THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO YOU, WE TOLD YOU THAT THE CERTIFYIED TAX ROLL HAD COME IN AT 227 MILLION HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ESTIMATED WHEN WE PUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TOGETHER. ALSO THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE HAD INCREASED FROM 46.5 CENTS TO 46.63 CENTS. THE EFFECT OF THOSE TWO CHANGES IS AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE NEXT YEAR OF $1.6 MILLION. WE ARE STILL PROJECTING SALES TAX GROWTH NEXT YEAR OF 9.5%. BUT BECAUSE THAT IS BASED ON A LOWER NUMBER FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THE TOTAL REVENUE FOR NEXT YEAR FOR SALES TAX IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN WHAT WE ESTIMATED WHEN WE PUT THE BUDGET TOGETHER.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: YES. IN THE -- I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE ERRATA, WE WEREN'T CLEAR ON WHY THOSE ESTIMATES WERE DOWN AS TO WHETHER THE ESTIMATE WAS SHORT OR WHETHER -- OR SLOW OR WHETHER THE ESTIMATE FROM TAX WAS REALLY GOING TO BE DONE, DID WE GET THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT?

>> YES, MA'AM. THE PAYMENT THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE FIRST OF AUGUST CAME IN AT A GROWTH RATE OF 6.5% AS OPPOSED TO THE 11% THAT WE HAD PROJECTED WHEN WE DID THE ESTIMATE FOR THIS YEAR. THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE FIRST OF THIS WEEK CAME IN 75,000 LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD PROJECTED. SO THOSE TWO PAYMENTS COMING IN LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD ESTIMATED THEM TO BE IS THE -- THE CAUSE OF US LOWERING OUR ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR

>>GRIFFITH: DID WE GET STRAIGHT ON WHETHER THAT WAS AN ESTIMATE CORRECTION OR WHETHER THAT WAS A REAL YEAR TO DATE CHANGE?

>> THE NUMBER IN THE BUDGET IS AN ESTIMATE. WHEN WE PUT THE BUDGET TOGETHER, WE ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST OF AUGUST, THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER, AND IN THE CASE OF SALES TAX, OUR REVENUE ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE PAYMENT WE WILL GET IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. BECAUSE THE SALES ACTUALLY OCCUR BEFORE THIS FISCAL YEAR IS OVER. WHEN WE RECEIVE THE PAYMENT ITSELF, THEN WE REPLACE THE ESTIMATED NUMBER WITH THE ACTUAL NUMBER

>>GRIFFITH: SO YOU ARE SAYING WE DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW WHETHER THAT'S AN ESTIMATE OR WHETHER IT'S A REAL MONTH-TO-MONTH, YEAR-TO-DATE ACTUAL.

>> THE TWO THINGS THAT WE ARE CHANGES, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, WE ARE REPLACING AN ESTIMATED NUMBER WITH AN ACTUAL NUMBER. THERE ARE TWO MORE MONTHS OF SALES TAX REVENUE THAT WILL BE CREDITED TO THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. THAT'S CORRECT.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IT'S PART ACTUALS AND IN PART ESTIMATE. THANK YOU. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW IFFY THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE -- REVIEW FEE THAT WAS OBTAINED THAT WE RECOMMEND WILL BE DELETED, THAT WILL REDUCE OUR REVENUE ABOUT 240,000. BOTH OF THE UTILITIES HAVE INCREASED THEIR ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THAT MEANS THAT THEIR TRANSFER, WHICH IS BASED ON A THREE YEAR AVERAGE, THEIR TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND NEXT YEAR IS BASED ON THE -- ON AN AVERAGE OF THE PAST THREE YEARS, SINCE THEIR REVENUE ESTIMATE THIS YEAR IS GOING UP, THE AMOUNT OF THE TRANSFER NEXT YEAR WILL ALSO GO UP. YOU SEE HERE THAT FOR ELECTRIC THAT'S 1.9 MILLION, FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IT'S ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] 180,000. THE TOTAL IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET ADD UP TO 2.$8 MILLION. -- 2.8 MILLION. THERE'S ALSO A CHANGE IN OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT YEAR, WHEN WE PUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TOGETHER, WE BASED OUR ESTIMATE ON THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET BEING FULLY DEPLETED BY THE END OF THE YEAR, OUR FINANCIAL POLICY REQUIRES US TO REPLACE THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH YEAR. RIGHT NOW THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR STILL HAS OVER $600,000 IN IT. SO WE WILL NOT -- THAT IS MONEY WE WILL NOT FEED TO REPLACE -- NOT NEED TO REPLACE AS WE BEGIN NEXT YEAR'S FISCAL YEAR. SO THAT IS A $600,000 SAVINGS IN EXPENDITURES THAT YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THE NEXT SLIDE SUMMARIZES ALL OF THOSE THINGS. THE BEGINNING -- THE CHANGE IN THE BEGINNING BALANCE IS A RESULT OF OUR CHANGES IN ESTIMATES TO THE CURRENT YEAR. WHEN WE REVISE OUR ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THAT GIVES US A HIGHER ENDING BALANCE FOR THIS YEAR THAT CARRIES OVER AND BECOMES OUR BEGINNING BALANCE FOR NEXT YEAR. SO WE HAVE A $2.2 MILLION HIGHER BEGINNING BALANCE FOR THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAN WHAT WE PUT IN THE DOCUMENT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE LIST OF REVENUE. THOSE ADD UP TO 2.8 MILLION. WE HAVE $600,000 LESS IN REQUIRED EXPENDITURES, AND WHEN YOU ADD ALL OF THOSE UP, THE TOTAL IS $5.6 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN ADOPTING THE BUDGET NEXT WEEK. THE REMAINING SLIDES SHOW THE CHANGES THAT AFFECT THE OTHER MAJOR FUNDS. AS I MENTIONED, BOTH AUSTIN ENERGY AND WATER AND WASTEWATER HAVE HIGHER SALES. IN THE CASE OF AUSTIN ENERGY, THE HIGHER SALES HAS BEEN OFFSET BY FUEL COSTS AND SO THERE IS NO -- NO NET CHANGE IN THEIR ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE. IN THE CASE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER, HOWEVER, THEIR HIGHER SALES IS RESULTING IN AN INCREASE OF $7 MILLION IN THEIR PROJECTED ENDING BALANCE FOR THIS YEAR ABOVE WHAT THEY HAD PUT IN THE -- IN THE BUDGET. AND, FINALLY, OUR HOTEL-MOTEL BED TAX HAS COME IN AT $975,000 HIGHER THAN WHAT WE PROJECTED WHEN WE PUT THE BUDGET TOGETHER. THE HOTEL/MOTEL BED TAX IS DISTRIBUTED AMONG A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FUNDS. THE 975,000 IS THE TOTAL FOR THE TAX. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE REVENUE UPDATE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OTHER THAN WHAT'S BEEN ASKED? THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M JOHN STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS THE MANAGER SAID, THIS IS OUR FOURTH AND FINAL BUDGET PRESENTATION TO YOU. IT CONCENTRATES ON THE COUNCIL PRIORITY OF AFFORDABILITY. THE FIRST THREE PRESENTATIONS WE MADE TO YOU WERE ON THE PRIORITIES OF PUBLIC SAFETY, YOUTH, FAMILY AND NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY. AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST THREE PRESENTATIONS, WE WILL PRESENT TO YOU SOME INFORMATION ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES, ON CUSTOMER PRIORITIES FOR CITY SERVICES, AND SOME BENCHMARK OR COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON HOW AUSTIN COMPARES TO OTHER CITIES. IN OUR 1998 VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER SURVEY WE ASKED AUSTIN CITIZENS HOW THEY RATED THE VALUE OF SERVICES THEY RECEIVED FROM THE CITY. 74% OF THE PEOPLE SURVEYED RATED THE VALUE OF SERVICES THEY RECEIVED FOR THEIR TAX DOLLARS AND THE FEES THEY PAY AS EITHER GOOD OR VERY GOOD. LOOKING NEXT AT THE FIRST COMPARATIVE MEASURE OF AFFORDABILITY, WE OBTAINED SOME 1999 INFORMATION FROM THE AMERICAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE RESEARCHERS ASSOCIATION ON THE COST OF LIVING FOR CERTAIN CITIES. THE SLIDE ON TOP THAT YOU SEE COMPARES AUSTIN'S COST OF LIVING IN 1999 TO THAT OF THE OTHER CITY'S SHOWN. THE NUMBERS REPRESENT A COST OF LIVING INDEX THAT MEASURES THE COST OF HOUSING, UTILITIES, TRANSPORTATION, HEALTH CARE AND MISCELLANEOUS GOODS AND SERVICES. THE MEDIAN FOR THE CITY'S SURVEY WAS 100. -- AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DATA SHOWN, COMPARED TO THE OTHER MAJOR TEXAS CITIES, AND THE TO THE CITIES OF PHOENIX, CHARLOTTE AND PORTLAND, AUSTIN'S COST OF LIVING IS THIRD LOWEST AND TWO PERCENT BELOW THE MEDIAN OF THE CITIES. ALTHOUGH AUSTIN HAD IN IT HAD THE LOWEST COST OF GROCERIES. THE SLIDE AT THE BOTTOM IS FROM THE CENTRAL TEXAS INDICATORS REPORT THAT WE HAVE ALSO USED TO PUT TOGETHER OUR COMMUNITY SCORE CARD AND IT SHOWS THE ANNUAL INCREASE IN MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN AUSTIN HAS OUTPACED THE ANNUAL INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING FOR MOST OF THE LAST 10 YEARS. I.

>> ED TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THERE IS AN ERROR ON THIS SLIDE IN THE NOTE AT THE LEFT. IT SHOULD READ 6 OF THE LAST 10 YEARS, RATHER THAN NINE OF THE LAST 10 YEARS. ANY RATIO ABOVE ONE INDICATES THAT MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME INCREASED FASTER THAN THE COST OF LIVING FOR THE YEARS SHOWN. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1999, WITH A RATIO OF 3.6, THE GROWTH IN MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME WAS 3.6 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE GROWTH IN THE COST OF LIVING FOR THAT YEAR. LOOKING AT AUSTIN PROPERTY TAX NRAITS 1999 AND COMPARING THEM TO THE OTHER MAJOR TEXAS CITIES, AUSTIN'S RATES WERE LOWER THAN THOSE OF THE OTHER CITIES FOR THE CITY TAX RATE ALONE, AS WELL AS FOR THE OVERLAPPING TAX RATES. IN THE TOP SLIDE AT 517 CENTS FOR THE CITY TAX RATE IN 1999, AND IN THE BOTTOM SLIDE AT $2.51 FOR THE OVERLAPPING TAX RATE, THAT IS INCLUDING THE CITY'S SCHOOL DISTRICT, ACC AND THE COUNTY, AUSTIN'S RATES WERE LOWER THAN THOSE OF THE OTHER MAJOR TEXAS CITIES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: CAN I INTERRUPT YOU?

>> YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THIS CONCEPT, SOMETIMES SEEMS TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET OUT. WE MANY TIMES SAY, I'M GOING TO TRY TO WALK MYSELF THROUGH A STEP BY STEP PROCESS HERE. WE MANY TIMES SAY AUSTIN HAS THE LOWEST PROPERTY TAX RATE OF THE FIVE LARGE TEXAS CITIES, WHICH SEEMS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON. AND WE -- WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE COURSE OF THESE BUDGET PRESENTATIONS THAT IT'S -- FRANKLY, IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW AND THE SECOND STEP WOULD BE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE RECOMMENDED TAX RATES FOR THIS YEAR, AMONG THOSE CITIES, WE ARE RECOMMENDING -- AT LEAST THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS MADE UP OF A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, HAS BEEN THAT WE REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX RATE AGAIN THIS YEAR AND THAT WOULD BE TO -- IN THE 46 CENT RANGE. AS COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES THAT ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT KIND OF DROP OF THE FIVE LARGEST CITIES; IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE THAT -- THE ACTUAL TAX RATES AT HAND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. BUT THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO SAY, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE OVERLAPPING RATE IS AND BY THAT, THAT MEANS A PERSON LIVING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WHO PAYS INTO -- CLEARLY THEY PAY THEIR CITY TAXES. BUT THEY ALSO PAY INTO OTHER MULTIPLE OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS. THAT WHEN YOU DO THE COMPARISON, WITH OVERLAP -- THAT OVERLAP, WE ARE -- WE ARE AGAIN, A CITIZEN IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS THE LOWEST PROPERTY TAX RATE AND THE LOWEST OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATE AS COMPARED TO THOSE OTHERS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MY GUESS IS THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT IT WOULD BE THE LOWEST OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATE IS BECAUSE THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S TAX RATE AS COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES IS SO LOW THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS IN THE PAUSE AREA TO HAVE EVEN A HIGHER TAX RATE THAN MAYBE THEIR COUNTERPARTS HAVE, SAY THE COUNTY AS COMPARED TO THE COUNTY SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT BECAUSE THE CITY'S TAX RATE IS SO LOW IT ENDS UP MAKING IT STILL THE LOWEST OVERLAPPING RATE.

>> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT FOR THE COUNTY RATES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE OVERLAPPING TAX RATES. THE TRAVIS COUNTY TAX RATE WAS THE HIGHEST OF ALL OF THE COUNTIES ON THE SLIDES SHOWN.

>> OKAY. NOW, THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO OUR NEXT QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I AM GOING TO GET ASKED THIS QUESTION IF I SAY THIS SLIDE OUT LOUD TO ANYBODY. NOT TO ANYBODY, THERE WOULD BE SOME PEOPLE WHO WILL ASK THIS QUESTION. THEY SAY, "YEAH, BUT PART OF THE REVENUE THE CITY OF AUSTIN OBTAINS IS FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. THERE'S A TRANSFER FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY." I KNOW WE HAVE DONE -- BUT THE PERSON THAT LIVES IN DALLAS, FOR EXAMPLE, PAYS CITY PROPERTY TAX, PAYS COUNTY PROPERTY TAX, PAYS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THIS OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX IS, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THEY ALSO, I ASSUME, PAY UTILITY -- PAY A UTILITY BILL, ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT.

>> YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: HAVE WE DONE A COMPARISON OF WHAT OUR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES ARE AS COMPARED SO THAT WE CAN DO AN OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATE AND SLASH OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATE PLUS UTILITY RATE?

>> WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THE UTILITY RATES THAT WE WILL PRESENT TO YOU LATER AS PART OF THIS AFFORDABILITY PRESENTATION.

>> THERE'S TWO SLIDES COMING UP THAT WILL ADDRESS SOME --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SORRY.

>> FOR A THOUSAND KILOWATTS AND LESS, FOR RESIDENTIAL RATES WE ARE THE LOWEST AMONG THE MAJOR UTILITIES IN TEXAS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY.

>> THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CUSTOMERS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: USING A MAJORITY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, USING A THOUSAND KILOWATT RATE, IF YOU HAD AN OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATE AND ADDED TO THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE USE IN TERMS OF UTILITIES, IN AUSTIN, DALLAS, FORT WORTH, SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON, ALL OF THAT, WE WOULD STILL BE AT OR NEAR THE LOWEST?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. I'M SORRY IF I GOT AHEAD OF YOU. I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO N THAT. IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO GET THAT OUT THERE. LOOKING NEXT AT AUSTIN'S NET DEBT PER CAPITA, THE SLIDE ON TOP SHOWS -- THIS IS FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT ONLY. AUSTIN'S NET DEBT PER CAPITA IS AMONG THE HIGHEST OF THE 5 MAJOR TEXAS CITIES. HOWEVER, OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND RATINGS COMPARE VERY FAVORABLY TO THOSE OF THE OTHER MAJOR TEXAS CITIES. IN ADDITION I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT OUR BOND RATINGS HAVE GONE UP OVER THE LAST YEAR. ABOUT THIS TIME LAST YEAR, FITCH UPGRADED THE CITY FROM A DOUBLE A TO A DOUBLE A PLUS THAT YOU SEE ON THE CHART THERE. IN ADDITION FOR OUR GO BOND SALE, STANDARD HAS ALSO UPGRADED THE CITY'S BOND RATING ALSO FROM A DOUBLE A TO A DOUBLE A PLUS.

>> I WILL NOW TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER JIM SMITH THAT WILL CONTINUE WITH THE SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS MAKING THEIR PRESENTATIONS TODAY.

>> THE FIRST DEPARTMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO OVER THIS MORNING IS AUSTIN ENERGY. CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE DONE THE LAST TWO WEEKS, YOU HAVE THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRIORITY THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE -- HAVE ATTACHED TO SOME OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY. ALSO THE SATISFACTION, YOU CAN SEE RELATIVELY HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY AS WELL AS SATISFACTION. THE ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS THE AMOUNT PAID IN ELECTRIC RATES, WHICH IS 54% SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH THAT, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THAT AS PRETTY CONSISTENT WHEN IT COMES TO WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES AS WELL IN A FUTURE CHART. THE NEXT CHART TRIES TO ILLUSTRATE THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER COSTS FOR 1999 TO 2000. AND THAT -- THE NUMBERS IN THIS CHART IS A COMPOSITE OF WHAT THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER WOULD PAY IN TAXES, ELECTRIC, WATER WAERX SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND SOME ADDITIONAL FEES. WHEN YOU PUT THAT TOGETHER, THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER, YOU CAN SEE IS IN THE MID PACK OF -- MIDDLE OF THE PACK OF THE MAJOR TEXAS CITIES. THE FOLLOWING CHART TRIES TO PULL OUT THAT -- OF THE PREVIOUS CHARTS THE ELECTRIC RATES. AS JESUS MENTIONED EARLIER, AUSTIN HAS THE SECOND LOWEST ELECTRIC SERVICE COST OF THE MAJOR TEXAS CITIES, WHICH IS ILLUSTRATE ODD THAT CHART. WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CHUCK MANNING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BUDGET.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CHUCK MANNING, GENERAL MANAGER OF AUSTIN ENERGY. REALLY PLEASED THIS MORNING TO PRESENT OUR BUDGET FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. IF WE LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TEXAS, WHAT'S AFFECTING AUSTIN, WE WANT TO COVER JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS. AS IS YOU WILL RECALL IN MAY OF 1999, SENATE BILL 7 DID PASS, THAT AFFECTS ALL UTILITIES IN THE STATE, INCLUDING AUSTIN. THE INDUSTRY IS GOING FROM A REGULATED MONOPOLY TO COMPETITION IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER. THE IOU'S, INVEST TORE OWNED UTILITIES ARE OPENED NEXT YEAR COMPLETELY. THERE WILL BE AN ELIMINATION OF ADDITIONAL RATE MAKING. THIS ISSUE WILL BRING CONFUSION TO MANY CUSTOMERS WHEN TRADITIONAL RATE MAKING DISAPPEARS, IN TEXAS AND THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE UNITED STATES THERE'S A FOCUS ON REDUCTION OF FIXED COSTS, THAT IS HAVING A DEBT FREE GENERATION SYSTEM, TO HAVE YOUR MOST COMPETITIVE UTILITY PRICE, THERE'S DIVERSIFICATION OF SERVICES AND PRODUCT, THERE'S CURRENTLY THREE UTILITIES IN THE STATE, INCLUDING AUSTIN, THAT OFFER CHILLED WATER, CENTRAL PLANT FACILITIES. THERE'S A CONTINUED EMPHASIS IN DISTRIBUTOR GENERATION, ONSITE GENERATION OF MICRO TURBINES, FUEL SALES, ET CETERA, MANY FIRMS ARE GEARING UP TO DATE TO OFFER THAT AS ONSITE GENERATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES ARE MOUNTAINING, SEVERAL UTILITIES WILL HAVE TO CLOSE PLANTS BECAUSE OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS THAT MAKE THOSE FACILITIES UNECONOMICAL. AND UTILITIES IS CHANGING, THE INDUSTRY IS CHANGING AT AN UNPRECEDENTED RATE. JUNE 2001 IT STARTS. DURING THIS COMING BUDGET YEAR COMPETITION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS STARTS. THERE'S A PILOT PROGRAM THAT BEGINS IN JUNE 2001 WHERE 5% OF THE INCUMBENT INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES MARKET IS OPEN, THAT THOSE CUSTOMERS CAN CHOOSE THEIR RETAIL SUPPLIER. IN JUNE OF 2001, AS AUSTIN ENERGY PARTICIPATES IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET, WHERE WE SELL ENERGY OFF SYSTEM, WE ARE ALSO UNDER THOSE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ALL OF THE OTHER UTILITIES ARE. JANUARY OF 2002, ALL OF THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES CUSTOMERS HAVE OPEN ACCESS, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, ET CETERA. CUSTOMERS THAT ARE ONE MEGAWATT OR LESS, SMALL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HAVE A 6% PRICE REDUCTION, THAT WILL BECOME THE PRICE TO BEAT IN THE OPEN MARKET. ANY CUSTOMER THAT'S LARGER THAN ONE MEGAWATT CAN CHOOSE THEIR SUPPLIER FROM ANYWHERE IN THE STATE. UTILITY RESTRUCTURING IN TEXAS, YOU WILL SEE MOST CORPORATIONS WILL GO AT LEAST TO 3 BUSINESS UNITS, IF NOT SIX OR EIGHT. THESE WILL BE FUNCTIONALLY UNBUNDLED. THE POWER GENERATION COMPANY WILL OWN AND OPERATE ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES. THE PRICE THAT THEY CHARGE FOR THEIR PRODUCT IS UNREGULATED. IT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE MARKET THE TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, POLES AND WIRES, WILL HAVE FOR AFFILIATION WITH ENERGY. THEY WILL NOT NUMBER THE ENERGY MARKET. ONLY BE OPERATING POLES AND WIRES, THERE WILL AN RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER. AGAIN THIS IS PART OF THE CONFUSION THAT THE PUBLIC WILL DEAL WITH OVER THE NEXT 12 TO 18 MONTHS. THE RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER WILL BUY ENERGY FROM GENERATORS AND SELL THAT TO THE CUSTOMERS. THEY WILL BE BROKERING THAT NARNGD THE STATE. WHAT ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY? LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT AUSTIN ENERGY. BASED ON NUMBERS OF CUSTOMERS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU LOOK AT TOTAL SALES, REVENUE, NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, WE ARE AROUND THE 10TH LARGEST UTILITY OUT OF 2200 MUNICIPALS IN THE UNITED STATES. KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, FROM OUR AUDIT IN 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ASSETS IN EXCESS OF $2.8 BILLION, TOTAL REVENUE OF OVER $682 MILLION IN 1999. OVER 363,000 CUSTOMERS AND ALMOST 10 BILLION KILOWATT HOURS IN SALES. AUSTIN ENERGY'S VISION? SIMPLY WE WILL BE AN EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY-OWNED UTILITY THROUGH RELENTLESS COMMITMENT TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND TO OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD INTEND TO BE. THE GOALS OF SUPPORT, AUSTIN ENERGY, THE MISSION OF THE COUNCIL, DELIVER RELIABLE ENERGY SERVICES. THE SURVEY DATA SHOWED THIS AS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO OUR CUSTOMERS, WE WILL LIMIT THE FORCED OUTAGE OF LESS THAN 10%, MAINTAIN A SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION FREQUENCY OF NO MORE THAN ONE OCCURRENCE PER YEAR. THAT MEANS THE AVERAGE CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE ONE OR LESS OUTLETAGES IN A YEARS TIME. IF THERE IS AN OUT CAKE, -- OUTAGE, THE INTERRUPTION WOULD BE 50 MINUTES OR LESS IF AN OUT ACKNOWLEDGE OCCURS. WE INTEND TO LEAD THE INDUSTRY IN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARD SHIP AND KOFRK VACATION PROGRAMS. LIMIT THE EMISSIONS OF NOX, AVOID 224,000 TONS OF CO 2 THROUGH USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES, YOUR GREEN CHOICE PROGRAM IS THE BEST PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND PROBABLY IN THE UNITED STATES. IT IS GETTING NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR WHAT WE ARE ACHIEVING. WE WILL ACHIEVE 46 AND A HALF MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION NEXT YEAR. IN ADDITION WE WILL PROVIDE EXTRAORDINARY CUSTOMER SERVICE. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS NOW OF CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, WE WILL IMPROVE WHATEVER THAT BENCHMARK IS BY 5% THIS YEAR CREATE VALUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE BELIEVE WE DO THAT THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND NEXT YEAR. PROVIDE AFFORDABLE ENERGY SERVICES, WITH WE HAVE MAINTAINED THE SAME RATE SINCE 1994, THERE WILL BE NO BASE RATE CHANGE PROPOSED FROM US IN 2001. INVEST IN THE WORKFORCE, WE BELIEVE THAT'S A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT. WE WILL INVEST OVER 30,000 HOURS OF TRAINING OR ABOUT 22 HOURS PER EMPLOYEE OF JOB SKILLS TRAINING. BOTTOM THE COMPETITIVE ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN TO DATE AND WILL TAKE NEXT YEAR. MAINTAIN THE RATES AS THEY ARE, EMPHASIS ON EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE, WE ARE DOING THINGS IN OUR CUSTOMER CALL CENTER, A QUALITY PROPERLY PROGRAM THERE. A NUMBER OF THINGS WE ARE EMPHASIZING. STRATEGIC USE OF THE DEBT MANAGEMENT FUND. UTILITIES ARE PAYING -- PAYING CASH, NOT INCREASING DEBT, THE SAME APPROACH WE ARE USING THROUGH TAKING INTEREST OF THE DEBT MANAGEMENT FUND AND OFFSETTING OUR CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS WITH THAT PAYING CASH. AGAIN GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AT 9.1%. ENERGY SAVINGS 46.5 MEGAWATTS FROM CONSERVATION. ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS WE WILL HAVE TO DO NEXT YEAR IS AGAIN PARTICIPATION WITH P.U.C. AT ERCOT IN THE RULE MAKINGS. ALL OF THE RULES THAT WILL COME OUT WILL AFFECT AUSTIN ENERGY. WE WILL HAVE IN EXCESS OF 35 EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. WE WILL MONITOR AND EXPLORE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR BUDGET AS A $2 MILLION TECHNOLOGICAL LINE ITEM IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FEW CELL TECHNOLOGY, ET CETERA. YOU HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER HOW COMPETITIVE, WHERE DO WE LOOK ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATES. AT 500 KILOWATT HOURS, YOU ARE ALMOST 20% BELOW ANY UTILITY IN THE STATE, ANY UTILITY IN THE STATE. AT A THOUSAND KILOWATT HOURS, WHICH OUR AVERAGE CUSTOMER USES LESS THAN A THOUSAND ON AN AVERAGE MONTHLY BASIS, AGAIN YOU ARE THE LOWEST. RATE CHANGES, RATE INCREASES THROUGHOUT THE STATE. FUEL COST INCREASES ARE CHANGING LITERALLY DAILY, SO THIS CHART MOVES, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S MOVING -- THE OTHER UTILITIES TO THE COST SIDE OF WHERE WE ARE. IN TERMS OF THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, PART OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION THAT WAS READ BY JIM EARLIER IS THAT WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK -- MIDDLE OF THE PACK. WE ARE NOT THE LOWEST. BALANCING OUR COMMITMENT, RATES MUST REMAIN COMPETITIVE WHILE WE RETURN A FAIR RETURN TO OUR CITIZEN OWNERS. IF YOU WILL LOOK ON THIS GRAPH, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, PRETTY IMPRESSIVE GROWTH TO THE CITY AND BACK TO OUR CUSTOMERS OF 66 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN 01. COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. ON THE COST PER KILOWATT HOUR OR AN INVESTMENT PER KILOWATT HOUR IN CONSERVATION, NO ONE IS CLOSE. THIS IS -- THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, RATHER PHENOMENAL. WE HAVE INCREASED INVESTMENTS THIS YEAR IS THAT THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM AGAIN, GREEN BUILDING, WE WILL MEET OUR GOALS, THAT IS A VERY SOLID PROGRAM AND IT'S INCREASING IN WHAT WE ARE DOING THERE. ENERGY MANAGEMENT, OUR RETAIL CUSTOMERS OR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WITH THERMOSTATS IN THEIR HOUSE, THAT PROGRAM IS EXPANDING QUITE WELL, BEING WELL RECEIVED. AGAIN, WE HAVE $15 MILLION IN BASE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND $18 MILLION IN THE CHILLED WATER PROGRAM, WHICH IS A -- WHICH IS A REALLY NICE PROGRAM FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. PARTICULARLY DOWNTOWN AND OTHER HIGH DENSITY GROWTH AREAS. 2000-2001 SOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS. OUR TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDING ARE ABOUT 806 MILLION DOLLARS, OUR TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AROUND $807 MILLION. THE BULK OF THIS IS FROM RETAIL SALES. WE HAVE OTHER REVENUE WHICH IS OFF OF OUR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, INTEREST INCOME, AGAIN THE TRANSFER OF INTEREST FROM DEBT MANAGEMENT FUND INTO OUR BUDGETS THAT WE WILL PUT THAT MONEY BACK INTO OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR 2000 O AND M BUDGET. ECONOMIC TRANSFER, 4.2 MILLION, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH IN TERM OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND, THIS IS VERY COMMON THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES IN TERMS OF UTILITIES AND VESTING IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS -- IN'SING. THIS IS ON PAR WITH THE OTHER UTILITIES. AGAIN ENERGY CONSERVATION OF 15 MILLION. WE WILL SEE AN INCREASED FUEL COST, ONE WE ARE ADDING A NEW GENERATING UNIT THAT WILL COME ON LINE NEXT MAY. WE WILL HAVE TO OPERATE THAT, PLUS THE PRICE OF GAS WILL NOT DROP BACK TO WHERE IT WAS IN 1999. DEPARTMENT O AND M HAS GONE UP BY 3% THIS 3% INCREASE INCLUDES ADDING A BRAND NEW GENERATION STATION, ADDING FACILITY OR EMPLOYEES TO MANAGE THAT FACILITY AND ABSORBING INCREASED PERSONNEL COSTS, INCREASED CONTRACTED TECHNICAL SERVICES, FOR TWO OF OUR MAJOR PROGRAMS DATA ONE AND THE CIS BUILDING SYSTEM. AND INCLUDING AN OVERHAUL OF THE DECKER UNIT NO. 1 AT $2.6 MILLION. OUR CAPITAL BUDGET, THIS COMING YEAR, WILL BE $225 MILLION. THE BULK OF THESE DOLLARS ARE RELATIVE TO INCREASED GENERAL INDICATING. WE HAVE TWO MAJOR PROGRAMS GOING ON, ONE I MENTIONED WILL COME IN MAY NEXT YEERK THE OTHER IS THE COMBINED CYCLE PLANT. THAT UNIT IS BEING PRODUCED NOW, BEING BUILT AT THE FACTORY AND WILL BE IN SERVICE IN 2003. WE HAVE A $7 MILLION IN SEE HOME DECOMMISSIONING, THAT PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED THIS BUDGET YEAR. SEAHOLM. ALSO RELOCATION OF OVER LED LINES TO UNDERGROUND. A PROGRAM WE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL EARLIER, AND $18 MILLION FOR OUR -- EXPANDING OUR EXIST CHILLER SYSTEMS AND ADDING NEW CHILLERS AND THERMAL STORAGE. WITH THAT I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: YES. THE -- WHAT YOU AND I TALK ABOUT A LOT IS THE TWO WAYS THAT I LOOK AT NET OPERATIONS. ONE IS THE CHANGE IN ENDING BALANCE AND OF COURSE THE ONE THAT I LOOK AT THE MOST IS CONTROL OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE.

>> RIGHT.

>>GRIFFITH: HELP ME KNOW IF I AM UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS IN THE -- IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH FOR THIS -- FOR THIS OPERATIONS YEAR. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU IF I AM READING THIS CORRECTLY. YOUR INCOME IN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS HAVE STAYED VERY MUCH IN LINE.

>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER. I THINK NOT ONLY IN LINE, BUT OUR ONGOING O AND M HAS DECREASED. WHAT OUR NORMAL OPERATIONS ARE, ADDITIONAL PLANT CAPACITIES AND FACILITIES WITH A VERY MODEST INCREASE IN THOSE OPERATING COSTS, YES, MA'AM, I THINK WE HAVE

>>GRIFFITH: YES. TWINT CONGRATULATE YOU ON THAT. WHAT I WANT TO ASK ABOUT IS THE PROPOSED BUDGET. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT IS THE ENDING BALANCE IN '99-2000 IS ESTIMATED TO 88 MILLION, 88.3 MILLION. THE PROPOSED IS -- IS GOING TO BE 7 W5.6 MILLION. -- 75.6 MILLION. WHICH IN TERMS OF ENDING BALANCE CHANGE WOULD BE A NEGATIVE 12.6.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>>GRIFFITH: CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT TAKE?

>> AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT WAS IN OUR BUDGET PLAN ALL YEAR THAT WE WOULD HAVE A REDUCED ENDING BALANCE THAT WE ARE -- PART OF THAT IS ALSO PAYING CASH FOR -- FOR OUR -- FOR OUR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THE NET EFFECT OF THAT TO TAKE CAPITAL OUT OF ENDING BALANCE?

>> ELAINE?

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

>> LET ME GET YOU A SPECIFIC ANSWER. ELAINE COOLMAN, OUR VICE-PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE.

>> YOUR ESTIMATED NOBODY OF 88-3 IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED A YEAR AGO BECAUSE OF YOUR INCREASED SALES. THAT'S ONE OF THE DRIVERS, THEN YOU HAVE AN INCREASED INVESTMENT IN YOUR CAPITAL BUDGET OF 100 TO 150 MILLION. [INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, CITY MANAGER. WE ARE DRAWING THAT DOWN, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN OUR CAPITAL BUDGET, OUR TRANSFER TO OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM THIS YEAR, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY REDUCING SOME OF THE RESERVE OR ENDING BALANCE AS YOU SAY.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. THAT'S THE WAY I WAS READING IT. IN TERMS OF TOTAL REVENUE, IT LOOKS LIKE -- THIS IS PROPOSED. ESTIMATED YEAR END 1999-2000, TOTAL REVENUE WOULD BE 730.4 MILLION, THEN PROPOSED IS 769.9 MILLION, WHICH IS UP 5.4%. IT'S UP 39.4 MILLION. THE REASON I LOOK AT THE O AND M SO HARD IS BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW CONTROLABLES, FUEL IS REALLY NOT THE -- THE OTHER COMPONENTS ARE SO MARKET DRIVEN THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT. THE THING YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IS THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PIECE, WHICH IS WHY I LOOK AT THAT AS MUCH AS I DO. BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO -- TO NOT ONLY SURVIVE, BUT PROSPER AND BE DOMINANT IN THE REREGULATED TO USE YOUR TERM, REREGULATED ENVIRONMENT IS TO CONTROL THAT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE BECAUSE THAT -- THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE POSSIBLY THE -- THE BIGGEST, LOOKING AT THE OTHER REREGULATED INDUSTRIES, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST -- THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN TERMS OF HOW WELL WE PROSPER. AND I BELIEVE WE WILL. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

>>GRIFFITH: ... PROPOSED, 330.6, WHICH LOOKS LIKE UP 35.8, WHICH IS 12% JUST ON OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WITH NO FUEL IN IT. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IN THAT ACCOUNT IS YOUR FUEL COSTS. SO 37 MILLION DOLLARS INCREASED FUEL IN THAT 330 MILLION DOLLAR NUMBER.

>>GRIFFITH: HOW DID FUEL GET IN THERE?

>> IT'S PART OF OUR OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST.

>>GRIFFITH: IT'S ALWAYS BEEN O&M. SO BACK THAT OUT AND WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?

>> YOU'VE GOT A DECREASED.

>>GRIFFITH: YOU'VE GOT A DECREASE.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: HOW MUCH?

>> IT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE, TAKE -- ONE OR TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

>>GRIFFITH: SO ACTUALLY YOU ARE COMING DOWN IN WHAT IS CONTROLLABLE?

>> YES.

>>GRIFFITH: WELL, THAT IS CERTAINLY ADMIRABLE AND IN TERMS OF GOING INTO THE REREGULATED ENVIRONMENT, THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN YOU DID -- THAT'S BETTER THAN YOU DID THIS YEAR.

>> I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT CONTROL OF O&M IS A MAJOR FOCUS AND I THINK THIS WOULD REFLECT THAT LESS THE FUEL COST.

>>GRIFFITH: SO OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BETWEEN '98 AND '99 AND '99-2000 INCREASED 7.5 MILLION, WHICH IS 2.6, SO IF YOU BACK -- IF YOU BACK FUEL OUT OF THAT, WHAT DO YOU GET? I'M TRYING TO GET A COMPARISON WITHOUT FUEL IN IT.

>> DO YOU HAVE THAT TOTAL?

>> YOU BACK FUEL OUT, IT'S ABOUT 140 MILLION IN '99 AND 2000 NUMBERS. SO THAT WOULD GIVE YOU ABOUT A 3.4 PERCENT CHANGE.

>>GRIFFITH: CHANGE IN --

>> BETWEEN 2000 AND 2001. EXCLUDING -- IN O&M, EXCLUDING THE FUEL.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IN TERMS OF THE WHOLE THING, THEN IT'S -- IT'S 2.6, WHICH IS 7.5 MILLION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL '99-2000 AND ESTIMATED 2000-2001. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF IS IN '99-2000 THE ESTIMATED AND 2000-2001 PROPOSED, IT'S LOOKING LIKE A INCREASES OF 12% WITH A SALES INCREASE OF 5.4.

>> RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHEN YOU BACK OUT THE $37 MILLION IN INCREASED FUEL AND YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE THE DECKER UPGRADE 2.6 MILLION, WE'VE ESSENTIALLY ABSORBED ALL THE PAYROLL INCREASES, ALL THE PAY FOR PERFORMANCES WORKER'S COMP, ET CETERA, SO THOSE ARE ALSO IN THAT DEPARTMENT O&M NUMBER.

>>GRIFFITH: BUT IS IT NET -- NETANYAHU OF ALL OF THAT? IS IT A 5.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN SALES AND A 12 PERCENT INCREASE IN EXPENSES?

>> IF YOU INCLUDE --.

>>GRIFFITH: IF YOU INCLUDE THE WHOLE PACKAGE.

>> IF YOU INCLUDE THE WHOLE PACKAGE, YES. IF YOU INCREASE THE COST OF FUEL AND PUT IT IN THERE, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE $37 MILLION.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT WHAT'S GOING TO NET THE $12 MILLION CHANGE IN ENDING BALANCE?

>> THAT IS CERTAINLY A PORTION OF IT WOULD BE THAT INCREASED FUEL COST AND THE CAPITAL --.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IF YOU KEEP ON GOING WITH A 12% INCREASE IN EXPENSE AND A 5.5% INCREASE IN SALES, IS THAT GOING TO WORK OUT?

>>GARZA: I THINK MR. MANNING MENTIONED SOMETHING AS PART OF HIS PRESENTATION AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HIS PROPOSED TOTAL REVENUE NUMBER INCLUDES THAT OR NOT, BUT THERE WILL BE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE FUEL CHARGE THAT THE UTILITY WILL COLLECT AND WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE THAT SOMETIME THIS FALL. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE 769 REFLECTS THAT CHANGE OR NOT. I WOULD RATHER DOUBT IT BECAUSE WE WOULD -- IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE UNTIL THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT CHANGE. SO I THINK THAT FROM THE REVENUE NUMBER THAT WILL BE ADJUSTED TO HELP CLOSE SOME OF THAT GAP. ALSO THIS CHANGE IN ENDING BALANCE, AND LANE CAN HELP ME, I THINK THE 88.3 MILLION, UNLESS THIS IS SOMETHING YOU'VE REVISED THAT ESTIMATE JUST RECENTLY. IS THAT THE ESTIMATE THAT YOU HAD EARLIER THIS YEAR?

>> THAT IS A RESULT OF FINISHING THE '99 AUDIT. THERE IS ALSO AN ESTIMATE DURING THE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET PROCESS OF ENDING BALANCE AND THEN THERE'S A TRUE-UP TO THE ACTUAL AUDIT REPORT SO THERE WAS A CHANGE THERE.

>>GARZA: SO COUNCILMEMBER NEXT YEAR THIS PROPOSED ENDING BALANCE OF 75.67, AS WE PROGRESS DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, MAKE THE FUEL ADJUSTMENT CHARGE SHOULD THAT BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, MY SENSE IS YOUR PROPOSED ENDING BALANCE, BY THE TIME CHUCK AND ELAINE GET TO PREPARE THE BUDGET NEXT SPRING, WE'LL HAVE A NEW ESTIMATE, A HIGHER ESTIMATE, SO THAT CHANGE YOU ARE SEEING NOW IS STATIC. BUT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR TOO AS WE GO THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS THAT I JUST MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A CAUSE FOR CONCERN.

>> THE ISSUE IS -- IT'S BASICALLY REVENUE NEUTRAL. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO INCREASE THE FUEL YOU COLLECT MORE FUEL SO IT'S A ONE FOR ONE. SO YOU SHOULD NEGLECT THE FUEL IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF O&M INCREASE.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IT IS -- ACCORDING TO OUR ESTIMATES RIGHT NOW, IT'S A 12% INCREASE IN EXPENSE AND 5.5 IN INCOME, BUT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE AS WE SEE THE ACTUALS THROUGH THE YEAR.

>> ON THE FUEL RECOVERY, THAT'S CORRECT.

>>GRIFFITH: AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE FUEL.

>> YES.

>>GRIFFITH: THANKS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: MR. MANNING, IF YOU COULD -- THIS CREATION OR CONTINUATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE, IS THAT IN AUSTIN ENERGY AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FALLS UNDER YOUR DEPARTMENT?

>> I'M SORRY?

>>ALVAREZ: REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> NO, SIR, THAT IS NOT IN MY DEPARTMENT.

>>ALVAREZ: NO? I THOUGHT I SAW IT LISTED IN THE BUDGET AT LEAST. DEGREES THAT JUST MEAN IT'S FUNDED --

>> WE ARE FUNDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND, WHICH INCLUDES PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

>>GRIFFITH: CAN WE --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS THE FLOOR.

>>ALVAREZ: I GUESS THAT WAS MY QUESTION BECAUSE I DID SEE THOSE INCREASES OR DECREASES IN EXPENDITURES LISTED IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY BUDGET, BUT IT'S TRANSFERS OR OTHERWISE SUPPORTING OTHER FUNDS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: YES. THAT 4.2 MILLION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND IS A NEW THING, RIGHT?

>> YES. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT BEFORE.

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT'S IN THAT? I HAVE NOT SEEN A BREAKDOWN OF IT.

>> THERE'S A COMBINATION OF PAYROLL, THERE'S A COMBINATION OF SOME ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTED OUT OF THE -- THAT SPECIFIC GROUP. I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE DETAILS SINCE I'M JUST FUNDING IT.

>>GARZA: IF I REMEMBER, IT'S BEEN A WHILE, I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 2.9 MILLION TO COVER EXPENSES FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, INDIVIDUALS' INSURANCE, THINGS OF THAT NATD. THE BALANCE OF THAT IS TO PAY FOR LEGAL SERVICES, UTILITY ISSUES THAT MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF REDEVELOPMENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE OR IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND IT TOTALS UP TO A LITTLE BIT OVER 4.2 MILLION. I WANT TO SAY ALMOST 4.9 MILLION AS A TOTAL OF WHAT -- 4.2 COMING FROM THIS.

>> 4.2 IS THE --.

>>GRIFFITH: AND THERE ARE 2.2 OF IT IS PEOPLE, IS PERSONNEL?

>> 2.8, I BELIEVE.

>>GRIFFITH: YEAH. WHAT ARE THOSE FOLKS GOING TO BE DOING?

>> THE BULK OF THEM ARE ALL WORKING ON PROJECTS TO HELP REDEVELOPMENT. MUELLER, ALL THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT, ALL THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH C.S.C. AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE EITHER WORKING ON DOWNTOWN ISSUES, DOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH TIVOLI, INTEL, VIGNETTE, ALL THE PEOPLE WORKING ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROJECTS ARE FUNDED OUT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND. NEW CONSULTANT CONTRACTS FOR ROMA TO CONTINUE THEIR WORK ON MUELLER, IT'S FUNDED OUT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND.

>>GRIFFITH: AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL THING IN TERMS OF OTHER ELECTRIC UTILITIES?

>> NO, IT'S RATHER UNUSUAL THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT. MOST UTILITIES, CERTAINLY THE ONES I'M FAMILIAR WITH AND THE RESEARCH WE'VE DONE THAT IS CORRECT IS A VERY CONSIST I OBJECT PROGRAM. SOME ARE MUCH, -- CONSISTED I HAVE PROGRAM. SOME ARE MUCH BIGGER, OF COURSE THEY HAVE LARGE SERVICES AREAS. THEY HAVE STAFF, PEOPLE THAT TRAVEL ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES DOING RECRUITING, FACILITATING THOSE PROCESSES SO THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH STANDARD BUSINESS AND CITY PRACTICES.

>>GRIFFITH: DOES THAT INCLUDE THE INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES?

>> YES, MA'AM. WHERE I CAME FROM WE HAD SEVEN EMPLOYEES DEVOTED ACTUAL TIME BASICALLY TO RECRUITING, TRYING TO GET IN PARTNERSHIPS WITH CITIES TO DO THOSE SAME THINGS.

>>GRIFFITH: SO THIS IS -- THIS IS A 4.2 MILLION DOLLAR NEW THING.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THAT. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: MR. DUNCAN, COULD YOU COME UP FOR A SECOND? WE TALKED -- MR. MANNING TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT THE CONSERVATION RENEWABLES PROGRAM OF AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO GO OVER IN PARTICULAR THE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR THIS NEXT YEAR AND HOW THAT COMPARES AS FAR AS SAVINGS TO PREVIOUS YEARS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, FOR THIS COMING YEAR, WE WILL IN ESSENCE BE HAVING ABOUT AN OVER 50% INCREASE IN OUR CONSERVATION SAVINGS. OUR GOAL THIS YEAR WAS AROUND 30 MEGAWATTS OF SAVINGS AND OUR TARGET FOR NEXT YEAR IS 46.5 MEGAWATTS WHICH IS ACTUALLY AROUND A 64% INCREASE. WE'RE DOING THAT WITH ABOUT AN 11% INCREASE IN THE BUDGET. AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE ACHIEVING THAT IS BY FOCUSING ON LOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. WE STARTED PILOT PROGRAMS THIS YEAR WITH THE POWER PARTNERS AND THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AND THOSE WERE THE RADIO CONTROLLED THERMOSTATS YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE'RE GIVING OUT TO RESIDENCES. OUR TARGET THIS YEAR WAS TO GIVE THOSE OUT TO ABOUT 2,000 HOMES. NEXT YEAR WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND THAT TO ANOTHER 10,000 HOMES. AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT EXPANDING OUR COMMERCIAL LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR ANOTHER TEN MEGAWATTS. COMBINE THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY COST EFFECTIVE. SO WITH A RELATIVE SMALL INCREASE IN THE BUDGET, WE ARE INCREASING BY OVER 50% OUR MEGAWATT TARGET.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. WE'VE EXCEEDED BY ABOUT 50% OUR GOAL FROM LAST YEAR, FROM 30 UP TO 50?

>> OUR GOAL THIS YEAR, THE YEAR ENDING IS 30, AND OUR GOAL NEXT YEAR IS GOING UP TO 56 AND A HALF. SO WE WILL BE INCREASING OUR GOAL BY THAT AMOUNT.

>>SLUSHER: AND WHAT DID WE REACH DURING THIS --

>> WE HAVEN'T REACHED THE FINAL NUMBERS YET UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR. I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL COME IN CLOSE TO THE GOAL OF 30 MEGAWATTS.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. OKAY. AND SO IN ITS THAT YOU ARE INCREASING BY MORE THAN HALF.

>> AND BY THAT I'M JUMP TO GO 30 TO 46 AND A HALF MEGAWATTS NEXT YEAR.

>>SLUSHER: I THINK THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. THAT WOULD BE HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT SOME HE --.

>>GARZA: THERE'S ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD ARGUE WITH THAT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT --.

>>SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND. AS FAR AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS. [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>SLUSHER: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. DUNCAN, MR. DUNCAN IS ONE OF THE FOREMOST FOLKS IN THE COUNTRY ON CONSERVATION RENEWABLES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, HE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN FOUNDING OF THESE PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN BACK IN THE LATE '70'S AND EARLY '80'S, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF HE COULD REPORT BACK TO US ON IF HE THINKS THERE IS ANYTHING THAT THE CITY IS MISSING WHERE THAT WE COULD CONSERVE MORE ENERGY.

>> YES, SIR. FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, RIGHT?

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP WITH JUST ONE NOTE. AND I DON'T THINK ROGER HAS SEEN HIS E-MAIL THIS MORNING. WE HAVE A LOAD COOPERATIVE PROGRAM WITH THREE OF OUR CUSTOMERS. THE LAST TWO DAYS THEY SAVED THREE MEGAWATTS OF DEMAND THROUGH THE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S THREE MEGAWATTS, THAT'S 10% OF THE ANNUAL GOAL. IN ADDITION, THE RECONDITIONING OF THE AIR INTAKE AT DECKER HAS PRODUCED AN ADDITIONAL 40 MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY BY BASICALLY PUTTING IN COOLER AIR. SO WE INCREASED THE EFFICIENCY OF THOSE UNITS AND GAINED 40 MEGAWATTS. SO BETWEEN VOLUNTARY LOAD REDUCTION, THAT'S 43 MEGAWATTS ON TWO ITEMS THIS YEAR.

>>SLUSHER: AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST THE FACT THAT WHAT MR. MANNING JUST SAID, THE DETAILS OF THAT ARE VERY INTERESTING AND ALSO THE FACT THAT HE BROUGHT THAT UP HIMSELF BECAUSE ONE OF THE CRITICISMS WE'VE HEARD OR RESERVATIONS WAS THAT THE RENEWABLES AND CONSERVATION -- OR AT LEAST THE CONSERVATION SHOULD NOT BE INSIDE THE UTILITY. AND I BELIEVE FROM THE VERY TOP AT THE UTILITY WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO CONSERVATION AND I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT BOTH RENEWABLES AND CONSERVATION SHOULD BE IN THE UTILITIES. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMITMENT TO THAT AS WELL, MR. MANNING. I WANTED TO ASK MR. DUNCAN, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> NO, SIR. WE'LL WORK ON THAT REPORT FOR YOU.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MANNING, I WANTED TO ASK YOU --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COULD I INTERRUPT JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON PART OF THAT?

>>SLUSHER: SURE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS AND I'LL SHARE THIS WITH EVERYBODY, BUT AS YOU WORK ON THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ADD TO THAT, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT WE MAY BE AT A POINT WITH REGARD TO THE SMART GROWTH MAY TRICKS AND HOW WE APPLY IT FOR EXAMPLE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE WE COULD -- THE WORDS HAVE BEEN USED IS CALIBRATE IT. AND ONE OF THE CALIBRATIONS I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO PLAY WITH, IF YOU CAN, IT MAY NOT WORK, LET'S GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO IT, IS THAT IN INSTANCES WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT PARKING, IN OTHER WORDS, WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE -- UNTIL THINGS LIKE RAIL ARE BUILT AND THAT SORT OF THING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING NEEDS, AND I KNOW WE HAVE A PER PERSON OR PER EMPLOYEE KIND OF PARKING RATIO THAT WE PLAY WITH WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEEDS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. BUT WITH THE FACING OF NON-ATTAINMENT, IT WOULD BE INTRIGUING TO ME IF WE COULD LOOK AT A PROGRAM WHERE WE SAY IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED FOR PARKING, USING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE 1999 BASELINE FOR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHAT COULD WE DO AS A TRADE-OFF WHERE FOR -- AND USING THAT AS THE BASELINE, FOR A PARKING SLOT, THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF X NUMBER OF KILOWATTS OF GREEN POWER? SO THAT IF YOU ARE -- AND ACTUALLY BE -- FINDING A WAY TO DECREASE IN EFFECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, NOT SO MUCH BY DECREASING THE CAR TRAVEL, BUT BY THE USE OF GREEN POWER. AND IF I MAY --

>> IF I MAY RESTATE THAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I HOPE YOU CAN. [LAUGHTER].

>> BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS IF A COMPANY LOCATED DOWNTOWN AND THEY SAID, OKAY, WE HAVE 100 VEHICLES COMING IN AND THEY ARE GOING TO PRODUCE SO MUCH POLLUTION FROM THOSE 100 VEHICLES DRIVING BACK AND FORTH EACH DAY, AND WE CAN QUANTIFY THAT IN TERMS OF NOX AND VOC'S, IF THEY BOUGHT GREEN CHOICE POWER, WIND POWER THAT OFF SET THAT SAME AMOUNT OF NOX AND VOC'S, THAT WOULD BE THE OFF SET.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SAYING TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS SAYING ABOUT FINDING OTHER WAYS TO CONSERVE, PERHAPS ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN ALSO DO WITH REGARD TO AIR QUALITY IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOMETIMES TO REDUCE NOX EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER WAYS MIGHT BE TO HAVE THESE COMPANIES ACTUALLY HELP US REDUCE NOX EMISSIONS. I'M NOT JUST SAYING ONE FOR ONE, I'M SAYING USE THE NINE BASELINE. AND THE CITY IS ENGAGED IN A PILOT PROGRAM TO REDUCE VEHICLE MILES 5% A YEAR UP TO 15% AND IN FACT IT IS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY THAT IS SERVING AS OUR PILOT FOR THAT, WHICH BY THE WAY THANK YOU. LET'S NOW SEE IF WE CAN ALSO HAVE COMPANIES AND MAYBE EVEN VOLUNTARILY AND INCENTIVIZE IT WHERE WE CAN START SEEING A INCREASE THAT WAY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO TAKE THAT LONG. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: WHAT I WANTED TO ASK MR. MANNING, AS WE REALIZE THE CITY, THE MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITIES DON'T HAVE TO OPT INTO COMPETITION. THAT WILL BE A CHOICE THAT WE'LL MAKE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHETHER OR NOT WE DO OPT IN, THERE -- THE CITY WILL BE EFFECTED BY COMPETITION. SO I WANTED YOU TO ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT HOW COMPETITION WOULD AFFECT AUSTIN ENERGY EVEN IF WE DON'T OPT IN.

>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FRONTS THAT WE WILL BE AFFECTED ON. ONE, WE HAVE ACTUALLY 14 OTHER UTILITIES CURRENTLY WITH OFPSZ IN THE CITY. SOME HAVE -- OFFICES. SOME HAVE APPROACHED AND SIGNED CONTRACTS IF INDEED THE CITY OPTED IN, SOME OF OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE CONTRACTED AND THEY HAVE CONTRACTED ENERGY SERVICES. WE HAVE AN ENERGY SERVICES GROUP THAT WE GO OUT AND WE DO AUDITS AND WE DO OTHER THINGS. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE OTHER PERSONS UNDER CONTRACT TO DO THAT. WE WILL BE AFFECTED BY CUSTOMER EXPECTATION. ONE OF THE SLIDES WAS THAT I THINK OUR TAX RATE AND OUR UTILITY RATES ARE ONE OF THE BEST KEPT SECRETS IN AUSTIN. THERE'S A BELIEF THAT WE'RE OVERPRICED. SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A COMPETITIVE MARKET COMING ON IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS, WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS EDUCATIONAL ISSUE TO DEAL WITH WITH OUR CONSUMERS THAT INDEED THE PRICES ARE QUITE GOOD. BUT THERE'S AN EXPECTATION BUILDING UP AND CONFUSION WITH THE CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS INCLUDING AUSTIN ARE GOING TO BE CONFUSED. SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH FROM A COMPETITIVE STANDPOINT. NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES WANT TO GO PUT GENERATING FACILITIES ON CAMPUSES FOR THE CUSTOMERS. AND THAT'S HAPPENING NOT ONLY IN TEXAS BUT THE UNITED STATES. BUT THOSE ARE THE TYPE PRESSURES THAT WE'LL FEEL REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE'RE OPTING IN OR NOT.

>>SLUSHER: WHEN YOU SAY PUT THEM ON THEIR CAMPUS, THEN ANOTHER BUSINESS COULD EVEN IF THE CITY DOESN'T OPT IN, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS COME IN AND GENERATE IT ON SITE FOR SOME OF THE LARGE CUSTOMERS AND THEN THEY WOULD GO OFF THE -- THE CITY WOULD NO -- THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE A CUSTOMER OF THE CITY.

>> CERTAINLY THAT OPTION OR REDUCED REVENUE AND PEAKS. YES, SIR, THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE ABOUT A LITTLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CITY -- I MEAN THE UTILITY NEEDING TO HAVE ELECTIONS ON THE POWER PLANTS THAT WERE NOW FIELDING AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THE -- IF THE CITY WAS USING REVENUE BONDS. BUT SINCE WE'RE PAYING CASH, THEN THAT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CITY CHARTER OF REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE AN ELECTION, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING.

>>SLUSHER: AND OF COURSE BY USING CASH WE ALSO DON'T INCUR FURTHER BOND DEBT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MR. DUNCAN, CONSERVATION IS YOUR THING. IT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE ACHIEVED A NATIONAL REPUTATION IN AND I'M VERY PROUD OF THAT. CONGRATULATIONS. AUSTIN AS A COMMUNITY IS DISTINGUISHED -- HAS DISTINGUISHED ITSELF AS A CON VATION CENTER. WE AS CONSUMERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE AS MUCH ELECTRICITY AS OTHERS, WHICH IS A BIG REASON WHY WE HAVE LOWER MONTHLY PAYMENTS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T USES AS MUCH BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF OUR VALUE SYSTEM, PART OF OUR UNIQUENESS AND SPECIALNESS AS A COMMUNITY, WHICH IS A BIG REASON WHY I'M GLAD THAT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IS PUBLIC SO WE CAN EXPRESS THAT UNIQUE, SPECIALNESS IN OUR BUDGET FOR OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY AND SO THAT WE CAN HAVE PEOPLE LIKE YOU. SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE TOO, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF MY PERCEPTION IS YOU FROM, ARE WE GETTING MORE AND MORE BUILDING IN AUSTIN THAT ARE FULL OF SERVERS? JUST BIG BUILDINGS FULL OF SERVERS? AND IF MY PERCEPTION IS CORRECT ON THAT, HOW MUCH DO THOSE BUILDINGS FULL OF SERVERS USE IN THE WAY OF ELECTRICITY, AND HOW MUCH HEAT DO THEY GENERATE, AND DO WE NEED TO DO A STUDY OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT THAT PHENOMENON AND OTHERS THAT ARE COMING IN AS A RESULT OF THIS EXCITING ECONOMY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, THE -- YOU'VE HIT ON SOMETHING THAT'S JUST STARTING TO APPEAR IN THE NATIONAL PRESS, AND IN FACT I HAD AN E-MAIL YESTERDAY TO SEATTLE CITY COUNCILL AS AN ITEM BEFORE IT COMING UP NEXT WEEK ON THESE VERY BUILDINGS. THEY ARE CALLED DATA CENTERS OR SOMETIMES CALLED SERVER HOTELS. AND THEY ARE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ROOMS OF COMPUTER SERVERS STACKED FROM THE FLOOR TO THE CEILING. AND IT IS A --.

>>GRIFFITH: THAT'S WHAT I WAS READING ABOUT.

>> AND THERE'S BEEN SOME REPORTS EMERGING, I THINK FORTUNE MAGAZINE MENTIONED IT, FORBES AND OTHERS, AND UTILITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE STARTING TO EXPERIENCE THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT GENERATE JUST IN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MORE CONSUMPTION THAN THE NORMAL OFFICE BUILDING. AUSTIN ENERGY HAS ALREADY BEEN LOOKING INTO THAT. WE ALREADY HAVE FORMED A TEAM TO LOOK AT THAT PHENOMENA AND HOW IT AFFECTS OUR LOAD GROWTH, HOW IT AFFECTS OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. AND YES, THERE IS A LOT OF HEAT THAT COMES OFF OF THESE. IT IS EITHER 50% OR TWO-THIRDS OR SO OF THE CONSUMPTION IS ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION, BUT AT LEAST A THIRD OF THE ENERGY USED BY THESE BUILDINGS IS TO REMOVE THE HEAT COMING FROM THESE COMPUTER SERVERS. AND THAT MEANS THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITY THERE FOR OUR UTILITY IN WHAT'S CALLED CO-GENERATION, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A TEAM STARTING TO LOOK AT THIS AND WORK ON IT. IT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MAJOR NEW ASPECTS OF ELECTRICAL USE THAT'S BEING CREATED BY THE INTERNET AND BY THE E-COMMERCE, AS IT'S CALLED. AND YES, WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THAT.

>>GRIFFITH: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU WITHOUT ADDING STAFF OR MUCH EXPENSE TO GET US A REPORT, SAY, NEXT SPRING ON WHAT THAT PHENOMENON OF THE BUILDINGS FULL OF SERVERS AND THESE OTHER PHENOMENONS THAT ARE COMING IN QUICKLY, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GET US A REPORT ON THAT IN, SAY, SIX TO NINE MONTHS?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: WITHOUT ADDED EXPENSE.

>> WITHOUT ADDED EXPENSE. WE CAN DO THAT WITH OUR CURRENT RESOURCES, YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?

>> NEXT DEPARTMENT WILL BE WATER AND WASTEWATER. THE NEXT SLIDE ILLUSTRATES THE PRIORITY AGAIN THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE PUT ON SEVERAL OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY.

>>SLUSHER: MR. SMITH, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM, I HAD PULLED ITEM 17 AS IT HAS TO DO WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION, MR. MANNING ANSWERED MY QUESTION, IT HAD TO DO WITH THE CHARTER AND ELECTION, I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP, SO WE COULD GO AHEAD AND PASS THAT ITEM AS LEAST AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AND THEN THEY CAN GO BACK ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. IF THERE IS A MOTION, THEN.

>>SLUSHER: I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

>>GOODMAN: IS THERE A SECOND?

>>GRIFFITH: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 17 UNDER AUSTIN ENERGY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE THANK YOU FOR WAITING.

>> THE NEXT SLIDE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY, AND IT SHOWS THAT THE CITY'S WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY IS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY TNRCC FOR CLARITY OF THE WATER THAT WE DRINK. THE FOLLOWING CHART TRIES TO ILLUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL COMPARISON FOR BOTH WATER AND THE WASTEWATER AND FROM THE CHARTS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE (transmission problems) ARE AT THIS POINTLESS, A COUPLE ARE ABOVE. SOME OF THE MAJOR TYPES OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE RATES MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITIES. FOR EXAMPLE, EL PASO AND SAN ANTONIO HAVE NO WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FUND, BUILD, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THEY RELY ON GROUND WATER. SO THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE TYPES OF FACTORS THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT WHEN YOU ARE COMPARING CITIES. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT WE SHOW BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED, WHICH IS IS A SLIGHT DROP FOR THE AVERAGE TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FAMILY. 8,000 GALLONS OF WATER AND 6,000 GALLONS OF WASTEWATER. OUR NEXT GOAL IS STRENGTHENING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. THE PROPOSED BUDGET SUPPORTS THIS GOAL THROUGH ALL AREAS OF UTILITY, WITH MAJOR PROGRAMS INCLUDING ENHANCING DRINKING WATER QUALITY THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF RECENT SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT RULES AT ALL OF OUR WATER PLANTS; INCREASING WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY AS THE DROUGHT CONTINUES, WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE NEED FOR THESE PROJECTS. WE'RE ONLY A FEW WEEKS AWAY FROM SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPACITY AVAILABLE FROM THE ULLRICH WATER TREATMENT PLANT. HOWARD LANE, THE HOWARD LANE PUMP STATION CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT PROJECT IN OUR SPENDING PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR RELATED TO CAPACITY IN THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. OTHER IMPORTANT PROGRAMS SUPPORTING THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION GOAL ARE IMPROVING WATER PRESSURE IN CERTAIN WEAK AREAS AROUND THE CITY, IMPROVING ODOR CONTROL ALONG WASTEWATER INTER EXCEPT TORS AND NEAR LIFT STATIONS AND CONTINUING OUR PROGRAM OF HIGH QUALITY TREATMENT AT OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. THE NEXT SLIDE PRESENTS A KEY INDICATOR OF QUALITY OF TREATMENT AT OUR TREATMENT PLANTS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE CREATED THIS INDEX OF THREE MAJOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS THAT ARE IN ALL OF OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PERMITS T PARAMETERS ARE BIO WHICH WILL OXYGEN DEMAND, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND AMMONIA NITROGEN. THE TNRCC SETS AN ACCEPTABLE DISCHARGE LEVEL IN OUR PERMITS, IT'S BASED ON THE PROTECTION OF QUALITY IN THE COLORADO RIVER. YOU CAN SEE THAT AFTER OUR TREATMENT PROCESS ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE ALLOWABLE ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS REMAIN. AND THE COLORADO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF AUSTIN REFLECTS THIS HIGH QUALITY. IN FACT, IT IS THE ONLY RIVER SEGMENT DOWNSTREAM OF A MAJOR CITY THAT IS RANKED AS AN OUTSTANDING WATER QUALITY SEGMENT BY TNRCC. OUR NEXT MAJOR GOAL IS TO IMPROVE BUSINESS EFFECTIVENESS AND WE WILL USE A DETAILED BENCHMARKING PROCESS TO HELP ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL. IN PARTICULAR WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH OTHER MAJOR CITIES THAT HAVE UTILITIES IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT DO USE SURFACE WATER AND HAVE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND HAVE SIMILAR TOPOGRAPHYS, SIMILAR CLIMATE, SIMILAR NUMBER OF PLANTS, SIMILAR TREATMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. ONE OF THE KEY AREAS WE'LL FOCUS ON IN THE COMING YEAR IS FOR SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND MAINTENANCE. WE HAVE A PROGRAM FOR THE PREVENTION OF SEWER OVERFLOWS AND TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL EPA REGULATIONS AND WE'LL DO THIS THROUGH A COMBINATION OF O&M PRACTICES AND C.I.P. PROJECTS. WE'RE PROPOSING AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 20% OR $4 MILLION IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR REHABILITATION. THE PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES FUNDING OF $1.8 MILLION FOR NEW AND REPLACEMENT FLEET AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT. OTHER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AREAS WHERE WE WILL FOCUS IN THE COMING YEAR ARE, FIRST, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A FLEET UTILIZATION STUDY AND COMBINED WITH WORK SCHEDULE CHANGES, WE WILL BE SUPPORTING THE AIR QUALITY INITIATIVE IN AUSTIN. WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS FOR MORE PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENT OPERATIONS. AND RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN PRODUCTIVITY HAVE ALLOWED US TO REDUCE OUR STAFFING LEVEL BY 13 VACANT POSITIONS AS PROPOSE UNDERSTAND THIS BUDGET. AND HAS ALREADY ALLOWED YOU TO -- US TO REDEPLOY POSITIONS TO STRENGTHEN OUR UTILITY SERVICE. ANOTHER OF OUR KEY GOALS, THE FOURTH OF OUR KEY GOALS IS THE PROPOSED -- IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET ADDRESSES THE UTILITIES SUPPORT FOR SMART GROWTH INITIATIVES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS GOAL WE'RE PROPOSING INCREASING FUNDING IN THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR MANAGEMENT OF RECENTLY ACQUIRED CONSERVATION LANDS FOR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS. WE'RE ALLOCATING ANOTHER POSITION TO THIS PROGRAM AND INCREASING THE BUDGET TO ALMOST $300,000 FOR THIS IMPORTANT LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THE PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES FUNDING FOR INCENTIVES FOR PROJECTS IN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE. PRIMARILY FUNDING FOR THE NEW APPROACH OF SINGLE YEAR REIMBURSEMENTS. WE'RE PROPOSING -- THE PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES FUNDING OF $2. MILLION FOR THE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND IT'S AN INCREASE OF $200,000 OVER LAST YEAR. AND THE C.I.P. SPENDING PLAN RELATED TO WATER RECLAMATION IS $13 MILLION. A MASTER PLAN STUDY IS BEING COMPLETED THIS FISCAL YEAR, IN FACT WITHIN THE MONTH. THE UTILITY WILL SEEK ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY. AND FINALLY THE PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES FUNDING FOR COMPLETION OF SERVICES TO ANNEXED AREA PROJECTS. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. LET'S SEE, WHEN YOU MENTION -- I GUESS IT WAS THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY, THE RATE STRUCTURE THAT'S PROPOSED, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT SEASONAL RATES, WATER RATES.

>> RIGHT.

>>ALVAREZ: AND THAT IS FOR WHAT TYPE OF USER? IS IT ALL USERS?

>> THAT WOULD BE FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS. THE RESIDENTIAL USERS WITH THE BLOCK STRUCTURE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AN INCENTIVE FOR CONSERVATION, BUT UP UNTIL NOW NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES OF MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, HAVE NOT HAD A PARTICULAR SPECIFIC INCENTIVE OTHER THAN JUST THE COST OF WATER. SO WE HAVE CREATED THIS SEASONAL VARIANCE IN THE RATES.

>>ALVAREZ: AND I THINK WHEN WE HAD OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE STUDY, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS DO NOT HAVE TOO MUCH FLUCTUATION IN TERMS OF THEIR USE OF WATER IN TERMS OF ON A SEASONAL BASIS?

>> THERE IS -- THERE IS VARIATION. PROBABLY NOT AS MUCH AS THE RESIDENTIAL. I THINK RESIDENTIAL YOU THINK OF LAWN WATERING AND THAT BASICALLY DOUBLES THE "-THE CAPACITY REQUIRED BETWEEN SUMMER AND WINTER. BUT MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIALSES DO HAVE PEAKS RELATED TO THEIR OWN GROUNDS MAINTENANCE. IN ADDITION THERE MAY BE SOME PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT -- COOLING TOWERS, FOR EXAMPLE ALSO REQUIRES A HIGHER PEAK IN THE SUMMER. PROBABLY NOT AS MUCH AS RESIDENTIAL.

>>ALVAREZ: AND SO WE DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF I GUESS HOW MANY USERS I GUESS WOULD AND WOULDN'T BE EFFECTED I GUESS BY THE SEASONAL RATES? I GUESS -- I REMEMBER IN OUR CONVERSATION WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THERE'S CERTAIN USERS WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE RELATIVELY FLAT IN TERMS OF THEIR WATER USE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND SO I KNOW IT DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE SEASONAL RATES TO THOSE TYPES OF FOLKS AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF VOLUME.

>> THE DETAILS OF THAT ARE IN OUR COST OF SERVICE STUDY. EACH CUSTOMER CLASS WAS LOOKED AT FOR THEIR PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS. AND THE RATE STRUCTURE WAS THEN BASED ON -- ON WHAT WAS SEEN IN TERMS OF TOTAL VOLUME AVERAGE AS WELL AS THE PEAKING. SO THE RATES ARE SET ON CUSTOMER CLASS, AND BY CLASS IT WAS STUDIED IN QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY. AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS JUST ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TOUCHED ON IT ALREADY, BUT I KNOW WE'RE INCREASING THE AMOUNT THAT GOES TOWARDS WATER REUSE AND I MEAN DOES THAT INCLUDE THE RECLAIMED WATER? IS THAT WHAT WATER REUSE IS?

>> YES, SIR. WE'RE INCREASING THE AMOUNT THAT IS TRANSFERRED TO THE WATER CONSERVATION OFFICE. THE REUSE PROGRAM IS IN ADDITION TO THAT AND WE HAVE CAPITAL FUNDING FOR PROJECTS, I BELIEVE $13 MILLION IN SPENDING PLAN THIS YEAR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOME OF THOSE REUSE PROJECTS.

>>ALVAREZ: HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY?

>> $13 MILLION.

>>ALVAREZ: 13? AND THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE'VE DONE -- WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR, I SUPPOSE?

>> WE'VE HAD THIS PLAN IN THE PROCESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE HAVE -- I BELIEVE IT'S $20 MILLION OF FUNDING. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE HITTING -- HITTING THE END OR -- WE'VE ALREADY SPENT AT LEAST 7 MILLION. I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING THE REMAINDER OF THE AVAILABLE FUNDING AND I MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE A MASTER PLAN THAT IS LOOKING AT -- TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SOUTH SYSTEM. THE NORTH SYSTEM RIGHT NOW FROM THE WALNUT CREEK TREATMENT PLANT IS UNDERWAY, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT'S PUMP STATIONS, DISTRIBUTION LINES AND THOSE LINES ARE GOING TO BE HEADING TOWARD THE MORRIS WILLIAMS GOLF COURSE AND THE MUELLER AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND THEN THE LONG-RANGE PLAN IS CAN MOVE ON TO THE U.T. AREA AND DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THE INTEREST, U.T. IN PARTICULAR, THE MASTER PLAN IS LOOKING AT THE SOUTH SYSTEM. THERE'S AN EXISTING SYSTEM FROM THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLANT THAT DREKTSZ WATER TREATED EFFLUENT FROM SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL TO THE BERGSTROM GOLF COURSE AND THEN THE TWO GOLF COURSES, KIZER AND JIMMY CLAY, THOSE THREE GOLF COURSES. BUT THE STUDY IS BEING LOOKED AT. WE HAVE OTHER STRIL CUSTOMERS IN THAT -- INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THAT AREA. THERE'S A NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS IN THE SOUTH THAT ARE ANXIOUS TO GET REUSE WATER AND SO, AGAIN, WHETHER THE PLAN IS FINISHED, WE'LL BE EVALUATING IT AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON FURTHER SPENDING FOR THAT REUSE PROGRAM.

>>ALVAREZ: SO THERE'S AT SOME POINT A COMMITMENT WAS MADE TO DO $20 MILLION WORTH OF WORK IN TERMS OF WATER REUSE OR RECLAIMING?

>> CURRENT USE IS 20 MILLION.

>>ALVAREZ: SO WE ANTICIPATE THIS YEAR WE WILL BE DOING MORE THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST OBVIOUSLY.

>> WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPLETING THOSE PROJECTS AND SPENDING THAT 20 MILLION.

>>ALVAREZ: AND I GUESS THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE OF THE -- OBVIOUSLY OUR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LCRA AGREEMENT ARE IF WE REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF VOLUME OF USE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE RATES CHANGE, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR CUSTOMERS SO I WAS WONDERING HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THAT CAP OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT MUCH OR IS THAT SOMETHING WITH OUR CONSERVATION EFFORTS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN STAY UNDER FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME?

>> LET ME JUST BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE -- OUR ARRANGEMENT, OUR CONTRACT WITH LCRA AND IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT, ALTHOUGH THE TRIGGER IS NOT PROJECTED TO BE HIT UNTIL BEYOND THE YEAR 2020. TO 201,000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR IS WHEN WE WILL START PAYING AND UP UNTIL THEN THERE'S NO PAYMENT. BUT THAT JUST MAKES IT VERY IMPORTANT TO GET THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS AND GET THE CULTURE CHANGED IN -- YOU KNOW, IN AUSTIN TO -- FOR CONSERVATION AND REUSE. AND WE CAN -- OUR GOAL IS TO POSTPONE THAT -- THAT TRIGGER DATE BY AS MANY YEARS AS WE CAN. AND SO REUSE IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THAT AND THEN JUST GENERAL CONSERVATION. IN OUR CONSERVATION PROGRAM THERE'S REALLY TWO -- TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPACTS TO CONSERVATION AND ONE IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER USED IN A YEAR. AND IT WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE A GREAT IMPACT ON THAT TRIGGER OF 2001 -- 100,000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR. BUT AS WE SEE THIS SUMMER, THE PEAK IS ALSO -- OUR CAPACITY HAS BUILT FOR THE PEAK, PEAK DAY, PEAK SEASON. AND SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO LOWER THAT PEAK IS ALSO SAVING US -- SAVING THE COMMUNITY MONEY IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD AS LARGE OR THE FACILITIES WE HAVE ARE GOING TO TAKE US FARTHER INTO THE FUTURE BEFORE WE HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO BUILD MORE FACILITIES. SO IT'S BOTH THE PEAK AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER CONSERVED, SO THAT'S THAT PROGRAM, AND THEN THE REUSE IS ONE THAT CAN MAKE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE IN THAT -- IN PROLONGING HITTING THAT TRIGGER OF BEYOND 2020.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY. THANKS A LOT.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THAT. WE SPOKE EARLIER -- WELL, LAST MONTH ABOUT HOW WATER CONSERVATION GOALS WOULD SEEMINGLY CONNECT LOGICALLY TO SOME OF OUR POOLS THAT ARE FILL AND DRAW. WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT IN ANY WAY AND COMFORTABLY AND LOGICALLY INTEGRATE THAT INTO YOUR PLANS FOR WATER CONSERVATION?

>> YES. WE -- WE HAVE MET WITH PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OBVIOUSLY AS MANAGERS OF THE POOLS AND THE CONSERVATION OFFICE AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE POOL -- THE COST OF THOSE POOL IMPROVEMENTS AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CONSERVATION REBATE BUDGET, FOCUSING ON THE REBATE PORTION IN PARTICULAR, NOT SO MUCH THE STAFF AND THE -- STAFF THAT IMPLEMENTS AND PROVIDES TRAINING FOR CONSERVATION. BUT THE REBATE PROGRAM WOULD BE PRETTY SERIOUSLY IMPACTED TO TAKE VERY MUCH OUT OF THAT. SO WE STRUGGLED WITH WHAT COULD BE ON DONE AND HOW QUICKLY AND WE HAVE COME UP WITH A DRAFT PROPOSAL THAT WE CAN PRESENT TO YOU IN MORE DETAIL LATER, IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO, THAT COMBINES SOME OF THE CURRENT FUNDS FROM REBATE PROGRAM, THE 200,000 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER THAT WE WOULD BE MAKING TO THAT FUND THIS YEAR, AND THEN WE COULD FORWARD OR BASICALLY LOAN AN ADDITIONAL 400,000 FROM NEXT YEAR'S TRANSFER, GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT FORWARD, AND THAT'S -- WE'VE COME UP WITH APPROXIMATELY $800,000 THAT COULD BE USED FOR SEVERAL OF THE KEY POOLS, GET STARTED ON THOSE, HAVE THOSE IN PLACE BY NEXT SUMMER WOULD BE THE GOAL. AND THEN -- AND ALSO BE PREPARING A PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE POOLS AND DEAL WITH THOSE IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS. THAT'S THE TYPE OF PROGRAM THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING.

>>GARZA: MAYOR PRO TEM, WHEN WE MET LAST NIGHT, CONSERVATION REBATE BUDGET IS $1.1 MILLION. AND WHETHER WE SPOKE WITH TONY ABOUT COULD WE USE MOST OF THAT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, HE INDICATED THAT FROM A COST OF SAVINGS HE WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED SO WHAT WE WOFRKD OUT IS -- AND WE'LL HAVE THAT PROPOSAL ON MONDAY, IS TO TAKE A PORTION OF -- JUST AS CHRIS HAS OUTLINED, A PORTION OF THOSE INCREASES DEDICATED -- THAT CHRIS AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN PLANNING INCREASES EACH YEAR, I THINK WE'VE GROWN FROM ABOUT A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM NOW TO THE 1.1 MILLION. WITH THE 200,000 INCREASES SLATED ANNUALLY, TO USE SOME OF THAT TO ALSO BEGIN TO IDENTIFY WHAT POOLS WE'LL WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE SO WE BEGIN TO PROVIDE MONEY FOR THE DESIGN OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT AS MONEYS BECOME AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING YEAR YOU ALREADY HAVE THE DESIGN DONE AND YOU ARE READY TO BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU WANT TO GET THEM DONE BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY SO THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND I THINK THAT CHRIS, AUSTIN LIBRACH AND TONY MET LAST NIGHT WITH ALONG WITH CHARLES CURRY, ONE POOL, RAMSEY, AND THEN THREE OTHERS AND THEN DEVELOP A PROGRAM OF WHAT KIND OF FUNDING WE'LL NEED FOR SUBSEQUENT TO YEARS.

>>GOODMAN: BEFORE WE LEAVE IT ENTIRELY AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, DOESN'T WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I HAVE BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THE MECHANICS RELATIVE TO REUSE AS WELL AND THE TROUBLE WITH REUSING POOL WATER BECAUSE OF THE CHLORINATED STATUS OF THAT WATER AND I GUESS PEOPLE STUFF GOING INTO THE WATER AS WELL, SO IN YOUR PROJECTIONS, ARE YOU THINKING OF CHANGING THE DESIGN OF THE POOLS OR ARE WE THINKING OF A WAY TO REUSE THAT WATER OR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO TREAT CHLORINATED WATER ON SITE AND THEN REUSE IT R FOR WATERING?

>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING THAT WE WERE AGREEING LAST NIGHT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT IN MORE DETAIL. WHAT'S THE BEST IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR EACH OF THESE POOLS. I MEAN IS IT REUSE, IS IT DECHLORINATION AND THEN USING THE WATER ON SITE, WHICH IS POSSIBLE. IT WOULD NOT BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DECHLORINATE THAT WATER FOR IRRIGATION. IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO DECHLORINATE FOR IRRIGATION. IT WOULD BE IF ANY WERE TO RUN OFF INTO CREEKS OR STREAMS, BUT JUST FOR LAWN WATERING, IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED. THERE ARE SOME -- THE PARKS DIRECTOR WAS MENTIONING THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ENTER INTO THIS IN TERMS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR RECIRCULATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CHLORINATION AND PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DRAINING AND FILLING SO THAT HAS TO BE FACTORED IN TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AS WELL.

>>GOODMAN: MR. CITY MANAGER, WHEN THEY GET INTO THE STAGES OF LOOKING AT AND THINKING ABOUT DIFFERENT DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, COULD I BE A PART OF THE INFORMATION LOOP THERE? BECAUSE I'M ALSO VERY CURIOUS FOR THE FUTURE.

>>GARZA: IN TERMS OF THE REUSE OF WATER, THE FILL AND DRAWS SURE.

>>GOODMAN: AND HOW WE USE SOME OF THE WATER USAGE ES IN A NEW AND ENHANCED PUBLIC AMENITIES AS WELL.

>>GARZA: SURE. BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN OR GRIFFITH.

>>WYNN: THANK YOU. MR. LIPPE, CAN YOU -- FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK THE REUSE POLICY THAT WE'RE END IS GREAT WORK, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND IT AND IT SEEMS INEVITABLE TO ME THAT IN THE FUTURE WITH BETTER TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO MORE THAN JUST WATER GOLF COURSES AND OTHER STRIL USES, MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES. CAN YOU SPEAK JUST BRIEFLY THOUGH TO THE COLORADO RIVER FLOW AND MY PRESUMPTION IS THIS TIME OF YEAR AS AN EXAMPLE, A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE DOWNSTREAM FLOW IN THE COLORADO IS ACTUALLY COMING OUT OF OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE AS A COMMUNITY I THINK DO THE RIGHT THING IN CONSERVING WATER AND REUSING WATER, IN THEORY, WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCHARGING SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TREATED WATER INTO THE RIVER DOWNSTREAM. AND SO CAN YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO THAT AND I PRESUME OBVIOUSLY THE TRADE-OFF WE WOULD BE TAKING LESS WATER, LESS RAW WATER OUT OF THE UPSTREAM RIVER SO I GUESS, I PRESUME THE LCRA, YOU KNOW, HAS THE MECHANISMS OR RECOGNIZES THE LONG-TERM TRADE-OFFS IN OUR REUSE POLICY AND WOULD SOMEHOW ADJUST ACCORDINGLY THE FLOW DOWNSTREAM.

>> THAT'S A VERY TIMELY QUESTION. THERE'S DISCUSSIONS GOING ON WITH AT THE STATE AND IN THE SENATE BILL 1 REGIONAL COMMITTEES ABOUT RETURN FLOWS. ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER WATER AVAILABILITY ISSUES. AUSTIN HAS WATER RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO RETURN FLOWS. CURRENTLY WE RETURN ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE WATER THAT WE TAKE OUT OF THE RIVER. OUR PLAN FOR THE LONGTERM, OUR -- OUR PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH LCRA FOR THE 50-YEAR WATER AGREEMENT INCLUDES THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WILL BE REUSING MORE AND MORE OF OUR WATER TO MAKE -- WE NEED TO MAKE UP BASICALLY 0 OR 35 MILLION GALLONS A DAY OF SHORTFALL THROUGH REUSE BY THE YEAR 2050. BUT IT IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED. DOWNSTREAM OF AUSTIN DURING LOW FLOW CONDITIONS IT'S TRUE, OUR RETURN FLOWS MAKE UP I WOULD SAY A MAJORITY OF THE FLOW IN THE RIVER. BUT YOU ARE ALSO RIGHT THAT -- THAT IF WE'RE NOT REUSING THAT WATER, WE WOULD BE WITHDRAWING MORE RAW WATER UPSTREAM OF -- FROM THE LAKES. AND SO IT REALLY COMES OUT TO THE SAME EFFECT. BUT THE REUSE ISSUE IS BEING DISCUSSED. TNRCC HAS A COMMITTEE THAT IS LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW. SOME PERMITS HAVE A REQUIREMENT. IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DESIRE TO RETURN FLOWS FOR DOWNSTREAM USERS DEPENDENT ON THAT FLOW OVER TIME, ASSUMPTIONS IN WATER RIGHTS IN CERTAIN BASE SINCE. BUT THE CONFLICT IS THE IDEA OF A REUSE PROGRAM, THAT THE QUALITY OF OUR TREATED EFFLUENT OR TREATMENT PLANTS IS SO HIGH THAT IT'S OBVIOUSLY A RESOURCE NOW. IT'S SUCH A HIGH QUALITY AND IN SOME PLACES IT'S BETTER QUALITY THAN THE RIVER. AND SO PEOPLE ARE JUST MORE AND MORE SEEING IT AS A RESOURCE AND REALIZING THAT THERE IS MORE THAT CAN BE DONE WITH IT. WE DO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LAWN WATERING PILOT PROJECT. IT'S OUT 183 NEAR THE BALCONES AREA. IT WAS PART OF THE ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN FOR THAT AREA. AND SO THERE'S A PACKAGE PLANT THAT WE'RE KEEPING, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT TREATS RELIABLY TO A VERY HIGH LEVEL AND HAVE DISTRIBUTION LINES IN THE STREETS ON A SEPARATE METER FOR THE REUSE LAWN WATERING. IT'S A PILOT PROJECT AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME CONTROLS AND RESTRICTIONS AND POLICIES AND PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. BUT IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO --.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, DUE HAVE A QUESTION?

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, WHEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME IS, I'M GOING TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY WHICH KIND OF BRINGS ALL OF THIS TOGETHER. WHENEVER THAT'S THE RIGHT TIME, LET ME KNOW. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

>> ... AND FOR THAT AMOUNT OF WEAR, IS THAT IN THERE?

>> THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE WATER WAS AUSTIN -- AUSTIN GROWTH AND AUSTIN PROJECTIONS IN GENERAL. RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS. I BELIEVE THAT WAS SEPARATED AT ONE POINT AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE AND THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY OF HOW TO ALLOCATE THE LCRA AGREEMENT COSTS TO OUR CUSTOMERS. AND ONE ARGUMENT WAS TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND ALLOCATE MORE OF THAT COST TO THE INDUSTRIALS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING PROJECTING ONE YEAR AT A TIME, ACTUAL USAGES BY CUSTOMER CLASS ON A PROJECTED BASIS, BUT ONE YEAR AT A TIME, MAKE THAT ALLOCATION AS WE WOULD ANNUALLY DURING THE BUDGET. TO LOOK -- TO LOOK 50 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND TRY TO ESTIMATE WHICH CUSTOMER CLASS WE WILL BE USING, HOW MUCH WATER JUST SEEMS TO BE WAY TOO MANY UNCERTAINTIES TO SET TODAY'S RATES ON SOMETHING THAT FAR INTO THE FUTURE WITH -- WITH ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY OR CHANGES IN OUR -- OUR DIFFERENT GROWTH OF DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CLASSES. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO -- TO PROJECT ONE YEAR AHEAD AND BASE THOSE RATES YEAR BY YEAR. SO IF IN THE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL IS INDEED USING -- HAS GROWN FASTER AND IS USING MORE AND MORE WATER, RESIDENTIAL IS -- IS CONSERVING AND CUTTING BACK, THAT -- THAT WOULD -- THEY WOULD BE -- INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER CLASS WOULD PAY FOR IT AT THAT TIME.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT ANY IMMEDIATE COST OF THE AGREEMENT?

>> LET ME CHECK ON THAT. THIS YEAR IT'S JUST ALLOCATED BASED ON VOLUME.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I AM GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LOOK ON THAT. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. SOLID WASTE SERVICES?

>> THE NEXT SLIDE AGAIN ILLUSTRATES THE PRIORITY THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE PUT ON SOME OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY SOLID WASTE SERVICES ANDMENTS THE SATISFACTION -- ALSO THE SATISFACTION. THERE'S A RELATIVELY HIGH SATISFACTION WITH GARBAGE PICKUP, STREET SWEEPING SERVICES PROVIDED BY SOLID WASTE. THE NEXT CHART TRIES TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THE -- THAT THE NEXT SLIDE TRIES TO -- TO ILLUSTRATE AUSTIN'S WASTE DIVERSION RATE WHICH FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS HAS BEEN AT 30%, THEN WE ARE PROJECTING ABOUT A 1% INCREASE FOR THE COMING YEAR FOR A SLIGHT INCREASE TO ABOUT 31. WITH THAT I'D LIKE -- I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO WILLIE TO DISCUSS THIS.

>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL. THE PROPOSED SOLID WASTE SERVICES FOR 2000-2001 WAS BUILT AROUND SEVERAL GOALS. PART OF OUR PROGRAM IS BUILT TO MAINTAIN OUR PAYT RATES. AS COUNCIL KNOWS WE SAID WHEN WE FIRST INITIATED PAY AS YOU THROW RATES WE WOULD TRY TO MAINTAIN THESE RATES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. ALSO OUR GOAL FOR YOU TO TO YOU IS TO INCREASE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. EVEN THOUGH SATISFACTION RATE IS IN THE 80'S, WE WANT TO STILL TRY TO INCREASE THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE THE GARBAGE AT A CUSTOMER'S HOUSE FROM 32 POINTS TO 30 POUNDS. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO INCREASE THE RECYCLING IN NINE POUNDS TO 10 POUNDS AND WE ARE GOING TO REDUCE THE YARD TRIMMING FROM 5.2 POUNDS TO 5 POUNDS. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VOLUME THAT YOU SEE THERE IN THE GARBAGE IS MADE UP IN THE -- MADE UP IN THE YARD TRIMMINGS AND WE HOPE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS WOULD NOT PUT IT OUT AND -- PARTICIPATE IN OUR DON'T BAG IT PROGRAM. THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR YOU TO TO YOU INCLUDES NO GARBAGE OR ANTI-LITTER RATE INCREASES. IT ALSO CONTINUES THE CONVERSION TO AUTOMATED GARBAGE COLLECTION WHERE WE HAVE ONE PERSON CREWS PICKING UP GARBAGE INSTEAD OF A TWO PERSON CREW. WE HAVE A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR YOU TO TO YOU THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO THE COUNCIL. IT'S A $4 FEE FOR EXCESS GARBAGE. TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE EXCESS GARBAGE SITTING AT THE QURB NO STICKER ON THERE, WE HAVE BEEN PICKING IT UP. WHEN WE FIRST DESIGNED THE PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAM WE SAID THAT WE WOULD NOT PICK THAT UP, WE WOULD TRY TO GET THE CUSTOMER TO PUT A STICKER ON THERE. THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO IS HAVE A $4 FEE FOR UNSTICKERED GARBAGE WHERE THE FIRST CREW WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE ADDRESS, WHERE THE GARBAGE IS, SEND A SECOND CREW BY THERE ON THE SAME DAY, PICK IT UP, THEN WE WOULD BILL THE CUSTOMER FOR THAT $4 PER BAG FOR THE EXERCISE GARBAGE. THE GOAL FOR THE $4 FEE IS TO ENCOURAGE THAT CUSTOMER TO RECYCLE MORE. IF THEY WOULD RECYCLE MORE, THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT NEED EXERCISE GARBAGE PER BAG. ALSO IN 2000-2001 WE ARE CONTINUING WITH OUR LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE CARE FUND. WE ARE SETTING UP A FUND FOR OUR LANDFILL. AS COUNCIL KNOWS, OUR F.M. 812 LANDFILL CLOSED, WE ARE OPEN FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS. EVEN THOUGH WE CLOSED OUR LANDFILL FOR [INAUDIBLE] WASTE, WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE CARE FUND, THIS IS A FUND WE WANT TO SET UP FOR THAT. PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES FUNDING FOR THE CLOSED LANDFILL REMEDIATION. $1,750,000. IF WE -- WE BELIEVE THIS MONEY ACE CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE THAT WE WILL BE USING FOR THE MAYWOOD DAVIS LANDFILL WHICH WE BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL'S ATTENTION EARLIER THIS YEAR ALSO MONEY FOR THE PRIVATE LANDFILL DISPOSAL COSTS. TWO CONTRACTS, ONE WITH TDS, ONE WITH BFI FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL, FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES, $1,963,000. WE ARE CONTINUING WITH FUNDING FOR A GOAL BASED PAY PROGRAM IN SOLID WASTE SERVICES AT THE TUNE OF $560,000. IN OUR PROPOSED BUDGET, OUR BUDGET IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COSTS WE HAVE. WE HAVE A NEW [INAUDIBLE] FOR COUNCIL THIS YEAR, INSTEAD OF A -- INSTEAD OF A PIE CHART. WE ARE SHOWING THIS SLIDE FROM THE SIZE OF THE CART THAT THE CUSTOMERS HAVE. THE LONG LINE IS GOING DOWN IN THE SENSE THAT THE 60 GALLON CARTS IS BEING DECREASED FROM OUR CUSTOMERS, GOING FROM A 90% RANGE TO 83% OF OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE A 60 GALLON CART. WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN OUR 30 GALLON CART UP TO 12%. THE 90 GALLON CART ALSO A SLIGHT INCREASE UP TO 5% OF OUR CUSTOMER BASE. IN OUR CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE 2000-2001, WE HAVE $5,445,000 PROPOSED. THIS MONEY IS -- IT'S FOR SUPPORT FACILITIES, WE ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO CONTINUE ON WITH -- WITH THE DESIGN OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOR US AT -- AT BOHM ROAD AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD. ALSO BEGINNING DISCUSSION CONCERNING A NORTH TRANSFER STATION, FUNDING FOR THAT. WE ARE CONTINUING REPLACEMENT OF OUR TRUCKS. WE HAVE A SEVEN-YEAR CYCLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF OUR FLEETS, WE WILL GOING TO CONTINUE THAT, $3,358,000 BUDGETED FOR THAT. ALSO CONTINUE WITH CLOSED LANDFILL ASSESSMENTS. THE MAJORITY OF THE FUND WOULD BE THERE FOR CLOSED LANDFILL ASSESSMENT AND ZILKER PARK WOULD BE WHERE MOST OF THIS MONEY WOULD BE UTILIZED. THIS COMPLETES MY BUDGET FOR YOU TO TO YOU, I AM READY TO CONSIDER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MAY HAVE.

>>GOODMAN: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: I NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING ON THE EXCESS GARBAGE FEE. THE STICKERS THAT ARE NOW $2 YOU ARE PROPOSING WILL BE 4?

>> NO. THE STICKERS ARE STILL $2 PLUS TAX. THIS IS A NEW FEE F.YOU SET GARBAGE OUT WITHOUT A STICKER, WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE CHARGE YOU $4 A BAG FOR THAT UNSTICKERED GARBAGE THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE. THAT WE WILL COLLECT IT. CHARGE YOU THE $4 FOR THAT UNSTICKERED GARBAGE BAG.

>>GOODMAN: SO THE EXTRA $2 PAYS FOR WHAT?

>> IT'S COST -- COST OF US GOING BACK OUT THERE TO PICK UP THE BAG. FOR THE -- FOR THE VEHICLE COST AND THE PERSONNEL COST FOR GOING BACK OUT THERE TO PICK UP THAT BAG SEPARATELY. WHAT WE HOPE TO DO --.

>>GOODMAN: SEPARATELY?

>> AND THE BILLING COSTS FOR THIS.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, BILLING I CAN UNDERSTAND, ALTHOUGH 100% OF THE -- OF THE COST THAT IT IS NOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. BUT SO -- YOU ARE SAYING IF A PERSON PUTS OUT THEIR GARBAGE ON THE DAY OF THE PICKUP AND HAS A BAG THAT'S EXTRA WITHOUT A TICKET, WITHOUT A STICKER, THE TRUCK WILL HAVE TO COME BACK LATER AND PICK IT UP?

>> WE WILL HAVE A SEPARATE TRUCK THAT WILL GO BACK BY AND PICK IT UP. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

>>GOODMAN: WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THAT?

>> WE ARE TRYING TO DOCUMENT WHERE THE ADDRESS IS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE BILL THE CUSTOMER CORRECTLY. THE GARBAGE TRUCK WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE BY AND JUST -- AND ACKNOWLEDGE WHICH ADDRESS IT IS, SEND A SECOND TRUCK TO VERIFY AND MAKE SURE WE FILL OUT THE FORMS CORRECTLY. AND THEN WE WILL PICK UP THAT -- THAT TRUCK WILL PICK UP THAT BAG.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A BUREAUCRATIC COST. SO I WILL --

>> IT'S -- IT'S THAT WAY, BUT WE ARE FACING THIS COUNCIL FOR SEVERAL REASONS. WHEN WE DESIGNED THE PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAM, WE SAID THAT EXCESS GARBAGE WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP UNLESS IT HAD A STICKER. DUE TO COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS OUT THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GET THE GARBAGE PICKED UP, WE FOUND THAT WE ARE BEING FORCED MORE AND MORE TO GO PICK IT UP WITH THAT SAME CREW. SO NOW WE ARE FACED WITH CITIZENS COMPLAINING WHY ARE WE GOING PICKING UP EXCESS GARBAGE WITHOUT STICKERS WHEN THE CUSTOMER KNOWS WHAT THE RULES ARE. WE ARE TRYING TO EDUCATE THE CUSTOMERS BACK THERE, BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL HOUSES WHO CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME THING. IT PUTS US IN A DILEMMA BECAUSE WE HAVE A OWE ON WE ARE TRYING TO INFORM OUR CREWS,000 DO FOR THE PROGRAM, YET OUR CITIZENS ARE SEEING US VIOLATING THE RULES OF OUR PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAM. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE PROGRAM, WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING AND DIVERSION IN OUR PROGRAM, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. WE DON'T FEEL THAT -- THAT THIS FEE WOULD BE THERE FOR -- WILL BE THERE TO RAISE MONEY. BUT THAT -- AFTER YOU GET THIS FOR MAYBE THE FIRST TIME, YOU WOULD THEN GO OUT AND BUY THE STICKERS, SO YOU WON'T HAVE THIS FEE ON YOUR BILL.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. RIGHT NOW WHEN SOMEBODY MOVES, LIKE A COLLEGE STUDENT OR A FAMILY, THEY DON'T HAVE THE STICKERS, DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM OR CAN'T AFFORD THEM OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT ARE MOVING AND HAVE A -- HAVE A CURB-LOAD FULL OF STUFF THAT THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO TAKE WITH THEM AND THEY ARE GONE, WHO DO YOU CHARGE?

>> TYPICALLY NOW COUNCIL, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE IT AS A MOVEOUT, WHICH MEANS THAT THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CANCELED AND EVERYTHING, WE PICK IT UP.

>>GOODMAN: AH-HA. OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT IS ADDING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR -- FOR NOT NECESSARILY THE -- THE BIG BALK ITEMS -- BIG BULK ITEMS. ONCE A YEAR HAS SEEMED TO SATISFY MOST PEOPLE WHO CALL MY OFFICE, BUT THE ONE SPRING CLEANING DAY SORT OF AND THE ONE RIGHT AFTER CHRISTMAS, DON'T SEEM TO BE ADEQUATE BECAUSE FOR A LOT OF THE CALLS I GOT THEY HADN'T FINISHED TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO THROW THINGS OUT THAT QUICKLY AFTER CHRISTMAS. AND, NUMBER 2, SPRING CLEANING COMES IN THE SPRING, WHICH IS A COUPLE OF MONTHS LONG AND NOT JUST THAT ONE TIME THAT WE PICK: SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO THINK ABOUT ADDING SOMETHING SO THAT'S KIND OF SPACED A LITTLE BETTER TO GIVE YOU TWO OPPORTUNITIES?

>> WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FREE WEEK THAT WE HAVE FOR -- FOR GARBAGE --.

>>GOODMAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANKS, MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE?

>>GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. RHODES, IN THE CORRECTIONS, THE ERRATA THAT WE GOT THIS WEEK, ON PAGE 7 1, IT SHOWS THAT YEAR-END ESTIMATE FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION IS $75 A TON. AND IT WILL BE GOING TO $83 A TON. AND IT SHOWS IN A BOX RIGHT BELOW THAT THAT THE RECYCLING SERVICES WILL BE GOING FROM $101 TO $87. IT LOOKS AS IF THE GARBAGE COLLECTION PER TON IS CLOSING THE GAP WITH RECYCLING PER TON. AM I INTERPRETING THAT CORRECTLY? I APOLOGIZE, COUNCIL, I DON'T HAVE THOSE FIGURES BEFORE ME.

>>GRIFFITH: IT SHOWS $83 A TON, THIS IS NEXT YEAR, $83 A TON FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AND IT SHOWS $87 FOR RECYCLING SERVICES. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE GAP WHICH WAS WELL YEAR-END ESTIMATE THIS YEAR, $75 FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION DISPOSAL AND 100 AND ALMOST TWO DOLLARS FOR RECYCLING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE GAP BETWEEN THOSE TWO METHODS OF DISPOSAL IS -- IS CLOSING? AND THAT PERHAPS AT SOME POINT THEY ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME THING OR THAT EVEN -- EVEN LATER IF THAT CONTINUES THAT THE RECYCLING SERVICES COULD BE LOWER THAN THE TRADITIONAL GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL?

>> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER, THAT -- LET'S GO TO THE RECYCLING SLIDE. RECYCLING IS NET COST PER TON TO PROVIDE RECYCLING SERVICES. THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE COST OF THE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF OUR MATERIAL. THIS YEAR WE HAVE VERY GOOD YEAR FOR THE SALE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL AND WE ARE PROJECTING THAT FOR NEXT YEAR, TOO.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THE GAP CLOSING BETWEEN THOSE TWO METHODS OF DISPOSAL?

>> WELL, I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT THE GAB IS CLOSING. I THINK WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THEM BOTH ON ONE PAGE, IT --

>>GRIFFITH: IT MIGHT LOOK THAT WAY.

>> IT INFERS ONE THING. THE RECYCLING IT'S FROM THE GOOD YEAR OF THE SALE OF THE RECYCLABLE MATERIAL. THE GARBAGE IS BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING -- WE ARE ACTUALLY PROJECTING FOR THIS YEAR $75 ESTIMATE, THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE SPENT LESS MONEY IN OUR GARBAGE PROGRAM. WE BUDGETED A FULL YEAR PROGRAM NEXT YEAR AND IF WE -- IF WE ARE ABLE TO SAVE SOME MONEY IN THERE, THAT'S -- THEN THAT PROJECTION WILL GO DOWN WHEN WE DO OUR ACTUALS FOR YOU TO TO YOU.

>>GRIFFITH: DO YOU EXCEPT THE MURF TO -- YOU MIGHT JUST FOR THE CITIZENS WHO ARE WATCHING, YOU MIGHT TALK ABOUT IT AND WHAT IT DOES. DO YOU SEE ITS COST PER TON COMING DOWN OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS OR LEVELING OFF OR WHAT DO YOU THINK WE CAN ANTICIPATE THERE IN TERMS OF COST CONTROL AT THE MURF BECAUSE THAT HAS SO MUCH TO DO WITH THE -- WITH THE NET RECYCLING SERVICES OPERATIONS.

>> WE PROJECT, COUNCILMEMBER, FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS THAT THE MURF SHOULD CONTINUE WHERE WE ARE. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT ADDING ADDITIONAL -- AT OUR MURF, WE ARE PLANNING ON BRINGING A RATE SCHEDULE FOR OUR MATERIAL -- FOR THE MURF -- IF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE IT STANDS FOR MATERIAL RECOVERED FACILITY. ALL OF THE CURB SIDE RECYCLED MATERIAL IN USINGS TO THIS MATERIAL RECOVERED FACILITY WHERE IT'S PROCESSED. PAPER IS DROPPED ON THE FLOOR AND PUT INTO TRAILERS WHERE IT'S HAULED OFF TO -- DONAHUE TAKES IT, WE SELL OUR PAPER TO DONAHUE, WHICH IS THEN PROCESSED BACK INTO NEWS PRINT WHICH THEN GOES BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT -- THE MAJORITY BACK TO THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN. THE OTHER MATERIAL THAT WE COLLECT IN OUR CURB SIDE PROGRAM IS PROCESSED OUT. ALUMINUM CANS, STEEL CANS, PLASTIC, SOLD SEPARATELY. WE PROJECT WITH OUR OWN FACILITY AND THAT WE MAY HAVE POTENTIAL PRIVATE PARTNERS COMING IN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR RATES AT THE MRF, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO REDUCE AND HOLD THE COST ON THE LINE FOR OUR RECYCLING PROGRAM.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, GOING TO HAVE A BREAK DURING THE LUNCH HOUR -- LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO HOUSING.

>> THE FINAL DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED FOR THIS MORNING IS THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT. AND AGAIN ON THE COMMUNITY SCORE CARD YOU CAN SEE THE RELATIVE PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION SCORES, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A RELATIVELY LOW SATISFACTION WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN. THE NEXT CHART TRIES TO ILLUSTRATE THE TOTAL UNITS OR SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES WITH THE TOTAL UNITS PRODUCED AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING UNITS AND THE AVERAGE COUNCIL, MY NAME ISSSSSSSSSS [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] FOR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THE DETAILS OF THIS BUDGET WERE DISCUSS UNDERSTAND GREAT -- DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN PASSED ON AUGUST 3RD, 2000. THAT PLAN WAS THE CULMINATION OF A NINE-MONTH PUBLIC PROCESS TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO INVEST THE NEW DOLLARS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE U.S. DEPEND OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. YOU WILL FIND OUR BUDGET ON VOLUME -- ON PAGE 19 OF VOLUME 2. THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FUNDED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAVE BECOME A MAJOR PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THIS IS REFLECTED IN OUR MISSION STATEMENT, THAT IS TO PROVIDE HOUSTONING, COMMUNITY AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO BENEFIT HE WILL -- BENEFIT ELIGIBLE RESIDENTS SO THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO LIVEABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND INCREASE THEIR OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF SUFFICIENCY. WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TRANSFORMING THIS DEPARTMENT. CHANGING FROM AN ORGANIZATION THAT SERVED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY AS AN ADMINISTRATOR OF $13 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS, BECAUSE OF OUR PARTNERSHIP WAS OUR AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, NON-PROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND OUR LENDING INSTITUTIONS, TOGETHER WE WILL OVERSEE THE INVESTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF $89 MILLION OF HOUSING FUNDS. WHEN YOU ADD THIS TO OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS, WE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE WILL BE BRINGING YOU A MORE DETAILED HOUSING PRESENTATION ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, WHICH WILL BE DONE IN A WORK SESSION FOR THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. OUR AGGRESSIVE FIVE YEAR GOALS AS REFLECTED IN OUR CONSOLIDATED PLAN ARE TO ASSIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION OF 5,000 UNITS OF HOUSING ANNUALLY BY THE YEAR 2005. THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, WE PLAN TO CREATE AND RETAIN 250 JOBS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS. WE PLAN TO REVITALIZE EAST 11TH AND 12TH STREET CORRIDOR WITH THE HELP OF THE AUSTIN REVITALIZATION AUTHORITY AND OUR URBAN RENEWAL BOARD WITH. OUR NEWLY DESIGNED PUBLIC SERVICES, WE PLAN TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF SUFFICIENCY AMONG LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS. THIS CHARTD PROVIDES A PICTURE OF OUR PROPOSED NEW FUNDING, IDENTIFICATION VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES, THIS CHART ONLY SHOWS THE -- THE NEW FUNDING AUTHORITY WE ARE REQUESTING WITH THIS BUDGET SUBMISSION. IN TERMS OF FEW FUNDING, WE ARE PROPOSING $14.4 MILLION FOR YOUR APPROVAL. THESE FUNDS ARE THEN CHANNELED INTO PROGRAMS FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING. IN OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REVITALIZATION OUR PRIMARY FOCUS IS FOR THE REVITALIZATION OF EAST 11TH AND 12TH STREETS. BECAUSE OF THE COUNCIL'S INTEREST IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS EFFORT, I WILL IDENTIFY THE MAJOR ACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO SEE THIS NEXT YEAR. IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE YEAR YOU WILL SEE MAJOR ACTIVITY ON THE 11TH AND 12TH STREET CORRIDOR FROM THIS INVESTMENT. IN PUBLIC SERVICES, OUR TWO MAJOR PROGRAMS THAT ARE ADMINISTERED FROM OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY ARE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT PROGRAM AND OUR YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM. PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING ALSO SUPPORTS OUR CHILD CARE VOUCHER PROGRAM, WHICH WE OPERATE WITH THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WHICH THEY OPERATE FOR US, AND OUR FAIR HOUSING COUNSELING PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED BY THE AUSTIN TENANTS COUNCIL. THE SMALL BUSINESS FUNDS AND ASSISTANCE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE WILL SUPPORT OUR BE ASSISTANCE CENTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BAM, SMALL MINORITY BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PAM AND CONTRACTS. THE PUBLIC FACILITY DOLLARS REPRESENTED HERE WILL SUPPORT THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THE MILLENNIUM YOUTH CENTER. THE NEXT SLIDE SUMMARIZES SOME OF THE KEY ACTIVITIES OCCURRING ON 11TH AND 12TH STREET. FIRST RENOVATION OF 1101 EAST 11TH STREET KNOWN AS SHORTY'S BAR. THE STREET SCAPING PROJECT ON EAST 11TH STREET WHICH WILL INCLUDE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY CAPITAL METRO. THE RIATA DEVELOPMENT OF 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL SPACE ON EAST 11TH STREET, WHICH INCLUDES FUNDS FROM OUR SECTION 108 LOAN. ARA'S CONTRACT RENEWAL. THE DEBT SERVICE, FOR THE SECTION 108 LOAN. AND THE RESTORATION OF THE EAST ROOM. BEFORE I OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE TO SHOW YOU. REALLY DONE IN PREPARATION FOR A FORMAL WORK SESSION WE HAD PLANNED ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. THIS WORK SESSION FOR THE FINANCE CORPORATION WILL ALLOW US TO SPEND MORE TIME DIRECTLY ON THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION AND PROVIDE GREATER DETAILS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC WORK PLANS AND PRODUCTION SCHEDULES FOR OUR HOUSING INITIATIVES. THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK FOR THAT UPCOMING FINANCE CORPORATION WORK SESSION. YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU ADD UP THE RESOURCES THAT WE ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING TO THE TABLE -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CLOSE TO $09 MILLION BEING INVEST UNDERSTAND HOUSING IN THIS COMMUNITY. THIS INCLUDES THE PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW AND PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF THE COMMITMENT OF THIS COUNCIL, THIS COUNCIL IS SHOWING TO ADDRESS THIS MOST CRITICAL NEED FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AT THIS POINT I WILL STOP WITH THE PRESENTATION AND ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? XHALZ? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

>>ALVAREZ: I WAS JUST WONDERING LOOKING AT THAT CHART THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND --

>> YES, SIR.

>>ALVAREZ: WHERE DO THOSE FUNDS COME FROM?

>> THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUNDS ARE DOLLARS THAT -- THAT ARE HOUSED IN THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. THEY ARE -- THE OPERATING CAPITAL, THE REAL CAPITAL PROGRAM THAT THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HAS. ORIGINALLY, IT WAS -- IT WAS A -- A CORPUS THAT -- THAT WE BE EFFORTS THAT WE NEED TO -- TO CREATE MORE -- THE CRUX OF MORE HOUSING UNITS. BUT THAT'S REALLY AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DOLLARS.

>>ALVAREZ: SO IT'S NOT FUNDS NECESSARILY THAT WE HAVE TRANSFERRED FROM THE GENERAL FUNDS OR FROM ANOTHER FUND THAT WE HAVE --

>> THAT'S CORRECT, THIS IS MONEY THAT IS THE FINANCE CORPORATION'S DOLLARS.

>>ALVAREZ: WHAT HAVE THOSE GONE TOWARDS, WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS HAVE THOSE FUNDS SUPPORTED?

>> WHERE WILL, IN THE PAST, A LOT OF THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN LOANED TO -- TO PROGRAMS SUCH AS SKIP 3, THEY HAVE BEEN USED AND I CAN GIVE YOU A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS ON THE 28TH OF EXACTLY WHAT THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND HAS BEEN. BUT THEY HAVE BEEN USED TO OPERATE THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION ITSELF TO PAY FOR STAFF OVER THE PAST YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN IN OPERATION AS WELL.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU AND THE REST OF THE STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK ON HOUSING THESE LAST FEW -- FEW WEEKS AND --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: AND EVEN BEFORE. [LAUGHTER]. I KNOW HE DOESN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST IT'S ONLY BEEN IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN WORKING ON HOUSING.

>>ALVAREZ: THE WORKLOAD THAT I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. AND AGAIN I KNOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE ISSUE UP AGENTS LATER AS WELL -- A LITTLE LATER AS WELL --

>> YES, SIR.

>> -- IN TERMS OF FORMALIZING SOME OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO. BUT I DO WANT TO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> FOR YOUR HARD WORK. LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING THESE IDEAS INTO REALITIES.

>> THANK YOU, CIRCUMSTANCE APPRECIATE THAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO ADD MY THANKS, TOO, TO THE ACCELERATED ACTIVITY THAT I, TOO, AM SENSING IN RESPONSE TO THE CITIZENS, IN RESPONSE TO -- TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE COME AND SAID. AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING. IT SEEMS THAT MOST OF WHAT I'M SEEING IN TERMS OF -- OF WHAT IS BEING -- WHAT I EXPECT TO SEE IN YOUR REPORT, AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO IT VERY MUCH, IS -- IS SUPPLY SITE. IT IS SUPPORT DEVELOPERS, SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION IN GENNING UP THE SUPPLY, THAT IS EXCELLENT. ALSO WHAT I AM SEEING IS ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN GET MORTGAGES AND MAKE IT MORE AVAILABLE, MORE REALISTIC FOR THEM TO HAVE A HOME. THAT'S -- THAT'S EXCELLENT. WHAT -- WHAT I HOPE YOU ARE -- YOUR REPORT WILL INCLUDE IS SOME INFORMATION ON THE DEMAND SIDE, BOTH IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AT OR AROUND 08% OF MEDIAN, THAT'S -- THAT'S A GOOD THING, AND ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE BELOW THAT. BUT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A MARKET, I SENSE, THAT -- THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE MUCH FOR YET. THAT'S -- I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT THE DEMAND SIDE IS FOR. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEED NOT A MORTGAGE AND MIGHT NOT EVER NEED A MORTGAGE OR QUALIFY FOR ONE. BUT STILL HAVE A HOUSING CHALLENGE AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NEED SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY, A BEDROOM AND A BATHROOM AND A KITCHEN TO SHARE DOWN THE HALL. AND ANOTHER GROUP WOULD BE THOSE WHO ARE COMING OUT OF THE SHELTERS, THE SALVATION ARMY AND SAFE PLACE AND SOME OF THOSE, WHO COULD -- WHO ARE IN, SHALL WE SAY, TRANSITION?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: SOME FROM ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND THOSE WOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR ME. THERE ARE ALSO FOLKS WHO COULD USE SOME ASSISTANCE IN LIVING, WHO ARE SENIOR, SEND CERTAINLY DON'T NEED TO GO TO A NURSING HOME, BUT NEED SOME SUPPORT IN EVERYDAY LIFE ROUTINES. AND THEN THE FOLKS WHO NEED SOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE. SO WHAT I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE SEEING IN THAT REPORT, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, IS THE DEMAND SIDE FOR WHAT THOSE FOUR MARKETS ARE AND ANY PLANS TO ADDRESS THOSE FOUR MARKETS.

>> YES, MA'AM. I THINK ON THAT DATE YOU WILL ALSO SEE SOME SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDING AND SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT'S YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED.

>>GRIFFITH: WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S A HUGE CHALLENGE. AND A HUGE OPPORTUNITY. WHAT I HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH OF IS SEGMENTATION OF THAT MARKET AND HOW MANY PEOPLE FALL IN THE CAN GET A MORTGAGE WITH A A LITTLE BOOST AND THEN THOSE FOUR SEGMENTS I'M TALKING ABOUT. IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, I THINK, FOR ALL OF US TO KNOW HOW BIG THOSE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS ARE IN TERMS OF PLANNING.

>> CORRECT.

>>GOODMAN: WHEN WE GET AROUND TO HAVING TIME FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE TALK ABOUT THE VARIOUS PROJECTS AND GOALS THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO PLACE BEFORE NOW, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF ANY GENERATION OF REVENUE HAS COME OUT OF -- OF THE VARIOUS IDEAS THAT WE'VE HAD TO -- TO SUPPLEMENT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE FEDERAL MONEY THAT WE GET AND THE $1 MILLION NOW TRUST FUND, QUOTE AND UNQUOTE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE TURNING INTO EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE, WHICH WAS A YEARLY BUDGET ITEM. AS OPPOSED TO A FUND THAT GREW AND THAT OTHER INITIATIVES HELPED GROW. AND I'M WONDERING WITH ALL OF THE RECENT ATTENTION TO THE STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND WHO DID AND DID NOT GET FUND IN THIS THE -- AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, KIND OF A PROJECTION FROM US ABOUT WHAT DIFFERENCE WE THINK THAT WILL MAKE ON OUR VARIOUS UNDERTAKINGS OR SUPPORTIVE UNDERTAKINGS FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S PROJECTS. THE OTHER THING IS I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET A FEEL ON THE PARTICULAR HOUSES THAT WE HAVE GONE AHEAD AND GIVEN THAT WATER AND WASTEWATER CUT TO --

>> RIGHT, SURE.

>>GOODMAN: AND ARE WE -- WE ARE PAST 500, RIGHT?

>> YES, MA'AM, IN THE SMART HOUSING INITIATIVE THAT WAS PASSED -- WE'VE HAD A CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WHEN THE SMART HOUSING INITIATIVE WAS PASSED IN APRIL, WHICH WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT IN -- IN MORE DETAIL ABOUT, WE CAN LOOK AND WE WILL BRING TO YOU WHAT APPEARS TO NUMBER THE PIPELINE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF -- APPEARS TO BE IN THE PIPELINE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROGRAM AND THE INITIATIVES INVOLVED IN THAT PROGRAM ON THE 28TH. I THINK THAT YOU WILL BE VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE NUMBER THAT'S WE ARE SEEING OF PEOPLE BEING INTERESTED, OF CREATING HOUSING THAT REQUIRES A ESSENTIALLY NO SUBSIDIDY, ONLY SOME INCENTIVE AND CERTAINTY AND SECURITY FROM THE CITY TO BE BUILT. SO WE ARE VERY ENCOURAGED BY -- BY THE REACTION THAT WE ARE RECEIVING. I WILL BE GLAD TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE -- IN THE PRESENTATION. ON THE 28TH. AND WE ANTICIPATE GETTING YOU INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE 28TH SO YOU WON BE GETTING IT THAT MORNING SO YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT PRIOR TO THAT -- TO THAT PRESENTATION.

>>GOODMAN: AND THE OTHER THING WE ARE WORKING ON IS ABOUT THE -- RELATIVE TO THE VARIED INCOME LEVELS THAT WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO INTEGRATE INTO A BANK LOAN PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE ENOUGH TO QUALIFY. SO --

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WILL SEE, AGAIN IT'S JUST A -- FOR EXAMPLE, I GUESS THE BEST EXAMPLE TODAY IN THE FINANCE CORPORATION, YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU FOR US TO INVEST HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AND ESSENTIALLY A $20 MILLION OPERATION. THAT HALF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IS BEING DONE IN A LOAN. -- THAT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IS BEING DONE IN A LOAN. IT'S DONE AT A HIGHER INCOME LEVEL OF RESIDENTS THAN WAS THE CENTRAL TEXAS MUTUAL HOUSING PROGRAM WHICH REQUIRED FOR THE NUMBERS TO WORK ABOUT A MILLION DOLLAR SUBZY, WHICH WAS A GRANT. WHAT YOU REALLY LOOK AT IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ACE DEEPENING LEVEL OF SU BSIDY TO SERVE THOSE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS, WE WILL TRY TO PRESENT THAT -- THAT DYNAMIC FOR YOU WHEN WE COME AND SHOW YOU HOW WE WILL STRUCTURE AND LAYER THOSE SERVICES. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR WITH OUR REHAB PROGRAMS IS A LAYERING OF GRANT, LOANS AND THEN BANK LOANS IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO BEFORE. AND -- SO I THINK THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE FOR YOU AS WELL.

>>GOODMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STAFF AS WELL. BECAUSE NOT SO MANY YEARS AGO WE WERE LUCKY WHEN WE COULD LEVERAGE A TWO MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR INCREASE IN AVAILABLE FINANCIAL SUPPORT BY WORKING WITH THE COUNTY, YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT BRIGID WORKED VERY HARD TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. AND WITH THE INVENTION OF AHFC, AND STAFF'S DEDICATION AND COUNCIL'S AS WELL, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LEVERAGE THAT INTO AN AUTHORIZATION FOR COMING UP ON $40 MILLION EACH YEAR, TOTALLY ASIDE FROM THE BUDGET ISSUES AND THE BALLOT ISSUES THAT WERE RECENTLY DISCUSSED.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GRIFFITH: MAY I ASK A COUPLE OF BUDGET QUESTIONS.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: IN '98 AND '99 AND IN '9 -- IN '99-2000. THIS MAY NOT NUMBER YOUR BUDGET, COMING OUT OF THE SUMMARY, WE BUDGETED 7 MILLION DOLLARS BOTH OF THOSE YEARS, 98-99 AND '99-2000. $7 MILLION FOR FEE WAIVERS, WE HAD IT IN A FUND. AND PROJECTED, PROPOSED FOR YOU TO TO YOU, IT'S A ZERO. -- FOR YOU TO TO YOU IT'S A ZERO -- FOR 2,000-2001, IT'S A ZERO. I AM WONDERING HOW -- IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM IN THE FEE WAIVER FUND ANYMORE, HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AND DO WE NEED TO PUT -- DO WE NEED TO BUDGET FOR THAT? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IT'S IN THE POLICY BUDGET. IT'S IN THE SUMMARY ON PAGE 8 8, FEE WAIVER FUND, 7 MILLION FOR '98 AND '99. 7 MILLION FOR 99-2000. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER IF THAT'S MORE CONVENIENT. I AM JUST WONDERING HOW WE ARE GOING TO -- IS THERE A PLAN FOR A -- FOR BUDGETING FOR AN ACCOUNTING FOR THOSE FEE WAIVERS? BELIEVING THAT THERE WILL BE SOME.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, THAT FEE WAIVER FUND IS $7,000, I BELIEVE. I'M NOT SURE, I WILL GET THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. I AM WONDERING HOW WE ARE GOING TO BUDGET FOR FEE WAIVERS, HOW WE ARE GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM. THANKS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE?

>>GRIFFITH: ONE MORE THING.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: IN LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING PROPOSED BUDGET, I AM INTERESTED IN HOW THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE -- BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ACCOUNTS AND THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNTS ARE HAPPENING. THE MOST CHALLENGING THING FOR ME IN BUDGET ANALYSIS IS TRANSFERS IN AND TRANSFERS OUT. I AM DOING FINE UNTIL I GET THERE AND THEN I NEED SOME HELP. FOR INSTANCE, ON PAGE 26. IT LOOKS LIKE THE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT SERVICES ARE A BIG PART OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE A 62 --62% INCREASE IN EXPENSES. IS IT TRUE THAT I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THAT THERE'S A $691,000 INCREASE IN EXPENSES IN THAT A BIG PART OF THAT IS GENERAL FUND SUPPORT SERVICES? INCREASES IN LAW, PURCHASING, GSI, THAT'S -- THAT'S $208,000 OF THE $691,000.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: TRANSFERS IN AND TRANSFERS OUT.

>> LET ME GET THE TRANSFERS IN, TRANSFERS OUT, SINCE YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT FIRST, I WILL GO BACK TO THIS. THE TRANSFERS IN, PARTICULARLY WITH THE 400 THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT'S TRANSFERRING IN -- I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, FROM THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FUND, THAT IS GOING INTO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS. AND AS YOU KNOW, ICF IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING AN ANALYSIS OF OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND THIS PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE LOOKING CLOSELY AT -- AT THAT STUDY AND HOW WE WOULD INVEST AND TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE WITH THESE PARTNERS IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE FUNDS ARE GOING INTO. NOW, THE -- THE ADDITIONAL -- THE INCREASES IN GENERAL FUND THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING OF DO INCLUDE RELGSZS WITH OUR LEGAL -- RELATIONS WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, OUR GIS SERVICES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE NEEDING TO DO IS TO INCREASE, REALLY, OUR CONNECTION TO OUR GIS MAPPING SYSTEM SO WE CAN USE IT MORE TO IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE LAND AVAILABLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING. BUT THOSE -- THOSE TYPE OF SERVICES ARE IN FACT NEEDING TO BE INCREASED.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT SORT OF AN INDIRECT WAY OF GETTING ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS TO THE GENERAL FUND, IS THAT SORT OF A PASS-THROUGH?

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S -- THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE ARE A PRETTY GOOD BURDEN ON THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WITH OUR GRANTS AND OUR CONTRACTS AND SO THEY DON'T DO THAT FOR FREE. AND SO THIS IS REALLY JUST OUR WAY OF PAYING FOR THE SERVICE THAT'S THEY PROVIDE TO US AS A -- AS A CITY DEPARTMENT.

>>GRIFFITH: SO THE 62% INCREASE IN ONE YEAR IS -- IS REALLY WHAT'S PLANNED?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU ARE COMING UP WITH 62% UNLESS YOU ARE -- IT'S ALL OF THIS?

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? IF WE CAN GO TO PAGE 26, THERE'S -- THERE'S $208,000 INCREASE, IN THOSE EXPENSES THAT YOU JUST NAMED LIKE LAW AND PURCHASING AND GSI, THAT'S -- THAT'S 18. -- THAT'S 18.7.

>> YES, I THINK THAT THAT IS AN ACCURATE REFLEX OF WHAT OUR COSTS -- REFLECTION OF WHAT OUR COSTS ARE. WE ARE LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN STREAMLINE OUR PROCESSING WITH THE PURCHASING OFFICE SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF OUR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS TAKEN CARE OF WITHOUT PUTTING THAT BURDEN ON THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE ARE DOING. SO WE ARE TRYING TO RESTRUCTURETURE THE WAY THOSE RELATIONSHIPS HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER THINGS THAT -- I HAVEN'T DONE THE TOTALS THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO TAKE THE -- TO SEE WHAT THE TOTAL PERCENTAGES ARE. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN AGAIN RAM FUND SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT WE -- GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPORT SERVICE THAT'S WE HAVE INTERNALLY AND THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT WE HAVE FROM THE OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY

>>GRIFFITH: WHERE I GOT THE 62% WAS 99-2000 ESTIMATED YEAR END TO 2000-2001 PROPOSED.

>> I'M SORRY, LOOK YOU ARE -- YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT --

>>GRIFFITH: THAT'S OKAY.

>> LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED. I THINK I SAW YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, I THINK, ON ANOTHER DOCUMENT. I THINK IT RELATES TO THIS. THERE WAS A ESSENTIALLY AN ANALYSIS DONE BY OUR DEPARTMENT AS TO -- AS TO WHERE THE GENERAL FUND DALLAS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED FOR THE WHOLE MATCH CAT -- DALLAS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED FOR THE MATCH CATEGORY. WE FOUND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES THAT LEFT ON THE TABLE, IF YOU WILL, GENERAL FUND SUPPORT THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED. AND SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO IS TO USE THAT TO HELP US WITH THE INCREASED DEMAND THAT WE ARE GETTING FROM GENERAL FUND.

>>GRIFFITH: ON THE BREAKDOWNS ON, I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE 21, IT HAS THE GENERAL FUND MINUS 330 --

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT I AM SPEAKING OF

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. THEN IT HAS ON THE PLUS SIDE, COMING IN, ON THE EXPENSE SIDE IT HAS LAW AND PURCHASING AND GSI.

>> YES, MA'AM, GIS, YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT A WAY TO PASS THROUGH EXPENSES?

>> IT'S A WAY TO -- TO PAY FOR SERVICES --

>>

>>GRIFFITH: AN INDIRECT WAY OF --

>> YES, I GUESS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES.

>>GRIFFITH: OF LEAVING MONEY FROM THE ENTERPRISE ORGANIZATIONS TO THE GENERAL FUND SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE NET IS, IS ANOTHER WAY TO DO THAT.

>> I GUESS YOU COULD INTERPRET IT THAT WAY, YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. THANKS.

>> RIGHT, I MEAN -- WELL, I GUESS THE POINT THE REASON THAT I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY IS THAT THESE REPRESENT TRUE COSTS OF SERVICE FOR US. THESE ARE NOT JUST TRANSFERS THAT GO FROM ONE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT US GETTING SERVICES THAT WE RECEIVE FOR THESE. I MEAN IT IS -- IF -- IN ESSENCE, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS BECAUSE WE PAY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE GIS SERVICES, GIS MAPPING SERVICES AND PURCHASING FOR THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE TO US, DOES THAT MONEY GO BACK INTO THEIR FUNDS? I'M JUST KIND OF LIKE BEING CALLED AN ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT'S EVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT IT IT LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TRANSFERS IN AND TRANSFERS OUT BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST CHALLENGING THING FOR ME TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IN THE WHOLE BUDGET. IT LOOKS LIKE THINGS THAT USED TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS LIKE 330,000, THIS IS LITTLE, 330,000 ARE NOW COMING OUT OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS. BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT A -- YOU HAVE GOT 330,000 DOLLARS LESS COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND ABOUT THE SAME NOW COMING OUT OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

>> NO, MA'AM. THOSE ARE NOT CONNECTED. THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT ARE COMING INTO US ARE REALLY FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT WILL BE ADMINISTERED WITH MINORITY CONTRACTS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. SO THE MONIES THAT COME FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, WATER AND WASTEWATER AND AVIATION THERE, THE TRANSFERS IN, ARE DIRECTLY FOR SERVICES TO CONTRACTORS, MINORITY CONTRACTORS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WILL BE PACKAGED AND -- IN COOPERATION WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE AND THOSE CONTRACTORS. SO THOSE TWO THINGS DO NOT HAVE ANY -- ANY DIRECT CORRELATION TO EACH OTHER.

>> THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BALANCE.

>> THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BALANCE.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. AND I --

>> LET ME JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION SO THAT YOU WILL KNOW, REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE 330 THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMING IN WILL ACTUALLY GO TO SERVICES OUTSIDE OF OUR OPERATION. THE THINGS THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT ARE SERVICES WE RECEIVE FROM INSIDE THE CITY THAT WE WILL BE PAYING FOR. THEY REALLY DO JUST HAPPEN TO BALANCE.

>>GRIFFITH: WHICH USED TO BE PAID FOR ANOTHER WAY.

>> WELL, WE ALWAYS PAID FOR IT DIRECTLY EITHER IN DIRECT COSTS OR WE PAID FOR THOSE SERVICES, THE SERVICES HAVE INCREASED, THOSE COSTS OF THOSE SERVICES HAVE INCREASED.

>> IS -- ARE OPERATING EXPENSES UP 62%? I HAVE GOT A MILLION-EIGHT MINUS A MILLION-1 IS -- IS $691,000, WHICH IS -- IS THAT RIGHT, 62%? WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS LATER.

>> OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: IF THIS IS NOT A GOOD TIME.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE? YES, MR. [INAUDIBLE]?

>> YES, I WANTED TO ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FEE WAIVER FUND. AS YOU POINTED OUT ON THE FUND SUMMARY, WE HAVE IN FACT MADE TRANSFERS TO THAT FUND FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS. IN PRACTICE, ALTHOUGH WE WERE TO TAKE THE FEE WAIVERS OUT OF THAT FUND, IN PRACTICE WE HAVE BEEN DEDUCTING THOSE FROM REVENUE APPARENTLY. SO THE BALANCE IN THAT FUND HAS BUILT UP TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S ABOUT -- ABOUT 22,000. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO ELIMINATE THE TRANSFER FOR 2001 UNTIL WE CORRECT OUR PROCEDURES INTERNALLY AND WORK THE BALANCE OF THAT FUND DOWN.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. HOW WILL FEE WAIVERS BE BUDGETED FOR AND ACCOUNTED FOR? I THINK THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION. I'M SURE YOU HAVE A SYSTEM FOR THAT.

>> WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO PUT THE SYSTEM IN PLACE WHERE WE BUDGET AND ACCOUNT FOR THOSE IN THE FEE WAIVER FUND.

>>GRIFFITH: THANKS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU ALL. WE WILL GO TO PAY AND BENEFITS.

>>GARZA: MAYOR I INDICATED EARLIER BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULE THAT YOU HAVE TODAY, A LOT OF ITEMS STILL TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE REGULAR AGENDA WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PASS OUT A MEMO IN TERMS OF THE PAY AND BENEFITS WE ARE RECOMMENDING.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WITH THAT BEING SAID, MR. HEIGHTS HOW QUICKLY DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD DO THE ITEM ON THE ALGAE BLOOM?

>> 10 OR 15 MINUTES, MAYOR.

>> IF YOU COULD DO 10 --.

>>GARZA: HE CAN DO 10 MINUTES. HE DID IT WITH ME IN FIVE MINUTES.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, COUNCILMEMBER?

>>SLUSHER: THAT WRAPS UP OUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.

>>SLUSHER: THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM UNDER THE ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ANSWERED OR ANTICIPATED TO BE MORE DISCUSSION OR AN ACTION ITEM ON THAT, IF WE ARE IT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO TAKE THAT UP DURING THIS TIME --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. HERE'S WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK DURING THE LUNCH HOUR, I WAS TRYING TO TIME THIS RIGHT UP TO THE LUNCH HOUR.

>>SLUSHER: MAYBE WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THAT LATER. AT LEAST I WANTED TO DISCUSS IF WE WERE COMING BACK TO THAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT. I AM TRYING TO FIT IN THE TIME INDECREE MMTS -- INCREMENTS.

>> ONE OF THE SPONSORS MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY

>>GRIFFITH: WHEN WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE ALL FUNDS ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE FINANCIAL SUMMARIES, PROBABLY AT THE END OF WHEN -- WHEN ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REPORTED SO WOULD THAT BE AFTER LUNCH? OR NOW OR WHEN -- WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT?

>>MAYOR WATSON: AS I JUST INDICATED, SINCE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK AT THE LUNCH HOUR, I'M TRYING TO GET OUR WORK DONE WHERE WE CAN GET IT -- ANYTHING DONE IN THAT LITTLE INCREMENT OF TIME. I DON'T ANTICIPATE THE DISCUSSION YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT IS GOING TO BE JUST A 10 MINUTE DISCUSSION. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO -- I AM TRYING TO JUST WORK THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND COORDINATE IT IN THAT WAY. YOU KNOW. ACTUALLY LET'S DO THIS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS UNTIL 1:30. AND WE WILL TAKE UP THESE ITEMS AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME.

>> MIKE, IN THAT BREAK TIME WORK DOWN THE PRESENTATION TO 10 MINUTES. [LAUGHTER].

>>MAYOR WATSON: AFTER THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE FULL 15 MINUTES. YOU ARE UNDER NO PRESSURE.

>>SLUSHER: I SO MOVE. THAT'S FOR THE RECESS NOT NECESSARILY FOR MR. HEIGHTS -- [LAUGHTER].

>>GRIFFITH: SECOND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES, WE ARE IN RECESS. YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THE FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE GUS PENA FOLLOWED BY DAVID MARTIN AND THEN LORETTA MARTIN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, GUS PENA, PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FUNDING FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE. WE DO NOT SEE A STRONG CONCERTED EFFORT TO ESTABLISH FUNDS FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. WE SEE MORE FAMILIES LIVING IN CARS, MOTELS AND ACTUALLY LIVING WITH THEIR OTHER FAMILIES AND RELATIVES WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE OR SECURE HOUSING THEY CAN AFFORD. WHERE IS THE SOCIAL EQUITY ISSUE NOW? WE SUPPORT AN ADVOCATE FOR MIXED HOUSING, MULTI-FAMILY, HOMEOWNERSHIP, BUT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IS ALSO NEEDED TO AFFORD --. [AUDIO PROBLEMS].

>> WE DON'T BELIEVE OUT THERE THAT THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. WE CHALLENGE AND CHARGE THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO HAVE A MORE AGGRESSIVE AND CON CERTIFIED EFFORT IN THE EFFORT TO PROVIDE MILITARY FAMILIES. WE SERVED FAITHFULLY AND SACRIFICED SO OTHERS MAY LIVE IN PEACE AND IT'S A PROCESS WE GAVE OF OURSELVES IN BLOOD, SWEAT AND MANY TEARS. WE ARE STILL IN COMBAT HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN THAT WE CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BATTLE FOR FUNDING FOR ISSUES THAT WILL BENEFIT FIT THE HAVE NOTS. WE CONTINUE TO BATTLE FOR EKTD HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND YES, FOLKS YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED IT, THERE'S A LACK OF EQUITY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE BATTLE SO THAT WE AS TAXPAYERS ARE ALLOWED DUE PROCESS. THE CITY COUNCILL HAS THE STATUTORY AND JUDICIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL AND NOT JUST TO SOME AND SOME ISSUES, BUT TO ALL ISSUES. LET ME JUST END WITH THIS. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS].

>> A FAMILY. CITY COUNCILL, WE ASK YOU RESPECTFULLY, I TRY TO REMAIN AS RESPECTFULLY AS POSSIBLE, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUSH FOR HOUSING FUND -- FUNDING FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SHE NOT JUST SINGLE-FAMILY OR HOMEOWNERSHIP. WE NEED TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS AND FAMILIES BACK INTO HOUSING WHO DESERVE HOUSING. THEY DON'T DESERVE TO BE LIVING IN THE STREETS OR IN MOTELS. IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS AMERICA. WE'RE THE RICHEST, MOST POWERFUL ALLEGEDLY COUNTRY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AUSTIN IS GROWING. BUT A YOU WILL THE PEOPLE MOVING INTO AUSTIN, THE HAVE NOTS, WILL CONTINUE TO GET POORER. IT'S A SHAME. IT'S A SHAME. I ASK YOU RESPECTFULLY, DO THE RIGHT THING. THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND SUPPORT EACH OTHER ON ISSUES THAT ARE EQUITABLE AND CUSTOMER FRIENDLY AND TAXPAYER FRIENDLY FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: DAVID MARTIN.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO BUILD A -- I FURTHER BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WILL ONLY BECOME A REALITY IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER. WE CAN ONLY SUCCEED IF IT IS A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EFFORT JUST A THE [INAUDIBLE] MENTIONED TWO WEEKS AGO. SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY OF IRR AND OUR IMPACT ON AUSTIN. WE WILL CELEBRATE THREE YEARS OF BEING IN BUSINESS THIS YEAR. AT OUR SOUTH LOCATION WE SERVE MORE THAN 4,000 FIRST-TIME CUSTOMERS AND HUNDREDS OF WOULD-BE CUSTOMERS. UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE NEVER ABLE TO REACH A REASONABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND OBTAIN A PERMANENT [INAUDIBLE] AND WERE FORCED TO RELOCATE AFTER BEING IN AUSTIN MORE THAN 20 MONTHS. THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE ORDEAL. [INAUDIBLE] FURTHERMORE DURING THE FOUR WEEKS OF RELOCATION WE LOST MORE THAN $25,000 IN REVENUE. THROUGH HARD WORK WE SUCCEEDED AND OUR BUSINESS CONTINUES TO GROW AND MEET THE NEEDS OF THE EXTREME SPORTS COMMUNITY. WE NOW HAVE SERVED OVER 8,000 FIRST-TIME CUSTOMERS AND NEARLY 1,000 DIE HARD CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE WORKED WITH SEVERAL AISD HIGH SCHOOL SKATE CLUBS AND GROUPS BY PROVIDING LOW OR NO COST MEMBERSHIPS AND SIGNIFICANT DISCOUNTS. WE HAVE HELD TWO SUCCESSFUL SUMMER CAMPS AND OFFER LESSONS. NO OTHER SKATE PARK IN AUSTIN'S HISTORY HAS LASTED AS LONG AS WE HAVE OR SERVED AS MANY SKATERS. [INAUDIBLE] WE BELIEVE THAT OUR EXPERIENCE MAKES US AN INVALUABLE RESOURCE FOR THIS PROJECT. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. FIRST, THERE ARE FEW EXAMPLES OF FREE PUBLIC SKATE PARKS IN TEXAS, BUT PERHAPS THE BEST EXAMPLE IS THAT OF THE NOBLE YOUNG PARK IN TYLER, TEXAS. THIS PARK WAS BUILT THROUGH DONATIONS AND MATCHING GRANTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHICH TOTALED MORE THAN $300,000. THE COST OF A GOOD CONCRETE PARK WILL START AT $10 A SQUARE FOOT AND GO AS HIGH AS $30 A SQUARE FOOT. A GOOD START SIZE WOULD BE AT LEAST 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT MEANS THE COST WOULD BE FROM ABOUT $100,000 TO OVER $450,000. SECOND WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO BE AWARE OF THE LIABILITY. WHAT IS NEEDED A MEASURE SIMILAR TO THAT IN CALIFORNIA AND [INAUDIBLE] THAT THE PARTICIPANT IS LIABLE. NOT THE PROVIDER. WITHOUT THAT, THE CITY MAY BE HELD FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR AN INJURY. THIRD, WE RECOMMEND THE PARK BE BUILT FOR SKATING INLINE AND [INAUDIBLE] PARTICIPANTS. WE HAVE OPERATED [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INJURY CAUSED BY ONE PARTICIPANT RUNNING INTO ANOTHER. MOST INJURIES ACTUALLY OCCUR WHEN ONE PARTICIPANT FAILS [INAUDIBLE] IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY BUILDING A FREE CONCRETE SKATE PARK. IN FACT, IF THE CITY DECIDES TO BUILD THE PARK, REQUESTS FUNDS -- [BUZZER SOUNDS] -- WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DONATE $1,000 OF OUR OWN MONEY TOWARD THE EFFORT. THANK YOU, MAYOR WATSON.

>> WHERE EXACTLY IS YOUR LOCATION NOW?

>> WE ARE LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 29 AND 183 IN LIBERTY HILL, TEXAS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MARTIN. LORETTA MARTIN.

>> HELLO, I'M THE OTHER HALF OF DAVID. I'M HERE [INAUDIBLE] --. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS].

>> KORGD TO THE GROUP YOU ARE WORKING WITH, AND I QUOTE, WILLIAMSON IS JUST SHORT OF DALLAS. ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW I LIVED IN AUSTIN, WORKED IN AUSTIN EIGHT OF THE LAST NINE YEARS. BOTH OF MY KIDS GRADUATED FROM AISD HIGH SCHOOLS, YET I'M BEING TOLD I'M NOT PART OF AUSTIN. IS THIS REALLY THE WAY YOU ARE GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] ME GOING FORWARD. WE HAVE BEEN IN OVER 100 PRINT ARTICLES AND WE WERE RECENTLY ON MTV AND ESPN AND APPROXIMATELY 20 INDUSTRY VIDEOS ALL REFERRED TO US AS THE AUSTIN SKATE PARK. IN SOME WAYS I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE GAME AS EVIDENCE BY THE STORY RUN IN THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN FOUR MONTHS AFTER WE OPEN AND CORROBORATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN WE DIDN'T EXIST. THERE WAS ALSO A ADD IN THE CHRONICLE WHICH QUOTES STOP PROFIT [INAUDIBLE] SUCH AS OURS. WHEN THE MAYOR WAS ASKED IN THE CHRONICLE WAS [INAUDIBLE] MY SKIN CRAWLED. YOU SEE, MY SON IS CURRENTLY FACING FELONY CHARGES FOR IN-LINE SKATING ON THE U.T. CAMPUS. WE'VE WORKED HARD TO EARN OUR REPUTATION. [INAUDIBLE] THREE TELEVISION STATIONS OMITTING US IN RELAYING GENERAL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE DON'T EXIST. ALL OF THIS STEMS FROM THE GROUP YOU ARE WORKING WITH. PLUS YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM AND SAY HEY, WE ARE HERE AND WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR THREE YEARS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO US JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. AFTER A PHONE CALL EACH OF THE STATIONS DECIDED TO PULL THE STORY. ONE RAN IT WITH A DISCLAIMER, THE OTHER I DIDN'T BOTHER TO CALL. IT WAS AN INTERESTING WEEK AND EVER CUSTOMER WHO CAME TO MY BUSINESS ASKED WHY THE CITY OF AUSTIN OMITTED US FROM THE NAME. I DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO ANSWER. I STATED BEFORE WE WERE EVICTED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. BEFORE WE GOT EVICTED I MADE MANY ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH THE CITY [INAUDIBLE] WHO GOT THE SAME FAIRNESS. ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE A CONSPIRACY, BUT I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS SHOW SO I MOVED ON WHEN ASKED. THIS IS WHAT A SMALL BUSINESS GOES THROUGH WHEN THEY HAVE NO ONE BUT THEIR SELF TO CHAMPION THEIR CAUSE. THE GROUP IS COMMITTED TO CHAMPIONING THEIR CAUSE. I PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS AND PROCEEDED TO GO OUT AND DO IT. I'M NOT ANTI-PUBLIC SKATE PARK, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THIS GROUP IS ANTI-PROFIT SKATE PARK. BUT BEING PROFIT, ALTHOUGH I HAVE MADE NO MONEY PERSONALLY, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ALLOW KIDS TO ATTEND SUMMER CAMP FOR FREE, HANDED OUT THREE COUPONS, GAVE AWAY ALMOST $20,000 IN PRODUCTS, WE'VE HAD THE [INAUDIBLE] SKATEBOARDING QUALIFIER AND A IN-LINE QUALIFIER FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. WE NOW DONATE OUR NEW SHOES AND FOR TWO YEARS WE RAN A BOY SCOUT TROOP. WE EVEN TOOK OVER 75 DIFFERENT ROAD TRIPS IN TEXAS AT OTHER SKATE PARKS. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MA'AM, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT ARE TYPED UP, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF YOU WANTED TO GET A COPY MADE SO WE COULD ALL HAVE A COPY.

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT WAY THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS WON'T GET LOST.

>> SURE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CASTRO FOLLOWED BY BRIAN WATSON AND ROBERT LOFTIN. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS]. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON] THIS LINE SHOWSIST CITY OF AUSTIN PUBLIC LIBRARY [INAUDIBLE] 19 BRANCHES AND THE -- FINALLY WITHOUT TAKING STEPS DOWN, THE UNDERLYING [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON] THANK YOU, MAYOR WATSON.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. CASTRO. BRIAN SON FOLLOWED BY ROBERT LOFTIN.

>> MR. MAYOR, I'M BRIAN WATSON AND MY VOICE IS IN BAD SHAPE TODAY. I WONDER IF I COULD LEAVE THIS FOR YOU ALL AND THEN --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I TELL YOU WHAT, IF YOU GIVE ME THAT, WHAT I'LL DO, I'LL MAKE SURE COPIES GET MADE AND DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL. I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ROBERT LOFTIN.

>> MAYOR WATSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS BOB LOFTINN, I'M 35 YEARS OLD, BEEN A SKATEBOARDER 25 YEARS. I'M HERE NOT ON BEHALF OF ANY BUSINESS AND I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN PLANNING OF THE SKATE PARK THAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL. I'M JUST HERE AS A CONCERNED SKATE TOR GIVE YOU SOME OPINIONS. -- SKATER TO GIVE YOU SOME OPINIONS. A SKATE PARK WOULD BE VERY GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. SKATEBOARDING IS GREAT EXERCISE. IT'S WIDELY NOTED WE'RE BECOMING A NATION OF COUCH POTATOES AND A RECORD NUMBER OF KIDS ARE GET ADULT ONSET DIABETES. SKATEBOARDING PROVIDES GREAT EXERCISE AND DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE ON SIZE, AGE, SEX, ET CETERA. THERE ARE NO BENCH WARMERS IN SKATE BOARDING, EVERYONE CAN HARP PARTICIPATE AND I THINK THE COUNSELING SHOULD SEE THE WISDOM IN SUPPORTING THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES. I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY AUSTIN SKATEBOARDERS AS A GROUP ARE SEEKING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC RECREATIONAL CULTURE OF AUSTIN AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY POSITIVE THING. WE DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE PERIPHERY OF PUBLIC LIFE. A A PUBLIC PARK IN AUSTIN WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO SEE WHAT WE DO AND DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. FAMILIES WILL HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO BRING KIDS TO RIDE. THEY MIGHT EVEN RIDE WITH THEIR KIDS. I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD SUPPORT EFFORTS TO INTEGRATE NEW SYSTEMS INTO THE PUBLIC LIFE OF AUSTIN LIKE THAT. ALSO I THINK A NICE PUBLIC SKATE PARK WOULD BE A POINT OF CIVIC PRIDE ESPECIALLY FOR A LOT OF YOUNG SKATERS WHO COULD SEE THE VALUE OF PARTICIPATING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THAT GOOD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN YOU GET INVOLVED. AND IT'S JUST A GREAT LESSON IN SIFX. REGARDING THE LIABILITY ISSUE -- CIVICS. REGARDING THE LIABILITY ISSUE, LIABILITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN IN SKATEBOARDING. I'M SURE IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY ALREADY PROVIDES FACILITIES FOR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE STATISTICALLY MORE DANGEROUS SUCH AS MOUNTAIN BIKING, BASKETBALL, BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, ET CETERA. I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY REASON THAT SKATEBOARDING SHOULD BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OF THOSE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES REGARDING LIABILITY. I THINK THE OTHER GROUP HAS PROBABLY PROVIDED YOU SOME INJURY STATISTICS. I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL STUFF I CAN GIVE YOU TOO. REGARDING THE PHONE CALLS TO [INAUDIBLE] IT'S PRETTY REGRETABLE. I THINK SOME OF THE YOUNG GUYS GOT HOT AND CALLED AND I WANT TO ASSURE YOU WE WANT THE MARTIN'S FACILITY TO REMAIN A PART OF THE SKATEBOARDING CULTURE IN AUSTIN. WE VALUE THEIR PARTICIPATION. I KNOW AS A SKATEBOARDER OF 25 YEARS I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE MORE PLACES WE HAVE TO SKATE, THE BETTER. IT'S JUST A SIMPLE FACT THOUGH THAT A PRIVATE PARK IN GEORGETOWN CAN'T PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO AUSTIN SKATEBOARDERS SUCH AS CIVIC INVOLVEMENT AND INCLUDING TO PEOPLE THE PUBLIC LIFE OF AUSTIN. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. RICHARD TROXELL FOLLOWED BY LYNN MOSHIER. WILLIAM REYNOLDS. MR. TROXELL, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS RICHARD TROXELL. I AM PRESIDENT OF HOUSE THE HOMELESS. WE STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE. FIRST AND FOREMOST, KNOW THAT THE FULL-TIME MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS CANNOT AFFORD HOUSING IN AUSTIN. WAITERS, WAITRESSES, PERSONAL CARE AIDES, HOME AIR AIDES, CHILD CARE WORKERS, CASHIERS, JANITORS, HOMELESS PERSONS, MAIDS, HOUSE KEEPERS, FARMERS, RETAIL SALES WORKERS, GUARDS AND CONSTRUCTION LABORERS, THE VERY BACKBONE OF AUSTIN'S ECONOMIC BOOM ARE ALL WORKING, BUT NOT EARNING ENOUGH TO BE HOUSED WITH ONLY ONE JOB. AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ARE RECEIVING EVEN LESS. ALMOST HALF AGAIN AS MUCH. THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE IS $5.15 AN HOUR OR $9,880 PER YEAR. TENS OF THOUSANDS ARE EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIDE BEHIND THIS LAW. THEY MAY AS WELL BE PAYING OUR WORKERS WITH MAGIC BEANS. CASE IN POINT, A RECENT STUDY SHOWED THAT 236 STAFF EMPLOYEES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARE ON FOOD STAMPS. THAT'S UNCON SHENABLE. LOOK, WE CAN SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A FOOT BRIDGE FOR JOGGERS TO SKIP ACROSS TOWN LAKE, WE CAN BUILD A NEW CITY HALL AND YET PAUL HILGERS, THE HEAD OF THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING CONSERVATION SERVICES, SAYS HE CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO BUILD US OUR ROADS. HOW HOUSING FOR THE WORKING POOR. HEY, WE CAN BUILD STUDENT HOUSING. SO WHY CAN'T WE BUILD HOUSING FOR OUR WORKING POOR? THEY SAY THEY ARE TRYING, BUT THEY CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. THIS IS NOT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. THERE'S A POINT AT WHICH TRYING DOESN'T COUNT ANYMORE T REALITY IS THAT WORKING PEOPLE ARE LIVING AND DYING ON OUR STREETS. WHILE WE LINE OUR POBTS WITH NEW PROSPERITY. IF WE SUCCESSFULLY PASS THESE ORDINANCES AND ISSUE THESE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT FAIL TO HOUSE OUR WORKING POOR, THEN WE HAVE FAILED OUR PEOPLE. AS COUNCILMEMBERS YOU MUST FOLLOW THIS MONEY. YOU MUGS MAKE DAMN GOOD AND SURE THAT AUSTIN'S POOR WORKERS, THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS OF THIS CITY ARE HOUSED WITH THESE DOLLARS. THANK YOU. HOUSE THE HOMELESS WORKERS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. TROXELL LT LYNN MOSHIER. WILLIAM REYNOLDS. JENNIFER GALE.

>> YES, I'M LYNN MOSHIER AND OF COURSE I'M HERE ABOUT CENTRAL BOOKING. LAST NIGHT I SAID A PRAYER THAT YOU GUYS, UNLESS YOU KNOW A BETTER WAY TO SAVE OUR POLICE FORCE, SAVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD, LET ME WIN THE LOTTERY SO I CAN DO IT FOR YOU. WELL, I DIDN'T WIN THE LOTTERY. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING ABOUT 10:00? THERE WAS A JAIL BREAK AT THE COUNTY JAIL. THIS IS WHERE YOU WANT TO MOVE. THAT'S WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD -- AND PUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT RISK. PEASE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT RISK. THE NEWSPAPER IS TELLING EVERYBODY, OH, WELL THERE'S GOING TO BE A POLICE FOOT PATROL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS NOT, ACCORDING TO CHIEF MCDONALD. ALSO, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE ASSUMING AISD IS GOING TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN AT PEASE. THERE ARE 250 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN AT PEASE ELEMENTARY. THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANY PROTECTION. ACCORDING TO CHIEF MCDONALD, THE POLICE WILL PATROL IN THE MORNING WHEN THE CHILDREN COME TO SCHOOL AND IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY LEAVE FOR 60 DAYS. THAT IS IT. WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE 250 CHILDREN AFTER 60 DAYS? AISD FEELS IF YOU CHOOSE TO PUT THE CHILDREN AT RISK, YOU SHOULD PROTECT THEM. NO ONE IS. WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT THE ELDERLY RESIDENTS AT THE REGENY? WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT THE ACC STUDENT BODY? HOW ARE THE POLICE SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION IN THIS FACILITY? THAT JAIL WILL NOT GO UNUSED. I'VE TOLD THE COUNTY THEY COULD TURN THEIR LIE TO US INTO A TRUTH, USE THE JAIL FACILITY AND WHAT WE CALL THE INJUSTICE CENTER AT A HOLDING CELL FOR THOSE AWAITING TRIAL, WHICH IS WHAT JUDGE ALESHIRE TOLD US ON MARCH 25 OF 197. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS A NO BRAINER HOW YOU SHOULD VOTE ON THIS. FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. YOU COULD COME OUT BEING THE BOLD ONE, THE ONE WHO SAVED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO USED COMMON SENSE, WHO TOLD THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH WHEN THEY RAN FOR OFFICE. YOU SAY YOU CARE? THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW US YOU DO CARE. IF YOU CARE ENOUGH TO KEEP US SAFE, YOU CARE ENOUGH TO LET THE POLICE PERFORM THEIR JOBS EFFICIENTLY. NOT ON TWO-LANE STREETS WITH NO PARKING. THAT'S ABSURD. MR. THOMAS, I STILL HAVE THE TAPE WHEN YOU TOLD US BEFORE YOU WERE ELECTED THAT YOU WERE AGAINST THIS MOVE. I HOPE YOU WILL HELP US AS MUCH AS YOU'VE BEEN HELPING EAST AUSTIN. MR. WINN, YOU ARE PRO-NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE SHOW IT. YOU KNOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS HISTORIC AND VALUABLE. AND THE BEST EXAMPLE OF SMART GROWTH. MAYOR WATSON, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO BE THE MAYOR OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE ONLY -- [BUZZER SOUNDS]. CITY IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS CENTRAL BOOKING DOWNTOWN? THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. MOSHIER. WILLIAM REYNOLDS. JENNIFER GALE. WILLIAM REYNOLDS? IS WILLIAM REYNOLDS HERE? MS. GALE.

>> HI, AUSTIN, CITY MANAGER, MR. GARZA, MAYOR WATSON, COUNCILMEMBERS DARYL SLUSHER, RAUL ALVAREZ, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN, COUNCILMEMBER BEVERLY GRIFFITH, WILL WIN, AND DANNY THOMAS. GOOD LUCK TO YOU, DANNY THOMAS. MY NAME IS JENNIFER GALE. I'M A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE ARE ENTERING THE FALL PUSH BY CANDIDATES FOR THE FALL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER -- FOR NOVEMBER 7TH. I BELIEVE EVEN AFTER SIX MONTHS AFTER THE PRIMARIES FEW AUSTINITES KNOW OF THE ISSUES LET ALONE WHO THE CANDIDATES ARE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR A PARTICULAR OFFICE. LET ALONE A GIVEN PRIMARY. EVERY DAY WE ARE GETTING QUOTES FROM THE PARTY CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT. WHY ARE THE TWO COX PAPERS, THE COX-LIKE PAPER THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE AND THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN COVERING THE ELECTION ON THE CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES SO FAR? I'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR FOUR YEARS AS OF YESTERDAY. WITH QUITE A PLATFORM THAT GOES ON FOR TWO PAGES, THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE GAVE ME 127 WORDS DURING THE EIGHT MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. 127 WORDS. THAT'S IT. HOW ARE THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN SUPPOSED TO FIND OUT ABOUT CANDIDATES IF THE PAPERS AREN'T PRINTING ANYTHING ABOUT WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN? THEY ALSO FAILED REPEATEDLY TO EVEN MENTION MY NAME OR THE TWO OTHER MAYORAL CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE ELECTION. IT'S TRUE THAT LESLIE DIDN'T HAVE A PLATFORM, BUT -- BUT OUR MAYOR HERE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN DIDN'T OFFER A PLATFORM EITHER. AND YOU CAN'T HOLD OUR MAYOR TO ANY OF HIS PROMISES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY. HE MADE A PROMISE LAST TIME TO SYNCHRONIZE THE LIGHTS AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THESE LIGHTS ARE WORKING. DON'T EXPECT AUSTIN'S ALTERNATIVE PAPER TO PRINT INFORMATION ON THE CANDIDATES OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATE THAT THEY SUPPORT. JUST LOOK AT THEM AS YOU WOULD ANY OTHER POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN DIDN'T COVER THE 2000 MAYORAL RACE OUT OF THE DOZENS OF ARTICLES IT GAVE ME ALSO LESS THAN 300 WORDS. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. AND THE ARTICLES THAT WERE WRITTEN FOR THE HONORABLE MAYOR WATSON. THANK YOU, AUSTIN, THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ITEM NO. 83. MR. NEWMAN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS BILL NEWMAN, FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE CITY HERE TO SPEAK TO ITEMS 83 AND 84, WHICH IS THE SALE OF SOME $52,930,000 OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SOME $6,060,000 CERTIFICATES OF OFTEN GATION. WE'RE -- OBLIGATION. THIS IS AS IT HAS BEEN ANOTHER SALE ON THE INTERNET DONE ENTIRELY ON THE INTERNET IF AN AUCTION PROCESS. ONCE AGAIN IT WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL. LAST YEAR WE GOT NINE BIDS ON THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND SALES AND SIX ON THE C.O. SALE, THIS YEAR WE GOT 11 AND SIX. I'LL TLUM THROUGH THIS -- THROUGH THIS BOOKLET VERY QUICKLY. [INAUDIBLE] PREPARED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OURSELVES. BOND COUNSEL IS HERE. PAGE 4 YOU WILL SEE THE BONDS AND MARKET. PRETTY MUCH IT HAS BEEN THE LAST WEEK, IN FACT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BELOW. PAGE 5 GIVES YOU AN UPDATE, JUST MERELY TELLS YOU THAT WE ALL KNOW OIL PRICES ARE UP, THEY ARE UP AROUND 35.50 RIGHT NOW, IN YOUR NOTE FOR 30 YEAR TREASURY NODES 569. THE MATURITY SCHEDULED YOU WILL WE SHOW OUT PAGE 8 IS THE AM MORTGAGIZATION SCHEDULE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR AMENTION TO THE BOTTOM LOWER LEFT OF THAT PAGE. IF YOU NOTICE IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD A MOODY RATING ON OUR BOND OF DOUBLE A TWO, HERETOFORE WE HAD A STANDARD AND POORS RATING OF DOUBLE A. ANY TIME WE DO A BOND ISSUE, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE HAVE TO GO UP FOR AN ANNUAL REVIEW OR NOT GO UP BUT SEEK ANNUAL REVIEW OF OUR DEBT RATING. THAT OF COURSE SHOWS UPGRADE TO DOUBLE A WHICH WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THAT TRIPLE A ALL THE TIME WHEN IN FACT WE SELL AT OR BETTER THAN TRIPLE A SECURITY. ON PAGE 9 YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THE SALES THAT ARE COMING TODAY. SOME OF THE COMPARABLE SALES WE LOOKED AT AND COMPARED WITH YOUR TRANSACTION WERE IN FACT THE FRISCO SALE AND AT THE BOTTOM THE [INAUDIBLE] HOUSING, DOUBLE A PLUS IN ALABAMA. YOU SOLD BETTER THAN ALL THREE OF THOSE. FINALLY AGAIN I'LL TELL YOU THAT YOU GOT SIX BIDS ON THE C.O. CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION DEAL. THE LOWEST BID WAS AT 522. THE SPREAD BETWEEN THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST BID WAS NO MORE THAN FIVE POINTS. IT TELLS YOU YOUR BID CAME IN VERY COMPETITIVE. YOU GOT A GOOD LOW RATE ON THAT ONE. THE LARGER TRANSACTION YOU HAD A TOTAL OF 11 BIDS, SPREAD BETWEEN THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST WAS ONLY NINE AND YOU GOT AN EXCELLENT BID AT 532. THAT'S ALL HAVE I TO SAY ON IT. CONGRATULATIONS ON A VERY GOOD SALE AND I RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. NEWMAN? COUNCIL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM -- MOTION IS TO APPROVE ITEMS 83 AND 84 BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEMS 83 AND 84.

>> THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. NEWMAN. COUNCIL, AT THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE PURPOSE OF THE SKOOLT I HAVE SESSION WILL BE TORA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, CAUSE NO. 99-13013, PENNEDDING IN THE TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SAND BEACH RESERVE. WE WILL ALSO DISCUSS PROPOSED TERMS TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO USE FOR MUSEUM PURPOSES. BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, LET ME JUST SAY I THINK FOR PURPOSES OF THOSE WHO ARE -- [INAUDIBLE] APPARENTLY SOMEBODY HAS EITHER MISUNDERSTOOD INFORMATION THEY HAVE OBTAINED AND CERTAINLY -- SOMEONE HAS MISLED PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO SAND BEACH RESERVE ITEM. WE ARE INVOLVED IN LITIGATION. THE LAW ALLOWS FOR THEIR TO BE A DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE CONCERNING THE LITIGATION SO THAT WE DO NOT JEOPARDIZE THE POSITION OF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN IN THAT LITIGATION BY BASICALLY, I'LL PUT IT AS BLUNTLY AS I KNOW HOW, TELLING THE OTHER SIDE ABOUT THE STRATEGY, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS, APPROACHES. THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT. OBVIOUSLY IF WE WERE TO JUST STAND UP HERE AT THE PODIUM, HERE ON THE DAIS AND DISCUSS ALL OF THE POTENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT, THE OTHER SIDE WOULD KNOW WHAT WE WERE THINKING. SO THEN WHEN WE SHOW UP AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO NEGOTIATE. PLAYING POKER MANY TIMES BY SHOWING YOUR HAND TO THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T WORK AS WELL. AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SENDING E-MAILS [INAUDIBLE]. IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE POLICY OF THIS COUNCIL OR THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL TO BE INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WHEN WE GOT TO THE POINT OF SOMETHING MEANINGFUL IN TERMS OF TERM SHEET OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS. SOMETIMES, BY THE WAY, THAT IS FRUSTRATING IN THE SENSE THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THE PUBLIC MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT THE LAWSUIT, THINGS LIKE THAT, AGAIN, DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCLOSE. BUT STILL WE'VE ALWAYS ALLOWED FOR A PUBLIC PROCESS. APPARENTLY SOMEONE HAS TOLD SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE E-MAILS FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THIS THAT THERE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE A PUBLIC PROCESS WITH REGARDS TO THE SAND BEACH RESERVE IF WE GOT TO THE POINT OF AS A COUNCIL OR A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WANTING TO GO FORWARD WITH A POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT. THE FANGT IS THAT I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL SUGGEST THAT THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE A PUBLIC PROCESS WHEN WE GOT TO THAT POINT. SO EITHER THERE'S BEEN A MISINTERPTION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED OR -- MISINTERPRETATION. THE OTHER THING IS BASED ON SOME OF THE E-MAILS I RECEIVED THERE IS APPARENTLY SOME BELIEF THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN OWNS ALL OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS SAND BEACH RESERVE. WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET ON MORE -- INTO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT, BUT THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT IS THERE IS A DISPUTE OVER WHERE THE BOUNDARY IS ON SAND BEACH RESERVE BECAUSE A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY IS UNQUESTIONABLY OWNED BY SOME PARTY OTHER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND THE DISPUTE IS OVER WHERE THE BOUNDARY LINE IS. SO FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THOUGHT WE OWNED IT ALL AND SOMEHOW ARE JUST ENGAGED IN A PROCESS TO DECIDE IF IT'S GOING TO GET DEVELOPED, THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE INVOLVED IN A REAL LAWSUIT. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THAT ITEM. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- WE'VE MADE THE MOTION, WE'VE ACTUALLY PASSED THE MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE MOTION. I ANTICIPATE THAT WE'LL BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT LEAST UNTIL 3:30. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO TIME THINGS, WE'LL BE THERE UNTIL 3:30.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. THOSE WILL BE ITEMS 85, 86 AND 87. WELL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS THE BORE OF DIRECTORS MEETING --

>> MATT WAS HERE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER MOVES WE RECESS, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM -- THERE HE IS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A VOTE. WELL DONE. [LAUGHTER].

>> ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS CAN I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?

>> CAN I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD TODAY? WE DO HAVE TWO ITEMS, THREE ITEMS UP. FIRST IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM NO. 86 IS THE BOARD HAS ASKED TO AUTHORIZE THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A HOME HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM LOAN IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 TO CAMPBELL-HOGUE AND ASSOCIATES FOR DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 250 AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS COMPRISING THE FORT BRANCH LANDING APARTMENTS AT 4300 ED BLUESTEIN BOULEVARD. THERE'S BACKUP INFORMATION AND I WON'T READ THROUGH THAT UNLESS THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THE BOARD WOULD HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HILGERS? COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

>>THOMAS: [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON] ... THIS PROJECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>>THOMAS: IS THERE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT A LANDFILL IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA?

>> WE CHECKED ON THAT BEFORE AND THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DONE ON THAT PROPERTY AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY LANDFILLS ON THAT SITE OR ADJACENT TO THAT SITE. THE DEVELOPER IS HERE AND COULD ANSWER ANY MORE OF THOSE QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>THOMAS: LET ME GO BACK TO STAFF. WE DID GET A MAP WHERE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THERE WERE PREVIOUS LANDFILLS. THAT PARTICULAR AREA WAS SITTING WHERE THERE WAS A PREVIOUS LANDFILL. IF IT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THE -- RIGHT AT TRACOR, TAN HILL, SAM HOUSTON DOWN TO ED BLUESTEIN. AM I RIGHT?

>> DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO COME -- YES, SIR, THAT'S THE LOCATION.

>>THOMAS: I DID ASK HIM THE QUESTION, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT.

>> OKAY.

>>THOMAS: BECAUSE THE MAP THAT SOLID WASTE PROVIDED FOR MY OFFICE DID SHOW, AND I JUST NEED A CONFIRMATION ON THAT, THAT IT WAS A PREVIOUS LANDFILL.

>> DID YOU WANT TO SAY -- [INAUDIBLE].

>> WE'LL CHECK ON THAT. I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THERE WERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS THAT WERE DONE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT DID SHOW THAT IT WAS CLEAR, BUT WE WILL VERIFY THAT.

>>THOMAS: HOW DEEP DO YOU GO ON YOUR TESTS, ON YOUR TESTS, ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS, HOW DEEP IS IT?

>> THE TESTING WAS DONE BY HPC ENGINEERING, A LOCAL ENGINEERING FIRM HERE IN AUSTIN. THEY GO OUT AND DO THEIR PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ACTUALLY DO A PHYSICAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND CHECK ALL REGULATORY RECORDS FOR VARIOUS THINGS, GASOLINE SPILLS, ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILLS, ET CETERA. AND THEY'VE DONE A TITLE SEARCH BACK FOR 50 YEARS AND IN THAT REPORT THEY PROVIDED TO ME INITIALLY IN 1999 SHOWED THERE WERE NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INCLUDING LANDFILLS ON THIS PROPERTY.

>>THOMAS: OKAY.

>> AND -- EXCUSE ME, BOARD MEMBER THOMAS, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE TNRCC RULES WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH AS THEY SUBMIT THEIR SITE PLANS. WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE BEFORE IT GOES FORWARD SO WE'LL HAVE TIME TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU AS THEY GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

>>THOMAS: OKAY. IT'S A GOOD PROJECT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT --

>> THAT'S GREAT. YOU BET.

>>THOMAS: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION IS TO APPROVE BY THE VICE PRESIDENT. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WINN. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM 86. ITEM NO. 87, MR. HILGERS.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE THIRD ITEM BEFORE YOU INVOLVES APPROVING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOCATION OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND AUTHORITY WITH THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $23 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING A NEW MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM AND/OR MORTGAGE CERTIFICATE PROGRAM. THIS AGAIN IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS WE'LL BE TALKING TO YOU MORE ABOUT ON THE 28TH. IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WE COULD -- AND DETAILED QUESTIONS, WE COULD HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT IN OUR WORK SESSION AT THAT TIME. THIS IS A -- THIS WILL BE -- WE DID THIS IN 1997, RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 23 MILLION IN '97. WE ANTICIPATE -- OR WE SERVED AT THAT TIME APPROXIMATELY 169 FAMILIES WITH THE MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS AND 99 FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS WITH THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM AT THAT TIME. AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON THE 28TH WITH MORE DETAILS ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS AS WELL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HILGERS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>>THOMAS: SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION APPROVED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD IN IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GRIFFITH SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES, WE'RE ADJOURNED.

>> THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. HILGERS. I WILL CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL FOR SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2000. WE WILL GO TO ZONING ITEMS.

>>GLASGO: GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASCO, DETECTIVER OF -- DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT. WE'LL START WITH ITEM 88, CASE C-14-99-2116 LOCATED AT 1215 DALTON LANE AND BASTROP HIGHWAY. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS IN INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PERMANENT RURAL RESIDENTIAL. WE WOULD LIKE STO OFFER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ZONE THE PROPERTY PERMANENT RURAL RESIDENTIAL FOR TRACTS 1 AND 12. THIS CASE IS -- 2. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. 89 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. THEREFORE I'LL SKIP TO ITEM 90, CASE C14-00-2107. THIS CASE IS LOCATED ON NORTH LAKE CREEK DRIVE AND LAKE LINE BOULEVARD. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM MULTI-FAMILY 3 ZONING TO G.O., WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS TO GRANT GENERAL OFFICE ZONING AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. THAT CONCLUDES THE ZONING CASES FOR TODAY. AS FAR AS CON SEND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THE CONSENT AGENDA WOULD BE ITEM NO. 88 ON FIRST READING ONLY --.

>>GLASGO: 88 IS ALL THREE READINGS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SORRY. I WROTE THAT DOWN WRONG. ALL THREE READINGS. AND ITEM NO. 90 ON FIRST READING ONLY. IS THERE A MOTION?

>>GOODMAN: SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM 88 AND 89? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM NO. 89.

>>GLASGO: ITEM NO. 89 IS CASE C-14-99-2127, AND THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 8400 BLOCK OF SOUTH FIRST STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED DEVELOPMENT RESERVE AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEK TO GO CHANGE THE ZONING TO MULTI-FAMILY 2. YOU HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAT PROPOSES MULTI-FAMILY 1 ZONING, WHILE THE APPLICANT IS MULTI-FAMILY 2. MULTI-FAMILY 2 ALLOWS A DENSITY OF 27 UNITS PER ACRE; WHEREAS MULTI-FAMILY 1 REQUIRES A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF MULTI-FAMILY -- OF 17 UNITS PER ACRE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY MULTI-FAMILY 2 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OVERLAY THAT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS TO 2,000 PER DAY AND THEN SECONDLY TO LIMIT THE DENSITY TO 13.8 UNITS PER ACRE. THE DENSITY LIMITATION IS BASED ON THE 1985 CITY COUNCILL RESOLUTION THAT ATTEMPTED TO PRESERVE DENSITIES FOR PROPERTIES THAT ABUTED DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TO A POINT THAT ANY NEW DENSITY WOULD NOT EXCEED TWICE THE DENSITY OF THAT SURROUNDING DEVELOPED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO OUR ANALYSIS OF CALCULATING THE DENSITY OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION UPON WHICH THIS PROPERTY SURROUNDS COMES TO AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF 6.9, TWICE THAT DENSITY PER THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, BRINGS IT TO 13.8; HENCE OUR RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF MULTI-FAMILY 1 MERELY CAPS THAT DENSITY AT 17 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED IF YOU PROPOSE ALL EFFICIENCYS, AND WE KNOW THAT TYPICALLY A MIXED USE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES SOME MIXTURE OF ONE BEDROOMS, TWO BEDROOMS, THREE BEDROOMS AND SO ON, WHICH LOWERS YOUR DENSITY TO LESS THAN WHAT THE MAXIMUM IS. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS. I'LL PAUSE HERE AND LET THE APPLICANT MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT. THE NUMBERS THEY WORKED OUT AND HOW THE DIFFERENCES IN RECOMMENDATIONS AFFECT THE PROPOSED PROJECT. AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THEY MAY ARISE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. GLASCO. MR. BENNETT.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JIM BENNETT, HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF MR. RICH'S REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE. I BELIEVE MS. GLASCO HAS EXPLAINED IT TO YOU RATHER WELL THIS THIS SIZE TRACT, WHICH IS 13.25 ACRE TRACT IS SURROUNDED ON THE NORTH WITH SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX AS WELL AS TO THE WEST. TO THE EAST WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES AS WELL AS GR TO THE SOUTH. THE POLICY ABOUT TWICE THE DENSITY ONLY TAKES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DOESN'T GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE OTHER LAND AROUND US. I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS OR HAS BEEN THAT MF ZONING IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE PROPERTY, IT DOES AFFORD YOU A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BOTH TO THE SOUTH AND AS WELL AS THE FUTURE AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO THE EAST. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF OPPOSITION TO MULTI-FAMILY, IT'S A QUESTION NOW TO DENSITY. OUR NUMBERS THAT WE HAD RUN ON IT BY TWO DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WISHING TO PURCHASE A TRACT DEVELOP IT WITH MULTI-FAMILY, WE HAVE TO GET 17 UNITS TO THE ACRE TO MAKE THAT PROJECT WORK. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 13.8, WE'RE ASKING FOR 17, SO WE'RE ONLY OFF THERE THREE UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS NOT THAT GREAT AN AMOUNT. AS MS. GLASCO INDICATED TO YOU AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THEY DID RECOMMEND THE MF-1 WITHOUT ANY CAP ON THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE 17 EFFICIENCY UNITS ON THIS TRACT. 17 EFFICIENCY UNITS IS NOT THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NEEDED IN AUSTIN NOR ON THIS TRACT. WE NEED ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. BASED ON THAT, WE HAVE TO GO TO THE MF-2 CLASSIFICATION, AND THE MF-2 WOULD ALLOW UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 23 UNITS. IN TODAY'S MARKET YOU HAVE A 60-40 PERCENT VERSUS ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS USUALLY IN A PROJECT. IF WE GO WITH THE 23 UNITS THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY DISTRICT, THEN WE ARE SIX BELOW THE LOW DENSITY MAXIMUM. SO AS A COMPROMISE, IT DOES SEEM THAT THE 17 UNITS IS REASONABLE, IS PRACTICAL, IS WHAT IS NEEDED. I DON'T THINK WE NEED 17 UNITS TO THE ACRE EFFICIENCY UNITS. THAT DOESN'T AFFORD A FAMILY OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN. I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE MF-1 REMAINING, FOR US TO -- I HAVE NEVER FIGURED OUT HOW 13.8 UNITS, THAT DON'T SEEM RIGHT SOMEHOW. I AM A SKORP I DON'T, I LIKE TO ROUND OUT THINGS. SCORPIO, I LIKE TO ROUND OUT THINGS, AN AGREEMENT THAT -- THAT THERE WILL ONLY BE SINGLE STORY APARTMENTS CLOSE TO WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL IS. I WANT -- WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR MAPS, THE LI, CS, ALL OF THAT COMMERCIAL AS YOU WELL KNOW, IF YOU LIVE OUT THERE, GO OUT THERE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S BUILT OUT THERE. IT'S JUST THE WAY IT'S ZONED. I -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST IS WHEN WE COME TO YOU FOR ZONING HEARINGS, I WISH THE STAFF WOULD HAVE A VERY LARGE MAP OF THE WHOLE AREA SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT IS ZONED FOR MULTI FAMILY HOUSING AND I WAS CALCULATING IN MY MIND, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE GOT ABOUT 1400 UNITS ZONED CLOSE TO THE AREA. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER ON ANOTHER PROJECT INVOLVING MULTI FAMILY FOR THE -- FURTHER DOWN ON SLAUGHTER LANE. SO -- SO WE ARE GOING TO BE WELL REPRESENTED ON THE MULTI FAMILY USE. SO BASICALLY THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I LIKE WHAT THE STAFF SAID, I LIKE WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID. BUT I THINK WE DO NEED SOME KIND OF A CAP. I NOTICE CRAIG ALTER IS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU KNOW HIM, YOU KNOW HE'S ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF CENTRAL TEXAS MUTUAL HOUSING, HE HAS BUILT A PROJECT ON SLAUGHTER LANE CLOSE TO THIS AND I THINK HE STAYED AT THE 123 -- STATED THE 13 OR 14 UNITS PER ACRE. SEE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO CUT YOUR THROAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT. MR. ALTER. YOU HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED.

>> AIM CRAIG ALTER WITH CENTRAL TEXAS MUTUAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION. HERE ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL TEXAS MUTUAL HOUSING, WE OWN 162 UNITS OF DUPLEXES ADJACENT TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY. AND I SENT A LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATING THAT I THOUGHT A DENSITY OF AROUND 14 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TRACT. I'M NOT HUNG UP ON WHICH ZONING THAT WOULD BE, MF-1 OR T. I BELIEVE THERE ARE AREAS IN THIS PART OF TOWN MORE CONDUCIVE TO HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAN THIS TRACT IS, THIS HAS S.F.-2 AND S.F. 3 ADJACENT TO IT. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA ALREADY, I THINK IT'S ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT WE KEEP THE DENSITY DOWN TO SOMETHING MORE IN THE FOUR-PLEX, TOWNHOUSE DENSITY TO GO FROM A TRANSITION FROM THE DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILIES OUT TO SOUTH FIRST STREET. WITH THAT INFORMATION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. BENNETT YOU WILL BE ENTITLEMENTED TO REBUTTAL.

>> COUNCIL INDICATED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE MF-2 WHICH THE ORDINANCE CLASSIFIES AS A LOW DENSITY MULTI FAMILY ZONE. THE QUESTION HERE BETWEEN THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND WHAT WE ARE DESIRING TO DO IS A QUESTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 14.8 UNITS PER ACRE TO 17 UNITS PER ACRE. 17 UNITS PER ACRE IS IN THE -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE MF-2 ZONING DISTRICT CITIZENS TEE OWE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. AS MR. ALTER JUST INDICATED HIGH DENSITY, THIS IS NOT HIGH DENSITY, THIS IS THE SECOND CLASSIFICATION IN YOUR MF 2 LOW DENSITY. IF WE WERE SEEKING HIGH DENSITY WE WILL GO FOR MF 4 OR 5, ONE OF THE OTHER HIGH DENSITY DEALS. WE THINK THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSING NEEDS, THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP IT WITH 17 UNITS OF A MIXED VARIETY OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS VERSUS 17 UNITS OF EFFICIENCY TYPES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MONTHS CARRIES, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MOTION CARRIES. DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT OR HAVE A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN? WING WIN I MOVE TO APPROVE ZONING --.

>>WYNN: I MOVE TO APPROVE ZONING BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MF-2, WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF 13.8 PER ACRE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS READ. THERE IS A SECOND? I WILL SECOND THE MOTION, THERE IS A DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: CAN'T WE JUST ROUND THAT OUT TO 14?

>>MAYOR WATSON: WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT FRIENDLY?

>>WYNN: YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I WILL, ALSO. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: JUST TO MAKE SURE, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION?

>>MAYOR WATSON: STAFF.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>WYNN: MF 2.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>>SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

>>MAYOR WATSON: IT WAS TO ROUND IT TO -- THE 13.8 UP TO 14. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 89. THAT WILL BE ON FIRST READING ONLY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: LET'S GO TO ITEM NO. 13. COUNCIL, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS I AM GOING TO -- TO -- AS TIME PERMITS US, UP TO 5:30, WHEN WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AT 5:30 IN ORDER TO DO THE LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS, I AM GOING TO GO IN ORDER OF THE AGENDA OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED OR THAT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. ITEM NO. 13. I WILL FIRST RECOGNIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PROPOSED -- THIS PROPOSAL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE ARE PREPARED TO -- TO PROVIDE WHATEVER DESCRIPTIONS, INFORMATION YOU CONSIDER TO BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. IF THERE IS A MOTION? [INAUDIBLE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ASK OUR ATTORNEYS TO BROADLY SPEAKING OUTLINE THE PROPOSAL THAT'S ON THE TAINL NOW FROM -- FROM LUMBERMEN'S INVESTMENT CORP.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS A MOTION, WE DON'T NEED A VOTE IF A COUNCILMEMBER WANTS TO HAVE THAT. I WILL RECOGNIZE MR. DOBSON. LET ME JUST BEFORE WE DO THIS, LET ME JUST REITERATE ONE MORE TIME, SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN A VERY -- THERE HAS BEEN A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE E-MAIL AND CONTACT INDICATING THAT -- THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ITEM. THAT -- THAT THERE -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM WHEN IT GETS TO A POINT OF -- OF BEING APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY. MR. DOBSON?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. WE HAVE A LAWSUIT, AS YOU KNOW, WITH THE OWNERS OF WHAT I WILL JUST CALL THE BACK PART, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT, WHICH IS LUMBERMEN'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION. THE CITY OWNS THE PART CLOSER TO THE LAKE. THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT. THERE IS A LONG-STANDING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IN THAT TRACT AS TO WHERE THE BOUNDARY LINE IS. MARTY, MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO -- THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THE LINE IS EITHER --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT CAN I ASK YOU TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS?

>> YEAH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: BECAUSE THIS HAS GENERATED THE LEVEL OF INTEREST IT HAS FOR WHAT -- WHATEVER REASON, SOMEBODY PROVIDING MISINFORMATION OR PEOPLE JUST HAVING A MISAPPREHENSION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO BE A LITTLE MORE BASIC. DO YOU START WITH WHERE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS?

>> YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THE PHRASE SAND BEACH RESERVE OBVIOUSLY CONJURES UP SOME IDEAS ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. PLEASE TELL US WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND GET AS BASIC AS WHAT THE DIVISIONS ARE IN TERMS OF -- OF WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHERE THE DISPUTE IS.

>> YES, SIR.

>> THE EASIEST WAY FOR MANY OF US, NO ONE ON THE COUNCIL I KNOW, BUT THIS IS THE TRACT OF LAND WHERE THE CEDAR DOOR BAR IS. [LAUGHTER].

>>MAYOR WATSON: I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO GET PERSONAL. [LAUGHTER].

>> THIS IS -- THIS IS A PIECE OF LAND JUST NORTH OF CESAR CHAVEZ, JUST NORTH OF TOWN LAKE, BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY LAMAR, ON THE NORTH BY THIRD STREET, AND ON THE WEST BY SEAHOLM POWER PLANT. IT'S THAT BIG EMPTY KIND OF SCOOPED OUT LOOKING PIECE OF LAND THAT YOU DRIVE BY AS YOU ARE DRIVING DOWN CESAR CHAVEZ THAT HAS THE CEDAR DOOR BAR SITTING ON IT. THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE IS LIC CLAIM THAT'S THE PRIVATE LAND RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WHAT IS CALLED IN THE LITIGATION THE METCALF LINE, AFTER A GUY NAMED METCALF, A SURVEYOR WHO SURVEYED IT IN 1916 AND PUT THE LINE DOWN HERE TO THE SOUTH. WE SAY THE CITY SAYS, THAT HISTORICALLY GOING BACK TO WHEN THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS DEEDED THIS LAND TO THE CITY, THAT THE LAND IS NORTH OF THAT. AGAIN, TO ORIENT SOME PEOPLE, IF YOU ARE SITTING AT THE CEDAR DOOR, LIC SAYS THAT THE LINE -- THAT THE PROPERTY LINE DIVIDING CITY LAND AND THEIR LAND IS SOUTH OF THE CEDAR DOOR. WE SAY THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS NORTH OF THE CEDAR DOOR. MAYOR, THAT'S THE MOST BASIC WAY I CAN THINK OF PUTTING IT. THE DISPUTE IS OVER THAT -- OVER THAT STRIP BETWEEN THE METCALF LINE WHERE THEY SAY THE BOUNDARY IS AND A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF THERE WHERE WE SAY THE BOUNDARY IS AND THAT DISPUTE WOULD RUN ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SAND BEACH RESERVE PROPERTY, ACROSS LAMAR AND ON TO WHAT I WILL CALL THE YMCA-AMTRAK TRACT ACROSS LAMAR. THIS HAS BEEN A DISPUTE OUTSTANDING FOR A LONG TIME. WE FILED SUIT CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THAT STRIP OF LAND. WHAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY IS A PROPOSAL FROM LUMBERMEN'S SETTLING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE. WHAT -- WHAT LIC -- LIC HAS CAME TO US EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, WANTING TO RESOLVE THIS IN SOME WAY WITHOUT LITIGATING IT AND THEN APPEALING IT. AND TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, WHAT WE HAVE TOLD LIC IS THAT -- IS THAT AS PART OF ANY SETTLEMENT, WE WANT THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT TO SUPPORT POTENTIAL REUSE OF THE SEAHOLM POWER PLANT, SUCH AS FOR A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM. AND TO THAT END, LIC SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY AND THE CITY PLANNING STAFF AND THE LAWYERS AND RMMA DESIGN GROUP, WHO IS YOU ALL'S RETAINED CONSULTANT TO DO A MASTER PLAN FOR THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN. AFTER ALL OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND OUR INSISTENCE THAT ANY SETTLEMENT SUPPORT REUSE OF SEAHOLM AND INCORPORATING ROMA'S VISION FOR THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN, WHAT LIC HAS DONE NOW IS COME TO US WITH A PROPOSAL TO DO A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE SAND BEACH RESERVE AND TO SUPPORT ROMA'S VISION FOR THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN AUSTIN BY PUTTING IN A STREET BEHIND THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, THAT WOULD PROVIDE 152 SURFACE SPACES, IF ALL YOU DID WAS SURFACE PARKING. THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC PARKING THAT COULD SUPPORT SEAHOLM. THE -- THE -- THE BROADLY SPEAKING, WHAT THEY HAVE SAID THEY WOULD DO IS -- IS WE WILL AGREE THAT THEY CAN BUILD THEIR PROJECT, WE WILL AGREE THAT THEY CAN SCOOT THEIR PROJECT UP TO WHAT THEY CLAIM THE BOUNDARY LINE IS, BUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN THE BACK, AN ACRE THAT THERE'S NO DISPUTE THAT THEY OWN BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BACK, THEY ARE GOING TO DEED TO US TO BUILD THE ROAD. AND THEN THE REST OF THE LAND THAT'S NECESSARY TO BUILD THE ROAD IS OWNED BY THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY. WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS HAS THE -- HAS THE FREIGHT TRAIN THAT COMES BY THERE MANY TIMES A DAY, THEY HAVE GOT RIGHT-OF-WAY UP AGAINST THOSE TRACTS. AND SO -- SO LIC WOULD CONTRIBUTE THEIR LAND AND THEN THEY WOULD GIVE US HALF A MILLION DOLLARS TOWARDS WHAT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO PURCHASE THE REST OF THE LAND NECESSARY TO DO THE STREET FROM UNION PACIFIC. THEN THEY HAVE PROPOSED CONTRIBUTING A FURTHER $250,000 TOWARDS THE BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE STREET AND THEN THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO GIVE THE CITY ANOTHER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OR TO SPEND HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR LANDSCAPING, BOTH THE -- BOTH THE STREET AND THE -- AND THE PUBLIC PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR PROJECT. AGAIN, IN RETURN, WE WOULD AGREE TO SETTLE THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE SINCE -- SINCE THEY WOULD BE GIVING UP AN ACRE OF THEIR LAND AND HELPING US BUY UP LAND IN THE BACK THAT THEY CLEARLY OWN, WE WOULD LET THEM SCOOT UP TO WHAT THEY CLAIM THE BOUNDARY LINE IS, WHICH IS THE METCALF -- THE METCALF LINE. LIC HAS ASKED THE CITY TO COMMIT TO -- TO DO THE VARIOUS PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED BY THE RMMA DESIGN PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDE A -- A -- A VEHICULAR BRIDGE OVER LAMAR BOULEVARD THAT WOULD HOOK UP TO THAT STREET OVER THERE ON THE WEST SIDE, A TUNNEL THAT WOULD CONNECT THE SAND BEACH RESERVE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED INTERMODAL TRANSIT STATION BEHIND THE SEAHOLM POWER PLANT AND TO MOVE A UTILITY LINE, A SEWER LINE, THAT CURRENTLY RUNS ACROSS THE SAND BEACH PROPERTY. WHAT THEY HAVE PUT ON THE TABLE AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND ALL -- YOU ALL ARE CONTEMPLATING DOING TODAY IS THEY HAVE MADE A PROPOSAL OF WHICH YOU ALL HAVE A COPY. THEY HAVE MADE THIS PROPOSAL WHICH BROADLY -- BROADLY SPEAKING IS AS I HAVE OUTLINED TO SETTLE THE CASE AND YOU ALL WOULD IF IT'S THE COUNCIL'S WISH TO DO THIS, DIRECT MR. MARTIN AND I TO GET BACK WITH LIC'S LAWYERS AND BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL A DETAILED AGREEMENT, WHICH COULD THEN BE PUT FORWARD FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION AND A VOTE. SO BROADLY SPEAKING, YOUR HONOR, MAYOR, THAT'S IT. I'M GOING TO QUIT DOING THAT SOME DAY, I'M SORRY.

>> JUDGE. [INAUDIBLE].

>>WYNN: IN WORKING THROUGH THIS, UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THE HISTORY AND THE DETAILS OF THE DISPUTE AND THE OWNERSHIP AND THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE WHOLE SEAHOLM DISTRICT INCLUDES, I CAME UP WITH SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT I AM RELYING ON TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE SHOULD DO AS A COMMUNITY, AS A CITY ON THAT PROPERTY. FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE REUSE OF SEAHOLM AND THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE NEED TO AS A CITY TRY TO PROTECT THE LONG-TERM VALUE AND REUSE OF SEAHOLM AND OUR -- THAT'S READ AS PARKING. THE REAL ISSUE WITH SEAHOLM FOR ITS FUTURE IS WHERE WILL WE AS A CITY PARK PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME USE SEAHOLM, WHETHER IT'S A HIGH TECH MUSEUM, WHETHER IT'S THE LIBRARY, WHETHER IT'S A CITY HALL, WHETHER IT'S AN AQUARIUM, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, IT'S GOING TO NEED PARKING. I AM FIRST AND FOREMOST GUIDED BY WHAT DO WE SUPPLY PARKING FOR SEAHOLM. SECOND IS THE REALLY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY ON THIS SITE FOR MULTI MODAL OR INTERMODAL ASSIMILATION. WHAT WE HAVE HERE THAT HAPPENS TO BE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LIGHT RAIL, RESUMING -- PRESUMING IT PASSES IN NOVEMBER, COMMUTER RAIL, THERE'S TALK OF A GEORGETOWN TO SAN ANTONIO COMMUTER RAIL, WE HAVE THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS BOTH THE TOWN LAKE TRAIL AND THE -- AND THE SHOAL CREEK TRAIL AND, OF COURSE, PEDESTRIAN USE AND WE HAVE THE CROSS-TOWN -- PROPOSED CROSS TOWN BICYCLE PARKWAY SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AS WELL. THIRD IS THE INHERENT MIXED USE POTENTIAL OF ANY SITE DOWNTOWN. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT THE MORE MIXED USE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE, THE BETTER, THE MORE PEOPLE LIVE, WORK, PLAY, DINE, EAT, ENTERTAIN, NEAR WHERE THEY ALREADY ARE, THE LESS TRAFFIC THERE IS, THE LESS IMPACT THERE IS FOR -- FOR -- ON OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES, ET CETERA. THE FOURTH IS RESPECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY IN A -- AND A BIG ELEMENT OF THIS IS ALL OF US RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THIS SITE THAT IS INDISPUTABLY OWNED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WE, OF COURSE, I THINK AS A CITY HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. LASTLY, IS MY -- LAST GUIDING PRINCIPLE IS KEEPING AS MUCH PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY DOWNTOWN. THAT IS KEEPING AS MUCH TAX BASE AS WE CAN IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA. DOWNTOWN CURRENTLY HAS THE SLIGHT MAJORITY OF THE LAND MASS IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN, ABOUT 55%, IS CURRENTLY OFF THE TAX ROLL. IT'S OWNED EITHER BY THE CITY, THE COUNTY, THE STATE, THE FEDS OR PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. IT'S -- IT'S ACTUALLY A BURDEN TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT THAT MUCH OF -- OF WHAT OTHERWISE SHOULD BE AN ECONOMIC ENGINE OF A DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL TAX BASE AT DISPROPORTIONATE LOW INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS IS OFF THE TAX ROLLS. MY FIFTH UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE FOR THIS IS HOW DO WE, WHENEVER WE CAN, APPROPRIATELY KEEP AS MUCH LAND IN OUR DOWNTOWN PRIVATELY OWNED THERE BY GENERATING FUTURE TAX BENEFITS FOR -- FOR US AND OUR CHILDREN. BASED ON THAT, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO INDEED INSTRUCT OUR ATTORNEYS TO TAKE THIS PROPOSAL FROM LIC, AS A BASIS FOR NEGOTIATING, AND TO -- TO WORK OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT IS THE DATE THAT ROMA IS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY ITS SEAHOLM DISTRICT MASTER PLAN THAT WE AS A COUNCIL COMMISSIONED EARLIER THIS SUMMER. SO SEPTEMBER 28TH WE HAVE ROMA PRESENTING THEIR SEAHOLM DISTRICT MASTER PLAN, OUR ATTORNEYS BRINGING BACK THE DAILTSZ OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AT THAT POINT, -- THE DETAILS. AT THAT POINT THE PUBLIC HAS HEARD ROMA'S PLAN, WE SEE AND MAKE PUBLIC THE DETAILS OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PUT IT ON THE INTERNET, MAKE AS MANY COPIES AS PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE AND SEE, WE AS A COUNCIL, AS A COMMUNITY STUDY THOSE FOR A GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN WE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL VOTE SOMETIME IN OCTOBER. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. DISCUSSION? XHIFT?

>>GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU. TELL ME WHAT KIND OF INTERACTION THIS PLAN HAS HAD WITH THE FOLKS WHO SPENT TWO YEARS ON THE SEAHOLM REUSE PROCESS THAT PRODUCED THE PUBLIC'S VIEWPOINT THAT THIS SHOULD BE -- THAT SEAHOLM SHOULD BE A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM -- HAVE -- HAVE THE -- THE FOLKS WHO ARE DESIGNING THIS AND WORKING ON THIS PLAN SPOKEN WITH THOSE PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR WORK AND ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THE -- THE EXCELLENT JOB HERE ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND WHAT ARE THEIR VIEWS. HAS -- HAVE THE DESIGNERS BEEN WORKING WITH THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS PUBLIC PROCESS AND INCORPORATED WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED AND THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THE DESIGN?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, I AM SETTLING A LAWSUIT FOR YOU. I -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT, IF ANY ANY -- I THINK THE ONLY INTERACTION LIKE THAT THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED AS PART OF TRYING TO SETTLE THIS LAWSUIT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE ROMA PEOPLE YOU HIRED AND THE SEAHOLM PEOPLE. I --

>>GRIFFITH: SO THERE HAS BEEN --

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>>GRIFFITH: THERE HAS -- PROBABLY BEEN, I KNOW OF NO -- I'M IN TOUCH WITH BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, BOTH THE ONES WHO PUT TWO YEARS INTO THE REUSE PLAN AND THOSE WHO HAVE PROVIDED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THERE HAS -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE -- BEEN NO INTERACTION THERE, NO USE OF THAT INFORMATION IN THOSE PUBLIC PROCESSES. SO FOR TODAY I THINK WE NEED TO HOLD OFF AND GET MORE INFORMATION. IS THERE -- DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR POSSIBLE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE OF THIS WHOLE PLAN?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, OTHER THE -- OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, A FEW PEOPLE HAVE APPROACHED ME KNOWING THAT I WAS REPRESENTING THE CITY IN THIS LITIGATION AND I FEEL LIKE I OUGHT TO -- TO KEEP THEIR IDENTITIES CONFIDENTIAL. BUT A FEW PEOPLE, LESS THAN FIVE, HAVE APPROACHED ME BECAUSE THEY KNEW I WAS REPRESENTING THE CITY IN THIS LITIGATION AND HAVE SAID, "I MAY KNOW SOMEONE" IT'S NEVER THE PERSON THAT ACTUALLY SPEAKS WITH ME -- "BUT I MAY KNOW SOMEONE OR I MAY KNOW SOME CORPORATION THAT IS INTERESTED IN HELPING THE CITY PURCHASE THE SAND BEACH TRACT." AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE APPROACHED ME COUNCILMEMBER, I HAVE ENTHUSIASTICALLY GIVEN THEM MY BUSINESS CARD, MOBILE PHONE NUMBER AND SAID, WHOEVER THE PEOPLE ARE THAT YOU ARE TALKING TO THAT ARE INTERESTED IN PUTTING MONEY UP TO HELP BUY THIS, HAVE THEM CALL ME BECAUSE I'M -- I'M SURE MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY CALLS YET. I HAVE JUST GOTTEN THE CONTEXT FROM PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY KNOW SOMEONE OR SOME THINGS WHO MAY BE INTERESTED. I HAVE NOT YET BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYBODY WITH ANY MONEY.

>>GRIFFITH: WELL, I WONDER IF OTHERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN WOULD A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BE ENCOURAGED OR DISCOURAGED BY THE PASSAGE OF THIS TERM SHEET, ESSENTIALLY, THIS OUTLINE FOR A CONTRACT, THE -- MY INFORMATION IS THEY WOULD BE GREATLY DISCOURAGED.

>> THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION FOR YOU ALL, COUNCILMEMBER.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>>GOODMAN: COULD I ASK, COUNCILMEMBER -- COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO REPEAT THE WORDING OF HIS MOTION? COULD I ASK FOR A REPETITION OF THE WORDING OF THAT MOTION?

>>WYNN: WELL, IT'S TO INSTRUCT -- DIRECT OUR ATTORNEYS TO USE THIS PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE AS A BASIS FOR DEVOTION, GO -- FOR NEGOTIATION, GO BACK AND SPEND UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28TH WORKING OUT A DETAILED FINAL SETTLEMENT, BRING THAT TO US ON THE 28TH, OR BEFORE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE DAY THAT ROMA WILL PRESENT THEIR PLAN. SO MY INTENTION IS TO -- TO GIVE OUR ATTORNEYS AND LIC'S ATTORNEYS THREE WEEKS TO COME TOGETHER WITH THE FINAL DOCUMENT. IT COMES TO US ON THE 28TH, WE PRESENT IT TO THE PUBLIC. ALONG WITH THE ROMA MASTER PLAN FOR THE SEAHOLM DISTRICT AND THEN WE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL ACTION, I'M JUST SUGGESTING, SOMETIME IN MID OCTOBER. TO GIVE EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO -- TO GATHER THE INFORMATION AND DEBATE, GIVE US MORE INFORMATION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I NEED TO SET THAT DATE AS PART OF MY MOTION, PREPARED TO DO THAT, TOO, OCTOBER 12TH AS AN EXAMPLE.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, BEFORE SEPTEMBER THE 28TH, THERE ARE, I THINK, MAYBE SOME FOUNTS PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND BOARD OR COMMISSION PERTINENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEETINGS. ARE YOU -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, TOO. OR ARE YOU PRECLUDING THAT OR --

>> I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSIONS. YOU ALL HAVE MORE OF A HISTORY ON -- ON THESE SETTLEMENT TYPES THAN I DO. I'M --.

>>GOODMAN: THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE IF WE ARE IN ESSENCE WAIVING OUR ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ON WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO US, IN MY -- MY REAL PURPOSE IN LETTING THIS GO FORWARD I THINK IS TO GET IT OUT OF THE BACK ROOM DISCUSSIONS AND INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY SO THAT ADVOCATES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND GIVE US SOME INPUT ON FINAL ACCEPTANCE, IF WE DON'T START DOING THAT UNTIL THE 28TH, THOUGH, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE LET SOME VALUABLE TIME PASS BY WITHOUT ANY INTERACTION FROM SAY A MARY ARNOLD OR ROBERTA CRENSHAW OR LESSLY POOL. WIN MY ONLY THOUGHTS WERE WE DON'T HAVE A SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING UNTIL THE 28TH. I WAS PRESUMING IT WOULD TAKE OUR ATTORNEYS ANY NUMBER OF DAYS IF NOT WEEKS TO COME FORWARD WITH THE FINAL DOCUMENT THAT'S -- THAT HAS ALL OF THE DETAILS WORKED OUT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CONSIDER AN EARLIER TIME FRAME. WE DON'T MEET AS A COUNCIL UNTIL THE 28TH.

>>GOODMAN: WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF AS BEING THE BASIS OF DISCUSSION IN THE PUBLIC.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH WHERE YOU NEED TO BE BEFORE I TAKE THE FLOOR AWAY FROM YOU.

>>GOODMAN: YEAH, I WILL DEFER TO --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER?

>>GRIFFITH: ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU HAD MENTIONED, MAYOR PRO TEM, WANTING TO HEAR FROM IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE ON THE 28TH, BUT SHE'S HERE TODAY, THAT'S MS. ARNOLD. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER FOR HER COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER BECAUSE IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE LAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, SHE'S PROBABLY AMONG THE TOP TWO AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER FOR HER COMMENT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO, AT THE END OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL, IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM ASK THEM TO SPEAK THE WAY WE TYPICALLY DO THAT. I DON'T HAVE YOUR CARD, BUT OF COURSE I WILL CALL ON HER, THEY WILL GET IT INTO ME SHORTLY. I HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE ALSO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, I WILL CALL ON PEOPLE TO TALK.

>>GRIFFITH: FINE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL RIGHT NOW OF MR. DOBSON?

>>GRIFFITH: WELL I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE GRAPHIC. COULD YOU PUT THE --

>> IS THIS IT, COUNCILMEMBER?

>>GRIFFITH: THE GRAPHIC THAT WOULD BE THERE? JUST PUT IT RIGHT ON TOP OF THAT ONE SO WE CAN COMPARE?

>>MAYOR WATSON: CAN YOU PUT THAT SIDE BY SIDE, THE MAYOR PRO TEM ASKED FOR THAT.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT THIS GRAPHIC BASICALLY IS WHAT IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE PROPOSED FOR A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AN ICED TEA GRANT. THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY LUMBERMEN'S, THE CONDITION WAS THAT IF -- IF THE PROJECT THAT WAS AT THAT TIME PROPOSED WE WOULD -- IF WE DIDN'T GET THE GRANT, WE WOULD APPROVE THAT SITE PLAN. WE FELT LIKE WE DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT AT THE TIME, SO WE DID NOT AVAIL OURSELVES OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND TURN IN -- TURN IN THAT ICED TEA GRANT, BUT WE DO HAVE BASICALLY THE VISION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE HAD WE APPLIED FOR THAT GRANT. AND GOTTEN IT.

>> THE ONE THAT IS THE SEAHOLM USE PLAN AND THE ONE THAT IS THE FEASIBILITY STUDY SAYS IT IS IN LIGHT OF THE SCIENCE AND TECH MUSEUM EXPERIENCE OF THE OTHER CITIES LIKE SEATTLE, PORTLAND, COLUMBUS THE OTHER HIGH TECHSTERS, THEIR SCIENCE AND TECH MUSEUMS HAVE -- HAVE A RATIO THAT THEY NEED OF 3 -- IF YOU ARE HAVING 100,000 PEOPLE A YEAR, YOU NEED 100 PARKING SPACES. WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED WITH THIS LUMBER MEN'S APPROACH IS ABOUT HALF THAT, WHICH WOULD MEAN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DOUBLE DECKED, TRIPLE DECKED. THAT WOULD ADD A LOT OF EXPENSE. SO CERTAINLY PARKING FOR SEAHOLM IS CRITICAL, BUT ALSO WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS WHAT A -- WHAT A TRANSPORTATION HUB THAT FIVE ACRES IS. IT HAS THE ONLY PLACE IN -- IN THIS REGION WHERE IN THE CENTRAL CITY THE TWO BIG LEADING RAILROADS COME TOGETHER, YOU WOULD ALSO NEED A -- A BUS TRANSFER STATION TO MAKE THAT WORK, YOU HAVE YOUR CYCLISTS COMING IN, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TWO BIGGEST TRAILS, THE -- THE SHOAL CREEK TRAIL AND THE TOWN LAKE TRAIL COMING IN, IT COULD BE VERY MUCH A -- A BUSTLEING OPPORTUNITY. ALSO YOU HAVE YOUR CYCLISTS COMING IN ON -- ACROSS THE RIVER, SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A BIG HUB OF TRANSPORTATION IF YOU -- IF YOU PLAN IT. ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DIFFERENT ON THESE DRAWINGS IS -- IS IN THE VISION OF -- OF THE SCIENCE AND TECH MUSEUM, WHERE THE RETAIL IS, ON THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THERE WOULD BE A PLANETARIUM AND AN AUDITORIUM. SO CERTAINLY BEFORE WE APPROVE ANY TERM SHEETS AND PRECLUDE ANY OPTIONS, WE NEED TO LET OUR POTENTIAL FUNDERS STUDY MORE AND WE NEED TO -- WE NEED TO LEAVE ALL OF OUR OPTIONS OPEN JUST UNTIL WE COME BACK FROM OUR RECESS, JUST FOR A MONTH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: BRING GO TO SPEAKERS, LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. FIRST OF ALL, MR. DOBSON, ASSUME WITH ME FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT THAT WE DON'T REACH AGREEMENT WITH LUMBER MEN'S. THAT WE EITHER BECAUSE WE DON'T TAKE ACTION THAT SHOW THAT'S WE ARE WILLING TO AT LEAST TALK OR WE REJECT OUT OF HAND THIS, JUST SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT, THIS PROPOSAL, AND WE GO FORWARD WITH THE LAWSUIT THAT -- THAT WE FILED, AND WE WIN, DESCRIBE FOR ME AND THE PUBLIC WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF WHERE THE LINE IS AND WHAT IT MEANS IN TERMS OF WHAT LUMBERMEN'S CAN DO ON PROPERTY THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION THEY OWN.

>> WELL, MAYOR, IF WE WIN THE LAWSUIT, THEN THE BOUNDARY LINE ON THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT, RATHER THAN JUST BEING JUST SOUTH OF THE CEDAR DOOR, IS JUST NORTH OF THE CEDAR DOOR. LIC -- AND THEY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE WHO CAN BE ASKED QUESTIONS, BUT BASED A WHAT THEY HAVE SAID TO US DURING THESE NEGOTIATIONS, LIC HAS A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. THERE IS AN APPROVED OLD SITE PLAN FOR A 15 STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON THE BACK OF THE TRACT, WHICH THEY INDISPUTABLY OWN. THEY SAY THAT THEY WOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER JUST GOING FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT. OR THEY COULD BUILD THEIR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, BUT INSTEAD OF THERE BEING A STREET BACK HERE WITH PARKING FOR SEAHOLM, THEY WOULD NEED ALL OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY CLEARLY OWN BACK THERE, BACK UP TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE WITH UNION PACIFIC, TO DO THEIR CONDO PROJECT. AND I THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT THEY WOULD GO FORWARD WITH ONE OF THOSE TWO. -- ONE OF THOSE TWO PROJECTS IF WE WERE TO WIN THE LAWSUIT. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT THEY STATE THEY WILL DO. EITHER GO FORWARD WITH THE OLD SITE PLAN AND BUILD THE OFFICE BUILDING OR JUST DO THEIR CONDO PROJECT ON THE LAND THAT THEY CLEARLY OWN. AND THE POINT, MAYOR, OF THIS PROPOSAL FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS THE CITY'S ADVOCATE WAS TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT THAT FURTHERED WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO WITH THE SEAHOLM DISTRICT. AND WINNING THE LAWSUIT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY PARKING FOR SEAHOLM. IT MOVES A PROPERTY LINE. I'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE COMMENT THAT THEY THINK MOVING THAT PROPERTY LINE WILL SOMEHOW STOP THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT'S A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WHY DON'T I GO TO THE SPEAKERS, JACK OWEN.

>> YES, SIR. MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MR. MARTIN, MR. GARZA, MY NAME IS JACK OWEN, I'M A REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY HERE IN AUSTIN, MANAGING PARTNER OF THE OSBORNE LAW FIRM. I HAD A COMMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT. LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS IN GENERAL OF COURSE ARE A GOOD THING, BUT A LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT THAT REACHES AN UNINTENDED RESULT CAN BE A PROBLEM. I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT ITEM NO. 7. THE AGREED BOUNDARY LINE ISSUE THAT THE TWO PARTIES TO THIS LAWSUIT MAY WANT TO SETTLE, BUT WHICH WON'T INVOLVE A VERY IMPORTANT THIRD PARTY, THE STATE OF TEXAS WHICH IS THE HOLDING OF A REVERSIONARY INTEREST ON THIS TRACT IF A PART OF IT IS EVER USED FOR NON-PUBLIC USE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE METCALF BOUNDARY LINE IS SOMEWHAT IN DISPUTE FOR HISTORICAL REASONS, THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHERE THE REAL BOUNDARY LINE IS, IT MAY BE NORTH OF THE CEDAR DOOR. IF THE LAWSUIT IS SETTLED USING THE METCALF BOUNDARY LINE AND IT TURNS OUT THE STATE OF TEXAS DECIDES THAT'S NOT WHERE THE BOUNDARY LINE WAS. THE STATE DECIDES IN FACT NOW PART OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE TRACT IS BEING USED FOR NON-PUBLIC PURPOSES, THE STATE COULD EXERCISE ITS REVERSIONARY INTEREST, IT COULD TORPEDO A LOT OF PLANS, A SMALL SECTION IN THE MIDDLE WOULD REVERT TO THE STATE OF TEXAS. I WOULD ASK US TO BE CAUTIOUS AND REMEMBER THE THIRD PARTY NOT IN THE ROOM.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR, WE WON'T DO THIS WITHOUT GETTING THE STATE'S SIGNING OFF ON IT THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT COME BACK IN AND CLAIM A REVERSIONARY INTEREST. WE ARE VERY AWARE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE. IN FACT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOT A LAWSUIT GOING WAS THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN THIS PROBLEM. THE LIC UNDERSTANDS AND THE CITY CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO HAVE TO SIGN-OFF ON THIS OR IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM YOU ADDRESSED.

>> EXACTLY. I THINK ALL OF THE PARTIES HAVE THE SAME INTEREST ON THAT ISSUE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. OWEN. JEAN MATHER. SIGNED UP AGAINST SETTLEMENT AT THIS TIME, WROTE PLEASE SAVE SAND BEACH FOR THE CITY. THIS IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE CITY AND PECS HAS A GREAT PLAN FOR THE AREA PROVIDING A TRANSMODAL JUNCTION FOR COMMUTER AND LIGHT RAIL. JOHN HAMILTON?

>> MAYOR WATSON, MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, THANK FOR YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M JOHN HAMILTON. I APPRECIATE THE MAYOR'S REMARKS EARLIER IN THE DAY ABOUT THIS BEING A PUBLIC FORUM FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE SETTLEMENT HERE. THAT CERTAINLY IS WHAT A LARGE NUMBER OF AUSTINITES ARE SEEKING. THIS PROPERTY, AS YOU WELL KNOW, AS I THINK EVEN THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NOW KNOW, THIS PROPERTY HAS A LONG AND CONTENTIOUS HISTORY. IT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION AND SOME POLITICS IN THE PAST AND THERE ARE A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO ARE DEDICATED TO WATCHING THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY. OUT OF LOVE FOR OUR PARK SYSTEM AND OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR TIME IN YEARS PAST TO FIGHTING FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR PROPERTY INTERESTS HERE. I'M VERY GLAD THAT MR. OWENS WAS ABLE TO SPEAK AND BRING UP THE ISSUE OF DIVERSIONARY CLAUSE BECAUSE IT TROUBLES ME THAT THE CITY MAY PROCEED TO INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS ON TERMS WITHOUT FULLY INVESTIGATING THE POSITION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WITH REGARD TO THE SETTLEMENT AND I'M URGING THAT WE WAIT TO GIVE THOSE INSTRUCTIONS UNTIL THAT INQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE. THE INFORMATION THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT THE OWNER -- THE OWNER OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THIS TRACT IS WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIAL MONEY TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS OF COURSE INTRIGUING, BUT THE LARGEST ELEMENT OF THIS IS THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE UNION PACIFIC AND I'M SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE UNION PACIFIC IS WILLING TO PART WITH ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THIS AREA. IF IT'S TRUE, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD. IF IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT THE UNION PACIFIC HAS AGREED TO PART WITH ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY OR A PORTION OF ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH THE CENTER OF AUSTIN, THEN I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ADVANCE THE NEGOTIATIONS BASED ON THAT TERM. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING WITH THE CITY COUNCILL IN A DISCUSSION OF THE SETTLEMENT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, SIR. MARY ARNOLD?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR WATSON, MEMBER OF THE -- MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I CAUGHT PART OF THIS ON TV, I WAS BABYSITTING WITH MY GRANDCHILDREN THIS AFTERNOON, EXCUSE ME FOR NOT BEING HERE FOR THE WHOLE PRESENTATION, I DID GET HERE AS FAST AS I COULD. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE WHAT MR. OWEN HAS SAID, THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN JUST FROM HEARING IT OUT OF HAND LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY IS GOING TO ACCEPT MONEY FROM LUMBERMEN'S OR WHOEVER AND THAT THE CITY IS THEREFORE GOING TO BE SELLING A PORTION OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE FOR THAT MONEY AND THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE DEED IN 1945 FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I HOPE THAT AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC IMMEDIATELY. THERE ARE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY HAVING TO DO WITH ACCESS, EMERGENCY ACCESS WATER QUALITY, FLOODPLAIN ISSUES, A LOT OF THINGS. SO -- SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE CITY WAS WILLING TO FILE THE LAWSUIT IN 1999 IS THAT THEY HAD STUDIED THE BOUNDARY ISSUE VERY, VERY CAREFULLY AND AT THE INSISTENCE OF ROBERTA CRENSHAW ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUE BOUNDARY, ADDITIONAL SURVEYERS WERE HIRED BY THE CITY TO -- TO DRAW THE LINE ON THE GROUND. WHERE IS THE TRUE BOUNDARY? AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY MADE CLEAR TO US THAT BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS OF THAT TRUE BOUNDARY INVESTIGATION, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS WILLING TO FILE THE BOUNDARY LAWSUIT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE TRUE BOUNDARY SHOWN ON THE MAP AND A COMPARISON MADE BETWEEN THE ACREAGE DISPUTED AS PER THE TRUE BOUNDARY AND THE ACREAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE, "DONATED" BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER. MR. DOBSON STATED THAT IF -- IF -- IN RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION, IF THIS WERE TAKEN TO THE COURTS AND THE CITY WON THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE, WHAT WOULD LUMBERMEN'S OPTION BE? MR. DOBSON STATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TWO OPTIONS, ONE TO BUILD THE APPROVED SITE PLAN BACK FROM 1984, AND ANOTHER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE CONDO PROJECT. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE 1984 APPROVED SITE PLAN [BUZZER SOUNDING] IS IN THE DISPUTED AREA. A PORTION OF IT IS IN THE DISPUTED AREA.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. ARNOLD.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR, MAY I ASK MS. ARNOLD A QUESTION. MS. ARNOLD, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN 1984? HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN -- IN ANYTHING CONNECTED WITH THAT?

>> YES

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT'S YOUR HISTORY?

>> THERE WERE THREE OF US WHO FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR DEDICATING A STREET FOR ACCESS TO THAT PROPOSED 15-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER OF THE OFFICE BUILDING WENT BROKE, HE -- THE DEVELOPER WAS UNABLE TO PAY HIS ATTORNEYS. WHEN THE CASE WENT ON APPEAL, THE JUDGE AT THE APPEAL COURT LEVEL SAID THAT THAT -- THAT SITE PLAN AND THAT ACCESS ROAD COULD NEVER BE BUILT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THAT ONE DEVELOPER WHO NO LONGER EXISTS, THAT COMPANY, THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE OUT OF EXISTENCE AND THE JUDGE SAID THAT THAT -- THAT THEREFORE MADE THE WHOLE SUIT NULL AND VOID.

>>GRIFFITH: WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED THE DETAILS OF THIS PROPOSAL TO BE MADE PUBLIC, DID YOU MEAN THAT THEY WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AFTER THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILL AND AFTER THE TERM SHEET WAS APPROVED?

>> NO. I MEANT RIGHT NOW. SO YOU --

>>GRIFFITH: YOU REALIZE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED --

>> THE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ON THE LAND AS WELL. AND GET A VISUAL PICTURE OF WHAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

>>GRIFFITH: BUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THAT WE ESSENTIALLY APPROVE AN OUTLINE FOR A TERM SHEET. A LETTER AGREEMENT THAT WOULD -- THAT COULD PROBABLY PRECLUDE THAT LAND EVER BEING PUBLIC LAND AND WOULD BE THE PRECURSOR OF THIS SETTLEMENT THAT'S -- THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND, WAS IT?

>> AS I WROTE ON MY CARD, I'M OPPOSED TO ANY SETTLEMENT THAT DOESN'T GIVE US BACK THE LAND THAT IS PART OF THE SAND BEACH RESERVE THAT WAS DEEDED TO US IN 1945 AND THAT BECAME THE BASIS OF OUR BEAUTIFUL TOWN LAKE CORRIDOR. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING TO PRESERVE.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. ARNOLD. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: SINCE IT'S MY MOTION, MY MOTION CLEARLY SAYS, IN FACT I SUGGESTED OCTOBER 12TH TO BE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL ACTION BY COUNCIL, THAT WHAT I AM PROPOSING IS WE MOVE FORWARD AS A BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION AND THAT ALL THOSE DETAILS BE MADE PUBLIC, THE SPLIT SECOND WE GET THEM, WHICH AS I SUGGESTED IS SEPTEMBER 28TH. AND THAT THEN A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 12TH AND THAT A FINAL ACTION BY THE COUNCIL IS VOTED ON OCTOBER 12TH.

>> KNOWING THE WAY THE CITY LOOKS AT SITE PLANS, THAT'S A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME TO GET ALL OF THE SITE PLAN ISSUES ANSWERED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. ARNOLD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL? ANY -- MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>GOODMAN: I WILL DEFER, I WAS GOING TO ASK AT THIS MOMENT, ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE A COMMENT WHETHER THAT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPEAKERS?

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, THAT'S IT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>WYNN: MR. DOBSON, ARE YOU -- I'M BEING TOLD A PIECE OF THIS CLEARLY IS UNION PACIFIC SELLING TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN A CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'M BEING TOLD THAT CURRENTLY YOU -- UNION PACIFIC IS NEGOTIATING A LEASE WITH NEXTEL COMMUNICATION TO BUILD A CELLULAR TOWER ON UP'S RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN AS THE ROMA, THE SEAHOLM DISTRICT MASTER PLAN. AND I'M ALSO BEING TOLD THAT AS -- AS PART OF THIS POTENTIAL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN, THAT INCLUDES BUS TRANSFER FACILITY, LIGHT RAIL, COMMUTER RAIL, HIKE AND BIKE AND A SEAHOLM REUSE WITH ITS APPROPRIATE PARKING, THAT UP IS PREPARED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE -- ON THE LEASE THAT'S ON THE TABLE NOW FOR A CELLULAR TOWER TO BE BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF -- OF WHAT EITHER OF THESE PLANS SHOW AS THE SEAHOLM DISTRICT. CAN YOU SPEAK AT ALL TO THAT?

>> I ONLY KNOW ABOUT THAT ANECDOTALLY, THAT NEXTEL AND UP STOOD DOWN ON THEIR NEGOTIATIONS FOE THIS CAN BE COMPLETED. ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, SPEAKING OF U.P., SAID DO WE EVEN KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE INTERESTED. JANNA McCAN OF YOUR STAFF, HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE AT UNION PACIFIC, EVIDENTLY THEY ARE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY.

>>WYNN: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. OWEN A QUESTION OR TWO.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER BARRIERS TO -- TO THE ADVISEABILITY OF OUR APPROVING A TERM SHEET TODAY IN TERMS OF KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN AND IN TERMS OF RISK TO THE CITY?

>> WELL, I THINK THE PRIMARY RISK WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD WITH A SETTLEMENT THAT DOESN'T ALREADY INCLUDE INPUT FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE STATE ELECTED NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT LAWSUIT. AND IS STANDING BACK TO -- TO SEE WHAT THE RESULT IS AND NOT BE BOUND BY IT. SO I HOPE PERHAPS THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENGAGED IN SOME DISCUSSIONS, BUT I'M SURE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN QUICKLY IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT.

>>GRIFFITH: IN TERMS OF MEANINGFUL, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IF THERE WERE PRIVATE DONORS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN BEING A PARTNER WITH THE CITY IN MAKING SAND BEACH, THAT FIVE ACRES PUBLIC LAND, WOULD THAT BE -- IF WE APPROVE THIS TERM SHEET, WOULD THAT BE ENCOURAGING TO THEM OR DISCOURAGING TO THEM?

>> PROBABLY DISCOURAGING. IN ALL CANDOR ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I AM HERE IS I HAVE A CLIENT WHO HAS INTEREST IN DOING GOOD WORKS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND SHE HAS SOME INTEREST IN BEING INVOLVED IN A PRIVATE-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. AND I THINK PREMATURE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT WHICH PERMITTED LUMBERMEN'S OR ITS SUCCESSORS TO GO FORWARD WITH ANY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WOULD DISCOURAGE PUBLIC MEMBERS LIKE HER WHO ARE WILLING TO INVEST SIGNIFICANT FUNDS IN A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, COUNCIL JUST FOR PURPOSES OF OUR TIME SCHEDULE, IT'S 5:25 OR SO, WE HAVE A 5:30 TIME CERTAIN, IF WE CAN MOVE INTO THAT, TRY TO STAY -- I DON'T WANT TO STOP THIS, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THE TIME. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

>>SLUSHER: I MIGHT HAVE MISSED SOMETHING. MR. OWEN, COULD YOU TELL US WHO YOU ARE REPRESENTING THAT'S INTERESTED IN -- IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE --

>> EXCUSE ME?

>>SLUSHER: I WAS WONDERING WHO YOU REPRESENT IF YOU COULD TELL ME THAT.

>> YES, SIR, IT'S A LADY NAMED JULIA WILKINSON, JILL WILL CON SON WHO LIVES HERE IN AUSTIN.

>>SLUSHER: SHE'S INTERESTED IN A POSSIBLE PUBLIC-PRIVATE VENTURE.

>> SHE'S EXPRESSED A GENERAL INTEREST IN THAT, YES, SIR.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL --.

>>THOMAS: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS? WHAT'S HIS NAME?

>>THOMAS: WHAT'S HIS NAME?

>> DOBSON.

>>THOMAS: MR. DOBSON, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING A LAWSUIT. WHAT WOULD IT, HOW WOULD IT AFFECT IF WE DID 30 DAYS, 30 TO 60 MORE DAYS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO GET MORE INVOLVED? HOW WOULD IT AFFECT LUMBERMEN'S ON THIS TERM SHEET THAT WE HAVE? THE AGREEMENT, WHATEVER.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK LUMBERMEN'S. THEY HAVE -- THEY ARE HERE, THEY CAN COMMENT ON THAT. THEY HAVE CERTAINLY STATED A STRONG DESIRE THAT THE COUNCIL AT LEAST EXPRESS WHETHER THEY ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ROMA PLAN AS A BASIS FOR GOING FORWARD. AT SOME POINT IN ANY LAWSUIT, IF YOU DON'T TAKE ANOTHER STEP FORWARD, THE OTHER SIDE SAYS, WELL, TO HECK WITH IT. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE AT THAT POINT. I DON'T KNOW THAT 30 TO 60 DAYS, WHETHER THAT WOULD CAUSE HEART BURN OR NOT. WE CAN ASK THEM, THEY ARE HERE. WHAT THEY HAVE EXPRESSED TO ME IS A STRONG DESIRE TO KNOW WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH THEIR TIME AND THEIR MONEY AND THEIR ENERGY TO KEEP FOOLING WITH. AND OURS. WHETHER YOU ALL ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ENOUGH TO TELL US TO MOVE FORWARD AND COME BACK WITH A DETAILED PROPOSAL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WERE YOU DONE?

>>THOMAS: COUNCIL -- COUNCILMEMBERS, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COULD I ASK LUMBER MEN'S THAT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE, MR. HALEY ARE YOU GOING TO BE THE SPOKESPERSON?

>>THOMAS: LET ME SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DON'T THINK THE CITY IS SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO MEET AT THE TABLE. BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS INPUT.

>> I AM JAY HALEY, I REPRESENT LUMBER MEN'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION IN THIS MATTER. LET ME RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION FIRST BY SAYING I BELIEVE WE ARE PROVIDING THAT OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS A PROPOSAL, NOT A FINAL DEAL. WE WILL NOT HAVE A FINAL DEAL UNTIL A FINAL SIGNED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXISTS, THAT IS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE. THERE ARE ISSUES WE NEED TO TIE DOWN AS WELL. SO WE NEED THIS TIME TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BRING THIS TO FINAL RESOLUTION. IN THE -- THE TIME TABLE THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN LAID OUT IS A 30 DAY THAT'S YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU GO FORWARD WITH ACCEPTING THIS AS A PROPOSAL, AS A BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION, AS HAS BEEN PROPOSED, THEN OUR JOB WOULD TO BE SPEND BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER 28TH FIRST TO CRAFT A SPECIFIC DEFINITIVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD BRING BACK TO YOU ON THE 28TH. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF INTERACTION, CHANGE OF -- EX-CHANGE OF INFORMATION, DISCUSS, OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT, PRESENTATIONS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME TO SPELL THOSE TERMS OUT. FIRST. WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU ON THE 28TH, YOU STILL HAVE ANOTHER TWO WEEKS FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON WHAT WOULD THEN BE A FINAL VOTE ON OCTOBER THE 12TH. SO HERE WE ARE SEPTEMBER THE 7TH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE WEEKS FROM NOW BEFORE THERE WOULD BE A FINAL VOTE ON THIS. DURING THAT ENTIRE PROCESS, THIS WILL BE AN OPEN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE INPUT TO HAVE INPUT INTO IT. SO I THINK THAT -- THAT OPPORTUNITY DOES EXIST IN THE TIME TABLE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. LET ME RESPOND TO OUR OTHER ISSUE OF -- OF COULD WE WAIT, YOU KNOW, ANY LONGER BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT. I'M AFRAID THE ANSWER IS NO. WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGE UNDERSTAND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS SINCE LAST DECEMBER. -- ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS SINCE LAST DECEMBER. SHORTLY AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS FILEDDED, THERE WAS MUTUAL INTEREST, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS INVOLVED. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU OVER THE LAST NINE OR 10 MONTHS, WE HAVE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING FOR SOME INDICATION THAT THERE'S A WILLINGNESS ON THE CITY'S PART TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE IN A WAY THAT SATISFIES THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THAT 10-MONTH PERIOD WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS POINT WHERE WE HAVE AT LEAST GOT DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER SOMETHING THAT IS WORTH DISCUSSING. AND TAKING FORWARD. IF WE NOW PUT FORWARD ANOTHER 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, THE POINT WE ARE AT RIGHT NOW, THAT MEANS AT THAT POINT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER 30, 60 DAYS WHILE THERE'S INPUT ON WHAT THEN IS PUT ON THE TABLE, SO WE ARE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. WE WILL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS FOR A YEAR. BEFORE WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A YES OR NO FROM THE CITY AS TO WHETHER WE WANT TO RESOLVE THIS. I THINK IN ALL CANDOR THAT SHOWS EXTRAORDINARY PATIENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE ON BEHALF OF LUMBERMEN'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION. I'M AFRAID THAT WE JUST CAN'T DELAY THE LAWSUIT ANY FURTHER. WHAT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DO, IF YOU DECIDE TODAY NOT TO GIVE US THE OKAY TO SIT DOWN AND TRY TO CRAFT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THERE ARE MANY, MANY THINGS THAT NOTICED TO BE UNDONE, WE NEED TO GET ON WITH DISCOVERY, DEPOSITION, ALL OF THE LENGTHY THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO AT THAT TIME LAWSUIT FORWARD. ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN IN AWAYENCE HOPING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. THAT'S THE BEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT NOW.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, HERE'S WHAT I AM GOING TO DO. I AM GOING TO LET EVERYBODY SAY ONE MORE THING IF THEY WANT TO. THEN HE WILL GO TO A VOTE. SHE'S THE -- SHE'S BEFORE YOU.

>>SLUSHER: I WILL PASS. I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. HALEY A QUESTION.

>>MAYOR WATSON: GO AHEAD AND DO THAT?

>>SLUSHER: THAT DOESN'T COUNT?

>> NO. NO. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SAYING IT'S BEEN QUITE A LONG TIME THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I ALSO UNDERSTOOD ANOTHER THING THAT YOU SAID, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE A TERM SHEET TODAY, THAT -- YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS A FRAMEWORK FURTHER DISCUSSION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S LOCKED IN STONE OR FINALLY APPROVED AT ALL.

>> OUR WORK JUST BEGINS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, WE THIS ON THE TABLE AS A PROPOSAL, SIT DOWN AND SEE IF WE CAN'T WORK OUT A DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT AND GET ALL OF THE ISSUES ON THE TABLE. AS TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE ARE OPEN ON TO INPUT ON FURTHER DESIGN, WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE LIKE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO WE HAVE TEAMED UP WITH ON THIS PROJECT. THE DEVELOPMENT PARTER WILL BE THE L.B.J. HOLDING COMPANY, WHICH HAS A REPUTATION IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR DOING NOTHING BUT THE HIGHEST QUALITY PROJECTS THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE. THE ARCHITECT IS OVERLAND PARTNERS OUT OF SAN ANTONIO, AN AWARD WINNING FIRM THAT WAS ONE OF THE FINALISTS FOR THE CITY HALL PROJECT. THE DESIGNERS OF THE LADYBIRD JOHNSON CITY. THOSE WHO HAVE A REPUTATION FOR DEALING WITH THESE KINDS OF SENSITIVE PROJECTS. THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO -- TO BRING FORWARD PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY AND CAN DESIGN AND BUILD A PROJECT HERE THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE PARKLAND, UNDERSTANDS THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUES HERE, AND CAN DO SO WITH MAXIMUM COMMUNITY INPUT. THAT'S WHY THIS TEAM HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO RESPOND TO ONE COMMENT YOU MADE EARLIER, ABSOLUTELY YES, THE ARCHITECTS AND THE DEVELOPER ARE VERY AWARE OF THE REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEAHOLM PROJECT, WE HAVE PROVIDED COPIES OF THOSE TO THEM, THEY HAVE STUDIED THOSE, THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF THE ISSUES. THEY HAVE READ IT, I HAVE READ IT. EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT HAS READ THAT COVER TO COVER AND IS VERY AWARE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THEY WANT WITH RESPECT TO SEAHOLM. WITH RESPECT TO OUR COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE, WE WERE ASKED BY THE CITY REPRESENTATIVES TO WORK WITH JANMA McCAN AND JIM ADAMS. IT HAS BEEN A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. THEY OPENED OUR EYES TO ISSUES WE OVERLOOKED. THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS REALLY THE ROMA PLAN FOR ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES OF ADDITIONAL PARKING AND INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER. THERE'S BEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES THERE. AND IN FACT WHAT MAKES THIS WORK IS THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ROMA PLAN, WE ARE COMMITTED WITH THAT BEING A PART OF WHAT WE BRING FORWARD TO YOU. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] TEAM.

>>GRIFFITH: ... BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ALL WE WOULD BE DOING IF THIS IS -- IF THIS IS APPROVED, WE WOULD JUST BE [INAUDIBLE] AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC USE OF THE OF SOME OF THE LAND IS CRITICAL FOR TRANSPORTATION AND FOR -- IN THE LIGHT OF THESE REPORTS WOULD -- WOULD BE A HIGHER RISK THAN A LOT OF CITIZENS [INAUDIBLE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY?

>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS SITUATION. IT'S NOT AS CLEAR CUT AS EVERYONE SEEMS TO THINK OR BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES AT STAKE HERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN MENTIONED YET, BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE WIN THE LAWSUIT, AGAIN, WE STILL DON'T HAVE THAT ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND. IF WE LOSE THE LAWSUIT, WE STILL DON'T HAVE THAT ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND AND, YOU KNOW, IF FOLKS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT SEAHOLM, THEN THAT PROBLEM STILL EXISTS WHETHER WE WIN OR LOSE THAT LAWSUIT BECAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME INTEREST IN MAKING SURE WE HAVE PARKING FOR SEAHOLM JUST AS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE LAST PLACES WE CAN MAYBE ATTAIN THAT. BUT -- BUT, AGAIN, SETTLING -- SETTLING THE LAWSUIT IS NOT GOING TO GET US ALL OF THIS AMOUNT OF LAND. THEN YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THAT, THEN WE GET INTO THE QUESTION OF, WELL, WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE TO ACQUIRE THAT LAND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHETHER WE WIN OR LOSE, FOUR ACRES OR FIVE ACRES, THREE ACRES OR FOUR ACRES, YOU ARE STILL TALKING AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MONEY. YOU KNOW, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER ACHE TOR PURCHASE THAT LAND. -- ACRE TO PURCHASE THAT LAND. AND SO WHILE IT WOULD BE A NICE THING FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO, THOSE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. AND AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN HAVING ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IF -- SO I THINK BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER NEEDS WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE MAKING THAT DECISION. BUT THAT BEING SAID, I MYSELF DON'T PLAN TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE TERM SHEET BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE RESOLVED BEFORE I VOTE ON ANY KIND OF TERM SHEET. BUT MY PARTICULAR ISSUES HAVE TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND OR OPEN SPACE THAT ARE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS SUFFICIENT. THE ACTUAL HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES THAT WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AND THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PACKAGE. AND I MYSELF DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ACCEPTING A TERM SHEET EVEN IF IT IS NOT A COMMITMENT ON THE CITY'S PART UNTIL I SEE AGAIN THAT THERE IS SOME INDICATION THAT THOSE ARE JUST GOING TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I WOULD SUPPORT SPENDING, AGAIN, AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR PURCHASING TWO OR THREE ACRES WHEN THAT MONEY COULD BE USED FOR A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. SO UNLESS THERE IS SOME OTHER WAY OR SOME KIND OF PRIVATE -- PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE TORE THE CITY TO SPEND THAT MUCH PUBLIC MONEY IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THAT LAND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO START WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND WORK DOWN TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND THEN WE'LL -- COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY, MAYOR, IS THAT I REALLY LIKE THE CURRENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY. [LAUGHTER]. AND THE MORE THIS MEETING GOES ON, THE MORE LIKELY I'M LIKELY TO UTILIZE IT LATER THIS EVENING. [LAUGHTER]. BUT -- AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED WHY IS THIS TRACT SUCH A CONTROVERSY. AND I THINK THE CENTRAL REASON FOR THAT IS ONE PERSON, MS. ROBERTA CRENSHAW. BUT MS. CRENSHAW IS A VISIONARY. I THINK IF IT WASN'T FOR HER VISION FOR THE CITY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE TOWN LAKE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL TODAY. AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE A PUBLIC USE AND AS PART OF THE CITY PARK SYSTEM. AND I REALLY HAVE JUST INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR MS. CRENSHAW AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER VISION COME TRUE FOR THIS. I THINK SHE WOULD REALIZE THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SAID THERE ARE FINANCIAL LIMITS TO WHAT WE CAN DO AND WE HAVE TO JUDGE OUR FINANCIAL PRIORITIES AND SPEND THOSE LIMITS, AND ALSO THEN THERE ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS LIMITS. I KNOW MS. CRENSHAW UNDERSTANDS THAT, BUT IT'S REALLY HER COMMITMENT TO THE CITY THAT HAS KEPT -- MADE THIS SUCH AN ISSUE THAT IT IS. AND LIKE I SAID, I REALLY RESPECT THAT. I THINK THERE HAS ALSO BEEN SOME FOLKS WRITING ME, E-MAILING, ALL OF US, THE MAYOR SPOKE ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY EARLIER, AND ONE THING THEY ARE SAYING IS -- WELL, DON'T COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND APPROVE A SETTLEMENT. AND TO GET AS MANY E-MAILS AS WE'VE HAD WITH THAT SINGLE MESSAGE ON THEM, THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE OR MAYBE MORE THAN ONE PERSON HAS BEEN PUTTING OUT THE INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT HERE WITH NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION, JUST EMERGE FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AND VOTE IT THROUGH. AND I'VE NEVER HEARD ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL SAY THAT THEY WANTED TO DO THAT. I'VE HEARD SEVERAL, I THINK ALL, SAY THAT THEY WOULD INSTEAD WANT TO DO THE OPPOSITE, TO HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC PROCESS, LIKE IS LAID OUT IN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S MOTION. SO IT REALLY BOTHERS ME THAT SOMEHOW THIS MISINFORMATION GOT OUT THERE AND THEN JUST SPREAD AND IS NOW, YOU KNOW, SHOWING UP REPEATEDLY ON MY COMPUTER SCREEN HERE. AND FOLKS CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEND IN AND TRY TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A CERTAIN POSITION, TAKE A CERTAIN ACTION OR NOT TO TAKE A CERTAIN ACTION, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR THAT TO BE BASED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON ACCURATE AND HONEST INFORMATION, AND I REALLY -- IT'S APPARENT TO ME THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. SO THAT MAKES ME -- THAT'S ONE REASON THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S MOTION IS I THINK WE NEED TO GET THIS OUT IN THE PUBLIC. I WANT TO HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. I'M TIRED OF JUST DISCUSSING IT AS A LAWSUIT, AN ESSENTIAL LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO UNDER TEXAS STATE LAW AND IT'S PRUDENT TO DISCUSS YOUR LITIGATION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CONTRADICTORY TO SAY PUT THIS OUT IN PUBLIC, LET'S HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS, BUT FOR US NOT TO VOTE ON A FRAMEWORK FOR THAT DISCUSSION. AND MR. HALEY, THE ATTORNEY FOR LUMERMENS, SAYS HE DOESN'T CONSIDER A TERM SHEET TO BE A FINAL VOTE, AND IT'S NOT -- AND THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE -- OUR HISTORY ALSO HAS BEEN ON LAND USE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS, A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. AND THERE'S ONE -- I KNOW A FRIEND OF MINE THAT I REALLY RESPECT CALLED ME THIS MORNING AND PART OF HIS POINT WAS DON'T COME OUT THERE AND APPROVE A SETTLEMENT WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION. AND HE SAID, WELL, OKAY, SO THAT TERM SHEET ISN'T THE FINAL THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- IT REALLY IS, THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DO IT, AND I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT AND I CAME WITH THE EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WASN'T, WHICH I THINK PEOPLE HERE REMEMBER IS THE BRODIE TRACT RIGHT BY THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT. AND TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY, THAT WAS ONE WHERE DUE TO STATE GRANDFATHERING LAW AND APPROVALS OF PREVIOUS CITY COUNCILS BACK DURING THE 1980'S, THERE'S 60% IMPERVIOUS COVER APPROVED ON THAT TRACT. S.O.S. ALLOWED THERE I THINK 15. SO IT'S FOUR TIMES WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED UNDER THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE. SO I CALLED THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ASKED HIM TO COME IN AND TALK AND WE SPENT 17 MONTHS TALKING. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE TALKS AS WELL. 17 MONTHS. AND WE NEGOTIATED THE POINT WHERE HE CAME DOWN TO THE S.O.S. LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY. NOW, I THOUGHT THAT STILL AT THAT POINT -- IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE GREENBELT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST IN THE CITY'S HANDS, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY AND WE NEGOTIATED IT DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE. AND EVEN THE GROUP THAT NAMED THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE SAID, WELL, CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT THERE ON THE EDGE OF BARTON CREEK. EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A FOURTH THE SIZE OF WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND IT WAS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE. BUT NONETHELESS, I HEARD THAT AND WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT WE PASSED THAT TERM SHEET AGAINST OBJECTIONS, WE PASSED THAT TERM SHEET WHERE THEY WOULD INSTEAD OF BUILDING IT 60%, THEY WOULD BUILD 15. WE WENT AHEAD AND PASSED THAT, BUT WE KEPT ON TALKING AND FINALLY THE CITY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE, BUT THERE IS I THINK A VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF HOW THINGS CAN CHANGE AFTER THE COUNCIL PASSES A TERM SHEET AND AFTER WE GET IT OUT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO PASS OR NOT, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT AND MY VOTE FOR IT DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS LOCKED IN STONE OR THAT IT'S EVEN GOING TO BE APPROVED ULTIMATELY, BUT IT MEANS IT'S GOING TO GO OUT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THE PUBLIC'S IDEAS BECAUSE I THINK IT MIGHT HELP US. IT HELPED US ON OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD AND MADE THEM BETTER THAN WHAT DID GET APPROVED. BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS AND I DON'T REALLY SEE A WAY SHORT OF APPROVING SOME KIND OF FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION. SO I'LL BE VOTING YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: YEAH, LET ME REITERATE, A LOT OF E-MAILERS AND SPEAKERS APPARENTLY HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT BY NOT APPROVING A SETTLEMENT TODAY WE HAVE APPROVED A SETTLEMENT TODAY. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT THE END OF THE PROCESS IS THE END AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING. YOU CAN'T, I DON'T THINK, HAVE VOTES OUT THERE -- FOLKS OUT THERE WHO SAY THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO TRY TO MAKE A GOOD OFFER THIS THIS PROPERTY, WHICH I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEE, I AM WATCHING THE PLATE TO SEE WHO STEPS UP, IF WE HAVE TO KEEP THE PROPOSAL SECRET SO THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN, WHAT THE PLANS ARE WITHOUT THEM. SO TO OPEN THIS UP FOR THE PUBLIC SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE MOST PRODUCTIVE THING WE CAN DO, AND EACH OF US KEEPS ON SAYING THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER YOU CAN SAY THAT. IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL. IT'S NOT AN ACCEPTANCE. IT IS NOT A FINAL ANYTHING. IT IS A WAY TO GET IT OUT OF THE BACK ROOM WITH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND BRING IT OUT SO THAT FOLKS CAN LOOK AT IT. BECAUSE EVEN IF WE WIN THE LAWSUIT AND DO NOT TAKE AWAY LUMBERMEN'S POWER TO DEVELOP, THEY CAN WITHOUT ON THE ACCESS THING WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS, BUT WE'RE OUT OF IT. SO WHETHER WE WIN OR NOT, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO DEVELOP OR NOT. AND IN MY OPINION, TOGETHER WITH THE PART THAT IS CURRENTLY PUBLICLY OWNED AND TOGETHER WITH WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE A PUBLICLY OWNED PART AND WHICH WE [INAUDIBLE] DOES NOT STILL PUT EVERYTHING INTO THE KIND OF CONTEXT SO WE CAN USE IT FOR MULTI MODAL STATIONS AND INTER SEXES. BUT IF WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT, NOT TO TAKE THIS ACTION MEANS KEEP EVERYTHING SECRET. SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO HELP US SFWET SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT -- GET SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING BECAUSE IT'S IN SECRET. SO I WILL VOTE FOR IT. IT IS NOT AN APPROVAL. IT IS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE. I DON'T BELIEVE MULTI-FAMILY SHOULD GO IN THIS AREA. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO SEE WHAT THEY MIGHT CONTRIBUTE PRIVATE FUNDS TO, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR COMMENTS FROM A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY SAY THAT I SEE A TERM SHEET AS AN APPROPRIATE STEP IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BE IN A SITUATION -- I HEAR THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY SOME THAT THEY WOULD PREFER -- THERE ARE SOME THINGS THEY WANT TO SEE HAPPEN ON THIS BEFORE THEY WOULD VOTE FOR A FINAL APPROVAL. BUT TO GET TO THAT POINT BEFORE YOU WILL VOTE TO GO TO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO BE MAKING DECISIONS WITHOUT ALL THE PUBLIC INPUT AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO TO HAVE AN OUTLINE IS AN APPROPRIATE STEP AND IT IS A STEP THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED NOW FOR THE THREE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS, THESE LAWSUITS WHERE THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF GETTING US TO AN OUTLINE, YOU HAVE A TERM SHEET, YOU GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC, YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC COME IN, MAKE ALL THE COMMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE, AND HAVE PEOPLE VISIT, HAVE THE FOLKS VISIT WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER THINGS RELATED TO SEAHOLM AND OTHERWISE, VISIT WITH COUNCIL, ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF COUNCIL, BUT THAT WILL THEN LEAD YOU UP TO GETTING SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN VOTE UP OR DOWN. THAT IS THE FINAL DEAL. THIS IS JUST A STEP IN THAT PROCESS. SO I WILL -- COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHAT WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT INSTEAD OF PUTTING OUT THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL AND DEVELOPMENT AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE DETAILS OF A DEVELOPMENT ARE GOING TO BE OR NOT BE, WHICH IS WHERE THIS WOULD BE HEADED IF WE APPROVED THE TERM SHEET, THE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE HAVING THE PUBLIC PROCESS ON AND THE REASON WE HIRED ROMA IS NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE CONDO PROJECT, IT WAS TO TALK ABOUT WITH THEIR GUIDANCE WHAT THAT WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. SO STEP ONE IS TO WORK WITH ROMA, HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS ON THE LAND THAT'S USED IN THAT WHOLE AREA, NOT ON THE DETAILS OF WHAT ONE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL COULD BE. ESPECIALLY IF TAKING THIS ACTION MIGHT PRECLUDE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT COULD MAKE IT -- COULD MAKE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP A REALITY, A REAL POSSIBILITY. WE HAVE HEARD THAT THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS WOULD BE GREATLY DISCOURAGED IF THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT IS THE DETAILS OF THE CONDO PROJECT. ALSO IT WAS SAID THAT THE ONLY PERSON WHO KEPT THIS ALIVE IS ROBERTA CRENSHAW. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE. I THINK THERE IS A VERY BROAD BASE, VERY WELL INFORMED AND SOPHISTICATED GROUP OF PEOPLE AND MANY WHO ARE WILLING TO PUT TOGETHER MORE TIME, MORE ENERGY, MORE RESOURCES AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS NOT ON THE DETAILS OF THE CONDO PROJECT, BUT ON THE -- WITH ROMA'S GUIDANCE. A THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF WHAT THAT WHOLE AREA CAN -- CAN BE. AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THE DETAILS [INAUDIBLE] THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE [INAUDIBLE] SO FOR THAT REASON I THINK IT'S A VERY [INAUDIBLE]. THAT IS IN A VERY, VERY UNIQUE PART OF AUSTIN [INAUDIBLE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: YES, THANK YOU. I'LL BE BRIEF. I ALREADY STATED WHY I WANT TO AT LEAST MOVE TOWARDS THE NEXT STEP. WE'VE HEARD LUMBERMEN'S ATTORNEY MR. HALEY MENTION THAT AT LEAST THERE'S FIVE MORE WEEKS LEFT BEFORE A FINAL VOTE TO BE TAKEN BY THIS COUNCIL AND I'M GOING ON RECORD NOW TO SAY I ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY HAVE THE RIGHT TO, YOU KNOW, VOTE NO AGAINST ANY DETAILS IN FIVE WEEKS. I'M MERELY VOTING TO MOVE THIS PROCESS FORWARD, GET THE PUBLIC MORE INVOLVED, GET THE DETAILS OUT IN THE PUBLIC, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE ROMA PRESENTATION ON THE 28TH ABOUT WHAT THIS WHOLE DISTRICT AROUND SEAHOLM CAN BE. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

>>THOMAS: YES, I -- LOOKING AT -- EVEN HEARING SOME OF THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT THE RAILROAD COMPANY, THERE'S SOME DECISIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CLARIFIED WITH ME, AND I GUESS BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THE THREE THAT CAME ON, NEW COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT -- LIKE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WAS SAYING, SOME OF THE MONEY SPENT, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. SO I WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT TODAY. BUT I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS SINCE ROMA IS GOING TO DO THEIR PRESENTATION ON THE 28TH, I THINK IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO AFTER THE PRESENTATION GO INTO -- MAYBE INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE TERM SHEET DEAL. THANK YOU.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR? I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A SPEECH, BUT I HAVE AN AMENDMENT I WANTED TO DISCUSS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN AN AMENDMENT.

>>SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, YOUR MOTION IS TO HAVE BOTH A HEARING AND ACTION ON OCTOBER 12TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>WYNN: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: WHAT I WAS THINKING IS MAYBE TO HAVE THE -- A HEARING ONE WEEK AND THE ACTION THE NEXT, AND WE WOULD RETAIN THE RIGHT TO LIMIT DISCUSSION [INAUDIBLE] SO WE HAVE COUNCIL DISCUSSION. SO EITHER TO HAVE THE HEARING ON THE 5TH AND KEEP THE ACTION DATE ON THE 12TH OR HAVE THE HEARING ON THE 12TH AND PUSH THE ACTION DATE BACK TO THE 19TH. WOULD -- SO WOULD IT WORK UNDER YOUR PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE HEARING ON THE 5TH?

>>WYNN: SURE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I WOULD MAKE THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE ON THE 5TH WITH POTENTIAL ACTION THE FOLLOWING WEEK. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND THE MAKER OF THE SECOND CONSIDER THAT TO BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT. IS THE MOTION. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MS. BROWN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR WATSON.

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN.

>>GOODMAN: YES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: NO.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: NO.

>> COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: YES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

>>THOMAS: YES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: YES.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THERE BEING FOUR YES, SIRS AND THREE NOS, THE MOTION PASSES. THAT TAKES CARE OF ITEM NO. 13. COUNCIL, AT THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SO WE MIGHT GO TO PROCLAMATIONS AND LIVE MUSIC. THE RECESS WILL BE -- I'M GOING TO SAY FOR 30 MINUTES SO WE CAN BE BACK AT ORDER AT 6:30 IF WE CAN GET DONE BY THAT TIME. IS THERE A MOTION? WIN.

>>WYNN: SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE IN RECESS UNTIL 6:30. (music) (music) [APPLAUSE]. (music) (music) FOR IT'S ONE, TWO, THREE STRIKES YOU ARE OUT IN THE OLD BALL GAME (music) (music). (music) TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALL GAME, TAKE ME OUT WITH THE CROWD (music) (music). (music) BUY ME SOME PEANUTS AND CRACKER JACKS, I DON'T CARE IF I NEVER COME GET BACK (music) (music). (music) FOR IT'S ROOT, ROOT, ROOT FOR THE HOME TEAM, IF THEY DON'T WIN IT'S A SHAME (music) (music). (music) FOR IT'S ONE, TWO, THREE STRIKES YOU'RE OUT AT THE OLD BALL GAME (music) (music) [APPLAUSE].

>> WE'RE GOING TO DO GRAND OLD FLAG. (music) (music) YOU ARE A GRAND OLD FLAG, YOU'RE A HIGH FLYING FLAG AND FOREVER IN PEACE MAY YOU WAVE (music) (music). (music) YOU ARE THE EMBLEM OF THE LAND I LOVE, THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE (music) (music). (music) EVERY HEART IS TRUE FOR THE RED WHITE AND BLUE WHERE THERE'S NEVER A BOAST OR BRAG (music) (music). (music) SHOULD OLD AKWAN TANS BE FORGOT, KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE GRAND OLD FLAG (music) (music). (music) YOU'RE A GRAND OLD FLAG, YOU'RE A HIGH FLYING FLAG AND FOREVER IN PEACE MAY YOU WAVE (music) (music) YOU'RE THE EMBLEM OF THE LAND I LOVE, THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE (music) (music). (music) EVERY HEARTBEATS TRUE FOR THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE, WHERE THERE'S NEVER A BOAST OR BRAG (music) (music). (music) SHOULD OLD AKWAN TANS BE FORGOT, KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE GRAND OLD FLAG (music) (music). [APPLAUSE]. (music) GOD BLESS AMERICA, LAND THAT I LOVE (music) (music). (music) STAND BESIDE HER AND GUIDE HER THROUGH THE NIGHT WITH A LIGHT FROM ABOVE (music) (music). (music) FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE PRAYER REESE TO THE OCEAN WHITE WITH FOAM (music) (music). (music) GOD BLESS AMERICA, MY HOME SWEET HOME (music) (music). (music) GOD BLESS AMERICA, MY HOME SWEET HOME (music) (music) [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: OUR NEXT PROCLAMATION, BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS I, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 2000 AS PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN AUSTIN AND I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT PROSTATE CANCER IS THE MOST COMMONLY DIAGNOSED NON-SKIN CANCER AMONG MEN. AFFECTING ONE MAN IN SIX, INCLUDING MANY WHO ARE IN THEIR PRIME WORKING YEARS. IN RECOGNIZING THAT EARLY DETECTION IS CRITICAL TO COPING WITH THIS COMPLEX DISEASE, AND IN ENCOURAGING THE MEN OF AUSTIN TO BECOME INFORMED ABOUT PROSTATE CANCER, GET SCREENED FOR THE DISEASE IF APPROPRIATE AND TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR HEALTH AND IT'S SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO PROTECT THIS PROCLAMATION TO MY LONG TIME FRIEND DR. JOSEPH QUAND. [APPLAUSE].

>> WELL, ON BEHALF OF THOSE MEN WHO HAVE BEEN TREATED AND WHO HAVE SURVIVED PROSTATE CANCER, FOR THEIR FAMILIES, FOR THEIR MEDICAL CAREGIVERS AS WELL AS THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, WE ACCEPT THIS PROCLAMATION FOR PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS WEEK WITH MUCH GRATITUDE. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2000 AS THE ADOPT A MINE FIELD CAMPAIGN KICKOFF DAY IN AUSTIN, AND I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE GLOBAL LAND MINE CRISIS IS SUCH A PERVASIVE PROBLEM THAT EVERY 22 MINUTES ANOTHER PERSON IS MAIMED OR KILLED BY A LAND MINE. IN RECOGNIZING THAT DURING THE FOUR-MONTH CAMPAIGN, AUSTINITES CAN PARTNER WITH THE UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM BY CONTRIBUTING FUNDS FOR TRAINING OF DEMINING DOGS AND CLEARING A MINE FIELD IN BOSNIA AND IN REAL LIFE THAT THROUGH SUCH EFFORTS WE CAN HELP SAVE LIVES, ALLOW CHILDREN TO PLAY OUTSIDE, AND ENABLE PEOPLE TO REBUILD THEIR HOMES AND SAFELY CULTIVATE THEIR LAND. AND IT'S SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT THIS TO MARY BURWICK ON BEHALF OF THE ADOPT A MINE FIELD CAMPAIGN. I RAN INTO A MINE FIELD, DIDN'T I? I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE WITH ME HERE SOME MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION AND SOME MEMBERS -- A FEW MEMBERS OF A RATHER LARGE COMMITTEE WHO ARE ORGANIZING THIS CAMPAIGN. AS YOU HEARD, THE CAMPAIGN KICKOFF WILL BE ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST AT THE JOE C. THOMPSON CENTER AT U.T. AND WE WILL HAVE VISITING SPEAKERS, AMBASSADOR DONALD STEIN BERG WHO IS THE PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR GROBL HUMANITARIAN AND COLONEL PERRY MARSHAL. AND THE MARSHAL LEGACY INSTITUTE THE CALLED AFTER THE MARSHAL OF THE MARSHAL PLAN AND IT INVOLVES ITSELF AS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AROUND THE WORLD WHEREVER THERE ARE PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM WAR. AND THE MARSHALL LEGACY INSTITUTE HAS AS SPECIAL WORK TRAINING OF DEMINING DOGS. AND WE WILL HAVE IN AUSTIN ON SEPTEMBER THE 21ST, A VETERAN DOG, ROY. AND ROY IS COMING TO VISIT SOME OF THE AUSTIN SCHOOLS AND WILL ALSO BE WITH US WITH HIS HANDLER ON SEPTEMBER 21ST. ROY SERVED FOR TEN YEARS IN BOSNIA CLEARING THE LAND OF -- THE EARTH OF LAND MINES. IT'S NOT A DANGER TO THE DOG. THEY ARE REMARKABLE. THEY SNIFF OUT THE EXPLOSIVES. THEY DO NOT GO NEAR THE LAND MINE, BUT THEY SNIFF THE EXPLOSIVE AND THEN THE HANDLER CAN COME IN AND TAKE THE MINE AWAY. AS A PROCLAMATION SAYS, EVERY 22 MINUTES, SOMEONE IN THE WORLD IS MAIMED OR KILLED BY A LAND MINE. THE LAND MINES OUT TO KNOW WHEN PEACE BEEX OUT, THEY ARE -- BREAKS OUT. THERE ARE 70 MILLION IN THE WORLD IN OVER 70 COUNTRIES AND 26,000 PEOPLE A YEAR ARE KILLED BY LAND MINES OR MAIMED. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL PICTURE HERE OF CHILDREN FROM -- YOUNG PEOPLE FROM PERHAPS CAMBODIA, WHICH IS VERY MUCH MINED AND THEIR LIVES ARE RUINED. IT HAPPENS IN A FLASH, IN A MOMENT. SO WE ARE INVITING THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN TO COME ON SEPTEMBER 21ST IF YOU CAN, BUT MORE PARTICULARLY DURING THE FOUR MONTHS WHEN YOU READ ABOUT IT IN THE PAPER, PLEASE SEND THE DONATION, YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE ADDRESS, EVERYTHING IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE. WE HAVE PROMISED AND HOPE TO RAISE $50,000 IN FOUR MONTHS, SEPTEMBER THROUGH JANUARY. SO WE WILL REPORT, WE HOPE, A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN. WE'RE NOT THE FIRST CITY IN THE COUNTRY TO DO IT, ATLANTA, MILWAUKEE, SEVERAL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA, BUT WE ARE THE FIRST TEXAS CITY. AND WE HOPE THAT AUSTIN WILL DO US PROUD. THERE IS A LOCAL -- A WEBSITE, WWW.AUSTINLANDMINE.ORG, SO YOU CAN LOOK UP -- IT'S IN PROCESS, BUT IT WILL GET BETTER AND BETTER AND WE WILL PUT ON THE WEBSITE AS THE MONEY COMES IN AFTER SEPTEMBER 21ST. MAYOR WATSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH. [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2000 AS INTERNATIONAL FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME AWARENESS DAY IN AUSTIN AND I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND MANY IN AUSTIN WHOSE ABILITIES ARE IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL BEFORE THEY WERE BORN. IN RECOGNIZING THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE 100% PREVENTABLE. IN RECOGNIZING THAT WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT, BREAST FEEDING OR PLANNING TO CONCEIVE SHOULD NOT CONSUME ALCOHOL. AND TO JOIN ME IN ACTING WITH COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING TOWARDS THOSE WHO LIVE WITH FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME OR RELATED CONDITIONS. AND IT'S SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND I'M PROUD TO PROVIDE THIS SO MR. LARRY KING. [APPLAUSE].

>> THANK YOU. MAYOR WATSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR RECOGNIZING THIS EVENT. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IT REALLY MEANS A LOT TO ME PERSONALLY AND TO THIS LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT I -- AT LEAST TODAY REPRESENT. I'M WITH THE TEXAS OFFICE FOR PREVENTION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. OUR OFFICE SPONSORS A TEXAS FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME CONSORTIUM. YOU CAN FIND THEM AT WWW. -- I'M SORRY, WWW MAIN.ORG/TEXASSAS. SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT CONSORTIUM ARE HERE TODAY. SYLVIA, [INAUDIBLE] CONLAND. [INAUDIBLE] WILLS, AND INA GREEN FROM THE INFANT PARENT TRAINING OF AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY MHMR. THIS IS JUST A SMALL SAMPLING OF THE AGENCIES IN AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY THAT WORK TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORT TO WOMEN AND TO THE MEN, TO THE FAMILIES AND TO THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE FETAL -- HAVE FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME AS A DISORDER WITHIN ONE OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS ORGANIZATION, TEXAS FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME CONSORTIUM IS BASED HERE IN AUSTIN AND WE'RE VERY PROUD TO HAVE THE CITY OF AUSTIN SUPPORT THIS EVENT, TEXAS FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME DAY IN TEXAS AND TO SHOW ITS LEADERSHIP. I'M NOTING THAT OF THE PROCLAMATIONS TODAY, EVERYTHING IS PEOPLE ORIENTED AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT AUSTIN IS ALL ABOUT. AND IT REALLY MEANS A LOT TO HAVE TEXAS AS A WHOLE PROVIDE ITS PROCLAMATIONS FOR THIS EVENT AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CITIES AND HOPEFULLY SOME OTHER CITIES WILL FOLLOW AS WELL. MAYOR WATSON, YOU'VE GIVEN US A PROCLAMATION, I WANT TO GIVE THIS BACK TO YOU. YOU SEE THAT WE'RE WEARING FAS NOT. IT'S NOT A RED RIBBON, A BLUE RIBBON OR SOMETHING FUN OR FUNNY. I'LL GIVE YOU SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT DESCRIBES WHAT IT IS AND HOPE THAT YOU AND THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WHO I'LL ALSO GIVE COPIES TO WILL TAKE THEM BACK TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, THEIR COMMUNITY. I'LL ALSO GIVE YOU A BROCHURE ON WHAT FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME IS AND IS NOT AND HOW PEOPLE CAN SUPPORT THE REST OF THE CITIZENS IN AUSTIN WITH IT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS. AND --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, KIRK WATSON RNTION MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 17TH THROUGH 232000 AS SUBLUXATION AWARENESS WEEK AND CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE HEALTH OF INDIVIDUALS AFFECTS THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AND SINCE ALL BODY FUNCTIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE BRAIN SENDING AND RECEIVING MESSAGES OVER NERVE, NEUROLOGICAL DISRUPTIONS CAN CAUSE POOR HEALTH AND KIR PRACTICAL TICK IS A HEALTH CARE DISCIPLINE WHICH HELPS THE BODY TO HEAL BY RELIEFING THAT. AND IN RECOGNIZING THE KIR PRACTICAL TICK IS CELEBRATING IT'S 10TH ANNIVERSARY AND PROMOTING HEALTH THROUGH NATURAL MEANS, SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO GIVE THIS TO DR. DEPEND RA LOGAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].

>> I'M HONORED TO BE HERE ACCEPTING THIS AND I'M GOING TO JUST SHARE WITH YOU A PIECE OF HISTORY TODAY. THIS IS WRITTEN BY THE SON OF THE FOUNDER OF CHIROPRACTIC, B. J. PALMER. I'LL JUST READ IT TO YOU. HE SAYS A SLIP ON THE SNOWY SIDEWALK IN WINTER IS A SMALL THING, IT HAPPENS TO MILLIONS. A FALL FROM A LADDER IN THE SUMMER IS A SMALL THING, IT ALSO HAPPENS TO MILLIONS. THE SLIP OR FALL PRODUCES A SUBLUXATION. THE SUBLUXATION IS A SMALL THING T SUBLUXATION PRODUCES PRESSURE ON A NERVE, THAT PRESSURE IS A SMALL THING. THAT DECREASED FLOWING PRODUCES A DECEASED BODY AND BRAIN, THAT IS A BIG THING TO THAT MAN. MULTIPLE THAT SICK MAN BY A THOUSAND AND YOU CONTROL THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELFARE OF A CITY. MULTIPLY THAT MAN BY 130 MILLION AND YOU FORECAST AND CAN PROPHECY THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STATUS OF A NATION. SO THE SLIP OR FALL, THE SUBLUXATION, PRESSURE, SLOW ON MENTAL IMAGES AND DISEASE ARE BIG ENOUGH TO CONTROL THE THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS OF THE NATION. NOW COMES A MAN AND ONE MAN IS A SMALL THING. THIS MAN GIVES AN ADJUSTMENT. THE ADJUSTMENT IS A SMALL THING. THE ADJUSTMENT REPLACES SUBLUXATION. THAT IS A SMALL THING. THE ADJUSTMENT SUBLUXATION RELEASES PRESSURE ON A NERVE THAT. IS A SMALL THING. THE RELEASED PRESSURE RESTORES HEALTH TO A MAN. THIS IS A BIG THING TO THAT MAN. MULTIPLY THAT WELL MAN BY A THOUSAND AND YOU STEP UP THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELFARE OF A CITY. MULTIPLY THAT WELL MAN BY A MILLION AND YOU INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF A STATE. MULTIPLY THAT MAN BY 130 MILLION AND YOU HAVE PRODUCED A HEALTHY, WEALTHY AND BETTER RACE FOR POSTERITY. SO THE ADJUSTMENT OF SUBLUXATION TO RELEASE PRESSURE UPON NERVE, RESTORE MENTAL IMPULSE, TO RESTORE HEALTH IS BIG NOUF TO RESOLVE THE THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS OF THE WORLD. THE IDEA THAT KNOWS THE CAUSE THAT CAN CORRECT THE CAUSE OF DISEASE IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST IDEAS I KNOW. WITHOUT IT NATIONS FALL AND WITH IT NATIONS RISE. THIS IS THE BIGGEST IDEA I KNOW. BJ PALMER. [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK ALL OF YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PROCLAMATIONS. WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL AT LEAST 6:30. I'LL SEE HOW DINNER IS GOING AND SEE IF 6:30 IS REALLY WHEN WE START BACK. WE'LL BE BACK. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: DO YOU KNOW WHERE WILL WENT? I WILL CALL THE CITY COUNCILL BACK TO ORDER. THE WAY WE WILL PROCEED, FOR THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE PROCESS, IS WE WILL GO TO ITEMS 29 AND 30, THEN DEPENDING UPON A COUPLE OF FACTORS WE WILL GO BACK AND TAKE UP ITEMS 14, 15 AND 16. THAT WILL BE THE ORDER WE WILL GO IN. AFTER WE FINISH 29 AND 30, WE WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: MS. GLASGO, GO AHEAD.

>>GLASGO: GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBER. ITEM NO. 29, THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER THE 25TH IN ORDER TO -- TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE PROPERTY MEETS THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT RESERVE ZONING. SO THE REQUEST IS TO POSTPONE 29 TO OCTOBER THE 5TH. ITEM NO. 30, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M GOING TO TRY TO -- TO SIMPLIFY THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU. THIS IS A CASE THAT WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY AS A RESULT OF YOUR REQUEST TO ZONE ALL INTERIM ZONED PROPERTY TO PERMANENT BY SIMPLY DROPPING THE INTERIM. BUT AS YOU ALL KNOW, SOME CASES ARE UNIQUE AND HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE HAVE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS, MS. FITS PATRICK WHO WOULD LIKE HER PROPERTY ZONED DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. WE DID NOT NOTIFY FOR THAT DESIGNATION. THEN YOU HAVE THE CALLAHAN'S, OF THE FEED STORE, WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CS ZONING, WHICH YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO -- TO EITHER SEND THEM BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THOSE REQUESTS, OR TO -- TO ZONE THE PROPERTIES RURAL RESIDENTIAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DEVELOPMENT RESERVE IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S A DIFFERENT HIERARCHY AND IF THE NOTIFICATION DID NOT INCLUDE THAT, THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT PROPERLY NOTICED TO CONSIDER IT. SO YOUR OPTION WOULD BE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO SIMPLY DO THAT.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO 29 FOR A SECOND. WHOSE REQUEST TO TAKE THAT TO OCTOBER THE 5TH WAS THAT?

>>GLASGO: 29, YES, OCTOBER THE 5TH.

>>GOODMAN: WHOSE REQUEST WAS THAT?

>>GLASGO: THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER, MS. FITZPATRICK.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCIL WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT ON 29 UNTIL OCTOBER THE 5TH. AND ON 30 DUE TO RENOTIFICATION ONE OPTION IS TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR -- OR GO AHEAD AND DO RR. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>GLASGO: CORRECT. EITHER -- EITHER PERMANENT RR OR BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT SHE MIGHT DESIGN FOR THIS THIS PROPERTY, HER PREFERENCE IS TO BE IN THE DEVELOPMENT RESERVE ZONE WHICH REALLY GIVES US THAT OPTION AT A FUTURE DATE WHEN YOU DO HAVE AN END USER, THEN YOU FILE A ZONING CASE TO DESIGNATE THAT AND STAFF DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT DESIGNATION. IT'S APPROPRIATE, JUST IT NEEDS TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE SECOND ONE IS FROM THECAL CALLAHAN'S, A DIFFERENT PIECE OF TRACT WITHIN THE BIG TRACT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING WHICH OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT POSTED FOR. IT'S NOT AN OVERSIGHT, IT'S JUST THAT OUR CHARGE WAS TO SIMPLY BRING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT HAS AN INTERIM DESIGNATION, TO I AM PLEA DROP IT TO ALLOW YOU IN THE FUTURE IF THERE IS A PETITION IN OPPOSITION THAT THERE IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A PETITION OPTION BY THOSE WHO MIGHT BE AFFECTED.

>>GOODMAN: ALL RIGHT. MR. HOWARD, ARE YOU REPRESENTING BOTH OF THESE --

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, MY NAME IS JEFF HOWARD. I REPRESENT ONLY FITZPATRICK REQUESTING DR ZONING ON HERPES WHICH ALICE SAID IS APPROPRIATE FOR HER TRACT. VERY RESTRICTIVE, IN FACT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I DON'T REPRESENT THE CALLAHAN FOLKS AND SO ALL THAT I AM INTERESTED IN IS GOING BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION SO WE CAN ZONE THIS DR, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THIS IS RECENTLY ANNEXED PROPERTY, OVER 10 ACRES, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED OR DEVELOPED.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. COUNCIL? THERE IS A MOTION OR TWO? REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER THE 5TH ON ITEM 29. EITHER PERMANENTLY ZONE OR SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUBJECT OF NOTIFICATION FOR THE ZONING SOUGHT.

>> UH-HUH.

>> SO MOVE.

>>GRIFFITH: [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: PARDON?

>>GRIFFITH: AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE -- 29 IS EASY. I WOULD MOVE THE POSTPONEMENT.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: I AM TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WISH TO DO ON THIS AND WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS AND WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS. THIS ONE IS A LITTLE HARDER TO GET TO.

>>GLASGO: OKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO SIMPLY DROP THE INTERIM AND ZONE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS TO -- RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT RESERVE FOR SOME OF THE PROPERTIES GRFT PART DR, THE TOP PART.

>> YES, THE FITS PATRICK TRACT WOULD BE DR, SOME RURAL RESIDENTIAL -- I HAVE A PAGE MISSING FROM MY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, PART DR AND RR FOR THE REST. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHAT DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER WANT? THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS REPRESENTED BY MR. HOWARD WANTS DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. GRFT IS THAT THE TOP PART? --

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT THE TOP PART?

>>GLASGO: YES.

>>GRIFFITH: ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION?

>>GLASGO: YES, MA'AM, IT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT YOURS, ALSO?

>>GLASGO: IT'S NOT. WE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. IT'S JUST THAT YOU ARE NOT POSTED NOR WAS THE NOTICE SENT OUT FOR ANYONE TO CONSIDER THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

>>GRIFFITH: SHOULD IT GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>GLASGO: THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ASKING THAT IF YOU COULD END IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THEY CAN PROPERLY CONSIDER IT UNDER THE -- UNDER THE PROPER POSTING REQUIREMENTS.

>>GRIFFITH: DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE ADVISEABLE, ALSO?

>>GLASGO: STAFF SUPPORTS THAT REQUEST. THEN THE SECOND REQUEST WAS FROM MR. TERRY BRAY REPRESENTING THE CALLAHAN'S, THE FEED STORE, WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE OTHER TRACT. WANTING CONSIDERATION FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT REQUEST FROM MR. HOWARD'S

>>GRIFFITH: COULD THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES BE CONSIDERED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>GRIFFITH: YES, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED, IF IT'S YOUR DESIRE, WE WILL TAKE IT BACK AND ASK THEM TO CONSIDER THAT.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER?

>>GRIFFITH: I WOULD INCLUDE IN MY MOTION TO SEND 30 BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS STAFF RECOMMENDS.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION, WHICH I WILL SECOND. WHICH IS TO POSTPONE ITEM NO. 29 UNTIL THE OCTOBER 5TH MEETING, AND TO SEND ITEM NO. 30 BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPER NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR -- THAT WOULD INCLUDE A DR.

>>GLASGO: AND THE CS, COMMERCIAL SERVICES FOR THE CALLAHANS.

>>GOODMAN: OH, AND CS FOR THE CALLAHANS.

>>GLASGO: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S WHAT'S COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WANTED --

>>GRIFFITH: FOR CONSIDERATION.

>>GOODMAN: ANY FURTHER COMMENT? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND THE MAYOR TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. ON ITEMS NUMBER 14 AND 15, THE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS WHO PULLED THOSE ITEMS WERE COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ AND SLUSHER. SINCE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS, WHAT IF WE GO TO 16, WHICH IS THE CHANGE ORDER AND WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND WYNN. IF THAT'S OKAY, LET US GO TO NO. 16. MR. REIKE?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS PETER REIKE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION. AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE HAD THIS ISSUE SEVERAL TIMES ON THE AGENDA, ORIGINALLY IT CAME TO YOU AS PART OF A LARGER CHANGE ORDER RELATED ULLRICH 72-INCH WATER MAIN. AT THE TIME YOU REQUESTED THIS BE REMOVED FROM THE CHANGE ORDER AND BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU AFTER WE INFORMED YOU ABOUT AT ACTIVES TO THE POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF THE RAILROAD TRESTLE AT 3RD STREET AND SHOAL CREEK. WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY POINT OUT A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE. THE RAILROAD TRESTLE RIGHT NOW IS ENTIRELY WITHIN UNION PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOES NOT OWN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN WHICH THE RAIL LINE OR THE BRIDGE ITSELF IS LOCATED. THE RAILROAD TRESTLE ITSELF ALSO AT THIS TIME IS STILL PROPERTY OF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD. IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ULLRICH TRANSMISSION MAIN, A CROSSING OF SHOAL CREEK WAS NECESSARY. THE -- THE WATER AND WASTEWATER STAFF WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE PROCESSES IN TERMS OF GETTING PARKS' APPROVALS TO CROSS PARKLAND, WHICH SHOAL CREEK ITSELF IS. AND IN MARCH OF '98 -- EXCUSE ME, '99, HAD A MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN ORDER TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE OPTIONS IN TERMS OF EITHER BRINGING THIS WATER MAIN IN AN AERIAL FASHION ACROSS SHOAL CREEK OR DEPRESSING IT AND BURYING IT UNDERGROUND. THE COSTS OF TAKING IT UNDERGROUND WAS EXTREMELY HIGH AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY AGREED UPON TO TAKE THIS LINE AS AN AERIAL CROSSING ACROSS SHOAL CREEK IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT -- THAT THE PARKS BOARD AND OTHERS COULD AGREE WITH. WATER AND WASTEWATER AGREED TO -- TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS SHOAL CREEK, ADD JAYS SENT TO THE EXISTING RAILROAD -- ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RAILROAD TRESTLE AND THIS THIS BRIDGE WOULD SERVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PIPELINE ITSELF. WATER AND WASTEWATER ALSO AGREED AS A FURTHER ELEMENT OF MITIGATION TO NOT ONLY CONNECT THE NEW BRIDGE TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL ON THE TOP OF THE BANKS OF SHOAL CREEK, BUT ALSO TO ALLOW THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL TO CONTINUE UNDERNEATH THE NEW BRIDGE SO THAT RUNNERS AND BICYCLISTS THAT WANT TO CONTINUE ARE NOT IMPEDED BY CROSS TRAFFIC COMING ACROSS SHOAL CREEK ON THE NEW BRIDGE. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE SECOND STEP OF MITIGATION, IN OTHER WORDS BRINGING THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL UNDERNEATH THE NEW BRIDGE, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT IT PROPERLY TO REMOVE AT LEAST THE WESTERN MOST SUPPORTS OF THE RAILROAD TRESTLE. SO IN ORDER -- AT THE MEETING IN MARCH OF 1999, WE ADVISED THE SHAKE HOLDERS THAT IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN WHICH WAS AGREED TO BY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT, THAT -- THAT THE RAILROAD TRESTLE WOULD BE REMOVED. WE SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, THEY ARE -- THEY ARE WILLING TO TRANSFER THIS BRIDGE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING US TO CONSTRUCT THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. WE ALSO HIRED CHUCK FLINK, A RENOWNED TRAILS ARCHITECT WHO DESIGNED THE TRAIL FOR US, THE -- BOTH THE CONNECTIONS TO THE NEW BRIDGE AS WELL AS THE SECTION OF THE TRAIL UNDERNEATH. IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, WE MADE A PRESENTATION OF MR. FLINK'S PROPOSAL OR DESIGN TO STAKEHOLDERS AGAIN AND IT WAS DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL AND AGAIN AT THE TIME WE STATED THAT IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS DESIGN, THE BRIDGE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE WE COULD NOT OTHERWISE CONSTRUCT THE DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL GUIDELINES UNDER A.D.A. AND ASHTO AND STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION. I THINK AT THAT TIME THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE VALUE FROM -- OF THE TRESTLE FROM AN AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE, POSSIBLE A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE, THOSE CONCERNS I THINK ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE ITEM BEING FULLED AND FURTHER DISCUSSED. IN ADDITION TO THOSE ITEMS IN -- ON THE 28TH OF AUGUST, THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM, THE REMOVAL OF THE TRESTLE OR THE TRESTLE ITSELF BE PLACED ON THE SEPTEMBER AGENDA ONCE AN ITEM IS PLACED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IT'S PROTECTED. IN OTHER WORDS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE CITY CERTAINLY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REMOVE THE TRESTLE UNTIL ITS STATUS IS CLEARED. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE ASKED THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO LOOK AT THE BRIDGE AND WE WERE TOLD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS OR A NUMBER OF THINGS BY HER. FIRST OF ALL, THE BRIDGE IS LISTED AS A PRIORITY, TWO OUT OF THREE. IT'S NOT A HIGH PRIORITY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. BUT IT'S THE SECOND OUT OF THREE CATEGORIES. ORIGINALLY, THE TRESTLE WAS BUILT IN '76 AS PART OF THE INGN RAILROAD CONNECTION INTO DOWNTOWN AUSTIN. IT HAS BEEN, HOWEVER, SIGNIFICANTLY REBUILT OVER THE YEARS. THE FIRES -- THE FILES THAT WE GOT FROM UNION PACIFIC INDICATE THAT THE BRIM WAS PROBABLY LARGELY REBUILT IN 1925. IT WAS AGAIN ABOUT 30% REPLACED IN EARLY 1990 AND HASN'T BASICALLY BEEN USED SINCE BY UNION PACIFIC BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE CONDITION IN WHICH THE BRIDGE IS GENERALLY IN. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE RELATIVE TO THE FREQUENT RECONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE BRIDGE, THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WAS UNFORTUNATELY NOT HERE TODAY, CONCLUDING THAT THE TRESTLE WOULD BE A RELATIVELY WEAK CASE FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK. THEREFORE SHE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. WITH THAT IN MIND, LET ME SAY THIS, I MAY HAVE BEEN -- I MAY HAVE COME ACROSS SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES BECAUSE OUR RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN AND AGAIN WILL BE TODAY TO REMOVE THE BRIDGE. THIS IS REALLY NOT THE CASE. WE ARE SOMEWHAT CAUGHT IN A QUAND DEGREE. THE QUAND DEGREE IS THAT THIS PROJECT IS A MITIGATION ISSUE OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY. QUANDRY. THE UTILITY HAS NO FUNDS TO DO SOMETHING BEYOND ITS MISSION, SO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OR THE RESTORATION OF THE BRIDGE IS NOT PART OF THE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE. THERE ARE NO FUNDS OTHERWISE FOR THIS PROJECT, SO BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN MAKE IS WE HAVE A PROJECT, THE PROJECT ONLY CAN BE EXECUTED -- EXCUSE ME -- WE HAVE A PROJECT, THE PROJECT WAS DISCUSSED AT TWO OCCASION WAS STAKEHOLDERS, THEY AGREED WITH THE DESIGN APPROACH, THE ONLY WAY TO IMPLEMENT IT IS BY REMOVING THIS BRIDGE. THE BRIDGE IS CURRENTLY IN A POSITION WHERE IT IS UNSAFE AND A POTENTIAL DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THERE'S NO FUNDING TO DO ANYTHING IN ORDER TO CHANGE ITS CURRENT STATUS AND ON THAT BASIS WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THE CHANGE ORDER, THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 72-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BRIDGE REMOVED SO WE CAN, A, REMOVE A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY COMPLETE THE ULLRICH TRANSMISSION PROJECT. SO ON THIS BASIS AND ON THE BASIS THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BRIDGE IS A STRONG CASE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE FUNDING OF $85,000 TO REMOVE THE RAILROAD TRESTLE FROM ITS CURRENT LOCATION. IF YOU ARE WONDERING ABOUT WHAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE RELATIVE TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION AGENDA POSTING, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A COUNCIL DECISION TOWARD THE REMOVAL OF THIS BRIDGE WOULD LIKELY SERVE AS A GUIDANCE TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RELATIVE TO ITS CONSIDERATION SCHEDULED FOR THE END OF THIS MONTH. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, ARE THERE QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?

>>GOODMAN: THREE SPEAKERS.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>>GOODMAN: ANY OTHERS? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: MR. REIKE, IS -- A COUPLE OF THINGS, MY PARTICULAR INTEREST IN PULLING THIS ITEM IS SEVERAL-FOLD, ONE IS I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE TODAY OR ANY TIME SOON FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN EXPENSE BY THE CITY TO REHAB THIS BRIDGE AND I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO NOT USING ANY FUNDS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD GO TO THE REBUILDING OF THE REDESIGNED SHOAL CREEK HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- THAT DEMOLITION NOW IS ALSO NOT WARRANTED, EVEN SPENDING THIS $90,000 ACTUALLY. MY SUSPICION IS THAT WHEN THE GREENWAYS COMPANY PREPARED THE NEW MASTER PLAN FOR THE SHOAL CREEK MOUKT, THEY PROBABLY WERE JUST SIMPLY TOLD THAT THE TRESTLE WOULDN'T BE THERE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, SO THEY DESIGNED THEIR TRAIL HUMANNING THE TRESTLE WOULDN'T BE THERE. I'M SUSPICIOUS THAT IT WOULDN'T BE MUCH OF AN ISSUE FOR THE SHOAL CREEK HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL TO BE SLIGHTLY REDESIGNED AT THAT LOCATION WITH LITTLE OR NO SPENCE AND NOT HAVE TO -- NO EXPENSE AND NOT HAVE TO TAKE THE TRESTLE DOWN NOW. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN, I HAVE -- I'VE BEEN ON IT RECENTLY, IT'S -- IT'S IN POOR CONDITION. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY, YOU KNOW, FENCING IT OFF OR SOMEHOW KEEPING IT TO WHERE PEOPLE WON'T BE ON IT. BUT I'M -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO RUSH TO A DECISION TO TAKE THE BRIDGE DOWN NOW AND I WOULD BE PREPARED IF NEED BE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, EFFORT, AND/OR MONEY ON ONE THE REDESIGN OF THE SHOAL CREEK HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AT THAT LOUX AND THEN, TWO, IF NEED BE, YOU KNOW, FENCING THE TRESTLE OFF WHILE THERE'S FURTHER DEBATE ABOUT ITS -- ITS TRUE VALUE.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. I THINK THE OPTIONS THAT HE LAID OUT ARE REALISTIC. ALSO WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT CLEAR IN THE WAY OF A DECISION, OFTENTIMES GETTING MORE INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY WITH SOMETHING THIS TECHNICAL, COULD BE VERY IMPORTANT. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN ENGAGE SOMEONE, EITHER IN YOUR DEPARTMENT OR ON A CONTRACT BASIS, TO GET MORE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF HARD NUMBERS FOR -- FOR WHAT SOME OF THESE OPTIONS MIGHT INVOLVE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH OPTIONS. AS YOU KNOW, A -- AN INTERESTED CITIZEN, MR. RILEY, HAS TAKEN IT UPON HIMSELF TO APPROACH A CONTRACTOR IN ORDER TO GET SEPARATE COST ESTIMATE IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD COST TO RESTORE THE BRIDGE AT THE BASE AND THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR ESTIMATE AND MR. RILEY'S ESTIMATE. THE PRIMARILY -- THE PRIMARY REASON IS WE BELIEVE THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ALSO NEED TO BE REPLACED THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE. BUT IN EITHER CASE, A MINIMUM YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS APPROXIMATELY 320,000 AND THE HIGH SIDE WOULD BE ABOUT 598,000. NOW, ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE VERY CLEAR, THE BRIDGE IS NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL NOT TO ASSUME OWNERSHIP OF THIS BRIDGE AND THEREFORE ASSUME LIABILITY AS LONG AS IT IS IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. WE DON'T OWN THE UNDERLYING RIGHT-OF-WAY AS I STATED EARLY. IN THEORY I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRESPASS UNION PACIFIC'S PROPERTY TO EJECT SAFETY MEASURES. IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO.

>>GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE BIG DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT ONE ESTIMATE IS AND WHAT THE OTHER ESTIMATE IS. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG REASONS WHY I AM SUGGESTING THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CONTRACT BASIS WHERE WE COULD HAVE FURTHER STUDY DONE BY A THIRD PARTY.

>> WE HAVE AS PART OF OUR OPTIONS INCLUDED SOME DETAILS IN THE COST ESTIMATE, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 68 OR $69,000 IDENTIFIED AS A POSSIBLE AMOUNT IT WOULD TAKE IN ORDER TO PERFORM A STRUCTURED ANALYSIS OF THIS BRIDGE. AGAIN, YOU CAN ARGUE THE NUMBERS, BUT THE EFFECT OF WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU IN THAT CASE IS TO FIRST PERFORM A STRUCTURE ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO SEE TO WHAT EXTENT THIS BRIDGE WOULD HAVE TO BE RESTRUCTURED SO -- RECONSTRUCTED SO WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA AS TO WHAT KIND OF MONIES WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT BASICALLY NEGATES THE ABILITY TO DO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. AND THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING WHERE MR. FLINK TRIED TO ASSUME THAT THE BRIDGE WOULD BE GONE. BASED ON A.D.A REQUIREMENTS WHICH DEFINES SLOPES, THE ELEVATION OF THE BOTTOM CORDS OF THE NEW PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, THE WIDTH AND OTHER GEOMETRIES THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY ENGINEER ENGINEERS, THAT IS DESIGNS IN A WAY TOGETHER WITH THE FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES WE HAVE TO TAKE SO THAT THAT PORTION OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL DOESN'T WASH OUT IN A FLOOD EVENT, THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION. I MEAN, THOSE SUPPORTS ARE CLEARLY INTERFERING WITH THE PROPER DESIGN OF THE LOWER PORTION OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.

>>GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND IT'S COMPLICATED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T MEET ENOUGH OF THE CRITERIA TO BE DECLARED HISTORIC. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BRIDGE IS MEANINGFUL AND IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS IN TERMS OF KEEPING SOME OF THE NATURE AND SOME OF THE AMBIENCE THAT IS IN THAT AREA GOING. FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. HOPEFULLY FROM NOW ON. AND TO DO ANYTHING IRREVERSIBLE LIKE TAKE IT DOWN RIGHT NOW WITHOUT GETTING SOME MORE INFORMATION AND HAVING SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT COULD BE A MISTAKE.

>>GOODMAN: ARE WE READY TO GO TO SPEAKERS? WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. TOMMY EDEN IS THE FIRST, BETTIE EDGEMON THE SECOND, AND CHRIS RILEY THE THIRD. IS MR. EDEN -- EDEN HERE. HE WAS NOT TOO LONG AGO. LET'S GO AHEAD. IF CHRIS IS HERE AND THEN I'LL CALL NAMES AGAIN FOR IN CASE MR. EDEN AND MS. EDGEMON ARE ABLE TO BE HERE.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHRIS RILEY. I'M A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT. I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS BRIDGE. I CURRENTLY SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS BRIDGE, AS MR. REIKE INDICATED, HAS BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW LONG THIS SPECIFIC STRUCTURE HAS BEEN THERE, BUT WE DO KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A WOODEN RAIL TRESTLE IN THIS LOCATION SINCE 1876. WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL AND GREAT NORTHERN LINE FIRST PROVIDED A WESTERN ROUTE OUT OF DOWNTOWN. IT HAS BEEN LENDING A CERTAIN CHARACTER TO THAT AREA, WHICH MAKES IT A VERY SPECIAL PLACE. TO REALLY APPRECIATE THAT, YOU REALLY NEED TO GET DOWN THERE, IN THE CREEK, JUST BELOW -- JUST DOWNSTREAM FROM WHERE THE BRIDGE IS. YOU CAN LOOK UP. ONE OF THE BIG FUNCTIONS IT SERVES RIGHT NOW, IN FACT, IS TO SHIELD YOU FROM THE VIEW OF THE BIG NEW 72 INCH ULLRICH WATER MAIN THAT JUST WENT IN, WHICH IS RATHER UNSIGHTLY, UNFORTUNATELY. ESPECIALLY NOW THAT IT'S ONLY BEEN UP A FEW MONTHS, IT ALREADY HAS GRAFFITI ALL OVER IT. IT'S INTERESTING THAT PEOPLE DON'T PUT MUCH GRAFFITI ON THIS NICE OLD BRIDGE, BUT ALREADY ON THAT UGLY RED PIPE MAIN. BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT TOO MUCH FROM WHERE YOU ARE DOWN IN THAT NICE SPOT ON THE CREEK BECAUSE THIS BRIDGE PROTECTS YOU FROM SEEING THAT AND IT REALLY LENDS A SPECIAL CHARACTER TO THE AREA. I WANT TO TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT MR. REIKE SPOKE ABOUT. HE INDICATED THAT THERE WERE TWO STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AT WHICH THE REMOVAL OF THE TRESTLE WAS DISCUSSED. THE FIRST BEING IN MARCH OF 1999. I WAS AT THAT MEETING, I GUESS I WAS ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH EVERYBODY I COULD FIND WHO WAS AT THAT MEETING, NONE OF US COULD EVER -- OTHER THAN MR. REIKE -- CAN RECALL AN ASSERTION THAT THE BRIDGE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. AND IN FACT IF THAT HAD BEEN ON THE TABLE, I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATION AT THE TIME WOULD HAVE GONE VERY DIFFERENTLY. WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE -- WAS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL MR. FLINK CAME TO TOWN AND DID HIS PRESENTATION. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF AGITATION BECAUSE IT CAME AS A SURPRISE TO A LOT OF US THAT THE BRIDGE WAS GOING TO BE REMOVED. WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE WHY IT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE IN FACT RIGHT THERE WHERE THE TRAIL GOES THROUGH IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY WIDE. IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 12 FEET WHERE THE TRAIL PASSES THROUGH. OF COURSE THIS TRAIL ISN'T 12 FEET WIDE AT ANY POINT ALONG THERE. EVEN UNDER THE SHOAL CREEK ACTION PLAN, IT'S ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE 10 TO 12 FEET WIDE AT ITS WIDEST POINT, WE DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THAT HAS TO BE THE CASE. WE GOT THE SENSE THAT MR. FLINK HAD NOT REALLY SET OUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BRIDGE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VALUED BY THE COMMUNITY AND THAT WE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING IT. I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT WE ARE ALL TOTALLY COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING THIS BRIDGE AT ALL COSTS. THERE ARE A LOT OF NEEDS ON THIS TRAIL AND AROUND THE CITY, OF COURSE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS WINDS UP BEING JUST EXORBITANTLY EXPENSIVE THEN WE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

>> BUT WE WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO SLOW DOWN, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF THIS BRIDGE TO THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA AND CONSIDER WHETHER THE BRIDGE COULD BE PRESERVED AS PART OF IT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? MR. RILEY? OKAY. TOMMY EDEN, IS TOMMY EDEN HERE OR IN THE HALL PERHAPS? HE IS AGAINST IT. HE WRITES: PLEASE CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE, THE REMOVAL OF THE WOODEN RAILROAD TRESTLE IS AN ISSUE OF CONCERN FOR A NUMBER OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. LIKE PARKS, HISTORIC, DOWNTOWN AND TRANSPORTATION. BETTIE EDGEMON? HAD TO LEAVE. SHE IS AGAINST IT. AND SAYS: PLEASE SAVE IT. I WILL NAIL PLANKS IN THE BRIDGE MYSELF TO HELP SAVE IT. WE ARE DESTROYING TOO MUCH OF THE OLD THINGS. AND IF WORSE COMES TO WORST, CAN WE DELAY THIS SOMEHOW UNTIL BEKNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. THOSE ARE THE SPEAKERS. DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. I WOULD -- I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DENY CHANGE ORDER NO. 10.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND?

>>GRIFFITH: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR -- OH, MR. CITY MANAGER?

>>GARZA: JUST TO GET CLARIFICATION, IS THE MOTION TO DENY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ALSO THE AUTHORIZATION THAT WE GO BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT OF -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE, TO SEE EITHER REDESIGN OF THE TRAIL OR CONTINUE WITH THAT PROJECT TO THE DEGREE THAT LEAVING THE TRESTLE WHERE IT IS DOESN'T INTERFERE, DO WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY? AS I UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS SOME NEGOTIATION FOR THIS AT SOME POINT. IF WE ARE NOW SAYING WE CAN LEAVE THE TRESTLE THERE AND STILL DO THE TRAIL, THAT WILL BE FINE. WE MAY NEED TO GO IN AND SPEND SOME MONEY TO MAKE THAT WORK.

>>WYNN: RIGHT, IF WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, MORE INFORMATION --.

>>GARZA: WE CAN COME BACK, THAT'S HOW WE WILL PROCEED.

>>GRIFFITH: MR. MANAGER, COULD WE ALSO LEAVE THE OPTION OPEN OF GETTING SOME MORE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS DONE IF WE FIND OUT THAT -- THAT WHAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED IS GOING TO BE PROBLEM MATHEMATICAL? -- PROBLEMATIC?

>>GARZA: ALSO, REGARDING SAFETY ISSUES, IF WE NEED TO PROTECT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC -- I WILL HAVE PUBLIC WORKS EVALUATE THAT, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO, COME BACK WITH A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, SIR.

>>GOODMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED, ABSTAINING? WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND THE MAYOR TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. MAYBE WE CAN GET RID OF SOME OF THESE ITEMS WHERE NO SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP, PERHAPS THEN COULD BE GOTTEN THROUGH BRIEFLY NOTING THAT WE ARE ABOUT AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES BEHIND SCHEDULE. ARE ITEM NO. 31, WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ RELATIVE TO TEXAS OAKS BAPTIST, 37 PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH ABOUT THE CITY FINANCIAL POLICIES, ITEM NO. 57 PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON THE LCRA ACCESS AT TOM MILLER.

>>WYNN: THAT WAS ACTUALLY PUT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

>>GOODMAN: WAS IT. OKAY. THAT'S NOT ON MY LIST, SORRY.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: OH, REALLY? HOW ABOUT 67 AND 68?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: THEY WERE ON TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING.

>>ALVAREZ: I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>GOODMAN: DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW?

>>ALVAREZ: UH-HUH.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION ON 67 AND 68 TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON A FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE AND DRAINAGE FEES FOR SEPTEMBER THE 28TH AT 6:00. AND I WILL SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. OPPOSED? ABSTAINING WITH THE MAYOR TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. WE CAN GO BACK, I THINK NOW, TO ITEM NO. 14 AND 15, WHICH WERE PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBERS SLUSHER AND ALVAREZ.

>>GLASGO: MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, ALICE GLASGO AGAIN. ITEMS 14 AND 15 ARE KNOWN AS THE INTERPORT ZONING CASES, THEY ARE ON FOR SECOND READING TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR TWO ITEMS, ONE TOYS CONSIDER MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO 75 FEET OVER THE ENTIRE SITE. THEN THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE FRONTAGE ON HIGHWAY 71 BY SIMPLY ALLOWING INDUSTRIAL USES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ALLOW GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL USES ON THOSE TRACTS JUST FOR AESTHETICS REASONS AND ALSO TO OBVIOUSLY LIMIT THE HEIGHT WE JUST SPOKE TO ON ITEM NO. 1. TWO REQUESTS, ONE, ALLOW HEIGHT OF 75 FEET OVER THE ENTIRE SITE. SECONDLY, FOR THE PROPERTIES WITH FRONTAGE ON HIGHWAY 71 TO ZONE IT LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ALLOWING ALL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN LI. THE APPLICANT HAS SOME OFFERS TO GIVE YOU REGARDING THE SECOND REQUEST AND THE HEIGHT. SO I WILL PAUSE HERE AND LET MR. PETE DWIER EXPLAIN IN DETAIL HIS TWO REQUESTS.

>> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PETE DWYER. I THINK ALICE SUMMED IT UP REAL WELL. WE REALLY FEEL LAKE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE AESTHETICS OF THE HIGHWAY 71 DEVELOPMENT FRONTAGE, WE HAVE WORKED OUT A WLO DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SO THAT WE WILL HAVE SOME OFFICE IN -- IN THE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY -- ANY LOADING DOCKS OR ANYTHING VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY. AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, MY POSITION ON THE HEIGHT IS IF WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT ALONG 71, WE SIMPLY MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY INTERSECTION AND THE PROPOSED CITY POWER FACILITY AND THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE IT CONSISTENT. IT'S SIMPLER THAT WAY. SO WE WOULD PROPOSE 75 FEET ON THE ENTIRE TRACT.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: YES. I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

>> YES.

>>GRIFFITH: MULTI FAMILY.

>> MULTI FAMILY.

>>GRIFFITH: DO YOU NEED 75 FEET FOR MULTI-FAMILY?

>> NO.

>>GRIFFITH: KNOW.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, THE WAY THAT THIS HAS COME DOWN, WE HAVE GEOGRAPHICALLY SELECTED SITES, BUT WE AS A DEVELOPER HAVE SAID, HEY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS THING IS GOING TO LOOK AT 10 YEARS FROM NOW. WE WOULD LIKE THE ABILITY TO GEOGRAPHICALLY MOVE THOSE. THE WORDING THAT WE FEEL LIKE IS APPROPRIATE IS WE WOULDN'T BUILD -- IF WE HAD A SITE THAT ALLOWED 75 FEET AND WE WERE BUILDING A MULTI-FAMILY, WE WOULDN'T GO THAT HIGH ANYWAY

>>GRIFFITH: ARE THERE ANY COMPATIBILITY QUESTIONS ABOUT DOING IT THAT WAY?

>> NOT THAT WE FEEL LIKE PRESENT A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE PDA LANGUAGE. WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THOSE. IT'S A PRECEDING USE XAITIBILITY USE TRIGGER.

>>GRIFFITH: TELL ME ABOUT THAT, TEACH ME ABOUT THAT.

>> WHICHEVER IS THE INITIAL USE DICTATES WHAT THE CAPABILITY STANDARDS ARE. IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU HAD AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT THEN TRIGGERS A PROTECTIVE ZONE AROUND IT SO THAT YOU CAN COME IN WITH -- WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE COMPATIBILITY.

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT PROCESS SET IN PLACE AND --

>> THROUGH THE PDA AGREEMENT.

>>GRIFFITH: AND WILL OPERATE WHEN -- WHEN THE RESIDENTIAL GOES IN?

>> YES.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

>>ALVAREZ: YES, HOW ARE YOU DOING?

>> FINE.

>>ALVAREZ: GOOD, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT HERE. AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE SHARED SOME OF MY CONCERNS WITH YOU IN TERMS OF THE OF THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN USES. IN TALKING WITH SOME OF THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, SOME OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, AT LEAST WE KNOW THAT I AM STRIVING FOR, IS TO LOWER THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS CLOSER TO THE COLORADO RIVER AND IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF HIGHER, YOU KNOW, HEIGHTS AND THE REST -- SOME OF THE OTHER TRACTS. BUT -- BUT I WANTED TO JUST THROW SOMETHING OUT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU RESPOND. BECAUSE I ACTUALLY MYSELF PERSONALLY SUPPORT MORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAN I DO THE -- THE RECOMMENDATION AS YOU HAVE -- AS YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD. BUT AGAIN I AM WILLING TO LISTEN IF WE CAN LOWER THE INTENSITY NEAR INVENTORY THE COLORADO RIVER. BUT WHAT I AM PROPOSING IS THAT ALONG THOSE TRACTS THAT -- OR ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER THAT -- ONE OF WHICH IS MF 3, I'M NOT SURE, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON MF-3?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S -- IS IT 40 FEET? 40 FEET.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, IT'S 40 FEET. THE HEIGHT.

>>ALVAREZ: BASICALLY WE ARE -- I MEAN, WHERE I AM LEANING IS IF WE CAN -- IF WE HAVE AN MF-3 SILENT RIGHT THERE AND THEN WE HAVE TWO G.R. -- IS IT G.R. SITES? I THIS IS THEY ARE LIST SITES, IS THAT WE LIMIT THE LI SITES TO MF-3 STANDARD THEN WE HAVE AGAIN A COUPLE MORE MF-3 SITES AND THEN A SITE ZONED 6, PART OF WHICH IS ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER, SO AGAIN IF WE CAN STEP BACK THE HEIGHTS AS WE GO FARTHER FROM THE COLORADO RIVER, THEN AGAIN THAT'S -- THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR. AND -- AND THEN WE CAN -- I THINK -- TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER IDEAS ABOUT POSSIBLY -- YOU KNOW, RAISING THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ON SOME OF THESE OTHER TRACTS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR REACTION ON DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> TO -- TO PARAPHRASE IT, LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE -- WE HAD PROPOSED ON THE MULTI FAMILY THIS ZONE RIGHT IN HERE. AGAIN THIS IS PUBLIC ACCESS ON THESE TRACTS HERE, THOSE WERE THE ONE THAT'S WE ENVISION ADD MORE COMMERCIAL USE ON. WHAT YOU ARE -- WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS 40 FEET HERE, THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS TO LIMIT IT TO 60 FEET HERE?

>> ON A COUPLE OF THOSE TRACTS, RIGHT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO LIMITED YOUR HEIGHT ON SOME OF THESE OTHER TRACTS AS WELL.

>> CORRECT. WELL, I GUESS OUR -- OUR REACTION TO THAT WOULD BE THAT THE CITY'S POWER PLANT RIGHT HERE IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT -- SOMEWHAT CONFLICTED TO HAVE A LARGE INDUSTRIAL USE GOING IN HEIR, THEN BE WORRIED ABOUT THE AESTHETICS ON THE RIVER OVER HERE. THERE IS A REAL THICK TREE CAMP, THE RIPARIAN FOREST IS GOING TO REMAIN AT THE RIVER'S EDGE.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE HEIGHT OF THE PLANT THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE BUILDING, I INQUIRED ABOUT HOW CLOSE IS THE HIGHEST OR TALLEST STRUCTURE GOING TO BE TO THE COLORADO RIVER AND WAS INFORMED IT'S ABOUT 1500 FEET. SO IT'S CONSIDERABLY FARTHER REMOVED FROM THE COLORADO RIVER THAN THOSE PARTICULAR TRACTS OF LAND. SO I THINK THERE IS OWE I MEAN, IT IS CONSISTENT TO A DEGREE, THAT'S WHY WE ARE -- I AM EVEN CONSIDERING AGAIN RAISING THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THE REST OF THE TRACT OR THE SUBJECT TRACT THERE.

>> I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT. I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THE POWER PLANT IS THAT FAR BACK. WE HAVE GOT A SITE PLAN OF IT. I DON'T HAVE A SCALED DRAWING, BUT I THINK IT'S CLOSE ARE THAN THAT. THE SUBSTATION -- CLOSER THAN THAT AND THE SUBSTATION WHICH IS RIGHT THERE DOES HAVE FOUR SETS OF 80-FOOT TROUBLE HEXAGONAL POLES ON IT.

>> BUT I THINK UTILITY POLES ARE DIFFERENT THAN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE. BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, SIR, WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH IT.

>> WHAT WE HAD ENVISIONED IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THREE STORIES LESS TALL THAN THE FOUR SEASONS ALONG THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. THAT WOULD BE SORTED OF THE SCALE OF THE IMPACT THAT WE WOULD ENVISION ALONG THE RIVER AT THAT POINT. BUT WE ARE AMENABLE TO [INAUDIBLE].

>>SLUSHER: WHAT WOULD BE THE -- THE DAMAGE TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT IF POTENTIAL -- THE POTENTIAL IF YOU HAD IT SHORTER THERE BY THE RIVER, BUT YOU WERE ABLE TO GET THE 75 FOOT IN OTHER PLACES? CLOSER TO 71. THE ABILITY TO -- ONE OF THE THINGS THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO FOCUS ON IS HAVING A LITTLE BIT LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER ALONG THE RIVER. I GUESS THE CONSUME ACTIVE EFFECT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO -- CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO GO OUT AND UP, WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.

>>SLUSHER: BUT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO UP HIGHER THAN PLANNED ON OTHER PLACES UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT UNDER WHAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ IS TALKING ABOUT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER?

>> CORRECT. WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE SOME HEIGHT ALONG THE RIVER. THAT'S -- THAT'S -- I DON'T WANT TO BUTT HEADS, BUT WE REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S AN APPROPRIATE AREA TO PUT SOME DENSITY ON AND VISUALLY WE DON'T THINK IT'S AN IMPAIRMENT, A VISUAL IMPAIRMENT ISSUE AND FEEL LIKE THE HEIGHT THAT WE PROPOSED IS A VERY COMPATIBLE BUILDING HEIGHT ALONG THE RIVER.

>>SLUSHER: I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ARE BUTTING HEADS. JUST TRYING TO WORK OUT SOMETHING THAT -- THAT THIS IS THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE, I'M GLAD THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE DEVELOPING, WE HAVE THE ELEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER HERE, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO WORK OUT WHAT THE BEST THING IS. LET ME GET MR. MANNING TO COME UP FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, HE CAN SPEAK TO WHERE THE PLANT IS LOCATED, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE FAIR ABOUT.

>> NOT SEEING THE DIAGRAM WE ARE AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT, I BELIEVE THAT'S NORTHEAST OF THIS PROPERTY.

>>SLUSHER: THE QUESTION WAS -- THERE'S 120 FEET; IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, THE STACK -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE EXHAUST STACK, TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE PLANT, WILL BE AROUND 120 FEET TALL.

>>SLUSHER: HOW FAR BACK OFF THE RIVER IS THAT?

>> 1500 2,000 FEET BACK FROM THE RIVER.

>>SLUSHER: SO THAT'S ABOUT A THIRD OF A MILE, HUH?

>> YES, SIR.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THE DATA THAT I WAS GIVEN FROM MY STAFF WAS 1500 FEET.

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD DURING DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THE MEETING.

>> I PHYSICALLY HAVE NOT BEEN TO THE SITE OR SEEN IF THE -- IF THE WATER DEPARTMENT IS HERE, THEY WOULD KNOW WHERE THE SITE IS AT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SEWER TREATMENT PLANT.

>>SLUSHER: OBVIOUSLY IT'S SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUT BEFORE FINALRYING. IT'S ONLY UP FOR SECOND TONIGHT, I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THE MEETING OUT TOO LONG TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WHY DON'T WE GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE, WHEN MR. LIP PEE GETS HERE, WE CAN -- HERE HE COMES. MR. LIPPY. WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW FAR THAT ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE BUILDING, HOW FAR THAT WILL BE FROM THE RIVER.

>> LET'S SEE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WITH A SCALE, NO DIAGRAMS.

>> NO MAP TO SCALE. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS -- A THOUSAND FEET OR SO, BUT --

>> MR. DWYER, HOW FAR BACK ON THESE TRACTS, THE FIRST TRACTS ON HERE, HOW FAR BACK ARE THEY?

>> APPROXIMATELY 400, 300 TO 400 FEET. I -- I HAVE A DIAGRAM THAT SHOW THAT'S THE FACILITY SITS RIGHT HERE. IT'S ADJACENT TO THE SUBSTATION AND THAT'S 400 FEET, WELL, MAYBE IT IS, I STAND CORRECTED.

>>SLUSHER: I HAVE BEEN TO THE TREATMENT PLANT BEFORE, I DON'T WANT TO DECIDE -- TO CITE IT FROM MEMORY THOUGH, WHEN YOU BROUGHT THAT UP IN MY OFFICE, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND I FOLD UP, WE WERE TOLD THE 1500, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO WORK THAT OUT. WE MAY NOT WANT TO DO THAT, BUT GO AHEAD.

>> LOOKING AT THE SCALE DRAWING, 80'S THOUSAND FEET OR BETTER ROUGHLY WOULD BE OUR -- AS THE SCALE IS ON THIS DRAWING.

>>SLUSHER: OBVIOUSLY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK THIS OUT BEFORE THIRD READING. I YIELD THE FLOOR BEFORE EVERYBODY CHANGES THE CHANNEL.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBERS? WE HAVE BESIDES MR. DWYER, WE ALSO HAVE DAVID ARMBER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IS HE STILL HERE? LET ME ASK YOU, MR. DWYER, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE POINTS TO MAKE THAT YOU WANTED TO --

>> NO. MR. ARMBRUST HAD TO LEAVE, IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDIENCY WE WILL REST.

>>GOODMAN: ARE WE CONTEMPLATING A MOTION TO SECOND READING WITH ANY CHANGES FROM FIRST OR -- ARE WE CONTEMPLATING A MOTION?

>>ALVAREZ: I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE TO WORK THIS OUT BEFORE THE NEXT READING. I JUST WANTED TO GET THOSE ISSUES ON THE TABLE, ON THE RECORD.

>>SLUSHER: I WILL MAKE A MOTION, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT LITTLE DELAY IN THE MEETING THERE. BUT WE WERE OPERATING -- WE HAD SOME INFORMATION AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] OBVIOUSLY RAISED SOME UNCERTAINTY. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SECOND READING. IT'S CLEAR, I THINK TO YOU MR. DWYER, WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO HEAD WITH THIS, WE NEED TO GET TOGETHER BEFORE THE FINAL READING AND TRY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT THAT'S AGREEABLE OR AT LEAST WHERE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ANYWAY. SO THAT'S -- THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND I WILL SECOND, TO GO FOR SECOND READING UNLESS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SECONDED.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING. THAT MR. HEIGHTS IS HERE, I THINK. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK HIM TO SAY ANYTHING TONIGHT. BUT MR. CRAVEY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT SINCE WE ARE BUILDING THE LEVEE TO TAKE SOME OF THIS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN WHERE IS THE OTHER -- WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE IMPACT DOWNSTREAM AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COMPLETE REPORT ON THAT BEFORE THE -- BEFORE WE HAVE THE FINAL VOTE. OKAY. THAT'S ALL, THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO PASS ON SECOND READING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUICK ECONOMY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: WE TALKED ABOUT -- I'M INDUSTRIAL STRUGGLING WITH THIS COMPATIBILITY QUESTION. STILL STRUGGLE KNOWLEDGE. NOT BEING FAMILIAR ENTIRELY WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT --. [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] MIKE PIAZZA [INAUDIBLE] (NO MICROPHONE).

>>GRIFFITH: MR. DWYER, I'M HOPING THAT BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD READING WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING BESIDES JUST A FLAT 75 FOR THE WHOLE THING. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO TALKING ABOUT SOME MORE SPECIFICITY IN TERMS OF A -- PIPE LIMITATIONS AND SETBACKS?

>> CERTAINLY.

>>GRIFFITH: GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON] ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. LET'S TAKE UP THE 6:00 PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE WILL BE ITEM NO. 91 WHICH WILL BE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING -- CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2000-2001 PROPOSED BUDGET WITH REGARDS TO AFFORDABILITY.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: I JUST WANT TO NOTE I'LL BE OFF THE DAIS FOR SUPPER, BUT I WILL BE LISTENING TO WHAT EVERYBODY SAYS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, LET'S GO TO ITEM 58. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAD PULLED ITEM 58, BUT HAD HIS QUESTIONS ANSWERED. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER?

>>ALVAREZ: YES, I DID HAVE MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED SO I MOVE APPROVAL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MOVES APPROVAL OF ITEM 58, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON ITEM 58? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON ITEM NO. 58? THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 91, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2000, 2001 PROPOSED BUDGET WITH REGARDS TO AFFORDABILITY. FOLKS, IF I COULD GET EVERYBODY TO HOLD DOWN THEIR CONVERSATIONS IN THE CHAMBER. FOLKS, JUST SO THAT YOU WILL KNOW, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AND OTHER ACTION ITEMS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON. MY REQUEST OF YOU IS IN DEFERENCE TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS, THAT YOU MAY -- THAT MAY WANT TO BE HEARD, IF ON THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU ARE SIMPLY REITERATING SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE HAS ALREADY SAID, BELIEVE US WHEN WE SAY WE HEARD THE FIRST PERSON. AND THERE WILL NOT BE A NEED TO JUST REEMPHASIZE THE POINT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND IN THAT WAY PERHAPS THOSE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS THAT WANT TO BE HEARD BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THINGS ARE PLAYING OUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE HEARD LATER IN THE EVENING, THEY MIGHT GET HEARD A LITTLE EARLIER. ITEM 91, JOHN HAMILTON.

>> MAYOR WATSON, IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDIENCY, I BELIEVE THE FIRST FOUR SPEAKERS ON YOUR LIST ARE ALL MEMBERS OF AUSTIN PARKS TOMORROW AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO A COMBINED PRESENTATION.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. WHO IS GOING TO DO THE PRESENTATION?

>> FRANK IS GOING TO LEAD, WE WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW THAT WITH SKIP CAMERON.

>>MAYOR WATSON: HERE'S TWHA I'LL DO. HAMILTON, CAMERON, ARNOLD AND AGROSS ARE THE FIRST FOUR.

>> THEY WERE UNABLE TO STAY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ROBERT FENES? OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE FIRST FOUR.

>> RIGHT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: DO YOU WANT ME TO SET THE CLOCK FOR 12 MINUTES AND YOU ALL JUST GO FROM THERE?

>> MS. ARNOLD WOULD LIKE TO YIELD HER TIME.

>>MAYOR WATSON: TO YOU? WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS HAVE THEM SET THE CLOCK FOR 12 MINUTES AND THE FIRST FOUR SPEAKERS WILL HAVE -- IS MS. ARNOLD STILL HERE?

>> I DON'T THINK SHE IS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WELL, THEN YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES. MS. ARNOLD SIGNED UP -- OKAY, SHE DIDN'T LIST FOR OR AGAINST OR OTHERWISE. THEN WE'LL SET THE CLOCK FOR NINE MINUTES AND I'LL JUST LET YOU ALL GO WHEN NINE MINUTES IS UP. OKAY? THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M FRANK SAVINO, I'M ONE OF 25 MEMBERS OF AUSTIN PARKS TOMORROW, A CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP THAT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE DEFICIENCIES AND SHORTFALLS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S MAINTENANCE BUDGET. AS WE KNOW, THE SYSTEM CURRENTLY PULLS 191 PARKS, 71 MILES OF TRAILS, 172 ATHLETIC FIELDS AND 15 RECREATIONAL CENTERS AMONG OTHER ASSETS. ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED SINCE 1986 WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MAINTENANCE DOLLAR AND WE FEEL THERE IS NO NECESSARILY QUICK FIX TO THIS PROBLEM OF NOT ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE WITHIN THE SYSTEM SO WE'VE COME UP WITH A FIVE-YEAR PLAN THAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY MANAGER. SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL REVIEW OUR PLAN AND THE NUMBERS IN SOME DETAIL. BUT BEFORE I PASS THE MIKE, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU THAT SOME OF OUR CITY'S MOST WELL KNOWN ELDER STATES MEN HELPED TO ESTABLISH THIS PLAN. THEY INCLUDE ROBERTA CRENSHAW, MARY ARNOLD AND WILLIE KOCUREK AND I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT IN THE NOT SO DISTANT FUTURE WE WILL PROBABLY WANT TO NAME A PARK AFTER ONE OR ALL OF THEM. HOPEFULLY THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE PARK WILL BE WORKING AT THAT TIME.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS SKIP CAMERON, PRESIDENT OF THE BULL CREEK FOUNDATION AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF AUSTIN PARKS TOMORROW. WE WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND FOR MAINTAINING OUR PARKS AS WELL AS THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WITH SUCH A SHRINKING BUDGET. WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE KEY STATISTICS THAT SHOW HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE FACE THAT AUSTIN PRESENTS TO ITSELF AND TO ITS VISITORS THROUGH ITS PARKS. THE AUSTIN PARKS TOMORROW VOLUNTEERS SPENT FOUR MONTHS EVALUATING PARKS SITUATION AND DETERMINED THAT ITS MOST SIGNIFICANT UNMET NEEDS WERE IN THE AREA OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. THE EVERYDAY UPKEEP OF OUR PARKS. USING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL DATA AND STATS FROM THE CITY'S PUBLIC WEBSITE ON POPULATION, WE SUMMARIZED THE SITUATION IN FIVE EASY TO READ CHARTS. THE FIRST ONE IS A CHART THAT DEPICTS FROM 1987 TO 2000 AUSTIN CITY POPULATION GREW 57%, WHILE ACTUAL PARKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SPENDING PER PERSON DECREASED 21%. AT THE SAME TIME, THE METRO POPULATION OF THE METRO AREA GREW 56% WHILE ACTUAL PARKS AND O&M SPENDING DECREASED 19% ON A PER CAPITA BASIS. THE SECOND CHART SHOWS ACTUAL PARKS O&M SPENDING FROM 1978 -- 1987 TO 1999, 2000 AREA ESSENTIALLY FLAT IN THE 7.9 MILLION RANGE. NO INFLATION INCLUDED. WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED ON THAT CHART A PRO POEM TO INCREASE THE BUDGET A MILLION ROUGHLY FOR FIVE YEARS TO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THE PARK'S BUDGET AND THAT'S THE PART IN GREEN. THE THIRD CHART -- THE THIRD CHART SHOWS THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PER CAPITA SPENDING. FROM 1987 WHERE THERE WAS $13 PER PERSON SPENT TO 1995 THROUGH 1999 WHERE WE BOTTOMED OUT AT A VERY LOW LEVEL, AND THEN IN 19 -- IN 2000 WE INCREASED SLIGHTLY. THE PROJECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE US ACHIEVE IS A PER CAPITA SPENDING THAT GOES BACK UP OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THAT REACHES A LEVEL OF $23 PER PERSON BY 2005, UP FROM $13 PER PERSON, A VERY SMALL AMOUNT PER PERSON RECENTLY. THE FOURTH CHART SHOWS THE O&M SPENDING ON A METRO AREA BASIS. IN 1987 WE SPENT $10 PER PERSON, A VERY PAUL TRI AMOUNT. THAT NUMBER BOTTOMED OUT IN 1995 THROUGH 1999 AT $7 PER PERSON. AND OUR REQUEST TO INCREASE THE BUDGET THROUGH 2005 WOULD INCREASE THAT SPENDING UP TO A TOTAL OF $13 PER PERSON. THE LAST CHART SHOWS A SIMPLE REFLECTION OF THE POPULATION GROWTH THAT WE HAVE FROM 1987 AND INTO PROJECTIONS THROUGH 20050 OF 57% GROWTH IN POPULATION IN THE CITY AND WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND THE GROWTH FROM '87 WOULD BE 35%. THE SAME TIME, THE METRO AREA POPULATION GROWTH OF 56% COMPARED TO A GROWTH IN SPENDING FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF 36%. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO GET PARITY OR EQUITY WITH THE SITUATION, WE'RE ASKING TO GET A 60% OF THE WAY WE NEED TO GO TO GET PARKS BACK ON PAR. CLEARLY THIS PROPOSAL IS A CONSERVATIVE ONE. IT'S CLEARLY A CATCHUP PLAN. AND WITH SUSTAINED GROWTH OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, IT'S STILL ONLY PROVIDES 60% OF WHAT'S NEEDED LONGTERM. THIS WILL BRING EQUITY AND AFFORD YABLGT AND USEABILITY TO OUR AUSTIN PARKS. THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN PARKS TOMORROW AND ALL OF OUR CITIES ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO TAKE THE BOLD STEPS TONIGHT TO START US ON THE ROAD OF FIXING OUR PARKS. THANK YOU.

>> THE THEME OF TONIGHT'S HEARING IS AFFORDABILITY AND WE WANT TO SAY WE CONSIDER THE PARKS OF AUSTIN PART OF THE AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY. FREE PARKS, FREE RECREATION, FREE ACCESS TO HEALTH-GIVING EXERCISE ARE IMPORTANT TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE T CITY IS PREPARED TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS MEANS IN LARGE PART MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND IN THE CASE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING SMALLER LOT SIZES. WE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE THE DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION AND SO THE CITY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO MEET THAT WITH QUALITY OUTDOOR RECREATION, PLACES THAT ARE SAFE AND WELL MAINTAINED SO OUR PEOPLE WILL WANT TO GO. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO GROWTH IN THE PREFERRED GROWTH CORRIDOR WHICH IS TO THE EAST WHERE WE THINK BUILD IS MORE AFFORDABLE. BUT AS WE GO IN THAT DIRECTION AND PROVIDE FOR THE PARK USES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE, WE WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP OUR NEW EAST SIDE PARK, WE WILL HAVE TO REDEVELOP AND IMPROVE THE EXISTING PARKS. BUT ALL OF THIS IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION WILL COME TO NOTHING IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE BUDGET TO MAINTAIN THE PARKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD AND IMPROVE. SO WE IS YOU TO INCLUDE PARKS IN YOUR AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY AS YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET.

>> MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'VE BEEN SWIMMING AND RUNNING IN AUSTIN PARKS FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS AND I HAVE ALSO BEEN A CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGIST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND I'VE HAD AN INTEREST IN PARKS AS PART OF URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY. PARKS ARE A SYMBOL OF THE CITIES WHERE THEY EXIST. THEY REPRESENT US TO OUTSIDERS, THEY REPRESENT US TO NEWCOMERS IN TOWN AND THEY ARE ALSO A SELF-IMAGE. THEY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT A COMMUNITY'S FEELING ABOUT ITSELF. PARKS ARE AS IMPORTANT TO OUR IMAGE AS BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN, AS STREETS WITHOUT POTHOLES, AS THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY IS IMPORTANT TO THE CITY'S REPUTATION. THE PARKS HAVE THAT SYMBOLIC IMPORTANCE. PARKS ALSO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY A PLACE TO COME AND MEET PEOPLE ON AN EQUALLY BASIS ON LAND WHICH WE OWN TOGETHER AND PROPERTY WE ARE ALL MUTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR. PERHAPS NOT EVERYBODY USES THE PARKS IN THE SAME DEGREE, BUT WE ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY OUR PARKS. WE ARE ALL -- OUR REPUTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY RESTS ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OF US BY THE WAY OUR PARKS ARE MAINTAINED. THE CITY CANNOT NOW MAINTAIN THEM THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO FIND THAT OUT, GO TAKE A WALK THROUGH ONE OF THEM AND SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THE PARKS THAT CAN BE DONE. WE NEED TO PUT THIS RIGHT. WE NEED TO REPRESENT OURSELVES AND TO ENJOY OURSELVES A RESOURCE WHICH IS IRREPLACEABLE WITHIN A CITY, THE CITY'S PARKS,. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: LYDIA GROSS SAYS PLEASE INCREASE THE PARKING BUDGET. GUS PENA. GUS PENA. MR. PENA SIGNED UP AND SAID NEEDS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, ASSISTANCE WITH FUNDING, LOW INCOME HOUSING SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE SO MORE LOW INCOME PEOPLE CAN QUALIFY FOR HOUSING. JERRY FOWLER. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>MAYOR WATSON: MR. TROXELL, YOU WILL HAVE UP TO -- WELL, IS TARA NICHOLS HERE?

>> MR. MAYOR, THERE ARE ACTUALLY FIVE OF US HERE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME RUN THROUGH THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE I'VE GOT IT RIGHT. TARA NICHOLS, OKAY. MICHELLE GILL OR GILE? OKAY. WHO ELSE?

>> SCOTT GLOVER.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY.

>> JERRY FOWLER AND MICHELLE GILE AND TARA NICHOLS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU WILL HAVE UP TO 15 MINUTES.

>> WE WON'T USE ALL THAT TIME. WE ARE GOING TO SHOW A VIDEO TONIGHT. I'M GOING TO DO A COUPLE OF OPENING REMARKS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCILMEMBERS FOR BEING HERE. WE KNOW IT'S BEEN AN INCREDIBLY LONG DAY. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. FIRST OFF, THE HOMELESS COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SAY HOW IMPORTANT THE PARKS ARE AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE PARKS PART OF THIS AFFORDABILITY ISSUE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE'RE GOING TO TALK IN TERMS TONIGHT ABOUT THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING IN OUR COMMUNITY. THE VIDEO THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW HAPPENED IN CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS TWO YEARS AGO. ONE YEAR AGO HERE IN AUSTIN THIS VIDEO SCENE WAS REPEATED WHEN THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED HERE IN AUSTIN. IF YOU COULD PLEASE ROLL THE VIDEO. THANK YOU.

>> AFTER MIDNIGHT ON SEPTEMBER 23 WHILE MOST AMERICANS SLEPT IN THE WARMTH AND SECURITY OF THEIR OWN HOMES, A [INAUDIBLE] IN MASSACHUSETTS. AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN SEEK A DECENT PLACE TO LIVE, LINES FOR HOUSING LIKE THIS GROW ACROSS OUR COUNTRY. LINES THAT MANY OF US NEVER SEE OR HEAR ABOUT, BUT WHICH EXIST AND CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED. THESE ARE NOT SCENES FROM THE DEPRESSION, THE THIRD WORLD OR A NATURAL DISASTER. BUT LINES THAT ARE GROWING IN YOUR COMMUNITY. LINES OF FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WAITING AND HOPING FOR A PLACE TO CALL HOME.

>> GET IN LINE.

>> LONG LINES IN FALL RIVER TODAY. LINES OF PEOPLE NOT GUARANTEED ANYTHING BUT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE BEING PLACED ON A WAITING LIST. TODAY WAS THE ONLY DAY RESIDENTS COULD PICK UP APPLICATIONS FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING, RENTAL UNITS SUBSIDIZED BY THE FWRAL GOVERNMENT. APPLICATIONS PICKED UP TODAY ARE DUE BACK ON OCTOBER 10TH.

>> I ARRIVED HERE ABOUT 11:00 LAST NIGHT AND THEY WERE TURNING PEOPLE AWAY. THEY TOLD ME THERE'S A BIG SIGN THAT SAYS THEY WEREN'T EVEN GOING TO LET PEOPLE LINE UP UNTIL 7:00 IN THE MORNING. I GET HERE QUARTER OF AND THE LINE IS ALMOST ALREADY AROUND THE BLOCK.

>> YOU COME OVERNIGHT, YOU CAMP OUT, YOU GOT TO FIND A PLACE TO USE THE BATHROOM.

>> THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO DO BECAUSE I WANT BETTER HOUSING.

>> HOW MANY SECTION 8 OPENINGS HAVE YOU BEEN TO IN THE PAST?

>> IN THE LAST SEVEN DAYS STRAIGHT, I'VE BEEN WAITING IN LINES LIKE THIS FOR SEVEN MONTHS NOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING TO GET IN JUST TO GET AN APPLICATION.

>> THEY'VE GOT BABIES OUT HERE.

>> PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT. PEOPLE PUSHING AND SHOVING AND CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN.

>> HI, I'M KATHY AND I'M HERE TODAY AT FALL RIVER AT A SECTION 8 OPENING WAITING TO INTERVIEW PEOPLE WHO ARE LINED UP FOR SECTION 8.

>> I'M REMINDED OF THE WAY PEOPLE ARE TREATED LIKE CATTLE. THEY ARE ROUNDED UP, BRANDED AND SENT ON THEIR WAY. I'M ALSO REMINDED OF THE HOPELESSNESS THAT I HAD FELT WHEN I WAITED AGAIN AND AGAIN AT SUCH OPENINGS. THESE PEOPLE ARE INVISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THEY ARE NOT INVISIBLE TO ME. I MYSELF HAVE STOOD IN THESE LINES THREE YEARS AGO WHEN ME AND MY CHILDREN WERE HOMELESS.

>> I'VE STOOD IN LINE BEFORE AND I KNOW WHAT IT IS.

>> MY RENT IS TOO HIGH AND IT'S TAKING HALF OF MY PENSION.

>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN HERE?

>> THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARE DISABLED OUT HERE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEY SHOULD GO THROUGH FIRST. AND PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING EVICTED FROM THEIR APARTMENTS. THEY PAY TOO MUCH REPRESENT AND DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INCOME AND THEY SHOULD BE FIRST.

>> IN MASSACHUSETTS IT COSTS $3,000 A MONTH FOR A FAMILY TO BE TEMPORARILY SHELTERED AS OPPOSED TO $550 A MONTH FOR A HOUSING SUBSIDY.

>> FOUR MONTHS AGO MY HOUSE WAS BURNED DOWN AND I WAS TRAPPED IN THERE. I HAD TO BE SAVED BY THE [INAUDIBLE]. ME, MY TWO DAUGHTERS AND MY NEPHEW.

>> I'M FROM HERE IN FALL RIVER, A DISABLED PERSON SO I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE STANDING NOW, BUT I'M HOPING TO GET A SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE.

>> MY MOTHER IS PUTTING ME UP AND MY CHILDREN LIVE WITH THEIR OTHER GRANDMOTHER RIGHT NOW TEMPORARILY.

>> LINDA?

>> NO, RIGHT THERE.

>> I WORK FOR AN AGENCY CALLED FELLOWSHIP [INAUDIBLE] IN NEW BEDFORD. WE'RE A HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY THAT PROVIDES SERVICES TO CONNICKLY ILL ADULTS.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THE PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING FOR FOLKS YOU BRING HERE TODAY?

>> IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE A LOT OF FOLKS DUE TO THEIR DISABILITY AREN'T ABLE TO COME HERE AND COULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM THE SECTION 8 SUBSIDIES BECAUSE THEY ARE ON DISABILITY, SSI AND ARE PAYING MARKET VALUE RENTS NOW WHICH REALLY LEAVES THEM, YOU KNOW, MINIMAL FUNDS FOR THEIR DAY TO DAY EXPENSES.

>> I'M GOING TO SCHOOL RIGHT NOW. I'M UNEMPLOYED WITH MY DAUGHTER AND I'M LOOKING FOR AN APARTMENT IN FALL RIVER NOW.

>> I LIVE IN A SHELTER WITH MY TWO KIDS AND MY GIRL FRIEND.

>> AND ARE YOU CURRENTLY WORKING?

>> IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM. CONSTRUCTION, THAT IS. HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY.

>> WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE HERE IN FALL RIVER?

>> 7:30 P.M. LAST NIGHT.

>> AND DOES THIS TIME REQUIRE TO YOU MISS SOME OF THE TRAINING?

>> YES, IT DOES.

>> IN MASSACHUSETTS A MINIMUM WAGE WORKER MUST WORK 112 HOURS A WEEK TO AFFORD A BASIC TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT.

>> I WAS A PRESCHOOL TEACHER. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND A JOB, NOW I CAN'T FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THAT'S WHY I BECAME HOMELESS AND I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING FOR MYSELF AND I HAVE TWO CHILDREN, A TWO AND A HALF AND A ONE AND A HALF YEAR OLD.

>> FIRST COME FIRST SERVED.

>> YOU HAVE TO GLET AN APPLICATION. THEY COULD HAVE JUST MAILED US APPLICATIONS.

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY SECTION 8'S THEY HAVE TO GIVE OUT?

>> THEY WERE GOING TO APPROVE -- THE FIRST 50 PEOPLE THAT WERE THE MOST NEEDED.

>> THE LADY AT THE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, SHE TOLD ME 100. THEY ADVERTISED SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING, YOU KNOW, 200 CERTIFICATES, A THOUSAND CERTIFICATES, 100 CERTIFICATES, 80 CERTIFICATES.

>> LIKE 5,000 PEOPLE.

>> I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW MANY.

>> WE HEARD 100 APPLICATIONS.

>> 2500.

>> PEOPLE HERE. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING AWAY REAL SAD BECAUSE IT'S JUST -- THEY JUST DON'T HAVE IT.

>> AND HOW MANY SECTION 8'S DO YOU HAVE TODAY TO GIVE OUT?

>> WHETHER YOU ARE FIRST OR THE 101ST WE HAVE NONE TO GIVE OUT TODAY. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS REPLENISHING OUR WAITING LISTS. OUR TURNOVER RATE ON A SECTION 8 IS VERY MINIMAL SO REALISTICALLY IF WE GET 100 TURNOVERS A YEAR, THAT'S -- THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, JUST TAKE THE FIGURES YOU'VE GOT HERE, IT'S GOING TO TAKE US FIVE OR SIX YEARS BEFORE ANY -- ANY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WILL PROBABLY BE GETTING ANY.

>> 1996 WAS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSING PROGRAM THE NUMBER OF ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS FELL.

>> THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THEY'VE GOT, VOTING POWER.

>> WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE THEM TO KEEP IN MIND IS MOST OF THESE PEOPLE HERE WERE PROBABLY UP AT 3:00 OR 4:00 IN THE MORNING JUST TO STAND IN LINE TO WAIT FOR A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD GET AN APPLICATION. IF THIS HAD BEEN A INCLEMETT DAY WE WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN STANDING OUT IN THE FREEZING RAIN, IF IT HAD BEEN SNOWING WE WOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING OUT HERE.

>> I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE HOMELESS. I VOTE EACH AND EVERY YEAR AND I FEEL THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE HOMELESS. OKAY? ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN, THE BATTERED WOMEN.

>> I THINK IT'S AWFUL. I THINK AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE. WE NEED IT. THERE'S PLENTY OF BUILDS OUT THERE. JUST GOT TO USE THEM. (music) (music)

>> THE VIDEO IS CALLED END OF THE LINE. IT'S IN MASSACHUSETTS, BUT LAST YEAR HAD I NOT BEEN IN COURT FIGHTING, TESTIFYING AGAINST THE NO CAMPING ORDINANCE THAT WAS PUNISHING PEOPLE WHILE LIVING TO STREETS OF AUSTIN, WE WOULD HAVE VIDEOTAPED THAT EXACT SAME THING RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN. THE STATISTICS, WHAT THE WAGES WILL BUY AND THE SUFFERING IS ALL REFLECTED RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN. THE ONLY THING THAT'S NEW ABOUT ALL OF THIS, THE PEOPLE ARE JUST STARTING TO WAKE UP TO IT. YOU KNOW, AT $5.15 AN HOUR, THAT'S $9,880 A YEAR. PEOPLE ARE WORKING FULL TIME AND LIVING ON THE STREETS IN AUSTIN. AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ARE MAKING HALF OF THAT. THIS INITIATIVE, IF THIS -- THAT THIS COUNCIL IS LAUNCHING IS HERCULEAN. THIS IS AN HISTORIC MOMENT WHERE WE CAN GET OUT AND DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS YEAR ALONE WE ARE LOSING 2,000 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BY THEIR OWN STUDIES. THIS COUNCILMEMBER RIGHT HERE ON THE END, MR. THOMAS, HAS CALLED FOR $250 MILLION IN HOUSING BONDS. HE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON. WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM. THEY ARE LAUNCHING THIS INITIATIVE. THIS IS THE HISTORIC MOMENT. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS CITY PROS PERCENT, IT NEEDS TO BE ALL OF US. BECAUSE WE ARE THE JANITORS, THE DAY CARE WORKERS, THE FARM HANDS, THE CONSTRUCTION LABORERS, WE ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ECONOMIC BOOM. WE BUILT THE EXTENSION ON THE STATE CAPITOL. WE BUILT THE CONVENTION CENTER. THAT WAS OUR BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS. AND WE GOT 50 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR AT THAT. THEY OFFERED OUT $10, ANY WAY YOU CAN GET A JOB? AUSTIN IS THROUGH THE LABOR FORCE AND YOU WALK AWAY WITH $5.15 AN HOUR. THAT'S REALITY IN AUSTIN. WE NEED TO SUPPORT THESE COUNCILMEMBERS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF RAUL ALVAREZ, A NEW COUNCILMEMBER, YOUNG, READY TO TAKE ON THIS ACTION. COUNCILMEMBER JACKIE GOODMAN WHO HAS NEVER STOOD BACK FROM THIS FIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER BEVERLY GRIFFITH WHO IS FOCUSED ON THIS. WILL WYNN AND NOW THE MAYOR WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT'S LIKE HERE FOR THOSE OF US AT THE VERY, VERY BOTTOM. WE NEED TO CREATE HOUSING JUST LIKE STUDENT HOUSING WHERE AT THE END OF THE DAY WHERE I WORK AND I'M GIVEN MY 5.15 AN HOUR, I CAN LAY MY MONEY DOWN, GET A KEY, GO INTO MY APARTMENT, TAKE A SHOWER, GO TO SLEEP, GET UP AND GO TO WORK THE NEXT DAY. THAT MEANS REAL INEXPENSIVE HOUSING, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO TURN THE BED SHEETS DOWN ON THE TOURISTS THAT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS BRINGING INTO AUSTIN. AND NEEDS TO BE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD AUTO INSURANCE TO DRIVE CARS THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD INTO TOWN. IT'S A PACKAGE. WE ARE HERE TO SERVE THIS CITY. WE SUPPORT THE PARKS BECAUSE WE LIVE AT THE PARKS. AND UNDER THE BRIDGES. AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TO CONTINUE TO BE THE TAX PAYING CITIZENS WE ARE BECAUSE THIS IS A SALES TAX STATE, BUT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IT FROM HOUSING THAT WE CAN AFFORD. NOT CASE MANAGED HOUSING. WE ARE MEN, WOMEN, ADULTS, INDEPENDENT PEOPLE. PLEASE, HOUSE THE HOMELESS WORKERS AND THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. TROXELL. THOMAS HENDERSON. FOLLOWED BY DICK PIERCE. THEN JENNIFER MACK FAIL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, HI, MAYOR.

>>MAYOR WATSON: HOW ARE YOU, SIR?

>> I'M FINE. I'M THOMAS HENDERSON AND I'M SUPPORTING MR. TROXELL'S EFFORTS AND IT'S SORT OF HARD TO LOOK AT THOSE SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I -- I'VE BEEN A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HOMELESS EFFORT IN AUSTIN. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY AMENDMENT AND I KNOW A WEEK OR SO AGO, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED $150 MILLION IN ROAD BONDS. AND WHAT WAS LOST IN THAT SHUFFLE WAS AFFORDABLE HOMES AND SOME OTHER ISSUES TO DO WITH PARKS AND OTHER THINGS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO NEED TO WORK ON ROADS, BUT WE HAVE $13 MILLION, AND I KNOW THAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY DOESN'T COME DOWN HERE ALL THE TIME FOR THE THINGS THEY NEED TO COME DOWN HERE FOR, A LOT OF TIMES ME PEOPLE COME DOWN HERE AND SQUABBLE ABOUT LITTLE THINGS AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOWN HERE ON EVERYTHING SO THIS CAN BE AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY THAT WE TALK ABOUT PARKS AND WE TALK ABOUT OUR LAKES AND OUR ENVIRONMENT. BUT I -- THIS $13 MILLION THAT THE SUSTAINABILITY FUND, I THINK THAT WITH SOME VOTES COMING UP, IF, YOU KNOW, COLONY PARK DESERVES A PARK. I MEAN IT'S CALLED COLONY PARK SO IT SHOULD HAVE A PARK. I THINK OUR PARKS SHOULD HAVE THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE INCREASED BY A MILLION DOLLARS. THE COLONY PARK FACILITY COSTS $3 MILLION. RENOVATION OF PARKS SHOULD BE A MILLION. WE JUST HAD SOME PARK PEOPLE IN HERE. THE SPRING DALE PARK PHASE 2 -- 2.5 MILLION. HOUSING, AS ALWAYS, WE JUST SAW THAT VIDEO, $3 MILLION. AND 2.1 MILLION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION INITIATIVES. NOW, I HEARD EARLIER ABOUT THE SAND BEACH RESERVE IDEA THAT WAS UNDER DEVELOPMENT, BUT IF THAT THING DOESN'T WORK OUT, MAYBE WE SHOULD BUY THAT AND UNDER A PUBLIC-PRIVATE SITUATION. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ZILKER AND PEASE AND ALL THE GREAT PARKS IN OUR TOWN, BUT EAST AUSTIN ALWAYS IS SORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN OUR CITY THAT SORT OF SAYS WE'LL GET AROUND TO YOU, JUST HOLD ON A LITTLE WHILE. WE'LL GET -- JUST LET US GET THIS OTHER IMPORTANT STUFF DONE AND THEN WE'LL GET AROUND TO YOU. WELL, WE'RE TIRED OF IT. AND WE WANT YOU PEOPLE TO TREAT US LIKE THE VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS THAT WE ARE. AND I REPRESENT MY MOTHER, I REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY IN THAT I'M A GUY WHO FOR WHATEVER REASONS, I DON'T COME DOWN FOR APPLAUSE OR ANYTHING, THAT I DEVELOPED A PARK, A FOOTBALL PLACE. IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF WORK ON THAT FIELD IN EAST AUSTIN. [BUZZER SOUNDS] AND THE COMMUNITY -- EXCUSE ME?

>>MAYOR WATSON: YOUR TIME IS UP.

>> IS THAT THREE MINUTES?

>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT IS THREE MINUTES.

>> WOW!

>>THOMAS: COULD I ASK A QUESTION?

>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE.

>>THOMAS: I HEARD EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND I SHARE ONE NOTE AND I DO COMMEND MR. TROXELL FOR HIS HARD WORK FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT IS DEFINITELY NEEDED, PARKS ARE DEFINITELY NEEDED. WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP US COMMIT ON THE PRIVATE SIDE OF HELPING THE CITY OR HELP KEEP US STIMULATED FOR THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE DONE EAST OF 35, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER PARKS AND --

>> WELL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS ANNOUNCE TONIGHT THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MR. PAUL HIG GERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING IN SOME MEETINGS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TONIGHT THAT I WILL COMMIT $1 MILLION OF MY OWN MONEY TO FINISH THE 28 HOMES IN THE SCIP PROJECT, IF SO ALLOWED. [APPLAUSE]. I KNOW A LOT OF TIME -- I KNOW A LOT OF THE TIMES THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING IN THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH NO ONE PROFITS AND I CAN PLAY THAT GAME, I COULD GO GET A 5013 C APPLICATION, BUT EAST AUSTIN IS MY HOME, IT IS MY HERITAGE, IT IS WHAT I LOVE. I GOT BLESSED WITH $28 MILLION IN THE LOTTERY AND THE LEAST I CAN DO -- I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THE DELAYS AND THIS ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND ALL THIS, SO WE HAVE 28 LOTS IN CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN THAT IF ALLOWED UNDER A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, I WILL COMMIT -- ME AND MY DAUGHTER WILL COMMIT $1 MILLION TO FINISHING THE 28 HOMES IN THE SCIP PROJECT. [APPLAUSE].

>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY, ACTUALLY AT A MILLION DOLLARS A MINUTE, YOU CAN TALK ANOTHER MINUTE. [LAUGHTER].

>> I KNOW WE HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT VOTES COMING UP FOR OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF EAST AUSTIN, I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY FUND IN TERMS OF EAST AUSTIN PROJECTS AND PARKS TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO REACT LATER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING, MR. HENDERSON. DICK PIERCE, THEN JENNIFER MCFAIL AND FREDDIE GONZALES.

>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS DICK PIERCE. I'M WITH CASA VERDE BUILDERS, IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO REPRESENT THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF CASA VERDE WHO JUST FINISHED THEIR 50TH LOW-INCOME AFFORDABLE HOME IN EAST AUSTIN. THAT'S 50 QUALITY, ENERGY EFFICIENT, LOW MAINTENANCE HOMES. IT'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR HUNDREDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE TO LEARN JOB SKILLS, PREPARE FOR THEIR LIVES AND THEIR MATURITY, TO FINISH THEIR HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE CITY, FROM THE CITY COUNCILL, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING, AND WE GET HELP IN TERMS OF HELP ON LAND, CONSTRUCTION COSTS, UTILITY HOOKUPS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HOME BUYERS ASSISTANCE AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE INCREASE IN THE BUDGETED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ESPECIALLY INCREASES IN THAT BUDGET FOR -- AND PLEA TO AIM THAT TOWARDS THE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. IT'S A SPECIAL PLEA FOR THE LOW-INCOME SEGMENT OF THIS POPULATION. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS MOVING EVER OUT OF REACH OF SOME OF OUR VERY, VERY IMPORTANT CITIZENS. OUR TYPICAL HOME BUYER IS A FAMILY OF FOUR AND A FAMILY INCOME OF $27,000. $27,000, I BELIEVE, IS THE STARTING SALARY FOR A TEACHER. I BELIEVE IT COVERS MOST OF OUR PUBLIC SERVICE WORKERS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TONIGHT. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE PRODUCE SELLS BETWEEN 65 AND 75 OR 80 THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH IS AFFORDABLE TO AN INCOME LEVEL OF 27,000. AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE AVERAGE NEW HOUSE IN AUSTIN IS 145,000, WHICH IS CLEARLY WAY OUT OF LINE OF LOW-INCOME AND PARTICULARLY VERY LOW INCOME PEOPLE. WE NEED HELP TO KEEP THE PRICE LOW. THAT MEANS HELP IN THE WAY OF LAND ACQUISITION, IN WAIVING OF FEES, IN HELPING WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS. IT'S VERY ALSO IMPORTANT THAT IT'S IN THE BUDGET AN INCREASE TO HELP WITH HOME BUYERS ASSISTANCE SO WE CAN INCREASE EACH AND EVERY AREA AND FOCUS ON THE LOW-INCOME AND THE VERY LOW-INCOME AREA. SO WE SUPPORT THAT INCREASE VERY MUCH. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION FOR OTHER SISTER ORGANIZATION THE ENVIRONMENTAL CORPS WHICH WORKS IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES THAT THE INCREASE IN THE PARKS MAINTENANCE BUDGET IS ALSO VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO PUTTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR GROWING, GROWING PARK AREA. SO THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND OUR PROGRAM ARE COMMITTED TO HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOW-INCOME HOUSING IN AUSTIN, AND THEY APPRECIATE THE INCREASES IN THE HOUSING, IN THE PARKS BUDGET, MAINTENANCE BUDGET, TO HELP THEM HELP THE CITY. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

>>GOODMAN: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM.

>>GOODMAN: COULD I JUST COMMEND THE SPEAKER AND THE SPEAKER BEFORE HIM AS WELL? WE JUST WENT OUT TO CELEBRATE ANOTHER RESULT FROM PEOPLE PUTTING NOT ONLY THEIR MONEY BUT THEIR RESOURCES AND THEIR ABILITIES TO CONNECT WITH AND LEVERAGE OTHER RESOURCES WHERE THEIR MOUTH WAS AND IT'S A BENEFIT THAT IS TANGIBLE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. JENNIFER MACC FAIL.

>> HI, I'M WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT ADAPT WANTS TO GO ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE -- [INAUDIBLE] AND -- $4 MILLION FOR EACH YEAR FOR EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE ADAPT MEMBERS ARE -- MOST OF US ARE ON DISABILITY INCOME. THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE AT LIKE 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. A LOT OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE EITHER AT ONE POINT IN THEIR LIFE THEY'VE LIVED IN NEWSING HOMES OR STATE SCHOOLS AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW OF RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY THERE WAS ONE GENTLEMAN WHO JUST PASSED AWAY NOT TOO LONG AGO BECAUSE HE STOPPED TAKING HIS INNINGS LYNN. HE REFUSED HIS INSULIN BECAUSE HE LOST HOPE. AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY WITH DISABILITIES IS THE LACK OF FORNL AND YOU KNOW THIS AND -- SFORBL. STILL, YOUR OWN CONSOLIDATED PLAN POINTS OUT WE'RE LOSING 2,000 UNITS THAT ARE VERY AFFORDABLE AND WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. YOU ONLY HAVE 6,000 TO BEGIN WITH AND YOU ARE LOSING 42,000. IT'S GREAT MR. HNDER SON VOLUNTEERED THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL AND HE SHOULD BE APPLAUDED, THAT'S 28 HOUSES. AND YOU'VE LOST 2,000. SO YOU STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO. SO GET OUT YOUR -- GO SIT ON THE CITY COUCH AND GET ALL THE CHANGE OUT AND FIND WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT AND SPENDING IT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE SUCH A SIZABLE NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION BONDS IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS LEAVING THE CITY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WELL. HOUSING IS A VERY INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY. IF WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, EVENTUALLY IT HAS EFFECTS ON EVERYTHING. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IGNORED TOO LONG. IF YOU ARE DYING IN A NURSING HOME, YOU CAN'T ENJOY THE PARKS, YOU CAN'T ENJOY THE POSSIBILITY OF LIGHT RAIL BECAUSE YOU WILL BE DYING. SO WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE? THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. FREDDIE GONZALES. MELANIE BOIL. AND WAYNE SPAWN.

>> MY NAME IS FREDDIE GONZALES. I'M ALSO WITH ADAPT OF TEXAS. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MELANIE BOIL, WAYNE SPAWN, GEORGE COPELAND. YOU JUST WANTED TO BE SHOWN IN FAVOR? GOOD, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. WAYNE SPAWN. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>> PEOPLE ARE IN NURSING HOMES AND STATE SCHOOLS. THEY ARE HELLS THEY ARE HOMELESS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET A JOB SOME DAY MAYBE. AND HELP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. MANY PEOPLE ARE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE, ABOUT 30% OR 15% OF THE MEDIAN INCOME. WE NEED MORE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE. [BUZZER SOUNDS] AND MAKE SURE THAT'S THE HOUSING THAT'S BUILT, THEY ARE ABLE TO GET AROUND ON THE BUSES. [APPLAUSE]. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. SPAWN. GEORGE COPER SIGNED UP FOR. LET ME MAKE SURE -- MR. COPER, ARE YOU HERE? HE SIGNED UP FOR PARKS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. JEAN L. HUGHES, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY.

>> [INAUDIBLE] ON THE ADVISORY BOARD AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED LIKE EVERYONE HAS BEEN GIVING GENERALITIES ABOUT THE PARKS. YOU KNOW, JUST THE OBVIOUS RIGHT NOW ALL THEY ARE DOING IS MOWING AND TRIMMING TREES AND OCCASIONALLY HELPING WITH THE PLAYGROUND AREA. WE REALLY NEED MORE WATERING TO PREVENT EROSION AND AT DOTTIE JORDAN WITH A TWO ROOM REC CENTER, WE DO MOST THINGS OUTSIDE FROM SPORTS TO, YOU KNOW, STEP DANCING. SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED ARE ROTATION OF IN-SEASON PLANTS TO BEAUTIFY THE PARKS AND ALSO TO MAINTAIN THE BUSHES AND TREES WE HAVE ALREADY. TRAILS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED. OURS IS WASHING OUT. AND DISABLED PEOPLE CAN'T USE IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU GET STUCK IN THE WASHOUT AREA. PLAYGROUND AND PICNIC EQUIPMENT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT MANY OF THE PARKS. INCREASED LIGHTING FOR SAFETY. IN OUR AREA THE PICNIC AREAS AND THE PLAYGROUNDS AND THE TRAIL IS NOT WELL LIT AND THAT'S TRUE FOR A LOT OF THE PARKS. AND OUR SIGNS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED OR REPLACED AND POOLS NEED TO BE REPAIRED AND ADDITIONAL LIFEGUARDS. SO I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING A LITTLE REALITY TO THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. ZACHARY LYNN.

>> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. I'M VERY PRIVILEGED TO COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AGAIN. I WAS VERY HONORED AND VERY HAPPY FOR THE CITY THAT MR. HENDERSON WOULD MAKE SUCH A WONDERFUL OFFER. I AM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR AMERICAN YOUTH WORKS WHICH WAS FORMERLY AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR LEARNING. AND MR. HENDERSON IS A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF OURS AND WE HAVE BUILT OVER 50 HOMES IN EAST AUSTIN WHICH REPRESENTS AT LEAST A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF OUR PRODUCTIVITY FROM A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND WE ARE ONE OF THOSE 5013 C'S, BUT I SUPPORT HIM BRINGING THAT AND IN THIS BUDGET OF AFFORDABILITY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU THAT THE PROGRESS THAT YOU ARE MAKING TOWARDS THIS BUDGET BE SUPPORTED WITH THE RESOURCES THAT YOU HAVE ON HAND. AS WE LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS OF TRYING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INTO THE DOWNTOWN AREA OR CLOSER SEGMENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY A LOT OF LAND IS HELD BY WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ALTHOUGH THIS MAY INFRINGE ON THE ISSUES OF DENSITY, THERE ARE AREAS, THERE IS LAND THAT CAN BE TURNED OVER AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMEND PAUL HILGERS AND MATT POWELL FOR THE EFFORT THAT THEY ARE MAKING IN THIS AREA. BUT THE COMBINED RESOURCES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT I GUESS IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS ABOUT LEVERAGE AND THE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAD SPOKEN SO HIGHLY OF MATCHING AND LEVERAGING MONEY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU THAT THE MONEY THAT YOU WOULD PUT INTO THIS BUDGET CAN BE LEVERAGED. SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE BEEN AT OUR HOMES, YOU'VE SEEN THE WONDERFUL RESULTS THAT CAN COME OUT AS A PART OF THE LEVERAGE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL AND NONPROFIT. WE BRING A LOT OF MONEY TO THE TABLE IN TERMS OF GRANTS, IN TERMS OF FOUNDATIONS, MONEYS RAISED OUTSIDE OF WHAT COUNCIL COULD VOTE ON OR BOND ISSUES. BUT IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE THE TRADITION OF LEVERAGING AND MATCHING FUNDS AND MONEYS AND IT'S NOT JUST THE MONEY THAT YOU BRING BUT IT'S ALSO THE RESOURCES THAT YOU HOLD. THERE ARE SEVERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD TAKE PLACE IN EAST AUSTIN THAT WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 50,000 UNITS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOK TO GO ADD TO THE MARKET AT AN AVERAGE COST OF $100,000. THAT'S 500 MILLION DOLLARS. HALF A BILLION. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU THAT WE CAN MAKE A LOT OF PROGRESS TOWARDS THAT ESPECIALLY NOT JUST USING THE DOLLARS, USING THE LAND, USING THE RESOURCES THAT YOU HAVE AND I COMMEND YOUR EFFORTS AND JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT WE USE MR. HENDERSON AND WE USE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MYSELF TO CONTINUE THAT AND PLEASE DON'T FEEL LIKE BECAUSE THERE ARE RESOURCES AVAILABLE WE SHOULD CUT ANY MORE MONEY OUT OF THE BUDGET BUT THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LEVERAGE AND MAXIMIZE THE DOLLARS THAT ARE THERE AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE A TRUE AND INDUSTRY DENT COURSE TO FINISH THE BUDGET WITH AT LEAST WHAT WE'VE GOT IT IN RIGHT NOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I THINK THAT THE FUTURE DOES GET BETTER AND I THINK IT LOOKS MUCH BETTER AND I JUST THANK YOU ALL FOR THE ABILITY TO COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. [BUZZER SOUNDS].

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KEN MARSH. KEN MARSH. KEN MARSH SIGNED UP, PLEASE INCREASE MONEY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION. THANKS. THOSE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON -- AT THE PUBLIC HEARING UNDER ITEM NO. 91. I'LL ENTERTAIN A HOGS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING -- MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION?

>>THOMAS: YES. JUST ONE THING, I DO COMMEND MAYOR KIRK WATSON TODAY WHAT WE DID ON THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ALSO I COMMEND MR. HENDERSON FOR THAT STEP AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE A SPONSOR OF HELPING HIM WHEREVER HE NEEDS TO GET ACCOMPLISHED WITH MR. PAUL HILGERS. I CAN PUT THAT ON RECORD.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. ITEM 92, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RATE AND THE FEE INKREEZ FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE FEE OF THE WASTEWATER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AS PART OF THE 2000-2001 PROPOSED BUDGET. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON ITEM NO. 92? IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE DRAINAGE FEE? IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NO. 93. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RATE CHANGES FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY, SOLID WASTE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ALL OTHER PROPOSED CITY RATES AND FEES AS FAR AS THE 2000-2001 PROPOSED BUDGET. DENNIS MCCUTCHOEN FOLLOWED BY SERCY WILL LUS AND BERNIE BY REASON OFBOMB.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M A INTERESTED TAXPAYER IN THE CITY'S BUDGET PROCESS. RECENTLY I LEARNED OF CITY OF AUSTIN'S JUSTICE THE WAY IT [INAUDIBLE] 5,000 GALLONS OF WATER. LUCKILY IN IN CASE IT WASN'T MY FAULT AND THE CITY FIXED THE PROBLEM, BUT I DISCOVERED THE AGGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE THAT GOES INTO EFFECT ONCE YOU GET PAST A CERTAIN POINT SO I HAD A WATER BILL OF $175. THE KMONTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE HERE I'LL TRY TO DO THIS QUICKLY. I THINK MY COMMENTS TONIGHT ARE PART OF A LARGER PROBLEM AND THAT IS HOW CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE GROWTH OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND THE WEALTH OF THOSE WHO LIVE THERE BUT WORK HERE. AUSTIN RESIDENTS MAKE AVAILABLE THEIR SERVICES AND AMENITIES TO COMMUTERS FOR FREE WHILE THEY WORK HERE, WHILE THEY PLAY HERE. AUSTIN RESIDENTS PAY DOUBLE FOR MANY OF THE SAME THINGS, PAY CITY TAXES, COUNTY TAXES, I THINK YOU KNOW ALL THIS VERY WELL, YET WE GO INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES LIKE WATER AND WASTEWATER AND COST OF SERVICE ARE SEEMINGLY LESS. AND FOR EVERY RESIDENT THAT'S LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CITY, WE DON'T RECOVER PROPERTY TAXES FOR THAT. AND YET AUSTIN IS SADDLED WITH A HUGE DEBT. SO ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT I SEE SYSTEMIC HERE IS THIS WATER RATE PROPOSAL. THE FIRST POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EVEN FIND OUT ABOUT THIS, IT WAS QUITE BYE ACCIDENT. IN LOOKING INTO ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE BUDGET THAT I GOT A COPY OF, I FIND OUT THAT BURIED ON PAGES 381 AND 83 OF THAT BUDGET THERE ARE SOME RATE INCREASES THERE THAT REALLY SOCK IT TO 20% OF YOUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE ONCE YOU GET OVER 12,000 GALLONS OF WATER USE US YAJ, YOU HAVE TO PAY $4.50 FOR THAT. IF YOU LIVE IN WEST LAKE OR ROLLING WOOD AND YOU BUY WATER OVER THERE, YOU PAY $2.50, ROUGHLY, FOR THE SAME WATER, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE SELL WHOLESALE WATER TO THEM AT A NOMINAL FEE. WE DON'T HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE FOR OUR WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE A HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. AND AS A CITIZEN OF AUSTIN I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR THAT WE SUBSIDIZE WATER USAGE IN THOSE AREAS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN WHEN THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN CAN'T HAVE GREEN LAWNS LIKE OUR SUBURBAN NEIGHBORS DO. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE QUICKLY HERE. CONSERVATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG DEAL, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WATER CONSUMPTION IN WEST LAKE AND ROLLING WOOD FROM MAY THROUGH JULY YOU WILL FIND THAT ROLLINGWOOD WORNT FROM 12 MILLION TO 20 MILLION -- [BUZZER SOUNDS] -- AND WEST LAKE WENT FROM 72 TO 10 MILLION. SO CONSERVATION NEEDS TO BE PRACTICED BY EVERYBODY AND THE RATE STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE MUCH MORE EQUITABLE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. SEARCY WILLIS. SEARCY WILLIS. THEY WRITE I'M SORRY NOT TO BE ABLE TO STAY. OUR INITIAL NOTIFICATION INDICATED MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE BUILT AT ZERO PERCENT VARIANCE. THIS SEEMS FAIR, HOWEVER IT APPEARS THAT MINIMAL REFERS ONLY TO WATER, NOT WASTEWATER. WE UNDERSTAND THE MULTI-FAMILY WILL BE BUILT AT 5% OVER COST OF SERVICE. MULTI-FAMILY CUSTOMERS COMPRISE A LARGE PORTION OF RESIDENCES. WE SEE NO LOGIC IN HAVING ONE CLASS OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, MULTI-FAMILY, PAYING MORE FOR SEWER SERVICE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE DISCOUNT SERVICE TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. PLEASE CONSIDER BILLING MULTI-FAMILY WATER AND WASTEWATER AT COST OF SERVICE. BERNIE BIRNBAUM.

>> HI, I AM YOUR RATE ADVOCATE. YOU HIRED ME IN 1998 TO REPRESENT RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COST OF SERVICE STUDY. THAT STUDY WAS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETED IN 1999. THE IMPLEMENTATION WAS PUT OFF UNTIL THIS YEAR. AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE'VE HAD A PRETTY DRAMATIC IMPACT ON THE RESULTS OF THAT COST OF SERVICE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE I DEPARTMENT FID SOME ERRORS IN THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT. WE ALSO WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN LOWERING OR GETTING THE UTILITY TO LOWER THE MONTHLY FEE WHICH PROMOTES AFFORDABILITY AND PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION. THE REASON I BRING UP OUR CONTRIBUTION IS NOT TO SHORT OF BLOW OUR OWN HORN BUT TO POINT OUT A YEAR AGO IN YOUR BUDGET YOU SET ASIDE MONEY FOR A CITY-WIDE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. AND THAT MONEY WAS NEVER SPENT. THAT ADVOCATE HAS NEVER DONE HIS OR HER WORK. AND I THINK THE SAME BENEFITS THAT CONSUMERS GOT ON THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SIDE, CONSUMERS WOULD ALSO GET ON DRAINAGE FEES, SOLID WASTE AND THOSE OTHER THINGS IF THE MONEY THAT YOU SET ASIDE LAST YEAR WAS SPENT. I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE WASTEWATER RATE. THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE, A PROPOSED INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. AND TO A LARGE EXTENT THAT INCREASE IS BASED UPON A CONCEPT CALLED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION. BASICALLY IT SAYS WHEN THERE'S A HEAVY RAIN, WATER SEEPS INTO THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM. AND THAT ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH WATER SEEPS INTO THAT SYSTEM IS BY AND LARGE ALLOCATED TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. IF THAT WERE ALLOCATED BASED JUST ON WATER VOLUME AS OPPOSED TO BEING ALLOCATED ON THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, THEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A DECREASE IN RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER RATES INSTEAD OF AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER RATES. AND IN THE REPORT THAT WE SUBMITTED TO YOU WE DISCUSSED THAT ISSUE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THE CONCEPT THAT RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE PENL ICED BECAUSE OF HEAVY RAINS, THIS DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE TO US. OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER WHERE THERE ARE CRACKS OR LEAKS IN THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE PEN ALIZED FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE FEW SECONDS I HAVE REMAINING SO TO ASK YOU TO REALLY GET BEHIND THE WATER RECLAMATION EFFORT NOT JUST IN TERMS OF FUNDING BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF CITY ORDINANCES THAT PROVIDE MORE THAN JUST AN INCENTIVE FOR CERTAIN USERS TO USE RECLAIMED WATER. FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW RECLAIMED WATER USERS ARE GETTING A HUGE DISCOUNT. THEY SHOULDN'T BE GETTING A DISCOUNT. THEY SHOULD BE PAYING AT LEAST THE SAME RATES AS COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

>> ... THAT'S RIGHT. IN AUSTIN, FOR INSIDE THE CITY, WE HAVE A -- A CONSERVATION RATE AND A SEASONAL RATE THAT KICKS IN IN THE SUMMER. FOR CUSTOMER THAT'S WE SELL WHOLESALE TO, THOSE UTILITIES SET THEIR OWN RATE SYSTEMS. SOME OF THEIR RATE SYSTEMS HAVE A CONSERVATION RATE, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE AS OURS, BUT THEY TRY TO DO A CONSERVATION RATE, BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEIR RATE STRUCTURE. THOSE ARE GOVERNED BY THE TNRCC AND -- AND ANY COMPLAINT IN TERMS OF THEIR RATES HAS TO GO TO THE STATE AGENCY. WE CAN'T IMPOSE OUR RATE SYSTEM ON THERE. HOWEVER, FOR THE FOLKS THAT BUY RETAIL FROM US AND BUY WATER, THERE IS A -- A MARGIN IN ALL OF THOSE SALES THAT -- THAT ACCRUE TO THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THE UTILITY. AND THEN THE UTILITY USES THOSE THINGS TO FUND VARIOUS PROGRAMS WITHIN THE CITY, THE 8% TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND, PLUS THE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS. SO THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS THAT WE HAVE FROM THOSE SALES FROM A BUSINESS PER SPECT ACTIVE WE ARE ABLE TO RECOVER SOME OF THOSE EXPENSE WAS A SMALL RATE OF RETURN.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL I WILL ENTERTAIN A NOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. 93. MOTION MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES, WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM NO. 94. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4012 DUVAL STREET FROM MF 4, MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE MODERATE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT ZONING TO MF 4-H, MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE MODERATE HIGH DENSITY HISTORIC ZONING.

>> I'M GEORGE ZAPALAC FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS FOR 4012 DUVAL STREET, CHANGE FROM THE PRESENT MF 4 MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY TO MH 4-H, HISTORIC. THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION IN REQUEST BY THE LAND OWN INVENTORY RELOCATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE LANDMARK COMMISSION VOTED ON JULY THE 24TH FOR HISTORIC ZONING BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO THREE. THE STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THE BUILDING LACKED ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, HAD BEEN HEAVILY ALTER AND DID NOT HAVE STRONG HISTORIC ASSOCIATION WAS INDIVIDUALS OR EVENTS. AND IT MEETS ONLY THREE OF THE 13 CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC ZONING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH THE STAFF AND VOTED AGAINST HISTORIC ZONING BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. THE HOUSE STRADDLES TWO LOTS AND THE OWNER HAS INDICATED THAT HE HAS PLANS TO BUILD A DUPLEX UNIT ON EACH OF THE TWO LOTS. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF 4, THE DUPLEXES CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON THESE LOTS TO MF 4 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH ARE MORE GENEROUS THAN THE S.F. 3 DISTRICT WHICH -- WHICH ALSO ALLOWS DUPLEX USES. THE OWNER HAS FILED A VALID PETITION AGAINST THE HISTORIC ZONING. I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, JUST -- AS A REMINDER, THERE'S A VALID PETITION, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE 6 VOTES IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ZONING. MIKE McCONE. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE IT IN OUR -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THIS BEFORE EVERYBODY STARTS SPEAKING. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS HISTORIC ZONING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 8 TO 0 IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WENT AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 3.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. MR. McCONE.

>>> I WANT TO THANK FOR YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS CASE. I REPRESENT DAN DAY, MANAGING PARTNER OF THE JOINT VENTURE THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY. IN 1988, HYDE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS STUDIED BY THE FIRM OF HARDY, ECK AND MOORE, PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THIS STRUCTURE IS IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO IDENTIFIED AT HAVING NO CONTRIBUTING VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE FACTS IN MIND, THESE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE HISTORIC CRITERIA AND SHOULD NOT BE ZONED HISTORIC. ZONING PROPERTY HISTORIC AS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER CRAVEY SAID SHOULD BE USED TO PRESERVE THE PAST, NOT TO PREVENT THE FUTURE. WHAT MR. DAY IS PROPOSING HERE IS A VALID IN FILL PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR FOUR FAMILIES TO LIVE IN HYDE PARK. HE WILL BE BUILDING DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE HANDED OUT TO YOU A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT HAS OCCURRED ON THIS PROJECT. IN 1998 IN NOVEMBER, THE PROPERTY WAS ENTERED INTO CONTRACT, CLOSED, AND MARCH -- ON MARCH THE 2ND OF 1999. CONSULTANTS WERE HIRED TO SUB DIVIDE THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PROPERLY SUBDIVIDED. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY SUBDIVIDED WERE ASKED TO JOIN THE SUBDIVISION AND REFUSED TO DO SO. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF 4. THIS IS A CASE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED -- SHOULD BE ZONED HISTORIC. THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT IT NOT BE ZONED HISTORIC BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF HISTORIC ZONING. WE SHOULD NOT BE USING HISTORIC ZONING AS A WAY OF DELAYING ANOTHER PROJECT FROM BEING BUILT THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMART GROWTH INITIATIVES THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS SO VALUENTLY TRIUMPHED. TO -- VALIENTLY TRIUMPHED. TO ZONE THIS HISTORIC WOULD DENY THE OWNER THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. DAY WILL BE SPEAKING TO YOU ABOUT WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THIS CITY AND HE IS, IN MY OPINION, A HERO IN THIS CITY FOR TAKING ON THESE VERY DIFFICULT INNER CITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. HE HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AS HE IS REQUIRED FOUND THE GUIDELINES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND WILL GO BACK BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WITH A DESIGN THAT WILL BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN AN APARTMENT -- AN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER MF 4. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. McCONE. DAWN BALSOMO. FOLLOWED BY STANLEY KOZINSKY, KAREN McGRAW.

>> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS DON BALSOMO, I'M A NEIGHBOR WITHIN 300 FEET OF THIS PROJECT. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS WE HAD A SIMILAR PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET, SAME KIND OF LOT, THEY -- IT WAS A SMALL HOUSE, THEY COMPLETELY BULLDOZED IT, PUT SOMETHING UP THERE VERY, VERY PROPER. THAT LOOKS LIKE IT BELONGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS WOULD AFFORD A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REALLY WOULD OVERRUN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ALLEY ACCESS, THE FRONT, IS -- HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AFTER HE LOST IN THE HISTORIC -- WITH THE HISTORIC COUNCIL MEETING, HE HIRED A GUN SLINGER WHO YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE PRESENTLY MET UP HERE, WHO WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, I'M SORRY, HE WENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND TO THE -- EVERY PERSON THERE, THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO TALK WITH HIM ABOUT IT. IN FACT HE LEFT, WITH NOT ONE VOTE OF ASSURANCE. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS THEY SEE A LOT, THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY, IT'S CALLED GREED, AND IT'S CALLED HOW MUCH CAN I PUT ON THE PROPERTY AND MAKE A PROFIT? NOW, WHAT HE COULD DO ON THAT PROPERTY IS, AND I'M SURE IT'S -- IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS OTHER HOUSE, HE COULD TAKE THAT HOUSE, MOVE THE HOUSE, PUT A COMPARABLE HOUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE IT WAS DONE ON AVENUE H, WHICH SOLD FOR $455,000. BUT PEOPLE FEEL THEY CAN PUT TWO DUPLEXES AND THEN HE WANTS TO PUT TWO GARAGE APARTMENTS THAT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST 12 OR 14 PEOPLE IN AN AREA THAT HAD ONE -- HAD ONE FAMILY. AND THE GUY NEXT DOOR HAS TO PUT UP WITH ALL OF THIS. HE'S IN ILL HEALTH, NOBODY AGREED TO THAT. THEY NEVER WENT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY AGREED TO THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE ALL HERE. SO WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE, WE GET GREEDY PEOPLE THAT COME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY ATTEMPT TO DO THIS. AND YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT WE CAN GO TO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE HISTORIC ZONING, BECAUSE IT WAS A SWEDISH FAMILY. I GUESS THAT'S DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA. OR IT MAY HAVE ASBESTOS ON THE HOUSING. I HAD ASBESTOS ON MY HOUSING, WE TOOK THE ASBESTOS OFF, IT BECAME A HISTORICAL HOUSE. ANYWAY THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE GOT TO SAY. IT'S IN YOUR HANDS, THERE WILL BE OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK AGAINST IT. PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM. THANK YOU. POWER.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU I'M SORRY, I MISSED YOUR NAME.

>> DON [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

>> DON BALSOMO, LIVE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STANLEY.

>> HELLO, I'M STANLEY KOZINSKY, CHAIRMAN OF THE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. I AM GOING TO MAKE MY REMARKS ON CITY POLICIES THAT I THINK HAS COMPLICATED THIS ISSUE. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE CITY NO LONGER REQUIRES A SMALL SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS TO BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO BE NOTIFIED ABOUT IT. MR. DAY HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, ACTIVE WITH THIS PROJECT, GETTING IT RESUBDIVIDED, GETTING ARCHITECTURE PLANS, HAVE SPENT A TON OF MONEY BEFORE HE FOUND OUT THAT -- THAT HE NEEDED TO COME TALK TO US. I THINK A LOT OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN HEADED OFF IF YOU HAD CHANGED THAT STUFF WHERE WE GET NOTIFIED OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS AND CAN WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE DESIGNERS JUST RIGHT OFF THE BAT. THE OTHER IS THIS BUSINESS OF LETTING HIM DEVELOP, PICK AND CHOOSE BETWEEN MF 4 AND SINGLE FAMILY. HE CAN -- HE CAN USE SINGLE FAMILY SETBACKS ON THE SIDE, MULTI FAMILY COVERAGE OF -- ON HIS GROUND COVERAGE, AND FAMILY SETBACK FROM THE STREET. HE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD MORE DOING THIS PICKING AND CHOOSING OF WHICH ONE HE WANTS THAN HE COULD COMING IN AND BUILDING A MULTI FAMILY WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS UNDER COMPATIBILITY. WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THESE GIANT DUPLEXES THAT HAVE BEEN CROPPING UP IN HYDE PARK OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. NO ONE HAS FIGURED OUT A WAY TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. A FLOOR TO AREA RATIO OR SOMETHING. BUT PARKING WITH THE BEDROOMS, THEY COME IN WITH BEDROOMS, TWO BEDROOMS AND A STUDY. AND HYDE PARK WITH STUDENTS LIVING UNDER WET BUSHES ALMOST, A STUDY MEANS A BEDROOM. THAT MEANS ANOTHER CAR AND MAYBE A BOAT. I'M HOPING THAT OUR NCCD WILL SOLVE SOME OF THIS STUFF. WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR ROLLBACKS ON A LOT OF THIS MULTI-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY THAT IS BEING USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE. WE ARE GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO YOU, TALKING ABOUT THAT. WE WILL HOPE THAT NCCD WILL SOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. KAREN McGRAW. FOLLOWED BY BERT KROMAC.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M KAREN McGRAW, CHAIRMAN OF THE HYDE PARK PLANNING TEAM. I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE POSSIBLE COMMENT ON THE HISTORIC ZONING. THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT IN THE 1988 NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATION, THE STRUCTURE WAS NOTED AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE THIS RESULTED POSSIBLY FROM ITS OMISSION FROM THE 1984 CITY STUDY SAYING IT WAS NOT HERE IN 1935. IN FACT THE HOUSE WAS HERE IN 1935. AND I BELIEVE THAT ERROR MAY HAVE LED TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS SHOWN AS NON-CONTRIBUTING RATHER THAN POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING DUE TO ITS ALTERATIONS. THIS IS SORT OF A SAD SITUATION FOR HYDE PARK AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE VERY HOPEFUL THAT THIS WILL TURN OUT ALL RIGHT. BUT FOR ALL OF THE MANY, MANY YEARS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO REMEDY THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY USES OR THE -- WHERE THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING IS OVERLAYING THOSE, HAS BEEN SINCE 1931, IT'S SOMEWHAT SAD THAT WE ARE AT THIS PLACE WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUR NCCD IN PLACE, WE ARE TRYING TO ALTER THE ZONING, CORRECT THESE THINGS AND YET THIS PROJECT IS HERE AND IT'S ON OUR DOORSTEP AND THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH THAT WE CAN DO. BUT RELY ON MR. DAY TO DO AS -- AS MR. McCONE SAYS HOPEFULLY BUILD A A PROJECT THAT IS MORE COMPATIBLE THAN AN APARTMENT PROJECT. AN APARTMENT PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CITY'S COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. DUPLEXES DO NOT. THIS IS A GIANT LOOPHOLE. BESIDES OUR OWN NCCD, THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT OVER THE LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF THESE SITUATIONS OCCURRING AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A REMEDY FOR THIS THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HOPEFULLY IS ON ITS WAY TO YOU. SO THAT THIS SITUATION WILL STOP HAPPENING, BUT IT WILL NOT HELP US IN THIS CASE. LIKE I SAY, WE ARE COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON MR. DAY IN GOOD FAITH RESPECTING THE CHARACTER -- CHARACTER OF THAT STREET AND ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND RESIDENTS WHO ARE THERE. THE OTHER GIANT LOOPHOLE IS IN PARKING BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY BUILDINGS THAT ONCE YOU GET SIX BEDROOMS IN A DUPLEX OR TWO FAMILY, YOU NEED SIX PARKING SPACES, THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF REAL PROBLEMS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WITH MANY, MANY CARS. AND THE -- THE SIMPLE SOLUTION IS YOU CAN CALL BEDROOMS ANYTHING ELSE AND THEY DON'T NEED PARKING SPACES. SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIND ANSWERS TO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AS TO THE ELIGIBILITY, THIS PLAN SAYS BUILDINGS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC ZONING NEED TO BE ZONED HISTORIC. THIS AREA WE WISH TO BE A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE WISH IT TO BE IN NCCD. WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE THINGS, BUT IF THIS BUILDING IS ELIGIBLE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR IT TO BE ZONED HISTORIC. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. BERT KROMAC FOLLOWED BY SCOTT TROLL.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BERT CAN KROMAC, I LIVE AT 4016 DUVAL DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THIS LOT. I'M NOT UNMINDFUL, I SERVED ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND KEPT TRACK OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCES THAT CAME THROUGH IN MID '80'S. I'VE SAT THERE FOR -- I MADE A RUN AT GETTING ZONING ROLLBACKS WHEN I FIRST MOVED IN AROUND 1980. I MET WITH NO SUCCESS. SO I SAID, OKAY, WITH THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, I HAVE SAT THERE FOR 15 YEARS THINKING THAT I WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ENCROACHMENT TO MY HOUSE AND PARTICULARLY TO THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS LOT, WHICH IS ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. A '30'S COTTAGE STYLE LOT. IT WAS ALLUDED TO EARLIER, THE THE -- THE MIX AND MATCH, UNDER THE ORIGINAL 112 FOOT LOT BEFORE SUBDIVISION, A 25 FOOT SETBACK WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED UNDER MF 4 COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. WITH A SUB DIVIDE WHICH IS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL UNDER MF 4, WHICH IT'S SLIGHTLY UNDER 16,000 SQUARE FEET, THERE COULDN'T BE 2, 8,000 SQUARE FOOT, REQUIRED FOR THE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIRED FOR DUPLEX. THE REALTORS I UNDERSTANDING AROUND SEARCHING FOR DUPLEX LAWS, 7,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. THAT -- THAT EVEN SUBDIVIDED HAD AN EXTRA 8 OR 900 SQUARE FEET. WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A 16 FOOT SETBACK. AS IT IS WITH THE S.F. 3 DUPLEX USE, IT'S ONLY FIVE FEET. THAT DOESN'T DO A WHOLE LOT AGAINST ME BECAUSE I'M ABOUT 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT THE LADY ON THE OTHER SIDE IS ONLY FIVE FEET. SHE'S A LITTLE COTTAGE, WILL LOOK OUT HER WINDOW, 10 FOOT AWAY SEE A 30 FOOT WALL. IF YOU REMEMBER, 15 FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN 25 IN SF 3 REQUIRED -- REQUIRED -- ELIMINATES THE VIEW OF MY HOUSE FROM THE STREET. MY HOUSE I'M NOT BRAGGING PARTICULARLY, VERY NICE BUNGALO STYLE, PEOPLE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET CANNOT SEE IT THEN BECAUSE THE VIEW IS BLOCKED. ANOTHER THING UNDER MF 4 THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE IS THE 60% BUILDING AND 70% TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER IN MF 4 RATHER THAN THE 40% AND 45% RESPECTIVELY IN S.F. 3. AND THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT I GOT FROM THE CITY STAFF A FEW WEEKS AGO SHOWED IT, I THINK IT WAS 67 OR 68% IMPERVIOUS COVER TOTAL AND 53 OR 54% BUILDING. SOMEHOW THIS STRIKES ME AS LONG. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

>> THERE'S LITTLE THINGS LIKE 25, 70, 73, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 8,000 SQUARE FEET, 7,000 IS ENOUGH FOR A DUPLEX. I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED AND WAS PREPARED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT COULD BE PUT IN MF 4 NEXT DOOR TO ME THAT COMPLIED WITH THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. AND DESPITE WHAT -- I WOULD HAVE EVEN SUPPORTED A VARIANCE FOR LESSER SETBACK THAN THE 25 FEET. AND IT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE MORE THROUGH SMART GROWTH UNIT, BEDROOMS AND UNITS THAN UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. AND I JUST SOMEHOW FEEL VIOLATED [BUZZER SOUNDING] THAT -- THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED. AND IT'S NOT ONLY ME, BUT IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S DIRECTLY AS YOU COME UP 41ST TO DUVAL IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE. NOW YOU SEE A FEW NICE YARDS AND IT'S NOT REALLY BEING TAKEN CARE OF.

>>GOODMAN: IS MR. WOODRUFF AVAILABLE FOR GIVING YOU SOME TIME?

>> PARDON ME?

>>GOODMAN: IS MR. WOODRUFF AVAILABLE TO GIVE YOU TIME?

>> WOODRUFF?

>>GOODMAN: JEFF WOODRUFF IS OUR ONLY OTHER -- OTHER SPEAKER IN FAVOR I THOUGHT HE MIGHT GIVE YOU SOME TIME.

>> GO AHEAD.

>>GOODMAN: SCOTT TROLL IS NEXT. I WAS ASKING YOU IF YOU WANTED TO -- THANK YOU, MR. KROMAC.

>> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SCOTT TROLL, I LIVE AT 4017 AVENUE H, DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 14 YEARS. MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED TWO DUPLEXES ARE AS FOLLOWS: IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE, LIKE STAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT COLLEGE STUDENTS HAVE A TENDENCY TO SHARE ROOMS AND MAXIMIZE THE AVAILABLE LIVING SPACE. AND IF IT'S NOT COLLEGE STUDENTS, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T USE THEIR GARAGES FOR PARKING, THEY USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THIS TRANSLATES INTO A PARKING SHORTAGE WITH THE RESULTING OVERFLOW PROBABLY CHOOSING TO PARK ON 41ST STREET, SINCE IT WOULD BE THEIR MOST CONVENIENT. I HAVE TWO LITTLE BOYS WHO RIDE THEIR BIKES DOWN THAT ALLEY AND PLAY IN AND AROUND THE 41ST STREET DEAD END. THERE'S A TOTAL OF 12 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 13 LIVING WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE THREAT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WHIZZING IN AND OUT OF THERE CONCERNS ME A GREAT DEAL. ALSO, THE INCOMPATIBLE STRUCTURE, HYDE PARK IS AN OLD HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU KNOW. THAT IS WHAT ATTRACTED NOTICE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1984. AND I PAINSTAKINGLY CONSTRUCTED MY HOUSE TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MANY OF THE PROPERTIES, MOST OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THAT STRETCH OF DUVAL HAS RENTAL UNITS THAT WERE DONE IN AN EXTREMELY TASTEFUL MANNER. I FEEL THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MORE CONCERNED WITH GETTING THE BETTER BANG FOR THE BUCK RATHER THAN HOW COMPATIBLE IT IS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AFTER ALL THE JOINT VENTURE WILL BUILD AND LEAVE US TO LIVE WITH WHATEVER REMAINS. ALSO THE REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE. WHENEVER YOU PACK TOO MANY PEOPLE INTO A STRUCTURE BUILT TO SUPPORT LESS, YOU GET SUCH THINGS AS OVERFLOWING DUMPSTERS, TRASH AROUND THE AREA, RENEGADE PETS AS WELL AS NOISE AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT. THE CURRENT STRUCTURE HAS BEEN RENTED OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR, I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN A A THOUGHTFUL AND CONSCIENTIOUS MANNER. WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS THE EXPLOITATION OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS OUR LIVES ALONG -- LONG AFTER THE DEVELOPER HAS GONE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF 4, BUT HAS BEEN USED FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL CHANGE IN USE FOR THE PROPERTY AND WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE WHO WILL NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. -- OF THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. WOODRUFF, FOLLOWED BY DAN DAY.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL, MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVING IN WHAT YOU HAVE DONE UP TO THIS POINT TODAY. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF MY NEIGHBORS. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. JUST TWO OR THREE POINTS, THEN I WILL BE OUT OF HERE. SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE WILL USE THE TERM SMART GROWTH TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING. IT'S NOT JUST ANYTHING, THERE'S LOTS WRITTEN ON IT AND MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL READ UP ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S A PRETTY GOOD IDEA, BUT JUST STICKING A BUILDING DOWN SOMEPLACE IS NOT, PER SE, SMART GROWTH. A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE ALLUDED TO THIS MF-4, THIS APARTMENT PERMIT ON DUVAL STREET, THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S TWO -- THERE'S WONDERFUL PLAN IN 1928 THAT CAME OUT, THERE'S TWO BAD THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF IT. ONE WAS APARTMENTS ON -- ON DUVAL, THAT IS TO SAY THE ZONING FOR DUVAL APARTMENTS AND THE OTHER FRANKLY WAS JIM CROW. COMING OUT OF THAT PLAN. WE REJECT THEM BOTH. LASTLY, THE CRITIQUE, THE HISTORICAL LANDMARK SHOULD NOT BE USED TO -- AS A STICK TO HOLD BACK DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS AN AMAZING THING. I HATE TO SAY THIS, IN PUBLIC, BUT A BUILDER CAN PULL A PERMIT AND THEN BUILD WHATEVER THEY DARN WELL PLEASE IN HYDE PARK IF NOBODY KNOWS IT. YOU CAN JUST DO IT. IMPERVIOUS COVER FORGET IT. JUST BUILD IT. GET A PERMIT AND BUILD IT. THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO ACTUALLY WATCH WHAT GOES ON IN EACH CASE AND NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE. I THINK THAT THE BUILDER WILL COME AROUND, BUT I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I DO NEED TO BE HERE TO SUPPORT MY NEIGHBORS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND I DO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR SERVING.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>GOODMAN: MAYOR, I THINK WE HAVE TO LET MR. McCONE REBUTT FIRST.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M NOT SURE -- WELL, SURE, MR. McCONE YOU CAN HAVE 3 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THE OWNER HAS NOT SPOKEN YET.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. MR. DAY, YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES. IF YOU WILL JUST HAND THOSE TO ME, I WILL GET THEM PASSED OUT, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START TALKING. OKAY.

>> I AM TERRIFIED AGAIN. MY NAME IS DAN DAY, I'M THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE JOINT VENTURE WHICH SOUNDS BIG, BUT IT'S JUST TWO GUYS. ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO BUY THAT PROPERTY ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME DURING OUR DUE DILIGENCE INDICATED THAT WE COULD DO EXACTLY WHAT WE PLAN TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, SUB DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND BUILD TWO DUPLEXES. THE EVIDENCE FROM -- THAT WE HAD SHOWED THAT WE COULD DO THIS. THE -- I HAVE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES. I'M DOING WHAT I HEAR EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO, DO A COMPACT CITY. I HAVE DONE LITTLE URBAN SUBDIVISIONS, TRIED TO BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT, TRIED TO DO SOMETHING THAT ENHANCES THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONLY TWO SITUATIONS HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED ABOUT WHAT I HAVE DONE AND MOST OF THE TIME I GET CONGRATULATED FOR THE WORK THAT I DO AND THE QUALITY OF THE WORK AND THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S -- WE ARE JUST DOING WHAT WE THINK YOU ALL ARE SAYING ALL OF THE TIME, COME INTO TOWN, DON'T GO OUT INTO THE SUBURBS, PREVENT URBAN SPRAWL AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF PRODUCT AND WHERE I WANT TO BUILD. IT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. DAY. COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH REGARD TO ITEM NO. 94.

>>GOODMAN: MAYOR?

>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: I WOULD PROPOSE ON FIRST READING MF 4 CO BUILT TO SF 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: PLEASE SAY THAT AGAIN.

>>GOODMAN: MF 4 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO BUILD TO SF 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID.

>>GOODMAN: REQUIRES A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. IF WE WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OF MR. ZAPALAC.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THERE'S A MOTION, THERE IS A SECOND?

>>ALVAREZ: SECOND.

>>MAYOR WATSON: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. MR. ZAPALAC.

>> THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES ARE THE FOLLOWING: HEIGHT, S.F. 3 ALLOWS 35 FEET, MF 4 ALLOWS 6 ON FEET. BUILDING COVERAGE, S.F. 3 ALLOWS 40%, M.F.4 ALLOWS 60%, IMPERVIOUS COVER, S.F. 3 ALLOWS 45%, M.F.4, 70%, FRONT SETBACK, MF 325 FEET, MF 415 FEET. -- 25 FEET, 15 FEET. (CORRECTION).

>>GOODMAN: CAN I SPEAK MY MOTION BRIEFLY.

>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, PLEASE.

>>GOODMAN: SMART GROWTH MEANS WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO RESPECT CULTURE AND AREA THAT WE ARE ADDING DEVELOPMENT TO. IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT'S OFTEN VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE THAT FITS IN WITH THE OLDER CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IF YOU INDEED HAVE MF 4 ZONING AND ARE BUILDING S.F., THE ABILITY TO PICK AND CHOOSE TO SOME DEGREE NEGATES THE CAPABILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE PUT THERE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY USE. THIS MOTION PUTS THE SINGLE FAMILY USE BACK INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS WOULD BE ON FIRST READING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 94. THAT'S ON FIRST READING ONLY. I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE RESCHEDULED, BUT YOU WILL BE GIVEN NOTICE. COUNCIL, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TAKE UP -- SINCE MR. -- I'M SORRY, MR. McCONE?

>> I'M SORRY. I BELIEVE THERE'S A VALID PETITION AGAINST ANY ZONING CHANGE, YOUR HONOR. AND IS THERE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT, WAS THAT UNANIMOUS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: I DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED BECAUSE I CONSIDERED IT TO BE A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>> WAS IT? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: IF I WOULD HAVE CALLED OUT ANY DISSENTING VOTES --

>> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU, I JUST DIDN'T HEAR IT.

>>GOODMAN: A CLARIFICATION IS IT'S FIRST READING, YOU KNOW IT TAKES 3.

>> THANKS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MR. HEIGHTS, WHY DON'T YOU COME FORWARD AND GIVE THE 10 MINUTE REPORT THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AT 10 MINUTES UNTIL NOON BUT GOT TIED UP IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU WERE DOING IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M MIKE HEIGHTS DIRECTOR OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT. THE BRIEFING WE ARE ABOUT TO GIVE YOU IS A RESPONSE TO REQUESTS MADE BY THE COUNCIL ON JUNE 8TH. AT THAT TIME WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE FOR AN ALGAE PROBLEM THAT HAS DEVELOPED IN THE BARTON SPRINGS POOL. I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU DR. PEGGY GLASS, PH.D. IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, A PRINCIPLE WITH ALAN PLUMBER & ASSOCIATES. WITH THAT, DR. GLASS.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, DOCTOR GLASS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I AM VERY PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE HERE WITH YOU AND GO OVER A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN VERY EXCITING FOR US THIS SUMMER, VERY INTERESTING. IT IS, OF COURSE, THE REQUEST THAT WE LOOK AT WAYS TO -- TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO VERY HEAVY ALGAL GROWTHS OCCURRING IN THE BARTON SPRINGS POOL THIS SUMMER. NEXT PLEASE. IN -- IN LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, IT REMINDS ME IN SOME RESPECTS OF A THREE-LEGGED STOOL. A THREE-LEGGED STOOL, OF COURSE, DOESN'T WORK WELL UNLESS YOU HAVE ALL THREE LEGS. WELL, IN LOOKING AT STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING THE ALGAE IN THE POOL, WE HAD THREE CRITERIA, ALL OF WHICH BEAR EQUAL WEIGHT THAT, I MAINTAINING THE SWIMMING ENVIRONMENT, COMPLYING WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTAINING THE AMBIENCE AND ATMOSPHERE THAT EVERYONE ASSOCIATES WITH BARTON SPRINGS POOL. NEXT, PLEASE. WE DID -- COVERED A LOT OF GROUND THIS SUMMER. IN LOOKING AT THIS WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ALL OF THE FACTS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE LONG LIST THAT'S ON THIS SLIDE, BUT I DO WANT TO PARTICULARLY NOTE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FELT WAS MOST IMPORTANT WAS WE TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS NOT A NEW SITUATION, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD A LOT OF IDEAS OVER THE YEARS, WE WANTED TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT, INCLUDING WE MET WITH SWIMMERS AT THE POOL, WITH THE AQUATIC STAFF BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE THEY HAD VERY VALUABLE APPROACHES TO OFFER. WE HAVE COME UP WITH AN APPROACH THAT HAS, I THINK, THREE ASPECTS TO IT. WE HAVE A SHORT-TERM PROGRAM, WHICH IS IN FACT ADDRESSING SYMPTOMS, RATHER THAN A CURE. WE HAVE A LONG-TERM PROGRAM WHICH SHOULD BE MORE SUBSTANTIVE IN REDUCING THE RECURRENCE OF THE ALGAEAL PROBLEMS. IN COMING UP WITH THE LONG-TERM PROGRAM, WE HAVE EMPHASIZED REESTABLISHING NATURAL SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN THE POOL IN THE PAST, PRESENTS IN THE WATERS IN THE AREA, WE HAVE PICKED SOLUTIONS THAT IN FACT MIMIC NATURAL SYSTEMS, BELIEVING THAT MOTHER NATURE KNOWS MORE ABOUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS PERHAPS THAN WE DO. FOR THE LONG-TERM PROGRAM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE PILOT TESTING AND PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OCCUR BECAUSE THESE PROGRAMS DO INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURES OF BOTH TIME AND MONEY AND WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF THOSE EXPENDITURES BE WELL FOUNDED AND WELL RESEARCHED. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES HERE AND MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WERE IMPORTANT IN COMING UP WITH THE SOLUTION. THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE SWIMMERS ARE DEALING WITH. NOW THE -- THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHAT'S CALLED THE BEACH AREA. IN THE POOL. THE BEACH AREA IS NOT A SANDY DRY AREA, IT IS IN FACT A LARGE AREA OF THE POOL THAT HAS A RELATIVELY FLAT VOLUME AND STAYS -- RELATIVELY A UNIFORM FIVE TO SIX FEET IN WATER DEPTH. THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL IS COVERED IN LARGE COBBELS. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF A LOT OF THE ALGAE THAT'S ENDING UP FLOAT IN THIS THE POOL. IN THE MORNING, ABOUT THE TIME THE SUN COMES UP, IT LOOKS LIKE IT LOOKS IN THE FIRST PICTURE. IN THAT WE HAVE THE ROCKS THAT ARE COVERED WITH THIS MATRIX THAT'S A COMBINATION OF BLUE-GREEN ALGAE, DIATOMS, ORGANIC AND INORGANIC DITRITIS. AS THE SUN COMES UP, THE ALGAE STARTS DOING THEIR THING, MAKES OXYGEN, CREATES OXYGEN BUBBLES, GETS UNDER THIS ORGANIC MAT AND IT STARTS TO RISE UP. THROUGH THE WATER COLUMN. THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE ALGAE FLOATING UP THROUGH THE WATER COLUMN CREATING THE FLOATING MATERIAL THAT APPEARS ON TOP, WHICH IS NOT VERY AT TRANGT ACTIVE. -- ATTRACTIVE. IN LOOKING AT THE POOL WE CONCLUDED IN FACT THERE ARE FIVE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE POOL. DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO USES, DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR POTENTIAL TO GROW ALGAE, AND DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS MIGHT BE. NEXT, PLEASE. THE UPPER POOL AREA IS A SHALLOW AREA, IT'S APPROXIMATELY FROM ZERO TO ABOUT TWO FEET DEEP. ONE CONTINUING THAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS AREA IS THE FACT THAT THE BOTTOM IN THAT AREA IS ENTIRELY SLAB ROCK OR CONCRETE. THEN WE GO INTO THE MID DEPTH AREA, WHICH IS THREE TO FIVE FEET DEEP. THE SPRING AREA -- NEXT ONE, PLEASE. THE SPRING AREA, WHERE THE DIVING BOARD IS GETS UP TO 14 FEET DEEP. THEN WE HAVE THE LOWER POOL, WHICH WE HAVE DIVIDED INTO TWO AREAS. ALONG THIS LEFT HAND SIDEWALK IS WHAT WE HAVE REFERRED TO AS THE BEACH AREA, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE OR SIX FEET. AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE POOL IS DEEP, GETS UP TO ABOUT 14 FEET DEEP. OKAY. WITH THAT AS AN INTRODUCTION, THE SOLUTIONS WE ARE PROPOSING ARE FOLLOWS: EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING WHY DON'T WE SKIM? OKAY, WHY DON'T WE SKIM? WE THINK THAT THAT'S THE FASTEST, EASIEST THING THAT YOU CAN DO TO MAKE SOME DENT IN THE PROBLEM. BUT IT IS NOT A SOLUTION BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. AND IT WILL ONLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM LIMIT UNDERSTAND BOTH TIME AND SPACE. THE -- LIMITED IN BOTH TIME AND SPACE. THE REASON IS, FULL REMEMBER THE PICTURE THAT I SHOWED YOU OF THE ALGAE CONTINUALLY FLOATING UP THROUGH THE POOL, WE ONLY SKIM WHAT'S ON THE TOP. 30 MINUTES OR AN HOUR LATER, IT'S BACK UP. WE CAN ONLY DO SMALL AREAS. THIS IS A BIG POOL. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COVER THE WHOLE POOL AND GET IT ALL CLEAN AND IT'S NOT GOING TO STAY CLEAN. THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH IMPLEMENTING THE SKIMMERS, THAT IS THE STAFF HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING THAT HAS REALLY WORKED. THE THINGS THAT YOU USE TO DIP LEAVES OUT OF YOUR POOL, THE ALGAE GOES RIGHT THROUGH IT. WE HAVE -- SO WE HAVE WORKED AND DEVELOPED SOME PROTOTYPES AND IN FACT THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE. TWO DIFFERENT STYLES, THEY NEED WORK, BUT IT CAN BE DONE. THEY ARE CHEAP AND QUICK TO PUT TOGETHER. THAT'S A QUICK SOLUTION, BUT IT'S ONLY LIMIT UNDERSTAND EFFECTIVENESS. ANOTHER SHORT-TERM THING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IS TO TRY AND CATCH THE ALGAE AT THE BOTTOM BEFORE IT COMES UP AND KEEP IT THERE. IN IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PILOT IN A SMALL AREA BEFORE WE TRIED IT. YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO COVER THE ENTIRE POOL AREA. WE ARE THINKING PERHAPS IF YOU COVERED JUST THE BEACH AREA, BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE ALGAE COMES FROM THERE, YOU MIGHT SEE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE POOL. BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH THIS, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A DESIGN THAT WAS SAFE FOR THE SWIMMERS. MAKE SURE THAT WE DID GET SOME IMPROVEMENT JUST COVERING THE BEACH AREA AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T CREATE ADVERSE CONDITIONS FOR THE SAM MAN DER -- SALAMANDER BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR HABITAT. LONG-TERM SOLUTION. WE THINK THE VERY BEST THING THAT WE CAN DO IN THE LONG-TERM IS TO TRY TO ESTABLISH MORE DIVERSITY IN PLANTS, ANIMALS AND FISH IN THE POOL. THESE HAVE EXIST UNDERSTAND THE PAST. IN THE PAST THERE WERE A LOT MORE PLANTS THAN THERE ARE THERE NOW. THERE ARE -- THIS IS A CURRENTS PICTURE FROM THE POOL. THIS IS DELTA ARROW HEAD, WHICH IS VIRTUALLY THE ONLY SPECIES PRESENT NOW. WE THINK WOULD IT BENEFIT BY ADDING MORE SPECIES OF PLANTS, MORE BOTTOM AREA COVERAGE AND PUTTING IN FISH AND INVERTEBRATES, THEY WOULD COMPETE WITH THE ALGAE FOR NUTRIENTS. THE LITTLE FISH WOULD CONSUME THE ALGAE. THE LITTLE FISH THAT WE HAVE HERE IS CALLED A STONE ROLLER, GROWS UP TO ABOUT THREE INCHES, HE LOVES ALGAE. IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO THAT'S VERY NATURAL, ADDS TO THE AT THEKTS OF THE POOL, NOT IN ANY WARM HARMFUL TO THE SALAMANDER. TAKES TIME TO DO THIS, THOUGH, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN A WEEK'S TIME. WE DON'T THINK YOU WITH DISRUPT THE POOL AND PLANT THE WHOLE THING AT ONCE. WE NEED TO DO IT IN PATCHES, COVER IT OVER A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE ABOUT A YEAR TO YEAR AND A HALF. THE OTHER THING IS IT WILL RAIN AGAIN. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT IT WILL, IT WILL FLOOD BARTON CREEK, WHEN IT DOES IT'S GOING TO WASH OUT ALL OF THE PLANTS AND ANIMALS THAT WE HAVE PUT IN THERE. WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A RECOVERY PLAN. TO REINTRODUCE THIS MATERIAL WHEN THAT HAPPENS. WE HAVE KIND OF A SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU ALONG THAT LINE. ONE WAY TO RECOLONIZE, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED A LOT IN THE PAST, IS TO LET THE CREEK FLOW THROUGH THE POOL. IT USED TO DO THAT. WE HAVE NOW TOTALLY REROUTED IT THROUGH THE BYPASS HERE. THERE ARE NO OPENING IN THE UPPER DAM. BUT WHEN YOU LET SOME OF THE CREEK FLOW, YOU BRING IN THE SEEDS AND PLANTS PARTICLES AND THE LITTLE INVERTEBRATES, FISH FROM UPSTREAM, THEY NATURALLY RECOLONIZE. THIS WOULD BE DONE UNDER A CONTROLLED APPROACH. BUT WHAT WE DO IS IT WOULD REQUIRE INSTALLING SOME GATES IN THE UPPER DAM AND YOU WOULD WANT TO CONTROL THE TIMES YOU LET THE CREEK FLOW GO THROUGH. YOU DON'T WANT REALLY LOW FLOW WHEN THE QUALITY IS NOT GOOD OR REALLY HIGH FLOW. BUT IT WOULD BE A WAY TO GET A LOT OF NATURAL RECOLONIZATION. THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE ALL DEALING WITH THE LOWER END OF THE POOL. THE BEACH AREA, DEEP AREA IN THE LOWER END. REMEMBER I SHOWED YOU THE VERY UPPER END OF THE POOL, MAXIMUM TWO FEET DEEP, SOLID ROCK CONCRETE BOTTOM, WE CAN'T PLANT PLANTS UP THERE, THERE'S NOTHING FOR THEM TO GROW ON. IN ADDITION, WHEREAS IN THE REST OF THE POOL, YOU KNOW, YOU SWIM, TOUCH THE BOTTOM OCCASIONALLY. EVERYONE UP THERE IS WALKING AROUND, SO THE ALGAE ON THE BOTTOM THERE IS A REAL NUISANCE BECAUSE IT'S SLIPPERY. OUR SUGGESTION -- THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT, IT'S NOT SALAMANDER HABITAT. WE CAN DO THINGS UP THERE WE CAN'T DO ELSEWHERE IF WE CAN ISOLATE IT SO WE DON'T IMPACT THE SALAMANDER. WE SUGGEST YOU THINK ABOUT COMING DOWN ABOUT A FIFTH OF THE WAY DOWN THE POOL, DEPTH IS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER TWO FEET DEEP THERE, PUTTING KIND OF AN UNDER WATER BERM. SO THAT --.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WHAT DID YOU CALL THAT? UNDER WATER WHAT?

>> BERM.

>>MAYOR WATSON: BERM, OKAY. SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE WORD.

>> THAT'S OKAY. UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A FOOT OF WATER OVER THE BERM, BUT WHEN WE GET THE NEW GATES IN, THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO PUT GATES IN THE LOWER DAM TO DRAW DOWN JUST A SMALL AMOUNT IN DEPTH AND THEY CAN CLEAN THE POOL AND STILL KEEP ALL OF THE HABITAT FOR THE SALAMANDER COVERED, WELL, WE PUT THIS BERM WHERE WHEN YOU DO THAT SMALL DRAW DOWN, THE WATER IN THE BOTTOM END OF THE POOL WOULD REMAIN HERE, BUT THE UPPER END OF THE POOL WOULD BE ISOLATED. WE CAN PUMP IT DOWN OR LEAVE THE WATER THERE, WE CAN THEN DO ALL KINDS OF TREATMENTS IN THIS UPPER AREA. WE CAN TREAT IT WITH CHLORINE, WHICH IS A GREAT WAY TO KILL ALGAE. IT'S MUCH EASIER TO USE MECHANICAL METHODS LIKE BRUSHES OR HIGH PRESSURE HOSES OR PERHAPS JUST PUMP IT OUT AND LET THE SUN DRY IT UP. YOU CAN DO LOTS OF THINGS IN THAT UPPER END ONCE YOU CAN GET IT ISOLATED LIKE THAT. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IF WE DO THAT APPROACH IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF WE USE SOMETHING LIKE CHLORINE THAT WE HAVE A VERY POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE SPILL CONTROL PROGRAM SO THAT IN FACT WE DO NOT RUN THE RISK OF GETTING CHEMICALS INTO EITHER THE HABITAT AREA OR DOWNSTREAM BARTON CREEK. NEXT PLEASE. THE MID DEPTH AREA ABOUT, THREE TO FIVE FEET DEEP IN THE SPRING AREA, THOSE AREAS ARE ACTUALLY WELL MAINTAINED WITH THE CURRENT PRACTICES. THE SPRING AREA TENDS NOT TO GROW A LOT OF ALGAE. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES, THEN THE MID DEPTH AREA, THE VACUUM, THE BOBCAT BRUSHES AND THE HOSES THEY ARE USING ARE ALL DOING A GOOD JOB. SO WE DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO CHANGE THOSE PROCESSES. ONE OTHER SUGGESTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER IS KIND OF A SUPPLEMENT FOR THE TIMES WHEN THE PLANTS ALONE PERHAPS ARE OVERWHELMED BY THE ALGAE AND CONDITIONS IS TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING RECIRCULATION IN WHAT WE HAVE CALLED THE BEACH AREA. THIS IS A -- A CROSS-SECTION OF THE POOL, THIS IS THE BEACH AREA WHERE IT'S FIVE TO SIX FEET DEEP, THIS IS THE DEEPER AREA OF THE POOL. TWO THINGS THAT RETARD ALGAL GROWTH ARE TEMPERATURE, LOW TEMPERATURE AND HIGH VELOCITY. BUT WHAT WE THINK YOU MIGHT COULD DO IS PICK THE COOLER WATER UP, WATER IS COOLER HERE IN THE BOTTOM AND DISCHARGE IT AT A VELOCITY OVER THE BEACH AREA AND RETARD THE ALGAL GROWTH IN THAT MANNER. THIS LIKE OTHER PROPOSAL NEEDS TO BE PILOTED TO BE SURE THAT THE ENERGY AND THE COST OF MOVING THAT WATER IS IN FACT NOT TOO MUCH TOO EXPENSIVE, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO YEAR ROUND AND AT ALL TIME. KIND OF A BACK UPTO THE PLANT APPROACH. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF WE ONLY DO THIS IN THE BEACH AREA, WE GET ENOUGH CONTROL OVER THE ALGAE. NEXT. WE HAVE AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, I WON'T GO INTO DETAILS UNLESS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THAT. A LOT OF THIS CAN BE DONE OVER THE NEXT YEAR. THE PLANNING AND IF WE ACTUALLY WENT INTO A FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECIRCULATION PLAN THAT WOULD GO INTO 2002. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

>>SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR, I APPRECIATE THE -- I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL SAY THIS IS SOMETHING WE PUT ON THE AGENDA A WHILE BACK TO TRY TO RESPOND TO THE VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS ABOUT SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE POOL. AND WE HAVE SEEN SOME SUGGESTIONS HERE TONIGHT. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT ANYTHING THAT WE DO IMPLEMENT FROM THIS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION. WE WON'T TRY TO RUSH ANYTHING THROUGH WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT'S -- THIS ISSUE IN PARTICULAR TENDS TO GET PEOPLE VERY EXCITED ALTHOUGH NO ONE IS DOWN HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON IT, I DON'T THINK. BUT ANYWAY I WANTED TO SAY THAT. THERE DO APPEAR TO BE SOME GOOD THINGS IN HERE. I AM TOO TIRED TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE LOT OF THEM TONIGHT, WE HAVE PEOPLE WAITING ON THE NEXT ITEM. ONE THING I DID WANT TO ASK, AND I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF ANYTHING THAT'S IN HERE, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD RAIN HELP THIS SITUATION THAT WE ARE HAVING?

>> RAIN WOULD HELP TREMENDOUSLY. A LOT OF THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS LOW FLOW. AND LOW VELOCITY THROUGH THE POOL, LOW TURNOVER TIME IN THE POOL. THAT'S ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE VEGETATIVE APPROACH IS IT SITS THERE WORKING WHEN YOU NEED IT AND WHEN YOU DON'T NEED IT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE RAIN DOESN'T COME AGAIN, IT'S THERE WORKING FOR YOU.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, ONE COMMENT I DO WANT TO MAKE. THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM, BRIEFING ONLY. OF THE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WERE PRESENTED, THE STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU WOULD WANT TO GO FORWARD ON THIS, THAT WE GO WITH ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXCEPT FOR THE NET MAT THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THE OTHER AREA. I THINK THE OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE SUFFICIENT FOR US TO SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK AND IF IT DOESN'T WE CAN COME BACK AND LOOK IN THAT AREA. BUT WE SEE THAT AS A HIGH MAINTENANCE AREA AND MAYBE A DIFFICULT AREA TO DO ANYWAY. IF WE WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THEM, THE ESTIMATED COST IS APPROXIMATELY $350,000.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU MR. HEIGHTS, I APOLOGIZE THAT WE DIDN'T GET THAT TAKEN UP EARLIER. IS THE CITY MANAGER -- TELL YOU WHAT, IF -- IF WE COULD GET THE CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE I KNOW HE HAS A COMMENT, WE WILL TAKE UP ITEM NO. 54 AS SOON AS HE COMES BACK IN. WHILE HE'S ON HIS WAY IN, LET ME DO THIS, WE WILL GO TO ITEM NO. 95. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO READ THE POTENTIAL APPOINTMENTS. TO THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, BECKY ROAN, AN APPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. PAT [INAUDIBLE] A REAPPOINTMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, GREGORY CANTELEE, APPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS, ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, SEAN GARRETTSON, AN APPOINTMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND SOLAR, ALL THREE REAPPOINTMENTS, ALL CONSENSUS. THOMAS CONES, GARZA AND WARD. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALBERT DIETZ, REAPPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. URBAN FORESTRY, RANDY MARIE CLARK AND DARYL WILLIAMS, BOTH APPOINTMENTS BY CONSENSUS. AND JOYCE BASSEIANO A REAPPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR. URBAN TRANSPORTATION, ANA RODRIGUEZ, AN APPOINTMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. WATER AND WASTEWATER, CHIN LE, A REAPPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. MARIN, A REAPPOINTMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MICHAEL CURTIS, A CONSENSUS APPOINTMENT. THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, ALL THREE APPOINTMENTS, SHAUN BRADLEY, CHIP HOW WE WILL, JOHN GARVEY BY THE MAYOR. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT, AN APPOINTMENT OF KAREN HOUSER BY THE MAYOR KIRK WATSON I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>>GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL, THAT WILL TAKE US BACK TO ITEM NO. 54.

>>GARZA: MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT LOTS OF ITEMS THIS WEEFJ SPECIFICALLY BUDGET. ONE COUNCIL OFFICE ASKED THAT THEY HAVE MORE TIME TO STUDY THIS. I WOULD ASK WE NOT TAKE ACTION TODAY. WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION TODAY OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE IT LATER. WE ARE PREPARED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BECAUSE YOU HAD SO MANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY, WE REALLY DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE UNTIL WE GET A CHANCE TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION WHEN PEOPLE ARE FRESH AND NOT HAVE THE BUDGET THAT'S WEIGHING ON EVERYBODY'S AGENDA RIGHT NOW IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT THIS WEEK TO GET FOLK'S ATTENTION ON THIS. WITH THAT I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL NOT TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS TODAY UNTIL WE HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED THIS WEEK.

>>MAYOR WATSON: WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO, COUNCIL, YOU WITH CHIME IN ON THIS AND OBJECT, WITHOUT OBJECTION WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION IS HEAR FROM THE SHERIFF, GET THE PRESENTATION. THE SHERIFF HAS BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, GET THE PRESENTATION FROM THE CHIEF ON CENTRAL BOOKING, I KNOW THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT HAPPENED TODAY THAT -- THAT WE MIGHT COULD GET THE ANSWER TO SOME QUESTIONS. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE NOT -- WE KNOW THE POSITION OF THE NEIGHBORS PRETTY STRONGLY. MAYBE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE, BUT IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TONIGHT, NOT PUT YOU ALL THROUGH A LONG PROCESS OF THEN WE END UP WITH NO VOTE. AND MAYBE WE CAN EXPEDITE THIS AND COME BACK AND TAKE IT UP AT ANOTHER POINT IN TIME. CHIEF? CHIEF McDON'T.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. McDONALD.

>> I HAVE WITH ME TODAY DAVID DOUG LOSS OUR LEGAL ADVISOR, I'M ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL MCDONALD, CHIEF KNEE, REBECCA STARK, MARSHA CONNOR. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION TODAY WITH A -- THIS EVENING WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. SOME OF THIS WILL BE A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE WENT OVER AT THE MARCH 9TH PRESENTATION. BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEW COUNCILMEMBERS, I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO GO OVER THAT INFORMATION AGAIN. THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY, BUILT IN 1957 AS A MUNICIPAL JAIL. OPERATED BY THE CITY UP UNTIL 1988. IT WAS DESIGNED FOR 54 PRISONERS. IN 1988 THE CITY AND COUNTY ENTERED INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY TO OPERATE THE -- THE CITY JAIL. THE REASONS FOR THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED COST SAVINGS AND THE SHERIFF'S EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING THE CORRECTIONS FACILITY. IN TERMS OF JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ON ALL STATE FELONY AND MISDEMEANORS, IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY -- THE PRISONER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARRESTING AGENCY UP UNTIL MAGISTRATION. AT THAT POINT, IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY. WITH REGARD TO CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS, THOSE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. HISTORICALLY WE HAVE CONTRACTED SINCE 1988 WITH THE COUNTY TO HANDLE OUR CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS AS WELL. THE ARREST, BOOKING PROCESS CONSISTS OF THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS. THE FIRST IS ARREST INTAKE, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT THE RECORD AND WARRANTS CHECK, THE SECOND COMPONENT IS MAGISTRATION, WHICH THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS AND THEN THE ACTUAL BOOKING PROCESS. THE 7TH STREET BOOKING FACILITY WAS DESIGNED TO HOUSE 58 PRISONERS. IT OFTEN HOLDS UP TO 175. THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 WAS 57,537. ABOUT 74% OF THAT, 42,577 OF THOSE ARRESTS CAME FROM A.P.D. THE NUMBER OF CHARGES FROM OCTOBER OF '98 TO AUGUST OF '99 WAS 76,855. WHAT YOU WILL NOTE IS TAKE THERE'S A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF CHARGES AND THE INDIVIDUALS BOOKED IN AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH MANY INDIVIDUALS SOMETIMES HAVING MULTIPLE CHARGES AGAINST THEM. THE AVERAGE NUMBER RELEASED DAILY FROM THE BOOKING FACILITY IS 113. OF THE MISDEMEANOR CASES THAT ARE -- THAT ARE -- OF THE MISDEMEANOR CHARGES, 18% ARE HANDLED BY COMMUNITY COURT. THE -- IN THE NEXT PORTION, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER ITSELF. IN 1991, THE COUNTY IDENTIFIED CONCERN WAS THE 7TH STREET BOOKING FACILITY. IT WAS INMATE OVERCROWDING, FACILITY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKING, AND COST OF IMPENDING STATE JAIL STANDARDS. AND IN NOVEMBER OF '93, A BOND ELECTION WAS HELD TO RAISE $24 MILLION. IN JANUARY OF YOU 6, CONSTRUCTION BEGAN. IT'S ESTIMATED THAT THE FACILITY WILL BE COMPLETED DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR. THIS FACILITY IS DESIGNED TO CO-LOCATE WITH THE 10TH STREET COUNTY JAIL THAT ALREADY EXISTS THERE, ALONG WITH THE COURTS AN OTHER FACILITIES THAT THE COUNTY OPERATES. THE 10TH STREET COUNTY JAIL IS DESIGNED TO HOLD 274 PRISONERS. IN THE MARCH 9TH PRESENTATION BY CHIEF KNEE, WE PRESENTED COUNCIL WITH FOUR OPTIONS, THE FIRST OPTION WAS TO USE THE TRAVIS COUNTY CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY AND CONTINUE OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. THE SECOND WAS TO USE THE 7TH STREET BOOKING FACILITY, THE CITY WOULD MAGISTRATE A.P.D. ARRESTS BEFORE TRANSPORTING TO TRAVIS COUNTY, THE THIRD WAS TO BUILD AND OPERATE A NEW JAIL FACILITY AND THE FOURTH WAS PRIVATIZATION. AT THE TIME THERE WAS NOT MUCH INTEREST OR DISCUSSION ON ITEM -- ON OPTIONS 3 AND 4. BECAUSE OF COSTS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING PRIVATIZATION. YOUR RESPONSE, COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 9TH PRESENTATION WAS THAT STAFF HIRE A CONSULTANT TO EXPLORE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPERATING ITS OWN BOOKING FACILITY TO ALLOW FOR A TRUE COMPARISON TO THE -- TO A POTENTIAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT, THE VITARA GROUP WAS THE CONSULTANT THAT WAS HIRED TO EXPLORE OPTIONS OF CONDUCTING A BOOKING AND -- CONDUCTING BOOKING AND MAGISTRATION SERVICES. THREE ALTERNATIVES WERE IDENTIFIED. MINIMUM -- ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS MINIMAL RENOVATIONS TO THE 7TH STREET FACILITY, THE SECOND WAS SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS TO THE FACILITY AND THE THIRD WAS, OF COURSE, THE -- THE CONTINUED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. UNDER THE MINIMAL RENOVATIONS, WHAT WE HAVE FOUND WAS IN THE SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS LOWER CAPITAL COSTS, NAMELY IF WE DID PIN MALL RENOVATIONS TO THE FACILITY, THERE WERE HIGHER STAFFING COSTS. THE CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE MINIMAL RENOVATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN $1.5 MILLION. IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER THE MEN RENOVATIONS OPTION, FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 THE ESTIMATE COSTS WOULD BE 7,277,408. THE FIVE YEAR CUMULATIVE COST WOULD RUN $31,858,975. UNDER THE OPTION OF ZIG KRAENT VACATIONS, THE HIGHER -- SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS IT WOULD INVOLVE HIGHER CAPITAL COSTS OF $3.4 MILLION. WITH THE EXTENSIVE RENOVATIONS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FACILITY IS DESIGNED, IF WE WERE TO MODIFY SOME OF THAT WITH THE -- WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS IT WOULD REQUIRE LOWER STAFFING COSTS BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE MORE LINE TO SIGHT, A LOT EASIER FOR EMPLOYEES TO MONITOR THE POPULATION. THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 ESTIMATED COST FOR SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS WOULD BE $8,914,796. THE FIVE YEAR CUMULATIVE COST WOULD BE $32,427,225. SINCE THE CONSULTANT -- SINCE THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT AND OUR LAST REPORT TO YOU, STAFF HAS BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE COUNTY FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS FOR A NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL IS A TWO-YEAR AGREEMENT RENEWABLE ANNUALLY FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS. THE FISCAL YEAR -- IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 THE CITY WOULD PAY A BASE AMOUNT OF 2.7 MILLION. THAT AMOUNT WOULD INCREASE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS OVER EACH ADDITIONAL YEAR BY 6% TO COVER ADDITIONAL COSTS OF OPERATING THE FACILITY FOR THE SHERIFF. IF THE CITY WERE TO EXCEED 48,500 BOOKINGS, THE CITY WOULD PAY AN ADDITIONAL $55 BOOKING FEE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD BE BOOKED IN. NOW, I MIGHT NOTE HERE THAT OUR ESTIMATE THAT JUST BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BOOKINGS THAT HAVE COME IN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE WOULD EITHER MEET OR BE LOWER THAN THAT 48,500 BOOKINGS. THE NUMBER OF PRISONERS INCLUDED IN THE BASE AMOUNT WOULD INCREASE 10% ANNUALLY WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT AS WHEN YOU COMPARE THIS TO THE PREVIOUS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD, BEFORE -- ALTHOUGH THE CITY WAS GROWING AND THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS WERE GROWING, EACH -- AS THOSE RATES WENT UP, THE COST TO THE CITY WENT UP. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, WE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE GIVING IN AN ADDITIONAL 10% GROWTH ALLOWANCE SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP US WITH BEING ABLE TO PREDICT WHAT OUR COSTS WOULD BE FOR -- FOR FUTURE YEARS. THE ADVANTAGES TO THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS THAT IT -- IT LIMITS ANNUAL INCREASES, THERE'S A -- THERE'S A CAP ON THE AGREEMENT ON THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT CAN BE CHARGED, AND IT ALLOWS FOR LONG-TERM PLANNING, REDUCES LIABILITY, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE OPERATING THE FACILITY FULL-TIME AS PRISONERS WOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE SHERIFF AND HER EXPERIENCED STAFF. ALLOWS FOR GROWTH WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED BECAUSE OF THE 10% INCREASE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. A.P.D. COULD REMAIN FOCUSED ON LAW ENFORCEMENT RATHER THAN CORRECTIONS. AND CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR DUPLICATE SERVICES. THE REASON FOR THIS STATEMENT IS THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE WERE TO OPERATE OUR FACILITY OR NOT, THE SHERIFF IS GOING TO OPERATE THE FACILITY ON 10TH STREET. THE PRISONERS THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BRING IN, PFLUGERVILLE, OTHER SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS, D.P.S., AND THE ESTIMATED 34 PRISONERS FROM OUR 7TH STREET FACILITY WOULD STILL BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE FACILITY ON 10TH STREET. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

>> OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE 23,122,831, OR MINIMUM RENOVATIONS WOULD BE 31,858,975 AND FOR SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS WOULD BE 32,427,225. ONE IMPORTANT NOTE, IF YOU WILL LOOK AT YEAR 2001 WORKING ACROSS THE CHART, UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE REASON THE AMOUNT IS 4,101,907 WAS ALSO INCLUDED -- WHAT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT IS MAGISTRATION COSTS AND THE IDENTIFICATION COSTS BECAUSE THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT AND IT MADE NOR A BETTER COMPARISON. ALSO IN THE MINIMUM RENOVATIONS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE WOULD BE UP FRONT CAPITAL COSTS SO 1.5 MILLION IS INCLUDED IN THAT AMOUNT AND THEN YEAR 2001 FOR THE SIGNIFICANT RENOVATIONS THERE IS 3.4 MILLION INCLUDED IN THAT AMOUNT. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS DURING THE TIME OF WORKING ON ALL THE DIFFERENT -- THE CONSULTANT CONDUCTING THEIR REPORT AND OUR MEETING WITH THE COUNTY. WE'VE ALSO BEEN MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND THERE WERE SEVERAL CONCERNS POINTED OUT, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY, THE FIRST WAS A CONTACT PERSON. THERE WAS A FEELING THAT WE WOULD MOVE IN, THE FACILITY WOULD OPEN UP AND NO ONE WOULD REMAIN IN CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITY TO WORK THROUGH VARIOUS PROBLEMS. IN THE SHERIFFIS BUDGET, WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET IS A COMMUNITY LIAISON OF WHICH THE CITY WOULD PAY HALF THE COST, 25,000. THAT PERSON'S JOB WOULD BE TO WORK ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS WITH THE COMMUNITY. IF THERE WERE ANY PROBLEMS THAT THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED, THEY WOULD WORK AS AN ADJUNCT BETWEEN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THERE WOULD BE STANDING ONGOING MEETINGS TO WORK THROUGH DIFFERENT CONCERNS. ALSO THE CITY HAS -- THE A.P.D. HAS -- WE HAVE OUR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM SO A DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BE -- IS ASSIGNED TO THAT AREA AND WOULD ALSO BE WORGING WITH THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF CONTACT. THERE IS ALSO CONCERN ABOUT THE SALLY PORT OVERCROWDING BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WAS BUILT IN THE SALLY PORT AREA. WHAT'S ALSO BEEN PROPOSED AND THE SHERIFF HAS IN HER BUDGET IS ANY TIME THOSE SALLY PORT SPACES ARE FILLED, AN OFFICER WILL PULL INTO THE SALLY PORT AREA, ONE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICERS WOULD TAKE CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER, THE OFFICER WOULD PARK AND THEREFORE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY PRISONERS WALKED IN OFF THE STREET IF IN FACT THE SALLY PART WAS -- IF IN FACT ALL THE SALLY PORT SPACES WERE FILLED. ALSO THERE WERE ISSUES REGARDING PARKING. WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IS BETWEEN SAN ANTONIO AND NUECES ON 10TH, THE AREA THAT'S BEEN BLOCKED OFF FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS FOR CONSTRUCTION, WE WILL PUT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THERE SO AFTER THE OFFICER WOULD PULL IN, DROP OFF THE PRISONER, THEY COULD PARK THERE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE NORTH -- THE EAST CURB LINE OF SAN ANTONIO STREET WOULD ALSO BE DESIGNATED AS ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR MARKED UNITS. IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN THE AREA COMMAND SYSTEMS THAT WE DESIGNED SINCE CHIEF KNEE'S ARRIVE, UNDER THE AREA COMMAND SYSTEM, EACH OF THE COMMANDERS WE HAVE IN EACH OF THE AREAS OF THE CITY OPERATE AS IF ITS THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT SO THEY ARE STAFF TO RESPOND TO ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE COMMUNITY WITH HAVE IN THAT AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CENTRAL WEST AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT COMMANDER IS IN CHARGE OF WALKING BEAT, MOUNTED PATROL, MOTORS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER SERVICES AND IN THE EVENT THERE'S A PROBLEM, THEY COULD EASILY RESPOND WITHOUT HAVING TO CONTACT A CENTRALIZED UNIT FOR SUPPORT. PRISONER RELEASE. THE COUNTY HAS SET UP THEIR SYSTEM TO WHERE PRISONERS WOULD BE RELEASED FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING INTO THE PLAZA AREA AND NOT ON THE NORTH -- NOT ON THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WESTERN SIDES WHERE -- WHERE THERE ARE RESIDENCES. THEY WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PLAZA AREA. ALSO THERE WOULD NOT BE MAGISTRATION AFTER ONE A.M., THE LAST MAGISTRATION ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE AT 12:30, BUT PRISONERS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED BETWEEN 1:00 A.M. AND 7:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING. AND THEN IN ADDITION THERE'S ALSO BEEN QUESTIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY COURT. AND COMMUNITY -- COMMUNITY COURT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED, IT'S NOW LOCATED AT EAST 6TH AND I-35. AND SO PRISONERS ARRESTED WHILE COMMUNITY COURT IS IN OPERATION WILL BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE 10TH STREET FACILITY BACK TO THE 7TH STREET FACILITY OR TO COMMUNITY COURT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, RELEASED FROM THERE AND NOT FROM 10TH STREET. THERE'S ALSO BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCHOOL NEARBY, PEASE ELEMENTARY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE COMMITTED TO IS THE FIRST 60 DAYS THAT WE ACTUALLY -- IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS OPTION, WITHIN THE FIRST 60 DAYS WILL HAVE A WALKING UNIT THAT WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THAT PARTICULAR AREA DURING THE TIME THE SCHOOLS -- WHEN THEY ARE BEGINNING SCHOOL AND WHEN SCHOOL -- WHEN THE KIDS ARE LET OUT OF SCHOOL. THERE'S ALSO BEEN ISSUES REGARDING THE -- ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THAT NEIGHBORS FELT THAT THEY WERE PROMISED A WALKING BEAT IN THE AREA AND THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WALKING BEAT AND THE STREET RESPONSE UNIT THAT'S PROPOSED IN THIS BUDGET. THE STREET RESPONSE UNIT IS BEING ADDED TO THE CENTRAL WEST OPERATION. ABOUT 30% OF THEIR TIME WILL BE SPENT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREAMENT AND AGAIN, I JUST REASSURE YOU THAT A COMBINATION OF THESE ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS THAT WE'VE PUT IN PLACE AND THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE HAVE IN OUR AREA COMMAND SYSTEM, IN THE EVENT THERE IS A PROBLEM, WE FEEL WE WILL BE ABLE TO RESPOND. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. SO WE CAN GO ON TO THE SHERIFF OR DO YOU HAVE OTHERS THAT ARE GOING TO -- SHERIFF PHRASER, THANK YOU FOR STAYING ALL THIS TIME.

>> CERTAINLY. WELL, I WAS -- MY MAIN PURPOSE IN BEING HERE WAS TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE AND TO -- SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ARE ALSO DIRECTED -- OR COMMENTS. THE REALITY OF THE ROLE THAT I PLAY IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE LAW SAYS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT IS TO PROVIDE A JAIL AND THE SHERIFF IS TO OPERATE IT. THE SHERIFF DOESN'T GET TO PICK WHERE IT GOES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVE BEEN UNDER ORDER FROM THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON JUSTICE SINCE ABOUT 1991 TELLING US THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT US CONTINUING TO OPERATE THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY AT 7TH STREET. FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF WE HAVE HAD TO GO BEFORE THE JAIL COMMISSION EVERY SIX MONTHS AND UPDATE THEM ON THE PROGRESS OF OUR NEW CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO US THAT ONCE THE NEW CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY IS AVAILABLE, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PULL MY CERTIFICATION THAT I HAVE TO RUN THE FACILITY AT 7TH STREET. SO I AM IN A POSITION BECAUSE OF STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE MY BOOKING OPERATIONS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES. SO WE WILL BE BOOKING PRISONERS FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ALL THE ADJOINING CITIES AND THE STATE AGENCIES AT THE SAN ANTONIO FACILITY EITHER WAY. SO WE WILL BE OPERATING THERE. WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES AS FAR AS LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERLOCAL WOULD CONTINUE AND HAVE TRIED TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME VERY SERIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS THAT I FEEL NEED TO BE LISTENED TO AND ADDRESSED, BUT ALSO THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE USERS OF OUR FACILITY, AND THAT NOT BEING THE INMATES BUT INSTEAD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FACILITY WAS VERY OFFICER FRIENDLY SO THAT THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT WE COULD DO WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, AND THAT IS WE DO OUR PART, WHICH IS THE CORRECTIONS IN THE THING, AND WE DO IT QUICKLY AND PROMPTLY SO THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THE OFFICERS AND ALL THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INCLUDING MY OWN COULD GET BACK ON THE STREETS SO THEY DON'T SPEND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME AT THE BOOKING FACILITY TRYING TO GET PEOPLE PROCESSED IN SO THAT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR COPS OUT ON THE ROAD, WHICH IS WHERE THE CITIZENS IN ALL PARTS OF NOT ONLY THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUT ALL OF TRAVIS COUNTY PREFER THEIR OFFICERS TO BE INSTEAD OF DOWN AT THE BOOKING FACILITY. AND SO WE ARE GOING TO -- LIKE I SAID, WE WILL BE OPERATING THAT FACILITY BECAUSE THAT IS THE FACILITY THAT THE COUNTY HAS GIVEN ME TO OPERATE, AND SO THAT IS WHERE I WILL BE LOCATING THE BOOKING FACILITY. AND IF THE -- I THINK AS CHIEF MCDONALD HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, EVEN IF THE INMATES ARE BOOKED ORIGINALLY AT 7TH STREET OR SOME OTHER PLACE, ONCE IMAGINE STATION IS COMPLETE IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THAT FACILITY, PROBABLY 60 TO 70% OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE 10TH AND SAN ANTONIO FACILITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE -- WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCESS ALL THOSE PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTY SYSTEM. WHAT WIND UP HAPPENING AND ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE WHAT WE HAD BEFORE 1988 IN THIS COUNTY WAS THAT WE HAD DUPLICATION OF EFFORT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BOOKED THEM ONCE, THEY BROUGHT THEM TO ME, I BOOKED THEM AGAIN, AND YOU HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT DUPLICATION OF THINGS AND SO YOU HAD AN INCREASE OF COSTS TO TAXPAYERS ESPECIALLY THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT THEY PAID TWICE. THEY PAY TO OPERATE A CITY JAIL AND THEY PAY A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BUDGET TO OPERATE THE COUNTY JAIL.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SHERIFF? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: SHERIFF, I GUESS THIS WOULD BE FOR THE SHERIFF OR MAYBE THE CHIEF. IF THERE'S A SEPARATE BOOKING FACILITY, YOU SAY YOU ARE BY STATE STANDARDS AND OTHER OBVIOUS REASONS YOU ARE MOVING YOURS INTO SAN ANTONIO. IF THERE IS A SEPARATE CITY BOOKING FACILITY, DOES THE CITY HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS OR ARE WE UNDER THE SAME, YOU KNOW, REVIEW THAT YOU HAVE --

>> NO, SIR, YOU ARE NOT. THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON JUSTICE AT THIS TIME, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN CITY OPERATED FACILITIES TO MAKE CITIES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE JAIL STANDARDS, AT THIS TIME A CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE JAIL STANDARDS. NOW, I MUST TELL YOU WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS AND AS A PERSON WHO REPRESENTED CITIES IN LAWSUITS HAVING TO DO WITH THEIR JAILS FOR A DOZEN YEARS, WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS IS WHEN A CITY GETS SUED OVER THE OPERATION OF ITS JAIL, WHAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK TO IS THE STALE JAIL STANDARD AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS -- WHETHER ITS CONDUCT HAS CONFORMED.

>>WYNN: AND REMIND ME, BEFORE '88 WHERE WAS THE COUNTY DOING ITS BOOKING?

>> ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS THE BOOKING WAS HAPPENING AT 10TH AND SAN ANTONIO. THE WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK IS TWO BUILDINGS ARE BEING JOINED TOGETHER. BEFORE THAT TIME, BEFORE THE OPENING OF THAT FACILITY BOOKING WAS DONE AT THE TOP OF THE HISTORICAL COURTHOUSE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY AT 10TH AND GUADALUPE.

>>MAYOR WATSON: FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: I MAINLY WANTED TO JUST THANK THE SHERIFF FOR COMING DOWN. I HAD BEEN A LITTLE FRUSTRATED THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN MORE COUNTY FOLKS AT LEAST HERE DURING THE PROCESS. I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH IT ON YOUR END, BUT WE'RE IN PARTNERSHIP ON THAT SO I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN. DO YOU -- AND YOU FEEL LIKE, AND I KNOW YOU WOULDN'T BE SPONSORING THIS IF YOU DIDN'T, BUT YOU FEEL LIKE -- FIRST OF ALL, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS WERE LEGITIMATE AND NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT YOU FEEL LIKE WHAT CHIEF MCDONALD LAID OUT THAT THE NEIGHBORS SHOULD FEEL SECURE IN THEIR HOMES?

>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T MAKE FOLKS FEEL SECURE. THAT'S A VERY SUBJECTIVE THING THAT ONLY THESE FOLKS CAN DECIDE. IT'S OUR JOB I THINK QUITE FRANKLY TO MAKE SECURITY A REALITY AND THE SUBJECTIVE PART OF IT HAS TO COME AFTER THAT. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DONE. WHAT I KNOW FROM BEING -- I DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THIS, BUT HAVING BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR 26 YEARS, WHAT I KNOW IS WHEN INMATES GET OUT OF JAIL, THEY DON'T HANG AROUND THE JAIL AREA. AND THAT THEY GO BACK FROM WHENCE THEY CAME. AND THEY ARE EITHER -- THEIR FAMILIES ARE THERE TO PICK THEM UP AND THEY GO HOME OR WHAT HAPPENS IN AUSTIN AS OCCURS NOW WITH THE FACILITY AT 7TH STREET IS THEY GO WHERE SOCIAL SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AND UNFORTUNATELY WITH A LOT OF FOLKS WITH A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM THEY ALSO GO TOWARDS RDZ THE ALCOHOL AND SOME OF THE PAN HANDING ACTIVITIES. SO I DON'T FEEL THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE GOING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO BENEFIT THEM, PLUS THE FACT THAT ALL VIOLATORS, THE LAST GROUP THEY WANT TO HANG AROUND WITH ARE COPS. WE'RE NOT THEIR FRIENDS. AND SO THEY DON'T WANT TO HANG AROUND COPS AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY AREA IN TRAVIS COUNTY OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A LARGER CONCENTRATION AND PRESENCE OF POLICE THAN RIGHT AROUND THE CENTRAL BOOKING AREA.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU, SHERIFF. I APPRECIATE THAT. APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME FROM THE CHIEF OR THE SHERIFF OR -- HERE'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO BECAUSE WE'RE NOT VOTING. I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

>>THOMAS: COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SHERIFF, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> GOOD TO SEE YOU, DANNY.

>> JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONCERNED AND YOU SAID THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN RELEASING PEOPLE FROM THE JAIL. HOW MANY DO YOU AVERAGE DAILY?

>> IT'S ABOUT -- THIS PAST MONTH IT WAS AROUND 23 OR SO DAILY. THERE'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 700 PEOPLE THAT WE RELEASE DURING AUGUST AND WE TRANSPORTED INTO THAT FACILITY OVER 2,000 PEOPLE. THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE 300 TO 500 A DAY I BRING INTO THAT FACILITY EVERY DAY TO GO TO COURT.

>>THOMAS: OKAY. I WAS SUGGESTING -- I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE. IS THERE ANY WAY ON THE EARLY RELEASE, IS THERE WAY THEY COULD BE TRANSFERRED OUT AND RELEASED [INAUDIBLE]? IS THAT POSSIBLE?

>> WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE ISSUES THERE. ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH THE LEE BALLOT OF -- LEE BALLOT OF TAKING SOMEONE WHO HAS A COURT ORDER ENFORCING THEM TO GO ANYWHERE. I CAN'T. IF A COURT SAYS THIS PERSON IS TO BE RELEASED, THEY ARE TO BE RELEASED POST HA STFMENT E AND NOT TRANSPORTED SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE OTHER PART IS QUITE FRANKLY I'M THE SHERIFF OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY OF TRAVIS AND I HAVE A COMMUNITY OF DEL VALLE THAT ALREADY DEALS WITH THE SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BURDEN HAVING TO DO WITH THEIR OPERATION OF THE JAIL SYSTEM. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THAT COMMUNITY TO TAKE THOSE PERSONS AND RELEASE THEM FROM THE DEL VALLE FACILITY AND IT WOULD JUST EX SAS PER RATE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO -- WHERE IF THEY GET OUT IN DO YOU WANT AND IF THEY ARE FROM THAT AREA, THEY CAN FAIRLY QUICKLY RETURN TO THE AREA FROM WHERE THEY LIVE OR RESIDE OR THE SALVATION ARMY OR WHEREVER THEY MAY COME FROM. IF THEY ARE OUT AT DEL VALLE, THERE'S NOT EVEN BUS SERVICE FROM DEL VALLE AFTER ABOUT 9:00 IN THE EVENING EXCEPT A SPECIAL BUS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH OUR VISITATION PROGRAM. AND SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY WAY FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GET BACK INTO WHERE THEY COME FROM SO THEY ARE GOING TO BE WANDERING AROUND THE COMMUNITY OF DELL VOLLEY OR THE I GUESS THE NEAREST OPEN PLACE IS YOUR AIRPORT NEXT DOOR.

>>THOMAS: CHIEF, I LOOKED AT THE PROPOSAL WHERE YOU SAID WHAT IT WOULD COST TO RENOVATE THE PRESENT CITY JAIL. AND I KNOW THAT WE DON'T COME UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS THAT THE SHERIFF WOULD COME UNDER AND I KNOW THAT'S A LENGTHY PROCESS. WHAT IS -- TO COME UP -- DO THE RENOVATION ON THE JAIL, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU TO DO THAT? IF YOU WOULD HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO THAT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ESTIMATE. I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS WE ASKED THE CONSULTANT IS LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON IN AUSTIN, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT. BUT THEY STATED THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST A YEAR TO 18 MONTHS. THAT WAS A ROUGH ESTIMATE.

>>THOMAS: OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME? COUNCIL, WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND WE DO IS, SINCE THERE WON'T BE A VOTE TONIGHT, AND IT'S 5 TILL 10:00, IS THAT WE ALLOW FOR 10 TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION OF -- WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY WELL VERSED IN WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. BUT JUST DO THAT TONIGHT FOR 10 TO 15 MINUTES SO THAT WE ALLOW FOR SOME COMMENT ON IT AND THEN WHEN WE BRING IT BACK FOR A VOTE WE CAN HANDLE IT DIFFERENTLY IF WE WANT TO AT THAT TIME. SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION IS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR 15 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. WHAT I'LL DO IS CALL FOR A VOTE ON THAT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO IS I'LL FIRST ASK THE NEIGHBORS IF YOU HAVE ANYBODY THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK, AND GO AHEAD AND DO IT THAT WAY, BE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND MAKE A PRESENTATION. AND IF NOT, WHAT I WILL DO IS I'LL JUST START GOING THROUGH THE CARDS AND WHEN WE GET TO 15 MINUTES, WE'LL CALL IT QUITS. IS THERE ANYONE REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE SCHOOL OR OTHERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND BE A REPRESENTATIVE?

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>MAYOR WATSON: NO, I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'LL DO IS SINCE WE'RE NOT VOTING TONIGHT AND IT'S 10:00, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST -- WHAT I'M SUGGESTING WE DO IS JUST HAVE 15 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT, BUT WHEN IT COMES BACK, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK THEY ARE GOING TO BE HEARD THAT NIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: IS MOTION IN ORDER TO GO PAST 10:00?

>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH.

>>GRIFFITH: SO MOVED.

>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW THE MEETING TO GO PAST 10:00. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT WOULD BE FINE. SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW WHAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE SET THE CLOCK FOR 15 MINUTES AND WHEN THE 15 MINUTES RUNS DOWN, THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM. WELCOME. GO AHEAD.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS HILLARY LOW YO.

>> AND MY NAME IS LELA. I HAVE BEEN GOING TO PEASE FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS.

>> AND I HAVE BEEN GOING TO PEASE FOR SEVEN YEARS.

>> I AM IN THE FIFTH GRADE AND SHE IS IN THE SIXTH GRADE. WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS, AS YOU KNOW, IS THE MOVING OF THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY. NOW, MOST OF THE KIDS IN PEASE ELEMENTARY THAT I HAVE TALKED TO ABOUT THIS DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS. OF THIS, OF MOVING THIS FACILITY. I CAME HERE LAST MAY WHEN I WAS IN THE FOURTH GRADE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. NOW I AM HERE AGAIN TO TRY TO STOP THIS FROM COMING. YET YOU TRIED TO POSTPONE THIS AND I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THE REASON BEING IS IF TWO PRISONERS ESCAPED THIS MORNING, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? SHOULD YOU OPEN IT? OR ARE YOU GOING TO OPEN THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY? OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO SEND MORE SECURITY? NOW, I FEEL THAT IF -- OKAY, THAT I FEEL THAT IT IS LELA'S TURN TO SPEAK BECAUSE I AM JUST -- OKAY.

>> IF WE DO DO THIS, TWO PRISONERS ESCAPED THIS MORNING AND WHAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY WILL ESCAPE AGAIN WHEN IT'S MOVED TO THE SCHOOL? AND MY FRIEND'S MOM TOLD ME THAT 100 WILL BE RELEASED EVERY DAY FROM THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY. AND IF WE'RE -- THEY SAID THAT THE PROTECTION IS ONLY GOING TO BE FOR 60 DAYS AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE IN THE MORNING WHEN WE COME IN AND IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN WE ARE LEAVING.

>> NOW, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER THOSE 60 DAYS AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE MORNING AND THE AFTERNOON WHEN WE LEAVE? ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, LELA?

>> OKAY. WE ARE NOW FINISHED. WE ARE LEAVING THE PODIUM.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU ALL. [APPLAUSE].

>> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS SUSAN SELLERS AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PEASE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARENTS, STAFF AND CHILDREN. I'M A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL SAFETY COMMITTEE. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THREE THINGS, MAINLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY, THE PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE MOVE CENTRAL BOOKING OVER TO THE NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY FROM OUR SCHOOL. WE'RE NEEDLESSLY PUTTING OUR STUDENTS AT RISK BY THE RELEASED PRISONERS MIGRATING OVER TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHOSE TO SAY HER NOT GOING TO COME OUR WAY, THAT THEY ARE GOING TOWARDS GUADALUPE AND CATCH THE BUS, WHICH IS WHAT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE HEARD EARLIER SUGGESTED. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC LEVELS THAT WILL INCREASE AS THEIR FRIENDS OR RELATIVES WILL BE COMING DOWN TO PICK THEM UP AS THEY ARE RELEASED FROM THE FACILITY, THE TRAFFIC IS -- IT'S A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS NO PARKING ALREADY AND WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING AS PARENTS OF CHILDREN DROPPING OUR CHILDREN OFF IN THE MORNING AND COMPETING FOR THE VERY FEW PARKING SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, COMPETING I GUESS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO ARE GOING TO BE TAKING THE SPOTS AWAY AND THE RELATIVES OF THE PRISONERS WHO ARE ALSO GOING TO BE NEEDING THOSE PARKING SPACES. PEASE IS A VERY DIVERSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN AISD AND IT'S THE OLDEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN TEXAS. WHY WOULD YOU CONSIDER DESTROYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS SCHOOL BY MOVING THE FACILITY INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT YOU RENOVATE THE CURRENT BOOKING FACILITY AT I-35 AND 7TH STREET, A MUCH MORE REASONABLE COURSE OF ACTION. WE'VE PRESENTED ALREADY HUNDREDS OF SIGNATURES TO YOU FROM PARENTS OF PEASE STUDENTS, ACC STUDENTS WHO WALK IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO SCHOOL, PARENTS OF THE PHOENIX DAY CARE FACILITY WHICH IS ALSO TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THAT SCHOOL, PETITIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE RESIDENTS OF THE REGENY HOME. SO YOU KNOW OUR CONCERNS AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO SOME OF OUR CONCERNS. AISD HAS BEEN CONTACTED ABOUT THIS. THERE IS NO MONEY THEY SAY IN THEIR BUDGET TO PROTECT US. THEY WILL NOT BE PROVIDING ANY KIND OF SECURITY OFFICERS TO OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. THE SMALL BUDGET THAT THEY HAVE, THEY NEED TO STAFF PATROL OFFICERS AT SECOND -- AT SOME OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS SO THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET ANY SECURITY PATROL, POLICE, ANYTHING FROM AISD REGARDING PATROLLING OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I'M SURE YOU WOULDN'T WANT YOUR CHILD GOING TO A SCHOOL A BLOCK AWAY FROM A CRIMINAL FACILITY WHERE THEY ARE RELEASING KIDS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DON'T WANT IT EITHER AND WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE LOOK FOR OTHER AREAS OR CONSIDER RENOVATING THE CURRENT LOCATION AT I-35 AND 7TH STREET. WE HOPE WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE, THAT YOU ARE STILL LISTENING TO US AND WE HAVEN'T LOST THE BATTLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]. THERE'S NINE MINUTES LEFT

>> TO ALL OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS VIA E-MAIL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAIL A COPY OR DELIVER A COPY TO ANY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO -- WHO WOULD LIKE ANOTHER COPY OR EXTRA COPIES. I WROTE A RESPONSE TO THE MAY 30TH, 2000 AUSTIN CITY MANAGER REPORT ON THE REUSE OF THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT FOR A FEW MINUTES. I HAD PREVIOUSLY PLANNED TO POSSIBLY EVEN READ THROUGH A GOOD SECTION OF IT AND I MAY GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, BUT I WOULD FIRST OF ALL LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE KIDS HAD IT RIGHT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF, AVERAGE NUMBER OF RELEASIES FROM THE BOOKING FACILITY. ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE'S REPORT ON MARCH 9TH, THE FACILITY CURRENTLY RELEASES APPROXIMATELY 113 ARRESTEES A DAY. AND THAT'S FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT -- MENTION AGAIN SOMETHING WHICH I BROUGHT UP ON A COUPLE OF OCCASION, BUT FOR THE NEW COUNCILMEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION IT FOR YOUR INFORMATION AS WELL. I POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS A CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY IN PROXIMITY OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. AND I'VE STATED FROM THE BEGINNING SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT IF THE COUNTY OR THE CITY COULD JUST GIVE ME ONE CITY IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS A CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF AN ALMOST RI SCHOOL, THEN I WOULD HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY AND LET YOU GUYS GO ON ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS AND MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE NOW TO GO THROUGH MY RESPONSE AND THEN AS I SAID I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER. AND I WOULD LIKE TO PREPARE A RESPONSE ALSO TO THE PRESENTATION THAT FPS GIVEN THIS EVENING. -- THAT WAS GIVEN THIS EVENING. THE FIRST ITEM IN MY RESPONSE REGARDS THE QUESTIONABLE COST COMPARISONS OF THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT WHICH I GUESS WAS ACTUALLY SUPERVISED BY THE CITY MANAGER. HE DIDN'T PUT THE ENTIRE REPORT TOGETHER HIMSELF AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT'S FASCINATING IS THAT A NUMBER OF THE REPORTS IN THE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY, REUSE CENTRAL BOOKING FACILITY REPORT ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE AND DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST READ THIS SECTION. I GUESS THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO APPROACH IT. THE REPORT SUGGESTION IT WOULD BE SEVERAL TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE TO KEEP CENTRAL BOOKING AT I-35. THE COST COMPARISON SHOWN ON PAGE 3 OF THE REPORT WHICH I PRESUME ALL OF YOU HAVE SEEN THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT, ARE BETWEEN THE CITY RUNNING A SEPARATE CITY BOOKING FACILITY AT THE CURRENT CENTRAL BOOKING LOCATION AND THE COST TO SHARE CENTRAL BOOK WG THE COUNTY AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER. SINCE THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN PAY MOST OF THE COUNTY'S TAXES, WHY NOT DISCLOSE THE COST -- THE TOTAL COST FOR BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TO RUN CENTRAL BOOKING. THAT'S ONE FIGURE WE HAVE NOT SEEN TO DATE IS THE TOTAL COST FOR RUNNING CENTRAL BOOKING. AND AS A CITIZEN I PAY TAXES TO THE COUNTY AND THE CITY SO ULTIMATELY I'M PAYING FOR CENTRAL BOOKING WHEREVER IT ENDS UP. OF COURSE COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS THAT A COMBINED OPERATION SHOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN TWO SEPARATE OPERATIONS, HOWEVER, DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THE TOTAL COSTS FOR RUNNING CENTRAL BOOKING AT THE CURRENT LOCATION WOULD BE TWO OR THREE TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE BY THE YEAR 2010? THE CONSULT ACT EVEN ADMITS USING HIGH COST ESTIMATES FOR MAINTAINING THE BOOKING FACILITY AT I-35. I QUOTE, THE CONSULTANT BELIEVES THESE ESTIMATED COST TO BE CONSERVATIVE AS THE CURRENT COSTS APPLY TO FULL UT I WILLIZATION T FACILITY'S EQUIVALENT CAPACITY IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED FOR APD'S ARREST EASE ONLY UNTIL 2007. THE STAEBT POLICE CHIEF AND CITY MANAGER TRIED TO ARGUE THESE SHOULD BE THE LOWER COST, NOT HIGHER COST. MY QUESTION IS HOW CAN WE HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION IF WE'RE NOT SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE. CLEARLY THE CONSULTANT IS REFERRING TO HIGHER COSTS. INFLATION, ALTHOUGH A 3% INFLATION RATE IS USED FOR ANNUAL COST ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES CITED ON PAGE 3 OF THE REPORT, 3.5% RATE IS USED ON PAGES 24 AND 33 FOR THE ALTERNATIVE -- FOR THE TWO ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CITY TO RUN CENTRAL BOOKING AT I-35. ALAN GREENSPAN SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED INFLATION WILL BE HIGHER IF CENTRAL BOOKING IS NOT MOVED. PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE MOVED FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. I GUESS IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE INFLATION TO BE HIGHER IF CENTRAL BOOKING ISN'T MOVED. I CERTAINLY WOULD BE WILLING TO BACK OFF AND ALLOW THAT PERHAPS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR CENTRAL BOOKING GOING TO 10TH AND NUECES. ONE LAST COMMENT IN THIS REPORT, I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE REST, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF INADEQUATE REPORT. IN THE REPORT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE VEHICULAR SATISFACTORILY PORT IS LESS THAN HALF THE SIZE OF THE ONE AT I-35. PREVIOUSLY THE CHIEF OF POLICE HAD SAID BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PARKING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER SALARY PORT AT 10TH AND NUECES STREETS, HIS POLICE OFFICERS WILL OFTEN HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET OUTSIDE AND DRAG THEIR ARREST EASE INTO THE SALLY PORT CONTRARY TO THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT OF THE STRIF CODE. OTHER SPACE LIMITATIONS ARE ALSO MENTION ODD PAGE 17. IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER DAY ONE, WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE TEN YEARS FROM NOW? SO WE'RE POTENTIALLY GOING INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE CURRENT FACILITY THAT THEY ARE MOVING TO MAY BE INADEQUATE ON DAY ONE AND IT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT WILL BE AS EVEN DISCUSSED IN A REPORT PUT TOGETHER BY THE CITY MANAGER. SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A SITUATION THAT'S GOTTEN A BIT OUT OF HAND HERE AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT POSITION FOR YOU ALL TO BE IN IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW TO GO FORWARD, BUT I THINK THAT I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO VERY SERIOUSLY REVIEW THE MATTER AND TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME WAY THAT CENTRAL BOOKING COULD BE KEPT AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS BRUCE DEATHRIDGE. I LIVE VERY NEAR TO CENTRAL BOOKING OR RATHER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER SINCE I LIVE AT THE REGENY APARTMENTS AT 10TH AND NUECES. WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A -- WITH SOMETHING THIS EVENING THAT WE HAVE HAD LITTLE CHANCE OR NO CHANCE TO DIGEST. SO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WOULD FEEL AT THIS MOMENT THAT THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION, THE SECOND RENOVATION IDEA, THE SIGNIFICANT RENOVATION, WOULD BE THE BETTER ONE OF THE TWO RENOVATIONS PRESENTED. AS MY COLLEAGUE PAUL MARTIN HAS SUGGESTED, SINCE WE PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYWAY WHETHER IT'S CITY OR COUNTY IN TAXES, THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WILL COST THE CITY MORE TO DO THIS THAN THAT, IT'S A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT. THEREFORE, I URGE YOU AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MORE OR LESS THE CAMPAIGN PROMISES THAT THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY -- OF THE CITY COUNCILL MADE TO US WHEN THEY WERE RUNNING, THAT THEY DO THEIR VERY BEST, AND I TRUST YOU WILL, DO YOUR VERY BEST TO GIVE US SOME REAL RELIEF. ANOTHER THING THAT I COULD MENTION IS TO ELABORATE ON MR. MARTIN'S IDEA ABOUT THE SALLY PORT BEING TOO SMALL. [BUZZER SOUNDS] IT IS OWING ONLY TO MY WIFE THAT WE FOUND OUT THE STATE LAW AND HAD THE COUNTY AND CITY MODIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR BRINGING PRISONERS IN FROM THE STREET. WELL, THAT'S OUT. SO I WISH YOU COULD IMAGINE NOW THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL PILE UP WITH 150 ARRESTS A DAY ON AVERAGE NOW AND SALLY PORT WITH SEVEN PARKING PLACES IS GOING TO BE FULL AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE BOTH DOORS OPEN, THEY WILL DRIVE IN, DROP OFF, GO OUT AND PARK WHERE? THANK YOU. I CAN SEE IT NOW. THERE IS A LINE OF POLICE CARS ALL THE WAY FROM NUECES STREET TO LAVACA.

>>GOODMAN: SINCE THE TIME IS ALL UP AND SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACT ON THIS TONIGHT, WELL, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN BETWEEN TIME SFAERBLLY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME NUMBERS THAT ARE INTERESTING, THE CUMULATIVE COSTS, I'M NOT SURE I CATCH WHAT THE BREAKOUT WOULD BE TO COME TO THOSE NUMBERS. ANYWAY, THANK YOU ALL FOR STAYING HERE THIS WHOLE TIME EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A VOTE TAKEN FOR RESOLUTION TONIGHT. CHIEF, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING IN CLOSING? ARE YOU AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CALL AND TALK TO AND ASK ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED?

>> YES, I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND OF COURSE I AM AVAILABLE. I GUESS THE MAIN THING I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE WITH IS I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE STRESS TO THE COMMUNITY IS THAT IF EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD -- EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS COMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT TO US. WE HAVE AN ACTIVE TRACK RECORD OF WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE ANY TYPES OF PROBLEMS, REST ASSURED THAT WE FEEL THAT WE'RE STAFFED AND EQUIPPED TO BE NOT ONLY REACTIVE BUT PROACTIVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ENSURE THERE IS NO PROBLEMS.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS. THANKS AGAIN SHERIFF, MR. MARTIN AND ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DILIGENT ABOUT FOLLOWING THIS. MAYBE WE'LL ALL COME UP WITH AN ANSWER.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: COULD I ASK YOU ALL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT THE NEXT TIME IT COMES BACK, COULD YOU ALL LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE COST, I GUESS THE OVERLAPING OF THE COUNTY IF IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE SEPARATELY? BECAUSE -- WELL, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT TURNS OUT. I THINK IT'S GOING TO TURN OUT TO BE A PRETTY LARGE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS AND THE NEIGHBORS OBVIOUSLY WOULD TOO. AND CHIEF MCDONALD, YOU HAVE BEEN SPENDING SOME TIME AT THE SCHOOL; IS THAT CORRECT? AT PEASE.

>> CHOICE COMPANY, ONE OF OUR ASSISTANT CHIEFS -- CHIEF COY HAS BEEN.

>>SLUSHER: IT DOES KRN ME. IT CONCERNS ME IF CHILDREN ARE SCARED ABOUT THIS HAPPENING, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

>> OKAY. WE'LL CONTACT THE SCHOOL AND MAKE SURE THERE'S A MEETING SET UP.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: YEAH, AND WE SHOULD THANK THE KIDS ALSO. I HOPE YOU ALL CAN GET UP AND GO TO SCHOOL ALL RIGHT IN THE MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>GOODMAN: I'M NOT SURE.

>>GARZA: WE'LL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA ON THE 28TH OF SEPTEMBER.

>>GOODMAN: WE HAVE YOUR NAMES FROM HAVING SPOKEN HERE BEFORE AND I'M SURE CHIEF MCDONALD DOES SO WE CAN MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONTACT AT LEAST SOME KEY PEOPLE WHO WILL TELL EVERYBODY WHO IS INTERESTED. AND I THINK AT THIS MOMENT THERE'S NO TELLING WHEN IT WILL COME BACK AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T YET BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE BREAKOUT OF THOSE NUMBERS. BUT IF YOU CALL ANY OF OUR OFFICES, WE'LL BE SURE TO KEEP ON TOP OF IT AND WHEN IT'S SCHEDULED AND WE CAN LET YOU KNOW AS WELL.

>>GARZA: WE'RE GOING TO TRY FOR THE 28TH, BUT WE'LL STILL HAVE TO DO NOTICES.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. I DON'T THINK I'LL BE READY TO VOTE FOR IT ON THE 28TH, BUT OKAY.

>>GARZA: I'M SORRY?

>>GOODMAN: I DON'T THINK I'LL BE READY TO VOTE FOR IT ON THE 28TH, BUT OKAY. IS THERE SOME TIME CONSTRAINT THAT CAN HELP US?

>>GARZA: WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW FAIRLY QUICKLY WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO PLAN B. WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. IT'S -- AS THE NUMBERS THAT MIKE SHOWED HERE A FEW MINUTES AGO, 2.7 MILLION EVER THAT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR BUDGET. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT IS, RENOVATE THE EXISTING FACILITY, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THE SOONER WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, WE CAN BEGIN TO MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR THAT.

>>GOODMAN: WELL THAT IS CORRECT IS WHY I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBERS AND ALL THAT IN A LITTLE MORE INDEPTH CONVERSATION OR AN ARENA WHERE WE COULD FOCUS ON THOSE KIND OF ISSUES AND TALK RATHER THAN JUST HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

>>GARZA: WE'LL BE HAPPY TO SCHEDULE ANOTHER WORK SESSION ON THIS.

>>GOODMAN: GREAT. THANK YOU. WE ARE DOWN TO ITEM 37 AND 73, WHICH ARE FINANCIAL POLICIES AND GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCES. AND WAS IT COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WHO PULLED BOTH OF THOSE? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT 73. HELLO?

>>GRIFFITH: WHICH DO YOU WANT TO START WITH?

>>GOODMAN: DID YOU PULL 73 ALSO.

>>GRIFFITH: IS THAT --.

>>GOODMAN: THAT'S THE GENERAL --.

>>GRIFFITH: ENDING BALANCE ONE?

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, JUST IF I COULD BREAK IN, WE CAN DISPOSE OF TWO ITEMS THAT I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER EARLIER IN THE DAY, THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS 64 AND 65 AND WE HAD MADE A DECISION BETWEEN THE SMEGER AND I ANYWAY TO POSTPONE THOSE AND -- CITY MANAGER AND I TO POSTPONE THOSE AND THE STAFF HAS GONE HOME LONG AGO SO I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE THOSE UNTIL THE 28TH AND SEE IF I CAN GET FOUR VOTES ON THAT.

>>GRIFFITH: BOTH OF THOSE?

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT.

>>GRIFFITH: THE RESPONDERS ARE ABSENT RIGHT NOW?

>>SLUSHER: YES.

>>GRIFFITH: I'LL SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER DISCUSSION, SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. SORRY. IT HAD BEEN SUGGESTED BY CITY STAFF THAT WE TAKE 37 AND 73 THINKING THAT THEY MIGHT BE QUICK ITEMS, SO I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IF THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS ON 39 STILL, WHICH IS THE ANIMAL ADVISORY POLICY.

>>GRIFFITH: DO YOU WANT TO POSTPONE BOTH OF THEM?

>>.

>>GOODMAN:, NO, WE POSTPONED THE LICENSING REQUEST, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BUT WE STILL HAVE 39, WHICH IS THE ANIMAL ADVISORY. SO DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND LET THE -- IS COUNCIL OKAY WITH LETTING THE CITIZENS SPEAK ON THAT ITEM FIRST AND THEN WE GO TO THE FINANCIAL POLICIES? OKAY. THEN WE GO TO 39. IS THAT DAVID TO PRESENT? MR. LOWERY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND STILL AWAKE.

>> SURE. MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, JUST SOME BRIEF BACKGROUND. ACCORDING TO THE STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, IN ORDER TO OPERATE A SHELTER THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION IN PLACE TO OVERSEE THOSE ELEMENTS RELATED TO CHAPTER 823 OF THE STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO STANDARDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY ITSELF, PERSONNEL TRAINING AND METHODS OF EUTHANASIA. ALSO REQUIRED AS PER STATE LAW IS THAT THE COMMISSION INCLUDE ONE LICENSED VETERINARIAN, ONE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL, ONE PERSON WHOSE DUTIES INCLUDE THE OPERATION OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER, AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATION. CURRENTLY YOUR ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONSISTS OF 15 MEMBERS. THIS PAST YEAR THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AT ITS RETREAT DEVELOPED A RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO RECONFIGURE THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION TO FIVE MEMBERS AND FOCUS THE PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY TO THOSE ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AS WELL AS RESPONDING TO ANY ITEMS REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE COUNCIL. AND WHAT IS REQUESTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THEN IS TO REPEAL AND REPLACE ARTICLE 3 OF CHAPTER 2.4 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE CREATION OF MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND TO MAKE THIS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION HERE THIS EVENING AND SPECIFICALLY THE CHAIR, DR. PAT RANDALL, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THIS RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: LET ME CALL OUT, WE HAVE 13 SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, BUT I THINK MAYBE ALL OF THEM WEREN'T ABLE TO CALL THIS LONG. I'LL CALL BABETTE ELLIS.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. YOU ARE GIVING YOUR TIME TO DR. RANDALL. ROBERT STEWART. IS ROBERT STEWART STILL HERE? HE'S IN FAVOR. KATHY JOHNSON. KATHY JOHNSON. IS IN FAVOR. CHRISTIE BATES. CHRISTIE BATES NOT HERE. IS IN FAVOR. JENNIFER TIPTON. JENNIFER TIPTON IS IN FAVOR. STEPHANIE NEARS.

>> I'M IN FAVOR [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: SAMANTHA ROCK BERG. SAMANTHA ROMBERG IS IN FAVOR. DANIEL MORRIS. MR. MORRIS IS IN FAVOR. DR. FINNEY OR THAT MAY NOT BE RIGHT. FINNIG? DOES THAT MEAN HE'S HERE OR YOU ARE JUST TELLING ME,000 SAY HIS NAME?

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. HE'S IN FAVOR. MICHELLE MCCARTY IS NOT HERE, IS IN FAVOR. TRICIA NORDIKES. PA TRADITION IN A NORDIKES IS IN FAVOR. DR. BOB KELLY. AND BILL BONNER. BILL BONNER. OKAY, THEY ARE ALSO IN FAVOR. NOW, THE TWO WANT TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO DR. RANDALL RNTION I DON'T HAVE A CARD FOR DR. RANDALL.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>GOODMAN: YOU WERE TOLD NOT TO FILL ONE OUT? BY WHO?

>> WITH THE CHAIR OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE THAT DRAFTED THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

>>GOODMAN: OH, OKAY AND PERHAPS WE'LL GET YOU SOME CARDS TO FILL OUT FOR THE RECORD. BUT COME AHEAD. YOUR TIME IS NINE MINUTES, DR. RANDALL, IF YOU WANT IT, AND THEN THREE.

>> I HAVE VERY LITTLE TO SAY OTHER THAN TO OFFER TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSION IS OBVIOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THIS. DR. FINIG IS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE CAPITAL AREA VETERINARY ASSOCIATION, HE'S STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF IT. THE HUMANE SOCIETY, FORMALLY I THINK HAS SENT INFORMATION THEY ARE STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF IT. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A MUCH MORE RESPONSIVE, MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND HELPFUL COMMISSION. IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK TO TAKE ANIMALS FROM THE POPULATION THAT YOU RECEIVE THEM INTO THE SHELTER AND KEEP THOSE ANIMALS HEALTHY FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME AND RUN THAT OPERATION. THE CITY DOES NEED RELATIVELY EXPERT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- RELATIVELY EXPERT ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THAT. SECTION 823 ITSELF IS NOT A SIMPLE MATTER AND THE COMMISSION HAS SPENT MOST OF ITS TIME OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS ON MANY, MANY ISSUES THAT BARELY MAKE IT TO THE LEVEL OF POLICY AND CERTAINLY HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH SECTION 823.

>>GOODMAN: CAN I ASK IF YOU ARE STILL A PROPONENT, DOCTOR, OF THE FIVE-MEMBER BOARD MEETING BIMONTHLY?

>> I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T --.

>>GOODMAN: FIVE-MEMBER BOARD STILL MEETING EVERY OTHER MONTH.

>> THAT WAS A FIVE MEMBER BOARD, YES, AND SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS ARE DICTATED GUY STATE --.

>>GOODMAN: MEETING EVERY OTHER MONTH?

>> THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THE CURRENT DRAFT AFTER MEETING WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

>>GOODMAN: AND WAS IT A UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE CURRENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE?

>> I'M SORRY, I REALLY CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>>GOODMAN: WAS IT A UNANIMOUS VOTE?

>> NO, IT WASN'T. I THINK IT WAS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FIVE TO TWO WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE LIKE TO SAY AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION AND ALSO AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE FIVE-MEMBER COMMISSION AND THAT IT'S VERY DIFFERENT WHEN YOU HAVE A PET AT HOME AND HOW YOU CARE FOR THAT PET THAN WHEN YOU CARE FOR PETS WHEN YOU HAVE FOUR TO FIVE HUNDRED OF THEM IN ONE FACILITY AT ONE TIME. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION AS YOU DO ON OUR COMMISSIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE SOME BACKGROUND IN HOW TO MAINTAIN THOSE ANIMALS IN A HUMANE AND HEALTHY FASHION.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THOSE ARE ALL OUR SPEAKERS. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> MOTION MADE.

>>GOODMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?

>>ALVAREZ: I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR MR. LOURIE. YOU READ THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL. WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT -- WHAT ARE HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTED BY TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT QUALIFY UNDER COUNTY MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN WE CURRENTLY HAVE 15 MEMBERS AND TWO OF THOSE ARE IN EFFECT APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. ONE IS THE PERSON MANAGING THE SHELTER AND THE OTHER IS A MANAGEMENT PERSON FROM WITHIN THE CITY. SO THAT HAS BEEN THE CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT AND THAT IN EFFECT HAS SERVED AS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE CITY OR COUNTY OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>ALVAREZ: MY QUESTION --.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: YES, FOLLOWUP ON THAT QUESTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. HOW MUCH DOES THE COUNTY CONTRIBUTE TO THE OPERATION OF THE -- THE OPERATION?

>> THE COUNTY CONTRIBUTES APPROXIMATELY $300,000 OUT OF A $3.5 MILLION BUDGET SO IT'S 8.4%.

>>GRIFFITH: 8.4%. AND DOES THAT CARRY WITH IT A [INAUDIBLE].

>> CURRENTLY THERE ARE FOUR APPOINTEES FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. EACH COMMISSIONER IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THERE WOULD BE ONE COUNTY APPOINTEE OUT OF THE FIVE POSITIONS.

>>GRIFFITH: INSTEAD OF FOUR?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>>GRIFFITH: SO THE PERCENTAGE OF REPRESENTATION WOULD BE MORE COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING?

>> WELL, I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK THE NUMBERS. ONE OUT OF FIVE, 20% IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THE FOUR OUT OF 15 IS WHAT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY. IT'S A LITTLE CLOSER.

>>GRIFFITH: THANKS. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

>>ALVAREZ:: THAT WE ADD FOUR AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVES TO BE SELECTED BIT CONSENSUS OF CITY COUNCIL. AND IN ADDITION I WOULD LIKE TO -- I GUESS THE LANGUAGE THAT REFERS TO THE VETERINARIAN PLACE ON THE COMMISSION, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW, WHICH JUST SAYS A LICENSED VETERINARIAN AND NOT A VETERINARIAN APPOINTED BY ANY PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO CHANGES THAT I WOULD PROPOSE FOR THE -- FOR THE -- TO WHAT THE COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION. THERE IS A SECOND?

>>ALVAREZ: SO MOVE.

>>GRIFFITH: SECOND.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, AND I HAVE QUESTION.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

>>SLUSHER: YES, HOW DOES -- WOULD YOU DETAIL YOU ON THIS DIFFERS FROM MS. DUNKERLY'S RECOMMENDATION?

>> I BELIEVE MS. DUNKERLY SAID THAT HER RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT BE A -- A COMMISSION THAT -- OF NO MORE THAN NINE MEMBERS, SO WITH THE FIVE SPECIFIED UNDER STATE LAW AND THE FOUR AT LARGE, THAT PUTS US RIGHT AT NINE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. SO IT'S -- IT'S THE SAME THING?

>> I THINK WHAT I WAS RECOMMENDING IS SOMETHING FAR LESS THAN 15.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY.

>> SO I SAID THAT NINE OR LESS WOULD BE FINE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY.

>> THAT WOULD -- AND COUNCILMEMBER WOULD BE NINE, SO THAT'S FINE.

>>SLUSHER: I THOUGHT IT SOUNDED ABOUT THE SAME. I JUST WANTED TO -- SO -- I REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT MS. DUNKERLY'S EFFORTS AT THE ANIMAL CENTER.

>>GRIFFITH: YES.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY, WELL I WANT TO THROW IN SOMETHING RIGHT NOW IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT WANTING TO ASK QUESTIONS JUST YET. SINCE VIRTUALLY EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION WE HAVE IS A NINE MEMBER BOARD AND COMMISSION, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR GOING FIVE ON THIS ONE. IT'S WAY TOO IMPORTANT OF AN ISSUE WHERE WE GET E-MAILS, CALLS, VISITS ALL OF THE TIME. SO TO TAKE THAT DOWN INTO AN EVEN LESSER REPRESENTATION THAN IT HAS NOW, SHOULD BE DONE VERY CAREFULLY AND TO GO TO FIVE DOESN'T MATCH WITH ANY OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION THAT WE PUT REPRESENTATIVES ON. AND -- IN THIS KIND OF MATTER. WE ALSO USUALLY HAVE EACH COUNCILMEMBER MAKE AN APPOINTMENT AND IF THERE ARE CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS OR CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT GO WITH VARIOUS MEMBERS, EACH COUNCILMEMBER IS AWARE OF THAT AND WHOEVER'S SLOT THAT COMES UP FOR APPOINTMENT OR REAPPOINTMENT WOULD ALSO KNOW THAT IF THERE'S A CERTAIN PROFESSION OR LEVEL OF EXPERTISE NEEDED, THEN THAT'S THE AREA WHERE YOU NEED TO LOOK FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT. SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE NINE, THE USUAL NINE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY COMES TO SEVEN, EACH COUNCILMEMBER HAVING AN APPOINTMENT AND THEN TWO CONSENSUS AND IN THIS CASE THE COUNTY HAS ONE OF THOSE CONSENSUS, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY. WHICH LEAVES US ONE AT LARGE AND PROBABLY USUALLY WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE A -- A PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY TO FIT INTO. AND I REALLY DON'T SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY HERE AND WHAT THE -- WHAT THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSENSUS OVER THE WAY WE NORMALLY DO IT WILL HELP.

>>ALVAREZ: WELL, I MEAN, I JUST -- AGAIN, I MEAN, THIS IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD BY SOME OTHER FOLKS OTHER THAN MYSELF AND I'M TRYING TO COME TO A POINT WHERE I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE COMMISSION AND -- BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A -- AN EFFECTIVE COMMISSION, THEN WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO MAKE SURE -- IF IT REMAIN THAT'S ALL OF US HAVE AN APPOINTMENT ON THERE, THAT WE ALL WORK HARD TO EITHER FILL OUR APPOINTMENTS OR GET PEOPLE -- APPOINT PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE, YOU KNOW, IN THAT ROLE. BUT -- BUT I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO OTHER OPTIONS, THIS IS JUST GIVEN THE PROPOSAL THAT WE WERE HANDED THE WAY THAT I CAME UP WITH MYSELF BEING ABLE TO PROPOSE OR TO SUPPORT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, OR A CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE CURRENT COMMISSION. I KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.

>>GOODMAN: THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO HAVING DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO FILL THE SLOTS OPEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ARE HAVING A REAL TOUGH TIME JUST COMING ONE TWO CONSENSUS APPOINTMENTS. SO I'M JUST WONDERING ON SOMETHING THAT -- THAT IS SOMETIMES AS STICKY AS THIS ONE, DO WE REALLY NEED TO TRY TO GO TO CONSENSUS ON ALL OF THE MEMBERS?

>>.

>>SLUSHER: I WILL GIVE IT A SHOT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SITUATION. WE'VE HAD -- THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF DIFFICULTY THAT YOU -- THIS ISSUE, THIS COMMISSION AS YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED, WE GET A LOT OF E-MAILS ON IT. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE FOCUS ON IT LIKE MS. DUNKERLY HAS. I THINK IT IS A REALLY CLEAR, VIVIDLY EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY SERVICE AT ITS BEST. I DON'T WANT TO JUST TOTALLY PUT IT ON HER, BUT I MEAN SHE'S RECOMMENDING THAT WE APPOINT THE FOLKS LIKE THIS, I THINK, TO TRY TO HELP DEAL WITH -- THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EVIDENT TALE FAXIONAL BATTLES, PHILOSOPHY -- EVIDENTLY FACTIONAL BATTLES, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BALANCE THAT OUT. GET A MORE BALANCED APPROACH TO THIS. BY HAVING ALL OF THE MEMBERS APPOINTED AS CONSENSUS. I THINK MORE TECHNICALLY, AREN'T THERE THREE THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE, THREE SLOTS, THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE SO WITH NINE MEMBERS, THEN THERE WOULD BE EITHER ONE DMEB THAT WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THAT ONE FROM THE STATE AND THEN THE OTHER TWO FROM THE STATE WOULD BE CONSENSUS OR THREE COUNCILMEMBERS OUT OF THE SEVEN THAT WOULD HAVE THAT PARTICULAR APPOINTMENT OR HAVE TO ROTATE. THAT DOES SEEMS A LITTLE UNWEILDY. I THINK THE CENTRAL POINT SHE WAS MAKING WAS TO GET IT TO BE A WHOLE LOT LESS THAN 15. I THINK THAT WOULD AT LEAST MEAN KEEPING IT IN SINGLE DIGIT. THERE'S MY SHOT AT IT.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A CERTAIN LOGIC THERE THAT I AM FOLLOWING. JUST IN PASSING, THOUGH, WE HAVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SOMETIMES THAT DO HAVE COUNTY REPRESENTATION. AND THEY ARE ABLE TO MANAGE QUITE HANDEDLY WITHOUT GOING TO WAR WITH EACH OTHER, I WILL JUST MENTION THE CHILD CARE COUNCIL, IT HAS A GREAT NUMBER OF FOLKS, PROBABLY STILL EXPAND FURTHER AND BE VERY PROGRESSIVE AND POSITIVE. SOMETIMES THE PARTICULAR PERSONALITIES THAT ARE TOGETHER, WHETHER THEY ARE APPOINTED BY CONSENSUS OR INDIVIDUALLY JUST HAVE A TOUGH TIME AGREEING ON THINGS. AND SO I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD A RATHER STRESSFUL TIME WITH THE SHELTER ITSELF TRYING TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE RENOVATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT TOOK A REAL, REAL LONG TIME TO IMPLEMENT. AND AN ONGOING CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONALITIES THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT TO KEEP MORALE UP AND THE VISION, THE ULTIMATE VISION OF THE SHELTER ON TRACK. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY CAUSED BY -- BY NOT BEING ABLE TO APPOINT BY CONSENSUS. AND I'M NOT GOING TO REALLY PRESS ON IT OTHER THAN TO ASK COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND I JUST APPOINTED OUR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS TONIGHT TO THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM? I GUESS THIS IS A BETTIE QUESTION. MS. DUNKERLY. HAVING JUST DONE TWO INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS, --

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> TONIGHT WE APPOINTED TWO PEOPLE TO THAT COMMISSION INDIVIDUALLY, ONE FOR RAUL AND ONE FOR ME. AND THIS -- THIS PROPOSAL IS TO BEGIN ON OCTOBER THE FIRST, SO -- SO WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR FOLKS?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, BETTIE IS SAYING, MAYBE ANNIE CAN CONFIRM THIS, BUT IN EFFECT YOU WOULD BE APPEALING WHAT WAS IN PLACE PREVIOUSLY AND CREATING THIS NEW COMMISSION AND THEREFORE WOULD THEN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REAPPOINTING TO -- TO THE NEW COMMISSION AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. THAT SOUND PRETTY BUREAUCRATIC TO ME.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> JUST SAYING THE SAME NAMES, OBVIOUSLY, BUT STILL GO THROUGH THE STEP OF REAPPOINTING THOSE FOLKS.

>>GOODMAN: I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD PASS BY CONSENSUS. I MEAN, IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. I DON'T KNOW, THOSE WERE THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE. FOR COUNCIL. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND --.

>>THOMAS: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

>>THOMAS: EXPLAIN THIS TO ME A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE EXISTING, WE APPOINTED TO, SO THAT MAKES SEVEN, EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO ME.

>>GOODMAN: I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE HOW MANY -- ARE THERE ANY VACANCIES AT THE MOMENT OR WE HAVE FIVE EXISTING COMMISSIONERS SITTING? IS THAT WHAT'S --.

>> OF THE 15 THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE VACANCY.

>>GOODMAN: ONLY THREE VACANCIES. SO I GUESS WITH YOU JUST FILLED TWO OF THOSE VACANCIES SO THAT THERE ARE --.

>> I'M SORRY I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE. THERE MAY BE COUNTY NOMINEES IN THOSE VACANCIES. YES. THEY HAVE A VACANCY FROM COUNTY PRECINCT 3, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VACANCY FROM -- IN TERMS OF YOUR APPOINTEE, ALSO COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, MAYBE YOU HAVE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THIS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOAL IS HARMONY, THAT IS VERY NOBLE GOAL, SOMETHING WE ALL WORK TOWARDS. I WONDER IF THERE IS ANY HISTORY, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, THAT WOULD SAY THAT THERE WAS MORE HARMONY OR CONGENIALITY WITH ONE SYSTEM OR THE OTHER. I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS. BUT MAYBE -- MAYBE YOUR EXPERIENCE SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

>>GOODMAN: NO, MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO AGREE ON WHOSE CONSENSUS AND WHO IS NOT, HARMONY DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE EAR OF THE BEHOLDER.

>>GRIFFITH: RIGHT. I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THE LOGISTICS WOULD WORK IF WE HAD ALL CONSENSUS. ESPECIALLY WITH A CHARGED FIELD LIKE THIS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH COMMITMENT. I'M WONDERING IF -- IF THE CONSENSUS APPROACH MIGHT NOT BE DIFFICULT. AND TIME CONSUMING.

>>GOODMAN: IT COULD BE. SINCE I'M GOING TO CHAIR RIGHT NOW, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE TO MAKE A MOVE, THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL.

>>SLUSHER: I'M READY TO VOTE.

>>ALVAREZ: MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST VOTE. IF SOMEONE HAS AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION THEY SHOULD MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION, BUT OTHERWISE I HAVE ALREADY SAID WHAT I AM GOING TO SUPPORT.

>>GRIFFITH: I THINK WE ALL WANT TO SUPPORT MS. DUNKERLY FOR SURE WITHOUT HESITATION.

>>GOODMAN: WHAT COMES TO MIND PARLIAMENTARYILY THOUGH, IF WE DO PASS THE MOTION AS MADE, DO WE THEN RECONSIDER THE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS SO THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND NOT CAUSE FALSE EXPECTATIONS FOR TWO PEOPLE AHEAD OF TIME UNTIL THEY ARE ABLE TO TALK TO ALL OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS?

>>ALVAREZ: DO WE TAKE THAT UP AGAIN, NOT REAPPOINT THEM AFTER --.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, WHAT'S THE POINT FOR A MONTH? NOT QUITE A MONTH, THREE WEEKS. UNLESS IT'S --.

>>THOMAS: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: -- SENSIBLE TO LET THEM SERVE FOR THREE WEEKS AND THEN --.

>>ALVAREZ: I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE MOTION THAT SAYS WHEN THIS COMMISSION WILL TAKE PLACE? DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT AND WOULDN'T WE JUST -- UNTIL WE GET ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO TO BE ON THE COMMISSION, WOULDN'T THAT BE WITH THE CURRENT FOLKS' TERMS WOULD EXPIRE?

>>GOODMAN: IT'S NOT A 10-DAY THING?

>> [INAUDIBLE] ORDINANCE, TOO.

>> BARRING ANY ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO STRUCTURE IT HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO HAPPEN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE PEOPLE TO SERVE UNTIL YOU COME ONE THE FULL CONSENSUS, YOU STATE THAT EVERYONE'S TERM WILL END AT THAT POINT. IF YOU WANT THEM TO GO ON AND CONTINUE AND MAKE THE REMAINDER CONSENSUS, THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT YOU COULD STRUCTURE IN YOUR MOTION. OR YOU COULD RESCIND YOUR APPOINTMENTS TODAY AND START FROM SCRATCH. SO I THINK BARRING ANDY YOU TELLING ME THERE'S SOME PAR MEN TERRI, YOU JUST -- PARLOR LEN TERRI, YOU STRUCTURE IT IN YOUR -- PARLIMENTARY, STRUCTURE IT FROM YOUR MOTION.

>>SLUSHER: I WOULD BE INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THE TWO THAT WERE APPEAR POINTED TONIGHT TO BE CONSENSUS. -- APPOINTED TONIGHT TO BE CONSENSUS. I WILL SAY THAT FIT HELPS BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE TWO FOLKS ARE APPOINTED, THE COMMISSION VOTED, THE MAJORITY VOTED TO RESTRUCTURE KNOWING THAT THEY MIGHT END UP OFF THE COMMISSION. OF COURSE IF SOMEBODY MADE A MOTION LIKE THAT FOR THE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW, IT MIGHT PASS, TOO.

>>THOMAS: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER?

>>THOMAS: SEEING THAT THE TWO VACANCIES ACTUALLY WERE MINE'S AND COUNCILMEMBER

>>GRIFFITH:'S, -- XHEG'S, CAN I MAKE A FRIENDLY -- COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S, CAN I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO LET IT STAY AS INDIVIDUAL APPOINTEES? OPPOSED TO [INAUDIBLE].

>>ALVAREZ: THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION. THAT'S NOT EVEN AN AMENDMENT. SO I GUESS IT WOULDN'T BE FRIENDLY.

>>THOMAS: YOU ARE RIGHT. ALTERNATIVE MOTION, YOU ARE RIGHT.

>>ALVAREZ: ON THE OTHER HAND I WOULD ACCEPT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>>THOMAS: CAN I GET IT --.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER, DID YOU WANT TO TRY A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THEN?

>>THOMAS: RIGHT.

>>GOODMAN: WE NEED A PARLIAMENTARYN OR TAKE IT AN AN AMENDMENT VOTE ODD SEPARATELY, EITHER OF THOSE. AS AN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WE CAN VOTE ON IT.

>>THOMAS: OKAY, WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO IS KEEP IT AS INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS, THAT'S WHAT I AM WANTING TO DO. SO I GUESS IT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. I WILL SECOND THAT.

>>ALVAREZ: THIS IS TO DO WHAT?

>>GOODMAN: TO KEEP IT INDIVIDUAL, THE 7 AND THE CONSENSUS AND COUNTY.

>>SLUSHER: HOW MANY?

>>GOODMAN: SEVEN AND ONE CONSENSUS AND ONE COUNTY.

>>SLUSHER: IT WOULD BE AN EVEN NUMBER?

>>GOODMAN: IT WOULD BE NINE.

>>SLUSHER: SEVEN AND ONE?

>>GOODMAN: NO. ONE CONSENSUS AND ONE COUNTY.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. OKAY. I'M READY TO VOTE.

>>GOODMAN: FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION IS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTMENTS WITH ONE CONSENSUS AND ONE COUNTY APPOINTMENT FOR A TOTAL OF NINE. SHOULD WE GO ROLL CALL? THAT HAS EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME, ONLY CHANGES THE CONSENSUS TO INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> APPEAR POSSESSED?

>>SLUSHER: NO.

>> OPPOSED?

>>SLUSHER: NO.

>>ALVAREZ: I'M ABSTAINING.

>>GOODMAN: IT PASSES WITH ONE ABSTENTION, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND ONE NO, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. OKAY. THE AMENDMENT HAVING PASSED WE GO BACK TO THE -- WELL, THAT WAS ONLY AN AMENDMENT. DID WE JUST DO THE WHOLE THING?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: NOW WE TAKE THE MAIN MOTION. ON LEGAL ADVICE. SO --.

>>SLUSHER: I THOUGHT THAT PASSED.

>>GOODMAN: IT WAS THE AMENDMENT, THOUGH. HE DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BUT THE --.

>>SLUSHER: I THOUGHT IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. OH, IT WAS VOTED ON AS AN AMENDMENT?

>>GOODMAN: YES.

>> THAT BEING THE CASE [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: SORRY, WE ARE DOING IT TWICE WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE ONLY HAD ONCE. BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT HAVING PASSED, ABOUT INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

>>ALVAREZ: YES, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEN WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW --.

>>GOODMAN: IT'S YOUR MOTION EXCEPT THAT --.

>>ALVAREZ: I KNOW WHAT MY MOTION IS.

>>SLUSHER: IT GOT AMENDED OUT OF EXISTENCE.

>>GOODMAN: NO. ONLY THE -- IT'S REALLY NOT A HARD THING. THE ONLY THING THAT COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS WANTED TO CHANGE WAS THE -- HE DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THAT YOU SAID OTHER THAN CONSENSUS APPOINTMENTS INSTEAD OF -- INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS INSTEAD OF CONSENSUS APPOINTMENTS. HE DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.

>>ALVAREZ: BUT I ONLY HAD FOUR CONSENSUS APPOINTMENTS. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS -- HAD ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NO CATEGORIES IN THE ORDINANCE, THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE BY CONSENSUS -- I MEAN BY INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS WITH TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT APPOINTMENT AND A CONSENSUS.

>>GOODMAN: THE CATEGORIES ARE THERE BY STATE LAW. SO IT'S THE VACANCY IS A PARTICULAR COUNCILMEMBER HAS A CATEGORY THAT HAS SOME PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENT, THEN THAT IS THE CATEGORY FROM WHICH THAT COUNCILMEMBER WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE. AND I SUPPOSE IF YOU GOT TIRED OF ONE COUNCILMEMBER ALWAYS GETTING TO PICK THE VET, THEN YOU COULD TRADE AROUND AND ROTATE IN SOME MANNER.

>>ALVAREZ: I AM GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. AND LET HIM MAKE HIS MOTION AND LET'S VOTE ON THAT. CANGY THAT?

>> I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE THINGS SIMPLER OR CLEARER IF WE TRY IT THAT WAY.

>>GOODMAN: YOU THINK SO?

>> EXCUSE ME, YOUR ATTORNEY WHO DRAFTED THE -- THE ORDINANCE TOLD US TODAY THAT EVEN THOUGH -- THAT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE TO SPELL OUT THE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES. THAT UNDER STATE LAW WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE VETERINARIAN AND THESE PARTICULAR CATEGORIES, BUT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY SPELL IT OUT AND SOMEONE HAD ASKED THAT QUESTION AND SO WE CALLED THE -- THE CITY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND GOT THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.

>>GOODMAN: YEAH. WHAT WE SOMETIMES DO ON BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENT IS TRADE THE DESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER AS WELL.

>> I THINK WE MAY BE CONFUSING A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE. THE PRACTICE OF HOW YOU APPOINT IS -- CAN BE TREATED SEPARATELY FROM THE MAKEUP AND THE NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND THE PRACTICE, WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO TREAT IT AS -- AS EACH APPOINTMENT BEING A CONSENSUS APPOINTMENT OR THE PRACTICE BEING THAT EACH, IF YOU HAVE SEVEN APPOINTMENTS, EACH COUNCILMEMBER GETS TO NOMINATE ONE AND THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AGREE, IS -- IS REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT'S LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE IN ANY EVENT. WHAT YOU ARE NEEDING TO DO HERE IS TO ESTABLISH THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION.

>>GOODMAN: YES, BUT SINCE WE WILL PROBABLY NOT BRING THIS UP FOR A DISCUSSION AND A VOTE FOR DIRECTION AGAIN, EITHER WE LAY IT OUT NOW OR IT WILL ALWAYS BE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AND CONFLICTING INTERPRETATION.

>> WE JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR ON TWO THINGS, THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO ARE ON -- ON THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMISSION AND THEN IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO STATE WHAT ITS POLICY WILL BE FOR APPOINTING THEM THEN THAT CAN BE A PART OF THAT MOTION, ALSO.

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION THEN?

>>THOMAS: I --.

>>GOODMAN: INSTEAD OF AN AMENDMENT WE ARE DOING THE WHOLE MOTION THING.

>>THOMAS: I HOPE WE GET THIS CLEAR THIS TIME. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE SEVEN INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS, ONE CONSENSUS AND COUNTY.

>>GOODMAN: THAT WAS WITH THE SAME ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. I WILL SECOND THAT. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED?

>>SLUSHER: [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: ONE OPPOSED, THE MAYOR ABSENT. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? OH, YES WE DO. THANK YOU ALL FOR WAITING ALL THIS TIME.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: YEAH, ALL THREE. OKAY. ALL WE HAVE LEFT IS ITEM 37, FINANCIAL POLICIES AND 73, GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCES.

>>GRIFFITH: WE CAN DO FINANCIAL POLICY REAL QUICK. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. THE ONE THAT I WANTED TO -- TO TALK ABOUT AND ASK ABOUT REALLY IS THE ONE THAT CAPS THE WHAT I THINK OF AS A RAINY DAY FUND. WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE IS THAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ARE INSTEAD OF CAPPING IT AT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ARE GOING WITH PERCENTAGE. WHAT THAFR PERCENTAGE MIGHT BE AND -- WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE MIGHT BE. I'M HOPING AS AN ALTERNATIVE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE WE ARE GROWING SO FAST, BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS COMMANDING -- EXPANDING AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S RELATIVE TO POPULATION, COULD WE THINK ABOUT DOING A PERCENTAGE RATHER THAN A CAP?

>> WELL, COUNCILMEMBER, THE -- THE ITEM THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE LAST AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS IN FACT A CHANGE THE MERGE RESERVE FUND FROM A PERCENTAGE, FIVE PERCENT ARE BUDGETED OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND TO A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, 15 MILLION

>>GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT -- BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR PEOPLE ON THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS DON'T GO TO THE FULL COUNCIL?

>> NO, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING TO THE FULL COUNCIL TONIGHT.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. WELL, THIS IS -- THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF USING A PERCENTAGE RATHER THAN A FLAT NUMBER.

>> CERTAINLY COUNCIL HAS THAT PREROGATIVE TO CHANGE IT TO A PERCENTAGE AS OPPOSED TO A FLAT AMOUNT

>>GRIFFITH: CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF DOING THAT IN YOUR ESTIMATION. TO ME TYING IT TO ACTUAL GROWTH IN A PERCENTAGE, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE AND THAT IS WHAT OTHER ENTITIES ARE DOING. THAT I HAVE BEEN WATCHING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, WE TYPICALLY REVISIT THE FINANCIAL POLICIES EACH YEAR WHEN WE PUT THE BUDGET TOGETHER. SO WE COULD EITHER PROPOSE IT AS A PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING REQUIREMENTS OR WE COULD PROPOSE IT AS A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT COULD INCREASE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, FOR EXAMPLE, REVISITING THIS ISSUE EACH YEAR. WE SIMPLY PROPOSED TO DROP IT BACK TO A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT AMOUNT WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THAT EMERGENCY RESERVE HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE IT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN USED.

>>GRIFFITH: ARE THERE PROS AND CONS TO DOING IT FLAT RATE AND DOING IT PERCENTAGE-WISE?

>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO STANDARD WAY THAT ANY CITY APPROACHES THIS. SOME CITIES APPROACH IT AS A PERCENTAGE, SOME CITIES APPROACH IT AS A DOLLAR AMOUNT. AGAIN, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CITY FALLS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE RANGE OF HOW ALL OF THE OTHER CITIES DO THAT. OTHER CITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECENTLY FOUND OUT THAT THE CITY OF FORT WORTH HAS A PERCENTAGE, BUT THEY ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. SO THEY HAVE IT AS A GOAL, BUT IN FACT THEY DON'T REACH THAT GOAL. SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ATTACH IT TO AN ACTUAL BUDGET IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT DOING A FLAT RATE, A FLAT CAP EVERY YEAR THAT CHANGES.

>> THE ITEM THAT WE PROPOSED TO THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TONIGHT WOULD BE AT THE FLAT RATE OF $15 MILLION.

>>GRIFFITH: I HOPE WE CAN THINK ABOUT DOING A PERCENTAGE AND MAYBE EVALUATE THE PROS AND CONS OF DOING IT THAT WAY SINCE IT WOULD BE TIED TO -- SINCE IT WOULD BE TIED DIRECTLY TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE -- OF THE BUDGET AND WOULD GROW RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU ARE HEDGING, WHAT YOU ARE PROTECTING.

>> WE COULD, FOR EXAMPLE, CONVERT THE $15 MILLION TO A PERCENTAGE OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS AND THEN --

>> I THINK THE WAY WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE BUDGET --

>>GRIFFITH: YES YOU COULD.

>> THE WAY WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE BUDGET THIS YEAR IS WITH THAT FLAT 15 MILLION. IF YOU WERE TO WANT TO ADOPT A PERCENTAGE AND GO BACK TO THE CURRENT POLICY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER FROM 15 MILLION TO I BELIEVE A NUMBER IF IT WAS IN THE 17.5 MILLION DOLLAR RANGE EXCEPT --

>> IT WOULD BE, FOR THE ONE BUDGET IT WOULD BE $19.3 MILLION.

>>GARZA: YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE 3 MILLION THAT'S IN THAT 5 MILLION WE PRESENTED TO YOU THIS MORNING, 5.7, YOU WOULD SUBTRACT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THAT FUND AND DROP IT BACK INTO THAT -- INTO THIS EMERGENCY RESERVE

>>GRIFFITH: I'M FOR NOT SUGGEST THANK WE CHANGE THE NUMBER. I'M SUGGESTING WE CHANGE THE METHODOLOGY SO THAT AS THE -- NOT GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS, ADJUST IT SO THAT EVEN IF IT'S A LOWER PERCENTAGE, SO THAT IT'S TIED TO AN ACTUAL. CAN WE THINK ABOUT DOING IT THAT WAY?

>> THAT IS CERTAINLY --.

>>GARZA: WE CAN COME BACK WITH YOU AND VISIT WITH THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS IN TERMS OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR THE FINANCE AND BUDGET STAFF THAT IS UP UNTIL HERE RECENTLY, THE LAST THREE YEARS, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN, YOU HAVE INVESTED IN CASH IN A CAPITAL PROGRAM WHERE BEFORE WE USED TO DO MOST OF THAT IN DEBT. THE YEAR PREVIOUS TO THIS IT WAS ABOUT $18 MILLION, THIS THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, 9 MILLION, CASH, C.I.P. PLUS 14 MILLION TRANSFERRING TO THE SUSTAINABILITY FUND, 15 MILLION IN AN EMERGENCY RESERVE, 3.5 MILLION SITTING IN CONTINGENCY. WE THOUGHT THAT'S ENOUGH CUSHION SHOULD GOD FORBID THERE BE SOME MAJOR DISASTER THAT COMES INTO THIS CITY, THAT GIVES YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY TO DROP SOME THINGS TO DEAL WITH THOSE KINDS OF DISASTERS THAT MIGHT HAPPEN AND WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE $15 MILLION, PLUS THOSE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITIES, THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HANDLE, IN THE EVENT OF UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS. YOU WOULD LIKE US TO GO BACK AND RECALIBRATE THIS FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR WE CERTAINLY CAN. WE WOULD RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THIS SO THAT THE BUDGET YOU ARE ABOUT TO ADOPT NEXT WEEK IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR FINANCIAL POLICIES.

>>GRIFFITH: UH-HUH. CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE THE 15 TO A PERCENTAGE AND THEN WE WOULD GO FORWARD THAT WAY?

>>GARZA: SO IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE THAT EQUALS 15 MILLION?

>>GRIFFITH: YES, SIR.

>>GARZA: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

>>GRIFFITH: IT'S ABOUT WHAT, 3.8%?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO CALCULATE THAT NOW. IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 3.8.

>>GARZA: 3 -- A LITTLE LESS THAN 4%.

>>GRIFFITH: IT WOULD SEEM MORE PRUDENT TO ME TO TIE IT TO THE ACTUAL DOLLARS GOING FORWARD THAN TO CAP IT AT ANYTHING. IT'S JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEF THAT IT OUGHT TO BE TIED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET BECAUSE IT IS AN EMERGENCY RAINY DAY FUND.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER?

>>SLUSHER: I WOULD YIELD TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: THANK YOU. I DON'T SIT ON THE FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE, BUT I PRESUME THIS DISCUSSION WAS HELD BY THAT SUB COMMITTEE AND I'M QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER CAME OUT OF THAT UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE DISCUSSED THE PERCENTAGE DOING IT BY PERCENTAGE. SO -- SO WE ONLY DISCUSSED CHANGING THE AMOUNT TO HARD DOLLARS. I GUESS THAT -- THAT WOULD BE PRUDENT, ALSO, TO HEAR WHAT STAFF HAD TO SAY. IS THERE A DOWN SIDE? OF CHANGING IT TO A PERCENTAGE? THAT BOTHERS YOU?

>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

>>GOODMAN: IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BOTHER YOU ABOUT CHANGING TO IT A PERCENTAGE AS OPPOSED TO A FLAT NUMBER?

>> I CERTAINLY -- IF COUNCIL WISHES TO DO THAT, WE -- WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. THE ECONOMIC EFFECT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001, WHETHER IT WERE STATED AS A PERCENTAGE OR AS A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT.

>>GOODMAN: AND AS OUR BUDGET WENT UP IT WOULD INCREASE INCREMENTALLY.

>> YES, UNLESS THE COUNCIL CHANGED IT SUBSEQUENTLY.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

>>SLUSHER: WELL, THERE'S DEFINITELY LOGIC BEHIND THAT TO HAVE IT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET. ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T -- DISCUSSED THAT IN AUDIT AND FINANCE, OUR STAFF WENT THROUGH AND RECOMMENDED THIS 15% WOULD BE ENOUGH. SEEMS LIKE WE ARE JUST ARBITRARILY SETTING THAT PERCENTAGE HERE ON THE DIAS AT A FEW MINUTES AFTER 11:00 BASED -- IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EQUAL TO 15 MILLION, WHICH THE CITY MANAGER SAID IS WHAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE IN THE CONTINGENCY FUND. THE NET

>>GRIFFITH: THE NET EFFECT IS THE SAME, THE NET EFFECT FOR THIS YEAR IS THE SAME, BUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SAYING THAT YOUR RAINY DAY FUND SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE, AND YOU CAN CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE IF YOU WANT TO. SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR -- OF YOUR BUDGET?

>>SLUSHER: IT'S JUST THAT WE HADN'T HAD ANY PROCESS ON WHAT THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE. DO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS THAT 15 MILLION OR THE CITY MANAGER --

>> WELL, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE POLICIES THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE -- OR THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE. THE COUNCIL COULD ASK THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THIS ISSUE FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR TO DETERMINE WHAT -- WHAT ADDITIONAL CHANGES, IF ANY, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BUT THIS WAS DISCUSSED, I BELIEVE, AT AUDIT AND FINANCE, WE MAY NOT DISCUSS SPECIFIC PERCENTAGES, BUT THE POLICIES THEMSELVES. I JUST -- MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WAY WE CAN BE SADDLED -- BE SETTLED WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK THE COUNCIL IS TO BEGIN NEXT MONDAY. AS YOU ADOPT THE BUDGET. AND THE AUDIT AND FINANCE CAN ASK, ASK JOHN AND HIS STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT SCENARIO AND THEN YOU CAN MORE COMFORTABLY DECIDE WHETHER THIS POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED NEEDS TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENT AS YOU GO INTO PREPARATION OF NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. IT COULD BE AS COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH SUGGESTED IT COULD BE A PERCENTAGE, YOU COULD DO A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, YOU CAN SAY YOU ARE GOING TO GROW IT BY A COUPLE OF MILLION A YEAR, 15 THIS YEAR, 17 NEXT YEAR, 19, SO ON. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN USE.

>> I SPECIFICALLY REQUEST -- CAN I SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT THE PERCENTAGE BE STUDIED?

>> YES, WE CAN DO THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL

>>GRIFFITH: I DON'T THINK THE PERCENTAGE APPROACH WAS EVALUATED THOROUGHLY AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.

>> WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>SLUSHER: WAS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

>>GARZA: I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION, I MADE A SUGGESTION. JUST JOKING.

>>SLUSHER: I WONDER UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAD ALREADY MADE ONE

>>GRIFFITH: I WOULD MOVE THAT WE STAY WITH THE 15 MILLION, THIS YEAR, AND STUDY VERY CAREFULLY THE OPTION OF GOING TO A PERCENTAGE APPROACH FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

>>SLUSHER: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE $15 MILLION FIGURE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR AND TO BEGIN TO STUDY THROUGH AUDIT AND FINANCE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE THE FEASIBILITY OF GOING TO A SET PERCENTAGE FOR FOLLOWING YEARS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> IF THERE'S NO -- OH --.

>> WE NEED TO INCLUDE, THERE WERE TWO OTHER POLICIES ALSO APPROVED BY THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE.

>> OH, THAT WAS ONLY 37.

>>SLUSHER: I WOULD MOVE THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE SUB COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON THE OTHER TWO.

>> SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: MOTION AND SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? ALL THREE READINGS THAT WAS?

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I HAD IN MINE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCES. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING?

>>GRIFFITH: DO WE HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT ONE?

>> I'M SORRY -- I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

>>GRIFFITH: WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE, HOW THAT CAME TO BE?

>> THE GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE?

>>GRIFFITH: YES. I KNOW IT'S BEEN CHANGING QUITE A BIT. PERHAPS WE NEED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THE ALL FUNDS FIRST AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN GET TO THE -- TO THE GENERAL FUND AS A PART OF THAT. THE REASON I FOCUS ON ENDING BALANCES IS BECAUSE THAT'S -- TO ME THAT'S AN INDICATION OF -- OF -- OF GAINS AND LOSSES AND WHAT THE NET RESULT OF A YEAR'S OPERATIONS IS. AND IN OUR POLICY BUDGET, THE TWO PAGES THAT I LOOKED AT A LOT WERE 76 AND 77. AND WHAT GOES ALONG WITH OUR SHOWS IN 98 AND '99 ENDING BALANCES OF -- I WILL ROUND, $245 MILLION, THEN OUR ESTIMATED YEAR END THIS YEAR IS 200 AND ALMOST 2 MILLION. AND THEN WE ARE PROPOSED TO GO TO 152 IN 2001. SO FOR TWO YEARS THAT'S A REDUCTION OF 93.7 MILLION AND THAT'S AN AVERAGE FOR THE TWO YEARS OF A REDUCTION OF 46-882. AT THAT RATE IF IT CONTINUES THERE WON'T BE ANY ENDING BALANCE IN ALL FUNDS IN 3.2 YEARS. SO I AM WONDERING -- AND IF -- IF THAT'S THE PLAN OR IF -- IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME INTERVENING EVENTS IN PLANS AND ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE HOW LOW THE ENDING BALANCINGS THE NEXT --

>> COUNCILMEMBER, THE NUMBERS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT, 1999 ACTUAL COLUMN AND THE -- THE YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED COLUMN ARE NOT BUDGETED NUMBERS. THOSE NUMBERS ESSENTIALLY REFLECT THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC BOOM HERE IN THE AUSTIN AREA IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE IN THAT OUR REVENUES OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, OUR REVENUES HAVE EXCEEDED OUR BUDGET AND OUR EXPENDITURES AT LEAST IN SOME OF THOSE CASES WERE LESS THAN BUDGET. SO IN FACT THE 1999 ACTUAL ENDING BALANCES OF 245 MILLION WAS 113 MILLION HIGHER THAN THE BUDGETED ENDING BALANCE FOR THAT YEAR. OUR AMENDED BUDGETED ENDING BALANCE FOR 1999 WAS 132 MILLION. SO I THINK IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION THAT WAS SET FROM COUNCIL FOR THE BUDGET, YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE INCREASE OF 132 MILLION FROM 156 MILLION, THAT IS FROM AMENDED 1999 BUDGET TO AMENDED YEAR 2000 BUDGET. AND THEN LIKEWISE TO LOOK FROM AMENDED 2000 BUDGET OF THE 156 MILLION TO THE 2001 PROPOSED BUDGET. OF 151 MILLION. THERE IS IN FACT A $5 MILLION, $4 MILLION DECREASE IN THAT -- IN THAENDING BALANCE. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE MORE APPROPRIATE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AMENDED BUDGET COLUMNS RATHER THAN THE ESTIMATE COLUMNS BECAUSE THOSE BEGIN FORTUNATELY INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE EXCESSES THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED ON AN ALL FUNDS BASIS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT I LOOK AT IS ACTUALS. IN THE '98-'99. 240 MILLION WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. NOT WHAT WAS BUDGETED OR WHAT WAS PLANNED BUT WHAT REALLY OCCURRED? AND ISN'T THAT WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT RATHER THAN WHAT WAS BUDGETED? AND THEN YEAR END THE 201, ALMOST 202 MILLION IS THE CLOSEST WE KNOW TO WHAT WILL BE ACTUAL AT THE END OF THIS YEAR AND THEN WE ARE PROPOSING 151.6 FOR -- FOR NEXT YEAR, SO -- SO IT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF ACTUALS, IT'S -- IT'S DOWN --

>> RIGHT, BUT COUNCILMEMBER I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT WE HAVE NOT, EXCEPT FOR THE -- FOR THE CHANGE FROM THE 2000 AMENDED COLUMN TO THE 2001 PROPOSED COLUMN, WHICH IS A DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION ON AN ALL FUNDS BASIS, WE DID NOT PLAN TO SPEND DOWN THOSE FUND BALANCES. WE SIMPLY GOT EXCESSES IN AND THOSE EXCESSES THAT WERE THEN APPLIED TO BE USED IN THE NEXT YEAR RATHER THAN RETAINING THOSE IN THE ENDING BALANCES.

>> WELL, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS PLANNED AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

>> UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS ALL ON THE UPSIDE.

>>GRIFFITH: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

>>GARZA: LET ME SEE IF I CAN -- IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL FUND THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD HERE TODAY, WHEN MR. CURRY WALKED US THROUGH THAT FUND, HE DID TWO THINGS: HE SAID YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN -- OR DECREASE IN EXPENDITURES, YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WE HAVEN'T ANTICIPATED, AND AS A RESULT YOU HAVE ABOUT 2.7 MILLION THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED TO YOUR BEGINNING BALANCE. THEN WHAT MR. CURRY AND HIS BUDGET STAFF DID IS TOOK THOSE NEW ESTIMATES BASED ON THAT NEW MONEY THAT WE NOW COULD DO IN TERMS OF PROJECTIONS USING -- APPLYING THE SAME PERCENTAGES, SAID WE NOW CAN PROJECT SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS, THAT'S WHAT GOT US TO 5.7. THAT IS HOW YOU ARE HELPING OR HOW WE ARE HELPING FUND, I'M ASSUMING -- I'M ASSUMING THAT ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY THAT 5.7 WILL IN ONE SHAPE OR FORM BE USED FOR THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL DEEMS ARE PRIORITIES. BUT WHAT MR. -- WHAT MR. STEVENS IS SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL NUMBER IN '98-'99 OF 245 MILLION. WE ARE ESTIMATING FOR OO-01. NEXT YEAR WHEN WE PREPARE THE BUDGET THAT ESTIMATE WILL BE AN ACTUAL. THAT COULD BE A HIGHER NUMBER THAN TO 01. HE'S SAYING THAT'S IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE BUDGETED. WE ANTICIPATED A LOWER NUMBER, INCOME AT A HIGHER RATE, AUSTIN ENERGY PRODUCED MORE INCOME FOR US, WATER AND WASTEWATER BLUESED MORE INCOME FOR US, THE VARIOUS OTHER FUNDS AND SOLID WASTE SERVICES, ET CETERA, PRODUCED MORE INCOME FOR US. THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME THAT WE HAD NOT -- THAT ARE ABOVE OUR ESTIMATE WILL FALL TO THE BOTTOM LINE AND THAT NUMBER THEN BECOMES A DIFFERENT ACTUAL NUMBER. SO WHAT YOUR FINANCE DIRECTOR IS SAYING TO YOU IS THAT THIS REALLY IS -- IT'S BESTING WHAT WE HAVE PROJECTED, DONE BETTER FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE OF CONCERN -- A SOURCE OF CONCERN FOR THE CITY COUNCILL

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. I'M NOT CONCERNED PARTICULARLY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THESE ACTUALS CONTINUE LIKE THEY DO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENDING BALANCES IN 3.2 YEARS. I AM JUST WONDERING HOW LOW AN ENDING BALANCE WOULD BE PRACTICAL --

>> I THINK ON AN ALL FUNDS BASIS, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO LEAVE, AGAIN ON AN ALL FUNDS BASIS, WE WILL PROPOSE TO LEAVE THESE ENDING BALANCES APPROXIMATELY WHERE THEY ARE. BUT AGAIN WE DO NOT BUDGET IN ADVANCE TO SPEND DOWN AN ACTUAL NUMBER BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS

>>GRIFFITH: I AM JUST LOOKING AT WHAT THE ACTUAL TREND IS. YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LEVEL OUT AT 151 MILLION AND TRY AND HOLD IT THERE?

>> YES.

>>GRIFFITH: THANKS.

>>GOODMAN: FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS. MANY TIMES SECONDED. ALL THOFR IF FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log