Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 01/18/01

>>SLUSHER: I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS RUNNING LATE. HAS ASKED ME TO START THE MEETING. FIRST OF ALL I WILL READ THE CHANGES AND CORRECTS TO THE AGENDA. COUNCIL, DO YOU ALL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED ON THE MEETING HERE? CHANGES AND CORRECTION HIS. WHAT? OH. BEFORE WE DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE PRAYER, REVEREND LANDRY FROM THE CENTRAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ARE YOU HERE REVEREND LANDRY?

>> LET US LIFTED UP OUR HEARTS IN GRATITUDE FOR LIFE AND FOR BREATH WE GIVE THANKS. FOR STRENGTH AND FOR HEALTH WE GIVE THANKS. FOR FAMILY AND FOR FRIENDS WE GIVE THANKS. FOR COLD AND WET WEATHER OUTSIDE AND FOR A WARM AND DRY ATMOSPHERE INSIDE WE GIVE THANKS, FOR ALL THAT MAKES OUR LIFE TOGETHER IN THIS CITY PLEASANT AND WHOLESOME FOR SCHOOLS, FOR LIBRARIES, HOSPITALS, MUSEUMS, STREETS AND PARKS, WE GIVE THANKS. LET US YIELD OUR HEARTS TO THE TASK OF ENHANCING AND LIFTING UP AND ENRICHING OUR LIFE TOGETHER. LET US GIVE OURSELVES TO THE BUSINESS OF CREATING AND MAINTAINING IN THIS TIME AND IN THIS PLACE A COMMUNITY WHERE THE WELFARE OF EACH IS THE CONCERN OF ALL. WHERE THE WEAK ARE HELPED BY THE STRONG. WHERE THE YOUNG ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE OLD. AND WHERE THE OLD ARE RESPECTED FOR THEIR WISDOM. THIS -- THIS PRAYER, THESE THOUGHTS, THESE HOPES WE OFFER IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HIGH AND HOLY AND GOOD. AMEN.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU, REVEREND LANDRY. OKAY. THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA, NUMBER 28, IS PULLED INDEFINITELY BY THE CITY MANAGER. NUMBER 31 SHOULD READ "APPROVE A RESOLUTION OFFERING EXECUTION OF A 12-MONTH SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH COMPLIES CONSORTIUM CORPORATION, BELTON, TEXAS, FOR TESTING SERVICE FOR THE CITY'S ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING PROGRAM TO RECOMMEND OWE OPEN RECOMMENDED BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION." NUMBER 46, APPROVE AN ORDINANCE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE SECTIONS 15-13-3 REGARDING STREET CLOSURES IN THE 200, 300 BLOCK OF 6 STREET FOR THE VIGNETTE VILLAGE EVENT ON MAY 23RD, 2001. NUMBER 54 SHOULD READ, 3:00 P.M. BRIEFING, NEW CITY HALL AND PUBLIC PLAZA CONCEPT DESIGN PRESENTATION. THAT ITEM IS POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 1ST, 2001 AT A TIME CERTAIN OF 9:30 A.M. ITEMS SET FOR A TIME CERTAIN, CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS AT 1:30, BOND SALE AT 2:00, 3:00 P.M. A BRIEFING -- WELL, THAT'S THE BRIEFING ON ITEM 54 THAT'S POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 1ST. THE ZONING AT 4:00, LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. WE HAVE A 6:00 PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A PROPOSAL, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE KEELING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN, ALSO A 6:00 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF THE 140 ACRE BRANDT CROSSING. NOW, ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, NO. 10 IS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, NO. 12 BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, NO. 13 BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, NUMBER 22 BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS PUTTING BACK ON ITEM 23, GRIFFITH AND ALZHEIMER'S ITEM NO. 28, SLUSHER 88 AND SHRUBBER ITEM 89. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE -- FIRST OF ALL LET'S HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?

>>GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL.

>>SLUSHER: I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I DIDN'T SEE HER COME IN WHILE I WAS READING. I WOULD SECOND THAT. THE MINUTES.

>>GOODMAN: GO AHEAD AND FINISH.

>>SLUSHER: ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: YES?

>>GRIFFITH: I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ITEM 28, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE MANAGER HAS REMOVED FOR NOW FROM THE AGENDA. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT IF I MIGHT ABOUT THAT.

>> AS IT'S DRAFTED NOW THAT ITEM CALLS FOR SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY VERY IMPORTANT TO DO. WHICH IS TO GET DATA AND ANALYZE IT IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE MORE INFORMED, EVEN MORE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT RATES. WHAT WE DIDN'T SEE IS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE ASPECT OF THAT, WHICH HAS BEEN PART OF THE VISION AND I'M HOPING THAT -- THAT WE CAN WORK THAT OUT, EITHER IN THE SAME PERSON OR MAYBE NOT IN THE SAME PERSON. THOSE MAY BE DIFFERENT SPECIALTIES IN DIFFERENT -- AND DIFFERENT AREAS OF EXPERTISE. SO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH -- WITH COLLEAGUES AND STAFF ON HOW BOTH OF THOSE FUNCTIONS CAN BE DONE VERY WELL.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. I HAD ALSO WISHED TO BE SHOWN PULLING THAT ITEM AND TOBY FOR -- FOR CITY MANAGER INFORMATION, WHAT I WANTED US TO DO, SINCE WE WERE UNABLE TO -- APPARENTLY TO REALLY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE OR SOME POSITION WITH A FUNCTION, EVEN IF WE DON'T CALL IT THAT, RESEMBLING IT, I HAVE ASKED THE CITY AUDITOR IF THERE'S A WAY FOR ONE OF THEIR AUDITORS TO -- IN CONJUNCTION WITH WORKING WITH JESUS -- TO IN ESSENCE FILL AN INTERIM POSITION SO THAT AT THE TIME OF CHARTER AMENDMENT BALLOT WE ARE ABLE TO -- AS HAS BEEN MY WISH FOR A LONG TIME, IF WE EVER GET TO HAVE A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION -- TO PROPOSE A POSITION WITHIN WITHIN THE AUSTIN UTILITY THAT IS A CONSUMER ADVOCATE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD RIGHT NOW. IN THE MEANTIME, IF AN AUDITOR CAN PERFORM THAT FUNCTION OR AT LEAST CHECK OUT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT. FOR THAT POSITION. AND THE THE PARTICULARS, THE MECHANICS AND LOGISTICS THAT WOULD NEED TO GO WITH THAT IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE UTILITY CULTURE AND STILL BE INDEPENDENT AND REPORTING TO COUNCIL. AND I TALKED TO STEVEN MORGAN ABOUT IT, AND HE IS CERTAINLY WILLING TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF. I BELIEVE HE TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER AND ALTHOUGH IF JESUS IS REALLY THRILLED ABOUT THIS, I THINK HE WILL WORK WITH US TO TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

>> I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES. WHAT I WILL DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IN DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN TALKING ABOUT THIS, SEE WHERE WE CAN GO FROM HERE.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: 28 IS PULLED OFF THE AGENDA, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, BUT 23 IS BACK ON THE CONSENT ITEM, RIGHT. AND NO. 10? OKAY. SO LET'S -- COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU ALREADY GO THROUGH THE LIST OF THE CONSENT?

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, I READ THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED. THAT'S AS FAR AS I GOT.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH -- IS ITEM 6 STILL ON CONSENT THEN?

>>GLASGO: MAYOR PRO TEM, ON ITEM NO. 6 BUT THE NAKED AND APPLICANT WOULD LIKE A POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 1ST IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THE AGREEMENTS THEY HAVE REACHED.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. GREAT, THANK YOU. THEN THE LIST OF CONSENT --

>> MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: YES, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ITEM NO. 13 BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. I WILL SPEAK TO THAT ITEM BRIEFLY WHEN WE MAKE OUR CONSENT VOTE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. SO FOR CONSENT ARE ITEMS NUMBER 4, NUMBER 5, NUMBER 6, IS POSTED UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 1ST ON CONSENT, ITEM 7, ITEM 9, ITEM 10, WHICH COUNCILMEMBER WILL SPEAK TO, -- NOT 10? I'M SORRY, WHICH ITEM DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO?

>>WYNN: 13.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. SO 10 IS STILL CONSENT, BUT NO ONE IS SPEAKING. LET ME TRY TO WRITE THIS DOWN AS I GO. 11, 12 IS STILL PULLED, 13 WILLFULLY SPEAK TO, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 IS PULLED, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 IS OFF THE AGENDA, 29, 30, 31 AND WILL THE CITY CLERK SHOW ME ABSTAINING ON THAT? I AM PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO RANDOM ANYTHING WITHOUT CAUSE. 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS AT THIS TIME THAT GO ON CONSENT?

>> WHAT ABOUT ON ADDENDUM, 87.

>>GOODMAN: ALL RIGHT, ADDENDUM, THANK YOU. 87 -- ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S IT. WITH 88 HAVING BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN AND SLUSHER AND 89 PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>SLUSHER: YES.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, I HAVE A QUESTION. I AGREE WITH YOU ON 31, I WANTED TO ASK THE MANAGER, THOUGH, IS -- ON 31, DOES THE CITY GO BEYOND THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ON THAT.

>> REMIND ME OF WHAT 31 IS?

>>SLUSHER: DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST?

>>GARZA: I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.

>>SLUSHER: I'M SAYING THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A MORE AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM WITH THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES?

>>GARZA: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> MY NAME IS JUAN GARZA, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. NO, WE DON'T, WE SIMPLY ADHERE THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY, THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: WHILE, I WILL NOT GO AGAINST FEDERAL REGULATIONS, I THINK IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD THING.

>>SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY. I WASN'T TRYING TO SWITCH YOUR VOTE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE CASE. FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ABSTAINING IN. SHOWING ME ABSTAINING ON THAT ONE ITEM AND WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT THIS WEEK. KINDERGARTEN MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I COULD SPEAK BRIEFLY TO ITEM NO. 13, WHICH JUST PASSED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, THERE'S BEEN GOOD DISCUSSION LATELY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK. TECHNICALLY WHAT WE DID JUST DID BY APPROVING ITEM NO. 13 WAS TO FORMALLY APPROVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXISTING THREE YEAR CONTRACT FROM THE MUSIC MANAGEMENT GROUP TO THE KENNETH THREADGILL MUSIC FOUNDATION. AND CLARIFYING THE FUNDING FOR THIS LAST YEAR OF THAT THREE YEAR CONTRACT. THERE ARE ONGOING GOOD DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE MUSIC COMMISSION, THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S OFFICE, MINE AND OTHERS. THE KENNETH THREADGILL FOUNDATION. PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY HERE IN AUSTIN. THERE'S GREAT DISCUSSIONS GOING ON ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THAT NETWORK. AND LIKELY HERE OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS THERE WILL BE MORE DISCUSSION AND MORE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS COUNCIL AS REGARDS TO THAT. BUT THIS ITEM 13 SIMPLY ASSIGNS THE CONTRACT, CLEANS UP THE LAST YEAR OF FUNDING, ALLOW THE KENNETH THREADGILL MUSIC FOUNDATION TO KEEP THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK ON THE AIR WHILE WE WORK THROUGH THE FUTURE OF THAT ASSET. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. AND, COUNCIL, I TOTALLY BLEW THAT. I FORGOT ALL ABOUT THE CONSENT SPEAKERS. WE HAD ASKED SOME FOLKS TO BE HERE. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND US DOING THIS SORT OF BASSAKWARDS, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UP THE FOLKS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON NO. 13, ALSO MR. SUTTLE WANTED TO SPEAK ON NUMBER 9. IF I COULD CALL JOHN VILLEREAL, EDDIE WILSON, WOODY ROBERTS AND RON FRANK. TO COME UP AND -- WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH -- WITH SORT OF AD HOC WORKING GROUP IS LOOKING AT OUR MEDIA STRATEGY AS A GOVERNMENT IN THIS HIGH TECHNOLOGY AGE. SOME OF OUR MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE SIMILAR NEEDS AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A STRATEGIC LONG-RANGE PLAN TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL. IN THE MEANTIME, AMN, OBVIOUSLY, IS IN NEED OF ATTENTION RIGHT THIS MOMENT. SO -- SO THAT'S WHY FOLKS ARE HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT. AND THE OTHER MEDIA TECH ISSUES THAT WE HAVE. PLEASE.

>> WELL, FIRST, I GUESS I WANT TO SAY IT'S REALLY BEEN AS MUCH AN HONOR AS A -- AS A CHALLENGE TO -- TO BE YOUR MANAGING CONSULTANT SINCE NOVEMBER 1ST OF THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK. AND I DO THINK WE HAVE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND PARTICULARLY WORKING WITH MICHAEL PARKS IN -- IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, THE DEPARTMENT, AND JIM BUTLER. THEY HAVE HELPED US PARTNER WITH SOME LOCAL COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THE HIGH TECH AREA THAT -- THAT ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK, VERY INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF MUSIC IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND I BELIEVE THAT AS WE REBUILD THE MUSIC NETWORK AND WE PUT IN THE NEW FUNCTIONING EQUIPMENT THAT IS BEING ORDER AS WE SPEAK AND WE GET A REALLY FUNCTIONING OPERATING BUDGET, THAT -- THAT WE WILL AND YOU WILL SEE THE NETWORK BECOME MUCH MORE THAN ANYONE EVER IMAGINED IT WOULD BE BACK IN -- BACK IN 1994 WHEN IT FIRST SIGNED ON. SO -- SO AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. WE HAVE SEEN A DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT IN CONTENT EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW OF YOUR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AND FEEL YOUR PAIN.

>> YOU ARE TOM PERSON I KNOW BUT JONI MITCHELL WHO CAN TALK SOFTER OF A MICROPHONE, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MY OLD ROCK AND ROLL EARS BEING GONE. THANK YOU. EXCEPT FOR REVEREND THOMAS, I KNOW EVERYBODY. I RECENTLY MET MR. ALVAREZ. I THINK YOU ALL KNOW ME. AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW THAT I DIDN'T BITE THIS THING OFF BECAUSE IT WANTED TO BE CHEWED. I BIT IT OFF BECAUSE THE PARTNERS IN THE MANAGEMENT AT THREADGILLS KIND OF GAVE ME SOME TIME TO ACT LIKE I WAS SEMI RETIRED AND DO SOME COMMUNITY WORK. WORKING WITH FLOYD DOMINO AND BILL HAS BEEN ONE OF THE GREAT JOYS OF MY LAST YEAR. I WANT TO TELL YOU WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HELP FROM THE CITY THE FUTURE OF THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK IS GOING TO BE SO BRIGHT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WEAR SHADES TO WATCH IT PRETTY SOON. YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT. YOU ARE GOING TO BE PROUD OF US.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAY AT THE MIC FOR A MINUTES, PLEASE, SIR.

>> BEVERLY, I WAS REALLY GOOD, I GOT OFF.

>>GRIFFITH: I THOUGHT YOU WERE GREAT. YOU ARE GREAT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE DECADES OF COMMITMENT AND WORK THAT YOU HAVE PUT IN. MOST OF YOUR FOR ENHANCING AND GROWING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN AUSTIN. AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW IS AN EXTENSION OF WHAT YOUR WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN ABOUT. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND OFFER WHATEVER SUPPORT I CAN NOW AND GOING FORWARD. YOU TOOK OVER TROUBLED WATERS LIKE HAS RARELY BEEN SEEN. YOU STAYED WITH IT. YOU SHOWED THE DEDICATION AND THE COMMITMENT THAT I THINK ONLY YOU COULD --

>> OH, QUIT IT!

>>GRIFFITH: YEAH, A BUNCH OF STUFF.

>> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING, I HAVE NEVER TOUCHED A PROJECT THAT HAD 1/10TH OF ONE PERCENT OF THE POTENTIAL THAT THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK HAS GOT.

>>GRIFFITH: OR THAT SAME RATIO OF PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES PROBABLY.

>> I WOULDN'T WORK FOR YOU ALL UNDER ANY OTHER CONDITIONS. I PROMISE YOU THAT.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>GRIFFITH: HAPPY LANDING.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS. MR. FRANK? OR WHOEVER IS NEXT.

>> MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACTIVITY. I AM RON FRANK, THE TREASURER OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER. WE ARE REALLY PROUD OF THE THINGS THAT -- THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE COMMUNITY, WE ARE REALLY PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE AUSTIN MUSIC CHANNELS AVAILABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE REALLY PROUD OF IS THE FACT THAT JOHN VILLEREAL HAS BEEN SUCH A GREAT MANAGER OF OUR ACTIVITIES HERE. HE'S WON SEVERAL COMMUNITY AWARDS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF A FEW OF THOSE, WHEN THE COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS AWARD, A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TWICE. WE HAVE BEEN RANKED FIFTH BY THE AUSTIN BUSINESS JOURNAL OF THE TOP TELEVISION STATIONS IN AUSTIN. WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A COMMUNITY COLLABORATION AWARD. FROM CITY SEARCH. THE GREATER AUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AND THE UNITED WAY AREA CAMPAIGN FOR OUR EFFORTS THERE. SO WE ARE HERE TO OFFER OUR SUPPORT, AS FAR AS RESOURCES, AND MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE. AND CERTAINLY THE SUPPORT OF OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH I AM REPRESENTING HERE TODAY. DURING THIS TRANSITION PERIOD, DURING THIS PERIOD THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK ON OUR FEET AGAIN WITH RESPECT TO THE MUSIC CHANNEL. BELL CONTINUE TO -- TO SATISFY OUR OWN MANDATES IN COOPERATION OR IN COORDINATION WITH OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS EFFORT FOR THIS SHORT TIME. WE DO THIS LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, WE DO THIS LOOKING TO WORK WITH YOU ALL. TO FIND A LONGER TERM SOLUTION. WE RECOGNIZE THIS AS JUST GETTING THINGS BACK ON TRACK AGAIN. AND TO -- TO HAVE THAT DONE IN A WAY THAT WE USE THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE MANNER, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PLEDGING OUR SUPPORT TO DO. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: JOHN VILLEREAL. AND LET ME NOTE, EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL, THAT WE JUST PASSED AROUND A CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. EVERYONE HAS COME TOGETHER IN THINKING ABOUT THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM NEEDS OF AMN AND ACAC AND CHANNEL 6. ACAC'S FOLKS PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR US JUST TO SHOW US THAT THERE ARE SOME OBVIOUS OPTIONS THAT WE CAN PERHAPS PURSUE QUICKLY. JOHN?

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M JOHN VILLEREAL. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ACAC. AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO MR. FRANK'S STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SUPPORT FROM ACAC FOR THE AUSTIN MUSIC NETWORK. I THINK UNDER THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A BIG CHANGE OF HOW MUSIC IS PRESENTED TO THE AUSTIN PUBLIC. THEY ARE ENTHUSIASTIC, WE ARE ENTHUSIASTIC IN TRYING TO HELP THEM IN ANY WAY TO MAKE THEM SUCCEED. WE ARE LENDING OUR SUPPORT POOL-WISE WITH THE PRODUCERS THAT WE HAVE, EQUIPMENT-WISE, MAYBE ON COLLABORATING ON SOME OF THESE EVENTS, AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT AUSTIN -- THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD CONTINUES TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T SEE MR. SUTTLE, YES, I DO. DID YOU WANT TO -- SINCE WE ARE DOING THIS KIND OF BACKWARDS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON ITEM NO. 9 BRIEFLY? IT'S BEEN PASSED BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SECOND MOTION SINCE WE HAD THE SPEAKERS NOW JUST TO -- TO FIRM UP THE FACT THAT WE DID PASS.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MY NAME IS RICHARD SUTTLE. I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF HYDE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH. I TRUST THAT YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM ME TO ALICE GLASGO DATED JANUARY 12TH. ALSO SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM ME TO ANDY MARTIN DATED JANUARY 17TH. BOTH OF THOSE LETTERS I URGED ON THE CHURCH'S BEHALF THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU ARE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR IS NOT AN APPEALABLE SITE PLAN. IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN THAT UNDER THE CURRENT CODES AND ORDINANCES UNDER WHICH THIS PROJECT IS FILED IT IS NOT APPEALABLE. HOWEVER, FOR SOME REASON THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND NOW YOU ARE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT. UNDER THE CODES AND ORDINANCES IT IS NOT APPEALABLE. THE NCCD ORDINANCE DOES NOT GRANT THE RIGHT OF APPEAL. THE NCCD ORDINANCE SAYS THAT IF IT'S APPEALED IT WILL COME STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL. BUT IT DOES NOT GRANT AN APPEAL. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. WHEN THE NCCD ORDINANCE WAS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD READING, IT WAS CHANGED FROM IT MAY BE APPEALED TO IF IT'S APPEALED. BECAUSE BACK THEN THEY WERE APPEALABLE SITE PLANS. UNDER THE CURRENT CODES AND ORDINANCES AND UNDER THE CURRENT STATE STATUTES, IT'S NOT AN APPEALABLE SITE PLAN. THE OTHER INTERESTING THING IS THAT THE NCCD ORDINANCE THAT YOU APPARENTLY ARE RELYING UPON DOES NOT MATCH UP WITH THE NCCD ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED ON THIRD READING BY THE COUNCIL. IN THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT I SENT TO YOU, I SENT THE SECOND READING ORDINANCE AND THE THIRD READING ORDINANCE IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT AS PROMULGATED BY THE CITY. AND THE ORDINANCE IN A WE WERE ALL OPERATING UNDER FOR YEARS MATCHED WHAT WAS BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND ACTED UPON THIRD READING. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE IS A NEW ORDINANCE, WHEN YOU GO BACK IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING, NOT EVEN A GOOD ALTERATION, PAGES 1 THROUGH 3, EVERYTHING MATCHES UP. THE PAGE THAT'S BEEN ALTERED THE MARGINS DON'T MATCH UP, IT'S AN INTERESTING SITUATION. SO THE CHURCH URGES YOU TO ALSO LOOK INTO THAT, THE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IS NOT IN THE -- IN THE CHURCH'S POSITION IS NOT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY THE COUNCIL IN AUGUST OF 1990. ALL THAT SAID AND DONE, IF YOU DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, THE CHURCH NEEDS TO KNOW FROM THE CITY WHAT ORDINANCE IS THE CITY RELYING UPON, WHAT AUTHORITY IS THE CITY RELYING UPON TO MAKE THIS AN ADD -- THIS ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPEALABLE WHEN ALL OTHERS IN THE CITY ARE NOT? BECAUSE FRANKLY OUT OF FAIRNESS AND PROBABLY UNDER THE LAW, THE CHURCH SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE RIGHT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING AND THERE'S FOR WAY THE CHURCH CAN PREPARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW UNDER WHAT ORDINANCES OR WHAT RULES THE CITY IS ACTING UNDER. SO WITH THOSE MENTIONED ON THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME RESPONSE, BUT IF NOT, SOMEBODY GET IN TOUCH WITH ME OR THE CHURCH SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT RULES WE ARE OPERATING UNDER. OTHERWISE I GUESS WE ARE TAKING THE POSITION THAT ALL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLANS MAY BE APPEALABLE. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. SUTTLE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CITY LEGAL TO DO, IN BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME CURRENTLY SET FOR THIS ITEM IS TO RESPOND FROM THE VARIOUS LEGAL IRK THAT'S HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. I THINK I FEEL OBLIGATED TO VOTE FOR THE ITEM TODAY BECAUSE THE APPEAL PROCESS IS MENTIONED WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THEREFORE IT IS AT LEAST QUESTIONABLE THAT THERE IS OR IS NOT AN APPEAL PROCESS, BUT SINCE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT'S -- THAT'S SOMETHING OF AN ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH NOW. WHEN WE GET TO THE TIME OF SUCH AN ITEM, I THINK A FULL INTRODUCTION OF THE HISTORY AND THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES LEGAL ISSUES ALLUDED TO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR US AND FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> MINOR, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, I WOULD CAUTION THE COUNCIL THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON ON THIS APPEAL, OR THIS SITUATION, THERE'S A HIGH PROBABILITY OR LIKELIHOOD OF THE CITY BEING INVOLVED IN LITIGATION NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME IS. NO MATTER WHICH -- WHAT ENDS UP BEING DECIDED HERE. AND SO WE WILL FEED TO BE -- I'M SURE THAT WHATEVER POSITION THE COUNCIL TAKES IS ONE THAT YOU WILL WANT US TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND WITH THE -- WITH THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCEED IN THIS THAT DEFENSE. AND SO WE MAY WELL NEED TO BRIEF YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS SO THAT -- SO THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION AND THE ISSUES CAN BE DISCUSSED WITH ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. AND NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO MIGHT BE CHALLENGING THAT ACTION. IF SUCH AN ACTION IS BROUGHT.

>> YEAH, I'M SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS WE WILL NOT NECESSARILY PUT INTO PUBLIC INTRODUCTION. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU. MR. MARTIN, HELP ME REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS A YEAR AGO, IT WAS MONTHS AGO, MY RECOLLECTION AND CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT CORRECT, IS THAT THERE WAS A RESOLUTION TO CLEARLY STATE WHAT THE COUNCIL'S INTERPRETATION WAS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED FOR THIS PARKING GARAGE. WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT AT THAT TIME YOU SAID THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE NECESSARY BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPEALABLE SITUATION. IS THAT CORRECT? OR --

>> THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT. THE -- I'M NOT SURE THE POSITION THAT -- THAT THE ADVICE THAT WE GAVE US IS IT WAS OUR OPINION IT WAS GOING TO BE APPEALABLE. THE CHURCH'S ATTORNEYS AT THAT TIME HAD EXPRESSED SOME -- SOME DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT POSITION. JUST AS THEY HAVE EXPRESSED IT HERE. BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WILL BRIEF YOU WITH. BUT THAT WAS THIS PAST SPRING, COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN HAD PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE THE COUNCIL I GUESS TAKE SOME KIND OF A POSITION IN ADVANCE TO THE SITE PLAN BEING SUBMITTEDDED AND AND HE WITHDREW THAT BASED ON -- BASED ON THE ADVICE AND INFORMATION HE HAD BEEN GIVEN, THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE APPEALABLE TO THE COUNCIL WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.

>>GRIFFITH: I THINK IT WAS THE WHOLE COUNCIL'S UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT RESOLUTION IN ORDER TO SETTLE THIS BECAUSE THE ADVICE WE GOT, I THINK FROM YOU, WAS THAT IT WAS APPEALABLE. SO IT WENT AWAY BASED ON THAT ASSURANCE.

>> THAT'S WHAT TOPPED THAT RESOLUTION. IT DID GO AWAY. JUST -- WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT RESOLUTION. AS YOU HAVE BEEN ALERTED, THE CHURCH DID NOT AGREE AT THAT TIME AS THEY DO NOT AGREE NOW THAT THAT POSITION IS A CORRECT POSITION. SO --.

>>GOODMAN: THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT EVEN HAVING AN APPEAL MIGHT STILL WITH ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES LEFT UNRESOLVED MIGHT PRECLUDE US FROM BEING ABLE TO ACT ON THAT APPEAL. IN A WAY THAT WAS -- THE EXPECTATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE BREEFLD ON AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN PUBLIC NEXT TIME, BUT DEFINITELY EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL. OKAY. WITH THAT, JUST TO MAKE SURE ALL T'S ARE CROSSED, ALL I'S DOTTED. COULD WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA?

>>GRIFFITH: SO MOVE.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. ITEM NO. 8, PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DID ANYONE ELSE PULL YOU 8? OKAY. IF NOT, YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>>ALVAREZ: YES, I MOVE APPROVAL.

>>GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND FOR ITEM NO. 8. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. OKAY.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THEN ITEM NO. 12, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM, ITEM NO. 12, RELATED TO -- TO A -- DID TO A POSSIBLE LAND ACQUISITION BY THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE. THAT TRANSACTION, POTENTIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY AND THE SPECIFIC LAND OWNER IS DELAYED AND ON HOLD. SO IN FACT I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EFFECTIVE POSTPONE ITEM NO. 12 INDEFINITELY AND BRING IT BACK AT SUCH TIME AS APPROPRIATE.

>>SLUSHER: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: AND LET ME NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT SAYING IT EVERY TIME THE MAYOR IS STILL IN WASHINGTON. APPROXIMATE.

>>GARZA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN DID THEY COMMUNICATE IN WRITING ABOUT THE DELAY? BECAUSE I --.

>>WYNN: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN WRITING, NO. BUT I'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRINCIPALS INVOLVED AND IT'S -- I'M COMFORTABLE THAT IT HAS BEEN DELAYED.

>>GARZA: ALL RIGHT.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THEN NEXT IS ITEM NO. 22. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH -- WITH RYAN-O EXCAVATING.

>>THOMAS: THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM, I HAVE PRETTY WELL GOTTEN EVERYTHING ANSWERED BY MR. PETER REIKE. I GUESS THAT I COULD ASK STAFF TO COME UP AND EXPLAIN. WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT -- WAS ASKING, WAS THAT ON THE SECOND LOWEST BID WAS THAT THE COMPLIANCE PLAN, IS THAT A PRACTICE OR IS THAT AN ORDINANCE, A RULE HOW WE DO THAT ON THE SECOND LOWEST BID REGARDING THIS ITEM WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, 22?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, PETER REIKE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION -- YOU DO NOT CHECK THE COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, PRIMARILY FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, UNDER STATE LAW WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE LOW BIDDER AS IT IS. AND SECONDLY THE EFFORT INVOLVED IN CHECKING THE COMPLIANCE PLAN IS VERY SIGNIFICANT AND SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CITY VERY LITTLE DISCRETION RELATIVE TO AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE LOW BIDDER, IT DOESN'T WARRANTY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE SPENDING THE TIME AND RESOURCES TO CHECK THE COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR THE SECOND LOW BIDDER. INSTEAD, WHAT WE DO AS, YOU KNOW, IS WE PROVIDE YOU WITH THE PARTICIPATION NUMBERS THAT THE SECOND AND THIRD LOW BIDDER HAVE OFFERED IN THEIR COMPLIANCE PLAN, BUT WITHOUT VERIFICATION.

>>THOMAS: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: SO YOU ARE OKAY?

>>THOMAS: YES.

>>GOODMAN: IS THAT A MOTION?

>>THOMAS: MAKE A MOTION.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO APPROVE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: OPPOSED? OBJECT STAINING? OKAY, WHICH -- WHICH TAKES US TO ITEM NO. 88. WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND WE DO HAVE -- THREE SPEAKERS. NO, TWO SPEAKERS. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

>> I'VE BEEN TRYING FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO GET INFORMATION FROM TXDOT AND FROM THE CITY STAFF AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I'M SEEING INFORMATION AND ANSWERS TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S QUESTIONS. AND I WOULD VERY MUCH HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION, TALK WITH THE FOLKS I KNOW AT TXDOT AND HAVE KNOWN BEFORE ABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO WHAT THIS IS. I DON'T THINK, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCURATE INFORMATION; ALTHOUGH MAYBE THINGS HAVE CHANGEED SINCE I'VE TALKED TO THE TXDOT PEOPLE. SO I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE SUPPORTING US IN THIS THAT THIS DOES HAVE VERY STRONG BACKING OF THE SKYVIEW AND NORTHFIELD NEIGHBORS IN PARTICULAR AND THAT'S WHERE THIS SEGMENT OF KOENIG LANE IS -- MY UNDERSTANDING WAS FROM LAMAR TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS BY THE LEAVE JOHNSON. SO HOPEFULLY FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE AGREED TO SUPPORT US ON THIS ITEM TO TAKE THAT PORTION OF KOENIG LANE OFF THE STATE SYSTEM AND STICK WITH THIS AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND TRY TO ADDRESS THIS INFORMATION. I CAN COMMIT TO DOING THAT MYSELF. THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIAL. SO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS, ALL THE NEIGHBORS, NOT JUST SKYVIEW AND NORTHFIELD FOR SUPPORTING US ON THIS.

>>WYNN: I JUST WANT TO SAY I AGREE WITH YOU. WE JUST GOT THIS INFORMATION 15 MINUTES AGO OURSELVES. WE HAD A SHORT WORKWEEK BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY MONDAY SO I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

>> THANK YOU, WILL. AND IF I MAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW WE ALL TALKED ABOUT DURING THE CAMPAIGN I'M WORKING ON IS THIS KIND OF LACK OF CONNECTION BETWEEN INFORMATION THAT GOES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND DOESN'T REALLY GO TO ACTIVE AND INVOLVED AND COMMITTED CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS, SO I KNOW I WOULD REALLY LIKE IF YOU ALL WOULD COMMIT TO WORKING ON THAT KIND OF THING WITH US IN THE FUTURE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE GET THE SAME INFORMATION, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, THAT YOU ALL GET IN TIME TO, YOU KNOW, CONFIRM IT OR NEGATE IT. SO MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU, WILL, FOR SAYING THAT. APPRECIATE IT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, SINCE YOU ARE PRESIDING TODAY AND WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MOTION EVEN THOUGH YOU WOULD BE INCLINED TO, MAY I MAKE IT WITH YOU, AND WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS THAT GO WITH THIS AND THAT THE BENEFITS MANY OF US BELIEVE JUSTIFY THAT ADDED EXPENSE. SO I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

>>GOODMAN: AND I WOULD SECOND THAT NOTING THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO INTO DISCUSSION I'M SURE AND MR. CITY MANAGER YOU LOOK LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TOO.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, I THINK BY ACCEPTING OUR TAKING THIS ROADWAY OFF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, WE'RE ACCEPTING THE LONGTERM MAINTENANCE OF THIS ROADWAY. AND I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE PROJECT FUNDS THAT ARE ASSESSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO US SO THE CITY IS TAKING ON AN OBLIGATION TO COME UP WITH CITY MONEY WHERE YOU HAVE STATE MONEY NOW TO DO THE PROJECT. I THINK --

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY TRUE.

>>GARZA: IF I COULD FINISH.

>> I'M SORRY.

>>GARZA: YOU ALSO HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS TO TRY TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT WHERE THE TREES BE PLACED, ET CETERA. WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT. I JUST THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND YOU ARE TAKING ON A LONGTERM OBLIGATION IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE OF THIS ROAD. IN ADDITION, YOU STAND THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF HIGHWAY MONEY ON A PROJECT THAT RIGHT NOW IS SLATED TO COST ABOUT $4.5 MILLION. AND AUSTIN AND PETER MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

>>GOODMAN: LET ME ASK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IN HERE QUICKLY BEFORE WE GET ANSWERS SINCE YOU MAY ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>SLUSHER: WELL, I WOULD JUST AS SOON WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND GO --.

>>GOODMAN: THEY ARE FINISHED.

>>SLUSHER: I THOUGHT WE HAD MORE THAN ONE. MR. WALKER, DID YOU WANT TO LEAD OFF?

>> WE HAVE ABOUT -- I GUESS A QUESTION ABOUT WHEN I READ THE RESOLUTION, IT'S DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TRANSFER THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, I GUESS A QUESTION TO I GUESS THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION IS -- WOULD THEN THE CITY MANAGER COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND GIVE US TXDOT'S ANSWER EITHER WAY BEFORE WE THEN TOOK ACTION AS A COUNCIL REGARDING THAT CENTRAL TRANSFER.

>>GOODMAN: IF THERE WAS AN EQUAL IF I INDICATION ON TXDOT'S ANSWER, I FEEL SURE THE CITY MANAGER WOULD RETURN TO US BEFORE MAKING COMMITMENT SINCE WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS FOR A SPACE OF APPROXIMATELY -- APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE. AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT TXDOT MAY BE CONSIDERING SAYING, WELL, THEN, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE WHOLE THING? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ACTING ON TODAY, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE POSTED FOR SO IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.

>>WYNN: BASED ON THAT I THINK I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO OFFER. IF INDEED WE'RE REQUESTING OR ASKING TXDOT TO TRANSFER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A SEGMENT OF THIS ROADWAY TO THE CITY, I THINK WHILE WE'RE THERE, FRANKLY, WE SHOULD ASK THE STATE TO FUND THE $900,000 LOCAL MATCH AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY PLANNING TO DO FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEN THE CITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WANT TO DO CON STUKTING THAT ROAD. SO I WOULD JUST -- CONGRESS INSTRUCTING THAT ROAD. I WOULD AMEND AND ADD IN ADDITION TO REQUESTING THE TRANSFER AND REQUEST THE STATE AS PLANNED TO FUND THE $900,000 LOCAL MATCH AND MY PERCEPTION IS, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANOTHER ROADWAY IN THE STATE TXDOT WOULD MORE GLADLY GET RID OF THAN THIS ONE. THE BODY OF -- BILL FROM TXDOT WILL PROBABLY KISS THE CITY MANAGER ON THE MOUTH WHEN HE APPROACHING HIM SO WE SHOULD ALSO ASK THE STATE TO CONTINUE THE MATCH ON THE LOCAL PROJECT.

>>GOODMAN: THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD ALTHOUGH NOT WRITTEN IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT THAT THE MONEY NOW ALLOCATED WITH THE PROJECT REMAIN WITH THE PROJECT NO MATTER WHO IS THE ENTITY THAT ENTERS INTO COMPLETION.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM, THAT IS FRIENDLY.

>>GOODMAN: WE BOTH CONSIDER THAT FRIENDLY. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

>>SLUSHER: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO -- AND I SHARE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S CONCERN ABOUT THE -- NOT HAVING THE NUMBERS TILL NOW, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE -- YOU KNOW, ABSORBING THAT AMOUNT OF THESE NUMBERS IN A FEW MINUTES AND THEN VOTING ON IT, I THINK, IS -- WELL, I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO DO THAT. NOW, TELL ME, CITY MANAGER, WHAT IS THE FINANCIAL IMPACT, YOUR ESTIMATION OF THIS ACTION, THIS PROPOSED ACTION.

>> WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL ASPECTS OF IT. AS TXDOT HAS INDICATED TO ME INFORMALLY, THAT IF THEY WERE TO GIVE US THIS ROAD, THIS SEGMENT, AS MAYOR PRO TEM HAS INDICATED, THEY WOULD ALSO INSIST THAT WE TAKE THE ADDITIONAL SEGMENT WHICH IS FROM LAMAR TO MOPAC, A LITTLE BIT LONGER SEGMENT. AND THE COST OF UPGRADING THAT SEGMENT TO THE SAME STANDARD AS THE SPUR 69, THE SEGMENT FROM LAMAR ROUGHLY TO A LITTLE BIT WEST OF AIRPORT, A COUPLE YEARS AGO OUR ESTIMATE OF DOING THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS ABOUT 11 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. WE WOULD --.

>>SLUSHER: LET ME INTERRUPT YOU A SECOND. WHEN YOU SAY IT WAS AN ESTIMATE OF WHICH PLAN?

>> THE -- THE ADDITIONAL SEGMENT, TO MOPAC.

>>SLUSHER: BUT IT WOULD BE DONE ALONG THE LINES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, OR WOULD IT BE A CONTINUOUS TURN LANE? WOULD IT BE A FREEWAY? WHICH PROPOSAL DOES THAT ENVISION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. BASICALLY WE ESTIMATED IT WITH WITH A MEDIAN IN THE SIMILAR MANNER AS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BE PROVIDED BY TXDOT. NOT EXACTLY THE WI THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ASKED FOR BECAUSE THE REASON WHY IT IS NOT BEING DESIGNED THAT WAY IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET ENGINEERING STANDARDS. AND SO WE HAVE APPLIED ENGINEERING STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD APPLY TO ANY KIND OF ROADWAY PROJECT DESIGN USING A MEDIAN AND THAT'S WHAT WE USED WHENEVER WE PREPARED THIS LAST ESTIMATE AS THE BASELINE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I MAY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, WE'LL LET MR. LIBRACH GO ON.

>> 11 MILLION FOR THE OTHER PIECE.

>>SLUSHER: AND WHAT WOULD BE OUR SHARE OF THAT IF TXDOT KEPT IT?

>> IF TXDOT KEPT IT, I THINK THEIR SHARE WOULD BE ALL BUT 20%, MAYBE ALL OF IT. I'M NOT QUITE SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE SHARE WOULD BE.

>> IT'S BASICALLY, SINCE IT'S STP FUNDS, THE LOCAL MATCH IS 20%. SO OF THE TOTAL COST OF 11 MILLION, OUR SHARE WOULD BE ABOUT $2.2 MILLION.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANY --

>> PROVIDED WE GET GRANT FUNDING OR TXDOT GETS THE FUNDING.

>>SLUSHER: RIGHT. AS WE KNOW, THAT'S A PRETTY INTENSE COMPETITION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: NOWADAYS. OKAY. SUPPOSE -- OKAY, IF TXDOT WERE TO -- LET ME ASK IT LIKE THIS. IS THERE A PRESS DEBT AROUND THE STATE TO -- PRECEDENT AROUND THE STATE TO WHERE TXDOT WOULD FUND THE ROAD AND THE LOW CALCULATES WOULD TAKE IT OVER? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO TELL US WE'LL TAKE THE WHOLE THING OR IF THERE IS ANY WAY THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO THE CHANGES ON THAT SECTION BETWEEN LAMAR AND MOPAC AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY THEN. I'M JUST TRYING TO GATHER THE POSSIBILITIES THERE.

>> I DON'T KNOW STATEWIDE FOR THIS SPECIFIC KIND OF ISSUE, BUT I KNOW THAT THE CITY IN THE PAST ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS HAS ACCEPTED OWNERSHIP OF A NUMBER OF ROADWAY SECTIONS SUCH AS SOUTH FIRST STREET, FOR INSTANCE, PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE TRADED SIGNIFICANT UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS WHICH WE WOULD HAVE INCURRED IF WE FOLLOWED TXDOT'S REQUIREMENT TO RELOCATE UTILITIES OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT WE WOULD HAVE ROOIRD ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, FOR ALLOWING US TO KEEP THE UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND AS A RESULT AGREED TO TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP OF THOSE NOW URBAN ROADWAYS. THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ISSUE IN THIS SEGMENT RELATIVE TO UTILITY RELOCATION. BUT WE HAVE ACCEPTED ROADWAYS FROM TXDOT BEFORE AND THEIR INTENT LONGTERM IS TO TURN OVER URBAN ROADWAYS TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO MESS WITH IT ANYMORE AND THEY JUST FOCUS ON THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

>>SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THEN IF WE JUST TOOK OVER THIS SECTION THAT'S ENVISIONED IN THIS MOTION, THEN THEY MIGHT GO AHEAD AND FUND THE COST IN HERE AND THEN LET US TAKE OVER THAT?

>> WE WILL HAVE TO EXPLORE THAT WITH TXDOT.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I WOULD ASK THE SPONSORS, IS THAT WHAT IS ENVISIONED IN THIS PROPOSAL?

>> THIS PROPOSAL IS FAIRLY SIMPLY WRITTEN. IF THAT'S AN OPTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE, THE GOAL OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE WHOLE MOVEMENT ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TO TRY TO INCORPORATE THE DESIGN ELEMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POINT OF VIEW THAT MAKE THAT A MORE PEOPLE-FRIENDLY STREET INTO THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS. SO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE CAN ASK ABOUT THAT TOO.

>>SLUSHER: WELL --.

>>GOODMAN: THE GOAL IS TO MOVE FORWARD SOMEHOW.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT OF A CATCH 22 IN THERE BECAUSE IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN AESTHETIC OR JUST WAY OF BUILDING THE ROAD THERE, WHICH I HAVE AGREED WITH FOR A LONG TIME, BUT IF BY DOING THAT, IF TXDOT WON'T DO THAT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO END UP COSTING UP -- LET'S SEE, 80% 11 MILLION ON THE OTHER ONE. AND I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THAT.

>>GOODMAN: THE OTHER ONE?

>>SLUSHER: YEAH, BETWEEN LAMAR AND MOPAC.

>>GOODMAN: OH. YOU MEAN FOR THE WHOLE THING? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING?

>>SLUSHER: YEAH.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, AT THIS POINT NOT KNOWING IF COUNCIL WAS READY TO TAKE ON THE WHOLE THING, THERE WASN'T A PROPOSAL PUT FORWARD, BUT THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT ESPECIALLY IF TXDOT BRINGS IT UP --.

>>SLUSHER: I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE IMPACT IS ON THAT OTHER SECTION, AND I DON'T WANT IT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY IS PUTTING SIGNIFICANT FUNDS INTO TRYING TO CATCH UP ON OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE COSTING -- TAKING OVER SEVERAL MILLION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A STATE RESPONSIBILITY.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, FOR THE ONE SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING TO ACT ON TODAY OR TO MOVE FORWARD ON TODAY, THAT'S ONLY ONE SMALL PORTION. AND THE IDEA WAS THAT IT COULD BE USED AS SORT OF A TESTING GROUND TO PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT SOME FEARS ABOUT SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC SOMEHOW WERE UNFOUNDED IN THAT THIS IS MOSTLY ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PUT THE TREE CANOPY IN THE MEDIAN. AND THERE ARE SOME ISSUES ABOUT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS ONE SECTION THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO CLOSURE ON BECAUSE IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO BUY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN DEVELOPED AREAS, ESPECIALLY URBAN DEVELOPED. SO ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING UP ABOUT THE WHOLE STRETCH OF ROAD I THINK ARE ONES THAT WE NEED TO PURSUE, BUT I DON'T THINK -- WELL, AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT LEAST THIS ONE PORTION OF THE ROAD, IF TXDOT WERE SO INCLINED TO LET US TAKE THIS ONE URBAN STRETCH, WOULD NOT IMPACT OR PRECLUDE ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY PLANNED ON THE REST. SO THE MONEY, I DON'T THINK, COULD BE SOMEHOW DIVERTED SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THIS. AND THE OTHER UNDERSTANDING I HAD WAS THAT THE MONEY ALLOCATED TO THIS PROJECT THROUGH CAMPO WILL CONTINUE TO BE ALLOCATED TO THIS PROJECT. OTHER THAN THE COST OVERRUNS. SO THIS MOTION IS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE ANY PERIPHERAL RAMIFICATIONS OR HARMFUL EFFECT ON ANYTHING ELSE. IS THAT -- AM I UNDERSTANDING YOUR --.

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THERE'S A SENTENCE IN MR. LIBRACH'S MEMO THAT SAYS -- IT SAID THAT THE CITY CAN'T DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS EITHER.

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. LIKE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>>SLUSHER: YEAH. AND I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.

>> IF I COULD ELABORATE ON THAT.

>>SLUSHER: YEAH, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE TAKING THE ROAD OVER SO THAT WE CAN BUILD IT DIFFERENTLY, AND THEN OUR STAFF SAYS, WELL, NO, YOU CAN'T REALLY DO THAT, AND THEN WE JUST INHERIT THE DISPUTE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS HAVING WITH TXDOT.

>> YEAH, IT'S IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF AUSTIN'S MEMO. AUSTIN MAY WANT TO ELABORATE.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, I'VE SPENT THE LAST THREE MONTHS, I GUESS, THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, WORKING WITH BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH OUR ENGINEERING STAFF AND WITH TXDOT TO SEE IF WE COULDN'T FIND A WAY THAT TXDOT COULD COMPLY WITH REALLY FOUR THIX THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO ACHIEVE. AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET TXDOT TO DO THAT. I ALSO EXPLORED WITH THEM THE OPTION OF THE CITY TAKING OVER THE ROAD AND WHETHER THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO SPEND THE MONEY TO BUILD THE ROAD AND THEN HAVE IT TAKEN OVER BY THE CITY. AND I THINK THEY ARE SO ANXIOUS TO HAVE THE CITY TAKE IT OVER THEY WOULD PROBABLY DO THAT. BUT THE KEY THING HERE, THOUGH, ON THE QUESTION YOU ARE RAISING IS THAT IN WORKING WITH OUR ENGINEERING STAFF, WE DIDN'T THINK EXCEPT FOR TREES IN THE MEDIAN AT CERTAIN PLACES, THAT WE COULD DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT TXDOT WOULD DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THIS ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

>>SLUSHER: THE THREE OTHER ISSUES, WITH YOU LIST THOSE FOR US?

>> YES. THEY WANTED THE RADIUSES IN THE INTERSECTIONS, THAT IS, THE TIGHTNESS OF THE TURNS, ON TO SIDE STREETS, THEY WANTED THEM TO BE TIGHTER RATHER THAN WIDER, IF YOU WILL. AND THEY ARE DESIGNED BY TXDOT TO BE WIDER BECAUSE OF THE SPEED OF 2222, OF KOENIG LANE THERE. AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO NARROW THEM OR TIGHTEN THOSE RADIUSES.

>>SLUSHER: TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY TIGHTENING? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SHORTENING?

>> IT IS A WIDE TURN, INSTEAD OF A WIDE ONE THEY WANTED A VERY NARROW ONE LIKE A DOWNTOWN STREET MIGHT HAVE.

>>SLUSHER: WHERE IF YOU WERE THE PERSON TURNING RIGHT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SLOW DOWN MORE?

>> EXACTLY. AND NEITHER TXDOT NOR OUR CITY ENGINEERS WOULD AGREE THAT TO NARROW THOSE TO THE LEVEL THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INTERESTED IN HAVING THEM NARROWED BECAUSE OF THE SPEED WITH WHICH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE TRAVELING.

>>SLUSHER: I'M ASSUMING THOSE ARE BASED ON THE SPEED LIMITS ON THE ROAD AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED SAFE FOR A TURN WITH PEOPLE GOING AT THE SPEED LIMIT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY.

>> A SECOND ITEM WAS THAT THEY WANTED THE TURN LANES, THE LEFT TURN LANES WHERE CARS STACK UP TO TURN, THEY WANTED THEM SHORTER. RIGHT NOW I THINK THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE CARS OR LONGER, AND THEY WANTED THEM AS SHORT AS THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE. TXDOT HAS DESIGNED THEM TO THE MAXIMUM LENGTH. THE MINIMUM LENGTH MIGHT CHANGE IT BY ONE CAR. SO THERE IS SOME GIVE THERE THAT WE THINK BOTH THE STATE AND THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE DESIGN ALL THAT MUCH. AT MOST I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF ONE CAR.

>>SLUSHER: THESE TURN LANES ARE NOT AT NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, BUT AT THE LIGHTS? OR ARE THEY ALSO AT NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS?

>> WHEREVER THEY ARE INTO THE ROAD. I THINK THEY ARE BOTH AT NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND --.

>>SLUSHER: THEY ARE BOTH. OKAY.

>> AND THEN THERE WAS ONE OTHER. LET ME JUST TAKE A LOOK HERE. THEY WANTED THE PLANTING STRIPS IN THE MEDIAN TO BE A CERTAIN WIDTH AND TO START PLANTING THE TREES A CERTAIN DISTANCE CLOSER TO THE POINT AT WHICH YOU WOULD ALLOW TURNS THAN WAS DESIGNED INTO THE ROAD BY TXDOT. THE PROBLEM IS A SIGHT DISTANCE PROBLEM. IF YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE BLOCKING SIGHT DISTANCE FOR THE TRAVELER. AND SO NEITHER TXDOT NOR THE CITY WAS WILLING TO PUT TREES OR PLANTINGS CLOSER TO THE TURN POINT ON THE MEDIAN THAN WAS DESIGNED IN THE ROAD. THESE ARE REALLY VERY SMALL, MINOR THINGS.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY, WHAT'S THE ONE -- THE OTHER ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE TREES TOO THAT WE THINK WE COULD DO DIFFERENTLY. WHAT IS THAT?

>> WELL, WE ARE ABLE TO PUT TREES IN THE MEDIAN. TXDOT IS NOT. WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN DO SOME TREES IN THE MEDIAN AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID WANT AND WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT. TXDOT IS CONCERNED WHEN YOU PUT TREES IN THE MEDIAN THAT UNDERCUTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE ROADWAY ITSELF. THAT YOU ARE CREATING A PROBLEM WITH THE ROOTS AND WATERING AND SO ON AND WATER IS GOING TO GET INTO THE BASE OF THE ROAD AND CAUSE A PROBLEM THERE. IT ALSO INCREASES THE MAINTENANCE COSTS IF YOU PUT TREES IN THE MEDIAN. THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO WANTED TREES ON THE SIDE, I BELIEVE, AND TXDOT ACTUALLY IS WILLING TO PUT TREES ON THE SIDE, BUBT THE CITY IS NOT BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NO ROOM WITH THE GIVEN RIGHT-OF-WAY TO DO THAT AND STILL HAVE SIDEWALK THAT IS UNIMPEDED. SO WE'VE GOT SOME SITUATIONS, COUNCILMEMBER, WHERE TXDOT IS WILLING TO DO SOME THINGS THE CITY IS NOT AND OTHERS WHERE TXDOT IS NOT WILLING BUT THE CITY IS. IN THE END, HAVING THE -- THE ROAD BE A CITY ROAD IS NOT GOING TO MATERIALLY CHANGE WHAT CAN BE DESIGNED ON THAT ROAD.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. SO LET ME MAKE SURE I GOT IT. SO THE WAY -- THIS WOULD TURN OVER THE SECTION BETWEEN LAMAR AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO THE CITY. WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S MOTION IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN UNLESS WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE STATE FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO THE PROJECT. AND THEN BASICALLY WHAT IT WOULD DO IS GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PLANT TREES IN THE MEDIAN. ARE THE SPONSORS ENVISIONING COMING BACK AND WE WOULD THEN HAVE A DEBATE OVER WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THE OTHER RULES THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING ARE PUBLIC SAFETY ORIENTED? THE THREE HE JUST WENT THROUGH?

>>GOODMAN: ARE THEY RULES NECESSARILY?

>>.

>>GARZA: THOSE ARE STANDARDS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNCIL, UNLESS IT WANTS TO TAKE ON A SEVERE LIABILITY, WE WOULD HAVE TOOG -- YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE DESIGN OF THIS ROADWAY.

>>SLUSHER: SO BASICALLY I JUST WANT TO --.

>>GOODMAN: I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE, MR. CITY MANAGER.

>> WELL, IF I MAY, THE ISSUE HERE IS YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE PLANS SEALED BY AN ENGINEER. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AN ENGINEER TO SEAL IT IF WE VIOLATE THE STANDARDS I DESCRIBED.

>>SLUSHER: SO THOSE ARE NATIONAL STANDARDS?

>> YES.

>>SLUSHER: THE STATE HAS THEM, THE CITY HAS THEM. I WOULDN'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL -- WOULD COME BACK AND TRY TO OVERRULE THOSE KINDS OF STANDARDS. PLUS, THAT SEEMS LIKE QUITE A NARROW AREA TO GET INTO MANAGING THE LENGTH OF THE TURN LANE AND --.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, THE LENGTH OF THE TURN LANE I THINK MR. LIBRACH SAID HAD A MAXIMUM AND A MINIMUM.

>>SLUSHER: THERE'S ONE CAR DIFFERENCE.

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. SO BY GOING TO THE MINIMUM THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF STANDARDS. ON THE NARROWNESS OF THE RIDII, I DON'T KNOW WHAT STANDARDS ARE APPLICABLE THERE SINCE OBVIOUSLY THE CITY ASKED ABOUT ONE STANDARD THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT TXDOT WAS DOING, SO WHAT IS THE LEEWAY THERE?

>> ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY ENGINEERS AND TXDOT ENGINEERS DISAGREE. I THINK THAT BOTH FEEL THE RADIUS THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS THE -- IS THE APPROPRIATE RADIUS.

>>GOODMAN: HAD YOU NOT JUST SAID A FEW MINUTES AGO, I GLES I MISHEARD, THAT TXDOT WANTED TO HAVE WIDER OR NARROWER TURNING RADIUSES BECAUSE OF THE SPEED? THAT THERE WAS A --

>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED -- MAYBE I'M USING THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY, A WIDER TURNING RADIUS, BROADER TURNING RADIUS SO THAT CARS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO A STOP AS THEY ARE DRIVING ALONG KOENIG LANE IN ORDER TO TURN RIGHT. WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT IS A TIGHTER, NARROWER TURNING RADIUS, SO IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT TURN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SLOW DOWN ALMOST TO A STOP TO MAKE IT. THAT CREATES A SAFETY PROBLEM ON KOENIG LANE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>> THAT'S THE DIF FRENTION. AND I THINK THE CITY AND TXDOT ENGINEERS BOTH DISAGREE ON WHAT THAT RADIUS NEEDS TO BE.

>>GOODMAN: AND THERE'S A STANDARD BASED ON A FORMULA?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>>GOODMAN: SO YEAH, I DON'T -- WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, IN A NUTSHELL, IS GET AS CLOSE TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVISIONED FOR AESTHETICS AS POSSIBLE. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING A ROAD MORE UNSAFE OR ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN DESIGN REALLY OTHER THAN POSSIBLY A ONE-CAR LENGTH DECREASE IN TURN BASE. AND LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT TURN AND EVERYTHING, I DON'T THINK IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THAT DESIGN. IF IT IS POSSIBLE EVER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE SIDEWALK MODIFICATIONS, THEN IF WE ARE EVER RICH ENOUGH OR THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES SO GET THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MAKE THOSE CHANGES, I THINK WE'RE ALL READY TO DO THAT. AT THIS MOMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS MODIFIED ITS EXPECTATIONS AND REQUESTS MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS, AND WHAT I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO NOW IS THIS IS SORT OF LIKE OUR LAST CHANCE TO GET THAT CANOPY IN THE MIDDLE. IN FACT -- IN THE MEDIAN. IN FACT, TXDOT HAS A PROGRAM WHERE WITH OTHER PLACES THEY ALLOW MUNICIPALITY OR OTHER TO PAY FOR THE TREES AND THEY INCORPORATE IT INTO THE DESIGN. WITH THIS ONE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ISSUES WITH HOW WIDE THE MEDIAN IS, FOUR FEET INSTEAD OF FIVE AND THE CANOPY THAT'S DESIRED, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, THE SIZE OF TREE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE CANOPY THAT IS REALLY GOING TO MAKE AN ISSUE AT ANESTHETICLY AND FOR THE ISLAND EFFECT. SO THE GOAL FOR ME IN PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS TO SEE IF SINCE MAINTENANCE SPENT ON THIS PARTICULAR STRETCH BY TXDOT IS PRETTY MINIMAL, THERE IS ABOUT 50,000 A YEAR SPENT ON THE WHOLE STRETCH, AND SO THIS IS ABOUT A QUARTER OF THAT, WHICH COMES TO 12,5 HUNG. SO JUST THE DAILY MAINTENANCE ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN EXPENSE FOR US, BUT THE ABILITY TO PUT THE TREES IN SEEMS ONLY ABLE TO COME IF WE TAKE OVER THE ROAD.

>>SLUSHER: SO THAT BASICALLY -- I'M FOR THE MORE LOCAL CONTROL AND AWARE OF THE HISTORY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO UNDERSTANDS THAT HOPEFULLY THAT COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO BE PROPOSING TO DO ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS AND THAT'S NOT IN ANY WAY THE GOAL OF THIS -- OF THIS PROPOSAL. AND THAT IF -- WHAT HAPPENS IF, UNDER THIS MOTION, THE WAY IT'S NOW CONFIGURED, IF TXDOT SAYS WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE WHOLE THING INSTEAD, WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT?

>>GOODMAN: SINCE WE'RE ONLY POSTED FOR THIS ONE STRETCH, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: IT'S NOT TIME TO CALL THE NURSERY AND ORDER TREES TO GO ANYWHERE RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO THIS MOTION. THIS RESOLUTION HAS TWO PARTS. ONE SAYS REQUEST THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR KOENIG LANE FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO LAMAR BOULEVARD FROM THE STATE ROADWAY SYSTEM TO THE CITY. THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR AND UNCOMPLICATED. PART 2 IS TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY AND COSTS OF MODIFYING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS SECTION OF KOENIG LANE. IT DOES NOT MODIFY THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS SECTION OF KOENIG LANE; IT SAYS EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY AND COSTS OF DOING THAT. SO I THINK THERE IS -- THERE'S LITTLE RISK IN GETTING THIS PROCESS GOING TODAY WITH THIS RESOLUTION.

>>GOODMAN: AND I'LL JUST ADD, COUNCILMEMBER, IF I COULD, FACT IS SOME OF THE TECH THINGS I'M JUST BEEN REMINDED OF IS THERE IS LEEWAY IN CALCULATION OF THE NARROWNESS OR WIDENESS OF THE TURNING RADIUS AND IN FACT TEXT DOTTED'S ORIGINAL THOUGHT FOR THIS PROJECT WAS NARROWER THAN NOW PROPOSED.

>>GRIFFITH: AND NONE OF THAT IS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. SO -- FURTHER QUESTIONS OR --.

>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO -- I THINK THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THROUGH THE DISCUSSION, BUT, I MEAN, THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS, AGAIN, THAT THERE IS SOME NEED FOR THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS ROADWAY AND THE REASON IT'S BEEN HELD UP SO LONG IS BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN A MEETING OF THE MINDS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AND WHAT THE STATE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. AND I THINK THAT IF WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO DO THIS AND THEN TRY TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE DESIGN ISSUES TO SEE IF WE CAN'T TRY TO MAKE THIS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY, MAKE THIS CLOSER TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE THING THAT COULD COME FROM THIS. IN ADDITION, WE CAN FINALLY MOVE FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S WHY MR. GARBODI AT A MEETING SEVERAL MONTHS AGO SUGGESTED MAYBE THE CITY SHOULD TAKE IT OVER BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN SORT OF IN THE BACK BURNER FOR SO LONG THAT MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME FOR -- YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS A WAY TO PROCEED, AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT THIS BASICALLY ONE-MILE STRETCH OF ROAD. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, THE EXISTING FUNDS THAT TXDOT HAS -- YOU KNOW, HAS FOR THIS PROJECT, YOU KNOW, TO STILL BE DEDICATED TO THIS PROJECT. AND FOR ME, AGAIN, IF THOSE TWO -- IF THOSE TWO CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSAL THAT WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL. BUT IF TXDOT HAS CHANGED THEIR POSITION SINCE THEY SAID WHY DON'T YOU ALL A TAKE THIS OVER, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS EVEN CAME FROM WAS FROM TXDOT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ALSO PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, YOU WERE ONE OF THE SPONSORS ON THIS. DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THE MOTION?

>>THOMAS: YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK SEVERAL -- A COUPLE OF TIMES AT OUR CAMPO MEETING THAT TXDOT WAS WILLING AND I DID MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE TO THE MOTION AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME THAT TXDOT WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY. I THINK WITH OUR STAFF AND OUR CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH WILL WYNN ABOUT TXDOT KISSING THE CITY MANAGER, BUT I THINK THEY ARE WILLING TO COME TO THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATE DOING WHAT THEY CAN DO AND THEN RELEASING IT TO US. I THINK WE ACCOMPLISH A LOT IF WE JUST CONTINUE TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND LET'S SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AND TXDOT AND I THINK WE CAN GO ON WITH THIS. THAT'S WHY I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. MR. GARZA, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT WHAT TIME IN CASE MR. GARBAULDI DOES --.

>>GARZA: WELL, I WOULD ONLY SAY I WOULD PUNCH HIM IN THE NOSE IF HE TRIED, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY DANGER OF THAT HAPPENING.

>>GOODMAN: WE ALL WANT TO BE THERE IF THERE IS ANY THREAT AT ALL OF IT HAPPENING.

>>GARZA: AT LEAST TO DEFEND ME.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU WANT TO FURTHER COMMENT?

>>SLUSHER: NO.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN. WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. ABSTAINING? WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT. THANKS. OKAY. ITEM NO. 89 IS ABOUT FACILITATING THE COMPLETION OF THE ROBERT MUELLER AIRPORT REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS DOCUMENT. THAT IS BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, PLEASE.

>>SLUSHER: I GUESS I NEED AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. I GUESS TO SPEED UP THE MASTER PLAN AND THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK I HEARD EARLIER A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT THAT NEEDED MORE TIME. SO I'M A LITTLE PERPLEXED BY THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE PLAN IS HERE AND ALSO HEAR THE STAFF COMMENT ON HOW REALISTIC THEY THINK THAT IS.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM?

>>GRIFFITH: SURE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO. IN THE ROBERT MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE PLAN THAT WE HAVE ACCEPTED, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF IT, I THINK, IS THE IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER, WHICH IS CHAPTER 8. YOU CAN AFFIRM 1 THROUGH 7, AND IF YOU FAIL IMPLEMENTATION, THEN THE GOOD THINGS DON'T HAPPEN. SO WE ARE NOW AT IMPLEMENTATION, AND THERE ARE TWO STEPS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 8. ONE OF THEM IS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, AND THE SECOND STEP IS GET YOUR SHORT LIST AND THOSE PROVIDERS GET A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. THEN YOU CHOOSE THE BEST ONE OF THOSE. THIS IS A -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE PLAN. AND THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE IS TO LET THE COUNTRY KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER AND WHAT A JEWEL AND WHAT A STUNT H. OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE HERE -- OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE HERE IN THE ROBERT MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT. THIS IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, A -- AN IMPORTANT PIECE THAT CAN GO ON CONCURRENTLY WITH OTHERS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL BY ITSELF. SO -- AND IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT -- THE COMMISSION AND BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. SO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HEAVILY INVESTED FOR LOTS OF YEARS IN GETTING THE FINEST REDEVELOPMENT PERSON, ENTITY IN THESE UNITED STATES ATTRACTED, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND TIMELY MOVE TO MAKE.

>>SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, NOW I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THE JOB DONE HERE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPING MUELLER, BUT MY QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH WHY THE SPEEDUP AND IS THAT REALISTIC. BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE HEARD SOME OF THE SAME FOLKS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT ARE EVIDENTLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THAT THEY NEEDED MORE TIME. SO I'M TRYING TO GET AT WHAT SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION. THAT'S ONE. AND TWO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAFF THINKS THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN AND THAT THEY CAN DO A GOOD JOB, AS GOOD A JOB AS THEY WERE GOING TO DO BEFORE IN THIS COMPRESSED TIME FRAME BECAUSE I SHARE THE SAME GOALS AS YOU, GETTING THE ABSOLUTE BEST REDEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO HURRY THE RFX PROCESS AND NOT GET OUT AS GOOD AN R.F.Q. AS WE COULD. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. MAYBE I SHOULD ASK THE MANAGER, DO YOU -- CAN WE MEET THIS TIME FRAME?

>>GARZA: WE -- I'VE ASKED DAVID KREIDER TO COME UP. I VISITED WITH THEM YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE -- BELIEVE THAT THE MARCH 8 WAS A LITTLE AGREFS I HAVE IN TERMS OF GETTING THE R.F.Q. DONE. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSAL TO DO IS SIT DOWN WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THE 6TH OF FEBRUARY AND HAVE A DISCUSSION OF KINDS OF ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE R.F.Q.. THE WORK PROM TALKS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS IN THE QUALIFICATIONS. AFTER RECEIVING INPUT AND HAVING THAT DISCUSSION, WE WOULD HAVE MR. ADAMS AND HIS COMPANY GO OFF AND DEVELOP THE R.F.Q.. WE WOULD COME BACK AT SOME POINT 45 TO 60 DAYS LATER AND PRESENT THAT TO THE COMMITTEE AND BRING IT TO CITY COUNCILL. WE COULD SIMULTANEOUSLY BRING IT TO CITY COUNCILL SO YOU COULD BE REVIEWING IT AT THE SAME TIME. AND I THINK YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. I THINK THE R.F.Q. IS AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP AND I THINK WE ALL WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH SDAL AND WE'VE PAID ENOUGH ATTENTION TO ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE PAID ATTENTION TO SO WE GET AS BROAD A PARTICIPATION FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN COMING IN AND DEVELOPING THIS TRACT OF LAND. AND DAVID, YOU MAY WANT TO ADD TO THAT.

>> THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. DAVE KREIDER, REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THE CURRENT SCHEDULE WOULD PROBABLY -- WHICH IS A TWO-MONTH SCHEDULE TO GET THE R.F.Q., WE'RE SCOOTING THAT CONTRACT NOW, LITERALLY TODAY, MONDAY AT THE LATEST. WOULD BRING THE R.F.Q. BACK MARCH 22 ANYWAY. ROMA THINKS THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THEY NEED TO LOOK AT. WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE NEED TO GENERATE AND UPDATE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MARKET STUDY IS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF OLD. MARKET STUDY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. ROMA THINKS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND MARKETING THIS PROJECT ON A NATIONAL BASIS. AND THROUGHOUT OUR DISCUSSIONS, THE ROMA TEAM HAS INDICATED THAT THAT -- THAT'S THERE -- THE TWO-MONTH FRAME IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, BUT CERTAINLY THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEED THAT PROCESS UP. BUT THEY ARE A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH A FOUR-WEEK PROCESS. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE LAST I TALKED WITH THE ROMA TEAM WHERE THE PROJECT IS RIGHT NOW.

>>GRIFFITH: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, MAY I TO YOUR QUESTION?

>>SLUSHER: SURE.

>>GRIFFITH: PART OF CHAPTER 8 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS IT URGES US TO DO IS -- AND I CAN SEE NOW HOW PROPHETIC THIS WAS, IT SAYS THERE COULD BE A CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY ABOUT THE TIME YOU ARE GETTING READY TO THIS. AND IT SAYS GET IT OUT AND PROCESS IT AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGE IN ECONOMICS THAT MIGHT HAPPEN ABOUT THAT TIME. AND THAT'S GOING ON, AND I THINK THEIR WISDOM IN THAT ADVICE WAS GOOD. I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO WEEKS HERE. IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE TO COUNCIL A DATE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE R.F.Q., BUT NO LATER THAN MARCHTH. AND I THINK -- MA 8TH. AND I THINK MARCH 22 WAS A DATE THAT WAS A TARGET. SO I THINK WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME HERE.

>>SLUSHER: SO THE MARCH 8TH CORRESPONDS TO THE 22ND AS FAR AS CHANGING TO FEBRUARY 22ND. WHAT'S THE FEBRUARY 22ND DATE THEN?

>>GRIFFITH: WELL, THIS SAYS ON -- ON THAT SECOND PAGE IT SAYS IF FOR ANY REASON THE STAFF CANNOT RELEASE --.

>>SLUSHER: WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM NOW?

>>GRIFFITH: BACK PAGE, UNDER BE IT RESOLVED, PAGE 2.

>>SLUSHER: PAGE 2 OF THE RESOLUTION, OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: YES, SIR. THE -- IF FOR ANY REASON THE STAFF CANNOT RELEASE THE R.F.Q. WITHIN THIS TIME FRAME -- WHICH IS A TARGET -- THAT THE FIRST DATE IS A TARGET, CERTAINLY -- CANNOT RELEASE THE R.F.Q. WITHIN THIS TIME FRAME WITHIN THIS PERIOD, THE CITY MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE TO COUNCIL A DATE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE R.F.Q.; BUT NO LATER THAN MARCH 8TH. SO WE'RE ALL WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL TIME FRAME. SO I THINK THESE ARE TARGETS AND WE'LL SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES ROMA AND THE THE CITIZEN GROUPS -- AND US TO AGREE ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE R.F.Q.. THESE ARE TARGETS, SO WE COULD KEEP THEM AS TARGETS AND MODIFY THEM IF NEED BE IS WHERE -- I'LL BE WORKING VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER ON THIS, THE CITIZENS AND THE COUNCIL AND STAFF AND ROMA.

>>GARZA: IF WE CUT OUT THE COMMITTEE, WE CAN MAKE THE 8TH. [LAUGHTER].

>>GRIFFITH: THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE A MATERIAL OMISSION IN TERMS OF --.

>>GARZA: I'M JUST TRYING TO BEAT THE TIME LINE.

>>GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND. SO IF WE COULD RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE TARGETS AND WE'LL ALL BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT IT THE WHOLE TIME, SO IF WE COULD REALIZE THEY ARE TARGETS, ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS TARGETS, AND IF THERE IS REASON TO CHANGE THEM AND WE AGREE ON THAT, CERTAINLY THEY COULD BE. ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ON THE BACK END TWO WEEKS.

>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. AND WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER PATIENTLY WAITING.

>>ALVAREZ: YES, MR. CITY MANAGER, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO MEET WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 6TH.

>>GARZA: I THINK THERE'S A MEETING SET FOR THE 6TH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD YESTERDAY. AND I WOULD LEAVE IT TO MR. KREIDER AND MR. POWELL -- POWERS TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT IS TO GET INPUT FROM THEM. WE KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA IN TERMS OF WHAT ELEMENTS NEED TO BE IN THE R.F.Q., BUT WE WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM AND GET THEIR INPUT. AND THEN ASK MR. ADAMS AND NOS BACKER TO GO OFF AND DEVELOP AN R.F.Q.. WHAT THEY HAVE INDICATED TO US IN A LETTER YOU ALL RECEIVED THIS MORNING, WE GOT IT LAST NIGHT, IS THEY THINK THIS FIRST STEP IS AN IMPORTANT ONE TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A SUSPICION OF DETAIL AND TAKING CARE MAKING SURE YOU ARE STRUCTURING IT RIGHT SO THE FOLKS INTENTIONALLY GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS HAVE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY YES, WE'RE INTERESTED AND READY TO COME FORWARD AND BE A PROPOSER FOR THIS AND HERE'S OUR QUALIFICATIONS. SO THEY'VE INDICATED THAT YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL AND ABOUT METHODICAL AND I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AFTER THIS DRAFT IS DONE AT SOME POINT AND HAVE THEM REVIEW IT AND AGAIN THAT WOULD BE SHARED AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE CITY COUNCILL AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE THAT AND REVIEWING IT SIMULTANEOUSLY. I BELIEVE THE 22ND IS WHAT DAVID SAID. AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS RIGHT, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A TWO-WEEK PERIOD, YOU MIGHT HAVE US COME BACK ON THE 8TH AND ASK YOU TO EXTEND THAT DATE OR DO IT BY MEMO.

>>ALVAREZ: WELL, YOU ALSO MENTIONED I THINK THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE MAYBE 45 TO 60 DAYS AFTER, AFTER YOU MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IN TERMS OF SETTING A TARGET DATE, WE TRY TO SHOOT FOR 45 DAYS AFTER FEBRUARY 6TH, WHICH IS THE DAY YOU MEET WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THAT GIVES US ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER MARCH 8TH, ROUGHLY. SO AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

>>GRIFFITH: WHICH BRINGS YOU TO THE 22ND. I THINK THE CITY MANAGER HAD A GOOD IDEA. IF WE COULD SEE WHERE WE ARE ON THE 8TH, SEE IF IT'S DONE, AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN WE COULD GO ON OUT TWO MORE WEEKS OR WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME. I THINK WE'RE SETTING TARGETS HERE.

>>GOODMAN: SORRY. LET'S GO TO OUR SPEAKER.

>>WYNN: SORRY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT I THINK IT IS FAIRLY IMPORTANT THAT THEY IMPLEMENT -- THE COMMITTEE RECEIVE THE RFP AND GET THEIR COMMENTS AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S. SO IN ADDITION TO USING THEM APPROPRIATELY TO HELP STRATEGIZE THE R.F.P., THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE R.F.P. BEFORE IT GOES OUT.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS, COUNCILMEMBER. YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT MAYBE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT CLARIFIED JUST SO THEY KNEW WE WANTED SOMETHING QUICKLY. BUT MAYBE WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS JUST PUT IN THE WORD TART DATE SOMEWHERE. LET ME CALL OUR ONE SPEAKER, JIM WALKER.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M WALKER SPEAKING -- WEARING NOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. REAL QUICKLY TO LOOK AT THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION, SINCE THE COMMISSION DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM, I WOULD BE HESITANT TO SAY THAT -- MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING THAT DAVE WAS PRESENT AT, WE SPENT A LARGE PORTION OF THE MEETING TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN THE COMMISSION DO TO TRY TO EXPEDITE ROMA -- THE VARIOUS SCOPES OF WORK THEY HAVE. THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THEY NEED TO DO, ONE OF WHICH IS THE R.F.Q.. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS SPEEDING UP OUR MEETING TIMES. IF THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED, I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBERS CERTAINLY EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO DO THAT. SO ANYTHING THAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO TO FACILITATE THIS I BELIEVE, BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS, THAT WE'RE READY TO DO. JUST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD POINT OF VIEW, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO GET OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT WITH ROMA IN TERMS OF WRITING IT BACK. WE DON'T WANT TO DISRESPECT THE FACT WE'RE SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH THEM. ESPECIALLY WITH KIND OF CONFLICTING TIME LINES. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THINGS EXPEDITED AND SEE COUNCIL'S INTENT IN THAT DIRECTION. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, EVERY TIME I'VE USED THE TERM MORE TIME, IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTNESS OF THE PLAN, ONE OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF WHICH WAS GETTING ROMA BACK AND THE R.F.Q. AND ADOPTION OF ZONING. I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WERE HOPING WOULD HAPPEN -- WHAT NEEDS MORE TIME TO HAPPEN. IS THAT THE R.F.Q. WE GET WE GET GOING AND GET OUT. AND THE LAST THING, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD ALL AGREE THAT OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE IS TO HAVE A GOOD R.F.Q., A SOLID R.F.Q., TO BE SURE OF THAT AND WE DON'T RUSH THROUGH THAN MISS DOTTING SOME I'S AND CROSSING SOME T'S, MAKE SURE WE ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS WE WANT TO ASK, GET GOOD RESPONSES. AND THE WAY WE SCORE THOSE, THE SCORING MATRIX THAT THE STAFF DEVELOPED WITH PERHAPS SOME ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION, IS A SOLID DOCUMENT THAT GOES OUT BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO BE FIVE OR SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY SLAPPING OURSELVES ON THE FOREHEAD SAYING WE RUSHED THROUGH THAT. NO ONE WANTS THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO -- WITHIN ROMA'S ABILITY TO SPEED IT UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT WAS -- BUT I THINK I HEARD ALL THOSE KIND OF COMMENTS BEING EXPRESSED FROM COUNCIL AS WELL AND IF I'M MAKING CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS PLEASE TELL ME AND I'LL TRY TO STRAIGHTEN THOSE OUT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK SGOOM THANK YOU, MR. WALKER. HE WAS OUR ONLY SPEAKER. COUNCIL, FURTHER COMMENTS OR MOTIONS, FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS, WHAT HAVE YOU?

>>SLUSHER: I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS. I'M STILL A LITTLE -- I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED ANOTHER EXPLANATION, BUT I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCERTAIN WHY IT'S ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS GIVEN ANYWAY. AND WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEADLINES WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE, PROBABLY NOT, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WE WANT, INCLUDING WITH THE COMMISSION. SO THEN, WELL, OKAY, WE'LL JUST LET THOSE SLIP THEN. SO I GUESS IT'S NO HARM DONE. I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR WE ADVANCED THE BALL BY PUTTING THIS ON EITHER. MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER REASON FOR IT BEING ON THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>>GRIFFITH: COUNCILMEMBER, MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? I THINK THIS IS A CLEAR STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO ROBERT MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT IN THE WAY THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE PLAN THAT WE'VE ACCEPTED IS, AND IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT THAT SO MANY CITIZENS HAVE MADE FOR YEARS. AND IT MOVES THE BALL -- NOT ONLY MOVES THE BALL, IT SHOWS YOU THAT THERE IS A BALL. BECAUSE IT -- IT'S BEEN A LITTLE VAGUE BALL GAME-WISE. AND NOW WE SEE THE BALL, SEE WHERE IT IS AND HAVE SOME SOLID SIDELINES SO WE CAN SEE WHERE IT'S GOING AND IN WHICH DIRECTION.

>>SLUSHER: I GUESS I'M GLAD NOBODY IS HIDING THE BALL.

>>GRIFFITH: THAT'S GOOD. SGARZ GARZ JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE FWHOT --.

>>GARZA: JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CALLED FOR A PERSONAL FOUL.

>>SLUSHER: OR TECHNICAL.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCIL, WHEN YOU AND I WERE CO-SPONSORS, DO WE WANT TO ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THE WORD "TARGET DATE" BEFORE FEBRUARY 22 SINCE THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION BUT NOT PART OF THE LANGUAGE?

>>WYNN: I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT EITHER WAY.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>GRIFFITH: SO RIGHT IN FRONT OF -- WE'RE STILL ON PAGE 2, IT WOULD SAY "ISSUE THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS BY A TARGET DATE OF FEBRUARY 22." WOULD THAT MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE?

>>GOODMAN: YES. DID WE HAVE A MOTION? OR WE JUST BEGIN DISCUSSING IT.

>>GRIFFITH: MOVE APPROVAL.

>>THOMAS: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, AND THE MOTION ON THE TABLE DOES INCLUDE ADDING "TARGET DATE" BEFORE "FEBRUARY 22" TO THAT. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?

>>ALVAREZ: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE SECOND DATE THAT'S LISTED ON HERE CHANGED TO MARCH 22ND.

>>GRIFFITH: LET'S LEAVE IT AT "-LEAVE IT AT THE 8TH AND IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT THE 8TH, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MANY MORE DAYS AT THAT TIME -- WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION IF IT'S NOT THERE HOW MANY MORE DAYS WOULD BE NEEDED.

>>ALVAREZ: I JUST -- LET'S SEE. SO THAT GIVES US A MONTH AFTER THE ADVISORY COMMISSION LOOKS AT IT. WHICH PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TIME. THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING WE DO 45 DAYS, WHICH WOULD GET US TO MARCH 22ND. I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRENTLY AMEND.

>>GRIFFITH: IT'S FRIENDLY.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, IS MARCH 22 A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

>>THOMAS: YES.

>>GOODMAN: WITH THAT CHANGE, ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED SAY NO. ABSTAINING? MAYOR ABSENT. OKAY. SPEEDING ON -- OH, OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL THE PULLED ITEMS, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN. SO DO WE NEED TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION? OKAY. LET ME FIND THE STUFF TO READ. COUNCIL IS ANNOUNCING WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF LAND ACQUISITION, LITIGATION AND PERSONNEL MATTERS AS SPECIFICALLY LISTED ON THE AGENDA. WE WILL HAVE PRIVATE CONSULT FATION WITH ATTORNEY UNDER -- CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY UNDER -- UNDER SECTION 551.071 ON ITEM NO. 2, TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION. AND WE WILL BE BACK LATER. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]. HIS JOOMT I WANT TO ANNOUNCE BECAUSE THE CHIEF IS BUSY SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM, WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, WHICH MEANS WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

>> BACK TO ORDER. WE WILL GO AHEAD TO SDEPS COMMUNICATION, WE HAVE 10 FOLKS -- NO, SEVEN -- EIGHT PEOPLE SIGNED UP AND I'M NOT SURE ANY OF THEM ARE HERE. LET ME GO THROUGH THE LIST AND WHOEVER IS HERE, IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK IF YOU ARE -- IF YOU ARE NOT HERE, I GUESS WE WILL KEEP CALLING YOUR NAME FOR A FEW MINUTES. LOIS THOMAS, YES, MA'AM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK NOW.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT BEHIND YOU. WELL, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT IT AND WE WILL -- IF THERE'S SOMEWHERE ELSE -- IF YOU WOULD GO BEHIND THAT PODIUM AND SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND THE LIGHT WILL KIND OF SIGNAL YOU WHEN YOU ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE THREE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS LOIS THOMAS. I THANK FOR YOU THIS TIME BECAUSE I WANTED TO STRESS HOW UNHAPPY I AM -- I AM WITH THE MEDICAL ASSISTANT PROGRAM MAP, WHICH IS FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF. IN THE 1990'S I HAD TO SEEK MEDICAL HELP THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. THIS PAST YEAR HAS BEEN A BAD DREAM. ESPECIALLY ON THE DENTAL SIDE AT THE SOUTH FIRST CLINIC. AUGUST 17TH, 2000, DR. DAVID GRISGBY DDS TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED A TOOTH PULLED OUT. TWO FALSE STATIONARY TEETH WERE HOLDING ON TO THIS. THE TOOTH HAD BEEN FILLED THREE TIMES. AT FIRST THE CAVITY WAS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A PIN HEAD. ON THE SAID I SAID MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. THE FILLING FELL OUT AGAIN. THEY LET ME WAIT TWO MONTHS, THEN THE DOCTOR SAID IT SHOULD BE PULLED OUT SO I WOULD LOSE THREE TOP ON TOP, PLUS THE FRONT. HE SAID THAT I WOULD GO FOUR TO SIX WEEKS MISSING THREE TEETH. I WORK PART TIME ON WEEKENDS AT AN H.E.B. STORES. MY BOSS WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS. I THEN WENT TO A PRIVATE DENTIST, AUGUST THE 28TH, 2000. I ALSO COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS TO DR. LOPEZ, A HIGHER UP PERSON. THE PRIVATE DDS COST ME A LOT OF MONEY AND MY BUDGET WILL BE IN VERY BAD SHAPE FOR A GOOD, LONG TIME. ON THE DENTIST'S SIDE AND ON THE MEDICAL SIDE I WOULD HAVE AN APPOINTMENT, GO SIGN IN ON A SIGN-IN SHEET. THEN MY NAME WOULD BE BYPASSED AND PEOPLE'S NAME ABOVE MINE AND BELOW MINE WOULD BE CALLED AND THEIR NAMES WOULD BE MARKED THROUGH. THIS HAPPENED AT TIMES ON BOTH THE MEDICAL AN DENTAL SIDE. WHILE I KEPT SITTING AND SITTING, THEY WERE NOT TREATING ME EQUALLY. NO ONE SAID TO ME, THE DOCTOR IS RUNNING LATE OR OVERLOADED WITH PATIENT. THEY LET ME SIT THERE LIKE I HAD NOTHING BETTER TO DO BUT WAIT. HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING TREATED IN THIS SAME DISGUSTING MANNER? ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN SO UNFAIR. DR. LOPEZ, A HIGHERUP, TOLD ME TO GO SEE DR. BIDDER ON OCTOBER 16TH 2000, I WENT TO THE WALLER STREET CLINIC HOPING THAT I COULD GET A TOOTH PULLED. AGAIN WAS TOLD WHILE STANDING UP, NEVER SIT IN THE DENTAL CHAIR, I WOULD BE MISSING FRONT TEETH FOR A WHILE, WAITING SIX WEEKS FOR FALSE TEETH. DECEMBER THE 4TH, DR. LOPEZ CALLED ME AND SAID GO BACK TO DR. BIDER, BUT THE NEXT DAY THE PRIVATE DENTIST EXTRACTED MY TOOTH AND GAVE ME A TEMPORARY FALSE TOOTH THE SAME DAY. I WAITED 24 HOURS BEFORE IT. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WAS IT TOO FAST?

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. AND BETTIE DUNKERLY FROM CITY STAFF IS ABOUT TO APPROACH YOU, I THINK. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GUS PENA. GUS PENA. JOHN GROSS.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, I APPRECIATE HAVING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU TODAY. I OWN A LOT AT 3304 THOMAS KITCHEN CHEN STREET (PHONETIC) APPROXIMATELY 240 FEET FROM DUNN STREET WHERE THE WATER ENDS. I PAY TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY AND I AM TAXED AS THOUGH THERE WERE ALL SERVICES, INCLUDING A PAVED STREET. THERE IS NO PAVEMENT THERE CURRENTLY AND NO WATER. THERE IS SEWER DOWN THE STREET. I'M HERE TODAY TO PETITION THE CITY, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE AFTER I FOUND OUT FROM A PREVIOUS OR AN OWNER ON -- ON DALTON, WHICH IS THE FIRST STREET TO THE NORTH, THAT THE CITY DID COMPLETE THE SERVICES TO HIS LOT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE LAST TWO YEARS, OF GOING TO WATER AND WASTEWATER TO -- TO FIND OUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FROM THEM. I PAY $1700 IN ENGINEERING FEES AND HAVE AN APPROVED SET OF PLANS FOR WATER DELIVERY. I WENT THROUGH A GENERAL CONTRACTOR. I FOUND OUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME OR TWO MONTHS AGO THAT THE COST IS REALLY PROHIBITIVE FOR ME TO GO AHEAD AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND COMPLETE THE SERVICES. I'M JUST HERE TODAY TO MAKE THAT FORMAL REQUEST AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF ME, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>>GOODMAN: MR. MANAGER?

>>GARZA: MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I COULD GET KATHY JUST TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES AND GET THE SPECIFIC ADDRESS, WHO YOU HAVE TALKED AT WATER AND WASTEWATER, WHO YOU HAVE BEEN VISITING WITH AT WATER AND WASTEWATER, IF THERE'S ANY CORRESPONDENCE, IF WE COULD GET COPIES OF THAT CORRESPONDENCE TO SEE THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST THAT'S BEEN MADE, LET OUR OFFICE TAKE A LOOK AT IT, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP.

>> WHO WOULD I NEED TO SEE?

>>WYNN: MR. GROSS, EXCUSE ME MAYOR PRO TEM, ONE MORE COMMENT, WHILE THIS IS BEING WORKED OUT, OF COURSE IT COULD BE SOME LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE YOU HAVE SERVICES DELIVERED, I SUGGEST THAT YOU TALK TO THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THAT ULTIMATELY SETS THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR TAXES ARE BASED ON THAT VALUE AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE FEWER SERVICES AS AN EXAMPLE THAN OTHER LOTS IN YOUR AREA, AND YOU ARE APPRAISED THE SAME AS THEM, THEN I SUGGEST THAT YOU COULD APPROACH THE TCAD AS WE CALL THEM, THEY GENERALLY WOULD MAKE AN EXCEPTION AND ADJUSTMENT TO OUR LOT VALUE. THEREFORE YOUR TAXES AMOUNT BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOUR LOT IS ESSENTIALLY UNDERSERVED. YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT THAT YOUR GOAL OF COURSE IS TO GET SERVICE, WE WILL TRY TO HELP YOU WITH THAT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME YOU COULD HAVE A LOWER TAX PAYMENT BASED ON THAT.

>> I DID BEFORE THEM, THEY BASED ON WHAT I HAD PURCHASED. I PURCHASED THE LOT CLOSE TO THE PRICE OF LOTS THAT HAD SERVICES. BUT THEY WOULDN'T BUDGE FROM THAT POSITION. UNLESS I APPLIED FOR AN AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION, THEY WOULDN'T CHANGE THE ASSESSMENT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: GAVINO FERNANDEZ.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS GAVINO FERNANDEZ, WITH EL CONCILIO, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE CRIES IN OUR COMMUNITY REGARDING THE HOLLY POWER PLANT.

>> EMERGENCY.

>> I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE POWER PLANT OF THE HOLLY PARK PLANT. IT'S BURNING.

>> HOLLY POWER PLANT IS ON FIRE?

>> THERE'S AN EXPLOSION, THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION, I WAS ON THE PHONE, THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION. AND THE LIGHTS WENT OUT.

>> IS THE POWER PLANT ON FIRE?

>> THERE'S SMOKE COMING OUT.

>> OKAY. WE WILL GET UNITS OVER THERE.

>> HURRY UP, PLEASE.

>> ALL RIGHT, GOODBYE.

>> FIRE DEPARTMENT.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> IT'S GOING TO BE JUST A SECOND. WHAT'S THE ADDRESS?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> HOLD ON, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> FIRE DEPARTMENT?

>> HOLLY POWER PLANT IS ON FIRE.

>> HELLO, FIRE DEPARTMENT, YEAH? FIRE AT HOLLY POWER PLANT, JUST EXPLODED, A BIG OLD FIRE. IT'S ON FIRE THERE.

>> WHAT'S ON FIRE THERE?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I JUST SEE A FIRE, BIG OLD FIRE THERE. EXPLODED.

>> OKAY, WE ARE ON THE WAY.

>> AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT?

>> HOLLY STREET POWER PLANT, DOWN HERE, LOOKS LIKE WE'VE HAD A TRANSFORMER --

>> THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE CONTINUED PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT THAT THIS FACILITY CONTINUES TO HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. ON SEPTEMBER 21ST OF THIS -- OF THE LAST YEAR, ANOTHER SOLDIER OF OURS THAT CONTINUE -- CONTINUOUSLY CAME TO MANY COUNCIL MEETINGS URGING THE CLOSURE OF THE POWER PLANT, MR. SEGOVIA IS NO LONGER WITH US. EVERY YEAR WE SEEM TO BE LOSING RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVED IN AND AROUND THE HOLLY POWER PLANT EVER SINCE IT WAS BUILT. WE HAVE COME TO THIS COUNCIL TO REQUEST AND HAVE MADE PUBLIC REQUESTS FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY COUNCILL TO PROVIDE US WITH AN UPDATE STATUS ON THE CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. MANY OF YOU, WHEN YOU RAN FOR ELECTION, WE WERE -- WE QUESTIONED YOU ABOUT YOUR -- ABOUT YOUR POSITION ON THE CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD WALK AWAY FROM THE RESOLUTION OF 1995. HOWEVER, OUR PLEAS ARE FALLING ON DEAF EARS. AS OF TODAY, THIS COUNCIL, NOR THE CITY MANAGER, HAS MET TO DISCUSS WITH US THE STATUS OF THE CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. IN SPEAKING TO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY HAVE CONVEYED TO US IS GAVINO, THEIR FOLKS HAVE COME IN HERE AND BRIEFED US AND THEY ARE NOT LOOKING AT CLOSING THE HOLLY POWER PLANTED. WE WANT TAKE TO BE CLARIFIED. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

>> BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO LIVE IN DANGER, THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. MR. CITY MANAGER, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T FOCUSED ON IN A FEW MONTHS. CAN WE MAYBE HAVE A -- A WORK SESSION TYPE OF UPDATE AND WE CAN ALSO TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE CLOSURE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN MEETING AND WHAT KIND OF SITUATION WE ARE IN NOW RELATIVE TO WHAT WE WERE IN THE SUMMER? NOW WE DO HAVE THE GAS SHORTAGE SO I GUESS IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

>>GARZA: YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD, WE OUGHT TO DO THAT, BRING AN UPDATE TO THE COUNCIL IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS WITH RESPECT, NOT JUST TO HOLLY, BUT THE ENTIRE POWER SYSTEM. AND OPTIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. WE TRIAL TO GET THAT SCHEDULED HERE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. DOOTS DUFOUR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU. I AM YOUR -- ONE OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CONSORTIUM, THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CONSORTIUM FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY. THE REASON THAT I AM THERE, I HAVE WORKED WITH THE DIOCESE OF AUSTIN, I WORK WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE MINISTRY. I WORK WITH PEOPLE IN JAILS AND PRISONS, PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF PRISONS, PEOPLE TRYING TO STAY OUT OF PRISONS AND ALL OF THAT SORT OF THING. WHAT WE RECOGNIZE IS THE SOLUTION IS NOT WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO RETROFIT THESE PEOPLE. THE SOLUTION IS AT ABOUT THE SCHOOL LEVEL, REALLY BEFORE THAT. BUT THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION GROUP WORKS WITH THESE CHILDREN WHO ARE VERY MUCH AT RISK. THEY CONCERN ME A GREAT DEAL BECAUSE IF WE CAN JUST GET THESE KIDS AND THEIR FAMILIES STABILIZED AND THEY STAY IN SCHOOL, WE WILL NOT SEE THEM IN THE SYSTEM. IF THEY DO NOT STAY IN SCHOOL, WE HAVE GOT A FIGHTING CHANCE OF SEEING THEM IN THE SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHY I WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CONSORTIUM. WE HAVE A REASONABLY GOOD ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CITY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY, BUT WE HAVE HAD SOME SHORTFALLS HERE AS OF LATELY. WE HAVE TRIED SHORE UP OUR COMMUNICATION. WE ARE NOW DOING BETTER, WE HAVE SOME COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CITY STAFF AND THE CONSORTIUM STAFF, SO I THINK WE WILL DO BETTER ON OUR COMMUNICATION. AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR PRIORITIES AND YOUR PRIORITIES ARE PRETTY MUCH GOING TO MEASURE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE A LITTLE SHORT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS PUT $352,000 INTO THIS YEAR'S CONSORTIUM BUDGET. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT THE CITY WILL MATCH THAT. OF COURSE THE CITY HASN'T MATCHED THAT FOR A WHILE YET. SO WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW AND WHY WE CAN GET THIS PARTICULAR AMOUNT MATCHED. OUR CONCERN, YOU KNOW, WE PLUNK ALONG, YOU HAVE TO PULL OUT ONE PLUG HERE, PUT ANOTHER PLUG THERE. MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. BUT WE HAVE ABOUT 6,000 CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN SUMMER SCHOOL THIS SUMMER AT NOT ANY COST TO THEMSELVES, BUT THESE ARE 6,000 CHILDREN WHO HAVE EITHER FAILED OR ARE FAILING OR THEY ARE HIGH RISK KIDS. AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE FUNDS TO COVER PROPERLY THESE PARTICULAR KIDS FOR THIS SUMMER SCHOOL SESSION HERE THIS SUMMER. NOW, THIS BUNCH, WE REALLY FOCUS IN ON THESE GUYS, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN PARTICULAR NEED. WE JUST -- WE JUST ABOUT $107,000 SHORT. WE JUST ASK IF YOU ALL CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SHORTFALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME?

>>GOODMAN: THANKS, MR. DUFOUR. LET ME, COMING IN ON THE END OF THAT AND NOTING ALSO THAT WE ORIGINALLY WERE GOING TO HAVE MORE FOLKS TO SPEAK ABOUT COMMUNITY ED TODAY, BUT THE SLOTS WERE FILLED ALREADY. SO BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOUR -- WITH OUR AGREEMENT ON THAT 50/50 CONTRACT, COULD WE, MR. SISTER MANAGER, ALSO HAVE A -- I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE A SMALLER TIME REQUIRED FOR A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE AND MAYBE INTRODUCTION FOR SOME FOLKS TO -- TO EXACTLY WHAT COMMUNITY ED IS FOR US? IT MAY NOT BE REALISTIC TO GO BACK AND GET THE MONEY THAT PERHAPS SOMETHING WE OWE FROM PAST YEARS, BUT MAYBE IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOOK AT COMING BACK UP TO THE LEVEL OF A 50/50 CONTRIBUTION THIS YEAR.

>>GARZA: I THINK WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE PROBLEMS. AS I RECALL, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES OR FUNDING, BUT WE -- WE FUNDED PROGRAMS WITHOUT A MATCH FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO FUND TEACHERS TO TEACH KIDS AFTER SCHOOL AT SCHOOLS THAT WERE SELECTED. AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MATCHING, WE HAD CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE PROGRAM AT ONE POINT, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SAYING WE ARE GOING TO MATCH YOU A MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TECHNICALLY CALL IT COMMUNITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE MAKING THAT KIND OF AN INVESTMENT, THAT MEANS WE ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT. WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE DONE A -- THE EXACT MATCH ON A $300,000 PROGRAM, I THINK THAT OVERALL WE ARE DOING MORE THAN 50%, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.

>> YOU DO A NUMBER OF THINGS. BUT WHAT YOU DO IS SOMETIMES PROVIDE FOR AN INSTRUCTOR OR SOMETHING, BUT YOU DON'T PROVIDE FOR ANYBODY TO PUT THE THING TOGETHER. THAT'S ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS IN THE TUTORIAL PROGRAM. THE TUTOR TOMORROW PROGRAMS HAS BEEN 500 INSTRUCTORS, WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT GO GET THOSE INSTRUCTORS, PUT THEM ON TO THE KID, THAT'S THE ONE WE WANT TO PUT ON TO THE SUMMER --.

>>GARZA: THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. BECAUSE WE PUT FUNDING IN FOR THOSE KINDS OF PROGRAMS, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE, WHEN YOU SAY 50/50, IT OUGHT NOT JUST BE ADMINISTRATION. IT OUGHT TO BE WHAT ARE WE SPENDING ON PROGRAMS AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN VERSUS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE DOING MORE THAN 50%, BUT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW AS PART AFTER WORK SESSION.

>> WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ASKED US TO DO SO YEAH, WE ARE THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU MR. DUFOUR, I SEE MR. MOORE HERE. TOGETHER WE CAN SCHEDULE THE TIME WHEN WE HAVE THIS WORK SESSION BECAUSE I THINK JOHN WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT FUNDS FOR WHAT COMES WHERE AND HOW THE CONTRACT WAS DRAFTED TO COVER CERTAIN THINGS. SO -- SO WITHIN THE MONTH I THINK. OKAY? FEBRUARY, RIGHT. NOT THIS MONTH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ROBERT DONLEY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS ROBERT DONLEY, I'M A MEMBER OF EL CONCILIO. STARTING OFF THE NEW YEAR THERE'S -- THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE LOOKING BRIGHTER FOR US, THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT COME DOWN THE PIKE DURING THIS -- THIS PERIOD. THE -- FOR THE NEW CENTURY, NEW MILLENNIUM. THE THREAT OF LIGHT RAIL DESTROYING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND CREATING GRIDLOCK AND WORSENING OUR TRAFFIC WITHIN THE CITY AND CLOSING MANY SMALL BUSINESSES IS GONE, THANKS TO GOD. ANOTHER GOOD THING THAT HAS OCCURRED IS THAT WE HAVE A NEW ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT IS NOT SO BLINDLY GOING INTO SUCH THINGS AS SMART GROWTH WITH THE WHATEVER IT IS THAT WILL BE HARMFUL TO THE -- TO THOSE THAT ARE POOR AND THOSE THAT DO -- CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES. AND ALSO THE -- WE HAVE SOMEONE UP THERE WHO BELIEVES AND WILL ENFORCE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR ALL. THANKS TO GOD FOR THAT. I SEE MANY BRIGHT SPOTS SHINING THROUGH FOR THE FUTURE. LIKE THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY IN AUSTIN, THAT THE CITY HERE WILL HAVE TO RETHINK ALL OF THEIR SCHEMES AND PLANS TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR DOWNTOWN AND CENTRAL AREA PROPERTIES FOREVER DESTROYING OUR CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL MAKEUP OF OUR ONCE BELOVED CITY. HOPEFULLY, IN MY PRAYERS FOR THE CITY COUNCILL, TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE MINORITY COMMUNITY AND RESPECT FOR THEIR TRUE ADVOCATES, WILL REPLACE THIS COUNCIL WITH MEMBERS THAT INSULT THE INTELLIGENCE AND ADVOCACY OF OUR MEMBERS BY LUDICROUS STATEMENTS SUCH AS I SUPPORT VALID PETITIONS BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY LEGAL MEANS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IN THIS CASE I CAN'T BECAUSE IT WAS DONE WITH BAD INTENTION TO OUR COMMUNE -- TO THE COMMUNITY AND ITS PEOPLE. NOT ONLY IS THIS OFFENSIVE, RACIST AND NARROW MINDED, I SUPPOSE THAT YOU WOULD ALSO OPPOSE THE FREEDOM OF SLAVES IN AMERICA BECAUSE FOR THE SAME REASON IT IS BAD FOR THEIR BUSINESSES, BAD FOR THE WHITE CITIZENS AND ALL OF THEIR BUSINESSES. AND ALSO THE CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT FOR THE SAME REASONS. AND ALSO THE TANK FARMS. SO IT'S VERY UNDERSTANDABLE. AND IRONIC BECAUSE I WAS -- I WAS WATCHING CNN THIS MORNING AND WHO DO YOU THINK THAT I SAW ON TELEVISION? JIM BOB MOFFETT. I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH ME. HE WAS MAKING THE SAME REALIZATION AS YOU. I SAID I WILL BE GOD DOGGED HERE IS JACKIE GOODMAN AND JIM BOB MOFFETT MAKING THE SAME SPIEL BECAUSE HE SAYS THAT THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND COPPER AND OTHER PRODUCTS WERE GOOD AND MANY OF THOSE THAT WERE OPPOSED IT HAD BAD INTENTIONS BECAUSE NOW ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE VERY MUCH IN NEED. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR, JACKIE? SO IT'S VERY IRONIC -- [BUZZER SOUNDING] -- BUT THOSE ARE AT THAT TIME TICKETS THAT THE RACISTS WILL ALWAYS USE AGAINST THOSE THAT ARE OPPRESSED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>GOODMAN: BRAD JOYNER. ME AND JIM BOB ARE HAVING LUNCH LATER. [LAUGHTER].

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS BRAD JOINER, I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT PETITIONS, VALID PETITIONS. I HAVE GOT -- YOU GOT ONE BEFORE YOU THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE. TWO PROPERTIES ADJOINING EACH OTHER. I'M REFERRING TO THE ONE ON THE LEFT AS THE CASE THAT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE YOU NEXT MONTH FOR REZONING. YOU WILL SEE THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT IS THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS COMING UP FOR REZONING, IS 37,506 SQUARE FEET, THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT, THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, IS 36,699 SQUARE FEET. ALTHOUGH FOR SOME LOAN I'M HOPING IT'S A TYPO OR A CLERICAL ERROR OR SOMETHING, THE PETITIONER IS GIVEN THE ADVANTAGE OF AN EXTRA 20,500 SQUARE FEET TO INCLUDE INTO HIS PETITION. GIVING HIM 57,199 SQUARE FEET. WITH THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT HE GETS, WHICH IS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, CITY STREETS, BRINGS HIS PERCENTAGE UP TO 20.26%. MAKING IT .26% ABOVE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE A VALID PETITION. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT -- BUT THE TIMING OF THIS PETITION WAS WHEN THE MONTOPOLIS JURY WAS UNDERGOING A -- A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD WITH REGARDS TO ITS FUTURE PLANS FOR THE NEXT 15 TO 25 YEARS. THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAWN UP BY A SELECT FEW WITH THE HELP OF UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, THAT -- THAT WAS LOOKED AT AND SET ASIDE. AND ROBERT HYLE FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAME TO THE COMMUNITY, BROUGHT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TOGETHER, THE CIVIC GROUPS TOGETHER, LANDOWNERS, HOMEOWNERS AND PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT EVERYBODY LIKES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S -- WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SEVEN MONTHS. THE PROPERTY THAT -- THAT I'M ASKING TO BE REZONED IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS NEW PLAN. BUT THE PETITION STILL STANDS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, TOO, THAT THE PETITIONER NEVER DID PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE MEETINGS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONTOPOLIS FOR ITS -- FOR ITS FUTURE. I HAVE GOT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A REAL ESTATE AGENT, I'M NOT GOING TO MENTION HIS NAME, BUT I HAVE GOT HIS NAME AND HIS NUMBER. HE'S BEEN CONTACTING ME ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. ASKING TO PURCHASE MY PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IF I GET A ZONING CHANGE OVER THERE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUSINESS THERE AND HIS CHANCE OF PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE NEXT TO NONE. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

>> WELL, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. JOINER, ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. HOW IS IT WE ALLOW PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE CALCULATED AS PART OF A VALID PETITION PERCENTAGE AND IS THAT THE CASE HERE?

>> COUNCILMEMBER, I'M DEBORAH THOMAS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAW DEPARTMENT. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 2 11.006 E WITH REGARD TO THE VALID PETITION STATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND AREA UNDER SUBSECTION D, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE VALID PETITION, THE AREA OF THE STREETS AND ALLEYS SHALL BE INCLUDED. SO THE STATE LAW DOES REQUIRE THAT IN CALCULATING THE AREA FOR THE PETITIONS THAT WE INCLUDE THE AREA OF THE STREETS AND ALLEYS.

>>WYNN: MEANING THE AREA OF THE STREETS AND ALLEYS ARE INCLUDED IN THE DENOMINATOR OR IN THIS CASE --

>> IN BOTH. IN BOTH.

>>WYNN: IN BOTH. AND SO ALL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALLEYS OR STREETS ADJACENT TO A PETITIONER'S PROPERTY GETS INCLUDED -- WITH THAT PETITION?

>> 50%, GENERALLY 50% OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS -- 50% OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY GOES TO ONE SIDE, 50% OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY GOES TO THE OTHER. SO IF -- THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

>>WYNN: IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE TRACT APPARENTLY OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY HAVING -- HAVING THREE STREETS, STREET FRONTAGES, THEN THIS -- THEN THIS PARTICULAR PETITIONER HAS A -- HAS A VERY ABNORMAL ADDITIONAL PETITION RIGHT BECAUSE OF THAT. AS AN EXAMPLE HAD THIS PETITIONER'S TWO LOTS BEEN, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTERIOR OF A BLOCK, THEN THEY -- CLEARLY WOULDN'T HAVE FALLEN ABOVE 20% IN TOTAL. CORRECT? AS FAR AS YOU CAN -- OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: CAN I ASK, DEBORAH, DID YOU SAY WHEN IT WAS THAT WE DID THIS? WHEN THE AMENDMENT HAPPENED THAT ADDED THE ABILITY TO COUNT ROADWAY, PUBLIC ROADWAY INTO A PETITIONER'S AREA?

>> THIS IS THE STATE LAW, NOT THE CITY REQUIREMENT.

>>GOODMAN: WHEN WAS THAT STATE LAW ENACTED?

>> UM ... I AM NOT POSITIVE WHEN THAT LAW CAME INTO EFFECT.

>> COUNCIL, LET ME POINT OUT THAT IN THE GENERAL SITUATION IS THAT A LAND OWNER OWNS THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST OF THE LAND IN AN ADJACENT STREET TO THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY. NOW, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. IF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT HAS AWIRED THE ROAD HAS CONDEMNED THE FEE SIMPLE, BUT NORMALLY ALL THAT IS CONDEMNED IS RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES, WHICH IS AN EASEMENT TO TRAVEL. SO ACTUALLY THE PETITIONER IN THIS INSTANCE, I ASKED MR. GUERNSEY IF WE HAD CONFIRMED THAT THESE STREETS WERE THE STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY STREETS AS OPPOSED TO STREETS WHERE -- WHERE -- FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE IN DOWNTOWN CITY OF AUSTIN, I THINK THE CITY OWNS THE FEE SIMPLE OF THE STREETS. IT'S A HISTORICAL ANOMALY THAT GOES WAY BACK. BUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS SIMPLY INCLUDING ALL OF THE LAND THAT THEY HAVE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN AS A PARTED OF THEIR PETITION AND IN THAT INSTANCE IT GOES TO THE CENTER OF EACH OF THE ADJACENT STREETS.

>>GOODMAN: DO YOU MEAN THEN THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IN CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN, SOMEBODY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM THE PUBLIC STREET?

>> YES, THERE WOULD BE -- THERE COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE OWNER DOES NOT OWN THE LAND IN THE STREET, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD NOT BE -- THEY COULDN'T CLAIM IT AS A PART OF THEIR TERRITORY OF THE AREA INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T OWN IT. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THEY DO AND WE ARE -- WE ARE JUST APPLYING THE LAW AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED AND AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES IT TO BE APPLIED.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: THIS IS NEWS TO ME. EVERY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN THE PAST HASN'T HAD THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT IS A SURVEY WOULD BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY, THE SURVEY CLEARLY DELINEATED YOUR PROPERTY LINE AND YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU WOULD BUY TITLE INSURANCE FOR THAT. IT WOULD NEVER GO TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD. THAT BRINGS UP A POINT, THOUGH, AS AN EXAMPLE, DO -- DO -- SAY WHEN WE CALCULATE IMPERVIOUS COVER, WOULD SOMEBODY DEVELOPING THIS PETITIONER'S TRACT BE -- WOULD THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER BE INCLUSIVE OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THIS ADDITIONAL LAND THAT WE GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR IN PETITIONS?

>> NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T -- THE LAND IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE USE OF THAT LAND IS DEVOTED TO STREET PURPOSES. IT'S NOT REALLY -- ALTHOUGH YOU MAY OWN IT, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE -- YOU OWN -- IT'S LIKE A MINERAL INTEREST VERSUS A SURFACE INTEREST. YOU DON'T OWN THE SURFACE INTEREST. YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC'S USE OF THE AREA THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. I WAS SAYING FROM A PURE, ASSIST AN EXAMPLE, THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS WE USE, BUT IMPERVIOUS COVER I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT SEEMS TO ME WE ARE BEING INCONSISTENT IF WE GET A -- GIVE A PROPERTY OWN PETITION RIGHTS AND THEREFORE PROPERTY LIGHTS TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ADJACENT STREETS, IN THIS CASE THREE OF THEM. YET IF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED SAY THERE'S A 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION, WHY WE THEN DO NOT GIVE THAT PROPERTY OWNER THE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THAT CALCULATION.

>> WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT OUR CODE TO CONFIRM THAT -- IT'S NOT SO MUCH WHAT YOU OWN, BUT IT'S THE SITE, THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A SITE IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER. OTHER THING. BUT THIS IS -- THIS IS -- THERE'S A FAIRLY LONG HISTORY OF HOW PETITION RIGHTS AND ZONING IS APPLIED AND THE THE STATUTE THAT DEBORAH WAS REFERRING TO AS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE AFTER A COURT DECISION THAT WENT THE OTHER DIRECTION, SO THE LEGISLATURE -- I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW IT PLAYED OUT. BUT IT DID CONFIRM, THE LEGISLATURE CONFIRMED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING PETITION RIGHTS, THE LANDOWNER WAS ENTITLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THE -- THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET.

>>.

>>WYNN: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS, MR. JOYNER. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME THINGS WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE LOOKING AT BEFORE YOU COME UP NEXT MONTH.

>> CAN I MENTION ONE THING FOR HALF A MINUTE.

>>GOODMAN: HALF A MINUTE?

>> THE DATE ON THIS PETITION IS ALMOST 14 MONTHS AGO, MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HAS SINCE EVOLVED. MAKING THIS PETITION NOT REALLY NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE WISHES OF ALL OF MONTOPOLIS. AND IF SOMEBODY FROM COUNCIL WOULD -- WOULD ADDRESS THIS, MAYBE DIRECTLY TO THE PETITIONER, THAT HIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS GONE INTO SOME CHANGES SINCE THIS PETITION WAS FILED. AND SEE IF HE WANTS TO BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY OR STAND BY HIS PETITION.

>>GOODMAN: IT'S AN ISSUE I AM SURE WE WILL ASK ABOUT.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: COULD I JUST VERY QUICKLY ASK MR. MARTIN TO CLARIFY SOMETHING HE JUST SAID BEFORE I LOSE IT AGAIN. SAY AGAIN WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE SURFACE RIGHTS AND THE MINERAL RIGHTS.

>> WELL, I WAS USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE

>>GRIFFITH: IT WAS AN EXCELLENT ONE. WOULD YOU PLEASE DO IT AGAIN.

>> OKAY. YOU HAVE THE -- THE LAND OWNER, WHEN IT COMES TO FILING A PETITION AGAINST ZONING IS ENTITLED TO INCLUDE, AS A PART OF -- OF THE AREA WHEN CALCULATING WHETHER THE AREA NECESSARY TO SATISFY A VALID PETITION HAS BEEN MET, CAN INCLUDE THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY, ASSUMING THAT THAT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE BY THE GOVERNMENT -- A GOVERNMENT.

>>GRIFFITH: AND THAT IS ANALOGOUS TO THE SURFACE AND MINERAL RIGHTS IN WHAT WAY?

>> WELL, IT'S -- IF YOU OWN -- A PERSON WHO OWNS, DON'T LET ME TALK ABOUT OIL AND GAS KNOWLEDGE, WHICH I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON WHO OWNS MINERAL RIGHTS IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS BY DRILLING A WELL SOMEWHERE EVEN IF IT MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE SURFACE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER. THE ANALOGY HERE IS THAT ALTHOUGH YOU MAY OWN THE LAND TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET, YOU CAN'T GO BUILD SOMETHING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC'S -- THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNERSHIP ON THE SURFACE IS -- IS CONTROLLING.

>>GRIFFITH: SO YOU CAN'T DRILL THERE?

>> YOU COULDN'T DRILL THERE, NO.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY, THANKS.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. LET'S GO THEN TO LEONARD LYONS. IS LEONARD HERE? LEONARD LYONS. AND GUS PENA, HAS GUS COME IN? IF NOT, THEN WE HAVE SOME BOND SALES TO DO. THIS IS AT 2:00, WHILE THEY ARE COMING UP, LET ME TELL ANYBODY WHO WAS THINKING THE NEW CITY HALL PRESENTATION WOULD TAKE PLACE TODAY AT 3:00, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 1ST. WON'T HAPPEN TODAY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILL. MY NAME IS BILL NEWMAN, I'M WITH PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, WE SERVE AS FINANCE ADVISOR TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. EXCUSE ME. HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT ITEM NO. 53. MY PARTNER CHRIS ALLEN IS GOING TO GIVE YOU OUT SOME BOOK. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THE SALE OF SOME $126,700,000 WORTH OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES ON THIS, IF I COULD, JUST TO WALK YOU QUICKLY THROUGH THIS BOOK WHEN CHRIS GIVES IT OUT. IT KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE. THE PURPOSE IS TO TAKE ON SHORT-TERM COMMERCIAL PAPER, PUT IT ON A 30-YEAR BASIS. TELLS YOU WHO THE PLAYERS ARE. IF YOU WILL NOTICE THE 30-DAY VISIBLE SUPPLY OF WHAT'S IN THE MARKET THIS WEEK, THE WEEK OF JANUARY THE 17TH, IS MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT IT HA-HA BEEN IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR. PAGE 5, YOU WILL SEE A STATEMENT ON TODAY'S INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT, LOOKS BAD TO THE STOCK MARKET, PRETTY GOOD FOR THE BOND MARKET. YOU WILL NOTICE ON PAGE 6 THAT THE REVENUE BOND INDEX AND THE 30-YEAR TREASURY ARE AT 532 AND AT 561 RESPECTIVELY. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME, IF I COULD, IS THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS TRANSACTION. WHAT WE HAVE DONE OR WHAT WE ARE SELLING HERE IS WE ARE SELLING BONDS THAT ARE SECURED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY A PLEDGE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEM UTILITY REVENUES ONLY. WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE -- OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS FOR THAT MATTER IS TO PREPARE FOR THIS THING. THE SALE REPRESENTS THE TIPPING EFFORT BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AUSTIN ENERGY TO PETITION YOURSELF FOR THE COMPETITIVE DEREGULATED ENVIRONMENT. UNDER THE NEW BOND ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE HERE, THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED WITH THESE BONDS, AUSTIN ENERGY IS FAR LESS CONSTRAINED THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, MORE APT TO BE COMPETITIVE IN THE FUTURE WITH GREAT STRATEGIC OPERATING AND FLEXIBILITY. WHAT THIS ALL MEANS, WHEN AND IF YOU GET READY TO OPT IN, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND BE FAR MORE COMPETITIVE THAN YOU WERE ABLE TO BE IN THE PAST. REACHING THIS GOAL HAS NOT BEEN EASY. IT'S REQUIRED THE CITY COUNCILL TO UNDERSTAND AND TO ACT UPON SOME VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES AND TO SET SOME VERY STRONG POLICIES AND A GREAT DEAL OF WORK BY THE CITY STAFF. I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, LIKE CHUCK GRIFFITH AND THE CITY MANAGER AND ELAINE COOLMAN AND DENLY WAYLEE, DENNIS STEPHENSON, A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE DID A LOT OF WORK. ED ESCOBELL HELPED DRAFT THE DOCUMENTATION. THEY MADE A SUPERB PRESENTATION AT THE RATING AGENCIES, HELPED YOU ALONG A GREAT DEAL. THE RATINGS OF COURSE REFLECTED. AGAIN THESE ARE PLEDGED ELECTRIC SYSTEM REVENUES ONLY, A 3, A MINUS AND AN A, FITZ ALSO SHOWED THEY ARE VERY CONFIDENT IN THE CITY AND UTILITY SYSTEM. THEY UPGRADED YOUR COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM DEBT TO AN A PLUS. ONE QUICK COMMENT ON THE BOOK THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE LAST PAYMENT, THERE'S A FITZ RATING REPORT. I SHOULD TELL YOU SOME OF THE MORE PERTINENT THINGS IN IT. IT SAYS THE RATING REFLECTS AUSTIN ENERGY'S IMPROVED COMPETITIVE POSITION IN TEXAS' CHANGING ELECTRIC MARKET AND SUCCESSFUL ACHIEVEMENT OF FINANCIAL TARGET SET IN 1996. WHICH SAYS OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS A LONG TIME. THE CITY'S RATING UPGRADE REFLECTS AUSTIN ENERGY'S IMPROVING CREDIT MEASURES, DECLINING DEBT BALANCE AND HISTORICALLY SOUND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE. AGAIN THAT'S ALL VERY COMMENDABLE, VERY POSITIVE ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU WILL NOTICE ON THE LOOSE PAGES IN THE BOOK YOU RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 11 BIDS FOR THIS TRANSACTION. THE LOWEST OF WHICH I AM EXTREMELY PLEASED TO SAY IS 510 OR 5.10%, THAT IS THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE UTILITY SYSTEM BOND SALE THIS CITY HAS EVER HAD. LOWEST INTEREST RATE ON THE UTILITY SYSTEM BOND SALE. WE OBVIOUSLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU ON THE HIGH LEVEL OF INTEREST, THE GREAT INTEREST RATE THAT YOU HAVE HERE, AGAIN RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THANK FOR YOU ALLOWING US TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. NEWMAN. LET ME RETURN THE COMPLIMENT, SOMEWHAT. I THINK WE DO WELL BECAUSE WE LISTEN TO YOU A LOT.

>> YOU ARE ALL TOO KIND, THANK YOU.

>>WYNN: MAYOR?

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

>>WYNN: MR. NEWMAN ON THE RATING AGENCY'S RATINGS ON PAGE 7, AGAIN, THAT'S TECHNICALLY JUST FOR AUSTIN ENERGY AND SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS REVENUE SERIES, RIGHT?

>> THE RATING REFLECTS THE -- THE RATING ON THIS NEW ISSUE OF BONDS.

>>WYNN: OKAY. WHEN THE RATING AGENCIES GO THROUGH THEIR HOME WORK TO DO WHAT THEY DID, WHAT ROLE DOES THE FACT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS MUNICIPAL APPEAL OWNED AND WHAT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE SORT OF IMPACT AND WHAT MATH DO THEY GO THROUGH -- IS THERE A -- WHEN THEY LOOK UPSTREAM AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR IS THERE ANY --

>> WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MUNICIPAL APPEAL OBVIOUSLY IS WHAT MAKES THEM TAX EXEMPT. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MUNICIPAL APPEAL OWNED MEANS THAT THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF OPTING IN OR NOT OPTING IN. IN ANY EVENT, WHEN THEY DO THE ANALYSIS ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS GIVEN TO YOU LIKE YOUR BOND ORDINANCE, THE P.U.C., OTHER THINGS, TO COMPETE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. THEY KNOW AT SOME POINT IN TIME IF YOU HAVE TO OPT IN, YOU HAVE TO BE READY. YOU CAN'T JUST GET READY OVERNIGHT. THEY CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE THINGS. IN DOING SO, THEY DO TAKE A FORWARD LOOK, AS YOU WERE ALLUDING TO, TO HOW WELL YOU ARE POSITIONED IN THE FUTURE AND YOU ARE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH THE -- WITH THE NON-MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES OUT THERE.

>> OKAY. THEN A RELATED QUESTION. HOW DOES -- IF AT ALL, HOW DOES THIS RATING, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, INDEPENDENT -- INDEPENDENT RATINGS THAT WE HAVE? WHAT'S THE CORRELATION THERE?

>> WELL, I WOULD GIVE AND YOU LITTLE LONGER ANSWER THAN YOU MAY WANT. THE DOUBLE A OR BETTER SELL BETTER THAN TRIPLE A RATE OF SECURITY, WELL STRONG, WELL RECEIVED CREDIT. AUSTIN HAS FOR YEARS SINCE I CAN REMEMBER, SINCE THE EARLY '80'S, SOLD A WATER, SEWER, ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM BOND. HAVE STRUGGLED. IN THE '80'S AND EARLY '90'S. FOR VARIOUS REASONS. PART OF THE OF OF IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. MANY OF THE ANALYSTS THAT WE TALKED TO AT THE RATING AGENCIES HAVE BEEN INVOLVED OVER ALL THAT TIME, PLUS 10 OR 15 YEARS, IN LOOKING AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IN DOING SO, ALAN SPIN IS WITH FITCH, HE IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED ANALYSTS THERE. HE CALLED ME AFTER THIS WAS ALL OVER, HE SAID BILL I HAVE BEEN WATCHING AUSTIN FOR A LONG TIME, SINCE THE MID 90'S, AT LEAST, WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED TO GET THEIR ELECTRIC SYSTEM IN ORDER, THEY HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB. IT SAYS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE, HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE CITY, WHERE THEY HAVE COME TO AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THAT'S THE REASON IN MY OPINION THAT THEY UPGRADED YOUR COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM DEBT.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS. OKAY. WITH THAT, ARE WE READY TO -- TO MOVE THE AUTHORIZATION OR DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

>>GRIFFITH: I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

>>GOODMAN: A MOTION AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF APPROXIMATELY $126, -- I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THESE LARGE OF NUMBERS. $126,700,000. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NONE, THEN ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? ABSTAINING, WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. NEWMAN.

>> AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WE WOUND UP NOT GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION LAST TIME, WE SAID WE WERE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FOLKS HERE, SO LET ME ASK IF CHIEF KNEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO BREAK AWAY YET? DO WE KNOW? ANYBODY? HE IS LOWER -- HE IS HERE? LET ME READ THIS STUFF AGAIN. WE WILL ONLY HAVE ONE ISSUE TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE ARE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071, PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, TO DISCUSS ITEM NO. 2 UNDER THAT HEADING, LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION. IS THERE A MOTION?

>> SO MOVE.

>> AND A SECOND, AND SO, OKAY, WE ARE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF WE FINISH BEFORE 4:00, SOMEONE WILL COME OUT AND ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE FINISHED EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND IF WE DON'T FINISH, OF COURSE, THEN WE WILL SEE YOU AT 4:00 FOR ZONING. PARDON? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

>>GOODMAN: THE SESSION WILL BE BOOK IN OPEN SESSION AT -- BE BACK IN OPEN SESSION AT 4:00 FOR ZONING.

>>GOODMAN: LET'S COME BACK TO ORDER FOR THE HEARING. HI, MARGARET. MS. GLASGO, ARE YOU READY TO PRESENT ZONINGS?

>> I'M ALICE GLASGO TO PRESENT ZONING CASES TODAY. I WILL START OFF WITH ATTEMPT NUMBER 55, CASE C 14 P-76-007, LOCATED AT 28 --2108 EAST EM FRANKLIN ROAD. THE APPROXIMATE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMENDMENT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE IS NOT AN ORDINANCE REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM. ITEM NO. 56, THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD AGREE TO A POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 8TH P.ITEM NO. 57, CASE C14-00-2074, THE -- THERE IS A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO FEBRUARY THE 15TH. THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ARE STILL NEGOTIATING ON ISSUES REGARDING THE CASE. ITEM NO. 58, CASE C14-00-2098, THE -- THE STAFF IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY THE 25TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT HEARD THE CASE. ITEM NO. 59, CASE C14-00-2115, LOCATED AT 205 AND 207 MOCKING BIRD LANE. THE REQUEST IN ZONING IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO SINGLE FAMILY 4-A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY 4 A, THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING. ITEM NO. 60, CASE C14-00-2149, LOCATED AT 904 THROUGH 906 WEST 29TH STREET, WITH -- THE CHANGE IS FROM MULTI-FAMILY 2 TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH A MIXED USE COMPONENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MIXED USE ZONING AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 61, CASE C14-00-2158, LOCATED AT 2500 SAN ANTONIO STREET, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM CS, WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT, TO MF 4, WHICH STANDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING. AND THE -- THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT IS TO CSMU, WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT REQUEST WITH OTHER CONDITIONS AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. 62, CASE C 14 T-00-2163 A TRADITION NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ZONING CASE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY THE 25TH IN ORDER TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS. ITEM NO. 63, CASE C14-00-2175, LOCATED AT 1007 EAST 39TH STREET. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A VALID PETITION AND WE DO NOT HAVE A FULL COUNCIL TODAY, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE THE COUNCIL TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO FEBRUARY THE 15TH. TO ALLOW FOR A FULL CITY COUNCIL TO HEAR THE CASE. ITEM NO. 64 IS GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. ITEM 65 THERE'S A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO FEBRUARY THE 15TH. WE RECOMMEND THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. ITEM 66 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. 67 IS A CONSENT CASE, C14-00-2189 LOCATED AT 1218 WEST SLAUGHTER LANE, CHANGE FROM DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO WLO, WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE ZONING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO USE TO GRANT THE WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE ZONING WITH CONDITIONS AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 68, IS A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO FEBRUARY THE 8TH. THE REQUEST WAS RECEIVED TIMELY AND IT'S RECOMMENDED BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WON'T BE HEARING THE CASE UNTIL THE 23RD OF THIS MONTH. ITEM NO. 69, C14-00-2193 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE AND WINDDRIFT WAY. CHANGE FROM LO, LIMITED OFFICE TO SINGLE FAMILY 6. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CHANGE OF SINGLE FAMILY 6. WITH CONDITIONS AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 70, CASE C14-00-2198 LOCATED AT 4300 MANOR ROAD, THE CHANGE IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO P, WHICH STANDS FOR PUBLIC. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE P PUBLIC ZONING AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 71, CASE C14-00-2201, LOCATED AT 6705 MANOR ROAD. THE CHANGE IS FROM INTERIM SINGLE FAMILY 3 AND GENERAL -- COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING TO -- THAT IS THE REQUEST. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S -- I APOLOGIZE. I MESSED UP HERE, ITEM NO. 71, THERE IS A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO FEBRUARY THE 1ST. THE APPLICANT IS OUT OF TOWN TODAY. ITEM NO. 72, CASE C14-00-2211, LOCATED AT EAST 51ST STREET AND OLD MANOR ROAD, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM AV, AVIATION, TO P PUBLIC. THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE P PUBLIC ZONING AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. 73, CASE C14-00-2215, LOCATED AT 10308 I-35 NORTH. CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO CS, WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE ZONING CHANGE AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 74, CASE C14-00-2223, LOCATED AT 5711 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, THE CHANGE IS FROM LIMITED OFFICE TO GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING, AND -- AND FAMILY. THAT'S THE EXISTING ZONING, LO AND GR. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS FAMILY 2 ZONING AS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BY THE APPLICANT WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THE CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. 75, CASE C14-00-2225, LOCATED AT 1500 ROSEWOOD AVENUE. THE CHANGE IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO P PUBLIC. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS P PUBLIC ZONING AND THE CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. 76, C14-00-2233 [SIC] LOCATED ON SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD. THE CHANGE IS FROM CS-1 TO GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS GR ZONING AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 77, C14-00-2233 LOCATED AT 3409 GLENVIEW AVENUE, THE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO MOMU, WHICH STANDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM -- EXCUSE ME -- ITEM NO. 78 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. ITEM NO. 79, CASE C14-00-2235 SH, A SMART HOUSING CASE, LOCATED ON LYDIA AVENUE AND EAST 10TH CITY, FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES TO SINGLE FAMILY 3. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM 80, CASE C14-00-2239 LOCATED AT 605 WEST OLTORF. THE CHANGE IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO NO, WHICH STANDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH A MIXED USE, COMBINING DISTRICT, THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. 81, CASE C14-00-2079, LOCATED ON HEATHERWILDE BOULEVARD AND WELLS BRANCH PARKWAY. THE CHANGE IS FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO GR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON TRACT 1 AND IP, INDUSTRIAL PARK, FOR TRACT 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS GR-CO FOR TRACT 1 AND IP, INDUSTRIAL PARK, FOR TRACT 2. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. 82, CASE C14-00-2188, LOCATED ON DEIHL TRAIL, THE CHANGE IS FROM FAMILY 3 TO G.O., WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL OFFICE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CHANGE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND OTHER CONDITIONS. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM 83, CASE C14-00-2205 LOCATED AT 2407 HOWARD LANE. THE CHANGE IS FROM GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, TO CS, CO, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND OTHER CONDITIONS. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. AND FINALLY, ITEM NO. 84, CASE C14-00-2226, LOCATED AT 1710 CENTURY STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO LI, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TOYS GRANT LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND OTHER CONDITIONS. THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. MAYOR PRO TEM THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT ITEMS.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MS. GLASGO. LET ME GO OVER THIS. ITEM NO. 55, WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. 56 TO POSTPONE UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 8TH. 57 TO POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 15TH. 58 TO POSTPONE TO JANUARY 25TH. 59 ON FIRST READING ONLY. 60 ALL THREE READINGS. 61, ALL THREE READINGS. 62, POSTPONE TO JANUARY 25TH. 63, POSTPONE FEBRUARY 15TH. 65, TO POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY 15TH. 67, ALL THREE READINGS. 68, POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY THE 8TH. 69, ALL THREE READINGS. 70, ALL THREE READINGS. 71, POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 1ST. 72, FIRST READING ONLY. 73, ALL THREE READINGS. 74, FIRST READING ONLY. 75, FIRST READING ONLY. 76, ALL THREE READINGS. 77, ALL THREE READINGS. 79, ALL THREE READINGS. 80, FIRST READING ONLY. 81, ALL THREE READINGS. 82, ALL THREE READINGS. 83, ALL THREE READINGS. 84, FIRST READING ONLY.

>>GLASGO: MINOR, I HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED ON ITEM NO. 81, BY MR. ZAPALAC HE JUST RECEIVED A NEW TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, GIVEN THAT SUBMITTAL WE WOULD LIKE THE CASE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY UNTIL WE HAVE CONCLUDED THE REVIEW. SO WE CHANGE 81 TO JUST -- WE DON'T HAVE A DATE CERTAIN TO GIVE YOU, WE WILL JUST NOTIFY YOU ONCE WE FINISH THE REVIEW AND THEN SCHEDULE IT FOR -- FOR COUNCIL AGENDA.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WITH THAT ONE MODIFICATION, INSTEAD OF ALL THREE READINGS, POSTPONE INDEFINITELY ITEM NO. 81. IS THERE A MOTION TO DO THOSE THINGS?

>>WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL.

>>GOODMAN: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. I WILL SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: OPPOSED,? ABSTAINING? WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ROGER CHAN TO THE DIAS. OF COURSE DEBORAH, WE ALWAYS WELCOME DEBORAH. ALICE, ARE YOU A PRESENTER FOR OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM?

>>GLASGO: OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM IS ITEM NO. 64. I BELIEVE. WE'VE HAD A FEW CHANGES. 64 IS A ZONING CASE, NUMBER C14-00-2178. THIS CASE IS LOCATED IN WEST STASSNEY LANE AT GOBI DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LR AND LO. AND THE EXISTING USE, THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED UNDER THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE, WHILE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES ARE PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF A CHURCH. THE -- THERE'S A LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL BY A CITIZEN OPPOSING THE CHANGE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MS. EDGEMON, WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THE REZONING. I WILL PAUSE HERE AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AFTER -- AFTER MS. EDGEMON SPEAKS.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. ARE THERE QUESTIONS BEFORE I CALL UP MS. EDGEMON? NO?

>>.

>>GLASGO: I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WE DON'T HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. TYPICALLY THE APPLICANT GOES FIRST.

>>GOODMAN: YEAH. I JUST HAVE -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE APPLICANT, SO IF THEY ARE HERE, I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM.

>>GLASGO: WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE AGENT HERE. THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

>>GOODMAN: DID THEY KNOW THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO?

>>GLASGO: YES. THEY WILL GET A NOTICE AND THEY KNOW THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. TYPICALLY MOST PEOPLE NOTIFY US WHEN THEY CANNOT BE PRESENT.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD, IF COUNCIL IS COMFORTABLE, WITH LETTING MS. EDGEMON SPEAK, WE MAY LEAVE THIS ON THE TABLE AND SEE IF THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO SHOW UP LATER. WE COULD TAKE ACTION AT THAT TIME OR ULTIMATELY I GUESS POSTPONE. MS. EDGEMON?

>> MY NAME IS BETTIE EDGEMON, I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE BUT IT CAME UP A FEW YEARS BACK. AT THAT TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION SDOND THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY OR THEY RECOMMENDED ZONING OF LO AND I DON'T THINK IF IT WENT TO FIRST READING TO CITY COUNCILL AND THEY -- THEY GRANTED THE LO, THEN I'M NOT SURE, I DON'T THINK IT DID ALL THREE READINGS. BUT I READ JOHN'S LETTER AND I'M IN AGREEMENT -- IN AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SCHAFEE. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURB CUT ON TO GOBI. YOU CAN BUILD ON CHURCH JUST ON ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT, I MEAN ANY ZONING THAT YOU WANT. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY ARE AGAINST THE CHURCH. THEY ARE AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE. BECAUSE WELL IF ANY OF YOU THAT TRAVEL STASSNEY LANE, YOU WILL KNOW GOBI AND STASSNEY IS LIKE HIGH ON THE PEACE REPORTS WHEN IT COMES TO -- POLICE REPORTS WHEN IT COMES TO ACCIDENTS, THAT'S WHY WE WANTED SOMETHING VERY LOW DENSITY. THAT'S WHY LAST TIME THEY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE JUST THE LOCAL OFFICE THERE. I -- I ACTUALLY SAID I WAS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, BUT ACTUALLY IN MY HEART I'M NOT. I'M STILL WITH THE S.F. 3. I THINK IT'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN BUILD SOME HOUSES ON. OR THAT YOU CAN JUST PUT AN LO ON. I THINK THEY HAVE REASON TO BE CONCERNED, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THEY SAID IF A CHURCH ISN'T BUILT, IT WILL REVERT BACK TO S.F. 3 OR IT WILL GO TO S.F. 4. AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T SEEM TO FEEL TOO COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I AM GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE THE DECISION ON THIS UP TO YOU. OKAY? I DON'T TRUST YOU VERY MUCH, SO MAKE -- MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. [LAUGHTER].

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME APOLOGIZE TO MS. EDGEMON. SHE ALSO HAD AN EXTRA CARD WHICH I DIDN'T REALIZE, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE CARD, ON ITEM NO. 59, WHICH YOU SAID YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF.

>> WELL, YEAH. I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION, OF COURSE, AT SOME POINT. BUT I'M VERY SHY AND TIMID AS YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO DO THAT. I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO KNOW ON 59, WE ARE IN SUPPORT. PHYLLIS IS SAYING WHAT'S SHE SAYING. ON 59 WE ARE IN SUPPORT, WE HAVE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND TALK OVER COFFEE AND STUFF AT THE BAKE HOUSE, WHAT HAVE YOU. BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID WE ARE NOT TOO SURE WHAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN THERE, APARTMENTS OR DUPLEXES. I'M THE ONE THAT SUGGESTED TO PHYLLIS SHE GOES BACK TO HER, THE PERSON SHE WAS WORKING FOR AND SEE IF HE WOULD AGREE TO S.F. 4, SO WE COULD KEEP THE FLAVOR OF THIS HISTORICAL SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE FIRST HOUSES WERE BUILT IN 1929 IN THAT SUBDIVISION AND HE SAID, YES, HE WOULD WORK WITH THAT. AND SO I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT -- THAT WE DO WORK TOGETHER SOMETIMES AND HOPEFULLY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING NEW FOR OUR AREA, HOPEFULLY IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD THING AND THAT'S WHY I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON IT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. OKAY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT'S AGENT FORGOT. BUT IS ON HIS WAY. AND SO IF WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TABLE THIS UNTIL HE GETS TO LCRA BUILDING, THEN WE CAN -- WE CAN TAKE ACTION LATER. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>>WYNN: SECOND.

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

>> AYE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. SO THAT'S ITEM 64, WE WILL BE BACK. ALICE, 66.

>>GLASGO: THE NEXT ITEM, MAYOR AND COUNCIL IS ITEM NO. 78.

>>GOODMAN: NOT 66.

>>GLASGO: OH, I SKIPPED OVER 66 THERE. 66. 66 IS CASE NUMBER C14-00-2186, THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 306 WEST OLTORF STREET. THE ZONING CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY 3. AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE THAT CHANGED TO LR, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMEND NO, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. BECAUSE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING ZONING TO THE WEST WHICH IS N.O., AND ALSO TO THE EAST YOU HAVE A MULTI FAMILY ZONING, WHICH WE BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON THIS STREET. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON WE ARE DISCUSSING THE ITEM FOR ONE IS THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND SECONDLY WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE WEST BOULDIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSING A CHANGE IN ZONING ALSO. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYONE HERE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEY DID SEND A LETTER AND SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE A COPY WITH YOU FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

>>GOODMAN: WAS THE LETTER, ALICE, OPPOSING ANY CHANGE AT ALL FROM S.F..

>>GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>GOODMAN: IT SOUNDED LIKE A CONTRADICTION THERE. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THEY THOUGHT N.O.WAS COMPATIBLE?

>>GLASGO: THE LETTER WE GOT NOT TOO LONG AGO INDICATES THEY WOULD PREFER TO MAINTAIN THE S.F. 3 ZONING, BUT THE APPLICANT CHANGED THE ZONING FROM GR TO LR, WITH A COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT IN THEY UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION WAS DIFFERENT AND THE COMMISSION WAS RECOMMENDING A LOWER DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW.

>>GOODMAN: IT WAS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, ALTHOUGH I GUESS WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT, THAT THE APPLICANT DID AGREE WITH THE N.O.. CAME TO AN AGREEMENT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>>GLASGO: WITH THE NEW YEAR, WE SEEM TO HAVE A FEW PEOPLE FORGETTING TO COME TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

>>GOODMAN: DO WE KNOW IF THAT PERSON IS ON THE WAY, TOO?

>> GREG GUERNSEY, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION. I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONTACTED. BECAUSE THERE WAS A PETITION THAT WAS JUST FILED TODAY WITH OUR OFFICE. WE CAN'T SAY IF IT'S VALID OR NOT. IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT ON YOUR ACTION ON THIRD READING AT THAT TIME. SO WE -- WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THAT. SO I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CASE WITH THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE NOT HERE AT THIS MOMENT. WE WILL TRY TO CONTACT THEM BY PHONE RIGHT NOW.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>>GLASGO: MAYOR PRO TEM, ANOTHER THOUGHT WOULD BE ON THIS ONE, WE COULD POSTPONE THIS CASE TO NEXT WEEK AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH ASSESSING THE PETITION TO DETERMINE IF IT'S VALID. THAT WAY AT LEAST AT THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING YOU WILL KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT PETITION. THAT'S JUST A SUGGESTION.

>>GOODMAN: WELL, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CHOICES, ACTUALLY.

>>GLASGO: TRUE.

>>GOODMAN: I'M SORRY, POSTPONE UNTIL WHEN?

>>GLASGO: FEBRUARY THE 1ST, NEXT WEEK IS THE 25TH, JANUARY THE 25TH.

>>GOODMAN: THAT'S WHEN YOU THINK IT WILL BE BETTER, JANUARY THE 25TH?

>>GLASGO: 25TH, YES.

>>GOODMAN: IS THERE A MOTION TO DO THAT?

>> I MOVE IT.

>> MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM NO. 66 TO JANUARY THE 25TH. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED ABSTAINING? NEXT?

>>GOODMAN: WE ARE JUST ZIPPING RIGHT THROUGH.

>>GLASGO: ZIPPING RIGHT THROUGH, I KNOW. SURPRISINGLY SO. WE ARE BACK TO ITEM NO. 78, ITEM NO. 78 IS CASE C14-00-2234 LOCATED AT 809 SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 3. AND CS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO GR, MU, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT. THE -- THE CASE WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS GR-MU WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND WHILE YOU HAVE THAT, TOO, THERE IS -- THERE IS A -- A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF THAT RECOMMENDS RR ZONING FOR THE AREA IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO -- TO THE FACT REGARDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE CASE AT LENGTH LENGTH AND DID NOT CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND THE AREA IN THE FLOODPLAIN FOR SEVERAL REASONS. SOME OF THOSE REASONS CAN BE EXPANDED UPON LATER ON. THE REASON THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND ZONING THE FLOODPLAIN IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ON THE SITE, THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. ALSO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL MAY NOT BE MET IF THAT TRACT IS LEFT ALONE UNDER RURAL RESIDENTIAL, WOULD NOT HAVE THE ACREAGE NEEDED WHICH IS ONE ACRE, TO PROPOSE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THEN SECONDLY, WE HAVE SINCE 1985 ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE WHEN THIS RESOLUTION WAS CREATED TO SPEAK TO HOW PROPERTY CAN OR CANNOT BE DEVELOPED WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THERE IS CERTAINLY CRITERIA CURRENTLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT DID NOT EXIST IN 1985 THAT SPECIFICALLY [INAUDIBLE] HOW THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE DEVELOPED IF IT MEETS THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. OBVIOUSLY IF IT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA I CAN'T THAT WILL BE NOT APPROVED REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING THAT WAS IN PLACE. THAT WAS SOME OF THE REASONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED SOME OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS, SINCE NOT OF ALL OF THEM WERE PRESENT OR VOTED THAT THEY WOULD NOT ZONE THE FLOODPLAIN RURAL RESIDENTIAL. I WOULD BE GLAD TO SPEAK TO -- TO -- TO YOUR QUESTIONS OR OTHER ASPECTS THAT MIGHT ARISE AFTER MS. CROCKER MAKES THE PRESENTATION ON THE CASE. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] HERE, I'VE GOT A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING WITH ALL THE PAVING AND THE PARKING AND THERE'S REALLY GREAT, ABOUT HALF OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE BACK END THAT IS SORT OF LIKE A LITTLE MINATURE PARK. IT'S GOT LOTS OF GREAT TREES AND IT'S JUST A TERRIFIC LITTLE BUILDING SITE. AND WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, MY INTENTION THEN AND MY INTENTION NOW IS TO GO BACK HERE AND BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE FOR MYSELF ON THE PROPERTY. AND IT'S REALLY -- I MEAN WE DO HAVE A TRAIN TRACK BACK HERE, BUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED I CAN'T WHY I WOULD WANT TO BUILD CLOSE TO THE TRACKS, BUT I'VE WORKED WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THE SOUND ISSUES. THIS WAS MY INTENT WAS TO BUILD A HOUSE BACK HERE. AFTER I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I DISCOVERED SEVERAL THINGS. ONE OF THEM IS THAT I HAVE A SERIOUS DRAINAGE PROBLEM. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED RIGHT AT THE BEND IN LAMAR AS IT COMES DOWN TOWARDS BARTON SPRINGS ROAD. AND ALL OF THE WATER OFF SOUTH LAMAR WHEN IT RAINS COMES ROARING, AND I'M NOT USING THAT WORD LIGHTLY, DOWN THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS. AND IT COMES AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT MY BUILDING, BUT IT COMES ON EITHER SIDE OF MY PROPERTY AND BACK HERE WE HAVE A RATHER LARGE CULVERT THAT WAS INSTALLED THAT GOES UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRESTLE. AND, YOU KNOW, AFTER I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND WE STARTED HAVING A LOT OF HEAVY RAIN, I'VE HAD SEVERAL ENGINEERS COME OVER AND LOOK. THIS CULVERT IS SIGNIFICANTLY SILTED IN. IRREGARDLESS WHETHER I BUILD THE HOUSE OR NOT, I STILL HAVE TO FIX THIS PROBLEM OR I'M GOING TO HAVE A LAKE BACK HERE. WE ARE WORKING WITH TEN WICK AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THIS IS ALL THE WATER COMING OFF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEY DIDN'T GET A SDRAJ EASEMENT. I WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST TWO 25-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PUT IN A STRUCTURAL CONTROL, REWORK THE CULVERT, WHAT WE WILL DO. BASICALLY THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT MY PROPERTY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M NOT REAL SURE HOW YET. BUT IT IS GOING TO CUT DOWN MY DEVELOPABLE AREA AND IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP A GREAT DEAL OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CF SF-3 AT THIS JUNCTURE. I DID A VERIFICATION LETTER BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED HOW MY PROPERTY GOT ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY 3 IN THE BACK. IF YOU LOOK BACK THROUGH THE ZONING MAP, THIS BACK PART HAS BEEN ZONED SF-3 FOR QUITE SOME TIME, SINCE THE '40'S. IT'S HAD A RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION. THAT'S PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BACK IN THROUGH HERE UNTIL THE RAILROAD CAME THROUGH AND THEN EXPANDED THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND SO THIS THERE SWATCH BACK HERE WAS ORIGINALLY LEFT OVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD BEEN BACK IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. YOU CAN SEE WHERE WEST BOULDIN CREEK COMES. MY FLOOD PLAIN IS NOT ON THE BANKS OF THE CREEK. IT IS NOT -- I'M NOT SITTING ON THE BANKS OF THE CREEK THAT COULD OVERFLOW AND I COULD BE INUNDATED. ALTHOUGH IT IS FEMA FLOOD PLAIN, IT IS NOT -- IT'S NOT IN AN AREA WHERE YOU TYPICALLY LOOK AT FLOODPLAIN THAT CAN BE LIFE THREATENING LIKE ON THE BANKS OF SHOAL CREEK OR ON THE BANKS OF WEST BOULDIN. I APPLIED FOR GRMU. I DON'T NEED C.S.. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS WHOLE DARK BROWN AREA IS ALL THE 100 YEAR. IT TAKES UP 29.9% OF MY PROPERTY. THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IN 1985 BY THE COUNCIL WASN'T AN ORDINANCE, ACTUALLY IT WAS A PROCLAMATION, WAS THAT -- AND I HAVE -- THERE'S A LETTER HERE THAT I WROTE IN 1998 TO MS. GLASCO ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE WE DID THIS SAME THING. AND THE MIPTSZ OF THE MEETING SAY THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AT A VERY LOW DENSITY AND THE CITY COUNCILL INTENDS TO ZONE AND REZONE SUCH PROPERTY TO RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. APPLICATIONS OF ZONING AND REZONING ARE PRESENTED FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. THEY DIDN'T PUT THIS OUT THERE TO BASICALLY TELL YOU YOU COULDN'T BUILD IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHAT THEY SAID WAS THEY WANTED TO KEEP THE DENSITY LOW IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND I CONCUR WITH THAT. I THINK THAT IS GOOD POLICY. I THINK THAT BUILDING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE IS ABOUT AS LOW DENSITY AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET. MY PROBLEM WITH THE RR IS THIS. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. I'M OUT OF TIME.

>>GOODMAN: IF YOU CAN FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.

>> IF THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED RR, I BASICALLY CANNOT -- I CAN'T DO ANYTHING. I CAN'T GET A PERMIT TO DO ANYTHING. IT TAKES ALMOST 30% OF MY PROPERTY AND BASICALLY RENDERS IT UNDEVELOPABLE. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MANDATE. I DON'T MEET MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS FOR RR AND BY DOING THIS TO MY PROPERTY IT BASICALLY TAKES THAT -- YOU KNOW, 30% OF MY PROPERTY AND SAYS YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING AT ALL ON IT.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION. SO WHATEVER COUNCILMEMBER --.

>>ALVAREZ: I HAVE A QUESTION.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ -- WELL, LET ME ALICE REAL KWIB, WHO DID PULL IT? WHO DID PULL IT? THIS ITEM, WHO PULLED IT?

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>GOODMAN: AND WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM, WHO WAS YOUR QUESTION?

>>GOODMAN: WHO PULLED IT FOR DISCUSSION? I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. WHICH COUNCILMEMBER.

>>GLASGO: SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, SOME QUESTIONS -- WE HAD QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. THROUGH THE E-MAIL QUESTION SYSTEM. THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT FOR DISCUSSION.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WELL, LET ME CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ FIRST AND THEN I GUESS IF COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING, THE TRACT IN THE BACK WHICH IS TRACT 2, I GUESS, IS THAT --

>> YEAH.

>>ALVAREZ: HOW BIG IS THAT TRACT?

>> I HAVE TWO LEGAL LOTS. AND THAT AREA FLT FLOODPLAIN CONSTITUTES APPROXIMATELY 14,50 FEET.

>>ALVAREZ: IN ACRES, HOW MUCH IS THAT? THIRD OF AN ACRE?

>> AN ACRE IS 43,000 AND CHANGE. SO IT'S 560. AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OVER AN ACRE OF PROPERTY.

>>ALVAREZ: SO IN THE LOT WHERE YOU WANT TO DEVELOP YOUR HOME, OR RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AGAIN, HOW MUCH OF IT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED OR WHAT IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS AND --

>> WELL, FOR SF-3 THEY ARE 45%. BACK OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED STFMENT F 3 IS ALL THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS IN CF. THE PROBLEM IS I CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE IN THE C.S. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE MU DESIGNATION.

>>ALVAREZ: SO ON YOUR MAP THE AREA WHERE YOU WOULD DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS THAT RED COLORED AREA?

>> NO.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>ALVAREZ: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

>>GRIFFITH: MS. GLASCO, COULD I ASK YOU ABOUT THE POLICY THAT I BELIEVE APPLIES HERE. I'VE GOTTEN A LETTER FROM A COUPLE OF FOLKS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PERHAPS NOT AS ENTHUSIASTIC AS -- ENFORCEMENT OF A POLICY THAT WAS PASS UNDERSTAND '85 AS THEY THINK IS -- PASSED IN '85, AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF THIS IS. THEY SAY CITY POLICY IS TO ZONE LAND IN THE FLOODPLAIN RR. TRUE?

>>GLASGO: THERE IS A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT THAT DIRECTS OR STATES WHEN WE HAVE REZONING CASES IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THIS WAS IN 1985, THOSE AREAS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

>>GRIFFITH: WHICH MEANS THEY COME IN AUTOMATICALLY RR?

>>GLASGO: NO. WHEN THERE IS A REZONING CHANGE --.

>>GRIFFITH: OR THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

>>GLASGO: FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S IS CASE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, THE CHANGE HAS BEEN FILED. BUT IN THE EVENT THERE IS FLOODPLAIN ON THE PROPERTY, THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING WOULD BE CONSIDERED.

>>GRIFFITH: WOULD BE CONSIDERED, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY HAPPEN.

>>GLASGO: NO, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. THE CITY COUNCILL HAS TO HEAR AND ACT ON IT.

>>GRIFFITH: OKAY. IT IS -- THEY SAY IT'S A SOUND POLICY ON A NUMBER OF BASES. FIRST, OF COURSE, THE POLICY PROTECTS LIFE AND PROPERTY BY MINIMIZING DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SECOND, IT REDUCES THE PRESSURE FOR EARTH-MOVING AND FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATIONS WHICH CAN WREAK HAVOC ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS. THIRD, IT PROVIDES AN INFORMAL BUFFER FOR OUR CREEKS AND WATERWAYS. FOURTH, IT ASIZ IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A -- ASSISTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN IMPORTANT AUSTIN PRINCIPLE, THAT WE WILL ORGANIZE OUR OPEN SPACE AROUND OUR CREEKS AND WATERWAYS. MY QUESTION IS A POLICY ONE, AND THAT IS DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS A GOOD POLICY AND HOW OFTEN IS -- HOW OFTEN DOES IT -- IS THE RR SUGGESTED AS A SERIOUS ZONING WHEN PROPERTY COMES IN FOR -- FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN? WHAT'S THE NORMAL, CUSTOMARY SITUATION? ARE WE -- ARE WE HONORING THIS 1985 COUNCIL POLICY?

>>GLASGO: FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I WILL WORK BACKWARDS. YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS WAS THIS A GOOD POLICY. IT IS A GOOD POLICY. THE CITY COUNCILL HAS IN SOME CASES HONORED SOME AND IN SOME CASES NOT AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY THAT VARIES SOMETIMES. IN THE LAST 17 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HANDLING ZONING CASES, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING FOR FLOODPLAIN IN SUBURBAN AREA. MORE RECENTLY AS DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING DOWNTOWN AND WITHIN THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE DOWNTOWN AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WE ARE SEEING LOTS ALREADY BUILT, HAVE ENOUGH LAND AREA THAT ARE HAVING INFILL DEVELOPMENT BEGINNING TO -- AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST ONE THAT HAS COME UP MORE RECENTLY THAT HAS THIS SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WANTS TO EXPAND WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WHILE THE POLICY IS A GOOD ONE, IT DOES SAY THAT -- THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION WAS TO MINIMIZE THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS CASE, RESIDENTIAL ZONING, REALLY YOU END UP HAVING INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU ZONE THE PROPERTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, IF IT NEEDS TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND IN LOOKING AT THIS CASE, THE CHALLENGE WAS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURS ON THE SITE IN ORDER TO REDUCE DENSITY. IT DOES THAT, BUT YOU NEED ONE ACRE OF LAND AREA TO BE ABLE TO -- IF YOU ARE TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS ALLOWED, IT IS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA ONE HAS TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO RAISE THE STRUCTURE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. SECONDLY THE BUILDING CODE HAS REQUIREMENTS ALSO THAT HAVE TO BE SATISFIED. SO JUST HAVING RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN AN AREA THAT IS A FLOODPLAIN DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD ABSENT DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. AND THEN SECONDLY, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST IN MOST CASES WHERE WE'VE HAD PROPERTY COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCILL WHERE PART OF IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND PROBABLY PART OF IT ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A FLOODPLAIN, THE LAND AREA HAS EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT AND HAS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT, OR IT'S IN THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE AREA IN THE WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND ONE CAN TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE WATERSHED REGULATIONS TO THE UPLAND ZONE. THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING POSES OR CREATES IN CASES WHERE YOU ALREADY HAVE -- YOU HAVE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN CASES LIKE THIS.

>>GRIFFITH: THESE PARTICULAR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT THIS SITE HAS ARE THE TYPE OF PROBLEMS THAT THE POLICY WAS INSTITUTED ESPECIALLY FOR.

>>GOODMAN: IF I COULD HAVE SOME INSIGHT INTO THAT -- ADD SOME INSIGHT. IN 1985 WE DIDN'T HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE YET. SO ALWAYS I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING OF TRYING TO INSTITUTE THE RR AS A GENERAL ZONING, WHICH IN FACT REALLY DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL YEARS LATER EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A POLICY WHERE IT WAS A STANDARD OPTION, WAS THAT SOME PROTECTION IN THE -- IN THE WATERSHEDS WAS OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY. WE REALLY HADN'T PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO THE URBAN WATERSHEDS THOUGH UNTIL YEARS LATER THAN THAT. AND I THINK THERE ALWAYS WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS THE REASON WE WENT TO TRYING TO FIND OPTIONS FOR REGIONAL DETENTION WAS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOLKS TO GO THINGS THAT WERE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA WITHOUT ADDING TO EITHER WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION OR WATER QUANTITY INCREASE. SO THE FLOODING WAS ABLE TO BE SOMEWHAT ADDRESSED IN THE AREAS WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE WATER QUALITY DETENTION IF YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT ONSITE INDIVIDUALLY. SO THERE ALWAYS WAS SOME LEEWAY. IT NEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A COOKIE CUTTER, THAT I EVER UNDERSTOOD. THE SOUTHWEST REGION OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE REGIONS WHERE IT WAS NOT DEVELOPED AND WHERE PEOPLE WERE COMING IN WITH LOTS OR SUBDIVISIONS WAS WHERE I THINK THE MORE FOCUSED ENERGY WAS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THOSE THAT WERE STILL SOMEWHAT PRISTINE. AND THEN MUCH LATER WE DECIDED -- OBVIOUSLY WE HAD TO HAVE SOME POLICIES AND RULES FOR THE URBAN CREEKS AS WELL. SO HERE IF YOU HAVE WHAT SOUNDED LIKE ONSITE TREATMENT, I'M NOT SURE FOR THE FLOODING OR WHATEVER, I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF SITUATION THAT HAS ALWAYS CAUSED THE DISCUSSION RATHER THAN THE COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH ON THE RR. IN THE SOUTHWEST THE RR WAS ABLE TO BE USED BETTER IN THOSE YEARS AS BUFFER AND PROTECTION BECAUSE IT WAS NEW DEVELOPMENT ON PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED SITES. IN THE URBAN CORE IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY AS AN ABSOLUTE THIS IS WHAT THAT WAS FOR.

>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: AM I NOT REMEMBERING OVER THE YEARS?

>>SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, LET ME FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING. ONE THING THAT IS MENTION UNDERSTAND THE LETTER COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS -- HAS BEEN READING FROM IS THE -- THE DISTURBANCE THAT OCCURS FROM CONSTRUCTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR TRY TO PREVENT FLOODING. WHAT LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT HERE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN? IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT -- I DON'T MIND LETTING MS. CROCKER HAVE A SHOT AT THAT ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF TOO.

>>GLASGO: I CAN RESPOND TO GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, THAT OBVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY HAS TO HAVE -- TO PROVIDE STABILIZATION OF SOIL. SECONDLY WHAT HAPPENS AND WHEN YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT THIS THE FLOODPLAIN, OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, A SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED. SO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR ON THIS SITE WHETHER IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, WILL REQUIRE A SITE PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH PRECISELY ALL THE ISSUES THAT YOU'VE RAISED REGARDING THE IMPACT ON -- ON THE SURROUNDING AREA AND LOOKING AT STABILIZATION.

>>SLUSHER: IT SOUNDS LIKE -- I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

>>GLASGO: THAT'S WHAT THAT PROCESS IS INTENDED TO DO SLUFRB OKAY. SO SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE SAYING IT'S REALLY TOO EARLY TO TELL WHAT LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE THERE WOULD BE UNTIL WE SEE A SITE PLAN.

>>GLASGO: CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: MS. CROCKER, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SHOT AT THIS?

>> IT'S NOT MY INTENT TO TRY AND BUILD A HOUSE IN A FLOODPLAIN. IF YOU COULD SEE THIS LOT, YOU WOULD BASICALLY -- I WOULD TO KEEP IT AS MUCH OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AS I POSSIBLY CAN. I NEVER -- NEVER STATED ON THE RECORD THAT I WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THE FLOODPLAIN AS FAR AS THE LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE GOES, THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE BACK HERE WILL CAUSE MORE OF A LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE THAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. MS. GLASCO IS CORRECT, THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS SUBMIT A DRAINAGE SITE PLAN TO BASICALLY SHOW WHAT KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED BY THE ENGINEERS. THEY WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO PIPE THIS AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT FOR CHANNELIZING.

>>SLUSHER: AREN'T YOU TALKING ABOUT DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE NECESSARY TO BUILDIST HOUSE?

>> NO. I WILL HAVE TO DO THOSE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I BUILD THE HOUSE OR NOT. THAT CULVERT BACK THERE, WHICH IS THE ONLY OUTLET POINT THAT GOES UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRESTLE IS SILTED IN OVER 50%. IT'S FILLED UP WITH SILT.

>>SLUSHER: AND THAT'S YOUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?

>> WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY -- THE CULVERT IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY, BUT ALL THE WATER THAT RUNS DOWN THROUGH MY PROPERTY OFF OF TXDOT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY GOES INTO THAT CULVERT. MY PROPERTY SERVES AS A CHANNEL FOR IT AT THIS POINT. AND IT'S CAUSING SOME PRETTY SEVERE EE ROWSIVE CONDITIONS. UNTIL I GET THIS WATER SITUATION TAKEN CARE OF, I CAN'T PUT A SIDEWALK IN. IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER I BUILD A HOUSE OR DON'T BUILD A HOUSE, I HAVE GOT TO FIX THE DRAINAGE DOWN THERE.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THEN EXPLAIN TO ME ONE MORE TIME WHY, THEN, IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO BUILD IT IN THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF, THEN HOW DOES IT DAMAGE YOU TO ZONE THAT RR?

>> WELL, WE RAN OUT OF TIME. I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO BRING UP THOSE POINTS. MY TRACT IS IN TWO LEGAL LOTS, WHICH THEY ACTUALLY RUN DOWN, IT SORT OF SLICES THE TRACT IN HALF. AND THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT I MAY HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION. RIGHT NOW I HAVE LEGAL LOT STATUS. THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC WITH THE RR ZONING REGULATION. ONE, CITY CODE DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO HAVE TWO ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, ON THE SAME LOT. IF I DO DECIDE TO BUILD A HOUSE DOWN THERE AND THAT LOT LINE COMES DOWN THE MIDDLE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN I BUILD THE HOUSE -- THE GRAJ IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE DONE FIRST. -- DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. I CAN'T HAVE A PLUMBING LINE CROSS LOT LINES. AND MY WATER COMES IN ON ONE SIDE. SO I'M GOING TO END UP WITH A LIMITED SITE AREA AFTER THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE AND THE EASEMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO WHERE I COULD CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE. THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY IT WILL TRIGGER A SUBDIVISION REGULATION. THERE IS -- RR BASICALLY IS PUT ON AREAS OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AS MS. GLASCO SAID, IT WORKS GREAT IN SUBURBAN AREAS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A VERY LARGE TRACT. WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE THIS, IF I CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR RR, I COULDN'T GET IT. I WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO HAVE RR ZONING ON THAT KIND OF ACREAGE BECAUSE I DON'T MEET MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS. IF I CAME IN AND ASKED FOR IT, I COULDN'T GET IT. I WOULDN'T GET A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR IT. I COULD NOT GET IT. AND I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T GET IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THE LOT STANDARDS FOR RR. IT DOESN'T. I'M STILL SUBJECT TO EVERY RULE AND REGULATION IN ABOUT SIX DIFFERENT BOOKS ABOUT THIS THICK THAT GOVERN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN 1985. AND ZONING ME RR OR ZONING ME GRMU DOESN'T GET ME OUT OF -- DOESN'T RELEASE ME FROM ANY OF THOSE RULES OR REGULATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATE OR THE LOCAL OFFICIALS. WE HAVE SO MANY RULES TO GOVERN THIS, PUTTING THE RR IN THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY SEEMS -- SEEMS A BIT PUNITIVE. I MEAN WHEN I HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU BASICALLY TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO -- TO DO ANYTHING THAT I COULD DO IN THE FLOODPLAIN. BECAUSE IT IS ZONED RR.

>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU. MS. GLASCO, WOULD YOU ELABORATE? I'M SORRY IF I'M MAKING YOU REPEAT SOMETHING YOU ALREADY SAID SHE BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. WHY DOES THE STAFF RECOMMEND RR FOR TRACT 2?

>>GLASGO: IN LOOKING AT THIS, THAT WHEN THE CASE MANAGESER LOOKED AT THE CASE, SHE PURELY WENT STRICTLY BY THE RESOLUTION AND DID NOT THINK ABOUT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THE MAJORITY OF OUR CASES HAVE COME THROUGH WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING TYPICALLY ARE LARGE ENOUGH THAT THE ACREAGE FOR THE AREA IN THE FLOODPLAIN EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THIS. IS THE FIRST CASE THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE THE ISSUE OF THE ACREAGE, THE LAND AREA THAT WE'RE ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS. BECAUSE MS. CROCKER ASKED, WELL, OKAY, IF I'M ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL TODAY WHEN I COME IN TOMORROW, CAN YOU ISSUE ME A BUILDING PERMIT? AND WE CAN'T BECAUSE SHE WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SEEK A VARIANCE TO ALLOW HER TO BUILD ON A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN AN ACRE.

>>SLUSHER: WOULD THAT CAUSE YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR RECOMMENDATION IF YOU HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN?

>>GLASGO: IF WE HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, YES, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER EXACTLY THAT. THAT WHEN YOU GO PURELY BY THE RESOLUTION, NOT THINK ABOUT ALL THE IMPACTS, AND ACTUALLY IN RETROSPECT, THINKING ABOUT OTHER CASES WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD CASES THAT HAVE COME TO US STRIFL WHERE YOU LOOK AT -- WHEN YOU APPLY THE WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND HAVE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AS A BUFFER IN THE BACK OR RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND THEN COMMERCIAL IN FRONT OR MULTI-FAMILY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT YOU -- THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESSORY USES, LET'S SAY IT'S -- IT'S NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. AND WE ASK YOU TO LOCATE YOUR DETENTION POND OR YOUR WATER QUALITY POND IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS MAYBE ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL. YOU REALLY CAN'T BECAUSE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TELLS YOU ALL YOUR ACCESSORY USES THAT SERVE YOUR PRINCIPLE USE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME USE. SO IF YOU HAVE A PIECE THAT IS ZONED ONE WAY AND THE REAR IS ZONEED SOMETHING ELSE, YOU CANNOT LOCATE ALL YOUR ACCESSORY USES ON THE OTHER SIDE IN ORDER TO CONCENTRATE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SIDE THAT IS ZONED --.

>>SLUSHER: SO YOU ARE SAYING BASICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION?

>>GLASGO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TOOK THOSE ASPECTS INTO -- IN THEIR CONSIDERATION AND COMMISSIONER BEHINDSTAFF STATED THOSE REASONS IN THE MINUTES AS TO WHY HE FELT LIKE THEY OUGHT TO NOT RECOMMEND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL HAVE I. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ I THINK HAD A QUESTION FIRST.

>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT'S NOT A RURAL AREA IS SIGNIFICANT HERE. [LAUGHTER]. BUT THE PART I'M WONDERING WHERE EXACTLY IS THE FLOODPLAIN ON THAT MAP, MS. CROCKER? 6.

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>ALVAREZ: SO THE RED PART IS THE FLOODPLAIN?

>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

>>ALVAREZ: AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S SF-3?

>> YES.

>>ALVAREZ: THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING -- THE DIFFERENT TRACTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHICH ONES ARE ZONED WITH WHAT CLASSIFICATION.

>> CURRENTLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, THE SCALE IS A LITTLE SKEWED, THIS IS A SURVEY I GOT WITH MY TITLE. THIS SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 100 YEAR AS FOR THE FEMA MAP. AND THIS -- THIS PROBABLY SHOWS THAT AREA FEW HAD TO NAIL IT DOWN, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU COULD OFF THAT, AS BEING LARGER THAN WHAT IS ON THE FEMA MAP IS MY GUESS LOOKING AT IT VISUALLY. BUT THIS IS THE AREA THAT IS FLOODPLAIN.

>>ALVAREZ: AND -- BUT -- SO THEN -- AND WHICH PART IS THE COMMERCIAL PART THAT'S NOT HIGHLIGHTED THERE?

>> YES, SIR. EVERYTHING IS OUTSIDE OF THE RED AREA RIGHT NOW IS JUST C.S., NO CONDITIONS.

>>ALVAREZ: SO THEN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO ZONE GR-MU-CO IS WHICH?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE WHOLE TRACT ZONED GR-MU-CO.

>>ALVAREZ: AND WHAT YOU HAVE INDICATED IS YOU WOULD NOT EVEN BUILD -- OR YOU WOULD TRY I GUESS TO NOT BUILD ON THE TRACT -- OR ON THE PART THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUT IN THIS OTHER LITTLE GREEN AREA.

>> THE MOST DESIRABLE BUILDING SITES ARE NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THEY ARE CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARY, BUT THEY ARE NOT IN THE 100 YEAR T LAND SLOPES OFF SIGNIFICANTLY TOWARDS THE BACK, TOWARDS THE RAILROAD TRESTLE, THERE'S QUITE A BILL OF FALL AND THAT WOULD NOT BE WHERE I WOULD WANT TO PUT IT. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE INLET TO THAT CULVERT.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY. WELL, I JUST THINK -- I MEAN YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THE SF-3 AND THEORETICALLY COULD YOU BUILD SOMETHING ON THERE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING?

>> WELL, IF I WENT IN THERE, YES, I COULD. IT WOULD BE IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. AND I CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ON THE C.S. PORTION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE MU DESIGNATION. THAT WOULD KIND OF STICK ME TO BUILDING 100% IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT YES, I COULD.

>>ALVAREZ: THIS WAY YOU ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THAT.

>> I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO MOVE OUTSIDE OF THAT.

>>ALVAREZ: ALL RIGHT. THANKS A LOT.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>>SLUSHER: I HAVE ONE MORE.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

>>SLUSHER: MS. CROCKER, ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN NOTED IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO A REAL SMART GROWTH PROJECT HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME, BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO BE LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR OFFICE, RIGHT IN THE HEART OF THE CITY.

>> YES, SIR, I JUST -- I WAS A LITTLE LEERY OF USING THOSE WORDS, BUT --.

>>SLUSHER: WELL, MAYBE I SHOULD BE TOO, BUT I DID. SO HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN AS OPPOSED TO -- I'M NOT SAYING -- I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING I'M SUSPICIOUS, BUT -- THAT DIDN'T COME OUT RIGHT.

>> I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

>>SLUSHER: I'M JUST SAYING WE NEVER CAN OPERATE JUST ON TRUST UP HERE. HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED --

>> WELL, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT. I GUESS WE COULD -- WE COULD DISCUSS THE DENSITY LIMITATION FOR A CERTAIN AREA OF THE TRACT, IF THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE.

>>SLUSHER: I TELL YOU WHAT I'LL DO, AND IT'S POSSIBLE EVEN GR-MU FOR THE WHOLE THING, IT IS ALONG LAMAR AND BACKS UP TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS SO THAT MIGHT BE FINE AS WELL. WHAT I WOULD DO IS MOVE APPROVAL ON FIRST READING AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THE STAFF AND FROM YOU AS WELL AS TO WHAT KIND OF FLOOD CONTROL WOULD BE NEEDED IN HERE FOR HER TO BUILD THE HOUSE, WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO BE. AND I GUESS THOSE WOOB THE TWO -- WOULD BE THE TO MAIN THINGS. I WANT TO TRY TO SUPPORT WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO DO HERE. IT'S GOING TO GET OBVIOUSLY AT LEAST TWO CAR TRIPS OFF THE ROAD EVERY DAY BECAUSE SHE WON'T HAVE TO DRIVE TO HER OFFICE. I ASSUME SHE'S NOT GOING TO DRIVE FROM THE HOUSE OVER TO THE OFFICE. AND I WOULD POINT OUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT, MS. GLASCO, IS THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NOT THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

>>GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>SLUSHER: AND YOU CAN BUILD IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN UNDER CITY AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

>> UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES.

>>SLUSHER: UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND BEFORE SHE COULD BUILD SHE WOULD IS A TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS.

>>GLASGO: YES.

>>SLUSHER: I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL ON FIRST READING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

>>WYNN: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON FIRST READING ONLY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. ABSTAINING? OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE YET?

>> YES, MAYOR PRO TEM, MR. MORALES IS HERE FOR ITEM 64. BEFORE HE COMES UP HERE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE READ OUT WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS WHICH MIGHT HELP IN REFINING IT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS YOU GRANT LRMU FOR TRACT 1 AND LRMUCO. IF THE SITE IS NOT DEVELOPED FOR RELIGIOUS ASEM BLI USE THERE WOULD BE NO GREATER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY 4. IF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY, AS I STATED, IF IT'S DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY, THEN THE SITE WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE USES ALLOWED UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. AND THEN FINALLY THAT THIS SITE WOULD BE LIMITED TO 300 VEHICULAR TRIPS PER DAY. AND ALSO LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES ARE ONLY ON GOBI DRIVE. SO THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TO LIMIT THE TRIPS TO 300 USES PER DAY, LIMITING TO OFFICE ONLY IF IT'S COMMERCIAL. IF RESIDENTIAL, THE DENSITY WOULD NOT EXCEED THAT OF SINGLE-FAMILY 4 A.

>> THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: LAKE TRAVIS ME ASK YOU, ALICE, -- LET ME ASK YOU, ALICE, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT -- MS. GLASCO, COULD I ASK YOU SOMETHING?

>>GLASGO: YES.

>>GOODMAN: THIS IS HOW MANY FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION AT STASSNEY AND EMERALD FOREST, DO YOU KNOW?

>>GLASGO: I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT MEASUREMENT. MAYBE THE APPLICANT HAS IT. FROM EMERALD FOREST MAYBE 250 FEET. THERE'S A LOT IN BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY THAT FACES FOREST DRIVE. SO MAYBE 250 FEET OR MORE AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS PONCIANO MORALES, ARCHITECT HIRED BY THE MARANATHA TEMPLE. I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. WE HAD GONE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REQUEST A REZONING FROM SF-3 MAINLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT SF-3 LIMITED THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS ON THE TRACT. THE CHURCH IS A SMALL CONGREGATION RIGHT NOW. OF COURSE, THEY WOULD HOPE TO GROW AND EXPAND WITH THE CITY AND THIS AREA. THEY DON'T HAVE A CURRENT PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT NOW THEY ARE LEASING AND THEY FOUND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND BOUGHT IT AND WANTED TO BUILD A CHURCH. SO THEY HIRED US TO DO A MASTER PLAN FOR IT AND WHAT YOU SEE ON THE COLORED BOARD IS THE MASTER PLAN FOR IT. WE WOULD DO A SMALL MULTIPURPOSE FELLOWSHIP HAUL, CHURCH, WITH SOME CLASSES INITIALLY AND THEN RESERVE THE CORNER AREA FOR THEIR MAIN SANCTUARY THAT WOULD DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE. AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION TO MARANATHA BAPTIST TEMPLE WAS TO REQUEST THE ZONING. WE COULD HAVE BUILT THE CHURCH ON SF-3, THE SIZE THEY WERE LOOKING AT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE THE 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION, AND THEY DECIDED -- THERE WAS DISCUSSION AMONG THE MEMBERS THAT THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND DO THAT OR GO AHEAD AND REQUEST THE ZONING AT THIS TIME TO ALLOW THE POTENTIAL TO GROW AND DEVELOP THE SITE AS NEEDED. SO WITH THAT, THE STAFF HAD SEEN OUR PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED IT WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO INCLUDED SOME ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THIS WITH THE 300 TRIPS PER DAY LIMITATION, RIGHT TURN, LEFT TURN LANE AS YOU COME OUT FROM THE SITE SO YOU DON'T GO STRAIGHT ACROSS GOBI LANE. YOU TURN RIGHT OR LEFT ON GOBI. AND WE HAD SAID THAT WAS FINE. SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY ACTUALLY HERE TO SIGN UP, BUT LET ME CHECK ONE MORE TIME.

>>ALVAREZ: I HAVE A QUESTION.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: MR. MORALES, WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT PART IN YOUR SITE PLAN OR SITE MAP THAT IS WHITEED OUT?

>> THAT AREA RIGHT THERE IS PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS HEAVILY WOODED. WE JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THERE'S A LOT OF TREES IN THAT AREA, THAT WE WERE NOT IN THE INITIAL PHASE WERE GOING TO ENCROACH ON THAT, BUT WE COULD RESERVE IT FOR PLAYGROUND AREAS FOR THE KIDS OR FUTURE PARKING AS THE CHURCH DEVELOPED LATER ON.

>>ALVAREZ: AND THE REASON YOU CHOSE TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT ON GOBI AS OPPOSED TO STASSNEY IS --

>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S A MEDIAN THAT COMES ACROSS STASSNEY LANE SO YOU COULDN'T TURN LEFT IF YOU -- THE TRAFFIC THERE, THERE IS NO -- THERE IS A STOP SIGN ON GOBI, BUT THERE'S NO BEHIND DRANS FROM PEOPLE COMING EAST ON STASSNEY SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO BACK UP AND BACK INTO THE PROPERTY. YOU COULD EXIT EASIER FROM THERE INTO -- IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD EXTEND AN EXIT POINT FROM THE PARKING LOT TO GO TO THE RIGHT ONLY. SO -- BUT WE WOULD PREFER EVERYBODY GO TO GOBI AND GO TO STASSNEY FOR THE STOP SIGN AND TURN LEFT OR TURN RIGHT THERE.

>>ALVAREZ: SO YOU DON'T HAVE A SORT OF OVERALL MASTER PLAN OR A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE BUILDOUT YET?

>> NOT YET EXCEPT -- EXCEPT THIS AREA RESERVEED FOR THE FUTURE SANCTUARY AND THIS AREA RESERVEED FOR PARKING.

>>ALVAREZ: I JUST NOTICED THAT YOU SEEMED TO COME DOWN TO THE CORNER OVER HERE THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT JUST BECAUSE OF YOUR FUTURE PLANS OR --

>> YEAH, THE MAIN FOCUS OR REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE ENVISIONED THIS TO BE THE FIRST PHASE AND IT WAS GOING TO BE SMALL. IT WAS GOING TO BE A SMALL SANCTUARY, SEATING 100 PEOPLE, THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED INTO A FELLOWSHIP HALL LATER ON. SO WE WERE ENVISIONING THE MAIN CHURCH HOPEFULLY WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT BIGGER THAN THAT, THE CORNER SITE WOULD BE MORE PROMINENT ON THE SITE. THIS WOULD BE THE FELLOWSHIP HALL EDUCATION WING IN THE FUTURE.

>>ALVAREZ: AND THEN THE REASON WE BROKE IT UP INTO TWO TRACTS, TRACT 1 AND TRACT 2 --

>> I THINK BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING THAT YOU COULDN'T PUT IF THE CHURCH, YOU KNOW, WOULD SELL OR SOMETHING, THERE WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD BE RESTRICTED WHAT THEY COULD PUT NEXT TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. OTHER THAN THAT, YOU CAN STILL BUILD A CHURCH.

>>ALVAREZ: OKAY.

>>GOODMAN: ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

>>WYNN: MR. MORALES, I'M CURIOUS. ON THE TRIP LIMITATION LIMITS THAT WERE PUT ON THIS BY THE -- PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN YOU HAVE A CHURCH USE, I'M CURIOUS. WAS THERE AN EXPRESSION ABOUT THE TRIP LIMITATION AS IT RELATES TO A SUNDAY? IT SEEMS TO ME FRANKLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A CHURCH USE IS THAT SUNDAYS AND PROBABLY SUNDAY MORNINGS WHEN THERE IS LESS TRAFFIC ON THE -- YOU KNOW, THE STREET ALREADY, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER THERE -- WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PERHAPS A DIFFERENT LIMIT ON WEEKENDS VERSUS THE WEEKDAYS.

>> THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT TO PUT THAT RESTRICTION ON THERE JUST BY THE ZONING LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD HINDER THE SIZE OF THE VICINITY YOU COULD PUT IN THERE SO THAT WOULD LIMIT THE TRIPS PER DAY. WE ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE MORE TRIPS PER DAY AND SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO UP TO A THOUSAND. BUT IN THEIR DISCUSSION TO GET TO A COMPROMISE, THEY DECIDED TO GO WITH 300 TRIPS PER DAY AND WE SAID THAT WOULD BE FINE. THE 300 TRIPS PER DAY ALLOWS A CERTAIN SIZE VICINITY, I DON'T RECALL IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S A GOOD SIZE SO IT WOULD NOT HINDER THE CHURCH FROM USING IT. A LARGER CHURCH FROM USING IT.

>>WYNN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>GOODMAN: ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. I BELIEVE MS. EDGEMOND ALLUDED TO THIS BUT SHE'S NOT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW. SO DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>>GLASGO: MAYOR PRO TEM, WHEN MS. EDGEMOND WAS HERE, WHEN SHE SPOKE TO ME EARLIER, SHE THOUGHT THAT THE CONDITIONS RELATING TO INGRESS AND EGRESS ON TO GOBI STREET HAD NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT THEY ARE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT LIMITS THE LEFT IN AND RIGHT OUT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS SPEAKING TO WHEN SHE SPOKE TO INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT OF GOBI LANE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WELL, I'LL JUST MENTION THAT I THINK THE PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION OF EMERALD FOREST AND STASSNEY, WHICH IS A DIFFICULT INTERSECTION BECAUSE PUBLIC WORKS TREATS THAT AS IF THERE IS NOT MUCH TRAFFIC AND SO YOU DO GET INTO DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES JUST WITH NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH TRAFFIC. CONVERSELY, THAT PARTICULAR INTERSECTION IS USED WHEN NEEDED FOR SORT OF A DETOUR ROUTE WHEN ANY WORK HAPPENS TO THE EAST OR WEST OF IT. SO THERE IS SORT OF A CONTRADICTORY EXPECTATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION THAT WE'RE CLOSE TO. IF THE TRAFFIC WERE TO BE CHANNELED IN OR OUT OF THE CHURCH IN BETWEEN EMERALD FOREST AND GOBI, THEN I THINK YOU WOULD BE WAY TOO CLOSE TO EMERALD FOREST AND AGAIN THE DIFFICULTY OF THAT INTERSECTION WOULD BE EVEN MORE INTENSE. EVEN GOING INTO GOBI, I THINK IF YOU HAVE A 300 CAR -- ASSUMING THAT AT SOME POINT THE CHURCH HAS A MEMBERSHIP THAT WOULD PRODUCE A 300 CAR TRIP AT A PEAK HOUR ON SUNDAY, SAY, OR LESS THAN THAT ON WHENEVER YOU HAVE CLASSES OR GROUPS MEETING, WOULD ALSO BE VERY INTENSE. SO ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DEFINED AND LIMITED CHURCH USE THAT WE'RE SORT OF LAYING OUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE, AND CERTAINLY I DON'T AGREE WITH THE NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS OR RESIDENTIAL UNITS IF THIS WERE TO MOVE INTO THAT KIND OF USE LATER, THEN I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. AND UNDERSTANDING ALL THE REASONS WHY IT MIGHT BE A BENIGN USE, I THINK THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT BEING AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THAT PARTICULAR INTERSECTION. SO IF ANYBODY IS READY FOR A MOTION, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE MY POSITION. IS ANYBODY READY FOR A MOTION?

>>WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL.

>>ALVAREZ: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MOVED APPROVAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>SLUSHER: COULD I HEAR A -- I'M A LITTLE TORN ON THIS ONE. AND I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M FAMILIAR WITH -- I LIVE IN THE AREA. LET ME HEAR THE PRO ARGUMENT BECAUSE I CAN HEAR THE -- I MEAN I CAN SEE AS A CHURCH, LIKE YOU SAID BEFORE, IT'S ONLY PROBABLY ONE DAY A WEEK TOO, SO THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. AND I'M NOT SURE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OTHER USE WOULD GO IN THERE. I CAN SEE SINGLE FAMILY ON TRACT 2, WHICH IS BACK OFF OF STASSNEY, THE FIRST ONE I DON'T THOUGH SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A PRO ARGUMENT AND MAYBE EVEN WHAT WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE USE ON THERE THAT WOULD WORK BETTER FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. THAT SECOND ONE IS FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PRO ARGUMENT FIRST THOUGH.

>>WYNN: WELL, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY ONE, BETWEEN THE TRIP LIMITATIONS AND THEN I BELIEVE I HEARD THE CONDITIONS OF IF THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILT, THEN IN FACT THE USES -- THERE ARE MORE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON THE PROPERTY IF IT'S NOT A CHURCH. AND FRANKLY, I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT LEVEL OF PROTECTION.

>>ALVAREZ: AND -- MAYOR PRO TEM.

>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

>>ALVAREZ: AND I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT -- I MEAN IT IS A CHURCH USE, SO I MEAN I THINK THEORETICALLY YOU COULD BUILD THIS UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING AND --.

>>GOODMAN: SMALLER IMPERVIOUS COVER.

>>ALVAREZ: I GUESS THERE WOULD BE A GREATER LIMIT ON IMPERVIOUS COVER. BUT -- BUT I THINK AGAIN, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS PLACED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALMOST COMING TO US ALMOST WITHOUT HAVING TO COME TO US, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY -- YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT THE TRACT IMPACT AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES OF ENTRY AND EGRESS AND THAT CERTAINLY MAKES THIS A MORE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT THAN IT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE POTENTIALLY. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE I THINK IS ON THAT TRACT 2 WITH THE L.O. AND MU-CO, IT'S PROXIMITY TO SF-3. I'M NOT SURE. I NEED TO LOOK AT THE -- YOU KNOW, AT THESE CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW.

>>SLUSHER: WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, UNDER YOURS, IT ROLLS BACK TO THE CURRENT ZONING IF IT'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>WYNN: THAT'S WHAT I HEARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

>>SLUSHER: THAT'S ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONS. SO THIS WOULD ONLY ALLOW THIS PARTICULAR USE AS PROPOSED TONIGHT OR ANOTHER -- ANOTHER CHURCH.

>>WYNN: RIGHT.

>>SLUSHER: BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT WOULD GO BACK TO SINGLE-FAMILY IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ON IT OTHER THAN THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US. IS THAT --.

>>WYNN: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

>>SLUSHER: OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. LET ME ASK ALICE THEN, IF IT WERE TO GO TO RESIDENTIAL USE, IF THE CHURCH WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS OR DECIDED TO GO TO A NEW USE, HOW MANY UNITS IS THAT?

>>GLASGO: UNDER IF -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WITH THIS, THEY JUST DO ALL SF-4A LOTS, YOU GET 62 LOTS. AND THAT GIVES YOU APPROXIMATELY 600 TRIPS PER DAY FOR THAT. IF YOU HAVE TO DO DUPLEXES, YOU WOULD GET 64 UNITS. SO IT'S PRETTY CLOSE BETWEEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY 4 A AND YOUR DUPLEX DENSITY UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU --.

>>SLUSHER: NO, I'M OKAY.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WITH A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- YES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. NO. ABSTAINING? OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>GLASGO: THIS IS ON FIRST READING.

>>GOODMAN: RIGHT. OKAY. IS THAT IT, ALICE? HAVE WE BEEN THROUGH EVERYTHING?

>>GLASGO: YES, WE HAVE.

>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD AND RECESS. WI HAVE NO MORE -- WE HAVE NO MORE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE CAN TAKE UP BEFORE TIME CERTAIN NOW UNTIL 5:30, SO WE ARE IN RECESS. IF THERE IS A MOVE TO DO THAT.

>> SO MOVED.

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

>>GOODMAN: A LIVE WIRE ON STAGE AND OFF. STEVE HAS NEVER SHRUNK FROM THE LEGWORK THAT GOES WITH HIS CHOSEN VOCATION. HE HAS PRODUCED FOUR CD'S, A GUITAR WORKSHOP VIDEO AND MOST RECENTLY AN INSTRUCTIONAL BOOK, ROOTS AND BLUES FINGER STYLE, PUBLISHED BY ACOUSTIC GUITAR. THIS TALENTED ARTIST PLAYS GUITAR, SLIDE GUITAR AND BANJO. OTHER ARTISTS HAVE USED STEVE'S TALENTS ON THEIR RECORDINGS AND HE PERFORMS HIS OWN ORIGINAL SONGS AS WELL. AND IN CELEBRATION OF HIS TALENT AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO OUR COMMUNITY, WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION THAT READS: LET IT BE KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DOZENS HEREBY PROCLAIM JANUARY 18TH, 2001 AS STEVE JAMES DAY IN AUSTIN AND WE CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN US IN RECOGNIZING THE MANY OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTIN'S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY. AND IN RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF ARTISTS SUCH AS STEVE JAMES WHICH FURTHER AUSTIN'S STATUS AS THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. WE DO NOT LIE, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE. SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF AUSTIN, KIRK WATSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE, FOR BEING WITH US, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR MARVELOUS MUSIC. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. [APPLAUSE].

>> THANK YOU, MS. GOODMAN, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK BRENDA JOHNSON FROM THE AUSTIN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU FOR HELPING TO ARRANGE THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO PREFACE THIS BY SAYING MY WORK TAKES ME ALL OVER THE WORLD AND I THINK YOU ALL WOULD BE GRATIFIED TO KNOW ABOUT THE KIND OF PROFILE THAT OUR CITY HAS ALL OVER THE GLOBE AS A CENTER FOR MUSIC. SO I'M VERY MUCH HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY. TO BE RECOGNIZE UNDERSTAND THIS WAY. I WOULD LIKE TO PERFORM A SONG FROM MY LATEST ALBUM WHICH IS CALLED BOON CHANG, STACK LEAVES BLUES. IT'S BASED ON AN OLD FOLK SONG ABOUT A GUY NAMED STACKLEE, WELL, HE MURDERED A GUY NAMED BILLY LION IN AN ARGUMENT OVER A POKER GAME AND NEN WAS SUBSUMED INTO THE AMERICAN LEGENDS. I NEVER LIKED THE WAY IT CAME OUT. I DIDN'T FEEL THAT HE WAS PROPERLY RECOGNIZED IN THE SONG SO I REWROTE IT IN ATTEMPT TO REHABILITATE HIM HISTORICALLY. THESE ARE STACKER LEE'S BLUES. (music) (music) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PAY ATTENTION IF YOU WILL FOR JUST A FEW MOMENTS. I HAVE A STORY TO TELL, IT'S THE ONE ABOUT (music) (music). (music) I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT YOU, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD ABOUT ME. I GOT A BLACK NAME RINGING UP AND DOWN THE LINE AND THEY CALL ME STACKER LEE. IT'S ALL ABOUT MY STETSON HAT. (music) GRANDDADDY WAS A STEAM BOAT MAN, THEY CALLED HIM BIG JIM LEE. MY DADDY'S NAME WAS STACK AND IT'S WRITTEN INSIDE MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. (music) MY MAMA WAS A STEAMBOAT LINE. SHE WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY WHOSE COMPANY MY DADDY ENJOYED WHEN HE TOOK OFF HIS JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) BUT THE ONLY THING I EVER GOT FROM MY KIN WAS DADDY'S DISPOSITION AND THE COLOR OF MY MAMA'S SKIN AND THIS IS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music) (music) (music). (music) MY HOME WAS IN MISSISSIPPI. THE RIVERBOAT WAYS WAS MINE AND TO STAND ASIDE FOR ANY MAN THAT WAS PURELY DISINCLINED. IT WAS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE ME, YOU COULD LET ME BE AND I WOULD DO YOU THE SAME. I GOT ALL THE COMPANY I NEEDED IN A BAR AND A GAMBLING GAME AND IT WAS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HATD (music) (music). (music) LATE IN THE EVENING ALMOST HALF PAST 9:00 I GOT INTO A POKER GAME. IT WAS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) THE JACK OF DIAMONDS WAS A HARD CARD TO PLAY, BUT I BET IT AGAINST HIS AND HE EVEN TOOK MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. I SAID YOU LOSE YOUR MONEY YOU OUGHT TO LEARN TO LOSE, YOU'VE OFTEN HEARD THAT SAID. IT WASN'T ABOUT THE MONEY AND I SHOT BILLY LIONS DEAD, IT WAS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. THESE WERE THE WORDS I SAID TO BILLY AS I PULLED OUT MY .44. I SAID HOW DOES IT FEEL TO GET LUCKY, THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE NEVER DONE. THIS IS ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. (music) HAVE MERCY BILLY LIONS, DON'T YOU PUT ME IN THE GROUND. YOU WILL LEAVE A WIDOW AND ORPHAN IF YOU LET THAT HAMMER DOWN. THIS IS NOTHING BUT ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE I'M ONE OF MY DADDY'S NINE AND THE ONLY MAMA I EVER KNEW WAS EMPLOYED ON THE LINE. IT'S ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) WHAT MADE ME PULL THE TRIGGER WAS SOMETHING I MAY NEVER KNOW, BUT I SHOT POOR BILLY LIONS, NOW I GOT TROUBLE FOR SURE AND IT'S ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) WELL, THE JURY FOUND ME GUILTY AND THE CLERK HE WROTE IT DOWN. SAID THE JUDGE PASSED MY SENTENCE, NEXT FRIDAY I'M GALLON LOWS BOUND AND IT'S ALL ABOUT MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT. YOU CAN TAKE DOWN THIS OLD GUITAR AND PLAY IT ALL YOU PLEASE, AFTER THIS TIME NEXT FRIDAY IT WILL BE NO FURTHER USE TO ME. JUST BURY ME IN MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). (music) JUST BURY IN MY JOHN B. STETSON HAT (music) (music). [APPLAUSE].

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]. UP, TWO MORE AMAZING PEOPLE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HONOR WITH DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS. JENNIFER AND AMANDA ARE STUDENTS IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, THEY ARE ROOMMATES AND THEY TAKE CPR TRAINING. THEY USED IT RECENTLY TO SAVE A MAN'S LIFE. AND OF COURSE THEIR INSTRUCTOR THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AMAZING AND WONDERFUL THEY DESERVED DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS, WE AGREE. COME CLOSER. [LAUGHTER]. SO I AM GOING TO READ WHAT A DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD SAYS IN OUR -- AND OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU. IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APPRECIATION OF HER QUICK RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR HELP IN ASSISTING AN ELDERLY MAN WHO HAD COLLAPSED AT BARNES & NOBLE, WHERE SHE WAS STUDYING AND ADMINISTERING CPR UNTIL THE E.M.S. ARRIVED JENNIFER RARITY AND AMANDA BROWN ARE DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. THIS CERTIFICATE, THESE CERTIFICATES, ARE PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR HEROISM IN SAVING THIS MAN'S LIFE. PRESENTED THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, A.D., THE YEAR 2000, FROM THE CITY COUNCILL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, SIGNED BY KIRK WATSON, WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU, THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

>> I GUESS -- IT -- UM, YOU NEVER THINK THAT STUDYING SOMEWHERE THAT YOU WOULD EVER, YOU KNOW, WE WERE BOTH LIFE GUARDS GROWING UP IN HIGH SCHOOL, YOU NEVER THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO USE WHAT YOU LEARNED. BUT BUT I GUESS IT'S VERY EASY TO -- TO GET CAUGHT UP IN THE DAY TO DAY LIFE AND YOU FORGET FORGET -- SORRY -- BUT YOU FORGET THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE TO LIFE AND I'M JUST VERY THANKFUL THAT I LEARNED AT A VERY EARLY AGE WHAT THAT MEANS AND THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT -- ABOUT LOOKING AT AN ELDERLY MAN AND THE SCREAM -- SCREAMING TO HIM TO BREATHE, TO PLEASE JUST BREATHE. AND -- AND SOMETIMES I WONDER IF -- IF THAT'S HOW I MAKE GOD FEEL IF HE'S JUST SCREAMING AT ME TO BREATHE AND TO LIVE THE LIFE THAT HE'S WANTED ME TO DO EVERY DAY. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S I'M SO THANKFUL FOR THAT EXPERIENCE. AND MR. BAILEY IS, HIS NAME IS MR. BAILEY, HE'S WONDERFUL, WE GET TO TALK TO HIM REGULARLY, SO -- [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>GOODMAN: DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

>> WE HAVE ONE MORE PROCLAMATION TODAY FOR THE DANCE COMPANY, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE, JO ANN AND THERESA, WE ARE GOING TO READ THE PROCLAMATION IN A LITTLE BIT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF EXCITING THINGS HAPPENING IN OUR ARTS COMMUNITY. RIGHT NOW. AND THERE'S -- WE HAVE THE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER THAT'S MOVING FORWARD. AND IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT'S REAL EXCITING AND WE HAVE THE RECENT MEXIC-ARTE GETTING A PERMANENT HOME ON CONGRESS AVENUE. THAT'S REALLY EXCITING AS WELL. WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT THOSE TWO EFFORTS, BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER LONG STANDING ORGANIZATION HERE IN AUSTIN, THAT IS -- HAS DONE GREAT WORK THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. THEY CONTINUE TO -- TO PRODUCE SOME WONDERFUL PROGRAMS AND TO TO -- ALSO TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND GROW AND PROVIDE MORE SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY, SO WE ARE REALLY THANKFUL FOR THEM. AND WE ARE GOING TO READ A PROCLAMATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE EMBARKED ON A NEW PRODUCTION AND WANTED TO ALSO LET SOME FOLKS KNOW WHAT ELSE IS GOING TO WITH THEM. -- GOING ON WITH THEM. THIS IS A PROCLAMATION FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IT SAYS, PRESENCE PRESENCE BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THAT TODAY JANUARY 18TH, 2001, AS ISLAN DANCE COMPANY DAY IN ALL, CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN CONGRATULATING THE DANCE COMPANY ON PRODUCING RICH, DYNAMIC AND INNOVATIVE DANCE PRODUCTIONS FOR THE CENTRAL TEXAS COMMUNITY FOR 25 YEARS, IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE COMPANY KICKS OFF THIS YEAR'S PERFORMANCE SEASON WITH HALISCO, NOW AND THEN, A ROMANTIC STORY BEGINNING JANUARY 26TH, AND IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE DANCE COMPANY IS -- COMMITTED TO IMPROVING AND ENHANCING THE LATINO AND HISPANIC CULTURAL PRESENCE HERE IN THE CAPITOL CITY. TO THAT END THE DANCE COMPANY HAS EMBARK ODD A $1 MILLION CAPITAL CAMPAIGN FOR THE RENOVATION OF THEIR SDPERMT TALL THEATER HOME, THE SANTA CRUZ CENTER FOR CULTURE. I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN WISHING THEM SUCCESS IN THEIR WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR, SIGNED BY KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. LET'S HEAR IT. [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL. I JUST WANTED TO LET I GUESS THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY KNOW THAT THE DANCE COMPANY IS AN ORGANIZATION THAN BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. WE HAVE EMBARKED ON CREATING A NEW BODY OF WORK OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SIX, SEVEN YEARS, THAT HAS REALLY WORKED AND -- IN CAPTURING THE HISPANIC EXPERIENCE IN AMERICA. WITH THAT THIS WORK HAS BEGUN TO REALLY REVITALIZE OUR COMMUNITY. THAT CALLS ON OUR ORGANIZATION, THE AZTLAN DANCE COMPANY AND THE ARTS COMMUNITY TO WORK AND CREATE A FALL, A VENUE THAT CAN BETTER ENHANCE THE TYPE OF PROJECTS AND PERFORMANCES AND PRODUCTIONS THAT WE PRESENT. THE AZTLAN IS A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON THE ARTS, TEXAS TOURING ROSTER, AS WELL AS THE MID AMERICAN ARTS ALLIANCE HARTLAND ARTS FUND TOURING PROGRAM. IT'S WITH THIS KIND OF ENERGY, EXCITEMENT, DYNAMIC ARTS ELEMENT THAT -- ELEMENT THAT WE MOVE ON THIS EXCITING CAMPAIGN, THE JOIN THE JOURNEY DREAM THROUGH DANCE CAMPAIGN. THIS CAMPAIGN IS EARMARKED AT CREATING A SWEETER FACILITY, THE SANTA CRUZ CENTER IS OUR EXPERIMENTAL THEATER HOME. WE ARE LOOKING TO RENOVATE THE SPACE, MAKE IT A LARGER FACILITY SO WE CAN BETTER SUIT OUR ARTS PATRONS, IN ADDITION TO CREATING SOME CLASSROOMS WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE CLASSROOM EDUCATION IN THE EAST AUSTIN COMMUNITY. WITH THAT I ALSO INVITED MATERIAL REST SAY MOHOLIC WITH THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHO ALSO SERVES AS OUR CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE FOR HER TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS. [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO RAOUL TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY TO LET YOU KNOW ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WE ARE WORKING REALLY HARD ON GRANTS, DANCERS ARE WORKING HARD ON THE PERFORMANCES, WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN IN THE COMMUNITY. JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU. CLAP.

>> I GUESS LASTLY I DO WANT TO INVITE FOLKS TO COME AND CHECK OUT ALL OF THE EXCITING PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE AT THE SANTA CRUZ CENTER. JALISCO IS OUR NEXT PROGRAM, JANUARY 26TH, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE RAUL IN SEEING YOU IN OUR ARTS PROGRAM, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU TAKENING AND SUPPORTING THE HISPANIC ARTS COMMUNITY, HISPANIC COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. IN ALL OF THE WONDERFUL EITHER THAT YOU DO.

>> MANY THANKS. (IN SPANISH). [APPLAUSE] [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] [CITY COUNCILL IS IN RECESS].

>>GOODMAN: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE KEALING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTER?

>> GOOD EVENING, I'M GREG SMITH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE STATUTE, CHAPTER 374 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FOR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU IS TO ALLOW A PERMITTED USE IN THE KEALING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS. THIS SUPPORTS THE EXPANSION PROJECT RELATED TO THE CARVER LIBRARY AND MUSEUM EXPANSION. AND ALSO THERE WILL BE AN ITEM SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 1ST TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS PROPOSAL. AND TODAY IS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL ASK YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON FEBRUARY 1ST.

>>GOODMAN: THANKS, GREG. UNLESS THERE ARE SOME SPEAKERS SOMEWHERE ELSE, I FIND NO CARDS HERE. SO THAT MEANS WE COULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO MOVED.

>>THOMAS: SECOND.

>>GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A COUPLE SECONDS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NO. 86 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF THE 140-ACRE BRANDT CROSSING TRACT WHICH IS LOCATED IN EASTERN TRAVIS COUNTY APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF IH-35 AND EAST SLAUGHTER LANE.

>> THANK YOU. I'M DAVID LLOYD WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. MR. LUKENS COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO STATUTORY ANNEXATION HEARINGS THIS. IS A CONSENSUAL ANNEXATION. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CITY. THE ASSOCIATED ZONING CASE FOR THIS TRACT I UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN POSTPONED FOR A WEEK. AND SO IF THERE ARE ANY REAL QUESTIONS, I EXPECT THEY WOULD COME UP AT THE HEARING NEXT WEEK. I HAVE WITH ME A COPY OF THE DRAFT, SEVERAL COPIES OF THE DRAFT SERVICE PLAN. THEY PROVIDE FOR THE STANDARD LEVEL OF SERVICES WE PROVIDE IN AN ANNEXED AREA AND MR. LIBRACH IS HERE TO ANSWERS QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>>GOODMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? AND FOLKS WHO WANT A COPY OF THAT SERVICE PLAN SHOULD CALL --

>> PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 499-2022, ASK FOR VIRGINIA COLLIER.

>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL?

>> SO MOVED.

>>GOODMAN: BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AND THAT IS THE END OF THE DAY IF WE HAVE A MOVEMENT TO ADJOURN.

>> SO MOVED.

>>GOODMAN: THERE IS A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. WE'RE OUT OF HERE.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log