Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 01/17/02

Note: Since these log files are derived from the Closed Captions created during the Channel 6 live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. These Closed Caption logs are not official records of Council Meetings and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records or transcripts, please contact the City Clerk at (512) 974-2210.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, EXCEPT FOR ITEM NO. 4, WHICH IS PERSONNEL MATTERS, NUMBER 551.074. NO DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE COUNCIL AND BEFORE I CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE PASTOR RICK RANDALL FROM THE AUSTIN CORNERSTONE CHURCH TO BRING US THE INVOCATION. PASTOR RANDALL, WELCOME, SIR.

COULD WE BOW OUR HEADS TOGETHER? THE WORDS IN THE PSALMIST, GOD HAVE MERCY ON US, BLESS US, SHOW US YOUR KINDNESS SO THE WORLD WILL LEARN YOUR WAYS AND ALL NATIONS WILL LEARN THAT YOU CAN SAVE. GOD THE PEOPLE SHOULD PRAISE YOU. ALL PEOPLE SHOULD PRAISE YOU. LORD, WE INVOKE YOUR GREAT NAME AND YOUR AWESOME PRESENCE OVER THIS ASSEMBLY TODAY. WE CALL UPON YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CREATED US AND WHO GIVES US LIFE. BY YOUR HAND WE ARE STAINED. AND APART FROM YOU WE CAN DO NOTHING. BLESS THESE MEN AND WOMEN WE PRAY, THE LEADERS YOU HAVE RAISED UP OVER OUR CITY. GIVE THEM YOUR COUNSEL THAT THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE ON THIS AND EVERY DAY WILL BE JUST AND WILL BRING JOY AND PEACE TO THE PEOPLE OF OUR CITY. WE SEEK YOUR MIND FOR WISDOM, YOUR HAND FOR STRENGTH, AND YOUR HEART FOR COMPASSION. NOW MAY THE WORDS OF OUR MOUTH AND THE MEDITATION OF OUR HEART BE ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR SIGHT, OH, LORD OUR GOD, FOR WE PRAY IN YOUR HOLY NAME, OH, LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER. AMEN.

AMEN. THANK YOU, PASTOR RANDALL. THAT WAS PASTOR RICK RANDALL FROM THE AUSTIN CORNERSTONE CHURCH. AT THIS TIME, THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I AM CALLING THE SESSION BACK TO ORDER AND WE WILL GO TO THE 1:30 TIME CERTAIN. IT ACTUALLY 1:40, SO WE ARE ABOUT 10 MINUTES BEHIND. AND THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. RICHARD TROXELL. WELCOME SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER, MY NAM IS RICHARD TROXELL, PRESIDENT OF HOUSE THE HOMELESS. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU MOTHER LOVE. MOTHER LOVE WAS AT A SPEECH HERE THIS WEEK ON DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.'S ACTUAL BIRTHDAY. SHE WAS TAKEN WITH ONE OF THE STORIES THAT DR. BERNICE KING RELATED AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT STORY.

HELLO, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. THE STORY STARTS IN HEAVEN AT THE HEAVEN'S GATE AND SAINT PETER MET SOME FORTUNATE PERSON AND TOOK HIM TO THE BANQUET WHERE ALL OF THESE BEAUTIFUL FOODS WERE ON THE TABLE. THEY WERE ALL KINDS OF FRUITS, WATERMELONS, BANANAS, ALL KIND OF BREAD, PIES, APPLE, PEACH COBBLER, CHEESE CAKE, FILET MINGNON, BLACK HAM HAWKS, BLACK EYED PEAS, GREENS, IT JUST WENT ON AND ON. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE DINNER LOOKED VERY SICK, THEY LOOKED VERY UNHAPPY AND THEY DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THEY WERE EATING. SO SAINT PETER QUICKLY TOOK THE -- THE PERSON AWAY TO ANOTHER TABLE, ANOTHER BANQUET, THAT OF FILLED WITH WATERMELONS, BAN MANS, ALL KINDS OF FRUITS, BREADS, PIES, APPLES, PEACH COB BLERS, CHEESE CAKES, HONEY GLAZED HAM, BLACK EYED PEAS, HAM HOCKS, GREENS, THESE PEOPLE WERE HAPPY AND WERE FEEDING THEMSELVES AND HAVING A GREAT TIME. THE ONLY STIPULATION WAS THAT THEY HAD TO USE THE -- IT WAS 12 -- 12 FEET OR 11 FEET UTENSILS, THAT WAS THE ONLY STIPULATION, THEY HAD TO USE THESE GIANT UTENSILS. THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HAPPY AND EATING AND FEEDING WERE USING THEIR UTENSILS TO FEED EACH OTHER ACROSS THE TABLE. THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SICK, UNHAPPY, NOT EATING VERY MUCH, WERE TRYING TO USE THESE GIANT UTENSILS TO FEED THEMSELVES, THEREFORE THEY WERE VERY SICK AND UNHAPPY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS WE NEED TO HELP EACH OTHER. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STORY. AND IT WAS TOLD VERY BEAUTIFULLY. MOTHER LOVE WAS WITH ME EARLIER THIS WEEK, WE WERE WORKING ON THE UNIVERSAL LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY TO DO IS TO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STUCK ON THE STREET BY GOING TO THIS WEBSITE, GET OUT YOUR PENCILS PLEASE, WWW.UNIVERSALLIVING WAGE.ORG. OUR GOAL IS TO FIX THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE. WE WISH TO ENSURE THAT ANYONE WORKING A 40 HOUR A WEEK WILL AT LEAST BE ABLE TO AFFORD HOUSING IN WHATEVER CITY OR RURAL AREA THE WORK IS DONE [BUZZER SOUNDING]. PLEASE SIGN ON TO THE WEBSITE, AND ENSURE THAT WE CAN HELP PEOPLE WORK THEMSELVES OFF THE STREETS OF AMERICA. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MOTHER LOVE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. TROXELL. [INAUDIBLE]. GUESS PENA. MR. GUS PENA.

MAYOR, I TALKED -- I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT AT 2:00, AND -- GUS SAID HE WOULD REVERSE WITH ME.

CHARLOTTE FLYNN LISTED AS NUMBER 9, I GUESS YOU TRADED PLACES WITH MR. PENA.

THANK YOU, I THANK MR. PENA, TO. MAYOR GARCIA, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, I'M CHARLOTTE FLYNN, THE CO-CONVENE NOR OF THE GREAT PANTHERS. WE WISH MR. GARZA THE BEST IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS. AUSTIN IS A CITY OF DISTINCTION AND SIGNIFICANT SIZE. THE SEARCH FOR A NEW CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE A NATIONWIDE SEARCH. GIVEN THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE THAT THE CITY CAN OFFER FOR THIS POSITION, AUSTIN OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT THE VERY BEST PERSON IN AMERICA TO BE THE NEXT CITY MANAGER. THE GRAY PANTHERS HAVE MEMBERS IN OVER 90 CITIES IN TEXAS, WE HAVE NETWORKSS IN MAJOR CITIES IN THE U.S. WE WILL BE PLEASED TO PROVIDE INSIGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT CANDIDATES WHO COMPETE TO BE SELECTED. THE SELECTION OF THE NEW CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE AN OPEN AND RIGOROUS PROCESS. IT SHOULD NOT BE A DONE DEAL. IT SHOULD NOT BE AN INSIDE DEAL. IF AN OPEN AND RIGOROUS PROCESS RESULTS IN THE BEST CANDIDATE BEING FROM AUSTIN, THEN THAT'S GOOD. BUT IF THE BEST CANDIDATE IS FROM ELSEWHERE, IT IS THE BEST CANDIDATE WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED THE POSITION. THE GRAY PANTHERS OFFER TO DO ALL THEY CAN ON A PRO BONO BASIS TO ADD VALUE TO THE SEARCH FOR A NEW CITY MANAGER. YOU CAN REACH US AT 458-3738, I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. FLYNN. GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE. MR. GUS PENA. MR. GUS PENA. FOLLOWING MR. PENA IS MR. JIMMY CASTRO. I THINK HE'S HERE, MS. JENNIFER GALE. I HAVEN'T SEEN HER. SHE WILL BE AFTER MR. CASTRO. AND JOHN SERRAO WILL FOLLOW MS. GALE AND VERONICA HERNANDEZ.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. GUS PENA PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS AND SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAINBOW COALITION, AUSTIN CHAPTER OF STATE-WIDE COALITION. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I -- I LEFT IT OPEN BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY BECAUSE SOME OF THE -- OUR ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN WORKED ON POSITIVELY. ITEM NO. 17 IS A HOUSING ISSUE WHEREBY FUNDING IS BEING TRANSFERRED FROM -- FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING COMMUNITY OFFICE TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES, ET CETERA. WELL, WE HAVE A GREAT NEED FOR HOUSING AS WELL AS JOB TRAINING AS WELL AS SUPPORT TO OUR BUSINESSES. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THAT. BUT WHEN FUNDING IS -- IS REROUTED FROM ONE ITEM TO ANOTHER, THAT'S WHAT WE -- WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE IN THE COMMUNITY. BIG ISSUES OUT THERE THAT WE HAVE WITH THESE ITEMS, SO I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ALL LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW. IT DOESN'T LOOK TAKE GOOD FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED HOUSING OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY. ALSO LOOKING AT YOUR MEMBERS, AGAIN THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GET BACK ON MY KICK ABOUT -- ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE AND INCLUDING GRASS ROOTS REPRESENTATIVES OUT THERE. YOU HAVE SOME FORMER OFFICERS OUT THERE, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, FORMER TEACHERS, PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED ON HEALTH CARE ISSUE FOR MANY YEARS, MANY MONTHS. WE JUST FINISHED WITH THE HEALTH CLINICS, AS YOU ALL REMEMBER, THAT FIASCO WITH GOGGIO CONSULTANTS, THE EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS WASTED ON THEM, IN MY OPINION AND OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS, ALSO, AS WELL AS PROFESSION NAM EMPLOYEES, ALSO, PROBLEMS REMAIN OUT THERE AT THE CLINICS. WE ALSO HEARD, MY BOY LUCIO, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH YOUR DAD HERE. BUT ANYWAY, WE HAVE HEARD THAT SOME -- SOME SOCIAL SERVICE -- SOCIAL WORKER POSITIONS ARE GOING TO BE CUT. IS THAT BRINGING TO IT A LEVEL TO WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS COMFORTABLE ON A ONE TO ONE BASIS WITH THE PROFESSIONAL VERSUS THE COMMUNITY OR THE USERS? IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. SO WHOEVER IS DOING THE CUTTING NEEDS TO BE REVISITING THAT ISSUE, MAKING SURE THAT THE CUTS ARE NOT CATASTROPHIC FOR THE CLIENTS AND USERS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AGAIN THE POOR AND THE HAVE-NOTS AREN'T BEING HEARD AGAIN. THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, I THINK YOU HEARD WHAT I SAID BACK THERE ABOUT THE LIST HERE. I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE MAJORITY PART OF THE LATINOS ARE AT. ALSO GRASS ROOTS REPRESENTATIVE HERE. AS I SAID AGAIN IN YOUR EDUCATION COMMITTEE, I FIND THAT UNACCEPTABLE, MR. MAYOR, BECAUSE THERE ARE FORMER TEACHERS, I'M A FORM EDUCATOR, WE ARE SLIGHTED AGAIN. IT'S NOT ENOUGH GIVING YOUR INPUT TO THE TASK FORCE AS A PUBLIC PARTICIPANT AND PUBLIC SPEAKER. I MEAN, LET'S BE A LITTLE MORE RESPECTFUL AND INCLUSIVE ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY. ALTHOUGH I DO APPLAUD THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE, BUT NOT THE LACK OF INCLUSION AND GRASS ROOTS REPRESENTATION AND LATINOS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. PENA. MR. JIMMY CASTRO, WELCOME.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS AND MR. GARZA, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES TO SHOW YOU THIS AFTERNOON, I'M HERE ON SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE AUSTIN COUNCILS OF PTA'S, I'M HERE TO REMIND EVERYONE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT'S HEALTH AND SAFETY BOND ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 2ND. AND EARLY VOTING STARTED JANUARY 16TH AND RUNS THROUGH JANUARY 29TH. THIS FEBRUARY 2ND, VOTERS IN THE AUSTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL BE ASKED TO APPROVE $49 MILLION IN BONDS TO FIX LEAKING ROOFS, CRUMBLING BUILDING EXTERIOR AND AGING VENTILATION SYSTEMS IN AUSTIN'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THIS WOULD HELP SOLVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CHRONIC MOLD PROBLEMS WITHOUT DIPPING INTO MONEY THAT COULD BE USED FOR TEACHER PAY RAISES AND OTHER CLASSROOM EXPENSES. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS ACCORDING TO AUSTIN OFFICIALS, THE BOND ISSUE WILL NOT AFFECT THE DISTRICT'S CURRENT TAX RATE OF $1.55 PER $100 OF ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE. IF VOTER AGREE TO ISSUE THE BONDS, OFFICIALS WILL MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AT NEARLY ALL OF THE 100 OR SO SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT. SOME OF THESE PROJECTS TO REPLACE ROOFS AND WEATHER PROOF THE SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY. THE MOST EXPENSIVE WORK WILL BE DONE AT BOONE, GALINDO, COCERK, PALM, PLEASANT HILL, ... WHICH HAVE HAD THE MOST SEVERE MOLD PROBLEMS. BONDS ARE THE BEST CHOICE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY WILL ALLOW AUSTIN SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO SPREAD OUT PAYMENTS FOR SUCH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OVER TIME. WITHOUT DIPPING INTO MONEY SET ASIDE FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING TEACHER SALARIES. FINALLY, THE LAST SLIDE SHOWS THE WELFARE OF STUDENTS, TEACHERS, CAFETERIA WORKERS AND JANITORS THAT ARE IN MOLD INFESTED BUILDINGS SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IN CURBING MOLD IN OUR SCHOOLS. THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGREED MR. ASTRO, THAT'S AN ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JENNIFER GALE, BUT SHE IS NOT HERE. WASN'T ABLE TO COME TO THE MEETING. MR. JOHN SERRAO. AND FOLLOWING HIM VERONICA HERNANDEZ.

WELCOME, SIR.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN GIVE THEM TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, HE WILL PASS THEM OUT.

ALL RIGHT. HOW ARE Y'ALL DOING? MY NAME IS JOHN SERRAO. ALL RIGHT. NOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TOWING, SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 684 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE. I WILL WAIT UNTIL Y'ALL GET THAT. ALL RIGHT. ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, CHAPTER 684, SUBCHAPTER F, A MUNICIPALITY SUCH AS AUSTIN MAY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OR ORDINANCES THAT ARE IDENTICAL TO THIS CHAPTER OR THAT IMPOSES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT EXCEED THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. SO BASICALLY LIKE THE PROBLEMS I'M SEEING, I'M GOING TO KIND OF OUTLINE HERE AND YOU KNOW YOU ALL COULD LOOK INTO THOSE. BASICALLY, NUMBER ONE, THAT'S TALKING ABOUT -- ABOUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOW TRUCK SIGN OR LIKE A SIGN FOR THEM TO HAVE THEM TOWED, THEY DON'T EVER LIST THE ADDRESS OR LIKE WHERE THE TOW TRUCK COMPANY IS LOCATED. I THINK THAT'S KINDS OF SHADY. NUMBER 2, BASICALLY THAT'S TALKING ABOUT A -- IN A COUPLE OF THE CHAPTERS IN THE CODE, BASICALLY THE -- THE SIGNS INSIDE OF A PARKING LOT CAN BE AS BASICALLY AS DECEPTIVE AS ANY TOW TRUCK COMPANY OR PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULD LIKE. BECAUSE THE ONLY REAL RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE SIGNS THAT ARE -- SIGNS THAT YOU SEE AS YOU COME INTO A PARKING LOT. OKAY. NUMBER 3 IS TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS PRACTICE CALLED SPOTTING, WHEN YOU ARE WITH TOW TRUCK. BASICALLY HAS THEY DO IS THEY PUT A GUY ACROSS THE STREET, HE CAN ESSENTIALLY WATCH FOR PEOPLE TO COME INTO THE LOT AND BASICALLY PHONE IN A TOW TRUCK TO TOW THEM ON THE SPOT. OKAY. NUMBER 4, I'M TALKING ABOUT -- OKAY, ONCE THE SPOTTER SEES THE CAR, HE THEN RADIOS THE TOW TRUCK. SO -- SO I MEAN ALL THESE PRACTICES, I MEAN, I GUESS TECHNICALLY THEY ARE LEGAL UNDER THIS CONTRACT OR TRANSPORTATION CODE, BUT I MEAN THEY ARE ALMOST LIKE MORAL VIOLATIONS TO THE -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE LIGAMENTLY PARKING IN AREAS WHERE -- LEGITIMATELY PARKING IN AREAS WHERE SIGN REALLY AREN'T PRESENT. NUMBER 5, I WAS ASKING THAT YOU GUYS MAYBE LOOK AT THE FINE THAT TOW COMPANIES HAVE TO PAY IF THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER. 2 TO 5 HUNDRED DOLLARS, THE TOW ITSELF IS $200, SO IT'S NOT THAT MUCH OF A LOSS FOR THEM. AT THE BOTTOM HERE, THIS IS A LITTLE RISQUE, THE TRIAL THAT I HAD, I WENT TO PRECINCT 3 WITH JUSTICE OF THE PEACE HERB EVANS. AND BASICALLY WHAT HE TOLD ME IS THE ROPE ALL THESE PLACES TOW -- THE REASON ALL THESE PLACES TOW CARS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIABILITY. WELL, KIND OF I LIST THAT HEAR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE NOTICED IS LIKE MANY OTHER PLACES PUT UP A SIGN FREEING THEMSELVES OF LIABILITY. WHY COULDN'T A BUSINESS DO THAT? SO JUST KIND OF OUTLINED ALL THAT IN HERE. HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. SERRAO. MS. VERONICA HERNANDEZ? VERONICA HERNANDEZ? OKAY. SHE'S NOT HERE. THOSE ARE ALL THE CITIZENS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. UNDER ITEM NO. 5. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS ON ITEM 15, CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ADOPTING HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT ONE IS POSTPONED, NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. ACTUALLY IT'S REMOVED FROM THE ACTION AGENDA. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? CAN ANYBODY TELL ME IN THE -- THE SHEET THAT SAYS ON THE REMOVE, NO ACTION REQUIRED IS THAT IT'S PULLED OFF THE AGENDA.

PULLED OFF THE AGENDA.

CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 19, IS POSTPONED TO JANUARY THE 31ST, 2002. AND THERE'S SOME ISSUES, I THINK, THAT MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO ADDRESS WITH REGARD TO OUR MWBE ORDER MANS.

IS THAT THE SERGEANT --

GARZA: YES, THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT YOU HAD HERE A WORK AGO THAT YOU ASKED US TO WORK ON SOME ISSUES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ITEM NO. 44 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE HEADED BY COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS, THAT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, MAYOR GUS GARCIA AND WE ARE ADDING COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ. THE 2:00 TIME CERTAIN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THEN THERE'S A 4:00 TIME CERTAIN FOR ZONING ITEMS, Z-1 THROUGH Z-13. AT 5:30, WE HAVE ALL OF -- NOW THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THESE COMPUTERS, I HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO USE THEM. AT 5:30, WE HAVE LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. AT 6:00 P.M., WE HAVE BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE. REGARDING REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, THAT'S ITEM NO. 5 4RBG IT'S LISTED ON THE AGENDA WITH THE OTHER ITEMS. WE ARE PULLING THAT ONE OFF THE REGULAR CONSIDERATION ON CONSENT AND MOVING IT SO THAT IT CAN BE A TIME CERTAIN AT 6:00, ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEMS 47 THROUGH 52. THAT'S ALL OF THE TIME SERNS AND CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS; IS THAT CORRECT, SHIRLEY? CITY CLERK? ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT I WILL HAVE THREE ITEMS THAT WILL APPEAR BOTH IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ALSO MAY APPEAR ON THE ACTION AGENDA. AND THAT'S THE EVALUATION OF OUR CITY AUDITOR. THE EVALUATION OF OUR CITY CLERK. THE EVALUATION OF OUR MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK. WE WILL HAVE IT BOTH ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SESSION AGENDA AS A PERSONNEL MATTER AND IN THE ACTION AGENDA, REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA. IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO -- TO WITHHOLD ACTION BECAUSE A -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE ITEMS ON THE EVALUATIONS THEN, WE WILL BRING IT BACK FOR ACTION ON FEBRUARY 7TH. AND THAT -- THAT WILL INCLUDE -- THE EVALUATION AND SETTING THE SALARY FOR NEXT YEAR FOR THOSE THREE APPOINTMENTS, APPOINT TEES OF THE -- OF THE COUNCIL. ANY OTHER ITEMS? THAT NEED TO BE ANNOUNCED BY EITHER THE MANAGER OR OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS?

WYNN: I CAN THINK OF TWO THAT I WILL LIKELY BE BRINGING FORWARD ON THE 31ST. ONE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN WHAT'S BEEN KNOWN AS THE REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT. WE HAVE -- I HAVE ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT A MONTH OR TWO AGO. I THINK WE ARE FINALLY GOING TO OVER NEXT WEEK OR SO, I WILL BE SENDING A MEMO TO COUNCIL OUTLINING THE STRUCTURE OF THAT NON-PROFIT GROUP, BOARD MEMBERS AND A PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION THAT I MIGHT HAVE REGARDING OUR ASSOCIATION WITH THAT. SECONDLY, THE MAYOR WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ASK ME TO SPEARHEAD AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE DOWN TRAINING CAMP -- THE DALLAS COWBOY TRAINING CAMP PROPOSAL, IT'S GOTTEN SADLY A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF PRESS, FRANKLY. I APPRECIATE MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES FOR FALLING OVER THEMSELVES WANTING TO HELP WITH THAT PROJECT. [ LAUGHTER ]. I HAVE BEEN GATHERING SEVERAL PIECES OF WHAT SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY OBVIOUS ANALYSIS AND PRIOR TO THE MEETING ON JANUARY THE 31ST, HOPEFULLY FOUR OR FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THAT, I WILL GET TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MY ANALYSIS AND MY RECOMMENDATION AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE THEN TAKE ACTION ON THE 31ST, THE DALLAS COWBOYS HAD ASKED -- SUGGESTED A FEBRUARY 1ST TIME FRAME. SO I WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 31ST.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. CITY MANAGER, IS THERE ANYTHING FOR THE 31ST? ANYBODY ELSE? I HAVE ANOTHER ITEM, I WILL BE BRINGING A RESOLUTION FOR THE 31ST OF JANUARY, A CAMPO RESOLUTION THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY MONAC, THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S BEEN WORKING WITH CAMPO ON THE IMPROVEMENTS TO MOPAC, THAT WILL BE ON THE 31ST AGENDA. MS. CITY CLERK, IF YOU WOULD READ THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THIS TIME, PLEASE. CLERK BROWN: THE CONSENT AGENDA AS I KNOW IT, ITEM NO. 12, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9TH AND THE WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 10TH. ITEM --

MAYOR GARCIA: USUALLY THAT ITEM IS NOT -- DOESN'T GO BY CONSENT, SO I WILL CALL IT UP AT THE END. LET'S SKIP THAT ONE.

BROWN: OKAY. ITEM 14, ITEM --

MAYOR GARCIA: POSTPONED UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 7TH. CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT, CORRECT? DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION?

BROWN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT WOULD BE A CONSENT ITEM FOR POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 7TH, '02.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 17, 18, 19 FOR POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 31ST, 2002, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, 30 ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 53, WHICH ARE THE APPOINTMENTS, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE APPOINTMENTS?

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD READ THE APPOINTMENTS INTO THE RECORD.

ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, MARLIN BOSTICK, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ARTS CENTER STAGE, AMY WONG MOK, APPOINTMENT. MAYOR GARCIA. HECTOR HERBY, PAYMENT, MAYOR GARCIA, ARTS COMMISSION, PAMELA CUNNINGHAM, APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, FRANCESCA, CONSENSUS, DOROTHY RICHTER, REAPPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS, BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL OVERSIGHT COUNCIL, DONNA AMONDS REAPPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS, MARGARITE, PROBABLY KILL THIS NAME, UREGES -- ORIEGAS, REAPPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS.

IT'S HER BASQUE NAME. DIFFICULT FOR HISPANICS.

DESIGN COMMISSION -- JOHN PATTERSON, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DOWNTOWN COMMISSION, TIMOTHY FINDLEY, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS. ELECTRICAL BOARD, GORDON BUYRUM, REAPPOINTMENT, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, SUSANA ALMANZA, APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. HOUSING AUTHORITY, CHARLES BAILEY, REAPPOINTMENT, MAYOR GARCIA. KARL S RICHIE, REAPPOINTMENT, MAYOR GARCIA. JACKSON A COLE, APPOINTMENT, MAYOR GARCIA. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, STEVE ALVAREZ, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. WILLIAM HALE, APPOINTMENT, MAYOR GARCIA. LIBRARY COMMISSION, PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ, REAPPOINTMENT, MAYOR GARCIA. CLIFTON GRIFFIN, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. M.B.E. W.B.E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARYANNE GARBY, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS. MECHANICAL PLUMBING AND SOLAR BOARD, WILLIAM AERIAL HARRIS, JUNIOR, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD, LENEHAN, JUNIOR, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS. MUSIC COMMISSION, LUIS ZAPATA APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, MICHAEL COON, REAPPOINTMENT, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN. SIGN REVIEW BOARD, FRANSECA FUENTE ... BRUCE W SHELTON, REAPPOINTMENT CONSENSUS. SOLID WASTE COMMISSION, MARK SANDERS APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, MICHAEL LOFTON, APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, TOMMY EDEN, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. PATRICK GETZ REAPPOINTMENT CONSENSUS, JOHN WOULD I I CAN'T TELL, REAPPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS, WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION, ANDREW S MILLER APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. I MAY MENTION THAT THE NAME OF FRANCECO APPEARS IN TWO PLACES, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND SIGN REVIEW BOARD. I THINK THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD, IF SOMEBODY COULD CORRECT ME IF ON THIS IS PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

NO, SIR. IT IS A SEPARATE STAND ALONE BOARD AND IT MEETS PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. SOME OF THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO SERVE ON THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD, BUT IT IS A SEPARATE STAND ALONE BOARD. DWAWRSR GARCIA: OKAY, BUT SOME OF THE -- HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE -- DO YOU KNOW?

WELL, THE -- THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALSO SIT ON THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. IN ADDITION THERE ARE OTHER MEMBERS THE -- OF THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD IN ADDITION TO -- IN ADDITION TO THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHO ARE ALSO SERVE ON THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. BUT THAT BOARD IS A SEPARATE STAND ALONE BOARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS DO WE HAVE TO APPOINT MR. FUENTES WHO IS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ALSO TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD SINCE APPOINTMENTS TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD COMES AUTOMATICALLY BY HIS MEMBERSHIP --

NO, SIR, IT DOES NOT COME AUTOMATICALLY. YES, SIR, YOU DO HAVE TO APPOINTMENT HIM TO BOTH BOARDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THOUGHT YOU SAID EARLIER WHOEVER SERVES ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ALSO SERVES ON THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD.

BUT IT STILL IS A SEPARATE STAND ALONE BOARD. IT'S JUST THAT TRADITIONALLY, HISTORICALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE APPOINTED MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU HAVE ALSO POINTED -- APPOINTED THOSE SAME MEMBERS TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. SO, YES, SIR, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE HIS MEMBERSHIP FOR BOTH BOARDS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MS. TERRY.

UH-HUH.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS FILLED OUT FOR -- FOR THAT ITEM.

WYNN: MAYOR, I NEED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA. FIRST, ITEM NO. 17 IS A -- IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AUSTIN CDC OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. JUST A QUICK NOTE. MY AIDE MARK NATHAN HAPPENS TO BE A BOARD MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZE. WE HAVE VERY CLEAR RULES ON COUNCIL THAT ANY MEMBER OF APPEAR ORGANIZATION CAN'T HAVE ANY -- OF AN ORGANIZATION CAN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT INVOLVEMENT WITH THE DECISION MADE, FUNDINGS, ET CETERA. JUST TO THE RECORD MR. NATHAN AND I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS. HE HASN'T -- PURSUED ME ABOUT THIS AND SO THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO ISSUE THERE. I DID WANT TO ALERT EVERYBODY TO THE FACT THAT HE HAPPENS TO BE A BOARD MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZATION. IF HE -- HE DOES THAT, HE DOES SEVERAL OTHER THING IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. ITEM NO. 43, I APOLOGIZE, WE HAVE A POLICY OF STATING OUR HAVING A FISCAL NOTE WITH ITEMS FROM COUNCIL. THEY USED TO SHOW UP. IN FACT THE LAST SENTENCE OF EACH ITEM, I PRESUMED THAT WOULD BE THE CASE HERE. ITEM NO. 43, THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE WAIVER IS NOT TO EXCEED $1800. IT SHOULD IN FACT BE JUST UNDER $1200, STAFF SUGGESTED THAT WE -- WE HAVE IT NOT TO EXCEED A FIGURE OF $1800 FOR ITEM NO. 43.

MAYOR GARCIA: USUALLY, FISCAL NOTES, COUNCILMEMBER HAVE A SOURCE. THIS COMES OUT OF THE --

WYNN: THIS IS A FEE WAIVER.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT AFFECTS THE BUDGET OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -- WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT DEPARTMENT NOW?

WYNN: I DON'T KNOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT, MS. GLASGO? [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

THIS WOULD AFFECT GENERAL FUND REVENUE, BUT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE BUDGET OF ANY PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT. BUT THE REVENUE OF THE GENERAL FUND AS A WHOLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THAT'S STEVENS, THE HEAD OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

WYNN: IN THIS CASE IT'S ONLY IF THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY COMES FORWARD AND SUBMITS A SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES, ITEM NO. 46, THAT RELATE TO THE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER, IT'S NOT READY FOR ANY TYPE OF COUNCIL ACTION, SO JUST GOING TO REQUEST THAT IT BE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM 46 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT INDEFINITELY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WILL PUT BACK ON ITEMS 44 AND 45.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ITEM 44, ITEM 45.

SLUSHER: I WOULD JUST ASK ON THE TASK FORCE THERE, I DID HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT -- ABOUT THE APPOINTEE THAT MIGHT NOT -- SOMETIMES DOESN'T TREAT STAFF WITH RESPECT OR PERHAPS FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. I AM HOPING THAT EVERYONE WILL BEHAVE IN A FLAG, CONDUCT THEMSELVES -- IN A FASHION, CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER TOWARDS EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: NOTED. LET ME READ THE CONSENT AGENDA AGAIN. ITEM NO. 15 -- 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, AND THE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ITEM NO. 53, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE -- LET ME GO BACK TO 14.

14 I A POSTPONEMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SORRY, THAT IS CONSENT POSTPONEMENT. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY BE NEW TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS, THE CONSENT ITEMS ARE ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATION REVIEWED DURING THE WEEK AND FOUND THEM TO BE READY FOR APPROVAL UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE USE, WEEK IN, WEEK OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS CONSENT AGENDA.

THOMAS: MAYOR SNL.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: JUST BEFORE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COULD I GET THE CLERK TO READ THE RESOLUTION INTO THE RECORD SINCE IT'S BEEN PUT BACK ON -- ON CONSENT.

NUMBER 44?

YES, SIR.

COULD YOU READ THAT.

WHEREAS RECENT TERRORIST ATTACKS ON OUR NATION HAVE THREATENED THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR STATE, AND HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE NEED FOR A RAPID RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACK, TO TERRORIST THREATS AND ACTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. BROWN, CAN YOU HOLD JUST A SECOND. CAN YOU GIVE HER MIC MORE VOLUME, PLEASE. OKAY.

AND WHEREAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE AND TO ENSURE AN AWARENESS OF THE MEASURES IN PLACE FOR THEIR CONTINUED PROTECTION, AND WHEREAS AN IMMEDIATE NEED EXISTS FOR ASSESSING THE CURRENT STATE OF READINESS BY LOCAL ENTITIES TO RESPOND TO POSSIBLE THREATS AND ACT OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO AID VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE IS CREATED TO ADVISE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ON ALL MATTERS RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY, THE TASK FORCE SHALL IDENTIFY ANY GAPS IN -- AND PRIORITIZE CORE PROBLEMS/DEFICIENCIES IN PUBLIC SAFETY. THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE SHALL CONSIST OF 21 MEMBERS, APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE TASK FORCE NO MORE THAN NINE MEMBERS OR A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE ACTIVE MEMBERS WHICHEVER NUMBER IS FEWER IS A QUORUM FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS. THE CITY MANAGER SHALL ASSIGN MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF TO ATTEND TASK FORCE MEETINGS. AND ASSIST THE TASK FORCE IN AREAS OF THE STAFF MEMBERS' EXPERTISE INCLUDING POLICE, FIRE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DELIVERY OF MEDICAL SERVICES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS SHALL EVERYBODY AS CHAIR AND APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS MAY FILL ANY VACANCY THAT MAY OCCUR. THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE SHALL MAKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, RELATING TO GAPS IN CORE DEFICIENCIES, PROBLEMS IN THE LOCAL STRATEGY THAT SECURES AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS -- TERRORIST THREATS OR ATTACKS, WHICH WILL HELP PROVIDE WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN A SEAMLESS COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF RESPONDING TO ALL NATURAL DISASTERS OR ATTACKS BY CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, NUCLEAR AGENTS OR ANY OTHER THREATS OF ARM TO PUBLIC SAFETY. -- OF HARM TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE SHALL PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF THE LOCAL STRATEGY FOR DETECTING, PREPARING FOR, PREVENTING, PROTECTING AGAINST, RESPONDING TO AND RECOVERING FROM ANY INCIDENT THAT THREATENS PUBLIC SAFETY TO DEVELOP AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF ENHANCING THE ABILITY OF AUSTIN TO DETECT AND DETER HARMFUL ACTS AND COORDINATE LOCAL RESPONSE. THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE, THROUGH ITS ADVISORY EFFORTS, SHALL COORDINATE WITH NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES TO RESEARCH SIMILAR ISSUES OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE SHALL MAKE REGULAR REPORTS TO THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ON ITS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, THE TASK FORCE SHALL MEET AT TIMES AND LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIR; THE CITY MANAGER SHALL PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT WITH THE TASK FORCE. THE TASK FORCE SHALL ADHERE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. ALL MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. NECESSARY EXPENSES MAY BE REIMBURSED WHEN SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN DIRECT PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES OF THE TASK FOR. THE RESOLUTION TAKES EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND IS EFFECTIVE FOR TWO YEARS. AT THAT POINT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THE CONTINUED NEED FOR THIS TASK FORCE. THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL HERE BY WAIVES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL TASK FORCE MEMBERS REGARDING ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO PERMANENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID YOU READ THE LIST OF THE MEMBERS?

YES, SIR. THE 21 MEMBER PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE: COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS, CHAIR, MARGO FRASIER, SHERIFF, OF TRAVIS COUNTY, DAVID EVANS, MHMR REPRESENTATIVE, STEVEN WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, TRAVIS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, MIKE LEVY, TEXAS MONTHLY CONSUMER ADEQUATE, CALVIN LEE, NAACP, CONSUMER ADVOCATE, CLINT SMITH, GRAY PANTHERS, CONSUMER ADVOCATE, PETE BALDWIN, TRAVIS COUNTY OEM DIRECTOR, STEVE CHRISMAN, CEO RED CROSS EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDER, LULAC REPRESENTATIVE, CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME JUST -- THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT REPRESENTATION FROM THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY. THAT PERSON WOULD BE A HISPANIC.

DON SMITH, TRAVIS COUNTY FIRE CONTROL, ERNIE PADRAZA, AMIGOS AND AZUL, RAY --

THAT'S FRIENDS IN BLUE.

RAY END DOMINICAN REPUBLICS, -- RAY HENDRICKS, BLACK FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, SCOOT TRUMAN, AFD FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, CAPITAL METRO REPRESENTATIVE, RANDY MORENO, HISPANIC FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, JOEL SHARE, DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, CONSUMER ADEQUATE; MIKE SHEFFIELD, AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION; DR. STEVEN HARRIS, TRAVIS COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY; DR. CHARLES BELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; CRAIG HOWARD, TEXAS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.

GARZA: MAYOR, JUST A QUICK QUESTION OR COMMENT. AS WITH ALL COMMISSIONS OR TASK FORCES, WE OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO SUPPORT THIS ONE, FROM THE STAFF STANDPOINT. BUT I WOULD HOPE, BECAUSE THERE'S A MENTION IN THERE ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTENTIONS. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE REFRESHMENTS AND THINGS LIKE WE DO WITH ANY KIND OF TASK FORCE. I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY EXPENSES OTHER THAN IN-KIND THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE AS A CITY, EITHER MATERIALS, PENCILS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT WE WOULD BE REBEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE YOURSELFING EXPENSES FOR PEOPLE ON THIS TASK FORCE FOR THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT THINK ARE RELATED AND IN FACT WOULD HAVE NO OVERSIGHT. I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF EXPENDITURES GETTING OUT OF HAND. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S APPROPRIATE. THIS DOESN'T HAVE A FISCAL NOTE. IT ENTAILS JUST THOSE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED. I MAY ALSO MENTION THAT CABLE NEWS NETWORK, LP -- LLLP, ISSUED AN ASSESSMENT OF CITIES AND THEY ISSUED AN ASSESSMENT OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, WITH A QUESTION HOW PREPARED IS YOUR CITY? THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT IS WELL PREPARED. SO OUR CITY IS WELL PREPARED. THIS TASK FORCE WILL BE LOOKING AT WHAT THINGS WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THAT. TOM THOMAS MAYOR, IF I COULD SAY SOMETHING?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: YES. I WANT COME COMMEND THE PEOPLE THAT -- COMMEND THE PEOPLE THAT ACCEPTED TO SERVE ON THIS TASK FORCE. I REASSURE THE CITY MANAGER THAT WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING, ANY EXPENSES THAT WE WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE CHARTER, ANY RULES AND REGULATIONS. I WANT TO ALSO ASSURE ANY DEPARTMENT HEADS OR ANY CHIEFS THAT WE ARE NOT HERE BUT TO DO ANYTHING BUT TO ENHANCE AND SUPPORT YOUR DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SERVING ON THIS TASK FORCE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CITIZENS OF AUSTIN ARE PROTECTED. THE PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WE HAVE. WE DO HAVE A GREAT HOMELAND SECURITY THAT'S IN PLACE, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE THE CORE PROBLEMS AND DEFICIENCIES AT THIS TIME. I WANT TO COMMEND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALSO, LIKE I SAID AGAIN, THAT ACCEPTED TO SERVE ON THIS TASK FORCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH, I DO THINK THE CITY MANAGER MAKES A GOOD POINT. I WOULD WONDERING HOW WE WILL DEFINE NECESSARY EXPENSES. SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE DONE UP FRONT TO ME. BECAUSE THE WAY I READ IT, THAT -- THAT COST -- COULD INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE ENCOURAGE -- INCUR EXPENSES AND SUBMIT THEM AND SAY THEY WERE NECESSARY? IF SO, HOW WOULD IT BE DETERMINED IF THOSE WERE PAID OR NOT?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I COULD ANSWER THAT. I THINK THAT I JUST EXPLAINED THAT, THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT -- I WILL MAKE THAT CLEAR AS WE HAVE OUR FIRST MEETING, THIS IS JUST LIKE A -- I TOLD DEPUTY CITY MANAGER IS THAT TO GET THE RESOLUTION STARTED AND I WILL MAKE SURE AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN ME THAT I WILL NOT BRING ANY EXPENSE THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT EXPENSE TO THIS COUNCIL OR EITHER TO THE CITY MANAGER.

SLUSHER: SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH YOU AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, NOT -- IT WOULDN'T BE WHERE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE COULD SUBMIT INVOICES TO THE CITY FOR THEIR EXPENSES?

NO.

THOMAS: WE CAN CLARIFY ANYTHING ELSE.

SLUSHER: LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE -- I NOTICE THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ON HERE. BUT NO ONE FROM THE -- I DON'T BELIEVE, FROM THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL. DID YOU TALK WITH CHIEF KNEE ABOUT REPRESENTATION -- ABOUT THAT?

THOMAS: I THINK WE GOT INTO THAT, MAYBE THE CITY MANAGER COULD CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU.

GARZA: I WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT GETTING MY DEPARTMENT HEADS INVOLVED BECAUSE YOU GET INTO THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT HEADS. WE ARE GOING TO BE THERE TO SUPPORT THIS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. I'M ASSUMING THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO COME TO THE TABLE ARE REALLY BEING ASKED FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT BECAUSE OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH, THE AUSTIN -- AUSTIN FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, THE POLICE ASSOCIATION AND THE AM MEETING AMIGOS IN AZUN. BECAUSE YOU COULD GET, INADVERTENTLY DIRECT THOSE DEPARTMENTS THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HAVE A COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAY WE OUGHT TO RUN OUR BUSINESS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THAT BEING THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL OF MY COMMENTS.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, FROM ITEM 44 TO ITEM 45, LAST TIME BEFORE WE MOVED ON THIS, THERE WERE COMMENTS THAT I MADE INTO THE RECORD. FOR THE INTERESTED PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM, COULD WE HAVE A QUICK COMMENT FROM STAFF ON THE STATUS OF THE CONSULTANT R.F.P.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ITEM 45. IS THERE A STAFF IN THE CHAMBERS THAT CAN COMMENT? IF NOT WE WILL PULL THIS ITEM OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. WHY DON'T WE PULL IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE DON'T HAVE ANY STAFF PEOPLE HERE.

GOODMAN: CAN WE HOLD IT IN AWAYENCE.

GARZA: WE WILL GET THE STATUS FOR YOU IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.

GOODMAN: I THINK MS. DUNKERLY WOULD KNOW IT.

GARZA: SHE WAS NOT IN THE BACK. WE WILL GET THAT FOR YOU MAYOR PRO TEM AS SOON AS WE CAN.

GOODMAN: SINCE I KNOW THE STATUS, I WANT IT TO BE SAID PUBLICLY BY STAFF, COULD WE --

GARZA: TELL ME, I WILL BE HAPPY TO REPEAT IT. [ LAUGHTER ].

GOODMAN: IT'S ALMOST READY TO GO.

GARZA: HERE SHE COMES, I SEE HER IN THE BACK.

MY NAME IS BETTY DUNKERLY, YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE R.F.P. FOR THE CONSULTANT.

GOODMAN: WE JUST WANTED TO GO WITH THIS ITEM'S PASSAGE, WE WANTED THE INTERESTED PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THE R.F.P. WAS.

AT THIS TIME I THINK IT IS IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE. I HAVE ASKED THEM TO SEND ME A DRAFT OF IT AS SOON AS IT'S COMPLETE. SO I'M NOT -- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF THE DATE IT'S EXPECTED TO GO OUT. BUT IT SHOULD BE SOON.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. THAT'S ALL THAT I NEEDED, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, ALL -- I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THOMAS: SO MOVE --

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

WAS THAT YOU WHO SECONDED COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: IT WAS ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBERED THAT NOTHING. I THINK THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE TO GO CHECK MY RIGHT EAR. THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE DISCUSSION AGENDA ARE AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 13, THAT WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, ITEM NO. 15 WHERE THERE'S NO ACTION REQUIRED, ITEM NO. 16, WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, ITEM NO. 23, WHICH OF PULLED BY GARCIA, ITEM NO. 41 PULLED BY GARCIA. AND THAT'S IT. AS FAR AS ITEMS PULLED. DID WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO, MOTION CARRIES IN CASE WE HADN'T DONE THAT.

YOU DID. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE WORK SESSION ON JANUARY OF 9TH, 2002. AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY THE 10TH, 2002. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

GOODMAN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES.

SLUSHER: WOULD YOU SHOW ME ABSTAINING, I HAD TO MISS THE WORK SESSION BECAUSE OF CAPCO.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AN OBTAINING ON THE WORK SESSION ITEM OF JANUARY THE 9TH, 2002, NOT ON JANUARY THE 10TH, CORRECT.

SLUSHER: IF WE CAN SPLIT THEM OUT, NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE RECORD WILL NOTE THAT YOU ABSTAINED ON THE JANUARY 9TH, 2002 MINUTES.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

THOMAS: AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR FIREFIGHTERS.

YES, COUNCILMEMBER. I'M RHONDA LA PE WUCHLT WITH THE OFFICE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS. AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE RADIO FREQUENCY EMETIONS AND RADIO EMISSIONS ARE WHEN THE FCC GRANTS A LICENSE TO A WIRELESS PROVIDE LIKE VOICESTREAM. AND VOICESTREAM HAS CERTIFIED WITH THE FCC THAT THEIR FACILITIES WON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. AND THEY'RE USING LOW POWERED FACILITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN DEEMED VERY UNLIKELY TO PUT OUT ANY RF EMISSIONS THAT GO BEYOND THE LEVEL THAT IS DETERMINED SAFE BY THE FCC FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE. THE VOICESTREAM ANTENNA IS A MIGHT CROW SILL ANTENNA AND THE WATTAGE WILL BE BELOW THE 2,000 WATTS THAT BE DEEMED SAFE. SO AS FAR AS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE FIREMEN AND FIRE WOMEN THAT ARE IN WINDSOR FIRE STATION, THEY SHOULD BE ALLEVIATED.

THOMAS: ONE MORE QUESTION. HOW MANY FEET IS IT GOING TO BE ON THE INSTALLATION OF IT?

I BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE -- THE LOWEST POINT OF THE ANTENNA IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST 33 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND.

THOMAS: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WYNN: MAYOR? MS. PUE? IN SOME CORRESPONDENCE WITH SOME OF THE FIREFIGHTERS THERE AT THE STATION, BACK SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AT THE AT THELY COME SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING I HAD ZONING ORDINANCE OF GENERICALLY IF THIS HAD FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AND I GUESS THE ANSWER GENERICALLY WAS YES, IT HAD APPROVAL. AND I GUESS SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE ON COUNCIL SAW WAS APPARENTLY SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL FIREFIGHTERS WEREN'T AWARE OF IT AND LACK OF COMMUNICATION OR NEW HIRES OR WHATEVER THE CASE, NEW TRANSFERS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY HAVE BEEN. I JUST RECEIVED AN E-MAIL EARLIER TODAY WHERE APPARENTLY ONE OF THE FIREFIGHTERS HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO DO A QUICK ANALYSIS OF THE SAFETY OF THE RF ENERGY COMING OFF OF THESE TYPE TOWERS. SO THAT IMPLIES TO ME THAT PERHAPS THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AT AFD HAS INDEED ASKED FOR FURTHER REVIEW AT LEAST BY THE THIS INDIVIDUAL FIREFIGHTER FOR A QUICK SORT OF SAFETY ANALYSIS. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR THE CHIEF. IS THAT THE CASE AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I PRESUME WE WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTIL AFD HAS THAT ANALYSIS?

YES. WHAT WE DID WAS WE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS EARLIER IN THE YEAR. AND SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF TRANSFERS TO THE STATION AND THEY DIDN'T GET THE SAFETY BRIEFING THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN. AND THEY HAVE GOTTEN THAT SAFETY BRIEFING NOW AND SEEM TO BE SATISFIED AT THIS POINT. WE HAVE RESEARCHED WITH THE FCC AS TO WHAT KIND OF DISTANCES ARE NEEDED FOR THAT KIND OF A TRANSMITTER AND ARE SATISFIED THAT WE HAVE THE SEPARATION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE. THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WAS JUST THAT SOME OF THE FIREFIGHTERS DIDN'T GET THEIR SAFETY BRIEFING.

WELL, THE COMMENT THAT AT LEAST I AND I THINK OTHERS RECEIVED TODAY WAS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL FIREFIGHTER HAS BEEN ASSIGNED FOR THE PAST -- FROM THE PAST TO DO SORT OF A SAFETY ANALYSIS OR HEALTH AFFECT ANALYSIS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. I PRESUME BY THAT HE IMPLIES -- HE MEANS HE WAS ASSIGNED BY SOMEBODY IN THE COMMAND.

THAT'S TRUE. HE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS CONCERNED. AND WE ASKED HIM TO GO AHEAD AND RESEARCH IT AND HAVE A REPORT AND BE PREPARED TO GIVE US A COMPANY SCHOOL, WE CALL IT A COMPANY SCHOOL, BUT IT'S A SCHOOL FOR EVERYONE IN THE STATION SO THEY CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THE SAME INFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT IS IT HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DELAY ACTION UNTIL THAT REPORT IS DONE?

NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

DOES HE KNOW WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS AND THIS IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR FIREFIGHTERS TO HEAR HIS ANALYSIS?

YES. IT'S JUST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. IT WAS NOT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO DELAY ACTION. IT WAS JUST FOR INFORMATION FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS THAT NEEDED TO KNOW.

WYNN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER 13? IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: YES. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN BROUGHT UP A MESS THAT I'M KIND OF CONCERNED. IF WE POSTPONED IT, HOW WOULD IT AFFECT THE CONTRACT?

I'M SONNY HOOD, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I DEAL WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND REGULATORY MATTERS. WITH REGARD TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION STATIONS AND ANTENNAS SUCH AS THESE, THE FCC AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS HAS ACTUALLY PREEMPTED CITIES FROM BEING ABLE TO REGULATE IN THIS AREA. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FCC HAS CONDUCTED ANALYSIS THAT THE CONGRESS IS CONVINCED IS TO THE POINT WHERE THE LICENSES THAT THEY GRANT FOR THESE TYPE OF ANTENNAS ARE ESSENTIALLY BEEN DEEMED SAFE BY BOTH THE FCC AND THE CONGRESS. SO WHILE THE CITY HAS PASSED REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF WHERE THESE ANTENNAS CAN BE LOCATED, IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE THIS MATTER, IT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, GOES AGAINST THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN THE CABLE ACT. THESE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT WHEN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION PROVIDERS SUCH AS VOICESTREAM GET LICENSES, THEIR ANTENNAS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. THE DESIGN OF THE ANTENNAS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY THE FCC AND BEEN DEEMED SAFE. SO THIS ISSUE SO FAR AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ARE CONCERNED IS FORECLOSED.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: DOES THAT ESSENTIALLY MEAN THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT?

THOMAS: BASICALLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SOUNDS THAT WAY.

NO, COUNCILMEMBER. THE -- THESE THINGS DO REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL, HOWEVER, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF IT WERE DENIED, THEN THE VOICESTREAM DOES HAVE A READY MADE APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON WHICH THE JUDGE WOULD BE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY DECLINED APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE FOR A REASON THAT'S NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE.

GRIFFITH: WHICH MAY BE THE CASE.

WHICH MAY BE THE CASE.

GRIFFITH: THANKS.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I WASN'T TRYING TO DENY IT, BUT I JUST GOT THROUGH READING. I MOVE THAT WE SEPTUM 13.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 13?

THOMAS: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECOND, ANYBODY? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. OH, I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SECONDED IT? OKAY. DISCUSSION?

WYNN: I JUST WANT TO THANK THE COMMAND STAFF FOR ALLOWING THE FIREFIGHTERS TO DO THIS ANALYSIS AND HOPEFULLY HELP EDUCATE FIREFIGHTERS. BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO BELIEVE THAT FIRE STATIONS WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS LOCATION AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY SOME OBVIOUS LOCATIONS FOR SOME OF THESE FACILITIES IN THE FUTURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO REQUEST FROM DELLA IS THAT WE LOOK AT THIS KIND OF INSTALLATIONS AND SEE IF WE NEED TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD IN THE CELL TOWER AREA, WHERE WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT PROTECTS THE SAFETY. THIS ONE -- THIS PARTICULAR INSTALLATION IS NOT COVERED IN THAT ORDINANCE, CORRECT?

CORRECT. AND YOU'RE PERTAINING TO WIRELESS AN NEN NAS. YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ESSENTIAL DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS PARTICULAR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS STATION, CAN WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF SAFETY?

WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND RUN IT THROUGH THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS?

.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ITEM NUMBER 16, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. SOMEBODY TOLD ME IT WAS YOU, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

ALVAREZ: IF THE STAFF WOULD COULD -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: MUST HAVE BEEN THE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION WE HAVE IN OUR OFFICE.

ALVAREZ: PUT UP THE MAP SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHILE THEY'RE GETTING -- EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND, COUNCILMEMBER. WHILE THEY'RE GETTING READY, LET ME ANNOUNCE THAT THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE'LL BE PULLING UP FOR DISCUSSION, IT WILL BE TWO ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S ITEM NUMBER 23 AND ITEM NUMBER 41. AND I THINK WE HAVE HAVE PEOPLE TO JOIN -- ASKED SOME PEOPLE TO JOIN US FOR THAT DISCUSSION. I DON'T SEE THEM HERE, SO IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE HERE FOR THAT. THERE HE IS: HI, MICHAEL.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARIO FLORES. I'M WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2001, THE THE ZONINGS WERE ADOPTED EXCEPT FOR PROPERTIES WITH PROPOSED LI, CO AND CP PLANNING. THOSE WERE POSTPONED FOR TODAY'S ZONING CONSIDERATION. TODAY'S ACTION REQUIRES CONSIDERATION FOR CASE NUMBER C-14--01-0166.001. IT IS FOR ZONING ALONG THE FIFTH AND SIXTH STREET QUARTER DOR, HILL DAL GO, ROBERT T. MARTINEZ STREET. A PROPERTY OWNER HAS FILED A PETITION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2,000 EAST SIXTH STREET. IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY ZONED FOR ANY OTHER CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN NO, CS IN THE PROPERTY PLAN. HE HAS AGREED TO WITHDRAW HIS VALID PETITION IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES THE OPTION BY THE PLANNING TEAM AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF JANUARY 7TH, 2002. STAFF HAS PROVIDED AN ARRAY OF OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE AT THIS TIME. THOSE OPTIONS, AGAIN, ONE WAS UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING TEAM AND AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS. I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION OR TWO?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

ALVAREZ: YEAH. YOU MENTIONED THAT -- MADE A REFERENCE TO THE PLANNING TEAM UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF A PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO THERE?

YOU SHOULD HAVE A YELLOW SHEET IN FRONT OF YOU. I'M REFERRING TO ITS OPTION NUMBER 2, AND THIS IS TO ZONE THE PROPOSED LI PROPERTIES, LO, CIT, WHICH USE IS RESTRICT STRICTED TO EXISTED LI USE AND ALLOW LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION AS THE ONLY PERMITTED LI USES IN ADDITION TO THE OTHERS AND A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO UNWANTED QLUS. THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF PROHIBITED USES. IF YOU WOULD LIKE I WOULD NAME THOSE OFF AT THIS POINT AND CONDITIONAL USES.

ALVAREZ: NO. THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM. THIS IS WHAT -- THIS CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM, SO ARE YOU STATING THAT THAT GROUP IN ATTENDANCE WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM OR THAT THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL ACTION TAKEN BY THESE?

YES, SIR. THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM WAS INVITED. WE HAD AT LEAST SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING TEAM PRESENT. THEY ENDORSED THIS OPTION HERE. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD THE LI PROPERTY OWNERS, THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS IN ATTENDANCE AND THEY ALSO ENDORSED THIS OPTION FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION.

ALVAREZ: TO THERE WERE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING TEAM THERE?

SEVEN THERE, YES, SIR.

ALVAREZ: OUT OF HOW MANY?

THE WAY THE HOLLY PLANNING TEAM WAS ESTABLISHED WAS THAT THEY REALLY DIDN'T LIKE TO LIMIT THE DECISION MAKING TO A CORE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. FOR THE MOST PART WE HAD ABOUT 10 INDIVIDUALS WHO SOLIDLY ATTENDED THE MEETINGS. OF THAT WE HAD A TOTAL OF ABOUT 15 VEDS CONSTANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TOES PROES, BUT THE CORE GROUP WAS ABOUT 10. AND SEVEN OF THOSE 10 WERE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.

ALVAREZ: SO THEN WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL LISTING OF PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS?

YES, WE DO, SIR?

ALVAREZ: HOW MANY ARE ON THAT LIST?

THERE'S AT LEAST 15 -- THERE'S AT LEAST 15 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS, WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS. THE PLANNING TEAM NEVER ELECTED TO HAVE A CORE GROUP BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE ANYONE WHO WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PROCESS. HOWEVER, THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PLANNING TEAM WAS PRESENT, BEING THE CHAIR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM, GAR VEEN KNOW FERNANDEZ AND THE OTHER CORE LEADERS THAT REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE THERE. AND THEY AGREED TO ENDORSING A DECISION AND FORWARDING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

ALVAREZ: IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF ARBITRARY AND EVEN CONTRADICTORY TO SAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM DIDN'T WANT A CORE GROUP TO MAKE DECISIONS AND THEN YOU'RE LETTING SEVEN PEOPLE MAKE THE DECISIONS. SO I JUST WANT TO, I GUESS, MAKE SURE THAT -- THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM ENDORSED THAT PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION OR NOT. AND THEN ONE THING I DID WANT CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF, BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING WITH THE ZONING. IS THE ZONING ON THE TRACT HIGHLIGHTED THERE ON THE MAP ON THE LEFT, BUT SINCE WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST, YOU KNOW, IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION WHERE WE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SOME LI PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA THAT WERE NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT THESE PARTICULAR TRACTS ARE SUBJECT TO. SO IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT AND JUST WHY THAT WASN'T COMMUNICATED TO US WHEN IT CAME FORWARD PREVIOUSLY.

WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM WAS LOOKING AT REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, THEY SLEKED A GROUP OF PROPERTIES THAT THEY FELT WOULD IMMEDIATELY IMPACT THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ALSO THE COMMERCIAL AREAS. THEY FELT THAT THEY NEVER IDENTIFIED THESE TWO PROPERTIES AS PROPERTIES OF CONCERN. AS A RESULT, WE DIDN'T REQUEST ANY REZONING, ANY REZONINGS FOR THESE PROPERTIES. SO IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A CONSCIOUS MOVE BY THE PLANNING TEAM.

ALVAREZ: AND THAT IS STATED SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THAT?

NO, SIR. IT WOULDN'T BE A DIRECT STATEMENT. AS WE ENGAGE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, WE GO PROPERTY BY PROPERTY TO ASSESS WHETHER A CERTAIN PROPERTY POSES A THREAT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY -- WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR ANALYSIS AND OUR EVALUATION, THE PLANNING TEAM ELECTED NOT TO CHOOSE THESE TWO PROPERTIES AS PROPERTIES THAT WE WERE GOING TO BRING FORWARD AS PROPERTIES TO BE REZONED.

ALVAREZ: SO THEN WHAT DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SAY ABOUT INDUSTRIAL USES? DOES IT SAY THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY?

THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT YOU CAN -- THAT YOU FIND ON THE MAP TO YOUR LEFT.

ALVAREZ: AL AND THAT'S HOW IT'S STATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN?

CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: AND HOW MANY TRACTS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY?

WE'RE TALKING -- .

ALVAREZ: CAN YOU POINT THEM OUT?

YES, SIR. THIS THESE PROPERTIES YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE ALONG THE CORRIDOR RIGHT HERE EAST OF GUY STREET AND JUST NORTH OF FIFTH STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAIL LINE. SO IT WOULD BE THESE THREE PROPERTIES AND THEN THESE TWO UP IN HERE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNCIL BECAUSE IT KIND OF RELATES TO THE COURSE OF ACTION I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND.

SLUSHER: CAN I SAY SOMETHING FIRST? I JUST WANTED TO BACK UP, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, THAT THE WAY I RECALL IT, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE FOLKS INVITED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THE MEETING THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND I HOSTED THAT THE ONES INVITED WERE MAINLY THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, SO I'M SURPRISED TO SEE IT AS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. THAT'S NOT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT THAT EVENING.

ALL CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS WERE INVITED, IN ADDITION TO ALL AFFECTED LI PROPERTY OWNERS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAY I RECALL IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WAS GOING TO MENTION SOMETHING ELSE. WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, CAN WE CHANGE THE NAME OF THAT STREET, KIA STREET? [LAUGHTER].

ALVAREZ: I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS. BASICALLY I WANTED TO PUT A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE COULD DO THIS BECAUSE REALLY THE WAY WE DEAL WITH INDUSTRIAL ISSUES OR INDUSTRIAL ZONED TRACTS IN EAST AUSTIN IS MUCH LARGER THAN JUST HOW WE DEAL WITH THEM IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. AND LIKE I MENTIONED LAST TIME IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE DID ON THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY DOWN ZONE ALL INDUSTRIAL TRACTS TO CS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE TRACT THAT WAS LEFT, THE TORTILLA FACTORY, I BELIEVE, SO THEN IN MAY THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE'RE DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL TRACTS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY AND THERE'S MORE INDUSTRIAL TRACTS THAT ARE REMAINING HERE. MY CONCERN IS THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH CURRENTLY IS THE GOVALLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES ON IT. AND SO MY CONCERN IS HOWEVER WE DEAL WITH THIS, IT WILL PROBABLY AFFECT OR INFLUENCE THE OUTCOMES OF THAT PARTICULAR -- OF THAT PARTICULAR PLANNING PROCESS. SO AGAIN -- I STATED MY INCLINATIONS LAST TIME IS WE'RE GOING TO -- IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE ANY INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, THAT THAT BE SUBJECT TO THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY. AN THAT'S BASICALLY THE POSITION THAT I HAD RECOMMENDED ON FIRST READING. AND WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THIS COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A NEGOTIATION OF SORTS, BUT THAT MEETING REALLY WASN'T ANY KIND OF NEGOTIATION BECAUSE THE TWO THINGS -- THE TWO ISSUES WERE EAST AUSTIN LOEFER LAY OR WHAT THE -- OVER LAY OR WHAT THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS OWNERS WERE PROPOSING. AND WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS BASICALLY STILL THE EAST AUSTIN OVER LAY AND WHAT THE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE PROPOSING AND IT REALLY ISN'T THAT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE LAST TIME. SO IN THAT SENSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR ME TO CHANGE MY POSITION, SO -- AND BASICALLY SO THERE ARE TWO COURSES OF ACTION, WE COULD DOWN ZONE EVERYTHING TO CS LIKE WE DID IN CESAR CHAVEZ, OR WE COULD -- AND THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE POSTPONE ACTION ON THESE ITEMS UNTIL AT WHICH TIME AS THE ZONING CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE GOVALLE PLANNING PROCESS COME FORWARD TO COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT MORE GLOBALLY HOW THESE DECISIONS, -- YOU YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN EAST AUSTIN. FURTHERMORE, I WAS I WOULD PROPOSE UNDER THAT OPTION THAT WE ALSO INITIATE REZONING FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY ARE NOT UNDER ANY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA AND THAT THEY BE CHANGED TO THE LI, CO JUST AS ALL THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, AND THAT THOSE PARTICULAR CASES COME FORWARD WITH THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING UNDER THIS ITEM, WHENEVER THOSE COME FORWARD. AND FINALLY, THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CHANGING THE LI ZONINGS IN THESE PARTICULAR TRACTS THAT I'VE MENTIONED, THAT WE STATE CLEARLY THAT THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY CONTINUES TO APPLY TO ALL OF THESE TRACTS IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA THAT ARE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL UNTIL WHICH TIME AS THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY IS RESCINDED BY COUNCIL IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. AND BASICALLY I THINK WHAT THESE ITEMS ALLOW US TO DO IS TO GO THROUGH THE GOVALLE PLANNING PROCESS AND SEE WHERE -- WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING GOING TO BE MADE WITH REGARD TO INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS. AND THEN WHEN THOSE COME FORWARD, LOOK AT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO THOSE ARE THE PROPOSALS I'M GOING TO MAKE, AND IF FOLKS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ....

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER, IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION?

WELL, I GUESS I PUT TWO OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. DOWN ZONE ALL THE LI TO CS AND THAT WAY I GUESS WE WOULD BE SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE IN THE GOVALLE PLANNING PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE LI TO BE DEALT WITH. AND THE OTHER OPTION IS TO PUT THESE ON HOLD IN THE MANNER I SUGGESTED UNTIL WHICH TIME AS THE GOVALLE PLANNING ZONING CHANGES COME FORWARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE WANTING TO DO THE SECOND ONE?

ALVAREZ: RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE DO THE LATTER ONE, WHICH IS WAIT AND GO THROUGH THE GOVALLE PROCESS AND THEN TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THAT COMES TO US THAT WE DEAL WITH THOSE -- WITH THESE PARTICULAR ONES CONSISTENTLY WITH HOW WE DEAL WITH THOSE OTHER ZONING OR TYPE OF LAND USE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT IS IN THE FORM OF A MOTION; IS THAT CORRECT? YES?

ALVAREZ: YES. I CAN RESTATE IT IF YOU WANT TO BE CLEAR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

THOMAS: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: MAYOR? COULD WE ASK CITY LEGAL TO COMMENT ON THE ACTION WE'RE PROPOSING?

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS MATTER WOULD BE BOUGHT BACK AFTER THE GOVALLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS TAKEN CARE OF. AND YOU CAN POSTPONE IT.

GOODMAN: SO SINCE NOTHING IS PROPOSED TO BE PASSED, THEN THERE'S NO QUESTION OF ULTIMATELY WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMES IN, ANY IMPACT?

WELL, YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED ON FIRST READING. IF YOU POSTPONE THIS INDEFINITELY, THEN YOU HAVE THIS ORDINANCE PENDING INDEFINITELY. THAT WILL REQUIRE WHEN WE FINALLY COME BACK, WHEN THIS ITEM IS FINALLY BROUGHT PACK, IT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL NOTICE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A POSTPONEMENT TO A TIME CERTAIN. BUT YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED ON FIRST READING AND YOU ARE PENDING THE ADDITIONAL READINGS UNTIL AFTER YOU DEAL WITH THE ISSUE IN GOVALLE. I THINK ALICE MAY HAVE SOMETHING SHE WANTS TO ADD.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. MY NAME IS ALICE GLASCO AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO COMMENT ON TWO ASPECTS. AND I WANT TO KNOW WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. REGARDING THE INITIATIONS OF REZONING OF THE LI PLATS THAT DO NOT HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. SINCE YOUR FIRST REQUEST WAS TO PUT INTO ABEYANCE THE REZONINGS UNTIL THE GOVALLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND REZONING, THEN IT MAKES SENSE SENSE THAT WHAT WE WOULD DO IF THAT MOTION PASSES IS THAT WE WOULD INITIATE THE REZONINGS AT A TIME SO WHAT WE CAN ALL COME TOGETHER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN TANDEM. WOULD THAT BE -- .

WHATEVER IS CORRECT, ALICE.

AND I ALSO WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED IN 1981 REGARDING THE CESSATION OF THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY. AND IT READS THAT IF THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND INCLUDED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMBINING DISTRICT, SO IN ESSENCE YOU HAVE -- YOU WOULD HAVE ADOPTED OR YOU DID ADOPT THE ENTIRETY OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE LI TRACTS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. SO THOSE TRACTS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE MP OVERLAY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING.

ALVAREZ: INCLUDING THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? WAS THAT ADD TO KNOWS?

SINCE YOU HAVE DIRECTED US WITH A MOTION YOU'VE MADE, YOU'VE ASKED US TO GO BACK AND PULL THOSE TRACTS OUT AND GO BACK AND LOOK AT REZONING THOSE. THE MN ONE COMPLIANCE WILL BRING THEM BACK, CORRECT? MARTY, TERRY?

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE SAME PAGE, ALICE, THAT YOU ARE ON. CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR, ALICE?

YES.

THE PROVISION OUT OF THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY, CAN YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME?

THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND INCLUDED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT.

ALL RIGHT. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED ON FINAL READING. IT IS STILL PENDING FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING. SO AS A RESULT, THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY STILL APPLIES. BUT IT IMPLIES BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED ON FIRST READING ONLY, AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A COMBINING DISTRICT, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT ADOPTED YET.

CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING JUST TO MAKE WE'RE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY WOULD APPLY TO THESE PROPERTIES ON THE MAP TO THE LEFT, BUT TECHNICALLY SINCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR ALL OTHER JORTS, THESE FIVE PROPERTIES THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MENTIONED -- LET ME POINT TO THEM -- WOULD TECHNICALLY NOT FALL UNDER THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY BECAUSE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMBINING DISTRICT FOR THOSE FIVE PROPERTIES. THEY DO NOT HAVE AN -- RIGHT NOW THEY DO NOT HAVE NP AS PART OF THEIR ZONING.

CORRECT. RIGHT. IT'S AN INTERPRETATIONAL THING. IN TERMS OF -- AND I APOLOGIZE. SINCE WE PULLED OUT ALL LI PROPERTIES, IT'S MORE -- SINCE WE PULLED OUT ALL LI PROPERTIES, TECHNICALLY THEY ARE NOT -- THEY DON'T HAVE AN NP. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE ONLY PULLED OUT THE L I PROPERTIES THAT WE WERE PROPOSING A REZONING TO, SO THAT WOULD BE ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE LEFT.

RIGHT. I THINK, COUNCILMEMBER, LET ME GET TOGETHER WITH STAFF, AND IF WE COULD GO ON TO ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM AND LET ME MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PULLING SOMETHING OUT OF A DISTRICT AND SIMPLY LEAVING IT IN THE DISTRICT, BUT DEFERRING ITS ZONING. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL CORRECT. AND LET ME -- IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE, WE CAN GO ON TO ANOTHER ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL TIME AND WE WILL GO TO ANOTHER ITEM. TWO ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED, I PULLED ITEM 23, ORDINANCE 010910-01 OF THE 2001-2002 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE SUPPORTING SERVICES FUND, THE DETAILS THERE. AND ITEM 41, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PURCHASE THE RIGHTS OF ALL RIGHTS HELD BY COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION FOR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS AND THE TERMINATION OF CSC CENTER TO ALLOW FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK 21. AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF, BUT BEFORE I RECOGNIZE STAFF, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SO THAT HE CAN MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO HOW THIS TRANSACTION -- WE PULLED THIS ITEM RATHER FAST, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, BUT YOU MADE SUCH A GOOD PRESENTATION YESTERDAY AT THE REAL ESTATE LUNCHEON THAT I THOUGHT THAT YOUR PRESENTATION SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE STAFF. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'LL GLADLY INTRODUCE THIS TOPIC. AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION, A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE PRESS ABOUT THIS. I WOULD LIKE -- WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE CITY REACQUIRING BLOCK 21, THE THIRD OF THE THREE CSC BLOCKS AS ITS KNOWN. I WANT TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND JUST TALK BRIEFLY TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. FIRST AND FOREMOST, CSC IS IN NO WAY IN DEFAULT OF THEIR AGREEMENT. THEY HAVE BROKEN NO PROMISE. I HAVE HEARD THIS BEING DESCRIBED AS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SON OF INTEL OR WORSE. I MEAN, THERE'S SOME COMMON THREAD. CSC ACTUALLY CAME, YOU KNOW, TO US BEFORE INTEL. CSC WAS ABOUT TO BUILD A LARGE STYLE SUBURBAN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS THEIR NORM, ON A VERY SENSITIVE TRACT OF LAND. AND THE CITY CONVINCED THEM TO COME TO OUR DOWNTOWN. NOT ONLY TO OUR DOWNTOWN, BUT TO A CORNER OF OUR DOWNTOWN THAT WAS DESPERATELY LACKING. IT WAS -- IN FACT, ALICE CLASSIFIED IT AS BLIGHTED EVEN IN THE MID TO LATE '90'S. LIKE INTEL, AFTER CSC BEGAN CONSTRUCTION, THEY LOOKED UP AND SAW THAT THEIR BUSINESS WAS HEADING SOUTH, AS MANY BUSINESSES WERE. AND THEY IN FACT WEREN'T LIKELY GOING TO OCCUPY ALL THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY HAD UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND THEY BEGAN THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO BUILD UNDER THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT. UNLIKE INTEL, CSC FINISHED THEIR TWO BUILDINGS, DESPITE THE BUSINESS FACTS STARING THEM IN THE FACE. THEY FINISHED THEM AT A COST OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THEY FINISHED THEM TO WHAT I GENERALLY HEARD AS AESTHETIC ACLAIM BY THE CITY'S DESIGN COMMISSION, BY PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. I THINK THEY'RE VERY ATTRACTIVE BUILDINGS, VERY WELL DONE, IN A PROMINENT PART OF OUR DOWNTOWN. AND SO IN ADDITION TO FULG FULFILLING THEIR PROMISES AND THEIR OBLIGATIONS, THEY'VE ALSO DELIVERED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TAX BASE TO THOSE TWO BLOCKS THAT PREVIOUS HAD NO TAX BASE ON IT. AND IT WAS OFTEN SAID THAT NO ONLY WAS THERE NO TAX BASE BEING GENERATED BY THE CITY BLOCKS, THEY PROBABLY WERE ACTUALLY A NET NEGATIVE IN THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY DRAWING DOWN THE ASSESSED VALUE ON THE PRIVATE LAND AROUND IT. AND SO NOT ONLY WERE CITY TAXPAYERS DERIVING NO TAX BASE FROM THAT BLOCK, IT WAS PROBABLY HURTING US IN THE ADJACENT PRIVATE SECTOR BLOCKS. THEY HAVE DELIVERED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAX BASE. THEY ARE PAYING FULL PROPERTY TAXES ON ALL OF THAT BASE TAX: AS IMPORTANT AS THAT IS, AS IMPORTANT AS THE INVESTMENT THAT CSC HAS MADE IT, REALLY NOT -- MORE IMPORTANT IS THEIR EMPLOYEES AND OUR THEIR SUB TENANTS IF THEY DON'T OCCUPY ALL THIS. THOSE BODIES ARE GOING TO REINTEGRATE PART OF THAT DOWNTOWN THAT WAS SO LACKING FOR SO LONG. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HAVE NOW INSPIRED SIGNIFICANT OTHER INVESTMENT IN THE AREA. THERE ARE TWO FULL CITY BLOCKS OF APARTMENTS BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR SOON TO BEGIN. WE OF COURSE HAVE A NEW CITY HALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE AUSTIN MUSEUM OF ART IS PLANNING THEIR BUILDING ON A BLOCK ADJACENT TO THE NORTH. ENTITIES LIKE THE AUSTIN CHILDREN'S MUSEUM ARE LOOKING FOR A PERMANENT HOME IN THE AREA. THERE'S BEEN A GIGANTIC SPURRING OF ECONOMIC INVESTMENT, AESTHETIC INVESTMENT IN A PART OF DOWNTOWN THAT FRANKLY WAS PRETTY MISERABLE AS LATE AS 1998. WHAT WE HAVE NOW BEFORE US IS A BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. CSC, GRANTED IT'S A LEASE AGREEMENT, BUT AT 139 YEARS, THEY IN EFFECT OWN THAT BLOCK. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. FROM COMMERCIAL LENDERS TO REAL ESTATE SUB TENANTS, THEY OWN THAT TRACT. WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT TRACT BACK. CSC WANTS TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT, AND THAT'S ONLY FAIR. YOU KNOW, AND GUESS WHAT? AFTER CSC SPENT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE OTHER TWO BLOCKS AND AFTER CSC'S INVESTMENT HAS SPURRED ON TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FURTHER INVESTMENT ON THE ADJACENT BLOCKS, GUESS WHAT? BLOCK 21 IS MORE VALUABLE TODAY THAN IT WAS IN 1998 WHEN WE BEGAN SHOWING -- HERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THEM OVER HERE, SHOWING THE BLOCKS TO CSC. AND THEY WANT TO BE COMPENSATED AND THEY WANT TO BE COMPENSATE UNDERSTAND A FAIR MANNER. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS A BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE BLOCK BACK TO PAY A FAIR PRICE FOR IT. AND FRANKLY, FROM THE FACTS THAT WE'LL HEAR FROM FUTURE OBLIGATIONS THAT THE CITY HAD IN THAT BLOCK WHEN CSC WOULD BUILD THEIR THIRD BUILDING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE FOR US TO BUY IT THAN ANYBODY ELSE. AND IN FACT, I HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DOWNTOWN, AND SORT OF HATE SAYING THIS PUBLICLY, BUT IF I OWNED THE NEXT 139 YEAR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR THIS BLOCK, WOULD I SELL IT FOR EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS? NO. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY, CSC BEING A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY HAS SOME SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT INCENTIVES THAT OTHER ENTITIES DON'T HAVE, THAT WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE AS A CITY. AND IN MY OPINION THE CITY STAFF HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OVER MONTHS' WORTH OF NEGOTIATIONS OF KEEPING THAT IN MIND AND TALKING TO CSC ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THAT BLOCK. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE FROM AN URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT THAT IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR US LONG-TERM TO HAVE A VERY COMPLIMENTARY CIVIC USE FOR OUR CITY HALL, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. THIS BLOCK ALSO HAPPENS TO TOUCH CATTY-CORNER TO THE AUSTIN MUSEUM OF ART BLOCK, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO BE IN EFFECT A PUBLIC -- VERY PUBLIC SPACE. THAT BLOCK TOUCHES THE REPUBLIC SQUARE, WHICH WE HAVE JUST BEGUN AN EXCITING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION, THE STATE OF TEXAS, COMPLETELY REDO THE OLD ORIGINAL SQUARE THERE. SO FROM AN URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT OF THE CONTINUITY OF THOSE BLOCKS FROM WHAT COULD BE TO THE PUBLIC VITALITY THERE I THINK IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A COMPLIMENTARY CIVIC USE AND THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO DO THAT. SO WITH THAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK THE MAYOR FOR THE CITY STAFF TO PERHAPS WALK US THROUGH AN ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND I'LL RECOGNIZE THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, TOBY FUTRELL.

AND ACTUALLY, WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, COUNCILMEMBER, I WENT ON AND TURNED THE PICTURES AROUND. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING TO PREPARE THE PRESENTATION I FOUND SOME OF THE ORIGINAL PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE SITE AT THE TIME. SUE EDWARDS, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IS GOING TO JUST ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE ABOUT THE CONTRACTS, THE RELATIONSHIPS, THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT THERE. AND THEN JOHN STEVENS, OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IS GOING TO WALK THE NUMBERS. SO SUE?

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WE HAVE A GUEST FROM THE UNIVERSITY. PROFESSOR MICHAEL GRANTOFF IS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND IS ALSO HERE AND ASSISTING MR. STEVENS. MICHAEL, WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS SUE EDWARDS. I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS VERY ARTICULATELY DESCRIBED THIS PROCESS, AND I WILL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS BLOCK 21, WHICH IS NORTH OF THE NEW CITY HALL BUILDING BOUND BY SECOND AND THIRD STREET. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WILL REFERENCE BLOCKS 2, WHICH IS A CSC BLOCK, AND BLOCK 34, WHICH IS ANOTHER CSC BLOCK. AS WE DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE BLOCK 21, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REVIEW HOW THE CITY AND COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION BECAME PARTNERS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO CSC MADE A DECISION TO EXPAND ITS OPERATION IN AUSTIN. THE SITE THE COMPANY SELECTED FOR ITS EXPANSION WAS IN THE SUBURBS OVER THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER. AT THE SAME TIME, THE CITY HAD ESTABLISHED SEVERAL GOALS THAT WOULD HELP PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND STIMULATE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN. WE DISCOURAGED DEVELOPMENT OVER THE AQUIFER BY OFFERING INCENTIVES TO BUILD IN SPECIFIC AREAS. WE ENCOURAGED PRIMARY EMPLOYERS TO LOCATE DOWNTOWN TO ASSIST IN THE CREATION OF AN ACTIVE, MIXED USE URBAN DESIGN THAT WOULD INCLUDE EXTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WELL AS OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACE. AND WE STRIVE TO DEVELOP A MORE DIVERSIFIED EMPLOYMENT BASE. BASED PARTLY ON THESE GOALS, THE CITY APPROACHED CSC WITH A REQUEST TO CONSIDER RELOCATING DOWNTOWN. CSC AGREED TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST IF THE CITY WOULD HELP OFFSET THE INCREASED COST OF BUILDING IN THE URBAN CORE AND WOULD GUARANTEE THAT CSC'S CONCERNS REGARDING THEIR FUTURE NEED FOR EXPANSION WERE ADDRESSED. CSC WANTED THREE BLOCKS. THEIR PLAN WAS TO CONSTRUCT TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS, ONE ON BLOCK 2 AND ONE ON BLOCK 4 FOR IMMEDIATE USE. BLOCK 21 WAS TO BE USED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. CSC HAS KEPT THEIR COMMITMENT. TO DATE THE COMPANY HAS INVESTED APPROXIMATELY 82 MILLION DOLLARS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS AND CURRENTLY OCCUPIES 100% OF BUILDING 4 AND 2 OF FIVE FLORS IN BUILDING 2. THAT LEAVES BLOCK 21. CSC'S EXPANSION BLOCK. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BLOCK 21 ARE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHEN CONSIDERING THIS REACQUISITION. THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY AND CSC HAS BEEN FULLY EXECUTED AND IT'S HELD IN ESCROW. THE LEASE TERM IS FOR 99 YEARS, WITH AN OPTION FOR A 40-YEAR EXTENSION. FROM A FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING POINT OF VIEW, THIS TRANSACTION IS EQUAL OR EQUIVALENT TO A SALE. I HAVE BEEN ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF CSC DIDN'T EXCUSE ITS OPTION. THE OPTION CSC HAS IS NOT AN OPTION TO LEASE, IT IS AN OPTION AS TO WHEN THEY MAKE THE LEASE PAYMENT, NOT IF THEY MAKE THE LEASE PAYMENT. CSC CAN MAKE THIS PAYMENT AT ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31ST, 2004. CSC'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS ALREADY APPROVED AND APPROPRIATED THE LEASE AGREEMENT. IN ADDITION, CSC IS NOT OBLIGATED TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON BLOCK 21 UNTIL JANUARY 2015. IF WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY WILL BE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INCENTIVES TO CSC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK 21. 2.18 MILLION DOLLARS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ONE FLOOR OF UNDERGROUND PARKING TO BE BUILT ON BLOCK 21, 432 PLUS,000 DOLLARS FOR PLAZA, HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION. A COMMITMENT TO BUILD 247 PARKING SPACES UNDER CITY HALL FOR EXCLUSIVE DAYTIME USE BY CSC VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. AND A COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE AT NO COST TO CSC 100 PARKING SPACES IN THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE, WHICH ALSO MEANS A LOSS IN REVENUE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. ABOUT A YEAR AGO SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO REACQUIRE BLOCK 22, BLOCK 21 FOR MUNICIPAL OR CIVIC DEVELOPMENTS. THE CITY APPROACHED CSC WITH A REQUEST, HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME CSC DECLINED. WE CONTINUED TO PURSUE THE REQUEST AS WE MET THIS PAST YEAR WITH CSC OVER DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT THAT THE CITY WILL CREATE ON SECOND STREET. DURING THESE DISCUSSIONS, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT ALTHOUGH CSC WAS DEFINITELY GOING TO BUILD ON BLOCK 21, THEY WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ECONOMY, NOT BUILD AS SOON AS WE HAD ANTICIPATED. THUS LEAVING A VACANT LOT OR A VOID IN THE RETAIL THAT WE WILL BE ENCOURAGE NG THAT AREA. WE ONCE AGAIN THEN ASK THAT CSC RECONSIDER OUR REQUEST AND THIS TIME THEY DID. THEY HAVE OFFERED TO RELEASE BLOCK 21 TO THE CITY FOR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. THERE ARE BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ACTIONS TO CONSIDER AS YOU THINK ABOUT REACQUIRING THE BLOCK. AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS MENTIONED, THE CITY WILL NOT RECEIVE THE PROPERTY TAX THAT WILL BE GENERATED BY CSC OCCUPYING THE BLOCK, AND CSC WILL MAKE A NET PROPERTY OF 1.39 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS TRANSACTION. IN RETURN, CSC WITH ITS TWO BUILDINGS HAS TURNED AN UGLY SIX-BLOCK AREA INTO A STUNNING SET FOG A NEW CITY HALL AND WILL CREATE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO BE. IF WE CHOOSE TO REACHOIR BLOCK 21, WHAT DO WE GAIN? A PREMIERE LOCATION FOR ANOTHER MUNICIPAL USE, 247 PARKING SPACES UNDER THE NEW CITY HALL WHICH CAN GENERATE REVENUE, REACQUISITION OF 100 PARKING SPACES IN THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE, THE ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE AN EMPTY BLOCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND CITY HALL WILL NOT BE SURROUNDED BY CORPORATE USE. IN ADDITION, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ABILITY TO REACQUIRE BLOCK 21 AT THIS PRICE MAY ONLY BE POSSIBLE DURING THIS FULLER ECONOMIC PERIOD. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE THIS ACTION. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PROPOSED SO THAT THE CITY CAN ASSIST CSC. IF WE DECIDE NOT TO REACQUIRE BLOCK 21, CSC WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PLAN OUTLINED IN THE AGREEMENT. AGAIN, THE LEASE PAYMENT TO CONSTITUENT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED -- TO THE CITY HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND APPROPRIATE BY THEIR BOARD. CSC WILL MAKE THE PAYMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME FRAME. REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTION YOU TAKE TODAY, I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PIP PARTNERSHIP WE ENJOY WITH CSC IS A POSITIVE ONE AND IT IS WITH THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BRING FORWARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING BLOCK 21 TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THIS CONCLUDES MY PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION, AND JOHN STEVENS WILL DISCUSS THE FINAL FINANCIAL DETAILS. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS SUE HAS DISCUSSED, CSC CURRENTLY OW THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON BLOCK 21, WHICH HAS A MARKET VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY 8 MILLION DOLLARS. BY RETAINING THAT RIGHT, CSC WILL RECEIVE THE INCENTIVES OF 6.6 MILLION THAT SUE DISCUSSED EARLIER. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO RETAIN THAT RIGHT, THEY HAVE TO PAY THE CITY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS BY 2004. THE NET VALUE OF THE LAND AND INCENTIVES TO CSC LESS THE PAYMENT TO THE CITY THEN IS 10.6 MILLION. WITH THE DOWNTURN IN THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR, CSC DOES NOT NEED TO EXPAND ON BLOCK 21 IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, AND THEY ARE NOT IN THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS. THE CHOICE THAT THEY FACED THEREFORE WAS TO ACCEPT A CASH PAYMENT NOW AND FOREGO THE POSSIBILITY TO EXPAND ON BLOCK 21 LATER. FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE LIKEWISE TWO COURSES OF ACTION, THE CURRENT OR THE AS-IS SCENARIO UNDER WHICH CSC RETAINS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP LOT 21 OR THE OPTION THAT IS PROPOSED FOR COUNCIL ACTION TODAY TO BUY LOT 21. THE CITY'S NOW BUILDING THE FLOOR OF UNDERGROUND PARKING THAT WAS TO GO FOR BLOCK 21, SO UNDER SCENARIOS, THE CITY WILL INCUR THE COST TO CONSTRUCT ONE FLOOR OF PARKING UNDER THE CITY HALL. AGAIN, UNDER THE AS-IS SCENARIO, THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO PAY CSC ANOTHER 2.61 MILLION. THE TOTAL OF THE FOUR MILLION FOR THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AND THE 2.61 IS THEN THE 6.61 MILLION IN INCENTIVES THAT SUE DISCUSSED. ALSO UNDER THE CURRENT SCENARIO WHERE CSC RETAINS THE RIGHTS TO BLOCK 21, THE CITY WILL RECEIVE BY 2004 A FOUR-MILLION-DOLLAR PAYMENT, SO THE NET COST TO THE CITY UNDER THE CURRENT SCENARIO IS 2.61 MILLION. LOOKING AT THE ACTION ON THE AGENDA TODAY, THE PURCHASE OF BLOCK 21, AS I SAID, THE CITY IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTING THE UNDERGROUND PARKING SO THE FOUR-MILLION-DOLLAR COST OF THAT IS NOW BEING INCURRED. THIS IS A SUM COST SO TO SPEAK. I'VE BROKEN OUT THE PAYMENT OF FOUR MILLION DOLLARS TO CSC, THE SUM OF THE 2.61 AND THE 1.39 IS FOUR MILLION INTO TWO AMOUNTS TO SHOW YOU THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSITION THAT IS REQUIRED, AND THAT ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION IS ONE OF THE PROPOSED COUNCIL ITEMS TODAY. THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROPRIATED 2.61 MILLION OF THE PAYMENT, SO THE ONLY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT THE CITY HAS TO APPROPRIATE AND FUND IS THE 1.39 MILLION. IF THE CITY PURCHASES BLOCK 21, IT WILL ALSO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR OF PARKING UNDER CITY HALL, WHICH HAS A VALUE OF AT LEAST FOUR MILLION. THAT'S BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE MARKET VALUE THAT MAY NOW BE HIGHER. THE NET OF THESE NUMBERS IS A NEGATIVE FOUR MILLION, WHICH WHEN COMPARED TO THE 2.61 MILLION AGAIN GIVES YOU A DIFFERENCE OF 1.39 MILLION, WHICH IS THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE APPROPRIATED AND FUNDED FOR BLOCK 21. LOOKING AT WHAT THE EFFECT OF THESE TWO ACTIONS -- THESE TWO COURSES OF ACTION ARE, AGAIN, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO USE BLOCK 21 NOW OR IN THE FUTURE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE IT WANTS TO. IF NOT, CSC WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE LAND FOR 139 YEARS, AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID, AS LONG AS THEY CONSTRUCT ON THE SITE BY 2015. IF THIS ITEM IS APPROVED, THE CITY WILL ALSO GET THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR OF UNDERGROUND PARKING UNDER CITY HALL AND WILL HAVE SOLE CONTROL OF ALL THE PARKING UNDER CITY HALL AND ALSO OF THE TUNNEL CONNECTING THE UNDERGROUND PARKING TO BLOCK 21. UNDER THE CURRENT LEASE, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CSC WITH UP TO TWHUN SPACES IN THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE, AS SUE MENTIONED, UNDER THE ITEM PROPOSED FOR COUNCIL ACTION TODAY, THE CONVENTION CENTER WOULD NOT HAVE TO USE THOSE SPACES FOR CSC AND WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO CONTRACT THEM OUT IF THEY SO CHOOSE. THE FUNDING FOR THE FOUR-MILLION-DOLLAR PAYMENT TO CSC WILL COME FROM TWO SOURCES, AGAIN, 2.61 MILLION OF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED AND THE REMAINDER COMES FROM 1.4 MILLION IN SAVINGS THAT THE CITY RECEIVED FOR ITS AUGUST G. O. BOND SALE, MOST OF WHICH OF THOSE SAVINGS WERE FROM THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY HALL PROJECT. DUE TO ADVANTAGEOUS INTEREST RATES, THE CITY OBLIGATIONS SOLD FOR A LOWER INTEREST RATE THAN THE BOND COUPON RATE. AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, DR. MICHAEL GRANTOFF FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS WAS QUOTED IN THE AUSTIN AMERICAN STATISTICS MAN YESTERDAY. HE IS IN THE AUDIENCE WITH US. HE IS A PROFESSOR OF ACCOUNTING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND HAS A VERY DISTINGUISHED CAREER. HE WAS ONE OF THE INITIAL FOUNDERS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING, AND IS ONE OF THE RECOGNIZED EXPERTS IN THE COUNTRY TODAY ON GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING. FOR I'D LIKE TO ASK HIM TO COME UP AND GIVE HIS NOT AN OPINION ON THE NUMBERS, PER SE, BUT ASSURE THE COUNCIL AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THAT WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED HERE IS NOT ENRON ACCOUNTING.

THANK YOU, JOHN. LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT I'M PROBABLY THE MOST OBJECTIVE PERSON TO EVER APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNCIL. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EITHER SIDE. BUT REGRETTABLY I'M PROBABLY ALSO THE MOST IGNORANT. I REALLY DON'T KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT THIS TRANSACTION. WHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT IS WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD AND WHAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME YESTERDAY. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AT LEAST, THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR SUNK COSTS AND IRRELEVANT COSTS. A SUNK COST IS ONE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCURRED. IT CANNOT BE RECOVERED. IN OTHER WORDS, MUCH OF WHAT WE HEARD JUST NOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT IS NOT REALLY HELL VENT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT ANY MORE. A RELEVANT COST IS ONE THAT MATTERS IN THE DECISION AT HAND. A COST THAT IS RELEVANT IS ONE THAT WILL BE DIFFERENT IF ONE OPTION AS OPPOSED AS OPPOSED TO ANOTHER OPTION IS CHOSEN. SO MOST OF THE COSTS THAT ARE LISTED IN -- IN MR. STEVENS' PRESENTATION WERE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE THE SAME WHETHER YOU TOOK ONE OPTION OR ANOTHER OPTION. BUT WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO THERE IS -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: MICHAEL, LET ME THROW THE ITEM -- THE BLOCK 21 PURCHASE, SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, CAN WE PUT THAT BACK ON? AND THAT IS THE BLOCK 21 PURCHASE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU MAKE THAT BIGGER? LET EVERYBODY KNOW. THERE WE ARE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FIRST LINE IS IRRELEVANT COSTS.

IF YOU GO DOWN, YOU CHECK OFF AND YOU CHECK OFF EACH OF THE NUMBERS, WHICH ARE THE SAME IN COLUMN 1 AND COLUMN 2. MOST OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME. THE ONE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THE 1.39. SO IN EFFECT THAT'S THE RELEVANT NUMBER. SO THE DECISION IS A SIMPLE ONE. YOU'RE PAYING OUT 1.39 MILLION. WHAT ARE YOU GETTING FOR THAT? ARE YOU GETTING MORE THAN 1.39 IN VALUE? IF SO, THAT'S THE OPTION YOU SHOULD CHOOSE. IF NOT, REJECT IT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS WORTH EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS, SO THE COMPARISON THEREFORE IS EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS VERSUS 1.39, AND THAT'S A NO BRAINER. YOU ACCEPT THAT DECISION.

MAYOR GARCIA: NOW, MICHAEL, THIS LAND WAS SOLD FOR 11 POINT SOMETHING MILLION, THREE BLOCKS.

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE TWO MAIN PRIMARY BLOCKS THAT FACE CHAVEZ AND THE RIVER ARE ALREADY BUILT ON. THIS ONE IS THE THIRD ONE. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN REGARDS THE APPRAISAL OF THIS ONE AT EIGHT MILLION WHEN THE THREE OF THEM WENT FOR 11?

WELL, THAT'S FOR SURE AND I CAN'T TESTIFY AS TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I HAVE NO IDEA OF THAT. BUT IF IT IS WORTH MORE THAN -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME JUST SAY THAT WOULD IT BE IN LINE TO SAY THAT THE BUILDING OF THOSE TWO BUILDINGS AND THE BUILDING OF CITY HALL CAN BE -- CAN DETERMINE OR CAN INFLUENCE THE VALUE OF THE THIRD BLOCK?

MOST DEFINITELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE BUILDING OF THE TWO PROPERTIES WHERE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT?

SURE. AND OF COURSE THE OTHER THING WHICH I HAVEN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT MAY BE LOST.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. AND THE PROPERTY -- BUT WE ALSO GAIN PROPERTY TAXES FROM THE BUILDING OF THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE.

YES. BUT YOU'LL GAIN THOSE ANYWAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT WHEN WE VIEW THIS AS ONE TRANSACTION, THE WHOLE THING -- .

WELL, I WOULDN'T BECAUSE I THINK THAT MOST OF THE -- YOU VIEW IT AS A WHOLE -- IF YOU VIEW IT AS AN ENTIRE FRICTION, THEN SOME COMPONENTS OF THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTION WILL BE THE SAME, WHETHER YOU ACCEPT THIS OFFER OR NOT. SO THEY'RE IRRELEVANT AS MUCH AS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHICH OPTION YOU CHOOSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M JUMPING OUT OF JUST STRICT ACCOUNTING AND LOOKING AT IT FROM MORE OF AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THE CITY HAD FOUR BLOCKS OR SIX BLOCKS THERE, FOUR BLOCKS THAT WERE BASICALLY HOR I OBJECTBLY UNDERUTILIZED AND THERE WERE AN EYESORE IN THIS COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS TALKING ABOUT. AND WE ENCERTIFIED INTO THAT TRANSACTION IN '98 THAT PRODUCED THIS THING, SO IF WE JUMP OUT OF JUST PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING AND LOOK AT THE TRANSACTIONS GLOBALLY FROM THE TOTAL PERSPECTIVE, THEN THE CITY GAINS.

YES, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

GARZA: ... HIS BOTTOM LINE WAS YOU ARE GETTING A VALUE OF 8 FOR $1.39. THAT'S TOO GOOD OF A DEAL FOR US TO PASS UP, IT'S A NO BRAINER. THEREFORE I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FOUND A WAY -- WE HAVE DOLLARS THAT YOU CAN APPROPRIATE FOR THAT TRANSACT, WE WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT TO THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HE WAS NOT ON THE FACULTY WHEN I WENT THERE. HE IS VERY YOUNG --

IF I WAS, YOU WOULDN'T BE MAYOR TODAY. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THIS TRANSACTION? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- WELL, WITH IT A SECOND. -- WAIT A SECOND. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, WE HAVE -- MR. PAUL ROBBINS HAS SIGNED UP ON ITEM 23 AND ITEM 41. AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SIX MINUTES BECAUSE YOU SIGNED UP ON BOTH ITEM. THERE YOU ARE, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES, MR. ROBBINS.

THANK YOU, BEFORE I START, BEFORE THE TIME GOES, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN THAT -- IS THIS -- IS --

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN SOMEBODY TURN THAT LIGHT OFF?

THIS FLOODLIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: GIVE BACK THE TIME TO MR. ROBBINS TO PUT IT AT SIX MINUTES. THERE YOU ARE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE YOU GO, MR. ROBBINS. NO REQUEST IS UNREASONABLE HERE. NO REQUEST --

EXCEPT NOW THAT I HAVE GOT THESE FLOATING DOTS IN FRONT OF YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT GETS WORSE WHEN YOU SIT ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

OKAY. READY TO START. MY NAME FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS PAUL ROBBINS, I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER ACTIVIST. I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT LAST NIGHT I WAS WALKING DOWN NEAR CITY HALL AND I SAW A MAN WITH A FAKE MUSTACHE AND BEARD, SUNGLASSES AND A HAT PULLED DOWN LOW OVER HIS HEAD. HE DIDN'T KNOW I WAS LOOKING. HE QUICKLY SLIPPED A NOTE IN THE DOOR AND LEFT. AND CURIOUS, I PULLED THE NOTE OUT FROM BETWEEN THE DOOR AND READ IT. I WAS AGAS. IT WAS WRITTEN IN CUT OUT LETTERS FROM NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. WITH THE THREAT, IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR LAND AGAIN, PAY $4 MILLION! LEAVE UNMARKED BILLS IN BROWN PAPER BAGS NEAR THIRD OAK TREE IN WOOLDRIDGE PARK, ON THURSDAY! COME ALONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND, PAUL, I THINK THE VOLUME WENT OFF ON THAT MIC. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS ON PURPOSE OR NOT. I DIDN'T DO IT.

CAN YOU START MY TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU GOT IT. YOU GOT FIVE MINUTES.

HELLO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEP. [ LAUGHTER ].

YOU WOULDN'T STAND HERE.

COME ALONE. RANSOM, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. I WAS C.S.C.'S MOST VISIBLE CRITIC WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED THANKSGIVING OF 1998, THE HASTE, POOR FROR THOUGHT, PLANNING, COMNL COSTS, LACK OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING WERE SOME REASONS FOR OPPOSITION, I WAS ALSO AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGED AUSTIN TO CONTINUE ON ITS SUICIDAL PATH OF BECOME KNOWLEDGE OVERLY DEPENDENT ON ONE INDUSTRY, COMPUTERS. WELL, I HAVE BEEN VINDICATE. THE LARGE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT WAS BOASTED ABOUT HAS NOT ARRIVED. IN FACT THE COMPANY HAS LAID OFF PEOPLE. THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ARE SO EMPTY THAT C.S.C. IS HAVING TO LEASE SOME AMOUNTS OF THEM. AND I COULD SAY TO YOU SOMETHING DISINGENUOUS LIKE I HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO, BUT THAT WOULD BE A LIE BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW I'M GROWTHING OVER IT. -- GLOATING, IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT CITY MAV, MY CITY STAFF THIS MONEY HELPED PAY FOR THE NEW CITY HALL, THEREFORE IT IS A GOOD DEAL. BUT WHEN YOU GO INTO THE HISTORY, YOU HAVE TO ADD THE INCENTIVES THAT WE ARE GIVING TO C.S.C. WHICH EVEN AFTER YOU SUBTRACT OUT THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE PLAZA IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4.3 AND $5 MILLION. THEN YOU ADD THAT TO THE $1.4 MILLION THAT COUNCIL IS GIVING C.S.C. TODAY, TACK SOME INFLATION ON TO IT TO PUT IT INTO CURRENT DOLLARS. WE HAVE PAID $6.7 MILLION IN SUBSIDIES TO GET 7.8 MILLION DOLLARS IN LEASE MONEY. FOR A BUILDING THAT COSTS $47 MILLION. SO THAT'S ABOUT A 1.1 MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT ON $47 MILLION. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE LEASE WAS NOT COMPETITIVELY BID, SO THE CITY MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE LOST MORE MONEY, BY NOT GETTING A BETTER OFFER. WE WILL NEVER KNOW. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE COST IS THE ATTITUDE THAT THIS IS ONLY 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS. MERE CHUMP CHANGE. THE PROBLEM IS, WE'RE THE CHUMPS. THE TAXPAYERS WHO PAY A PROFIT TO BUY LAND BACK THAT THEY ALREADY OWN. LET ME ASK THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNCIL CHAMBER, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO HAS $1.4 MILLION THAT YOU DON'T NEED? I'M A GRASS ROOTS ACTIVIST. AND I WORK WITH OTHER GRASS ROOTS ACTIVISTS. AND WHEN WE PASS THE HAT AT MEETINGS, WE ARE LUCKY TO GET THE HAT BACK. 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT TO US. IT'S BEYOND COMPREHENSION. MY GROUP OF ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVISTS THAT I WORK WITH IN THE '80'S COULD HAVE PROBABLY STOPPED THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT IF WE HAD THAT MONEY. TO THE CITY, IT'S CHUMP CHANGE. I'M A POPULIST. I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO HELP PEOPLE'S LIVES. BUT WHEN THE COUNCIL MISSPENDS MONEY ON THINGS LIKE THIS, IT MAKES THIS PHILOSOPHY LOOK FOOLISH. IT MAKES ANTI-GOVERNMENT CRUSADERS LIKE RUSH LIMB BAUGH AND GEORGE BUSH LOOK GOOD. COUNCIL, I AGREE THAT THE CITY SHOULD DEVELOP THIS BLOCK. AFTER ALL WE DO OWN IT. AND I THINK THAT MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE PROBABLE CITY MANAGER HAS DONE A GOOD JOB ON MANY OF ITS OTHER PROJECTS. BUT AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE C.S.C. DEAL WAS THE DUMBEST THING THAT YOU HAVE DONE IN YOUR TENURE. ANY QUESTIONS?

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST TO COMMENT. SOME OF THEM WERE NOT HERE WHEN WE DID THAT DEAL. SO YOU WILL EXCUSE THEM THEN, RIGHT?

DEPENDS ON HOW THEY VOTE, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS. CHARLES BETS SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO SPEAK, BUT HE'S HERE. YOU WANT ME TO READ THE NOTE OR DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SAY A FEW WORDS?

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MR. BETTS, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA. I'M CHARLIE BETTS THE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE. A NUMBER OF MY DIRECTORS, WHO ARE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS DOWNTOWN, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL IN THIS ENDEAVOR. ANY WAY YOU FIGURE THE VALUE OF THAT BLOCK, WHETHER IT'S -- WHETHER IT'S THE 1.39 OR IF IT'S 4 MILLION OR EVEN IF IT'S 4, ANY WAY YOU -- ANY WAY YOU FIGURE IT, WE THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE PRICE FOR THE CITY AND WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO CONTROL THIS VERY KEY BLOCK. SO WE SIMPLY WANT TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGMENT IN MOVING AHEAD WITH THE -- WITH THE -- WITH THE -- REDEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON BLOCK 21. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BETS. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, IF WE COULD, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID SOUND LEGITIMATE AND IN FACT ARE LEGITIMATE, BUT THERE IS A COUNTER TO SOME OF THEM THAT I THINK WILL MORE OBJECTIVELY PUT PERSPECTIVE BACK INTO IT. SO COULD I ASK STAFF A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. MS. EDWARDS?

GOODMAN: JUST --

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. STEVENS, IF YOU COULD COME WITH MS. EDWARDS.

GOODMAN: YEAH. I THINK SORT OF A SEQUENCE OF CONCEPT NEEDS TO BE LAID OUT HERE. IN THAT IT IS LANDS WE OWN, THIS THIRD BLOCK, BLOCK 21. IT IS LAND THAT WE HAD SOLD THE LEASE ON, THOUGH, FOR OVER 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. AND SO THAT DOES HAVE VALUE. THAT WAS ALREADY LOCKED INTO AN AGREEMENT. RELATIVE TO WHAT IT IS WE ARE BUYING BACK, CAN YOU GIVE A SUCCINCT VERSION OF THE LEASE RIGHTS THAT WE SOLD AND -- IS SOLD THE RIGHT WORD? THE VALUE OF THOSE LEASE RIGHT, THOUGH, RELATIVE TO WHAT WE ARE PAYING IN RETURN TO HAVING THE LEASE RIGHTS BACK? THE OTHER CONCEPT THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IS THE SOURCE OF FUNDING THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING AND WHAT THAT MONEY WOULD BE SPENT ON IF NOT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

TO TRY TO ANSWER THE -- THE QUESTION ON THE LEASE, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE SOLD THE RIGHTS TO SEAS SEES TO HAVE THE USE OF -- TO C.S.C. TO HAVE THE USE OF THAT LOT FOR 139 YEARS. WITH THIS PROPOSE TRANSACT, PROPOSED TRANSACTION BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY, THE CITY IS REACQUIRING THE RIGHT, ESSENTIALLY WIPING OUT THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THAT BLOCK. SO, AGAIN, I THINK AS DR. [INAUDIBLE] POINTED OUT, THE ONLY RELEVANT COST AT THIS POINT THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO CONSIDER IS THE $1.39 MILLION AND WHETHER THE OUTLAY OF THAT ADDITIONAL COST IS WORTH GETTING THAT BLOCK BACK AND HAVING IT USED AS A CIVIC PURPOSE RATHER THAN HAVING IT USED FOR A PURPOSE BY C.S.C. IN TERMS OF THE FUNDING, AGAIN, 2.61 MILLION HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED AND WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID TO C.S.C. IF THEY RETAINED THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE BLOCK. SO THE ONLY ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED IS THE $1.39 MILLION. THAT MONEY IS AVAILABLE, THANKS TO LOW INTEREST RATES. BACK IN AUGUST, WHEN WE HAD OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SALE, WE WERE FORTUNATE IN THIS IS -- THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, BUT WE WERE FORTUNATE IN THAT INTEREST RATES WERE FALLING, SO MUCH THE RATES WERE GOING DOWN SO MUCH, THAT THE BONDS ACTUALLY SOLD FOR A LOWER INTEREST RATE THAN THEY WERE PAYING ON THEIR FACES VALUE. THE COUPON RATE ON THE BONDS. SO WE OBTAINED SOME INTEREST SAVINGS FROM THOSE AND WERE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE, ABOUT 850,000 OF THAT $1.39 MILLION WAS FROM THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION THAT WE SOLD FOR THE CITY HALL. THAT'S -- THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT IS SELF SUPPORTING DEBT. BUT THOSE -- THOSE SAVINGS ARE PART OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO APPROPRIATE TODAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? MAYOR GARCIA COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. I WANT TO STAFF THE STAFF AND THE PROFESSOR FOR BOILING DOWN TO WHAT FROM AN ACCOUNTING STANDPOINT WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT COSTS. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THAT SPREAD OUT A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THIS ROOM. BUT I WANTED TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT. ALTHOUGH THAT IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL. I WANTED TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT ON A LITTLE HISTORY. AND FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THIS TODAY IS -- IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY TO GET THIS BLOCK BACK IN THE CITY'S HANDS. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN EXPLAINED THAT VERY WELL. I ALSO THINK IN 1998 THAT C.S.C. AGREEMENT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T TOTALLY CLEAR CUT. THERE WERE THINGS ABOUT C.S.C. AGREEMENT THAT I DIDN'T LIKE. ONE OF THEM WAS THAT IT WOULD HAVE -- IT WOULD END UP WITH PRIVATE OFFICE BUILDINGS FROM SINGLE CORPORATION ON THREE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE NEW CITY HALL. THAT BOTHERED ME. I SAID SO AT THE TIME. BUT AFTER WEIGHING IT ALL OUT, I DECIDED IT WAS IN THE CITY'S BEST INTERESTS TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND MOVE FORWARD. ALL THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME CAME TO SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS OR TO THE SAME CONCLUSION FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. LET ME GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME. C.S.C. WAS PLANNING TO LOCATE OVER THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER, THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE RIGHT BEHIND ZILKER PARK, AS A MATTER OF FACT. AND FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, OFFICIAL CITY POLICY HAD BEEN TO STEER THAT KIND OF GROWTH INTO WHAT WAS CALLED THE PREFERRED GROWTH CORRIDOR AND NOW WE HAVE -- BECALL IT THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE. OVER 20 YEARS THAT HAD BEEN THE OFFICIAL POLICY, DEVELOPED BY THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE 1970'S. BUT THAT POLICY HAD BEEN ALMOST TOTALLY UNSUCCESSFUL AND MANY MAJOR EMPLOYERS LOCATED IN THE OUTLYING AREAS OVER THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE NEAR THE HIGHLAND LAKES CAUSING EXTENSIVE URBAN SPRAWL. THE C.S.C. DEAL BECAME THE CATALYST, TO START GETTING DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE DOWNTOWN. ANOTHER POPULAR MISCONCEPTION IS THAT THE INCENTIVE PACKAGES LIKE THE ONE GIVEN TO C.S.C. WERE TO LURE CORPORATIONS TO COME TO THE CITY. IN FACT, THESE PACKAGES WERE TO GET THOSE CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE ALREADY HERE AND EXPANDING OR ALREADY COMING HERE, TO LOCATE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND OTHER PARTS OF THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS WERE CHEAPER TO THE CITY, ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS IN TERMS OF DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT IS MUCH LETS BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, DOWNTOWN YOU ARE ALREADY HAVING 100% VIRTUALLY IMPERVIOUS COVER. YOU ALSO HAVE YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY IN PLACE. SO THAT'S MUCH CHEAPER. IT'S NOT CHEAPER TO THE PEOPLE LOCATING BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO THEM JUST TO GO OUT ON AN EMPTY PIECE OF LAND AND BUILD RIGHT THERE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THE INCENTIVES WERE ABOUT. BUT THE KEY POINT, A KEY POINT IS THAT DURING THAT TIME, DURING THE 1990'S, THE POPULATION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND SURROUNDING REGION INCREASED BY 40%. SO WE WERE IN A SITUATION OF HYPER GROWTH AND TRYING TO STEER THIS GROWTH IN THE DIRECTION THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. NOW, I SAID AT THE TIME AS I SAID A MOMENT AGO, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE C.S.C. ON ALL THREE SIDES OF CITY HALL, BUT THAT'S WHO IT TOOK TO GET THAT AGREEMENT -- WHAT IT TOOK TO GET THAT AGREEMENT DONE TO START THEM AS A CATALYST TO START COMPLYING WITH THE AUSTIN TOMORROW PLAN, 1970'S PLAN, START GETTING FOLKS TO LOCATE DOWNTOWN INSTEAD OF SPRAWLING OUT ALL OVER CREATION. IT WORKED THIS THAT -- IN THAT WAY. NOW, AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID DUE TO A BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY, THE CITY HAS A CHANCE TO GET THAT PROPERTY BACK. I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF PUTTING TOGETHER THE FINANCING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BUSINESS CYCLE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT'S, ONE, IT'S MONEY THAT IS ALREADY COMMITTED, ALREADY THERE. TO PAY FOR C.S.C.'S INCENTIVES OR PART OF THE OVERALL PACKAGE. THAT'S 2.6 MILLION. THE OTHER 1.3 IS INTEREST SAVINGS DUE TO LOWER RATES DUE TO THE SLOWING ECONOMY. SO WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THOSE TWO THINGS TO GET THIS PROPERTY BACK IN THE CITY'S HANDS. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH, MUCH BETTER OVER THE YEARS FOR IT TO BE A CITY USE AND I THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE CONTROVERSIAL RIGHT NOW, A LITTLE NEGATIVE IN THE NEWSPAPER, CALLS AND SNAEULS TO OUR -- E-MAILS TO OUR OFFICES ABOUT IT, I THINK BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL PICTURE ISN'T CLEAR. SOME PEOPLE JUST DISAGREE THAT -- WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DO THIS. BUT I THINK IN -- FROM THIS DAY FORWARD AND FUTURE GENERATIONS, WE ARE GOING TO SEE CIVIC USE ON THAT PROPERTY ARE GOING TO APPRECIATE THAT, AND THIS -- THE SMALL CONTROVERSY THAT WE ARE HEARING TODAY WILL -- WILL JUST FADE AWAY. THAT'S ALL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR? HAVING MR. ROBBINS HERE REMINDED ME OF ONE OTHER ELEMENT OF THE C.S.C. TRANSACTION, MORE SORT OF KUDOS FOR THEM. BY LOCATING WHERE THEY DID, C.S.C. ALSO WAS OUR FIRST CUSTOMER FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT COOLING PLANT. WHAT THAT CONCEPT IS, IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY CHILLS TENS OF TONS OF ICE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHEN PEAK DEMAND IS AT ITS ABSOLUTE LOWEST FOR ELECTRICITY. THROUGHOUT THE DAY AS THAT ICE SLOWLY MELTS, AIR IS BLOWN OVER THAT ICE AND THEN THE AIR CONDITIONING OR THE COOL AIR FOR THE TWO C.S.C. BUILDINGS IS SIMPLY MELTING ICE THAT WAS GENERATED WITH ELECTRICITY THE NIGHT BEFORE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHEN OUR PEAK DEMAND WAS AT ITS LOWEST. AND THEY WERE THE FIRST CUSTOMER TO SIGN UP FOR THAT. ULTIMATELY AS WE HAVE MORE DOWNTOWN CUSTOMERS SIGNED UP FOR THAT, WHAT THAT WILL DO OVER TIME IS START TO -- IN A MARGINAL WAY REDUCE THAT PEAK DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY, SO HOPEFULLY WE HAVE LESS DEMAND AND ISSUES ABOUT BUILDING MORE POWER PLANTS, ET CETERA. SO NOT ONLY HAVE THEY DONE EVERYTHING THEY PROMISED TO DO, THEY SIGNED ON AS A DISTRICT COOLING PLANT CUSTOMER FOR DOWNTOWN, BEING A LONG-TIME CUSTOMER NOW FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH HELPS US ALL, ALSO DOES THE RIGHT THING WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PIECE OF THAT EQUATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WOULD INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN YOU WOULD ALSO SUPPORT A RESOLUTION TO SPUT SOME -- PUT SOME ART AROUND THAT COOLING TOWER SO THAT WE CAN BEAUTIFY THAT PART OF TOWN.

WYNN: I SURE WOULD, YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WOULD YOU BE A CO-SPONSOR IN THE FUTURE. DID I HEAR A YES ON THAT?

WYNN: YOU DID.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: ACTUALLY, MAYOR, CAN I ADD ON TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S STATEMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

GOODMAN: WE SHOULD ALSO AT THIS POINT, POSSIBLY IRONICALLY FOR THIS MOMENT, THANK MR. ROBBINS FOR GENERATING THE IMPETUS AND THE CONSISTENT SUPPORT TO COUNCILMEMBERS TO BEGIN THOSE INITIATIVES FOR CHILLERS DOWNTOWN.

SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO APPROVE. SECONDED BY --

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR, I GUESS THIS IS ITEMS 23 AND 41?

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT, BOTH OF THEM.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YEAH, MAYOR, JUST ONE QUESTION. THE QUESTION THAT MAYOR PRO TEM ASKED ABOUT THAT ONE POINT, MAKE I MISSED THAT. MAYBE I MISSED THAT. WHAT WERE WE GOING TO USE THAT FOR --

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. JOHN STEVENS IS HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

COUNCILMEMBER, IF WE DID NOT USE THAT, WE WOULD USE THAT MONEY FOR ADDITIONAL SAVINGS THIS YEAR. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME SAVINGS PLANS THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER TO TRY TO HELP US GET THROUGH THIS BUDGET YEAR AND TO ALSO FACE OUR NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WE EXPECT TO BE DIFFICULT AS WE PRESENTED TO YOU YESTERDAY. SO THAT -- THAT AMOUNT WOULD SIMPLY COME FROM THAT ADDITIONAL -- THOSE ADDITIONAL SAVINGS THAT -- THAT WE HAD SINCE WE HAVE HAD SERVICE SAVINGS. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY, AS THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ENUNCIATED, AS FINANCE DIRECTOR I WOULD RECOMMEND THE USE OF THE MONEY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

THOMAS: THANK YOU. ONE MORE QUESTION, THE TIMES THAT WE WANTED TO GET THE PROPERTY BACK, DID WE HAVE ANY PLANS -- THAT'S OKAY, MR. STEVENS. ANY PLANS, WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY? I KNEW I THREW THAT ONE OUT, IT GOT QUIET.

WE ARE GETTING THE DISCUSSION STARTED EARLY ON IT. IN ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WAS THE FIRST COUNCILMEMBER THAT DID ASK US TO APPROACH C.S.C. TO GET THE BLOCK BACK, SEVERAL OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS EXPRESSED THEIR INTEREST, WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE COUNCIL IS THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME THINKING ABOUT THE USE ON THAT BLOCK. GO THROUGH A PROCESS. AND SO THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING LOCKED DOWN ON THAT BLOCK. YOU ARE WIDE OPEN FOR THAT POLICY DECISION.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IF I COULD FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MR. STEVENS SAID. THE 2.6, THOUGH, WAS APPROPRIATE FUNDING. IF WE WERE ABLE TO USE A SAVINGS THIS YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO PUT IT BACK. THAT WAS ALREADY APPROPRIATED. SOMETIME OR ANOTHER IF WE USE 2.6, 2,612,491, WE WOULD HAVE WITH THE LEASE STILL IN PLACE THE CONTRACT LEASE STILL IN PLACE, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO PUT THAT BACK. THE 1.3 OR ALMOST 1.4 IN UNANTICIPATED CASH FROM THE GO BOND ISSUE DOES IN FACT HAVE SOME CONSTRAINTS. IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULD JUST TOSS THAT IN THE POT. THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC THINGS WITH BOND ISSUES THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO USE EVEN THE INTEREST FOR. IT'S NOT THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD AN -- AN UN ENCUMBERED, UNAPPROPRIATED -- 4 MILLION JUST TO THROW AROUND AND SAY WE COULD HAVE USED THAT THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT NOT QUITE THAT BLACK AND WHITE.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT COUNCILMEMBER. IF THAT 2.6 MILLION WERE NOT USED FOR THE ITEM THAT'S BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO USE IT TO PAY C.S.C., SO IT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AS SAVINGS.

THOMAS: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME. I UNDERSTOOD, I WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ONE. I DID UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT -- ABOUT THE STRENGTHS OF WHAT WE CAN DO. I JUST WAS CURIOUS, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO ZERO. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY FOR THE PRESENTATION. GOOD WORK. WE WILL NOW TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, SEVEN MINUTE RECESS AND WE WILL CALL UP THE -- THE ITEMS FROM THE TIME CERTAIN ZONING HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR 4:00 TIME CERTAIN. COUNCILMEMBER?

ALVAREZ: CAN WE TAKE UP THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN?

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE WE READY?

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DISREGARD THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RECESS. WE ARE GOING BACK TO ITEM NO. 16, I WILL RECOGNIZE MS. TERRY FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ALL COULD TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

WE HAVE HAD TIME, THE STAFF AND I HAVE HAD TIME TO GET TOGETHER AND IF WE COULD GET -- IF WE COULD GET THE MAPS BACK UP. IN OUR, MARCH I DON'T IF YOU COULD GO TO THE -- MARIO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE MIKE, BECAUSE -- GO TO THE MIC BECAUSE I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO CORRECT ME.

COULD WE PUT THIS LIGHT ON HERE THAT WE TURNED OFF WHEN MR. ROBBINS CAME UP.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

NOW, LET ME -- LET ME LAY OUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES ARE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE ARE A SET OF PROPERTIES THAT WHEN WE PASS THE ORDINANCE FOR THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT, THERE WERE A SET OF PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LI PROPERTIES WHICH WE DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE DISTRICT AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, BUT THEY ARE NOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMBINING DISTRICT. MARIO IS POINTING THOSE OUT RIGHT THERE. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE COLORED MAP AND SHOW WHERE THOSE ARE. THOSE ARE THE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT WE HAD BEFORE US TODAY ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT WERE INCLUDED ORIGINALLY IN THIRD READING, WHICH WERE AT ONE TIME LI ZONED PROPERTIES. AND MARIO IF YOU COULD POINT THOSE OUT. THOSE PROPERTIES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS A DESIRE TO LOOK AT THOSE PROPERTIES AGAIN AND TREAT THEM CONSISTENTLY WITH THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO TREAT THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE BEFORE US ON SECOND AND THIRD READING AND THAT THOSE TWO SETS OF PROPERTIES, THE DESIRE IS TO POSTPONE THE ISSUE SURROUNDING THOSE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTIES, AND BRING THEM BACK EITHER AT THE TIME WE BRING GOVALLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR AFTER SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR GOVALLE. SO THAT GOVALLE'S INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN HOLLY ARE IN -- IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ARE ALL TREATED CONSISTENTLY. I WAS ASKED ABOUT THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. AND WHETHER THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY IS APPLICABLE AND WHICH PROPERTIES THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY IS APPLICABLE TO. UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PROVISIONS OF THE CODE, THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAD BEFORE US TODAY, ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, WHICH WERE PROPERTIES THAT WERE ACTUALLY CARVED OUT OF THE DISTRICT, IN THE -- IN THE PLANNING AREA, BUT CARVED OUT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY. THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY UNTIL WE BRING THEM BACK IN FINALLY FOR A FINAL DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHICHEVER WAY WE DECIDE THE -- THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO. THE OTHER SET OF PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WERE INDUSTRIAL AT ONE POINT THAT WE NOW WISH TO TREAT CONSISTENTLY WITH, THE PROPERTIES THAT WE CARVED OUT AND THE PROPERTIES THAT WE -- THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE GOVALLE PLAN. THOSE PROPERTIES ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT, AND THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. IF THERE ARE A DESIRE TO HAVE THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY APPLY TO THOSE PROPERTIES, WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING FORWARD A PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE THOSE, TAKE THEM OUT OF THE -- OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT, TAKE THEM OUT, BY TAKING THEM OUT, REZONE THEM LI, SUBJECT TO THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY, THEN REZONED AGAIN ONCE WE BROUGHT EVERYTHING BACK AFTER GOVALLE OR WITH GOVALLE. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT FOR HOLLY, AND EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. MAYOR GARCIA QUESTIONS FOR MS. TERRY? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, ARE YOU FINE WITH THAT EXPLANATION?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR. I THINK IN TERMS OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR -- I MEAN, I GUESS WHERE THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY APPLIES AND DOESN'T APPLY. SO THE TWO -- THE TWO PARTS OF THIS MOTION ARE FIRST OF ALL THAT -- THAT THE ITEMS THAT ARE PART OF THIS OR THE TRACTS OF LAND THAT ARE PART OF THIS ITEM BE POSTPONED UNTIL WHICH TIME AS THE ZONING CHANGES FROM GOVALLE COME FORWARD. OR AFTER THAT, SHORTLY AFTER THAT. AND THAT -- AND THAT IN TERMS OF THE OTHER L.I. PROPERTIES THAT -- THAT THE PROCESS, I GUESS, FOR REZONING TO A ZONING CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE -- WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR THE L.I. PROPERTIES, THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING UNDER THIS ITEM, JUST BE DONE AND BROUGHT FORWARD WHEN THE GOVALLE CHANGES AND LEASE CHANGES COME FORWARD AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND IT. DISCUSSION?

WYNN: HAIR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TIMING ON THE GOVALLE ZONING CASES?

THOSE PLANS ARE SCHEDULED TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL PROBABLY IN ABOUT SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. WE ARE AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE PLATTING PROCESS WITH THE GOVALLE AND JOHNSTON TERRITORY CURRENTLY.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. NOW WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR A RECESS. WE ARE AT THE 4:00 TIME CERTAIN. AND THOSE ARE ITEMS Z-1 -- STARTING ON PAGE 12 OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEMS Z-1 THROUGH Z-13. I WILL RECOGNIZE MS. ALICE GLASGO.

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASGO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. CONSENT ARE AS FOLLOWS, ITEM NO. Z-1 CASE C14H-00-13, THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 WEST SECOND STREET. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WITH AN HISTORIC OVERLAY. BOTH THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE ZONING ZONING -- ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION, THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-12 C8 14-01-65, BEER CREEK P.U.D. HAS A REQUEST FROM SEVERAL ENTITIES TO POST OWN TO FEBRUARY THE 14TH. THOSE REQUESTS WERE RECEIVED IN A TIMELY MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE POSTPONEMENT ORDINANCE. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE POSTPONEMENT SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST. ITEM NO. Z-3 -- MAYOR GARCIA HOLD IT JUST A SECOND, ALICE. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE FIVE SPEAKERS HERE FOR THAT ITEM. AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO TODAY TO -- IS ON CONSENT CONSIDER POSTPONING THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY THE 14TH, 2002. SO JANIE WALL, EARL HALL, CHARLES WALL, FAYE EVANS AND DAVID LESGO, ALL OF WHOM ARE REGISTERED AGAINST, WE WILL KEEP YOU CARDS AND YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THIS ITEM COMES UP ON FEBRUARY THE 14TH. OKAY? THANK YOU. SO THIS IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 14TH.

GLASGO: OKAY. PROCEEDING ON TO ITEM NO. Z-3, CASE NUMBER C8 14-01-96, NAMELY THE BLUFF STONE P.U.D. THIS CASE IS LOCATED GENERALLY AT 5401, 5405 AND 5505 BLUFFSTONE DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LR, WHICH STANDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZONING CHANGE TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND ALSO THE -- THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ALLOWING THE PROJECT TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED. THE CASE IS READY -- FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THREE, THANK YOU.

GLASGO: ITEM NO. Z-4 C14-01-89 LOCATED AT 4401 EAST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO GR-CO, THAT'S COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-5 C14-01-115, LOCATED ON WEST SLAUGHTER LANE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL SERVICES, BUT WOULD LIKE A POSTPONEMENT TODAY TO JANUARY THE 31ST. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT REQUEST. ITEM NO. Z-6, C14-01-138, LOCATED AT 2325 BEN WHITE BOULEVARD. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED CS-CO, THIS CASE IS READY ON ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. Z-7, C14-01-143 (SH) AT 1700TERI ROAD. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 7TH IN ORDER TO -- TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL FUNDING NEEDS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT REQUEST. ITEM NO. Z-8 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, WE WILL COME BACK TO IT AFTER YOU VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS. ITEM NO. Z-9 C14-01-149, LOCATED AT 4801 FREDERICK LANE. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM LIMITED OFFICE TO GENERAL OFFICE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-10, C14-01-158, LOCATED AT 4200 BLOCK OF WILLOW SPRINGS ROAD. THE REQUEST IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THAT REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED AND IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. Z-11, C14-01-162, LOCATED AT 9300 GREAT HILLS TRAIL. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM GENERAL OFFICE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO GENERAL OFFICE, BY SIMPLY REQUESTING A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR TRIPS TO ALLOW THE OFFICE TO -- TO EXPAND AS PROPOSED. THIS IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. Z-12, C14-01-, 163, LOCATED AT 12224 ROCKS SEE DRIVE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO CS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. ROXIE DRIVE. THE REQUEST IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. FINALLY, ITEM Z-13, C14-01-165, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY CLOSE TO NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ANDERSON MILL ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY 183 NORTH. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM CS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE FOOT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. THAT REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THE CONSENT ITEMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GLASGO. LET ME GO OVER THIS AGAIN. ITEM Z-1 CONSENT FOR ALL THREE, Z-2 CONSENT TO POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY THE 14TH, 2002, Z-3 IS CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS, Z-4 IS CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS, Z-5 IS CONSENT TO POSTPONE TO JANUARY THE 31ST, 2002. Z-6 IS CONSENT ALL THREE READINGS. Z-7 CONSENT TO POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY THE 7TH. Z-9 CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS, Z-10 IS CONSENT FOR THE FIRST READING, Z-11 CONSENT FOR THE THREE READINGS, Z-12ZY 13 SAME THING. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE NEW TO COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE CONSENT ITEMS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY ZONING AND PLATTING COMMITTEE AND OTHER RELEVANT COMMISSIONS OF THE COUNCIL. AND FOR WHICH THERE IS NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST THEM. SO WE -- WE DO THIS PROCESS UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO? IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? WE ADOPT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.

GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: MIGHT I COMMENT ON THE AGENDA POSTING?

MAYOR GARCIA: ABSOLUTELY.

GOODMAN: I KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE BACK SO THAT WE HAVE THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE ALSO RETURN TO HAVING THE AGENT, THE APPLICANT AGENT'S NAME IN HERE AS WELL.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING POSTINGS THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT IN THE PAST. WE WILL BE RETURNING TO ON THAT PRACTICE. INCLUDING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TEMPORARILY OUT. ITEM NO. Z-8.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, ITEM NO. Z-8 IS CASE C14-01-146, THIS CASE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CONVICT HILL ROAD, EAST OF PONCHA PASS. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY 3. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED, CURRENTLY AN UNDEVELOPMENTED STATE. THEY WANT SINGLE FAMILY 3 IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE DUPLEX LOTS WHICH TRANSLATES TO 10 UNITS BECAUSE A DUPLEX HAS TWO UNITS. THE ROW ZONING CHANGE WILL ALSO -- OBVIOUSLY ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS TO PROCEED TO SUBDIVIDE THOSE LOTS AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LAND TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE DETENTION POND AND EASEMENT THAT ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THAT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY HAS -- HAS A ROAD SHOWN THAT IS -- DOES NOT EXTEND ON TO BREEZY PASS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND THAT -- THAT ACCESS BE LIMITED TO BREEZY PASS AND ACCESS ALSO BE PROHIBITED ON TO CONVICT HILL ROAD. GEORGE ZAPALAC, WHO IS OUR TRANSPORTATION MANAGER, VISITED THE SITE. HE INDICATES THAT THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SITE DISTANCE PROBLEM AND THAT A DRIVEWAY OR ACCESS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ON TO CONVICT HILL DRIVE. OR ROAD, SINCE THIS IS JUST ZONING, IN ORDER TO NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPLORING OTHER INGRESS AND EGRESS OPPORTUNITIES, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO RESTRICT ACCESS NOT BE INCLUDED SO THAT WHEN THE APPLICANT IS IN THE DESIGN STAGE OF GETTING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVED, THAT THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE BEST ACCESS POSSIBLE IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THESE FIVE LOTS. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS FROM A TRAFFIC GENERATION STANDPOINT, DUPLEXES GENERATE FOR THE FIVE LOTS WITH 10 MINUTES, 720 TRIPS PER DAY. WHEREAS SINGLE FAMILY 2 ZONING WITH THE SAME, WITH JUST FIVE LOTS, FIVE UNITS, WOULD GENERATE 100 TRIPS. SO YOUR SINGLE FAMILY 2 ZONING AND USE GENERATES MORE TRIPS THAN YOUR DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT UNDER TRANSPORTATION DATA THAT IS COLLECTED AND AVERAGED NATIONALLY. I WILL PAUSE HERE AND LET THE APPLICANT PROCEED WITH HER PRESENTATION. I WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS IF ANY ARISE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M LORETTA DOWD, I REPRESENT THE FLICT, I WORK -- I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, FOR THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT'S PRESENTING THIS CASE TODAY. THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE IS BASICALLY A TRACT THAT OWE I DON'T WANT TO USE THE TERM LEFT OVER, BUT EVERYTHING IN THE EXISTING AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. MORE THAN 50% OF THE TRACT IS GOING TO BE -- BE LEFT OPEN SPACE OR ACTUALLY CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THERE ARE SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, 1.7 ACRE TRACT THAT'S ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE TRACT. AN EXISTING DETENTION POND TO THE WEST OF THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THEN WE HAVE THE EXTENSION OF BREEZY PASS, WHICH WE ARE DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT NOT PROVIDING ACCESS TO CONVICT HILL ROAD. THAT'S GOING TO BE A HAMMER HEAD TURN AROUND AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S CODES. WHEN WE WERE INITIALLY DESIGNING THE PROJECT, WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS BECAUSE, I KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL MAKE -- WILL MENTION THIS, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC ALONG CONVICT HILL ROAD. SO IT WAS ORIGINALLY OUR PROPOSAL TO -- TO PROVIDE A SINGLE ACCESS FOR ALL -- FOR THE FIVE DUPLEX UNITS, WITH TWO CURB CUTS ON TO CONVICT HILL. SO WE HAVE -- IN RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OR THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO PROHIBIT ACCESS TO CONVICT HILL, WE HAVE PREPARED THAT DESIGN, ALSO. SO WE ARE PREPARED TO -- TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE ACCESS ANY WAY THAT THE COUNCIL WISHES. THE -- THE STYLE OF THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES WILL BE -- WILL REPLICATE THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE HOMES IN THE AREA. IT'S GOING TO BE ROCK, HARDY PLANK CONSTRUCTION. THE UNITS WILL, I'M BEING TOLD BY THE DEVELOPER, THAT THE UNITS THEMSELVES WILL PROBABLY MARKET IN THE RANGE OF 160 TO $200,000 PER UNITS. SO DOUBLE THAT FOR THE DUPLEX. AGAIN, WE HAVE SINGLE ACCESS FOR ALL OF THE UNITS, WITH -- WITH -- WHICH IS IN THE FRONT SO THERE WILL BE NO DESTRUCTION OF THE TREES IN THE REAR PART OF THE TRACT THAT BORDERS THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT -- THAT IS EXISTING TODAY. SO THE LOTS ARE COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO WHAT IS ADJACENT. THERE ARE CONDOMINIUMS TO THE SOUTH WEST THAT ARE -- MIRROR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR. AND THE MULTI-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH IS MUCH HIGHER DENSITY. SO -- WE WOULD ASK FOR APPROVAL AND I WILL BE IN ADDITION TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR HER RIGHT NOW.

SLUSHER: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST FOR MS. TERRY, THE CITY ATTORNEY. MS. TERRY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS PROPERTY HAS 1704 PROTECTION, WATER QUALITY CLAIMS.

I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.

SLUSHER: YET I THINK, THOUGH, YOU WERE -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU CAN BUILD AT 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHEREAS S.O.S. IS 25%. BUT WHAT IMPERVIOUS COVER ARE YOU COMING IN AT?

12.6.

12.6.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I LIKE THAT. GO AHEAD.

THERE'S AN EXISTING APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN BACK FROM 1984 THAT HAS 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THAT USE THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRACT. IT WOULD REQUIRE ALL OF THOSE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT AREA THAT WE ARE DOING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON. BUT WE ARE GOING BACK TO THAT WATERSHED ORDINANCE, BUT IT IS THE -- THE RESULT IS A MUCH LOWER IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SLUSHER: OKAY. COULD WE WORK BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND RIDING ON A WAY TO MAYBE HELP TO ENSURE THAT IT STAYS THAT AT THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER?

WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN AND A FINAL PLAT IN HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AS WELL. SO THE STAFF, WE HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN HOUSE AND WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD ANY TYPE OF PLAT NOTES RESTRICTING THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SORRY I STEPPED ON THE LAST OF YOUR SENTENCE.

I SAID IF THAT WOULD MAKE THE COUNCIL MORE COMFORTABLE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. DOWD.

GOODMAN: COULD I ASK ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO, PLEASE. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM CLEAR, EVEN THOUGH THE LOTS ARE THE COLORED PART OF THIS MAP, YOU WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE EASTERN SIDE AS BEING THE EASEMENT AND THE -- AND THE VIRTUALLY 50%. RIGHT.

YES. I COLORED UP THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN. IT'S NOT THE PRETTIEST MAP THAT YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE TODAY. BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE IN HOUSE UNDER REVIEW WITH THE CITY STAFF. THE -- YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AREA GREEN PARTS ARE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND EXISTING DETENTION POND. THE GRAY IS THE EXTENSION BREEZY PASS, WHICH IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT AGAIN WE ARE NOT PROVIDING A CUT-THROUGH TO BREEZY PASS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A HAMMER HEAD TURN AROUND THERE, WHICH WE HAVE AGAIN HAD THE DESIGN FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO GO OFF THAT HAMMER HEAD AND/OR OFF CONVICT HILL.

GOODMAN: GREAT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I CALL OUT THE SPEAKERS? OKAY. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE 12 SPEAKERS AND SOME OF THEM DON'T WISH TO SPEAK, I THINK. BUT LET ME CALL OUT SEVERAL PEOPLE'S NAMES SO THAT YOU ALL CAN BE READY IF YOU DO WISH TO SPEAK. FIRST IS ED SCHULTZ, SECOND IS WM WILLIAMS. ARE EITHER OF THOSE TWO FOLKS HERE. IF YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUMS, YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO SPEAK. ED SCHULTZ FIRST, WM WILLIAMS SECOND. DOROTHY STRONG DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS AGAINST. LAURA VALDEZ, ARE YOU HERE? YOU WILL BE THIRD. AND FOURTH -- GOSH, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS BEAUTIFUL WRITING, BUT I CAN'T READ THE FIRST NAME. IS IT LAUREL, MAYBE, WILLIAMS? YOU HAVE BEAUTIFUL HANDWRITING. I'M SORRY I COULDN'T READ THE LAUREL EASILY. DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS AGAINST. SO THE FOURTH SPEAKER WILL BE -- OH, NO. PATRICIA ERICSON, WHO WISHES TO GIVE HER TIME TO LAURA VALDEZ. FOURTH SPEAKER THEN IS GREG TAKE IT. YOU WILL BE -- GREG TATE. YOU WILL BE FOURTH.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU. I AM A RESIDENT OF THE AREA. IN FACT MY LOT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA. AND I HAVE EXCEPTION OR DRAW EXCEPTION TO THE FACT OF A -- WHAT SEEMS TO ME A RELATIVELY DENSE POPULATION ZONING IN AN AREA OF ALL OF THE SURROUNDING BLOCKS THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY 2. RUNNING A STREET DIRECTLY BEHIND MY LOT, WHICH IS RUNNING -- GOING TO BE CARRYING TRAFFIC, AND -- TO ME THE ONLY -- THE ONLY OTHER HOMES ALONG CONVICT HILL ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD DO INDEED OPEN UP ON TO CONVICT HILL. THIS PARTICULAR LOT BREEZY PASS IS ON THE PEAK OF THE ROAD OF CONVICT HILL. WHICH HAS A GOOD CLEARANCE AND GOOD VISIBILITY TO EITHER DIRECTION. BUT MY CONCERN AGAIN IS HAVING A DENSE POPULATION AREA OUT, THAT IS NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES, DROPPED IN OUR BACK YARD. THE DETENTION PONDS, THE UPPER PART OF THE DETENTION POND AREA, CURRENTLY THERE, DOES SERVE RUNOFF FROM THE WOOD LANDS AND THERE'S CURRENTLY LEAKAGE FROM THAT POND. WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY THAT HAS BEEN EXTENDED. [INAUDIBLE] DOES STILL RUN INTO CONVICT HILL. MY CONCERN, IF -- IF THE ROADS ARE RUN ONLY TO BREEZY PASS, THAT GENERATES ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVELY LOW TRAFFIC AREA. IT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. IT BEEN THERE SINCE THE MID '80'S. ADDING THIS OVERHEAD TO THE STREETS I THINK IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AND I REQUEST THAT -- THAT THE ZONING NOT BE GRANTED FOR ANYTHING MORE DENSELY THAN A SINGLE FAMILY 2, WHICH AGAIN IS THE SAME ZONING FOR ALL OF THE ROADS, ALL OF THE HOMES, ALL OF THE DWELLINGS ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD, BOTH ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT'S AN AREA THAT I WOULD HATE TO SEE CHEAP PENNED, SO TO SPEAK. CHEAPENED, SO TO SPEAK. IN ESSENCE, THAT SUMS UP MY POSITION. I'M AGAINST HAVING SOMEBODY RUNNING A ROAD DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOUSE THAT'S GOT A -- WHICH I THINK IS STILL GOING TO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. I CAN'T SEE HOW YOU CAN HAVE 10 FAMILIES THAT WOULD GENERATE LESS TRAFFIC THAN FIVE FAMILIES. I'M AFRAID THAT MOST OF THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE IN MY BACK YARDS, ENDANGERING MY CATS IF NOT MY DOGS. TO THAT EXTENT I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU GRANTS SINGLE FAMILY 2 RATHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY 3. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

GOODMAN: THANKS VERY MUCH. COULD YOU BRIEFLY TELL ME WHAT YOU MEANT BY LEAKAGE ON THE DRAINAGE POND?

ON THE SIDEWALK THAT CURRENTLY RUNS PAST THIS AREA, THERE IS -- I CAN'T WALK ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S A -- THERE'S A SUER-LIKE SEWER LIKE DRAINAGE ACROSS THE SIDEWALK AND INTO THE STREET. IT'S -- IT SMELLS AND IT'S -- IT'S GREEN.

GOODMAN: IT WAS DESIGNED THERE? YOU ARE SAYING?

NO, I'M SAYING IT COMING FROM THE AREA IMMEDIATELY DOWNHILL FROM THE RETENTION POND.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANKS. WM WILLIAMS. FOLLOWED BY LAURA VALDEZ.

GOOD EVENING. I ALSO WISH TO -- TO TRY TO GET YOU TO -- TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THIS SINGLE FAMILY, THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYTHING NORTH OF CONVICT HILL IS SINGLE FAMILY 2. AND NOW THEY ARE COMING IN HERE AND WANTING TO PUT THIS GROUP OF S.F. 3'S IN THAT ONE AREA. AND -- AND ALSO I THINK THAT -- THAT SINCE ALL OF THE OTHER HOMES THAT FACE CONVICT HILL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CONVICT HILL HAVE DRIVEWAYS AND HAVE ACCESS, ENTRANCE FROM THAT SIDE, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS ONE SECTION. AND -- AND I GUESS THAT'S MY MAJOR POINT. OF COURSE I LIVE ON BREEZY PASS, I'M THE LAST HOUSE ON BREEZY PASS. AND WE HAVE ENJOYED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WERE PROMISED THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE A THROUGH FARE STREET. ONE OF THE SALES POINTS THAT WE BOUGHT FOR. AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD JUST THINK ABOUT THAT VERY CLEARLY. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, WHEN THEY MAKE CHANGES. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS BUILDER SEEMS TO MAKE CHANGES AT WILL. AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WHAT MAY BE PRESENTED TODAY IS NOT WHAT WE SEE TOMORROW. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AS THE CITIZENS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THEIR DECISIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. AT THE END, MAYBE ALICE CAN EXPLAIN ABOUT -- ABOUT WHAT IS A MINOR AMENDMENT. MS. VALDEZ, YOU HAVE TWO SPEAKERS WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR TIME TO YOU. MS. ERICSON AND A NEW CARD, IS THAT -- THAT HARTICKSON.

I BELIEVE PAT ERICSON, PAT MONDAY AND PHILLIP [INAUDIBLE] HAVE ALL GIVEN ME THEIR TIME.

WHAT WAS YOUR --

PAM MONDAY, PAT ERICSON AND PHYLLIS HARDVICK SON.

OKAY. I FOUND MS. MONDAY. THAT GIVES YOU 12 MINUTES.

GREAT.

MY NAME IS LAURA VALDEZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK. I LIVE IN THE LAURELS COMPLEX DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THIS NEW AREA WOULD BE BUILT UP. I HAVE TO SAY WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY, THE -- THE APPEAL OF THOSE -- THAT BEAUTIFUL TREED AREA WAS AS APPEALING TO ME AS A LOT OF THE OTHER PROPERTY MEMBERS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY BACKED UP TO IT. SO THAT WOULD BE MY INITIAL PREFERENCE IS TO KEEP THOSE BEAUTIFUL TREES IN THAT AREA AND MAINTAIN IT AS IS. BUT ALONG WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS, I, TOO, ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THE LARGE HOMES THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. I THINK MY PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTIES OF LAURELS BENEFIT BY THE LARGE HOMES IN THAT AREA AND THE UPKEEP FROM THE OWNERS THAT MAINTAIN THOSE LARGE HOMES. BUT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THE COUNCIL DECIDES THAT S.F. 3 IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THAT AREA, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS THAT SEVERAL OF US AT THE LAURELS AND MS. HARVIKC SON THAT LIVES DOWN THE STREET WOULD LIKE TO ARTICULATE TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPER. I REALIZE WHEN THE LAURELS WAS BUILT, THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WERE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT THEY WERE NOT REQUIREMENTS AND THE DEVELOPER ENDED UP CHANGING A LOT OF THOSE ITEMS WITHOUT ANY OTHER SORT OF REVIEW OR CONSENT FROM THE COMMUNITY. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU ARE ITEMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE REQUIREMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPER -- THAT THE DEVELOPER MUST MEET. THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS THAT FROM THE -- FROM THE LAURELS PROPERTY PERSPECTIVE, WE DO NOT WANT FOR THESE PROPERTIES TO HAVE ACCESS TO CONVICT HILL. OUR PRIMARY ACCESS WOULD MEAN WE WOULD BE DIRECTLY COMPETING TO GET ON TO THAT CONVICT HILL BUSY STREET WITH THESE NEW FIVE UNITS, WITH -- WHICH WOULD HAVE 10 DIFFERENT TYPES OF, FRONT DOORS AND PEOPLE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BE COMPETING WITH A MINIMUM OF 10 SETS OF CARS IN THE MORNING. AND IT'S ALREADY VERY -- IT'S ALREADY A VERY BUSY STREET. TO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT'S POINT ON THE NUMBER OF -- THE VOLUME BEING ACCEPTABLE, IT'S ACCEPTABLE IF PEOPLE OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT. BUT IT IS A KNOWN, IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THAT -- THAT AREA IS A SPEED TRAP. THERE'S A LITTLE POLICEMAN THAT PARKS HIMSELF DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FLYING DOWN THAT STREET AT 50 MILES PER HOUR. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THE OTHER ITEM THAT -- THAT WE WOULD LIKE AS A REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE ENTRANCE BE FROM BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND -- WHICH WILL HAPPEN FROM BREEZY PASS, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR. BUT THAT THE DRIVEWAY NOT BE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTIES. BECAUSE THAT'S -- IT'S GOING TO BE VERY UNUSUAL, IRRESPECTIVE OF SOME OF THE OTHER DRIVEWAYS THAT CURB CUT INTO CONVICT HILL. THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WOULD BE PARALLEL TO CONVICT HILL. NOT CURB CUT. IF THEY ACCESSED FROM BEHIND. SO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE VALUES OF THE FRONTS OF THE PROPERTIES, WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO ENTER THROUGH BREEZY PASS, BUT COME IN THROUGH A BACK GARAGE SO PEOPLE AREN'T CLUTTERING UP THE FRONTS OF THESE ALREADY SMALL PROPERTIES. MY THIRD POINT IS THAT WE REQUIRE THAT THESE PROPERTIES BE OWNER OCCUPIED. A LOT OF US ARE CONCERNED WITH THE WHOLE NOTION OF THE DUPLEXES BECAUSE IT'S PRIMARILY RENTERS WHO WE FEEL AREN'T GOING TO HAVE THE SAME VESTED INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR THESE TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. OUR DEVELOPER AT THE LAURELS ACROSS THE STREET HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO RENT OUR PROPERTIES. HE HIMSELF WANTS THE AREA TO BE PRIMARILY OWNER OCCUPIED TO HELP MAINTAIN THE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO -- FOR THAT TO BE ASSERTED ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL. AGAIN, I REALLY SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TO REVIEW THIS. THE -- AT A MINIMUM, AS I MENTIONED, IF S.F. 3 IS PERMITTED, PLEASE CONSIDER THESE AS BINDING RESTRICTIONS. THE FIRST AS I MENTIONED THAT THERE BE NO ACCESS TO CONVICT HILL BECAUSE THAT'S DANGEROUS.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER,? MAYOR, I'LL GIVE YOU BACK THE CARDS.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? GREAT. THANKS.

SLUSHER: YOU ASKED THE SAME THING AS ME.

HELLO, I'M GREG. IVE LIVE ON THE SECOND HOUSE FROM THE END ON BREEZY PASS. AND ONE OF THE REASONS I BOUGHT THE HOUSE OVER THERE WAS BECAUSE IT WAS ON A DEAD END STREET AND IT WAS QUIET AND NO TRAFFIC AND IT KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH HOW THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS. AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE SPECIAL ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE WAY THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AROUND IT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND STURND INTO DUPLEXES AND OPEN OUR STREET UP FOR THEM WHEN THERE'S OTHER HOUSES -- THERE'S A COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO THE WEST AND ALL THE HOUSES ARE NICE HOUSES, PROBABLY MORE THAN $150,000 PER HOUSE. AND THEY ALL HAVE DRIVEWAYS ON CONVICT HILL. AND I DON'T REALLY SEE A BIG PROBLEM. IF PEOPLE ARE SPEEDING MAYBE THEY'LL GET TICKETS AND PEOPLE SPEED EVERYWHERE. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO OPEN UP A DEAD END STREET THAT'S BEEN LIKE THAT FOR 20 YEARS OR SO TO A BUNCH OF TRAFFIC WHEN THERE'S KIDS THAT PLAY ALL OUT THERE. IT'S REALLY A QUIET PART OF TOWN. AND THE WAY THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, ESPECIALLY ON CONVICT HILL ROAD, IS THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO CHANGE IT UP AND START BUILDING DUPLEXES IN THERE ON THAT PART OF THE STREET. AND I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DEDICATED A 95-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEN YOU COULD OPEN UP THOSE LOTS AND THEY'RE 75 FOOT LOTS. YOU COULD OPEN THEM UP A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE IT ANOTHER LOT. IT WOULDN'T GO WITH THE REST OF THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS. AND THERE'S -- THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. THAT'S BASICALLY IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. TATE. SHERRY TAYLOR? AND FOLLOWING MS. TAYLOR IS -- I THINK IT'S JANNY SOSA. YOU'RE NEXT. IF YOU COULD COME UP AND BE CLOSE TO THE MIC. YOU DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK AND THE TIME CAN BE GIVEN TO ANYBODY WHO NEEDS MORE TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. I'M SHERRY TAYLOR. MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO -- I'M ON THE CORNER OF CONVICT HILL AND PANCHO PASS. MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE NORTHWEST END OF THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE TODAY. FIRST I JUST WANT TO SAY WE ARE A FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE REALLY ARE. WE'RE HERE TO -- WE'RE NOT AGAINST THE GROWTH, BUT WE ARE HERE WITH CONCERNS. WE HAVE 100 PLUS CHILDREN IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY DRIVEWAY OPENS ON TO PAN CHAO PASS, AND THE OTHERS ARE CHEKT, THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS ON CONVICT HILL. IT'S A 30 MILES PER HOUR SPEED ZONE IN THAT AREA, HOWEVER, THE CARS DO GO 50 TO 60 MILES PER HOUR SPEEDING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. ADJACENT TO OUR HOME USED TO BE A DEAD END JUST LIKE ON BREEZY PASS AND NOW IT'S TOTALLY A THOROUGHFARE FOR CUT THROUGHS FROM 290 TO HE IS SKARPMENT BOULEVARD. SO THAT'S -- ESCARPMENT BOULEVARD. THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU OPEN A SMALL STREET UP AND OPEN IT TO OTHER TRAFFIC. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT IT REMAIN A SINGLE-FAMILY 2 JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY 2 NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE A TWO-WAY STOP ON THAT CORNER. IT REALLY COULD STAND TO BE A FOUR-WAY STOP, AND ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S INCREASED TRAFFIC, INCREASED -- PEOPLE BACKING OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS ON TO THAT DANGEROUS ROAD. IF IT COMES DOWN TO HAVING TO DO DUPLEXES, PERHAPS CONSIDERATION COULD BE MADE FOR A LESS DENSE. THE BUILDING OF THEM, MAYBE FOUR UNITS INSTEAD OF FIVE. THAT REALLY IS A SMALL AREA TO PUT 10 UNITS -- FIVE UNITS OF DUPLEXES, MEANING 10 FAMILIES. SO I WOULD PROPOSE ALSO NO STREET PARKING, WHICH WOULD ADD TO THE DANGER OF THE SITE DISTANCE AND THE PACKING BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE DANGER OF THE AREA. AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY 2 IN ORDER TO STAY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: [INAUDIBLE]. YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN SOME TIME BY LINDA ANDERSON. SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. AND IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE THREE MINUTES THAT MS. SOSA HAD, YOU CAN HAVE NINE. SO YOU WANT THOSE OR DO YOU WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO HAVE IT?

I PROBABLY WON'T TAKE MORE THAN THREE OR FOUR MINUTES MYSELF.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WE WILL LEAVE THE TIME FROM MS. SOSA FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

HELLO. MY NAME IS ANDY ANDERSON. I LIVE AT THE CORNER OF BREEZY PASS AND PANCHO PASS, WHICH IS ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND MY CONCERN -- MY PRIMARY CONCERN I THINK IS AS AN INVESTOR IN MY OWN PROPERTY -- AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST 16 YEARS. I'M OPPOSED TO HAVING NEW RESIDENCES BUILT THAT DO NOT MATCH THOSE IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I CAN'T PROVE IT, BUT I JUST HAVE A FEELING THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL THERE FOR OUR PROPERTY VALUES TO BE DIMINISHED IF LESSER PROPERTIES ARE BUILT ADJACENT. WHEN PEOPLE COME AROUND AND LOOK AT THE HOMES TO BUY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT ARE NEARBY AND THEY MAY DECIDE NOT TO BUY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BREEZY PASS, TWO PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ON BREEZY PASS. AND SINCE WE'VE BEEN THERE A NUMBER OF YEARS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY BY DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE COME AND LOOKED AT THOSE PROPERTIES, AND I THINK BY SOME CITY PEOPLE AS WELL THAT BREEZY PASS WOULD NOT EVER BE DEVELOPED AS A THROUGH STREET. WHILE THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INDICATE THAT BREEZY PASS WOULD BE PUT THROUGH ALL THE WAY TO CONVICT HILL, BY OPENING IT UP TO THESE RESIDENCES, IT DOES INCREASE THE TRAFFIC FLOW, WHICH IS ALREADY FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE SPOKE, CONVICT HILL AS PRETTY MUCH BECOME A SPEEDWAY. AND CONTRARY TO THE COMMENTS FROM OUR COLLEAGUE FROM THE LAURLS, I BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER TO CONVICT HILL'S TRAFFIC PROBLEM IS SPEED CONTROL RATHER THAN CHANGING THE DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE NEW RESIDENCES TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE HOMES THAT ALREADY FACE ON CONVICT HILL. IT WAS ALREADY STATED THAT ALL THOSE HOMES FACE ON -- ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CONVICT HILL FACE CONVICT HILL. THEIR DRIVEWAYS OPEN TO TO CONVICT HILL. THERE HAVE BEEN BEEN TO MY KNOWLEDGE ANY SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS ON CONVICT HILL. AS KIND OF JOHNNIE COME LATELIES TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PEOPLE AT THE LAURELS CERTAINLY ADDED TO OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE OAK HILL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD TOO. SO ALL THAT STUFF IS COMPOUNDED. ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE OR COULD BE PLACED RESTRICTIONS ON THESE RESIDENCES SO THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PRIVATELY OWNED RESIDENCES AROUND THEM, IN OTHER WORDS, NO BOATS IN THE YARD AND IN THE STREET, NO BROKEN DOWN CARS SITTING IN THE STREET AND THAT KIND OF THING. I'D LIKE SOME ASSURANCE OF THAT. AND AS A TRAFFIC CONTROL ON QUICK HILL, ONE THING THAT COULD BE DONE IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PONCHA PASS AND CONVICT HILL, THERE COULD BE EITHER A STOPLIGHT OR A FOUR-WAY STOP PUT IN THERE, WHICH WOULD SLOW DOWN THE TRAFFIC COMING OVER THAT HILL. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ANDERSON. MS. SOSA, NOBODY WANTED TO USE YOUR TIME. I'LL JUST -- I'LL JUST READ INTO THE RECORD THAT YOU WERE REGISTERED AGAINST. IS THAT OKAY? DAVID MONN? WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DAVID MONN. I'M WITH BENCHMARK DWOEPT AND WE'RE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES THAT'S THE SUBJECT HERE AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'VE GOT SEVERAL THINGS TO ADDRESS, MOSTLY THE ISSUES ABOUT VALUE. BUT FIRST OF ALL, THERE WILL BE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BECAUSE OF THE COMMON DRIVEWAY HERE, SO WITH THAT THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS TIP KL IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT UNSIGHTLY VEHICLES AND OTHER ARTICLES THAT WOULD BE KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. SPEAKING TO THE VALUE, WITH REGARD TO THE LAURELS ESPECIALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PROJECT, BUT IT IS A MIXTURE OF DUPLEXES AND TRI PLEXES THAT ARE FEE SIMPLE IN A CONDOMINIUM REGIME AND THEY ARE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY. THE SIZES FOR THE DUPLEXES IN PARTICULAR ARE 1500 TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEY SELL ANYWHERE FROM 150,000 TO $200,000 PER SIDE. MAKING THE VALUE ON A PER SQUARE FOOT BASIS $100 OR MORE. WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH THE OWNER, DEVELOPER OF THE LAURLS, TO SELL THESE LOTS TO HIM PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS HEARING. AND IT'S HIS INTENT, HE TELLS ME, TO PUT THE SAME DUPLEX PRODUCT ON THESE LOTS AS HE HAS IN THE LAURELS. THE LAURELS ARE VERY WELL LANDSCAPED, VERY ATTRACTIVE. THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL. THE TREES ARE WELL MAINTAINED AND GROOMED. THERE ARE LIGHTS IN THEM. IT'S A VERY ATTRACTIVE PROJECT. THE OTHER EXAMPLE TO VALUE THAT I POINT OUT IS ADJACENT TO THE LAURLS, DAVID WEEKLY HAS BUILT AND SOLD IN EXCESS OF 150 NEW HOMES, BUILT CONCURRENTLY WITH THE LAURELS, VERY NICE PRODUCT, WITH SIZES RANGING FROM 1800 FEET TO 2500 FEET, AND PRICES RANGING FROM 180,000 TO IN EXCESS OF 250,000. AGAIN, PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, ABOUT $100 OR MORE. SO I THINK VALUE IS VERY STRONG IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE BUILT HERE WOULD BE VERY COMPARABLE TO THE PRODUCT BUILT RECENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MONN. THAT COULD BE THE REBUTTAL SPEECH UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD? IF NOT, WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL?

THANKS. I'LL BE QUICK. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE STATED. I FLIPPED THE MAP OVER TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE ACTUAL HAMMER HEAD DESIGN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AFTER ITS CONSTRUCTED. THE REASON THAT OUR APPLICATION INCLUDES A HAMMER HEAD AND A TURNAROUND CONNECTED ON TO DRAES BREEZY PASS IS BECAUSE THAT'S A CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIREMENT. IT'S AN EMERGENCY ISSUE. CURRENTLY THERE IS NO EMERGENCY SERVICE OR EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURN AROUND FOR BREEZY PASS. SO IN ORDER FOR US NOT TO PROVIDE THAT TURNAROUND, WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE. OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD -- AGAIN, THE DUPLEX TAKING ACCESS OFF CONVICT HILL AND NOT OFF OF BREEZY PASS. AGAIN WE HAVE THAT DESIGNED EITHER WAY AND REMAIN FLEXIBLE ON THAT ITEM. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE DID WANT TO PUT THE IN THE FRONT IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW LESS DISTURBANCE TO THE COMMON SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR. WE DO FEEL THAT THE DUPLEX IS A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T YOU STAY THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH. COULD YOU EXPLAIN I GUESS HOW IT'S GOING TO BE LAID OUT THERE WITH THAT HAMMER HEAD? THAT DESIGN, I SUPPOSE?

OKAY. THIS IS THE EXISTING BREEZY PASS. IT CURRENTLY DEAD ENDS AT THIS POINT AT OUR PROPERTY LINE. AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF SLOPE INVOLVED HERE. THE AUSTIN ORDINANCES REQUIRE A CUL-DE-SAC, TEMPORARY TURNAROUND JUST TO ALLOW THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET IN AND BACK UP. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT IS THIS HAMMER HEAD, WHICH WILL ALLOW THE EMERGENCY SERVICES TO COME IN HERE, BACK UP AND GET OUT IF THEY NEED TO. AND THAT'S PRIMARILY TO SERVE THE EXISTING SERVICES ON ON BREEZY PASS, BECAUSE ANY NEED FOR THAT CAN COME FROM CONVICT HILL BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME FRONTAGE HERE. IF YOU NOTICE, THESE ARE MAJOR TREES THAT WE HAVE OUR ENGINEER, BRETT, DECIDED -- DESIGNED THE TURNAROUND TO AVOID LOSING THESE TREES. THIS THAT I'VE COLORED UP TO THE SOUTH HERE IS THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WILL BE THAT JOINT ACCESS, SO WE'VE GOT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND THEN WE HAVE ALL THE OPEN SPACE TO THE EAST.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. SO THE LOTS ARE ALL ON THE LEFT OF THIS?

YES. AND THIS IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OTHER QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF?

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MS. GLASCO, IF IT WAS ZONED SF-2, I THINK WE'VE GOT 2.2 ACRES, CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS IN THAT NET SITE AREA, BUT HOW MANY HOMES COULD GO IN HERE TO SF-2?

FIVE LOTS. FIVE HOMES.

SLUSHER: SO ONLY FIVE. AND WHAT IS THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON HERE? WHAT'S THE APLOOFD PLAT?

THE PLAT WAS APPROVED WITH ABOUT 11 LOTS, BUT WITHOUT THE PROPER ZONING. SO DEVELOPMENT RESERVE WAS APPLIED AFTER WE ANNEXED THE AREA, SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THE PLAT THAT PRECEDED THE ANNEXATION, AND WE ANNEXED OAK HILL IN '85-'86. SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REVIVE THAT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO NOW JUST HAVE FIVE DUPLEX LOTS, WHICH EQUATES TO 10 UNITS. BUT BEFORE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE THE REVISED SUBDIVISION TO ANY DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR HERE, THE APPROPRIATE ZONING IS NEEDED.

SLUSHER: AND THE -- THE APPROVED PLAN, THE ONE THAT'S GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER STATE LAW 1704, THAT IS -- THOSE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES? WHAT KIND OF UNITS?

YES, THEY WERE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED.

SLUSHER: SO THEY COULD STILL BUILD THAT EVEN IF WE ZONED IT SF-2, COULD THEY STILL BUILD THAT?

THEY -- THE PLAN IS NOT TO BUILD ALL THOSE LOTS. THEY WOULD STILL END UP WITH -- FIRST OF ALL, A ZONING CHANGE WOULD BE REQUIRED, OBVIOUSLY TO EITHER BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY OR COMPLEXES. EVEN UNDER THE OLD SUBDIVISION PLAT.

SLUSHER: HOW MANY COULD THEY GET IF THERE? I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S -- MAYBE THAT'S FOR MS. TERRY?

IT WOULD BE FIVE LOTS. I HAVE THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT IN FRONT OF ME. YOU HAVE A COPY TOO. LET ME GET TO -- I HAVE MY EXHIBITS TO SHOW YOU. A LITTLE COORDINATION PROBLEM HERE. THE APPROVED OR OLD PRELIMINARY PLAN HAD SHOWN FIVE LOTS. THIS LOT, THE DRIVEWAY WAS ONLY SHOWN OUT AS A LOT THAT COULD BE ACCESSED, AS SHOWN RIGHT NOW. AND THE GREEN AREA HAD SIX LOTS. OBVIOUSLY YOU CURRENTLY HAVE AN EASEMENT AND A DRAINAGE AREA WHERE YOU CANNOT HAVE LOTS. AND THAT'S THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY. SO THE OLD PRELIMINARY, ALL THEY CAN DO ARE THESE ONE THROUGH FIVE LOTS IN YELLOW.

SLUSHER: WHY COULDN'T THEY DO THE OTHER SIX?

BECAUSE SINCE THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY TOOK PLACE, THEY HAVE SINCE THEN MADE THIS AREA A DETENTION POND.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

THERE'S A DETENTION POND THERE TODAY. AND THEREFORE THE OLD PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT HAD SHOWN THOSE AS LOTS CANNOT BE DEVELOPED AS LOTS, HENCE THE REASON FOR THE REVISION, WHICH BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT A CHANGE HAS OCCURRED AS BUILT WHERE YOU NOW HAVE THE DETENTION POND AND EASEMENT. THE UNBUILT ROADWAY, WHICH YOU HAVE HERE, AND THEN THE YELLOW PART, WHICH ARE THE LOTS THEY WOULD NOW BE PLATTING TO CREATE THE FIVE NEW LOTS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DID.

YES, I DID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND ACTUALLY, BRETT, THE DESIGN ENGINEER, HAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAN -- AND I'M SORRY ALICE, THIS WAS NOT POINTED OUT TO YOU, BUT THEY WERE APPROVED AS TRIPLEXES, SO ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL PLAN AT 170 HAD WAS FOR 33 UNITS.

> I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THAT OR SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO, BUT YOU'RE US JUST ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

AND IN REMOVING THE DETENTION POND -- [INAUDIBLE]. THE EXISTING DETENTION POND IS IN THIS AREA ONLY, JUST THIS SMALL GREEN AREA. THE 1.7 ACRES IS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT HAS -- THAT TAKES IN, YOU KNOW, THE FLOW FROM UP ABOVE. AND RATHER THAN GOING IN AND DISTURBING THAT AND DOING SOME KIND OF DETENTION POND AND EXTENDING AND GETTING MORE LOTS IN THERE, IT WAS JUST -- SEEMED MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND TRY TO GET THE COMPLEX LOTS HERE TO RECOVER OUR DENSITY.

SLUSHER: OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. GLASCO. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: COULD ALICE OR LORETTA, WHOEVER, RELATIVE TO BACK IN THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, WAS THE CUT THROUGH -- THE FINISH OUT OF BREEZY PASS PART OF WHAT WAS EXPECTED TO HAPPEN WHENEVER THESE LOTS WERE DEVELOPED?

SHE WILL HAVE THE ANSWER FOR YOU.

YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAN DID SHOW THE EXTENSION OF BREEZY PASS TO CONVICT HILL, BUT CITY COUNCIL IN A PREVIOUS ZONING CASE PROHIBITED THAT CONNECTION. AND THERE IS A VISIBILITY PROBLEM AT THAT LOCATION, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING OF A PROBLEM TO TRY TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION THERE.

GOODMAN: AND THIS MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION. RELATIVE TO CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND DRAINAGE PONDS, IF SUCH THINGS AS THE DRAINAGE AND ITS LOCATION WERE ABLE TO BE MODIFIED, DOES THAT IN ANY WAY IMPACT GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL ON THAT SIDE, ON THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SIDE?

LORETTA IS GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THIS. WHO HOLDS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT? DOES THE CITY OF AUSTIN HOLD IT?

NO, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WILL BE DEDICATED BY OUR PRELIMINARY PLAN AND OUR FINAL PLAT. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY A CONSERVE VAIGTS EASEMENT.

SO AS OF THAT STANDS AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE 1984 APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN, WHICH I THINK WE'VE GIVEN TO YOU AS ADDITIONAL BACKUP, SHOWS THOSE ARE THE LOTS. ONCE THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS DEDICATED AND DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEN IT WILL TAKE THE CONSENT OF COUNCIL TO CHANGE THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO -- BUT THAT IS ALL -- AGAIN, WE'RE CAUGHT BY THIS CASE, AS WE HAVE BEEN IN OTHER CASES, BY THE ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT. NORMALLY YOU DO ZONING FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WE HAVE AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY, AND AT THAT TIME THE PRELIMINARY -- THERE IS NO ZONING OUT THERE, SO THE PRELIMINARY IS THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE. SO NOW WE'RE CAUGHT SORT OF IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY AND WE'RE COMING NOW TO ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO BE AND THEN THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING THAT YOU WILL DECIDE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPERTY.

GOODMAN: WELL, RELATIVE TO THAT, AND SPEAKING OF 1704 PROTECTIONS, OKAY, THEY HAD PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ON TRIPLEXES WHETHER WE GIVE THEM THE ZONING OR NOT, DO THEY HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO GO IN AND BUILD TRIPLEXES ON WHATEVER LOTS THEY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP ON SO THAT THIS PLAN, FOR INSTANCE, WHETHER WE GIVE THEM THE ZONING OR NOT, HAS APPROVAL FOR FIVE TRIPLEXES ON THE LOTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

IF YOU WERE TO DENY THE ZONING, THEY COULD AT THIS POINT -- AND WHEN I SAY DENY, I MEAN A MOTION TO DENY. IF YOU WERE TO DENY THE ZONING AT THIS POINT, THEY COULD GO BACK TO THAT PRELIMINARY PLAN, WHICH THEY HAVE GRANDFATHERED. WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF HOW THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE ACT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, THE ZONING THAT CAME IN WITH THE ANNEXATION, THAT'S A LEGAL ANALYSIS WE WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM FOR YOU BECAUSE AGAIN WE'RE CAUGHT IN THAT STRANGE HIATUS WHERE WE'RE OUT OF ORDER ON 170 HAD VERSUS ZONING. 1704 VERSUS ZONING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN SHOWED REGARDING TRIPLEXES, DUPLEXES, SINGLE-FAMILY OR WHATEVER. I HAVE -- WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP. THE YELLOW STREET BACKUP THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAN IN DETAIL SHOWED, SO -- AND I'VE GIVEN MY BACKUP TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SO WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT IS AN ISSUE WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF ZONING, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN.

GOODMAN: WELL, WHAT I WAS WONDERING, MAYOR, AND THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE THIS FEELS A LITTLE LIKE DEJA VU WITH THE BRODIE SPRINGS LOT IN WHICH THE ZONING ALSO DIDN'T MATCH WHAT THE APPROVED LOTS WERE DESIGNED AS, AND IT WENT THROUGH THE COUNTY PROCESS, NOT THE CITY PROCESS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T NEED THE CITY PROCESS WHEN THEY DID THAT. SO THERE WAS A BOTTOM LINE AND A LITTLE BIT OF A BRICK WALL, NO PUNISH NO PUN INTENDED, FOR US TO CHANGE BEYOND WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO CHANGE BECAUSE THEY COULD ALWAYS TAKE US TO COURT OR WHATEVER OR OTHERWISE REAFFIRM WHAT THEY HAD ALREADY APPROVALS FOR. IS THAT THE SAME SITUATION?

YES BUT AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU IS THAT THIS IS A MATTER THAT IS APPROPRIATELY DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE I WERE TO GIVE YOU A FINAL LEGAL OPINION WHAT I THINK THE CITY'S EXPOSURE IS.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM COUNCIL?

LET ME MAKE THIS SESSION THAT BEFORE YOU DO THAT, LET US RUN THE TRAPS AND MAKE SURE WE KNOW THAT WHAT WE'RE TELLING YOU IS APPROPRIATE. YOU HAD THIS BEFORE -- YOU HAVE THIS BEFORE YOU ON FIRST READING. YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS BEFORE YOU ON THREE READINGS. SO YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AGAIN SHOULD. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO PASS THIS ON FIRST READINGING, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT LEVEL OF ZONING, LEVEL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS YOU WISH TO APPLY AND HOW THE CHAPTER 274 RIGHTS PLAY WITH THE ZONING.

MS. TERRY, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED ASSUMING THE COUNCIL GOES WITH ALL THREE -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. SO THERE IS THAT OPTION IF THEY WANTED TO DO EITHER FIRST OR SECOND, BUT THE ORDINANCE IS PREPARED BASED ON WHAT THAT COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

THE ZONING AND PLATTING RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS NOT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I UNDERSTAND IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

JUST ON THE ACCESS POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, ONE IS TO CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE THAT MS. GLASCO REFERRED TO AND CONSIDER IT FOR ONE READING OR ALL THREE READINGS. OR TO DO WHAT MS. TERRY HAS INDICATED AND DO THIS ON FIRST READING ONLY, SEND THIS BACK TO LEGAL AND HAVE -- RESEARCH THE ISSUE THAT MS. TERRY BROUGHT UP, PLACE THIS ON THE AGENDA ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING AND ALSO PLACE IT IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA AS AN ITEM FOR CONSULTATION WITH OUR ATTORNEY SO THAT -- SO THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES CAN BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE COUNCIL CAN BE BRIEFED ACCORDINGLY. WHICH ROUTE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE, MAYOR PRO TEM? WHICH OPTION?

GOODMAN: WHATEVER WE DECIDE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING, WE CAN -- I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GO FOR FIRST READING, BUT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPLICANT KNOWING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF WHAT WE WILL ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION FOR ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. BUT IT IS THE MECHANISM TO GET IT INTO A LEGAL DISCUSSION I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE TABLE? DO YOU WANT TO MOVE?

GOODMAN: SO I WOULD MOVE AT THIS MOMENT SF-2 ON FIRST READING ONLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? SF-2 IS -- IS THAT STAFF?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO? MS. GLASCO, CAN YOU GO THROUGH THE STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND -- PLATTING -- ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION?

THE VOTES OF STAFF AND THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMEND SF-3.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION IS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY 2. AND IT HAS A SECOND. SO SEE IF THERE'S DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM. UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS FIRST READING AND WE WILL HAVE IT FOR SECOND AND THIRD AT A FUTURE AGENDA AND WE WILL ALSO HAVE IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT MS. TERRY OUTLINED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT ENSUING DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S THE REASON I WON'T BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF SF-2.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

SLUSHER: SURE, I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: WELL, NOW, WE DIDN'T SEE IF THAT WAS FRIENDLY. DON'T WE NEED TO DO THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. IS IT FRIENDLY, MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WELL, THE INTENT I THINK IS SURELY FRIENDLY, BUT THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION WOULDN'T BE. [LAUGHTER].

SLUSHER: YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DIDN'T THINK -- I THOUGHT IF SHE WANTED SF-3, SHE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.

GRIFFITH: CAN WE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SF-2 OPTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF THERE IS A SECOND TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IF NOT, I'LL ASK FOR A SECOND. OKAY. WE'RE BACK ON THE MAIN MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. MAYOR PRO TEM, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT WHY -- ON FIRST READING ONLY WE WOULD DO SF-2.

GOODMAN: WELL, ALTHOUGH I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SF-2 AND SF-3 IS NOT EXACTLY THE IMPACT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT IT TO BE, I WOULD LIKE TO START AT THAT BOTTOM LINE SO WE MAKE SURE WE ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND FIND OUT FROM LEGAL STAFF EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUES ARE FOR CHANGING THE ZONING AND THE LOT SIZE AND ALL OF THAT TO WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED. AND I THINK THAT ALSO GIVES US THE ABILITY TO RESEARCH THE BREEZY PASS ISSUE AS WELL. AND SO WITH SF-3 I'M NOT SURE THAT -- YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO WITH SF-3.

GRIFFITH: IT MOVES IT ALONG. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS WAIVE -- MAYOR PRO TEM EXPLAINS IT OFTEN IS YOU CAN ALWAYS GO UP. AND THIS ALSO GETS US INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND IT STARTS AT A PLACE WHERE THERE'S NO PLACE TO GO BUT UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST? ONE? OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE IN FAVOR OF. MS. GLASCO, FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD READING, THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE PREPARED WITH BOTH THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND THE SF-2 SO HE WOULD BE READY TO VOTE ON IT AT THE TIME THAT WE TAKE IT UP AGAIN.

DO YOU WANT -- WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK IS DID YOU WANT AN ORDINANCE REFLECTING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS WELL?

MAYOR GARCIA: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM ZONING?

YES, IT IS. IT CENTERS AROUND THE ACCESS ISSUE. SO BASICALLY IF YOU WANTED ALL THREE, THEN YOU HAVE SF-2, YOU WOULD HAVE THE STAFF AND THEN YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE A ZONING AND PLATTING.

WE CAN DO IT. WE CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S FINE. WE CAN DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT WAY WHEN THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS IT -- .

YOU WILL HAVE THE ENTIRE -- THE WHOLE CAKE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE THING, THE WHOLE THING AND NOTHING BUT THE THING.

GOODMAN: AND MAYOR, ONE OF THE LEGAL ISSUES WE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT IS THE ABILITY TO MANDATE AN OWNER-OCCUPIED -- .

I CAN ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW. WE CANNOT IN ZONING. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THERE'S SOME NEGOTIATION THAT CAN GO ON BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT IT COMES BACK FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

MAYOR, IF I MAY ADD, BEFORE -- IT'S ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: HELLO.

WHILE YOU WERE OUT OF THE ROOM, MAYOR PRO TEM HAD ASKED ME AT SOME POINT TO EXPLAIN THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR THE SUBDIVISION. ONE OF THE SPEAKERS EARLIER EXPRESSED AN INTEREST OR DESIRE TO BE NOTIFIED. AND MAYOR PRO TEM WANTED ME TO SPEAK TO THAT. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS SINCE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAN IS BEING REVISED AND GIVEN THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, AND THE POPULOUS WITHIN 300 FEET WILL BE NOTIFIED FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED REVISION. SO THAT'S -- I WANTED THEM TO KNOW THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE THAT NOTICE SO LET'S SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AT THAT POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING? THE APPLICANT? COME ON UP.

[INAUDIBLE].

GOODMAN: THANK YOU -- .

THANK YOU, MR. GARCIA. WOULD WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THE SECOND AND THIRD CONSIDERATIONS?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LESS SPEAKERS AND CONSOLIDATE YOUR COMMENTS.

SURE, SURE. SF-2 IS GOING TO DO IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? WHAT I HAD HOPED THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IS KIND OF CONSOLIDATE THE POSITION ON ANYTHING THAT'S PROPOSED SO THAT -- BECAUSE WE DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE HEARINGS FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, BUT WHEN THERE'S A NEGOTIATION OR A POTENTIAL NEGOTIATION GOING ON IN BETWEEN, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES ARE AND WHAT EVERYBODY'S POSITION IS ON THEM. BUT I THINK IT MIGHT GO MORE QUICKLY TO REACH RESOLUTION IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING OF A CONSOLIDATED APPROACH AND HAVE YOUR POINTS DOWN SO THAT WE CAN GET QUICKLY INTO DISCUSSION OF THEM.

MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE. I WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL AND DID A BRAIN NUMB. WE DID NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I DON'T BELIEVE ON THIS MATTER. SO YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. YOU CAN GO ON AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND THIS MATTER WOULD BE POSTED ON YOUR REGULAR AGENDA ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS OR YOU CAN LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND LEAVE IT AS BEING POSTED ON YOUR REGULAR 4:00 O'CLOCKS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT, ALICE? IS THAT THE WAY YOU HANDLE IT, IF THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN?

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE CAN HAVE SPEAKERS ANYWAY. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. I WOULD PREFER THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

I'LL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND YOU'VE HEARD THE COMMENTS BY MS. GLASCO WITH REGARDS TO NOTIFICATION, SO WE WILL PROCEED ON IT AND SEE YOU BACK HERE SOMETIME SOON HOPEFULLY. THANK YOU. WE NOW ARE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEM NUMBER 4 ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A PERSONNEL MATTER UNDER SECTION 551 .074, WHICH IS THE CONTINUATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT WE STARTED EARLIER TO DISCUSS THE RESIGNATION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND THE APPOINTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF AN ACTING CITY MANAGER. SO WE ARE RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE NEXT TIME CERTAIN ITEM IS AT 5:30. THAT'S PROCLAMATIONS AND MUSIC. SO EITHER THE MAYOR PRO TEM OR I WILL BE BACK TO DO THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE A 6:00 O'CLOCK PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE ARE RECESSED.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE WATCHED BY MORE PEOPLE THAN THE ONES THAT ARE HERE, WE HAVE A BIG TV AUDIENCE. A LOT OF PEOPLE WATCH CHANNEL 6 AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WATCH THE RERUNS THAT WE HAVE. SOME PEOPLE EVEN WATCH IT AT MIDNIGHT TO HELP THEM GO TO SLEEP. SO WE WANT TO WELCOME MICHAEL MEYERS. HE'S ONE OF THE MOST EXCITING NEW COUNTRY ARTISTS TO COME OUT OF THE LONE STAR STATE. BORN AND RAISED IN A MUSICAL FAMILY FROM DRIPPING SPRINGS, TEXAS, MUSIC HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF HIS LIFE. HE BEGAN HIS SINGING CAREER WITH HIS GRAND FATHER IN CHURCH AND SPECIAL EVENT. HIS MUSIC HAS DEVELOPED WITH THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT OF HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS AND A GROWING MULTITUDE OF FANS. AND MICHAEL, SINCE YOU HAVE THAT GROWING MULTITUDE OF FANS, YOU NEED TO TELL THEM WHERE YOUR BE SINGING AND WHEN. MICHAEL IS WORKING HARD TO GROW AS AN ARTIST AND EXPLORE NEW AREAS OF COUNTRY MUSIC. HIS DEBUT CD IS ENTITLED LIVING FOR THE MOMENT. AND THAT'S SO APPROPRIATE. SO IT IS WITH A GREAT DEAL OF PLEASURE THAT I INTRAUS TO YOU TODAY MICHAEL MEYERS. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. (music)(music).

MAYOR GARCIA: WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I'LL SAY THAT SCRARN THE 17TH, 2002 IS MIKE MEYERS DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

(music) HERE I AM AGAIN ON THE DRINKING SIDE OF THE BAR (music). I FINISH OFF A COLD ONE AND STRIKE ON MY GUITAR (music). (music) ANOTHER HONKY-TONK, ANOTHER NIGHT (music) OF SINGING MY SONGS, INVITING OLD FATHER TIME (music). (music) WELL, ALL THE WHISKEY AND THE LATE NIGHTS, THE SMOKE FILLED BARS AND NEON LIGHTS, (music) SURE HAVE A WAY OF STEALING YOUR YOUTH (music). (music) BUT THAT MUSIC'S IN MY BLOOD, IT'S MY ONE AND ONLY LOVE (music). (music) AND THAT LOVE KEEPS ME GOING STRONG (music). (music) GETTING OLDER BY THE SONG (music). (music) AND EVERY TIME I SING FADED LOVE ON SILVER WINGS, THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT DYING JUST CANNOT TOUCH (music). AND THE SEEMS MY DESTINY, WELL, THAT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT WITH ME (music) BECAUSE I'M RIGHT WHERE I BELONG (music). (music) GETTING OLDER BY THE SONG (music). (music) THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO TELL ME I SHOULD GIVE THIS UP (music). BUT MUSIC'S WHAT I DO AND IT'S WHAT I LOVE (music). BLOOD SHOT EYES AND CALLOUSED HANDS TELL A STORY OF A MAN (music) THAT SPENT HIS LIFE RIGHT OR WRONG JUST GETTING OLDER BY THE SONG (music). (music) AND EVERY TIME I SING FADED LOVE ON SILVER WINGS, THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT TIME JUST CANNOT TOUCH (music). AND IT SEEMS TO STAY MY DESTINY, WELL, THAT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT WHERE I BELONG (music). (music) GETTING OLDER BY THE SONG (music). (music) I'M JUST GETTING OLDER BY THE SONG (music). [APPLAUSE].

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I WILL GIVE THE MAYOR HIS T-SHIRT AND TD AND KOOSZIE UP THERE. HE MAY HAVE TAKEN IT WITH HIM. WE WILL BE -- WHERE WILL WE BE, HOOTIE'S BAR AND GRILL ON THE 19TH. AND THE WEB ADDRESS IS MICHAEL MEYERS.COM, SO GIVE IT A LOOK SOMETIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(music) MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB. (music) MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB, HIS FLEES OF WHITE AS SNOW (music). CLAF CLAF. [APPLAUSE].

GOODMAN: I THINK THAT'S A CUE FOR US TO TOP LOLLY GAGGING AND START PROCS. OUR FIRST PROCLAMATION TODAY IS A RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM PROCLAMATION, AND WE HAVE WITH US ROGER DUNCAN AND GERALD GUSTAFSON, WITH THE MAYOR COMING OVER SOON. THE PROCLAMATION -- HORKS AND AS I HAVE BEEN DOING, LET ME SHOW YOU OUR NEW AND IMPROVED AND BEAUTIFUL PROCLAMATIONS. A HERITAGE PIECE NOW. BUT THE SCRIPT IS A LITTLE BR DIFFICULT TO READ, SO IF I'M LIKE TWO INCHES AWAY, THAT'S WHY. THE PROCLAMATION READS, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS AUSTIN ENERGY HAS HELPED 175,000 AUSTIN HOMEOWNERS SAVE 213 MILLION DOLLARS ON THEIR UTILITY BILLS AND REDUCED PEAK DEMANDS ON OUR ELECTRIC UTILITIES SYSTEMS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL QISHT SI PROGRAM, AND WHEREAS AUSTIN ENERGY HAS INSTALLED HIGH EFFICIENCY AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS, HEAT PUMPS AND SOLAR SCREENS, UPGRADED INSULATION, REPAIRED LEAKING DUCTS, THAT'S WITH A T, AND PROVIDED FREE WEATHERIZATION SERVICES TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. AND WHEREAS THESE PROGRAMS HAVE ALSO BENEFITTED OUR ENVIRONMENT BY REDUCING NITROGEN OXYGEN SIDE AND CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MANY, MANY TONS YEARLY. NOW THEREFORE GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DOES HERE BY PROCLAIM JANUARY THE 17TH IN THE YEAR 2002 AS AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESIDENTIAL EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS DAY IN AUSTIN. AND IN WITNESS THEREOF WE HAVE THE SIGNIFICANT OF MAYOR GUSTAVO L. GARCIA AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT GENTLEMAN RIGHT BESIDE US SO I WILL TRADE PLACES WITH HIM. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. AS BOTH OF YOU KNOW, AUSTIN AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AS BOTH OF YOU KNOW, THE AUSTIN HAS BEEN A NATIONAL LEADER IN ENERGY CONSERVATION. IT'S THE WORK OF PEOPLE LIKE GERALD AND THE CITY STAFF THAT HAS BROUGHT THIS CITY THAT HONOR. I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL FOR THIS. AND ALTHOUGH THIS IS A RECOGNITION OF 20 YEARS OF SERVICE, I HOPE THAT IT'S THE START OF ANOTHER 20 YEARS OF LEADERSHIP AND ENERGY CONSERVATION FOR THIS CITY. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. [APPLAUSE].

COULD WE GET A PHOTO?

GOODMAN: AND OUR SECOND PROCLAMATION IS FOR HALF-PRICE BOOKS AND HALF-PINT LIBRARY AND THIS IS SUCH A NEAT PROCLAMATION. I'M GLAD I GET TO THIS THIS ONE, MAYOR. THIS WILL BE ACCEPTED BY MONICA SCHULTZ. I THINK ALL OF US OR VIRTUALLY ALL OF US HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THE PRESENCE OF HALF-PRICE BOOKS. I KNOW I DO EVERY CHRISTMAS, ANYWAY. AND IT'S A WONDERFUL PLACE, A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE ENTREPRENEUR AL RETAIL IS AUSTIN IS SO FAIL MOUSE FOR AND IT'S ALSO INDICATIVE OF A CITY OF IDEAS AND CREATIVE. SO THANK YOU ON MY OWN BEHALF. THE PROCLAMATION READS, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS HALF-PRICE BOOKS BEGAN THE HALF-PINT LIBRARY PROGRAM IN 1999 TO BENEFIT YOUNG PEDIATRICIANIC PATIENTS AND PEESHL NEEDS CHILDREN ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND WHEREAS THE HALF-PINT LIBRARY AT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF AUSTIN IS ONE OF THE 100 SUCH LIBRARIES THAT PEDIATRICIANIC CLINICS, COMMUNITY CENTERS AND SCHOOLS NATIONWIDE AND HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN 35,000 BOOKS THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. AND WHEREAS IN ADDITION TO BEING ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST NEW AND USED BOOK STORES, WITH MORE THAN 67 STORES IN 10 DIFFERENT STATES, HALF-PRICE BOOKS HAS SUBMIT KMITED TO SUPPORTING HUNDREDS OF LITERARY AND LITERACY EFFORTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. NOW THEREFORE GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DOES HERE BY PROCLAIM JANUARY THE 17TH IN THE YEAR 2002 AS HALF-PRICE BOOKS, HALF-PINT LIBRARY DAY IN AUSTIN, WITNESS THEREOF HIS SIGNATURE AND HIS PRESENCE. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW THIS IS GENUINE AND THAT WE ALL THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WHAT YOU DO. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

MY NAME IS JULIE COX. I'M REPRESENTING HALF-PRICE BOOKS TODAY. I'D LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR THE FLATTERING ATTENTION WE'RE GETTING TONIGHT FROM THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU. BUT OUR JOB IS ACTUALLY VERY EASY. WE SET UP BINS IN OUR STORES AND THE BOOKS COME TO US. AND SO THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY MAKE THIS WORK ARE NOT ONLY THE VOLUNTEERS AT THE AUSTIN CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF AUSTIN, RATHER, BUT OUR CUSTOMER AND THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN AND SURROUNDING AREAS WHO TAKE THE TIME AND SPEND A LITTLE MONEY AND BRING US THE BOOKS THAT THEY NO LONGER NEED OR BOOKS THAT THEY LOVED AS A CHILD AND WANT TO PASS ON. IT IS A SPECIAL LIBRARY BECAUSE OF THE END OF A CHILD'S STAY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE A COUPLE OF BOOKS HOME, SO THAT'S WHY THIS DRIVE IS SO IMPORTANT. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS WHEN THEY HIT THE SHELVES IN THE HOSPITAL. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL THE SUPPORT AND ATTENTION. WE ARE VERY, VERY GRATEFUL. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

MAYOR GARCIA: AND LET ME SAY THAT MY WIFE TOOK ME THERE, I HAD NEVER BEEN THERE, BUT SHE TOOK ME THERE THAT TOO LONG AGO AND I WAS SO FASCINATED. I SPENT SO MUCH TIME LOOKING AT ALL THE BOOKS '. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO HALF PRICE BOOKS -- HOW MANY STORES DO YOU HAVE IN AUSTIN? FOUR. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, I TELL YOU ONE THING, IT'S A LOT OF FUN, SO TAKE MAY TIME. THERE ARE SOME GREAT BOOKS. AND SO DON'T FORGET YOUR PROCLAMATION. DISPLAY IT VERY PROMINENTLY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE COUNCIL HAS NOW CONCLUDED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND NO DECISIONS WERE MADE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND AS SOON AS I CAN GET A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL HERE, WE WILL GO INTO OUR -- I WILL CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER SO WE CAN GO INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ARE SET FOR TIME CERTAIN FOR 6:00 O'CLOCK, AND WE'RE ABOUT 10 MINUTES BEHIND SCHEDULE. HERE WE GO. WE ARE GETTING THE QUORUM AS WE SPEAK. THERE WE GO. THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO CALL THE JANUARY THE 17TH MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BACK TO ORDER. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO ANNOUNCE IS THAT ITEMS NUMBER 50, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. AND ITEM NUMBER 51, HAVE BOTH BEEN POSTPONED, SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THOSE ITEMS, WE WILL NOT BE TAKING THEM UP TONIGHT. AND IF THERE IS -- IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, ITEMS 47 AND 49 HAVE VERY FEW SPEAKERS, SO MAYBE WE CAN CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS FIRST. ITEM 49 HAS ONE PERSON SPEAKING AND ITEM 47 HAS TWO PEOPLE SPEAKING, SO THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE FOR ITEM 48, IF YOU BEAR WITH US FOR JUST A MINUTE, 22 OF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THAT ITEM. IF YOU WILL GIVE US ABOUT 15 MINUTES, WE CAN GET THROUGH WITH ITEMS 47 AND 49. ITEM 47 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEATHER THE CITY CHARTER SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF -- OF THE COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND THE TWO SPEAKERS THAT ARE HERE ARE MR. STEVEN VILLANOSVA, HE'S HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE REVISION CHARTER COMMITTEE. ARE YOU HERE? AND ALSO MR. RICKY BURR. MR. BURR ARE YOU HERE? YOU WILL BE THE SECOND SPEAKER. WELCOME. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING TO THE COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO MY LAST APPEARANCE AT COUNCIL ON I BELIEVE SEPTEMBER 13TH, BUT I'M HERE AT YOUR REQUEST AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE AGAIN OUR REPORT.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, I THINK WE PRETTY WELL REMEMBER THE ISSUES AND WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS THING SHAKES OUT. MR. RICKY BYRD? WELCOME, SIR.

WELCOME. THANK YOU. AND EVENING MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL I AM THE MINORITY -- I AM THE MINORITY ON THE REPORT. IT BOILS DOWN TO A GOOD AND SIMPLE REASON. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE FURTHER WE WENT ALONG TO PROVIDE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THE MORE MEMBERS WE HAD, THE MORE NUMBERS WE HAD. AND AT THE SAME TIME WE COULDN'T GUARANTEE REPRESENTATION FOR MINORITIES THAT WERE DISBURSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THIS WAS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF ASIANS. IN 10 YEARS I BELIEVE THE NUMBERS THAT WERE HANDED TO US WERE PROJECTED OUT AS THE ASIAN POPULATION BEING THE ROUGH EQUIVALENT OF THE BLACK POPULATION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THAT STUCK STRUCK ME AS DISPROPORTION NEALLY UNFAIR. IT ALSO STRUCK ME THAT JUMPING FROM SEVEN MEMBERS TO 11 MEMBERS AND THEN 13 MEMBERS ON THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD JAR THE POLITICAL BALANCE OF THE CITY A GOOD DEAL. THAT'S A 57% INCREASE AND THEN AN 85% INCREASE IF YOU ADOPT IT AS IT WAS FORWARDED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE. EVEN THOSE NUMBERS, FOR INSTANCE, CANNOT ACTUALLY GUARANTEE YOU MINORITY REPRESENTATION OF BLACKS ON THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT WAS THE OTHER REASON FOR MY POSITION. ONE OF THE PROTOTYPE NUMBERS THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPARTMENT PROJECTED A COUNCILMEMBER SEAT FOR A BLACK REPRESENTATIVE WITH A 51% BLACK POPULATION. TO ME THAT SEEMED A BIT TOO THIN TO GUARANTEE REPRESENTATION OF BLACK CITIZENS ON THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE WIDTH AND BREADTH OF MY POSITION ON IT. I FEEL THAT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, WERE IT CONSTITUTE NATIONAL, HAD THE STATE LEGISLATURE NOT EXERCISED ITS WISDOM AND PUT AUSTIN INTO A BLIND ALLEY, WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER SYSTEM. IT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH AN ARBITRARY RAISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WOULD ALLOW MINORITIES TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES BY ELECTING A MEMBER OF THEIR RESPECTED ETEDS NISTY TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THAT'S IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BYRD. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO. THE MOTION CARRIES WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY OUT. THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM ON THIS ONE, SO WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 49. AND ITEM 49 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO REQUEST A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 5307 CHESTERFIELD AVENUE IN THE 25-YEAR AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF WALLER CREEK AND TO WAIVE DEDICATION OF THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS DRAINAGE EASEMENT. AND MR. OSWALD, WELCOME, SIR. YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US A LITTLE BRIEFING ON THIS?

YES, SIR. GEORGE OSWALD, WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE. THE LOT AT 5307 CHESTERFIELD IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF WALLER CREEK. IT'S ENTIRELY LOCATED WITHIN BOTH THE 25 AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS OF THE CREEK. AND DURING A 100-YEAR EVENT, THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ON THE LOT WOULD RANGE FROM TWO AND A HALF TO FOUR AND A HALF FEET DEEP. IN REACHING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL, THE MAJOR ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED. THE DANGER TO LIFE AND PROPERTY DUE TO FLOODING, THE DANGER THAT MATERIALS MAY BE SWEPT ON TO OTHER LANDS WITH POSSIBLE INJURY TO OTHERS, THE SAFETY OF ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IN TIMES OF FLOOD FOR CITY OF AUSTIN EMERGENCY WORKERS AND ORDER AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, AND THE EXPECTED HEIGHT VELOCITY AND DURATION OF FLOOD WATERS ON THE PROPERTY DURING EXTREME STORM EVENTS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR MR. OSWALD? THIS ALSO -- WHERE DID IT GO FROM STAFF? IT WENT TO COMMISSION? WHICH COMMISSION DID IT GO TO?

THIS COMES STRAIGHT TO THE COUNCIL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THERE WAS NO COMMISSION ACTION THEN?

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON ITEM NUMBER 49. AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, I HAVE TO DO ONE THING. ON ITEMS 50 AND 51 -- OR JUST 50? I THINK IT'S 50 AND 51, BOTH OF THEM ARE BEING POSTPONED. I DID, BUT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM 50. YEAH, YES 50 AND 51 POSTPONED TO JANUARY 31ST.

SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. SECONDED BY ME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: 50 AND 52? NO, 51. OKAY. IT'S 50 AND 52. THEY'RE POSTPONED TO JANUARY 31ST. THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

.

AYE. MAY HAVE MAY HAVE I GUESS IT PASSES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. MR. LARRY GIO IS THE SPEAKER ON THIS ONE ITEM. DID I MISPRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME?

YOU DID A GREAT JOB, MAYOR. YOU'RE ONE OF ABOUT 10,000 THAT DID IT RIGHT. MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M SEEKING THIS VARIANCE TONIGHT FROM THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ON THIS LOT, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO GRANT VARIANCES TO BUILD IN A 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMPELLING REASONS TO DO SO, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE THOSE COMPELLING REASONS. I SENT EACH OF YOU A FAX, WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SEEN. ACTUALLY, TWICE. LISTING SOME OF THE REASONS THAT I THINK ARE COMPELLING TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE. THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON IN MY MIND IS THAT UP UNTIL 1966 THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THIS LOT. THIS IS AN OLD SUBDIVISION. IT'S JUST NORTH OF -- 5307 CHESTERFIELD IS JUST NORTH OF NORTH LOOP. SO IT'S AN SUBDIVISION. THE HOUSES ARE 50 TO 40 TO 50 YEARS OLD. THIS HOUSE WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN 1966 BY A GAS EXPLOSION. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CITY SHOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO BUILD BACK THE HOUSE AS IT WAS IN THE FLOODPLAIN ON THE GROUND LIKE THE REST OF THOSE HOUSES ARE. WE'RE NOT ASKING TO DO THAT. WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, AND WE WILL BUILD THE HOUSE ON PIER AND BEAM UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. SO IN ESSENCE WE'LL BE THE ONLY HOUSE FOR BLOCKS AROUND THAT IS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. THE MEMBERS OF THE STAFF MENTIONED TO ME WHEN I WAS DISCUSSING THIS WITH THEM THAT THEIR MAIN REASON FOR OPPOSING THIS IS THAT SOMEHOW THIS CAN... CAN -- THIS COULD CONTRIBUTE SOME KIND OF DANGER TO LIFE. I DON'T REALLY QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IF WRP ALLOWED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, ON PIERS, WE WOULD BE FOUR FEET ABOVE THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, WE WOULD BE FIVE FEET ABOVE THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE WERE EVER FLOODED AND THEY WERE NOT, BY THE WAY, SO NOVEMBER 15TH, BUT IF THEY WERE, OURS WOULD BE THE ONLY HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE FLOODED. OURS WOULD BE THE ONLY HOUSE THAT WOULD POSE NO DANGER. NO SAFETY RISK. SO THOSE ARE THE BASIC REASONS THAT WE THINK YOU SHOULD GRANT THE VARIANCE. AND I WON'T EVEN GO INTO A DISCUSSION OF HOW IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALMOST CON FA INDICATED SOMEONE'S PROPERTY IF THEY HAVE A HOUSE, IT'S DESTROYED, THEY WANT TO REBUILD A HOUSE AND YOU REFUSE TO LET THEM. I THINK IT'S OKAY FOR THE CITY TO TAKE PROPERTY IF THEY GIVE COMPENSATION FOR IT. AND THE OTHER POINT THAT I MIGHT MAKE -- BUT BUZZ IS IF THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE, WHERE IS THE CITY NOT GOING TO CONDEMN ALL THOSE HOUSES THERE AND BUY THEM ALL IF IT'S SUCH A SAFETY ISSUE INVOLVED HERE?

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM STAFF TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS? LET ME SEE IF THE COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OKAY. IF NOT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT'S THE ONLY SPEAKER WE HAVE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, SO I'LL EXPLAIN INTRAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

GRIFFITH: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. MR. OSWALD, CAN YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS NARD TO TO WHY IN REGARDS TO WHY WE RULE ON THIS PARTICULAR DECISION?

YES. THIS LOT IS SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPED -- BY OTHER LOTS THAT DO HAVE STANDING HOMES ON THEM, BUT ALLOWING PLACEMENT OF THIS HOME DOES PLACE PEOPLE AT RISK. DURING THE NOVEMBER 15TH EVENT, MANY AREAS OF THE CITY WE HAD REQUESTED TO EVACUATE PERSONNEL, AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF WAS GOING INTO THESE AREAS WHERE THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE FEET OF WATER STANDING IN ROADWAYS WITH BOATS TO GET PEOPLE OUT. SO THAT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATION. AND AS FAR AS THE POTENTIAL FOR BUYING THE SURROUNDING HOMES OUT, THIS AREA HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS WHAT WE CALL A LEVEL 1 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT. WE DON'T HAVE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THAT, BUT THE CITY IS COGNIZANT OF THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THAT AREA THROUGH COMBINATIONS OF BUYOUTS AND CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE, MR. OSWALD, THAT THE FLOODPLAIN LINES HAVE CHANGED THROUGH TIME AS WE HAVE HAD MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER REACHES OF THE WATERSHED?

CERTAINLY UP UNTIL THE MID '70'S WHEN THE CITY STARTED REQUIRING DETENTION ON ALL DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS THE CASE. AND THIS AREA HAS BEEN IN THE FLOODPLAIN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. IT PROBABLY IS IN -- OWE IF YOU WENT BACK BEFORE THERE WAS ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE WALLER CREEK WATERSHED, THIS IS SO CLOSE TO THE CREEK. THE LOT IS HERE. WE HAVE CHESTERFIELD DRIVE AND THEN THERE'S THE CREEK. IT'S BASICALLY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CREEK. IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION TO GET INTO DURING A HIGH WATER EVENT. MR. GIO IS CORRECT. ON NOVEMBER 15TH THE WATER DID NOT COME OUT OF THE BANKS, BUT WALLER CREEK WAS BLESS IS AND ONLY HAD A FIVE-YEAR EVENT WHEREAS SOME OTHER AREAS OF TOWN WERE EXPERIENCING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A 50 AND 100-YEAR EVENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK IN SOME PLACES IT WAS MORE THAN THAT. THEY HAD LIKE 14 INCHES.

YES, SIR, WE'VE CONFIRMED THAT WITH SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF DATA. WE WERE EXPERIENCING CLOSE TO 14 INCHES OF RAINY IN SOME AREAS OF THE CITY. AND WALLER CREEK ON AVERAGE GOT ABOUT FOUR INCHES OF RAIN, STILL A SIGNIFICANT RAIN, BUT NOTHING LIKE WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT ONION CREEK FOREST AND PEOPLE WERE TELLING ME THAT WATER WAS UP TO THEIR CHESTS. SO YES, IT IS SOMETHING -- I GUESS PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE?

YES, SIR. DEFINITELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. OSWALD?

WYNN: YES, MAYOR. MR. OSWALD, CAN YOU SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE ISSUE WITH THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AND WHY AS A CITY WE ARE VERY RELUCTANT TO GIVE SUCH VARIANCES?

WELL, BASICALLY THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS THE FLOODWAY AS DEFINED BY FEMA AND THAT'S THE HIGH HAZARD ZONE THAT FEMA DESIRES TO BE LEFT FREE AND CLEAR OF DEVELOPMENT FOR SAFE CONVEYANCE OF FLOOD WATERS. AND THAT'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN REACHING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO OUR AGREEMENT WITH FEMA IS THAT WE WILL NOT ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THOSE BOUNDS. OF COURSE, THAT CAN BE OVERCOME WITH A VARIOUS, BUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE IS THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

WYNN: AND BECAUSE THAT HAVE BEING OUR STATED POLICY AND ESSENTIALLY OUR PRACTICE AS WELL, ARE THERE BENEFITS TO THE AUSTIN CITIZENS THROUGH BETTER FLOOD RATES OR HOW IS.. IS -- HOW MUCH MORE DO WE GET GO FO KEEPING THAT LINE?

BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED THE 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS OUR FLOODWAY AND OTHER -- AND OUR OTHER FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WE'RE CURRENTLY RECEIVING A 10% DISCOUNT ON OUR FLOOD INSURANCE RATES IN THE CITY.

WYNN: WE BEING INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS?

THE CITIZENS, CORRECT, ANYONE HOLDING UNDERSTOOD INSURANCE IN THE CITY IS GETTING A DISCOUNT BECAUSE OF OUR REGULATIONS.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ISSUE THAT MR. GIO BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ISSUE TAKING, IN THE LITERATURE IS THERE ANY CASES WHERE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS THE CITY WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE -- TO HAVE DONE A TAKING WHEN WE DO THESE KIND OF POSITIONS?

I'M AN ENGINEER AND THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT LET ME START OUT, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT STAFF. WE CAN BE CHALLENGED ON ANY REGULATION WE HAVE FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT AS A TAKING. WHETHER THIS WOULD BE UPHELD IN COURT ANYONE CAN SPECULATE, BUT WE'VE HAD THESE REGULATIONS ENFORCE SINCE THE MID 1970'S. THEY WERE STRESSING IN '81 AFTER THE '81 EVENT FROM THE PREMISE OF KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF HARM'S WAY. WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF JUST ACQUIRING LAND TO HAVE FWREEN SPACE. THIS IS TO PROTECT NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT LIVE THERE, BUT OUR OWN PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE OR JUST -- .

IT SOUNDED LIKE A PRETTY GOOD LEGAL OPINION TO ME FROM AN ENGINEER. [LAUGHTER]. ACTUALLY, ALL KIDDING ASIDE, WE HAVE VISITED WITH GEORGE AND HIS STAFF CONCERNING THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION. AND TTS OUR OPINION THAT THE FACTS IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THERE IS NO TAKING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE ACTION ITEM IS -- WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? THE ACTION ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 51, CONSIDER ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 5307 CHESTERFIELD AVENUE IN THE 25 AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS OF WALLER CREEK AND TO WAIVE DEDICATION OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ITEM. MAYOR PRO TEM, WHY DON'T YOU RECOGNIZE ME AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE DENY THIS REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF OF WATERSHED PROTECTION.

SLUSHER: SECOND.

GOODMAN: GOOD THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ABSTAINING? THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I MADE THAT MOTION AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SECONDED IT. I THINK THIS IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY. MAYBE WE CAN GO HOME A LITTLE EARLY. ITEM NUMBER 48 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL REGARDING THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. AND REMIND ME, THE BRIEFING IS WHAT ITEM? DO WE HAVE A BRIEFING ALSO?

WELL, WE HAD IT ON AS AN ADDENDUM, AND I THINK -- LET'S SEE, THE NUMBER IS 54. AND IT WAS MOVED TO 6:00 O'CLOCK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT ORIGINALLY WAS POSTED AT 2:15 TIME CERTAIN. I ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY AND AGAIN I ANOUNTSED TODAY THAT THAT BRIEFING WOULD BE BEFORE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF STAFF IS READY -- WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, SINCE THIS IS.. IS -- IT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE PERSON, IF Y'ALL COULD SIT RIGHT HERE, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE. IS TRISH HERE?

TODAY IS TRISH'S BIRTHDAY.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY. [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME ALL OF YOU. FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, STARTING ON MY LEFT IS JOHN STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. TRISH YOUNG, DIRECTOR OF NURSING SERVICES. PRIMARY CARE. AND THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BETTIE DUNKERLEY. WELCOME ALL OF YOU.

MAYOR, IS THERE THIS WHERE I'M SUPPOSED TO DO THE INTRAUX. BETTIE WANTED ME TO INTRODUCE THE ACTION. SHE DIDN'T HAVE A CUE CARD FOR ME. LET ME START BY PROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT -- HOW WE'VE GOTTEN WHERE WE'RE AT. IN 1995 WE ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH SETON FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR HOSPITAL, THE HOSPITAL THAT WE HAD OPERATED FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS. THAT PARTNERSHIP THAT WE ENTERED INTO REALLY HAD A FINANCIAL COMPONENT WHICH THE CITY CONTINUED AN ONGOING FUNDING STREAM FOR HEALTH CARE. WE FUNDED MAP SERVICES THROUGH OUR MAP PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE WHO -- AS PART OF OUR INSURANCE PROGRAM SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE ADEQUATE ACUTE CARE AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. IN ADDITION WE HAD A COMPONENT OF PHYSICIAN SERVICES AND FINALLY CHARITY CARE. AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT, WE FROZE CHARITY CARE. WE ALLOWED -- THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS THE PHYSICIAN SERVICES AND ALLOWS THE MAP PROGRAM TO HAVE AN ESCALATOR, BUT ON CHARITY CARE WE BASICALLY FROZE THAT COMPONENT AT 5.67 MILLION DOLLARS. IN THAT INTERVENING PERIOD, THAT SIX YEARS, SETON HAS UPHELD THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF PROVIDING CHARITY CARE AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS, BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL HAS BEEN OPEN TO EVERYONE AND HAS ACCESS TO CARE FOR ANYONE WHO NEEDED THE CARE, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE EMERGENCY ROOM OR THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDED AT OUR CLINICS. AND THAT HAS BEEN A EXPENSE IN WHICH SETON HAS HAD TO BEAR DURING THIS PERIOD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSACTION IN 1995 IS WE CREATED A HOSPITAL FUND. AND THAT HOSPITAL FUND CREATED AN EQUITY OF ALMOST 30 MILLION DOLLARS. AND THAT FUND HAS ALLOWED US TO FUND THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS AT OUR PRIMARY CARE SERVICES. AND IT HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS, A GREAT EFFORT FOR US OR A GREAT PROGRAM FOR US BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FUND ADDITIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES THROUGH THIS DEAL, THROUGH THE TRANSACTION THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1995. AND SO I WANT TO JUST TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO RECOGNIZE PAT HAYS AND THANK HER AND THE FOLKS AT SETON FOR THE FABULOUS JOB THEY'VE DONE IN RUNNING OUR HOSPITAL. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, THERE'S A WAY AND WE HAVE A SOLUTION THAT WE'LL PRESENT HERE IN A FEW MINUTES THAT WILL ALLOW THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO. BUT PAT, I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU AND YOUR FOLKS HAVE DONE AT SETON.

MAYOR GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I AM HAPPY TO SAY A COUPLE OF OPENING WORDS TO YOU THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF A PARTNERSHIP THAT, LIKE THE CITY MANAGER, I BELIEVE HAS HAD POWERFUL, POSITIVE RESULTS FOR THIS COMMUNITY. LET ME BRIEFLY JUST SHARE THREE OPENING PERSPECTIVES. I THINK IT IS CRITICAL AS WE SIT HERE TODAY THAT WE ROLL BACK THE CLOCK AND LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE IN 1995 WHEN THIS PARTNERSHIP WAS LAUNCHED. THE CITY WAS FACING SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGES AND MEETING COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS. THE CITY RECOGNIZED THAT THE COMPLEXITY AND THE INCREASING VOLATILITY OF HEALTH CARE ARGUED AGAINST CONTINUED CITY OWNERSHIP. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROCEDURES THEMSELVES. SETON WAS FOUNDED TO HAVE A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THE COMMUNITY'S POOR AND CAME FORWARD AND WAS WILLING TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN THIS WAY. THAT PAIR, THOSE TWO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WITH TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF VALUES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES CAME TOGETHER IN ORDER TO MEET A HUGE COMMUNITY NEED, AND THAT THE SUCCESS OF THAT RELATIONSHIP IN MY OPINION HAS BEEN BUILT ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE TWO DIFFERENCES AND THOSE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTABILITIES. THE MUTUAL RESPECT THAT HAS EXISTED AND THE BELIEF THAT THIS SOLUTION WAS THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO MEET A HUGE NEED OUR COMMUNITY FACED. AND I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY MOST IMPORTANTLY TONIGHT IS THAT THAT FRAMEWORK IS STILL THE CASE, AND IF ANYTHING, THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE GROWING DRAMATICALLY. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE IS A BRIEF ONE. IT'S WORKED. I'VE GOT SIX PAGES OF GOOD THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. THE QUICK VERSION IS 60 SOME MILLION DOLLARS' WORTH OF CHARITY CARE JUST AT BRACKENRIDGE AND CHILDREN'S, ALMOST 20 MILLION IN 2000, NOT AN UPDATED NUMBER FROM LAST YEAR. HUGE CAPITAL INVEST, 60 MILLION NEURO SCIENCES CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, EXPANSION OF CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, CATH LAB, TAKING BRACKENRIDGE TO A LEVEL 2 TRAUMA, EXPANDING CHILDREN'S ACCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY, ALIGNING WITH AISD. I PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF THAT SUCCESS WANT TO THANK HEY EXCUSE AND BETTIE DUNKERLEY AND TRISH YOUNG AND JOHN STEVENS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL PARTNERS AS WE HAVE GONE DOWN THIS ROAD. AND LASTLY, KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR AN EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION ON THE DETAILS OF THIS, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT SETON AND THE CITY HAVE FOCUSED ON, IT IS FAISHT R. PATIENT CARE. AND IF THERE IS ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERLINE AS THE COMMENTS ARE MADE TONIGHT IS MY COMMITMENT AND OUR COMMITMENT TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE INTEND TO GO FORWARD WITH A STRONG COMMITMENT TO CLINICAL QUALITY, GOOD PATIENT CARE AND GOOD PATIENT INFORMATION. WE HAVE A BUNCH OF MONTHS WHILE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON TO WORK OUT EVERY SINGLE DETAIL ON THIS, BUT I AM HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS STILL AND MAY BE EVEN MORE THAN IT WAS SIX YEARS AGO, THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I KNOW THAT WE WILL CARRY IT OUT WITH GREAT SENSITIVITY TO PATIENT NEEDS AND GREAT SENSITIVITY TO CRINGE KEL QUALITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS FROM SETON HERE THIS EVENING. AND AFTER THE BRIEFING OR THROUGHOUT THE BRIEFING IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ANSWER, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. HAYS.

TONIGHT WE'D LIKE TO BREAK OUR PRESENTATION REALLY INTO TWO PARTS. I KNOW YOU'VE HAD ONE DISCUSSION WITH US A WEEK AGO, SO WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS ONCE AGAIN TO GO OVER THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. AND JOHN STEVENS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT PART OF THE PROGRAM. AND THIN SECONDLY TO FOCUS IN A LOT MORE DETAIL ON THE PATIENT SERVICES AND PATIENT CARE. AND TRISH YOUNG WILL COVER THAT ASPECT OF THE PRESENTATION. SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE JOHN GO THROUGH ONCE AGAIN THE FINANCIAL PART OF THE LEASE TRANSACTION.

LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED FINANCIAL TERMS FOR THIS TRANSACTION, THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO GO OVER IS TO TALK ABOUT THE CAPITAL COSTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE INCURRED TO CONSTRUCT THE FIFTH FLOOR FACILITY. SETON WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING ALL OF THE NECESSARY REVISIONS AND INCURRING ALL OF THE CAPITAL COSTS INITIALLY FOR THE FIFTH FLOOR. THEY ARE CHARGED WITH UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT WITH DELIVERING TO THE CITY A FULLY LICENSEABLE HOSPITAL ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. WE CURRENTLY ESTIMATE THAT THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR RENOVATION OF THE FIFTH FLOOR WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 9.3 MILLION. AND WE ARE DIVIDING THOSE COSTS INTO SORT OF -- INTO TWO TYPES OF COSTS CONCEPTUALLY, DEPENDING ON WHO WILL PAY FOR THEM. ONE TYPE OF COSTS WERE CALLING THE SPANS COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NECESSARY SIMPLY DUE TO THE INCREASE IN PATIENT VOLUME THAT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL HAS EXPERIENCED. AND SO THESE COSTS WOULD BE INCURRED PRIMARILY JUST FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT BRACKENRIDGE NEEDS TO KEEP UP WITH INCREASED PATIENT FLOW. THE SECOND TYPE OF COSTS ARE THE NON-EXPANSION COSTS, WHICH WILL BE INCURRED PRIMARILY FOR REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE SEPARATE LICENSURE OF THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL. THIS INCLUDES COSTS FOR SEPARATE PHARMACY, SEPARATE LAB, INFORMATION SYSTEMS COSTS AND ALSO THE COST FOR AN ELEVATOR, WHICH IS NOT A LICENSURE REQUIREMENT, BUT WHICH WILL PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS FOR OUR PATIENTS TO THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL. UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT, BOTH OF THESE TYPES OF COSTS WILL BE DEPRECIATED OVER THE REMAINING PERIOD OF THE INITIAL 30-YEAR LEASE, WITH AN INTEREST RATE FACTOR EQUAL TO THAT OF A A DOUBLE A RATED TAX EXEMPT BOND. THAT INTEREST RATE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ESTIMATING WOULD BE FOUR AND A HALF%, AND THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE LEASE BY THE TIME THE NEW FACILITY WAS OPENED WOULD BE PROBABLY 23 YEARS. LOOKING NEXT AT HOW THE PAYMENT FOR THE CAPITAL COSTS IS HANDLED, ON THIS SLIDE WE'RE SHOWING YOU TWO SCENARIOS. THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT SAYS THAT WE WILL OPERATE THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL FOR A PERIOD INITIALLY OF THREE YEARS, MEET TO DISCUSS HOW THE FIFTH FLOOR ARRANGEMENT IS GOING AND THEN MAKE A DECISION BY THE END OF THE FIFTH YEAR AS TO WHETHER WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THAT FIFTH FLOOR ARRANGEMENT. IF WE DO NOT CONTINUE WITH THAT ARRANGEMENT, WE WILL GO INTO WHAT WE CALL A FRIENDLY UNWIND SCENARIO, AND THAT SCENARIO WILL CHANGE HOW THE CAPITAL COSTS ARE BEING PAID FOR. UNDER THE OPERATION OF THE FIFTH FLOOR DURING THAT INITIAL TERM, THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THE COST OF THE EXPANSION COSTS. IN ORDER, THE COSTS THAT ARE NEEDED SIMPLY DUE TO THE INCREASED PATIENT VOLUME AT BRACKENRIDGE AND THE METHOD BY WHICH THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THAT IS BECAUSE SETON WILL REDUCE ITS RENT PAYMENT THAT IT NOW MAKES TO THE CITY FOR THE DEPRECIATION COSTS RELATED TO THOSE EXPANSION COSTS. ALSO UNDER THE FIFTH FLOOR SCENARIO, THE NON-EXPANSION COSTS WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE CITY REDUCING ITS CHARITY CARE PAYMENT TO SETON, SO THE CITY WILL REDUCE ITS PAYMENT AND NOT HAVE TO MAKE THAT OUT LAY LAI FOR THAT PART OF THE CAPITAL COSTS THAT ARE -- THE DEPRECIATION OF THOSE CAPITAL COSTS. UNDER THE COLUMN THERE ENTITLED POST FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL, THIS IS THE FRIENDLY UNWIND SCENARIO. IF AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEARS THE CITY DETERMINES THAT IT DOES NOT WANT TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE FIFTH FLOOR FACILITY, THEN THE PAYMENT FOR THOSE COSTS WILL SIMPLY SWITCH WITH SETON PAYING FOR THE LARGER SHARE OF THE COSTS AT THAT POINT, THE EXPANSION COSTS. AND THE CITY PAYING FOR THE SMALLER SHARE OF THOSE COSTS, THE TWO AND A HALF MILLION. AGAIN, THE TOTAL COSTS ARE ESTIMATED TO BE 99.3. SETON WILL MAKE ALL OF THOSE -- 9.3. SETON WILL MAKE ALL OF THOSE COSTS AND WILL DELIVER TO THE CITY A FULLY LICENSEABLE FACILITY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. LOOKING AT THE FLOW OF FUNDS UNDER THE LEASE, THE CITY NOW PAYS SETON FOR CHARITY CARE. UNDER THE AMENDED LEASE, WE EXPECT THAT THE FIFTH FLOOR FACILITY WILL OPERATE AT A DEFICIT. IT WILL OPERATE AT A LOSS. AND SO UNDER THE AMENDED LEASE, THE 5.6 MILLION THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY PAYS TO SETON FOR CHARITY CARE WILL BE REDUCED FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF THE NON-EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FOR THE OPERATING DEFICIT THAT WE EXPECT TO INCUR, WHICH AS YOU WILL SEE ON THE NEXT PAGE, WE ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW WILL BE ABOUT 2.8 MILLION. ALSO UNDER THE CURRENT LEASE, SETON CURRENTLY PAYS THE CITY IS.WILL MILLION FOR RENT FOR THE BRACKENRIDGE FACILITY, AND THAT RENT PAYMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT WILL BE REDUCED BY TWO ITEMS, ONE FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND THE OTHER FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FIFTH FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE SINCE THE CITY WILL BE USING THAT SPACE AND NOT SETON. WE HAVE SOME OPERATING ESTIMATES FOR THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL. THIS IS A PRO FORMA FOR THE CITY'S OPERATION THAT WE EXPECT THAT PATIENT REVENUES WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 2.8 MILLION. THIS IS NET OF GROSS PATIENT REVENUES OF 7.6 MILLION AND 4.8 OF CONTRACTUAL ALLOWANCES. SO THE NET PATIENT REVENUES WOULD BE 2.8. WE ALSO EXPECT THAT THIS NEW HOSPITAL WILL RECEIVE DISPRO REVENUES AS BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL DOES NOW, IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY 400,000. SO THE TOTAL REVENUES THAT WE EXPECT FOR THE FIFTH FLOOR ARE 3.2 MILLION. NOW, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT, THE BUDGET WILL BE DEVELOPED AND WE WILL ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE REVENUES OF THE OPERATION OF THE FIFTH FLOOR. ALL THE REVENUES, INCLUDING DISPROCEED. WE CURRENTLY ESTIMATE THAT THE OPERATING EXPENSES WILL BE APPROXIMATELY SIX MILLION. THESE EXPENSES INCLUDE, BESIDES SALARIES AND SUPPLIES, THEY ALSO INCLUDE AN ALLOCATION OF CITY OVERHEAD FROM THE CITY'S COST ALLOCATION PLAN, CLAIMS COSTS AND SERVICES THAT THE CITY WILL PURCHASE FROM SETON, HOUSEKEEPING, DIETARY AND SECURITY. THE NET OF THOSE REVENUES AND EXPENSES WOULD PRODUCE AN OPERATING DEFICIT THAT WE ESTIMATE AGAIN NOW TO BE APPROXIMATELY 2.8 MILLION. THAT AMOUNT WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE 5.6 MILLION THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY PAYS TO SETON FOR CHARITY CARE. IN ADDITION, WE WILL ALSO DEDUCT FROM THE CHARITY CARE PAYMENT THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT THAT'S RELATED TO THE NON-EXPANSION COSTS, FOR A TOTAL DEFICIT OF 2.97 MILLION, THAT WOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE 5.6 MILLION. SO UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT, IF THESE NUMBERS TURN OUT AS ACCURATE, THE 5.6 THAT WE CURRENTLY PAY SETON WOULD BE REDUCED DOWN TO APPROXIMATELY 2.6. THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT SAY THAT PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF EACH YEAR WE WILL SIT DOWN WITH SETON PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD EACH YEAR, THAT CITY AND SETON WILL SIT DOWN AND WE WILL AGREE ON A MUTUAL BUDGET FOR THE NEXT YEAR. IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT, THEN THE BUDGE WILL BE ARBITRATED BY A PARTY THAT'S KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE OPERATION OF HOSPITALS BY A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON THIRD PARTY. AND THE ARBITRATION WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TYPE OF OPERATION THAT THE CITY -- THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC HOSPITAL OPERATING IN THE ENVIRONMENT HERE IN AUSTIN. AGAIN, DURING THAT YEAR THAT THE BUDGET IS IN PLACE, AND AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE CITY WILL REDUCE ITS MONTHLY CHARITY CARE PAYMENT TO SETON BY THE SUM OF THE BUDGETED OPERATING DEFICIT. AND THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR OUR BUDGETED OPERATING DEFICIT WILL BE COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL OPERATING DEFICIT THAT WE INCUR FOR THAT YEAR, AND THE EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL DEFICIT OVER THE BUDGETED DEFICIT WILL BE ADDED TO THE BUDGETED OPERATING DEFICIT FOR THE NEXT YEAR, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS: THESE LIMITATIONS REPRESENT VARIANCES OF THE OPERATING DEFICIT. AND TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, IF THE OPERATING DEFICIT TURNS OUT TO BE 2.WILL MILLION AS WE CURRENTLY PROJECT, -- 2.8 MILLION AS WE CURRENTLY PROJECT, THEN 15% OF 2.8 MILLION IS 420,000. SO DURING THE YEAR 1, IF THE ACTUAL DEFICIT EXCEEDS THE OPERATING DEFICIT BY, FOR EXAMPLE, 500,000 DOLLARS, IF THE ACTUAL OPERATING DEFICIT IS 3.3 MILLION RATHER THAN THE 2.8 THAT WE ESTIMATE, THEN SETON WILL PAY 420,000 OF THAT EXCESS DEFICIT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AND THE BUDGETED DEFICIT. AND THE CITY WOULD PAY THE REMAINING 80,000. OTHER FINANCIAL TERMS IN THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT ARE THAT WE WILL EVALUATE THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENT DURING THE THIRD FISCAL YEAR. IF NO AGREEMT CAN BE REACHED ON FUTURE FUNDING FOR THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL AT THAT POINT, THEN THE CITY HAS TWO OPTIONS THAT IT CAN EXERCISE ON OR BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH YEAR. WE CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL, IN WHICH CASE OUR REDUCTION TO THE CHARITY CARE PAYMENT FOR THE OPERATING DEFICIT WILL BE CAPPED AT 3.4 MILLION ANNUALLY. SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ACTUAL OPERATING DEFICIT TURNS OUT TO BE, IF WE OPERATE THE HOSPITAL PAST THE FIFTH YEAR, OUR DEDUCTION FROM CHARITY CARE WILL BE CAPPED AT 3.4 MILLION. THE OTHER OPTION THE CITY HAS IS TO CLOSE THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL AND OBTAIN REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES FROM ANOTHER PROVIDER HERE IN TOWN OR PERHAPS FOR THE CITY TO OPERATE ANOTHER FACILITY OFF THE BRACKENRIDGE CAMPUS, FOR EXAMPLE. UNDER THAT OPTION, THE CITY WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO WITHHOLD UP TO 3.4 MILLION PER YEAR TO RECOVER THE COSTS THAT WE WOULD PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES FROM AN OUTSIDE PARTY. THAT CONCLUDES THE PART OF THE PRESENTATION RELATED TO THE FINANCIAL TERMS. TRISH YOUNG WILL NOW TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OPERATION AL PATIENT FLOW ISSUES.

I'D LIKE TO TALK NOW ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AND PATIENT FLOW. UNDER THE SECTION -- UNDER SLIDE NUMBER DEN, I'D LIKE TO.. TO -- .

[INAUDIBLE].

IS THAT BETTER? THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES ARE REFLECTED IN SECTION 19 OF THE LEASE. SETON INFORMS WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY. RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS WILL BE INFORMED OF COUNSELOR'S AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME THEY ARRIVE AT THE BRACKENRIDGE ER. ALSO THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION THAT IS DESIGNATED BY THE CITY WILL BE NOTIFIED OF BRACKENRIDGE EMERGENCY ROOM PATIENTS WHO IN FACT HAVE ARRIVED AND MAY BE IN NEED OF COUNSELING. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES INCLUDE THE NEW HOSPITAL PROPOSED TO BE OPERATED BY THE CITY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEREKTIVES. CITY AND SETON WOULD EXECUTE A PATIENT TRANSFER AGREEMENT. A PATIENT'S RIGHT TO PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH HER PHYSICIAN ARE RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE LEASE AMENDMENT. ADDITIONALLY, CLINICAL PRACTITIONERS, WHICH INCLUDES RN'S RIGHT TO PROVIDE FULL AND FACTUAL INFORMATION TO PATIENTS IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THE LEASE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT. THE NEXT SLIDE DETAIL A LITTLE BIT MORE EACH SECTION. I'D LIKE TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THESE, BEGINNING ON SIDE NUMBER 12. UNDER SECTION 19.1, LITTLE I, ON THE START DATE, REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AS THEY WERE DEFINED IN THE ORIGINAL LEASE WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE NEW CITY HOSPITAL. THIS WOULD INCLUDE EMERGENCY MEDICATION TO PREVENT CONCEPTION FROM PATIENTS WHO COME TO THE BRACKENRIDGE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT. CONTINUING ON TO SECTION 2, THROUGH THE PROPOSED FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL, THE CITY WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR PREGNANCY PREVENTION, INCLUDING EMERGENCY MEDICATIONS TO PREVENT CONCEPTION, AGAIN, FOR ANY WOMAN WHO COMES TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. UNDER SECTION 19.13, SETON WILL INFORM WOMEN WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL THAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE CITY THROUGH ITS NEW HOSPITAL AND THEY'RE NOT PROVIDED BY SETON. THE CITY AND SETON WILL AGREE ON THE COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL TO BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION AND START OF THE NEW HOSPITAL. SO THAT THE NEW HOSPITAL IS NOTIFIED OF A PATIENT'S EXPECTED ARRIVAL AT THE NEW HOSPITAL OR ANY OTHER RECEIVING FACILITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PATIENT IS REQUIRING TO RECEIVE SERVICES IN ANOTHER FACILITY, THAT FACILITY WILL BE NOTIFIED THAT THE PATIENT IS EXPECTANT. CONTINUING ON TO SLIDE 15, BRACKENRIDGE PATIENTS WHO REQUIRE PREGNANCY PREVENTION SERVICES ARE DISCHARGED FROM BRACKENRIDGE, ASSUMING THAT THEY REQUIRED MEDICAL TREATMENT. IF THEY SO CHOSE, THEY WILL BE ADMITTED TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. AND IF THEY REQUIRE MEDICAL OR CLINICAL ASSISTANCE IN BEING TRANSPORTED, SETON WILL PROVIDE THE TRANSPORT ASSISTANCE AS MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. THESE TYPES OF THINGS ARE ALSO ADDRESSED IN OUR TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SETON. UNDER SECTION 19.2, FOR EACH PATIENT WHO COMES TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL AND HAS EXPERIENCED RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT, SETON WILL INFORM THE PATIENT THAT A COUNSELOR IS AVAILABLE THROUGH A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT IS DESIGNATED BY THE CITY. ADDITIONALLY, SETON WILL CONDUCT THE DESIGNATED ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION IF THE PATIENT IS PRESENT AND MAY BE NEEDING COUNSELING. IT IS SOLELY THAT PATIENT'S CHOICE AS TO WHETHER THEY WOULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THOSE SERVICES, BUT THE ORGANIZATION WILL BE NOTIFIED. UNDER SECTION 19.3, THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDE THE' CITY AND SETON WILL EXECUTE AN ANCILLARY SERVICES AGREEMENT TO CERTAIN SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY SETON TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. THOSE SERVICES INCLUDE THE ITEMS REFERRED TO EARLIER BY MR. STEVENS, HOUSEKEEPING, DIETARY, SECURITY, ETCETERA. THE ANCILLARY SERVICES AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED BY SETON IF THE CITY KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY PROVIDES ABORTIONS WITHIN THE NEW HOSPITAL. I WOULD LIKE NO TO POINT THAW OU THAT CURRENT LEASE CURRENTLY PROHIBITS ABORTIONS AT BRACKENRIDGE. SECTION 19.3 ALSO PROVIDES THAT SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THE OPERATION OF THE NEW HOSPITAL BY THE CITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEREKTIVES FOR CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES. UNDER SECTION 19.4, AS REQUIRED BY TDH REGULAR LAYINGS, THE CITY AND SETON WILL EXECUTE TRANSFER AGREEMENTS THAT PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF PATIENTS BETWEEN THE NEW HOSPITAL AND HOSPITAL FACILITIES OPERATED BY SETON WHICH PROVIDES FOR APPROPRIATE ACCESS FOR PATIENTS -- NEW HOSPITAL PATIENTS TO EMERGENCY TREATMENT AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. THIS WOULD INCLUDE ANY SERVICES THE PATIENT WOULD REQUIRE IN ANY PART OF BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. UNDER SECTION 19.5 OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT, SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THE RIGHT OF PATIENTS TO RECEIVE VISITS FROM AND HAVE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SUCH PERSONS AS THEY MAY WISH. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF OR OTHER PERSONS DESIGNATED BY THE CITY. SETON ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICIAN PATIENTS AND THAT SETON IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP. ALSO UNDER THIS SECTION, SETON ACKNOWLEDGES A PATIENT'S RIGHT TO PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN. ALSO SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LICENSED CLINICAL PRACTITIONERS, INCLUDING REGISTERED NURSESES DO HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO THEIR PATIENTS AND MUST PROVIDE FULL AND FACTUAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE CLINICAL CONDITIONS AND/OR ENABLE THE PATIENT TO MAKE INFORMED HEALTH CARE DECISIONS. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

... OR CAUSE SETON TO CHANGE ITS STANDARD OF CASE OR LEVELS OF SERVICE UNDER THE LEASE. MOVING TO PATIENT FLOW MANAGEMENT, WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT -- ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE IN TERMS OF HOW PATIENTS WILL BE -- RECEIVE SERVICE AT BOTH SETON AND THE NEW HOSPITAL. THE PATIENT FLOW PRINCIPLES ARE LISTED ON SLIDE 24, AND SHOW THAT -- THAT SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED FIRST OF ALL IN A SEAMLESS MANNER. OUR OBJECTIVE IS THAT PATIENTS WILL BE EDUCATED BY THEIR PROVIDER DURING THEIR PRENATAL CARE REGARDING CITY HOSPITAL SERVICES. AS WELL AS SETON SERVICE. SO THEY UNDERSTAND FROM THE BEGINNING WHICH HOSPITAL PROVIDES WHICH SERVICES. WE WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT COMMUNICATION WITH BOTH THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS, THE CLINICS OPERATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND OTHER COMMUNITY PROVIDERS, WHOSE PATIENTS ARE DELIVERED AT BRACKENRIDGE, WE WILL COORDINATE THE PREREGISTRATION PROCESS AND DIRECTION OF PATIENTS TO THE APPROPRIATE HOSPITAL DURING -- AGAIN, DURING THE PRENATAL PERIOD AND AT THE TIME, WELL, BEFORE THE TIME OF ARRIVAL. OUR PATIENT FLOW PRINCIPLES ALSO INCLUDES THAT -- THAT THE PATIENT WILL BE DIRECTED BY THEIR PROVIDER TO THE ULTIMATE CARE DELIVERY SITE. BASICALLY, THEY WILL KNOW IN ADVANCE WHICH HOSPITAL THEY ARE GOING TO, THE PROVIDER IS PART OF HAS DECISION -- PART OF THAT DECISION MAKING. ALSO PRINCIPLES INCLUDE THAT EVERY PATIENT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELING SERVICES, WHETHER THEY ARE RECEIVING SERVICES ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL OR THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE NEW HOSPITAL. THE NEXT TWO SLIDES ILLUSTRATE WHAT IS -- WHAT CURRENTLY HAPPENS AT BRACKENRIDGE WITH PATIENTS WHO COME TO DELIVER, CURRENTLY IF A PATIENT ARRIVES AT EITHER THE FIRST FLOOR OR SENDS FLOOR ACCESS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THE MAIN ENTRANCES OF THE HOSPITAL OR THE EMERGENCY ROOM, THERE IS A -- THEY ARE REFERRED TO THE SECOND FLOOR FOR A TRIAGE PROCESS THAT OCCURS. THAT TRIAGE PROCESS DOES INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT'S FAMILY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. IF A PATIENT HAS CONSENTED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A TUBAL LIGATION IN ADVANCE OF HER DELIVERY AND HAS SIGNED THE APPROPRIATE CONSENT FORMS, THAT PERSON WILL DELIVER. IF SUBSEQUENT TO THE DELIVERY HAS CONSENTED TO A TUBAL LIGATION WILL HAVE THAT SERVICE PERFORMED IN BRACKENRIDGE OPERATING IN OPERATING ROOMS THAT ARE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOSPITAL. IF A PERSON DOES NOT RECEIVE STERILIZATION PROCEDURE AT DELIVERY, CURRENTLY THEN THE POST PARTUM PERIOD THAT PATIENT WOULD RECEIVE PLANNING FAMILY COUNSELING SERVICES AS PROVIDED BY THE CITY STAFF. UNDER THE PROPOSED FLOW, ON PAGE 25, WE ATTEMPT TO SHOW HOW PATIENTS WILL BE REFERRED INTO OUR NEW HOSPITAL. WE ARE PROPOSING THAT IF -- ALL COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER PATIENT AND COMMUNITY PROVIDER PATIENTS WHO ARE REQUESTING STERILIZATION SERVICES WILL, OF COURSE, BE PREREGISTERED INTO THE NEW HOSPITAL, AS THAT IS THE PLACE THOSE SERVICES WILL TAKE PLACE. IF A PERSON -- IF A PATIENT IS A COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER PATIENT, IS NOT REQUESTING STERILIZATION PROCEDURES TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S CAPACITY AVAILABLE AT THE NEW HOSPITAL, WE WILL GIVE THAT PATIENT A CHOICE AS TO WHERE THEY DELIVER. AGAIN, THE PROVIDER CERTAINLY WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION MAKING. WE ARE PROPOSING THAT ALL COMMUNITY PROVIDER PATIENTS, THAT IS PATIENTS THAT COME FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY, OR OTHER CAREGIVERS IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT THOSE WHO ARE NOT REQUESTING STERILIZATION SERVICES WILL BE DIRECTED TO DELIVER AT BRACKENRIDGE. THIS IS BASICALLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE VARIED CAPACITY IN THE TWO INSTITUTIONS. WE ESTIMATE THAT THE CAPACITY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR WILL BE PROBABLY -- PROBABLY BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 1200 DELIVERIES AND THE CAPACITY ON THE SECOND FLOOR IS -- IS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND 3,000, MAYBE LESS. AT ANY TIME, A PATIENT IS REQUIRING -- A PATIENT ON THE FIFTH FLOOR IS REQUIRING SERVICES, AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, WE WILL HAVE A TRANSFER AGREEMENT IN PLACE AND THOSE TRANSFERS WILL BE FACILITATED PER THAT AGREEMENT AND ALSO WITH THE PROVIDERS WHO ARE CARING FOR THOSE PATIENTS. OUR OBJECT IF I HAVE IS THAT THE PATIENTS -- OUR OBJECTIVE IS THAT THE PATIENTS RECEIVE SEAMLESS, HIGH QUALITY CARE IN EITHER SETTING. AGAIN, AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE POST PARTUM ASSESSMENT, WHICH INCLUDES DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BOTH NURSES AND PHYSICIANS, WOULD HIGHLIGHT ANY NEED FOR FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELING. THOSE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF. WE WANTED TO PRESENT -- THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT PATIENT FLOW, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PATIENT ARRIVES AT BRACKENRIDGE OR HAW A PATIENT MIGHT RECEIVE INFORMATION. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO I ALSO STRAIGHT SOME SCENARIOS THAT COULD -- THAT COULD GIVE SOME CONCEPT OF HOW THIS MIGHT WORK. WE HAVE PULLED -- PUT TOGETHER A NUMBER OF FLOW CHART, I GUESS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. THESE FLOW CHARTS ADDRESS A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS. WE HAVE GIVEN AN EXAMPLE OF A PREREGISTERED PATIENT. AGAIN OUR CONCEPT IS THAT A PATIENT WILL BE PREREGISTERED AS TO WHERE THEY WILL DELIVER. EITHER THE NEW HOSPITAL AT BRACKENRIDGE. IF A PREREGISTERED PATIENT COME TOS TO BRACKENRIDGE -- COMES TO BRACKENRIDGE WITH A -- WHEN I REFER TO BRACKENRIDGE I MEAN THE CAMPUS ITSELF. THE PREREGISTERED COMES TO THE CAMPUS, EITHER IN LABOR OR PREGNANCY, THEY COME TO THE CAMPUS, THEY MAY BE PREGNANT BUT THEY MAY HAVE TRAUMA OR SOME OTHER NON-PREGNANCY RELATED MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WE HAVE PREPARED A SCENARIO WHERE AN UNREGISTERED PATIENT OR A PATIENT WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED PRENATAL CARE COMES TO THE BRACKENRIDGE CAMPUS. A SCENARIO OF REREGISTERED PATIENT WHO IS HIGH RISK, HOW THAT PATIENT IS CARED FOR, A PREREGISTERED PATIENT IN LABOR AND COMES DIRECTLY TO THE FIFTH FLOOR BUT MAY REQUIRE SERVICES ULTIMATELY IN BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. WE ALSO ADDRESSED A SCENARIO WHERE THE -- IF A PATIENT WAS PREREGISTERED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND THEY ARRIVED AT THE WRONG FLOOR. AND ALSO THE -- THE SITUATION OF A NON-PREGNANT PATIENT SEEKING SERVICES AT BRACKENRIDGE. ON SLIDE 28, OUR FIRST SCENARIO IS A PREREGISTERED PATIENT WHO PRESENTS, SHE IS IN LABOR OR HAS A PREG -- A PROBLEM RELATED TO HER PREGNANCY. SHOULD SHE ARRIVE AT THE FIFTH FLOOR, AND IF SHE WERE PREREGISTERED, WE WOULD EXPECT THAT SHE WOULD ARRIVE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, WE WOULD CONFIRM HER PREREG STRAYING, TAKE HER THROUGH THE TRIAGE PROCESS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND IF THEY WERE IN LAYING, WE WOULD -- IF SHE WERE IN LABOR, WE WOULD DELIVER THE WOMAN. IF SHE HAD SIGNED A CONSENT FORM FOR A TUBAL LIGATION, THAT SERVICE WOULD BE PERFORMED. SHE WOULD BE -- SHE WOULD RECOVER, SHE WILL BE DISCHARGED TO HOME. IF SHE HAD NOT SIGNED HER -- IF SHE HAD NOT CONSENTED TO A TUBAL LIGATION, SHE WOULD BE DELIVERED OF HER CHILD, FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELING SERVICES WOULD BE PROVIDED AS SHE WISHES AND AGAIN SHE WOULD BE RECOVERED AND DISCHARGED TO HOME. IF THE WOMAN CAME IN WITH A PROBLEM, NOT IN LABOR, SHE WOULD BE TREATED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND DISCHARGED PER HER PHYSICIAN'S ORDERS, IF A PATIENT COMES TO BRACKENRIDGE AND SHE IS PREGNANT AND IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH HER PREGNANCY, IF SHE COMES THROUGH BRACKENRIDGE ER, IF SHE IS GREATER THAN 20 WEEKS PREGNANT, SHE WILL BE -- WE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS PREREGISTERED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR WHETHER IT WAS INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED THERE. IF SHE WAS, SHE WILL BE REFERRED UP TO THE FIFTH FLOOR. IF SHE IS LESS THAN 20 WEEKS PREGNANT, THE CONDITION IS TYPICALLY DEALT WITH IN THE ER AND THE -- THE WOMAN WOULD BE TREATED AND DISCHARGED TO HOME. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T WANT TO RUSH THROUGH THESE, I KNOW IT'S COMPLEX.

GOODMAN: COUNCIL? I HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M SAVING THEM FOR LATER. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO STOP HERE AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR?

OKAY.

GOODMAN: I GUESS NOT, GO AHEAD.

OKAY. THANKS. OUR NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A PREREGISTERED PATIENT WHO HAS INCURRED EITHER TRAUMA OR SOME OTHER NON-PREGNANCY RELATED MEDICAL CONDITION. SHOULD SHE PRESENT AT THE FIFTH FLOOR AS OPPOSED TO THE BRACKENRIDGE ER, WE WOULD TRANSFER HER TO THE BRACKENRIDGE ER BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR HER CONDITION TO BE TREATED. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, SHE WOULD RECEIVE TREATMENT IN THE ER AND IF AN OBJECT STREET TRICK OR FETAL MEDICINE WAS REQUIRED THAT WOULD OCCUR AT THAT TIME. IF SHE WAS IN LABOR AND SHE HAD DETERMINED ADVANCE THAT SHE WANTED TO RECEIVE A TUBAL LIGATION, AND HER DOCTOR DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS STILL APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT DECISION, SHE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO -- AFTER TREATMENT FOR HER CONDITION, SHE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE FIFTH FLOOR TO ACTUALLY DELIVER AND RECEIVE THE STERILIZATION SERVICES. IF -- IF SHE WOULD -- IF SHE HAD NOT CONSENTED TO THE TUBAL LIGATION OR HER DOCTOR HAD DETERMINED THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AT THAT TIME, SHE WOULD STAY AT BRACKENRIDGE AND DELIVER. HER CHILD AND RECOVER AND BE DISCHARGED FROM THERE. IN THE CASE OF AN UNREGISTERED PATIENT, AND THIS WOULD BE A PATIENT WHO HAD NOT RECEIVED PRENATAL CARE IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY, IF THAT PATIENT EITHER CAME IN TO -- OR CAME TO THE CAMPUS IN EITHER -- EITHER IN EARLY LABOR OR IN THE IN LABOR -- OR NOT IN LABOR, IF THE PATIENT CAME TO THE FIFTH FLOOR, WE WOULD TRANSFER THAT PATIENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE ER TO BE TREATED THERE. WE DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PRESENTATIONS THAT A PATIENT WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED PRENATAL CARE IS NOT A CANDIDATE TO RECEIVE MATERIAL ADDITION PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF APPROPRIATE CONSENT TIME HAS NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR HER TO CONSIDER AND THEN -- AND MAKE APPROPRIATE CONSENT. IF WE TRANSFER HER TO THE BRACKENRIDGE ER. IF SHE WERE IN LABOR, SHE WOULD DELIVER ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND HER SERVICES AND CARE WOULD BE PROVIDED THERE. IF SHE WAS NOT, SHE WOULD BE TREATED FOR HER CONDITION AND SHE WOULD BE -- BE REFERRED OVER TO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS TO GET HER ESTABLISHED FOR PRENATAL CARE. THIS WOULD BE DEPENDENT UPON WHAT STAGE OF THE PREGNANCY SHE WAS AT. IF SHE WAS -- IF THERE WAS SOME WEEKS PRIOR TO DELIVERY, WE WOULD TRY TO ESTABLISH HER CARE IN THE CLINICS. IF NOT, SHE MAY BE TREATED -- THE TIME BEFORE HER DELIVERY MAY BE SO SHORT THAT SHE BASICALLY COMES BACK TO BRACKENRIDGE TO DELIVER ON HER NEXT VISIT. A LOT OF IT DEPENDS ON AT WHAT POINT IN THE PREGNANCY THE WOMAN PRESENTS IN THE ER. ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE TRIED TO SHOW THE SITUATION WHERE WE DO HAVE A PREREGISTERED APPARENT, BUT THEY ARE HIGH RISK. MEANING THEY MAY REQUIRE IN-PATIENT ANTIPARTUM CARE, NEED TO BE HOSPITALIZED PRIOR TO DELIVERING FOR WHATEVER CONDITION MAY BE PRESENT. A HIGH RISK OB PATIENT WOULD BE HOSPITALIZED AT BRACKENRIDGE. THAT WOULD BE SERVICES THAT WE WOULD EXPECT BRACKENRIDGE TO PROVIDE AND NOT BE PROVIDED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. IF SHE IS IN LABOR, AND HAD CONSENTED TO A TUBAL LIGATION, WE CAN TRANSFER THAT WOMAN TO THE FIFTH FLOOR WHEN SHE'S READY TO DELIVER AND PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES THERE. IF SHE HAS NOT CONSENTED TO A TUBAL LIGATION, THEN SHE WOULD STAY ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND SHE WOULD DELIVER AT BRACKENRIDGE. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION, I SHOULD HAVE EARLIER, THAT THE PHYSICIANS WHO ARE TREATING THESE WOMEN ARE PRACTICING IN BOTH HOSPITALS. SO IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT THAT THE WOMAN'S CARE IS BEING TRANSFERRED FROM PHYSICIAN TO PHYSICIAN. BUT WHERE SHE RECEIVES THE CARE IS DIRECTED BY HER PHYSICIAN AND WHERE THE PHYSICIAN -- THE PHYSICIAN MAY DELIVER EITHER ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OR ON THE SECOND FLOOR. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT IF THERE'S ANY LIFE THREATENING CONDITION TO EITHER THE MOTHER OR BABY, THOSE CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE TREATABLE ON EITHER FLOOR. ANY EMERGENCY WILL BE STABILIZED AND APPROPRIATE TRANSFERS MADE. STAFFING AT BOTH HOSPITALS WILL BE SUCH THAT THOSE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE SITUATION OF A PREREGISTERED PATIENT WHO IS IN LABOR ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. AND WE TRIED TO SHOW THE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERNAL COMPLICATION OR A FETAL COMPLICATION. I SHOULD SAY AND/OR FETAL COMPLICATION. IF THE MOTHER DEVELOPS A COMPLICATION, THAT WE WILL CALL FOR CONSULT OR CODE AND STABILIZE TO TRANSFER THAT PATIENT TO THE ICU. WE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE CITY STAFF OR THE CODE TEAM THAT TRANSPORTS TO BRACKENRIDGE ICU, THAT'S ONE OF THE -- THE OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS THAT WE WILL NEED TO DETERMINE. BUT EITHER WAY, EITHER THE CITY STAFF TEAM WOULD TRANSPORT THE PATIENT OR A TEAM FROM BRACKENRIDGE WOULD COME TO THE FIFTH FLOOR TO TRANSPORT THE PATIENT. WITH REGARD TO FETAL COMPLICATIONS, A NEO -- IF THERE'S ANY INDICATION OF FETAL COMPLICATIONS, A NEONATOLOGIST IS CONSULTED PRIOR TO THE BIRTH. IF COMPLICATIONS OCCUR DURING DELIVERY, THERE'S A CALL FOR A NEONATAL RESCUTATION TEAM, THAT TEAM WOULD TRANSFER TO THE NICU, THAT'S CERTAIN, THAT TEAM OPERATES IN THAT METHOD CURRENTLY. IF THERE ARE NO FETAL COMPLICATIONS, THE WOMAN WOULD DELIVER AND WE WOULD PROCEED WITH HER RECOVERY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. AGAIN, THE HOSPITAL WITHIN HOSPITAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT WOULD BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE SEPARATION OF THE -- PRIOR TO THE OPERATION OF THE NEW HOSPITAL AND WOULD ACCOMMODATE A TRANSPORT TO ANY PART OF BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A SITUATION WHERE A FIFTH FLOOR, A PATIENT WHO IS REGISTERED TO DELIVER ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, IS PREREGISTERED ARRIVES AT BRACKENRIDGE AND IS ADMITTED THROUGH THE SECOND FLOOR. IF WE DETERMINE -- AT THE TIME OF ADMITTANCE, IF WE DETERMINE THAT SHE HAD CONSENTED TO A TUBAL LIGATION AND HAS THE APPROPRIATE CONSENT FORMS, THERE WOULD BE A TRANSFER PER THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE FIFTH FLOOR, SHE WOULD GO THROUGH -- THROUGH -- TO DELIVER THE BABY AND RECEIVE THE SERVICES ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. IF SHE HAD NOT SIGNED A CONSENT, WE WOULD NOT -- EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS PREREGISTERED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, WE WOULD NOT MOVE HER TO THE FIFTH FLOOR IF SHE COULD BE CLIFERED AT BRACKENRIDGE. IF THERE'S NO REASON TO MOVE HER, THERE'S NO REASON TO MOVE HER. AGAIN, IF A WOMAN REQUIRES FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELING, THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY STAFF ON EITHER HOSPITAL. THE LAST SLIDE SHOWS A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A NON-PREGNANT PATIENT WHO DOES PRESENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF SHE WAS A RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM, THE PATIENT WILL BE INFORMED OF COUNSELORS AVAILABILITY AND THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION THAT WE DESIGNATE WILL BE CONTACTED TO -- TO BE INFORMED THAT A PATIENT IS THERE AND MAY NEED COUNSELING. IF THAT PATIENT -- THAT PATIENT WILL BE INFORMED, THAT PREGNANCY PREVENTION SERVICES ARE PROVIDED IN THE NEW HOSPITAL. IF THERE IS -- IF -- EXAM AND TREATMENT WILL OCCUR AT THE ER. ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE WOMAN WOULD BE PERFORMED THERE. SHE WOULD THEN COME TO THE FIFTH FLOOR TO -- FOR COUNSELING AND MEDICATIONS TO -- FOR PREGNANCY PREVENTION. IF A PATIENT COMES IN SEEKING INFORMATION OR COUNSELING ABOUT PREGNANCY PREVENTION, AGAIN THAT PATIENT WILL BE INFORMED THAT THOSE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE NEW HOSPITAL ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND THE PATIENT WILL BE DIRECTED TO THAT FIFTH FLOOR.

GOODMAN: IF I COULD, TRISH, JUST ASK YOU ONE THING QUICKLY ABOUT THIS VERY LAST PAGE. WHEN YOU SAY PATIENT INFORMED COUNSELOR -- OF COUNSELOR AVAILABLE AND PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION CONTACTED, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE WON'T BE SOMEONE 24 HOURS A DAY TO BE ABLE TO BE IMMEDIATELY SPOKEN TO?

NO. THE WAY IT WORKS CURRENTLY IS THE COUNSELORS ARE ON CALL, THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY IN THE ER. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION THAT WE DESIGNATE WILL HAVE A 24/7 ON CALL VAINLT, SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE CONTACTED AND COME RIGHT TO BRACKENRIDGE.

HOWEVER YOUR FIFTH FLOOR WILL BE OPEN 24 HOURS.

OH, YES, THE FIFTH FLOOR WILL BE OPEN. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COUNSELOR IS AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY.

GOODMAN: I ASSUME VICTIM SERVICES MAYBE, EVEN BEFORE THE SPECIFIC HELP IN -- IN REPRODUCTIVE AREAS IS CONTACTED.

YES.

GOODMAN: SO WOULD THEY COME THAT NIGHT, LIKE WHEN THEY GOT THE CALL, THEY WOULD COME?

YES, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY WOULD COME IMMEDIATELY AND BE AVAILABLE SO THAT IF THE PATIENT WOULD -- WOULD CHOOSE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THOSE SERVICES, THEY WOULD BE THERE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANKS. COUNCILMEMBERS DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO ASK NOW? WE DO HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS, AS WELL. SO IF WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT CLARIFY THINGS FOR THOSE SPEAKERS, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO GO THROUGH THEM. WE HAVE -- OR WE MIGHT USE THE SPEAKERS' CONCERNS TO ADD TO OUR OWN QUESTIONS AT THE END. THERE ARE 48 PEOPLE SIGNED UP.

THOMAS: MINOR, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT YOU SAID 48 PEOPLE ALREADY? [ LAUGHTER ]. ALL RIGHT. TOM THOMAS FIRST, HAS STAFF INCORPORATED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL INTO THIS LATEST AGREEMENT?

YES, WE HAVE. I BELIEVE IN THE PACKAGE THAT I DISTRIBUTED LAST THURSDAY, WE PAIRED A -- PREPARED A MATRIX SHOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT. OF COURSE THEIR FIRST RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS FOR THE CITY TO TAKE BACK ALL OF THE OB SERVICES WAS NOT INCORPORATED. I CAME TAKE YOU THROUGH THAT NOW OR FOLLOW UP WITH YOU DIRECTLY ON THAT MATRIX.

THOMAS: OKAY. TIME-WISE DIRECTLY.

THOMAS: ANOTHER ONE ABOUT THE LEASE, TALK ABOUT THE PATTERN OF POOR DELIVERY SERVICE, COULD A RESULT OF THE DEFAULT OF THE LEASE BECAUSE OF THE POOR SERVICES, HOW WILL WE IDENTIFY AND DOWMENTD THE PROBLEMS? FOR THE POOR DELIVERY OF SERVICES.

COULD I JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICES AGREEMENT.

ANY POOR SERVICES. IF YOU HAVE POOR DELIVERY SERVICE, THE RESULTS OF THE POOR DELIVERY SERVICE THAT WILL CAUSE MAYBE A DEFAULT IN THE LEASE, HOW WOULD WE DOCUMENT THOSE PARTICULARLY?

HOW WOULD WE DOCUMENT -- THE SERVICE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT SPECIFIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED AND I GUESS THE DOCUMENTATION, IF THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED, WILL -- WILL BE PART OF THE PROCESS. OF THE -- OF SUPPORTING A CONTRACT DEFAULT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DOCUMENT EITHER THE LACK OF RECEIPT OR THE INSUFFICIENT SEE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDED. AS PART OF OUR OPERATING PROCEDURE.

THOMAS: OKAY, THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: IF THE COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH THIS, ACTUALLY, THAT IS COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ONE THING THAT I THINK SOME OF THE SPEAKERS WOULD LIKE TO HEAR. AS WELL AS WE PERHAPS. THAT'S LISTING OUT THE ISSUES RAISED AND RECOMMENDED TO US BY THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. AND THEN OUR LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED OR WERE NOT INCLUDED. THEY WERE COST ISSUES AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW HOW BRIEFLY WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT, BUT I THINK A THUMBNAIL SKETCH WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION. HEARING UP IN -- HEARING NONE ... SU SUS TUBE WITH BHE ME, MOTION ONE, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY TO -- TO OPERATE ALL OB SERVICES AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. OF COURSE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT RECOMMENDATION. MOTION 2 HAD A SERIES OF ISSUES RELATED TO ACCOUNTABILITY, POST-PARTUM DEPRESSION -- POST PARTUM REVIEW, EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS THAT WERE -- THANK YOU, THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS THAT WERE REFERENCED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE BELIEVE ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTIONS 19.2, 19.2, 19.3, 19.5 OF THE LEASE AMENDMENT. THOSE -- THE ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES THAT THE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL WERE CONCERNED WITH HAD TO DO WITH -- WITH ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES FOR ALL DELIVERING WOMEN OR WOMEN SEEKING SERVICES AT EITHER HOSPITAL ON THE CAMPUS. THAT THAT BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THAT. WE HAVE THE -- THIS LEASE AMENDMENT DOES PROVIDE FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION. THAT ALL -- THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE SERVICES ARE WITH THE CITY, NOT SETON. THAT CITY NURSING STAFF CONDUCT POST PARTUM REVIEW. THAT IS AGAIN PROVIDED FOR BECAUSE CITY STAFF WILL PROVIDE THE COUNSELING SERVICES FOR ALL OF THE WOMEN. WOMEN SEEKING EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, THAT -- THAT AGAIN THE SERVICES BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND THE WOMEN BE REFERRED THERE. AGAIN THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS PROVIDED FOR. THE -- THE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE OPERATING BUDGET, HAS TO DO WITH -- I GUESS I WOULD SAY PART OF OUR CITY BUDGET PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE PROVISION FOR ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR NURSING STAFF AND OTHER STAFF OF THE HOSPITAL. SO IT WASN'T SOMETHING WE ADDRESSED IN THE LEASE BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A CITY -- A CITY BUDGET PROCESS. NOT A LEASE CONTRACT ITEM. AND THEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FOR THE NEW HOSPITAL, OUR OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY HOSPITAL WILL INCLUDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF A PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY. AS DO OUR OTHER HEALTH CARE SERVICES. AND SETON DOES CURRENTLY ADMINISTER A PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY TO PARTY. WE WOULD USE AN OUTSIDE PARTY TO DO OUR PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY, I WOULD ASSUME, JUST AS SETON DOES. MOTION 3, WAS WITH REGARD TO THE LANGUAGE -- THIS HAS BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT LEASE STRONG ENOUGH TO EFFECT ANY FURTHER CHANGES IN THE LEASE AND IT'S -- THE LEGAL ADVICE IS THAT THE CURRENT SECTION, 8.17 IN THE LEASE AS IT'S WRITTEN DOES NOT NEED TO BE REVISED. THAT IT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO -- AS THIS LEASE AMENDS THE CURRENT LEASE, THE PROVISIONS OF 8.17 STAY IN PLACE AND ANY FUTURE CHANGES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER THE CURRENT PROVISION. SO THEY CAN BE -- THE ISSUES CAN BE DEALT WITH UNDER THE CURRENT PROVISIONS. MOTION 4 WAS THAT SETON BEAR THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FOR THIS FACILITY. OF COURSE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCORPORATE THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT DOES PROPOSE THAT THERE BE A CITY INVESTMENT IN EXPANSION COSTS. AND MOTION 5 HAD TO DO WITH GOVERNANCE FOR -- FOR THE NEW HOSPITAL. AND AGAIN THAT WASN'T AN ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE LEASE CONTRACT. BUT RATHER A RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL, DECISION ABOUT HOW THE NEW HOSPITAL WOULD BE GOVERNED.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: I SEEDYIAN FREEDHOLM WHO WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER, SINCE WE JUST WENT THROUGH HER RECOMMENDATIONS, IF SHE IS IN CONCURRENCE THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND IF SHE AGREES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN THE LEASE AMENDMENT.

IN MANY CASES, YES, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PLACES WHERE I THINK JUST FOR CLARITY I WANT TO SEVERAL SIZE -- EMPHASIZE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT TRISH SAID AND IS DONE WITH A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. IN OUR CONCERN ABOUT IF WE WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS APPROACH OF SPLITTING MAT ATTORNEY TEE SERVICES AND BIRTH -- MATERNITY SERVICES AND BIRTH CONTROL FOR WOMEN DELIVERING AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, THAT WE SAID FINE -- IF THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE, THEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SERVICES THAT SETON IS PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING IN ARE REALLY CARRIED OUT. AND THIS -- THIS SPLITTING UP OF THE SERVICES CREATES SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL CITY ATTENTION. AND OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT ACCOUNTABILITY BECOME THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY BECAUSE WE CAN'T BUILD A SYSTEM THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF INFORMING WOMEN ABOUT THEIR BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS OR INFORMING A WOMAN ABOUT EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, IF THAT'S HER NEED, COMING INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO ANY -- IN ANY WAY TO A SETON EMPLOYEE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT INFORMING. OR EDUCATING. AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL CONTINUES TO -- TO HAVE SETON NURSES OR OTHER -- I GUESS SETON NURSES PLAY THE ROLE OF INFORMING, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE BEING PUT IN THIS VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHERE -- WHERE THEY ARE PROHIBITED BY THEIR EMPLOYER FROM DOING ANY KIND OF ADVOCATING OR FURTHER EDUCATING. BUT MERELY TO JUST SAY THIS IS AVAILABLE AND GO OVER THERE. GO UP TO THE FIFTH FLOOR. SO IT -- IT'S NOT REALLY IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING, WHICH WAS THAT AT ANY POINT IN TIME, WHERE BIRTH CONTROL INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY IF THEY WERE TO COME IN, SEEKING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AT SETON RUN EMERGENCY ROOM, THAT THERE WOULD BE A CITY PAID EMPLOYEE OR SOMEONE THERE WHO HAS NO RESTRICTS OR COMPROMISES MADE ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO TO ASSIST, TO FULLY INFORM, TO FULLY INFORM A WOMAN AS TO HER OPTIONS AND HELP HER GET WHATEVER SHE NEEDS. THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A COST CONCERN, I GUESS, ABOUT HAVING THE -- YOU KNOW, A CITY STAFF PERSON AVAILABLE 24/7. NOW, IN TERMS OF POST PARTUM EDUCATING, THEY DO RELY UPON CITY PAID STAFF AS IT APPEARS FROM THE LEASE, THAT'S IN LINE WITH AGAIN OUR CONCERN THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS ARTIFICIAL SPLIT, THAT WOMEN BE EDUCATED BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK FOR AN EMPLOYER THAT CONSIDERS THESE THINGS TO BE IMMORAL, THAT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE. AND SO THAT'S FINE. I DO HAVE SOME OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. WITH REGARD TO SECTION 8 .17, SINCE WE MADE THIS MOTION, THE CITY STAFF HAS COME BACK AND CLARIFIED. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AS TO WHAT 8.17 MEANT. AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT MEANT THAT THE CITY COULDN'T SEEK ANY OTHER PARTNERS WHILE THEY WERE TALKING WITH SETON. NOW WE ARE BEING TOLD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I'M BEING TOLD NOW THAT IN FACT THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T PROHIBIT THE CITY FROM SEEKING OTHER PARTNERS IF THEY WANT TO. SO AS LONG AS -- OUR POINT IS WE SHOULDN'T CONTINUE TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN'T SEE IN OTHER NEWS INSTITUTIONS, GO OUT AND SEE IF OTHER INSTITUTIONS MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HELPING IF THERE SHOULD BE FURTHER CHANGES IN THE WAY THAT WOMEN CAN RECEIVE THEIR BASIC BIRTH CONTROL.

GRIFFITH: WHAT DOES 8.17 SAY?

THAT'S NOT FAIR. [ LAUGHTER ].

IT IS THE SECTION THAT REFERS TO THE PROCESS IF EITHER PARTY HAS TO MAKE A CHANGE BASED ON ETHICAL DIRECTIVES. IT HAS TO DO WITH HOW THEY NEGOTIATE OVER A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD. I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

GRIFFITH: WELL, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN IF THIS HAPPENS, AGAIN, THERE'S A CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION, THAT IT BE AUTOMATIC THAT WE GO OUT FOR BIDS. HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS? OR WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS?

OUR MOTION SPECIFICALLY --

GRIFFITH: HERE WE GO. MOTION 3, I THINK THAT I HAVE GOT IT.

RIGHT. THUS WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT SECTION 8.17 CHANGE IN ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECT ACTIVES BE REVISED NOW, DIRECTIVES BE REVISED NOW TO ALLOW THAT IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON PROVISION OF FAMILY PLANNING OR ANY OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES, OTHERWISE AVAILABLE AT A PUBLIC FACILITY RESULTING FROM THE ERD'S, THAT THE CITY MUST SEEK WITHOUT RESTRICTION OTHER POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS BEFORE OR DURING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH SETON ABOUT RESOLVING THE PROBLEMS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CITY SHOULD KNOW LONGER BE RESTRICTED BY THE CURRENT SECTION 8.17 FROM SEEKING THE ABSOLUTELY BEST DEAL FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND THE CURRENT SITUATION THE CITY DID NOT EXPLORE WIDELY OTHER POTENTIAL PARTNERS AND THUS WAS LEFT IN A WEAKER NEGOTIATING POSITION. WHILE IT IS WIDELY BELIEVED THAT LIKE SIX YEARS AGO THERE ARE NO OTHER PARTNERS, THE FACT IS THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW. IS THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF PRETTY MUCH THE SUBSTANCE OF NUMBER 3, MOTION NUMBER 3.

I THINK THAT YOU JUST READ IT VERBATIM, ACTUALLY.

GRIFFITH: YEAH.

BUT, AGAIN, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT -- AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS MISINTERPRETATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAD BEEN SAID. UNDER 8.17 THE CITY COULD AT ANY POINT DECIDE TO GO OUT AND SEEK OTHERS AND THEY WOULDN'T BE BOUND BY 8.17. IF THAT'S SO, IT DOES SEEM TO ALLOW FOR WHAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, WHAT IS -- WHICH IS THAT OTHER POSSIBLE PARTNERS THAT THE POSITION WAS TAKEN THAT SINCE FOR ONE CAME FORWARD TO THEM, THERE MUST NOT BE ANY AS OPPOSED TO GOING OUT AND SEEING IF OTHER PROVIDERS WHO CARE ABOUT LOW INCOME PEOPLE IN THE STATE, SUCH AS TEACHING INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN COMING AND PROVIDING THIS SERVICE. AND IT -- WE JUST DON'T KNOW. WE MAY NOT. WE DON'T KNOW.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

OTHERWISE, TRISH'S CHARACTERIZATIONS, YOU KNOW, I THINK REFLECT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL'S SUGGESTIONS AND WHAT THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL HAS.

GRIFFITH: THANKS. CAN WE TALK ABOUT MOTION 3? WHAT'S GOING FOR HAPPEN NEXT TIME IF THERE IS A NEXT TIME?

IT BASICALLY PROVIDES THAT IF SETON NOTIFIES THE CITY THAT IT'S UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE [INAUDIBLE], THEN WE ARE TO MEET AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL TAKE OUT ANY OBLIGATION FOR SETON TO PROVIDE REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, SO IT WILL NOT COME UP IN THAT CONTEXT AGAIN. SHOULD IT -- THE RD'S CHANGE IN SOME WAY THAT AFFECTS SOME OTHER OBLIGATION, WE WOULD GO BACK TO 7.17 AND USE THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE HAVE DONE NOW, WHICH IS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE. IS THERE SOME WAY TO RESOLVE IT WITH SETON. IF THERE'S NOT A WAY TO RESOLVE IT, SETON COULD BE FOUND IN DEFAULT, AT WHICH POINT WE COULD GO FORWARD WITH OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS. CERTAINLY WHILE WE ARE WORKING WITH SETON, WE COULD BE EXAMINING ALL OF OUR OPTIONS, INCLUDING LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE WOULD BE OTHER PROVIDERS AVAILABLE SHOULD WE NOT BE ABLE TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION WITH SETON.

GRIFFITH: HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THIS TIME?

IT'S NOT.

GRIFFITH: IT'S NOT. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? BEFORE WE GO TO SPEAKERS, I WANT TO LAY OUT FOR STAFF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANSWERS. BUT JUST SO THAT AT THE END OF THIS, IF WE EITHER HAVE TIME TO VERBALLY RESPOND OR IN WRITING, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY LOOKING AT THE POWER POINT. COPIES TONIGHT. SO IT MAY BE THAT I HAD A -- A WRONG IMPRESSION OF THE LANGUAGE AND SO WE DEFINITELY FOR ME AT LEAST NEED TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE PRECISE MEANINGS. DID JOHN SAY -- LET ME JUST SAY. HOW MANY YEARS IS PROVIDED FOR BEFORE WE CAN RELOOK AT THE OPERATIONS?

PROPOSED AMENDMENT SAYS THE CITY AND SETON WILL SIT DOWN AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR OR DURING THE THIRD YEAR AND EVALUATE HOW THE OPERATION IS GOING AND WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE SATISFIED WITH THE FUNDING ARRANGEMENT AT THAT POINT. THE CITY HAS THE SOLE OPTION AT THAT POINT TO DECIDE THAT IT NO LONGER WANTS TO CONTINUE THE -- TO OPERATE THE FIFTH FLOOR AND DURING WHICH THERE'S ANOTHER TWO YEARS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR TRANSITION TIME FOR THE CITY TO FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION, ANOTHER WAY FOR THOSE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE SOLE OPTION IS THE CITY'S.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT, IF THAT'S OUR CHOICE.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT. NO. IF WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FUNDING ARRANGEMENT AT THAT POINT OR WITH THE OPERATION OF THE HOSPITAL, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO -- TO CEASE OPERATING ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. WE HAVE AGAIN THAT TWO YEAR TRANSITIONAL PERIOD.

GOODMAN: IF WE NEED IT.

YES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANKS. THE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO WANT TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE LANGUAGE FOR ARE WHAT I SEEM TO FEEL WAS A CONFLICT. ON PAGE 17 I THOUGHT THAT WAS SORT OF A CONFLICT WITH PAGE 18'S OF THE POWER POINT STATEMENTS. I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL, OTHER THAN TO -- TO JUST SAY WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. ANCILLARY SERVICE AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED BY SETON IF THE CITY KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY PROVIDES ABORTIONS WITHIN THE NEW HOSPITAL. THE CURRENT LEASE PROHIBITS THEM NOW. AND THEN ON 18 THE OPERATION OF SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE OPERATION OF THE NEW HOSPITAL BY THE CITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECT ACTIVES FOR CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND SO IF THAT'S SO, I DON'T SEE WHY PAGE 17 EXISTS. ON PAGE 19, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT APPROPRIATE ACCESS BY PATIENT OF THE NEW HOSPITAL TO EMERGENCY TREATMENT MEANS. THAT SEEMED LINE AN ODD PHRASE. -- LIKE AN ODD PHRASE TO USE. ON PAGE 20, AGAIN, POSSIBLY A CONFLICT WITH PAGE 17, WHICH IS SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICIAN, PATIENT AND THAT SETON IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PHYSICIAN PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND THAT TIES INTO A PLANNED PARENTHOOD GENERATED QUESTION. WHICH WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A PHYSICIAN -- I HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE. WHETHER A PHYSICIAN IS BOUND TO FOLLOW SETON RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES IN ANY WAY IF THEY PRACTICE THERE. WHICH I CAN'T -- OH, WAIT. GOT IT. OKAY. DOES SETON REQUIRE PHYSICIANS TO SIGN ANY DOCUMENT REFLECTING THEIR AGREEMENT TO UPHOLD THE ETHICAL DIRECTIVES OR OTHERWISE ABIDE BY SETON POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO SETON'S SERVICES? THEN THERE ARE A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS, ALSO, THAT -- THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOLKS HAD THAT -- THAT I WAS TRYING TO LEAD UP TO THE OTHER DAY, THAT WERE AT THE WORK SESSION WITH THE BRIEFING. AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH -- WITH HOW EXACTLY INFORMATION AND SERVICES AND REFERRALS HAPPEN IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, SO ON, SO FORTH. CONSIDERING THE BROAD SCOPE OF CATHOLIC DEFINITIONS ON OCCASION AND IN SOME CASES BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID WE WILL CALL OUR COUNSELING AGENCY AND SO ON AND SO FORTHMENT AND THE -- THE -- THE SOMETIMES DIFFICULTY MAY BE IN UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU GET FROM THE SECOND FLOOR TO FIFTH FLOOR, ALL OF THAT KIND OF A THING. SO IT'S A LOGISTICAL ISSUE, TOGETHER WITH -- WITH WONDERING WHAT THE -- WHAT THE ISSUES ARE BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND BEING ABLE TO PRACTICE AND GIVE SERVICE AT SETON. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I REALLY DIDN'T SEE LAID OUT PRECISELY IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT AND IN A WAY THAT I WAS SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE LATER. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THOMAS: MAYOR? MAYOR GARCIA ARE WE READY TO GO TO SPEAKERS.

THOMAS: IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE QUESTION MAYOR GARCIA COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: I JUST NEED YOU TO CLARIFY IT. I DID ASK IT IN THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS SENT. DOES THE NEW AGREEMENT ASSUME THAT THE MAP AND [INAUDIBLE] WILL USE THE FIFTH FLOOR.

THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT ASSUME THAT THEY WILL USE THE FIFTH FLOOR. WE HAVE A PROVIDE ARE AGREEMENT, MAP CAP HAS A PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH SETON FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AT SETON, IN PATIENT AND OTHER HOSPITAL SERVICES. THAT PROVIDER AGREEMENT, WHICH BASICALLY ALLOWS FOR MAP CAP TO CONTRACT WITH SETON TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR REVISION TO THAT PROVIDER AGREEMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT MAP CAP PATIENTS COULD USE THE NEW HOSPITAL. IT DOES NOT DIRECT MAP CAP PATIENT TO THE FIFTH FLOOR. IN ACTUALITY, VERY FEW MAP CAP PATIENTS -- THEIR OBSTRETICAL SERVICES ARE TYPICALLY COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, SO MAP DOESN'T TYPICALLY COVER THOSE SERVICES, THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES BECAUSE THEY CAN BE COVERED UNDER MEDICAID.

THOMAS: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. MAYOR GARCIA THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. WE WILL GO TO THE SPEAKERS NOW. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE 46. FIRST SPEAKER IS CHARLOTTE FLYNN. MS. FLYNN, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN TIME BY ALLISON DEIDER.

SHE'S GIVING ME HER 3 MINUTES. YEAH, OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALSO JAN FREE GOES, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, WE APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION. THE GRAY PANTHERS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING BRACKENRIDGE AS A PUBLIC HOSPITAL SINCE 1977. THE CLIMATE OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER 1980 WHEN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TOOK OVER. HEALTH CARE THEN BECAME A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT, AND UNDER THE PRETENSE OF COMPETITION TO LOWER THE PRICES, THE ACTUAL COST OF HEALTH CARE HAS RISEN. SINCE SEPTEMBER 11TH THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WITHOUT ACCESS TO ANY HEALTH CARE HAS RISEN DRAMATICALLY. IN 1995, THE COST OF INDIGENT HEALTH CARE FOR THE CITY HAS INCREASED SHARPLY. THE CONDITIONS AT BRACKENRIDGE THEN BECAME THE VICTIM OF INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT BY A CITY STAFF WITH NO EXPERTISE IN HEALTH CARE AND NO POLITICAL WILL TO SEE BRACKENRIDGE REMAIN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL. A TASK FORCE WAS APPOINTED TO DESIGN A HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, WHICH THEY DID, THAT WOULD MANAGE THE HOSPITAL AND REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEN IT PRESENTED THE FINANCIAL COST OF RUNNING THE HOSPITAL, THE CITY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES AND IN ORDER TO LOOKS THE HOSPITAL TO SOMEONE ELSE TO MANAGE, FIGURES WERE MANIPULATED TO INDICATE A HUGE DEBT. I MIGHT MENTION HERE, BRACKENRIDGE WAS BUILT WITH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AGREED TO PAY FOR THAT HOSPITAL. IT WAS NOT A DEBT. THE PROBLEM WE FACE TODAY, BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE MADE IN 1995, IS THAT THE CITY IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. SETON HOSPITAL AGREED TO PAY FOR INDIGENT CARE. BUT THE PRICE THEY EXACTED WAS AT THE SERVICES DELIVERED IN THE CITY HOSPITAL AND STILL PARTIALLY SUPPORTED BY TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THE INDIGENT IS CURTAILED ACCORDING TO THE BISHOP'S DIRECTIVES. AS A VATICAN 2 CATHOLIC I WAS AWARE THAT IN 1963 THE POPE APPOINTED A PAPAL COMMISSION ON POPULATION, MARRIAGE AND BIRTHS. IN 1966, A MAJORITY REPORT, A MAJORITY OF 54 OUT OF 58 PARTICIPANTS APPROVED THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL BY MARRIED COUPLES WITH STIPULATIONS. THIS WORK WAS DONE IN A VERY DEMOCRATIC WAY WITH BISHOPS, CARDINALS, THEOLOGIANS, EXPERTS AND MARRIED COUPLES ALL APPOINTED BY THE POPE. UNFORTUNATELY, ONE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, CARDINAL ATAVANI, HAD OBJECTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND WITH THREE OTHER CLERGY MANAGED TO SUBMIT A MINORITY REPORT TO POPE PAUL AND THE MAJORITY REPORT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON. INSTEAD, THE PROCLAMATION HUMAN AVATI WAS ISSUED, AFTER IT WAS ISSUED WORLDWIDE POLLS WERE TAKEN APPEARED THE NUMBER OF BISHOPS AND LAYETY RANGED FROM 56% REJECTION TO 80% REJECTION. THE DEMOCRACY OF THIS WORK WAS REJECTED AND THE MINORITY OF EXTREME CONSERVATIVES KEPT CONTROL IN ROME. SO WE HAVE THE BISHOP'S DIRECT ACTIVES, CONTROLLING DOCTRINE WHILE THE MAJORITY OF MARRIED CATHOLICS USE THEIR OWN CONSCIOUSS -- CONSCIENCES TO DECIDE THE BIRTH CONTROL QUESTION. AS A CONSEQUENCE WE ARE NOW FACED WITH THE CITY MAKING VERY TORTURED ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT INDIGENT WOMEN AT BRACKENRIDGE, A PUBLIC HOSPITAL, WILL HAVE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES THEY NEED. IN ORDER TO REALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM, ALL OBSTETRICAL AND REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES NEED TO BE UPPED THE CONTROL OF THE CITY. THE LONG RANGE GOAL FOR WHICH GRAY PANTHERS WILL INVEST TIME AND ENERGY AND I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF ALLIES AROUND, IS TO SEE THAT A TAXING DISTRICT IS SET UP SO THE RESOURCES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR AUSTIN TO HAVE A PUBLIC HOSPITAL THAT SERVES THE CITY THE WAY IT DID IN THE PAST. IT WAS A GOOD HOSPITAL. AND I WAS A PATIENT THERE THREE TIMES. THE CITY CAN, WITH ITS OWN HOSPITAL BOARD, NOT CONNECTED TO THE CITY STAFF IN ANY WAY, RUN A GOOD HOSPITAL. HEALTH CARE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MARKETPLACE COMMODITY UNTIL HEALTH CARE IS DELIVERED ON THE BASIS OF NEED AND NOT ON HOW MUCH PROFIT CAN BE MADE, THE SITUATION WILL CONTINUE TO DETEARATE EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA AND PARTICULARLY IN AUSTIN. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS STATEMENT THAT THERE IS A STATEMENT PUT OUT BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, WHICH GRAY PANTHERS SUPPORT. ALSO WE PARTICIPATED IN A GROUP THAT MET ON TUESDAY EVENING THAT LOOKED OVER THE CONTRACT. AND THE GROUP WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE WORDING CONTINUES TO LEAVE LOOPHOLES FOR SETON WHEN ROME RETURNS WITH THEIR NEXT DEMANDS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. FLYNN. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. DAN SOLDZER, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN TIME BY REBECCA MEYER, CARA NICHOLS AND MARCELLA KUWALT. ARE THEY HEAR? OKAY. YOU HAVE 12 MINUTES. PUT 12 MINUTES ON THE CLOCK.

WELCOME.

THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. I'M NOT HERE TO CONDEMN SETON OR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLUTCH. WE KNOW THEY GOT THEIR PROBLEMS. WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE MASOGINISTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU MOVE THAT MIC UP.

WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE MASOGINISTS, WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE RIDDEN WITH GUILT AND HAS HATRED AND FEAR. BUT IT'S -- MORE INHERENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT DWELL UPON THIS AS MY GRANDMOTHER WHO WAS CHEROKEE AND IS NOW DEAD SAID, THE CATHOLICS CREATE A HELL FOR THEMSELVES ON EARTH THAT IS SO BAD YOU, THAT WHEN THEY FINALLY DO ACHIEVE THE REAL THING, THEY PROBABLY WOULD MISTAKE IT FOR HEAVEN. BUT I'M NOT COMING DOWN ON THE CATHOLICS. I'M NOT COMING DOWN ON THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MADE THIS MISTAKE BACK IN 1995, I THINK IT WAS. I'M NOT COMING DOWN ON THEM. THEY DID THEIR BEST. TRUE, THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO VERY MANY PLACES. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DIDN'T GO TO U.T. I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I WENT OVER THERE AND ASKED THEM THE OTHER DAY. I WENT UP TO THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, I SAID WAS BRACKENRIDGE EVER PROPOSED TO YOU AS A TEACHING HOSPITAL? THEY SAID NO. WE NEVER HEARD OF IT. HUM, THAT'S INTERESTING. WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH HERE IS KEEPING A SOLUTION TO THIS THING LEGAL. I AM CONCERNED WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. I AM CONCERNED WITH SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. PEOPLE, I HAVE SEEN THE NIGHT RIDERS. I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE DEBASED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX, BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR, BECAUSE OF A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. SOLZER, IF YOU COULD TALK TO THE COUNCIL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY. IF YOU COULD ADDRESS US. PLEASE, SIR.

I HAVE SEEN ALL OF THIS. AND I FOUND IT HORRIBLE. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. THAT IS FORBIDDEN UNDER THE LAW. IF YOU ADOPT THIS PROPOSAL FOR A SEPARATE BUT EQUAL FACILITY, YOU WILL HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW AND YOU WILL HAVE SUBJECTED THE CITY TO PENALTIES UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TITLE II AND POSSIBLY III. POSSIBLY MORE, I'M NOT A LAWYER. I'M JUST A GOOD OLD BOY WHO IS NOT REAL SMART. BUT I CAN SEE A FEW THINGS. AND IF WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS CORRECT, THEY CAN GO AFTER YOU INDIVIDUALLY. FOR VOTING FOR THIS. THEY CAN GO AFTER YOUR PERSONAL FORTUNE. YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT BECAUSE YOU ARE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES. NOT UNDER THIS LAW. SO YOU HAVE GOT TO THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THIS THING. NOW, JUST BY WHAT RIGHT DOES A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TELL YOU WHAT TO DO IN OUR OWN PUBLIC FACILITIES?!! BY WHAT RIGHT DID I VOTE FOR THE POPE? NO! NOBODY ELSE DID. DID I VOTE FOR THE BISHOPS AND THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS? NO! NO ONE ELSE DID. WE ARE GUARANTEED THE RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION AND WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE. NOW, EVERY WOMAN IN THIS ROOM, EVERY WOMAN IN THIS CITY, EVERY WOMAN IN THIS COUNTY, EVERY WOMAN IN THIS STATE OF TEXAS, EVERY WOMAN IN THE COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THEY ALL HAVE THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION. LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM. IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO SAY, "YOU CAN'T HAVE RU486, THE MORNING AFTER PILL, BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR LEASE OUR AGREEMENT WITH SETON." IF SOMEBODY DOES GIVE SOMEBODY THAT, THEY HAVE THE FACILITY TO GO RIGHT DOWN, TURN OFF YOUR WATER, YOUR STEAM, YOUR LIGHTS, EVERYTHING RIGHT THEN AND SHUT YOU DOWN. BELIEVE ME, FRIENDS, I HAVE BEEN THERE. I HAVE RUN UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS. I KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE FLICK OF A SWITCH. I HAVE SHUT THEM DOWN BEFORE. NOW, PEOPLE, WE HAVE GOT TO USE SOME SENSE. WE HAVE GOT TO APPROACH THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LEGALITY. WE HAVE TO APPROACH THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF REASON. AND WE HAVE TO APPROACH THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT. THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION AND THIS CAN'T BE TAKEN AWAY, BY GUS GARCIA, BY DANNY THOMAS, BY WILL WYNN, BY DAN SOLZER, BUT GEORGE W. BUSH OR BY ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. DUE PROCESS OF LAW! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE PREPARING TO LEGISLATE HERE. YOU ARE PREPARED TO LEGISLATE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO VOICE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND YOU ARE PREPARED TO SUBJECT THE CITY AND YOURSELVES TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE FUN WITH IT. IF YOU APPROVE IT. I HOPE THAT YOU DO. NOW, I'M NOT AS SMART AS YOU ALL ARE. I'M IGNORANT. AND I AM NOT OF THE SAME BELIEF SYSTEMS THAT YOU ALL ARE. I'M CHEROKEE. BUT I DO KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT. AND I DO KNOW WHAT'S WRONG. AND I DO KNOW THAT IF WE DO NOT TAKE CARE OF OUR WOMEN, THEY WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF US, GENTLEMEN. AND I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THAT. THERE'S AN OLD RED NECK SAYING TO THAT EFFECT, YOU KNOW IT. I DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT HERE. BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR WOMEN, THEY TAKE CARE OF US, WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYONE OF WHATEVER RACE ORIGIN, ETHNICITY, WE EVEN HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE CATHOLICS. WE GOT TO LET THEM RUN THEIR COURSE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. BECAUSE THAT IS GUARANTEED UNDER THE LAW. THE LAW RULES HERE. THE LAW RULES HERE! NOT THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINES. THE LAW RULES HERE! THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND PEOPLE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW FOR THAT PRINCIPLE. THEY HAVE DIED BEFORE AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DIE FOR THAT PRINCIPLE. THE LAW RULES. MAYBE OUR FATHERS UP IN WASHINGTON ARE STRETCHING THAT LAW A LITTLE BIT RIGHT NOW. MAYBE NOT. BUT THE LAW RULES. AND WE ALL MUST COME BACK TO THE LAW. IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE LAW, WHAT DO WE HAVE? WE ARE A NATION OF PEOPLE UNITED, AND ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAW. REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. REMEMBER YOUR OBLIGATIONS. REMEMBER THAT WHETHER YOU ARE CATHOLIC OR NOT, IT DOES NOT MATTER. YOU HAVE TO SPEAK FOR THE WELL-BEING OF ALL OF US. YOU ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. NOT THE BISHOPS, NOT THE PRIESTS, NOT THE NUNS. NOT THE BAPTISTS OR THE BUDDHISTS OR ANYBODY ELSE BUT YOU. AND IT COMES DOWN ON YOUR HEAD. PEOPLE, THIS IS REAL SERIOUS HERE, BUT LET ME CLOSE WITH -- WITH ONE OF THE GREAT WORD OF ONE OF THE GREATEST PHILOSOPHERS OF OUR TIME. RED GREEN. I'M A MAN. BUT I CAN CHANGE. IF I HAVE TO, I GUESS. PERHAPS THE POPE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT. PERHAPS THE POPE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS PEOPLE AND GOD SPEAK THROUGH HIS PEOPLE AND NOT TALK TO GOD AND TELL HIS PEOPLE WHAT GOD SAYS. HIS PEOPLE KNOW WHAT GOD SAYS. HE SHOULD LISTEN. YOU SHOULD LISTEN. LISTEN. HEAR US. WE SPEAK IN A WHISPER. BUT IT'S A MIGHTY VOICE. THE RULE OF LAW. THE RULE OF LAW SAYS NO. REMEMBER THAT. THE RULE OF LAW. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. SOLZER. PATRICK CONNALLY AND FOLLOWING DR. CONNALLY DAVID BALCH.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

THIS INCLUDES CARING FOR THOSE WITH THE GREATEST NEEDS AND THE LEAST RESOURCES. WE ARE DOING THIS NOW. AS WITH ANY RELATIONSHIP, THE CITY, SETON RELATIONSHIP IS NOT PERFECT. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIPS ARE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL AND PRODUCTIVE. BUT THEY REQUIRE REPEATED ASSESSMENT, ADJUSTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS. HOPEFULLY YOU CAN DO THIS NOW, AND IF NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE. I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT EXPECT TO ALWAYS AGREE WITH WHAT SETON DOES OR SAYS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SETON NETWORK AND ITS MEDICAL STAFF ARE DOING MUCH MORE THAN A CREDIBLE JOB IN TAKING CARE OF THEIR SHAVE OF RESPONSIBILITIES HERE. AND AS I LOOK AT YOUR OTHER OPTIONS, I'M VERY HAPPY TA SETON IS HERE AND IS STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE. WITHOUT THE MANAGEMENT, RESOURCES AND COMMITMENT OF THE SETON NETWORK, KNOLL ONLY WOULD BRACKENRIDGE AND THE CHILDREN'S OH IS OF AUSTIN HAVE BIGGER ISSUES AND PROBLEMS, SO WOULD OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY. THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE OTHER HOSPITALS IN OUR CITY WITHOUT SETON RUNNING BRACKENRIDGE AND CHILDREN. AUSTIN NEEDS BRACKENRIDGE. AUSTIN NEEDS THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. BRACKENRIDGE AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ARE ESSENTIAL, CRITICAL COMMUNITY RESOURCES. THE TWO HOSPITALS ARE CLOSELY LINKED AND WORK TOGETHER TO SERVE THE GREATER AUSTIN COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE BEEN AND REMAIN OUR HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL IS THE ONLY DEDICATED CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL IN OUR REGION. THE TRAUMA CENTER IS HERE FOR ALL OF US, A CRITICAL RESOUS THAT MUST SURVIVE. IT MAKES OUR LIFE SAFER. THE SUCCESS OF BRACK AND THE TRAUMA CENTER DEPEND ON EACH OTHER. LOCAL MEDICAL TRAINING IS CENTERED AT BRACKENRIDGE. WE DO HAVE A TEACHING HOSPITAL. MEDICAL DISASTER PLANNING FOR OUR CITY HAS BEEN LED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE VICE CHIEF OF STAFF AT BRACKENRIDGE. THE HOSPITAL HAS HAD SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL, IMPROVEMENTS BY SETON. [BUZZER]. SETON HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL BY BRACK AND THE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CARE AND IN FACT BRACK HAS BECOME A BETTER HOSPITAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: DOCTOR, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORTS THAT A CITIZEN, PRACTICING PHYSICIAN AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE MEDICAL STAFF, AND MOVE ON TO THE FUTURE AND BIGGER CHALLENGES LIKE REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR HEALTH CARE FUNDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, DOCTOR. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WANTS TO -- .

GRIFFITH: I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. DID YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE IN THE SETON NETWORK?

I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SETON MEDICAL STAFF. THAT IS A POSITION THAT I'VE BEEN ELECTED TO BY THE DOCTORS. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY FINANCIALLY, MORALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY CONTROLLED BY SETON. I'M IN INDEPENDENT PRACTICE, VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE MY TIME AS I'M HERE TONIGHT, FREE TIME, I VOLUNTEER AND DO THINGS FOR THE SETON NETWORK BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, PARTICULARLY THE CHILDREN.

GRIFFITH: AND WE APPRECIATE THAT ENORMOUSLY. DO YOU KNOW KAREN SWIN SON.

YES, SHE IS THE CHIEF OF OB AT SETON MEDICAL CENTER.

GRIFFITH: SHE SENT US A COMMUNICATION. IT SAYS, I WANTED TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT OF THE AD HOC COALITION REGARDING CITY STAFFED PROPOSED REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES TO THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL AMENDMENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE. I AM A BOARD CERTIFIED OBSTETRICIAN GYNECOLOGIST PRACTICING IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD OF TIME HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH JIM BRAND AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HEAR MY OPINION AND MY GROUP'S OPINION. BASICALLY I THINK THE WOMEN IN THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY DESERVE TO HAVE COMPREHENSIVE REPRODUCTIVE CARE. I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS INEFFICIENT TO SPLIT THE CARE INTO TWO DIFFERENT FLOORS REQUIRING PATIENTS WHO PRESENT IN EMERGENCY ROOM FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIONS TO GO TO TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT PLACES FOR THEIR OB-GYN CARE. IT WILL COST THE CITY MORE AND IT WILL NOT BE A FAIR WAY TO TREAT THE PATIENTS. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO LOOK AT PROVIDING THIS CARE COMPREHENSIVELY AND IN THE MOST EFFICIENT FASHION POSSIBLE. I DO NOT THINK THE CATHOLIC DIRECTIVES SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN PROVIDING CARE TO THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN. I THINK AS WE ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE CATHOLIC DIRECTIVES, THE CARE BECOMES COMPROMISED. I THINK AS AN ACTIVELY PRACTICING PHYSICIAN IN THE SETON NETWORK, PRACTICING HERE FOR 16 YEARS AT THE SETON MEDICAL CENTER, I FIND SETON'S MANAGEMENT TO BE OUTSTANDING. I AM PLEASED TO REMAIN ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AND I KNOW THAT THEY CARE FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. I AM VERY SORRY THAT THE CATHOLIC DIRECTIVES DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO CARE FOR PATIENTS IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY WHEN IT COMES TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE. DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THOSE CONCERNS?

I THINK KAREN IS AN EXCELLENT PHYSICIAN AND I THINK THAT IN HER FIELD OF OB SHE HAS PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT ARE QUITE IMPORTANT. I AM INVOLVED IN A DIFFERENT FIELD OF MEDICINE, AND I AM HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE MEDICAL STAFF, NOT A PARTICULAR SPECIALTY, NOT A PARTICULAR PERSON. AND MY CONCERN IS FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND MY CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T HAVE THE SETON NETWORK RUNNING BRACKENRIDGE AND CHILDREN'S WE MAY NOT HAVE BRACKENRIDGE AND CHIRNS. AND NOT ONLY WILL WOMEN SUFFER, BUT INCH WILL SUFFER. I THINK THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT THE -- BUT I THINK THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED WILL ALLOW COMPREHENSIVE CARE, IT WILL ALLOW THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF OUR CRITICAL RESOURCES, OUR TRAUMA CENTER, OUR CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND OUR CITY WILL BE BETTER FOR IT.

GRIFFITH: AND THAT WILL BE IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY AS OPPOSED TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. IS IT FAIR TO BE ASKING DR. CONNALLY TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY ELSE SAID? SO DR. CONNALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. IF WE WANT TO, WE CAN BRING THE DOCTOR IN AND SHE CAN COMMENT ON IT. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WRITE THIS, SO -- .

NO, I DIDN'T WRITE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

WELL, I WILL DEFER TO YOU AS THE MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

GRIFFITH: THAT'S FINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. DAVID BAUNCH. AND FOLLOWING HIM IS MS. PEGGY ROMBERG. WELCOME, SIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE BEING HERE. I'M WITH THE UNITED WAY CAPITAL HERE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU ON THIS ISSUE. I'M HERE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH SETON AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU HOW SETON PARTNERS WITH THE UNITED WAY IN THE GREATER AUSTIN AREA. THE CAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY IS THE LARGEST -- WE RAISED OVER 20 MILLION DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES RANGING FROM BASIC NEEDS TO EDUCATION. SETON IS ONE OF OUR VALUED PARTNERS IN THIS EFFORT IN THE COMMUNITY. THEY PROVIDE A CRUCIAL SAFETY NET FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. LAST YEAR ALONE THEY PROVIDED OVER 127 MILLION DOLLARS IN CHARITY CARE. AS A COMMUNITY, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THIS PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION. IN FACT, HAD SETON NOT STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE SIX YEARS AGO TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ISSUES, THE ISSUES WE WOULD BE WEELG DEALING WITH TODAY WOULD BE MUCH MORE SERIOUS. BY THE WAY, ON -- THE UNITED WAY ALSO PARTNERS WITH SETON IN A PROGRAM CALLED OUR FIRST CALL FOR HELP, WHICH IS AN INR SERVICE IN AUSTIN, ALONG WITH THE VOLUNTEER CENTER, WHICH LINKS PEOPLE TO HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AND OTHER NONPROFITS IN THIS COMMUNITY. AT A TIME SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE NEEDED ASSISTANCE SUPPORTING BOTH OF THESE EFFORTS. THE FIRST CALL FOR HELP LAST YEAR CONNECTED OVER 40,000 PEOPLE TO GET HELP. AND THIS COMING YEAR WE EXPECT IT TO MORE THAN DOUBLE BECAUSE OF NEEDS IN THIS COMMUNITY. SETON STEPPED UP AND PROVIDED SPACE AT BRACKENRIDGE, AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL NEEDS THAT WE'RE EXPECTING, SETON HAS CONTINUED TO SUPPORT US IN THE EFFORT. THE POINT IS THAT SETON, THOUGH A PRIVATE PART OF THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY IS VERY MUCH A PUBLIC ENTITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITH THE GOALS THAT ARE SO CLOSELY ASSIGNED, SETON AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN CONTINUE THE PARTNERSHIP THAT HAS SUPPORTED THE ONLY PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BAUNCH. MS. PEG BY ROMBERG. AND FOLLOWING HER IS NANCY -- IF I DON'T PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME CORRECTLY, YOU CORRECT ME WHEN YOU COME UP, NEVILS. WELCOME.

I'M PEGGY ROMBERG AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CEO OF THE WOMEN'S HEALTH AND PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS, WHICH IS COMPRISED OF A VARIETY OF FAMILY PLANNING AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE. BUT I'VE BEEN LONG ACTIVE IN THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY IN PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND PROMOTING FAMILY PLANNING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND I ALSO SERVE ON A NATIONAL BOARD THAT -- A NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD. AND ATTACHED TO MY TESTIMONY IS AN OPINION FROM TWO ATTORNEYS FROM THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER AND MERGER WATCH, WHICH I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME SPECIFICS. AND I'M NOT A LAWYER. I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS THAT BRACKENRIDGE, WE MUST HOLD IN OUR MINDS FOREMOST THAT BRACKENRIDGE IS A CITY-OWNED TAX SUPPORTED HOSPITAL AND THEREFORE HAS THE UNIQUE AND OVERRIDING RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET ALL THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN. AND THESE HEALTH CARE SERVICES SHOULD BE COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED. AND ALSO I THINK WE MUST REMEMBER THAT BRACKENRIDGE SERVES PRIMARILY LOW INCOME AND INDIGENT PATIENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE ALTERNATIVE CHOICES, SO THEIR HEALTH CARE NEEDS MUST BE PARAMOUNT. I WANT TO THANK THE CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR BEING VERY ATTENTIVE IN GIVING A LOT OF ENERGY AND TIME AND CONSIDERATION TO THE SUGGESTIONS I'VE MADE AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. I'VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN, SO I JUST REALLY SAW A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME. SO I'D LIKE TO TARGET OUR BULLETS AND THINGS THAT I FIND STILL OF CONCERN TO ME AND MY ORGANIZATION. REGARDING SECTION 8.17, THE RENEGOTIATION PROVISION, IT APPEARS THAT THE NEW LANGUAGE SUGGESTED SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES FROM THE -- AS A TOPIC FOR RENEGOTIATION. ALTHOUGH THE CITY IS ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES, SOME IMPORTANT PORTIONS OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE ARE DEPENDENT UPON SETON AND ITS POLICIES. SPECIFICALLY REFERRALS TO THE CITY HOSPITAL BY BRACKENRIDGE STAFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND OTHER PARTS OF THE HOSPITAL AND CONTRACEPTIVE EDUCATION AND COUNSELING VISITS TO NEW MOTHERS ON THE SETON MANAGED FLOORS OF BRACKENRIDGE ARE A CONSIDERATION. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES OR INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM CHANGE? SETON TELLS THE CITY THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES CAN NO LONGER REFER THE PATIENTS TO THE CITY HOSPITAL OR WHAT HAPPENS IF SETON NO LONGER ALLOWS CONTRACEPTIVE COUNSELING ON THEIR FLOOR? I BELIEVE THAT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES MUST REMAIN AN ITEM AND NOT EXCLUDE IN ANY RENEGOTIATION AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT. IN CASE SOMETHING LIKE I'VE MENTIONED AND THOSE THAT I ANT CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE SHOULD OCCUR, THERE ARE MANY SCENARIOS IN LIFE IN MEDICAL AND CERTAINLY MY FAMILY HAS EXPERIENCED ITS SHARE. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S EXPENSIVE. I WISH THAT 9.3 MILLION DOLLARS WERE GOING INTO INDIGENT HEALTH CARE INTO THIS COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF ACCOMMODATING THE CHANGES CREATED BY THE RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES. AND I KNOW I'M WHY IS WILLING IN THE WIND, -- . [BUZZER]. BUT I'D LIKE FOR YOU FO IT TO BE ON -- IS THAT MY BUZZER?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S MY BUZZER. MS. ROMBERG, LET ME ASK IF THERE'S SOMEBODY -- IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME TIME. WHAT IS YOUR NAME?

[INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WANT TO GIVE HER YOUR THREE MINUTES?

NO, I PROBABLY NEED 30 SECONDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU NEED 60 SECONDS, YOU SAY.

I'M FAST.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO SHE'S GIVING YOU TIME.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT NANCY. AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COSTS BORNE BY THE RELIGIOUS ENTITY THAT CREATED THE SITUATION IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES, AND THAT NINE-MILLION-DOLLAR SPENT ON MORE INDIGENT HEALTH CARE. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION. IN THE BRIEFING DOCUMENT ON JANUARY NINTH IT NOTED THE CITY HOSPITAL MIGHT CLOSE AND REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES MOVE TO ANOTHER LOCATION. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND WOULD BE A REASON FOR THE CITY TO SEEK OTHER PARTNERS AND TERMINATE ITS AGREEMENT WITH SETON. I ALSO THINK THE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTINUE TO OVERSEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL, ACCESS TO CARE AND QUALITY OF YOU ARE CARE AND CERTAINLY THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT MIGHT BE ONE PLACE WHERE THEY WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD BE VALUABLE. THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA IF IS NECESSARY TO MAKE DECISIONS AND TO UNDERSTAND OPERATIONS AT BOTH THESE HOSPITALS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE ASKED FOR FIRMLY WAS THAT THE CITY HOSPITAL BE TOTALLY AUTONOMOUS. AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENS ON THE CITY -- IN THE CITY-RUN HOSPITAL. HOWEVER, SECTION 19.3 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS ABORTION. AND WHAPS IF A CRITICALLY ILL WOMAN WITH A HEALTH SYNDROME OR SOMETHING ELSE COMES? AND I THINK YOU CAN READ THE OTHER THINGS. I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PATIENT FLOW AND I THINK THE DEFINITIONS NEED TO BE PUT IN THE CONTRACT THAT ARE MEDICALLY BASED DEFINITIONS AND NOT REALLY DEFINITIONS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. ROMBURG. HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT, ONE MINUTE. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'M NANCY. I REPRESENT 250 MEN AND WOMEN MEMBERS OF A LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE AUSTIN AREA. THE LEAGUE HAS TAKEN -- THANK YOU. THE LEAGUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE REVISION: THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE AUSTIN AREA WORKS TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC POLICY, THE SEX, THE RIGHTS OF ALL RESIDENTS WHILE PROVIDING FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS. WE TAKE THE POSITION THAT A BASIC LEVEL OF QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PEOPLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR ABLE TO PAY FOR IT. BASIC CARE FOR WOMEN INCLUDES REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES SUCH AS PRENATAL CARE, DELIVERY SERVICES, EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND FAMILY PLANNING OPTIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC POLICY AND IN PLEASURE LIST TICK SOCIETY MUST AFFIRM THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES. WOMEN WHO WOULD BE FORCED TO USE A SEPARATE FACILITY FOR SOME SERVICES COULD BE STIGMATIZED AND HAVE THEIR PRIVACY COMPROMISED. [BUZZER]. COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS PRIVACY ISSUE AS COUNCIL DECIDES HOW TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. CINDY BA BEARINGER.

SHE'S NOT HERE, BUT SHE WANTS TO GO ON THE RECORD AS -- [INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE DID NOT PUT ANYTHING AND SINCE SHE'S NOT HERE AND SHE DOESN'T TELL ME THAT YOU'RE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR HER, I WILL LEAVE THE CARD IN THAT MANNER. STEVEN RAY?

I'M WITH THE DEMOCRACY COALITION. I'VE ATTENDED TWO PREVIOUS PUBLIC MEETINGS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT OF THE LEASE. AND AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS TRIED TO BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT TO BEYOND SIMPLY THE ISSUE OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. IN AUGUST SEVERAL OF US READ A DOCUMENT ANALYZING THE DIRECTIVES. THE DIRECTIVES HAVE SIX DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES ARE ONLY COVERED IN ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS. AT EACH OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS A NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENT ISSUES INVOLVING END OF LIFE ISSUES, ISSUES REGARDING EMPLOYEES OF SETON AND THEIR RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO DISCRIMINATION, OF NOT -- ONE OF THEM BEING BASED ON RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES WERE RAISED. AND I DON'T SEE ANY OF THESE COMING THROUGH TODAY FROM THE CITY STAFF. I SEE THAT THE CITY STAFF CONSISTENTLY HAS ONLY FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. IT HASN'T ADDRESSED ANY OF THE OTHER CONCERNS. MANY OF THEM ARE EQUALLY VALID CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ALL ALONG. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT KNOWN AND MAKE THAT POINT HERE TODAY. I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR QUESTIONS FROM CITY STAFF AS WELL AS FROM THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF THE OVER SIGHT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TOUCHED ON ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES BESIDES REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. MAYBE THEY DID SO, BUT NOT IN A WAY THAT ANSWERED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED. AND THERE WERE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO RAISED ALL SORTS OF OTHER QUESTIONS APARPT FROM REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION NEED TO BE BROADENED AND INCLUDE OTHER ISSUES AS WELL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND PAM THOMPSON IS NEXT. MS. THOMPSON, WELCOME. AND FOLLOWING MS. THOMPSON IS HANNAH RITTERING.

I KNOW THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THESE BEFORE, BUT I JUST GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE SYNOPSIS OF THE CATHOLIC INITIATIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WHEN THIS LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WITH SETON, BETWEEN SETON AND BRACK, THAT THE SAME INITIATIVES WERE ON THE BOOKS AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN PRACTICING GOOD POLICY, GOOD MEDICAL POLICY ALL THIS TIME UNTIL SETON DECIDED THAT THEY NEEDED TO ENFORCE THEIR RULES. SO IT'S SORT OF MISLEADING TO THINK THAT THEY MIGHT NOT DO IT AGAIN, THAT THINGS COULD CHANGE. AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN DEFAULT NOW, BECAUSE FOR YEARS THEY DID PRACTICE AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING SUDDENLY THEY CAN'T, I DON'T SEE WHY WE'RE HAVING TO PAY FOR SEPARATE CARE FOR WOMEN BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE WITH THEIR CHURCH. I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE CITY IS NOW -- I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO EXPLAIN THIS AND MAYBE I'M WRONG. I'M JUST A LAYPERSON. TO ME THE 13 MILLION DOLLARS IN INDIGENT CARE THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS ASKED FOR STATISTICS SAYING WHAT PART OF THAT CARE WENT TO WOMEN'S SERVICES. IF WE ARE GOING TO ABSORB WOMEN'S SERVICES ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, THEN WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT 13 MILLION DOLLARS ARE WE GOING TO ABSORB ALONG WITH THAT. SO IF YOUR IDEA IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP THIS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SETON BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVIDED THIS LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND CARE THAT WE ARE THEN GOING TO TAKE OVER BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT WOMEN SERVICES WAS A LARGE AND EXPENSIVE ITEM ON THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THIS. AND UNTIL THEY PROVIDE THE STATISTICS TO THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN RUSH TO MEET THEIR DEADLINE WITHOUT HAVING THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS DECISION. I THINK THAT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL CARE WENT OUT IN THE 50'SN THIS COUNTRY, AND I THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A MINORITY. AND THERE ARE OPTIONS. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE UNEMPLOYED IN THIS TOWN NOW. A LOT OF THEM HAVE GREAT MANAGEMENT SKILLS. I DON'T SEE WHY WE DON'T EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS. THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL IS NOT A FEASIBLE OPTION FOR WOMEN AND THEIR HEALTH CARE. IF A WOMAN NEEDS HELP, SHE -- I REPEATEDLY HEARD THE STAFF WHEN THEY GAVE THIS PLAN, SETON WILL DEAL WITH THE PATIENT. THAT'S ONE PATIENT AND SETON. IT'S LIKE SETON VERSUS THE PATIENT. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SIGN -- . [BUZZER].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOUR TIME IS UP.

OKAY. PLEASE SAY NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. HANNAH RITTERING. FOLLOWING -- HOLD IT A SECOND. FOLLOWING HIS RITTERING IS DR. NEAL COULD CERTIFY REC. WELCOME.

GOOD EVENING COUNCIL AND MAYOR. MANY OF YOU OVER THE YEARS HAVE HEARD ME REFER TO MYSELF AS CASSANDRA. THE FIRST TIME I MADE THAT REFERENCE WAS OVER THIS ISSUE SEVEN YEARS AGO, AND YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. I STOOD IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, AND YOU WILL REMEMBER THIS, MR. GARCIA, AND I SAID, DO NOT BRING THAT WOODEN HORSE INSIDE THE GATES OF TROY. AND NOW WE ARE SEVEN YEARS LATER HAVING THIS HUGE BATTLE, WATCHING THE CITY STAFF DO THIS INCREDIBLY LOW LIMBO TO TRY TO MATCH UP WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION'S RULES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH CARE. IT'S SICKENING. IN CALLING IT -- SAYING THAT IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE CLARIFICATIONS, IT MISSES DIRECTIVES. WELL, I'VE READ THE BISHOP'S DIRECTIVES, FIVE YEARS AGO, SEVEN YEARS AGO, OVER AND OVER OF THE. I'VE READ THEY'RE SO-CALLED CLARIFICATION. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. IT WAS VERY CLEAR SEVEN YEARS AGO. THIS IS NOT A CLAIRE FA CASE, THIS IS SIMPLY A TIGHTENING OF THE SCREWS. BY PUTTING AUSTIN'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS, THE POOR AND THE UNINSURED, IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE HAVING TO FOLLOW RELIGIOUS GOALS AGAINST THEIR WILL AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, YOU ARE VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS. AND IF YOU ARE POOR, YOU HAVE NO LESS CIVIL RIGHTS THAN IF YOU ARE WEALTHY. AND IN TRYING TO DISCUSS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH CITY STAFF, THEY CONTINUALLY PAT ME ON THE HEAD AND SAY NOW, NOW, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HEALTH CARE FINANCING. I DON'T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HEALTH CARE FINANCING. WHICH OF YOUR OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. THE 14TH AMENDMENT!!? IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER TO HAVE ELECTION WHERE'S WE ONLY HAD TO PAY TO HAVE WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS VOTE. THE 19TH AMENDMENT? WHICH OF THOSE WOULD YOU GIVE UP BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE THE CITY MONEY? THIS WHOLE PLAN, AS YOU LISTEN TO IT, IS GOING TO CREATE A MASSIVE BUREAUCRACY, PART OF WHICH IS A CITY BUREAUCRACY PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO FORCE COMPLIANCE AND THEN OF COURSE ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A BUREAUCRACY IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY CAN SKATE AROUND COMPLIANCE AND NOT REALLY DO IT, BUT SAY THEY DID. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A PLAN WHERE MEDICAL DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES IN OUR PUBLIC HOSPITAL WITH PUBLIC MONIES AND WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO DEFENSE AGAINST IT. AND IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS PLAN, THEN I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR YOU EVER GO AROUND ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAILS AND CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT'S FAITH-BASED SOCIAL SERVICE PLAN, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN SUPPORT FAITH-BASED HEALTH CARE, THEN BELIEVE ME, YOU ARE ALSO SUPPORTING FAITH-BASED SOCIAL SERVICES. THANK YOU. [BUZZER].

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. FOLLOWING HIM IS RICHARD NEVIL.

I'M FROM ST. DAVID'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND THE DILIGENCE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC IS PUTTING INTO THE ISSUE. HEALTH CARE IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. AND TODAY IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. I COME HERE TONIGHT GRAVELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNINSURED WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. 24% OF THE CITIZENS OF CENTRAL TEXAS ARE UNINSURED AT THE PRESENT TIME. ST. DAVID'S, SETON, THE CITY AND SOME OF THE SMALLER PROVIDERS ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO PROVIDE CARE FOR ALL THESE FOLKS. PLEASE IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ISSUE, LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE, MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE REALLY AT THE EDGE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE CARE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE AT THE PRESENT TIME. AND FACTOR THAT INTO OUR CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS ENTITIES ARE WORKING TOGETHER VERY WELL AT THE PRESENT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CARE FOR ALL. SETON HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF OPERATING BRACKENRIDGE AND THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. SETON IS WORKING WITH ST. DAVID'S AND WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE SMALLER PRIMARY CARE PROVIDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE RECEIVES HEALTH CARE. WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM,. PLEASE IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS MAKE SURE THAT YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE AND THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM TO MEET ALL THE NEEDS OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF ALL TYPES OF MEDICAL CARE WITH THE PHYSICIANS IN THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, DOCTOR. RICHARD NEVIL. WELCOME, SIR.

WELCOME, YOUR HONOR, WELCOME -- THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS RICHARD NEVIL. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANY ORGANIZATION AT THE PRESENT TIME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT I DO REPRESENT A VOICE OF REASON. I HOPE YOU COULD FOLLOW ALL THE SCENARIOS THAT MS. YOUNG DEVELOPED FOR WOMEN WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES AT BRACKENRIDGE. IF IT'S X, THEN THEY GO TO Y-1. IF IT'S X-2 THEN THEY GO TO Y-5. I COULDN'T FOLLOW IT ALL. I HOPE YOU COULD. I'D LIKE TO OFFER TWO POSSIBLE, FAIRLY SIMPLE SCENARIOS, AND BOTH ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY GOING THROUGH WITH THE PROPOSED LEASE CHANGES. 19-YEAR-OLD MARIA AND HUSBAND JOSE ARE CATHOLIC. MARIA'S PREGNANT WITH THEIR THIRD CHILD. THEY CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE CHILDREN AFTER THIS ONE. SO THEY DECIDE THAT MARIA WILL HAVE A POSTPARTUM TUNE ALLYGATION. THEY MAKE ARRANGEMENTS BEFOREHAND. MARIA DELIVERS ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND HAS THE TUBAL LIGATION. THEY ARE FAMILY ASKS, WHY DID YOU GO TO THE FIFTH FLOOR TO HAVE YOUR BABY? SHE CAN'T TELL THEM, SO SHE MAKES UP A STORY. SHE LIES TO HER PARENTS. SHE LIES TO HER PRIEST. BUT THEY SUSPECT SHE'S UNDER SUSPICION AND SHE'S MADE TO FEEL GUILTY. WHAT DOES THIS DO TO HERSELF IMAGE, HER MENTAL HEALTH? CAN YOU EMPATHIZE WITH MARIA AND MANY OTHERS LIKE HER? CAN YOU PUT YOURSELF HAD IN HER SHOES? PRIVACY I'M TALKING ABOUT. SCENARIO TWO, YOU AGREE TO THE FIFTH FLOOR DEAL. NOW HARD FINANCIAL NUMBERS ARE DIFFICULT TO COME BY, AREN'T THEY, SO I WILL ESTIMATE THAT IT COSTS THE CITY AND SETON ABOUT 43 MILLION DOLLARS CAPITAL COSTS AND THEN THE CITY PAYS ABOUT THREE MILLION PER YEAR TO RUN THE FIFTH FLOOR. DURING THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, ABOUT 1500 WOMEN BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCES, HAVE POSTPARTUM TUBAL LIGATIONS. MANY OF THEM FACE THE STIGMA I'VE ALREADY DESCRIBED. THE TOTAL COST FOR THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL OVER THAT FOUR-YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE ABOUT 55 MILLION DOLLARS, PRINCIPALLY SO THOSE 1500 WOMEN COULD HAVE POST HAR ITEM TUBAL LIGATIONS. NOW, I ASK YOU HOW'S YOUR MATH. WHAT WAS THE COST PER STERILIZATION? GIVE UP. I'LL DO THE MATH FOR YOU. IT WAS ABOUT $37,000 FOR EACH STERILIZATION. THOSE NUMBERS ARE REASONABLE. OR THEY'RE UNREASONABLE. CAN YOU SAY EXPENSIVE? THEN AFTER FOUR YEARS THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAY SORRY, WE CANNOT MORALLY CONTINUE THIS ARRANGEMENT, WELL, WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, YOUR HONOR? [BUZZER]. THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY. BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED HERE SAY THERE IS. PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM, I BEG YOU. YES, I WILL BE QUIET. AND PLEASE EMPATHIZE WITH MARIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. SAM RUIZ. AND FOLLOWING MR. RUIZ IS MS. TINA HOMES? MR. RUIZ, IF YOU COULD COME UP. MS. HOMES, IF YOU COULD COME UP CLOSER SO YOU CAN COME UP WHEN I CALL YOU. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND CITY COUNCIL. I SIMPLY WANT TO GO BACK TO THE DILEMMA THAT WHEN MY WIFE WENT TO MEDICAL SCHOOL SHE DID HER RESIDENCY AT BRACK AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN THROUGH THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AUSTIN WAS KNOWN FOR IS TO BRING IN GOOD RESIDENTS BECAUSE BRACK WAS SUCH A GOOD TEACHING HOSPITAL. AND THE WORD THAT'S BEING PASSED OUT RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE TOP STUDENTS WHO WANT TO BE IN FAMILY PRACTICE AND OTHER FIELDS TO COME TO AUSTIN, THAT THEY'RE CHOOSING NOT TO COME BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY THAT THEY'RE HAVING IN THIS DECISION. I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN IN A LOT OF AREA AND I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A DIFFICULT TASK AND I HOPE YOU WILL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. RUIZ. TINA HOMES. AND FOLLOWING MS. HOMES IS DANIEL TURNY. MS. HOMES, WELCOME.

I AM OPPOSED TO THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: BRING THE MIC DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

I AM OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR SEVERAL REASONS, AND I ALSO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL UNANSWERED BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN DISSEMINATED IN THE ROOM TONIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SEEMS TO BE CONCERNED ONLY WITH REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AND DOES NOT ADDRESS OTHER POSSIBLE AREAS OF CONFLICT SUCH AS END OF LIFE DECISIONS. AUSTIN'S RELIANCE ON SETON FOR FUNDING OF INDIGENT CARE HAS RESULTED IN AN UNHEALTHY ALLIANCE THAT PROMOTES THE BELIEF THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER VIABLE CHOICE REGARDING BRACKENRIDGE. THIS PROPOSAL CREATES A SEGREGATED HEALTH CARE FACILITY THAT IS BASED ON REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE. THIS MAY LEAD TO FURTHER STIGMA TAIZATION OF RAPE VICTIMS, SEPARATE DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL AND WILL DEFINITELY AFFECT PRIVATELY. AS THE MAJORITY OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO WOMEN, THIS ACTION WILL CREATE AN INEQUITY IN HOW WOMEN ARE TREATED IN THE AUSTIN HEALTH CARE ARENA. THIS SOLUTION CAN ALSO NEVER BE THOUGHT OF AS A PERMANENT PLAN. THE CURRENT PROPOSALS ALSO CALLS FOR SETON TO PROVIDE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO THE FIFTH FLOOR FACILITY. THESE ACTIONS COULD BE INTERPRETED BY SOME WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BE ASSISTING OTHERS IN THE COMMISSION OF SINFUL ACT. WHAT DO WE DO IN THAT OCCURS? WHAT HAPPENS TO FURTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DIRECTIVES RESULT IN ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY? IF THE CITY MUST TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPRODUCTIVE CARE, THEN ALL SUCH SERVICES SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CITY. THIS WILL ENSURE ALL PATIENTS ARE TREATED EQUITABLY, FAIRLY AND PRIVATELY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DANIEL TURN YES. AND FOLLOWING HER, SARAH WHEAT.

SIR, I DO NOT WISH TO TESTIFY, BUT I STILL WISH TO BE RECORDED AS AGAINST.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE RECORD AS AGAINST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SARAH WHEAT? MS. WHEAT. FOLLOWING MS. WHEAT, MS. KUNZY. WELCOME.

THANKS, MAYOR GARCIA, THANKS FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT. AND WE PROESHT ALL OF YOU TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE AND TO HEAR SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK MAYOR WATSON FOR HIS INITIAL LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE AND FOR MAYOR GARCIA FOR HIS COMMITMENT TO MAKING SURE THAT WOMEN AT BRACKENRIDGE HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS ACCESS TO SERVICES THAT OTHER WOMEN DO. AND TRISH YOUNG AND BETTIE DUNKERLEY IN PARTICULAR HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS WITH ALL OF US TRYING TO COME UP WITH A POSITIVE SOLUTION TO THIS. SO MUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID TONIGHT AND IN MANY MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE JULY ON THIS ISSUE. AND I'M MAKING A FEW POINTS ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR THE TEXAS ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE. AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS WHO BELIEVE THAT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF WOMEN'S HEALTH AND WELL-BEING. AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT CONTRACEPTION AND FAMILY PLANNING IS AN OVERWHELINGLY POPULAR AND BASIC SERVICE THAT WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES IN AUSTIN SUPPORT. WOMEN BEING ABLE TO PLAN AND SPACE THEIR CHILDREN IS AN PORN SERVICE FOR FAMILIES HERE. IN OUR CITY. SETON IS AN OUTSTANDING HEALTH PROVIDER IN SO MANY WAYS AND WHONG THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE TONIGHT. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT SETON'S DECISION TO ONLY PROVIDE PARTIAL HEALTH CARE TO WOMEN'S PATIENTS IS DETRIMENTAL ON THE PATIENTS OF BRACKENRIDGE. PARTICULARLY TO THE LOW INCOME AND UNINSURED WOMEN WHO OFTEN DON'T HAVE OTHER RESOURCES FOR HEALTH CARE. AND THIS RESTRICTIVE AND NONMEDICAL APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE LEAVES US IN THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN TONIGHT. WE HAVE SEVERAL SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT, WHICH WE WILL SHARE WITH CITY STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF OUR OVERWHELMING CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN. ONE IS THAT AS OTHERS ECHO TONIGHT, WE FEAR THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS TEMPORARY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ASSURANCE OR ANY CONFIDENCE FRANKLY THAT THERE WON'T BE OTHER EITHER NEW DIRECTIVES OR CHANGES IN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DIRECTIVES IN THE YEAR OR TWO YEARS AHEAD. AND ALSO WHEN THE CITY AND SETON SIT DOWN THREE YEARS FROM NOW TO LOOK AT THE FINANCES, WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL. WE ALSO HAVE MANY OTHERS TO ECHO TONIGHT. WE THINK AS AN EXPENSIVE SOLUTION. I THINK THESE CHANGES ARE BEING MADE AS A RESULT OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOP'S DIRECTIVE AND YET THE TAXPAYERS ARE STILL BEARING A LARGE PORTION OF THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CHANGES. AND FINALLY WE FEAR THAT THIS IS AN INADEQUATE SOLUTION FROM THE PATIENT'S PERSPECTIVES. I THINK THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND AUSTIN RESIDENTS DESERVE A LONG-TERM SOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO SERVE THE BEST INTEREST OF AUSTIN WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES. AND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS PARTNERSHIP AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY IS NOT PROVIDING THE BEST INTERESTS. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. I READ THE SAME OF ZORA KVUE NEWS. SHE SAYS SHE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT SHE WISHES TO BE REGISTERED AS BEING AGAINST. MR. MEL SOONS ALSO DOESN'T WISH TO SPAEND HE'S REGISTERED AGAINST BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL PROPOSAL. SHANE WAILY, HE HAS -- HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK. HIS COMMENT IS I'M OPPOSED TO THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL PLAN. IT WILL RESTRICT REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. MICHELLE MILLFORD IS ALSO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK AND WANTS TO BE REGISTERED TO BE AGAINST. MR. KEVIN REED? AND FOLLOWING MR. REED IS STANDISH MEEKUM, WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AFTER THAT? MARGARET, I THINK IT'S KLONZE. MR. REED, WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS REALLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM. I COME TO YOU TONIGHT WITH A LONG COMMITMENT TO INDIGENT CARE IN THIS CITY AND A VERY KEEN SENSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM THAT YOU FACE. I SPENT SIX YEARS AS A CHAIR OF THE MAP BOARD. IN THE EARLY 90'S I CHAIRED A THING CALLED THE HEALTH TASKFORCE. I SERVED ON THE BRACKENRIDGE EVALUATION TEAM THAT LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVES FOR BRACKENRIDGE. I SEARCHED AS COUNSEL TO THE AUSTIN HOSPITAL AUTHORITY WHEN IT TALKED ABOUT ACQUIRING BRACKENRIDGE. AND I SERVED AS THE FIRST CHAIR OF THE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH ALL OF THAT HISTORY, I SOMETIMES THINK I'M AN EXCESSIVE VOLUNTEER, BUT I'M HERE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT. I WILL TELL YOU AFTER HAVING LOOK AT IT CLOSELY AND HAVING WATCHED THIS PROCESS, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST OPTION FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES, BUT I CAN HONESTLY TELL YOU AND VERY SINCERELY THAT I THINK IT IS THE VERY, VERY BEST OPTION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US AS WE STAND HERE TONIGHT. PAT HAYS BEGAN HER PRESENTATION SUGGESTING THAT YOU REMEMBER THE HISTORY, AND I ALSO SUGGEST TO YOU VERY STRONGLY THAT YOU REMEMBER THE HISTORY. BRACKENRIDGE WAS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL IT WAS A REGULAR HEADLINE IN THE "AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN" AND NOT A GOOD HEADLINE. IT WENT THROUGH MORE ADMINISTRATORS THAN IT HAD PHYSICIANS. THE JOKE AMONG THE DOCTORS WAS IF THERE'S A NEW ADMINISTRATOR, YOU BETTER MEET HIM FAST BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LAST LONG. I DOUBT THAT ANYONE WOULD SAY LOOKING BACK THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF BRACK WAS THIS CITY'S FINEST HOUR. IN FACT, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, THIS WAS A TIME OF TURMOIL AND DISORGANIZATION IN THE TREATMENT OF INDA JENTS IN THIS CITY. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I THINK THAT HAS CHANGED, BOTH FOR BRACKENRIDGE AND THE TREATMENT FOR INDA JENTS IN THIS CITY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE SETON CITY RELATIONSHIPS, EXCEPT ON THIS ISSUE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES HAS WORKED AND HAS WORKED EXTRAORDINARILY WELL. THE PARTNERSHIP WORKS FOR THE CITY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IT WORKS FOR THE INDIGENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO RELY ON BRACKENRIDGE FOR THE IMPORTANT ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. THIS AMENDMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND SETON, AND IT'S THE VERY, VERY BEST THING THAT WE CAN DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. REED. AND I FAILED TO READ INTO THE RECORD FIRST IN THE CASE OF ZORA COONS. SHE DID A DRAWING IN THE BACK THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS. I THINK IT'S A DRAWING OF ME. [LAUGHTER]. I'LL TAKE THAT AS A COMPLICATE. AND MR. MEL COONS, I DIDN'T READ HIS COMMENTS. THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL PROPOSAL PROMISES TO OFFER INADEQUATE HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN. THE LEASE NEGOTIATIONS WITH SETON HAS PROVEN TO BE A SEXIST AND RELIGIOUSLY DISCRIMINATORY ARRANGEMENT AND IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN OUR CITY HOSPITAL. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THAT POINT. STANDISH MEEKUM DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK AND IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE AMENDMENT. HEIDI SPONN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT WISHES TO BE REGISTERED AGAINST. STEVEN SALSMAN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK AND IS REGISTERED AGAINST, STRONGLY AGAINST. MARGARET CLAENS.

THAT'S MARGO CLARK.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, MARGO CLARK. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY. WHAT TIME IS IT? [LAUGHTER].

THAT'S OKAY. IT'S GETTING LATE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT. MY NAME IS MARGO CLARK. I AM A BOARD MEMBER WITH TAROL. AND I FEEL VERY TORN ABOUT THIS SITUATION, WHICH I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED. I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE CITY AND THE CITY STAFF FOR WORKING SO HARD ON WHAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A VERY DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX ISSUE. AND I'M SURE THAT MOST OF YOU WISH THAT IT WOULD GO AWAY. BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE INDIGENT AND UNINSURED RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN. AND HEALTH CARE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN JUST BE -- GO AWAY AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. IT'S CRITICAL THAT WOMEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE INDIGENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE INSURANCE OR NOT, REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING, HAVE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. AND I AGREE WITH MR. REED THAT THIS MAY VERY WELL BE THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY GOOD. I HAVE A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE DOCTOR WHO REPRESENTED THE DOCTORS AT SETON, HE SAID THAT SETON -- BRACKENRIDGE PROVIDES A SAFETY NET FOR AUSTIN. AND I JUST THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT SAFETY NETS SHOULDN'T HAVE HOLES IN THEM. THE SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS THAT COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A COUNSELOR TO COME IN TO TELL THEM ABOUT EMERGENCY CONTRA ACCEPTING. IF A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE THINGS THAT CAN EVER HAPPEN TO ANYONE IS IN FEAR THAT SHE WILL BECOME PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF HER ATTACK AND ASKS A MEDICAL -- A MEDICAL PERSONNEL AT THE HOSPITAL, WHAT ABOUT PREGNANCY, HOW CAN I AVOID GETTING PREGNANT BECAUSE OF THIS ATTACK? A DOCTOR OR A NURSE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SAY, WELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE COUNSELOR GETS HERE SO THAT YOU CAN ASK ABOUT THAT. THAT IS -- THAT'S IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL. MY SECOND CONCERN IS I CAN'T SEEM TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHY THERE HAS TO BE A SEPARATE ELEVATOR INSTALLED AT A HUGE COST TO GET PATIENTS TO THE FIFTH FLOOR. I'M ASSUMING THERE'S ALREADY ELEVATORS IN BRACKENRIDGE THAT STOP AT THE FIFTH FLOOR. AND I CAN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT ANSWERS GET GIVEN. [BUZZER]. SO THAT'S SOME CONCERN.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. CLARK, YOUR TIME IS UP. UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO GIVE YOU TIME.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HOPE WE CAN MAKE THIS BETTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. AND INCIDENTALLY, NETS DO HAVE HOLES, BUT WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE TOO BIG THAT THEY DON'T GO THROUGH. MICHAEL SIPANEK? IS HE HERE? CHARLIE HOLT? MR. HOLT?

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, I SEE THAT MR. SPINAK IS BEHIND YOU, SO COULD YOU WAIT A SECOND? I THOUGHT HE WASN'T HERE. SO MR. SPINAK, YOU'RE ON. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. THIS IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THAT I TYPICALLY WOULD COME OUT FOR, BUT AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, I SERVED ON THE POLICE OVERSIGHT FOCUS GROUP AND AM CONCERNED WITH THOSE ISSUES. BUT I URGE YOU TONIGHT TO ALLOW THE BHOC RELIGIOUSES TO GUIDE YOUR THINKING DECISIONS HERE TONIGHT, ESPECIALLY RECOMMENDATION 1. ALSO I URGE YOU TO CLARIFY ANY UNCERTAINTIES YOU HAVE BY SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM A REPORT FROM THE CONSUMER UNION. FOR ME THE AMENDED BRIEFING OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT IN DETAIL CREATED MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN THAN THEY PROVIDED ANSWERS. AND JUST LET ME DETAIL THOSE VERY QUICKLY. I THINK ONE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, COUNCIL, IS THE ISSUE OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION, BUT ACCURATE INFORMATION. IT SEEMS THAT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS OF WHERE TO PROPERLY PLACE EACH PATIENT CRITICALLY RELIES ON A COMPLEX WEB OF INFORMATION AND TO ACHIEVE THIS SEEMS UNUSUAL SUSPECT TO ME, IF NOT IMPROBABLE. ALSO, I HEARD NO ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE DWOELT DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES. SIMPLY PUT, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF HOW EACH OF THE PLANS AND PROPOSALS AND GRID AND SCHEMATIC CHARTS WOULD BE ENGAGING IN SOME TYPE OF OVERSIGHT CONCERN. AS I LISTENED HERE TONIGHT DURING THE BRIEFING, I WAS CONTINUE ACTUALLY REMINDED BY HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR A HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL CREATES NOT A SEAMLESS WEB OF TERROR AS CITY MANAGER GAR EI CAN'T SUGGESTED IT WOULD IN 1995, BUT RATHER CREATES SIMPLY A SEGREGATED SERVICE FOR QUALITY CARE FOR WOMEN. TO ENSURE I THINK COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE OF THE PARTIES AND BY THOSE PARTIES, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE WOULD NEED EACH DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TO BE CLOSELY MONITORED. AND ALSO WITHIN THAT TO HAVE PERHAPS SOME TYPE OF SHADOWING PROGRAM THAT OCCURS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL AS MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO GO TO ONE OF THE MAGNET SCHOOLS. FOR THIS TO BE A THOROUGHLY PUBLIC PROCESS, SO KNOW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE AS EACH SCHEME IN FORMAT IS ACTUALLY COMPLIED WITH. AS WE ALL KNOW ALSO, COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE PRONE TO ERROR IN FAILURE AS WELL. THAT IS, WHAT WILL WE DO IN AN ERROR DOES OCCUR? FOR EXAMPLE, IF A FIFTH FLOOR PREREGISTERED PATIENT ACTUALLY DELIVERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, HOW ARE WE GOING TO RECTIFY AND REMEDY THAT? ARE WE ALSO GOING TO PROVIDE I THINK THE SCHEMATIC CHART TO EACH PATIENT AS THEY ENTER THE SYSTEM AS A MAP AND GUIDELINE? I WOULD CERTAINLY NEED ONE TO SEE WHERE I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO. THIS SEEMS TO ME A VERY UNFRIENDLY PROCESS AND AN UNFRIENDLY PROPOSAL. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. [BUZZER]. IN SUM, GIVE ME 30 SECONDS, I THINK THIS IS NOT A NUMBERS GAME, IT IS ABOUT PEOPLE. IT IS NOT ABOUT FLOW CHARTS, IT IS ABOUT QUALITY CARE FOR WOMEN. IT IS NOT ABOUT HOW SERVICES AND BIRTHING SERVICES AND REPRODUCTIVE CARE FOR WOMEN CAN BE MARRIED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS TO I THINK WHAT SEEMS TO BE A SAVE FACE PROGRAM. AGAIN I URGE YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THIS TIME. MR. CHARLIE HOLT. AND PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS. WELCOME, MR. HOLT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS STRUGGLE WITH THIS AMENDMENT AND AGREEMENT IS BEING FOLLOWED NATIONALLY. AND I THINK THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED, WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT PRECOMMITMENT, PREREGISTERED, CONSENT FORMS. IT ALL SOUNDS LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION. BUT I REMIND YOU A LOT OF DOCTORS WHO PERFORMED ABORTIONS HAVE BEEN MURDERED AND THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH ARE VERY MUCH IN OUR CONSCIOUS. THE ESTIMATES OF WHAT THE COSTS OF THAT EVENT IS SOMETHING LIKE 50 TO 75 BILLION DOLLARS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS IN A VERY NARROW WAY. THE CONSTITUTION CALLS FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE HEARD DISCUSSED IN DETAIL TONIGHT IS ANYTHING BUT A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. AND I THINK THAT'S A SOUND PRINCIPLE, ONE THAT WE OUGHT TO FOLLOW. I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK AND EFFORT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ANSWER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS A SITUATION IN WHICH WE'RE REALLY BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. BEVERLY SCAR BORROW. AND FOLLOWING MS. SAR BREAUX IS SCARBOROUGH IS MAY KILL ON. WELCOME.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M BEVERLY SCARBOROUGH, AND FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS I'VE BEEN THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR THE AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY MHMR CENTER. IN THIS CAPACITY AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHERS I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE FIRSTHAND THE COMMITMENT OF THE SETON HEALTH CARE NETWORK TO PROVIDING CARE TO THOSE WHO NEED IT. THROUGH THE INDIGENT CARE COLLABORATION, THE COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK AND MANY OTHER VEHICLES, SETON CONTINUALLY WORKS WITH OTHER PROVIDERS IN TOWN TO ENSURE ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL CITIZENS. MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN HARD HIT THROUGH THE PAST YEARS, BUT SETON HAS MANAGED TO KEEP SHOAL CREEK HOSPITAL OPEN AND NOT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S TURNING A PROFIT, BUT BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THE COMMUNITY NEEDS IT. SETON HAS ENNER GENTLEMEN TICKLY RAISED FUNDS TO PROVIDE INNOVATIVE SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AND CLINICS IN EAST AND SOUTHEAST AUSTIN. THE CITY OF AUSTIN GREAT INSTITUTION THAT IT IS WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO PROVIDE THESE KINDS OF THINGS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. SCARBOROUGH. FOLLOWING HIS KILLI. N ISTORY JANUARY, WHO IS REGISTERED AS NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND ALSO REGISTERED AGAINST. AND BILL CRIER AFTER THAT. WELCOME.

MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE-CHECK, IS THAT MARY COLIONADE? IS THE PERSON WHO IS SUPPOSED TO SPEAK MARY -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, IT'S MAIEKILLIN.

I GET CALLED ALL DIFFERENT KIND OF NAMES, SO I WAS CHECKING. MAYOR IRRELEVANT I DID MS. CLARK THAT WAY, SO I APOLOGIZE.

THANK YOU FOR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I AM HERE ON A FEW LEVELS. I'M HERE AS MOTHER OF SIX CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE IMMEDIATE PEED TRITION WHO HAS PRACTICED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR THE PAST 11 YEARS. I AM ALSO HERE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL TEXAS PEDIATRICIAN ASSOCIATION. THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS ALL OF THE PEDIATRICIANS WHO PRACTICE IN CENTRAL TEXAS, BOTH PRIVATE PEDIATRICIANS AND SUBSPECIALISTS. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SETON LOSING THE RIGHT TO RUN THIS HOSPITAL. WE HAVE SEEN ALL KIND OF WONDERFUL THINGS HAPPEN SINCE 1995 SINCE SETON OVERTOOK THE RUNNING OF CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL IS A REAL RESOURCE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. IT PROVIDES CARE FOR EVERY ONLY CHILD THAT WALKS THROUGH THAT DOOR, BOTH WEALTHY AND INDIGENT. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE OFTEN PROBABLY DON'T REALIZE UNLESS THEY'RE NEEDED OF THE SERVICES THERE. WHEN YOU HAVE A SICK THIELD CHIELD, WHEN IT'S YOUR SICK CHILD, YOU WILL BE VERY HAPPY THAT THAT HOSPITAL IS THERE. AS DR. CONNALLY SAID EARLIER, SETON IS NOT WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS, BUT THEY ARE WORKING CLOSELY WITH US AND WE HAVE SEEN ONLY PROGRESS IN A VERY DIFFICULT GROWTH PERIOD IN AUSTIN WHERE THE POPULATION IS BOOMING. IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT THAT COMES FROM THE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE ALLIANCE THAT WAS -- IT WAS SENT TO THE "AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN" THIS SUMMER, BUT NOT PUBLISHED. I HEARTILY ENDORSE ALL OF THE AUTHORS' FEELINGS IN THIS LETTER. THOUGH ENCOURAGING PROCESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE QUALITY OF CARE AVAILABLE TO OUR CHILDREN UNDER THE CITY OF AUSTIN MANAGEMENT, THE PROSPECTS FOR THE NEEDED INVESTMENT IN INNOVATIONS TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT, PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND PROGRAMS WOULD R. WERE CLEARLY AND SERIOUSLY DECLINING UNTIL SETON ASSUMED THE MANAGEMENT CONTROL AT BRACKENRIDGE. SETON'S INITIAL PROPOSAL TO MANAGE THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF AUSTIN AND WE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OUR UNQUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT OF SETON'S MANAGEMENT EFFORTS. OUR PRODUCTIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH SETON AND THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION HAS LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH QUALITY FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS TO SERVE THE CHILDREN OF CENTRAL TEXAS FAMILIES. WE ARE UNIQUELY ADVANTAGED IN AUSTIN TO BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE THIS LEVEL OF PEDIATRIC CARE TO OUR CHILDREN. SETON CONTINUES WITH ITS MISSION TO SERVE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS OF THE ACCESS BASED ON SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THEIR CARE. ALTHOUGH THIS IS PROVEN TO BE AN INCREASINGLY COSTLY COMMITMENT FOR SETON, THE AVAILABILITY OF FULL MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICES FOR ALL OUR CHILDREN HAVE NEVER BEEN IN QUESTION. THIS COMMITMENT HAS PERMITTED FAMILIES TO RECEIVE SPECIALIZED QUALITY MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN IN AUSTIN WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL STRESSFUL BURDEN OF TRAVELLING TO DISTANT CITIES IN AN UNKNOWN ENVIRONMENT. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT WITHDRAWAL OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL OF SETON WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITY AND WOULD REPRESENT A MAJOR STEP BACKWARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS BILL CRIER AND I'M THE IMMEDIATE PAST BOARD CHAIR OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE TEXAS CAPITAL REGION. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT TONIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAKS OUR SINCERE GRATITUDE FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO ENSURING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICE REMAIN AVAILABLE IN AUSTIN. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE SIMILAR PARTNERSHIPS HAVE RESULTED IN THE ELIMINATEMATION OF RUPT HEALTH SERVICES. THANKFULLY THIS IS NOT AN OPTION IN AUSTIN. I WANT TO THANK THE CITY STAFF ALSO WHO HAVE WORKED HARD TO MAKE THE BEST OF A BAD SITUATION. THEY HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT AN APPROPRIATE FORUM HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO US TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS AND OUR OPINIONS. AS A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, OUR TOP PRIORITY IS TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT GUARANTEES THE AVAILABILITY OF ALL HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL TEXAS. WE WOULD PREFER A COMPLETE CITY HOSPITAL WITH CARE DETERMINED BY WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PATIENT AND WHAT THE PATIENT WANTS RATHER THAN EXTERNAL RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS. HOWEVER, WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE NO PLANS TO TAKE BACK THE ENTIRE HOSPITAL OR TO SEEK OUT A BUSINESS PARTNER OTHER THAN SETON. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IF THE CITY WERE TO TAKE BACK ALL MATERNITY SERVICES AT BRACKENRIDGE, IT WOULD PROVE A THREAT TO THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF BOTH INSTITUTIONS. WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO BALANCE OUR CONCERNS WITH THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF BOTH INSTITUTIONS AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE VALUABLE SERVICES THAT SETON HEALTH CARE HAS PROVIDED THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN OVER THE PAST MANY YEARS. BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND AND TO US IS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE, THAT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES REMAIN AN AVAILABLE......... AVAILABLE -- A HEALTH SERVICE AS ANY OTHER HEALTH SERVICE. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES SHOULD BE TREATED AS ANY RO+INE NECESSARY AND COMMON MEDICAL SERVICE. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES SHOULD BE TREATED IN ESSENCE NO DIFFERENT THAN A WAY WARD GALLBLADDER. OUR BOTTOM LINE? ANY PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE MUST GUARANTEE TRANSPARENCY, QUALITY AND RESPECT TO ALL PATIENTS. THE UNMET NEED FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE IS GROWING. WITH THIS PROPOSAL WE STILL HAVE A CITY HOSPITAL THAT IS INADEQUATE TO MEET THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF WOMEN. WOMEN STILL WILL BE SEGREGATED BASED ON THEIR FAMILY PLANNING NEEDS. I THINK BEN SERGEANT SAID IT BEST IN A CARTOON WHEN HE CALLED THE FIFTH FLOOR THE PAY BEGAN FLOOR. -- PAGAN FLOOR. RECENT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL PROPOSAL HAVE LEFT US FEELING THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT IS TENUOUS AT BEST. WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE AS TO HOW REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES WILL BE PROTECTED IF THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES FOR THE CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES. [BUZZER]. ARE CHANGED. IN CHORT SHORT, WE BELIEVE THAT SEPARATE HAS NEVER BEEN EQUAL, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO YOUR KIRNS:

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE] IF ANYBODY COMES IN THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THESE SERVICES, YET THE LANGUAGE SEEMS TO SPEAK ONLY TO WOMEN WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS CAN BE MONITORED. OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT ALWAYS IT WOULD BE A CITY STAFF PERSON WHO WOULD BE INFORMING AND HELPING A WOMAN DEAL WITH WHATEVER HER EMERGENCY NEEDS WERE. THE PROPOSAL MAKES THAT A SETON PAID EMPLOYEE AND SO WE GET INTO HOW YOU MONITOR, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT -- THAT THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN PASSED ON BY A PERSON WHO IS IN A DIFFICULT CONFLICTING KIND OF SITUATION WHERE SHE HAS AN ETHICAL ISSUE FOR HER LICENSE AND YET SHE WORKS FOR AN EMPLOYER THAT SAYS IT'S AN IMMORAL THING TO DO. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SEAMLESSNESS OF THE WOMAN WHO HAS HER CHILD ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND GETS THE COUNSELING ABOUT -- ABOUT GETTING A BIRTH CONTROL PILLS WHEN SHE GOES HOME, A DEPO SHOT, HOW SHE'S GOING TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE THOSE BIRTH CONTROLS PILLS OR THE SHOT. WILL SHE HAVE TO CHECK OUT OF BRACKENRIDGE SETON AND THEN GO UP TO THE FIFTH FLOOR WHERE SHE HAD TO GO THROUGH PAPERWORK OR ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS IN ORDER TO GET THE PACKET OF PILLS OR THE SHOT? YOU KNOW, JUST -- THE NEED FOR IT TO BE TRANSPARENT AND SEAMLESS AND ADMINISTERED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE TO ADVOCATE ON THEIR BEHALF IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE ESSENCE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MAKE AS THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. FINALLY, WE RECOMMENDED THAT -- THAT THE -- WHOEVER YOU DO IN YOUR FINAL DELIBERATION, THAT THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAVE JURISDICTION IN -- AND BEING ABLE TO COMPARE AND LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES IN BOTH OF THESE FACILITIES, JUST AS THE OVERSIGHT FACILITIES AT SETON BRACK RIGHT NOW SO WE CAN TELL IF IT'S COMPARABLE, SO WE CAN MONITOR AND TRULY NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. BEING ABLE TO REALLY MONITOR THIS IS GOING TO BE AS SOMEONE ELSE INDICATED ADMINISTRATIVELY DIFFICULT IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT MONITORING AND ENSURING QUALITY, BECAUSE THESE ARE INDIGENT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO GO TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM AND COMPLAIN AND ADVOCATE FOR THEIR OWN BEHALF. OUR OTHER RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I FAILED TO MENTION EARLIER, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, WAS THAT WE STRESSED [BUZZER SOUNDING] THAT THE CITY IS REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO ADEQUATELY FUND THIS CITY-RUN HOSPITAL AND THAT MEANS QUALITY, SALARIES THAT DRAW THE RIGHT KINDS OF NURSING STAFF AND PEOPLE TO MAKE THIS NOT A SECOND RATE FACILITY. AND THAT WILL KEEP IT A FIRST RATE FACILITY FOR THE WOMEN WHO DO WANT AND CHOOSE TO HAVE REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES MUCH FINALLY, I JUST HAVE TO SAY THIS AS A PERSON WHO SERVED ON COUNTLESS TASK FORCES IN THIS COMMUNITY ON THIS ISSUE FOR 12 YEARS NOW. HOUSTON HAS BEEN ABLE TO RUN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL SYSTEM. DALLAS, FORT WORTH, SAN ANTONIO, EL PASO, CORPUS CHRISTI, AND SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITIES. THEY RUN A LARGE PUBLIC SYSTEM, THEIR INDIGENT PATIENTS AREN'T SUBJECTED TO THIS. IN FACT THEY GET A MUCH BROADER ARRAY OF SERVICES. I ENCOURAGE US AS A COMMUNITY ON LOOK SERIOUSLY AT REALLY ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES OF INDIGENT CARE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. OF THOSE ONES YOU MENTION -- HOW MANY OF THOSE HAVE HOSPITAL DISTRICTS.

THEY ALL HAVE. AUSTIN IS THE ONLY MAJOR COMMUNITY HAS DOESN'T HAVE ONE. EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY OUR SIZE AND SOME EVEN LESS THAN THAT.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD TAKE STATE LEGISLATION, CORRECT TO DO THAT.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT. YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NOW HAVE TO HAVE STATE LEGISLATION. BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. AND --

SLUSHER: ELABORATE ON THAT, WOULD YOU?

THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED. IT USED TO BE YOU ALWAYS HAD TO HAVE A LEGISLATIVE VOTE. NOW THERE IS A MEANS WHERE YOU A COMMUNITY CAN GO FORWARD. YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT I'M NOT PREPARED AT THIS MEMENTO GO INTO A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THAT, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT. NOW IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING BEYOND THE SIZE OF TRAVIS COUNTY, LIKE A REGIONAL NETWORK, THEN YOU DO HAVE TO SEEK SPECIAL KINDS OF LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL AND THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE TAXED.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO EITHER WAY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE OF THE -- FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WANTED TO EXPAND IT BEYOND TRAVIS WHERE BRACKENRIDGE, WHERE THE CITY OF AUSTIN WAS NO LONGER PAYING FOR THE INDIGENT CARE IN THE OTHER COUNTIES, THAT WOULD TAKE A VOTE OF EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTIES?

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DO A REGIONAL SYSTEM. I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO HAS DONE A REGIONAL SYSTEM.

SLUSHER: ME, EITHER.

IN THE STATE THAT I'M AWARE OF.

SLUSHER: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, MAYBE YOU CAN'T GIVE ME THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW. BUT IF WE WANTED TO DO IT IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TO DO IT WITHOUT STATE LEGISLATION? JUST THROUGH AN ELECTION?

AS I RECALL, THERE ARE NOW WAYS TO DO THAT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY GO BACK FOR STATE LEGISLATION. IF ANN IS STILL HERE SHE MIGHT HELP ME. SHE'S NOT HERE. WE CAN GET A BRIEFING TOGETHER FOR YOU ON THAT. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE ANSWERS TO THIS, OTHER -- YOU KNOW, IF HOUSTON CAN DO IT, FOR HEAVENS SAKES, AUSTIN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S FINE. BUT I HAVE SOME -- SOME SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS ARRANGEMENT, JUST LIKE A LOT OF THE SPEAKERS. I HAVE TO SAY THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW SUGGESTIONS THAT I'VE HEARD, OTHER THAN JUST NOT DOING IT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU FURTHER ABOUT IT.

WELL, THAT'S A LONGER -- OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE ISSUE HERE, THIS IS A SOLO MAN'S CHOICE, NOT A PERFECTLY GOOD ANSWER, WE STRUGGLED WITH IT OURSELVES TRYING TO COME UP WITH A DECENT RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU. WE THOUGHT IT WAS BEST IF THE CITY TOOK BACK ALL OF THE MATERNITY BUT THAT HAS NOT RECEIVED SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. IF IT'S GOING TO GO WITH THE PROPOSAL, AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CONSTRAINED IN TALKING ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING TO THE PATIENTS.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER MITCHELL -- I MEAN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: MS. FREEDHOLM, THERE'S ONE OF YOUR MOTIONS, NUMBER 5, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT. IT SAYS AMEND THE LEASE AND PASS CITY ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL TO ENSURE COMPARABILITY OF CARE AND QUALITY SERVICES AT BOTH HOSPITALS. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT FOR US?

OUR THINKING WAS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP THE -- THE DANGER IN THIS SET UPIS THAT THIS COMPLETELY BECOME A SECOND RATE SYSTEM. SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL MOST OF THE TIME. AND THERE'S GREAT CONCERN THAT IT'S TRUE THAT SETON HAS DONE A VERY, VERY GOOD JOB IN MANAGING THE HOSPITAL AND ATTRACTING DOCTORS BACK IN AND QUALITY PEOPLE, THE CONCERN IS THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOT OF MEASURES TO -- TO EQUAL THAT. AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THERE IS A COMMUNITY BASED GROUP, WHETHER I'M ON IT OR NOT FRANKLY, BUT A COMMUNITY BASED GROUP THAT IS COMPARING WHAT IS GOING ON IN TERMS OF MATERNITY SERVICES ON THE FIFTH FLOOR VERSUS THE SECOND FLOOR. AND MAKING SURE THAT WOMEN ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVING BIRTH CONTROL COUNSELING. PROMISES HAVE BEEN MADE AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL FULFILL THOSE PROMISES AND WE WILL GET 24/7 COVERAGE [INAUDIBLE]. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY]

ON THE FIFTH. SO THE COMMUNITY NEEDS A MONITORING GROUP THAT'S LOOKING AT WHAT'S GOING IN BOTH OF THESE FACILITIES WITH REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. PLEASE EMPOWER THEM TO HAVE THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY REALLY MONITOR, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS REALLY GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT IN THE AMENDMENT? THAT PROVISION? NO -- NO -- MY UNDERSTANDING OR THE -- TRISH AND COMPANY HAVE SAID THAT'S REALLY AN ISSUE FOR YOU TO DO BY CITY ORDINANCE, I DIDN'T SEE ANY REFERENCES IN THE AMENDMENT. I THINK THE ORIGINAL LEASE, SALLY HELP ME OUT HERE, I THINK THE ORIGINAL LEASE PROVIDES THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF -- THE CITY COUNCIL SET UP THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE THE ONLY GROUP THAT HAS STANDING TO GET FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, IS THAT TRUE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. I'M RELATIVELY NEW.

GRIFFITH: HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING THAT FINANCIAL INFORMATION?

WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY HAVE -- YES, WE'VE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BRIEFING ONCE, I'M PRETTY NEW, SO IT'S HARD TO GET A HANDLE ON ALL OF THIS QUICKLY, BUT THEY DO HAVE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BRIEFINGS.

OKAY. I JUST HAD SEEN A REQUEST FOR SOME FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT -- THAT I THINK IS DATED JANUARY 11TH. WERE YOU AT THE MEETING WHERE THAT REQUEST WAS PASSED?

YES.

GRIFFITH: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GET REGULARLY OR --

WE ARE ASKING FOR MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE.

OKAY.

SPECIFIC TO BRACKENRIDGE.

GRIFFITH: THANKS.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? MAYOR GARCIA MAYOR PRO TEM? --

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: ONE THING THAT YOU SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY ON BRIEFLY IF YOU COULD, THAT WAS THE FEAR THAT THIS SEPARATE BUT EQUAL COULD QUICKLY BECOME A SECOND RATE FACILITY. WHAT IN PARTICULAR, WHAT MECHANISMS OR WHAT OPERATING SYSTEM ARE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU SAY THAT?

WELL, ONE OF THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT WE USED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS HIRING QUALITY NURSING STAFF. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S A NURSING SHORTAGE, SETON IS ABLE TO DEAL WITH NURSING ISSUES BY MOVING PEOPLE AMONGST THEIR DIFFERENT CAMPUSES WHEN THEY ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS, FOLKS WHO -- AT CENTRAL SETON CAN MOVE OVER AND DO A SHIFT AT BRACK IF THEY NEED TO TO COVER. THE CITY IS FOR THE GOING TO HAVE THAT KIND OF POOL WITHIN WHICH TO DRAW, AND IN PAYING COMPETITIVE SALARIES, BEING ABLE TO NOT BE STUCK IN A CITY, A CITY BUREAUCRACY FOR HIRING PEOPLE, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO -- TO BE ABLE TO KEEP IT ADEQUATELY STAFFED AND WITH QUALITY STAFF AND SETON HAS QUALITY ADEQUATE STAFF. SO I MEAN THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT IN THE HOSPITAL THE NURSING STAFF IS 99% OF WHAT'S GOES ON. SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE WHERE IF THE CITY IS GOING TO REPLACE THIS HOSPITAL UNDER -- GOING TO PLACE THIS HOSPITAL UNDER THE SOMETIMES SLOW AND BUREAUCRATIC AND LESS THAN COMPETITIVE SALARY STRUCTURES THAT CAN TAKE PLACE, PARTICULARLY IN A MEDICAL MARKET, THEN IT WILL QUICKLY BECOME A SECOND RATE PLACE.

GOODMAN: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE PROBABLY ALLUDING TO. AND IT'S JUST --

SOMETHING FOR YOU TO ARE.

GOODMAN: INTERESTING, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WE HAD WHEN THE CITY RAN BRACKENRIDGE. THE DOCTORS AND NURSES, IN FACT THERE WAS A SPEAKER WHEN I LEFT THE ROOM WHO WAS REFERRING TO WHAT THE SITUATION WAS BACK THEN AND THAT WAS WE WERE HAVING A DIFFICULT, IN FACT IMPOSSIBLE TIME IN SOME CASES KEEPING DOCTORS AND NURSES BECAUSE THEY WERE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO CONTINUING TO RUN BRACKENRIDGE AS A CITY DEPARTMENT. AND IT WASN'T ALL ABOUT OPERATIONALAPIDTY AND SUPPLIES --

YOU ARE GOING TO -- YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT, IT REALLY WILL DETEARATE.

I THINK IT TAKES MONEY.

THERESA WARE. AND FOLLOWING MS. WARE IS BRIGID SHEA.

THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL FOR GIVING ME A CHANCE TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS THERESA WARE, I'M THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LIFE LINE, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT AGENCY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES FOR PREGNANT WOMEN FOR THE PAST 24 YEARS, WE SERVED OVER 7,000 CLIENTS WHO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO STAY IN OUR PROGRAM FOR 15 MONTHS, WHICH IS UP TO SIX MONTHS OUT OF THE -- AFTER THE BABY IS BORN. OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS, WE'VE HAD OVER 200 BABIES BORN TO OUR MOTHERS EACH YEAR. AND YOU OUR CLIENTS ARE TEMPORARILY POOR, WORKING POOR, POORER AND DESTITUTE THAT IS A LOT OF BABIES, TOGETHER WITH THE MANY PROBLEMS THAT GO WITH BEING PREGNANT AND POOR IN AUSTIN. THROUGHOUT THIS TIME I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING A BETTER WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH SETON FOR OUR CLIENT. ONE ASPECT IS SETON'S WILLINGNESS TO GIVE ... BEFORE MEDICAID WAS AVAILABLE FOR DHIFERRY SERVICES FOR WOMEN WHO WERE NOT CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS, WE HAD MANY CLIENTS WHO WERE WITHOUT RESOURCES AND INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MANY CLIENTS DELIVERED AT SETON HOSPITAL AT NO CHARGE TO THE PATIENT, THEIR DELIVERIES WERE COVERED BY SETON CHARITY CARE. THEIR OBSTETRICAL CARE WAS GIVEN PRO BONO BY LOCAL PHYSICIANS. IF SETON HAD NOT GIVEN THIS CHARITY THEY WOULD HAVE DELIVERED AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WITHOUT HAVING HAD ANY PRE NATE HYBL TALL CARE AT ENORMOUS -- PRENATAL CARE WITHOUT ENORMOUS TAXPAYER EXPENSE. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THIS CARE AT ANY OTHER HOSPITAL IN AUSTIN. I THINK SOMETIMES THIS CHARITY CARE WAS CAST LIKE BREAD UPON THE WATERS. I REMEMBER ONE PARTICULAR CLIENT WHO HAD THREE C SECTIONS COVERED BY SETON CHARITY. DURING THAT TIME LIFE LINE HELPED HER TO GET HER MASTER'S DEGREE IN HUMAN SERVICES. WHEN SHE RETURNED HOME, SHE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN HELPING PREGNANT WOMEN IN HER COUNTRY. ANOTHER WHO CAME FROM PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA WENT BACK HOME WITH GLOWING ACCOUNTS OF THE WONDERFUL FREE TREATMENT SHE HAD RECEIVED IN A PRIVATE HOSPITAL IN THIS CAPITALIST COUNTRY. I KNOW THIS SETON VALUES ITS SERVICE TO THE POOR AND HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CHARITY CARE GOING FAR BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY HILL BETTERTON REGULATIONS. IN DEALING WITH SETON STAFF, THE LIFETIME STAFF AND CLIENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TREATED WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT AND AT NO TIME WERE THE CLIENTS TREATED IN ANY WAY THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE PAYING PATIENTS. I KNOW THAT SETON WILL WORK WITH THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENT SO THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SERVICES THEY NEED AND BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT. I CANNOT SEE THIS ARRANGEMENT AS OTHER THAN A WIN-WIN SITUATION. THE POOR AND INDIGENT WILL TIP TO RECEIVE MEDICAL SERVICES, SETON WILL REMAIN TRUE TO ITS VALUES AND THOSE PATIENTS WHO USE THE HOSPITAL HOSPITAL -- HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL WILL GET THE SERVICES THEY REQUIRE. I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: BRIGID SHEA.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I'M OVER HERE. MAYOR GARCIA THERE YOU ARE.

FOLLOWING COUNCILMEMBER SHEA IS KATHY MITCHELL. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. I AM BRIGID SHEA, I'M WORKING WITH SETON ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE AS I DID IN 1995, WHEN I VOTE ON THE COUNCIL FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT, THAT WHILE IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, IT'S THE BEST SOLUTION THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME TO GUARANTEE THE PROVISION OF CARE TO THE POOR. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO READ THIS LETTER BY BETTY HIMMELBLAUGH. SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW HER. FOR THOSE WHO DON'T SHE SERVED ON THE CITY COUNCIL FROM 1975 TO 1981. SHE WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE CREATION OF THE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHICH IS HOW THE CITY HELPS TO PROVIDE CARE TO THE INDIGENT. SHE SERVED ON THE BRACKENRIDGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM 1985 TO '96 AND SHE'S ALSO A LIFE MEMBER OF THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION. HER LETTER FOLLOWS: AS ONE OF THE LONGEST SERVING MEMBERS OF THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON THE HISTORY OF BRACKENRIDGE AND HOW IT HAS FARED SIN THE PARTNERSHIP WAS CREATED BETWEEN -- SINCE THE PARTNERSHIP WAS CREATED BETWEEN SETON AND BRACKENRIDGE. BEFORE SETON TOOK OVER THE MANAGEMENT BRACKENRIDGE AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL DIDN'T HAVE THE FUND TO IMPROVE ANYTHING ON THE PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT WASN'T BEING UPGRADED OR REPLACED. WITHOUT THESE JEVMENTS IN EQUIPMENT AND PHYSICAL PLANT OVER TIME WE WOULD HAVE LOST OUR EXPERIENCED DOCTORS AND EVENTUALLY IT WOULD HAVE BECOME A HOSPITAL THAT NO INSURED PATIENT WOULD GO TO. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN, BUT WITHOUT THE PARTNERSHIP WITH SETON, BRACKENRIDGE WAS HEADED DOWNHILL. TODAY THE PHYSICAL PLANT IS IN WONDERFUL CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE INVESTMENTS FROM SETON AND THEY HAVE INVESTED WAY ABOVE WHAT THEIR CONTRACT CALLED FOR. I HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW MANY RIBBON CUTTINGS THAT I HAVE ATTENDED SINCE 1996 ON EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT THAT SETON HAS PUT IN. THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, THE PARKING GARAGE FOR CHILDREN, THE FUTURE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND SERVICES IN GENERAL WHAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED. NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THEY ASSUMED THE TREMENDOUS BURDEN OF THE INDIGENT CARE POPULATION THAT IS GROWING. THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT. IF SETON HAD NOT PICKED UP THE INCREASED COST FOR INDIGENT CARE, THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. THE CITY WOULD HAVE HAD 30 MILLION DOLLARS LESS FOR STREETS, POLICE, PARKS, LIBRARIES, ET CETERA. ON TOP OF THAT, SETON IS BEARING THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE FINEST TRAUMA CENTER IN ALL OF CENTRAL TEXAS. SETON HAS ALSO BEEN ABLE TO ATTRACT ADDITIONAL FOUNDATION SUPPORT, LIKE THE DELL FOUNDATION THAT BRACKENRIDGE NEVER HAD BEFORE. I BELIEVE IN FAMILY PLANNING AND THAT A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE ABOUT HER OWN BODY. BUT GIVEN TIME I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE CAN BE HANDLED BY THOUGHTFUL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY. DON'T THROW OUT A WONDERFUL PARTNERSHIP BECAUSE OF AN ISSUE THAT'S BEYOND SETON'S CONTROL. SINCE SERIAL, FORMER COUNCILMEMBER, BETTY HIMEHBLAUGH. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, SO THAT I DON'T THROW OFF INADVERTENTLY THE PROS, CONS LAST WORDS AND ALL OF THAT, I HAD A LETTER THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO READ INTO THE RECORD, TOO. SORT OF LIKE DR. SWENSON'S, CAN I DO THAT? TONY ENGLISH, AS I'M SURE A LOT OF FOLKS IN THIS ROOM KNOW, IS A NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE NURSE. AND SHE SERVED ON A GREAT MANY PUBLIC POLICY GROUPS. IN 1994, THE BRACKENRIDGE EVALUATION TEAM, THE '97-'97 INDIGENT WORK TEAM, THE RYAN WHITE H.I.V. PLANNING COUNCIL, CITIZENS HEALTH CARE NETWORK, AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY MHMR BOARD OF TRES STEWS -- TRUSTEES SHE CURRENTLY SERVES ON. SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN. BUT HER LETTER TO US SAYS: WHILE IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT MODIFICATIONS MUST BE MADE TO OUR PUBLIC HOSPITAL TO ACCOMMODATE CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SETON BRACKENRIDGE LEASE THAT WOULD CREATE A NEW HOSPITAL WITHIN BRACKENRIDGE. ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. IT'S TRUE THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL SEGREGATE CERTAIN SERVICES. BUT I MAINTAIN THAT SUCH SEGREGATION IS NEITHER UNUSUAL NOR DISCRIMINATORY. IN 1839, WHEN JUDGE EDWIN WALLER DESIGNATED A SITE FOR THE HOSPITAL IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY, NOW 15TH AND I-35, NEVER DID HE IMAGINE THAT A SITE WOULD BE NEEDED LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A POPULATION OF ONE MILLION PEOPLE AT THE TURN OF THE THE 21ST CENTURY. MY POINT IS THAT ALL CENTURY OLD DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL SITES IN THRIVING URBAN AREAS HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF SPACE CONSTRAINT AND SERVICE LINES ARE DIVIDED AS POPULATION GROWTH OR ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY LEADS TO EXPANSION. I URGE COUNCIL TO REJECT AS PATENTLY OBSERVED THE NOTION THAT WOMEN WILL FEEL SECOND CLASS OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN DIRECTED TO A SEPARATE UNIT FOR THOSE SERVICES OFFERED AT THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL. AT SETON MEDICAL CENTER, WHEN SICK AND PREMATURE INFANTS ARE TRANSPORTED TO THE 8TH FLOOR NURSERY RATHER THAN THE SECOND FLOOR NURSERY, THEIR PARENTS DO NOT FEEL ADVERTISE CRIME NATEED AGAINST. FOR THE RECORD, I TOO, I WOULD LIKE A COMPREHENSIVE WOMENS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE. IN OUR OWN COMMUNITY, SUCH A MODEL WAS ATTEMPTED RECENTLY THE BY THE RENAISSANCE WOMEN'S CENTER. THIS WAS A PRIVATE, EFFICIENTLY ONE CENTER WITHOUT THE END CRUMB BRENSS OF A -- ENCUMBRANCES OF A MAJOR HOSPITAL. MOST PATIENTS WERE INSURED PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY. YET IN 2000 AFTER A FEW YEARS OF OPERATION IT HAD TO SHUT ITS DOORS BECAUSE IT COULD NOT OPERATE IN THE BLACK. HOW CAN A SIMILAR MODEL SET IN A MAJOR HOSPITAL AND SERVING A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF UNINSURED WOMEN BE FINANCED AND RUN BY THE CITY? EVEN WITH I AM PERFECTIONS, THE BRACKENRIDGE SETON LEASE AGREEMENT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE BOTH INSTITUTIONS SHARE THE SAME MISSION TO CARE FOR ALL-COMERS REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY TO PAY. WITH THE UNINSURED IN CENTRAL TEXAS REACHING 25%, OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS THIS PARTNERSHIP TO MEET PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE NEEDS. AFTER ALL, WE ARE UNIQUE AMONG LARGE URBAN AREAS IN TEXAS FOR NOT HAVING A HOSPITAL TAXING DISTRICT TO PAY FOR THAT CARE. I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SETON BRACKENRIDGE LEASE. I WILL MAKE YOU ALL COPIES OF THIS. THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM, KATHY MITCHELL.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS UNION.

MAYOR GARCIA: BEFORE YOU START, PUT THAT THREE MINUTES BACK ON, PLEASE. FOLLOWING MS. MITCHELL IS MARY [INAUDIBLE]. AND THAT'S WHO IS NEXT, COME AND BE CLOSE TO THE MIC.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET ALL OF OUR STUFF INTO 3 MINUTES, BUT WE HAVE QUITE A FEW SPECIFIC THINGS TO SAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE DO SUPPORT CREATING A HOSPITAL DISTRICT. IN THE LONG TERM WE BELIEVE THAT'S ONE APPROACH THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO TAKE CONTROL OF ALL OF ITS SERVICES AGAIN AND THAT HAS WORKED EFFECTIVELY ELSEWHERE. SO -- PUTTING ASIDE THE LONG VIG, WE BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IS THAT THEY CITY RUN FLOOR MUST BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT AND THAT THE CITY STAFF MUST BE ABLE TO HE DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO DO. AND THAT SERVICES THAT ASDY ANNE SAID SERVICES THAT MAY BE BORDERLINE THAT COULD BE DIFFICULT FOR SETON STAFF TO DO SHOULD BE DONE BY CITY STAFF. I WANT TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES WHERE THE CONTRACT IS A LITTLE VAGUE AS TO WHO INITIATES A CONTACT OR WHO INITIATE THE PASSAGE OR TRANSFER OF INFORMATION. A COUPLE OF PLACES IT SAYS IF INFORMATION IS DESIRED BY THE PATIENT, WE ASSUME THAT MEANS CLEARLY IF THEY ASK FOR IT. BUT IN SOME CASES, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE -- IN MOST CASES WE BELIEVE CITY STAFF WOULD BE VISITING WOMEN AND PROVIDING SOME BASIC INFORMATION AND THEN SO WOMEN HAVE THE FULL RANGE OF INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THEM AND THEN CAN DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO FROM THERE. THAT GETS INTO AN ISSUE THAT IS IN 19.1 -- NO, LITTLE 3. EXCUSE ME. SETON WILL INFORM WOMEN WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE AND WHO ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING CLINICALLY INDICATED FOR OR DESIROUS OF COUNSELING. AGAIN, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SWISH SHENESS IN THAT LANGUAGE AS TO HOW THAT -- HOW THAT IS EVER INITIATED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS THING BE MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT CITY STAFF IS GOING TO BE COUNSELING WOMEN. ON 19.2, THERE'S A -- THERE'S A CLEAR DIRECTIVE THAT ALL PATIENTS WILL RECEIVE A VISIT FROM A PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION, THAT WHOLE SECTION SEEMS KINDS OF COMPLICATED TO US, WE HAVE COUNSELORS, THE STAFF HAS SAID THE FIFTH FLOOR IS ON CALL 24 HOURS, IT NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR TO US WHY -- WHY MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CARRIED BY A PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION ADVOCATE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW VERY MUCH MEDICAL INFORMATION. AND IN FACT IT WOULD BE JUST AS SIMPLE IF NOT SIMPLER TO CALL THE FIFTH FLOOR AND HAVE SOMEONE COME DOWN. SO -- SO I THINK THAT THIS SECTION COULD BE CLARIFIED IF CITY STAFF IS JUST IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT DOWN, RAPE VICTIM GETS A VISIT FROM CITY STAFF. AGAIN, THERE'S A NEED TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE VAGUENESS IN THIS LANGUAGE [BUZZER SOUNDING].

GOODMAN: MAYOR, COULD I -- JUST AS A.OF PRIVILEGE ASK KATHY TO FINISH AT LEAST HER SENTENCE, IF NOT THE WHOLE THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

YEAH. I HAVE SEVERAL -- I BEST WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH VERY SPECIFIC WRITTEN COMMENTS GOING THROUGH SPECIFICALLY SECTION 19 SO THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD HELP ESTABLISH SOME MORE CLEAR PARAMETERS FOR HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK.

MS. BEATTY.

WE ARE SCHEDULING A MEETING WITH THE ADVOCATES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES NEXT WEDNESDAY AT 4:00 TO GO OVER THE SPECIFIC LEASE LANGUAGE SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO INVITE KATHY TO BE THERE AND WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE HAVING THOSE COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. MARY AND FOLLOWING HER LET ME READ -- IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST --

GO AHEAD.

LET ME GO THROUGH IT.

LINDZ DID A REP MEN DOSE SAY, REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. AND REGISTERED AGAINST THE PROPOSAL. HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL. SHE'S AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL AT BRACKENRIDGE AUSTIN SETON. THE LEASE AGREEMENT. AND MARIE JOHNSON, REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, ALSO AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL. MEGAN BAXTER, DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED FOR CONTINUING REPRODUCTIVE BIRTH CONTROL SERVICES. MONROVIA C VAN HOSE, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING REPRODUCTIVE AND BIRTH CONTROL SERVICES. LESLIE RAMSEY IS THE LAST SPEAKER AND SHE HAS SIX MINUTES. SO MS. C -- WELCOME.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL PEOPLE. I AM A NURSE PRACTITIONER OF WOMEN'S HEALTH. I HAVE BEEN A NURSE PRACTITIONER FOR 20 YEARS. AND I'M HERE SPEAKING AS AN ADEQUATE FOR THE WOMEN THAT I HAVE SERVED -- ADVOCATE FOR THE WOMEN THAT I HAVE SERVED. I BEEN IN NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH THE CITY STAFF SINCE LAST SUMMER. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE HARD WORK. ALTHOUGH TONIGHT I STILL DON'T FEEL REASSURED OR -- OR AT EASE ABOUT THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. I'M AGAINST IT. I FEEL LIKE THE CITY STAFF IS TRYING TO CARRY THE BALL FOR BOTH SIDES AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CAN BE DONE. AND TO GIVE YOU A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF THAT, I'M CAN HE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RAPE VICTIM WHO MIGHT PRESENT AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM, HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VERY TORTUROUS PROCEDURE TO -- TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE. AND THE MEDICATIONS THAT SHE NEEDS. THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STANDARDS OF EMERGENCY CARE REQUIRE THAT RAPE SURVIVORS BE COUNSELED ABOUT THEIR PREGNANCY RISK AND BE OFFERED EMERGENCY EXTRA ACCEPTING. THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBJECT BEGIN HAS HARDLY ENDORSED WIDE-SPREAD OVER THE COUNTER DISTRIBUTION OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION. IT PREVENTS PREGNANCY, IT DOES NOT TERMINATE AN ESTABLISHED PREGNANCY. THE BISHOP'S OWN ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVE, NUMBER 36, STATES: A FEMALE WHO HAS BEEN RAPED SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST A POTENTIAL CONCEPTION FROM THE SEXUAL ASSAULT. IF AFTER APPROPRIATE TESTING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CONCEPTION HAS OCCURRED ALREADY, SHE MAY BE TREATED WITH MEDICATIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT OVULATION OR FERTILIZATION. SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF CATERING TO SETON OR THE DIRECTIVES WHEN IT DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE DONE. SORT OF PADDING THEIR CORNERS FOR THEM. I DON'T SEE WHY A RAPE VICTIM THAT PRESENTS AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM CAN'T BE TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT THERE WITHOUT BEING TRANSPORTED TO ANOTHER FLOOR. THEY ARE JUST -- THERE ARE JUST SO MANY LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS IN SO MANY AREAS. I ECHO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID TONIGHT. BUT THIS ONE REALLY HAS ME CONCERNED. THE WHOLE POINT OF USING EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION IS TO PREVENT -- TO DELAY OR INHIBIT OVULATION. AND TO INTERFEAR WITH -- INTERFERE WITH FORGET FORGET ADDITION. -- TO FORGETIZATION. IF IT'S WITHHELD IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE AND DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THEIR OWN DIRECTIVE NUMBER 36. THANK YOU.

LESLIE RAMSEY. YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.

OKAY. THANKS. THIS IS THE LAST ONE, EVERYONE CAN GO HOME AFTER ME. TONIGHT I'M SPEAKING AS AN ACTIVIST WITH AUSTIN NOW. IT'S IN THAT ROLE THAT I PARTICIPATED WITH THE AD HOC COALITION THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, SINCE JUNE. OUR COALITION FIRST MET WITHIN DAYS OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT NEW STRICT OR ETHICAL RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES PUT REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AT OUR PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN JEOPARDY. WE OUTLINED A SET OF ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS THAT WE WOULD FIND MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE AND SUBMITTED IT TO CITY STAFF AT THAT VERY FIRST JULY 18TH PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE VERY LEAST WE SAID THEN, REGARDLESS OF WHO WOULD MANAGE AND ADMINISTER REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES FOR THE CITY'S HOSPITAL, THE REPRODUCTIVE SERVICESS CURRENTLY OFFER MUST REMAIN ONSITE AT BRACKENRIDGE. NOW, SIX MONTHS LATER, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN OFFERED. THE VERY LEAST. THE MOST MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, WHY AREN'T WE PURSUING THE HIGHEST QUALITY SOLUTION. TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO ALL WHO NEED THEM. THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL PROPOSAL NORMALLY KEEPS REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES ON SITE AT BRACKENRIDGE, BUT AT WHOSE EXPENSE AND FOR HOW LONG. OUR COALITION HAS SCRUTINIZED EVERY DRAFT OF THIS SO-CALLED SOLUTION, EXPOSING GAPING HOLES IN THE CITY'S SCHEME TO PROVIDE BASIC REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES FOR ALL WHO NEED THEM. EVERY TIME WE ADDRESS THESE HOLES THE REVISED SOLUTION BECOMES EVEN MORE CUMBERSOME AND UNWORKABLE FOR BOTH PATIENTS AND HOSPITAL STAFF TRYING TO PROVIDE THEM. WITH REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR OUR ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE FINALLY BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. EVERY LOOPHOLE THAT WE IDENTIFY RAISES MORE QUESTIONS AND REVEALS EVER MORE CLEARLY THE UNREASONABLE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROPOSAL OF THE THE THING IS, NO MATTER HOW THOROUGH WE ARE IN TRYING TO SAFEGUARD ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES IN THIS CONTRACT, AS LONG AS WE REMAIN IN THIS CONTRACT AS IT IS WRITTEN NOW, REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AT BRACK REMAIN VULNERABLE TO THE DICTATES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I HAVE VERY LITTLE CONFIDENCE THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME WE FIND OURSELVES REDEFINING AND RENEGOTIATING MEDICAL PRACTICES AT OUR CITY HOSPITAL BECAUSE OF NEW AND IMPROVED RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES. THE PUSH OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES IS CERTAIN TO RE-EMERGE, BUT WE CAN ALSO EXPECT NEW PROHIBITIONS AND FROM THE CHURCH WITH PEOPLE WITH AIDS AND END OF LIFE ISSUES. WE HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS TRYING TO MAKE AN UNACCEPTABLE OR BARELY ACCEPTABLE SITUATION WORK. AUSTIN NOW FEELS STRONGLY AT ITS CORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND SETON IS WRONG. IT WAS A MISTAKE. IT VIOLATES A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. IT OBSTRUCTS WOMEN'S RIGHT TO COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE. ON PRINCIPLE, WE OPPOSE THE CONTRACT WITH SETON. WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. AND THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TONIGHT BY THE AD HOC COALITION. IF WE MUST MAINTAIN A CONTRACT WITH SETON, THE BEST SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THE CITY TO TAKE BACK ALL REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. BUT AS THE COUNCIL -- IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS, AT BEST MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND SUGGESTIONS OFFERED BY THE AD HOC COALITION. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THAT CORRECT? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE STAFF, COMMENTS?

GOODMAN: YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: RATHER THAN STRETCH THIS NIGHT OUT FURTHER, HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO TRY TO PUT MOST OF THEM INTO WRITING. BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, A LOT OF COMMENTS MADE BY PEOPLE TONIGHT THAT HAVE COME UP ALL OVER, YOU KNOW, THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. WE HAVEN'T, THOUGH, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE TONIGHT TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THEM, WE STILL DON'T BECAUSE IT'S TOO LATE IN THE EVENING. BUT IF WE TRY TO COMPILE MAYBE FROM LISTENING TO THE TAPE OF ALL OF THIS, FOR INSTANCE, THE IDEA ABOUT TAKING THE SECOND FLOOR AS WELL, HAS BEEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT SOMETHING THAT SETON WILL NOT, CANNOT AGREE TO. SO IF THAT WAS OUR CHOICE, THAT MEANS THAT OUR CHOICE ACTUALLY IS TO TAKE OVER THE WHOLE HOSPITAL AGAIN. AND IN THAT CASE, WE NEED TO KNOW UP FRONT WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE AND HOW WE WOULD ALSO MOVE INTO THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT. WE NEED TO LET OUR HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TRADE OVER TO SETON AND -- AND RETIREMENT PLANS AND ALL OF THAT. HOW WE WOULD REVERSE THAT. ISSUES LIKE THAT THAT ARE KIND OF PRACTICAL ONES, PLUS THE FACT THAT SINCE WE ARE THINKING ABOUT -- ABOUT A REIMBURSEMENT TYPE OF OPERATION TO GIVE THE CITY $8 MILLION TO FINISH OPERATING WITH THIS YEAR, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET 65. OR WHAT MECHANISMS WE COULD LOOK AT FOR -- FOR PHASING OR IF THERE IS EVEN A WAY TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD SUGGESTIONS OR IF -- IF THE THREE YEAR REVISITATION CLAUSE GIVES US THAT -- THAT POSSIBLE ACTION IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN PLUS ALL OF THE THINGS THAT -- THAT FOLKS WERE SAYING ABOUT BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE -- WITH THE EMERGENCY SITUATION IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, THE IMMEDIACY OF MEDICAL HELP, COUNSELING, MEDICATION, ET CETERA. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER DAY AND I'M -- I'M STILL NOT REALLY VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PART, EITHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MINOR. ANYBODY ELSE?

THOMAS: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT THE SEPARATION, BUT EQUAL ISSUE. IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. I JUST NEED THAT ADDRESSED.

THINK THAT AND SEVERAL OTHER LEGAL ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED TONIGHT WOULD BE BEST ADDRESSED IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, THEN COME BACK AND GIVE A SUMMARY OF THAT.

WHAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE -- THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS TALKING ABOUT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD THINK, THOUGH, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF PUBLIC EXPLANATION THAT WE COULD GIVE FOR THAT ISSUE RATHER THAN JUST SAY -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS A VALID LEGAL POINT THERE. BUT MAYBE NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE -- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT PUBLICLY.

WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FIRST AT THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS, THEN WE COULD COME FORWARD WITH AN ANSWER FOR THE PUBLIC.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT DETERMINATION COUNCILMEMBER HAS TO DO WITH HOW THEY VIEW THE SENSITIVITY OF AN ISSUE AND HOW THAT -- HOW THAT -- HOW THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, AT SOME POINT -- AT SOME POINT WE WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THOSE THINGS SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE DOING. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THAT'S BASICALLY FOR COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. -- BEFORE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER CUT ME OFF, BUT ANYWAY -- [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: MY APOLOGIES FOR LETTING HIM INTERRUPT YOU.

THOMAS: WE DO NEED TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW ONCE WE GET THROUGH WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU. THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MS. DUNKERLY AND EVERYBODY CONNECTED CERTAINLY, MS. YOUNG. THIS -- THIS HEURCLIAN TASK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH IS REALLY AND ING. THE DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN, THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT -- THAT -- THAT WANTED READ INTO THE RECORD AND ASKED ABOUT. SO IF I COULD JUST DO THOSE THREE, THEN I THINK WE COULD -- WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SUM UP. NUMBER 1 IS THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS CONSIDERED STANDARD MEDICAL CARE AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ANY WOMAN WHO REQUESTS IT AT A PUBLIC FACILITY. THE ISSUE IS NOT RAPE. THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS IN MOST COMMUNITIES BROADLY AVAILABLE TO ANY WOMAN WHO REQUESTS IT, LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT. NUMBER 2, THERE WILL BE INSTANCES WHERE A FEMALE PATIENT CANNOT BE MOVED TO ANOTHER SECTION OF THE HOSPITAL FOR ADMINISTRATION OF EMERGENCY EXTRA ACCEPTIVE MEDICATION, FOR FEAR OF FURTHER INJURY. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M AWARE OF CASES WHERE WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN SEVERELY BEATEN OR INJURED DURING A RAPE COULD NOT BE MOVED FROM THE ICU FOR TWO OR THREE DAYS. HOW WILL SUCH A PATIENT RECEIVE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION? 3, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONVOLUTED AND CONTAINS MANY, MANY PITFALLS. I SUGGEST A THREE MONTH COOLING OFF PERIOD IN WHICH NON-CITY STAFF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS CONTACT MEDICAL SCHOOLS TO DISCUSS PROVIDING SERVICES AT BRACKENRIDGE. MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE BADLY IN NEED OF PATIENTS. AND THOSE ARE THREE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE -- TO HAVE RESPONDED TO AND IN -- IN PUBLIC, CERTAINLY, IF -- IF POSSIBLE. THE SEPARATE BUT EQUAL QUESTION WAS A BIG THEME TONIGHT. SO WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT. ALSO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, WE ASKED THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE BE ANALYZED AND PRESENTED AND THE -- AND NOT JUST WE WILL OR WE WANT, BUT IF NOT WHY NOT. AND THE BIG ONE IS NUMBER ONE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PROTECTING WOMEN'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AND A DESIRE FOR CONTINUITY OF CARE, THE BEST SOLUTION TO THE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON SETON'S OPERATIONS IS TO HAVE THE CITY TAKE BACK ALL MATERNITY SERVICES AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. AND I REALIZE THAT THAT HAS BEEN REJECTED. BUT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT CAN'T BE WORKED OUT. SO I HOPE WE CAN -- THE NEXT TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE FOUR THINGS.

THOMAS: MAYOR ONE MORE THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: EXCUSE ME, ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MAP AND THE CAP, IT REALLY WASN'T EXPLAINED EARLIER. WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT NEXT -- UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THAT, WHEN I WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION ABOUT ALL OF THE -- ABOUT ALL OF THE MAP AND CAP, -- ENROLLEES THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FIFTH FLOOR, BECAUSE HE SAID ONE THING AND ON PAGE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT SAYS ANOTHER. OKAY?

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO -- TO TALK MORE DIRECTLY WITH YOU ABOUT THAT. IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH FINANCIAL PROVISIONS OF PAYMENT AND NOT DIRECTION OF PATIENTS.

THOMAS: OKAY. ALL RIGHTY.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT NOW OR LATER?

THOMAS: NO, I'M READY TO GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF --

BETTY, ONE THING THAT I WOULD BE CURIOUS FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW, WHAT'S YOUR MECHANISM FOR GETTING THE QUESTIONS TONIGHT ANSWERED AND OUT TO BOTH COUNCIL AND TO THE PUBLIC?

WELL, WE WOULD LIKE FOR -- WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE HEARD TONIGHT. AND WE TRY TO GET A RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO -- AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IF YOU COULD FORWARD THEM TO ME OR TO TRISH, WE WOULD TAKE IT FROM THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO -- MY E-MAIL IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT IS -- IS BETTYDUNKERLY@CI.AUSTIN.TK.US, YOU COULD CERTAINLY E-MAIL THOSE OR CALL US, WE WILL BE GLAD TO GET THEM. I THINK THAT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO AS FAR AS A PROCESS, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE QUESTIONS, GET THOSE ANSWERS TO YOU, GET THEM CLARIFIED. IN ADDITION, AS WE LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS TONIGHT, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN HERE AND THAT WE THOUGHT WERE CLEAR ARE NOT CLEAR. SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO SOME CLARIFICATION OF WHAT -- WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE READING HERE. SO WE MAY BE NEED TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW -- HOW WOMEN GET INFORMATION IN THE EMERGENCY ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE CARE AND WHAT THAT COUNSELING SERVICE THAT'S MENTIONED IS INTENDED TO DO. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL CARE. IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE VICTIMS SERVICES CARE OR THOSE SERVICES THAT THAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION WOULD PREPARE. WOULD -- WOULD PROVIDE TO THOSE PEOPLE. SO I THINK THAT WE CAN CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE POINTS. SPECIFICALLY WE HAVE SCHEDULED A MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO GO OVER THE LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE. AGAIN, BECAUSE WE HAVE WRITTEN IT -- IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR ATTORNEYS. IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY CLEAR WHAT WE MEANT TO THE PUBLIC. SO WE THINK THAT MEETING WILL HELP US AND -- IN CLARIFYING THAT LANGUAGE AND WE WILL HAVE THAT MEETING AND GET THAT INFORMATION BACK TO THE COUNCIL. ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN DO, IF YOU WILL LET US KNOW, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO WORK ON THAT.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST? FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

THOMAS: MAYOR, IF I COULD ASK. TO EXPLAIN WHAT I NEEDED TO BE EXPLAIN, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD THEY NEED TO DO THAT? UNDERSTAND THAT THE PUBLIC WON'T BE OUT -- .

ON THE MAP CAP?

RIGHT. BECAUSE THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING TONIGHT -- I'M GOING TO BE THROUGH WITH THIS. DOES A NEW AGREEMENT ASSUME THAT ALL MAP AND CAP ENROLL EASE WILL USE THE FIFTH FLOOR? THAT'S THE WORD?

NO.

THOMAS: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY?

IT'S THE SIZE ELEMENT. WE'VE GOT CAPACITY FOR 1200 DELIVERIES AND WE HAVE ABOUT 36 HUNDRED PER YEAR. AND MANY OF THOSE PATIENTS, TWO THIRD OF THE PATIENTS THAT GO TO BRACKENRIDGE COME FROM OUR COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS, AND MANY OF THEM WERE MAP CAP PATIENTS.

THERE'S TWO ISSUES. ONE IS WE HAVE A PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH SETON WHERE SETON IS A PROVIDER TO THE MAP AS A HEALTH PLAN. AND SETON IS THE HOSPITAL PROVIDER OF SERVICES TO THE MAP HEALTH PLAN. THAT AGREEMENT CURRENTLY IS PAID ON A CAPITATED BASIS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE PAY HEALTH PLAN PER MEMBER PER MONTH OR FEE, AND THAT IS FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. WHAT THE PROVISION IN THE LEASE DOES IS TO GIVE US THE ALLOWANCE THAT RENEGOTIATE THAT PAYMENT PROVISION TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY MAP CAP ENROLL REES THAT MAY RECEIVE -- ENROLL ETHAT MAY RECEIVE SERVICES TO THE FIFTH. IT MAY DETERMINE HOW WE ADJUST OUR SERVICES TO THEM. ONE IS THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO THE MAP CAP EMPLOYEE AT THE SETON FACILITY, THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR IT. IT'S A MATTER OF HOW DO WE COMPENSATE THEM. DO WE COMPENSATE AS PART OF A TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT OR DO WE PAY THEM TO A DIRECT FEE PER SERVICE? WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DIRECT PAYMENT PROVISION REFLECTS THE SERVICE. SO IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE ENROLL EBE SERVED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, BUT IT ALLOWS US TO ARRANGE FOR THE PAYMENT OF HOSPITAL SERVICES.

THOMAS: THAT'S ONE I CAN CHECK OFF. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF NOT, COUNCIL, THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION BY SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE'RE ADJOURNED AND WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK, SO WE'LL SEE YOU HERE ON THE 31ST OF JANUARY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log