Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 02/07/02

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: I CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER. THERE'S A NOISE -- (MICROPHONE FEEDBACK) THERE WE GO. ARE YOU OKAY, MS. BROWN? CAN I SAY SOMETHING SO -- I GUESS WE ARE OKAY NOW? WE WILL NOW GO TO THE 1:30 P.M. CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL. AND I WILL CALL THE NAME OF MR. WILLIAM J. THOMAS, WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT I AM NOTIFIED THAT HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ACCIDENT TO -- NOT ABLE TO GET TO THE COUNCIL MEETING. IS MR. THOMAS HERE? MR. WILLIAM J.SUPPOSE THOMAS. OKAY, SO HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING TODAY. MIKE ALEXANDER. WELCOME. AND FOLLOWING MR. ALEXANDER, MS. JENNIFER GALE.

EXCUSE ME? GAWRSES WELCOME.

--

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME.

I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN WITH THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE. I'M SURE THAT I AM NOT ALONE IN SOME OF MY CONCERNS. I BELIEVE THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE IS SO RESTRICTIVE IT'S GOING TO HAVE A BAD EFFECT OVER THE LONG-TERM FOR AUSTIN, IT NEEDS CHANGES FOR IT. I THINK THIS MAY MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT TO TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING TO IT SINCE IT GOES INTO EFFECT FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. I THINK IT'S SO RESTRICTIVE THAT IT WILL CAUSE A FREQUENT TURNOVER FOR COUNCILMEMBERS, AS A LONG RUN HURT THE COUNCIL AS A RESULT, MAKE IT MORE AFFECTED BY EXTERNAL INFLUENCE, AND TURN PEOPLE AWAY FROM CONSIDERING THE JOB. CONSIDERING THAT YOU DO SO MUCH MORE WORK, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY CONSIDER IT'S ONLY SIX YEARS I CAN EVEN DO IT FOR, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT CONSIDER MAKING A GOOD AT IT. I THINK IN THE LONG RUN IT COULD HURT THE CITY QUITE A BIT. IN FACT I HAVE READ THREE ARTICLES IN THE LAST YEAR THAT ACTUALLY IS AFFECTING OTHER CITIES AS WELL. THEY ARE FINDING THEY ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THEIR TERM LIMITS REQUIREMENTS. OUT OF COINCIDENCE, I SAW THREE DAYS AGO, I SAW A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT EVEN ONE STATE REPEALED ITS TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT IT'S CAUSING. I HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TYPE, I KIND OF THINK THIS TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE DIDN'T COME UP FROM NOWHERE. THERE'S VERY PUBLIC DEVELOPER VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL WARS GOING ON IN THE EARLY '90'S OVER THE AQUIFER WHEN RAMROD DEVELOPERS THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THEIR WAY, THEY DECIDED TO CLEAR OUT THE COUNCIL, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE STANDING IN THEIR WAY. THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE CAME UP FROM FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AS MUCH AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AS ANY OTHER. SO BASICALLY I THINK IT'S SO RESTRICTIVE, YOU NEED TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BETTER FOR AUSTIN. I THINK THE FIRST CHANGE THAT SHOULD BE MADE, YOU SHOULD AND.... ALLOW AT LEAST 3 TERMS, I THINK A NINE YEAR PERIOD IS BETTER TO GET THINGS DONE. I HAVE SOME ISSUES, BELIEVE ME, SIX YEARS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH TIME EVEN WITH THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE BEEN HAVING. SOME OF YOU COUNCILMEMBERS SERVED THREE TERMS, I BET YOU BELIEVE THAT'S A COMFORTABLE TIME TO HAVE A RUN ON THE COUNCIL. THE SECOND CHANGE THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO LOWER THE PETITION REQUIREMENT SO THAT YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE SO THAT WE VOTERS HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF KEEPING GOOD COUNCILMEMBERS AROUND. AT THE MOMENT IT TAKES FIVE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS JUST TO BE ABLE TO STAY ON THE BALLOT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WORKS OUT TO ABOUT 20,000 SIGNATURES TODAY. JUST FOR REFERENCE, IN THE LAST CITY COUNCIL ELECTION, 2,000 ONLY, 7% OF THE PEOPLE VOTED, WHICH WAS 38,000. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE GOT TO GET OVER HALF THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD EVEN GET OUT AND VOTE TO SIGN A PETITION JUST SO YOU CAN STAY ON THE BALLOT. THE COUNCIL -- THE ELECTION BEFORE THAT, 1999, ONLY 8% OF THE PEOPLE VOTED, THAT WAS ONLY 34,000 PEOPLE AT THE TIME. JUST FOR REFERENCE, THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE UP -- THAT ARE SUBJECT FOR THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE FIRST TIME -- [BUZZER SOUNDING]

OH, ANYWAY, I THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. JENNIFER GALE AND FOLLOWING MS. GALE MR. DAN L. SULZ DER.

HI, AUSTIN, CITY MANAGER, TOBY FUTRELL, MY FORMER OPPONENT, MAYOR GUS GARCIA, MY FORMER ONLY POINT BEVERLY GRIFFITH, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY STAFF, I'M A CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. I'M JENNIFER GALE. I'M HERE TODAY TO OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCE THAT I AM A CANDIDATE FOR THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, PLACE 1. SINCE NOVEMBER 11TH, 2001, I HAVE COLLECTED ENOUGH VERIFIED SIGNATURES TO GET ME ON THE MAY 4TH BALLOT. THE NUMBER IS 178. THANK YOU TO ALL OF THOSE LIVING IN AUSTIN THAT HELPED ME GET ON THE BALLOT. TODAY I'M ASKING THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO PUT 32 COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO CREATE A GEOGRAPHICALLY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL. EACH AREA OF AUSTIN WITH THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVE. NO PORTION OF AUSTIN WILL FEEL DISEND FRANCHISED BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PERSON THAT WILL REPRESENT THEIR IDEAS AND THEIR ISSUES. THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CAMPAIGN IN A DISTRICT WITH 21,000 CONSTITUENTS. I NEED TO ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS -- A NEED TO ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS WOULD BE UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE 32 DISTRICT. THERE MAY BE EVEN A TIME WHEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO RUN IN THOSE DISTRICTS. SO A PERSON WISHING TO BE ON OUR CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. A PERSON WILL KNOW THE ISSUES GERMANE TO AN AREA, WHICH WILL BE GOOD WHEN THEY GET ON OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE 60 OF THEM, I'M ASKING THAT THOSE 32 MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL WORK ON THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT -- THAT THEY CAN BE DEBATED BEFORE THE PUBLIC. IT WILL -- THE AREAS WILL BE SMALL ENOUGH TO FOCUS ON ANY OF THE LARGER QUESTIONS. I'M ALSO ASKING FOR A POWER MAYOR GOVERNMENT. I KNOW SOME OF YOU AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. BUT I'M ASKING THAT WE BRING IT BEFORE THE VOTERS. AS -- AS AN ALTERNATIVE. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DIDN'T DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES. SUCH AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE FOUR-YEAR TERM FOR MAYOR, BEING A TWO-YEAR TERM OR -- OR REMAINING A THREE -- WELL, IT WOULD REMAIN A THREE YEAR TERM. AND I'M SUGGESTING THAT A SMALLER TERM FOR MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE WILL ALLOW FOR POLICY MAKERS TO BE HIRED AND FIRED, WHEREAS NOW IT TAKES EVERY THREE YEARS. I'M RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT. FOR MY USUAL ISSUE OF PROACTIVE HEALTH CARE, MORE BETTER EDUCATED OFFICERS, NO LIGHT RAIL, NO DEREGULATION, GENTRIFICATION TAX ABATEMENT, BIKE AVENUES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OUR OWN NEWSPAPER, COMPREHENSIVE SECONDARY EDUCATION, LET'S PUT ALL OF OUR CHILDREN INTO COLLEGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME, PLEASE CONSIDER THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MAY 4TH BALLOT. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GALE.

MR. DAN SULZER, FOLLOWING MR. SULZER IS MR. GUS PENA. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. IT'S GETTING LIKE OLD HOME WEEK. I'M HERE JUST ABOUT EVERY TIME. I'M HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT -- THAT IF YOU PASS THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE LEASE, I'M GOING TO BE HERE UNTIL WE CLEAN UP THE MESS. LIKE A BUZZARD ON A ROAD KILL, I'M GOING TO STAY HERE UNTIL THE MESS IS CLEANED UP. I STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL CREATE A SITUATION THAT IS ILLEGAL. AND THAT DOES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE. I STILL THINK THAT WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF CHILDREN AND OF MALES. WE HAVE ONLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF FEMALES TO SOME SMALL......DEGREE AND -- SOME SMALL DEGREE AND I HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR THING. NOW, WE CAN CONTINUE AND WE CAN ALIGN OURSELVES WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT I REFER TO AS THE WHITE TALIBAN, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO PUT OURS AT RISK. BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, PEOPLE, YOU LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU ARE GOING TO GET UP WITH FLEAS. THE ACLU HAS ALREADY WARNED SETON THAT IF THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE THE PUBLIC FUNDING THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING, THAT THEY STAND TO LOSE IT. IF WE ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM, WE NOT ONLY STAND TO LOSE THE PUBLIC FUNDING FOR HEALTH CARE, BUT THE PUBLIC FUNDING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO LAW IN THE UNITED STATES THAT SUPERSEDES FEDERAL LAW. AND FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT EVERYONE MUST BE REPRESENTED EQUALLY AND EVERYONE MUST RECEIVE PUBLIC SERVICES EQUALLY. THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT DO THAT. IT IS SEPARATE, BUT EQUAL. AND IT VIOLATES THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF WELCOME, IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN, IT VIOLATES THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, MALE AND FEMALE, IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHILDREN, IT VIOLATES THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF MEN AND IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN. IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST EVERYONE. SETON HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB WHERE THEY HAVE DONE THE JOB LEGALLY. BUT WHERE THEY HAVE NOT, THEY HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB. AND I SAY THIS TO YOU, ALL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE OF MIERCHTD STATUS, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL YOUR PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK YOU WHY? WHY WHEN YOU ROSE ON THE SWEAT OF OUR BACKS, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THIS IN OUR HAND, WHY HAVE WE GONE BACK TO THIS? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SENDING US BACK TO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. SULZER. MR. GUS PENA, FOLLOWING MR. PENA, MS. BETTY EDGEMOND.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, WELCOME TO YOU, SIR. THE REST OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS. GOOD AFTERNOON, GUS PENA, PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS AND SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAINBOW COALITION, LOCAL ORGANIZATION OF A STATE-WIDE COALITION. TO MY RIGHT IS MY HANDSOME BOY LUCIO WHO ATTENDS DAWSON ELEMENTARY. MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MR. CITY MANAGER, WHOMEVER IS HERE FROM SETON AND CITY STAFF WHO DEALS WITH BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL ISSUES, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. CASE SCENARIO, I WANT -- I WON'T DIVULGE NAMES. YOU HAVE A LADY WHO GOES INTO THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, INDIGENT FLOOR, HOMELESS, DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE. TREATED WITH DISRESPECT. CONTINUED TO ASK HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS BILL. NUMBER 2, WHERE DO YOU LIVE? ONCE YOU DECLARE YOURSELF INDIGENT, HOMELESS, YOU DON'T ASK THAT QUESTION. THERE'S NOT A NEED TO KNOW AS FAR AS HER ER ISSUES ARE CONCERNED. ANYWAY, SHE'S TREATED AND SEEN BY A PHYSICIAN AS A -- HAS A VERY SORE THROAT, A BAD CAN YOU HAVE, COMPLAINS BECAUSE ALL THIS LED TO -- TO A TOOTH ACHE, SHE'S ONLY GIVEN VICODIN. PHARMACEUTICALS, NOT GIVEN ANYTHING FOR THE COUGH, FOR INFECTION, NOT EVEN A BOOSTER SHOT. GOES TO SEE THE COUNSELOR. THE COUNSELOR SAID YOU ARE LIABLE FOR A $400 PAYMENT. SHE SAID, WELL, I'M INDIGENT, NOT ABLE TO PAY, I DON'T HAVE A JOB. HE SAID, "WELL, WE WILL SEE ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN MAKE PAYMENTS, BUT YOU ARE STILL LIABLE FOR THE $35 PAYMENT." THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE. THE CITY OF AUSTIN, I REMEMBER WHEN WE WORKED ON THIS ISSUE WHEN CAMILLE BARNETT LEFT IN 1994, SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE POOR AND THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY, DON'T PUSH THAT ISSUE ON THEM. BUT IT CONTINUES TO BE PROLIFERATED, THAT'S DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT. THE LACK OF RESPECT OF SOME OF THE STAFF OVER AT THE ER ROOM IS UNACCEPTABLE, ESPECIALLY ONE OF THE NURSES NAMED -- HER NAME IS KATHY. ANYWAY, EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS FILED A GRIEVANCE WITH DR. PATRIOT HAYS OF SETON THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. I AM HOPING THAT YOU AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN REMEMBER THIS AND UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROVIDES MILLIONS FOR CARE FOR ITS INDIGENT PATIENTS. THIS TREATMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE. REMEMBER SOCIETY'S WORTH WILL BE MEASURED BY ITS TREATMENT OF THE LESS FORTUNATE. YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE LORD HIMSELF. I WANT TO APPLAUD COUNCILMEMBER WYNN FOR HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, IT BEING PLACED ON THE BALLOT. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. BUT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF IT. I RAN FOR COUNCIL IN '96 AND '97, HAD THERE BEEN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS IN '97, I WOULD BE A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. NO PROBLEM. I WON ALL BUT TWO BOXES AND A MILLIONAIRE ONE TWO OF THEM. DID VERY WELL IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, NORTHWEST AUSTIN. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A -- THERE'S MERIT THERE, THE NAY SAIERS -- SAYERS CLAIM IT'S DISCRIME TERRI, THE MASSES WILL -- DISCRIMINATORY. I'M TEACHING CIVICS 101 TO LUCIO OWE LOAM WRAP UP. BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, PLEASE WORK ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. WE WILL BE HERE LATER TO TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. BETTY EDGEMOND IS THE LAST SPEAKER. GENERAL CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.

I'M BETTY EDGEMOND, THE HANDOUT THAT I'M HANDING TO YOU WAS HANDED TO US AT OUR FIRST COMMUNITY PANEL MEETING OF THE PEOPLE THAT WANT THE CAMPUS IN SOUTH AUSTIN. ACTUALLY IT WAS -- I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHEN THEY MADE THE BID. AND YOU CAN JUST BASICALLY SEE WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND STUFF I'M TALKING ABOUT. BUT IN -- IN NOVEMBER, 2001, AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF THE OLD ALBERTSON'S STORE AT STASSNEY LANE AND MANCHACA ROAD. IN JANUARY, THE -- 2002, THE SAME BOARD APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF CITIZENS TO THE SOUTH AUSTIN COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AT THE PRESENT TIME, WE HAVE ABOUT 12 PEOPLE 'EM PANELED. I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A.C.C. HAS A COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, KIND OF GUIDING THEM. HUM. AND ALL LIVING OR WORKING IN SOUTH AUSTIN. FOR YEARS I WAS THE LOAN VOICE ASKING -- THE LONE VOICE ASKING THAT A CAMPUS BE LOCATED IN FAR SOUTH AUSTIN. ONLY A FEW TRUCE.......... TRUCE COMMUNITIES HEARD ME. TRUSTEES HEARD ME. I FOUND OUT TWO GRANDMOTHERS WORKING TOGETHER HAD POWER. I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SUGGESTED THE OLD ALBERTSON'S AS AN A.C.C. CAMPUS, BUT IT SEEMED JUST RIGHT, I'M REALLY GLAD TO SAY THE A.C.C. BOARD AND STAFF THOUGHT IT WAS JUST RIGHT, TOO. THIS PROPERTY IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM CROCKETT HIGH SCHOOL, BUT IT ALSO COULD SERVE TRAVIS AND AKINS AND BOWIE STUDENTS IN THEIR JOINT COLLEGE PREP HERE YEAR. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S IN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE, SMART GROWTH AS I ENVISIONED IT, ON MAJOR BUS ROUTES, IT'S SURROUNDED BY PLACES TO EAT AND RETAIL STORES. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS THERE. YOU CAN GET YOUR DOG GROOMED, YOUR -- YOU KNOW, LUBED, ALL AT THE SAME TIME WHILE YOU ARE IN CLASS. YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT A LOT OF THINGS GOING FOR IT. THE BEST PART OF IT IS I'M NOT ASKING FOR A HANDOUT. I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR ANY MONEY. I'M JUST TELLING THAT YOU -- THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THERE. EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE THERE. WE WANT IT THERE PRETTY FAST. ANYWAY, WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY S.O.S. ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ALSO A GOOD THING, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO SEE YOU ALL GO TO COURT. BUT TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO THINK ONLY MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSES SHOULD BE LOCATED IN FAR SOUTH AUSTIN, I'M SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU. THIS CAMPUS WILL BE BEAUTIFUL, IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSES AND IT WON'T HAVE ANY CHAIN LINK FENCES. I'M INVITING YOU TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC FORUM AT CROCKETT HIGH SCHOOL ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6TH, WHEN HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A HUGE TURNOUT OF PEOPLE, AUSTIN CITIZENS, TELLING US WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THAT CAMPUS AND HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US -- US GROW. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. EDGEMOND.

BY THE WAY, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, THERE IS A WEBSITE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE DOTS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. AND THERE'S -- IT'S GOING TO BE POSTED, YOU CAN GET TO IT THROUGH THE A.C.C. WEBSITE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. EDGEMOND.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ALL OF THE CITIZENS THAT SIGNED UP UNDER CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, GENERAL. AND NOW WE WILL GO INTO READING OF CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. ITEM NO. 40, THAT'S ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA, WILL NOT BE ACTED ON, THERE'S NO APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND THEN WE HAVE TIME CERTAIN ITEMS AT 1:30, CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH WE HAVE DONE. AT 3:30, ITEM 13, APPROVE A RESOLUTION THOWRZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING. AT 4:00 P.M. WE HAVE ZONING. 5:30 P.M. LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS THE AND AT 6:00 P.M. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 41 AND 42. GOING BACK TO THE AGENDA ITSELF, IS THERE -- ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE BRINGING UP FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? I WILL START FIRST WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THEN GO TO THE COUNCILMEMBER.

THE ONLY ITEM, MAYOR, IS THE -- THERE'S A LOT OF ITEMS, BUT THE ONE THAT'S WE WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS THE TAX [INAUDIBLE], WHICH WE WILL HAVE ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT YOU WILL BE BRINGING TO THE -- FOR THE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS? ANYBODY?

WYNN: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: PROBABLY THE LAST WEEK IN FEBRUARY, THE 28TH, I WILL BE BRINGING FORTH SOME TYPE OF ITEM FROM COUNCIL THAT RELATES TO A PROPOSED PROJECT IN EAST AUSTIN CALLED THE FIRST T PROJECT, WHICH IS A LIFE SKILLS AND GOLF FACILITY FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN TO BE BUILT ADJACENT TO THE -- THE NEW YMCA BRANCH OVER ON ED BLUESTEIN. THERE'S A -- THERE'S A HANDFUL OF -- OF POTENTIAL VARIANCE REQUESTS, THE CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT STAFF IS OUT THERE TODAY TOMORROW, ACTUALLY TRYING TO ITEMIZE WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES, I WILL BE BRINGING THOSE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE TIME CONSTRAINT WITH THAT PROJECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE -- IS THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MS. BROWN?

CLERK BROWN: MAYOR, I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE IS ONE MORE CHANGE AND CORRECTION. ON ITEM NO. 17, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ONLY CHANGE. THE CORRECT AMOUNT STARTED WITH 812 SPRINGDALE ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF 14,284,200 PLUS -- PLUS 419,250 CONTINGENCY FUND FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 14,701,450. FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,701,450.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DIDN'T GET THE CHANGE OR CORRECTION.

CLERK BROWN: THE WAY THE AGENDA WAS WRITTEN, THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS WERE DIFFERENT, SO I WAS READING IN THE CORRECT DOLLAR AMOUNTS. 14,282,200.

GARZA: 200, OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I HAVE ON MY AGENDA.

GARZA: I HAD 13,975.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DID EVERYBODY GET THOSE NUMBERS.

THE TOTAL, SHIRLEY, BECOMES 14,701,450. WE WILL ASK PUBLIC WORKS WHY THOSE NUMBERS WEREN'T RIGHT AT THE GET-GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ANNOUNCE, THERE'S ONE SPEAKER, MR. WINFRED KELSEY THAT'S HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NO. 35. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE GO TO THE CLERK AND -- IN THE LOBBY AND SIGN A CARD LIKE THIS. SO I CAN -- SO I CAN CALL YOU AT THE TIME THAT -- THAT WE CONSIDER ACTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I WAS GOING TO ASK TO PULL ITEM 35.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY?

GOODMAN: I WAS GOING TO ASK TO PULL ITEM 35.

MAYOR GARCIA: 35. OKAY. SO -- ITEM NO. 35, MR. KELSEY, IS HE HERE? MR. KELSEY?

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]. GARCIA HEAR YOU, CAN YOU COME UP HERE. IS MR. KELSEY HERE? WINFRED KELSEY. IS THAT YOU?

YES, SIR.

I AM WINFRED KELSEY. IF -- IF THE ITEM IS BEING PULLED, I AM OKAY TO SPEAK. LAST TIME THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, SO -- BUT WE ALL SPOKE ANYWAY, SO THAT'S WHY I SIGNED THE CARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: I --

GARZA: IT'S BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION THAT MEANS WE WILL TAKE IT UP AS WE TAKE UP THE DISCUSSION ITEMS. MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN PULLED IT, SO I WILL PUT YOUR CARD IN THE ITEM.

THANK YOU.

CLERK BROWN: THE CONSENT AGENDA STARTS WITH ITEM 16, FOR 2ND AND 3RD READING, ITEM 18 --

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME STOP YOU THERE. ON ITEM NO. 13, I MEAN ITEM NO. 16, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS A VALID PETITION. AND ALICE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? BECAUSE -- BECAUSE I HAVE A -- SOME NOTES PERTAINING TO AN AGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN REACHED BY THE -- BY -- BY THE PERSON THAT FILED THE PETITION. AT THE CITY?

YES, SIR. WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INDICATING THAT THE -- THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF -- OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WHICH IS TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS AND TO KEEP THE OTHER CONDITIONAL USES. THE APPLICANT, WHILE HE HAS A VALID PETITION INDICATES THAT IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE ZONING AS SUPPORTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN -- THEN THE PETITION GETS WITHDRAWN. BUT THAT'S -- THAT'S KIND OF AWKWARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO --

MAYOR GARCIA: SO LET ME READ INTO THE RECORD THE WAY THAT THIS MOTION, THAT -- IF WE APPROVE IT WOULD READ. IT'S -- WE WOULD ADD WITH THE PROVISION TO REMOVE AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE RENTAL AS CONDITIONAL USES. TO REMOVE THOSE AS REFERENCED IN PARAGRAPH -- PART 4, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE ORDINANCE. UNLESS SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION, THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS -- INTO THIS CONSENT ITEM. MS. BROWN?

CLERK BROWN: CONTINUING WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA THEN, ITEM 19 IS POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 2002.

MAYOR GARCIA: 19 POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 28TH, '02. OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 21, 22, SECOND READING ONLY, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY, 33 --

MAYOR GARCIA: 30 HAS BEEN POSTPONED?

CLERK BROWN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS JUST TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING. ARE WE POST TONIGHTING................ POSTPONING THAT. CAN ANYBODY ADDRESS THAT?

THE CONSULTANT IS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE ON THE 28TH. ORIGINALLY THE WORK SESSION GROUP [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] TRYING TO COORDINATE --

MAYOR GARCIA: POSTPONED INDEFINITELY, PENDING OWE OWE FINDING OUT WHEN THE CONSULTANT IS AVAILABLE. VERY GOOD.

CLERK BROWN: 33, 34,37, 38, --

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME STOP YOU ON 38. DISCUSS AND APPOINT AN ADDITIONAL TWO JUDGES FOR THE 2002-2003 APPOINTMENT TERM. THE JUDGES ARE MR. KIRK KIRKENDALL AND MS. KATHERINE BEN EUA DANIELS. I THINK BOTH OF THEM ARE HERE. WELCOME, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: 39. THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

GLASGO: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME MAKE ONE CORRECTION. ITEM NO. 22 WILL BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. THAT'S PULLED BY ME. THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS, CORRECT?

CLERK BROWN: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED TO THE TUSCANY WAY ITEMS, SO I WOULD PUT BACK ON 20, 31 AND 32.

MAYOR GARCIA: 20, 31 AND 3 ARE BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 20, 31 AND 32 ARE BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. HERE WE GO. THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 16 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD. WHAT DID YOU TELL ME ABOUT 128?

CLERK BROWN: IT IS ON THE --

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT DID YOU TELL ME ABOUT 18?

CLERK BROWN: IT IS ON THE CONSENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, -- TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY -- 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, WE ARE NOT ACTING ON 40, SO 40 IS TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT DOESN'T NEED AN ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL OTHER THAN TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THAT ITEM TODAY.

GARZA: MAYOR, 19, WHICH IS THE AVIATION ITEM, I SHOW HERE POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE 7TH. IT WAS -- IT WAS REQUESTED BY A COUNCILMEMBER TODAY TO -- IF IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE TO MOVE IT TO THE 7TH. WE ARE FINE WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 19?

GARZA: WE WOULD ASK THAT TO GO ON CONSENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: POSTPONEMENT TO 3-7-02, THE ONE THAT'S GOING BACK --

GARZA: YES, SIR, WITH THE FULL ORDINANCE SO THEY CAN SEE BOTH SIDES, BOTH ISSUES, RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO 19 IS CONSENT ITEM FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE 7TH, '02. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. TOMMY EDEN, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS TOMMY EDEN, I'M ON THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. I AM HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEMS 20, 31 AND 32, CONSTRUCTION OF TUSCANY WAY. AS YOU MAY RECALL LAST SPRING, THE COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO -- TO BRING ISSUES OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. THIS -- THIS ISSUE HAS -- HAS -- ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE CIP LIST, WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. I BELIEVE THE ONLY WAY THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THE STAFF TO BRING ALL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IS TO TELL THEM, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE UNTIL WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER WAY FOR YOU TO DO IT. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE CONSIDERATION ON ITEMS 20, 31 AND 32 UNTIL WE HAVE AT LEAST HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. EDEN.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN FORMALLY BECAUSE IT WAS A COUNTY/CITY ISSUE FROM A COUNTY ROAD AND CITY STANDARDS, WHICH CAME OUT OF AN UNRESOLVED SITUATION FOR MANY -- FROM MANY YEARS AGO. IT'S BEING WORKED ON BY CITY STAFF AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. TOGETHER WITH SOME PARTICIPATION FROM CITY COUNCIL, FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS NOW. SO THIS ONE HAD A LOT OF TWISTS AND TURNS, A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES IN -- IN ALL THAT MIX, I DON'T THINK ANYONE THOUGHT OF THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, BUT I'M SURE WE WILL IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN -- THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, BUT WE HAVE NOW COME TO RESOLUTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THIS A PROJECT THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO --

GARZA: THE SOVEREIGN BODY HERE IS THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. YOU GUYS AUTHORIZED US TO DO THIS, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THE PROJECT I GOING TO BE DONE BY THE COUNTY.

WOULDN'T YOU NEED TO GO TALK TO THE COUNTY FOLK.

YEAH.

GARZA: COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS THE ONE THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED. HERE'S BEEN HERE TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT, THERE WERE LOTS OF ISSUE.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER DAVIS AND STAFF ON THIS ISSUE. IT'S A FOLLOW-UP FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY TO TRY TO GET THIS ROAD PROJECT DONE BECAUSE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE -- ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE. AND THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO EXPEDITE THE PROJECT SO THAT THEY CAN GET IT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND OUR FUNDING IS TO ALLOW IT TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY RULES AND REGULATIONS, SO IT'S A PROJECT THAT HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF SUPPORT TO -- TO COME TO THIS POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'M GOING TO READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECKED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? -- SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YOU SAID ON THE COMMISSION APPOINTEES THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY?

GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

THOMAS: WE HAVE THREE.

GARCIA: WE HAVE THREE?

I WASN'T GIVEN ANY NAMES, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PULL THAT FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, I'LL TRY TO GET THAT FOR YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

THOMAS: CAN WE DO THAT, I'LL JUST PULL THAT?

GARCIA: WE'RE GOING TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 40. KMOMS COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS PULLING THAT AND WE'LL CONSIDER IT LATER IN THE DAY. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE MEMBERS WANT TO PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR PULL OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. SO WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 14 AT THIS TIME. LET ME ANNOUNCE ONE -- LET ME MAKE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT. MR. DAN L. SALZER IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 13. AND THE COUNCIL DECIDED AT THE LASTED MEETING THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM. WHAT I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD IS THAT YOU ARE REGISTERED AGAINST, VE MEANTLY AGAINST SEPARATE BY EQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN A PUBLIC FACILITY HOSPITAL. THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. SUM NUMBER 14.

THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA LAST WEEK.

GARCIA: LET ME CALL UP COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WHO PULLED THIS ITEM. AND ACTUALLY, IT WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. WHOEVER WANTS TO GO FIRST. SHOULD WE DO IT BY SENIORITY AND THAT WILL BE SLUSH SHER. IF WE DO IT BY TIME ON THE COUNCIL, IT'S SLUSHER, THEN IT'S SLUSHER. WHAT DO YOU SAY.

WYNN: LET'S DO IT BY GOOD LOOKS AND I'LL GO FIRST. [LAUGHTER].

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBERS?

SLUSHER: I WILL HAVE TO GO FIRST NOW. [LAUGHTER]. MR. HILL GERS, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT IT'S A VERY SOUND INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY TO INVEST IN THE REVITALIZATION OF EAST 11TH STREET AND EAST 12TH AS WELL, WHICH PARTS WERE ALSO IN THE ARA AREA. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOUGH THE CITY TAX FUNDS ARE INVESTED, AND THAT WAS A DISCUSSION WE WERE HAVING LAST WEEK TO MAKE SURE -- SO CAN YOU GO OVER WITH US THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE LAST WEEK?

YES, COUNCILMEMBER. MY NAME IS PAUL HILGERS AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET A PRESENTATION UP AND I WILL READ IT TO YOU. IT IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED, COUNCILMEMBER, WHICH IS TO EXPLORE FOR YOU AND TO EXPLAIN TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE LEASE BASED UPON THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST WEEK. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS AND ES NTIALLY THE LEASE AGAIN WILL ALLOW US TO CONSOLIDATE THE DIVISIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND OUR AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE COMMUNITY OFFICE INTO PROPERTY ON EAST 11TNr STREET. THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN ON CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS, AND IF THEY'RE NOT SHOWN I'LL GO TO THE CHANGES ON THE LEASE. THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF 73 DOWN TO 60. OF THOSE 60 SPACES, SEVEN WE RESERVED FOR OUR CITY VEHICLES AND 10 HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL SPACES FOR VISITOR OVERFLOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER EMPLOYEE. THAT WAS DUS SKUSED LAST WEEK. SECOND, PER LAST WEEK'S DISCUSSION, THE LEASE REFLECTS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD SUBLEASING ARRANGEMENT THAT THE CITY SPACE CAN BE SUBLEASED WITH THE OWNER'S APPROVAL. THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE LEASE. THE CITY WILL BE GRANTED ONE FIVE-YEAR OPTION TO RENEW AT 95% OF THE THEN CURRENT MARKET RATE FOR SIMILAR PROPERTIES BY GIVING THE OWNER A MINIMUM OF 270 DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE, WHICH WAS NOT IN THE LEASE BEFORE. SO WE DO HAVE A FIVE-YEAR OPTION TO RENEW AT 95% OF THE CURRENT MARKET RATE. ADDITIONALLY REGARDING THE EXPANSION OPTIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, THE CITY WILL BE GIVEN THE RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER ON ANY SPACE THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE WITHIN THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS OF THE LEASE. AND FINALLY, THE TERMINATION RIGHT. THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE IF THE OWNER HAS NOT SECURED FUNDING, OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT AND SKARTED CONSTRUCTION BY DECEMBER 31ST 2002. IF THE BUILDING IS NOT READY FOR OCCUPANCY BY JUNE 30TH, TWURKS THE CITY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE AND BE REIMBURSED ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOVE. THESE COSTS WERE DISCUSSED, NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO AS INSTRUCT BID THIS COUNCIL AT THE MEETING LAST WEEK. AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A MUCH IMPROVED LEASE AGREEMENT AS A RESULT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. AND I'M AVAILABLE AS OTHER STAFF ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SLUSHER: I'LL YIELD TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF I CAN ADD ONE MORE THING TO MR. HILGERS' ANALYSIS OF THAT PROCESS AND THE CHANGES TO THAT LEASE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO MY IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM THIS WEEK THE OTHER PROSPECTIVE TENANTS FOR THE BUILDING, AND IT GAVE ME SIGNIFICANT COMFORT TO SEE THAT OTHER ENTITIES, PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITIES HAVE CURRENT LEASES AND PROPOSALS PENDING TECHNICALLY AT SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATES THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING AS A CITY. ONE WAS THE LEASE WAS, YOU KNOW, STRENGTHENED IN A WAY FROM OUR TENANT PERSPECTIVE AND THEN SECONDLY WE SAW HOW IN FACT THIS IS MARKET OR SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN BASED ON THE PENDING PROPOSALS FOR OTHER TENANTS THAT SHOULD HAVE THIS PROJECT KICKED OFF SHORTLY. SO I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT NOW. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?

SLUSHER: I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

WYNN: SECOND.

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. I'LL GET BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER FOR COMMENT.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH MR. HILGERS IF ANY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS WANT TO JOIN IN. AS WE -- AS THIS AREA IS REVITALIZED BY THE CITY GOING IN AND PAYING AND RENTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF SPACE, PAYING A SIZEABLE CHUNK OF FUNDS FOR IT, THEN I THINK THAT'S GOING TO REALLY BE A HUGE STEP TOWARDS THE GOAL WE'VE ALL BEEN WORKING TOWARD FOR A LONG TIME. AT THE SAME TIME, ANOTHER ISSUE WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT AND ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH CALLED GENTRIFICATION OR JUST THE RISING PROPERTY VALUES THAT MAKE IT WHERE LOW INCOME FOLKS CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO LIVE IN A LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK WITH THIS HAPPENING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO TRY TO KEEP FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE LOWER COST HOUSING THAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT THEY DON'T GET PLACED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. TALK TOO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOUR DEPARTMENT HAS IN MIND THERE.

YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. ONE IS THE GENTRIFICATION ISSUE IS AN ISSUE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS ASKED AND AGAIN IS SHOWING LEADERSHIP ON TRYING TO GET THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO ADDRESS AND HELP US ADDRESS. IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT I THINK WE CAN TAKE SOME SOLACE IN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE OCCURRING. ONE IS THAT WE DO HAVE PLANS TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC AFFORDABLE HOUSES, BOTH MULTI-FAMILY, TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE ANDERSON HILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THOSE HOMES WILL ALL BE AT THE AFFORDABLE RATE OF 80% OR BELOW MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. I BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL ALSO RECOGNIZE IN A IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, THIS AREA THAT WE ARE -- THIS IS GOING TO BE A TRUE MIXED INCOME, MIXED USE COMMUNITY WITH BOTH COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE SPACEc, MARKET RATE HOUSING AS WELL AS ACROSS THE STREET DOWN THE ROAD PUBLIC HOUSE. SO IT WILL HAVE A TRUE MIXTURE OF ALL KINDS OF INCOMES IN THIS REVITALIZATION PLAN AS WELL AS JUST IN THIS3,Pv NEIGHBORHOOD IN GEcgERAL. THAT KIND OF MIXTURE IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, OBVIOUSLY OUR SMART HOUSING PROGRAM IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES AND THE M IN SMART HOUSING STANDS FOR MIXED INCOME AND IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE CONSTANTLY VIGILANT ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. THE MORE YOU REVITALIZE THINGS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THE MORE YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE -- COULD POTENTIALLY BE PRICED OUT OF THE MARKET TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO LIVE THERE. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY WATCHING AND IT'S PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROCESS, PART OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE ALL WORKING TOWARDS AND ON.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL.

GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS SLUSHER AND WYNN FOR BRINGING UP THE POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING AND ALSO FOR PARTICIPATING WITH THE STAFF IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT. LIKE I INDICATED LAST WEEK, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PART OF TOWN AND ONE THAT'S LONG OVERDUE. AND I'M GLAD THAT -- MAYOR PRO TEM EARDA, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. -- URDY. AND BYRON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING TO GET THIS PROJECT UNDER WAY. AND I'M HOPING THIS HAS THE LONG-TERM EFFECT THAT WE HAVE ALL TALKED ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA, THE REVITALIZATION OF THE AREA SO THAT IT ONCE AGAIN CAN BECOME THE VIBRANT COMMUNITY THAT IT ONCE WAS. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM?

THOMAS: YES, MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND. I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. I COMMEND STAFF FOR THE WORK THEY'VE DONE, I COMMEND THE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS' CONCERNS. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK. I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THIS, THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER BROUGHT UP SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY ON INDICT AS. IT'S ABOUT GENTRIFICATION, SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THAT AREA FOR A LONG TIME CAN AFFORD TO STILL LIVE THERE. AND THOSE ARE CONCERNS FOR THE WHOLE COUNCILMEMBERS ON THIS DAIS, THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT GENTRIFICATION. BUT IT ALSO LETS US KNOW THAT THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE PROMISED THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, NOT JUST EAST OF 35, BUT ALL OVER THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THAT WE ARE DOING THE THINGS THAT WE SET OUT FOR DO. AND I COMMEND THE STAFF FOR THE WORK THEY ARE DOING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE WORK AND BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT WERE DONE PREVIOUS BEFORE I GOT HERE AND NEW PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING FORWARD. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED I THINK BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, CORRECT?

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. I FORGOT TO BRING UP THE MINUTES AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY THE 31ST, 2002. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TOc APPROVE. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES. ON THIS NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 15, I HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF A PROVISION IN THE CITY CODE THAT PROVIDES THAT A CITY OFFICIAL WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NONPROFIT ENTITY MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR THE ENTITY. I'M AN INCORPORATOR AND I THINK I BECAME AN INCORPORATOR BEFORE I CAME ON THE COUNCIL FOR THE NONPROFIT. I KNOW I WILL NOT BE A BOARD MEMBER ONCE A CHARTER IS GRANTED, BUT AT THIS TIME THE ATTORNEYS TELL ME I MAY HAVE THE POSITION OF A BOARD MEMBER, DEPENDING ON HOW AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED, SOME OF THE CITY FUNDS COULD GLOW FLOE TO THIS NONPROFIT ENTITY, SO I WILL BE AN STRAIN ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE ON THIS ITEM AND WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN ANYnr WAY ON THIS MATTER. SO MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU COULD TAKE UP THAT ITEM.

WYNN: AND MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I COULD JUST ADD ON TO THAT. I ALSO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS ORGANIZATION LIKE MAYOR GARCIA HAS. THE SAME LEGALc ANALYSIS HAVE BEEN DONE OF MY PARTICIPATION AND TECHNICALLY I'M NOT ON THE BOARD, HAVE NOT HAD A -- CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OR STRUCTURAL VOTING RIGHTS ON THAT BOARD UNTIL IT IS FULLY INCORPORATED, AND SO UNLIKE THE MAYOR, I DO NOT NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM AFTER RECEIVING ADVICE FROM COUNSEL. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: THANK YOUc, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. OKAY, IT WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DO WE HAVE ANY PRESENTATION BY ANYONE BEFORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? DO WE KNOW? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU. WHEN THE CAPITAL METRO BOARD TOOK UP THIS ITEM, WE WERE TALKED TO BY SOME FOLKS WHO SAID THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A RENAL NATIONAL THING, WHICH WE ALL SUPPORTED, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE FIVE COUNTIES AND THERE WOULD BE MANY MUNICIPAL COURTS AND THAT THEY WOULD ALL -- MUNICIPALITIES AND THEY WOULD ALL SHARE EQUALLY. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE BALANCE IS GOING TO BE BETWEEN THOSE ENTITIES, WHICH ENTITIES HAVE COMMITTED WHAT. WE WERE ASSURED WHEN WE WERE APPROACHED BY THE CAPITAL METRO BOARD ABOUT PUTTING A HALF A MILLION IN THAT THE OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES WOULD, QUOTE, DO THEIR PART. AND HAVEN'T SEEN THAT COMMITMENT YET AND I THINK WE NEED TO SEE THAT. AND ALSO, THE BOARD IS NOT AT THIS TIME COMPLETE. AND I THINK BEFORE WE TURN TWO MILLION DOLLARS' WORTH OF PUBLIC MONEY OVER TO A BOARD, WE NEED TO SEE WHO AND HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BE ON IT. SO I'M NOT -- NOT SURE THIS ONE'S READY TODAY.c

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DID YOU -- AND I CONFESS, I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I'M UNCLEAR ON EVEN THE CONCEPT REALLY.

WYNN: I'LL BE ANSWER -- HAPPY TO ANSWER COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND A COUPLEszF THE OTHER SORT OF ORGANIZING BOARD MEMBERS ARE HERE AND MIGHT GIVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE GLOBAL PROJECT. I WILL SAY IN REGARDS TO THE FUNDING AND THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT BOARD IS STILL EVOLVING AND NOT MADE UP, BUT WHAT I PRESUME THE CAPITAL METRO BOARD VOTE FOR THAT HALF MILLION DOLLARS KNEW THE STATUS OF THAT BOARD AT THAT TIME. AND SO THAT VOTE -- COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS ALREADY ON RECORD VOTING TO GIVE THEM HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. TECHNICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY AND THIS MONEY SPECIFICALLY FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IN LOOKING AT THE PROJECT AND PEOPLE WILL TALK TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICALLY IN A FEW MINUTES, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE URBAN CORE OF THE REGION NEEDS TO BE THE DRIVING FORCE, AT LEAST FROM A TIMING STANDPOINT, TO GET THE PROJECT MOVING. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT TIME IS OF PARTICULAR ESSENCE IN THIS PLANNING PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONCEPT BEING THAT PERHAPS THE ONE SILVER LINING IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN LIKE THIS IS THE ABILITY TO HOPEFULLY QUICKLY DO SOME PLANNING BEFORE PERHAPS SIGNIFICANT GROWTH OCCURS AGAIN. AND I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN APPROXIMATELY IS 50% OF THE FIVE COUNTY REGIONS' POPULATION BASE. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM REPRESENTS ABOUT THAT NUMBER. I KNOW, AND WE ALL KNOW OF COURSE, THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS AND MANY OF US ARE, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE TAXPAYER AND SOME OF US PAY COUNTY, CITY AND CAP METRO, SOME PIECES OF THAT. SOME PEOPLE IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY ALSO PAY CITY OF AUSTIN TAXES AS AN EXAMPLE. CITY OF AUSTIN COLLECTS SALES TAXES AS AN EXAMPLE FROM LAKELINE MALL AND IT IS QUITE OFTEN FOR PEOPLE IN RURAL NORTHERN WILLIAMSON COUNTY TO TAKE A HALF DAY AND DRIVE SOUTH 30 MILES AND SHOP AT LAKELINE MALL, PAY CITY OF AUSTIN SALES TAX AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DRIVE BACK TO RURAL NORTH WILLIAMSON COUNTY. SO THERE'S A MYRIAD OF OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS OBVIOUSLY AND TAX BASES INVOLVED IN THIS. I GENERALLY LOOK AT IT AS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ABOUT 50% OF THIS REGION'S POPULATION AND THAT THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER TO COME FROM THE CITY. IN REGARDS TO SORT OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERS OR PLAYERS IN THIS, TWO MAIN THOUGHTS COME TO MIND. ONE IS THAT FRANKLY BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL METRO QUARTER-CENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS LAST YEAR, WE IN FACT AS A CITY HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE BUDGET FLEXIBILITY THIS YEAR THAN SOME OF OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS, PARTICULARLY THE OUTLYING COUNTIES. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REALLOCATING SOME OF THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, AND IT'S A MAJOR REALLOCATION. SOME OF THE OTHER REGIONAL PARTNERS DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THIS BUDGET YEAR. THEY ARE PLANNING FOR THEIR NEXT BUDGET YEAR TO INCLUDE FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT. AND WHAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AMONGST OURSELVES AS REGIONAL PARTNERS IS WHAT THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE. BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUMPSTART THE PROJECT WITH A CURRENT BUDGET ALLOCATION THAT FRANKLY I THINK OTHER REGIONAL PARTNERS DON'T HAVE THAT NEXT IBLT TO DO. THEY WILL HAVE THE BURDEN TO THEN BUDGET IN THEIR 03 BUDGET YEAR THEIR APPROPRIATE SHARE OF THE FUNDS. SECONDLY IN REGARDS TO A REGIONAL CORPORATION OF FUNDING OF THE PROJECT, IT WAS VERY ENCOURAGING THAT THE CAMPO BOARD A MONTH OR TWO AGO ACTUALLY HAD A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF 400,000 DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDS TO THIS PROJECT. THAT IS, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE DIVIDED AMONGSTS THOSE REGIONAL ENTITIES UNDER OUR REGIONAL CAMPO, MADE A UNANIMOUS GESTURE OF 400,000 DOLLAR FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT. UNUNFORTUNATELY, WHAT THE PEOPLE AT THE REGIONAL VISION FOUND OUT AND DETERMINED IS THAT TO USE THOSE FEDERAL STPC FUND FOR THIS PROJECT WAS GOING TO DELAY THE PROJECT SIGNIFICANTLY AT A MINIMUM OF SIX MONTHS. AND SO IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION MADE BY THE REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT, NOT THE CAMPO BOARD, AFTER CAMPO HAD AWARDED THEc $400,000 IN REGIONAL FUNDS WAS THAT IF WE ACCEPT THESE FUNDS, WE'RE GOING TO DELAY STARTING THIS PROJECT FOR SIX MONTHS. AND AGAIN, I THINK THEc FACT THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND REGIONAL PLANNING CARRIED THE DAY IN SORT OF A PAINFUL DECISION WAS MADE BY THE REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT TO GIVE BACK TO CAMPO THE $400,000 IN REGIONAL FEDERALLY FUNDED STPC FUNDS. WHAT THIS, WOULD DO TODAY IN MY WAY OF THINKING, THE CITY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE FUNDING ITS ENTIRE AL INDICATION TOWARDS THIS PROJECT. -- ALLOCATION TOWARDS THIS PROJECT. THE FUNDS ARE ARE MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE OTHER FUNDS. THE PROJECT BEGINS IMMEDIATELY. THE VERY IMPORTANT GIS AND OUTREACH WORK BEGINS GI BITHE PROJECT TEAM. THE STPC FUNDS GO BACK TO CAMPO. CAMPO MADE UP OF MANY REGIONALc PARTNERS. THOSE FUNDS GET USED FOR TRADITIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND NORTHERN HAYS COUNTYc, ETCETERA. AND WITH THAT GESTURE, THOSE REGIONAL PARTNERS, PARTICULARLY WILLIAMSON COUNTY, HAS THE ABILITY THEN TO BUDGET LESS RESTRICTIVE FUNDS FOR 03 TO PICK UP THE SECOND AND LAST YEAR'S FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE PROJECT. SO I WELCOME THE QUESTIONS. THEY'RE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE. THIS IS A LARGE SUM OF MONEY, BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S A REALLOCATION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FUNDS THAT CAN'T BE USED FOR ESSENTIALLY OTHER NONTRANSPORTATIONAL RELATED PROJECTS, THE FACT THAT THE OVERARCHING CONSENSUS AMONGST THE PROJECT TEAM IS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND THIS ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD NOW. ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GIVING BACK 400,000 DOLLARS TO SOME REGIONAL PARTNERS TO DO TRADITIONAL ROAD WIDENING AND TURN LANES AND THINGS THAT OFTEN TIMES ARE FUNDED BY STPC FUNDS THAT WILL THEN ALLOW LOU THOSE PARTNERS IN THEIR BUDGET CYCLE UPCOMING FOR 03 TO BUDGET THE REMAINING HALF MILLION DOLLARS OR SO IN THIS PROJECT TWO-YEAR APPROXIMATE TWO-MILLION-DOLLAR LIFE-SPAN. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY GENERAL COMMENTS. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THE CHAIR DOESN'T MIND TO HAVE PERHAPS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR ONE OF THE COORDINATING BOARD MEMBERS TO COME UP AND JUST TALK ABOUT THE -- TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT. PERHAPS MR. WALKER?

GOODMAN: IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM COUNCIL, I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR CONSIDERING THIS AND GIVING ME A COUPLE OF MINUTES. JUST TO KIND OF BACK UP SOME OF THE HIGH POINTS OF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS SAYINGc, THIS HAS BEEN BREWING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SOME MOMENTUM AND WE WANT TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT. AND THEc STPC FUNDS, THE FEDERAL FUNDS NAVIGATING GETTING THOSE WAS GOING TO, WE FELT, UNDERMINE THE MOMENTUM THAT WE HAD TO DATE. SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE CREATIVE IN LOOKING FOR OTHER WAYS TO DO THINGS MORE QUICKLY. I THINK IT'S ALSO ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE OTHER REGIONAL PARTNERS ARE LOOKING FOR SOME KIND OF COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTINc, PROPORTIONATE COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO TRY TO JUMPSTART IT. WE HAVE NUMEROUS VERB AL COMMITMENTS FROM THESE OTHER ENTITIES, I UNDERSTAND. THE ANXIETY ABOUTc NOT HAVING WRITTEN COMMITMENTS, BUT AGAIN TRYING TO GET THE THIZ/ STARTED. IN NO WAY WAS IT THE INTENT TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM BIKE AND PED PROJECTS. NO ONE IS AGAINST POINT OF IMPACT AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS. I CAN COMMIT TO YOU RIGHT NOW THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT AND INCLUDE BICYCLE AND POD FACILITIES IN THE TRANSPORTATION VISIONING THAT WE DO, IN THE SAME WAY WE'LL INCLUDE KMURT RAIL AND OTHER -- I'M NOT GOING TO EVEN SAY WHAT ELSE. ALL THE OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT INSIDE THE CITY FOR GETTING THINGS AROUND. cI DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE TO BUILD ON WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN OTHER THAN TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE ONE OTHER THING I'LL ADD IS THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT FINALIZED, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE RELEASE THOSE NAMES NEXT WEEK THAT THEY WILL BE CRITIQUES. AND THERE WILL BE FEELINGS THAT IT'S NOT BALANCED IN A PARTICULAR DIRECTION. AND WE WANT TO ENSURE WE HAVE COMMITMENTS FROM THOSE ON THE BOARD, BUT ALSO BE FLEXIBLE SO WE CAN ADD TO THAT BOARD TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THE BALANCE WE NEED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING MORE PEOPLE TO THE TABLE THAN I THINK HAVE BEEN AT A TABLE BEFORE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. BUT IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE A LITTLE BIT AMOUNT OF TRUST AND MORE WORK FOR US TO GO OUT AND GET THE REST OF THE MONEY FROM THE REST OF OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS. AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I CAN TRY TO ANSWER.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: EITHER MR. WALKER OR MS. STYLUS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WHAT ARE THE LIST OF NATIONAL COMMITMENTS SO FAR FROM THE -- CAPITAL METRO HALF MILLION.

CAPITAL METRO AND CAMPO VOTED FOR A COMMITMENT AND WILL ALREADY EXPLAINED ABOUT THE CAMPO COMMUNICATE. COMMISSIONER HILGENSTEIN FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY IS ALREADY ON THEIR AGENDA. THE SAME WAY YOU'RE DELIBERATING ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WILL BE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DELIBERATE THAT TO. AND I WISH -- I WISH I DID HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING ABOUT WHAT THE COMMITMENTS WERE GOING TO BE FROM ALL THE REGIONAL PARTNERS. I DON'T HAVE THAT YET BECAUSE WE NEED TO DELIBERATE AS WELL. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, THE MAYOR FROM SAN MARCOS HAS OFFERED UP THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE COMMITMENTS. COMMISSIONER HILGENSTEIN. AND THE MAYOR OF ROUND ROCK.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD BE ROUND ROCK AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY?

RIGHT, TWO DIFFERENT BUDGETS AND TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS. AND THAT WILL BE SIMILAR FOR ALL THE FIVE COUNTIES. OBVIOUSLY IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE VARIOUS CITIES AND COUNTIES IN OUR REGION HAVE DIFFERENT BASIS OF REVENUE TO LOOK AT. SO THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO GIVE A PROPORTIONAL GNAT AMOUNT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT. BUT I WOULD BE OVERSTEPPING, I THINK, IF I TALKED ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMITMENTS.

SLUSHER: I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT COMMITMENTS YOU ACTUALLY HAD.

WE ARE PURSUING COMMITMENTS BEYOND THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THOSE.

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE I'VE HAD THE PRESENTATION AT CAPITAL METRO WHERE WE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR THE HALF A MILLION, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN POINTED OUT, AND ALSO AT CAP CO-, WHICH I SERVE ON FOR THE CITY AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE FISCAL AGENT WHERE ALL THIS IS ROUTED THROUGH. AND THAT'S A VERY SOUND GROUP AS WELL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: JIM, THE FACT THAT THE BOARD WAS NOT COMPLETE AND IN PLACE WAS DISCUSSED AND WAS A PROBLEM, BUT WE MOVED FORWARD ANYWAY. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A FORMULA WHEREBY WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH EACH ENTITY IS EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE. WILL THERE BE SOME SORT OF PROPORTIONAL EXPECTATION THERE? THAT WAS DISCUSSED ALSO.

WE CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT DO WE WANT TO DO THIS PER CAPITA AND BREAK IT DOWN SO MUCH PER CAPITA IS WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT EVERYBODY TO DO? I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS BUDGETS THE VARIOUS ENTITIES HAVE. LOCKHART DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME KIND OF BUDGET THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOES. SO PROPORTIONALLY, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME KIND OF COMMITMENT OR ANY KIND OF COMMITMENT. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. THAT CONVERSATION A LOT OF TIMES CAME BACK AROUND TO WHAT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILLING TO DO? ARE THEY WILLING TO JUMPSTART THIS. WE'RE NERVOUS THIS IS ANOTHER CITY OF AUSTIN IDEA TO DO REGIONAL PLANNING AND JUST PULL US ALONG. THAT'S NOT THE INTENT EITHER. SO THEY KINDc OF ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING HOW -- THERE'S A LOT OF TRUST THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD UP. SO WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPORTIONATE KIND OF EXPECTATIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND OR DID HE LEWD MYSELF THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET THAT FROM ALL THESE OTHER ENTITIES, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. AND AGAIN, I WOULD ECHO SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID, THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS THE 50% OF THE FIVE-COUNTY POPULATION. WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, THE LARGEST TAX BASE, SO I THINK THE CITY OF AUSTIN JUMPSTARTING THIS IS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

GRIFFITH: YES, YOU DID. AND CERTAINLY CAPITAL METRO JUMPSTARTED IT WITH THE HALF A MILLION.

FAIR ENOUGH. ABSOLUTELY. I STAND CORRECTED.

GRIFFITH: NATURALLY WE WANT TO SEE WHAT THE PROPORTIONAL CONTRIBUTION IS GOING TO BE FROM THE OTHER FEEKS.

AND OF THESE FOLKS ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUND OF CAPITAL METRO AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN. SO WE'RE TRYING AT ONCE TO SAY YES, WE WANT YOU TO BE INCLUDED, YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE A ROLE, A STAKE IN WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THIS AND WE NEED YOU TO HAVE A LITERAL, FINANCIAL OWNERSHIP OF THIS, SO WE NEED SOME COMMITMENT. THAT'S A TRICKY CONVERSATION TO HAVE SOMETIMES, AS YOU ALL KNOW. SO AGAIN IF THEY SEE THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS STEPPING UP, AS I BELIEVE WE ARE WITH THE CAPITAL METRO MONEY AND WITH ANYTHING YOU MIGHT DO TODAY, THEN WE'LL MAKE THAT CONVERSATION WITH ALL OF THEM EASIER.

GRIFFITH: CERTAINLY REGIONAL PLANNING IS THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE IN WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST A CASE OF WHO'S GOING TO BE IN CHARGE, LIKE WHO ALL IS GOING TO BE ON THE BOARD. BECAUSE THAT'S WHO'S GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY ULTIMATELY. AND ALSO WHO'S GOING TO PAY HOW MUCH. THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS.

I AGREE.

GRIFFITH: THANKS.

GOODMAN: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET ME ASK JUST ONE. LAST NIGHT I WAS SPOKEN TO BY SEVERAL FOLKS WHO PLAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO CAPITAL METRO MONEY AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND EXPENDITURES AND CIP'S AND SO ON. AND THEY I THINK ALSO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DIRECT BENEFIT PERHAPS WOULD BE TO THEM OR HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT IN THE CONTEXT OF SOME OF THE MAJORc REGIONAL ISSUES AND HOW THAT WOULD BENEFIT THEM. AND BICYCLING, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS PERHAPS. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH MANY, SAY, BICYCLISTS OR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION GROUPS?

I HAVE NOT YET TO DATE. AGAIN, I CAN COMMIT TO YOU THAT ALL OF THOSE KIND OF ALTERNATIVES, TRANSPORTATION WILL BE IN THE REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON FOOT, ON ROAD, ON RAIL, ON BICYCLE AND EVERYTHING. THE EARLIER PART OF YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY CAN PROMISE THAT MONEY COMING FROM A PARTICULAR PLACE, LIKE TRANSPORTATION, GOING INTO A REGIONAL VISIONING POT GOING TO COME OUT ONE FOR ONEc TO TRANSPORTATION-RELATED THINGS.

GOODMAN: AND I DIDN'T MEAN A CASH DOLLAR BENEFIT, I MEANT A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT.

WELL, THAT IS VERY MUCH THE INTENT, IS THAT WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES, BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AS WELL AS EVERYTHING ELSE.

GOODMAN: BUT THEY'RE CONCERN WAS PROBABLY THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, ALL THE ISSUES, ALL THE GOALS THAT THAT SPECIFIED CASH CONSTRUCTION BENEFITS WOULD NOW BE PUT INTO A MORE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING EFFORT. AND I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW. THEY MIGHT SUPPORT THIS IF THEY WERE, YOU KNOW -- IF THEY HAD A PRESENTATION OR SOMETHING.

FAIR ENOUGH. AND CAMPO HAD THAT SAME KIND OF DISCu OF MONEY GOING INTO KIND OF A CONCEPTUAL THING. I KEEP HEARING THAT WE NEED -- THAT THE BRICK AND STICK STUFF NEEDS MORE CONTEXT: WE NEED MORE REGIONAL PLANNING. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S ALL CONTRIBUTING TO. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE CAMPO GOT TO IN THEIR COMMITMENT. SOc I WOULD -- THAT'S EVERYBODY'S HOPE. THE PEER REVIEW THAT CAMPO DID HAD FUNDING FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES AND WE'LL GO BACK TO ALL THOSE SOURCES AND THEY CALLED FOR A BETTER SENSE OF PLANNING AND CERTAINLY THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH IN THE PAPER FOR REGIONAL PLANNING. I FEEL I'M NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WE HAVEN'T -- I DON'T THINK WE'VE SPENT AS MUCH TIME AS YOU ARE HOPING WE HAVE WITH THE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION FOLKS ABOUT HOW WILL THIS IMPROVE THE DEBATE AND IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO GET MONEY IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS THE INTENT, THOUGH.

GOODMAN: I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MAY KNOW THIS TOO, BUT THE REASON I BROUGHT IT UP IS BECAUSE THEY DO VERY MUCH NEED TO BE IN THE LOOP AND BE PART OF THE FACT THAT THE KIND OF MOVEMENT THAT I BELIEVE YOU'RE ALL HOPING TO DO. IS THE TIME CONSTRAINTS SUCH THAT ONE OF TWO THINGS COULD HAPPEN, WE COULD EITHER TAKE THIS NEXT WEEK FOR YOU TO GO TO THEM AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS SO THEY DO KNOW AND ARE NOT CONFUSED IN ANY WAY ABOUT WHAT THE MONEY WOULD GO FOR, OR CONVERSELY THERE IS A LARGE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY THE 18TH. AND THAT WOULD TAKE IT -- WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING ON THE 21ST, I THINK, SO THAT WOULD TAKE IT TO FEBRUARY 28TH. ARE THE TIME CONSTRAINTS FOR YOU ALL SUCH THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS -- .

WE DON'T HAVE ANY HARD TIME CONSTRAINTS WE'RE TRYING TO MEET. AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANYTHING, THAT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? ABSOLUTELY. I CAN GO TALK AND I'LL COMMIT BEVERLY TO GO TALK TO WHOEVER WOULD FEEL WE NEED TO TALK TO TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL ARE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH JUMPSTARTING THIS.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANKS, MAYOR PRO TEM. ALSO, IF I COULD, AN EXAMPLE ISSUE ABOUT THIS, WHAT THE REGIONAL DIVISIONS HAVE DONE IN MANY OTHER REGIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS ESSENTIALLY IT'S A MULTIFAST AT THE TIMED. CONSENSUS DRIVEN PLAN. AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST AS THIS IDEA FOR A CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT WAS COMING FORWARD, WE AT CAMPO EXPERIENCED A BIG DEBATE OF ISSUES REGARDING LOOP 1 AND 183. THAT ENTIRE PROJECT. WHAT MANY OF US ON THE CAMPO BOARD SORT OF SAW WHEN WE BROUGHT IN, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THIRD-PARTY TECH IN A KEL ADVISORY TEAM TO WORK WITH THAT PROJECT, I THINK MANY OF US WERE SURPRISED AT HOW QUICKLY THERE WAS RELATIVE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE CAMPO MEMBERS AS AN EXAMPLE, INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES FROM HAYS COUNTY AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY, THAT WHEN YOU START COMBINING OTHER ELEMENTS OF A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN A VACUUM, WE CAN GET THE CONSENSUS. AS AN EXAMPLE WITH THE LOOP 1. 1/183 DEBATE, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE SAW SOME OF OUR SUBURBAN REGIONAL PARTNERS AGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT LOOP 1 -- SH 45 TO THE SOUTH SHOULDN'T BE TIED INTO I-35 BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL BYPASS ISSUES. WELL, THAT HADN'T BEEN PART OF OUR DISCUSSION AT CAMPO, BUT WHEN THE THIRD PARTY NATIONAL OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL TEAM CAME IN AND STARTED LOOKING AT OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE LARGER PICTURE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS THE CONSENSUS AND/OR THE COVER OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS ON THE CAMPO BOARD TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RIGHT. IF WE WANT TO SEE THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE CONSENSUSES DOWN SOUTH. AND SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE CAMPO BOARD, PARTICULARLY OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS, RECOGNIZED SORT OF THE BENEFIT AND ULTIMATELY THE PRAGMATIC REQUIREMENT TO HAVE MORE OF A CONSENSUS-DRIVEN REGIONAL PLAN. AND SO IT WAS -- NOT ONLY DID WE ADOPT AS A CAMPO BOARD THAT TECHNICAL TEAM'S ADVISORIES REGARDING THE LOOP 1/183 PROJECT, SOON AFTER THE BOARD VOTED TO AWORD THESE FUNDS TO THIS PROJECT. SO THAT'S SORT OF AN EXAMPLE ISSUE THAT A REGIONAL VISIONING LIKE THIS CAN REALLY, YOU KNOW, MOVE SOME PROJECTS OFF GROUND ZERO WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HELPING US ALL TO REAFFIRM OTHER ELEMENTS OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO OTHER CONSTITUENCIES WITHIN OUR REGION.

I'M NOT REAL CLEAR. WE ALREADY MET WITH THE SIERRA CLUB SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION. THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS AS WELL. WE ARE TRYING TO GET AROUND TO THOSE GROUPS.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WELL, LET ME JUST ASK THIS AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE A MOTION TO DO SUCH A THING, WHICH IS TO ALLOW YOU ALL TO EITHER SET UP A MEETING IN THIS COMING WEEK IN ORDER TO VOTE ON THIS ON VALENTINE'S DAY OR TO HAVE THE EXTRA OPPORTUNITY OF BEING AT THE MEETING ON THE 18TH, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOT A DIFFERENT MEETING, BUT A SCHEDULED MEETING WITH A LARGE AUDIENCE. AND OUT OF THAT LET ME ALSO SAY THAT I DO SUPPORT THIS CONCEPT, THIS EFFORT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO AND BE A PART OF FOR OVER 10 YEARS. AND WE HAVE LIMITED SUCCESS SOMETIMES WITH OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF MANY YEARS OF PAST BAGGAGE THAT WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO GET RIDc OF OR GO BEYOND. SO EVER SINCE, IN FACT, MR. BARNETT WAS CITY MANAGER AND TRIED TO INTRODUCE THE REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND REGIONAL PLANNING, IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE KNEW THAT WE WANTED TO DO. CAMPO IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE FORUM TO REALLY BE ABLE TO PLAN. IT'S VERY POLITICALLY CHARGED BECAUSE IT'S SO FOCUSED AND CONCENTRATED INTO ONE MEETING A MONTH. AND YOU EITHER TALK TO EACH OTHER BEFORE YOU GET THERE OR THERE REALLY IS NOT THE TIME THERE TO CONVERSE ABOUT ANYTHING. SO I BELIEVE THE EFFORT IS RIGHT ON TARGET AND I SUPPORT IT VERY MUCH. I WOULD REALLY PREFER TO BE ABLE TO HELP THOSE BICYCLISTS AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVOCATES HEAR ABOUT IT, THOUGH, BEFORE WE ACTUALLY TOOK ACTION. WE'RE KIND OF LAYING IT ON THE TABLE NOW, BUT I DO SUPPORT IT. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. AND SO DO I. AND I WOULD MAKE -- SINCE YOU'RE PRESIDING, I CAN MAKE THAT MOTION IN YOUR HONOR.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. AND I'LL SECOND IT IN YOURS.

GRIFFITH: ALL RIGHT. AND ALSO IF THIS PASSES, COULD WE PLEASE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A LINE ITEM BREAK DOWN OF THE TWO MILLION? I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE ALL OF US MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE ON VALENTINE'S DAY.

HOW WE'RE TRYING TO RAISE IT OR HOW WE'RE TRYING TO SPEND IT?

GRIFFITH: HOW YOU'RE TRYING TO SPEND IT. WELL, BOTH DIRECTIONS, IN AND OUT. THANKS.

WE CAN TRY.

GOODMAN: COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THE MOTION?

SLUSHER: SO THE MOTION IS ESSENTIALLY TO POSTPONE FOR A WEEK?

GRIFFITH: UNTIL THE 14TH. AND TO HAVE AS CLOSENO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400 [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY].

GOODMAN: LET'S GO QUICKLY TO ITEM NUMBER 17.

THOMAS: MAYOR PRO TEM, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I DID... DID -- ALSO IN THAT I WANT TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK AND MAKE SURE -- I NEEDED MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE 925,000.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I THINK WE AGREE ON THAT ONE.

THOMAS: OKAY.

GOODMAN: I HOPE TO SEE IT. COUNCILMEMBER -- COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, ITEM NUMBER 17?

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE A QUICK ITEM, BUT I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE REJECT ALL BIDS AND START THE BIDDING PROCESS OVER.

THOMAS: I'LL SECOND THAT.

GARCIA: MOTION BY -- SORRY ABOUT THAT. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TO REBID THIS PROJECT; IS THAT CORRECT? REJECT ALL BIDS.

ALVAREZ: REJECT ALL BIDS AND REBID.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. GIVEN THE ESSENCE OF THE MOTION, DO YOU STILL WANT TO SPEAK? CAROL HADNOT IS AGAINST THIS ONE. BRYAN FUENTES AGAINST IT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK?

NO, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REJECT ALL BIDS ON THIS PROJECT AND REBID IT. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. I'LL CALL UP ITEM NUMBER 19, AMEND AN ORDINANCE -- I'M SORRY, POSTPONED. THIS ONE IS POSTPONED. 19 IS POSTPONED TO MARCH THE 7TH. I'LL CALL UP ITEM NUMBER 22, WHICH IS THE WILD HORSE PUD. THIS IS FOR SECOND READING O.J..

YES, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASCO, DIRECTOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. ITEM NUMBER 22 IS THE WILD HORSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE ITEM IS ZONED FOR SECOND READING BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WANTED COUNCIL TO CONSIDER SOME AMENDMENTS TO WHAT YOU APPROVED ON FIRST READING. WE HANDED YOU A LETTER ADDRESSED TO MR. PETE DWYER FROM ACE SENT CITY MANAGER LISA GORDON SPEAKING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. WITH THAT WE ATTACHED A SPREADSHEET AND THE DETAILS OF THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO AND THOSE THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. WE WILL TILL TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT, LAND USE, WATER QUALITY, ETCETERA. HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS WE WOULD LIKE COUNCIL NOT TO INCLUDE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THEY ARE, ONE, THE ASPECT THAT RELATES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 380 IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THAT ASPECT IS NOT A ZONING MATTER AND WE DO NOT WANT THAT INCLUDED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ITEM NO. 2 HAS TO DO WITH THE CIP WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REQUEST OR AGREEMENT THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO ZONING. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR COUNCIL NOT TO INCLUDE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. HAVING SAID THAT, STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT IN TRYING TO NEGOTIATE AND RESOLVE THE OTHER OUTSTANDING LAND USE AND/OR WATER QUALITY ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED IN THE SPREADSHEET. THE CASE CAN THEN GO FROM SECOND READING IF COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER DIRECTING US TO DELETE THOSE TWO ITEMS. THE 380 ISSUE AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AGREEMENTS RELATING TO SERVICE EXTENSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. GLASCO, ON THE -- THE WORKSHEET THAT SAYS AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT, THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER ONE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PURSUANT TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPPERTER 380. AND WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE?

THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO NOT INCLUDE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THEN ITEM NO. 2 WOULD BE WATER AND WASTEWATER ITEMS, THAT IS CORRECT?

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 5, THOSE WHO WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE SECOND -- TWO WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE SECOND READING.

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSAL AND THE SIGNAGE THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 4? CAN WE TAKE ITEM NUMBER 4? I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE WERE BILLBOARDS. THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE BILLBOARDS, WE WOULD MAKE THIS A SEENIC ROADWAY.

THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TOO. THE SCENIC ROADWAY ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE MORE PROFILE SIGNS, AT LEAST SIGNS THAT ARE NOT BILLBOARDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MS. UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER THINKING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SIGNAGE THAT HAD TO DO WITH DIRECTION. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS YOUR PROPOSAL. HE DID NOT AGREE WITH HAVING TO BE LIMITED. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

MAYOR, I BELIEVE WE CAN RESOLVE THIS ISSUE WITH ALL THE OTHERS WHEN WE COME BACK ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO STAFF'S PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD THEN ADDRESS YOUR REQUEST.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE, SO ON SECOND READING WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 380 AND WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES AGREEMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO I'LL SFWRAIN A MOTION ON THAT AND -- WELL, LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ISSUE. ANYBODY? OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ON SECOND READING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ITEMS 2, WHICH IS THE PROPOSAL FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, ITEM 3, WHICH IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE, ITEM 6, WHICH IS APPLICANT PROPOSES DEADLINE OF 4-14 FOR THE E.M.S. SIGN. ITEM 7, WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEADLINE OF 4-15 TO RESERVE PARCEL FOR LIGHT RAIL. AND ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS LAND USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR 1,999 ACRES. THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE SECOND READING; IS THAT CORRECT? THERE ARE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT AT THIS TIME?

WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND FOR THESE ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD JUST APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WHAT YOU APPROVED ON FIRST READING AND WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS WE CAN CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE ON ALL THOSE ITEMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

WYNN: ONE QUESTION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: SO MS. GLASCO, YOU'RE SAYING IF WE APPROVE ON OUR SECOND READING WHAT WE APPROVED ON OUR FIRST READING, IT'S THE STAFF'S POSITION, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH FIVE OR SIX PIECES OF IT. AND SO ARE WE TO ASSUME THEN THAT IF -- THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM WOULDN'T BRING IT BACK FOR A THIRD READING AS IT IS? THAT SORT OF BY DEFINITION THIS COULD NOT BE APPROVED ON THIRD READING BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH IT?

WELL, THE ITEMS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING WE'RE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS. WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN NEGOTIATE ON MOST OF THEM BETWEEN NOW AND THIRD READING. SO WE WILL HAVE AN ORDINANCE PREPARED FOR THIRD READING INDICATING HOW WE RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, SCENIC ROADWAY AND ALSO ALL THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ASPECTS. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES, WELL ENOUGH.

DID YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR US?

WYNN: I THINK I'LL PROBABLY VISIT WITH STAFF IN THE INTERVENING WEEKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I'LL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. NO? WHO MADE THE MOTION? ANYBODY MAKE THE MOTION THIS WOULD BE FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION?

GRIFFITH: I WILL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE THIS LETTER FROM -- DATED JANUARY THE SIXTH FROM MS. MORE DON TO MR. DWYER AND ALL THE WORKSHEETS THAT ARE BACKING UP THE LETTER. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THAT? IF NOT, STAFF, IF YOU COULD GET THAT TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM FOR SECOND READING ONLY, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

WYNN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE, WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN VOTING NAY.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I COULD FOREWARN STAFF AS THEY WALK AWAY THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT TO MOVE IT FORWARD ON SECOND READING, I VOTED FOR IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAFF IS IF YOU WOULD COMMUNICATE THOSE THINGS TO THEM SO THAT BEFORE THE THING COMES BACK TO THIRD READING WE CAN HAVE THOSE ITEMS EITHER DISAGREED OR WORKED OUT. WE'LL TAKE ABOUT A THREE-MINUTE RECESS. WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 13 COMING UP AT 3:30 TIME CERTAIN.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE I CAN ASK BETTIE AND TRISH OR WHOEVER IS GOING TO ASK BET.

MAYOR GARCIA: THOSE OF YOU WHO WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF, IF YOU COULD TAKE SEATS RIGHT HERE NEXT TO THE CITY CLERK, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE CALLING UP FOR CONSIDERATION ITEM NO. 13, WE WILL READ IT INTO THE RECORD. IT'S APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 1 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE AGREEMENT FOR RE VISIONS TO THE PROVISION OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES INCLUDING THE FIFTH -- REMOVING OF THE FIFTH FLOOR FROM THE LEASE AND ADJUSTMENT IN PAYMENTS AND ANCILLARY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY, HEALTH SERVICES OF AUSTIN, DBA SETON AND TWO, DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT ANALYSES OF THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY AND DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES AND SOLUTIONS OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE COUNCIL AND 3 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN ON THE PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT THIS ANALYSIS IN QUORD NATION WITH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS COLLABORATING ON REGIONAL HEALTH CARE AND THEIR APPOINTED TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

LET ME THANK EVERYBODY FOR HELPING US WITH THIS ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS. I PARTICULARLY WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF WHO HAS BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE THIS GETTING US THE INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NEEDED, ANSWERING SOME VERY TOUGH QUESTIONS. GETTING US THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT -- THAT THE COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED, SO THAT -- SO THAT THE COUNCIL IS FULLY INFORMED. ALSO, I WANT TO THANK THE -- SETON PERSONNEL, FOR -- FOR THEIR COOPERATION AND THE -- IN THE DISCUSSIONS AS WE HAVE MOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND ALSO I WANT TO THANK THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE COME AND EXPRESSED THEIR VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN AN EASY ISSUE FOR US TO -- TO ADDRESS. BUT -- BUT IN CLOSING I WANT TO SAY, ALSO, MY COMMENTS, ALSO, I WANT TO SAY TO THE COUNCIL THAT I APPRECIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS -- THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, THE THOROUGHNESS WITH WHICH THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. I THINK WE DISCUSSED SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT -- THAT -- I'M GOING TO ADMIT THIS, EVEN THOUGH WE WILL NEVER GET TO DISCUSS ALL OF THE ISSUES, WE CAN'T BECAUSE THERE ARE SITUATIONS THAT COME UP THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO REDUCE TO WRITING IN CONTRACTS, I THINK WE HAVE HAD VERY, VERY GOOD DISCUSSIONS AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED WHAT IS A -- WHAT IS A CRITICAL ISSUE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THAT IS HOW DO WE PROVIDE THIS KIND OF SERVICES TO THE INDIGENT POPULATION, THE INDIGENT WOMEN IN THIS COMMUNITY. -- THIS IS NOT -- NOT WITHOUT ITS CONTROVERSY, BUT I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE THAT AUSTINITES HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO ADDRESS AND -- AND HAVE DONE SO IN A POSITIVE WAY. I ALSO WANT TO THANK RABBI ELIZABETH DUNSKER AND REVEREND JIM RIG BEE WHO WROTE -- RIGBY WHO WROTE THE GUEST EDITORIAL, THE VIEWPOINT, AND -- AND EDITORIAL IN THIS MORNING'S PAPER. AND IT SAYS THAT THE CITY AND SETON MUST CRAFT A DETAILED AGREEMENT THAT WILL ENSURE THESE SERVICES ARE -- CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE. I THINK THAT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS IS CRAFT AN AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH. NOW, LET ME SAY THAT FOR THE LONG TERM, THIS COMMUNITY AND THE -- AND THE COUNTIES THAT LOOK TO SETON FOR ACUTE CARE FOR TRAUMA SERVICES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT A HOSPITAL DISTRICT. WE CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THAT BECAUSE THE COST OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES IS INCREASINGLY BURDENSOME TO -- TO THE TAX BASES THAT YOU HAVE IN COMMUNITIES. SO -- SO THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE PREPARED TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT -- WHAT WE, AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES NEED TO DO TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT UNTIL THEN, WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES WITHIN THE STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE BY -- BY REALIGNING THE CONTRACTS, AMENDING THEM AS WE -- AS WE -- AS WE DEEM APPROPRIATE. THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE STAFF FIRST, THE CITY MANAGER, FOR ANY EXPLANATIONS THAT MAY -- THAT MAYBE NEED TO BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME AND THAT YOU RECOGNIZE ANY STAFF MEMBERS THAT -- THAT MAY WANT TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS. THEN I WILL GO TO THE -- TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS. I -- AT THE LAST MEETING, WE -- WE DECIDED THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SHE, MR. SULZER WHO I ALREADY READ THE CARD INTO THE RECORD AND ALSO NANCY NAVBLE, SHE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL, SHE WROTE ON THE CARD, I WILL READ THIS: THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE AND CONTROVERSIAL TEMPORARY SOLUTION. AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE FOUND UNTIL AUSTIN HAS A HOSPITAL DISTRICT TO EQUALLY CARE FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND -- AND CITY MANAGER, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AT THIS TIME.

GARZA: MAYOR AND COUNCIL LET ME JUST AT THIS TIME CALL ON BETTY DUNKERLY WHO SPEARHEADED THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS FOR SOME BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES -- WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES AND WHAT IT DOESN'T DO AND -- AND THEN WE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS -- BET COMMUNITY WILL BE -- BETTY WILL BE NEEDED TO --

SEVERAL OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED THAT I VERY CLEARLY ARTICULATE IN LAYMEN'S LANGUAGE WHAT THIS LEASE AMENDMENT LAY ALLOWS US TO DO, WHAT IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE SOME CONFLICT IN ADDITION WHAT OPTIONS THE COUNCIL HAS TO CONSIDER AT THIS TIME. I THINK SINCE SETON FORMALLY NOTIFIED US IN JUNE OF 2001, STAFF HAS EXPLORED SEVERAL OPTIONS OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES. WE LOOKED AT A VERY LIMITED INSURANCE MODEL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO TUBALS AT ANOTHER -- AT OTHER SITES IN THE COMMUNITY. WE LOOKED AT A CONTRACTING OUT MODEL. AGAIN LIMITED TO TUBAL LIGATIONS AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE DONE AT ANOTHER FACILITY. THEN WE LOOKED AT A FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL OPTION. BOTH THE DOCTORS THAT WORK IN OUR CLINICS AND AT BRACKENRIDGE AND MOST OF THE HEALTH ADVOCATES SHOWED A VERY STRONG DESIRE TO KEEP THESE SERVICES ON THE BRACKENRIDGE CAMPUS, IF POSSIBLE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE FOCUS SO MUCH OF OUR WORK ON THE FIFTH FLOOR HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THE LEASE WITH SETON GIVES THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY A GREAT MANY ADVANTAGES. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PARTNERSHIP IS WITH THE ONLY NON-PROFIT HOSPITAL WITH -- LIKE THE CITY HAS OVER 100 YEARS HISTORY OF DELIVERING CARE TO THE POOR. AND THEY PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AT BRACKENRIDGE. ADDITIONALLY, OUR MEDICALLY INDIGENT PATIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THE SETON FACILITIES. NOT JUST BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. SETON ALSO TAKES THE RISK OF PROVIDING INDIGENT CARE FOR ALL OF THE INDIGENT THAT GOES ABOVE THE 5.6 MILLION CONTRIBUTION THAT WE PROVIDE THEM EACH YEAR. THIS PAST YEAR, THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT HAD WE HAD THE HOSPITAL, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER 14 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS IN -- IN INDIGENT CARE TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND -- AND ALSO TO -- TO REMIND YOU THAT SETON HAS DONE -- HAS SOME $60 MILLION WORTH OF -- DONE SOME $60 MILLION WORTH OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOSPITAL SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING IT. MANY OF THOSE DOLLARS HAVE GONE INTO CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ITSELF. NOW, TO GET TO THE LEASE AMENDMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO VERY CLEARLY SAY THE THINGS THAT WE GET OR THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO. WE GET MUCH NEEDED EXPANDED FACILITIES ON THAT FIFTH FLOOR CAPABLE OF HANDLING SOME 1300 ADDITIONAL DELIVERIES. WE GET THE ABILITY TO -- TO DO TUBAL LIGATIONS ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. WHILE SETON CAN NO LONGER HAVE US DOING THOSE IN THE HOSPITAL THAT THEY MANAGE. WE HAVE -- WE WILL HAVE A PHARMACY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR THAT CAN DISTRIBUTE NORMAL CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS, WHICH SETON IS NOT ABLE TO DO. AND WE WILL HAVE ENHANCED BIRTH CONTROL, EDUCATION ON BOTH THE FIFTH FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR AND THIS WILL PLAY A BIG ROLE IN -- IN SHH OF THE OTHER ISSUES WE TALK ABOUT LATER. FINALLY, WE CAN ADMINISTER EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIONS -- CONTRACEPTIVES TO RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS. WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS WE CAN'T ADMINISTER EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES TO PATIENTS WHO DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS. HOWEVER, FEW OF -- HOWEVER FEW THOSE MIGHT BE THAT HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF A FAILED CONTRACEPTIVE MEASURES, THIS IS WHAT WE INTEND TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE WOMEN, GET THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED AND -- AND REQUIRE. WITH OUR ENHANCED STYLE, WE WILL MAKE SURE WITHIN THE 72 HOUR PERIOD THEY EITHER GET TO THEIR FAMILY DOCTOR OR THEY GET TO OUR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CLINIC. THERE THEY WILL GET THE MEDICATION THEY HAVE REQUESTED. THEY WILL HAVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE BIRTH CONTROL COUNSELING SESSION, THEN THEY WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEDICAL HOME SO THAT THEY CAN RETURN FOR WHATEVER MEDICAL CONDITION MAY ARISE. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE THREE -- THREE OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- TO PERHAPS RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER. SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM ENHANCEMENTS THAT WOULD HELP US THROUGH THIS ISSUE. SHORT-TERM, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE IMMEDIATELY INCREASE THE FAMILY NURSE EDUCATOR STAFFING LEVEL TO INCREASE THE FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELING COVERAGE AT BRACKENRIDGE TO INCLUDE EXPANDED WEEKLY HOURS AND WEEKEND HOURS. SECONDLY, IN THE MIDDLE TERM, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL DIRECT US TO CONTINUE TO -- DID TO -- RATHER TO ESTABLISH A PRIMARY CARE CLINIC AT OR NEAR THE BRACKENRIDGE CAMPUS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS IDEA FOR ABOUT A YEAR, BUT -- BUT WE HAVE GOT PULLED OFF TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE. THAT WOULD DO TWO THINGS: IT WOULD HELP PULL AWAY PATIENTS FROM -- FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM THAT -- THAT GO THERE INAPPROPRIATELY. THEY COULD JUST AS EASILY GO TO A -- TO AN FQHC CLINIC IF ONE WAS NEARBY AND HAD THE EXTENDED HOURS THAT ARE NEEDED. IN ADDITION, IT COULD ALSO PROVIDE US ANOTHER WAY TO PROVIDE THE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS. AND THEN LONG-TERM, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO WHAT THE MAYOR JUST MENTIONED. THAT -- THAT WE REALLY NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK TO EVALUATE AND DEVELOP PLANS FOR A REGIONAL FINANCING MECHANISM THAT WILL HELP WITH THE DELIVERY OF CARE, NOT ONLY IN -- IN THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, THE TRAUMA CENTER, BUT CARE IN GENERAL SO THAT ALL OF OUR CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO THE -- TO THE MEDICAL CARE THAT THEY NEED. I THINK THE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, REALLY FALL INTO THREE BASIC CATEGORIES. NUMBER ONE, WE COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT SOME LIMITED INSURANCE MODEL TO HELP -- CERTAINLY WE COULD DO THAT RELATING TO THE TUBALS. WE COULD LOOK AT A CONTRACTING MODEL, WHICH AGAIN IS A VERY LIMITED SOLUTION, OR THIRDLY, WE COULD BEGIN TO START TO UNWIND THE LEASE AND ACTUALLY TAKE THE HOSPITAL BACK. I THINK THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, JOHN STEVENS, HAS PRESENTED WHAT THOSE DOLLARS WOULD BE, I THINK THOSE ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE NUMBERS. SO I BELIEVE THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DOING THAT, AT THIS STAGE, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, THOSE IMPLICATIONS ARE VERY SEVERE. INITIALLY, THE FIRST YEAR WE WOULD NEED ABOUT $65 MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. AND THEN AFTER THAT FIRST YEAR, WE WOULD NEED $10 MILLION A YEAR TO PROVIDE THE SUBSIDY FOR THE CLINICS AND MAP PROGRAM THAT CURRENTLY COME FROM PROCEEDS THAT COME FROM SETON IN THE FORM OF THEIR LEASE PAYMENT AND IN THE FORM OF THEM SHARING THE DISPRO MONEY. THAT $65 MILLION WOULD TRANSLATE IMMEDIATELY INTO A 13.5 CENT TAX INCREASE, BRINGING OUR TAX RATE TO SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 60 CRENTSES. I HAVE WORKED ON THIS -- CENTS. I HAVE WORKED ON THIS PROBLEM, ISSUE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW. I THINK IF I COULD HAVE COME UP WITH A FINANCIALLY VIABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD HAVE OFFERED AS MANY BENEFITS AS THIS SOLUTION DOES, I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT SOLUTION TO YOU TODAY. I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SOLUTION AT THIS TIME. AND I WOULD LIKE TO -- TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THE LEASE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. DUNKERLY. WE ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE GLEN MAXEY HERE. REPRESENTATIVE MAXEY, IF YOU COULD JOIN US AT THE TABLE HERE IN CASE THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, I THINK. YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO -- SO LET ME RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS AND WHOEVER WANTS TO START CAN START AT THIS TIME. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ASKED DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND THEY COME UP OFTEN ENOUGH, AS LONG AS THEY ARE UNADDRESSED I THINK THAT THEY RETAIN A LEGITIMACY THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE ANSWERS RIGHT NOW. BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO DURING THIS DISCUSSION, SEE IF WE CAN'T GET THE ANSWERS TO THEM. THERE IS A -- AN ISSUE MADE ABOUT BRACKENRIDGE AND SERVICES BY SETON RELATIVE TO MALES AND CHILDREN. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHAT SITUATIONS THAT REFERS TO. IT'S TRUE THAT IN THIS INSTANCE WE ARE CONCENTRATING ON WOMEN AND REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, BUT THE ISSUE ALSO REMAINS THAT -- THAT SETON HAS BEEN -- BEEN A STELLAR PROVIDER OF MEDICAL CARE, WE THINK, FOR ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO COME TO THOSE DOORS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TO BE CLOSED TO ANYONE. SO IF THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT SOMEHOW A CONFLICT BETWEEN COMMUNITY COMMITMENT AND SETON COMMITMENT TO ANY CARE OF MALE AND CHILDREN, PATIENTS, WE SHOULD AIR THAT NOW. AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LEGITIMACY TO IT. ALSO, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A COPY OF THE LAWSUIT, THE ACLU VERSUS SETON ABOUT THE PUBLIC FUNDS. I AM -- I'M GETTING A CONCEPT OF -- OF WHAT THAT -- WHAT THAT CHALLENGE IS ALL ABOUT. BUT NOT SPECIFICS.

GARZA: THE ACLU HAS FILED A LAWSUIT?

GOODMAN: THAT IS WHAT A PERSON -- WELL, THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. MAYBE I WASN'T LISTENING CAREFULLY? THEY WERE CHALLENGING AT LEAST, ACLU WAS CHALLENGING?

GARZA: I HAVE NOT -- THEY MAY BE -- NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AS YET.

GOODMAN: WELL, IF THERE'S A WAY JUST TO SEE THE CONCEPTS WRITTEN DOWN IN SOME KIND OF FORMAT SO WE KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. WHAT DID OR DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT'S BEING CHALLENGED. THE OTHER THING IS THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO COME AND IN THE FRENZY OF AN EMERGENCY ROOM SITUATION, I KNOW THAT IT IS SOMETIMES EASY TO BE BRUSK OR DO AND SAY THINGS THAT MAY SEEM DISRESPECTFUL TO FOLKS, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THE WAY TO PAY FOR SERVICES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY'S COMMENT ON IF ANYTHING IN THIS CONTRACT SPEAKS TO OR PERSONNEL ISSUES AT SETON SPEAK TO -- TO THE RESPECT AND THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE ATTITUDE THAT MUST GO FOR ANY PATIENT THAT WALKS THROUGH THE DOORS, I'M SURE IT'S NOT A POLICY TO BE RUDE OR DISRESPECTFUL. SO -- SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE SPECIFICS THAT RULE THAT AND IF MAYBE WE NEED TO BEEF THEM UP OR -- JUST THIS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TWO ENTITIES HAVE SOME MORE ORIENTATION AND STAFF TRAINING OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

GARZA: WITH RESPECT, MAYBE BETTY OR SOMEBODY FROM -- FROM SETON CAN -- CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WITH RESPECT TO MEN AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY ISSUE IN WHICH THAT -- THAT'S AND HE -- I MEAN YOU RUN WITH CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT QUESTION WAS GOING. BUT THIS SPECIFIC FIFTH FLOOR, BECAUSE OF THE SERVICES IT'S PROVIDING, IS UNIQUE TO WOMEN. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER -- WHETHER THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.

GOODMAN: NO. I THINK IT'S KIND OF BEEN THE SAME THING AS WHAT I JUST ASKED ABOUT. RESPECT FOR ANY PATIENT WHO WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR. JUST AS LONG AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTRACT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND LAY THOSE OUT. MR. SULZER IS RIGHT THERE. PERHAPS MS. YOUNG COULD JUST ASK HIM PRIVATELY WHAT THOSE ISSUES WERE AND THEN WE CAN RESEARCH DURING THE TIME WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

GARZA: WITH RESPECT TO WHEN WE GET COMPLAINTS, ABOUT SERVICES AT SETON, OUR AT BRACKENRIDGE, THERE'S A PROCESS BY WHICH THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE HEARD. THEY ARE EITHER WRITTEN TO US OR THEY ARE WRITTEN TO THE PRIMARY CARE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS THE OVERSIGHT. THOSE ARE DISCUSSED AND VISITED, SHOULD BE VISITED THROUGH THE OVERSIGHT PROCESS, THE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S -- BECAUSE WHEN SETON SIGNED ON WITH THE DEAL WITH US, IT WAS TO PROVIDE SERVICES WITHOUT -- REGARDLESS OF PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PAY. NOW, I WILL HAYSSTEN TO SAY THAT -- HEY.... HASTEN TO SAY EVEN WITH THE -- WITHIN THE CLINIC SYSTEM WE ASK FOLKS FOR CO-PAY. IN THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE THAT WAS PRESENCED TO US BY MR. PENA WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WAS NEEDING SOME MEDICAL TREATMENT, WE CAN -- IF THERE'S A NAME THAT HE CAN GIVE US, WE WILL CERTAINLY BE HAPPY FOLLOW THAT UP AND FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. I KNOW IN ONE INSTANCE WHERE WE WERE GIVEN A COMPLAINT ABOUT A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. WHEN THAT WENT THROUGH CHANNELS, I PASSED IT ON, SETON DEALT WITH THAT EMPLOYEE, THEY DEALT WITH THEM IN THE CORRECT MANNER AND ASSURED THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PROPER PROTEST COAL IN TERMS OF DEALING -- PROTOCOL IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS WHO WALK THROUGH THAT DOOR. MAYBE BETTY OR TRISH CAN ADD TO THAT.

I THINK YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. I DO HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MEN AND THE VASECTOMIES. THAT PROCEDURE IS USUALLY NOT DONE IN HOSPITALS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT ON THE FIFTH FLOOR IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY.

GOODMAN: WHAT IS THE CHILDREN'S ISSUE?

AGAIN, THE SAME THING WITH THE CHILDREN. USUALLY, IN MANY CASES, IFERTLY, THE TIME FRAME HAS LONG SINCE PASSED WHEN CHILDREN COME IN TO MAKE THOSE MEDICATIONS AVAILABLE. BUT AGAIN, THAT FIFTH FLOOR COULD ACCOMMODATE BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS.

ALL THAT I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF THE PROCEDURE FOR CTOMIES THOSE ARE DONE OUTPATIENT WITH A UROLOGIST. IT'S MOST COST EFFECTIVE, WHERE WE CAN STRETCH OUR HEALTH CARE DOLLARS. TO DO IT IN ACUTE CARE ISN'T THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO IT. THERE MAY BE MEDICAL EMERGENCIES IN WHICH YOU NEED TO DO IT, BUT I DON'T CONCEIVE OF WHICH ONES THOSE MAY BE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE -- TO THE CONDUCT OF SETON EMPLOYEES AND THERE'S BEEN A -- THERE'S BEEN A SENTENCE ADDED TO -- TO SECTION 17 ACCESS AND I THINK THEY HAVE -- THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT WITH SETON AND THEY ARE OKAY WITH IT. SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENT -- INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL OR INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON, PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN REGARDS TO HOW -- HOW PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BE TREATED WHEN THEY GOT TO BRACK.

I HAD LANGUAGE THAT -- THAT LED UP TO THAT WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS LATER, I DON'T WANT TO -- TO GO STRAIGHT TO THOSE IF THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES TO DISCUSS FIRST. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT PERSONNEL POLICIES, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO GET, ABOUT THE TREATMENT THAT -- THAT ANY PERSON WHO -- WHO IS UNABLE TO PAY RECEIVES WHEN THEY -- WHEN THEY WALK INTO SETON. WHEN THEY WALK INTO BRACKENRIDGE, EXCUSE ME. FOR SERVICES --

BETTY.

WELL, I JUST THOUGHT OF ANOTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW THAT I THINK WILL HELP ADDRESS YOUR ISSUE ABOUT ATTITUDES. BECAUSE OUR CLINICS FEED RIGHT INTO THE -- THE -- THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, WE HAVE VARIOUS EMPLOYEE GROUPS THAT WORK TOGETHER, RIGHT NOW, TO ENSURE THE SMOOTH ACCESS OF -- OF PATIENTS AND ALSO I THINK DEAL WITH THE ATTITUDE ISSUE. AND WE -- WE HAVE WORKED ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT -- SEVERAL DIFFERENT TOPICS OF COORDINATION COORDINATION AND COOPERATION. I THINK PERHAPS EITHER PAT HAYS OR MICHAEL COULD ADDRESS THAT EMPLOYEE, SETON EMPLOYEE ISSUE.

I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT, THE -- THE VISION AND VALUES ON OUR WALL, COMMIT TO A STARNLD OF RELATING TO PEOPLE THAT -- THAT'S IN MY OPINION INCOMPATIBLE WITH TREATING ANYONE LESS THAN RESPECTFULLY REGARDLESS OF THEIR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN THAT HAPPENS WITH DEAL WITH IT -- WE DEAL WITH IT THROUGH OUR SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. WHENEVER IT'S BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY A MEMBER OF THE CITY STAFF, A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FOLLOW-UP ON THIS. WE HAVE FOLLOWED IT UP AGGRESSIVELY AND -- APOLOGIZED. IF WE DO NOT THINK THAT BEHAVIOR WAS UP TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE HOLD. THE MECHANISM THAT'S IN PLACE IN THE LEASE TO DEAL WITH THIS IS THE COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLAINTS REPORT AT THE BRACKENRIDGE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL. SO THERE IS A SYSTEM IN PLACE, IF THERE'S ANY PATTERN OF EROSION IN TERMS, NOT JUST OF AN ATTITUDE, BUT OF ANY KIND OF AN EXPERIENCE AT BRACKENRIDGE. BUT IN TERMS OF SETON'S COMMITMENT, THERE IS -- THERE IS NOTHING ACCEPTABLE TO US THAN -- THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE MOST RESPECTFUL TREATMENT OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COMES IN THE DOOR.

GOODMAN: I THINK, MAYOR, THAT IT'S JUST EASY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SOMETIMES TO BE FRAZZLED AND PERHAPS RUDE, BRUSK OR WHATEVER, OR IT WOULD SEEM THAT WAY. SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE THE ONES THAT -- COULD COMPLAIN OR TAKE IT TO SOMEONE. I'M JUST TRYING TO CHECK UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A POLICY THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM -- FROM CERTAINLY BEING APPROVED OF.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. A 1994 STUDY SHOWED THAT -- I BELIEVE IT WAS THE POLICE STUDY -- SHOWED THAT 95% OF THE -- OF THE RAPE VICTIMS, MAYOR PRO TEM, DID NOT MAKE A POLICE REPORT. AND -- AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXACT STATS ON AUSTIN, THAT'S -- THAT'S AS CLOSE OF A STATISTICAL INFORMATION AS I HAVE. SO -- SO THAT'S -- THAT'S A CHALLENGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT IS AND THAT'S NOT THE ONLY ON PLAGUES THAT DOESN'T REPORT THE CRIME. WE -- OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE IMMIGRANT AND NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING POPULATION TO REPORT THE CRIMES. SO THAT WE CAN -- WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE CLIENTS. BUT IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION ACROSS THE BOARD. LET ME SEE IF THERE'S FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNCIL BEFORE I -- BEFORE I ASK FOR -- FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

SLUSHER: I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES. EITHER OUR STAFF AND PROBABLY SETON WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS IT, TOO. WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE -- ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE OR -- WELL, ACTUALLY WHETHER THE MORNING AFTER PILL WOULD BE EMERGENCY, FALL UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THAT AVAILABLE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION RIGHT FROM LAST WEEK. IF THAT -- IF THE CITY WERE TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN THE OPTION TO DO THAT, WOULD THAT CAUSE SETON TO -- TO UNWIND THE AGREEMENT? OR TO JUST PULL FROM THE ANCILLARY SERVICES CONTRACT?

I THINK WHAT WE SHARED WITH YOU LAST WEEK IS THAT IT IS THE CASE THAT THE CITY CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT CONSTITUTES AN ABORTION, AND THE USE OF THE MORNING AFTER PILL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD CONSTITUTE AN ABORTIFACIENT OR AN BORTION, THEN SETON WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE IN THIS PARTNERSHIP. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT WOULD RELATE TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICES. BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC IN TERMS OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP, WERE THERE EVIDENCE THAT ABORTION WAS BEING DONE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR.

SLUSHER: MS. YOUNG, COULD YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT -- ABOUT WHAT A -- WHAT A CIRCUMSTANCE, VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE -- WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT REQUEST THIS AND THEY WERE TOLD, WELL, NO, YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH A -- THROUGH YOUR DOCTOR OR CLINIC, BECAUSE -- BECAUSE THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE HEARD RAISED IS DO NOT GET IN A SITUATION WHERE IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND -- AND THEN THEY ARE TOLD, NO, YOU NEED TO GO TO A CLINIC, THEN MAYBE THEY -- THEY DON'T GO TO THE CLINIC. THEY WEREN'T ELIGIBLE OR -- OR THEY WOULD JUST FOR SOME REASON WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH -- TO GO THROUGH LENGTHY SIGNUP PROCESS OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, COULD YOU DISCUSS THAT SITUATION, POTENTIAL SITUATION FOR ME?

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ENHANCED CATHOLIC -- COUNSELING AND MEDICAL STAFF TO HELP ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM, SO --

IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, IT EXTENDS MORE TO THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF HOW DO WE GET A WOMAN TO THE CLINIC AND MAKE SURE THAT SHE GETS IN TO GET THE SERVICE AND NOT BE HAMPERED BY ANY SORT OF ELIGIBILITY OR REGISTRATION --

SLUSHER: RIGHT, NO, WE DON'T PROVIDE THAT HERE, YOU NEED TO GO TO YOUR DOCTOR, TO THE CLINIC, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY GETS TO DO THAT OR NOT.

THE WAY I ENVISION THIS HAPPENING IS THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT FACILITATE THAT PROCESS. IF THIS -- IF THIS PROPOSAL WERE TO BE APPROVED AND MOVED FORWARD, WHAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE IS THE -- FIRST OF ALL THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE USED IN THE HOSPITAL WOULD BE THE SAME REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT'S USED IN THE CLINIC. OUR ABILITY TO PREREGISTER A PATIENT IN THE CLINIC WHILE THEY ARE IN THE HOSPITAL WOULD -- THE CLINIC COULD BE CONTACTED THAT COULD BE TOLD THAT THE PERSON IS COMING, WE COULD DO THE REGISTRATION PROCESS FROM THE HOSPITAL THROUGH A SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM TO FALL TAKE IT THAT PATIENT GETTING THERE. SO WE DON'T --

SLUSHER: LET ME STOP YOU THERE. SO THEN WE COULD -- EVEN HAVE THEM REGISTERED WHILE THEY ARE THERE AT THE HOSPITAL, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO WADE BEHIND THINGS THAT ARE MORE DIRE EMERGENCIES, IF THEY CAME TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR THIS TREATMENT, BUT IT WOULDN'T JUST BE TURNED AWAY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A CLINIC, SAY I'M NOT REGISTERED AT THE CLINIC. WELL, I CAN REGISTER YOU RIGHT NOW, SEND YOU OVER THERE, IT'S JUST THE PHYSICAL ACT OF ADMINISTERING THAT WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE AT THE --

YES, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN FACILITATE THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT PATIENT AND THE CLINIC VERY EASILY THROUGH PROTOCOL AND THROUGH PRACTICE IN THE SHARING OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

SLUSHER: SO THEY WOULDN'T JUST BE TURNED AWAY, NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.

EXACTLY.

SLUSHER: YOU CAN GO ON WITH YOU -- IF YOU WANT. THAT WAS THE GIST OF MY QUESTION.

I FORGOT TO MENTION ONE THING SO THAT -- SO THAT THE TWO ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THIS DISCUSSION CAN BE EXPLAINED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY. THE QUESTION OF HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT AND THE SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ISSUE, ALSO, BE ADDRESSED. I'M GOING TO ASK -- I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SEDORA JEFFERSON, TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CONSTITUTIONAL --

SLUSHER: CAN I JUST FINISH OFF ASKING MS. HAYS IF THAT -- IF THAT IS WHAT MS. JONES DESCRIBED, THAT SITUATION PRESENTS ANY PROBLEM -- PROBLEM THAT YOU FORESEE.

NO, IT DOES NOT. I MEAN THE CITY HOSPITAL WOULD BE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CLINICS AND I THINK AS THEY HAVE SAID, IT'S THEIR VISION THAT -- THAT APPROPRIATE SERVICES WOULD BE PROVIDED AT BOTH PLACES AND THE TWO WOULD WORK TOGETHER. BUT WHAT SHE DESCRIBED IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR SETON.

SLUSHER: IF SOMEONE SHOWED UP AT SETON PART OF THE HOSPITAL, REQUESTING THAT -- THAT PROCEDURE, THEN WHAT YOU WOULD -- WHAT YOU WOULD SEND THEM -- WHAT WOULD SETON DO AT THIS POINT?

OUR COMMITMENT IS TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF THE -- OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FIFTH FLOOR AND -- AND WHAT THE CITY BOYS ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. SO THE SUMS WOULD BE -- AND -- ASSUMPTION WOULD BE -- AGAIN IT'S NOT BEEN THE EXPERIENCE IN OUR EMERGENCY ROOM THAT PEOPLE ORDINARILY COME TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR THIS SERVICE. BUT WERE THEY TO COME IN, OUR -- OUR COMMITMENT UNDER THE LEASE AMENDMENT IS TO -- TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT -- THAT COUNSELING AND -- AND SUPPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FIFTH FLOOR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THEN -- THEN YOU WOULD -- EVEN THOUGH THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WOULD NOT BE TREATED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, THE IMMEDIATE INDICATION WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE HOSPITAL, THAT YOU WOULD SEND THEM THERE FOR A -- FOR ANY REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES THAT SETON DOESN'T OFFER AND THEN THE -- THE PROCEDURE, MS. YOUNG, DESCRIBED COULD -- COULD BEGIN THEN ON THE FIFTH FLOOR.

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE WAY IN WHICH THE FIFTH FLOOR HAS BEEN SET UP IS THAT THOSE PROCEDURES EXIST THERE AND NOT IN THE -- IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM BY SETON, WHENEVER ANYONE CAME IN ASKING ABOUT ONE OF THOSE PROCEDURES FROM ANY POINT OF VIEW, THAT PERSON WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE FIFTH FLOOR.

SLUSHER: AS YOU MENTIONED THE MORNING AFTER PILL.

IF THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND THE -- IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AFTER THE CITY HOSPITAL WAS OPENED, THEY WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE CITY HOSPITAL.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO -- SO THERE'S NO CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT WOULD JUST BE WE DON'T RESIDE THAT SERVICE?

NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE TELLING SOMEONE INQUIRING ABOUT A CITY HOSPITAL SERVICE THAT THOSE SERVICES WERE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY HOSPITAL --

SLUSHER: OR A CITY CLINIC SERVICE.

CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF MS. JEFFERSON CAN EXPLAIN THE ISSUE A CONSTITUTIONALITY. IT WILL BE BRIEF. THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.

AS COUNCIL KNOWS, I RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL, RENEE HICK, A PRIVATE LAWYER IN TOWN, EXPERTISE IN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO LOOK AT THE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HEARD AND SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THAT TWO ISSUES MR. HICKS LOOKED AT WAS ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED LEASE ARRANGEMENT VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THAT IS WHETHER IT CREATED SOME KIND OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON WOMEN. THE HE COULD ISSUE HE LOOKED INTO WAS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH ISSUE. THAT IS WHERE THE PROPOSED LEASE ARRANGEMENT WOULD VIOLATE THE -- THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE MIC. MR. HICKS LOOKED AT THE EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUE AND CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION THERE. EQUAL PROTECTION PROTECT CERTAIN PROTECTED CLASSES HERE THE CLASS IS A SUBSET OF WOMEN, IT NOT WOMEN PER SE. IT'S -- IT'S WOMEN SEEKING CERTAIN REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES AND SO THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THERE. OR NO VIOLATION BASED ON CURRENT SUPREME COURT TESTS. AS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ANALYSIS, HE LOOKED TO OR POINTED TO A THREE PART TEST THAT THE SUPREME COURT USES, ONE IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY ADVANCES A SECULAR PURPOSE. HE FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT IT DID. THAT THE SECULAR PURPOSE IS A PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE. HE LOOKED TO THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE THREE PART TEST. THAT IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HAS A PRIMARY EFFECT OF ADVANCING RELIGION AND FOUND THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THAT PRIMARY EFFECT. AND THIRDLY, HE LOOKED AT THE ENTANGLEMENT, WHETHER THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL ENTANGLEMENT WITH A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OR A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. THERE HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO -- NO ENTANGLEMENT. IN FACT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID AN ENTANGLEMENT. THEN BASED ON THAT THREE PART ANALYSIS, HE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SEPARATE -- EXCUSE ME, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PROBLEM, THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNDER CURRENT SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON MS. DUNKERLY'S PROPOSAL FOR THE EXTRA F.T.E. SINCE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT -- NOT ONLY THAT ACCESS IS NOT OBSTRUCTED, BUT THAT -- BUT THAT IT IS FACILITATED AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THE STORY THAT WAS RELATED TO US DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, SOMETIMES LIFE IN EMERGENCY ROOM OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN A HOSPITAL IS VERY FRANTIC. IS IN EMERGENCY MODE AND PEOPLE ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR NOT ABLE TO FOCUS ON -- ON THE NEEDS OF SOMEONE WHO MAY BE THERE ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE OR WHO MAY NOT KNOW WHAT TO ASK OR WHO MAY NOT KNOW THERE'S ANYTHING EVEN TO ASK FOR. AND IF THEY ARE NOT TREATED WELL OR IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION, THE ACCESS OR WHATEVER THAT THEY CAME FOR, THEY PROBABLY IN MANY CASES WILL NEVER LET ANYBODY KNOW ABOUT THAT. SO THE EFFORT HERE THAT HAS -- THAT HAS -- THAT HAS MADE ME THINK THAT THAT FOCUS HAS GOT TO BE ADDRESSED SOMEHOW, IS NOT ONLY TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION OR TO BEHINDER THE ACCESS -- TO HINDER THE ACCESS OF ANYONE WHO COMES TO BRACKENRIDGE LOOKING FOR THE HELP AND SUPPORT THAT IS AVAILABLE IN AN INNER CITY HOSPITAL ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, BUT TO FACILITATE ACCESS AND TO BE A PART OF -- OF PROCEEDINGS SO THAT NO ONE WHO BY CIRCUMSTANCE OR KNOWLEDGE OR WHAT HAVE YOU WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS THAT SITE, THAT CARE, THAT PROVISION OF SERVICE, IS THE F.T.E., THE COUNSELING FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE GOING TO BE SUCH THAT THERE WILL BE A 24-HOUR A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK ABILITY FOR SOME TO PLAY THAT ROLE IN ER AND OUTSIDE ER?

I WOULD LIKE -- I'M GOING TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] RESPOND TO PART OF THAT. BUT I THINK WHEN PATIENTS PRESENT AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM, IF THEY DON'T CLEARLY ARTICULATE -- IF THEY CLEARLY ARTICULATE THEIR NEEDS, IT IS VERY EASY TO POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF THEY DON'T CLEARLY ARTICULATE THEIR NEEDS, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BE SEEN BY A IF I SEE AND THAT IF I SEE WILL KNOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE -- THAT PHYSICIAN WILL KNOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, WHAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, AND THEY WILL BE THAT -- THAT -- THAT PERSON THAT WILL HELP TO -- TO DIRECT THEM TO THAT LOCATION. LET ME ASK MS. YOUNG ABOUT THE STAFFING.

GOODMAN: AS TRISH COMES UP, LET ME SAY THAT SOMETIMES A PERSON MAY SEEM TO ARTICULATELY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FINISH THAT SENTENCE. HOW THAT PATIENT MAY BE ARTICULATE IN TELLING YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU GO FOR, BUT NOT EVERYBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT EVERYTHING THEY ARE ACTUALLY THERE FOR. SPEAKING -- [INAUDIBLE]

IF THEY DIDN'T ARTICULATE IT TO THE NURSE OR THE STAFF PERSON, THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE SEEN BY A DOCTOR AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD CONFIDE THAT TO THE DOCTOR IN THE COURSE OF THEIR TREATMENT AND THAT WOULD THEN -- THEN END UP GETTING THEM REFERRED TO THE FIFTH FLOOR, FOR COUNSELING. WE WILL HAVE -- WE WILL HAVE -- HAVE PEOPLE AVAILABLE. SO --

GOODMAN: I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW WHAT KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU ARE THINKING OF. I'M THINKING OF SOME -- OF SOME SITUATIONS THAT GO BEYOND THAT. SO MAYBE MS. YOUNG WILL HAVE THE ANSWER FOR ME.

LET US WORK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE STAFFING WAS THE ROLE -- WAS INTENDED TO BE EXPANSION OF THE CURRENT ROLE OF THE FAMILY NURSE EDUCATOR WHO GOES AND VISITS WOMEN, POST PARTUM, TO OFFER INFORMATION AROUND BIRTH CONTROL COUNSELING AND METHODS. WE -- THAT IS NOT A -- NOT A 24 AND 7 OPERATION. MAINLY BECAUSE WOMEN DON'T GET DISCHARGED TYPICALLY 24 HOURS A DAY. THERE'S -- THERE'S TIMES OF THE DAY, PART OF THE DAY THAT THEY GET DISCHARGED. THE IDEA IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ACCESS TO THAT DURING THEIR POST PARTUM STAY, WHICH COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM A DAY TO A COUPLE OF DAYS TO THREE DAYS. TO HAVE THAT NURSE EDUCATOR AVAILABLE TO TALK WITH THAT WOMAN PRIOR TO DISCHARGE. SO THE ADDITION OF ONE F.T.E. WILL NOT BRING 24 AND SEVEN COVERAGE. BUT WE DID ANTICIPATE EXPANDING HOURS FOR THE -- FOR THE -- DURING THE WEEKLY DAYS AS WELL AS TRYING TO GET COVERAGE FOR THE WEEKENDS.

WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD COVERAGE FOR WOMEN THAT MIGHT DELIVER ON A FRIDAY AND GET DISCHARGED ON A SUNDAY. AT THE PRESENT TIME WE DON'T HAVE THAT COVERAGE, BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE EXTRA HOURS, THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE ON WEEKENDS AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT -- OF THAT COUNSELING.

GOODMAN: OKAY. HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DESIGNATE OR HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT WAS STRICTLY FOR THIS FUNCTION, 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, WHO IS ABLE TO BE ON CALL AND IN FACT TO BE NOTIFIED WHEN ANYONE COMES IN -- IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY A WOMAN THAT -- THAT WOULD NEED -- THAT WOULD NEED THE COUNSELING AND INFORMATION OR THAT WOMAN'S -- THAT WOMAN'S FAMILY LAWYER PARTNER, WHAT HAVE YOU. HOW DO WE DESIGNATE AND THEN IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO SO, A PERSON WHO IS AVAILABLE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AT TIME OF AN EMERGENCY, PRESENTATION BY -- BY A WOMAN AND FAMILY, WHATEVER, EVENTUALLY SOMEONE WILL BE THERE, I SUPPOSE, IF -- FOR NO ONE BUT THE PHYSICIAN FOR THAT ONE SO THAT THE INFORMATION IS PART OF THE -- OF THE MIX AND THE THINGS THAT -- THAT THE FAMILY OR WHOEVER IS THINKING ABOUT RIGHT THEN. INFORMATION. WHETHER OR NOT THEY ASK SERVICES. YOU LOOK PUZZLE, AM I NOT SPEAKING CLEARLY?

THE HOSPITAL WITHIN A HOSPITAL.

I THINK THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE EMERGENCY ROOM, CORRECT?

GOODMAN: MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS EVERYTHING, BUT CERTAINLY ORIGINAL -- I MEAN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

ANY PERSON -- I HAVE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO DO THAT, BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. EVERYBODY WHO WALKS IN THE HOSPITAL, BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO GO, OR WANT TO GO, TO THE CITY HOSPITAL, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY WOMAN, AND ESPECIALLY IF A WOMAN IS A VICTIM, PATIENT WHO IS UNABLE TO THINK CLEARLY, UNDERSTAND, REQUEST, WHATEVER, AND SO FOR HER FAMILY, FRIEND, PARTNER, LAWYER, PHYSICIAN, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY WOMAN KNOWS THE FIFTH FLOOR IS THERE AND THE TREATMENT AND CARE IS THERE.

I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. TELL ME WHERE I'M OFF COURSE. IF -- IF A WOMAN -- IF A WOMAN COMES TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND SHE REQUIRES SERVICE, THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE, AT THE BRACKENRIDGE -- AT THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL AT SETON'S HOSPITAL, SHE IS REQUIRED -- IT'S REQUIRED THAT SHE BE TOLD THE SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE ON A -- ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, AND BE REFERRED THERE. TO THE EXTENT THAT -- THAT A WOMAN COMES IN AND DOES NOT NEED -- CAN -- CAN RECEIVE ALL OF THE SERVICES THAT SHE REQUIRES IN THE BRACKENRIDGE EMERGENCY ROOM, SHE'S GOING TO RECEIVE THEM THERE. SO ON -- SO IF SHE -- IF THERE'S NOT AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SERVICE AND I'M -- I'M ASSUMING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- ABOUT POTENTIAL ASSAULT VICTIMS? OR --

GOODMAN: ANY WOMAN. [INAUDIBLE]. EMERGENCY IS OBVIOUSLY A MORE DIFFICULT TIME. THERE MAY BE A WOMAN WHO IS UNCONSCIOUS OR WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON REALLY CAN'T CONCENTRATE ON THAT KIND OF QUESTION AND ANSWER.

WELL, THE ONLY REASON A PERSON WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE FIFTH FLOOR WOULD BE TO EITHER RECEIVE STERILIZATION SERVICES WHICH THEY HAVE CONSENTED TO IN THE BEGINNING OR TO RECEIVE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION SERVICES. THOSE ARE THE ONLY REASONS WHY THEY WOULD ARE REFERRED TO THE FIFTH FLOOR. I DON'T KNOW OF A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THEY WOULD NEED SOMEONE TO COME AND INFORM THEM ABOUT WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR, UNLESS THEY WERE REQUIRING THOSE SERVICES.

YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING WE POSSIBLY COULD DO, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE -- TO HAVE I THINK A GOOD SIGNAGE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A -- AN ELEVATOR THAT GOES STRAIGHT TO THE FIFTH FLOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING IN ADDITION TO ACCESS THROUGH THE HOSPITAL. SO MAYBE WE CAN WORK ON SOME -- SOMETHING THAT WE COULD -- SOME WAY TO HANDLE IT IN THAT WAY, ALSO.

GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME TRY AGAIN. CAN WE HAVE SOMEONE AVAILABLE DESIGNATED OR SPECIFICALLY IN THAT ROLE, 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, TO BE ON CALL, TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM --

YES.

GARZA: THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS --

THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES.

GOODMAN: GREAT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE F.T.E. THAT YOU --

NO, THAT'S NOT THE F.T.E. THE F.T.E. I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS TO GIVE US SOME ENHANCED SEVENS IN THIS INTERIM PERIOD. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE SERVICES POST PARTUM COUNSELING SERVICES IF A WOMAN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. I WANTED TO ADD THIS F.T.E. TO GIVE ME SOME WEEKEND COVERAGE AND TO EXTEND THE HOURS DURING THE WEEK. AFTER WE GET THE NEW HOSPITAL, THAT HOSPITAL WILL BE STAFFED 24 HOURS A DAY BY MEDICAL STAFF, ET CETERA, THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL BE PEOPLE ON CALL, NOT ONLY TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM, BUT TO DEAL WITH -- WITH THE VICTIMS SERVICES PROBLEM THAT OCCASIONALLY COMES UP THAT -- THAT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT KIND OF ASSISTANCE. I'M SORRY I WASN'T CLEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT DOES THAT CLARIFY?

GOODMAN: YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY CLOTHES TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WHEN MS. YOUNG WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WILL BE GIVEN INFORMATION, IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHO WILL DO THAT? AND HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A WOMAN WHO COMES IN IS EVEN TELLING YOU EVERYTHING THAT SHE NEEDS OR IS TRYING TO FIND OUT ABOUT. AND THAT'S INDICATIVE OF HOW MANY UNREPORTED RAPES AND ASSAULTS THERE ARE, EVEN WORSE INJURIES THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT THAT ARE NEVER REPORTED. SO I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE WHERE THAT -- OR THAT WE ARE PLANNING THAT WOULD BE A FAIL SAFE FOR ANY WOMAN WHO WALKS IN.

I THINK THE OTHER THING, COUNCILMEMBER, THAT WE COULD DO, WE WORKED THROUGH A LOT OF THESE ISSUES, BUT AS WE GET DOWN TO DEVELOP THE -- THE DAILY PROTOCOLS, THE DAILY ACTIVITY, I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN THAT WAY. AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK TRISH TO RESPOND TO YOU.

I THINK THAT I WOULD REFER BACK TO WHAT MS. DUNKERLY SAID EARLIER IN TERMS OF -- OF -- WHEN A PATIENT DOES COME IN, AND JUST AS YOU SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE THESE THINGS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED INITIALLY OR TAKE A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE IDENTIFIED, THAT PATIENT IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH NURSING STAFF AND EVENTUALLY BE DEALING WITH THE DOCTOR. SO THE -- IF THE NEED IS IDENTIFIED -- IS IN FACT IDENTIFIED, THEN THAT PATIENT WILL BE INFORMED BY EITHER THE DOCTOR OR THE NURSE, WHOEVER IS DEALING WITH THAT PATIENT, THAT THE SERVICES -- ARE AVAILABLE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. IF -- IF IT'S NEVER -- IF IT'S NEVER IDENTIFIED THAT THE SERVICES ARE NEEDED, THEN -- THEN PRESUMABLY THE INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO THE PERSON BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN INDICATION. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A BLANKET POLICY TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT THE SERVICES THERE, IF THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM -- THAT THE SERVICE IS THERE IF THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM.

GOODMAN: YOU ARE GETTING BACK TO IN SOME PERFECT WORLD WHERE EVERYBODY WALKS IN AND TELLS YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, THE NURSES, DOCTORS ARE NOT HARRIED AT ALL, IN A NICE CONGENIAL ATMOSPHERE, NO EMERGENCIES ARE HAPPYING, THEY MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE TIME TO SPEND WITH THE PATIENT AND GET EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION THAT PATIENT HAS, EVEN IF THE PATIENT IS NOT WANTING TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO IN A PERFECT WORLD, THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. IN A WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE ER'S IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WOMEN WHO ARE RELUCK TOONT TELL ANYBODY ABOUT -- RELUCTANT TO TELL ANYBODY ABOUT WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO THEM, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO GO BEYOND THAT SORT OF IDEAL SITUATION AND MAKE SURE THERE'S A BACK UP --

GARZA: LET ME TRY SOMETHING ELSE. MAYOR PRO TEM I THINK THAT I UNDERSTAND -- I COU SEE WHERE WE COULD WORK OUT AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE WE HAD A BILINGUAL SOCIAL WORKER AVAILABLE IN AN AREA THAT'S DESIGNATED, SO THAT IN THE EVENT, AN INDIVIDUAL COMES IN AND -- WHO IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH TALKING TO WHOEVER FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT IS THERE, WHERE THEY CAN TAKE THEM OFF TO THE SIGH AND VISIT WITH THEM PRIVATELY, I THINK WE CAN WORK SOME OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENT TO DO THAT, BUILD IT INTO THE BUDGET WITH RESPECT TO THE FIFTH FLOOR TO HAVE THAT INDIVIDUAL AVAILABLE AT A DESIGNATED PLACE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE EMERGENCY ROOM IS THE RIGHT PLACE. IT COULD BE ANOTHER ENTRY POINT INTO THE HOSPITAL. I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT ARRANGEMENT AVAILABLE SO THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE BUT COULD TALK TO SOMEBODY LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER. I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK. I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE TABLE THIS AFTERNOON. SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.

SINCE THERE ARE SOME TIME FRAMES INVOLVED WITH EMERGENCY PREVENT ACTIVES, LIKE THE 72 HOURS. THAT YOU ZOO HAVE AS LEE SAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EMERGENCY WAS COVERED, THAT OUR AGREEMENTS WITH SETON DID NOT PRECLUDE THAT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM SETON.

I THINK ANOTHER THING THAT WE WILL BE DOING, PAT CAN THROW SOMETHING AT ME IF I MISSPEAK, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PERIOD OF SOME TRAINING BETWEEN OUR STAFF AND -- AND THE SETON STAFF, SO THAT THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THINGS WERE AVAILABLE ON FIFTH FLOOR, WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE, WHAT STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO HELP THEM AND JUST AS YOU SAID, COUNCILMEMBER, SOMETIMES THE DOCTORS ARE HARRIED AND BUSY, SO THEY WILL KNOW WHEN THEY HAVE THIS INSTANCE COME UP WHO THEY CAN CALL, WHO CAN THEY GET THAT PATIENT TO. SO THERE WILL BE THAT KIND OF TRAINING, THAT TRANSITION PERIOD, SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT MORE CLEARLY WHAT SUPPORT WE ARE GOING TO OFFER, IN ADDITION TO THE -- TO THE STRAIGHT PHYSICIAN SUPPORT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, WHAT THERE DOES GET AROUND TO SOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION, WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE COULD INTERJECT AS AN AMENDMENT TO -- TO -- TO CONTRACT LANGUAGE IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO YOU, IF I COULD. AND THEN WHAT WAS BEING PUT TOGETHER BY MS. DUNKERLY, WHO DIDN'T HAVE ANY WRITTEN STUFF IN FRONT OF HER AND HOW I THINK THAT COULD BE MODIFIED, WHICH WOULD FOR THE MOMENT ALLEVIATE THE FEARS THAT I'VE HAD ABOUT THE EMERGENCY SITUATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A MOTION FIRST AND THEN YOU MAKE THE AMENDMENT?

GOODMAN: YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE -- FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED.

THOMAS: MAYOR CAN I GET ONE QUESTION IN BEFORE YOU DO THE MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHOS?

THOMAS: I DON'T KNOW IF WE ADDRESSED THIS BEFORE. I THINK WE DID, BUT I DIDN'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY SITUATION, IF WE -- IF AN EMERGENCY TERMINATION NEEDS TO BE DONE, IF IT'S -- IF IT'S JEOPARDY OF A MOTHER'S LIFE AND GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THE CHILD, WHO WOULD -- WOULD THE PHYSICIAN BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION? HOW WOULD HANDLE THAT. YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT ME LIKE -- SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT FOR ME.

MR. REGERE ADDRESSED THAT SOMEWHAT LAST WEEK, IT WOULD DEPEND COMPLETELY ON THE MEDICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY MEDICAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DANGER TO THE MOTHER'S LIFE REQUIRED A PROCEDURE THAT -- THAT UNINTENTIONALLY LED TO THE DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH CATHOLIC ETHICS. THERE ARE OTHER SITUATIONS THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CATHOLIC ETHICS AND COULD NOT BE DONE IN BRACKENRIDGE UNDER THE AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THOMAS: GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, GIVING -- MICHAEL HELP ME, GIVING -- GIVING --

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE WHERE THE TERMINATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT -- WAS NOT A RESULT OF A THERAPY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE MOTHER FOR THE CONDITION THAT SHE IS SUFFERING FROM. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF -- IF A PREGNANT WOMAN HAS UTERINE CANCER AND YOU HAVE TO DO A HYSTERECTOMY, YOU ARE TRYING TO TREAT THE CANCER TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN. YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO TERMINATE THE LIFE OF THE CHILD BUT THAT'S THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROCEDURE THAT'S PERFORMED ON THE MOM. THERE COULD BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A WOMAN HAS HYPERTENSION, SEVERE HYPERTENSION THAT THE PHYSICIAN BELIEVES THAT CONTINUING THE PREGNANCY IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MOTHER'S LIFE. THAT IS A SITUATION AND -- I DON'T WANT TO BE CRUDE IN SAYING THIS, BUT YOU WOULD NOT NECESSARILY -- PERFORMING A PREGNANCY TERMINATION WOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS BEING THERAPEUTIC FOR THE HYPERTENSION, THE HYPERTENSION IS SOMETHING THAT YOU TRY TO TREAT WITH MEDICATION, WITH OTHER METHODS. A PHYSICIAN WHO BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS NEEDED FOR THE MOTHER WOULD NEED TO TRANSFER HIS PATIENT TO A NON-CATHOLIC FACILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THE CATHOLIC FACILITY WOULD NOT, AT LEAST AS WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED, BE ABLE TO PERFORM THAT PROCEDURE.

THOMAS: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NO. 13.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: ESSENTIALLY WE -- WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS BEFORE US, IN MY OPINION. OPTION A IS TO APPROVE THIS LEASE AGREEMENT AND AFTER -- AFTER MONTHS OF GUT WRENCHING DISCUSSIONS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEGOTIATIONS, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS LEASE AMENDMENT IS THE BEST POSSIBLE LEASE AMENDMENT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. OR OPTION B, IS TO -- THE CITY OF AUSTIN TAKE BACK BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL AND RUN IT AND MANAGE IT AS WE HAD PRIOR TO '95 OR SO. IF WE TAKE BACK BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, IT'S GOING TO COST US 90 TO $100 MILLION TO DO THAT AS -- AS STAGGERING AS THAT IS FINANCIALLY, WHAT'S MORE TROUBLING TO ME IS THE -- THE COST INEVITABLE COST THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE THROUGHOUT OUR REGION, PARTICULARLY TO OUR POOR. YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- THIS I NOT A -- AN EASY AND PLEASANT SITUATION. CITY STAFF AND SETON STAFF HAVE -- HAVE WORKED TREMENDOUSLY LONG, DIFFICULT HOURS TO MAKE THIS -- MAKE THIS LEASE AMENDMENT COME TO US IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I'VE -- I HAVE TO MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO APPROVE. THAT WOULD BE THE RESOLUTION AS -- THAT'S NUMBERED 02, CORRECT?

WYNN: YES, YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION AND RECOGNIZE MAYOR PRO TEM, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU ASK FOR THE FLOOR, TOO?

SLUSHER: I WAS JUST SECONDING IT AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU DID, I WILL MAKE SOME COMMENTS BEFORE WE ARE DONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

GOODMAN: THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT A PUBLIC COMMITMENT REQUIRES. SO IN GETTING TO WHERE I STILL THINK WE NEED TO GO, WHICH IS A HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, OR MAYBE SOME NEW AND DIFFERENT KIND OF DISTRICT THAT WE HAVEN'T INVENTED YET. I AM NOT WILLING TO HOLD HOSTAGE QUALITY CARE AND CERTAINLY WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES ALONG WITH INDIGENT HEALTH CARE AND CHARITY CARE TO A CHOICE THAT FORCES US TO TAKE OVER SOMETHING THAT WE COULDN'T HANDLE VERY WELL WHEN WE DID HAVE. AND I DON'T HAVE MUCH CONFIDENCE IN US BEING ABLE TO HANDLE NOW AFTER YEARS OF NOT TRYING TO DO IT. AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS ECONOMIC SITUATION WHERE YESTERDAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO BORROW EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS FROM OUR FUTURE TAX REVENUES AND NOT LAY ANYBODY OFF. OBVIOUSLY JUST THE 65 MILLION FOR THE NON-PERSONNEL COSTS OF TAKING BACK OVER THE HOSPITAL ARE BEYOND THE CITY'S ABILITY TO TAKE ON RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S NOT AN OPTION. THE TWO OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED WERE ALSO NOT VIABLE AND THEY WERE NOT VIABLE IN THE EYES OF WOMEN'S GROUPS BECAUSE WE CAN NOT SERVE ALL OF THE FOLKS, ESPECIALLY INDA JENTS, WHO WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOME FOCUS SOMEPLACE TO COME. WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT IN BRACKENRIDGE ON THAT SITE, AND SO THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SO TO ME IN TRYING TO GET WHERE I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO GO AND BASING ON SECTION 19.3 WHERE SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE OPERATION AT THE NEW HOSPITAL BY THE CITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES FOR CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AT ANY TIME EVEN UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BEST FAITH EFFORTS OF ANYBODY IN EITHER OF THESE TWO ENTITIES THINGS CAN HAPPEN AND VIOLATIONS CAN IN THE FUTURE HAPPEN. WE MAY NOT BE PLANNING FOR THEM, BUT THINGS MAY HAPPEN. BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROVIDE FOR EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY COME UP THAT WE MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH IT AT THE TIME. IN ORDER, THOUGH, FOR THE IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS TO BE COVERED AND SO THAT SETON IS NOT IN ANY WAY FORCED TO GO BEYOND WHAT THEY ARE NOW BEING TOLD THEY CAN'T -- CAN AND CAN'T DO SO, SO THAT WE ALSO HAVE THE CLEAR MARGIN OF ABILITY TO SERVE WHO WE MUST SERVE, WHICH IS A LONG INTRO, BUT HERE'S THE LANGUAGE. NO EMPLOYEE, MEDICAL PERSONNEL OR OTHER PERSON AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF MEDICAL CARE OR ANY OTHER SERVICE AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WILL HINDER, DETER, PROHIBIT, PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE ANYONE FROM ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY AND SEPARATELY LICENSED CITY HOSPITAL AND/OR THAT ESTABLISHMENT'S PROVISION OF ANY SERVICE, REFERRAL OR MEDICAL CARE FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THAT LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY IN THE SETON HIGHER ARREST CAN I WHO NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT. THE ATTEMPT TO COVER THOSE ISSUES WAS WRITTEN IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: THE CITY, ITS EMPLOYEES -- I'M SORRY. THIS IS UNDER SECTION 17, ACCESS. THE CITY, THE EMPLOYEES, AEKTS AND INVITE TEES AND THE PATIENTS OF AND VISITORS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL ARE GRANTED AN EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM THE NEW HOSPITAL ALONG AND ACROSS ALL ROADWAYS AND SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE REAL PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ADDITION. SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL OR INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. NOW, GIVEN THAT, HERE'S THE AMENDMENT I PROPOSE. IT'S A DUAL, A DOUBLE DOWN. PICK ONE. EITHER THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT I READ TO YOU, WHICH IS NO EMPLOYEE, MEDICAL PERSONNEL, ETCETERA. THAT COVERS ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE IN SOME POSITION OF AUTHORITY OR DIRECTION WITHIN SETON. OR THE ONE GIVEN TO US THAT'S ADDED TO THE ACCESS AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THESE ADDITIONS FROM THE LANGUAGE I READ YOU THAT WAS MINE. AFTER SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS -- WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IN ADDITION THERE, EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT FACILITATED.

GARCIA: OBSTRUCT WHAT?

GOODMAN: FACILITATED ACCESS IN.

MAYOR GARCIA: FACILITATED.

GOODMAN: TAKES IT INTO AN AN VERB SITUATION SO THE POINT THERE BEING SOMEONE MAY NOT KNOW WHAT TO ASK FOR AND THEY JUST STAND AROUND. IF THEY ASK, WE KNOW THEY'LL BE GIVEN THE INFORMATION. IF THEY DON'T ASK, THEY STILL NEED TO BE HELPED BY BEING SPOKEN TO AND GIVEN THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE IT IS THEY'RE TRYING TO GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO -- YOU WANT THEM TO FACILITATE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO?

GOODMAN: YES. SO IT'S NOT HINDERED IN ANY WAY. NOT JUST ACCESSED, BUT FACILITATED ACCESS. WE WANT SOMEONE TO COME TO -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: WE COULD PUT IT THIS WAY, THE SETON EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT AND SHALL FACILITATE ACCESS.

GOODMAN: I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN. I DON'T KNOW IF SETON CAN. I DON'T KNOW IF SETON CAN.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT THE FACILITATED ACCESS, WHICH IS ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

GOODMAN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: SO THAT WOULD CHANGE TO SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS OR FACILITATED ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL AND THAT ESTABLISHMENT'S PROVISION OF SERVICE REFERRAL OR MEDICAL CARE OR INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME DO THIS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT CAN TAKE THAT PARAGRAPH AND TYPE IT AND WE'LL TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK? AND THAT CAN BE TYPED AND BROUGHT BACK TO US SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

YES, WE CAN DO THAT. MAYOR PRO TEM, CAN I GET THE LANGUAGE?

MAYOR GARCIA: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IF THE STAFF OF THE CITY -- WHERE IS MISS DUNKERLEY AND MS. YOUNG? IF YOU AND THE STAFF OF SETON COULD SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THIS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE DOING?

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, WHEREVER THE MICROPHONE IS. THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS TO LEAVE IN ABOUT THREE MINUTES, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND SHE'S DRAFTED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17, ACCESS. IF WE COULD GET OUR STAFF AND THE FOLKS FROM SETON THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS, IF WE COULD CALL THEM BACK IN THE ROOM. MS. DUNKERLEY? HELLO? WE'LL GET THERE. DON'T YOU WORRY, WE'RE ONLY AN HOUR LATE, ALICE. WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, SO I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED IN AN AMENDMENT BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IT ADDED TO SECTION 17, ACCESS. AND IT IS THE FOURTH LINE IN THAT PARAGRAPH, AND READS AS FOLLOWS. ALL OF THIS IS UNDERLINED. SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS OR CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITATED ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY ACCESSED NEW HOSPITAL PROVISIONS, SERVICES, REFERRAL OR MEDICARE. NO INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF. THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THIS AMENDMENT.

GOODMAN: AND, I GUESS, MAYOR, I WOULD ASK IF THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IT APPEARS THAT WE NEED A COUPLE MORE MINUTES TO LOOK AT IT. MAYOR PRO TEM, HOW'S YOUR TIMETABLE?

GOODMAN: FINE. I'M SURE TRAFFIC IS -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: IF Y'ALL WOULD GIVE ME YOUR ATTENTION? THE AMENDMENT THAT I READ THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS DONE BY MAYOR PRO TEM, TWO PARTS OF IT, THE ONE THAT SAYS SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF SERVICE, THAT PART SETON DOES NOT ACCEPT. AND THE NEXT LINE, SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS OR CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITATED ACCESS, THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT. THEY'RE NOT ACCEPTING THAT. SO LET ME SEE IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM WANTS TO TAKE THOSE OUT AND IT WOULD LEAVE IN, TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL -- THIS IS NEW WORDING, PROVISION NATIONAL SERVICES, REFERRAL OR MEDICAL CARE. AND ALSO LEAVES IN, FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: ON THE FIRST ONE, I WOULD THINK ABSOLUTELY NOT. ON THE SECOND ONE I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT YOU SAID EXACTLY. WHAT CAN THEY NOT ACCEPT?

MAYOR GARCIA: IF SOMEBODY FROM SETON COULD COME UP.

MAYOR PRO TEM, THE REASON THAT WE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FIRST PHRASE OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED IS BECAUSE WE FEEL WE CAN SPEAK ONLY FOR OURSELVES AND/OR EMPLOYEES AND THAT PHRASE WOULD PICK UP OTHER PERSONS WHO WE DON'T HAVE AN EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER PERSONS WE CAN'T CONTROL. AND SO THAT IS THE REASON WE FEEL WE CANNOT ACCEPT THAT PHRASE. ON THE SECOND PHRASE, OR CITY FACILITATED ACCESS, WE FRANKLY, WE WERE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS AND WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THERE'S A MEETING OF THE MINDS BETWEEN US AND THE CITY ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. AND WE FEEL THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD IN SECTION 17 SPEAKING TO THAT WE SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL IS A BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT. SO WE SUGGESTED DELETING THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS NECESSARY.

GOODMAN: AND I BELIEVE IT IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. LET ME SEE IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION ACCEPTS THE MAYOR PRO ITEM'S AMENDMENT.

WYNN: IF I CAN ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, SIR, AS TO WHAT LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE AGREEMENT YOU POINT TO AS NOT NEEDING THE SECOND PART -- MEETING THE SECOND PART OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S AMENDMENT?

WELL, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES IN SECTION 19.3 THAT SETON ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PATIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE VISITS FROM WHATEVER PERSON IT IS THAT THEY WISH TO RECEIVE VISITS FROM, YET ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT IN TERMS OF THEIR COMMUNICATION. AND SO THERE ARE THOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THAT SETON HAS MADE THAT PATIENTS HAVE RIGHTS, THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO RECEIVE VISITORS, THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION, THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO RECEIVE VISITS OR TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR PHYSICIANS ABOUT WHATEVER INFORMATION IS RELATIVE TO THEIR MEDICAL CARE OR MEDICAL TREATMENT.

WYNN: SO MAYOR PRO TEM, CAN YOU ELABORATE AS TO WHAT -- .

GOODMAN: IF IT'S ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT, SETON BELIEVES IT IS, THEN WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TO A REDUNDANCY OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO?

I WOULD JUST SAY, MAYOR PRO TEM, THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE "OR CITY FACILITATED" LANGUAGE IS ACCEPTABLE. WE BELIEVE THAT A STATEMENT WE WILL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL BY OUR EMPLOYEES IS CERTAINLY A COMMITMENT THAT WE ARE WILLING TO MAKE AND OBLIGATED TO MAKE UNDER THE LAW.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK THEN ARE YOU PROHIBITING CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEE OR CITY OF AUSTIN SPONSORED IN THIS CONTEXT PRESENCE FROM BEING IN THE REST OF THE HOSPITAL, ESPECIALLY -- .

NO, MA'AM, NO, MA'AM. WE HAVE NOT -- WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME INTO THE HOSPITAL AND TO SEE AND VISIT PATIENTS WHO WEST TO RECEIVE THOSE VISITS. THAT CERTAINLY IS THE PATIENT'S RIGHT. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO CONTROL PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAY PRESENT A THREAT TO LIFE SAFETY WHO COME IN WITH A HANDGUN OR IN A THREATENING WAY, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM VISITING OUR PATIENTS OTHER THAN DURING VISITING HOURS.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WE'RE NOT EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT A VISITOR HERE. SO YOU OBJECT TO THE OFFICIAL DESIGNATION? DESIGNATION OF A FACILITATOR?

I THINK IT IS ULTIMATELY NO DIFFERENT IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS AND ST. DAVID'S EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS SO THAT WERE WE TO SEND SOMEONE OVER TO ST. DAVID'S, THEY WOULD HAVE THE STATUS OF A VISITOR. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PURSUE ANY OFFICIAL FUNCTION IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S EMPLOYMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. SO THAT THE HOSPITAL -- THE CITY HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THAT SERVICE AREA AND THEY CAN BE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE HOSPITAL, BUT THEY COULDN'T BE TAKING OFFICIAL POSITIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SETON HOSPITAL OR THE ACCOUNTABILITY WOULD BE NOT AT ALL CLEAR. AND IN THE CASE OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOMEONE PERMANENTLY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WITH AN UNDEFINED ROLE, WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE SOME SORT OF DOUBLE TRIAGE SYSTEM WITH TWO DIFFERENT EMPLOYERS. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE WHERE WE THINK THE BOUNDARIES ARE.

GOODMAN: I THINK YOU'RE BOTH PUTTING TOO MUCH INTO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO AND NOT TAKING ENOUGH OUT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, WHICH SOUNDS CONTRADICTORY, BUT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO BE VERY SPECIFIC BEFORE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LAY OUT EXACTLY THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE -- OF WHAT THEN LATER TODAY WE TALKED ABOUT AS A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT SETON, I UNDERSTOOD, WAS COMFORTABLE WITH. THAT WAS MORE IN LINE WITH MY FIRST DRAFT. IF YOU NEED MORE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF WHO THAT PERSON MIGHT BE AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT PART OF A MEDICAL CARE PHYSICIAN OR NURSE PROTOCOL, I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAS A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE.

GRIFFITH: WELL, ACTUALLY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE ROLE OF SUPPORT GROUPS LIKE SAFE PLACE. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO FIT? AND HOW IT THEIR WORK GOING TO BE ENHANCED AND SUPPORTED AND FACILITATED?

THAT IS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED IN THE LEASE AMENDMENT THAT THIRD PARTY AT THE CHOICE OF THE CITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO COME IN AND WORK WITH PATIENTS IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.

GRIFFITH: UNLIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN WHAT SHE'S SUGGESTING THAT WOULD -- THAT SHOULD BE A PROBLEM. IF IT'S ALREADY WHAT WE'RE DOING, LET'S JUST SAY THAT. UNLESS IT'S NOT ALREADY WHAT WE'RE DOING.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY SETON AS TO WHAT THEIR POSITION IS, SO LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ACCEPTS THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WYNN: NO, MAYOR, I DON'T.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THEN MAYOR PRO TEM, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION AND WE CAN VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR. I WOULD SAY I MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR -- IS THIS THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD READING THING? NO? THE MOTION I WOULD MAKE IS THAT THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE BE AMENDED, THAT WE APPROVE THE CONTRACT, THAT WE MOVE INTO THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT, BUT THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT IS AMENDED BY THE REVISION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ON YELLOW PAPER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT WITH THE WORDING THAT I READ EARLIER. IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: WELL, I WAS READY TO VOTE FOR THE AGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH PARTS OF IT ARE DISAT A TIMEFUL TO ME, BUT I THINK ON THE WHOLE THAT CLEARLY MEDICAL CARE IN THIS COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY FOR THE INDIGENT AND THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER WITH THIS AGREEMENT THAN IF THE '95 AGREEMENT WITH SETON IS UNWOUND AND THE HOSPITAL GOES BACK TO THE CITY. AND PLUS, THE TAX IMPACTS OF THE HOSPITAL GOING BACK TO THE CITY IS IMMENSE AND ALREADY THE IMPACT ON INDIGENT CARE AND THE FUNDING OF THAT. BUT I'M REALLY TROUBLED THAT SETON WON'T ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON IT BEFORE WE JUST VOTE IT UP OR DOWN AND POTENTIALLY KILL THIS AGREEMENT, A MONTH OF WORK BASED ON THAT VOTE. I THOUGHT THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S PROPOSAL FOR A 24-HOUR EMPLOYEE, I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN PULLED OFF THE TABLE AND INSTEAD WE WERE HAVING SOMEBODY THAT WOULD BE ON CALL IF THE SITUATION AROSE. MAYBE I HEARD THAT WRONG. BUT MAYBE SETON DID IT. THIS LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT IT SAYS THAT ACCESS WON'T BE BLOCKED OR INTERFERED WITH WITH PATIENTS THAT WANT TO COME TO THE HOSPITAL-WITHIN-A-HOSPITAL. SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY SETON WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF SETON'S POSITION IS THAT IT SAYS IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CONTRACT. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK, COUNCILMEMBER, THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THOSE TWO PHRASES OR OTHER CLAUSES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. LIKE WHY WOULD -- THEN LET ME PUT IT IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION THEN. THE CLAUSE, PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF SERVICES. WELL, WHERE WOULD SETON ENVISION THAT SOMEONE AFFILIATE THE WITH THEIR PROVISION OF SERVICES WOULD INTERFERE WITH ACCESS TO THE HOSPITAL?

COUNCILMEMBER, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THAT CERTAIN, IT IS THE CONCERN THAT THE STATEMENT ASKS US TO SPEAK FOR PERSONS WHO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL. WE CAN'T -- WE CAN SPEAK FOR SETON ORGANIZATIONALLY -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T YOU GET EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE UNAFFILIATED EMPLOYEES.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A MEDICAL STAFF WHO ARE INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS BY AND LARGE AND ARE NOT SETON EMPLOYEES. THERE ARE STANDARDS FOR THE MEDICAL STAFF AND IT IS A SELF-REGULATING TODAY BODE, BUT SETON DOES NOT EMPLOY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PHYSICIANS THAT WORK IN OUR FACILITY. SO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED GIVES RISE TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN OUR MIND AT LEAST THAT IF A PHYSICIAN WHOM WE DON'T EMPLOY AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL MAY DO SOMETHING, DOES IT CREATE A PROBLEM FOR US WITH THIS LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT?

SLUSHER: WHY WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE -- TO EMPLOY SOMEONE OR HIRE SOMEONE TO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT WOULD TRY TO BLOCK ACCESS TO THE HOSPITAL?

THAT IS NOT THE CONCERN. THE CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF OUR CONCERN ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THOSE PEOPLE AS EMPLOYEES OF SETON.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DOCTORS ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY SETON, BUT THEY'RE AFFILIATED WITH SETON PROVISION NATIONAL SERVICES, SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY CAN'T ROLL CROL WHAT THOSE PEOPLE DO.

SLUSHER: WELL, THEY HAVE STANDARDS UNDER WHICH THOSE DOCTORS OPERATE. WHY CAN'T THIS BE ADDED TO THOSE STANDARDS?

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, IF YOU WILL, -- I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT COMMUNICATING THIS CLEARLY EITHER. IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROMISING THAT SOMETHING WILL NOT HAPPEN, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS LANGUAGE SAYS, AND TAKING ACTION IF SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THIS LANGUAGE ADDRESSES AND WHICH WE DO UNDER THE MEDICAL STAFF BYLAWS AND OUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS WITH THE PROVISION PHYSICIAN. AND SO WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN UNDERTAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE OUR EMPLOYEES AND WILL -- AND WE WILL WORK WITH THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIMITATIONS ARE, BUT THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PHYSICIANS THAT WE DON'T EMPLOY UP FRONT.

SLUSHER: LET ME PUT IT LIKE THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES INVOLVED THAT HAVE LED US TO THIS POINT AND WHAT SETON CAN'T ACCEPT UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR UNDER THAT BELIEF. I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT AND WE'VE TRIED TO WORK VERY DILIGENTLY THROUGH THAT. I DON'T SEE THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. SETON HAS BEEN INFLEXIBLE ON THAT POSITION BECAUSE IT'S A DEEPLY HELD BELIEF THAT FROM HIGHER UP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIERARCHY THAT YOU CAN'T BE FLEXIBLE. I DON'T SEE THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT YOU CAN GET SOME WORDING ON HERE THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WOULD ACCEPT AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN WORK OUT THIS AGREEMENT.

COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK -- AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR SETON, BUT I THINK IF WURP GOING TO ASK ME TO OBLIGATE SOMEBODY THAT I HAVE AN AFFILIATION WITH AS THE AD STRAITEDER OF THE CITY AND I HAVE TO GUARANTEE THAT SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME WILL DO CERTAIN THINGS A CERTAIN WAY OR I COULD BE IN BREACH OF A CONTRACT, FROM A LEGAL STANDARD I THINK I WOULD SAY TO YOU, I CAN CONTROL MY PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR ME, THAT ARE IN MY DIRECT TRAIN, BUT WHEN YOU ASK ME TO GO TO PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST AFFILIATED WITH ME, ARE SUPPOSED TO DO EVERYTHING I TELL MY PEOPLE TO DO, THERE'S A FORM OF CONTROL FROM AN ORGANIZATIONAL STANDPOINT THAT I DON'T HAVE OVER THEM. I CAN TELL THEM THIS IS HOW I THINK YOU OUGHT TO COMPORT YOURSELVES, BUT IF THEY GO OFF AND DO SOMETHING THAT -- BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK FOR ME. IF THEY GO OFF AND DO SOMETHING, THEN I WOULD BE IN MATERIAL BREACH OF A CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH.

SLUSHER: WELL, WHAT I'M SUCKING IS THEY FIND A WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS -- THAT TALKING ABOUT IS THEY FIND A WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS. THAT THEY NOT SAY NO, WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE AND NOT OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE. I HAVE ASKED PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE RECEIVE TON TO TRY TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES TO THIS PROPOSAL AND SOME HAVE, SOME HAVEN'T. I'M ASKING SETON TO COME UP WITH SOME WORDING THAT WE CAN TRY TO WORK OUT HERE SO THE AGREEMENT ISN'T IN PAYROLL DUE TO THIS ONE AMENDMENT -- IN PERIL DUE TO THIS ONE AMENDMENT.

I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER, I WANT TO SAY YOU ARE CORRECT. THIS ISSUE -- THE CONCERN ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT ONE THAT IS BASED OUT OF THE ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES. THIS IS A CONCERN OVER THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE AND THE IMPLICATIONS IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE AND OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE PERSONS WHO WORK WITH US WHO WE DON'T EMPLOY. AND I GUESS A CONCEPT THAT WE CAN WORK WITH HERE, AND YOU MAY NOT -- YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS, IS WE WILL UNDERTAKE TO INSTRUCT THE MEDICAL STAFF THAT THIS IS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT SETON AND OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE UNDERTAKEN. WE CAN'T -- WE DON'T CONTROL THEM, BUT WE WILL UNDERTAKE IN THE CONTRACT TO INFORM AND INSTRUCT OUR MEDICAL STAFF MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE CITY THAT WE AND OUR EMPLOYEES WILL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL.

SLUSHER: WELL, IF SOMEONE DID, WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO, EMPLOY OR TO USE THE SERVICES OF THAT INDIVIDUAL? BECAUSE MAYBE THAT'S WHERE IT CAN BE WORKED OUT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT LET'S TRY TO BE A LITTLE FLEXIBLE AND TRY TO WORK THIS OUT RATHER THAN JUST MAKE US VOTE IT UP OR DOWN AND POTENTIALLY KILL THE WHOLE AGREEMENT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE ABSURD AND BORDERING ON INTENTIONALLY TRAGIC. AND SO IF YOU CAN'T -- SO IF YOU'RE WORRIED THAT IF SOMEONE WHOSE BEHAVIOR YOU DON'T CONTROL DIRECTLY OR DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY OVER, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY, MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THIS, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD WORK OUT SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT OF WHAT SETON WOULD DO IN THAT INSTANCE OR HOW -- OR PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING THAT.

THE ISSUE IS THAT THE INSTITUTION DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE DIRECT ABILITY. THE MEDICAL STAFF GOVERNANCE IS BY THE MEDICAL STAFF. MEDICAL STAFF DISCIPLINE IS IMPOSED BY THE MEDICAL STAFF. SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR SETON TO SAY THAT IT CAN DIRECTLY TAKE ACTION AGAINST A PHYSICIAN ITSELF. THERE ARE STANDARDS WHERE WE CAN DO THAT IN THE MEDICAL STAFF BYLAWS, WHERE THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO A PATIENT, BUT THIS IS THE SORT OF ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MEDICAL STAFF PROCESS, WHICH IS ONE THAT THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONTROL THE OUTCOME.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER?

IT'S THE ARCANIA OF HEALTH CARE PRACTICE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I HAVE AN IDEA, SO YOU SHOULDN'T SIT DOWN YET. NOW, THE INTRODUCTION TO MY IDEA IS EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE DOCTORS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT EMPLOY THEM, THEY DO PRACTICE AT YOUR HOSPITALS.

CORRECT.

GOODMAN: AND I'M SURE THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS YOU HAVE A DISTASTE, IF NOT SOME SORT OF POLICY ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO CAUSES DISRUPTION IN THE HOSPITAL. AND IF EVEN A DOCTOR, A RESPECTED DOCTOR HAVING A HARD DAY, WERE TO DISRUPT TO ANY GREAT DID HE DEGREE OPERATIONS OR PROTOCOL OR ANYTHING ELSE, THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO, IF IT'S ONLY TALK TO THEM. AND MR. CITY MANAGER MAY NOT HAVE A RULE IN PLACE FOR EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT GO ON, BUT YOU DO HAVE POLICIES. POLICIES THAT YOU EXPECT TO BE FOLLOWED. AND SOME OF THEM ARE MORE UNWRITTEN EVEN THAN WRITTEN. SO COULD THIS NOT BE ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT BY ADDING AFTER SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE REAL PROPERTY, IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF SETON MANAGEMENT THAT SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED, ETCETERA, ETCETERA, ETCETERA?

AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT UNILATERALLY SET POLICY FOR THE MEDICAL STAFF.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU DO HAVE SOME SORT OF UNWRITTEN POLICY, I WOULD THINK, ABOUT WHAT WAS THE PROPER BEHAVIOR IN A HOSPITAL.

CERTAINLY THE MEDICAL STAFF HAS STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR MEDICAL STAFF'S MEMBERSHIP AND FOR APPROPRIATE PHYSICIAN BEHAVIOR.

I THINK THEY'RE WORKING ON SOME -- I WAS TOLD THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME LANGUAGE.

I MEAN, THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE THINKING OF, MAYOR PRO TEM, IS TO ADD ANOTHER SENTENCE AT THE END OF THE NEW SENTENCE WHICH HAD BEEN SUGGESTED THIS AFTERNOON THAT WOULD BE A STATEMENT OF SETON'S AFFIRMATIVE UNDERTAKING TO INFORM THE MEMBERS OF THIS MEDICAL STAFF THAT -- THAT IT HAS OBLIGATED ITSELF NOT TO OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL. SO THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW -- WE HAVEN'T CRAFTED THE EXACT LANGUAGE YET, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE CONCEPT THAT WE WOULD ADD THAT AS A SEPARATE SENTENCE AT THE END OF THIS.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO CAN YOU PUT POLICY, THE WORD POLICY IN THAT SENTENCE ANYWHERE?

WELL, THEY DON'T SAY POLICY, BUT THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT'S THE -- THAT IT'S THE -- THAT THIS PROVISION SAYS THAT SETON SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT THEY'RE SEEING SAYING IS SETON WILL INSTRUCT THE STAFF AFFILIATED WITH THE HOSPITAL OF THEIR POLICY OR THEIR CONTRACTUAL ASPECT THAT THEY HAVE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT?

RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE ADDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION 17.

DO YOU HAVE LANGUAGE, MICHAEL? I SAW -- I THOUGHT PEOPLE FROM CHICAGO WROTE FASTER.

I'M FROM -- I'M NOT FROM CHICAGO! [LAUGHTER].

SO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IS SETON SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO INSTRUCT ITS MEDICAL STAFF AND OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF SERVICES OF THE -- I'M SORRY, I CAN'T READ THIS. CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION 17.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WOULD DEPLETE FOR OTHER PERSONS FACILITATION OF SERVICES, CORRECT?

CORRECT. WE WOULD DELETE THAT FROM THE FIRST PHRASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THEN YOU WOULD ADD THAT SENTENCE.

CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT LINE, CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITATED ACCESS?

AGAIN, WE HAD REQUESTED OR SUGGESTED THAT THAT BE DELETED AND THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS -- THE CITY FACILITATED ACCESS PHRASE, WE REQUESTED THAT THAT NOT BE IN.

GOODMAN: I THOUGHT THEY REQUESTED THAT BE IN BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS STRIKE OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON PROVISION OF SERVICES AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM ADD A SENTENCE THAT SAID WHAT HE SAID.

GOODMAN: AND THE OTHER THING THAT HE SAID, UNLESS I MISHEARD, IS THAT CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITATED ACCESS THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH.

MAYOR GARCIA: HE HASN'T RESPONDED TO THAT ONE?

MAYOR PRO TEM, IS THERE A SENTENCE IN WHICH YOU WOULD SAY CITY FACILITATED ACCESS MEANS? THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS -- WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING IN THINGS THAT ARE NOT REDUNDANT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PHRASE MEANS. SO I THINK WE'RE ANXIOUS OF NOT TO ASSURE PEOPLE OF SOMETHING AND THEN AFTERWARDS WE ALL TRY TO DISCOVER.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITATED CASEY MEANS?

GOODMAN: IT WOULD COVER THE KIND OF COUNSELING AND FTE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. AND THAT'S WHERE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAD SPECIFICS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TOO, LIKE ANY RAPE CRISIS OR SAFE PLACE OR ANY OTHER ADVOCACY GROUP THAT WE WERE SPONSORING AND COUNSELING.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE DEFINITION WOULD BE FACILITATED ACCESS MEANS ACCESS BY GROUPS THAT HAVE CRISIS SITUATIONS?

GOODMAN: WHO ARE ASSOCIATED.......... ASSOCIATED -- THAT THE CITY -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT THE CITY WORKS WITH?

COULD I ASK A QUESTION? IN THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION OR PAL. WHAT IF WE WERE TO SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF SAYING CITY FACILITATED ACCESS, IF THE FOCUS IS ON THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION THAT THE CITY WANTS TO HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR PERSONS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT, COULD WE REPLACE THAT WITH THE REFERENCE TO THE PATIENT'S ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION?

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

OKAY. WHATEVER HAS MORE PUNCH IS FINE. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE, MAYOR, I'M SORRY. COULD YOU READ ME THAT FIRST ONE, ONE MORE TIME.

SURE. SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS, COMMA, INCLUDING ACCESS BY THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION, COMMA, TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL'S PROVISION OF SERVICES, REFERRAL OR MEDICAL CARE, NOR INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF. SETON WILL INFORM ITS MEDICAL STAFF AND OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF SERVICES, OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THIS SECTION 17.

GOODMAN: OKAY. LET'S TRY ONE MORE ADDITION THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU READ AND SEE -- SEE IF THIS WORKS FOR YOU. WHERE -- WHERE YOU SAY PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION, WORKING TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL. THAT'S MORE FOR US THAN FOR SETON. BUT I THINK IT GIVES US FOCUS ON THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, TOO.

COULD YOU GIVE ME YOUR PHRASE AGAIN?

MAYOR GARCIA: WORKING TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO THE CITY OWNED -- TO THE CITY OPERATED FACILITY.

GOODMAN: OR WORKING AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN --

WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO ASSURE ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL?

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THAT IS THE -- LET ME BACK UP, COUNCILMEMBER. IF YOU ARE GOING TO -- IF YOU WANT TO -- WELL, LET ME ASK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? BECAUSE IF WE -- IF YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THE MAYOR PRO TEM CAN WITHDRAW HER SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND THEN WE WILL GO ON WITH THAT PARTICULAR WORDING. COUNCILMEMBER, DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YES? YES. SO WE ARE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION. CHARLES OR -- I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME.

MICHAEL REGERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MICHAEL, IF YOU COULD READ THAT UNDERLINED PART 1 MORE TIME AND WE WILL VOTE ON IT.

I'M SORRY, THE PROPOSED REVISION WOULD ADD TWO NEW FINAL SENTENCES TO SECTION 17 OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT, THOSE WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: SETON AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ACCESS, COMMA, INCLUDING ACCESS BY THE PATIENT ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO ASSURE ACCESS TO THE NEW HOSPITAL, COMMA, TO THE INDEPENDENTLY LICENSED NEW HOSPITAL'S PROVISION OF SERVICES; COMMA, REFERRAL OR MEDICAL CARE, NOR INTERFERE WITH PERSONS WHO COME TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL WHO WISH TO GO TO THE NEW HOSPITAL FOR THEMSELVES OR ON ANOTHER'S BEHALF. SETON WILL INFORM ITS MEDICAL STAFF AND OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH SETON'S PROVISION OF SERVICES OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION 17.

COUNCILMEMBER WYNN? DO YOU TEN THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: YES, I DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ACCEPT THAT ALSO AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS STATED? IF NOT, PLEASE -- COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I DID WANT TO SPEAK TO MY POSITION. THIS IS ON THE MAIN POSITION WITH THE AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S WHAT THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

ALVAREZ: BECAUSE IT BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE -- SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES OF -- BUT I HADN'T REALLY EXPLAINED MY POSITION TO A GREAT DEGREE. JUST ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS --

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE GIVE MORE VOLUME TO COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: I TRIED TO INFORM MYSELF ABOUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE AND -- AND TRY TO GO BACK AND SEE -- SINCE IT'S BEEN SUCH A LONG TIME, WHAT WERE THE ISSUES, ALL OF THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ALONG THE ROAD HERE -- BASICALLY I REMEMBER WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, THE WHOLE ISSUE OF HAVING TO MOVE OR RELOCATE THESE SERVICES SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL CAME UP. THAT WAS THE MAIN FOCUS ON DEBATE AT THE TIME. WE WERE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION, I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME, THAT WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED THERE AT THE HOSPITAL OR CONTINUE THOSE PROVISION OF SERVICES. AND SO -- SO THIS SOLUTION WAS CRAFTED THAT ALLOWED US TO DO THAT. IT DOESN'T -- I THINK THERE WERE DRAWBACKS FROM GOING TO A FACILITY OR PROVIDER OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE AND THEN THERE'S DRAWBACKS TO THIS OPTION. BUT I THINK LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS HAVE STATED, I THINK THAT THE WAY IT'S BEEN CRAFTED, I THINK -- I THINK WE ACHIEVED A CERTAIN DEGREE AS MUCH AS WE CAN, I THINK, THE PROVISION OF THOSE SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY. AND THEN BY BEING...... ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES THAT EATON CANNOT BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES. THOSE ARE IN PARTICULAR THE ONES SETON CANNOT PROVIDE THAT WE WILL PROVIDE AT BRACKENRIDGE IN OUR OWN HOSPITAL IS THE TUBAL LIGATIONS, THE PHARMACY THAT DISTRIBUTES BIRTH CONTROL MEDICATION, CONTRACEPTION FOR RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE OFF STRAIGHTING OR NOT. OVULATING. SETON CAN ONLY PROVIDE THAT FOR WOMEN WHO ARE NOT OVULATING. IT DOESN'T COVER ALL OF THE EXAMPLES THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, BUT -- BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THAT -- THAT WE ARE TRYING TO -- TO I THINK IN GOOD FAITH TRYING TO PROVIDE ALL OF THOSE SERVICES THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED BEFORE. BUT -- BUT IT REALLY -- I MEAN, SOME OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO IN OUR HOSPITAL, BUT -- BUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF OUR AFFILIATION WITH SETON IN THE SAME BUILDING, THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF THE ANCILLARY AGREEMENT, I THINK ARE KIND OF TROUBLESOME, BUT THERE'S RO VISIONS THERE IN CASE WE DO IN THE FUTURE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME OF THOSE SERVICES. I THINK THAT THERE'S A PROVISION SO THAT SETON CAN MAKE SURE THEY STILL COMPLY WITH THEIR DIRECTIVES. SO I BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN A LITTLE GIVE AND TAKE, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT NECESSARILY HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED ABOUT ALL OF THE SIDES. I ALSO AM GLAD THAT OUR STAFF WORKED TO PUT IN THIS THREE YEAR PERIOD OF LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PROCESS TO SEE IF IT -- IF WE TAKE IT'S EFFECTIVE AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE, SO I THINK AGAIN THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A -- A PERIOD FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND TRY AND ASSESS THE SITUATION AND SEE IF -- IF THIS IS SOMETHING -- AGAIN, THIS IS A RELATIONSHIP THAT THE CITY WANTS TO CONTINUE AND THERE'S PROVISIONS FOR CONTINUING OR NOT CONTINUING AND THEN ALL OF THIS BEING SAID WITHOUT EVEN TALKING ABOUT I GUESS THE ROLE THAT SETON PLAYS IN TERMS OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE SAFETY NET AND THE WHOLE ISSUE OF TRYING TO GO OUT AND FIND ANOTHER PROVIDER THAT WILL DO ALL THAT SETON IS DOING IN TER OF INDIGENT CARE AND CHARITABLE CARE. BUT I HAVE TRIED TO JUST LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE. I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT -- BUT IT SOMETHING THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING AND THAT WE WILL BE CONTINUING TO -- TO LOOK AT OVER THIS NEXT FEW YEARS TO -- TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN IMPROVE THAT, THAT WE GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. THANKS FOR -- FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR -- I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS. I THINK THAT THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE IN THIS COMMUNITY CAN BE HELPED BY ALL OF US WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS AND SETON IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THAT EQUATION. LIKE I INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING, WE MAY AND WE PROBABLY WILL LOOK AT -- AT THE -- IN THE [INAUDIBLE] AT THE I OBJECT OF HOSPITAL DISTRICTS BECAUSE I THINK AS THIS COMMUNITY GETS LARGER AND OF COURSE THIS HOSPITAL SERVES MORE THAN JUST AUSTIN, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE. YOU ALL HAVE BEEN VERY KIND, VERY PATIENT WITH US. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND WE HOPE THAT SOME OF THE PLANS THAT YOU ALL HAVE FOR ENHANCED SERVICES IN THIS COMMUNITY COME TO FRUITION. MR. BARNETT AND YOUR STAFF, WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF. MS. YOUNG, MS. DUNKERLY AND EVERYBODY ELSE. AND THANK YOU TO THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE CRITICAL OF THE PROCESS. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT -- IN THIS DEMOCRACY ALL VIEWS ARE EXPRESSED AND LISTENED TO. SO -- SO PLEE --

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER?

GRIFFITH: COULD I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ABSOLUTELY.

GRIFFITH: AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAYS THIS HAS BEEN WRENCHING. I THINK THE REASON IT HAS IS BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT ARE PEOPLE OF CONVICTION AND PRINCIPAL. AND THAT SOMETIMES IS GOING TO LEAD TO SOME CLASSES OF CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING. THERE ARE THREE PRINCIPLES THAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RESOLVE. ONE OF THEM IS THAT THERE ARE TWO MANY -- THERE ARE TOO MANY UNRESOLVED FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL ISSUES. THE SECOND THING IS THAT -- I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO BE ABLE TO DO -- IN SPACE THAT IT LEASES OR OWNS, WHATEVER IT THINKS BEST, FOR THE CITIZENS. WITHOUT ANXIETY ABOUT WITHDRAWAL OF -- OF ANY KIND OF SUPPORT SERVICES. THE THIRD THING IS -- THE THIRD PRINCIPLE IS I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S OPERATING WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES WITHOUT THE WASTE AND DUPLICATION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS A VIABLE OPTION. THAT WE SHOULD REALLY BE SERIOUS ABOUT. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED. WHAT OUR WOMEN'S ADVOCACY GROUPS JOINED THEM IN UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDING AND WITH THE IF I..... PHYSICIANS WHO TAKE CARE OF THE MOMS AND BABIES RECOMMEND. FOR THOSE REASONS I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I GUESS WE WILL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE. I WOULD SAY THAT I COMMEND STAFF VERY MUCH AND ALSO SETON AND HOPING THAT SETON WILL CONTINUE TO DO -- I KNOW THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE SERVICES THEY DO RENDER. I HAVE A PROBLEM, I THINK I SAID IT EARLIER IN THE DAY. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE MOTHERS AND KIDS, THE CHILDREN, UNBORN CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS, THE MOTHER THAT IS ON THE EMERGENCY SITUATION. BECAUSE EVEN WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION A WHILE AGO ABOUT HANDLING THE EMERGENCY TERMINATION NEEDS THAT TROUBLED ME. BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER, BUT IT'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS IN AGREEMENT -- IN THE AGREEMENT THAT TROUBLES ME. I UNDERSTAND THE RELIGION PART OF IT. I RESPECT THAT. BUT AT THIS TIME, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE NEVER -- WE CAN SAY 15 YEARS, WE HAVE A RECORD IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, IT HASN'T HAPPENED. BUT IT CAN HAPPEN RIGHT TOMORROW, IT CAN HAPPEN THE NEXT DAY AFTER THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SECURE SOME OF THE EMERGENCY THINGS THAT -- THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM THAT I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT. ALSO, I HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER, IN SOLVING SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO PUT A LOT OF ENERGY IN IT. WE ALL HAVE TO PUT A LOT OF ENERGY IN IT. BUT MY MAIN THING IS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE MOTHERS AND THE CHILDREN THE OF CITY OF AUSTIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A FEW REMARKS. YEAH. AS I HAVE SAID A FEW TIMES ALREADY, I PHILOSOPHICALLY DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THIS CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THIS. AND -- AND THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY TOUGH AND SOMETIMES TROUBLING NEGOTIATION. I -- THERE'S REALLY NOT -- THERE'S JUST NOT A PERFECT WAY OUT AND THERE'S A LOT MORE INVOLVED THAN JUST THE -- THE VERY CRITICAL ISSUE OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE ALL BY ITSELF. ALSO TIED INTO THIS IS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF INDIGENT CARE IN OUR COMMUNITY, THE PROVISION OF INDIGENT CARE, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, WHO IS GOING TO OPERATE THE HOSPITAL, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT. THERE'S AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN ADDITION TO THE -- JUST THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF -- OF HEALTH CARE. AND I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- TO LOOK AT A HOSPITAL DISTRICT OR PERHAPS SOME -- MAYBE THERE WAS SOME OTHER SOLUTION, REGIONAL SOLUTION THAT -- THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH. I WORK WITH MS. HAYS AND OTHERS FROM AROUND THE REGION ON THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE THAT IS LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES. AND -- AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S VERY COMPLICATED WHEN YOU GET OUT INTO A REGIONAL AREA, BUT I THINK THIS SITUATION THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW HELPS TO SHOW HOW IMPORTANT THAT WORK IS. SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THE OCCUPANCY SITUATION, LET'S SAY AT THE -- AT THE HOSPITALS AND EMERGENCY ROOMS, SHOWS THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF -- NEED OF THESE ISSUES. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO TAKE A LARGER ROLE. THAT WE ARE THOUGH THE GOING TO SOLVE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN THIS NATION. BUT CLEARLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON. SO WE NEED TO STEP FORWARD ON A REGIONAL BASIS AND ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES. BUT I THINK IF YOU WANT TO -- IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS THE -- WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE BEST SITUATION FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF OUR CITIZENS AND IN PARTICULAR OUR LOW INCOME CITIZENS, THE THING TO DO ON THIS ISSUE THAT FACES THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO VOTE ON IN JUST A FEW MINUTES IS TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. I'M GOING TO BE VOTING YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, BEFORE WE -- LET ME JUST SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S POSITION AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT I WORKED MY VERY HARDEST TO TRY TO PUT SAFEGUARDS INTO WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION AND IF I KNEW WHERE TO GET $70 MILLION, I WOULD JOIN YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GARCIA?

MAYOR GARCIA: . YES.

GOODMAN: YES.

COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES.

COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: YES.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION PASSES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. GO HOME AND WATCH -- WATCH THE NEWS. [ LAUGHTER ].

SLUSHER: I WAS GOING TO SAY GO HOME AND WATCH US ON TV.

MAYOR GARCIA: DON'T WATCH CHANNEL 6 ANYMORE. [ LAUGHTER ]. THANK YOU, WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A 10 MINUTE BREAK HERE FOR THE COUNCIL TO -- TO MAYBE GET A BITE TO EAT. AND BEFORE -- FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE ROOM -- TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE ROOM TO LEAVE. WE WILL BE TAKING UP THE TIME CERTAIN 4:00 TIME CERTAIN -- 4:00 TIME CERTAIN -- ACTUALLY THE 5:30 TIME CERTAIN WHEN WE COME BACK, THE PROCLAMATIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HEATHER BISHOP.

THANK YOU.

[ APPLAUSE ] ((music) SINGING (music)(music))

(SINGING (music)(music))

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK ALL OF YOU WOULD AGREE SHE'S GOING A LONG WAYS. SHE'S JUST STARTING HERE, HUH?

YEA, HEATHER! [ APPLAUSE ]

I WILL BE SINGING TOMORROW EVEN AT GRAFFITI'S IN NORTH AUSTIN, THEN EVERY WEDNESDAY.

WHERE IS GRAFFITI'S.

ON HOWARD LANE IN NORTH AUSTIN.

OKAY.

710 IS 710 RED RIVER WEDNESDAYS AT 9:00. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS NEXT PROCLAMATION IS FOR INSURE A KID WEEK. THIS READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS INSURE A KID'S GOAL DURING THIS SPECIAL WEEK IS TO END ENROLL UNINSURED CHILDREN IN TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES IN NEW MEDICAL, MEDICAID AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS -- I THINK THAT I NEED TO GO SEE MY OPHTHALMOLOGIST ONE MORE TIME.

CHIP, SAYS THAT.

WHEREAS CHILDREN'S MEDICAID HAS BEEN SIMPLIFIED MAKING IT EASIER FOR AUSTIN FAMILIES TO ACCESS FREE CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND WHEREAS ALL CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO TELL SOMEONE ABOUT HERE IT IS, ALL CITIZENS, ARE ENCOURAGED TO TELL SOMEONE ABOUT NEW MEDICAID AND CHIP SO THAT ALL ELIGIBLE CENTRAL TEXAS CHILDREN WILL RECEIVE THE HEALTH CARE TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED, NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA YARKS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DO HERE BY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY THE 9TH TO THE 16TH 2002 AS INSURE A KID WEEK. THAT IS SIGNED BY ME, I AM APPROXIMATE TO PRESENT IS IN OBSERVATION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT WEEK.

THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA. INSURE A KID IS AN OUTREACH ARM OF THE TEX CARE PARTNERSHIP GETTING THE WORD OUT ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY THIS YEAR ABOUT NEW MEDICAID. THE LEGISLATURE MADE SOME CHANGES LAST SESSION TO MAKE MEDICAID A LOT EASIER TO GET IT FOR CHILDREN. CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES DON'T HAVE TO DO A FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW, DHS OFFICES, WHICH ALLOWS THOSE PARENTS TO SPEND TIME AT WORK. THERE'S A SINGLE APPLICATION FOR BOTH CHIP AND MEDICAID IS A -- A LOT EASIER TO FILL OUT, A LOT SHORTER. CHILDREN NOW ARE GOING TO BE COVERED FOR SIX CONTINUOUS MONTHS UNDER MEDICAID RATHER THAN A MONTH TO MONTH COVERAGE, EVEN IF THEIR FAMILY'S INCOME INCREASES. WE ARE HOPEFUL WITH THESE CHANGES THERE WILL BE MORE HEALTHY CHILDREN IN TRAVIS COUNTY, AS WELL AS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH WE FEEL IS AN EXCELLENT INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF TEXAS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ],.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE HEALTHY. AT THIS TIME I WANT TO INTRODUCE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS WHO IS GOING TO DO THE PROCLAMATION ON BLACK HISTORY MONTH. CHRISTMAS? COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT FEBRUARY IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH. AND IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT MONTH THAT WE CELEBRATE. WE AS AFRICAN AMERICANS KNOW THAT WE CELEBRATE EVERY DAY. NOT JUST FEBRUARY, ALL RIGHT. BUT I DO WANT TO PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION TO -- TO CERTAIN GROUPS OF OUR BLACK HISTORY MONTH. IT SAYS BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS AUSTIN IS CELEBRATINGING ITS 6TH ANNUAL BLACK HISTORY MONTH WITH OBSERVING, COORDINATING BY THE AUSTIN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, THE BLACK HISTORY LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER NEWS YEP, WHEREAS OUR THEME IS BLACKS IN MUSIC AND AUSTIN ARTISTS -- IS IT -- VERG YE CUNNINGHAM DEWITTY, BENJAMIN JOYCE AND BARBARA CONGROVE AND WHEREAS THE UNVEILING OF THE BLACK -- OF THE BLACKS IN MUSIC BANNER TO BE LINED ON CONGRESS AVENUE WILL BE FEBRUARY THE 9TH, AT 1:30 P.M. AT THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ALONG WITH -- WITH PERFORMING BY LOCAL CHOIRS AND GROUPS. WHEREAS, THEREFORE, I GUS GARCIA, OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, PROCLAIM FEBRUARY 2000 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH. AND I PRESENT THIS TO MR. -- MR. HERMAN LAZAR. ALL RIGHT. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER, ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LEAGUE AND AUSTIN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, WE ARE PROUD TO GET THIS PROCLAMATION AND ALSO TO THE NOTEWORTHY SWILDZ THAT WE WERE -- INDIVIDUALS THAT WE WILL BE RECOGNIZING THIS MONTH LINING CONGRESS AVENUE. IT SHOWS THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THIS COMMUNITY, IT SHOW HIS THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN OUR HISTORY, BUILDING A FOUNDATION, ALSO TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE FUTURE AS WE MOVE AHEAD AS A UNITED FRONT AND A DIVERSIFIED COMMUNITY IN THE AUSTIN AREA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THE COUNCILMEMBER REQUESTED THAT THE LETTERS BE MADE BIGGER IN THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THOSE OF US THAT HAVE TO WEAR GLASSES HAVE DIFFICULTY SOMETIMES. FOLKS FROM LITERACY AUSTIN COME UP. THIS PROCLAMATION SAYS: BE IT KNOWN WHEREAS LITERACY AUSTIN WAS ESTABLISHED 18 YEARS AGO, TO PROVIDE BASIC LITERACY TRAINING FOR THOUSANDS OF AUSTINITES, WHO NEEDED READING SKILLS IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND WHEREAS LITERACY AUSTIN IS TRULY A COMMUNITY EFFORT BUILT THROUGH THE GENEROSITY AND WORK OF VOLUNTEERS COORDINATED BY A COMMITTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STAFF; AND WHEREAS LITERACY AUSTIN PROGRAM IS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS AN EFFECTIVE RESOURCE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SERVES AS A MODEL FOR BEST PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY, NOW, THEREFORE, I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY THE 7TH, 2002 AS LITERACY AUSTIN DAY IN AUSTIN. I PRESENT THIS TO THE PEOPLE FROM LITERACY AUSTIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. [ APPLAUSE ]

MY NAME IS MANDY SCHUTER, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH THE FINEST VOLUNTEERS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. ACCREDITATION IS NEW TO OUR INDUSTRY. JUST THE FACT THAT THERE IS A STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE FOR A GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZATION THAT'S STAFFED BY VOLUNTEERS IS NEW. WHEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR LITERACY VOLUNTEERS MET LAST FALL, THEY APPROVED 11 ORGANIZATIONS NATIONWIDE AS HAVING MET AND EXCEEDED THOSE STANDARDS. ONE OF THE THEM WAS IN TEXAS. SO AUSTIN CAN BE VERY PROUD THAT THEY ARE -- THAT THEY ARE THE ONE IN TEXAS THAT IS MET AND -- HAS MET AND EXCEEDED THOSE STANDARDS. IT IS TRULY A COMMUNITY EFFORT, EACH ONE OF YOU CAN BE PROUD OF IT, THOUSANDS OF AUSTIN PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN THEIR TIME, THEIR MONEY, AND THEIR INTEREST IN -- IN LITERACY AUSTIN AND WE APPLAUD YOU AS WELL. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITERACY AUSTIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS HONOR AND RECOGNITION. DEMOCRACY IS BASED ON THE CONVICTION THAT THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY POSSIBILITIES AND ORDINARY PEOPLE. LITERACY AUSTIN'S MISSION IS TO HELP ORDINARY PEOPLE ACHIEVE THOSE POSSIBILITIES AND I WANT TO THANK THE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT LITERACY AUSTIN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN. OUR VOLUNTEERS, GENEROUS DONORS AND DEDICATED STAFF. LITERACY AUSTIN IS HERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND FULFILL THE CONVICTION OF DEMOCRACY, THANKS. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT THE WORK THAT THEY DO WITH PARENTS AND ADULTS HELPS THE SCHOOLS, TOO, BECAUSE THE BEST TEACHERS, THE FIRST TEACHERS OF OUR CHILDREN ARE THE PARENTS. AND IF THE PARENTS LEARN HOW TO READ AND READ WELL, THEY WILL HELP OUR CHILDREN WHEN THEY DEBT TO THE FIRST GRADE, THANK YOU, -- WHEN THEY GET TO THE FIRST GRADE, THANK YOU, LITERACY AUSTIN FOR THE THING THAT YOU DO, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TO HONOR FOLKS THAT ARE BEING RECOGNIZED TODAY. THAT'S IT.

[ APPLAUSE ]

ITEM THAT WILL BE TAKEN UP WHEN WE RECONVENE THE COUNCIL, WHEN WE GET ONE MORE COUNCILMEMBER IN THE CHAMBERS. IT'S GOING TO BE THE 4:00 TIME CERTAIN IN ZONING. THEN WE WILL GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE MEETING. YEAH, THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE -- REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. AND WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE 4:00 TIME CERTAIN ITEMS. WE ARE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LATE. THAT BRACKENRIDGE SETON ISSUE TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN EXPECTED. AND CALL ON MR. GREG GUERNSEY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, GREG GUERNSEY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. I'M GOING TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH OUR 4:00 ZONING HEARINGS. THE MAJORITY OF THESE ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE WE WILL PROBABLY EVER FOR CONSENT OR CONSENT POSTPONEMENT. THE FIRST ITEM IS Z-1, CASE NUMBER C14-01-26 LOCATED AT 10106 GILES LANE, FROM DR TO LI. THE APPLICANT IS GILES HOLDING, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FOR A POSTPONEMENT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THE POSTPONEMENT AND THIS IS AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. TO APRIL 11TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS THE -- THIS IS THE OLYMPIC'S FIRST REQUEST.

NO, THIS IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY THE APPLICANT'S THIRD REQUEST.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THE --

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AGREEABLE. THEY ARE STILL TALKING BUT THEY HAVE NOT RESOLVED THE ISSUES IN REGARDING A PRIVATE COVENANT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THAT'S CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 11TH.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM ZB Z-2, C14-01-0143 (SH) LOCATED AT 1700TERI ROAD. A SMART HOUSING CASE AND THE REQUEST IS FROM S.F. 3 TO M.F. 3. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED M.F.-3-CO, THE APPLICANT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. THIS IS READY FOR CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-3, IS CASE C14-01-0151, THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST AT 2300 BLOCK NUECES STREET FROM M.F. 4, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT TO GO-MU-CO, GENERAL OFFICE MIXED USE, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT. THE ZONING AND PLATTING RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS APPLICANT. THE -- THE OLYMPIC. THE APPLICANT IS WALTER B PALMER FOUNDATION. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 11TH. I HAVE NOT BEEN CONTACTED BY ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE HAS CALLED IN AND -- NOR HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP IN -- IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT POSTPONEMENT DATE. THERE IS STILL A VALID PETITION AND THE APPLICANT IS STILL WORKING TO -- TO WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO REDUCE THE NUMBERS ON THAT VALID PETITION. THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 11TH. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NO. Z-4, A DISCUSSION ITEM, I WILL COME BACK TO THAT ITEM. ITEM NO. Z-5 IS ZONING CASE C14-01-0170, THE 1200 BLOCK OF WEST SLAUGHTER LANE, A REZONING FROM S.F. 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO L.O. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED LOCO WITH CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ANDREW AND STEPHANIE ANDRASSI, THIS IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT ON THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE, THEY ARE ALL FOR IT. SO -- LET'S SEE. YES. BETTY EDGEMOND IS FOR IT. DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. STEPHANIE ANDRASSI, IS SHE HERE? SHE SIGNED UP FOR. AND SHE SAYS WILL SPEAK ONLY IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. SO THIS IS FOR CONSENT.

FOR THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR THREE READINGS. THANK YOU, MR. GUERNSEY.

THE TEXAS THEM IS Z-6, ZONING CASE C14-01-1074, THE 5400 BLOCK OF PARMER LANE, A ZONING REQUEST FROM INTERIM RR, WHICH IS INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO LIPDA, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THIS WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING FOR LI-PDA ZONING. THIS IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AND CAN BE OFFERED ON CONSENT. THE LAST ITEM I WILL OFFER FOR CONSENT THIS EVENING IS ITEM NO. Z-7, ZONING CASE C14-01-0187, AGAIN A SMART HOUSING CASE, LOCATED NEAR TANNEHILL AT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD, FROM S.F. 3 TO M.F. 4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT MODERATE TO HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT M.F. 3 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DENSITY DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THIS IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME GO OVER THAT. Z-1 CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 11TH. Z-2 CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS. Z-3 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 11TH. Z-4 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. LET'S SEE, JUST A SECOND. Z-5 IS CONSENT TO ALL THREE READINGS. Z-6 CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS. Z-7 -- I HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF IT, SO I WILL CALL THEIR NAMES. ROBERT VOLLEY....... VOELKER, IN FAVOR OF, ONLY IN THERE'S OPPOSITION. HARVEY [INAUDIBLE], IN FAVOR OF. GLAR I CAN'T WASHINGTON, DOES NOT SPEAK TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF. KATHERINE [INAUDIBLE] IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. THOSE ARE THE CONSENT ITEMS. I -- Z-6 AND Z-7 CONSENT TO ON ALL THREE.

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL. TOM THOMAS SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YES, SIR. JUST TWO ON -- TO NUMBER 7 IS THE -- THE APPLICANT IS -- IS THE APPLICANT HERE? JUST NEED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T MIND, SIR. JUST READING THE BACKGROUND AND TALKING TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS OUT IN THE AREA WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR PROJECT, IT APPEARS THAT THE -- THEY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE AND SATISFIED WITH WHAT YOU ARE DOING. APPEARS TO BE A GOOD PROJECT. SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT YOU ALL MADE, IS THAT IN WRITING? IS THAT JUST A VERBAL AGREEMENT OR WHAT?

WE HAVE PUT THE AGREEMENTS IN WRITING AND WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT ABOUT SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IN TERMS OF WHETHER CHILDREN CAN VISIT FOR ONE WEEK OR TWO WEEKS DURING THE SUMMER ON VACATION KIND OF THINGS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE HAVE AGREED IN WRITING TO WHAT IT IS THAT -- THAT WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING.

THOMAS: OKAY. I COMMEND YOU. IT APPEARS TO BE A GOOD PROJECT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT GOING UP. THAT'S IT, MAYOR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT ONE, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: SIR, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING SO CLOSELY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A FEW YEARS AGO, I THINK FIVE YEARS AGO NOW, THERE WAS ON THIS SAME PROPERTY THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE ON THE COUNCIL AND A TOUGH ISSUE. I VOTED AGAINST THE ZONING AT THAT TIME. SINCE THEN I HAVE MET SOME FOLKS THAT ARE REALLY GOOD FRIEND OF -- FRIENDS OF MINE NOW THROUGH THAT CASE. AND AT THE TIME SOME WERE SAYING THAT -- THAT, WELL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE JUST DOESN'T WANT APARTMENTS THERE, THEY WOULD NEVER AGREE TO APARTMENTS. AND THE NEIGHBORS WERE SAYING, NO, WE DON'T LIKE THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL AND WE ARE NOT JUST TRYING TO SAY NOTHING IN MY BACK YARD. I WANTED TO SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THAT WAS WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DOING NOW. THEY HAVE REALLY PERFORMED IN AN HONORABLE MANNER HERE. I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A GOOD PROJECT.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: MAYOR, CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: ON Z-2, WAS THAT ON THE CONSENT?

MAYOR GARCIA: Z-2 IS CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

THOMAS: CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF MR. GUERNSEY.

THOMAS: I SENT THIS QUESTION, IS IT LOCATED TO -- USED TO BE A LANDFILL, IS THAT CORRECT?

GURENSEY: YES, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST IS FORMALLY A -- FORMERLY A LANDFILL. THE PROPERTY IS BEING REZONED TODAY ACCORDING TO ENGINEERING RECORDS IS NOT PART OF THAT LANDFILL. THE APPLICANT IS STILL ACTUALLY EXPLORING TO SEE -- TO CLARIFY THOSE BOUNDARIES AND MAY ACTUALLY COME BACK WITH OTHER ZONING CASE IN THE FUTURE WHICH MAY ACTUALLY TAKE SOME OF THE AREA THAT'S NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT TRACT BACK BEFORE YOU TO REQUEST SOME ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONING AFTER THAT ENGINEERING DATA IS -- IS FINALIZED. I ACTUALLY WAS INFORMED TODAY THAT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AND HAD THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT WITH THIS CASE, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND COME BACK AT A DIFFERENT TIME.

THOMAS: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? AGAIN Z-1 POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL THE 11TH ON CONSENT. Z-2 CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS, Z-3 CONSENT POSTPONE TO APRIL 11TH, Z-4 DISCUSSION, Z-5, 6, 7, ALL CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE.

CLERK BROWN: MOTION AND SECOND ALREADY.

SLUSHER: DID YOU SAY Z-3 IS POSTPONED?

MAYOR GARCIA: POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL THE 11TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. WE GO TO Z-4.

GURENSEY: YES, MAYOR AN COUNCIL. THE NEXT CASE IS Z-4, ZONING CASE C14-01-0161, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATE AT 13505RR620 NORTH. THE ZONING REQUEST IS FROM INTERIM S.F. 2 TO G.R., WHICH IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED KNOW-C.O. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS KAF II DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY .877 ACRES AND IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF A LARGER LOT THAT FRONTS ON -- ON 620. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED ON 620 WITH A -- WITH A GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE -- THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS FOR A -- FOR A PROPOSED QUICK LUBE FACILITY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR LR ZONING. THE APPLICANT WAS AGREEABLE TO THAT EARLY ON. AND AS I UNDERSTAND -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT WAS APPROACHED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE AREA AND THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD HAS BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU THAT INCLUDED ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WHICH ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE LR DISTRICT. THESE INCLUDED SOME ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDING HEIGHT AND THE USES WERE RESTRICTED TO BE SIMILAR TO LR USES. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ADDING IN A -- IN A CAR WASH, WHICH WOULD BE -- ACTUALLY A USE THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER GR, PROVIDING FOR A GREENBELT THAT WOULD RUN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINES, EASTERN PROPERTY LINES THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THAT SOME OF THE PONDS THAT ARE EXISTING WITHIN THE AREA BEING REZONED WOULD BE BASICALLY CLEANED UP AND REVEGETATED WITH SOME NATIVE GRASSES. AND ACCORDING TO THE CITY STANDARDS THERE WOULD BE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON LIGHTING AND NOISE RESTRICTIONS. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SIGNAGE AND THIS EVENING THERE'S BEEN EVEN AN ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT THAT FURTHER LIMITS THE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING. WHICH GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE DIAS. BUT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO ALSO PROVIDE A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO ANY SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION TO THE CITY. LIMITATIONS ON IMPERVIOUS COVER AND ALSO LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS, THIS IS A PRIVATE AGREEMENT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE AGREED. THE ONLY THING THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AT THIS TIME IS IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, STAFF WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO INCLUDE THE PLANNING -- ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE THAT SPEAKS TO PROHIBITING HABITABLE STRUCTURE ON THE SITE IN CASE THIS PROPERTY IS AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE RESUBDIVIDED AND THEN POSSIBLY USED AS A SINGLE EXTRACT WITHOUT THE TRACT IN THE FRONT. THE -- THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR G.R. ZONING AND THE COVENANT THAT HAS BEEN DRAFTED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. GUERNSEY? IF NOT IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO -- YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. IS MS. LINDA FINDLEY IN THE ROOM. YOU WILL BE CALLED AFTER THE APPLICANT. SAYS THAT YOU WILL NOT SPEAK BUT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?

I REALLY DON'T NEED TO SPEAK UNLESS THE [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. OKAY. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

ALVAREZ: IF I COULD ASK STAFF TO GIVE US THAT COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT OR PROPOSAL FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

MAYOR, MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS RON [INAUDIBLE] REP KNOWLEDGE KAF II DEVELOP. TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY, WE ARE DEALING WITH ONE SUBDIVIDED LOT THAT HAS TWO DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THE FRONT WHERE IT WAS STRIP ANNEXED IN THE MID EIGHT, THE FRONT 200 FEET, GRCO, BACK HALF S.F. 2. CURRENTLY WE HAVE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO FULLY DEVELOP IT AS COMMERCIAL USES DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM PART. WE ORIGINALLY DID REQUEST THE G.R., WE DID AGREE TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF LR, THAT CERTAINLY PROVIDES US WHAT WE WERE INTENDING ON DOING. THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID COME TO US WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WHICH WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU ALL A COPY OF IT. THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THEY -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUPPORTING OUR REQUEST FOR THE G.R.-C.O. WE HAVE COME TO YOU -- TO TERMS WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN MORE THAT BE WILLING TO SHOW THAT -- HAS BEEN MORE THAN WILLING TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS USE IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME Y'ALL'S SUPPORT FOR OUR REQUEST FOR G.R. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I AM AVAILABLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, MS. LINDA FINDLEY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS HERE, ALSO, WE WILL NOT SPEAK, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCILMEMBERS, SHE CAN ANSWER THOSE. SO MS. FINDLEY IS AVAILABLE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. FINDLEY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

WYNN: MAYOR? MR. GUERNSEY, AGAIN, MENTION WHAT -- THE ISSUE THAT STAFF HAS REGARDING THE -- THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WAS IT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON OR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY?

NO, THE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THE ONLY CONCERN THAT STAFF HAD WAS WITH A PORTION OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAT DEALT WITH PROHIBITING HABITABLE BUILDINGS ON THE PORTION [INAUDIBLE] AREA OF THIS ZONING REQUEST.

WYNN: SO WHAT IS YOUR -- WHAT'S STAFF'S PROBLEM WITH THAT?

THE CONCERN WOULD BE AT SOME POINT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE SUBDIVIDED, AND THE BACK HALF WERE COMBINED WITH A DIFFERENT TRACT OR DEVELOPED BY ITSELF, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR USE FOR WHICH YOU COULD OCCUPY A BUILDING. THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS DEVELOPED WITH PONDS AND IT'S PROBABLY ENVISIONED THAT AT THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY BE LEFT AS A GREENBELT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT OR ADDITIONAL AREA FOR PONDS OR FILTHATION AT THIS TIME. BUT CAN HE -- FILTRATION, BUT WE CANNOT ALWAYS BE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL GO THROUGH OR LAND DIVISIONS ON PROPERTY LINES MAY CHANGE, WHICH MAY ALTER THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS LOT. WIN WIN THIS CASE IS READY FOR?

FIRST READING.

WYNN: FIRST READING ONLY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO SAY ONE THING.

I JUST WANTED TO BASICALLY BACK UP WHAT GREG IS SAYING ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -- I'M SORRY THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY DISALLOWING ANY HABITABLE BUILDINGS ON THAT LOT. IT DOES REPRESENT A PROBLEM FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT, ALSO. WE ARE RECOMMEND AGAINST IT. -- WE RECOMMEND AGAINST IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS? MOTIONS?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: IN TERMS OF THE ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD -- I GUESS WOULD HAVE TO UNDERTAKE, BECAUSE I GUESS THAT I AM GETTING CONFUSED BECAUSE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SPEAKS TO PERMITTED USES AND NOT PERMITTED USES. WOULDN'T OUR ZONING HAVE TO MATCH THAT IN ORDER TO --

THE COVENANT THAT'S BEEN AGREED TO WOULD GO ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY RESTRICTS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN WOULD HAVE. SO THERE ARE -- IN THE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THAT PRIVATE COUGH THAN THE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS AGREED TO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE G.R. DISTRICT IF THE COUNCIL DESIRED TO HAVE G.R. ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. AFTER REVIEWING THAT DOCUMENT TODAY THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE LR DISTRICT, ACTUALLY ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN SOME RESPECTS THAN THE LR DISTRICT THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ON THAT PROPERTY. BUT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR G.R. ZONING BY THE APPLICANT. AND WITH THIS AGREEMENT THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE ENTERED INTO PRIVATELY BUT NOT WITH THE CITY.

ALVAREZ: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE OUR ZONING, YOU KNOW, PERM OR RESTRICT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO -- PERMIT OR RESTRICT ACCORDING TO --

IF IT'S THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE, YOU COULD APPROVE G.R. ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY, THEN WE COULD TAKE THOSE ELEMENTS WORKING WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT THAT WE COULD PUT INTO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR INSTANCE. THERE'S A RESTRICTION ON BUILDING HEIGHT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER, THOSE COULD BE ECHOED IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY VERY EASILY. IF THAT'S YOUR DESIRE, WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS THAT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE DOING IT THAT WAY. AS OPPOSED TO JUST GRANTING THE G.R. WITH ALL OF THE PERMITTED USES OR STREET STRICTS -- ESTRICTIONS.

THE MOTION WOULD BE FOR G.R. -- INCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLY ENTERED INTO IT ORDINANCE.

ALVAREZ: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST READING?

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: SECOND. I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU. REMIND ME, GOOD..... MR. GUERNSEY. BASED ON THIS FIRST READING, WE STILL HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO ESSENTIALLY GO UP AND DOWN IN THE OVERALL ZONING CATEGORY ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, CORRECT?

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO DOWN FROM G.R. BASICALLY DO LR OR NO OR SOMETHING MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN G.R. IF WE WERE TO COME BACK. IF THEY WOULD DESIRE TO GO BEYOND G.R. THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REFILE.

WYNN: OKAY, FINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GURENSEY: MAYOR, I'M NOT SURE IF WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WYNN: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, I WILL SECOND THAT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES, NOW TO THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO -- TO APPROVE FIRST READING, THAT'S ON --

G.R.-CO ZONING AND STAFF WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE COVENANT ON -- THAT IS ON THE DIAS AND TO MATCH AS MANY OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PUT THEM INTO A C.O. OR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? AYE.

OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MAYOR PRO TEM PULLED THIS ONE. SO WE'LL WAIT ON IT UNTIL SHE GETS BACK. SHE SHOULD BE BACK SHORTLY. AND WHAT WE CAN DO AT THIS TIME IS GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING REMEMBERS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO LET ME ANNOUNCE THAT COUNCIL WILL GO INTO -- WILL GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO -- UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL. OH, THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS HERE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YOU PULLED ITEM NUMBER 35. AND AND WE'RE JUST ABOUT TO GET THERE. SO LET ME RECOGNIZE YOU.

GOODMAN: ANY SPEAKERS?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAD A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS.

GOODMAN: WHAT I HAD BEEN GOING TO PROPOSE WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAD LOOKED AT BEFORE, AND THIS WAS ON THE SIGN ORDINANCE. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAD COME UP WAS WHETHER OR NOT TO REDUCE A SIGN BY 25% IN THE AREA WITH ACTUALLY A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, BUT THAT 25% DIMENSION ALLY WAS QUITE A DIFFERENT AND WAS IN FACT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. SO THAT IF WE WERE TO KEEP THE ONE TO ONE REPLACEMENT, THE REPLACEMENT IN MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE REDUCED DIMENSIONALLY, WHICH YOU COULD SAY IS ALMOST VOLUME AS OPPOSED TO AREA. I THINK IT WAS MR. FURLY, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE, THE SIGN COMPANY THAT SPOKE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF A COMPANY THAT SPOKE GAVE US A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF WHETHER OR NOT 25% WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THEIR ILLUSTRATION, THOUGH, ILLUSTRATED 25% REDUCTION DIMENSIONALLY AS OPPOSED TO THE AREA DECREASE THAT WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT. SO MY IDEA WAS CAN WE CONSIDER, ALTHOUGH I KNOW EVERYBODY HATES TO KIND OF DO THIS FROM THE DIAS, CAN WE CONSIDER A LITTLE MORE OF AN OPTION THAN WE HAD ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SO THAT IF THERE WAS A ONE TO ONE REPLACEMENT SIGN FOR A TAKING DOWN A SIGN, THAT THE REDUCTION WOULD BE BY DIMENSIONS, WHICH IN ESSENCE IS ABOUT 44% CALCULATION IN REDUCTION IF YOU WERE TO DO IT BY A COMPARISON WITH AREA REDUCTION. AND THEN IF THERE WERE TO BE A TWO FOR ONE, THAT WE CONSIDER -- AND THREE FOR ONE, THAT WE CONSIDER ALLOWING THOSE TO BE REDUCTIONS IN AREA AS OPPOSED TO DIMENSIONS IN RETURN FOR GETTING RID OF THE TWO FOR THE ONE OR THE THREE FOR THE ONE. SO THAT WAS JUST AN IDEA THAT I WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE. I BELIEVE SOMEBODY SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T DO THE DIMENSIONAL THAT THE REDUCTION, THAT THE SIZES WERE THEN VERY FAR AWAY FROM TYPICAL ADVERTISING SIGNS. BUT THERE WAS SOME RESEARCH DONE AND IN FACT SOME OF THE SIGN CHANGES NOW WHERE A NEW COMPANY COMES AND TAKES THE LEASE WITH THE PROPERTY ENFOR THAT SIGN AND HAS THE REDUCTION, THE MEASUREMENTS WERE IN FACT CONSISTENT WITH THE DIMENSIONAL REDUCTION. SO I WANTED TO SEE IF THAT WAS ANco ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH. IT WOULD MAKE A BIG AND VISIBLE DIFFERENCE IN SIGNS.c I JUST WANTED TO THROW IT OUT.

WYNN: IF THAT'S THE FORM OF A MOTION, I'VE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT I'VE TRIED TO AMEND OR ACTION ON THE FIRST READING AND SECOND READING. IF THAT WERE TO BE A MOTION, I WOULD CERTAINLY SECOND IT AS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHERE WE GO ON FIRST TWO READINGS. IT'S NOT QUITE GETTINGnr MY POSITION WITH THEM, EXCEPT IT WAS FIRST AND SECOND READING. SO I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, BUT I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT ON THIRD READING WE DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK. BUT ONE OF THEM IS A MEMBER OF THE PLATTING AND ZONING. WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK? OKAY.c MS. LLIVIA IS AGAINST THE PROPOSAL AND WIN FORD KELSEY IS REGISTERED AGAINST STAFF RELIGIOUS AND FOR THE TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATION OF TWO OR THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. IT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, NOT JUST THEIR SIZE. AND CURTIS FORD ISc FOR, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY FOR WHAT. I GUESS IT'S FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.c DO WE NEED TO COMMENT -- DO YOU HAVE ANY STAFF COMMENT AT THIS TIME? YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE COMMENTS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

NO, MAYOR, I DON'T.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.c SO THIS IS A THIRDc READING MOTION, SO WHAT'S THE MOTION, MAYOR PRO TEM, AGAIN?

GOODMAN: THAT WOULD BE THAT YOU GIVE PEOPLE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT, BUT THAT THEc REPLACEMENT SIGN MUST BE A REDUCTION IN DIMENSION BY 25%.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S A 24% REDUCTION?

GOODMAN: RIGHT, BY AREA IF YOU WERE TO CALCULATE IT BY AREA, IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE 44% REDUCTION IN SIZE.

CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? BY THAT WE MEAN A 25% REDUCTION IN THE WIDTH OF THE SIGN AND THEN 25% REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN, OKAY? THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIGN FACE AS OPPOSED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN ITSELF.

GOODMAN: NOT BY AREA OF THE SIGN FACE, BUT DIMENSION.

AND ON THE TWO FOR ONE AND THE THREE FOR ONE, THAT WOULD BE THE 25% REDUCTION IN SIGN FACE AREA, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD WITH A ONE FOR ONE. AND THEN THE REST OF THE MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE STAFF ORDINANCE AS IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DID YOU SECOND THAT MOTION?

WYNN: YES, MAYOR.c

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION?c DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THIS?c MIKE, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.c

WELL, I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT. THIS WOULD ALLOW A SIGN THAT REPLACED -- AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE, WE HAVE A SIGN TO REPLACE FULL SIZE IF TWO OTHER SIGNS ARE PERMANENTLY REMOVED. NOW, IF I'M FOLLOWING THE MOTION, WE WOULD CHANGE THAT TO THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE REDUCED DIMENSION ALLY 25% BOTH IN THE LENGTH OF THE SIGN AND THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN, BUT THE SIGN'S FACE ITSELF.

GOODMAN: TWO FOR ONE WOULD BE BY AREA.

TWO FOR ONE WOULD BE BY AREA. OKAY.

GOODMAN: AND THREE FOR ONE AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO TWO FOR ONE IS BY AREA. ONE FOR ONE IS BY DIMENSION?

THAT MEANS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD GO BY DIMENSION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT THEN, WOULD BE THE REPLACEMENT OPTION THAT ALLOWS ANY SIGN TO BE REPLACED, BUT MUST BE 25% SMALLER THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS. AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS CHANGE THAT ONE DIMENSION ALLEY. AND THE OTHER TWO WOULD CHANGE 25% BY AREA.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE SAME?

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT GIVES YOU THREE OPTIONS. ONE FOR ONE WITH 25% REDUCTION DIMENSIONALLY. TWO FOR ONE OR THREE FOR ONE WITH 25% IN AREA, OKAY? FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: WAIT, MAYOR. I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: PLEASE DETAIL FOR YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND WHAT PASSED ON FIRST READING LAST TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, WE HAD SECOND READING THE LAST TIME.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WHAT PASSED ON SECOND?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU MADE THAT MOTION -- YOU WERE THE AUTHOR OF THE WIDTH PROPOSAL.

WYNN: THE PROPOSAL THAT I HAD ON BOTH FIRST AND SECOND READING ACTUALLY FAILED ON A THREE-FOUR VOTE. AND THAT WAS TO SIMPLY ELIMINATE THE ONE FOR ONE OPTION, PERIOD. ESSENTIALLY TAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE US. MY AMENDMENT WAS TO ELIMINATE ONE FOR ONE COMPLETELY. THAT FAILED BOTH AT FIRST AND SECOND READING.

SLUSHER: BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT I WAS ASKING THEN. WHAT I WAS ASKING WAS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PASSED LAST TIME, RIGHT? OKAY. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE STAFF RELIGIOUS? THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION?

MAYOR GARCIA: ACTUALLY, NOT MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER, BECAUSE ONE FOR ONE WITHc DMEPTION DMEMTIONAL REDUCTION IN ESSENCE ELIMINATES THE ONE FOR ONE. THEY WON'T DO ONE FOR ONE. THEY CAN'T DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S MOTION, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

NO?

GRIFFITH: NO.

ABSTAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO TWO TO ONE, WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ABSTAINING. AND THAT'S THE THIRD READING. WE DON'T NEED FIVE VOTES ON THAT ONE. WE'RE HAVING ALL KINDS OF VARIATIONS IN THE WORDING HERE. OKAY. WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND SPECIFICALLY THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE WILL REQUIRE THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL CALL UP ITEM NUMBER 41, WHICH IS 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON WHETHER THE CITY CHARTER SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF THE COUNCIL FROM SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS. I THINK ABOUT 20, I GUESS. SUSANA ALMANZA? I KNOW I CAUGHT YOU WHILE YOU WERE DRINKING YOUR COCA-COLA, BUT YOU'RE THE FIRST ONE ON THIS ONE, SO WELCOME, MS. ALMANZA.

IT'S WATER.

AND GUS PENA FOLLOWS YOU IF HE'S HERE.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M SUSAN ALMANZA WITH PODER AND FIRST I WANT TO SAY DO WE REALLY LIVE IN A DEmszCRACY? WHEN WE LOOK AT SINGLE MEMBERS OR I WANT TO SAY GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION, THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS THE ONLY MAJOR CITY IN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES THAT DOES NOT HAVE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. SO HOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WHEN IF WE LOOKED RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE ELECTED BY GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION, THE AUSTIN SCHOOL BOARD, THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SO ON AND SO ON. SO WE SHOULD NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL ANDc SAY, LET'S NOT HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS BE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS OR GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. WHEN WE LOOK AT AUSTIN AND WE WANT TO HAVE REPRESENTATION, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT RACE. I THINK IT'S ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC ECONOMICS AND SOCIOJUSTICE REPRESENTATION. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, WELL THEN YOU WILL HAVE THEN -- EACH PERSON HAVING TO VOTE. WELL, AS I LOOK NOW, NO ONE CITY COUNCILMEMBER MAKES THAT DECISION. IT TAKES A WHOLE GROUP OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS TO COME TO ANY CONCLUSION AND MAKE ANY DECISION. BUT I THINK IT'S REAL HYPOCRITICAL THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO REPRESENT US, ESPECIALLY I CAN TALK FOR EAST AUSTIN, WHEN WE HAVE HAD MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND MIMMS, CHICK CAN KNOWS RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL TO WIN THE BOXES IN THEIR PARTICULAR AREA, YET LOSE THE ELECTION. THAT HAS GOT TO STOP. THAT'S -- THAT IS PATRONIZING US AND TELLING US SOMEONE....... SOMEONE -- WHEN WE COULD RUN IN OUR PARTICULAR AREA AND WIN THE BOXES IN OUR AREA, BUT YET LOSE THE ELECTION, THAT IS SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT LIVE IN OUR AREA, WHO DOES NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT OUR ISSUES OR LIVES AMONGST US IS DECIDING WHO OUR CANDIDATES WILL BE. AND I THINK THE TIME HAS COME HAS COME TO GO TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE THING IS THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IN AUSTIN IS SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS IS GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. AND I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE -- LET'S SAY EVERYONE SAYS AUSTIN IS SUCH A LIBERAL CITY. THEN WHAT ARE ALL THE LIBERALS AFRAID OF? IF WE'RE SUCH A LIBERAL CITY, LET'S GET DOWN TO IT AND HAVE THE GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS AND LET'S NOT BE AFRAID TO HAVE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS, DIFFERENT OPINIONS FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY CONSTITUENT SIT ON THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS MADE OF. AND RIGHT NOW FOR A LONG TIME, FOR DECADES, WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT CAMPAIGN REFINANCING, YOU WON'T NEED ALL OF THAT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE RUNNING IN A DISTRICT AREA, YOU WON'T HAVE TO EARN OR RUN OR TRY TO RAISE $50,000 TO RUN AT LARGE. IT'S CRAZY. [BUZZER]. IT REALLY IS CRAZY. SO I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. THANK YOU.c

GOODMAN: MORE THAN 50. GUS PENA? I'LL READ HIS CARD IF HE'S NOT AROUND. SANDY HINCHS DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS IN FAVOR. BOBBY BARKER, IS BOBBY HERE?

HELLO, MY NAME IS BOBBY BARKER AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE TURNER REVISION COMMISSION THAT YOU APPOINTED THIS LAST OCTOBER. AND I REALLY DO -- I'M HERE AS A RESOURCE WITNESS BASICALLY. TWO OF OUR OTHER CHARTER REVISION MEMBERS ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE ALSO. RICKY BYRD AND CHARLES MILES, SO I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THEM TOO. BUT I'M HERE, A PRESENTATION HAS BEEN MADE TO YOU PREVIOUSLY AND I'M SIMPLY HERE AS A RESOURCE WITNESS.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU TO THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO ARE SITTING THROUGH THIS. EDWARD BURKE? WHO IS FOLLOWED BY -- LET ME GET TO THE NEXT SPEAKER THEN. RICHARD FORCEBURG DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK AND IS D HIS TIME TO YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS?

NO, THAT'S ALL.

GOODMAN: THEN MIKE FORD WILL FOLLOW YOU.

OKAY. COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CITY FOR FOUR TO FIVE YEARS AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. LET ME TELL YOU, FIRST THING, A YEAR AGO IN FEBRUARY I WAS NOTIFIED THAT MY GARBAGE RATES WERE GOING UP 78%, SO I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO WRITE TO EACH ONE OF YOU IN AN E-MAIL, NOT ONE LETTER ADDRESSED TO ALL OF YOU, BUT INDIVIDUAL NOTES, ASKING YOU WHAT VALUE AM I GOING TO GET FOR THE OTHER $78. I WAS SURPRISED AT THE RESPONSE. I EXPECTED, SINCE EACH OF YOU ARE ON MY PAYROLL, TO HEAR FROM YOU. I EXPECTED THE COURTESY OF AN ANSWER. I GOT NONE! FROM NOBODY! EXCEPT A BUREAUCRAT IN THE WASTE DEPARTMENT THAT TURNED AROUND AND SENT ME A NOTE, AND WHAT HE SAYS IS LONGHORN CAN NO LONGER PROVIDE IT AT THAT RATE. THE SECOND THING HE SAYS IS IT'S A RESULT OF ANNEXATION, PERIOD. I AM PAYING YOU PEOPLE AND I WANTED TO KNOW, AND I NEVER GOT AN ANSWER ON THAT. I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW WHEN I WRITE TO CONGRESSMAN DOGGETT OR SENATOR GRAMM OR SENATOR HUTCHISON, I AT LEAST GET AN ANSWER. SECOND ITEM. ON NOVEMBER 11TH LAST YEAR, 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING I GET UP TO GO TO CHURCH. I GO OUT AND GET THE PAPER. AND LOW AND BEHOLD, OUT IS A GUSHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. SO I GO IN AND I CALL THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT FOR WATER BREAKS. THEY TELL ME, WELL, YOU'RE THE FIRST ONE. THANK YOU, WE'LL GET ON TO IT. SO I GO AWAY TO CHURCH AND I COME BACK AT 11:00 O'CLOCK. LO AND BEHOLD, IT'S STILL GUSHING. THISN?lj AN HOUR OF WATER GOING DOWN THE DRAIN. I CALL AGAIN. I GET SOMEONE ELSE IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND THEY TELL ME THAT THIS YEAR, IT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY HEARD FROM ME. THEY SAY OKAY, THEY'LL GET RIGHT ON TO IT. 2:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON IT'S STILL GUSHING. I TALK TO MY NEIGHBOR. HE HAS NO WATER. I COME TO FIND OUT THAT AT 8:00 O'CLOCK ON SATURDAY NIGHT THE WATER MAIN BROKE. HE CALLED THEN. FINALLY, 8:00 O'CLOCK SUNDAY NIGHT, 24 HOURS LATER AND PROBABLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS' WORTH OF WATER DOWN THE DRAIN, A SUBCONTRACT CREW CAME AND THEY START WORKING ON IT. MY NEIGHBOR WAS WITHOUT NEIGHBOR FOR 30-SOME HOURS. IF WE HAD SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, I DARE SAY I COULD HAVE WENT AND KNOCKED ON MY REPRESENTATIVE'S DOOR AND I WOULD HAVE GOT BETTER RESPONSE. WHEN WE WERE IN THE M.U.D., THE RESPONSE TIME ON A BROKEN MAIN WAS ONE HOUR. IN THIS CASE IT WAS 24 HOURS. THAT IN MY MIND TELLS ME THAT THE SYSTEM HAS RUN ITS COURSE. THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS BROKE AND IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. FORD? MIKE FORD? FOLLOWED BY ROBERT KLEEMAN.

WE ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE. THE VOTERS HAVE REJECTED IT FIVE TIMES. WHY HAVE THEY REJECTED? SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IS A GOOD IDEA. IT'S GOOD FOR OFFICE HOLDERS, OFFICE SEEKERS AND THOSE WHO BACK OFFICE HOLDERS AND OFFICE SEEKERS. BUT FOR CITIZENS, VOTERS, TAXPAYERS, IT'S A BAD IDEA. AND IT'S BAD FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. UNDER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS THE HARD COMMUNITY ISSUES ARE GOING TO GET EVEN SHORTER SHRIFT THAN THEY GET NOW BECAUSE THE PREMIUM WILL BE ON TAKING CARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THINGS THAT GET YOU REELECTED BECAUSE UNDER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ONLY 10% OF AUSTIN CAN VOTE FOR YOU. SO YOU ONLY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE ACTIVISTS AMONG THAT 10% TO BE REELECTED. AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN AUSTIN CANNOT VOTE FOR YOU. WE WILL SET UP A SYSTEM WHERE EACH COUNCILMEMBER DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO 90% OF THE ELECTORATE OF AUSTIN. THAT'S NOT GOOD. UNDER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS......... DISTRICTS -- LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF THE PREMIERE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT. IT'S CONGRESS. 50 YEARS AGO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAID TO CONGRESS, WE'VE GOT 300 BASES THAT WE WANT TO CLOSE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY FOR DEFENSE. WE WANT TO DIVERT THAT SAVINGS TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. FOR 50 YEARS CONGRESSMEN, ALL IN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, HAVE PUT THEIR DISTRICT CONCERNS AND THEIR NEXT REELECTION CONCERNS AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY. NOW, THE PEOPLE WE ELECT TO CONGRESS ARE VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE. THIS IS JUST THE WAY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WORK. NOW, REMEMBER, YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES THAT IMPROVE THINGS, YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES THAT MAKE THINGS WORSE. CHANGING TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WILL MAKE IT WORSE, AND THE VOTERS KNOW THAT AND THAT'S WHY THEY'VE BEEN REJECTING IT. I HAVE DETAILS ON SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THIS FLYER, AND IF ANYBODY WANTS ONE, THEY GET IT. WE'VE ALSO PUT UP A WEBSITE THAT HAS INFORMATION ON THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I HOPE YOU WILL NOT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. IF IT'S NOT PUTT ON THE BALLOT, I HOPE THE VOTERS REJECT IT ONE MORE TIME. THANK YOU.

ARE YOU READY FOR ME?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD TO SEE Y'ALL. I'M HERE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT IN MAY. I AM THE PRECINCT CHAIR AND ELECTION JUDGE IN PRECINCT 361. MY PRECINCT RUNS ALONG HIGHWAY 71 WEST NEAR CIRCLE DROVE AND THOMAS SPRINGS ROAD. WE'RE A VERY DIVERSE PRECINCT. SOME OF OUR PRECINCT IS IN FULL PURPOSE ANNEX AREAS, SOME OF IT IS IN THE ETJ. I HAPPENED TO WORK THE ELECTION LAST NOVEMBER WHEN THE MAYOR'S RACE WAS ON THE BALLOT AND I WAS SURPRISED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE IN LIVED IN LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEX AREAS WERE STUNNED TO FIND OUT THEY COULD VOTE FOR THE MAYOR. THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS. I ALSO ATTENDED THE SOUTH AUSTIN HEARING AT THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE HELD, I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN, AND I ALSO WANT TO COMPLICATE THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE. I REALLY FELT LIKE THEY WERE VERY SINCERE AND ASKED A LOT OF PROBING QUESTIONS. WE HAD A SMALL TURNOUT. WE HAD ABOUT 13, 14 PEOPLE TURN OUT. AND IT ALSO WAS A VERY DIVERSE GROUP. I WOULD SAY IT WAS EQUALLY SPLIT BETWEEN HISPANICS, AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND ANG LOWS. AND I'VE NEVER BEEN IN A MORE UNIFIED GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY FELT CONNECTED GEOGRAPHICALLY, BUT ALSO FELT EQUALLY DISINFRAN CHIESED FROM THE CITY GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK THROUGH THE MEETING WE ALL EXPRESSED OUR OWN OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM, AND EVERYBODY FELT THE SAME WAY ABOUT IT. AND IT WASN'T AN ISSUE OF RACE, IT WAS AN ISSUE THEY FELT CONNECTED ABOUT WHERE THEY LIVED AND THEY DID FEEL VERY DISENFRANCHISED. BUT ALSO I HEAR A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GOING TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND THAT IS, WHO'S DRAWING THE LINES? WHEN ARE THE LINES GOING TO BE DRAWN? I THINK REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICAL PERSUASION, IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS WE'VE ALL HAD A DISTASTEFUL EXPERIENCE WITH REDISTRICTING, WHETHER YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN. AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE BURR BELL ON SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WHO STOMACH Wv AT THE POINT OF WHO DRAWS THE LINE. SO I WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU IF YOU PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN ADVANCE, I WOULD STRONGLY URGE THAT YOU NOT HIRE ANY OUTSIDE POLITICAL CONSULTANTS. I THINK THAT WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT TRAVIS COUNTY HAD IN THEIR PROCESS. IF Y'ALL CAN DO IT IN-HOUSE, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT IN-HOUSE. AND IF YOU CAN COMMIT TO A PROCESS BEFOREHAND.

I THINK THAT WILL MAKE THE ODDS OF A SUCCESSFUL WIN ON THIS ISSUE BETTER THAN JUST LEAVING IT OPEN, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT LATER ON. I THINK IF YOU ON THE COUNCIL SUPPORT THE IDEA OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, I THINK YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ON THE FRONT END, BUT I'M NOT SAYING PUT A MAP ON THE BALLOT, BUT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. WAYNE? AND FOLLOWING MR. WAYNE, SCOTT DUKCUET. HE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT HE SUPPORTS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND AFTER THAT IT'S CLIFF DAVID. HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT HE IS FOR. HE SUPPORTS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND THEN CARL PIECE WOULD BE AFTER THAT. MR. WAYNE, WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD EVENING. I'M POLITICAL DIRECTOR OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY AND A BOARD MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN CLUB OF AUSTIN. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN CLUB HAS TAKEN NO OFFICIAL POSITION ON SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, HOWEVER, I'VE BEEN ASKED TO EXPRESS THE SENTIMENTS AND CONCERNS MANY IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE DIVERSITY OF AUSTIN AND THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT GUARANTEE A PLACE AT THE TABLE FROM MY GROUPS, AREAS AND VOTERS, SO TO SPEAK. THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEMOGRAPHER HAS PREDICTED IN THE NEXT DECADE THE ASIAN POPULATION MAY TAKE OVER THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION IN THE CITY. THIS SUGGESTS TO MANY OF US THAT THE GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT THAT ORIGINALLY EXISTED FOR PLACES FIVE AND SIX IS ON VERY SHAKY GROUN, IF IT STILL EXISTS AT ALL. AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL CONTINUE TO UP HOLD THE CURRENT SYSTEM. IT WILL DEPEND ON THE LEGALnr ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE AND HOW THEY ARE DEFENDED. GIVEN THE CHANGING FACE OF AUSTIN, THAT MAY HAVE SOME SERIOUSc DOUBT. IT DEPENDS ON THE PLAINTIFF AND THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS SENTIMENT AMONG THOSE WHO SUPPORT A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-MEMBER COUNCIL OR EIGHT-ONE VERSUS A 10-ONE. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT MANY BELIEVE THAT THE LARGE MEMBERS ON THEc DALLAS, HOUSTON AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCILS ARE UNRULY AND UNMANAGEABLE. SO INc COMPARISON, YOU LOOK PRETTY GOOD TO A LOT OF TEXANS WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR BREATH RAN IN OTHER LARGE CITIES. AS WE'VE SEEN WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT AND THE TRAVIS COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, THE ELECTION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND HISPANICS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH MORALITIES INSTEAD OF MAJORITIES, AN EXAMPLE IS COMMISSIONER RON DAVIS, WHO IS DISTRICT IS ROUGHLY 23% AFRICAN-AMERICAN AMONG VOTING AGE POPULATION. SO THE ARGUMENT FOR A LARGE COUNCIL IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN MINORITIES MAY BE BOGUS. EIGHT DISTRICTS COULD PROVIDE DIVERSITY AND ENOUGH AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT IN THE PROCESS TO ENSURE DIVERSITY AS WELL AS MORE AFFORDABLE CAMPAIGNS. AND THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNTIL A CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM IS WORKED OUT. MANY OF US BELIEVE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT UNTIL THAT DAY COMES, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS JUST MAKE MORE SENSE GIVEN THE 100-DOLLAR CAP. THE TOUGH PART FOR MANY OF YOU IS THIS MAY REQUIRE A COUPLE OF YOU TO MOVE OR RUN AGAINST ONE ANOTHER AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OFc SELFLESS LICENSE ON THE PART OF EACH OF YOU COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT WE THINK YOU CAN ALL RISE TO THAT OCCASION AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN OVERALL. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THE OPTION OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND AN EIGHT-ONE COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. WAYNE. AS I INDICATED, MR. DUCUET DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT SUPPORTS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, AND SO DID MR. CLIFF DAVIS. AND MR. ORTIZ, WELCOME, SIR. LET ME JUST READ THE NEXT SPEAKER. MR. MICHAEL COOPER IS IN FAVOR OF, BUT DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. AND AFTER YOU, IT'S MISS LUCY BUCK. MR. ORTIZ, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANKc YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU TONIGHT. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT. THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON YOUR PERFORMANCE AS A COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE. I PERSONALLY KNOW MANY OF YOU AND WITH SOME OF YOU HAVE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, SO I KNOW THE KIND OF WORK YOU DO AND I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR WHAT YOU DO EVERYDAY. MY SUPPORT FOR THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMES FROM MY EXPERIENCE RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL. WHEN I RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL IN 1999, I LEARNEDc MANY LESSONS ABOUT THE TYPE OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT MANY AUSTINITES FEEL THAT THEY'RE GETTING OR NOT GETTING. RUNNING CITYWIDE CAMPAIGN IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND VERY DIFFICULT. EVEN UNDER THE BEST CONDITION, EVEN IF YOU ARE A WELL FUNDED CANDIDATE, YOU STILL WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME MEETING AND HEARING AND COMMUNICATING THE NEEDS OF MANY CONSTITUENTS IN AUSTIN THAT FEEL THAT THEY DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION ON THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO MANY PEOPLE, AND IT WAS TOUGH FOR ME TO SEE THAT BECAUSE MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT I MET WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION AND MANY OF THEM DECIDED THAT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE WAS TO LEAVE AUSTIN. SO THEY FELT THEY COULD GET ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION. AND MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT USUALLY LEAVE THE CITY ARE NOT THE LOWER CLASS PEOPLE, THEY ARE USUALLY THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE UPPER CLASS PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE GREATLY IN TERMS OF TAXES TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND THAT MONEY GOES SOMEPLACE ELSE. BUT MANY OF THEM STILL WORK IN AUSTIN. AUSTIN ROADS AND OUR CONSTRUCTION ARE ISSUES FOR US AND TRAFFIC ISSUES FOR US. SO IN A WAY THEY'RE LEAVING, FAKING AWAY SOME OF THE MONEY, BUT LEAVING SOME OF THE PROBLEMS BEHIND. AND THAT TO ME WAS IN PART DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T FEEL THEY HAVE REPRESENTATION. I DON'T THINK SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ARE ARE A PANCEA BY ANY MEANS. I THINK THEY CAN BE A NEW BEGINNING FOR REPRESENTATION IN AUSTIN. NOW, WHILE THE POSSIBILITY -- WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON ALL THE CITIZENS AND YOU AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR CITY. I WAS WATCHING TV LAST NIGHT AND I HEARD JAMES CARVILLE TALK ABOUT HIS THEME FOR THE '92 CAMPAIGN FOR BILL CLINTON. AND HE SAID CHANGE VERSUS MORE OF THE SAME. SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT IS CHANGE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO LOSE, BUT A LOT TO GAIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO, AND I HOPE THAT YOU REALLY SUPPORT THIS EFFORT. AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. ORTIZ. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, MR. MICHAEL COOPER IS REGISTERED WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT IN FAVOR OF. AND WELCOME. AND IS MR. QUINTILLO HERE? WHAT ABOUT MR. SHIELDS? YOU'RE NEXT. MS. BUCK, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM NOT HERE REPRESENTING ANY GROUP OR ANY ORESED GROUP. I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A CITIZEN AND VOTER OF AUSTIN. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 16 YEARS. I'VE WATCHED AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT YOU ALL REPRESENT HAS GROWN SUBSTANTIALLY AND CONTINUES TO GROW. IT'S MY OWN EXPERIENCE AND IMPRESSION THAT ALL OF YOU MAKE HEROIC EFFORTS TO REPRESENT AND RESPOND TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. I ADMIRE YOUR EFFORTS. I THINK IT'S GETTING MORE DIFFICULT ALL THE TIME. I SUPPORT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I HAVE FOR YEARS. I FOUND A STATEMENT THAT EXPRESSES MY FEELINGS BETTER THAN I EVER COULD FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST OF ELECTIONS PROJECTS, WHICH IS AN INTERNATIONAL PROJECT FUNDED BY USID AND UMP TO DWOI PROI SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS. AND WHAT THEY'RE TELLING THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS PROVIDE VOTERS WITH STRONG CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTATION BECAUSE EACH VOTER HAS A SINGLE, EASILY IDENTIFIABLE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. MEMBERS ENCOURAGED CONSTITUENCY SERVICE BY PROVIDING VOTERS WITH AN EASILY IDENTIFIABLE OMBUDSMAN. SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS MAXIMIZE ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE AND CAN BE REELECTED OR DEFEATED IN THE NEXT ELECTION. SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ENSURES GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. AS I SAY, I THINK THAT STATES IT BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE. THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE STRENGTHS OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS REST IN THE CLOSE TIES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES AND CONSTITUENTS, THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE VOTERS AND CONSTITUENCY SERVICE. SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO SUPPORT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND DEFER THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS IN AUSTIN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: JOSE QUINTERO. HE IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF AND HE ASKED ME TO READ WHAT HE WROTE ON HIS CARD. I AM IN SUPPORT AND THE GREATER EAST AUSTIN ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS THE ORGANIZATION HE REPS. SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WILL ALLOW THE PEOPLE IN A GEOGRAPHIC AREA TO ELECT THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT WHO THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT FOR THEM, LIKE EAST AUSTIN. OR ANY OTHER GROUP. MR. SHIELD. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS GLEN SHIELD AND I LIVE IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN IN THE SILVER STONE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'VE GOT THE ARTICLES IN TODAY'S PAPER FROM WILL WYNN, COUNCILMEMBER, AND AM MOSTLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PLAN. I SPOKE AT THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LIKED SOME OF THE IDEAS THEY HAD. AND I PARTICULARLY WOULD LIKE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER SUBPOENA SOME KIND OF MIXED SITUATION AND NOT JUST GO WITH ONLY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I'M A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS BEING ON THE SIDE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY GUY OVER THERE. [LAUGHTER]. SO I'M NOT REAL SURE I WANT TO GO WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ALL ALONG. AND I DO HAVE -- I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, I'VE ADDRESSED ISSUES TO COUNCIL IN THE PAST AND I'VE NOT BEEN ENTIRELY SATISFIED WITH THE RESPONSE. I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE REPRESENTATION, PARTICULARLY MY PART OF TOWN, SOUTHEAST AUSTIN. WE HAD ONLY ONE COUNCILMEMBER, BOB LARSON, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. AND I THINK WE NEED SOMEBODY FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN HERE TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR INTERESTS. THANKS VERY MUCH.c

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. STEEL. MR. JIM WALKER IS REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. AND HE'S IN FAVOR OF. MAXINE BARKER? WELCOME.c AND FOLLOWING MS. BARKER IS MR. ROGER SAIDLER. IS HE HERE. YOU ARE NEXT. AND THEN RICKY BUTTER IS THE LAST SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MY NAME IS MAXINE BARKER AND I'M PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE AUSTIN AREA. WE'RE A NONPARTISAN ORGANIZATION AS MOST OF YOU KNOW AND PART OF OUR MISSION IS TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR GOVERNMENT. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN ARE NOT REALLY SHY SHIE ABOUT EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, BUT SOMEHOW OR OTHER THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO TRANSLATE IN GOING TO THE POLLS AND VOTING FOR COUNCILMEMBERS WHEN IT COMES UP FOR ELECTION. SO ONE OF OUR CONCERNS THEN IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC'S -- THAT THEIR VOICES WILL BE HEARD AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. THE LEAGUE BELIEVES AND HAS BELIEVED FOR A LONG TIME THAT A SINGLE MEMBER COMBINATION OF AT LARGE AND SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IS THE BEST METHOD AND PROBABLY THE FAIREST METHOD OF ELECTING CITY OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND PERHAPS ONE OR TWO AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS. WE DO APPLAUD THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONc FOR -- COMMITTEE RATHER FOR WORKING THROUGH THE MANY RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS ISSUE AND WE CERTAINLY APPLAUD THE CITY COUNCIL FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE UP AGAIN. HOWEVER, THE LEAGUE BELIEVES THAT THERE IS SOME INHERENT PROBLEMS IN ELECTING COUNCILMEMBERS ONLY FROM REPRESENTING SINGLE MEMBER AREAS MAY PURSUE A MORE NARROW CONSTITUENT INTEREST TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE. A COMBINATION SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES FOR THE MAYOR PLUS ONE OR TWO AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD TEND TO BALANCE CITYWIDE INTEREST WITH MORE NARROW NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS. AND ALSO MANY CITIZENS WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS TO MORE THAN ONE COUNCILMEMBER, WHO WOULD THEN PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE. AND ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A GROUP THAT'S WIDELY DISBURSED IN THE COMMUNITY. AND WHILE IT IS TRUE THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE TO INCREASE IN NUMBER WITH EITHER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR A COMBINATION SYSTEM, EITHER ONE, THIS NEED NOT BE A LARGE INCREASE. DEM PHOTOGRAPHIC GRAPHIC DEMOGRAPHICS ARE CHANGING AND DETAILS NEED TO BE WORKED OUT TO DETERMINE THE BOUNDARIES AND THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEMBERS NEEDED TO REPRESENT ALL SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. WITH THE LEAGUE'S POSITION, THE CITIZENS COULD HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS, COUNCILMEMBERS WHO FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF THE SMALL CITY DISTRICTS AND AT LARGE MEMBERS WHO CAN FOCUS ON THE INTERRELATION OF THESE DISTRICTS WITH THE WHOLE CITY IN MIND. IN ANY EVENT, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY ARE REPRESENTED. AT THE RECENT -- THE MAYOR RECENTLY WAS OUR -- . [BUZZER]. WELL,c THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ROGER SETTLER IS NEXT AND THEN IS MR. RICKY BUTTER HERE? YOU'LL BE THE LAST ONE. WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, GARCIA, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MAYOR GARCIA, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR RECENT ELECTION. YOU'RE A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR EXCELLENT NEW CITY MANAGER AS WELL. ADOLPH HITLER ONCE SAID THAT DEMOCRACY SEEMED TO HAVE AN INNATE ABILITY TO VOTE THEMSELVES OUT OF EXISTENCE. THIS WAS PROVEN IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. AND IT SEEMS THAT OUR PRO ENVIRONMENTAL GREEN CITY COUNCIL IS ABOUT TO DO JUST THAT IN AUSTIN, VOTE ITSELF OUT OF EXISTENCE. BY TRYING THE OLD METHOD OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, WHICH SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. AFTER A LIFETIME IN POLITICS, I HAVE OBSERVED THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS TEND TO FAVOR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, PARTICULARLY DEVELOPERS AND AGREE INTERESTS. I FOUGHT THE GOOD FIGHT IN LUBBOCK FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITH MY MINORITY BRETHREN AND IT CAME BACK TO HAUNT US. WHEN WE WATCHED SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS POOR MONEY INTO SMALL DISTRICTS AND OVERWHELM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THOSE DISTRICTS BY OUT SPENDING THEM 10 AND 20 TO ONE. AND THIS COULD HAPPEN IN AUSTIN AS WELL. AS I LOOK UPON THE DAIS TONIGHT, I SEE THE THREE OF OUR SEVEN CITY COUNCIL MEN ARE MINORITIES. WE HAVE MAJORITY MINORITYc COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT BECAUSE THE COUNTY JUDGE IS ELECTED AT LARGE, NOT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS WORKED TO GENERATE MINORITY FROM BOTH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION, BUT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS COULDc MARGINALIZE, PERMANENTLY MARGE ALIZE VOTERS BY ASSURING THEY ARE A PERMANENT MINORITY ON ANY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM. AND I WOULD SAY TO MY MINORITY BRETHREN, THIS IS A FALSE HOPE AND IT WILL WORK AGAINST THEM IF IT'S PUT INTO EFFECT. TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE I'M A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER, I WOULD SAY IT LOOKS AFRAKT ACTIVE AT THE MOMENT, BUT YOU TOO WILL BE LARGE ALIZED IN THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM BECAUSE THE BIG INTEREST WILL COME IN, POUR MONEY INTO THOSE DISTRICTS AND YOU WILL FIND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE EFFECTIVELY SILENCED.

[INAUDIBLE].

YOU WILL FIND THE MINORITY INTERESTS WILL BE SILENCED. AND RESERVE ACTIVE REPUBLICAN INTERESTS WILL BE SILENCED.c AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS WILL BE SILENCED. THIS IS THE EFFECT OF A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM. THERE ARE MANY FINER METHODS OF ENSURING A METHOD OF REPRESENTATION ON THE CITY COUNCIL OTHER THAN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, INSTANT RUN OFF VOTING. THERE ARE A HOST OF PROGRESSIVE IDEA THAT WOULD WORK, BUT THE OLD PANCEA OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WILL ONLY ENSURE THE DEFEAT OF WHAT WE'VE WORKED SO HARD FOR IN THE LAST 20 YEARS IN AUSTIN. A CITY COUNCIL WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF MINORITY INTERESTS AND IS -- . [BUZZER]. FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. I WOULD URGE YOU TO VOTE NO. SIR. RICKY BUTTER? AND MR. BUTTER IS THE LAST SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM. BURT.

MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL, I WENT IN AS A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE THINKING I WAS GOING TO VOTE FORc SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. IT WAS THE NUMBER ONE THING ON MY LIST. THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AUSTIN HAVE CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AS THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY COUNCILc REPRESENTATION. WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH THE DID HE BACK KEL OF REDISTRICTING LINES IS ONLY THE TOP AND EASILY SEEN PROBLEM WITH czINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. THERE'S A PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION. AUSTIN IS 33% LATINO, 9.8% BLACK AND VERY SOON BETTER THAN FIVE PERCENT ASIAN. WE CAN'T DRAW A DISTRICT TO REPRESENT THE ASIAN POPULATION. IN POINT OF FACT, WE CANNOT GRAU DRAU A DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A BLACK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL UNLESS WE CREATE BETWEEN 15 AND 17 COUNCIL SEATS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IT'S A BAD IDEA. YOU HEAR ABOUT CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEING CHEAPER. THIS IS -- THIS IS A GOOD NOTION IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN SUCCESSFULLY LEAFLET A 50 TO 60,000-PERSON DISTRICT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SO. I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISCOVER THE RADIO AND TV AND THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RUN THEIR CAMPAIGNS. I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO SPEND, WHETHER IT'S FROM HIS OWN POCKET OR FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS. THIS WOULD OVERCOME WHAT WE WOULD GAIN BY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.c THERE ARE STILL RUNOFF EXPENSES THAT AREN'T ADDRESSED. WE HAVE BAD EXPERIENCES WITH RUNNOFFS. VOTER ATTENTION SPAN DRIFTS AFTER THE INITIAL ELECTION. HAVE YOU ABOUT A FIVE PERCENT DROPOFF IN VOTER PARTICIPATION. THERE'S MORE EXPENSE FOR THE CANDIDATE, THERE'S MORE EFFORT FOR THE CANDIDATE, THERE'S LESS PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL SEEMS TO JUST WALK AWAY. THAT WAS WHY THERE WAS THE SUGGESTION OF THE INSTANT RUNOFF VOTE. IT GOT DROPPED WHEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID, WELL, IT GOES AGAINST OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. UNFORTUNATELY THE SECRETARY FORGOT THAT THERE ARE EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT THE CITY -- BECAUSE THE CITY'S CHARTERED THE WAY IT IS, IT HAS THE RIGHT TO SET AN INSTANT RUNOFF VOTE AND THAT WAS WHAT ONE OF OUR EXPERT THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE US HOLDS. THERE'S ALSO THE IMPRESSION OF DISBURTION OF THE CITIZEN COUNCIL CONNECTION. BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVEN OF YOU, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN CAN COME AND LOBBY WITH EACH OF YOUR OFFICES IF HE FEELS HE HAS A PRESSING ISSUE.c IF YOU GO TO A SYSTEM WHERE YOU HAVE 11 OR 13 OR 15 OR 17 COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT BECOMES A REAL PROBLEM. AND -- . [BUZZER]. AND IT'S QUITE REAL. I JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH ONE THING. THE IDEA OF MIXED DISTRICTS IS A FIX TO WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A UNITARIAN SYSTEM. IT'S INCIDENT HAIRNTLY A BAD IDEA. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, ADOPT ONE, BUT DON'T GO TO MIXED DISTRICTS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS WE HAVE ON ITEM 41. I'M ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE ACTION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLOWING THE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE.c I AM KNOWN TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. I OPINED IN THE PAPER TODAY ABOUT IT. BUT REALLY MY SUPPORT FOR A MOTION TONIGHT AND ACTION FROM THE COUNCIL TONIGHT IS MORE OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT CITIZEN CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEES THAT THIS COUNCIL AND THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL COMMISSIONED TO LOOK4eAT THIS EXHAUSTIVELY. COUNoxILMEMBERS SLUSHERc AND GOODMAN, MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA AT THE TIME AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IN 1997 FORMED THE -- AND CHARGE THE ORIGINAL CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION. THEY ALL APPROVED THE VERY SPECIFIC MAKEUP OF THAT GROUP. IT WAS VERY DIVERSE. IT WAS DIVERSE ETHNICALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY, POLITICALLY. IT WAS A VERY GOOD CITIZEN ORGANIZATION. THEY SPENT TWO YEARS STUDYING THE ISSUE, HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS, HOLDING VERY SPECIFIC FOCUS GROUPS BOTH GEOGRAPHICALLY AND ETHICLY AROUND THE CITY. THEY HAD EXPERT WITNESSES COME IN FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY THAT EITHER HAVE DONE THIS. THEY'VE HAD ACADEMIC EXPERTS TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM VOTING -- FROM MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, ETCETERA. AND THAT COMMITTEE CAME FORWARD WITH A RELIGIOUS TO PUT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. IT WAS JUST AN OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE VOTERS. FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THAT WAS NEVER ACTEDc UPON. LAST YEAR THIS COUNCIL ACTED AGAIN AND THEY'D -- AND COMMISSIONED A SECOND COMMITTEE. AND AGAIN WERKS KAEM UP WITH A CONSENSUS MEMBER FOR A SECOND CITIZEN CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE. LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. THE ORIGINAL CHARTER REVISION THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER IN 1997 WcS CHARGED WITH LOOKING AT HOW WE ELECT COUNCILMEMBERS, VERY BROADLY. AND IN FACT, THERE WERE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, MIXED SYSTEMS, IRV, PROPORTIONAL VOTING. YOU LOOKED AT HOW WE ELECT OUR COUNCILMEMBERS. THEY CAME BACK WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS SHOULD BE PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS. LAST YEAR WE RECOMMISSIONED THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THAT. WE KNEW THAT THIS COMING MAY ELECTION AND SO IT BE BE HOOFD US TO HAVE AS MUCH BAT DAT TA AND INPUT AS WE COULD ON ANY NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CHARTER REVISION ISSUES. BECAUSE AT THE TIME WE THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE TO ANALYZE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, WE FORMED THAT COMMITTEE EARLY IN THE FALL. WE ALL AGREED ON THE MEMBERSHIP AND THEY TOOK UP THE IDEA OF REVISITING THAT BIG BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE HAD GATHERED OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD. LET ME READ SOME OF THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THESE COMMITTEES. MARGARET GOMEZ, CHARLES MILES, GLEN MAXEY, SE SEAL RICHARDS, ROBERT CHAPA. BOBBY BARKER. CLINT SMITH. RAYMOND CHAN. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ AND CLAIRE BERRY. OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIVERSE, VERY RESPECTED GROUP OF FOLKS IN THIS COMMUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, GUESS WHAT? THEY CAME BACK ONCE AGAIN WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO US THAT BE PUT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE CITIZENS DECIDE WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR AUSTIN AT THIS TIME. AND SO REALLY MY PRIMARY MOTIVATION IS DRIVEN BY THIS BIG BODY OF EVIDENCE GATHERED BYc A -- REALLY A PHENOMENAL GROUP OF CITIZENS, A DIVERSE GROUP OF CITIZENS, GEOGRAPHICALLY, ETEDICLY, POLITICALLY, AND THEY'VE COME FORWARD WITH VERY CLEAR ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US AS A COUNCIL. THEY'RE GOING TO -- INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH THEY WILL BE COMING FORWARD WITH SEVERAL OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER PUTTING ON THE CHARTER REVISION ELECTION IN MAY, BUT THIS WAS THE FOCUS. AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE, OUT OF RESPECT FOR HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WAS GATHERED, I THINK WE SHOULD -- I'LL SAVE THE MOTION FOR LATER. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT THAT ABILITY AND LET THE CITIZENS VOTE. ESSENTIALLY WE AS A COUNCIL, OUR VOTE IS WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT. NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSING IT OURSELVES, BUT TO GIVE THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN THE CHANCE TO SPEAK OUT IN MAY ON HOW IT IS. THAT'S ALL FOR NOW, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THANK YOU.c EXCUSE ME. I REMEMBER THE YEAR 2000 WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE, AND I KNOW WHEN THE PREVIOUS CHARTER COMMITTEE BROUGHT THE PROPOSAL TO -- ABOUT SINGLE-MPMBER DISTRICTS. I LISTENED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALSO, I JUST WONDER -- I KNOW THAT THE TIME IS OF ESSENCE, BUT HOW MANY -- OUT OF THE CHARTER MEETINGS I KNOW IT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. BUT DID WE GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WHAT WAS REALLY GOINGc ON?

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

THOMAS: ... IF YOU NEED HELP IN TAKING CARE OF THAT, YOU STILL GOT TO HAVE A VOTING SYSTEM ON YOUR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. I HAVE SEEN -- WE HAVE A SEMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT AT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. I HAVE SEEN SOME FLAWS IN THAT SYSTEM. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE, BUT I FEEL THAT TO ME A MICKED SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER -- A MIXED SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER THAN A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT ALL ACROSS. IT WOULD GIVE THE AT LARGE PEOPLE TO LOOK ALL OVER THE CITY, GIVES A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SOME WAY THEY CAN HAVE SUPPORT. I KNOW Y'ALL KNOW ABOUT POLITICS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT SUPPORT WHEN YOU ARE VOTING, YOU COULD BE OUT OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM. SO I FEEL THAT IF WE LOOK AT A MIXED SYSTEM, I WOULD -- A SYSTEM OPPOSED TO JUST A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. I THINK THAT THE HISTORY OF -- HAVE SHOWN HOW AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS HAVE GOT ON THE SYSTEM. I THINK IF WE HAD THE AT LARGE SYSTEM IT WOULD GIVE A VARIETY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYBODY ALL OVER THE CITY TO PICK. SOME AT LARGE, ALSO THE DISTRICT AREAS. THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR. I, TOO, HAVE A -- LIKE BOTH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THE FOLKS THAT SERVED ON THE TWO CHARTER REVISION COMMISSIONS. AND I'M NOT -- I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO COME DOWN AGREEING WITH THEM OR NOT. I DO THINK ONE THING I -- OF NOTE, TONIGHT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ACT TONIGHT. I THINK REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH WE RESPECT THE PEOPLE ON THE TWO COMMISSIONS, THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO HAVE A THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE VOTE, BEFORE WE PUT ANYTHING ON THE BALLOT, BEFORE THE VOTERS TO CONSIDER. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THERE MAY NOT BE A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED OR ONE THAT WILL HAVE MORE LASTING IMPACT THAN THAT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A VERY THOROUGH DISCUSSION. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PUT IT ON THE WORK SESSION AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK TO TALK ABOUT OUR OPTIONS BECAUSE I DO WANT TO CONSIDER SOME OTHER OPTIONS. I WOULD -- LIKE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE A MIX SYSTEM. THERE'S SOME -- SOME POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, THE LOWER COSTS, THE FACT THAT YOU GET GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE THAT I HEAR EXPRESS THE ARE VERY ON TARGET, LIKE THAT -- I HEARD A GENTLEMAN SAY A PRETTY GRAPHIC WAY OF PUTTING IT, I THINK, THAT COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD ONLY REPRESENT 10% OF THE POPULATION. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A VERY THOROUGH DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION ON THE IMPACT ON THE CITY AS A WHOLE. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET TOO NARROW AN INTEREST AMONG COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE WHOLE CITY. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION BECAUSE WHATEVER WE PUT ON IS NOT GOING TO PASS IF THE CITIZENS AREN'T CONVINCED ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE TURNED IT DOWN FIVE TIMES IN A ROW AND SO FAR FOR THE -- THE DEMAND IS SORT OF LIGHT THIS TIME AS WELL. AND THE -- THE SCHOOL DISTRICT I THINK HASN'T -- WENT TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND I DON'T THINK IT'S CAUSED A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT THERE. AND NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH PROBABLY THE MOST SENSITIVE ISSUE OF IT, WHICH IS THE RACE ASPECT OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. WE HAVE HEARD THAT INVOKED BY A FEW SPEAKERS HERE TONIGHT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM IS NECESSARILY BETTER RACIALLY SPEAKING FOR MINORITY CITIZENS. IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS THAT NO ONE THAT WOULD -- THAT PEOPLE COULD LIVE ANYWHERE WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM LIVING SOMEWHERE IN ANY AREA BASED ON THEIR RACE. WE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THAT IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN PARTICULAR IN AUSTIN OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. YET SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS -- IF -- IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY -- THAT PEOPLE OF RACE ARE GOING TO LIVE IN A CERTAIN DISTRICT. BUT IT CARVES OUT A DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE THE AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT, ONE OR TWO HISPANIC DISTRICTS, IT'S -- IT'S PLANNED LIKE THAT AND THAT SEEMS TO ME TO WORK AGAIN THE OVERALL GOAL OF -- THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE WHEREVER THEY WEREN'T OR AREN'T CONFINED TO LIVE IN A CERTAIN AREA BECAUSE OF RACE. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER. AND IF WE GO TO A LARGER COUNCIL, WITH THE IDEA OF JUST ONE AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY DILUTE AFRICAN AMERICAN REPRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE ONE OUT OF 10 OR 11 INSTEAD OF ONE OUT OF SEVEN. ALTHOUGH, NOW THAT -- I SAY THAT JUST BASED ON THE THEORY OF HAVING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT. NOW, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN AUSTIN IS THAT WE HAVE HAD DIVERSITY THROUGH THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW. WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON THE -- HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW WELL THAT'S -- HOW GOOD THAT'S BEEN, ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT WE HAVE A -- WE HAVE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN COUNTY JUDGE, WE HAVE AN HISPANIC, STATE SENATOR HAVE FOR MANY YEARS, WE HAVE AN HISPANIC MAYOR. AND I HOPE, I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS TO YOU, I DIDN'T GET AROUND TO MENTIONING IT TO YOU BEFORE I BROUGHT IT UP PUBLICLY, SO I HOPE YOU DON'T GET TOO MAD USING AN EXAMPLE IN MY SPEECH. I THOUGHT IF WE HAD SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT FOR THE LAST 20 TO 30 YEARS, THEN OUR MAYOR MAY HAVE NEVER SERVED ON THE CITY COUNCIL. BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN -- HE LIVES IN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT. NOW, UNDER A MIXED SYSTEM, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT OPPORTUNITY THERE. SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME -- SOME REALLY -- HE WILL PROBABLY SLAM ME BACK IN JUST A MINUTE FOR SAYING THAT. [ LAUGHTER ]. BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME REALLY SERIOUS ISSUES TO DISCUSS AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT RATHER THAN JUST VOTE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TONIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ? I'M GOING TO GO BY PLACES NOW. [ LAUGHTER ]. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TELL YOU, COUNCILMEMBER, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE TIMES THAT I RAN I RAN BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WANTED TO. [ LAUGHTER ]. KIND OF LIKE THE LAST CHOICE, THAT WAS ME.

SLUSHER: HUM.

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DO WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS FROM THE COMMISSION THAT PUT ALL OF THAT TIME AND ENERGY INTO THAT PROCESS. BECAUSE YOU GET TO HEAR NOT JUST ABOUT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS BUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUE AS WELL. SO IT'S -- I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF EXCITING DISCUSSIONS IN THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS OR SO ABOUT CHARTER ISSUES. BUT MYSELF, YEAH, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE BETTER GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND ALSO REPRESENTATION OF A DIFFERENT ETHNIC -- OF THE DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS THAT COMPRISE OUR COMMUNITY. AND SO I -- I'M IN FAVOR OF A -- OF THE STRAIGHT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT PROPOSAL, ALTHOUGH I'M OPEN TO THE IDEA OF HAVING A MIX AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE SO MANY AT LARGE THAT YOU DILUTE THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES. BUT REALLY I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE 10 DISTRICT THAT ARE PROPOSED, YOU DO GET, YOU KNOW, ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE, ACTUALLY IT'S ABOUT SIX DISTRICTS THAT ARE OVER 30% LATINO, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE IN THE AREA -- IN THE AREA TYPICALLY -- WELL, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE -- THE CLOSEST THAT WE COULD COME TO DEVELOPING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT AND THE 10 -- THE 10 DISTRICT MODEL WOULD BE THE CLOSEST THAT WE COULD GET TO FORMING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT, SO THAT'S -- I TEND TO SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH FOR THAT REASON. IF WE HAVE A MIX, THEN -- YOU KNOW, IF WE GO MUCH LOWER THAN 10 TO 8 OR SO, I THINK IT GETS VERY DIFFICULT TO DRAW MORE THAN ONE STRONG HISPANIC DISTRICT AND SO GIVE VERY MUCH THE FACT THAT THERE'S 30% HISPANIC POPULATION HERE, THOSE ARE, I THINK, ONE OF THE SERIOUS ISSUES THAT WE ALL NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT TO PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS. BUT -- BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, IT REQUIRES, MORE DISCUSSION, APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO CAME OUT TO -- TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS, YOU KNOW, AND WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING, I MEAN, PEOPLE WOULD ASK ME IF I WAS FOR OR AGAINST SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. I WOULD SAY I'M FOR THEM BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT THE CITY IS TOO LARGE TO -- TO CONTINUE TO ASK OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO RUN CITY-WIDE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION THAT VOTES, WHICH IS -- I WOULD SAY 20, 30, 40,000 PEOPLE THAT VOTE REGULARLY. AND SO -- SO WHEN YOU CAMPAIGN, THOSE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING INFORMATION. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE WAY THAT PEOPLE RUN CAMPAIGNS. AND SO YOU BASICALLY ALIENATING 650,000 PEOPLE WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING YOUR CAMPAIGN AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE DON'T GO VOTE. BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS RUNNING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANY INFORMATION. AT LEAST THAT'S PARTLY THE REASON. SO I THINK -- AGAIN IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO REPRESENT THE VIEWS AND INTERESTS OF -- OF 700,000 PEOPLE. WHICH IS MORE THAN THE -- OUR STATE SENATOR, OUR STATE REPS, PRETTY CLOSE ON WHAT -- TO WHAT OUR CONGRESSMAN PROBABLY REPRESENTS. SO I DO THINK IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE. I LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THIS WITH MY COLLEAGUES, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE, TOO, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, THAT WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE WAS, FOR ANY OF THE OTHER PROTOTYPES, A POTENTIAL MAP WITH DEMOGRAPHICS WORKED OUT. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ONE. TY THOUGHT THAT WE HAD TWO, BUT I HAVE ONLY FOUND ONE AND THAT WAS THE 8 MEMBER DISTRICTS. BEFORE I WAS ELECTED, I DEFINITELY SUPPORTED SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. NOT A MIXED SYSTEM, A STRAIGHT SYSTEM WITH ONLY THE MAYOR BEING ELECTED AT LARGE AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT MAYOR, WHO I LOVE AND ADMIRE. NOW THAT I HAVE BEEN ELECTED A WHILE, I THINK MORE THAN THE MAYOR NEEDS TO BE ELECTED AT LARGE TO KEEP A BALANCE SO THAT THE NOT SO TOTALLY FOCUSED ON THE MAYOR AS BEING THE ONE AND ONLY PERSON WHO WOULD REPRESENT THE CITY OR WHO WOULD HAVE INTERESTS IN ALL PARTS OF THE CITY. SO I THINK THAT THE -- THE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS AND THEIR COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD BE MUCH MORE -- OH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WORD I WANT HERE -- BUT SOME OF THE DOWN SIDES PUT FORWARD ARE ASSUMPTIONS THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS FROM A SMALL DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT AND -- AND THE WELL-BEING OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE. AND ACTUALLY IF YOU WERE THINKING THAT, THEN A LARGER NUMBER OF COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD BE BETTER THAN A SMALLER NUMBER. BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET A VOTE, AND A MAJORITY VOTE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A GREATER NUMBER OF COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WERE IN FACT INVOLVED IN UNDERSTANDING OF AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT IN THEIR DISTRICT. THAT -- THAT TOOK A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO UNDERSTAND AND SO COULD NOT HELP BUT MAKE YOU INVOLVED IN THE REST OF THE CITY. WHEN JENNIFER GALE SPOKE EARLIER, AND SHE MENTIONED WHAT WAS VERY -- A VERY LARGE NUMBER, 32, AND IN ONE WAY I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUCH A CULTURE SHOCK THAT EVEN IF WE WERE INCLINED TO GO TO A LARGER NUMBER, I DON'T THINK THAT WE COULD GO FROM 7 TO 32. PEOPLE JUST WOULD GO, NO, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. BUT IF ULTIMATELY WE GET TO A NUMBER LIKE THAT, IT WOULD TAKE, YOU KNOW, 17 PLUS -- TO MAKE A SUPER MAJORITY FOR A VALID PETITION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT WOULD BE 20 WHATEVER. SO A VALID PETITION ISSUE, FOR INSTANCE, IN ONE PART OF TOWN WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE THE INVOLVEMENT AND INTERESTS OF MUCH MORE THAN ONE COUNCILMEMBER FROM ONE AREA. NOT THAT I'M PROPOSING THAT, BUT I DID THINK OF THAT AS PEOPLE WERE TALKING. I WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK WE ARE TOO LARGE FOR A SOLELY AT LARGE SYSTEM. MR. BURKE IS RIGHT, ALTHOUGH I WAS PRETTY SURE I ANSWERED HIS E-MAIL. I REMEMBER HIS NAME AND I REMEMBER THE GUSHER. WHAT I MAY HAVE DONE SINCE I AM PERPETUALLY BEHIND IN MY E-MAIL IS PROBABLY FORWARD YOU TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, TO CHRIS LIPPE OR WHOMEVER. IF I DIDN'T ANSWER YOU, I APOLOGIZE, I'M USUALLY ABOUT 700 BEHIND AND IT MAY BE THAT I FORWARD IT AND ANSWER YOU LIKE TWO WEEKS LATER HAD I GET TO THE BOTTOM OF MY LIST. AND THE OTHER ISSUE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN SAY THAT WITH A SMALLER AREA AND A LOWER AMOUNT TO RAISE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN A RAISE, THAT A BIG MONEY CONTRIBUTOR COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT THAT CAN BE BALANCED OUT. AND THAT WITH A SMALLER NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO VISIT, A PERSON, A CANDIDATE, COULD CONCEIVABLY VISIT WITH MOST OF THE FOLKS IN THEIR AREA. THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE GROUP MEETINGS AND STICK AROUND FOR A WHILE, RATHER THAN THE SORT OF ENDORSEMENT DANCE THAT WE DO NOW WHERE YOU RUSH FROM ONE SIDE OF THE CITY TO THE OTHER AND HOPE THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT IN 12 MINUTES. SO THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WOULD ALLOW A VERY GRASS ROOTS CAMPAIGN, WITH NOT A LOT OF MONEY, TO STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND STILL MAKE THE CONNECTIONS WITHIN THAT DISTRICT INTO THOSE PEOPLE. SO I STILL BELIEVE THAT -- THAT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS DOES HAVE A PLACE IN GOVERNMENT. I DON'T THINK HERE WE NEED A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE THAT AS WITH JUST HAVING THE MAYOR BEING THE AT LARGE CANDIDATE, I THINK IT WOULD -- IT WOULD PLACE TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY, TOO MUCH WORK, ON ONE PERSON AND I TEND TO THINK THAT THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES WOULD THEN DE FACTO BECOME VERY PROVENCIAL, VERY UNINVOLVE. I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE NOTHING WRITTEN IN FRONT OF ME SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTICULAR MIXES WERE THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR ONCE TO PUT SEVERAL CHOICES BEFORE THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN SO THAT THERE IS NOT SIMPLY ONE CHOICE OF WHAT A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT OR A MICKED SYSTEM WOULD LOOK LIKE. I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR US TO BREAK OUT OF THAT BOX AS WELL. WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME AND I'M HOPING WHEN WE DO GET BACK TOGETHER FOR BALLOT LANGUAGE AND LOOKING AT OPTIONS AND CHOICES AND NEW WAYS THAT WE DO GO BEYOND SIMPLY OFFERING ONE ALTERNATIVE TO THE VOTER. THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? FROM.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO ADD MY THANKS TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED SO DILL..... DILIGENTLY ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT YOU WENT TO, ALL OF THE RESEARCH THAT YOU DID, THANK YOU. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH CITIZENS OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. AND POSSIBLY WEEKS. AND I THINK WE WILL COME TO A CONSENSUS AND THE -- I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN -- IN ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT. AND WILL BE -- WILL BE THINKING ABOUT THOSE AND LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER CITIES DO AND WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT IN OTHER CITIES AND -- AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE WHOLE PROCESS. THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU COMING TO -- TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR SO LONG I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST STARTED. BUT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THAT I HAVE SERVED ON, I DON'T KNOW, IN THE YOU HAVE 0'S, I GUESS -- '60'S, I GUESS, RECOMMENDED A OF AND 5 THAT -- A 6 AND 5 THAT WENT DOWN IN FLAMES. THOSE REVISIONS TO THE CHARTER HAVE COME BACK. I HAVE CHANGED MY VIEWS CAN REGARD TO -- WITH REGARD TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. I DID THAT WAY BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY MINORITY COULD GET ON ELECTED BODIES. THE YEARS HAVE GONE, THAT HAS CHANGED. AUSTIN HAS BECOME VERY ACCEPTANT OF DIVERSITY, WE HAVE NOW SEEN HISPANICS AND AFRICAN AMERICANS, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ASIANS GET ELECTED, THAT SHOULDN'T BE TOO FAR INTO THE FUTURE. WHAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS THAT THERE'S CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN THAT HAVEN'T HAD REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL FOREVER AND A DAY. YOU TAKE THE NORTH AUSTIN CORRIDOR, YOU GO FROM WHERE BILL SPELMAN LIVES RIGHT OFF OF 38 AND A HALF AND YOU HAVE I-35 ON ONE SIDE, MOPAC ON THE NORTH, GO ALL THE WAY NORTH, THEY HAVE EVER HAD ANYBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S A BIG PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. NEVER HAS BEEN REPRESENTED ON THIS COUNCIL. MR. SHIELDS WAS HERE FROM SOUTHEAST AUSTIN. EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMEMBER LARSON, THAT'S IT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT AREA OF TOWN IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE. THE SAME THINKING FOR MILLWOOD, THE SAME THING FOR OAK HILL, SO MANY PARTS OF THIS COMMUNITY THAT NEVER HAVE HAD REPRESENTATION. AND WHEN WE WERE SMALLER, YOU KNOW, WHEN I CAME TO AUSTIN IN 1957, THERE WAS ONLY 100,000 PEOPLE HERE. AUSTIN NOW HAS WELL OVER 650,000 PEOPLE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ONE COUNCILMEMBER TO COUNT AN ELECTION -- TO MOUNT AN ELECTION, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT WELL KNOWN. AN INCUMBENT HAS SUCH GREAT ADVANTAGE OVER YOU, IT'S JUST -- UNLESS YOU HAVE A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO MOUNT A CAMPAIGN. SO WE NEED TO MAKE OUR DEMOCRACIES REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACIES. WHERE PEOPLE CAN HAVE A COUPLE OF TACO DINNERS OR HAMBURGER DINNERS, RAISE SOME FUNDS AND RUN A CAMPAIGN THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD BASED. AND HAVE THEIR ISSUES FROM THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD BROUGHT HERE. THAT PERSON HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF BRINGING THE ISSUES HERE SO THAT THEY CAN BE DISCUSSED. I HAVE A THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE -- A LITTLE DIFFICULTY WITH THE MIX SYSTEM BECAUSE THE MIX SYSTEM CREATES TWO KINDS OF COUNCILMEMBERS. ONE THAT'S AT LARGE AND ONE THAT'S BY DISTRICT. AND, YOU KNOW, THERES DIFFICULTY FIGURING OUT -- IF I WAS -- WELL, THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS IF YOU ARE A COUNCILMEMBER ELECTED AT LARGE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ONES ELECTED FROM DISTRICTS? OBVIOUSLY, NOT, I MEAN YOU ARE JUST A COUNCILMEMBER. THE OTHER DIFFICULTY THAT I HAVE WITH THE MIX SYSTEM IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE COUNCIL LARGER TO BE ABLE TO YOU KNOW GIVE THE REPRESENTATION THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK IS NECESSARY. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S NECESSARY OR -- NOWADAYS, BUT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WHO SERVED SO DILIGENTLY, FAITHFULLY, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. WENT OUT AND DID FOCUS GROUPS AND FOUND OUT THAT RACE AND ETHNICITY ARE NO LONGER THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. NOW IT'S ACCOUNTABILITY. GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE MOST IMPORTANT. SO -- SO I WOULD LIKE FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, I YOU KNOW THE REASON THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKING AT ALL DURING THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HERE, I HAVE BEEN READING MY E-MAILS. SOMEBODY HAS BEEN MOUNTING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT BECAUSE ALL OF THIS E-MAILS COMING IN ARE AGAINST SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY I HAVE ERASED, BUT I HAVE ERASED A BUNCH OF THEM. THEY ALL SAME THE SAME THING.

WYNN: AFTER HE READ THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: OF COURSE AFTER I READ THEM FULLY. I DON'T READ MIKE LEVY'S FULLY, BUT THE OTHERS I DO. [ LAUGHTER ]. ANYWAY, THINK ABOUT IT. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS CORRECT. WE NEED TO PUT IT ON THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK, SO THE COUNCIL CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS. I THINK THAT A CITY THAT HAS REPRESENTATION FROM ALL ITS PARTS IT'S GOING TO BE A CITY THAT FEELS BETTER ABOUT THE -- ABOUT ITS DEMOCRACY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. AND LIKE I THINK SUZANNA SAID, THIS IS THE ONLY CITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, THAT'S OUR SIZE OR LARGER. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND --

ALVAREZ: I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT I GUESS SOME OF THE FOLKS IN EAST --

ALVAREZ: THAT I GUESS SOME OF THE FOLKS IN EAST AUSTIN HAVE BEEN RAISING. I ASSUME IF YOU RUN IN A DISTRICT AND ARE ELECTED IN TERMS OF THE RECALL PROCESS, ONLY THE FOLKS IN YOUR DISTRICT COULD RECALL YOU, COULDN'T BE LIKE THE REST OF THE CITY COULD VOTE TO RECALL A DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT -- OUR LEGAL STAFF COULD ADDRESS?

SINCE THE RECALL PROVISION IS IN THE CHERRY, I CAN WRITE THAT ANY WAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT. IN THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DRAFT THIS, I WAS ASSUMING -- YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- WHEN WE DO PRODUCE LANGUAGE, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK MY ASSUMPTIONS ON THESE THINGS, THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO JUST MAKE THE RECALL PROVISIONS PROPORTIONATE TO THE DISTRICT. SO RIGHT NOW, A RECALL REQUIRES A PETITION OF 10% OF THE VOTERS TO THE CITY. AND THEN OF COURSE THE WHOLE CITY GETS TO VOTE ON THE RECALL. THE MOST -- I'M ASSUMING WHAT YOU WILL WANT TO DO WOULD BE, IF YOU GO TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, WOULD THAT BE A RECALL WOULD BE 10% OF THE VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT TO INITIATE IT AND THEN OF COURSE ONLY THE VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT WOULD VOTE ON THE RECALL. BUT -- BUT I THINK IT'S -- IT MAKE SENSE THAT ONLY THE VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT WILL VOTE ON THE RECALL AS TO HOW TO PETITION FOR THE RECALL. OF COURSE THERE'S -- THERE'S AS MANY OPTIONS AS YOUR IMAGINATION CAN COME UP WITH. BUT I WAS JUST ASSUMING FOR THE PROVISION WOULD BE JUST TO MAKE THAT PROPORTIONATE.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS A CONCERN IS IF THERE'S FOLKS THAT LIVE IN A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ELECT "THEIR" REPRESENTATIVE, THE CONCERN THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS OR DISTRICT THAT COULD THEN DECIDE WHETHER THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT.

YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE RECALL ONLY THE DISTRICT THAT -- THAT WOULD ELECT THE MEMBER. I THINK THAT'S LOGICAL. BUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO STICK WITH 10% OF THE VOTER IN THE DISTRICT AS A NUMBER TO INITIAL WHY IT A RECALL PETITION, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO.

ALVAREZ: OKAY.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T PREPARED TO ACT TONIGHT, WHICH IS FINE. I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE WE POSTED THIS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AGO. WHEN WE REUPPED THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER, IT WAS FOR ESSENTIALLY THIS MONTH BECAUSE OF THE UPCOMING ELECTION. THAT'S FINE. IF WE DO POST IT FOR A WORK SESSION, I WOULD LIKE TO -- THE STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND POST IT FOR ACTION AGAIN AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION. BUT IF I COULD JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. AS AN EXAMPLE, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH SUGGESTED THAT WE TAKE THIS WEEK AND STUDY OTHER CITIES AND DO WHATNOT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO CHARTER REVISION COMMISSIONS HAVE DONE FOR THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS, THEY HAVE BROUGHT IN EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ACADEMIC EXPERTS REGARDING VOTING RIGHTS. WE HAVE -- THEY'VE WORN IT OUT. THAT HUGE BODY OF EVIDENCE IS WHAT TWICE THEY HAVE BROUGHT TO US. VERY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THE REASON WHY WE WON'T HAVE TO DO THAT FOR A WEEK BECAUSE THEY SPENT TWO YEARS AND MORE DOING THAT. LASTLY, I KNOW THAT MAYOR PRO TEM HAD A -- HAD A COMMENT ABOUT WE SHOULD TRY TO PUT AS MANY OPTIONS AS PERHAPS -- PERHAPS AS POSSIBLE TO THE -- ON THE ELECTION IN MAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. STEINER, IF HE WOULD, JUST TO REMIND US. I THOUGHT WE HAD BEEN TOLD BEFORE THAT THE STATE LAW PROHIBITS US VOTING IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND IN FACT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH ONE PLAN UP OR DOWN.

STATE LAW REQUIRES EACH BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT TO BE VOTED UP OR DOWN. IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR CHOOSING FROM A MENU OF OPTIONS. SO EACH PROPOSITION IS AN UP OR DOWN ISSUE. OF COURSE THAT WOULD CREATE A BIG DIFFICULTY IF YOU PUT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PROVISIONS AND MORE THAN ONE OF THEM PASSED. SO PRETTY MUCH I THINK THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE TO PICK A -- PICK A PLAN AND GIVE IT TO THE VOTERS FOR AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.

WYNN: OKAY.

GOODMAN: I STILL THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT. I MEAN, OTHER PLACES HAVE DONE IT WHERE THEY HAD TWO OR THREE CHOICES. TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT KIND OF NUMBER MICKS. -- NUMBER MIXES.

WYNN: I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A MOTION OR NOT. I GUESS WE WOULD BE POSTPONING THIS FOR A WEEK AND ASKING STAFF TO POSTPONE IT FOR THE WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, TO POST IT FOR THE WORK SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, TO POST IT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON THURSDAY. THAT WOULD BE THE -- THE 14TH. MS. BROWN, IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS ITEM TO YOU FOR INCLUSION IN THE BALLOT, YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BY I THINK THEY TOLD ME BY MARCH 7TH? IS THAT CORRECT?

CLERK BROWN: I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

THE LAST DATE TO CALL THE ELECTION WILL BE MARCH THE 21ST. THAT'S THURSDAY THE 21ST. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU WILL WANT TO BE DOING TOO MUCH TINKERING WITH THE DOCUMENT ON THAT DAY. SO -- SO THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE THE 21ST IS THE 7TH. SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE -- BE BEST TO -- TO WORK OUT THE VERY FINAL ISSUES ON THE 7TH. SO THAT WHEN YOU MEET FOR THE 21ST, THE DOCUMENT IS GOOD TO GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

THAT GIVES YOU, INCLUDING THE 7TH, THREE MORE COUNCIL MEETINGS TO WORK OUT ALL OF THE DETAILS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL NEED EVERY ONE OF THOSE.

YES, SIR. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND POST FOR THE WEDNESDAY, FOR THE WORK SESSION. THEN FOR THURSDAY THE 14TH, THE 28TH AND MARCH THE 7TH FOR ACT. ONE OTHER THING, -- FOR ACT. ONE OTHER THING, MR. STEINER, DO WE NEED TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THIS?

YOU HAVE HAD ALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT THAT COUNCIL HAS SCHEDULED. OF COURSE COUNCIL IS FREE TO SCHEDULE MORE.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK THE CHIEF PROPONENT OF THIS PARTICULAR -- DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS, COUNCILMEMBER?

WYNN: I DON'T THINK THEY ARE NECESSARY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WE WILL HAVE THIS ITEM AS AN ACTION ITEM WHERE PEOPLE CAN SIGN UP TO SPEAK, BUT IT WILL BE MOSTLY, YOU KNOW, FOR -- FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION. FOR LET SEE THE 28TH -- THE 28TH WE WANT TO HAVE AN ITEM THAT -- THAT WILL NOT ALLOW PUBLIC DISCUSSION, WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE THE RULES, WE WILL TAKE ACTION ON THAT ON THE -- ON THE 14TH.

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

THOMAS: MAYOR? MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: SEEING THAT WE ARE GOING BACK AND DOING A LOT OF MORE LOOKING INTO THIS, I DO COMMEND THE CHARTER COMMITTEE FOR DOING WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. BUT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT ON ONE ON ONE. I MEAN, WHEN YOU GET THE INFORMATION, YOU REALLY MAYBE TALK TO SOME OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, YOU WILL FIND THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WHEN I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO HERE, IT'S A DIFFERENT ASPECT AND PEOPLE REALLY REALIZE IT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CUTTING OUT -- I DON'T SEE HAVING A LOT OF MORE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT MAYBE ONE MORE BEFORE WE -- ONCE WE GET EDUCATED, ONCE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE, HOW ARE WE NOTIFYING THE PEOPLE ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, BESIDES JUST OVER THE COUNCIL MEETINGS? BECAUSE THE TURNOUT WE HAVE BEEN GETTING IS JUST PRETTY -- PRETTY POOR. SO I JUST WONDER WHAT TYPE OF -- HOW ARE WE COMMUNICATING TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING? I GUESS FOR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: JOE? ONE, TWO, THREE.

I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.

THOMAS: WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION, PUBLICATION, HAVE WE DID FOR THE LAST THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR -- TO LET THE CITIZENS KNOW ABOUT THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS?

I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, COUNCILMEMBER. I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME FLIERS OR PIECES OF INFORMATION SHARED BUT I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY THE PUBLICATIONS AND ALL THE SOURCES THAT -- THAT WERE GENERATED. I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.

MAYBE TWO YEARS, BUT I CAN REMEMBER WHEN I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL THAT WAS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. THEY WASN'T AWARE ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON. THAT'S WHY THE -- MAYBE IF WE JUST COULD DO ONE MORE PUBLIC HEARING, I FEEL ADVERTISE BETTER THAN WHAT WE DONE, I THINK WE MIGHT GET BETTER RESULTS.

IF THAT'S THE CHOICE OF THE COUNCIL, WE CAN GENERATE WHATEVER NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WE ARE AGAIN TO SUMMARIZE, NEXT WEDNESDAY WE WILL HAVE A WORK SESSION, THE THURSDAY -- THE FOLLOWING DAY ON THURSDAY, WE WILL HAVE THIS ITEM FOR ACTION, THE SAME THING FOR THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY, THE 7TH OF MARCH. NOT -- WE DON'T HAVE IT -- A WORK SECOND, WE WILL JUST HAVE THE ACTION ITEMS ON THE THURSDAY AGENDA. THE NEXT ITEM THAT I WILL CALL UP, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, IS ITEM NO. 40, AND ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE LIST OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS. I WILL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. (READING INTO THE RECORD APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS) I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. DID WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

CLERK BROWN: NO, SIR. NOT ON 41.

ON SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT, WE HAVEN'T CLOSED IT? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO.41, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. TO BE ABLE TO DO ITEM NO. 42, THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE FOR ITEM 42, THE -- THE LEGAL STAFF HAS -- I GUESS SOME MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL HAVE ASKED THAT THEY RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE ON THE APPEAL AND THAT LEGAL ADVICE UNDER THE LAW CAN BE GIVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO I WOULD ANNOUNCE AT THIS TIME THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.071, PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS, TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING THE APPEALS RELATED TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6301 WOODROW AVENUE. HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS WITH QUICKLY AND WE WILL BE BACK HOPEFULLY TO TAKE ACTION AND LISTEN TO THE SPEAKERS. I'M SORRY. THERE'S -- SIX -- ABOUT 15 OR 20 SPEAKERS. WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

GAWRTS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION HE WILL ALSO DO PERSONNEL MATTERS, EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE AND CONSIDER THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY CLERK. WE WILL DO THAT AND THEN WE WILL COME OUT AND DO THE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE LEFT ON THE AGENDA.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, RECONVENING. AND I BELIEVE THAT OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 42. TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER TWO APPEALS OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE SERVICE. I ASSUME THAT MEANS CHILD CARE SERVICE. WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ENROLLMENT CAP AND TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL STREETS PROHIBITED IN THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED AT 6301 WOOD ROW AVENUE. THE FIRST APPEAL IS BEING MADE BY DR. CLIFFORD HOBBS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHURCH. THE SECOND AND SEPARATE APPEAL IS BEING MADE BY ANNE AND RICHARD THAMES, PROPERTY OWNERS. CITY STAFF?

GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE JUST A FEW MOMENTS OF YOUR TIME TO EXPLAIN HOW WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED THIS EVENING. LTED THE NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHURCH BACK IN 1999 REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CHILD CARE FACILITY AT THEIR WOOD ROW AVENUE SITE. AND AT THAT TIME THE PLANNING KPLITION PLACED SEVERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IN I THINK IT WAS LATE SUMMER OF LAST YEAR, 2001, NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHURCH CAME TO THE CITY TO REQUEST A REVISION TO THAT ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND BASICALLY THE REVISION WAS TO ADDRESS THE ENROLLMENT CAP OF 50 STUDENTS PLACED ON THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL AS AN ACCESS PROHIBITION FROM ARCADIA AND ALGRIA AVENUES. THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION IN HEARING THIS CASE IN NOVEMBER AND -- WELL, THERE WERE TWO MEETINGS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AND THEN WAS FOLLOWED THE NEXT MEETING WITH A VOTE. THEY AGREED TO INCREASE THE ENROLLMENT CAP TO 75 STUDENTS AND ALLOW ACCESS TO BOTH ALEGRA AND ARCADE I CAN'T FOR DROPOFF AND PICKUP. STAFF IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING AND PLATTING CONDITION THIS YEAR BASICALLY UPHELD THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, WOODROW AVENUE WAS ALREADY CLASSIFIED AS OVERBURDENED, I THINK MAY BE ONE TERM THAT'S USED. AND WE ALSO HAD THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES. THE CHURCH ITSELF HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR QUITE AWHILE AND PRECEDES ANY OF OUR COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO RESIDENCES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S TO BE USED FOR THE ACCESS THROUGH THE SITE FROM TWOT STREETS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WASN'T LISTENING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER SINCE I DIDN'T KNOW WE WOULD DO THIS. WE START OFF WITH THE APPELLANTS; IS THAT CORRECT, AND WE GO ONE AT A TIME OR CAN WE DO APAL LANT APPELLANT?

IF YOU DO EACH SIDE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WAY. DAVID?

YEAH, THIS HEARING IS FOR BOTH APPEALS, YOU SHOULD ALLOW EACH APPELLANT TO MAKE THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO WE COULD DO -- SO WE COULD FIRST DO DR. HOBBS, THEN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING COME THE THAMES AND THEN EACH OF THEM REBUT THE OTHER?

WELL, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU FIRST HEAR FROM EACH APPELLANT, THE CHURCH AND RESIDENTS. THEN YOU ALLOW COMMENTS BY THOSE SUPPORTING OUR OPPOSING EACH SIDE. AND THEN AFTER THOSE COMMENTS YOU WOULD ALLOW REBUTTAL BY EACH SIDE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. DR. HOBBS? DR. CLIFFORD HOBBS?

OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS -- [INAUDIBLE].

GOODMAN: WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR MAIN SPEAKER THEN, THE FIVE-MINUTE SPEAKER?

MAYOR GARCIA: AS AN AAPPEAL LANT YOU HAVE -- APPELLANT YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS FIVE MINUTES, THE CHURCH HAS FIVE MINUTES.

I HAVE SOME HANDOUTS. WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DISTRIBUTE THESE? GOOD EVENING MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JIM SHACK HE WILL FORD, I'M A DEACON AND TRUSTEE AND LIFELONG MEMBER AT THE CHURCH. TO GIVE YOU A HISTORY OF OUR CHURCH. WE'VE BEEN AT THE ADDRESS SINCE 1951. OUR FACILITY WAS BUILT THAT YEAR. IT'S BEEN REMODELED AND EXPANDED IN THE 1960'S AND AGAIN IN THE 1970'S. IN 1999 AS YOUR STAFF MEMBER MENTIONED THE CITY COUNCIL -- THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS ON IT THAT INCLUDED AN ENROLLMENT CAP OF 50 STUDENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES HAS REVIEWED OUR FACILITY AND REVIEWED OUR OPERATION AND HAS LICENSED US TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 137 CHILDREN. THERE WERE CONCERNS AT THE TIME THAT THE ZONING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THERE WERE CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT NOISE AND TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT BE RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF OUR CHILD CARE FACILITY. FRANKLY, WE SHARED THOSE CONCERNS AND WE WERE A LITTLE BIT UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL, BUT WE FELT CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD OPERATE OUR CHILD CARE FACILITY IN A MANNER THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. WE OPENED OUR CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN THE YEAR 2000. AND SINCE OPENING WE'VE HAD NO COMPLAINTS EXPRESSED TO US DIRECTLY ABOUT TRAFFIC OR NOISE EXCEPT FOR ONE INSTANCE EARLY IN OUR OPERATION WHEN OUR TRASH PICKUP OPERATOR CAME AT THE WRONG TIME EARLY IN THE MORNING, AND WE CORRECTED THAT SITUATION AND WE'VE HAD NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT. SINCE THEN. WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS BY FOCUSING ON PROVIDING QUALITY NURTURING CARE FOR CHILDREN THAT WERE ENTRUSTED TO US BY THEIR PARENTS. WE'VE GOT AN EXCELLENT STANDING WITH THE STATE, WHICH IS THE LICENSING AUTHORITY FOR CHILD CARE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WE'VE HAD NO INCIDENTS REPORTED BY THEM OR TO THEM. THE APPLICATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU NOW IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ENROLLMENT CAP TO GO TO 100 CHILDREN. THE PROTECTING REGULATORY SERVICES WILL PERMIT US TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 137 CHILDREN. APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WILL DO SEVERAL OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS. THE INCREASED ENROLLMENT WILL ALLOW OUR CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER TO BECOME ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL JOBS FOR CHILD CARE WORKERS. IT WILL ALLOW US TO ALSO PROVIDE CHILD CARE SERVICES IN AN AREA OF AUSTIN THAT NEEDS THIS SERVICE. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE RECENTLY CLOSED OR RELOCATED. THIS APPROVAL WILL NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT WILL NOT INCREASE BUILDING AREA, IT WILL NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY EXTERIOR CHANGES TO OUR PROPERTY AND WILL NOT REQUIRE SITE PLAN OR ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS CHANGE. IT WILL ALSO -- IT WILL NOT INCREASE THE NOISE LEVELS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND ONE OF OUR ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS WILL SPEAK FURTHER TO THAT. IT WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC ON WOODROW BY LESS THAN TWO PERCENT OF ITS EXISTING LOAD, AND THOSE LOAD CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON CITY STAFF ANALYSIS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT MAY ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN THAT SINCE OVER TWO-THIRDS OF THE CHILDREN THAT WE SERVE AND THAT WE PROJECT TO SERVE WITH OUR CHILD CARE FACILITY ARE LOCATED WITHIN TWO MILES OF OUR CHURCH. IT WILL ALLOW US TO OFFER AFTER SCHOOL CARE AND AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING AND SUMMERTIME PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WHICH WE CURRENTLY CAN'T DO WITH OUR ENROLLMENT CAP OF 50. AND FINALLY, IT WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDING QUALITY CARE TO MORE CHILDREN. AND I'D ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

: PART OF THE THING IS WHEN THE SURGERY SENT OUT A MESSAGE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAD GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH US OR WE HAD CONTACTED THEM, WE HAD MEETINGS, WE CAME TO A COMPROMISE. WE THOUGHT AT THE TIME IN 1999. AT THE TIME THERE WAS SOME NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE 300 FEET. AT THAT POINT, THERE WAS THE RESPONSE OF ABOUT 6 OR 7 PEOPLE THAT WERE AGAINST CHILD CARE OR LIMITED CHILD CARE. AND ONE OR TWO FOR. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WENT AHEAD AND DID A -- AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY AND GOT A LARGE RESPONSE OF 15 PEOPLE. OF WHICH ABOUT, I WANT TO SAY, 12 TO 13 OF THEM WERE AGAINST IT. AND, AGAIN, TWO OR THREE FOR. AND THIS IS BEING DIRECTLY AFFECTED FROM THE CHURCH. I UNDERSTAND THE CHURCH HAS MORE SUPPORTERS AROUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED. MY WIFE HAS BEEN THERE FOR 10 YEARS, BORN AND RAISED IN AUSTIN. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE MYSELF IN '86. WE LOVE THE LITTLE COMMUNITY. IT'S FAMILY. YOU KNOW, ZONED ZF3. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CHURCH BEING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS THERE BEFORE WE GOT THERE. BUT WHEN IT GOT TO THE POINT THAT WITH THE DAYCARE, THEN ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES COME ABOARD, THAT EVERY NIGHT THERE'S SOMETHING BEING RUN AT THE CHURCH. THERE'S CONSTANT TRAFFIC. TO SIT THERE AND SAY THERE WON'T BE THAT MUCH OF AN INCREASE WITH DOUBLING THE ENROLLMENT -- THE REASON WHY I'M HERE TODAY IS ON THE APPEAL FOR THE PLOANGS LATTING COMMISSION. THEY HAD GONE THROUGH, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS THERE IN FAVOR OF MAYBE RAISING IT TO 75, BUT LIMITING THE ACCESS. BUT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO COME TO A DECISION OR THEY CAME TO THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT. WE ARE ASKING THAT WE STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS GRANTED AND COMPROMISED BACK THEN AT THAT TIME. I KNOW THEY SAID THEY HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY STARTED PROVIDING THE SERVICE. I KNOW THERE'S THINGS THEY HAD TO DO TO GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET BACK TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO WHAT WE AGREED TO. AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS -- HAS AGREED TO IS JUST LIMITED TO 50 WITH LIMITED ACCESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR NAME IS SHACKLEFORD.

NO, THAT WAS JIM, I'M RICHARD THAMES.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF I CAN FINE YOUR CARD. LET ME CALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, OKAY. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHURCH WAS -- YOUR NAME?

JIM [INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MR. HOBBS, CLIFFORD HOBBS. AND BETTY HOBBS. POLLY WILLMONT.

I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DAYCARE AT NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHURCH. THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN OPPOSITION TO THE DAYCARE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED WAS THE OTHER ACTIVITIES AT THE CHURCH. THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAYCARE. AND THOSE WILL BE CONTINUED WHETHER THERE'S A DAYCARE THERE OR NOT. WHETHER WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A DAYCARE. THE CHURCH HAS ACTIVITIES AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ACTIVITIES. THE ISSUE OF NOISE WAS BROUGHT UP AT TIMES PAST. WE HAVE A PLAYGROUND THAT IS AT LEAST -- ALMOST TWICE AS FAR AWAY FROM OUR NEIGHBORS, THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR AS IT NEEDS TO BE. THE -- THE MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS ARREST THE LEAST THREE TIMES AS FAR AWAY FROM THE PLAYGROUND AS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE. WE ALSO HAVE HAD TO ISSUE -- THE ISSUE OF PROPERTY VALUES BROUGHT UP IN TIMES PAST. AND IN THE YEARS -- FROM THE YEAR BEFORE WE STARTED THE DAYCARE UNTIL 19 -- UNTIL 2001, THE PROPERTY VALUES INCREASED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY SOMETHING LIKE 87%. SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT WE HAD ANY PART IN THE DECREASE IN ANYBODY'S PROPERTY VALUES. ANOTHER MAJOR CONSIDERATION IS TRAFFIC. THIS ALWAYS RINGS EVERYBODY'S BELL. THERE'S NO DENYING THERE WILL BE SOME INCREASE IN TRAFFIC DUE TO THE INCREASE THE DAYCARE ENROLLMENT. BASED ON THE DATA I WILL PRESENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE WILL BE MINIMAL AND WILL HAVE NO -- WILL CREATE NO HARDSHIP FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC BY APPROXIMATELY 100, ONE-WAY TRIPS ON WOODROW OR ABOUT 1.7% TOTAL TRAFFIC ON ROAD ROW. BEFORE HE EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A DAYCARE, THE TRAFFIC ON WOODROW WAS RATED TO BE 37% MORE THAN THEY WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO HAVE. SO OUR IMPACT IS NEGLIGIBLE COMPARED TO THE TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ON WOODROW. AND MORE UNDERSTANDABLE TERMS, THIS INCREASE WOULD MEAN THAT IN THE MORNING, IN THE AFTERNOON, 25 CARS WILL PICK UP OR DROP OFF CHILDREN OVER A TWO AND A HALF HOUR PERIOD. THIS TRANSLATES TO ABOUT 10 CARS PER HOUR DURING THIS PERIOD. BASED ON THE PREFNT ENROLLMENT, WE ESTIMATE THAT -- ON THE PRESENT ENROLLMENT WE ESTIMATE A THIRD TO TWO-THIRDS WOULD BE ON THIS OR A NEARBY STREET EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT DROPPING OFF A STUDENT. APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF OUR PUPILS COME FROM THE IMMEDIATE ZIP CODE, 78757, ANOTHER THIRD COMES FROM THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING ZIP CODES, AND ANOTHER THIRD COME FROM -- FROM FURTHER POINTS. WE ASSUME THAT ANY INCREASE WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME PATTERNS. INCLUDING PROJECTED INCREASES IN A -- ON THE FEARED STREETS, ALLEGRIA WOULD BE OPERATING AT UNDER 20% OF THE CITY'S DEFINED DESIRABLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC, SECTION 256 .116 --

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, GIVE HIM SIX MORE MINUTES, HE HAD TWO PEOPLE DONATE TIME TO HIM AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T TELL YOU AT THE BEGINNING. SO -- SO YOU HAVE SIX MORE MINUTES.

YES, SIR, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T NEED TO USE THEM ALL.

ARCADE I CAN'T, LET ME BACK UP, LET ME SAY ALLEGRIA WOULD BE OPERATING AT LESS THAN 20% OF THE ZIECIAL LEVEL DEFINED BY THE CITY. ARCADEIA WOULD BE OPERATING AT LEST THAN 14% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC TO MAINTAIN A ZIECIAL LEVEL. THE REASON -- DESIRABLE LEVEL. THE REASON WE ASKED FOR THE TWO -- ARCADEIAN AND ALLEGRIA IS THAT WE HAVE A BUS THAT WE INTEND TO USE TO PICK UP AFTER SCHOOL CHILDREN. IT'S NOT PRACTICAL FOR THAT BUS TO ENTER AND LEAVE THAT SMALL WOODROW PARKING LOT. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH USING WOODROW FOR THE REST OF THE CHILDREN. BUT WE DO NEED ACCESS, WE WILL BRING IN APPROXIMATELY 25 CHILDREN, NO MORE THAN 25, ON A BUS, ONE TRIP, BY ONE BUS TO BRING THE CHILDREN IN. AND THEN THAT AFTERNOON THE PARENTS WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK THE CHILDREN UP AND TAKE THEM HOME. THAT WOULD BE UP TO 25 PEOPLE. THAT'S WHERE THESE NUMBERS COME FROM. IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT, ALSO, THAT MOST OF THE TRAFFIC RELATED TO -- TO AFTER SCHOOL PICKUP WILL LIKELY BE -- ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS IF NOT THAT PARTICULAR ONE. THUS -- AND CREATING -- NOT ADDING ANY INCREASE TO THE TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC. BASED ON SECTION 25-6-141 (B) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE BELIEVE THAT APPROVING THIS APPLICATION WOULD RESULT IN AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC HAS FURTHER MITIGATED BY DROP JAUFS AND PICKUPS BEING MADE OVER A WIDE TIME PERIOD, ADDING VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC AT ANY GIVEN TIME SEGMENT. ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IS FINANCIAL. AFTER MEETING THE SITE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER CITY CODES OR REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AGENCIES AND ITEMS THAT WE FELT WERE NECESSARY, THE CHURCH HAS INVESTED APPROXIMATELY $60,000 IN THE FISCAL -- PHYSICAL PLANT TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYCARE, AN ADDITIONAL $40,000 HAS BEEN SPENT FOR SALARY SUPPLEMENTS. MOST OF THESE WERE BEFORE AND SOON AFTER START-UP,, HOWEVER WE HAVE TO MAKE SMALL SUPPLEMENTS STILL FROM TIME TO TIME. FURTHERMORE THE CHURCH IS BEARING AND CONTINUES TO BEAR THE COST OF UTILITIES FOR THE SCHOOL, APPROXIMATELY $25,000 TO DATE AND HAS NO PROSPECT OF RECEIVING ANY RETURN OF THIS INVESTMENT UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS. WHILE THE CHURCH STRONGLY SUPPORTED AND CONTINUES TO SUPPORTED THE DAYCARE, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT CONTINUE TO -- THIS LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOREVER. IT IS ALSO REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE DAYCARE SHOULD OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BE ABLE TO REPAY SOME OR ALL OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED. THIS MEANS SPREADING THE OVERHEAD OVER A LARGER NUMBER OF PEOPLE. WHILE THIS WILL NOT IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE FEES, IT WILL CERTAINLY DELAY INCREASES. OUR COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IS STRONG. WE HAVE A VIABLE -- BUT WE NEED A VIABLE UNIT TO REMAIN IN OPERATION. WE ARE PAYING OUR TEACHERS WELL AND WE HAVE A LOW TURNOVER RATE FOR TEACHERS. THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL ASSURE APPROXIMATELY 20 TOTAL JOBS, SOME PART-TIME, IN AN OPERATION WITH A PAYROLL IMPACT OF APPROXIMATELY $240,000 A YEAR. REJECTION WOULD PUT IN JEOPARDY MORE THAN A DOZEN EXISTING JOBS, THE IMPACT OF THIS PAYROLL SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. PARTICULARLY IN OUR PRESENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING 32 SPACES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 18 MONTHS OLD. MANY DAYCARES DON'T PROVIDE ANY SPACES FOR THE INFANTS. AND THIS IS THE MOST NEEDED AREA FOR DAYCARE IN OUR CITY. WE NEED THE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN TO PROVIDE A BALANCED PROGRAM AND TO MAINTAIN AN ECONOMICALLY STABLE UNIT. WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S TIME THAT YOU STOOD UP FOR THE NEEDS OF THE -- OF THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. WE HAVE A CAPABLE, DEDICATED STAFF, LED BY A VERY CAPABLE DIRECTOR. TO SUSTAIN THIS REQUIRES A SOLID BASE OF SUPPORT AND ENOUGH PUPILS FOR AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE UNIT. TRAFFIC AND DAYCARE SEEM TO CREATE A LOT OF EMOTIONS. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE'S NO EMOTION GREATER THAN THAT OF A YOWRNG....... YOUNG MOTHER WHO IS TAKING HER SIX MONTH OLD BABY TO THE DAYCARE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HAVING TO FIND A DAYCARE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A SECURE AND LOVING PLACE TO LEAVE THAT CHILD. WE BELIEVE THAT YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR THE TOTAL OF 100 WILL BE A VOTE FOR A SAFE, LOVING ENVIRONMENT FOR AT LEAST A FEW MORE OF THE CHILDREN OF AUSTIN. AND THEIR PARENTS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. HOBBS --

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COULD I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION. I NOTICE THAT ON SOME OF THE CARDS THAT ARE SIGNED UP, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT BRING THEIR CHILDREN TO THE DAYCARE ARE NOT NECESSARILY LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DOES YOUR CHURCH HAVE A -- HAVE A LARGE ATTENDANCE ZONE?

YES, WE ARE FAIRLY LARGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND DO YOU ACCEPT CHILDREN FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY?

WE ACCEPT CHILDREN FROM ANY RACE, ANY CREED, ANY COLOR --

SIR, YOU NEED TO GET ON THE MIC.

I'M SORRY. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO PARTICIPATE. AS I SAID A THIRD OF OUR CHILDREN COME FROM THAT IMMEDIATE ZIP CODE, TWO THIRD FROM RIGHT AROUND THERE. BUT IF SOMEBODY COMES FROM ACROSS TOWN OR EVEN ANOTHER TOWN WE CANNOT REFUSE THAT CHILD DAYCARE. BUT IT IS OPEN TO THE TOWN OR EVEN SOMEBODY FROM OUTSIDE TOWN IF THEY CHOOSE TO COME THERE. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE -- WITH THE WORK SOURCE PEOPLE, WE ARE QUALIFIED TO TAKE CARE OF THE WORK SOURCE PEOPLE. WE HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS TO NEEDY CHILDREN. WE HAVE HAD -- WE HAVE WANTED TO DO THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. BUT UNDER THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT THAT IS OUR DESIRE.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. BUT YOU SAY THAT -- HOW MANY -- HOW MANY CHILDREN COULD YOU HAVE -- DO YOU HAVE IN THE DAYCARE CENTER NOW?

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 36 OR 37, WE ARE A LITTLE LOW BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY, BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE CALLING EVERY DAY THAT ARE LOOKING FOR A JOB AND AS SOON AS THEY GET THAT JOB, THEIR CHILD IS GOING TO NEED A PLACE TO GO IN DAYCARE. WHEN THE ECONOMY RECOVERS, THERE WILL BE A BIG SURGE AND -- IN DAYCARE NEEDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND A THIRD -- LET'S SAY IF YOU WENT TO 100, ABOUT 33 WOULD BE IN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, 66 WOULD BELYOUT THE CITY.

WE ARE ASSUMING A THIRD OF THOSE, THAT 100 WILL BE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

A THIRD FROM SURROUNDING ZIP CODES AND A THIRD FROM FURTHER AWAY. THIS IS BASED ON OUR PRESENT ENROLLMENT, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE TO PROJECT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HOBBS.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANGELA HOFFMAN. AND FOLLOWING MS. HOFFMAN IS -- IS NEIL BRYANT.

...WELCOME.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ANGELA HOFFMAN, I'M CORRECTLY THE DIRECTOR AT NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER. YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO SOME PEOPLE SPEAK ON THIS. I DO AGREE WE NEED AN INCREASE IN OUR ENROLLMENT CAPACITY. ONE OF THE REASONS IS THE CITY-WIDE NEED TO CHILD CARE HERE IN THE AUSTIN AREA. SOME OF THE REASONS THAT WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR ENROLLMENT IS AS A NON-PROFIT OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY CHILD CARE. IT'S A MAJOR STEP IN EARLY EDUCATION IN A CHILD'S FORM ACTIVE YEARS, TYPICALLY FROM BIRTH UP TO THREE YEARS OF AGE. AFFORDABILITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MOST FAMILIES, STATISTICS HAVE SHOWN THAT CHILD CARE CONSUMES ONE OF THE LARGEST PORTIONS OF A FAMILY'S BUDGET AFTER HOUSING, FOOD AND TACKS, MANY MIDDLE CLASS AND LOWER INCOME FAMILIES AREN'T ABLE TO AFFORD GOOD QUALITY CARE. THEY ARE FORCED TO SETTLE FOR CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE WELL BELOW THEIR DESIRABLE STANDARDS. BY INCREASING OUR END ENROLLMENT CAPACITY WE CAN OFFER QUALITY CARE AT AN FERDABLE PRICE IN THE COMMUNITY. THE NEED FOR CHILD CARE HAS INCREASED BY 80% SINCE 1970, BUSINESS LEADERS ARE CURRENTLY PROJECTING AN UP TURN IN THE ECONOMY DEMANDING QUALITY CARE, WITH THESE STUDIES IN MIND I WOULD LIKE TO RE-EMPHASIZE THE FAST THAT 100 CENTERS HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CLOSE AS A RESULT OF FINANCIAL AND/OR STAFFING ISSUES, THESE CLOSURES HAVE CREATED AN EVEN GREATER NEED FOR CHILD CARE IN AUSTIN, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN UNDER 12 MONTHS OF AGE. AS AN ESTABLISHED CENTER, NORTHWEST BAPTIST CAN EASILY MEET THIS GROWING DEMAND BY INCREASING OUR ENROLLMENT CAPACITY AND OPENING ADDITIONAL INFANT ROOMS AT OTHER CENTER. THIRD, IT IS ALSO NOTED WHILE THE NEED FOR QUALITY CHILD CARE INCREASES, THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS IN THIS FIELD IS CONSTANTLY FLUCTUATING. THE TURNOVER RATE FOR PRESCHOOL TEACHERS IS EXTREMELY HIGH AT 26%. A LARGE FACTOR RESULTING IN THE HIGH TURNOVER RATE IS STAFF SALARIES. MOST PRESCHOOL TEACHERS ARE PAID SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN MINIMUM WAGE, BUT AT NORTHWEST WE HAVE HAD A VERY STABLE AND WELL PAID STAFF. THE TEACHERS HERE TRULY ENJOY THEIR WORK AND LOVE THE CHILDREN. BY INCREASING OUR ENROLLMENT DPAS, NORTHWEST BAPTIST WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY WHILE CONTINUING TO SUPPORT OUR CURRENT STAFF AT THEIR SALARIES, IN CONCLUSION NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER IS A CHRISTIAN BASED CENTER WITH STRONG TIE TO THE COMMUNITY. WE WOULD NEVER SOLICIT A REQUEST THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ANY TYPE OF NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORS. I STRONGLY FEEL THAT AN INCREASE IN OUR ENROLLMENT CAPACITY WOULD NOT ONLY BENEFIT THE PARENTS, CHILDREN AND STAFF CURRENTLY AT THE CENTER, BUT WOULD ALSO BE AN ADDED INCENTIVE FOR FUTURE FAMILIES RELOCATING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I SINCERELY THANK THE COMMISSION FOR THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS HIGHLY DEBATED ISSUE.

THANK YOU, MS. HOFFMAN, MR. NEIL BRYANT AND THEN AFTER MR. BRYANT MR. JAMES NASH, DON BURWELL. MR. BRYANT, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR. MY NAME IS NEIL BRYANT. I HAVE BEEN A LIFE-LONG MEMBER OF THE CHURCH, ALSO THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE DAYCARE. I WISH TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP TONIGHT. ONE OF IS THE QUESTION YOU HAD MR. GARCIA REGARDING THE MAKEUP OF THE MEMBERSHIP, WHERE THEY LIVE. MANY OF US DO COME IN FROM QUITE A WAYS OUT OF TOWN, I MYSELF LIVE IN CEDAR PARK. MY FAMILY AND I USE TO DRIVE IN TO WORSHIP HERE IN CENTRAL AUSTIN, AROUND MCCALLUM HIGH SCHOOL, THE LOCATION WHERE THE CHURCH ITSELF IS, A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM MCCALLUM THERE OFF OF KOENIG LANE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE BROUGHT UP SINCE I BECAME A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD WAS WHO DO WE NEED TO REACH? WHO ARE WE TRYING TO REACH WITH THIS DAYCARE CENTER? I'M A STATE EMPLOYEE. I HAVE BEEN NOW FOR 15 YEAR. I HAVE WORKED IN MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE CITY. AND WITHIN TWO MILES OF WHERE THIS DAYCARE IS LOCATED, ARE SOME MAJOR STATE OFFICES. AS WELL AS CITY AND FEDERAL OFFICES AS WELL. BUT YOU HAVE THE D.P.S. HEADQUARTERS, YOU HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES HEADQUARTERS, YOU HAVE THE TEXAS REHABILITATION AND THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS. THEY ARE ALL WITHIN TWO MILES OF THIS AREA. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE IN NEED OF CHILD CARE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO OFFER. AS HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY ANGELA, OUR DIRECTOR, MANY DAYCARE CENTERS DUE TO INSURANCE LIABILITIES, STAFFING LIABILITIES, SPACE, AND THE FINANCES THEY DO NOT SKETCH INFANTS, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE. INITIALLY WE SAID THAT WE WOULD ONLY ACCEPT UP TO ABOUT 20 INFANTS DUE TO STAFFING. AT THIS POINT WE HAVE SPACE AND TEACHERS FOR 32 INFANTS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT VERY QUICKLY THIS IS A NEED. BASED ON THE NUMBER OF DAYCARES THAT WE WERE IN CONTACT WITH, THAT HAD WAITING LISTS FOR WHEN THESE CHILDREN DID GET OLD ENOUGH TO BE TAKEN IN. SO WE TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UPON IS THE NOISE FACTOR. EXCUSE ME, THE NOISE FACTOR HA-HA BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY BOTH MR. SHACKLEFORD AND MR. HOBBS. THE ORIGINAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR US TO DO SOME THINGS TO OUR PHYSICAL PLAN TO TRY TO ABATE NOISE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE PLAYGROUND IN RELATION TO THE HOUSES AROUND US. WE INSTALLED A PRIVACY FENCE, WE HAVE INSTALLED SOME SHRUBBERY WHICH AS NATURE TAKES ITS COURSE IT WILL GROW TALL ENOUGH TO HELP ABATE SOME OF THAT NOISE. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS PLAYGROUND AS IT WAS BROUGHT OUT, IT IS WELL OVER TWO TIMES THE REQUIRED DISTANCE FROM ANY RESIDENCES NEAR US AND WITH US HAVING 32 INFANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 MONTHS, MAXIMUM IN OUR FACILITY, WHICH IS A THIRD OF WHAT WE ARE ASKING -- [BUZZER SOUNDING] --

MAYOR GARCIA: WOULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE.

YES, SIR, I WILL. THOSE CHILDREN DO NOT GO TO THE PLAYGROUND. THEY ARE TAKEN OUT ONCE A DAY WEATHER PERMITTING IN A CART AND ALLOWED TO GET SOME AIR. BUT THEY DO NOT GO TO THE PLAYGROUND, THEREFORE THEY WOULD NOT BE CONTRIBUTING TO A NOISE FACTOR FROM THAT PLAYGROUND.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. JAMES NASH, MR. DON VAYTON BURRWELL, IF I DIDN'T PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY AND NANCY KIRBY.

WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU GET THE MIC CLOSE TO YOU.

I CAN DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: PULL IT TOWARDS YOU, THERE YOU ARE.

BETTER?

THAT'S BETTER.

OKAY. MY NAME IS JAMES NASH. I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1316 ARCADEIA WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH. I DON'T LIVE THERE, BUT MY DAUGHTER DOES. SHE'S GOING TO SCHOOL, SO I'M SOMEWHAT MORE THAN JUST A PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES. I'M ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE SOUTH BECAVE WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SO I'M -- SOUTH BEE CAVES WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I AM HERE SUPPORTING THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS CONCERNS THAT I HAVE -- CONCERNING MY PROPERTY. THE CARD THAT I FILLED OUT TO SPEAK ASKED IF I OPPOSED OR SUPPORTED AND SINCE THERE WAS TWO APPEALS GOING ON, I JUST WANT TO CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT I AM OPPOSING THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE SERVICE WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ENROLLMENT AND ALLOW ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL STREETS. I WAS TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IN MY PRECIOUS THREE MINUTES. I DECIDED JUST ON TWO OF THEM, ONE IS, FIRST OF ALL I RECEIVED THIS NOTICE FROM THE CITY INDICATING THE MEETING TONIGHT. ON BACK OF IT IS A PLAT MAP, IT'S ALL S.F. 3. EVERYTHING AROUND THERE IS S.F. 3. OKAY? THE CHURCH IS A COMMERCIAL OPERATION. SO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENTIRE S.F. 3 WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION. THAT'S A CONCERN. ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SECOND POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT WHY AM I HERE? I THOUGHT TWO YEARS AGO THIS WAS TAKEN CARE OF. THE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GOT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEGOTIATED A SET OF CONDITIONS WHEREBY EVERYBODY WAS NOT HAPPY, BUT A COMPROMISE WAS MADE. NOW WE ARE BACK AT IT AGAIN. RICHARD BROCH, THE CHAIR OF THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS SENT YOU A COUPLE OF LETTERS, I'M JUST GOING TO READ FROM THEM BECAUSE HE STATES IT PERFECTLY, THE WAY I FEEL IS -- IS THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OFTEN ADVOCATES PROJECTS THAT MAY NOT BE PERFECT BUT THAT ARE POSSIBLE WITH THE RIGHT CONDITIONS, WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO SUCH CONDITIONS WITH NORTHWEST BAPTIST CHURCH, NO CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED THAT WOULD WARRANT INVALIDATING ANY OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH BARELY TWO YEARS AGO. WE HOPE THAT YOU ARE TO GO NEGOTIATE, WORK WITH SOLUTIONS TO DEAL WITH AUSTIN'S GROWTH, SUCH SOLUTIONS WILL REMAIN INTACT. A SECOND LETTER HE WROTE, AS AN ASSOCIATION HOW CAN WE ASK OUR MEMBERS TO SUPPORT A LAND USE THAT REQUIRES A CUP IF WE CANNOT RELY ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPROMISES WE NEGOTIATE. AMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. NASH, MR. BURRWELL AND FOLLOWING MR. BURRWELL IS NANCY KIRBY.

HI, I'M DON LAY TON BURRWELL WITH THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M AN ARCHITECT TENT AND A RESIDENT IN BRENTWOOD SINCE 1984 WHEN IT WAS STILL AFFORDABLE AND AUSTIN RESIDENT SINCE 1974. THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE. ONE IS THE STATE AS MR. HOB MENTIONED WILL ALLOW 136 STUDENTS AT THIS LOCATION. HOWEVER, THAT IS AS MUCH A MOOT POINT AS THE OTHER POINT THAT HE MADE IN SO MUCH AS THEY ARE NOT LOOKING AT ALL APPROPRIATENESS OR CAPABILITY, BUT PURELY SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN HAVE -- WE HAVE MANY STUDENTS BY THE DIVISOR. THE CITY NOTICED THAT THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GOT IN THE -- THE OWNERS AROUND THERE GOT -- SAID ONLY IN ENROLLMENT WOULD BE CHANGED. WE TALKED TO CITY STAFF. THEY ASSURED US THAT THEY WERE GOING TO -- GOING TO GO AGAINST THIS OR OPPOSE THIS. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT CHANGES IN ACCESS. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITICAL PIECES. TRAFFIC, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE -- THAT WE WANTED THIS TO BE ON WOODROW IS WOODROW IS A MINOR ARTERIAL THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ALLEGRIA AND ARCADIA ARE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. I THINK IT A REAL PROBLEM THAT THIS HAS SORT OF SLIPPED IN AFTER THE FACT AND ARE AGAIN CHANGING THE VERY NATURE OF THE USE. ENROLLMENT IS ONE ISSUE. BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ANOTHER THING IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE ACCESS. YOU KNOW, IT'S -- AS MR. HOBBS SAID, ONE TRIP, ONE BUS. AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT UNTIL TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT THIS LEVEL OF CUP AND TRYING TO AMEND IT. THE REASON THAT WE HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS FOR DAYCARE, WHETHER IT'S A CHURCH OR A COMMERCIAL VENTURE, IS BECAUSE THAT USE IS CONSIDERED TO BE POTENTIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. AGAIN, WE DID NOT WANT A DAYCARE AT ALL THERE ORIGINALLY AND WORKED WITH THEM FOR QUITE A WHILE TO COME UP WITH THE COMPROMISE OF 50, WITH THESE OTHER THINGS. WE SAID WE THINK WE CAN LIVE WITH THIS. IT HAS BEEN AN AGREEABLE SITUATION. AND NOW, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS LATER WE ARE FACED WITH LOSING ANY GROUND THAT WE HAD THERE IN GIVING THEM A COMPROMISE POSITION RATHER THAN FULL-OUT OPPOSITION THE FIRST TIME AROUND. WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT OUR APPEAL AND DENY THEM ANY CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONAL USE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BURRWELL. NANCY KIRBY. FOLLOWING MS. KIRBY IS RICHARD BROCK.

HI THERE. I REPRESENTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S CASE ORIGINALLY IN 1999, SO I KIND OF WANTED TO PRESENT A BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THAT DECISION. AND I THINK DON DID A REAL GOOD JOB. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S PRIMARY GOAL IN THIS SITUATION WAS TO MITIGATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE CHURCH. WE KIND OF SAW THAT THE USE THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WAS A GOOD USE, WE FELT LIKE THAT THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES CAME ABOUT BASED ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SCOPE. SO MUCH LIKE DON HAS POINTED OUT, THE STATE NUMBER, AN OCCUPANCY NUMBER. WHICH MEANS IT ONLY LOOKS AT THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. WHAT THE STATE HAS ALWAYS TYPICALLY DONE IS DEFER TO THE LOCAL ENTITY, YOU GUYS TO HELP US ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY ISSUES. IN DOING THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE ENROLLMENT CAP REALLY CAME ABOUT. AND AS FAR AS THE SURVEY NUMBERS THAT WE DID WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, MOST AFFECTED BY THIS DAYCARE, IT WAS OVERWHELMING 90% OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE BY THE CHURCH, THAT WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE DAYCARE DID NOT WANT IT OR WANTED TO SEE NO MORE THAN 20 KIDS. 20 IS KIND OF THE MAGICAL NUMBER BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STARTS DEFINING DAYCARES AS COMMERCIAL VENTURES, ANYTHING ABOVE 20. I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WRESTLED REALLY A LONG TIME IN COMING UP WITH 50 BECAUSE WE HAD AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T WANT ANY ENROLLMENT IN A DAYCARE. SO -- SO THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE FOUGHT LONG AND HARD OVER AND THERE WAS A LOT OF THOUGHT BEHIND THAT. THE PLAYGROUND HAD -- WAS ALSO A CONCERN. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE HEARING TONIGHT, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A VERY YOUNG POP PLAYING, SO THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF USAGE ON THAT PLAYGROUND. IF THIS NUMBER IS INCREASED BY ANY MEANS TONIGHT, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LIMITATION THEN ON THE LEVEL OF THAT PLAYGROUND. SO THAT IF WE DO INCREASE ENROLLMENT, WE DON'T SUDDENLY HAVE 100 KIDS USING THE PLAYGROUND THAT'S I BELIEVE LESS THAN 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. THE DROPOFF POINT ON WOOD WOW WAS A BIG ISSUE FOR -- WOODROW WAS A BIG ISSUE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT OFF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. WOODROW HAS ENOUGH ROOM WHERE PEOPLE CAN TURN INTO THAT PARKING LOT AND ALLOW TRAFFIC TO TURN ON TO WOODROW. IF YOU ALLOW ACCESS ON ALLEGRA, WHICH IS WHERE THE DAYCARE ENTRANCE IS, ALL OF THE PARENTS WILL DROP THEIR KIDS OFF AT THE FRONT DOOR AND CREATE A REAL TRAFFIC BACKUP, A CUING SYSTEM TO GET THEIR KIDS INTO THAT DAYCARE. SO SUMMARIZE, WE ALSO ADOPT SEE THAT ANYTHING HAS CHANGED IN TWO YEARS. WE STILL HAVE 100% S.F. RESIDENTIAL -- [BUZZER SOUNDING] -- AND WE ALSO HAVE SEVEN OTHER COMMERCIAL DAYCARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALONE. WE FEEL LIKE THE LEVEL IS ALREADY THERE. THAT SUPPORTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. KIRBY. RICHARD BROCK, FOLLOW MR. BROCK ANN EVANS THAMES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MOST EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED TO SAY HAS BEEN SAID, BUT I WANT TO REITERATE AS A MEMBER OF THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STEERING COMMITTEE, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO ENTER INTEE THESE KIND OF AGREEMENTS THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF FAITH IN THEM. IT'S A DIFFICULT SELL SOMETIMES TO GET MEMBERS TO AGREE TO A CONDITIONAL USE AT ALL. IF -- IF THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE THIS FREQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT -- DIFFICULT TO SELL ANYTHING. I KNOW THAT POINT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME PERSONALLY, I THINK TO US AS AN ASSOCIATION, I WANTED TO MAKE IT AGAIN. I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH ON -- I HAD THE PERCEPTION, I DIDN'T GO TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING MEETING WHEN THEY HEARD THIS IN NOVEMBER. BUT I DID SEE IT ON TELEVISION AND I GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM THE CHAIR THAT THEY SAW NO ONE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE MEETING AND SO THEY TOOK THAT AS A TACIT APPROVAL OF THIS NEW -- THESE NEW TERMS. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE WE RECEIVED MADE NO MENTION OF CHANGING ANY ACCESS POINTS. IT ONLY MENTIONING INCREASING THE ENROLLMENT. WHEN I INQUIRED WITH CITY STAFF, I WAS TOLD THAT -- THAT AGAIN NO MENTION IN THE E-MAIL THAT I RECEIVED BACK, THERE'S NO MENTION OF THE ACCESS, ONLY OF THE ENROLLMENT. AND FURTHER THAT THEY WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND THE ORIGINAL TERMS. I THINK THAT KIND OF DISARMED US SO WE DON'T SHOW UP. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT. TO DRIVE HOME THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO APATHY ON THIS ISSUE. THE RESIDENTS THERE FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT'S A GOOD USE. YOU KNOW, IT'S A DAYCARE, WE CAN SEE THAT, WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT IT'S THE SCOPE THAT THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT. THE IMPACT THAT CHANGING THE ACCESS POINT AND ENROLLMENT NUMBERS ARE GOING TO HAVE ON THEIR LIFE THERE AND IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I GUESS I DON'T WANT TO WAS ANY MORE OF TIME YOUR -- WASTE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME, I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BROCK. ANN EVANS THAMES.

YOU DON'T WISH TO SPEAK. YOU ARE JUST FOR THE SAME THINGS AS THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. KRISTINE ROBINSON? AFTER MS. ROB SIN SON, THE -- ROBINSON THE APPELLANTS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. SO -- SO YOU PICK ONE PERSON AND THAT PERSON WILL DO THE REBUTTAL. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. MY HUSBAND AND I BOUGHT A HOUSE ON ALLEGRIA -- WE BOUGHT A HOUSE ON ALLEGRIA ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO. WE -- IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR US BECAUSE WE REALLY ENJOY THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ENJOY THE FACILITIES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFERS. BUT IT IS -- IT IS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL STREET. AND THE TRAFFIC REALLY WORRIES US. PARKING ALREADY IS REALLY A PROBLEM. THERE'S -- THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE NOISE LEVEL. I OFTEN WORK FROM HOME AND THE -- BETWEEN ME AND THE CHILDREN, THERE'S A METAL GATE AND IF I'M TALKING TO A KLINE ON THE PHONE, I HAVE TO SHUT MY WINDOWS BECAUSE IT'S SQUEALING CHILDREN AND HAVING FUN AND I CAN'T -- I CAN'T WORK. SO WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC, THEY WERE SAYING, YOU KNOW, 100 CHILDREN. BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH TRAFFIC. BUT TO US, YOU KNOW, 100 CHILDREN IS QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC. THAT MEANS ONE CHILD ONE PARENT, ONE DROPOFF, TWICE A DAY. AND ONE THING THAT I HAVE NOTICED ABOUT THE DAYCARE, SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE, THE PROPERTY VALUE ROSE WHEN THE DAYCARE WASN'T FULL. IT'S NOT FULL NOW. IT SEEMS SILLY TO -- TO PUT MORE SPACE IN SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REALLY BEING USED TO CAPACITY. AND THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DAYCARES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO --

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. SO THE APPELLANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CHURCH, WHOEVER WANTS TO COME UP FIRST.

THANK YOU, JUST A FEW COMMENTS. WE HEARD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. ORIGINAL COMPROMISE OF ENROLLMENT AT 50. THAT WAS AN ENROLLMENT CAP SUGGESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE VIEWED IT AS A -- I GUESS A BEGINNING POINT AND NOT A FINAL EBB ROLLMENT CAP BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED OBVIOUSLY ABOUT CAPABILITY, ALSO, WE FELT LIKE IF WE COULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE COULD OPERATE A DAYCARE THAT DIDN'T IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVERSELY, WITH ENROLLMENT OF 50, THAT WE COULD ALSO INCREASE OUR LLMENT AT SOME POINT BASED ON THE TRACK RECORD THAT WE HAD ESTABLISHED. IN THE TWO YEARS THAT WE HAVE OPERATED OUR DAYCARE FACILITY, I'VE HEARD MORE THAN ONE SPEAKER HERE SAY TONIGHT THAT THERE'S -- THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN A DISAGREEABLE CONDITION ARISE, SO FAR IT'S BEEN AN AGREEABLE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S BEEN ABLE TO NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE THAT GIVEN THAT TRACK RECORD WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE OUR ENROLLMENT TO PROVE ONCE AGAIN THAT THIS WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE ZONING IS S.F. 3 AS STATED. HOWEVER, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY IS A PERMITTED USE IN SF-3 UNDER CURRENT ZONING. KEEPING IN MINE, OF COURSE, WHEN THE CHURCH WAS BUILT IN 1951 THAT CURRENT ZONING WAS NOT IN PLACE. THERE -- THE SUGGESTION THAT WE PLACE A LIMIT ON THE PLAYGROUND USE, THERE'S A LIMITATION ON PLAYGROUND USE THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE PLAYGROUND AT ANY ONE TIME. WE ARE WELL UNDER THAT NUMBER AT THIS POINT. AND WOULD OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE TO BE UNDER THAT NUMBER EVEN WITH THE INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT. TONIGHT THUS FAR WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION, A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION, A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP, BUT WE REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT ANY PROBLEMS THAT OUR DAYCARE HAS CAUSED IN ITS APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS OF OPERATION. WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT FUTURE PROBLEMS, BUT WE HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT ANY PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CAUSED THUS FAR. WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK RECORD OF HAVING CAUSED NO PROBLEMS WARRANTS AN INCREASE IN OUR ENROLLMENT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. THAMES.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. THAMES. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I WAS GOING TO BE DOING THE REBUTTAL PART OR THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE TIME FOR IT. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHY WE ARE HERE. I KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE AS FAR AS THE APPEAL PROCESS TO BRING IT TO YOU. COMING FROM THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION I GUESS WE DISAGREE WITH REGARDS TO THEIR FINDINGS IN THE 75 TO UNLIMITED USE. WE ARE ALWAYS FIGHTING WHY THEY WANT TO GO UP TO 100, THERE'S BELIEF MAYBE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS THEY WILL GO HIGHER AND HIGHER. THE PROPERTY VALUE DOESN'T MATTER IN THAT AREA AS FAR AS THE FACT WHETHER THE DAYCARE IS THERE OR NOT. I DON'T THINK THAT REALISTICALLY ANYBODY CAN SAY THAT IT'S CAUSED ANYTHING TO GO UP OR DOWN, PROPERTY VALUES ACROSS THE BOARD AND WHETHER IT'S A TIMELY MARGIN OTHER NOT HAS HAPPENED. WE WILL SEE -- MANNER OR NOT, HAS HAPPENED. WE WILL SEE -- REGARDING THE PLAYGROUND AND BEING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HOUSES THAN THE REGULAR CHURCH, I HAVE PICTURES HERE FROM TWO YEARS AGO, WHICH I DON'T THINK MUCH HAS CHANGED THEY CAN -- SAY IF IT HAS OR NOT, BUT I WILL PASS THIS AROUND. THERE'S NOT ANY VEGETATION BETWEEN WHERE OUR HOUSE IS AND THE CHURCH AND THE PLAYGROUND. THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT PUTTING TREE UP ON THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY BY A NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS -- THAT HAS IN FACT BEEN DONE. BUT JUST THE ECHOING OF THIS, I THINK IF YOU SEE IT, THE NOISE LEVEL IS THERE THAT EXISTS. THEY HAD SAID THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS AND THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB DOING WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE WANT IT TO STAY THAT WAY. WE DON'T WANT ROBS TO ARISE AND HAVE TO ADDRESS. WE THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IT WHAT WE ORIGINALLY AGREED WITH, THE STAFF AGREED WITH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AGREED WITH KEEPING IT AT 50, LIMITED ACCESS ON WOODROW, THAT'S WHAT WE ASK YOU FOR TO DECIDE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. THAMES. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE ON THIS ITEM. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. DISCUSSION ON THE APPEALS? DO YOU NEED A REVIEW BY STAFF ON THIS, COUNCIL?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I DON'T. WE HAVE SITE PLAN APPEAL PROCESS LAST WEEK THAT ISSUES WERE DIFFERENT. THEY ALWAYS ARE. LAST WEEK I TRIED TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW I THOUGHT THAT I WAS AND GOT STEAM ROLLED I'M GOING TO TRY IT AGAIN TONIGHT. WHEN YOU -- WHEN I READ THE EVALUATION OF CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN ELEMENTS IN FRONT OF US, IN MY OPINION STAFF DID THE CORRECT ANALYSIS AND POINTED OUT TO A NUMBER OF, YOU KNOW, INCONSISTENCIES WITH WHAT OUR TASK AT HAND IS. SO BASED ON THAT, I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL AND GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.

SLUSHER: SECOND.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THAT WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT AT 50. DISCUSSION?

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC].

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO MAINTAINS THE ACCESS --

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD JUST SAY -- TO BACK UP MY SECOND, ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, I WOULD SAY THAT IT DOES NOT MEET -- WELL, I HAVE LOST THE NUMBER ON THE TOP ONE. NUMBER 3. HAVE BUILDING HEIGHT, BALK SCALE SET BACK, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE ACCESS, TRAFFIC SIX CLAIG AND USE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE OF ABUTTING SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WOULD BE THE ONE THAT I SAY IS IN QUESTION. THEN UNDER PART C, CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN MAY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SAFETY OR ... INCLUDING REASONABLY ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC AND USES IN THE JURY AND ALSO NUMBER 3, ADVERSELY AFFECT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OR TRAFFIC CONTROL THROUGH THE LOCATION -- WELL, AT AT LEAST TWO ON THAT SECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ON THIS MOTION? IN NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT'S THE LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET TO THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 36. APPROVE A NEW COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR THE CITY CLERK. COUNCIL, YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION NUMBERED 020207, THAT SETS THE SALARY FOR THE CITY CLERK AT $101,439 .[INAUDIBLE] WITH THE LUMP SUM IN THE AMOUNT OF 14,7014. THE OTHER ALOWNS AS SPELLED OUT IN THIS RESOLUTION. DO YOU HAVE -- THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IN THIS RESOLUTION IS WHICH I COULD PUT A LINE WHERE I CAN SIGN, BECAUSE DID I YOUR COMP SAYING, YOU ARE ATTESTING TO IT BE NOBODY ELSE IS. FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTED, MAKE, YOU KNOW, GETTING IT READY FOR ME TO SIGN, TOO. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ACTION?

GOODMAN: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE BEATS ME TO IT. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MS. BROWN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU SOME MORE. THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON THIS AGENDA. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY EVERYBODY, SECONDED BY EVERYBODY. THERE'S PEOPLE HUGGING IN THE AUDIENCE, SO WE WILL STOP THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. ALL THOSE IF FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log