Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 02/28/02

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.

I WILL CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY THE 28TH, MY NAME IS GUS GARCIA, WE NOW HAVE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND WYNN IN THE CHAMBERS. SO THE FIRST THING THAT I'M GOING TO CALL UP IS THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. AND I WILL ASK MS. SHIRLEY BROWN, THE CITY CLERK TORY THOSE INTO THE RECORD.

CLERK BROWN: GOOD AFTERNOON, ITEM NO. 21 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MARCH 21ST, 2002. ITEM NO. 29 POSTPONED TO MARCH 7TH, 2002. ITEM 33, IS AMENDED TO READ: FOR MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING AND SERVICE GOES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED, INSTEAD OF 140,000, IT WILL BE 143,500 FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS. ITEM 69 HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ACT DID........ AGENDA. ITEM 76 HAS BEEN AMENDED AFTER 1122ELNER AVENUE, WE HAVE ADDED PARENTHESES AKA, 11212ELLNER STREET, PARENTHESES. THE TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: 1:30 P.M., CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, 2:00 P.M. BOND SALES; 4:00 P.M., ZONING ITEMS, Z-1 THROUGH 10, 5:30 P.M., LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS, 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS WHICH ARE ITEMS 77 — EXCUSE ME, 74 THROUGH 77.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION — GENERAL. THIS IS TIME CERTAIN FOR 1:30, WE ARE RUNNING ABOUT 25 MINUTES LATE. FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. GUS PENA, FOLLOWED BY MR. JOHN E. GROSS, MR. PENA, WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, GUS PENA, SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAIN BOW COALITION, LOCAL CHAPTER OF A STATE-WIDE COALITION. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE READ MY COMMENTS IN THE AGENDA, I STICK BY THEM. I WILL TELL YOU THIS MUCH, MAYOR GARCIA, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT OPEN RECORDS. IF THE AG HAS RULED IN A CERTAIN MANNER, WE FOLLOW THAT, THAT'S THE LAW. IN THE PAST, AS YOU REMEMBER, WHETHER IT BE THE CITY COUNCIL, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, HAVE ALWAYS NOT BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO US AS FAR AS WHEN WE REQUEST CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. I WAS UNDER A BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE. EVEN AS A MEMBER OF THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE, I HAD A HECK OF A TIME WHEN I REQUESTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO GET THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THEIR SO-CALLED — WHAT DO THEY CALL IT NOW? NOT ADMINISTRATION BUT THEIR CABINET. THEIR CAB THREAT. THAT'S THE MENTALITY COMING IN FROM THAT SUPERINTENDENT FROM WASHINGTON, WHO I JUST DON'T EVEN SUPPORT ANYMORE. BUT ANYWAY, YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT PROJECTED CUTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE IN OUR ORGANIZATION HAVE — HAVE SPOKENBOUT IS HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING AND Y'ALL COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF A — SOME SORT OF A POSSIBLE BUDGET CUTS, TOSS IT AROUND AMONG THE COMMUNITY, SEE WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE, WHAT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTE ITEM POLICY ARE, BUT — TOTEM POLL ARE. RAUL, I SUPPORTED THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WERE PUSHING FOR LAST TIME. I GAVE YOU A CALL. WHEN I GIVE PEOPLE A CALL, I EXPECT A PHONE CALL IN RETURN. BUT I JUST DIDN'T SUPPORT A TAX INCREASE OR A RATE HIKE. THAT'S — THAT'S WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM. PEOPLE ARE ALREADY BEING UNNONE DATED WITH TAXING, TAXING, LOOK AT WHAT A.C.C. IS PROPOSING TO DO. CUTS OVER THERE THAT ARE HAVING AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON STUDENTS THAT DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RESOURCES TO GET A TOP QUALITY EDUCATION. BUT ANYWAY, OUR SENIOR CITIZENS, CHILDREN AND OUR YOUTH DESERVE BETTER. AND MAKE WISE AND PRUDENT DECISIONS. BEFORE YOU DO THAT, INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY IN THE DIALOGUE, ALSO, JUST LIKE YOU DO IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESS. BY THE WAY, I'M HOPING, MAYOR GARCIA, WITH YOUR NEW ADMINISTRATION, YOU START THAT PROCESS EARLIER, WHERE WE CAN GET THAT DOCUMENT OR THOSE PROPOSED DOCUMENTS EARLY TO DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMUNITY, ON WHAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS ALL ABOUT, PRELIMINARY BUDGET, WHATEVER. DONE IT IN THE PAST TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, WE ARE VERY, VERY SAD ABOUT THAT, VERY DISCOURAGED ABOUT THAT. MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE A CHANGE IN THAT, A SAY IN THAT. ANYWAY, BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, STILL SOME PROBLEMS OUT THERE WITH — WITH PEOPLE DEMANDING PAYMENT OF THE POOR AND INDIGENT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, IT'S JUST LIKE TRYING TO SQUEEZE BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP, YOU ARE GOING TO GET SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN BLOOD. BUT AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE BEING HAZARDED, THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. YOU ALL ALLOCATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDSING TO PROVIDE FREE SERVICES TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS. ANYWAY, I WILL WRAP UP. SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, YOU NEED — YOU KNOW MY COMMENTS LAST TIME. BUT ANYWAY, MAKE SURE THAT YOU INCLUDE THE PUBLIC IN THOSE PROPOSED CUTS BEFORE YOU CUT THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, TELL YOU FIRST THAT I AM FOR THE OPEN RECORDS ACT. AND THERE WILL BE AN ARTICLE IN TOMORROW'S EDITORIAL PAGES WRITTEN BY ME THAT EXPLAINS MY POSITION ON THAT ISSUE.

I'M HOPING, I'M GLAD THAT YOU CLARIFIED THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IF IT WAS ERRONEOUS ON THE PART OF SOMEBODY, SO BE IT. WE ARE TAXPAYERS, LORD KNOWS WE PAY ENOUGH TAXES. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE.

READ MY GUEST VIEWPOINT.

IF I CAN BORROW YOUR GLASSES, I NEED GLASSES NOW.

THANK YOU.

MR. JOHN E. GROSS.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER?

ALVAREZ: I WILL BE RETURNING YOUR CALL, GAS, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BIT LOG, BUT I DO — I DON'T ALWAYS RETURN THEM RIGHT AWAY, BUT I DO TRY TO BE GOOD ABOUT THEM.

I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. JUST SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME, YOU KNOW, I HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND THE SAME DAY YOU GET PHONE CALLS BACK. LET'S BE FAIR ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. JOHN E. GROSS.

I'M OVER HERE, MR. MAYOR.

FOLLOWING MR. GROSS IS JENNIFER L.GALE. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JOHN GROSS. I CAME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL LAST AUGUST REGARDING THE STREET ISSUE OR LACK OF ON PORTION OF THOMAS KINSTON [ PHONETIC ] STREET WHERE I OWN A LOT. I MET WITH GEORGE ZAPALAC AND SCOTT LAMBERT BUT WAS UNABLE TO COME TO A RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM. I COME BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY TO PETITION AND TO REQUEST THAT I BE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THE PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHTS THAT I HAVE IN THE THOMAS [INAUDIBLE] STREET BY VIRTUE OF PURCHASING A LOT IN A DEDICATED AND RECORDED SUBDIVISION. THIS PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHT ISN'T FAIR TO THE DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT. THAT WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC. BUT THE CITY HAS ELECTED PHOTO ACCEPT IT AT THIS TIME. ANY USE I MAKE OF THAT IMPROVEMENT IS INFERIOR AND SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S RIGHT TO ENTER AND ALTER SHOULD IT EVER CHOOSE TO ACCEPT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. THEY CAN ENTER INTO THE EASESMENT AND IMPROVE IT TO PUBLIC STANDARDS. NO. THE TIME [INAUDIBLE] I WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE MY PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHT. TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY THAT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A JOINT USE DRIVEWAY PRUDENT TO SECTION 25-6-443. THE DRIVEWAY WILL SERVE 8 LOTS OR LESS UNDER THAT SAME SECTION. WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH UNDER THAT SAME SECTION. AND WILL BEING AS AN ALTERNATE TO A PUBLIC STREET, WHICH THE CITY HAS ELECTED NOT TO BUILD. I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE SOMEBODY STANDARD STREETS IN THE AREA — SUBSTANDARD STREETS IN THE AREA AVERAGE BETWEEN 15 AND 17 FEET WIDE AND HAVE BEEN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 YEARS. ED HAVE YOU...........THE STREET THAT I WILL BUILD WILL HAVE A SPEED OF 25 MILES PER HOUR, SPECIFIED UNDER SEX ... MOREOVER EACH LOT MEETS THE ROAD FRONTAGE RIRLTS UNDER THE SAME SECTION. REQUIREMENTS. BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT EACH IS LEGALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOT IN A DEDICATED, UNACCEPTED RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE TAXES I PAY CURRENTLY ARE AS THOUGH THE STREET IS THERE AND I HAD ACCESS, BUT I CAN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE I HAVE NO STREET. SO PLEASE MY REQUEST IS TO LET ME BUILD THE DRIVEWAY AS I HAVE PROPOSED.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. GROSS — MR. CITY MANAGER, IF YOU COULD GET SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY TO WORK WITH MR. GROSS, IF YOU CAN WAIT, WE WILL GET SOMEBODY TO BEGIN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU.

JENNIFER GALE, FOLLOWING MS. GALE, MR. GAVINO FERNANDEZ. WELCOME, MS. GALE.

HI. HI AUSTIN, I'M 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CANDIDATE JENNIFER GALE, CITY MANAGER TOBY FRUTRELL, ATTORNEY, MAYOR GUS GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY STAFF, CONCERNED PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AN STUDENTS. JUST AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS SAID ABOUT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, I BELIEVE IN FACT DAILIES, THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT YOU EVER DISCUSS. I JENNIFER GALE CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS REQUESTED FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE A LEGALLY BINDING OPINION ON CREATING A CHARTER ELECTION THAT WILL CREATE AN ITEM IN THE NEXT CHARTER ELECTION TWO YEARS LATER THAT PROVIDES FOR A CHOICE OR A VARIETY OR A SELECTION WITHOUT MAKING THE 50% THRESHOLD TO DETERMINE WHICH STYLE OF GOVERNMENT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN MAY WANT OR NEED. THE OPINION SHOULD BE READY IN THE NEXT TWO TO FOUR WEEKS. JENNIFER GALE'S PLAN FOR CREATING 32 DISTRICTSS ANSWERS ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYMORE FOR ME CONCERNING RACIAL OR ETHNIC REPRESENTATION, GEOGRAPHICALLY THROUGHOUT AUSTIN, SMALL ENOUGH DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S NO LONGER MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM OF 21,000 PEOPLE, THEN TERM LIMITS BECAUSE IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING ELECTED, YOU CAN RUN IN ANOTHER DISTRICT THAT HAS AN OPEN SEAT. AUSTIN IS RUN BY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THIS PLAN, 32-1 WILL GIVE BETTER REPRESENTATION THROUGHOUT AUSTIN WITHOUT TAKING CONTROL AWAY FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WITH POWER MAYOR. LLOYD DOGGETT TURN HIS HIS BACK ON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY AND YOU ALLOWING, HOMELESS, POOR AN SICK TO BE ARRESTED AND TICKET AND FINED UNDER THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL LAWS. HE NEVER APPEARED AT A FORUM ENDORSEMENT MEETING. HE HAS NEVER ASK ANED MY QUESTION TO HAVE A DEBATE. FOR YEARS HE'S BEEN AFRAID TO DEBATE HIS OPPONENTS. HE HAS NO DEMOCRATIC — HE'S HAD NO DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS, WHY WON'T HE DEBATE? LLOYD DOGGETT IS CLEARLY AFRAID. THIS IS — IS THIS THE KIND OF CONGRESSMAN WE WANT IN WASHINGTON D.C.? DO YOU KNOW UNDER ARTICLE 1:00, SECTION 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, HE WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERY TROUBLED CITY OF THE CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES. IS THAT THE KIND OF CONGRESSMAN WE WANT OR EVEN HERE IN AUSTIN, UNDER ARTICLE 1ST, SEX 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, LLOYD DOGGETT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING OUR PLANES FROM FLYING INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, LET ALONE THE HOME OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE PENTAGON? IS THAT THE KIND OF CONGRESSMAN WE WANT. HE NO, MA'AM REFUSES TO DEBATE JENNIFER GALE, BUT HE'S REFUSED TO READ THE UNITED STATES PATRIOT ACT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT BEFORE SIGNING IT INTO LAW, VIOLATING OUR FOURTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS. LAST WEEK HE VOTED FOR SOFT MONEY BAN, VIOLATING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT. IS THIS THE KIND OF CONGRESSMAN WE WANT? I WANT TO BUILD A — HOSPITALS FOR OUR VETERANS, RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE SO WE CAN SURVIVE. YOU CAN READ THIS IN THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LEAGUEWV.AUS DOT TX DOT US.

I WILL BE HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE MONDAY MORNING ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF CITY HALL.

THANK YOU, MS. GALE, GAFFES GAFFES AND FOLLOWING HIM IS JOSE QUINTERO.

I'M GAFFES GAFFES.................. I'M GAVINO FERNANDEZ WITH EL CONCILIO. WE WANT TO — TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE YOU TO AN EARLY VOTE RALLY THAT OUR ASSOCIATION AND PODER ARE HOSTING THIS SATURDAY, MARCH THE — THE SECOND AT 1:00. WE ARE ASKING THAT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, IN THIS CASE THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. AS WE ALL KNOW EARLY VOTE IS ONGOING AT THIS TIME AND WILL END ON MARCH THE 8TH. I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF COMING OUT TO VOTE IN THESE ELECTIONS. AS OUR MEXICAN AMERICAN POPULATION GROWS IN THIS COMMUNITY, IT BEHOOVES US TO STAY HOME. WE NEED TO COME OUT AND — AND START TAKING CONTROL OF OUR OWN DESTINY. ONE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN DO THAT IS BY EXERCISING OUR RIGHT TO VOTE AT THE VOTING POLLS. I ALSO WANT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE OF YOU PROVIDING US THE PROTECTION OF THE GATEWAY TO EAST AUSTIN, THAT IS SESQUICENTENNIAL, LIKE I IS CESAR CHAVEZ, LIKE I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER, WE HAVE ADVOCATED FOR FOOT PATROL IN THAT AREA. WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION TO — TO POTENTIALLY BUY PROPERTY SURROUNDING THIS FACILITY. SO THAT IT COULD BETTER GIVE CONTROL TO THE HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN AND AROUND THE AREA TO — TO FURTHER DEVELOP THAT AREA FOR A BETTER AND SAFER COMMUNITY. WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY BACK. THERE IS A BEAUTY SALON RIGHT THERE, CATTY CROSSED SOUP KITCHEN. LIKE WHERE MANY OF OUR SENIORS UNFORTUNATELY NO LONGER PATRONIZE THAT BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE FEAR AND THREAT AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS IN THIS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. ONCE AGAIN, IT IS THE GATEWAY TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO PRESERVE IT. AND GIVE IT BACK TO OUR — TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE RALLY AND THAT'S THIS SATURDAY, MARCH THE 2ND. AT PARQUE ZARAGOSA, WHERE WE WILL MARCH TO THE VOTING BOOTH. WE WILL ALL BE GOING IN SUPPORT AND VOTING FOR MARCOS DELEON AS STATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT 51. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. FERNANDEZ. [ APPLAUSE ]

JOSE QUINTERO. MR. MARCOS DELEON AND FOLLOWING MR. DELEON IS MR. PAUL HERNANDEZ, COMMISSIONER, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

FIRST I WANT TO EXTEND FROM THE RENDON FAMILY, APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCLAMATION YOU APPRECIATED THEM. THE FAMILY GREATLY APPRECIATED THAT, MAYOR, THAT WAS VERY KIND OF YOU TO DO THAT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE DONE LIKE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RAUL ALVAREZ FOR THE THING THAT YOU DID LAST NIGHT, THE CANDIDATES WAS VERY WELL DONE, I APPRECIATED THAT. WHAT I AM HERE FOR TODAY BESIDES BEING A CANDIDATE IS THAT AS A LEADER WE MUST PROMOTE WHAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS VOTING. VOTING IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY PRECIOUS TO ME, SOMETHING THAT I HAVE ALWAYS DONE IS VOTE ON ISSUES. WE HAVE ASKED ALL CITIZENS TO VOTE, BUT WE ARE HERE ESPECIALLY FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY, THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN. DESPITE WHICH CANDIDATE THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING, I AM HERE TO SAY THAT YOU NEED TO GET OUT HERE AND VOTE. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ELECTION THAT WE NEED TO GET INVOLVED IN AT THE STATE LEVEL. WE HAVE CANDIDATES FROM THE GOVERNOR ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CITY COUNCIL RACES, THEY CONCERN THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. SOME OF THESE MEN AND WOMEN ARE MEXICAN AMERICAN. I AM HERE TO ASK MY COMMUNITY, WE NEED TO GET OUT AND VOTE. THIS IS ONE WAY WE CAN CHANGE THINGS. I KNOW A LOT OF US ARE APATHETIC, NOT A LOT OF US — A LOT OF US FEEL WHY EVEN VOTE. BUT THINGS ARE CHANGING. IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY, THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY TO GET OUT AND VOTE. GET OUT AND EXERCISE THAT RIGHT. THE MINIMUM — MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES, IN THE WARS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THIS COUNTRY. IT IS SOMETHING THAT I HOLD VERY PRECIOUS, SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. AS A LEADER, I MUST COME HERE BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, AND SAY WE MUST GET OUT, WE MUST ACCESS THIS VOTE. IF WE DON'T, THE THINGS THAT WE WANT CHANGED WILL NOT GET CHANGED. THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO CHANGE THINGS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH IS A STRUGGLE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT IN THIS CITY OR IN THIS COUNTRY. BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. [SPEAKING IN SPANISH]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MR. PAUL HERNANDEZ, FOLLOWING MR. HERNANDEZ IS MR. AKWASI EVANS.

MAYOR GARCIA, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PAUL HERNANDEZ. I'M A NATIVE AUSTINITE. AND I COME HERE TO — TO LET THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARTICULARLY THE PEOPLE OF DISTRICT 51 KNOW OF MY FRIENDSHIP AND SUPPORT FOR MARCOS DELEON WHO IS RUNNING FOR DISTRICT 51. AND TO ECHO THE COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER DELEON, LET ME JUST SAY THAT — THAT THIS IS I AM PAIR ACTIVE THAT THE — IMPERATIVE THAT THE LOW INCOME WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF DISTRICT 51, ESPECIALLY DISTRICT 51 COME OUT AND VOTE. THIS ELECTION IS TRULY CRUCIAL BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT SOME REAL GOOD PEOPLE ALL THE WAY FROM THE GOVERNOR'S RACE, SENATORS RACE, SO TO THE LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE REPRESENTATIVE OFFICES. MARCOS DELEE I DON'T KNOW HAS BEEN — DELEON HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE FOLKS THAT HAS REPRESENTED THE GRASS ROOTS SINCE HE BECAME AN ACTIVIST ALMOST 30 YEARS. MARCOS DELEON HAS TAKEN POSITIONS THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD NOT TAKE AND HE SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES. IF YOU REMEMBER THE RICHES, ENVIRONMENT — THE ISSUES, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF THE OIL TANK FARMS, MARCOS DELEON, WHEN HE WAS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, SECURED THE FUNDING TO ALLOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PURSUE THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENT AND CRIMINAL — OF NEGLECT AND CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF THE OIL COMPANIES AS THEY WERE POISONING OUR COMMUNITY. MARCOS HAS STAYED TRUE TO THE CONSTITUENCY. WHEN HE MADE A COMMITMENT, HE KEPT IT. ONE THING THAT I REALLY WANT TO POINT OUT, IS THE FACT THAT — THAT WE — THIS IS FOR US AN EXERCISE, A PREPARATION FOR US TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN OUR CITY COUNCIL RACES. THE CITY COUNCIL RACES ARE COMING UP IN MAY AS WELL AS THE SCHOOL BOARD RACES. THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US AND PARTICULARLY THE — THE LOW INCOME MINORITY OR PEOPLE OF COLOR, AS WE PREFER TO ALL COURSES, THE PEOPLE OF COLOR TO REALLY GET OUT THERE AND VOTE. WE NEED ADEQUATE — NOT ONLY ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, BUT WE NEED REAL REPRESENTATION. WE NEED STRONG LEADERSHIP, AND WE NEED PEOPLE THAT CAN DO THE THINGS THAT — THAT WE NEED DONE IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO AGAIN I URGE EVERYONE TO GO OUT AND VOTE AND VOTE FOR MARCOS DELEON FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE IN DISTRICT 51 AND INVITE EVERYONE TO ATTEND THE RALLY ON SATURDAY, AT ZARAGOSA PARK, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GO VOTE EARLY. IT'S THIS SATURDAY AT 1:00 P.M., AND WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO VOTE ON THIS ELECTION AND THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HERNANDEZ. [ APPLAUSE ] MR. AKWASI EVANS? DID MR. QUINTERO ARRIVE?

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCILMEMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY. I WAS SCHEDULED TO COME HEAR ON FEBRUARY 14TH TO WISH YOU A HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY BUT MY PAPER WAS LATE, I DIDN'T GET DOWN HERE. HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY BELATEDLY. I AM HERE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF REP OPERATIONS TO — REPARATIONS TO ASK YOU TO ADDRESS IT AS WELL. REPARATIONS IS AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THE NATION AND BEGINNING TO BE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IN SIMPLE TERMS REPARATIONS IS TO BREAK IT DOWN TO REPAIR SOMETHING. I'M BROKE. FIX ME, I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S BROKE. IT NEEDS REPAIR. THERE WAS A — THERE WAS A — A VERY IMPORTANT CONFERENCE HELD OVER AT HUSTON TILLOTSON COLLEGE THIS PAST WEEKEND. WHERE THEY BROUGHT EXPERTS IN TO DISCUSS HOW TO — [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] I GOT BASS THAN I KNEW. HOW TO IMPROVE EAST AUSTIN. THAT'S THE TOPIC WE TALK ABOUT, YOU TALK ABOUT, EVERYBODY IN THE CITY TALKS ABOUT EVERY WEEK. WHAT CAN WE DO FOR EAST AUSTIN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT, REALLY STUCK IN MY MIND, A YOUNG LADY FROM PHILADELPHIA TALKING ABOUT IF YOU WILL REALLY WANT TO CREATE A SOLID INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S BEEN DENIED FOR DECADES AND CENTURIES, YOU HAVE TO FOCUS ON BUSINESSES. NOT HOUSING. AND — AND EAST 11TH STREET VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND ASKING YOU, ASKING PREVIOUS COUNCILS, SENSITIVE COUNCILS FOR YEARS TO HELP US BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVERY TIME WE COME DOWN HERE WE GET OVERSHADOWED BY SOMEBODY TALKING ABOUT HOUSING. HOUSING IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS, BUSINESS IS. OUR ONLY BUSINESS, MOST OF THE BUSINESSES IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY ARE STRUGGLING. WE NEED REPAIR, REPARATIONS, REPARATIONS IS NOT ABOUT WRITING A BLANK CHECK. IT'S NOT ABOUT A HANDOUT. IT'S ABOUT PAYING YOUR DEBTS. WHEN I OWE SOMEBODY, I GOT TO PAY THEM NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR ME TO GET AROUND TO IT. I OWE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR MY STUDENT LOAN. AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEIR MONEY WHETHER I WANT TO GIVE IT TO THEM OR NOT. THIS COUNTRY OWES AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR — FOR SLAVE LABOR, BUT ALSO FOR JIM CROW AND FOR THE SEGREGATION AND DISCRIMINATION THAT WE SUFFER IN THIS CITY TODAY. — [INAUDIBLE], THIS CITY NEEDS TO MAKE AMENDS AND MAKE REPAIR FOR WHAT IT DOES AND PUTTING AFRICAN AMERICANS ON A RESERVATION IN A A POCKET OF POVERTY IN AN OCEAN OF WEALTH, THIS IS A VERY WEALTH THESE HIGH TECH CITY GROWING BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS, OUR COMMUNITY IS BEING STAG NATEED, BEING LEFT OUT OF ALL DIAGNOSIS MAKING. AUSTIN HAS NEVER HAD AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, POLICE CHIEF, FIRE CHIEF. WE NEED YOU TO MAKE — REPAIR OF SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS THAT — THAT YOU HAVE WATCHED LINGER FOR AS LONG AS YOU'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE THREE MINUTES AND THE EXTENDED FEW SECONDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. EVANS. IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE FEEDBACK ON THE SYSTEM?

I GUESS IT'S MINE, BECAUSE I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, MR. EVANS, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS A QUESTION.

THOMAS: MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND. MR. AKWASI EVANS, HAS ANYONE FROM STAFF — I THINK THE FIRST TIME YOU CAME, WE DIRECTED SOMEONE FROM STAFF TO GET WITH YOU APPEARED TALK WITH..... — WITH YOU AND TALK WITH YOU. HAS ANYONE DID THAT.

THE NOT ON THIS ISSUE.

THOMAS: CITY MANAGER, WOULD YOU GET WITH MR. EVANS ABOUT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

MAYOR GARCIA: STILL GETTING FEEDBACK ON THIS. CAN SOMEBODY FIX THAT?

THE NEXT ITEM IS A 2:00 P.M. BOND SALE, ITEM NO. 13. IT APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF APPROXIMATELY $80,740,000 CITY OF AUSTIN TEXAS ELECTRIC SYSTEM REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002, INCLUDING APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING THERETO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $791,858 ESTIMATED IN THE FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS AND 6 [INAUDIBLE] APPEARUL FEE INCLUDED IN THE 2001, 2002 APPROVED BUDGET OF THE UTILITY BOND REDUMTION FUND, WE HAVE HERE MR. BILL NEWMAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M BILL NEW MA, WE SERVE AS FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO THE CITY. EXCUSE ME. I AM HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT ITEM NO. 13 AND 14. WHICH IS AN LEAK SYSTEM, UTILITY SYSTEM REFUNDING BONDS, CHRIS ALLEN IS HANDING OUT A BOOKLET, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THAT BRIEF IF YOU DON'T MIND. TO START WITH ON THE FIRST PAGE, WE MERELY TALK ABOUT THE TYPE OF SALE, ISSUER, I MENTIONED IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY WITH FULBRIGHT JAWORSKI IS MR. BOB [INAUDIBLE], BOND COUNSEL TO THE CITY, AS WELL AS THE LEAD MANAGER ON THE SYNDICATE THAT SOLD THE BONDS TO US, MR. JORGE GARZA. ON THE NEXT PAGE WE GIVE YOU SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT THE SALE, THE SALE TURNED OUT TO BE $74,750,000. AGAIN THIS WAS AN ISSUE WHERE WE TOOK SOME OF THE COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM DEBT AND MOVED IT OVER ON TO ELECTRIC ONLY. WHEREAS YOU RECALL BACK IN — IN THE LATTER PART OF LAST YEAR WE DID A WATER AND WASTEWATER DEAL VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE SOME OF THE INTEREST RATES OR COUPONS ON THOSE BONDS RANGE FROM 5% TO 7.05%. THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THIS SALE WAS THE PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS OF SOME 4.2 MILLION OR $5.2 MILLION IN GROSS SAVINGS. APPROXIMATELY — EXCUSE ME, 5.40 PERCENT IN PV VALUE. THE TRUE INTEREST COST WAS EXTREMELY GOOD, AT — AT A TIV AT 4.23%. ON THE NEXT PAGE, WE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BOND MARKET, I THINK THAT — THAT TIMING IS EVERYTHING ALONG WITH BEING A GOOD CREDIT. WE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO ENTER THE MARKET A DAY EARLIER. MORE SAY GARZA'S FIRM, SOLOMON, SMITH BARNEY ADVISED US THAT GIVEN THE CURRENT CONDITIONS THE WAY A SAN ANTONIO DEAL WAS SELLING WHICH WAS IN THE MARKET ON TUESDAY, PERHAPS WE SHOULD WAIT AND SEE WHAT MR. GREENSPAN SAID ON WEDNESDAY. WE DID WAIT AND ALTHOUGH THE QUOTE THAT I HAVE IN THERE FROM THE UPDATE SAYS THAT TREASURY PRICES SHOT HIGHER AFTER GREENSPAN TALKED, HE DID INDICATE A LITTLE LESS AMOUNT OF CERTAINTY ABOUT ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN THE TIMING OF THAT BENEFITED US SIGNIFICANTLY IN THAT THE MARKET ALLOWED US TO GET IN AND GET OUT, GET SOME VERY GOOD RATES. WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED GETTING ABOUT A FOUR AND A HALF TO A 4.80PV SAVINGS, AND WE DID MUCH BETTER. VERY BRIEFLY ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES, YOU CAN SEE THE ELECTRIC INSURED BOND INDEX AND THE 30 YEAR TREASURY AT 5.42, 5.23 RESPECTIVELY. WE WERE IN THE MARKET THIS YEAR WITH SEVERAL ISSUES NATIONALLY, INCLUDING SAN ANTONIO AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. WHICH SOLD EARLIER IN THE WEEK THAN WE DID. WE WEREN'T THE LARGEST, WE WEREN'T THE SMALLEST, EITHER. AS YOU LOOK FORWARD, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A — THERE'S A VISIBLE SUPPLY THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE OVER THE COMING WEEKS. LASTLY, ON THE LAST PAGE WE SHOW YOU SOME COMPARISONS ON WHAT WAS SELLING IN THE MARKET, HOW WE DID AS COMPARED TO THOSE, YOU WILL SEE IN SOME YEARS WE DID BETTER WHEN YOU MAKE THAT COMPARISON, SOME YEARS WE DID NOT QUITE AS GOOD. ONE THING THAT ISSUE MENTION, ITEM NO. 14 IS ALSO UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND THAT IS THE SOME 2,200,000 IN BONDS, THE DEFEASNCE.

THAT IS THE USE OF SOME OF YOUR DEBT MANAGEMENT FUND MOABS, WHAT WE ARE DOING AS PART OF THIS REFUNDING, WE WANTED TO PULL OUT THAT DEBT RELATED TO FAYETTE AND TO DECKER AND BE ABLE TO DIFFUSE THAT DEBT WITH CASH RATHER THAN LEAVING IT OUTSTANDING. THAT'S OUR ULTIMATE GOAL WAS WE TALKED TO YOU ON AND YOU ARE DEBT DEFEASANCE, IT SPEAKS TO THE CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS MADE TO THIS REFUNDING ON 14TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS WITH CASH.

YES, SIR. THIS MEANS EARLY RETIREMENT.

LIKE A REFUNDING, SETTING ASIDE MONEY TO PAY IT OFF.

IN ANY EVENT, IT WAS AN EXCELLENT SALE, GRALGHTS ON A VERY GOOD INTEREST — CONGRATULATIONS ON A VERY GOOD INTEREST RATE, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION. THE AGENDA SAYS 80,740 — THIS ITEM SAYS 74 MILL-750. IS IT 74 MILLION OR 80.

USUALLY WE TRY TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER THAT'S NOT TO EXCEED WHEN WE ENTER INTO THESE THING, AS YOU ENTER THE BOND MARKET AND RATES MOVE UP AND DOWN, WE MAY PUT IN OR TAKE OUT MORE BONDS. SO THE SIZE WILL ULTIMATELY BE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE SHOW YOU.

AS FAR AS PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS IS WHAT?

FOUR AND A QUARTER PV SAVINGS AT A MINIMUM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS CAME IN AT 5.4.

YES, SIR, DARN GOOD SALE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBERS, QUESTIONS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 13 AND 14. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THAT CORRECT?

GOODMAN: AS AMENDED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OR WAS IT THE MAYOR PRO TEM?

ALVAREZ: AS AMENDED, YEAH. I WAS JUST REMINDING TO AMEND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FROM THE POSTED ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. ITEM 13 WILL BE FOR 74,750,000. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL THANK YOU, GRTS ON A GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO HELP YOU, I HAVE A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS FOR YOU, AS YOU KNOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU COULD PICK UP FROM HERE AND GO BACK TO — TO — TO THE PREVIEW OF ITEMS FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND THE OTHER THINGS, I'M GOING TO GO SIGN A FEW BOND DOCUMENTS.

GOODMAN: DO WE HAVE ITEMS THAT COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING OR SOON AFTER? ACTUALLY I DO HAVE ONE.

ALVAREZ: MYSELF AND THE MAYOR WILL BE BRINGING FORTH AN ITEM BRINGING FORT THE MEXIC-ARTE TASTE OF MEXICO EVENT IN MAY.

GOODMAN: I WILL JUST MENTION THAT RELATIVE TO NUMBER 69 THAT WAS PULLED OFF THE AGENDA TODAY, THAT WILL BE — THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ITEM COMING UP WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THAT SAME NCCD, BUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL BE THE APPLICANT. THE POSTING LANGUAGE WILL BE DIFFERENT, BUT FOR THOSE IN FAIRVIEW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, NCCD WHO MIGHT BE ALARMED BY THE FACT THAT I PULLED IT TODAY, IT IS BECAUSE — BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN APPLICANT. SO THAT — THAT WILL COME BACK. CITY MANAGER, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS COMING FROM YOU ALL?

NO, THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD PROBABLY MENTION WAS THAT WE INTEND TO POST AGAIN FOR CHARTER REVISION TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF THE REMAINING ITEMS. SHIRLEY IS NOT HERE — YES, SHE IS. IF I — WE COULD GO TO THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WE KNOW IT NOW. WITH CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. DO YOU NORMALLY DO THAT OR DOES THE MAYOR DO IT.

I NORMALLY DO IT FIRST, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO THAT. THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WE KNOW IT, RIGHT NOW, NO. 12, 18, 19, 21 POSTPONED TO MARCH 21ST, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 POSTPONED TO MARCH 7TH, 30 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, 31 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, AND 32, 33, WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AMENDED AS WE READ IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 34, 35,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 34, 44, 45 — 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH, AND 73 POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH. AND MAYOR PRO TEM, I — I TOOK THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS TO DO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT BECAUSE TWO OF THE CONSENT ITEMS ARE ADDING A COUPLE OF MEMBERS. SO WE COULD DO ALL OF THE APPOINTMENTS AT THAT TIME THEN.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

WYNN: FOR ITEMS NUMBER 22 THROUGH 27, STAFF GIVES JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE MULTIPOLICETY OF THE ITEMS COMING FORWARD.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WHY DON'T WE REAL QUICK GO THROUGH THE ITEMS — MR. HILGERS?

I WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE ITEMS 22 THROUGH 27. I AM PREPARED TO GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY'RE COMING TO YOU IN THIS FORMAT TODAY.

GOODMAN: OKAY. FIRST, THOUGH, LET'S REAL QUICK JUST GO THROUGH THE ITEM NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED SO THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE RECONCILED.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THOSE?

GOODMAN: 15.

15 BY MAYOR GARCIA. 16 BY MAYOR GAR 83 GAR 83 A I CAN'T. 57 BY THE MAYOR. 58 BY THE MAYOR, 59 AND 63 BOTH ARE PULLED BY THE MAYOR.

GOODMAN: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT THE REST OF US WANT PULLED THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PULLED BY THE MAYOR? IF NOT, MR. HILGERS, THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS PAUL HILGERS. AND THE ACTIONS LISTED FROM 22 TO 27 ARE BEING BROUGHT TO YOU IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT THAN YOU MAY BE USED TO SEEING IN THE PAST. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. IT REPRESENTS OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE A MORE COORDINATED SUPPORT TO THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT OF 11TH AND 12TH STREET REVITALIZATION. THE ACTIONS BEING 'RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TODAY ARE THE FOLLOWING. THEY ARE TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING, TO REPLACE A 70-YEAR-OLD WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES. TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES ON EAST 11TH STREET. SO BURY OVERHEAD ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION LINES, THUS IMPROVING RELIABILITY AND ENHANCING THE CURB EYE PEEL IN THE AREA AND TO ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A PROCESS TO SELL THE LAND TO THE ARA VIA THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, WHICH IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT PHASE 2 OF THE OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S IN THE URBAN RENEWAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND ALL OF THIS IS BEING DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STREET SCAPING IMPROVEMENTS BY CAPITAL METRO. WE'VE BROUGHT THEM TO YOU ALL UNDER ONE BADGE BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATED, UNDER ONE PACKAGE. WE APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WE'RE DOING IT THAT WAY AND WE APPRECIATE THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS SHOWING IN OUR DEPARTMENT TO SERVE AS THE KEY CONTACT ON THIS EFFORT. AND JUST WOULD REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT ALL OF THESE ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT AND PART OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR 11TH AND 12TH STREET REVITALIZATION EFFORT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND PART OF THE THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTIN, THE AUSTIN REVITALIZATION AUTHORITY AND THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. AND WE HAVE STAFF WHO WOULD ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TECHNICAL DETAILS WOULD LIKE THOSE, BUT I HOPE THAT THAT SATISFIES THAT OBJECTIVE THAT YOU SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: YES, IT IS. I JUST WANT TO POINTED OUT THAT I COMMEND THE PROJECT TEAM FOR ATTEMPTING TO DO SOMETHING THAT SO MANY CITIZENS ASKED US ABOUT CONSTANTLY. THAT IS THIS STREET WILL BE OPENED UP, DUG UP ONCE. AND WHILE IT'S DULG UP, WE'LL HAVE AUSTIN ENERGY BEARING POWER LINES, WE'LL HAVE THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT REPLACING AGED SERVICE LINES AND CAPITAL METRO WILL BE DOING THEIR STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THEIR BUS TRANSIT ISSUES THERE. SO I COMMEND THE TEAM FOR TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT JUST SEEMS INTUITIVE TO MOST CITIZENS AND SEEMS DIFFICULT FOR US TO PULL OFF.

WE WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE ARA IN HELPING US COORDINATE THEAFERT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU MR. HILGERS. MAYOR, DID YOU WANT TO BE HERE FOR THE — WHOEVER IS SIGNED UP FOR CONSENT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYONE HERE SIGNED UP ON ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS. HAVE ANY SPEAKERS COME HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE READ OFF AS BEING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? GOING ONCE. TWICE. I THINK WE'RE READY FOR OUR MOTION.

SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION. I THINK WE CAN DO IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ABOUT NUMBER 66. IF WE COULD GET THE STAFF AND ONE OF THE FOLKS FROM THE PROJECT UP HERE. MR. MURPHY, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOME FLOODPLAIN VARIANCES INVOLVED IN THIS. COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

YES. THE PROPOSAL IS A GOLF COURSE TO PRIMARILY SERVE UNDERPRIVILEGED YOUTH THAT IS BEING BUILT ALONG WALNUT CREEK NEAR THE CON FLIEWNS OF WALNUT AND LITTLE WALNUT CREEK. THERE ARE VARIANCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ORDINANCE THAT DEAL WITH DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN FOR BOTH ENVIRONMENTAL AND HELL/SAFETY ISSUES. — HEALTH/SAFETY ISSUES. THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN DRAFTED TO PROVIDE SAFEGUARDS AND MITIGATION FOR THESE CONCERNS THAT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR SAFETY OF THE USERS. AND TO MINIMIZE ANY IMPACTS OF FLOODPLAIN AS WELL AS TO ENSURE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT NEGATIVELY OR ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY EROSION OF WALNUT CREEK THAT WE EXPECT TO OCCUR.

SLUSHER: DO YOU THINK THAT WHAT'S BEEN WORKED OUT HERE DOES ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS?

YES. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH FIRST TEE SHOULD MITIGATE THE ISSUES AND IN SOME AREAS WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO NEGOTIATE STANDARDS BEYOND WHAT WE NORMALLY WOULD FOR THE CREEK CROSSINGS AND SO FORTH TO ENSUR THAT THE ABUTMENTS AND SUPPORTS WILL NOT BE WITHIN 100-FEET — I'M SORRY, WE HAVE NEGOTIATED A 100-FOOT SET BACK FOR DEVELOPMENT FROM THE CREEK. NORMALLY THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING WE COULD REQUIRE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE NEGOTIATED SETBACKS FOR ABUTMENTS AND SUPPORTS FOR THE CROSSINGS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE BRIDGES. THERE IS ONE CUT AND FILL VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A DOWNSTREAM LOW WATER CROSSING. WE HAVE PUT SAFEGUARDS IN THERE TO ENSURE THAT IT WILL BE DESIGNED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT INCREASE EROSION OR CAUSE ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE CREEK. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD SERVE WELL TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND ARE WE — WE'VE NEGOTIATED SOME GOLF COURSE AGREEMENTS FOR OTHER AREAS OF TOWN WITH PRETTY STRONG PROTECTION AGAINST CHEMICALS, CHEMICAL DAMAGE TO WATERWAYS. IS THAT FEATURED IN HERE.

YES. THIS COURSE IS GOING TO BE RELYING ON REUSED WATER FROM THE WALNUT CREEK TREATMENT PLANT. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT WE HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH FIRST TEE TO ENSURE THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER THE NUTRIENT IN THAT WATER IN THEIR GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THEYAVE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM TO PROVIDE A GOOFL COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHICH WILL PROVIDE CREEK BUFFER ZONES, IRRIGATION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATED PEST EMERGENCIMENT AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING.

SLUSHER: SO ARE WE PROTECTING THE WALNUT CREEK HERE IN EAST AUSTIN AS WELL AS WE ARE THE OTHER CREEKS WHERE WE'VE HAD TO NEGOTIATE?

YES. ALTHOUGH THE STANDARDS FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ARE DIFFERENT IN THESE WATERSHEDS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY GETTING THE SAME TYPES OF MANAGEMENT THAT WE WOULD GET FOR GOLF COURSES IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE AS WELL AS FOR OUR OWN GOLF COURSES THAT ARE WITHIN THIS AREA OF THE CITY.

LUSHER: AND THE CITY IS ALSO PLANNING A TRAIL THROUGH THIS AREA. DID WE GET A TRAIL EASEMENT?

YES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FIRST TEE MET WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE AN EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL SYSTEM IF AND WHEN PARKS WANTS TO CONNECT THEIR TRAIL SYSTEM ALONG WALNUT CREEK. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT TO WORK WITH PARKS TO GIVE THAT EASEMENT.

SLUSHER: AND THEN THE PARTS THAT ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN, IF THOSE PARTS OF THE GOLF COURSE WERE DAMAGED BY FLOODING LIKE WE'VE SEEN AT SOME PRIVATE GOLF COURSES, WOULD THE CITY BE LIABLE FOR THAT?

NO. AND WE HAVE STRESSED TO FIRST TEE THAT ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY DO IN A FLOODPLAIN WOULD BE AT THEIR RISK AND THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE NEGOTIATED THE 100-FOOT SET BACK FROM THE TOP OF THE BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CREEK WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PREDICTED EROSION RATES FOR WALNUT CREEK, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU'VE HEARD DURING THE MASTER PLAN, PREDICT SIGNIFICANT WIDENING OF WALL NUT CREEK OVER TIME. WE NOALGHTED THE 100-FOOT SET BACK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAN WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT TO BE THE WIDENING OF THE CHANNEL IN THE FUTURE.

SLUSHER: CAN I GET SOMEONE FROM FIRST TEE TO ADDRESS THE LIABILITY CONCERNS AND THE TRAILS JUST TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD? HOWDY.

HELLO.

SLUSHER: SO YOU CONCUR CAN WHAT MR. MURPHY SAID ABOUT IF THERE'S DAMAGE TO ANY PARTS OF THE GOLF COURSES FROM FLOODING, THAT WOULDN'T BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OR THE LIABILITY OF THE CITY?

CORRECT. WE TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THE CITY IS GETTING A TRAIL EASEMENT, SO WHEN WE COMPLETE THE TRAIL, THIS — THROUGH THE AREA AND THAT THE VOTERS HAVE APPROVED THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE IT THROUGH THE PROPERTY IF NECESSARY?

YES, SIR. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRAIL WOULD BE ALONG THE CREEK INSIDE THE HUNDRED-FOOT BUFFER THAT WE'VE ALLOWED FOR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT. I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THE STAFF TO GET ALL THIS DONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SLUSHER: MAYBE YOU SHOULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

JENNIFER MCURRA WITH THE FIRST TEE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTIN.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. I'M DONE, MAYOR.

GARCIA: I WANT TO PUT ITEM NUMBER 36 BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND I LOOKED AT THE CARDS AND I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR AN ITEM, SO ITEM 36 WILL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE AGENDA? IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

WYNN: SO MOVE.

GOODMAN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. LET ME READ THE CONSENT ITEMS AGAIN. ITEM NUMBER 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 AND 73. FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSES NO. THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. AND MS. BROWN, ITEM NUMBER 14 ALSO PASS ODD A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. ONE MOTION INCLUDED BOTH ITEMS 13 AND 14. CITY ATTORNEY, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? THAT WILL BE IN THE ITEMS FOR ACTION? ITEM NUMBER 7, — OKAY. WE HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO BRING UP. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO TO 50. WE'RE GOING TO ITEM 15 ON THE AGENDA. CONSIDERATION OF CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO BE PLACE ODD THE MAY 4TH 2002 BALLOT TO CHANGE THE TERMS AND METHOD OF ELECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ELECTION AT LARGE TO A METHOD INCLUDING THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS FROM GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRICTS TO A METHOD COMBINING AT LARGE AND DISTRICT ELECTIONS. MR. STEINER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK MR. ROBINSON IS ALSO HERE. OR AT LEAST HE WAS. MR. STEINER AND MR. ROBINSON, IF YOU COULD JOIN US AT THIS TABLE SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S ONE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ YESTERDAY FOR MR. ROBINSON AND IT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I THINK UNDER SEVEN-DISTRICT CONFIGURATION WE HAD TWO DISTRICTS THAT WERE PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC. AND UNDER EIGHT THERE WAS ONLY ONE. AND UNDER THE NINE — MR. ROBINSON, IF YOU COULD JOIN US OVER HERE AT THE TABLE. THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ YESTERDAY HAD TO DO WITH THE SEVEN-DISTRICT SCENARIO. AND IN THAT ONE DISTRICT 2 HAD 54.6% HISPANIC AND DISTRICT 3 HAD 51.5. AND THEN WHEN WE WENT TO THE EIGHT-DISTRICT SCENARIO, DISTRICT 2 WENT UP TO 62.6 AND DISTRICT 3 CAME DOWN TO 36.4. AND THEN IN DISTRICT 9 IT WENT UP AGAIN, BOTH OF THOSE DISTRICTS TO OVER 50%. WERE YOU ABLE TO RESEARCH TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS THE WAY THE LINES WERE DRAWN?

WE SPENT PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN HOURS LOOKING AT THAT AND TRYING TO DETERMINE WHY THAT HAD HAPPENED. WE HAVE COME UP WITH A SECOND VERSION OF A DISTRICT 8 THAT GIVES US TWO MAJORITY HISPANIC DISTRICTS. THE CONSTRAINTS THAT SORT OF MAKE THAT LESS THAN A SMOOTH CONTINUUM AS YOU GO 6, 7, 8, 9, ARE THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE COLORADO RIVER AS A BOUNDARY AND NOT JUMP ACROSS THAT. BUT IN THE SECOND VERSION OF THE 8-DISTRICT SCENARIO WE HAVE DONE THAT WITH THE CENTRAL MOST DISTRICT. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU NOT ONLY GET A RELATIVELY STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, BUT — IN THIS NEW VERSION 89 YOU GET TWO HISPANIC MAJORITY DISTRICTS AND YOU GET A RELATIVELY STRONG IMPACT DISTRICT UP IN NORTH CENTRAL AUSTIN. WHAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THIS AFTERNOON, THE VERSION 8, IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT WE ARE COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH, BUT IT IS A COUPLE OF STEPS DOWN THE PATH TOWARD A BETTER SCENARIO 8. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT UNDER 8 MEMBERS WE COULD CREATE TWO STRONG HISPANIC DISTRICTS, AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT AND A RELATIVELY STRONG IMPACT DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD BE THAT NORTH CENTRAL AUSTIN DISTRICT. SO THE MAP THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ISN'T QUITE THERE YET, BUT IT'S A GOOD COUPLE OF STEPS AWAY FROM THE SCENARIO THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT YESTERDAY ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD GLOOEN FROM THIS INFORMATION WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ANY OF THIS POPULATION WERE NON-SITTIZENS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE FROM THE INFORMATION OR NOT.

I THINK THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH A MEASURE THAT WOULD PROXIMATE THAT. THE ACTUAL INFORMATION FROM CENSUS 2000 IS PART OF WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE LONG FORM DATA SET AND WON'T BE HERE FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS. BUT I THINK WE CAN WITH CONFIDENCE GET VERY CLOSE TO WHAT THAT WOULD BE IN THOSE DISTRICTS WHERE IT WOULD MAKE A DISTRICT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. ROBINSON? FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. STEINER? LET ME KIND OF SUMMARIZE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY. THERE'S MANY ISSUES THAT IMPACT THIS ISSUE OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, CHANGING FROM AT LARGE TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS FEDERAL LAW. AND THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN LOOKING AT THE WAY WE DO THINGS WILL LOOK AT A SYSTEM AFTER THE CITY PUTS IT ON THE BALLOT. AND MR. STEINER, AS I WALK THROUGH THIS, IF I'M GETTING OFF THE BEATEN PATH,GET ME BACK IN. WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT, WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT BALLOT ITEM TO THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CORRECT? AND THEN THEY HAVE 60 DAYS TO DECIDE IF IN ESSENCE IT CAN BE PRECLEARED, WHICH MEANS POST-CLEARED, BUT IT'S ALSO PRECLEARED.

PRECLEARED IN THE SENSE THAT WE CAN'T IMPLEMENT IT UNTIL THEY SAY OKAY. POST-CLEARED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WON'T CONSIDER IT UNTIL WE'VE TAKEN EVERY ACTION TO ENACT IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WHAT WAS MENTIONED YESTERDAY SEVERAL TIMES, AND YESTERDAY I EVEN WENT TO THE DICTIONARY TO FIND OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGRESSIVE AND RETRO GRES SIEVE, AND I FOUND OUT THAT MOST OF THEM MEAN ABOUT THE SAME THING GOING BACK. AND THE US OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS — THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PREFERS TO USE RETRO GRESSIVE. AND WHAT MR. STEINER SAID THAT IF IN DOING WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE END RESULT IS THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE A SITUATION ANY BETTER — WE WILL HAVE A SITUATION WORSE AS IT REGARDS COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL, THAT THAT PARTICULAR PLAN MAY NOT MEET MUSTER, IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S VERY WELL PUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE HAVE THOSE ISSUES TO ADDRESS AND THEN WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION, WHICH — BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT EXTENSIVELY. AND THAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S MANY AREAS OF THE CITY THAT HAVE NEVER HAD A COUNCILMEMBER, AND THOSE ARE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN GROWING. WE DID A LITTLE ANALYSIS AMONG THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND FOUND OUT THAT IF YOU TAKE AN AREA NORTH OF 38TH AND A HALF, WEST OF I-35 AND EAST OF MOPAC GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COUNCILMEMBER FROM THAT AREA. THE CURRENT COUNCIL HAS NO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE WHOLE NORTHWEST AREA OR THE SOUTHWEST AREA OR THE SOUTHEAST AREA. SO THEREIN ARE THE REASONS THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AS THE CITY HAS GROWN AND ANNEXED AREAS, THOSE AREAS HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT SOMEBODY. SO THIS IS — THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ETHNIC AND RACIAL PARTICIPATION, IT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS TO DO WITH GETTING PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL THAT REPRESENT THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. AND MR. STEINER, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT I NEED TO ADD — THAT YOU CAN ADD TO THAT SUMMARY, VERY BRIEF SUMMARY, YOU CAN DO THAT AT THIS TIME.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. STEINER?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I HAD GIVEN MR. STEINER A WRITTEN QUESTION YESTERDAY. IT WAS RELATIVE TO TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME WAY THAT WE COULD ALLOW OURSELVES AS VOTERS THE AVAILABILITY OF MORE THAN ONE CHOICE ON THE BALLOT. AND I WROTE DOWN A COUPLE OF POSSIBILITIES THAT COME TO MIND AS LOGICAL ANSWERS, BUT OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN IT'S LEGAL.

LET ME BEGIN, WE START OUT WITH THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE THAT SAYS THAT PROPOSITION HAS TO BE PRINTED AS A SINGLE STATEMENT ON THE BALLOT, WHICH TO THE LEFT OF IT BOXES THAT EITHER SAY FOR AND AGAINST OR YES AND NO. AND THE INSTRUCTION HAS TO SAY, PLACE AN X IN THE SQUARE BESIDE THE STATEMENT INDICATING THE WAY YOU WISH TO VOTE. AND THE COURTS IN TEXAS HAVE HELD THAT TO BE ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY. WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT INSTRUCTION AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT PRESENTATION. IN A CASE CALLED RIGHT V GRAVES, THE COURT INVALIDATED A PROPOSITION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN THIS FORM. THE INSTRUCTION SAID PLACE AN X IN THE SQUARE BESIDE THE STATEMENT INDICATING THE WAY YOU WISH TO VOTE, PLACE AN X IN ONLY ONE BOX. AND THEN ON THE BALLOT WAS SHOULD THE COUNTY HOSPITAL BE LEASED TO THE AGI CORPORATION OR SHOULD THE COUNTY ITSELF OPERATE THE COUNTY HOSPITAL UNDER THE COUNTY BUDGET? THE COURT SAID THAT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE ELECTION CODE AND THE ELECTION WAS INVALID AND THEY ORDERED A NEW ELECTION TO BE HELD WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSITION PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN THE CORRECT WAY. I THINK THE SAME PROVISION WOULD PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE A RUNOFF BETWEEN BALLOT PROPOSITIONS BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T PRESENT THE PROPOSITION TO THE VOTERS IN THE FOR/AGAINST FORMAT WITH THE INSTRUCTION. NOW, AFTER THAT WE LOOK AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 9.005-A WHICH SAYS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A MUNICIPALITIES CHARTER IS ADOPTED IF IT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY WHO VOTE IN AN ELECTION HELD FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO EACH AMENDMENT THAT RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES IS PART OF THE CHARTER. THERE'S NO STATUTE OR GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH I'M AWARE THAT PROVIDES AN AMENDMENT THAT IS APPROVED BY A GREATER MARGIN OR WITH A GREAT ABSOLUTE NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANOTHER PROVISION THAT'S ALSO PUT IN THE CHARTER. SO IF TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PROPOSITIONS ARE APPROVED, THEY ARE BOTH PART OF THE CHARTER AND THEY STAND IN CONFLICT AS WELL AS SOME MECHANISM EXISTS TO SORT OUT THE CONFLICT. SO THE BEST I CAN SUGGEST FOR YOU IS THAT IF WE PUT INCONSISTENT OR MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE VOTERS, WHAT WE WILL NEED — THE BEST IDEA I CAN COME UP WITH IS TO PUT A MECHANISM IN THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES THAT SORTS OUT THE CONFLICT THAT EXISTS IF TWO OF THEM PASS. SO YOU SUGGESTED TO ME IN YOUR NOTE THAT IF BOTH WERE TO RECEIVE MORE THAN 50%, COULD THE ONE WITH MORE VOTES WIN? AND THERE'S NO RULE OF LAW THAT PROVIDES THAT, BUT PERHAPS IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DRAFT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF SO THAT THE AMENDMENT — IF YOU HAD TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, I COULD SUGGEST PUTTING IN EACH AMENDMENT A PROVISION THAT SAID, IF THE OTHER ONE PASSES AND IF THE OTHER ONE PASSES WITH MORE FAVORABLE VOTES THAN THIS ONE GOT, THE OTHER ONE PREVAILS AND THIS ONE IS VOID. THAT MAY GET YOU THERE. I HAVE TO SAY, OF COURSE, THAT THERE'S NO PRESS DENSE REGARDING A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION BEING PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN THAT WAY. THERE'S ONE CASE WHERE SOME BONDS WERE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN THAT WAY, BUT CHARTER IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IN THAT IT'S POSSIBLE JUST THE WAY BONDS ARE AUTHORIZED AND YOU DO 'T HAVE TO ISSUE THEM. SO IF MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BONDS ARE AUTHORIZED, THE GOMPT OF GOVERNMENT CAN CHOOSE NOT FOR ISSUE ONE. IF MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE LAWS ARE PUT INTO THE CHARTER, THE COUNCIL CAN NECESSARILY DECIDE TO IGNORE ONE. SO THE BEST I THINK I CAN SUGGEST IS TO PUT SOME TEXT INTO THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THAT WAY OF RESOLVING THE CONFLICT. THERE'S ALWAYS AN CHANCE OF RISK AT USING AN UNTESTED METHOD, AND THIS WOULD BE AN UNTESTED METHOD, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD SUGGEST THAT MIGHT GET YOU WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO. IT MAY BE WORTH MENTIONING, JUST IN THEORY, THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT A FAILED PROPOSITION COULD ACTUALLY RECEIVE A GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES THAN A PROPOSITION THAT PASSES ON THE SAME BAT LOT SINCE — BALLOT, SINCE NOT EVERYBODY MAY VOTE ON A PROPOSITION. IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE THAT A PROPOSITION THAT RECEIVES A GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES, MAY ALSO RECEIVE A GREATER NUMBER OF NEGATIVE VOTES OR THAT A PROPOSITION THAT RECEIVES A GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES MAY PASS BY A SMALLER MARGIN THAN A PROPOSITION RECEIVING FEWER FAVORABLE VOTES. AND FINALLY, IT'S POSSIBLE THE TWO PROPOSITIONS COULD PASS WITH AN EXACTLY EQUAL NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES. SO THOSE MIGHT BE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER AS WELL. BUT THAT'S A SUGGESTION I COULD MAKE THAT MIGHT GET YOU WHERE YOU WERE AIMING TO GO.

GOODMAN: WELL, YES AND NO. WHAT I WAS ASSUMING WAS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO LEGALLY QUANTIFY WHAT IN FACT WAS A WINNING BEYOND ALL OTHERS BALLOT ITEM, MEANING I ASSUME IT DOESN'T WIN AT ALL UNLESS IT GOES OVER 50%. SO OVER 50% THE ONE WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER, IF ANY OF THEM WENT OVER 50%, THEN WHICHEVER ONE — SINCE I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THEY WOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME VOTES, BUT I SUPPOSE ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE, BUT THE ONE WITH THE HIGHER NUMBER OF VOTES OVER 50% WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN ONE THAT THE VOTERS PASS.

THE REASON I THINK THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IS BECAUSE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS EVERYONE THAT GETS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES PASSES. SO EVERYONE THAT GETS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES IS PART OF THE CHARTER. SO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THEN IS HAVE SOMETHING IN THEM THEMSELVES THAT RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS SINCE BOTH OF THEM WOULD BE PART OF THE CHARTER. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT SAID EVERYBODY HAS TO WEAR A LEATHER BELT AND THAT — AND THEN WE ALSO HAD ONE THAT SAID EVERYBODY HAS TO WEAR A CLOTH BELT, THOSE WOULD BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. BUT IF ONE SAID IF THE OTHER ONE PASSED WITH MORE VOTES THAN THIS ONE, IT PREVAILS, THEN WE COULD EITHER READ THE TIPS OF THOSE AND FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE CONTROLS. IT COULD MAKE THE CHARTER KIND OF CLUTTERED BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TWO COMPLETING PROVISIONS THAT WOULD BOTH BE IN IT, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE A MECHANISM THAT WOULD SORT OUT WHICH WAS THE LAW AND WHICH WASN'T.

GOODMAN: THIS HAS NEVER COME UP BEFORE WHERE ANY VOTING JURISDICTION HAS WANTED TO PUT MORE THAN ONE CHOICE ON THE BALLOT FOR THEIR VOTERS?

THE TWO ACE CASES I'M AWARE OF IN TEXAS ARE THE ONE I MENTIONED, RIGHT VERSUS GRAVES, WHICH IS ONE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY PUT ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITIONS AND THE COURT STRUCK IS DOWN. THE OTHER ONE I'M AWARE OF IN TEXAS THAT I MENTIONED, BUT I DIDN'T MENTION IT BY NAME, IS A CASE CALLED ROYAL VERSUS NICHOLSON. THEY WERE ISSUING SCHOOLHOUSE BONDS. AND THEY PUT ON TWO BOND PROPOSITIONS. ONE WAS WE'LL BUILD A HIGH SCHOOL OVER HERE AND ONE WAS WE'LL BUILD A HIGH SCHOOL OVER THERE. SO ONE WAS BONDS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL HERE, ONE WAS BONDS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL THERE TO MORE OR LESS SIMPLIFY IT. AND THE SCHOOL BOARD SAID THAT THE ONE THAT PASSED WITH THE GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES WERE THE BONDS THAT WOULD ISSUE. A CONTEST WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THAT ELECTION. AND THOUGH IMPORTANTLY NO ONE WAS TRYING TO FORCE THEM TO ISSUE THE BONDS THAT PASSED WITH THE FEWER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES, THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO BLOCK THE BONDS THAT PASSED WITH A GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES. SO THE COURT ESSENTIALLY SAID, WELL, THE BONDS THAT PASSED WITH THE GREATER NUMBER OF FAVORABLE VOTES WERE CLEARLY APPROVED. AND SINCE NOBODY IS TRYING TO DO ANYTHING BUT BLOCK THAT ISSUE, WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE RESULT WAS WITH THE OTHER BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO ISSUE THEM AND NOBODY CARES. THEY SAID HOWEVER THE FACT THAT THAT OTHER PROPOSITION WAS ON THE BALLOT DIDN'T INVALIDATE THE ONE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WANTED TO ISSUE. ALSO, WITH BONDS REMEMBER THAT ALL THE BOND ELECTION IS DOING IS AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNING BODY TO ISSUE DEBT. SO ESSENTIALLY — AND THE GOVERNING BODY CAN COVENANT WITH THE VOTERS NOT TO ISSUE THE DEBT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AS OCCASIONALLY THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DONE. SO IT WAS A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE TWO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS WERE BOTH ENACTED AND WOULD BOTH BE LAW IN THE CHARTER.

GOODMAN: SO THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR SOME KIND OF RUNOFF DECISION, WHICH WOULD BE AN EXTRA ELECTION AND COST MORE?

YES, MA'AM, THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ALSO HAVE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HERE. YOU MAY WANT TO JOIN US. WE HAVE ANOTHER CHAIR RIGHT HERE. AS YOU'RE COMING UP, I'M GOING TO READ THE TWO CARDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. THE FIRST ONE IS FROM MAXINE BARKIN. SHE REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT SHE IS POISED AND SHE SAYS THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS SUPPORTS A MIXED SYSTEM AND WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED. SHE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. THE NEXT SPEAKER DOES WISH TO SPEAK AND IS REGISTERED AGAINST. AND THAT'S MR. RICKY BYRD. WELCOME, SIR. AND WELCOME MS. BARKER, BOBBY.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ARE MIXED SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, INVOLVE ALSO A CHANGE IN THE MAYOR'S TERM OF OFFICE. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE EQUATING GEOGRAPHY WITH DEMOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND POPULATION. I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO PHRASE IT, SO THE BEST I CAN DO IS GEOGRAPHY IS WHAT YOU BUILD YOUR COMMUNITY AND YOUR CULTURE OFF OF. THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AN AREA CHANGE OVER TIME. WHAT STARTS OUT AS A MINORITY AREA CAN BECOME A MAJORITY AREA. WHATCRATIC OR LIBERAL OR REPUBLICAN CHANGE IN THE COURSE OF TIME AND EVENTS. PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS RELATIVE TO AUSTIN IS THAT WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM MAKING SURE THAT THE BLACK AND ASIAN POPULATIONS WILL BE REPRESENTED PROPERLY. AT LARGE DISTRICTS REPRESENT REGIONAL AREAS OF THE CITY, BUT WILL AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES GET ONLY ONE APPOINTEE FOR EACH BOARD AND COMMISSION. AND IF THEY DO, WHAT DOES THAT SAY? WHAT ARE WE CREATING? WE'RE SAYING THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REPRESENT 200,000, 220,000 PEOPLE, BUT THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GET ONE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE WAY THE CITY FUNCTIONS. SO YOU'RE KIND OF WATERING DOWN YOUR REPRESENTATION EVEN BEFORE IT GETS THERE. OF COURSE, YOU'RE ALSO OPENING UP THE PROBABILITY THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE — THAT SETTLE DEEPER POCKETS AND ARE VERY INTERESTED IN HOW THE CITY SPENDS ITS MONEY AND COMMITS ITSELF AND WHAT POLICIES IT COMMITS TO ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN ANY KIND OF REGIONALIZED CITY ELECTION. THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THINGS LIKE THE FAIR ELECTIONS ACT ARE SEEKING TO OFFSET. BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S GOING TO WORK THE WAY IT'S INTENDED. THAT'S ALWAYS THE PROBLEM WITH POLITICS AND DEALING WITH CITY CONSTITUTIONS AND CHARTERS. I'M FOR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. I'M FOR THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT GIVES YOU THE BEST CHANCE TO PUT TOWARD A CITY COUNCIL THAT REPRESENTS THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS WITHOUT HAVING TO CONSTANTLY REDRAW DISTRICTS ALL THE TIME. [ BUZZER SOUNDS ] THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RICK CIVMENT YOU ARE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL THAT WANTS TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR TWO. ANYBODY? JUST A SECOND. COMOM?

THOMAS: MR. BYRD, WHEN YOU MADE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, HOW MANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE PRESENT?

I BELIEVE VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM WERE — OF THE COMMITTEE, YOU MEAN?

THOMAS: THAT'S CORRECT.

I BELIEVE ALL OF THEM WERE. THERE WERE SEVEN MEMBERS, AND I THINK THEY WERE ALL THERE.

THOMAS: LET ME ASK YOUR CHAIR. IS THAT CORRECT, CHAIR?

I WAS JUST LOOKING THROUGH MY NOTES TO SEE IF I HAD THAT, BECAUSE WE HAD ONE MEMBER WHO HAD SOME PERSONAL ISSUES AND WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND. AND THERE WERE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT.

THOMAS: SO THAT WASN'T EVERYBODY.

I STAND CORRECTED. OTHER.

THOMAS: SO THERE WAS FIVE PRESENT OUT OF NINE?

THERE WERE ORIGINALLY NINE MEMBERS, BUT TWO OF THE MEMBERS DROPPED OUT VERY QUICKLY AND WERE NEVER REPLACED. SO FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE TIME THE BODY CONSISTED OF SEVEN MEMBERS. > MAYOR GARCIA: SO FIVE OF THE SEVEN WERE THERE, TOBY?

THAT'S RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR. BYRD, OR AT LEAST ONE. YOU SAID THAT TOWARD THE END OF YOUR REMARKS THAT YOU'RE FOR PROPORTIONAL RECOMMENDATION. I KNOW THAT YOU REALIZE THAT UNDER TEXAS LAW YOU CAN'T HAVE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, BUT ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR POSITION. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULD WAIT AND TRY TO GET THAT CHANGED AT THE LEGISLATURE. AND SO TELL ME IF THAT'S ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF YOUR VIEWS AND THEN TELL ME WHY YOU FAVOR THAT.

WE NEED TO REVISIT THE TRIGGER THAT GOT US OFF OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. WE FORGET OUR OWN HISTORY SOMETIMES. MR. DEWITTY CAME VERY CLOSE TO BEING ON THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEN THAT HAPPENED THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CHARTER AND THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE STATE LAW AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A BLACK PERSON SITTING ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

SLUSHER: I HAD MENTIONED THAT BEFORE MYSELF ABOUT THAT'S WHEN THE CITY SWITCHED FROM I THINK IT WAS THE TOP FIVE GET ELECTED, MR. DEWITTY CAME IN CLOSE TO SIX. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE IS THAT WHEN STATE LAW WAS CHANGED? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

I'M FAIRLY SURE. I'M NOT DEAD CERTAIN, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M WRONG.

SLUSHER: I DON'T CARE. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.

THE THING THAT WE HAVE TO REALIZE IS IT'S NOT ODD AS THE COMMUNITY BECOMES MORE DIFFUSED TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT REPRESENTATION. IT HAPPENED IN AMARILLO IN THE MID '90'S THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO ACTUALLY ELECT A BLACK REPRESENTATIVE AND AN HISPANIC REPRESENTATIVE. IT WAS ONLY WITH PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SCHEME THAT WAS INDUCED BY THE THREAT OF A LAWSUIT THAT THEY ADOPTED ONE. AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, LO AND BHOALD THIF THEIR FIRST HISPANIC REPRESENTATIVE IN 25 YEARS AND THEY'RE ONLY BLACK REPRESENTATIVE.

HOW IS AMARILLO ABLE TO HAVE A PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL —

THAT WAS A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY — I THINK THE GROUP'S NAME WAS MODUL. THEY PRESSURED THE AMARILLO POWERS THAT BE THAT EITHER THIS OR WE'RE GOING TO COURT ON A CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT.

SLUSHER: HOW DOES THIS WORK IN AMARILLO? HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE THERE?

THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS, I BELIEVE.

SLUSHER: AND YOU VOTE THE TOP FIVE OR IS IT WEIGHTED VOTING? TELL ME ABOUT THAT.

IT IS WEIGHTED VOTING. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE FIVE VOTES. YOU CAN PUT ALL FIVE VOTES FOR ONE PERSON AND ENSURE THAT PERSON GETS THE MAXIMUM USE OF YOUR VOTING OR YOU CAN SPREAD YOUR FIVE VOTES OUT, DEPENDING ON JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

SLUSHER: AND THAT'S IN PLACE SINCE WHEN?

I BELIEVE THE MID 19 '90'S. 1993.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE WEIGHTED VOTING?

I WOULD THINK SO, YES, BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU CAN — YOUR REPRESENTATIVES COULD ADDRESS WHAT THEY VIEWED AS THEIR CONSTITUENCY WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT LINES DRAWN AROUND CERTAIN DISTRICTS. AND IF THEIR CONSTITUENCY RESPONDED THEY WOULD GET ELECTED IN. IT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL — I LOOK AT THIS AND THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS NOW, DARRYL, I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT AN ASIAN WILL BE ELECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN 10 YEARS WILL BE UNDER THIS TYPE OF SCHEME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MR. BYRD. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE — ALL DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT MINORITY REPRESENTATION, THERE HADN'T BEEN HARDLY ANY MENTION OF THE ASIAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. STEINER?

THIS IS FOR MS. BARKER AND I SUPPOSE ANYBODY WHO IS HERE, IF ANYBODY ELSE IS HERE FOR THE COMMISSION. THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE NUMBERS, THE PARTICULAR NUMBERS BOTH OF STRAIGHT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND OF THE MIXED SYSTEM. AND FOR INSTANCE, MS. BARKIN FROM LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS SUPPORTS A MIXED SYSTEM THAT THEY SUPPORT. CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHAT IT IS THEY SUPPORT? WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS THERE AND WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL TELL? AND ALSO WE'VE HAD VARIOUS SPEAKERS IN PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NUMBERS OF DISTRICTS PER SE. SOME PREFER GOING TO A FEWER NUMBER SO THAT WE DON'T EVEN ACTUALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SITTING COUNCILMEMBERS, EVEN IF IT'S REPRESENTING A DIFFERENT SORT OF ELECTION SYSTEM. SOME HAVE SAID THAT WE ARE A LARGE CITY AND NEED TO EXPAND ON THE NUMBERS. SO THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED THE POTENTIAL KICKOFF MAPS TO LOOK AT AND NUMBERS OF REPRESENTATION. SO COULD YOU ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP IN THE DIFFERING NUMBER PROPOSED OF SINGLE MEMBER AND/OR MIXED?

MAYOR PRO TEM, I WILL DO MY BEST, BUT I MAY WANT TO REFRESH THE COUNCIL'S MEMORY FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WE WERE APPOINTED IN AUGUST. WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER. AND WE WERE CHARGED WITH A 45-DAY PROCESS TO PREVIEW — REVIEW THE PRIOR COMMISSIONS CHARTER REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS IN LIGHT OF THE CENSUS DATA THAT CAME OUT. BARBARA HANKINS, THE PRIOR CHAIR OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION, IS THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE VERY LENGTHY PROCESS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH AND ALL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THINGS THAT THEY HELD. JOHN STEINER I BELIEVE WAS THE STAFF DURING THAT PROCESS. AND SO I'M GOING TO NEED TO DEFER TO HIM TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO THAT PRIOR CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION'S EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF JUST THOSE ISSUES. SO IT'S — IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, I THINK I WOULD DEFER TO HIM.

WELL, THE PREVIOUS CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE ACTUALLY WAS IN EXISTENCE FOR PROBABLY A LITTLE OVER A YEAR BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO GATHER A QUORUM TO MEET. THERE WERE A GREAT NUMBER OF MEMBERSHIP CHANGES DURING THAT TIME, BUT WHEN THEY DID BEGIN MEETING THEY HELD AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF OF LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS AND WENT THROUGH PROBABLY EVERY EMERGENCY NABL PERMANENT MUTATION OF IDEAS. AND THEY BROUGHT IN PEOPLE FROM VARIOUS INTEREST GROUPS TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT VARIOUS KINDS OF SYSTEMS. I KNOW THAT THEY HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO HAD LITIGATED VOTING RIGHTS CASES THAT HAD RESULTED IN PEOPLE GOING TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. THEY HEARD EXTENSIVELY FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM. THEY DID HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH WERE NOT HUGELY ATTENDED, BUT THEY DID HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS AROUND THE CITY. AND FINALLY THEY COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF, WHICH WAS FOR A 10-MEMBER COUNCIL ELECTED FROM DISTRICTS WITH AN AT-LARGE MAYOR AND EVENTUALLY GOING UP TO 12.

AND FROM THE STANDPOINT, FROM OUR CHARTER COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF SEATS, WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, ALTHOUGH OUR PRIMARY FOCUS WAS LOOKING AT CENSUS DATA TO DETERMINE IF THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE PRIOR COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. OUR CONCERN WAS THAT — THAT WAS VOICED IS IF THERE ARE TOO MANY SEATS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PALATABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND THE MIXED SYSTEM THAT THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS IS RECOMMENDING TO US IS? WHAT ARE THOSE NUMBERS? ERKS I DON'T KNOW IF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MADE A RECOMMENDATION WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

GOODMAN: I THINK ON THE CARD MS. BARKIN SAID THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS SUPPORTED A MIXED SYSTEM OR THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO MIXED SYSTEM. SO —

MY RECOLLECTION AT THE PRIOR PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEY DID TESTIFY TO YOU AND DID SUPPORT A MIXED SYSTEM.

THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT INCLUDED SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

RIGHT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO DO YOU KNOW THEN, EITHER MS. SNYDER OR MS. BARKIN — MR. STEINER. IF THE MIXED SYSTEM WAS ANYWHERE ALONG THE WAY? CONNECTED IN SOME WAY TO A LOGICAL NUMBER, LIKE 7-2?

ACTUALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A MIXED SYSTEM WITH NUMBERS ATTACHED TO IT WAS EVER, TO MY MEMORY NOW, WHICH IS MORE THAN A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER THE FACT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A MIXED SYSTEM WAS SPECIFIC — WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PRIOR CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE.

I APOLOGIZE, THE CHAIR OF THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE, HER NAME IS BARBARA HANKINS. AND I RECEIVED THIS QUESTION DWRED, SO I CONTACTED HER ON THE PHONE AND SHE EXPRESSED THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AMONG THE COMMISSION WAS A 7-3-1 MIXED SYSTEM. SEVEN AT LARGE, THREE — I'M SORRY, SEVEN ELECTED FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THREE FROM AT LARGE AND ONE MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND MR. BYRD, ARE YOU REMEMBERING ANY — WHAT I HAD ASKED, COUNCIL, WAS ANYBODY WHO IS ON THE COMMITTEE, IF THEY HAD A REMEMBRANCE OF THIS. SO I DON'T WANT TO DRAG IT OUT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW IF NUMBERS WERE DISCUSSED. SO IF MR. BYRD HAS A REMEMBRANCE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT, PLEASE FEEL FREE.

THAT'S A REPORT THAT I REMEMBER, THAT I WROTE DOWN.

GOODMAN: 7, 3, 1?

YES.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. THANKS, MAYOR. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 15? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANKS, MAYOR. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES, I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY IN WHICH WE PROPOSE TO ELECT OUR COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT IS, WHETHER STRAIGHT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR STRAIGHT AT LARGE OR A MIXED SYSTEM IS VERY MUCH RELATED ALSO TO HOW WE TRY TO REFORM OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE. AND SO I KNOW WE'RE NOT PREPARED OR POSTED, I GUESS, TO — MAYBE WE ARE, TO TALK ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE POSSIBLE BALLOT INITIATIVES IN MAY. I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THE DECISION ON THE DISTRICT — THE METHODOLOGY IN WHICH WE ELECT COUNCILMEMBERS UNTIL WE'RE ALSO HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OTHER BALLOT LANGUAGES BECAUSE FRANKLY I THINK IT DOES TIE INTO THE CONCEPT OF ESSENTIALLY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE DEBATE ABOUT THE TERM LIMIT ISSUES BECAUSE THAT MIGHT ROLL INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE THEN IMPLEMENT POTENTIAL DISTRICTS, THAT IS, WHETHER IT'S ALL AT ONCE, NEW SET OF ELECTIONS IN MAY OF 03 OR WHETHER IT SOMEHOW STAGGERS OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE ITEM 16-F, WHICH IS THE TERMS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ITEM 16-4, WHICH IS A REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION REGARDING CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES. AND OF COURSE, ITEM I SAYS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITY-INITIATED ELECTION ACT ON MAY 4TH, 2000. SO WE HAVE THOSE ITEMS THAT HAD TO DO WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE. AND IKELIKE YOU INDICATED EARLIER, IF WE PASS CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WE CAN PASS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, SO PEOPLE CAN RUN FOR MUCH LESS THAN WHAT PEOPLE ARE SPENDING NOWADAYS TO RUN AT LARGE CAMPAIGNS.

WYNN: SO IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE TO DEFER ACTION ON ITEM NUMBER 15 UNTIL WE'VE GONE THROUGH ITEM NUMBER 16 AND TALK ABOUT THE OTHER POTENTIAL CHARTER REVISION BALLOT LANGUAGES THAT IN FACT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT THERE, OF WHAT WE DO WITH OUR ELECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE'LL HOLD 15 OFF AND GO TO ITEM 16, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE PLACED ON THE MAY 4TH, 2002 BALLOT, INCLUDING THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT'S ARTICLE 2, SECTION 3. AND THAT'S THE ARTICLE IN THE CHARTER, CORRECT? G IS LOWERING THE PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED VOTER SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON A POSITION INITIATED TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE. H IS TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPEND ITURES. I IS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO CITIZEN AUSTIN ELECTION ACT ON THE MAY 4TH, 2002 BALLOT. AND I THINK J — FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER — I'M SORRY. THE ITEM THAT I READ, F, G, H AND I, I WAS READING IT OFF OF MY AGENDA. THOSE SHOULD BE A, B, C AND D. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE OTHERS, WHICH ARE E, F AND G, DO NOT PERTAIN TO CAMPAIGN FINANCING OR ELECTION OF COUNCILMEMBERS. SO I'LL CALL UP FOR DISCUSSION 16A, B, C, D AND E. AND I'LL ASK MS. BARKIN IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OTHER THAN THE REPORT THAT YOU'VE SENT. THAT IS THAT IS VERY CLEAR, TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL, LOWERING OF A PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED VOTER SIGNATURES IS REQUIRED FOR A PETITION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LOWERING MEANS. LOWERING FOR WHAT?

CURRENTLY THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT A PETITION IS REQUIRED TO INITIATE A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE IS 10% OF QUALIFIED VOTERS. AND OUR PROPOSAL IS TO LOWER THAT TO FIVE PERCENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FROM 10 TO FIVE. OF QUALIFIED VOTERS.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FROM 36 TO ABOUT 18,000, MORE OR LESS, CORRECT?

IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER?

MAYOR GARCIA: GIVE OR TAKE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THEN THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION EXPENDITURES, THAT'S THE ONE THAT SETS THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT AND ALSO THE 90,000 PER COUNCILMEMBERS AND 125 — OR 17,000 —

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THOSE ARE VOLUNTARY LIMITS.

YEAH. THE SECOND SET OF NUMBERS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ARE SET BY CITY ORDINANCE. THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT AND A FEW OTHER THINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR BY A CHARTER PROVISION THAT WAS THE RESULT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE THAT WENT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER OF '97.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS. WHAT IS THE CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR EXPENDITURES?

THE CHARTER DOES NOT HAVE A PROVISION REGARDING EXPENDITURES.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THAT PARTICULAR — THAT PARTICULAR SECTION SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE AGENDA. THAT SHOULD READ REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, PERIOD. CORRECT?

PROBABLY. YES.

LET ME LOOK AT ARTICLE 8 AND MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT EXPENDITURES. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE EXPENDITURE LIMITS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8. AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH THAT, I'LL ASK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WHO HAS DONE SOME ANALYSIS OF HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE STAYED ON THE COUNCIL, TO MAYBE BRIEF US ON THAT ISSUE AS SOON AS MR. STEINER FINISHES THAT ISSUE.

IT DOES HAVE PROVISIONS REGARDING EXPENDITURES. I STAND CORRECTED. IT HAS VOLUNTARY LIMITS REGARDING SIGNING A CONTRACT, WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT ARE IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO IT SHOULD SAY AND EXPENDITURES.

IT SHOULD SAY AND EXPENDITURES.

AND THOSE ARE FOR VOLUNTARY LIMBS.

WYNN: MAYOR, WE'RE STILL ON THIS ITEM. SO IS THE RECOMMENDATION REPEALING THAT SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER, ARTICLE 3, OR JUST REPEALING THE SECTION REGARDING THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THAT SECTION THAT TALK ABOUT MORE THINGS THAN JUST —

THAT RECOMMENDATION CAME FROM THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE WAS TO REPEAL ALL OF ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8. IN OTHER WORDS, TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE INITIALIVE THAT WAS ADDED TO THE CHARTER IN NOVEMBER OF '97.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SOME.

SLUSHER: FIRST I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE THREE OF US UP HERE THAT ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION AND WE'RE ALL THREE FOLLOWING WHAT'S IN THAT PROVISION, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK — I DON'T AGREE — I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT, BUT THE VOTERS DID. AND SO I'M FOLLOWING IT. AND OTHERS ARE FOLLOWING IT. I THINK THAT CLEARLY THE VIEW OF TERM LIMITS HAS CHANGED SOME OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS SINCE IT PASSED. IF IT WENT BEFORE THE VOTERS WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY FIND OUT, BUT I THINK IN HOUSTON NOW MAYOR — FORMER MAYOR LANIER IS ONE OF THE LEADERS IN A BATTLE TO OVERTURN THEIR TERM LIMITS PROVISIONS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER EXAMPLES LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT I DID WAS JUST LOOK AT OUR SITUATION SPECIFIC TO AUSTIN BECAUSE ONE THING WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT, I THINK MR. MILES ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SAID THAT THE BEST TERM LIMIT IS ELECTIONS. AND THE IN AUSTIN HAVEN'T BEEN HESITANT TO USE THAT VEHICLE TO TURN COUNCILMEMBERS OUT OF OFFICE — OFF THIS DAIS.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST, TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST, ABCDEFG,.

: TO BEAT THE GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT SUCCESSFULLY, HE DID THAT. SO THERE'S 30 THAT HAVE SERVED A COMPLETE TERM SINCE THE 81. — SINCE 1981, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE TERM. OF THOSE 38 WERE DEFEATED AT THE POLLS, SEEKING REELECTION. NOT ALL AFTER ONE TERM. BUT OF THE 30 THAT HAVE SERVED, 8 INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS WERE DEFEATED AT THE POLLS TURNED OUT OF AUSTIN BY THE AUSTIN VOTERS, SO THAT'S 27% OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED ON THE COUNCIL SINCE 1981 WERE TURNED OUT OF OFFICE BY THE VOTERS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, SIX ONLY SERVED ONE TERM AND DIDN'T RUN AGAIN. AND ACTUALLY HAVING SERVED UP HERE, I THINK WE WOULD AGREE THAT PROBABLY SURPRISES US AS SORT OF A LOW NUMBER. OF ONES THAT JUST DECIDE TO ONLY DO IT ONCE. NO, I'M SORRY, THAT'S WRONG. SIX SERVED ONE TERM AND DIDN'T RUN — NO, THAT IS RIGHT, I'M SORRY. 12 SERVED ONLY ONE TERM. THAT WOULD BE SIX OF THEM WERE TURNED OUT, SIX OF THEM WERE — WERE JUST — JUST DIDN'T RUN AGAIN. SO 30 PEOPLE SERVED. EIGHT WERE DEFEATED AT THE POLLS, IN ADDITION TO THAT, SIX SERVED ONE TERM AND DIDN'T RUN AGAIN FOR A TOTAL OF 12 THAT ONLY SERVED ONE TERM. 7 SERVED TWO TERMS, NOT COUNTING THE TWO OF US UP HERE NOW THAT HAVE SERVED TWO. YOU HAD — SO IN ALL YOU HAVE — YOU HAVE 12 THAT — 12 THAT SERVED ONE TERM OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME, ONE THAT SERVED A TERM AND A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT'S MAYOR WATSON, WHO RECENTLY LEFT AND DIDN'T COMPLETE HIS SECOND TERM. YOU HAVE NINE THAT SERVED TWO TERMS. SIX THAT SERVED THREE TERMS. AND DURING THAT TIME ONLY TWO MEMBERS SERVED MORE THAN — MORE THAN THREE TERMS. SO MAYOR PRO TEM TREVINO AND MAYOR PRO TEM URDY BOTH SERVED 13 YEARS. THOSE ARE THE LONGEST TENURES DURING THAT TIME. IF THAT'S HELPFUL — I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH THE OTHERS. I WOULD RATHER TYPE IT UP FIRST BEFORE I DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MEANS THAT THE VOTERS OF AUSTIN ARE PRETTY GOOD TERM LIMITERS USING ELECTIONS.

THEY HAVE REAL GOOD RECORD AT LIMITING COUNCILMEMBERS TERMS THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ANALYSIS BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. I COMMEND HIM BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY DID ALL OF THAT BY MEMORY, WHICH AMAZED ME.

SLUSHER: IT SHOWS THAT I'M OLD, BUT NOT OLD ENOUGH TO FORGET, I GUESS.

WYNN: I WOULD THINK, THOUGH MAN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE UNLESS SHOULD TIE INTO OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE IR. THAT IS SINCE 1997, WITH WHEN THE $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMIT, MAKING IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR CHALLENGERS, IN MY OPINION, THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE COUNCILMEMBER WHO WAS TURNED OUT BY THE VOTERS. SO I — WHEREAS THERE WAS AN AWFULLY GOOD TRACK RECORD FROM '81 TO '97, SINCE '967, IN FACT — SINCE '97, IN FACT IT'S RARE, IT'S ONLY HAPPENED ONCE, IN FACT WE ALL KNOW THERE WAS ACTUALLY SOME SORT OF EXTERNAL FORCES THAT PLAYED THERE. AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TERM LIMITS AND WE TALK ABOUT DISTRICTS, WE ALSO NEED TO — THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO TIE IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE BECAUSE THAT REALLY DOES — YOU KNOW, TIE THEM ALTOGETHER.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, WITH ONE CAVEAT. I THINK THE $100 LIMIT, IT DOES FAVOR INCUMBENTS TO THE EXTENT THAT WHEN AN INCUSTOM ISN'T OPPOSED BY A WEALTHY PERSON, WHO I THINK IT FAVORS EVEN MORE THAN INCUMBENTS ARE THE WEALTHY BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T WEALTHY ARE LIMITED TO $100 CONTRIBUTIONS, WHERE THOSE WHO ARE WEALTHY CAN PUT WHATEVER AMOUNT THEY CARE TO OR CAN OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS INTO THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN. SO THAT'S ANOTHER FACET I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MS. BARKER, ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION?

ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM OR DID YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE ITEMS?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 15 — ACTUALLY, 15 AND WE ARE KIND OF — KIND OF PUT ON HOLD FOR A MINUTE WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 16A, B, C, D, AND E. I TAKE IT BACK, E IS NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. E HAS TO DO WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, COUNCILMEMBERS, FINANCING, EXPENDITURES AND THE LOWERING OF A QUALIFIED VOTER SIGNATURE REQUIRED FOR A PETITION TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE.

THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION REVIEWED EACH OF THESE, DELIBERATED ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS. AND THE ONES THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU WERE THE RESULT OF NOT ONLY THE WORK OF THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT SPENT TIME ON JUST THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE. AND THAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WE MOVED THROUGH TO COME UP WITH THESE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THEM, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. BARKER FOR — >SLUSHER: WHAT ARE WE ON NOW?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE ON 16A, B, C.

SLUSHER: ANY OF THOSE, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE ONE LOWERING THE SIGNATURES FOR NEEDING AN ORDINANCE. ON THE FACE OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE AN IMBALANCE. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WERE THINKING, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE CHARTER SAYS 5% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS NEED TO SIGN A PETITION TO CHANGE THE CHARTER. BUT 10% NEED TO CHANGE IT, NEED TO SIGN A PETITION IN ORDER TO GET AN ELECTION ON CHANGING AN ORDINANCE THAT THE COUNCIL DID. WELL, I STARTED THINKING ABOUT THAT, I THINK BECAUSE AT FIRST IT SEEMED LIKE WELL, WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT, THAT'S OUT OF KILL THE TER. THEN I START — OUT OF KILTER. THEN I STARTED THINKING MAYBE WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED WAS THAT IT WOULD ONLY TAKE 5% TO GET THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION, THAT'S THE CITY CHARTER THAT GOVERNS THE CITY, BUT THAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED THE COUNCIL TO SET THE ORDINANCE, SO WANTED TO MAKE IT A RARE INSTANCE, WHERE THERE WOULD BE AN ELECTION ON AN ORDINANCE. SO I — I FEEL — — I TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO CHANGING THE CHARTER AND SO I WOULD BE INCLINED TO LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE. BUT I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON IT. IS THAT WHAT — DID I CAPTURE Y'ALL'S THINKING? DID YOU ALL HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT CONCEPT THAT I RAISED, PERHAPS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE THINKING?

THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC SIDE OF IT IN TERMS OF THE ROLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THAT THE CITY CHARTER REVIEWED IT ALONG THE LINES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION, WE NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT MAKING CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION SO THAT WE HOPEFULLY DON'T GET IN A SITUATION LIKE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND HAVE EVERY — EVERYTHING IN THAT. AND THAT WE ARE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT — ABOUT THOSE CHANGES. WE FELT THAT THE ORDINANCES, HOWEVER, SHOULD HAVE — BE EASIER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO BY THE CITIZENS. BUT WE HAD NOT REFLECTED ON JUST THE POINT THAT YOU RAISED OF — OF THE FOUNDER THOUGHT WHEN THEY WERE SETTING THIS UP INITIALLY.

SLUSHER: MR. STEINER, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?

JUST — MENTION THAT THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES SET FOR AMENDING A CITY CHARTER IS NOT SET BY THE CHARTER. THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES SET FOR AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER IS SET BY STATE LAW UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SO THE 5% NUMBER FOR A PETITION TO CHANGE THE CHARTER IS SET BY STATE LAW. THERE IS NO INHERENT INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM ANYWHERE IN TEXAS. SO THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE HAVE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN TEXAS ARE IN HOME RULE CITIES THAT PROVIDE FOR IT IN THEIR CHARTERS. OUR CHARTER PROVIDES FOR INITIATIVE ORDINANCES AND THE — AND THE BEST EXAMPLE OF ONE IS S.O.S., WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE — AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE. THE NUMBERS SET BY THE CHARTER FOR AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE IS 10% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS. THE — THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE IS THAT WHEN THE CHARTER IS AMENDED, IT CAN ONLY BE AMENDED BY ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES ANOTHER ELECTION, AND REQUIRES TWO YEARS TO ELAPSE BETWEEN THE MOST RECENT CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE NEXT ONE. AND AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE IS — IS LIKE ANY OTHER ORDINANCE, EXCEPT THAT — EXCEPT THAT IT CAN ONLY BE AMENDED AFTER TWO YEARS AND THEN THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY OF SIX VOTES ON THE COUNCIL. OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S JUST AN ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO THINGS AND WHERE THE TWO AMOUNTS ARE SET.

SLUSHER: LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT. HOW DID WE END UP WITH THE — THAT CHARTER CAN BE CHANGED OR NOT THE CHARTER CAN BE CHANGED OR THERE CAN BE AN ELECTION ON THE CHARTER FROM THE PETITION DRIVE OF 5%, IS... THAT IS STATE LAW?

SET BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THAT'S THE STATE LAW. OKAY. WHEN WAS THAT — WAS THAT A — AN OLD, VERY OLD LAW?

WHEN DID THE 5% NUMBER —

SLUSHER: I'M WONDERING, WAS THAT IN PLACE BEFORE THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER?

I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT FOR YOU, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE ON THAT ONE FOR NOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE — I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON — ON ANY ONE OF THE ITEMS, 15, 16, A, B, C, D AND E.

SLUSHER: WELL, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT, THEN LET ME ASK SOME QUESTIONS ON THE C, WHICH IS THE REPEAL OF THE $100 LIMIT THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS TALKING ABOUT. FORGIVE ME IF I REPEAT ANYTHING THAT HE SAID, I WAS OUT OF THE ROOM FOR A SECOND. BUT THIS WOULD REPEAL THE WHOLE THING, SO THEN WE ARE BACK TO THE SITUATION OF 199 WHAT, 6? '97, I THINK WAS THE LAST ELECTION HELD UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM.

IF THE — REMEMBER THAT THERE WILL BE A CITIZEN INITIATIVE REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ON THE BALLOT.

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND.

AND IF IT WERE TO FAIL, AND IF THE REPEAL OF ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8 WERE PUT ON THE BALLOT AND IT PASSED, THEN THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE CHARTER WOULD NOT HAVE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION IN IT EXCEPT FOR ARTICLE 3, SECTION 7, WHICH IS A PROVISION THAT YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THAT REQUIRES YOU TO PURCHASE......... PUBLISH IN THE NEWSPAPER A LIST OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

BUT THERE WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SHEA SPONSORED —

YES.

— CAMPAIGN LAW I THINK IT WAS CALLED.

SO THEN THE CHARTER WOULD NOT HAVE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION IN IT AND WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH THE STATE LAW, AND THE CITY'S ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 2.9 OF THE CITY CODE, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WHICH HAS A PROVISION THAT'S — THAT'S TO DESCRIBE IT BRIEFLY, IT PROVIDES THAT IF YOU OPT IN TO THE — TO THE SYSTEM, AND SIGN THE ELECTION CONTRACT, THAT YOU AGREE TO CERTAIN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, YOU GET A CHANCE AT PUBLIC FUNDING IN THE EVENT THAT YOU MAKE GET INTO A — MAY GET INTO A RUNOFF.

SLUSHER: YOU OPT OUT — IF SOMEBODY OPTS IN, THEY HAVE AN OPPONENT WHO DOESN'T OPT IN, SPENDS MORE THAN THEIR LIMIT, THEN THEY CAN BUST THE LIMIT, TOO.

THEY CAN BUST THE LIMIT, TOO, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE CHANCE AT THE FUNDING IN THE RUNOFF.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A SITUATION THEN WHERE — LET'S SEE, IF WE PUT BOTH THESE ON THE BALLOT, WE DEFINITE — DEFINITELY THE ONE THAT IS GOING ON BY A CITIZEN INITIATIVE PETITION, THAT ONE IS GOING ON THE BALLOT —

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: IF WE PUT THIS ON, IT WOULD REPEAL THE $100, THEN WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE, OKAY, THE — THE CITIZEN ONE PASSES AND THIS ONE, WHETHER OR NOT THIS — THE OTHER ONE PASSED OR FAILED, REPEALING THE $100 LIMIT, THE $100 LIMIT WOULD BE REPEALED?

THE —

SLUSHER: THE ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES THE $100 LIMIT — THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT INCLUDES THE $100 LIMIT WOULD BE REPEALED IF THE OTHER ONE PASSES.

WHICH WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY.

SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I MEAN EITHER WAY. WHETHER OR NOT THAT ITEM PASSED, IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE — NEW ONE PASSES, THAT REPEALS THE OLD ONE.

THIS SUGGESTION IS REDUNDANT WITH THAT PART OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

SLUSHER: SO THE QUESTION IS IF THAT ONE DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE WOULD EITHER GO BACK TO THE — WE WOULD STAY WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE $1. 100 LIMIT. OR IF WE PUT THIS ON THE $100 LIMIT ORDER CHARTER IS REPEALED, THEN WE WOULD BE BACK TO THE '97 SYSTEM.

YOU WOULD BE BACK TO THE SITUATION THAT EXISTED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE NOVEMBER OF 1997, YES.

SLUSHER: HOW MANY — ARE WE THE ONLY ONE IN THE STATE THAT HAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN THE CHARTER?

AS FAR AS I KNOW. THERE ARE OTHER CITY THAT HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCES, I'M NOT AWARE OF —

SLUSHER: THAT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL TO HAVE IT IN THE CHARTER.

I WOULD THINK SO.

SLUSHER: SO ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO — I MEAN, I WOULD THINK — WE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE PUT — I THINK WHERE WE PUT BOTH OF THEM ON AND THE — THE INITIATIVE ONE FAILS, THE $100 LIMIT REPEAL PASSES, I WAS THINKING ABOUT IF WE DID THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE READY — MAYBE THAT'S NOT A QUESTION. I'M JUST DRAWING THAT OUT FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT'S A FAIRLY COMPLICATED —

YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE [MULTIPLE VOICES]

SLUSHER: HAD SOME DECENT FEATURES TO IT, BUT WE ENDED UP WITH $1 MILLION SPENT IN THE MAYOR'S RACE THE LAST YEAR THAT THAT WAS IN PLACE.

YOU COULD CERTAINLY ADD VARIOUS PROVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE. YOU COULD ADD A CONTRIBUTION LIMIT TO THE ORDINANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANTED TO. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, RESTRICTIONS ON — ON THESE THINGS. YOU CAN — YOU HAVE A LOT OF LEEWAY IN EXPENDITURE RESTRICTIONS, YOU CANNOT DO EXPENDITURE RESTRICTIONS UNLESS IT'S PART OF AN OPT-IN SYSTEM. BUT CERTAINLY THE COUNCIL COULD DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDINANCE. FOR IT SO CHOSE.

SO THERE'S NO — NO GOOD WAY OUT OF THIS, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE. WE COULD END UP BEING — I'M NOT THE FIRST ONE ON OF THE COUNCIL TO SAY THIS. BUT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPEARS THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS FOR THE BETTER, THAT WE COULD BE GOING BACK TO OUR '97 SYSTEM, WHICH WAS PRETTY FAIRLY UNREGULATED EXCEPT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DESCRIBED. ANYWAY, I WAS THINKING IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT BOTH OF THEM ON, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING READY IN CASE WE END UP GOING BACK TO THE '97 SYSTEM. WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO HAVE SOME CHANGES TO THAT READY BY THEN OR QUICKLY THEREAFTER. OF COURSE THEN I'M SURE SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT WE WERE REGULATING OURSELVES SO IT WOULD BE SORT OF QUESTIONABLE. ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ENOUGH. I'M JUST TRYING TO KICK IT AROUND. IT'S A FAIRLY COMPLEX THING THAT I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: IF I COULD PICK UP WHERE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER LEFT OFF. WHEN I LOOK DOWN ON ITEM NO. D THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WE NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT, I LOOK TO ITEM NO. C AS BEING AN ALTERNATIVE. THAT IS THAT THE COMMITTEE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THEY — THEY HAVE SUGGESTED AN ALTERNATIVE, THAT IS WE JUST APPEAL THE 1997 PART OF OUR CHARTER. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. I SENT A MEMO OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT I SEE A VERY LIKELY, CERTAINLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO WHEREBY WHAT I CALL THE PUBLIC FINANCING INITIATIVE DOESN'T PASS, IT'S SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL. WE HAVE — WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY OTHERS THAT THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, AMBIGUITIES, HOLES IN THAT. VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY TENDS TO COMPLAIN AND NOT LIKE THE CURRENT SYSTEM. THAT IS WHAT I CALL THE 1997 INITIATIVE. AND SO THAT CAN VERY EASILY GET REPEALED IF IT'S ON THE BALLOT. AND SO I'M — I'M UNCOMFORTABLE, FRANKLY, WITH — WITH REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY THE '97 RULES. AND/OR — I APPRECIATE WHERE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS COMING FROM, BUT I'M SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH US AS A COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, TAKING — ESSENTIALLY TAKING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IDEAS OUT OF THE CHARTER AND ULTIMATELY US DOING IT, YOU KNOW, AMONGST OURSELVES, I THINK THE PERCEPTION AT LEAST OF THAT IS GOING TO — YOU KNOW, NOT GOING TO BE FUN. SO ... RIGHT NOW I'M NOT COMFORTABLE, FRANKLY, EVEN PUTTING — REPEALING THE '97 ON THE BALLOT. BUT WHAT I AM — BECAUSE — BUT I THINK THE CHARTER COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY SET THE TONE FOR — THEIR NEEDS TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PUBLIC FINANCING INITIATIVE THAT WILL BE THERE IN MAY. SO I — I HAVE PROPOSED IN A — IN A MEMO, WILL TRY TO DO THAT EITHER ON THE DIAS TED OR NEXT WEEK, PERHAPS, TODAY OR NEXT WEEK, PERHAPS, THAT WE SIMPLY ATTEMPT TO PRESENT AN AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT IN MAY TO AMEND WHAT WE DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE — ABOUT THE EXISTING OR 1997 ASPECT OF THE CHARTER. I THINK EVERYBODY ROITSS THAT THE $100 — RECOGNIZES THAT THE $100 LIMIT CERTAINLY SQUASHES DISPROPORTIONATELY CHALLENGERS TO COUNCILMEMBERS, THOSE WHO AREN'T WEALTHY OR WHO INDEPENDENT — ACCESS TO INDEPENDENT WEALTH. BUT WHEN I PUT THAT INTO CONTEXT OF OUR SINGLE-MEMBER DEBATE, I DON'T SEE WHY $100 IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE FOR A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, IF THE DISTRICT IS SMALL ENOUGH TO WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT'S — YOU KNOW, 70, 80, 90,000 PEOPLE, 10S OF SQUARES MILES, NOT 275 SQUARE MILES. SO I AM GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF LET'S GO AHEAD AND STATE THAT $100 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS VERY WELL MAY WORK FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IF WE EVER HAVE. BUT AS LONG AS WE HAVE AT LARGE RACES, OF COURSE THE MAYOR'S WILL ALWAYS BE AT LARGE. IF WE HAVE A MIXED SYSTEM THAT WILL INCLUDE SOME AT LARGE. OR IF THE VOTERS REJECT ANY COMBINATION OR WE AS A COUNCIL DON'T PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND WE STAY WITH OUR CURRENT SOME OF ALL AT LARGES, WE JUST RECOGNIZE THAT $100 HASN'T BEEN WORKING FOR AT LARGE RACES IN THIS CITY. IT WOULD — WITH, YOU KNOW, OVER $400,000 REGISTERED VOTERS TO TRY TO — 400,000 REGISTERED VOTERS TO TRY TO REACH AND 200 SOME SQUARE MILES TO COVER. THE AT LARGE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT, WHETHER IT'S $500 OR MORE, I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO DEBATE AND ANALYSIS. BUT — BUT ESSENTIALLY AMEND THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT WHILE WE ARE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION, IF WE ARE DISCUSSING A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE, THAT WE ALSO GET ADVICE FROM STAFF ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT 1997 INITIATIVE THAT — THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD MANY OF US ARE PROBLEMATIC, EITHER FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT OR LODGE SCHOOL STANDPOINT OR —... OWE LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT. I THROW OUT THAT ITEM — WE HAVE ALREADY SORT OF CROSSED THE BARRIER ON ITEM NO. D BY SUGGESTING REPEALING THE '97 ISSUE. AND I WILL JUST STATE THAT PERSONALLY I'M MORE COMFORTABLE TRYING TO AMEND WHAT WE HAVE THAN JUST REPEALING IT ALTOGETHER AND HOPING AS A COUNCIL WE COME BACK WITH THE ORDINANCE FORM OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK, THOUGH, COUNCILMEMBER THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE IS AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW, IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

I'M SORRY, SIR?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE, THAT'S OUT THERE, IS BASICALLY AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8.

IT ACTUALLY REPEALS AND REPLACES ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8. BUT YES, SINCE IT HAS MANY SIMILAR FEATURES IN EFFECT THAT'S ALSO A CORRECT STATEMENT TO SAY THAT IT AMENDS IT. IT HAS A NUMBER OF SIMILAR FEATURES, IT ADDS — ITS MAIN FEATURE OF COURSE IS THE RATHER EXTENSIVE PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM. BUT IT HAS MANY SIMILAR FEATURES AS THE CURRENT ONE AND — AND IT HAS A — HAS A CONTRIBUTION LIMIT OF $200, RATHER THAN $100.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THE DECISION ON THE DISTRICTS ISSUE SO THAT WHEN WE COME BACK NEXT WEEK, WE CAN BE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT? AND THEN WE CAN THEN STRUCTURE OUR FINANCING, CAMPAIGN FINANCING PROVISIONS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE FOR THE MANNER OF ELECTING COUNCILMEMBERS?

WYNN: YES, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE. I THINK — BUT OF COURSE WHEN WE DO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DISTRICT OR MIXED OR NEITHER, I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THE SORT OF TRICKY DISCUSSION AS WELL ABOUT — ABOUT HOW WE INITIATE THAT. HOW WE ROLL THAT OUT. WHETHER IT'S A — YOU KNOW, SORT OF A ONE-TIME TRANSITION IN 12 MONTHS OR WHEREVER IT MAY BE OR WE FIGURE OUT THAT SORT OF ROLLING TRANSITION. BUT, YES, I THINK THAT YOUR SUGGESTION IS A GOOD ONE, THAT IF WE KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL NEW MAKEUP OF A — OF AN ELECTION SYSTEM, THEN IN THEORY WE TRY TO CRAFT A — YOU KNOW, A FUNDING MECHANISM AROUND THAT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK MS. BARKER ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT PUT ANYTHING ALONGSIDE THE CITIZEN INITIATED ITEM, IF IN ESSENCE WE ADOPT A MIXED SYSTEM, AND WE WANT TO HAVE DIFFERENTIATED LIMITS, WOULD THAT IN ESSENCE CONFLICT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT — THAT WE NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN INITIATED ITEM ON THE BALLOT?

WELL, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY ON WHERE THAT — HOW WE CAME TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, AFTER THE SUBCOMMITTEE MET SEVERAL TIMES AND DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND CONCERNS WITH THE — WITH THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE, THAT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT, THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD NOT COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD RECOMMEND. AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT BY HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT, THERE WAS CONCERN BY THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION THAT WE WOULD CONFUSE THE CITIZENS WHEN THEY COME TO VOTE. THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A VERY EXTENSIVE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS SO THAT THE CITIZENS WHEN THEY VOTED THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR. AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS, ALSO. WE DID RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF ISSUES OF CONCERNS RELATED TO THAT INITIATIVE. EVEN THOUGH WE CERTAINLY RESPECT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO GET IT THERE, WE DID ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CURRENT PROVISION THAT'S IN THE CHARTER TODAY, THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THAT IN TERMS OF ADMINISTERING IT. THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION THAT YOU APPOINT CAME TO US AND SAID THAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE REPEALED BECAUSE IT IS FRAUGHT WITH SO MAN PROBLEMS. SO WE CAN — WITH SO MANY PROBLEMS. SO WE CAN WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION SECOND. IT IS A VERY COMPLEX AND CHALLENGING TASK THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. THE DISCUSSION THAT I HEAR FROM THE DIAS TODAY, I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION. OUR DESIRE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE. THAT WE DO HAVE SOME SORT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE ATTENTION IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT LET'S PLEASE DO IT IN A FASHION THAT WHEN THE CITIZENS GO AND VOTE, THEY WILL HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: I SUSPECT THAT SOME PEOPLE PROBABLY DO NOT HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S ON THE BALLOT. GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

YES, SIR, YOU'RE RIGHT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, WE HAVE A 4:00 TIME CERTAIN AND I THINK MS. GLASGO, ARE THE ITEMS ON ZONING CONSENT ITEMS, ALL OF THEM?

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T WE GO TO THE 4:00 TIME CERTAIN, WE WILL COME BACK TO ITEMS 15 AND 16 AFTER WE HANDLE THE ZONING ITEMS, WHICH START OUT WITH Z-1.

GLASGO: GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASGO DIRECTOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. OUR ZONING CASES FOR TODAY ARE AS FOLLOWS ITEM NO. Z-1, CASE C14-01-116, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH LAMAR AND FERGUSON LANE INTERSECTION, DRIVE, RATHER. THE EXISTING ZONING IS LO, LIMITED OFFICE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO CS, WHICH STANDS FOR COMMERCIAL — GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS CS-CO. AND THE CASE IS READY ON ALL THREE READINGS. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. Z-2, CASE C14-01-142, LOCATED AT 9701 THROUGH 9723 ANDERSON MILL ROAD, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TO GR, HOWEVER THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS LR ZONING, WITH A CO, THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. AND THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR FIRST — I'M SORRY, THIS IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. Z-3, CASE C14-01-171, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAINT ELMO ROAD, THE PROPERTY IS BEING ZONED FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 AND LI TO GR-CO. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT GR-CO WITH CONDITIONS ON ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-4, CASE C14-01-175, LOCATED AT 2200 PARK BEND DRIVE, THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED GO, MIXED USE, WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO AMEND THAT ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW OFFICE USES. SO THE NEW ZONING WOULD BE STILL GO-MU-CO WITH JUST AN ADDITION OF TWO USES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PROHIBITED, WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY OFFICE USES. THEN THIS CASE WOULD BE READY ON THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM ZB Z-5, CASE C14-01-176, LOCATED AT 506 EAST BRAKER LANE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LO, STANDS FOR LIMITED OFFICE, THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION IS TO GRANT NO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING ON FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. Z-6, CASE C14-01-178, LOCATED AT 1710 COLORADO STREET, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, TO DMU, WHICH STANDS FOR DOWNTOWN MIXED USE. THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. Z-7 IS CASE C14-83-49, A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT FOR TRACT 2 AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. LOCATED AT 1710 COLORADO STREET, IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH ITEM NO. Z-6. THIS IS READY FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. GLASGO, I HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON Z-7 — NO, THIS IS 77, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

GLASGO: WRONG NUMBER?

MAYOR GARCIA: EXCUSE ME.

GLASGO: OKAY, ITEM NO. Z-8 —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ONE THAT I HAVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN FAVOR.

GLASGO: OKAY, WELL THAT'S A GOOD THING. ITEM NO. Z-8 CASE C14-01-179 LOCATED AT 7110 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED DR, WHICH STANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO LO, WHICH STANDS FOR LIMITED OFFICE. THE — THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. FOR LIMITED OFFICE. ITEM NO. Z-9 CASE C14-02-6SH STANDS FOR SMART HOUSING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5800TECNI CENTER DRIVE. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OR REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 4TH BECAUSE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HAS NOT HELD ITS PUBLIC HEARING. IT WAS POSTPONED AT THAT HEARING. ITEM NO. Z-10, DURING 14-02-8 LOCATED AT 1310 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED GO, GENERAL OFFICE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO GO-MU. THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. AND THAT CONCLUSIONS — CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, ALSO, I'M SORRY, ITEM NOS. 72 AND 73, THE — THE ITEMS SHOULD BE POSTPONED TO APRIL THE 4TH AT 4:00. NOW, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: 72 AND 3 IS POSTPONED UNTIL —

GLASGO: APRIL THE 4TH AT 4:00.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE ALREADY DID THAT, RIGHT, MS. BROWN?

GLASGO: TYPICALLY, BEFORE ZONING CASES, BECAUSE THEY ARE TIME CERTAIN, YOU JUST VOTE AGAIN NOW AT 4:00.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THEY ARE POSTPONED TO WHAT DATE, MS. GLASGO?

GLASGO: APRIL THE 4TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK IN THE CONSENT AGENDA WE HAD BOTH OF THOSE POSTPONED. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE AGAIN ON IT AT THE — AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF MS. GLASGO. PASTOR DAVID VASQUEZ, IS HE HERE? YOU ARE REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF Z-8. DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK?

I DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK. I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD TO SIGN UP IN CASE ANYBODY HAD QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR.

MARK DELEON IS CONTRIBUTING TIME TO YOU SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS, HE'S ALSO REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. AND JOEL SOLIZ IS ALSO REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF, GIVING YOU TIME. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR PASTOR DAVID VASQUEZ OR Z-8? THEY ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF IT. LET ME READ THE CONSENT AGENDA. AGAIN. EXCUSE ME. Z-1 CONSENT FOR ALL THREE, Z-2, FIRST READING, Z-3 CONSENT FOR THREE READINGS, Z-4 IS CONSENT FOR THREE READINGS Z-5 IS CONSENT FOR THE FIRST READING, THE SAME THING FOR Z-6, CONSENT FOR ONE READING, Z-7 IS CONSENT, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE — THIS IS NOT AN ORDINANCE, SO IT WON'T REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE READING, Z-8 CONCEPT FOR ALL THREE, Z-9 CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 4TH OF '02, Z-10 CONSENT FOR — FOR HOW MANY READING?

GLASGO: Z-10 ALL THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THREE. THEN 72 AND 73 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 4TH, '02, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. THANK YOU, MS. GLASGO.

GLASGO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOUR ITEM, PASTOR, WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 FOR ALL THREE READING, WHICH MEANS IT'S IN THE CLEAR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. OKAY, BACK TO ITEMS 15, 16, A, B, C AND D. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NO. 15. OR 16A. OR B. OR C. OR D. [ LAUGHTER ].

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE A — A MOTION, I DID HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. RIGHT BEFORE WE BROKE TO GO TO ZONING I HAD ONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: IF YOU CAN GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, I WILL TRY TO REACH BACK AND THINK WHAT THAT WAS.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. STEINER, IF HE'S STILL IN.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. STEINER? HE PROBABLY THOUGHT THAT ZONING WAS GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN THIS. IS THAT HE'S ON HIS WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: I REMEMBER ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WILL YIELD THE FLOOR SO THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM CAN ASK HER A QUICK QUESTION.

WYNN: YOU BET.

GOODMAN: I HAD TWO. I DON'T REMEMBER — I WAS UP WHEN WE BROKE AWAY. ONE OF THEM I KNOW WAS IN MY BACKUP. I DON'T FIND A COPY OF THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE ON — ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT. IS THAT NOT PART OF OUR BACKUP? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE IT, IF SO.

I'M GOING TO HAVE A COPY OF IT WITH ME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE — I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT WITH ME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOMEONE CAN MAKE A COPY OF IT FOR YOU.

GOODMAN: WELL, I THINK WE ALL OUGHT TO READ IT IF WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T DECIDE ON THIS TODAY, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF THIS — IF THIS CHARTER AMEND IS PASSED BY THE VOTERS, WITHIN THIS — WITHIN THESE REQUIREMENTS, CAN WE HAVE SORT OF A BREAKOUT OF EVERYTHING THAT CURRENTLY IS IN PLACE THAT IS NOT AFFECTED OR MENTIONED OR WHAT HAVE YOU BY THIS FINANCE REFORM? YOU SAID IN ESSENCE THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT AND I ASSUMED THAT MEANT THAT IF THIS DIDN'T ADDRESS CERTAIN ISSUES THAT WERE IN PLACE FROM THE LITTLEST CORRUPTION CHARTER AMENDMENT, THAT THOSE WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE MERGED THEN WITH THE NEWLY PASSED —

WELL, I WAS — THE MAYOR'S CHARACTERIZATION OF IT AS AN AMENDMENT WAS TO THE EXISTING ONE IS CORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT THEY HAVE MANY FEATURES IN COMMON. BUT THE WAY THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE IS DRAWN, IT — IT REPEALS AND REPLACES THE OLD CITIZEN INITIATIVE. SO — SO THE WAY — IF IT PASSES, THE EXISTING ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, IS OUT. AND THIS IS COMPLETELY BEING REPLACED WITH A NEW ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEW CITIZEN INITIATIVE. THE —

GOODMAN: SO EVEN IF — EVEN IF THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS SOME THINGS, THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE OLD ONE, THAT ENTIRE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS DELETED FROM THE BOOKS AND THIS IS — THIS IS PUT IN THAT SPACE?

YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: SO THERE'S NO —

RIGHT. THERE'S NO MERGING OF THE TWO. THE OLD ONE IS OUT THE NEW ONE IS IN.

GOODMAN: THE REASON I ASKED THIS, ONCE UPON A TIME WHEN THAT WAS FIRST PASSED BY THE VOTERS, WHAT WE HAD IN PLACE WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD WORKED ON THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER REFERRED TO, AND ANYTHING NOT ADDRESSED BY THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM [INAUDIBLE] CORE..... CORE..... CORRUPTION — CORRUPTION WAS GOVERNOR VERPED BY THE — GOVERNED BY THE —

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2-9 OF THE CITY CODE HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED. IT'S STILL THERE. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT, IT'S STILL IN EFFECT. THE WAY CHARTER PROVISIONS WORK WITH ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, IS THE WAY THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WORK WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPERIOR LAW AND ALWAYS PREVAILS. THE SAME THING WITH THE CHARTER. THE CHARTER IS THE SUPERIOR LAWS AND PREVAILS OVER AN ORDINANCE TO THE EXTENTS OF ANY CONFLICT. BUT THE ORDINANCE IS STILL ON THE BOOKS, STILL CONTROLS IN AREAS THAT ARE NOT SPOKEN TO BY THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT. SO THE SAME THING WILL BE — THE SAME CASE WILL PERTAIN IF THE NEW ONE BECOMES PART OF THE CHARTER IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE BITS AND PIECES OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE, THAT ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE — WITH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, THEY WILL STILL BE LAW.

GOODMAN: SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, I'M SORRY.

TO THE EXTENT THAT PARTS OF YOUR EXISTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVISION ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THEY WILL START BE THE LAW.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE A DECISION ON THIS TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO GET ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE CURRENT CITIZENS INITIATIVE, A LIST OF — OF ITEMS OR REGULATION OR REQUIREMENTS OR WHATEVER THAT EXIST NOW IN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT VERSION THAT WAS PASSED BEFORE, AND WHICH ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CURRENT ONE. IN THE ONE THAT WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON YET.

ALL RIGHT.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. STEINNER, MY — STEINER, MY COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT MY GENERAL RELUCTANCE TO THROW OUT THE '97 ISSUE BY POTENTIALLY LEAVING IT ON THE BALLOT, HAVING IT BE REPEALED BY THE VOTERS AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO AMEND IT. CAN YOU TALK TO ME JUST OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD ABOUT — ABOUT SO IF MY CONCERNS ON THE AMENDMENT ARE RAISING THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, FOR AT LARGE RACES, I KNOW THAT THE — THAT OUR EXISTING ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OR PROBLEMS WITH THAT '97 INITIATIVE AND I — YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SOME ANALYSES AND CONCERNS OR SOME CONSTITUTIONALITY CONCERNS. ARE THEY — ARE THEY ONE IN THE SAME ESSENTIALLY? ARE YOUR ISSUES THAT YOU — THAT YOU OBJECTIVELY LOOK AT SIMILAR TO THE SOMEONE'S TO THE COMPLAINTS THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OR ARE THEY IN ADDITION? IF THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM, I MEAN, IS IT PRACTICAL TO GO IN AND TRY TO AMEND IT, YOU KNOW, ON A ONE-TIME VOTE OR IS THE BEST THING TO DO TO — TO POTENTIALLY REPEAL AND COME UP WITH A NEW ORDINANCE?

WELL, OF COURSE, THAT'S ENTIRELY — WELL, NOT ENTIRELY. IT'S LARGELY A POLICY DECISION, OF COURSE. THE — THE NICE THING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE IS THAT IT CAN BE AMENDED AND FINE TUNED. AND — FROM TIME TO TIME. THE COUNCIL — A CHARTER AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, IS JUST THERE. YOU HAVE TO — YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT. SO — SO IF A PART OF IT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC OR THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE — YOU HAVE IT THERE AND THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE CHANGED IS WITH ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT. AN ORDINANCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IF — IF — YOU KNOW, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT YOU DON'T NEED A SCREWDRIVER, YOU NEEDED A HAMMER, YOU CAN FIX THAT. YOU ARE NOT — YOU ARE NOT LOCKED INTO A PARTICULAR TOOL THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE GETTING THE JOB DONE FOR YOU. THE — THE — THERE ARE MANY — OF COURSE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IS — IS ONE OF THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL AREAS OF THE LAW. IT — IT RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS, OF COURSE, WHICH MAKES IT A HIGHLY LITIGOUS AREA OF THE LAW. MANY PEOPLE FEEL VERY ONATELY ABOUT IT WHICH MAKES IT ONE OF THOSE AREAS OF THE LAW THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO REACH COMPROMISES ON BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ARE VERY COMMITTED TO THE POSITIONS AS A WHOLE. SO HAVING SAID THAT, THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE EXISTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN '97 ARE — ARE OF COURSE THE $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMIT, THE — THE — WHAT WE KNOW FROM WHAT THE — WHAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE TEACHING US WITH RESPECT TO CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IS THAT WE CAN HAVE THEM, THE PURPOSE OF THEM IS TO — TO PREVENT THE REALITY OR APPEARANCE OF QUID PROPER QUO CORRUPTION, THAT THEY CANNOT BE SO LOW THAT THEY PUSH THE LEVEL OF YOUR VOICE BELOW NOTICE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT PHRASING OF THE COURTS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW UNTIL THE CASE LAW DEVELOPS HOW LOW YOU COULD GO WITH CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WATCH THE CASE LAW AND SEE HOW THAT DEVELOPS. PRESUMABLY, OUR $100 LIMB IS CONSTITUTIONAL — LIMIT IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL FOUND OTHERWISE BY THE COURT. AS I SAY, IT'S A LIT.... LITIGIOUS AREA OF THE LAW. WE HAVE GOT VERY FEW COURT DECISIONS THAT STAND ASSASSINATION-WIDE...................AS —THAT STAND ASSASSINATION-WIDE PRECEDENT. IN THAT CIRCUIT THERE'S A PRECEDENT IN THAT CIRCUIT THERE IS A PRECEDENT. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT HAVE A BINDING PRECEDENT IN IT BECAUSE THERE'S HAVE NOT BEEN A LOT OF CASES FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER COMING OUT OF THE CIRCUIT. SOME OF THE FEATURES OF THE EXISTING PROVISION HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN SIMILAR OR MORE OR LESS SIMILAR FORM IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE BEEN UPHELD, SOMETIMES NOT. SO — SO THEY ARE NOT FRIVOLOUS CONTROVERSIES BECAUSE SOME COURTS HAVE TAKEN THEM SERIOUSLY. AND — BUT SOME OF THE FEATURES ARE LIMITS ON OUT OF DISTRICT CONTRIBUTIONS; HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN SOME JURISDICTIONS. LIMITATIONS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO A CERTAIN FUNDRAISING WINDOW. FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER, THERE'S A LIMITATION TO A 180-DAY WINDOW BEFORE THE ELECTION. PROVISIONS LIKE THAT HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN SOME JURISDICTIONS. THAT HAS A DIVESTMENT PROVISION THAT REQUIRE THAT'S THE — THAT A CANDIDATE DIVEST ALL OF THEIR ON HAND CAMPAIGN FUNDS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ELECTION. THOSE — THAT'S CALLED A SPIN DOWN PROVISION. ELECTION LAW, AS SOME OF YOU POINTED OUT YESTERDAY AT THE WORK SESSION, IS HIGHLY JARGON LADEN. BUT SPIN-DOWN PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SOME JURISDICTIONS. THE DIFFICULTY THAT THE — BUT AGAIN ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE PRESUMABLY CONSTITUTIONAL HERE. UNTIL — UNTIL...... STRUCK DOWN. ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE EXISTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE WAS STRUCK DOWN BY OUR LOCAL DISTRICT COURT. WHICH WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS — THAT REGARDED — REGARDING THE ABILITY TO SPIN — THAT WAS A CONTRIBUTION LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO MEASURE ELECTIONS, THAT WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS HAVE ONLY BEEN UPHELD WITH RESPECT TO CANDIDATE ELECTIONS WHERE THE COURTS HAVE FOUND AGAIN THE POSSIBILITY OF QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION, THEY HAVE NOT FOUND THAT WITH RESPECT TO MEASURES, THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY OUR LOCAL DISTRICT COURT. THAT'S THE ONLY PROVISION IN THE CURRENT CHARTER PROVISION THAT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. THE DIFFICULTY I BELIEVE, I ONLY KNOW THIS FROM HAVING HEARD THE CHAIR OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION ADDRESS THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION, WAS THE DIFFICULTY — NOT SO MUCH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, BUT THE DIFFICULTY IN RECONCILING THE — THE — SOME OF THE NUMBERS IN THE — IN THE — IN THE CHARTER — IN THE CHARTER'S PROVISION FOR — FOR — VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS WITH THE NUMBERS IN THE — IN THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE, WHICH I BELIEVE ARE — ARE NOT QUITE CONSISTENT. A FEW OTHER PROVISIONS WHERE THE TWO DON'T EXACTLY MESH. BUT — BUT AGAIN, ALSO THERE'S A DIFFICULTY OF — WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARTER IN THAT — CHARTERS ARE GENERALLY NOT WHERE YOU CREATE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS BECAUSE THE STATE PENAL CODE SAYS THAT YOU CAN CREATE A CRIMINAL VIOLATION WITH AN ORDINANCE, BUT IT — IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR CREATING A CRIMINAL VIOLATION WITH A CHARTER. AND THAT MAY BE THE BECAUSE — BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF AMENDING CHARTERS AND BECAUSE THINGS THAT CREATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY MIGHT NEED TO BE FINE TUNED FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT AT ANY RATE THE STATE PEEPNAL CODE SAYS THAT THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR THINGS THAT — THREE OR FOUR VEHICLES THAT CAN BE USED TO CREATE CRIMINAL PENALTIES. AND CHARTERS ARE NOT LISTED AMONG THOSE VEHICLES. SO — SO THERE WOULD BE SOME QUESTION AS TO THE ABILITY OF A CITY TO CREATE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN THE CHARTER. AND THE COUNCIL HAS NEVER CREATED A — AN OFFENSE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER PROVISION BY ORDINANCE. SO THERE'S REALLY VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR THE CHARTER AS WELL.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. STEINER, SO OF THE — SO ONLY ONE PROVISION OF THE '97 INITIATIVE WAS CHALLENGED AND THAT ONE THING THAT WAS CHALLENGED, IN FACT, WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

YES, SIR.

WYNN: THERE WASN'T — I GUESS THERE WASN'T THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COURT AT THAT TIME TO — YOU KNOW, TO ELABORATE OR GO BEYOND OR ANALYZE OTHER ISSUES LIKE OUT OF DISTRICT OR FUNDRAISING WINDOWS OR DIVESTMENT ASPECTS?

GENERALLY, COURTS DON'T REACH OUT TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSIES THAT ARE NOT BEFORE THEM. NOTHING ELSE WAS CHALLENGED. THE PROVISION THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN SAID NO POLITICAL COMMITTEE, EXCEPT FOR THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL SHALL ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS, IS THAT THE ONE? HANG ON JUST A SECOND, LET ME MAKE SURE THAT'S THE ONE. I'M SORRY IT'S J.. THE ONE THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN SAID EXPENDITURES BY CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS AND LABOR UNIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING A BALLOT ITEM OR PLACING AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT BY PETITION ARE PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR THOSE BY A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING POLITICAL IDEAS FOR THE SOCIAL WELFARE OF ITS MEMBERS AND WHICH DOES NOT ENGAGE IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS SHAREHOLDERS OR OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED ... DOES NOT ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE PERCENT IN THE AGGREGATE FROM BUSINESS CORPORATIONS. BECAUSE THAT — BECAUSE THAT AFFECTED THE — THE — A BALLOT — BALLOT ITEMS, THAT IS MEASURE ELECTIONS RATHER THAN CANDIDATE ELECTIONS, THE COURT STRUCK THAT DOWN BECAUSE, AS I SAY, THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN CANDIDATE ELECTIONS FOR THE EVENT OF PREVENTING QUID PRO QUO ELECTIONS BUT HAVE NOT FOUND IT OCCURRED IN MEASURED ELECTIONS.

WYNN: IF WE WERE TO ATTEMPT TO DO WHAT I SUGGEST WHICH IS FORMULATE AN AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE TO THE '97 ISSUES, ESSENTIALLY TRY TO FIX SOME THINGS THAT — THAT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC, AND/OR IF WE DON'T PERHAPS ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES, DO WE RUN THE RISK OF HAVING THIS SORT OF COMPLICATED AMEND — ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT, HAVE IT PASSED, THEN GO THROUGH THE ISSUES OF — OF, YOU KNOW, INITIATING THOSE AMENDMENTS IN THAT PORTION OF OUR CHARTER AND IT — THEN IT'S CHALLENGED, FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS. ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS. DO WE RUN THE RISK OF HAVING THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THAT CHARTER THROWN OUT AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF — BECAUSE OF ONE OR MORE ASPECTS THAT WE DIDN'T TRY TO FIX IN THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS?

NO, SIR, NO, SIR, I BELIEVE THE COURT WOULD FIND THAT EACH OF THE PROVISIONS WAS SEVERABLE, AND THAT YOU COULD STRIKE DOWN PROVISIONS WITHOUT STRIKING DOWN OTHER PROVISIONS. GENERALLY A COURT WILL ONLY FIND THAT PROVISIONS OF — OF A — OF A LAW ARE NOT RECEIVERABLE IF — SEVERABLE IF IT FIND THAT THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS ARE SO CLOSELY CONNECTED TO THE CENTRAL SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATION THAT ONE WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED WITH WITHOUT THE OTHER. THIS ONE WHERE YOU HAVE FACIAL DISCRETE REQUIREMENTS THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE QUESTION THAT THE COURT WOULD FIND EACH ONE SEVERABLE.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR, THAT'S ALL FOR NOW.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

THEY'LL NEED SOME SORT OF MECHANISM. AND SO RESOLVE IT, COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN SUGGESTED ONE THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF FAVORABLE VOTES THAT COULD BE PASSED, BUT THERE COULD BE OTHER WAYS OF DOING THAT. YOU COULD SAY THIS ONE PREVAILS OVER THAT ONE. BUT AGAIN, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PRECEDENTS FOR DOING CHARTER MEMBERS THAT WAY, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY TECHNICAL REASON WHY IT WOULDN'T WORK.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SOMETHING YOU SAID AWHILE BACK ABOUT IF WE DID IT BY ORDINANCE, ONE WOULD BE CRITICIZED BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES BEING REGULATED DIRECTLY BY IT. I THINK THAT'S TRUE AND SOME OF US WOULD BE PROBABLY APPROPRIATE. BUT ONE THING WOULD BE TO PUT IT UP FOR ELECTION. YOU CAN PUT AN ORDINANCE UP FOR ELECTION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE'LL SAY WE'LL TAKE THIS TO THE VOTERS. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE AND NOT IN THE CITY CHARTER. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE TODAY. BUT I KNOW I'M LEANING TOWARDS GOING AHEAD AND SUPPORTING THE CHARTER REREVIEW COMMISSION AND GIVING THE VOTERS A 100-DOLLAR LIMIT ON THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A WIDE SPECTRUM OF THE COMMUNITIES S TALKED ABOUT HOW BAD THIS IS. AND I AGREE THAT IT'S DAMAGED DEMOCRACY IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. I ALWAYS WANT TO PUT THAT ON THERE. AND IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW PASSES, THEN CLEARLY THAT'S IN THE CITY CHARTER, THAT PREVAILS AND IT WOULD BE DOUBLE REPEALED THEN.

THE COUNCIL DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT AN ORDINANCE ON THE BALLOT BY ITS OWN INITIATIVE. AND THE REASON IT DOESN'T IS IN THE CHARTER, SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE YOU COULD FIX WITH A CHARTER AMENDMENT. BUT AS THE CHARTER STANDS NOW, THE ONLY WAY AN ORDINANCE CAN GET ON THE BALLOT IS BY CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

SLUSHER: I'M NOT GOING ON DO THE SIGNATURE DRIVE ON THAT.

YOU COULDN'T. BUT THE CHARTER COULD PROVIDE, THOUGH IT DOESN'T, THAT THE COUNCIL COULD SUBMIT ORDINANCES TO VOTERS ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE. THERE ARE OBVIOUS UPS AND DOWNS TO HAVING THAT SORT OF AUTHORITY. BECAUSE IT PROBABLY WOULD LEAD TO A PROPENSITY SOMETIMES TO PUMP ISSUES. BUT RIGHT NOW THE CHARTER WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANKS. I THOUGHT I MISSED THAT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, COULD I FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUICKLY? COULD I FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MR. STEINER, CONSIDERING HOW MANY THINGS WE DO THAT ARE ORDINANCES AND A PROPENSITY FOR PUNTING, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO A ZONING CASE BY VOTE OF THE POPULOUS. THAT AS AN ORDINANCE.

THAT WOULD CREATE POSSIBLY DIFFICULT — ZONING IS HIGHLY REGULATED BY STATE LAW. AND THE PROCESS FOR ZONING DOES CREATE ORDINANCES, BUT THERE IS — I BELIEVE THERE ARE — AND I DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE RESEARCH IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE PROBLEMS, PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DOING ZONING BY REFERENDUM. AND SO THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE COULD — EVEN AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE UNDER THE CURRENT CHARTER I DON'T THINK COULD AFFECT A ZONING CHANGE. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR CHARTER CURRENTLY WOULD NOT PERMIT A NONBINDING REFERENDUM, FOR EXAMPLE. AND THAT COULD BE FIXED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SOME CITIES DO HAVE IN THEIR CHARTER, BUT SOME DON'T. AND OFTEN HAPPEN NOT TO.

GOODMAN: WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF NUANCES, AND I SUPPOSE THE CHARTER COMMISSION WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THESE. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, ALTHOUGH I DON'T EXPECT ANYBODY TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ME, WHY ORDINANCES ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT WE PUT ON AS A COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF ORDINANCES ARE CALLED ORDINANCES WHEN YOU'VE GOT THEM ON THE BALLOT. WELL, THIS THING GETS CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER AS WE GO THROUGH ALL THE NUANCES. BUT IF ANYBODY HAPPENS TO KNOW THE HISTORY BEHIND THE INABILITY OF A COUNCIL-PLACED ITEM ON A BOL LOT THAT IS AN ORDINANCE, I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW.

I CAN TELL YOU THE CHARTER PROVISION THAT ADDRESSES IT. ARTICLE 3, SECTION 1, WHICH SAYS THE COUNCIL MAY BY ORDINANCE CALL SUCH SPECIAL ELECTION AS ARE AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW AND THIS CHARTER. SO IN ORDER TO FIND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR CALLING AN ELECTION, YOU LOOK TO EITHER STATE LAW OR THE CHARTER TO SEE IT THAT SAYS YOU CAN CALL THAT KIND OF ELECTION. THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW THAT SAYS CITIES MAY PUT ORDINANCES OR SUBMIT ORDINANCES TO THE VOTERS, SO WE HAVE TO LOOK IN THE CHARTER. AND THE ONLY POSITION IN THE CHARTER BY PRESENTING ORDINANCES TO THE VOTERS IS CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCES. SO BY FIXING THAT LANGUAGE WE COULD BROADEN THE COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY IN THAT REGARD. AS FAR AS I KNOW THAT PROVISION HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE INITIATION OF THE CHARTER AND HAS NEVER BEEN AMENDED. SO IT PROBABLY GOES BACK TO 1951 WHEN THE CHARTER WAS ADOPTED IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL THAT THIS ITEM NOT BE DECIDED THIS WEEK AND THAT WE PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA NEXT WEEK? AND I WANT TO ASK FOR A TIMETABLE THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW. WHEN DO WE NEED TO DECIDE THESE ITEMS, MS. BROWN, SO THEY CAN APPEAR ON THE MAY FOURTH BALLOT?

I BELIEVE IN WORKING WITH JOHN WE DECIDED THAT IF IT WASN'T APPROVED AT THE MARCH 21ST MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN GETTING THEM READY FOR THE PUBLISHER IN TIME TO GET THEM TO THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO MAY 21ST IS THE DEADLINE.

MARCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: MARCH.

THE ABSOLUTE STATUTORY DEADLINE FOR CALLING THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION IS APRIL THE FOURTH. APRIL THE FOURTH IS ONLY 30 DAYS FROM THE ELECTION, WHICH THE CLERK, I BELIEVE, ADVISED ME THE LOGISTICS OF THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT HORRIFIC. SO THE ONLY — AND THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER MARCH — AND ALSO APRIL THE FOURTH IS THE ONLY COUNCIL MEETING THAT OCCURS AFTER MARCH THE 21ST WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, SO I THINK MARCH 21ST WOULD BE THE DATE THAT WE WOULD HOPE TO BE GOOD TO GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WELL, LET ME GO AHEAD AND CALL ITEMS F AND G, BECAUSE WE HAVE — MS. BARKIN, YOU ARE ALREADY HERE, BUT WE HAVE RICKY BYRD AND ANOTHER PERSON SIGNED UP ON F AND G TO SPEAK. SO DID YOU NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT F AND G?

I CAN SAY THAT THE COMMITTEE DELIBERATED ON ITEMS F AND G, WHICH RELATE TO GIVING THE CITY COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE POLICE MONITOR AS WELL AS THE POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD AND ALSO TO — THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE FOR THE POLICE OFFICER. THESE WERE DISCUSSED AT THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION. WE DISCUSSED THEM FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT STANDPOINTS. ONE STANDPOINT IS THAT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE HERE IN AUSTIN, WHICH IS A COUNCIL/MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND THAT UNDER THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT THERE ARE ACTIONS THAT BEGIN TO DILUTE THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT. HAVING VARIOUS POSITIONS REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER CAN BEGIN TO PULL AWAY FROM THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND AS YOU'LL SEE, WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND VARIOUS OTHER POSITIONS TO REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE OF THAT. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND ITEM WE BELIEVE THAT IT HAS HIGH DISABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY TODAY. THERE ARE ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AND IT WAS A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE THAT AN EXCEPTION BE MADE TO THE WAY THAT WE MAKE THE OTHER DECISIONS IN THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION. AND I THINK THAT RICK DI BYRD AND ANNE DELLANO WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: RICKY BYRD. WELCOME. AND FOLLOWING MR. BYRD, MS. DELLANO?

GOODMAN: AS RICKY COMES FORWARD, A QUESTION THAT I WILL WANT TO KNOW LATER FROM LEGAL IS WAS LEGAL AVAILABLE TO YOU IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS OF ALL OF THESE THINGS AND GIVING YOU GUIDANCE AS TO PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OR ISSUES OR CONFLICTS THAT MIGHT COME UP IN DISCUSSION OF THIS?

YES. LEGAL WAS AVAILABLE TO US AND SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CONCERNS WERE HIGHLIGHTED SUCH AS THE FACT THAT THERE IS THE CURRENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE UNION THAT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT. I BELIEVE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PROPOSE THAT THEY NOT BE PUT INTO PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRE.

GOODMAN: I THINK THERE WERE CIVIL SERVICE ISSUES TOO. DID YOU DISCUSS THOSE AS WELL?

YES, WE DID. AND MAYBE IF THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIFIC, IT MIGHT RING A BELL. I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THEM, BUT I CAN'T CALL THEM TO MIND AT THIS MOMENT.

GOODMAN: THAT'S OKAY. WE CAN JUST ASK LEGAL LATER.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION? I'M A LITTLE UNCERTAIN ABOUT ITEM 16 AND HOW TO TALK TO IT. YOU'VE GOT A THROUGH G HERE, AND ANY ONE OF THESE COULD TAKE UP THREE MINUTES, MR. MAYOR. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT FOGGED ON THAT. COULD YOU REGISTER TO SPEAK TO 16-A OR 16-C OR 16-D OR DID YOU HAVE TO SPEAK TO 16 AND THEN TRY TO SPREAD THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S ONE ITEM, 16.

YES, SIR, BUT IT'S GOT LIKE 14 MOVING PARTS TO IT AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE NOT — I WOULD PREFER THAT YOUR DISCUSSION — BECAUSE WE'RE BRINGING UP ITEMS F AND G, THAT YOUR DISCUSSION BE ON F AND G.

ONLY ON F AND G?

MAYOR GARCIA: AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT. I ALWAYS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT WHEN I GET LETTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEN OR MY MAYOR, WHO I VOTED FOR, TELLING ME THAT HE DOESN'T WANT CERTAIN THINGS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE HE FEELS THEY WOULD DIFFUSE THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO RUN ITSELF. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE AND BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MANY DIVISIVE INSTANCES BETWEEN THE MINORITY COMMUNITY — COMMUNITIES, I SHOULD SAY, AND THE A.P.D., WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST IF THIS ITEM WERE BROUGHT FORWARD. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, IT'S MY JUDGMENT THAT THEY NEED TO BE STAND-ALONE INSTITUTIONS. THAT MEANS THEY CAN'T HAVE THE FEELING THAT IF THEY SAY SOMETHING CONTRARY TO WHAT THE POPULAR ACCEPTED BELIEF IS, EITHER OUT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR THE A.P.D. POLICE CHIEF'S OFFICE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO END UP LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB OR LOOKING FOR A NEW POSITION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY INSTANCES OF OPEN-ENDED ABUSIVE CASES WHERE EITHER THE POLICEMAN SEEMS TO BE TRIED BY HEADLINES OR THE PROCEDURE COVERS WHAT SEEMS TO BE AN IRREGULAR OCCURRENCE IN WHAT YOU THINK OF AS NORMAL POLICE PROCEDURE. SO WE VOTED IT THROUGH, AND I'M HAPPY THAT WE DID. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS COUNCIL DECIDING WHAT IT WANTS TO DO ABOUT IT. I EXPECT YOU TO USE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT THE SAME AS WE DID. CONCERNING — I CAN'T READ MY OWN WRITING. CONCERNING THE FILES, PERSONNEL FILES THAT ARE KEPT COMFORTABLE, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED THAT PRELIMINARY OFTEN ENCOUNTER PEOPLE WHO WILL FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM. WHAT I DON'T — AND SOMETHING LIKE 90% OF THE TIME THESE ARE GROUNDLESS. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THE TRAVIS COUNTY SD, THEY DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE FILE, THEY SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. THEY FUNCTION AT LEAST AS EFFECTIVELY AS A.P.D. DOES FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BYRD. ANNE?

THANK YOU. HONORABLE MAYOR, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. I'M ANNE DELLANO AND TODAY I SPEAK TO YOU AS A VOLUNTEER SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ACLU OF TEXAS POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT. AND I ASK AND REQUEST THAT TODAY THE — YOU PUT THE TWO POLICE-RELATED CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON. I PASSED OUT A HANDOUT THAT YOU GOT FROM THE CITY CLERK. IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY NAME ON IT, IT WAS, HOWEVER, WHAT WE PROPOSE AS THE MOST RECENT DRAFT FOR THESE TWO RELATED POLICE AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELATES TO BRINGING THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD OUT FROM UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND PUT IT DIRECTLY UNDER CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBERS, I'LL REMIND YOU THAT THE L.B.J. SCHOOL DID A STUDY IN 19 — YEAR 2000 AND FOUND OUT THAT 87% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY ACROSS RACIAL LINES WANT CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND I THINK WHEN THAT 87% OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY WANTED CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT, THEY PRETTY MUCH MEANT A REAL CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT SYSTEM. THEN IN MARCH WHEN COUNCIL LAST CONSIDERED THE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT SYSTEM, OVER 100 PEOPLE CAME DOWN HERE AND MADE ME LONG ENOUGH TO WAIT TO SPEAK TO YOU, AND I BELIEVE EVERY PERSON THAT SPOKE ASKED THAT YOU NOT PUT THAT SYSTEM THROUGH UNTIL THE MONITOR AND THE PANEL WERE INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY MANAGER. AND I BELIEVE THAT A COUPLE OF COUNCILMEMBERS INDICATED THEY REALLY WANTED TO DO THAT AND LEGAL TOLD THEM THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CHARTER AMENDMENT, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TODAY IS MAKE A CHARTER AMENDMENT. I ALSO THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE ON BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS THAT YOU AS COUNCILMEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY HAVE A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF CERTAIN KIND OF MISCONDUCT. IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THOSE FEDERAL LAWS, YOU CAN EACH BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES IF YOU FAIL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT. AND WHAT I COME TO YOU TO SAY IS THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY DO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE STRONG MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BUT WHAT WE'VE REALLY COME TO, ESPECIALLY IN THIS ARENA, IS AN EXTREMELY WEAK CITY COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHERE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE INFORMATION SOURCES TO BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT YOU CREATED AS THE MONITOR AND CIVILIAN REVIEW PANEL HERE IN AUSTIN, IT IS SIMPLY AN INFORMATION SOURCE FOR YOU. THAT MONITOR AND CIVILIAN REVIEW PANEL HAD NO POWER — [ BUZZER SOUNDS ] — TO REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT CITY LEGAL HAS HAD EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WITH YOU VIRTUALLY EVERYDAY AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN, BUT THE NEW CHARTER AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE WHAT WE WOULD ASK THE DAY AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE MEET AND CONFER CONTRACT SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS?

GOODMAN: NO. I JUST WANTED TO SAY IF THERE WAS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION EVERYDAY, NOBODY CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD BE THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE HAD ONE.

I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE AGENDAS AND I SAW THERE WAS THREE THINGS POSTED FOR THREE DIFFERENT DAYS FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YESTERDAY AND TODAY. WE DID IT YESTERDAY AND WE DIDN'T DO IT TODAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT I HAVE ON ITEMS F AND G. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE CONSENSUS OF THE CANCEL IS TO PUT ALL THESE ITEMS ON THE SEVENTH AGENDA AND CONSIDER THEM ONE MORE TIME? OR DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS G, H, I, J, K AND L?

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME LEGAL DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE AND THIS PROPOSED ITEM. WE HAD A BRIEFING ON IT YESTERDAY AND WE DISCUSSED THAT WE SHOULD LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT THOSE ISSUES ARE, SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT RIGHT NOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. STEINER.

GAY BREWER IS IN THE AUDIENCE AND SHE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT THE PERSONNEL FILES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THOMAS: MAYOR? ALSO WHAT SHE'S GOING TO EXPLAIN TODAY, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WAS THAT EXPLAINED TO THE CHARTER COMMITTEE WHEN YOU ASKED FOR THAT LEGAL ADVICE?

WE DID SHARE INFORMATION, COUNCILMEMBER, WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. WE DID NOT TAKE THEM INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAD OUR DISCUSSIONS IN PUBLIC. WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, THE SECOND PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, EXCUSE ME, ON CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL FILES — AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE MONITOR, THE CHARTER DOES NEED TO BE AMENDED IN ORDER FOR COUNCIL TO APPOINT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OFFICIALS WHO ARE CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARTER, ONLY THOSE PEOPLE LISTED IN THE CHARTER MAY BE APPOINTED BY COUNCIL. THERE'S NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO HAVING THE COUNCIL APPOINT THE MONITOR OR THE PANEL MEMBERS, BUT THAT WILL NOT CORRECT THE PROBLEMS IN THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. AND THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW HAS TO DO WITH ACCESS TO THE FILES. STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW SETS OUT A TWO-FILE SYSTEM. ONE IS THE PUBLIC FILE THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SERVICE. THE CONTENTS OF THAT FILE, THE MANDATORY CONTENTS OF THAT FILE ARE SPEAKS TIED IN THE LAW THAT IT MUST CONTAIN ANY COMMEND ADDITION, CONGRATULATIONS OR POSITIVE KIND OF A BRAGGING DOCUMENT THAT'S RECEIVED BY A POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER BASED ON OFFICIAL DUTIES. IT MUST CONTAIN PERIODIC EVALUATIONS BY A SUPERVISOR. AND THE MONEY ITEM WITH REGARD TO POLICE OVERSIGHT IS THAT IT MUST CONTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO MISCONDUCT BY THE FIREFIGHTER OR POLICE OFFICER. IF IT'S A LETTER MEMORANDUM OR DOCUMENT FROM THE EMPLOYING DEPARTMENT AND IT PERTAINS TO DISCIPLINE ADMINISTER UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT THAT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW PROHIBITS PLACING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC FILE. THAT INCLUDES NEGATIVE DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE TO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER THAT THE EMPLOYING DEPARTMENT FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROCEED TO DISCIPLINE ABOUT. AND ALSO ANY NEGATIVE DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE OFFICER THAT RELATED IN DISPLEUN IF THAT DISCIPLINE WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL AND THE MATTER OF APPEAL IS SPECIFIED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT. IT'S EITHER AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION OR AN APPEAL TO A HEARING EXAMINER. AS I SAID, THERE'S A TWO-TIER SYSTEM ESTABLISHED IN STATE LAW. THE SECOND TIER IS THE LAW PERMITS THE DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN A PERSONNEL FILE THAT CONTAINS ANY DOCUMENTS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OFFICER AND THE DEPARTMENT. IF THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS SUCH A FILE, THEN THAT FILE IS CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW. IT'S BEEN URGED THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD SIMPLY OR THE CITY COULD OPT SIMPLY TO NOT MAINTAIN THE DEPARTMENT FILES. I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THAT COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW. AND I THINK IT WOULD ESPECIALLY FAIL WITH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT BE MOST OF INTEREST IN A MONITOR SITUATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE POLICE MONITOR PROGRAM INTEREST GOES MOSTLY FROM CITIZEN POINT OF VIEW TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH CITIZENS HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY OFFICERS. AND THOSE ALLEGATIONS HAVE NOT GONE ANYWHERE IN THE CITIZENS' MIND, EITHER THE CITIZEN BELIEVES THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION OR THE CITIZEN BELIEVES THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE WAS A WHITEWASH IN THE FACT THAT NO DISCIPLINE WAS EVER ADMINISTERED. I THINK THE MONITOR PROCESS WOULD LIKE TO LOOK INTO THOSE SITUATIONS IN WHICH PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. HOWEVER, IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT SUSTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE DOCUMENTS THAT MAY NOT BE MADE PUBLIC UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW. AND ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE APPEARS TO MAKE IT DISCRETIONARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN A FILE, I WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY. WHEN YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION AND BEGIN ASSEMBLING DOCUMENTS THAT PERTAIN TO AN ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, NO ONE HAS ANY WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT INVESTIGATION WILL EVENTUALLY RESULT IN DISCIPLINE. IF IT DOES NOT RESULT IN DISCIPLINE, THEN BY LAW THOSE DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO IN THE PUBLIC FILE. IF IT DOES RESULT IN DISCIPLINE AND THAT DISCIPLINE IS OVERTURNED, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL VARIABLE THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED FROM BEGINNING, THEN THOSE DOCUMENTS BY LAW MAY NOT GO IN THE PUBLIC FILE. YOU MIGHT ARGUE THAT PERHAPS THE CITY COULD MAINTAIN THOSE FILES IN A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT AND NOT CALL THEM A POLICE FILE AND THAT THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO MAKE IT PUBLIC, HOWEVER, CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE DOCUMENTS DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS. AND I THINK 143.089-G WOULD STILL APPLY. THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OTHER POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER CITIES SUCH AS DALLAS AND EL SALVADOR AND THEN ALSO COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO SEEM TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR BUSINESS DONE WITHOUT ALL THE DISCUSSION OF CIVIL SERVICE FILES AND WHAT'S CONFIDENTIAL AND WHAT'S PUBLIC. THOSE DEBATES ABOUT WHAT — IS A — WHAT IS A GOOD WAY TO REGULATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY DEBATES. UNFORTUNATELY THEY DON'T REALLY PERTAIN TO OUR SITUATION. CHAPTER 143 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE ACT. IT APPLIES ONLY TO MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE ACT BY A LOCAL' ELECTION. AUSTIN DID THAT IN 1947 AND WE'VE BEEN A CIVIL SERVICE CITY EVER SINCE. IN CITIES LIKE DALLAS AND EL PASO, WHICH ACCORDING TO MY MOST RECENT NSMS FROM THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ARE NOT CIVIL SERVICE CITIES, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT ARE CAUSING THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH COUNTIES. THEY ALSO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, BUT SINCE THEY DO NOT FALL UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE ACT, THEIR ISSUES ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO OURS, AND PARTICULARLY THE LAW THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH REGARD TO PERSONNEL FILES DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND OF THE TWO RECOMMENDED — ITEMS RECOMMENDED IN RELATION TO THE POLICE.

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO IT SEEMS — LET ME ASK MS. BARKIN. THE INTENT OF THE FOLKS THAT BROUGHT YOU THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THEN THE CHARTER COMMISSION MAJORITY — OR MAYBE IT WAS UNANIMOUS IN SPORTING IT, WAS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IN THE SECOND FILE, THE UNSUSTAINED COMPLAINTS, THAT THEY WOULD GO THEN INTO THE MAIN PUBLIC FILE. IS THAT THE INTENT OF THIS?

HOW IT WOULD BE OPERATIONALLIZED WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS. BUT WHAT WE DID DISCUSS WAS THAT THE CITY WOULD SIMPLY NOT MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE. THE — THEN ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF MCDONALD DID VISIT WITH US AND DID EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, BUT WE DID NOT DISCUSS HOW IT WOULD BE OPERATION ALIZED.

SLUSHER: IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE INTENDING HERE IS FOR THE ITEM OR THE COMPLAINTS THAT GO INTO THE CONFIDENTIAL FILE, WHAT IT'S CALLED ON HERE IS THE OPTIONAL PERSONNEL FILE, THAT THOSE WOULD GO INTO THE MAIN PUBLIC FILE?

THANKS FOR ASKING. THE PUBLIC FILE IDENTIFIED IN TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 143.089, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, WHICH IS THE CIVIL SERVICE CODE, ACTUALLY THE PUBLIC FILES ARE HELD BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, SO THOSE FILES ARE NOT HELD IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT AT ALL. THE ANSWER IS NO, WE DID NOT INTEND FOR ALL FILES TO BE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. AND ALSO I DISAGREE WITH LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION AND CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVIDE ANY STATUTE OR CASE WHICH WOULD BACK UP THEIR VIEW THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THEY THINK WE CAN'T HAVE THE OPEN FILES IN OUR HOME RULE CITY. THAT IS JUST NOT THE LAW.

SLUSHER: BUT WHERE UNDER THIS, WHERE WOULD THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOW KEPT IN THE OPTIONAL PERSONNEL FILE, WHERE WOULD THEY GO IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THAT CIVIL SERVICE FILE?

THEY WOULD BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT — IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT NEW LANGUAGE I SAY CLARIFIES THAT I PASSED OUT TODAY. THE FILES WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.

SLUSHER: THIS THEN IS NOT WHAT THE CITY CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

WHAT I DID ON THAT ONE I JUST PASSED OUT WAS PUT THAT THEY WOULD ALL BE EFFECTIVE THE DAY AFTER MEET AND CONFER TO AVOID ANY LITIGATION OVER ANY KIND OF VIOLATION OF THIS CONTRACT. AND THEN JUST ADDED THAT THEY WOULD BE KEPT UNDER THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT TO SIMPLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.

OKAY. BUT THAT WASN'T IN THERE THEN AT THE TIME OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. , ASIDE IF THOSE CLAUSES, THAT'S THE TWO REVISIONS MADE BY THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE.

SLUSHER: TELL ME, WHERE WOULD THE FILES GO. TELL ME AGAIN.

THEY WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY WOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED UNDER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 143.089 IN THE CIVIL SERVICE FILES, WHICH IS THE MANDATORY OPEN FILE.

SLUSHER: DO YOU WANT THESE TO BE OPEN THEN? IS THAT THE INTENT?

YES, JUST LIKE THE TRAVIS COUNTY SD, TO THE SAME EXTENT. AND OVER 90% OF OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN TEXAS.

SLUSHER: SO THE INTENT IS TO MAKE THIS — TO PUT THESE UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS AS TRAVIS COUNTY?

YES. AND OVER 90% OF OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN TEXAS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO GO THROUGH AGAIN WHY WE'RE DIFFERENT FROM TRAVIS COUNTY AND THE OTHER CITIES THAT YOU WOULD MENTION AND HOW — JUST COMMENT ON THE ANSWERS SHE JUST GAVE, IF YOU WOULD.

OKAY. THE COUNTIES, OF COURSE, ARE NOT UNDER MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE LAW. IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. WHETHER YOU CAN RUN A POLICE DEPARTMENT THE WAY THEY DO IT IN COUNTIES AND OTHER CITIES IS MORE OF A POLITICAL DEBATE. WHAT I'M TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE LAWS THAT ACTUALLY APPLY TO US. AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER. WITH REGARD TO MAINTAINING THE FILES STILL IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT IN SOME WAY DECLARING THEM TON PUBLIC RATHER THAN UNDER THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE ACT, I WOULD SIMPLY CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE WORDING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT. SUBSECTION G SAYS, THE FIRE OR POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY MAINTAIN A PERSONNEL FILE ON A FIREFIGHTER OR POLICE OFFICER EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S USE, BUT THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT RELEASE ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DEPARTMENT FILE TO ANY AGENCY OR PERSON REQUESTING INFORMATION RELATING TO A FIREFIGHTER OR POLICE OFFICER. IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES A REQUEST, IT SHOULD REFER THAT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, WHO HAS THE PUBLIC FILE. NOW, WHAT THAT LANGUAGE SAYS IS IF YOU HAVE A FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT, YOU DON'T CHOOSE, YOU DON'T GET TO SAY, IN THIS CORNER WE HAVE PUBLIC FILES AND IN THIS CORNER WE HAVE THE CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW FILES. IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS A PERSONNEL FILE, IT IS CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW PER THE TERMS OF THIS STATUTE.

SLUSHER: STATE LAW?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: WELL IT'S CALLED OPTIONAL FILE OR WHETHER IT'S KEPT UNDER SOME OTHER TITLE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

YES, SIR. IT IS THE NATURE OF THE RECORD, NOT WHAT WE CALL THEM, THAT DETERMINES WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THE — LET'S GO BACK OVER THIS AGAIN. THE RECORDS, THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE SUSTAINED, THOSE ARE PUBLIC?

THE RECORDS, THE DISCIPLINARY DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS THE ALLEGATIONS, WHAT THE DEPARTMENT FOUND TO BE TRUE AND THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS IMPOSED IS PUT INTO THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR'S FILE.

LUSHER: WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: BUT THESE ARE COMPLAINTS WHICH THE SUBJECT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT SUSTAINED AND THEN WHAT IS IN THERE RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE THEN NOT SUSTAINED.

YES, SIR. WHAT ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE NOT SUSTAINED MAY NOT BE PUT IN THE PUBLIC FILE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE, YESTERDAY WE HAD TALKED ABOUT HOW THAT THERE'S SORT OF THREE WAYS THIS IS POTENTIALLY CONTRADICTED. IS THE WAY THIS IS CHANGED NOW CHANGE THAT?

NO, SIR, IT REALLY DOESN'T. THE NEW LANGUAGE — AS A CLARIFICATION, I THINK MS. DELLANO OFFERED IS AS A CLARIFICATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME IDEA, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT BY CHARTER WE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THE FILES IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE PUBLIC. WE CANNOT.

SLUSHER: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS LANGUAGE, THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WAS PASSED OUT TO US? THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE?

YES, I THINK I RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT A FEW MOMENTS AGO.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THE CHIEF IS BACK IN THE BACK. I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO COMMENT ON WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THESE FILES BEING MADE PUBLIC. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING UNDER STATE LAW, THAT THAT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO SPEAK TO THE NATURE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT?

YES, SIR. THE PERSONNEL FILES MAINTAINED IN THE DEPARTMENT ARE I THINK WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, ARE CONFIDENTIAL BY STATE LAW, WHICH BECAUSE WE ARE CIVIL SERVICE, TRAVIS COUNTY IS NOT CIVIL SERVICE. THEY'RE NOT UNDER THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS UNDER.

SLUSHER: WOULD THIS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE, ON INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT IF THOSE FILES WERE MADE PUBLIC?

CERTAINLY. THE FILES THAT WE TALK ABOUT ARE NOT JUST THE LETTER THAT THE CHIEF DRAFT OZ A SUSTAINED COMPLAINT WITH HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO, BUT IT HAS ALL THE STATEMENTS FROM OFFICERS, FROM WITNESSES, THAT MAY CONTAIN PERSONNEL INFORMATION ABOUT AN OFFICER OR A WITNESS THAT WHICH IF IT BECAME PUBLIC WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION AND OUR ABILITY TO DO CASES BECAUSE THE OFFICERS — IT WOULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE OTHER OFFICERS COMING FORWARD.

SLUSHER: AND CHIEF KNEE, DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT, CHIEF.

THANK YOU. AS YOU KNOW, WHEN AN ALLEGATION COMES FORWARD FROM EITHER THE PUBLIC OR SOMEBODY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, WE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THAT ALLEGATION, EVEN IF IT LEADS TO OTHER EVENTS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WHICH MAY NOT BE PART OF THE MAIN COMPLAINT. SOME OF THOSE INVOLVE SENSITIVE INFORMATION, RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FAMILY. ALSO WITH INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE FAMILY AND SUCH. THEY ALSO MAY INCLUDE INFORMATION WHICH MAY INDICATE SOME KIND OF IMPAIRMENT AS FAR AS THE ABILITY TO DO THE JOB CORRECTLY, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROVED. THE CONCERN, OF COURSE, IS ALWAYS THAT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION WE SEEK OUT TO GET A FULL PICTURE OF AN EVENT OR AN EVENT THAT MAY BE RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, IF THOSE REPORTS WERE MADE PUBLIC, I THINK, NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHICHAS INVESTIGATED AND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXONERATED, AND ALSO TO THE OFFICERS THAT CAME FORWARD AND REPORTED THE INCIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. AS YOU KNOW, SEVERAL OF THE RECENT, MORE SERIOUS DISCIPLINES HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY OFFICERS ACTUALLY EMPLOYED AT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. ALSO, THOSE RECORDS ARE NOT TOP SECRET RECORDS. THE CONCERN OF MANY PEOPLE IS THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT COMPLETELY INVESTIGATE ACTIVITY ON CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. THAT'S WHY WE SUPPORTED THE CITIZEN PANEL, OVERSIGHT PANEL, WHERE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE COMMUNITY WILL HAVE ACCESS AND BE ABLE TO READ THOSE REPORTS. AND THEY CAN THROUGH THE MONITOR WORK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION, TO LOOK AT OTHER ISSUES, ALSO TO TALK ABOUT POLICY AND SUCH. SO THERE IS OVERSIGHT AT THIS POINT. I JUST REEMPHASIZE THAT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT INFORMATION THAT OFFICERS ARE ORDERED TO GIVE US IN ORDER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF A SITUATION THAT MAY WIND UP ON THE INTERNET, MAY WIND UP WHEREVER INFORMATION CAN IN FACT GO. AND I THINK IN SOME CASES THAT WOULD BE VERY SH VERY INAPPROPRIATE.

SLUSHER: AND HOW WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THE CONCERN OR THE STATEMENT THAT MOST OF THE OTHER POLICE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE STATE HAVE THESE RECORDS PUBLIC?

I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THAT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT HERE IN AUSTIN I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE ALLOW THE OVERSIGHT AS DESIGNED TO GET UP AND RUNNING, TO BEGIN FUNCTIONING. AND THEN IF IN FACT WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS DOWN THE ROAD, TAKE A LOOK AT IT DOWN THE ROAD. IT MAY BE — I MAY BE UP HERE TALKING TO YOU BECAUSE I REQUIRE MY INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORS TO FOLLOW LEADS OR INDICATIONS OF POLICY VIOLATIONS IN MANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS THEY MAY LOOK AT THE CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND SIMPLY LOOK AND FIND OUT ABOUT A SINGLE INCIDENT. THE WAY WE LOOK AT A CITIZEN COMPLAINT IS THATS AZ WE INVESTIGATE IT, IF OTHER ALLEGATIONS ARISE, THEN WE ALSO BEGIN TO INVESTIGATE THAT ALL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THAT CITIZEN COMPLAINT.

SLUSHER: AND YOU'RE SAYING IF ALL THAT FILE WAS PUBLIC, WHEN YOU HAVE OFFICERS COMING FORWARD TO TALK ABOUT INCIDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THAT MAKES IT LESS LIKELY THEY WOULD DO THAT?

I THINK SO. I CAN TELL YOU THAT AN OFFICER COMES FORWARD AND SAYS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL PERHAPS MIGHT HAVE A DRINKING PROBLEM. AN OFFICER COMES FORWARD AND SAYS THAT AN OFFICER AND HIS WIFE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A POLICY VIOLATION IF THEY DID IN FACT OCCUR. WE WOULD LOOK INTO THOSE. THE QUESTION IS WHEN WE LOOK INTO THOSE AND IF IN FACT WE DON'T SUSTAIN THEM OR IF WE SUSTAIN THEM, IS IT REASONABLE AND IS IT CORRECT TO ALLOW THOSE FILES TO BE LOOKED AT BY ANY PERSON, TO WIND UP ON AN INTERNET SERVICE? AND I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. AND I WOULD SAY THAT IF IN FACT IT DID WIND UP BEING PUBLIC, WOULD THAT OFFICER EVER AGAIN COME TO US AND SAY, MY PARTNER'S HAVING PROBLEMS AT HOME AND IT'S AFFECTING HIS WORK? AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT. AND I WOULD SAY HE WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO DO SO.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU, CHIEF. MR. BREWER, IS THAT AN ACCURATE FIGURE, 90% OF THE STATE IS DIFFERENT OR 90% OF OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES?

I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, COUNCILMEMBER.

SLUSHER: WHO ELSE IS UNDER THE SAME, THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM THAT HAS THE SIEM REQUIREMENTS. YOU SAID THAT EARLIER, BUT WOULD YOU GO THROUGH IT AGAIN?

I HAD SAID THAT DALLAS AND EL PASO ARE NOT, AND THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AS LARGE CITIES WHO ARE ABLE TO CONDUCT THEIR POLICE BUSINESS WITHOUT BEING UNDER STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW OR WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO THE INFORMATIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE. LET ME SEE HERE. I'M LOOKING AT A LIST OF CIVIL SERVICE CITIES FROM TML. JUST READING FROM THE TOP, READING A FEW NAMES, ABILENE, AMARILLO, ATHENS, AUSTIN, BALCH SPRINGS, BAYTOWN, BEAUMONT, BROWNSVILLE, BROWNWOOD, BRYAN, CARROLLTON, CLEBURNE. THESE ARE ALL — AND THIS IS A FAIRLY LENGTHY LIST. I WON'T READ THE WHOLE THING. THEY ARE ALL UNDER STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS.

SLUSHER: SO THOSE KIND OF FILES WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL? AND I THINK YOU HEARD THE CHIEF SAY THAT PERHAPS AUSTIN'S INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS MAY BE MORE THOROUGH THAN SOME OTHERS, BUT WHATEVER THE CASE, THAT IF THESE OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHERE YOU JUST GOT THROUGH THE C'S — I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU MADE IT THROUGH THE C'S, BUT THOSE FILES WOULD BE — WOULD NOT BE PUBLIC IN THOSE CITIES EITHER?

THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT WE ARE IF THEY'RE CIVIL SERVICE CITIES, YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS?

GOODMAN: JUST ONE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: MS. BREWER, BEFORE YOU GO. AS I TRIED TO ORGANIZE THIS IN MY MIND AND KIND OF LAY OUT THE CROSS-REFERENCES IN STATE LAW THAT ULTIMATELY DEFINE WHAT WE COULD DO, WOULD I BE — WELL, I'LL TRY TO WRITE THIS OUT TOO BECAUSE I'M NOT EVEN EXACTLY SURE OF HOW TO ASK IT. SO IF IT DOESN'T MESH SH THAT'S WHY. WITHIN THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, IS THERE A REFERENCE TO OTHER STATE LAWS OR IS THAT THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHERE THERE ARE REFERENCES TO WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE RELATIVE TO WHAT EXISTS IN OTHER STATE LAWS? [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]ATZoNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400q

GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CAN I SUGGEST THAT WE SUSPEND THIS DISCUSSION FOR A FEW MINUTES BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT THAT ARE PRETTY ROUTINE, GET THEM OUT OF THE WAY, SO PEOPLE CAN GO HOME. THAT ARE HERE ON THOSE ITEMS. WE HAVE ITEM NO. 64, WHICH IS THE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. AND WE CAN HANDLE THAT VERY QUICKLY. DO YOU ALL HAVE IN — YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE ITEM THAT HAS THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS. AUSTIN MUSIC TASK FORCE, JAMES POLK, APPOINTMENT BY CONSENSUS. CITY OF AUSTIN COMMISSION FOR WOMEN, PAMELA JODY PARK, APPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR. LIBRARY COMMISSION, VANESSA V. GARZA, POINTED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. MAYORS COMMITTEE ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, NANCY CRIEWT THEY ARE, REAPPOINTED BY THE MAYOR. [INAUDIBLE], COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. REAPPOINTMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. SIXTH STREET RECYCLES TASK FORCE, THESE ARE ALL APPOINTMENTS ALL BY CONSENSUS. (READING APPOINTMENTS INTO THE RECORD)

CLERK BROWN: MAYOR, WE HAVE FOUR OTHER NAMES THAT NEED TO GO ON THERE. THESE ARE THE RESULT OF THE ONES TAKEN ON 68 AND 71, IF YOU WOULD PERMIT ME I WOULD READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD. FOR THE AUSTIN MUSIC TASK FORCE, JERRY AVILA, NATALIE ZOE, FOR THE SIXTH STREET RECYCLES TASK FORCE, SPARKEY ANDERSON AND AUSTIN JERGEN.

I ALREADY READ NATALIE. WHO ELSE DO YOU HAVE? OH, THAT'S FOR THE MUSIC TASK FORCE, SHE'S ON THE MUSIC COMMISSION AND ALSO THE MUSIC TASK FORCE. DID EVERYBODY GET THOSE NAMES? IF YOU COULD SEND IT TO US SO WE HAVE HARD COPY OR E-MAIL IT TO US. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES. ON ITEM NO. 63, THAT'S ONE THAT I PULLED, I HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE THIS IS A ROTATION LIST. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE WE APPROVED SEVERAL FIRMS FOR THE ROTATION LIST, ONE AMOUNT FOR ALL OF THEM. SOMETIMES SOME FIRMS DON'T GET ANYTHING. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON. ON OPTION 2 THAT WE AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND — BY REQUESTING THAT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT WORK CLOSELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SMALL AND MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCES TO CLOSELY MONITOR AND ENSURE THAT THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE ISSUED RELATIVELY EQUALLY AND MR. RIVERA IS PREPARED TO ADDRESS HOW SMBR CAN ASSIST. I THINK HE'S HERE, MR. GUERRERA. IS HE HERE? THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HAD FROM MINORITY AND SMALL BUSINESS FIRMS IS THAT THEY DON'T GET AS MUCH CONTRACT WORK, SO CAN YOU WORK WITH THE WATER...... SHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THIS IN A FIR AND EQUITABLE WAY, WITH THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT.

... ABSOLUTELY.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

GRIFFITH: I MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES. 57, 58, 59, WERE PULLED BY ME. WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS ALL REGISTERED AGAINST THESE THREE ITEMS. SO — SO LET ME CALL THE ITEMS UP FOR CONSIDERATION. TO EXTENT THAT THE SPEAKERS CAN — TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN DO THIS BETWEEN NOW AND 5:30 WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 57 APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TOO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 000912-2 OF THE 2001-2002 CAPITAL BUDGET BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT BY $287,500 AND CREATING A NEW WATER PROJECT KNOWN AS PARKER SPRINGS CONDOMINIUMS, FOR $287,500 IN FROM UNDERING PROVIDED BY FISCAL NOTE THAT'S IN THE AGENDA. 58 IS APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO DECLARE OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $287,000 TO BE PAID FOR DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PARKER SPRINGS CONDOMINIUM WATER PROJECT. 59 IS ADOPT A RESOLUTION AND AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A COST PARTICIPATION/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KING FISHER CREEK LIMITED PROVIDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 16-INCH WATER MAIN, PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE ASSEMBLY AND APPURTENANCES TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO THE PROPOSED PARKING SPRINGS CONDOMINIUMS, LOCATED AT 4601 EAST ST. ELMO ROAD. THE REST IS — IS A LONG PARAGRAPH.

BUT ANYWAY, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE FROM WATER AND WASTEWATER, MR. LEVY, THE CONCERN THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD, CAN PROBABLY BEST BE EXPRESSED BY THEM. SO IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, WHY DON'T WE LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERN AND THEN WE CAN CALL ON YOU TO RESPOND. IS THAT OKAY?

OKAY.

MR. SLOAN, M.L. SLOAN, FOLLOWING MR. SLOAN IS DORA BROWN AND JACK [INAUDIBLE]. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MAYOR GARCIA, MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS LEE SLOAN, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE KENSINGTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WELL, KING FISHER IS BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN. AND WE ARE HERE AGAIN TO OPPOSE THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU BRIEFLY OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. FIRST, IT IS A VERY ILL CONCEIVED OVERCROWDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WITH 35 MULTI BEDROOM UNITS SITUATED ON A TINY ONE TO TWO ACRES OF BUILDABLE LAND. THERE ARE TWO CREEKS, BOTH WITH 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN TRAVERSING THE TRACT, THERE ARE CERTIFIED WETLANDS ON THE TRACT, ALSO. THERE ARE NO AMENITIES IN THE AREA, THERE ARE NO SCHOOLS, THERE'S NO GROCERY STORES, THERE'S NO SHOPPING, THERE'S NO MEDICAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, NO SIDEWALKS, NO RECREATIONAL AREAS AND NO ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES. FINALLY, THE SITE LIES IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA OF AUSTIN, A FRAGILE WETLANDS ECOSYSTEM TO THE SOUTH OF ST. ELMO, WHICH HAS BEEN FORMALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY AS FAR BACK AS THE 1984 ST. ELMO ROAD AREA STUDY. BECAUSE OF THESE CONCERNS AND OTHERS THIS PROJECT HAS FROM THE ONSET BEEN OPPOSED BY NOT ONLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, CONTENDS KENSINGTON PARK, DOVE SPRINGS, CREEK BEND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SOUTH CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BATTLE BEND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND SCAN, SOUTHEAST CORNER ALLIANCE OF NEIGHBORS. WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME BEFORE THE CITY LAST MAY IT WAS REJECTED FIVE TO TWO BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, LATER THAT MONTH VOTED DOWN 7 TO 0 BY THIS COUNCIL. YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE MESSAGE AND GONE AWAY, BUT KING FISHER HAS NOT. IT HAS CONTINUED TO WIND ITS WAY THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND IT'S HERE AGAIN BEFORE YOU TODAY IN A REQUEST FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE. IRONICALLY, THIS REQUEST COMES RIGHT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY HAS JUST DIVERTED A POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER IN THE WETLANDS AREA. WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, MS. PAULLINDA MACKEY HAS HALTED ALL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ALONG PART OF EAST ST. ELMO AS WELL AS PENDING WATER MAIN PLACEMENT WHEN IT WAS FOUND IT WAS CUTTING INTO THE SPRING BEDS AND AQUIFERS THAT FEED THE WET LAND ECOSYSTEM TO THE STAND. IN TAKING THIS ACTION SHE FURTHER CANCEL ALL RELATED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AND ASSURED US THE WORK WOULD NOT RESUME UNTIL THE HYDROLOGY OF THE AREA IS THOROUGHLY STUDIED AND APPROPRIATE PROCEEDS DEVISED AND ENGINEERED TO PRESERVE THE SPRING FLOWS AND WETLANDS. WE APPLAUD THE CITY'S DECISION TO ENSURE THEIR PRESERVATION. UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THERE'S PRESSURE FROM KING FISHER AS WELL AS CERTAIN CITY STAFF TO QUICK FIX THIS PROBLEM. BUT THE APPROACH OUTLINED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD [BUZZER SOUNDING] BY MS. MCGINTY KEY IS THE CORRECT ONE, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE CAREFULLY AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT. WE WOULD REQUEST TWO ACTIONS OF COUNCIL THIS EVENING. FIRST, THAT YOU DENY THE SERVICE AND COMMITMENT SOUGHT IN ITEMS 57 THROUGH 59 AND SECOND THAT THE COUNCIL PUT A MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA UNTIL THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY STUDIED AND GOOD AND VALID SOLUTIONS THAT WILL PROTECT THE SPRINGS AND WETLANDS OF THIS FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM ARE IN HAND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS DORA BROWN. I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GREEN SLOPES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF SCAN, THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ALLIANCE OF NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM MS. DONNA LEE, THE PRESIDENT OF SCAN, CONCERNING THE BACKGROUND OF KING FISHER CREEK PROPOSAL AND THE COMMUNITIES' OPPOSITION TO IT FOR MANY REASONS. ON BEHALF OF SCAN AND AT MISS LEE'S REQUEST, I AM HERE TODAY TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO DENY ITEMS 57 THROUGH 59 AND TO SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM ON ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ON EAST ST. ELMO IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SPRINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED HERE. SCAN HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONCERNED DEVELOPER, WOODWAY VILLAGE, TO SET ASIDE A GREEN WAY AREA FOR THE CITY AND THIS WAS A GREAT GAIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ERODED OR DESTROYED. EXCUSE ME. BY ENDANGERING THE SPRINGS AND THE WETLANDS TO THE SOUTH OF IT. SO TODAY I URGE THAT YOU REJECT OR DENY ITEMS 57 THROUGH 59 AND SUPPORT THE MORATORIUM UNTIL WE CAN BE ASSURED THAT THE SPRINGS AND THE WETLANDS WILL BE PROTECTED. ALSO IN A RELATED MATTER, KING FISHER HAS ASKED THE CITY STAFF TO OPEN A VALVE ON AN EXISTING LINE TO PROVIDE INCREASED WATER FLOW THAT IT CLAIMS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR ITS SITE. HOWEVER, THAT LINE IS OLD. 50 YEARS OLD. IT'S ALREADY OVER PRESSURED AND IT FREQUENTLY LEAKS NOW. ADDING PRESSURE TO THIS LINE MAY WELL DESTROY IT, CAUSING HUGE PROBLEMS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO RELY ON IT FOR THEIR WATER. THE STAFF HAS DENIED THE REQUEST OF KING FISHER TO OPEN THIS VALVE AND I URGE THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO A VERY, VERY BAD IDEA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. MR. JACK [INAUDIBLE], FOLLOWING HIM, MR. SAM GUZMAN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JACK HALLISON, MY WIFE PEG AND I HAVEESIDED ALONG THIS STRETCH OF EAST ST. ELMO FOR 27 YEARS. TO ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERNS TONIGHT, I WILL LIKE TO TELL YOU ABOUT A TOUR THAT WE WERE TAKING ONE DAY WITH SOME FOLKS WHO HAD A PROPOSED PROJECT JUST NORTH OF US. WE HAD COMPLETED WALKING — TAKING THE WALKING TOUR OF OUR AREA, SEEING THE SPRINGS, PONDS, CREEKS ALONG EAST ST. ELMO. WE VISITED THESE FEATURES AND MORE. WE SAW THE WETLANDS, THE SEEPS, LARGE OAKS AND PECAN TREES. WE WALKED THROUGH THE THICK GRASS AND NATIVE UNDERBRUSH. ALL OF THESE FEATURES BENEFITTING FROM THE ABUNDANT NATURAL GROUND WATER IN OUR AREA. AT ONE POINT ALONG THE WAY, THE CONTRACTOR ON THE TOUR, WHO STOOD TO BE THE BUILDER, OF AN 82,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AS PART OF THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE HOSTING THE TOUR FOR, ASKED IF — IF OUR AREA STILL USED WELL WATER. SINGS OUR AREA IS RURAL — SINCE OUR AREA IS RURAL IN NATURE, THIS WAS A REASONABLE QUESTION, WE CONSIDERED IT AND DETERMINED THAT EVEN THE OLDEST OF THE HOMES EVERYBODY HAD CONVERTED OVER TO CITY WATER. WE TOLD THEM THAT, NO, EVERYBODY IS ON CITY WATER. AT THAT POINT, HE MADE THE COMMENT, WELL, WHAT GOOD IS ALL OF THIS OTHER WATER ANYWAY? EVEN IN SOUTH AUSTIN, THAT COMMENT WAS REMARKABLE. SO WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU WHAT GOOD IS ALL THIS WATER? IF YOU AGREE, THAT THE TREES, THE WET LAND FEATURES AND THE WILDLIFE ALONG EAST ST. ELMO BENEFIT FROM THE NATURAL WATER FEATURES, PLEASE DELAY ACTION, CONSULT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PEOPLE ON YOUR BOARD, THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU, TWO OF WHICH ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA, AND PLEASE DO NOT RUSH INTO A WATER PROJECT THAT COULD FOREVER DAMAGE OUR AREA. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HOWIS SON. MR. GUZMAN, THERE IS ANOTHER PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, HAS GIVEN YOU HIS 3 MINUTES. YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM UP.

I WILL NOT USE THEM, MAYOR, I'M CONSCIOUS OF YOUR TIME. BUT, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS SAM GUZMAN. I'VE HAD THE FORTUNE RECENTLY TO GO AROUND TALKING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AMONG THESE PEOPLE IS LIASL LIMON WHO I TALKED TO, IS HERE PRESENT TODAY. HE LIVES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROJECT. THE FACT IS ALIVE ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM THIS PROJECT. THEY JUST INFORMED ME, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I LIVED THAT CLOSE. I DON'T AT THIS TIME HAVE A LOT OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS AND ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM, BUT IT WAS ELOQUENTLY DETAILED TO YOU EARLIER BY THE SPEAKERS. I DO KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SEVEN OF THEM ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. THESE ARE GOOD PEP. THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CALL A NIMBE ISSUE, NOT IN MY BACK YARD, NOT AT ALL. IN FACT THEY HAVE SUPPORTED AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT PROJECTS UP TO NOW, BUT THESE WERE GOOD PROJECTS, GOOD FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE PROJECTS WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT — THAT THE PROJECT, KING FISHER CREEK PROJECT, CAME IN KIND OF LIKE THEY HAD A DONE DEAL OR LIKE GANG BUSTERS, THEY WERE BOUND TO DO IT THEIR WAY. THIS IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY, CERTAINLY NOT THE AUSTIN WAY. THE AUSTIN EXPERIENCE DICTATES WHEN A NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CONCERNS, OUR CITY FATHERS AND MOTHERS, BETTER CHOICE OF WORDS LEADERS, LISTEN. WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE 7 NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE CONCERNS AND THEY ARE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS AS YOU HAVE HEARD THEM. I WAS TELLING SOME OF THESE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALIAS TODAY THAT I KNOW MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE ON THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR AND THAT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE — THEY WILL LISTEN AND THAT THEY WILL BE FAIR. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT YOU WILL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, IN GUZMAN. SARAH CROCKER SIGNED UP AS NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, REGISTERED AGAINST THIS PROJECT. ANA MANGELA SORR ELLS, DID I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY? IF I DIDN'T, PLEASE CORRECT ME, WELCOME.

YOU DID PRETTY GOOD. MY NAME IS ANA MONGALA SORRELLS, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I OWN THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT, TO THE EAST OF IT. I HAVE A FOUR ACRE LOT THERE. I'M BLESSED WITH THAT. AND JUST LISTENING I HAVE JUST COME BACK FROM ENGLAND LAST NIGHT, I'M NOT VERY TUNE AUTOD. — NOT VERY TUNED IN RIGHT NOW. FORGIVE ME. WHY ARE SO MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSED, WHY DO PEOPLE CARE? I THINK BECAUSE ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN, AND IT'S THAT SIDE OF TOWN, THERE ARE SOME VERY PRECIOUS THINGS THERE THAT MOST PEOPLE IN AUSTIN WHO LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN AREN'T AWARE OF. IT'S A WATER RESOURCE, ECOSYSTEM, WETLANDS, IT'S NATURE, IT'S RURAL. A LOT OF PEOPLE GET TO DRIVE THROUGH THERE. THEY CAN FEEL SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE SPIRITUALLY UPLIFTING THAN DRIVING DOWN EAST BEN WHITE TO THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE THERE'S WAY OVER DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE SPRINGS WHERE AGAIN THERE'S OVER HOUSING. I THINK YOU ONLY HAVE TO WALK THROUGH THERE TO KNOW THAT. THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT TOUCHES THE HEART AND IT'S A VERY RICH AND DIVERSE WATERSHED FULL OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS AND PLANTS. AND I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU OUT THESE PHOTOGRAPHERS — PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH I WILL. BUT AT ANY RATE, IF YOU GO OVER THERE AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE GONE OVER THERE, IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG TO — TO GET THE MESSAGE THAT — THAT IF ANYBODY PUSHES IN THERE WHEN THEY ARE NOT REALLY WANTED BECAUSE THEIR FOOTPRINT IS GOING TO BE TOO HEAVY ON THE LAND, WE NEED TO LISTEN. AND SO WHAT'S BEAUTIFULLY HAPPENED IS THAT THE ROAD THAT DID NEED REDOING, HAS SORT OF CREATED THIS — THIS WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO HAVE YET ANOTHER LOOK AT WE MUST BE DOING SOMETHING A BIT OFF HERE. MAYBE WE NEED TO JUST STOP AND REGROUP AND LOOK AT WHAT IS IN PLACE FIRST BEFORE WE JUST CARVE IT UP AND MAKE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE REALLY SORRY ABOUT. SO — SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONEST DELIBERATIONS AROUND THIS BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL WETLAND IN SOUTH AUSTIN THAT I'M THANKFUL TO BE A PART OF. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE THEM TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WE WILL PASS THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. LIPPY.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IF I COULD, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THESE THREE RELATED ITEMS. I KNOW THERE ARE, AS YOU HEARD, CONCERNS ABOUT ZONING, SITE PLANS, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND PIPELINES. THE THREE ITEMS SPECIFICALLY ARE RELATED TO REIMBURSEMENT PROPOSAL TO THE DEVELOPER OF KING FISHER CREEK, LIMITED, TO INSTALL A 16 INCH WATER LINE, APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET FROM — FROM THE INTERSECTION OF TODD LANE AND EAST ST. ELMO. BUT THAT BRINGS UP THESE OTHER ISSUES, LET ME JUST MENTION THAT STUART HIRVCH APPEARED PAT MURDER FREE ARE IN THE AUDIENCE AND CAN HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT ZONING, SITE PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. RENALDO CAN, TOO, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OVER WATER AND WASTEWATER IS ALSO HERE, VERY FAMILIAR SOME OF THE DESIGN ISSUES OVER THE LINE ITSELF. A NEED FOR A NEW LINE WAS DISCOVERED DURING ROAD CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE RELATIVELY SHALLOW WATER LINES THAT OF CAN IT A — THAT WAS HIT A COUPLE OF TIMES DURING THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION WAS HALTED BECAUSE IT WAS — THE INTERFERENCE OF THE EXISTING 8 INCH, 50-YEAR-OLD WATER LINE, IN EAST ST. ELMO. SO WE REALIZED WE NEEDED TO — TO LOWER THAT LINE. WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS A 16-INCH WATER LINE FOR THAT AREA. ANY — ANY FUTURE CUSTOMERS ALONG THAT — ALONG THAT ROUTE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE MORE FLOW AND [INAUDIBLE] FLOW, IT'S A 50-YEAR-OLD LINE AT THE END OF A RELATIVELY WEAK WATER SYSTEM. 1300 FEET AWAY AT TODD LANE AND EAST ST. ELMO IS A HIGHER PRESSURE ZONE AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO CONNECT THIS NEW SYSTEM TO. SO WE DO NEED TO BUILD — TO — BEFORE THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION CAN CONTINUE, WE DO NEED TO REPLACE THE 8-INCH LINE WITH ANOTHER LINE AND CONNECT IT BACK TO THE HIGHER PRESSURE ZONE. SO NOW WE ADD TO THE PICTURE THE KING FISHER PROJECT, WHICH ALSO NEEDS A LINE TO BE ABLE TO GET THE FIRE FLOWS REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR PLAT APPROVED. AND SO — SO WHAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED, WHAT WE DO RECOMMEND IS SERVICE EXTENSION APPROVAL WITH A REIMBURSEMENT SO THAT THAT DEVELOPER CAN INSTALL A PORTION OF THIS LINE BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO — TO HAVE IT — HAVE IT IN PLACE IN THE TIME THAT THEY NEED AS COMPARED TO — TO OUR WORKING WITHIN THE ROAD PROJECT. SO — SO — BUT IT WOULD BE DESIGNED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROAD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WATER FEATURES, ENVIRONMENTAL WATER FEATURES IN THE AREA. THERE'S A COUPLE OF CREEKS AND — AND SOME — SOME WETLANDS, SMALL PONDS, AND SEEPS OR SPRINGS FROM WHAT WE SAW THAT — AT LEAST ONE OF THE SEEPS SURFACES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ST. ELMO. AND THEN GOES INTO A CULVERT UNDER THE ROAD ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE A VERY SMALL CREEK AND SOME — SOME PONDS. BUT THERE MAY VERY WELL BE, ALSO, SOME — SOME GROUND ARE GROUND WATER FLOW THAT NATURALLY FLOWS UNDER THE ROAD. THERE WAS A PROJECT, A WASTEWATER LINE PROJECT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT ENCOUNTERED SOME TYPE OF A GROUND WATER FLOW AND THERE ARE WAYS TO MITIGATE AND DIRECT THAT FLOW PROPERLY ACROSS THE ROAD. WE LEARNED THAT DURING THAT PROJECT. ONE OTHER BIT OF BACKGROUND, THE CITY HAS HIRED A — A GROUND WATER HYDRO GEOLOGIST TO GATHER SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTING HERE BEFORE THE DESIGN IS COMPLETED. AND WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING THAT'S FOUND AND WILL HAVE SOME DESIGNS IN PLACE SUCH THAT WHATEVER IS FOUND DURING CONSTRUCTION CAN — CAN BE PUT IN PLACE TO — TO DIRECT THE GROUND WATER FLOW IN THE PROPER DIRECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN IS THIS CONSULTANT GOING TO FINISH THE WORK?

THE CITY'S CONSULTANT? THE HYDROGEOLOGIST? I'M NOT CERTAIN. I KNOW THE DESIGN IS MOVING ALONG REAL QUICKLY. LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY CONCERN, MR. LIPPY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON THIS. LOOKING AT — AT WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA AND HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORS, I THINK THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME PARTICULARLY BRINGING IN THE WATERSHED PEOPLE. THIS IS WETLANDS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY SENSITIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY IN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE, BUT THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE ALSO HAS SOME VERY SENSITIVE AREAS ENVIRONMENTALLY, I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT — SO THAT YOU CAN LISTEN MORE WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND LOOK AT THE ISSUES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK — I DON'T WANT TO — TO TURN IT DOWN TODAY. OKAY? IF I HAVE TO, THAT'S THE WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE. BUT I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU SPEND MORE TIME TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS AND LOOKING AT WHAT THE HYDROLOGIST — WHATEVER THIS GUY, HYDROLOGIST IS GOING TO TELL YOU BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ON IT. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

LET ME JUST ADD A NOTE ABOUT — ABOUT THE ROAD PROJECT, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THIS REQUEST. BEING DONE, OF COURSE, BY THE CITY. THAT ROAD PROJECT WAS UNDERWAY, THEY HAVE REMOVED THE PAVING ON A STRETCH OF — I WILL SAY A THOUSAND FEET ALONG ST. ELMO. NEAR AND EAST OF THIS SITE. AND THAT'S — THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT THE ROAD REMAINS IN RIGHT NOW. I DO UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOME TEMPORARY PAVING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S A SEPARATE SCHEDULE, THOUGH.

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO PUT IN THE PIPE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT FITS INTO THIS BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM IF IN ESSENCE WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THAT PART. SO — MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I THINK SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP EVERYBODY BE VERY CLEAR ON WHATER AND ARE NOT DOING — ON WHAT WE ARE AND ARE NOT DOING IS TO HAVE A ZONING MAP FOR ONE THING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH PUTTING SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES HERE IS A CONTRADICTION TO THE ZONING THAT WE TURNED DOWN TO THE PROJECT THAT WE TURNED DOWN. AND FIND OUT WHY THAT PARTICULAR, WHAT YOU PUT IN A ZONING MAP, FOUND OUT WHERE THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS. ALSO, WE NEED SOME KIND OF SITE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE RECHARGE, DISCHARGE, WHATEVER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ARE, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN — IN SOURCE OF BASE FLOW, SO TO SPEAK FORKS THE WETLANDS. — FOR THE WETLANDS. BECAUSE I NOTICE THERE'S A MENTION OF LEAKING BEING ATTRIBUTED TO CUTTING A WATER LINE AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S ALWAYS — ALWAYS IF YOU FIND A WETLAND, THERE'S ALWAYS A SOURCE OF BASE FLOW THAT FEEDS THAT WETLANDS. OFTEN ENOUGH THERE'S ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A BROKEN LINE OR A TRUE BASE FLOW DISCHARGE. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS EITHER ONE WEEK OR THREE WEEKS.

SLUSHER: I WILL MOVE TO POSTPONE IT THREE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO POSTPONE IT FOR THREE WEEKS. THAT BRINGS IT BACK ON THE 21ST.

SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE 21ST. AND AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN ITEM, 5:30, WE ARE ACTUALLY 16 MINUTES LATER. BUT WE WILL RECESS THE MEETING FOR MUSIC. AND SOME PROCLAMATIONS. AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL TAKE A BREAK TO HAVE DINNER. AND WE WILL RETURN TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING ISSUES. WHEN WE COME BACK, PROBABLY AROUND 6:30. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

MAYOR GARCIA: GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. TODAY — I'M BEING REPLACED AS THE MAYOR. TODAY WE HAVE THE MAYOR FOR THE DAY, A STUDENT FROM JOHNSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. AND I HAVE A PROCLAMATION TO READ TO HIM THAT READ AS FOLLOWS. BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS JONATHAN IS A IF I HAVE GRADER AT JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHO LIKES MATH, WORKING AND PLAYING ON COMPUTERS, PLAYING FOOTBALL AND GOING CAMPING, AND WHEREAS IN HIS MAYOR FOR A DAY ESSAY, JONATHAN NOT ONLY ACCURATELY RECOGNIZED THE ISSUES HE HAD TO DEAL WITH AS MAYOR, LIKE TRAFFIC, DRUGS, HEALTH CARE, HOMELESSNESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT PRESENTED APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS AS WELL. AND WHEREAS WE APPLAUD HIS WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT BEING MAYOR DEMANDS TO THE POINT OF RISKING HIS OWN LIFE TO SAVE ANOTHER, SHOULD AUSTIN BE SUBJECT TO A TERRORIST ATTACK. NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA, FORMER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM JONATHAN ALDEMA AS MAYOR FOR A DAY. [ APPLAUSE ]. AND AS MAYOR HE WILL INTRODUCE OUR MUSIC — MUSICIAN FOR THE DAY. AND HE'S ALSO GOING — ARE YOU GOING TO READ PART OF YOUR ESSAY, JONATHAN? YOU DON'T HAVE IT. OKAY. CAN WE GET A CHAIR FORc HIM?

TODAY WITHAVE WITH US ELOISE RAFAEL. SHE IS A MUSICIAN AND COUNSELOR. BY DAY SHE WORKS AT THE TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS COUNSELING EDUCATORS ABOUT THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. AFTER WORK HOURS IT IS ALL ABOUT MUSIC. SHE IS AN ENTERTAINMENT ARTIST AND LOCAL COACH. SHE RECENTLY AUDITIONED FOR ED MCMAN'S NEXT BIG STAR AND WAS A A FINALIST. SO IT IS A GREAT PLEASURE THAT I INTRODUCE ELOISE RAFAEL TO YOU TODAY. CLAF — [ APPLAUSE ].

WHAT I AM DOING TODAY IS COLORS OF THE WIND. AND THIS SONG IS BE FITTING BECAUSE THE COLOR THAT I WEAR TODAY REPRESENT ALL OF AMERICA, EVEN THOUGH I AM AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, I AM AN AMERICAN. AND THE SONG IS BASICALLY STATING THAT WE ARE ALL ONE NATION UNDER GOD. (music) THINK YOU OWN WHATEVER LAND YOU LAND ON. EARTH IS JUST A DEAD THING YOU CAN CLAIM M M. BUT I KNOW EVERY ROCK AND TREE AND CREATURE HAS A LIFE, HAS A SPIRIT, HAS A NAME (music). THINK THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LOOK AND THEY THINK LIKE YOU (music). BUT IF YOU WALK THE FOOTSTEPS OF A STRANGER, YOU'LL LEARN THINGS YOU NEVER KNEW YOU NEVER KNEW (music). (music) HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A WOLF CRY TO THE BLUE CORN MOON? OR ASK A GRINNING BOBCAT WHY HE GRINS? (music) CAN YOU SING WITH ALL THE VOICES OF THE MOUNTAINS? (music) CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND? (music) CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND? (music) AROUND THE HIDDEN PINE TRAILS OF THE FOREST, COME TASTE THE SUN SWEET BERRIES OF THE EARTH. COME ROLLING OUT THE RICHES ALL AROUND YOU (music). AND FOR ONCE NEVER WONDERED WHAT THEY'RE WORTH. (music) RAINSTORM AND THE RIVER ARE MY BROTHERS. (music) THE HERRON AND THE ON THAR ARE MY FRIENDS. AND WE ARE ALL CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER IN A CIRCLE, IN A LOOP THAT NEVER ENDS (music). (music) HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE WOLF CRY TO THE BLUE CORN MOON (music) OR LET THE ANIMAL TELL YOU WHERE HE'S BEEN? CAN YOU SING WITH ALL THE VOICES OF THE MOUNTAIN (music)? CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND (music)? CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND (music)? (music) HOW HIGH DOES THE SICK MORE GROW? IF YOU CUT IT DOWN, THEN YOU'LL NEVER KNOW (music). (music) THEN YOU'LL NEVER HEAR THE WOLF CRY TO THE BLUE CORN MOON, FOR WHETHER WE ARE WHITE OR COPPER SKINNED, WE NEED TO SING WITH ALL THE VOICES (music) OF THE MOUNTAINS. (music) WE NEED TO PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND. (music) YOU CAN ONLY OWN THE — OWN THE EARTH AND YOU WILL OWN PEACE. (music) YOU CAN PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE WIND (music). THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ].ok

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. I THINK THE MAYOR LEFT ME IN CHARGE. ARE YOU GOING TO BE SINGING ANYWHERE ANY TIME SOON YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL OUR LISTENERS ABOUT? IT WAS BEAUTIFUL.

AT THIS TIME I'M NOT SINGING IN A PARTICULAR VENUE. I'M WORKING ON SOME ORIGINAL MUSIC AND HOPEFULLY SOON TO COME OUT WITH MY OWN CD. [ APPLAUSE ].

SLUSHER: WELCOME BACK, MAYOR. GO AHEAD.c

MAYOR GARCIA: GO AHEAD AND READ IT.

SLUSHER: WHEREAS THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY MAKES MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTIN'S ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY AND WHEREAS THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF AUSTIN FURTHER AUSTIN'S STATUS AS THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITOL OF THE WORLD,cnD%JX@G[hi# THEREFORE, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOES HERE BY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY 28TH, 2002, AS ELOISE RAFAEL DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. [ APPLAUSE ].

SLUSHER: I WANTED TO CALL RANDY WALL DEN UP. RANDY IS A MEMBER OF OUR ELECTRICAL BOARD AND HAS SERVED ON THERE FOR 20 YEARS, WHICH IS REALLY AMAZING. THAT PUTS HIM ALMOST IN THE CATEGORY OF SHOOTY PFAFF, WHO HAS BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A FEW YEARS LONGER THAN THAT. BUT HE'S DONE A GOOD JOB FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND HE'S THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER ON THE BOARD, SO BRINGS A HIGH LEVEL OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SO THAT BOARD MAKES SOUND DECISIONS. HE'S ALSO PART OF A FAMILY THAT HAS BEEN ACTIVE IN AUSTIN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS FOR MANY DECADES. HIS UNCLE ISYmN WALTER TIMBERLAKE, A UNION LEADER HERE IN TOWN AND A REAL STRONG MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HERE IN AUSTIN. SO I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT THIS TO RANDY TODAY AND LET HIM SAY A FEW WORDS. AND, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THIS PROCLAMATION FOR US? LET ME START IT OUT. DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD FOR 20 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS A MEMBER OF THE ELECTRICAL BOARD, RANDY WALL DON IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACLAIM AND COMMUNITY RECOGNITION AS THE ONLY ELECTRICAL ENGINEER ON THE BOARD — DO YOU WANT TO DO IT?

RANDY HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE VALUABLE INPUT IN BOARD'S DELIBERATION BASED ON HIS DEGREEcN=XAE EXPERIENCE IN THE ENGINEERING FIELD WITH THE LCRA. WE ARE PLEASED TO HONOR HIS DEDICATION AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH HIS AWARD PRESENTED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR 2002.

SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT. [ APPLAUSE ]. RANDY, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU ARE RICHLY DESERVING OF THIS. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS TO THE FOLKS BOTH HERE AND THE THOUSANDS WATCHING ON TV OUT THERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DON'T REALLY HAVE A A WHOLE LOT TO SAY. THE MAIN THING IS I HAVE ENJOYED BEING ON THE ELECTRIC BOARD IS THAT I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH. AND I'VE LEARNED MORE, I FEEL, THAN I'VE GIVEN TO IT. I'VE GOTTEN MORE OUT OF IT THAT WAY. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE LCRA'S COOPERATION. I WORK FOR LCRA. AND THEY'VE HELPED ME SORT OF SPONSOR EMPLOYEES TO WORK AND VOLUNTEER. AND THAT MEANS A LOT TO ME TOO THAT I'M PART OF THAT ORGANIZATION, PART OF CENTRAL TEXAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ].

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. SEE, WITH AN APPROACH LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHY WE KEEP HIM ON THERE. THANK Y'ALL.

GOODMAN: BEFORE WE LEAVE, RANDY, LET ME ALSO THANK HIM FOR DOING THE KIND OF NON-HIGH PROFILE, NON-OFTEN PRAISED WORK THAT IS REALLY CRITICAL AND IS INDICATIVE OF THE GREAT SERVICE THAT CITIZENS DO FOR THE CITY. [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. IT IS DEFINITELY A PRIVILEGE AND AN HONOR TO GIVE OUT SOME DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS. I THINK JONATHAN IS GOING TO HELP ME DO THIS TODAY. AND THE FIRST ONE WE'RE GOING TO GIVE OUT IS MS. CECELIA BANKS. WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? [ APPLAUSE ]. I'M GOING TO READ THIS ONE. IT SAYS THE CITY OF AUSTIN DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD. DURING THIS 37TH ANNUAL OBSERVATION OF BLACK HISTORY MONTH WE ARE PLEASED TO RECOGNIZE CECELIA BANKS FOR HER CONTRIBUTION AS A COMMUNITY-MINDED VOLUNTEER WHO PARTICIPATED IN MEALS ON WHEELS AND ACTIVE IN A SORORITY IN HER CHURCH AND ALWAYS WILLING TO HELP OTHERS. SUCH RENDERING VALUABLE AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, PRESENTED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002, SIGNED BY OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA. [ APPLAUSE ]. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS AWARD. I'M LIKE A WORKAHOLIC. I LOVE WORKING AND HELPING PEOPLE SORKS I'LL BE DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ].

THIS AWARD IS TO MR. EVANS. DURING THE 37TH ANNUAL OBSERVATION OF BLACK HISTORY MONTH, WE ARE PLEASED TO RECOGNIZE AKWASI EVANS FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MEDIA AND PUBLISHER OF THE WEEKLY NEWSPAPER. (INAUDIBLE (OF THE BREAKFAST CLUB. AND HIS RADIO SHOWS, THROUGH WHICH HE HAS RENDERED VALUABLE AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN. PRESENTED THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN 2002. THE CITY MAYOR, GUS GARCIA. [ APPLAUSE ].

I AM TRULY HONORED AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS HONOR AND FOR HONORING THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF EVERYBODY WHO MAKES AUSTIN THE GREATEST CITY IN TEXAS, TEXAS THE GREATEST STATE IN AMERICA AND AMERICA THE DR.EST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ].

THIS AWARD IS TO REVEREND FRANK GARRETT FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE MEDIA AND AS A HOST OF THE WAKEUP CALL, KEEPING LISTENERS AWARE OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY AND ALSO THE HOST OF THE BREAKFAST CLUB. REVEREND FRANK GARRETT. [ APPLAUSE ].

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER. AND THANK ALL OF YOU. I GUESS I GOT SOME INFORMATION ALL MIXED UP. I THOUGHT A CADILLAC ESCALADE CAME WITH THIS, BUT THIS IS GREAT. I AM TRULY HUMBLED AND HONORED BY THIS RECOGNITION AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS FOR THIS HONOR. I APPRECIATE THE MAYOR, AND YOU TOO, MAYOR. , FOR TODAY. AND I FEEL ESPECIALLY GOOD THAT I'M GETTING IT ON A DAY WHEN MY OTHER MOTHER IS IN THE AWD YES OR NO, SENIOR BILLY MAY KIRK AND OTHER — SISTER WILLIE MAY KIRK. IN THE 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS RADIO SHOW, IT HADN'T BEEN WITH THIS OBJECTIVE IN MIND, TO BE HONORED IN ANY KIND OF WAY FOR WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE MY STEWARD SHIP, BUT OVER THE YEARS I'VE MADE A LOT OF FRIENDS, SOME ENEMIES, BUT THEY ARE CONFUSED, AND I HOPE I HAVE MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE AWARE THAT THIS IS A VERY DIVERSE CITY AND ALL OF US WHO CARE ABOUT THIS CITY OUGHT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE OUR STATEMENTS, TO MAKE OUR PEACE, AND TO HELP THIS CITY MAKE ITS PROGRESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN. [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: I WOULD LIKE FOR MR. HEIRS TO COME UP. MR. HARRIS. I GIVE THIS TO MR. HARRIS FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AS A TEACHER, PRINCIPAL AND A ROLE MODEL FOR THE YOUNG AUSTIN YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ].

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, MAYOR GUS GARCIA AND THE CITY COUNCIL. I AM TRULY HONORED AND INDEED HUMBLED BY THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THIS RECOGNITION. I ACCEPT THIS AWARD GLEEFULLY ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE EDUCATORS, NOT ONLY IN THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY. OUR CHILDREN NEED DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS, THEY NEED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PASSION AND CARE ABOUT THEM. AND I AM VERY GLAD THAT I'M IN GREAT COMPANY WITH THE MANY EDUCATORS OUT THERE WHO WORK TIRELESSLY AND EFFORTLESSLY ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, OUR CHILDREN. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ].

THIS AWARD IS FOR DARRYL PIERCE.

THOMAS: FOR MR. PIERCE FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THE CAPITOL CITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. [ APPLAUSE ]

TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I AM SURELY AND GRATEFULLY HONORED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE THIS AWARD, BUT I'M ALSO PLEASED THAT THEY ALLOWED ME TO GO BEFORE MS. KIRK. I AM MORE HONORED TO BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE AN AWARD ON THE SAME DAY MS. KIRK IS RECEIVING AN AWARD. ONE OF HER MANY PHILOSOPHIES THAT SHE HAS SHARED WITH ME THAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU, SHE ALWAYS HAS A WORD OF WISDOM TO LEAVE WITH HER COLLEAGUES, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS AND STUDENTS WHO HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM HER. BUT SHE OFTEN SAYS THAT A PERSON THAT HAS ANYTHING, HAS SOMETHING TO SHARE WITH SOMEONE. AND SOMETHING THAT SIMPLE, YET IS SO VALUABLE, IS SOMETHING TO SHARE. I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE THIS AWARD ON THE SAME DAY AS MS. KIRK. BUT AS THE COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED, I HAVE A PASSION, ONE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THE SAME DAY I AM RECEIVING THIS AWARD, THE CAPITOL CITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAD ITS BANQUET TODAY. WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE OVER 350 GUESTS ATTEND THE EVENT. AND OUR THEME IS BUILDING BRIDGES TO PROSPERITY. SO I THINK WITH THE WHOLE THEME OF CELEBRATING AFRICAN-AMERICANS TODAY, LEADERS AND STEWARDS TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IT SIMPLY HAS BEEN A DYNAMIC DAY FULL OF ENERGY IN RECOGNIZING THE VALUE THAT DIVERSITY BRINGS. BEING A PRINCIPAL OWNER OF SNAP MANAGEMENT GROUP, HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH DIFFERENT CITY DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS OR STRATEGY PLANNING AND IMPROVING PROCESSES, I HAVE A GREAT PASSION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. BUT BEING A COMMUNITY SERVANT, I WAS TALKING WITH A LEADER AT HUSTON-TILLOTSON TODAY AND WE JUST HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DIALOGUE IN TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR YOUTH ENTREPRENEUR PROGRAMS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP AUSTIN, BUT ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THAT SAME TYPE OF MODEL IS MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL OF OUR CHILDREN HERE IN STINT. SO I CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT PASSION, CONTINUE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY LEADERS, INCLUDING THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAKING THE CITY OF AUSTIN THE GREAT CITY THAT WE ALL KNOW AND CAN BE IN THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CITIZENS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER. [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: THE NEXT PERSON WILL BE MRS. ELIZABETH SCOTT. [ APPLAUSE ]. MRS. SCOTT'S DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD IS FOR HER DEDICATION AND TIRELESS EFFORTS FOR HER BEHALF ON THE COMMUNITY AND GIVEN HER SERVICE TO EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE EAST AUSTIN, ALSO HELPING PEOPLE THROUGH EAST AUSTIN CHURCHES AND ALWAYS AN ALL AROUND PERSON THAT HAS A HEART OF GOLD AND BELIEVE IN HELPING WHOEVER SHE CAN HELP. MS. SCOTT. [ APPLAUSE ].

OKAY. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND THE MAYOR AND ALL CONCERNED HERE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY RECEIVING THIS. AND WHAT I DO, I LOVE IT AND I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. [ LAUGHTER ] WE HAVE A MATT TOW OF SERVICE TO ALL MANKIND, SO I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT. THANK YOU.ilLie [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: THERE IS ALSO A DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD FOR MR. TOMMY WISE. I DON'T THINK HE'S HERE TODAY. AND IT WAS FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE MEDIA AND ALSO EDITOR AND PUBLISHER OF A PAPER. AND ALSO AS CO-HOST OF THE BREAKFAST CLUB. SO I WILL MAKE SURE THAT HE GETS HIS AWARD.

[ INAUDIBLE ]

THOMAS: THAT'S RIGHT, FRIDAY MORNING. ALL RIGHT. I THINK HIS BUDDY IS GOING TO TAKE FOR HIM. YOU'RE GOING TO SLEEP WITH IT. [ LAUGHTER ].

ON BEHALF OF TOMMY WISE, MY VERY GOOD FRIEND, THE BEST AFRICAN-AMERICAN NEWSPAPER IN AUSTIN, THE VILLAGER, HAS BEEN AROUND FOR GOING ON 30 YEARS NOW. HE COULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE HE'S WORKING AT THE VILLAGER. SOMEBODY RAN A TRUCK THROUGH HIS FRONT DOOR, BUT THE VILLAGER IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY NEWSPAPERS. THAT'S WHERE I GOT MY TRAINING AT. MR. WYATT IS AN ICON IN OUR COMMUNITY AND IS MORE THAN WORTHY OF THIS HONOR AND OF MORE HONORS I HOPE HE GETS IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU ON HIS BEHALF. [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: NOW, LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, THIS ONE IS TO NONE OTHER THAN MS. WILLIE MAY KIRK. [ APPLAUSE ]. JUST SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT MS. KIRK. FOR HER CONTRIBUTION TO HER CITY, OUR NATION AND AS A CIVIL RIGHT PIONEER, ADVISOR TO THREE PRESIDENTS AND AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE AUSTIN — EAST AUSTIN COMMUNITY. SHE IS ALSO HONORED AS A ROLE MOAGDZ MODEL FOR OTHERS TO BECOME POLITICALLY ACTIVE, INSPIRING MANY YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO RUN FOR OFFICE. AND ALSO IS THE MOTHER OF NONE OTHER THAN RON KIRK, WHO IS NOW RUNNING FOR U.S. SENATE. I HAVE TO SAY THIS ABOUT HER. I CALL HER MOMMA KIRK BECAUSE WHEN I WAS AT URBAN LEAGUE BANQUET, I REALLY RELIED ON WHAT MAMA KIRK HAD CONTRIBUTED TO EAST AUSTIN, TO CITIZENS, EVEN TO A CO-WORKER THAT I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW, MARK GILL. WE WORKED TOGETHER. SHE'S ALWAYS HAD A HEART OF GOLD AND ALWAYS OPEN TO HELP EVERYBODY. COOK THE BEST ROLLS THAT I CAN HAVE. AND ALWAYS WANT TO DO SOMETHING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. BUT WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR MS. KIRK. AND I WAS ASKED — I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMEN TO COME FORWARD. SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REMEMBER HER BY, JUST A SMALL TONE, BUT NOT — SMALL TOKEN, BUT NOT THE THINGS SHE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO AUSTIN TORKS THE COMMUNITY, TO CARVER LIBRARY, TO ETCETERA, THAT I'M GOING TO LET YOU SPEAK WHEN YOU COME UP, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO MAMA KIRK, YOU'RE SPECIAL TO ME. GOD BLESS YOU AND GOD KEEP YOU. AND THAT HE MAKE YOU STRONG FOR THE FUTURE SO THAT YOU WILL HELP OTHER PEOPLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ].

TO THE SECOND HONORABLE MAYOR, OUR YOUNGEST MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, FRIENDS AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, I'M HUMBLED TO RECEIVE THIS AWARD, BUT I TELL YOU WHAT I'M EVEN MORE HUMBLED TO SEE THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS RECEIVE THEIRS BECAUSE I KNOW EACH ONE OF THEM AND I KNOW HOW MUCH THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED IN THIS COMMUNITY. I'M PROUD OF YOU ALL AND ALL OF US, I HOPE WE WILL LIVE LONGER AND KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WE ARE NEEDED. I'M OLDER THAN ALL OF YOU, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO BE AROUND A LITTLE WHILE LONGER, I HOPE SO ANYWAY. THANKS A LOT. AND CONGRATULATIONS, MAYOR. MAYOR, WHEN YOU GET OLDER AND YOU'RE READY TO RUN OFFICIALLY FOR MAYOR OF AUSTIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I WILL BE, BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT I SHOULD MAKE MY CONTRIBUTION TO YOU NOW. CONGRATULATIONS AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. OKAY.

MY NAME IS ERIC TRAVIS, I'M THE ACTING BRANCH MANAGER AT THE CARVER BRANCH LIBRARY AND IT'S OUR PLEASURE TO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS PORTRAIT THAT WILL HANG IN A PROMINENT PLACE OF YOUR CHOOSING AT THE CARVER BRANCH LIBRARY. MRS. KIRK SERVED ADDS A LIBRARY COMMISSIONER FROM 1975 TO1982 AND — DID I GET THE DATES WRONG?

YOU SURE DID. [ LAUGHTER ].

IT WAS EITHER '71 OR 72.

'72. EVEN LONGER, EVEN BETTER. AND SHE ALSO ORESSED THE — ORGANIZED THE EAST AUSTIN CITIZENS FOR A NEW CARVER BRANCH. AND THIS IS GOING TO HANG IN THE BUILDING THAT WAS THE SECOND BUILDING TO HOUSE THE CARVER BRANCH. AND LATER THIS YEAR IT'S GOING TO GROW BY ANOTHER 50%. AND HER PORTRAIT WILL BE IN THERE TO SMILE UPON ALL THE CUSTOMERS THAT COME AND VISIT THE CARVER BRANCH LIBRARY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M HUMBLED. THOSE YEARS I'VE SPENT ON THE LIBRARY COMMISSION, I ENJOYED THEM. IT WAS A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAD TO BE CORRECTED WITH THE LIBRARY SYSTEM, THINGS THAT YOU WOULD NEVER BELIEVE THAT WAS HAPPENING AND GOING ON IN THAT SYSTEM. AT ONE TIME WE HAD AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WENT TO THE PERSONNEL TOGETHER AN APPLICATION TO WORK IN THE LIBRARY SYSTEM, AND THE LADY AT THAT AREA SAID WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS. SO WHAT I WENT THROUGH ON THAT LIBRARY COMMISSION WAS ENOUGH TO GIVE ME A HEART ATTACK. I'M VERY SERIOUS ABOUT IT. AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE STILL WITH ME NOW. THEY'RE STILL MY FRIENDS AND SOME HAVE GONE ON TO SOME I BELIEVE UP ABOVE AND SOME BELOW, I THINK. [ LAUGHTER ] SO ANYWAY, IT WAS WONDERFUL. I ENJOYED WORKING WITH MANY OF THEM AND I HAD GOOD SUPPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT WAS WHY I WAS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND I THINK AT SOME TIME MAYOR GUS GARCIA MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS TAKING PLACE. BUT ANYWAY, THANK ALL OF YOU. I'M HUMBLED. [ APPLAUSE ].

THOMAS: IF WE CAN GET EVERYONE TO COME TO THE CENTER SO WE CAN TAKE — MAMA, IF WE CAN GET EVERYONE TO COME TO THE CENTER SO WE CAN TAKE A PICTURE. WOULD THE REST OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS — MAYOR? WHERE'S THE MAYOR? UP FRONT, MAMA. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: I SEE ROSE MARY CASTLEBERRY. COME ON UP. I SEE TED. WE HAVE A FORMER MEMBER AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE PARKS BOARD HERE. WE HAVE HAVE PARKS RESOLUTION. COUNCILMEMBER?

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE ALL OF OUR PARKS FOLKS COME UP AND GATHER AROUND AND BUNCH UP AND WE'RE GOING TO PLAY LIKE WE HAVE A CAMPFIRE AND WE'RE OUT IN THE FIELD. WE'RE GOING TO USE OUR IMAGINATIONS. BOBBY BARKER, A GREAT SUPPORTER OF OUR PARKS. IS THIS THE COLE CREEK? OKAY. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THROUGH THEIR DONATIONS OF $25,000 TO THE AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, THE AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION HAS RENDERED A VALUABLE GIFT TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND SIGNIFICANTLY ADVANCED THE SPRINGDALE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED IN RECOGNITION THEREOF, DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR 2002. THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, GUS TAF VOA, L. GARCIA, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE ANOTHER MAYOR HERE.

GRIFFITH: VERY GOOD. HELLO, MAYOR. JONATHAN, THANK YOU FOR DOING THE HONORS.

THANK YOU, JONATHAN, VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M THRILLED TO BE JOINED BY SEVERAL OF OUR STALL WART BOARD MEMBERS. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR CONTRIBUTION THIS YEAR TO SPRINGDALE PARK, AN EIGHT-YEAR IN THE MAKING PARK SINCE CITIZENS GOT INVOLVED IN 1994, THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. AND LAST YEAR THE FOUNDATION ALSO MADE A 25,000-DOLLAR FOUNDATION TO COMPLETE THE FUNDING FOR WHAT WILL NOW BE BY THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR A FULL-FLEDGED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WITH PLAYSCAPE, PAVILIONS AND AN PART IN PUBLIC PLACES FACILITY. SO WE'RE THRILLED TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND HELP COMMUNITY TO THE PARK SYSTEM. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ].

ON BEHALF OF THE PARKS BOARD, I AM MS. CASTLEBERRY, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS BOARD. AND I'M SO GLAD TO BE HERE WITH MY FRIENDS AND WITH THE CHAIR HERSELF. THIS $25,000 IS PART OF A PROGRAM THAT WE'VE HAD AT PARKS FOR SO LONG IS TO TRY TO GET MATCHING FUND OR GETTING OTHER GRANTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. I KNOW THAT SPRINGDALE PARK HAS BEEN SO VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY, AND I'M VERY, VERY GLAD TO ACCEPT THIS ON BEHALF OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. [ APPLAUSE ].

GRIFFITH: YEAH, ROSE MARY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WE WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR BEING HERE, JONATHAN, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR STUDIES. STUDY HARD. YOU'RE IN ABOUT THE THIRD GRADE? FIFTH GRADE? ALL RIGHT. WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW. HE LOOKED A LITTLE SHORT. [ LAUGHTER ] SHORT ONES GROW TALL, RIGHT? BUT STUDY HARD AND WE'LL SEE YOU WHEN YOU GET BACK OR SOME DAY SOON, OKAY? [ APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL — [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

YOU NEED YOUR MIC ON, PLEASE. FWAWRS THERE BEING A QUORUM —

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. AND WE HAVE ONE QUICK ITEM TO — TO TAKE CARE OF, THEN WE WILL GO TO THE 6:00 TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND THE ITEM IS NO. 20. APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO DECLARE OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE 14,600,000 IN COSTS RELATED TO THE CONVENTION CENTERS — THE CONVENTION CENTER DEPARTMENT'S CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE. LET ME RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I GUESS FOR MR. STEVENS, PROBABLY. THIS OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE RESOLUTION IS FOR 14.6 MILLION. REMIND ME, THAT IS WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO BE THE ULTIMATE CONDEMNATION COST OF THE BLOCK AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE GARAGE?

THE 14.6 MILLION IS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE ONLY. IT'S NOT EXPECTED TO BE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WE WILL PAY FOR BOTH THE LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE.

WYNN: WOW. UM, SO BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE TOTAL COST OF WHAT WE EXPECT, YOU ARE COMFORTABLE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DOING A RESOLUTION FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAD FORECASTED AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL, NOW, PERHAPS THE GARAGE HAS BEEN REDESIGNED OR WE HAVE BETTER CONSTRUCTION — WE HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY BIDS OR HAVE SOME — OR WE HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, CONDEMNATION AWARD MAY OR —

THAT 14.6 INCLUDES, OF COURSE, THE COST OF THE LAND. WE APPROPRIATED 5 MILLION IN THE OPERATING FUND FOR THE COST OF THE LAND THIS YEAR. BUT WE HAVE DECIDED INSTEAD OF MAKING THAT PURCHASE THROUGH THE OPERATING FUND WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE 5 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED IN THE OPERATING FUND TO FALL TO FUND BALANCE AT YEAR END TO HELP TO BOOST THE CONVENTION CENTER OPERATING FUND. SO THE 14.6 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR, IN ADDITION TO THE 800,000 THAT WAS APPROPRIATED IN THE SAME PROJECT IN 2001, ARE THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS THAT WE WILL BE USING FOR BOTH THE LAND [ PHONE RINGING ] AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE. AND — [ PHONE RINGING ] WE KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION, WE WILL DO THAT AS PARTS OF THE 2003 CAPITAL BUDGET.

WYNN: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY DO — WHY DO A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION NOW WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FIGURES ARE GOING TO BE.

WE ARE DOING —

WYNN: EITHER THE CONDEMNATION FIGURE OR THE CONSTRUCTION FIGURE.

WE ARE DOING A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CLEANUP ITEM. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. AS WE DID LAST YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THE RETROFIT OF THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE 11 MILLION THAT WE ARE ISSUING. SO WE ARE GOING TO FUND THIS SAME — WE ARE GOING TO FUN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE AND THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND, WITH CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION THAT WILL BE REPAID FROM CONVENTION CENTER REVENUES. BUT TO AVOID PROBLEMS, TAX PROBLEMS WITH THE I.R.S., WE NEED TO DO A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION AT THIS POINT AND THEN WE WILL REIMBURSE THE PROJECT IN OUR BOND SALE NEXT SEPTEMBER.

WYNN: BY DOING THIS REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION, DOES IT — ARE WE IN ANY WAY AS A COUNCIL OBLIGATING OURSELVES TO — TO POTENTIALLY AGREEING TO A LAND PRICE, IF IT ENDS UP BEING A NEGOTIATED ISSUE WITH MR. WITTINGTON, OR OBLIGATING OURSELVES IN ANY WAY TOWARDS AN ACTUAL POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GARAGE CONSTRUCTION? I MEAN, WHAT — WHAT WILL WE HAVE APPROVED BY DOING THIS IN REGARDS TO THE — YOU KNOW THE PROJECT ITSELF, THE APPROVAL OF THE —

WHEN YOU APPROVE THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION, ALL THAT YOU WILL BE DOING IS APPROVING THE SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE 14.6 MILLION THAT WAS ALREADY APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR TO BE DONE THROUGH A BOND ISSUE OR THROUGH AN ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION NEXT FALL.

WYNN: SO THIS IN NO WAY APPROVES, SAY, AN EXISTING SCHEMATIC PLAN OR GIVES STAFF — THE MANAGER FINAL AUTHORITY TO, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATE A — A SALE PRICE WITH MR. WITTINGTON OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS. THIS IS JUST A FINALIZING THE FUNDING SOURCE IN THE EVENT OF —

COUNCILMEMBER, I MAY DEFER THE QUESTION ON — ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. BUT IT IN NO WAY OBLIGATES THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE A PLAN FOR THE — FOR THE PARKING GARAGE, FOR EXAMPLE.

I CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAPPED. WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONDEMNATION OF THE PARKING GARAGE, I THINK THAT WAS IN OCTOBER, EXCUSE ME, IT WAS ON AUGUST 9TH, THE — THE RESOLUTION WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE SUIT AND TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. SO — SO THAT IS TRADITIONALLY — HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN THE SUM TOTAL OF AUTHORIZATION NEEDED TO JUST SEE THE PROCESS TO CONCLUSION.

BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THE — THE CONDEMNATION CONTINUES TO — TO DRAG AS IT HAS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THERE IS A MEETING OF THE MINDS IN THE WITTING TON FAMILY HAVE A SALES PRICE IN MIND, DOES THE MANAGER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON A NEGOTIATED SALES PRICE? WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT TYPICALLY, THE — ONCE THE CONDEMNATION HAS STARTED, ALL OF THE NEGOTIATED EFFORTS HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL. AND SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT OUR HISTORY HAS BEEN WITH — WITH CONDEMNATION FIRST AND THEN NEGOTIATE LATER. REYNOLDS SHELTON IS IN THE AUSTIN, HE'S AN IMMINENT DOMAIN ATTORNEY. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT REYNOLDS? HISTORICALLY,.

— WHEN WE WERE DOING — COUPLE AT THAT TIME ASKED US TO NOT KEEP COMING BACK WITH THOSE SETTLEMENTS. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME CHANGED OUR RESOLUTION. THE CITY ATTORNEY, DEANNA GRANGER WROTE A LETTER SAYING THIS WAS HOW WE WOULD REVOLVE THEM. I WOULD THINK — THAT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO AUTHORIZE A SETTLEMENT, I DON'T THINK MS. JEFFERSON WOULD MIND. IT'S FINE WITH ME. THAT ISN'T TYPICALLY HOW WE HAVE DONE IT.

BUT AS TO THE QUESTION IS IT TYPICAL ONCE AN I AMNENT DOMAIN — IMMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING HAS BEEN DONE, IS IT LIKELY THERE WILL BE ANY MORE NEGOTIATION FOR SETTLEMENT.

WE HAVE SETTLED QUITE A FEW THAT WAY. WE DON'T GO TO JURY TRIAL ON ALL OF THEY WILL. WHAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY HAVE DONE IS TAKE AN AUTHORIZATION AND GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THEY ARE AGREEABLE WITH THE SETTLEMENT. WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT THOSE TO COUNCIL. THE ONLY ONE IN THE LAST 11 — LAST 10 YEARS, THREE MONTHS, HAS BEEN BFI.

SO IF IT'S THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE THAT ANY SETTLEMENT BE BROUGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A DEVIATION FROM OUR NORMAL PRACTICE.

WYNN: AGAIN, ULTIMATELY, FRANKLY MY CONCERN IS THE DESIGN OF THE GARAGE. THIS IN NO WAY APPROVES A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OR APPROVES A DESIGN BUILD AUTHORITY OR ANY OF THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS MERELY THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION.

NO, IT DOES NOT APPROVE ANY OF THOSE THINGS COUNCILMEMBER.

WYNN: THAT'S ALL, MAYOR, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. STEVENS, IT'S 14.6 FOR THE GARAGE, RIGHT?

THE COUNCIL APPROPRIATED $800,000 IN 2001 AND $14.6 MILLION IN 2002 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE.

GRIFFITH: WHAT'S THE ANTICIPATED TOTAL COST, INCLUDING BUILDING AND LAND?

I MAY LET BOB HODGE ADDRESS THAT. THE — THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT THAT WAS TOTALLY APPROPRIATED FOR — FOR BOTH THE LAND AND THE GARAGE INCLUDING, THE 5 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR IN THE OPERATING FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND ONLY WAS 20.4 MILLION.

SO HOW MANY — SO 20.4 IS WHAT WE THINK BUILDING AND LAND WILL COST?

THAT WAS OUR — THAT WAS OUR ESTIMATE AT THE — AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

GRIFFITH: HOW MANY PARKING SPACES DO YOU GET FOR THAT? AND HOW MUCH PER PARKING SPACE DOES THAT FIGURE OUT TO BE?

LET ME DEFER THAT QUESTION TO MR. HODGE.

CURRENT DESIGN OF THE GARAGE IS FOR 720 SPACES. NOT COUNTING THE LAND CONSTRUCTION AND JUST FOR THE PARKING, FEES FOR THAT IS ABOUT 13 MILLION, 720 SPOTS. SO THAT WORKS OUT TO 15 OR 16,000 A SPACE.

15 OR 16,000 A SPACE, OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CHECKING ON. WHAT ELSE WILL BE IN THE BUILDING BESIDES PARKING AND HOW WILL — HOW IS THAT BEING THOUGHT OF NOW?

WELL, THE CURRENT DESIGN HAS THE — HAS THE — TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCE HAS FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND ALSO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE BACK 30% OF THE LAND IS SCHEDULED TO BE USED FOR THE DISTRICT COOLING PLANT FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.

GRIFFITH: THAT WILL BE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, TOO.

WELL, IT WILL BE ON SEVERAL FLOORS, BUT THEY WILL HAVE FIRST FLOOR, THE BUILDING WILL BE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, I THINK THEY HAVE OFFICES AND OTHER USES THAT WILL BE ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND LEVEL.

GRIFFITH: WILL THERE BE SOME RETAIL.

NOT IN THEIR PART, ONLY ON THE GARAGE SIDE.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR WILL BE RETAIL? OR DO YOU KNOW THAT YET?

WELL, NOT EXACTLY, THE DESIGN HASN'T BEEN TOTALLIZED, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF RAMPS AND ENTRYWAYS WHERE THE GARAGES ARE OBVIOUSLY ALL ON THE FIRST FLOOR. I THINK IT'S THE ENTIRE ONE SIDE OF THE BLOCK AND THEN PART WAY DOWN, TWO HALVES BEFORE YOU GET TO THE ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON EACH SIDE OF THE RAMP. THEN THE THIRD ONE, FOURTH SIDE IS ALL AUSTIN ENERGY'S DISTRICT COOLING PLANT.

GRIFFITH: WILL THAT WORK OUT TO BE A QUARTER OF THE FIRST FLOOR OR THE — OR THE THIRD, DO YOU HAVE ANY FEEL FOR THAT?

I WOULD SAY MORE LIKE A QUARTER.

GRIFFITH: MORE LIKE A QUARTER, OKAY. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER, CAN I POINT OUT, ALSO, THAT IN ADDITION TO THE 20.4 MILLION IN TOTAL APPROPRIATION, AUSTIN ENERGY IS ALSO CONTRIBUTING 2.5 MILLION TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? COULD I ASK COUNCILMEMBER —

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE QUICK THING. WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE HERE FROM — THAT ARE STILL HERE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS. I THINK WE HAVE PROBABLY HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ENOUGH TO WHERE WE KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY MOVE IT TO NEXT WEEK. CAN WE LET THEM GO. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE QUITE A WHILE. LET'S SAY THANK YOU TO THEM AND WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: CAN I ASK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SOMETHING ABOUT — ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE RAISING AND ASK YOU IF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS IS THERE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND NEGOTIATE IF SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITY COMES UP?

WYNN: WELL, I WAS WONDERING WHAT OUR FLEXIBILITY WAS IN OUR PAST COUNCIL ACTION IN THAT, ONE, YOU KNOW, OUR FIRST CONDEMNATION EFFORT FAILED. THROUGH NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. SO WE ARE, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS INTO AN ATTEMPTED CONDEMNATION OF — EFFORT AND JUST — JUST KNOWING THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, INSOFAR AS DELIVERING THE PARKING, AS NEAR TO THE OPENING OF THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION AND/OR THE NEW HOTEL, JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FLEXIBILITY THERE WAS. AND FRANKLY I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW THIS WASN'T ALSO APPROVING THE FINAL DESIGN AND/OR POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THAT GARAGE.

GOODMAN: WELL, IF YOUR INTENTION WAS TO JUST — JUST LET IT BE KNOWN THAT WHATEVER OPPORTUNITY ARISES IS ONE — AS ONE I HOPE WE CAN TAKE THEN I WOULD JOIN WITH YOU IN THAT SENSE, EVEN WHEN SOMETHING IS IN COURT, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR SETTLEMENT IF LIKE MINDS CAN GET TOGETHER, SO — SO IF WE ARE — IF WE ARE WANTING TO CHECK EVERY SO OFTEN TO SEE IF OUR MINDS HAVE BECOME MORE LIKE, I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

WELL, WE CAN CERTAINLY KEEP YOU APPRISED OF THE LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY IF WE START MOVING IN A SETTLEMENT LEVEL. I WILL SAY THAT THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED IN AUGUST, THIS IS A — THE EXPANDED LANGUAGE THAT REYNOLDS SHELTON WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER, THAT APPARENTLY WE STARTED USING UNDER DEANNA GRANGER AND SINCE THEN, IT SAYS THAT "THE CITY ATTORNEY IS AUTHORIZED TO FILE A SUIT IN IMMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE THE FEE SIMPLE OF THE INTEREST IN LOTS 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 38 OF THE ORIGINAL CITY OF AUSTIN — OF THE ORIGINAL CITY OF AUSTIN, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY." SO THAT LANGUAGE — AND TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY — GIVES MY OFFICE FULL AUTHORITY TO GO AHEAD AND SEE IT TO CONCLUSION.

WYNN: OKAY, THANK YOU. MAYOR, I WANTED — I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS ANY LONGER, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 20.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 20, IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO. NO. MOTION CARRIES, THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0. ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR. WE GO TO THE 6:00 TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM NO. 74, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF THE FOLLOWING ANNEXATION AREAS: WOODS OF CENTURY PARK, APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRES LOCATED IN TRAVIS COUNTY, APPROXIMATELY 4-10THS OF A MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BURNET ROAD AND CENTURY PARK BOULEVARD. BRANDT'S CROSSING, APPROXIMATELY 135 ACRES LOCATED IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL TRAVIS COUNTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BRANDT ROAD AND EAST SLAUGHTER LANE. DECKER LAKE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES LOCATED IN TRAVIS COUNTY ALONG DECKER LAKE ROAD EAST OF BLUE BLUFF ROAD AND NO ACTION IS GOING TO BE TAKEN ON THIS ONE. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE FROM THE ANNEXATION DEPARTMENT.

GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS VIRGINIA COLLIER. I'M HERE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION, PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THESE ANNEXATION AREAS. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THREE SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE WOODS OF CENTURY PARK. THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE SECOND ONE IS SCHEDULED FOR NEXT THURSDAY, THE SAME 6:00 HERE. COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE ACTION ON APRIL 4TH. THE FIRST AREA OF THE WOODS OF CENTURY PARK IS CURRENTLY IN THE CITY'S LIMITED PURPOSE JURISDICTION, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE FULL PURPOSE ON THREE SIDES. THERE'S A SUBDIVISION CASE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING STAFF REVIEW AND THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDES 140 SINGLE FAMILY AND 78 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED THIS ANNEXATION. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO DISCUSS THE SERVICE PLAN. WHICH THERE ARE COPIES LOCATED OVER ON THE LONG TABLE. FIRST, THE EARLY ACTION PROGRAM INCLUDES SEVENS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND WILL BE PROVIDED IMMEDIATELY UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION. SECOND IN THE SERVICE PLAN, ADDITIONAL SERVICES, THESE INCLUDE OTHER CITY SERVICES THAT WILL BE PROVIDED AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE. AND THE THIRD SECTION OF THE SERVICE PLAN INCLUDES THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES ANY NECESSARY CAP TALL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE ANNEXATION AREA. IN SHORT THE CITY WOULD TAKE OVER THE SERVICES THAT THE COUNTY CURRENTLY PROVIDES AND WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED SERVICES. SO TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE, THIS IS THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS PRESENTATION THAT YOU ARE MAKING IS FOR THE 51 ACRES?

CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE ON THE 135 ACRES?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, SO COULD YOU MAKE THE PRESENTATION ON THE NEXT ONE. OR DO YOU — DO WE TAKE QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST ONE? EACH ONE, OKAY. 74 IS THREE SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS. OKAY.

GOODMAN: DO WE CLOSE ONE BEFORE WE START ANOTHER?

MAYOR GARCIA: CLOSE THE ONE FOR 51 ACRES.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER — MAYOR PRO TEM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ONE.

OKAY, THIS IS THE BRANDT'S CROSSING ANNEXATION AREA. THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THERE ARE SUBDIVISION CASES CURRENTLY UNDER STAFF REVIEW. THIS IS A SMART HOUSING SITE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO REQUESTED THIS ANNEXATION SO THEY COULD APPLY FOR SMART HOUSING INCENTIVES, AGAIN ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IS TO DISCUSS THE SERVICE PLAN, COPIES ARE LOCATED OVER AT THE TABLE AT THE FAR END. BASICALLY THE CITY WILL TAKE OVER SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY. AND WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED SERVICES.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT I-35 ON THE EAST SIDE.

YES, SIR, THIS IS I-35 WHERE SLAUGHTER LANE COMES THROUGH.

WHEN IS AKINS HIGH SCHOOL?

I BELIEVE OVER —

MAYOR GARCIA: AKINS IS SOUTH, I MEAN NORTH OF THERE? AKINS IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-35.

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS PARTICULAR ANNEXATION REQUEST. SO — SO IF THERE'S A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL ENTERTAIN IT AT THIS TIME. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WE OPEN UP THE LAST ONE. APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES IN TRAVIS COUNTY LOCATED ALONG DECKER LAKE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY, LET ME MAKE A MINOR CORRECTION. TWO ACRES. WHEN I DREW THE MAP I INCLUDED THE ENTIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S THE SOUTH AUTO FOOT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DECKER LAKE ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 220 FEET. THE CITY ANNEXED THE NORTH PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN 1968, TRAVIS COUNTY REQUESTED THE CITY ANNEX THE REMAINDER TO CLARIFY JURISDICTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE. AGAIN THE SERVICE PLANS ARE LOCATED ACROSS THE ROOM ON THE LONG TABLE. THE CITY WILL TAKE OVER SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THIS AREA.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. CORRECT? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THAT'S — THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS, IS THAT CORRECT.

FIRST OF TWO, THE SECOND ONE IS NEXT WEEK.

NEXT WEEK, AND THEN ACTION —

ON APRIL 4TH.

ALL RIGHT. CALLING UP ITEM NO. 75, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A POSSIBLE ACTION A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF A BUILDING AT 120103 AND 12201 TANGLEWILD DRIVE IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IN WALNUT CREEK AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS TO DEDICATE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO THE LIMITS OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

GOOD EVENING, I'M DAVID WALKER, HERE FROM THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT TO MAKE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT, BRUCE MELTON, ON BEHALF OF MR. HARLEY MCMORRIS SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AT — RESIDENCE AT 12103 AND 12201 TANGLEWILD DRIVE. IT'S WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF WALNUT CREEK. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED HOME. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 25792B PROHIBITS ENCROACHMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS OR PARKING AREAS ON THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN WITH SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS. WHICH THIS SITE PLAN DOES NOT MEET. THEREFORE A VARIANCE FROM THAT SECTION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION. ALSO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 257152 REQUIRES THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO THE — THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THIS BE WAIVED FOR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WOULD GRANT A VARIANCE FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS SO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE APPEARED WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE. AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL GRANT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. AND IF — IF COUNCIL HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, OR WOULD LIKE MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION, WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AT THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE IS THIS SPECIFICALLY, HOW FAR NORTH OF — OF, LET'S SAY, 18 APPROXIMATE? — NORTH OF WILL........ 1813 — NORTH OF 183, DOWN STREAM OF WATER'S PARK ROAD.

EAST OF MOPAC.

EAST OF MOPAC, SOUTH OF PARMER LANE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IN THIS PARTICULAR CREEK WE HAVE HAD SOME FLOODING PROBLEMS DOWNSTREAM. HOW DOES THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT AFFECT, IS THIS A MINOR THING, JUST A RESIDENCE, HOW BIG OF A RESIDENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

IT'S NO EFFECT. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS THAT SHOWED NO IMPACT ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND AS A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE THEY HAVE AGREED TO — TO DO BALANCE CUT AND FILL WITHIN ANY FLOODPLAIN AREAS SO IT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE STORAGE VOLUMES WITH THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA. IT DOESN'T LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE FLOODPLAIN TO ABSORB FLOOD WATERS SO IT HAS NO IMPACTS TO EITHER UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW BIG IS THE HOUSE?

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW BIG THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS. I THINK THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER IS HERE TONIGHT, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST ONE HOUSE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW MANY SQUARE FEET.

ABOUT 3500 SQUARE FEET. IT'S A TWO STORY, THE FOOTPRINT IS ABOUT — ABOUT 2500.

MAYOR GARCIA: ABOUT 2500 SQUARE FEET. ALL RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY ME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE?

YES.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS QUITE THROUGH WITH HIS —

WYNN: I'M THROUGH.

ALVAREZ: THEY CAN ONLY BUILD UP TO THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE OR WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION?

THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT BASICALLY TANGLEWILD, THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THE FRONT OF THE LOT IS OUTSIDE OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, THEN THE LOT GRADUALLY SLOPES BACK TO THE CREEK. THERE IS A BUILDING SETBACKS, SOME SIGNIFICANT BUILDING SETBACKS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE LOT WHICH REQUIRE THEM TO PUSH THE FOOTPRINT BACK SLIGHTLY INTO THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THEY ARE ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AREA. THEY ARE ALSO OUTSIDE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY DEDICATED ON THE PLAT. AT THE TIME THE SUBDIVISION WAS RECORDED IN 1986, THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN WAS DEDICATED AS DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND THEN SINCE 1986 THERE WAS A REVISION OF HOW MUCH AREA MIGHT BE INUNDATED BY THAT 100 YEAR FLOOD. THEY WERE OUTSIDE OF THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN FLOODPLAIN THEY JUST NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE TO GET THEIR HOUSE IN ON THE LOTS. SO THERE'S NO — WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING THE REQUEST, IN CONSIDERING THE REQUEST, WE CONSIDERED THERE'S REALLY NO IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY. THERE'S PLENTY OF GOOD ACCESS BEYOND THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN FROM THE HOUSE. THERE'S NO IMPACT ON OTHER PROPERTIES AND WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.

ALVAREZ: THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?

WYNN: I MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO — TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION?

WYNN: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT STAFF HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN VERY RELUCTANT TO GRANT SUCH VARIANCES, BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS IT GIVES ME SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS A SENSITIVE WATERSHED, IN REGARDS TO THE LOWER PARTS OF THE WATERSHED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATE DETENSION. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES, THE VOTE IS 7-0. SO THAT MOTION CARRIES FOR ALL THREE READINGS. OKAY. ITEM NO. 76, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER FOR POSSIBLE ACTION AN ORDINANCE TO REQUEST A — A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL ROOM AND AN ATTACHED CARPORT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1122 ELEANOR AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS 1122 ELEANOR STREET, IN THE 25-YEAR AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS OF FORT BRANCH AND TO WAIVE DEDICATION OF THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS A DRAINAGE EASIMENT.

AGAIN, DAVID WALKER TO MAKE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL ROOM AND ATTACHED CARPORT DID A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT 1122 ELEANOR AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 25 AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS OF FORT BRANCH CREEK. AND THE DEPTH OF THE ONE00 YEAR FLOOD ON THE LOTS VARIES FROM APPROXIMATELY 3.3 TO 4.3 FEET. THE DEPTH OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ON ELEANOR AVENUE IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT IS ABOUT 3.3 FEET. ALL ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY ALONG ELEANOR AVENUE IS WITHIN THE 25 AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS. AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST VARIANCES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCES FROM CODE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, AND ALSO VARIANCES FROM THE RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. AND ALSO A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO DEDICATE THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS ONE, MS. NELLIE —

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU NEED TO COME UP HERE SO THAT YOUR VOICE CAN GET RECORDED. PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CITY CAN SEE YOU AND ON TV.

THANK YOU. I HAVE ALREADY LIVED IN THE HOUSE AND JUST ADDING A LITTLE ROOM FOR STORAGE AND A CARPORT TO PROTECT MY CARS. IT'S A DRIVEWAY ALREADY IN THE — ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, I'M NOT ADDING ANYTHING BEHIND MY HOUSE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. JUST ALONG MY HOUSE. WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS. THE DRIVEWAY RUNS FROM THE STREET ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE HOUSE. AND I HAD A — I HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT JUST MOVED THERE IN — THEY MOVED A TRAILER AND SHE IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE CREEK THAN I AM. SHE'S PROBABLY ABOUT — I WILL SAY PROBABLY ABOUT — ABOUT 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE — FROM THE CREEK. AND, YET, SHE WAS ALLOWED TO MOVE A TRAILER HOME THERE. THERE HAS BEEN ANOTHER TRAILER MOVED BY THE — UM, BY THE BRIDGE ON — ON FORT BRANCH THAT IS ONLY ABOUT — ABOUT NO MORE THAN 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE — FROM THE CREEK. SO — SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY — WHY THEY DON'T ALLOW ME TO — TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENT TO MY HOUSE TO PROTECT MY CARS AND HAVE — HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE TO PUT THINGS THAT I CAN'T FIT IN MY HOUSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR HER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S — SHE'S THE ONLY SPEAKER FOR THIS ITEM. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR, COULD I ASK STAFF A QUESTION. I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THE STORAGE PART BECAUSE THAT WOULD IN HE IS ACCEPTS BE ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVER — IN ESSENCE BE ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVER, RIGHT, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS. BUT LET ME GO ON TO MY SECOND IF THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY EXISTS THEN HAVING A COVERED PART OF THE DRIVEWAY DOESN'T INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT MERELY ELEVATES IT. SO IS THERE AN ISSUE OF — OF YOU WOULD HAVE — BEEN OKAY PERHAPS IF ONLY ONE OF THESE THINGS WERE HAPPENING, BUT — BUT IN CONJUNCTION YOU DON'T RECOMMEND IT?

WELL, I GUESS IN — IN TERMS OF THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WE ARE NOT CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER, THAT KINDS OF COMES UNDER OTHER AREAS OF THE CODE AND THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL. THE — THE HOUSE WAS — WAS BUILT ALONG THE BANKS OF FORT BRANCH, I GUESS WAS IN COMPLIANCE, WE ASSUME IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODES THAT WERE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. AND SINCE THAT CONSTRUCTION, THE CODES HAVE CHANGED SO THAT — SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER A COMPLIANT STRUCTURE. SO A PREEXISTING NON-CON FORMING USE. AND LOOKING AT PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES, NO CHANGE MAY BE MADE IN THE USE OR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WHICH INCREASES ITS NON-COM FORM I CAN'T WER. THAT IS TYPICALLY MEANING ANYTHING THAT INCREASES THE EXTERIOR FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE OR DOES ANYTHING ELSE. KIND OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERN IS MORE THAT YOU ARE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THAT IS AT RISK OF FLOOD DAMAGE AND YOU ARE ALSO ADDING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE POTENTIAL TO BLOCK FLOOD WATERS AND BACK UP WATER AND INCREASE FLOODING ON OTHER PROPERTIES. YOU ARE ALSO ADDING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE AN INCREASED POTENTIAL TO BE SWEPT OFF THE LAND AND ON TO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TO THEIR DAMAGE.

GOODMAN: SO THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE ATTACHED?

YES, IT IS GOING TO BE ATTACHED. THAT INCREASE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS — IS INCREASE IN THE NON-CONFORMITY OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WE RECOMMEND FOR.

GOODMAN: OKAY, JUST LET ME BE CLEAR ON THE REASONS. IS IT BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THE FLOW IS OF THE RUNOFF OR —

YES, BECAUSE THERE'S NO SAFE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. WE KIND OF GO BACK AND LOOK AT UNDER THE VARIANCE PROCEDURES, THERE'S 10 DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WE CONSIDER IN EVALUATING THESE — THESE VARIANCES, SO THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS IN — THAT IS WITHIN THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 85 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF FORT BRANCH CREEK. IT'S AN AREA THAT HAS A POTENTIAL FOR BEING SUBJECT TO REALLY FAST MOVING FLOWS THROUGH THERE. SO IT'S A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE LIVING. AND THEREFORE THERE IS A DANGER OF LIFE AND PROPERTY, EROSION DAMAGE ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ADDING ON TO THE HOUSE, JUST INCREASE THE EXPOSURE TO THAT. AGAIN, THERE'S A SUS SEPTEMBERIBILITY OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS TO THE FLOOD DAMAGE, INFLICT DAMAGE ON THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLOWING THIS RECENT FLOOD I'M SURE WE ARE ALL VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE ANGUISH AND PERSONAL DAMAGE THAT HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO A NUMBER OF OUR CITIZENS IN THE FLOOD JUST RECENTLY IN NOVEMBER. SO WE TRY NOT TO EXPOSE PEOPLE TO THAT ANY MORE THAN IS NECESSARY. THE DANGER THAT MATERIALS MAY BE SWEPT ON TO OTHER LANDS TO THE JURY OF OTHERS. — TO THE INJURY OF OTHERS, ... BECAUSE THIS STRETCH OF ELEANOR AVENUE IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 25 AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, TO A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 3.3 FEET, IN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD DIDN'T ARE CONDITION AND APPROXIMATELY 2.6 FEET DEEP IN THE 25 YEAR FLOOD, SO IT'S A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE HAVING TO PULL PEOPLE OUT IN A FLOOD.

GOODMAN: I AGREE AND IDEA. MY LAST REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION IS RELATIVE TO THE NEW NEIGHBORS THAT SHE MENTIONED. DID WE HAVE ANY — ANYPLACE AND ANY PROCESS WHERE WE APPROVED THOSE NEIGHBORS MOVING IN BEING CLOSER TO THE CREEK OR IS THAT SOMETHING BEYOND OUR CONTROL IN THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS.

APPARENTLY THE NEIGHBORS — IN THE COUNCIL BACKUP, THERE'S A — THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S LABELED NUMBER 2 IN THE COUNCIL BACKUP THAT SHOWS THE — THE ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT, YOU CAN SEE A MOBILE HOME THAT'S THERE THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE PROCESS IS TYPICALLY THAT PEOPLE COME IN AND REQUEST A BUILDING PERM. THE BUILDING — BUILDING PERMIT. THE BUILDING INSPECTION OFFICE CHECKS THE FLOODPLAIN MAPS AND SEES IF IT'S CLOSE TO A FLOODPLAIN. IF IT'S CLOSE TO A FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE THE FLOODPLAIN MAPS CAN BE VERY HARD TO INTERPRET, THEY SEND IT OVER TO OUR OUR OFFICE AND WE MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. WE TELL THEM WHAT THE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE ON A GIVEN PROPERTY. AND THEN THE — THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE IT, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY OF GOING OUT AND GETTING AN ACTUAL ON THE GROUND SURVEY TO PROVE UP IF THEY ARE IN OR OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. IN THIS CASE, THAT PROPERTY OWNER WENT AND GOT A SURVEY AND THE SURVEY INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WAS I GUESS CONFUSING. APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME — SOME SURVEY STAKES AND ON THE SURVEY INFORMATION THEY INCLUDED THE TOP OF THE SURVEY STAKES. AND IN LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION A MISTAKE WAS MADE AND THIS PERMIT WAS GRANTED IN ERROR. AND THE PERMIT HAS BEEN CALLED, TO MY UNDERSTANDING. IF THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE — IN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES, WE DEFINITELY WILL INVESTIGATE THOSE AS WE BECOME AWARE OF THEM.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THE FACT THAT THIS — THE — TRYING TO BUILD ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAD. THE FACT THAT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE THOUGHT BEING I THINK THAT THIS WOMAN WANTS TO BUILD A CARPORT TO AN EXISTING SLAB DRIVEWAY, I PRESUME. IS THERE A WAY TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES OF, YOU KNOW, THE PILLAR CARPORT THAT IN THEORY WON'T GET SWEPT DOWN THE CREEK, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A CAR THERE PACKED ANYWAY THAT MIGHT GET SWEP DOWN THE CREEK, I GUESS, BUT CAN WE — IS THERE AN UPGRADE THAT WE CAN REQUIRE AND THEN GRANT PERHAPS A PARTIAL VARIANCE.

IF COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN A PARTIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT, WE COULD, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST REQUIRE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION BE CERTIFIED BY AN ENGINEER THAT COULD WITHSTAND THE HYDROSTATIC LOADINGS ON THE COLUMNS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE ROOF. THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE.

JUST COLUMNS WELL BOLTED TO THE SLAB PROBABLY DOES THAT, WHERE I SEE THE ISSUE WAS SAY IN A STORAGE UNIT IS ADDED TO IT, AND HAS, A LOT OF POSSESSIONS IN THE STORAGE UNIT, IN THEORY IT AND THE POSSESSIONS GET SWEPT DOWN THE CREEK AS WELL.

YES, YES. THE ADDITIONAL CONTENTS WOULD BE A LARGER CONCERN THAN THE ADDITION OF THE CARPORT. A LOT OF OUR FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS ARE — ARE NOT PURELY IN RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT THERE'S A SORT OF A — SORT OF A CLOSE CONNECTION WITH THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM AND WE DO GET OVERVIEWED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY THAT — THAT OVERSEES THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. THEY DON'T LOOK KINDLY ON — ON ISSUING FLOOD INSURANCE ON PROPERTY WHERE — WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE CLAIMS.

BUT THE CARPORT, WE COULD — WE COULD WORK WITH THEM ON THAT AND COMPROMISE SO THAT WE COME UP WITH A STRUCTURE THAT WON'T GET SWEPT OFF AND HURT OTHER PEOPLE.

WYNN: BASED ON THAT IDEA, COULD YOU RECOMMEND OR CAN THE CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMEND THIS CASE, WOULD IT REQUIRE JUST A — DENYING OF THIS VARIANCE AND PERHAPS INSTRUCT CITY STAFF TO OFFER A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT TO TALK ABOUT A POTENTIAL DESIGN ISSUE ON THE CARPORT OR BY IF YOU ARE.............. BIFURCATE THE ISSUE NOW.

SO THIS WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU BIFURCATE THE ISSUE. IF YOUR INTENT WAS TO DENY THE REQUEST ON THE STORAGE FACILITY AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST ON THE CARPORT, SUBJECT TO — WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD — WOULD ABIDE BY THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE STAFF.

I MIGHT OFFER THAT ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE TO GO AHEAD AND GRANT THIS VARIANCE NOW WITH CONDITIONS TO BE FINALIZED WITH STAFF:CONDITIONS THAT THE CARPORT BE ALLOWED, THAT WE NOT REQUIRE THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN TO BE DEDICATED AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THAT WE NOT ALLOW THE ADDITION OF THE STORAGE UNIT, THAT WE ALLOW THE CARPORT ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY DEMONSTRATE IT CAN WITHSTAND THE FORCES FROM FLOODS.

ACTUALLY, THOSE CONDITIONS, MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD SAY WITH CONDITIONS AND THEN WE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE. BUT AS YOU STATED, THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND WE COULD WRITE THOSE IN THE ORDINANCE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION?

WYNN: I GUESS FRANKLY BEFORE I GO TOO MUCH FURTHER THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS WHETHER OR NOT SHE'S INTERESTED IN A — IN PURSUING A CARPORT ONLY ADDITION TO HER HOME. IF NOT, THEN WE WON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE — THE EFFORT.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS ANOTHER THING TO WHAT HE MENTIONED. ACTUALLY, THE — THE CARPORT IS GOING TO BE — COME FROM THE HOUSE WHERE — ORIGINAL, SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY WELL BUILT. OKAY? THE — THE ROOM THAT I'M BUILDING IS FOR STORAGE. I HAVE A SMALL CLEANING COMPANY. AND I NEED ROOM TO PUT MOPS, SOAPS, BUCKETS PRKS..... THINGS LIKE THAT TO USE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM IN MY HOUSE. I DON'T SEE WHY — IF IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY ATTACHING FOR THE HOUSE, I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S GOING TO BE OF ANY DANGER TO COME OFF, THE WATER TO COME OFF, SWEEP IT OFF, TO IT TAKE THE RIVER. I MEAN, THE DRIVEWAY IS OVER THERE ALREADY. IT'S GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE. AND I WANT TO PROTECT MY CARS ALSO. FROM THE RAIN, FROM THE SUN, FOR WHATEVER. I MEAN, I PAY TAXES I THINK THAT I AM ENTITLED TO TAKE CARE OF MY STUFF. JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE.

WYNN: MA'AM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU INTERESTED IN A CARPORT ONLY POTENTIAL SOLUTION AND IF NOT, THEN —

THE CARPORT? WELL, THE CARPORT IS GOING TO BE BUILT, IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ORIGINAL ANYWAY. SO — I GUESS. I WILL TAKE IT.

WYNN: MAYOR, IMMOVE THAT WE, I WILL MOVE AND HE STAFF SUGGESTED BY IF HER....................SUGGEST BIFURCATE THE IRS, THE CARPORT PENDING THAT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESIGN APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? DOES THE STAFF UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING IN THE MOTION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. DISCUSSION? SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

GRIFFITH: THERE'S SUFFERING GOING ON AT THE OTHER END OF THE DIAS, I WAS WONDERING IF WE NEEDED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

SLUSHER: I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THE APPLICANT UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. THAT IT'S FOR THE CARPORT ONLY. AND NOT FOR THE STORAGE ROOM.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN NOD YOUR HEAD UP AND DOWN.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD BE A IN ADDITIONING DANGER AS DETERMINED BY THE STAFF. SO IF THIS SHOULD COME IN JUST AS A CARPORT, WOULD STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS? IF IT HAD COME LIKE THAT, LIKE YOU JUST LAID OUT, STAFF WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COULD YOU STAND WHERE YOU ARE AND JUST TELL US WHETHER YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS? OKAY.

COULD I JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE STATED BY DAVID JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE VOTE ON ALL THREE READINGS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. THE MOTION IS FOR ALL THREE READINGS, CORRECT?

WYNN: YES, SIR. DWAWRS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO ZERO. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

TO PROVIDE THAT IN ADDITION TO A CHURCH, A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND A PUBLIC HOSPITAL, A CITY MAY ALSO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN 300 FEET OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO ADD PRIVATE SCHOOLS, SECTION 8-3-4 (F) WHICH ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS TO BUSINESSES WHOSE LICENSES WERE AUTHORIZED BEFORE THE DATE A CHURCH, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, PUBLIC HOSPITAL, DAY CARE CENTER OR CHILD CARE FACILITY USE WAS ESTABLISHED. IF APPROVED, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE AN FLIKT FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT TO STATE THAT THE BUSINESS LISTED IN THE APPLICATION IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL OR HAS RECEIVED A WAIVER FROM THAT REQUIREMENT. IN SUMMARY, THIS PROPOSAL ADDS PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. HIT E? WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. MS. SUSAN TOOMEY FROOFT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SOWS SAN FROST. SU SAN FROST. I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU IN AWHILE. WELCOME.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYOR GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS SUSAN TOOMEY FROST AND I AM MANAGING AGENT OF TOOMEY PARTNERS, WHICH OWNS A FOUR AND A THREE ACRE TRACT IN AUSTIN. THE PARTNERSHIP IS APPLYING FOR A CHANGE FROM EXISTING CS ZONING TO CS-1 IN ORDER TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES FOR THE CEDAR DOOR. THE ONLY OPPOSITION THAT HAS SURFACED HAS BEEN THE PARK SIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOL, SOME 225 FEET WEST OF MY TRACT ON TOOMEY ROAD. BY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO PRECLUDE THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN 300 FEET OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL, YOU'RE OPENING THE DOOR TO UNIMAGINABLE LEAPS OF ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM. A PRIVATE SCHOOL CAN LOCATE IN THE SMALLEST OF PLACES, ANYWHERE IN TOWN. THE INCLUSION WILL DISALLOW LANDOWNERS AND TENANTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO EXERCISE THE FULL RANGE OF APPROPRIATE USES. PARENTS WHO OBJECT TO HAVING LIQUOR SALES NEAR PRIVATE SCHOOLS HAVE OPTIONS. THEY CAN ENROLL THEIR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THEY CAN HOME SCHOOL OR THEY CAN SEND THEIR KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS 300 FEET AWAY FROM WHERE LIQUOR IS SOLD. I RECENTLY LEARNED THAT THE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL IS VERY BROAD. PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN BE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE. THEY CAN TEACH ANYTHING TO ANYBODY OF ANY AGE. IT CAN PERMIT VIRTUALLY ANY ACTIVITY IT CHOOSES WITHOUT REGULATION. A PRIVATE SCHOOL HAS THE CAPACITY TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM. INSTEAD OF AMENDING THE ORDINANCE, I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO ENFORCING THE ORDINANCES THAT ALREADY EXIST. THE COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT STAFF TO CRACK DOWN ON OFFENDERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAFETY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN IS INVOLVED. ONE SHOULD ASK OF THE PARK SIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOL IF THERE IS ANY SITE PLAN, ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, ANY CHANGE OF USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN ALLEGED SCHOOL CAFETERIA INTO A PUBLIC RESTAURANT, ANY WAIVER OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ANY PERMIT TO CONVERT A PARKING LOT ON CITY PARKLAND SO PRIVATE USE? WERE THERE ANY REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS FOR EXTENSIVE INFILL CONSTRUCTION? AND IF THE TRACT PASSED FINAL MECHANICAL INSPECTION AFTER A FIRE IN 1996. AND MMP DISGUYSED AS A PRIVATE SCHOOL CAN TOTALLY DISREGARD CITY PROCEDURES, YET PROHIBIT NEIGHBORS WHO GO THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS FROM LEGITIMATELY USING THEIR OWN LAND. WHY AMEND THIS ORDINANCE? WHY EVEN HAVE EXISTING ORDINANCES IF THEY AREN'T ENFORCED OR ENFORCED SELECTIVELY? AND WHY HAVE THE CITY STAFF ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB? THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR MS. TOOMEY-FROST? THAT'S THE ONLY SPEAKER THAT WE HAVE ON THIS ITEM. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MIKE, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT BETTER IDEA? THIS IS AMEND THE ORDINANCE — AMEND THE ORDINANCE FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES NEAR PRIVATE SCHOOLS. ARE WE AMENDED AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT SELL ALCOHOL OR WHAT ARE WE DOING?

YES. IT'S BOTH PACKAGE AND BY THE DRINK AND IT'S 300 FEET TO — IT CURRENTLY READS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THAT THAT BE THE REQUIREMENT. AND THIS MERELY ADDS TO OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE THE DEFINITION OR THE CATEGORY OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THAT'S FROM DOOR TO DOOR, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN STATE LAW?

YES, SIR. STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO ADOPT THIS CHANGE. HISTORICALLY WHEN THE STATE HAS ACTED IN REGARDS TO THESE ISSUES, WE HAVE COME FORWARD AND WE HAVE ALTERED THE ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

SLUSHER: QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS, COUNCILMEMBERS?

SLUSHER: I DO, MAYOR. SO I THINK YOU ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS. I WAS WONDERING HOW THIS GOT BEFORE US BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE CEDAR DOOR CASE THAT THE MAYOR MENTIONED, WHICH THE CITY SAYS WE WOULD TRY TO HELP THEM FIND A NEW LOCATION BECAUSE THEY WERE MOVED OFF AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT WITH LUMBERMAN'S, THEY HAD TO CLOSE THE EXISTING — IT NOT EXISTING RIGHT NOW, BUT IT WAS A LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS. AND SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE QUITE A COINCIDENCE THAT ITIS WOULD COME UP RIGHT NOW.

THE TIMING, COUNCILMEMBERS, IS VERY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE THAT APPEARANCE TO IT, HOWEVER, I'M NOT — AGAIN, IT'S FROM DOOR TO DOOR, FROM THE SCHOOL TO WHERE THE PROPOSED FACILITY WOULD BE. I THINK THERE IS SOME — WE CAN ASK THE OWNER, BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THE LAND. I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS WOULD EVEN IMPACT THEM ACCORDING TO HOW THEY COULD LOCATE IT EXACTLY ON THE SITE. I KNOW THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS AND THEY HAVE TO GET REQUIRED PARKING FOR THAT, SO IT DOES GIVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY.

SLUSHER: MS. TOOMEY-FROST, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, THE QUESTION BEING DOES THIS AFFECT —

I HAVE VERY LITTLE FLEXIBILITY ON THE SITE BECAUSE I HAVE 52 PECAN TREES THAT I DO NOT WISH TO CUT DOWN ONE OF THEM UNLESS I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, SO WE NEED TO LOCATE IT WHERE THERE'S AN OPEN SPACE AND WE CAN NECESSARY SELL — IT'S ONLY LIKE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THE LITTLE BUILDING IN BETWEEN TREES AND NOT HAVE TO CUT DOWN ANY TREES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I HEAR YOU. WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL?

IF YOU LOOK AT — IT IS IN THE STATE LAW AND IT DOES SAY IN THIS SECTION, PRIVATE SCHOOL MEANS A PRIVATE SCHOOL, INCLUDING A PROKIAL SCHOOL THAT OFFERS A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS IN ONE OR MORE GRADE FROM KINDERGARTEN TO GRADE 12 AND HAS MORE THAN 100 STUDENTS ENROLLED AND ATTENDING A SINGLE LOCATION.

SLUSHER: MORE THAN A HUNDRED. OKAY. HOW MANY OF THOSE DO WE HAVE HERE IN AUSTIN?

COUNCILMEMBER, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I CAN RESEARCH THAT AND GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION LATER.

SLUSHER: YOU DID SOME RESEARCH. DO YOU KNOW? DO YOU HAVE A FIGURE ON THAT? OKAY. SO IF THERE WOULD BE — IF WE JUST PASSED THIS, IT WOULD BE LIKE THE OTHER REPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHERE WE COULD WAIVE IT IF WE WANTED, IF WE DECIDED IT WAS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO?

YES. THE PEOPLE — AND IF THE ACTIVITY INVOLVED IS IN AGREEMENT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CAN BE WAVED. DEBRA?

YES, IT CAN BE WAIVED IF IT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA, THE CODE DOES SPECIFY THE CRITERIA THAT THE COUNCIL CAN USE TO WAIVE IT.

SLUSHER: WHAT'S THE CRITERIA?

IF YOU WILL GIVE ME ONE SECOND, I CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU.

THE MAIN ISSUE, COUNCILMEMBER, IS THAT THE SCHOOL ITSELF, IF YOU WILL, IS IN AGREEMENT THAT IT BE LOCATED WITHIN THAT DISTANCE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH EVEN WHETHER OR NOT IT'S DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE THAT'S ALSO GOING THROUGH THE SYSTEM. I WOULD RATHER JUST HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THAT CASE SINCE IT STARTED IN THE SYSTEM RATHER THAN TO KILL IT HERE TONIGHT INDIRECTLY. I REALLY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS —

SLUSHER: I'LL YIELD TO COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: THE VAGUENESS OF THE DEFINITION OF WHAT'S A SCHOOL IS A CONCERN FOR ME. I CAN SEE HUNDREDS OF LOCATIONS THAT COME AND GO AND CALL THEMSELVES SOME KIND OF SCHOOL OR OTHER. I'M AFRAID THIS WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS ALL OVER TOWN.

SLUSHER: WHAT OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS DO THIS, HAVE THIS?

AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER, THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW PASSAGE BY THE STATE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT CITIES HAVE IN FACT ADOPTED. BUT, COUNCILMEMBER, FROM YOUR EARLIER COMMENT, THOUGH, IF YOU WANT TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS TO FOLLOWING ACTION ON THE OTHER ACTIVITY OR THE OTHER PROJECT, THE STAFF HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD MOVE. I'VE ALREADY HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE ANSWERED.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU MOVE FOR POSTPONEMENT? SLUSH/LET'S POSTPONE FOR A MONTH.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE'RE INTO APRIL 4TH?

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER, IT MAY TAKE MORE TIME THAN THAT TO GET THIS PROJECT. IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH ZONING AND SITE PLAN PROCESS.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT IT HAD ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE NEED TO SET A SPECIFIC DATE TO BE POSTPONED?

I THINK IN ZONING IT WAS DEFERRED.

SLUSHER: I READ SOMEWHERE THAT IT WAS A 3-2 VOTE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE DO IT WITHIN 60 DAYS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SEND NOTICE AGAIN? IF NOT, WE'LL JUST SEND NOTICE.

MAYOR, I THINK THAT WILL BE HARD TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT IN 60 DAYS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT THEN. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT?

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: BUT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE WERE ABOUT TO DO OR PERHAPS THINK ABOUT DOING. AND THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT DEBRA READ SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A KINDERGARTEN AND OLDER, I THINK. OKAY. SO THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT PRESCHOOLS AND DEFINITIONS BY WHICH SCHOOLS THEMSELVES AND ARE DEFINED AS SCHOOLS. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF CRITERIA THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT BEFORE WE EVEN LOOK AT THIS, THERE WAS GREAT DIFFICULTY, REMEMBER, IN TRYING TO SPACE ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESSES FURTHER AWAY THAN ADJACENT PROPERTIES, FROM DESTINATIONS FOR CHILDREN, EVEN WHEN THEY WERE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AND WE COULDN'T DO THAT, SO IT JUST SEEMS VERY STRANGE TO ME THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT AND THAT TOOK A LONG TIME TO FIGURE OUT, BUT WE COULD DO THIS AND WE COULD DO THIS VERY QUICKLY. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE SOME OTHER AMBIGUITIES IN HOW WE TREAT CHILDREN DESTINATIONS AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR FOR DISTANCE AND ALL THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT WHATEVER TIME WE SEE THOSE TWO.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I SAT THROUGH ALL THIS. I JUST SEE A LOT OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS, PARTICULARLY DOWNTOWN THERE'S A NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE SPRUNG UP, MOSTLY WITH THE SUPPORT OF MANY DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE DRAG HAS A COUPLE OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOW. SO I JUST SEE AN ISSUE WHERE AT ANY GIVEN POINT ANY TIME, YOU KNOW, A NEW RESTAURANT OPENS DOWNTOWN OR A BUSINESS CHANGES NAME ON THE DRAG THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE A LOT OF POTENTIAL, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND CONFLICT WITH THIS ISSUE. I'D LIKE TO TAKE SOME TIME TO REALLY FIGURE OUT HOW WE DEFINE OR GEOGRAPHICALLY DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS. BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION. THE POSTPONEMENT IS AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.

EXCUSE ME, MAYOR, I DIDN'T GET A SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS WE HAVE. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

DO WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 15 THROUGH 17 TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THOSE TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK. MOTION BY EVERYBODY, SECONDED BY EVERYBODY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. I'LL ENTERTAIN TO ADJOURN. AND IT'S 8:18 — ACTUALLY, 8:15. I HAVEN'T ADJOURNED A MEETING THIS EARLY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE! .

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log