Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 03/07/02

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

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A YOARM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOING TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BACK TO ORDER. IT IS 1:43, AND — AND THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A 1:30 CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL, TIME CERTAIN ITEM. AND WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS TODAY. THE FIRST ONE IS MR. GUS PENA, AND THE SECOND ONE IS MS. JENNIFER GALE. MR. PENA, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR GARCIA, WELCOME TO YOU, TOO, SIR. TO MY RIGHT, IS MY BOY, MY HANDSOME SON LUCIO PENA THE FOURTH. MR. MAYOR, I DID MAKE A PRESENTATION AT YOUR EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE, REGARDING VARIOUS TOPICS, ONE THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION IS THE GREATER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'SER SAY ON SATISFACTION — SURVEY ON HOW PARENTS ARE SATISFIED OR UNSATISFIED WITH AISD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT FORMULA THEY USE, WHOM THEY CALLED TO SURVEY, THAT IS NOT A CORRECT — NOT A CORRECT STATISTICAL DATA AS FAR AS PEOPLE WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH CURRENT AISD, I CALL IT A CRISIS. THE AUSTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NEEDS REFORM, IT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED ASAP. BEING A FORMER EDUCATOR, I SEE A LOT OF CHILDREN, A LOT OF STUDENTS THAT ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT APPROPRIATELY. WE HAVE GOOD TEACHERS, BAD TEACHERS, GOOD PARENTS, BAD PARENTS. BUT — BUT REFORM NEEDS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AT AISD. THE REASON THAT I BRING IT UP AT CITY COUNCIL IS THAT YOU DID ESTABLISH A K THROUGH 12 EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE. AGAIN, I LIKE TO BRING UP PROBLEMS WITH BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, THE CITY HEALTH CLINICS. ELIGIBILITY IS STILL HAVING PROBLEMS THERE. NOT IDENTIFYING, USING THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA TO — TO FIND THE — THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS ELIGIBLE FOR THE SERVICES OF THE CITY. THEY ARE BEING TURNED AWAY, GUS, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. A LOT OF PEOPLE NEED PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THEM DIE OF A HEART ATTACK, CANCER. WHO IS GOING TO BE AT FAULT? NOT THAT WE WANT TO FAULT ANYBODY. BUT Y'ALL, WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO ANOTHER AUDIT ON THE CITY HEALTH CLINICS AND SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, JACKIE? I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT TAKEN CARE OF WITH GOGGIO, THANK GOD THEY LEFT AFTER $1 MILLION OF CONSULTING FEES, WHICH WERE OPPOSED TO. SIGNATURE SYSTEM IS STILL DOWN. GOING OVER THERE, CLIENTS CAN'T ACCESS, THEY HAVE TO DO A PAPER TRAIL. NO CUTS TO SENIOR OR YOUTH PROGRAMS THAT WERE ADVERSELY — THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MOST PRECIOUS AND GIFTED SEGMENTS OF OUR POPULATION. THOSE WHO PAVED THE WAY FOR US. THE SENIORS AND THOSE WHO ARE THE FUTURE OF OUR YOUTH. MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER, I SPOKE TO MR. TONY SANCHEZ, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, I ASKED HIM TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT A LOT OF ISSUES REGARDING EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU NAME IT. THE FULL GAMUT. WE WANT SPECIFICS, NOT DOUBLE RHETORIC, WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE IN TRAVIS COUNTY. THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TO EDUCATE THEM ABOUT THE ISSUES. AND TO GET THEM TO GO VOTE. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU VOTE FOR. I REALLY DO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, JUST GET OUT AND VOTE. EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE. VETERANS ISSUES, HEALTH CARE — [BUZZER SOUNDING] WELL, LET ME SUM UP. THAT WAS A REAL QUICK THREE. LET ME SUM UP. THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS FORMED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN AN INCLUSIVE ONE, MR. MAYOR, YOU AS OUR LEADER HERE, HOPEFULLY YOU WILL LOOK INTO THIS, HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE AN INCLUSIVE PROCESS, THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. PENA. MS. JENNIFER GALE, BEFORE YOU START, MS. GALE, BEFORE YOU START THE CLOCK, TOO, THIS — THIS ITEM OF ADDING JENNIFER GALE TO THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION IS INCLUDED IN THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, SO MS. GALE, WELCOME.

THANK YOU. HI, AUSTIN! I'M YOUR CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, I'M JENNIFER GALE. CITY MANAGER, ATTORNEY, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, EVERYONE, ON THE DAIS, AS WELL AS ALL REG STORIED VOTERS IN TRAVIS COUNTY, IF YOU GO OUT TO VOTE TODAY AT THE EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS OUR COUNTRY CAN HAVE A NEW MEMBER OF CONGRESS THAT WON'T BE ARROGANT AND WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS AND WORK TO IMPROVE WASHINGTON D.C. HOW CAN JENNIFER GALE WIN A CONGRESSIONAL RACE WHERE THE LOCAL MEDIA DIDN'T COVER ANY OF THE PRESS CONFERENCES THAT WERE HELD, BY ASKING DEMOCRATICS, LIBERTARIANS, GREEN PARTY LEADERS TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SEND LLOYD DOGGETT HOME CAN VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. THERE IS A LAW THAT SAYS NOT EVEN YOUR EMPLOYER CAN GET YOU FROM VOTING, GOING TO THE POLLS. AT LEAST LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE GOING. WHY DID I VOTE FOR JENNIFER GALE? BECAUSE SHE WILL GO ON THE SAM AND BOB SHOW WEEKLY IN THE MORNING TO KEEP YOU INFORMED ABOUT WHERE OUR LEGISLATION IS GOING AND DISCUSS IT WITH YOU. UNLIKE COUNTY JUDGE SAM BISCOE, COMMISSIONER KAREN SONLEITNER WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT — SHE WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE RULES GOVERNING MEETINGS WITHOUT ADMONISHING YOU IN PUBLIC. THE RULES WERE NEVER ADOPTED. SHOULD YOU HAVE INFORMATION LIKE REQUEST FOR AN OPINION ABOUT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE CONCERNING PUTTING AN OPTION ON THE BALLOT FOR AN ITEM LIKE THE MAKEUP OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, WHICH BY THE WAY THEY GAVE TENTATIVE APPROVAL FOR, THIS MAY 4TH, I WON'T TELL YOU TO NEVER CALL ME AGAIN CONCERNING THIS HAYS AS MARK NATHAN, WILL WYNN DID YESTERDAY. JENNIFER GALE, FORMER UNITED STATES MARINE WANTS TO BUILD A HOSPITAL THAT ACTUALLY TREATS VETERANS WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEIR LIVES AGAINST AGENT ORANGE AND THE PERSIAN GULF SYNDROME. WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR VETERANS AND BUILD A UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH FOR EVERYONE. WE NEED TO SECURE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM BY CREATING ANOTHER AVENUE FOR US TO RAISE MONEY. WE NEED TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS FOR EVERYONE. SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SURVIVE. I WANT YOU TO READ THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND COMPARE MY ANSWERS TO CONGRESSMAN LLOYD DOGGETT'S. YOU WILL VOTE FOR ME. FOR NEARLY FOUR WEEKS REPRESENTATIVE LLOYD DOGGETT HAS REFUSED TO DEBATE ME. WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? HIS VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, FIRST, FIFTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RECENTLY. HE DIDN'T READ THE U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT BEFORE SIGNING IT. IS HE AFRAID OF REPUBLICANS? THERE AREN'T ANY REPUBLICANS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, WHY DOESN'T HE DEBATE ME? WHY HASN'T HE DEBATED ME? SO FAR LESS THAN 9,000 VOTES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, YOU GET OUT TO VOTE, FINALLY AFTER 8 YEARS YOU HAVE A CHOICE FOR CONGRESS. IF YOU CARE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY, OUR STATE AND TRAVIS COUNTY SEND LLOYD DOGGETT HOME. HE HAS BEEN ANGRY WITH REPUBLICANS. HE THINKS THAT HE'S BETTER THAN YOU ARE, HE'S BEEN SAID THAT THIS COULD HURT OUR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FOR GENERATIONS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS THIS IS YOUR CHANCE. IF YOU CARE VOTE JENNIFER GALE FOR CONGRESS. IF YOU DON'T CARE, WHY, WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING? — TRAVIS COUNTY VOTERS PLEASE VOTE. MARCH 5TH, VANG YOU,.......... THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MS. GALE, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. WE WILL GO INTO THE READING OF THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AND — AND CITY CLERK, THERE'S ANOTHER — THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM FOR THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AND THAT IS APPROVAL OF A NEW COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR THE MUNICIPALCAL COURT CLERK HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.

CLERK BROWN: CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 11, NUMEROUS CHANGES IN IT, INCLUDING DELETING THE — THE — THE SERGEANT IN LINDY, LLC, CHICAGO ILLINOIS, CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF 3 MILLION TO 2 MILLION, THAT OCCURS IN SEVERAL PLACES, IT MAY BE JUST EASIER TO READ IT, APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING THREE FIRMS, BLACK AND VEATCH CORPORATION, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AND STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, AUSTIN, TEXAS TO PROVIDE SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING, EACH AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 2 MILLION WITH THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPENDED VIA THE THREE AGREEMENTS NOT TO EXCEED 2 MILLION. EACH FIRM ESTIMATED TO RECEIVE 1 MILLION. FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF 2 MILLION IS AVAILABLE IN THE 2001-2002 APPROVED CAPITAL BUDGET OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT. BEST OF 10RFQ'S COMMIT SUBMITTED, BLACK AND VEATCH, 9.5 M.B.E., 18% W.B.E., SUBCONSULTANT PARTICIPATION, STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, 8.7 M.B.E., 18.2 W.B.E., SUBCONSULTANT PARTICIPATION.

I THINK IN THE SECOND LINE — MS. BROWN, AND IN THE — IN THE SIXTH LINE, WHERE IT SAYS THREE FIRMS, THAT SHOULD SAY TWO FIRMS.

ITEM NO. 18 DELETE THE WORDS NO CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE FIRST ORDINANCE READING, INSERT NEW WORDING WHICH IS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT INCORPORATES THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED OR ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST ORDINANCE READING. ITEM NO. 27 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MARCH 21ST, 2002. ITEM 48 HAS BEEN AMENDED TO ADD APPELLANTS DR. DORIS HOWARD, DEBBIE VOELKER, JOHN NEITAN, PATRICIA NEITAN AND HELEN NEITAN.

TIME CERTAIN?

CLERK BROWN: TIME CERTAINS, 1:30 WAS THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, 4:00 P.M. ZONING ITEMS, THOSE ARE ITEMS Z-1 THROUGH Z-2, 5:30 P.M. LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS, 6:00 P.M. IS PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH IS ITEM 52.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. BROWN. NEXT ITEM IS THE PREVIEW OF ITEMS FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE FORTHCOMING?

FUTRELL: I THINK THE 21ST WILL YOUR — THE LAST DAY OF — I THINK THE LAST POSSIBLE DAY, JOE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANY OF THE CHARTER REVISION ITEMS, SO I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ITEM TO HIGHLIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS COMING? I HAVE ONE AND THAT IS PERHAPS NOT FOR THE COUNCIL AGENDA, MAYBE FOR THE — FOR THE WORK SESSION, BUT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN RECEIVING QUITE A FEW E-MAILS AND CALLS WITH REGARD TO THE LANDFILLS IN THE NORTHEAST AND — AND CITY MANAGER, IS THERE SOME WAY FOR US TO — TO GET SOME KIND OF A BRIEFING FROM STAFF AND SOME KIND OF AN IDEA AS TO WHAT THE CITY CAN DO UNDER ITS — UNDER ITS AUTHORITY?

FUTRELL: I THINK WE HAVE ALL GOTTEN A GREAT DEAL OF CALLS. THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS. I SEE DAVID LURERY, OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR HERE. DAVID, DO YOU THINK WE COULD BE PREPARED TO DO A PREBATION BY — PRESENTATION BY WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH?

YES, I BELIEVE WE CAN. AS YOU HAVE INDICATED THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS RECEIVED OVER 100 IN FACT SUBMITTED TO TNRCC. THE STATE TNRCC IS THE LEAD AGENCY IN TERMS OF OVERSEEING THIS TYPE OF AN OPERATION. THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING INTO IT ALONG WITH THE OPERATOR. SO FAR THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A CAUSE, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS WITH THE — WITH THE SOLID WASTE SERVICES WATERSHED PROTECTION HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WE CAN FOLLOW-UP WITH TNRCC AND THE COUNTY FOLKS WHO HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND PROVIDE YOU WITH A FULL REPORT AT YOUR NEXT WORK SESSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCIL —

THANK YOU, DAVID.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER, ANYTHING ELSE?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR. THE NEXT — THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, YOURSELF AND I WILL BE SPONSORING AN ITEM BASICALLY I GUESS DECLARING A CELEBRATION IN 2002 OF — OF THE MULTI CULTURAL MAKEUP OF OUR COMMUNITY. BASICALLY TRYING TO — AS A RESULT OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH SITUATION AND THE — AND THE HATE CRIMES AND CERTAIN KIND OF VIOLENCE IN OTHER — AN OTHER KINDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT — THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE OF, AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR KIND OF GROUP OF FOLKS, IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SAYING THAT THIS NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BE ONE WHERE WE EMBRACE I GUESS THE MULTI CULTURAL NATURE, NOT JUST AUSTIN, BUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY. AND SO THAT WAS A RESOLUTION THAT WAS ON — THAT WAS PASSED BY THE IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS COMMISSION, FORWARDED TO COUNCIL. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING IT FORWARD FOR ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

ALVAREZ: FOR ACTION BY THE FULL COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT PUT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. IT ONLY MEANS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED. SO YOU WILL HAVE TO DO THE ANNOUNCING THROUGH OTHER MEANS. BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY THE 7TH, 2002, AND THEN THE MINUTES FROM THE WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY THE 27TH, 2002, AND THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY THE 28TH, 2002. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THOSE THREE MINUTES.

SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY ME. DISCUSSION? ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. YOEU AYE OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. NOW TO THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MS. BROWN.

THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS I KNOW IT, RIGHT NOW, NUMBER 7 HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.

CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT INDEFINITELY.

CLERK BROWN: NUMBER 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, NUMBER 27 POSTPONED TO MARCH 21ST, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 ARE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, I CAN READ THOSE, AND NO. 51. THE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS THAT I HAVE, ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, PATRICIA VOLS TREL LESS, REAPPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY E.M.S. ADVISORY BOARD, THESE ARE BOTH APPOINTMENTS AND THEY ARE BOTH CONSENSUS. DAVID C. DONLEY, ROBERT W. WALKER. BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, CHRISTOPHER WILDER, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS. CHILD CARE COUNCIL, LILIA KARL, JOHN KYLE HOLDER, REAPPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS. DOWNTOWN COMMISSION, ROBERT CRAIG NASA, APPOINTMENT. CONSENSUS. ETHICS COMMISSION: STEVEN A.YELANSKI, APPOINTMENT, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN. M.B.E./W.B.E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARIAN GARBY, REAPPOINTMENT CONSENSUS. CLIFT TON MESNICK REAPPOINTMENT, SCUPS. LUIS RENALAS, MECHANICAL PLUMBING BOARD, JOEY CMIMIS. CHARLES MALCOLM CREE APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, BEFORE WE GET STARTED I WOULD LIKE TO PUT TWO AGENDA ITEMS BACK ON THAT I PULLED. NO. 18, I THINK 18 IS ON, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE 18 THE SECOND READING ONLY. IF WE COULD KEEP IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, OTHERWISE I WILL — I WILL BE HAPPY TO PULL IT AND VOTE ON IT SEPARATELY. BUT I WOULD — I WOULD WANT TO PUT THAT — MAKE THAT SECOND READING ONLY. AND I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION FOR ME TO DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO IT YET, BUT —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO ITEM NO. 18, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM, THE — THE READING OF THAT ITEM WILL BE TO APPROVE THE SECOND READING, SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM, PLEASE SIGN UP AND — AND — AT THIS TIME SO I CAN RECOGNIZE YOU.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, THAT'S BECAUSE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PORTION IS STILL BEING WORKED OUT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET A HIGHER PERCENTAGE IN THERE AND THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO — TO PUT BACK ON NUMBER 49. BUT — BUT TO HAVE THAT BE NEGOTIATED — NEGOTIATE RATHER THAN NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AND LET STAFF BRING THAT BACK TO US.

SO IT'S — 49 WOULD BE A CONSENT ITEM THAT READS APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND STRIKE OUT AND EXECUTION.

SLUSHER: YES. LIKE I SAY, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED MAYOR, [INAUDIBLE] AND I BOTH HAVE, I THINK THE ONE WE ARE WORKING OUT NOW WITH TRAVIS COUNTY IS — IS A GOOD MODEL AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE OTHER ONES AROUND THAT TYPE, BUT — BUT WE GIVE THE STAFF SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNTY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM NO. 49, IT'S BEEN — IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO ONLY READ AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION, PLEASE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. IS MS. RAWLINGS HERE? IF YOU COULD COME UP, MR. EATON, THERE'S — GIVE MS. RAWLINGS THE MIC. THERE'S QUITE A FEW OF YOU SIGNED UP FOR ITEM NO. 18. THIS WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER FOR DISCUSSION, BUT HE HAS CHANGED THE ITEM, PUT IT BACK ON CONSENT FOR SECOND READING ONLY. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT ANYWAY?

ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT SHOULD GO FOR JUST SECOND READING, DO YOU MEAN? WELL, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER THAT IT MOVE FORWARD TODAY, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. THE REASON OF COURSE FOR THAT IS THAT THERE IS A VALID PETITION AND THERE'S BEEN A LONG BATTLE OVER THE VALID PETITION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WITH A LOT OF LOBBYING OF THE PETITIONERS AND IT'S VALID, THEN IT'S NOT VALID, THEN IT'S VALID. THIS CASE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS. AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT COME TO CONCLUSION. WE DO HAVE A VALID PETITION. AND —

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, WE COULD DO TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS — IS WE COULD TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT WHEREAS WE NORMALLY DON'T ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT ON THIRD READING, WE CAN DO THAT, WE CAN — THE COUNCIL CAN VOTE ON IT AND ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT ON THIRD READING. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME, IF I'M WRONG ON THIS ONE, SHE'S TALKING RIGHT NOW, BUT — BUT I THINK THAT THE — THAT THE VALID PETITION WOULD APPLY ON THIRD READING. COUNCIL COULD VOTE ON SECOND READING AND MOVE IT TO — TO THE THIRD READING WITHOUT HAVING THE MAJORITY OF SIX. IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT. THE VALID PETITION VOTE CAN BE TAKEN UP AT THIRD READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO — SO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO PULLED THIS ITEM AND YOU WERE THE ONE WHO PUT IT BACK ON FOR — FOR CONSENT. SINCE WE HAVE — EXCUSE ME. SINCE WE HAVE SEVEN SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR THEM NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO HEAR THEM AT THIRD READING?

SLUSHER: UM ... WELL, I GUESS AT THIRD READING. EITHER WAY WE ARE — WE ARE WAIVING THE RULES WHERE WE — WHERE WE — BECAUSE WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING THE FIRST TIME. WE'VE HEARD THE CASE TWICE. SO —

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK WHEN WE HEARD IT THE VALID PETITION WAS NOT IN PLACE. I THINK — ONE TIME IT WAS IN PLACE, THEN IT WAS NOT IN PLACE. AND NOW IT'S BACK. CORRECT? IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

WHEN — THE VALID PETITION WAS NOT IN PLACE, I BELIEVE, LAST TIME WE WERE HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT ONE TIME IT WAS.

IT WAS IN PLACE, THEY CHANGED THE BOUNDARIES, IT WAS JUST UNDER 20%. AND THEN WE ADDED MORE PETITIONERS, SO IT IS NOW BACK IN PLACE. WE ARE AT, I BELIEVE, 29% AT DID POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: WELL, MAYOR, I WOULD BE ALL RIGHT HEARING FROM THE SPEAKERS ON THIRD READING IF WE COULD MAKE IT 20 MINUTES A SIDE SINCE WE HAVE HEARD THE ISSUE REPEATEDLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE WAIVING OF THE RULES MS. RAWLINGS WOULD BE TO ALLOW EACH SIDE 20 MINUTES ON THIRD READING.

THAT WILL NOT BE TODAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIRD READING WILL NOT BE TODAY.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER — JUST A SECOND, LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS FINISHED —

SLUSHER: THAT'S MY LIST.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: SINCE THERE ARE SPEAKERS HERE TODAY WHO — WHO EXPECTED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THIRD READING, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD LET THEM TALK SINCE THEY — THEY BELIEVED THIS MIGHT BE THEIR LAST SHOT AND THEY ARE HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS YOU ARE GOING TO PULL THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES,......

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS ITEM IS BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. IT WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. HE PUT IT BACK ON CONSENT. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAS NOW PULLED IT FOR DISCUSSION SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A CONSENT ITEM.

GOODMAN: OH, MAYOR? MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: CHAIRMAN GRIFFITH — COMAIRG?

GOODMAN: COULD I ASK SOMETHING THAT IS RELATIVE TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS ALSO ASKING? BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT I WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE ANYTHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD TALK ABOUT TODAY. SO — WHAT I HAD BEEN GOING TO ASK STAFF TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND THIRD READING WAS TO LAY OUT IN AS CLEAR AND CONCISE FASHION AS POSSIBLE A SPREAD SHEET, OR THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, THE DIFFERENT F.A.R.'S SO ON FOR COMPARISON BETWEEN MF4, MF5, MF6, THAT INCLUDES CAPS OR NON-CAPS, ABILITY TO — AN EDITORIAL EXPLANATION OF HOW UNITS ARE ABLE TO BE RESTRICTED BY CONDITIONS OF ZONING. ALSO F.A.R.'S ABLE TO BE CONDITIONS OF ZONING. ALSO — WHATEVER OTHER BENCHMARK IS ABLE TO DONE THAT WAY, THEN WHAT KIND OF PARTICULARS ARE TRADITIONALLY OR COULD BE INCLUDED IN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, ASIDE FROM THOSE ISSUES THAT COME UNDER CONDITIONS OF ZONING. AND IF WE HAD THOSE THINGS TO TALK ABOUT ON THIRD READING, THEN I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE MORE TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAN THEY ARE TODAY BECAUSE TODAY I THINK IT'S THE SAME SITUATION AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IS SOME INSIGHT ABOUT IMPACTS FROM THOSE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. MS. RAWLINGS, DO — DO THE SPEAKERS HAVE ENOUGH TO — ENOUGH NEW INFORMATION TO TALK TODAY WITHOUT HAVING THAT KIND OF AN ANALYSIS? I KNOW THERE'S — THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, COULD YOU MOVE THE MIC A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM YOUR MOUTH.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK THE SPEAKERS MIGHT WANT TO GET INTO?

I'M NOT SURE WHAT AMENDMENT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STAFF DID PREPARE A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING, COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN.

GOODMAN: I HAVE NO IDEA. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT.

I BELIEVE IT'S INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AGENDA. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME AT THE DAIS. BUT I'M NOT SURE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

GRIFFITH: ARE YOU READY TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

YES, I THINK WE COULD DO THAT.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE SPEAKERS TODAY? OR WHAT WOULD YOUR PREFERENCE BE?

MY PREFERENCE HONESTLY IS TO GO FORWARD WITH SECOND AND THIRD READING TODAY. IF THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, I THINK THAT WE ARE FLEXIBLE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SPEAK TODAY OR WE SPEAK AT THIRD READING HONESTLY. IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GO FORWARD WITH BOTH SECOND AND THIRD READING TODAY, I BELIEVE WE ARE FLEXIBLE. WE WOULD REALLY PREFER AT ALL — IF AT ALL POSSIBLE THAT WE MOVE WITH BOTH SECOND AND THIRD READING. THIS CASE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME, I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT EXHAUSTIVELY.

GRIFFITH: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, WHAT'S YOUR — WHAT'S YOUR [INAUDIBLE] ON THIS ONE?

GOODMAN: LET ME ADD IN, MAYOR, BEFORE SHE ANSWERS THAT RELATIVE TO WHAT'S IN THE BACKUP FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE NOT — I HAVE NOT READ OVER AND OVER THE DETAILED BACKUP FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR I HAVE NOT SEEN. SO I THINK THE SPREAD SHEET IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF THING THAT I WAS WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT. I WILL DOUBLE CHECK, BUT WITH THE NUMBERS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WEREN'T THERE, THE COMMENTS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WEREN'T THERE.

ALICE CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT'S IN THE BACKUP.

GLASGO: YES, THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN THE BACKUP REGARDING THE DENSITIES DO NOT COVER ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT MAYOR PRO TEM WANTS. IT HAS SOME OF THE DENSITY, BUT SHE'S ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE INTO THAT SPEED SHEET. WE DON'T HAVE IT ALL HERE TODAY. FOUGHT FRUIT THANKS. — FRUIT FRUIT..............FRUIT FRUIT...........

FUTRELL: THANKS.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION, LET'S DO THE SECOND READING TODAY SO WE CAN ALL STUDY WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS TALKING ABOUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

GRIFFITH: THAT WOULD BE FINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: REMEMBER THAT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IF YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU NEED TO LET ME KNOW. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE VOTE FOR CONSENT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR ALL OF THE ITEMS. YOU CAN SAY I WANT TO VOTE NO ON ITEM 18 OR WHATEVER ELSE. OKAY?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: ON THIS ITEM, THAT — DID WE SAY SPECIFICALLY IT COMES BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING? YOU KNOW, THAT — I WOULD ADD THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER — MAYOR PRO TEM, HOW LONG IS THIS PROCESS GOING TO TAKE SNRS.....?

GOODMAN: IT'S NOT REALLY A PROCESS, IT JUST TAKES A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON TO FILL IN ALL OF THE BLANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT CAN COME BACK ON THE 21ST?

GOODMAN: I WOULD ASSUME SO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS WOULD BE SECOND READING FOR THE — FOR TODAY, AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THIRD READING FOR THE 21ST.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, DOES IT STILL HAVE THE 20 MINUTES ON EACH SIDE IN THERE FOR THE HEARING, FOR THE SPEAKERS?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. RAWLINGS, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR SIDE AND I SAW — I SAW MR. McHONE IS HE HERE, 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR SIDE.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MR. EATON THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US THIS TIME TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. YOU ARE UP. YOU ARE A NO. 19. ON NO. 19.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS TOMMY EATON, HERE TO TALK ABOUT ITEM NO. 19, WHICH DEALS WITH PAYING THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AUSTIN'S SHARE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE U.S. HIGHWAY 183 PROJECT. FROM — FROM EAST OF U.S. 290 TO STATE HIGHWAY 71. AS MOST OF YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THIS — THIS SECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 183 IS DESIGNED WITHOUT SIDEWALKS ON THE FRONTAGE ROADS WHICH ARE BEING PLANNED. I — WELL, THIS AREA IS PRIMARILY LOW INCOME AND MINORITY. THE FAILURE OF TEXDOT TO BUILD SIDEWALKS ON THIS HIGHWAY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT REQUIRES THAT ANY PROJECT THAT IS BEING BUILT SHOULD NOT IMPACT PEOPLE WHO ARE OF LOW INCOME OR MINORITY POPULATIONS. TRAVIS COUNTY JUST THIS WEEK VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO TEXDOT THAT THIS HIGHWAY HAVE BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS WHEN THE FRONTAGE ROADS ARE BUILT. AND I'M ASKING YOU TO INCLUDE WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE CITY'S 10% RIGHT-OF-WAY PARTICIPATION, A RECOMMENDATION TO TEXDOT THAT THE FRONTAGE ROADS HAVE — HAVE BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS. THE ISSUE WILL BE GOING TO THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON MARCH 28TH. IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR WE CAN GET A RECOMMENDATION, NOT ONLY FROM TRAVIS COUNTY, BUT ALSO FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO INCLUDE BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS. — ON THE FRONTAGE ROADS OF — OF U.S. 183. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION — WANTS TO INCLUDE THAT, IT CAN BE DONE THAT WAY. AN AMENDMENT ALSO CAN BE MADE BY A COUNCILMEMBER TO INCLUDE THAT ITEM, TO INCLUDE THAT PROVISION IN ITEM NO. 19.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I THINK MR. EATON HAS A PRETTY GOOD POINT THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT TRAVIS COUNTY HAS BEFORE I WOULD ADD ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO THIS. COULD WE PULL THAT ITEM AND TRY TO GET THAT RESOLUTION FROM TRAVIS COUNTY OVER TO US TODAY?

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING TO PULL ITEM NO. 19 FOR THE — FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THAT WOULD BE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER PULLING THAT ONE. MR. JIMMY CASTRO, ON ITEM NO. 34. MR. ASTRO, WELCOME, SIR. — MR. CASTRO, WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS AND MS. FUTRELL. HIM HERE TO SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF, ALSO A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE NIL WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I AM HERE TO SPEAK OF THE SUPPORT OF THE COMBINED EMERGENCY CENTER. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST THANK THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK. FIRST THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE, CHAIRED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN, WHICH INCLUDES COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND THE 911 RMDT STAFF, PETER COLLINS, ROBERT TURNER, KEITH SIMPSON, DAVID STONE, PAM HART AND THERESA REAL WITH TRAVIS COUNTY. AND THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAPITAL METRO, THE CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE, FIRE, E.M.S., THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRAVIS COUNTY FIRE AND E.M.S. THIS COMBINED EMERGENCY CENTER WILL USE ELECTRONIC AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT TO MONITOR, ANALYZE AND IMMEDIATELY REACT TO ACCIDENTS BY CHANGING TRAFFIC ROUTING, SIGNALS AND SIGNS AND PROVIDING ACCURATE AND INSTANT INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSONNEL, THE MEDIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS. THE COMMON THREAD? TIME. SHORTEN THE TIME IT TAKES TO COMMUTE TO AND FROM WORK. CUT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME. REDUCING THE TIME NEEDED TO TRANSPORT GOODS. ALL OF WHICH KEEPS TRAFFIC MOVING, IMPROVES PRODUCTIVITY AND LEADS TO LESS POLLUTION. NOW IS THE TIME TO USE THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO CONNECT TRAFFIC MANAGERS TO THE TRANSIT MANAGER. CAN YOU CONNECT THEM BOTH TO COMMUTERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, SCHOOL TEACHERS AND HOSPITALS. THIS COMBINED EMERGENCY CENTER WILL MEET AUSTIN'S MOBILITY NEEDS AND — IN THE 21ST CENTURY. THIS SUSTAINS OUR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, QUALITY OF LIFE, AUSTIN HAS TREASURED. THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. CASTRO. WALTER [INAUDIBLE] ON ITEM NO. 48. I THINK — WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I WOULD BRIEFLY LIKE TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THIS APPEAL BECAUSE I FEEL — AS I FEEL THAT THE MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CERTAIN ASPECTS WERE NOT REALLY BROUGHT FORTH INTO THE LIGHT AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AND THAT — THAT SOME — THERE'S —

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU — CAN YOU — CAN I ASK YOU TO — LET'S SEE. IS THIS ITEM 48?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WE ARE DOING ON THIS ONE, WE ARE SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONLY. SO YOU CAN SPEAK AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO — TO VOTE TO — TO CONSIDER AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S BY CONSENT, YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT COULD NOT BE DECIDED AT THIS POINT, IS THAT NOT TRUE?

MAYOR GARCIA: IT COULD — IT COULD NOT BE DECIDED, BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR MEETING WE ARE DECIDING AND WE HAVE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH MEANS IF WE VOTE ON IT TODAY, THAT ITEM WILL BE SET, THAT WE WILL SET THE PUBLIC HEARING BY THE ACTION ON THAT ITEM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR FOR CLAIRE FIETION THAT — CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME, I APPRECIATE THE TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. COUNCIL THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. LET ME READ AGAIN INTO THE RECORD THE CONSENT AGENDA. INCIDENTALLY, IS ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 25? I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND I'M ABOUT TO PUT ITEM NO. 25 BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM — FOR ITEM 25? OKAY, SO — SO LET'S SHOW THE CONSENT ITEMS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME THAT WE HAVE THE MOTION — THESE ARE THE CONSENT ITEMS: ITEM NO. 7 TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY, ITEM NO. 14, 15, 16, — ITEM 18 FOR A SECOND READING ONLY, ITEM NO. 20, 91, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, — LET ME GO BACK TO ITEM NO. 19. ON ITEM NO. 19, SINCE IT WENT BACK TO CONSENT, IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

CLERK BROWN: HE ASKED FOR IT TO BE HELD UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING SO WE CAN GET THAT RESOLUTION —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S CORRECT. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING ITEM NO. 19. OKAY. LET ME START AGAIN WITH ITEM — ITEM 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING, 49 WITH A CHANGE TO READ APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENTS, AND — AND DELETING AND EXECUTION. 50 WITH THE — THE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS READ BY MS. BROWN. AND 51 AND — ON 51 THE FISCAL NOTE IS $459. NEEDS TO BE ADDED ON THERE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YOU READ ITEM NO. 27 AS A CONSENT, I THINK IT'S A CONSENT TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 21ST.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 27, IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT, CORRECT, FOR WHAT DATE, AGAIN?

WYNN: MARCH 21ST, I BELIEVE.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MARCH 21ST. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

WYNN: WITH THAT CHANGE I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. I THINK SOME OF YOU MAY WANT TO REGISTER VOTES ON ITEM NO. 18. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DO YOU WANT TO REGISTER A VOTE OTHER THAN "ON SECOND READING. — OTHER THAN THAN AYE ON SECOND READING.

ALVAREZ: AS LONG AS IT'S COMING BACK IN TWO WEEKS —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

ALVAREZ: THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE REASON I ASKED BOTH OF YOU IS BECAUSE ON FIRST READING YOU ALL VOTED NAY.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, THE VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT PULLED ITEMS, THAT YOU MAY THINK MAY BE DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY, I WILL BE GLAD TO CONSIDER THE ITEMS AT THIS TIME. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES, MAYOR, I HAD PULLED 23. I BELIEVE, ALTHOUGH IT'S A RELATIVELY HIGH PROFILE PROJECT, I BELIEVE THAT MY QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THEM AT THIS TIME?

WYNN: YOUR CALL.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NO. 23.

WYNN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO — I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. PERHAPS A BRIEF PRESENTATION.

MAYOR APPEARED COUNCIL, I'M JAN HILTON WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE BUDGET FOR THE NEW CITY HALL PROJECT. ITEM NO. 23 IS A CHANGE ORDER THAT IS PART OF, WE HAVE THE PARKING GARAGE GENTLEMAN..........EXCAVATION, THE REMINDER OF THE WORK FOR THE PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE. THE CHANGE ORDER IS INVOLVED IN THE EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE CITY HALL PROJECT. AND AS IN ANY PROJECT BUDGET, YOU DO HAVE CONTINGENCIES BUILT INTO THAT BUDGET TO HANDLE UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CHANGE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE TODAY ON YOUR AGENDA REFLECTS SOME OF THAT OCCURRING. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD ABOUT — ABOUT WHAT DO WE HAVE LEFT, WHAT HAVE WE SPENT AND WHERE — I GUESS WHAT CONDITION IS THE BUDGET IN, WE HAVE A — FROM ALL OF THE FUNDING SOURCES THAT COME INTO THIS BUDGET, WE HAVE A BUDGET OF ROUGHLY 47 MILLION. THE COMMITTED COSTS, ALLOCATED COSTS ARE ABOUT 15.8 MILLION. THAT LEAVES US ABOUT 31.2 MILLION. COUPLE MAY RECALL THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 100% DESIGN DOCUMENTS, SO OUR CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE IS BASED ON THAT. WE WILL HAVE TWO MORE CHANCES TO KEEP WORKING AT THIS BUDGET, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS ROUGHLY AT 30.5 MILLION. SO WE HAVE WITHIN THE REMAINING BUDGET ALL OF THE FUNDING THAT WE NEED TO CONSTRUCT THE BUDGET, AS WELL AS A CONTINGENCY OF ABOUT 800,000.

WYNN: THANK YOU. IN READING THE BACKUP, THAT SAME ANALYSIS, THAT 30.5 MILLION-DOLLAR ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE NOW FOR THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE PLAZA AND FINISHING THE PARKING GARAGE, THAT ALSO INCLUDES A 15% CONTINGENCY, CORRECT, OF 4.5 MILLION DOLLARS?

YES, IT DOES, IT HAS A HEALTHY CONTINGENCY BECAUSE WE ARE JUST AT DESIGN DOCUMENTS. ALSO THE MODELS THAT WE ARE USING DO NOT REFLECT THE ECONOMIC CHANGE IN THE AUSTIN MARKET. AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP IT THAT WAY BECAUSE WE WOULD RATHER BE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR ESTIMATE. WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL SEE, WHEN THIS COMES TIME TO BID THE PROJECT, THAT WE WILL HAVE COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS AND WE WILL SEE — PROBABLY A MUCH BETTER PRICE THAN WHAT WE ARE ESTIMATING. BUT RIGHT NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO — TO LEAVE THE MODELS WHERE THEY ARE. AND IT WILL TAKE INTO — INTO THE BIDDING PROCESS WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE AUSTIN MARKET.

WYNN: WELL, THAT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400n

SO THE CHANGE ORDER RECOGNIZES THE WORK THAT WAS INVOLVED BOTH FROM THE CITY HALL PROJECT AS WELL AS A DRAINAGE PORTION.

WYNN: SO IN FACT, THIS IS — ARGUABLY THIS CHANGE ORDER IS SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENT OF THE PROJECT OF BUILDING THE CITY HALL AND THE PARKING GARAGE ITSELF?

COUNCILMEMBER, PETER RIEK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. THIS PROJECT INVOLVES SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO STORM SEWER LINES BECAUSE THEY WERE INTERFERING WITH SOME OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT. THAT IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITIES. SO FOR THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO ADJUST AND RELOCATE THE STONE SEWERS, THE UTILITY WAS RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR THAT COST, JUST LIKE SOUTHWESTERN BELL OR SOUTHERN UNION GAS WOULD BE TO PAY FOR ANY KIND OF UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS IN THIS KIND OF SCENARIO.

WYNN: MY LAST QUESTION. THE CHANGE ORDER — THE POSTING LANGUAGE FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM, HAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS PROJECT NOW NOT TO EXCEED ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS?

UH-HUH.

WYNN: WHEN I LOOK AT THE SPREADSHEETS THAT YOU ALL SUPPLIED US WITH, I CAN'T FIND THAT FIVE AND A HALF-MILLION-DOLLAR LINE ITEM. I SEE A THREE-MILLION-DOLLAR PARKING GARAGE EXCAVATION NUMBER AND THEN I SEE A 5.8-MILLION-DOLLAR PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE NUMBER. WHERE IS THIS —

THAT'S THE TUNNEL. WE HAVE SEPARATE FUNDING THAT WAS ALLOCATED FOR THE CSC TUNNEL. SO WE'VE NOT — THAT IS NOT PART OF OUR CITY HALL PROJECT BUDGET. WE CAN CERTAINLY — I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU TO SHOW THAT FULL AMOUNT, BUT THAT HAS SEPARATE FUNDING AND SO THE BID AND THE CONSTRUCTION WORK INCLUDED BOTH THE EXCAVATION OF THE PARKING GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL. AND SO WE'VE JUST NOT SHOWN FOR THE CITY HALL PROJECT SO WE CAN KEEP THOSE COSTS DISTINCT FOR THAT PROJECT THE COSTS OF THE TUNNEL. BUT I CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU. IT HAD ADD TO THIS BUDGET, SO THE — NEITHER THE EXPENSES NOR THE FUNDING IS IN THE SPREADSHEET FOR THE TUNNEL.

WYNN: SO I GUESS THAT BEGS THE NEXT QUESTION, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IS SO WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT CSC TUNNEL BUDGET AND PROJECT? HOW ARE WE IN REGARDS TO CONTINGENCY —

IT'S A COMPLETED PROJECT. SO IT'S DONE AND FUNDED AND THEY'RE USING IT.

COUNCILMEMBER, THIS BASICALLY WILL BE THE FINAL CHANGE ORDER. IT'S CLOSING OUT QUANTITIES AND ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE EXCAVATION PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL. THIS PRETTY MUCH CLOSES OUT THAT ENTIRE CONTRACT.

WYNN: OKAY. I'M PLEASED TO SEE THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF THE ONGOING CITY HALL PROJECT AND I TRUST YOU'LL KEEP US CLOSELY INFORMED AS THAT MATURES AND SOLIDIFIES.

WE WILL.

WYNN: MAYOR.

I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 23.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MR. TOMMY BEES. WELCOME, SIR.

I'M ON THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. IF THIS TUNNEL IS A PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL, THEN THIS ISSUE REALLY SHOULD BE GOING TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. EVERY TRANSPORTATION ISSUE THAT COMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE GOING TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF HAS BEEN AVOIDING GOING TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR WHATEVER REASONS — FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY DON'T SEEM TO THINK THAT THESE ARE ISSUES THAT NEED TO GO TO OUR COMMISSION. AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M ASKING THAT YOU SEND THE ISSUE TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BEFORE YOU APPROVE ANY TRANSPORTATION ISSUE, INCLUDING A PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL. THANK YOU.

WYNN: MAYOR, IF I COULD — I'M SORRY, IF I CAN RESPOND. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I AGREE THAT THIS TUNNEL, THE GREAT STREET PROJECTS AROUND THIS PROJECT AND ALL OF THE VARIATIONS OF THAT MATRIX SHOULD IN FACT BE REVIEWED BY THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, HOWEVER, IS THE EIGHTH AND LAST CHANGE ORDER OF A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT RELATED TO IT. AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IN BEHIND SITE THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AND THE DISCUSSION AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF TUNNELS VERSUS STREET SPACE, ETCETERA, DIDN'T GO BEFORE THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, BUT I'M QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THE EIGHTH AND LAST CHANGE ORDER OF A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED WITHOUT THAT.

IF I MAY, COUNCILMEMBER, JUST TO CLARIFY, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID. THIS TUNNEL IS REALLY NOT A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FEATURE. IT'S A PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN THE CSCC FACILITIES AND NOT INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

JUST TO CLARIFY, TOMMY, IT WAS A NEGOTIATED PART OF THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S EXCLUSIVE. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS. I DO AGREE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SINGED UP THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND I WILL SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND LET'S TALK THROUGH THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD THAT ARE MISSING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO GET THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WILL — [ INAUDIBLE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. IF WE CAN GO BACK TO ITEM 49, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE APPROVED THE NEGOTIATION AND WE DID NOT APPROVE THE EXECUTION. I THINK THAT THIS ONE HAS A DEADLINE OF THE 31ST OF MARCH, SO WE NEED TO BRING THIS BACK ON THE 21ST. SO IT WILL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR EXECUTION ON THE 21ST OF MARCH. WE ALSO HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM REQUIRING AN EXECUTE ACTIVE SESSION. IT WILL NOT. — AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT WILL NOT. IT IS NOT NEEDED FOR THE NEGOTIATION PART. IS MS. TERRY HERE? WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT ITEMS 17 NEEDING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS ON THAT — FOUR SPEAKERS ON THAT ITEM. MS. TERRY?

YES, MARTHA TERRY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THE LAST TIME OR ON FIRST READING MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN ASKED ME WHEN I WAS ON THE DIAS WHAT THE 1704 IMPLICATIONS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CASE. AND I TOLD HER AND THE COUNCIL THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST IF WE ADVISE YOU OF THOSE IMPLICATIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND I RECOMMENDED AT THAT TIME THAT WHEN THIS MATTER CAME BACK ON SECOND AND THIRD READING WE WOULD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE CAN GO OVER THOSE ISSUES. I AM AMEANABLE — WHENEVER WE WANT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE WHEN WE GET READY TO TAKE UP THE ZONING ITEMS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THAT WE COULD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. OBVIOUSLY I'M AT YOUR DISCRETION. I'M READY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ANY TIME YOU WOULD LIKE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M LOOKING AT THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND I THINK THE ONLY ITEMS THAT WE MAY HAVE LEFT IS ITEM NUMBER 44 THAT DON'T REQUIRE SOME KIND OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSIONS. ITEM NUMBER 44, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? YOU PULLED THIS ITEM. THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED ARE EITHER TIME CERTAIN OR THEY MAY REQUIRE PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH YOUR ATTORNEY.

SLUSHER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHAT THIS ITEM ENTAILS, WHAT THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS WILL BE OR ARE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 44, WHICH THE RECORD READS ASD OLLOWS, ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES OF EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO THE VILLAGE OF BEE CAVES WITHIN THE HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION. LOTS BEING RELEASED IN THE SUBDIVISION ARE LOCATED ON SADDLE BACK PASS, ROUND OFF CIRCLE AND GRAY DRIVE. AND THEN IT SAYS THE RELEASE DOESN'T HAVE ANY FISCAL IMPACT.

AND I THINK WE HAVE AS ALWAYS A DYNAMIC PRESENTATION BY MR. BEN LUKIN.

AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BEN LUKIN. AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS 38 ACRES OF AN EXISTING PLATTED SUBDIVISION, THE HOMESTEAD. AND THERE ARE ALL OR PARTS OF 22 LOTS, AND ALL BUT FIVE OF THESE 22 LOTS HAVE EXISTING HOMES ON THEM. THIS WAS ALL PLATTED IN '76, SFEN PRIOR TO CITY OF AUSTIN WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS FOR THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED. AND WITHIN THE AREA PROPOSED, IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR FULL BUILDOUT IS LIMITED BY 11.8 GROSS AND 8.2 NET SITE AREA. IT'S IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO THIS IS — THIS IS BELOW S.O.S. STANDARDS. THE ONLY WAY CURRENT CITY STANDARDS WOULD APPLY TO THIS WOULD BE IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED OR REDEVELOPED, BUT ALL BUT FIVE OF THE LOTS HAVE HOMES ON THEM AND SO IT'S MOST UNLIKELY IT WOULD EVER BE RESUBDIVIDED. THE REMAINING LOTS IN THE HOMESTEAD, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEM, ARE INTERESTED IN BEING MORE INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN BEE CAVE AND SO THEY NEED TO LIVE IN BEE CAVE. SO THEY'VE ASKED — THE CITY OF BEE CAVE ASKED US TO RELEASE IT INTO THEIR JURISDICTION SO THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND ANNEX IT. THEY'VE GOT PETITIONS FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASKING FOR ANNEXATION INTO BEE CAVE UPON RET LEASE OF THESE LOTS.

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY IT WILL BE SUBDIVIDED, BUT WHEN YOU SAY 18%, IS THAT WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS OR WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS?

THAT'S THE EXPECTATION.

SLUSHER: WHAT KIND OF ORDINANCE GOVERNS THIS?

THIS WOULD BE IN '76. THIS WOULD BE —

SLUSHER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. SO IT'S GOT THE 170 4 AND THAT WOULD APPLY WHETHER IT'S IN THE CITY'S ETJ OR BEE CAVE'S. BUT IF IT'S SUBDIVIDED THEN IT COMES UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS. WHAT WOULD THAT BE AFTER THIS IS RELEASED?

IN THE BEE CAVES ETJ?

SLUSHER: IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE IN BEE CAVES PROPER.

RIGHT. THAT SHOULD PROBABLY FALL UNDER THEIR ZONING REGULATIONS. AND I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT BEE CAVES' REGULATIONS ARE. I THINK WE RE — THEY REDID THEM NOT LONG AGO AND AS I REMEMBER ON A SIMILAR RELEASE ISSUE, THEY WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO OURS, AS I REMEMBER.

SLUSHER: COULD WE FIND THAT OUT REAL QUICKLY.

ACTUALLY, DO WE HAVE PAT MURPHY? THERE WE CAN, PAT.

[ INAUDIBLE ].

SLUSHER: THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

[ INAUDIBLE ]

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER UNTIL THEY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, BEN, I'D RUN BACK THERE AND HELP THEM. WE CAN HOLD THIS ITEM NOW AND MOVE ON AND COME BACK TO IT IF YOU'D LIKE.

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WE'RE GOING — THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE SO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THIS ONE. COUNCIL, THAT'S I THINK ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE — ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE EITHER REQUIRE EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSIONS OR WE'RE WAITING FOR INFORMATION. NOW, LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL A QUESTION. ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT ISSUE, DOES ANYBODY NEED MORE ADVICE FROM COUNSEL ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AS TO THE — HOW THIS IMPLEMENTATION IS GOING TO BE DONE, HOW IT'S GOING TO EFFECT AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS LISTED? LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THOSE PEOPLE WHO WIN THREE-YEAR TERMS WIN THIS MAY, WILL THEY HAVE TO RUN AGAIN? AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSION HERE OR WOULD YOU LIKE PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? DO WE HAVE TO DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS IN AN OPEN MEETING, CORRECT?

THOSE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED IN OPEN MEETING. THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS THAT MR. STEINER WILL USE HIS DISCRETION IN TAKING COUNCIL INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE GOING TO PULL UP ITEM NUMBER 8 FOR CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT ITEM. AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENS SHOULD WE PASS — SHOULD THE VOTERS ACCEPT AND PASS A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PROVISION, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT GOES THROUGH, THE IMPLEMENTATION? IS IT GOING TO BE — ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THERE'S AN EXPANSION OF THE COUNCIL TO 11. WHO COMES UP FOR ELECTION IN 03? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE ELECTED THIS YEAR FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS? ALL THOSE THINGS THAT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXPLANATION SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

NOW, MAYOR, THIS IS SCARY. HE HAS PULLED UP THE WHITE BOARD.

YEAH, HE'S PULLING UP THE BOARD. IS IT THAT COMPLEX AN EXPLANATION?

IT'S PRETTY COMPLEX.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE CAN EXPLAIN THAT IN OPEN SESSION, CAN'T WE?

I CAN. IT DEPENDS, FIRST OF ALL, ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY AT LARGE COUNCIL SEATS. SO —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME JUMP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT AND LET'S JUST SAY — LET'S ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN 8-DISTRICT, TWO AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR AT LARGE. SO WE HAVE A SCENARIO THAT MAY HAVE SUPPORT.

OKAY. THIS YEAR WE'VE GOT THREE COUNCILMEMBERS AT LARGE UP FOR ELECTION. NEXT YEAR, ASSUMING THAT NOTHING WERE TO CHANGE, WE'VE GOT THREE AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR. IN 04 IS A BLIP YEAR IN WHICH WE HAVE NONE. THEN THAT PATTERN CONTINUES FOREVER. LIKE THAT. NOW, IF YOU WANTED TO GO TO AN 8-2 SYSTEM AND WE WANTED TO IMPLEMENT IT IN 03, WE'VE GOT — REMEMBER, WE'RE GOING INTO 033 WITH THREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ONLY GOT ONE YEAR OF A THREE-YEAR TERM SERVED. SO IN THIS YEAR WE'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE AT LARGE THAT ARE COMING FROM THIS YEAR, AND THESE PEOPLE ALL HAVEN'T BEEN ELECTED YET, SO WE CAN DO PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER WE WANT TO THEM. NOW, THE — ONE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER IS YOUYOU WANT TO HAVE TWO-YEAR TERMS, THREE-YEAR TERMS, FOUR-YEAR TERMS, DO YOU WANT THEM STAGGERED OR NOT STAGGERED. THOSE ARE THINGS WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE. BUT ASSUMING WE WILL GO WITH THREE-YEARR TERMS, MORE OR LESS IN THE SAME STAGGER THAT WE HAVE, RIGHT HERE WE COULD ELECT — LET ME SWITCH COLORS. WE COULD ELECT AS MANY OF THE DISTRICT PEOPLE AS WE WANTED, SO WE COULD ELECT — WE COULD CERTAINLY ALWAYS ELECT THE MAYOR. SO HERE INSTEAD OF ELECTING THE THREE AT LARGE SEATS, WE COULD GO AHEAD AND, FOR INSTANCE, ELECT OUR EIGHT MEMBERS FROM DISTRICTS. NOW, HOWEVER, WE'VE STILL GOT THESE THREE, SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THEM? THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS. THERE'S ONE OPTION, WHICH IS TO LET THEM SERVE OUT THEIR TERMS, IN WHICH CASE WE'VE GOT AN 8-3 SYSTEM UNTIL THEY GO AWAY, AT WHICH WE CAN THEN IMPLEMENT THE 8-SEAT SYSTEM. OR WE COULD HAVE THEM DRAW LOTS AND HAVE ONE OF THEM GO FOR A ONE-YEAR TERM, WHICH IS ANOTHER OPTION. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO CUT EVERYBODY OFF AND ELECT A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN DOES THAT DECISION HAVE TO BE MADE?

I NEED TO WRITE THAT INTO THE CHARTER. SO IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THE SYSTEM WE'RE GOING TO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IF WE PASS ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PROVISION, YOU WILL HAVE TO ADD PARTICULAR PROVISION.

A PROVISION TO GET US FROM HERE TO THERE.

MAYORU GO TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN THE SCENARIO CHANGES AND IT ALSO DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO — WHETHER YOU WANT THESE TERMS, THESE EIGHT MEMBERS STAGGERED OR WHETHER YOU WANT THEM ALL ELECTED AT ONCE. IF YOU WANT THEM STAGGERED, AFTER THEY DRAW — AFTER THEY GET ELECTED THEY WILL NEED TO DRAW LOTS TO CREATE AN INITIAL STAGGER. SO LET'S SAY WE WANTED TO GO FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS. THEN HERE WE WOULD ELECT EIGHT COUNCILMEMBERS AND A MAYOR FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, WHICH WOULD GET THEM THROUGH TO 07, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT THEM TO DRAW LOTS SO FOUR OF THEM WOULD BE UP IN 05, IF YOU WANT STAGGERING. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME SORTS OF OPTIONS DOWN HERE WITH THESE PEOPLE SINCE ALL OF THEM WOULD COME UP FOR REELECTION HERE, WE COULD EITHER PRESERVE THE EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER, WHICH WE SORT OF CALL THE FOLDING CHAIR OPTION BECAUSE SOMEBODY WILL SORT OF BE SITTING OUT AT THE EDGE OF THE DAIS AS AN EXTRA MEMBER FOR A FEW YEARS, OR AGAIN, WE COULD HAVE THEM DRAW LOTS FOR A SHORT-TERM, OR WE COULD START OVER WITH THE WHOLE COUNCIL. ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS STILL PERTAIN. AND, OF COURSE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS IF YOU WANTED TO GO FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS, WHICH I DIDN'T REALLY THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO DO, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO TODAY IF WE DECIDE ON ITEM NUMBER 8, WE WOULD DECIDE ON THE CONFIGURATION, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER ITEM IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE TERM, WHICH I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY MOVE TO MOVE TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS. SO THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO CONSIDER, BUT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER ITEM THAT LAYS OUT THE LANGUAGE FOR HOW THE 8-7-1 IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED?

I SEE THIS AS ALL PART OF GOING TO A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT. IT'S ALL ONE PROPOSITION. I MEAN, NONE OF THIS WORKS SEPARATELY. IT ALL HAS TO BE A PACKAGE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A — IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM OR A MIXED SYSTEM OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, WE HAVE TO KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET FROM WHERE WE ARE TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE. THAT'S INTEGRAL TO IT. AND PART OF THAT IS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT IN THE NEW CONFIGURATION YOU WOULD SERVE TWO OR THREE-YEAR TERMS OR FOUR-YEAR TERMS. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE THOSE AS SEPARATE ITEMS. I SEE THAT AS ALL PART OF THE SAME ITEM. IT'S ALL GOT TO BE A PACKAGE. AND IT WOULD BE ON THE BALLOT AS A SINGLE ITEM. BUT ESSENTIALLY SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET A TERM CUT SHORT OR WITH AN 8-2 SYSTEM, SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO GET A TERM CUT SHORT OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, MY STAFF PUT TOGETHER A SCRIPT FOR ITEMS 8, 9 AND 10 FOR DISCUSSION, AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CARDS ON ITEM NUMBER 8. MR. LOBOSKI IS HERE AND I THINK MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND MR. JIM WALKER SIGNED UP NOT WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF A HYBRID SYSTEM, AND HE SAYS, INCLUDE A MAP OF THE DISTRICTS WITH THE BALLOTS. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CARDS. AND THEN JENNIFER GALE ALSO SIGNED UP FOR ITEM NUMBER 8. MS. GALE? JENNIFER GALE?

HELLO MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. ON TERMS, I WOULD ASK THAT WE GO FROM THREE-YEAR TERMS TO TWO-YEAR TERMS IN CASE SOMEONE MAY NOT BE HAPPY WITH THEIR DECISION TO ELECT A GIVEN COUNCILMEMBER, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT IN TWO YEARS RATHER THAN TO HAVE TO WAIT THAT THIRD YEAR. AND THEN ON THE — ON THE COUNCIL CONFIGURATION, I'VE ASKED THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE AND SPOKEN WITH THEM TWICE IN THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF ASKING FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON THE — WHETHER OR NOT ON ONE ITEM THAT GOES BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT YOU CAN HAVE CHOICES OR A VARIETY OR SEVERAL DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES, LIKE YOU COULD PUT COUNCIL CONFIGURATION. YOU CAN PUT 13 — I'M SORRY, 14-1, 10-1, 4-2-1, 14-2-1, 30-2-1, WHICH IS WHAT I'M PROPOSING. ANYWAY, WE CAN PUT IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT KIND OF OPTIONS ON ONE LIST BY LISTING IT ON EACH ONE OF THEM YOU PUT FOR AND AGAINST THIS ITEM, FOR AND AGAINST THE NEXT CONFIGURATION AND ALONG WITH EACH OF THEM YOU SAY THE ONE WITH THE MOST VOTES WINS. SO UNDER THE ONE ITEM CONFIGURATION, LIST UP ALL THE POSSIBLE POSSIBILITIES AND THEN THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON IT. SO YOU COULD END UP WITH A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE. IT COULD ONLY BE LIKE 10% OF THE VOTE AND YET THAT ONE WOULD STILL WIN BECAUSE IT HAS THE MAJORITY OF VOTE GOING TOWARDS THAT CONFIGURATION, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE COUNCIL CONFIGURATION THAT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN COULD CHOOSE IN THIS UPCOMING CHARTER ELECTION RATHER THAN HAVING TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER CHARTER ELECTION, WHICH I ORIGINALLY ASKED THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE DO WE NEED TO ASK DURING THE COMING TERM ELECTION FOUR TWO-YEAR TERMS LATER. AND THEY SAID NO, WE CAN DO IT TENTATIVELY. DOES THAT STILL HAVE TO GO UP AND DOWN TO THE LAWYERS THERE THAT WE CAN HAVE IT DURING THIS UPCOMING CHARTER ELECTION, AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE START INVOLVING THE PUBLIC, INFORMING THEM OF THE BENEFITS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH EACH ONE OF THE POSSIBLE CONFIGURATIONS SO THAT PEOPLE COULD VOTE ON A SET OF CONFIGURATIONS SET UP BY THIS COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GALE. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO RECESS THIS ITEM FOR JUST A MINUTE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER 23. THEION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO ON ITEM NUMBER 23. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M GOING TO CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE OF CONFIGURATION, AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THAT YOU'RE READY, COUNCILMEMBER, IF YOU COULD PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE, I'LL RECOGNIZE THAT.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, HAVING HAD DINNER RECENTLY WITH STATE SENATOR JUDITH ZAFARINI, STATE SEAT 21 FROM LAREDO, AND THE TIMING OF HER PARTICULAR SENATE SEAT COMES UP THE EIGHTH YEAR OF EACH DECADE, SO — SHE'S SERVED NOW FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES, SO IT'S QUITE COMMON PRACTICE AND THE STATE SENATE HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR 100 OR MORE YEARS IS THAT SHE HAS THE EXACT SAME ISSUE COME UP THAT ESSENTIALLY THREE COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD HAVE NEXT YEAR IN THAT SHE GETS ELECTED TO THE SAME SENATE FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, THEN IT GETS CUT OFF IN TWO YEARS WHEN THEY REDIRECT AND SHE'S ACCEPTED IT —

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE NEVER HITS IT RIGHT.

WYNN: ANYWAY, SO FRANKLY, SINCE WE HAD DINNER I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS AND HOW ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IT'S PAINFUL FOR SOME MORE THAN OTHERS, IT'S MORE COMPLICATED, HOWEVER, WHEN YOU TRY TO ADAPT IT AND YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PHASE THINGS IN, PARTICULARLY IF WE GO TO A DISTRICT OR A COMBINATION THAT HAS SOME NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT IN IT AND DEPENDING ON WHERE CERTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS LIVE AND IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED, MY SUGGESTION WHEN WE GET TO THAT DISCUSSION IS THAT WE — IF THERE'S A SYSTEM ON THE BALLOT AND THE VOTERS APPROVE IT THAT THE OPTION IS TO DO EVERYTHING AT ONCE. THAT WE WOULD HAVE ONE ELECTION. AND, IN FACT, I'M IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE WAY WE CURRENTLY HAVE OUR STAGGERED ELECTIONS AND DO IT ALL AT ONCE. THAT IS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AGENDA EARLIER TODAY, WE'RE SPENDING $600,000 ON THE ELECTION IN MAY. IF THERE'S A RUNOFF WE'LL DO THAT AGAIN THREE WEEKS LATER. AND I SEE IT ALSO AS A — ONE, AS A BUDGETARY ISSUE, WHY SPEND $600,000 TWO OUT OF THREE YEARS WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT OWN OUT OF THREE YEARS, AND JUST INTUITIVELY, I BELIEVE, IF ALL THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ELECTION AND THATE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ATTENTION PAID TO IT, PERHAPS MORE SO THAN SORT OF HALF A COUNCIL ELECTION THAT WE HAVE NOW. SO AS WE GET TO THAT DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATE SYSTEM TO GO TO, THAT THAT SYSTEM INCLUDES HAVING ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE MAYOR LEKTED— OWE LEKTED AS SOON AS WE CAN ROLL THAT OUT. AND I'M GUESSING THAT WOULD BE SOMETIME? 03 AND IN FACT, WE COULD DO AWAY WITH THE STAGGERED TERMS AND JUST HAVE A SINGLE ELECTION AND ONLY HAVE THE CITY — THE TAXPAYERS GO THROUGH THAT EXPENSE ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS IN THIS CASE, NOT TWICE IN THREE YEARS. I'M ON RECORD AND STILL AM AN ADVOCATE FOR A STRAIGHT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM. AND I'M OPINED ABOUT IT DIFFERENT TIMES. I HAPPEN TO KNOW THE — HAVE DONE THE MATH AND I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THERE'S FOUR VOTES FOR A 10-1 SYSTEM, SO TO SAVE SOME TIME, I WON'T MOVE THAT WE GO TO A STRAIGHT 10-1 SYSTEM, BUT I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A MIXED SYSTEM, AND THAT WOULD BE 8 COUNCIL SEATS EA LEKTED AS OWE ON — ELECTED AS SEB SEB OR NEIGHBORHOOD SEATS, TWO COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED FROM THE CITY AT LARGE AND ALSO THE MAYOR BEING ELECTED AT LARGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO HAVE ON THE BALLOT AN ITEM TO ELECT COUNCILMEMBERS FROM EIGHT DISTRICTS AND THEN TWO OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AT LARGE, THE WHOLE CITY AND THE MAYOR AT LARGE. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SECTION — IT WAS JUST ON THE CONFIGURATION.

YNN: IT WAS JUST ON THE CONFIGURATION. WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED AMENDMENTS ON THAT MOTION AS WE TALK THROUGH THE SCENARIOS OF LENGTH OF TERM, OF POTENTIAL STAGGERING OF TERMS AND HOW WE TRANSITION INTO A NEW SYSTEM IF THE VOTERS APPROVE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO AMEND THIS MOTION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF — WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT ISSUE, PROCESS ISSUE FOR IMPLEMENTATION?

WELL, SURE, THAT'S AS GOOD A NAME AS ANY. WE'LL NEED TO KNOW SEVERING THINGS IF YOU DECIDE TO GO TO AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM. ONE IS WE'LL NEED TO KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO GET FROM HERE TO THERE. ANOTHER THING WE'LL NEED TO KNOW IS IF YOU WANT TO STICK WITH THE CURRENT THREE-YEAR TERMS, DO YOU WANT TO STICK WITH THE CURRENT STAGGERING SCHEME OR DO YOU WANT TO GO TO A DIFFERENT KIND OF STAGGERING SCHEME?

MAYOR GARCIA: SO FIRST IS WHEN WOULD THIS KICK IN?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE ONE. WE WANT IT TO KICK IN FOR THE MAY 03 ELECTIONS, CORRECT?

WYNN: FRANKLY, IF I COULD, MAYOR, IT SEEMS TO ME — I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IF THERE'S MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM. IF THERE'S NOT, WE'RE PROBABLY WASTING A LOT OF TIME FIGURING OUT HOW TO TRANSITION INTO THAT SYSTEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT OKAY IF WE CONSIDER THOSE ISSUES SEPARATELY?

SURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK FOR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY ME, TO DO AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. WOULD WE — IF WE DECIDE TO DO ANY KIND OF SYSTEM TODAY, WOULD THE CITIZENS KNOW WHAT THE DISTRICTS WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHO WOULD BE IN THEM OR WOULD THEY JUST BE VOTING FOR A CONCEPT? WHAT WOULD THEY BE LOOKING AT?

WELL, THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNCIL. IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE TO — UNDER THE CHARTER ITSELF WILL JUST SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO THIS KIND OF A SYSTEM. WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL WISHES TO HAVE LINES DRAWN BEFORE THE ISSUE IS PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS OR AFTER IS COUNCIL'S DECISION. AND, OF COURSE, WE WILL NOT KNOW WHO FILLS ANY SEATS UNTIL THEY'RE IN FACT FILLED. BUT THE — IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT.

GRIFFITH: I MEAN, WHERE THE VOTERS WOULD BE — CITIZENS ARE TELLING ME THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND THAT THEY NEVER HAVE KNOWN WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF DISTRICTS AND WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS GOING TO BE. AND THEY REALLY WANT THAT SETTLED BEFORE THEY LOOK AT IT AGAIN. AND THEY SAY THAT'S A BIG REASON WHY THE SYSTEM HASN'T CHANGED. WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION FOR THEM BEFORE THEY HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER, LET ME TRY TO ANSWER THAT. YOU HAVE BEEN HANDED A MAP WITH THE DISTRICTS, AND THESE TWO MAPS HAVE TWO SCENARIOS. ONE IS A SEVEN-DISTRICT SCENARIO AND THE OTHER IS AN EIGHT-DISTRICT SCENARIO. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT IS THE NUMBERS OF THE SEVEN DISTRICT SCENARIO AND ON THE EIGHT-DISTRICT SCENARIO. SO BY AND LARGE THE COUNCIL IS READY OR THE STAFF IS READY WITH MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN. AND THIS — AND MR. ROBERTSON I THINK IS HERE — AND JOHN, YOU'RE SET UP OVER THERE.

I CAN SET UP OVER THERE IF YOU PREFER.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T YOU SET UP OVER HERE SO WE CAN TALK WITH MR. ROBERTSON. YOU CAN BE NEXT TO THE CITY CLERK. AND IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO — FOR COUNCIL THE ASSUMPTIONS OR THE CRITERIA THAT YOU USE IN DRAWING THE LINES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CHANCE TO COMMENT. THE MAP — I THINK I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE EIGHT-DISTRICT MAP. TO ME IT'S CRITICAL TO COMMUNICATE THAT FROM EIGHT DISTRICTS YOU CAN — WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE YOU CAN CREATE A RELATIVELY STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, TWO STRONG HISPANIC DISTRICTS AND A FOURTH WHAT IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS AN IMPACT DISTRICT OR A STRONG MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICT. CERTAINLY THERE COULD BE VARIATIONS. ANOTHER TEAM COULD COME IN AND PUT IN A BLOCK HERE, TAKE OUT A BLOCK THERE, BUT THOSE FOUR DISTRICTS, THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS, THE HISPANICS AND THE IMPACT DISTRICTS, WOULD BE DRAWN RELATIVELY CLOSELY TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. THE REMAINING FOUR COULD BE DRAWN IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT OUR METHODOLOGY THAT WE FOLLOWED IS TO BUILD UP THOSE MINORITY DISTRICTS FIRST, MAXIMIZE THEM AND THEN MOVE INTO THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY. WE DID TRY AND USE REDISTRICTING LOGIC, KEEPING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST INTACT WHERE WE COULD, BUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE MAPS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU AND THE CONCENTRATION WE PUT WAS VERY MUCH ON BUILDING UP THOSE MINORITY DISTRICTS.

GRIFFITH: SO YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY KNOW WHERE FOUR OF THEM WERE, BUT NOT THE REST OF THEM.

THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY UP TO COUNCIL. BUT I GUESS THE POINT THAT I WANT TO COMMUNICATE IS THAT ANOTHER GROUP COULD COME ALONG, ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL COULD COME ALONG AND YOU COULD SEE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THOSE NON-MINORITY DISTRICTS, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD SEE BIG, BIG CHANGES IN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE MINORITY DISTRICTS.

GRIFFITH: THERE'S BEEN CONCERN EXPRESSED TO ME THAT VOTERS WANT TO KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY — WHERE ALL THE FOLKS PRETTY MUCH ARE GOING TO BE BEFORE THEY VOTE ON IT THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE. HOW DOES WHAT — ARE THEY GOING TO KNOW WHERE FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE LIVING AND VOTING?

IF YOU WANT THAT INFORMATION TO BE KNOWN, THAT'S UP TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE IT COULD BE KNOWN, BUT THE — I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE MAPS THAT RYAN AND HIS SHOP HAVE DRAWN ARE MERELY PROTOTYPES FOR YOU TO SEE HOW IT COULD WORK. THEY ARE NOT —

GRIFFITH: SO IT'S A COULD, NOT A WILL CONCEPT.

RIGHT. IT JUST SHOWS YOU HOW EIGHT DISTRICTS COULD LOOK. WHEN YOU HAVE — YOU PROBABLY WANT THE FIRST FOUR DISTRICTS TO LOOK MORE OR LESS LIKE THEY DO NOW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING ACT, BUT THE JOB OF REDISTRICTING IS A POLITICAL JOB. AND IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO HAVE A REDISTRICTING THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WE WOULD GO WITH DONE, THEN COUNCIL HAS SOME DECISIONS IT NEEDS TO MAKE. ONE IS WHO DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT AND WHEN DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO IT? BECAUSE IF — IF COUNCIL TAKES THE RECOMMENDATION AS WRITTEN OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, THEN REDISTRICTING WOULD NOT BE DONE BY THE COUNCIL, REDISTRICTING WOULD BE DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING BODY THAT WOULD BE CREATE BID THE COUNCIL. IT WOULDN'T BE ESSENTIALLY CREATED, OF COURSE, UNTIL THE CHARTER PROVISION WAS DONE, BUT YOU COULD IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT GET THEM — APPOINT THEM AND GET THEM STARTED EARLY, OR YOU COULD DO IT YOURSELF, OR YOU COULD CREATE AN ADVISORY BODY RATHER THAN A BODY WHO WOULD ACTUALLY DO IT AND HAVE THEM GET STARTED, BUT THE ELECTION IS MAY 4TH AND THAT'S NOT MUCH MORE THAN A MONTH AND A HALF AWAY. AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT BODY SOME TIME TO MEET AND MAKE DECISIONS AND YOU SOME TIME TO ADOPT OR NOT ADOPT THOSE DECISIONS AND RYAN SOME TIME TO DRAW ALL THE VARIOUS PROTOTYPES THAT YOU OR SOME OTHER BODY MIGHT WANT TO COME UP WITH. SO IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT DRAWN DISTRICTS TO THE VOTERS IN TIME FOR MAY 4TH, WE'VE GOT TO GET BUSY AND DO THAT VERY QUICKLY, BUT IT IS STILL DOABLE.

AND THERE SEEMS TO BE DEBATE AMONG THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY SORT OF A STRATEGY CALL AND ALMOST A MARKETING QUESTION.

GRIFFITH: WHAT I'M HEARING FROM VOTERS IS THEY WANT TO SEE THE DISTRICTS, THEY DON'T WANT A CONCEPT. THEY DON'T WANT — THEY WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE DRAWN AND BY WHOM AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM SO THEY WON'T BE BUYING A PIG IN A POKE. SO THEY'LL KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

THAT'S UP TO COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

I WANT MR. THOMAS TO TELL ME WHERE — SHOWING THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICTS. WHAT I'M SEEING HERE AND THE VOTER BREAKOUT AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE COMPILATION AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION IS 35.7, HISPANIC IS 43.4. COME DOWN TO THE AGE, AFRICAN-AMERICAN 35.6, HISPANIC 38.9. [ INAUDIBLE ]

THAT'S A GOOD POINT, COUNCILMEMBER. AND IT IS THE STRONGEST DISTRICT THAT WE COULD DRAW, BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IT IS A PLURALITY HISPANIC. ONE FACTOR THAT WOULD WORK TOWARD MAKING AN STREARD AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT IS THE THE IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP. IT IS A PLURALITY. AS IS THE AISD DISTRICT THAT HAS BEEN CALLED THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT. SO IT WOULD REALLY COME INTO QUESTION HOW HIGH THAT BAR IS, HOW HIGH WE HAVE TO RAISE IT. BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT AND WE HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT IT'S NOT A FULL AFRICAN-AMERICAN BY ANY MEANS.

THOMAS: ANOTHER QUESTION TO YOU, MR. ROBERTSON. IF THERE'S ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN SEAT OUT OF 11, WOULD THAT BE REJECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? THEY HAVE A CURRENT SYSTEM OF ONE OUT OF SEVEN.

RIGHT. CURRENTLY WITH SEVEN COUNCILMEMBERS, EACH COUNCIL REPRESENTS 14.3% OF THE COUNCIL. SO THEREFORE WITH ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL IS 14.3% AFRICAN-AMERICAN. IN AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM YOU GO TO 11 COUNCILMEMBERS, AND EACH COUNCILMEMBER IS 9.1% OF THE COUNCIL. SO IT WOULD CLEARLY — ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEMBER THEN WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY 9.1 AS OPPOSED TO 14.3. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD CONSIDER THAT RETROGRESSION IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ABSOLUTE YES OR NO ON. MY SENSE IS THAT BECAUSE AUSTIN HAS A GOOD HISTORY OF NON-RACIALLY POLER RISED AND BECAUSE AUSTIN HAS SHOWN A HISTORY OF PEOPLE BEING WILLING TO VOTE ACROSS RACIAL LINES THAT IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE PRECLEARANCE, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT THAT WOULD BE A CERTAINTY. THAT IS CERTAINLY A NUMERICAL REGRESSION. AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A REGRESSION AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE DODGE AS AN ANSWER IS SOMETHING I CAN'T ANSWER. I THINK IT WOULD HINGE ON THEIR ANALYSIS OF OUR — THE AMOUNT OF RACIAL POLERIZATION AND OUR VOTING PATTERN. IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A GOOD ARGUMENT IN OUR FAVOR TO DRAW ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF APPLES AND ORNGSZ BECAUSE THE VOTING PATTERNS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTIONS ARE NOT EXACTLY LIKE THE VOTING PATTERNS, NOR THE CANDIDACY PATTERNS AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AN ISSUE. AT EIGHT DISTRICTS THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE OF RETROGRESSION. WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE IN FACT SOMETHING THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD POSE AN OBJECTION TO IS SOMETHING I CAN'T ABSOLUTELY SAY YES OR NO. MY SENSE IS THAT THEY WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION WITHOUT A VERY STRONG FEELING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE RETRO GRES SIEVE, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES REPRESENT A DRAW — IF YOU CONSIDER THAT A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE AT LARGE SEAT WOULD AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME BE HELD BY NON-AFRICAN-AMERICANS, THEN IT WOULD BE A LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST A NUMERICAL REGRESSION FROM ONE OUT OF SEVEN TO ONE OUT OF 11.

THOMAS: I SEE WE DON'T HAVE A SCENARIO FOR 5-3-1. WOULD THE NUMBERS CHANGE IF WE HAD A — LIKE THAT?

AT FIVE DISTRICTS, AS YOU GO DOWN IN NUMBERS OF DISTRICTS, IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO EVEN GET AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN — NOT JUST AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLURALITY, BUT EVEN A FAIRLY STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT. AT FOUR DISTRICTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BEST AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT IS 24% OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN OF VOTING AGE POPULATION IN A DISTRICT THAT IS 34.6% HISPANIC AND 35.3% NON-HISPANIC WHITE. SO IF YOU GO TO — IF YOU GO TO FIVE — DO YOU HAVE A FIVE SCENARIO? AND, WHEN YOU'RE ADDING AT LARGE SEATS, AT LARGE SEATS ALL HAVE THE SAME DEMOGRAPHIC AS THE CITY AT LARGE, BUT THEY DO MEAN THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER THEN REPRESENTS A PROGRESSIVELY SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THE COUNCIL. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, AT 11 COUNCILMEMBERS, EACH COUNCILMEMBER IS 9.1% OF THE COUNCIL PASSED. AT SEVEN COUNCILMEMBERS, EACH COUNCIL IS 14% OF THE COUNCIL. AND THAT SAME DYNAMIC WORKS AT ANY NUMBER YOU CARE TO PICK. YOU CAN DIVIDE THAT NUMBER INTO ONE AND GET THE PERCENTAGE THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER REPRESENTS IN A DISTRICT.

THOMAS: SO LIKE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WAS SAYING, WE DON'T HAVE THE LINES DRAWN OR THE MAPS DRAWN, AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN, MY CONCERN ALSO, THE CITIZENS THAT ACTUALLY VOTE CONCERN. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO ASSURE THE NUMBERS THAT WE NEED TO GET TO MAKE SURE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT — I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THAT WOULD HAVE REPRESENTATION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS?

THE DILEMMA THAT YOU HAVE, OF COURSE, IS THAT THE MORE COUNCILMEMBERS YOU GET — THE MORE DISTRICTS YOU GET, NOT THE MORE COUNCILMEMBERS. THE MORE DISTRICTS YOU GET, THE EASIER IT BECOMES TO DRAW A PLURALITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT UNTIL FINALLY AT 14 MEMBERS IT BECOMES POSSIBLE TO DRAW A MAJORITY AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTING AGE DISTRICT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, AS YOU GO UP THAT, AS YOU GO UP IN THOSE NUMBERS, YOU ALSO DROP DOWN ON THE PERCENTAGE THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER REPRESENTS AS A WHOLE COUNCIL. SO YOU HAVE A BALANCE — LIKE MOST THINGS IN LIFE, I GUESS, IT'S A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN THE ABILITY— BETWEEN THE ABILITY TO DRAW A STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT AND THE ATTENDANT DECLINE IN THE PERCENTAGE THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER WOULD THEN REPRESENT AS A WHOLE COUNCIL. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN EIGHT AND 14 WOULD BE MY GUT FEELING THAT WE WOULD BE IN A — AT LEAST A 60/40 — I HATE TO USE NUMBERS BECAUSE IT MAKES ME SOUND LIKE I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING, WHEN I DON'T. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A BETTER THAN EVEN CHANCE AT BETWEEN EIGHT TO 14 DISTRICTS I THINK OF PRECLEARANCE, BUT IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO DRAW AN INCREASINGLY STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT AND THE DECREASE THEN IN EACH COUNCILMEMBER'S REPRESENTATION OF THE WHOLE OF THE DISTRICT. NOW, ON THE PLUS SIDE, AUSTIN DOES HAVE A HISTORY OF ELECTING MINORITY CANDIDATES FROM NON-MINORITY MAJORITY AREAS AND IT HAS EVEN A HISTORY OF ELECTING NON-HISPANIC WHITE CANDIDATES FROM AREAS THAT ARE MAJORITY MINORITY. SO AUSTIN HAS A HISTORY OF VOTING ACROSS ETHNIC LINES AND OF LETTING POLICY AND I'DOLOGY DOMINATE OVER RACIAL CONCERNS, WHICH WILL PLAY IN OUR FAVOR. BUT NUMBERS DO COUNT. AND AS I SAY, THE NUMBERS DILEMMA THAT WE'RE IN IS YOU'VE GOT TO GO UP IN NUMBER TO GET A STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, AND THAT DECREASES THE INFLUENCE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL AFRICAN-AMERICAN PLAYS.

GRIFFITH: YES. MR. STEINER, I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT RETROGRESSION EVER SINCE YOU INTRODUCED THE TERM TO US AND BEGAN TO WORK WITH US ON THIS. MY CONCERN AND MINORITY INDIVIDUALS WHO I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH AND TALKING TO LOOK AT US AND THEY SEE DIVERSITY AND THEY'VE SEEN DIVERSITY PRETTY REGULARLY FOR A LONG TIME. AND THEIR CONCERN IS THAT MINORITIES WILL BE WORSE OFF UNDER THIS — UNDER A DISTRICT OR EVEN A MIXED SYSTEM. SEVERAL OF THEM SAID IT AIN'T BROKE. AND THAT'S A STATEMENT I'M HEARING IN THE COMMUNITY ALSO, I'M HEARING I WANT TO TALK TO EVERYBODY, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND HAVE THEM RESPOND TO ME, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO. SO I'M WONDERING IF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT AND WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM, IF ANY OTHER THAN THIS ONE MIGHT ADDRESS THOSE.

THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT THE TWO CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEES DID THINK ABOUT. AND PERHAPS THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE FROM THE COMMITTEES THAT COULD ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. THOSE ARE POLICY ISSUES, NOT ISSUES OF LAW. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT A SYSTEM WOULD RESULT IN A REGRESSION, RETROGRESSION WITH RESPECT TO THE ABILITY OF PROTECTED MINORITIES TO ELECT MEMBERS OF THEIR CHOICE TO THE GOVERNING BODY, THOSE ISSUES SH NOT ISSUES OF LAW, BUT ISSUES OF POLICIES. AND THOSE ISSUES OF POLICY WERE EXACTLY WHAT THE VARIOUS CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEES WRESTLED WITH. SO I WOULD DEFER TO THEM ON THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIRLY CLEAR FROM THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD AND FROM THE NUMBERS THAT WE SEE THAT RACIAL DIVERSITY ON THE COUNCIL WOULDN'T BE OUR MAIN MOTIVE FOR GOING TO A DIFFERENT SYSTEM BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, WE'VE GOT A GOOD RECORD IN THAT RESPECT WITH OUR CURRENT SYSTEM. I THINK THAT THE BEST THING WE HAVE GOING FOR US WITH RESPECT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRECLEARANCE IS THAT IN AUSTIN PERHAPS IT IS SO, AND WE ALL HOPE IT IS SO AND WE HOPE WREF A RECORD THAT SHOWS THIS, THAT RACIAL DIVERSITY ON OUR GOVERNING BODY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON OUR ELECTRICL SYSTEM. HOPEFULLY — ELECTORAL SYSTEM. HOPEFULLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WITH WITH ANY ELECTORAL SYSTEM WE GO TO. AND THE REASONS WE THAT'S CHOOZ THAT WOULD BE FOR REASONS OF REPRESENTATION AND WHATEVER. AND OF COURSE, THOSE ARE BALANCED AGAIN THE ABILITY OF — [ INAUDIBLE ] AGAIN, ON THOSE DECISION POINTS, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE.

GRIFFITH: IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE DISTRICTS DRAWN BEFORE YOU ASKED THE FOLKS TO ON IT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHICH NEIGHBORHOOD WAS WHERE NECESSARILY.

RIGHT. AND OF COURSE, REMEMBER, THE INITIAL REDISTRICTING WON'T BE THE ONE THAT WILL BE IN EFFECT FOREVER. PRESUMABLY AT LEAST EVERY 10 YEARS WHEN WE GET NEW CENSUS DATA THERE WILL BE A REDRAWING OF THE LINES.

I WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN ON THAT. IT VERY MUCH IS A MOVING TARGET. AND THAT LANDSCAPE, AND I THINK WE'VE SHOWN THIS GRAPHICALLY. IT'S CONSTANTLY IN FLUX. SO THE SNAPSHOT THAT WE'VE BROUGHT BEFORE NOW IS BASED ON DATA, AND THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE. AND WE'VE TRIED TO FIGURE THAT IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY AND PREDICT HOW THAT LANDSCAPE WILL CHANGE ITSELF.

GRIFFITH: BUT WON'T IT STAY THAT WAY FOR 10 YEARS?

RIGHT. THE LAW PERMITS YOU TO RELY ON THE MOST RECENT CENSUS. YOU ARE NOT PROHIBITED FROM CONSIDERING OTHER INFORMATION, LIKE CENSUS REJEKSS AND OTHER INFORMATION YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE FROM OTHER THINGS. IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY, SHOULD THE CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, ANNEX A LARGE TRACT OF TERRITORY THAT THROWS ONE DISTRICT BADLY OUT OF KILTER. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE — JUST TO APPROXIMATE PICK A NUMBER, EIGHT PICTURES, AND YOU — EIGHT DISTRICTS, AND YOU ANNEX 10 OR 20,000 PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE ATTACHED TO DISTRICT NUMBER 8. WELL, ALL OF A NUMBER DISTRICT NUMBER 8 THEN IS BADLY OUT OF WHACK WITH THE OTHER SEVEN DISTRICTS AND YOU WOULD PROBABLY AT THAT TIME WANT TO REDRAW TO DO THAT. AND THAT MAY HAPPEN MIDWAY THROUGH 217 SUSS AND YOU COULD RELY ON THE CENSUS TRACK DATA, BUT YOU WOULD NEED OTHER INFORMATION TO GO WITH IT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE DEALING WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE 2000 CENSUS WAS TAKEN, BUT YOU KNEW FOR A FACT THAT IT HAD 10 OR 20,000 PEOPLE AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT SOMEHOW. SO THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO RELY ON OTHER KIND OF DATA AS WE DID NOT IN THE REDISTRICTING SCENARIO, BUT IN THE ANNEXATION SCENARIO WHEN WE DID THE LARGE ANNEXATIONS IN '97 WE HAD TO SUPPLY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ABOUT EXACTLY WHO WE WERE AN NECKING AND WHAT — ANNEXING AND WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE AND A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE. AND SINCE MOST OF THOSE AREAS WERE BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND HADN'T EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE PREVIOUS CENSUS, WE PRETTY MUCH HAD TO GO IN AND GATHER OUR OWN DATA AS TO WHO THEY WERE AND HOW MANY THEY WERE AND WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE IN VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS. AND SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE TO EXTRAPOLATE, BUT GENERALLY, YES, ASSUMING A STEADY STATE, THEN YOU WOULD BE GOOD TO GO MOST OF THE TIME IN 10-YEAR CHUNKS.

GRIFFITH: BACK TO RETROGRESSION. THIS IS FROM MY NOTES FROM YOU LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT SAYS THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER PRESENT RETROGRESSION RISK AND FUTURE RETROGRESSION RISK. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT PRESENT AND FUTURE? [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]ATZeNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200

NOT JUST HOW THE DISTRICTS LOOK NOW, BUT HOW THEY MIGHT LOOK IN 10 YEARS, GIVEN THE — THE — IT IS PATTERN OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN THE CITY.

GRIFFITH: SO THEY WILL ASSESS THE RISK OF RETROGRESSION TWO WAYS?

YES.

GRIFFITH: CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT COUNTERVAILING, THAT WAS A NEW ONE ON ME, TOO.

WELL, I MEAN, YOU HAVE ALWAYS GOT ON THE ONE HAND ON THE OTHER HAND. ON THE ONE HAND, IF YOU — IF YOU ASSUME THAT AT 11 COUNCIL, IF WE HAD AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM, IF YOU ASSUME, ARGUENGO THAT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WILL ONLY BE ELECTED IN THE SO-CALLED AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT, THEN ON THAT ASSUMPTION WE HAVE A NUMERICAL RETROGRESSION FROM 14% TO 90%. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU MAY HAVE — YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE MAY BE A GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST WE WOULD CONTINUE AT 9.1 AND NOT GO TO ZERO OR YOU MIGHT ARGUE THAT, LOOK, AISD HAS ELECTED, I BELIEVE THREE OR FOUR HISPANIC MEMBERS, ONE OF WHOM IS ELECTED AT LARGE, ONE OF WHOM IS ELECTED FROM A LARGELY NON-HISPANIC DISTRICT, OR YOU MIGHT ARGUE, LOOK, WE HAVE GOT A — A HISPANIC SENATOR AND A HISPANIC MARRY AND WE... — HISPANIC MAYOR AND A HISTORY OF ELECTING AFRICAN AMERICANS AT LARGE FROM A DISTRICT OF THE WHOLE, THAT'S MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT WE HAVE GOT ON — ON THE 8 DISTRICT SCENARIO, SO, THEREFORE, IT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN AS A GIVEN THAT AN 11-MEMBER COUNCIL, 8-2-1 WILL ONLY PRODUCE ONE AFRICAN AMERICAN MEMBER OVER TIME. OVER TIME WE MAY SEE THAT SOMETIMES IT PRODUCES ONE AFRICAN AMERICAN MEMBER; SOMETIMES IT PRODUCES TWO. AND IF — WHEN IT PRODUCES TWO, IT WILL BE AT NEARLY 20% OF COUNCIL. SO ... THOSE ARE ARGUMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THE D.O.J. WILL WEIGHT THOSE THINGS IN ITS CONSIDERATION.

YOU SAID IT WAS NOT PRE— NOT PRE— I'M SORRY, MIC. YOU SAID AT ONE TIME WHEN WE WERE TALKING THAT IT'S NOT REALLY PRECLEARANCE, IT'S POST CLEARANCE.

RIGHT. THE TERM PRECLEARANCE CONFUSES MANY PEOPLE. SO I — SO I FOUND THAT IT OFTEN HELPS TO EXPLAIN THAT IN SOME WAYS IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO CALL IT POST CLEARANCE. BECAUSE IT'S PRECLEARANCE IN THE SENSE THAT WE MAY NOT IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM UNTIL IT IS PRECLEARED. SO IT'S PREIMPLEMENTATION. BUT IT'S POST ADOPTION. SO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WON'T CONSIDER HYPOTHETICALS AND THEY WON'T CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ADOPTED.

GRIFFITH: I SEE.

SO IT'S POST CLEARANCE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WON'T ACCEPT IS FOR CONSIDERATION UNTIL COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED IT. SO IT'S CLEARANCE THAT OCCURS AFTER ADOPTION AND BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION.

GRIFFITH: AND RETROGRESSION AND THE RISK OF IT IS A BIG PART OF THAT.

RETROGRESSION IS THE TEST.

GRIFFITH: THE WHOLE SHOW.

RETROGRESSION IS THE WHOLE SHOW.

GRIFFITH: MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION AND A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I WILL LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE VERY VALVE CONCERNS. THE REASON WHY WE HAVE D.O.J. REVIEW OF THIS IS FOR THAT VERY REASON. SO BY PLACING IT ON THE BALLOT, ONE, WE WILL HAVE THE NEEDED CIVIC AND COMMUNITY DEBATE OVER THESE NEXT SIX WEEKS. THEN VERY IMPORTANTLY, IF IT PASSES, IT'S GOING TO GET A VERY THOROUGH D.O.J. REVIEW. SO — SO, YOU KNOW, IF IN FACT IN HYPED SIGHT SOMEHOW IT'S DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE THE D.O.J. IS GOING TO BE VERY..... SCRUITNOUS OF IT. THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMMUNITY WANTS IT. IT WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE IN '94. IT'S CHANGED AS THE CITY GETS LARGER. A LARGE CITY IS THE ULTIMATE REASON WHY YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS. IT COSTS TOO MUCH TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL OVER 275,000 SQUARE MILES AND 7,000 CITIZENS. SO THE VOTE TODAY IS OF COURSE TO PLACE IT ON THE BALLOT. IT WILL BE A VERY APPROPRIATE PUBLICLY, CIVICALLY DEBATED ITEM FOR THESE NEXT SIX OR SEVEN WEEKS AT A TIME WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF INTEREST IN CITY ELECTIONS ANYWAY. IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE TO DO IT NOW IN MAY. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THESE VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THERE'S GOING BE A — TO BE A LOT OF SCRUTINY PLACED ON IT FOR VERY SMART FOLKS WHO DO NOTHING BUT THIS ALL DAY EVERY DAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THAT GIVES ME THE APPROPRIATE CONFIDENCE.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES. AND WE WILL BE DOING THAT WITHOUT KNOWING WHO WAS GOING TO BE IN WHICH DISTRICT OR FOR SURE HOW THEY WERE GOING TO BE — HOW THEY WERE GOING TO BE CONFIGURED AND WHO WAS GOING TO BE DOING THAT.

UM, I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO DO IT AS PART OF THE PROPOSITION.

GRIFFITH: BUT THEY WOULDN'T GET IT DONE IN TIME TO KNOW WHO WAS REALLY GOING TO GO WHERE.

AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO COUNCIL.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: ALSO, PUTTING IT ON AND — AND WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS SAYING, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BE LOOKING AT IT, ET CETERA, BUT THE THING IS WE HAVEN'T DID WHAT I FEEL WE OUGHT TO BE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO DO. I THINK, I SAID THIS IN THE WORK SESSION, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: I'M FOR THE MIXED SYSTEM. BUT I AM — I HAVE A PROBLEM, WE HAVE A VERY LOW NUMBER — NOT A HIGH NUMBER, REPRESENTING AFRICAN AMERICANS. ALSO, WE KNEW THAT WE WANTED TO DO THIS. WE HAVE GOT OUR BACK UP AGAINST THE WALL AGAIN AND WE HAVEN'T DONE WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE. THAT'S FOR THE CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE MAPPING, THE LOCATION, AND EVERYTHING. I JUST — I'M GGHT TO — I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON EVERYBODY THAT'S GOING TO VOTE. JUST THINK, IF WE DID A FAIR JOB OR DID JUST — JUST GETTING IT ON THE BALLOT AND SAYING THAT EVERYBODY HAS GOT A CHANCE TO SCRUTINIZE IT, WHY IS IT THAT THEY DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SCRUTINIZE IT BEFORE WE GOT HERE? DID WE DO A GOOD JOB OF LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THEY HAD TO SCRUTINIZE IT? ALTHOUGH WE DID OUR METHOD OF — OF COMMUNICATING TO THE CITIZENS, BUT IT'S A — IT'S — IT'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER CITIZENS ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT'S WHAT REALLY TROUBLES ME. BUT, ALSO, I'M GOING TO THROW THIS ONE IN. IF IT'S NOT — IF IT'S NOT BROKE, WHY ARE WE TRYING TO FIX IT. IF WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO FIX IT, I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY SAY MAYBE THIS ADD [INAUDIBLE] TO THE AT LARGE. I JUST THOUGHT THAT I WOULD THROW THAT OUT THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, I THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY DISCUSSION. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION CONSIDERED THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK YOU PRESENTED THE INFORMATION. THE MAPS HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT BY MANY PEOPLE. THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT. COUNCIL HAS HAD WORK SESSIONS ON THIS. OF COURSE THE WHOLE ISSUE OF CHANGING THE METHOD OF ELECTION HAS BEEN BEFORE THE VOTERS, I THINK WHAT IS THIS THE FIFTH TIME? SIXTH TIME, SIXTH THAT'S COMING UP.

THIS WILL BE THE 6TH.

SO THEY KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS. THE INITIATIVE WAS STARTED BASICALLY, I THINK, WHEN I WAS HERE THE LAST TIME BEFORE I LEFT. AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED EVER SINCE, IT WAS DISCUSSED ALL DURING THE 15 OR 16 MONTHS THAT I WAS OUT. IT'S BACK AGAIN. I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE IT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, I THINK WE SHOULD, I THINK THE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE IDEA OF THE MAPS, I THINK MR. ROBINSON HAS AN EXCELLENT — HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PUTTING THE MAPS TOGETHER. HERE THEY ARE FOR THE 8 DISTRICT SCENARIO AND HERE THEY ARE FOR THE 7 DISTRICT SCENARIO. THEN THERES NUMBERS BEHIND IT FOR ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS. SO I — I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO DELAY THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY HAVE NOT KNOWN ABOUT THIS. I THINK THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT. APPEARED THERE'S BEEN SNUFF E-MAILS COMING DOWN, AT — THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH E-MAILS COMING DOWN, AT LEAST FROM MY COMPUTER, ENOUGH PEOPLE SAYING "PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT SO WE CAN VOTE ON IT." ORPTIONS HAVE TAKEN — ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TAKEN A POSITION VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF SINGLE-MEMBER. I LIKE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS FOR A PURE SYSTEM OF SINGLE-MEMBERS, BUT IT DIDN'T TAKE A LOT OF INVESTIGATION TO FIGURE OUT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE FOUR VOTES FOR THAT. SO LIKE ALL GOOD POLITICIANS DO, I COMPROMISED ON IT, SAY OKAY LET'S DO A MIXED SYSTEM BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD GO ALONG WITH IT. WE STILL COULD HAVE — WOULD HAVE EIGHT DISTRICTS OR SO FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY. LET ME SAY THAT SEVERAL AREAS LIKE DISTRICT 8 IN THE CONFIGURATION, HAS NEVER HAD A COUNCILMEMBER ON THIS DAIS. DISTRICT 4, DISTRICT 3 HAS NEVER HAD — WELL, I TAKE IT BACK, THEY'VE HAD ONE, COUNCILMEMBER LARSON FROM DISTRICT 3. FROM DISTRICT 4, WE HAVE HAD ONE, THAT'S COUNCILMEMBER MITCHELL. FROM DISTRICT 6 AND 7, WE PROBABLY HAVE HAD ONE FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT THEY HAVEN'T — THEY HAVEN'T HAD ONE IN QUITE SOME TIME. SO — SO THE IDEA BEHIND SINGLE-MEMBERS IS — SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IS TO HAVE THE AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY AT THE TABLE. BECAUSE AS WE SIT HERE RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NOBODY HERE FROM NORTHWEST HILLS, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 'EM OF THE CITY. — TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY. THERE'S NOBODY HERE FROM — FROM NORTH OF 38TH STREET BETWEEN MOPAC AND I-35. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL FROM THAT AREA. SO IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING REPRESENTATION ON THIS COUPLE, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT. AND WE CAN WORK OUT THE DETAILS AS TO THE PEOPLE THAT — THAT ARE GOING TO — GOING TO WIN AN ELECTION IN MAY AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THREE-YEAR TERM, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO SERVE OUT THEIR TERMS. I THINK WE CAN RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT TO HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. SO I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I THINK PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS ISSUE. BUT I THINK I'M NOT GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE A HESITANCY. THE HESITANCY IS WE NOW HAVE ONE OUT OF SEVEN OR TWO OUT OF SEVEN, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE WHEN WE GET THROUGH? IN THE CASE OF THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY, WE HAVE TWO OUT OF SEVEN. AND IF THIS PASSES THE LIKELIHOOD IS WE WOULD HAVE TWO OUT OF 11. WELL, THAT'S RETROGRESSION, I WENT AND LOOKED IN THE DICTIONARY, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IS RETROGRESSION, LESS REPRESENTATION. BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE BETTER GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND THAT'S I THINK WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. ANYWAY, I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THIS ONE ISSUE AND THEN WE CAN START TALKING ABOUT HOW THE ISM MENATION PLAN WORKS. NOW, SOME — IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WORKS. SOME COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE TOLD ME HERE TODAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST RESOLVE ONE ISSUE. BECAUSE THE MAPS, WE CAN PUT THESE MAPS — MR. ROBINSON IS RIGHT, WE MIGHT MOVE ONE PRECINCT HERE OVER HERE, ONE PRECINCT THERE OVER THERE. BUT THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD MAP FOLLOWING CRITERIA THAT HAS GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY IN THESE QUARTERS. A MAP DRAWN LIKE THIS WILL NEVER BE PEFERKS NEVER BE ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYBODY. BUT THIS ONE HAS, IN MY ESTIMATION, SOUND PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAP. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS DISCUSSED AN INTEREST IN DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF IMPLEMENTATION. IF HE WINS AND THE TWO OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WIN A SEAT TO THE COUNCIL THIS COMING MAY, WOULD WE HAVE TO — TO HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION UNDER THIS SCENARIO THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS DRAWN UP THAT HAS ALL 11 COUNCILMEMBERS RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME, WOULD THEY HAVE — WOULD THEY HAVE TO RUN? OF COURSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO RUN. BUT THERE'S ALSO THE EXTRA SEAT, FOLDING CHAIR CONCEPT THAT YOU EXPLAINED. SO WE COULD DO THAT. NOW, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AT THE SAME TIME? SOME COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ASSURANCE THAT IF THEY RUN NOW AND THEY WIN A THREE YEAR TERM THEY CAN SERVE IT OUT INSTEAD OF HAVING TO COME BACK AGAIN A YEAR FROM NOW AND RUN ANOTHER ELECTION.

WELL, THERE HAS TO BE A TRANSITION, A WAY TO GET FROM HERE TO THERE. IF IT WERE NOT TO BE — AND THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A LAW THAT SAYS HOW IT HAPPENS. I GUESS THERE WOULD BE TWO BIG OPTIONS THERE. ONE WOULD BE THAT I WOULD ADDRESS THE — I — I WILL — I WILL WRITE IT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION — AS PART OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. OR I GUESS ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO SAY IN THE CHARTER THAT — THAT THE COUNCIL COULD BY ORDINANCE PROVIDE A METHOD FOR MAKING THE TRANSITION. AND THEN YOU COULD MAKE THE TRANSITION, MAKE THE DETAILS BY ORDINANCE ABOUT HOW TO GET FROM HERE TO THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THAT DOESN'T NEED TO GET IN THE CHARTER, THE —

I THINK EITHER THE CHARTER WILL HAVE TO SAY HOW TO DO IT OR IT WILL HAVE TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO SAY HOW TO DO IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WE CANNOT DELEGATE TO THE ORDINANCE IS WHEN THE ELECTIONS ARE. THAT'S — THAT HAS TO BE, IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THREE OR FOUR-YEAR TERMS, THAT HAS TO BE IN THE CHARTER.

I THINK, YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THEN THE ELECTION DATES, I MEAN THE ELECTIONS THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE TO BE — LET'S SAY WE GO TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER, FOUR-YEAR TERMS. AS WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW WITH THE THREE-YEAR TERMS, SOME COUNCILS SERVE ONE YEAR TOGETHER, SOME COUNCILS SERVE TWO YEARS AGO. WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT COMING TO TAKE THIS JOB, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO COME IS THAT HERE'S WHAT I HAD, ABOUT A FIVE MONTH OR SIX MONTH TERM, SEVEN-MONTH TERM AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION. THEN THE NEXT COUNCIL WOULD BE ONE YEAR. IN THAT YEAR WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND AN ELECTION. YOU KNOW, I WOULD WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT SWEATING AND SAYING TO MYSELF, WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GETTING INTO THIS? YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY — EXACTLY WHEN I DIED TO — WHEN I DECIDED TO DO IT, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE ANYMORE.

IT IS VERY UNUSUAL TO HAVE THE STAGGERING THIS COUNCIL HAS WITH ELECTION, ELECTION, HICCUP, ELECTION, ELECTION, HICCUP. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION THAT HAS THAT. BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER OPTIONS. THOSE COULD BE PUT IN THE CHARTER FOR APPROVAL BY THE VOTERS AS WELL. BUT IT'S A DECISION THAT COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO MAKE. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO MAKE IT IN CONNECTION WITH — WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED TO GO TO A — TO A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SOME, TO IN THEORY YOU COULD ALSO CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM SO THAT YOU HAD A — AN AT LARGE SYSTEM WITH A OWE WITH A FOUR YEAR — WITH FOUR-YEAR TERMS SO THAT YOU HAD THREE MEMBERS SERVING TWO YEARS — IN OTHER WORDS, FOUR-YEAR TERMS WITH — WITH ELECTIONS EVERY OTHER YEAR. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY OF DOING IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THIS 8-2-1, IN ONE YEAR WE WOULD HAVE FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, ONE AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR. TWO YEARS LATER, WE WOULD HAVE FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND ONE AT LARGE.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD — YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GIVE THE BALANCE — THE IDEA OF HAVING ALL 11 RUNNING AT ONE TIME IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE A FRUIT BASKET TURN OVER AND EVERYBODY IS NEW AND I CAN'T IMAGINE A COUNCIL THAT HAS NEW, 11 NEW COUNCILMEMBERS TRYING TO — TO WORK TOGETHER AND PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES A — A — YOU KNOW, A RATIONAL AGENDA OR, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES MORE TIME AND THAT'S THE REASON THEY PUT IN THE STAGGERED TERMS BECAUSE IT USED TO BE THAT WE USED TO HAVE TWO-YEAR TERMS AND WE WOULD HAVE ALL FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT. IT DOESN'T WORK. BECAUSE IN ANY ONE AGENDA, IN ANY ONE YEAR, WE COULD HAVE ALL NEW COUNCILMEMBERS COMING TO THE COUNCIL. THAT PRESENTS A VERY DIFFICULT CHALLENGE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE CITY MANAGER. COULD WE DO IT THIS WAY, THESE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING WOULD WIN AN ELECTION IN MAY. THEM IN — IN '03, WE COULD HAVE THE EIGHT DISTRICTS AND THE MAYOR ELECTED IN THOSE — IN THAT ELECTION. THEY WILL BE ELECTED FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS. ALL RIGHT? THEN TWO YEARS LATER, THE THREE PEOPLE THAT WERE — THAT WERE ELECTED IN '01, WHEN THEY GO TO '04, THEY WOULD RUN EITHER IN THE REMAINING AT-LARGE PLACES OR IN A SINGLE-MEMBER.

YES. YOU CAN DO THAT. I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE CHART.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOING TO FOUR YEAR TERMS, RIGHT?

YES.

SO HERE AND — WE HAVE GOT THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS ELECTED HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY WILL SERVE UNTIL '05.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IN '04, WE COULD ELECT A MAYOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: IN '03.

I'M SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT. IN '03 WE COULD ELECT A MAYOR AND EIGHT FROM THE DISTRICTS. THEY COULD DRAW LOTS. SO THAT FOUR OF THEM SERVED UNTIL '05 AND FOUR OF THEM SERVED UNTIL '07.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO.

YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: '07, CORRECT.

RIGHT. AND THEN IN THE '05 ELECTION, YOU WILL HAVE THEN FOUR — THIS PEN IS INADEQUATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOUR —

IN THE 05 ELECTION, YOU WILL HAVE FOUR DISTRICT MEMBERS UP. THAT WOULD HAVE SERVED TWO YEARS OF A FOUR YEAR TERM THAT WAS CUT SHORT BECAUSE THEY DREW LOTS. THEN YOU WILL ALSO HAVE, THESE THREE AT LARGE SEATS WOULD EXPIRE. SO THERE WOULD BE TWO AT LARGE OPENS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE FOUR DISTRICT OPENINGS, TWO AT LARGE OPENINGS. THESE —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU SAID THAT — THAT IN '02 WE WOULD ELECT THE MAYOR — OH, OKAY, GOT IT. RIGHT.

THEN THE — OF THESE TWO, THEY WILL DRAW LOTS. SO ONE OF THEM HAS A TWO YEAR TERM, SO THEY COME UP IN '07.

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE OF THEM.

RIGHT. ONE OF THEM COMES UP IN '09. THEN THE — THEN YOU HAVE A STAGGER, JUST AS YOU DESCRIBED, SO THAT YOU HAVE GOT — EVERY OTHER YEAR FOUR MEMBERS AND ONE AT LARGE AND EVERY FOURTH YEAR THE MAYOR. AND THEN THE — THE ONLY HICCUP IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS, YOU HAVE GOT AN EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER. WHICH IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I GUESS IN TERMS OF FOLKS WHO ARE IN THE FOUR DISTRICTS THAT AREN'T UP, THEY WILL JUST BE VOTING AT LARGE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY ARE NOT INVESTIGATE FOR THEIR DISTRICT REP, THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO COME TO THE POLLS EVERY TWO YEARS TO VOTE ON THE AT LARGE.

RIGHT. SO PRESUMABLY, EVERYBODY IN THE CITY WOULD HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO COME TO THE POLLS EVERY TWO YEARS TO VOTE FOR THE AT-LARGE MEMBER. WHICH WOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE A — ONE OF THE — ONE ISSUE IS THAT THE MAYOR WILL ALWAYS COME UP WITH THE SAME SET OF DISTRICTS. WHICH MAY HAVE SOME COLLATERAL EFFECT ON THOSE DISTRICTS. BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE OFFSET BY THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST GOT SOME AT LARGE PEOPLE UP EACH TIME, WHICH WOULD DRAW A CITY-WIDE CONSTITUENCY. EVEN IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

MAYOR GARCIA:? ONE YEAR YOU WOULD HAVE ONE AT LEFT ARM IN FOUR DISTRICTS, THE OTHER YEAR FOUR AT LARGE, FOUR DISTRICTS, ONE AT LEFT ARM APPEARED THE MAYOR.

RIGHT. EXACTLY.

THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO GET THERE WITHOUT CUTTING ANYBODY'S TERM OFF. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. PEOPLE WOULD GO IN KNOWING THAT THEY WILL BE DRAWING LOTS TO GET THEIR TERMS STAGGERED. AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN POINTS THAT OUT, THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL, THE STATE SENATE DOES IT ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS. EVERY 10 YEARS ALL OF THE SENATORS ARE UP, THEY SERVE FOUR YEAR STAGGERED TERMS. EVERY 10 YEARS, ALL 30 SEATS IN THE SENATE ARE UP AND THE — AND THE — AND THEN THEY DRAW LOTS FOR WHO GETS AN INITIAL TWO YEAR TERM, WHO GETS AN INITIAL FOUR YEAR TERM. THEN AT THE END, OF COURSE, IT BALANCES OUT BECAUSE THE DISTRICT THAT GOT THE INITIAL SHORT TERM GETS A — GETS A LONG-TERM AT THE END. THE DISTRICT, IF NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO GOT A LONG-TERM AT THE BEGINNING GETS A SHORT TERM AT THE END. SO IT HAS A WAY OF BALANCING OUT. NOW, ONE THING THAT — THAT I COULD MENTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO — TO DRAW THIS INTO THE CHARTER SO THAT EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER THE REDISTRICTING WE STARTED OVER WITH THE STAGGERING. AND EVERYBODY WAS — STOOD FOR REELECTION AT ONCE ANDREW LOTS FOR TERMS. BUT MOST — AND DREW LOTS FOR TERMS. BUT MOST CITIES DON'T HAVE THAT IN THEIR CHARTER THEY SORT OF ROCK AND ROLL ON THE SUSPICION THAT THE DISTRICT LINES WON'T CHANGE SO MUCH THAT THE DISTRICTS WON'T BECOME UNRECOGNIZABLE. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS IS PUT IN THE CHARTER AS A RESTART EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER THE DICENNIAL CENSUS.

COUNCILMEMBER?

MR. DESIGNER, DO THAT WITH THREE-YEAR TERMS, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WANT TO LENGTHEN THE TERMS. DO WHAT YOU JUST DID WITH THREE YEAR TERMS. BY THE WAY, YOU SAID THAT IT'S UNUSUAL OR UNHEARD OF TO HAVE AN AT LARGE SYSTEM WITH STAGGERED TERMS —

NORKS IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THE OFF YEAR. IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THE THREE YEAR TERM SO THAT WE GO — THAT WE HAVE HALF THE COUNCIL, HALF THE COUNCIL AND — AND A YEAR OFF.

SLUSHER: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR?

NORMALLY, AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR, AN ELECTION EVERY OTHER YEAR.

SLUSHER: WHO HAS AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR.

I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A LIST OF CITIES.

I THINK THAT SAN ANTONIO HAS IT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF —

SLUSHER: THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME. [ LAUGHTER ]

ME NEITHER, SINCE I — I TENDED TO WORK ON THEM.

I THINK THAT'S MORE PRODUCTIVE. AGAIN, DO IT WITH THE — THE WAY WE GOT THAT, THAT WAS A COMPANION TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT, I THINK IT WAS 1985. THE SINGLE-MEMBERS FAILED, THE STAGGERED TERMS PASSED.

YES, SIR. OKAY. NOW, WITH THREE YEAR TERMS, AGAIN, IN 02, IN 02 WE HAVE THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS UP. AND IN '03 PRESUMABLY WE WILL HAVE THREE AT LARGE UP AND ONE MAYOR UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. NOW, IF WE IN '02, WHICH WE WILL, ELECT THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS, THEY ARE GOOD TO GO UNDER THE TERMS THEY ARE ELECTED FOR UNTIL '05 AND THEN IN '03, LET ME SWITCH TO ANOTHER COLOR, WE COULD ELECT, INSTEAD OF THE THREE AT LARGE MEMBERS, WE CAN ELECT EIGHT DISTRICT MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR AND IF WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THREE YEAR TERMS, THE — THE NEXT ELECTION WILL BE '05, SO THE 8 DISTRICT MEMBERS COULD DRAW LOTS FOR TWO YEAR OR THREE YEAR TERMS. SO YOU WILL GET FOUR OF THE MEMBERS, FOUR DISTRICT MEMBERS, GOING UP FOR REELECTION IN '05, AND FOUR — LET ME — LET ME ERASE THIS. AND FOUR DISTRICT MEMBERS UP FOR ELECTION IN '06. ASSUME......ASSUMING WE DON'T WANT TO CUT ONE OF THESE TERMS SHORT. THEN WE WOULD IN 05, WE HAVE GOT TWO — THREE AT LARGE AND — WE HAVE GOT FOUR DISTRICTS UP AND TWO AT LARGE. SO — NOW, THIS WOULD GET INTO A BIT OF AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, BECAUSE ONE OF THE AT LARGE MEMBERS WOULD DRAW LOTS. THEY WOULD BE DRAWING LOTS FOR ONE OR THREE-YEAR TERMS.

SLUSHER: I CAN'T SEE THAT LOW ON YOUR CHART.

LET ME DRAG IT OUT.

OKAY.

NOW, THE MAYOR WILL — IF HE'S ELECTED IN '03 WILL BE GOOD UNTIL '06, SO WE WILL HAVE THE MAYOR UP THIS YEAR. NOW THE — THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS HERE. ONE IS THAT WE ELECT THE TWO AT LARGE IN '05, YOU COULD HAVE THEM DRAW FOR ONE OR THREE YEAR TERMS, OR YOU COULD LET THEM BOTH HAVE THREE-YEAR TERMS SO THAT THE STAGGER WORKED FOUR MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR, FOUR MEMBERS AND THE TWO AT LARGE, FOUR MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR, FOUR MEMBERS AND THE TWO AT LARGE. SO THAT THE MAYOR ALWAYS CAME UP WITH ONE SET OF FOUR AND THE TWO AT LARGE CAME UP WITH THE OTHER SET OF FOUR. OR IF YOU DIDN'T MIND HAVING SOMEBODY HAVE A ONE-YEAR TERM, YOU COULD HAVE IT STAGGERED THE WAY THE MAYOR SUGGESTED SO THAT IT WAS — IT WAS ONE AT LARGE APPEARED THE MAYOR AND FOUR DISTRICTS — AND THE MAYOR AND FOUR DISTRICT AND THEN ONE DISTRICT AND — I MEAN ONE AT LARGE AND FOUR DISTRICTS. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING.

SLUSHER: YEAH, I DO, I'M JUST NOT SURE — I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE ARGUMENTS EITHER WAY ON THAT. HOW THAT — I KNOW WITH THE MAYOR, THERE IS — THERE IS GOING TO BE WITH FOUR DISTRICTS, AND PRESUMABLY THOSE DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE A COUNCILMEMBER UP FOR ELECTION OR COUNCIL SEAT UP FOR ELECTION WOULD HAVE A HIGHER TURNOUT THAN THE DISTRICTS THAT DIDN'T, SO THEY MIGHT HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT ON THE MAYORAL ELECTION. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HAVING THE AT LARGE NRMG HOW THAT PLAYS ON THAT, TOO.

OF COURSE THIS HAPPENS IN A — IN LOTS OF PLACES THAT THE MAYOR REGULARLY COMES UP WITH THE SAME SET OF DISTRICTS. BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY IS THE CASE THAT THE MAYORAL ELECTION PROBABLY DRAWS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ELECTORATE THAN ON NON-MAYORAL YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND YOU CAN START OVER EVERY 10 YEARS SO IT RANDOM MIZES OUT OVER THE GREAT SWEEP OF TIME, BUT THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE.

SO UNDER THIS ONE YOU HAVE THE NEW SYSTEM TOTALLY IN PLACE BY —

THE NEW SYSTEM WOULD BE TOTALLY IN PLACE BY '06. WELL, YES.

SLUSHER: PLUS YOU WOULD HAVE THE TWO, TWO AT LARGE IN '05, EIGHT DISTRICTS ALREADY.

YOU COULD HAVE THE WHOLE SYSTEM FULLY IN PLACE BY '05 IF YOU WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THE TWO AT LARGE WERE THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE MAYOR. SO YOU HAD FOUR DISTRICTS AND THE MAYOR, FOUR DISTRICTS AND TWO AT LARGE, FOUR DISTRICTS AND THE MAYOR, FOUR DISTRICTS AND TWO AT LARGE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BECAUSE IN THAT WAY YOU WILL HAVE THE WHOLE CITY TURNING OUT TO VOTE EVERY TWO YEARS.

EVERY LEAK THE WHOLE CITY WOULD TURN OUT TO BE VOTE.

WHICH WILL BE EVERY TWO —

IT WOULD BE EVERY TWO OUT OF THREE YEARS, SAME AS IT IS NOW.

FOUR YEAR TERMS IT WOULD BE EVERY OTHER YEAR.

THIS WOULDN'T UPSET OUR CURRENT PATTERN OF ELECTIONS IN OFF YEARS. THIS WOULD CHANGE IT SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN ELECTION YEAR, AN OFF YEAR, AN ELECTION YEAR, AN OFF YEAR.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

SLUSHER: WELL, THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE FOR NOW.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND PRESENT THIS TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, HOW SOON CAN WE DO THIS, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO — THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COME TO — TO COME BACK TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL?

EXCUSE ME. ON A SUBMISSION OF THIS MAGNITUDE, WE CAN COUNT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAKING ALL THE TIME THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO. WHICH IS TWO 60 DAY PERIOD. THEY GET AN INITIAL 60-DAY PERIOD. THEM THEY GET A ONE-TIME OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION. THEN THEY GET ANOTHER 60-DAY PERIOD. I WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD TAKE ALL OF THAT. AND THEY WILL ASK FOR A LOT OF INFORMATION IN ORDER TO — TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BURN UP SOME TIME GATHERING IT SO THAT THEY BUY THEMSELVES A LITTLE EXTRA TIME BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO REALLY GO OVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS VERY CAREFULLY. ASSUMING THAT I'M RIGHT ABOUT THAT, THAT THEY WILL TAKE YOU'LL OF THE TIME THAT THEY CAN GET, WE NEED TO WORK BACKWARDS FROM MAY 2003. THE 2003 COUNCIL ELECTION IS ON MAY 3RD, THAT'S WHY I PICKED THAT DATE. THE EARLIEST DAY FOR A PLACE TO FILE ON THE BALLOT FOR THAT YEAR IS GOING TO BE FEBRUARY 17TH. SO PRESUMABLY WE NEED TO BE — HAVE ALL OF OUR DUCKS IN A ROW BY FEBRUARY THE 17TH, SO THAT A PERSON WHO COMES DOWN TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO FILE FOR A PLACE ON THE BALLOT KNOWS WHETHER THEY ARE FILING FOR AN AT-LARGE SEAT IN A SEVEN MEMBER COUNCIL OR A DISTRICT SEAT ON AN 8-2-1 COUNCIL OR WHAT. SO THE — SO THE — SO WE ARE GOING TO REALLY NEED TO KNOW, ABSOLUTELY, BY FEBRUARY 17TH, 2003. ASSUMING THAT JUSTICE TAKES ITS FULL TWO 60 DAY PERIODS, BACKING UP 120 DAYS, PUTS US IN MID OCTOBER OF 2003. BUILDING IN — BUILDING IN TWO OR THREE WEEKS FOR THE — FOR GATHERING NEW INFORMATION, FOR GATHERING THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ASKED FOR WHEN THEY ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION, AND — AND BUILDING IN A COUPLE MORE WEEKS JUST FOR — FOR SNAFUS, WHAT HAVE YOU, BACKS US UP TO THE END OF AUGUST. AROUND — AND SO I THINK THAT IF WE REALLY WANT TO IMPLEMENT THIS IN 2003, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE — TO BE GETTING OUR — OUR SUBMISSION TO D.O.J. AND — AND IT'S SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED BY THE END OF AUGUST. TO HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE OF IMPLEMENTING IT IN 2003. THAT'S IMMINENTLY DOABLE. BUT — BUT THAT'S OUR — THAT'S OUR TIME LINE. IF WE NEED TO HAVE — TO HAVE THE DISTRICTS DRAWN, ALL — EVERYTHING DONE BY — BY AUGUST, AND THEN IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE US A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO PUT THE PACKET TOGETHER. SO — SO I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THE — MID AUGUST TO REALLY HAVE EVERYTHING DONE AND THEN THE END OF AUGUST TO MAKE THE SUBMISSION. AND THEN WE WILL — THEN IT'S JUST WAITING — WAITING OUT THE FIRST 60 DAY PERIOD AND SEEING WHAT THEY WANT IN THE WAY OF MORE INFORMATION. WE WILL, OF COURSE, TRY TO ANTICIPATE EVERYTHING THEY COULD POSSIBLY ASK FOR. WE WILL BE PRETTY SURE THEY WILL ASK FOR 20 YEARS OF ELECTION RETURNS FROM EVERY — FROM AUSTIN AND EVERY OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION WITH ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AND — AND WINNERS IDENTIFIED BY RACE. AND THEY WILL PROBABLY WANT TO — TO SEE — SOME NUMBERS CRUNCHED ON OUR — ON OUR RACIAL POLARIZATION VOTING PATTERNS. THEY WILL WANT — THEY WILL WANT SOME ADDITIONAL CENSUS INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE NOW, LIKE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT. SO WE WILL — WE WILL OF COURSE TRY TO ANSWER PATRIOT ALL OF THAT MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A FULL PACKET WHEN WE SEND IT OFF, THERE WILL BE THINGS THEY ASK FOR, THEY ALWAYS HAVE. A LOT OF THE — YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DRAW TO A LARGE EXTENT ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS CREATED BACK IN THE '97 ANNEXATIONS BECAUSE WE DID CREATE FOR THAT A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION ON RACIAL POLARIZATION VOTING S, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU, JOHN. TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO DIGEST ALL THAT INFORMATION, I'M GOING TO RECESS THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR A LITTLE WHILE. AND THE CITY MANAGER TELLS ME THAT WE NOW HAVE THE INFORMATION ON ITEM NO. 19, AND ITEM NO. 44. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THOSE TWO ITEMS, WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN OF 4:00 FOR ZONING. LET ME RECOGNIZE MS. GLASGO, I THINK MARTY TERRY IS COMING UP TO — TO SIT, IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CHAIR OR SOMEWHERE CLOSE. MAYBE NOT. MS. GLASGO, WELCOME.

GLASGO: THANK YOU, MAYOR AN COUNCILMEMBERS, ALICE GLASGO, DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ZONING CASES FOR TODAY ARE FOLLOWS, ITEM NO. Z-1 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM, C14-01-131, Z-2 THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL THE 11TH. AND THE — THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT POSTPONEMENT. THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT ITEM UNDER 4:00 TO POSTPONE STEM Z-9 TO APRIL THE 11TH, THEN WE CAN BEGIN DISCUSSION ON ITEM NO. Z-1.

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSENT TO WHAT DATE, MS. GLASGO?

APRIL THE 11TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: APRIL THE 11TH. OKAY. ITEM Z-2 IS A CONSENT ITEM FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 11TH. IS THERE A MOTION?

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. BACK TO Z-1.

ITEM NO. Z-1 IS CASE NUMBER C14-01-131, THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 500 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM C.S., WHICH STAPDZ FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AND — TO C.S.-M.U., MULTI-FAMILY 6, FM6. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION HEARD THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WHICH IN TURN THERE WAS A MOTION MADE, BUT THAT MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM VOTE TO FORWARD THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION QUORUM VOTE IS A MINIMUM OF FIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO — TO MOVE — FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE MOTION THAT FAILED WAS TO RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF C.S.-M.U. GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES MIXED USE ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THAT WOULD LIMIT THE STRUCTURE TO — TO THE FIRST FEET UNDER C.S. FROM THE GROUND TO A POINT OF 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE AND THEN THE MULTI-FAMILY 6 ZONING WOULD CONTINUE FROM THAT POINT AND BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT THERE WOULD BE 75 FEET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE COMMISSION ON THIS MOTION ALSO WANTED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 60 AND ALSO REQUIRE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL. THIS IS THE MOTION THAT DID NOT HAVE FIVE VOTES IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE FORWARDED TO YOU. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. I — I SHARE THE MOTION FAILED SO THAT YOU HAVE A BASIS TO AT LEAST BEGIN THINKING ABOUT HOW TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO — IS TO GRANT THE CHANGE IN ZONING FOR C.S. MIXED USE AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE MULTI-FAMILY 6, WHICH WOULD GO ABOVE THE — THE COMMISSION BUILDING TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS TO THE STRUCTURE THAT IS LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL THAT ALLOWS FOR HIGH DENSITY. THE BASIS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT — THAT — THE C.S. ZONING IS APPROPRIATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MIXED USE. THE MULTI-FAMILY 6 FOR AN AREA THAT IS CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY AND JUST NORTH OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WOULD BE FACING BUILDINGS THAT COULD GO UP TO 120 FEET SOUTH OF M.L.K. BOULEVARD UNDER THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE DISTRICT. AND SECONDLY, THE PROPOSED USE HAVE TO — WOULD HAVE PARKING THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE USE WITHIN THE AREA AND WOULD BE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED WHERE YOU HAVE THE MIXED COMPONENT OF THE STRUCTURE, VERY SIMILAR TO THE BROWN BUILDING THAT IS CLOSE TO — TO CITY HALL. THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN USE. I WILL PAUSE HERE AND LET THE APPLICANT MAKE HIS PRESENTATION. I WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. IS IT CURE PROVISIONS APPLY HERE?

GLASGO: NO, SIR, THE CURE DISTRICT DOES NOT EXTEND THIS FAR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE APPLICANT HAS FIVE MINUTES TO GIVE HIS PRESENTATION, THAT'S THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M REPRESENTING THE SUTTON COMPANY THIS AFTERNOON. AS ALICE INDICATED TO YOU, OUR REQUEST IS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM C.S. TO C.S.-M.U. WITH AN M.F.6 DISTRICT ON TOP OF THE C.S., WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE PLACED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE M.F.-6 DISTRICT LIMITING THAT TO 75 FEET IN HEIGHT VERSUS 90. THE 75 FEET IS ONLY 15 FEET ABOVE THE C.S. DISTRICT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE EVALUATED THE SITE LOOKING AT THE USES ADJACENT TO US, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING OUR LOCATION IN THE PROXIMITY TO U.T., WE FELT THIS WAS A PRIME LOCATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL FOR STUDENT HOUSING. WE ARE ONE BLOCK EAST OF GUADALUPE, AND WE ARE ON THE VERY SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS. WE ARE ALSO IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF M.L.K., WHICH IS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, AS ALICE INDICATED FOR THE C.B.D. AND D.M.U. DISTRICT. THOSE DISTRICTS ALLOW 120-FOOT HEIGHT AND THE OTHER IS UNLIMITED RESPECTIVELY. THE — THE USE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE BEING RESIDENTIAL, WILL GENERATE LESS TRAFFIC THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THIS SITE. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY A — A GAS STATION, A CHEVRON GAS STATION WITH A CAR REPAIR EXTENSION TO THAT. THEY HAD A WRECKER SERVICE THERE AS WELL. THIS WILL GENERATE LESS TRAFFIC THAN THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT USES, FAST FOOD RESTAURANT USES THAT COULD BE DONE OVER THE BASE C.S. DISTRICT. WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION ON THIS CASE. WE HAVE ALSO MET WITH THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS, WE HAVE — WE HAVE THEIR APPROVAL. WE HAVE HEARD FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE PROJECT AND HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM ONE ON ONE. WE HAVE — WE HAVE THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL. WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AND — AN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM? THANK YOU, SIR. MR. STRMISKA.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE, MR. MIKE McHONE FROM THE UNIVERSITY AREA OF PARTNERS, MR. R. STEVEN McNALLEY. IS HE HERE? YOU ARE NEXT. MR. McHONE, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MIKE McHONE, I'M HERE REPRESENTING UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THIS AREA. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET OUR CONCERNS. WE — WE EVALUATED THIS SITE. OUR CONCERNS WERE THAT IT WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HERE THAN TO HAVE A — ANOTHER FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND — IN THIS TWO-BLOCK STRETCH FROM LAVACA TO NUECES, I GUESS IT'S ABOUT A 3 BLOCK STRETCH DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LINE UP GUADALUPE STREET. WE HAVE ABOUT SIX FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, TWO CONVENIENCE STORES, TWO GAS STATIONS, THOSE KINDS OF HIGH VEHICULAR USES ARE DETRIMENTAL TO A PEDESTRIAN CAMPUS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. WE FELT THAT THIS WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF THAT SITE. WE HAVE CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DONE AND PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BEFORE THE DEVELOPER AND UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS. THOSE INVOLVE PRIMARILY PEDESTRIAN ISSUES. WE WOULD LIKE THE 23RD STREET PLAN THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS SUPPORTED AS A DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE STREET EDGES OF THIS PROJECT. WE WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE NO CURB CUT ON TO M.L.K. WE WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE SEPARATED PARKING FOR THE RETAIL AND THE RESIDENTIAL SO THAT YOU DON'T GET THE RETAIL NOT HAVING THE PARKING WHEN PEOPLE ARRIVE. WE WOULD LIKE FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS TO BE INSTALLED. WE HAVE ONE OF THE FEW SITUATIONS IN TOWN WHERE YOU HAVE AN ALLEY THAT ACTUALLY HAS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. AND THE AL— IN THE ALLEY BEHIND THIS PROJECT BETWEEN NUECES AND SAN ANTONIO IS USED FOR TRAFFIC. WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE A CROSS WALK MORE LIKE A STREET. WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, WE FELT THAT THIS PROJECT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN AND THE FACT THAT IN THE AUSTIN PLAN, WHICH WAS A PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE — ALL OF THE CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOODS FROM 53RD SOUTH TO TOWN LAKE, BACK IN THE 198 ON'S, THAT THIS AREA WAS RECOMMENDED FOR — FOR DENSITY OF LEVEL OF 9, WHICH WAS A 5 TO 1 F.A.R. 18,000 SQUARE FEET, 60 UNIONS, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 120 UNITS PER ACRE, WE THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND THOSE SORTS OF SCALING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS OR MYSELF I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. McHONE? QUESTIONS FOR MR. McHON? THANK YOU, SIR. MR. McNALLEY. GREG, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

HI, MY NAME IS STEVEN MCNALLEY, I LIVE ON THIS BLOCK AND OWN THE PROPERTY HERE, SO I COME DOWN THIS ALLEY, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS A ONE-WAY ALLEY, WHENEVER I LEAVE THE AREA. AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH — WITH THE AREA. THE — I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD TAX THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT THE PARKING REQUIRED BY THE CODE IS ACTUALLY INADEQUATE FOR HOW MANY CARS IN MY EXPERIENCE STUDENTS BRING, SO THAT —

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU MOVE THE MIC CLOSER TO YOUR —

I'M SORRY. SO THE ISSUE THAT — OF HOW THIS WILL TAX US ON THE BLOCK, AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE — WITH THAT MANY UNITS OF PEOPLE THERE, THEY WILL HAVE MORE CARS THAN WILL FIT INTO THE GARAGE, AS IT IS PLANNED. MY REQUEST WOULD BE TO — TO REQUIRE AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ANOTHER FLOOR, — ANOTHER FLOOR IN THE PARKING GARAGE, TO ADD ANOTHER FLOOR OF PARKING. IT IS NOT — WHAT WILL THAT WILL DO FOR US IS ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING FOR EVERYBODY IN THE BUILDING THAT NEEDS A PLACE, THERE MAY EVEN BE SOME SPACES TO LEASE. THE — THE — AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT GOES, THE HEIGHT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH ME. I THINK IF IT — IF THEY WANT TO TAKE IT HIGHER THAT'S FINE. ACTUALLY, IF STUDENTS LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DON'T NEED TO DRIVE THEIR CARS TO GO TO SCHOOL. SO — SO WHEREAS IF THEY LIVED SOMEPLACE ELSE, ME NEED TO DRIVE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR A NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY TO USE THEIR CARS. ALSO, I THINK THAT — THAT WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, I'M NOT SURE HOW SOON, WE WILL HAVE MASS TRANSIT AVAILABLE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, WHICH IS ENOUGH FREQUENCY THAT PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY WANT TO RIDE IT. TO DO THAT YOU NEED TO START WITH SOME HEIGHT. PEOPLE TAKE EITHER MASS TRANSIT, EITHER BUSES OR LIGHT RAIL, WHATEVER, WHEN — TO GET FROM ONE TALL BUILDING TO ANOTHER. THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT WHEN THEY COME ALONG OFTEN ENOUGH FOR IT TO BE WORTH IT. I THINK IN TERMS OF THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG. WHEN THE OFTEN ENOUGH HAPPENS, IT'S GOING TO BE WHEN YOU HAVE THE TALL BUILDINGS, THEN YOU WILL GET THE TRANSIT. AT THAT POINT MAYBE WE CAN START TO TINKER BACK OR TO CUT BACK WITH THE PARKING, THERE WON'T BE AS MUCH NECESSARY. BUT AT THIS POINT PEOPLE, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MASS TRANSIT FOR PEOPLE NOT TO SEE THE PARKING AS NECESSARY AND THEY DO BRING THEIR CARS. MY REQUEST WOULD BE TO GIVE THEM — TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FROM 75 FEET TO ENOUGH HIGHER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO ADD ANOTHER FLOOR OF PARKING. I TALKED TO THE DEVELOPERS ABOUT IT, THEY SAID, WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER FLOOR OF — OF RESIDENTIAL IF WE DO THAT. I THINK THAT USES UP MOST OF THE PARKING — [BUZZER SOUNDING] —

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. McNALLEY. MR. STRMISKA, THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO MR. McHONE'S AND MR. McNALLEY'S COMMENTS REGARDING MR. Mc HOEPS REQUEST FROM THE — McHONE'S REQUEST FROM THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTERS. WE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE SECOND AND THIRD READING. WITH REGARD TO MR. MCNALLEY'S COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THOSE, WHEN WE AGREED TO THE 75 FOOT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT, WE ALSO HAD TO GO UNDERGROUND WITH TWO LEVELS OF PARKING. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE — THAT WE DO HAVE ALL OF THE REQUIRED PARKING CONTAIN WITHIN THE STRUCTURE AND BELOW GRADE. WE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATE, BASED ON OUR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL USES HERE AND THAT EQUATES WITH — WITH SOME PROJECTIONS ON RETAIL FOR THE FIRST FLOOR, SUCH AS A DELI OR SO FORTH, THAT WE WOULD NEED APPROXIMATELY 144 SPACES. WE HAVE VERIFIED THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT WITHIN THE BUILDING. WE DO CONTAIN, WE DO HAVE ALL OF THE REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE — WITHIN THIS FACILITY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MS. GLASGO?

GLASGO: YES, COUNCILMEMBER.

ALVAREZ: MS. GLASGO, I GUESS WE ARE TALKING 60 UNITS HERE. AND 0.4 ACRES APPARENTLY.

GLASGO: CORRECT. AGENTS OVER 17,000 SQUARE FEET IF YOU CONVERT IT TO SQUARE FEET. A LITTLE OVER.

ALVAREZ: TYPICALLY, UNDER — —

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE TAKE CARE OF THE FEEDBACK, PLEASE?

ALVAREZ: TYPICALLY, UNDER M.F.4, WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE UNITS PER ACRE?

UNDER M.F.4 ZONING THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE OPEN SPACE AND THAT WOULD — THERE — THEY WILL ACHIEVE ON THIS SITE JUST 14 UNITS UNM.F.4 IF YOU APPLY THAT ZONING DISTRICT. UNDER M.F.4.

AND WHAT UNDER M.F.4 THE F.A.R. IS 7.5. WHAT F.A.R. ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE.

WITH A MULTI — WE ARE NOT USING F.A.R. AT ALL BECAUSE REALLY YOU WOULD BE USING THE MINIMUM SITE REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH WOULD BE ASSUMING ONE OR TWO DETERMINE UNITS AT 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN — OF MINIMUM SITE AREA. THAT'S WHAT GIVES YOU THE 14 — THE 1400 AS OPPOSED TO FLOOR TO AREA RATIO.

ALVAREZ: SURE. BUT I GUESS THEORETICALLY UNDER M.F.4 IF THE SITE IS BIG ENOUGH, IT CAN HAVE UP TO .75F.A.R.

CORRECT, THE F.A.R. WOULD BE .75 —

ALVAREZ: BUT UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, WITH THE 75 FEET, AND I ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING UP MOST OF THE SITE AREA —

GLASGO: CORRECT. WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HIGH RISE WITH MIXED USE IN IT, THE FIRST 30 FEET OR SO WILL BE YOUR RETAIL COMPONENT, PLUS POSSIBLY SOME RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. THEN BEYOND THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE PURE RESIDENTIAL.

ALVAREZ: SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT CALCULATION, WHAT THE F.A.R. IS?

GLASGO: FOR THE — WE ARE ASSUMING APPROXIMATELY, MAYBE 5,000 — I DON'T KNOW IF GREG HAS IT. WE DON'T HAVE DETAILED, HE MAY HAVE RAN THOSE NUMBERS. YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE BUILDING. YOU ARE MIXING, YOU HAVE TO BE MIXING REALLY DIFFERENT — YOU KNOW, YOUR FLOOR TO AREA RATIO FOR YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR YOUR RETAIL PART. THEN WHEN YOU GO ABOVE TO THE SECOND LEVEL, YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL. SO UNDER THE M.F.4 DISTRICT FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, YOU GET TO REALLY USE YOUR UNITS PER ACRE TO CALCULATE THE DENSITY UNDER M.F.4 AND NOT FLOOR TO AREA RATIO. WHEREAS THE RETAIL BELOW USES THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO BECAUSE IT'S THE INTENSITY. JUST DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. SO ON THE SAME SITE, THOUGH. DOES THAT —

ALVAREZ: WELL, I FIGURE WE COULD CALCULATE IT SOMEHOW IF WE KNOW THE — THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, HOW HIGH IT IS, THERE SHOULD BE A WAY OF CALCULATING IT.

CORRECT, WE CAN —

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC].

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU ADJUST THE MIC FOR COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE.

ALVAREZ: THEY ARE WORKING ON IT. SEEMS TO BE WORKING.

COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. ALICE JUST POINTED OUT THAT THE F.A.R. UNDER THE M.F.4 DISTRICT IS .75 TO 1. UNDER THE M.F.6 THERE IS A — THERE IS NOT A LIMITATION ON F.A.R. I BELIEVE WHEN WE TAKE THE C.S. USE IN A COMBINING — MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT, THAT THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT PER UNIT IS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOUR — YOUR M.F.4 LIMITATION. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE F.A.R., IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SITE, YOU CAN'T GET THERE. WE DID — MR. FWURN SEE DID A ROUGH — GUERNSEY DID A ROUGH CALCULATION OF M.F.4, I BELIEVE CAME UP WITH 14 TO 17 UNITS, SOMEWHERE IN THERE. ACTUALLY I THINK IT WILL BE LESS THAN THAT BY THE TIME WE FACTOR IN THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT UNDER M.F.6, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE 60 UNITS PER ACRE UNDER THAT CATEGORY AFTER WE REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO 75 FEET. WE DID LOSE SOME AFTER REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING BY TWO LEVELS.

GLASGO: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, I HAVE SOME NUMBERS FOR YOU. UNDER THE .75F.A.R. FOR YOUR RETAIL, YOU WILL GET APPROXIMATELY — .75 F.A.R. FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, YOU GET 13,068 SQUARE FEET. UNDER THE .7 F.A.R. THAT WOULD BE YOUR TOTAL, YOUR MAXIMUM BUILDING RIGHT THERE. UNDER THE — UNDER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, THEY ARE PROPOSING A 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE RETAIL, THAT EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY .29 F.A.R. GIVEN THE MIX.

ALVAREZ: WHAT WAS THAT OTHER FIGURE YOU QUOTED?

GLASGO: THE — THE .29.

ALVAREZ: THE PREVIOUS ONE?

GLASGO: PREVIOUS WAS ON .75 F.A.R. YOU GET 13,068 SQUARE FEET. SQUARE FOOTAGE JUST — WITH THAT, THAT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED OBVIOUSLY BASED ON THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND HENCE REQUEST YOU HAVE THE — WHY YOU HAVE THE TENTATIVE PROPOSAL OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE ABLE TO PARK WITHIN THE FACILITY, ALSO.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THANK YOU.

GLASGO: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS ON THE AGENDA FOR FIRST READING.

GLASGO: FIRSTRYING ONLY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: DURING THE TESTIMONY I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEONE TALK ABOUT HOW STUDENTS WOULD BE WALKING TO THEIR DESTINATION FROM HERE. AND I'M THINKING THAT THEIR DESTINATION IS STILL A COUPLE THREE BLOCKS AWAY, BUT THAT SOMEBODY EXPECTS THEM TO WALK AND ASSUMES THEY WILL AND THAT THEY WILL NOT DRIVE THERE AND PARK CLOSER THAN WHERE THEY ARE. SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF I WERE AT THE UNIVERSITY I WOULD WALK NORTH OF SAN ANTONIO TO WEST 21ST AND MOVE, WHAT, EAST ON 21ST. I WOULD NOT TRY TO CROSS THE STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF GUADALUPE AND MLK. THAT INTERSECTION IS PEDESTRIAN UNFRIENDLY.

SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT FOR A WHILE. WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE AT SUCH A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA THAT — WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AT THE DRAG, THAT'S VERY PEDESTRIAN UNFRIENDLY THERE. PERHAPS IF WE COULD CHANGE THE TIMING ON THOSE LIGHTS A LITTLE BIT WHERE SOMEBODY COULD WALK ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE STREET WITHOUT THE LIGHT CHANGES. I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR, I DID HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: ON THE PARKING ISSUE, WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY PROVIDING, WHAT'S PROVIDED BY THE CODE?

MY UNDERSTANDING AT THIS POINT IS WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE CODE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 142 AND 145 SPACES. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE RETAIL, SO THAT'S ON THE RETAIL OBVIOUSLY IS CLOSED IN THE EVENING AND THAT PARKING WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE ALSO FOR PUBLIC USE.

ALVAREZ: I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT ON FIRST READING, BUT PERSONALLY I THINK THE DENSITY IS TOO HIGH, BUT I CAN DISCUSS IT FOR MYSELF BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS FOR FIRST READING WITH 10 CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ITEMS ADDED, 10 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ITEMS, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO.

SLUSHER: FOR MY RECORDS, WHO SECONDED THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SECOND WAS DONE BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU MADE THE MOTION AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS SECONDED IT. COUNCIL, WE ARE READY ON ITEMS 17, 19 AND 44, AND I UNDERSTAND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT — THE CITY MANAGER THAT WE CAN MOVE TO THOSE EXPEDITIOUSLY.

WE CERTAINLY CAN.

IF I CAN, ALICE — I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF AT THE PASS. I HAD ORIGINALLY INDICATE AND WE WERE ACTUALLY POSTED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17. THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION REALLY IS NOT THAT NECESSARY. AND THE REASON WHY I NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT IS BECAUSE AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE WENT BACK — THE STAFF WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THESE 1704 ISSUES AGAIN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ASSOCIATION. AND IN REVIEWING THAT, WHAT THE STAFF DETERMINED WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL 1704 RULING WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A PLAT THAT HAD AN INDICATION OF TRIPLEX ON IT. THAT IS A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. WHEN THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU ON FIRST READING, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU IS THE DUPLEX PROJECT AT THAT TIME, AND THAT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECT. AND THE STAFF HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECT AND NOT MULTI-FAMILY THAT IT IS A NEW PROJECT. AND IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DUPLEX ARRANGEMENT OR A SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECT ARRANGEMENT, THAT IS GOING TO BE A NEW PROJECT AND IT DOES NOT HAVE 1704 RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO TELL YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT APPLICANT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AWARE OF THAT AND I THINK IT JUST SORT OF EXPEDITES THINGS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT HERE AND NOW. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT PROBABLY ANSWERS ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD IN TERMS OF 1704 RIGHTS THAT MIGHT ATTACH IN THIS ZONING APPLICATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS SHOULD MAKE THE MEDIA ECSTATIC BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO LET ME SAY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT HAD A QUESTION ON THIS ONE?

SLUSHER: THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR. SO MS. TERRY, ARE YOU THEN SAYING THAT AS NOW PROPOSED THIS COMES UNDER S.O.S.?

MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IT IS FULLY S.O.S. COMPLIANT. AND THERE HAS BEEN AN ACCOMMODATION REACHED WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND I BELIEVE MS. GLASGO READY TO PRESENT THAT ACCOMMODATION. BUT THE ACCOMMODATION IS FULLY S.O.S. COMPLIANT.

SLUSHER: AND IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE S.O.S. BECAUSE IT'S A NEW PROJECT UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL.

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ALL OF THEM REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. AND I'LL READ THEIR NAMES. MIRIAMMUSTAVIER. IT SOUNDS FRENCH TO ME F I MISPRONOUNCED IT, EXCUSE ME. MR. W.M. WILLIAMS DONATING THE TIME TO DONNA DAY LA CRUZ. MS. DONNA DAY LA CRUZ IS IN FAVOR OF. AND MR. EDWARD SCHULTZ, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. SO I THINK WE'RE READY TO PASS THIS ONE, SO UNLESS YOU JUST HAVE A EXULTION TO WANT — COMPULSION TO GET US TO VOTE AGAINST IT — MS. GLASGO?

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, ALICE GLASGO. I JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE PREPARED REFLECTS THE AGREEMENT REACHED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HERE TODAY, BUT IS MAINLY THE OAK HILL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THE AGREEMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL'S MOTION ON FIRST READING, WHICH IS SINGLE-FAMILY 2, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW DUPLEXES. WITH THAT ZONING THEY WOULD LIKE THE — THE ACCESS TO THAT STREET BE PROHIBITED AND THE APPLICANT WOULD PROCEED WITH SEEKING THE APPROPRIATE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE HANDLED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE YOU OR THE ZONING ACTION. IT'S A SEPARATE ACTION. BUT THEY RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. BUT FOR ZONING PURPOSES, SINGLE-FAMILY 2, PROHIBITING ACCESS TO BREVY PASS. AND THAT WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH IT AND THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PASSED OUT TO YOU FOR REVIEW.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

THIS IS FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 17. MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

IS THE APPLICANT HERE, MS. GLASGO?

YES, SHE IS HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

SLUSHER: COULD YOU COME UP JUST A SECOND? SO YOU AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S — THAT THIS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH S.O.S.?

YES, IT IS, AND THE RESULTING IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE UNDER 12%.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? THERE'S A MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING. ITEM NUMBER 19, THE RESOLUTION BY TXDOT FOR CONSTITUENT'S 10% PARTICIPATION OF RIGHT AWAYS. AND MR. TOMMY EAT TON TALKED ABOUT THE BICYCLE RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEM — I MEAN BICYCLE AND SIDEWALKS. AND WE HAVE A RESOLUTION HERE THAT I THINK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, HAD ASKED FOR. WHICH IS NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THESE PROJECTS AS VITAL TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND RESPONDS TO THE NEED OF THE COMMUNITY AND HEARTILY ENDORSES THE FUNDING OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON MARCH 28TH. TOMMY, DO YOU REMEMBER WHICH INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH?

LUSHER: MAYOR, I CAN TELL YOU WHERE IT IS. THEY HAVE UNDER THE THIRD WHEREAS, ONE, TWO, THREE AT THE END OF EACH OF THESE THROW SENTENCES IT SAYS, AND WHERE APPROPRIATE INSTALL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. SO I WOULD THINK THE WAY WE COULD HANDLE IT WOULD BE TO USE THE SAME LANGUAGE AND AT THE END OF OUR RESOLUTION, WHICH IS WORDED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, IT'S ONLY ONE PARAGRAPH — I THINK THAT IT'S ONE SENTENCE. THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER SENTENCE THAT SAYS THE CITY RECOMMENDS INSTALLATION OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES WHERE APPROPRIATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A MOTION?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. EATON FOR BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE COULD WALK ALONG THIS STRETCH OF ROAD ON THE FEEDER ROAD. AND IF THERE AREN'T WALKS THERE, THEN THEY EITHER HAVE TO WALK IN TALL GRASS OR POTENTIALLY TALL GRASS OR WORSE THAN THAT, COME OUT ON THE FEEDER ROAD ITSELF. SO THAT'S TRULY A PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE TXDOT TO PUT IN THE SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLE FACILITIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: PARTICULARLY THAT AREA FROM THE LIVER TO HIGHWAY 71 IS ONE WHERE CITIZENS HAVE ASKED COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF SAFETY. SO I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, YOUR INTEREST AND YOUR INITIATIVE ON THIS ONE. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YES, IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO COMMEND MR. EATON ALSO FOR THE GOOD WORK OF MAKING SURE THAT WE — WE SUPPORT TXDOT IN THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION? CITY MANAGER?

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR FOR COUNCIL THAT THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION BY THE CITY REMAINS THE SAME, BUT WHERE APPROPRIATE WE'LL MAKE SURE WE INCLUDE THAT IN FUTURE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT FORTH.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER MAKING THE MOTION AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS SECONDING. ITEM NUMBER 44. CITY MANAGER? THIS IS THE ITEM THAT RELEASES THE ETJ.

I CHECKED — FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO AAPOLOGIZE OF NOT GETTING WITH Y'ALL AND BRIEFING YOU IN MORE DEPTH ON THIS. THESE TRACTS WE'RE RELEASING ARE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG CUL-DE-SAC, SO IT IS REALLY — THESE ARE REALLY SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. I CHECKED WITH BEE CAVE DEVELOPMENT FOLKS AND, OF COURSE, I SAID THEIR INTENT IS TO ANNEX THIS AS SOON AS IT GETS RELEASED OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. SO THEY HAVE 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR SINGLE-FAMILY UNDER THEIR ZONING AND 20% FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THEIR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE 20 AND 20. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, IT WOULD BE 40, BUT I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP I CAN SHOW YOU IT A LITTLE BETTER. THESE TRACTS ARE AT THE END OF A VERY LONG CUL-DE-SACS IN THE HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION, SO THERE'S REALLY NO — NO REAL POTENTIAL FOR THEM TO BE REDEVELOPED AND CERTAINLY NOT TO BE REDEVELOPED AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY. SO IT'S 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER UNDER THE BEE CAVE REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: WHICH IS THE SAME AS S.O.S.?

THIS ZONING, YES.

SLUSHER: WHAT'S SOUTH OF THERE?

SOUTH OF THERE IS AUSTIN ETJ.

SLUSHER: BUT WHAT'S IN THERE? IT LOOKS PRETTY BLANK ON THAT MAP.

THAT'S THE BASE COVERAGE, SO IT'S PRETTY BLANK TO THE SOUTH OF THERE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? ANYBODY? ANY VOLUNTEERS TO MAKE A MOTION?

ALVAREZ: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IF FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. UNLESS THERE'S ANY AN TENTIONS. OKAY. LET ME ANNOUNCE A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS BEEN WORKING ON ITEM 9-F AND G. AND SHE HAS REQUESTED THAT ACTION ON THESE ITEMS BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE 21ST OF MARCH. SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR ITEMS 9-F AND G, WE PROBABLY CAN TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY COUNCIL ACTION. SO LET ME SEE HOW MANY OF YOU ARE HERE ON ITEMS 9 AND 10. WE HAVE 12 SPEAKERS. MR. YANELLO, CAN YOU COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE? HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM?

THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S CONCERNS? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SHE —

I HEARD ONE CONCERN AND WE DRAFTED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD FIX THAT, AND IT APPARENTLY DIDN'T.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS SHE AVAILABLE? LET ME EXPLAIN THAT. THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS 9-F AND G. MR. SCOTT HANSON IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. MARY RUTH ALSHIRE WANTS ME TO READ THE FOLLOWING. PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION REPRESENTED BY ANNE. THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD AND POLICE RECORDS AND OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR POLICE OFFICERS. CHARLIE WILKINSON IS HERE, REGISTERED AGAINST. HE IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I'LL RECOGNIZE HIM AT THAT TIME. MS. YANELLO IS HERE IN FAVOR OF AND REGISTERED TO SPEAK. MISTY LESUGARA, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK ON F AND G, OR JUST ON 9?

[ INAUDIBLE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: A, B, C AND D. OKAY. JIM WALKER SHEER TO SPEAK ON C. — IS HERE TO SPEAK ON C. AND ALSO ON F. AND HE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT HE IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF F. MR. WILLIAM HAROLD IS HERE WISHING TO SPEAK AND ALSO WISHES TO DONATE TIME TO MR. SCOTT HANSON. AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT YOU CANNOT DO BOTH. YOU CAN EITHER DONATE YOUR TIME OR YOU CAN SPEAK. DONATE. SO YOU DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK. JENNIFER GALE IS REGISTERED WANTING TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 9. THERE YOU ARE, MAYOR PRO TEM. AND TOMMY EATON DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT HE WANTS TO READ THE FOLLOWING: OUR POLICE FORCE CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE IF IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RESPECT AND THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE WHICH IT SHOULD BE PROTECTING AND SERVING. POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, READ ACCOUNTABILITY, CAN HELP TO INSPIRE THE RESPECT AND CONFIDENCE, THIS RESPECT AND CONFIDENCE. FURTHERMORE, AUSTIN SHOULD NOT BECOME A REFUGE FOR THE FEW POLICE OFFICERS WHO WANT TO HIDE FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY. AS LONG AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN ALLOWS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE, SECRET PERSONNEL FILE, WE ARE INVITING POLICE OFFICERS TO COME TO AUSTIN, MISUSE THEIR AUTHORITY AND HIDE BEHIND A VEIL OF SECRECY. PLEASE VOTE FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. MAYOR PRO TEM, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MEM RAN DUMB — THE MEMO SENT AROUND TO ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?

GOODMAN: WHAT I HAD, AND MS. YANELLO KNOWS ABOUT, THAT WE WERE WORKING ON LANGUAGE THAT MIGHT NOT COMPROMISE THE LABOR PROTECTION AND SOME ISSUES THAT I WOULD RATHER NOT CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR. AND WHAT I REALIZED AS I WAS PUTTING THE LANGUAGE DOWN AND WRITING IT ALL OUT IS THAT THERE WAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT LEGAL QUESTION THAT I HAD NOT GOTTEN AN ANSWER BACK ON, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH WORDING AND IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OR POSSIBILITY OF A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT KIND OF WORDING USED. AND SO SINCE WE HAVE UNTIL THE 21ST, THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE LAST DATE BECAUSE THE PRINTERS — TO GET THE FINAL LANGUAGE DOWN ON THE BALLOT, I HAD ASKED COUNCIL IF THEY WOULD BEAR WITH ME SINCE WE'RE NOT HAVING A MEETING NEXT WEEK TO TAKE FINAL ACTION OR TO WAIT AND LOOK AT MY LANGUAGE ON THAT THURSDAY. AND I HADN'T TOLD ANYBODY YET BECAUSE I WAS ONLY SITTING HERE TRYING TO WRITE IT UP HIRE.

MAYOR, I WISH I COULD KNOW THE CONCERN THAT WAS LEFT UNSTATED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THE COUNCIL — THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS REQUESTED THAT SHE BE GIVEN TIME, AND TRADITIONALLY THE COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS GRANTED THOSE REQUESTS. SO WE WILL TAKE UP THE ITEM ON THE 21ST AFTER THE MAYOR PRO TEM DRAFTS THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE WANTS THE CITIZENS AND THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T EVEN TRY TO OPPOSE A POSTPONEMENT OF SOMETHING WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS MORE TIME, I JUST WISH I KNEW WHAT THE ISSUE WAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO —

THREE MINUTES?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE ITEM TODAY, SO I WILL RECOGNIZE THE 21ST.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, IF NOBODY MIND, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS. I WOULDN'T MIND HEARING, EVEN THOUGH I THINK THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND REMADE AND I THINK ALSO ALL THE ISSUES RELEVANT TO THIS HAVE BEEN MADE IN ONE DISCUSSION OR ANOTHER, SO THERE ARE NO SURPRISES COMING FROM ME EITHER, I DON'T THINK.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WANT TO HEAR THEM NOW?

GOODMAN: I WOULDN'T MIND HEARING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. SCOTT HANSON, WHO HAS ACTUALLY SIX MINUTES BECAUSE MR. WILLIAM HAROLD HAS DONATED THREE MINUTES TO HIM. MR. HANSON, WELCOME, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. I WILL TRY AND BE RELATIVELY BRIEF BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS THE FULL PROPOSALS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE. AND UNTIL WE SEE THE FINAL LANGUAGE IT WILL BE HARD TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT LET ME START BY SAYING THAT LAST YEAR JUST ABOUT A YEAR AGO TOMORROW IN FACT, ON MARCH EIGHTH OF LAST YEAR, MORE THAN 100 AUSTIN CITIZENS CAME AND ASKED FOR INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL, ACLU FELT AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD BEEN BASICALLY THE VICTIMS OF A BAIT AND SWITCH. THAT WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE POFG, POLICE OVERSIGHT FOCUS GROUP, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED. MORE OPEN RECORDS. AND THEN DURING THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS, ALL OF THOSE PROVISIONS WERE STRIPPED OUT. WHAT WE HAVE BROUGHT TO YOU IS — ARE BASICALLY JUST A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE STRIPPED OUT OF THE AGREEMENT LAST YEAR. I WANT TO TALK FOR THE MOST PART HERE ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR QUESTION. A NUMBER OF FOLKS HAVE SAID THE CRITICS OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT WE NEED TO GIVE TIME TO LET THE MET AND CONFER PROCESS WORK, LET THE SYSTEM WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET UP. BUT WHAT WE HAVE ASKED YOU TO DO IS NOT IMPLEMENT THESE CHARTER AMENDMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE CURRENT MEET AND CONFER PROCESS ENDS. WE'RE NOT SAYING IMPLEMENT IT TODAY AND VIOLATE THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS, THROW THAT CONTRACT OUT THE WINDOW. WE'RE SAYING WAIT UNTIL THAT PROCESS IS OVER, WHEN IT WOULD TERMINATE ANYWAY, IT WOULD END, IT WOULD NOT EXIST AFTER THAT CONTRACT EXPIRES. AND AT THAT POINT ANY NEW SYSTEM WOULD HAVE THE NEW PROVISIONS THAT WE'VE ASKED YOU TO PUT IN THE CHARTER. SO IT'S NOT THE CASE, AS THE STATESMAN MISLEADINGLY SAID, THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD KILL THE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM. AT NO TIME WOULD THE AMENDMENTS OVERLAP WITH THE CURRENT OVERSIGHT SYSTEM. THEY WOULD NOT BE IN EFFECT AT THE SAME TIME. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE AT THE LAST MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, AND I WILL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE LEGAL CONCERNS ARE WITH THE PROPOSAL, BECAUSE THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT LAST WEEK TOLD CITY COUNCIL THAT WHILE THEY DID HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE OPEN RECORDS PROVISION, WHICH I'LL SPEAK TO IN A MOMENT, THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS, QUOTE, NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, INDEPENDENT BOARD. AND SO IF CITY LEGAL HAS COME UP WITH NEW LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS THAT DIDN'T EXIST LAST WEEK OR THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE OF OR THAT SOMEONE HAS SHOWN THEM SINCE THEN, THEN WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD — WERE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK. I WANT TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE THAT THE PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT. I KNOW THAT Y'ALL SAW THAT LAST YEAR WHEN MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE SHOWED UP TO SPEAK. IF YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING AT YOUR E-MAIL RECENTLY, I KNOW ACLU HAS BEEN CC AGO ON OVER 100 E-MAILS TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IN SUPPORT OF THESE AMENDMENTS. THE LAST OPINION POLLING THAT I SAW ON THE MATTER STATED THAT 87% OF AUSTIN CITIZENS SUPPORT CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO THERE'S STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THIS. AND I'M HOPING THAT Y'ALL WILL RESPECT THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN A PROBLEM, RECOGNIZED A PROBLEM, WOULD LIKE SOMETHING TO BE DONE. I ALSO THINK THAT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT HE WILL WANT TO ALL THIS — ELEMENT TO ALL THIS IS NOT THAT YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, GET TO APPOINT THE BOARD INSTEAD OF THE CITY MANAGER. ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I DO THINK THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC THAN THE CITY MANAGER IS. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS IT WOULD ACTUALLY ENSHINE THE POLICE MONITOR IN CONSTITUENT CHARTER, SO THAT EVEN THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THAT POSITION, THE DUTIES OF AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT POSITION COULD STILL BE HASHED OUT IN PART IN MEET AND CONFER, THE EXISTENCE OF THE POLICE MONITOR WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED AND REAPPROVED EVERY THREE YEARS. ALREADY HERE IN THE LAST THREE DAYS YOU'VE HEARD THE POLICE ASSOCIATION IN A PRESS CONFERENCE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO — IF SUCH AND SUCH HAPPENS, THEN WE JUST WON'T HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT ANY MORE. WELL, THAT'S THE KIND OF THREAT THAT CAN BE HELD OVER THE COUNCIL'S HEAD EVERY THREE YEARS DURING MEET AND CONFER. AND WHILE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO NEGOTIATE SOME ELEMENTS OF OVERSIGHT PERHAPS, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POLICE UNION VETO POWER OVER WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT. THAT SHOULD BE A CITY COUNCIL DECISION. LET'S SEE. THAT IS ABOUT ALL I HAD ON THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF Y'ALL HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AMENDMENT, MORE SO EVEN THAN THE OTHER ONES, BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE'S BEEN JUST A WHOLE LOT OF DISINFORMATION PUT OUT ABOUT THIS THING. IT'S REALLY AN ABSURD AMOUNT. IT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER THAT AUSTIN VOTERS MADE THIS DECISION TO CLOSE THESE RECORDS IN 1947 WHEN THEY VOTED TO GO INTO THE CIVIL SERVICE. WELL, THAT IS JUST AN ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, QUITE HONESTLY, YES, AUSTIN VOTERS APPROVED CIVIL SERVICE IN 1947 AND THEN IN 1973 THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE CREATED THE TEXAS OPEN RECORDS ACT AND OPENED UP RECORDS AT POLICE CIVIL SERVICE CITIES. [ BUZZER SOUNDS ] IN 1987 THE LEGISLATURE CLOSED THOSE RECORDS AT THE BEHEST OF CLEAT AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIONS, BUT AUSTIN HAS NEVER VOTED TO CLOSE RECORDS. AUSTIN — THOSE RECORDS WERE CLOSED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF AUSTIN VOTERS. THAT'S ALL I HAD. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HANSON? THANK YOU, SIR. I ALREADY READ INTO THE RECORD THE STATEMENT BY MARY ALESHIRE. CHARLIE WILKINSON? AND FOLLOWING MR. WILKINSON IS AN DELLIAN KNOW. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CHARLIE WILKINSON WITH COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF TEXAS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THERE. FIRST, NOBODY SAID AT ANY PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THIS WEEK OR ANY OTHER TIME THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT. WE'RE THE ONES THAT NEGOTIATED POLICE OVERSIGHT INTO A CONTRACT, SO IF THERE'S GOING TO BE — THERE'S GOING TO BE POLICE OVERSIGHT. THAT IS NOT — WHO IT'S APPOINTED BY AND WHO THEY REPORT TO IS NOT SOMETHING WE CARE ABOUT AT ALL. WE ONLY CARE ABOUT TWO THINGS. ONE, WE CARE ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF THE CONTRACT. WE REPRESENT 13,000 MEMBERS AROUND THE STATE. WE HAVE 72 CIVIL SERVICE LOCAL UNIONS AND WE HAVE 40, OVER 40 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS IN TEXAS. WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO DEFEND A LEGAL PRECEDENT SET BY A CHARTER PROVISION THAT SAYS YOU CAN OPEN A CONTRACT WITHOUT CONSULTING BOTH PARTIES. WE ARE PART OF THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT. OFFICERS WERE VERY APPREHENSIVE. THEY STILL WENT AND ATFIDE THE CONTRACT AND NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH THIS ISSUE. SO IF YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THEIR HANDS WOULD BE WRONG AND IT ALSO VIOLATES THAT CONTRACT. AND, OF COURSE, EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S THE OPINION OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS THE OFFICERS. NOW, THE LEGISLATURE IS THE ONE THAT SET CIVIL SERVICE IN PLACE IN 47. VOTERS OF AUSTIN ALSO ADOPTED IT. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT VOTERS IN TEXAS AND LEGISLATURE DECIDED WHEN IN FORT WORTH, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD OFFICERS PASSING OUT CAMPAIGN LITERATURE BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF BEING FIRED. DEPOLITICAL SIZING THIS PROCESS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND WHAT YOU GET IN RETURN IN AUSTIN, TEXAS IS A HIGHLY EDUCATED, A VERY WELL-TRAINED POLICE DEPARTMENT IS WHAT YOUR GOAL STILL IS. BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE ANYWHERE — AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL. BUT OVERALL THE DEPOSITIVE LIT SIZING OF THIS PROCESS AND KEEPING OFFICERS AWAY FROM A POLITICAL POLICE DEPARTMENT IS A GOAL THAT WE SHARE. I THINK ALSO THAT ULTIMATELY YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW IS THIS EFFORT HERE BEING PUSHED FORWARD? LET'S SAY THAT POLICE OFFICERS — I DON'T KNOW OF ANY MOVE LIKE THIS, BUT LET'S SAY POLICE OFFICERS WANTED TO TRY TO REMOVE THIS POLICE OVERSIGHT PROCESS. YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY TELL THEM TO GO TO THE VOTERS AND GET THEIR — GET THE PETITION SIGNED AND THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO TELL THE ACLU AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. MS. AN DELLANO?

THOMAS: MAYOR, COULD I ASK A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONTRACT, IT WOULD AFFECT THE CONTRACT?

YES, SIR.

THOMAS: COULD YOU KIND OF' ELABORATE ON THAT FOR ME?

I'M SPEAKING ON ADVICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, WHO TELLS ME THAT ANY TIME THAT A CONTRACT IS TO BE RENEGOTIATED THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE PARTY TO THAT OPENING. AND THAT'S ALL. AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IN THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION HAS EVER, THAT I KNOW OF, EVER INDICATED THEY WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE ON THIS ISSUE. THAT'S NOT — AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO OPENING ON THIS ISSUE. WE OPEN CONTRACTS EARLY IN ALL KINDS OF CITIES AROUND THE STATE. I DON'T BARGAIN CONTRACTS, BUT I DO KNOW WE DO THAT. OVER ECONOMIC ISSUES, OVER ALL KINDS OF ISSUES, EQUIPMENT, PERSONNEL, WHATEVER. WE OPEN CONTRACTS AND BARGAIN. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE CITY NO LONGER HAS THAT RIGHT TO ARBITRARILY MAKE A SINGLE DECISION WITHOUT OPENING THE CONTRACT. SEE, THE SANCTITY OF THE CONTRACT IS JUST THIS: YOU SAID THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED. NOW, THE POLITICS MAY HAVE CHANGED AND THE WINDS MAY HAVE BLOWN DIFFERENTLY, BUT YOU SAID COLLECTIVELY THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED. WE NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AND WE SIGNED THE DEAL. THERE WERE TWO PARTIES TO THAT DEAL, AND THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. SO THE FACT THAT NOT EVERYONE'S HAPPY IS JUST SOMETHING YOU CAN TAKE UP AT THE NEXT CONTRACT. FRANKLY, NOT EVERYONE WAS HAPPY ON OUR SIDE EITHER. IT ONLY PASSED WITH 60%. SO 40% OF THE OFFICERS IN AUSTIN NOTED NO TO THAT CONTRACT.

THOMAS: NEW, SIR.

ALVAREZ: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP. I GUESS YOU WERE TALKING IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR ACTION GOING AGAINST THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT, BUT ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING IS FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THE ABILITY OR WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS PARTICULAR ACTION, SO REALLY UNTIL THE COUNCIL — I GUESS FIRST OF ALL IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. SECOND OF ALL, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. AND THAT I THINK IS WHEN YOU WOULD BE GOING AGAINST MEET AND CONFER, NOT NECESSARILY AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME WHEN WE'RE JUST TRYING TO COME TO TERMS WITH —

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STOP THE CRIME BEFORE IT HAPPENS. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO FIGHT YOU AT THE POLLS. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EDUCATEDDING THE VOTERS ON AN ISSUE THAT NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT. WE JUST WANT YOU TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATE ON THIS ISSUE. IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT, WE'LL NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH LIKE THE WAY WE DID LAST TIME.

ALVAREZ: I THINK THERE'S STILL THAT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN THE COUNCIL HAS THAT GO AHEAD BY THE VOTERS, THEN YOU CAN STILL NEGOTIATE ON POLICE OVERSIGHT DURING THE NEXT MEET AND CONFER. AGAIN, THAT'S REALLY I GUESS THE IDEAL WAY TO COME UP WITH AND —

NO ONE IS IN OPPOSITION TO THAT AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S YOUR BUSINESS WHO THE POLICE MONITOR REPORTS TO AND HOW IT'S STRUCTURED. BUT YOU, THIS BODY AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE THIS WAY. AND YOU NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH WITH US AND WE SAID OKAY. AND WE TOOK A GREAT CHANCE. AND LIKE I SAID, NOT MANY — BARELY A A MAJORITY IN A SENSE WAS REALLY IN OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THAT. SO WE TOOK A CHANCE AND WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU STAY WITH US ON THIS ISSUE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. WILKINSON, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WAS NOT THROUGH WITH HIS STATEMENT. SO IF YOU COULD WAIT UNTIL HE FINISHES BEFORE YOU RESPOND.

I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANNE DELLANO?

THANK YOU, COUNCIL. BASICALLY WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS ON THIS IS VERY CLEAR. 87% OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE SAID THEY WANT REAL CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE POLICE LOBBY AND THE POLICE'S OWN INTERESTS ARE GOING TO OVERPOWER THAT RIGHT NOW. HE SAYS THAT THEY WILL NEGOTIATE THIS THING THE SAME WAY THEY DID LAST TIME, THE WAY WE DID IT LAST TIME. THE WAY THEY DID IT LAST TIME WAS TO MAKE A NON-INDEPENDENT PROCESS THAT IS A KNOT REAL CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT SYSTEM, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE AFRAID OF. THAT THEY WILL NEGOTIATE IT THE EXACT SAME WAY THEY DID IT LAST TIME. PLEASE, COUNCIL, PERPETUATE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT. IF IT ENDS THE CONTRACT PROCESS, IT'S UP EVERY THREE YEARS. THE BARE EXISTENCE OF ANY SYSTEM IS UP AND YOUR CITY OFFICE THAT YOU'RE OPENING, SPENDING MONEY ON, HAVE PERSONNEL THERE, THEIR CONSISTENCY IS ALL AT STAKE EVERY THREE YEARS. AND I'M ASKING YOU — THE COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF TEXAS JUST SAID THEY HAVE NEVER THREATENED BEFORE THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE OVERSIGHT. BUT IN THE "AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN," MIKE SHEFFIELD SAID IF THEY KEEP THIS UP, THEY WON'T HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT AT ALL. SO THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE SAID WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT IF WE KEEP THIS UP, QUOTE, UNQUOTE. SO EVERY THREE YEARS, PLEASE, DON'T MAKE ALL OF OUR CITIZENS IN AUSTIN COME AGAIN AND TELL YOU THAT THEY WANT OVERSIGHT AGAIN EVERY THREE YEARS AND LIST THE REASONS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, WHICH ONLY TAKES US INTO UGLY STORIES AND OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN OUR CITY. AS SCOTT HENSON SAID, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU LAST WEEK IN VERY CLEAR TERMS THEY USED THE WORD, QUOTE, NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT, UNQUOTE, TO THE POLICE MONITOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS. NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS. AND LET ME REMIND YOU THAT A YEAR AGO TOMORROW, MARCH EIGHTH, CITY LEGAL TOLD YOU IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR, THERE'S ONLY ONE THING YOU CAN DO, CHARTER AMENDMENT. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT'S ADVICE OF A YEAR AGO, AND NOW THAT WEEK AGO THEY SAID THERE'S NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONCERN IS OF COUNCIL NOW AND I WISH I DID, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT AND I KNOW THAT IF THE COUNCIL WILL NOT LET THE AUSTIN VOTERS AT LEAST LOOK AT IT, WE WILL BE DEBATING THE VERY BARE EXISTENCE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT EVERY SINGLE THREE YEARS. WHEN I SAW MIKE SHEFFIELD'S STATEMENT IN THE PRESS RELEASE YESTERDAY THAT HE SAID THAT WE DON'T WANT A POLITICAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I STEPPED BACK TO YOUR BREAKROOM AND I SEE SEVERAL POLICE LOBBYISTS BACK THERE AND I STEPPED INTO COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THIS ISSUE YESTERDAY AND I SAW A LOT OF POLICE LOBBYISTS THERE. IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS. PLEASE STOP THAT AND MAKE IT PERPETUAL FOR THE CITIZENS. PLEASE. MAYOR THANK YOU. MR. JIM WALKER DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. AND HE IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER F, WHICH IS THE POLICE MONITORING AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT. JENNIFER GALE? JENNIFER GALE? WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 9. ARE YOU SPEAKING ON THE POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT?

I CAN SPEAK ON A OR D?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE SPEAKING ON D.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON A, D, F AND G, PLEASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE NOW ON F AND G.

NO LONGER ON A AND D?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS YOU WANT TO. YOU ARE REGISTERED ON ITEM NUMBER 9.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF. I WON'T PUT YOU ON SLEEP. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO MARK NATHAN, A KIND GENTLEMAN OF THE HOSPITALITY OF ANOTHER GENTLEMAN GAVE ME HIS NAME IN THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE. BRIEFLY, ON THE SEB SEB, THE NEED FOR TERM LIMITS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. ANYTHING LESS THAN 32 DISTRICTS MEANS THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE ELECTED AND THEY WILL BE WEALTHY, WELL CONNECTED OR FAMOUS. MOST PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW THIS DESCRIPTION, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, ANY LESS CREATES A BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR, OF AND BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITIES. CONCERNING D, THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT IS ANYTHING BUT FAIR IN THE — IN THE GOOD LIGHT IT SAYS SOME FEAR THE THRESHOLDS ARE TOO LOW AND WOULD ALLOW SUCH MARGINAL CANDIDATES TO QUALIFY FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGNS AND OPPONENTS THEY EXPERIENCE WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCING INDICATES FRINGE CANDIDATES RARELY QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC FUNDING. RARELY QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC FUNDING. THINK OF IT THIS WAY. IT'S ONE THING TO SIGN A PETITION THAT COSTS YOU NOTHING. IT'S ANOTHER TO FORK OVER FIVE BUCKS WHEN YOU SIGN. AND IT'S HARDER STILL IF YOU REALIZE THAT A CANDIDATE THAT QUALIFIES IS GOING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC FUNDING. THAT'S ENOUGH TO SOBER UP ANY TAXPAYER. THAT WAS WRITTEN BY KEN MARTIN. WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE IDEA THAT'S TO RECEIVE $16,000 ONE WOULD HAVE TO COLLECT FIVE DOLLARS FROM 500 PEOPLE TO RUN FOR COUNCIL OR MAYOR AND 1,000 DOLLARS AND FIVE DOLLARS FROM EACH OF THEM, ESM DURING A TIME OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD FIVE DOLLARS. MORE SIGNATURES IS A GOOD IDEA, IS A GOOD OPTION. RETORE RICKLY, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE, COUNCILMEMBERS, DARYL SLUSHER, JACKIE GOODMAN AND BEVERLY GRIFFITH IF WE — THEN I WANT TO ADDRESS F. WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS OF A POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT FORCE. THIS CITY COUNCIL DECIDED TO NOT AGREE TO THAT. THERE BY NOT ALLOWING THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND ON G, IF WE DON'T KEEP A FILE FOR OUR POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, HOW CAN WE THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN FULLY INVESTIGATE A TROUBLED OFFICER'S PAST TO AVOID OUR TOP ONGOING PROBLEMS THEY MAY HAVE WITH THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM 2 — WHERE'S MARTIN? ITEM 2 IS ONE THAT'S RELATED TO ITEM 17, SO WE ALREADY DID ITEM 17. WE DID NOT NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ITEMS UNLESS THE COUNCIL THINKS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY WITH REGARD TO ITEMS 8 AND 9. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED EVERYTHING OUT HERE, SO I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY PRIVATE CONSULTATION ON THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED DISCUSSING IN OPEN SESSION. HEARING NONE, WE WILL — WE ALREADY DID ITEM 4, WHICH IS THE EVALUATION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK AROUND WE DID ITEM 49 — WE DID ITEM 49? YEAH. SO THE COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WELCOME BACK HERE — I PROBABLY WILL COME BACK HERE BY MYSELF AT 5:30 TO INTRODUCE MUSIC AND WE WILL HAVE PROCLAMATIONS AND COUNCIL WILL HAVE DINNER AND WE'LL COME BACK TO FINISH THE AGENDA. HOPEFULLY ITEMS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 13.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, BEFORE WE GO...

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WHEN WE COME BACK, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE ANY MORE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE RELEVANT ANY MORE. THE PEOPLE I WANTED TO TALK TO HAVE ALREADY SPLIT. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK AND ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT CHARTER AMENDMENT ISSUES, I WOULD — IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO SAY FOR STAFF EDIFICATION AND FOR ANYONE ANYONE SAYING THEIR ACLU OR ANY OF THE MANY POLICE LOBBYISTS, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN, SO I GUESS THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO ME YET, BUT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES. AND WHEN I SAID WHAT I SAID ABOUT MY LANGUAGE, I DON'T THINK I WAS LISTENED TO CAREFULLY AND I WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. CITY LEGAL IS NOT REALLY INVOLVED AT THIS MOMENT IN MY — IN THE LANGUAGE I WAS PROPOSING TO SHOW TO Y'ALL. AND SO THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY A MISHEARD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL HEAR THAT NOW, BUT THAT'S WHO I WAS TALKING TO. AND MY OTHER PLEA, AS LONG AS YOU WILL LET ME TALK, IS I WILL GET AHOLD OF MS. DELLANO AND I WILL GET HOLD OF WHOEVER APD AND CLEAT FOLKS ARE. AND DON'T WORRY, I WILL CALL YOU, BUT PLEASE DON'T WORRY ABOUT CALLING ME. I WILL CALL YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE MAYOR PRO TEM WILL CALL YOU. DO NOT CALL HER. [ LAUGHTER ]. WE'RE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

FOR THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT WITH SUCH DIVERSE COUNTRIES AS NEPAL, PAKISTAN, INDIAN, YEMEN, SYRIA AND KUWAIT. THE TOUR BROUGHT HIM MUCH PRAISE BY CRITICS AND PUBLIC ALIKE. TUCKER PERFORMS CONCERTS FREQUENTLY DESCRIBE AS INTENSE, HEARTFELT, AND AND I SEE MAIING. HE IS A POLISH ADD AND VERSATILE MUSICIAN. PLEASES JOIN ME IN WELCOMING TUCKER LIVINGSTON. [ APPLAUSE ] ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY FOR US?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, YOU CAN ALSO TELL PEOPLE WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO BE PERFORMING.

I WILL ALSO BE PURCHASING MARCH 26TH, AT SAXON PUB IF YOU WANT TO COME ON OUT, AND ALSO BE PLAYING LIVE ON KGSR WITH STRIPPINGS ATTACHED HOSTED BY KEVIN CONNOR FROM THE MORNING FROM 7:00 TO 9:00. ALSO AT 503 COFFEE BAR I PLAY EVERY THURSDAY. HERE'S A SONG THAT ACTUALLY IN INDIA AT 5:30 IT'S TEA TIME, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS ANY BEARING HERE. ALSO TODAY IS TOWNS VAN ZANDT'S BIRTHDAY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT MAYBE THIS IS A SONG HE MIGHT HAVE APPRECIATED. IT'S A SAD LOVE SONG THAT I WROTE IN SIERRA WHEN I WAS ON — SYRIA WHEN I WAS ON TOUR THERE. IT'S CALLED CITY OF GOLD. ((music) SINGING (music)(music)) [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: READ THE PROCLAMATION. IT STARTS UP HERE.

PROCLAMATION, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY MAKES MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTIN'S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY; AND WHEREAS THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF ARTISTS FURTHER AUSTIN'S STATUS AS THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD; NOW, THEREFORE, I, GUS.

GARCIA: I CAN'T, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, — GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM MARCH 7TH, 2002 AS TUCKER LIVINGSTON DAY IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: PRESENT THIS TO MR. LIVINGSTON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR — YOU HAVE TO HELP ME, SHAVON TO PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME.

SPIRETZ.

WHEREAS, BE IT KNOWN THAT'S WRAP AS SHE IS A FIFTH GRADER AT THE BARENOFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHO LIKES ROLLER BLADING, PLAYING SOCCER, HELPING HER MOM — HEY, THAT'S GOOD, ISN'T IT? AND PLAYING MINI GOLF, AND WHEREAS SHE LIKE THE REST OF HER FAMILY IS A PROLIFIC WRITER AND AUTHORED HER ESSAY TO HELP MAYOR GARCIA WITH HIS CORRESPONDENCE OR PERHAPS TO HER SECRETARY, WHEREAS CHER ENTHUSIASM FOR SO MANY SPORTS AND ACTIVITIES, HER ABILITY TO EXPRESS HERSELF WELL AND HER LOVE FOR AUSTIN'S PEOPLE AND PLACES QUALIFY HER IN MANY WAYS TO BE A CITY LEADER. YOU HEAR THAT? CITY LEADER! NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM SHAVIA SPIRITZ AS MAYOR FOR A DAY IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ] THAT'S TO YOU, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

UM, I AM — I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA, FOR LETTING ME COME AND HELP YOU AND THINGS AND IT WAS A REALLY — I'VE HAD A REALLY GOOD EXPERIENCE FROM IT. SO MAYBE ONE DAY I CAN GROW UP TO A MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OR BETTER.

OR BETTER. [ LAUGHTER ]. [ APPLAUSE ].

THE PARENTS ARE HERE, IF YOU COULD STAND. THE GRANDPARENTS ARE HERE FROM SCOTLAND, IF THEY COULD STAND. [ APPLAUSE ] AND THE TEACHER AND HER HUSBAND ARE HERE, IF YOU COULD STAND. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. AND HER FRIEND. YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOUR FRIEND. [ LAUGHTER ].

THIS IS MY BEST FRIEND ALLY, SHE'S BEEN MY FRIEND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, SO — SO I THINK WE WILL BE BEST FRIENDS FOR A LONG TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT SOME OTHER PROCLAMATIONS. AND YOU MET COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO PRESENT THE TIME WARNER CABLE AND AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION, MOVIES IN THE PARK AT REPUBLIC SQUARE, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANKS TO BOTH MAYORS. THANKS. AS OPPOSED TO READING THE LENGTHY PROCLAMATION, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST DESCRIBE WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY. THANKS TO A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, COME ON UP, AND AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION AND THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN PARKS THROUGH PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING EFFORTS, ACTUALLY BRINGING PEOPLE TO OUR PARKS, A NEW AND DIFFERENT IDEA, FREE TIME WARNER CABLE AND AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION MOVIES IN THE PUBLIC AT — IN THE PARK AT REPUBLIC SQUARE WILL KICK-OFF NEXT TUESDAY, MARCH 19TH AT 8:00 P.M. FOR A SERIES OF FOUR MOVIES THROUGH THE SPRING ON TUESDAY NIGHTS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A FREE OUTDOOR SHOWING, BRINGING PEOPLE BACK DOWN TO REPUBLIC SQUARE AND HELPING TO KICKOFF AND ANNOUNCE A GREAT REVITALIZATION AND RESTORATION, LANDSCAPE PROJECT OF THE SQUARE. I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE AND THANK THE PARTIES THAT MADE THIS HAPPEN. THE AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, BEVERLY SILAS BOARD CHAIR, HEAS SIGH OLIVERES, OUR DIRECTOR WHO COULDN'T BE WITH US TONIGHT, TIME WARNER CABLE, LYDIA, ALAMO DRAFT HOUSE, TIM LEAGUE, OWNER AND AUSTIN ENERGY, ROGER DUNCAN THE VICE-PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, HELP ME THANK ALL OF THESE FOLKS. WE WILL ASK TIM TO — TEDD TO SAY A FEW WORDS. [ APPLAUSE ]

COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE AT THE FOUNDATION WANT TO THANK ALL OF OUR PARTNERS WITHOUT WHOM THESE MOVIES WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. AND PARTICULARLY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS OUR PARTNER IN EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT WE DO. I THINK LYDIA FROM TIME WARNER WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY A FEW THINGS, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SID. GOOD AFTERNOON. AUSTIN IS A BEAUTIFUL CITY. AND THE PARKS — OUR PARKS ARE OUR SOUL. I — I AM VERY, VERY PROUD THAT TIME WARNER HAS PARTNERED WITH — WITH THE AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION, THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE AND THE ALAMO DRAFT HOUSE TO BRING MOVIES IN THE PARK TO CENTRAL AUSTIN. AND TO PROMOTE OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY AND OUR PARKS. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VERY GOOD CLASSIC MOVIES IN THE PARK AND ALSO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE CHILDREN. SO WE INVITE ALL OF OUR FAMILIES IN AUSTIN TO JOIN US FOR FREE FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT. WE WILL HAVE ACTIVITIES AND FUN GAMES FOR THE KIDS. AND WE WILL ASK, ALSO, FOR OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA AND THE COUNCILMEMBERS, TO JOIN US AT OUR OPENING ON MARCH 19TH. AND WE HAVE LEFT FOR YOU A LITTLE TREAT, SOME POPCORN AND A TICKET. EVEN THOUGH IT'S FREE, SO THAT YOU CAN — YOU CAN JOIN US. AND EVERYONE IS WELCOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

OUR MAYOR WILL NOW PRESENT PROCLAMATIONS TO EACH OF OUR RECIPIENTS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

BE SURE TO GET THE RIGHT ONE [ LAUGHTER ].

I'M SORRY, OF COURSE, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS I FORGOT TO MENTION WHEN MOVIES, MARCH 19TH WILL BE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, 26TH WILLIE WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, APRIL SECOND REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. THE 9TH VIVA LAS VEGAS. WE ARE TOLD MAYOR GARCIA WILL COME DRESSED AS ELVIS. PLEASE JOIN US TUESDAY, MARCH 19TH.

WINTER NOT GOING TO HAVE CROCODILE DUNDEE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR, IF YOU WANT TO, I WILL HOLD THE POPCORN FOR YOU AND IN MARCH WE HONOR PEOPLE WHO BUY THINGS FOR THE CITY. IT'S CALLED PURCHASING MONTH. AND THE MAYOR IS GOING TO READ A PROCLAMATION. AND PRESENT IT TO MS. BEFORE YOU...............O IS HERE. MAYOR?

BRUBAKER WHO IS HERE.

BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS —

MAYOR GARCIA: NAPM?

NAPA.

IS ONE OF 180 ALLEVIATES OF THE INSTITUTE OF SUPPLY MANAGEMENT. FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PURCHASING MANAGEMENT AND WHEREAS THIS — THIS 9TH ANNUAL PURCHASING MONTH FOCUSES ON EXPANDING AWARENESS OF THE PURCHASING AND MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONS — PROFESSIONALS ROLE AMONG BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LEADERS. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, ACT EMIA, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, ALSO PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE STUDENTS AND OTHERS ABOUT CAREER OPPORTUNITIES IN PURCHASING. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM MARCH 2002 AS PURCHASING MONTH IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU READ THAT BEAUTIFULLY. THAT WAS VERY, VERY GOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, WE IN THE CITY BUY A LOT OF THINGS, WE NEED PROFESSIONALS LIKE MS. BRUBAKER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUY THE RIGHT THING AT THE RIGHT PRICE FOR OUR CITY. SUE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

I WANT TO SAY WE NEED TO RECRUIT THIS YOUNG LADY INTO OUR PROFESSION BEFORE YOU GET HERE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY —

WE APPRECIATE YOU MORE.

THEY PAY BETTER THAN THEY DO THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE DO, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU MORE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS ONE IS — AND THIS NEXT PROCLAMATION THAT THE MAYOR WILL NEED IS ABOUT MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH. A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR ACTIVITIES. OKAY?

PROCLAMATION —

SOMEBODY HERE TO —

OKAY. PROCLAMATION. BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION COMPROMISE ONE OF OUR LARGEST DISABILITY GROUPS, WITH MORE THAN 22,000 PERSONS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION IN TRAVIS COUNTY AND WHEREAS THE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA USES MARCH EACH YEAR TO HELP THE COMMUNITY LEARN ABOUT ISSUES AFFECTING PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION AND THEIR FAMILIES. AND TO CELEBRATE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION AND WHEREAS THE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA IN ITS EFFORTS TO ENABLE PERSONS OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES TO ACHIEVE THEIR FULLEST POTENTIAL, SPONSORS A PROGRAM TO PAIR THEIR CLIENTS WITH A VOLUNTEER BUDDY. NOW, THEREFORE, I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM MARCH 2002 AS MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. LET ME STEP RIGHT OVER HERE. THE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA — APPRECIATES THE — THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ABOUT AWARENESS ABOUT MENTAL RETARDATION TO THE COMMUNITY. WE USE THIS MONTH TO REALLY ENLIST MORE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE — FOR OUR MISSIONS AND VALUES. THE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA ENVISIONS A FUTURE IN WHICH PEPPERS WITH DISABILITIES, THEIR FAMILIES AND CAREGIVERS CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO PURSUE FULL AND PRODUCTIVE LIVES AS OTHER PEOPLE. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IN CLOSING, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR BRINGING THE MAYOR HERE. AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR FOR COMING. AND LET THIS NOT BE THE LAST TIME THAT YOU COME TO VISIT WITH US. OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A PICTURE? YEAH, OVER HERE.

(NO AUDIO)

[ (music) MUSIC PLAYING (music)(music) ]

MAYOR GARCIA: AS SOON AS WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, WHICH WILL BE MOMENTARILY, WE WILL GO INTO THE 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. NO, WE DON'T. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT ITEM EXPEDITIOUSLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, WE NOW HAVE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS, YOU MAKEc FOUR. OKAY. WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, AND I'M CALLING THE MEETING, THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MARCH THE SEVENTH BACK TO ORDER. AND WE'RE TAKING UP FIRST TIME CERTAIN ITEM AT SIX P.M., PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE WAS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS. WOODS OF CENTURY PARK, APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRES LOCATED IN TRAVIS COUNTY APPROXIMATELY FOUR-10TH OF A MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BURNET ROAD AND CENTURY BARK BOULEVARD.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS VIRGINIA COLLIER. THISc IS THE SECOND OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OF THIS AREA. COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE ACTION APRIL 4TH. SO WHAT THE CENTURY PARK IS CURRENTLY IN THE CITY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE JURISDICTION. IT'S ADJACENT TO THE FULL PURPOSE ON THREE SIDES. THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA CURRENTLY HAS NO RESIDENTS. THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED THIS ANNEXATION. AND SERVICE PLANS FOR THIS ANNEXATION AREA ARE LOCATED ACROSS THE ROOM. BHAIFKLY THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE OVER SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED SERVICES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO — SIX TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TEMPORARILY OUT. THE NEXT ONE IS BRANDT'S CROSSING, APPROXIMATELY 135 ACRES LOCATED IN SOUTH CENTRAL TRAVIS COUNTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BRANDT ROAD AND EAST SLAUGHTER LANE.

THIS INTERSECTION AREA IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THE PROPOSED SMART HOUSING SITE, THE PROPERTY OWNER SAYS THE PROPOSED SMART HOUSING SITE REQUESTED ANNEXATION. AGAIN, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO DISCUSS THE SERVICE PLAN, WHICH COPIES ARE ACROSS THE ROOM. AND THE CITY WILL TAKE OVER THE SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED SERVICES.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AGAIN, THERE'S NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE, WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TEMPORARILY ABSENT. DECKER LAKE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES LOCATED AT TRAVIS COUNTY ALONG DECKER LAKE ROAD EAST OF BLUFF — BLUE BLUFF ROAD.

THIS IS THE SOUTH 50 FOOT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DECKER LAKE ROAD. THE NORTH 50 FOOT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS DONE BACK IN 1958 AND TRAVIS COUNTY ASKED THAT WE ANNEX THAT AREA TO PROVIDE — TO CLARIFY JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. SERVICE PLANS ARE ACROSS THE ROOM AND THE CITY WILL TAKE OVER SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? AGAIN, THERE'S NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I'LL I'LL SLAIN INTRAEUN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FIVE — SIX TO ZERO TO ONE, WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THIS. WHEN DOES THIS COME UP FOR ACTION?

IT WILL BE BACK ON APRIL 4TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FOR ACTION, RIGHT?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME I'M BRINGING UP ITEMS 10 — NO, 11, 12 AND 13. I'M GOING TO BRING THEM UP TOGETHER. AND IF THE STAFF IS READY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OF THIS ONE, ITEM 11 IS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND RESOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO THREE FIRMS AND THIS WAS A CHANGE OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS. AND ITEM NUMBER 12 IS AMEND AN ORDINANCE, CAPITAL BUDGET. THIS CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD TRANSFER 28.8 MILLION DOLLARS OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CAPITAL PROJECT GROUPS, INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIRE PRODUCTION AND DECREASING APPROPRIATION FOR NON-PLANT ASSETS AND CUSTOMER CARE, BUILDING AND MEETERRING FOR A NET IMPACT OF ZERO. SO WE'RE TAKING OUT ONE AND PUTTING IN ANOTHER. ITEM 13 IS TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION AND EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH CIKTS OF AUSTIN, TEXAS WITH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNITS AT SAND HILL ENERGY CENTER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 51 MILLION,465 DOLLARS — 51,465,000 DOLLARS. AND THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY IS HERE. WELCOME.

MAYOR, IF I COULD FOCUS ON ITEM NUMBER 13, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 11.

MAYOR GARCIA: GO AHEAD ON 13.

THIS IS THE SECOND PHASE OF SAND HILL. THE FIRST PHASE WAS TO BUILD THE PEAKING UNITS, WHICH WE HAVE BUILT. THIS ASPECT OF IT IS FOR A BASE LOAD UNIT. AT THIS STAGE IT BRINGS 300 MEGAWATTS OF POWER TO THE SYSTEM THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE. THE — WE RELEASED BIDS ON THIS. WE DID GET TWO BIDS. WE HAVE HAD OUR CONSULTING ENGINEER HELP US IN THE EVALUATION OF THESE BIDS AS LATE AS TODAY, HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY HAVE SENT ME A LETTER SUPPORTING THEIR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS PROJECT. AND I WOULD — AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO DO SO.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF ON ITEM NUMBER 11, 12 OR 13? ITEMS 11, 12 OR 13? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. SLUSH LUSH MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. AND I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, T. PAUL ROBBINS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, FIR.

HI. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS PAUL ROBBINS. I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER ACTIVIST. FOR THE RECORD, DO I HAVE NINE MINUTES? WELL, THERE'S THREE ITEMS. THREE TIMES THREE IS NINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, YOU KNOW, USE AS MUCH TIME ASc YOU NEED, BUT DON'T GO BEYOND NINE MINUTES, OKAY?

THANK YOU, SIR. I AM INTERESTED IN THIS BECAUSE IT RELATES TO THE CITY CHARTER. IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT WHILE YOU ALL ARE DELIBERATING ON THE CHARTER, THERE'S AN IRONY HERE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE CITY CHARTER. AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CHARTER THAT SAYS THAT VOTERS WILL APPROVE ALL REVENUE BONDS FOR ELECTRIC SYSTEMS AND WATER AND WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. AND PRIOR TO 1996 ALL OUR POWER PLANTS WERE FUNDED BY REVENUE BONDS. IN 1996, AS FOUR OF YOU KNOW, THE CITY — I THINK IT WAS DECEMBER 10TH, 1996, THE DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMILIAR MY, THERE WAS A VOTE BY THE COUNCIL TO LOWER COSTS, BUT KEEP RATES THE SAME AND TAKE APPROXIMATELY 100 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND PUT IT INTO WHAT'S CALLED A DEBT DEFEES SANS FUND. AND OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, THIS COUPLE LA ACTIVE 500 MILLION DOLLARS WOULD BUY-DOWN THE DEBT AND MAKE OUR BILLS MORE COST COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER UTILITIES. AND THIS DID HAVE SOME MERIT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING INSTEAD IS YOU'RE TAKING MONEY FROM A DEBT DEFEE SANS FUND AND YOU'RE BUYING NEW PAIR PLANTS AND YOU'RE ABLE TO BYPASS VOTER APPROVAL. THE LAST TIME WE CHECKED WE HAD ABOUT 200 MILLION DOLLARS IN THE DEBT DEFEASANCE FUND. AND WE STILL CONTINUE TO COLLECT EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS TO BE FOR A FIVE-YEARR PERIOD. THIS IS TO MY KNOWLEDGE WHEN I CHECKED LAST, ABOUT ONE OUT OF EVERY SIX OR ONE OUT OF EVERY EIGHT DOLLARS THAT WE PAID WAS GOING INTO THIS FUND. DEBT DEFEASANCE IS ONE TERM FOR IT. OTHER PEOPLE WOULD BE LESS KIND AND CALL IT A SLUSH FUND. BUT THAT'S — IT IS BEING USED IN A WAY THAT BYPASSES VOTER APPROVAL. NOW, BUYING CASH MAY BE A GOOD IDEA, BUT I MIGHT REMIND YOU THAT THE WAY YOU DID THIS WAS, WELL, IN SOME WAYS ILLEGAL IN THAT IF YOU WANTED TO DO THIS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH A FORMAL RATE CASE. AND SOME — AT SOME POINT YOU MAY BE VULNERABLE TO A CONTEST OF OUR RATES BECAUSE OF IT. BUT GETTING BACK TO THIS ISSUE, THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD REASONS FOR VOTERS TO APPROVE REVENUE BONDS. OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY HAS HAD A FEW PROBLEMS IN THE PAST THAT REQUIRE VOTER SCRUTINY. THE NEW MISPLACING OF MONEY IN CERTAIN FUNDS WHERE THEY CAN'T FIND THEM, HOLLY STREET POWER PLANT. SOMETIMES THEY'VE BEEN OPPOSED TO ENERGY CONSERVATION. NOT ALL TIMES, BUT SOME. AND YOU KNOW, IF I HAD A CHOICE TO APPROVE THIS PLANT AS A VOTER, I VERY WELL MIGHT, BUT I WOULD WANT TO ASK THE UTILITY SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHY. WHY AREN'T WE PURSUING MORE CO-GENERATION, WHICH WOULD MAKE BUSINESSES MORE EFFICIENT. WHY AREN'T WE PURSUING MORE CONSERVATION, WHICH WOULD BE LESS COST THAN YOUR POWER PLANT? DO WE HAVE LONG-TERM GAS CONTRACTS SO THE NEXT TIME THERE'S PRICE GOUGING BY THE GAS INDUSTRY AS THERE WAS ONLY ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WE WOULDN'T BE VULNERABLE. WHAT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY? WHY AREN'T WE DOING MORE OF IT? I WOULD WANT TO RAISE THESE QUESTIONS, I WOULD WANT TO GET ANSWERS. BUT OTHER THAN STANDING ON THIS PODIUM HERE, I DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. I USED TO PRIOR TO 1996. I WANT MY VOTE BACK, COUNCIL. THE VOTERS DID NOT RELINQUISH THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE INPUT. IF YOU WANT TO ASK THEM TO CHANGE THE CHARTER TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THIS, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT. YOU'RE DEBATING THIS FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEK AS YOU HAVE FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THIS IS THE TIME. PLACE THE ITEM ON THE BALLOT AND SEE IF IT'S APPROVED. I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE. I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN THEIR FUTURE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. YOU CAN HAVE MY THREE MINUTES, GUS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ROBBINS. WE HAD A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER — OKAY. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: OKAY. MR. GARZA, SO HOW ARE WE PAYING FOR THIS PLANT?

WE'RE PAYING CASH FOR THIS PLANT.

SLUSHER: SO WE'RE PAYING CASH. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GOING INTO DEBT. THE UTILITY IS SO FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL BASED ON THE STARTING WITH THE 1996 STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WAS PASSED THAT IT'S NOW SO SUCCESSFUL AND SO PROFITABLE THAT WE CAN BUY GENERATING FACILITIES IN CASH WITHOUT GOING INTO DEBT.

THAT WAS PART OF THE PLAN. KNOWING THAT THEORETICALLY THE DID HE REGULAR WAS COMING AND THE CHEAPEST WAY TO PRODUCE POWER IS TO MAKE SURE IT'S DEBT FREE.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: MR. GARZA, TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE PLANT AND PARTICULARLY IN WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO BE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SH130?

I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE — ON WITH THAT ASPECT OF IT. ANDY WILL TRY TO ANSWER IT.

WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING WITH THE SH130 PROJECT THAT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTIVE TO US OR US TO THEM.

WYNN: HOW CLOSE IS IT?

I'M NOT REALLY SURE OF THE EXACT LENGTH BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT WE CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION.

WYNN: I THINK IT'S RATHER CLOSE, AND IT'S A LITTLE DISTURBING THAT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF THE PLANNED ROUTE BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING OF PARTICULARLY HOW IT CROSSES THE COLORADO RIGHT THERE IS THERE CAN BE SOME DRAMATIC IMPLICATIONS. AND SO FAR AS THE LAND USE AND THE COST TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE. AND SO I'M — IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF, ONE, THE LOCATION OF SH130. IT'S QUITE CLOSE. IT'S CLEARLY WITHIN 2,000 FEET, PROBABLY LESS THAN THAT. PROBABLY 700 FEET. AND WHAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT DO, ONE, IS INVESTING 50 MILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT KNOWING THAT, BUT THEN TWO, WHAT IT MAY DO TO THE — JUST THE GENERAL LOGISTICS OF OPERATING OF A POWER PLANT.

IF IT IS THAT CLOSE, I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, I WILL CHECK THAT OUT IMMEDIATELY AND GET BACK THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE STATE WOULD BUILD A MAJOR HIGHWAY IMMEDIATELY RIGHT NEXT TO THE PLANT. ONE OF THE INVENTORIES THAT THEY GO THROUGH IS THEY WILL ASSESS EVERY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED ROUTE THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING. AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS THEY'LL STAY AWAY FROM A PUBLIC FACILITY OF THIS MAGNA TIEWD.

WYNN: BUT I GUESS MY HESITATION HERE IS THEY MAY ARGUE THAT THEY HAVE LONG PLANNED SH130 BEFORE WEEAMED OF BUILDING A POWER PLANT AT THAT LOCATION. AND BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE RIVER AT THAT EXACT LOCATION WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO CROSS, IF IT FOS FORCES THEIR HAND AND THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RIVER CROSSING IS, YOU KNOW, 30 MILLION DOLLARS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BE 500 FEET TO THE WEST, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO PUSH IT TO THE EAST. AND I WOULD — I'M AMAZED THAT WE AREN'T, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TABLE LIKE SO MANY, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE LANDOWNERS THAT WE'VE SEEN COME BEFORE THIS DAIS ARE, AND THOSE GUYS ARE PRETTY SAVVY AND THEY'RE PRETTY AWARE — VERY AWARE OF WHAT A FEW HUNDRED FEET EAST OR WEST CAN MEAN IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WOULD VALUE — AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD VALUE ITS PROPERTY WITH THE SAME REGARD. AND PARTICULARLY RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A VERY LARGE INVESTMENT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. I'M DISAPPOINTMENTED THAT WE'RE NOT AT THE TABLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD CHECK THAT OUT, MR. GARZA, AND REPORT TO COUNCIL BY MEMORANDUM SO THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW — WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY IN OUR PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF SH130. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, THIS IS JUST A BRIEF HISTORICAL NOTE. THE ISSUE THAT MR. ROBBINS RAISED WITH US WAS A VERY LEGITIMATE ONE IN THAT IN '96 WHEN WE TOOK THIS NEW FINANCIAL POLICY INTO THE UTILITY AND OPERATIONS WAS A VASTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN WE'VE EVER HAD BEFORE. AND IN FACT, MANY TIMES WHEN SOMETHING WAS CONTEMPLATED, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE CHAMBERS THAT COUNCIL HAD THEN. IN '96 WITH THE LEGISLATION BOTH PROPOSED AND IN PLACE FOR REREGULATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITIES, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO PEOPLE HERE THAT IT ONCE DID. AND THERE WAS NOT A ROOMFUL OF PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION, WHICH I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE. I DON'T THINK I VOTED FOR IT ANYWAY, BUT IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING AND THERE'S A VERY DIFFERENTc KIND OF UTILITY WE SEE NOW, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETIMES GOOD FOR US TO REMEMBER HOW SHORT A TIME IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE CHANGES IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION HAVE CHANGED THE PERSONALITY AND THE GOALS AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE UTILITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? THIS MOTION — IS THE MOTION SECKED ON ITEMS 11, 12 AND 13. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NAY. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. THAT GETS US BACK TO CHARTER AMENDMENTS. AND WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 9-A THROUGH D. THOSE ARE LAST SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM, SO COUNCIL, WE HAVE — WE RECESSED — WE RECESSED THE DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER F AND G BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE ACTED ON TONIGHT, SO WE ALSO RECESSED THE DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 8 AND WE CAN START IT WITH A MOTION TO DO A CHANGE, A MANNER IN WHICH WE ELECT THE COUNCILMEMBERS AT LARGE TO A MIXED SYSTEM THAT WOULD HAVE EIGHT DISTRICTS, TWO AT LARGE AND ONE MAYOR ALSOc AT LARGE. THAT MOTION IS STILL ON THE TABLE. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND IT BY PUTTING THE PROCESS FOR TRANSITIONING FROM THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO WHAT WE HAVE. AND AS WE WERE APPROACHING THE TIME WHEN WE HAD TO LEAVE THIS ITEM, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, YOU HAD THE FLOOR AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ADOPTING A PLAN THAT WOULD KEEP OUR THREE-YEAR PROGRAM — OUR THREE-YEAR TERMS, I'M SORRY. AND MR. STEINER EXPLAINED HOW THAT COULD BE DONE IN THE 02 ELECTIONS AND THE 03 ELECTIONS SO WE COULD DO IT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE?

SLUSHER: NO. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, NOT ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. YEAH, I HAD — I'VE BEEN A PRETTY STRONG PROCEED PROCEED PENITENTIARY OF THE MIXED SYSTEM BECAUSE I THINK THAT I THINK THAT ONE THING WE'VE SEEN HERE IS THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE HAS DONE PRETTY WELL AT ENSURING MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL. AND THERE'S SOME IRONY THERE BECAUSE FOR YEARS I WAS GOING BACK ABOUT 20 OR 30 YEARS. THE BEGINNING OF THE PUSH FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT DISTRICTS CAME BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR RACIAL OR MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL, WHEREAS NOW THIS SYSTEM HAS WORKED TO DO THAT AND NOW WE HAVE AN HISPANIC MAYOR, WE HAVE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COUNTY JUDGE, AN HISPANIC STATE SENATOR. THE LAST TWO HAVE SERVED FOR MANY YEARS, ESPECIALLY THE SENATOR. AND THAT SYSTEM HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THAT WAY, BUT I ALSO HEAR THE ARGUMENTS FOR GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. AND SO I THINK THAT THE BEST BALANCE OF THAT IS TO DO A MIXED SYSTEM. ANOTHER PART, I KNOW THAT WE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, AND MOST OF THE FOLKS I TALKED TO THERE ARE EITHER FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM OR FOR THE MIXED SYSTEM. AND I THINK THE — ONE REASON FOR THAT OR ONE THING WE'VE SEEN ANYWAY THIS THIS CITY IS THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROOVMENT, WHICH WAS THAT NO ONE WOULD BE LIMITED ON WHERE THEY CAN LIVE BASED ON THEIR RACE. AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE MAPS THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING AND SEE HOW MUCH PROGRESS AUSTIN HOOS MADE ON THAT. AND I THINK THAT THAT ARGUES AGAINST A STRAIGHT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS SYSTEM, BUT A MIXED SYSTEM I THINK THEN ADDRESSES THEc GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ARGUMENT AND STILL ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE THAN JUST A MAYOR REPRESENTING A CITYWIDE, SO YOU WILL HAVE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT REPRESENT THE WHOLE CITY. SO ONCE I CONCLUDED THAT, THEN I LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF SCENARIOS GOING DOWN TO AS FEW AS FOUR DISTRICTS AND I LOOKED SERIOUSLY AT — I LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM SERIOUSLY, BUT IN PARTICULAR I WAS THINKING ONE TIME 6-4-1 WOULD BE SIX DISTRICTS, FOUR AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR. BUT THAT GOT THE DISTRICT, THEY WERE DOWN TO WHERE THERE WAS NO DISTRICT WITH A PLURALITY EVEN OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN IT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD — EVEN THOUGH THE WAY WE'VE SEEN IN PRECINCT 1 IN THE COUNTY THAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAS BEEN ELECTED TO THAT DISTRICT OVER AND OVER SINCE I THINK THE '70'S. SO IT COULD HAPPEN THAT — THAT WOULD BE THE SAME RESULT IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT THAT MIGHT NOT PASS MUSTER NUMERICALLY WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. SO THEN I STARTED LOOKING AT SEVEN AND EIGHT. AND I THINK I'VE DECIDED THAT EIGHT IS THE BEST ONE THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH. I WOULD PREFER — I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER MORE AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT — I WOULD PREFER IT IF WE COULD GET IT DOWN TO A LOWER NUMBER FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MEET ALL THESE NEEDS, ENSURE THERE BE A STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, HOPEFULLY TWO HISPANIC MAJORITY DISTRICTS THAT MEET THE GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERYONE AND HAVE AT LARGE MEMBERS AND I THINK THE BEST THING IS THE 8-2-1 DISTRICT, TWO AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR. SO I'M GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THIS BECAUSE AFTER A LONG STUDY OF IT, I'VE CONCLUDED THAT THAT'S THE BEST ONE. I DON'T THINK IT'S PERFECT. WE KNOW THAT NO FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS PERFECT, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE A LOT LESS PROBLEMS THAN OTHERS. AND SO I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS AND TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

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

GOODMAN: I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TOO, MAYOR, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO AT THIS TIME MAKE VERY CLEAR OR FIND OUT FOR MYSELF EXACTLY WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THIS MOTION, SOLELY THE NUMBERS AND NOT A REFERENCE TO THE MAPS OF THE PLACE THAT YOU CHECK OFF OR THE TRANSITION?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW IS JUST TO PROPOSE TO THE VOTERS THE ADOPTION OF AN 8-2-1 PLAN. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AMENDING THIS MOTION TO INCLUDE A TRANSITION WHICH WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL TO DOc THIS. MR. STEINER? CAN YOU GIVE THAT MIC SOME VOLUME?

I THINK IT'S WORKING. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED ALONG WITH THE NUMBER OF SINGLE MEMBER AND AT LARGE DISTRICTS. THOSE CAN EITHER BE INCLUDED IN ONE MOTION OR DONE IN A SERIES OF SEPARATE MOTIONS. BUT ONCE YOU'VE SETTLED ON A BASIC NUMBER OF DISTRICTS AND AT LARGE SEATS, THEN WE HAVE, OH, A DOZEN OR SO OTHER ISSUES THAT FALL OUT FROM THAT THAT WE'LL HAVE TO — I'LL HAVE TO ASK COUNCIL ABOUT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I DID SKIP ONE THING. I KNOW THIS IS SEPARATE AND WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DRAW THE MAP BEFORE THE ELECTION. AND WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THAT IN ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS, BUT AT THIS POINT I DON'T CONSIDER THE MAP THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO US TO BE THE FINAL VERSION. IT SAYS PROTOTYPE ON IT, AND THAT'S THE WAY I CONSIDER IT. SO I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN WE DECIDE TO PUT OUT THE MAP. BUT I THINK THAT — MR. STEINER, I THINK I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTING THE SYSTEM IN 2003, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THIS MAP BY — TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BY AUGUST?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE IT DONE BY AUGUST ANYWAY. SO I WOULD THINK THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO GET IT DONE BY MAY, BUT I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS — THE MAP ALSO AS PART OF THE —

LUSHER: NO, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE I VOTED AND THEN GO ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WERE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND SECONDED BY ME?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I GUESS WE'RE GETTING READY TO VOTE. THIS IS AN EXCITING MOMENT. BUT I'LL FINALLY JUST GIVE — I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE 8-2-1, EIGHT DISTRICTS, TWO AT LARGE AND PLUS THE MAYOR. MY PERSONAL PREF FENCE WAS A — PREFERENCE WAS A STRAIGHT AT LARGE SYSTEM OR EVEN A 9-3 BUN WOULD BE, BUT IN ORDER TO DRAW DISTRICTS THAT HAVE AS MUCH REPRESENTATION FROM THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINO COMMUNITIES, TO ENSURE AS MUCH REPRESENTATION AS POSSIBLE, AND I THINK UNDER THE EIGHT-DISTRICT SYSTEM CAN STILL ACCOMPLISH THAT TO A GREAT DEGREE, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THREE AT LARGE COMPARED TO EIGHT DISTRICTS, I THINK IT DOESN'T — STILL I THINK WE RESPECT THE INDEGREE RATY OF HAVING SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IN THAT THE DISTRICTS ACTUALLY PREDOMINATE AND WE'RE NOT COMPLETELY WATERING DOWN THE DISTRICT SYSTEM BY HAVING AN EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF AT LARGE. BUT I THINK THIS GIVES PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY SOME COMFORT IN THAT THEY CAN GO TO MORE THAN JUST THEIR DISTRICT REP. THEY CAN GO TO THREE OTHER INDIVIDUALS, SO FOUR INDIVIDUALS ON THE COUNCIL, THAT'S A TOTAL OF 11 FOLKS, SO THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THEY DON'T JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO ONE PERSON, PLUS THE MAYOR. AND THIS GIVES THAT OPTION WHERE THEY HAVE THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS, PLUS TWO MORE AT LARGE, SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT WILL BE BENEFICIAL OVERALL AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING HERE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

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

SLUSHER: I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. SO THIS — THIS MOTION WOULD PUT AN 8-2-1 ON THE BALLOT, BUT WE STILL HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES TO GO THROUGH RELATED TO THAT. BUT I THINK — BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ALL THESE ARE GOING TO GO ON THE BALLOT AS ONE BALLOT ITEM, SO THEN BY THIS PARTICULAR VOTE DOESN'T — DOES IT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT OR NOT OR IS IT NOT ON THE BALLOT UNTIL WE COMPLETE ALL THE VOTES, INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THE — HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THE MAPS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS?

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT WHEN MR. STEINER SAID IS THAT THEYAVE ABOUT A DOZEN ITEMS, AND SOME OF THOSE WE CAN HANDLE BY ORDINANCE AND SOME WILL HAVE ON TO GO ON THE BALLOT, IS THAT CORRECT?

I THINK MOST OF THINGS ARE THINGS I WILL FLEED TO KNOW TO DRAFT THE PROVISION BEFORE I DRAFT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THEN, AND I'M GLAD WE'RE DOING THIS NOW INSTEAD OF ON THE 21ST, SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT WE PASS WHAT WE WANT TONIGHT, I GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING HOPEFULLY, AND PASS THAT ALL ON FIRST READING, LET MR. STEINER DRAFT IT AND BRING IT BACK TO US ON THE 21ST, THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND PASS THAT WHOLE THING THEN. DO YOU OBJECT TO THAT?

NO.

SLUSHER: WELL, I'M PROPOSING THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

MAYOR GARCIA: AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WE WOULD NOT VOTE ON THIS TODAY?

SLUSHER: NO, THAT WE WOULD VOTE ON FIRST READING, BUT I CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS TO PUT TOGETHER AND CODIFY OR WHATEVER THE LEGAL TERM IS AND I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT AND BE APPROVED AS OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. SO I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT AND GO AHEAD AND PASS WHAT WE INTEND TO BE ON THE BALLOT TONIGHT, BUT LET HIM GO AND PUT THAT INTO THE EXACT LANGUAGE, LET US LOOK IT OVER, ALLOW ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THE 21ST. I DON'T ENVISION COMING BACK DURING THAT TIME OR DURING THAT TIME GOING, WELL, LET ME TRY 6-4-IS AGAIN OR 6-6-1, THAT KIND OF THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THIS AN ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT?

WELL, THE ELECTION WILL BE CALLED BY AN ORDINANCE. SO WHEN YOU CALL THE ELECTION, AN ORDINANCE WILL BE HOPEFULLY — I WON'T GET ENOUGH INFORMATION TO PUT TOGETHER AN ORDINANCE FOR YOU. THE ORDINANCE WILL START OUT CALLING THE COUNCIL ELECTION AND HAVING ALL THE USUAL THINGS IN IT FOR AN ELECTION COORDINATE. THEN IT WILL SAY THAT THERE WILL BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION. AND THEN IT WILL LAY OUT THE WORDS THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS, HOWEVER MANY YOU ULTIMATELY DECIDE ON. THEN IT WILL GO BACK AND RESITE THROUGH THE PROPOSITION IF, LET'S SAY, THE PROPOSITION 1 IS THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PROPOSITION.

MIXED SYSTEM.

IT WILL SAY IF PROPOSITION 1 PASSES, THEN THE CHARTER IS AMENDED LIKE THIS. AND THEN I WILL SAY ARTICLE 1 — ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 IS AMENDED LIKE THIS AND I'LL LAY OUT ALL THE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE MADE THERE. TO ACCOMPLISH THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS I THINK THAT LAYING OUT ALL OF THE CHANGES, ALL THE PLACES I HAVE TO TOUCH IN THE CHARTER TO DO THAT, ALL THE PLACES I HAVE TO TOUCH THE CHARTER TO DO THAT WILL PROBABLY RUN UNTIL A SEVEN OR EIGHT-PAGE PROVISION. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THERE ARE A BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUES. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO 8-2. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES ON THE CHARTER WHERE IT REFERS TO THINGS THAT DEPEND ON THERE BEING A SEVEN-MEMBER COUNCIL. SO WE WILL HAVE TO ALTER ALL THOSE TO FIT. AND SOME OF THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE LIBERTY OF MAKING A DECISION, I WOULD WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANTED TODAY. SO WE KIND OF NEED TO RUN THROUGH AND SEE WHERE THE COUNCIL IS.

SLUSHER: THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE PASSED ON THE CITY CHARTER, LIKE CAMPAIGN FINANCE THAT WAS PASSED ON INITIAL REFERENDUM THAT DON'T ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE CHARTER ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE, SO YOU END UP WITH EITHER — YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE OVERLAPPING BECAUSE YOU DID AWAY WITH THE OTHER ORDINANCE WHICH HADc THINGS, BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT THEY ARE STILL HANGING OUT THERE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE US AS A COUNCIL AND THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

ULTIMATELY THE MAYOR'S QUESTIOi, YES, THE ORDINANCE — THERE WILL BE AN ORDINANCE THAT CALLS THE ELECTION AND THE ORDINANCE WILL LAY OUT ALL THE PROPOSITION AND WHAT ALL OF THE PROPOSITIONS MEAN IF THEY PASS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXACT WORDS THAT WILL BE CHANGED IN THE CHARTER. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL LEAVE HERE TONIGHT KNOWING ENOUGH TO DRAFT THAT FOR YOU.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD SAY WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT I WANT TO DO IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF TWO WAYS. ONE, IF THIS IS AN ORDINANCE WE WANT TO CALL IT, WE'RE PASSING AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING OR WE CAN SAY WE'RE DEVELOPING THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO WHAT THE DRAFT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT AND FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING THAT BACK TO US ON THE 21ST.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. HAVE YOU GOT THAT?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE CAN VOTE ON IT?

YES, SIR.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON OPPOSED NO.

GRIFFITH: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6-1, WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH VOTING NAY. WHAT DO WE DO NEXT?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO KEEP THE TERMS AT THREE YEARS.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE NEED TO DO THAT? THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IF WE DON'T MAKE A MOTION TO HOING CHAEUNG IT — SLUSH SHUSH THAT'S TRUE. —

SLUSHER: THAT'S TRUE.

I DON'T THINKKNOW WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE WHAT'S THERE.

IF THE COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO CHANGE IT —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTION ON CHANGING.

SLUSHER: NOBODY WANTS TO GO FOR THE LONGER TERMS?

MAYOR GARCIA: OF THE DOZEN OR SO ITEMS, WHICH ONES DO WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON TONIGHT?

ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. WELL, HOW DO YOU WANT TO GET — HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE TRANSITION? DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT TO AN ORDINANCE OR DO YOU WANT TO SET IS THAT IN THE CHARTER? AND WHEREVER THE EASEL WAS —

MAYOR GARCIA: I WOULD SAY IF WE CAN DO IT BY ORDINANCE, IT'S BETTER BECAUSE IT'S A ONE-TIME DEAL.

OKAY. THEN WHAT I WOULD WRITE INTO THE CHARTER WOULD BE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BYc ORDINANCE ORDINANCE PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY TRANSITION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SHORTENING OF COUNCIL TERMS IF NECESSARY OR THE DRAWING OF LOTS BY A NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS TO GET A STAGGERING BILLING.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT YOU EXPLAINED ON THAT BOARD IS AT LEAST HOW IT CAN BE DONE. SLUSHc ARE WE POSTED TO PASS AN ORDINANCE LIKE THAT TONIGHT?

NO, SIR. WELL, NOT REALLY. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DRAFT UP AN ORDINANCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND THEN PRESENT THAT ORDINANCE TO YOU. AND THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE 21ST. YOU COULD TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME ON DECIDING THAT AS LONG AS IT WAS DONE REASONABLY SOON.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ELSE?

SO WE'RE GOING TO STICK WITH THREE-YEAR TERMS, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION MECHANISM BY ORDINANCE. HOW DO YOU WANT TO HAVE REDISTRICTING DONE? DO YOU WANT TO RETAIN THAT AS A COUNCIL FUNCTION OR DO YOU WANT TO CREATE A BODY THAT DOESc IT?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I SAY COUNCIL.

IF YOU WANT TO RETAIN IT WITH THE COUNCIL, THEN WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE CERTAINLY FREE TO AT ANY TIME BY ORDINANCE CREATE AN ADVISORY BODY IF YOU WANTED AN ADVISORY BODY, BUT — BECAUSE IF COUNCIL IS GOING TO RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO REDIRECT, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN COUNCIL WILL FROM TIME TO TIME —

MAYOR GARCIA: MY STANCE IS THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO RETAIN THAT AUTHORITY. UNLESS I'M WRONG, YOU ALL CAN CALL — DISAGREE WITH WHAT I'VE SAID. SLUSH SLUR MAYOR? —

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I HAD ASKED EARLIER BECAUSE WE HAD A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION BEFORE THIS WAS PASSED OFF FOR THE COUNCIL TO GIVE US THE MAP DRAWN ALREADY TO AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL, AND THEN THAT COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY AND WOULDN'T EVEN COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL, SO ANOTHER ELECTED BODY WOULD DRAW THESE LINES WITHOUT FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ELECTED BODY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER OCCURRED TO ANYONE. I ASKED AT THAT TIME, THAT WASc ABOUT A MONTH AGO, IF ANYBODY COULD TELL ME ANYWHERE THAT'S EVER TAKEN PLACE, ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY HAD EVER DONE THAT, AND I STILL HADN'T HEARD AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO BE THE PIONEERS IN THAT, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF US KEEPING THAT AUTHORITY. IF WE DECIDE TO APPOINT A COMMISSION TO DO IT PRETTY QUICKLY, LIKE MR. STEINER SAID, WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, BUT THE FINAL AUTHORITY SHOULD LAY HERE WITH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: HOWEVER, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT FOR THE ELECTION THAT THE VOTERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WILL BE. SO WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE — WHETHER THEY CALL THE ELECTION OR NOT, WE THINK WE AS A COUNCIL SHOULD DECLARE WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE AND EVEN GIVE OURSELVES THE APPROPRIATE DEAD LEAN. AND THAT IS THE VOTERS SHOULD KNOW THAT IF THE VOTES — IF THE DOWN R. COUNCIL DECIDES TO DO THIS, THEN THE COUNCIL APPOINTS A SEVEN-MEMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WILL STUDY THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PART OF THE SYSTEM, TO ADVISE THE COUNCIL AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON THE MAP NO LATER THAN AUGUST 1ST OF 2000 — OR JUST EXPLAIN WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL MAKEUP OF THE ADVISORY BODY WHEN THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE AND THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE MADE BY THE COUNCIL. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE UNDERSTANDING WITH BOTH OF THOSE IN MAY. THAT SEEMS TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE.

SLUSHER: I'LL YIELD TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: THANKS. I JUST WANTED TO PUT MY TWO CENTS IN ON HOW I THINK THE MAP SHOULD COME TO THEIR FINAL DELINEATIONS, AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE THIS ADVISORY BODY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD SO THAT WE CAN GIVE IT UP TO SOME TIME FOR INPUT, PURE INPUT AND BRAINSTORMING, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN LATELY IN REDISTRICTING IS GOOD COVERAGE OF THE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS IN GROUPS THAT WORK ON IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE GOOD COVERAGE OF THE MAP ITSELF AND GOOD DETAIL SO THAT EVEN IF IT'S PUBLISHED IN THE STATESMAN THERE WILL BE STREET NAMES ON ALLc THE LITTLE LINES AND PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHERE THEY ARE BY LOOKING AT THOSE MAPS AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO TELL IF THE PRECINCTS ARE SPLIT OR IF MAYBE SOME OBVIOUS LINES FOR INCLUSION IN ONE DISTRICT NEED TO BE MASSAGED OR CHANGED. ALL OF THOSE LITTLE DETAILS. EVEN IF WE USE THESE — OBVIOUSLY KIND OF GENERICALLY DRAWN DISTRICTS AS A KICKOFF POINT, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME FINE TUNING FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE INPUT IN AND THEN ULTIMATELY, HOPEFULLY BE REASSURED BY. SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE COVERAGE IN MY OPINION. AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT CHANNEL SIX CAN TELEVISE AT ALL POSSIBLE TIMES ANYTHING THAT'S EVER DISCUSSED OR BRAIN STORMED ABOUT THESE MAPS.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT GOOD COVERAGE OF THE MEDIA?

NO, OUR MEDIA.

SLUSHER: IT COULD HAPPEN, I GUESS. ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO — GOING ABOUT THAT DEADLINE THAT'S GOING TO BE? THE BIG QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO DO THE MAPS BEFORE THE ELECTION OR NOT? I CAN SEE THAT BOTH WAYS, THE VOTERS — I THINK A LOT OF VOTERS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH SAID EARLIER. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE DOING, HEADING UP TO THE ELECTION. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO — I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO SET A DEADLINE FOR US TO GET THEM DRAWNc WHERE IT'S NOT LIKE A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION, BEFORE THE MAY ELECTION EITHER, BUT COULD BE DURING THAT TIME. BUT, I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON THIS. THAT MIGHT BE TOO AMBITIOUS.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I BELIEVE I'VE HEARD MR. STEINER MENTION IN THE PAST THAT SORT OF THE THE PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM WITH DRAWING THE MAPS PRIOR TO THE VOTES SO OUR VOTERS VOTE ON A VERY SPECIFIC MAP IN MAY, WE THEN TURN AROUND APPEARED A CITY AND ONLY AFTER THE VOTE CAN WE THEN EVEN PRESENT IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL DO A NON-POLITICAL, VERY OBJECTIVE, VERY SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS, AND I HAVE TO PRESUME AS QUIEK LIKELY AS NOT, IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE MAPS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RULING COMES DOWN AND CHANGES THE MAPS. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE VOTERS VOTE ON SOMETHING, YET THE BUREAUCRACY CHANGES IT ANYWAY...

I THINK THE PROCEDURAL WAY THAT IT WOULD WORK IF YOU WANTED TO ADOPT THE — A DISTRICTING — IT WOULDN'T BE A REDISTRICTING BECAUSE IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME YOU WILL BE DOING IT. IF YOU WANT TO ADOPT A DISTRICTING BEFORE THE ELECTION, THE WAY THAT I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO DO THAT PROCEDURALLY WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD ENACT AN ORDINANCE DIVIDING THE CITY INTO THESE ELECTORAL DISTRICTS, EIGHT ELECTORAL DISTRICTS, AND THAT ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE AS ITS EFFECTIVE DATE THE DATE ON WHICH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE SO THAT YOU WOULD ALREADY ENACT AS AN ORDINANCE, BUT IT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE WHEN THE — WHEN THE CHARTER WAS CHANGED SO THAT THEY WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY COME INTO EXISTENCE. REMEMBER, THE VOTERS WILL NOT BE VOTING ON THE MAP ITSELF. THE VOTERS WILL BE VOTING ON GOING TO AN 8-2 SYSTEM, AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM. AND YOUR MAP WOULD BE DRAWN BY ORDINANCE AND YOU WOULD PRESUMABLY BE TELLING THE VOTERS THAT THIS WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WE WOULD STICK WITH IF THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. NOW, WHEN THAT GOES TO JUSTICE, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, JUSTICE WILL LOOK AT THE TWO ISSUES WAY SEPARATELY. THEY WILL SEE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT CREATING AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM AS THE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT DIVIDES THE CITY INTO THOSE EIGHT POSSIBLE DISTRICTS. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD SAY WE'RE OKAY WITH AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM FOR AUSTIN AND WE PRECLEAR THAT, BUT WE DON'T LIKE THIS MAP, SO WE DON'T PRECLEAR THE MAP. MY GUESS IS THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT'S A POSSIBILITY. NOW, IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE MAP, THEY WOULD NOT REDRAW IT. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CHANGE WHAT YOU DO, THEY ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO IT. SO IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE YOUR MAP, THEY WOULD JUST TURN DOWN THE MAP AND THEN IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO DRAW A NEW ONE AS IT WILL BE, OF COURSE, NECESSARY FROM TIME TO TIME FOR COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE MAP BECAUSE OVER TIME THE CENSUS DATA WILL CHANGE AND EVERY 10 YEARS WE'LL GET A NEW CENSUS AND SO WE'LL HAVE TO BE CONTINUING REDISTRICTING FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ANSWER TO YOU — I THINK WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS, IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRECLEARS THE CHANGE, BUT DOESN'T PRECLEAR THE MAP, THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT IT WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL'S LAP AND YOU WILL NECESSARILY HAVE TO DRAW ANOTHER MAP UNTIL ONEc ACHIEVES PRECLEARANCE.

YNN: AND ADD ON TO THAT — I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE ADVISORY ROUTE ON THIS, BUT REALISTICALLY, FOR US TO APPOINT, SAY, A SEVEN-MEMBER ADVISORY PANEL IS GOING TO BE TWO MEETINGS FROM NOW, FOR THEM TO THEN CALL THEIR FIRST MEETING AND MEET IS GOING TO BE A MONTH FROM NOW AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TWO AND A HALF WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND THERE — IN FACT, WE CANCELLED THE COUNCIL MEETING RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND SO THERE MAY NOT EVEN BE A COUNCIL MEETING FOR US TO APPROVE IT BEFORE THE ELECTION ANYWAY. I JUST REALISTICALLY DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING BEFORE THE ELECTION. I COULD SEE IT BEING VERY SPECIFIC WITH THE VOTERS AS TO WHAT WE WILL DO IF IT PASSES. THAT IS, A SEVEN-MEMBER ADVISORY BOARD, THEIR FIRST MEETING IS, YOU KNOW, MAY 12TH AND THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, 40 DAYS TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL HAS TWO MEETINGS IN JULY TO APPROVE THE PLAN OR AMEND IT BEFORE AUGUST 1ST SUBMISSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WHEN I SAW THESE MAPS THAT ARE LABELED PROTOTYPES THAT ARE NOT IN ANY KIND OF DETAIL AS ALL FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SEE, IF THESE WERE GOING TO GO WITH THE BALLOT ITEM, THEY WOULD BE SORT OF SEMI OFFICIALLY THAT THIS WOULD BE THE CONCEPTUAL MAP THAT YOU KICK OFF FROM AND OBVIOUSLY THE DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN DECIDE DWOOEUDED INTO THE NUMBER AND THERE ARE SOME LOGIC INVOLVED IN HOW THESE LINES ARE DRAWN. BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DETAIL IN THESE MAPS TO GIVE EVEN US A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT PRECINCTS OR WHAT STREETS OR WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS ARE IN ANY OF THESE DISTRICTS OTHER THAN IN THE CENTER YOU CAN KIND OF TELL. BUT WE EITHER NEED — IF WE WANT TO DO IT BY DETAILED ACCEPTANCE ALONG WITH THE ITEM, THEN I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE MAPS THAT SHOW YOU MORE DETAIL AND THAT THESE ARE TOO CONCEPTUAL TO BE PASSED IN THAT WAY. SO I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DO IT KIND OF CONCEPTUALLY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AFTERWARDS, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION, BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, COME BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT THESE LITTLE LINES ACTUALLY DO, WHETHER ANY PRECINCTS OR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ON SORT OF INTERSECTIONS OR SPLIT FROM AN AREA BECAUSE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OF GEOGRAPHICAL THAT THEY NORMALLY ARE LINKED WITH. SO YOU THINK THAT'S TOO SYMBOLIC TO BE ABLE TO SEND THE MAPS THIS CONCEPTUAL KNOWING THIS IS WHERE WE KICK OFF FROM AND THAT BASICALLY THIS IS ABOUT HOW THE DISTRICTS WILL LOOK, BUT THE DETAILS OF THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT YET — OR THAT THEY COULD BE TWEAKED.

I MIGHT MENTION THAT, OF COURSE, THE MAPS THAT RYAN PRODUCED ARE NECESSARILY SMALL BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO FIT THEM IN YOUR BACKUP PACKET. WE CAN BLOW THESE UP AS LARGE AS YOU WOULD LIKE AND SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE STREET, THE BOUNDARIES CONSIST OF. I BELIEVE YOU BASED THESE ON ENO, MA'AM RATION DISTRICTS. AND ENM RATION DISTRICTS PROBABLY DON'T PASS COUNTY PRECINCT LINES SINCE. BUT THESE CAN BE BLOWN UP AND EXTREMELY ELABORATE DETAIL TO SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE ALL THESE LINES ARE. IF COUNCIL — COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MAKES A VERY GOOD POINT THAT AT THIS POINT AN ADVISORY BODY WOULD PROBABLY THROW A TIMING — A GREAT TIMING DIFFICULTY INTO GETTING PROTOTYPE DISTRICTS DRAWN. IF COUNCIL WERE INTERESTED IN DRAWING DISTRICTS BEFORE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, PROBABLY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT. BUT CERTAINLY I BELIEVE — RYAN CAN TELL YOU, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD QUICKLY PRODUCE MAPS BASED ON WHETHER IT CONCERNS — ON WHATEVER CONCERNS COUNCIL WANTED AND SHOW YOU WHAT VARIOUS SCENARIOS WILL LOOK LIKE.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE CAN NOW CONCENTRATE ON SIMPLY THE EIGHT-DISTRICT SCENARIO AND GIVE IT OUR FULL ATTENTION. AND AGAIN, WE CAN DRAW THIS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS AND WE CAN MAKE A MUCH MORE DETAILED REPRESENTATION, WHICH I FULLY DISAGREEc WITH. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO AND WE CAN TURN THATc AROUND BECAUSE WEc HAVE CREATED ALL THESE SCENARIOS, BUT IF WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON THE EIGHT-MEMBER, I THINK WE CAN GET INTO IT ON A LEVEL OF DETAIL MUCH DEEPER THAN WE'VE GOT BEFORE US RIGHT NOW.

GOODMAN: THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD — I'M SORRY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE ONES WHO CAN'T TELL AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN SAYING, WELL, WHO'S WHERE?

SLUSHER: EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE SAYING THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TRY TO DO IT OURSELVES. WE CANc ALWAYS SAY, WELL, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO — WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT JUST, FOR INSTANCE, I'M WORRIED THAT IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO IN WITHOUT THE MAP, THIS IS JUST A PROAT TOY TYPE. IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MAP THAT EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT, SO THEN IF IT'Sc CHANGED AND VOTERS PASS IT, PASSES THE 8-2-1 PLAN AND THEN THE COUNCIL COMES BACK BACK AND WHOEVER MIGHT BE HERE AT THAT TIME AND DOES A DIFFERENT MAP, THEN PEOPLE WILL SAY WAIT A MINUTE, YOU TOLD US ONE THING, NOW YOU'RE GIVING US SOMETHING ELSE. I'D BE REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I THINK MR. ROBINSON MAKES A GOOD POINT THAT NOW YOU CAN CONCENTRATE ON DOING THE EIGHT, WE CAN GIVE HIM WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO APPOINT AN ADVISORY GROUP AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS PROBABLY RIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TWO WEEKS JUST TO APPOINT THEM. SO I WOULD LIKE — THE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY IS GOING TO LIE HERE. WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT DONE. I'M SURE WE'LL GET A LOT OF THE PUBLIC'S PARTICIPATION ON THAT. I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET IT DGE SO THAT WEc CAN HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS AT LEAST IN EARLY APRIL, IF NOT BEFORE, SO THAT THEY'LL KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND LIKE MR. STEINER SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AS FAR AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHETHER WE DO IT NOW OR LATER BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY'RE GOING TO SEND IT BACK TO US, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REDRAW IT FOR US.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

: AND THEY INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION TO 8-2-1 THEN WE WOULD BE A SEVEN MEMBER AT LARGE COUNCIL.

SLUSHER: BACK TO THE STATUS YOUR.

BACK TO THE DRAWING — STATUS QUO. A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTEGRAL QUESTIONS. IF PRESUMABLY ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS, WELL, SINCE WE CAN ONLY AMEND THE CHARTER EVERY TWO YEARS, UNDER STATE LAW, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE COULD AMEND THE CHARTER AGAIN TO TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT IT.

SLUSHER: SO WE WOULD HAVE AN AT LARGE SYSTEM LIKE WE HAVE NOW.

RIGHT. IF THEY INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION, WE CANNOT ENFORCE THE CHANGE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT WOULD BE — LET'S SEE, TURNED IT IN IN AUGUST, TWO SIX DAY PERIODS, THE FIRST SIX DAYS WOULD BE OCTOBER, DECEMBER, SO BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THEY WILL — WE WOULD KNOW WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM AND THEN THE — THEN THE SYSTEM, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS BEGINNING TO IMPLEMENT IT WITH THE MAY ELECTION OF 2003.

AND THEN TO IMPLEMENT IT — THE MAY ELECTION OF 2003 REALLY BEGINS ON FEBRUARY 17TH, OF 2003. WHEN THE FILING PERIOD OPENS, THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING THAT WE NEED TO SET IT IN AUGUST BECAUSE THE WAY YOU HAVE JUST EXPLAINED THEN WE WILL PROBABLY, IF — IF ALL GOES WELL, WE WILL GET PRECLEARANCE IN JANUARY SOMETIME. WHICH WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF LEAD TIME FOR PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO AS FAR AS RUNNING FOR SEATS.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT YOU SAID THEY HAD TO DIED AFTER TWO 60 DAY PERIODS.

THEY HAVE TWO 60 DAYS PERIODS. THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION. SO COUNTING BACK FROM — FROM FEBRUARY 17TH OF 2003 — COUNTING BACK FROM FEBRUARY 17TH OF 2003, 120 DAYS, WHICH IS THE TWO 60 DAY PERIODS PUTS YOU IN MID OCTOBER OF 2002. THE REASON I BACKED THAT UP TO THE END OF AUGUST WAS TO ALLOW A FEW WEEKS FOR THEM TO ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION, FOR US TO GATHER IT. TO ALLOW FOR A FEW WEEKS FOR UNFORESEEN SNAFUS WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS HAPPEN IN ANY PROCESS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO TIME IT RIGHT DOWN TO THE RAZOR'S EDGE.

SLUSHER: RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND.

THAT LEAVES US SIX WEEKS OF PLAY. HOPEFULLY IF ALL WENT WELL WE WOULD FOUND OUT IN JANUARY OR IMPLEMENT IT IN FEBRUARY.

SLUSHER: THAT MEANS REALLY WE SHOULD — I WOULD WANT TO GET IT DONE BEFORE — RIGHT AT FEBRUARY 17TH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO ANYONE THAT MIGHT WANT TO RUN FOR THE COUNCIL. IT SEEMS LIKE I GOT TO THINK THAT THROUGH, BUT I THINK WE MIGHT BE GETTING GETTING INTO A PROTECT INCUMBENTS SITUATION THERE IF NOBODY KNEW WHAT TO DO UNTIL FEBRUARY 17TH.

IT WOULD CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, I'M A GUY WHO SHOWS UP AT THE AIRPORT THREE HOURS AHEAD OF TIME. BUT IF — [ LAUGHTER ] — IF — YEAH, I WOULD — I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO GET THIS OFF TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEFORE AUGUST, IF AT ALL DOABLE.

SLUSHER: BEFORE AUGUST.

I MEAN, BEFORE — THE SOONER WE GET IT MAILED OFF TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THE HAPPIER I'LL BE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I THINK THAT I WANT TO ECHO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S PROPOSAL TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE THE ELECTION, I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ELECTIONS. I THINK THE SOONER WE CAN COME TO AGREEMENT THE BETTER. THAT WAY IF IT PASSES, JUST RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION, THEN WE CAN FORWARD IT ALONG FOR THAT ANALYSIS TO OCCUR AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, GOING THROUGH A MONTH OR TWO PROCESS OF — OF DECIDING — DRAWING LINES AND THEN SENDING IT OFF. BECAUSE — BECAUSE TECHNICALLY PEOPLE, THE ELECTION CYCLE FOR COUNCIL SEAT IS SIX MONTHS, TECHNICALLY PEOPLE IN NOVEMBER COULD START — YOU KNOW, THE CAMPAIGNING PROCESS. SO TO ME IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE SOONER WE CAN GET THIS DONE, THE BETTER. AND WE HAVE SOME — YOU KNOW, SOME GOOD LEG WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. HOPEFULLY BY MID APRIL WE CAN COME TO SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT. SO I WOULD SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SUGGESTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: . MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I THINK WE HAVE GONE WAY, WAY OVER TOO LONG ON THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION. I THINK EVERYBODY IS — OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OPINION WAS APPARENT. WHY DON'T WE CUT TO THE CHASE AND SAY HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR A BIG MAP THAT'S IDENTIFIABLE BY STREET, BY PRECINCT, BY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND/OR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OVERLAY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHETHER THEY THINK ANYTHING IS SPLIT THAT SHOULD LOGICALLY BE TOGETHER AND WHETHER THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MASSAGE ANY OF THOSE — ANY OF THOSE LINES THAT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DISTRICTS?

TO —

GOODMAN: AND THEN BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, TOO, COULD WE GET IT ON THE WEBSITE AFTER WE GET IT PHYSICALLY TOGETHER.

TO REPLICATE THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION THAT WE'VE GOT, IN — AND TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE SETS OF DATA THAT YOU MENTION THE, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND REALLY A DETAILED MAP WOULD ONLY TAKE I THINK A COUPLE OF DAYS. I WILL ALSO LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY BEGIN SPIN OUT SOME MORE SPECIFIC EIGHT MEMBER SCENARIOS. NOT THAT THEY WOULD BE HUGELY DIFFERENT. BUT I THINK THAT WE COULD DO SOME BETTER MAXIMUMIZATION, BUT BECAUSE THESE WERE PRODUCED USING G.I.S., THE KIND OF MAP THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IT IMMINENTLY DOABLE, WOULD NOT TAKE US VERY LONG.

GOODMAN: THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ........................—

OKAY. THE NEXT THING THAT I NEED TO KNOW IS UNDER THE CURRENT CHARTER, WITH A SEVEN MEMBER COUNCIL, A QUORUM IS FOUR. AND IT ALSO TAKES A MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES TO DO ANYTHING. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT. YOU ARE GOING TO AN 11 MEMBER SYSTEM. SO PRESUMABLY YOU WOULD WANT A QUORUM TO BE SIX? AND WOULD — AND WOULD YOU PREFER THAT WE RETAIN THE SIMILAR VOTE REQUIREMENT THAT IT TAKES — THAT REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT IT TAKES AT LEAST SIX TO TAKE ACTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: I WOULD.

OKAY.

SLUSHER: ME, TOO.

THOMAS: ME, TOO.

ALL RIGHT.

SLUSHER: WHAT ABOUT A VALID PETITION? [ LAUGHTER ].

WELL, THAT'S A MATTER OF STATE LAW, WE WILL JUST TAKE A 75% OF WHATEVER THE SIZE OF THE BODY IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 8.

YEAH. I CAN'T DO THE MATH THAT QUICK. RONNIE CAN. WHATEVER —

SLUSHER: I BET THE MAYOR IS RIGHT. [ LAUGHTER ]. THE —

THE — UNDER THE — THE CURRENT CHARTER, TO PASS SOMETHING BY EMERGENCY VOTE, TAKES A VOTE OF 5 COUNCILMEMBERS. AND — WHICH WOULD BE TWO-THIRDS, IT'S THE CLOSEST NUMBER TO TWO-THIRDS OF SEVEN. SO WOULD YOU WANT ME JUST TO TAKE TWO-THIRDS OF 11 AND DO WHATEVER NUMBER THAT WORKS OUT TO BE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD WORK FINE.

SLUSHER: I THINK THAT MIGHT BE 3/4THS.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, FIVE IS TWO-THIRDS.

SLUSHER: BACK TO THE VALID PETITION, THAT'S 3/4THS?

SLUSHER: THEN I GET THAT AS 9 BECAUSE IT'S 8.25.

MAYOR GARCIA: 9, YES, I MISSED IT, SORRY COUNCILMEMBER.

SLUSHER: I HAD FAITH IN YOU, BUT I WENT AHEAD AND DID A CALCULATOR ANYWAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU HAVE A CALCULATOR THERE.

SLUSHER: YEAH, I DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S NOT FAIR TO PULL THAT ON THE MAYOR.

SLUSHER: YOU GOT ONE, TOO. [ LAUGHTER ]

IN ORDER TO AMEND —

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE IT.

IN ORDER TO AMEND A CITIZEN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE LIKE S.O.S., THE CHARTER REQUIRES A VOTE OF 6 COUNCILMEMBERS. SO I PRESUME THAT YOU WILL WANT IT TO BE NINE?

SLUSHER: IN ORDER TO WHAT —

THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE COUNCIL MAY AMEND A CITIZEN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE. THE ONLY ONE THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW IS S.O.S. SO IN ORDER TO AMEND S.O.S., IT REQUIRES UNDER THE CURRENT CHARTER SIX — SIX VOTES OF THE COUNCIL. SO WHEREVER IT SAYS SIX, DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY NINE?

SLUSHER: YES, I WOULD.

OKAY. WHENEVER IT SAYS —

SLUSHER: 3/4THS AGAIN. S.O.S. SAID SIX SPECIFICALLY. NOT 3/4THS, IT SAYS SIX.

SIX IS THE CLOSEST NUMBER TO 3/4THS.

SLUSHER: I GUESS THAT NINE WOULD BE EQUIVALENT — THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST NUMBER —

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

AND, 5, WHERE IT — LIKE FOR THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IT REQUIRES FIVE VOTES, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST NUMBER TO 2/3RDS. WHERE IT SAYS FIVE, WOULD YOU WANT ME TO SAY — THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SEVEN?

WHERE IT SAYS FIVE — NO EIGHT. IT WOULD BE SEVEN PLUS A FRACTION. SO IT WOULD BE EIGHT.

TWO-THIRDS —

THE CHARTER REQUIRES FIVE VOTES, WOULD YOU LIKE 8, WHERE IT REQUIRES SIX VOTES WOULD YOU LIKE NINE I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.

SLUSHER: THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FIGURES, WITH THE PERCENTAGES.

IF EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH THAT. THEN RECALL. RIGHT NOW RECALL REQUIRES A PETITION WITH 10% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS IN THE CITY AS TO THE DISTRICT OFFICERS, WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE 10% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT? AND AS TO THE AT LARGE, RETAIN 10% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY? THE WAY I WOULD WRITE THAT WOULD BE IN ORDER TO DO A RECALL YOU WOULD — IT WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST 10% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE TERRITORY FROM WHICH THE OFFICES ARE ELECTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN GEORGETOWN.

SLUSHER: SURE IS.

OKAY WITH THAT. I WILL DRAFT IT THAT WAY, THEN.

SLUSHER: NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO RAISE THAT [ LAUGHTER ].

OF COURSE THE RECALL ELECTION WOULD ONLY BE HELL IN THE TERRITORY FROM WHICH THE COUNCIL IS ELECTED. I THINK THAT GETS US THROUGH MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT I CAN THINK OF. OH, THERE'S ONE OTHER. WITH RESPECT TO THE — TO THE TRANSITION, I WILL — I WILL GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE A TRANSITION. PERHAPS IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO PROVIDE THAT THE TRANSITION CAN INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION FROM THE TERM LIMITS PROVISION IF ONE REMAINS. FOR PEOPLE WHO GET A SHORT-TERM, IF SOMEBODY ENDS UP, FOR EXAMPLE, GETTING A TWO YEAR TERM OR A ONE YEAR TERM BECAUSE OF TRANSITION PROVISION, WE MIGHT WANT TO GIVE THEM A — AN EXCEPTION FROM TERM LIMITS FOR THAT SHORT-TERM. SO IN OTHER WORDS THE TERM LIMITS WOULD ONLY KICK IN FOR FULL TERMS. AND WE COULD — I COULD PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE THAT AUTHORITY BY ORDINANCE IN THE TRANSITION PROVISION.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: ON THE TRANSITION, I WOULD THINK LIKE THE MAP WE SHOULD DO BEFORE THE ELECTION AND I WOULD THINK WE COULD DO THAT EVEN BEFORE THE MAP. SO COULD YOU WORD THAT IN SUCH A WAY IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE COUNCIL, THAT — THAT THE TRANSITION WILL BE DONE BY AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THE DATE OF THIS ELECTION.

UM ... WELL, I CAN — I CAN GET AN ORDINANCE TO YOU THAT DO ALL THOSE THINGS IN THAT TAME FRAME.

SLUSHER: I'M WONDERING IF THAT NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE CHARTER —

IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE CHARTER PROVISION WON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.

SLUSHER: BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT, THAT IT WILL BE WHAT WE PASSED —

WILL BE IN EFFECT BEFORE THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM.

SLUSHER: WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET HERE IS THAT THIS COUNCIL WOULD PASS THE TRANSITION PLAN SO THAT THE VOTERS WILL KNOW WHAT THE TRANSITION PLAN IS GOING TO BE AND THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY GOING BACK ON THAT TRANSITION PLAN AFTER THE ELECTION, AFTER ITS PASSED. JUST LIKE I WANTED TO DO WITH THE MAP.

I COULD PROVIDE THAT A TRANSITION PLAN THAT'S IN EFFECT ON THE DATE THAT THE CHARTER IS ADOPTED —

SLUSHER: THERE YOU GO.

OKAY. MAY NOT BE AMENDED. BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT AN OUT IN THERE, UNLESS IT WERE NECESSARY TO DO SO BECAUSE OF LITIGATION OR A — OR A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FAILURE TO GET JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRECLEARANCE, DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

SLUSHER: THAT'S PRUDENT.

I THINK I CAN WRITE THAT IN.

WYNN: SEEMS TO ME IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE IT TAKES FOUR VOTES, WE MIGHT RUN OUT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO WE WILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN DEFAULT PRIOR TO THE VOTE.

SLUSHER: I DON'T SEE WHY WE COMPLAINT PASS THAT NEXT MEETING. I MEAN, FIVE OR SIX, FOUR OR FIVE MEETINGS BEFORE THE ELECTION. WE JUST CAN'T — I CAN GO INTO IT TONIGHT, BUT IT'S AN ORDINANCE, SO — WE ARE NOT POSTED FOR IT — IF WE ARE GOING TO DO IT BY ORDINANCE, WE CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT. IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT IT IN THE CITY CHARTER, WHICH WE DECIDE TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY, WE COULD DO IT TONIGHT IF WE DO IT BY THE CITY CHARTER, RIGHT?

SINCE THIS IS ALL RELATED TO GOING TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS I THINK YOU CAN DISCUSS IT'S, BUT OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T DRAFT IT RIGHT NOW. [ LAUGHTER ].

SLUSHER: OH, REALLY?

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ELSE?

THAT SHOULD GIVE ME ENOUGH ENOUGH TO WRITE THE SINGLE-MEMBER PART OF THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: WE TALKED ABOUT THE REDISTRICTING OR WHETHER WE SHOULD REDISTRICT OR NOT?

WELL, YOU TOLD ME THAT THAT WOULD BE LEFT UP TO COUNCIL, SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I NEED TO PUT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE —

SLUSHER: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE EVERY 10 YEARS —

YOU ARE RIGHT. IF I DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS EVERY TEN YEARS YOU WILL — WELL, PRESUMABLY EVERY 10 YEARS YOU WILL DRAW NEW LINES AND YOU WILL JUST SORT OF COUNT ON THOSE LINES NOT BEING SO DRASTICALLY CHANGED THAT IT'S — THAT WHEN THE NEW ELECTION COMES UP, DISTRICT 1 IS MORE OR LESS STILL DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 2 IS STILL MORE OR LESS DISTRICT 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, I COULD PUT IN A PROVISION THAT SAYS EVERY 10 YEARS YOU START OVER AND EVERY 10 YEARS THE WHOLE COUNCIL IS ELECTED AT THE FIRST ELECTION AFTER THE REDISTRICTING AND THEN YOU STAGGER THE TERMS AFTER THAT. OR I COULD EVEN PROVIDE THAT THERE WAS SUCH A THING AS A MAJOR REDISTRICTING AND A MINOR REDISTRICTING WHERE'S A MAJOR REDISTRICTING WAS ONE WHERE THE LINES WERE REALLY SORT OF UNRECOGNIZABLE, A MINOR REDISTRICTING WAS ONE WHERE THEY JUST SORT OF MOVED A LITTLE BIT. BUT THE — PROBABLY THE EASIEST THING TO DO IS JUST TO BE SILENT ON IT AND LET IT WORK ITSELF OUT.

BUT IF WE ARE SILENT ON IT, THEN THOSE DISTRICTS JUST STAY IN PLACE UNTIL — PERMANENTLY.

UNTIL YOU CHANGE THEM.

SLUSHER: SO — YOU.

BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE ONLY — THE REAL DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT EVERY 10 YEARS WHEN YOU DO A REDISTRICTING YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO KEEP MORE OR LESS THE SAME CONFIGURATION AS OPPOSED TO JUST STARTING FROM A BLANK MAP.

SLUSHER: WELL, THAT'S A — COULD YOU DRAFT UP ONE THAT'S — I WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU GET THROUGH TALKING — DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? OKAY. WE VICE-PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE VERY MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU DRAFT UP, SEEMS LIKE JUST A FEW SENTENCES, THAT WE WILL CHANGE EVERY 10 YEARS AND THEN IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN WE CANNOT PASS THAT AND REMAIN SILENT ON IT. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THAT —

I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE EITHER WAY.

SLUSHER: I KNOW IT CAN BE SORT OF A TAWDRY SPECTACLE, AS WE HAVE SEEN. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT BOTHERS ME TO JUST LEAVE — WE ARE GOING TO DRAW THE DISTRICTS NOW AND THOSE WOULD BE JUST IN PLACE FOREVER AND UNLESS — MAYBE — I CAN SEE THAT MAYBE PEOPLE WILL START SAYING THESE DISTRICTS AREN'T FAIR ANYMORE, THESE DISTRICTS DON'T REFLECT THE CURRENT STATE OF AUSTIN.

I CAN SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THAT.

WE CAN LEAVE THAT OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO ARE WE READY? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH STUFF?

I HAVE ENOUGH TO GO ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING TO POST THIS ITEM INCIDENTALLY FOR ACTION, I THINK WE ARE — I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE NOT HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THE 20TH AND INSTEAD HAVE AN ACTION SESSION, SO WE HAVE IT ON THE 20TH AND THEN THE 21ST, SO THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOME — SOME POLISHING UP, WE CAN HAVE THAT EXTRA DAY.

THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

MAYOR GARCIA: WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM THE COUNCIL — OKAY. THERE IS — ITEM NO. 9, WHICH HAS SEVERAL PROVISIONS AND — LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND MY AGENDA. A LITTLE BIT LONG. HERE I GOT IT. THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM IS — THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WERE CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION. THE FIRST ITEM IS THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ARTICLE 2, SEX 2 [SIC]. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THAT? — ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2 [SIC], DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THAT? THE COMMISSION, IS RECOMMENDING THE REPEAL OF THAT ITEM OR THAT WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT?

YES, MAYOR, GARCIA THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT? IS THERE —

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT AS A WAY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT AND SO WHEN I PUT IT ON BEFORE I DID NOT BELIEVE IN IT EITHER AND SINCE IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME ANYMORE AND I DON'T WANT IT TO AFFECT ANYBODY WHO COMES AFTER ME EITHER, I MAKE A MOTION WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTERS TO CHOOSE.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

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

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: SEEMS TO ME —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS.

WYNN: PERHAPS WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE SPEAKERS BEFORE WE —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MR. FRED LEWIS? MS. — MISTY LEZAVARGA. NOT HERE, I WILL READ HER STATEMENT. MR. RICKY BIRD. MR. JIM WALKER, I DON'T SEE MR. WALKER HERE. HE DIDN'T LEAVE ME A NOTE. MR. PETER ODONAHUE, IS HE HERE? OKAY. FRED, WITH HIM, SIR.

ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT 9C AND 9D, THAT'S OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE CONSIDERING THE WHOLE 9. WE WILL GET THERE QUICKLY.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, IT'S GOTTEN LATE. I HAVE THREE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SAY. ONE IS I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DECIDE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT TONIGHT. THE ELECTION ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BEGIN AROUND MID APRIL. BECAUSE WE DON'T VOTE ON JUST MAY 4TH, WE VOTE STARTING ALMOST THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION. AND EVEN IF YOU PUT IT ON AT THE NEXT POSSIBLE CHANCE AND DECIDE EVERYTHING AND DECIDE THE LANGUAGE MARCH 21ST, THAT'S LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION. SO I THINK WE HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME AND I HOPE THAT YOU MAKE ALL OF YOUR DECISIONS TONIGHT BECAUSE I THINK LESS THAN A MONTH TO HAVE AN ELECTION WITH ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT ENOUGH. SECOND, ON THE ISSUE OF REPEALING THE CHARTER SECTION ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OF $100 LIMITS, I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT Y'ALL KNOW, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION WAS A FIVE TO 10 MINUTE DISCUSSION BY AN ETHICS COMMISSION MEMBER TO REPEAL IT. THERE WAS NO STUDY BY THE COMMISSION. THEY HAD A REPRESENTATION FROM ONE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION WANTED TO REPEAL THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. AS YOU KNOW FROM A LETTER YOU GOT, THE ETHICS COMMISSION MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT. IN FACT THEY SAID THEY DID NOT WISH IT TO BE REPEALED, WISHED IT TO BE NO ALTERNATIVES. THERE'S BEEN NO STUDY OF THAT. THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, WHICH CAME OUT OF, I BELIEVE, 3, 2, 1, WAS MADE ON MISINFORMATION. LAST, THE ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE LIMITS SHOULD BE RAISED OR NOT RAISED THAT'S NEVER BEEN STUDIED, ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE AN ETHICS COMMISSION THAT'S HAD — THAT'S HAD SINCE 1997 TO STUDY IT, HAS MADE NO SUCH STUDY. NEITHER THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSIONS MADE ANY SUCH STUDY NOR HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION REGARDING IT. AND LASTLY, FRANKLY, YOU HAVEN'T POSTED IT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. THERE'S CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE RAISING LIMITS. THERE IS AMENDMENTS THAT THEY REJECTED, WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE RAISING LIMITS. APPEARED THERE'S 10 REGARDING RESIGN TO RUN PROVISIONS. SO YOU HAVE IN MY VIEW NOT POSTED OR HELD ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING RAISING THE LIMITS. AND I WOULD SUGGEST YOU NOT DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. LEWIS? THANK YOU, MR. LEWIS. [INAUDIBLE] LEFT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, WHICH I WILL READ INTO THE RECORD: MY CONCERNS ARE CENTERED ON APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND CITIZEN INPUT AND STRENGTHENING OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. ALSO, I'M CONCERNED WITH HOW THIS — THESE ITEMS OVERLY COMPLICATE AND CONFUSE VOTERS IN REGARD TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORM. THE [INAUDIBLE] WAS DELIBERATED AT LENGTHS AND COUNCILMEMBERS WERE INVITED TO THIS PROCESS. LIKE TONY BLAIR WOULD SAY PRO-SESS. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR AND SHORT SIGHTED TO HAVE POORLY THOUGHT OUT ALTERNATIVES ON THE BALLOT THAT WOULD ONLY MUDDY THE WATERS. I AM SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF INDEPENDENT TEXANSND AND AS A PETITIONER WHO WORKED HARD TO GET SIGNATURES FOR THE AUSTIN FAIR LEAK. I AM IN FAVOR OF 9B AND D. I'M AGAINST 9A AND C. I THINK MANY AUSTINITES ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH ME. THAT'S THE STATEMENT. AND THEN MR. RICKY BIRD.

9A THROUGH D.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, I — I LISTED 9A THROUGH D BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE FORMAT TO SPEAK TO. YOU COULD SPEAK I THINK THE THREE MINUTES TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS. REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M SORRY, I DISAGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU CAN CLEAN UP YOUR GOVERNMENT BY LIMITING YOUR EXPERIENCED HELP AS WELL AS YOUR GOOD HELP. SEEMS TO ME THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, IF THEY ARE GIVEN A DECENT COVERAGE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES FULLY COMPETENT TO DETERMINE WHO TO REMOVE AND WHO NOT TO REMOVE AND NOT BE DEPENDENT ON AN ARTIFICIAL ITEM THAT WAS DELIVERED DURING THE TIMES OF ROSS PEROT'S RISE TO POWER. WE AND YOU WILL SEE HOW LONG THAT LASTED. ARTIFICIAL THINGS DO NOT PROTECT DEMOCRACY. VOTERS PROTECT DEMOCRACY, THE WAY THEY ACT THE WAY THEY CARRY OUT THEIR DEMOCRACY OR DOESN'T. LOWERING THE PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED VOTER SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON PETITION TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE, WE DECIDED AS A WHOLE THAT WE WANTED 5% TO BE ABLE TO INITIATE ORDINANCES OR REPEAL THEM. THIS IS QUALIFIED VOTERS. THERE WERE THOSE THAT SUGGESTED TO US THAT WE SHOULD TAKE 10% OF THE VOTERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE LAST CITY ELECTION. MY ANSWER TO THAT WAS THAT WOULD RAISE THE POSSIBLY OF HAVING LESS THAN 1% OF THE POPULATION DETERMINE WHAT GETS ON THE BALLOT. I JUST COULDN'T GO FOR THAT. REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. YOU HEARD THAT THE LADY THAT WAS A CHAIR OF THE E.R.C. APPARENTLY SPOKE, OF THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED MY VOTE. ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8 IS A WELL INTENTIONED LAW. IT WAS CRAFTED WITH SOME CARE, IT WAS CARRIED OUT WITH A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT. HOWEVER, IT HASN'T WORKED PROPERLY. AS ITS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, IT HAS DRIVEN DOWN THE AMOUNT OF VOTER PARTICIPATION RATHER THAN GIVEN RISE TO IT. THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF REFORM IS SUPPOSED TO DO. $100 LIMITS SOUND GOOD, EXCEPT WHEN THEY DRIVE OUT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT THIS LAW HAS THE — UNFORTUNATE TENDENCY OF DOING. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN ANIATED FAIR ELECTIONS ACT OF MAY 4, 2002 BALLOT. YES, LET'S VOTE ON IT BY ALL MEANS. I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED AS A SUPER ORDINANCE. RATHER THAN A CHARTER ELECTION ITEM. I THINK IT MAY BE OVERBROAD IN WHAT IT'S TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IDEA THAT WE NEED TO DEBATE. AND THINK ABOUT. THERE'S MORE AT LARGE HERE THAN JUST DOLLAR AMOUNTS. THERE'S ALSO PARTICIPATION. [BUZZER SOUNDING]. THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN THAT ARE EARNING LESS THAN 5 FIGURE INCOMES, THEY HAVE IDEAS, THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, TOO. I THINK THEY DESERVE THAT CHANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BIRD. JIM WALKER IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM C, BUT DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK I'M SORRY. HE'S REGISTERED AGAINST ITEM C. MR. PETER O DONAHUE. WELCOME, SIR.

MY NAME IS PETER O DONAHUE, WITH INDEPENDENT TEXANS, A GRASS ROOT ORGANIZATION FOR POLITICAL REFORM. AND I'M HERE TO STATE OUR OPINION AGAINST 9A WHICH IS A REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS. THIS COUNCIL PLACED IT ON THE BALLOT, IT WAS PASSED BY THE CITIZENS. AND THE KEY THING IS THAT IT'S A VERY FAIR LAW WITH REGARD TO TERM LIMITS. IT NOT ONLY PROVIDES THE MEANS FOR SETTING A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF TERMS, BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES A MEANS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EXTEND THEIR TIME BY GOING TO THE CITIZENS, BY DEMONSTRATING THEIR POPULAR SUPPORT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND GETTING SIGNATURES. I THINK THE — THE EFFECTS OF WHAT HAPPENED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO IN CALIFORNIA PROVED THAT TERM LIMITS ARE POPULAR AND I THINK THAT TERM LIMITS SHOULD NOT BE REPEALED. IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO EFFECT A CHANGE ON TERM LIMITS, THERE ARE THE OTHER LOOP HOLES THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT TO EFFECT. WITH REGARD TO 9D, THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT, I WOULD FULLY AGREE WITH THIS. THE REFORM, WHAT'S CLEAR FROM THIS IS THAT REFORM IS NEEDED, CAMPAIGN FINANCE. PEOPLE LIKE ME, AND MY ORGANIZATION, ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND COLLECTED SIGNATURES, 28,000 TO SUPPORT THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT. SO CLEARLY THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR IT. AN ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT WOULD — WOULD POTENTIALLY PROVIDE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, YET IT WOULD MORE — MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT WILL CREATE CONFUSION. WHEN YOU PUT TWO — TWO COMPETING INITIATIVES ON A SINGLE BALLOT, CITIZENS HAVE TO QUESTION WHICH ONE ARE THEY LOOKING AT, WHICH ONE HAVE THEY HEARD ABOUT, WHICH ONE DID THEY SIGN FOR AND SUPPORT DURING THE PETITION GUIDE. SO I DEFINITELY ASKED YOU TO TAKE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AND NOT PUT AN ALTERNATIVE ON TO THE BALLOT TO ELIMINATE THE CONFUSION WHEN A VOTER GOES IN AND TRIES TO PUT DOWN THEIR HONEST OPINION AND THEIR VOTE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. DONAHUE. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE, COUNCIL. WE ARE BACK TO ITEM 9A. REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DID I — DID I HEAR A MOTION FROM YOU MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: YES, YOU DID. AND IF I MIGHT MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WAS THERE A SECOND?

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: RELATIVE TO THE YOUNG MAN WHO JUST SPOKE, I'M ACTUALLY VERY HAPPY TO SEE SOME YOUNG PEOPLE IN ACTIVIST ROLES, THAT'S BEEN NOT VERY EVIDENT LATELY. BUT, TOO, HOWEVER, THOUGH HAVING BEEN IN THIS A WHILE I THINK I UNDERSTAND MY PLACE AND MY RESPONSIBLE AS A VOTER, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A LOOPHOLE, I'M LOOKING FOR MY RIGHT TO VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE 1994 ELECTION ALSO WHEN WE HAD OUR LAST SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT ELECTION, WHEN WE ALSO HAD TERM LIMITS ON THE BALLOT. THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT ELECTION WAS RELATIVELY CLOSE, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ALMOST PASSED WITHOUT [INAUDIBLE] TERM LIMITS OVERWHELMINGLY WERE APPROVED. SINCE THEN WE HAVE GONE — THE REASON BEHIND THAT, I THINK IS OBVIOUS. FOLKS ARE ON THE CITY AND — AROUND THE CITY AND AROUND THE COUNTRY, EVEN, JUST SEE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF BEING AN INCUMBENT. JUST THE NAME RECOGNITION, PUBLICITY, WHATEVER. IT'S NOT EASY ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO DEFEAT AN INCUMBENT. SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTIN VOTERS IN 1994 SAID WE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS BECAUSE IT'S — BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE SOME TURNOVER. SINCE THEM, WE HAVE GONE — WE HAVE MADE IT EVEN WORSE WITH THE 1997 $100 LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS, MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO CHALLENGE AN INCUMBENTS. AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THE $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, AT LEAST FOR FOLKS TRYING TO RUN AN AT LARGE ELECTION, OVER 277 SQUARE MILE, REACHING OVER 400,000 REGISTERED VOTERS, I CAN'T SUPPORT REPEALING THE TERM LIMITS. BUT I SAID IN A MEMO TO YOU ALL LAST MONTH, IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GIVE CHALLENGERS A FIGHTING CHANCE TO TAKE ON INCUMBENTS, THEN I BECOME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH TALKING ABOUT REPEALING TERM LIMITS. I DO SEE A SCENARIO WHERE THE — BECAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSY AROUND IT AND SOME — SOME ISSUES RAISED BY OTHERS ABOUT IT, I SEE A SCENARIO WHERE THE AUSTIN — AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT DOESN'T PASS AT THE BALLOT IN MAY. AND SO WE ARE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE ARE NOW. AND WE CAN'T EVEN AMEND OUR CHARTER FOR TWO YEARS AND SO AT A TIME WHEN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, EVEN THE U.S. CONGRESS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD IS TALKING ABOUT AND APPROVING TRUE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, AUSTIN, TEXAS COULD VERY EASILY IN MAY OF 2002 NOT PLAY THAT GAME AND BE LEFT OUT IN THE COLD AND HAVE NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, HAVE A — CONTINUE TO HAVE STIFLING SET OF CAMPAIGN STRUCTURES THAT MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CHALLENGER TO TAKE ON AN INCUMBENT. AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT UNLET ME OF A PLAYING FIELD, I CAN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF — OF REPEALING TERM LIMITS. I THINK A LOT OF VOTERS ARE GOING TO RECOGNIZE THAT, TOO. SO I WON'T BE VOTING TO — TO PUT — FOR REPEALING THE TERM LIMITS ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK MR. STEINER. TONIGHT'S VOTES ARE NOT ORDINANCES, THIS IS JUST THE DIRECTION TO WRITE THE LANGUAGE FOR THEM, CORRECT? THEN WE WILL HAVE AN ORDINANCE TO PUT THEM ON THE BALLOT?

IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL CHOOSES BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE — A DRAFT YET THAT REFLECTS WHAT YOU DECIDE TONIGHT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE NEVER DECIDED IT BEFORE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

ALVAREZ: THANKS, MAYOR. THIS — ON THE SUBJECT OF REPEALING THE TERM LIMITS, I PERSONALLY AM NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THAT. AND I THINK THAT I HAVE — THAT I TALKED TO SOME FOLKS ABOUT MY INTERESTS IN MAYBE EXTENDING IT FOR A THIRD TIME. THEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT NINE YEARS, WHICH IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR SOMEONE TO SERVE. I THINK STATISTICS, THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER PRESENTED LAST TIME SHOWED THAT THERE WEREN'T TOO MANY FOLKS THAT SERVED MUCH BEYOND THE NINE YEAR PERIOD. SO — SO I WOULD SUPPORT MAYBE EXTENDING THE NUMBER OF TERMS THAT SOMEBODY COULD SERVE TO THREE, BUT I DON'T THINK — I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING AT THIS POINT THAT WE WILL JUST GET RID OF TERM LIMITS ALTOGETHER SINCE THIS AGAIN WAS A VOTER PASSED — INITIATIVE. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: WELL, I THINK I WILL JUST KEEP ON LISTENING AND LEARNING FOR A WHILE. THESE COMMENTS ARE VERY INTERESTING. [ LAUGHTER ]. VERY INFORMATIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY OTHER —

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I ALWAYS YIELD TO THE SENIORITY, GO AHEAD.

SLUSHER: WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL SEE IF I CAN KEEP THE LEARNING PROCESS GOING HERE. YEAH, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. I'M AFFECTED BY THE CURRENT TERM LIMIT LAW. AND I'M COMPLYING FULLY WITH IT. I'M NOT GOING TO — I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ANY LOOP HOLES. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS ONE THERE THAT I HAVE SAID PUBLICLY A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AND WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. AND SO WE ARE COMPLYING COMPLETELY, I'M COMPLYING COMPLETELY WITH THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION. I DON'T THINK IF IT IS PASSED — I MEAN EXCUSE ME, IF IT'S REPEALED I DOUBT THAT I WILL EVER BE AFFECTED BY THAT. NEVER SAY NEVER, BUT I DOUBT THAT SERIOUSLY. SO I THINK — SO I THINK JUST — ON WHAT I THINK IS THE BEST PUBLIC POLICY. I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE THE VOTERS THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO REPEAL IT. IF THEY DON'T REPEAL IT, I THINK IT'S PRETTY FIRMLY IN PLACE. BUT I BELIEVE THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE IN THE COUNTRY IS CAN I HAVE NOW THAT WAS IN 1994. THAT WAS PART OF THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA WHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAPTURED THE CONGRESS, THE MAJORITY TOOK — TOOK OVER THE MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THEIR PLATFORM WAS TERM LIMITS. AND THEN ONCE THEY GOT IN THERE AND HAD A MAJORITY, WELL, THAT SORT OF JUST DRIFTED AWAY. WE DON'T HAVE TERM LIMITS PASSED BY THE CONGRESS. WE DON'T HAVE NATIONAL TERM LIMITS, EXCEPT ON THE PRESIDENT AND THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE A LONG TIME. HERE IN AUSTIN, LOCALLY, I — THIS PROBABLY IS THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE HEARD THE MOST ABOUT, WELL, THERE'S OBVIOUS REASON WHY BECAUSE I'VE BEEN OUT THERE TALKING TO HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS, REALLY, OF PEOPLE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT A LOT OF THEM DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT AUSTIN HAS TERM LIMITS. I WOULD SAY FRANKLY ABOUT 90% OR MORE OF THE FOLKS THAT I TALK TO, I THINK PROBABLY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN WILL BACK THAT UP, THAT'S BECAUSE — I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SUCH A LONG LAG. PASSED IN '94 BUT DIDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL '96, THEN ONE HAD TO SERVE TWO TERMS AFTER THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T RETROACTIVE, SO HERE WE ARE EIGHT YEARS LATER BEFORE IT TAKES EFFECT. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE REASON A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE — GOING BACK TO THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE NATIONALLY AND EVEN HERE IN TEXAS. FOR INSTANCE, BOB LANIER, A FORMER MAYOR OF HOUSTON, I NOW IN FAVOR OF — I MEAN AGAINST TERM LIMITS, USED TO BE IN FAVOR OF THEM. SO I WOULD SAY LET'S GIVE THE FOLKS A CHANCE VOTE AGAIN ON IT LIKE OUR CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION RECOMMENDED. THE ISSUE OF — WITH THE $100 LIMIT STILL IN PLACE, I THINK THAT'S A DECENT POINT AND WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT — THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN A MINUTE. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT — ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT CONGRESS IS PASSING, IT LOOKS LIKE CONGRESS IS GOING TO INSTITUTE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS YEAR. LOOKS LIKE THE PRESIDENT IS POSSIBLY GOING TO SIGN IT. BUT — BUT CONGRESS IS A ELECTED BODY. — IS A LEGISLATED BODY, THEY ARE INSTITUTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE BODY THROUGH THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED. THEY ARE NOT PUTTING IT ON AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT WE HAVE IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISIONS IN THE CITY CHARTER. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY AN ORDINANCE AND ANY WAY WE DO IT, WE ARE GOING TO GET CRITICIZED BY SOMEBODY, SO WE WILL GET CRITICIZED FOR — FOR IF WE DO IT BY AN ORANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND WE MAY NOT GET TO THAT POINT BECAUSE WE ARE PUTTING THE ONE ON THAT IS INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM THROUGH THE SIGNATURE DRIVE OF THE GROUP THAT — REPRESENTED, THAT SPOKE EARLIER TONIGHT, THAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE IT GOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO GET ON THE BALLOT. WE ARE GOING TO PUT THAT ON. WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT ON ALTERNATIVE I TALKED ABOUT THAT ONE TIME. DECIDED NOT TO DO IT AFTER HEARING FROM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS FROM THE COMMUNITY. SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE THAT. I THINK IF THAT DOESN'T PASS WE SHOULD COME BACK AND DO AN ORDINANCE AS A COUNCIL, WE SHOULDN'T GO BACK TO OUR OLD SYSTEM. WE WILL GO BACK TO THE TERM LIMIT FOR VISION, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A REPEAL ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO YOU BEFORE I MAKE MY COMMENTS.

THOMAS: YES, SIR, THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, I THINK THE CITIZENS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANT THE TERM LIMITS, AT THIS TIME I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED OF DANCING AROUND THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE, I WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN MY POSITION. THEY ACCUSE ME OF GOING AROUND THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE WHEN I MOVED FROM PLACE 5 TO PLACE 2. WELL, THE ORDINANCE DIDN'T APPLY AT THAT TIME. I DIDN'T MOVE FOR THAT REASON. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. AND THEN I QUIT AFTER THE FIRST TERM AND IN WHICH TERM LIMITS APPLIED, SO I DIDN'T — I DIDN'T COME CLOSE TO HAVING TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THEN I CAME INTO THIS OFFICE AND THIS TERM DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD TERM LIMITS. SO, YOU KNOW, I WILL BE AS OLD AS STROM THURMON IF I GO THROUGH ALL THE TIME THAT I HAVE ON THE TERM LIMITS, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE ARE STILL POKING FUN AT ME OVER THIS THING. SO — BUT I THINK — WELL, ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. STEINER. WHAT HAPPENS IF — IF TERM LIMITS STAY IN PLACE AND THEN WE HAVE AN 8-2-1, DOES IT START RUNNING AGAINST? DOES THAT MEAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING IN OTHER PLACES? OR DOES THE TERM LIMIT APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS?

THE TERM LIMIT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS SERVING IN A POSITION. SO IT'S ARTICLE —

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF YOU ARE ON THE COUNCIL AND YOUR NAME IS GUS GARCIA, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU ARE, IT'S GOING TO APPLY TO YOU.

NO, SIR. IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU ARE. SO — AS MAY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO AVOID THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION IN THE CHARTER. ONE WAY IS A LOOPHOLE WHICH IS THAT YOU CAN SWITCH SEATS. AND THAT — IT'S PROBABLY INSTRUCTIVE THAT THIS WAS ON THE BALLOT AT THE SAME TIME AS A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT INITIATIVE. PROBABLY THE DRAFTERS WERE THINKING THAT PEOPLE WOULDN'T SWITCH SEATS BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LIVE IN THE OTHER DISTRICT. BUT THE '94 ELECTION MAY HAVE HAD SOME AT LARGE — LET ME CHECK. IN '94, —

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] SYSTEM. IT WAS '81.

I HAVE A LITTLE FILING CABINET HERE TO CARRY AROUND WITH ME: IN '94, IT WAS PEER AT LARGE SYSTEM. SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT IN THAT — HAD THAT PASSED AS WELL, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITHOUT ACTUALLY MOVING TO A NEW DISTRICT. BUT SINCE THEN PASSED AND THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS DOESN'T THERE'S A LOOPHOLE BECAUSE IT SAYS A PERSON MAY NOT — A PERSON MAY NOT — NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED AND SERVE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. IF YOU CHANGE POSITION, YOU ARE NOT — YOU ARE NOT [INAUDIBLE]. OF COURSE THE OTHER WAY OUT WAS THE WAY OUT THAT WAS MEANT TO BE, WHICH IS THE PETITION. IF WE SWITCHED TO A MIXED SYSTEM, TO AN 8-2-3 —

MAYOR GARCIA: 8-2-1 —

SORRY, I'M STARTING TO GET A LITTLE PUN CHEE. A THREE MAYOR SYSTEM WOULD BE INTERESTING. PUNCHY.

I THINK THEY HAVE THAT IN YUGOSLAVIA.

WE HAVE SIX, SEVEN MAYORS HERE. [ LAUGHTER ]

BUT THE — SO — IF WE SWITCHED TO AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM, PRESUMABLY, AT LEAST TO BEGIN WITH, ALL OF THOSE WOULD NOT BE THE SAME POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE NOW BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO MATCH UP WHICH OF THE TWO AT LARGE SYSTEMS, AT LARGE SEATS CORRESPONDED TO THE SEATS THAT YOU NOW HOLD AND ALL OF THE DISTRICT SEATS WOULD BE NEW. SO EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE MAYOR WOULD BE IN A NEW — A NEW SEAT, I WOULD — IS THE WAY I WOULD READ THAT, AND THAT THE TERM LIMITS WOULD ALL START FROM SCRATCH FROM THAT TIME FORWARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I VOTED LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT THE LAST TIME. I THINK THAT THE CITIZENS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, SO I'M GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NAY.

NO.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR VOTE.

THOMAS: I SAID NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. SO IT CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3. WITH COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS, WYNN, AND ALVAREZ VOTING NAY. LOWERING THE PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED VOTERS SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON THE PETITION TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR ON THAT ONE? THERE BEING NO MOTIONS ON THAT, THAT WILL DIE FOR LACK OF A MOTION. REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. IS THERE A MOTION ON THAT? THE REPEAL — ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT BECAUSE WHAT I DID ON THIS ONE, I PUT THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES FIRST AND THEN SLIDE INTO THE EASIER ONES. CHARTER AMENDMENT — [INAUDIBLE] [ LAUGHTER ]. THE ITEM — F AND G ARE FOR THE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT. SO — ITEM E — ITEM D IS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN INITIATED AUSTIN FAIR ELECTION ACT — THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ACTION, JUST A RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT, MR. YOLANISKY?

AS TO WHETHER IT REQUIRES ACTION, I GUESS MR. STEINER SHOULD ANSWER THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT I MEAN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ADOPTS PUT ANYTHING. IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, THAT COMPLIES WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

WYNN: IN FACT I THINK MR. LEWIS WAS CORRECT EARLIER, WE ARE NOT SPOES POSTED FOR ANY ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.

YOU ARE POSSESSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK IN FACT YOU ARE POSSESSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU WANT TO PUT AN ALTERNATIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

YES, I THINK THAT YOU ARE POSTED FOR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE POSTED FOR IT. ITEM E, INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY —

JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED — ONE OF THE ITEMS — I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I'M TAKING NOTES TO WHAT TO PUT IN THE ORANCE. THERE WAS A — ARE WE STILL ON THE ONES THAT THEY DID RECOMMEND —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE IN THE ONES THAT THEY RECOMMENDED.

OKAY, SORRY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, BEFORE WE GET DEEP INTO THAT, CAN I CLARIFY THE NOOTION WE JUST HAD ON THE TERM LIMITS. IN GOING AND LOOKING AT THE SCRIPT THAT WE HAD LAID OUT THAT YOU GAVE US, I WAS FOLLOWING —

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS I OUT TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT. G WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THAT'S ON THE 20TH AND 21ST.

GOODMAN: YEAH. WELL —

MAYOR GARCIA: GOING TO ITEMS NOT RECOMMENDED, THE FIRST ONE TO REPEAL THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS TO PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN THE AUSTIN NEWSPAPER. THAT ONE HAS WIDE ACCEPTABILITY AMONG COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT'S JUST GIVING MONEY — NOBODY READS IT. YOU PRINT IT IN THE CHEAPEST NEWSPAPER IN THE SMALLEST PRINTS THAT YOU CAN GET. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE TO PUT THAT ON THE — ON THE — ANYWAY, WE FILE REPORTS WITH EVERYBODY THAT HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT APPEARS IN THE PAPER.

YES, SIR, THIS CHARTER PROVISION PREDATES THE MODERN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE YOUR SWORN STATEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. IT WAS SORT OF A OWE SOMETHING THAT PRE-EXISTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR —

GRIFFITH: I'M SORRY.

GOODMAN: GO AHEAD.

GRIFFITH: BECAUSE THIS IS AN ANTIQUATED AND REDUNDANT ACTIVITY, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON FOR REPEAL.

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

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND IT WITH A COMMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: PLUS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY EARLIER ON THE OLD MOTION, I WAS DOING IT ON FIRST READING THE WAY THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER STARTED, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE DOING ALL OF THESE LIKE THAT, BUT I FORGOT TO SAY IT. NOW ON THE NEWSPAPER THING, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS RIGHT, THIS WAS DONE IN THE DAYS WHEN THE ONLY WAY TO BE PUBLIC WAS IN A NEWSPAPER. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER THING TO PUBLISH IN, WE NOW HAVE CITY WEBSITES, SO ON, SO FORTH. IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF THE LANGUAGE SORT OF LAID THAT OUT. I DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE ON THE TIP OF MY TONGUE RIGHT NOW, BUT SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT CAMPAIGN SENTENCES, A STATEMENT OF CAMPAIGN SENTENCES — CAMPAIGN EXPENSES, A ESTIMATE OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE MEDIA OR INFORMATION VENUE AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, BUT JUST SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW IT WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE IN TO SEE'S MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION. SO WITHOUT HAVING THE — THE RIGHT LANGUAGE COULD I OFFER THAT AS AN — AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GRIFFITH: ABSOLUTELY. AND COULD MR. STEINER HELP US WITH THAT AS YOU ARE DRAFTING THIS WEEK? SURE. WE CAN — I COULD DRAFT SOMETHING THAT SAYS — I APOLOGIZE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT THE CITY CLERK WILL SEE TO IT THAT THE — THAT THE CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE. WE ALREADY DO THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE — I APOLOGIZE FOR BURR DEPENDING YOU WITH THAT WITHOUT SPEAKING TO YOU FIRST, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE EASILY DONE, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING. SO IT WOULDN'T BE A GREAT UPSET.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. FOLLOW THE SCRIPT, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC UTILITY GOVERNING BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? ARE WE GOING BACK TO THE ONES THAT ARE CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED LATER? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THOSE, DID WE?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORT. THIS ONE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED.

SLUSHER: I GUESS MY SCRIPT IS DIFFERENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS ONE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

GOODMAN: MAYBE THAT'S THE QUESTION TO ASK THEN, WHETHER THE COMMISSION REALLY HAD TIME TO GO INTO DETAILS OF WHY THE RECOLLECTION UTILITY COMMISSION WANTED TO DO IT AT THIS TIME. WAS THERE A DISCUSSION?

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION BY — BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS, I BELIEVE, TWO OR THREE MEMBERS, I BELIEVE, MR. KOCUREK, CHIEF AND OTHERS. THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT PELT FELT AND I BELIEVE OUR REPORT DID MENTION SPECIFICALLY THAT THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT — THAT WE COULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT — THAT THIS — THIS GOVERNING BOARD BE APPOINTED BY THE STOP YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR THE PARTICULAR PROVISION ON THIS SINCE WE'VE MOVED AHEAD TO A NEW ISSUE. I THINK AGAIN THE COMMISSION FELT THAT THIS ONE, LIKE SOME OF THE OTHERS, WOULD — WOULD REMOVE FROM THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT YET ANOTHER POSITION. AND FOR THAT REASON WAS RELUCTANT TO DO IT. BUT THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF INPUT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE DONE GIVEN THE WAY THAT — THAT — THAT THE — THAT THE INDUSTRY IS DEVELOPING.

GOODMAN: WELL, LET ME COMMENT ON THAT THEN MAYOR BECAUSE I HAD THOUGHT THAT MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO IS BY CHARTER ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CREATION OF SUCH A BOARD OR COMMISSION AT THE TIME DEEMED APPROPRIATE. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT MORE INDEPENDENT DECISION MAKING VENUE, RELATIVE TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY EVER SINCE — ACTUALLY, BEFORE REREGULATION WAS A THREAT, AND THEN ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAD TO DEVISE A NEW WORK PLAN AND BUSINESS PLAN AND CORPORATE PERSONA, I THINK WE ALL ASSUMED OR AT LEAST I DID BACK THEN ASSUMED THAT SOONER OR LATER WE WOULD HAVE TO DEVISE SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN LAID OUT. IT HAD NOT BEEN DESIGNED. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY DETAILS AT THIS MOMENT, EITHER. SO COULD IT BE AN ENABLING THING AS OPPOSED TO A CREATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS MY CONCERN WITH THIS ONE, I'M SURE TAKE IT WAS EXPRESSED TO YOU IN THE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THIS ONE CREATES AN INDEPENDENT LEAK UTILITY GOVERNING — INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC UTILITY GOVERNING BOARD. THAT'S LIKE CREATING A SEPARATE ENTITY. THAT MEANS SPINNING OUT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY OUT FROM UNDER THE CITY. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF. SO I'M STILL NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS BECAUSE THAT REPRESENTS A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I AGREE WITH THAT. I AGREE WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOT TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT. THAT WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS — BEEN AROUND LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WE LOOKED AT THAT REAL SERIOUSLY BACK IN '96 WHEN WE DID THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND I REALLY CONCLUDED AT THAT TIME AND HAVE HAD MY CONVICTIONS STRENGTHENED SINCE THEN THAT — THAT THE UTILITY IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CITY THAT — THAT IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITIZENS, AND I THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY AS THE — FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THAT UTILITY SHOULD BE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES HERE ON THE DAIS AND SHOULD REMAIN HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM I MEAN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: IT'S HALF THE BUDGET AND I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO CUT OFF AND LET FLOAT AWAY FROM OUR RESPONSIBILITY HALF OF A TWO BILLION DOLLARS BUDGET.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY MOTIONS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. THAT — ANY MOTIONS ON THIS ONE? THAT THAT LACK OF A NOTHING. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER. THAT ALSO WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION. THIS ONE, LIKE THE ONE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THEM BECAUSE TO ME THIS REPRESENTS A DEPARTURE FROM COUNCIL MANAGER. SOME PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL MANAGER. IF WE DO THAT, WE NEED ON CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND — CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT BREAK IT DOWN PIECE BY PIECE. I CAN'T SUPPORT EITHER C OR D. I AGREE WITH THE — WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THAT. BUT IF THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE, I WILL ENTERTAIN IT AT THIS TIME.

GOODMAN: FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU MAKE A MOTION ON C IN.

GOODMAN: YES, C, APPOINTMENT OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GENERAL MANAGER.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

THOMAS: YES, SIR. LOOKING AT WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS SAYING AND SOME OF THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AROUND AUSTIN ENERGY, I FELT THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT. THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE NEED TO — QUESTIONS WASN'T ANSWERED LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEING THAT WE HAVE A COUNCIL AND A CITY MANAGER. I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE TREATMENTS, SOME OF THE ANSWERING OF THE QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED WASN'T ANSWERED. LIKE THE OLD SAYING, IT WAS PULLING TEETH TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM 9-C, CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. I MEAN, THERE IS SOME LOGIC FOR THE BRTDZ TO — IF WE'RE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO HIRE THE GENERAL MANAGER, BUT THEN WE GET BACK TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY AND THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE MANAGER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING THE PERSONNEL EXCEPTION, IN THIS INSTANCE THE CITY AUDITOR, THE CITY CLERK AND MUNICIPAL JUDGES. AND I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO GO ANY FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD OF HAVING COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND FIRING OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. I THINK IT'S REALLY UNWIELD DI TO HAVE SEVEN BOSSES. THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THAT OVER THE YEARS. I THINK THAT THE — WELL, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I THINK IT'S VERY UNWIELDY TO HAVE SEVEN BOSSES AND I THINK THAT WE DOOULD NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WITH AUSTIN ENERGY BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO CRITICAL A POSITION THAT IF WE'RE HAVING ANY KIND OF PARTICULAR PROBLEMS LIKE WITH INFORMATION FLOW, RESPONSIVENESS, WHICH I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW OR THE PREVIOUS ADD NISTRATION THAT WAS THERE, BUT WE'RE — ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS THERE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ON OUT AND IN THE FUTURE. BUT IF THERE ARE THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS, WE NEED TO TELL THE CITY MANAGER THIS IS A PROBLEM, A SERIOUS PROBLEM, YOU NEED TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THAT'S THE WAY THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I ALSO WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND MY CONCERNS FURTHER BUILD ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S COMMENTS ARE. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE OF COMPETITION IN THE BUSINESS CYCLE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS IN, THE LAST THING I THINK WE NEED TO — MESSAGE WE NEED TO SEND, PARTICULARLY TO THE BONDING RATING AGENCIES ON WALL STREET IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO POLITICIZE WHO IS GOING TO RUN OUR MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR AUSTIN ENERGY. I MEAN, THEY WOULD RECOGNIZE RIGHT AWAY THAT IN FACT IT HAS GONE FROM BEING AT LEAST ONE STEP REMOVED FROM A HIGHLY POLITICAL APPOINTEE POSITION TO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S A VERY POOR DECISION ON OUR PART AT THIS TIME TO GIVE THAT SIGNAL. SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS?

GOODMAN: QUESTION, MAYOR. AFTER COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: YES. I'M LISTENING TO MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK THAT IN 2002 THERE'S GOING TO BE TIMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE BECAUSE DOING THE SAME OLD BUSINESS ALL THE TIME IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD. WE'VE GOT ISSUES RIGHT NOW THAT WE'VE HEARD, PERSONNEL ISSUES. AND I'M NOT KNOCKING OUR CITY MANAGER. YOU DO AN EXCELLENT JOB. EVERYBODY NEEDS AN IMPROVEMENT. I NEED SOME IMPROVEMENT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS OVERALL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A-MILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS. SURE IF WE NEED TO CORRECT THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE'S INFORMATION NOT COMING OUT TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I'VE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS ALMOST AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. THERE HAS BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO DO THAT. SOMETIMES WE STRUGGLE EVEN IN A SYSTEM THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO STRUGGLE. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT REALTY OPPOSED TO WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK WE'RE DOING ON THE NATIONAL OR WHATEVER. I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT.

SLUSHER: I WANT TO TAKE ONE MORE SHOT BECAUSE I'M — I'M REALLY WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO PASS, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS MISTAKE ON THE COUNCIL'S PART. OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE'S FREE TO DISAGREE, BUT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DREW ME INTO AUSTIN POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT STARTING BACK WITH THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT AND MY OPPOSITION TO THAT AND TO AUSTIN GETTING INVOLVED IN THAT. AND IT'S BEEN MY LONG TIME SUPPORT FOR THE UTILITY MAINTAINING A PUBLIC UTILITY AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOT ME TO RUN FOR THIS SEAT BECAUSE THERE ARE PROPOSALS AND VERY SERIOUS PROPOSALS TO SELL THE UTILITY, MAKE IT BECOME A PRIVATE UTILITY, AND I FOUGHT AGAINST THAT, ALONG WITH OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE UP HERE. WE WERE ABLE TO PRESERVE THAT UTILITY AS A PUBLIC UTILITY AND WERE ABLE TO PUT IN A STRATEGIC PLAN THAT ONLY PASSED ON THE 4-3 VOTE. AND FRANKLY, WENT AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME, BUT THEN THE CITY MANAGER PROCEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN, OUR BOND RATING WITH THE WALL STREET HOUSES WENT FROM A NEGATIVE WATCH TO HAVE THAT NEGATIVE WATCH REMOVED AND IT'S GONE UP SINCE THEN. THE UTILITY IS AS HEALTHY AS IT'S EVER BEEN. IT KEEPS TAXES DOWN, KEEPS TAXES FROM BEING HIGHER AND IT KEEPS THEM LOWER BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE UTILITY AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT TRANSFERS TO THE GENERAL FUND. AND THIS HAS ALL BEEN DONE UNDER THE SYSTEM WHERE THE MANAGER HIRES THE COUNCIL. AND THE MISTAKE THAT THE UTILITY HAS MADE OVER THE YEARS, LIKE GETTING INVOLVED IN THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED IF THE COUNCIL HAD HIRED THE GENERAL MANAGER INSTEAD OF THE CITY MANAGER HIRING THE GENERAL MANAGER. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS THE COUNCILS THAT WERE PUSHING THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROBLEM OR PROJECT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES AND MISTAKES THE UTILITY MADE OVER THE YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE MANAGER BEING HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. AND I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS RIGHT, THAT THE RATING AGENCIES ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK ON IT AS FAVORLY IF WE POLITICIZE THE MANAGERS OF THE UTILITY AND MAKE IT WHERE SHE OR HE IS SERVING AT THE WHIM OF THE FOUR VOTES. NOW, IF THE GENERAL MANAGER IS MESSING UP AND NOT CARRYING OUT THE POLICIES OF THE COUNCIL, THEN THE CITY MANAGER HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THAT AND IT'S COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE THE CITY MANAGER ANSWER FOR THAT. BUT I REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING A MISTAKE IF WE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AND SUPPORT THIS ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. STEINER. IN THE CHARTER IS THERE A REFERENCE FOR THE COUNCIL BEING A POLICY-MAKING COUNCIL?

I PRESUME YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PROVISION REGARDING THE — REQUIRING THE COUNCIL TO REFRAIN FROM PERSONNEL MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE THAT THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY ENOOM RATES AS BEING HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. THAT'S ARTICLE 2, SECTION 7 THAT SAYS, NEITHER THE COUNCIL NOR ANY OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL INSTRUCT OR REQUEST THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY OF HIS OR HER SUBORDINATES TO APPOINT OR REMOVE FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT ANY PERSON EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE OFFICES WHICH ARE TO BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE COUNCIL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER. THAT'S SORT OF ONE OF THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL SENTENCES THAT YOU'LL FIND IN CHARTERS THAT CREATE THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS ONE THAT GOES BACK TO THE REFORM MOVEMENT OF THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY WHEN THE UNITED STATES IN THE LATE 18TH CENTURY AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY WAS UNDERGOINGG URBANIZATION WITH IMMIGRANTS MOVING INTO THE CITIES, AND IT GAVE RISE TO THE GREAT POLITICAL MACHINE, LIKE THE FAMOUS ONE BEING THE BOSS- TWEED MACHINE IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE THE POLITICAL PATRON AGE WAS HOW MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS WERE RUN. AND PEOPLE LARGELY GOT JOBS BECAUSE OF THEIR PATRONAGE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND THERE WERE KICKBACKS FROM PUBLIC PAY ROLLS TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT GOT THE PEOPLE THOSE JOBS. AND IF YOU LOOK IN MOST CITY CHARTERS WITH COUNSEL-MANAGER SORT OF GOVERNMENT, THESE WERE THE REALLY SORT OF GOVERNMENT REMAIN BECAUSE WHAT THEY WERE AIMED IS IS THE DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FROM POLITICS SO THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO HAVE PATRONACKNOWLEDGE IN ORDER TO GET DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES. AND A BIG PART OF THAT WAS SEPARATING THE MUNICIPAL WORKFORCE FROM DIRECT SUPERVISION BY THE ELECTED OFFICIAL. SO YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND THE PROVISIONS IN COUNCIL-MANAGER CHARTERS THAT SAY BOTH THAT THE — LIKE THE AUSTIN THAT I JUST READ TO YOU, PLUS THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PROVISION SOMEWHERE LIKE THERE IS IN OURS THAT SAY YOU MAY NOT REQUIRE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CITY EMPLOYEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS OF THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONE YOU WERE ASKING ME ABOUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE ASSISTANT HISTORY ATTORNEY FOR GIVING US A HISTORY LESSON BECAUSE I THINK THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF HISTORY, PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO IT ANY MORE. AND YOU DO NEED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY. AND IN BUILDING ON WHAT HE SAID THAT IT WAS EARLIER IN THE LAST CENTURY WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED. SO ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT SOMETIMES NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AND I THINK THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID THAT IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VERSION. AND SO MAYBE PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND MAYBE THAT DOESN'T MEAN CHANGING THE STRONG MAYOR. MAYBE THERE'S A NEW SYSTEM THAT WE HAVEN'T INVENTED YET THAT NEEDS TO BE INVENTED. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. BUT WHAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IS BEGIN TO WHITTLE AWAY PIECE BY PIECE AT THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEFORE WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO PUT IN ITS PLACE. IF WE HAVE TO ABAN DON THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE WANT TO PUT IN ITS PLACE, NOT CHANGING DIFFERENT SMALL PIECES OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WELL, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR ANYONE WHO KNEW THE ANSWER IS HOW DOES THE INDUSTRY OF INDUSTRIAL- — CITY-OWNED UTILITIES TRUST ANYWHERE CEO. AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD BE REAL CAREFUL WHEN WE USE THE WORD POLITICIZE. THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC NEGATIVE THAT GOES WITH THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS THE CASE, BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'VE USED THE WORD POLITICS, THEN THE WORST IS EXPECTED, I ASSUME. BUT THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL IF THAT'S HOW YOU MEAN THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS. SO I'M NOT — I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A TOTALLY ACCURATE WAY TO TRY TO JUDGE THE APPROACH. AND THE REASON THAT THIS PARTICULAR POSITION AND THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, IF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS ON THIS LIST, IS NOT NECESSARILY TO REVOLUTIONIZE GOVERNMENT OR ANYTHING AND PROPOSE A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM BECAUSE MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK THAT IN THIS SLIGHTLY NEW WORLD WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF ASSUMPTION FOR US AS DIRECTORS OF THAT UTILITY, BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE NEED TO DO NOW THAT WE NEVER NEEDED TO DO BEFORE, AND PART OF THAT IS HAVE SOME SORT OF REASSURANCE AND PROTECTION FOR THE CONSUMER COMPONENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY THAT CAN NO LONGER BE SO PUBLIC. SO THE GOAL IS NOT TO ERODE THE CITY MANAGER-COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BUT IT IS TO PUT INDEPENDENCE IN WHERE YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE IN A WAY THAT REASSURES THE PUBLIC OF THE INDEPENDENCE. THAT'S THE ONLY GOAL HERE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I ACCEPT THE CRITICISM OF THE USE OF THE WORD POLITICIZE, BUT I DID ADDRESS ALREADY ABOUT THE — I THINK IT'S BETTER ONCE SEPARATED FROM THE ELECTED BODY, EVEN THOUGH IN THE PRIVATE UTILITIES IT'S TRUE, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THAT IT IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT PICKS THE GENERAL MANAGER, BUT I DO THINK IT BRINGS A DIFFERENT PRESSURE TO BEAR THAT I WOULD RATHER NOT SEE. I'D RATHER SEE IT BE THAT THE MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE TO US, THE CITY MANAGER IS THE GENERAL MANAGER AND IS THE CITY MANAGER.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANOTHER THING IS THIS CITY HAS MORE THAN ONE ENTERPRISE. WE HAVE THE AIRPORT AND THE CONVENTION CENTER. WE HAVE THE WATER UTILITY. WE HAVE SOLID WASTE SERVICES. ALL OF THOSE ARE BASICALLY OUTSIDE THE GENERAL FUND. SO THE QUESTION IS IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DISMANTLING PIECE BY PIECE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAYS AND THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IF WE WANT TO DO THAT. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE STRONG MAYOR, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL I LEAVE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THAT JOB. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I TEND TO AGREE MORE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN WHERE THERE'S A CERTAIN STANCE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN OVER THE COURSE OF MANY YEARS TO TRY TO INCREASE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED. AND IT'S BEEN SUCH A HUGE OPERATION, 12,000 EMPLOYEES AND OVER A BILLION AND A HALF WORTH OF OPERATIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND SO I'VE BEEN REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK, AGAIN, IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE POSITION —

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND. CAN YOU ELIMINATE THE FEEDBACK ON COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S MIC? I'M SORRY.

ALVAREZ: WELL, I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, INDEPENDENCE, IN TERMS OF POLICE OVERSIGHT INDEPENDENCE, IN TERMS OF THE UTILITY. THOSE ARE TWO VERY SPECIAL CASES BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT AREAS. AND THE UTILITY WITH DEREGULATION, WHAT WE'VE PASSED NOT VERY LONG AGO WAS A RESOLUTION LIMITING WHAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH MEANS THAT BASICALLY THE COUNCIL IS CHARGED WITH BEING THE EXPERT ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT REALLY I COULD CALL MYSELF AN EXPERT ON ELECTRIC UTILITY. AND SO IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE ORGANIZATION IS STRUCTURED, WE BASICALLY SENT INFORMATION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, THE GENERAL MANAGER, TO THE CITY MANAGER, TO US, AND THAT'S FINE, I THINK, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WANTING TO DO AS AN ADVOCATE OR ANALYST, LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE UTILITY FROM THE SMALL RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER AND SMALL BUSINESS PERSON POINT OF VIEW, AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME RESISTANCE FROM OUR CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENTING THAT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THESE THINGS ARISE HERE BECAUSE POLICY DECISIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAKES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED THROUGH BY CITY MANAGEMENT. AND I THINK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OFFICE WAS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF THAT WAS THE COUNCIL GIVING VERY CLEAR DIRECTION AND THAT WORK SEEMS TO BE UNDERMINED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. BUT FOR ME I TRY TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF WHAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT, IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS IS NOT UNDERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK IF WE START HAVING DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, THEN WE START DOING THAT. BUT IF WE START SAYING WHAT WE WANT IS SOME INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT IN PARTICULAR AREAS, THEN WE HAVE MORE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS IMPROVE THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE DO HAVE. AND SO I THINK THAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW WE MIGHT DO THAT WITH THE UTILITY, GIVEN THE DEREGULATION, THE LACK OF INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND PERSONALLY I DON'T SUPPORT THE GENERAL MANAGER REPORTING TO COUNCIL BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO RESPECT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE, THAT I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE, IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ANALYST THAT WILL LOOK LIKE MAYBE JUST A ELECTRIC UTILITY, BUT THE OTHER UTILITIES THAT WE HAVE, THE RATE-MAKING AND OTHER ISSUES ARE SO SIMILAR, AND THEN ONE QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO HERE IS ACTUALLY THE STAFF ATTORNEY WHO SEEMS TO BE AN EXPERT ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS THE ABILITY TO MAYBE PLAY CERTAIN POSITIONS WITH AN AUDITOR'S OFFICE — AND I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY HERE ABOUT THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE POSITION THAT WOULD, AGAIN, TRY TO LOOK AT FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENT IN A PARTICULAR WAY. AND I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DO THAT IN TERMS OF THOSE THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR MORE ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I THINK THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO ALLOW THAT. AND THE PROPOSAL I HAVE PUT ON THE TABLE TO MAKE IT VERY SPECIFIC THAT THAT WAS POSSIBLE IS THAT AMENDMENT REALLY NECESSARY OR NOT IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT?

I APOLOGIZE ABOUT GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THINGS SOMETIMES IF I DID, WHICH I PROBABLY DID. THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE AUDITOR WILL HAVE SUCH DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT INCLUDE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER AUDITS FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AS PROMULGATED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. SO WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS, THE CITY AUDITOR HAS ALL THE AUTHORITY THE CITY AUDITOR NEEDS TO HIRE ANYBODY HE NEEDS TO DO THAT, AND TO — OR SHE AS THE CASE MAY BE FROM TIME TO TIME. OR TO HIRE — THEY CAN HIRE ANYBODY THEY WANT TO DO THAT AND AUDIT ANY OF THOSE FUNCTIONS. THE ONLY RESTRICTION BEING, AS I SEE IT, THAT THEIR FUNCTION HAS TO BE AN AUDIT FUNCTION AS OPPOSED TO A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION, THE IDEA BEING THAT IF AN AUDITOR — AND I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS WOULD SAY THAT AUDITOR MUST MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE AUDITOR — A PERSON CAN'T AUDIT THEMSELVES, SO THE AUFTER NEEDS TO STAND APART FROM MANAGEMENT AND BE PERFORMING AN AUDIT FUNCTION AS OPPOSED TO BEING PERFORMING A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION. BUT AS LONG AS THEY PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FUNCTION, THE CHARTER GIVES THEM ALL THE AUTHORITY THEY NEED TO AUDIT ANY FUNCTION OF THE CITY, INCLUDING ITS DELIVERY OF CONSUMER SERVICES, MANAGEMENT OF THE UTILITY —

> MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S AN AUDITOR FUNCTION, NOT AN ADVOCATE FUNCTION.

YEAH. AN AUDITOR FUNCTION. AN ADVOCATE WOULD BE A PERSON WHO WAS CHARGED WITH TAKING A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW. NOW, THAT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT WHICH JUST LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE OPERATION FROM A PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS REAFFIRMED IN THE ENRON CASE AND ARTHUR ANDERSON.

RIGHT. IF YOUR AUDITOR IS ALSO YOUR CONSULTANT ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING FOR YOUR PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING, THEN YOUR AUDITOR IS AUDITING THEMSELVES ESSENTIALLY. BUT WITHIN THAT — WITHIN THOSE LIMITS THE AUDITOR CAN AUDIT ANY FUNCTION OF THE CITY AND CAN RETAIN SUCH SPECIALISTS AS NEEDED TO PERFORM THOSE AUDITS. SO THAT WOULD BE —

ALVAREZ: IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S ANOTHER STATEMENT IN THE CHARTER IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY AUDITOR CAN DO. SO CAN WE ELABORATE ON WHAT ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES THAT GIVES THE AUDITOR.

THERE SHALL BE A CITY AUDITOR WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR MAY BE REMOVED ONLY BY A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR SHALL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY AN AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR SHAVE SUCH DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND STAFF AS DETERMINED BY ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE RESPONSEBILITY TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER AUDITS FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AS PROMULGATED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CITY AUDITOR SHALL ASSIST THE CITY COUNCIL IN ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND IN IMPROVING CITY SYSTEM AND SERVICE DELIVERY.

ALVAREZ: THAT LAST STATEMENT, IF WE DECIDED TO HIRE A CONSUMER ANALYST OR PUTTING THAT IN THE AUDITOR, YOU'RE SAYING THAT LAST SENTENCE WOULDN'T LET US DO THAT?

I THINK A CONSUMER ANALYST, BUT A CONSUMER ADVOCATE MIGHT BE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THING. I THINK THE MAYOR PROBABLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT AUDITING STANDARDS CERTAINLY THAN I DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. AND THE PORTION OF THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT DEALS WITH COMPLYING WITH AUDITING STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPTROLLER, THE U.S. WHAT?

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT IS VERY EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT THE FUNCTION OF THE AUDITOR IS. AND IT'S NOT TO DO ADVOCACY WORK OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER KIND OF WORK. HE HAS A VERY SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY THAT INVOLVES HIM BEING INDEPENDENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT HE'S AUDITING. AND THAT'S — THAT HITS AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT AUDITING STANDARDS ARE ALL ABOUT. THAT HITS VERY HARD THE VIOLATION THAT ARTHUR ANDERSON COMMITTED IN THE ENRON CASE, YOU KNOW. THAT HAS BEEN — THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH WRITTEN ON THAT ONE. AND THE PROFESSION AS WE SPEAK IS UNDERGOING TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CHANGE BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFESSION CAN DO AUDITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALSO BEING THE TAX PERSON AND ALSO BEING THE CONSULTANT. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROFESSION IS STRUCTURED BECAUSE THE PROFESSION WAS STRUCTURE THE AND IT STARTED BACK IN 1933 THAT WANTED SOMEBODY INDEPENDENT TO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON BY THE CLIENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, AUDIT FIRM. AND THE OTHER USERS.

ONE OF THE GENERAL STANDARDS IN THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS SAYS IN ALL MATTERS RELATING TO AUDIT WORK, THE AUDIT ORGANIZATION AND THE INDIVIDUAL AUDITORS SHOULD BE FREE FROM PERSONAL AND EXTERNAL IMPAIRMENTS TO INDEPENDENCE, SHOULD BE ORGANIZATIONALLY INDEPENDENT AND SHOULD MAINTAIN AND INDEPENDENT ATTITUDE AND APPEARANCE. SO THE AUDITOR'S POINT OF VIEW SHOULD, IT SEEMS TO ME UNDER THAT STANDARD, NOT BE PREDETERMINED TO ADVOCATE A PARTICULAR POSITION, BUT BE FREE TO LOOK AT THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT INDEPENDENCE IS BASICALLY MADE UP OF TWO PARTS. YOU HAVE TO BE INTELLECTUALLY INDEPENDENT, AND THAT IS EASILY DETERMINED. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENT IN APPEARANCE TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RELYING ON WHAT YOU'VE PUT OUT. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU'RE INDEPENDENT. SO IT IS A VERY SERIOUS PART OF THE STTDZ THAT ARE SET FOR AUDITING. SO THAT PARTICULAR POSITION NEEDS TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENCE. NOW, AFTER THEY FINISH THE WORK, THEN THEY COME TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TO REPORT, LIKE THE CHARTER DICTATES. BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER BASICALLY BE TOLD WHAT TO DO OR THEY SHOULD NEVER BE TELLING MANAGEMENT HOW TO DO THINGS. THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE AUDITOR. AND LIKE I SAY, THE ENRON CASE IS BRINGING IT ALL OUT SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT NOW BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS KNOWN WELL. AND THEY'VE GONE NOT JUST TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, BUT THEY NOW ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER AUDITORS SHOULD BE DOING THE TAX WORK FOR THE FIRM. ANYWAY —

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WE'VE BEEN HAVING LITTLE SIDE DISCUSSIONS AS WE LISTENED TO YOUR REPORT AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH ENRON. SO WHAT WAS ON MY MOTION, I WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT TRADED DIRECTOR OF THE — WHAT DID WE SAY PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR? THAT TRADED THE POSITION OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GENERAL MANAGER FOR NUMBER 9-F UNDER ITEMS CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED FROM THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

ALVAREZ: I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU'RE BASICALLY — WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER D, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATES?

GOODMAN: TRADED IT, YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THAT'S F UNDER ITEMS CONSIDERED, NOT RECOMMENDED. DID YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?

IS THAT ALL?

MAYOR GARCIA: HOLD IT JUST A SECOND. THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY, THE AMENDMENT BASICALLY WITHDRAWS ITEM C AND NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING ITEM F, WHICH IS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, 9-F. IN OTHER WORDS, — AND MY QUESTION, SINCE THE ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, WE DON'T NEED AN APPROVAL FROM THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION? SHE'S SAYING IN PLACE OF THIS, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS.

GOODMAN: WELL, I ACCEPTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT CHANGED THE POSITION. SO BY MAKING THAT REPLACEMENT, IT TURNED IT INTO ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE HAD BEFORE US.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO ARE YOU GOING TO — NOW IT'S GOING TO BE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED, SO BASICALLY YOU'RE SUBSTITUTING SOMEBODY F FOR NUMBER C, CORRECT?

GOODMAN: IN ESSENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ISSUE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Y'ALL DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT.

WELL, MAYOR, I THINK JUST THE SAME SONG, SECOND OR THIRD VERSE ON THIS, WHICH IS I THINK UNDER EACH OF THE ONES WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND, COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POSITION, WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF ALL THOSE RECOMMENDED, THERE WAS ONLY ONE INSTANCE IN WHICH WE FELT THAT A DEPARTURE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED OR AT LEAST IT WAS POTENTIALLY JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO BE PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS, AND THAT WAS THE POLICE MONITOR. WE DIDN'T FIND THE SAME LEVEL OF — WELL, WE DIDN'T FIND THE SAME JUSTIFICATION. AND MAYBE THERE IS ONE, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE IT FOR A CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT SINCE THIS IS PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSENT TO THAT.

THOMAS: I CONSENT TO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT WILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. OKAY. DISCUSSION? WITHIN: MAYOR? —

WYNN: MAYOR? I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SPONSORS OF THIS. FIRST, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, A CONSUMER ADVOCATE, BUT FOR WHAT? FOR ELECTRIC RATES, FOR SEWER RATES, FOR HOW MUCH WE CHARGE THE GREEN FEES ON OUR GOLF COURSES, FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION USER FEES? YOU KNOW, WHAT CONSUMPTION DO THEY ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST?

GOODMAN: IT'S TRUE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN SPECIFIC, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE UTILITY. IN EARLIER DISCUSSIONS, THOUGH, IT WASN'T LIMITED SOLELY TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, SO I WAS KIND OF ASSUMING SINCE THERE WAS NO QUALIFICATION HERE THAT THAT WOULD BE WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ELECTRIC. I HAVENOT HEARD DISCUSSIONS OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE SORT OF POSITION BEING NECESSARY IN ANY OTHER ENTERPRISE OR FEE-BASED DEPARTMENT.

WYNN: SO BASED ON THAT —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING. ACTUALLY, IN THE SETTING OF THE RATES, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ITS TEXAS LAW, IT ALLOWS THE UTILITY TO APPOINT A CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTS THEM. BUT IN THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS, WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ELECTRIC. WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DOES IS IT MOVES THE APPOINTMENT FROM CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? WHEN THAT HAPPENED, — WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN AWHILE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A RATE INCREASE, BUT DOESN'T THE APPOINTMENT THEN COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAS TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEY TO PAY THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, SO DOESN'T THE COUNCIL VOTE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE ANYWAY?

MAYOR GARCIA: INDIRECTLY I GUESS THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT. I DON'T REMEMBER EVER APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU USUALLY HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET, SO WHEN YOU APPROVE THE BUDGET, YOU'RE APPROVING THAT PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE.

SLUSHER: I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I REMEMBER MR. MCCOLLOUGH WAS THE ADVOCATE ON A COUPLE OF CASES, BUT HIS SALARY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOVE THE 39,000, SO IT SEEMED LIKE WE WOULD VOTE ON THAT.

GOODMAN: WE DID. IT WAS A CONTRACT. IT WAS A SPECIFIC TERM AND SCOPE OF WORK, NOT AN ACTUAL —

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M SORRY.

WYNN: SO WE'VE DETERMINED THEN IT'S GOING TO BE AN ELECTRIC RATE AND WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THE NEXT QUESTION, ARE THEY WHAT I'D CALL RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER RATE ADVOCATES OR ARE THEY COMMERCIAL CONSUMER RATE ADVOCATES OR BOTH? STHAS THAT IS, AS WE KNOW, OUR RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CUSTOMERS IN AUSTIN PAY THE LOWEST ELECTRIC BILLS IN THE STATE BECAUSE OUR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS PAY A MUCH HIGHER RATE. THEY SUBSIDIZE. IN FACT, WE'VE DONE THE SAME DYNAMIC ON OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUE. SO THE QUESTION IS DOES THIS PERSON ADVOCATE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IF THEY ADVOCATE FOR ONE, THEY'RE ADVOCATING AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER,. WHICH WOULD IT BE?

GOODMAN: I WOULDN'T THINK SO. THE WAY I SAW THE WORD CONSUMER IS USER. SO WE WOULD WANT THE INFORMATION ON ALL RATE CLASSES, ALL CLASSES OF CONSUMER, AND THAT INCLUDES LARGE USERS WHERE WE OCCASIONALLY HAD TARIFF ISSUES TO LOOK AT THE BEST RATES WE CAN GIVE THEM AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE SMALL USERS WHO ARE NOT NECESSARILY RESIDENTIAL, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CLASS OF SERVICES FORMULA THAT WE FOLLOW FOR THEM TOO. THERE ARE SMALL BUSINESS USERS AND LARGER BUSINESS, BUT CERTAINLY NOT CORPORATE COMPLEX USERS, AND SO BY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS THOSE WHO PAY FOR POWER FROM OUR UTILITY.

WYNN: BUT WE'VE LEARNED A A ZERO SUM GAIN. SO IF SOMEONE IS ADVOCATING AS OPPOSED TO AN ANALYST GETTING INFORMATION, IF THEY'RE ADVOCATING FOR HAVING SEEN — DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL UTILITY RATES CONTINUE TO BE THE LOWEST IN THE STATE, THEN THEY ARE ADVOCATING THAT COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS OR DUPLEX OWNERS OR APARTMENT DWELLERS OR SOMEBODY IS PAYING THAT COST. UNLESS WE DECLARE WHO THEY'RE GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR, ZERO SOME GAIN, LIKE A WATER AND WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND OR OUR UTILITY, I SEE AN INHERENT CONFLICT HERE.

GOODMAN: IF THERE'S A MORE PERFECT SEMANTIC WAY TO LABEL WHAT IN ESSENCE IS MAKING SURE THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE ALWAYS A PART OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED AND MADE ACCESSIBLE TO COUNCIL OR GOVERNANCE BOARD PERUSAL OR HOWEVER YOU ULTIMATELY STRUCTURE THAT, THE WORD ADVOCATE IS THE ONE THAT'S EASY FOR PEOPLE TO THINK OF AND SO THAT'S HOW THEY PERCEIVE THAT POSITION, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE EXACTLY THE WAY SOME OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS I THINK WOULD DRAW A PICTURE OF. WHEN MR. MCCOLLOUGH FOR INSTANCE WAS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE DURING A RATE CASE, IT WAS THE PERSON WITH EXPERTISE WHO WAS GOING TO GO WITH ALL THE NUMBERS AND THE PROPOSALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SMALL USER, BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL. AND TO ANALYZE EVERYTHING TO SEE WHETHER IN FACT ANYTHING WAS BEING DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF HIGHER RATE TO RESIDENTIAL OR SMALL USER. SO IT'S AN ADVOCATE IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD. THERE'S A CERTAIN SCOPE AND PROJECT THAT THAT PERSON WAS HIRED AS A AN ADVOCATE FOR ONE INTEREST, WHEREAS THIS ONE I THINK WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AS USERS AND OWNERS RATHER THAN THAT SAME SORT OF ADVOCATE, BUT BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY USE THAT WORD, THAT'S THE WAY IT POPS UP. IF YOU HAVE A BETTER ONE, I'M SURE WE'RE ALL OPEN.

WYNN: I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION LATER. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY, THEN ALSO IF THEY'RE ADVOCATING AS RATEPAYERS, THEN THEY'RE ADVOCATING AGAINST TRANSFERS TO THE GENERAL FUND TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY TAX LOW. THAT IS, OUR ROLE HERE AS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES, CONSUMER BEING BOTH OUR BUSINESSES, OUR RESIDENTS AND RATE PAYERS AND GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX PAYING BALANCES, IF SOMEBODY IS AN ADVOCATE FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY, THEN THEY'RE SAYING, WHOA, WHY AM I AS THE RATEPAYER IF I DON'T OWN PROPERTY, WHY AM I THE RATEPAYER MAKING A PROFIT, MORE THAN AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY FOR MONEY THAT WOULD THEN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND IN ORDER TO KEEP AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES LOWER THAN THE STATE AVERAGE. SO I HAVE TO ADVOCATE AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS AND I HAVE TO ADVOCATE THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TRUTH IN ADVERTISING AND OUR AD VALOREM TAX RATE SHOULDN'T BE 45 CENTS, IT SHOULD BE 61 CENTS AND WE SHOULD RUN A BREAK EVEN ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ME AS AN ADVOCATE FOR MAYBE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS, I'M SAYING, OLD ON, YOU CAN'T TRANSFER MONEY TO THE GENERAL FUND. I'M ADVOCATING FOR UTILITY CUSTOMERS.

GOODMAN: YOU HAVE PUT YOUR HAMMER RIGHT ON THE NAIL. WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE REASON THAT THE UTILITY IS NOW A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF ENTITY IS BECAUSE WE AREN'T ABLE TO PUBLICLY AIR THOSE DIFFERENT PERSON IN AS WITHIN THE ENTITY ANY MORE. ALL WE KNOW NOW FROM THE PUBLIC SIDE REALLY, SINCE SO MUCH OF THE BUSINESS HAS TO BE CARRIED ON PROCEED PRIOR TORELY IS THE CORPORATE PERSONA, AND OZ STOCKHOLDERS, OUR CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM THAT. BUT MANY OF OUR CONSUMERS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE STOCKHOLDERS. THEY ONLY KNOW THEY'RE RATEPAYERS. AND SO WITHIN OUR PERSONA NOW AS A CORPORATE UTILITY, AN INDUSTRY MEMBER OF A PRETTY CUTTHROAT INDUSTRY IN SOME AREAS, WE KNOW THAT IN A STATE WHERE WE HAVEN'T HAD COMPETITION BEFORE WE'VE GOT TO BE REALLY ON TRACK, WE HAVE TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CORPORATE PLAYER OR WE WILL NOT SUCCEED, BUT IN THAT ENTITY WE STILL ARE THE PUBLIC, THE USER, THE ONES WHO NEED THE BEST RATES THAT THEY CAN GET AND TO BE SURE THAT OF THOSE THREE PERSONALITIES THAT ONE ENTITY HAS TO CARRY, ALL THREE ARE REPRESENTED. WE HAVE THE CORPORATE PERSONA. WE HAVE OUR GENERAL MANAGER, WE HAVE OUR VICE-PRESIDENTS AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO KEEP PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM BEING THROWN OUT TO THE WINDS FOR THE OTHER CORPORATE POTENTIAL COMPETITORS. WE HAVE THE COUNCIL AS CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN A WAY, BUT WE ARE NOT IN THE CULTURE AND WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE ONE STEP AWAY FROM US WITH THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO THERE IS NO IDENTIFIABLE REPRESENTATION FOR THE TRADITIONAL CONSUMER INTEREST, WHICH YOU COULD TELL BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ENTITY IS FOR THE PUBLIC. AND NOW IT STILL HAS THE NAME, BUT IT HAS NO IDENTIFIABLE CHECK AND BALANCE.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT'S EXACTLY THE ROLE WE PLAY BECAUSE AN ADVOCATE BY TESTIFY NITION IS GOING TO BE ADVOCATING AGAINST THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WE BALANCED OUT HERE AS THE GOVERNING BOARD. THE FIRST THING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IF THEY'RE WORTH THEIR WEIGHT AT ALL IS THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, IX-NAY ON THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND. I'M THE RATE PAIR ADVOCATE, I AM NOT AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX PAYING ADVOCATE. THAT'S NOT MY JOB. SO WE'RE JUST — WE'LL SAY YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT WE REALLY LIKE THIS 15-CENT AD VALOREM TAX CREDIT THAT OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ENJOY IN AUSTIN AND WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP THE LOWEST AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RATE IN THE STATE BECAUSE OF IT. SO THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT, BUT WE NEED TO ADVOCATE NOW NO THE BIGGER, BROADER DEAL. SO YOU SEE, IT'S — ARE WE GOING DO IT RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL OR ARE WE GOING TO DECLARE IT JUST UTILITY OR ARE WE GOING TO DECLARE IT AN ADD VO LOWER RECOMMEND TAX PAYING ADVOCACY, WHICH I THINK WE ALL DO HERE ON A DAILY, HOURLY BASIS, SO I JUST SEE IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GIVING US INFORMATION THAT THEN WE SIMPLY BALANCE OUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GO ADVOCATE. BECAUSE IT'S A ZERO SUM GAIN, WE CAN'T GO ADVOCATE ONE SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER. WE HAVE A VERY DELL CAT BALANCING ACT AND THE CITY HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AND HISTORICALLY DOING.

GOODMAN: AND THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL COMES IN BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO SORT OF MERGE THOSE THREE PERSONALITIES.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

IT'S GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS, I MAKE THE STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BUDGET COME OUT OF AN EXISTING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND WE DELETE OUR MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET AND JUST CARVE OUT $100,000, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, FOR THIS PERSON AND/OR SOME SUPPORT, LET THEM GO DO THEIR JOB, COME RIGHT BACK TO US, TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW AND THEN WE ARE IN THE SAME SPOT WE ARE ALREADY IN, WHICH IS BALANCING OUT A ZERO SUM GAIN, A DIFFERENT ADEQUACY GROUPS, FIGURING OUT HOW TO RUN THE CITY, HOW TO KEEP THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, VERY COMPETITIVE AND — IN A VERY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. SURE, I WILL SUPPORT DOING IT IF WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO PAY THIS PERSON, IF THE FUND COME OUT OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, LET'S DON'T GO CUT PARKS AND LIBRARIES AGAIN TO PAY SOMEBODY TO DO WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW, WHAT WE KNOW TO DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE EQUATION IS THAT THE UTILITY HAS A VERY STRONG RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BOND HOLDERS. WHO IMPOSE COVERAGE, DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE, WHO IMPOSE DEBT TO EQUITY RATIOS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT GO INTO MAKING THE UTILITY A COMPLETE BUSINESS. AND WHAT WE HAVE HIRED CONSUMER ADVOCATES, WE HAVE HIRED THEM JUST TO MAKE SURE THE RATEPAYERS — BASICALLY THE RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS, WHAT WE HAVE HIRED IS RESIDENTIAL RATE ADVOCATES. NOT ADVOCATES FOR EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THE BIG INDUSTRY USERS HAVE THEIR OWN ADVOCATES. THEY COME TO THE COUNCIL. SO WHAT THE LEGISLATION WAS INTENDING TO DO WAS TO ALLOW THE UTILITIES TO HIRE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD PROTECT THOSE FOLKS WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GO OUT AND HIRE THE HIGH PRICED LOBBYISTS. SO THAT WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE PROTECTING, BOND HOLDERS, INDUSTRIAL USERS, IN THIS COMPETITION WE ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN TRYING TO KEEP THOSE CONSUMERS, KEEP THOSE USERS INSIDE THE UTILITY. SO IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED KIND OF THING FOR ME. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PERSON WOULD FUNCTION. I'M LIKE YOU, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS PERSON COULD FUNCTION IN WHAT IS NOW A VERY COMPLEX SEPARATION. SO I'M — I HAVE DIFFICULTY FIGURING OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS WOULD WORK. I SUSPECTS AT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOME OF THOSE SAME CONVERSE. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: UM, I — I RESPECT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S POSITION, OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE. I DON'T THINK THAT — THAT — I THINK IT'S OVERSIMPLIFIED A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THE DYNAMICS OF IT. BUT I THINK, MAYOR, YOU CALL ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS HERE IS THAT BIG INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CORPORATIONS HAVE THEIR ADVOCATES. IF THAT'S WHO THIS CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS SPENDING THEIR TIME REPRESENTING, WE HAVE DONE A VERY BAD JOB OF SELECTING THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE THERE ISN'T MODEL FOR US TO FOLLOW. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION HAS AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC UTILITY COUNCIL THAT LAYS THIS VERY ROLE. OBVIOUSLYLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH AFTERING INITIATIVE, BIG ENOUGH OF AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT OVER THIS FUNCTION. AGAIN, IT GETS COMPLICATED BECAUSE THIS IS MORE OF A CITY GOVERNMENT THAN A STATE BUREAUCRACY, BUT THE WE DON'T HAVE AS OPEN A SITUATION WITH OUR UTILITY NOW, IT'S CHANGED. SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE'S A NEED TO TAKE THIS KIND OF ACTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS BEING REPRESENTED IN TERMS OF THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT ADVOCATING FOR UTILITY RATES, YOU KNOW, THE ADVOCATE WOULD LOOK AT ITS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RATE PAIR, WHO IS ALSO A TAXPAYER, TO HAVE THIS TRANSFERRED FROM THE UTILITY TO THE GENERAL FUND. AGAIN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY MY I DON'T KNOW PICK, — MYOPIC LOOKING AT A VERY PARTICULAR SORT OF WAY. I THINK THERE ARE EXAMPLES OUT THERE. THE PUBLIC INSURANCE COUNCIL, PUBLIC INSURANCE COMMISSION ALSO HAS THAT SAME TYPE OF SETUP, TNRCC HAS A PUBLIC INTEREST COUNCIL, THAT'S NOT AN INDEPENDENT BODY, BUT IT IS A BODY THAT HAS A CHARGE OF LOOKING FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN TERMS OF THE DEALINGS OF THAT PARTICULAR ENTITY. SO THAT'S HOW YOU WILL LIKE AT THIS. THERE ARE OTHER ENTITIES WE CAN LOOK AT IN TERMS OF HOW TO DEFINE THE PARTICULAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS OFFICE OR INDIVIDUAL. SO AGAIN THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S A NEED TO DO OR TAKE THIS TYPE OF ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THOSE ARE REGULATORY AGENCIES, THOSE ARE NOT BUSINESSES. THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IS A BUSINESS. WE OPERATE A — A BUSINESS, A BIG BUSINESS THAT HAS REVENUE OF 8, 900 MILLION A YEAR. IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION. WE ALSO OWE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, PAST THE BILLION DOLLARS. IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION, OVER THERE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS PUTTING REGULATION OVER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE STATE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT RISK. WE DO. WE HAVE A LOT OF RISK HERE, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION, THAT'S WHY THE LAW ALLOWS US TO HIRE A CONSUMER ADVOCATE WHEN WE ARE GOING THROUGH RATE SETTING. THAT'S PERMITTED BY STATE LAW. THE MORE — COUNCILMEMBER — COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH. WELL, AFTER LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE. WE HAVE AMONG — IF NOT THE LOWEST, AMONG THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL RATES IN THE STATE. EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD REPRESENTATIVES OF LARGE CORPORATIONS COME DOWN TIME AFTER TIME, YEAR AFTER YEAR, TRYING TO GET THEIR RATES UP LOWER. I CAN REMEMBER EVEN BEING ON THE SHORT END OF ONE TIME WHERE — WHERE WE DID DO THAT. I WAS ON THE SHORT ENDS OF A 4-3 VOTE. BUT THERE WAS PLENTY OF — THERE'S CLEARLY — IT'S CLEAR WHERE THOSE ISSUES WERE, EVERYONE WAS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED. THERE WAS JUST AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT ON THE COUNCIL. BUT I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S RATE STRUCTURE ON BOTH THE ELECTRIC AND THE WATER RATES, AND I THINK THE CONSUMERS ARE BEING REPRESENTED — REPRESENTATIVE — REPRESENTED PRETTY GOOD, PRETTY WELL. I WOULD ASK, I'M TRYING TO ENVISION, EXACTLY WHAT THE PERSON WOULD DO AND HOW THEY WOULD APPEAR BEFORE US. WHAT — WHAT ISSUES WOULD THEY APPEAR BEFORE US ON, WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD THEY MAKE TO US AND ON WHAT TYPE OF MATTERS.

GOODMAN: WELL, WHAT I'M ASSUMING, I GUESS I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT. ESPECIALLY IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY MATTERS, BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH LARGER THAN THE WATER AND WASTEWATER, IF WE INCLUDE THAT UTILITY, WHICH IS AT THE SAME TIME AS SO MUCH MORE OF OUR BUSINESS AN DELIBERATION HAS TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. SO, TOO, WITHIN THE STRUCTURE COULD A CONSUMER ADVOCATE OR BETTER — BETTER LABEL THAN CONSUMER ADVOCATE, IT'S JUST TRADITIONAL AND IT CARRIES AN ASSUMPTION WITH IT'S, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON THAT IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY. BUT A — BUT A CONSUMER ORIENTED — ANALYST OR TRACKER OR MONITOR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WOULD BE ABLE TO — BY BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, BUT WITH THE ABILITY TO DISCONNECT ENOUGH TO BE INDEPENDENT, BE ABLE TO ANALYZE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES AND MOVES FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO THAT WE ALWAYS HAD THE THREE PERSPECTIVES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO THE UTILITY THESE DAYS AND NOT GET SO WRAPPED UP, AS I THINK ANY — ANY COUNCILMEMBERS NOW OR IN THE FUTURE WILL JUST BY HABIT GET INTO BECAUSE IT IS IN THAT VERY CLOSED SORT OF GREENHOUSE, HOT HOUSE ATMOSPHERE. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE OTHER ISSUES ARE — ARE REGULARLY PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN AN ATMOSPHERE LIKE THAT. BECAUSE THE PUSH IS TO BE — TO BE A LEAN, GREEN, FIGHTING MACHINE. A CORPORATE SUCCESS THAT MAKES MONEY, THAT PAYS DIVIDENDS. BUT IN A PUBLIC UTILITY, EVEN WHEN WE HAVE TO — TO HAVE NEW KINDS OF — OF MEETINGS WITH PROPRIETARY PROTECTIONS, WE STILL HAVE TWO OTHER FACES THAT ARE SOMETIMES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER IN AN INVESTOR OWNED. THEY DON'T COME TOGETHER IN AN INVESTOR OWNED. SO THE CORPORATE — THE CORPORATE GOAL, THE CORPORATE CHARGE IN INVESTOR OWNED IS NOT NEEDED OR DOES NOT NEED — SORRY, DOES NOT NEED THOSE OTHER TWO PERSPECTIVES, NECESSARILY UNLESS THEY ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE WHAT SOMEBODY LIKE US IS TRYING TO DO. BUT IT DOES MAKE SURE THAT EVEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND EVEN BEING A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE BOARD FOR A UTILITY, FOR AN INDUSTRY, THAT YOU STILL ALWAYS HAVE THE INFORMATION PUT IN FRONT MUCH YOU TO KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE FROM THE CONSUMER, MEANING THE RATE PAYER POINT OF VIEW, BEYOND THE TIME WHEN YOU JUST HAVE A RATE CASE. WHAT — WHAT — LET ME TRY TO THINK OF THIS AN... ANECDOTALLY, WHICH THERE IS A LARGE INDUSTRIAL GIENLTS OF A UTILITY — GIANT OF A UTILITY PROVIDER. THEY TELL US AND THEIR COMPETITORS TELL US THAT THEY HAVE THE BEST RATES FOR US, THAT THEY ARE THE BEST ONES FOR US, AND WE SEE MANY, MANY TV COMMERCIALS WITH LET'S GO TO PHONES, FOR INSTANCE, IF NOT ONLINE KIND OF PROGRAMS. THEY EACH TELL US THAT THEY ARE THE BEST. ALL OF THE 10-10-220'S. I REALLY COULD NOT TELL YOU WHO HAS THE BEST OF ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT NUMBERS THEY PUT UP THERE, THE DIFFERENT COMPANIES, WHAT THEY OFFER ON THE 10 MINUTES, 7 MINUTES, 20 MINUTES AT 7 CENTS OR WHATEVER IT IS. THEY ARE TELLING ME, FROM THE CONSUMER POINTS OF VIEW HERE IN TOWN, MANY PEOPLE STILL DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC UTILITY, THAT THEY IN FACT AS PROPERTY OWNERS OWN THIS UTILITY. ALL THEY HAVE IS OUR WORD FOR IT. WHEN THEY HEAR US, THAT THEIR RATES ARE OF THE BEST. THEY DON'T ASSUME THAT. BUT SO IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO POINT TO THAT MADE THIS UTILITY STILL A VERY IDENTIFIABLE PUBLIC UTILITY, NO MATTER THAT — THAT FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE USED TO TALK ABOUT IN PUBLIC CAN HAPPEN ANYMORE, THEN THERE'S SOMETHING TO POINT TO, THEN THERE'S SOME REASSURANCE AND THERE'S SOME — SOME ASSURANCE, SPECIALLY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCATES WHO ARE OUT IN THE WORLD LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, NOT JUST UTILITIES. THAT THERE IS AT LEAST THE PERSPECTIVE INVOLVED. I'M SORRY TO BE SO WORDY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING THAT POINT OF VIEW REPRESENTED WITHIN THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE SINCE IT IS ONE OF THE CHARGES AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR BEING A PUBLIC UTILITY. AND THAT THE LAST THING THAT I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. MAYBE IN MY WHOLE LIFE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 7C, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

WYNN: MAYOR? I HAVE HOPEFULLY A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT ONE — THAT ONE, WE — WE GIVE OURSELVES A BUDGET, WE TELL THE TAXPAYERS HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST, WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT ALONG WITH THE ITEM AND THAT WE — THAT WE AGREE TO TAKE THOSE FUNDS OUT OF THIS — OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND NOT ASK THE CITY DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR CUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GOODMAN: NO, THAT DIDN'T SOUND TOO FRIENDLY. ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS A UTILITY — PART OF THE UTILITIES CORPORATION STRUCTURE AND SINCE THE POSITION IS ALREADY BUDGETED WITH THE UTILITY, CERTAINLY THAT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE SINCE THAT'S WHERE THE PERSON WILL DO THEIR WORK.

WYNN: THEY WON'T BE [INAUDIBLE] ON THE WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES.

GOODMAN: WELL, NOBODY HAD AMENDED FOR THAT. SO —

WYNN: SO CAN WE IDENTIFY THEN THAT — THAT THIS IS A — AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC AND SAY WHETHER IT'S — WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL.

GOODMAN: NO. WE WERE NOT MAKING THAT DISTINCTION. CONSUMER IS CONSUMER.

WYNN: ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

GOODMAN: YEAH. UNLESS YOU HAVE A BETTER WORD FOR ADVOCATE OR IF ANYBODY HAS A BETTER WORD FOR ADVOCATE.

WYNN: YOU NEED TO TELL THEM WHO THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR.

GOODMAN: THE CONSUMER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE — THE ITEM THAT HAS THE MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY, [ LAUGHTER ], BEING THAT IT IS PAST 10:00, I NEED A MOTION TO OWE TO SEE TO WAVE THE 10:00 ADJOURNMENT RULE.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COMOSH. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. SO THE 10:00 RULE IS WAIVED. SO — SO I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.?

NO. THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN, AND SLUSHER AND GARCIA VOTING NAY. CAN WE GO TO AN EASY ONE?

CAN I ASK A QUESTION, I'M SORRY. BUT IT'S SO THAT I CAN WRITE THE LANGUAGE. I SHOULD CALL THIS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

AND WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DESCRIBE IN THE PROVISION WHAT THE PERSON WILL DO? FOR EXAMPLE, TO ANALYZE AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE ISSUES FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CONSUMER OF — OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES?

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MOTION, RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY BE A LITTLE LOOSER, BUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED WERE FINE, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS DECIDED BY COUNCIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

GOODMAN: YOU CAN'T KNOW —

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE WANTS A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.

I WILL TRY TO WORK WITH THAT AND GIVE YOU SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU CAN REVIEW.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO SKIP THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, GO TO ITEM NO. 10 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION — THIS WAS NOT RECOMMENDED OR CONSIDERED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, BUT THAT WE HAVE A RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. I ASKED — THIS WAS ONE THAT I — THAT I BROUGHT UP AND — PART 20, PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE CHARTER, THE NEW LANGUAGE IS SHOWN UNDERLINED. IF ANY JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY GENERAL SPECIAL PRIMARY ELECTION FOR AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE, THE JUDGE ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THAT APPLIES IF THE JUDGE HAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR.

NO, SIR, THAT APPLIES PERI.

PERIOD.

I COULD MAKE IT SO IT ONLY APPLIED IF THE JUDGE HAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR, THAT'S EASY ENOUGH TO WRITE.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THIS ONE APPLIES PERIOD.

APPLIES PERIOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT SAID WE HAD TO PUT THAT ONE YEAR THING IN THERE.

NO. YOU CAN DO IT THIS WAY OR THE OTHER WAY.

SAME THING WITH COUNCIL APPOINT TEES.

AS TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES, OF COURSE THEY SERVE AT YOUR PLEASURE ANYWAY. SO YOU DON'T REALLY NEED IN A IN THE CHARTER. PERSONNEL POLICIES ALREADY SAY THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO WANTS TO RUN FOR — FOR ELECTED OFFICE HAS TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND YOU COULD MAKE THAT — YOU DON'T — AS TO OTHER —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T NEED IT IN THE CHARTER.

I CAN PUT IT IN THE CHARTER IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. YOU COULD DO THAT WITH A PERSONNEL POLICY. AS TO THE JUDGES IT NEEDS TO NUMBER THE CHARTER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE OFFICERS OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

AND WHAT WE HAD HERE WAS THAT WE INTERVIEWED JUDGES FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS, SOON AFTER WE APPOINTED THEM, THREE OF THEM, ANNOUNCED CANDIDACIES FOR ELECTED OFFICE.

UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND SO I ASKED THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, I ASKED THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THIS IS WHAT THEY DRAFTED.

ACTUALLY I DID. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DID THAT ONE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU RECOGNIZE ME FOR A MOTION, I WILL STEP OFF THE MAYOR'S CHAIR AND MAKE A MOTION.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, PLEASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY MOTION IS TO PUT IN THE ELECTION, THE CHARTER ELECTION A PROVISION THAT — THAT READS AS FOLLOWS: IF ANY JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL OR PRIMARY ELECTION FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE, THE JUDGE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FIRST.

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I'M BACK TO — BACK TO CHAIRING.

SLUSHER: MR. STEINER, ISN'T IT — STATE LAW IS IF THE ELECTED OFFICIAL ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR AN OFFICE, THAT HE OR SHE HAS TO RESIGN THEIR CURRENT OFFICE IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERM?

THE STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 SAYS THAT CITIES MAY PROVIDE OFFICES, TERMS OF OFFICE IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS FOR — FOR ITS OFFICERS, EITHER ELECTIVE OR POINTED. IF IT DOES, — ELECTED OR APPOINTED. IF IT DOES, THEN SUCH OFFICERS, THERE'S A BIT OF AN AMBIGUITY THERE, BECAUSE YOU COULD READ THE "SUCH" AS REFERRING TO ALL OFFICERS. BUT I THINK IT'S ONLY THE ONES IN OFFICE FOR A FEW YEARS, AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN IF THEY BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE WITH MORE THAN A YEAR WHEN — AT ANY TIME WHEN THEY HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERMS. SO I THINK IT'S NOT APPLYING CURRENTLY TO YOUR MUNICIPAL JUDGES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TERMS IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS. SO — SO THE — SO THE GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT MUNICIPAL JUDGES CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FOR A — FOR A SET NUMBER OF — FOR SOME ENNEW MEXICO RATED ISSUES. ONE — ENUMERATED ISSUES, ONE OF THINGS IT DOES IS ALLOW FOR REMOVAL IN THE CITY CHARTER. THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES IF THEY BECOME A CANDID FOR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE ANYWHERE IN IN THE TERM.

IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE STATE WHERE AN OFFICIAL HAS TO AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN THEIR OFFICE WHEN THEY RUN IF IT'S LESS THAN A YEAR ON THE TERM?

NO, SIR. THE ONLY RESIGN TO RUN PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW ARE ONE THAT APPLIES TO COUNTY OFFICERS IN ARTICLE 16, SECTION 65 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND ONE THAT APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL OFFICERS IN ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THEY BOTH OPERATE THE SAME WAY, WHICH IS YOU HAVE TO — YOU AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN YOUR OFFICE IF YOU BECOME A CANDIDATE AT A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON YOUR TERM.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT SO THEN WE WOULD BE CREATING HERE A MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT THAN ON ANYBODY — ANY OTHER OFFICIALS IN THE STATE?

YES, SIR. I COULD EASILY, AS I SAY, IT MAKE — MAKE IT SO IT ONLY APPLIED TO PEOPLE WHO HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS THE INTENT. I THOUGHT WE HAD DRAFTED IT THAT WAY.

I CAN CERTAINLY DO IT THAT WAY. IN FACT I HAVE IT IN THE CAN I CAN JUST INSERT A CLAUSE IN THERE THAT SAYS AT A TIME DURING WHICH THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM.

SLUSHER: CAN I ADD THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE THAT'S FRIENDLY.

MAYOR, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PROVISION APPLYING TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THAT.

THE PERSONNEL POLICIES WOULD NOT REACH ALL OF THE COUNCIL APPOINTEES, HOWEVER ALL OF YOUR COUNCIL APPOINTEES SERVE AT YOUR PLEASURE YOU COULD AT ANY TIME ASK THEM TO STEP DOWN.

SLUSHER: WOULD WHO IT NOT REACH.

CITY AUDITOR, CITY CLERK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER. PERSONNEL POLICIES ARE REALLY POLICIES THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT THE CITY MANAGER IMPLEMENTS.

SLUSHER: ARE YOU SAYING THE CITY MANAGER COULD RUN FOR OFFICE WITHOUT RUN — RUN FOR COUNCIL WITHOUT RESIGNING?

WITHOUT RESIGNING UNLESS THE COUNCIL AS THE CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOYER ASKS THE CITY MANAGER TO STEP DOWN.

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT AS A LIVE PERSON.

I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR THE RECORD TO NOT HAVE A RUMOR START BASED ON THAT QUESTION. [ LAUGHTER ].

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PROVIDING THAT IN THE CHARTER AND YOU MAY PREFER IT TO HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.

SLUSHER: I WOULD PREFER THAT, MAYOR, BECAUSE I DOUBT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT — BUT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHY RISK THAT AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE INTENT WAS TO CAPTURE EVERYONE IN THAT AND SO — IF THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT THE PERSONNEL POLICIES DON'T CAPTURE, LET'S PUT THEM IN THE CHARTER.

THAT'S VERY EASY TO DO. THE LANGUAGE WOULD SAY, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO PUT IT IN ARTICLE 9, WHICH IS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT. AND IT WOULD BE A NEW SECTION 6, IT WOULD SAY: IF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THIS CHARTER OTHER THAN A JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL COURT, BECAUSE THE JUDGE WOULD BE GOTTEN BY THE OTHER ONE, ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY ... THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT.

SLUSHER: THE PERSONNEL POLICY, ISN'T THE PERSONNEL POLICY THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE? RATHER THAN RESIGN THEIR —

RIGHT.

SO THIS WOULD BE STRONGER AND IT WOULD HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY. I CAN CERTAINLY EASILY DO THAT LAPPING FOR YOU.

SLUSHER: THIS WOULD BE THE AUDITOR, CLERK —

THE CITY AUDITOR, THE CITY CLERK, THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER.

SLUSHER: WHOEVER ELSE WE ADD TONIGHT.

WYNN: CONSUMER ADVOCATE. [ LAUGHTER ].

AND PRESUMABLY THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

SLUSHER: MAY I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: THAT THEY RESIGN, NOT THAT THEY TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: I'M SORRY, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT THAT THESE OTHER PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYEES AT WILL OF OURS, THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES AREN'T. WE CAN'T FIRE A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS OR HER TERM. IT SEEMS TO ME BECAUSE OF THAT I'M CERTAINLY PREPARED TO HAVE THIS — OUR — OUR — OUR OVERSIGHT OF THIS ISSUE IN REGARDS TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES ARE FAR MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATE LAW. SO WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE, CITY MANAGER WANTS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY ARE OUT OF A JOB, AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE TO RESIGN AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES BY DEFINITION THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE — WE HAVE TO BE EITHER MORE COGNIZANT OF MUNICIPAL JUDGES THAN, YOU KNOW, CITY AUDITOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE STANDARD THAT COUNCILMEMBER, I ACCEPTED THAT, THAT — THAT AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS — IS WHAT APPLIES TO US, YOU KNOW, WHAT APPLIES TO US THAT — IS IF WE HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR, THIS HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF MAYOR WATSON, THEN WE HAVE TO RESIGN AT THE TIME THAT WE ANNOUNCE. I THINK THAT THE DALLAS ONE MAY BE DIFFERENT, I'M NOT REAL SURE HOW THAT WORKS. BUT ANYWAY WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBER WAS DOING IS WE ARE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

OF COURSE THE ONE YEAR THING DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SET TERMS. SO WITH RESPECT TO THEM IT WOULD JUST BE WHENEVER THEY BECAME A CANDIDATE IT COULD AFFECT A RESIGNATION.

WYNN: THIS UNFORTUNATELY SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE TREATING THE CITY AUDITOR AS AN EXAMPLE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SEVERELY THAN WE ARE OUR OWN POLITICAL APPOINTEES. I JUST SEE AN INEQUITY THERE.

SLUSHER: WELL, YOU COULD DO IT —

WYNN: WHO'S MORE LIKELY TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE OR THE CITY — CONSUMER ADEQUATE?

SLUSHER: WELL, JUDGES ARE NORMALLY, SOME ARE APPOINTED OFFICE, SOME ARE JUDGES, IF THEY HAVE — IF THEY WANT TO MOVE TO A HIGHER JUDGESHIP IN TEXAS, NORMALLY THOSE ARE ELECT I HAVE. SO I WAS — ELECTIVE, I WAS LOOKING TO TREAT THEM THE SAME AS US AND NOT PENALIZE IF THEY WANTED TO RUN FOR A HIGHER OFFICE, AS LONG AS DO WHAT MAYOR GARCIA WAS COME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY START RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE, THEN I — I CONSIDER THAT TO BE A PROBLEM, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO FIX. I THINK — I CAN SEE IT EITHER WAY.

WYNN: WHY ARE WE TREATING OUR EMPLOYEES MUCH MORE STRINGENT THAN WE ARE TREATED?

I WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE IT LIKE — I LOOKED AT THAT MORE LIKE THE OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ON THE UNDER CITY MANAGER, THEY HAVE TO GO ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE. SO I WOULD BE OPEN TO — IT'S NOT MY MOTION, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT WHERE OUR EMPLOYEES JUST HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF THEY WERE TO IF THEY WERE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THAT WAY THEY ARE TREATED LIKE THE REST OF THE CITY EMPLOYEES.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE, I TELL YOU WHY. THE JUDGES ARE APPOINTED FOR TWO YEARS. IF SOMEBODY TAKES A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THERE IS — >SLUSHER: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE AUDITOR, I'M SAYING LEAVE THE JUDGE, BUT ON THE AUDITOR, CLERK, CITY MANAGER, ON THE OFF CHANCE ONE OF THEM DECIDES TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THAT WE CAN INSTEAD TREAT THEM LIKE THE EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS THE — THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THEY CAN RESIGN IF THEY WANT TO, BUT THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THAT'S ALL THAT'S REQUIRED OF THEM.

DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT COUNCILMEMBER —

CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? IS YOUR PROPOSAL THAT THE — THAT THE COUNCIL APPOINTEES OTHER THAN THE — OTHER THAN THE JUDGE APPOINT TEES THAT THEY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE?

SLUSHER: I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S — I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO WORK OUT A COMPROMISE POTENTIALLY. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE AUDITOR, THE CITY MANAGER, AND THE CITY CLERK ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IF THEY WERE TO DECIDE THEY WANT TO RUN FOR COUNCIL AND THEN THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND WORK WITH THE COUNCIL. THAT DOES SEEM TO CREATE AN AWKWARD, AT LEAST, SITUATION. AND SO THAT'S WHY — THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL THINKING IN SAYING LET'S JUST HAVE THEM RESIGN. THAT WAS — I WAS OFFERING TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. IF HE THINKS THAT'S INEQUITABLE, THE OTHER OPTION IS TO TREAT THEM LIKE THE CITY EMPLOYEES, LET THEM HAVE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE. SEEMS LIKE THE ODD SITUATION THEY WOULD COME BACK, SAY, YEAH, OKAY, LIKE THE CITY CLERK, I'M READY TO COME BACK NOW. [MULTIPLE VOICES]

I WOULD ADD IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING THEM TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, YOU REALLY DON'T NEED A CHARTER AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS THE EMPLOYER OF ITS APPOINTEES. YOU GET TO — TO — A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

SLUSHER: I WOULD SAY LET'S STICK WITH THE WAY WE ALREADY HAVE IT WHERE THEY HAVE TO RESIGN. THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO FACE THAT IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET ONE OF THESE SEATS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION AND SECOND —

SLUSHER: TAKE A BIG CUT IN PAY.

AS IT IS WRITTEN BUT WITH AS I UNDERSTOOD, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S AS WRITTEN BUT WITH A CLAUSE PUT IN AS TO THE JUDGES THAT SPECIFIES IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THE TERM. WAS THAT CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THAT'S IN REGARDS TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES. AS IT IS WRITTEN HERE.

YES, SIR.

FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YES, SIR, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE, WHERE DOES THAT POSITION FALL.

THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.

THOMAS: A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. UNDER THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, DOES SHE COME UNDER THAT? DOES THAT POSITION COME UNDER IT?

YES, SIR.

I THOUGHT IT WAS MOVED OUT.

THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUST LIKE THE OTHER MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES.

THOMAS: I THOUGHT WE HAD SOMETHING —

GOODMAN: THERE'S A SEPARATE.

IT'S ALWAYS SEPARATE AS TO REPORTING. THE PRESIGHING JUDGE REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE JUDICIAL SUBCOMMITTEE, SO DOES THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE. PRESIDING JUDGE. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY DISTINCTION. UNDER THE STATE LAW WHICH GIVES THE AUTHORITY FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES, THEY ARE ALL TREATED THE SAME, THEY ARE ALL MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. THERE'S NO RECOGNITION OF A COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE? STATE LAW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A CREATURE OF THIS COUNCIL.

BUT — WELL, MAYBE I READ THAT WRONG. [INAUDIBLE].

THOMAS: I THOUGHT WE MOVED THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE. FROM — FROM WE MOVED IT FROM THE COURT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S — THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. THIS WOULD APPLY.

THOMAS: WELL, I HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THAT. THE JUDGE PUT SOME TIME IN — YOU SAID ONE YEAR.

THE PROPOSAL IS THAT A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE WHO BECAME A CAP DATE FOR PUBLIC ELECTIVE OFFICE AT A TIME WHEN THE JUDGE HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THE JUDGE'S TERM WOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN BY THE FACT OF THE CANDIDACY.

THOMAS: DO WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS — I DON'T REMEMBER.

THERE ARE TWO, I BELIEVE, MUNICIPAL — THREE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES RIGHT NOW WHO ARE CANDIDATES FOR OTHER OFFICES, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE.

THOMAS: HISTORY, HISTORY, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NOW.

YES.

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE.

WITH SOME DEGREE OF REGULARITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU LOOK AT THE — IF YOU LOOK AT THE — AT THE AD THAT'S PEOPLE HAVE WHEN THEY RUN FOR JUDGES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THEM START THEIR CAREERS AS JURISTS.

THOMAS: OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, THERE IS ONE THING MAYBE — MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS WORRIED ABOUT ONE THING, WHICH I THINK IN CAMPAIGNING WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. ONCE A JUDGE IS A JUDGE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THAT HONORIFIC. PEOPLE DON'T SAY FORMER MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THEY KNOW THAT YOU ARE A JUDGE, SO YOU ARE A JUDGE. YOU CAN CAMPAIGN AS A JUDGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN AND DO HAVE A RECORD TO STAND ON AS A JUDGE. SO IF YOU ARE THINKING THAT SUDDENLY WE SORT OF DEFROCK THEM IN A WAY, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THAT FINITE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GO ON WITH THE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE RECORD AND CLAIM OF BEING A IF JUDGE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS AN ISSUE.

THOMAS: THAT WASN'T IT. IT WAS JUST THAT — IT EFFECTS SOMEBODY THAT HAS PROBABLY BEEN PRESIDING JUDGE A LITTLE LONGER AND THEN ALSO COME UP DURING THE [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL. I FEEL THAT — EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THEY WANT TO RUN. BUT I COULD KIND OF UNDERSTAND IF THEY HAVE BEEN THERE A YEAR, SIX MONTHS, BUT IF SOMEONE IS — HAS BEEN THERE WITH A LONG TENURE, TO ME IT'S NOT — IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, ALL THIS DOES IS PUT THEM UNDER THE SAME — THE SAME LAWS AS OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, INCLUDING US. WHERE THAT IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERMS, THEY HAVE TO RESIGN. THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT I MADE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE SAID YOU RUN, YOU ARE OUT. I DON'T THINK THIS TREATS THEM UNFAIRLY, JUST PUTS THEM UNDER THE SAME RULES AS OTHERS.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSESED NO?

THOMAS: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTING NO. THAT — LET'S GO BACK TO — TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A MOTION?

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, I WONDER IF WE COULD THINK ABOUT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU. THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CITY ATTORNEY. FROM TIME TO TIME, I REMEMBER WE ARE ASKING THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION NOT LONG AGO, YOU SAID DO WE HAVE A LAWYER? AND THE ANSWER WAS ESSENTIALLY NO. THAT — THAT MANAGEMENT HAS LOTS OF THEM, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NO ATTORNEY THAT IS — THAT IS JUST — JUST COMMITTED TO ADVISING THEM AS COUNCILMEMBERS. AND THAT — THAT EXPERIENCE REALLY BROUGHT THAT HOME TO ME. AND — AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT — ABOUT THAT IF — IF OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THAT KIND OF NEED.

MAYOR GARCIA: [INAUDIBLE] DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.

GOODMAN: IF THIS WAS A MOTION, MAYOR, I WILL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WOULD LIKE SOME EXPLANATION, FIRST, SO WE WILL GO TO THAT AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON IT.

WELL, THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS AND DISCUSSED IT LIKE THE OTHER ISSUES AT SOME LENGTH. UNLIKE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, I HAVE SOME PERSONAL EXPERTISE IN THIS BECAUSE I'M AN ATTORNEY. SO I DID TAKE THE POSITION THAT I HAD TROUBLE SEEING HOW ONE COULD DIVIDE THE ATTORNEYS RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNITS, DIVISIONS OF WHAT SEEMS TO ME AS AN ATTORNEY IS ONE LEGAL ENTITY AND THAT'S THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. SO — SO AND THE MAJORITY OF — OF THE COMMISSION I THINK ACCEPTED THAT OR TOOK THAT POSITION, SO I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR THE MAJORITY IN THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE GOTTEN ADVISE FROM THE ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL ON THIS, SO OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL NEED TO CONSIDER THEIR ADVICE. BUT IT DID SEEM DIFFICULT — IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME AS AN ATTORNEY TO UNDERSTAND. HOW YOU WILL HAVE ONE — BILLION, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS. WE HAVE HEARD EARLIER MULTIPLE.

MAYOR GARCIA:, NOW I GUESS MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS. BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHO WOULD PICK THE ATTORNEY, IT — IT DIDN'T SEEM TO US THAT IT MATTERED WHO PICKED THE ATTORNEY BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY'S PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS GOVERNED BY THE ATTORNEY'S PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT BY WHO HIRED HIM OR HER. AND IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS, THEY ARE — THERE'S ONE LEGAL ENTITY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON MUNICIPAL LAW, BUT THERE'S ONE LEGAL ENTITY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY HIRES TO ADVISE THE COUNCIL INDEPENDENT OF — INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVISE THAT'S GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT AND — ADVICE THAT'S GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE INTEREST OF THE CITY AS A MUNICIPALITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY QUESTION AT THE TIME PERTAINED TO A SITUATION WHERE I WAS SUED PERSONALLY. AND I FELT LIKE I OUGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHO IS GOING TO DEFEND ME. AND UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS THE ONE THAT DID THAT. AND I — THAT'S WHAT I WAS — THAT'S THE POINTS OF REFERENCE THAT I HAD, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GET SUED, DO I HAVE ANY SAY AS TO WHO IS GOING TO REPRESENT ME, BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT BEING SUED, I'M BEING SUED PERSONALLY.

I GUESS YOU CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. IF I'M SUED PERSONALLY FOR THINGS THAT I DO PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, I WILL HIRE MY OWN ATTORNEY. BUT IF I DO SOMETHINGS A — AS A COUNCILMEMBER, I GET SUED FOR THAT, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE A LAWYER THAT I WANT OR DO I HAVE TO — TO FOLLOW — DO I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY? I GUESS UNDER THE CHARTER, JOHN, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY SELECT THAT ATTORNEY, IS THAT CORRECT.

THAT'S CERTAINLY BEYOND WHAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED.

THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE ATTORNEY FOR ALL OF THE CITY AND ALL OF THE CITY'S OFFICERS. SO CLEARLY IN CASES WHERE — WHERE THE CITY INDEMNIFIES AN OFFICIAL WHO IS SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THEN — THEN AS WITH ALL LEGAL COUNSEL HIRED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ATTORNEY MAKES THAT CHOICE, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY WE CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE END DEM PHIED INDIVIDUAL. INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL. OR IF THE INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL SO CHOOSES, USUALLY THE PEOPLE WE INDEMNIFY ARE POLICE OFFICERS, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THE INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL ALWAYS HAS THE CHOICE OF NOT SEPTEMBERING THE REPRESENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY BUT HIRING THEIR OWN REPRESENTATION. BUT GENERALLY WE WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD HIRE REPRESENTATION THAT WOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE END DEM PHIED INDIVIDUAL. INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL.

GOODMAN: CAN I JUMP IN HERE. I WILL BE BRIEF AND QUICK. I WISH THAT WHEN YOU ALL HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THIS IF YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD EVEN BE SUGGESTED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LET US KNOW. SO WE COULD HAVE COME OVER AND GIVEN YOU ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IF NOTHING ELSE. YES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAWYERS. THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. THE CITY HAS MANY LAWYERS. AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE A DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE SESSION, OR A DIFFERENT ITEM AND A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT LAWYER. WE HAVE SEDORA. EVERYBODY. BUT THE CITY COUNCIL IN DEALING WITH LEGAL ISSUES IS MADE UP OF A TRAIN OF LAWYERS. WITH YOU IT IS FOR THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE CITY. WHEN FOR INSTANCE IT IS AN EXTREME CASE, WHEN YOU ARE BEING SUED, I THINK MOST OF US HAVE BEEN OR HAVE THEREIN THREATENED BY NOW, THAT THE CORPORATE DIRECTION IS THE PROTECTION OF THE CITY AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS ALLOW FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SORT OF PERSPECTIVE TO ENTER INTO THAT CITY DEFENSE AND CITY POSITION. SO THAT I DON'T KNOW GUS IF THEY MADE YOU STAY OUT OF THE ROOM. BUT WHEN I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS BEING SUED, I DIDN'T EVER KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN COURT ABOUT ANYTHING BECAUSE SINCE I WAS THE ONE BEING SUED AND SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS BEING REPORTED TO, I COULDN'T BE IN THE ROOM. SO I HAD NO LAWYER REALLY, ALTHOUGH A CITY LAWYER WAS DEFENDING ME. I HAD NO INFORM THEM. IT WAS AN EXTREME CASE, BUT THERE IS NOBODY WITHIN CITY LEGAL ON SOME ISSUES IN SOME SITUATIONS WHO CAN COUNSEL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THAT ELECTED BODY. SORT OF PERSPECTIVE. THE CITY — IT IS THE CITY AS A WHOLE, THEIR POLICIES AND I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT OTHER WORD I WANT RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE CITY. THEY ARE CITY MANAGEMENT DESIGNED AND CARRIED THROUGH AND PROTECTED AND DEFENDED. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY COUNCIL AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY GIVE US THE EXTRA PERSPECTIVE WE NEED. SO I WISH YOU HAD ASKED FOR SOME INPUT THERE.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. YOU MAY MISUNDERSTAND ONE THING I SAID, WHICH IS ONE CITY ATTORNEY. OBVIOUSLY I'M AWARE THERE ARE MANY, MANY CITY ATTORNEYS, THERE — THERE'S AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SITTING NEXT TO ME, THE CITY ATTORNEY SITTING THERE. BUT THEY ALL AS YOU SAID ANSWER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THEY ALL AT LEAST IN THEORY SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE. THEY — ETHICALLY, I DON'T THINK COULD BE — I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, I WASN'T SPEAKING ALSO TO THE — TO THE SITUATION THAT THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP WHERE ONE INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER IS SUED. WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO WAS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD FROM COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, WHICH WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO WOULD COUNSEL THE COUNCIL AS A BODY AND THAT THAT WOULD BE DISTINCT AND PERHAPS CONFIDENTIAL FROM THE ATTORNEY OR THE ATTORNEY GROUP THAT IS COUNSELING MANAGEMENT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO.

GOODMAN: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ADD ANOTHER DIMENSION SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. IF A POLICE OFFICER IS SUED FOR — FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DUTIES, WE HIRE AN OUTSIDE COUNCIL TO DEFEND HIM. OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DEFEND HIM AND PAY FOR IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS HIRED BY YOU OR SELECTED BY YOU OR HIRED BY THE INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICER.

LET ME ADDRESS THAT. WHEN WE HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT A POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN SUED INDIVIDUALLY IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE POLICE OFFICER'S INTERESTS ARE DIVERSE TO THE CORPORATION. SO ETHICALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN'T REPRESENT BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE TO HIRE SOMEBODY ELSE WHOSE DUTY FLOWS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE CITY. IF HOWEVER WE MAKE AN ASSESSMENT THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ISN'T — DOESN'T HAVE AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE CITY, THERE'S NO ETHICAL DUTY ON OUR PART TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THAT PERSON IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT DO YOU HIRE THEM OR DOES HE HIRE? WHO SELECTS —

EVEN THE POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS AN ADVERSE INTEREST GETS AN ATTORNEY SELECTED BY ME. NOW, OUR PROCESS IS TO — OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT THE CITY, THE CITY'S TILL, YOU CAN HAVE POLICE OFFICERS WANTING, YOU KNOW, THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAWYER IN THE COUNTRY. THAT ISN'T NECESSARY. WE ARE ACTING REALLY AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHEN WE DO THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE — WE ARE ACTING IN AN INDEM INDICATION CAPACITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT YOU TOOK AND THAT THE COMMISSION TOOK. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ONE?

GOODMAN: I WAS GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION IF THERE WAS A MOTION MADE. I WASN'T GOING TO FIGHT —

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WE MAY WANT TO DO, WE MAY WANT TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE AMONGST, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE QUESTIONS, TALKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL PUT IT ON THE 20TH FOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME?

GRIFFITH: THAT'S — THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. I KNOW THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T TRE, WE DIDN'T TAKE IT TO THEM. IT'S A SITUATION THAT — THAT I KNOW SEVERAL OF US FEEL NEEDS A SOLUTION, THAT'S BEEN — IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? IF — IF IT'S MANAGEMENT, IT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS IF — AS IF IT IS COUNCIL. WHETHER IT SHOULD BE OR NOT, IT'S — IT'S NOT ABOUT SHOULD. IT'S ABOUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. AND THERE ARE — THERE ARE TIMES WHEN — WHEN COUNCILMEMBERS AND COUNCIL NEED COUNCIL THAT IS — NEED COUNSEL THAT IS STRAIGHT TO THEM. I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO HEARING ANY IDEAS THAT — THAT COULD COME OUT OF CERTAINLY FROM A — FROM A — AN OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM FOLKS LIKE YOURSELF.

SURE, I DO THINK THE QUESTION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS — WAS SHOULD THE COUNCIL, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER HOW THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US, BUT THE QUESTION THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE ASKED WHY SHOULD THE — WAS SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPOINT THE CITY ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION. YEAH, YOU JUST GOT THIS ONE.

GOODMAN: ACTUALLY, I'M THE ONE WHO TOOK IT OVER, AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT I HOPED THAT THEY WOULD TALK TO AND I DID NOT SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I SAID A LEGAL ADVISOR. AN ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: DID YOU SEE THAT? I GUESS NOT.

I DON'T THINK WE — WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS — I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS A QUESTION. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHERS.

GRIFFITH: WELL, TAKING A WEEK IS — IS — A COUPLE OF WEEKS IS PROBABLY A GOOD THINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT ONE ON THE 20TH. AND AGAIN ON THE 21ST. NOW WE SWITCH OVER TO ITEMS CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED. WE SAID THAT THE — THAT THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURE WE WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ONE. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN INITIATED AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT. WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT ONE, TOO.

WYNN: MAYOR, ON THAT ONE I WILL SAY THAT I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE POSTING LANGUAGE, BUT ACCORDING TO MR. DESIGNER THE FACT — MR. STEINER THE FACT THAT WE ARE — I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY AN ALTERNATIVE, THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. SO — AS I STATED IN A MEMO TO Y'ALL LAST MONTH, I THINK THE $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE STIFLING TO CHALLENGERS. AND — BUT I DO SEE A — A DIFFERENT SCENARIO BETWEEN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, WHICH WE MAY HAVE EIGHT OF IN THE NEAR FUTURE AN THE CITY-WIDE RACE AS BEING SO MUCH LARGER, SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE PLACE WHAT I CALL AN AMENDED AMOUNT ACTIVE ON THE BALLOT THAT SIMPLY PRESERVES THE $100 LIMITS FOR ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT RACE IFS THEY EVER EXIST AND INCREASES THE LIMITS TO $500 FOR ALL AT LARGE OR CITY-WIDE ELECTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT ON C?

WYNN: THAT WOULD BE D, I GUESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO LEAVE THE $100 LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO — WITH REGARD TO — TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS, IF WE EVER HAVE THEM, AND TO INCREASE THE AT LARGE LIMIT TO $500. IS THERE A SECOND?

GOODMAN: FOR DISCUSSION, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: HUH?

GOODMAN: FOR DISCUSSION. I'M SECONDING FOR DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY, THERE'S A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WELL, GNAT TO BEHEADACHES............—WELL, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT TOO MUCH, I SEE A SCENARIO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE. I DO SEE A SCENARIO WHERE GIVEN THE RIGHT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RIGHT MAPS AND OBVIOUSLY THE DOJ APPROVAL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE SOME DISTRICT REPRESENTATION IN THE CITY AS EARLY AS MAY OF 2003. WE — SOUNDS LIKE WE CLEARLY WILL BE AMENDING OUR CHARTER THIS MAY, YOU KNOW, AT SOME LEVEL, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND OUR CHARTER AGAIN FOR TWO YEARS. SO I SEE, YOU KNOW, A SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE — YOU KNOW, MORE CITY ELECTIONS, EVEN WITH THE POTENTIALLY NEW FORM OF ELECTING COUNCILMEMBERS, SOME COUNCILMEMBERS WILL BE RUNNING AT LARGE, OVER THE ENTIRE CITY, AND SOME — SOME WOULDN'T BE. AND I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN — BETWEEN WHAT'S A REASONABLE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO RUN AN AT LARGE CITY-WIDE RACE VERSUS SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED DISTRICT RACE. I JUST — YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT COULD NOT PASS JUST AS EASILY I GUESS AS THE OTHER ONE COULD NOT PASS. SO WE WOULD STILL BE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I JUST THINK IT JUST — IT DOES GIVE — I THINK IT DOUBLES THE CHANCES OF HAVING SOME ELEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WAMENTS TO KEEP MY REMARKS SHORT, TOO, I LARGELY AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THIS TO RAISE THE LIMIT, TO HAVE AT LEAST — I HAVE AT LEAST TWO PROBLEMS WITH IT. ONE I THINK THE — THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS SOME OTHER PROBLEMS WITH — WITH IT AND SO I DON'T — I DON'T LINE JUST LEAVING IT IN PLACE AND RAISING THE LIMIT. AND, TWO, I WOULD — BUT I WOULD — IF WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE LIMIT OR LET ME SAY IT DIFFERENTLY. IF THE — IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE ONE DOESN'T PASS, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS BY ORDINANCE RATHER THAN PUT IT IN THE CHARTER OR AS IT WERE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE — OF THE CITY. I THINK WE SHOULD COME BACK AND DO SOMETHING BY ORANCE, THEN I WOULD WANT — BY ORDINANCE, I WOULD WANT TO APPROACH THAT ALONG THE LINES WHERE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS SAYING, THEN WE WOULD RAISE THE LIMIT. I WOULD THINK MAYBE A THOUSAND, MAYBE WHAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IS. MY THIRD ONE, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD WORK IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY ONLY 100 IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THE MIXED SYSTEM HAS BEEN THAT IT — THAT IT MAKES SOME COUNCILMEMBERS MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS, SO TO SPEAK. SO IF YOU HAVE — SOME CAN GET — ONLY GET $100 CONTRIBUTIONS, OTHERS 500. I THINK PROBABLY — I'M NOT — BECAUSE THE SINGLE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE DROWN FROM A SMALLER BASE, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING MONEY, BUT I THINK IT'S UNCHARTERED TERRITORY HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY. THAT COULD EVEN BE AN ISSUE THAT THEY ARE GETTING MONEY FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT. YET IF WE LIMIT IT TO 100 INSIDE, I THINK THAT WOULD FORCE THEM MORE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT.

WYNN: IF I COULD RESPOND, PERHAPS MR. STEINER CAN HELP ME WITH THIS. IF THE AUSTIN'S FAIR ELECTIONS ACT DOESN'T PASS IN MAY, I AGREE WITH YOU FRANKLY I THINK THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED IN AN ORDINANCE, BUT WE — COUNCIL CAN'T PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER, CORRECT? WE COULDN'T SAY WE ARE GOING TO RAISE IT TO $500 BECAUSE OUR CHARTER SAYS $100, SO UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO PREPARED TO REPEAL THE —

SLUSHER: I AM.

WYNN: THE EXISTING — [ LAUGHTER ].

WYNN: MAYBE I'M GETTING AHEAD OF YOU —

SLUSHER: JUST THE ORDER WE TOOK THEM UP IN. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A REPEAL ON THE BALLOT. HERE'S THE WAY I SEE IT. YOU WILL HAVE ON THE BALLOT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THAT'S BEEN PUT ON THE BALLOT BY A CITIZEN INITIATIVE PETITION DRIVE. YOU HAVE THAT ONE. THEN YOU HAVE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW THE REPEAL OF THE $100 LIMIT. THEN IF — SO IF THE $100 LIMB IS REPEALED, THE ORDINANCE — LIMIT IS REPEALED, THE OTHER ONE PASSES THAT ONE GOES INTO EFFECT. IF THE $100 LIMIT IS REPEALED THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FAILS AT THE BALLOT BOX, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD GO TO THE COUNCIL DOING AN ORDINANCE, THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO, MR. DESIGNER?

YES, SIR. — MR. STEINER.

YES, SIR. IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE REPEALS AND REPLACES THE CURRENT ARTICLE 3 SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER, WHICH IS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION OF THE CHARTER, WERE THE COUNCIL TO PUT A SIMPLE REPEAL OF ARTICLE 3 SECTION 8 ON THE BALLOT, IF — IF BOTH THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND THE REPEAL PASS, THEN THE REPEAL WOULD BE REDUNDANT FOR THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE WOULD BE IN EFFECT. IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FAILED AND THE REPEAL PASSED, THEN — THEN THE — WE WOULD BE LIFT WITH NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION IN THE CHARTER AND THE — AND THE — THE RESULT OF THAT WOULD BE THAT YOU WILL BE FREE TO LEGISLATE BY ORDINANCE. WHATEVER YOU CARED TO LEGISLATE IN THE AREA OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE. IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS, IT WOULD BE TO AMEND THE CURRENT PROVISION AND HAVE IT ONLY BE EFFECTIVE IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE DID NOT PASS.

CORRECT.

SO THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS.

WYNN: FRANKLY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE REPEALING THE — YOU KNOW THE EXISTING, THE 1997 ORDINANCE — OR CHARTER ISSUES. YOU KNOW, FRANKLY FROM A PERCEPTION IF NOTHING ELSE. IT CAN BE PERCEIVED THAT WE ARE TAKING AWAY THE RULES, GOING BACK TO PRE'97 DAYS, SORT OF LIMITED WARFARE, MEANWHILE WE AMONGST OURSELVES COME UP WITH OUR OWN YOU KNOW RULES TO GOVERN OURSELVES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT REPEALING IT. I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF REPEALING THE CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE REGARDING CAMPAIGN ISSUES. I DO THINK THAT STIFLING — IT'S STIFLING, I'M PREPARED TO — I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD RECOGNIZE IT AS A MODEST AMENDMENT. IT ONLY DEALS WITH THE ISSUES THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY AGREES IS PROBLEMATIC, THAT BEING THE LIMIT. WE WERE TOLD THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, I'M SIMULTANEOUS SUGGESTING WE ADOPT EVEN GO TO — I'M SUGGESTING WE ADOPT EVEN GO TO THE OTHER — DON'T EVEN GO TO THE OTHER PROBLEMATIC ISSUES, INCLUDING FOLKS PROMOTING AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT ARE DOING THAT BECAUSE THEY SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION PIECE OF THE — OF THE 1997 ORDINANCE, I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF REPEALING, BUT I WOULD — BUT RECOGNIZING THAT WE — WE COULD GET CAUGHT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY ELEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS I WOULD PROPOSE — I HAVE PROPOSED WHAT I CALL AN AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE.

SLUSHER: YEAH. I UNDERSTAND, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A VALID POINT ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST I GUESS A CHOICE OR A JUDGMENT CALL BECAUSE I THINK THERE WILL BE POTENTIALLY A PERCEPTION PROBLEM THERE. I THINK THE $100 LIMIT LAW IS SO BAD. EVEN THE PEOPLE PUTTING FORWARD THE NEW ONE WANT TO REPEAL IT, THEY WANT TO REPLACE IT WITH THIS OTHER ONE. I GUESS THEY WANTS TO KEEP IT IF PLACE IF THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T PASS. AND I JUST — BOTH OF THE — OF THE LEADING NEWSPAPERS ARE THINKING IT'S RIDICULOUS. I JUST THINK IT'S BAD LAW. I THINK WE OUGHT TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TO REPEAL IT AND RISK THAT PERCEPTION. I THINK THAT'S JUST AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT. I'M RAID TO — I'M READY TO VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? THE MOTION IS TO HAVE A PROVISION IN THE ELECTION BALLOT, TO SET THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AT $500 FOR THE AT LARGE, SEATS ON THE COUNCIL, SHOULD WE HAVE A MIXED SYSTEM AND $100 FOR THE DISTRICTS IN THAT SYSTEM. THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION WOULD APPLY ONLY IF THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTION ACT PROVISION FAILS.

WYNN: CORRECT. PROCEDURALLY, MAYOR, I WILL BE PROPOSED......... PREPARED TO, FROM A TIMING STANDPOINT PERHAPS TAKE UP HIS ISSUE FIRST AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT RESULT IS —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION TO TABLE IS A PRIVILEGE MOTION, I THINK, SO NO DISCUSSION ON THAT IS NECESSARY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

, IT'S TABLED. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO WHY I WANT THIS REPEALED. I WOULD JUST ADD ONE THING, THAT WE WOULDN'T GO BACK TO A NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AT ALL BECAUSE THE '95 COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, IT WAS — HAD AN ORDINANCE SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHEA THAT PUT IN X RAYS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, IT CERTAINLY WASN'T RESTRICTED. IT WAS A $100 LIMIT. I THINK IT PROBABLY COULD STAND SOME IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THERE IS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IN PLACE. IT'S NOT TOTALLY UNREGULATED. SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO BACK TO THAT ONE IF THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS DECIDE. AND THEN US PASS AN ORDINANCE. AT LEAST WE ARE GIVING THE VOTERS A CHOICE OF PASSING THE NEW INITIATIVE, REPEALING THE $100 LIMIT AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL GET TO WORK ON AN ORDINANCE IN THE — IF THAT THE OUTCOME IS THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE ORDINANCE — NEITHER ONE OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVES IN PLACE — I REALLY THINK THIS BELONGS AS AN ORDINANCE RATHER THAN IN THE CITY CHARTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES IS NOT — IS NOT A CHARTER PROVISION?

IF I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S SUGGESTION, IT'S JUST TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE PROVISION, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8. >SLUSHER: AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

WHICH INCLUDES A VARIETY OF REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S THE INITIATIVE PASSED [MULTIPLE VOICES]

COMMONLY KNOWN AT THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION? I'M GOING TO SECOND IT. DISCUSSION? LET ME SEE THAT I'M SECONDING THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS THING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LIKE THE OTHER PART OF THE ORDINANCE HAVING TO DO WITH LIMITS ON NON-CANDIDATE ELECTIONS IT WAS TAKEN TO COURT APPEARED RULED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO I THINK THIS ONE IS, TOO. IT'S UNFAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT INCUMBENTS. DISCUSSION FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ONE? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION FAILS ON A VOTE OF 2 TO 5. WITH MOST EVERYBODY VOTING AGAINST IT.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: EXCEPT YOU AND ME.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR EVERYBODY SAY YES OR NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU AND I SAID AYE.

YOU SAID AYE.

SLUSHER: CAN WE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN?

GOODMAN: AYE.

THOMAS: BEFORE YOU CALL THE ROLL, EXPLAIN THE MOTION AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION IS TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8 REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

SLUSHER: CAN I ELABORATE JUST SLIGHTLY TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION, MAYOR. WE HAVE ON THE BALLOT THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FOR $200 LIMIT LAW, PUBLIC FINANCING THAT — THAT WE HAVE — THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE GOT ON THROUGH THE PETITION AND WE HAVE TO PUT THAT ON AND THINK WE SHOULD LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON THIS ONE. THIS ONE REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT LAW IF THE — IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE PASSES THAT REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT LAW ANYWAY. BUT IF THAT ONE FAILED APPEARED THIS ONE PASSED THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO THE '95 SYSTEM.

COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS:

NO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MOTION FAILS ON A VOTES OF 3 TO 4. WITH — WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, GOODMAN AND GARCIA VOTING AYE THE REST VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DO YOU WANT TO — DO YOU WANT TO GO TO YOUR 500, 100 [INAUDIBLE] [MULTIPLE VOICES]

ARE YOU GOING TO REVIVE IT?

WYNN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE PROPER TERM, PUT IT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, AND IT WAS SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: IF I CAN REINTRODUCE IT WITH — WITHOUT TOO MUCH REDUNDANCY, MAYOR, IS THAT AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, REPEALING AND — AND ACCEPTEDING THE WRONG SIGNAL TO THE VOTERS AND THE PUBLIC, I THINK WE CAN MARGINALLY AMEND THE LAWS TO TRULY HELP CHALLENGERS.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: ON ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, WHAT [INAUDIBLE] DOES THAT REPEAL? WHAT ELSE WOULD IT REPEAL.

WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU BE REPEALING IF YOU REPEAL THE WHOLE THING?

ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, FIRST OF ALL, PROVIDES FOR — FOR A $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMIT PER DONOR PER ELECTION. IT PROVIDES THAT — THAT — THAT A CANDIDATE MAY NOT ACCEPT MORE THAN AN AGGREGATE OF $15,000 PER — PER MAIN ELECTION AND ANOTHER $10,000 IN THE CASE OF A RUNOFF FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR VOTE IN AUSTIN. IT PROVIDES FOR SOMETHING CALLED A SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE THAT IF IT IS CREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, CAN DONATE $1,000 PER CANDIDATE PER ELECTION. IT — IT — SETS A 180-DAYTIME WINDOW ON THE RAISING OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BEFORE AN ELECTION. SO TO BELIEVE TIME THAT YOU CAN COLLECT CONTRIBUTIONS IS WITHIN 180 DAYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AN ELECTION. IT REQUIRES THE DIVESTMENT OF ALL REMAINING CAMPAIGN FUNDS WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION. IT — IT PROVIDES THAT IF A — IF A — IF A COUNCIL OR MAYORAL CANDIDATE SIGNS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, AGREEING TO LIMIT THEIR EXPENDITURES, THAT THEY ARE LIMITED TO 75 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN — IN EXPENDITURES DURING THE MAIN ELECTION AND ANOTHER 50,000 IN THE EVENT OF A RUNOFF. IT — IT REQUIRES — THAT — IT HAS TWO PROVISIONS THAT WERE STRUCK DOWN BY THE — BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, WHICH LIMITED — WHICH LIMITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES IN MEASURE ELECTIONS. THEN — THEN THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. THOSE WOULD BE THE OTHER PROVISIONS.

THOMAS: OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH, I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT I CAN SUPPORT INCREASING SOME 100 TO 500, IT'S FIVE TIMES INCREASE, FROM 100 — [INAUDIBLE] THE ORANCE THAT WAS ON THE VOTER REFERENDUM. I COULD SUPPORT GOING UP FROM 100 TO 250, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE MORE THAN DOUBLE. BUT 500 IS JUST A LITTLE — A LITTLE TOO MUCH OF AN INCREASE FOR MY — FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS. I GUESS THAT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WYNN: MAYOR, I WILL — I WON'T ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THE RATIONALE IS THAT THE — SEE THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, THE AT LARGE, THE MAYOR AND THE TWO AT LARGE COUNCIL SEATS ARE GOING TO HAVE 8 TIMES MORE — MORE VOTERS TO REACH, 8 TIMES MORE LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA TO COVER. AND I'M ONLY PROPOSING THAT IN FACT, I THINK WE DISPROPORTIONATELY STILL DON'T — DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. WE ONLY RAISE IT TO $500. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE — YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO REPRESENTING ONE-EIGHT OF 700,000 PEOPLE, YOU ARE REPRESENTING 700,000 PEOPLE, YOU ARE HAVING TO CHASE THE RECOMMEND CENTERED VOTERS OVER THE 277 SQUARE MILES. THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN RUNNING IN ONE OF THOSE 8 DIFFERENT SEATS, I THINK FRANKLY FIVE TO ONE DOESN'T MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE, I FRANKLY ADOPT WANT TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT. I'M BASING IT ON AN 8 TO 1 DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BEING A SINGLE-MEMBER OR NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT REP AND BEING AT LARGE OR MAYOR CANDIDATE.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS I'M BASING IT ON ON WHAT THE CITIZENS APPROVE, TRYING TO RESPECT THAT BUT ALSO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT ALTHOUGH ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM FOR THOSE THAT ARE CHALLENGING INCUMBENTS. TO MORE THAN DOUBLE IT, I THINK THAT'S — THAT'S — I THINK THAT'S PRETTY GENEROUS ALREADY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR. CHANGE CHANGENO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

I THINK THAT NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE PRACTICALITY.IES OF THAT $100 WOULD BE EITHER. SO I'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT PAST THE CONVERSATION. GUYS, I CAN TELL THEY WERE RIVET ON EVERY WORD I SAID. ARE WE GOING TO VOTE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MAYOR LOST CONTROL OF THE MEETING, BIG TIME. ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OR IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID Y'ALL LOOSE CONTROL OF THE MEETING?

THOMAS: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT THE — WHAT DID YOU SAY, MAYOR PRO TEM?

WELL, THE CLERK SAID IT WAS, ALTHOUGH I SECONDED IT FOR DISCUSSION, IT ACTUALLY DOES MAKE SENSE, SO I'M STICKING WITH IT FOR THE VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE WITHDRAWING THE SECOND — ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE SECOND?

GOODMAN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST? NAY.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT'S TWO TO FIVE. THIS TIME THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IN FAVOR AND EVERYBODY ELSE AGAINST. OKAY. NOW WE HAVE AN ITEM — WE HAVE THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE, WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT ALREADY. THE CITY AUDITOR AUTHORITY TO HIRE — I THINK WE DILT WITH THAT ALREADY. DID WE? I THINK SO. THAT LEAVES US ONE ITEM. INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. AN THAT'S ARTICLE 7, SECTION 15. NOW, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT BEHIND THAT RECOMMENDATION?

WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THOUGHT. WE HAD A PRETTY KNEE JERK REACTION THAT THE LIMIT WAS TOO LOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE LIMIT IS TOO LOW. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE ISSUE IS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS. AND I'LL REFER TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM WILL TELL ME WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO ON THE OTHER ISSUE. AND WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT MY CONCERN IS THIS: THE CITY MANAGER CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR $40,000, WHICH IS HIS LIMIT. AND IT'S A FOOT IN THE DOOR THING. SO IF IT'S A PROJECT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER, BUT THE CITY MANAGER WANTS TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE SCOPED, AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM THAT COMES UP TO COUNCIL IS FOR A MUCH LARGER ITEM BECAUSE THAT PROJECT WAS MUCH BIGGER AND THE CITY MANAGER BESIDES TO PROCEED. AND THE WAY IT WORKS, IT CAN BE PRESENTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO A POSITION BY THE CITY MANAGER. AND WE HAVE HAD CONTRACTS THAT ARE VERY LARGE THAT STARTED OUT WITH A FIRM GETTING A 40,000 DOLLAR CONTRACT AND THEN FROM THERE ON OUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL AMENDMENTS TO THAT INITIAL CONTRACT. AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THEN THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY TO CONTROL IT. IF THAT CONTRACT IS GOING TO INCREASE BY MORE THAN, LET'S SAY, 25%, THEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL FOR REBIDDING OF THE WHOLE THING OR SENDING OUT AN R.F.P., THAT THE AUTHORITY BY THE CITY MANAGER WOULD BE TO SCOPE OUT THE PROJECT. SO ONCE IT'S SCOPED OUT, THEN THAT PARTICULAR SCOPING BECOMES PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL OTHER PROPOSALS ON THAT PARTICULAR CONTRACT. AND THAT WAS BASICALLY MY CONCERN WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH GOING TO, LET'S SAY, 100,000 BECAUSE THAT'S NOT — AND IT WOULD APPLY ON A ONE-TIME BASIS AND MAYBE INCREASE IT BY 25% IF THEY WANT — IF THEY NEED MORE FOR THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION. BUT — AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO GO FROM 40 TO 100, BUT SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS ARE 10 MILLION DOLLARS. AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IF A CONTRACT IS FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE THAT CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL SCOPING IS FOR ONLY 30,000 OR 40,000, THAT THAT SHOULD COME TO COUNCIL AND LET THE COUNCIL DECIDE AFTER WE DO AN R.F.P. FOR THAT PARTICULAR CONTRACT.

I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND THE COUNCIL, OF COURSE, CAN DECIDE HOW MUCH CONTROL IT WANTS OVER THAT. THE WAY WE LOOKED AT IT WAS THIS SEEMS TO BE AN OUTDATED........ OUTDATED — .

MAYOR GARCIA: IT IS, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. SO TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM — WHERE DID THE MAYOR PRO TEM GO? I UNDERSTAND, FOR INSTANCE, THE REASON WHY THE CITY MANAGER OUGHT TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. AND 100,000 IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE FIGURE. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SAY FOR THAT ONE INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASING AUTHORITY TO $100,000 ON CONTRACTS THAT HAVE A POTENTIAL FOR INCREASES OF NO MORE THAN 25%, SO THAT IF A CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE FOR 125,000, THEN THE CITY MANAGER COULD BEGIN BY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP OF SPENDING THE FIRST 100,000. BUT IF THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT, THEN THE CITY MANAGER'S OBLIGATED TO BRING IT TO THE — THROUGH THE R.F.P. PROCESS AND BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT WAS MR. STEVENS?

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JOHN STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE THINK THAT IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE THE SECOND PHRASE THAT'S IN THAT SENTENCE THERE CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE THOUGHT WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. THE SITUATION — THE REASON THAT WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND THAT LANGUAGE WAS THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS DONE BUSINESS THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE 1990S. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HAD SOME SORT OF INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT LANGUAGE. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE MANAGER'S CURRENT CONTRACTING AUTHORITY IS 43,000. AND THROUGHOUT THE 1990S AS FAR AS I KNOW THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DECADE OF THE 1990S, THAT GAVE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR $43,000 ANNUALLY. AND IF IT WERE A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE WOULD BE LIKE THREE TIMES 43,000. I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOOKING AT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS — THAT THE WORDING IS NOT CLEAR ON THAT AND THAT THE WORDING NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED TO BRING OUR PRACTICE IN LINE WITH — TO BRING THE WORDING IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN, OTHERWISE IF WE GO BY A STRICT WORDING OF WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS RIGHT NOW, IN EFFECT IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, YOU WOULD BE REDUCING THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY FROM 43,000 TO 14,333, WHICH IS 43,000 DIVIDED BY THREE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE.... HAVE — THROUGHOUT THE 90'S WE CONSISTENTLY ACTSED AS IF THAT LIMIT, THAT 43,000 DOLLAR LIMIT WAS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THE MANAGER COULD BRING FORWARD OR COULD ENTER INTO CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS IN LENGTH. AND THE SUM TOTAL OF THAT CONTRACT AMOUNT PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE MORE THAN THE ANNUAL LIMIT OR WHAT WE HAD INTERPRETED TO BE THE ANNUAL LIMIT OF 43,000.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU SAYING, FOR INSTANCE, IF A CONTRACT IS FOR FIVE YEARS AND WE MOVE IT TO 100,000 THAT EVERY YEAR THE CITY MANAGER COULD GIVE 100,000 DOLLAR CONTRACT TO SAIMENT COMPANY TO DO A JOB?

IF THIS LANGUAGE THAT I READ IS LEFT ON THERE, YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND UNDER THE ONE THAT'S HERE, WHAT DOES THAT DO? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS LANGUAGE MAKES THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE PERMISSIVE THAT IN CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR, SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT, LET'S SAY, THE CITY MANAGER HIRES XYZ COMPANY TO DO SOMETHING AND LET'S SAY WE MOVE IT TO 100,000 SO I REQUEST DO THE ARITHMETIC. THE SECOND YEAR HE HIRES THEM AGAIN FOR THE SAME THING, CONTINUATION OF THE FIRST ONE, ANOTHER 100,000.

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY AT $100,000 A YEAR FOR YEARS UNDER THIS PROVISION IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME.

THAT'S CORRECT. IT IS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW IT'S MORE EFFICIENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SERVICE IS AND DEPENDING ON WHAT — YOU KNOW, WHAT THE MARKET FOR THAT SERVICE IS. IT IS SOMETIMES MORE EFFICIENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT IS LONGER THAN ONE YEAR. IF THE MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY WERE RAISED TO $100,000, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT PHRASE WAS LEFT OFF THAT CLARIFIED THAT, THEN IF THE MANAGER WANTED TO ENTER INTO A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, FOR EXAMPLE, HE COULD ONLY GO UP TO $33,000 A YEAR FOR THAT CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T READ IT THAT WAY, BUT I GUESS I CAN ASK. IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS?

THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS IN ARTICLE 7, SECTION 15, EXCUSE ME WHILE I TURN TO IT. IT SAYS THESE WORDS: THE CITY MANAGER SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT TO EXPENDITURES WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL FOR ALL BUDGETED ITEMS NOT EXCEEDING $25,000. OF COURSE, THAT'S ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, SO IT'S 43,000 DOLLARS NOW. SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THE ADJUSTED AMOUNT AS I READ ON. ALL CONTRACTS FOR EXPENDITURES INVOLVING ALL — ALL CONTRACTS FOR EXPENDITURES INVOLVING MORE THAN $43,000 MUST BE EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. SO THAT LANGUAGE ATTACHES TO THE CONTRACT, SO IT DOESN'T SAY FOR A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT OR A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT, IT ATTACHES TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT. SO IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT OVER ITS LIFE IS MORE THAN THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT, THEN THOSE WORDS SAY THAT CONTRACT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

AND MAYOR, AGAIN, THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT, THE CITY'S PRACTICE THROUGHOUT — AT LEAST THROUGHOUT THIS LAST DECADE WHEN I'VE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH IT, HAS BEEN TO INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN ANNUALLY THE MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THAT ANNUALLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE CHARTER? I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY ANNUALLY.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE DID THAT INTERPRETATION COME FROM?

I'M NOT SURE, MAYOR. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN THE CITY'S PRACTICE TO DO THAT AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT. AND UP UNTIL RECENTLY I HAD NOT READ THE CHARTER LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAD ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THIS TO MEAN THE CITY MANAGER CAN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR $43,000 WITHOUT COMING TO THE COUNCIL. IF THE CONTRACT GOES BEYOND THAT, THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS BECAUSE IT WENT ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAD AUTHORITY FOR. AND LIKE I INDICATED TO THE OTHER GENTLEMAN EARLIER, SOMETIMES THOSE AMOUNTS AMENDMENTS ARE FOR MANY, MANY TIMES WHAT THE ORIGINAL 43,000 WAS. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING MR. STEINER IS THERE A PROVISION THERE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT ANNUALLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THERE'S BEEN SOME PROJECTS THAT ULTIMATELY WIND UP WITH US ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS WITH FIRMS FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS THAT STARTED OUT WITH THE CITY MANAGER GIVING A CONTRACT FOR $40,000. AND WHEN WE GET IT AGAIN — AND IT'S A FOOT IN THE DOOR ISSUE THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS TALKING ABOUT. WHEN WE GET INTO THE SECOND TIME, IT'S FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT HE ENTERED INTO. AND WHAT I WAS SAYING IS IF IT'S A BIG CONTRACT AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO A RENOVATION OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLAN, WELL, IT AIN'T GOING TO COST $43,000. WE KNOW THAT. IF WE WANT TO SCOPE OUT THE PROJECT, HE CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR $40,000 TO SCOPE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THAT COMES TO US AND THEN WE SEND IT OUT ON AN R.F.P. FOR THE WORK ITSELF, BUT IF — WHAT WE DO IS BEGIN THE PROCESS WITH A CONTRACT, AND THEN WE AMEND IT TO GIVE THE CONTRACT TO THE SAME PERSON, IN MY ESTIMATION THAT'S SUBVERTING THE INTENT OF THE LAW, WHICH BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVES THE POWER TO THE COUNCIL TO APROVES CONTRACTS OVER $43,000. AND THAT'S BASICALLY MY CONCERN. AND THAT'S WHY I READ IT THE WAY I DID IT. COUNCILMEMBER? THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHY I SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M — I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS SETTING THIS THING AT 100,000. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN GET APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCILMEMBERS ON THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT BECAUSE I THINK GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR BUDGET, IT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT. AND THAT PROVISION THAT JUST DEALT WITH INFLATION ALSO DEALT WITH IT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS MUCH SMALLER. AND SO — BUT I'M SAYING THE CITY MANAGER CAN GO ABOVE THAT BY NO MORE THAN 25%, PERIOD. AND IF IN ESSENCE THE CONTRACT GOES BEYOND THAT 25%, THEN WE HAVE TO SEND OUT THE R.F.P.'S AND — OR REBID THE WHOLE THING.

WE DO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVAL AND BIDDING ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES. CONTRACTS HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY ARE FOR MORE THAN $43,000. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO STATE BIDDING LAWS AND THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO STATE BIDDING LAW AT AN AMOUNT THAT'S MUCH LOWER THAN A CONTRACT THAT HASN'T COME TO COUNCIL. SO THERE WILL BE MANY CONTRACTS THAT MUST BE BID THAT NEED NOT COME TO COUNCIL, AND MANY CONTRACTS THAT NEED TO COME TO COUNCIL THAT NEED NOT BE BID. SO THOSE ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS THAT WORK INDEPENDENTLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SOLE SOURCE ISSUES, JOHN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF VARIATIONS. THERE'S SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S NOT A BID, IT'S A REQUESTED PROPOSAL, IT'S A — THERE ARE REQUESTS FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF THE EXPENDITURE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT OR THAT PARTICULAR WORK IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN THE 100,000 AND WE KNOW THAT AT THE OUTSET — AND I MADE THE REFERENCE TO THE RENOVATION TO THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, THEN FROM THE VERY OUTSET IT OUGHT TO COME TO COUNCIL UNLESS ALL THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING DO IS SCOPE OUT. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT HEADS MAY WANT TO SCOPE OUT A PROJECT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S INVOLVED. — BUT ONCE THE SCOPING IS DONE, IT NEEDS TO GO OUT ON AN R.F.P. OR WHATEVER AND NOT COME BACK TO US. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT THE MANAGER HAPPENED INTO. AND THAT HAPPENS. THAT HAS HAPPENED WHILE I'VE BEEN ON COUNT. AND THAT'S THE ONE WHERE I HAVE A CONCERN. SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE AND I'M — I'M AGAINING TO GET FUZZY HERE IN MY MIND. CAN YOU WORK SOMETHING — CAN WE WORK ON SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND THE 20TH SO WE CAN ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? YOU AND JOHN AND WE CAN ALL GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY — I CAN'T STRUCTURE — OTHER THAN WHAT I TOLD YOU HERE, I CAN'T PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER. OKAY?

YES, SIR, WE CAN DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL, IF WE WERE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER?

THOMAS: I WOULD, YES.

WYNN: OKAY FOR ME.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I THINK THAT IMPROVES IT, WHAT YOU DID TO IT, BUT I'VE BEEN ARGUING ON OTHER ITEMS TONIGHT ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTING, AND I THINK THIS ONE TAKES IT THEN THE OTHER WAY AND I FEEL LIKE THAT TO BE CONSISTENT I'M GOING TO — I DON'T SUPPORT THIS ONE EITHER. IT'S ALREADY TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KEEP IT LIKE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, IT IS. WE'RE NOT REMOVING THAT. WHEN WE SAY IS THAT IF A CONTRACT — WE KNOW THAT THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MUCH BIGGER THAN HIS AUTHORITY, THAT FROM THE OUTSET WE BRING IT HERE BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S DONE, THE CITY MANAGER CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR THE 43 PLUS THE INFLATION AND THEN THE NEXT TIME WE SEE THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CONTRACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER ENTERED INTO.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT AND I THINK THAT DEFINITELY IMPROVES IT. I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE LIMIT, THOUGH.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE LIMIT. OKAY. SURE. I DON'T HAVE — I'M NOT ENAMORED AND TIED TO THE 100,000 AT ALL. THAT'S FINE WITH ME. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT IS DONE IT SEEMS TO ME NEEDS SOME LOOKING AT.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: AS PART OF THE PREVAILING ASIDE ON ITEM NUMBER 9-C, I WANT TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE, PLEASE?

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION TO RECONSIDERATION FOR 9-C.

WYNN: WHICH IS THE REPEALING OF THE CHARTER SECTION ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT APPOINTMENT OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

WYNN: NO, SIR, THIS IS THE REPEALING OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING — .

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: SORRY, IT'S LATE. [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. 9-C. SORRY ABOUT THAT, COUNCILMEMBER. I TOLD YOU THAT I WAS GETTING FOGGY HERE.

WYNN: WHICH OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES IS THIS? [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: WAS I GIVING YOU A HARD TIME ON THAT ONE? REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS MOVING FOR RECONSIDERATION. IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: I SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OF RECONSIDERATION, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES SO WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM. THIS MOTION ORIGINALLY WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY ME. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YOU ALL DID A GREAT JOB THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

SLUSHER: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, AND THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO RECONSIDER. AND I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND I SECOND THAT. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE.

SLUSHER: DID WE GET FOUR OR FIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE GOT FIVE.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR HOW COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTED. [LAUGHTER]. YOU ARE ALL DOWN THAT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, GRIFFITH AND THOMAS AND GARCIA, GOODMAN, SLUSHER AND WYNN ARE THE AYE SIDE. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME — COUNCILMEMBER?

I APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNCIL. I KNOW YOU'RE SICK OF HEARING FROM ME. BUT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, IN WRITING SOMETHING TO CIRCULATE TO YOU IN THE WAY OF A DRAFT, I WILL TAKE THE LIBERTY, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, OF GOING AHEAD AND MAKING UP BALLOT PROPOSITIONS FOR EACH OF THESE. PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE TO BE PLACE HOLDERS THAT ARE JUST SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU CAN TAKE OR LEAVE WHEN WE COME BACK, BUT I WILL — I WILL SUGGEST SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE BALLOT ITEMS AS A PRESENTATION TO THE VOTERS ON THE BALLOT. WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE — FROM MR. LEWIS, WHO WAS ONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE, A SUGGESTION FROM HIM AS TO WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE SHOULD SAY. AND I WILL PASS THAT ALONG TO THE COUNCIL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN ALSO PASS ALONG SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER. AND AGAIN, PLEASE CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE TO BE PLACE HOLDERS UNTIL YOU MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE SHOULD SAY. BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUTTING TOGETHER A DRAFT TO CIRCULATE TO YOU, I'LL JUST TAKE THE LIBERTY, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, OF MAKING SOMETHING UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

SLUSHER: NOW, MAYOR, SOME OF THESE PASSED ON FOUR-THREE VOTES. AND I SAT ON THE — SAT ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT ONE THAT WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK. THE ONES THAT PASSED ON FOUR-THREE, WILL THEY TAKE FIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO GET ON THE BALLOT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE 21ST?

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE IT REQUIRES AN ORDINANCE, AND WE ONLY HAVE TWO DAYS TO CONSIDER THEM, THE FIRST READING WITH FOUR VOTES, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE SEC AND THIRD IT WILL HAVE TO HAVE FIVE.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD MOVE OF PUTTING THEM ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY ANYWAY, BUT NOW I REALLY SEE WHY YOU'RE DOING THAT AND I CON GRAT LATE YOU ON YOUR FORWARD THINKING.

MAYOR GARCIA: TO YOU AND THE COMMISSION, WE WANT TO TELL YOU THAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE, MR. STEINER, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, THE STAFF AND EVERYBODY. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS AND YOU'VE HELPED US TREMENDOUSLY. WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE OUT OF HERE.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log