Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 03/07/02 (Part A)

Part A | Part B | Part C

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.

Continue to Part B