Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 03/21/02

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

WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BACK INTO SESSION. AND WE WILL HAVE THE CITY CLERK READ THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AT THIS TIME. GO AHEAD. THEN WE WILL GO INTO — INTO THE 1:30 TIME CERTAIN IN JUST A MINUTE. GO AHEAD.

CLERK BROWN: THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 31, DELETE 600,000, ADD 500,000. DELETE 9,993,392. INCERTIFICATE 9,883,392. INSERT.

9 MILLION?

9,883,392.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: THEN FURTHER IN THAT HEADING, THERE ARE TWO PLACES WHERE YOU DELETE THE 600,000 AND INSERT 500,000.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: ITEMS 35 AND 34 ARE BEING POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH, 2002. ITEM 40, DELETE THE WORDS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY INCORPORATES THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY COUNCIL ON FIRST ORDINANCE READING AND INSERT NO CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED BY COUNCIL ON FIRST ORDINANCE READING. ITEM 55 — 59, EXCUSE ME: DELETE SEPTEMBER AND INSERT OCTOBER. DELETE PATH MARK TRAFFIC PRODUCTS, 47,000. DELETE THE NUMBER 3,026,000 301.19 AND INSERT, 2,979 — EXCUSE ME, 2,979,301 .19. ADD THE WORDS THE PATH MARK TRAFFIC PRODUCTS PURCHASE WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 25TH, 2001. AND REQUIRES NO FURTHER ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID YOU READ INTO THE RECORD THAT ITEM 20 WILL BE MOVED TO — TO THE SECTION THAT SAYS ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS?

CLERK BROWN: NO, SIR. BUT — BUT WE NEED TO DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 20 UNDER WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WILL BE MOVED TO THE SECTION RIGHT BELOW IT THAT SAYS NEW ITEMS AND THEN BELOW THAT IT SAYS ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. THAT IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM. COUNCIL — THAT IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM COUNCIL HAS HEARD THE ADVICE FROM COUNCIL, THAT WILL BE TAKEN UP WHEN WE TAKE UP ACTION ON — ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. OKAY. WE WILL GO TO TIME CERTAIN. THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

CLERK BROWN: TIME CERTAIN 1:30 P.M., CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, ITEMS 5 THROUGH 13. 2:00 P.M. AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETING. 4:00 P.M., ZONING, ITEMS Z-1 THROUGH Z-5. 5:30 P.M., LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 52.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE WILL GO TO THE 1:30 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION GENERAL AND WE HAVE BETTY OTTER DICKERSON — OTTER-DICKERSON [INAUDIBLE] IS MS. JUDY CARTER. IF YOU ALL COULD TAKE TWO MICS FROM THE TWO SIDES, ONE OVER HERE, ONE OVER HERE. MS. NICKERSON, OTTER-NICKERSON, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M BETTY OTTER-NICKERSON, CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK. TODAY I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE AUSTIN AREA HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION. THE MISSION OF THE AUSTIN AREA HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION IS TO INTERPRET THE HUMAN SERVICE NEEDS OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY TO POLICY MAKERS AND TO THE PUBLIC AND TO SUPPORT THE MEMBER AGENCIES IN MEETING THEIR NEEDS. THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE GROWN STEADILY OVER THE LAST DECADE, YET HAVE BEEN SCPRAS OPERATED BY THE NATIONAL CRISIS AND ECONOMIC DOWNTURN DURING THE LAST YEAR. OUR GOAL IN CITIZENS COMMUNICATION TODAY IS TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION TO ASSIST YOU IN TAKING STRATEGIC AND MEANINGFUL ACTION. I AM HERE TODAY WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS AND A CLIENT TO TALK ABOUT THE STATE OF HUNGER AND SECURITY. TODAY YOU WILL HEAR FROM JUDY CARTER THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK AS WELL AS MATILDA MUNGUIA, A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO RESIDES IN EAST AUSTIN. AND SUZANNE SANTOS, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER. NEXT WEEK THE PUT PEOPLE FIRST CAMPAIGN WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU TO ADDRESS SHELTER AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT TODAY LET ME TURN THE PODIUM TO JUDY CARTER WHICH WILL TAKE ABOUT HUNGER, THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JUDY CARTER THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK. WHEN OUR ECONOMY WAS BOOMING, THERE WERE STILL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO NEEDED FOOD ASSISTANCE EACH MONTH. NOW THE ECONOMY IS DOWN AND THOUSANDS MORE ARE TURNING TO FOOD PANTRIES AND SOUP KITCHENS FOR HELP TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES. SO I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT FOOD AND MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED FOOD. WHO ARE THESE NEW FACES OF HUNGER? THEY ARE THE YOUNG FAMILY USED TO TWO INCOMES WHO NOW MUST GET BY WITH ONE. THE GRANDMOTHER WHO MUST GET BY WITH MUCH LESS BECAUSE HER RETIREMENT FUNDS ARE SHRINKING. THE UNSKILLED WORKER BEING SHUT OUT OF LOW PAYING JOBS BY BETTER EDUCATED MORE EXPERIENCED LAID OFF TECH WORKERS. THE CHILD WHOSE ONLY NUTRITIOUS MEAL EACH DAY IS THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AND WHO IS NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO SUMMER VACATION. YOU HAVE SEEN THE STATISTICS. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS IN TRAVIS COUNTY. UNEMPLOYMENT JUMPING FROM 1.8% IN NOVEMBER OF 2000 TO 4.7% IN JANUARY 2002. A FAMILY OF FOUR WITH A HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF 17,650 DOLLARS A YEAR MEETS THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF POVERTY. AND YET 14% — EXCUSE ME, 14% OF CENTRAL TEXANS FIT THAT UNBELIEVABLY LOW INCOME LEVEL. ANOTHER 200,000 PEOPLE IN TRAVIS COUNTY ALONE ARE CONSIDERED WORKING POOR. AT OR BELOW 200% OF POVERTY WITH THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME LESS THAN $35,000 A YEAR. SO MANY OF THEM ARE CHILDREN. MORE THAN HALF THE CHILDREN IN TRAVIS COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS QUALIFY FOR FREE OR REDUCED PRICE SCHOOL LUNCH BECAUSE THEIR FAMILY INCOME IS SO PRECARIOUSLY LOW. THE REALITY THAT IS THOUSANDS OF CENTRAL TEXANS MUST MAKE THE CHOICE BETWEEN BUYING FOOD OR PAYING THE RENT, BETWEEN GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE OR GOING TO THE DOCTOR. FOR MANY OF THESE PEOPLE, THE NETWORK OF EMERGENCY FEEDING AGENCIES IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING FOOD OR NOT GETTING ENOUGH. AND IN THE LAST YEAR WE HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT ON THE FOOD PANTRIES AND SOUP KITCHENS AT THE CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK OUR MEMBER AGENCIES ORDERED 28% MORE FOOD IN 2001 THAN THEY DID IN 2000. MORE THAN 12 MILLION POUNDS OF FOOD MOVED THROUGH THE FOOD BANK TO THE AGENCIES AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILIES THEY SERVE. FURTHERMORE THE VALUE OF THAT FOOD IS MORE THAN $18 MILLION. $18 MILLION THAT THE AGENCIES DID NOT HAVE TO SPEND TO BUY THE FOOD. 18 MILLION THAT DID NOT HAVE TO BE RAISED FROM COMMUNITY PHILANTHROPY, 18 MILLION IN OTHER SERVICE LIKE RENTS AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MONEY THAT WAS SAVED. WHAT'S FRIGHTENING IS THAT WE DO NOT APPEARS PATRIOT A REVERSAL OF THAT GROWTH TREND ANY TIME SOON. NOT ECONOMIC GROWTH, BUT GROWTH IN NEED. A NEED THAT IS APPARENT TO THE ENTIRE NETWORK OF TRAVIS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES [BUZZER SOUNDING] THAT PUT PEOPLE FIRST. BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MATILDA MUNGUIA, WHO WILL TELL YOU HER STORY.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOUR INVENTORIES DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY?

BECAUSE OF USDA COMMODITIES WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS SO FAR. BUT THE AMOUNT OF DONATED SHELF STABLE FOOD WAS DOWN 12% IN 2001. YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

THAT'S A REAL CONCERN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE 18 MILLION, IS THAT 18 MILLION FOR WHAT PERIOD.

THAT IS $18 MILLION IS THE RETAIL VALUE OF THE 12 MILLION POUNDS OF FOOD THAT WE — IT WAS ACTUALLY MORE THAN 12 MILLION POUNDS, BUT THAT'S THE VALUE IF THEY HAD TO GO OUT AND BUY THE FOOD, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID YOU HAVE TO SPEND THAT?

NO, SIR, THE FOOD IS ALL DONATED. MOSTLY BY THE FOOD INDUSTRY AND BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WE DO NOT BUY THE FOOD.

MS. MATILDA MUNGUIA, AFTER THAT MS. SANTOS.

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR GARCIA, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR ELECTION. I VOTED FOR YOU. [ LAUGHTER ]. AND COUNCILMEN, I AM HERE, MY NAME IS MATILDA MUNGUIA, TWO YEARS AGO I WAS WORKING FOR AISD AND MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN EMPLOYED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK. MY HUSBAND HAD A HEART ATTACK IN APRIL TWO YEARS AGO. AND I HAD A HEART ATTACK JULY OF THAT SAME YEAR. OUR INCOME CHANGED SO BAD THAT — THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME COMING IN. WE HAVE ONE GRANDDAUGHTER AND A GREAT GRANDDAUGHTER LIVING WITH US. WE HAVE — WE HAVE SINCE THEN KNOWN WHAT IT WAS TO GO TO A PANTRY. FOR OUR NEED FOR OUR GROCERY NEEDS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH MONEY COMING IN. WE ARE JUST ONE OF THE APPEALS THAT IS NOW DEALING, HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS ECONOMY THAT'S — THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING DOWN. WE AT THE TIME WERE BOTH UNEMPLOYED, GETTING VERY LITTLE SUPPLEMENT, NOT ABLE TO BUY GROCERIES, PAY OUR BILLS ON TIME. AND SO WE WERE FACED TO HAVING TO GO TO THE FOOD PANTRY AT SANTA JULIO, WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MENTION NAMES BUT ANYWAY — AND THEN WE — I DECIDED TO VOLUNTEER BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HAD TO GO TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. SO I VOLUNTEERED THERE AT THE PANTRY AND I ALSO RECEIVED GROCERIES FROM THERE. MY HUSBAND SHOULD NOT BE EMPLOYED, WHICH HE STILL CONTINUES WORK CONSTRUCTION. HE'S 62 YEARS OLD. I'M 60. AND THIS IS A DILEMMA THAT WE NEVER THOUGHT WE WOULD EVER BE FACED WITH AT THIS AGE, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR CHILDREN, ALMOST ALL OUR CHILDREN GONE AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, THERE IS A VERY, VERY LARGE NEED. I WAS TELLING THEM THAT LAST NIGHT SOMEBODY IS CALLING ME, THEY ARE SAYING IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A FOOD PANTRY THIS SATURDAY, IT'S MAINLY ELDERLY. THE ELDERLY PEOPLE. WE ARE IN GREAT NEED AND PLEASE, GENTLEMEN AND LADIES, MAYOR, WE PLEAD WITH YOU TO PEACE — TO PLEASE PUT PEOPLE FIRST. THAT IS SORT OF MY MESSAGE. I HAD OTHER THINGS TO SAY, BUT I THINK THAT — THAT MAINLY JUST KNOWING THAT I AM ONE OF THOSE PERSONS, I AM A STATS STICK, — STATISTIC, I AM ONE OF THOSE PERSONS THAT NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A PANTRY, MUCH LESS ANYPLACE ELSE FOR ASSISTANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD, WE HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1970. WE CAME FROM HOUSTON. WE WERE SO — WE DIDN'T THINK THAT PEOPLE GOT PAID SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT. BUT THEY DO. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT A SKILLED PERSON. MY HUSBAND HAS DONE CONSTRUCTION. I ON THE OTHER HAND WORK FOR AISD. WHICH — WHICH WAS ENOUGH FOR ME. AND HIM AT THAT TIME. BUT NOW IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. I PLEAD WITH YOU. PLEASE PUT PEOPLE FIRST. THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S OUT THERE. THAT'S THE END OF MY MESSAGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, SUSAN SANTOS, FOLLOWING MS. SANTOS, AKWASI EVANS.

GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM. CITY MANAGER. I'M SUZANNE SANTOS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER. YOU HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE KEY INDICATORS OF OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN HUNGER AND FOOD INSECURITY. YOU HAVE HEARD MATILDA'S STORY, I AM HERE TO TELL BUT THE REMARKABLE OUTCOMES AND SERVICE THAT'S OUR COMMUNITY ANTI-HUNGER AGENCIES ARE PROVIDING WITH THE FUNDSING FROM CITY DOLLARS. CURRENTLY THERE ARE 152,389 DOLLARS IN CITY SERVICE CONTRACTS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING THROUGH THESE AGENCIES THAT ARE HERE TODAY: ON ANY GIVEN DAY YOU CAN EXPECT 1160 PEOPLE TO RECEIVE A MAIL AT THREE OF THE LARGEST COMMUNITY FOOD KITCHENS IN THE CITY. THE CARITAS LOCATION DOWNTOWN THAT MEANS 300 PEOPLE WILL GET A HOT MEAL TODAY. THE CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK SERVES MORE THAN 176 PARTNER AGENCIES LIKE FOOD PANTRIES AND SOUP KITCHENS JUST IN TRAVIS COUNTY. WITH MORE THAN 5.2 MILLION POUNDS OF FOOD ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. TRANSLATES INTO 1,300,000 MEALS. IN TRAVIS COUNTY ALONE. THE SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER PROVIDES SPACE AND GARDENING EDUCATION TO ABOUT 400 COMMUNITY AND HOME GARDENERS WHO RAISED MORE THAN $160,000 WORTH OF ORGANIC AND FRESH PRODUCE JUST FROM THEIR PLOTS. WITHIN THAT GROUP THERE ARE 94 CLASSIFIED LOW INCOME GARDENERS WHO SHARE AND SPREAD THE HARVEST OF THEIR PLOTS TO MORE THAN 5,000 MEALS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THE CITY PURCHASES SERVICES FROM THESE THREE AGENCIES TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE OF 1.4 MILLION MEALS, SERVED UP DAILY IN SUPER BOWLS, GIVEN IN DEGREES ROW BAGS OR GROWN IN THE GARDEN. THAT IS JUST FOR 152,389, WHICH EQUALS TO ABOUT 11 CENTS PER MEAL. YOU HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT THAT IS, IN THIS AMOUNT OF MEALS, THE VALUE IS ACTUALLY $2 PER MEAL. WHAT YOU SEE IN TRAVIS COUNTY IS EQUAL TO 226 18-WHEELER TRUCKLOADS OF FOOD LINED UP TOGETHER JUST IN CITY CONTRACTS. ASIDE FROM THE CITY AND PUBLIC FUNDING THAT'S COMING THROUGH THE CITY/COUNTY FINDING, AN ADDITIONAL 3.9 MILLION MEALS BEING PROVIDED THROUGH THESE AGENCIES RECEIVING FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES, ADD ANOTHER [INAUDIBLE] TRUCKLOADS FULL OF FOOD. ON AVERAGE ON ANY GIVEN DAY, 15,000 MEALS ARE SHARE 7 UP DAILY IN THE CITY TO HUNGRY NEIGHBORS THROUGH THE PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY FUNDED PROGRAMS. EVEN WITH ALL THESE SERVICE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH. YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE RIENGZ DEMAND, OUR HUNGRY ARE NOT INVISIBLE. WE HAVE COUNTSED THEM, THEY ARE MANY, THERE ARE NEIGHBORS AND CHILDREN WHO GO TO BED UPG DEGREE, CO-WORKERS WHO MAKE AN END TO OF THE MONTH STOP AT THE FOOD BANK. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THE MEALS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO GET FOOD ON THEIR TABLE, WE THINK THIS WORK IS IMPORTANT. NO ONE CAN LIVE WITHOUT FOOD. WE URGE YOU TO PUT PEOPLE FIRST IN YOUR HEARTS AND YOUR MIND AND IN YOUR BUDGETS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. SANTOS. MR. AKWASI EVANS. MR. AKWASI EVANS? MR. HE WAS ADVANCE HERE? OKAY. JENNIFER GALE AND FOLLOWING MS. GALE MS. SUSANA ALMANZA.

HELLO. CITY MANAGER TOBY FUTRELL, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JENNIFER GALE, A CANDIDATE FOR POLICE 1 AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE A TERM LIMIT LAW THAT SAYS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS OF TERM, THE MAYOR OR COUNCILMEMBER MAY BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TERM OR TERMS. THIS IS NOT COVERED IN THE ELECTION — UNDER CHAPTER 141, SUBCHAPTER C PETITION WHICH SAYS APPLICABILITY OF SUBCHAPTER, SUBCHAPTER APPLIES TO EACH PETITION FILED IN THE CANDIDATE'S APPLICATION FOR A PLACE TO THE BALLOT. SO THE PETITION THAT THEY FILED DOESN'T GO WITH THE BALLOT. THE PETITION OR $500 FILING FEE GOES WITH THAT PETITION. SO THIS FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE CODE. IF IT DIDN'T FALL OUTSIDE OF THE CODE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD AS MANY MONTHS AS YOU WANTED TO TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES. YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE IT FELL OUTSIDE THE CODE. YOU ONLY HAD SIX MONTHS TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES. FALLING OUTSIDE OF THE CODE MEANS THAT THE CITY CLERK IS TO VERIFY 25% OF THOSE SIGNATURES IN — IN THE SAMPLING METHOD TO BE — TO BE DETERMINED BY HER. SHE'S ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THERE'S 5% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS, WHICH ARE SEVERAL THOUSAND MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF VOTERS THAT SHE HAS NOW. AND SHE'S KNOWN THIS FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND HAS YET TO FIX THAT. SHE CAN SIMPLY GO DOWN TO THE TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR OFFICE AND ASK NELDA SPEARS TO COME UP WITH THAT FIGURE AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU EACH TURN IN YOUR SIGNATURES. IT'S — AND THEN THERE'S THE MATTER OF — OF UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE LLOYD DOGGETT NEVER DEBATED ME AT ALL. I CALLED HIS HOME FOR A MONTH, HIS OFFICE, NOT A WORD BACK FROM HIM. HE WAS AFRAID TO 2008 ME. WHY ZM I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ANYMORE. THEN WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT TERM LIMITS. THE REASON WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS IS BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO ELECT PEOPLE THROUGHOUT AUSTIN. IT'S ONLY DESIGNED TO PUT PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE TERM LIMITS, SO THAT WE CAN GET NEW PEOPLE ON THERE FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY OR — OR TRY TO GET SOME FROM THE REGULAR COMMUNITY TO GET DOWN THERE. THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING FOR 32 COUNCILMEMBERS. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION DURING THESE WEEKS ABOUT HAVING MORE COUNCILMEMBERS. THERE ALSO WASN'T ANY DISCUSSION ON HAVING ENOUGH RACIAL REPRESENTATION. 32 COUNCILMEMBERS YOU WOULD HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH RACIAL REPRESENTATION AND ETHNIC REPRESENTATION TO REPRESENT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. SO WE DON'T — SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TERM LIMITS PUT IN THERE. — WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE INITIATIVE. THE ONE THAT'S BEING OFFERED IS — HAS BEEN PROVEN TO ELIMINATE PEOPLE — AVERAGE PEOPLE LIVING HERE IN AUSTIN FROM GETTING ON THE BALLOT. WE WANT TO INCLUDE AS MANY PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT AS WE CAN. SO WE NEED AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE OPTION, THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GALE. MS. SUSANA ALMANZA. FOLLOW IS MR. RICKY BIRD.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GARCIA AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M SUSANA ALMANZA WITH PODER. TODAY I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT CESAR CHAVEZ, THE FIRST — FOUNDED THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL FARM WORKERS UNION IN U.S. HISTORY, WHEN HE PASSED AWAY ON THE 23RD OF APRIL, HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA. HE WAS BORN IN 1927 ON A SMALL FARM NEAR YUMA, ARIZONA THAT HIS GRANDFATHER HOMESTEADED DURING THE 1980 A'S, AT AGE 10 LIFE BEGAN AS A MIGRANT FARM WORKER WHEN HE LOST THE LAND DURING THE DEPRESSION, THESE WERE BITTERLY POOR YEARS. TOGETHER WITH THOUSANDS EVER OTHER DISPLACED FAMILIES, THE CHAVEZ FAMILY MIGRATED THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHWEST. HE LEFT SCHOOL AFTER THE 8TH GRADE TO HELP SUPPORT HIS FAMILY. IN 1991, CESAR RECEIVED THE AZTEC EAGLE, MEXICO'S HIGHEST AWARD PRESENTED TO PEOPLE OF MEXICAN HERITAGE WHO MADE MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OUTSIDE OF MEXICO. ON AUGUST THE 8TH, 1994, CESAR CHAVEZ BECAME THE SECOND MEXICAN AMERICAN TO RECEIVE THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES. CESAR CHAVEZ PASSED AWAY ON APRIL 23RD, 1993, AT THE AGE OF 66. MORE THAN 40,000 PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN CESAR'S FUNERAL. HE WAS LAID TO REST AT LA PAZ IN A ROSE GARDEN AT THE FOOT OF THE HILL HE OFTEN CLIMBED TO WATCH THE SUNRISE, IN ONE OF HIS QUOTES ABOUT JUSTICE HE SAYS: PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HUNGER FOR JUSTICE ARE NOT ULTIMATELY POWERFUL. THEY ARE LIKE SICK PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR APPETITE FOR WHAT IS TRULY NOURISHING. SUCH SICK PEOPLE SHOULD NOT FRIGHTEN OR DISCOURAGE US. THEY SHOULD BE PRAYED FOR ALONG WITH THE SICK PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE HOSPITAL. THE LOVE FOR JUSTICE THAT THAT IS IN US IS NOT ONLY THE BEST PART OF OUR BEING, BUT IT IS ALSO THE MOST TRUE TO OUR NATURE. I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AS WE LOOK AT THESE TIMES OF INEQUITY AND INJUSTICE AND I'M HERE TO SAY THAT AS WE LOOK AT CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, NAMED AFTER THIS HONORABLE MAN, CESAR CHAVEZ STREET IN EAST AUSTIN IS IN DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS. I CANNOT BELIEVE IT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, IT SHOULD BE LIKE LOOKING AT CONGRESS AND MLK STREET. YES, YOU DRIVE DOWN FROM WALLER ALL THE WAY TO PLEASANT VALLEY, IT IS LIKE A ROLLER COASTER RIDE. WHEN THEY CAME IN THERE AND PUT IN THE CABLES ON THOSE OPTICAL CABLE — WHATEVER THEY WERE PUTTING IN, THEY LEFT LIKE SPEED BUMPS THERE. THE COMMUNITY SAID, WHO ORDERED THOSE SPEED BUMPS? WE WERE TOLD THOSE ARE NOT SPEED BUMPS, THAT IS JUST SUCH BAD WORKMANSHIP THAT WAS LEFT, IT PUT THIS BLACK TAR ON TOP OF IT. AS YOU GO DOWN CESAR CHAVEZ, WHICH WAS ALREADY IN BAD CONDITIONS, SO I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TODAY, AS WE GET TO APPROACH THIS SPECIAL DAY ON MARCH THE 31ST, HONORING CESAR CHAVEZ, THAT WE ALSO DO SOMETHING TO FIX OUR MAIN STREET OF CESAR CHAVEZ. [BUZZER SOUNDING] IT'S JUST — TO BE JUST LIKE CONGRESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER, I THINK WHAT MS. ALMANZA IS TALKING ABOUT IS THOSE TEMPORARY THINGS THAT THEY PUT, IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

FUTRELL: I'M NOT SURE, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT WE WILL DO. WE WILL HAVE OUR PUBLIC WORKS GUYS GIVE US AN ASSESSMENT APPEARED SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ON THE CONDITIONS.

GOODMAN: AND MAYOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. RICKY BIRD.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, ON THIS SUBJECT, AS LONG AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT, COULD WE ALSO REFRESH COUNCIL ON EXACTLY WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE ON ENFORCING THE SUPPOSED REQUIREMENT THAT WHENEVER THOSE COMPANIES TEAR UP THE STREET THE LEVEL OR THE QUALITY MUST BE THE SAME WHEN THEY REPAIR IT AS IT WAS WHEN THEY GOT THERE?

FUTRELL: WE WILL NOT ONLY DO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL ROAD PAVEMENT CONDITION, BUT WE WILL ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT ANY REPAIR JOBS AND SEE IF THEY MET OUR STANDARD OR IF THEY ARE NOW FAILING.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. RICKY BIRD, FOLLOWING MR. BIRD, MR. GUS PENA, MR. BIRD, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO CHARTER ITEMS IN NEED OF FURTHER CONSIDERATION. I HAVE SPOKEN — HAD SPOKEN WITH MR. GRIFFITH, MR. WINN. THEY WERE BOTH MOST GRACIOUS TO ME. I APPRECIATED THEIR TIME. AS IT TURNS OUT, ONE OF THE ITEMS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT. MENT OTHER THERE IS VIRTUALLY NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I HAD TRIED TO GET THE VOTERS THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE BULL'S EYE OFF THE CITY CHARTER FOR ASSORTED ISSUES THAT — THAT OTHER ASSORTED INTEREST GROUPS WANTS TO PLACE THROUGH THE CHARTER SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO PLACE — TO PUT AN ITEM INTO THE CHARTER THAN IT IS TO AMEND OR CREATE AN ORDINANCE, IT DIDN'T WORK. THAT LEADS ME TO CURRENT EVENT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO STAND UP HERE AND BORE YOU FOR TWO AND A HALF MINUTES. THE FUTURE ARRIVED IN AUSTIN TWO NIGHTS AGO. HOW WELL OR HOW POORLY WILL DEPEND ON HOW WELL VOTERS PERCEIVE THE ISSUES CONFRONTING THIS CITY. BUT WE ARE FINALLY GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION WHERE THE ISSUES OF THIS CITY WILL BE DEBATED. I THINK. AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING IN MY MIND. SOME OF THE CLUES ARE ALREADY FLOWING FROM THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO RUN BY THEIR ACTIONS AND THEIR COMMENTS. JENNIFER GALE. HAVE ELECTION, WILL CAMPAIGN. JENNIFER, I WANT TO ISSUE YOU A LICENSE TO BE INSIGNIFICANT. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE —

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. BIRD, USUALLY THIS — THESE ARE ITEMS TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD LEAVE PERSONALITIES OUT.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. THAT LEAVES HIM OUT COMPLETELY.

SOME OF THOSE THAT HAVE FILED FOR OFFICE HAVE CAMPAIGNED CEASLESSLY TO UNDERMIND THE STANDS THIS COUNCIL HAS TAKEN. SOME OF THEM HAVE PICTURES THEMSELVES AS REFORMERS AND SOME OF THEIR ISSUES HAVE COME BACK TO BE REFORMED AND REFORM AND REFORMED. WHAT WE WILL NEED WILL BE AN INFORMED CITIZENRY AND WHAT WE WILL NEED WILL BE A MEDIA THAT COVERS THE ISSUES CONFRONTING OUR CITY. THIS WILL NOT BE EASY. SOMETIMES YOU WILL HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. SOMETIMES YOU WILL HAVE TO THINK FOR YOURSELVES. BUT IF YOU ARE CAREFUL, AND IF YOU FOLLOW THE HISTORY OF THIS CITY, IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHO THE REAL PROGRESSIVES ARE AND WHO THOSE — WHO ARE THOSE THAT WON'T SIMPLY WANT TO POSTURE IN THAT MANNER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BIRD. MR. GUS PENA, MR. PENA WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, GUS PENA, PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS AND SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAINBOW COALITION AS THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE STATE-WIDE COALITION. MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, TOBY FUTRELL, I WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, MS. ALEMAN DID A TALKED ABOUT ROAD REPAIR, INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR, YOU HAVE A LOT OF STEEL PLATES OUT THERE COVERING EXCAVATION OPPORTUNITY FELL — TUNNELS, HOLES, WHATEVER, THE EDGES ARE PROTRUDING TO THE POINT WHERE IT CAN CAUSE PUNCTURES IN TIRES AND DAMAGE TO BASICALLY. BASICALLY ARE CAUSING, GUS, ARE CAUSING NEEDLESS REPAIR OR NEEDED REPAIR TO AUTOMOBILES SO THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, ALSO, I'M HOPING YOU ALSO PUT THAT ON THE LIST, ALSO, TO LOOK AT THE STEEL PLATES THAT DISCOVER EXCAVATION HOLES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I BROUGHT UP. MY CAR HITS THOSE THINGS.

I'M GLAD, MY CAR HITS IT, TOO, MINE IS OLDER THAN YOU ARE. ONLY IN CARS NOT AGE, PLEASE. MR. MAYOR, WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR A CITY EMPLOYEE, OFFICIAL, TO DISRESPECT A CITIZEN VOINGS A COMPLAINT REGARDING THE HEALTH CLINICS. FOR EXAMPLE I CALLED NELLIE CAVASOS REGARDING THE HEALTH CLINICS, FARM..... PHARMACIES, PEOPLE BEING SENT AWAY, STATING THEY DON'T FIT VIE TEAR I CAN'T OR HAVING PROBLEMS, WAITING THREE AND A HALF FOUR HOURS FOR THEIR PHARMACY SAYS, TELL MS. CAVASOS, TELL HER, SHE SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M THE BOSS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE SAME THING THAT I TOLD MR. BIRD. IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES.

THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM MR. BIRD CITIZEN ON CITIZEN, THIS IS A CITY EMPLOYEE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU CAN JUST SAY A CITY EMPLOYEE —

LET ME FINISH, I SAID I WILL TAKE IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SHE SAID TAKE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT TO. CHECK INTO THAT THEN. A CITY OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, THAT IS BEING — THAT TYPE OF RETORT BACK TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN, TAXPAYER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE GUS THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. ANYWAY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS AT THE HEALTH CLENGS, AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL CHARGING PEOPLE WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS APPEARED INDIGENT, LOOK INTO THAT, ALSO, SIR. NOT ONLY THAT ALSO. DON'T DO ANY CUTS. I SAY SUGGEST IT AGAIN TO THE COUNTY TUESDAY. HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CUTS OR PROPOSED CUTS, LET THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ALL WHAT CUTS SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND WHAT CUTS SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE. I KNOW WE ARE IN A BUDGET SHORTFALL, BUT I'M TELLING YOU WHAT, GUS, THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS OUT THERE THERE IN AUSTIN, POOR, HAVE-NOTS CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM BAD DECISIONS MADE FROM AUTHORITIES THAT ARE ELECTED IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, FOOD, HOUSING, YOU NEED HOUSING OUT THERE. AND NOT ONLY THAT, SERVICES ARE NOT TO BE CUT. ANYWAY, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, LOOK INTO THOSE ISSUES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, WE WILL DO, MR. PENA. THAT'S ALL OF THE CITIZENS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP UNDER CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. IT IS NOW 2:04. AND AT THIS TIME I WILL RECESS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND GO TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, I CALL THAT MEETING TO ORDER, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. I ALL UP AHFC ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF FEBRUARY THE 14TH, 2002.

WYNN: SO MOVE.

MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER WEURN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY THE 14TH, 2002. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? AYE.

ITEM NO. 2 IS APPROVE A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION 2001 TO 2002 BUDGET AND CONTRACT BETWEEN AHFC AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY REDUCING NON-FEDERAL FUNDING AUTHORITY BY 750,000, IN HOUSING TRUST FUNDS FOR TRANSFER TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSTONING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, INCREASING ITS 2001-2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING AUTHORITY BY 750,000. THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO VISION VILLAGE AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE 1.25 MILLION LOAN THAT WAS MADE. AND WE WILL LATER BE TAKING UP ITEMS 36 AND 37 TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE AT THE CITY LEVEL. MR. HILGERS.

I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I'M PAUL HILGERS WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF VOICE TODAY, BUT I WILL BE GLAD TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK YOU INDICATED WHEN YOU VISITED WITH COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WE WERE GOING TO PAY IT AT THE RATE OF $250,000 PER QUARTER OR PER MONTH.

YES, SIR, WE HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH H.U.D. THAT WE WOULD HAVE A REPAYMENT SCHEDULE OF $250,000 PER QUARTER UNTIL WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING THE $1.25 MILLION THAT WE OWE THEM ON THIS PROJECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE ASKING FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR 750 SO THAT YOU CAN COVER THREE-QUARTERS.

YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT, IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.

FOR THE REMAINING OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, THEN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR YOU WILL COME BACK.

WE WILL COME BACK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS MONEY THAT'S GOING TO BE USED TO PAY H.U.D. COMES FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND?

YES, SIR. WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO IS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THIS ON OUR HOUSING PROGRAMS IS TO TAKE THESE DOLLARS FOR THE HOUSING — FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, WE WILL THEN — THESE DOLLARS WILL BE RECEIPTED BACK TO OUR ACCOUNT IN H.U.D., THEY WILL HAVE CDBG RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THEM, SO THEY WILL BE USED FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY WERE ALLOCATED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY WILL JUST HAVE CDBG RESTRICTIONS ON THEM, WE HAVE $750,000 IN THE TRUST FUND THAT IS EARMARKED FOR REBTS TALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT — RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 50% OR BELOW MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. OUR INTENT IS TO USE THAT WHEN THEY ARE RECEIPTED BACK INTO THE PROGRAM. THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON THOSE FUNDS. IT'S — A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE TO REPROGRAM THOSE. OUR POSITION HAS BEEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REPROGRAM THOSE. WE HAVE GOTTEN SOME INDICATION FROM H.U.D. THAT WE MIGHT, BUT AT THIS POINT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WHEN IT COMES UP, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE THIS ACTION TODAY TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS TO H.U.D.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM, YOUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING ON AFFORD I DON'T BELIEVE HOUSING. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT — DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO THE EFFECT OF THIS TRANSACTION, AVAILABLE FUNDING OR ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

WITH, ON THE — OOPS. ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE HAVE TO DO IT, SO I WASN'T GOING TO — TO ASK FOR A LOT OF CONVERSATION NOW OR DISCUSSION. BUT ON ITEMS 35, 36, AND 37, I WAS AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. BUT IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE ITSELF, PAUL IS A MEMBER OF THAT. AND I'M SURE WE WILL BE UPDATING ON WHAT IMPACT ON ANY OF OUR IDEAS THIS WILL HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WOULD BE ALSO HELP FOR ME AND I'M SURE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS IF YOU COULD SEND THEM A ONE-PAGE MEMORANDUM IS THE STATUS OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, HOW MUCH WE HAVE, HOW MUCH WE HAVE APPROPRIATED TO ANY SPECIFIC FUND.

ABSOLUTELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?

THOMAS: YES, PRESIDENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER I MEAN BOARD MEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: MR. HILGERS, ON THIS ITEM, ARE WE GOING TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON 36 AND 37 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MONEY FOR [INAUDIBLE]

UM, THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH DETAIL THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM —

THOMAS: WE CAN, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE REASON SO WE —

I WOULD BE GLAD TO TRY TO DO THAT. THE CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS POINT THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE A NATIONAL OBJECTIVE WITH THE INVESTMENT THAT WAS MADE ON THAT PROPERTY. AND THAT H.U.D. HAS ASKED US TO — WE HAVE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT FOR US TO — TO ESSENTIALLY MOVE FORWARD, THE EASIEST AND MOST PRUDENT THING FOR US TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO REIMBURSE H.U.D., THE 1.25, ON THIS SCHEDULE THAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO, SO THAT WE COULD THEN GET THAT MONEY BACK AND USE IT FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED TO US, WHICH IS TO SERVE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES.

THOMAS: THAT'S JUST WHAT I NEEDED CLARIFIED SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE H.U.D. MONEY FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT,.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM AHFC2.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT I HAD ASKED TO PULL 35, 36, 37.

MAYOR GARCIA: THOSE WILL BE PULLED.

GOODMAN: FOR A BRIEF STAFF PRESENTATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: HANG AROUND, COME BACK AND TALK TO US ABOUT 35, 36, AND 37.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND MS. BROWN, THOSE ITEMS ALSO NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY. I BELIEVE 35 WAS POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL THE 4TH, BUT —

GOODMAN: OKAY. 36 AND 37 I BELIEVE ON ARE THE TWO THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: 35 IS POSTPONED. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION?

GOODMAN: MAYOR I MADE IT.

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

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. MOTION BY — BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. WE WILL NOW GO TO — TO THE PREVIEW OF ITEMS FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. ACTUALLY IT SHOULD SAY COUNCIL MEETINGS BECAUSE IF PEOPLE ARE READY TO ANNOUNCE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING IN FUTURE MEETINGS, DO YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT AT THIS TIME, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAD THE GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN THE SISTER CITY PROGRAM AND — IN ORLIU NIGERIA, I WILL COME BACK AND GIVE A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AND CITY OF AUSTIN, ALONG WITH THE DELEGATIONS THAT WENT WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR TRIP.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SEVERAL CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE HERE IN THE AUSTIN AREA, I WILL BE REPORTING BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THE STRATEGY ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON THE ECONOMY, WHAT LIKELY ACTION ITEMS OR INITIATIVES THAT WILL BE ROLLED OUT LATER IN THE SPRING FROM THAT TASK FORCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS A SERIES OF ITEMS THAT WILL COME TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION RECOMMEND..........RELATIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: [INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: NOT AT THIS TIME, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, I DON'T HAVE ANY MYSELF. SO WE WILL GO NOW TO THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

CLERK BROWN: THE CONSENT AGENDA AS I KNOW IT, ITEM 14, ITEM —

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM 14 WE WILL ACTUALLY — WE USUALLY VOTE ON THAT OWE OWE SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 16, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO POSTPONE TO APRIL 14TH, 2002, ITEM 17, 18, 19, THAT IS BOTH A RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE UNDER ITEM 19, ITEM 23, ITEM 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 IS REVISED IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT ONE THE NUMBER IN THE FOURTH LINE SHOULD BE 9,893. IS THAT — CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS HAS A 10 THOUSAND DIFFERENCE.

CLERK BROWN: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 32, WERE ITEM 33, 34 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH, 2002, 35 POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH, 2002, ITEM 38, SECOND AND THIRD READING, ITEM 39 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO APRIL 25TH, 2002.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OKAY WITH THE POSTPONEMENT.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 40, SECOND AND THIRD READING WITH THE REVISED WORDING FOUND IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS; 41, SECOND AND THIRD READING; 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,58, 59 AS REVISED IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69,70, 72, 73, OUR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS, SIXTH STREET RECYCLES TASK FORCE, EMILY SCHIELER, APPOINTMENT, CONSENSUS; ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, FRANK A. FERNANDEZ, APPOINTMENT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. 74, 75, 76, 77, AND 79.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON 77, THE FISCAL NOTE IS $1,859. 77. AND THEN —

CLERK BROWN: 79.

MAYOR GARCIA: 79 WHICH WAS POSTED BY ADDENDUM. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT — THAT MAY BE HERE VISITING THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS ONE IN WHICH THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THEY HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. AND WE — WE TAKE THEM UP AT ONE ITEM UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA.

GOODMAN: MAYOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: I MUST TELL YOU THAT YOU ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, IF I — I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS. SO — SO LET ME SEE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, COULD I ASK A QUESTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: 17, 18, 19. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: COULD YOU READ WHAT ITEM 79 IS?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

CLERK BROWN: APPROVE A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED FROM THE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS, RESOLUTION, RELATED TO VIOLENCE AGAINST THE IMMIGRANTS POPULATION IN THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY. IT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ AND MAYOR GUS GARCIA.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU, THERE'S ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION THAT I WAS WONDERING, I THOUGHT ON ITEMS NO. 17, 18 AND 19, THOSE WERE — THAT IN GENERAL WAS AN ISSUE, WE HAD ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LAST TIME. IS THIS A DIFFERENT KING FISHER? THING?

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER?

GOODMAN: ON ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19, I THOUGHT THAT — THAT THIS WATER AND WASTEWATER ITEM WAS ONE THAT WE HAD ASKED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT AND CLARIFICATION RELATIVE TO THE FORMER ZONING CASE THAT WE HAD TURNED DOWN. IS THIS A DIFFERENT —

FUTRELL: NO. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ITEM IN QUESTION. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THIS ITEM, THOUGH. AND AT ANY POINT YOU ARE READY, I WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME CLARIFICATION, AS WELL AS WE HAVE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SITE VISITS AND WHATNOT. ARE YOU —

GOODMAN: MAYBE I JUST MISSING IT. I THOUGHT THAT 17, 18, 19 HAD BEEN READ INTO CONSENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY ARE ON CONSENT.

FUTRELL: YES, YOU HAVE READ THEM ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, NOBODY HAS PULLED THEM. SO THIS — AT THIS TIME. BUT WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS ON IT WHO CAN BE RECOGNIZED DURING THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE ALSO HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON ITEM NO. 79 WHO I WILL RECOGNIZE DURING THE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND LET'S SEE. ITEM NO. 20 HAS — HAS A SPEAKER. IS ITEM NO. 20 A CONSENT ITEM?

CLERK BROWN: I DON'T HAVE THAT LISTED AS SUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, ITEM NO. 20 IS NOT A CONSENT ITEM. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE WILL RECOGNIZE THE SPEAKER. SO AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE FOR — FOR PRESENTATIONS THE — THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MR. M.L. SLOAN, THIS ITEMS 17, 18, 19. DORA M. BROWN AND JACK HOWI SON. ON ITEM NO. 79 MR. STAN MAIN. SO THAT WE HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION JUST LIKE IF THIS WAS AN ACTION ITEM THAT WAS PULLED AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS BY THE COUNCIL, THEY WILL DIRECT THEM TO YOU.

VERY GOOD. MAYOR GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS LEE SLOAN, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE KENSINGTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M APPEARING BEFORE YOU TODAY TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO ITEMS 17, 18, 19 REGARDING KING FISHER CREEK PROJECT, ALSO KNOWN AS PARKER SPRINGS CONDOMINIUM. BUT FIRST, HOWEVER, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE RESIDENTS WANTED TO FORMALLY COMMEND THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY FOR THEIR DECISION TO HELP PROTECT THE FRAGILE SPRINGS AND ENVIRONMENT WETLANDS OF OUR AREA. IN PARTICULAR, PROJECT MANAGER PAULLINDA MACKEY IS TO BE ESPECIALLY COMMENDED IN TEMPORARILY HALTING ALL WATERWAY CONSTRUCTION ALONG EAST ST. ELMO. WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTION WOULD LIKELY ADVERSELY IMPACT THE AQUIFERS THAT FEED THE WETLANDS TO THE SOUTH, WE ALSO COMMEND THE MAYOR FOR HIS VISIT AND FOR BRINGING ALONG CITY STAFF SO THAT THEY COULD GET A FIRSTHAND LOOK AT THE — AT THE — IN UNDERSTANDING OF PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA. AND FINALLY, WE COMMEND THE CITY AND THE STAFF FOR AGREEING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR COPING WITH THESE FEATURES AND IN PARTICULAR THE CITY WILL BE MAPPING THE AQUIFERS AS THEY CROSS EAST ST. ELMO ROAD TO DETERMINE THEIR DEPTH AND LOCATION. THEN WITH THIS INFORMATION IN HAND, THE CITY WILL BE DEVISING APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT THE FLOW OF WATER THROUGH THESE AQUIFER THAT'S FEED THE WETLANDS TO THE SOUTH OF EAST ST. ELMO ARE NOT DISRUPTED DURING THE ENSUING ROADWAY AND WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION. WITH THESE POINTS IN MIND, WE HAVE FELT IT IS OUR POSITION THAT CITIES SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THESE PROCEDURES AND ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED COSTS ASSOCIATED THEREWITH ARE PROPERLY AND ACCURATELY DETERMINED AND THEN AND ONLY THEN WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR KINGFISHER AND OTHERS TO BE GRANTED SERVICE AND COST SERVICE COMMITMENTS. IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO ASSURE FIRST THE COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE ASSEMBLED HERE THAT OUR OPPOSITION TO KINGFISHER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN FACT CURRENTLY SUPPORTING FOUR OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THE AREA. THESE ARE THE WOOD WAY VILLAGE, ST. ELMO'S SENIOR APARTMENTS, WOOD WAY SQUARE, AND THE VILLAS OF CORDOBA. RATHER OUR OPPOSITION TO KINGFISHER ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT IT'SING ILL CONCEIVED, VERY HIGH DENSITY PROJECT ON WAY TOO SMALL OF A TRACT OF BUILDABLE LAND IN AN EXTREMELY ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREA. WERE KING FISHER TO DOWN SIZE THIS PROJECT TO DENSE CITY MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AIR IN THE SPRINGS AND WETLANDS WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT AND WORK WITH THEM. BUT THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY REFUSED ANY SUCH OFFERS. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY WOULD HAVE REQUESTED BUT THIS IS ON CONSENT, BUT ANYWAY OUR POSITION WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE DENIED ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. SLOAN THE FACT THAT IT IS ON CONSENT DOES NOT KEEP COUNCILMEMBERS FROM REGISTERING THEIR VOTE AGAINST THIS ITEM.

I SEE, I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT THEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S ON CONSENT, BUT WHEN WE TAKE THE VOTE ON CONSENT, A COUNCILMEMBER CAN SAY I'M VOTING AGAINST 16, 17, 18 OR, YOU KNOW, 17, 18, 19 IF THEY WANT TO EXPRESS THEIR VOTE IN THAT MANNER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON ITEM NO. 16. THE VILLAS OF GUADALUPE. AND THIS ITEM IS ON CONSENT — YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK? WHAT ABOUT MR. JIM CRESSWELL? IS MR. JIM CRESSWELL HERE? OKAY. SO THAT ITEM IS POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL THE 4TH. THE COUNCIL DOES NOT MEET ON THE 28TH. MS. DORA M. BROWN. WELCOME, MS. BROWN. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND COUNCILMEMBERS. YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE REMARKS OF MR. SLOAN, PARTICULARLY IN THANKING MAYOR GARCIA AND VERY MANY MEMBERS OF THE STAFF WHO CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CONSIDERED ALSO THE — THE SMALL CREEKS, STREAMS AND MANY, MANY SPRINGS IN THE AREA AND WE HAD HOPED THAT — THAT THIS WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19. BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE POORLY THOUGHT OUT AND WILL ENDANGER THE ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS VERY, VERY FRAGILE THERE. I AM A MEMBER OF THE GREEN SLOPES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND A MEMBER OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF SCAN, THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ALLIANCE OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AND MY MAIN PURPOSE TODAY IS TO SUPPORT THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE SPEAKERS WHO ARE FROM KENSINGTON PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BEGIN BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN A VERY, VERY FRAGILE SITUATION. ALSO, PLEASE RECALL THAT ALL OF THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT PARTICIPATE IN SCAN ARE UNITED IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO THESE ACTIONS WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL DEGRADE THE ENVIRONMENT, PERHAPS IRREPUTABLELY. THOSE — IRREPAIRABLY. THOSE ARE KENSINGTON PARKS AND GREEN SLOPES, BUT ALSO DOVE SPRINGS HOMERS ASSOCIATION, CREEK BEND, SOUTH CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BATTLE BENEFIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. ALL OF THOSE ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE ZIP CODE 78744. WHICH IS — WHICH IS JUST — WHICH SURROUNDS THE AREA THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY. SO I WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO SUPPORT ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. COUNCILMEMBERS, THE — THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS — HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT — THAT IF MORE THAN TWO COUNCILMEMBERS INTEND TO VOTE NO, THEN THIS ITEM BECOME AS DISCUSSION ITEM. IF MORE THAN TWO OF YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE NO PLEASE LET ME KNOW SO WE CAN REMOVE THIS AND PUT IT IN THE DISCUSSION —

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE STAFF TO THIS, TOO. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PULL IT FOR — FOR — FOR RIGHT AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE CAN PULL IT NOW OR WE CAN PULL IT AFTER THE DISCUSSION AGENDA?

SLUSHER: I WOULD SAY LET THE SPEAKERS GO AHEAD, BUT THEN LET'S HAVE SOME COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

QUOTING NOW. THE SANT HE WILL MOW BENCH GRAVEL WAS MAPPED AS A DEPOSIT OF BARTON CREEK. BANEK SUGGESTED THAT BARTON CREEK ORIGINALLY FLOWED DOWN ST. ELMO BENCH, BUT WAS CAPTURED BY A SMALL TRIBUTE TERRY STREAM FLOWING DIRECTLY TO THE COLORADO. WHAT WE HAVE IS AN OLD RELATIONSHIP TO BARTON CREEK IN OUR AREA. WE FEEL LIKE THE AWARENESS OF THIS KNOWLEDGE MIGHT SUPPORT THE ENERGIES AND EFFORTS PUT FORTH INTO OUR LITTLE PORTION OF THE WATER AND MAKE IT SOMEWHAT PROPORTIONATE TO THE STUDIES, THE MANY STUDIES, THE MANY HOURS AND THE MANY DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT STUDYING THE MORE PROPER AND WELL-KNOWN FAST FACETS OF BARTON CREEK. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I WILL RECOGNIZE ONE MORE CONSENT SPEAKER, AND THEN WE WILL ASK THE STAFF OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT TO SPEAK ON THAT AND I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU. MR. STAN MAIN ON ITEM NUMBER 17. THANK YOU, SIR.

HELLO, COUNCIL. IT'S MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING ON ANYTHING LIKE THIS. IF MY FRIENDS COULD SEE ME NOW. I'M STAN MAIN, I'M ON MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS AND I SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS A VERY EASY THING TO DO, BUT WE BELIEVE WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE RECENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND THE TERRORIST EVENTS LAST YEAR DON'T JUSTIFY IN ANY WAY VIOLENCE AGAINST THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY IN AUSTIN. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND MAYOR GARCIA FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS PROCLAMATION. THE COMMISSION FOR IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1998 WE THE COUNCIL TO ADVISE THE COUNCIL ON ISSUES AFFECTING IMMIGRANTS IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE BELIEVE THAT AUSTIN IS A MUCH RICHER, DIVERSE AND INTERESTING PLACE TO LIVE IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY. ENGINEERS, MEDICAL, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ARE JUST A FEW GREAT EXAMPLES OF HOW WE'RE FAR BETTER OFF WITH THE IMMIGRANTS THAT COME TO OUR CITY, NOT TO MENTION THE MIGAS AND TA CO-S, WHICH ARE REASON NUCH FOR ME. IT'S A WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL ABUNDANCE OF RICHES THE IMMIGRANTS BRING TO OUR WONDERFUL CITY. THE COMMISSION ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN CAN USE ITS PRESTIGE AND LEADERSHIP WITH A PROCLAMATION DENOUNCING IMMIGRANT BASHING AND PUTTING IMMIGRANT BASHERS ON NOTICE THAT WHILE THEIR HATE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, ANY VIOLENCE RESULTING FROM THE HATE IS NOT PROTECTED AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL NOT STAND FOR IT IN GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES OR BAD. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. MAIN. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DID YOU WANT TO EXPAND ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION?

ALVAREZ: YES. I THINK MR. MAIN HAS PROVIDED A GOOD INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE TO THIS ORDINANCE. FOR A RESOLUTION I WOULD SAY THAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING AND I GUESS I MIGHT JUST READ THE — THE BE IT RESOLVED PART. IT TALKS ABOUT THE BACKGROUND AND THE RESOLUTION TALKS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE IMMIGRANT — MEMBERS OF THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY, NOT JUST IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT HERE LOCALLY IN AUSTIN. AND KIND OF REAFFIRMING THAT WE HAVE A VERY DIVERSE COMMUNITY HERE IN AUSTIN. AND BECAUSE OF THAT THEN THE CITY WILL RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE CITY DPLORZ ANY VIOLENT ACTION AND EXPRESSION OF HATE LIKE THE VIOLENT ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND PENTAGON FROM PERSONS WHO ARE FOREIGN IN APPEARANCE OR FOR THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THE ATTACKS ON THE SEPTEMBER 11TH. THE COUNCIL DOES HERE BY MAKE 2002 A CELEBRATION OF THE MAKEUP OF THE RESIDENTS BOTH WHITE AND NON-WHITE ARE THEMSELVES DID HE SENDENTS OF IMMIGRANTS. WHO COMING TO THIS COUNTRY ENCOUNTERED NATIVE PEOPLE RESIDING HERE. THE COUNCIL ASKS ITS RESIDENTS TO STAND TOGETHER IN VIOLENCE AND HATE CRIMES FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS. AND WE WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR BRING THIS FORWARD TO US AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY BECAUSE LATER WE WILL BE HONORING BY PROCLAMATION THE GREAT LEADERS, HISPANIC LEADER SESQUICENTENNIAL AT 5:30 — LEADER CESAR CHAVEZ. AND SINCE THIS WAS A LEADER SPEAKING AGAINST VIOLENCE, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE HONOR SOMEONE LIKE CESAR CHAVEZ WHO SPOKE UP SO MUCH FOR NON-VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF MAKING CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO ONCE AGAIN I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT ARE HERE. AND IF YOU WANT TO STAND, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY ARE HERE. I SEE A COUPLE. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. IT'S — FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE ON THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. CITY MANAGER, IF YOU COULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON 17, 18 AND 19, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. THEN I'LL TELL THE COUNCIL OF THIS.

FUTRELL: OKAY. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN CONCERNED BECAUSE THERE APPEARS TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THIS ITEM DOES AND DOESN'T DO. SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. AND WE HAVE A CAST OF THOUSANDS FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED THAT ALSO HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THERE WERE TWO TRACTS OF LAND INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT. ONE TRACT WAS ALREADY ZONED, ONE CAME FORWARD FOR A ZONING CHANGE. THAT ZONING WAS TURNED DOWN BY COUNCIL. THE PROJECT IS MOVING AHEAD ON THE EXISTING ZONED TRACT OF LAND. THAT TRACT HAS A SITE PLAN THAT HAS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT GUIDE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. THE ONLY APPROVAL IT WAS MISSING WAS FIRE FLOW. FOR FIRE FLOW THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING THE WAY TO SOLVE AND CREATE THE NECESSARY FIRE FLOW IN THE EXISTING EIGHT-INCH LINE. THIS DEVELOPER HAS CHOSEN TO INSTEAD AT THIS POINT IN TIME TRY TO COST-PARTICIPATE IN A 16-INCH LINE THAT IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT NOW AND WILL BE GOING TO CONSTRUCTION SOON. THE ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS THE COST PARTICIPATION IN THAT 16-INCH LINE. PASSING OR NOT PASSING THE ITEM ON TODAY DOES NOT STOP THE SITE PLAN OR THIS PROJECT. WHAT IT DOES MEAN IS THAT THIS DEVELOPER WILL DEFAULT TO THE EIGHT-INCH SOLUTION, EIGHT-INCH LINE SOLUTION THAT WILL CREATE THE FIRE FLOW NECESSARY FOR THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AND I'VE JUST HEARD IN SO MUCH DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEHOW IF THIS ITEM WERE TO FAIL THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD. AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THIS WAS A CHOICE THE DEVELOPER MADE TO COST PARTICIPATE IN A NEWLY — BEING DESIGNED 16-INCH, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO SATISFY THE FIRE FLOW ISSUE ON THIS PROJECT. AND IN FACT, HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THAT SOLUTION IN WRITING. AND WE HAVE HERE TODAY A WATER AND WASTEWATER REPRESENTATIVE, HOUSING REPRESENTATIVE AND WE HAVE I BELIEVE PAT IS HERE FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF TO ALSO TALK ABOUT THE SPRING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE 16-INCH LINE. JUST REMEMBERING THAT WITH OR WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THAT DEVELOPER, THE 16-INCH LINE IS SOMETHING NEEDED FOR THE AREA AND WAS MOVING FORWARD WITH OR WITHOUT THIS DEVELOPER'S PARTICIPATION. AND WITH THAT I'LL JUST OPEN IT UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO IS GOING TO OPEN UP, MR. LIPPY?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, BEFORE YOU DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I SUPPOSE I COULD HAVE OVERLOOKED IT, THINGS HAVE BEEN FRE NET TICK, BUT WE HAD A QUESTION THE LAST TIME IT CAME UP, AND I DON'T RECALL GETTING THAT INFORMATION. ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSING THINGS WAS EXACTLY WHAT PROJECT THIS WAS ABOUT, AND WE HAD ASKED FOR A ZONING MAP SO THAT WE COULD LOOK. MS. CITY MANAGER JUST DREW ME A PICTURE, BUT I HAD ASKED FOR A REGULAR ZONING MAP SO THAT NOT ONLY I, BUT OTHERS COULD BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS PROJECT WAS RELATIVE TO THE ONE WE TURNED DOWN. AND THE SECOND THING WAS VERY MUCH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF CONSTRUCTION IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, THE SOURCE OF BASE FLOW, THE LOCATION OF BASE FLOW FOR THE WETLANDS, FOR THE SPRINGS, AND SO THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S — THAT TAKES A LITTLE DETAILED EXPLANATION LIKE WE HAD BEFORE.

FUTRELL: MAYBE WE SHOULD REORDER THIS AS A WAY TO GET EVERYBODY ORIENTED, BECAUSE I WILL AGREE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM THAT THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT TRACT THIS WAS AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS TIED TO THE ZONING CASE THAT WAS TURNED DOWN. SO GRANT, COULD YOU USE MAYBE STEWART'S MAP AND JUST ORIENT EVERYBODY ABOUT ZONING TRACT VERSUS THIS TRACT?

YES, I CAN. MY NAME IS GREG GURN SI. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SOUTH OF BEN WHITE, EAST OF 35 ALONG ST. ELMO, AND THIS WAS IN FOR A REZONING REQUEST ON THE SOUTHERN MOST PORTION THAT WAS ZONED OFFICE. THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS ACTUALLY ZONED SF-6. AND THE ANY KIND OF PROJECT COULDRUCT ODD THAT AND THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. THE LOWER PORTION NEXT TO THE CREEK SYSTEM WAS ACTUALLY DENIED BY COUNCIL I BELIEVE ON A 7-0 VOTE LAST YEAR. AND AFTER THAT DENIAL THEY PURSUED INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES, LOSING SOME OF THE AMENITIES RATHER THAN SPREADING IT OUT OVER THE LARGER PIECE. THAT OPTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE, SO THEY WENT BACK TO THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED SF-6, BUILD THE HIGHER STRUCTURES AND MOVE FORWARD ON THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT TODAY.

GOODMAN: COULD I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IF THE OTHER PART OF THE PROJECTED PART OF THIS PROJECT WAS BROUGHT IN FOR ZONING AND WAS DENIED, HOW DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL THEN APPLY TO THAT SIGNIFICANT OF A CHANGE ON THE ONE THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED. THIS ONE WAS NOT ZONED AND COULDN'T OBVIOUSLY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE SITE PLAN.

WELL, THE PROJECT CHANGE I THINK AT THE TIME THAT THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SPREAD THE BUILDINGS OUT AND THAT THEY HAD SOME AMENITIES. AND THEY WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND REDESIGNED THE PROJECT TO BE MORE VERTICAL. INSTEAD OF TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, THERE WAS A THREE-STORY BUILDING. SO THE DENSITY HAS MOVED BACK ON TO THE SF-6 RATHER THAN SPREAD OUT. I KNOW THEY HAD ENVISIONED TO HAVE LIKE A SPORT COURT AND A RECREATIONAL BUILDING AND MANAGER'S TYPE OFFICE. THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO SPREAD THOSE OUT ON THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. STEWART MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO ADD WITH THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ASKING.

MAYOR PRO TEM, STEWART HERSH WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE APPLICANT FOR KING FISHER CAME TO US ORIGINALLY, THEY INFORMED US THEY ALREADY HAD THEIR STATE FUNDING TO BUILD THE 35-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE ZONED TRACT OF LAND. THEY PERCEIVED THAT IT WOULD BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO ZONE THE ADJACENT TRACT THAT THEY HAD AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AND GO TWO-STORY AND SET BACK FURTHER FROM CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. WE ENCOURAGED THEM TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THAT PROPOSAL, AND AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES HAVE TOLD YOU TODAY AND THEY TOLD YOU LAST YEAR, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE ZONING CHANGE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED — IN PREPARING ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BELIEVED THAT THE PROJECT COULDN'T BE BUILT WITHOUT R. WITHOUT VIEMPLT AL VARIANCES AND IT RIRMD TO YOU DENIAL AND — REQUIRED TO YOU DENIAL AND THE ZONING WAS DENIED. THE APPLICANT THEN REVERTED TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN, WHICH WAS TO BUILD 35 UNITS ON THE ONE TRACT. AND AS MR. GURNSEY SAID, WHAT THAT MEANT WAS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE MORE MINIMAL SETBACKS AS REQUIRED BY CODE FROM THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE THREE-STORY AS OPPOSED TO TWO-STORY, BUT THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THE 35-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TIMELY WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME ASK THEN — HOW TO SAY THIS CLEARLY? HOW MANY ACRES IS THE ALREADY ZONED TRACT, THE SF-6 TRACT?

THREE ACRES.

GOODMAN: THREE ACRES. AND SO THEY HAVE — WITH SF-6 THAT'S, WHAT? DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP 36-UNITS AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD 36 UNITS ON THEIR SITE PLAN? OTHERWISE I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE GETTING ANOTHER STORY.

THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR 35 UNITS, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS FOR 35 UNITS. THE ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER THEY WOULD BE BUILT IN TWO-STORY BUILDINGS OR THREE-STORY BUILDINGS. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING THEY REPRESENTED TO US IF THE ZONING WERE DISAPPROVED, THEIR DUE DILIGENCE REVEALED THAT THEY COULD BUILD THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE ZONED SITE WITHOUT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES. AND AT THIS POINT IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, THAT STILL APPEARS TO BE THE CASE.

GOODMAN: SO THEY HAVE THREE ACRES AND THEY WOULDN'T BE CHANGING IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR ANY RELAXATION OF ANY OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

GOODMAN: I GUESS I JUST HAVE TO GO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THEN. BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN BASED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT YET ZONED, IS THAT WHAT —

NO. THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE WAS ONLY ON THE ZONED PROPERTY.

GOODMAN: FOR THOSE UNITS?

YES. THEIR ORIGINAL SUBMITTALS TO THE CITY THEY HOPE TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD THE DEVELOPMENT OVER TWO TRACTS, BUT WHEN THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL LAST YEAR IN ZONING, THEY HAD TO REVISE THEIR SITE PLAN TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STATE-FUNDED PROPOSAL.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE TRACT WITH SF-OF ZONING — OWE SF-6 ZONING ALLOWS 35 UNITS.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: AND THE — OKAY. MAYBE I'M JUST TIRED. I'M DISCONNECTING. I'LL JUST LISTEN AND TRY TO PUT IT TOGETHER. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? WHO IS GOING TO BE NEXT FROM THE STAFF?

WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ENVIRONMENT KIND OF DO THE NEXT SECTION. AND THEN WE DO HAVE MIKE KITE AND PAT HERE THAT MIGHT SPEAK A LITTLE MORE, MAYOR PRO TEM, LATER IN THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE PERMIT, IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME UP.

THERE MAY NOT BE AIBT TO ADD HADDD AT THIS POINT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE ITEMS YOU'RE CONSIDERING ARE A REIMBURSEMENT FOR A 16-INCH WATER LINE FROM THE POINT OF TODD LANE AND EAST ST. ELMO ROAD TO ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET DOWN ST. ELMO TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. AND I GUESS TO CLARIFY. THERE'S A NUMBER OF CITY PROJECTS GOING ON IN THIS AREA, AS HAVEBEEN STATED. THERE'S THE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHICH REQUIRES THE REPLACEMENT OF A WATER LINE, AND THERE ARE SOME FIRE FLOW NEEDS EXISTING IN THE AREA TODAY THAT NEED TO BE REMEDIED. SO THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THE UTILITY TO DO A REPLACEMENT PROJECT AS THE ROAD IS RECONSTRUCTED. AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES HERE GIVEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF THE FIRST THOUSAND FEET OF THE 16-INCH LINE, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. WE DO HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES IN THE AREA. THERE WAS A TOUR TAKEN OF THE AREA. WE HAVE — ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE ROAD WORK, LAN, HAS A SUB CONSULTANT, HYDRO GEOLOGIST WHO WILL BE STUDYING THE AREA, DOING BORINGS AND GETTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE HYDRO GEOLOGY OF THE AREA AND THAT INFORMATION WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE ROAD AND THE PIPELINE TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS ON THE SPRING FLOW. THERE ARE METHODS, AND THIS ENGINEER WILL COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. A DETAILED DESIGN THAT WILL THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE LINE AND THE ROAD WORK. SO THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS IS BUILT AND WHETHER THIS SECTION IS CONSTRUCTED, A PIECE OF THIS IS CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER OR THE ENTIRE STRETCH IS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN. LET ME INTRODUCE PAT MURPHY TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT WE SAW OUT IN THE FIELD.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PAT MURPHY WITH WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW. I WAS NOT ONE OF THE ONES THAT WENT OUT INTO THE FIELD, BUT I'VE BEEN BRIEFED BY THEM ON WHAT THEY FOUND. THIS AREA HAS A LOT OF GROUNDWATER MOVING ALONG A CONFINING LAYER OF CLAY. IT EMERGES AS SPRINGS WHERE THOSE — WHERE THE SLOPE COMES DOWN THE STREAM. THERE ARE NUMEROUS SPRINGS IN THIS AREA WHICH WE'RE WELL AWARE OF. AND THE CONSULTANT FOR THE PROJECT IS WORKING WITH OUR GEOLOGIST ON STAFF, DAVID JOHNS, TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS FOR SAMPLING SITES FOR BORING WHERE THEY WILL TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE GROUNDWATER AND BE ABLE TO MAP IT. BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, THE LINE IS GOING TO BE DESIGNED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROTECT THE GROUNDWATER FLOWS AND OUR JEELTION STAFF WILL BE INVOLVED IN THOSE REVIEWS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. WE ARE AWARE AND HAVE BEEN OF COURSE AWARE OF THE WET LAND ISSUE ON THE DEVELOPMENT TRACT THAT IS FED BY THESE SPRING FLOWS, AND WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT THOSE. I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING. OUR CODE DOES NOT REGULATE GROUNDWATER SOURCES OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. AND NORMALLY THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT — THE STAFF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMMENTED ON, BUT AS A RESULT OF THIS BEING A CITY PROJECT AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE TAKING THIS MATTER SERIOUSLY AND WE ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH A METHOD TO TRY OUR BEST TO SAVE THAT GROUNDWATER SOURCE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. MURPHY?

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT A QUESTION. MR. MURPHY, IN YOUR OPINION WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? I REALIZE THAT THE WATER SUPPLY THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF IT ON THE WET LAND SPRINGS AND THE ABILITY TO PRESERVE THEM?

STAFF HAS SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME REVIEWING THIS PLAN, AND IN DISCUSSING IT WITH THE STAFF THEY ARE COMFORTABLE THAT THIS PLAN DOES PROTECT THOSE FEATURES AND DOES PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SET BACKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: DOES IT PREVENT THEM FROM DEGRADATION?

I BELIEVE IT DOES.

SLUSHER: SO YOU THINK THE DEVELOPMENT WON'T DID HE GRADE THE SPRINGS OR THE WETLANDS?

IT SHOULD NOT. NOW, THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE RELATIVE TO THE WATER LINE HAS TO BE — DO WITH THE SOURCE OF THE WATER THAT FEEDS THIS WET LAND AREA. AND THAT IS WHY IT'S SUCH A CONCERN TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT SOURCE OF WATER.

SLUSHER: SO THEN WHAT DO YOU THINK THE — THE IMPACT IS THEN ON THE WATER QUANTITY ISSUE THEN?

CORRECT, WATER QUANTITY.

SLUSHER: DO YOU THINK IT'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT?

IF A LINE WERE TO BE INSTALLED IN SUCH A A WAY THAT IT BISECTED THE GROUND WATER AND CHANNELED THAT WATER OFF SO SOME LOW POINT IN THE UTILITY TRENCH, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE OVER TIME YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT WET LAND TO DRY UP AND TO NO LONGER HAVE WET LAND CHARACTERISTICS.

SLUSHER: MR. LUULUPE DISCUSSES THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT TELL ME HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

AS THINGS ARE WORKING RIGHT NOW, AND THEY HAVE HIRED A CONSULTANT. HE'S A REPUTABLE CONSULTANT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH HIM. HE IS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH DAVID JOHNS OUT IN THE FIELD TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS FOR SAMPLING SITES. WHAT THEY WILL DO IS DO A BORING TO INTERSECT A GROUNDWATER PLAIN SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN-DEPTH AND ALSO THE EXTENT OF THE GROUNDWATER IN THIS AREA. WITH THAT INFORMATION THEN THEY WILL LOOK AT THE DESIGN OF THE TRENCH AND LOCATION OF THE TRENCH TO TRY TO DETERMINE A METHOD WHEREBY THE TRENCH COULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND WOULD NOT DISRUPT THAT GROUNDWATER FLOW. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD NOT CHANNEL IT OFF, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO FLOW IN THE SAME DIRECTION WITH THE SAME QUANTITY, IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND IS THIS ITEM SET UP TO WHERE THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY THINKS THAT'S GOING TO BE PROTECTED? AND IF IT ISN'T, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROCEED OR WOULD PROCEED IN ANOTHER WAY?

I WILL LET CHRIS LIPPY ADDRESS THE LAST PART OF THAT QUESTION, BUT THE WAY THINGS ARE SET UP AT THIS MOMENT, THEY ARE WORKING WITH OUR STAFF AND OUR STAFF IS NOT GOING TO BE IN APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSAL HERE THAT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT GROUNDWATER FLOW. BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT THE LINE WILL BE BUILT REGARDING THAT INFORMATION, THAT WOULD BE — MY UNDERSTANDING IS NO, BUT I WOULD LET CHRIS LIPPY ADDRESS THAT.

COUNCILMEMBER, THAT IS CORRECT. THE CITY WILL BE REVIEWING THE PLANS AND SPECS AND WILL NOT APPROVE THE PLANS UNLESS WE'RE CONVINCED THAT THE FEATURES ARE IN THERE, IN THAT DESIGN TO PROTECT AND DIRECT THE GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE DIRECTION IT'S GOING TODAY.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY AS IT GOES ALONG. WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S NOT — IF WE DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE PROTECTED? LET ME ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. WHAT INFORMATION ARE WE GOING TO RELY ON? DO WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER STUDY DONE BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE WE WOULD REACH THE POINT WHERE THERE IS DAMAGE TO THAT, TO THE WATER QUALITY OR THE WATER SUPPLY?

WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY EXPERIENCED SIMILAR SITUATIONS, AND THERE ARE — SO WE'VE HAD GOOD SUCCESS IN DESIGNING THE TRENCH OF A WATER LINE AND PUTTING BLOCKS OR DAMS AROUND THE PIPE IN THE TRENCH THAT PREVENTS THE WATER FROM FLOWING HORIZONTALLY ALONG THE PIPELINE AND GETTING THERE BY REDIVERTED FROM FLOWING ACROSS THE LINE. SO WE'VE HAD GOOD SUCCESS IN THE PAST AND JUST EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO DESIGN THIS IN THAT WAY.

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

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

GOODMAN: ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, I'M NOT SURE WHO I'M ASKING OR WHETHER WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION, BUT SINCE THIS IS NOT — OR LET ME MAKE SURE. THIS IS NOT A CARTS KIND OF — CARTZ WATER BEARING THING, IS IT.

WE HAVE A WATER TABLE THROUGH THE AREA. THERE'S A CONFINING LAYER OF CLAY.

GOODMAN: SO ARE WE ABLE TO MAP THAT SOMEHOW GEE LOGICALLY OR HYDRO LOGICALLY MORE THAN WE'RE ABLE TO ON CARST.

YES. YOU BORE DOWN AND YOU FIND THAT COMBINING LAYER, AND IN DOING THOUGH YOU KNOW THE DEPTH AND THEN BASED ON YOUR SPACING YOU ALSO DETERMINE EXTENT. AND FROM THAT — AND THROUGH SAMPLING YOU CAN DETERMINE ALSO VOLUME OF WATER. AND USING THAT INFORMATION THEN, WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THAT SAME WATER, THAT VOLUME CONTINUES TO FLOW DOWN THE SAME GRADIENT AND IS NOT DIRECTED AWAY FROM THE CURRENT EMERGING POINT OR THE SPRING SEEP AREA THAT WOULD COME OUT ON. AND THE DESIGN OF THE TRENCH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT WATER WILL NOT BE DIVERTED AWAY THROUGH BLOCKING OF THE TRENCH AND SO FORTH, SO THAT THAT GROUNDWATER QUANTITY AND DIRECTION WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING.

GOODMAN: WHAT IT'S SOUNDING LIKE A LOT IS WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW TO PROTECT THE HEAD WATERS. AND ONE OF THE PHRASES THAT MADE ME A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS THE LAST TYPE WE SAW THIS WAS AN ALEUTIAN TO A — TO AN ILLUSION TO A BROKEN OR LEAKY WATER PIPE THAT PEOPLE MAY THINK IS BASE FLOW OR WET LAND. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ASSUMPTION AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO FIND OUT WHERE THE HEAD WATER, AS IT EXISTS NOW, IS AND HOW TO PROTECT THAT AND MAYBE AT THE SAME TIME FIGURE OUT WHAT HAS IMPACTED IT ALL ALONG SO THAT OUR INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE GOES BEYOND THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL AND THIS PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT MAY HAVE DECREASED BASE FLOW THAT EXISTS KNOW.

WE WILL DISCUSS THAT WITH WATER AND WASTEWATER AND THE CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE IF THEY CAN WORK THAT INTO THE STUDY THAT THEY'RE DOING, TO TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSIVE SAMPLING. BASICALLY YOU WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT THIS TO BE UP LAND AREA, MUCH LIKE A WATERSHED. IT JUST GOES THROUGH THE ALEUVIAL MATERIAL AND HITS THE CLAY AND RUNS. SO WE WOULD EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO FIND THAT DRAINAGE AREA. SOMETIMES THESE SOURCE OF SPRINGS ARE MORE ARTESIAN WHERE WATER CAN ACTUALLY GO OVER A TOPOGRAPHIC DIVIDE, WHEREAS THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR ON THE SURFACE. BUT WE WOULD ASK IF THAT CAN BE DONE AS PART OF THIS SURVEY. I DON'T KNOW. MAPPING THE OVERALL EXTENT OF THIS GROUNDWATER IS NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS.

GOODMAN: THAT'S TOO BAD. I SUPPOSE WE DON'T HAVE EXISTING BUDGETARY ALLOWANCES THAT WOULD GIVE US THAT LEEWAY?

NORMALLY, ESPECIALLY NOW, NO.

GOODMAN: I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO SAY THAT, BUT THOUGHT I'D TRY ANYWAY. AND RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THE PRIVATE PART OF THIS PROJECT, THERE'S STILL ONE MORE THING THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE WEIGHED IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, CORRECT?

MY UNDERSTAND SG THAT'S BEEN RESOLVED. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT. IT HAD TO DO WITH A BALANCE OF TRACT ISSUE, WHICH RELATES TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL AND A REMAINDER OF THAT THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS TRACT. I KNOW THE APPLICANT PROBABLY CAN ADDRESS THAT BETTER THAN ME. THEY ARE HERE IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM.

GOODMAN: IS THAT OKAY, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE, ABSOLUTELY.

COUNCIL, BEN MCCLAIN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THERE IS A BALANCE OF THE TRACT WAIVER THAT WAS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WHICH WAS GRANTED BY STAFF LAST WEEK, SO THAT — THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WAS STILL IN PROGRESS.

THE WAIVER HAS BEEN APPROVED. THERE MAY EXIST AN APPEAL RIGHT OF THAT WAIVER, BUT IT HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED BY STAFF.

GOODMAN: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT EIGHT PEEL PROCESS IS, BY WHOM, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS?

YES, IT WOULD INCLUDE INTERESTED PARTIES, WHICH DOES INCLUDE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE. I BELIEVE IT 500 FEET. THEY HAVE A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD TO APPEAL. I BELIEVE IT'S 20 DAYS. AND SO THAT — TO THAT EXTENT THE PROCESS IS STILL ONGOING.

GOODMAN: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT DATE THAT WAS APPROVED OR GRANTED? OR DOES STAFF? A. MICHAEL, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT —

MICHAEL, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT — THE DATE IT WAS GRANTED AND CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER, WHY IT WAS GRANTED?

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT MAY BE — MAY HAVE JUST BEEN HANDED TO ME. IT WAS MARCH 18TH. THE 20-DAY APPEAL PERIOD STARTED ON MARCH 18TH. SO THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD AND APPEAL THAT, SO WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL THAT PERIOD OF TIME HAS ELAPSED.

GOODMAN: I'M THINKING THAT THIS MAY BE THE PERFECT TIME PERIOD TO ADDRESS A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL CONCERNS THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET TO UNTIL NOW FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. AND IT SEEMS LIKE AT THE END OF THAT TIME PERIOD IS MAYBE WHEN WE SHOULD TAKE THIS ITEM UP AS WELL. JUST A THOUGHT. BUT JUST ONE MORE THING. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME?

BILL MCCLAIN.

GOODMAN: I'M SORRY. MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN ALSO REAL BRIEFLY, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M BEING REALLY DENSE ABOUT THIS. THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE ONE PART OF THIS PARCEL IN TOTO HAD SF-OF ZONING WITH AN IMPROVED SITE PLAN AND THEN AN AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT WAS ABLE TO BE AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE OF MINOR CHANGE, MINOR AMENDMENT. AM I RIGHT SO FAR?

WELL, PARTIALLY. THE SITE PLAN — THERE ARE THREE APPLICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT ARE IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT, THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND THERE'S THE SER. THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. STAFF — AS — STAFF AS ALWAYS HAS SCRUTINIZED BOTH APPLICATIONS TO SEE THAT THEY MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING ZONING REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS DO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE WITH THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE THE WAIVER OF THE BALANCE OF THE TRACT, BUT OTHERWISE STAFF'S DETERMINED THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS.

GOODMAN: WELL, WHERE I'M GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED OR NOT FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE IS THE FACT THAT THAT PARTICULAR SITE, WHICH IS A THREE-ACRE — JUST THE ONE SITE, NOT THE ONE THAT WAS DISAPPROVED, BUT THE THREE-ACRE PARCEL, RIGHT, AND HAD APPROVAL FOR SF-6 ZONING AND A SITE PLAN THAT PROVIDED FOR 35 UNITS, IS THAT CORRECT?

RIGHT. BUT NOT A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

GOODMAN: I GET IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? LET ME MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. AND WE MAY WANT TO PULL THE THREE ITEMS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDER A MOTION SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. BUT I VISITED, TOGETHER WITH SOME MEMBERS OF MY STAFF, I VISITED THE SITE. AND I WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS FOR HOSTING THE TOUR AND FOR A VERY COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. I LEARNED THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS EAST OF I-35. SOMETIMES WE THINK THAT SOME OF THOSE AREAS ARE ONLY WEST OF I-35. I WAS VERY CURIOUS ABOUT THE INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORS IN PROTECTING THE SPRINGS. IN ASSESS SENSE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIATIVES, AS I SAID, EAST OF I-35. I COMMEND THE STAFF AND PUBLIC WORKS AND WATERSHED PROTECTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER, MAYBE OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY COOPERATIVELY — NOT JUST ON THIS PROJECT, BUT ANOTHER PROJECT IN THE PAST WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT THE NEIGHBORS CONSIDER VERY CRITICAL. AS A DEVELOPER, LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, HAS MET ALL THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE CITY IS INTERESTED IN THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF IT, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MOAT VAITED THEM TO DO THIS. BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT AROSE IN MY MIND, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT DO WE NEED AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THIS AREA THAT IS A LITTLE BIT — THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE GIVEN THE SENSITIVITY OF THIS AREA AND GIVEN THAT THIS AREA IS IN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE? THAT CAME THROUGH MY MIND AS I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BECAUSE IT IS VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. THERE ARE SPRINGS ALL OVER EVERYWHERE. SO I WALKED ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SITE, WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THE HOUSING, AND MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THEY'RE TOWN NG ABOUT, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT, BUT THE SITE APPEARS TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. AND I'M NOT AN ENGINEER OR AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I DIDN'T GET THAT KIND OF AN EDUCATION WHEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY,. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AREA. AND ALSO YOU CAN SEE THE INTEREST THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE. FOLKS HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR YEARS AND THEY HAVE REALLY TAKEN GREAT CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. SO I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR HOSTING THIS — THE TOUR THAT THEY HAD. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU OWE ME SOME MONEY BECAUSE I HAD TO WASH MY CAR AND CLEAN MY BOOTS, YOU KNOW. WE SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS LOOKING AT WHAT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL AREA IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN. SO DO YOU WANT TO PULL THOSE ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION?

GOODMAN: WHAT I WILL DO OR WHAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING OR WE MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IS IF WE PROPOSE THAT WE POSTPONE THESE THREE ITEMS UNTIL THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD. I THINK WHAT MR. HITES PRETTY MUCH SAID IS THEY WON'T TAKE ACTION UNTIL THAT PERIOD IS OVER WITH ANYWAY. SO I THINK BY POSTPONING WE'VE HARMED NOTHING AND MAYBE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT SOME DETAILS FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND FOR OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I THINK MR. HERSH WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT.

MAYOR PRO TEM, WE JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, AS MR. LIPPY HAS SAID EARLIER, THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE ABILITY, IF THEY CHOSE, TO WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AND STILL DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. SO THE RISK MAY BE IF THIS IS POSTPONED THAT THE POTENTIAL MIGHT BE THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A COST PARTICIPATION ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THAT IS, IT'S AN OPTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS. AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD FOR THEM — WITH THEM UP UNTIL NOW TO KEEP THIS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UTILITY WAS THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS IN THE UTILITY'S INTEREST, SO WE — IF YOU PROPOSE THIS, WE WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS A RISK THAT THESE THREE ITEMS WON'T BE COMING BACK ON YOUR AGENDA THREE WEEKS FROM NOW WHEN POTENTIALLY THAT APPEAL COULD COME BACK ON THE AGENDA.

GOODMAN: HAVE THE APPLICANTS SAID THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO WAIT FOR THE PROCEDURAL AMOUNT OF TIME UNTIL THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD?

WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

GOODMAN: THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS. THAT'S CITY PROCESS.

THE DELAY — THEY ARE UNDER A TIME LINE DELAY FACE BAEUSED ON THEIR FUNDING IN THE STATE. AND THUS FAR THIS PROCESS HAS NOT GOT THEM UP AGAINST THAT DEADLINE, BUT AT SOME POINT THERE WAS THE — THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE TIME LINES COULD GET IN THE WAY OF WHAT THEIR CONSTRUCTION OBLIGATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THEIR STATE FUNDING.

GOODMAN: I SUPPOSE WE CHALLENGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT REQUIRES THE 20-DAYS?

I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE THAT THAT POSSIBILITY DOES EXIST.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT THEN OR THE APPLICANT'S AGENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME UP TO RESPOND TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S QUESTION.

SINCE THERE WAS A BALANCE OF TRACT WAIVER AND SINCE THAT PROCESS REQUIRES A 20-DAY WAITING PERIOD SO THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED, WHICH WOULD THEN ON — WHY WOULD THEN WE ASSUME THAT THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO GET THAT WAIVER AND THEN NOT WAIT THE 20 DAYS THAT ARE PART OF THAT PROCESS?

WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT ISSUE OR THAT QUESTION HASN'T REALLY EVEN BEEN ASKED OF US, WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WOULD BE IN THAT CASE. BUT WITH REGARD TO POPING — POSTPONING THIS ISSUE, LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS ISSUE — AND I THINK STAFF WILL AGREE WITH ME ON THIS — HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE APPEAL OF THE WAIVER AND WHETHER THE APPEAL OF THE WAIVER COULD DELAY THIS PROJECT OR CAUSE IT TO BE CHANGED IN SOME WAY. SO WE — OUR ONLY OBJECTION REALLY TO HAVING THIS ITEM POSTPONED IS JUST THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME WE'VE BEEN HERE. IT'S LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF THE SER, WHICH SIMPLY ASKS COUNCIL DO YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS NEW LINE AND HAVE THE DEVELOPER HAVE SOME COST PARTICIPATION. AND THIS IS OUR SECOND TIME HERE. THEY'RE SEPARATE ISSUES. AND WE'D LIKE TO GET THIS ONE BEHIND US. IT DOESN'T GIVE US ANY ADVANTAGE NECESSARILY EXCEPT THAT IT'S JUST ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT'S CONCLUDED.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND ONE OTHER THING, MAYOR PRO TEM. THE LINE THAT THEY'RE REPLACING IS A VERY OLD LINE AND IT REALLY CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR FIRE FLOW, LIKE THEY INDICATED EARLIER. AND REPLACING IT WITH A 16-INCH LINE BECAUSE WE HAVE 16-INCH ALL THE WAY TO TODD LAIND AND THEN WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE OTHER END.

GOODMAN: I THINK PEOPLE OFTEN ASSUME SOME KIND OF MOTIVATION THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY HERE. AND I THINK THEY ALSO SOMETIMES ASSUME THAT THE CONNECTIONS FOR POLICY ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS IS NOT IN ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE SEQUENCE THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH. YOU NEED THE BALANCE OF TRACT WAIVER, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY IT WAS APPLIED FOR?

THAT'S CORRECT.

GOODMAN: SO THE 20 DAYS IS NO SKIN OFF YOUR TYPE BECAUSE PART OF THE PROCESS HAS BEEN APPROVED AND YOU'RE WAITING TO SEE IF THERE'S AN APPEAL, RIGHT?

WELL, IT IS BECAUSE THERE'S — AGAIN, IT'S — IT CAUSES US TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND IT CAUSES US TO SPEND MORE TIME DEALING WITH STAFF ON THIS ISSUE. WHEN WE FEEL LIKE ALL THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS, ALL OF THE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS SER HAVE BEEN SCRUTINIZED AND ADDRESSED, WE FEEL LIKE.

GOODMAN: I MS. UNDERSTOOD MR. HEIGHTS AND MR. MURPHY.

MAYOR PRO TEM, LET ME MAKE AN EFFORT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. THERE'S TWO ISSUES ON THE TABLE. ONE IS THE BALANCE OF TRACT ISSUE, THE OTHER ONE IS THE SER, WHICH IS THE WATER PARTICIPATION. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE BALANCE OF TRACT, THEY COULD HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE PRIVATE LINE FROM THE EXISTING EIGHT-INCH LINE WITH A PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE AND RUN THAT TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE BALANCE OF TRACT ISSUE, THOUGH, THAT SURFACED REAL ACTIVELY RECENTLY, AND THAT ISSUE WAS ACTUALLY DETERMINED OR WAIVED, AND THAT TRIGGERED THE 20-DAY WAITING PERIOD. SO I BELIEVE THAT MR. HERSH IS MORE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER ISSUE, WHICH COULD ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT DOESN'T STILL MAKE THE 20-DAY WAITING PERIOD, WHICH STARTED MONDAY, FOR THAT TO GO AWAY. THAT STILL STANDS. THEY COULD COME BACK IF THEY WERE GOING ON A THREE-ACRE TRACT AND THAT WAS A LEGAL LOT, THEY COULD COME BACK INTO THAT AREA AND MAYBE — AND DO ANOTHER APPLICATION. I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN, AGAIN, FOR THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. MAYOR, I'LL JUST END WITH THIS AND THEN BACK OFF AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE TALK. WHAT I HAD THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING WAS THAT THERE WAS A 20-DAY WAITING PERIOD FROM THE 18TH THAT REALLY NOBODY WAS PLANNING TO MOVE WITHIN BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF A PROCEDURAL FORMALITY THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIT. SOMEONE MAY FILE, SOMEONE MAY THINK ABOUT IT OR COME FOR NSMS AND NEVER FILE. BUT IT IS A 20-DAYY PERIOD THAT'S THERE THAT NOBODY IS CHALLENGING. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I SEE PERHAPS NOT BEING UNDERSTAND OR — NOT UNDERSTOOD OR BEING FOCUSED ON FROM THE ANGLE I'M TRYING TO COME FROM IS THE COST PARTICIPATION ISSUE IS ONE THAT OVERLAPS A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES IN THE CENTRAL ISSUE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DIRECT GROWTH AND TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT RUINING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES THAT MAKE IT A PRETTY AND QUALITY PLACE TO LIVE IN THE CENTRAL CITY AND THE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS. SO FOR US THERE IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S A POLICY ISSUE, NOT ONLY HERE. THAT'S THE REASON I BLENGSED BLEND CREEK. BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE THE AMENITIES, THE NATURAL AMENITIES IN AN AREA WHERE YOU ARE ABOUT — WHERE YOU HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ENHANCING THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS TO LIVE THERE, NOT START AN EVENTUAL MOVE OF FLEEING FROM WHAT USED TO BE A NICE PLACE AND IS NO LONGER, THEN THAT'S A POLICY ISSUE THAT OVERLAPS EXACTLY WHAT WE KNOW BEFORE WE SAY ALL RIGHT, OKAY, WE'VE COVERED EVERY BASE, LET'S NOW PUT THE LINE IN. MR. MURPHY SAYS THAT THERE WAS NOT THE MONEY IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE MAPPED OUT ALL THE IMPACTS THAT MIGHT BE NOW OR IN THE FUTURE RELATIVE TO HEAD WATERS. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOW TO REALLY ANALYZE WHAT IMPACTED THE HEAD WATERS IN THE FIRST PLACE TO NOW ONLY MAKE THEM A WET LAND. AND THEY HAVE MR. CONNALLY AS ENGINEER AND THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE HE ALSO WORKED ON THE BLEND CREEK ONE AS I RECALL AND IS PRETTY CLOSE TO AN EXPERT ON THIS BY NOW. BUT THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LAID OUT A AND A LITTLE MORE CHARTED FLOW SHEET, NO PUN INTENDED, FASHION. SO THAT WE ARE ALSO VERY COMFORTABLE THAT AS WE PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE INTO THE PLACES WHERE WE KNOW WE WANT TO ENHANCE THE ABILITY TO LIVE AND IN THE PAST HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED IN THE PAST AND IN FACT, INFRASTRUCTURE HAS GONE TO THE WEST, WHERE IT WAS MOST DIFFICULT TO PUT, MOST EXPENSE SIEVE TO PUT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETICALLY ALSO MOST COST INEFFECTIVE FOR US AS A CITY. SO I DON'T WANT TO CLOUD MY INTENTIONS HERE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF US, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE IN A PLACE THAT THEY HAVE CARED ABOUT AND NURTURED FOR SO MANY YEARS AND WE AS POLICY DECISION MAKERS HAVE EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF US WE NEED TO HAVE THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN PART OF THE INFORMATIONAL GIVE AND TAKE PROCESS AND SO THAT THERE IS NO MORE MISCOMMUNICATION OR MISSION INTERPRETATION OR JUST IN GENERAL NOT UNDERSTANDING. AGAIN I'LL GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP IN THE VERY BEGINNING. WHEN WE THOUGHT WE TURNED A ZONING CASE DOWN, HOW IS IT THAT WE SEE A COST PARTICIPATION PROJECT COMING IN FOR SOMETHING WITH THE VERY SAME NAME? AND THEY WERE JUST REAL BASIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS THAT ARE VERY EASY TO REMEDY SIMPLY BY HAVING A COMMUNICATION PROCESS IN PLACE. SO THAT WAS MY — THAT WAS MY GOAL AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE 20 DAYS WAS A NICE TIME PERIOD THAT ALREADY EXISTED. I'M SORRY, MR. MCCLAIN, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND TALK TO US AFTER THOSE 20 DAYS ARE UP, BUT REALLY WE'RE NOT TOO BAD. I THINK EVERYBODY'S INTENTIONS ARE CLEAR HERE IN GENERAL AND I PERSONALLY FEEL NO ANIMOSITY, NO MOVEMENT TO STOP WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE INCLUDING PROTECTION OF WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER, ONCE AGAIN SOME CLARIFICATION. WE ARE GOING TO PUT THAT LINE IN, CORRECT?

WELL, CHRIS, HELP ME WITH THIS? IS YOUR PROJECT FUNDED AND APPROPRIATED NOW? I CAN TELL YOU NOW, I KNOW THE LINE IS NEEDED IN THE AREA, BUT CHRIS, YOU NEED TO LET ME KNOW — OR PETER, IS THIS LINE BUDGETED IN PART OF THE CIP PROGRAM?

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M PETER RIEK. YES, THE LINE IS BUDGETED. AND PART OF WHAT TRIGGERED THIS DISCUSSION IS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY RECONSTRUCTING ST. ELMO ROAD. WE ALREADY HAVE DUG UP PART OF THIS SECTION OF THE ROAD WAY, AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THE EXISTING EIGHT-INCH LINE IS IN THE BASE OF THE NEW RECONSTRUCTED ROAD AND WE HAVE NO CHOSE BUT TO RECONSTRUCT THAT LINE NO MATTER WHAT ELSE HAPPENS, WHETHER THERE IS DEVELOPMENT OR NO DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ONLY QUESTION POTENTIALLY BECOMES WHAT SIZE LINE. AND I THINK THE FIRE — THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT, TOGETHER WITH WATER AND WASTEWATER, HAVE DETERMINED THAT IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE PROPER FIRE FLOW, A 16-INCH LINE IS THE PROPER LINE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING EIGHT-INCH LINE THAT WE HAVE TO REPLACE. AGAIN, AS I SAID EARLIER, NO WHART WHAT WE DO. AND — MATTER WHAT WE DO. AND I THINK THE ISSUE IS IS THE CITY GOING TO PAY FOR THE ENTIRE LINE OR IS THE DEVELOPER PARTICIPATING IN THE COST OF THE LINE? AND AS PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE NEW LINE, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT IMPACTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THROUGH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LINE AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD. BUT WHEN I SAY RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT WE'RE NOT WIDENING IT, WE'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. WE ARE BASICALLY RECONSTRUCTING AN EXISTING ROADWAY THAT'S IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND MAY I ALSO SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORS TOLD US WHEN WE WENT THERE IS THAT CITY HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB AT PROTECTING THE WETLANDS AND THE SPRINGS IN THAT EARND I COMMEND YOU ALL ON THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST. COUNCILMEMBER?

ALVAREZ: I THINK THAT THE COST PARTICIPATION, IF INDEED THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING, IS GOING TO BE COST SAFTIONZ ON THE PROJECT, SO HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO POTENTIALLY SAVE BY HAVING THE COST PARTICIPATION?

THE PART OF THE LINE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER WHO PARTICIPATED, ABOUT 30% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH AND AS FAR AS THE COST, I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO CHRIS LIPPY.

THE COST SAFTIONZ WILL BE ON THE CORD OF $50,000 PLUS SOME SOFT COSTS CONTRIBUTED IN THE WAY OF ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION. SO MY ESTIMATE WAS SOMEWHERE, 70, 80,000-DOLLAR VALUE OF THIS COST PARTICIPATION.

ALVAREZ: THE INITIAL COST ANALYSIS THAT'S BEING DONE, HOW ARE WE PAYING FOR THAT? WILL THE SAVINGS BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS?

THE SAVINGS WILL HELP OFFSET THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS. THE CITY IS PICKING UP THAT ANALYSIS.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR? CAN I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION? I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. SLOAN TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, PLEASE. WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF FACT QUESTIONS AND SOME OPINIONS TOO, AND AT ONE POINT THE OPINION WAS GIVEN THAT ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ALL OF THE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS HAD BEEN RESOLVED. IS THAT YOUR OPINION?

I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND NOT ALL THE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THE STUDY THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. WE'LL BE DRILLING THE TEST HOLES AND MAPPING OUT THE — MAPPING OUT THE AQUIFERS. WHAT IS IN PLACE IS A PLAN TO DO ALL THIS, AND I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THE CITY, GIVEN ITS TALENT POOL AND CAPABILITIES AND ITS EARLIER HISTORY IN BEING ABLE TO DO THIS, WILL BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS. WAYS TO PUT IN THE WATER PIPES AND SO FORTH THAT WILL PROTECT THESE LANDS. BUT THESE ARE THE PLAN, THESE ARE A GLEEM IN THEIR EYE RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVE NOT YET FORMALIZED OR CARRIED OUT THESE STUDIES. SO TO THAT, NO, NOT ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

GRIFFITH: HOW DOES THIS 20-DAY WINDOW FIT INTO ALL THIS AND IS THAT AN IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE HAPPEN?

WE WILL BE APPEALING THE BALANCE OF WAIVER TRACT. WE'LL BE FORMULATING OUR RESPONSE AND GET THAT IN WITHIN THE 20 DAYS. I DON'T KNOW. KING FISHER CAN BEST ANSWER HOW THAT IMPACTS THEIR TIMETABLE. THEY HAVE MADE PROMISES TO THE STATE OF TEXAS. THEY HAD PROMISES THAT THEY WOULD BE I THINK COMING OUT OF THE GROUND BY APRIL 15TH, WHICH GIVEN ANYTHING IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILMEMBERS? COMMENTS? MR. MCCLAIN?

MAYOR PRO TEM, I WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO MY PREVIOUS ANSWER TO YOU ABOUT HOW THE 20-DAYTIME PERIOD AND THIS AFFECT US AND WHAT ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE DOES AN APPROVAL TODAY GIVE US. IT GIVES US NO ADVANTAGE OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS FAR AS THE PROCESSING OF THE SITE PLAN OR THE PLAT. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE AND THE ONLY BAD THING ABOUT NOT GETTING AN APPROVAL TODAY IS THAT, AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MENTIONED, WE ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO OUR TAX CREDITS. AND WE ARE JUDGED ON A PROGRESS BASIS. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS IS — THIS IS A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE JUDGED UPON BY THAT AGENCY THAT DETERMINES WHETHER WE ARE STILL ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH FUNDING OR NOT. SO TO THAT EXTENT THIS GIVES US AN ADVANTAGE, BUT — AND I FULLY EXPECT TO BE BACK HERE BEFORE YOU, WHETHER IT'S OVER THE APPEAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE TRACT OR THE SER OR BOTH, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE ISSUES ON THE SER HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW. AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT WE WOULD LIKE COUNCIL TO ACT ON THAT ELEMENT ALONE TODAY.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK YOU WHAT ISSUES YOU CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE SER, VIERNLT.

AT — ENVIRONMENTAL AT ALL, HEAD WATERS?

WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEER OR STAFF COULD, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THOSE PEOPLE HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES, SCRUTINIZED THEM AND COME TO A CONCLUSION.

GOODMAN: YOU SAID YOU MIGHT SEE US AGAIN ON SOMETHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE SER? WHAT REASON WOULD WE SEE YOU AGAIN?

IF IT WERE POSTPONED TODAY.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THAT IF WE DIDN'T POSTPONE TODAY, WE WOULD STILL SEE YOU ON EITHER AN APPEAL OR —

I'M SORRY. IF I SAID THAT, I MISSPOKE. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS WHATEVER HAPPENS TODAY, I EXPECT TO SEE YOU AGAIN ON THIS PROJECT. AND I DON'T MIND BEING DOWN HERE. IT'S GOOD FOR MY LIVELIHOOD TO BE DOWN HERE.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT — TWO ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON CONSENT THAT — TWO ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION THAT MAY GO BACK ON CONSENT IF WE CAN GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. SO IF I MAY ASK MR. PAUL HILGERS TO COME UP AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YES, MAYOR?

GOODMAN: ON ITEMS — WELL, WE POSTPONED ITEM 35 AND THAT WILL COME BACK ON APRIL THE FOURTH.

YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: ON 36, THOUGH, IS — ON DECREASING TRANSFERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,000 AND INCREASING THE CDBGG 27TH YEAR FUND AND TO REIMBURSE THE U.S. HOUSING OF — HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR VISION VILLAGE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO I THINK THAT — JUST SO NOBODY THINKS ANYBODY IS TRYING TO PULL A BLANKET OVER OR ANYTHING, WE UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND I THINK A BRIEF STAFF PRESENTATION ON THAT ITEM AND OF COURSE ALSO RELATIVE TO ITEM NUMBER 37 IS PRUDENT FOR ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE AND PERHAPS HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO ABOUT IT. YES, MA'AM. I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN, THE FASTEST AS I CAN. I'M PAUL HILGERS. THE PURPOSE OF THESE TWO ITEMS IS TO TAKE CARE OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS NECESSARY TO ALLOW US TO USE HAVING TRUST FUND DOLLARS, WHICH ARE NON-FEDERAL SOURCES OF DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO REPAY THE ALLOCATION THAT WAS MADE OF 1.25 MILLION DOLLARS BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COVER THE COSTS OF NOT FULFILLING THE OBLIGATION TO CREATE A NATIONAL OBJECTIVE. THAT — BY NOT FULFILLING THAT OBJECTIVE, IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY HAD THOSE BECOME DISALLOWED COSTS. THE REASON, OF COURSE, THAT WE'RE USING THE HOUSING TRUST FUND DOLLARS IS BECAUSE THAT SOURCE OF REVENUE HAS BEEN EARMARKED ALREADY FOR HOUSING. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO — WHEN YOU REPAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR DISALLOWED COSTS IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THOSE DOLLARS COME BACK TO YOU FOR USE AGAIN FOR CDBG PURPOSES, FOR BENEFITS TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES TO ACHIEVE A NATIONAL OBJECTIVE. SO ESSENTIALLY WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO USE THOSE DOLLARS TO ACHIEVE A NATIONAL OBJECTIVE. WE BELIEVE THAT BY USING THOSE HOUSING TRUST FUND DOLLARS AND KEEPING THEM IN — AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THAT THAT'S THE BEST OPPORTUNITY AND THE BEST USE OF THE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, NON-FEDERAL SOURCE OF DOLLARS, TO BE ABLE TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE HOUSING PROGRAMS. AND SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THESE TWO ITEMS ALLOW US TO DO, ALONG WITH SINCE THE HOUSING TRUST FUND DOLLARS ARE PART OF THE AUSTIN AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND PART OF WHAT'S CALLED THE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THAT IS WHY WE TOOK THE ACTION AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ALLOW US TO GIVE THAT MONEY BACK, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE IT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEN WE'LL REIMBURSE THOSE DOLLARS ONCE WE RECEIVE THEM BACK INTO OUR LINE OF CREDIT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

OKAY, THANK I.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, FOR MR. HILGERS? FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILGERS? HE..OKAY. MR. CITY MANAGER, YOU HAD ANOTHER ITEM THAT YOU MAY HAVE SOME EXPLANATIONS ON ITEM NO. 25.

FUTRELL: I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE READY YET ON 25, I THINK THERE'S A BRIEFING GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN THE BACK TO GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. ROSY, IF YOU WILL GO CHECK.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM, ON ITEMS 17, 18, 19, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS?

GOODMAN: WELL, UNLESS IT'S JUST GOING TO REALLY HORRIBLY IMPACT AND SO FAR I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT IMPRESSION, I KNOW EVERYBODY WOULD — WOULD OR SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO GET EVERYTHING DONE, BUT — BUT I WILL SUGGEST THAT — THAT WE — THAT WE POSTPONE THAT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WHAT — CITY ATTORNEY, WE HAVE TO PULL THAT ONE OFF THE AGENDA, OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. TO DO THAT?

I BELIEVE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR THE POSTPONEMENT, YOU CAN PROBABLY LEAVE IS ON THE CONSENT. OF COURSE — I THINK IT CAN BE HANDLED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: 17, 18, 19, IF THE — WHO MADE THE MOTION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA?

CLERK BROWN: MAYOR, WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ZROPT A MOTION YET.

MAYOR GARCIA: 17, 18, 19 THEN WILL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 4TH, CORRECT? IS THERE A MOTION ON THAT — ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

GOODMAN: THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. OH, THE WHOLE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THAT, YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WITH 17, 18 AND 19 POSTPONED, CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 4TH.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I'M SORRY, ALSO, I NEED TO PULL 61 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. I WANTED TO DO THAT BEFORE THE MOTIONS WERE MADE.

GRIFFITH: I WILL SECOND THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAY THAT AGAIN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM NO. 61 OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM 61 IS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I NEED TO PULL 23 OFF FOR DISCUSSION. FOR DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. — NO. 23 IS PULLED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER. BEFORE WE VOTE, COULD YOU READ THE CONSENT AGENDA ONE MORE TIME.

CLERK BROWN: CERTAINLY TRY MY BEST. ITEM NO. 16 WILL BE ON CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 4TH, 2002. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR 17, 18, 19. THE REMAINING ITEMS ON CONSENT ARE 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 AS REVISED IN THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOLLAR CHANGE TO 9,893,392 DOLLARS, 32, 33, 34 AND 35 BEING POSTPONED TO APRIL 4TH, 2002. 38 SECOND AND THIRD READING, 39 POSTPONED TO APRIL 25TH, —

MAYOR GARCIA: 36 AND 37 IS WHAT?

CLERK BROWN: 36 AND 37 WERE PULLED I DID NOT READ THEM AS PART OF THE CONSENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM WANTED THEM BACK.

GOODMAN: BACK.

MAYOR GARCIA: 36 AND 37 ARE CONSENT ITEMS.

CLERK BROWN: THANK YOU. 38 IS SECOND AND THIRD. 39 IS POSTPONED TO APRIL 25TH, 2002. 40 SECOND AND THIRD READINGS AS REVISED IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. 41 SECOND AND THIRD READING. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 IS REVISED IN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, ARE THE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS READ EARLIER, 74, 75, 76, 77, WITH THE FISCAL NOTE THAT — THAT YOU READ EARLIER, MAYOR AND 79.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER WERE MAYOR PRO TEM AND SECONDER WAS COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AN THE CITY MANAGER HAS A LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT.

FUTRELL: I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE A CLARIFICATION. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS WAS THE ITEM THE FIREFIGHTER ITEM DID YOU INTEND THAT TO BE 25 OR 23?

THOMAS: IT WAS 23, BUT SHE READ 25.

FUTRELL: IF WE COULD HOLD ON 25 FOR RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GETTING SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED, ALSO.

MAYOR GARCIA: 25 IS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. ACTUALLY WE WILL SAY THAT THE CITY MANAGER PULLED THAT ONE. OKAY, YOU HAVE HEARD THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THE MOTION AND THE SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL ITEM NO. 14 OF APPROVAL OF AMENDED BUSINESS FOR FEBRUARY 14TH, 2002, FROM WORK SESSION OF MARCH 6TH, 2002 AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7TH, 2002. IS THERE A MOTION?

THOMAS: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ANY OTHER ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. ALL HERE? YES. WE ARE NOW TO — TO ITEM 15, WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO PLACE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON THE MAY 4TH, 2002 BALLOT, INCLUDING THE ITEMS THAT I'M GOING TO BE READING INTO THE RECORD. IS MR. STEINER AND MR. ROBINSON, ARE THEY HEAR? I SEE MR. ROBINSON, I DON'T SEE MR. STEINER YET. WHILE HE'S COMING UP, I'M GOING TO THROW AWAY MY CHEWING GUM, I THINK IT'S TOTALLY DISCOURTEOUS TO BE CHEWING GUM AND TRYING TO RUN THIS MEETING AT THE SAME TIME. WELCOME, SIR, WE HAVE BEEN VISITING A LOT THIS WEEK. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS SINCE HE IS UP FOR REELECTION IN 2003. I HAD INDICATED TO HIM THAT HE COULD RUN FOR AN AT LARGE POSITION THAT'S NOT THE CASE. IN 2003 YOU CAN ONLY RUN FOR MAYOR OR FOR ONE OF THE DISTRICTS. YOU CANNOT RUN FOR THE AT LARGE POSITIONS UNTIL '05 WHEN EVERYBODY COMES UP FOR ELECTION.

THOMAS: THANK YOU, MAYOR. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: MISLED YOU COUNCILMEMBER. AND I — BUT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT IT. SO WE ARE NOW TO ITEM A, TO CHANGE THE TERMS AND THE METHODS OF ELECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ELECTION AT LARGE TO A METHOD COMBINING ELECTION OF MEMBERS FROM A GEOGRAPHIC — FROM GREEFK DISTRICTS AND ELECTION OF MEMBERS AT LARGE. GREEFK. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE FIRST TWO READING. IT HAS PASSED ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 IN THE FIRST READING WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH VOTING NAY AND THE SECOND READING ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH ABSTAINING. ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS, COUNCIL? YOU HAVE — YOU HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS THAT HAS MANY, MANY ARROWS OF MANY, MANY DIFFERENT COLORS. YOU ALSO HAVE AN ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSITION 7, WHICH IS THE INITIATIVE. WE WILL GO TO THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. IS THERE A MOTION TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: ARE WE TAKING UP THE ITEMS. I THINK WE HAVE ALL BEEN HANDED AN ORDER OF CHARTER ITEMS. ARE WE DO THAT OR —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE. I GUESS WE OUGHT TO GO TO THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FIRST BECAUSE THAT'S THE — THE ORDER THAT — SINCE WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THIS, I THINK THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION. SO THAT WOULD BE PROPOSITION — ACTUALLY, DEPENDING ON THE ORDER, PROPOSITION THAT IS RIGHT NOW NUMBERED NUMBER 7, WITH YOU IT COULD BE NUMBERED SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S IN THE BACK OF THE — IN THE BACK OF THE — PAGE THAT WE HAD — THAT — THE ORDER FOR US TO TAKE IT, IT HAS — FOUR ALTERNATIVES, ONE IS ALTERNATIVE 1, ALTERNATIVE 2, 3, THEN WE HAVE DRAFT BALLOT LANGUAGE FROM FRED LEWIS. SO — SO THE — THE ONE THAT'S CALLED ALTERNATIVE 3, READ IT INTO THE RECORD. LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR, CREATING A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES, INCLUDING BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES, INCLUDING TAX REVENUES, SEMI COLON AND PROVIDING INDEPENDENT SO... SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, INCLUDING SOUP POWERS. WE HAD SEEN THE OTHERS AND DISCUSSED THE OTHERS, BUT WE DID NOT VOTE ON THEM AT THE TIME. THIS ONE IS THE ONE THAT I HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE LEGAL, THE ONE THAT I JUST READ, BECAUSE IT'S MORE DESCRIPTIVE. I THINK THIS — THIS CITIZEN PETITION HAS THREE PARTS, ONE IS THE INCREASE OF THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM — LIMIT FROM 100 TO 200, THEN THE CREATION OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING AND THEN THE GRANTING OF PROVIDING INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WHICH THE COUPLE APPOINTS INCLUDING GIVING THEM SUBPOENA POWERS. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MR. FRED LEWIS WHO HAS BEEN HERE. USUALLY WE DON'T RECOGNIZE ANYBODY ON THIRD READING, BUT SINCE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE DO YOU WANT TO COME UP ONE MORE TIME?

I STARTED TRYING TO ENTER A DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY ON THE 5TH OF MARCH REGARDING THIS. I NOW HAVE ALTERNATIVE 3'S LANGUAGE ABOUT ONE MINUTE BEFORE I GOT UP HERE. FOR THAT I AM NOT APPRECIATIVE. Y'ALL HAVE NOT POSTED THIS MATTER PROPERLY. THERE'S NO POSTING RELATED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THIS, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POSTED RELATED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THIS. YOU ALL HAVE A DUTY TO POST IT CORRECTLY. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WE COULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT. BUT APPARENTLY THERE'S NOT MUCH WILL TO DO THAT. I FIND THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT TWICE AS LANGUAGE AS ANY OF THE OTHER LANGUAGE, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUSLY SELF-SERVING. AS IT JUST SHOWS THE ROPE WHY WE HAVE INITIATIVES. TO ADDRESS THE ONE ISSUE, THAT WAS RAISESED ABOUT THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. IF Y'ALL HAD STUDIED IT OR YOUR STAFF, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS NO ONE THAT DOESN'T RECOMMEND AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION. MAYBE THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. YOU COULD LOOK AT CINCINNATI, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK CITY, THEY HAVE INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS. NOTHING PARTICULAR HAS HAPPENED BAD THERE. BUT IF YOU ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, BE GLAD TO DO IT. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING HANDED TO ME 30 SECONDS BEFORE — BEFORE I'M GIVEN A CHANCE TO TALK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. LEWIS.

MAYOR PRO TEM?

CAN WE ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT OUR POSTINGS. WE'VE HAD, POSTED SO MANY TIMES, SO THAT WE COULD DISCUSS LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC, I'M SORRY THAT MR. LEWIS FEELS THAT WAY, I WOULD LIKE TO BE COMFORTABLE, SURE, THE POSTING LANGUAGE IS ON ITEM NO. 15 SAYS CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO PLACE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON THE MAY 4TH BALLOT AND THEN IT SAYS INCLUDING A NUMBER OF ITEMS. THE OPERATIVE TERM IS INCLUDING, BUT IT'S NOT ALL OR THE EXHAUSTIVE LIST. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN ITEM THAT RELATES TO THE — TO AMENDING THE CHARTER AND THE INITIAL LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDERED. ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE ITEM HAS FAIR NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE. AND TAKEN THE MEETING.

GOODMAN: THANS. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT ALL OF US GOT THIS LANGUAGE BASED ON WHAT WE HAD ASKED IN PUBLIC YESTERDAY FOR INPUT FROM VARIOUS CITY ATTORNEYS. BUT LET ME ALSO SAY, I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, EITHER. MAYOR, WOULD YOU LET ME ASK MR. LEWIS TO COME UP IF HE WOULD BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO —

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. LEWIS, THE MAYOR PRO TEM WOULD LIKE TO DOES YOU A QUESTION.

GOODMAN: HAVE A LITTLE DIALOGUE ON THIS.

MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY AND WHAT GOES FOR TODAY FOR ME, TOO, IS IS WHENEVER WE PUT LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT, I KNOW OFTEN IT'S CONFUSING AND SOMETIMES THERE SEEMS NO WAY OUT OF THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT LEAVING OUT ANYTHING. SO EVEN THOUGH MAYBE I CAN EVEN THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHOULD BE ON HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN AGREE WITH YOUR LONGNESS PART, LET ME ASK IF — IF THE LANGUAGE THAT — THAT SAYS INCLUDING BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES, IS THAT — INCLUDING TAX REVENUE, IS THAT AT ODDS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER REVISION? YOUR LANGUAGE I THINK WAS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS THERE, BUT IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF PUBLIC FUNDING —

I THINK I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING, BUT YOU SAID PUBLIC FUNDING ONCE, PUBLIC SOURCES AND TAX REVENUE. DO YOU WANT TO SAY IT A FOURTH TIME? [ LAUGHTER ].

GOODMAN: WHAT I AM WONDERING —

IS ONCE ENOUGH JOOL.

GOODMAN: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. IF IN THE LAPPING OF THE CHARTER REVISION THE IMPRESSION — IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER REVISION THE IMPRESSION IS STATE, FEDERAL, COUNTY, OTHER PUBLIC FUNDS, THAT'S WHAT IT MAKES ME THINK OF. IS THAT IN THE CHARTER REVISION LANGUAGE OR DO YOU SAY ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

NO. I COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S LANGUAGE AND DISCUSSION OF IT, UNTIL WE GOT TO THE LANGUAGE FOR THE VOTERS, IT WAS PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. NOW, ARE WE GOING TO CALL IT THAT UNTIL WE GET IT TO THE VOTERS? AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY. IF IT'S PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS FROM A DISCUSSION FROM THE SUMMER UNTIL A WEEK AGO, WHY DOES IT CHANGE? WHY ARE WE COMING UP WITH NEW TERMS? WHY ARE WE REPEATING SOURCES? I MEAN, I DON'T SEE THE OTHER BALLOT LANGUAGE WHERE YOU ADD AND REPEAT YOURSELF. A CONSUMER ADVOCATE FOR THE UTILITY ALSO KNOWN AS AUSTIN ENERGY, THE DEALS WITH YOUR WASTEWATER AND ENERGY, WHAT — WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS?

GOODMAN: I'M SORRY, I MISSING THE CONNECTION. WERE YOU SAYING —

YOU ARE BEING REDUNDANT, DO YOU WANT TO SAY 15 FINALS PUBLIC SOURCES, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAID BUT ONCE, IT'S KNOWN AS PUBLIC FINANCING.

GOODMAN: I THOUGHT WE WERE ON CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

I WAS JUST MOCKING, THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD WRITE IT LIKE IF YOU WERE GOING TO WRITE IT AND REPEAT IT FOUR TIMES ABOUT IT BEING A CONSUMER ADVOCATE. I AM SURE WE COULD WRITE THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE THING AND MAKE IT A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS, I'M SURE.

GOODMAN: I IMAGINE WE COULD.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND TYPES OF STRUCTURE OF THESE SENTENCES FOR THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE THAN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FOR THE OTHERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. LEWIS, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRAFTING THE LANGUAGE IS WITH THE COUNCIL. IN SEANTS, WHEN THEY HAD A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, IT IS COUNCIL DECIDED TO PUT THE WHOLE INITIATIVE IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. SO THIS COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PUT IN IT WHAT WE THINK IS NECESSARY FOR THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE VOTING ON.

THAT ARE. MAYOR, YOU HAVE DISCRETION. BUT ALL DISCRETION IS LIMITED.

MAYOR GARCIA: ABSOLUTELY. ALL THAT I'M SAYING IT MAY BE WE DON'T NEED TO PUT INCLUDING BLOC GRANTS, MATCHING FUNDS FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES, THAT'S FOR THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE. BUT IF THE FIRST ONE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THAT PARTICULAR INITIATIVE GRANTS SOVEREIGN POWERS TO A COMMISSION THAT WE APPOINT. RIGHTS TO SOUP OUR RECORDS. — TO SUBPOENA OUR RECORDS. THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEY ARE GIVEN POWERS — WE NEED TO LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT'S IN THE —

MAYOR GARCIA I SAID LAST TIME I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE AS CONCERNED AS YOU ARE ABOUT HAVING AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION.

GOODMAN: THANKS, MAYOR. COULD I ASK MR. STEINER A QUESTION RELATIVE TO — TO ALL THIS?

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. DESIGNER?

STEINER: OF COURSE.

GOODMAN: COULD I ASK WHY YOU CHOSE AFTER LOOKING AT THE — THE CHARTER PROVISION, THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON, WHY YOU SAID INCLUDING BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES INSTEAD OF — CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AUSTIN RESIDENTS WITH MATCHING PUBLIC FUNDS?

STEINER: I WAS TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS OF COUNCILMEMBER WYNN YESTERDAY WHEN HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO — TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE SOURCES OF FUNDS. THE — 7 MATCHING FUNDS DO MATCH — THE MATCHING FUNDS DO MATCH CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT THERE ARE ALSO BLOC GRANTS WHICH DON'T MATCH CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AS PUBLIC FUNDING. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE KINDS OF PUBLIC FUNDING, THAT'S WHY — WHY THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES MATCHING FUNDS AND BLOC GRANTS. WHICH ARE THE TWO KINDS OF — OF PUBLIC FUNDING AVAILABLE. CERTAINLY — 7 IT'S ENTIRELY A POLICY QUESTION HOW TO WORD THIS. THE — THE LAW JUST REQUIRES THAT YOU — THAT YOU POINT OUT THE — THE — THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO POINT OUT EVERY FEATURE OF THE — OF THE PROPOSAL. THE MAIN FEATURES ARE SUFFICIENT AND THE — REALLY, THE PURPOSE OF A PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT IS NOT TO DESCRIBE ALL OF THE ISSUES TO THE VOTER BECAUSE THE VOTER IS PRESUMED TO — TO BE AWARE OF THE JUNE LYING PROPOSAL. THE PURPOSE OF THE — TO BE AWARE OF THE UNDERLYING PROPOSAL. THE PURPOSE IS TO IDENTIFY THIS PROPOSAL FROM THE OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WILL ALSO BE ON THE BALLOT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF LEEWAY IN THE WAY THAT YOU COULD WORD THIS. BUT THE REASON THAT IT LOOKS — THAT THIS PROPOSAL LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES, IT'S JUST TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY.

LET ME ADD SOMETHING TO THAT. ALSO THE REASON WHY BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS APPEARED IS BECAUSE MR. LEWIS WAS FOND OF HIS LANGUAGE WHICH TALKED ABOUT MATCHES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND I POINTED OUT YESTERDAY THAT THE FINANCING DOESN'T INCLUDE ONLY MATCHES, THERE'S THE INITIAL BLOC GRANT. SO IF THE TERM MATCHES APPEARS, THAT IT MAY BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE TO ADD THE BLOC GRANTS FEATURE AS WELL.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. I WAS JUST GOING TO — TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE SPECIFIC CHOICE OF LANGUAGE. IS IT POSSIBLE, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY LONG SENTENCE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT DOES TRULY GIVE THE ANSWERS THAT AUTOMATICALLY COME TO MIND WHEN YOU READ THIS LANGUAGE, COULD YOU PUT — SORRY TO KEEP GETTING SO CLOSE TO THIS. THE PART ABOUT INCLUDING BLOC GRANTS. FOR CLARITY MAYBE YOU WERE SAY INCLUDING CITY BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING PUBLIC FUNDS AND LEAVE OUT A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT'S CITY BECAUSE I THINK THE IMPLICATION WHEN YOU READ IT IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS AND IT'S ALL CITY. SO EVERYBODY SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. IT'S A CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE RACE THING AND ONLY CITY PUBLIC FUNDS ARE BEING TAPPED FOR IT.

STEINER: THAT WAS WHY WE ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED THE WORD MUNICIPAL BUT THE PROPONENTS OBJECT TO THAT. THAT'S FINE. BUT I WOULD LIKE I SAY WHATEVER, WHATEVER WORKS.

GOODMAN: WELL, I'M JUST THINKING THAT A COMBINATION OF — IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADD THE EXTRA STUFF IN, THEN MAKE SURE THEY KNOW IT'S A CITY BLOC GRANT, BUT PUBLIC, TOO. SO THAT NOBODY SOMEHOW EXPECTS OTHER FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR THIS. MATCHING PUBLIC FUNDS FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. THAT DOES MAKE YOU THINK FOR ME IN TOTAL THAT SENTENCE MAKES ME THINK THAT WE IN TURN COULD GET A BLOC GRANT FROM SOMEBODY AND THEN PASS THROUGH MONEY. IT JUST MAKES ME THINK THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES BEYOND CITY COFFERS THAT ARE BEING NOTED HERE. I DON'T WANT ANY VOTER TO THINK THAT. MAYBE WE COULD PUT ALL OF THAT IN PATTERN THIS IS.

PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW — PARENTHESES.

PERHAPS, THE COUNCIL — IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO GO BACK TO MERELY SAYING A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FINANCING WITHOUT MENTIONING — WITHOUT MENTIONING SOURCES. BUT — BUT I DON'T KNOW THE SENSE OF COUNCIL ON THAT.

GOODMAN: I'M JUST — IT SEEMS VERY SIMPLE TO ME. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT WE SAW THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR CREATING A SYSTEM OF — OF PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES IN PARENTHESES INCLUDING CITY BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING PUBLIC FUNDS INCLUDING TAX REVENUE, CLOSE PARENTHESES, AND PROVIDING INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS — LET ME STOP THERE ON — ON THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND SAY UP TO THAT POINT I WAS SUGGESTING WE RIGHT THIS OTHER LANGUAGE AS EXPLANATORY, BUT UNDERSTANDABLE. IN PATTERN — AND PARENTHESES HELP THE READER TO KIND OF FOOTNOTE RATHER THAN TRYING TO READ THIS HUGELY LONG SENTENCE AND HAVE TO SORT OF HOLD A MEMORY WITHIN A MEMORY UNTIL YOU GET TO THE END OF THE SENTENCE ON THAT ONE. SO — SO GETTING TO THE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS, CAN YOU REFRESH ME ON WHAT THE SOVEREIGN POWERS BEYOND SUBPOENA ARE.

STEINER: YES, MA'AM. THEY MAY DON'T RULES AND REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE CANDIDATES AND COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION AND TO ALL CANDIDATES FOR THE SAME OFFICE THAT THEY ARE APPROACHING AND EXCEEDING THE THRESHOLD SET FORTH IN THE AMENDMENT. THEY CAN ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY CHECKOFF SYSTEM AS PARTS OF THE CITY'S UTILITY BILLING PROCESS. THEY CAN CERTIFY PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES. THEY CAN CERTIFY PUBLIC FUNDS TO BE AWARDED TO PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES. THEY CAN DETERMINE A PRO RATA METHOD OF DISBURSING PUBLIC FUNDS IN CASE OF A SHORTFALL. THEY CAN MONITOR ELECTION ACTIVITY. THEY CONDUCT AUDITS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCIAL REPORTS. SUBPOENA WITNESSES. COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS, TAKE EVIDENCE. REQUIRE BY SUBPOENA THE PRODUCTION OF ANY BOOKS, RECORDS, OR OTHER ITEMS, MATERIALS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES. PROPOSAL AND DON'T RULES AND REGULATIONS TO GOVERN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMENDMENT. THEY HAVE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THE VIOLATIONS OF THE AMENDMENT. AND MOREOVER, SHOULD THE CITY DON'T SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY REWRITE THE PROVISION TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONFORM IT TO THE — TO THE NEW CONFIGURATION.

GOODMAN: OKAY. MAYOR, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO SUGGEST A SENTENCE THAT COVERS ALL THAT. BUT CAN I MAYBE SUGGEST THAT AT ALL POLLING PLACES WE HAVE A COPY OF THE WHOLE CHARTER PROVISION LANGUAGE THERE IN LARGE PRINT, I WILL CONDUCT, FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK UP THINGS?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR — I MEAN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, WHO WAS THE ONE WHO ASKED THE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOURCES OF FUNDS, HAS ANY QUESTIONS? I WAS THINKING SINCE THAT SECTION IS SO EXTENSIVE, SO ENCOMPASSING, THAT MAYBE THAT OUGHT TO BE PUT AT THE TOP TO BEGIN WITH THAT, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE IS JUST $200. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: SEVERAL COMMENTS. ONE IS MY COMMENTS THE OTHER DAY ABOUT INCLUDING THE SOURCES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING OF COUNCIL ELECTIONS IN AUSTIN. IT'S ONLY FOR RUNOFF ELECTIONS AND THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS ARE A VERY SPECIFIC POOL OF FUNDS THAT ARE TAKEN FROM LOBBYISTS. SO THERE'S NO — SO WE HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING, BUT THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE — TO THE, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY TAXPAYER, ET CETERA. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH THAT THIS IS PUBLIC FINANCING, BUT IN FACT IT'S COMING FROM — FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXPAYERS NEED TO KNOW THAT THEIR PROPERTY TAXES GO TO THIS. THIS WAS A DISTINGUISHING POINT THAT I HAD. MAYOR PRO TEM'S SUGGESTION OF ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC SOURCES, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, FEWER WORDS THE BETTER. THAT'S PROBABLY — THAT PROBABLY COULD GO OUT. I THINK INCLUDING THE TAX REVENUE AS SHE SAID IS IMPORTANT AND WHETHER IT'S IN PARENTHESES OR NOT, I DON'T SEE A BIG ISSUE. RELATING TO THE MAYOR'S COMMENT JUST NOW, INDEPENDENT OF THE ETHICS ISSUE, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE — AT THE FIRST PIECE OF THIS AND — AND IT SEEMS TO ME THE FIRST SENTENCE IS — OR THE FIRST FEW WORDS ARE QUITE IMPORTANT. AND ALTHOUGH THIS DOES INCREASE THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, THE $200 PER DONOR, THAT'S REALLY A PRETTY SECONDARY PIECE OF THIS. THE MAIN PIECE OF THIS IS THIS TRUE ATTEMPT AT PUBLIC FINANCING USING GENERAL FUND REVENUE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT — I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IT BEGIN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THEN SKIP DOWN TO CREATING A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING, ET CETERA, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM — AT THE END OF THAT POORT THEN PUT BACK AND LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONATE.......DONOR AND — BUT THE MAYOR DID STRIKE A NERVE WITH ME PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE IDENTIFIED FIRST. ALTHOUGH ME HESITATION THERE IS I JUST — MY HESITATION IS THAT I THINK THE GENERAL PUBLIC DEBATE HAS BEEN ABOUT THE PUBLIC FINANCING. SO I THINK MOST FOLKS PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S EVEN AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MUCH LESS THAT THIS CITIZEN INITIATIVE —

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL —

WYNN: I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FINANCING SOMEHOW AS THE INITIAL FEW WORDS SO PEOPLE CAN —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY — LET ME MENTION WHY I THINK THAT THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT. I WAS SOLICITED TO SIGN THE PETITION MANY TIMES AND IN EVERY INSTANCE THE QUESTION WAS WILL YOU SUPPORT RAISING THE LIMITS FROM 100 TO $200. NEVER WAS ANY MENTION MADE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS GRANTING POWERS TO A BOARD THAT WE APPOINT AND THEY HAVE SUPERVISION OVER WHAT WE DO AS ELECTED OFFICIALS. THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS. THAT CONCERNS ME, THAT REALLY — REALLY IT'S VERY EXTENSIVE AS THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST READ.

WYNN: FRANKLY IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS I THINK THIS IS THE MOST — THE MOST DRAMATIC CHANGE TO THE WAY WE GOVERN OURSELVES. I DON'T DOUBT THAT AT ALL. I JUST THINK THAT MOST FOLKS — I MEAN, PEOPLE WOULD START TO GLANCE AT THIS ON THE BALLOT, THEY WOULD THINK THIS IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, I DIDN'T REALIZE WE WERE AMENDING THAT PIECE OF THE CHARTER. SO I'M HESITANT TO BEGIN THIS BALLOT LANGUAGE WITH ETHIC REVIEW — I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH YOU IT ACTUALLY IS FRANKLY THE MORE TROUBLING THING IN THE SENSE OF CHANGING HOW WE GOVERN OURSELVES. BUT — BUT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD START OUT WITH THE PUBLIC FUNDING PIECE OF THIS SENTENCE AND ACTUALLY EVEN MOVE DOWN THE PART ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS BEING RAISED AT $200 BECAUSE THAT'S A SECONDARY ISSUE OF THE OVERALL PUBLIC FINANCING PIECE. BUT I'M — I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. WELL, WE CAN BEGIN BY PUTTING A — A MOTION ON THE TABLE. TO LOOK — TO LOOK AT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE OF CREATING A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC — A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT — THAT MATCHES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. SO — OR CREATES A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING. YOU KNOW, WE CAN PUT THAT FIRST. AND, YOU KNOW, THEN DO THIS $200 AND THEN DO THE ONE ON INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS. I INTEND TO TAKE THAT TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE EVERYWHERE WHERE I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, NOBODY KNOWS THAT THE — THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE POWERS OVER ELECTED OFFICIALS. PEOPLE THAT WE APPOINT ARE GOING TO HAVE POWERS OVER US. NOBODY KNOWS THAT BECAUSE NOBODY WAS TOLD THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE COLLECTING SIGNATURES. SO —

WYNN: TO MOVE ALONG, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THEN THAT THE — THAT WORKING OFF OF ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE BE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, SKIPPING DOWN, CREATING A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES, IN PARENTHESES, INCLUDING BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH INCLUDING — WHICH INCLUDES TAX REVENUE, AROUND LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — AND LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR; AND PROVIDING INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER.

MAYOR GARCIA: AFTER MATCHING FUNDS YOU SAID WHICH INCLUDES?

WYNN: MATCHING FUNDS, INCLUDING TAX REVENUE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN YOU CLOSED THE PARENTHESES AT THAT POINT AND PUT A SEMI COLON.

WYNN: THEN BACK UP TO LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR, PICKING UP THAT DESCRIPTIVE PIECE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: SEMI COLON, THEN THE PHRASE ABOUT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO ASK SOMEBODY TO TYPE IT UP. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

SLUSHER: I WILL —

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: GO AHEAD, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

SLUSHER: DID I HEAR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GETTING THAT TYPED UP SO WE CAN HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WAS GOING TO ASK MS. GLASGO, ARE ALL OF THE ZONING CASES CONSENT MS. GLASGO?

[INAUDIBLE].

WHILE THAT IS BEING TYPED IF WE CAN GO TO THE ZONING CASES AND DISPOSE OF THEM, WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS, ITEM 15 IS — IS RECESSED FOR A MINUTE. GOOD AFTERNOON, OUR ZONING CASES ARE AS FOLLOWS, ITEM NO. Z-1, LOCATED ON NORTH INTERSTATE IH-35, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM INTERIM, IP, INDUSTRIAL PARK, FOR TRACT 1, MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT ORLANDO SALINAS.

PART OF THE PARTIALER CENTER REZONING, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED I.P., INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO C.S. GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THE ZONING AND PLATTINGS RECOMMENDS C.S.-C.O. WITH OTHER CONDITIONS, THIS CASE IS READY ON FIRST READING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. Z-3, C14R-84 —

MAYOR GARCIA: EXCUSE ME, Z2 CONCEPT FOR WHAT?

FIRST READING.

BASED ON THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

Z-3, C14R-84-516. A CASE THAT IS LOCATED AT 12,701 THROUGH 12725 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 NORTH. THE OLYMPIC IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM C.S. ZONING TO C.S. IN ORDER TO DELETE A ZONING SITE PLAN. THE REQUEST IS TO SIMPLY DELETE THE ZONING SITE PLAN AND THE ZONING WILL REMAIN THE SAME, THAT'S COVERED UNDER THE PREVIOUS TWO CASES. READY FOR FIRST READING. ITEM NO. Z-4, C14R-84-517 LOCATED ON INTERSTATE 35 NORTH. CHANGE TO C.S.C.O. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING TO DELETE ZONING SITE PLAN JUST KEEPING THE EXISTING ZONING. THE CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING. AS RECOMMENDED BY ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. ITEM NO. Z-5 CASE C14-02-2 LOCATED AT 9319 ANDERSON MILL ROAD, ZONED INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, SEEKING A CHANGE TO G.R. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SERVICE WAS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND OTHER CONDITIONS. THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. THAT CONCLUDES THE ZONING CONSENT ITEM. Z-5 IS FIRST READING?

GLASGO: FIRSTRYING,. — FIRST READING, ALSO.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON Z-5. HE WROTE FOR THE ITEM AS AGREED WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL ON THE ZONING G.R., WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ONLY L.R. USES AND EXCLUDE THE NINE ITEMS LISTED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS MS. GLASGO?

GLASGO: I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE ZONING AS RECOMMENDED.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. FINDLEY DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK?

THAT COVERS IT IF THERE'S NOT ANY OPPOSITION TO IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCIL ALL ITEMS ARE CONSENT ITEMS, Z-1 THROUGH Z-5 FOR FIRST READING. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEMS.

GOODMAN: SO MOVE.

WYNN: SECOND.

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

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO ZERO. WE NEED ON TO HAVE MORE DAYS LIKE THIS, MS. GLASGO.

WE WILL TRY OUR BEST.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE ARE BACK TO YOU, MR. STEINER.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE —

SLUSHER: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS UNLESS MR. STEINER WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR HIM. I WILL GET HIM TALKING AGAIN. I WANTED TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. FIRST OF ALL DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS ON THE PETITION ITSELF?

STEINER: YES, SIR, IT SAYS YOU ARE HERE BY REQUESTED TO PLACE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY, AUSTIN CITY CHARTER, SECTION 3 (ELECTIONS) ON THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN: A CITY OF AUSTIN CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT, WHICH WOULD RAISE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 AND ALLOW QUALIFYING PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES TO RECEIVE 2 TO 1 MATCHING FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS IF THEY AGREE TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS OF $100,000 PER ELECTION, BOTH GENERAL AN RUNOFF, FOR COUNCIL AND $200,000 PER ELECTION FOR MAYOR. THE CITY FUND WOULD BE APPROPRIATED AND CAPPED AT .25% OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET PERIOD.

SLUSHER: SO THEY DID TRY TO SUMMARIZE, IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOESN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION.

NO, SIR.

SLUSHER: ALSO DIFFERENT THAN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE SO THE — WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO JUST TAKE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ON THE PETITION, AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. WE ARE INSTEAD BEING ASKED — THERE'S A SUGGESTION FROM THE GROUP THAT CIRCULATE A PETITION FOR BALLOT LANGUAGE, WHICH IS NOT IDENTICAL, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PETITION LANGUAGE.

STEINER: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: THE POWER TO SET THE BALLOT LANGUAGE LIES WITH THE COUNCIL.

STEINER: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WOULD YOU GO — LET ME TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE — THESE POWERS THAT THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN. DETERMINED BY THE PREPONDERANCE WHETHER A CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE WAS MADE. I GUESS THAT'S — THAT'S FAIRLY SELF EXPLANATORY, SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE SOME KIND OF VIOLATION WAS CHARGED. DOPPLER RULES AND REGULATIONS, PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION INTO ALL CANDIDATES FOR THE SAME ... SET FORTH IN THE AMENDMENT. THAT WOULD BE — THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE ENOUGH TO — TO NOTIFY THE CANDIDATES IF THEY WERE HITTING THE LIMITS. ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY CHECKOFF SYSTEM AS PART OF THE UTILITY'S BILLING PROCESS. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WHAT — THAT MONEY IS GOING INTO THE MONEY FOR THE PUBLIC FUNDING, BUT SO THAT WOULD THEN CUT DOWN ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX MONEY GOING INTO IT DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY PUT INTO IT; IS THAT WHAT IS DETERMINED? I MEAN INTENDED THERE? OR IS THAT THE — WHAT THE RESULT OF IT IS?

STEINER: PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE — THE CERTAIN COAST OF COURSE ASSOCIATED TO A — COST ASSOCIATED TO A CHECKOFF SYSTEM WITH THE — WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BILLING. IN OTHER WORDS YOU NEED TO RECEIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT BEFORE YOU GET A BREAK EVEN POINT ON A CHECKOFF BECAUSE THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING CHECKOFF. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE LOGISTICS OF THAT TO TELL YOU WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS. USE THOSE FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OFFSET THE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE DEVOTED TO IT. IT DOES GIVE THE COMMISSION SUBPOENA POWERS AND ALLOWS THEM TO — TO HAVE PENALTIES TO ASSESS PENALTIES, CORRECT, FOR — FOR THE — FOR ANY VIOLATIONS?

STEINER: THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. IT SAYS —

THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY —

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE COMMISSION CAN REMOVE SOMEBODY FROM OFFICE.

THAT'S — THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE TO BE A MATTER OF DISPUTE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. UNDER PENALTIES, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SAYS ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ACT IS AN OFFENSE, ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY REPRIMAND OR CENSURE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2 348 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OR BY A CIVIL PENALTY UP TO THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE VIOLATION OR THE MAXIMUM MUNICIPAL FINE PER VIOLATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS. ANY KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THIS ACT BY AN INCUMBENT OFFICER HOLDER OR OFFICER HOLDER ELECT IN ADDITION TO THE PENALTIES DESCRIBED ABOVE, MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY FORFEITTURE OF THE OFFICE BY THE PERSON SO VIOLATING IT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. THOSE ARE THE WORDS, I HAVE READ THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: MR. LEWIS STILL HERE? HE LEFT. I WAS GOING TO LET HIM RESPOND TO THAT, TOO. OKAY. I GUESS I WILL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. DO WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE YET? I HAVE DISTRIBUTED TWO VERSIONS. ONE THAT I THINK REFLECTS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S LANGUAGE THAT HE READ ALOUD AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS VIRTUALLY THE SAME, ONLY IT INCLUDES THE CITY BEFORE THE WORD BLOC GRANTS. TO REFLECT MAYOR PRO TEM'S DESIRES.

SLUSHER: CITY ATTORNEY, WHILE I HAVE GOT THE FLOOR, I JUST WANTED TO ASK I GUESS AN EDITING LANGUAGE QUESTION. THESE ARE ALL WORDED CHARTER AMENDMENT CREATING OR CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WAS WONDERING WHY SHOULD — COULD IT READ, WOULD THERE BE ANY PROBLEM IF IT READ SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO AND THEN HAVE WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES BECAUSE THAT — THAT SEEMS TO SHOW MORE OF AN — IT'S MORE OF AN ACTION WAY OF — OF PHRASING, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING, GOING TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER IF THAT PASSES. I — YOU ANSWER YES OR NO. I SEEM TO RECALL BALLOT LANGUAGE LIKE THAT IN THE PAST. I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S SOME LEGAL ROPE WHY IT HAS TO BE LIKE THIS.

STEINER: NO. I HAD TO COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS AND I — I WAS USING THE MODEL THAT THE STATE USES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THEY USE THE MODEL OF FOR AND AGAINST TO THE LEFT, WITH A — A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT DOES SUCH AND SUCH. I USED THE SAME MODEL. WE COULD ALSO USE YES AND NO TO THE LEFT AND THEN SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO.

SLUSHER: I WOULD PREFER THAT.

STEINER: FOR ALL OF THEM.

SLUSHER: YES, THE COUNCIL DOESN'T OBJECT OR WANTED TO ACCEPT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAY THAT AGAIN.

SLUSHER: THEY WOULD BEGIN SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE RECOMMENDED TO ... AND THEN FINISH THAT WITH WHAT — WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO DO. THEN THE VOTERS WOULD ANSWER YES OR NO. THAT JUST SEEMS TO — MORE CLEARLY PRESENT THAT IT'S A YES OR NO CHOICE. I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS WORRIED ON ONE OF THEM YESTERDAY THAT — THAT PEOPLE MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND WHETHER IT'S YES OR NO OR COULD BE SOME FOLKS WOULD BE CONFUSED, I'M JUST ALONG THOSE LINES TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR WHAT THE CHOICE IS. I THINK I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD HELP DO THAT.

STEINER: I CAN DO THAT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE PERHAPS, THE COUNCIL, WE COULD GO THROUGH EACH OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS THEN AND MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE GOT IT THE WAY YOU LIKE IT TO BE. BECAUSE I HAD PREPARED THEM FOR FOR AND AGAINST, I CAN JUST AS EASILY PREPARE THEM FOR YES AND NO.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.

STEINER: BUT WE NEED TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE IT THE WAY YOU LIKE IT.

SLUSHER: WE WILL DO THAT AS WE GO THROUGH EVERY ONE. 7.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU HAVE BEEN HANDED THE TYPED, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE BY — PROPOSED BY CHIP AND MAYOR PRO TEM AND MAYOR PRO TEM — PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND MAYOR PRO TEM. MAYOR PRO TEM? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN DO YOU WANT TO READ YOURS? DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

WYNN: THEY ARE SO SIMILAR, I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S IS MORE INCLUSIVE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO WORK OFF THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S, IT'S A BETTER STARTING POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S PROPOSAL AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HOW DID YOU SAY YOU WANTED SHALL THE CHARTER BE.

SLUSHER: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO, THEN IN THIS INSTANCE IT WOULD SAY TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF — AND THEN ON FROM THERE.

STEINER: CREATING WOULD BECOME CREATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED —

STEINER: TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES, INCLUDING CITY BLOC GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES, LIMITING — LIMIT — TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR; AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I LIKE THAT. MY ONLY COMMENT IS THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S SUGGESTION OF HAVING CITY BLOC GRANT IDENTIFIED I THINK THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE WE JUST GENERAL TALK ABOUT BLOC GRANTS, INEVITABLY THEY ARE FEDERAL BLOC GRANTS. IT SEEMS IF WE SAY CITY BLOC GRANTS WE SHOULD ALSO SAY CITY MATCHING FUNDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS.

WYNN: IT IMPLIES MAYBE IT'S OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES THAN THE CITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THIS IS THE WAY MAYOR PRO TEM IT WILL READ SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES (INCLUDING CITY BLOC GRANTS AND CITY PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES; TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR; AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER. THAT'S THE MOTION THAT — THAT'S THE — THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DEVELOPED HERE WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN GONE AND — AND I GUESS — I GUESS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THAT INTO A MOTION?

WYNN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, IS THERE A SECOND?

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND, MAYOR. ALTHOUGH I THINK MAYBE WE PUT CITY IN ONE TOO MANY TIMES STILL.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT?

GOODMAN: I THINK MAYBE WE HAVE CITY IN ONE TIME MORE THAN WE NEED TO. BUT I WILL —

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY BLOC GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. I THINK, YEAH — WE CAN — IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO DO THE COMPROMISE, I THINK WE CAN —

GOODMAN: IF IT SAYS CITY BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES, I THINK IT'S — IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S CITY ALL THE WAY THAT WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT CITY AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CITY MATCHING FUNDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY BLOC GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS?

GOODMAN: NO, JUST CITY BLOC GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUE. TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR AND TO PROVIDE — AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER. OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: WELL, MAYOR, THE — THE FIRST LINE HAS THE WORD OF IN IT THREE TIMES. SO I WANT TO WORK ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CREATE A SYSTEM — NO, CREATE A THEN MOVE PUBLIC FUNDING THERE — A PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM. THEN CHANGE THAT NEXT OF TO FOR CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES. SO IT WOULD READ: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CREATE A PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM FOR CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES, I DO.

SLUSHER: LET ME TOSS A FEW THINGS OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN?

GOODMAN: YEAH.

SLUSHER: LET ME TOSS A FEW THINGS OUT FOR DISCUSSION. ONE, I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS THE ONE THAT MENTIONED THIS EARLIER. WE ALREADY HAVE A PUBLIC FINANCE — PUBLIC FINANCING OR PUBLIC FUNNING OF CAMPAIGNS — PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS, LIMITED TO RUNOFFS AND PEOPLE WHO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN SPENDING LIMITS. BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE ARE ACCURATE IN SAYING CREATE INSTEAD THIS WOULD BE EXPANDING THE PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. IF FOLKS AGREE THAT'S —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE SAYING SHALL BE AMENDED TO EXPAND THE —

SLUSHER: PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM FOR CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER OF THE SECOND.

SLUSHER: THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SEEMS TO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. I THINK THAT MIGHT IMPLY THAT THIS IS TAKING OUR CURRENT SYSTEM AND MAKING IT BIGGER. I THINK IT'S — IT'S — IT'S REPLACING THE CURRENT SYSTEM. SO I — I WOULD — I WOULD — I WOULD CAUTION —

SLUSHER: REPLACE — SO YOU COULD — IF YOU ARE GOING TO REPLACE IT, THEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE IT. SO WE ARE CREATING THIS, REPLACING THE OTHER ONE.

STEINER: I THINK SO. I THINK IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE — THE EXISTING SYSTEM I THINK WOULD BE SO — SO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SCHEME AND THIS PARTICULAR SCHEME BEING IN THE CHARTER, I THINK MY VIEW WOULD BE THAT THIS SUPERSEDES IT. RATHER THAN EXPANDS ON IT.

SLUSHER: I THREW THAT OUT FOR DISCUSSION. THEN WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID BEFORE, THAT YOU DO PRESUME THAT THE VOTERS HAVE — HAVE STUDIED THIS BEYOND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND HOPEFULLY I THINK THERE WILL PROBABLY BE FAIRLY EXTENSIVE REPORTING ON THIS, I WOULD HOPE SO. SO — SO I WOULD YIELD ON THAT ONE. BUT I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT WE DO ALREADY HAVE THE PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM. AND WOULD WE WANT TO PUT — LET ME ASK ANOTHER ONE. I'M — I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS ONE, EITHER. BUT JUST FOR DISCUSSION. THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION'S COUNCIL APPOINTED AND SAY INDEPENDENT POWERS THAT THE COUNCIL APPOINT AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WANT TO INSERT COUNCIL APPOINTED?

SLUSHER: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT FOLKS THINK ABOUT THAT. I THINK MOST PEOPLE AS MAYOR PRO TEM SAID MOST FOLKS DON'T REALIZE THAT'S THE — THAT'S THE CASE. AND — AND SO — DON'T REALIZE WHAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS. AND WHAT IT DOES.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S CLARIFICATION. SO IT WOULD READ: AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED — ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWERS. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: WELL, FRANKLY BEFORE I ANSWER THAT, I WANT TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.

SLUSHER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT, TOO.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WELL, I'LL JUST AGREE THAT WHEN — IF I HADN'T BEEN IN ON THE CONVERSATION, IF I READ THIS, I PROBABLY WOULD ASSUME A STATE ETHICS COMMISSION BECAUSE I WOULDN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD SEND SOMETHING TO THE COUNCIL-APPOINTED COMMISSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. PEOPLE DON'T COME INTO CONTACT WITH WHAT WE DO HERE AND HOW — [ INAUDIBLE ] COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? IT'S YOUR TIME TO DISCUSS.

GRIFFITH: I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT I HEAR ABOUT, A, GETTING TOO LONG, AND B, BEING AS CLEAR AND COMPACT AS WE CAN. AND THE THREE ELEMENTS SEEM TO BE THE ETHICS COMMISSION PIECE, THE 200 DOLLAR PIECE AND THE OTHER ONE, WHICH IS HOW CAN WE — IN A SHORT WAY SAY WHERE THE MONEY'S COMING FROM. SO I HOPE WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THAT WITHOUT BEING REDUNDANT. THERE'S — IN TERMS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH CONFUSION IN TERMS OF THE STATE. I WOULD HOPE NOT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S PROBABLY MORE CORRESPONDENCE THAT GOES TO CITIZENS FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION TODAY THAN FROM OUR ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

GRIFFITH: SO WEEY COULD SUPPORT IT TODAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, WITH SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS IN MIND, LET ME JUST CHANGE IT TO CITY BECAUSE I THINK IT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED — LET ME JUST CHANGE IT TO CITY. I THINK THAT DOES THE JOB WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE COUNCIL POINT BECAUSE PEOPLE COULD INTERPRET THAT AND THAT WE'RE DOING THAT THAT WRONGLY, I THINK, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE CITY ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. I HAVE ONE MORE I WANT TO ASK, BUT I'LL WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT ONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF WE CAN THE DISCUSSION. IF EVERYBODY OKAY WITH CITY ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION? COUNCILMEMBER?

GRIFFITH: EXCUSE ME. DOES THAT DO THE JOB IN TERMS OF CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN THE STATE? WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY ETHICS COMMISSION, JUST SAY THE CITY ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WITHOUT SAYING ANY MORE?

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT. BEFORE I ASK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IF THIS IS FRIENDLY, ARE YOU READY TO SAY IT'S FRIENDLY.

WYNN: I DO ASSERT IT'S FRIENDLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER — MAYOR PRO TEM IS THIS FRIENDLY? FRIENDLY TO THE MAKER AND THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON THE — IN THE PAREN THESES, OR AS MAYOR WATSON WOULD SAY, PAREN, I KNOW THAT WAS ALWAYS A PAIFERT OF YOURS, MAYOR — A FAVORITE OF YOURS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVEN'T USED THAT. MAYBE I OUGHT TO SAY THAT, PAREN THIS, PAREN THAT.

SLUSHER: AND UNPAREN. SO WITHIN THE PAREN, WHERE IT SAYS AFTER THE FIRST COMMA, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES, OKAY, DOES IT MEAN — I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. STEINER. IT MAY INCLUDE. WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE FUNDED WITHOUT TAX REVENUES? FOR IT TO BE CITY PUBLIC FINANCING, BUT NOT TO INCLUDE TAX REVENUES?

STEINER: WELL, PRESUMEBLY IF THE COUNCIL COULD FIND SOURCES OF REVENUES OTHER THAN TAX TO OFFICIALLY FUND IT, YOU COULD CHOOSE THOSE SOURCES.

SLUSHER: SO THAT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON THE BLOCK GRANTS. THE BLOCK GRANTS COULD COME FROM WHAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE MAKE THE BLOCK GRANTS TO THE CANDIDATES. WE DON'T GET THE BLOCK GRANTS.

THE BLOCK GRANTS ARE NOT A SOURCE OF REVENUE.

SLUSHER: THE SOURCE OF REVENUE IS THE CANDIDATES BECAUSE THEY COME UP AND THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, THEY GET A BLOCK GRANT FROM THE CITY.

WHEN THE AND DAT MEETS THE THRESHOLD TO QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC FINANCING, IF IT'S A COUNCIL CANDIDATE, THEY GET $16,666 UP FRONT. IF IT'S A MAYORIAL CANDIDATE THEY GET —

MAYOR GARCIA: 33, 333.

I CAN'T SAY THAT WITHOUT SPITTING. UP FRONT. AND IF THE — AND THEN THEY GET A TWO TO ONE MATCH FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TOWP A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER KINDS OF MATCHES THAT THEY CAN QUALIFY AS WELL FOR. SO THERE'S THREE KINDS OF MATCHING FUNDS, PLUS A GRANT THAT THEY GET. SO THE BLOCK GRANT IS NOT MONEY THAT THE CITY GETS TO PAY THIS, THE BLOCK GRANT IS MONEY THAT'S PAID TO A QUALIFYING CANDIDATE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: ACTUALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE WORD INCLUDE MAY NOT BE THE ONE, MAY NOT — MAY CONFUSE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY BLOCK GRANTS MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUE.

RIGHT. I GUESS YOU COULD SAY —

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT AN IDEA. IT SEEMS THAT IT MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES — I DON'TTO GET TROOEU TO GET THE INFORMATION ON ALL THE MAIN POINTS IN HERE WITHOUT TRYING TO JUDGE. I THINK MR. LEWIS, ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS HE'S SAID, BUT I WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE PROCESS THAT CITIZENS DID SIGN THIS. I THINK THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO BE PUBLIC FINANCING. I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO BE TAX MONEY OF SOME SORT — SOME SORT OF PUBLIC MONEY. WHAT ABOUT IF WE SAID IN THE PAREN THESES — AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS JUST BY PUTTING TAX REVENUE IN HERE, IT MAY LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DAMAGE THE INITIATIVE AND HURT IT BY HAVING THE WORD TAX IN THERE. WHAT IF WE INSTEAD PUT INCLUDING CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE CITY? END PAREN. THE CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. THE CITY ONLY REFERS TO BLOCK GRANTS. YOU MIGHT TAKE THE — TO ME CITY IN THAT SENTENCE REFERS TO BLOCK GRANTS AND THEN PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS IS NOT CLEAR IT'S FROM THE CITY, BUT THEN YOU HAVE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUE.

WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT AND WE SAID THEYERE GOING TO DO CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND CITY PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS AND WE SAID NO, WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY CITY TWICE.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, IF I — I READ THAT DIFFERENTLY OR DON'T THINK THAT'S CLEAR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THE SENTENCE, IF YOU LEAVE IN THE AND, THEN IT GETS CONFUSING. WHAT WE DID WAS SUGGEST THAT THERE BE NO AND SO THAT IT SAID CITY BLOCK GRANTS, MATCHING FUNDS.

SLUSHER: DON'T YOU NEED A THIRD THING IF YOU MAKE A COMMA?

GOODMAN: WELL, YEAH, I HADN'T GOTTEN TO TAX REVENUE YET. THAT WAS THE THIRD.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY. YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE. I'M SORRY. HOW WOULD IT READ THEN?

GOODMAN: THE TYPEWRITTEN ONE SAYS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUE. I THINK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING, WE JUST SAID INCLUDING TAX REVENUE OR I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT IT WAS THE COMMA SO THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY CITY BLOCK GRANTS, CITY MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES. BUT ALL — I'LL DEFER TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. HE HAS A BETTER RECOLLECTION.

SLUSHER: WHAT I THINK IS I CAN THINK WHAT IT IS NOW THAT YOU'VE EXPLAINED THAT IS WHEN IT SAYS CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS, THEN YOU HAVE — IT LOOKS LIKE BLOCK GRANTS COME FROM THE CITY AND MATCHING FUNDS COME FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CITY. THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE PAREN IS IN THE WRONG PAREN PLACE.

AND BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DYING TO GET INTO THIS DEBATE, OUR FORMER CFO AND NOW ACTING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HAS AN IDEA.

I JUST CAN'T STAY OUT OF IT. JUST A SUGGESTION THAT YOU MIGHT SAY PUBLIC — BLOCK GRANTS — CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND REVENUES.

SLUSHER: SO THAT TAKES OUT — WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE THE WORD PUBLIC IN THERE BECAUSE THE LEADING PROPONENT OR ONE OF THE LEADING PROPONENTS THAT'S BEEN DOWN HERE —

YOU COULD LEAVE THAT WORD BACK IN THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FROM GENERAL FUND SOURCES.

SLUSHER: WELL, MR. STEINER, IF WE DETERMINE THAT THE ORDINANCE, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, IS THAT CLEAR IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE?

HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS. THIS SAYS IT IS HERE BY ESTABLISHED AN ACCOUNT WITHIN A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO BE KNOWN AS THE, QUOTE, FAIR ELECTION FUND, END QUOTE. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPROPRIATE TO THE FAIR ELECTION FUND AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO FUND ALL CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE OF MAYOR OR THE CITY COUNCIL ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC FINANCING FROM THE FUNDS. THE COUNCIL SHALL IMMEDIATELY APPROPRIATE SUCH FUNDS UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT AND SHALL THEREAFTER APPROPRIATE SUCH FUNDS FOR EACH FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR.

SLUSHER: SO IT — ISN'T IT IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT IT SHOULDN'T EXCEED A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE?

YES, SIR. IT SAYS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS IN THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTION FUND AT ANY ONE TIME, HOWEVER, SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.25% OF THE CITY'S ANNUAL BUDGET.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND STIMPL, IF I ASK YOU — CITY MANAGER, IF I ASK YOU WHAT THE CITY'S ANNUAL BUDGET, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET OR THE OVERALL CITY BUDGET?

IN LIGHT OF THAT PHRASE, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU GENERAL FUND BUDGET. THERE'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE OF A QUARTER PERCENT OF 1.8 BILLION.

SLUSHER: IF I ASKED YOU NOT IN RELATION TO THAT PHRASE RIGHT THIS THERE, BUT SOMEBODY WALKED UP ON THE STREET AND SAID WHAT IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BUDGET, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?

I HAVE MY FINANCIAL PERSON FROWNING AT YOU, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU 1.8 SLUSH HER: AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD SAY, MR. STEVENS?

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.

SLUSHER: THEN WE CAN'T BE SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE INTENT OF THE PETITIONERS.

WYNN: IF I CAN, MY THOUGHT ON THAT, COUNCILMEMBER, IS THAT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FACT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING OF RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR CERTAIN CANDIDATES. IF PUBLIC FINANCING, THE CITY OF AUSTIN RELEASES THE FUNDS TO THEM BUT IT'S FROM A FUND OF LOBBY FEES AND APPLICATION FEES FOR OFFICE OR WHATEVER, THERE'S NO — IN MY OPINION I THINK OF IT AS THERE'S NO EXPOSURE TO THE TAXPAYER, NO EXPOSURE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZENS FOR THAT ACCOUNT. THIS IN MY OPINION CREATES EXPOSURE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. THAT IS, SOMEWHERE WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE PROPOSITIONS EACH YEAR FOR THIS ACCOUNT, INCLUDING EACH EAR AFTER THE ELECTION WE HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY FUND — I PRESUME MAY OF 2003 WE HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY FUND AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

MAY OF 2002.

WYNN: THAT'S RIGHT, MAY OF 2002. SO SIX WEEKS FROM NOW WE HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY FUND FUND SUFFICIENT TO RUN THIS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IN THEORY, I GUESS THIS COUNCIL COULD ACT TO TAKE MONEY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AND DO THAT. WE COULD TAKE FUNDS FROM OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY TO DO THAT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO DISTINGUISH IN MY LANGUAGE, MAYBE TAX REVENUE ISN'T THE RIGHT — MAYBE GENERAL FUND ISN'T BROAD ENOUGH EITHER. AT SOME POINT THIS COUNCIL IN SIX WEEKS' TIME PERHAPS HAS TO COME UP WITH — PICK A NUMBER, BUT IT'S PROBABLY SEVEN FIGURES TO PUT IN THIS ACCOUNT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT IS ONE QUARTER OF WHAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL BUDGET IS.

WYNN: RIGHT, BUT ONLY ONE MILLION FROM THE GIT-GO. SOME PETITION TO START THIS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHERE WOULD WE FIND SEVEN FIGURES IN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS? MAYBE MR. STEVENS CAN BETTER EXPLAIN THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE GO BORROW MONEY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY OR WE —

I'LL TELL YOU THIS, IF IT'S THE 1.8 BILLION, THEN IT'S NOT JUST TAX REVENUE, IT'S RATE REVENUE ALSO.

I BELIEVE THE REFERENCE TO THE BUDGET, WHICH THEN SETS THE FOUR AND A HALF MILLION THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS TALKING ABOUT OR THAT THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT SETS THE CAP ON HOW MUCH WOULD BE APPROPRIATED, BUT IT DOESN'T STIPULATE WHAT THE SOURCE OF THAT APPROPRIATION WOULD BE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS SAYING.

THE ONE QUARTER OF AUSTIN PERCENT CAP IS JUST AN AMOUNT CAP. THE — NOWHERE IN THE PROPOSAL DOES IT LIMIT WHAT SOURCES ARE TO BE USED FOR THAT.

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT ANOTHER IDEA. I'M GOING TO TRY TO PULL OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. I'VE DONE A LOT OF EDITING ALLEADY, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO HONOR MR. LEWIS' REQUEST THAT WE HAVE THE PHRASE PUBLIC FUNDING IN THERE, CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

WYNN: STILL IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.

SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I SAY. IT'S IN THE FIRST SENTENCE. SO WE COULD TAKE PUBLIC OUT OF THE PAREN, INCLUDING CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS. THAT SOLVES MY CONCERN ABOUT THE SECOND ONE NOT BEING CLEAR THAT THAT'S COMING FROM CITY FUNDS. AND THEN I WOULD JUST LEAVE IT TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WHETHER HE WANTS TO INCLUDE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES IN THERE. BUT IF WE COULD JUST STRIKE PUBLIC THERE, IT WOULD — IT HONORS MR. LEWIS' REQUEST TO HAVE PUBLIC FUNDING IN THE — MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS PUBLIC FUNDING AND IT MAKES IT CLEAR TO THE VOTERS THAT THE PUBLIC FUNDING IS CITY MONEY.

WYNN: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT, STRIKING THE WORD PUBLIC. I DO FEEL STRONGLY THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE IS MORE POTENTIAL REVENUE THAN TAX REVENUE, WHICH IS WHY WE SAY MAY INCLUDE, BUT I JUST THINK THAT — BECAUSE TAX ALSO IS SALES TAX, AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, SO IT'S — IT BEGINS TO DESCRIBE THAT THERE IS — THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON WHICH POOL OF TAX REVENUE PERHAPS MAYBE HAVE TO BE USED FOR THIS.

SLUSHER: IT'S DEFINITELY A TRUE STATEMENT.

WYNN: RIGHT. AND IF I WAS TRYING TO WRITE LANGUAGE TO SCARE MORE PEOPLE, I WOULD SAY INCLUDING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAX, AUSTIN ENERGY REVENUE, WASTEWATER FEES, OUR TRANSPORTATION USER FEE, OUR GREEN FREEZE FROM OUR GOLF COURSES. I WOULD LIST ALL OF THOSE, BUT I'M NOT. BY SAYING TAX REVENUE, IT JUST IMPLIES THAT THERE'S SEVERAL POOLS OF FUND THAT ARE GOING TO BE DELVETD FOR THIS.

SLUSHER: I'M CHECKING OUT OF EDITING.

GOODMAN: WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE POSSIBLE EDITING CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE, WHICH IS WHEN I READ IT, HAVING NOT LOOKED AT IT FOR A FEW MINUTE, I WONDER IF THE FIRST WORD INCLUDING IN THE PAR THEN THESIS REALLY SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING LIKE THROUGH OR FROM.

WYNN: WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, PUBLIC FUNDING AND THEN THE QUESTION IS FROM — PUBLIC FUNDING FROM, PUBLIC FUNDING THROUGH, PUBLIC FUNDING —

GOODMAN: THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF SOURCES OF WHAT YOU'RE LISTING.

WYNN: PERHAPS FROM IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU HAVE ANY GRAMMARIANS IN THE AUDIENCE.

THROUGH WORKS NICELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW WOULD IT READ THEN.

LET ME SEE. I ALSO GET CHECKED TO SEE IF I'VE KEPT UP WITH THE CHANGES. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CREATE A PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM FOR CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES THROUGH CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES, TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION —

MAYOR GARCIA: TO THE CITY.

TO THE CITY'S ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER.

AND WE WERE ABOUT TO GET A CONGRATULATIONS AND YOU DROPPED ONE WORD, JOHN.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER TO BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: I DO ACCEPT — I THINK THROUGH IS A MORE GRAMMATICAL WAY TO SAY THAT. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER NOW HAS JUST MADE A SUGGESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO BLOCK HIM FROM THAT. [ LAUGHTER ]

WYNN: THAT WE'VE BEEN USING THE TERM PUBLIC FUNDING, AND HE DOES POINT OUT, AND IT STRUCK ME, THAT WE HAVE BEEN — IN GENERAL TERMS I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD CHARACTERIZE THE DEBATE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS AS BEING PUBLIC FINANCING. AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER — IN FACT, I THOUGHT WHAT MR. STEINER JUST READ IS WHERE WE ARE, BUT NOW I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER SHOULD IT BE PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM OR PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM? I SUSPECT THAT FINANCING IS USED MORE OFTEN IN THE ACT ITSELF.

THE ACT ITSELF SAYS THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN DECLARE OUR INTENT TO CREATE A FAIR ELECTION SYSTEM OF FINANCING CAMPAIGNS, SO IT'S THAT WORD — THAT WORD DOES HAVE SUPPORT IN THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF.

WYNN: REMIND ME THE TEXT OF THE PETITION.

THE TEXT OF THE PETITION SAYS, YOU ARE HERE BY REQUESTED TO PLACE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER, SECTION 3 ELECTION ON THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. A CITY OF AUSTIN CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT, WHICH WOULD RAISE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO $200 AND ALLOW QUALIFYING PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES TO RECEIVE TWO TO ONE MATCHING FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS IF THEY AGREE TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS OF $100,000 PER ELECTION, BOTH GENERAL AND RUNOFF FOR COUNCIL, AND $200,000 FOR ELECTION FOR MAYOR. THE CITY FUNDS WOULD BE APPROPRIATED AND CAPPED AT .25% OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

WYNN: IN THE ACTUAL PETITION THEY USE THE TERM FUND. I CERTAINLY WANT TO DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUES, BUT MY INSTINCT IS PUBLIC FINANCING IS GENERALLY WHAT PEOPLE CALL THIS.

GOODMAN: ISN'T THAT WHAT'S REFERRED TO ON YOUR INCOME TAX FORM? THAT'S HOW I THINK OF IT AND I MUST READ THAT ONCE A YEAR. SO I THINK MAYBE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE —

WYNN: I'M SORRY. JUST THE FACT THAT GENERICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, NOT CAMPAIGN FUNDING REFORM.

SO YOU WANT FINANCING?

WYNN: THANK YOU.

SHOULD I READ IT ONE MORE TIME?

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE MORE TIME, JOHN. DON'T FORGET THE WORD CITY.

I WON'T.

SLUSHER: NOW THE PRESSURE'S ON.

SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CREATE A PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM FOR CAMPAIGNS OF CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES THROUGH CITY BLOCK GRANTS AND MATCHING FUNDS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TAX REVENUES, TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 PER DONOR, AND TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN POWERS TO THE CITY ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING SUBPOENA POWER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FULLY AMENDED MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE MAKER OF THE MOTION HAS APPROVED ALL THE AMENDMENTS. WHAT ABOUT THE SECONDER?

GOODMAN: DITTO.

MAYOR GARCIA: DITTO. GOT IT. I HAVE AN E-MAIL THAT SAYS HI, DAD, WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IT GOING TO BE COLD TONIGHT, SUPPOSED TO GET DOWN TO 73 DEGREES. THAT'S FROM MY SON.

WYNN: BY THE TIME WE FINISH HERE IT MAY NOT BE. IT WILL BE TOMORROW.

WYNN: YOU'RE PROVIDING ENOUGH HEAT, COUNCILMEMBER. OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

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

CAN I — CAN WE TAKE THAT AS A VOTE TO PLACE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT WITH THAT BALLOT LANGUAGE?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR DRAFT ORDINANCE NUMBER 7, BUT WE'LL COME BACK TO —

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR RIGHT NOW IT'S 7.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A REQUEST FOR 10 MINUTES FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM NUMBER 3, I THINK, OR ITEM NUMBER 4 FOR DISCUSSION — ACQUISITION OF INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO BE BREAKING IN ABOUT 35 MINUTES AND I'LL BE DOING THE PROCLAMATIONS, MAYOR PRO TEM. CAN YOU DO THAT DURING DINNER? CAN YOU WAIT UNTIL DINNER? BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON THIS, THIS BALLOT LANGUAGE AND PROPOSITIONS. CAN YOU WAIT? AND MS. CRUTCHER IS HERE ON THE CLOCK. ARE YOU HERE ON THE CLOCK?

SHE'S SALARIED, SO SHE'S IN TROUBLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. NOW GOING TO ITEM EIGHT, TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF — TO ITEM A, TO CHANGE THE TERMS AND THE METHOD OF THE LKS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ELECTION AT LARGE TO A METHOD COMBINING ELECTION OF MEMBERS FROM GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRICTS AND ELECTION OF MEMBERS AT LARGE. SO WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION AND WHAT WE APPROVED ON SECOND READING WAS THE 8-2-1 WITH TRANSITION PLAN 5, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ON THAT PREMISE.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. OKAY. DISCUSSION? I GUESS THE ELECTION MAP, Y'ALL HAVE THIS YELLOW SHEET AND IT TALKS ABOUT DRAFT DISTRICT ELECTION MASS COMMUNICATION PLAN.

AND LET ME ELABORATE ON THAT. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM SOMETHING NUMBERED 15-A, WHICH SAYS AS THE MAYOR SAID DRAFT MAP COMMUNICATION PLAN. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A STARTING PLACE ONLY. WE ARE WIDE OPEN FOR ENHANCEMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU A QUICK SUMMARY. BASICALLY BEGINNING TODAY IF WE GET APPROVAL FROM YOU ON THE GENERAL CONCEPT, WE WILL BEGIN A PROCESS THAT WILL HAVE TWO PRIMARY GOALS, PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK OR INPUT. ALL OUR STRATEGY WILL LEAD TO A SUMMARIZED SET OF INPUT OR FEEDBACK THAT WE WILL BE GIVING TO COUNCIL FOR YOUR REVIEW AND DECISION ON EACH OF THE DATES. OUR GOAL WILL BE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE 11TH, FINAL ACTION ON THE 11TH. THAT WILL BE A WEEK IN ADVANCE OF EARLY VOTING ON THE 17TH OF APRIL. AND OBVIOUSLY SEVERAL WEEKS, THREE WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE MAY 4TH ELECTION. STRATEGIES WILL INCLUDE USING PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUTTING UP A WEB PAGE DEDICATED TO THIS TOPIC. USING CHANNEL 6 TO ADVERTISE THE MAPS AND WAYS TO GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK USING THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CITYWIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSLETTER, SO HAVE AN INSERT, INCLUDING THE MAPS AND STRATEGIES. TO ADVERTISE IN THE MINORITY PUBLICATIONS ON MINORITY RADIO SHOWS AS WELL AS WITH THE STATESMAN. TO DEVELOP A KEY STAKEHOLDER LIST, SEND OUT NOTICES, INVITE THEM TO CONTACT US IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN PRESENTATIONS. BASICALLY DEVELOP A SPEAKERS BUREAU. WE INTEND TO BE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO INVITE ALL OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO LET US KNOW IF THEY WOULD LIKE A PRESENTATION TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK OR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND TO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE HANDOUTS OF THE MAP, THE WEB PAGE, E-MAIL ADDRESSES THAT YOU CAN GIVE US FEEDBACK AT OUR LIBRARIES, MAYBE AT A CLINIC SITE. WE'VE ALSO THOUGHT OF USING OUR POLICE DISTRICT COMMAND FORUMS THAT ARE WELL ATTENDED BY THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AS ANOTHER MECHANISM TO GIVE OUT INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAP, BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IS A DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN PROMULGATE — PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE WILL DO UNLESS WE HEAR DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU IS WE WILL COLLATE OR SUMMARIZE THE TYPE OF INPUT WE ARE GETTING ON THE MAP AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO COUNCIL TO GET FEEDBACK. BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT WE WILL GIVE YOU FEEDBACK THEN AT EACH OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE'LL HOLD AND ALLOW YOU TO DECIDE WHICH OF ANY OF THE FEEDBACK ARE SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE CHANGES IN THE MAP. AND THAT'S KIND OF IT IN A NUT SHE WILL. AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU THAT THIS IS THE TYPE OF PROCESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW. AND I GUESS WHILE I'M WAITING, RYAN, JOHN, IS THERE ANYTHING I MISSED ON DIRECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS?

NO. I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS TO SOLICIT SOCIALH PUBLIC INPUT AS WE CAN, AND THEN OF COURSE WE WILL BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DIRECTION ON HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MAPS DEVELOP FROM THE BASE MAP, IF INDEED YOU WANT TO MOVE FROM THE BASE MAP.

YEAH. AND ACTUALLY, THAT WAS THE OTHER THING I MEANT TO SAY. WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM YOU THAT WE INTEND TO START FROM THE BASE MAP THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH PROBABLY ONE OF TWO EXCEPTIONS. WE HAVE OVERLAID THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS ON TOP OF THESE DISTRICTS. THERE ARE A FEW CONFLICTS AND WE INTEND TO CORRECT THOSE SO THAT NONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS ARE FLIPPED AS PART OF THE DISTRICT. AND USING THAT AS JUST THE STARTING PLACE, THAT WOULD BE OUR BASE MAP UNLESS WE HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, WE HAVE ON OUR DECISION FRAMEWORK, WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE DIRECTION OF THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN, SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTION ON THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN OR MOTIONS? THAT'S A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THEN WE'LL DO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE ORDER OF THE ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: COULD I ASK IF WE COULD SEPARATE THE 8-2-1 PART FROM THE TRANSITION PART? I'M NOT SURE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH FULL SCALE ELECTION OF ALL POSITIONS FOR ONE YEAR.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME HOLD OFF ON THAT.

ALVAREZ: I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT SOMETHING AT LEAST TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE'RE ON THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN. AND I NEED A MOTION TO SEE IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS. OR IF THERE'S QUESTIONS.

GOODMAN: I WOULD MOVE THAT, MAYOR, NOTING THAT I'M SURE WE'LL THINK OF OTHER THINGS AS TIME GOES ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH. I WAS GOING TO — I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS ON THIS?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. WE CAN DO THAT.

ALVAREZ: WE USUALLY MEET HERE AT LCRA, SO I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD MEET SOMEWHERE ELSE TO MAKE IT MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY ACCESSIBLE FOR FOLKS.

AND WE COULD TRY TO HAVE A MEETING AT EACH OF THE EIGHT PROPOSED DISTRICTS ALSO, BUT YES, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE STRONG GEOGRAPHICS.

ALVAREZ: I MEAN SPECIFICALLY THE COUNCIL MEETING. IF WE HAVE ONE HERE AND ONE THERE, THEN AT LEAST GEOGRAPHICALLY WE'LL —

WE'LL SET UP ONE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OR THE WORK SESSIONS TO BE OUT IN CONNALLY GUERERRO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR? —

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I'VE BEEN FOR GETTING A MAP DONE BEFORE THE ELECTION, BUT LET ME JUST SAY A FEW OF MY CONCERNS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION HERE THAT I DEVELOPED AS WE HEAD INTO THIS. THAT WE'VE GOT — WHAT IS THE DATE WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS?

THE LAST REGULAR MEETING THAT YOU COULD APPROVE IT IS APRIL 11TH. WE COULD HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, BUT THAT'S — EVEN ON APRIL 11TH, THAT REALLY GIVES YOU ONE WEEK UNTIL EARLY VOTING. SO YOU PROBABLY DO WANT IT OUT IN ADVANCE OF EARLY VOTING SO PEOPLE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE IT.

SLUSHER: I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MAP BE BOUND BY THE ELECTION ON THE MAP, THEN I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE IT DONE BEFORE PEOPLE START VOTING. SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. SO APRIL 11TH IS OUR LAST SHOT AT THAT, WHICH IS NOW — ETCETERA NOW 18 DAYS AWAY — IT'S NOW 18 DAYS AWAY? I'M STARTING TO GET CONCERNED THAT THAT IS TOO QUICK TO DO THIS. MR. STEINER HAS SAID THAT THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM FOR US AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. HE DIDN'T SAY IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE, BUT IT COULD BE. SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT CONCERN. AND IT MIGHT BE THAT WE MAY GET TO THAT POINT AND NOT DO A MAP, THEN WE MIGHT NOT AGREE ON A MAP AT THAT TIME. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SERIOUS SET BACK. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS AND SEE IF ANYBODY UP HERE HAS SIMILAR CONCERNS.

ALONG THOSE LINES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF ALL THE FEATURES OF THE ORDINANCE, OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT I'VE DRAFTED. YOU MAY RECALL THAT FOLKS THAT ARE JUST SETTING UP THE SYSTEM AND MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE CHARTER TO ADJUST FROM SEVEN TO 11, BUT THE TWO FEATURES THAT I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO, OF COURSE, ONE IS THE TRANSITION, WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER. THE OTHER IS THE PROVISION REGARDING ANTICIPATORY ORDINANCES. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AT THE MEETING ON THE SEVENTH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, SAID THAT YOU WOULD LIKE A PROVISION THAT IF WE DID DO A REDISTRICTING TO PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, HE WANTED THE COUNCIL TO BE LOCKED INTO THAT SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A CHANGE AFTER THE ELECTION. AND THE LANGUAGE REGARDING ANTICIPATORY REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE DOES LOCK YOU IN, SO THAT IF YOU ADOPT A REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE, THE WAY I'VE WRITTEN IT IS THIS, AND YOU CAN TELL ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE THIS OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOMETHING ELSE. IT'S ON YOUR DRAFT 15-A, PAGE 4, BEGINNING ON LINE 8. A REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ANTICIPATION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE UNLESS THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE ARE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE REDISTRICTING OR DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS REQUIRES ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. SO UNLESS THE CITY CHANGES ITS DID HEOG — DEMOGRAFFY OR THERE'S A COURT ORDER OR WE HAVE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROBLEMS, YOU WOULD BE LOCKED INTO A REDISTRICTING THAT YOU ADOPT BEFORE THIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS. I CAN CHANGE THAT, OF COURSE, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE THE COUNCIL'S WISH.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ACCURATE. I THINK IF WE HAVE A MAP BEFORE THE ELECTION, THEN WE SHOULD BE LOCKED INTO IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD BE VOTING ON, SO THAT WOULD BE THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE. SO MY QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER WE WANT TO AT THIS POINT DO A MAP BEFORE THE ELECTION IN THIS SHORT OF TIME, GIVEN THE CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY THAT MR. STEINER HAS PRESENTED ABOUT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND DOING THAT AS A FAIRLY QUICK PROCESS. DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT AND MAKE SH SURE I'M NOT OVERAT A TIMING WHAT YOU SAID.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE QUICKNESS, I THINK IT'S THE INCLUSIVENESS. THE QUESTION WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ACHIEVE THE REQUISITE INCLUSIVENESS IN THE TIME REMAINING TO US. IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE POSITIVE COUNCIL TO DO THIS, THEN, AS I SAY, WE DO NEED TO MOVE AMBITIOUSLY AND THIS COMMUNICATION PLAN WOULD BE OUR BEST EFFORT AT ACHIEVING IT.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: MR. STEINER, REMIND US. SO IF WE DECIDE TO DEFER LIKE WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND THE MAPS AREN'T DRAWN UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, ONE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO — THE VOTERS SHOULD KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO BE, SO WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ADVISORY WHICH I OR JUST US AND — COMMITTEE OR JUST US AND HAVE THIS COMMUNICATION PLAN. AND YOU HAD TOLD US THAT REALISTICALLY AUGUST IS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO HAVE THE MAPS INITIALLY SUBMITTED TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

IF YOUR INTENTION IS IMPLEMENTATION IN 2003, THEN YES, WE NEED TO BE PRETTY WELL READY TO SUBMIT IN AUGUST IN ORDER TO HAVE A REALISTIC HOPE OF GETTING IT THROUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROCESS IN TIME.

WYNN: SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT EITHER TRYING TO QUICKLY DO IT NOW AND — IN THREE WEEKS OR LESS, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ALTERNATIVE ISN'T A WHOLE LOT BETTER, BUT IT'S BETTER, BUT IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY ALL OF JUNE AND JULY AND PARTS OF AUGUST. SO THE QUESTION IS: IS THE UNCERTAINTY OF NOT SEEING THAT AT ELECTION DATE WORTH THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING TWO TO THREE TIMES MORE TIME TO GET THE MAPS DRAWN? KEEP IN MIND, I WOULD CONSIDER A COUPLE, THREE MONTHS PRETTY QUICK TURN AROUND.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS?

MAYOR GARCIA: ME?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M TRYING TO RESPOND TO AN E-MAIL THAT WAS SENT TO ME. [ LAUGHTER ]

SLUSHER: ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A MAP, OF COURSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAP. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAFT — DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN FIRST.

SLUSHER: RIGHT. BUT WE ONLY NEED TO DO THIS IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAP FOR THE ELECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THOUGHT WE HAD DECIDED THAT, THAT THEYERE GOING TO HAVE A MAP.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, I WAS —

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE FOR DECISION IS DIRECTION ON THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

SLUSHER: RIGHT. BUT I WAS RAISING THE ISSUE SINCE WE'RE GETTING READY TO VOTE THIS THING THROUGH IS THAT WE DON'T — LOOKING AT THIS, IT IS A PRETTY SHORT TIME TO DO THAT. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THAT BECAUSE IT'S A REALLY CRITICAL ISSUE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, SPEAKING OF THAT, COULD I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM US AS A COUNCIL OR STAFF? I HAD ASSUMED THAT EVEN IF WE DIDN'T GET TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DETAILS NEEDED ON THE MAP BOUNDARIES, THAT WE WERE USING THIS — THE MAP AS A PROTOTYPE BASE. THAT IT WOULDN'T BE DIE METRICALLY OPPOSED. IT WOULD SIMPLY BE FINE TUNED WHEN YOU GET TO THE FINAL DISTRICT, SHOULD THAT PASS. SO IN ESSENCE WE HAVE KIND OF A MAP WHETHER OR NOT WE INCLUDE IT TO BE SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON OR NOT, RIGHT? OR ARE WE NOT USING THIS MAP AS KIND OF A BASE?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE MAP ISSUE.

THOMAS: THAT'S TRUE. AND I THINK MR. ROBERTSON SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO TRY IT, BUT I DON'T SEE WE'LL MAKE IT ON THE EARLY VOTING, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING, SOME TYPE OF MAP THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT. I THINK THE BIGGEST THING WAS TRYING TO GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS IN THOSE DIFFERENT AREAS TO DEFINE WHERE THOSE ZONES — THE DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO BE. AND HE SAID THAT HE'S GOING TO TRY REAL HARD. AND I UNDERSTAND EARLY VOTING WE MIGHT NOT GET THAT, BUT IF WE CAN GET IT AT THE MAIN ELECTION.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? BUT THEN IF — WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD LOCK IN TO THE MAP IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAP, WE SHOULD LOCK INTO IT AND PUT FORWARD A MAP AND HAVE PEOPLE VOTE ON THAT AND THEN CHANGE IT LATER. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE RIGHT. SO IF WE — I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE THE EARLY VOTING STARTS SO THAT EVERYBODY THAT VOTES CAN VOTE ON THE MAP. AND THEN — AND ALSO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THEN WE HAVE TO APPROVE A MAP. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE OF NOT APPROVING — THE VOTERS DECIDE NOT TO APROOF IT. WE'LL HAVE TO VOTE IN ONE MAP ON APRIL 11TH OR WE'LL HAVE THE ELECTION ALREADY SET THAT SAYS WE'VE GOT TO DO A MAP AND WE DON'T HAVE A MAP.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE CAN DO THIS ONE ON THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN AND THEN WE CAN GIVE DIRECTION ON HOW THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF THE MAPS IS GOING TO GO. AND THEN ON THE FOURTH THEY CAN BRING THOSE GIVING THE USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT, MR. ROBERTSON? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN WORK WITH? IN OTHER WORDS, IF TODAY WE GIVE YOU DIRECTION ON HOW TO DEVELOP THE MAPS, CAN WE THEN HAVE BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE FOURTH OF APRIL A PROPOSED MAP?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, ON THE SIDE OF US HAVING A MAP, THE ELECTION IS A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS, SO IF WE'RE SETTING THE ELECTION TODAY AND WE'RE DOING THE MAP DURING THAT TIME FRAME, THEN THAT IS A TIME OF HEIGHTENED PUBLIC AWARENESS. NOT AS HEIGHTENED I THINK IT SHOULD BE WITH SOME OF THE VOTER TURNOUTS WE GET, BUT THAT IS TRUE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN? DID WE HAVE A MOTION, MS. BROWN?

[ INAUDIBLE ]

BROWN: I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN MADE THE MOTION FOR THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN. YOU MADE THE SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: A QUESTION ABOUT THE MAP I HAD CAN WAIT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DRAFT DISTRICT ELECTION MAP COMMUNICATION PLAN, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. ANY ABSTENTIONS? IT PASSES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. NOW WE GO TO THE DIRECTION ON THE MAP, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

AND LET ME JUST GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW AND THEN RYAN, IF YOU'LL TAKE IT. WHAT WE ARE PUTTING IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEN WAIT TO HEAR WHERE YOU WANT US TO GO FROM HERE IS WE WOULD TAKE THE BASE MAP THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF URKS THE ONE WE'VE BEEN USING UP UNTIL NOW, WITH ONLY A FEW CHANGES. THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE WHERE WE HAVE FOUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY BEING CUT OR SPLIT BY ONE OF THESE BOUNDARIES. WE WOULD MAKE THAT ADJUST MEANT. AND RYAN, CAN YOU ILLUSTRATE WHERE THOSE ARE ON DISTRICT MAP? THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL. THAT'S OUR STARTING PLACE. YOU TELL US WHERE YOU WANT TO GO FROM THERE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS THAT ARE MOST DRAMATICALLY SPLIT ARE JUST NORTH OF THIS LINE, BETWEEN CURRENT DISTRICT PROTOTYPE FIVE AND SIX. AND WE'VE ALSO GOT SOME ISSUES HERE IN SORT OF THE SOUTH BANK AREA. AND I THINK WE CAN DO A SHIFT TO UNSPLIT THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS AND GET AT SOME OF THE CONCERNS HERE AND STILL MAINTAIN THE STRONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT, TWO LATINO DISTRICTS AND THE IMPACT DISTRICT. SO IN ESSENCE IT WOULD BE SORT OF TWEAKING AROUND THE EDGES, PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS, BUT MAINTAINING THIS OPTIMIZED, MAXIMIZING OF PHILOSOPHY THAT'S BEEN WITH US SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TRYING TO BUILD THESE DISTRICTS.

AND I THINK THE SECOND THING AND LAST THING I WOULD ADD FOR DIRECTION, THE ONE QUESTION IS DO WE START WITH THIS BASE MAP, ADJUSTING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING BOUNDARIES IS THE FIRST QUESTION? AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU WANT US TO HANDLE THE FEEDBACK AND THE INPUT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WEBSITE, AN INTERACTIVE WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN LEAVE BASICALLY THROUGH E-MAIL YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS. WE'LL BE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CARDS AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, AT THE PRESENTATIONS WE DO. YOU'LL BE GETTING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF WE CAN GET IT ORCHESTRATED IN ENOUGH TIME, WE MAY HAVE A PHONE LINE THAT CAN RECORD COMMENTS. IT IS OUR INTENT, UNLESS YOU TELL US SOMETHING DIFFERENT, TO SUMMARIZE THOSE COMMENTS AND BRING THEM TO YOU AT EACH OF THE WORK SESSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE'VE GOT SCHEDULED OVER THE NEXT TWO TO THREE WEEKS ON THIS TOPIC SO THAT YOU CAN DECIDE LOOKING AT THE FEEDBACK THAT THESE ARE CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. SO WE WILL NOT BE MAKING ANY EYE JUSTMENTS OURSELVES, WE'LL SIMPLY BE SUMMARIZING THE FEEDBACK AND INPUT THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE PUBLIC AND BLIG BREUG IT TO YOU. — AND BRINGING IT TO YOU.

SLUSHER: WELL, I'LL STATE SOMETHING SINCE NOBODY HAS THIS CONCERN AT THE END OF THE PROCESS. I WANT TO — [ LAUGHTER ] OH, MAN. [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ASK ME TO COMMENT ON THAT, ARE YOU?

SLUSHER: I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WASN'T COMING FROM MY COMPUTER, LET ME JUST SAY THAT. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THE CENTRAL SOUTH IS SPLIT INTO THREE DISTRICTS AND ABOUT THE — AND THAT ONE OF THEM COMBINED WITH NORTH OF THE RIVER. SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT AS WE GO ALONG IN THIS. I WANT TO GET THAT ON THE TABLE.

WYNN: ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED MR. STEINER BEFORE, JUST ABOUT HALF AN HOUR OOTION, IF HE WOULD GIVE ME MORE THAN 10% VARIANCE FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THAT. AND HE SAID NO, HE WOULD NOT. BUT THAT IS —

I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD SO MUCH POWER.

THAT'S ONE OF OUR TOP CONCERNS IS THAT IN — AND THE REASON IT'S HAPPENING IS AGAIN BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THOSE TWO ISSUES OF CREATING GEOGRAPHICALLY REPRESENTATIVE COMPACT CONTINUOUS DISTRICTS WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF OPTIMIZING VOTING STRENGTH FOR MINORITIES IN THE DISTRICTS. AND THOSE TWO WERE SORT OF COMING TO A POINT THERE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN DO WITH THAT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND ALL THE POINTS AND I AGREE WITH THEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO GET — AS WE TRY TO GET THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF MY CONCERNS, WHAT IT DOES TO THE CENTRAL SAWTH NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE — SOUTH NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THOSE ARE — I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE RIGHT TERM, BUT I THINK THEY'RE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN A COHESIVE AREA AND HAVE THIS THEM SPLIT IN THREE DISTRICTS TROUBLES ME SOMEWHAT. I THINK WE'LL HEAR THAT AS WE GO OUT TO HEAR FROM THE FOLKS TOO.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

MAYORN: WHAT I'M GOING TO MENTION IS REVEILLE THE SAME AND ALSO A FEW OTHERS FROM NORTH OF THE RIVER HAVE ALSO WONDERED ABOUT THE SPLIT, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION AND SOME KIND OF UNITY FOR ISSUES THAT UNITE AN AREA. BUT I'LL GO BACK TO SOUTH FOR JUST A SECOND TOO, BUT WHAT IN ESSENCE HAS HAPPENED IS THAT CENTRAL HAS BEEN SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE, CENTRAL SOUTH, ESPECIALLY NOW I SUPPOSE IT'S MID SOUTH RATHER THAN FAR SOUTH. SO THAT TRADITIONALLY THE ISSUES AND CONDITIONS THAT HAVE DEFINED AN AREA WILL BE MET BY NEITHER THE WEST NOR THE EAST SECTORS THAT THEY'RE NOW A PART OF AND THEY WILL BE A VERY MINORITY VOICE I THINK WITHIN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE NOW A PART OF. SO IF THERE IS ANY PARTICULARS THAT YOU ARE THINKING OF RIGHT NOW THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO PLAY, THEN ACTUALLY CONSIDERING THE ISSUES THAT ARE PART OF CENTRAL SOUTH THAT ARE NOT AT ALL THE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE DEALT WITH BY SOUTH OR EAST, BUT ARE VERY DEFINITELY CENTRAL ISSUES.

IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT I'M EAGER TO GET TO, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE — IT GOING TO BE ONE OF THE TOUGHER — IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE TOUGHER GOALS TO ACHIEVE.

I GUESS IN HAVING HEARD THAT NOW FROM TWO COUNCILMEMBERS, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL DO THE BEST WE CAN TO PRESENT SOME OPTIONS ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT WITH YOU IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN THIS AND THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

AND ONE ISSUE THAT I THINK MITIGATES THIS SITUATION A LITTLE BIT AND WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT MUCH IS THIS — THE UNDERLYING DEMOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPE IS IN CONSTANT FLUX. AND AGAIN, IF WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT INTO THE FUTURE, WHICH NORMAL DISTRICTING DOES IN TERMS OF TOTAL POPULATION, IF WE COULD DO THAT IN TERMS OF ETDZ NISTY — AND WHAT I SIMPLY MEAN IS DISTRICTS TWO AND THREE WILL MORE LIKELY CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE LATINO, WHICH COULD — AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO THIS DEEFATION FROM TOTAL IN THE TOTAL BALANCE. BUT I THINK THOSE THINGS ARE WORKING IN OUR FAVOR IN TERMS OF BRINGING THAT SOUTH CORE BACK TOGETHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I JUST COMMEND HIM AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTH END.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DIRECTION OF THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THOMAS: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. NOW WE GO TO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. AND MR. STEINER? — WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THIS ON FIRST AND SECOND READING.

THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAYOR ELECTED FROM THE CITY AT LARGE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE WANT TO SWITCH THESE FROM THE FOR AND AGAINST FORMAT TO THE YES AND NO FORMAT. SO WE WOULD GO TO SHALL THE CHARTER — EXCUSE ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE NOT HISPANIC. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROBLEMS. [ LAUGHTER ]

SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND A MAYOR FROM THE CITY AT LARGE?

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A TRANSITION PLAN 5?

THE BALLOT LANGUAGE DOES NOT. WE'LL NEED TO GET INTO THAT WHEN WE GET INTO APPROVAL OF THE TEXT OF MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION?

WYNN: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. THIS IS ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. IS THERE A A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT ONE. DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR? COULD I HAVE MR. STEINER READ IT ONE MORE TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. STEINER?

STEINER: SHALL THE CITY ER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND TWO MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR FROM THE CITY AT LARGE?

SLUSHER: I THINK THAT'S FINE, BUT I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE READING FROM. I HAVE THE — THIS ORDER OF CHARTER ITEMS FROM MARCH 22ND WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THAT WAS WORKING FOR THE FIRST ONE, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK FOR THAT ONE.

I'M READING FROM ORDINANCE DRAFT NUMBER 15-A, PAGE 1, AND I WAS READING AT LINE 12.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'VE GOT IT. I WAS ON 15 INSTEAD OF 15-A. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO?

GRIFFITH: WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH ABSTAINING. NOW WE GO TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TRANSITION PLAN 5. IS THERE A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. DISCUSSION?

[ INAUDIBLE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: TRANSITION PLAN 5, ROSIE, CAN YOU THROW IT UP ON THE SCREEN? THERE WE GO.

THIS IS WHAT TRANSITION NUMBER 5 LOOKS LIKE. THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED THIS MAY WILL SERVE THEIR FULL TERM. THE EIGHT COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED FROM DISTRICTS WILL BE ELECTED IN MAY OF 2003 AND THE MAYOR WILL BE ELECTED IN MAY OF 2003. SO FOR THE FIRST — THEIR FIRST TERM, THEY WILL SERVE A TWO-YEAR TERM RATHER THAN A THREE-YEAR TERM. THEN IN MAY 2005, WHICH IS INDICATED BY THE RED LABEL, AT THAT POINT ALL OF THE — ONE OF THE AT LARGE SEATS WILL DROP OUT AND ALL OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS WILL BE ELECTED IN IEWN SON TO THREE — UNISON TO THREE YEAR TERMS FROM THEN ON. SO THERE WILL BE NO MORE TERM STAGGERING. EVERY THREE YEARS TWO COUNCILMEMBERS AT LARGE, EIGHT COUNCILMEMBERS FROM DISTRICTS AND A MAYOR WILL BE UP FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD, FROM 2003 TO 2005 WE WILL HAVE A 12-MEMBER COUNCIL. DURING THAT PERIOD A COUNCIL WILL — A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL WILL BE SEVEN. THEREAFTER THE QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL WILL BE SIX. OTHERWISE THE VOTES NECESSARY FOR VARIOUS THINGS WON'T CHANGE BECAUSE TWO-THIRDS AND THREE QUARTERS OF 11 AND SEVEN IS THE SAME. SO — BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE PORTIONS OF A COUNCILMEMBER, WE HAVE TO ROUNDUP TO THE NEXT COUNCILMEMBER. SO THAT WILL — THAT WILL BE OUT IT WORKS. AS SHOWN ON THE GRAPHS. THE TRANSITION PROVIDES THAT PEOPLE WHO SERVE THE TWO-YEAR TERM WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO A — THAT TWO-YEAR TERM WON'T BE COUNTED AGAINST THEM FOR PURPOSES OF THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION IF THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION SURVIVES THE CHARTER ELECTION.

WYNN: MAYOR? JUST AS A BRIEF INTRODUCTION, I WENT OVER MOST OF THIS, BUT I KNOW IT WAS NEW TO SOME COUNCILMEMBERS AT OUR LAST MEETING YESTERDAY OR DAY BEFORE. THE — I SEE THE OBVIOUS CONS OR THE TWO DISADVANTAGES OF TRANSITION NUMBER 5 IS ONE, FOR TWO YEARS THERE WILL BE 12 — THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBER, SO WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT THAT SCENARIO IN MOST OTHER CASES. AND THEN SECOND IS THAT THE NEXT — THE MAY OF '03 ELECTION WILLD BE FOR A TWO-YEARR TERM VERSUS THREE. THE PROS HOWEVER I THINK ARE NUMEROUS. ONE IS THAT THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT GET ELECTED HERE IN A FEW WEEKS, MAY OF '02, THEY BEGAN THIS PROCESS THINKING THEY WERE RUNNING FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM. AND THEY WILL BE. IT WON'T BE CUT SHORT AND THERE WON'T BE ANY TYPES OF LOTS DRAWN AFTER THEIR ELECTED TO SEE IF ONE OR MORE DROP OFF OR THEY STAGGER. AND THEN THE FACT THAT IN '03 ALL CANDIDATES FOR THE DISTRICT RACES OR THE MAYOR WILL KNOW IN ADVANCE THEY WILL BE FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM, WHERE AS SOME N. SOME INSTANCES LIKE THE TEXAS STATE SENATE, YOU'RE ELECTED, BUT AFTER YOU'RE ELECTED YOU DRAW LOTS AND YOU SEE WHOSE TERM WILL GET CUT SHORT. AND IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE MORE FAIR TO KNOW IN ADVANCE AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO NOT RUN IN '03 BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A TWO-YEAR TERM, THEN THAT'S THEIR CHOICE TO DO. BUT REALLY I THINK THE ONGOING ADVANTAGE IS PRETTY DRAMATIC. AND THAT IS BEGINNING IN MAY OF '05, ALL THE SEATS ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME. IT LOOKS — IT'S SLIGHTLY DECEIVING, AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WITH THIS MIXED SYSTEM, EVERY CITIZEN WILL ONLY BE VOTING FOR FOUR PLACES. THEY'RE VOTING FOR THE MAYOR, BOTH OF THE AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS AND THEIR ONE DISTRICT REP. SO YOU WON'T BE VOTING FOR 11 PLACES. IT WON'T BE A VERY CUMBERSOME — IN FACT, IT WILL BE EXACTLY WHAT WE DO TODAY. WE'RE SPLIT UP FOUR AND THREE, SO OUR CITIZENS ARE USED TO VOTEDDING FOR EXACTLY FOUR COUNCIL PLACES AT ONE TIME AND IT SORT OF CONTINUES THAT TRADITION. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT HAS THE ENTIRE CITY RUNNING ELECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME, AND I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S GOING TO INSPIRE MORE INTEREST IN THE RACES. IT WILL BE A BIG RACE. IT WILL BE LIKE A NOVEMBER — A GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER IN THAT PEOPLE JUST KNOW HERE COMES A BIG RACE. DIDN'T I JUST VOTE FOR SOME OF THESE COUNCILMEMBERS LAST YEAR? DO I VOTE AGAIN NEXT YEAR? IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A MORE INCLUSIVE, MORE SORT OF DRAMATIC IN THAT SENSE ELECTION. BUT THEN I DO WANT TO STRESS ON THE FINANCIAL ISSUE IS THAT IT DOES COST US A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FROM OUR GENERAL FUND EACH TIME — EACH ELECTION YEAR. THAT IS, WE SPEND HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON AN ELECTION AND ANOTHER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN THREE WEEKS ON THE RUNOFF. SO THE SPENT WE SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS EVERY THREE YEARS, VERSUS A TWO MILLION DOLLARS EVERY THREE YEARS, THEN I'M ALL FOR GIVING OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS EVERY THIRD YEAR.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

TO TRY TO STIR UP INTEREST IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, HALF OF YOUR REGISTERED VOTERS, OVER 200,000 PEOPLE IN AUSTIN'S CASE, CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE RACE, IT'S GOING TO BE NOT UNLIKE WHEN WE HAVE A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR A SINGLE PLACE. IN MAY OF 2000 WHEN THE THREE OF US MOST RECENTLY CAME ON THE DAIS, THERE WAS AN ELECTION IN EARLY MAY APPEAR THEN ONE PLACE HAD A RUNOFF. WE HAD ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE CITY VOTING FOR ONE PLACE AND WE SAW DRAMATIC DROPOFF. I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A RUNOFF, THAT ALWAYS PLAYS INTO IT. BUT TO HAVE THAT BIG AN EFFORT AND EXPENSE FOR — FOR, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF REGISTERED VOTERS JUST TO VOTE FOR ONE PLACE OUT OF 11 ON THE DAIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE — TO BE INEFFICIENT AND WASTEFUL. FRANKLY IF I WERE TO RUN FOR REELECTION, I'M UP IN MAY OF 2002, I THINK ACTUALLY — [INAUDIBLE] THAN THE SYSTEM OF DRAWING LOTS, THAN TO MAKE THE CURRENT 3 COUNCILMEMBERS CUT THEIRS SHORT. AND JUST PLAYS FOR A MORE EFFICIENT LONGER TERM DON'T INSTITUTE................TINUITY OF HOW WE ELECT OUR COUNCIL.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I WANTED TO NOTE A FEW DOWN SIDES JUST TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE FOR THIS JUST BECAUSE I REMEMBER — I REMEMBER SOME OLD — SOME OLD WHAT DID THE MAYOR CALL IT, FRUIT BASKET TURNOVERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FRUIT BASKET TURNOVERS.

GOODMAN: ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT ALL OF YOUR POINTS, WILL, ARE WELL TAKEN, I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN FOR THE PRACTICAL SIDE OF THINGS WHAT USED TO HAPPEN, WHICH MIGHT AGAIN, MAYBE ACTUALLY TO BACK UP FOR JUST A SECOND, WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IN THESE DISCUSSIONS IS — IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE TERM OF THE MAYOR AND I KNOW THAT CAME UP, BUT WE DIDN'T PURSUE IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAYOR RAN FOR FOUR YEAR TERMS, IF THAT WOULD ALTERNATE THEN WHICH — FOR AN ALTERNATING NUMBER OF COUNCIL PLACES IF THAT WOULD MAKE THE MAYOR COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FOUR EACH TIME OR ANYWAY, WHAT HAVE YOU. WHAT USED TO HAPPEN FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THERE WAS ABOUT A SIX TO EIGHT MONTH TIME PERIOD WHERE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REALLY VERY EFFICIENT OR EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE FIRST THING WAS DURING CAMPAIGN TIMES COUNCILMEMBERS WERE A LITTLE DISTRACTED BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING CALLED AROUND THE CITY TO VARIOUS FORUMS AND DEBATES AND YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS THAT SCHEDULE THINGS FOR THURSDAY BECAUSE IT HASN'T REALLY CONNECTED THAT THURSDAY IS A DAY THAT IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR A COUNCILMEMBER TO GO OUT INTO THE WORLD AND DO THINGS. THEN THERE WAS THE NATURAL INCLINATION TO SHY AWAY FROM CONTROVERSIAL THINGS DURING THAT PERIOD BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TIME TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH IT, IF NOT FOR ANY OTHER MOTIVATION. STAFF ALSO KNOWS THAT THEY COULD EASILY BE PUT ON HOLD FOR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, SO A LOT OF THEM DON'T EVEN REALLY COME UP FOR — FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE STAFF IS — IS PRETTY MUCH ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET TO IT TONIGHT. SO THEN AFTER THE ELECTIONS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE FRUIT BASKET TURNOVERS, YOU HAVE CONSIDERABLE LEARNING PERIOD AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE KEEP TERM LIMITS, FOR INSTANCE, AND THEN YOU ADD THAT TO THE — TO THE TURNOVER, YOU COULD HAVE ALREADY, I THINK THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A PERIOD WHERE — WRP A VERY SIGNIFICANT ORIENTATION — WHERE A VERY SIGNIFICANT ORIENTATION PERIOD WILL HAVE TO BE SORT OF A LEARNING CURVE FOR THE NEW ONE. SO I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM ANY OF THE POINTS THAT I THINK ARE VERY LEGITIMATE THAT YOU MADE. BUT I DO WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT I REMEMBER FROM THE OLD DAYS, WHICH WAS IF YOU WANTED SOMETHING DONE DURING ONE OF THOSE— THOSE CAMPAIGNING LEARNING PERIODS, IT WAS PRETTY FRUSTRATING TO TRY TO COME TO COUNCILMEMBERS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE SYSTEM YET AND EVEN WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS IN THE WORLD FOR THEM TO WANT TO HELP YOU DO SOMETHING, IT WOUND UP NOT GETTING DONE FOR SOME TIME. JUST TO CONSIDER.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH. I'VE — THE FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER THAT YOU COINED OR APPLIED TO THIS, I THINK BESIDES BEING RATHER HUMOROUS, I THINK THAT WAS A CONCERN — I HAD THAT CONCERN, TOO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY CONCERNED — OF CONCERN IF ALL 11 SEATS WERE UP NEXT YEAR IN '03. I JUST THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISRUPTIVE. ON CITY GOVERNMENT. I CAN SEE, THOUGH, A NUMBER OF ADVANTAGES THIS WAY. FOR INSTANCE, THE — YOU WOULDN'T HAVE — THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER IS WITH THE STAGGERED TERMS YOU HAVE ELECTIONS TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE YEARS. AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID SOMETIMES COUNCILMEMBERS ARE DISTRACTED DURING ELECTIONS OR I MEAN SOMETIMES EVEN IT MAKES IT HARDER TO GOVERN SOMETIMES DURING ELECTION BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE UP FOR OFFICE. I WILL JUST — JUST PUT IT LIKE THAT MAYBE. IF THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES, NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT NOW OR ANYTHING. AND — SO YOU WOULD HAVE THAT ONLY GOING ON ONE OUT OF THREE YEARS INSTEAD OF TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE. AND — AND THEN I THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LESS LIKELIHOOD OF A — OF A — OF A BIG FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER IN THE NUMBER IN THE SEATS WITH DISTRICTS THAN WITH CITY-WIDE. PLUS IF YOU HAD IT WITH SEVEN MEMBERS, THEY ARE ALL RUNNING CITY-WIDE, THEN YOU HAVE — IT WOULD BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GET ALL NEW COUNCILMEMBERS OR A MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF THE SYSTEM. THIS WAY YOU WILL 8 DIFFERENT ELECTIONS IN THE DISTRICTS AND SO YOU COULD HAVE — HAVE SEATS CHANGE A LITTLE BIT — I THINK IT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE LIKE THE CONGRESS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN PICKLE IS HERE. LIKE THEY ARE ELECTED EVERY TWO YEARS, THE SENATE IS ELECTED EVERY — THE CONGRESS HAS TERMS THAT TURNS OVER EVERY TWO YEARS. BUT YOU DON'T SEE THE WHOLE BODY BEING SWEPT OUT, YOU SEE THE CHANGES IN THE PARTIES, ONE MIGHT TAKE BACK OVER THE MAJORITY OR ONE WOULD GAIN MORE SEATS, BUT YOU SELDOM SEE A HUGE TURNOVER. THEN WITH US HAVING THE MIXED SYSTEM, AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TOO, WITH HAVING THE MIXED SYSTEM, WITH TWO AT LARGE, THOSE TWO AT LARGE WOULD ALWAYS BE UP FOR ELECTION AND UNDER STAGGERED TERMS THE TWO AT LARGE WOULD ALWAYS BE UP FOR ELECTION AT THE SAME TIME AS FOUR OF THE DISTRICTS, THE SAME FOUR EVERY TIME, SO THAT WOULD — SO IT'S LIKELY THAT THE TURNOUT IN THOSE DISTRICTS WOULD BE — TURNOUT IN THE DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S A DISTRICT ELECTION THAT YEAR WOULD PROBABLY BE HIGHER THAN THE TURNOUT IN THE FOUR WITHOUT A DISTRICT ELECTION, SO THAT TO ME COULD GIVE AN UNEVEN EFFECT ON THE AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FOUR DISTRICTS THAT HAVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS, THE SAME YEAR AS THE — AS THE — AS THE AT LARGE ELECTION. SO I THINK THOSE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES OF — OF DOING THIS — DOING IT THIS WAY. I CAN'T — I CAN SUPPORT THAT AND THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SYSTEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TERM FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER WAS NOT COINED BY ME. IT WAS COINED AT A TIME WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AN YOU GUYS WERE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. IT WAS REALLY A FEAR THAT COUNCILS HAD DURING THE TIME THAT THERE WERE TWO YEAR TERMS AND FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS, IT WAS EASY FOR THE CITY TO CHANGE EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME. BUT THIS 8-2-1, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY GROUP IN THE CITY TO — TO TAKE THE FULL COUNCIL OUT BECAUSE THERE'S 8 DIFFERENT AREAS FROM WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ELECTED. SO THIS WORKS IN THIS CONFIGURATION. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: BOTH HE AND I WERE SAYING FIVE WORKS, I THINK.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

GRIFFITH: WHOA.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHOA. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID AND I GUESS SHE WAS JUST — SHE WAS JUST EXPLAINING THE PROS AND CONS OF BOTH SIDES TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. BUT — BUT — BUT I TEND TO FAVOR THE TRANSITION NUMBER 4, WHICH DOES HAVE THE STAGGERED TERMS AND DOESN'T HAVE ALL OF THE 11 POSITIONS UP AT ONCE. AND I MEAN IT'S ACTUALLY — YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE ELECTIONS OCCUR, THEY WOULD OCCUR AT THE SAME TIMES, BUT THEY WOULD OCCUR UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, I THINK THE ELECTORATE IS USED TO THAT SYSTEM SINCE IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE '85. AND IF YOU COMPARE TRANSITION 4 TO TRANSITION 5, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE EXTRA ELECTION, SO AT LEAST IN THAT PERIOD YOU ARE SPENDING 4 MILLION INSTEAD OF 3 MILLION, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT SPECIALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE CANDIDATES IN 11 RACES STAND ON PARTICULAR ISSUES, IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO DO FOR 11 RACES. IF YOU ARE MORE ISSUE ORIENTED RATHER THAN GEE GREAFKCAL ORIENTED. TO ME I — GEOGRAPHICALLY ORIENTED. TO ME I THINK THAT'S THE DRAWBACK, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET AS EDUCATED IN TERMS OF WHERE ALL OF THE CANDIDATES STAND FOR THAT REASON I TEND TO SUPPORT THE TRANSITION 4 AND IT DOES APPEAR TO FOLLOW THE EXISTING TIME LINE IN TERMS OF THE ELECTION. THE ELECTION DATE THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, TWO ON, ONE OFF, TWO YEARS, ONE YEAR WITHOUT AN ELECTION, SO — SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR I GUESS WHAT SOME OTHER FOLKS THIS, BUT LET'S JUST MAKE THAT FEELING.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE NOT PROPOSING THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, RIGHT?

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO HOPE THAT WE WILL CONSIDER THE OPTION 4. IT SEEMS TO HAVE ALL OF THE ADVANTAGES OF 5 AND NOT THE DISADVANTAGES. IT HAS — HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE RUN AT ONE TIME IS NOISY IN TERMS OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ANYBODY IS SAYING. THAT'S WHY I THINK FOUR IS A BETTER CHOICE THAN FIVE. THERE ARE NO CLIFFS. TO FALL OFF OF.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE NOT — YOU ARE NOT MAKING THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, ARE YOU? ARE YOU?

GRIFFITH: I WOULD, IF I THOUGHT THAT I COULD GET A SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN GET A SECOND, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION IF THEY WILL CONSIDER THAT FRIENDLY.

WYNN: NO I DON'T, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THERE IS A WAY TO — FOR YOU TO MAKE THAT INTO AN AMENDMENT, I AM SURE THERE WILL BE A SECOND BECAUSE THERE WAS A FELLA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ME THAT WAS TALKING IN FAVOR OF FOUR.

GRIFFITH: I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE USE FOUR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR FOUR.

THOMAS: I WILL SECOND.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

THOMAS: BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET TO DISCUSS ANYTHING —

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ APPEALED FOR MORE DISCUSSION, SO I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER SOMETHING HE SAID THE WAY I SEE IT. WHICH IS THAT IN THE — ONE THING, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE 11, THERE WILL BE 11 ELECTIONS, BUT AS CHIP HAS REPORTED, POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, PEOPLE WILL BE VOTING ON 4 ELECTIONS. THEY WILL BE VOTING ON THE MAYOR, TWO AT LARGE, AND THEIR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. SO I THINK PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT. THEY WON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ISSUES IN 11 SEPARATE ELECTIONS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, VOTERS PROBABLY COULD FOLLOW 11 SEPARATE ELECTIONS. WE HAVE THAT MANY ON THE BALLOT MANY TIMES IN THE — NOT IN THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS, BUT ON THE OTHERS. SOMETIMES CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS HAVE A LOT OF PROPOSITIONS ON THEM. BUT I JUST THINK THIS COULD WORK, YOU WOULD HAVE — SOMETIMES THE ISSUES WOULD BE A LOT OF SAME, ESPECIALLY IN THE AT-LARGE, THE DISTRICTS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT I SEE IT — I REALLY THINK THIS — WHEN I'M BECOMING MORE AND MORE CONVINCED, THIS WOULD BE A REALLY SOUND EXERCISE IN DEMOCRACY BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE EVERYBODY — I THINK IT MIGHT INCREASE THE VOTER TURNOUT WHICH WOULD HELP ELECTIONS BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE IT ALL OVER THE CITY. THREE PEOPLE STANDING AT LARGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THE MAYOR AND TWO COUNCILMEMBERS, THEN YOU HAVE EVERYONE GETTING TO ELECT THEIR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. SO — SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE INTEREST AND YOU INCREASE INTEREST, MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE CONCERN ABOUT FOLLOWING, HAVING TO FOLLOWING 11 ELECTIONS AND EVERYBODY GETS THEIR CHOICE ON FOUR EVERY THREE YEARS. THEN WE GET THE COUNCIL ELECTED AT THAT TIME GETS DOWN TO GOVERNING THE CITY AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION FOR THREE YEARS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: YES, MAYOR PRO........... MAYOR. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS I GUESS FOR THE SUPPORTERS OF TRANSITION FOUR. YOU SAY THERE'S NO DISADVANTAGES COMPARED TO 5. TRANSITION 4 IN MAY OF 2003 ALL 8 DISTRICT REPS ARE UP FOR ELECTION, YET FOUR OF THEM WILL BE FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS, FOUR OF THEM WILL BE THERE FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. YOU DON'T SEE A DISADVANTAGE IN THAT? HOW TOO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE DETERMINE WHICH FOUR DISTRICT REPS ONLY GET TWO YEAR TERMS, WHICH FOUR GET THREE YEAR TERMS?

ALVAREZ: I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED —

WYNN: I AM ASKING THE MAKER OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION COUNCILMEMBER, THANK YOU.

GRIFFITH: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE SECOND WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. [ LAUGHTER ].

ALVAREZ: I THINK THAT — AT SOME POINT DURING THIS DISCUSSION OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE WAY THE SENATE DOES IT AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHERE THEY PICK OUT OF LOTS OR SOMETHING.

MAYOR GARCIA: DRAWING LOTS.

ALVAREZ: DRAWING BY LOTS WHO HAS, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS FOR THEIR TERMS. THAT'S — I THINK THE WAY WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT DOING THE DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 8 UNDER TRANSITION 4. BUT THERE IS THAT ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING WHETHER, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO YOUR TWO-YEAR TERM OR YOUR THREE-YEAR TERM. SO THAT IS — I GUESS ONE COULD SAY THAT IS A DRAWBACK. BUT UNDER TRANSITION 5 YOU DO HAVE EVERYBODY WITH TWO-YEAR TERMS. SO YOU ARE SHORTENING 8 — TERMS FOR EIGHT DISTRICTS INSTEAD OF FOUR DISTRICTS. I'M NOT SURE. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER EXAMPLES OF STAGGERING TERMS THAT WE MIGHT EMPLOY.

GRIFFITH: YES. AND THERE'S — YOU DO A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND NONE OF THEM IS GOING TO BE PERFECT. BUT IN LOOKING AT THE — THE ON BALANCE, THE STRESSES OF 4 AND 5 ARE DIFFERENT. THERE IS THE — HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THOSE TWO YEAR THINGS. I WOULD RATHER WORK THROUGH THAT AND NOT HAVE ALL THAT RACKET GOING ON WITH — WITH 11 CAMPAIGNS GOING ON AT ONE TIME. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND MUCH OF ANYTHING OR WHO PEOPLE WERE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO — TO NOT HAVE THAT HAPPEN.

WYNN: WELL, THAT'S —ANCE TO THAT QUESTION, I HAPPEN —

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, COULD I — I WANT TO ANSWER SOMETHING ON THAT BEFORE YOU GO ON TO THE NEXT WITHIN, IF YOU DON'T MIND. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT — THAT HAVING 11 ELECTIONS WOULD JUST BE A BUNCH OF RACKET, DO YOU? TO ME THAT'S AN EXERCISE IN DEMOCRACY. THAT'S ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS IN OUR COUNTRY. TO — I JUST DON'T THINK ELECTIONS ARE A RACKET AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD — WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW 11 ELECTIONS AND THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO FOLLOW FOUR, BUT I THINK THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER DISTRICTS AND COULD KEEP UP WITH THAT. SO I JUST HAVE TO REALLY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT POINT.

GRIFFITH: WELL, THE PROBLEM WOULD BE TO —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF I CAN TAKE CONTROL OF THIS MEETING.

GRIFFITH: I'M SORRY, OKAY. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS FIRST AND THEN YOU.

GRIFFITH: OKAY.

WYNN: ESSENTIALLY I HAD A SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO DO TRANSITION NUMBER 4, THIS WAS THE FIRST QUESTION, THAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION, RATHER. I HAVE ANOTHER ONE, BUT I WILL LET —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER.

WYNN: SO APPARENTLY THE MAKER BELIEVES THAT IT'S MORE FAIR FOR SOMEBODY TO RUN FOR ELECTION, SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, TIME, EFFORT, IMPOSITION ON THEIR FAMILIES, ET CETERA, NOT KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW LONG THEIR TERM IS GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF KNOWING IN ADVANCE. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE FAIR TO KNOW IN ADVANCE THE LENGTHS OF YOUR TERM. LET'S GO TO MAY OF 2006 UNDER TRANSITION NUMBER 4. YOU HAVE THE MAYOR RUNNING AND DISTRICT REPS IN FOUR OF THE 8 SEATS. SO HALF OF THE CITY, 210,000 REGISTERED VOTERS, THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL RUN A GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN, GENERAL ELECTION, MAY OF 2006, HALF OF OUR REGISTERED VOTERS CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE PLACE OUTS OF 11 ON THE DAIS, AT THE COST OF A MILLION DOLLARS.

GRIFFITH: I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED MONEY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER, DO WE HAVE A 5:30 TIME CERTAIN? WE HAVE THE — THE HONORARY MAYOR HERE, SHE'S WAITING. CAN WE —

WYNN: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TABLE THIS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE TABLE THIS FOR A MINUTES. WE WILL GET BACK TO IT. BUT WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT — THAT WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THAT'S ITEM NO. 21, IN A..... THAT WE CAN SETTLE BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE FROM SOUTHWESTERN BELL THAT HAVE TO LEAVE SOMEPLACE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT FOR $60,000, IS THERE A MOTION.

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

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

GOODMAN: SECOND.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. WE ARE GOING TO RECESS THE MEETING. GOING TO PROCLAMATIONS, WE HAVE A WONDERFUL YOUNG LADY HERE, IF YOU CAN BRING HER UP, SHE CAN INTRODUCERS AND THE COUNCIL CAN WELCOME HER. THAT'S A MIC RIGHT THERE, TELL US YOUR NAME APPEARED WHERE YOU COME FROM.

HI, I'M CARA, AND I COME FROM DOSS ELEMENTARY. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M — [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: AND YOU'RE THE MAYOR FOR TODAY, RIGHT?

RIGHT. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT, OKAY! THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND FOR DINNER. I WILL ANNOUNCE THAT — THAT THE ITEMS THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION ARE UNDER SECTION 55.— 551.072, REAL PROPERTY, ACQUISITION OF GREEN WAY AND PARKS FROM THE NOVEMBER 1998 BOND ELECTION AND ITEM 4, DISCUSS ACQUISITION OF INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND THAT'S FOR SCHOOL OF THE DEAF — I MEAN IN THE SCHOOL OF THE DEAF SOUTH CAMPUS. WE ARE RECESSED. AND IS OUR MUSICIAN HERE?

UH-HUH.

THE MAYOR CAN INTRODUCE THE MUSIC. IF WE CAN SET UP.

JAM-A-THON IS A MUSIC —

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND, HOLD IT, MAYOR. I HAVE NEVER GIVEN ORDERS TO A MAYOR BEFORE. I'M ENJOYING THIS. [ LAUGHTER ]. LET'S WAIT TO SEE IF THEY CAN SET UP AND THEN YOU CAN INTRODUCE THEM.

I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE THE MUSICIANS NOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. [ APPLAUSE ]

JAM-A-THON IS A MUSIC FESTIVAL AND TALENT SEARCH FOR YOUNG MUSICIANS STATE-WIDE. TODAY WE HAVE TAY, WHO WILL BEGIN WRITING AND RAPPING IN — WHO BEGAN WRITING AND RAPPING IN 1996 AFTER LOSING HIS MOTHER TO AIDS, BIG DIP IS 23-YEAR-OLD NATIVE AUSTINITE WHO WILL BEGIN HIS MUSICAL CAREER IN 1992. AND DJAMES, A WELL ROUNDED MUSICIAN, SINGER, RAPPER, SONG WRITER, PRODUCER AND COMPOSER. THE FIRST JAM-A-THON STATE-WIDE FINAL COMPETITION CONCERT AND FESTIVAL WAS HELD HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS LAST WEEK. TODAY IS A SAMPLING OF WHAT FANS HEARD AT FIESTA GARDENS ON MARCH 16TH. SO PLEASE WELCOME TAY, BIG DIP AND DJAMES. [ APPLAUSE ] [ (music) MUSIC PLAYING (music)(music) ] (SINGING) RAPPING) (RAPPING/SINGING) (music)(music) [ APPLAUSE ]

NOT QUITE CLEAR ON WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE PURCHASING NEXT. BUT WE WILL LET YOU KNOW. AND IT WILL BE PUT OUT THERE AND JUST HOPE THAT THE CITY SUPPORTS US, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DO SOMETHING POSITIVE. THE MUSIC INDUSTRY HERE IN AUSTIN WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF KIDS OUT HERE, JAM-A-THON IS ALSO A TALENT COMPETITION. WE PARTICIPATED THIS YEAR AND EVERY YEAR WE DO, WE HOPE THAT EVERYBODY COMES OUTS AN SUPPORTS IT, SUPPORTS AUSTIN YOUTH AND THEIR LOCAL TALENT. LIKE THIS YOUNG LADY RIGHT HERE. [ LAUGHTER ]. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: BE IT KNOWN THAT — SHE'S GOING TO READ THE REST.

WHEREAS SCIENCE FESTIVAL 2002 WILL SHOWCASE THE TALENT OF MORE THAN — MORE THAN 1,000 PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN CENTRAL TEXAS, AND WHEREAS SCIENCE FAIRS LIKE SCIENCE FESTIVAL 2002 ARE ENTERTAINING AND EDUCATIONAL EVENT THAT ALSO HELP — RIGHT THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: POPULARIZE SCIENCE AND INTERESTS —

CHILDREN AND —

MAYOR GARCIA: PURSUING.

PURSUING SCIENCE, MATH AND ENGINEERING CAREERS; AND WHEREAS THE — THE WE CONGRATULATE THE — THE PARTICIPANTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHOSE WINNING PROJECTS WILL GO ON TO STATE AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS. AND WE THANK AUSTIN ENERGY, OUR COMMUNITY OWNED —

MAYOR GARCIA: LEAK UTILITY — OWE ELECTRIC UTILITY.

ELECTRIC UTILITY.

FOR SPONSORING THIS EVENT THREE YEARS IN A ROW.

I THEREFORE —

MAYOR GARCIA: GUS GARCIA.

AND YOU.

MAYOR, AND CARA WHITLEY MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DO HERE BY PROCLAIM MARCH 22ND TO 23RD, 2002 AS AUSTIN AREA SCIENCE FESTIVAL 2002 DAYS IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, MAYOR GUS AND THANK YOU MAYOR, CARA. WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE AUSTIN AREA SCIENCE FESTIVAL 2000 PROCLAMATION DAYS. I HAVE WITH — I AM BARBARA TINBRINK DIRECTOR OF THE FAIR. I'M THE SCIENCE COORDINATE NATURE FOR ROUND ROCK ISD ONE OF THE HOSTS. THE AUSTIN AREA FAIR SERVES 15 COUNTIES, 500 CAMPUSES. MAYOR, IT IS THE LARGEST ACADEMIC COMPETITION IN THE CITY. I HAVE WITH ME HELEN JOHNSON, SHE REPRESENTS AUSTIN INDEPENDENT...................AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. AUSTIN IS ONE OF OUR HOSTS. AND I ALSO HAVE WITH ME KEVIN GOW. KEVIN GOW IS FROM CONNALLY HIGH SCHOOL, PFLUGERVILLE I.S.D. KEVIN IS WITH US TONIGHT BECAUSE HE REPRESENTED THE AUSTIN AREA AT THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE FAIR LAST YEAR. SO WE ARE SO, SO IMPRESSED WITH OUR FAIR, OUR JUDGES AND OUR CONTESTANTS. WE LOVE AUSTIN ENERGY FOR SUPPORTING US. AISD AND ROUND ROCK I.S.D. WE LOVE OUR STUDENTS. KEVIN AND THE MORE THAN — THIS YEAR. WE HAVE OVER 1500 PROJECTS AT THE PALMER AT THIS MOMENT. TOMORROW AND SATURDAY WILL FAIRLY COMMENCE. WE INVITE ALL OF YOU TO COME. WE HAVE GIFTS FOR YOU MAYOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENTS THOSE TO YOU, WE HAVE A 15 SECOND VIDEO CLAIM THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. THAT WAS THE CLUE, THAT WAS THE CUE. THAT'S IT, THE AUSTIN AREA SCIENCE FESTIVAL, THERE SHOULD BE AUDIO.

MORE THAN 200 VOLUNTEERS FROM COMPANIES ALL OVER AUSTIN HELPED JUDGE PROJECTS.

THE 7% OF THE WORLD'S WATER IS SALT WATER.

I USED LIGHT BULBS TO REPRESENT STARS.

QUAWNT STOMACH COMPUTING USES ZERO, ONE OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.

THE AIMING PROCESS IS SLOWED DOWN.

THE ANTIBIOTICS ARE NO LONGER AS EFFECTIVE. THEY ALLOW THE RESISTANT STRAINS TO PROPAGATE.

THE CANCER TYPES EXAMINED WERE MALL LINK GANT BREAST — MALL LINK NANT BREAST CANCER.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR BACKGROUND, WHERE YOU COME FROM, WHAT YOUR RACE IS. YOUR LIFE IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT.

SCIENCE FEST 2002 IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 21ST THROUGH THE 23RD AT PALMER AUDITORIUM IN AUSTIN. SEE YA THERE.

WE INVITE YOU TO COME TO THE PALMER AUDITORIUM THIS WEEKEND, THANK YOU SO MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU.

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF THE FOLKS THAT ARE ORGANIZING THE CESAR CHAVEZ CELEBRATION, HERE, CAN COME UP, THEN ALSO THE — I THINK THERE'S SOME MEMBERS, AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HERE, ALSO. COME UP HERE AS WELL. BUT THIS NEXT PROCLAMATION IS TO — TO CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT — I THINK IT'S — IS IT MARCH 31ST IS ACTUALLY THE BIRTHDAY OF CESAR CHAVEZ. IT'S COMING UP. NEXT WEEKEND AND WE DON'T HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING NEXT WEEK, SO WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND HONOR THE MEMORY OF CESAR CHAVEZ APPEARED HONOR THE WORK THAT SOME FOLKS ARE DOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO RECOGNIZE HIS ACHIEVEMENTS AND SO WE ARE GOING TO DO A PROCLAMATION ABOUT THE — ONE OF THE EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING NEXT WEEK. IT SAYS BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS CESAR CHAVEZ WAS A CHAMPION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHOSE WORK ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN FARM WORKERS, NO, MA'AM RAISED AWARENESS OF THE — NOT ONLY RAISED AWARENESS OF THE LIVING CONDITIONS BUT ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE HEALTH HAZARDS WITH PESTICIDES AND THE NEED TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT, WHEREAS THE HISPANIC WOMEN'S NETWORK OF TEXAS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT ARE SPONSORING FESTIVITIES IN HONOR OF CESAR CHAVEZ'S BIRTHDAY, AND WHEREAS WE CONGRATULATE THE STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CESAR CHAVEZ ESSAY CONTEST AND WHO ALONG WITH THEIR FAMILIES WILL BE PART OF THE ACTIVITIES AT THE AFL-CIO HALL, NOW, THEREFORE, I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM MARCH 30TH, 2002, AS CESAR CHAVEZ DAY IN AUSTIN. AND IT'S SIGNED BY OUR MAYOR. [ APPLAUSE ]

ALVAREZ: DO YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

YES, AS PRESIDENT OF THE HISPANIC WOMEN'S NETWORK OF TEXAS, THE AUSTIN CHAPTER, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE EVERYONE TO COME AND CELEBRATE WITH US ON SATURDAY, MARCH THE 30TH AND IT'S GOING TO BE HELD AT THE AFL-CIO BUILDING ON LAVACA STREET FROM 5:00 UNTIL 8:00. WE WILL HAVE..... ENTERTAINMENT, WE WILL HAVE A MOCK MARCH PERFORM BY SOME STUDENTS. WE WILL ALSO AWARD THE PRESENTATION OF THE ESSAY WINNER, WHICH IS A MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT. WE JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A GOOD TIME AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THIS GREAT HISPANIC PERSON, CESAR CHAVEZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

ACTUALLY THERE ARE GOING TO BE TWO EVENTS THAT AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO BE STARTING OFF WITH THE MARCH FOR UNITY. MY NAME IS RANDY MORENO, THE PRESIDENT OF THE LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT, AUSTIN CHAPTER. WE WOULD LIKE TO INVITE EVERYONE TO COME OUT AN PARTICIPATE IN THIS MARCH FOR UNITY. THE GATHERING AREA WAS GOING TO BE EAST SECOND AND COMAL AT 10:00 AND WE WILL MARCH TO THE CAPITOL STEPS, HAVE AN ASSEMBLY AND A RALLY AT 11:00. SO PLEASE, EVERYONE COME OUT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EAR THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO SUPPORT THOSE EVENT. THE OTHER THING THAT WE DID WANT TO MENTION WAS THAT EARLIER TODAY THE COUNCIL SOMEWHAT RELATED TO THIS ACTION RELATING TO CESAR CHAVEZ, PASSED A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY. AS A RESULT OF THE — OF THE — THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ A LITTLE BIT HERE THAT SAYS — THAT REFERS TO THAT. IT SAYS: THE CITY COUNCIL DEPLORES ANY VIOLENT ACTION AND EXPRESSION OF HATE TAKEN BY INDIVIDUALS ANGERED BY THE VIOLENT ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THE PENTAGON AGAINST PERSONS PERCEIVED TO BE FOREIGN OR SIMILAR TO THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THE ATTACKS ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER AND THE CITY COUNCIL ZOO HERE BY DECLARE THE YEAR 2002 TO BE A YEAR-LONG CELEBRATION OF THE STRENGTH OF AUSTIN'S MULTI CULTURAL MAKEUP AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF U.S. RESIDENTS BOTH WHITE AND NON-WHITE ARE THEMSELVES DESCENDED FROM IMMIGRANTS BOTH VOLUNTARY AND UNVOLUNTARY WHO IN COMING TO THIS COUNTRY ENCOUNTERED NATIVE PEOPLES LIVING HERE. THEY ASK TO SHOW SUPPORT SUPPORT FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS, WE WANTED TO CALL ATTENTION TO THAT AS WELL BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE PRINCIPLES ARE THE VERY PRESCRIPTION PEOPLES THAT CESAR CHAVEZ — PRINCIPLES THAT CESAR CHAVEZ, THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT WE ARE HONORING HERE STOOD FOR AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE STAN MAIN A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IS HERE WITH US TODAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK, HE SPOKE EARLIER. [ APPLAUSE ]

ALVAREZ: SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR — FOR THESE EVENTS THAT YOU ARE PUTTING TOGETHER AND FOR YOUR WORK, STAN, ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO GO SIT DOWN? ARE YOU OKAY NOW, WE WILL READ IT TOGETHER, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH HAS CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO INCREASING LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE U.S., BY REDUCING THE INCIDENCE OF JURY, DISABILITY AND DISEASE AND WHEREAS WE HAVE SEEN A DECLINE IN HEART DISEASE AND STROKE, TOBACCO RELATED AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES — I GUESS ALL YOU GUYS ARE HERE FOR THAT, RIGHT?

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND MOTOR VEHICLE AND WORKPLACE INJURIES BECAUSE PUBLIC HEALTH ADDRESSES PATTERN OF DISEASE AND INJURY WITHIN OUR POPULATION AND WHEREAS WE RECOGNIZE AND SINCERELY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF — OF AUSTIN'S PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF OUR CITIZENS AND WHO'S WORK ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL OF US, NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA AND CARA WHITLY,.

MAYOR GARCIA: OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM APRIL 1 TO 72002 AS AUSTIN'S PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK IN AUSTIN WE PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION TO THE OFFICIAL THAT'S HERE. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS.

THANKS AGAIN.

THANKS, MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR THIS PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK. A WEEK IN WHICH WE RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO OUR COMMUNITY'S WELL-BEING. TODAY WE ENJOY BETTER HEALTH, LIVE A HEALTHIER CONDITION, KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF OUR HEALTH AND LIVE LONGER THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN THE PAST. ONE OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S TRADITIONAL ROLES HAS ASSUMED MORE PROMINENCE IN RECENT MONTHS AND THAT IS A ROLE OF RESPONDING TO EMERGENCIES AND DISASTER. ON THE FRONT LINES FOR THAT RESPONSE ARE THE PROFESSIONALS WHO WORK IN THE DISEASE SURVEILLANCE AREA. THE AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT DISEASE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM MONITORS AND INVESTIGATES CASES OF REPORTABLE INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND CONDITIONS REPORTED BY LOCAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. SUCH AS ANTHRAX, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HERE LATELY. THIS IS A TIME THAT THE SAME GROUP WILL RESPOND TO ATTACKS OF BOTH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. SO WE ARE A PART OF THE FRONT LINE IN FIGHTING TERRORISM. THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE MANY PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN HERE IN AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, WE APPRECIATE THE PROCLAMATION THAT SUPPORTS THAT EFFORT, THANK YOU AGAIN. [ APPLAUSE ] 7.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS PROCLAMATION IS GOING TO BE PRESENTSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. AND I THINK SOME PEOPLE ARE HERE, VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE HERE TO JOIN US FOR THIS. FORMER CONGRESSMAN J. JAKE PICKLE. COME ON, CONGRESSMAN. GO SAY HELLO TO THE CONGRESSMAN, HE'S RIGHT THERE.

HOW ARE YOU DOING? ON THE PROCLAMATION READS AS FOLLOWS, BE IT NOPE THAT THE AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT IS ORGANIZING CLEANUP PROJECTS THROUGHOUT OUR PARKS SYSTEM DURING APRIL AS — AS THE START OF A YEAR-LONG VOLUNTEER EFFORT TO BEAUTIFY AND IMPROVE OUR PARKS AND FURTHER EXTEND THE TOWN LAKE BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM AND WHEREAS AUSTINITES VALUE OUR PARKS AND WANT THEM TO BE BEAUTIFUL, FUNCTIONAL AND ENJOYABLE FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, AND WHEREAS THE CITY IS CALLING ON BUSINESSES, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, PARK ADVOCATES, SCHOOLS AND CIVIC CLUBS TO TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF THEIR LOCAL PARKS DURING APRIL NOW, THEREFORE, I DPUS GARCIA.

AND CARA WHITLEY, MAYORS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM APRIL, 2002 AS BEAUTIFY PARKS MONTH. YOU CAN PRESENT THIS TO MR. OLIVARES. RIGHT HERE.

THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU, CARA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS WE CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ALL THE GREAT VOLUNTEERS THAT — THAT THIS GREAT CITY HAS PRODUCED FOR US TO COME OUT AND PLANT A TREE, PICK UP SOME TRASH, PULL A WEED AND JUST COME OUT AND BEAUTIFY YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND YOUR TOWN LAKE CORRIDOR WITH ALL THE EFFORTS THAT YOU CAN PRODUCE SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO BE ONE OF THE GREATEST CITIES IN THIS UNITED STATES. AUSTIN, TEXAS HAS ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN AS A CITY THAT EVERY OTHER CITY WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE. SO WE ARE TRULY A CITY WITHIN A PARK. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON ANN TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A PROJECT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY JOINING FORCES WITH A — WITH A SUPPORT GROUP CALLED THE SHADY LADIES [ LAUGHTER ] ON TOWN LAKE CORRIDOR TO — TO CONTINUE TO BEAUTIFY THE CORRIDOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND LET ME WARN YOU I'M NOT EVEN THE SHADIEST LADY OF THE GROUP. SO — [ LAUGHTER ]. I AM SO PLEASED TO TELL YOU ALL ABOUT A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN INSPIRED BY THE SHADY LADIES AND IN HONOR OF JAKE PICKLE HAS WHOA HAS DONE SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF GIVING BACK. THIS LOCATION IS A LITTLE TRACT OF LAND BETWEEN TWO EXISTING BASEBALL FIELDS IN FRONT OF THE YMCA RIGHT THERE ON TOWN LAKE. IT'S OPEN AREA, WE RECENTLY LOST A LARGE SHADE TREE THERE DUE TO A BAD STORM. RECENTLY WITH HAD ON FEBRUARY 2ND A GROWN BREAKING FOR A PARK, WHICH IS GOING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE THIS. YOU IT'S GOOD GO TO FEATURE A PAVILION FOR SHADE FOR THE PEOPLE USING THE BALL FIELDS. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO COME OUT FOR PICNICS OR BIRTHDAY PARTIES, ANY KIND OF GATHERINGS. GOING TO HAVE A PLAZA, LIMESTONE, NATIVE LIMESTONE PLAZA WITH XERISCAPEED AND OF COURSE FEATURING PEACH TREES EVERYWHERE. IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED THE PICKLE PEACH PARK. SO LIKE I SAID, WE HAD OUR GROUND BREAKING, WE ARE IN THE MILL OF THE FUNDRAISING, ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO BE PART OF ANOTHER COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND PARKS AND RECREATION. OUR CITY'S FUNDS, WHICH WAS THE UMLAUF SCULPTURE GARDEN INSPIRED BY THE UMLAUF AND ROBERTA CRENSHAW THE IMPETUS IN GETTING CITIZENS JUST LIKE YOU TO DONATE EITHER IN KIND OR MONEY OR HELPING US PLANT TREES. THERE WILL BE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTRIBUTE. THAT WAS A HUGE SUCCESS AND I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN REPEAT THAT HERE WITH THE INSPIRATION THAT MR. PICKLE AND THE SHADY LADIES ARE GIVING US. WE LOOK FORWARD TO DOING, LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE PLAMENTSED A VERY LARGE TREE THERE ON FEBRUARY 2ND DONATED BY A FIRM CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SERVICES. THEY ARE THE COMPANY THAT PRESENTSLY MOVED THOSE HUGE TREES BY THOSE HUGE CRANES THAT YOU SEE GOING ON AT PALMER AUDITORIUM RIGHT NOW. THEY DONATED A TREE WORTH $2500. THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IF YOU GO AND SEE IT. [ APPLAUSE ]

ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE CALL THE SHADY LADIES, THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: CONGRESSMAN PICKLE.

WELL, MR. MAYOR, I APPLAUD YOU FOR THIS PROCLAMATION. THIS IS GOOD FOR OUR CITY, I'M PLEASESED TO BE HERE TODAY WITH ANN COLEMAN, ONE OF OUR CITY'S OUTSTANDING LANDSCAPERS. SHE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE GROUP, THEY REFERRED TO THEMSELVES AS THE SHADY LADIES. THEY ARE CONCENTRATING ON THE PARK AREA DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE YMCA. BUT THEY ALL SUPPORT VERY STRONGLY THIS PROCLAMATION TO BEAUTIFY THE PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. MR. MAYOR, THAT'S A WONDERFUL PROJECT FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE EVERYBODY IN THE CITY CAN BE INVOLVED. AND EVERYBODY COULD HELP BEAUTIFY OUR PARKS. WE ALL OUT TO PITCH IN WITH A FEAVOR TO MAINTAIN. I HAVE BEEN WATCHING AUSTIN PARKS DEPARTMENT OFF AND ON FOR OVER 70 YEARS, I'M PROUD TO SAY I THINK OUR AUSTIN CITY PARKS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY AS HAVING ONE OF THE BEST RECREATION FACILITIES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW, WE CAN — [ APPLAUSE ] WE CAN FURTHER THAT. SO THESE LADIES WILL BE WORKING WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT AND I'M SURE ALL OF THE CITY COORDINATING WITH YOU WHAT WE SHOULD DO TO THE PARKS BECAUSE THAT'S ONE THING EVERYBODY CAN HELP ON. I'M HERE JUST TO ADD MY SUPPORT. IN ADDITION TO THE PICNIC UNITS AND MAZDAS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION — PLAZAS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION, I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE GOING TO PLANT A FEW MORE PICKLE TREES. PEACH TREES. OF COURSE I ENDORSE THAT. [ LAUGHTER ]. BUT THIS IS A WIDE PROJECT. EVERYBODY IN AUSTIN SHOULD GET BEHIND. I APPLAUD YOU FOR OFFERING THIS PROCLAMATION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR, THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY GOODBYE TO EVERYBODY.

BYE BYE. [ LAUGHTER ]. THE PRINCIPAL FROM THE SCHOOL IS HERE. IF YOU COULD STAND. AND [ APPLAUSE ] BE RECOGNIZED. I THINK ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL WHO USED TO BE MY WIFE'S BOSS IS HERE. SHE'S — SHE SHARES SOMETHING WITH ME. WE RETIRE AND COME BACK. AND I THINK THE PARENTS, CARA, DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOUR PARENTS?

KATHY WHITLEY AND ALAN WHITLEY, PLEASE STAND. DAD. THERE DAD.

LIKE ELMER FUDD USED TO SAY, THAT'S ALL FOLKS! [ LAUGHTER ] TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. AND WE WERE — WE HAD TABLED ITEM 15 FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND NOW WE'RE BACK WITH 6:00 O'CLOCK ITEMS, SO WE'LL GO TO THE 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVING AN APPROXIMATELY 3,900 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS 0.090 ACRES WASTEWATER USE AGREEMENT AND A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY WORK SPACE USE AGREEMENT TO ALLOWRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER LINE THROUGH DEDICATED PARKLAND KNOWN AS THE MEADOWS AT TRINITY CLOSING. ALL COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SOAKS OF THE LINE AS WELL AS ANY PARKLAND RESTORATION WILL BE PAID BY THE REQUESTER THROUGH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT?

I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: VERY GOOD. DO YOU WANT TO BRIEF US ON THAT, JUDY?

IN PARTICULAR I NEED TO SAY THERE IS NO OTHER FEASIBLE IMPROVED TO THE DEDICATED PARKLAND, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ALL HARM TO THE PARK.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. PLUMBER? THERE'S NO SPEAKERS, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND YOU CAN ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS.

THOMAS: SO MOVE, MAYOR, TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

MAYOR GARCIA: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ACTION?

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ACTION. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. AND IS THERE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO TO TWO WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. OKAY. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE EXECUTE SIEVE SESSION ITEMS. CITY MANAGER, ARE WE READY TO DO THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS WITH TRAVIS, HAYS, WILLIAMSON AND BASTROP COUNTIES WITH THE TERMS OF THE 1445?

YES, WE ARE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BRIEF US A LITTLE BIT?

YES. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING TO YOU FOUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO AN APPROVAL ON THE AGREEMENTS FOR TRAVIS COUNTY AND AGREEMENT APPROVAL FOR BASTROP COUNTY AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FOR HAYS COUNTY. AND — DID YOU —

MAYOR GARCIA: GO AHEAD.

BASICALLY FOR EACH OF THE FOUR ENTITIES WE'RE RECOMMENDING OPTION 2 WHERE THE CITY HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND ALSO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE SAME THING IN BASTROP COUNTY. AND WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AND HAYS COUNTIES WE ARE RECOMMENDING A ONE-STOP SHOP AND WE'D BE WORKING ON PHASE 2 OF THE AGREEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A PROCESS AND PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THAT FOR THE ONE-STOP SHOPS WE HAVE ALL THE PROCESS WORKED OUT AS WELL AS INCLUDING SOME INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS AS TO HOW THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AFFECT THEM IN MAKING THE PROCESS STREAMLINED. ALSO, ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY AGREEMENT, WE HAD TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING DOCUMENT IN YOUR BACKUP OF THE AND I'LL ASK ANDY MARTIN TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. WE HAVE TALKED WITH THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO IS REPRESENTING TRAVIS COUNTY ON THESE AND SUGGEST THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED EARLIER AND HE IS AMENABLE THOSE ON BEHALF OF COUNTY AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY AGREE TO THESE CHANGES. ON PAGE 3 OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY AGREEMENT IN YOUR BACKUP, THE VERY FIRST CLAUSE IN SUBSECTION 2-A, STRIKE THAT SO THAT THE BEGINNING OF THAT PARAGRAPH WOULD READ THE COUNTY AND THE CITY SHALL ESTABLISH ONE OFFICE. ON PAGE 6 AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, SUBSECTION 3 THAT YOU SEE THERE, IT'S SUBSECTION 2-D-3, IN THE THIRD LINE OF THAT SENTENCE THAT STARTS, AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AS PROVIDED BY LAW ONLY IF, ADD THIS LANGUAGE, IT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY AND WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY, AND IT BEARS — AND CONTINUE AS WRITTEN — THE APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATION FROM EACH PARTY.

> AND THEN IN SECTION OF, SUBSECTION 3-A, STRIKE THE ENTIRE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS SECTION 242.004-D. AND THOSE ARE THE SUGGESTED CHANGES. AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. AND THERE IS — I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A PROVISION THAT THE COUNTY HAD ASKED BE INCLUDED FROM PREVIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS, AND THAT WOULD BE SECTION — ON PAGE 4, SECTION 3-B CONCERNING THE CITY MAKING AVAILABLE BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FEES TO THE COUNTY FOR AUDIT PURPOSES.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR ANDY? MR. MARTIN?

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT SOME.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MR. MARTIN, LET'S GO THROUGH A FEW THINGS. WE HAVEN'T HAD — WELL, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF REGIONAL COOPERATION. AND IT'S BEEN RATHER QUIET. I THINK ONE REASON IS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF CONTROVERSY, BUT IT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW WHERE EITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS OR RATHER THE CITY AND THE COUNTY HAVE TO WORK OUT WHICH OF THESE REGULATIONS APPLIES. IS THAT ACCURATE?

OR THE OPTION AS IT'S BEING PURSUED WITH TRAVIS COUNTY THAT WE AGREE TO A CONSOLIDATED CONSISTENCY.

SLUSHER: OR YOU HAVE TO WORK OUT WHICH ONES AS WELL. SO WITH TRAVIS COUNTY IT'S GOING TO BE CONSOLIDATED. SO LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE — ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OVER THE YEARS IS WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. LET'S TAKE — ON THE TABLE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY, S.O.S. WOULD STILL PLAY IN THE ETJ, CORRECT?

ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: AND TRAVIS COUNTY, WHEN THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT PASSES THIS, THEY WILL ACCEPT THAT AND THAT WILL BE THE WAY.

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THAT AT ALL IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILL APPLY AS WELL THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS. THE S.O.S. REGULATIONS ARE ACTUALLY WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS, BUT THEY ARE ENFORCED THROUGH THE OPERATION OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

SLUSHER: SO THIS WOULD BE TRUE OF OUR OTHER WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS IN THE ETJ AS WELL AS THEY WOULD APPLY?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT THAT'S HAPPENING, THE — RIGHT NOW APPLICANTS, DEVELOPERS HAVE TO GO — THAT ARE IN THE ETJ, THEY HAVE TO TO GO TO THE CITY AND GET THEIR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY TO GET THEIR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BUT UNDER WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WOULD ORGANIZE INTO ONE STOP FOR DEVELOPERS IN THE ETJ, SO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ORDINANCES LIKE S.O.S. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS, BUT THEY CAN GO TO ONE PLACE TO GET THEIR REGULATIONS AND APPROVAL.

YES. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY STAFF WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER IN REVIEWING THE PLAT APPLICATIONS AND WILL BE PROVIDING A CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS TO THE DEVELOPER THROUGH THE SINGLE OFFICE. THAT WILL ALL BE TRANSPARENT TO THE DEVELOPER. HE WANTS — ONCE THE DEVELOPER HAS FILED THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE PLAT APPROVAL, IT WILL BE REVIEWED BY CITY AND COUNTY STAFF TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED RESPECTIVELY BY THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. THEY'LL GET A SINGLE SET OF COMMENTS THAT TELL WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, IF ANYTHING. AND THEN IT WILL GO ON AND IT WILL BE — THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED RESPECTIVELY BY THE CITY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

SLUSHER: AND IN THE SITUATION WITH HAYS COUNTY, TELL US ABOUT S.O.S. THERE.

THE SAME OPERATION. WHAT'S ON THE TABLE WITH LAKE COUNTY IS AN APPROVAL OF A ONE-STOP SHOP TYPE OF AGREEMENT WHERE BOTH HAYS COUNTY'S REGULATIONS AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S REGULATIONS WILL APPLY IN AUSTIN'S ETJ. AND WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED TO THE HAYS COUNTY IS A MODEL THAT'S BASED ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU APPROVE TONIGHT. SO IN THIS RESOLUTION, WE WOULD ASK FOR — THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO BE RAISED BY HAYS COUNTY, SOME DIFFERENCES THAT THEY HAVE, SO WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY SINCE YOU'RE NOT HAVING ANOTHER MEETING, TO RESPOND TO THOSE. BUT CERTAINLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU'RE GIVING STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE SOMETHING THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMAT OF WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

SLUSHER: AND I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND AND STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT WE EXPECT THAT TO INCLUDE THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE TO APPLY.

ABSOLUTE SHRI.

SLUSHER: AND ALONG THOSE LINES, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATION, IT'S CLEAR THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS OR THE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T — THAT'S NOT AGREED UPON OR THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE TWO. WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR ME RATHER THAN HAVING ME DO IT?

WELL, THE KEY HERE IS THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE REGULATIONS OF THE COUNTY AND THE CITY BE CONSISTENT — BE CONSOLIDATED AND CONSISTENT. AND CONSISTENCY IS NOT THE SAME WORD AS IDENTICAL. AND WE BELIEVE THAT AN APPLICANT CAN MEET REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IMPOSED BOTH BY THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. THEY MAY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT UNLESS THEY ARE INCONSISTENT, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED HERE. SO WHEN THE APPLICATION IS FILED, THE COUNTY STAFF AND THE CITY STAFF WILL WORK TOGETHER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE ANY APPARENT INDOESN'T SIS AND — INCONSISTENCIES AND GIVE A SINGLE ANSWER BACK TO THE APPLICANT.

SLUSHER: I THINK STAFF AND YOU DID A GOOD JOB ON THIS. SEVERAL OF US HAVE BEEN OUT AND TALKED TO SOME OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND TRAVIS COUNTY ABOUT THIS, AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF REGIONAL COOPERATION. HOPEFULLY ONE REASON IT HASN'T GOTTEN MORE NOTICE IS BECAUSE THE REGIONAL COOPERATION IS BECOMING MORE FREQUENT AND LESS OF AN UNUSUAL THING. AND THIS — IN THIS ONE WE CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE STIES WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS IN THE ETJ, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING IN THE ETJ NO LONGER HAVE TO GO TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND WORK THEIR PROPOSALS THROUGH ON SEPARATE TRACTS. SO I THINK THIS IS A SITUATION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN REALLY SERIOUS AND A BIG CONTROVERSY FOR THE CITY, WHERE THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE REALLY HAD NECESSARILY A STRONG HAND, BUT INSTEAD I THINK IT'S WORKED OUT BETTER FOR THE ENTIRE REGION. I MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S ITEM NUMBER 20. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WANT TO COMMEND THE STAFF AND THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN GETTING THIS DONE. I THINK WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL THE COUNTIES AND SEEING HOW WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT ALL THIS — THE PROCESS. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DECIDES THE MAYOR SHOULD GET BASTROP BARBECUE OUT OF THE DEAL. [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T YOU KEEP THAT A SECRET, COUNCILMEMBER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. ITEM 22 IS APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ACQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES NEAR LOYOLA LANE AND ADJACENT TO WALNUT CREEK TO BE PURCHASED WITH NOVEMBER 1998 PROPOSITION TWO BONDS FOR GREENWAY AND DESTINATION PARKS. THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE COUNCIL WAS BRIEFED AND MS. PLUMBER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THIS ACQUISITION FOR THE GREENWAY AND PARKLAND DESTINATION IS FOR 120,000. IT IS LOCATED ON WALNUT CREEK ALONG — NEAR LOYOLA LANE. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO PURCHASING THIS 42 ACRES. AGAIN, THE PURCHASE PRICE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 420,000.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH FOR A MOTION.

GRIFFITH: I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SHOULD MAKE THIS MOTION.

WYNN: I MOVE APPROVAL.

GRIFFITH: AND I'LL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? GREAT WORK, MS. PLUMBER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

THOMAS: WHAT'S HIS NAME —

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR LENO? I BELIEVE HE'S IN THE STAFF ROOM.

WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE JUMPING UP.

WHILE HE'S COMING, I NEED TO — I NEED TO KNOW HOW LONG EAGLE CONSTRUCTION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN ON THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT.

IT'S BEEN WELL OVER A YEAR NOW SINCE THEY FIRST GOT THEIR CONTRACT. AND WE EXPECT THAT THEY WILL BE WITH US UNTIL SOMETIME IN 2003. THE END OF 2003 IN FACT.

AND THE CHANGE ORDERS IS THIS — THIS IS THE ROUTINE ON THE CHANGE ORDERS?

YES, MA'AM.

THOMAS: THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT WAS IT WITH THE P.O.M. COMPANY —

YES, SIR.

THOMAS: IN READING YOUR MEMO TO THE 3 OF OUTSIDE THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OTHER TWO, BUT I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I HAD THE INITIAL CONTACT WITH THIS COMPLAINTANT. WAS IT EVER DEFINED WHY THIS COMPANY WAS TERMINATED FROM THE CONTRACT?

THE EWING GEL CONSTRUCTION ALLEGES LACK OF PERFORMANCE. P.O.M. DISPUTES THIS.

THOMAS: RIGHT.

THERE'S A DISPUTE ESSENTIALLY BETWEEN P.O.M. AND EAGLE WHICH WE HAVE OFFERED TO MEDIATE AND IN FACT WE HAVE PAID FOR A MEDIATOR TO HELP US DO THAT. BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN QUITE ABLE TO GET THE TWO PARTIES TOGETHER. THERE BEEN SOME RESEARCH DONE BEVERY HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN SAY WE HAD AN ACTUAL MEDIATION ON THE DISPUTE.

THOMAS: OKAY. ALSO IN THE MEDIATION, YOU SAY YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO — THE LAST COMPLAINTS THAT SHE HAVE HAD — WHEN SHE SPOKE TO US THAT SHE HAD SEVERAL OTHER CONTRACTS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, IS THAT RIGHT.

I BEG YOUR PARDON P.O.M.?

YES, P.O.M.

YES, I'M NOT AWARE — IN FACT SHE HAS PERFORMED WITHIN THOSE CONTRACTS.

THOMAS: OKAY. I HAVE A CONCERN THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH EAGLE AND WE CAN'T — IT'S TAKE PLACE US THIS LONG TO MEDIATE WITH THEM, WITH P.O.M., WE HAVE THIS TYPE OF LARGE CONTRACT WITH EAGLE AND THIS — THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY P.O. M. HAS BEEN SERVING — HAVE DONE SEVERAL CONTRACTS WITH US, MY UNDERSTANDING —

THAT'S CORRECT.

THOMAS: WHERE WAS THE BREAKDOWN? EACH CONTRACT THEY COMPLETED YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, SHE WAS ON TIME, SO WHY IS ALL OF A SUDDEN SHE'S HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS — THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS CONTRACT?

JUST TO RE-EMPHASIZE, THE DISPUTE IS NOT WITH THE CITY. IT'S BETWEEN P.O.M. AND EAGLE. WE ARE INVOLVED IN A SENSE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MEDIATE IT BETWEEN THOSE TWO. NOW, WE HAVE REQUESTED INFORMATION MORE SPECIFIC TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BEING RAISED BY P.O. INFORMATION. BUT WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN — P.O.M., BUT WE HAVE ON NOT GOTTEN A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO ALLOW US TO RESPOND TO THE OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY P.O.M. AGAIN THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IN OTHER CONTRACTS THAT P.O.M. HAS HAD WITH THE CITY THEY HAVE PERFORM SATISFACTORILY. THIS REALLY IS RESTRICTED TO THIS MATTER.

THOMAS: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE HERE HAVE AN ITEM TO — TO APPROVE WITH EAGLE AND WE CAN'T GET A MEDIATION DONE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE COMPLAINT THAT WE HAD AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS THAT EAGLE STILL OWE THE PARTICULAR P.O.M. MONEY.

WELL —

THOMAS: LET ME FINISH, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THIS IS A PROBLEM WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONTRACTS WITH THE M.B.E. W.B.E. OVER AND OVER AND OVER WITH SUBCONTRACTORS. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE AWARDING A COMPANY THIS LARGE — WITH THIS LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND WE VICE-PRESIDENT EVEN SOLVED THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS. WHICH IS A HISTORY THAT WE DO HAVE WITH CONTRACTS DEALING WITH M.B.E. SUBCONTRACTORS. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT CAN WE DO TO MEDIATE WITH P.O.M. BECAUSE WHAT I AM SAYING TONIGHT IS THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. AND I KNOW IT'S NOT BETWEEN THE CITY, BUT THIS IS THE CITY'S MONEY THAT WE WILL BE REWARDING. I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO DO RIGHT BY SUBCONTRACTORS, NO MATTER WHO IT IS. THE COMPLAINT THAT WE RECEIVED AND THE TIME OF FEBRUARY THE 12TH, WE JUST NOW GETTING A RESPONSE MARCH THE 20TH. THAT'S NOT GOOD BUSINESS.

LET ME ADDRESS THAT LAST ISSUE FIRST. YOU ARE CORRECT. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE PROMPT IN RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL, I ASSURE YOU THAT THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. WE WILL FINE OUT EXACTLY WHY THAT HAPPENED. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES BETWEEN THIS SUBCONTRACTORS AND EAGLE, WE DON'T — I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDICE A CASE AGAINST EITHER. WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHO IS RIGHT. IT IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. WE WOULD LOVE TO GET IT MEDIATED BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF EAGLE IS RIGHT AND WE DON'T KNOW OR — IF P.O.M. IS RIGHT. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THEY ARE IN DISAGREEMENT. BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU THAT I AM MORE INCLINED TO BELIEVE P.O.M. OVER EAGLE OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE REMAIN INVOLVED, I WILL PURSUE IT AND ATTEMPT TO DO WHAT IS CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT AND IN REPRESENTING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. I HAVE NO — ABSOLUTELY NO DOG IN EITHER SIDE. I WANT TO RESOLVE IT FAIRLY AND CORRECTLY.

THOMAS: THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: A MOTION?

THOMAS: I MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? THANK YOU, MR. GARZA, FOR YOUR STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6-0-1 WITH MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. ITEM NO. 25, MAYOR, CITY MANAGER.

FUTRELL: WE HAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS HERE. 7 SEE I'M TRYING TO DO THIS FOR YOU, MAYOR. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO SETS OF POSITIONS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD AS PART OF OUR ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE TO 9-11. AND I THINK MAYBE WHAT I WILL DO IS OPEN THIS UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS THE ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP IS — IS THE FACT THAT THE — BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT, WE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN TO THE CAPTAIN POSITION. AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE DETAILS. BUT IF YOU COULD GIVE US MORE DETAILS THAT — THAT WOULD EXPLAIN. I DON'T KNOW — THE LOOK ON YOUR FACE TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED BY THIS STATEMENT.

I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THE TIMING WAS COME INS DENTAL TO — COINCIDENTAL TO THE PROMOTION EXAM AND THE OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY THE ELIGIBILITY LISTS. THE FUNDING WAS APPROVED ON FEBRUARY THE 28TH AND THE PROMOTIONAL LIST THAT THE CANDIDATE IN QUESTION HAD EXPIRED ON FEBRUARY 20TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WAS THERE SOMETHING WE COULD HAVE DONE TO HAVE BROUGHT THAT ITEM UP EARLIER TO THE COUPLE TO APPROVE THE FUNDING OR WAS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE?

I DON'T BELIEVE IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CORRECTION. THE FUNDING WAS APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 14TH, I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: 14TH. AND THEN THE — BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LIST EXPIRED?

FUTRELL: JIM, DO WE HAVE THE DATES TURNED AROUND? WAS THE APPROVAL ON THE 14TH AND THE LIST EXPIRED ON THE 20TH.

THAT'S CORRECT.

FUTRELL: THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE MISSING WAS THAT BY NOT BRINGING THE ACTUAL RECLASSIFICATION, CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BRINGING THE POSITIONS FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME WE DID THE FUNDING, WE DID LET A LIST EXPIRE WHERE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A MINORITY ADVANCEMENT IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. FORTUNATELY ON THE NEW LIST WE HAVE A NUMBER OF — INCLUDING THIS SAME GENTLEMAN, HAVE SCORED VERY HIGH ON THE NEW LIST. ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT MAKE IT WITH THIS ACTION, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE GOOD OPPORTUNITIES IN THE REST OF THE YEARS. BUT OUR PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE TO BE LOOKING AT OUR LIST MORE CAREFULLY AS WE BRING ITEMS FORWARD FOR FUNDING AND FOR POSITIONS AND WE WILL MAKE A POINT OF DOING THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I SUSPECT FOR THIS ONE, BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AND THE WAY THAT WE DO THE PROMOTION LIST FROM THE — I GUESS THE TASK FORCE?

FUTRELL: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT — THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE WAY YOU ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON NUMBER 25.

THOMAS: BEFORE THAT, MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? CHIEF, YOU SAID WHAT NOW? IF — IF THE PROCEDURES IS WHAT, EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AGAIN. ABOUT YOUR PROMOTION. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO JUMP ON STAFF TODAY, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THIS BECAUSE HOW MANY IN THAT PARTICULAR RANK, HOW MANY MINORITIES DO YOU HAVE?

WHICH RANK WOULD THAT BE, SIR.

THOMAS: THE RANK THAT THIS YOUNG MAN, THE LIST DIED ON?

THE RANK OF CAPTAIN, I BELIEVE, IS THE RANK THAT'S IN QUESTION.

THOMAS: YES, SIR, CORRECT.

YOUR QUESTION IS HOW MANY MINORITIES WE HAVE IN THE RANK OF CAPTAIN?

THOMAS: AFRICAN AMERICANS TO BE SPECIFIC BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE WHO DIED ON THE LIST. HOW MANY AFRICAN AMERICANS DO YOU HAVE IN THAT RANK?

UM I'M NOT SURE. I CAN GET THE ANSWER TO YOU.

THOMAS: OKAY.

WE HAVE A LOT OF CAPTAINS IN THE DEPARTMENT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BREAKDOWN WOULD BE.

THOMAS: I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING, I'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 21 YEARS. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE COULD HAVE PROMOTED SOMEONE, SPECIALLY WHEN A LOWER — WITH THE SENATE IS VERY — WHEN THE PERCENTAGE IS VERY LOW. I FEEL THAT THAT PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE MADE SOME KIND OF EFFORT TO PROMOTE WHEN WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. IT'S A BLESSING THAT HE'S ON THE LIST AGAIN. AND I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR WAS SAYING IS THAT HE ASKED YOU A QUESTION HOW DID YOU FOLLOW THE CITY — I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T, BUT I THINK IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE PROMOTION OF A MINORITY, THAT IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE PUSHING, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF THE LOW NUMBER OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS. I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO — TO USE EVERY MEASURES THAT WE COULD IN THE RIGHT WAY TO — TO PROMOTE THOSE MINORITIES. AND I WILL APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS THE NEXT TIME THAT WE WOULD DO THAT.

YES, SIR.

THOMAS: THANK YOU, SIR. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. SECONDED BY ME. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ YOU HAD A QUESTION?

ALVAREZ: YES. I WANTED SOME EXPLANATIONS ABOUT ALL THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T HEARD AN EXPLANATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING OF ALL OF THIS. IT SEEMS KIND OF ODD, IF YOU ASK ME, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS ON THE 14TH, THEN IT EXPIRED ON THE 20TH, THEN THIS CAME FORWARD LATER. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, WHAT — WHAT EXPIRED, WHAT IS THE POLICY HERE THAT'S SAYING THAT WE HAD TO CHANGE LISTS? I MEAN, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION.

FUTRELL: LET ME TAKE A SHOT AT IT. JIM, YOU JUMP IN IF I'M SAYING ANYTHING THAT'S INCORRECT. I BELIEVE THIS LIST LASTS FOR ONE YEAR.

THAT'S CORRECT.

FUTRELL: BY CIVIL SERVICE LAW, THE LIST IN ALMOST ALL RANKS EXCEPT FOR SOME OF THE HIGHER RANKS WHERE WE HAVE ASSESSMENT CENTER THROUGH THE MEET AND CONFER CONTRACT IT IS THE TEST SCORES THAT RANK EVERYONE WHO TOOK THAT TEST. THIS LIST STAYS GOOD FOR ONE YEAR. ANYONE WHO — THEN AS — FOR EACH RANK, THERE'S A LIST THAT'S GOOD FOR A YEAR. AS PEOPLE LEAVE, THERE'S ATTRITION, PEOPLE QUIT OR NEW POSITIONS ARE PUT IN, YOU GO DOWN THAT LIST. PRETTY MUCH WITHOUT EXCEPTION BY CIVIL SERVICE LAW. SO THAT MEANS AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE LISTS EXPIRE AND THAT MEANS SOMEONE CAN EXPIRE AT THE TOP OR CLOSE TO THE TOP OF THAT LIST WITHOUT HAVING MADE A PROMOTION. IN THIS CASE WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE BROUGHT AS PART OF THE WHOLE 5.2 MILLION DOLLAR PACKAGE OF THE REMAINING NEEDS OF THE POST 9-11 RESPONSE, WE BROUGHT THE FUNDING FORWARD FOR EVERYTHING IN THAT PACKAGE. BUT WHAT WE DIDN'T BRING FORWARD WAS THE ACTUAL CREATION OF THE JOBS WHICH IS A SPECIAL ORDINANCE. BY CIVIL SERVICE LAW THE VACANCY, WHATEVER LIST IS EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME THE VACANCY IS CREATED IS WHAT LIST YOU HAVE TO USE AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE BROUGHT THE FUNDING AND THEN LATER BROUGHT — IN FACT THERE'S ONE MORE COMING STILL, BROUGHT THE POSITIONS FORWARD LATER, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO USE THE OLD LIST BECAUSE THE LIST EXPIRE AND THERE WAS A NEW LIST. SO — SO CIVIL SERVICE LAW HOLDS US TO ONLY BEING ABLE TO USE THE LIST THAT'S VALID AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE POSITION IS CREATED. AND SO IF — ONCE AGAIN, IF I WAS LOOKING AT THIS IN TERMS OF A PROCESS IMPROVEMENT, IN OUR EFFORTS TO INCREASE DIVERSITY IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE SHOULD BE TAKING VERY CAREFUL, PAYING VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE LIST AND HOW WE BRING THE TIMING OF THESE ITEMS FORWARD. HAD WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME YOU DID ALL OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE REST OF THE PACKAGE. AND SO WE DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS LOST. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE — WE WILL TALK THROUGH, WE ARE FORTUNATE ON THE NEW LIST THERE ARE STRONG CANDIDATES, BOTH HISPANIC AND AFRICAN AMERICAN THAT ARE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST INCLUDING THE YOUNG MAN WHO MISSING OUT ON THIS OPPORTUNITY WITH THESE SET OF POSITIONS.

ALVAREZ: DO YOU KNOW — LET'S SEE. TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS WHOLE IDEA OF CREATING POSITIONS, BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN WE APPROVED THAT FUNDING, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION CHIEF, CAPTAIN POSITION, FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS, SO WHY WOULDN'T THAT CONSTITUTE CREATION OF THE POSITIONS IF — WHEN WE ARE SAYING WE ARE APPROVING THE FUNDING OF THESE POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S NOT HOW WE ARE DEFINING CREATION.

FUTRELL: I AM GOING TO LET THE LAW — AS YOU KNOW THE CIVIL SERVICE STATUTES ARE A STRANGE BREED OF LAWS. I'M GOING TO LET THE LAW DEPARTMENT EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MISSING AT THAT TIME.

UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW, A POSITION HAS TO BE CREATED BY ORDINANCE. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT. SO A REGULAR FUNDING ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE POSITION UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW. THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM IS JUST HIGHLY REGULATED VERY STATUTORILY RESTRICTIVE.

ALVAREZ: HOW ARE THOSE TWO ORDINANCES DIFFERENT, I SUPPOSE, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT.

I DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THE BUDGET ORDINANCE WOULD JUST INDICATE FROM WHICH SOURCE OF FUNDS THE MONEY IS MOVING AROUND TO FUND VARIOUS PURPOSES. THE CLASSIFICATION ORDERANCE IS — IS WRITTEN IN A WAY REALLY TO TRACK THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS LET ME LOOK AT THIS ONE.

WE ALSO HAVE AN OLD HAND AT CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL, JOE —

AS I LOOK OVER THE ORDINANCE, WE ENUMERATE ALL OF THE ACTIVE POSITION, YOU WILL SEE THIS IN EVERY SINGLE CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE. WE ALSO HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE REASON WHY WE ARE CREATING A POSITION IF THERE'S ANY POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING ELIMINATED, THAT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE. THE BUDGET ORDINANCE AND THE CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE DON'T SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW.

FUTRELL: JOE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN ADD TO THAT.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE CASE. IF YOU RECALL DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS YOU APPROVED THE BUDGET ORDINANCE, IF YOU WILL, BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT YOU ALWAYS APPROVE THE CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE FOR FIRE AND YOU ALSO APPROVE THE CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE FOR POLICE. AND IN THIS CASE, ANY TIME THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF CLASSIFICATIONS, IT HAS TO — YOU HAVE TO AMEND THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. WHILE YOU APPROVE THE FUNDING ORDINANCE ON THE 14TH, THERE WAS NO CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AT THAT TIME.

ALVAREZ: ONE LAST QUESTION. SO FEBRUARY 14TH, THAT'S THE DAY WE APPROVED THE TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE.

FUTRELL: I BELIEVE THAT IS THE DATE YOU APPROVED THE TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE AND THE REST OF THE FUNDING THAT WE USED TO FUND THAT WHOLE PACKAGE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAYOR.

THOMAS: MAYOR, LET ME —

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTION BY — DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY.

THOMAS: JUST A SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: YES, IT'S BEEN SECONDED. OKAY, STILL OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, WE ARE IN THE DISCUSSION NOW. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE — CIVIL SERVICE — EXCUSE ME, LET ME SAY THIS. CIVIL SERVICE LAWS IS NOT AS COMPLICATED — IT IS COMPLICATED BUT I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WE MADE AN ERROR, WE MADE A MISTAKE, I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT, SAY WHAT WE DID. WE MADE AN ERROR BECAUSE ALL THAT WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO MOVE ON FROM THAT ERROR. BUT I FEEL THAT BECAUSE WE PASSED IT IN TIME ENOUGH TO GET THAT PARTICULAR LIST PROMOTED BECAUSE WE HAD ENOUGH TIME AND IF WE WHEN DID THE RIGHT PROCEDURES WITH THE MONEY, THE BUDGET AND THE ORDINANCE THIS WOULD HAVE PASSED. I THINK THAT'S WHERE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WAS GOING. I THINK IT'S CLEAR. I HOPE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO VISIT THIS AGAIN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD AT ALL. AND — AND IT REALLY TROUBLES ME THAT IT HAPPENED. BUT — BUT BECAUSE IF WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN — THAT ARE IN POSITIONS THAT KNOW THAT WE ARE IN THAT AREA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE, THAT LIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN — THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. FROM THE CHIEF ON DOWN. THANK YOU. 7.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION AND A SECOND.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ON THAT. AND I THINK AN ERROR WAS MADE. I DOUBT IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL ERROR, BUT I THINK IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT — THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF HOW IMPORTANT THE DIVERSITY IS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ELECTED BODY OF THIS CITY. AND BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE DIVERSITY WITHIN THE LAWS BY — WITHIN THE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND SO I'M HOPING THAT THROUGH THIS MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE THAT — THAT THAT WILL HELP INCREASE THE AWARENESS AND THE VIGILANCE AND EAGERNESS TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE DIVERSITY AND THAT — THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY TURN THIS MISTAKE INTO AN OPPORTUNITY AND INTO PROGRESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION AND SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0. WITH NOTES AS — AS MADE BY SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS. ITEM NO. 51, I THINK WE HAVE RESOLVED THAT ONE. PRETTY GOOD. THAT WAS ONE WAS THE ONE FOR — FOR THE — FOR THE CONTRACT ON THE PURCHASE OF REVERSE OSMOSIS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT ON THIS ONE AND ON 57. WE WANTED TO KNOW — WHERE I THINK THIS WAS A QUESTION ASKED BY MR. WYNN, WHERE THIS PLANT IS IN ALIGNMENT FOR SH 130. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. GARZA, SAM HILL IS 1500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF SH 130.

YES, NO LESS THAN 1500 FEET, POTENTIALLY AS FAR AWAY AS 2500 FEET.

AND THE ANSWERS THAT YOU SENT US, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ACCESS ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

> WE HAVE ACCESS THROUGH FALLWELL LANE RIGHT NOW. WE WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT OUR HEAVY EQUIPMENT CAN GET UNOR OVER, I IMAGINE IT WOULD BE UNDER THE ROADWAY. WE THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN ELEVATED ROADWAY THAT WILL BE BUILT THERE. WE WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUR HEAVY EQUIPMENT UNDER IT TO GET TO THE PLANT. AND THE STATE — THE TEXDOT IS AWARE OF OUR CONCERNS. WE WILL CONTINUE MONITORING THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? WIN.

WYNN: IN REGARDS TO THE SHHH 30 I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY STAFF THAT THERE'S SEVERAL UPCOMING MEETINGS WITH TEXDOT OFFICIALS FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROXIMITY AND ACCESS ISSUE SO IT SEEMS TO BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEMS 51 AND 57.

WYNN: I WILL MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 WITH EVERYBODY PRESENTS. NO. 6-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. THE NEXT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE PULLED ARE ALL YOURS, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ITEMS 61, 66, 67 AND 716789 YOU CAN TAKE THEM IN THAT ORDER.

WYNN: YES, MAYOR, ITEM NO. 61, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR — FOR STAFF. THIS HE IS THE ISSUE OF US SPENDING APPROXIMATELY A MILLION DOLLARS TO INSERT A STEEL PLATE LINING IN OUR DOWNTOWN 66 INCH WATER LINE. THAT APPARENTLY WAS DAMAGED RELATIVELY RECENTLY. BY A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. AND MY QUESTION, I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS IN SOME PART RELATED TO A SETTLEMENT OF EITHER AN AGREEMENT OR A SUIT ABOUT — ABOUT THAT DAMAGE. AND IS THE MILLION DOLLAR BEEN — THE NET COST TO THE CITY AFTER SOME REIMBURSEMENT OR SOME — SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE CONTRACTOR WHO DAMAGED THE LINE? OR JUST EXPLAIN TO ME THE COMPLEXITY HERE.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHRIS LIPPY, DIRECTOR OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. ON THIS ITEM, $938,000 IS THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND THE SETTLEMENT PORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS ROUGHLY $120,000, 100,000 OF THAT IS CASH AND 20,000 IS IN TERMS OF AN EXCAVATION, SOME OF THE — SOME OF THE PROJECT WORK ON THIS — ON THIS PROJECT. TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS AN IMPROVE PROJECT THAT WE BELIEVE WAS NECESSARY IN THIS AREA. THE SETTLEMENT IS A SMALL PORTION. THERE HAPPENS TO BE A SETTLEMENT THAT'S PART OF THIS PROJECT, BUT THE $100,000 OR THE — YES, THE $120,000 VALUE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM — FROM THE CONTRACTOR WE BELIEVE IS A FAIR SETTLEMENT. THAT'S BASED ON THE COST OF REPAIRING THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE BY THAT CONTRACTOR. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PROJECT IS MORE RELATED TO RISK MANAGEMENT OF A MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE IN AN AREA DOWNTOWN AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER SOME OF THE FEATURES IN THE TWO BLOCK AREA ALONG SECOND STREET, THAT — WHERE THIS LINE IS RUNNING, THERE'S — THE LARGEST CONCERN IS A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, A PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL THAT'S — THAT'S PARALLEL TO AND THEN CROSSES THE PATH OF THIS TRANSMISSION MAIN, WHICH IS VERY HIGH VOLUME AND HIGH PRESSURE WATER LINE IN THE AREA. SO — SO RISK MANAGEMENT IN TERMS OF — OF POTENTIAL FAILURE OF SUCH A LINE AT ANY TIME WOULD BE — WE BELIEVE WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE NEED IT TO REINFORCE THE LINE ALONG THIS TWO BLOCK AREA. SO THAT'S THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT IS — GOES BEYOND JUST THE SIMPLE REPAIR RELATED TO THE HIT BY THE CONTRACTOR.

WYNN: SO IN THEORY IF — IF ANOTHER CONTRACTOR IN THE FUTURE HITS THE LINE, WE THINK THIS IS A — A REMEDY FOR THAT? I MEAN —

IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE HARDER TO DAMAGE THE LINE IN THIS AREA. BECAUSE OF THE STEEL LINING INSIDE THE — INSIDE THE PIPE. RIGHT. BUT EVEN WITHOUT SUCH HITS, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO ENCASE WATER LINES IN CERTAIN AREAS WHERE ACCESSIBILITY IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT IN THE FUTURE, LIKE UNDER A STATE HIGHWAY, FOR EXAMPLE. OR WHERE THERE'S — WHERE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT RISK FOR WHATEVER REASON, SUCH AS IN THIS CASE THE PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL AND TWO — TWO UNDERGROUND PARKING GARBAGES. THE TYPE — GARAGES, THE TYPE OF DAMAGE AND LIABILITY THAT COMES FROM THIS — WHERE THIS TRANSMISSION LINE IS RUNNING IS WHAT LED US TO DECIDE TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS ALONG IN THIS AREA.

FUTRELL: IN FACT, CHRIS, I BELIEVE YOU ALSO CONSIDERED MOVING THIS WATER LINE ALTOGETHER BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENING IN THESE BLOCKS AND DECIDED THIS WOULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE.

THAT'S CORRECT. WE — WHEN — OUR AWARENESS WAY ARAISED — THE AWARENESS WAS ARAISED — WAS RAISED ABOUT CONCERNS IN THIS JURY AND SOME OF THE RISKS AND SO WE CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES. ONE ALTERNATIVE WAS RELOCATING, REROUTING THE LINE DOWN THIRD STREET. BUT THE NUMBER OF UTILITIES AND — IN THE AREA AND THE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF ANOTHER ROUTE MADE THAT OPTION A HIGHER COST THAN WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. SO — WE WENT WITH THE LINING ALTERNATIVE.

WYNN: MAYOR, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 61.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON ITEM NO. 61. IS THERE A SECOND?

THOMAS: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. ITEM NO. 66.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR, MR. LIPPY IS HANGING AROUND ME TONIGHT. THIS IS THE VERY LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF OUR WALNUT CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. IN THE BACKUP, MR. LIPPY, I SEE AS PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT WE HAVE A PENALTY — A DAILY PENALTY IN THE CONTRACTOR DOESN'T FINISH THE CONTRACT OF A CERTAIN TIME, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT DATE IS. BUT — BUT WE — THE REASON WE HAVE THAT APPARENTLY IS BECAUSE THE TREUNG HAS BEEN LOOKING — TNRCC HAS BEEN LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDER AND HAS BEEN VERY MUCH ENCOURAGING US TO GET THIS THING FINISH. WHEN I ASKED IT APPEARS THAT THE POTENTIAL PENALTY TO THE CITY FOR NOT HAVING THIS COMPLETED ON TIME IS APPROXIMATELY 10 TIMES THE DAILY PENALTY THAT — THAT WE HAVE EMBEDDED IN THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. I GUESS THAT BEGS THE QUESTION WHY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD WE TAKE 90% OF THAT RISK ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LIKE THIS.

THE CONTRACT DURATION IS 660 DAYS. SO IT'S ALMOST A TWO YEAR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. IT'S TRUE THE TNRCC PEP NATIONALITY FOR PERMIT VIOLATIONS IS $27,500 A DAY. I GUESS THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS THAT THAT — THERE'S — IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC PENALTY. IF WE DON'T COMPLETE THIS PROJECT BY THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION DATE, IT'S BY NO MEANS AN AUTOMATIC PENALTY FROM TNRCC. THAT'S FOR PERMIT VIOLATIONS AND THOSE WOULD BE RELATED TO TYPICALLY THE WET WEATHER, FLOWS. THEY WOULD BE TYPICALLY LIMITED TO A FEW DAYS DURATION. SO WE BELIEVE THE — IT'S NOT — IT'S NOT A DAY TO DAY, 27,500-DOLLAR FINE FROM TNRCC. IT'S RELATED TO PERMIT VIOLATIONS. THE STATE HAS NOT INDICATED TO US THAT WE ARE UNDER A THREAT OF SUCH PERMIT VIOLATIONS. WE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THE STATE AS OUR FLOWS HAVE INCREASED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE ARE APPROACHING THE PERMIT LIMIT. AND SO IT'S VERY PREDICTABLE THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE THIS PLANT UPGRADED FOR HIGHER CAPACITY IN A SHORT WHILE. IN FACT WE HAVE HIT THE UPPER LIMIT ON FLOW, ALTHOUGH ALL OF THE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS WERE WELL BELOW. WE HAVE HIT THE FLOW PERMIT LIMIT. SO, OF COURSE, WE COMMUNICATED AND DISCUSSED THAT WITH TNRCC. TOLD THEM WHAT OUR PLANS ARE FOR — FOR EXPANDING THE PLANT AND THAT'S THE SCHEDULE THAT'S IN THE BACKUP WHERE WE HAVE — SEVERAL LETTERS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STATE INDICATING WHAT OUR MAN'S ARE, WHEN WE — WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS FOR BEGINNING AND ENDING CONSTRUCTION, SO WE ARE ON THAT SCHEDULE. IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO US TO STAY ON THAT SCHEDULE AN THAT'S WHY — THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN INCENTIVE IN THE — IN THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR FINISHING EARLY. AND — THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR BEING LATE OR BASED MORE JUST ON THE DAY TO DAY PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS. IT'S KIND OF A STANDARD FORMULA BASIS FOR THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SIDE. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE — THE TNRCC PENALTY.

WYNN: SO BY NOT FINISHING THIS PROJECT ON THE EXACT COMPLETION DATE, IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER A FINE FROM TNRCC AND IN FACT WE COULD EASILY BE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SOME OF IT COULD — COULD TRIGGER THAT INDEPENDENT OF THAT AND WE COULD BE SLAPPED WITH A FINE INDEPENDENT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

THAT'S TRUE, TOO.

WYNN: OKAY. MAYOR, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 66.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT ONE. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. THIS IS A — A PRETTY LARGE PROJECT, $17 MILLION. OUR M.B.E. AND W.B.E. PARTICIPATION — OUR — PARTICIPATION IS RATHER LOW. IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THIS.

IT IS, BUT THERE'S SOME HOPE FOR APPROVING THAT, REASON THAT WOULD..................—RENADL — RENALDO CANTU HAS MORE INFORMATION ON THAT SINCE THIS BID.

WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR, PRIME LOW BIDDER FOR THIS CONTRACT, THEY HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN PURSUING SUBCONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY DID NOT IDENTIFY IN THE BIDDING OF THIS PROJECT. WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY THE AVAILABILITY LIST FOR THOSE SUBCONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES. SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE EFFORTS TO — TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? ARE WE GOING TO — ARE WE GOING TO BE NOTIFIED BY MEMORANDUM OR OTHERWISE AS TO HOW THAT — THAT PROCESS IS WORKING? OF INCREASING M.B.E. W.B.E. PARTICIPATION? WE CAN GET WITH THE DIRECTOR OF DSMBR. ONE OTHER THING IS ONE OF THE NON-CERTIFIED FIRMS THAT'S LISTED UNDER THE ELECTRICAL HAD LET THEIR CERTIFICATION LAPSE. THEY ARE A HOUSTON FIRM AND THEY HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT CERTIFICATION RENEWED. SO THAT — THAT WILL ALSO INCREASE THE — THE M.B.E. PARTICIPATION ON THE CONTRACT. BUT WE WILL WORK WITH DSMBR TO GET YOU UPDATES ON THAT INFORMATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD KEEP THE COUNCIL BRIEFED ON THAT ONE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

CERTAINLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NO. 66.

LET ME JUST ADD THAT THAT ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION IS A 2.9 MILLION DOLLAR SUBCONTRACT, SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE — IN THE M.B.E.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0. NUMBER 67, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MR. LIPPY THIS IS OFFENSELY THE SAME PROJECT, BUT THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM IS THE ENGINEERING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON THIS PROJECT. MY QUESTION IS, IT STRUCK ME THAT — THAT — THAT APPARENTLY WE HAD — HAD DONE APPROXIMATELY FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN — IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UP TO DATE. I GUESS THAT'S — YOU KNOW, SCOPING AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND THE ACTUAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING WORK OF THIS BIG CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WE JUST APPROVED. SO NOW WE ARE NOW APPARENTLY HIRING THE SAME ENGINEERING COMPANY, YOU KNOW, FOR A VERY LARGE SUM, AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION FOR WHAT I WOULD — FROM A LAYPERSON'S STANDPOINT AS SORT OF CHARACTERIZE AS THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PIECE OF THIS BIG PROJECT. IT STRUCK ME, IT SEEMS THAT — THAT IN — IN PURCHASING THESE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THE CITY HAS NO LEARN WHATSOEVER — FOR LEVERAGE WHATSOEVER IN GOING BACK TO THE SAME COMPANY THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS WITH AND HAS DONE ALL OF THE ENGINEERING WORK FOR A BIG PROJECT LIKE THIS, WE GO AND HIRE THEM TO BE THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATOR. SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE — THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY THE ONLY LOGICAL CHOICE TO HANDLE THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SINCE THEY DID — THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DESIGN WORK, WHY DON'T WE — WHY WAS IT THAT WE DIDN'T CONTRACT FOR — FOR ALL OF THE SERVICES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT EARLY AND BY DOING THAT EARLY ESSENTIALLY HAVE THIS — THIS ENGINEERING FIRM MAKE THEIR PROPOSAL, THEIR — YOU KNOW, THEIR MOST AGGRESSIVE BEST PROPOSAL TO THE CITY ON ALL OF THE SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO US BREAKING IT UP LIKE THIS AND — I SEE THE CITY HAVING VERY LITTLE LEVERAGE ON GETTING THE BEST PRICE FOR THIS PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.

YES, SIR. I — THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. WE ARE NOT — WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO — TO STAYING WITH THIS ONE FIRM, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT TYPE OF SINGLE ONLY CHOICE LEVERAGE. BUT LET ME MENTION FIRST THE SELECTION PROCESS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HIRING THIS FIRM TO CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT PHASE. SOMETIMES IT GETS CONFUSING BECAUSE WE COME BACK SEVERAL TIMES TO COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL AWARDS TO A FIRM THAT'S BEEN SELECTED. THE CITY, WE HAVE TRIED THIS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS. BUT WHAT WE HAVE TRIED FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS IS TO SELECT THE FIRM AND WHEN WE BRING THE SELECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS FIRM IS BEING SELECTED. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE FIRM FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTY AND THAT — THE UNPREDICTABILITY OF ESTIMATING THE TOTAL COST OF THE JOB AND ALL OF THE SCOPING AND ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE DISCOVERED DURING THE — DURING THE PROCESS OF ALL OF THE WORK, WE TAKE IT IN AT LEAST TWO PHASES AND TYPICALLY THREE. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FIRST, SO — SO WHAT YOU SEE FIRST IS WE RECOMMEND SELECTING SO AND SO FIRM AND X NUMBER OF DOLLARS FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING. WE SAY IN THE RCA WE WILL BE — THIS FIRM IS SELECTED FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WE WILL BE RETURNING TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY FINISH PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND HAVE THE SCOPE DOWN AND WE CAN BETTER ESTIMATE THE DESIGN WORK, WE WILL BE COMING BACK FOR A DESIGN AMENDMENT AND THEN WE WILL BE COMING BACK AFTER DESIGN FOR A CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S — THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL R.C.A. FOR C.D.M. AT WALNUT CREEK WAS STATED THAT WAY. IT WAS PRINGTED THAT WE WOULD BE HERE TODAY SAYING WE ARE READY TO GO INTO THE NEXT PHASE, SO IT WAS PREDICTED. NOW, AS FAR AS OUR POSITION IN NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT FOR A PHASE AFTER WE HAVE ALREADY INVESTED $4 MILLION INTO THE DESIGN, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. THERE ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FIRMS, SO THIS WORK IS NEGOTIATED. FIRST IT'S NOT A LUMP SUM. IT IS A COST PLUS — PLUS FEE. A MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED COST PLUS. IF THE WORK IS NOT DONE, IF THERE'S MONEY LEFT OVER, THERE'S MONEY LEFT OVER. BUT IT IS NEGOTIATED. IF — AND THERE'S AN INTEREST ON THE CITY'S PART AND AN INTEREST ON THE ENGINEERING FIRM'S PART AND AN INTEREST ON THE — ON THE CONSTRUCTION FIRM AS WELL. I MEAN IT REALLY IS A PARTNERSHIP. BUT WE HAVE COMMON INTERESTS IN MAKING SURE THE WORK GETS DONE. YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE END AND THE PEOPLE ARE POINTING FINGERS. SO THE CITY WANTS GOOD CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES, GOOD INSPECTION, GOOD DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT ALL HAS HAPPENED. THE DESIGN FIRM, LIKEWISE, IS THERE IN PART TO — TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED GETS BUILT. BUT IF IT'S TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, IT'S UP TO US, WE ARE NEGOTIATING IT, THERE ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FIRMS WE CAN TURN TO TO DO CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES. WE CAN PICK UP SOME OF THOSE SERVICES IN-HOUSE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS TO MAYBE NOT ELIMINATE, BUT GREATLY REDUCE THE SCOPE OF WORK OF WHAT WAS THE DESIGN CONSULTANT. YOU CAN GREATLY REDUCE THAT AMOUNT. NOW THE SCOPE OF HOW MUCH GETS NEGOTIATED AGAIN IS PRIMARILY UP TO — TO THE STAFF AND BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF HOW — YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF A — HOW MANY INSPECTORS AND WHAT — HOW MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BE ON THE SITE IS THE BASIS OF THE COST BUT IT'S NEGOTIATED. THEN ONE OF THE VARIABLES I GUESS IS THE COST, THE RATE FOR THE — FOR THE VARIOUS PEOPLE ON THE JOB. THAT'S WHERE THE REASONABLENESS NEGOTIATIONS HAS TO COME IN. BUT — BUT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH OF A RANGE FOR THAT TYPE OF THING. BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. IT'S NOT A — IT'S NOT AN ONLY CHOICE.

WYNN: MY QUESTIONS AREN'T AT ALL DIRECTED AT C.D.M. IT'S JUST THAT — IT SEEMS TO ME SO IF THEY HAVE SPENT MAYBE YEARS OR SO ON THIS PHASE I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF ANY ENGINEERING FIRM HAS DONE ALL OF THE DESIGN WORK, I PRESUME, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD THEM TO THAT DESIGN. BUT I COULD SEE HOW THEY CAN SAY, LOOK, IF YOU DON'T HIRE US TO BE THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATOR, YOU DON'T USE OUR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PIECE OF THIS OVERALL PROJECT, WE ARE NOT — DON'T LOOK TO US OR OUR O. AND E. INSURANCE ON THE DESIGN PIECE OF IT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AROUND TO SEE IF YOU ALL BUILT WHAT WE DESIGNED. JUST SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY TO GET THE BEST PRICE AND A VERY, VERY FAIR PRICE FROM ANY ENGINEERING FIRM IF THEY HAVE DONE ALL OF THE DESIGN ENGINEERING WORK AND WE NOW NEED TO HIRE SOMEBODY TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE GOING TO SAY — AND SO WOULD A NEW — IF SOMEBODY BROUGHT A NEW FIRM IN TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, WE DIDN'T DESIGN THIS, DON'T LOOK TO US OR OUR INSURANCE IF THIS WHOLE THING COLLAPSES. MAYBE IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AGREED CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PIECE BEFORE WE ARE THIS FAR INTO A PROJECT.

AGAIN THE MAJORITY OF THE COST IS BASED MORE ON HOW MANY INSPECTORS AND RESIDENT JUNIOR AND RECORDS MANAGERS AND SUCH THAT WE DESIRE TO HAVE ON THE JOB. THAT'S MORE UP TO THE CITY. IT IS A NEGOTIATED AMOUNT. WE COULD HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE NEEDED ON THE JOB TO DO THE JOB WELL. WE ARE ON THAT SETTING OF THE SCOPE AND THE LEVEL OF EFFORT THAT'S REQUIRED. SO I SAY WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF CONTROL OVER IT.

FUTRELL: LET ME FRY. I THINK THE SIMPLE QUESTION IS WHEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO FOLLOW ALONG A PATH, WHY NOT BID IT ALL FROM THE FRONT END. WHY BREAK IT INTO PHASES, WHAT ADVANTAGES ARE THERE IN THE UTILITY, THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING IN THE PRACTICE THAT TAKES US THERE.

I HAVE MENTIONED WE HAVE TRIED OTHER APPROACHES. A FEW YEARS AGO WE WOULD — WE TRIED EXACTLY THAT. WE WOULD MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, MAKE A TOTAL OF PERCENTAGES, AWARD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THAT WE FOUND IS WE ARE BACK TO COMING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEN NUMEROUS TIMES WITH CHANGE ORDERS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN FROM BEGINNING TO END IN A — IN A MAJOR COMPLEX WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. ESPECIALLY THE MULTI DISCIPLINARIAN COMPLEX PROJECTS, WE FIND OURSELVES COMING BACK TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH CHANGE ORDERS, TALKING ABOUT WHAT WAS CHANGED, WHAT WAS DISCOVERED, WHAT REGULATION CHANGED. WE BASICALLY HAVE TRIED THIS OTHER APPROACH NOW FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WE TAKE IT PHASE BY PHASE. A LOT IS LEARNED IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING THAT HELPS US FIX A COST FOR DESIGN. FRANKLY THERE'S SOME MORE, NOT AS MUCH, BUT SOME MORE CHANGE AND — AND INFORMATION LEARNED DURING DESIGN THAT AGAIN AFFECTS THE TOTAL FINAL ESTIMATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH HELPS US DETERMINE THE SCOPE.

FUTRELL: DO YOU CLEARLY SPELL OUT IN THE BEGINNING R.C.A.'S OF WHAT THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK WILL BE AND THE NUMBER OF PHASES? IS THAT A PROCESS IMPROVEMENT THAT WE COULD PUT IN PLACE?

THAT IS. WE GENERALLY DESCRIBE WHAT'S NEEDED AND WHAT THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF WHAT THE PHASES WILL BE MUCH ONE THING THAT WE HAVE NOTICED IN THIS PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT THE ORIGINAL R.C.A., WE DON'T TOO OFTEN DO AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST. THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT. GIVING YOU A BETTER IDEA OF THE TOTAL SCOPE, INCLUDING TOTAL COST AS ROUGH AS IT MIGHT BE WITH THE UNCERTAINTIES UP FRONT. WHEN YOU ARE SELECTING THAT CONSULTANT, YOU WILL KNOW PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING MAY BE 200,000, BUT KNOW THAT THE TOTAL JOB MIGHT BE SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO IMPROVE.

WYNN: I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGE THE STAFF TO COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS ON PROCESS AND NOT HAVE US FEEL LIKE AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION IS THERE'S NO LEVERAGE FOR THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE A — A THE BEST POSSIBLE FEE FOR A PROJECT THAT YOU ARE ALREADY SO FAR INTO.

LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING, THIS ISN'T A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE. SO WE STILL HAVE SOME ROOM, SOME WORK TO BE DONE ON NEGOTIATING THE FINAL PROCESS, THE FINAL DEAL HERE AND THIS IS A NOT TO EXCEED COST PLUS AND SO AGAIN IF WE CAN REDUCE IT OR EVEN IF SOMETHING CHANGES DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT AND WE ARE ABLE TO REDUCE BY HAVING A CITY INSPECTOR FOR EXAMPLE JOIN THE TEAM AND REDUCE THE CONSULTANTS INSPECTION WORK, THAT'S THE TYPE OF THING THAT WE CAN DO. BEFORE WE COMPLETE THE NEGOTIATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PHASE WE WILL BE TAKING A HARD LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS AND THE PHASING OF THE WORK, HOW MANY INSPECTORS WE NEED FOR EACH PHASE. AS IT RAMPS UP WE WILL NEED FEWER, AT THE PEAK MORE, IT WILL RAMP BACK DOWN, WE WILL NEGOTIATE.

WYNN: MAYOR, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO.67.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, IS THERE A SECOND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. WHICH AMENDMENT IS THIS? WHAT NUMBER AMENDMENT?

NUMBER 5? AMENDMENT NUMBER — LOOKS LIKE THE FIFTH. ONE AS ADMINISTRATIVE, 10,000 WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RANGE. GO AHEAD RUN THROUGH THAT.

AMENDMENTS WERE THE ORIGINAL P.S.A. FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, AMENDMENT NO. 1 ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES, AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO FOR DESIGN PHASE SERVICES, NUMBER 3 FOR TESTING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN, AND AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 FOR PRINTING SERVICES, DUE TO THE LARGE AMOUNT OF BIDDERS. THAT'S ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. ORIGINAL ESTIMATE, ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ON THIS PROJECT WAS 91 MILLION. WE GOT A BID OF 17 MILLION FOR THIS, SO WE HAD VERY COMPETITIVE BIDS ON THIS. THESE TWO AMENDMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN PHASE SERVICES IN THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES WHICH ARE AMENDMENT NUMBER 5.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THIS WAS BID?

YES, SIR. THIS IS A BID. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.

THE BID ON THE ACTUAL EXPANSION ITSELF.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WAS BY — IS THAT NEGOTIATED, YOU ARE CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WAS THAT AN R.F.P. OR HOW DID THAT NEGOTIATE THAT ONE, DO YOU KNOW?

RFQ.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

I WAS SPEAKING TO THE PLANT EXPLANATION ITSELF THE BIDS THAT WE GOT ON ITEM NO. 66 I BELIEVE IT WAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH.

THIS IS THE — THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION BID.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OUT. ITEM NO. 71, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR, THIS ACTUALLY THE STATESMAN THIS MORNING DID A GOOD JOB OF REPORTING THIS ITEM, BUT I WOULD LIKE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR STAFF BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SO DISAPPOINTED IN OUR ABILITY TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.

I'M GEORGE OSWALD, WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS TO AUTHORIZE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS THROUGH THE LCRA TO CONDUCT AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION STUDY ON THE WALLER CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT. AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE FAR SHORT ON FUNDING, HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO TAKE THAT PROJECT THROUGH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. AND THROUGH THIS ECONOMIC EVALUATION, WE WILL ESTABLISH THE LEVEL OF FEDERAL, FISCAL INTEREST IN THE PROJECT, THEY WILL BE CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT, A LONG-RANGE FLOOD DAMAGE COMPARED TO THE COST OF THE TUP NECESSARILY PROJECT, AS WELL AS EVALUATING — TUNNEL PROJECT AS WELL AS EVALUATING THE PURCHASE OF FLOOD PRONE PROPERTIES IN THE LOWER WREAR. ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, WE CAN MAKE A WELL-INFORMED DECISION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO INVOLVE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT OR FOR THE CITY TO APPROACH THE U.S. CONGRESS DIRECTLY TO SECURE THAT FUNDING WITH THE CITY MAINTAINING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT.

WYNN: AND IN READING THE — THE PAPER THIS MORNING, THEIR BRIEF EXPLANATION ABOUT IT WAS THAT WE AS THE CITY SORT OF HAVE TWO OPTIONS, ONE BEING THE LCRA, ONE BEING THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS. YET THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS — WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE LCRA TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. SO IT —

LET ME EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE — THE LCRA CURRENTLY HAS A MASTER AGREEMENT WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR ALL STUDIES AND PROJECTS IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. AND THAT'S THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH WE ARE STUDYING FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES FOR ONION CREEK AND WILLIAMSON CREEK. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A PROJECT ACTIVE. IT'S A VEHICLE FOR US TO SECURE SERVICES OF THE CORPS. IT DOESN'T TURN THE PROJECT OVER TO EITHER THE LAYS..... LCRA OR THE CORPS. IT'S A VEHICLE FOR US TO PROCURE THIS ECONOMIC EVALUATION.

WYNN: OKAY. MAYOR, THAT'S ALL FOR ME, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 71? IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. WE CLEARED EVERYTHING EXCEPT ITEM 15. SO — SO — WE ALREADY DID THAT. AND THE ACTION ITEM. WE ARE AHEAD OF YOU CITY MANAGER — CITY ATTORNEY. NOT AHEAD OF THE CITY MANAGER, I'M SORRY. DID I MISSPEAK ON THIS ONE. TO REFRESH EVERYBODY'S MEMORY IN THE AUDIENCE, REFRESHMENT, I'M TALKING TO THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS, MY WIFE MAY BE WATCHING THIS ONE, WE ARE DISCUSSING ITEM 15A, CHANGE THE TERMS APPEARED METHODS OF ELECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ELECTION AT LARGE TO A METHOD OF COMBINING ELECTION OF MEMBERS FROM GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRICTS AND ELECTION OF MEMBERS AT LARGE. AT THE TIME WE TABLED THIS MOTION WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO — TO USE TRANSITION PLAN NUMBER 4, WHICH IS — WHICH IS THE ONE THAT CAN BE THROWN ON THE SCREEN IF THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE. IF NOT, I THINK — I THINK YOU ALL HAVE — A DOCUMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS. THAT HAS A BUNCH OF BLUE, GREEN AND RED ARROWS GOING FROM MAY 2002 TO MAY 2008.

WYNN: MAYOR, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD GET THE MAP PUT BACK UP ON THE EASEL AS WALL.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT? TELL ME.

RYAN HAD TO GO FETCH A MAP OF NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES, I BELIEVE.

FUTRELL: BUT HERE THE MAP. WE CAN GET THE MAP PUT UP. RIPE WILL BE BACK HERE SHORTLY. RYAN. THERE WE GO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ISSUE OF THE MAP, COUNCILMEMBER, WAS — WHERE WE WERE AT WAS THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT OFF. WE HAD DECIDED THE DIRECTION ON THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ALREADY. SO — SO —

WYNN: CORRECT, BUT I HAVE A A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE MAKER OF THE MOTION FOR TRANSITION NUMBER 46789 IT RELATES TO THE — TO THE — NUMBER 4. PROTOTYPE MAP OR FRANKLY ANY MAP THAT WILL BE ADOPTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: THE NEXT QUESTION BEING, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, IF TRANSITION NUMBER 4 IS CHOSEN, IN LOOKING AT THE PROTOTYPE MAP, YOU KNOW, HALF OF OUR CITY WILL BE VOTING FOR ONE COUNCIL SEAT AND HALF OF OUR CITY WILL BE VOTING FOR TWO COUNCIL SEATS SPLIT UP ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY 50/50. BUT RANDOMLY BASED ON WHAT DISTRICT. SO WHAT WE WILL HAVE IS ALL OVER TOWN SAY SOMEBODY WHO LIVES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CESAR CHAVEZ GETS TO VOTE ON THE SAME DAY, PICK A DAY, MAY 5TH, 2006, SOMEBODY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CESAR CHAVEZ GETS TO VOTE FOR TWO PLACES ON THE DAIS, SOMEBODY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CESAR CHAVEZ GETS A VOTE FOR ONE. SOMEBODY ON THE EAST SIDE OF EXPOSITION ON THAT DAY GETS TO VOTE FOR TWO COUNCIL SEATS, SOMEBODY ON THE WEST SIDE OF EXPOSITION VOTES FOR ONE. TAKE THAT ALL OVER TOWN, SOUTH FIRST STREET, SLAUGHTER, BEN WHITE, KOENIG LANE, 183, ALL THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW, YOU GET TO VOTE FOR TWO COUNCIL SEATS THAT DAY, I ONLY GET TO VOTE FOR ONE. I THINK THAT'S JUST A POOR, YOU KNOW, INEQUITABLE CONFUSING AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FEEL CRUMMY ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE TO — YOU GO TO THE TROUBLE OF GEARING UP FOR A COUNCIL ELECTION, YOU GET TO VOTE FOR ONE, TURN TO THE GUY NEXT DOOR HE GETS TO VOTE FOR TWO. WHY NOT TO HAVE IT TO WHERE EVERYBODY, EVERY CITIZEN, NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE VOTES FOR EXACTLY FOUR PEOPLE, NO MORE, NO LESS AT ANY GIVEN ELECTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME?

GRIFFITH: THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A PERFECT SYSTEM AND WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IS JUST ONE OF — KIND OF ONE OF THE INTRINSIC CHALLENGES OF THE DISTRICT SYSTEM. WHAT WE ARE ALL INTERESTED IN IS SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY. WE ARE — IT JUST HOW BEST TO DO THAT. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK FOUR IS SUPERIOR TO FIVE IS THAT WITH FIVE WE MIGHT BE CREATING THE — THE ADVERTISING AGENCY'S FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT. BECAUSE IF YOU HAD AS MUCH ADVERTISING ACTIVITY GOING ON AS WE MIGHT WITH APPROACH NUMBER 5, THEN A GRASS ROOTS CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE A REALLY TOUGH TIME BEING NOTICED AND HEARD. AND I THINK WITH — WITH TRAPS SIX NUMBER 4, AND GOING FORWARD THROUGH TIME AFTER THAT WE WOULD HAVE A MORE EQUITABLE — A FAIRER, MORE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

WYNN: THE FIRST ANSWER OF COURSE IS COMPLETELY WRONG. SAYING THAT — HAVING YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR GET TO VOTE FOR TWO SEATS AND YOU ONLY VOTE FOR ONE SEAT IS AN INTRINSIC CHALLENGE OF A DISTRICT SYSTEM, NO. SYSTEM NUMBER 5 IS A DISTRICT SYSTEM. EVERYBODY IN THE ENTIRE CITY VOTES FOR EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF SEATS EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. IT'S NOT AN INTRINSIC CHALLENGE OF A DISTRICT SYSTEM.

GRIFFITH: THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU SET IT UP. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE CHALLENGES OF FOUR, YOU CAN HAVE THE CHALLENGES OF FIVE. IT'S JUST A CASE OF BENEFIT AND RISK AND TO ME THE RISKS OF ONE ARE GREATER IN TERMS OF DEMOCRACY THAN THE OTHER.

WYNN: SECONDLY, I'M SORRY, I HAPPEN TO THINK MORE ADVERTISING, MORE INTEREST IN ELECTION, MORE YARD SIGNS ALL OVER THE CITY AT THE SAME TIME ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD WANT. WE SHOULD WANT MORE INTEREST IN A CITY ELECTION AND TRY TO IMPROVE TURNOUT FROM 9% TO PERHAPS 29%.

GRIFFITH: WELL, THERE'S NO GUARANTEES OF THAT. AND THE SACRIFICE OF CONTINUITY, THE RISK OF LOSING YOUR CORPORATE MEMORY AND YOUR EXPERIENCE IS A HIGHER RISK THAN I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT.

WYNN: LAST POINT MAYOR, REALLY, IS THAT I CAN'T HELP BUT POINT OUT THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER — COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, EXCUSE ME, IS THE — TOM VOTE NO AGAINST THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. SHE'S THE ONE WHO DOESN'T WANT THE CITIZENS COME MAY TO VOTE FOR A MIXED SYSTEM, YET SHE'S DETERMINED SHE HAS THE BEST TRANSITION TO MAKE THAT WORK. IT'S JUST — IT STRIKES ME THAT THE ONE PERSON WHO IS SAYING NO THIS ENTIRE TIME NOW SAYS SHE HAS THE BEST ANSWER FOR HOW TO MAKE THIS PROCESS WORK, THAT'S JUST —

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, DO I NEED TO GET RECOGNIZED EVERY TIME ON THIS OR CAN I JUST GO AHEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER — COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

SLUSHER: THAT'S TWO OF YOU ALL THAT GOT US CONFUSED NOW. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S HUMOR HERE ONCE IN A WHILE.

GRIFFITH: YEAH. LIKE WE SAID —

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE BROUGHT YOU ONE OF THOSE FORTUNE COOKIES.

SLUSHER: YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN WHAT IT SAID [ LAUGHTER ].

GRIFFITH: I GAVE HIM ANOTHER FORTUNE COOKIE SO HE WOULD FEEL BETTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU. CERTAINLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHAT I DID WAS ABSTAIN ON THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK OUT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS OF ANY MAP THAT WOULD WOULD BE PROPOSED, THEN THE — WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM. ALSO, THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WHO DIDN'T REALLY THINK THAT TERM LIMITS, THE PERSONALLY WERE THE WAY TO GO, WHEN THEY VOTED TO PUT TERM LIMITS ON BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT THE FOLKS OUGHT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DECIDE. AND NOW WE ARE CHANGING OUR PROPOSAL ON THAT. AND EVEN THOUGH THOSE FOLKS PERSONALLY VOTED AGAINST THE TERM LIMITS, THEY DID VOTE TO PUT TERM LIMITS ON AND I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION. BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION AND IF THERE'S A REALISTIC OR CLOSE TO REALISTIC CHANCE THAT IT MIGHT BE THERE, THEN WHATEVER GOES IN IN THE WAY OF A TRANSITION SYSTEM WE WANT IT TO BE THE BEST THAT'S PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYOR.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

GOODMAN: BUT A GENERAL SENSE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION MAY BE HAVING AN IMPACT ON A HIGHER TURNOUT.

SLUSHER: CAN I TAKE THAT ONE? MAYOR PRO TEM, THAT'S ONE OF MY FUNDAMENTAL REASONS FOR WANTING TO DO IT THIS WAY, THAT ONE THING THAT'S CLEAR FROM THE LOW TURNOUTS WE'VE GOTTEN IN CITY ELECTIONS, THAT WE NEED TO INCREASE. WE NEED TO INCREASE THE INTEREST IN CITY ELECTIONS. NOW, THE TURNOUT HAS BEEN LOW ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND IN TEXAS IN PARTICULAR, SO IT'S NOT JUST AN AUSTIN PROBLEM, BUT I REALLY BELIEVE IN DEALING WITH THINGS LOCALLY. AND YES, I THINK YOU HAVE — YOUR EIGHT DISTRICTS, TWO AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MAYOR UP ALL AT ONCE, THEN YOU COULD REALLY — YOU REALLY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A LOT OF EXCITEMENT, A LOT OF INTEREST IN THOSE ELECTIONS. AND I THINK ALSO THAT IF YOU HAVE THEM ONLY ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS INSTEAD OF TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE LESS OF AN ELECTION FATIGUE PROBLEM THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE DEVELOPED WITH SOME FOLKS AND YOU GET MORE GOVERNING DONE. YOU HAVE THE ELECTION EVERY — YOU HAVE ONE ELECTION EVERY THREE YEARS, STATE ELECTION — THREE OR FOUR MONTHS FOR THE ELECTION SEASON, THEN THE COUNCIL GETS BACK TO GOVERNING THE CITY. THEN YOU GO — THEN YOU GO ANOTHER TWO AND A HALF YEARS OR SO AND THEN IS I'M FOR ANOTHER ELECTION AND IT'S A CITYWIDE REFERENDUM EVERY THREE YEARS, WITH EVERYBODY THAT HOLDS OFFICE IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT UP FOR ELECTION, YET AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE CONCERN ABOUT THE FRUIT BASS KEL TURNOVER THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT'S A LOT LESS WHEN YOU HAVE EIGHT DISTRICTS, TWO AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR, IT'S A LOT LESS THAN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW WITH SEVEN AT LARGE AND THEN EVERYBODY UP FOR ELECTION. ONCE YOU HAVE A BIGGER CHANCE AT LARGE OF HAVING A FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER THAN LIKE THIS. AND IF YOU DID HAVE A BIG TURNOVER UNDER THAT SYSTEM, I THINK THAT WOULD JUST REFLECT THE VERY CLEAR WILL OF THE VOTERS IF YOU HAD A MASSIVE CHANGE BECAUSE THE VOTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY FELT LIKE THERE NEEDED TO BE A BIG CHANGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH. I HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED MY POSITION, BUT I STILL DO THINK THAT — I PREFER THE STAGGERED TERMS AND I THINK WE ALL TALK ABOUT — I MEAN, I SEE THE ECONOMIC — THE FISCAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROCESS AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I FEEL THAT THE FRUIT BASKET EFFECT IS MORE OR LESS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS ALSO ON THE BALLOT IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT. AND SO IF WE'RE TALKING 11 ELECTIONS IN MAY OF 2005, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUDGET, I GUESS, MORE SO FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR FOR THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SIDE OF THINGS THAN IF YOU DO HAVE STAGGERED TERMS OR STAGGERED ELECTIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER ADVANTAGE AT LEAST IF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE MEASURE ACTUALLY PASSES. YOU WON'T HAVE THE SITUATION WE'LL HAVE IN 2005 WHERE YOU HAVE TO BUDGET FOR ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD. IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS VOTING FOR TWO AND YOU VOTING FOR ONE, THE ONLY RESPONSE TO THAT IS NEXT TIME YOU'LL BE VOTING FOR THREE, THEY'LL BE VOTING FOR TWO. SO I THINK THERE IS A GIVE AND TAKE THERE WHERE EVERYONE EVENTUALLY GETS TO VOTE FOR THE SAME NUMBER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AS COMPELLING AN ARGUMENT, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS I WOULD ADD.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I DON'T THINK THAT IS ACCURATE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NEEDING TO GO INTO THE CAMPAIGN FUND UNDER THE — IF THE NEW ORDINANCE PASSES BECAUSE THE WAY THAT'S STATED IS THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THERE. IT DOESN'T SAY IT ALL HAS TO COME FROM THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE HAVING THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELECTIONS YOU'LL BE HAVING THE MAYOR AND ALL THE COUNCIL SEATS EVERY THREE YEARS. IF YOU HAVE IT — IF YOU HAVE — THE ELECTIONS SPLIT INTO TWO OUT OF THREE YEARS, IT STILL COMES TO THE SAME NUMBER, IT STILL COMES TO THE SAME NUMBER OF — THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS TO BE IN THERE. AND I THINK ALSO I SAID EARLY — IT WAS SAID EARLIER BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH THAT— ABOUT THE ADVERTISE'S FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BASE IT AROUND THAT YOU DON'T WANT ADVERTISERS TO HAVE FULL EMPLOYMENT, THEN YOU WOULD — IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WOULD FAVOR THE ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS BECAUSE HAVING IT — THEN THEY WOULD BE ADVERTISING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE YEARS. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. BUT THOSE ARE FAIRLY SMALL ISSUES, I THINK, COMPARED TO WHAT I THINK IS THE LARGER ISSUE, IN MY VIEW, IS WE'RE CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IF THE VOTERS APPROVE IT. WE'RE PUTTING A CHANGE IN OUR LOCAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IT DOESN'T GET MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT ON THE THINGS WE DEAL WITH. AND I REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE THIS IS A SOUNDER EXERCISE OF DEMOCRACY TO HAVE ALL THE SEATS UP AT ONCE, HAVE A CITYWIDE REFERENDUM EVERY THREE YEARS, TO HAVE — YOU HAVE EVERYBODY VOTING AT ONCE. I THINK ACTUALLY YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR NEIGHBOR VOTING FOR ONE AND YOU VOTING FOR THREE WHEN THERE'S THE TWO AT LARGE UP. THAT HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF SKEWING THE INTENT OF THE MIXED SYSTEM, WHICH IS THAT YOU HAVE FOLKS — YOU HAVE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE ANSWERABLE TO MORE THAN ONE — PEOPLE IN ONE DISTRICT. YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE WHOLE CITY. THAT'S ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF WHY WE CAME TO THE COMPROMISE OF HAVING A MIXED SYSTEM. YET, IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVES ARE UP, YOU ONLY HAVE AN ELECTION IN FOUR OF THE DISTRICTS, THEN YOU'RE LIKELY GOING TO HAVE A HIGHER TURNOUT IN THOSE DISTRICTS AND SO THE AT-LARGE WILL BE CONCENTRATING MORE ON THOSE FOUR DISTRICTS POTENTIALLY. AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG. THE SAME COULD BE TRUE. MAYOR. YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A LARGER TURNOUT WHEN THE MAYOR IS ON THE BALLOT, SO YOU HAVE A LARGER TURNOUT IN FOUR DISTRICTS THAT ALWAYS VOTE FOR THE MAYOR AND CONVERSELY MIGHT HAVE THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE A LARGER TURNOUT EVERY TIME IN THOSE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE UP. SO THE MAYOR MIGHT BE MORE INCLINED TO LOOK AT THOSE FOUR DISTRICTS THAN THE OTHERS. SO I THINK IT'S HEALTHIER FOR THE WHOLE CITY TO DO IT THIS WAY. THERE'S BEEN — THERE'S ALSO THE COST ISSUE, BUT TO ME IT'S GOOD THAT THE FACT THAT THIS SYSTEM LIKE THIS WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE TO THE TAXPAYERS, THAT'S GOOD, THAT'S GOOD. BUT IF IT COSTS MORE TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY, I MEAN — IF IT — IF I THOUGHT THE OTHER WAY WAS A SOUNDER EXERCISE IN DEMOCRACY, THEN I WOULD SAY LET'S SPEND THE MONEY ON THIS, BUT I THINK THERE IS THS A MUCH MORE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AND I WOULD REALLY APPEAL TO MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT APPEALS TO ME ON THIS TRANSITION PLAN 5. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I REALLY DISLIKED ABOUT THE NINE YEARS THAT I SERVED ON THE COUNCIL BEFORE I CAME BACK AND SOMETHING THAT ALMOST MADE ME NOT WANT TO RUN FOR MAYOR WAS THIS IDEA OF HAVING ONE COUNCIL THAT SERVES TWO YEARS AND DOES A LOT OF GOOD PLANNING, AND ONE COUNCIL THAT SERVES ONE YEAR. AND LET ME TELL YOU, THIS NEXT GOOD AROUND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION AND NEW COUNCILMEMBERS WILL TAKE OFFICE IN JUNE. IN SIX MONTHS THERE WILL BE OTHER PEOPLE RUNNING. AND I ALSO HAVE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN TOWN. AND IT'S GOING TO BE WILD. IF I DECIDED TO RUN AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO DO IT. THIS WAY WITH THE COUNCIL ELECTED EVERY THREE YEARS, YOU HAVE TIME TO DO A LOT OF GOOD PLANNING, A LOT OF GOOD EXECUTION AND LOOK AFTER THE INTEREST IN THE BEST OF WAYS. AND AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS LIVED THIS ACCORDION DEAL TWO-ONE, TWO-ONE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT PLAN WAS PUT IN BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO FOUR YEARS. SO THEY WENT FROM TWO YEARS, THE COUNCIL DIDN'T GO TO FOUR, SO THEY WENT TO THREE AND THEY INSTITUTED THIS PLAN OF THREE — OF TWO AND ONE. TRANSITION PLAN 5 FIXES THAT. AND IT GIVES THE COUNCIL PRECEDENCE. BOND ISSUES. YOU CANNOT PLAN A BOND ISSUE IN A ONE-YEAR PLAN. THERE'S NO WAY. THERE'S NO WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE YOUR COMMITTEE TO DO WORK AND ALL THE EAR THINGS. AND THIS WAY YOU CAN DO IT. AND THERE'S NO DANGER OF FRUIT BASKET TURNOVERS BECAUSE THERE'S EIGHT DISTRICTS. PEOPLE IN THE CITY ARE NOT GOING TO GET TOGETHER AND GET MAD AT EVERYBODY, WHEREAS WHEN THEY HAD FIVE MEMBERS ALL ELECTED AT LARGE, THEY WOULD GET MAD AT THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND THERE WAS A THREAT OF A TOTAL FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER. SO THIS IS A SOUND SYSTEM AND I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY TO CONSIDER GOING WITH FIVE AND NOT WITH FOUR. THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, JUST TO CLARIFY. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT WE'D BE VOTING ON NEXT WOULD BE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR OPTION 4 RATHER THAN THE ONE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S TRUE. IT'S BASICALLY A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SO IN ESSENCE, IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT — NO, WAIT A SECOND, IT IS AN AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE — WE'VE GIVEN SOME ARGUMENTS. I THINK SOME OF THEM RATHER LOFTY, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING FOR THIS SYSTEM, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR THE PROPONENTS EXPLAIN THIS — COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ASKED COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHERE HE POINTED OUT WHAT HE THOUGHT TO BE SHORTCOMINGS, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT REPEATED WHY FOUR IS BETTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ANYBODY? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ OR COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, YOU WERE THE PROPONENTS.

THOMAS: MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET ME JUMP IN. IF WE REMEMBER, WE DIDN'T HAVE BUT FOUR ON THE TABLE AT THE BEGINNING. THE FIFTH ONE CAME IN AT THE LAST MOMENT. AND ALSO I LOOKED AT IT ALSO — TO ME — AND I'M NOT BEING SELFISH, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY GOING TO DO THIS MAY WHEN THEY HAVE THE OPTION — THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A THREE-YEAR TERM, THEN I FEEL IF WE GO TO FOUR AND DRAW SOME TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT GIVE OUT BETWEEN THE EIGHT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRAW FOR THE TERM OF TWO OR EITHER THREE YEARS WOULD BE A FAIR SHAKE. BUT LOOKING AT NUMBER FIVE, THAT MEANS THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S GOING IN AT FIVE, EVEN THE MAYOR WON'T HAVE BUT A TWO-YEAR TERM. AND I THINK IT — I THINK THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING A NEW SYSTEM AND AT LEAST THERE WOULD BE A FAIR SHAKE TO ME. AND REMEMBER, WE DID NOT HAVE THE FIFTH ONE. THE FIFTH ONE CAME IN THE LAST. AND THERE'S NO PROBLEM, BUT I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH NUMBER FOUR. I FEEL THAT WOULD BE A FAIR — AND IF WE CAN AMEND OR PUT SOMETHING IN IT THAT WE WOULD DRAW ON THE TWO AND THE THREE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, COUNCILMEMBER. IN THE YEAR IN WHICH YOU RUN IF YOU'RE IN DISTRICT ONE, THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE — WELL, IN DISTRICT 4, LET'S SAY, IN THAT YEAR YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RUN AND THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT — THAT YOUR DISTRICT IS GOING TO VOTE ON IS FOR THE MAYOR AND NOBODY ELSE.

THOMAS: SAY THAT AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: IN THE YEAR IN WHICH YOUR DISTRICT ISN'T RUNNING, THE ONLY PEOPLE — THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN VOTE — YOUR DISTRICT WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF VOTING FOR ONLY ONE COUNCILMEMBER, AND THAT'S THE MAYOR. THAT'S I THINK ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES IN TRANSITION PLAN 4. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TURNOUT FROM YOUR DISTRICT, YOU LOST ME —

THOMAS: YOU LOST ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S SAY YOU'RE DISTRICT 5, OKAY? LET'S SAY YOU'RE IN DISTRICT 1 AND THE MAYOR ONES RUNS IN THE YEAR 2006. YOU ALREADY WON THE YEAR BEFORE THAT. THAT YEAR WHEN THE MAYOR RUNS AGAIN, THE ONLY NAME ON THE BALLOT WILL BE THE MAYOR'S. THAT'S IT. THAT'S WHAT THE WEAKNESS IS WITH THIS PLAN. AND OF COURSE, THE OTHER WEAKNESS IS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THAT ONE YEAR COUNCIL THAT IN MY ESTIMATION IS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS A TWO-YEAR COUNCIL THAT I THINK HAS MORE TIME FOR PLANNING AND MORE TIME FOR EXECUTION.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS THROUGH.

THOMAS: I UNDERSTAND. I GOT YOU, MAYOR. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I SEE, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, IS A WEAKNESS WITH THIS PLAN, WHEREAS IN THE OTHER ONE, WHERE WE RUN — WHEN THE COUNCILMEMBERS RUN, EVERYBODY IS RUNNING IN THE CITY AND THE CITY HAS 11 PEOPLE RUNNING. EVERYBODY HAS AT LEAST FOUR. THE MAYOR, THE TWO AT LARGE'S AND THEIR DISTRICTS. THAT'S WHAT I SEE AS AN ADVANTAGE ON FIVE. AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A COUNCIL TOGETHER FOR THREE YEARS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WANTED THE FLOOR IF YOU'RE THROUGH, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

GRIFFITH: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, ARE YOU FINISHED? ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE JUST A DIFFERENCE OF ANALYSIS OF RISK AND BENEFITS, SO I WOULD CALL THE QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE. WAS THAT MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION IS NON-DEBATABLE, SO IS THERE — ALL THOSE —

SLUSHER: MAYOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE'LL STOP THE DEBATE OR NOT. THE MOTION IS TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION FAILS. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO VOTE SOON, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND ABOUT THIS PLAN COMING AT THE LAST MINUTE BECAUSE WHEN WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING FOR A LONG TIME, IT'S TRUE, AND WE HAD THE OTHER FOUR OPTIONS UP BEFORE THIS ONE, BUT, I MEAN, ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION HAS DONE THROUGH — WE'RE A DELIBERATIVE BODY, LEGISLATION IS DONE THROUGH COMPROMISE AND DELIBERATION. AND THERE ARE SERIOUS FLAWS IN ALL THOSE FOUR TRANSITION PLANS, AND THROUGH — I KNOW WHEN I STARTED THINKING ABOUT THIS ONE, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN BROUGHT — COUNCILMEMBER WYNN DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE STAGGERED TERMS, YET THERE WERE REAL PROBLEMS WITH SOME OF THE NON-STAGGERED TERM PROPOSALS. THIS ONE CAME OUT OF THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION, AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT COULD BE IN PLACE FOR NO TELLING HOW MANY DECADES. THE LAST ONE — THE ONE WE HAVE NOW HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 50 YEARS THAT THE VOTERS PASSED THIS, AND THIS COULD BE IN PLACE FOR 50 YEARS AND WE'LL BE SENDING PEOPLE TO THE POLLS TWO OUT OF THOSE THREE YEARS EVERY TWO OF THE THREE YEARS FOR 50 YEARS —

MAYOR GARCIA: 31 ACTUALLY.

SLUSHER: 31 OUT OF THE 50. MAN, THAT WAS GOOD. [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR GARCIA: I NEVER SHOULD HAVE INTERRUPTED.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. AND SO TO DO THAT — TO CAUSE THAT KIND OF SYSTEM TO HAPPEN BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IDEA CAME UP LATE IN THE CAME, I JUST DON'T THINK — I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE — THINK ABOUT IT ON A HIGHER PLAYING LEVEL THAN THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS SO IMPORTANT AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT SO MANY PEOPLE HERE AND ALL THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR MANY DECADES TO COME.

THOMAS: CAN I COMMENT ON THAT, MAYOR, SINCE I SAID THAT? WE ALL SAID CERTAIN THINGS IN THE BEGINNING. WE STARTED OUT STRAIGHT SINGLE AND END UP WITH MIXED, SO I FEEL THAT IT'S ALWAYS A COMPROMISE IN EVERYTHING. SO I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH EVERYBODY STRAIGHT ACROSS. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE TIME SOME PEOPLE GET THREE AND SOME GET TWO. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ONE YEAR THE MAYOR JUST RUNS IN THE RACE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION —

GOODMAN: WHAT IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS TO ADOPT THE PLAN, THE 8-2-1 PLAN WITH TRANSITION PLAN 4. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: LOOKS LIKE, — COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU VOTE.

SLUSHER: CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT FOR DO A ROLL CALL?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES — NO! [ LAUGHTER ] I FORGET. NO.

GOODMAN: YES.

ALVAREZ: YES.

GRIFFITH: YES.

SLUSHER: NO.

THOMAS: YES.

WYNN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, GARCIA AND WYNN VOTING NAY. NO, WE DON'T NEED FIVE VOTES. THIS IS THE THIRD READING.

SO YOU'VE ADOPTED TRANSITION PLAN 4, SO I HAVE TO ASK YOU SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU WANT TO RESTART EVERY 10 YEARS OR DO YOU WANT TO LET THE PLAN RUN FOREVER ONCE IT STARTS?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THE IDEA OF DOING IT EVERY 10 YEARS IS ONLY TO DRAW DISTRICT LINES.

YES. BUT THE QUESTION WOULD BE SINCE YOU'VE GOT A STAGGERED — WHAT WILL HAPPEN UNDER TRANSITION 4 IS IN MAY 2003 YOU WILL ELECT THE CITY — THE CITY WILL ELECT EIGHT MEMBERS FROM DISTRICTS AND A MAYOR. OF THE EIGHT MEMBERS FROM DISTRICTS, AS SOON AS THEY TAKE OFFICE THEY WILL DRAW LOTS TO DIVIDE THEMSELVES INTO TWO CLASSES. ONE CLASS, REPRESENTED BY THE TOP SET OF RED ARROWS, REPRESENTED BY THE TOP SET OF RED ARROWS, FOLLOWING THE GREEN ARROWS, WILL RUN WITH THE TWO AT-LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS. THE BOTTOM SET OF ARROWS, WHICH WILL BE THE PEOPLE WHO DRAW FOR THE — WHO DRAW THE INITIAL THREE-YEAR TERM, WILL RUN WITH THE MAYOR. SO MY QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT THAT TO WORK ITSELF OUT IN PERP TIEWTTY OR — PERPETUITY OR DO YOU WANT TO RESTART AFTER EVERY DE1717IAL 17 — DECENIAL CENSUS AND DRAW LOTS FOR STAGGERING?

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD MEAN EVERYBODY WOULDN'T GET THE SAME LENGTH OF TERMS LIKE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, LIKE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ON OPTION 5?

IT WILL WORK LIKE THE STATE SENATE, WHERE EVERY 10 YEARS THEY START OVER. SO THE PEOPLE WHO GET THE LONG-TERM AT THE BEGINNING WILL END UP GETTING A SHORT-TERM AT THE END. AND THE PEOPLE WHO GET A SHORT-TERM AT THE BEGINNING WITH GET A LONG-TERM AT THE END.

SLUSHER: THAT WAS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR — ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR OPTION 4 AND AGAINST OPTION 5 WAS PREVENTING PEOPLE HAVE HAVING TO GET SHORTER TERMS AT ANY POINT. AND NOW THAT WAS CREATED BY THIS IT SOUNDS LIKE IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY, BUT YOU MAY RECALL THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON TUESDAY WHEN WE BEGAN, WE HAD VERSION A AND VERSION B. AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSION A AND VERSION B WAS THAT VERSION B HAD A RESTART EVERY 10 YEARS PROVISION THAT I HAD INCLUDED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, WHO WANTED TO SEE A VERSION LIKE THAT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WITH TRANSITION 4 DO YOU WANT TO DO A PERIODIC RESTART AFTER REDISTRICTING OR JUST LET THE — OR HOWEVER YOU DRAW LOTS THE FIRST TIME, DO YOU WANT TO LET THAT PLAY ITSELF OUT IN PERPETUITY?

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IF WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO PLAN FOR THAT KIND OF EVENTUALITY PAST WHEN I GUESS ANY OF US WILL BE HERE, SO MAYBE SOME OF THE NEWER ONES, IF IT REALLY — IS IT REALLY NECESSARY, NUMBER ONE, FOR US TO GO PAST THE KIND OF CENSUS STUFF OR DEMOGRAPHICS OR WHATEVER THAT DESIGNS THE BOUNDARIES OR COULD WE, IF WE REALLY NEEDED TO ADDRESS IT, THINK ABOUT ONLY THE AT-LARGE AND MAYOR SEATS SO THAT THE TRADE WOULD BE FROM THE PARTICULAR DISTRICTS SHOWN IN 4 TO THE ELECTIONS OF THE ONES THAT WOULD BE WITHOUT MAYORIAL CANDIDATES IN THE START?

WELL, IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT SO THAT THE TWO AT-LARGE SEATS ALWAYS RAN IN THE — OUT OF SINK WITH THE MAYOR — SYNC WITH THE MAYOR, THE AT LARGE AND THE MAYOR WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE TO DRAW. I THINK WE COULD — BUT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SEATS WOULD NEED TO STAGGER THEMSELVES. NOW, YOU CAN JUST LET — YOU DON'T HAVE DO THAT. YOU CAN JUST LET THE INITIAL STAGGERING PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY EASIER TO DRAFT, BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.

GOODMAN: WELL, I WOULD THINK FOR MYSELF THAT I WOULD RATHER LET PEOPLE ADDRESS THAT WHO HAVE LIVED THROUGH IT RATHER THAN OUR TRYING TO PRECONCEIVE OF A WAY TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T KNOW EXIST YET. OR FAIRNESS ISSUE THAT MIGHT ONLY BE VISIBLE ONCE YOU'VE BEEN WITH IT AWHILE.

IN WHICH CASE WE COULD LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS AND THEY COULD SOLVE THAT WITH A FUTURE CHARTER AMENDMENT IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM, WHICH IS A PERFECTLY OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS THROUGH.

ALVAREZ: I WASN'T CLEAR THAT THE TRANSITION HAD TO BE IN THE CHARTER. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS JUST SOMETHING WE WANTED TO DO BEFORE WE VOTED ON THE 8-2-1 OR WHATEVER FORM WE'RE GOING TO DO AND THEN THE PEOPLE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE TRANSITION WAS GOING TO BE BEFORE VOTING ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. SO — I'M KIND OF CONFUSED IN TERMS OF WHY THIS HAS TO BE — THE TRANSITION PART HAS TO BE IN THE CHARRER ITSELF?

THE TRANSITION PART, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THAT AFTER THE MEETING OF MARCH THE SEVENTH, IN THE MEETING OF MARCH THE 7TH THE COUNCIL INSTRUCTIONS HE HE COUNCIL'S VUKS STRUKSS WERE TO PROVIDE IN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT THE TRANSITION COULD BE HANDLED BY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ANOTHER WAY OF DOING IT. AND THE — AND THE VERSION THAT YOU HAD BEFORE YOU ON TUESDAY PROVIDED THAT, THAT THE TRANSITION COULD BE HANDLED BY ORDINANCE. BUT AT THE TUESDAY MEETING THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO PUT THE TRANSITION PROVISION BACK INTO THE CHARTER RATHER THAN TO HANDLE IT BY ORDINANCE, SO WE CAME BACK ON WEDNESDAY WITH FOUR OPTIONS AND THEN BECAUSE WE WERE ASSUMING THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO CONTINUE THREE-YEAR STAGGERED TERMS, BUT THEN YESTERDAY WE WERE ALSO INSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE AN OPTION THAT WENT TO THREE-YEAR NON-STAGGERED TERMS, WHICH IS OPTION 5. BUT MY ONLY — MY QUESTION IS THAT IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE STAGGERING OPTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'VE DONE, THEN IT BRINGS US BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED TO ACCEPT THE IDEA OF RESTARTING EVERY 10 YEARS OR TO ALLOW THE INITIAL STAGGERING THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY DRAWING LOTS TO PLAY ITSELF OUT PERPETUALLY.

BUT COUNCILMEMBER, TO ANSWER YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION, YOU CAN DO IT EITHER RIGHT. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE A WHOLE RANGE OF MOVING BACK AND FORTH AND WE HAVE IT WRITTEN INTO THE CHARTER REVISION, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY, YOU CAN DO IT BY ORDINANCE.

BUT I THINK THAT THE CHARTER WILL EITHER HAVE TO SAY HOW TO DO IT OR GRANT YOU THE POWER TO DO IT BY ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU WILL — IN ORDER TO DO IT YOU WILL NECESSARILY NEED TO TINKER WITH SOMEBODY'S TERM LENGTH SOMEWHERE. AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT POWER, WE'LL HAVE TO GRANT IT TO YOU.

ALVAREZ: AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE HAD CHANGED FROM THAT — FROM JUST GIVING THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THE TRANSITION AND EVERYTHING HERE AND LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY THAT THE TRANSITION WOULD WORK. AND TO PREFER THAT COURSE OF ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I THOUGHT WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON A MINUTE AGO WAS JUST THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS IN THIS 15-A, SECTION 5.

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: IT WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING WE WERE VOTING ON THE WHOLE THING, THE WHOLE 15-A AT THAT TIME. I THOUGHT ALL WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE TRANSITION. SO DID WE PUT IN REDIRECT IN 4 BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT AND WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE WAS THAT YOU JUST VOTED ON THE TRAN SITION PROVISION. I HAVE PREPARED DRAFT 15-A BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YESTERDAY. I HAD PREPARED DRAFT 15-A WITH THE TRANSITION 5 LANGUAGE IN IT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE BEFORE YOU, I BELIEVE, A DOCUMENT THAT IS ENTITLED 15-A AND AT THE TOP LEFT IT SAYS FIVE TRANSITION SCENARIOS. SO WHAT I WOULD DO BASED ON YOUR VOTE IS SUBSTITUTE TRANSITION 4.

SLUSHER: AND THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE SECTION 5, 15-A, NOT OPTION 5. OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE THEN DISCUSSING SECTION 4, THE REDISTRICTING? I HAD A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THAT. IT DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I CAN EITHER WAIT UNTIL LATER OR DO IT NOW, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, MAYOR, WHAT THE DISCUSSION EXACTLY WAS ABOUT. DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. Y'ALL GO AHEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO HAD THE FLOOR?

SLUSHER: I THINK ALVAREZ DID.

ALVAREZ: YEAH. I THINK I JUST ENDED MY QUESTION BY SAYING I JUST PREFERRED TO HAVE THE CHARTER GIVE — THE CITY COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE TRANSITION AFTER IT — [ INAUDIBLE ] I PREFER TO GO THROUGH IT THAT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS THE REDRAWING OF THE MAPS AT THIS TIME IN A 10-YEAR CENSUS?

ALVAREZ: NO. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TRANSITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME ASK MR. STEINER TO COMMENT ON THAT. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS WE'RE DEALING WITH A TRANSITION ONLY. DO WE ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE 2010 CENSUS?

STEINER: YOU DON'T HAVE TO, IT WAS JUST A QUESTION I WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON THE MARCH 7TH MEETING HAD ASKED THAT I PREPARE A VERSION THAT RESTARTED AFTER EACH DE17 YELL CENSUS AND ONE THAT DIDN'T. IF THE COUNCIL'S WILL IS NOT TO RESATURDAY AFTER EACH DID HE 17IAL CENSUS, — DECENIAL CENSUS, THEN WE CAN JUST ALLOW THE TRANSITION TO OPERATE AND IT WILL OPERATE THAT WAY FOREVER. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO — AGAIN, TO NOT PROVIDE A TRANSITION AT THIS TIME, BUT TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO CHOOSE A TRANSITION. OF COURSE, THAT'S SHG SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DEAL WITH PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE THAT WILL ALSO BE PART OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF ELECTION CHANGES THAT WE'LL NEED TO GET PRECLEARED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS PART OF IT NOW. SO IF WE DIDN'T — I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE EITHER DECIDE TO REDIRECT EVERY 10 YEARS OR NOT. NO?

NO.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT GETTING IT.

YOU WILL BE REDISTRICTING EVERY 10 YEARS PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT WILL REQUIRE YOU TO ADJUST THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT ONCE WE GO — THE WAY THE TRANSITION 4 IS WRITTEN, THIS WILL BE A ONE-TIME THING THAT WILL HAPPEN TO GET FROM WHERE WE ARE TODAY TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN MAY OF 2005. ON THE CHART THE RED DATE IS THE FIRST ELECTION DATE AT WHICH EVERYTHING IS NORMALIZED FOR THE NEW SYSTEM. AFTER MAY OF 2005, FROM THEN TO THE END OF TIME PRESUMABLY, EVERYTHING WILL WORK AS IT SHOULD WITH FOUR DISTRICTS BEING UP WITH THE TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS AND FOUR DISTRICTS BEING UP WITH THE MAYOR. WHICH DISTRICTS THOSE WILL BE WILL DEPEND ON THE LOT DRAWING THAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE MAY 2003 ELECTION. NOW, THE — THAT CAN JUST KEEP PLAYING ITSELF OUT FOREVER AND YOU CAN ADJUST THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES EVERY 10 YEARS OR WHENEVER YOU NEED TO, BUT THOSE DISTRICTS — THE WAY THE PATTERN IN WHICH THOSE DISTRICTS ARE ELECTED WILL JUST CONTINUE TO PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER. ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THAT, WHICH IS AN OPTION, BUT NOT NECESSARY, IS JUST WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO. ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THAT IS EVERY 10 YEARS WHEN YOU DO THE DECENIAL REDISTRICTING, AFTER THAT WE ELECT A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL AND THEN THE COUNCIL DRAWS LOTS TO PUT ITSELF BACK INTO A NEW STAGGERING PATTERN.

SLUSHER: WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING IT THAT LATTER WAY?

THE ONLY ADVANTAGE OF THAT IS IF YOU DRASTICALLY REDREW THE LINES IT WOULD NOT — IF YOU DRASTICALLY — IF YOU DRASTICALLY REDREW THE LINES AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS, IT WOULDN'T HAVE DISTRICT ONE THAT WAS OVER HERE SUDDENLY BE OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN. AND SO WHEN THIS PERSON WHO WAS HOLDING THE DISTRICT 1 SEAT EXPIRED, THEIR SPOT MIGHT BE FILLED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS IN AN AREA THAT REALLY GEOGRAPHICALLY WASN'T VERY SIMILAR TO THE SEAT BEING VACATED. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT LIKELY. MORE LIKELY YOU WILL JUST BE DOING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTS WILL STAY MORE OR LESS WHERE THEY ARE. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ADVANTAGE TO IT. OTHER THAN THAT IT REALLY KIND OF CREATES MORE DIFFICULTY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET THIS THING RESTAGGERRED EVERY 10 YEARS, WHICH AT THE STATE SENATE IS A PERPETUAL CASE THAT CAUSES DIFFICULTY, QUITE FRANKLY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY END UP IN LITIGATION AND THE LITIGATION CAUSES THE — SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET THEMSELVES RESTAGGERRED UNTIL IT'S ALMOST TIME TO REDIRECT AGAIN.

SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING I ADVISE, BUT IT WAS AN OPTION I WAS ASKED ABOUT BY ONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SWITCHING THE SUBJECT SLIGHTLY, GOING 15-A-4-B, THE COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. WELL, I WAS TALKING YESTERDAY ABOUT I DIDN'T WANT THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THE POWER TO BY ORDINANCE SHORTEN ANYBODY'S TERM. I MEAN, I THINK AFTER SOME DISCUSSION TONIGHT SOMEBODY MIGHT PUT A MOTION ON TO SHORT EARN MY TERM TO — SHORT ENEMY TERM TO MIDNIGHT OR SOMETHING. BUT THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO INVEST THE COUNCIL WITH THAT POWER, DEPENDING ON SHIFTS IN THE MAJORITY AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT THEIR TERMS COULD BE SHORTENED. I PUT THIS UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY. OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. I WOULD SAY LET'S REDIRECT EVERY 10 YEARS, NOT JUST HAVE IT WHERE COUNCIL COULD PUT ON THE AGENDA, WELL, IT'S TIME TO REDIRECT. I JUST DON'T SEE THE — WHY WE WOULD DO THAT.

GOODMAN: WELL, MAYOR, CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT TOO? THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO IN KIND OF A DIFFERENT ANGLE IS HOW DID WE PLAN TO HANDLE ANNEXATIONS AT THE TIME THAT ANYTHING WAS FULL PURPOSE AN EXED, DID THEY AUTOMATICALLY FIT INTO THE DISTRICT THEY WERE ADJACENT TO OR WHAT?

LUSHER: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID BEFORE UNTIL THE NEXT REDISTRICTING.

THE REASON THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO COUNCIL THAT YOU RETAIN THE DISCRETION TO REDIRECT AT TIMES THAT YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY IS BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1997 WE ANNEXED 30,000 RESIDENTS. I THINK CURRENTLY WE'RE PLANNING TO ANNEX SOMETHING BETTER THAN 10,000 RATHER FAIRLY SOON. IF YOU DID THAT AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ATTACHED TO A DISTRICT, YOU WOULD HAVE A PRETTY OUT OF SYNC DISTRICT, AND IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REDRAW THE LINES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. SO I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO RETAIN THE DISCRETION TO REDIRECT SUBJECT TO BIG DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE CITY WITHOUT — WHICH MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH DECENIAL CENSUSES BECAUSE THE CITY IS AN ORGANISM THAT GROWS AND THERE MAY BE EVENTS THAT OCCUR BETWEEN DECENIAL CENSUSES THAT WOULD THROW OUR DRIK SO FAR OUT OF POPULATION EQUA LIB RUM THAT WE WOULD FEW FIND IT DIFFICULT TO REDIRECT.

SLUSHER: THAT THE ONLY REASON THAT'S IN HERE?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: THEN I THINK WE SHOULD STATE THAT. AT TIMES —

I COULD PUT IN — FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK OVER AT THE NEXT PAGE OVER, I COULD PUT LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS. I COULD SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND WHEN NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, LEGAL PREREQUISITES, SO SIMILAR TO THAT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES.

SLUSHER: AND MAYBE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT DUE TO ANNEXATION? I DON'T KNOW IF —

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY.

SLUSHER: WELL, AT LEAST THEN IT WOULD BE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES. I GUESS THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED BROADLY, BUT I SEE YOUR POINT THERE.

HOW ABOUT THIS? THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES?

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND YOU READ IT BEFORE.

BEFORE WHAT — THE PROVISION I WAS READING WAS OFF OF THE PROVISION ABOUT ANTICIPATORY ORDINANCES. AND I WAS SAYING THIS IS THE ONE THAT LOCKED YOU — IF YOU DECIDE TO REDIRECT BEFORE THE — BEFORE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS RAT RATFIDE, THIS IS THE ONE THAT LOCKS YOU IN FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT SAYS THAT A REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ANTICIPATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS MAY NOT BE AMENDED UNLESS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, BY WHICH I MEANT SECTION 5, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE I AM PLEMENTTATION, BY WHICH I ALSO MEANT SECTION 5. AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS REQUIRES FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

SLUSHER: I THINK I'D LIKE THAT ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER BECAUSE IT SETS UP SOME MORE CRITERIA OR INSTANCES IN WHICH IT COULD HAPPEN RATHER THAN JUST THE — SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING — AND IN THAT OPTION YOU WOULD SAY — YOU WOULD ADD THAT LANGUAGE, COPY THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE 4-B.

I MIGHT PERHAPS CHANGE IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE IN THAT OTHER CONTEXT, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGARDING A BOUNDARY CHANGE IN THE CITY DEMOGRAPHIC, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A BOUNDARY CHANGE IN THE CITY OR DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT OR SHRIGHT.

SLUSHER: YEAH. MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT AND GET IT TYPED UP. BUT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS AN AMENDMENT. WHEN YOU GET IT. THAT'S ALL. I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS]

STEINER: A RIGHT TO HOLD THAT OFFICE DURING THE TERM. IF WE ARE GOING TO — THE COUNCIL COULD NOT JUST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO, DECIDE TO SHORTEN YOUR TERM OF OFFICE. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY FOR YOU TO SERVE THREE YEARS AS A COUNCILMEMBER COMES FROM THE CHARTER. SO THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD SHORTEN YOUR TERM OF OFFICE OR CHANGE YOUR TERM OF OFFICE, THE COUNCIL COULD NEITHER SAY OH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SHOULD SERVE A TWO YEAR TERM OR FOUR YEAR TERM, THEY COULDN'T DO EITHER OF THOSE BECAUSE THE CHARTER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM AND NO MORE. SO — SO IF WE WERE GOING TO TINKER WITH THAT RIGHT THAT YOU GET BY VIRTUE OF BEING ELECTED, THAT AUTHORITY HAS TO COME FROM A DOCUMENT WITH EQUAL DIGNITY TO THE DOCUMENT THAT GIVES YOU THAT RIGHT. SO — SO THAT'S FROM THE CHARTER. SO IF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT YOU CAN — THAT YOU WILL DRAW LOTS FOR A SHORTENED TERM, THEN YOU WILL DRAW LOTS FOR A SHATTERENED TERM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE AUTHORITY FOR YOU TO SERVE THAT TERM COMES FROM SHORTENED TERM. IF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL CAN SHORTEN YOUR TERM FOR A REASON, LIKE TO GET IN SYNC, THEN THE CHARTER, THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AND YOU WOULD KNOW GOING INTO THE ELECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO — TO SHORTEN YOUR TERM IN THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT IF WE WERE — THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY WAY THAT I CAN THINK OF, FROM GETTING — FROM HERE TO THERE, WITHOUT — IT'S NOT A JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT QUITS WITHOUT CLIPPING OFF BITS OF THE PIECES. SO — SO IN ORDER TO GET FROM A SEVEN-MEMBER COUNCIL AT LARGE TO AN 11 MEMBER COUNCIL MIXED, AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO SERVE A SHORTER TERM. AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, WE WILL EITHER HAVE TO SAY IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE CHARTER OR THE CHARTER WILL HAVE TO GRANT THE COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT FOR THIS PURPOSE. THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT.

ALVAREZ: THAT'S THIS INITIAL TRANSITION.

STEINER: JUST FOR INITIAL TRANSITION.

ALVAREZ: NOT FOR SUBSEQUENT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS MORE —

STEINER: FOR SUBSEQUENT TRANSITIONS I COULD EITHER — ONE THING WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT REDISTRICTING TRANSITIONS MUCH ONE IS NOT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, JUST TO BE SILENT. THAT'S THE PATTERN THAT YOU WILL FIND IN MOST CITY CHARTERS. THEY JUST ASSUME THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO BE MORE OR LESS WHERE THEY ARE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOWP DEARS MAY CHANGE A BIT, BUT DISTRICT 18 BE MORE OR LESS WHERE IT IS, DISTRICT 2 WILL BE MORE OR LESS WHERE IT IS. AND THAT THE CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARIES WON'T CHANGE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WHERE IT IS. SO THAT IT WILL ALWAYS MAKE SENSE FOR COUNCILMEMBER — THE COUNCILMEMBER FROM DISTRICT 2 TO KEEP RUNNING IN DISTRICT 2, EVEN AFTER A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. THE — SO ONE OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND LET THAT SCENARIO, WE WILL DO A ONE-TIME TRANSITION, THAT SCENARIO WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO SAY THAT EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER WE DO A MAJOR BOUNDARY CHANGE, ASSUMING THAT IT WILL BE SOMETHING MAJOR, THAT WE WILL START OVER AND THE WHOLE COUNCIL WILL BE REELECTED AND DRAW LOTS FOR A NEW STAGGERING. I DON'T NECESSARILY RECOMMEND THAT, BUT AS I SAY I WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT OPTION SO I INCLUDED IT IN ONE OF THE DRAFTS THAT YOU'VE HAD. THAT'S — IT'S COMPLEX AND I NEITHER RECOMMEND IT NOR DON'T. BUT IT'S AN OPTION THAT YOU HAVE. AGAINST A THIRD — A THIRD PROVISION WHICH I HAVEN'T DRAFTED WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THAT BY ORDINANCE THE COUNCIL COULD, IF IT DECIDED THAT A REDISTRICTING WAS SO — SO DRASTIC THAT IT — THAT EQUITY DEMANDED THAT YOU START OVER, THAT AT THAT TIME YOU COULD BY ORANCE PROVIDE FOR — ORDINANCE PROVIDE FOR A REELECTION OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND A NEW STAGGERING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD DRAFT AT FOR YOU, THOUGH I HAVEN'T. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION TO DO IT. ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT. AND THAT WOULD — OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE PRECLEARABLE AT THE TIME IT HAPPEN. BUT IT'S A THIRD OPTION.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. NO, I THOUGHT THIS TRANSITION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS PUTTING THAT IN THE CHARTER. BUT I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD APPLY THEN EVERY 10 YEARS AND SO — YOU ARE SAYING.

STEINER: NOT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

ALVAREZ: IT REMAINS SILENT IN TERMS OF FUTURE —

STEINER: RIGHT FOR THE FUTURE —

ALVAREZ: ELECTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REDISTRICTING.

STEINER: THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IF WE JUST PUT TRANSITION 4 IN, IT WILL HAPPEN ONCE. AFTER THAT, THAT WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS OR CAN THIS GO ON THE BALLOT THIS WAY?

STEINER: IF EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH TRANSITION 4, WITH NO FURTHER FAHLDERAL —

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY, BUT THE MAJORITY WON.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT. IF THE COUNCIL AS A BODY IS CONTENT WITH ITS MOST RECENT VOTE, THEN ALL I WOULD NEED IS A — TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. IN OTHER WORDS I GUESS THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE 15-A.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WANTED TO PUT IN THAT DIFFERENT WORDING ON THE — WHAT'S IT CALLED? REDISTRICTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. 15A.

YES, I'M A 15A, SECTION 4, PART — LET'S SEE, PART 3, SECTION 4-B. BUT I'M WAITING ON THE LANGUAGE TO COME BACK ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAY THAT AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER. 15A.

SLUSHER: WE ARE ON 15A, PART 3, SECTION 4, B. ON PAGE 3 OF 6, LINE 3, —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WILL HAVE TO REWARD PARAGRAPH 5 ALSO, RIGHT.

STEINER: THE REWARD WORDING — REWORDING FOR PARAGRAPH 5 ON THE SHEET OF PAPER THAT YOU HAVE THAT IS THE FIVE TRANSITION SCENARIOS, TRANSITION 5, THE LANGUAGE IN — IN THE TRANSITION WILL BE — WILL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT'S LABELED TRANSITION 4 WILL SUBSTITUTE IN THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PARAGRAPH 4 B, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. WELL, SEE, MR. STEINER READ ME SOME LANGUAGE OUT OF — THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN 6, BUT THINKS WE NEED TO DO SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO THAT AND SO SOMEONE IS DRAFTING THAT I THINK — SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT WE SHOULD HAVE THE PRINTED LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US INSTEAD OF — DEPENDING ON HE AND I TALKING IT THROUGH. BUT IT WOULD BE ALONG THE LINES OF — OF 6-B, THE — THE FOUR ITEMS LISTED UNDER THERE. BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE COUNCIL COULD REDISTRICT AND MY CONCERN WAS THAT WE MAKE IT A LITTLE STRICTER THAN JUST WHEN THE COUNCIL THINKS IT'S NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.

STEINER: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WHAT I WILL TRY TO DO IS SAY IT SLOWLY ENOUGH SO THAT —

SLUSHER: SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.

STEINER: SO SOMEONE BACK THERE CAN TYPE IT. THEN WE CAN MAYBE PROCEED TO ANOTHER ITEM WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE I THINK.

STEINER: I'M SOFT OF DRAFTING... — I'M SORT OF DRAFTING ON THE FLY HERE. ON PAGE 3 OF 6, LINE 3, PARAGRAPH B, WOULD SAY, INSTEAD OF WHAT IT SAYS, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDISTRICT AFTER EACH DECENNIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND: — OH, WAIT. THE COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDISTRICT AFTER EACH DECENNIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE: 1 — APPROPRIATE, COMMA, TO COMPLY WITH, COLON, A COURT — 1, A COURT ORDER; 2, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW RELATING TO A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGE; 3, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGE; OR, 4, DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND — FINDS REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE COUPLE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PERIOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD BE 4-B?

STEINER: YES, SIR, THAT WILL BE SECTION 4B.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, HE DID SAY THAT SLOW ENOUGH TO WHERE I UNDERSTAND IT. SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING AHEAD ON THAT IF — IF OTHERS ARE. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S — IT'S VIRTUALLY THE SAME AT 6-B.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THEN PASS THE ORDINANCE, CONSIDER PASSING THE ORDINANCE?

SLUSHER: SURE. PROP 1 DISTRICT, 15-A, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.

SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF PROP 1 DISTRICT ON 15-A. THERE IS A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. AND THE — THEN WE CAN GO TO THE OTHERS. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE ORDER LATER. THE NEXT ONE IS — IS REPEAL THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. THIS ONE — HAS PASS ODD A VOTE OF HAD TO 3 TWICE, THIS WOULD BE FOR THIRD READING. IS THERE A MOTION.

SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN, IS THERE A SECOND.

SLUSHER: I WILL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SECONDS. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: JUST ONE COMMENT, MAYOR. SINCE I SAID THIS TO SOME PEOPLE YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO INTERVIEW ME AT THIS TIME IN MY LIFE. THE TERM LIMITS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT I WAS PHILOSOPHICALLY AT ODDS WITH AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK IT ABRIDGES MY POWERS AND RIGHTS AS A VOTER TOTALLY ASIDE FROM MY POSITION AT THE MOMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE. BUT THE OTHER PART IS THEY HAVE SENSE THE RESPONSE FROM SOME PEOPLE, WHO WE FOUND OUT THEY HAD TERM LIMITATIONS IN AUSTIN WERE AMAZED SAID WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN, SURELY I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT. OTHERS WHO HAVE SAID WE ARE TRYING TO SIDESTEP THE ORDINANCE, FIND A LOOPHOLE WHEN IN FACT THE CHARTER PROVISION ALLOWED NOT FOR AN ABSOLUTE TERM LIMIT, BUT FOR TWO OPTIONS TO CONTINUE SERVING IN PUBLIC OFFICE. AND THAT HAS OUTRAGED SOME PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE. WHICH COMES DOWN TO THE POINT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHARTER PROVISION SAYS AND MEANS. I THINK THAT BY BEING THE FIRST THREE TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT CHARTER PROVISION, WE HAVE MAYBE BROUGHT UP THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND I THINK THAT IT — IT MAY NOT MEET THE — THE EXPECTATIONS AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME WHO SUPPORTED IT AND SOME WHO DIDN'T KNOW IT PASSED. MAY HAVE VOTED FOR IT AND DON'T REMEMBER VOTING FOR IT. SO IN THAT SENSE, WE OFFER A PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON THAT PARTICULAR CHARTER REVISION. AND IF — IF VOTERS CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR IT AGAIN, AT LEAST THIS TIME I THINK THERE WILL BE FEWER PEOPLE WHO — WHO DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROVISIONS ARE. PEOPLE. R: MAYOR, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS PASSED IN '94. I THINK THERE'S BIG A BIG SHIFT IN THE COUNTRY AND THE CITY ABOUT TERM LIMITS. AS I'VE BEEN OUT THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH, THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN SAID DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT WE HAD TERM LIMITS. I HAVE RUN INTO PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS. AND I HAVE RUN INTO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THEM. I HAVE RUN INTO SOME THAT WERE FOR THEM, FOR THEM AND ARE AGAINST THEM NOW. THE MAJORITY PARTY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAME INTO POWER IN 1994 WITH ONE OF THE MAJOR PLANKS OF THEIR PLATFORM BEING TERM LIMITS AND QUICKLY TURNED AGAINST TERM LIMITS. YOU DON'T SEE THEM HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THE FORMER MAYOR OF HOUSTON, BOB LANIER, USED TO BE FOR TERM LIMITS. NOW IS LEADING AN EFFORTS IN HOUSTON TO OVERTURN TERM LIMITS. I THINK WITH ALL THAT THAT I'VE HEARD IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT — THAT THE THREE OF US UP HERE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS PROVISION HAVE COMPLIED WITH BOTH — WITH IT BOTH IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. ALL WE ARE DOING TONIGHT IS GIVING THE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO REPEAL THIS PROVISION OR NOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR OR THE COUNCILMEMBERS. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION ALREADY FOR THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND WYNN VOTING NAY. THAT'S THE THIRD READING. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS IN THE — IN THE HANDOUT THAT'S CALLED PROP 2 TERM LIMITS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SLUSHER: SORRY, MAYOR, REPEAT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHARTER AMENDMENT ORANCE LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: OH,.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAME —

SLUSHER: I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY?

SLUSHER: LET ME READ OUT WHAT THE MOTION WOULD BE, WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WOULD BE.

MAYOR GARCIA: BALLOT LANGUAGE WE VOTED ON ALREADY.

SLUSHER: DID IT HAVE — I RECOMMEND A CHANGE ON — THE WORDING OF ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN.

SAYS SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT WE JUST VOTED ON —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED ON THE LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY. MAYBE I GOT AHEAD, I WAS GETTING READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON REPEAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.

GOODMAN: SO MOVED.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.? OPPOSED, NO.? SAME THREE? WE ARE JUST VOTING ON THE COUNTER PART TO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. WE VOTED ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND NOW THE ORDINANCE.

WYNN: BY VOTING NO AM I VOTING AGAINST THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE —

BY VOTING NO YOU ARE VOTING NOT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. BY VOTING YES —

WYNN: I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE VOTE WE JUST TOOK.

MAYOR GARCIA: BALLOT LANGUAGE ONLY. WE ARE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

WYNN: THEN I VOTE NO, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND WYNN VOTING NAY. THAT PASSES, THEN BACK TO THE — WE WILL GO BACK TO THE ORDER OF THIS ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND. COULD I CHECK SOMETHING WITH THE CLERK?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. I THINK IT'S KIND OF THE SAME QUESTION THAT — THAT MR. WYNN HAD. ON — WHEN WE VOTED ON WHETHER TO DO FOUR OR FIVE, ON THE TRANSITION PLANS, DID WE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS A, AT THE SAME TIME OR DID WE DO THAT SEPARATELY?

CLERK BROWN: WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TOOK PLACE WAS TRANSITION 4 PASSED ON A 4 TO 3 VOTE. THE MAYOR THEN CALLED FOR A VOTE ON PROP 1, 15-A, AND SAID THAT WAS THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE. AND THAT PASSED ON A 7-0 VOTE.

GRIFFITH: THAT — SO THEY WERE NOT SEPARATED, THEY WERE TOGETHER?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF WAS 6-0-1, THAT'S WHAT MY RECORD REFLECTS WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH ABSTAINING ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT INCLUDED THE TRANSITION PLAN PASSED 4 TO 3. ON THIRD READING.

UH-HUH.

GRIFFITH: THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE MAIN MOTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL —

STEINER: MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WAS A MOTION AFTER THE BALLOT LANGUAGE MOTION, THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE TRANSITION PROVISION WITH ONE OF THE — WITH THE MAIN MOTION WAS TO DON'T TRANSITION PROVISION 5. THEN THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DON'T TRANSITION PROVISION 4. SINCE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED, IT OBVIATEED ANY NEED TO VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION BECAUSE THE MAIN MOTION WAS OBVIOUSLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO THEN I BELIEVE AFTER THAT DISCUSSION THERE WAS A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AND I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE VOTE WAS.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S WHAT I SHOWED AS A 7-0.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE WHOLE ORDINANCE WAS 4-3.

NO.

STEINER: THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CLERK SHOWS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN DID YOU SHOW?

CLERK BROWN: I THOUGHT YOUR FIRST VOTE WAS ON THE TRANSITION 4.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST VOTE THAT WE TOOK WAS THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. THAT'S — THAT'S WHAT I SHOW IN THE SCRIPT THAT THEY GAVE ME. AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WAS THE ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SHALL THE — WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THAT INTO A FORM OF A QUESTION.

FUTRELL: SHIRLEY, I THINK IF YOU WILL LOOK FOR A 6-0-1 VOTE WHICH WAS THE VOTE THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF, WHEN WE GOT DOWN TO TAKING THE SECOND VOTE, WHICH IS THE VOTE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, THAT'S WHEN THE TRANSITION PLAN COMES INTO PLAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TRANSITION PLAN CAME INTO PLAY WHEN WE WENT TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

CLERK BROWN: I DO HAVE THE 6-0 VOTE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: 6-0-1 ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN WE WENT TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND THE ORDINANCE WAS PROPOSED WITH THE TRANSITION PLAN ATTACHED TO IT. THAT WAS WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THE ORDINANCE AND HE HAD — HE HAD PUT INTO THE ORDINANCE THE LANGUAGE FOR TRANSITION PLAN 5. THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED AND THEN IT WAS — THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, THAT PASSED 4 TO 3.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S RIGHT. I HAVE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE WAY I RECORDED IT.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. THEN WAS THERE A SEPARATE ONE ON A.

MAYOR GARCIA: A WHAT?

GRIFFITH: THE MAIN MOTION. SO THERE WAS NO SEPARATE ONE ON THE MAIN MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAME THE MOTION — THE MAIN MOTION BECAUSE IT PASSED. SO WE NEVER WENT BACK TO —

GRIFFITH: WE NEVER WENT BACK.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE QUESTION IF THE — IF THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT FOR — YOU KNOW I ASKED THE QUESTION IF THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT FOR JUST MOVING FROM 5 TO 4. AND IT WAS NOT. SO THEN SAID NO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO WHEN IT BECAME THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, IT BECAME A SUBSTITUTE TO THE WHOLE MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAD MADE. NOT JUST FOR TRANSITION, BUT FOR THE WHOLE MOTION.

GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT WHAT YOU SHOW?

CLERK BROWN: I FOLLOWED YOU TO THAT POINT AND THEN I SHOWED US ANOTHER MOTION TAKEN AFTER THAT AND MY NOTES SHOW THAT WHAT WAS READ WAS PROPOSITION 1, 15-A.

GRIFFITH: WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE TRANSITION PLAN. STROOEUN THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE —

STEINER: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN THE MOTION THAT YOU MADE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORANCE LANGUAGE WAS FOR THE LANGUAGE PLUS THE TRANSITION PLAN 5, CORRECT?

WYNN: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MOTION WAS DISCUSSED AND THEN THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DON'T THE MOTION WITH TRANSITION PLAN 4.

CLERK BROWN: WE NEVER WENT BACK AND VOTED ON 5 AT ALL BECAUSE —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. BECAUSE FOUR, YOU KNOW, PREVAILED.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT. MY ONLY CONFUSION, MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT WAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: 4-3.

CLERK BROWN: AFTER YOU TOOK THAT YOU CALLED FOR ANOTHER MOTION AND THAT ONE WAS 7-0.

ALVAREZ: BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT PART A OR SOMETHING, AND ONCE THAT GOT CLEARED UP, THEN WE TOOK ANOTHER VOTE. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS — WHAT WAS THAT VOTE?

STEINER: I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE A MOTION ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. I THOUGHT THAT THE TRANSITION — I THOUGHT THAT THE TRANSITION 5 AND TRANSITION 4 DISCUSSION WAS A MOTION MERELY ON THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THEN I THOUGHT AFTER THAT WAS RESOLVED THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE WHOLE —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND HE JUST CONFIRMED IT, HE MADE A MOTION TO DON'T THE ORDINANCE WITH TRANSITION PLAN 5, WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN IN THE TRANSITION SECTION THAT'S WHEN YOU WROTE IN.

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE QUESTION WHEN THE AMENDMENT CAME UP, IS THIS AN AMENDMENT ONLY FOR TRANSITION PLAN 4. THEY SAID NO, THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO WHEN WE VOTED ON IT, WE VOTED AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AND THAT MEANT THAT THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN DIED, WENT AWAY. NOW YOU SAY THERE WAS A VOTE FOR 7-0.

CLERK BROWN: YES. AFTER THE DISCUSSION WHERE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ASKED FOR TEXT TO BE WRITTEN UP AND JOHN READ THE LANGUAGE AND HE SAID I UNDERSTAND IT, I'M READY TO VOTE. THEN WHAT WAS SAID WAS PROPOSITION 1, 15-A, THAT'S WHAT I SHOW AS — I THOUGHT —

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T REMEMBER EVER VOTING ON A 7-0 MOTION IN THIS ISSUE EXCEPT FOR DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN AND THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I DON'T THINK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND ME AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN VOTED FOR A PLAN THAT INCLUDES TRANSITION PLAN 4.

GOODMAN: NO, MAYOR, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MOTION. I THINK TO TRY TO CLEAR THIS UP, I WILL JUST — GO WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD. IN ESSENCE WHAT WE DID IS WE HAD AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD ALREADY PASSED BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER DID WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE ABILITY OF A COUNCIL TO AT SOME WHIMISCAL POINT IN POLITICAL LIFE, PERHAPS, CHANGE THE DISTRICTS OR TERM LIMITS — I KEEP SAYING TERM LIMITS, EVEN THOUGH I WANT TO JUST SAY TERMS — OF SERVING COUNCILMEMBERS. SO THAT'S WHEN MR. STEINER QUOTED SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS A SORT OF A FAIL SAFE AT WHICH TIME YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT DEALT WITH THE REDISTRICTING CORRECT.

GOODMAN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: WITH 4? OKAY.

GOODMAN: WITH DID ALL VOTE YES ON THOSE AMENDMENTS. SO — SO YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR LAST MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE IN [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] YOU CAN'T MAKE IT I WILL MOVE TO RECONSIDER.

WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION PASSED 4 TO 3. WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER IT. GO BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, BECAUSE THIS MOTION IS GOING TO BE DONE AWAY WITH. WE ARE BACK TO THE MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MADE. THAT — THAT THAT IN ESSENCE HAS THE — HAS THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WITH — WITH THE — WITH THE TRANSITION PLAN OF 5. NOW, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION NOW TO — TO HAVE IT, TO AMEND THAT — TO TRANSITION PLAN 4. THAT CAN PASS AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE.

GOODMAN: I GET IT, OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU MOVE FOR RECONSIDERATION.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: I WILL SECOND, MAYOR. JUST WOULD THE OUTCOME OF THIS BE THAT TRANSITION PLAN AND MAIN ORDINANCE WOULD BE SEVERED?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. THE MOTION —

GOODMAN: AMEND.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN MOVE TO RECEIVER IF YOU WANT TO.

GRIFFITH: LET'S DO THAT.

GOODMAN: IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT SOME POINT THERE HAS TO BE A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE, OKAY? SO — SO WE HAVE THE DANGER OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR 5 AND VOTED AGAINST 4, VOTED AGAINST THIS AND KILLING THE WHOLE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PLAN. THAT'S THE DANGER THAT WE HAVE.

GRIFFITH: WOULD THAT BE TRUE IF — IF THEY WERE SEVERED? IF THE TRANSITION PLAN AND THE MAIN ORDINANCE WERE SEVERED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, WHEN YOU RECEIVER IT, WHEN YOU RECEIVER IT AND YOU VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN, THEN IT BECOMES PART OF THE ORDINANCE, CORRECT MR. STEINER?

...>GOODMAN: SAY YES. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT SHE'S PROPOSING IS WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER, OKAY? SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER. THIS WOULD BE THE — THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE. THE 4 TO 3 VOTE. THEN THE NEXT MOTION IS GOING TO BE FOR SEVERING TRANSITION PLAN FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

ALTHOUGH, MAYOR, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. THE AMENDMENT VOTE, IF NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE VOTING ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT IT WAS NOT AN AMENDMENT THAT WE VOTED ON. WE VOTED ON A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

GOODMAN: I KNOW. BUT WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO DO WITH RECONSIDERING THE WHOLE THING IS WE CAN OFFER TWO AMENDMENTS. ONE IS TO GO TO TRANSITION PLAN NUMBER 4 AND ONE IS TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S DEAL. OKAY.

GOODMAN: THOSE AMENDMENTS IF NOT FRIENDLY TO THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION CAN BE VOTE ON A TOTALLY SEPARATE VOTING PATTERN, NOBODY HAS TO WORRY ABOUT VOTING —

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT I'M SAYING MAYOR PRO TEM LET'S SAY WE PASS — WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO DON'T TRANSITION PLAN 4, THAT BECOMES PART OF THE MOTION AS MUCH AS THEN THE AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER BECOMES PART OF THE MAIN MOTION, THEN WE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AND SOME OF US THAT DON'T LIKE TRANSITION PLAN 4 MAY VOTE AGAINST IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

GOODMAN: YOU WOULD RATHER NOT DO IT THAT WAY THEN?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, NO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL OF KILLING SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IF I VOTE AGAINST THE ORDINANCE AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER VOTES AGAINST AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN VOTES AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.

SLUSHER: THEN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAS BEEN VOTING AGAINST IT CONSISTENTLY GOING ON. SO THEN SHE ABSTAINED TONIGHT, BUT OTHER VOTES SHE'S VOTING NO. IF SHE VOTES NO TONIGHT THEN IT COULD LEASE 4 TO 3 AND THEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME THE MIXED SYSTEM DOESN'T GO ON THE BALLOT.

GOODMAN: I SEE. ALTHOUGH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND WYNN AND THE MAYOR, IF YOU BOW TO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY ON ANOTHER ISSUE, YOU COULD STILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THE ITEM AS THE NUMBERS SHOW NOW IT WILL BE WRITTEN. BUT IF YOU WOULD RATHER —

SLUSHER: YOU MEAN SO THE PERSON THAT CASTS THE DECIDING VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN THEN IS SHE WAS TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH HER PREVIOUS THING RATHER THAN HER VOTE TONIGHT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE YES FOR THE TRANSITION PLAN THAT WE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED JUST SO THE MAGAZINE......... MAGNAMOUS ACTION OF PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND, IT IS SORT OF MARVELOUSLY IRONIC.

THOMAS: WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ALL TWO ARE TRYING TO DO, AMEN.

GOODMAN: WHATEVER, IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVER IT, IF WE STILL NEED TO RECONSIDER, THAT'S MY MOTION.

GRIFFITH: THERE'S A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO — TO DON'T THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THERE'S A SECOND, CORRECT? IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: YES. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS RECEIVER THE TRANSITION DEAL AND THE MAIN ORDINANCE.

FUTRELL: CITY ATTORNEY —

I WANT TO HAVE A SUGGESTION HOW YOU ALL CHOOSE TO FASHION THE VOTES OF COURSE WILL BE UP TO YOU. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION ON THE ORDERANCE SUBSTITUTING THE LANGUAGE WITH TRANSITION 4 PLUS THE REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE THAT JOHN STEINER READ INTO THE RECORD AND THAT CAN BE VOTED UP OR DOWN. THAT WOULD JUST BE THE MAIN MOTION BY PIECING TOGETHER THE PIECES THAT YOU WANT IN THERE, THE TRANSITION 4 LANGUAGE PLUS THE AMENDED OR THE REVISED REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE. THAT'S JUST AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.

NO, NO, WE CAN JUST HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, WHAT WAS VOTED ON BEFORE. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MAIN MOTION. TO — TO DON'T THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE USING TRANSITION 4 LANGUAGE PLUS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS READ IN WITH REGARD TO REDISTRICTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE IF WE VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION WE ARE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. BECAUSE WE ARE BASICALLY RECONSIDERING WHAT WAS — SEE THAT MOTION NEVER WENT AWAY. IT WENT AWAY BECAUSE WE VOTED FOR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. STEINER HELP ME WITH THIS ONE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT WE HAVE TO DON'T AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE — CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, RIGHT?

STEINER: THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO ADOPT AN ORANCE THAT LOOKS THE WAY YOU DON'T IT TO LOOK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE HAVE TWO ORDINANCES, ONE ON 8-2-1, ONE ON TRANSITION?

STEINER: NO, SIR. I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE ONE ORDINANCE SO IT CAN BE ONE BALLOT PROPOSITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TRANSITION PLAN IS NOT ON THE BALLOT, IS IT?

STEINER: IT IS IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYTHING THAT FLOWS FROM THE BALLOT PROPOSITION IS PART OF — PART OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION. THE BALLOT PROPOSITION DOESN'T DESCRIBE EVERY CHANGE THAT WILL BE MADE. BUT IT — ALL THE CHANGES THAT — THAT WILL BE MADE TO THE CHARTER, WHETHER — WITH RESPECT TO GOING TO THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S DO THAT. WHAT WE HAVE IS A COUNCILMEMBER THAT WANTED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TRANSITION PLAN, BUT IS NOT FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. OKAY? SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE OR 10 MINUTE BREAK. I NEED TO GO TO THE POTTY ANYWAY, YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW HOW IT CAN BE DONE, BUT I ALSO DON'T LIKE TRANSITION PLAN 4. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF VOTING AGAINST SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE TRANSITION PLAN.

GRIFFITH: SO, MAYOR, DON'T WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO RECEIVER THOSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO DO.

STEINER: ALL I CAN THINK OF IS THAT YOU HAVE ONE ORDINANCE WITH —

FUTRELL: WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO DO, LET'S TAKE THE BREAK LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, LET'S TALK AMONG OURSELVES AND COME UP WITH OUR SUGGESTIONS.

GRIFFITH: GOOD IDEA. (RECESS) DANIEL PLANTE, DANIEL PLANTE, DANIEL PLANTE, DON'T, DON'T, DONATE, DONATE, DONATE, DOPPLER, DOPPLER, TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST,

MAYOR GARCIA: QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL HERE, WE NEED THE OTHER THREE COUNCILMEMBERS IN. I WILL ASK MR. STEINER TO EXPLAIN — HOW WE DID THIS AN WHERE WE ARE AND HOW WE NEED TO — TO MOVE ON IT.

WYNN: MAYOR, FIRST I WILL MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND GO BEYOND 10:00.

SLUSHER: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: ACTUALLY GOING BEYOND 11:00 OR 10:00.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION AND SECOND TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO GO BEYOND 10:00. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 TO 2 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM NOT VOTING ON IT YET. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT HERE AT THE TIME. OKAY. MR. STEINER? THIS GOES TO THE — TO THE FIRST PROPOSITION OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT WHERE WE CALL —

STEINER: AFTER COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S DISCUSSION OF HOW HE WILL LIKE — HE WOULD LIKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 4-B ON REDISTRICTING REWORDED, THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO PASS THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS THEN CHANGED WITH THE CHANGE TO THE BALLOT PROPOSITION, WITH THE CHANGE TO THE — WITH THE TRANSITION 4 AND WITH —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WAS THAT MOTION IN ORDER?

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT IS? WHEN ANOTHER MOTION HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE SAME ISSUE?

...JUST SO THAT I CAN GET MY MIND CLEAR.

STEINER: I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN ORDER.

IF IT'S DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION, THEN IT'S A VALID ACT.

STEINER: DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE COUNCIL WAS —

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER THE 4-3 VOTE AND GET IT OFF AND THEN JUST LEAVE THE OTHER ONE ON. SO THAT WE CLEAR THE RECORD.

STEINER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: HUH? NO, NO, RECONSIDER THE MOTION THAT WAS PASSED 4 TO 3, THEN WITH DRAW THAT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WE DRAWS HIS MAIN MOTION, THAT LEAVES SLUSHER'S MOTION IT'S OVER.

A MOTION TO RECONSIDER WILL TAKE YOU BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION, THE LAST MAIN MOTION WAS THE 7-0 VOTE ON THE 8-2-1 ORDINANCE, TRANSITION 4 PLAN.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE TO CORRECT ANOTHER MISTAKE. SO — SO IF WE — WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT IS WHEN WE VOTED ON COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION, THAT BASICALLY INVALIDATED THE PRIOR VOTE?

STEINER: NO.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, THEY ARE SAYING BECAUSE — OUR SIDE LOST THE — THE VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN, GOT THE — THEN WE AMENDED THE PART ON THE — WHAT — REDISTRICTING DECEMBER............ENNIAL ASPECT OF IT, THEN WE VOTED ON THE WHOLE MOTION. DECENNIAL. IT WAS CONFUSING, BUT I VOTED FOR THAT OR MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE THE — I WANTED TO VOTE FOR THE WHOLE PLAN, EVEN THOUGH I REALLY STRONGLY OPPOSE THE TRANSITION PLAN. NOW I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WANTS US NOW TO RECEIVER THAT WHERE SHE CAN VOTE AGAINST THE OVERALL PLAN —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, SHE WANTS TO VOTE FOR THE PLAN. SHE SAID SHE WANTS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A GREAT CONSENSUS BUILDER OF THIS CENTURY. [ LAUGHTER ].

SLUSHER: WOW, SHE HAS AN EARLY START ON THE CENTURY ANYWAY. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DECADE, THE DECENNIAL.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION THAT MR. SLUSHER DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF TRANSITION PLAN 4, SO WHEN DID THAT GET IN? HOW DID THAT GET INTO THE MOTION?

STEINER: TRANSITION PLAN 4 WAS DANIEL........... ADOPTED AS I UNDERSTOOD IT BY THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S MAIN MOTION. AND THEN THE ORDINANCE AS IT THEN EXISTED WAS WITH TRANSITION PLAN 4 IN IT. THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE REDISTRICTING PROVISION, AND THEN THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO ADOPT THE WHOLE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES THAT HE WANT TO THE REDISTRICTING PROVISION AND THEN ON THAT MOTION THERE WAS A 7-0 VOTE TO DON'T THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS THEN — AS IT THEM EXISTED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, CAN I TRY IT BECAUSE I THINK IF WE JUST LEAVE IN PLACE WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED, THEN WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS HAD A 4-3 VOTE ON WHAT THE TRANSITION PLAN IS GOING TO BE, BUT A 7-0 VOTE ON PUTTING THE WHOLE 8-2-1 ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID.

SLUSHER: WHAT HAPPENED WAS I WAS TALKING ST. LOUISIVELY ABOUT THE — EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT THE TRANSITION PLAN, EXCUSE ME THE REDISTRICTING PART OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT I WANT TO KNOW —

SLUSHER: SOMEBODY ASKED DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE WHOLE PLAN. I PAUSED SORT OF BRIEFLY, SAID BECAUSE — I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT WHOLE — THAT I DIDN'T LIKE THE — THE OTHER PART OF IT THAT WE GOT VOTED DOWN THE TRANSITION, I SAID WELL ALL RIGHT. THEN WE VOTED. I THINK EVERYBODY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON. AND IT WAS — IT WAS CONFUSING, NO DOUBT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD ARGUE WITH US ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT. BUT I THINK IF WE LEFT IT IN — IF YOU ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE VOTE 7-0 ON PUTTING THE 8-2-1 ON, WE HAVE DONE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER. WHEN YOU MADE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, DID YOU — WERE YOU CONTEMPLATING THE TRANSITION PLAN 4?

SLUSHER: WELL, I WAS — YES. I REALIZED TRANSITION PLAN 4 WAS IN THERE, I WAS RELUCTANT TO VOTE FOR THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL HAPPENING, I WAS SURPRISED THAT I WAS ASKED TO MAKE A MOTION ON IT THAT QUICKLY, IF YOU CAN CALL THAT TIME OF THE EVENING QUICKLY. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, I REALIZED THAT THAT WAS IN THERE. I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO VOTE FOR TRANSITION PLAN 4. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO KEEP AT THE 8-2-1 PLAN OFF THE BALLOT. SO I — WHEN I WAS ASKED TO MAKE THE MOTION. I THINK I SAID YEAH, I WILL MAKE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER IS THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO TAKE US TO COURT TO CHALLENGE WHAT WE DID TONIGHT EVEN THOUGH I THINK PROCEDURALLY WE DON'T FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCEDURE BUT THAT'S OKAY.

STEINER: THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE AS IT IS, THEN THAT CERTAINLY IS THE IMPORTANT THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I LIKE THAT MR. STEINER.

SLUSHER: CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM OUR VOTE TO PUT THE 8-2-1 ON THE BALLOT.

FUTRELL: LET'S LET THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US A FINAL RULING ON THIS LAST ACTION THAT YOU TOOK SO THAT EVERYBODY IS VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. SO SEDORA.

AFTER HAVING LOOKED AT THE TAPE, THE LAST MOTION ON THE TABLE WAS TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE TRANSITION 4 PLAN, PLUS THE NEW REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE AND THAT VOTE WAS A 7-0 VOTE. THAT IS YOUR FINAL ACT. YOUR LAST VALID ACT. THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE GREAT — THE CONSENSUS BUILDER DOESN'T GO TO PLACE 4. IT GOES TO PLACE 1.

SLUSHER: OH, WELL THANK YOU MAYOR. I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE LIKE IN THE FOOTBALL GAMES WHERE THEY TACK ABOUT HOW LONG THE GAME WAS DELAYED FOR THE INSTANT REPLAY, I THINK WE SHOULD GET A RULING ON THAT, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, ME, I —

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE BACK TO THE MAIN TRACK. OKAY. SO THE MOTION — THE MOTION WAS 7-0 TO, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. OKAY. NOW — NOW THE REPEAL OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL WE VOTE ODD THAT 4-3, 4-3 ON BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ORDINANCE. NOW REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED CITY OFFICERS TO PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN AN AUSTIN NEWSPAPER, PROPOSITION 5 ACTUALLY. AND THAT PASSED ON FIRST AND SECOND READING WITH A VOTE 6-ON WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TEMPORARILY AWAY ON THE FIRST READING AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY AWAY ON THE SECOND READING. IS THERE A MOTION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR IN THE INTEREST OF BUILDING MORE CONSENSUS, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, ARE YOU GOING TO DO BOTH

SLUSHER: PLEASE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE DO THAT, BOTH THE THEM, THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL IS TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: D AND E CONSIDERED TOGETHER, A RETIEN TO RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND THE RETIEN TO RUN PROVISION FOR OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL IS E. AND WE ARE GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR BOTH ITEMS, FOR BOTH BALLOT LANGUAGE AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS. IS THERE A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES. ONE CONCERN I HAVE WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE — WE'RE ON THE RESIGN TO RUN, CORRECT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

SLUSHER: THAT WE HAD AMENDED THIS TO WHERE IT TRACKS STATE LAW FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE APPOINTED OFFICIALS, BUT THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING WAY EARLY IN THEIR JOB AND RUNNING FOR OFFICE. BUT WE HAD SAID THAT IF THEY HAVE LESS THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERM, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO RESIGN BECAUSE THAT'S THE STATE LAW FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY, SHALL THE CHARTER — CHAL THE CITY CHARTER BE — SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM, PERIOD. DOES THAT WORK, MR. STEINER?

STEINER: THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION ONLY APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES, NOT TO THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE DEFINED TERMS. SO IF YOU WANTED, YOU HAVE THAT IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE —

SLUSHER: HOW ABOUT THIS. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE — WAIT. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR OFFICE WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM AND TO REQUIRE OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE.

STEINER: THAT WILL WORK.

SLUSHER: PUT ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE FIRST CLAUSE WHERE HE SAID OFFICE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: I SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASS OZ A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTING NAY. ON BOTH THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AND BALLOT LANGUAGE. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE MOVING RIGHT ALONG OR WHAT? LET ME CLARIFY IT IN CASE YOUR RECORD DOESN'T REFLECT IT, MS. BROWN, ON B, THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS, THE VOTE WAS FOUR-THREE FOR BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AMENDMENT.

BROWN: THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: F, THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. THAT PASSED FOUR-THREE ON FIRST AND SECOND READING. IS THERE A MOTION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL WITH THE — IT SHOULD READ, SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — WAIT A MINUTE. DIDN'T WE — DIDN'T WE ALREADY VOTE TO REPEAL THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT LAW EARLIER IN THE DAY?

NO. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE GOTTEN TO THIS ONE.

SLUSHER: THEN THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT ABOUT THE LIMIT OF $100. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT IN THERE SO THAT IT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: HE HAS IT.

THE PROPOSITION WOULD BE —

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, I WAS READING —

THE PROPOSITION WILL BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR A 100-DOLLAR LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THIS THING HERE HAS A DIFFERENT — HE SHOULD JUST TOSS THIS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS.

SLUSHER: THE ORDER OF CHARTER ITEM.

THAT WAS JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF ORDER, NOT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE IS NUMBER 15-F, DRAFT ORDINANCE, NUMBER 15-F.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

AND WE WOULD BE CHANGING THAT BALLOT LANGUAGE TO GO WITH THE GENTLEMEN/NO FOREMATT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN INSTEAD OF THE FOR AND AGAINST.

SLUSHER: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR 100-DOLLAR LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A MOTION?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? IT'S BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST, NO?

GRIFFITH: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, GRIFFITH AND TOMZ VOTING NOOEU AND IT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE FOR BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE. AND THAT PROPOSITION WOULD READ — READ THAT, MR. STEINER.

STEINER: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WILL BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE. SO MOVE,: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

ALVAREZ: YES. FOR LOOKING TO CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY FOR THE POSITION FROM CONSUMER ADVOCATE TO CONSUMER ANALYST, SO THAT WOULD BE ON BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSUMER ANALYST? HUH?

ALVAREZ: CONSUMER ANALYST INSTEAD OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

THOMAS: CONSUMER — WHAT DID YOU SAY?

MAYOR GARCIA: HE'S CHANGING IT FROM CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST — NOT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

THOMAS: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU READ THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AGAIN? MR. STEINER?

STEINER: IT WOULD BE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE — I'M SORRY. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WELL, TWO THINGS. ONE I GUESS IS JUST A QUESTION. WHAT DOES AN ANALYST DO AS OPPOSED TO AN ADVOCATE? WHAT'S THE JOB DESCRIPTION? I THINK I KNOW WHAT AN ADVOCATE IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: [ INAUDIBLE ]

ALVAREZ: BASICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEBATE WE'VE BEEN HAVING YOU'LL UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT THE UTILITY IN TERMS OF ITS OPERATION AND ALL THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT, TRY TO DO AN ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF RATES AND PLANNING ISSUES AND PRODUCT AND SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER. AND THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT IS THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, SO THAT'S — SO IN ESSENCE THAT'S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON WILL BE DOING IS ANALYZING THESE PARTICULAR POLICY ISSUES AND THEN PROVIDING THAT ANALYSIS TO THE COUNCIL TO FACILITATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE COUNCIL ON THE VARIOUS POLICY AND PLANNING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.

WYNN: WELL, MAYOR, THERE SEEMS TO ME — I'VE BEEN WORRYING A LOT ABOUT THIS LATELY, BUT I GUESS IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FOUR VOTES TO DO THIS, BUT I GUESS I NEED TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS TO APPLY FOR THE JOB OF ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST HIRED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THINKING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THIS PERSON IS GOING TO COME TO THE COUNCIL AND, AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, COUNCIL, YOU ALL PAY MY SALARY TO CONSIDER THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, AND SO YOU WANT ME TO AT LEAST STOP THE TRANSFER OF AUSTIN ENERGY DIVIDENDS TO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT BENEFITS AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXPAYERS. THE PROFITS SHOULD IN FACT BE TO THE BENEFIT OF MY UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF LOWER ELECTRIC RATES. BUT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY, NO, NO, WE — YOU KNOW, WE AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. TELL YOUR CONSUMERS SORRY AND HERE'S YOUR FIRST MONTH'S SALARY. AND THE SECOND MONTH HE'LL COME AND — HE OR SHE AND HE'LL SAY, COUNCIL, YOU PAY MY SALARY TO WORRY ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, DON'T CLOSE THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. THAT'S THE PAID-FOR, PRODUCING, ENERGY PRODUCING ASSET THAT BENEFITS MY UTILITY — ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS. DON'T GO SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A NEW PLACE FOR ONE THAT WORKS NOW. INSTEAD TAKE THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND TRANSFER THEM TO MY UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF EVEN LOWER UTILITY RATES. AND THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY, NO, YOU KNOW, LET'S DON'T GO THERE. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PERSPECTIVES THAN JUST YOUR UTILITY CONSUMER. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT PERSPECTIVES LIKE THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN EXAMPLE. SO AGAIN, TELL YOUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS, SORRY, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT HERE'S YOUR SECOND MONTH'S SALARY. WELL, THE THIRD MONTH HE'LL COME AND HE'LL SAY COUNCIL, YOU PAY MY SALARY TO THINK ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER, AND I JUST FOUND OUT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY OWNS LOTS OF THESE THINGS CALLED CLEAN AIR CREDITS, AND THEY'RE TRADED ON THE OPEN MARKET AND THEY'RE VERY VALUABLE AND THEY'RE MOST VALUABLE TO THE POWER PLANTS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT POLLUTE THE MOST. AND SO WE NEED TO SELL ALL THESE CLEAN AIR CREDITS ON THE OPEN MARKET TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THEN TRANSFER THOSE PROCEEDS TO MY ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF EVEN LOWER ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES. AND THE COUNCIL WILL SAY, WELL, NO, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING DO THAT EITHER. SEE, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PERSPECTIVES THAN JUST YOUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER. WE THINK ABOUT PERSPECTIVES LIKE THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLEAN AIR. AND SO NO, WE WON'T BE DOING THAT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THESE CLEAN AIR CREDITS AND OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS CAN TAKE IT ON THE CHIN, BUT THANK YOU, TELL THEM SORRY, AND HERE'S YOUR THIRD MONTH'S SALARY. WELL, I'M MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST THAT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL HIRES IS GOING TO BE A VERY SMART GUY OR GIRL AND WILL BE A VERY INTELLIGENT PERSON. AND SO PRETTY SOON THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE THIS GIG OUT. SO ABOUT THE FOURTH MONTH THEY'LL COME IN AND SORT OF WRING THEIR HANDS AND JUST SAY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL PAY MY SALARY TO WORRY ABOUT ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS AND I CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT. IF WE'RE NOT DOING SQUAT BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS. BUT I WOKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THE OTHER NIGHT AND I TELL YOU WHAT, I GOT A GREAT IDEA. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS — AND COUNCIL IS GOING TO STAY WOW. STOP. WAIT A MINUTE. COOL IT WITH THIS ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER STUFF. WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK BAD. BUT TELL YOU WHAT, HERE'S SIX MONTHS ADVANCE ON YOUR SALARY. WHY DON'T YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GO VISIT OUR WIND FARM, BUT COME BACK IN TIME ENOUGH TO ENDORSE ME FOR MY REELECTION CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW. I COULD GO ON AND ON, MAYOR, BUT WE'LL JUST LOOK WORSE. I KNOW. SO SHOW ME VOTING NO AND GO AHEAD AND LABEL ME ANTI-CONSUMER.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I POSSIBLY CAN. LET ME START OUT WITH, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK A PERSON IN A CITY UNIFORM IS ABLE LEGALLY TO ENDORSE ANY COUNCILMEMBER RUN FOG REELECTION. NUMBER TWO, IF THAT WORST CASE SCENARIO WAS TRULY WHAT HAPPENED, AND I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW THAT, ALL OF THIS HAPPENS HINDZ CLOSED EHINDS CLOSED DOORS NOW, SO ONLY WE WOULD KNOW IF WE WERE GOING AGAINST THE SCENARIO THAT YOU HAD JUST LAID OUT SHS WHICH IS THE POINT OF HAVING SOMEBODY VISIBLY LABELED A PUBLIC INTEREST ANALYST, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE WE'RE USING HERE, BUT IN ESSENCE ISSUES OF PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING CONSUMERISM. AND NUMBER THREE, I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THAT CONSUMER ISSUES ANALYST WOULD KNOW AND WOULD ADVISE COUNCIL ON BECAUSE THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION, TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND OPERATIONAL INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE AND CAN NEVER HAVE AS A COUNCILMEMBER BECAUSE I CAN NEVER BE PART OF THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF THE UTILITY. SO THERE ARE VERY DEFINITE INDUSTRY-ORIENTED ISSUES AND TECHNICALITIES THAT I COULD NEVER KNOW. THIS PERSON WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE WITH THEM — WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE UTILITY, BOUND, OF COURSE, BY THE SAME SORTS OF RESTRICTIONS THAT WE ARE IN THIS NEW COMPETITIVE ERA. AND SO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SERVICE THAT WE WOULD BE BENEFITTING FROM I THINK WOULD ENABLE US TO TAKE THAT INFORMATION. AND IF IT WAS SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF RACE, AS YOUR GUY WAS POINTING OUT, POSSIBLY THAT'S WHAT THE SCENARIOS WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT I THINK THAT CONSUMERS HAVE MORE THAN JUST RATE INTERESTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IN LARGE PART ALSO THE OWNERS OF THE UTILITY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE CLARIFIES SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THIS ANALYST WOULD BE LOOKING AT AND OFFERING US INPUT ON. WE WOULD HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. THE INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION. AND I THINK IT COULD NEVER HURT TO HAVE TOO MUCH INFORMATION SO THAT WHEN YOU DO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS YOU HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION. THAT'S THE END, MAYOR. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS EVER AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME MAKE JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. WHETHER THIS CA PASSES OR DOESN'T PASS, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW FORMAT FOR REPORTING BY AUSTIN ENERGY TO THE COUNCIL. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, IF THE OPERATION IS MADE MORE COMPLEX BY THE REGULATIONS THAT CAME INTO PLAY AND MORE COMPLEX BY A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, CHANGES IN THE WEATHER AND ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS. SO I DON'T THINK A CONSUMER ANALYST CAN GO IN THERE AND FIGURE OUT ANYTHING. THAT'S MY GUESS. KNOWING HOW BIG THIS UTILITY IS. IT TAKES THE CITY AUDITOR WITH TWO OR THREE AUDITORS IS GOING TO BE OVER THERE FOR SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS TO DO ONLY PART OF THE UTILITY. SO IT IS A COMPLEX OPERATION AND THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO FIND A WAY TO GET ADEQUATE REPORTING TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS VERY COMPLEX OPERATION. I DON'T THINK ONE CONSUMER ANALYST OR ADVOCATE OR WHATEVER WE CALL THEM CAN DO IT. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO OVER THERE AND GET LOST. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT'S 600 TO 700 MILLION DOLLARS OF REVENUE A YEAR. FOUR OR FIVE BILLION DOLLARS IN ASSETS. I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS AN AUDITOR OF A COMPANY THAT BIG WOULD TAKE ME ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO AULT, EVEN IF I HAD A TEAM OF TRAINED ACCOUNTANTS. SO, LIKE I SAY, WHETHER THIS PASSES — I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT WHETHER THE CITIZENS PASS IT OR DON'T PASS IT, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO CHANGE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COUNCIL GETS INFORMATION ON ALL THESE CRITICAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DECIDED ON BY POLICY MATTERS.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I'VE GOT A QUESTION. IS THIS POSITION GOING TO — IS THIS PERSON, THE ANALYST NOW CALLED, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A STAFF, HE OR SHE GOING TO HAVE A STAFF?

MAYOR GARCIA: IF WE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET IT WILL HAVE A STAFF. IF WE DON'T PUT IT — AND THAT DECISION TO PUT IT IN THE BUDGET IS NOT MADE BY THE CITIZENS, IT'S MADE BY US.

SLUSHER: YEAH. I WAS — I NOTICE NONE OF THE PROCEED PRO NENTS STEPPED UP TO ANSWER THAT.

ALVAREZ: IT'S IN THE PROCESS, THAT'S WHY.

SLUSHER: IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CITY CHARTER TO HAVE AN ANALYST OR ANY POSITION, YOU WOULD KNOW WHETHER IT GOING TO HAVE A STAFF OR WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. AND THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE FEBLGHT OF THIS, BUT IT WOULD ALSO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BUDGET.

MAYOR GARCIA: LT ME READ YOU THE ELECTRIC UTILITY — INCIDENTALLY, PARAGRAPH 8 NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO ANALYST IN TWO OR THREE PAGES. THIS IS THE WAY IT READS. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL. THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST SHALL HAVE DUTIES MADE BY ORDINANCE, SUCH AS ADVISING THE COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES, PLANNING AND PRODUCT DELIVERY ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A PURCHASER OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, THIS WOULD ENTAIL ALL OF THE CONSUMERS BECAUSE ALL OF THEM BUY FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, SIR, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: OTHER FOLKS HAVE TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS REPEATED OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO AND SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND REPEAT WHAT I SAID AS WELL. I AM SUPPORTING THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT AND I THINK WERNLLY WE'VE MADE SOME PRETTY WILD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPEN. BUT I THINK IT IS A NEW DAY IN THE UTILITY, FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY IN TEXAS AND MANY OTHER CITIES WHERE DEREGULATION IS TAKING EFFECT. AND WE GET PAST THAT AND THE OPEN RECORDS ORDINANCE WITH THE BUDGET LAST SEPTEMBER. AND SO BASICALLY OF THE SEVEN PEOPLE HERE, NONE OF WHOM HAVE EXPERTISE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY, TO EVALUATE WHAT IT HAPPENING OVER THERE AND EVALUATING BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED TO US, TYPICALLY WE JUST — WE JUST HEAR RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR US TO ACT ON, AND WE REALLY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT ALL THE OPTIONS SH. AND FOR ME THAT'S WHAT — MY INTEREST IN THIS IS TO GET MORE INFORMATION SO I CAN MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS. AND SO — BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S — MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN'T BE OVER THERE LOOKING AT THE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES AND SORT OF ASSISTING US IN TERMS OF ADEQUATELY PURSUING OUR DUTIES AND ADVOCATING FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I THINK THIS IS ESSENTIAL GIVEN THE NEW STATE OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY. AND IN TERMS OF POLICIES, I THINK MYSELF, I DON'T REALLY HAVE — I'M NOT AT ODDS IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT POLICIES OF THE UTILITY. I'M NOT AT ODDS WITH THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER HAS HANDLED IT OR THE GENERAL EMERGENCYBUT BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES AND IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WE NEED TO INSTITUTE IN MEASURES TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AND SAFEGUARDED. AND THIS IS ONE WAY OF INSTITUTIONAL LIESING SOME PUBLIC OVERSIGHT WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED. IT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THESE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SITTING UP HERE. AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FINANCIAL PLANNING OR FINANCIAL RECORD KEEPING, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HELP MAKE MYSELF — I FEEL I WILL BE ABLE TO BETTER ADVOCATE FOR THE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S REALLY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE INTENTION OF THIS IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS CHECKS AND BALANCES AND THAT THAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE MAKING THE DECISIONS ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM ALL THE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO I THINK I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. VERY GOOD. MR. STEINER, YOU KNOW HOW THE LANGUAGE WILL BE CHANGED IN THE ORDINANCE?

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE VOTE ON THIS THING IS PRETTY WELL IDENTIFIED OUT. I'LL ASK FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DO VOTE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE ORDINANCE — THE BALLOT LANGUAGE — I'LL GET THIS IN JUST A MINUTE. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASS ODD A VOTED OF FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS GARCIA, SLUSHER AND WYNN VOTING NAY. OKAY. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ONE. COUNCIL, THE LAST ONE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE WE GO INTO NUMBERING IS ONE THAT WE DIDN'T CONSIDER BEFORE, AND IT HAS TO DO — WND WE DON'T HAVE — AND WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE. AND I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THIS ONE. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE INCREASING OF THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

SIR, THE FORM THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD TAKE WOULD BE IDENTICAL TO THE FORM — THE WRAPAROUND FORM THAT THE OTHER ORDINANCES HAVE, SO EVERYTHING WOULD BE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE WORD — THE WORDS OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION AND THE WORDS OF THE TEXT CHANGE THAT WOULD OCCUR IN THE CHARTER. I BELIEVE THAT YOU MAY HAVE A COPY OF PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. THE TEXT CHANGE ADDS ONE PART, AND THAT IS IT SAYS SOMEWHERE INCORPORATED INTO THE LANGUAGE IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY NOT CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNDER THIS AUTHORITY IF HE — IF HE OR SHE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CONTRACT'S FULL SCOPE OF WORK SHALL EXCEED THE FULL LIMITS OF HIS OR HER AUTHORITY.

IF IT PLEASE THE COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF USING THE PRONOUN, I WOULD JUST SAY IF THE MANAGER, INSTEAD OF USING A PRONOUN, JUST STATE THE NAME OF THE MANAGER AND THAT WAY WE AVOID THE PRONOUN. PRONOUNS ARE GOOD TO AVOID. SO WHEREVER IT SAYS HE, I WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE MANAGER. AND WHEREVER IT SAYS HIS, I WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE MANAGER'S.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE OTHER CHANGE IS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT WAY IN THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW, THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN SPEND IS $25,000 PLUS CPI. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT WE MOVE THAT TO 100,000 WITH NO CPI SO THAT IT WOULD THEN ALLOW IT TO STAY THAT WAY FOR — UNTIL THERE'S ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT LATER. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE, COUNCIL? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I MOVE APPROVAL — I'M LOOKING AT J HERE. KEEPING THE CURRENT CAP AS IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: 43 WITH CPI. ACTUALLY, 25,000, PLUS CPI.

GRIFFITH: I'LL SECOND THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND DO YOU ALL WANT TO INCLUDE THAT STHNS THAT I READ — THAT SENTENCE THAT I READ?

GRIFFITH: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: THE ONE ABOUT EACH YEAR THE CONTRACT, NOT ENT TIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. THE CITY MANAGER MAY NOT CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNDER THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY IF THE MANAGER KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S FULL SCOPE OF WORK WILL EXCEED THE LIMITS OF THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY. OKAY. YOU ACCEPT THAT IN YOUR MOTION?

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR. ISN'T THAT ONE THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, THAT'S THE ONE I TALKED ABOUT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, COULD WE HAVE THE WHOLE MOTION OR BALLOT LANGUAGE READ THEN?

STEINER: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. LET ME SEE IF I DO. THE MOTION WAS NOT TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS?

MAYOR GARCIu CORRECT. 25 PLUS CPI.

STEINER: MERELY TO ADD THE RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE PROABTING THE MANAGER'S CONTRACTING OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. AND IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT THAT LIMIT APPLIES TO EVERY YEAR, NOT — LET'S SAY WE BUY FOUR YEARS' WORTH OF BATTERIES. THE MANAGER CAN BUY 43,000 PLUS CPI EACH ONE OF THOSE YEARS.

EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT. I UNDERSTAND. SO THE — MY ADVICE WOULD BE IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANT IT TO BE, THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND WRITE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNT, 43,000, SO THAT — BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD LIKE AS IF WE WERE REVERTING BACK TO 25 AND STARTING OVER. SO WE WOULD CHANGE THE 25 TO 43,000 AND LEAVE IN THE TEXT REGARDING THE CPI ADJUSTMENT. SO WHEREVER IT SAYS 25,000 DOLLARS, WE WOULD BE SAYING $43,000 ANNUALLY AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE TEXT IN THERE REGARDING THE LIMITATION AND THEN WE WOULD KEEP THE PROCEED VIE SO ABOUT CPI EYE JUSTMENTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? IS THAT A FRIENDLY?

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I STILL DIDN'T GET THE BALLOT LANGUAGE READ BURKS LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. THAT WE KEEP THE LIMIT WHERE IT IS, 43,000, AND STILL TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, AND WE CLARIFY THAT THE MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE LIMIT ON A CONTRACT IN EACH YEAR OF A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT. AND THIRD, WE — WE SAY THAT THE MANAGER SHOULD NOT — CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WHERE HE WOULD START — HE OR SHE WOULD START AT BELOW THE FREE,000-DOLLAR LIMIT WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE LARGER THAN THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT.

STEINER: IF THAT IS THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, THEN I COULD SUGGEST SOME BALLOT LANGUAGE. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE CITY MANAGER MAY CONTRACT WITHOUT SPECIFIC COUNCIL APPROVAL IS CALCULATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RATHER THAN OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT.

SLUSHER: AND WHAT ABOUT THE MAYOR'S SENTENCE?

STEINER: THAT WILL BE THERE, BUT I CAN'T — IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT INTO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, WE CAN, BUT IT WILL BE PART OF THE AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WE COULD SAY AND —

AND PROHIBITING THE CITY MANAGER FROM ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT MAY EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. THAT'S THE WAY —

SLUSHER: I LIKE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

STEINER: SO THEN IT WOULD BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE CITY MANAGER MAY CONTRACT WITHOUT SPECIFIC COUNCIL APPROVAL IS CALCULATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RATHER THAN OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT AND TO PROHIBIT THE CITY MANAGER FROM ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT MAY EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY.

STEINER: THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY. YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

YOU WERE BEING SO SENSITIVE RIGHT UP TO THAT MOMENT?

I'M A DINOSAUR.

SLUSHER: I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK. THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS LEADING UP TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPOSALS THAT WOULD DILUTE THE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND START TO MAKE IT INTO MORE OF A HIGHID SYSTEM. THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS MADE ON THE BALLOT WAS THE CONSUMER ANALYST AND I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT FOR THE REASONS LIKE THAT BECAUSE I WANTED TO KEEP THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE BALANCE LIKE I THINK IT WAS INTENDED. AND I THINK IF I VOTED FOR THIS ONE, IT WOULD BE GOING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION BECAUSE WE'RE — WE WOULD BE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE MANAGER CAN SPEND WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT LIKE THIS AND NOT IN FAVOR OF RAISING THAT LIMIT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THAT BALANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: GOT IT. OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT A CHARTER AMENDMENT IS NEEDED IF THE CITY LIMIT IS STAYING THE SAME. DO WE THEED JUST TO CLARIFY THE ANNUAL ISSUE?

YES, SIR, I THINK SO. AND AS I SAY, WE WILL SUBSTITUTE THE 25 TO THE CURRENT AMOUNT SO THAT THE — SO THAT THE CONSUMER INDEXING WILL BEGIN ON THE MOST RECENT CONSUMER INDEX AFTER MAY 4TH, 2002 BASED ON THE 43,000 JUST TO BRING THE 25,000 —

WYNN: IT'S DOING THAT ALLEADY.

IT IS DOING THAT ALREADY.

WYNN: IT WILL DO THAT 500 YEARS FROM NOW WITH NO ACTION. WHY ARE WE PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT?

STEINER: THOSE THINGS I WOULD DO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT REVERTING BACK TO THE 25.

WYNN: IF WE DO NOTHING, THERE'S NO ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE REVERTING BACK TO 25 BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.

YES, SIR, TWO THINGS WILL CHANGE. ONE THING THAT WILL CHANGE WILL BE THAT THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY WILL BE CALCULATED ON EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. WIN WIND AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT TAKES CHARTER CHANGE?

THAT ACHES TAKES CHARTER CHANGE. AND THE OTHER THING IS THERE WILL BE A RESTRICTION ON THE MANAGER ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT THAT HE REASONBLY SHOULD KNOW WILL EXCEED THE AUTHORITY OVER ITS LIFE. THAT THE MANAGER WILL KNOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THIS IS ON BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MEATION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. AND WE DID THIS RIGHT, MS. BROWN, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO WATCH THE TAPE. NOW, THE LAST ITEM IS THE ORDER THAT WE WANT. AND LET ME TELL YOU THE ONES THAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE, THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. WE HAVE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS, THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION POSITIVE TUB LISH CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. AND RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES APPOINTED BY DOWN. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST. AND THE LAST ONE, INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE PUT THE — PUT THEM IN THIS ORDER, CITIZEN INITIATIVE FIRST AND THEN GO DOWN THE OTHERS. UNLESS YOU ALL WANT TO CHANGE AND PUT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FIRST. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS THE ONE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS — AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAS DELIBERATED MOST ON. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON BALLOT ORDER.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THE CITIZEN INITIATIVIVE — THAT IT SHOULD COME FIRST. THIS GETS US MOVING. I'LL JUST MOVE THAT THE ORDER IS AS THE MAYOR READ THEN, WITH THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE BEING FIRST, FOLLOWED BY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, TERM LIMITS, NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION, RESIGN TO RUN, THE 100-DOLLAR REPEAL, THE ANALYST AND THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY —

SLUSHER: MAYOR, SHORT QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER WYNN CALLED IT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. IT'S A MIXED SYSTEM, BUT THERE ARE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITHIN IT. BUT THAT JUST BRINGS TO MIND THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY HEADINGS ON THERE. THE HEADING OF EACH ITEM WILL BE LIKE PROPOSITION ONE, PROPOSITION 2 AND THEN THE LAJ. THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT ON THE BALLOT, WILL THERE?

NO, SIR. PROPOSITION 1, YES/NO ON THE LEFT AND THEN A STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSITION.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS?

SLUSHER: WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE?

I WAS GOING TO ASK ONCE AGAIN TO GOT THE ORDER. NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST LIKE WE HAVE IT IN THIS — LIKE WE HAVE IT EVERYWHERE.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: NOW THAT I MADE THAT MOTION, I WANT TO BRING UP ONE DISCUSSION ITEM. THE REPEAL OF THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT IS A — JUST A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ISSUE. DO WE NEED TO PUT THAT FOLLOWING THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE? I MEAN, JUST — I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED, BUT THERE'S SORT OF A COMMON ALTY THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A CERTAIN CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO ISSUES. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE TWO THINGS ARE CONNECTED ONE WITH THE OTHER.

SLUSHER: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME DIRECTLY — ONE DIRECTLY AFFECTS —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS THE AMENDMENT, WHICH I'M SURE YOU WILL FIND FRIENDLY TORKS PUT THE 100-DOLLAR REPEAL RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND BEFORE THE MIXED SYSTEM?

WYNN: IT WILL MOVE UP TO BE THE SECOND ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NAY. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. > JUST FOR THE RECORD I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND WHEN IT ENACTED EACH OF THE ORDINANCES THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE ON THE DRAFT AND EACH OF THE DRAFT IN FINAL FORM WILL BE PREPARED WITH THE PROPOSITION NUMBERS AS YOU JUST LAID THEM OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. YOU PROBABLY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND CHECK WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK AND MR. ROBERTSON TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE STILL NEED TO DO, WE DO BEFORE WE HAVE — THAT WE TRY TO DO THEM BY THE FOURTH OF APRIL WHEN WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING OR BY THE THIRD. YOU MAY WANT TO POST SOMETHING ON THE THIRD WORK SESSION TO SEE IF WE NEED TO TOUCH ON ANYTHING THAT WE MAY HAVE NEED TO TOUCH, LIKE MAPS.

THERE MAY BE SOMETHING. BUT I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THESE ORDINANCE DRAFTS AND WE CAN — I WILL, OF COURSE, CHECK THE TRANSCRIPTS TOMORROW TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE LANGUAGE IS JUST AS IT WAS SAID AND THEN I'LL PREPARE THE FINAL FOR YOUR SIGNATURE.

JUST TO ADVISE COUNCIL OF A SCHEDULING ISSUE WE HAVE. WE HAVE TO GET THIS TO A TRANSLATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO BE TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH. AND THE PRINTER HAD SAID THAT IF WE GET THEM INTO THEM ANY LATER THAN APRIL 5TH, THEY CANNOT HAVE THEM DONE IN TIME TO OPEN FOR EARLY VOTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS READY TO GO. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO TOY WITH THAT ONE. WE COULDN'T TOY WITH IT, I DON'T THINK. BUT THERE'S A MAPS ISSUE AND SOME OTHER STUFF. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE PUBLISHED, SO IT'S JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. CORRECT? THAT'S ALL YOU'RE SENDING TO THE PRINTERS?

WE DO HAVE THE PUBLISH THE ORDINANCES, BUT THE CRITICAL PART IS GETTING IT TO THE PRINTERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, THE PRINTER WILL HAVE THE ORDINANCE ALSO PRINTED? I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

IT'S JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, BUT WE HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE COUNCIL, SO IF THERE'S A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL THOSE IF FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log