Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 03/21/02 (Part A)

Part A | Part B | Part C

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

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?

Continue to Part B