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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THIS WAS BID?

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

MAYOR GARCIA: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.

THE BID ON THE ACTUAL EXPANSION ITSELF.

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

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

RFQ.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

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

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH.

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

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

AYE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLUSHER: SECOND.

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

AYE.

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT? TELL ME.

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

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

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER — COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

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

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

GRIFFITH: YEAH. LIKE WE SAID —

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

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

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

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYOR.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

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

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THOMAS: SAY THAT AGAIN.

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

THOMAS: YOU LOST ME.

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

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

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

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

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

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

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

SLUSHER: MAYOR —

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION FAILS. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

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

MAYOR GARCIA: 31 ACTUALLY.

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

MAYOR GARCIA: I NEVER SHOULD HAVE INTERRUPTED.

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

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

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

GOODMAN: WHAT IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

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

SLUSHER: CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, MAYOR?

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

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

GOODMAN: YES.

ALVAREZ: YES.

GRIFFITH: YES.

SLUSHER: NO.

THOMAS: YES.

WYNN: NO.

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

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

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

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

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

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

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

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

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

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

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

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

BUT I THINK THAT THE CHARTER WILL EITHER HAVE TO SAY HOW TO DO IT OR GRANT YOU THE POWER TO DO IT BY ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU WILL — IN ORDER TO DO IT YOU WILL NECESSARILY NEED TO TINKER WITH SOMEBODY'S TERM LENGTH SOMEWHERE. AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT POWER, WE'LL HAVE TO GRANT IT TO YOU.

ALVAREZ: AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE HAD CHANGED FROM THAT — FROM JUST GIVING THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THE TRANSITION AND EVERYTHING HERE AND LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY THAT THE TRANSITION WOULD WORK. AND TO PREFER THAT COURSE OF ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I THOUGHT WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON A MINUTE AGO WAS JUST THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS IN THIS 15-A, SECTION 5.

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: IT WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING WE WERE VOTING ON THE WHOLE THING, THE WHOLE 15-A AT THAT TIME. I THOUGHT ALL WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE TRANSITION. SO DID WE PUT IN REDIRECT IN 4 BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT AND WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE WAS THAT YOU JUST VOTED ON THE TRAN SITION PROVISION. I HAVE PREPARED DRAFT 15-A BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YESTERDAY. I HAD PREPARED DRAFT 15-A WITH THE TRANSITION 5 LANGUAGE IN IT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE BEFORE YOU, I BELIEVE, A DOCUMENT THAT IS ENTITLED 15-A AND AT THE TOP LEFT IT SAYS FIVE TRANSITION SCENARIOS. SO WHAT I WOULD DO BASED ON YOUR VOTE IS SUBSTITUTE TRANSITION 4.

SLUSHER: AND THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE SECTION 5, 15-A, NOT OPTION 5. OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE THEN DISCUSSING SECTION 4, THE REDISTRICTING? I HAD A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THAT. IT DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I CAN EITHER WAIT UNTIL LATER OR DO IT NOW, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, MAYOR, WHAT THE DISCUSSION EXACTLY WAS ABOUT. DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. Y'ALL GO AHEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO HAD THE FLOOR?

SLUSHER: I THINK ALVAREZ DID.

ALVAREZ: YEAH. I THINK I JUST ENDED MY QUESTION BY SAYING I JUST PREFERRED TO HAVE THE CHARTER GIVE — THE CITY COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE TRANSITION AFTER IT — [ INAUDIBLE ] I PREFER TO GO THROUGH IT THAT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS THE REDRAWING OF THE MAPS AT THIS TIME IN A 10-YEAR CENSUS?

ALVAREZ: NO. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TRANSITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME ASK MR. STEINER TO COMMENT ON THAT. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS WE'RE DEALING WITH A TRANSITION ONLY. DO WE ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE 2010 CENSUS?

STEINER: YOU DON'T HAVE TO, IT WAS JUST A QUESTION I WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON THE MARCH 7TH MEETING HAD ASKED THAT I PREPARE A VERSION THAT RESTARTED AFTER EACH DE17 YELL CENSUS AND ONE THAT DIDN'T. IF THE COUNCIL'S WILL IS NOT TO RESATURDAY AFTER EACH DID HE 17IAL CENSUS, — DECENIAL CENSUS, THEN WE CAN JUST ALLOW THE TRANSITION TO OPERATE AND IT WILL OPERATE THAT WAY FOREVER. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO — AGAIN, TO NOT PROVIDE A TRANSITION AT THIS TIME, BUT TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO CHOOSE A TRANSITION. OF COURSE, THAT'S SHG SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DEAL WITH PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE THAT WILL ALSO BE PART OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF ELECTION CHANGES THAT WE'LL NEED TO GET PRECLEARED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS PART OF IT NOW. SO IF WE DIDN'T — I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE EITHER DECIDE TO REDIRECT EVERY 10 YEARS OR NOT. NO?

NO.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT GETTING IT.

YOU WILL BE REDISTRICTING EVERY 10 YEARS PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT WILL REQUIRE YOU TO ADJUST THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT ONCE WE GO — THE WAY THE TRANSITION 4 IS WRITTEN, THIS WILL BE A ONE-TIME THING THAT WILL HAPPEN TO GET FROM WHERE WE ARE TODAY TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN MAY OF 2005. ON THE CHART THE RED DATE IS THE FIRST ELECTION DATE AT WHICH EVERYTHING IS NORMALIZED FOR THE NEW SYSTEM. AFTER MAY OF 2005, FROM THEN TO THE END OF TIME PRESUMABLY, EVERYTHING WILL WORK AS IT SHOULD WITH FOUR DISTRICTS BEING UP WITH THE TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS AND FOUR DISTRICTS BEING UP WITH THE MAYOR. WHICH DISTRICTS THOSE WILL BE WILL DEPEND ON THE LOT DRAWING THAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE MAY 2003 ELECTION. NOW, THE — THAT CAN JUST KEEP PLAYING ITSELF OUT FOREVER AND YOU CAN ADJUST THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES EVERY 10 YEARS OR WHENEVER YOU NEED TO, BUT THOSE DISTRICTS — THE WAY THE PATTERN IN WHICH THOSE DISTRICTS ARE ELECTED WILL JUST CONTINUE TO PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER. ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THAT, WHICH IS AN OPTION, BUT NOT NECESSARY, IS JUST WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO. ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THAT IS EVERY 10 YEARS WHEN YOU DO THE DECENIAL REDISTRICTING, AFTER THAT WE ELECT A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL AND THEN THE COUNCIL DRAWS LOTS TO PUT ITSELF BACK INTO A NEW STAGGERING PATTERN.

SLUSHER: WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING IT THAT LATTER WAY?

THE ONLY ADVANTAGE OF THAT IS IF YOU DRASTICALLY REDREW THE LINES IT WOULD NOT — IF YOU DRASTICALLY — IF YOU DRASTICALLY REDREW THE LINES AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS, IT WOULDN'T HAVE DISTRICT ONE THAT WAS OVER HERE SUDDENLY BE OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN. AND SO WHEN THIS PERSON WHO WAS HOLDING THE DISTRICT 1 SEAT EXPIRED, THEIR SPOT MIGHT BE FILLED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS IN AN AREA THAT REALLY GEOGRAPHICALLY WASN'T VERY SIMILAR TO THE SEAT BEING VACATED. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT LIKELY. MORE LIKELY YOU WILL JUST BE DOING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTS WILL STAY MORE OR LESS WHERE THEY ARE. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ADVANTAGE TO IT. OTHER THAN THAT IT REALLY KIND OF CREATES MORE DIFFICULTY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET THIS THING RESTAGGERRED EVERY 10 YEARS, WHICH AT THE STATE SENATE IS A PERPETUAL CASE THAT CAUSES DIFFICULTY, QUITE FRANKLY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY END UP IN LITIGATION AND THE LITIGATION CAUSES THE — SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET THEMSELVES RESTAGGERRED UNTIL IT'S ALMOST TIME TO REDIRECT AGAIN.

SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING I ADVISE, BUT IT WAS AN OPTION I WAS ASKED ABOUT BY ONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SWITCHING THE SUBJECT SLIGHTLY, GOING 15-A-4-B, THE COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. WELL, I WAS TALKING YESTERDAY ABOUT I DIDN'T WANT THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THE POWER TO BY ORDINANCE SHORTEN ANYBODY'S TERM. I MEAN, I THINK AFTER SOME DISCUSSION TONIGHT SOMEBODY MIGHT PUT A MOTION ON TO SHORT EARN MY TERM TO — SHORT ENEMY TERM TO MIDNIGHT OR SOMETHING. BUT THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO INVEST THE COUNCIL WITH THAT POWER, DEPENDING ON SHIFTS IN THE MAJORITY AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT THEIR TERMS COULD BE SHORTENED. I PUT THIS UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY. OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. I WOULD SAY LET'S REDIRECT EVERY 10 YEARS, NOT JUST HAVE IT WHERE COUNCIL COULD PUT ON THE AGENDA, WELL, IT'S TIME TO REDIRECT. I JUST DON'T SEE THE — WHY WE WOULD DO THAT.

GOODMAN: WELL, MAYOR, CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT TOO? THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO IN KIND OF A DIFFERENT ANGLE IS HOW DID WE PLAN TO HANDLE ANNEXATIONS AT THE TIME THAT ANYTHING WAS FULL PURPOSE AN EXED, DID THEY AUTOMATICALLY FIT INTO THE DISTRICT THEY WERE ADJACENT TO OR WHAT?

LUSHER: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID BEFORE UNTIL THE NEXT REDISTRICTING.

THE REASON THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO COUNCIL THAT YOU RETAIN THE DISCRETION TO REDIRECT AT TIMES THAT YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY IS BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1997 WE ANNEXED 30,000 RESIDENTS. I THINK CURRENTLY WE'RE PLANNING TO ANNEX SOMETHING BETTER THAN 10,000 RATHER FAIRLY SOON. IF YOU DID THAT AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ATTACHED TO A DISTRICT, YOU WOULD HAVE A PRETTY OUT OF SYNC DISTRICT, AND IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REDRAW THE LINES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. SO I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO RETAIN THE DISCRETION TO REDIRECT SUBJECT TO BIG DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE CITY WITHOUT — WHICH MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH DECENIAL CENSUSES BECAUSE THE CITY IS AN ORGANISM THAT GROWS AND THERE MAY BE EVENTS THAT OCCUR BETWEEN DECENIAL CENSUSES THAT WOULD THROW OUR DRIK SO FAR OUT OF POPULATION EQUA LIB RUM THAT WE WOULD FEW FIND IT DIFFICULT TO REDIRECT.

SLUSHER: THAT THE ONLY REASON THAT'S IN HERE?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: THEN I THINK WE SHOULD STATE THAT. AT TIMES —

I COULD PUT IN — FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK OVER AT THE NEXT PAGE OVER, I COULD PUT LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS. I COULD SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND WHEN NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, LEGAL PREREQUISITES, SO SIMILAR TO THAT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES.

SLUSHER: AND MAYBE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT DUE TO ANNEXATION? I DON'T KNOW IF —

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY.

SLUSHER: WELL, AT LEAST THEN IT WOULD BE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES. I GUESS THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED BROADLY, BUT I SEE YOUR POINT THERE.

HOW ABOUT THIS? THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDIRECT AFTER EACH DECENIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES?

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND YOU READ IT BEFORE.

BEFORE WHAT — THE PROVISION I WAS READING WAS OFF OF THE PROVISION ABOUT ANTICIPATORY ORDINANCES. AND I WAS SAYING THIS IS THE ONE THAT LOCKED YOU — IF YOU DECIDE TO REDIRECT BEFORE THE — BEFORE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS RAT RATFIDE, THIS IS THE ONE THAT LOCKS YOU IN FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT SAYS THAT A REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ANTICIPATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS MAY NOT BE AMENDED UNLESS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, BY WHICH I MEANT SECTION 5, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE I AM PLEMENTTATION, BY WHICH I ALSO MEANT SECTION 5. AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS REQUIRES FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

SLUSHER: I THINK I'D LIKE THAT ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER BECAUSE IT SETS UP SOME MORE CRITERIA OR INSTANCES IN WHICH IT COULD HAPPEN RATHER THAN JUST THE — SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING — AND IN THAT OPTION YOU WOULD SAY — YOU WOULD ADD THAT LANGUAGE, COPY THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE 4-B.

I MIGHT PERHAPS CHANGE IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE IN THAT OTHER CONTEXT, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, A COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGARDING A BOUNDARY CHANGE IN THE CITY DEMOGRAPHIC, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A BOUNDARY CHANGE IN THE CITY OR DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT OR SHRIGHT.

SLUSHER: YEAH. MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT AND GET IT TYPED UP. BUT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS AN AMENDMENT. WHEN YOU GET IT. THAT'S ALL. I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS]

STEINER: A RIGHT TO HOLD THAT OFFICE DURING THE TERM. IF WE ARE GOING TO — THE COUNCIL COULD NOT JUST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO, DECIDE TO SHORTEN YOUR TERM OF OFFICE. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY FOR YOU TO SERVE THREE YEARS AS A COUNCILMEMBER COMES FROM THE CHARTER. SO THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD SHORTEN YOUR TERM OF OFFICE OR CHANGE YOUR TERM OF OFFICE, THE COUNCIL COULD NEITHER SAY OH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SHOULD SERVE A TWO YEAR TERM OR FOUR YEAR TERM, THEY COULDN'T DO EITHER OF THOSE BECAUSE THE CHARTER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM AND NO MORE. SO — SO IF WE WERE GOING TO TINKER WITH THAT RIGHT THAT YOU GET BY VIRTUE OF BEING ELECTED, THAT AUTHORITY HAS TO COME FROM A DOCUMENT WITH EQUAL DIGNITY TO THE DOCUMENT THAT GIVES YOU THAT RIGHT. SO — SO THAT'S FROM THE CHARTER. SO IF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT YOU CAN — THAT YOU WILL DRAW LOTS FOR A SHORTENED TERM, THEN YOU WILL DRAW LOTS FOR A SHATTERENED TERM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE AUTHORITY FOR YOU TO SERVE THAT TERM COMES FROM SHORTENED TERM. IF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL CAN SHORTEN YOUR TERM FOR A REASON, LIKE TO GET IN SYNC, THEN THE CHARTER, THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AND YOU WOULD KNOW GOING INTO THE ELECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO — TO SHORTEN YOUR TERM IN THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT IF WE WERE — THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY WAY THAT I CAN THINK OF, FROM GETTING — FROM HERE TO THERE, WITHOUT — IT'S NOT A JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT QUITS WITHOUT CLIPPING OFF BITS OF THE PIECES. SO — SO IN ORDER TO GET FROM A SEVEN-MEMBER COUNCIL AT LARGE TO AN 11 MEMBER COUNCIL MIXED, AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO SERVE A SHORTER TERM. AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, WE WILL EITHER HAVE TO SAY IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE CHARTER OR THE CHARTER WILL HAVE TO GRANT THE COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT FOR THIS PURPOSE. THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT.

ALVAREZ: THAT'S THIS INITIAL TRANSITION.

STEINER: JUST FOR INITIAL TRANSITION.

ALVAREZ: NOT FOR SUBSEQUENT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS MORE —

STEINER: FOR SUBSEQUENT TRANSITIONS I COULD EITHER — ONE THING WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT REDISTRICTING TRANSITIONS MUCH ONE IS NOT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, JUST TO BE SILENT. THAT'S THE PATTERN THAT YOU WILL FIND IN MOST CITY CHARTERS. THEY JUST ASSUME THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO BE MORE OR LESS WHERE THEY ARE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOWP DEARS MAY CHANGE A BIT, BUT DISTRICT 18 BE MORE OR LESS WHERE IT IS, DISTRICT 2 WILL BE MORE OR LESS WHERE IT IS. AND THAT THE CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARIES WON'T CHANGE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WHERE IT IS. SO THAT IT WILL ALWAYS MAKE SENSE FOR COUNCILMEMBER — THE COUNCILMEMBER FROM DISTRICT 2 TO KEEP RUNNING IN DISTRICT 2, EVEN AFTER A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. THE — SO ONE OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND LET THAT SCENARIO, WE WILL DO A ONE-TIME TRANSITION, THAT SCENARIO WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO SAY THAT EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER WE DO A MAJOR BOUNDARY CHANGE, ASSUMING THAT IT WILL BE SOMETHING MAJOR, THAT WE WILL START OVER AND THE WHOLE COUNCIL WILL BE REELECTED AND DRAW LOTS FOR A NEW STAGGERING. I DON'T NECESSARILY RECOMMEND THAT, BUT AS I SAY I WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT OPTION SO I INCLUDED IT IN ONE OF THE DRAFTS THAT YOU'VE HAD. THAT'S — IT'S COMPLEX AND I NEITHER RECOMMEND IT NOR DON'T. BUT IT'S AN OPTION THAT YOU HAVE. AGAINST A THIRD — A THIRD PROVISION WHICH I HAVEN'T DRAFTED WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THAT BY ORDINANCE THE COUNCIL COULD, IF IT DECIDED THAT A REDISTRICTING WAS SO — SO DRASTIC THAT IT — THAT EQUITY DEMANDED THAT YOU START OVER, THAT AT THAT TIME YOU COULD BY ORANCE PROVIDE FOR — ORDINANCE PROVIDE FOR A REELECTION OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND A NEW STAGGERING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD DRAFT AT FOR YOU, THOUGH I HAVEN'T. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION TO DO IT. ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT. AND THAT WOULD — OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE PRECLEARABLE AT THE TIME IT HAPPEN. BUT IT'S A THIRD OPTION.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. NO, I THOUGHT THIS TRANSITION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS PUTTING THAT IN THE CHARTER. BUT I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD APPLY THEN EVERY 10 YEARS AND SO — YOU ARE SAYING.

STEINER: NOT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

ALVAREZ: IT REMAINS SILENT IN TERMS OF FUTURE —

STEINER: RIGHT FOR THE FUTURE —

ALVAREZ: ELECTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REDISTRICTING.

STEINER: THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IF WE JUST PUT TRANSITION 4 IN, IT WILL HAPPEN ONCE. AFTER THAT, THAT WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT FOREVER.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS OR CAN THIS GO ON THE BALLOT THIS WAY?

STEINER: IF EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH TRANSITION 4, WITH NO FURTHER FAHLDERAL —

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY, BUT THE MAJORITY WON.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT. IF THE COUNCIL AS A BODY IS CONTENT WITH ITS MOST RECENT VOTE, THEN ALL I WOULD NEED IS A — TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. IN OTHER WORDS I GUESS THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE 15-A.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WANTED TO PUT IN THAT DIFFERENT WORDING ON THE — WHAT'S IT CALLED? REDISTRICTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. 15A.

YES, I'M A 15A, SECTION 4, PART — LET'S SEE, PART 3, SECTION 4-B. BUT I'M WAITING ON THE LANGUAGE TO COME BACK ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAY THAT AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER. 15A.

SLUSHER: WE ARE ON 15A, PART 3, SECTION 4, B. ON PAGE 3 OF 6, LINE 3, —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WILL HAVE TO REWARD PARAGRAPH 5 ALSO, RIGHT.

STEINER: THE REWARD WORDING — REWORDING FOR PARAGRAPH 5 ON THE SHEET OF PAPER THAT YOU HAVE THAT IS THE FIVE TRANSITION SCENARIOS, TRANSITION 5, THE LANGUAGE IN — IN THE TRANSITION WILL BE — WILL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT'S LABELED TRANSITION 4 WILL SUBSTITUTE IN THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PARAGRAPH 4 B, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. WELL, SEE, MR. STEINER READ ME SOME LANGUAGE OUT OF — THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN 6, BUT THINKS WE NEED TO DO SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO THAT AND SO SOMEONE IS DRAFTING THAT I THINK — SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT WE SHOULD HAVE THE PRINTED LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US INSTEAD OF — DEPENDING ON HE AND I TALKING IT THROUGH. BUT IT WOULD BE ALONG THE LINES OF — OF 6-B, THE — THE FOUR ITEMS LISTED UNDER THERE. BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE COUNCIL COULD REDISTRICT AND MY CONCERN WAS THAT WE MAKE IT A LITTLE STRICTER THAN JUST WHEN THE COUNCIL THINKS IT'S NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.

STEINER: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WHAT I WILL TRY TO DO IS SAY IT SLOWLY ENOUGH SO THAT —

SLUSHER: SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.

STEINER: SO SOMEONE BACK THERE CAN TYPE IT. THEN WE CAN MAYBE PROCEED TO ANOTHER ITEM WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE I THINK.

STEINER: I'M SOFT OF DRAFTING... — I'M SORT OF DRAFTING ON THE FLY HERE. ON PAGE 3 OF 6, LINE 3, PARAGRAPH B, WOULD SAY, INSTEAD OF WHAT IT SAYS, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDISTRICT AFTER EACH DECENNIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND: — OH, WAIT. THE COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE REDISTRICT AFTER EACH DECENNIAL FEDERAL CENSUS AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS REDISTRICTING IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE: 1 — APPROPRIATE, COMMA, TO COMPLY WITH, COLON, A COURT — 1, A COURT ORDER; 2, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW RELATING TO A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGE; 3, LEGAL PREREQUISITES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGE; OR, 4, DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND — FINDS REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE COUPLE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PERIOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD BE 4-B?

STEINER: YES, SIR, THAT WILL BE SECTION 4B.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, HE DID SAY THAT SLOW ENOUGH TO WHERE I UNDERSTAND IT. SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING AHEAD ON THAT IF — IF OTHERS ARE. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S — IT'S VIRTUALLY THE SAME AT 6-B.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THEN PASS THE ORDINANCE, CONSIDER PASSING THE ORDINANCE?

SLUSHER: SURE. PROP 1 DISTRICT, 15-A, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.

SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF PROP 1 DISTRICT ON 15-A. THERE IS A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. AND THE — THEN WE CAN GO TO THE OTHERS. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE ORDER LATER. THE NEXT ONE IS — IS REPEAL THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. THIS ONE — HAS PASS ODD A VOTE OF HAD TO 3 TWICE, THIS WOULD BE FOR THIRD READING. IS THERE A MOTION.

SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN, IS THERE A SECOND.

SLUSHER: I WILL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SECONDS. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: JUST ONE COMMENT, MAYOR. SINCE I SAID THIS TO SOME PEOPLE YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO INTERVIEW ME AT THIS TIME IN MY LIFE. THE TERM LIMITS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT I WAS PHILOSOPHICALLY AT ODDS WITH AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK IT ABRIDGES MY POWERS AND RIGHTS AS A VOTER TOTALLY ASIDE FROM MY POSITION AT THE MOMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE. BUT THE OTHER PART IS THEY HAVE SENSE THE RESPONSE FROM SOME PEOPLE, WHO WE FOUND OUT THEY HAD TERM LIMITATIONS IN AUSTIN WERE AMAZED SAID WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN, SURELY I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT. OTHERS WHO HAVE SAID WE ARE TRYING TO SIDESTEP THE ORDINANCE, FIND A LOOPHOLE WHEN IN FACT THE CHARTER PROVISION ALLOWED NOT FOR AN ABSOLUTE TERM LIMIT, BUT FOR TWO OPTIONS TO CONTINUE SERVING IN PUBLIC OFFICE. AND THAT HAS OUTRAGED SOME PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE. WHICH COMES DOWN TO THE POINT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHARTER PROVISION SAYS AND MEANS. I THINK THAT BY BEING THE FIRST THREE TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT CHARTER PROVISION, WE HAVE MAYBE BROUGHT UP THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND I THINK THAT IT — IT MAY NOT MEET THE — THE EXPECTATIONS AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME WHO SUPPORTED IT AND SOME WHO DIDN'T KNOW IT PASSED. MAY HAVE VOTED FOR IT AND DON'T REMEMBER VOTING FOR IT. SO IN THAT SENSE, WE OFFER A PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON THAT PARTICULAR CHARTER REVISION. AND IF — IF VOTERS CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR IT AGAIN, AT LEAST THIS TIME I THINK THERE WILL BE FEWER PEOPLE WHO — WHO DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROVISIONS ARE. PEOPLE. R: MAYOR, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS PASSED IN '94. I THINK THERE'S BIG A BIG SHIFT IN THE COUNTRY AND THE CITY ABOUT TERM LIMITS. AS I'VE BEEN OUT THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH, THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN SAID DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT WE HAD TERM LIMITS. I HAVE RUN INTO PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS. AND I HAVE RUN INTO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THEM. I HAVE RUN INTO SOME THAT WERE FOR THEM, FOR THEM AND ARE AGAINST THEM NOW. THE MAJORITY PARTY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAME INTO POWER IN 1994 WITH ONE OF THE MAJOR PLANKS OF THEIR PLATFORM BEING TERM LIMITS AND QUICKLY TURNED AGAINST TERM LIMITS. YOU DON'T SEE THEM HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THE FORMER MAYOR OF HOUSTON, BOB LANIER, USED TO BE FOR TERM LIMITS. NOW IS LEADING AN EFFORTS IN HOUSTON TO OVERTURN TERM LIMITS. I THINK WITH ALL THAT THAT I'VE HEARD IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT — THAT THE THREE OF US UP HERE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS PROVISION HAVE COMPLIED WITH BOTH — WITH IT BOTH IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. ALL WE ARE DOING TONIGHT IS GIVING THE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO REPEAL THIS PROVISION OR NOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR OR THE COUNCILMEMBERS. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION ALREADY FOR THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND WYNN VOTING NAY. THAT'S THE THIRD READING. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS IN THE — IN THE HANDOUT THAT'S CALLED PROP 2 TERM LIMITS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SLUSHER: SORRY, MAYOR, REPEAT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHARTER AMENDMENT ORANCE LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: OH,.

MAYOR GARCIA: SAME —

SLUSHER: I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY?

SLUSHER: LET ME READ OUT WHAT THE MOTION WOULD BE, WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WOULD BE.

MAYOR GARCIA: BALLOT LANGUAGE WE VOTED ON ALREADY.

SLUSHER: DID IT HAVE — I RECOMMEND A CHANGE ON — THE WORDING OF ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN.

SAYS SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT WE JUST VOTED ON —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED ON THE LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY. MAYBE I GOT AHEAD, I WAS GETTING READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON REPEAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.

GOODMAN: SO MOVED.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.? OPPOSED, NO.? SAME THREE? WE ARE JUST VOTING ON THE COUNTER PART TO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. WE VOTED ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND NOW THE ORDINANCE.

WYNN: BY VOTING NO AM I VOTING AGAINST THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE —

BY VOTING NO YOU ARE VOTING NOT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. BY VOTING YES —

WYNN: I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE VOTE WE JUST TOOK.

MAYOR GARCIA: BALLOT LANGUAGE ONLY. WE ARE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

WYNN: THEN I VOTE NO, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND WYNN VOTING NAY. THAT PASSES, THEN BACK TO THE — WE WILL GO BACK TO THE ORDER OF THIS ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND. COULD I CHECK SOMETHING WITH THE CLERK?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. I THINK IT'S KIND OF THE SAME QUESTION THAT — THAT MR. WYNN HAD. ON — WHEN WE VOTED ON WHETHER TO DO FOUR OR FIVE, ON THE TRANSITION PLANS, DID WE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS A, AT THE SAME TIME OR DID WE DO THAT SEPARATELY?

CLERK BROWN: WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TOOK PLACE WAS TRANSITION 4 PASSED ON A 4 TO 3 VOTE. THE MAYOR THEN CALLED FOR A VOTE ON PROP 1, 15-A, AND SAID THAT WAS THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE. AND THAT PASSED ON A 7-0 VOTE.

GRIFFITH: THAT — SO THEY WERE NOT SEPARATED, THEY WERE TOGETHER?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF WAS 6-0-1, THAT'S WHAT MY RECORD REFLECTS WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH ABSTAINING ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT INCLUDED THE TRANSITION PLAN PASSED 4 TO 3. ON THIRD READING.

UH-HUH.

GRIFFITH: THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE MAIN MOTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL —

STEINER: MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WAS A MOTION AFTER THE BALLOT LANGUAGE MOTION, THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE TRANSITION PROVISION WITH ONE OF THE — WITH THE MAIN MOTION WAS TO DON'T TRANSITION PROVISION 5. THEN THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DON'T TRANSITION PROVISION 4. SINCE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED, IT OBVIATEED ANY NEED TO VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION BECAUSE THE MAIN MOTION WAS OBVIOUSLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO THEN I BELIEVE AFTER THAT DISCUSSION THERE WAS A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AND I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE VOTE WAS.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S WHAT I SHOWED AS A 7-0.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE WHOLE ORDINANCE WAS 4-3.

NO.

STEINER: THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CLERK SHOWS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN DID YOU SHOW?

CLERK BROWN: I THOUGHT YOUR FIRST VOTE WAS ON THE TRANSITION 4.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST VOTE THAT WE TOOK WAS THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. THAT'S — THAT'S WHAT I SHOW IN THE SCRIPT THAT THEY GAVE ME. AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WAS THE ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SHALL THE — WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THAT INTO A FORM OF A QUESTION.

FUTRELL: SHIRLEY, I THINK IF YOU WILL LOOK FOR A 6-0-1 VOTE WHICH WAS THE VOTE THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF, WHEN WE GOT DOWN TO TAKING THE SECOND VOTE, WHICH IS THE VOTE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, THAT'S WHEN THE TRANSITION PLAN COMES INTO PLAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TRANSITION PLAN CAME INTO PLAY WHEN WE WENT TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

CLERK BROWN: I DO HAVE THE 6-0 VOTE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: 6-0-1 ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN WE WENT TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND THE ORDINANCE WAS PROPOSED WITH THE TRANSITION PLAN ATTACHED TO IT. THAT WAS WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THE ORDINANCE AND HE HAD — HE HAD PUT INTO THE ORDINANCE THE LANGUAGE FOR TRANSITION PLAN 5. THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED AND THEN IT WAS — THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, THAT PASSED 4 TO 3.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S RIGHT. I HAVE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE WAY I RECORDED IT.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. THEN WAS THERE A SEPARATE ONE ON A.

MAYOR GARCIA: A WHAT?

GRIFFITH: THE MAIN MOTION. SO THERE WAS NO SEPARATE ONE ON THE MAIN MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAME THE MOTION — THE MAIN MOTION BECAUSE IT PASSED. SO WE NEVER WENT BACK TO —

GRIFFITH: WE NEVER WENT BACK.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE QUESTION IF THE — IF THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT FOR — YOU KNOW I ASKED THE QUESTION IF THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT FOR JUST MOVING FROM 5 TO 4. AND IT WAS NOT. SO THEN SAID NO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO WHEN IT BECAME THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, IT BECAME A SUBSTITUTE TO THE WHOLE MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAD MADE. NOT JUST FOR TRANSITION, BUT FOR THE WHOLE MOTION.

GRIFFITH: SO IS THAT WHAT YOU SHOW?

CLERK BROWN: I FOLLOWED YOU TO THAT POINT AND THEN I SHOWED US ANOTHER MOTION TAKEN AFTER THAT AND MY NOTES SHOW THAT WHAT WAS READ WAS PROPOSITION 1, 15-A.

GRIFFITH: WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE TRANSITION PLAN. STROOEUN THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE —

STEINER: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN THE MOTION THAT YOU MADE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORANCE LANGUAGE WAS FOR THE LANGUAGE PLUS THE TRANSITION PLAN 5, CORRECT?

WYNN: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MOTION WAS DISCUSSED AND THEN THERE WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DON'T THE MOTION WITH TRANSITION PLAN 4.

CLERK BROWN: WE NEVER WENT BACK AND VOTED ON 5 AT ALL BECAUSE —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. BECAUSE FOUR, YOU KNOW, PREVAILED.

CLERK BROWN: THAT'S CORRECT. MY ONLY CONFUSION, MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT WAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: 4-3.

CLERK BROWN: AFTER YOU TOOK THAT YOU CALLED FOR ANOTHER MOTION AND THAT ONE WAS 7-0.

ALVAREZ: BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT PART A OR SOMETHING, AND ONCE THAT GOT CLEARED UP, THEN WE TOOK ANOTHER VOTE. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS — WHAT WAS THAT VOTE?

STEINER: I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE A MOTION ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. I THOUGHT THAT THE TRANSITION — I THOUGHT THAT THE TRANSITION 5 AND TRANSITION 4 DISCUSSION WAS A MOTION MERELY ON THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THEN I THOUGHT AFTER THAT WAS RESOLVED THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE WHOLE —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND HE JUST CONFIRMED IT, HE MADE A MOTION TO DON'T THE ORDINANCE WITH TRANSITION PLAN 5, WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN IN THE TRANSITION SECTION THAT'S WHEN YOU WROTE IN.

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE QUESTION WHEN THE AMENDMENT CAME UP, IS THIS AN AMENDMENT ONLY FOR TRANSITION PLAN 4. THEY SAID NO, THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. SO WHEN WE VOTED ON IT, WE VOTED AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AND THAT MEANT THAT THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN DIED, WENT AWAY. NOW YOU SAY THERE WAS A VOTE FOR 7-0.

CLERK BROWN: YES. AFTER THE DISCUSSION WHERE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ASKED FOR TEXT TO BE WRITTEN UP AND JOHN READ THE LANGUAGE AND HE SAID I UNDERSTAND IT, I'M READY TO VOTE. THEN WHAT WAS SAID WAS PROPOSITION 1, 15-A, THAT'S WHAT I SHOW AS — I THOUGHT —

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T REMEMBER EVER VOTING ON A 7-0 MOTION IN THIS ISSUE EXCEPT FOR DRAFT COMMUNICATION PLAN AND THE MAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I DON'T THINK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND ME AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN VOTED FOR A PLAN THAT INCLUDES TRANSITION PLAN 4.

GOODMAN: NO, MAYOR, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MOTION. I THINK TO TRY TO CLEAR THIS UP, I WILL JUST — GO WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD. IN ESSENCE WHAT WE DID IS WE HAD AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD ALREADY PASSED BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER DID WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE ABILITY OF A COUNCIL TO AT SOME WHIMISCAL POINT IN POLITICAL LIFE, PERHAPS, CHANGE THE DISTRICTS OR TERM LIMITS — I KEEP SAYING TERM LIMITS, EVEN THOUGH I WANT TO JUST SAY TERMS — OF SERVING COUNCILMEMBERS. SO THAT'S WHEN MR. STEINER QUOTED SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS A SORT OF A FAIL SAFE AT WHICH TIME YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT DEALT WITH THE REDISTRICTING CORRECT.

GOODMAN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: WITH 4? OKAY.

GOODMAN: WITH DID ALL VOTE YES ON THOSE AMENDMENTS. SO — SO YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR LAST MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE IN [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] YOU CAN'T MAKE IT I WILL MOVE TO RECONSIDER.

WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION PASSED 4 TO 3. WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER IT. GO BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, BECAUSE THIS MOTION IS GOING TO BE DONE AWAY WITH. WE ARE BACK TO THE MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MADE. THAT — THAT THAT IN ESSENCE HAS THE — HAS THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WITH — WITH THE — WITH THE TRANSITION PLAN OF 5. NOW, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION NOW TO — TO HAVE IT, TO AMEND THAT — TO TRANSITION PLAN 4. THAT CAN PASS AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE.

GOODMAN: I GET IT, OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU MOVE FOR RECONSIDERATION.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: I WILL SECOND, MAYOR. JUST WOULD THE OUTCOME OF THIS BE THAT TRANSITION PLAN AND MAIN ORDINANCE WOULD BE SEVERED?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. THE MOTION —

GOODMAN: AMEND.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN MOVE TO RECEIVER IF YOU WANT TO.

GRIFFITH: LET'S DO THAT.

GOODMAN: IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT SOME POINT THERE HAS TO BE A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE, OKAY? SO — SO WE HAVE THE DANGER OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR 5 AND VOTED AGAINST 4, VOTED AGAINST THIS AND KILLING THE WHOLE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PLAN. THAT'S THE DANGER THAT WE HAVE.

GRIFFITH: WOULD THAT BE TRUE IF — IF THEY WERE SEVERED? IF THE TRANSITION PLAN AND THE MAIN ORDINANCE WERE SEVERED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, WHEN YOU RECEIVER IT, WHEN YOU RECEIVER IT AND YOU VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN, THEN IT BECOMES PART OF THE ORDINANCE, CORRECT MR. STEINER?

...>GOODMAN: SAY YES. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT SHE'S PROPOSING IS WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER, OKAY? SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER. THIS WOULD BE THE — THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE. THE 4 TO 3 VOTE. THEN THE NEXT MOTION IS GOING TO BE FOR SEVERING TRANSITION PLAN FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

ALTHOUGH, MAYOR, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. THE AMENDMENT VOTE, IF NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE VOTING ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT IT WAS NOT AN AMENDMENT THAT WE VOTED ON. WE VOTED ON A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

GOODMAN: I KNOW. BUT WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO DO WITH RECONSIDERING THE WHOLE THING IS WE CAN OFFER TWO AMENDMENTS. ONE IS TO GO TO TRANSITION PLAN NUMBER 4 AND ONE IS TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FOR —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S DEAL. OKAY.

GOODMAN: THOSE AMENDMENTS IF NOT FRIENDLY TO THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION CAN BE VOTE ON A TOTALLY SEPARATE VOTING PATTERN, NOBODY HAS TO WORRY ABOUT VOTING —

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT I'M SAYING MAYOR PRO TEM LET'S SAY WE PASS — WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO DON'T TRANSITION PLAN 4, THAT BECOMES PART OF THE MOTION AS MUCH AS THEN THE AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER BECOMES PART OF THE MAIN MOTION, THEN WE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AND SOME OF US THAT DON'T LIKE TRANSITION PLAN 4 MAY VOTE AGAINST IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

GOODMAN: YOU WOULD RATHER NOT DO IT THAT WAY THEN?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, NO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL OF KILLING SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IF I VOTE AGAINST THE ORDINANCE AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER VOTES AGAINST AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN VOTES AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.

SLUSHER: THEN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH HAS BEEN VOTING AGAINST IT CONSISTENTLY GOING ON. SO THEN SHE ABSTAINED TONIGHT, BUT OTHER VOTES SHE'S VOTING NO. IF SHE VOTES NO TONIGHT THEN IT COULD LEASE 4 TO 3 AND THEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME THE MIXED SYSTEM DOESN'T GO ON THE BALLOT.

GOODMAN: I SEE. ALTHOUGH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND WYNN AND THE MAYOR, IF YOU BOW TO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY ON ANOTHER ISSUE, YOU COULD STILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THE ITEM AS THE NUMBERS SHOW NOW IT WILL BE WRITTEN. BUT IF YOU WOULD RATHER —

SLUSHER: YOU MEAN SO THE PERSON THAT CASTS THE DECIDING VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN THEN IS SHE WAS TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH HER PREVIOUS THING RATHER THAN HER VOTE TONIGHT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE YES FOR THE TRANSITION PLAN THAT WE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED JUST SO THE MAGAZINE......... MAGNAMOUS ACTION OF PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND, IT IS SORT OF MARVELOUSLY IRONIC.

THOMAS: WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ALL TWO ARE TRYING TO DO, AMEN.

GOODMAN: WHATEVER, IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVER IT, IF WE STILL NEED TO RECONSIDER, THAT'S MY MOTION.

GRIFFITH: THERE'S A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO — TO DON'T THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THERE'S A SECOND, CORRECT? IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: YES. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS RECEIVER THE TRANSITION DEAL AND THE MAIN ORDINANCE.

FUTRELL: CITY ATTORNEY —

I WANT TO HAVE A SUGGESTION HOW YOU ALL CHOOSE TO FASHION THE VOTES OF COURSE WILL BE UP TO YOU. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION ON THE ORDERANCE SUBSTITUTING THE LANGUAGE WITH TRANSITION 4 PLUS THE REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE THAT JOHN STEINER READ INTO THE RECORD AND THAT CAN BE VOTED UP OR DOWN. THAT WOULD JUST BE THE MAIN MOTION BY PIECING TOGETHER THE PIECES THAT YOU WANT IN THERE, THE TRANSITION 4 LANGUAGE PLUS THE AMENDED OR THE REVISED REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE. THAT'S JUST AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.

NO, NO, WE CAN JUST HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, WHAT WAS VOTED ON BEFORE. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MAIN MOTION. TO — TO DON'T THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE USING TRANSITION 4 LANGUAGE PLUS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS READ IN WITH REGARD TO REDISTRICTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE IF WE VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION WE ARE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. BECAUSE WE ARE BASICALLY RECONSIDERING WHAT WAS — SEE THAT MOTION NEVER WENT AWAY. IT WENT AWAY BECAUSE WE VOTED FOR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. STEINER HELP ME WITH THIS ONE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT WE HAVE TO DON'T AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE — CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, RIGHT?

STEINER: THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO ADOPT AN ORANCE THAT LOOKS THE WAY YOU DON'T IT TO LOOK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE HAVE TWO ORDINANCES, ONE ON 8-2-1, ONE ON TRANSITION?

STEINER: NO, SIR. I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE ONE ORDINANCE SO IT CAN BE ONE BALLOT PROPOSITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TRANSITION PLAN IS NOT ON THE BALLOT, IS IT?

STEINER: IT IS IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYTHING THAT FLOWS FROM THE BALLOT PROPOSITION IS PART OF — PART OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION. THE BALLOT PROPOSITION DOESN'T DESCRIBE EVERY CHANGE THAT WILL BE MADE. BUT IT — ALL THE CHANGES THAT — THAT WILL BE MADE TO THE CHARTER, WHETHER — WITH RESPECT TO GOING TO THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S DO THAT. WHAT WE HAVE IS A COUNCILMEMBER THAT WANTED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TRANSITION PLAN, BUT IS NOT FOR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. OKAY? SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE OR 10 MINUTE BREAK. I NEED TO GO TO THE POTTY ANYWAY, YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW HOW IT CAN BE DONE, BUT I ALSO DON'T LIKE TRANSITION PLAN 4. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF VOTING AGAINST SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE TRANSITION PLAN.

GRIFFITH: SO, MAYOR, DON'T WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO RECEIVER THOSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO DO.

STEINER: ALL I CAN THINK OF IS THAT YOU HAVE ONE ORDINANCE WITH —

FUTRELL: WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO DO, LET'S TAKE THE BREAK LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, LET'S TALK AMONG OURSELVES AND COME UP WITH OUR SUGGESTIONS.

GRIFFITH: GOOD IDEA. (RECESS) DANIEL PLANTE, DANIEL PLANTE, DANIEL PLANTE, DON'T, DON'T, DONATE, DONATE, DONATE, DOPPLER, DOPPLER, TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST,

MAYOR GARCIA: QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL HERE, WE NEED THE OTHER THREE COUNCILMEMBERS IN. I WILL ASK MR. STEINER TO EXPLAIN — HOW WE DID THIS AN WHERE WE ARE AND HOW WE NEED TO — TO MOVE ON IT.

WYNN: MAYOR, FIRST I WILL MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND GO BEYOND 10:00.

SLUSHER: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: ACTUALLY GOING BEYOND 11:00 OR 10:00.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION AND SECOND TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO GO BEYOND 10:00. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 TO 2 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM NOT VOTING ON IT YET. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT HERE AT THE TIME. OKAY. MR. STEINER? THIS GOES TO THE — TO THE FIRST PROPOSITION OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT WHERE WE CALL —

STEINER: AFTER COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S DISCUSSION OF HOW HE WILL LIKE — HE WOULD LIKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 4-B ON REDISTRICTING REWORDED, THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO PASS THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS THEN CHANGED WITH THE CHANGE TO THE BALLOT PROPOSITION, WITH THE CHANGE TO THE — WITH THE TRANSITION 4 AND WITH —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WAS THAT MOTION IN ORDER?

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT IS? WHEN ANOTHER MOTION HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE SAME ISSUE?

...JUST SO THAT I CAN GET MY MIND CLEAR.

STEINER: I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN ORDER.

IF IT'S DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION, THEN IT'S A VALID ACT.

STEINER: DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE COUNCIL WAS —

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER THE 4-3 VOTE AND GET IT OFF AND THEN JUST LEAVE THE OTHER ONE ON. SO THAT WE CLEAR THE RECORD.

STEINER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: HUH? NO, NO, RECONSIDER THE MOTION THAT WAS PASSED 4 TO 3, THEN WITH DRAW THAT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WE DRAWS HIS MAIN MOTION, THAT LEAVES SLUSHER'S MOTION IT'S OVER.

A MOTION TO RECONSIDER WILL TAKE YOU BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION, THE LAST MAIN MOTION WAS THE 7-0 VOTE ON THE 8-2-1 ORDINANCE, TRANSITION 4 PLAN.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE TO CORRECT ANOTHER MISTAKE. SO — SO IF WE — WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT IS WHEN WE VOTED ON COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION, THAT BASICALLY INVALIDATED THE PRIOR VOTE?

STEINER: NO.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, THEY ARE SAYING BECAUSE — OUR SIDE LOST THE — THE VOTE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN, GOT THE — THEN WE AMENDED THE PART ON THE — WHAT — REDISTRICTING DECEMBER............ENNIAL ASPECT OF IT, THEN WE VOTED ON THE WHOLE MOTION. DECENNIAL. IT WAS CONFUSING, BUT I VOTED FOR THAT OR MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE THE — I WANTED TO VOTE FOR THE WHOLE PLAN, EVEN THOUGH I REALLY STRONGLY OPPOSE THE TRANSITION PLAN. NOW I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WANTS US NOW TO RECEIVER THAT WHERE SHE CAN VOTE AGAINST THE OVERALL PLAN —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, SHE WANTS TO VOTE FOR THE PLAN. SHE SAID SHE WANTS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A GREAT CONSENSUS BUILDER OF THIS CENTURY. [ LAUGHTER ].

SLUSHER: WOW, SHE HAS AN EARLY START ON THE CENTURY ANYWAY. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DECADE, THE DECENNIAL.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION THAT MR. SLUSHER DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF TRANSITION PLAN 4, SO WHEN DID THAT GET IN? HOW DID THAT GET INTO THE MOTION?

STEINER: TRANSITION PLAN 4 WAS DANIEL........... ADOPTED AS I UNDERSTOOD IT BY THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S MAIN MOTION. AND THEN THE ORDINANCE AS IT THEN EXISTED WAS WITH TRANSITION PLAN 4 IN IT. THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE REDISTRICTING PROVISION, AND THEN THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO ADOPT THE WHOLE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES THAT HE WANT TO THE REDISTRICTING PROVISION AND THEN ON THAT MOTION THERE WAS A 7-0 VOTE TO DON'T THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS THEN — AS IT THEM EXISTED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, CAN I TRY IT BECAUSE I THINK IF WE JUST LEAVE IN PLACE WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED, THEN WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS HAD A 4-3 VOTE ON WHAT THE TRANSITION PLAN IS GOING TO BE, BUT A 7-0 VOTE ON PUTTING THE WHOLE 8-2-1 ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID.

SLUSHER: WHAT HAPPENED WAS I WAS TALKING ST. LOUISIVELY ABOUT THE — EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT THE TRANSITION PLAN, EXCUSE ME THE REDISTRICTING PART OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT I WANT TO KNOW —

SLUSHER: SOMEBODY ASKED DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE WHOLE PLAN. I PAUSED SORT OF BRIEFLY, SAID BECAUSE — I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT WHOLE — THAT I DIDN'T LIKE THE — THE OTHER PART OF IT THAT WE GOT VOTED DOWN THE TRANSITION, I SAID WELL ALL RIGHT. THEN WE VOTED. I THINK EVERYBODY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON. AND IT WAS — IT WAS CONFUSING, NO DOUBT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD ARGUE WITH US ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT. BUT I THINK IF WE LEFT IT IN — IF YOU ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE VOTE 7-0 ON PUTTING THE 8-2-1 ON, WE HAVE DONE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER. WHEN YOU MADE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, DID YOU — WERE YOU CONTEMPLATING THE TRANSITION PLAN 4?

SLUSHER: WELL, I WAS — YES. I REALIZED TRANSITION PLAN 4 WAS IN THERE, I WAS RELUCTANT TO VOTE FOR THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL HAPPENING, I WAS SURPRISED THAT I WAS ASKED TO MAKE A MOTION ON IT THAT QUICKLY, IF YOU CAN CALL THAT TIME OF THE EVENING QUICKLY. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, I REALIZED THAT THAT WAS IN THERE. I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO VOTE FOR TRANSITION PLAN 4. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO KEEP AT THE 8-2-1 PLAN OFF THE BALLOT. SO I — WHEN I WAS ASKED TO MAKE THE MOTION. I THINK I SAID YEAH, I WILL MAKE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER IS THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO TAKE US TO COURT TO CHALLENGE WHAT WE DID TONIGHT EVEN THOUGH I THINK PROCEDURALLY WE DON'T FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCEDURE BUT THAT'S OKAY.

STEINER: THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE AS IT IS, THEN THAT CERTAINLY IS THE IMPORTANT THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I LIKE THAT MR. STEINER.

SLUSHER: CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM OUR VOTE TO PUT THE 8-2-1 ON THE BALLOT.

FUTRELL: LET'S LET THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US A FINAL RULING ON THIS LAST ACTION THAT YOU TOOK SO THAT EVERYBODY IS VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. SO SEDORA.

AFTER HAVING LOOKED AT THE TAPE, THE LAST MOTION ON THE TABLE WAS TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE TRANSITION 4 PLAN, PLUS THE NEW REDISTRICTING LANGUAGE AND THAT VOTE WAS A 7-0 VOTE. THAT IS YOUR FINAL ACT. YOUR LAST VALID ACT. THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE GREAT — THE CONSENSUS BUILDER DOESN'T GO TO PLACE 4. IT GOES TO PLACE 1.

SLUSHER: OH, WELL THANK YOU MAYOR. I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE LIKE IN THE FOOTBALL GAMES WHERE THEY TACK ABOUT HOW LONG THE GAME WAS DELAYED FOR THE INSTANT REPLAY, I THINK WE SHOULD GET A RULING ON THAT, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, ME, I —

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE BACK TO THE MAIN TRACK. OKAY. SO THE MOTION — THE MOTION WAS 7-0 TO, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. OKAY. NOW — NOW THE REPEAL OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL WE VOTE ODD THAT 4-3, 4-3 ON BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ORDINANCE. NOW REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED CITY OFFICERS TO PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN AN AUSTIN NEWSPAPER, PROPOSITION 5 ACTUALLY. AND THAT PASSED ON FIRST AND SECOND READING WITH A VOTE 6-ON WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TEMPORARILY AWAY ON THE FIRST READING AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY AWAY ON THE SECOND READING. IS THERE A MOTION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR IN THE INTEREST OF BUILDING MORE CONSENSUS, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, ARE YOU GOING TO DO BOTH

SLUSHER: PLEASE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE DO THAT, BOTH THE THEM, THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL IS TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

MAYOR GARCIA: D AND E CONSIDERED TOGETHER, A RETIEN TO RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND THE RETIEN TO RUN PROVISION FOR OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL IS E. AND WE ARE GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR BOTH ITEMS, FOR BOTH BALLOT LANGUAGE AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS. IS THERE A MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES. ONE CONCERN I HAVE WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE — WE'RE ON THE RESIGN TO RUN, CORRECT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

SLUSHER: THAT WE HAD AMENDED THIS TO WHERE IT TRACKS STATE LAW FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE APPOINTED OFFICIALS, BUT THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING WAY EARLY IN THEIR JOB AND RUNNING FOR OFFICE. BUT WE HAD SAID THAT IF THEY HAVE LESS THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERM, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO RESIGN BECAUSE THAT'S THE STATE LAW FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY, SHALL THE CHARTER — CHAL THE CITY CHARTER BE — SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM, PERIOD. DOES THAT WORK, MR. STEINER?

STEINER: THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION ONLY APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES, NOT TO THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE DEFINED TERMS. SO IF YOU WANTED, YOU HAVE THAT IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE —

SLUSHER: HOW ABOUT THIS. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE — WAIT. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR OFFICE WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM AND TO REQUIRE OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE.

STEINER: THAT WILL WORK.

SLUSHER: PUT ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE FIRST CLAUSE WHERE HE SAID OFFICE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: YES.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASS OZ A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTING NAY. ON BOTH THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AND BALLOT LANGUAGE. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE MOVING RIGHT ALONG OR WHAT? LET ME CLARIFY IT IN CASE YOUR RECORD DOESN'T REFLECT IT, MS. BROWN, ON B, THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS, THE VOTE WAS FOUR-THREE FOR BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AMENDMENT.

BROWN: THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: F, THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. THAT PASSED FOUR-THREE ON FIRST AND SECOND READING. IS THERE A MOTION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL WITH THE — IT SHOULD READ, SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — WAIT A MINUTE. DIDN'T WE — DIDN'T WE ALREADY VOTE TO REPEAL THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT LAW EARLIER IN THE DAY?

NO. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE GOTTEN TO THIS ONE.

SLUSHER: THEN THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT ABOUT THE LIMIT OF $100. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT IN THERE SO THAT IT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: HE HAS IT.

THE PROPOSITION WOULD BE —

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, I WAS READING —

THE PROPOSITION WILL BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR A 100-DOLLAR LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THIS THING HERE HAS A DIFFERENT — HE SHOULD JUST TOSS THIS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS.

SLUSHER: THE ORDER OF CHARTER ITEM.

THAT WAS JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF ORDER, NOT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE IS NUMBER 15-F, DRAFT ORDINANCE, NUMBER 15-F.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

AND WE WOULD BE CHANGING THAT BALLOT LANGUAGE TO GO WITH THE GENTLEMEN/NO FOREMATT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN INSTEAD OF THE FOR AND AGAINST.

SLUSHER: SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REPEAL THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR 100-DOLLAR LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A MOTION?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? IT'S BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST, NO?

GRIFFITH: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, GRIFFITH AND TOMZ VOTING NOOEU AND IT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE FOR BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE. AND THAT PROPOSITION WOULD READ — READ THAT, MR. STEINER.

STEINER: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WILL BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE. SO MOVE,: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

ALVAREZ: YES. FOR LOOKING TO CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY FOR THE POSITION FROM CONSUMER ADVOCATE TO CONSUMER ANALYST, SO THAT WOULD BE ON BOTH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSUMER ANALYST? HUH?

ALVAREZ: CONSUMER ANALYST INSTEAD OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

THOMAS: CONSUMER — WHAT DID YOU SAY?

MAYOR GARCIA: HE'S CHANGING IT FROM CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST — NOT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

THOMAS: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU READ THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AGAIN? MR. STEINER?

STEINER: IT WOULD BE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE — I'M SORRY. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WELL, TWO THINGS. ONE I GUESS IS JUST A QUESTION. WHAT DOES AN ANALYST DO AS OPPOSED TO AN ADVOCATE? WHAT'S THE JOB DESCRIPTION? I THINK I KNOW WHAT AN ADVOCATE IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: [ INAUDIBLE ]

ALVAREZ: BASICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEBATE WE'VE BEEN HAVING YOU'LL UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT THE UTILITY IN TERMS OF ITS OPERATION AND ALL THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT, TRY TO DO AN ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF RATES AND PLANNING ISSUES AND PRODUCT AND SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER. AND THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT IS THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, SO THAT'S — SO IN ESSENCE THAT'S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON WILL BE DOING IS ANALYZING THESE PARTICULAR POLICY ISSUES AND THEN PROVIDING THAT ANALYSIS TO THE COUNCIL TO FACILITATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE COUNCIL ON THE VARIOUS POLICY AND PLANNING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.

WYNN: WELL, MAYOR, THERE SEEMS TO ME — I'VE BEEN WORRYING A LOT ABOUT THIS LATELY, BUT I GUESS IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FOUR VOTES TO DO THIS, BUT I GUESS I NEED TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS TO APPLY FOR THE JOB OF ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST HIRED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THINKING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THIS PERSON IS GOING TO COME TO THE COUNCIL AND, AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, COUNCIL, YOU ALL PAY MY SALARY TO CONSIDER THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, AND SO YOU WANT ME TO AT LEAST STOP THE TRANSFER OF AUSTIN ENERGY DIVIDENDS TO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT BENEFITS AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXPAYERS. THE PROFITS SHOULD IN FACT BE TO THE BENEFIT OF MY UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF LOWER ELECTRIC RATES. BUT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY, NO, NO, WE — YOU KNOW, WE AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. TELL YOUR CONSUMERS SORRY AND HERE'S YOUR FIRST MONTH'S SALARY. AND THE SECOND MONTH HE'LL COME AND — HE OR SHE AND HE'LL SAY, COUNCIL, YOU PAY MY SALARY TO WORRY ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, DON'T CLOSE THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. THAT'S THE PAID-FOR, PRODUCING, ENERGY PRODUCING ASSET THAT BENEFITS MY UTILITY — ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS. DON'T GO SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A NEW PLACE FOR ONE THAT WORKS NOW. INSTEAD TAKE THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND TRANSFER THEM TO MY UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF EVEN LOWER UTILITY RATES. AND THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY, NO, YOU KNOW, LET'S DON'T GO THERE. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PERSPECTIVES THAN JUST YOUR UTILITY CONSUMER. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT PERSPECTIVES LIKE THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN EXAMPLE. SO AGAIN, TELL YOUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS, SORRY, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT HERE'S YOUR SECOND MONTH'S SALARY. WELL, THE THIRD MONTH HE'LL COME AND HE'LL SAY COUNCIL, YOU PAY MY SALARY TO THINK ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER, AND I JUST FOUND OUT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY OWNS LOTS OF THESE THINGS CALLED CLEAN AIR CREDITS, AND THEY'RE TRADED ON THE OPEN MARKET AND THEY'RE VERY VALUABLE AND THEY'RE MOST VALUABLE TO THE POWER PLANTS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT POLLUTE THE MOST. AND SO WE NEED TO SELL ALL THESE CLEAN AIR CREDITS ON THE OPEN MARKET TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THEN TRANSFER THOSE PROCEEDS TO MY ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF EVEN LOWER ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES. AND THE COUNCIL WILL SAY, WELL, NO, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING DO THAT EITHER. SEE, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PERSPECTIVES THAN JUST YOUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER. WE THINK ABOUT PERSPECTIVES LIKE THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLEAN AIR. AND SO NO, WE WON'T BE DOING THAT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THESE CLEAN AIR CREDITS AND OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS CAN TAKE IT ON THE CHIN, BUT THANK YOU, TELL THEM SORRY, AND HERE'S YOUR THIRD MONTH'S SALARY. WELL, I'M MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST THAT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL HIRES IS GOING TO BE A VERY SMART GUY OR GIRL AND WILL BE A VERY INTELLIGENT PERSON. AND SO PRETTY SOON THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE THIS GIG OUT. SO ABOUT THE FOURTH MONTH THEY'LL COME IN AND SORT OF WRING THEIR HANDS AND JUST SAY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL PAY MY SALARY TO WORRY ABOUT ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS AND I CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT. IF WE'RE NOT DOING SQUAT BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMERS. BUT I WOKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THE OTHER NIGHT AND I TELL YOU WHAT, I GOT A GREAT IDEA. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS — AND COUNCIL IS GOING TO STAY WOW. STOP. WAIT A MINUTE. COOL IT WITH THIS ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER STUFF. WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK BAD. BUT TELL YOU WHAT, HERE'S SIX MONTHS ADVANCE ON YOUR SALARY. WHY DON'T YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GO VISIT OUR WIND FARM, BUT COME BACK IN TIME ENOUGH TO ENDORSE ME FOR MY REELECTION CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW. I COULD GO ON AND ON, MAYOR, BUT WE'LL JUST LOOK WORSE. I KNOW. SO SHOW ME VOTING NO AND GO AHEAD AND LABEL ME ANTI-CONSUMER.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I POSSIBLY CAN. LET ME START OUT WITH, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK A PERSON IN A CITY UNIFORM IS ABLE LEGALLY TO ENDORSE ANY COUNCILMEMBER RUN FOG REELECTION. NUMBER TWO, IF THAT WORST CASE SCENARIO WAS TRULY WHAT HAPPENED, AND I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW THAT, ALL OF THIS HAPPENS HINDZ CLOSED EHINDS CLOSED DOORS NOW, SO ONLY WE WOULD KNOW IF WE WERE GOING AGAINST THE SCENARIO THAT YOU HAD JUST LAID OUT SHS WHICH IS THE POINT OF HAVING SOMEBODY VISIBLY LABELED A PUBLIC INTEREST ANALYST, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE WE'RE USING HERE, BUT IN ESSENCE ISSUES OF PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING CONSUMERISM. AND NUMBER THREE, I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THAT CONSUMER ISSUES ANALYST WOULD KNOW AND WOULD ADVISE COUNCIL ON BECAUSE THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION, TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND OPERATIONAL INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE AND CAN NEVER HAVE AS A COUNCILMEMBER BECAUSE I CAN NEVER BE PART OF THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF THE UTILITY. SO THERE ARE VERY DEFINITE INDUSTRY-ORIENTED ISSUES AND TECHNICALITIES THAT I COULD NEVER KNOW. THIS PERSON WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE WITH THEM — WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE UTILITY, BOUND, OF COURSE, BY THE SAME SORTS OF RESTRICTIONS THAT WE ARE IN THIS NEW COMPETITIVE ERA. AND SO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SERVICE THAT WE WOULD BE BENEFITTING FROM I THINK WOULD ENABLE US TO TAKE THAT INFORMATION. AND IF IT WAS SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF RACE, AS YOUR GUY WAS POINTING OUT, POSSIBLY THAT'S WHAT THE SCENARIOS WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT I THINK THAT CONSUMERS HAVE MORE THAN JUST RATE INTERESTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IN LARGE PART ALSO THE OWNERS OF THE UTILITY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE CLARIFIES SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THIS ANALYST WOULD BE LOOKING AT AND OFFERING US INPUT ON. WE WOULD HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. THE INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION. AND I THINK IT COULD NEVER HURT TO HAVE TOO MUCH INFORMATION SO THAT WHEN YOU DO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS YOU HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION. THAT'S THE END, MAYOR. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS EVER AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME MAKE JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. WHETHER THIS CA PASSES OR DOESN'T PASS, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW FORMAT FOR REPORTING BY AUSTIN ENERGY TO THE COUNCIL. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, IF THE OPERATION IS MADE MORE COMPLEX BY THE REGULATIONS THAT CAME INTO PLAY AND MORE COMPLEX BY A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, CHANGES IN THE WEATHER AND ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS. SO I DON'T THINK A CONSUMER ANALYST CAN GO IN THERE AND FIGURE OUT ANYTHING. THAT'S MY GUESS. KNOWING HOW BIG THIS UTILITY IS. IT TAKES THE CITY AUDITOR WITH TWO OR THREE AUDITORS IS GOING TO BE OVER THERE FOR SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS TO DO ONLY PART OF THE UTILITY. SO IT IS A COMPLEX OPERATION AND THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO FIND A WAY TO GET ADEQUATE REPORTING TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS VERY COMPLEX OPERATION. I DON'T THINK ONE CONSUMER ANALYST OR ADVOCATE OR WHATEVER WE CALL THEM CAN DO IT. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO OVER THERE AND GET LOST. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT'S 600 TO 700 MILLION DOLLARS OF REVENUE A YEAR. FOUR OR FIVE BILLION DOLLARS IN ASSETS. I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS AN AUDITOR OF A COMPANY THAT BIG WOULD TAKE ME ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO AULT, EVEN IF I HAD A TEAM OF TRAINED ACCOUNTANTS. SO, LIKE I SAY, WHETHER THIS PASSES — I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT WHETHER THE CITIZENS PASS IT OR DON'T PASS IT, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO CHANGE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COUNCIL GETS INFORMATION ON ALL THESE CRITICAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DECIDED ON BY POLICY MATTERS.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I'VE GOT A QUESTION. IS THIS POSITION GOING TO — IS THIS PERSON, THE ANALYST NOW CALLED, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A STAFF, HE OR SHE GOING TO HAVE A STAFF?

MAYOR GARCIA: IF WE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET IT WILL HAVE A STAFF. IF WE DON'T PUT IT — AND THAT DECISION TO PUT IT IN THE BUDGET IS NOT MADE BY THE CITIZENS, IT'S MADE BY US.

SLUSHER: YEAH. I WAS — I NOTICE NONE OF THE PROCEED PRO NENTS STEPPED UP TO ANSWER THAT.

ALVAREZ: IT'S IN THE PROCESS, THAT'S WHY.

SLUSHER: IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CITY CHARTER TO HAVE AN ANALYST OR ANY POSITION, YOU WOULD KNOW WHETHER IT GOING TO HAVE A STAFF OR WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. AND THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE FEBLGHT OF THIS, BUT IT WOULD ALSO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BUDGET.

MAYOR GARCIA: LT ME READ YOU THE ELECTRIC UTILITY — INCIDENTALLY, PARAGRAPH 8 NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO ANALYST IN TWO OR THREE PAGES. THIS IS THE WAY IT READS. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL. THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST SHALL HAVE DUTIES MADE BY ORDINANCE, SUCH AS ADVISING THE COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES, PLANNING AND PRODUCT DELIVERY ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A PURCHASER OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, THIS WOULD ENTAIL ALL OF THE CONSUMERS BECAUSE ALL OF THEM BUY FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, SIR, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: OTHER FOLKS HAVE TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS REPEATED OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO AND SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND REPEAT WHAT I SAID AS WELL. I AM SUPPORTING THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT AND I THINK WERNLLY WE'VE MADE SOME PRETTY WILD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPEN. BUT I THINK IT IS A NEW DAY IN THE UTILITY, FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY IN TEXAS AND MANY OTHER CITIES WHERE DEREGULATION IS TAKING EFFECT. AND WE GET PAST THAT AND THE OPEN RECORDS ORDINANCE WITH THE BUDGET LAST SEPTEMBER. AND SO BASICALLY OF THE SEVEN PEOPLE HERE, NONE OF WHOM HAVE EXPERTISE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY, TO EVALUATE WHAT IT HAPPENING OVER THERE AND EVALUATING BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED TO US, TYPICALLY WE JUST — WE JUST HEAR RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR US TO ACT ON, AND WE REALLY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT ALL THE OPTIONS SH. AND FOR ME THAT'S WHAT — MY INTEREST IN THIS IS TO GET MORE INFORMATION SO I CAN MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS. AND SO — BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S — MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN'T BE OVER THERE LOOKING AT THE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES AND SORT OF ASSISTING US IN TERMS OF ADEQUATELY PURSUING OUR DUTIES AND ADVOCATING FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I THINK THIS IS ESSENTIAL GIVEN THE NEW STATE OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY. AND IN TERMS OF POLICIES, I THINK MYSELF, I DON'T REALLY HAVE — I'M NOT AT ODDS IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT POLICIES OF THE UTILITY. I'M NOT AT ODDS WITH THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER HAS HANDLED IT OR THE GENERAL EMERGENCYBUT BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES AND IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WE NEED TO INSTITUTE IN MEASURES TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AND SAFEGUARDED. AND THIS IS ONE WAY OF INSTITUTIONAL LIESING SOME PUBLIC OVERSIGHT WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED. IT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THESE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SITTING UP HERE. AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FINANCIAL PLANNING OR FINANCIAL RECORD KEEPING, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HELP MAKE MYSELF — I FEEL I WILL BE ABLE TO BETTER ADVOCATE FOR THE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S REALLY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE INTENTION OF THIS IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS CHECKS AND BALANCES AND THAT THAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE MAKING THE DECISIONS ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM ALL THE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO I THINK I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. VERY GOOD. MR. STEINER, YOU KNOW HOW THE LANGUAGE WILL BE CHANGED IN THE ORDINANCE?

STEINER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE VOTE ON THIS THING IS PRETTY WELL IDENTIFIED OUT. I'LL ASK FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DO VOTE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND THE ORDINANCE — THE BALLOT LANGUAGE — I'LL GET THIS IN JUST A MINUTE. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT PASS ODD A VOTED OF FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS GARCIA, SLUSHER AND WYNN VOTING NAY. OKAY. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ONE. COUNCIL, THE LAST ONE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE WE GO INTO NUMBERING IS ONE THAT WE DIDN'T CONSIDER BEFORE, AND IT HAS TO DO — WND WE DON'T HAVE — AND WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE. AND I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THIS ONE. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE INCREASING OF THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

SIR, THE FORM THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD TAKE WOULD BE IDENTICAL TO THE FORM — THE WRAPAROUND FORM THAT THE OTHER ORDINANCES HAVE, SO EVERYTHING WOULD BE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE WORD — THE WORDS OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION AND THE WORDS OF THE TEXT CHANGE THAT WOULD OCCUR IN THE CHARTER. I BELIEVE THAT YOU MAY HAVE A COPY OF PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. THE TEXT CHANGE ADDS ONE PART, AND THAT IS IT SAYS SOMEWHERE INCORPORATED INTO THE LANGUAGE IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY NOT CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNDER THIS AUTHORITY IF HE — IF HE OR SHE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CONTRACT'S FULL SCOPE OF WORK SHALL EXCEED THE FULL LIMITS OF HIS OR HER AUTHORITY.

IF IT PLEASE THE COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF USING THE PRONOUN, I WOULD JUST SAY IF THE MANAGER, INSTEAD OF USING A PRONOUN, JUST STATE THE NAME OF THE MANAGER AND THAT WAY WE AVOID THE PRONOUN. PRONOUNS ARE GOOD TO AVOID. SO WHEREVER IT SAYS HE, I WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE MANAGER. AND WHEREVER IT SAYS HIS, I WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE MANAGER'S.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE OTHER CHANGE IS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT WAY IN THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW, THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN SPEND IS $25,000 PLUS CPI. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT WE MOVE THAT TO 100,000 WITH NO CPI SO THAT IT WOULD THEN ALLOW IT TO STAY THAT WAY FOR — UNTIL THERE'S ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT LATER. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE, COUNCIL? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I MOVE APPROVAL — I'M LOOKING AT J HERE. KEEPING THE CURRENT CAP AS IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: 43 WITH CPI. ACTUALLY, 25,000, PLUS CPI.

GRIFFITH: I'LL SECOND THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND DO YOU ALL WANT TO INCLUDE THAT STHNS THAT I READ — THAT SENTENCE THAT I READ?

GRIFFITH: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: THE ONE ABOUT EACH YEAR THE CONTRACT, NOT ENT TIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. THE CITY MANAGER MAY NOT CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNDER THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY IF THE MANAGER KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S FULL SCOPE OF WORK WILL EXCEED THE LIMITS OF THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY. OKAY. YOU ACCEPT THAT IN YOUR MOTION?

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR. ISN'T THAT ONE THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, THAT'S THE ONE I TALKED ABOUT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, COULD WE HAVE THE WHOLE MOTION OR BALLOT LANGUAGE READ THEN?

STEINER: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. LET ME SEE IF I DO. THE MOTION WAS NOT TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS?

MAYOR GARCIu CORRECT. 25 PLUS CPI.

STEINER: MERELY TO ADD THE RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE PROABTING THE MANAGER'S CONTRACTING OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. AND IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT THAT LIMIT APPLIES TO EVERY YEAR, NOT — LET'S SAY WE BUY FOUR YEARS' WORTH OF BATTERIES. THE MANAGER CAN BUY 43,000 PLUS CPI EACH ONE OF THOSE YEARS.

EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT. I UNDERSTAND. SO THE — MY ADVICE WOULD BE IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANT IT TO BE, THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND WRITE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNT, 43,000, SO THAT — BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD LIKE AS IF WE WERE REVERTING BACK TO 25 AND STARTING OVER. SO WE WOULD CHANGE THE 25 TO 43,000 AND LEAVE IN THE TEXT REGARDING THE CPI ADJUSTMENT. SO WHEREVER IT SAYS 25,000 DOLLARS, WE WOULD BE SAYING $43,000 ANNUALLY AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE TEXT IN THERE REGARDING THE LIMITATION AND THEN WE WOULD KEEP THE PROCEED VIE SO ABOUT CPI EYE JUSTMENTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? IS THAT A FRIENDLY?

GRIFFITH: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I STILL DIDN'T GET THE BALLOT LANGUAGE READ BURKS LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. THAT WE KEEP THE LIMIT WHERE IT IS, 43,000, AND STILL TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, AND WE CLARIFY THAT THE MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE LIMIT ON A CONTRACT IN EACH YEAR OF A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT. AND THIRD, WE — WE SAY THAT THE MANAGER SHOULD NOT — CANNOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WHERE HE WOULD START — HE OR SHE WOULD START AT BELOW THE FREE,000-DOLLAR LIMIT WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE LARGER THAN THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT.

STEINER: IF THAT IS THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, THEN I COULD SUGGEST SOME BALLOT LANGUAGE. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE CITY MANAGER MAY CONTRACT WITHOUT SPECIFIC COUNCIL APPROVAL IS CALCULATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RATHER THAN OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT.

SLUSHER: AND WHAT ABOUT THE MAYOR'S SENTENCE?

STEINER: THAT WILL BE THERE, BUT I CAN'T — IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT INTO THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, WE CAN, BUT IT WILL BE PART OF THE AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WE COULD SAY AND —

AND PROHIBITING THE CITY MANAGER FROM ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT MAY EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. THAT'S THE WAY —

SLUSHER: I LIKE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

STEINER: SO THEN IT WOULD BE SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE CITY MANAGER MAY CONTRACT WITHOUT SPECIFIC COUNCIL APPROVAL IS CALCULATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RATHER THAN OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT AND TO PROHIBIT THE CITY MANAGER FROM ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT MAY EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY.

STEINER: THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY. YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

YOU WERE BEING SO SENSITIVE RIGHT UP TO THAT MOMENT?

I'M A DINOSAUR.

SLUSHER: I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK. THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS LEADING UP TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPOSALS THAT WOULD DILUTE THE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND START TO MAKE IT INTO MORE OF A HIGHID SYSTEM. THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS MADE ON THE BALLOT WAS THE CONSUMER ANALYST AND I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT FOR THE REASONS LIKE THAT BECAUSE I WANTED TO KEEP THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE BALANCE LIKE I THINK IT WAS INTENDED. AND I THINK IF I VOTED FOR THIS ONE, IT WOULD BE GOING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION BECAUSE WE'RE — WE WOULD BE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE MANAGER CAN SPEND WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT LIKE THIS AND NOT IN FAVOR OF RAISING THAT LIMIT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THAT BALANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: GOT IT. OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT A CHARTER AMENDMENT IS NEEDED IF THE CITY LIMIT IS STAYING THE SAME. DO WE THEED JUST TO CLARIFY THE ANNUAL ISSUE?

YES, SIR, I THINK SO. AND AS I SAY, WE WILL SUBSTITUTE THE 25 TO THE CURRENT AMOUNT SO THAT THE — SO THAT THE CONSUMER INDEXING WILL BEGIN ON THE MOST RECENT CONSUMER INDEX AFTER MAY 4TH, 2002 BASED ON THE 43,000 JUST TO BRING THE 25,000 —

WYNN: IT'S DOING THAT ALLEADY.

IT IS DOING THAT ALREADY.

WYNN: IT WILL DO THAT 500 YEARS FROM NOW WITH NO ACTION. WHY ARE WE PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT?

STEINER: THOSE THINGS I WOULD DO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT REVERTING BACK TO THE 25.

WYNN: IF WE DO NOTHING, THERE'S NO ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE REVERTING BACK TO 25 BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.

YES, SIR, TWO THINGS WILL CHANGE. ONE THING THAT WILL CHANGE WILL BE THAT THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY WILL BE CALCULATED ON EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. WIN WIND AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT TAKES CHARTER CHANGE?

THAT ACHES TAKES CHARTER CHANGE. AND THE OTHER THING IS THERE WILL BE A RESTRICTION ON THE MANAGER ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT THAT HE REASONBLY SHOULD KNOW WILL EXCEED THE AUTHORITY OVER ITS LIFE. THAT THE MANAGER WILL KNOW.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MEATION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. AND WE DID THIS RIGHT, MS. BROWN, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO WATCH THE TAPE. NOW, THE LAST ITEM IS THE ORDER THAT WE WANT. AND LET ME TELL YOU THE ONES THAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE, THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. WE HAVE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS, THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION POSITIVE TUB LISH CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. AND RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES APPOINTED BY DOWN. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ANALYST. AND THE LAST ONE, INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE PUT THE — PUT THEM IN THIS ORDER, CITIZEN INITIATIVE FIRST AND THEN GO DOWN THE OTHERS. UNLESS YOU ALL WANT TO CHANGE AND PUT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FIRST. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS THE ONE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS — AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAS DELIBERATED MOST ON. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON BALLOT ORDER.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THE CITIZEN INITIATIVIVE — THAT IT SHOULD COME FIRST. THIS GETS US MOVING. I'LL JUST MOVE THAT THE ORDER IS AS THE MAYOR READ THEN, WITH THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE BEING FIRST, FOLLOWED BY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, TERM LIMITS, NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION, RESIGN TO RUN, THE 100-DOLLAR REPEAL, THE ANALYST AND THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY —

SLUSHER: MAYOR, SHORT QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER WYNN CALLED IT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. IT'S A MIXED SYSTEM, BUT THERE ARE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITHIN IT. BUT THAT JUST BRINGS TO MIND THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY HEADINGS ON THERE. THE HEADING OF EACH ITEM WILL BE LIKE PROPOSITION ONE, PROPOSITION 2 AND THEN THE LAJ. THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT ON THE BALLOT, WILL THERE?

NO, SIR. PROPOSITION 1, YES/NO ON THE LEFT AND THEN A STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSITION.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS?

SLUSHER: WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE?

I WAS GOING TO ASK ONCE AGAIN TO GOT THE ORDER. NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST LIKE WE HAVE IT IN THIS — LIKE WE HAVE IT EVERYWHERE.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: NOW THAT I MADE THAT MOTION, I WANT TO BRING UP ONE DISCUSSION ITEM. THE REPEAL OF THE 100-DOLLAR LIMIT IS A — JUST A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ISSUE. DO WE NEED TO PUT THAT FOLLOWING THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE? I MEAN, JUST — I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED, BUT THERE'S SORT OF A COMMON ALTY THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A CERTAIN CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO ISSUES. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE TWO THINGS ARE CONNECTED ONE WITH THE OTHER.

SLUSHER: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME DIRECTLY — ONE DIRECTLY AFFECTS —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS THE AMENDMENT, WHICH I'M SURE YOU WILL FIND FRIENDLY TORKS PUT THE 100-DOLLAR REPEAL RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND BEFORE THE MIXED SYSTEM?

WYNN: IT WILL MOVE UP TO BE THE SECOND ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NAY. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. > JUST FOR THE RECORD I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND WHEN IT ENACTED EACH OF THE ORDINANCES THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE ON THE DRAFT AND EACH OF THE DRAFT IN FINAL FORM WILL BE PREPARED WITH THE PROPOSITION NUMBERS AS YOU JUST LAID THEM OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. YOU PROBABLY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND CHECK WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK AND MR. ROBERTSON TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE STILL NEED TO DO, WE DO BEFORE WE HAVE — THAT WE TRY TO DO THEM BY THE FOURTH OF APRIL WHEN WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING OR BY THE THIRD. YOU MAY WANT TO POST SOMETHING ON THE THIRD WORK SESSION TO SEE IF WE NEED TO TOUCH ON ANYTHING THAT WE MAY HAVE NEED TO TOUCH, LIKE MAPS.

THERE MAY BE SOMETHING. BUT I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THESE ORDINANCE DRAFTS AND WE CAN — I WILL, OF COURSE, CHECK THE TRANSCRIPTS TOMORROW TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE LANGUAGE IS JUST AS IT WAS SAID AND THEN I'LL PREPARE THE FINAL FOR YOUR SIGNATURE.

JUST TO ADVISE COUNCIL OF A SCHEDULING ISSUE WE HAVE. WE HAVE TO GET THIS TO A TRANSLATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO BE TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH. AND THE PRINTER HAD SAID THAT IF WE GET THEM INTO THEM ANY LATER THAN APRIL 5TH, THEY CANNOT HAVE THEM DONE IN TIME TO OPEN FOR EARLY VOTING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS READY TO GO. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO TOY WITH THAT ONE. WE COULDN'T TOY WITH IT, I DON'T THINK. BUT THERE'S A MAPS ISSUE AND SOME OTHER STUFF. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE PUBLISHED, SO IT'S JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. CORRECT? THAT'S ALL YOU'RE SENDING TO THE PRINTERS?

WE DO HAVE THE PUBLISH THE ORDINANCES, BUT THE CRITICAL PART IS GETTING IT TO THE PRINTERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, THE PRINTER WILL HAVE THE ORDINANCE ALSO PRINTED? I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

IT'S JUST THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, BUT WE HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE COUNCIL, SO IF THERE'S A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL THOSE IF FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log