Council Transcript, 2/12/98

Bookmarks

>>Goodman: For the first proclamation I would like to ask Charles Kiefer to come up with us. This proclamation is to let it be known that Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin does hereby proclaim February 22 through February 28, 1998, as heating, refrigeration and air conditioning engineering and technology week in Austin. This kind of stuff is very important to those of us who live in a climate that can be very hot and very cold all in the same day. We call on all citizens to join us in recognizing that heating, refrigeration and air conditioning are often taken for granted and are a key part of the quality of life we have come to enjoy. In recognizing that the proper design, installation and maintenance of heating, refrigeration and air conditioning systems and equipment depends upon a team of professionals dedicated to providing quality, comprehensive services. In saluting they can technicians for their skills in the rigorous design, installation, testing, balancing, maintaining and repairing of equipment used by facility owners and occupants and in urging community-wide support of these skilled professionals and the important role they play in offering quality services throughout the City, state and nation. Think about it for just a second. These are the people who allow us to live here without dying of heat or cold and they are pretty important. Thank you, and all of you who take care of us. [Applause].

>> Well, it is a pleasure to be able to accept this proclamation and this is also a part of the national engineers week, which is a national celebration of the engineers that work towards improving the quality of life and making things much better all the way. The local chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration Air conditioning engineers, which is why we use the acronym a lot, is comprised of about 200 people. Engineers, technicians, contractors, all involved in maintaining a quality of life. We also are very concerned both at the local and national level about indoor air quality about ozone depletion, we're heavily involved in that and energy conservation, and all of this works toward not only improving the lived in environment but also working towards protecting the whole environment. On a grander scale, throughout history engineers have consistently taken scientific advances and developed them into practical, usable applications that assist people and make life easier. Scientists discover x-rays, engineers come up with the machines that can look through objects. Science have discovered superconducting and also semiconducting materials, engineers develop trance is stores, integrated circuits that bring us TVs, that bring us automatic brake systems, a whole range of things. They come up -- the scientists come up with a laser and engineers develop a machine to repair eye damage and make surgery much easier. So there's a lot of things that -- such as they improve strength of materials and then engineers will come along and design lighter, faster airplanes, safer automobiles, stronger bridges, all of these things, so many of the things that we take for granted on a day to day life have an evening nearing involvement. So on behalf of not only the group here in town but also on behalf of the whole engineering community that lives and works in this area, I want to thank you all for this recognition and we promise to continue to work towards making life better. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause]. Our next proclamation is kind of a special one, it's Mr. Rogers' neighborhood sweater drive day so we're going to do something special. [Laughter]. Can you say dorky Mayor? be it known by these presence that I Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, Texas do hereby proclaim February 14th, 1998 as Mr. Rogers neighborhood sweater drive day in Austin. And I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing that for 30 years Mr. Rogers neighborhood has personified a place where caring and consideration for others instills good feelings in all of us. In commending Mr. Rogers for his life long dedication to children as demonstrated through his public television show and recognizing that Fred Rogers card began sweater has come to symbol lies the general spirit and warmth of Mr. Rogers neighborhood, in recognizing everyone to -- and encouraging everyone to participate in the Mr. Rogers neighborhood sweater drive sponsored by KLRU TV to provide new or gently used sweaters and sweat shirts to children in foster care in Austin and in celebrating the 30th anniversary of Mr. Rogers neighborhood and it's signed bee me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin and please come forward. The first sweater to be donated as part of this, I have that for you.

>> Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: and I really appreciate all you are doing.

>> We appreciate it.

>>Mayor Watson: please step us and tell us a little more about it.

>> Thank you. I appreciate it, Mayor and Council. KLRU with Austin joins in celebration of Mr. Rogers anniversary as being part of our family and part of our neighborhood. We are pleased to know that Austin is opening its heart, first with this sweater and with other sweaters and sweatshirts on Saturday. We thank highland mall for providing us the opportunity to come together, to bring the sweaters and sweatshirts for children. These sweaters will go to the rainbow room, a resource for foster families, and I'm please to do have with us today representatives of the rainbow room who will be receiving all the sweaters that come in as a result of the sweater drive.

>> Thank you very much. My name is Tom Forbes, the immediate past president of the Travis County children's advocacy center and the rainbow room the part that have program and we have to thank KLRU and the City and our community. This is another example of the caring and concern that our community has for our children and thank you for this effort.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Thank very much. -- Thank you very much. No, no. You got to be ready. Now for some very, very special music. We're very excited to have with us today Shawn Colvin. On Tuesday, January ?, Austinite Shawn Colvin found herself nominated for three Grammy awards. Her hit record Sunny Came Home is competing for honors as record of the year, song of the year and best female pop vocal performance. This same album was also nominated for two Grammies last year. In 1990, Shawn took home the best contemporary folk programming for her debut album. She was born and raised in south Dakota and moved to Austin in 1994 and in 1995 she began working on her fourth album, a few small repairs in her home. More recently she has been involved in television. Her song nothing on me is the song for Suddenly Susan and the producers were so enamored of Shawn and her music they wrote her into an episode which aired February 2. She has toured with Neal Young Richard Thompson and Lyle Lovett and was featured in the Lilith Fair last summer. She married a local photographer last summer and are expecting their first child in August. We are very honored to have you here today. Everybody help me in welcoming Shawn Colvin. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: while we're giving her an Austin music pin, let me proclaim, "Be it known that Kirk Watson do hereby proclaim February 12, 1998 as Shawn Colvin day and ask all citizens in asking me to recognize the many outstanding contributions toward the local music couldn't toward the social, cultural and musical diverse and and recognizing the diversity of artists which further Austin as the live music capital of the world, signed by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. Ladies and gentlemen, Shawn Colvin. [Applause].

>> Thank you very much. Quite an honor. I'm going to sing a song for you by Graham Parsons. It mentions the South by Southwest Conference being in the song. I don't know why he wrote about south Carolina. I'm thinking about Austin as I sing this song, but it reminds me of the way that I feel about Austin and I'll sing this for you now. (Music)
(Music)
singing (Music)
(Music)
. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Would you like to say something?

>> yes.

>>Mayor Watson: please do.

>> Thank you very much. I don't really have anything planned to say. I lived here in Austin in 1975 and 1976 and I fell in love with it then. I always wanted to come back, and as soon as I had the chance to get out of New York City and Los Angeles, that -- I did love New York although I didn't love Los Angeles - I did come back as soon as I could. It's a rare place for me that would -- that would honor me in this way and make me feel so at home and I knew that when I came back here and it's appreciated more than you can know. Also I would like to pay my respect to the greatest radio station in the world, KGSR who has always made me feel really great and to all of you for giving me this honor, I love Austin and I hope I can be here more often in the future to help out the community. I'm never home, which is the irony of all of this and we're looking forward to raising our child here. Thank you very, very much.

>>Mayor Watson: Thank you. Congratulations on the baby.

>> Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: at this time I would like to ask everyone to rise and join us in our invocation which will be delivered today by the Reverend Ken Thompson of Walnut Creek Baptist Church. Reverend Thompson? that's all right.

>> Would you join me as we pray. Lord on us all we gather here to day to celebrate our diversity with dialogue and debate rejoice thanking in your wisdom you have given us this unique place where we may live and pursue our individual dreams whatever they may be for the good of us all. And very thankful for having been chosen to be a part of the protection and welfare of its resources and its people. Grant to those who listen to us this day these great gifts, the wisdom of Soloman, the patience of Job and the compassion of St. Francis. To those of us who speak to them, give us also an equal measure of these gifts with one more addition, the gift of discernment. As the great and small issues of this City are deliberated let there be oneness among us all that ... brother shed a tear we all taste the salt. Help us also to remember that the anterior can absorb only had which the posterior can endure and the strong name of him who walked among us we pray. Amen.

>>Mayor Watson: Amen. Reverend, thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it. At this time I will call to order the City Council of Austin, Texas in a regular meeting. We are meeting February 12, 1998 at City Council Chambers 302 West Second St. Item number One is the approval of minutes for our regular meeting of February 4th. We will wait on approval of the minutes for the regular meeting of February 5th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of February 4th, 1998? motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember second Griffith. Any discussion in hearing no one all in favor say aye. ---? motion carries. The next item is citizens communication general but before we go to that what I would like to do is we have an item posted for executive session which is a staff briefing to discuss implementation of meat and confer contract for the City -- for the Austin Police Department pursuant to section 551.075. We're not going to immediately recess into that, but purchase stount the rules of the City Council, before we can obtain a staff briefing in executive session there must be a vote of at least five members of the Council. At this time I would entertain a motion to allow for a staff briefing in executive session pursuant to 551.075 of the Texas government code. Is there a motion? motion made by the Mayor pro tem. Second? seconded by Councilmember look wiz. Any discussion? hearing none all those in favor say aye? opposed, say no no. Motion passes with a vote of 6 to 0 with Councilmember Spelman off the dais. It is right at 2:00. What I was going to do is -- for bond purposes go ahead and get that done. Folks, what we're going to do is we have an item set for a time certain of 2:00 which relates to bonds and because of the critical nature of time when we're doing this, I wanted to go ahead and get this done so we would not have to delay it any further. So with your indulgence we're right at 2:00 and I'll wait for just a moment and then we'll do -- if you will come forward.

>> Mayor and Council, thank you for the consideration. I'll be very brief. We received a come pef basis nine bids for $21 million 50,000 revenue bonds for the third floor of the rental car garage at the airport. These bonds will be paid by customer finance charges and not by the City of Austin. Of these nine bids the lowest bid was from first union capital markets. Again, this was a taxable versus a tax exempt bond sale. That interest rate was 6.176428. Darn good rate in our opinion and we recommend approval.

>>Mayor Watson: you've heard the report. Let me ask, is there anyone here that wish toes speak on this item? I don't have any cards there is someone signed up to speak but I want to make sure.

>> What item was that?

>>Mayor Watson: item no. 9, The 2:00 -- okay. No one is signed up to speak. You have heard the report. Is there a motion to approve? motion made by the Mayor pro tem. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman to approval item no. 9. Any discussion? hearing herg opposed, say no? motion carries. Thank you very much. That concludes item no. T. That will take us back to our general citizens communication and I will recognize Steven Reid and Bonnie Harvey and Gus Pena. Steven Reid.

>>Garcia: Mr. Ried and Mr. Harvey -- ms. Harvey have withdrawn their requests.

>>Mayor Watson: is bonnie harvey here? bonnie harvey? all right. Mr. Gus Pena. Mr. Pena? Mr. Gus Pena. John mack million lynn followed by Paul robins and velma Roberts. Welcome, Mr. Mc Millan.

>> Thank you. I'm here with progressive prohibitionists religion, I'm president of that religion in town the phone no. 3 05-4599. My name is John McMillan. I'm here first of all to thank the Austin City Council for their very commendable vote of last thursday to authorize the development of design plans for the Citywide conversion or at least the proposed conversion toward a state of the art traffic light system for Austin. Understand that along with that vote the City has authorized installation of this new type of technology on selected corridors around town such as lamar bloofld, for example, -- boulevard and I've been told by one City official Mr. Matthew kite horx is assistant director of the City of Austin Public Works and transportation department, that in several cities of california, they already have the state of the art traffic light technology in place and it is very effective, very reliable and very dependable. It makes good sense for Austin to move toward that type of system too. Right now I find that when we have an electric storm in town and it's often quite precarious when you reach an intersection but you can't be sure the street lights will be on, that the traffic lights will be worb will. Mr. Kite tells me we can expect to two five intersections at electric storm at prchbt. Austin will either have their power go off or go into flashing lights and I feel with this kind of break down situation in our traffic light system in Austin right now, poses a public safety hazard, increases the risk of accidents occurring at intersections in Austin and it also represents an increased incidence of idling at street intersections as people try to figure out which way to proceed when the street lights aren't working there. And Mr. Kite points out this also waste lots of gasoline which is a precious fossil fuel in our town. So the plans to move toward this new system are very much appreciated and I'm just very hoping that City Council will also take the lead to call for a special bond election to help finance what is expected to be a 12 to 16 million dollar amount that is still -- of which funds are still needed to help us finance the Citywide traffic light system that is similar to what they have in los angeles, california. Also I'm told by Mr. Kite that if the City were to apply for sat and federal funds, this could also help the City to fully finance that project. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Mc Millan. Paul robbins, followed by velma Roberts and then dorothy turner. Welcome, Mr. Robbins.

>> Welcome, Mr. Watson. I am here to advise the Council to please set a work session on air pollution in general and on energy conservation as part of that topic. I watched you all award a continuation of the contract to metsler and associates, the consultants, yesterday, and I need to comment that the consultants advising you on energy policy are like all of us, fallible human beings, and they make mistakes. They are not from Austin, so they have a learning curve. I, however, have been here 20 years and have been working on energy issues that long. While I think some of their ideas do have some merit, I think other of their ideas are precarious, and we, I and all of us are going to have to deal with the wreckage of their failed programs after they are gone. I would like to prevent as many failed programs as possible while they are here. And to this end I think it would be helpful for all of us to get these issues on the table. There is information that you may not have or may not fully have that you need to deal with this -- and you need to deal with this in context and deliberatively. My understanding is that there is going to be a proposal given to you at the end of February that's going to propose some changes to the rebate program. I -- they are going to propose phasing the amount for all but the vo smallest customers. I request not support this because it jeopardizes some of the energy savings and it will possibly create more air pollution because of that. I think we need a better insurance policy than the proposal that will be given to you. I -- they want to set a cut-off limit at 20 kill low watts. I think the cut-off limit should be more like 200. Also, nechlt stler taken City management still continue to persist in transferring the marketing of the conservation programs to the electrical department. I think that this is a failed policy and if you don't change it, I'm going to be here to say I told you so.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Velma Roberts and then dorothy turner.

>> Hi, my name is velma Roberts. I am president of sisters in the hood. What I'm here to talk about today is the action that you took last thursday regarding the ara board and its policies. Never in the history of the City Council has the -- they dictated to any groups to contract with them who set on their board, the makeup of the board and who -- what is a quorum and their policies. That has never happened. And we're really upset about that. That you've taken that position. We also are upset that everything that happens in east you give willie Lewis the lead. Well, we hold all of you accountable because we know that the other six of you throw a rock, hide your hand and put willie Lewis out there. So all of you are accountable. I think the most appalling thing that you did, the action the negative action that you did towards the black community is in black history month. That you take this action on us. You know, you take us back -- you do take us back into history. You take us back to the 19th century and the early 20th century where it was legal to lynch us. And the lynching that you are doing now is a political lynching and what I say to you all of you, is the honorable thing to do is resign immediately.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, ms. Roberts. Ms. Turner? welcome.

>> Good afternoon. I'd like to pass these out. Could I -- could you all hold on my time to -- until you all look at that?

>>Mayor Watson: sure. Let's not start ms. Turner's time until I indicate. If you can please start her time now. Welcome, ms turner.

>> That's the oath of office that you all signed off on when you was installed in your positions as Mayor and Councilmembers. I have a statement I'm going to read and I'm going to try to read it calmly to you all. One of the reasons I'm having to read this is because every time I think about what I would like to call you all and what you need to be called, it runs my blood pressure up and I can't afford for that to happen right now. Okay? and I want to do this myself instead of bringing my soldiers off to deal with you all so I have to keep calm, so I'm going the read this to you all. Okay? one of the laws of this state as it pertains to this City is that this City is governed by a City Manager and Mayor and City Council form of government and a at large system. When you took this oath, you were solemnly sward to preserve, protect and defend the laws of this state for every man, woman and child in this City. So help you god. Okay? but you have consistently broke the law by rel gagt every issue that has anything to do with East Austin and the black community to willie Lewis. East Austin has always been treated like the stepchild in this City. But at least every previous Councilmember in place 6 would always pick up the torch of the previous place 6 Councilmember and try to expand on the project they were trying to get completed. Not the case with this Council. Every project that eric mitchell was trying to get completed is being sabotaged by willie Lewis and you his public masters. The saddest thing about this Council and your problem with a strong black man as eric mitchell is if you check your history, you would have realized that every project that ever -- eric mitchell attempted to get completed started with former Councilmembers jimmy snel and Dr. Charles urdy. So my suggestion to you all seven you, resign your position. We need a clean slate up there

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. At this time the City Council -- we did not complete the business we need to complete in executive session much we just took a vote with regard to staff briefing, so I will entertain a motion to recess, to go into executive session for private consultation with our attorney pursuant to sex 551.071 to discuss legal issues relating to annexation and to discuss City of Austin versus horse thief hollow range limited, cause no. 9800248 In the Travis County district court. I will-we would also go into executive session for a staff briefing purpose turnt to sex 551.075. To the staff briefing will be to discuss implementation of meet and confer contracts for the Austin Police Department. Tell you what, Councilmember Council, before I do, before I entertain that motion let me do something I didn't do because we were trying to get to the bond thing. Let me go through changes and contributions to the agenda and what we will do is we will also identify the consent agenda so that those of you who may be here to speak on an item only if it is pulled from the consent agenda will have that information and you can make your determinations about whether you wish to stay. Changes and corrections to the agenda. On item no. 13, Item no. 13 Is pulled from the agenda. Item no. 13 Is pulled from the agenda. 21, Agreement with environmental technologies shubd noted at wbefr with a prime participation of 71 point 2%. No. 23, Amend the capital budget of the financial services department and ems for a ems station at 5309 riverside was recommended by the Planning Commission. Was recommended by the Planning Commission. Item no. 31, Amend the capitol budget of the fire department for annexation related fire stations was recommended -- okay. By the Planning Commission. 37, Amend the capital budget of the watershed protection department was recommended by the planning -- was recommended by the planning commission and environmental board. 41, Authorize intent to participate in the brushy creek regional system should read: reviewed. Reviewed by water and waste water commission. Item no. 45, Set a public hearing on appeal for dell jewish community center should read: March 12, 1998 at 6 p.m. 47 Should read: approve a resolution directing the City manager to develop and present a plan on February 26, 1998. Which address the development innocent I I was and infrastructure needs, et cetera. 63 And 65, public hearing and approval of zoning territory of all territory and necked december 31, 1998 is postponed to March 26, 1998 yx contribution 1997, postponed to March 26, 18998 at 6 clone 30. Item no. 66 Should read approve a resolution authorizing negotiation and execution of amendments to private hauler contracts in the former southland oaks mud and circle c muds, et cetera. Items set for a time certain. At 3:30, item 50 related to the Austin housing finance corporation. At 4:30, items 51 through 62 related to zoning. At 6:30, item no. Of 4, a public hearing to authorize fee increases proposed by current solid waste krbters serving newly annexed residents in the former southland oaks municipal utility district and the circle c mud sz. With that, let me go forward and identify the consent agenda and those items that have been pulled so general if you are here to speak on an item only if it is pulled from the consent agenda we'll be able to do that. Items on the consent agenda. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 27, 28, -- No, I'm sorry, 27. We're going to pull, 28, 29d and 30. 31, 32, 3 -- 36, 37, 38, On item no. 40, Mayor pro tem company go ahead to let you say what your substitute motion would be so we can have that as part of the consent agenda?

>>Garcia: sure. The motion is to approve the ten firms as recommended by staff. And to approve an additional three officials that are in the alternate recommendations -- firms that are in the alternate recommendations and the backup.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember good man do you have -- in case you need a second on that. That will be the substitute motion on consent for item no. 40.

>>Garcia: one other thing is the posted item on the agenda has the amount estimated $250,000 per firm with the additional -- addition of the three firms that comes out to approximately $192,000 per firm.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor pro tem. Also on the consent agenda, 41 42, 43, 44, 45, with the correction that is noted of March 12th. Instead of March 5th. 46, 47, With the change to develop and present the plan by February 26th as previously noted. 48, And we will also deal with item no. 71, Which is are appointments to the boards and commissions. And what I'll do is I'll go ahead and read those out. Board of adjustments, fill list welder, consensus. Construction advisory committee, susan litts, a reappointment by Councilmember Goodman. Design commission, soldier rarld kinny and philip rooid h. Ried. Downtown commission, leslie pool, a reappointment arts commission representative, elaine kaert parks and recreation representative and clovis, a his for being representative by consensus. Electrical board, gordon by ram, a reappointment, a journeyman electrician representative by Councilmember Goodman. Ems kault assurance, Dr. Annie cartepenia by Councilmember Spelman. Human rights, tracesy wit lee, lids bet ross, reaappointment by concensus. Library commission, Daryl j. Glass ko by Mayor Watson, ms. Insider, reappointment by Councilmember Goodman. Mechanical, plumbing and solar board, thomas alexander. Michael prather, a reappointment, licensed air conditioning representative and michael nail a reappointment of master plumbing by consensus. Parks and recreation board, mike librick by Councilmember Goodman. Resource management commission albert steven deats by consensus. Urban forestry board, Robert cigar see I can't by Councilmember Spelman, Paul road even berry consensus. Urban transportation commission, steve or theman, consensus. Water and waste water commission james hail I by Mayor Watson. Council, are there any other tunnels that need to be pulled for discussion?

>>Garcia:.

>>Lewis: yes. I'd like to pull item 11 and 12. I understand 13 -- well, pull all three of them.

>>Mayor Watson: 13 has been pulled from the agenda.

>>Lewis: item 11 and 12.

>>Mayor Watson: on item no. 47 I'm going to pull that so that we will deal with that as a discussion item and -- I'll pull that so we deal with that as a discussion item. And not put it on the consent agenda at this time. Any other items that need to be pulled? the consent agenda will be the following: 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 31, 3 the, 36 -- 36, 37, 38, 40 is set -- asset forth by the Mayor pro tem as a substitute motion. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 With the correction issued to March 12, 46, 48, and 77. Do I have a motion? I'm sorry. What did I say? 77? got to be 71. [Laughter]. I don't know where I came up with 77. Motion has been made by Councilmember Lewis to approve the consent agenda and seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Any discussion in all in favor say aye? opposed, say no say no. Motion carries the consent agenda is passed. At this time I'll entertain a motion to recess to go into executive session as. Motion made by Councilmember.

>>Goodman: man. Hearing those in favor aa t ye. Motion carries, we're in recess for executive session.

Recess

>>I call back to order the Austin City Council. The first item we will take up -- actually, I am not going to call to or, I am going to go to our 3:30 time certain, item no. 50'S I will call to order the board of the Austin housing finance corporation, we will deal with item no. 50. Please come forward, welcome.

>> You want to go ahead?

>> I am ready. I have called the Austin housing -- the board of the Austinning finance corporation to order, so if you will please address us.

>> We have one item on the Council and that's to -- to -- the sale of the property on 900 east 11th, 901 and 903, juniper. As I said, we have one item on the agenda, this item 50 is approve the resolution to authorize the sale of 900 east 11 he street, which is ben's barbecue, and the two lots located behind it, 901 and 903 juniper to the current tenant that's running the barbecue place, ben's restaurant.

>>Mayor Watson: anybody have any questions or comments? Mayor pro tem.

>>.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. At the appropriate time I will make a motion, if it's appropriate right now I will do it.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by the Mayor pro tem to approve number 50. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. I will recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>>Garcia: this is one where we are doing the right thing. The guy has been operating in that place, very popular, a local fellow that's been there for a number of years. But I do want to say whatever it is that is done with this particular property, I understand there will be improvement, that those improvements be consistent with the master plan that ara is going to develop so that we have, you know, some control over what happens. You know, we don't have a situation where -- I don't know whether we can do that, how we can do that, but I'm making that a condition of this item. I think that we have agreed to that.

>> That will be part of the restrictive covenant on the land. Lewis? [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: I'm not sure your microphone is on. Councilmember Lewis as I understand it that's part of the restricted covenant, they will adhere to the master plan, within 12 months after the Council approves it. My question, though, is the adjoining lots east of the building, --

>> it's owned by a private party. Councilmember Lewis that was my next question. That's -- that's all that I have. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any other questions? any other discussion? motion has been made and seconded to approve item no. 50. All in favor, all opposed say no., motion carries. I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting of the board of the Austin housing finance corporation. Motion is made by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Any discussion? hearing none, all of those in favor say aye. All opposed say no., motion carries, we are adjourned, I will call back to order the Austin City Council, we will go to item no. 11, I will recognize Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. I am sure that other Council members have a -- have the letter from the parks department concerning this item. It was brought to my attention some weeks ago that there was some indecision between the two groups that was supposed to make the -- have the decision on which art piece to use. So in fact we are going to wait -- go to houston to look at fun town at the time. So I recommended that we use the school kids in the -- get some of the children from the surrounding schools and just put it before them since they are the ones that are going to be attending the center. As I understand, that that happened. The assistant parks director and entertainment center advisory committee worked through this to take it to the children at the school. And if you refer to your change in the backup, I understand they had 151 children that participated. The 131 voting in favor of one item and 20 in favor of the other. I know there was some question about whether or not the procedure is something that we should use, but I really believe that since these are going to be the children that -- that are using the entertainment center, that they voice -- their voice is something we need to listen to, plus it will give some ownership to the children in the -- that will be attending and using the entertainment center. So on that round, I will make a motion to approve item 11 for the -- let me make sure that I have it right now. Now, I don't want to approve the one for the wrong one. Somebody took any changes, where are my changes? okay. There. That we will award the contract to Mr. Talbert. I believe -- is that right? no. Mr. Newton. Okay. The contract will be awarded to Mr. Newton based primarily on the selection of the item by the children that was involved in the -- in the selection. I feel that the elementary children that was involved is not that politically inclined to try to determine the political aspect of their choice, so they was basically picking the item that they liked best. So ... And I move that we approve it.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by Councilmember Lewis to approve item no. 11 With the contract being awarded to Mr. Newton, there is a second?

>> seconded.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Griffith.

>>Goodman: although I can see the kind of benefit for this selection, I was not aware that the process had room for this kind of input, so again I see the benefit so I won't be voting for it because it was not laid out at the beginning.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? we have several -- we have three people that have signed up to speak. Dorothy turner. Ms. Turner?

>> I am in support of -- I don't need to speak.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. You are in support of the motion?

>> right.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, ms. Turner. Michael bryant? good afternoon, my name is michael bryant, vice chair of the entertainment center advisory board. This week following Councilmember Lewis's recommendation we went to four area schools that were located near the center, oak springs elementary, campbell elementary, kealing junior high, Johnson high school and went to two classes in each school. I, along the kendall months, deputy director of parks and recreation department, made the presentations without reference to the artists or anything like that. We basically talked about the history of the center, opened up the floor to questions from the kids and made a basic presentation about the two proposals, allowed them to come up and look at each proposal, ask their questions. With a resounding vote of approval for Mr. Newton's work, their votes were counted. I do believe in the process, while a process was agreed to by the entertainment center advisory board and arts in public places panel, that there was room after the arts commission makes their recommendation to the Council that the Council has final authority in terms of which art is selected. It was mentioned during this whole process, this is -- taking some time to get to the process to approve one of these two pieces, that there had been sort of a glaring omission in the process and basically that was the voice of the children who for the past five years have been looked at to be the primary citizens who will use the facility. I think that by going to the schools and taking a vote, with over 150 students, that we now have their input and I think solid input that the Council should follow their direction. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much Mr. Bryant. Charles henry donated his time. Mr. Henry if you are here? Mr. Henry? Mr. Henry donated his time to Mr. Bryant. Thank you very much. Those are all of the people that signed up to speak. The motion has been made by Councilmember Lewis to award the -- approve the resolution, but authorizing execution of a contract with Mr. Newton, seconded by Councilmember Griffith. Any further discussion? hearing none, all in favor, all opposed say no.

>> Councilmember Goodman voting no. The resolution passes. That takes us to item no. 12. This item was pulled for discussion by Councilmember Lewis. I will recognize Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor.

>> First let me say that there's been a lot of questions and a lot of talk about what's going to be in the center. So I have asked the staff to make a brief presentation on what the center will provide for the young people and their families. So if you are ready, Mr. Months.

>> Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers, I am kendall months. Several months ago the City entered into a management contract with the firm out of houston, leisure management international for services connected with the central City entertainment center. Today we have representatives of leisure management international with us today and nina jackson of that firm will be making a presentation to the Council on the facilities that we included in the entertainment center.

>> I would like to say thank you, Mayor and City Council for allowing us to make this presentation to you this afternoon. My name is nina jackson, director of business development for leisure management international. Tom Williams, our operations specialist and kerri parker our consultant who currently manages fun plex, a family entertainment center in houston, I would like to start by showing you a few commercial clips that we brought. Very short, 30 second, 60 second each, three of them, it shows the excitement that these family entertainment centers can generate. These are spots from fun plex. So I don't know where that actually -- how that works, but here it is. [Music playing] you are on the move, on the roll, let's get together, fun whenever, we have the place with a smile on your face, fun plex, where the fun begins, buy your fun plex season pass now and get unlimited rides all summer long. Plus every day you visit you can choose from two activities, including laser star and miniature golf, bowling, skating, see a movie or visit our two story play fort. All this all summer for just $44.95. Our buy a family pass and save even more. But hurry, you must buy your fun plex season pass by may first. Use your pass all spring and summer long. Fun plex, plenty of free parking, five acres of indoor air conditioned fun and excitement, on beach nut at edlridge. (Music)
(Music)
fun plex where the fun begins. (Music)
(Music)

>> that first spot. Can I show you some of the promotional things that you can do having season passes for a set price that allows the family to --

>> calling all volunteers, coming to your town, it's a whole new slime game.

>> Come by fun plex before March 8th and register to winfrey ticket, plus receive a behind the scenes tour before the show and gift packs of store merchandise.

>> At the summit March 9th for two outrageous shows, noon and 3:30, ticket on sale now at the box office and ticket master. 3D off.

>> That particular spot shows a tie-in with the summit, though those kinds of tie-ins with other facilities here in Austin are other things that can be done, this last spot shows an advertisement that was run during thanksgiving. So another kind of promotional thing. (Music)
fun plex, lots of fun. (Music)
(Music)

>> fun plex, the greatest entertainment value in houston. You can ride all day for just $7.95, all day for five acres of indoor fun and excitement. Fun Mrex, a great party place for any occasion. Open every thursday through sunday on beach nut, put a smile on your face, come to fun plex with the fun begins. I would like to point out from these spots, I think that you may have seen like laser tag shown and that, we are very aware that this center is to -- we would not have any activities that would promote youth violence, so we are very aware of that, very sensitive to that. Now I would like to briefly talk about some of the other programming ideas that we've had concerning the central City entertainment center. For the skating rink and there's a diagram here, you can see each of the areas as I talk about the different programming ideas. The skating rink Austin of the general skating, of course, you could have live music performances, in-line roller hockey league, team dances, class reunion type dances, gymnastics, soccer activities for small children, fund raisers, where a school could perhaps buy the tickets for -- like for $2 each and then sell them for $5 to raise money for their school as opposed to selling candy or some of the other normal fund raisers that you see. Basketball for young children, utilizing the 8 foot goals because of the ceiling height.

>>Mayor Watson: if you could, because this shows up on tv, some people may not be accident to read the word, if you will point out it's a colored map, if you will point out the colors of the different things there's a microphone right here that way people will have a better feel for what you are talking about.

>> Okay. This is the skating area right here. So the activities that I have just been talking about would be able to be held in that area. Right there. After school programs as well. Then in the bowling area, which is this area right here, you would have the normal bowling, of course, as well as bowling leagues, you could do rock and bowl, private bowling parties, you could have pe programs with the area schools, coordinate some activities with the -- where the pe students would come over and bowl, bumper bowling for the very young children and again fundraising activities. For the movie theater, that's right here, that could also serve to have live performances, you could show specialty or minority films there, you could have computer classes and have up to approximately 6 computers in there. You could have other educational classes. You could have live performances, like I said, music, musicals, comedy, maybe some dance recitals, and then you could also have like lectures or other type of meetings. Then in the soft play area, which is part of this area right in here, you would have the young children's play area, by soft play area what I mean is the type activities that you see at any of the mechanic donldz with the ball's, slide -- mcDonald, with the balls, slide, activities for smaller children, you could also use it as possibility a babysitting area when you have some adult programs offered. The family gaming area would have arcade or family gaming area. Food court you could have branded concepts, branded food items, you could also use it for birthday parties or maybe some type of corporate meetings. You could also entertain some kind of special promotions, also. Then in the parking lot, the parking lot, you could have festivals or flea market or three on three basketball tournament. I know some cities have that night hoops program that could -- those ideas could be entertained. Band competitions. So we see that the opportunities are endless. I mean, we are certainly open to ideas and from City Council, from the community as well. Some of the other promotional ideas that we've had have been the season passes that would include food and beverage and activity fees. Also redemption type coupons, birthday party packages where the food and games would be included, like a per person fee. And then you could have bargain night, also do co-promotions with some of the local schools, in the local school district. Now, if there are any questions, we would be happy to entertain any questions that you might have.

>>Mayor Watson: any member of the Council have questions? thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis, you still have the floor.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. You know, the budget for the central entertainment system or project have grown over the past years, the years that we have been talking about doing something. I realize that it was on last week, but it was a problem with the difference between the bidding. I understand that's been settled now and the information that I received that it was $160,000 difference between the bidders. And with that type of reduction, it's going to help in maybe adding some things in the -- in the entertainment center or keeping us well within budget. Based on that, I would -- immove that item no. 12 Be approved as recommended by staff to the low bidder of decon construction.

>> Motion has been made to approve item no. 12, There is a second?

>>Garcia: second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Any further discussion? Councilmember Slusher?

>>Lewis: I would like to say that this item has a long time in the making, and I would hope that the community realize that, you know, I mean, I don't know a lot of people said it was being held about up by the City, probably was in some cases or it just wasn't diligent -- people wasn't working diligently at getting it done. I find now in talking with the assistant City Manager and vice chair, I'm sorry I promoted you to chair, the entertainment center advisory group, that we do get behind this and they was talking to me about how long they thought it would take. I said let's shoot for thanksgiving, maybe we will get it by christmas. So that's my thing to the group that's working on it. So that rather than shooting for christmas and then trying to get it by easter of next year sometime, so with that, I will be quiet.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Slusher and then Mayor pro tem.

>>Slusher: yes, this project has been controversial and [inaudible] I felt like I should make a few remarks here. I am going to vote for this. I've had some questions about it as -- oh. Well, what I said was this has been rather controversial and I've been a little controversial as part of it. But I am going to vote for this. And I am going to do everything I can to make it work. I've had some questions about it. Sometimes when I had questions, that oftentimes I was challenged as to why I had any questions about it. And that tend to make me want to ask more questions. No matter what the subject. And I think if anyone watches the Council on a regular basis, will see that I have a questions about a whole lot of different things. I think that the need is definitely there. There is no dispute that the need for a project of this type is there. And there's no dispute that there's wide-spread support for it and East Austin community, there and I think in the community as a whole. If it works, it will be worth every penny that we have put into it. I do have concerns about the -- talking about in particular about the viability of the theater. But once again I think the City can work hard to make that happen, make it viable. I've had some questions about money going into this this rather than housing or economic development. But it comes down to does the community -- that the community obviously wants this, there's also no doubt that there's been disparity over many years in the funding from the government and also from the private sector that goes into East Austin as opposed to other parts of the City. One thing I want to point out, I think this disparity in funding, especially in the west, we have heard about money protecting salamanders over humans, over kids, but I think if folks would study for a lot of the money in the west -- where a lot of the money in the west has gone has gone to subsidize the destruction of the environment, not to protect it, that's money that hasn't gone into anywhere else in the City, in particular East Austin and to the entertainment center, to other social services to neighborhood centers, to revitalization of east 11th and 12th. So I think that although there's been some rather serious and stern division over this project in particular and other matters, too, that I think that some of the discord, some of the divisions have been sewn are not appropriate and actually that we have a lot of common interests. To bring a -- to bring us social equity and protecting the environment and in providing economic base that will provide an -- opportunities for everyone and bring some of the folks along that have been left behind by both our economic good. I will leave it at that, I will look forward to working with folks to make this a success, I think actually the success is not going to depend that much on me or members of the Council, but on the community itself getting involved in this.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask real quickly. Edwin smith, curtis medlin, are you here? edwin smith or curtis medlin? any further discussion? Mayor pro tem?

>>Garcia:.

>>Garcia: I, too, am very glad this is finally coming to the Council for approval, I want to thank the board, the center, for which -- michael, if you can pass that to the other members of the board. Two things: number one is to be able to experience success that the total community needs to support it. The african americans and hispanics may be the prevalent groups that live there, but this is one community. And I regret that the private sector did not see fit to put something over there for the young people, but absent that initiative, I am glad that the Council took that initiative and I want to commend both Mayor pro tem urdy and Councilmember mitchell for the work that they did on the Council on this initiative. It took us a long time, but I think that we can leave the past where it is and move forward to make it a success. I think that -- that the City Council and the staff is committed to doing that, I am very happy.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion?

>>Lewis: I am like to say one other thing, Mayor. That is I would like to implore the advisory board along with the parks department and assistant City manager to look -- to use the children again someone that's not so politically inclined to determine the theater and what else they would like to be able to use it for. Because the type of theater that we have laid out could be converted if you knew in time before its built to be able to convert to floor in part of it to make it level to do other things in. And just my last item is that, you know, now that we are going to do this, I am going to hold myself and the the other adults in this area accountable for this project.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, I am going to chime in, say that I am very pleased that we are taking this step today, too. I believe it's very important, very important step in that it demonstrates a willingness to create a spur of positive activity that otherwise wouldn't be available. It's been a long time coming. I would say there have been some 30 to 40 votes taken -- that have taken place on this project alone, including approval of feasibility study, budgets, architectural contracts, management contracts, and so I am glad to see us now voting to enter into the contract and get it skruktded in three or four weeks that construction will begin, hopefully it will be completed in 10 to 12 months. I really do think it's an appropriate function of the City, similar to what we are doing with action to spur activity downtown. And it serves a fundamental human need. Several Councilmembers have said we need to know make sure that it work. I am not personally going to define whether it works by whether or not it makes a profit. We don't require that sort of thing elsewhere when we have recreation centers and programs like that across the City. So I don't think it's appropriate for us to look at this and say, well, are we going to make money? are we going to make a profit. That's not the way that I am going to judge success. I am going to judge success by its use, that means by its use of the entire community, by something frankly that may be impossible to measure. I think sometimes we get too brought up in the idea of do we have measurable standards by which to do some of those things. One of the things that's almost impossible to measure is the positive impact that something like this can have on the quality of people's lives and the enhancement of people's lives. Our people and kids are going to be better off with this project if we as adults make sure it works. I will tell you that I have already invited the secretary of housing and urban development, I personally invited him to the grand opening of this center and he has indicated a willingness to try to be here, we are going to continue to work in that regard. I look forward to that day when we open it and I will challenge members of the Council right now to one line of bowling on that first day and then I think it is a center that can be great for the community. With that, there being no further discussion, motion has been made and seconded to approve item no. 12. There being no further discussion, all in favor. All opposed say no. Motion carries, 7 to 0. Next item on the agenda, is item nos. 28, 29, And 30.

>> Mayor, Council, we are -- as you know, we have done several briefings on the contract with the Austin police association. These three items are related to the contract that we have negotiated. We believe that this really does -- sets a predicate for a new era, a new day for relationships between the management within the police department, the City management and our police officers. We wholeheartedly recommend it. We are prepared to make a presentation in the Council would like about any of the specifics or answer any questions or as you like ready for the Council to make a motion and proceed. Paragraph.

>>Mayor Watson: Council, do you wish to have a briefing or presentation here or -- because if not, I will entertain a motion. Councilmember Spelman I move approval of items 28, 29, 30.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to approve 28, 29, 30.

>>Goodman: second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Goodman? any discussion? let me just say a few words. I personally believe, I think the Council will adopt this meet and confer agreement. I believe the proposed meet and confer agreement focuses on a number of critical issues. The right of the chief of police to run his department, training and promotions, discipline, compensation. I realize a lot of people may focus solely on the compensation piece, but the other issues I believe are just as critical. The proposal that Council is considering today reaffirms the authority of the police chief to act in his official capaCity as the director of the department. In addition it establishes a promotional process that continues the current Written examination and adds an assessment center to determine management and leadership skills. The proposal also establishes alternative discipline processes, if one of these alternatives is used, it increases the number of days for suspensions from 16 to 90. If both parties agree, there is no appeal. This agreement would also change the initial hiring process from a system of pass-fail to a system where skills and abilities are given certain emphasis. For instance the behavior, personal assessment test and general aptitude Written test would both carry a weight of 35% with the oral interview board counting 30% and physical ability Counciling as pass-fail. The existing ranks of captain and deputy chief would be combined into a new commander rank. Both commander rank would change from non-exempt to exempt, meaning no overtime will be paid. As far as compensation is concerned, this proposed contract increases officer's salaries throughout the three year life of the contract. Among other things, it compresses the existing pay scale from 24 years to 20 years, to achieve highest ranked pay. The pays each covered employee a lump sum payment of $500 after contract approval. It increases the base salary of officers entering the force and increases bilingual pay for eligible officers. Just as critical I am hopeful that the pay raise proposal will mean our officers can afford to live in Austin. And can afford to be a part of the very community they protect. I believe that this contract moves us toward greater public safety in our community. And as we were just talking, I used the word again quality of life. We talk about equally of life a great deal in this community, I personally believe that the one way we can most change the character of our City, most change the quality of life or at least do it the quickest is if people stop living in fear. I think this contract helps us to preserve the quality of life that we have and enjoy in Austin. I would like to recognize the hard work done by the City staff, the police department, the police association representatives in coming up with this proposal. I believe it's an excellent opportunity for us to improve recruiting and ensure we have competitive wages and maintain the integrity of the department. We have a motion on the floor, we've had some people sign up to speak. Let me call out and see if they would like to come forward at this time. Tony mckinnis? scott henson. Please come forward, Mr. Henson. Mary Aleshire. Mary Aleshire. Kathy mitchell. Kathy mitchell.

>> She's not here.

>> Okay. Gus Pena. If you will make your way toward the microphone so as soon as Mr. Henson finishes thank you, Mr. Pena. Thank you Mr. Henson.

>> All right. Mayor, Council, good to see you, actually the first time that I have spoken to you as a group since you all have been here as the self proclaimed magnificent seven. [Laughter]. Let me say here, Mayor, I did agree with one thing that you said just then, not all of it, but the one thing that I did agree with is that I don't think that we are doing a real good job with public safety. I think there's a lot of deficiency ies in how we have been handling our public safety issues. Frankly that's why I am here today to ask you to reconsider this massive pay hike to the police department. Frankly it's unbelieveable to me that this item was on the consent agenda. It seems to me that gouf $27 million over the three years to the police department with nary a bit of public debate among you is a lot of money to just, you know, throw down the hole without giving the public an opportunity to idea why you all have come to the decision that you have. I understand that you all talk about this a lot in executive session, but you all need to talk about it here. We are talking about $27 million. We are not going to put one more police officer on the street. All we've heard during the annexations, all of the complaints, we don't have enough officers, we don't have enough officers. Well, this $27 million less that you have to spend on more officers. The audit last year of this department told you that in fact the police department is one of the poorest run departments in the entire City. That in fact it's failing to meet the expectations that the Council set for it on almost every level and yet here you are giving them 15% across the board raises. That seems illogical to me. I understand there are other pieces that you have gotten put into the contract. I agree with most of those related to the meet and confer, the discipline and other. But I don't think it's worth $27 million. Folks, this is the only real opportunity that the City couple has to actually exercise oversight over the police department. And our police department is out of control. The point that you are giving them, their pay hike, you are giving them their funding, that's to believe time that you can exercise oversight, ordz it's up to Jesus Garza, the police chief, it's out of your control, today you can exercise oversight. Let me shift gears a bit because the other reason that I am here today and part of why I thought this session -- such an important issue to raise right now, yesterday happened to be the third anniversary of the cedar avenue police riots. Three years ago yesterday 84 police officers descended on my neighborhood, I live three blocks from the site, and maced and/or beat 30 plus children. Struck 118-year-old pregnant woman in the back of the skull with a police baton knocking her unconscious, numerous other instances of brutalities that were documented at the time and in fact will continue to be documented as this lawsuit comes up. (Beep).

>> I have a couple more things. You aren't going to hear this anywhere else.

>>Mayor Watson: we do have rules we try to follow. Although you are a friend and a friend of the Council, I am going to have to require that you follow those rules. Just because you want to challenge that, doesn't give me any reason not to follow the rules.

>> I don't want to challenge it. I understand the skids are greased and you all are going to do this anyway.

>>Mayor Watson: I'm sorry, Mr. Henson.

>> All right.

>> Sorry you are not interested in hearing it.

>>Mayor Watson: we are, we have rules, if you want to follow the rules. I think Councilmember Spelman is giving you a way out if you will take time to pay attention to that. Councilmember Spelman I have two questions for you. First question is where did get the $27 million? I only count 13?

>> is it 13. Actually I read in it the newspaper. I am actually here in principle. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry.

>> Okay. Because sometimes you know some things that I don't due to your line of work.

>> Actually, to be honest, I have not had the time to give the kind of thorough investigation to the topic that I normally would. What I am hear for basically is talk to about the principle behind what you are doing and actually frankly what I was hoping to get to was some of the -- some of the problems with doing it right now. But I will --.

>> My second question which may or may not give you a way out. Which is why did you bring that boom box with you?

>> I will tell you that.

>> I do want to know that.

>> That will do it. I feel like that if you all are going to give the police department a raise, that you should decide well do they deserve a raise? what is it that you have done that deserves this. At the cedar avenue incidents, as I mentioned, 84 officers showed up, one ever them was a victim, he was maced because he was black and helping other black victims, the other 83 were either involved or saw something. I wanted to give you an idea of what -- what was going on that night. And let you judge for yourself whether you think that the folks in this tape deserve a raise. It's a 911 tape. [Screaming]. Help, help, help. 911. [Screaming]. Not to have the right information. We at the City spending quite a bit of money improving our communication systems. Additionally, this particular contract allows for the department to train lieutenants and above on management issues. I think the cedar avenue issue was a management issue. I think the people that managed that particular incident probably did not have all the training that they needed, so we instructed the chief to train people not just on police work, but in actual management because they need that from the lieutenant on up, actually from sergeant on up. Those people are managers more than anything else. The guys who actually do the work are the line officers. And lieutenants and above ought to receive the same kind of training that people that manage companies do because that's what they're doing, they're managing personnel. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Pena?

>> Good afternoon Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Gus Pena. I apologize for not being here earlier. I do have health problem I need to address and that's priority for my family. First of all, we're here to support item no. 28. We're here to support the meeting and the pay raise. It does include the community and department at relations. That's very important. I strongly believe that those issues are going to be corrected as we all hope they are. -- There was an article Written in today's paper about Williamson county and the chiefs of police. It's very important Chief Knee, if you haven't read it, please read it. You Councilmembers, Mayor, Mr. City Manager, read it also. Take it to heart because it involves the community and the department and the City. Never leave the community out. Never build division. Never build mistrust because that is counter productive and very dangerous to relations between the community and the department. I have kinfolk as I stated before, on the department, on the sheriff's department, the apd and fbi, and also cousins and friends, a lot of friends that are police officers. We're here to support that. It should have happened a long time lo ago a and one of the people I'm haip for is officer billy sifuentes. We did not have an opportunity to recognize him for his did he vocation and duty to the City and the department. This guy is an member of east Austin or a resident of east Austin. I'm a lot older than he is, but I remember who he was three years old and he had that drive to help people and that's why I love him as a brochlt and I miss him being on the department. But nonetheless, we have other good officers also who do not fit in the category of officers who u excess active force. I'm not here to talk about that. I've always supported the Austin Police Department and always will and I know there are problems within and we will be there to assure that those are corrected. Remember one thing that was left out. Diversity. We would hope that it would be a positive upward mobility career ladder that should have been included this this. We want to continue to have an upward mobility ladder for female officers, officers of color, whatever it is. We're about endorsing female officers also up to the highest ranks. And remember, do not ever leave a member of the community out of this process. Always call back. Answer your pages. That's very important. You work for the community. We don't work for you. And when we ask you to go to the community, please do so. It's not like if it's a death Penalty to go out there in the community. Do it as a respect to the community. And I strongly support chief knee and will continue. I was one of the first ones to support him, myself and our organization and I will continue to do so. I believe in the man and again support the police and I believe it's very important. And we do this for kids such as my boy. Thank you very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you Mr. Pena. Mr. Terrece Williamson, followed by Dr. Lands. Welcome sir.

>> Good afternoon Mayor and Council. My name is Mr. Robinson, naacp president. I wanted to make a statement on item 28 and it starts this way. Only a few months ago the north carolina requested naacp requested support for a new resolution, the resolution recognizing a a successful police department must build and maintain a staff which at all levels reflects a diverse population of Austin. It is vital that this include command staff and top management. The City of Austin will not tolerate employment glass ceilings above which minorities may not raise. As the top law officer of the City of Austin, we expect that the chief of police will move toward retaining and increasing ethnic and racial diversity at all levels of the Austin Police Department. Today the Council has before it a new plan to make high-ranking promotions in the police department. Hopefully any new plan would help to proceed motor better diversity in the ranks of the police department, particularly the ranks it has been most difficulty for minorities to break through. However, in looking at the proposed criteria laid out in the plan before you an information reveals that a repeated flaw in the plan for evaluation of promotions and those who will have a major role in making largely subjective decisions about who will be eligible for promotion and how candidates will be evaluated are of concern. We are alarmed at diversity is never mentioned in the criteria laid out for the chief's three picks and the association's three pings for the assessment center review board. Diversity is not mentioned in the criteria laid out for selecting the list of proposed consultants, diversity is not mentioned in the criteria laid out for evaluation of candidates and it is not mentioned in the criteria laid out for picking the assess sores who will evaluate the and dats. It is not mentioned in how -- how the interview board will be selected. Diversity is not mentioned in any context. Since this plan gives much discretion to the chief, we believe that it is advise able to first evaluate his key appointments thus far. What is the report card on diversity today, particularly in key and high management positions and positions of responsibility over budget, personnel and key projects. What officers are in management tracks. Where will accountable for hires and promotions reside in this plan, how has the system been used elsewhere in a City similar to Austin's diversity and work there successfully? how will this plan achieve the objective of diversity that the Council has stated it subsidiaries in apd. What is the response of Council, what is the response of the Council given the resolution for diversity in the apd that the Council passed only a short time ago. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Dr. Sterling Lands?

>> Thank you very much. Mayor Watson and to the City Council, I believe that it is important that we hire professionals that look like the community. Train the professionals and then hold them blt able, so we fully support item no. 28. We believe that professionals should be paid in such a way that we can retain them and attract even more. I'd like to share with you a letter that I've Written to you dated the 12th. It says subject family and community crisis in Austin. We stand on the threshold of great ans as remove will increasing rapid ti into the 21st century of the of the many necessary ingredients for success, one stands out above all others. Equal representation. If we are to reach the lofty heights of greatness we must have equal, ee quit table representation on the Council and City administration. Currently the representation on the Council places the future of our families and community at risk. The minimum duty of our elected representatives is to take a clear and moral and ethical stand that discrimination is unacceptable and work with those whom you represent towards a fair and just City government. Racial discrimination is a sin. It is a denial of god's creative purpose for humanity. Over the last several months we have witnessed this counsel's behavior and found that it has been and is extremely racist, manipulate, self-serving and vindictive as it relates to current and future conditions of minorities. Every program and every project exclusive of political patron naj of favored minority status that reflects african-american development, community development, human development or professional advancement is under attack and targeted for failure by this Council and counsel's representatives. We request the following initial action by the Council immediately. No. 1, Initiate immediate steps toward community. -- For Council members by any means necessary. No. 3, Eliminate the numbered police election system. No. 4, Current Council members must represent all of the citizens of Austin. No. 5, The immediate resignation of Councilmember Daryl Slusher, no. 6, The immediate resignation of Councilmember Griffith and the immediate end to the intim addition in the minority communities. I realize that based on your past performance that some of you will attempt to discredit those of us who speak out in the minority community, intimidate members of our faep and dry to divide us through promises and threats. However, don't minimize this request or discount our concerns through some knee jerk emotional ee rx. We will work with individuals that work with us and we will work against individuals that work against us. Thank you very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you Dr. Land. Is Mr. Fernandez here? okay. I just wantedmented to make sure. It was Written in different writing. Mr. Fernandez signed up for, I believe, these items. The motion has been made and seconded to approve items no. 28, 29 And 30. Is there any further discussion?

>> yes, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis? lieu.

>>Lewis: I approve of these items, but I would like to say -- I would like and I would hope that our community would take the same stand that the community of el paso takes toward their preliminary. Policemen, their policemen come in one color and that's blue. I would hope that in the near future we could see the same. Also, they say that the community is responsible for crime, the police is held accountable. And I think if we take that stand, we all will be better off in the near future. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? motion has been made and seconded to approve items 28, 29 and 30. There being no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The motion carries seven to zero. I will recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. I have some questions for Mr. Reek or anybody else in charge of these items.

>> Peter and chief warren are here. I know toby and betty are here also.

>>Garcia: let me first handle item no. 35. On this one I understand that the City has not purchased the land. Is this correct?

>> I am the director of public works. Yes, Mayor pro tem, that is correct.

>>Garcia: okay. I would like, City Manager, for us to delay this one and see if we can send out an rfp. This architects that are being recommended were not selected by the rfp process, they were selected by management. And I understand the urgency on 34. 33 And 34. But I think in the case of 35 I think we have an opportunity to rfp this one so we can select somebody based on the criteria that we set and that one of the criteria is, you know, distribution of the wealth. These three items give the contracts to just one architectural firm. So Mayor, if the motion is in order, on 35 I would like to postpone this item, send out an rfp for the selection of the architect on 35.

>> We're prepared to do that.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion has been made to postpone no. 35 And send out an rfp. Is there a second? second by kmurb. Is there a discussion? all those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no. The motion carries. Mayor pro tem Mayor pro tem on item no. 33 And 34 I have.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Why don't you let the Mayor pro tem ask you questions.

>>Garcia: in essence on this one the question is why this firm over other firms.

>> This firm has designed the last five stations that we have constructed and it meets the latest standard and it has basically addressed all the needs of the fire department and ems 100 percent. They are pervely happy with the station. There are no issues that we have any concerns about, so we basically have a product that has been proven as being operational, it's a state-of-the-art facility, it's the latest one we built. It meets all requirements and we're in essence ready to go to start the design and move forward with the construction process.

>>Garcia: are there no other firms that have the same characteristics in the City?

>> this is not an issue of qualifications of the firm. The reason why we are proposing to move forward with these contracts is in order to meet the time frame that we have to provide these facilities. To go through the rfp process urbls takes approximately up to three months. -- Owe.

>>Garcia: that's not my question. If you're not going to follow the rfp process, why didn't you select two different firms for the two stations?

>> again, this is the firm that has the fire station that we want to build in terms of layout and construction and you cannot -- based on the engineering code, go to another firm and say here is the design of a firm that already has done this. Go and site adapt it and then we'll build it. That does not work.

>>Garcia: are we getting a better price from these guys as a result of them doing work that they have already done from the City?

>> yes. There is a certain price ben foit for it. It may not be as complete as it may be expected. The reason is it includes a number of different components and the price advantage only applies to the design itself, not to the contract administration during construction and not for the portion to adapt it to the specific site.

>>Garcia: did you quantify the economic benefit?

>> the number we looked at it approximately $90,000, I think. No, excuse me about $19,000 per station?

>>Garcia: that's all the questions I have. Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to approve -- one other thing. Let me ask you before -- I'm sorry, Councilmember Lewis. One other thing I want to make sure, it was my understanding that an additional advantage we got doing it this way is that because we had a cookie cutter, if you will, we were able to move on these fair stations much more rapid di than we otherwise would be able to so that the promised that we made during the annexation process would be moving more rapidly; is that correct?

>> that's correct. That is the reason why we are proposing this process to you.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: yeah, following along with the Mayor pro tem. I had asked the same questions, why do we have to pay so much for somebody to redo something that they have already done and I don't know what the differences in the two fire stations but I find that a fair stations are fire stations and when you find one that fits your need that that's the one that you're going to build no matter where you build it. It's just a matter of does the lot fit this -- accommodate the size of the fire station that you're going to build. And looking at this for 300 and what, $12,000,, to design something that they've already designed, to me is a little expensive. I could understand it, you know, you was telling me that you have to have an engineering seal, but at some point I would think that because of the number of fire stations we're going to build in the near future, at some point we should be able to either get someone in the City to do it or if it's necessary, if you guys will bring it to me, I'll try to get -- take it to the legislature and when it comes up again to change the law to some degree so we can do some rebuild on a design. And go out and purchase the design. Because, you know, because what happens is I look at other companies and I know that the municipalities are a little different from private industry, but if you go to an I hospital or a sear's or some other places they basicallyly are the same. And if they find one that fit, they build it, whether it be Austin or san antonio. And I mef myself and some other people that I talk to just don't think it's pertinent to look up an address or find an address on the streets when you're looking for a fire department. The fire department should be smoog that's significant, that's noticeable because it's only there for the safety of the people and the people shouldn't have to try to pick it out from the building next door. The outside color and contour of it may be something that you want to blend in with your surrounding area, but I still think that overall a fair station is a fire station and it shouldn't be so costly to design the same thing just because it's in a different location.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Any further questions of Mr. Read? any further discussion? motion has been made and seconded to approve items no. 33 And 34. There being no further discussion, all in favor? all opposed? motion carries with Councilmember Griffith off the dias. That takes us to item no. 39. I'll recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. This one I may have an ultimate recommendation depending on how the discussion goes. Again, this Public Works -- who's in charge of this project?

>>Mayor Watson: is your microphone on?

>>Garcia: yes, it is. Maybe I can put it on the outside.

>>Mayor Watson: your royce vois is getting weaker. Voice is getting weaker.

>>Garcia: I'll try to speak up.

>>Mayor Watson: shout is out.

>>Garcia: on this one you gave us a consultant evaluation form with basically three firms. Malcolm burn any, montgomery watt sond and sprinkler hall. And on issues such as experience of the project director, project experience, project team experience team structure and project approach, on those items that appear to be more objective, the two firms that were not recommended have higher point averages than the one recommended. And when you get to the subtotal of those objective items, the recommended firm has 74.9 out of 100. Montgomery Watson has 82.5, which is about 8.4 points more than the recommended firm. And par sons barton springser hoff has 77.3, which is about 2.4 more than the recommended firm. Then when the process went to interview, the recommended firm got substantially more than the others. And my question is what happened? why were the people that were doing the objective evaluations so far off from the ones that were doing the subjective evaluations?

>> okay. Several things that I would like to point out in response to your question, Mayor pro tem. In this particular case I was actually a member of the evaluation team myself because of the unique approach to the delivery of these water and wastewater projects. And the team that reviewed the proposals and the team or the people that conducted the interviews were identical. In other words, there was not two separate groups of people. I myself read all the proposals and I was also a member of the interview team. And I will strictly speak for myself, but what you're saying is absolutely correct. After the review of the proposal, which is reflekted in those items that you have had labeled as the objective of this process, I think there was -- on my perspective, at least, just reading the proposal, a different ranging than the one that we in the ultimate had. And personally I had ranked malcolm pern. Ey last after reviewing the proposals. One thing that I would like to point out, and I have looked at a lot of proposals and spent a lot of time in interviews. I have also been in the active part of this, being in interviews myself. While there is some -- gar gar was this while you were working for the City?

>> no. This was in a different life. I hardly remember it, but it happened. While the matrix portrays a certain object of objectivity and certainly your as objective as you can be, it is the objective of the reader of the proposal and the personal perception that is reflected in the ranging of all of these items after you go in the proposal and you put in all of your numbers. So while it is an attempt at being objective, it is still somewhat objective based on how you perceive the qualifications that the firm has, for instance, the technical skills, to be presented through the Written word. When we got to the interviews, again, speaking for myself and I think the matrix reflects that and you have accurately portrayed it, the team that malcolm perney brought to the interview impressed at least myself through a great amount of synergy. They had a great flow of information and knowledge already going on. They had a clear concept of how they would as a team approach this project. The project manager. And I'm sharing my personal opinion here -- appeared a lot stronger in person than he appeared on paper. We had -- I had some concerns about, for instance, ability to make presentation to Council or boards and commissions. When you listen to him talk it was clear that that would not be a concern at all, that he would be capable of well representing the issues without having pre prepared questions. And those were things that we were looking at. The team had a clear concept, the team was a team. They didn't have to decide who would answer this. There was no dprekter saying you answer this -- director saying you answer this. They knew which part one should or shouldn't answer and that was what impressed the evaluation team in the interviews and they were, at least again speaking for myself, significantly more impressive as a team in terms of handling this project as you could judge from those discussions than the other two. And so that's how the ranging came into existence. That is not to say that we don't feel either of the other teams couldn't do the work. I think this is more a perception of how would the working relationships function, how will the internal team processes work and what are the capabilities of individuals that are coming as part of the firm to this particular project. And again, we firmly believe and I think I speak for the team, that any of the three firms certainly has the capability technically and personally to do the work. We just felt that based on the interviews, the team that we recommended, seemed to be best prepared to get started and going and had the team already pretty much established.

>>Garcia: is this recommended firm not the firm that is doing the management study of the water and wastewater utility.

>> I would like to have Mr. Goss respond to that question.

>> This firm was one that did the phase 1. Phase 2 was pulled off the agenda.

>>Garcia: I understand. But they have been in the utility, so they would have a good knowledge of how the utility works.

>> Actually, it's really two different functions of that -- from that particular firm. The management audit was just that, more of the overview of the operations. Yes, they do know from that perspective. This is a little bit different from a project manager standpoint.

>> As part of the matrix, as the equalizer, item 9, tries to take into account when firms have done work for us, so there is that distinction. Gr.

>>Garcia: I understand. So montgomery got more points in that than anybody else. And I don't know if you or randy or Mr. Read wants to answer this question. In the subtotal of the objective items, they got 74.9 percent, malcolm perney. Montgomery got 82.5 and par sons 74.3. When they went to the interview if you take the 75 points and you convert them into percentages, malcolm perney got over 80 percent, about 82 percent. Month come ri Watson got 40, so are we that far off from the objective. We had an 82 and slightly over 40 percent of the points that were the maximum were what they got and par sons got about 70 percent. What happened on that? why were the evaluators that far off? you said you were on both the evaluation the objective criteria and the evaluation of the subjective criteria.

>> Again, the difficulty is to assess, for instance, team members and consultants, in a Written form. You don't have an idea of how they will respond in certain situations, how flexible will they be, how much are they working on a script, what is atmosphere between them? and as I said, we were very impressed with all three teams, but in the interview, malcolm perney, clearly demonstrated a different level of team at the time when they came to the table. It felt almost as if they already had been working together for a while and I understand that that was not the case, but to us it looked like we already had a team, not one that still had to gel and come together. And that was really -- in addition to giving us a sense that some of the things where they may have been rated low on the Written proposal that maybe we didn't understand or didn't get the proper understanding of the skills and abilities of the team members and the various companies involved. But in the interview, we got a different sense. At least again, speaking for myself. But I think the overall results reflect that. Does that answer your question?

>>Garcia: sure. I would expect them to be able to be that way because they were just here evaluating the whole utility, so they have a very good working knowledge. And I'm sure that the people who made the presentation were briefed by the other guys. It's the same firm.

>> Well, let me point something out. Personally I had no knowledge that malcolm perney was involved in the wastewater utility on anything else until last week. So I had no knowledge personally --.

>>Garcia: I'm not questioning that peter. I'm questioning the thakt fact that you were impressed with them during the interview process and I'm saying of course, they were here evaluating the whole utility. They have a good working knowledge of how the utility works.

>> Again, having been on both sides of the fence, I don't think that knowledge was useful on this project. The project dynamics are different than an organizational structure. And my sense would be that you talk about two different entities within the malcolm perney organization. I'm not sure whether the team members, and I can't speak for them, that came to the interview, had any knowledge or were actually involved with anything before. It struck me that they were clearly project focused. I can't answer the rest of your question.

>>Garcia: and I also have been on the other side and participated with large firms and when they're going to go for interviews, if they have to bring a guy from cleveland that was involved in another aspect, they bring him in. That's how those firms work. I think that in this particular situation, par sons barton springser hoff is probably better brepd to do this work around I'm going to make a motion, Mayor, to select the alternate recommendations, par sons brinkerhoff for this project.

>> I'll second.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem and seconded by Councilmember Lewis to recommended negotiation and execution of the professional services agreement with par sons brinkerhoff. We have a number of people who have signed up to speak. Let me ask them to come barred if they feel like speaking on this item. Eric fisher? Mr. Ortman has donated his time to you. So if you need it you have up to six minutes.

>> I appreciate it. My name is eric fisher. I'm the regional manager of par sons brinkerhoff. I want to kplement the City half. I think they did an excellent job. They had a difficult task because there are three good firms that they had to choose among. I want to say, though, that the way the selection criteria was set up, I think it was against par us, particularly the fact that we do have ongoing work for the City at the airport, that that Penalized us. As a matter of fact, if you actually took away the one point -- it was only nine-tenths difference between us and the recommended firm. If you deleted item 9, which had to do with the City's work -- amount of work that we had with the City, we would actually come out ahead. I also want to say that we certainly have been very instrumental in this community, working with the new airport department and building a new airport. We have been very much involved and have gained the confidence of the community with respect to such issues as the Austin midnight basketball program, the greater east Austin youth league, the Austin area urban league, the hispanic contractors association, hispanic chamber of commerce, the City's sister City program, the capital City cham we are of commerce and the annual diesse u.s. Celebration. We are also considered for honors for the program that we are in, a private pip, partnership, a public partnership with the new airport and that that the new airport thas han the Austin utility contractors award adds utility contractors of the year. The greater Austin quality Council 1995 quality award. The service awards for the Austin area urban league and the minority and women's business enterprise Council. We feel that if you could discount item 9, which is the evaluation criteria, that I would urge to you consider that and select us. Thank you for your time.

>> Excuse me. Mayor Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: on item 9, is -- are they not counting aviation work as work for the City of Austin?

>> yes, they are, they are counting it. And that Penalizes us for the good job that we feel like we're doing for the City on that new airport.

>>Lewis: so it was a negative count?

>> it's a negative count indirectly, yes.

>>Lewis: all right. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. John kunkel? jack renfro? welcome, Mr. Renfro.

>> Thank you. I'm jack renfro and I am vice-president of malcolm perney. I've been watching the olympics and I noticed something about the olympics. And I happen to be an act tanted too. That you take the whole race into consideration. You look at the top of the luge. From no. 1 To no. 15 Of a minute and a half, there was only a second and a half difference between no. 1 And no. 15. The person that won that race won it by .002ths of a second. He was rated the best by the overall people that competed for this job. That is where we are at right now. The scoring -- you should expect the storing to be very tight. You've got the tight evident, you've got the fweft competitors in the world trying to get your business. It didn't surprise me that it was very close, par sons is a good firm, montgomery is a good firm. We did the best job. The difference between the Written word and the verbal word is very distinct and different. We were able to -- we worked on this project for four months. And by the way, we didn't use any insider information because the initial study that we did was the organizational overview for $37,000. We never got into the cip process, it never was linked. No one on this project was associated with the organizational overview. I want you to understand that. There was no insider information. I'm saying that we did the job, we did our homework, we looked for office space. We understood the needs of the City. We know what the schedule is. We can beat that schedule. We were able to convey in our verbal form what the City needed and what we understood. We brought 48% mbe exception. We didn't go out and get minorities, we got the people that could pep help us do the job. They happened to be minorities and wbe's, but they were the best we had. They were some of the best you've got in Austin. We think this is very important. And I'd like to end this thing by saying that we went through this, the waste and wastewater commission recommended united states, the staff recommended us, but I want to say one more thing before you make the award. Prior to any action to aaward this contract to any firm other than us, I request that you review those submit tals, you review the selection process and you look at adherence to your Written policy. In recommendation to your policy, all the entities bus tien a at the same time statement, an affidavit of non-kol lution and anti-lobbying. We have reason to believe, mainly through rumor, but also by direct verbal comment to a City staff member, that the firm that you're getting ready to award this contract to has violated your policies. We have not done that. We've played by the rules. We want this -- we want this project because we're the best for you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, sir. Lynn maze? is John wit field here?

>> no, he is not. He left. He had to go close on a house. He was going to fry to get back.

>>Mayor Watson: you will have

>> we're a local firm and have been in business in Austin for eight years. We're also listed as a contractor to the malcolm perney team. I've heard the discussions and your appointed officials to the water and wastewater officials. To me in feels like day sha view all over again. I was going after another project on the south Austin regional plan and after some lobbying that was done of Council, the team, we were ranked no. One and it was overteamed and given to the other team for the lobby. I say this because after that was when we started doing these affidavit $that are now required in the submit tals that now say you will not do the anti-lobbying so that it can be left as an item that can be discussed by the professional staffed and make a recommendation to you. Well, here we go again. But this time we have a new Mayor, we have some new faces on Council. Are you too going to go against your staff and Councilmembers. What kind of message does this send them? what kind of message does this send to the professional community. What does a guy have to do to win a job here? we came out no. 1 According to your professional staff, your systems, your process, your criteria, your appointed board members voted unanimously in our favor. Please show the citizens of Austin that this Council is different. Show them that you support, you endorse your own systems that you support and endorse your staff and that you have faith in the committee members that you appoint. And I hope that you would vote formal come perney to get this project. And begin in response to the issue of did we have inside information, no, we did not, but I have been involved in a lot of these processes and one of the key things -- and I have also sat on the other side as well. But one of the things we were looking for was ng of the local criteria. You want somebody that knows how this system operates. You don't want to train somebody to do this job. We've we've been working here. I started work working for the City of Austin in '82. I know the system. Am I going to be Penal yies looised for that? I would think you would see that as a benefit. I want to continue to work for you. We got burned on sar. It still hurts. I hope that you will do something different. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem and seconded by Councilmember Lewis to authorize negotiation and execution of the professional services graelt with par sons brinkerhoff -- yes?

>>Garcia: I think there are some Councilmembers that would like more time to understand the issues. And I would like to postpone it for two weeks.

>> We can do so.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis as the maker of the second would you agree to that? the new motion on the floor is made by the Mayor pro tem and seconded by Councilmember Lewis to postpone item no. 39 For two weeks and bring it back in two weeks as an action item. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Goodman?

>>.

>>Goodman: I know that people get frustrated going through the process, but I want to remind everybody that the Council is part of the process. And if you were counting on rubber stampers, I don't think that is necessarily the Council that you should think of that way.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? here none, all those in favor say aye. All opposed? motion carries with Councilmember Griffith off the dias. That takes us to item no. 47. As one of the sponsors of item no. 47, I want to speak to it for just a moment. This community has made a value judgment and it wants us as a Council and as a City to plan, to protect our most environmentally sensitive area, the drinking water protection zone, and to manage growth in a way that prrves our unique quality of life. Economic analysis and forecast bolster our judgment in that regard. Our strong economy and the benefits it brings is explicitly stied to the environment and how we manage growth. This Council has started an unprecedented process of planning for the City's future. And more than just planning we have acted on the plans as we go along. For example, our efforts at annexation, our downtown initiatives and significantly or creation of the drinking water protection zone and the desired development zone. One of the clear statements this Council has made is that itments to manage growth by helping those willing to locate in the desired development zone. We have also recognized that to do so there will be a need for us to invest in infrastructure that doesn't exist and to make it easy or sdie able to look to the desired development zone. We've also recognized on behalf of our taxpayers that we want to increase our tax base and increase the money going into the City's general fund. By adding value to land in the desired development zone, we increase revenue to the general fund for the City to pay for police, fire, parks and other things that are necessary to live in this urban corridor. Part of what we're doing with downtown is to increase the tax base because then it helps all of Austin. And that's the way we are looking also at the desired development zone. The fact is we do not want to minimize the value of land in the desired development zone or create bar yers to development and drive businesses that are well planned and are willing to go into the designed development zone into other taxing jurisdictions. Similarly as we create incentives for people to locate in the desired development zone, we should avoid actions like general fund fee waivers that remove funds going to police, fire, ems, parks, health clinics and the like. We need to be careful with the incentives that we create. The resolutions set forth in item no. 47 Strikes at the heart, I believe, of this counsel's goal to manage growth mentd, plekt our quality of life and help our current taxpayers. We are saying with this that as a City if a developer or business goes into our desired development zone where the community has made the value judgment we want our growth to be, we will help you achieve it. So I want to also thank and congratulate dell on its willingness to look to the desired development zone and I would encourage the Council to support this and I'll recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. I want to start by moving approval and then I would like to be recognized for some comments.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem to approve item no. 47. Is there a second?

>> second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Mayor pro tem?

>>Garcia: in the operative part of the resolution where we direct the City Manager to direct and create on February 26th. One of the things that I would like to see is a descriptive fiscal -- as descriptive as you can make it so that the Council understands what it is that we're spending and what it is perhaps that we have in the way of a financial benefits coming the other way. The Mayor so he will lo consequently spoke to it already. I would also, and I ves ted with the members of the team, I ves ted from dell, I would like -- I would like at some point for dell to sell the computers from Austin so we would get some of the sales tax, but that's just a wish that's out there. We used to have it, we don't have it any more, we would like to get some of it back. Just a little request.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion?

>>Slusher: Mayor, I'm going to second what the Mayor pro tem said and yourself, but we are development incentives here, we're talking about the infrastructure, making it easier to develop in our desired development zone, fast tracking the process because that's what we want and it's for folks to develop in our desired development zone. And I was glad to hear you mention about the general fund fee waivers because we have to be very, very vij lent about protecting our general fund. And I think that's why I looked for it also to send the financial analysis the Mayor pro tem talked about because I think that's going to show that this is going to be of great benefit to our general fund once the plant is located there.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? motion has been made and seconded to approve -- I'm sorry, Mayor pro tem?

>>Garcia: I do want to commend dell on the employment opportunity that they make available to the people of Austin. I think that's been a great plus. And I also have heard through the grapevine, I don't have specific information because I don't think the company released that kind of information, but I think on issues of affirmative action they also have been very good at it and I encourage them to continue in the same pattern.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>>Lewis: I would like to vote, but since the Mayor pro tem delayed it, let me say that I was privileged to talk to the people from dell and my suggestion is, and I would hope that the staff worked with them in a sense that we can meet their schedule. And if it's something that they could do that we could reimburse them if the price is within our scope that they would allow them to do it rather than spending the time to go out on an rfp because -- and I'm not saying remove the process of the rfp, but not to delay their progress with the progress of an rfp. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion had. The motion has been made and seconded. There being no further discussion, all in favor? all opposed? the motion carries seven to zero. Item no. 49. I'll recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: Mayor, on this one, my concern -- first of all, we've got two or three different versions on it. Which one is the one on the table? maybe someone ought to make a motion and then I'll say something.

>>Garcia: I'll recognize Councilmember Lewis on a motion on no. 49? Is that the one you're talking about?

>>Slusher: yes.

>>Garcia: Councilmember Lewis? if you could turn your mike on?

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor pro tem. The motion would be to approve the resolution. I guess revision no. 3. It doesn't have a time on it.

>>Garcia: it's clearly marked.

>>Lewis: everybody have the revision no. 3? I would move that that be the resolution that we adopt?

>>Garcia: okay. I am I am going to second that motion and recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: thank you. I'm for the rail, but what is this kol indicated railroad tracks. I think you had raised a spelling issue earlier? down at the very bottom, no. 3? Okay. All right. So is that --.

>>Lewis: yeah. I thought that came from your office.

>>Slusher: well, we will have to get some remedial spelling in there.

>>Garcia: we're talking about remedial spelling, on the second one, let me make this anunsment because there is a necessary spelling but a miss speaking here. Where it says the City Council approved an amount, that should be an amendment.

>>Lewis: right.

>>Slusher: yeah. And I would like to thank the co-sponsors for adding the amendment about accommodate co located railroad tracks. And I think that's very important that we have it. I think it's multi modul that we have a railroad track along with 130 where we don't build another highway, but that we get the -- try to work to get the union pacific track over there and then free the track up, the union pacific track being the one that comes down mopac and then across the river and free that up for rail here and that's the only way we will get a solid system going I think in any kind of rapid fashion or anything approaching rapid fashion is to have that. There's lots of efforts going on to do that, but I would like to urge the highway department or the department of transportation to work very hard to get rail along here. And we might come back at a future date with some more specifiCity on that. And this is something we're also talking about at capital metro.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Councilmember.

>>Garcia: we have a motion and a second. With some grammatical -- sw some grammar corrections which we already noted for the record.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor pro tem. Councilmember Spelman?

>>Spelman: like many of us, I was asked during the first six months of the year about which route for sh 130 I preferred. And like many of us, I said that I preferred the route which passed east of walter long lake because that seemed to me to be that route which would have the least interfeens with established neighbors east of I-35. Fewest people would be passing between 130 and I-35. Since then in the last couple of weeks I have -- I've started teaching a class which has a member of is a transportation engineer who is working with txdot on finding the best route and he has been telling me that there is an argument for one route which passed almost past walter long lake and then hangs a left and ends up going west. And I don't want to get into a long argument because I'm not sure I understand it but his argument was that that particular route would interfere less with the neighbors than the one that passed east of the walter long lake because whatever route it was would be spread out along the entire route. The reason I bring this us I guess is because I'm pervely on board with the principle of this resolution that we want to disrupt East Austin and other neighbors as ltion as possible, but it's conceivable to me that a route that does not pass east of walter long lake would be that route, would have the least disruptive affect. And I wonder whether Mayor pro tem, you see it the same way I do. Is it conceivable to you that if it could be shown to you, which it has not yet been shown to me, but could be, that a route other than the one which passed east of walter long lake actually had a less disruptive effect than the one which did pass east, if they would --.

>>Garcia: yeah, sure. Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Griffith and I attended a meeting after we had the candidate forums and I want to hand off this particular question to Councilmember Griffith because she basically has articulated and crafted that issue better than anybody that I've heard. So let me have the Councilmember explain that issue.

>>Griffith: thank you. I'm very flattered that you would think I was the one to tell this story. Mr. Lewis, would you please kick in when the time comes. The Mayor pro tem chaired a discussion in the fellowship hall of the 19th street baptist church that was a joint meeting, the pecan springs neighborhood association and the spring dale neighborhood association. The neighborhoods that will be -- or could be most directly affected by this decision. The text dolt engineers were there. They were very direct and very forthcoming, which we all appreciated. They explained in a part of it was about money because if the alignment went closer to town, then people would pay to use it. And if it were a true bypass going on other side of the lake, people would not pay to use it. And they were very open about the fact that that had a great deal to do with their choice of what they're calling the preferred route because if it were a toll road, then it could be built sooner. If it were a true bypass that really went around town, then it was going to be farther away into the future because people wouldn't buy tickets to get on it. And the txdot engineers showed the map, showed the different alignments and there was -- the question came up why do we think that people would want to get off of I-35 and get on a little road and drive to seguin. And then get on another little state road to go around -- to go around Austin? and there was a lot of discussion about the -- what some people thought was the rather obvious option, which would be to split I-35 and have an I-35 east going through town and an I-35 -- no, backwards. I have 35 west going through town and I-35 east that would -- well, you would have it splilt someplace, whatever appropriate place would be between san antonio and Austin, and then it would come back in someplace between, say, georgetown and dallas. So all that discussion went on. And at the end -- at the end of everybody's comments, we took a straw vote. And it was one entire fellowship hall in favor of the true bypass and one person who is for the route closer to town. So I've been guided by that since. And I've seen not only the alignment that Dr. Stob was talking about, but several others. And I'm still being guided by the folks who would be most closely affected.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis, and then Councilmember Lewis Slusher?

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. The president for pecan springs dale hill was here and he had to leave, but he left a letter. I won't bother you with the whole -- reading the whole thing, but he in essence said the same thing, that Councilmember Griffith said that it was approximately seven people in attendance and the vote was taken that supported the east route. And the other thing that is it prevalent about the route location is that, you know, people keep saying the preferred -- the technically preferred route and it would be -- the chances of it being funded is improved if it's west. Well, you know, nobody ever said that it wouldn't be funded as a toll road if it was east, just that it would -- the preferred route was west. The people that I've talked to over a period of time, including state representative delco -- I'm sorry. State representative duks dukes indicated that they preferred the east route because then it would wind up being a bypass rather than a commuter highway. What I am really concerned about is the location in the north in Williamson county because at some point those two highways is going to have to meet. And I don't want to see the north come down in one place and the part in Travis County wind up in another. One of the reasons that I put this in -- on the agenda is the commissioners, the county commissioners did pass a resolution endorsinging the east route after talking to representative dukes. She thought that it would be a great idea if we was all working from the same page or reading the same book when we did start dealing with txdot and the state as far as the location and the route goes. So thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Spelman?

>>Spelman: yeah. I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to make is clear? I understand what everybody has been saying about funding. I think that personally making a bypass a toll road while you keep the main route through town a free road is an incredibly dumb idea and it's encouraging especially big trucks that you want to take the bypass to take the route through town because it's going to be cheaper. I don't make these decisions. The issue I was raising was completely different and that was the issue of neighborhood disruption. And I won't try and argue the traffic argument at all because I don't understand it well enough to be articulate on the subject as voiced by my inarticulation right now. I buy the principle, but it's conceivable to me that a route west of walter long lake would disrupt neighborhoods less than one that is east of walter long lake. I'm not sold on that yet, but it is conceive ablg and I would like to register that I am in agreement with this in principle, but I might eventually come down for a different route.

>>Mayor Watson: let me just say something to that. The other day I was over at the Texas turn pike authority and in some discussions about this, the same point was made and they were talking about disbertion and all types of tircht different things came up. I am going to vote for this although I am going -- and I am dwins convinced that the rest of the Council is going to be the same way. The feeling I get from talking to members of the Council is that we want to vote for something that relieves traffic on I-35 and does so in a way that mitigates the negative impact on East Austin as much as is possible. Currently based upon and according to this it says according to current information, it says passes east of walter e. Long lake thus providing according to current information the least disruption of East Austin and other neighborhoods. I think that the members of this Council would be open minded enough that if there was additional information that comes forward that sells us that we're wrong about that then we'll be -- we'll be ready to change our point of view. But I hear -- I'm glad you brought up the point and laid it out on the table. So the motion has been made and seconded with grammatical changes as I understand it. Is there -- well, we've got some people signed up to speak before I get rolling on a vote. Councilmember Goodman.

>>Goodman: I just wanted to follow up. It's a message, what we're doing with this resolution is sending a message. And the message is though we have no absolute assignment laid out, we have txdot and everybody else to know that the reason that this roadway has support is because it has the function, a role, and we don't want that to be circumvented by decisions made elsewhere.

>>Mayor Watson: well put. All right. We have some people signed up to speak. Just for purposes of scheduling, let me let you know that we have 14 people that have signed up to speak on this item. You've heard the discussions, so you're going to be able to sense kind of where things are. If you're going to be repetitive of something somebody has already stood up and said I would ask you just to say that you're in agreement and without the necessity of repeating. Larry mckee? Mr. Mckee, do you wish to speak? please come forward. Jerry rottter?

>> he had to leave.

>>.

>>Mayor Watson: he signed up for. Al dotson? he lined up for. Larry anthony? larry anthony? he signed up for. Ron davis?

>> he also had to leave.

>>Mayor Watson: he also signed up for. Larry anthony there was a note Written on the back. 130 Should be routed east of walter e. Long lake. Let's not repeat that kind of mistake. Mac pain?

>> he was with the other group?

>>Mayor Watson: he was for. Hor race will list? do you wish to speak? if you would make your way to the microphone. Mr. Mckee, thank you for being here.

>> Good evening. Thank you Mayor Watson and Mayor pro tem, the other Councilmembers. After listening to y'all's discussion, I'm in agreement that it should go east, so I'm going make some statement sort of brief. We don't want to make the mistake of putting state 130 on the west side of the lake. Basically what it would do is the same thing that we have here now, upper deck 35. It picks up a lot of cars and drop them at the capital complex and university of Texas. It would do the same thing to mlk. Mlk is a traffic hazard now. And that would just triple of potential of dangers. In the morning and afternoonses. Mlk is one of the main school bus drop off and pickup points in East Austin. So being brief, I would hope that this Council will send a message to the state, make it a bypass. Don't make it a nightmare for the East Austin neighborhoods.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. Joann sneed? gee an sneed? she signed up for the eastern route of walter e. Long. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record].

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Baker you will be the next speaker. Mr. Will list, thank you for being here and thank you for your patience.

>> Mayor and members of the Council, thank you for allowing me to speak. Councilmember Griffith and Councilmember Lewis and Gus, at the meeting it was the university association, pecan spring, spring dale hill, windsor park and core in a do hills. And as Councilmember Goodman stated we voted six to one to put it on the eastern side of walter e. Long lake. And with that we would hope that this Council will message a movement not only to us -- not only to the highway department, but to the other entities in Williamson county to put it instead of the preferred route, put it on the eastern route. I attended a meeting in round rock when they had the meeting tuesday night a week ago and they didn't take a vote, but it was consensus the number of people that spoke, they all spoke in favor of the eastern route. By taking the east route, and I'll make this wick quick, when we did I-35 we made a mistake. When we did 183 we made a mistake. And when we did mopac we made a mistake. We made it too small, put it in the wrong place. So I think with us putting it on the east side of walter e. Long lake that we can sort of renuf rejuvenate and not make the mistake that we made previously. Remember, the main thing that we're interested in is getting some of those trucks off of I-35. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Roger baker?

>> well, I imagine that if I were, you know, considering this resolution, I would say, yeah, let's have it as far from Austin as possible and have the least financial involvement of the City with this road as possible. I think that, well, the Mayor said that he wouldn't support it unless it were a reliever road, but I think you should be asking the ats staff where as the reliever road ever been built that's worked in the United States up until this point in time? I don't think there are any examples. The problem is that there's a lot of lay tent repressed demand because it's out into a suburban area, so it tends to attract new traffic and encourage -- sure, it will encourage development in Williamson county for a time, but I don't think it will have any reliever affect or any -- result in any safety improvement. It will attract new growth and new traffic and you'll be as bad as ever pretty shortly. This approach has been compared to solving your dog's flea problems by getting yourself a new dog and I think that's what this will amount to be in the long run. I don't think it's -- the solution that this road has been designed to solve has never been defined. It's a political road. You know, it depends on what solution this road represents depends on who you ask. There's a dozen different versions floating out there. I think that -- I think that the road is likely to be a financial disaster in the long run and I'd like to pass out two documents that sort of back up what I'm saying. The first thing is that ats has only half the money that they projected just a couple of years ago. In other words, their total revenues are about equal to their total shortfalls projected over the coming decade. The second document is an editorial from nature magazine which says a permanent decline in global oil production is virtually certain to begin within 20 years and they say serious planning is needed to cope with the problems. Now, let me point out that the projected maturity of the bonds is 30 years beyond when the best scientific observers are saying that there's going to be a serious jump in fos sill fuel prices. So I think the bonds are going to go down the tubes big time. I think it's not going to solve the problems that you're expecting to solve. Maybe it's a done deal politically. In that case probably the further away the better. And here's the -- here is the financial analysis on the oil -- future oil prices.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Baker. Those are all the people that have signed up to speak on item no. 49. There's been a motion made and seconded. Councilmember Slusher?

>>Slusher: can I say something? maybe I shouldn't. I would hope that this motion has an impact on the highway department's thinking and that we have to do everything in our power to make that so because that hasn't always been the case in the past. By the way, I would agree that the goal here is to have the least impact on the east Austin neighbors, but Mr. Mckee talked about the I-35 upper deck and I think that's one of the ways that I believe the highway department hasn't well served the City of Austin with their ideas, you know, where you're going along and you're heading south south you think I'm going through town, but as soon as you get off of it if you're in the right lane you have to exit or merge with the other traffic. And so to me that just doesn't work too well. And if you're down to the bottom part 32, that's the most dangerous portion of highway in the state. And then I-35 and ben white where hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to send 290 out into the hill country over the aquifer, but the intersection with the federal highway wasn't -- wasn't approved or built. And I can't understand that. So I think we should try to get the highway department and the City more involved with each other in planning these roads and I would -- I've criticized them a couple of times. I've had the transportation idea, road idea that didn't go real big either, so I'm willing to -- I'm willing to let bygones are bygones and move on into the future. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you Councilmember. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? here none, all in favor? all opposed? motion carries. That takes us to our 4:30 time certain. Items no. 51 Through 62.

>> Good afternoon. I'm with the City staff and zoning cases are as follows. We have a lot of discussion items. I'm going to skip no. 51 As a discussion item. Item no. 52, There is a request for postponement from the applicant to March the 26th. I would like to mention to Council that this is the second request from the applicant. Under our postponement policy, the order nons states that unless you waive that requirement that there will be one postponement allowed for either party, either the applicant or an interested party, however, Council may waive that requirement. Secondly, the neighborhood is here and my understanding is that they would like to proceed with the hearing of this case. So that is a position for item no. 52, Whether to postpone or to hear the item. Moving on to item no. 53 --.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Goodman.

>>Goodman: do we know the reason for the postponement.

>> I apologize. I should have indicated the reason. The reason for the postponement request is to allow them additional time to explore an opportunity to purchase additional land that adjoins the site. That's the reason they have given us and to also discuss the case further with the neighborhood. Those are the two reasons stated in the letter from the applicant. Item no. 53 --.

>>Mayor Watson: hang on one second. Let me ask a question. Ripts of the neighborhood, will you agree to the postponement? [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: that's fine. Okay. Thank you. Item no. 53?

>> No. Item no. 53 Is also similar to no. 52. The the applicant has requested a postponement to March the fifth to continue discussing this case further with the neighborhood. And then secondly the neighborhood, my understanding is, would like to proceed with the public hearing today.

>>Mayor Watson: are representatives of the neighborhood here on item no. 53? Is that accurate you wouldn't agree to a postponement? [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>> On item no. 54 --.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask you, has there been a previous request for a postponement on item no. 53?

>> Yes. This case has been postponed -- this will be the fifth time.

>>Mayor Watson: fine. Thank you.

>> Okay. On item no. 54, There is also a request to postpone the case to February the 26th, both the applicant and neighborhood concur on this request. The reason for this request is to continue discussing with the neighborhood -- with the neighborhood department, neighborhood housing department regarding appropriate land use. And the reason appears to be an appropriate reason. I know there has been some ongoing dialogue regarding what neighborhood housing department might be able to do regarding the development of this property.

>>Mayor Watson: did you say postpone it to the 12th?

>> to February 26th.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. And there's agreement on both sides on that?

>> yes, there is.

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>> Now I'll take you over to a few consent items. We do have a few of those. Item no. 60, Case no. C 14 h 979, the north cliff norwood house, there is a request to zone the property, it's located at 1009 edge cliff from ph, which stands for public district his tore pick to p. Basically what you would be doing here is removing the historic designation and leaving the public zoning district for this particular tract. The Planning Commission and recommend the historic designation removal and this case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 61 Is located at 16 on 9 east anderson had lane and the request is to shown the property from -- it's currently zoned single family three and the requested zoning would be gr which stands for community commercial. It is recommended by the Planning Commission. And this case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 62, Case no. C 1497166 locatesed at 11301 taylor draper lane and the request is from single family 2 to mf three, which stands for multi-family medium density. The recommendation is to grant multi-family 2 zoning with conditions and the case is ready for first reading only. That concludes our postponement and consent items.

>>Mayor Watson: as I understand it, 54 could go on consent because of the agreement on postponement?

>> that's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Council, the only items I show for consent would be item no. 54, Which would be a postponement until February 26th. Item no. 60 Consent for all three readings, item no. 61, Consent for all three readings and item no. 62 For first reading only. The Mayor pro tem moves to we approve. Seconded by counsel Spelman. Is fl any discussion?

>> why is item 59 not a consent reading agenda item?

>> item 59 my understanding is there are some citizens who signed up to speak.

>>Mayor Watson: that's right. I'm hoping it's going to be short, because I think it's -- I think it's a close deal.

>> It's my understanding it will be a brief discussion.

>>Mayor Watson: in fact, we may take it up first. Motion has been made and seconded to approve by skented item no. 54 And postpone. Item no. 60, Item 61 and skub 62. Hearing none, all opposed ano. Motion carries. I am going to take up item no. 59 First. I recognize miss glasgow.

>> Mayor and Councilmembers, item no. 59 Is property that is zoned historic, the north cliff norwood house, this property is located on edge cliff terrace and the property is currently zoned p public, the request is for zone this property p historic district. The Planning Commission recommendation and the landmark historic commission is to zone the entire site p historic. The save recommendation is to just zone the site that will accommodate the bllg building, so that's really the difference in the real addition is either zoning the entire site or just zoning the area that is needed to relocate the house to. And I believe that's what the sit ens are here to speak about. That concludes my presentation on item 59.

>>Mayor Watson: let me make sure that I'm clear. The staff recommendation was to only designate the structure historic?

>> correct.

>>Mayor Watson: and the historic landmark commission Planning Commission recommendation is to designate the entire site.

>> That is correct.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. With that why don't I call on the two people that have signed up to speak. Rose batson and ms. Fincher. You will each have three minutes.

>> Thank you. Yes. The reason that we want -- that we would prefer the staff recommendation is because if we zone only the buildings historic, that would give us more flexibility. We are in complete agreement that the site is historic and we're going to do everything to restore it to its historical status, but at present the master plan has not yet been developed. That is going to be developed in the next phase. Without such a plan, we don't have guidelines for those areas that do not -- that were not occupied by structures. Also, we're going to need to adapt to present day regulations for such things as retention ponds for runnoff waters from parking areas, parking for the handicapped and possibly other things. With only the building zoned historic, we will have greater flexibility in adapting the site to present day needs, probably at less cost in time and certainly with less bureaucracy. I have been speaking with the City with different departments of the City because the site is rate on Town Lake, there's going to be very stringent restrictions on how all these things need to be addressed. So the greater flexibility that we have, the easier it's going to be for us. And yes, we agree that this is historic and we're going to do everything possible to restore it, but we're also having to deal with regulations that are going to be very strict because of the site. So if you could help us, we'd greatly appreciate it. And rose batson, the president of the women's chamber will tell you more about the project if you'd like to hear some of it.

>>.

>>Mayor Watson: please. And you're ms. Fincher?

>> that's correct. [One moment, please] we view this as a grass roots effort. We have a lot of momentum going, we are really ready to get rolling with the project. We do request that you zone the property at this point along the staff recommendations. I think that will greatly facilitate the process as we restore the site. I wanted to tell you, also, we have worked very closely with the Texas historical commission and other experts our architects, all sorts of folks who have guided us through this process. So we are taking great care to make certain that it's done in the right way. If you have any questions, we would be glad to answer them. Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: thank you, Mayor. Would you give me a little detail on the differences between the staff recommendations that you prefer and the planning commission recommendations?

>> yes. The nor wood estate, when it was in its original condition, was really a -- a cluster of buildings. There was the main bungalo, the one we are restoring and relocated. There was a swimming pool on the site with bath houses, there was a gazebo, a tea house, just a cluster, a garbage. Most of those facilities no longer exist. The only ones that are left really is the swimming pool and the bungalo. We will restore it, preserve it to its original condition, adapt it for use now, but we will restore it. We also plan to restore the swimming pool and the bath houses. We plan to restore the gardens, which were quite beautiful. The tea house, the gazebo are gone, but we have relocated some of those structures, would like to restore those. The difference is that the places where we will put the structures, the ones that we know were there, the bungalo, tea house, gardens, swimming pool, those would be zoned historic. The grounds -- how many acres? about three acres?

>> about three acres in the total property. (Beep) those would not be zoned historic. But the grounds would be.

>>Slusher: [inaudible].

>> The only one I believe was the garbage. Which hasn't been there in a long time.

>>Slusher: currently --

>> there's nothing there now.

>>Slusher: the difference is that those wouldn't be -- the empty lot space wouldn't be or the open space wouldn't be zoned historic?

>> the gardens would be.

>> Okay. The gardens are -- it's the area right around the bungalo, because those were formal gardens at one time. There's also, we can tell where the greenhouse was and the gazebo, so those areas we plan to restore.

>>Slusher: that really is a beautiful site. I am familiar with it.

>> It's gorgeous, just a gem.

>>Slusher: I want to make it as easy for you all to do as possible. And less bureaucracy, one or other or both, can you tell me how the City could meet take criteria for you, what you would suggest there?

>> I can give you some suggestions.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> Without being overly critical, we do have someone who is doing this with us now, for a while we didn't really have anyone in the City, on the City staff that was working directly with us. And so it was -- it was difficult always to know what to do because we really are not developers and we are not preservation people. We are just a community group trying to get this project done as quickly as possible. We have to raise all of the -- all of the money to do it. So the easier that we work with the City the better. We do have someone now helping us, george zapalac is our staff liaison, but that's only been fairly recently. As a result of that I think we made some mistakes that delayed the project. And if we could continue to have that kind of help and that kind of support, any help with the permitting processes that you can give us would be -- we would be most grateful. Because I do believe this is going to be a tremendous asset for the community. It's not something we are doing just for ourselves. In fact it doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the City. And I think that will be something that all of us will be proud of. Something that the City can -- the community can really enjoy and use. Which they can't now.

>>Slusher: let me ask one more question. If we were to pass the Planning Commission recommendation instead of the staff recommendation, how would that hinder your efforts?

>> well, bea mentioned several things. One we don't have a master plan. That comes in the next phase. That is the next phase of this project. And the phases of the project, by the way, were not developed by us. They were developed in consultation with the Texas historical commission and other experts, architects, engineers, and the -- the advice that they gave us was to get the house back to the site. The reason that's so important is because then it qualifies for grants. We have to have the known restore the house. To get it back to the site means that we will qualify for grants to do that. And there are grants available to do that master plan. We do not want to proceed to do any anything with the project until we have that plan.

>>Slusher: did you want to answer that? then I had better move on?

>> I think the -- I think rose has covered it. Basically the less bureaucracy that we have to deal with, because we are going to be dealing with the environment, either water board, the environment something or other, the wastewater people, I mean, it's incredible the number of bodies that we are going to have to work with in order to do what we want to do with the site and get -- yet do all of the things that we have to do to meet the environmental codes. To make certain that this is, you know, has parking for the handicapped, that the runoff water is handled properly because there's a swimming pool there that complicates the matter. You know how the sewer --

>> I think we can help you with that. But does it make any difference in that way between those two recommendations --

>> my understanding is that the Planning Commission recommendation is the same as the historical commission because they took is on consent.

>>Slusher: it's a little different than the staff. That's what set me off here because you said the staff. Because they say the entire site.

>> I can help with an answer. There is one big difference in zoning an entire site historic versus limiting it to the structures and the garden and the swimming pool. The difference is that anything that is zoned historic, whatever improvements you make to the site, to the exterior of the buildings, has to go to the historic landmark commission for review, hence the delay they are speaking about without going to them one time with a comprehensive plan, so that's the main distinction that if you limit it to the original buildings and the original site that the building was originally located on, those improvements, that there would -- they would then just go to the commission for those specific items. And anything else on the site they would still have to go to them if they are zoned historic. That's the big difference that that --.

>>Mayor Watson: could you -- I'm sorry to interrupt. But could you have a situation where, maybe I am misunderstanding this, but once the history -- once the master plan is done, do they have to take it back to the historic landmark commission?

>> if the it varies from what the landmark commission has seen, yes.

>>Mayor Watson: so there could be a situation -- if we vote tonight to go with the staff recommendation which just designates the original -- the structure and the original area, the gardens, things like that historic, then the next step for them is a master plan and they are going to have to bring a master plan back to the historic landmark commission anyway?

>> before we can issue any permits to make improvement to the exterior, the landmark commission only looks at any improvement to the sister of the site and the grounds, on the site itself that is zoned historic. So if they are adding a walkway or what have you --.

>>Mayor Watson: if we vote tonight to go staff recommendation, they go and master plan it, they don't have to bring the master plan back?

>> no, not entirely correct. Just for the specific improvements they will be making to the structure, altering the exterior of the structure and the grounds, but zoned historic would need the landmark commission's approval. [Inaudible].

>> We have an agreement with the City, we are doing this because we are -- we love the project, we are interested in it. We also have some plans for the project. The agreement with the City will allow us to use, for example, the ground around the pool, the swimming pool as a sculpture garden honoring Texas women. This is very important to us. But that was not part of the original -- the pool now is in a pecan grove. It's in a large area, we want to convert that into a beautiful sculpture garden that would honor Texas women. That would not be in accordance with the way it was, it would be adaptive reuse essentially. Additionally the swimming pool may not necessarily be restored as a pool. You know, we may want to restore it as a reflecting pond or something, that's part of the master plan. So there are just a lot of questions involved when you start restoring old sites like this. Especially if you are going to adapt them today for other purposes, does that help clarify it.

>>Mayor Watson: very much, thank you very much for being here.

>> Thank you for your interest.

>> Item no. 59, I will entertain a motion.

>> Move approval.

>> That will be our first reading.

>> I will second that, Mayor.

>> Motion made by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by Councilmember Slusher to approve the staff recommendation on first reading only. Is there any discussion?

>>Goodman: one quick comment. I do understand why the Planning Commission an historic landmark commission wanted to zone the property with it, I confess I do feel a little uneasy about putting it back on the original land so that you can qualify for grants to get money to not restore the property around the way you are going to for the house. There's a little discomfort there. Although I am going to vote for it, I think maybe the stories about the difficulties of the bureaucracy for the landmark commission and their staff, hopefully they have some staff at the moment, are exaggerated. And there have been some difficulties no doubt about it. But I think the stories far youth weigh reality. Councilmember Slusher I didn't get what they are saying -- they were saying, that they were directing that at the historic landmark commission in particular, but what struck me was the list of the apartment of departments that they would have to deal with. That is a fairly common complaint and we are going to be redoing the land development code over the next few months.

>>Mayor Watson: if you want to wait --.

>>Slusher: they are in the development zone, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made and seconded to approve -- did you have something else to add?

>> no, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: made and seconded to approve the staff recommendation on first reading only on item no. 59. Any further discussion? hearing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed say no., motion carries with the Mayor pro tem off the dias, thank you all for being here tonight. Council, earlier tonight when we passed the consent agenda, we were moving rapidly, I blew right through all of the people that signed up to speak on the consent agenda, so I made a promise to all of them if they wanted to speak, I would let them speak at some point since it was my mistake. You all are going to have to pay for my mistakes, I want to apologize and give Mr. Treken trekenberg an opportunity to speak. He's here on speak on item 48. We have passed it, he still would like to speak on that. I apologize again.

>> I hope he's in favor of it.

>> I am. I appreciate it. I wanted to give some comment about item 48 is to give direction to the City Manager about criteria and funding for the Austin music network. I wanted to speak to the funding aspect of that. There's been a lot of discussion that the Austin music network is a $300,000 drain on the general fund, I want to suggest that the number is higher than that by all counts the Austin music network needs about a half million dollars worth of equipment to generate the kind of product that we want. The useful life of video equipment is about three to five years. So from a depreciation standpoint, you really need to add in excess of $100,000 to that $300,000. In addition to that is correct the City is providing space, they are providing access to networks, computers, phone systems, support staff or accounting, legal, conservatively I think that to cover the amount of the Austin music network, you are talking about a half million dollars, not $300,000. In terms of the funding options, we have all heard about 501 c options, I think as City Council members you can probably appreciate it's a lot easy inventory get some people to say we love you and support you, than it is to actually get them to write a check to you. It's very, very unlikely that the 501 c 3, especially a new one, with a questionable product might be able to go out and get that kind of money in its first year. In terms of our funding options that have been on the table, there's discussion about actv. I find the logical argument to be kind of strange. What I sense that I am hearing is that since amn is an amenity that tourists might like that we should give them money. By that argument, we ought to give the university of Texas money for its athletic programs or there are a number of other arts organization that's could make a similar claim on the money. I have heard other arguments that we should tap into the arts funding. I in principle don't object to that. But I would object if we circumvented the normal arts process. If you put amn in the normal arts process let them fight for it, I don't think they would get very much money. If somebody wanted to force that issue, you have an arts board worse than any laguna gloria arts board that we have ever had. The cable fund, there were options before the '96 cable franchise that we could have gotten money. I think it's going to be difficult to do a lot of it now. I think they are used to that money and would be rereluctant to give it up. Let me conclude by saying the only option left to you is an rfp. I'm a private sector guy, if somebody wants to bid on this, more power to them, but I don't think you are going to get a lot of bidders who will actually come up with a plan for $500,000 absent a check from the City. I think that in the rfp the only City that the City should give is the channel space and some access to the library. And so I said this before, if you can't find a way to fund the Austin music network, without getting on the general fund, I think that you should kill it now rather than just prolong it. Thank you, I appreciate it Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: sure, I apologize again for blowing through the speakers. Thank you for being here. Item no. 51.

>> Mayor, Councilmembers, to proceed with the zoning cases, item no. 51, C 149783. This case is located at 6610 river place boulevard. The property is currently zoned dr, which stands for development reserve. The applicant initially requested gr, which stands for community commercial zoning. The Planning Commission's recommendation, which is different from the applicant's request is lr, which stands for neighborhood commercial with a conditional overlay. The applicant has amended his request to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation. And that's what I am going to be offering to you is the Planning Commission recommendation to you, which is neighborhood commercial with a conditional overlay and I will just briefly give you the conditional overlay. They would like that the -- that the service stations be proper hibbed, the site is located within the hill country roadway, within a thousand feet off of f.m. 2222, This is just informationnal, means that any site plans would have to go to the Planning Commission for public hearing. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have followi g hearing from the citizens.

>>Mayor Watson: there's a valid petition?

>> this case does have a valid petition of 42%, that would require six votes of Council to overly the petition.

>>Mayor Watson: representative of the applicant here?

>> yes.

>> According to our rules, you have five minutes, then we will hear from the opposition, 3 people have signed up in opposition, you will have an opportunity to rebuttal.

>> Mayor Watson, members of the City Council, I am January sanford the partner of four points development company, the owner of this property. It's our only asset. .6 Acre parcel located off of 2222 on river place boulevard. The current zoning designation that was applied to the property in annexation is dr, some of requirements of dr are that we have a minimum lot size of 10 acres. So just from the very point of annexation, this property was bought in a non-conforming state. Other aspect of dr zoning indicate that its designed specifically as an interim basis until development and/or zoning cases have identified lands use patterns within that area. Briefly, [inaudible] mirts are mairtsz pull that microphone on off there, please.

>> I have the large size map here. It's pretty hard to see our little property in relation to the tracks here. Since we were annexed in 1994, several zoning cases have occurred out here that have increased the intensity of development. There's a 100 acre parcel. Just to the southwest, it is zoned for 600,000 office r and d park. The property directly to the south, add jays sense to the boundary line was gr, can conditional overlay, also the murphy company has achieved zoning changes to gr and go and multi family on property directly across river place boulevard from us. As I read the ordinance for dr zoning, it appears to me that since we are such a small tract surrounded by such large tracks that have been zoned, that the general nature of the area has been determined by zoning by Council and this is an appropriate time now to seek the change in our zoning so we can not only have some use of our property, currently our permitted uses include camping, university facilities, a few just very minor uses that might be employed on this property, obviously not suitable for the area. So we are just simply asking to be zoned relatively compatible with the adjacent property to us, which is -- we are surrounded effectively by gr zoning, we are happy to go along with the planning commission regulation of gr, we agree with their conditional overlay. I understand I need a 6 to one vote here, but we are really deadlocked to do anything until we have a change in zoning, I would appreciate your consideration and approval of the changes. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, Mr. Sanford.

>> Daniel dow, j painter and then james baker.

>> I'm daniel dow, I'm on the sdoping commit tee for river place. First I would like to say we are not completely opposed to a zoning change on this property. Our biggest issue has been the driveway cuts. And we have done a lot of work kind as as also the middle man to try to bring the parties together, adjacent landowners together to attempt to minimize the number of driveway cuts. They are going to be accessing river place boulevard. We are a single access community, we are very sensitive to traffic and disrupg of the traffic flow. We have talked with representatives of what's called river place center, which is the 20 acre plus or minus retail tract adjacent to this property.

>>Mayor Watson: would you point that out?

>> [inaudible].

>>. 1.75. The 1.75 acre lot, which is owned by river place, the developers of river place, we have talked with them. This is the proposed driveway into the tract that you are looking at tonight. And we have -- we have gotten an agreement with river place and with river place center that they will participate in a joint use access so that the access to this tract could move down here, come in through here, and obtain access to the tract from the side. Instead of having an additional cut here. There's already one approved here. That goes into riverplace center. And there's also -- there is -- there's also another driveway approved as part of this development. So there are one, two, potentially three driveways all within a short distance. So we would like the owner of this tract to take a little harder look at possibly doing a joint use with the other owners since they have already agreed to negotiate.

>>Mayor Watson: your valid petition said that you are against any change other than -- any change to the dr zoning. That's not true, right?

>> I am not representing river place center.

>> Okay.

>> I'm with the river place --

>> I will ask them about that then.

>> Okay.

>> That's all that I have, thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: would you be in agreement with the lrco or even for make that is right the gr if there was that cut wasn't there? you just told me you weren't with them, you turned around and looked at them.

>> We are all with riverplace, but james thinks that needs to be a koa, I think? is that right, james [laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: I know he probably does. I would be hard pressed to say with all of the zoning that's surrounding it, that it shouldn't be zoned something more intensive than what it is.

>> Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Painter.

>> Thank you, Council members, Mr. Mayor. Daniel has stolen my thunder as well as my prop, so let me run through again what we are looking at is three driveways in the space of 347 feet, that's basically a football field with the end zones, three driveways on to riverplace boulevard. If you continue down another 200 feet, a fourth, another 2 or 400 feet you have a fifth driveway. That's our issue is really the safety of our residents entering and exiting the community. If I can go back about 18 months or more, when I was president of the river place homeowners association, I was contacted by the owners of the river place center property as well as the owners of this particular tract to talk about what could be done to keep us from having to realign cuts in our medians, et cetera. And it seems that it's not so much a case of having a desire to develop the property, but a case for getting money out of.6 acre, which is right in the middle of some planned development of river place center. This tract is in line with a cut, an existing cut through on river place boulevard. That will have to be relocated for access to river place center. So this is really an economic hardship to members of the river place center property, the owners of that property, and a hardship on the residents of the community in order to go through that construction and the additional driveway. Thank you very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Baker.

>> Mr. Mayor, Council meMrs, let me clarify for a moment. It is request for the valid petition is at the instigation of river place center, a development out there. Zinc from river place homeowners association. Zinc from river place homeowners.

>> You are not in disagreement with my zoning change which would change it from dr?

>> my preference would be not to have any further zoning changes towards commercial enterprises along our boulevard. Each one that comes along points to the one.

>>Mayor Watson: I hear what you are saying, I understand your question. My question is we have got a tract here that's dr in the midst of all of this. What would you suggesting on there other than something commercial?

>> well, I actually have seen a need for camping and university activities out in that area. Mayor, but I know that's going to fly.

>> You are not really suggesting that, though, are you?

>> no, sir, I am nomt. Let me just say that we are going to have another issue that we are going to be back out here on right after this, a similar issue across the street. If you all think that it's appropriate to change the zoning, then what I would like you to consider doing is to put a conditional overlay on it to restrict it to working out an access arrangement with the existing access points so we don't continue to have that encroachment of each one gets its own cut, site distances, congestion. The other thing, I think that I would like to ask the Council to consider, for this project as well as for others that are going to come along in the bull creek watershed, the area immediately contiguous, is to reduce the I am of I am perous cover that -- impervious cover. That's one way of reducing the density of development that's going to come along out we have problems getting to -- access to 222, with all of the other projects coming along, one way to reduce the against community of traffic on 2222 is to start reducing impervious cover allowance.

>> You feel that way about the entire area of river place?

>> those areas that haven't been zoned already?

>> I think it applies basically in principle to all of the entire area.

>>Mayor Watson: all of river place you would be in agreement for that occurring?

>> to that area that hasn't been stoned. River place is already a planned community where we live. It's already been planned for a buildout to 1100 residents. We want to keep the character of our neighborhood primarily residential. But we are getting increasing commercial zoning applications up and down not only 2222, but coming back from 2222 and down into --.

>>Mayor Watson: we know.

>> We need to do something --.

>>Mayor Watson: we know.

>> We need to do something to limit the density of development. As far as single family, I don't think that's that's a problem, Mayor, because that doesn't create the density of traffic that the commercial enterprises do.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Stanford.

>> Just a question first of all. On a petition is it required for the petitioner to come up in support or testify -- okay. First of all I want to thank the neighborhood group, we've had quite a few conversations over the past several months, trying to work out access problems, not only with them but also with the adjacent river place center, which is a retail development here. I would love nothing more than to go back to the original legitimate that was proposed to alone with the median cut, that saves us impervious cover, better for the environment, certainly would have some impact on the traffic flow and circulation around this area. But we have been in constant contact with these folks over the past five years and have not been able to reach an agreement as yet. Part of that reason, I believe, is the fact that we have been an unzoned unplatted property and they have been able to use that -- well, it just hasn't worked out to where we have been able to come to an agreement. I think the natural business and appropriate access considerations are on the table for both of us to look at. I think prudent men will ultimately come to an agreement that will be satisfactory to all parties. But I don't know if I could really agree to Mr. Baker's condition to put an imposition or a conditional overlay that we must seek access with these folks that binds our hands to any development and puts us in their hands and I don't think that's really appropriate for this situation. We are seeking a zoning change to be compatible and -- with our adjacent neighbors. I have to point out that the near' single family property to this family, single family development is approximately three quarters of a miles -- further south. I think our immediate impact to the neighborhood and housing that is there is going to be minimal. So --.

>>Mayor Watson: except from my -- the number of cuts along there does make a big difference. I hear what you are saying about trying to get in contact. What I would be interested in knowing, because you obviously are land locked, that's the way we get in and get out of that piece of property. What I would be interested in knowing is is there some way that we could help you facilitate being accident go somewhere else so we could -- being able to go somewhere else to reduce the number of cuts?

>> I think it would be to grants a zoning change that puts us on an even playing field with these adjacent property owners, we are not dependent on there them for development.

>>Mayor Watson: then you would be in a position where you would need to do that to get their permission. What I am suggesting is there something else that we can do now that would help you with this 1.whatever it is, 7 acres, 7.5 acre lot next door to be able to get access to your property so we can reduce the number of cuts along that way and then you can have your zoning to do what you needed to do, but we would reduce the major concern of the folks?

>> if you could suggest what you have in mind, Mayor, I would certainly like to consider it.

>>Mayor Watson: I don't have anything in mine, that's what I am -- why I am asking you. I am sim thekt to their concerns about the number of cuts, but also sympathetic to the idea that you can't -- even if it's a campground it's going to have a cut.

>> There's a little misunderstanding about the number of cuts that are approved out there, if I could just -- bear with me a moment longer. [Inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: you need a microphone.

>> This is a copy of the recently corrected site plan for river place center. We originally had three driveways without on to bona venture. A street eliminated from the public plan. You will note these cloud shaped designs indicate that these are revisions, all of these driveways have been removed from their plan as it stand today. As per correction. I think Mr. Zapalac can certainly attest to that. We are now down officially to their one driveway north of us and then any driveway that we might put on the property, and we have a total of 230 feet of frontage, so we can certainly fit the minimum separation character or requirements for principal roadway of 200 feet in the City of Austin. We are going to be dealing with a right in, right out access only. I this other impact is going to be minimal to the traffic circumstance chraix in this area. But obviously we are going to continue working this property owner to try to get joint access across here, but I would like to avoid having my hands tied being forced to deal with them, have my project dependent upon their decision. Especially since they are not here to make any offers.

>>Mayor Watson: I understand. Hard to negotiate with somebody that's not around. A quick question.

>> Yes, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: do you know of anything that could help facilitate the compromise that is trying to be worked here? any way that we can help in this?

>> in the -- specifically what?

>>Mayor Watson: well, Mr. San ford what I hear him saying is unless he has his zoning, he can't get anybody to really talk to him. I don't know -- I don't know how that works. But is there something we can do to help -- well, obviously in order for him to be able to discuss either joint use, he needs zoning change. With development reserve the only permitted use is single family use, he doesn't even have the acreage to meet the required land area to have -- to meet that requirement. I realize that we -- the zoning designation is there that was assigned many years ago, we have eliminated that district. He does make a point that in order for him to have a meaningful discussion with somebody who might be able to either know how to have a joint access, that he need to have some zoning to be able to say yes, I can. We can have a joint access because we have a commercial use here and you have a commercial use. The reason I say that, is because in order to have joint access both uses must have some comparable zoning or at least commercial zoning to allow a driveway. He cannot have a driveway to serve -- to serve his dr use and have it jointly with a commercial use. That's the challenge or dilemma he is possessing to you, that he does need that in order to have the ability to have a joint use driveway should that opportunity arise. I would like to point out the discussion about access. This property has a sole point of access, from river place boulevard. Therefore we -- it would not be appropriate to prohibit access or require them to have a joint access because you would be limiting them to having to negotiate for joint access, if they were unable to achieve it, you have rendered their site inaccessible.

>> I also wanted to point out, the one thing can he we do under dr is put a driveway in. That's really all we are allowed to do nature I understand, even a campground requires access.

>> You have been talking about a project, could you explain to us what you had in mind for using this property for.

>> Our primary desire is to look at medical offices. My partner is a civil engineer, I am a commercial real estate broker in Austin. We intend to build a facility that will first of all allow our office use. We hoped because of the intense retail development add jays sent to us, we could take advantage of some of the lighter and more limited residential or retail uses that might be allowed to go adjacent to these larger developments. And quite mondaysly not only is river place center up for sale, the origin property out there is up for sale. We might be the only game in town for a while anyway until somebody comes along to buy these properties and actually develop them. We feel as the planning commission pointed out that the neighborhood has some obligation to support its own needs, retail, office, professional services. Man commission I think very correctly pointed out that a small development like this at Mr. Mouth would probably generate mostly internal traffic, prevent people from getting out on to 2222 for some of their need, not a grocery store, we obviously don't have that much room. But I think we can serve some neighborhood needs with this location on a limited retail and office basis. That's what we are looking to accomplish here.

>> Okay. Commissioner baker at the Planning Commission suggested lo rather than or something of an office zone instead of retail zone that you are asking for now. You suggested that you didn't want to do that. How come?

>> well, a couple of reasons, there has been disc ssion about buying, swapping land, for instance, we would thought we would try to get as compatible as we can to adjacent properties. We are surrounded by gr. That was a pretty easy decision to come in and request gr. Lr is a moderate step down to help to begin to buffer for the neighborhood in the area. Lo would not be my first choice. If that's imposed upon us, we will have to do the best we can. Will thomas lo would actually fit what -- fit what your intended use is right now.

>> Limit any retail opportunity for us, but would allow us to handle the medical and professional offices that we are looking for in addition.

>> It does not allow medical offices, which we think there's a real need for out here. So.

>>Mayor Watson: if we were to vote on this on first reading only tonight in such a way that we might provide them the opportunity to talk to these folks about a joint use, then we can come back and re-evaluate at a later time; is that correct?

>> that's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: Council I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item no. A 1. Motion made by Councilmember Griffith, seconded by Councilmember Slusher to close the public hearing, any discussion? hearing none, all in favor say aye, opposed say no., motion carries with Councilmember Lewis off the dias.

>> Do we have six votes.

>> To close the public hearing?

>> I apologize.

>>Mayor Watson: I will entertain a motion with regard to item no. 51. Is there a motion with regard to item no. 51? If the motion were to be made to go forward with the recommendation of lcco on first reading only, that would allow the applicant an opportunity to discuss as he's indicated and ms. Glasco pointed out, we could come back and discuss it at another point if that's not carried forward.

>>Griffith: Mayor that correct that would take sick votes because there's a valid petition. Can I ask the applicant a quick question before we vo.

>>Mayor Watson: sure.

>>Griffith: rather talking about land uses, I the way I understand it now, you would be allowed to generate up to 2,000 trips a day; is that correct.

>> That's the initial recommendation with the gr zoning.

>>Griffith: how would you feel about, could you live with a thousand instead of the 2,000?

>> recommend.

>>Griffith: okay.

>>.

>> Yes, ma'am.

>>Mayor Watson: I will take any motion at this point.

>>Griffith: how about that motion with a thousand trips a day.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made to grant lrco with the planning commission's requirements of service station being prohibited and site plans returned to the planning commission, a limitation of a thousand trips per day. Is there a second.

>> Second.

>> Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all of those in favor say ". Opposed say no. Motion fails on a vote of 5 in favor and one against. The one being Councilmember Goodman. Takes us to item no. 52.

>> Item no. 52 Is another case in river place, a little southwest of item no. 52. The rezoning request for case number c 14-97-119 located on bona venture driveway, from development reserve to lo, which stands for limited office. The Planning Commission recommendation to you is to grant limited office with a conditional overlay. The recommendation for office zoning is appropriate at this location. It is compatible with the add joining land uses and this would allow for some office uses, along this area and as I indicated this case is also not too far from river place boulevard and in close proximity to item no. 51. That concludes staff presentation, I will be glad to answer questions.

>>Garcia: does this have any valid petition?

>> this one does not have a petition against it.

>>Garcia: Council we have three speakers on this particular issue. If it's okay with you guys, we will have the public hearing and then discuss it. First speaker is daniel dow.

>> James baker after him. And last speaker is jay painer. Are you the applicant? is the applicant here?

>> we have been unable to locate the applicant. He dropped off a letter requesting a postponement, we have been unable to able to get him back here.

>>Mayor Watson: if we could recess this, Councilmember Lewis has a motion.

>>Lewis: I would like to reconsider item no. 51, Please. Second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman to reconsider item no. 51. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Lewis,.

>>Garcia: Mayor I want to call a point of order. I am going to make the motion.

>>Mayor Watson: I apologize, the motion -- in order to reconsider a motion has to be made by someone on the losing side of the previous vote. The Mayor pro tem moves to reconsider item no. 51. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion? allergy none, all in favor say aye, opposed say no., motion carries. At this time, I will entertain a motion with regard to item no. 51.

>>Lewis: I move that we pass it on first reading.

>>Mayor Watson: I am going to entertain that a motion to pass item no. 51 With to grant the Planning Commission recommendation of lrco with the requirements of service stations being prohibited, all site plans going to the Planning Commission and a reduction in vehicle trips per day from 2,000 to 1,000, is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion?

>>Goodman: yes, Mayor.

>>Goodman: I think a thousand trips are too many, that was really the crux of it.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion?

>>Slusher: I agree with Councilmember Goodman on that point, I am going to vote yes so they can work that out. A thousand trips is too many, all of this other stuff approved, I am sympathetic to that, I will be discussing this and thinking about it during the next, what is it, two weeks?

>>Mayor Watson: yeah.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made and seconded, any further discussion. All in favor say aye, opposed say no. Motion carries on a vote of 6 votes in favor, one vote against. I will now reconvene the public hearing on item no. 52.

>> Thank you very much. Gaursz we called Mr. Daniel dow and Mr. James baker, Mr. Jay painer, Mr. Dow was about to begin his presentation.

>> Thank you, Mayor. -- Minor. This site, I apologize, I don't -- I can't exactly identify it, but I made copies from the file and if you don't mind, I will -- I will either hold it up or pass it around.

>> Go ahead. Give it to me, I will send it through. If you are looking at your packet, we have now moved down here, this is the property that you are considering right in here. Very much different from the case that you just heard. This property is surrounded by Dr. Except to the west, which is sf 5:00. Bone in a venture drive, that stub that will engineer go through because of the origin tract because it precludes access to the business park, will never become a major arterial. We have sf 5 here, leap frogging over the sf 5, asking for a very traffic intensive commercial use. Going to be a 2 hub child daycare facility and we very much oppose this zoning change. We think that the property immediately adjacent would be much better zoned sf something, five is fine by us. As you know, you have heard add news yum, one way in and out, very sensitive to traffic. That the traffic continues to build up. And this tract is over a thousand feet away from 2222, there's no viable reason to zone it commercial. It's not on a major arterial. In fact reading from the staff comments, which you find on page 2 of the october 3rd staff recommendations, under transportation it says no additional right-of-ways required at this time. The area being rezoned does not have any street frontage. At the time a subdivision of site plan application access will be determined and addressed. Access from river place boulevard or an extension of bona venture drive are both options, but access to a commercial lot must be accomplished through property which also has a commercial zoning designation. They adopt have that. So I don't know why they are in here asking for a commercial zoning when they con have frontage on the road and they do not have commercial zoning next to them. Also, as you will recall, when 2222 business park was approved, there was a conditional overlay, excuse me, a restrictive covenant put on the property by the City (beep) I will finish in just a second, by the City on our behalf preventing access from 2222 business park under river place boulevard.

>>Garcia: let me ask a question, do any of the other two speakers want to give time to Mr. Dow.

>> I will.

>> Okay.

>> The restrictive covenant prevented access, the City was the one that proposed this from 2222 to business park, we are jammed with traffic now. Our tia indicates that we are buried in traffic at the entrance. One way in and out, safety, emergency, so we think that we know there are zoning changes coming, we want the least possible traffic intensive zoning changes, already has sf right there. It should be additional sf, not commercial. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Dow.

>>Garcia: Mr. Baker?

>> thank you, Mayor pro tem. Council members. I want to agree with all of the comments that you heard from daniel dow. I also want to add to that the fact that in addition to opposing any change in zoning on this, this is just another example of how somebody is always coming along with an attempt to put a commercial enterprise on our boulevard and cause additional problems for us. Up and down 2222 or within the entrance to our community, as I said on the other tract, I would really urge the Council to start giving consideration to the fact that if we start limiting the intensity of development that we allow on each of these individual parcells that come along, we can hopefully save ourselves the troubles that you were dealing with earlier tonight on I-35 and so forth when you have got a mess that's already in existence and you are looking a horrendous -- horrendous expense to bypass and repair it. Already on 2222 we have a mess in traffic that's, you know, in terms of projects that have already been approved, each one coming along, even though it may be small individually, simply adds more and more and more to an already december operatedly overcrowded swaying. That's the main reason I oppose going commercial on this. Any kind of zoning change needs to go low intensity and in the interest of our community I would strongly urge that you only consider going to a residential use. Questions?

>> I think you probably have all three minutes.

>> Glad to know that there is something there. That there you very much for allowing to us speak this evening. We welcome the opportunity, even with the other side not being present. I would luke to talk for a few minutes about how we have come to be here tonight sort of one sided on this. This proposed zoning change come came through planning commission without us having an opportunity to speak, it was canceled, reshuffled, postponed, we never had an opportunity to speak in opposition to this change in the planning stage of it with that group. And as we approached the Council hearing on, this the first time, in november, that was postponed and there was a letter that went out from the children's courtyard, the applicant for the change in zoning, that stated they wanted a 30 day postponement in order to the talk to the liver place subdivision homeowners association and the residents. That letter was sent out after they requested their first postponement in december. They never called us, never returned our calls to them throughout the month of december and January. The next zoning was scheduled for the fifth of February. I spoke to the olympic the week before it was scheduled. Actually the last weekend in January. He assured me that they were going for a postponement on the fifth, which they did not do. But thank fully one of the members of the Council put it off a week for us. When I spoke to the applicant last week, he assured me that he had every intention of being here this week and meeting with us in between last friday and tonight. When I spoke to him tuesday he assured us that we would have a meeting yesterday. Never returned the phone calls to we made to them. Actually asked for a postponement at 3:55 p.m. Today. So I -- I have a feeling that they don't really want to talk to us. They did do a presentation to our community association about a year and a half ago when they planned to put this exact development about three-quarters of a mile closer to our community down riverplace boulevard. They made the presentation to the homeowners, we surveyed every house in river place, found 96% of the residents opposed to this development. Those that were in favor of it were two families that each had two children that thought they might be interested in daycare. The big push to get this daycare center built was that it would be used by 3-m employees. The vice-president of the 3-m site assured us they have no contractual agreement with this center, no intention of moving forward with the deal with them and are actually working with a center on the north side of 222 just to the east much 3-m. So we we appreciate the opportunity to talk to you, clarify about what's going on with this this of property. Obviously our objections to this being changed to a commercial development have been stated. We want to see that the development is kept in the single family mode, which is the property adjacent to this tract is held that way. Thank you.

>> Let me ask you a question.

>>Slusher: I don't want to put you on the spofrmt spot, but if we were to do an impervious cover limit of say 25%, would you feel differently about the zoning change then?

>> the problem is we see is domino. A tremendous amount of reserve property behind it. These people are watching closely to see what happens with this. I think it's going to open the flood gates, that's why we are so strongly opposed to commercial on this. It's leap frogging single family, a long ways away from 2222, we don think any kind of commercial designation would work.

>>Garcia: thank you very much. Motion to close the public hearing?

>>Slusher: so move.

>>Garcia: seconded by Councilmember Goodman. All in favor, opposed say no., public hearing is closed on a vote of 6 to zero to one with the Mayor off the dias. Councilmember Spelman? snuf to deny.

>>Slusher: second.

>>Garcia: discussion? all in favor zig nice by saying aye.

>>Garcia: it passes on six to zero to one with the Mayor off the dias. I mean 5, 0 with the Mayor and Councilmember Lewis off the dias, thank you very much. For reminding me of that. Okay. Now let's -- item 53.

>> I don't -- item no. 53 Is case number c 14-97-91 located at 2108 to 2110 thrasher lane and 6505 to 6601 riverside drive. The property has a variety of zoning ranging from multi family, neighborhood, commercial and sing gem family three. The applicant is seeking to that I think choz designations to mh. Which stand for mobile home residents. The Planning Commission recommendation to you was to grant the mobile home residents zoning district. However since the planning commission's action, there has been a petition filed. It is valid. And that percentage is at 21.6%. Also one of the previous cases, like that, this does require that you -- six votes of the Council to override the petition. The petitioners oppose any changes to the mobile home zoninging district. There have been several meetings hell between the neighborhood and applicant to discuss the -- held between the neighborhood and applicant to discuss the appropriateness of the zoning and other matters have been raised by the neighborhood. At this point, I would conclusion by saying we will be glad to answer any questions following the discussion by the citizens. Thunder (thunder der booming) [laughter]. [Thunder booming!]

>>Garcia: we have on this one four speakers. The first one is Mr. Malcolmates, following Mr. Ates is Mr. Roland ortiz. Is the applicant here? the applicant requested an extension, I don't think he's here. Is the applicant here.

>> The applicant isn't here. We expected they will to be here, they knew there was going to be a discussion regarding the appropriateness of their postponement, so we are expecting them to arrive any time.

>>Garcia: okay. We will recognize him at the time that he arrives. Mr. Yates, welcome.

>> Thank you, I am malcolm yates, I represent the sun rich neighborhood in southeast Austin, I am here today to support montopolis neighborhood in their effort to improve their community. We are asking Council to please not repeat the mistakes made in East Austin, north of the river. Do not create another inconsistent patchwork of incompatible zoning that would lower the property values of existing homeowners, allowing this zoning change will contribute to the decay of central Austin and also the riverside drive corridor, which Council has designated a scenic arterial. Please deny this request, thank you

>>Garcia: thank you, roland ortiz.

>> Mayor pro tem and Council members, I am rolandtiz. We are opposed to the rezoning for mobile home. There's a valid petition in place to propose the expansion of this mobile home park. We have been working hard to better the quality of life and living conditions for the. Of montopolis. Land use data from the City of Austin indicates that there are 49 acres of land in the -- in the neighborhood already used for mobile home use. If you stunned along the corridors, you will find several other mobile home parks along 183 and ben white that will put these figures at well over 100 acres of land around montopolis that's already used for mobile homes. Montopolis has its share of this type of land use, this type of land use is not one that would be appealing and I think would be compatible for a stable neighborhood like montopolis. We hope when the development occurs as its encroaching over toward the airport, that the neighborhood have input on the fine of land use, especially property like this which abutts riverside and is right in the middle of a were the shall street on thrasher lane. Thank you.

>>Garcia: thank you Mr. Ortiz, irene massey. Susana still here? suzanne in a will be the last -- the last person who signed up. Ms. Masssy, welcome.

>> My name is irene makessy, my mother asked me to come and speak. It's not that she's not able to appear, she's beyond retirement age, but she chooses to work 40 hours a week, unfortunately her hours start at 3:00 a.m. In the morning. She resides at 6503 east riverside driveway. She is on the west side of the subject property. She shares a 205 foot property line with the applicant. She's lived here since 1946. This is her home place. Her objections are she's concerned about the drainage on to her property, her property slopes to the back, it is part of a hill and so is the subject property. She has concerns about the paving, what type it will be, gravel going into the present drainage there. She also is concerned about the condition of the curb and gutter that's already there. It is a good vukture. She's gone through two road improvements since she's lived there. The wide has been widened a couples, she's concerned about deterioration of that from mobile homes being pulled in either up thrasher or riverside drive because there's a very small turning area there and also the traffic is very heavy through there. The speed limit is 45. Last week on the news there were -- there was a piece on streets that are heavily ticketed. This is one of the streets. And still people do not slow down on riverside drive because it's straight access from downtown to the Bergstrom area, it always has been. She's will concerned about having a mobile home park with children next door, concerned about their welfare. When I was a child there was an article Written in the american-statesman about calling this area poverty island, it is cut off from the rest of Austin, but that's in the past and in the future she just asked that you please help us establish a good neighborhood for the neighborhood as well as herself her self and she feels this may be accomplished through single family housing rather than mobile home. Something permanent for the community as well as herself. She lives there because she chooses to. It's good access for her downtown she would like to remain there. There are other people -- these are single family residences, along riverside and thrasher and people that would like to keep the area consistent with the single family. Thank you.

>> Suzanneaalmanza. She is registered against this item. That's all of the speakers that we have, Council, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Before I take the motion, has the applicant arrived? the applicant?

>> they have not. The applicant or agent are not here.

>> There's a motion but Councilmember Spelman to close. Seconded by Councilmember Lewis Councilmember Lewis. All those in favor signify by saying aye. It carries on a vote of 5 to 0 to 2 with Councilmember.

>>Griffith: fifth and the Mayor temporarily off the dias. Is there a motion on this issue.

>> I have a question. Question for the staff.

>> Yeah.

>> When they was saw this case we postponed it until today because we believed by this time we would have had the montopolis charette. Has that happened yet.

>> There was a meeting last night. I believe Paul attended the meeting.

>>Garcia: let me answer that question. The one that's postponed for the charette was item no. 534. Not this one.

>> The department comments on page 1 of the zoning review sheet, first paragraph, postponement to 2-12-98 was postponed for the montopolis charette.

>>Garcia: the charette has not been held, probably six to 8 weeks before we do that. The university of Texas says that it may even take longer thank that. We have a proposal from them. We had the first meeting sunday with several members from the area. It was a charette, just the beginning of the discussion.

>> We are talking about a minimum of two months further postponement if one wanted to postpone this until the charette could be conducted first.

>>Garcia: correct.

>> I move we postpone this for two months.

>>Garcia: is there any second? seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Discussion?

>>Lewis: yes a comment.

>>Garcia: I will I have it to the Mayor, he's here now.

>>Lewis: is the 21% a valid petition against this zoning request?

>> that's correct.

>> And how long has this petition been in how long has it been since you received the petition? I believe since we indicated having valve dated it on January the 22nd. That's the date that we have on it valve addition sheet. Validation sheet.

>> That was my question.

>>Garcia: motion on the tibl postpone this item for two months. I guess that would take it to april the 9th. Further discussion? let me indicate that the neighborhood has said they don't want to postpone the item, but Council has the december krigs to do what it wants. Discretion to do what it wants. All in favor say aye, motion carries. On a vote of something like the majority. [Laughter]. I any it was like 5 -- you voted for it, right? one, two, three, four, five, six -- six to 0 to 1 with Councilmember Griffith temporarily off the dias. Anything else? except for the items on the next group of cases, right?

>> that's correct. Let me note one thing. On item no. 53, Show Councilmember Griffith voting yes by the postponement.

>> We will change is to 7-0 then. Will thomas the neck is four cases, 55 through 58, I have a map in front of you that shows the area take we will be discussing tonight. The area encompasses approximately 300 acres, a site that is currently being presented by dell for a manufacturing facility. The proposed zoning is to li, which stand for limited industrial. The Planning Commission recommendation to you was to grant limited industrial with a pda, with which stand for planned development area. It's really the zoning district allows one to modify the base district or uses within the allowing loud zoning district, slimted industrial, but modifying it one can adjust some of the site development regulations and also indicate a time that the project would be in compliance with the regulations that we have in effect today. Basically the planning commission recommendation to you allows for the limited industrial zoning with a planned development area, agreement, overlay and that overlay would modify some standards, the neighborhood had asked for certain conditions to be included and the Planning Commission recognized those and added those to their recommendation. And the commission felt like this was appropriate zoning for the area. The site has a variety of sdoping districts currently and the -- zoning district currently and it would allow for unified sdoping that would allow consistency in the types of site development regulations that would apply. That concludes staff presentations, I will be glad to answer questions following presentation by the applicant.

>>Mayor Watson: unless I hear -- I will ask the applicant if they care, any member of the Council. What I am going to do is call up the hearing on all four items at one time instead of dealing with them each individually. So we will have the hearing on items 55, 56, 57, and 58. I will allow the applicant to first make a presentation and he will have five minutes. No thank you, Mayor, my name is richard subtle, I am here asking for the zoning change on these tracts. We are asking for first reading of the zoning with lipda, consistent with what the Planning Commission said. In addition to what the Planning Commission recommended and in addition to the neighborhood agreement that we have, we are requesting that you consider some additional points that are appropriate for being placed in the pda agreement. These are provision that's the Planning Commission did not consider because they have come up as we have done the analysis on the site and we realize that what we were going to need to do between tonight's hearing and the 26th is to get with your staff and go over those. They are not provisions that are unlike -- they are not unlike some provision that's have been in other pda's passed recently. But they are provisions that will help dell computer development a large tract with the large type of buildings in an efficient manner. We have run these provisions by the neighborhood group and they are not inconsistent with our agreement with them. They have expressed no concern and are comfortable with going on with first reading tonight as long as we get to talk about them more in the next couple of weeks and have the staff look at them. Basically what we would have is lipda, the provisions generally would be that it's subject to the neighborhood agreement. Some of the neighborhood representatives are here tonight, some were here earlier and had to leave and they have asked me to eventually into the hearing read their letter of support into the record, but they had to go because of family considerations. Basically it would be subject to the neighborhood agreement. Subject to the olympicable ordinances on the date these were filed as modified by the neighborhood agreement. The uses restricted and/or modified pursuant to the neighborhood agreement and those recommendations by the staff and Planning Commission. The site development regulations as per the Planning Commission recommendation would be under ip, instead of li, a little more restrictive. The set backs, an the landscaping would also be as per the neighborhood agreement. We are asking the impervious cover and other technical calculations on the traffic be based on the entire tract that dell has so that they have some flexibility in moving their impervious cover and parking and those types of site development issues around within their campus. But at the same time with the neighborhood agreement we have always protected the edges and we have always protected certain uses that the neighborhood found that under no circumstances would they want none of these, under some circumstances they wouldn't want others. All of those are laid out in their agreement and in your packet. Some of the other things that we are asking for are a cut and fill basically asking for a cut and fill variance through the pda. This is an issue we need to talk to staff on because we are asking for 20 feet of cut and fill for buildings and 25 for ponds. That sound initially like a large number, but what happens on a site even a flat site, if you have a little slope and you build a 300 foot long building, by the time you get to the other end, your building, if you build it level, is sticking out of the ground, what happens is you either have to cut one end or fill the others. The cuts get up pretty quick. For instance the building that the City already approved and granted the variances on on the south side of parmer had a cut and fill variance of 18 feet. We picked 20, bus that gives us I think the flex siblts of what we need to be able to move forward without going through a hearing every time we want to exceed four feet. But again that will need to be looked at by your staff, we are confident we can work with them between now and second and third reading. Landscaping, we want the whole site. Tree surveys, right now mostly farmland. Very few trees, trees that are you on out there the neighborhood has asked us to take out. We are asking so be required to survey for 189 inch, greater than hack berry, we have to take it out, did I it up because they don't want it to come back. There are man made stock tanks on the property that qualify as a critical environmental feature under our code. They are scattered about to where they make planning about them differently. They are not the critical environmental feature that you are used to seeing. We are asking to be granted the varns to go around them or possibly remove them. (Beep).

>> We need to get with your staff on that. We are asking for rbl water equally and storm water control. Regional. Off street parking calculated on the whole. Consideration for a minor waterway. How we treat that. Traffic and processing I think are probably outside of the pda.

>> Okay.

>>Mayor Watson: anybody have any questions at this time?

>>Lewis: I have one. Is there any fish in the pond?

>> pardon me?

>>Lewis: any fish in it? snirb if the pond, I don't know. We might have to go see. You want to go out and look at the site.

>> You are going to have to do more study on it.

>> I think that I might have to. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: a couple of people have signed up to speak. Mike may.

>> Mayor mike is the neighborhood representative that had to leave.

>>Mayor Watson: harris ridge homeowners association, for, why don't you go ahead and do that.

>> The letter was to me as a response of many meetings we had. The harris ridge homeowners association has rekvue-24ed the proposals offered by dell computer regarding the rezoning of land referred to as zoning case c 14970141 it seq. Shown on exhibit a and set back on exhibit b, also in your packet, to our general membership at a meeting on January 15th, 1998, there was no objection to the rezoning of the lands bordered by parmer lane, harris ridge, howard lane and the Austin executive air park to the li zoning category, provided that the details in exhibits a and b are included in the zoning, thus the harris ridge homeowners association supports it as amended. Sincerely michael may.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, michael lee? michael lee? there you are, sir. Please come forward. You snuck up on me. [Laughter].

>> Tried not to. Mayor Watson, members of the Council, I'm michael lee. The zoning committee chairman for the northeast walnut creek neighborhood association. Our neighbor is immediately northeast of the intersection of braker lane and I-35. This site of course is north of us. I joined the task force of neighborhood people who worked with dell, I have worked with richard and thompson from the inaccepting, I am here tonight to express my general support as very similarly in the letter that mike may, the president of their home owner association gave you. I think it's going to be a good development because we have been able to work with dell to come one a againcal ron september that will provide them what they -- general concept to provide them what they need and give us assurances what happens to that property will not be unduely offensive. It's a big bite to swallow, but we are willing to take that risk. I have worked with richard on some of the details. Since you are being asked to pass this on first reading tonight, dwroz any reason why they couldn't be done. There are a couple of specific provisions in these proposed site development standards that I think that I would like to work with richard on a little bit. If you could just give me some assurance that we can get -- I could hopefully all of us could get back to you regarding our discussions on those particulars in the future, at second or third reading, I would really appreciate that, I would hate to have to make my three minute speech, never been seen again down here nature won't happen. For the record, Mr. Suttle, do you have any problem agreeing to meet with him immediately -- one of the things the Council is interested in tonight we passed a resolution indicating we are for moving on in the desired development zone, doing the kind of things that we need to do to do it right. To manage growth and also enhance our tax base. So we are willing to I think there's a willingness to move fast. But you all need to be to go move fast with him, to, so he gets the input that he needs.

>> We will meet when and wherever. We have fwa working relationship with mike and others and we will meet with them and get everybody comfortable.

>> Richard and I agree that we will probably want to give the staff a chance to come up with some specific language so that we have something to really discuss in detail as opposed to just discuss in concepts. The only other thing that I wanted to say while I had a chance while my neighborhood doesn't border this tract of land or the tracts that dell is trying to put together for a total of 570 acres, we are near enough to where in my capaCity of being a watch dog for my neighborhood's interest, wanted to get in on this process because of what 570 of this type of zoning might represent to the general area around us, not just because it's next to us, but because it tend on affect the whole area of town, we are still pretty sensitive to that. The development out in our part of town that inevitably going to come is something we want to keep a close eye on it. Basically I would like to extend a friendly invitation to you all to visit with us, talk to us, what you think, what we think might have out there, I can't see a better time to really get into a little more informal dialogue between us. What might happen, what we might try to make happen, we would really appreciate it.

>> Thank you for being here tonight.

>>Mayor Watson: janet klaus? what did I say?

>> it's pronounced jeanette, but it's spelled janet. I don't pay any attention.

>> All right. I hope any 8-year-old is not watching and realizing daddy can't read.

>> Well. It's spelled janet.

>> The only reason I know he is because jeanette has been coming to meetings that I come go for the school board.

>>Mayor Watson: I know her name. I looked down and say what pops into my brain, I apologize.

>> Thank you, to begin with, let me again say that thank you to dell and kip thompson for working on our neighborhoods to address our concerns and issues. Dell contacted the closest affected neighborhoods and met with the neighborhood leaders to get input on the proposed rezoning of approximately 300 acres. The neighborhood are harris ridge, north town, capper field, yager lane neighbors, harris branch, river oaks, scofield farms, northeast walnut creek. Several meetings were held to address the neighbor's concerns and the results were landscape buffers, setbacks from the adjacent neighborhood and prohibition or restriction of undesirable yuss -- uses that were of concern to the neighborhood leaders, I have not heard from anyone who does not support dell locating on this 450 acre site at parmer and I-35. The feeling is this is an appropriate election and the -- location and dell campus would be an asset to our area. I would have to add, however, that because this is a very large industrial cited, there still is some apprehension. But again thank you, dell, for working with us on your proposed project. Welcome to the neighborhood. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> I would also like to extend the inhave I staying, when we have a alliance meeting, I will be in touch with you all.

>>Mayor Watson: please do. Thank you. Mr. Suttle, do you have rebuttal? [laughter]. We will see how smart you are. [Laughter].

>> I just have to stand here so my wife will know that I am still here. We just request approval on first reading of the neighborhood agreement and the pda provisions that we mentioned and we would also request that staff be instructed to spread the pda provisions over the other li tract that dell already has, that would be a zoning chase, that would make the whole site consistent. I would be happy to answer any questions.

>>Mayor Watson: let me make sure that I understood it. You are asking for lipda subject to the neighborhood agreement, and the regular laying as of the date filed and the additional points that are set out under site development regulations traffic matters of fiscal and processing you are indicating would not be part of the zoning hearing?

>> right. That's in talking with alice, I agree that's probably not appropriate to be in the zoning category, that will be something we will have to do separately with the they as we talk about how dell build out in the future.

>>Mayor Watson: I will entertain a motion along those lines.

>>Slusher: I have a question.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Mayor pro tem, seconded by Councilmember Slusher to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye, opposed say no., motion carries.

>> Does that include an sentence of the pda to the other li site?

>>Garcia: we are just closing the public hearing. Your wife just saw that you are still here, rich. [Laughter]. At least physically. [One moment please]

>> shall not apply to this site. And I was just wondering what your thinking is there.

>> Which one?

>>Slusher: it's the slight development standards, top of the second page.

>> On the critical environmental fee shurs? slurn slush that's right. You talk about those as big stock ponds. I basically -- what are you thinking about water quality there because it is the desired development zone and we definitely want to encourage growth there, as I already said, but I don't want to just eliminate all kinds of controls on it. I want to make sure that's not what's happening here.

>> No. What that specifically means is we've got some stock tanks out there that qualifies a a environmental quality feature and with that comes a lot of requirements and things that you go there through to even build around it and siem talking about a stock tank that the previous farmer dug out there. And what we're asking is that we be able to modify or in fact remove those stock tanks as part of this project.

>>Slusher: so you're just asking that the environmental criteria manual not apply as to the stock manage tanks.

>> Yeah. Just as it relates to stock tanks.

>>.

>>Slusher: explain what you mean when they say the City -- the site may participate in such programs.

>> That's one that probably doesn't qualify to be a provision in a pda and it's a thought point that we want to get with staff. We have an opportunity probably to solve a lot of water quality and storm water detention areas in the walnut creek basin and all through this project and through other projects upstream. And that provision doesn't -- it's not appropriate for the pda, with you we'd like to throw it in the mix as part of the site development talks that we talk about to see if we can get a regional plan going and that dell can participant in that regional plan.

>>Slusher: is that consistent with that ms. Clots was saying?

>> I think it is and it was one of those issues that we talked about in our neighborhood meetings where there's a lot of regional issues where if this is going to be a desired development zone that we don't run over the people living out there and dell can be part of that planning process through their campus and through some things that they're able to help out on off site even.

>>Slusher: okay. Thank you and. And I also appreciate you working with the neighborhood while you're developing in the desired development zone.

>> And just a quick note. Alice corrected me. On putting the p dpchlt a not only on this site, but the restrictions on the other site, that would be a staff initiated zoning case, as opposed to spreading it out over what I'm doing right now.

>>Garcia: Councilmember Spelman. The Mayor is here, what am I doing? were you asleep at the switch here? [inaudible].

>>Garcia: we used to have a tall Mayor that I could see. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Spelman, I'm sorry but you had some fall out and I'm not going to recognize you because the Mayor pro tem said that. Friendly fire. Councilmember Spelman?

>>Spelman: thank you. I have a question for you richard also. The site development standards, am I right in presuming that this is just the first cut you have in a proposal for discussions with our staff people as to the exact terms of the pda and really doesn't bear any immediate relationship to what we're being asked to pass on first reading right now?

>> well, actually, what we're hoping is that as a concept, if we're asking the Council to have on first reading lipda, the pda to include these issues, knowing as we move through we're going to talk with staff about the specifics of them and hammer out language so that on second and third reading we'll have an actual order innocence in front of you.

>>Spelman: would you be amany able to something like -- I'm inarticulate at this time of the evening. Lipda with you and the staff and the neighborhoods to work out the terms on issues like these, but not necessarily endorsing your standards at all?

>> I think that --.

>>Spelman: I haven't had a chance to internalize your standards very much and I'm sure the staff hasn't had a chance either. So I wouldn't want to -- I'd feel leery of voting in favor of your standards as their Written until I've got some input from the staff as sto what they think of them.

>> And I would hope that we could have a little bit of discussion tonight because I've talked to staff generally about them and for instance on cut and fill, I'm not going to speak for pat murphy, but he would say I haven't looked at that and I'm not sure about it. There are instances where it could work. And I'm comfortable in the next two weeks we could work that out. The problem is procedurally if we can get these into a first reading then we know kind of what we're working on. And so we have a framework to work within and work them out between now and second and third reading.

>>Spelman: does including your site development standards in whatever motion we pass now, is that necessary?

>> it is in that we need to be working on an ordinance for second and third reading.

>>Spelman: okay. That answered my question. Thanks.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember? did.

>>Goodman: I have a motion if we're ready? thlted be on first reading and expect to have the paperwork back in two weeks to grant the Planning Commission recommendation, plus -- which is lipda, subject to the neighborhood agreement, and those things that we've been just talking about, the City regulations as of 11-14-97, except as modified. And the neighborhood agreement, the additional ip site plan development standards, the neighborhood agreement,. I also had setbacks, landscaping, components that are not Written down for us yet, which is why we have the first reading only. And so to -- also at this time to extend the pda to be already zoned tracts to the other property, which is just what we've been talking about.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. The motion has been made to approve li on 55 through 58 -- to approve lipda subject to the neighborhood agreement and all City of Austin regulations as of november 14th, 1997, except as modified by suggested site development standards and the neighborhood agreement with the site including the modifications of the site development regulations and the traffic matters that are set here and the pda on the currently zoned property would be extended on the other property. Ms. Glasgow?

>> Councilmembers, this is the other piece of property that is not included tonight, so what we would do is my understanding is you are directing us to initiate l ismt pda for the remaining of this tract and bring it back to you as quickly as possible, to the Planning Commission to you to include the pda items that have been discussed tonight?

>>Mayor Watson: and that's because it has to be initiated from staff.

>> You would not be applying the pda tonight because this part of the property is not included in the rezoning for tonight.

>>Mayor Watson: got you.

>>Goodman: what we said was to go ahead and extend the ptda to the other tract. That's part of the motion. It's obviously not part of what we'll see coming back on this case.

>> Correct. I want to make sure we're saying the same thing. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second?

>> second. I have a quick question.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by the Mayor pro tem. And Councilmember Goodman Councilmember Griffith had a question. Mine is a quick clarification. What is the significance of the november date?

>>Mayor Watson: that is when they filed it.

>> That's when this process started. That's when we filed all this.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith?

>>Griffith: yes. I've got a couple of questions for Mr. Murphy. Could I ask him to come forward? I too am very delighted that dell is here and is going in the desired development zone and is working with the neighborhoods. That is great. I do have a couple of procedural questions that I need some help with. I am still -- I'm just a sophomore and still struggling, as you know, with lipda and sds and all of the alphabet soups that go with planning and with zoning. Have you had a chance to sit down with the applicant and -- as I think we usually do -- go over the details of the site development standards?

>> no, I have not.

>>Griffith: when did you see the site development standards.

>> I was shown them briefly over the past couple of days.

>>Griffith: by the applicant or someone else?

>> by the applicant.

>>Griffith: so you have not had a chance to stress what you think might be more appropriate or less appropriate or anything?

>> not really, not at this time. I'm aware of them. I think that we need to do some talking to make sure I understand what they mean.

>>Griffith: is that the way it usually works?

>> I don't really know if it's been done this way briefly. Normally in the past we've had some pda's come through and those have been negotiated more up front, before they got to you. So it is a bit unusual, yes.

>>Griffith: for instance, like when national instruments came through, what was the process there? did you have several meetings with them and negotiate the site standards?

>> national instruments spent a pretty good amount of time with staff working on their agreements and their standards. We went through the environmental board and Planning Commission and then to Council.

>>Griffith: has the law department gone over this?

>> law department is here, so I'll owe let them address that.

>> No, we have not in detail. I've just seen it today.

>>Griffith: just today? so you got it today and environmental got it like a couple of days ago maybe?

>> yeah. Actually I don't have a copy at this time.

>>Griffith: you don't. Okay. I'm going to have trouble voting on this tonight because -- because legal hasn't looked at it and because planning hasn't analyzed it and because I don't feel qualified without advice of legal and in planning staff to make a decision, to make an evaluation. And also in terms of process, I'd like to encourage folks to meet with staff and go over the proposals before they come to us rather than just kind of handing it to us the day we vote or the day before. I'm trying to encourage that kind of process. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Goodman?

>>Goodman: although this is somewhat unusual, it is fairly typical actually. In some cases staff doesn't see a thing until we negotiate it from the dias. And we go on first reading so that those kind of things can be worked out and so that staff and especially legal can check out the composition of what we think we've passed and on occasion they do come back and say one component was not something you can legally put in there. So since there is no final decision taken until the third reading, that's exactly what first, second and reading especially help hep us do these days, show the intention, show the concept, some of the specifics, so that that's known, that's up front, we move forward, and we come back for second and third read gd and we know what we're passing and that is the final decision.

>>Mayor Watson: sml? spell speak I have a question. Are these site development standards part of your motion.

>>Goodman: yeah. And whatever else was modified by the additional neighborhood agreement elements.

>>Spelman: okay. Is this neighborhood -- what is the legal status of this document? I'm not sure I understand what it is. Is this an agreement with the neighborhood?

>> the agreement with the neighborhood is in your packet. The outline of the site development standards is the outline that you and I talked about and we talked about with seech of the Councilmembers that briefly outlines from a conversation point what we're looking for in hopes of getting first readinging as a concept.

>>Spelman: okay. So this is just a proposal that you've got and staff, you will be negotiating with staff about the fine points of this proposal?

>> yes. And what I was going to respond to Councilmember Griffith and to her aid, we'll commit to you by the time we get back for a second and third reading, the staff, I believe we will have it worked out with City staff and they will be recommending. And I'm confident that the things that we're asking for are things that are seen -- are not new. I'll commit to you that we'll work the next two weeks and have it worked out with City staff so they can recommend it to you.

>>Griffith: downed the process issue? -- do you understand the process issue?

>> yes, ma'am, I do.

>>Griffith: do you understand why we need our legal staff and our planning staff to go over it for at least a week before they get it to us before -- not before --.

>> I wish I had done 150 of these things and they change every time someone makes a comment they change. And this is no different than when I asked for a change, when the neighborhood asks for a change, when the Council asks for a change. And you get a basis to work from first reading and we hope we get it worked out between second and third. And let me admit to you, this is unusual. This is unusual. But it is unusual in a way that we have seen before.

>>Griffith: could I ask pat murphy something real quick?

>> since there have been no conversations with the applicant as yet, how long do you think it would take you to go over it with them and have a fairly informed recommendation for us?

>> I think we can do it in the time that they're suggesting. The standards that they're asking to modify are not necessarily unusual. It's just we have to consider them in the context of the actual site. So that hasn't occurred. I am neither saying that these are bad or good standards, I'm just saying that we need a chance to evaluate them. I don't believe that if work diligently with us and are amenable taking into consideration our suggestions we should be able to come back to you in two weeks in agreement with them.

>>Griffith: have you ever brought forth an lipda with site development standards to the Council without having gone over it with the applicant?

>> no. This is the first time for me, but I haven't been in this position that long. There have been numerous projects in the past. What was different about this project from my perspective is that Planning Commission recommended the lipda zoning, so there was not an agreement of this type at that time and it's evolved since then. So that's what's more unusual about this pda than perhaps national instruments.

>>Griffith: okay. Thanks.

>>Mayor Watson: I might say that from my perspective, it may be different, but we just voted seven to zero a little bit earlier tonight that we wanted something different and we wanted to send a message. And when I think of past situations, kind of like what Councilmember Goodman was talking about, sometimes on the dias staff gets to here things for the fires time I'm reminded of the regency village thing that keeps coming back and I remember there was a night to accept what the neighbors had given us that night and we were asking questions about it is this legal and we were being told, no, that's not legal and that's not legal, but we passed it anyway. I didn't vote for it, but we passed it anyway. And then we said bring it back to us on second reading. So motion has been made and seconded and you've heard the motion and there has been discussion. Is there any further discussion? Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Griffith?

>>Spelman: let me try one more time. Councilmember Goodman would you accept as a friendly amendment that instead of saying that we accept the site development standards on first reading as they're Written down here, that we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and direct the City Manager and staff to negotiate the terms of the planning and development agreement with the applicant, including all the issues raised by the site development standards as included here?

>>Goodman: let me see what janette and mike do or do not feel comfortable with. I think part of this is security for them too.

>>Spelman: I understand that.

>> The standards that you're referring to, we have not basically taken any kind of position on those yet. We have gone over them or a couple of us have gone over them. We have not as a group, all the neighborhoods, looked at them that were included in the discussions. But the reason we were kvrbl with going ahaend going over first reading tonight just because we know that second and third reading is when the decisions are made. We know that possibly will be changes to this. And so we have no -- we really don't have a problem going with first reading tonight. Go ahead.

>>Spelman: would you feel comfortable with going ahead with -- I don't know if I should try and say the second time because I'm not sure I can repeat what I said, but let me try. Endorsing the planning commission, if we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, which includes a lot of the stuff that your neighborhood was talking about and also directed the City manager and staff to enter into negotiations on the planned development agreement, including all these issues, but not necessarily recommending that these standards be a starting point?

>> I guess my question there would have to be to richard, richard and dell, whether that will throw them what a later time frame as far as getting a final ordinance approved, you know, because they are on a tight time line. If it's necessary to -- for the time being on first reading to go with the proposed recommendations in order to stay on the time line needed to have a final ordinance in place, a final vote, then I'm -- then that's -- I think that's of utmost importance.

>>Goodman: well, we do have the concepts out there, so if it's okay we can move forward --.

>> Debra, when you're sent off to write an ordinance, what do you work on?

>> what do we work from? working from the planning commission recommendation or Council recommendation.

>> And so if the planning commission recommendation and the Council motion included these, then that would be the starting point, I would think.

>> You're asking if we can -- based on Councilmember Lewis's motion can we start on an ordinance, yes.

>>Mayor Watson: yoeferld.

>> Is that what you're --.

>> I think dell needs second and third reading on the 26th of February.

>> We can have an ordinance ready regardless of what the motion is, if that's what you're asking.

>>Mayor Watson: we've thought that before, but I think what the concern is and what I hear ms. Clots saying is something has to be worked through between now and the 26th. If the basis for that is whatever Council passed on first reading, we need -- then you need to have this in there, withed understanding that Council can take it out, it may not be there on the 26th, but you have the basis from which you jump. If, on the other hand, you say it's going to be something other than that, some smaller deal, and by that I just mean a portion of it, and then y'all go out and talk about it, if that's not then the basis of second and third reading, you slow down the process. So did I say anything wrong there? isn't that right? isn't that the way you do it is you're going to go from whatever we pass tonight and if we don't pass something we just say go forth and talk. That doesn't turn into an ordinance, right?

>> if you don't give us specific direction with regard to the ordinance to draft, no, we cannot draft the ordinance.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Goodman, are you finished?

>>Goodman: yeah.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith?

>>Griffith: I'm going to try a substitute motion and I'll tell you why. In if we vote on anything tonight that has to do with site development standards, there's going to be a piece missing that I think we all need and -- the Council I think certainly needs. And that piece is the time when our legal staff and our planning staff get with the applicant and work on the proposal. And our staff decides what to bring us and what information we're going to need and they bring it in. That piece is missing. And I'm concerned that the bargaining position of the City is going to be not enhanced by the absence of that particular piece that's always there. So for that reason, and because it's a short time, I'm going to move that we do first reading on 226 and second and third on 3-5.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made. I'm going to first ask if that's -- if you'll consider that a friendly amendment, Councilmember Goodman?

>>Goodman: no.

>>Mayor Watson: so there is a substitute motion that first reading would be on any ordinance -- basically what happens is the motion is to postpone the decision on these items so that a first reading would occur on February 26th and a second reading -- second and third reading would be on March fifth. Is there a second? is there a second?

>> I'll second because I understand the applicant is discussing this now, so I'd like to hear what they have to say about it.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Mr. Subtle?

>> my client was pulling me down in my seat because I was about to explode. March fifth doesn't -- I don't know how to say this. We need second and third reading on the 26th and. And we're so close. And the wishes we're talking about, we're talking about a process here. And Councilmember Griffith, I understand your concerns and maybe we ought to engage in more dialogue about this because I think you don't understand the process. We're asking -- we're asking for consideration of certain elements to be brought back that you can vote yea or nay. And it's no different than what I'm presenting a case and the neighborhood asks for a consideration to be placed on the zoning and the Council says I'll include that as a condition that we're going on second reading. And your staff hadn't seen it, I haven't seen it and it's no different. And that's all we're asking tonight is just to give us the platform to work from.

>>Griffith: pallet murphy has told us that it is different.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion has been made, seconded on the substitute motion --.

>>Slusher: Mayor? so do I understand you to say that by these things passed on first reading tonight the parts of the pda that you've added on that our staff hasn't had time to study, you don't see those as any kind of guarantee if the staff sees --.

>> Absolutely no guarantee. Slush slurn and if the staff were to find a problem with some of those over the next two weeks then you wouldn't consider that that was going back on the Council's desire to speed up development in the desired development zone?

>> absolutely not. I'd love to get pat up here, Councilmember Griffith?

>> I don't know if he wants to come up. [Laughter].

>> Probably not. But if we can't get him happy and he can't recommend it to you. I know pat, he'll stand up here on the 26th and say I can't recommend it and I suspect what will happen is seven to zero, the Council will say we can't either, richard. And I think between now and the 26th we can work it out with pat, every one of those issues.

>>Griffith: and I think it would have -- may I? the time for that was last week before it came to us directly to Council going around the usual.

>> In answer to your question, we understand there are no guarantees and I personally understand that there are no guarantees between first and second reading. Okay. Thank you. Motion motion motion has been made and seconded. Councilmember Goodman?

>>Goodman: let me say one more thing. I understand Councilmember Griffith's wish to have everything up front. And if we do require that of every land decision we make here, we're going to do it for virtually everything we do, which is going to slow down the entire process. Now, maybe this one means more to you than some of the others, but really this is not that unusual. It is not out of the routine. And it is exactly the reason that we use that leverage of the first, second and third reading intervals because that is where our whip is and that is where we are keep our leverage. So although I understand wanting to know before you even go for first reading, the process is that you can do it between first, second and third reading and that's the way it's been done. If you want to change it, we need to also recognize we're going to take a whole lot longer for every land development decision we make.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote is on the substitute motion.

>> May I say something? and I don't know. Maybe it's just me not understanding.

>>Lewis: but as I understand it, this is not something that they're going to work -- that is going to use and determine whether it's good or bad. It's a starting point. I mean, it's a recommendation that the applicant putting out there. Is this -- was this before the Planning Commission? did you have this before the Planning Commission?

>> these issues weren't considered by the planning commission. These are new ones. We're asking to work with the staff.

>>Lewis: so basically it's just something that the staff can start from. If not these, they're going to have to start from something. Am I correct? would that be -- I mean, if we just threw these out and said we're not going to use this, then what would you start from?

>> we would need some direction from which to begin.

>>Mayor Watson: we wouldn't put it in an ordinance.

>>Lewis: that's what I'm saying.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote will be on the substitute motion, which is to postpone this item until first reading on February 26th and second reading on March fifth. There being no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The vote being two in favor, that being Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Griffith, and five opposed, the substitute motion fails. That brings us back to the original motion made by Councilmember Goodman and seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any further discussion? hearing none, all in favor, all opposed? motion carries with only Councilmember Griffith voting no. There being six aye's and one no. And that is on items 55, 56, 57 and 58 on first reading only. Thank y'all.

That takes us to item no. 64, A public hearing to authorize fee increases proposed by current solid waste contractors serving newly annexed residents and the Circle C municipal utility districts. I'll recognize I guess you. We have no one signed up for the public hearing.

>> I'm clearing the room here. Billy is here. And I'm going to let Willie step up to the microphone.

>>.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Roads if you will please come forward.

>> This public hearing is to -- excuse me, my name is Willie Roads, the director evident solid waste utility department for the City of Austin. This public hearing is to increase the amount residents are paying for the garbage service by an additional 50 cents in the former south land oaks mud and by 60 cents in the circle c mud for the garbage service. If you have any questions concerning it?

>>Mayor Watson: does anybody have any questions of Mr. Roads?

>>Mayor Watson: welcome Mr. Roads. Nobody signs up for a public hearing but you and there's a lot of questions. I'm going to start with Councilmember Lewis.

>> This seems familiar somehow.

>>Lewis: my question is what is the difference between the prices? you said 50 cents for one and 60 cents for the other. Is is it because of the distance from -- what is the difference in the prices?

>> it has nothing to do with that. As you know when we did the annexation for these areas we allowed certain contracts to run out. These are two contracts that are going to stand for two different areas. The amounts that we quoted you are to do the building on a quality basis and the 50 cents a month is billing for each month to be added to their garbage bill, raising the rates in south land oaks to nine.75 cents and raising the rates in circle c.

>>Lewis: lit me ask you this, does it cost any more to bill south land oaks than circle c.

>> This is the quotes we got from the providers of service in their area Lewis who is going to do the billing?

>> the contractor themselves. In circle c it's longhorn disposal company and in south land oaks it's mid tex waste.

>>Lewis: well, they're going to bill them and collect the money or do they bill them and we collect the money?

>> they do the billing and do the collection of the money too.

>>.

>>Lewis: in other words, they hasn't been billing them before, the muds were playing the bill.

>> No, the mud were sending the bill and the residents were paying the mud and the mud paying the contractor. And now the contractor will be billing the residents directly.

>>Lewis: okay. That's all I have.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Slusher, do you have a question of Mr. Roads? [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: are there any further questions? I'll entertain a motion to close the meerg. Seconded by the Mayor Mayor pro tem to close the public hearing on item no. 64. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all in favor, all opposed. Motion carries with Councilmember Goodman temporarily off the dias. That takes us to item 66 and I'll consider item 66, which is a resolution authorizing the negotiation and execution of amendments to the private hauler contracts to the former circle c mud. I'll do 67 in a second.

>> motion for approval on 66.

>>Mayor Watson: motion is made by Councilmember Lewis, seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Hearing discussion in hearing none, all in favor, all opposed. The motion carries with Councilmember Goodman off the dias. Item 67 I'll entertain a motion? the motion is made by the Mayor pro tem to approve on all three hearings. To amendment the ordinance seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all all in favor all opposed? motion carries on item no. 67 Can Councilmember Goodman off the dias. There being no further business to come before the Austin City Council at this regular meeting I'll entertain the motion to adjourn. The motion is made by Councilmember Griffith. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All opposed? motion carries, we are adjourned.