Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 02/25/99

>>Mayor Watson: welcome, everybody. It's February 25th and one of the things we're going to do today is start off with our proclamations. Ms. Tony, I can't don't you come up be it known by these presents that I, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, do hereby proclaim February 25, 1999 -- and it will be March 2nd, but as Texas independence day and I call -- we're announcing it today and I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the William barrett chapter 3 of the daughters of the republic of Texas in its efforts to perpetuate the spirtsz of the men and women to achieved the independence of Texas and promote the celebration of Texas honor days and the preservation of the unity and the history of the great state of Texas and it's signed by me Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin and I'm happy to pre sent this to ms. Tony. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you so much. [Applause].

>> Thank you, Mayor Watson, thank you all of you for your nice response. Texas independence day, as you know, is next Tuesday, March 2. It will celebrate the 163rd anniversary of the signing of Texas' declaration of independence. We also celebrate Texas flag day and sam houston's birthday. Had he lived, he would be 206 years old next Tuesday. I would like to say a special thanks to Mr. Jay Johnson, a former City Council Member, who has become the motivator for bringing attention to the celebration, the acknowledgement of Texas independence day in Austin and the area this year. It has been somewhat negotiated in the past and jay wherever you are, thank you. We hope that you will fly your flag in your home, that your organizations will take note of the day, the celebrations that you will join in whatever public ceremonies there are and remember how blessed we are to live in this great state of Texas. What an incredible history. What a past, what a present and what a future. And also, may I remind you that March 6th is alamo heroes day. We acknowledge that and celebrate that as the fall of the alamo and celebrate all of the heroes who participated in that. Mayor Watson, there's a delightful book that's been Written called liberty, justice and for all, the dog heroes of the Texas republic, Written by liberty, who belonged to sam houston. It's a marvelous history lesson, especially if you are a dogger, you will love it. Justice belonged to jim bowie d was with him and the dog with the funny looking ear is their love child fraul. You ever never know Texas history as you will when you read it and Mayor, I present it to you.

>>Mayor Watson: bless your heart. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much.

>>Mayor Watson: that's wonderful. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: please come forward. Well, folks, as you know if you watch this very often you know that we have a lot of employees of the City is who do a great job for the citizens of Austin. And from time to time we lose some of those folks because they move on. And today we have an opportunity to honor with a distinguished service award verneil nitco. She ban working for the City of Austin on december 2, 1963. In the water and waste water department. Her starting salary at the time was $1.20 per hour and she stayed. [Laughter]. She was transferred to the law department in 1971 and I am the 11th Mayor to hold office for the City of Austin since she first came to work here. 1963, I was five. [Laughter]. She is well known and she is liked by everyone. She is always on the job at the crack of dawn and she is known for her efficiency, her hard work and her enthusiasm on behalf of the citizens of Austin. She is going to be greatly missed and we all wish her the best in the future and I am very please to do have the opportunity to provide her with this distinguished service award and I want to read, in acknowledgement and appreciation for untiring efforts and unselfish service during her 35 year tenure as a dedicated employee of the City of Austin, verneal snitco is deserving of public acclaim and recognition and it's signed by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. I guess I ought to put Kirk Watson the 11th, on behalf of the entire City Council of the City of Austin and we very much appreciate all you've meant to this City and the citizens for so many, many years. Thank very much. [Applause].

>> You are a rose to us and we are going to miss you terribly. But God bless you and keep you. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: wow like to say something?

>> if I can.

>>Mayor Watson: after 35 years you deserve a tear or two.

>> 35 Years has been a long time. I've seen a lot of people come and go. I've made a lot of very dear friends and I'm -- that I'm going to miss. But hey, I'm just a phone call away. Thank you everyone.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: folks, as you know, we are counting down to the grand opening of the City of Austin and therefore the citizens new airport that will be open at Austin-Bergstrom international airport and the target date and the day we're going to open that thing is may 2, 1999. It's a exiting time for the City of Austin and for the citizens of this City who are building this wonderful airport. Because for many other reasons but one of those reasons, this will be the last great airport opened in this century in the United States. And folks that are already going out and taking tours are seeing that it's going to be something that is special and something that the citizens of Austin will have the opportunity to enjoy. And so as we get toward that, we are doing the things that we ought to do as a City to celebrate and the grand opening of that thing and one of the things we've done is we've had a grand opening steering committee of a number of our citizens who have taken a lot of time, put a lot of energy and a lot of effort into making sure that this is a party where we can all celebrate as a City and truly even joe what it is that we're doing out there. It's my pleasure to proclaim and say that be it known by these presents that I, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, do hereby proclaim February 25th, 1999 as Austin-Bergstrom international airport grand opening steering committee day in Austin. [Laughter]. How do you like that? [applause]. And I want to call on all the citizens to join me in recognizing that the Austin-Bergstrom international airport grand opening will be an historic moment for our City and our citizens. It is the first major airport opening in Texas since the dallas-fort worth and in recognizing that this is the larnles air force base conversion in recent history and our new airport, and this is not in the City charter but I am required to say it, remains on time and under budget, and in recognizing that the Austin-Bergstrom international airport grand opening steering committee has made much of this possible by surpassing the original responsesership goal, in commending all the members for their dedication to this most worthwhile project and encouraging all Austinites to attend the grand opening celebration of their new Austin-Bergstrom international airport and it's signed by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin and I want to say thank you to the steering committee and it's my pleasure to make -- to give this proclamation to pete winsted who has been the chair of that steering committee.

>> Thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Thank you very much, Mayor. Let me say this, I would like to say thank you to the Council for your patience on the airport and having an airport that is on time and under budget. And let me also thank the members of our steering committee who helped raise the money from the business sector. And some of them are here today but I'm going to read all the names. Paul bury, barbara carlson. Barbara you are here stand up. She left. Bryan comebye. Jose guerra, John merit, brice miller. Bill, couldn't have done it without you. Jik saxton, the honorable Bruce todd who worked very hard on this airport from day one. Paul tollvar and rick wheeler. Join me in thank this group for their hard work. [Applause]. Let me also say a big thank to you the Mayor's advisory committee chaired by roy butler and jake pickle. Without their guidance and we deputised that entire group to work on this and appreciate everybody's effort. Let me say a couple of other thank yous, to chuck Griffith, chuck has worked with us from day one. Also Charles gates and John al manned have helped us as we have moved forward and maybe most important is jamie casanov. Stand up, if you don't mind. We couldn't have done it without jamie. [Applause]. Finally I guess the support we had on the fundraising side out in the private sector was molly sharp. Molly, you stand up. Stand up, molly. [Applause]. Mayor, if I could quickly, let me give you the select sponsors that have signed up for this. Coca-cola, dell, nor west, parsons brinkerhoff, Southwestern Bell, american airlines, ca 1, nec, lumer len slotsz skis, lead supporters, the american society of engineers, Austin chapter, capital aggregate. Barton creek mall, carter burgess, chase bank, ibm, pace sullivan pace, saint daifdz, sun construction and vinson and elkins and finally the Austin cargo port. Mayor, that is the sponsors we have to date and we're still working and I would say to the City and the City Council we are pleased to have brought you today commitments for over $500,000 for the opening of the airport and we appreciate it very much the opportunity. It was an easy product to push.

>>Mayor Watson: great. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, pete. Thank you to the steering committee. It is proper that the largest Public Works project in the history of the City of Austin be -- have a grand opening that is worthy of the citizens of the City of Austin who have built such a wonderful airport and I very much appreciate and I know the Council appreciates all the hard work to help us make sure that that is the kind of celebration that's worthy of Austin. So thank you very much. Is joe here? we have a lot of folks in our community that give a great deal to this community and many times they go unsung. But every now and then we get the opportunity to say something like a big thank you to people that give so much to us. So today we have the opportunity to give a community service award and let me just read this. This community service award is presented in acknowledgement and appreciation of their participation in community projects for the community -- for their participation in community projects and sponsorship of numerous varied activities for the youth of the City of Austin, for their dedicated efforts to become personally active and to involve others in the community, to demonstrate a spirit of volunteerism and to make a difference by shaping the future of Austin and other central Texas communities, so today this community service award is goes to both joe and delore rest alvarade and declare they are deserving of public recognition and it's signed by me and here to except this is joe. Thank you for all you do. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: now for a little music. Are we ready? all right. Today we're going to hear from mystery date. Is yourself what could a u.t. Drama student, a licensed counselor and an owner of forbidden fruit have in common? don't answer out loud everybody. [Laughter]. Together allison downy, Larry cordell and lynn rear done make up a group called mystery date. You've heard them at steam boat, waterloo ice house, rhythm house, babe's and hole in the wall. At times the band has expand to do include gyms and chris. You can see them at the rhythm house on February 18th and liberty lunch on the 27th. Later in april enjoy their sound at the original central market on north lamar. I get to proclaim and state that be it known by these presents that I, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, do hereby proclaim February 25, 1999 as mystery date day. You all in the City can take that any way you want to. [Laughter]. And I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the many outstanding contributions by the local community -- music community toward the development of Austin's social economic and cultural diversity and recognizing the dedicated efforts of artists which further Austin's status as the live music capital of the world, signed by me, Kirk Watson she Mayor of the City of Austin. Ladies and gentlemen, let's listen to mystery date. Thank you. [Applause].

>> I wanted to say that chris die our mandolin player is filling in today. And we are playing Saturday night at liberty lunch along with quatrapaw, mike roads even berg and others and we would like to invite you to come out and support us and liberty lunch had is one of the great music institutions not only in Austin but this part of the country and we would like to see liberty lunch is around for a while too. (Music)
(Music)
singing (Music)
(Music)
(Music)
(Music)
[applause].

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> I would like to introduce the band, on bass, normally chris dye, lynn rear done on drums and --

>> I'm allison.

>> Where was I going with that?

>> singer, guitar player.

>> Yeah. How many years have I known you now? allison downy on guitar and vocals and she is the writer of about half of our songs. We are playing at liberty lunch Saturday night February 27 along with selly King, quatrapaw.

>> It's a real honor to be here. Thank you to Jackie Goodman for helping us out and advocating for liberty lunch.

>>Goodman: thank you!

>>Mayor Watson: if everyone where please rise and join us with in an invocation. Today the invocation is going to be presented bypass store deeg grchlt leston.

>> I would invite you all with open hearts and minds to pray in the manner to which you are accustomed. Hear our prayer. Oh, great and gracious spirit, we invite your presentation to be among us and fill our hearts with hope. In preparation for the administering work of our City we offer thanks for this day and for the opportunity to serve and work together inspired by the creative spirit which you have instilled in each one of us. We pray for City and community leaders and representatives, that hearts and minds be open so that all may truly listen, may hear, may respond and act with integrity honoring one another with dignity and respect. This day and every day guide us and help us to remember that underneath our differences of opinion and our diverse backgrounds, we are all neighbors, striving to create and keep communities that are safe and whole and healthy where we may all live and grow and learn together in an atmosphere of peace and justice and mutual concern and care. Throughout this continuing creative process, may our lives be blessings to each other. By the grace of the spirit, amen.

>>Mayor Watson: amen. Thank you very much. I'll call to order the Austin City Council for a regular meeting of the City Council. It is February 25th, 1999 and we are meeting at the City Council chambers which are located at 307 west second street. Changes and corrections to the agenda. Item no. 15 Should read recommended by planning commission. Item no. 16 Should read approve a resolution authorizing execution of a construction contract with o'neal construction of Texas, inc., is postponed until March 4th, 1999. Item 49 should read as follows delete the language approve second and third readings of an ordinance amending chapter 13-2 of the Austin City code zoning property locally known as, and replace it with approve an ordinance amending chapter 13-2 of the Austin City code. Also delete rezoning with conditions, conditions met as follows, conditional overlay incorporates, conditions imposed by Council on first reading. Item 51 should read as follows delete public hearing to amend chapter 13-2 of the Austin City code by zoning property locally known as, and replace it with approve second and third readings of an ordinance amending chapter 13-2 of the Austin City code zoning property locally known as. Item no. 70, Delete approve smart growth may tlix and land development code recodification and land development code subcommittee and it should read 70-a, approve a resolution adopting the smart growth matrix and 70-b, approve an ordinance recodifying the land development code parentheses land development code subcommittee, close parentheses. Item 71 should read: delete the parentheses land development code subcommittee and replace it with parentheses Council Member William Spelman and Mayor pro tem Jackie Goodman. Items that are set for a time certain today, at 4:30 the zoning items, items 72 through 91. At 6:30 a public hearing for a street name change from havana street to limone lane, item 92. At 7:00 p.m., a public hearing to consider the revision of the large primary service tariff of the electric utility department and to add a coincidence load special contract ride tor the general service demand tariff -- we're anticipating thousands of people for that one -- that will be item no. 93.

>>Garcia: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>>Garcia: there is also a 7:30 time certain.

>>Mayor Watson: I was just getting ready to point that out. And at 7:30 -- yeah, at 7:30 item no. 26, And let me read that. Approve negotiation and execution of a ten year contract with one five year extension option about browning ferris. Also at 3:30 p.m., there will be time certain on items 63 and 64, which involve a board of directors meeting of the Austin housing finance corporation. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the regular meetings of February 10 and 11, 1999. I'll entertain a motion. Mayor Pro Tem moves approval of the minutes. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Griffith. Any suggestion? discussion discussion? opposed motion carries on item 1. The next items are general citizens communications. The first three people we have signed up to speak is eric lofgrew, Robert l. Thomas and frank berlanger. Welcome, sir.

>> Hello, City Council and Mayor. I would like to first say I'm honored to be able to speak in front of you. I had been trying to prepare some things and there is so much I wanted to say to you, I didn't really have anything, but this morning I wrote my brother a letter and in reading it back I decided that it said a whole lot of what I would like to say. So I'm just going to simply read the letter. Dear brother, I've spent the last three days on the streets. I've been somewhere between drunk and passed out for that time. Being drunk makes falling asleep on the cold concrete bearable. In waking today knowing -- in waking knowing today holds no more promise than yesterday with a pounding head and hung overmakes that 9 a.m. Very easy. With overcast skies and instringt I have sense of self preservation I returned home. I woke safe and warm but as I lay here writing you the collective souls of those left behind burn like atlanta. Gene is a intelligent fellow I've known for almost a year now. He stays drunk most of the time. He shakes pretty badly when he goes without booze for any amount of time. I help him with a beer when I can. Gene and I have become pretty close and he's asked me to get him into arc, Austin recovery center. Each morning I call to see if there is a spot for gene. Nothing today. Maybe tomorrow. Gene has been arrested downtown near his camp 18 times in the last year for public intoxication. He is a very passive guy and a mellow drunk, yet he often passes out in some alley or at a bus stop. This is a sure way to get locked up here in Austin. The City has spent thousands of dollars incarcerating gene yet they only fund two beds for detox. This in a City with a population of nearly a half a million. More than 20 souls have been lost here on the streets since december 1st. One stabbed, her throat cut, and then her dying body used for sex. One fell from a bridge trying to climb to his sleeping spot. I knew him. He was a lot like gene. I would like to get some help for gene, but with only two beds available it's like throwing horse shoes at the moon. Gene would like to help himself if given the chance and I believe he would stand a fair chance of staying sober if he could get clean and into a place. But if gene did start drinking again and fell trying to climb into his sleeping spot he could simply get back up and climb into bed, he would not die on the cement footing of a bridge that's inside of our state capitol, a state in the richest nation in the world. Dear brother, leaving gene, shelly, Robert and the others and my street family outside, some good, some not so good, makes my heart hurt.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much for being here. [Applause]. Mr. Thomas, if you will please come forward. Is Mr. Berlanger here? Mr. Berlanger? Mr. Pena, if you will make your way forward you will follow Mr. Thomas.

>> Thank you, Mayor Watson. Mayor Pro Tem good ma'am and members of the Council, I'm wanting to speak to you concerning the rosewood park and recreation center. I'm Robert l. Thomas of the building construction trades department of the laborers international unions of north america. Texas AFL-CIO and also the branch -- Austin branch. I'm speaking today of my experiences as a professional athlete in the national football league and the world football league and american football association. I'm the advisory Council from the international [inaudible] revitalization projects stemming from the 19 will 7 revitalization and up into the up and coming entertainment center. Today I would like to speak concerning employment. All last year I had been speaking to you members of the Council concerning employment. The employment structure at the rosewood park and recreation center for professional athletes. In the last meeting I had given my telephone number to one of your aides and you had advised me you would have Jesus olivera director of parks call me. I would like to speak to him concerning the outstanding efforts that our builders have done to revitalize the center. But oliveras never called and he never -- he is never do you know there to make meetings with us and the build we had promoted was the central City entertainment center and that's brought much concern from the Texas commission on human rights. I had informed them about the legal relations with Jesus olivera of the parks. The personal harm that I encountered last year was that -- hired as site manager. Now, when the Texas commission on human rights contacted al var ra for reply, he did not reply or speak to them. My statement to the Texas commission on human rights involved discrimination. And I believe I've been discriminated against in the violation of the Texas commission on human rights and the -- by the civil rights acted of 1964 because of my race as a black african american simply for the following reasons. I'm aware that Mr. Olivera is white and director of the parks and recreation department does not encourage blacks to apply for a managerial position within the department. I applied and was qualified but yet was not selected for the position as the manager of the facility at rosewood. Now, I provided support to rosewood and prove even the status of the parks in order to qualify for a position in the department since 1987. Now, we need a new director. We need men to help us with employment. We need the type of compassion down there so we can meet with them.

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

>> Well, I would like to -- what can we do about that down there?

>>Mayor Watson: we appreciate your comments and I don't know how you can go about getting in touch with Mr. Olivera.

>> First of all, Mr. Olivera probably has been busy but I will mention to you to call you. The other thing is all employment decisions made by Mr. Olivera in that department are consistent with the law and do not -- we do not discriminate. Thank you.

>> You've got my number?

>> yes, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Berlanger. Welcome, Mr. Pena, you will be followed by richard knowlton and Richard Troxell.

>> Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem Goodman, Council Members Gus pena, president of the vietnam tejanos. Mayor Pro Tem Goodman, I would like to correct a statement that I made two weeks ago at this City Council meeting. The intrns that we're talking about to to crosswalk that is the public wanting to be built is on the red river entrance to the the emergency room not the 15th street entrance and again I believe I said it correctly then, I guess I incorrectly corrected myself. But anyway, that is the situation that we're looking at right now. A lot of people that cross that particular street.

>> We're evaluating it.

>> Appreciate that. No. 1, The traffic calming sdwisz that I spoke about two weeks ago, I was merely -- nearly hit by a 1988 red cadillac. I took ni nephew to becker elementary and coming back on mary street was nearly broadsided by a vehicle traveling at least 35 miles per hour. The point is what is the City going to do to make sure these traffic calming devices do in fact slow down the traffic on west mary. It has not worked. Im hoping you -- [inaudible] no. 2, The East Austin clinics various nursing positions at the East Austin clinic have not been filled. I'm hoping that this is looked into, evaluated and corrected, Mayor, Council and Mr. City manager, it's very important not to compromise the services that -- to be given to the poor, the indigent and uninsured. No. 3, The audit that the community has requested in the goggio consultant team has not occurred, materialized, do we need the City -- or rather the federal government to intervene? what is the City so scared of what is the City so concerned of? the fact of the matter is if you have facts knowledgeable about the team, let's the community know, it is our tax money, it is your tax money also, but it's our tax money. We have a right to know also. Again, we reiterate again, Mayor Pro Tem Goodman, you are our Council Member -- our angel so to speak for the poor people. I know everybody else advocates for the poor, but seven pills for people who go to the clinic for refills of prescriptions when they have a balance due is not acceptable. Again, you are asking the individual who are ill to go back to the clinics to pick up more prescription. This is supposed to be a safety net for the poor, the uninsured, the have-nots, yet we are requesting or asking them to go back when they are ill and pick up the rest of their prescription and medication. We find this unacceptable and I hope it is corrected. Think about the poor people who don't have cars, who don't have time, are ill, they can't go back to the clinics just because their seven day prescription limit has run out. Please, humanly possible, let's acted humane to everybody and the poor. Thank you all very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Richard knowlton. Richard knowlton. Richard knowlton. Richard Troxell. Welcome, Mr. Troxell. Charles t. Waits here? Mr. Waits? welcome, Mr. Troxell.

>> Thank you. Hate crimes, who is to blame? the scene unfolding in jasper, Texas, events being retold are heinous and all but unspeakable. Under the law hate crimes are those where an offense was committed because of a bias or prejudice against a group. The first hate crime that I ever experienced secondhand was when three homeless men, Larry mason, walter richberg and Larry redding dragged themselves into my office, they had been kicked, stomped with nightsticks, they were swollen, battered and bruised and spitting blood. They had been sleeping in a fentioned in alley behind west six street. The police officers scaled the fence and unlocked it for two other officers. Without a word they began flailing away on these help less individuals. The men tried to climb the fence but they were dragged back down and beaten profusely. Only after I intervened with police and interbl affairs accept their complaint. Only after each man passed three lie detector tests and only after we produced extensive photographs did we finally prevail with the ring-leader officer hicks found gment. The next hate chime was when two men severely beat ann set ricardo davilla on fire, a homeless man burned over 80% of his body with second and third degree burns. After they had beaten and kicked him they went into a store, bought lighter fluid and set him on fire. He was consumed in flames. For two years he suffered skin graft after painful graft and all because my friend David had been homeless. The next hate crime occurred to my friend John who woke in an alley where he had sought a safe place to sleep only to find himself and clothes smeared in feces. When he sought sanction you anterior he was issued a criminal press pass ticket. The last Austin hate crime that I personally experienced secondhand was committed against linda bright, a homeless woman with a heart of gold who had lived in Austin for at least eight years and yet the newspapers called her transient. She was beaten senseless and as she lay there with blood Gus.ing from her slashed throat they raped her. How do hate crimes happen? they happen when we strip people of their names and dehumanize them and substitute names like sri. Hate crimes happen when even though they have lived here longer than most of our high-tech companies we call them transients. It happens whether we reduce them to non-citizen status. They happen when we don't pay people a living wage and yet we pass laws that make criminals out of them for sleeping on our streets. That is how hate crimes happen. We say stop the hate. Break the cycle. Repeal the no camping homeless ordinance and house the homeless. Thank you. [Applause].

>>Mayor Watson: Charles t. Waits, Jr. Charles waits, Jr. Mr. Waits. Scott Johnson. Please come forward. Susan morr. E here? if you will go ahead we'll have you speak after Mr. Johnson. Welcome, sir.

>> Welcome. Thank you. Mayor, Council Members, staff, Mayor Pro Tem, my name is scott Johnson, I represent the Austin sierra club on air quality issue as well as I'm a member of the central Texas clean air force. Today is a great day for quality. The refinery that supplies the majority of gasoline for this area has proposed cleaner burning gasoline for this summer and we're very glad about that. The issue heim here to speak on is related in a small way to that. There's a benefit to that. The users of gas powered engines is what I'm here to speak about today, those folks who for the City landscape the parks and right of ways, et cetera, as well as for the general populace, I believe that there is a direct exposure component here where people that are out using this equipment are exposed to pollution in larger quantities that are those people who are exposed to it by automobile exhaust or point sources. In november of '97 I prompted the environmental board to conduct a public hearing on the pros and cons of hand held lawn and garden equipment for reasons of noise and air quality. Four recommendations came out of the subsequent meeting with industry representatives, one stated that there be a requirement of ear, eye and breathing protection for City employees where now it's optional that they use this. Later on the City's environmental director roger duncan sent a memo to hr risk assessment and to another City department requesting input on how to handle this issue, this recommendation. Subsequently that was forwarded on to parks and recreation. The safety manager there. And I've had conversations with her as well as the safety department for the City. And my concern is that front line workers have sometimes limited access to -- and sometimes limited interest in health and safety information that makes it more problematic for them to make if right decisions about what type of health and safety equipment to use and I believe it's vital that health safety environmental staff provide timely information to these workers so they can follow the regulations properly or follow guidelines voluntarily which is the case now. I believe this has to do with equity issue we've been talking about more this past year and I believe that constantly evaluating health risks for all employees is a very important part of that. Paying a higher entry left level wage for City worngers is come parks ate and admirable but I believe protecting health is equally if not more important than that and I would like the City to do more in that regard. I have some recommendations and I run out of time and I would be happy to submit those in writing or give them to you if you allowed me more time. [Buzzer sounds].

>>Mayor Watson: why don't you submit them in writing. Thank you very much. Susan morre. Welcome.

>> Hi. I'm susan morre, thank you for the opportunity -- thanks for the opportunity to speak to all of you. I represent the bee cave road alliance, a group of over 20 neighborhood associations that are coming imploring you to please help us take a look at the level of development activity in the lake Austin watershed. Those of us who live in that area are alarmed at the rate in which it's being developed. Density levels and impact on the drinking water especially are concerns. And we've had -- I gave you a handout from president of the hudson bend neighborhood association as well. He couldn't be here today. But he's apparently had the same experience that we have in trying to find out about projects ahead of time. There is a real lack of required neighborhood notification going on in several projects. We did not find out about the balfour p.u.d. Until it had already been to the environmental board, then recommended by planning commission and had a first reading at City Council. We found out two days before it was coming to the City Council, and I asked because it's a violation of City code to not notify the neighborhood associations surrounding it that you reopen the public hearing and allow us the opportunity to give you citizen input and get more information on that project. The bee cave road alliance was listed as one of the three groups that were notified but they absolutely were not so I hope that would have an impact since it is violation of due process. The main focus, though, is we are forming a friends of lake Austin group to beg you to please take a look at the watershed as a whole because it is changing rapidly and dramatically and I think it's a serious threat to the drinking water of the City of Austin and ask the City Council, you have the duty to the citizens to protect our drinking water. I'm asking you to stand up for that. I understand your concerns about legislative issues, but lake Austin is our drinking water source. Jackie Goodman was on the town lake task force in '85 when the City Council then declared a three month moratorium on development and the -- in the Town Lake corridor and did an intensive three-month stud toy try and recommend better development of Town Lake and the Colorado river downstream from that. We're asking a similar project be allowed to be done. We've initial it from a volunteer level, our 120 neighborhood groups are in process as quickly as possible mapping what this was like in '5, 90 and '95 and the current level of activity in this area begging you to please help us control the density and impact on wildlife habitat and drinking water and quality of life for the people that have lived out in this area for a listening time. I live on two and a half acres. I have a lot of wildlife in my yard. I'm having minimal impact on this area. I understand the interest in a pilot septic project and in clustered development however I'm very concerned about the density level and the recommendation by pat murphy of how it would or would not meet current code.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Appreciate you being here. Ms. Gale?

>> thank you, Mayor. Hi Austin honorable City Council Members, I'm jennifer gale, I live in north Austin and I'm a candidate run fog the City Council in place had. I'm here to discuss the need to bring the internal affairs division downtown. It is located north of capital plaza and south of 290 and swin out towers. Someone wishing to make a complaint must if they don't have a car take a bus downtown and take a bus five or six miles to to twin towers. Then they have to fill out a Written plant form which could take hours. Next they have to wait for a detective where they will give out a statement, wait for a notary and sign it. Then repeat the travel process by traveling downtown and either to work or home. The issue that I'm addressing is the hours of wasted time spent making a complaint. It means a die out of work or away from their home. I spoke with police chief stanley nooe last may and he had interest in bringing it south of downtown. I'm asking for it to be centrally located so an Austinite doesn't have to be intimidated by loss of their job, the police officer they are filing complaint against and a day's wages lost from their work. We also clearly need a police review board to go over these cases. I would also like to add that the internal affairs sdwition of the Austin police department needs more materials and tools to get their job done better. Please speak with the assistant chief lopez concerning this matter. Again I ask you to bring it downtown. I would also like to add, I would like our City and the Downtown Austin Alliance, I would like to ask them to help us repeal the sleeping in public ordinance and the pedestrian on the roadway ordinance laws used to harass citizens of the United States. By this City Council and the Downtown Austin Alliance. Honorable Council Members, thank you very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Next item on the agenda is approval of the consent agenda Council, let me first read the consent agenda as it currently exists and then I'll entertain a motion, but when I finish reading through it, if you will come back and tell me if items need to be pulled or can be placed back on the consent agenda.

>> Mayor, before you start, item no. 15, Which is the ordinance amendment that accompanies item 16 pulled yesterday will also need to be pulled.

>>Mayor Watson: the City manager has pulled item 15. The consent agenda currently is 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44 for postponement until april 1st, 1999, 45, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58 -- let me pause right there. 52 Will be on second and third reading. 53 On second and third reading. 54 On second and third reading. 56 On second and third reading. 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 71, 109, And 110. Let me read on 110. These are board and commission aappointments. To the airport advisory board, brad ellis, a rei appointment by Council Member Garcia. Jack killcease. To the music commission, kristen nagle and kevin conner by Mayor Watson. To the human rights commission by consensus, neal walton. Are there any items that can be placed back on the consent agenda or that need to be removed from the consent agenda? Council Member Spelman?

>>Spelman: put 24 back on. My questions have been answered.

>>Mayor Watson: any other items? Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: yes, Mayor, I would like to pull item 41, 67 and 69.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Any other items that need to be pulled or put back on? I'll entertain a motion -- I'll read this and entertain a motion. 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44 Foes postponement to april one, 1999, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 65 66, 68, 71, 109 and 110 as previously read. I'll entertain a motion. Motion made by Council Member Spelman to approve. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Griffith. Discussion? let's make sure we don't have anybody signed up to speak on the items that have just been pulled.

>>Garcia: Mayor?

>>Watson: one second real quick, Council Member. Item 6, chris riley has signed up. On item no. 68. His item -- he has signed up as organization is the downtown Austin neighborhood association, he indicates he can't be here to speak, but strongly supports item no. 68. On item no. 33, Mr. Becker.

>> I'm not sure what 68 is, but seemed like I ought to be against it. I'm here speaking on no. 33, A lease renewal for an office, a private office building that the City is leasing space in. They are rising the rent from $11 a swear foot to $21 a square foot. It's going from 1.3 million to 1. -- 2.2 Million dollars per year to lease this and usually when the landLord raises the rent there's kind of a principle want to move just to make them get a different tenant to pay it. And I just -- this isn't a real thought out -- well thought out proposal, but we've got the Mueller airport site, it's opening up, and that building is huge. You can do construction around it without undullly interfering with the people working inside of it and if we need an office building, we ought to move a bunch of office space out there and use that while we build up around it. I mean if you are going to redevelop Mueller airport the first thing doesn't have to be knock the building down, you can build around it when we try to come up with our own site downtown t state is going to be putting office buildings out there in a year or two, we could start moving some of our employees there first to see if that does help the economy. Current landLord is offering us a three to five year lease. If we don't take him up on it may be that landLord will find a private interest to take it over for maybe 20 years thereby boosting the downtown economy. But, you know, with the rents as high as we are to not use all available buildings like that this lease -- leaves us hostage to private landords who are charging us $900,000 for use of that building. The other thing about the City that csc propose understand the City hall, there is some option to negotiate with the state, if we have to have that or else pay exorbitant rents they are not going to give us a good price on it. If we can move out to Mueller airport site for five years or so, that relieves the time pressure. The other thing is on the City hall, I really like to see an election before you build it. I mean we'll get to this next week or so, but we went through this freeport thing and they said delay means you want to kill it. No, that's not it. Everybody says oh, if you want to kill it she just try and delay it. No, we want this process. In the bad projects with the good process and bad projects we have time to kill and we can kill them, but the good projects ought to survive. We probably do need another downtown building and I would really like to see you use that Mueller airport to improve the process of downtown and also save a whole bunch of money. Thank you. [Buzzer sounds].

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

>> I really like this clock with the seconds.

>>Mayor Watson: good. I'm glad we found something you like. Thanks for being here, Mr. Becker. Those are all the people signed up to speak on on the consent agenda. Discussion? Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. On item 25, City Manager, it's a quick question. It looks like we're asking for a grant from a loan program, cleanup revolving loan program is that for a grant or a loan?

>> let me -- Council Member, I don't know the specific answer to that question. Why don't we pull it until I get you the specific answer. Sounds like a revolveing loan that you have to pay back. That's how we set it up at the state but let me find out.

>>Mayor Watson: on item no. 109, Item no. 109 Is the case of ethel spiller vs Robert m. Walk erx, that is more generally known and porp known as the late gation involving the City's request for environmental study of the longhorn pipeline project. As it has been discussed previously publicly and we even held a tejano hall meeting down in south Austin where we went through those documents, the City has been successful in an agreement where the environmental protection agency will be the lead agency for environmental -- for an environmental study that is based upon the national environmental policy act. The United States department of transportation will be the lead agency with regard to pipeline safety and integrity issues and we have the opportunity for cooperating agencies, which is a term of art under the national environmental policy act to be involved including the Austin fire department which will help us deal with local concerns related to safety. As I say, we indicate we had a town hall meeting. Under the agreement there is a requirement that the federal defendants, that being the environmental protection agency and the United States department of transportation, conduct a public meeting within 30 days of a request if the City Council votes on this item on the consent agenda and passes it, we will be sending that letter immediately and we will -- we are creating a web page so that people will be able to get information and if you are not able to get the information off our web page and you want a hard copy, please contact our public information office and we'll make sure that you can get that information. With that, if there is no further discussion on the consent agenda as read, I'll -- all those in favor say aye? opposed say no.

>> Mayor, on no. --.

>>Mayor Watson: motion carries and the consent agenda is passed.

>> On no. 25, Councilmember, it is a process by which we will help -- we will get granted the 500,000, then we will be kind of an agent for the loans to be given to owners of brownfields for them to clean up and have that property become income producing or cleaned up, and then they will be the ones obligated for paying back those loans and we will act as kind oFAAd minimum stlater of that program as I understand the rca. If that is different, I will get you a memorandum explaining it.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll recognize Council Member Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. The -- on item no. 19, I would like to -- Mr. Rieck, or smbr. Is smbr here? reading the backup material, it don't say whether or not the -- this contractor met the goals or whether they was recommended or whether it was a waiver provided.

>> Councilmember, they did not meet the goal, but they are in compliance. They did make a good faith effort. Actually we had 16 mbe and w.b.e. Firms available in those areas that they are going to subcontract to non-certified firms and they did send Written notices to all 16 of those m.b.e. And w.b.e. Firms that were available. So even though they didn't meet the goal, they did make a good faith effort; as a result they are in compliance with the program.

>>Lewis: and you say they have -- they've -- they have the intention of working with a number of non-certified w.b.e.s?

>> non-certified firms, I believe that is in your rca. Yes. If you look at the non-m.b.e., w.b.e. Section of all of the subcontractors you see four categories. And again, we had 16 firms available in all four of those areas and they did solicit bids from all of those 16 vendors.

>>Lewis: all right. Thank you. I'll move approval of item no. 19.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Lewis moves approval of item 19. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Garcia. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no? motion carries on item no. 19.

>>Garcia: did 17 go back on consent, Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: no, but Council Member Spelman had requested -- pulled the item, had requested for me to wait to call that item up while he is discussing it with staff. Council, at this time I would entertain a motion for the City Council to recess into executive session and the motion would be to engage in a private consultation with our attorney pursuant to section 551.071 of the Texas government code to discusses legal issues related to Austin's npdes and tnrcc permits this litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. Discuss legal issues relating to Austin's npdes and tnrcc permits. Discuss state and federal law applicable to municipal sign regulation. This litigation involves plaintiffs' request for an environmental study of the longhorn pipeline project. Discuss f.m. Properties operating company versus City of Austin, cause no. 98-0685 In the supreme court of Texas. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. Discuss south cross plaza versus City of Austin, cause no. 94-06387 In the travis county district court. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. Discuss irene h. Sandahl, et al., versus City of Austin and oak cliff financial corporation, inc., cause no. 98-13530, Travis county district court. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. Discuss legal issues concerning proposed lotion in the 76th legislature. And to discusses negotiations and concerning the acquisition and leasing of property in the vicinity of City hall and next and discuss possible acquisition of property in the downtown area of Austin. I'll entertain a motion to recess to executive motion. Motion made by Council Member Garcia, seconded by Council Member Lewis. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no? motion carries with Council Member Spelman off the die I can't say. We are recessed into executive session.

>>.

>>.

>>

>>Mayor Watson: I'll call the Austin City Council back for order.

>> A 17 we've been told on the applicant would like to pull it for two weeks so we can try it answer your questions.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion to postpone item no. 17 For two weeks. Seconded by grf. Is there any discussion? opposed say no. Motion carries as Council Member Slusher and Council Member Garcia off the dias.

>> I voted on it.

>>Mayor Watson: I'm sorry. I heard obi won knobi. Councilmember Garcia is voting aye. 3:30 Time certain, 63 and 64, at this time I will entertain a motion to recess the meeting of the Austin City Council for purposes of calling to order the board of directors of the Austin housing finance corporation. Is there a motion? motion is made by Council Member Lewis to recess the Austin City Council meeting. Seconded by Council Member Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries with Council Member Garcia off the dias. And I don't hear him voting. I'll call to order the board of directors of the Austin housing finance corporation. We have two items and they're posted as items 63 and 64. I'll recognize Mr. Paul hilgers.

>> Thank you, Mayor, or Mr. Chairman. I'm here to speak first on item one 63. Staff is bringing before you a resolution authorizing approval of a resolution authorizing negotiation and execution of a community development block grant housing implement program, a deferred payment forgive able loan in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to the guadalupe neighborhood development corporation for the acquisition of 907 spence. 1100 And 1102 east 10th street and 1103 cLemont. Funding is available from the 1998-99 budget and this is a ngts of funding ability process that we went through and guadalupe was one of the successful respond denlts to that. And I know that guadalupe is here to address any concerns the Council may have.

>> Council -- yes, Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: that the one I wanted to ask a question on? I think I received the information, but -- this is -- this is a down payment assistance; is that correct? this money would be used for down payment assistance?

>> no, sir. This one is acquisition. Mark, do you want to tell a little bit about the project?

>> the funds -- good afternoon Council Members. These funds from the hip program are strictly for acquisition purposes.

>>Lewis: okay. All right.

>>Mayor Watson: any other questions at this time? I'll entertain a motion with regard to item no. 63. Motion is made to approve item no. 63. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Lewis. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. --.

>>Lewis: that's board of directors.

>>Mayor Watson: I'm sorry. I mean board member, I didn't mean to mis address you. Item no. 63 Passes unanimously. Item no. 64, Mr. Hilgers?

>> we are asking for the approval of a resolution authorizing the negotiation and execution of a deferred payment forgive able loan to the push up foundation in an amount not to exceed $625,000 for the acquisition of a 50 unit transitional housing facility for homeless men located at 1711 east cesar chavez street. This was a notice of funding availability process and the push up was the successful respondent to that. I understand board member Garcia wanted to speak to this issue.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll recognize board member Garcia.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: that would be president since we're trying to be precise in titles here. [Laughter].

>>Garcia: thank you, Mr. President. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: I wouldn't have done it except for Council Member Lewis corrected me me.

>>Garcia: I almost called you senator.

>>Mayor Watson: no, don't do that. [Laughter].

>>Garcia: as I understand it, this -- the members of the community have planned a meeting for the third of March; is that correct?

>> yes, sir. I understand that as well.

>>Garcia: and your staff will be there?

>> yes , sir, that's correct.

>>Garcia: and who else is going to be there, the neighborhood?

>> yes, sir. I understand that we are inviting the neighborhood, members of the neighborhood groups and that at the east Austin neighborhood center at 6:30 Wednesday night to address some concerns that have been brought up by the neighborhood about the facility. And I know the push up foundation will be here as they are with us today as well.

>>Garcia: okay. So is there any problem with placing this item on next week's agenda?

>> no, sir.

>>Garcia: okay. Let me just point out that this is not a new program. Push up has taken over the same house that it operate for many years, in the same location, and they closed last year. Do you also -- you also I think moved into another facility February 1st. You don't need to come up. Just say yes.

>> Yes, sir.

>>Garcia: and as I understand it also, when we make you this basically loan that's forgive able, you will be able to charge less to the people that live there?

>> correct.

>>Garcia: making it more affordable for them to be able to transition from homelessness to self-sufficency?

>> correct.

>>Garcia: the motion is to postpone for one weeblg and have it for action next week.

>>Mayor Watson: it would be to postpone item 64 for one week, which would allow for a community meeting. What date did you say again?

>> Wednesday, March the third at 6:30.

>>Mayor Watson: and where will it be conducted?

>> at the East Austin community center.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second? seconded by Council Member Spelman. There are some people signed up to speak for and against this item, but since the item is being postponed for an opportunity for greater public information before the Council takes up the item, I would encourage everybody to just wait and there would be no need to speak on this item tonight. But let me run through quickly and ask you if you feel compelled to speak, even though it's being did he laid. Mr. Fernandez? please come forward.

>> I just want to meption that we have -- well, east town lake citizens are the ones that requested a meeting with push up and we set the meeting at East Austin multi pump on Wednesday, so it would be a joint meeting with the City because we're the ones that called the meeting as opposed to the City calling the meeting. I want to make sure that's clear for the record. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Then you don't need to speak right now, do you? audra Mills? cindy Martinez? joe contera? linda dell toro? Gus pena? ms. Castane dpchlt a, you would like to speak?

>> first of all, I would like to thank you for delaying this project at least for community input. It's very important that you understand that the community has not been informed as to what's happening. I live seven houses away on east third street. A year ago they told me that the director wanted to live with me because I lived in the neighborhood and he understood my background and my interest in the area. And I had placed four calls to him immediately after that for a period of a month. Now, I'm also a member of owe a group which Gus knows about and have tried to include them and made phone calls and left messages. I have not gotten any phone calls back from the director. I don't have an answering machine and maybe that's why I haven't got the messages. But point is I live seven houses away and don't know what's going on in the building. The thing that needs to be addressed is there's a lot of negative activity going on in the neighborhood. At the corner of east first street and Cesar Chavez and comal is the quick stop and what used to be called something else. There's drug dealing, there's alcohol that is sold to minors and I know this and you have to know that I know it on a personal level because my son-in-law is lebanese and he works for all these people that are some sort oFAA background that own these two facility ies and they're the ones that are engaging in these activities and my son-in-law was too. So this puts me in a very, very concerned situation from being a neighbor and being a relative to the stuff that was going on in this area. And these things are encouraging to people who already have significant problems with holelessness and all of the other things that are inherent with that, such as drugs, such as the different kind of prostitution that is knew the area. So please, we really need this time and I'm glad that you're doing is, but does this give us enough time from one night to the next day for y'all to finalize a commitment to this kind of money without having some real input from the rest of the neighborhood. Does this give us enough time to do that? and actually to finalize some working relationships and I think that's real important.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Robert donnelly? those are all the people signed up to speak. The motion has been made and seconded to postpone item no. 64 For one week, which will allow next Wednesday for there to be a community information gathering session and to give community input. Is there any further discussion? Council Member Garcia?

>>Garcia: let me say, and I can't pronounce ben's last name name and so I'll call him Mr. Ben, he has been very receptive to community participation. He has been a good sturd of the he he stew ward of the -- of the establishment that he manages. And my hope is that that continues and that you can meet and discuss everything with the community and stay active with them so that they know what it is that you're doing and that they know that you're controlling the environment so safety can prevail.

>> Thank you, Council. Councilmember. I just want to say that we have a track record because when we moved into the neighborhood two years ago, the what the speaker just said were happening around the neighborhood. Push up foundation personally worked with the police department. We have a track record. You can check that. We worked in fighting prostitution, drug dealing and all kind of stuff that was going on in the neighborhood. Even when worked closely in putting in street light. So we have a track record of working with the neighborhood. And also Tuesday I invited the assistant police chief, michael donnen to the new police -- to the new site and we did inform him about doing something about and we have to appeal to the ones that we did not reach. And we will be glad to work with you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. There being no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries: motion is made by Council Member Slusher, seconded by Council Member Lewis. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. The board is -- board meeting is adjourned. I'll call back to order the Austin City Council. We'll go to item no. 30. Recognize Council Member Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. On item no. 30 I had asked a question as to how many vehicles we owned in the City. They gave me an approximate number. My question is if there's someone that can answer it, are we buying this 111 replacement and 20 additional light trucks, is this -- are we successing -- -- increasing. Are we increasing our employees, if I can get an answer? because it seemed like --.

>> We added this last budget -- I don't have the precise number, but I want to say it was in excess of 100 people to the budget. And I don't know specifically where these light trucks, what specific department they're in, but the department would have identified during the budge it process the need for a vehicle for any additional personnel. Moreover, the ones that are for replacement, those are units that we spent their useful life and we need to bring in some more units to take they're place. We will take the old units and sell them at auction and have the money go back into the fund. When you ask the question about the number of vehicles, we gave you an approximate answer because that's as best as we can do right now, given the number of units that get turned in, etcetera. I will ask the director of vehicle services and betty to go in and do a manual count so that we will do a physical inventory and get you a precise number, understanding that that number is good only that day because units get tirnd in and then we process new units and sometimes we end up cancelling units altogether. But we'll try to get you the number, sir.

>>Lewis: the reason I was asking is I would lying to know what our ratio of vehicles to employees is. I'll move approval.

>> We can get you that information, sir.

>>Lewis: I'll move approval of item no. 30.

>>Mayor Watson: motion is made. Is there a second.

>>Garcia: second and I have a quick question.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll recognize Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: I've asked this question before, City Manager, how do we know we're getting the lowest prices when we go through this process? how do we know that we can't --.

>> Let me ask sue to answer that question. What is happening is we're buying off a contract where that bid he process has taken place. And we make an assessment that we think those prices would be better than our doing it ourselves.

>> Councilmember --.

>>Garcia: I just want an explanation of the assumption itself and how it is -- why it is that you feel that we're getting a better price than we were to competitively bid this item.

>> Councilmember and all of you. I'm the purchasing officer. These -- all of these items are competitively bid. They're bid by the houston gol ves ton cok. They get anywhere from eight to 12 bids on these items. And the prices are considerably lower than what we had historically been getting here. It's due to volume. There's a tremendous volume of all of the police cars and all of the pickups and that kind of thing. So the base prices on these are very, very reasonable. The other advantage is that they get to noelgt directly with the negotiate directly with the warrants on these and we don't have that kind of clout. So there's that advantage where they go directly to the manufacturers, gm and everybody and are able to negotiate some pretty tough warranties that we can't individually do as well without the collecting volume. Lus Lewis I have one question. When we --.

>>Lewis: I have one question. When we say that we're going to purchase 20 additional various lielt trucks, disans, utility vehicles, do we specify the make and model of these vehicles? or when they go out for bid if they get the lowest bid from, -- let's say from chevrolet or maybe the next time from ford, do we have an option of whether or not we want to purchase those vehicles?

>> yes, sir. How they bid those is they'll go out and get bids from all of the manufacturers, your carry alls, your four by four's, your pickups, sedans. We have the option to choose a ford or a general motors' product, chrysler. I don't think they use any of the foreign manufacturers, but you have a whole menu, if you will, and then you can auction, you can have -- you can option. You can have them with two doors. You can have the bi fuel. We put other things on them. But it's nice because you do get a chose that says do I need a four by four. Do I need a suburban for that or a taho for that. So those are bid and already priced. So it gives us a lot of choice that we couldn't wouldn't have otherwise because we would bid four by fours and take the lowest bidder among the manufacturers and get bids on all of the items on all of the products.

>> The reason I ask that question is because of our parts -- the parts that we purchase and have on hand as to whether or not the -- these replacement vehicles once we replacement if they're of a different brand, then I know I've been to some of the auctions, they wind up selling the spare parts, the oil filters and fenders and whatever for pennies on the dollar. That's the reason I was asking this.

>> Councilmember, you're making a real good point. Whenbrn?ku5 degrees!4z hese came up, what you will do, because I asked the very question about why we wanted all kinds of appear pels and oranges in our fleet, so you had tahos, you had expeditions and the point is we have to standardize the units that can get the work done in our creeks and areas of off road so that it is not apples and oranges that we're purchasing that meet the work requirements so we can standardize the work that's being done, the parts. We'll endeavor to do that. We will get the report in a you were asking as well as Council Member Garcia is asking and that is it outlines what we think we save by the cooperative purchase agreement, the kind of warranty that we're able to negotiate sergeant of this agreement and how that is different than what we would be able to obtain if we were doing this bidding on our own own. And we will get you some standardization so we will work on that and we don't have apples and oranges in the fleet and makes it more difficult to maintain.

>>Lewis: thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion -- do we have a motion? motion has been made and seconded to approve. Is there any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item 30. Item no. 31, Councilmember Lewis?

>> that was item 31, wasn't it?

>>Lewis: my question then -- and I finally got the numbers on these cones. And the reason I wanted to -- an explanation on this is because I don't know if it's -- what the reasoning is, but I see a lot of these cones left at different locations, if these are the plastic cones that they have. And they do have the tape with coa on them, so I do know they're City of Austin cones. And I would just like to find out from one of the departments, I guess public works or water --.

>> After our work is done we're leaving cones? after our work is done?

>>Lewis: yeah. I can take you out and pick up a couple right now.

>>Mayor Watson: you're not supposed to do that, Council Member Lewis.

>>Lewis: I said I could take them out and pick them up. [Laughter].

>>Garcia: that's why he bought that big truck.

>>Lewis: I need a couple to put down, like the telephone company at each end of that truck when I park it. [Laughter]. No. My question is how -- how much do -- these cones at the price that we're paying for them, how -- are we monitoring the amount that we buy and the amount that we have on hand? or do we have a central point that these cones are stored and different departments go and pick them up when they need them?

>> well, we store them in our storage warehouse and we can issue them to any department that comes. And I think the numbers will show that the utility uses, oh, one half to two-thirds of the ones that we order, but other departments use that too. And we check them out to the various crews. We have like in the wastewater wastewater utility, different crews that will have 10 or 15 or 20 of these on each truck. So yes, as a job is completed they're supposed to pick them up and continue that. Sometimes they get damaged, sometimes they get picked up by individuals. It might be a good idea to check all the dorm rooms in yes, sir ter to see how many cones are up there. But they do have coa on them and one thing we want to do is to -- in certain of our zones is start marking them even further with line maintenance and so forth to try to have better identity to them.

>>Lewis: that was the reason I pulled this item. I just the wanted to make sure that we do some type of control on these items because at -- what would it be, 600 --624 at seven thus dollars.

>> They're about $10 a piece piece. They're not cheap. One thing we're going to do in the utility is as these are checked out, then each crew, that goes on their record in terms of what they've checked out. And if there's excessive use acknowledge, usage, that will key the supervisor.

>> We'll evaluate the procedures in Public Works as well to see if there is any department that's not --.

>>Mayor Watson: do you have a motion?

>>Lewis: maybe we'll make that part of the factor. People don't get a raise if they dispense too many.

>>Mayor Watson: we ought to pay them in cones. [Laughter]. Pay them in cones. Motion has been made by Council Member Lewis to approve item no. 31. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Spelman. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Item no. 39. I'll recognize Council Member Slusher.

>>Slusher: Mayor, there's been some questions on this item. I'm going to move to postpone it for one week. And so we don't have to get into a lengthy discussion right now.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to postpone item no. 39 To one week s there a second? seconded by Council Member Garcia s there any discussion?

>>Spelman: is that 39 and 40?

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Garcia, is your second on 39 and 40?

>>Garcia: yes, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to postpone 39 and 40 for one week. Any discussion? Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: I would like to as you discuss this be in the loop and find out what the concerns are.

>>Slusher: let me see what they are. This is the program we're attempting to establish a youth job core that would work on City projects that are already -- that were already going to happen. And we would utilize youth to work on those and the ail has been recommended to area carry out the contract because they provide certain educational opportunities beyond because paying a salary to the folks. And that was the incident tent of the program. And there's a couple of things, one is my understanding that the budget time that we didn't need budget money for this because it was going to come out of existing programs, but now the staff wants to do a pilot first, which is probably wise, but that that has to come from out of the contingently fund. And I was -- I was frankly a little surprised by that. We've been talking about it over the last few days. And second of all, about doing through the can. And the understanding is it does have to go through the can as a pilot project. I think some of the other Council Members have some questions and I think we can wait one week on it.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Pops opposed say no. Motion carries on 39 and 40. They're postponed for one week. Item no. 41. Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: I guess the reason I pulled item no. 41 Was just to make it public as to what --.

>> Would you like us to make a very brief presentation?

>>Lewis: yes. On what the resolution states so that -- wait a minute. This is the one, no. 41. Well, if she's not here, let me just -- since she gave me the -- this resolution or the letter, we -- we said by purchase and install the cameras by January one --.

>> Marcia is coming in, so let met let her walk through the resolution very briefly and answer any questions you may have. Marcia, it's about item number 41.

>> I'm not sure what the question is.

>>Lewis: well, the first item in here, I have no problem with the resolution or with the authorization for the first step, but I had asked if the other things that had been directed had been completed.

>> Yes.

>>Lewis: but I see here the cameras that was due in January hadn't been completed.

>> Okay. Basically we sent a memo out to Council giflg you an update on all the projects related to the cedar avenue incident, including the -- including the cameras. While we had in the original agreement that it was supposed to be completed by January one, we did inform Council some time ago that we had some issues in terms of trying to get them purchased as well as putting together the procedures. We had to hire trainers, we had an issue with storage. So they actually are ready to go and if I could get my hands on that memo, I would tell you the implementation date. And there was a memo that was submitted to you I believe on Monday that talked about the status of the cameras itself. So while we had initially back in june stated that we wanted it implemented by January one, we did run into some issues in terms of purchase. And the pilot program will officially begin on March first.

>>Lewis: all right. What about the junior police academy? is that --.

>> The junior police academy, we had a review panel of citizens, the schools, the person actually started work on February 15th. We did have some negotiations that had to go on with the school district before this program could get implemented.

>>Lewis: and that -- I had a call in about people that could enter this police academy, junior police academy. And at one point people were saying only the people in the aisd school district was eligible. And the question was asked if people live in the City of Austin, but go to another district, were they eligible to join this.

>> I do believe the answer to that question was because the program is through aisd and it is a part of their facility ies and part of their sort of after school program that you had to be -- I believe you had to be a student enrolled. But I'm not clear on that. I do remember that question being asked, I just can't recall how we were able to resolve resolve that.

>>Lewis: all right. Those were the two questions I had, Mayor Pro Tem. Because we have some people that live in -- within the city limits that go to manor school district and what other district, eanes?

>> actually, you have round rock and cedar park.

>>Lewis: round rock school district that's within the city limits. Because it is normally an after school function. I'd like to see it extended to possibly include the City of Austin rather than a school district. Since it's a City of Austin function.

>> I'll have to get back with you on that.

>>Lewis: all right. Thank you. I'll move approval of item 41.

>>Goodman: there's a motion and a second.

>>Slusher: Mayor Pro Tem, I've got some questions. Ms. Connor, I had had some concerns expressed to me about folks wanting to make sure that this was available -- was advertised rather widely where everyone eligible would be aware of it. And I understand from the questions in the backup there are currently no plans to -- in place of how that's going to be done. How are we going to ensure or monitor that?

>> as part of the contract that we have drafted, one of the requirements before any funds can be disbursed is that the board of the first step corporation has to approve the official I would say guidelines for each program. We had some minimum guidelines that were adopted by counsel at the time of the agreement, but the community can add some additional ones, including a marketing plan in terms of how they will get the information out on each of those four programs to community. So we have some leverage as part of the contract in terms of assuring that it's a plan that we agree with in terms of publicity and making sure that it gets out in the papers and the schools, etcetera, etcetera.

>>Slusher: and what about on the administrative cost? what kind of guarantees or safeguards do we have there?

>> what we have negotiated right now is -- and we are still? some discussions on this. In the first year of the agreement that the City would provide the staff support as an administrative person on at least a 20 hour basis to assist with minutes, follow-up and things like that and that we would also assist them in terms of grant writing, to be able to become self-sufficient in terms of using additional funds for administrative costs. Right now all the funds that are set aside will not be used to pay for a position or anything like that. They will strictly go directly to the program.

>>Slusher: so that is still the case? because you had mentioned earlier administrative and I think it says in the agenda language. So basically the whole 6710 is going to scholarships?

>> yes. Excuse me, not necessarily sloler ships. I think they're divided into four programs.

>>Slusher: you're right. It's going into the programs. In other words, to the beneficiaries of the programs?

>> yes.

>>Goodman: Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: I wanted to tell ms. Connor I was going to go to the party today, but they told me the room where they were having the party was real hot because of the number of candles that were lit; is that correct? [laughter].

>> We are not counting, thank you very much.

>>Garcia: this is her birthday. So let's wish her a happy birthday.

>> Happy birthday.

>>Goodman: okay. There's a motion and a second. Further discussion? all in favor and we'll go to item no. That 42. It's a resolution, so we only needed four. Item no. 42, Councilmember Slusher?

>>Slusher: Mayor Pro Tem, do you want to take up the zoning before we do this?

>> there's some people from the school district here to try it answer any of our questions?

>>Slusher: I would like just a short presentation.

>> Let me ask the development and review.

>> My name is Charles kinetsky. I'm with the City. I've served as liaison with the school districts. About four years ago the City and the aisd entered into an agreement to set development standards for the schools. That agreement was about 14 pages long at that time. About that same time we entered into agreements with five other school districts and came up with standard agreements that were about 40 pages long. In the last few years we've seen various issues develop that weren't really addressed by the aisd agreement and this proposed resolution would import language from the 40 page agreement, basically about eight sections would be pulled out of there and placed into the aisd agreement and then we would also modify a paragraph that's always been in there dealing with impervious cover. The issues that have come up most recently that have caused some delays in the processing of the school district projects with needs to go to the board of adjustment for variouses on heights, parking and possibly impervious cover, most recently ache ens high school was at the board of adjustment for two variances. The height variance to allow their theater building to exceed the 35 limit imposed by the zoning retion regular lietions. The land development code we have also limits parking for civic uses in residentially zoned areas such that the minimum required number of parking spaces is also the maximum number that is allowed. So the aikens high school site, the design was such that they could easily put in additional parking above what was the minimum required and so they went to the board of adjustment to get approval for a few new extra pace spaces. Additionally the board of adjustment has seen variances for heights on middle schools, the middle school in the s.o.s. Area where they went to a three story building and think exceeded the 35 foot limit and so those types of variances tend to slow down the process, the delays tend to push up costs and I don't know. Did you need more?

>>Slusher: lt me ask you some -- let me ask you some questions. I'm concerned about if -- by allowing just blanket waiver on the height, I understand the point about not wanting to slow them down or cost more money. It's the same taxpayers that we have generally. But I want to make sure that the school district had to be sensitive to the neighbors, depending how close it might be to some existing homes in and the height.

>> The language is such that if any buildings within 50 feet cannot be more than 30 feet high. And then after that then the height is not limited. And that same language is in all -- it's in the other school district agreements at this time. So the language basically says there is no height limits beyond 100 feet from other residential property. I'm sure aisd would agree to something less than an unlimited amount as long as it was something reasonable that would allow the theaters and jim anyways yums and possibly some three story middle schools or high schools to be built, but not knowing exactly what that number should be, we just imported the same language that was in the other agreements.

>>Slusher: okay. Maybe someone could speak to that from aisd?

>> hi. Name jack taylor. I'm with the Austin independent school district. Particularly about the only areas that we would need this variance would be for fly lofts over the auditor yums at high schools. The other case might be at the middle school that we were building over off of highway 290 west, the clint small middle school. By changing the square footage to the ground we went to a three story school. Typically that's not our preference from a functional standpoint, but other than fly lofts and possibly going to three story schools in some cases, that would be about the only case that we would go beyond 35 feet. And even there our fly lofts aren't tiply 38 to 40 feet. So it's -- typically 38 to 40 feet. So it's barely exceeding thed sts as it is.

>> So you wouldn't be adverse for we changed it to above 40 feet that you would have to go through the same process that you do now?

>> I think as long as we could go three stories or at least around 40 feet, maybe 45, just to be safe, that would pretty well take care of all of our problems.

>>Slusher: because I believe you know that you're not planning to do anything above that.

>> No hi-rise school.

>>Slusher: I haven't seen anything about that, but it's a safeguard for the neighborhood. The only thing that concerns me is if we have allowed the other schools to do that. Could you speak to that again, our staff guy?

>> yes. The standard language in the agreements with seven of the school districts currently says no height limit, but then puts back the conditions that within 50 feet from the 30 feet, from within 100 feet it's limited to 40 feet. And so the unlimited height comes after a distance of 100 feet from other residential property.

>>Slusher: well, I think I'm going to leave that the same because I don't see why we should treat aisd differently. And I'm not interested in doing back and redoing all these agreements. But I have faith that you're going to be sensitive to the neighborhoods. And in the case of 290 over the aquifer, I think you're wise and prudent to go up rather than out. So I certainly am not trying to discourage that, okay? what is the impact of the changes that we're going doing on the parking?

>> the impact basically will allow the schools to put in additional parking above the minimum required. The land development code in the session dealing with civic uses says that those uses in the residential zoning categories cannot have any more parking than the minimum required. Which has caused some problems on occasion occasion. At one school which was remodeled they had to take out a driveway. Taking out the driveway basically provided additional two parking spaces, but they already had minimum required spaces. So that area that was available had to be striped off because it officially could not be considered parking. And also at high schools, I think there's quite a bit of media coverage and concern over the lack of parking at high schools, but if the high school is in residentially zoned area, they cannot have more than the minimum required parking, so -- under the current code. Slush okay. I'm glad to hear that. Okay. My last question, I'm a little concerned about the worteding of this under impervious cover cover limits. All watershed, except barton springs, urban, net 50% area, 60%, what I would -- what is urban and desired development zone the same thing?

>> the urban watershed $are in the watershed zone. Most of the urban watersheds are bounded by ben white on the south, ed bluestein, 183 on the north and basically the Shoal creek watershed to the west. There's not a good line along there. Originally the agreement was set up such that the schools in the urban watershed would be limited to 50% impervious cover or if they were older schools, built prior to 1986, the impervious cover limits would be whatever prior ordinance there may have been when this agreement was amended about two years ago, some language was put in saying that this agreement would not limit impervious cover in the urban watersheds. Unfortunately that was interpreted two different ways. The school district understood it one way and the City staff understood it a different way. The City staff position was that that meant that the zoning regulations applied so that in effect drop the impervious cover limit from 50% for some schools to 45% and many of the schools that are built are already over 45%. So that presented us with a dilemma of how to allow any additional modifications at those school sites. So this would allow the schools, the -- especially the older schools in the urban watersheds to have a little more flexibility to expand to increase their library is, cafeterias and not present us with the quandary of what do we do here?

>>Slusher: so my understanding is what you're trying to to do in the desired development zone, obviously schools sort of maxed out. They can't -- it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get more property without knocking down a house or something, which we would be vusly don't want to do. So you're letting do more on those areas. But I'm confused if this language accomplishes that. Bear with me a second. Impervious cover and open zone may not exceed 50% of net site area or 50% of net site area. Okay. And so that sounds like you're letting them go to 50 or 60 percent. In places other than -- you're lumping the barton springs zone and the urban watersheds together in the same category is the way that reads to me. I'm on page 6, section 2.95 a. Yeah, that's right. And this is the part that dleets section 3.1 a of the current agreement.

>>Lewis: excuse, Council Member. On the change, the proposed changes, on page 8 it makes some changes. It's a yellow street.

>> That's the legislative format he's talking about.

>>Lewis: item 42. Page 8. Item a.

>> Okay. The last statement under that paragraph, in an urban watershed the maximum impervious cover is the greater of 65% or the amount of impervious cover allowed in the zoning districts.

>>Slusher: so -- okay. In an urban watershed. What are we doing -- okay. Bear with me a second. It sounds like that we might be exempting the -- some of these in the barton springs zone. Because you've deleted this part that says --.

>> The barton springs zone is addressed in paragraph d and limits the school site there to 25 percent. So the language is a little cumbersome because we're trying to set a standard and make two or three exemption exceptions.

>>Slusher: okay. Councilmember Lewis is right. I haven't got this latest change. I guess it just came in.

>>Lewis: I had questioned the fact of what was identified as the urban watershed and that's the reason for this change because it left some interpretation as to which watershed was urban. We understand the brings, so that's the reason for this -- barton springs, so that's the reason for this change, so identify the urban. And other than the barton springs.

>>Slusher: okay. So what happens then in the areas that are in the drinking water protection zone, but not in the desired development zone?

>> the drinking water protection zone, but not --.

>>Slusher: because the drinking water protection zone is more than just the barton springs zone.

>> Okay. In those areas that would be limited to 50% impervious cover. That would be the lake Austin and the northwest areas basically.

>> And how is that different than what we have now?

>> basically that is what we have now.

>>Slusher: okay.

>>Goodman: Council Member, could I jump in?

>> generally the standards for the schools is 50 percent rik and then we break out the barton springs zone and reduce that to 25%. The urban watershed was broken out for other reasons and now we're trying to say, okay, urban wurt she hads is going to be -- watershed is going to be the 65 percent or the greater of the zoning limit.

>>Goodman: could I ask you something procedurally about how we are and where we are at. This didn't go to the planning commission, right?

>> correct.

>>Goodman: aren't we required to have some kind refuse view by the Planning Commission or is -- review by the planning commission or are we not amending this today.

>> I do not believe this is the land development code. I may need to get some legal help on this. There was a previous amendment that was not taken through Planning Commission about two years ago.

>> This is a school -- this is a standard agreement with aisd. It is not an amendment to the land development code. This is our agreement, the city's agreement with the isd's about how they will develop their sites for their schools. We bring these agreements to the City Council for the City Council's review. It is not required to go to Planning Commission and in the past we have not brought them to the Planning Commission. They have -- we have brought them to you.

>>Goodman: well, I think once we did it through -- through the Council without the Planning Commission first. And the time before that when the whole issue of talking about an agreement with aisd and other isd's as separate from the land development code did still go through the Planning Commission. The reason I asked for that clarification right now is because there are some folks out there who are very upset and they feel kind of blindsided by this whole process that's not really a process. It's just here. And there's been no opportunity for some folks to look through and see whether they actually have any concerns or not. So the reason I asked about the procedure was whether or not they would have had a chance and missed it. And number two is, I wanted to ask if the timing of our ax today is critical in light of the board of adjustment having granted, I believe, the variances and so for this immediate moment is it possible for us to ask you for two weeks to take action so that the Austin neighborhood's Council executive committee can review this for their Wednesday March the 10th meeting?

>> well, we've got a whole lot of projects that are in line to be submitted for permits or out for bids. The school district's already kind of taken a beating a little bit on being behind schedule on a number of projects as well as overbudget. A lot of the additions that we're looking at would fall into some of these under 5,000 square foot impervious cover limits. It would certainly help expedite our projects and allow us to get somewhat on schedule, realizing that our best time to make progress in our construction program is during the summer months who some of the campuses are somewhat vacated from the kid dose. So everyday counts for us, rveg.

>>Goodman: the date I mentioned was March 10, which is two weeks from today. And the reason I asked is because the borted of adjustment, which am I incorrect in thinking that you went to the board of adjustment and received the approval for the variances or you have others that need to go in tomorrow and you're going to lose time?

>> I really don't recall. I believe there's at least one more that would need a board of adjustment variance. Anderson high school again for their theater, auditorium modifications. There may be others. George lloyd is here.

>> I'm george lloyd with the program manager for the school districts. There are a number of projects currently still pending in the permitting system that this would relieve some and allow them to proceed forward. Also there are some that are holding submission at this time in anticipation of these improvements in these agreements for that -- to meet that need. What is really -- the timing is very critical, particularly the one piece about the impervious cover exemption. That's a critical component. We're looking at impacting approximately 60 permits or potential permits in the City process.

>>Goodman: and you only knew about this last week or that's when we started getting material. So when did we start workogthis, do you know?

>> wally actually, we've been meeting as a group with all the districts for how long, jack? the school districts have been working on this amendment and these pieces of it for over a year very regularly. We meet once a month to discuss these issues and to try to come up with a workable better solutions for the City and for the districts.

>>Goodman: were you ever able to meet with any neighborhood folks for any individual school site or any community groups that follow this, both as a school and a land use issue?

>> I have not personally. I can't speak to that, no.

>> Well, in each project that involves an existing campus, all of the plans are reviewed with what we refer to as a campus task force. It includes not only representatives from the faculty and the students, but from the community surrounding the school, neighborhood and so forth. And so these things usually don't happen in a vacuum, of course. And I don't know if everyone in the community gets notice of this process obviously, but we try to involve as many people from each of the communities as possible and we do the design and development of the plans.

>>Goodman: well, I think the problem this time is that some fairly significant groups who consider themselves very interested and even with expertise have not been in the loop, have not been aware. And since they have been involved for so many years, to see this today makes them feel blindsided. And what they've asked for is not even the typical review process, but they have asked if at lEast Austin neighborhoods Council could review the proposal at their March 10th executive session meeting, not even their general meeting. And so that's what I'm asking you. What is two weeks from today do -- what does two weeks from today do? it's difficult to believe from just our knowing about this just for a few days, that having seen it since Friday, I guess, that if we don't take action today that somehow all the projects will just go down the tubes because we haven't taken action today. So that's what I'm trying to establish.

>> I remember we tried to establish this hearing for several Council meetings. Certainly we can work around it. It's obviously not to our benefit, but I certainly understand your concern your concern. Could you tell me specifically which community or school has had the concern or the problem?

>>Goodman: the Austin neighborhoods Council, which is the umbrella group that has a great many neighborhood associations within it. Their president right now, I believe, is will bosman.

>> We haven't had any contact with them expressing that concern.

>>Goodman: well, just for the future it would be good for know because they're one of the groups that goes over to the school board meeting every hearing that they have and so they're real easy to contact and they're more than happy to meet with somebody when asked. So if that's not a great heart breaker, I know you don't want to do this, but two weeks, I promise, just two weeks is what they're asking for. So if that's okay --.

>> Mayor Pro Tem, your concerns are valid and two weeks will obviously allow the Austin neighborhood Council to look at this. And what we'll do is work with the school district once they submit their permits to work towards expediting the permits so they can save time in those two weeks. But you're right, there should be some dialogue going on with the group. And in the future we'll do a courtesy notice to the effect that neighborhood associations beforehand so we don't have a situation like this one.

>>Goodman: that would be great.

>> While I'm here, I'd like to offer that Council Member Slusher is correct that when you read the language under section 3.1 a, it does lead you to believe that you are including the barton springs zone in the exception. What I would like to offer in -- for something that the law can look at in drafting is separating and very clearly spelling out in the urban watershed the impervious cover cover limits. If you are in the barton springs zone, here are your limbs and elsewhere. It's very clearly din 80ed so you don't have to -- delineated to ask yourself what am I accepting. The way the sentence reads it leads you to believe that you are accepting all in the barton springs zone in a environment. So I would suggest some word changes to verify the distinction.

>>Lewis: you haven't got the latest one, this one?

>>Slusher: okay. They're going to -- I was going to ask ms. Glasco something. Ms. Glasco?

>> yes?

>>Slusher: I appreciate that because it did seem to read reverse of what it was intended, but then there's another one here that I hadn't gotten to yet, notwithstanding the prior sentence, the site owned by the school district before may 18th, 1986, except inside the barton springs zone is subject to the impervious cover limits established by the applicable watershed ordinance in effect on may 18th, 1986 if the limits are less restrictive than the limits established in this section. Now, that sounds like we're exempting the rest of the drinking water protection zone from the watershed ordinances.

>> I think what it states here is the rest of the City -- you have the brings zone, which is subject to -- normally if you are subject to current rules with the s.o.s. Ordinance. And then you have the rest of the City which is under the kpret sieve watershed ordinance. So you're separating the City really. Describing it in three areas. The barton springs zone, the urban watershed and then the other watersheds. On given these three distinctions, we've described the barton springs zone and what those impervious covers should be and then we have -- what we're proposing here is for the schools within the urban watersheds that would have the impervious covers that he just described. And then the rest of the City that outside those two zones would be subject to the comprehensive watershed ordinance that was adopted on may 18th, 1996.

>>Slusher: or whichever one is less restrictive.

>> Correct.

>>Slusher: and I would be in favor of that in the urban watershed and we've already discussed how the situation the school district is in there and we want to support them being able to add more to those sites because that's our policy is to encourage growth and the desired development zone, but in the drinking water protection zone, that's not our policy, in fact, we just got through talking about going up, building up higher in that area. And this seems to work against this as well as let them out of some of the structural controls and other things that would be in the 86 ordinance.

>> Okay. Let me offer this. Since we're going to postpone this item for two weeks, why don't we visit with you and find out what type of language and cap we might look at that might be appropriate for the rest of the watersheds. Lush slush okay. Well, I appreciate that and I'm assuming Council Member Garcia is going to -- Council Member Goodman is going tow make a motion to that effect. [One moment, please] 1.5 would allow extra tom room for some visitors.

>>Lewis: I can understand the other, if you can get one -- that would be a lot of spaces, one space for every three students in 11th and 12th grade. I don't think that you can get that many parking spaces unless you use the stadium or something. But ... It's just --

>> [inaudible].

>>Lewis: it's dawned on me with the elementary and junior high school, but if that's the case, if that was in the previous agreement, that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. As long as we can keep them out of the neighborhood and that's what we have been getting letters about. So ... That's all that I have Mayor Pro Tem.

>>Goodman: thank you. I will say we have gotten letters from architects who have worked with aisd and we know what the constraints are, what the difficulties are on your particular time constraints, which are worse than anybody else's because you have the school year. So but understanding that thank you very much for agreeing to go meet with the anc executive xhe and if I could make a motion, the motion that I would make is that we --

>> [inaudible].

>>Garcia:.

>>Garcia: I will recognize Mayor Pro Tem for a motion.

>>Goodman: my motion would be we delay action on this item until March 11th, based on the premise that our staff and aisd staff will be able to meet with the Austin neighborhood Council executive committee on March the 10th and we will have the benefit of those discussions as well.

>> On March the 10th?

>>Goodman: we will have action on March the 11th.

>>Slusher: I will second that. I want to say the City intends to cooperate in every way with aisd, but I think you can tell from the discussion today there are some holes in this thing, did some unclear language, I don't think we would be responsible to pass it until those questions were cleared up. I don't think it would be prudent to do it on the fly up here and I graw with Council Member Goodman about that the neighbors Council should see this. I hope that you will take this in the cooperative spirit in which it's intended.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made and seconded, any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no., motion carries on item no. 42. Yeah that's what I am going to do. But I appreciate the input.

>>Garcia: [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, kind of a constant state these days, ms. Glasco, let's go to items 72 through 91.

>>Glasco: good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members, Alice glasco. Our zoning cases for today are as follows: item no. 72 Is to set a public hearing on a request to consider a waiver from the minimum separation distance requirement of City code between an establishment that's going to sell alcoholic beverages and a public school. The suggested date and time is March the 25th, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. Item no. 73, Is a request to set a public hearing to consider an appeal of the sign review board's decision to deny a variance request regarding installation of a freestanding sign that exceeds the sign -- maximum or minimum requirements. Suggested date and time is april the first of 1999 at 6:00 p.m. Item no. 74, C14-98-8 -- c 14-85-288.45 to amend a restrictive covenant. State highway 71, the planning commission recommendation to you is to amend the request as offered. This is a restrictive covenant amendment, does not require an ordinance, it's a con isn't item. Item no. 75 Is case number c c-814-91-1. This is an amendment to the little Texas lane I-35 planned unit development. In the process of reviewing this planned unit development, the traffic impact analysis had made certain assumptions and included a certain amount of square footage that was inadvertently excluded from the land plan initially drawn. This amendment is to make that adjustment match the traffic impact analysis. It's recommended for approval on first reading. Item no. 76, C14-98-567 located at 2715 east highway 71 from interim rural residence to g.r., community commercial. The plan commission recommendation is to grant g.r. Community commercial zoning with conditions. This case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 77, Case c14-98-142 located at 8204 through 8300 east u.s. Highway 290. The request in zoning is from interim rural residence to lico which stands for limited industrial conditional overlay. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant limited industrial conditional overlay with conditions, the case is ready for all three readings. Item 78 is going to be a discussion item. We may have let you know earlier on that there was a petition, it's invalid now, and we would like to have a public hearing at the request of the neighborhood and the applicant. Item no. 79, Case number c14-98-193 located on east parmer lane and spect trum drive, the questions from p public to multi family 3 and community commercial zoning for tract 4. The Planning Commission recommendation toys grant multi family 3 zoning for tracts 1, 2, 3, community commercial mixed use district for tract 3. This case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 80, C14-98-198 located at 13,175 research boulevard. The request from interim rural residence to community commercial zoning. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant community commercial conditional overlay. The case is ready for all three readings. 81, C14-98-202 located at 105 east 38th street, we have a request from the neighborhood association to postpone the case to March the 11th. Both the neighborhood and applicant agree on the postponement request to March the 11th. This is the neighborhood's first request. Item no. 82, C14-98-208, located at 5815 west William cannon drive. The request is from lo, limited office, to g.o., general office. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant general office with a conditional overlay. The case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 83 Is case number c14-98-213, located at 2015 monarch drive. The request is from s.f. 2 To limited office. The Planning Commission recommends limited office with a conditional overlay the case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 84, Case c14-98-223, located on highway 71, and the request is from multi family 1 to community commercial zoning, which is recommended by the Planning Commission as requested and is ready for all three readings. Item 8 5, c14-98-229, located on roxie drive from interim s.f. 2 To community commercial. And that request is recommended by the planning commission with conditions. The case is ready for all three readings. 86, Case c14-98-231, located at 8990 research boulevard from limited industrial to cs-1, which stands for commercial liquor sales. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant the commercial liquor sales zoning with conditions. The case is ready for first reading. Item no. 87, Case number c14-98-237. Located on lyndhurst from irr to multi family 36789 the Planning Commission recommendation is to grant the multi family 3 zoning with conditions. This case is ready for first reading. Item no. 88, Case c14-98-242, located at 2807 and 2753 bee caves road from single family residence to multi family 3. The Planning Commission recommendation toys grant multi family 3 zoning with the conditional overlay. And obviously that includes conditions. This case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 79, Case number c14-98-244 located at 901 and 903 oltorf street from limited office zoning to limited office with a mixed use designation. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant limited office, mixed use, with a conditional overlay. The case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 0, Case number c14-98-246, located at 3100 manchaca road from s.f. 3 To community commercial and limited office. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant limited office zoning with a conditional overlay. And this case is ready for first reading only. Item no. 91, Case number c 14-9-8 located on the northwest corner of met trick boulevard and parmer lane, request from g.r., community commercial with a change in conditions to community commercial with a new modified conditions, this case is ready for all three readings. That concludes all of the consent items.

>>Goodman: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: yes, Mayor pro tem.

>>Goodman: could I ask you a question, Alice about number 82, did you say that was ready for all three readings?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>>Glasco: yes. All three readings.

>>Goodman: did you get a letter from leo kornear dated the 22nd of February who wants to change the restrictive covenant?

>>glasco: I am not aware of that.

>> He apparently went -- it's about the cleaners part. There's a restriction I guess against or they had figured out some prohibitions in the restrictive covenant about a cleaning facility.

>>Glasco: I am not aware of it. We have our conditions here, the site is developed with a one story building and I am not aware of any restrictive covenant, is this something that you would like for us to do first reading and explore that?

>>Goodman: maybe we should just to make sure. He has some folks who signed sort of a petition that says, "we the undersigned of legend oaks urge your approval, there is need for a professional high quality cleaners, et cetera et cetera, we strongly support and request."

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem how about the consent agenda, when I read the consent agenda and call for a nothing, I will call for a first reading only so that can be examined.

>>Glasco: we can do that, bring it back for second and third.

>>Mayor Watson: consent agenda will be item no. 72, It's not an ordinance, requires no reading, 73 the same, 74 the same. Item no. 75 Consent on first reading only, that would require a reading; is that right ms. Glasco? glass that is correct.

>>Mayor Watson: 72, 73, 74, 75, 75, -- 76, and 77 would not require reading, just require establishment of a public hearing.

>>Glasco: you are correct mostly. 72, 73 And 74 do not require an ordinance.

>>Mayor Watson: 75 it would be first reading only, 76 all three, 77 all three.

>>Glasco: that is correct.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. 72, 73, 74, Consent with no readings being required. 75 Would be consent on first reading only, 76 on all three readings, 77 on all three readings. 79 All three, 80 all three, 81 a postponement until March 11th, 82 on first reading only, 83, 84, 85, on all three readings, 86 on first reading only. 87 On first reading only, 88 and 89 on all three readings, 90 on first reading only and 91 on all three readings. Let me just ask is there anyone here that wishes to speak on an item that I have since read as a consent item? anyone that wishes to speak on any item that I read out as a consent item? all right. I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Made by Mayor Pro Tem, is there a second? I'm sorry, made by Council Member Garcia, seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem. Sorry about that.

>>Garcia: I have a quick question.

>>Mayor Watson: discussion, I will recognize Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: ms. Glasco, on item no. 87, Tuck go to the map. It looks like -- if you could go to the map. It looks like it adjoins s.f. 2 On the south side of this property. Is there any transition -- what is -- how are we going to to -- are there any buffers between the mf 2 and -- I mean sf 2 and mf 3?

>>glasco: compatibility standards will kick in because of that proximity. The property is adjacent, it means that it will require setbacks within 25 feet of the property, they have to set back. There's no development and then your height is controlled, therefore it will be pretty limited. Xatability standards will provide the setback and buffering required in this particular case.

>>Garcia: thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? Council Member Slusher and then Council Member Spelman.

>>Slusher: ms. Glasco, it's a small tract, but why is 82 not subject to the save our springs ordinance?

>>glasco: it's already built. The office is already there. Already developed.

>>Slusher: okay. My understanding on the dry cleaning situation is that there was a -- the developer voluntarily dropped it out because the neighborhood objected to it at the planning commission, but since then there's been some sentiment in the neighborhood to have the dry cleaning there and that's the subject of this letter. What I want to ask is, my understanding is, I think we have the proper prior tore here, that is just a -- propietor, that is just a pickup and drop off, the chemicals won't be kept on that site.

>> That's right. You would have to have commercial zoning for chemicals on site. That's what we need to explore because with he have a letter from the neighborhood supporting or not supporting the dry cleaning we need to explore that.

>>Slusher: okay.

>>Glasco: before second and third readings.

>>Slusher: then on number 88, that's in the eanes watershed. Is that correct? I know it is because I read it in the backup. Is this one subject to current regulations?

>>Slusher:.

>>Glasco: 82.

>>Slusher: 88.

>>Glasco: yes, I have it, I am looking at 88. It appears we do not have information that exempts it from current regulations. At this point it would be City Council new rules that are currently in effect.

>>Slusher: thank you.

>>Glasco: you are welcome.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Spelman.

>>Spelman: please show me abstaining on item 8 1, it's about 100 feet from my house.

>>Glasco: 81.

>>Lewis: why?

>>Spelman: why did I -- I presume you all will vote on consent to postpone it. However I will stay out of that.

>>Mayor Watson: I hear ya. Any further discussion? motion to approve the consent agenda as readment all of those in favor say aye, opposed no. The motion carries, it passes with item no. 81, Councilmember Spelman being shown as abstaining. That will take us back to item no. 78. Ms. Glasco?

>>glasco: item no. 78 Is property that we annexed december of 1997. And we encounter in some cases that we annex, we finds there are uses that are already preexisting. So there's a little history relating to this case. There was -- the size is already developed, it's -- it's a little over an acre. And there was originally a house, a single family residence on this site. And that faces blackfoot trail. The case number here is c14-98-146. Mr. Garza is setting up a map so you can have an and I recall photograph of the -- an aerial of the site. It's single family residential in nature. The subject tract has an addition to it that faces mcneil road that appears to be commercial in nature. The addition occurred while the property was outside the city limits where obviously there are no zoning controls and land use regulations and therefore you could have such additions occur without any limitations upon annexation a request was made of us to look at whether the uses that businesses being conducted were established prior to annexation. In conducting our research, we found that there was just one business that was in existence before annexation that was carpet sales that appear to be conducted from the residents and we determined that that use was grandfathered and therefore could continue operating from there. The other businesses that were supposedly operating from the business facing mcneil road from that structure did not appear to have been lawfully established and therefore to be exempt from the zoning regulations and those businesses would require a zoning changing in order to be established. The zoning request in front of us is from s.f. 1 To g.r., which stands for community commercial. The staff recommendation, the Planning Commission various slightly. I will start off with the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation to you toys grant s.f. 2 For tract 1 which has the single family structure, has the appearance of a single family home. For tract 2 which has the appearance of a business, to zone that community commercial with a conditional overlay, that prohibits the following uses -- rather it allows for general sales and services and all uses that are allowed in the lr neighborhood commercial district. Also prohibits access to tracts one and two from blackfoot trail. The business facing mcneil road would only have access from mcneil road and not from blackfoot trail which is the single family residence. What I would do is to go the map Council Members to help orient you. It would be easier if I point to the map to show you the tracts. This is mcneil road, this is blackfoot trail. This are -- there's a structure right here which was a single family house. The addition to the business faces mcneil road. The parking structure -- parking area has not been constructed. The area was disturbed before we annexed the area. The uses facing mcneil road we have determined that the businesses were not in existence, it was a building that was built without the businesses having been established, hence the need for a zoning change. The zoning change would also allow for the parking lot to be developed paved and have it meet our development standards. The Planning Commission recommendation is to split this tract into two, zone the rear single family 1 and zone the front part of the site community commercial allowing for uses allowed in neighborhood commercial and prohibiting certain uses, there was a valid petition earlier, but one property owner has pulled out his name and that has invalid dated the petition, it's no longer valid, it's 12.62%, so you no longer have a valid petition before you. Therefore you won't have to be facing the super majority aspect of voting in that -- in this regard. The staff recommendation was to grant community commercial zoning on the entire tract and limit access to the site and also limit the trips to the site to 2,000 trips per day. That's really the main distinction between the staff recommendation and that of the Planning Commission. The staff recommendation to zone the entire tract community commercial, limit the access to the site and also limit the number of trips. That's I think enough history for you and I will be glad to respond to questions after you hear from the speakers.

>>Mayor Watson: bhis here representing the applicant? -- who is here representing the applicant? if you come forward you will be given five minutes are minutes an then we will to go the public hearing.

>> Mayor and Council, I am here on behalf of Mr. Baco -- birgani who is passing out information that is too large for you to read at the moment. It's designed to give you reference should you need to refer back to anything. I will be repeating some of the items ms. Glasco pointed out. Mr. Birgani purchased the property in '9. The deed restrictions for this lot and another lot in the subdivision had been remove. They were removed prior to his purchase. In fact they were removed april the 29th, '85. He came down to the City, checked around to see if he would be able to use his property as he had been proposing. At that time the property was outside the City, so you did not have the zoning issues as Alice indicated. Mr. Birgani secured a site development permit to build the addition, which is right here. That addition was built with a site plan exemption. Mr. Birgani was informed that in order to build this parking lot, he would have to get a site plan because it exceeded the exception requirements. He commissioned it gonzales, an engineer to do the site plan that you were looking at. Mr. Gonzales prepared the site plan, the site plan was approved by the City on december the 31st, 1997. The date of annexation. He was informed by the City staff that prior to being able to build the parking lot as on the approved plan he would have to get appropriate zoning so that he could big in conform in answer with the ordinance. As ms. Glasco indicated, this portion of the building, which is "the residential looking portion" has been used and been determined to be non-conforming g.r. For carpet sales. Mr. Birgani sells persian rugs from this facility and has sold them. He has had an occupant in that addition that he made, it was a limited occupancy, a hair salon, one person in there that worked on a -- on a semi appointment basis. That's theirs documentation to support that. There is documentation to support that. There is a sink hole across blackfoot trail I guess to the north of our site. Our construction was stopped by tnrcc, we were -- they reviewed the sink hole and determined that we were not contributors to it and allowed us to continue with our work. As you can see here, we have water quality ponds and detention ponds as per the ordinance requirements along here. They capture the water before it goes into the sinkhole here. We do have an approval for a wastewater service extension. That was approved on 1-6-98. It's in the exhibit 15 in the proposal. We feel that the Council should grant the g.r. Zoning as requested and as recommended by the City staff. We've meetings with neighborhood representatives, we've had correspondence with neighborhood folks, we've had a valid petition, an invalid petition. We have talked about some concerns. We have no problems in doing a conditional overlay, limiting 2,000 trips a day, we have no problems in prohibiting uses such as gun shops, restaurants, convenience stores, gas stations, massage parlors, pet stores, pawn shops, those are some of the items that we have discussed with the neighborhood folks as well as some of the folks that -- that were in the petition. We still would intend to honor those. Relative to the traffic question, traffic became an issue or the traffic that might be created became an issue. If this entire structure is -- structure is used for g.r. Zoning, it would require 17 parking spaces, we have 29 parking spaces, we don't see where almost twice as much as the ordinance would require, in round numbers, we don't see where we create parking, we don't see where there would be a need for anyone to park along blackfoot trail to go into this commercial business because of the detention pond and water quality ponds prevent anybody from parking and walking across the lot and into the building. They are located immediately adjacent to the street. So we don't feel that there would be any need for anybody to park here and try to consult across. It would be more convenient to pull into the parking lot. We will be available later if you have any questions. Appreciate your time on it. Nature thank you, sir. We have a number of people signed up to speak. Please if your point has already been made, and there's no need for you to just say it again, there's no need for you to speak on it. So I am going to ask you to not be repetitive. Mark rimery.

>>Slusher: Mayor, I think the one on the sign ordinance is coming up next. And I want to tell folks they can get ready. I am going to make a motion to suspend the rules and give each side 6 minutes for presentation, so we will be able to prepare for that. I am assuming that I will get the four votes necessary to pass it, but as much as we've listen lobbied I don't know, I might get voted down.

>>Mayor Watson: six minutes, that way people can have two speakers if they want to do it that way or make a presentation. We held a public hearing, as you recall, on this already. And that was closed. So -- what was contemplated was that we would not have a second public hearing but in order to make sure that anybody gets a last effort -- to speak to us in a non-lobby fashion, we thought we would put six minutes aside.

>> Good evening, I'm mark rimery, I am here on behalf of abe birgani.

>> I wanted to say that I have known him several years, I have been into his carpet business a couple of times. I don't understand why he hasn't been able to complete his business and parking lot and everything else and actually have a functional business. So that's pretty much all that I have.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much for sharing that.

>> Okay.

>>Mayor Watson: barm arapour. Jessica erwin here? go ahead and make your way up here to be the next speaker.

>> Comment Council men, I know Mr. Birgani for almost 15 years. And as far as neighborhood concerning, as far as traffic, into -- being too much traffic in blackfoot, I don't think so, I don't think that would happen, Mr. Birgani's business has been since 19 december you 7 will until now, he's been shut down, he's been losing lots of money, I wish that you would grant what he is asking. Thanks a lot.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, sir. Jessica erwin is -- ana yana. You will -- you will follow ms. Erwin.

>> I am here because I support him. Has he a valid claim. He was given permission to build this and I don't think that it was right or correct for you guys to take it away. Go.

>> Thank you, ana yanez.

>> That's me, I would like to give Mr. Birgani an opportunity to support his case with my time, please.

>>Mayor Watson: all right, Mr. Birgani if you need it you will have three minutes allocated to you. Vanita debarbiras. I know I didn't even come close, spend the first second of your time correcting me.

>> Okay. It's vanita, d, barbaris.

>> I would like to support this and give my time to Mr. Birgani.

>> You can just donate time, I am going to assume that you are going to be in support of it.

>>Slusher: are you all neighbors of the tract that they are supporting? okay, I just wanted to get an understanding.

>> [Inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: marvin lee. Marvin lee. Marvin lee? Mr. Lee didn't indicate whether he was for or against. Abraham birgani. You will have up to nine minutes because of the donation of three minutes apiece from two people, if you need it.

>> May I make a point. Marvin lee was against.

>>Mayor Watson: well, marvin lee didn't sign up for or against, but I appreciate your input.

>> Mr. Mayor, Council Member, I am abraham birgani. I have purchased this property in 1989 prior to purchase this property I have come to City of Austin and asked this property could be used for commercial use. The gentleman that I talked to was hamilton, the gentleman broker was supposed to sell the property to me his name was bryan [inaudible]. My understanding from City of Austin, they have no problem to develop the property. After I purchase the property, 1990, I started working on the project in order to develop it. In 1992 I come to City of Austin they ask for exempt, site plan exempt. During that time I spend almost -- which I receive -- I receive not exempt -- I spend over $250,000 in order to develop the property, for commercial use. I had addition about 1500, 1600 square feet in front of the building, a modified house to be used for carpet business. And I continue vesting in the property until 1996. In 1996 I find out I have to have a parking lot, I need to require two special site plans. So I come to City of Austin again and I asked what do I need to do in order to obtain a site plan? every one of you gentleman have a copy of everything that I am saying. Anyway, three gentlemen from the City of Austin told me by handwriting what I need to do step-wise in order to get site plan. In may of -- may 31st, I hired Mr. It gonzales and pay him over 7,000 dollars to draw this plan. The process took me $15,000, ladies and gentlemen to obtain a site plan. The site plan has been approved in december 31st. And I was -- I have been informed that I cannot start my business. My business of the building. I -- I was informed that I could start my business. Tnrcc shut me down because they find the sensitive hole in area. For the next six weeks I was stopped doing the project. However they -- after investigation they found out there is no problem they give me a go ahead. So I will be able to finish the project. During that process of time, none of the -- since the entire this time, almost about nine years, not even one single objective I heard from city of Austin or from the neighborhood. In about March of 20, during the time when I was doing a construction, which is almost more than 50% of the -- 50 speakers of the parking lot has been finished, a zoning inspector come and stopped the project. Since that time I have spent another $6,000 to go through the process of rezoning and shut two business operational what I had, end up having quite a bit loss on my hand. An issue which is dragging in between the neighborhood and also City and myself. And I am asking for my neighborhood because I like them all, I expect them to at least be fair. And to get this things over is -- it really doesn't look the way it is. It need to be cleaned out, but I also want to mention that my cost so far has been over half a million dollars investment in this property. I have nothing to further say. Thank you very much for the time.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Birgani. Doyle pen delton. Is monica weagly here.

>> I would like to say I am no longer a neighbor. But I did grow up in the house right across the street. But I donate my time.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. You get to donate time, you don't get to speak and donate time, everybody.

>> New rule. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Pen delton, you have up to six minutes if you need it.

>> Thank you, mairx Council Members. I am doyle pendelton. I have lived in -- almost immediately across the street from the property for 22 years, we have raised our children there. And thank you very much. We have raised our children there. We have mcneil road evolve from a very quiet country road two lane narrow road with a car about every 30 minutes to a bustling major thoroughfare in the City of Austin. This is a shot of -- looking east down mcneil road. The thing that I want to point out is the little hill that you can see. Cars come over that hill from 40 to 60 miles per hour, this shot is right at the intersection of blackfoot and mcneil. The next shot is looking down black foot directly across the street from mcneil road. You can see the property in question on the left. The rest of the neighborhood down the street. This is looking out of the neighborhood. The property in question is on the right. You can see mcneil road in the background. Finally, this is the house directly across the street from property in question. It's a residential house as you can see. This is the shot of the residence, the house the right is the residence immediately adjacent to the property in question. You can see the property with the building hooked on the side of it. This is a better shot of that addition that was -- that Mr. Birgani described. Basically it's attached to the residential property. This is what the property looked like today, has looked like for the last year. Obviously many of the neighbors are very concerned about that. Particularly concerned about the children and the safety around that property because there's really no adequate control for access to the property. This is just another stock shot of the property and I am going to stop right here. I have some other comments that I would like to make. Just background, I have lived there for 22 years, I have seen the whole thing evolve over time. Shortly after we moved into our home, the City of Austin annexed everything up to mcneil road. That was really within about five years after we moved there. That whole area has been sitting there not annexed for years and years and years. Approximately 8 years ago when the applicant cut down a stand of oak trees that used to stand right adjacent to mcneil road that buffered really the neighborhood from that road. He constructed that structure that you see on the side of his house facing mcneil road. And the people in the neighborhood were very concerned about the damage that any business operation might have on the neighborhood. And the owner made no attempt to shield the neighborhood from the structure. That's one of the things that we are asking him to do is put up a fence to shield the neighborhood from the business. It's presented an eyesore and embarrassment to the neighborhood for many years, since we weren't part of the city, we really had no control over what he was going to do out there. We had no opportunity to influence it. You are going to hear from some of our other speakers about the contacts that were made with Mr. Birgani over that period of time. He's been invited to all of the neighborhood association meetings, in fact we had one this week, we invited him to, he wasn't there. Although not a popular view by many in northwest Austin, without the City's action annexing our neighborhood we would today have no say in how this property is being used. If the area had been annexed years ago as really it should have been, when mcneil was exploding area with development, when we really expected it because when we bought our house out there, the realtor told us we would be annexed within five years.

>>Mayor Watson: sounds to me like you may have been the only one out there.

>> I think we were, Mr. Mayor. If we had been annexed the city would have never allowed Mr. Birgani to make the investment he's made in the property and build that structure on the side of his house. Accordingly, for those of us in northwest Austin who see the value of annexing our area for the protection of the quality of our neighborhood through zoning regulations, we commend you for what was right and doing what was right and not necessarily what was popular at the time. Shortly before the annexation, the applicant put a sign on the structure indicating it was hair salon. His attempt to gain grandfather status was not accepted by the City staff after the neighborhood provided the facts reallying to the actual business use of the property. The City staff made a number of excellent comments to the tnrcc permit prior to issuance of that permit. Regarding environmental impact. They recommended not routing runoff from the parking lot to the sinkhole across blackfoot trail. The applicant plans to route this parking lot runoff into that sing hoe. The applicant failed to even indicate the sinkhole on his permit application with the city to get the initial permit for that parking lot. The City stated in their comments to tnrcc that this could be grounds for revoking the original building permit. The City is now advised, ms. Glasco hopefully can confirm this. That a new building permit will be required after submittal of a new tape a site plan. The design of the treatment of runoff we feel is seriously flawed. As we are looking at the drawings we have been provided about the way the runoff will be handled from the parking lot is going to go directly into the sinkhole underneath black foot trail and it's going to be pvp pifp. We understand that pvc pipe is not adequate to go underneath that roadway. We have questions about how it's going to be put under the roadway and -- in a way that won't be terrible for the neighborhood. [Buzzer sounding].

>>Mayor Watson: your time is up unless somebody wants to donate more time.

>> I will give him my time.

>>Mayor Watson: what is your name, sir?

>> powers.

>> Thank you very much. Subsequently the applicant began illegal construction of the parking lot for the property, only after the City red tagged him and red tagged his contractor did he stop. That's why the property looks as it does today and stands as a real danger to neighborhood children. It's also why many in indian oaks believe we are being held hostage by the applicant because of the continual unsightly property at the entrance of our neighborhood. The threat is that if we don't go along with some type of commercial development, that the eyesore will remain and many of the neighbors just want something done, they really -- they are anxious for that to be resolved. Recently the applicant added a door to provide commercial access off black foot trail. This was one of the items that we noticed. This was also constructed without a proper permit from the City even as we were going through the process of zoning. Having said this we do recognize that the applicant has invested in this property and hopes to receive a fair return on his investment. We are opposed to his operating a business that would destroy the character of our neighborhood. The property is the entrance did our neighborhood, many in indian oaks believe that the applicant should be required to remove the structure from the side of his house and retain the property as s.f. 2. We believe that no sdoning with appropriate conditional overlays represents a fair compromise. We believe that any business on the added on structure should be compatible and not intrusive with our neighborhood. And the applicant is not -- has not indicated what business will be operated there. That's the biggest concern we have is the uncertainty about what he is going to do there. We would like to commend the Planning Commission for taking a positive step for recommending two parts, s.f. 2 For the tract 1, the residential portion of the property, and a commercial zoning of no for tract two, the structure appended to the residence. We think that's fair compromise, that we in the neighborhood will see a house when we drive out of our neighborhood. We do for the concur with the designation of g.r.-c.o. Allowing only general sales retail and all lr uses for tract 2. There are clearly many lr uses not compatible, including massage parlors and other adult oriented businesses, pet services, restaurant, service stations, community recreation facilities such as pool halls, video gaming, residential treatment facilities for drug use. Lots of things that we have concerns about in lr. Just skipping down, we did have a couple of valid petitions, I just want to point out, one of those was supported by the stepping stone daycare immediately adjacent to the property on mcneil road. They are neighbors, I talked to them, they initially said they wanted to support the neighborhood, but Mr. Birgani's agents talked to them, they decided not to support our petition anymore. Also another gentleman who was -- who owns the property that I saw -- that you saw in the slide immediately adjacent to the property [buzzer sounding] anybody else?

>>Mayor Watson: what's your name, ma'am? holly myers.

>>Mayor Watson: you are running out of friends.

>> I know I am, probably the last one.

>>Mayor Watson: three minutes.

>> The property immediately adjacent to the property, he actually lives in tokyo, japan, it was some effort to get him to sign the petition. I understand that the -- has he now decided to rescind his support. Again this is after Mr. Birgani and his agent talked with his agent here in Austin. We talked to him for about an hour and a half yesterday from tokyo. He told us that they convinced him that his property would become commercial property. This is the first step in basically destroying our neighborhood, it's been there for 22 years, Mr. Birgani feels like he has vested interests in the investment he has made, he has made considerable investment there. We certainly feel, many of us have been there for 22 years as well, we have a vested interest in the neighborhood, we ask you to protect that. Accordingly, we continue to request tract 1 be zoned s.f. 2 And tract two be zoned no with conditional overlays. Conditional overlays we would like to see would be first of all no commercial access off blackfoot trail including customers, employees, business deliveries of any type. We are very concerned about 18 wheelers pulling up on blackfood trail and unloading stuff into the garage because Mr. Birgani -- the request today is to use his residence as a business. And the second conditional overlay request is a six foot privacy fence constructsed along blackfoot, maintained such that it does not restrict visibility or safety for traffic along mcneil road because it's already a real traffic hazard at that intersection. We have in the morning 20 to 30 cars trying to get on to mcneil road off blackfoot. Several people are cutting through our neighborhood to avoid the traffic signal at mcneil and parmer. We are concerned about the traffic there. We would like to have the fence, quality, also vegetation to help improve the quality of the view along the fence and to prevent gravity along the fence. Graffiti along the fence. The Planning Commission recommendation of a thousand vehicle trips per day, we continue to believe that's pretty excessive. Particularly with the daycare adjacent to it, the tremendous traffic we have on blackfoot. High speeds of cars coming down mcneil road and I would like to describe it as kind of a kamakazi run right now trying to make a left turn off of blackfoot on to mcneil. Any kind of high volume residential or commercial property at that location is just going to exacerbate that and continue to cause a high risk of problem. Given our perception of the applicant's compliance histories as you have heard me describe it we believe the most rigorous enforcement is appropriate.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, David shaw.

>> I am David shaw, a local attorney. I originally became interested in this particular case when my long-term client, nader delshad told me about it, and he is a kozilius meologist with an operation on -- a cosemetologist on Koenig Lane. You can see receipts he has pertaining to the location are in the package provided to me. It's a mystery as to why it's not considered a non-conforming use for cosmetology. It was open for business before it was annexed carpet sales and Mr. Delshod's appointments. I urge that the Council go ahead and give the full g.r. Zoning to the entire tract. I think they should look askance at the planning commission's recommendations, particularly the part where it's s.f. 2 In the rear. I think the reason they did this is because of their concern with the fact that the restrictive covenants have been dropped, 14, 12 years ago. This allowed Mr. Birgani to tear down a house and put up something else. They didn't do it. Only Mr. Birgani proceeded, has he a very nice building on a commercial street. It goes those businesses go on to streets like mcneil road. They can hardly go elsewhere. It's 45 miles an hour zone, I can't imagine a more appropriate use for the property than cosmetology and carpet sales. I think what you should do, I would like to strongly recommend that you do what Mr. Birgani asked and what the city staff recommended to the Planning Commission. And not be inclined to grant what the Planning Commission recommended.

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

>> I donate my time to him.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Big brothers/big sisters has already spoken, would you like to -- Mr. Birgani has already spoken. You could have donated time to him at that point, he's already spoken. If you would like to speak or donate your time to someone else who may be speaking in favor of Mr. Birgani. I would hold your card, I take it that you are in favor. Do you live in the neighborhood?

>> no.

>>Mayor Watson: ms. Jasperson, is aj chamber land here? margaret ann mote here? you will have up to nine minutes.

>> Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. We are back. And we are asking for protection. We are giving you the opportunity to show us why you annexed up. As you know I am linda jasperson.

>>Mayor Watson: did you testify at the annex hearing?

>> you betcha.

>>Mayor Watson: for or against? [laughter].

>> Let's put it this way, I was not for it, but I am not on the cit committee, the citizens in transition, the annexation transmission, oo tran sis. I am on all of those, if you could stop my time, I would like to say thank you for getting the rebana jackson agency, they are wonderful.

>>Mayor Watson: did you tell me whether you were for or against?

>> I was not for annexation, but I am counting on you. [Laughter]. I knew that you were going to throw that one at me. Thank for you the rebena jackson agency, they are absolutely wonderful people. We are doing everything we can to speed that sewer along. So anyway thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: good to see you again.

>> Good to be here. Anyway I have been -- I am president of the neighborhood association now and I have been a resident of the indian oaks neighborhood for 23 years. As you can see from the handouts that we gave out in the manila envelopes, we have several things that we would like to refer to. The first three pages are things that doyle and I are going to be referring to. The remaining pages are copies of letters from indian oaks residents who strongly urge you to protect us by giving the classification of neighborhood office to this zoning. Yes we did object, to answer whoever said why didn't we object as this was going along, we did. In the county of Williamson, there was nothing we could do, believe me we tried and we tried and we tried. We in indian oaks do not oppose commercial ventures. What we oppose is business that will impose and intrude on our neighborhood's quality of life. And to answer -- the lawyer, Mr. Birgani's equipment for the beauty salon did not arrive until February of 1998. When we were invited in, I tried to turn the water on, this was in september, the water wouldn't come on. I would like to point out on the zoning change review sheet, your first page, staff recommendations, at this time site specific information is unavailable regarding existing trees and other vegetation, et cetera. Get down to sinkholes wet lands. As you now know there is an edward's aquifer sinkhole directly across the street. This is a very environmentally sensitive area. We are very concerned that the tnrcc even approved Mr. Birgani being able to run a pipe to that sinkhole. We already have a major problem at that intersection. Whenever we have heavy rains, that floods. He will be hadding more what, what water flows over his ponds will be out in the street without any filtration. In reviewing the tnrcc file you will see on the second page from ed pea cock of the drainage utility department, item 3, it is prefered that the discharge and excess runoff from the storm water control ponds not be routed into the sinkhole. Item 4, the sinkhole was not identified in the -- in the information submitted to the city. Number 5 suggested that the discharge pipe be placed 50 feet or as far as possible from the edge of the sinkhole to a level spreading device then to a grassy area. Where is this grassy area? and by the way, does the owner whose property this sinkhole is on have a say in this pipe going to the sinkhole? I realize that the sinkhole belongs to the state of Texas. But this is on someone's property. The application for the parking lot was submitted for existing businesses, one of which has been declared as non-preexisting. We went around the neighborhood asking had anybody seen anyone come out of coiffered haircut, anything. No one ever saw anything, any beauty salon business being conducted there. It was a ruse. We very, very much want to participate in the development of preferably restrictive covenants or conditional overlays that will cover all uses of the property. We really prefer the restrictive covenant so we don't have to keep coming back here. We are getting tired of this game. We strongly support the Planning Commission and zoning commission recommendation that the house stay a house. That the business portion be used as a the first reason we are so adamant since the trees were cleared approximately nine years ago, the applicant has been unwilling to communicate honestly or in a forth right margin with any of us. As to what business he intends to put in. Once the building was built, it just sat there. Habitual non-improvement. Uncertainty and fear, yes, fear, is why we are so apprehensive as to his intentions, he has been invited to all neighborhood association meetings, so I usually do the newsletter, I made sure it was put on his door. We have invited him to come to the neighborhood association meetings and talk to us, when the trees were first cut down I went and asked him. The response was he was going to be putting in a swimming pool. Well, he now has it, but it's called a retention pond. Until september of 1998 he has refused to talk with any of us. The second reason we are so adamant is his ongoing disregard and non-caring about neighbors and the neighborhood. This property has been an eyesore the entire time he has -- since he cut down the trees. The current condition of his property fronting mcneil road is nothing new except for the piles of dirt and the holes which are there as a result of being red tagged by the City. And having to have his contractor red tagged. Also when the store front was tagged several times with graffiti, it was not the applicant who cleaned it up. But neighbors. Two from across the street and one from four blocks away who either cleaned up or painted over the graffiti because he would not. We are not being mean spirited and n not approving the g.r. Zoning, the applicant would like for his property. We are having to protect our neighborhood and our quality of life from someone who has not invested any time or caring about the neighborhood. The bottom line is we can't trust him to be honorable, honest, abide the laws rules or regulations, he has over the last 8 or 9 years earned our distrust. Things that we would like the City Council to remember is if this is adjacent to a large daycare center, we have been fighting for them as well as for our neighborhood. As mentioned before, the sinkhole. Extremely sensitive. Mcneil road is becoming strip zoned. We don't want it to be another burnet road. Zoning for this location should be neighborhood commercial -- oriented commercial only with conditional overlays or restrictive covenants, not regional scale commercial that a g.r. Or lr rating would allow. The applicant has demonstrated habitual non-improvement by this being an eyesore. It has. It's the big joke when you get to where this building is with a pink front, that's where you turn. We are sorry we feel so trongly about this, but we have lived with this for 8 years now. His consultant will be paid and go away. His lawyer will be paid and go away, his contractor will be paid and go away. We have to live with this continually. Therefore as a recently annexed area of the City of Austin, we ask for the protection that being residents of the City is supposed to provide through zoning and request that this property be zoned neighborhood office with restrictive covenants and/or conditional overlays. We prefer the restrictive covenants so we do not have to keep coming back and taking up your valuable time. Please protect our neighborhood. Thank you. Nature thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you, ma'am.

>>Spelman: ms. Jasperson, do you have the Written documentation that you have gotten for us a description of exactly what you would like to see the conditional overlay or restrictive covenant?

>> we have gone over a number of things with the applicant. Skpz lawyer, I do not have that with me, whatever proposal he has or you have we would like to be able to go over that and there are some thing that we are concerned about. But to answer your question, no, I don't have something right in front of me now.

>>Spelman: okay.

>> But we would like to be part of the process and we have met with him. We have tried. And they kept -- kept getting closer, but they would still throw in being able to use -- do certain things that we were uncomfortable with. We have really worked hard at this. It's not we are being mean spirited we are not. We have had to put up with this for nine years.

>>Spelman: I have seen you at public hearings for at least the last year and a half, I have never seen you to be mean spirit understand the slightest.

>> Thank you. I would also like to say that my daughter is taking a class at the university of maryland and the City of Austin about its planning and zoning commission is one of the things that they talk about. This is one of the few cities in the country that listens to its citizens. So the university of maryland, urban planning recognitions -- recognizes you. Thank you.

>>Slusher: I wish somebody from maryland would have come down to testify at the annexation.

>> My daughter will come. [Laughter].

>>Goodman: did francine van vannergrif give her time to you?

>> no.

>> You are the last 2% that I have.

>> Councilmembers, I am francine, I live on blackfoot trail, I will be brief. I love my neighborhood. I moved there a year and a half ago, it's so pretty. I walked the neighborhood last night until 7:00, telling everyone what was going on. I am opposed to general rail and local rail at the entrance of my subdivision. There's a -- there's lots of retail on mcneil, but none of it fronts a subdivision, the millwood subdivision, there's nothing there. Just houses. I just don't want retail at the front of my subdivision, neighborhood office would be fine, but not retail. That's all that I have to say. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you. Patrick gephardt. Or is it gearhart.

>> Gearhart, that's close enough. That will do. First of all, I would like to say that I have lived in indian oaks subdivision since 1981, since I am in the construction business, heavy construction, I can't figure out how many years that is, but I have been there quite a while. During the course of this project, project in parentheses, I have seen every rule of construction of safety violated. I have seen open pits which we can still go out there and view right now, rebar sticking up out of the ground, we have a daycare facility that's been mentioned by several individuals, as far as I'm concerned it's a miracle that somebody hasn't been hurt up to this point. I have seen total disregard for really the neighborhood association, the people that live in and around and it just -- it absolutely dumbfounded me. I cannot say that I was totally for annexation. But I will say that annexation has truly brought us an opportunity to be heard and have the opportunity to protect our neighborhood. I intend to live there for probably many more years, it just really hurts to see the neighborhood degraded by something such as this. During the course of 1998, I put my home on the market to test the waters as it were. And one of the points that one of the earlier speakers made about realtors knowing that area by oh, that's the neighborhood that has the house with that thing on the side, that is a fact! and I cannot begin to tell you how many very prominent real estate folks in and around the city of Austin made that statement to me. And you are kind of going, well, yes, that may be true, but I don't think that should influence me being able to sell my home. Which I was not able to. And I am not saying that that was sole factor, it certainly was not. But it certainly did contribute to the situation. And I would invite the Council Members, if they have the opportunity, to physically view this. It's one of the most incredible sights I have seen in 27 years in the construction business. I have never seen a president precedent such as this. All I can ask her, I don't want to appeal to you on a sentimental level. What I would like to do is appeal to you on a very practical level and as a -- well, as a group, I just don't see how you could view this as anything other than -- I hesitate the use the word aberition, but my goodness it is something to be hold, I hope that you would be empethetic to us.

>>Goodman: we did have one card left from a speaker who did not want to come up and talk but donate to whomever needs it in favor and I don't have any more cards in favor, so I will assume that we are done. It's time for rebuttal.

>> [Inaudible].

>>Goodman: okay.

>> I would be glad to take that time because I don't think that I would be able to rebutt Mrs. Jasperson's fine and eloquent speech she made in such a short time. I would point out the last speaker indicated he was testing the waters to sell his home. The lady just before him said she just recently bought the home. All of this terrible mess that you see at this intersection was already there when that lady purchased her home. It is a mess, it's a mess because Mr. Birgani can't clean it up. The City has said yes you can, now stop. Tnrcc says stop. Mr. Birgani stops. Tnrcc says go ahead, the City says don't go ahead, now you need zoning you are in the city. As indicated by Mr. Birgani he has spent quite a considerable investment on this piece of property. Relative to some of the other issues that I think was brought out wanting to keep the house s.f. Residential it can be used as general retail because general retail carpet sales was there before it came in the City, truly non-conforming. General retail sales can continue to occur in the residential portion of the house. We have heard and saw pictures from Mr. Pendelton that indicated what a blight it was. A lot of those photographers did show you couldn't really seeing it unless you were standing at the right angle I think. We also have to realize as other people have indicated that mcneil road is not a residential street. A lot of there before it came into the City. Across the street industrial and commercial uses, industrial and commercial uses up and down, sonic a couple of lots up from here, daycare commercial next door. Relative to the children being injured on the site, daycare is a fenced daycare center, appears to be very properly runs, the kids don't run around in the parking lot. The dumb foundness that can occur on this construction site that's not been seen anywhere else in the world, those are things that can't be done until Mr. Birgani is allowed to continue to clean up the mess. Relative to the comments about the sinkhole across the street, we stopped. Tnrcc looked at it, said you are fine. Our engineer, Mr. I.t gonzales, designed the plan in conformance with tnrcc rules. We presented them, those are the rules that we need to comply with. We are not trying to hold the indian oaks neighborhood association hostage to complete this plan. If they let us complete the plan, a lot of the blight will be gone. It is a very terrible looking situation right now. I have a photograph that I would be glad to present to you. But that's because he's not been able to continue to finish the project. Relative to the concerns of access along blackfoot trail, as indicated, this is g.r. Non-conforming. He can have an 18 wheeler pull up to this location, unload, take rug into the house unless 18 wheelers are prohibited on that street. That's not really an issue. However to mitigate that concern, we and Mr. Birgani is willing to fence completely as per the code will allow a six foot fence from here to give up his driveway into this building all the way across here. He will take this access via his back yard. That should take care of any sight problems. Should take care of any traffic problems unless somebody wants to park, get a ladder and climb over the fence. There's no need for anybody to park there at that stage, they would come into the parking lot. We think that should resolve some of the issues. We have met with the neighborhood, Mr. Birgani has met with the neighborhood, I have met with Mrs. Jasperson and Mr. Pendelton downstairs. We thought we had a list of things that the neighborhood didn't want there. There's correspondence to indicate that, we prepared a list, sent the list, the list changed that kind of went back and forth for a while. In general, as I indicated earlier, we have no problem was a c.o. Limiting or prohibiting pawn shops, convenience store, gasoline stations, I had them listed here a moment ago. Restaurants, massage parlors, pet stores, pawn shops, some other uses that I think the neighborhood feels that may not be appropriate they are not permitted in g.r. Anyway such as massage parlor, adult oriented, that requires a whole new zoning. With these built-in mitigations, fence, access should totally be from mcneil road, the commercial street, which is a major commercial street, we feel that should address and give Mr. Birgani a chance to get a return on his money. The naked has asked what do you propose to put? as a commercial investment property you can't say I am going to lease it only to a book store forever. If it's a hair shop today it could be a book store next week. Those uses permitted in the lr is what we think we can live with those conditional overlays. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you. Could I ask you a question, Mr. Bennett before you go to clarify what you just said on blackfoot trail you, you were saying, the applicant was willing to do the six foot fence, but the business part of it the access would be through the blackfoot trail driveway?

>> right now the driveway comes in to mcneil road. Prior to this commercial addition here, the driveway to this house came from from blackfoot trail. The proposal that I just made to you was to fence from here all the way down with a six foot privacy fence except the code has some concerns about an intersection, which we understand. So therefore there would be no access, Mr. Birgani wouldn't be able to go to his home from blackwood trail. A carpet purchaser wouldn't be able to go from blackfoot trail. Everyone would have to come in and use the mcneil entrance, including Mr. Birgani who would then just go in his back door.

>>Goodman: okay, thank you very much. Councilmember Griffith Mayor Pro Tem? make I ask one question question.

>>Griffith: sir, when you have listing the prohibited uses, is fast food restaurant on that list of prohibited uses?

>> it says restaurants in total. All restaurants.

>>Griffith: fast slow or otherwise?

>> quick ones or slow ones, we are not proposing to put in restaurants, we were looking at that. As a result of discussing with it the neighborhood and the people who own the property next door, the daycare center, we have agreed not to have any restaurant use.

>>Slusher: I have a question. Sir I have a letter here from one of the neighbors dated november that says, november 18th, that says there's an open -- I'm sorry, has an open pitiful of water on it. Is that still the case?

>> that's probably in reference to this detention ponds which we were not able to complete. They are standing there now as a [inaudible] have straighted -- we are not able to complete that until we get the proper zoning.

>> Can I address that?

>>Slusher: sure.

>>Goodman: could you use the microphone.

>> They reference when I got a permit I started construction. The construction went about three weeks and we create a place which we put the filthation pond. I am only person doing a filtration pond in the entire area and doing it clean -- clean water, going to that sink hole. That water is -- will be a really clean, does that answer your question, sir?

>>Slusher: well, yes, sir much I guess let me ask our staff to comment on that, too.

>> I am I.t gonzales, Mr. Birgani's project was grossly and ignorantly and very poorly described. If you have technical questions I will I would like to answer them.

>>Goodman: did you sign a card?

>>Garcia: he's the engineer.

>> I am the engineer in case you all have technical questions, I would certainly be able to answer all of your questions.

>>Goodman: what was your name, please? I .t gonzales.

>>Goodman: thank you.

>>Slusher: is that an accurate statement?

>> regarding the pond, the treatment? the -- this project will go through a water quality control sedimentation filtration pond. The water runoff does travel out into mcneil and I believe that whole intersection then drains over to this sing hoe. So the water will be treated through a water quality control, sedimentation filtration pond, before it discharges the site and perhaps enter the recharge feature.

>> Why is the half completed pond sitting there now?

>> the -- I really don't have an answer for that quite honestly. I don't -- I don't know.

>>Slusher: sir, could I get this from the staff. I would like to hear from our staff now.

>>Glasco: a history. In conducting the investigation when I was [inaudible] request to consider this development from all of our regulations, what occurred is that in the discovery, found that thes several years ago before annexation, approximately four to six years before we annexed the area, Mr. Birgani met with staff and indicated that he wanted to add to his house, because his property was in our etj, he needed to know if he could add to his house and possibly, possibly in the future use it for commercial purposes. Now obviously in our etj adding to a single family house we do not have -- we do not issue building permits outside the City limits, especially for a single family house we don't require a site plan. Had the indication been that it would be a commercial use, we would have required a site plan for commercial use and hence the appropriate parking. After the addition occurred to the house, it appeared it was going to be not a house but commercial use, then the need for parking arose, which meant that I am no longer really a single family house, aim commercial use, I need a development perm that allows me to excavate, have parking, address detention, water quality all of those aspects. That occurred just prior to annexation, after we announced annexation. What we anticipated and Council approved was that for people who have -- had just then filed site development permits, those are the permits required when you are outside of the City limits before annexation, Council was gracious enough to adopt an ordinance or two ordinances that did two things: one for commercial projects you give them one year grace period waiving all zoning fees for those projects from december 31st, of you 7 to december 31st of '98, people could come in and zoning free, you have been seeing a lot of those cases come before you, this being one of them. For projects that had the development component of a site plan, which is just the detention and water quality site plan like this one, that should the need arise after annexation that they need a land use plan like in this case, the development permit for this property was issued erroneously the day they were in the City limits, december 31st of '97. After staff made an error in releasing that and discovered they were really in the City limits on that day, and what you needed nord to proceed with the parking lot was -- in order to proceed with the parking lot was proper zoning for the using and a more detailed site plan that shows your land use because the land use component addresses your zoning, compatibility, setbacks, things that you don't look at outside of the city limits, hence the distinction between what could have been approved outside the city limits and afterwards. The applicant chose to request vesting. That's why it's taken so long because of the steps that the property owner chose to explore. He thought well I might explore the option of indicating that I was a preexisting use before I was annexed and therefore I am exempt from zoning, I am exempt from site planning and I am exempt from all regulations because he wanted to establish that they were preexisting. In my discovery with the assistance of an assistant city attorney in going through all of the record, what I was able to find that could vest or create a preexisting use was the carpet sales. And this was from documents from the state comptroller's office of public accounts that there was indeed a business occurring from that house at the address for this case, which is 12602 blackfoot trail. I could not find any documentation to establish the business for the portion of the business, that faced mcneil road. That's why in my determination I was not able to establish that there was a non-conforming use existing facing mcneil before annexation in order to allow them to proceed without zoning. And the proper permits.

>>Goodman: Council, could I interject here just one second. We had one speaker who was stuck in traffic trying to make her way here and if the Council wishes to indulge, she is the one last card that we had, but she didn't get here in time to talk before we went back to rebuttal. Does anybody have a terrible time to give her three minutes?

>>Lewis: traffic is not that bad, is it? [laughter].

>> [Inaudible].

>>Lewis: okay. If it was a wreck, I can understand that. [Laughter].

>>Goodman: ms. Pendelton would you like to come up and speak for 3 minutes. I don't know what side she's on.

>> I'm sorry I am late. There are two wrecks on mopac. I live directly cater-cornered to the property you are trying to annex, I have been there 22 years, I own a registered family home where I care for small children in my home. Next may I get my 25 year pin. I have been doing it for a long time, from 7:00 until 5:30. I have never seen anyone buy carpet out of that house. I also called some of the city -- the City faxed us some of his Bill of sales, I called one man, he said, no, he never bought the carpet, he took a piece on consignment, but it wouldn't sell. Another man, I called, said, no, he didn't -- he never bought the carpet. He said wait a minute is this your number, your name, your address, did you pay $486 or $482 in cash for this carpet that he claims that you bought? he says, lady, I was unemployed all of that year, I didn't have $482 to go through my pocket all year long. So I am -- I question -- there was never a sign up in front of his house that said carpet sales, there was never a phone, there was never a phone for the beauty shop, either. And I do know that we took pictures of when he unloaded the beauty shop, the shampoo bowl and the chairs that go with the thing in March after he said he was in business in december, we know that when we went over and walked through the property he didn't have water to it. In January or February, it's hard to have a business or a shampoo or a beauty salon if you don't have water. And you don't have a telephone and you don't have -- you know, a parking lot. And I do know that people were not parking on blackfoot because I live there. And I have been watching. My front door opens out, I am very aware. I was one of the original neighborhood watch people, we watch people coming in and out of our neighborhood to take care of our neighborhood when we first started. I thank you for your time. I would urge you to look into the carpet business thing and see, call some of those people. That -- you know, just see. Four people we called one telephone number had 11 numbers and I called all over the state of Texas, that 555-1212 for the name. Nobody had it in all of Texas -- any of the area codes in Texas had that number or had that business listed. That wasn't a business. Thank you very much.

>>Goodman: thank you. She didn't say, but I am going to mark that against. [Laughter].

>> Is that another 3 minute rebuttal.

>>Goodman: 3 for 3. You had your whole six, though, right. We can ask you a question.

>> I don't think so, Council Member Slusher asked why from staff I know that the ponds haven't been completed. In that packet that you have Council Member, I will be glad to hand it to you, just read in it brief, not necessarily leaving out anything pertinent. Based upon our information construction on approved site development permit did not begin prior to annexation and therefore you must apply for a zoning change to construct the proposed improvements. The ponds are the proposed imts prufmts as well as the parking lot. That's dated March 20th, 19, keeping in mind we were annexed december 31st of you 7, we were stopped in March from doing anything until this issue got resolved. I will be glad to share this.

>>Slusher: thank you, yeah, bring it on down. Ms. Glasco, let me ask you another question.

>>Goodman: do we want to close the public hearing first.

>>Slusher: so move.

>>Goodman: motion on the floor and a second to close the public hearing. Discussion? all those in favor please say aye. Thanks, Council Member, please.

>>Slusher: ms. Glasco, if -- is that accurate that this zoning issue has to be resolved before that pond can be completed?

>>glasco: that's correct. The property -- they do not have the proper formts proceed with the construction of the parking lot. And to have the proper permits includes having the proper zoning to do that and the appropriate site plan to proceed. In -- in what I would state is that we -- our project managers were in transition when from annexation to approval of the site plan to the letter that was rescinded in that as I indicated earlier, the site plan that was in -- in our office was approved the day the property was in the city limits, not before. What -- at that point what should have been in place was obviously the proper zoning and a different type of site plan to proceed with the development.

>>Slusher: were you -- when you were explaining this before, did you say it was represented to the City earlier on, not on -- at the end of '97 or the beginning of '98, but was it represented to the City this was going to remain single family and instead it was used as commercial? was that the -- your point earlier?

>> well, that's the way it was described is the way it was presented to staff, six or so years before annexation was an inquiriry about being able to add to a single family house. Adding the amount of square footage that we see from mcneil road and what we usually issue is an exemption stating a single family house you don't require any permits from us, therefore you are exempt from a permitting requirement. The explanation given to us was that he was adding to single family house for potential commercial use in the etj.

>>Slusher: that would have required a commercial use would have required a site plan.

>>Glasco: had it been described as a commercial use then a site plan would have been required to address the parking that is shown now.

>>Slusher: then I have a letter here from City staff from Mr. Pea cock, -- Mr. Peacock, January 22 of you 8. It says that the sinkhole was not identified in the information submitted to the city of Austin. Was that a requirement of the filing that that be identified?

>>glasco: the -- I'm not certain that -- Mr. Murphy seems to want to take that one. [One moment please]

>> but the zoning would not prohibit a construction of the parking lot at all. It would enable them to move forward. I would also like to clarify that there was a statement made by one of the speakers that a building permit was issued. We did not issue building permits, so there was never a building permit issued by us.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> Neither is one needed.

>>Slusher: okay. The fence that the neighbor is talking about, straighten me out here. Is that in the planning commission recommendation?

>> no, it's not: Council Member Slusher, what I would like to finish my response to you regarding the effect of the neighborhood's proposal of zoning. For the single family for tract one, which is the portion where the home is, the decision I made regarding fencing was purely based on the path that's been taken by the state comptroller's office, that's been as far back as may of 1987 that the state comptroller's office collecting taxes for from a business operating at this address. Now, obviously we've heard different statements about whether there's a business occurring from there, but according to the state comptroller's office who are collecting taxes for a business that is supposedly from this address. That would be the only affect if there's a business going on there, it would be allowed to continue because we've determined that it was preexisting based on the records we had. That's one scenario. Now, the other part of the tract, tract two, the neighborhood recommendation would not affect anything because we have not determined there was anything preexisting there at at all. So any new use would be created by whatever zoning you grant moving forward. Does that answer your question?

>>Slusher: yes, I believe it does. There wouldn't be any authority to actually make it in reality single family on that tract.

>> The -- it's one big building. You have a single family in the back and then the new addition added to the house, so are you asking about how you would separate --.

>>Slusher: here is what I'm going to do doing. We've been going on this a long time. I would move to zone tract one single family 2 as recommended by the neighborhood. Tract two neighborhood office and only approve it on first reading. So I haven't been able to look at this in person. I would like to go and look at that. I think that would be prudent. And Council Member Spelman, was that a second?

>>Goodman: there's a motion on the floor that is the planning commission recommendation, I guess, although you didn't mention it.

>>Slusher: I just said neighborhood office.

>>Goodman: that's right. They went tr, didn't they.

>>Goodman: tract one, first reading. Is that --.

>> I'm sorry. I apologize, what Council Member Slusher is really -- he would be amending the Planning Commission recommendation as relates to the zoning district because the other the planning commission had. Would that be the easy way to do it?

>>Slusher: that's correct. And how would the fencing --.

>> You could add that. And the other conditions you add we'll find the proper tools to attach it.

>>Slusher: are you clear on what kind of fencing?

>> I think we are. They wanted a six-foot privacy fence and the option -- the applicant has the option of either doing the hedging or wooden fence. I think we need to clarify they want a wooden fence so that you can have shrubs that grow to a maturitity of six feet and provide screening or do you want a wooden privacy fence that is six feet tall.

>>Goodman: Council Member Spelman, and then Council Member Lewis and then Council Member Griffith.

>>Spelman: originally I would ask Alice a question, but she answered the question in the course of several other things that happened since I asked for the floor. So I don't have anything to say just yet, but I probably will in a minute.

>>Lewis: I have a question. Ms. Glasco, speaking of the fence along, what, mcneil road?

>> I think it's black foot trail.

>>Lewis: was that where the exit was where business was being conducted prior to annexation?

>> I think there's a circular drive in the back of the house that would still have the access to the house.

>>Lewis: what was the address given to the comptroller?

>> the address on black foot trail where the residence was.

>>Lewis: and if we zone it lo, is that what your recommendation was, lo?

>>Garcia: no.

>>Lewis: would that sale be able to continue?

>> the sale would continue from the black foot trail address, but not from the mcneil road tract.

>>Lewis: okay.

>> Only tract one and -- it's all one site. Given the ruling we have made, no business can be conducted from the mcneil road -- part of the business except for what you authorize through the zoning process.

>>Lewis: all right. I'd like to ask a question about the sink hole. What -- if I may. You made a statement, I believe, that the flow of the -- from the ponds was to the sink hole across mcneil road.

>> It flows out into the road. And as I understand it.

>>Lewis: and from there.

>> From there the water in mcneil and in the intersection then flows over into the area where the sink hole is. So the site does not directly flow to the sink hole. It flows to mcneil and the intersection area of black foot trail and then that area, that drainage then flows over into the sink hole.

>>Lewis: how critical is that -- where it flows into the sink hole?

>> well, it's recharge and this is the north edwards. Primarily it would emerge as spring flow somewhere down stream, so at the edge of the aquifer it would emerge as spring flow most likely.

>>Lewis: are we doing anything to protect that sink hole at the present time from mcneil road?

>> not that I am aware. Tnrcc has reviewed the situation. This sink hole had two culverts put in it many years ago. That's how they used to treat these features.

>>Goodman:.

>> May I clarify that. We requested from Williamson county --.

>>Goodman: could you come up to the mic.

>> We in indian oaks requested from Williamson county to come out and do something because that sink hole has been an ongoing problems for years and years. It was a standing joke when we would have a heavy rain that the tow truck drivers would park there to pull cars out whose drivers were stupid enough to try to go through that high water. And it does get high there. So this parking lot is going to ex-sass certify bait the problem even more. -- Exacerbate the problem. It may hold it for a little while, but when we get heavy rains, the detention ponds will fill up very quickly. We do get heavy rains. Let's face it. But those pipes were put in there at our request to help filter the water down faster. And it comes up on over the road.

>>Goodman: thank you, ma'am.

>> May I ask a question?

>>Goodman: well, Council Member Lewis is deciding who he's going to ask.

>> I'm sorry. Her comments seem to also apply on to concerns about flooding, which is different than there being a sink hole that this area runs to.

>>Lewis: is what tnrcc done with the pipes, with the culverts, is that our method for treating it now? in that type of situation in.

>> These sorts of situations are obviously extremely difficult. If you have a drainage area that flows to a certain area and it happens to enter a recharge type feature, such as this one, there's not a lot you can do other than perhaps to put some sort of water quality facility on the lot around the feature so that you could perhaps catch and treat the runoff before it goes in, the untreated runoff from the roadway. But we don't currently have any plans how to address this. It's been a situation that has existed for a very long time and my point I was making earlier is this site is providing water quality control and its drainage is discharged through a control. It is then discharged unfortunately into water that is not treated that then flows over into the sink hole area.

>>Lewis: okay. Well, --.

>> It's not a desirable situation, but there's really no easy fix for these. And it's not -- the City is not really able to go in and do anything economically to fix these sorts of situations that exist.

>>Lewis: all right. Thank you. That's all I have, Mayor pro tem.

>>Goodman: okay. Councilmember Spelman had deferred and so I'll let you and Beverly decide who goes next.

>>.

>>Spelman: thank you. First I want to clarify that water that goes into the sink hole might emerge down stream, but it may also emerge from a tap in round rock because that's also round rock's water supply.

>> It is their second dare water supply. They use surface water primarily because the groundwater isn't reliable, a reliable source.

>>Spelman: I understand. About the site plan issue. This is a site plan -- this is clearly a site plan that has not been reviewed by the City of Austin.

>> No, it has been.

>>Spelman: it has been. Has it been approved by the city?

>> yes. That was aproofted, but rescinded because it did not have a land use component once in the City limits. To all we're look lacking is the land use component of it.

>>Spelman: so you rescinded approval of the site plan and we have to work out the zoning and then presumably the same site plan would be submitted for approval a second time?

>> that's correct. And then we'll then assess again we'll look at the sink hole now that it's come to our attention again.

>>Spelman: is there a different level of scrutiny with site plans in the etj than site plans in the City?

>> it is land use and landscaping. It is the sale thing we look at, landscaping that are not part of our -- the tree ordinance, for example, that we don't apply in in the etj that we would be look at here. That would be the main distinction that would be your land use control at that point.

>>Spelman: the fact that we didn't do your tree ordinance explains that -- yeah. I'm concerned about the placement of those detention ponds. How deep are those ponds?

>> I'm not certain how deep they are. Maybe the engineer who skiend designed them might be able to tell us how deep they are.

>> It's about 16 feet wide and 80 feet long.

>>Spelman: and how deep are they, sir?

>>Goodman: we need him by a microphone.

>> This is the detention and this is the discharge. And the areas that retain the water in case of a heavy rain. Sorry. This area which is about 16 feet by -- a little over 16 feet by 80 foot long is being divided into three piece and the first portion will be a filter and in the middle will be a divider. And the third portion will be the place which is retaining the water and slowly discharged. And also parking area also will have been designed to retain the water in heavy rain situation. So it's been quite a bit as much as 40% more had been predicted in case we need the extra space or extra sewage, we also add another 40% into it, sir.

>>Spelman: could you describe for me how deep those ponds are?

>> the pond go about four and a half to five. Mr. Gonzales has drawn that, if you would like to. He will come into that for Mr details.

>>Spelman: that's good enough. It would be concrete lined on the bottom, I presume.

>> 10 Inches concrete all the way around it and the floor also.

>>Spelman: okay. And the pond would be designed it's going to fill up with water in a heavy rain, but it would evaporate and might be --.

>> It would be slowly drained, yes. It will be slowly drained and it will also retain the water in a parking lot for a heavy rain also.

>>Spelman: okay. Let me be sure I understand the placement. This is mcneil road here and this along the eastern edge of the property is black foot trail. And you've got these detention ponds within it, it looks like, a very few feet of the street on black foot trail; is that correct.

>> Right. There is no way today the water can run to the black foot.

>>Spelman: I understand that, but you have a four and a half foot deep pit where a sidewalk would go in other residential neighborhoods, correct.

>> Right. There's going to be a fence around it. This area is about 10 foot set back from black foot.

>>Spelman: okay. I understand the 10-foot set back would probably pose no problems for you and me, but a four-year-old might not obey that 10-foot set back as much as adults would. I'm concerned -- thank you very much, sir. Mr. Murphy, I'm concerned about the placement of a detention pond so close to a residential street. Is that our usual practice to allow that in a site plan?

>> yes. The code does not say that you cannot a at the dengs pond next to the street. There are certain setbacks related to the building and the zoning, but from a standpoint of the drainage and the environmental regulations, normally there's a setback, just a maintenance area, maybe five feet set back off the property line would be the most that would be required.

>>.

>>Spelman: would there be any requirement in our codes or our regulations that there must be a privacy fence of some kind to separate the street from --.

>> We have requirements for public facilities. We do not have requirements for private facility ies that require that. That is something that the property owner, it's more of a civil issue regarding any liabilities related to your work on your project. Spell speak okay. It seems to me this may be something we need to address in our codes. I'm very concerned about having a four and a half foot pit basically next to a street.

>> The ponds are shallow, although four feet you may not consider shallow because it has to do with the elevation they can discharge at.

>>Spelman: I understand.

>>Goodman: Council Member Griffith?

>>Griffith: thank you, ma'am. Ms. Glasco, I wanted to clarify what I think you said was the basis for your opinion that there was an ongoing business that was the state's collection of taxes on that basis; is that right?

>> that's correct. If it turned out that even though that was a situation tax wise that wasn't the real situation, that there was not really an ongoing business there, no water, in cars coming in and out, no customers, no sales receipts. How would that -- would that change the situation in.

>> I'm going to go to the map to explain the distinction. This is what was represented to me. There's a house here. This is the house. And the business, the commercial looking building addition is facing mcneil. The representation was -- and the taxing information was for this house. The second request -- I had two requests before me. To determine that there were two preexisting uses on this site, the carpeting sales and beauty salon. Our inspector went out there and determined and couldn't verify that there was carpeting sales going on there before annexation. We were able to get the tax information. And, of course, you have hearsay from neighbors and we felt like relying on tax receipts was one way at least establish one of those businesses. Our inspector determined that the lack of water for the commercial site facing mcneil, that there wasn't a business established because the cosmetology association had inspected and failed the site just before we annexed. Said it was not possible to have established that use in that building. So our ruling was fairly simple in our mind regarding having any business for the new addition to the building. But to the carpeting use, we really relied on the state comptroller's tax collection. But in answer to your question that if we find further information that indicates that there wasn't a use, then I would have to reconsider my decision.

>>Goodman:.

>>Griffith: that's a good reason to do it on first reading.

>> To check on the actual sales.

>>Griffith: that would be good. Thank you very much. And I had a sink hole question too.

>> I'm in charge of sink hole questions.

>>Griffith: yes, the King of sink holes is ed peacock. He says if discharge is route todd a level spreading device, then to a grassy area, it will provide an opportunity for the up take of sediment, metals and nutrients prior to infiltration to the bottom of the sink hole. Did that happen? is it going through a grassy area so that the -- so that the sediment, metals and nutrients are not piling up in the bottom of the sink hole?

>> to be honest, I am not real sure. I believe that that specific recommendation was Written back in February '98. That was before we actually had an actual plan that we were looking at for water quality controls and so forth. So my underanding would be that maybe that was a recommendation that was made without the knowledge that there would be water quality control facility ies actually put on the site. However, I would like to confirm that if you are going to do just first reading today before we go to second and third reading, I can do that for you.

>>Griffith: thank you. Would you do that, please?

>> I will.

>>Goodman: there's a motion and a second on the floor which was to amend the Planning Commission recommendation to tract one being sf two, tract two being no, and that's keeping all the fencing and number of trips on first reading.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?

>>Spelman: I'd like to make ang addition. Ms. Glasco asked us what form of fence we would favor. I think in view of the fact there's a public health and safety fas sard very the property line here, we would need that to be a wooden fence unable to find. A six-foot privacy fence.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Slusher accepts that. It has been made and seconded. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on first reading. We'll go back to item no. Number 57. This is the billboard matter. What we had indicated earlier is that there has already been a public hearing conducted on this item. And the public hiring was closed. However, I will accept a motion to suspend the rules to allow for six minutes per side to basically provide a summary of the positions of each side and at the end of that 12 minutes, then the Council will take up discussion and vote. Is there a motion?

>>Slusher: Mayor, I would so move and I would note that the Mayor Pro Tem has pointed out accurately to me that it could be determined there are three sides in this because we have the scenic Austin group. So I would like to add them on.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. So do you still want to give the full six minutes or five minutes apiece?

>>Slusher: five is fine with me.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion is for five minutes for three sides. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Garcia. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries.

>>Slusher: Mayor, could I announce I'm going to be off the dias, but I'll be listening. I wouldn't miss it.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Let me approach it this way. I'm going to be -- let me do it this way. I'm trying to figure out how we fairly pick sides. [Inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: no, I've got a better idea.

>>Garcia: do you want to have a raffle?

>>Mayor Watson: yeah, pretty much. Scenic Austin will go first. Reagan will go third and the opposition to reagan will go second. So Mr. Kenny, if you would like to come forward, you would have five minutes.

>> Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. I am a member of scenic america, executive board member of scene in this case Texas and president of scenic Austin. You have heard most of our comments. We're on record and I would refer you to those and urge you to take them seriously. I want to specifically mention a couple of things that have come up and to summarize the major points. We have made strong language, recommendation, that you include language about intent. I don't see it in anything I'm seeing circulating around the chamber. I'm hoping you do have that information in your resolution that you plan. It's important that future generations know that you are trying to eventually eliminate billboards in Austin. Secondly, I'm disappointed in the feedback that I'm hearing, and I'm hoping it's inaccurate that you're not going to be including at this time our recommendations about including including looking at nonconforming uses on property, including billboards when you look at zoning changes and building permits for major expansions. You can do this. These things are not easy. You have to have a will. You have to be determined. You will need legal expertise that I'm sure you don't have in house. Specialized legal expertise that's available and we can help you find it if you have trouble. You can win this. The only other state that's tried it won it and you can win it. Secondly, I'm sad to say that I did not receive until yesterday the letter from txdot that you have in your packets. I want to emphasize to you that this in no way changes our recommendation relative to not allowing billboards on I-35, for instance, to be relocated: my information is if you disaallow billboards to be relocated on I-35 when that major project does go forward, even if, even if -- and it would not happen, but even if the billboards were valued at the high value of the one case that was cited to you that was settled out of court and without a court hearing, even if that were to happen, the cost of that as a portion of the cost of the widening of I-35 is less than one percent according to the data I've been able to dig up. So it should not even be a consideration to you. It's a powerful way to get bid rid of Bill boards. Take it seriously. Get it in your motion and get the legal expertise to see how to do that. And then the last thing I want to say, and I'll give you back a minute maybe, we're the only organization that has spoken to you that's not paid to speak to you or who -- or who doesn't have a financial incentive. We think we understand how to get rid of billboards. Please take seriously all of our comments and go for these two very important measures that we've offered you. We think they are the really -- the best way for you to eventually get rid of billboards in Austin. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Ken nismt all right. The other sign companies will have five minutes. --.

>> We have another problem. The landowners are represented here tonight too, which is a different group.

>>Mayor Watson: well, the motion has been made for 15 minutes.

>> They get 15 minutes?

>>Mayor Watson: no, sir. We've had a public hearing. We were not going to have any comment because the public hearing has been done and we're now extending it to 15 minutes.

>> I appreciate that and have no problems with that at all. Mr. Kinney and I worked on the 1983 ordinance to get it passed. His implication is if anybody gets any money for being here tonight, their hearts in the wrong spot maybe. My heart is for removing billboards in Austin, period. Similar as yours. We may have a different view on how to do that. We talked about that in great detail last time. I think Mr. Kenny has the righted yd, but he's off on the wrong track about the economics and they won't work. In 1983 we passed the ordinance. In 1983 we thought all signs would be gone in 15 or 20 years because they would be deteriorated. About 1987 the state passed a law that said you could not allow those signs to deteriorate. So between the two governments, we created a monopoly. 1990 The Council said with a 20% reduction you can replace the signs. Here is the story, folks. If you do not pass the situation or at least louisiana it to stay like it is where you have competition. We have created monopoly and you are going to continue t that's the way it is. There will be no signs removed, no competition. There will be no change. But the landowners will get less than they should get in the whole situation. I'm representing somebody that's in competition because I believe that they will reduce the signs. That's the only reason that I said yes to come down here and talk about this. Five signs were in competition and were reduced, which is equal to one sign reduction in this City. There's no other way to do it. Either you vote to go along with the idea of version and reduction, 20 percent reduction if you want competition. If you do 25 or 30 or 40, you're going to right back to what reagan wants because that means the competition has to put up a sign that's 25 or 30 percent less than theirs and they have the competition every time. There will be no reduction, folks. I'm just asking you to please be very logical. Don't use the red herring that two for one is a good situation. That's a bad situation. Don't use the idea that jobs somewhere are going to come out of signs. Keeping money in Austin is going to create jobs. Sending them to utah is not going to create the jobs here. I would say that if you question my heart, please don't. I'm here because I believe like you do, that we need to reduce signs.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Mayor, members of the Council, my name is John foster, I represent an association of landowners who have billboards. I want to remind this body that just because we're here considering this does not mean we have to amend this ordinance. This ordinance that exists now was never really given an opportunity to work the way it was designed to work when Mayor mullen and Mr. Kinney passed it years ago. Any reduction in size of the ordinance has the effect of eliminating the purpose of this ordinance, which is the reduction in size of signs over a period of time. What reagan want ss 100 percent reduction. The other alternatives they have all have the same effect, 100 percent reduction if their signs are removed and the landowner elects to go with somebody else. They already have a substantial advantage right now, that 20 percent reduction that's required under the -- of this current ordinance means that they have to compete with Council Member who is going to put up a sign that's 20 percent smaller and thus creates less revenue. Anything that this body does to reduce -- in the way of changing the sign is going to have the effect of reducing -- increasing or maintaining the competitive advantage that reagan has. We on behalf of the landowners, we urge this body to stay with what we got, give this ordinance a chance to work. We can review it in several years and see if it is working. Thank you.

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

>> I'm going to give you a quick example. A sign owner had a sign making less than $200 a month in revenue. That doesn't mean that reagan wasn't making four or 5,000 a month. Came in after a 10 year lease. They've been fade for their leases, folks. They don't have any rights to get their leases extended by a monopoly by the City Council. They've got their reward. Now here comes the landowner. He says give me a good deal. They offer him $300 a month. Here cops a flare flyer that says reduce it and you can get more. You say that's going to help the signs to stay. Reagan would have paid that if the sign -- if the landowner had just hung in there. He just didn't know and that's the whole point. The money is being shipped out of town at the expense of the landowners with competition. Fair competition is going to remove signs. Enough said.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor. Please set the clock for five minutes for the reagan presentation.

>> How do you honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council, my name is William reagan. I won't dwell on all the things in the past other than all these people have made gross misstatements of fact, but I would like to say that like Mr. Becker said when he started out today, when the landLord raises my rent, I'd like to be able to move. I think anybody else would too. And right now this ordinance won't let us move, won't let companies that have signs now move when the landLord raises the rent. Now, that's being hold hostage. In the past we were kind of into we had to work out our marital disputes evenly, but that's the problem, and keep that in mind that it's not providing for competition. And they have created a reduce and we don't have time to -- ruse and we don't have time to address that now. Dealing with the ordinance currently as drafted, we've received copies of it, we've made comments back, but we've only received those yesterday. I would recommend that you not pass an ordinance today. That you continue the moratorium for 30 days so we can sit down and work out. It's a technical issue. It's a very technical issue. There's a lot of confusion about it and a lot of misrepresentation of fact. The Planning Commission made a recommendation to not have my replacement of signs. We would certainly like to replace signs. Don't let anyone kid you. Anyone in this room tell you that if you let them rebuild a sign that they're going to get rid of signs and reducing four signs by 20 percent is still four signs. I don't know how anybody does any math any different than that. I've been disappointed that they've so personalized this. So I get a little bit upset about it. I'd like to match the 165,000 I made in charitable contribution I made last year in this City with you or with you and about a million dollars that it's been over the last 10 years.

>>Garcia: Mayor, I think that the speaker needs to speak to us and not the members of the audience.

>> I respect your request. I'm sorry. At this point in time I'd like to introduce some friends of mine that are here in the community, give them a few minutes. I have two minutes 58 left. I'd like to recommend that in this case you pass or amend that you provide protective language in the three for one alternative, there is protective language that provides for no replacement of -- no placement of signs on scenic by ways near historic sites, residential zones, near the certain other areas. I can't remember the exact wording. It's been outlined. I would recommend you do that. That will prevent more problems that we have in regard to signs and getting -- owe residential zones, 500 feet from residential zones and uses is very important because this reduces the impact on the community which ends up having an impact on us. I would like to now give two minutes of time to two people that are my friends and would like speak to this issue. One is a lessor and another one is someone that we've been active in community involvement. Thank you.

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

>> Good evening not Mayor and Council Members. I'm hazel elby and I'm here to speak on behalf of Mr. William reagan, who is a friend of mine and at the same time the company is located right around the corner from my house. I support anything just about that's legal and ethical and moral in my community that creates jobs. And it's right around off of springdale and 290 and until such time as this ordinance is cleared up, I would like to see the moratorium and hopefully something that can be worked out. Thank you so very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm William lyons. I represent the east side church of Christ. We are a landowner on 183 right off of Martin Luther king. We have owned that property since 1990. We've been very pleased with the reagan company. They've been accessible. We are pleased on the rent. It's been part of our income. We have worked with them and we're continuing to work with them and we fully support the efforts of what he's trying to do. He has come to Austin. Even though he works out of salt lake City, his company has been here. He is moving to Austin. He's been an integral part of the City over the last nine years, has supported various functions, not only the City hospital, he's supported numerous other causes on -- as far as the east side and we fully support him. His son, billy, is here. He went to smu, been part of the community. Mr. Horn, who is his manager here, has been accessible to us and other people on the east side and his companies on the east side. So we fully support him and the efforts he's trying to do and we urge you to support the moratorium. I think we can work out the small problems that are on the issue with the time. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, sir. Those are all the people to be speaking on this item. Council, why don't we do it this way. Why don't we get a motion on the table so that we'll be aib able to have something we can discuss and we'll amend it if necessary. Does someone have a motion? Council Member Spelman?

>>Spelman: I have a motion both on item 55 and on 57.

>>Mayor Watson: all right.

>>Spelman: first on 55, this is an ordinance and I would -- my motion is to approve item 55 on all three readings with the amendment on line 11 of the ordinance that instead of March 27th, 1999, that read March 15th, 1999. On item 57, I move that we approve the staff recommendation on all three readings with the amendment on the second page of three for off premise sides that modification or replacement reduce sign area not by 30 percent, but by only 25 percent. That is located on line 10 of page 2 of the staff recommendation of the ordinance. Further I move that we direct the City Manager to do the following: first to determine what is necessary to obtained next dot certification to administer all sign regulations in the City of Austin and second to revise the three for one draft, which is -- which accompanies the ordinance in our package titled off premise sign replacement three for one draft., to revise the draft to include the requirement that any new location of a sign require issuance of a conditional use permit and to come back with that revision four weeks from today for us to consider.

>>Mayor Watson: what did you say, three weeks?

>>Spelman: well, three weeks we don't have a meeting, so it would have to be four weeks. Two weeks they wouldn't have time to get it together.

>>Mayor Watson: let me say this back. On item no. 55 It would be to -- the motion is to approve on all three readings with the amendment on line 11 that we would delete March 27, 1999 and replace it with March 15, 1999.

>>Spelman: moratorium until March 15th, that's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: on item no. 57, It would be the staff recommendation on all three readings with the amendment on line 10 of page 2 of 3 that 30 percent would be changed to 25 percent and there would be direction to the City Manager first to explore what is necessary and move forward on obtaining next dot certification and second to revise the three for one draft to require the issuance of a conditional use permit and to bring that back to Council in one month.

>>Spelman: that's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second? gag.

>>Garcia: I second it and I have a question and perhaps an amendment.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem and I'll recognize Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: I need an explanation as to the change. Dates. Tell me again why you move it 12 days back.

>>Spelman: sure. This was with the presumption that we will in fact be passing the latest version of the land development code, the plain english version, later on this evening. And that the land development code will take effect on March 15th, 1999.

>>Garcia: the land development code will have what?

>>Spelman: this is an amendment to the land development code. And in fact Written in plain english version so that it will actually fit in with the version of the land development code which I believe we will be passing later this evening. That will be taking effect on March 15th and this will be taking effect on the same date.

>>Garcia: the other question is you're talking about the draft that's dated February 25th, 12:47 p.m.?

>>Spelman: that's the one I got.

>>Garcia: on the second page, page 2 of 3 owe line seven where it says an off premises miss sign may be modified or replaced, I would like the word only if. And the reason is that it is clear that it's only if these three requirements apply. You know, we sometimes get caught not putting a word or using a different word, one of these issues we were discussing earlier at that particular characteristic.

>>Spelman: only if is absolutely clear. I agree.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Let me make sure I understand and I'll make sure it's a friendly amendment. On line 7 of page 2 of 3 on item 5. Councilmember Garcia is suggesting an off premises sign may be modified or replaced only if owe and you consider that a friendly amendment?

>>Spelman: yes, I do.

>>Mayor Watson: irrelevant Mayor Pro Tem, do you consider it a friendly amendment?

>>Garcia: the other question I wanted to ask Council Member Spelman is the recommendation that Mr. Kinney made with regard to putting in an introductory paragraph saying that the intent of this ordinance is to remove the signs. Did you discuss that with staff? I know you had some meetings with the staff?

>>Spelman: the Mayor asked for a motion and so I made a motion and I was going to make a motion, but I will happily defer to you on that.

>>Garcia: well, David --.

>> Yes, sir? we can add a statement to that effect if the Council so desires.

>>Garcia: where would that go.

>> We would place it at the beginning of the ordinance and we would make it a finding of the Council.

>>Mayor Watson: state how you think the finding ought to be worded.

>> We would state that for the Council finds that -- the Council adopts this ordinance for the purpose of community aesthetics and public safety and intends to --.

>>Garcia: have this ordinance have the effect of eliminating signs.

>> Have the effect of eliminating off premise signs at some point in the future.

>>Mayor Watson: all right.

>> We would place it -- well, we would make it a part 1 and move everything down by one part number.

>>Mayor Watson: all right.

>>Goodman: Mayor? there's one more thing I would like us to look into within these four weeks and that is whether there are any legal constraints on at time of zoning change, having the site or permit or ability to continue a sign use be deleted as part of the approval of the zoning change.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Council, let me walk through and make sure we have a proper motion. On item number 55 it would be to approve 55 on all three readings, but at line 11 the moratorium extension would be deleted -- March 27th '99 would be deleted and changed to March 15th, 1999. On item no. 57 The staff recommendation would be approved on all three readings with the following changes: in the proposed ordinance on item no. 57 In part one there would be a finding that would state that it is the -- the Council finds that this ordinance is being passed for the purpose of this ordinance is for community aesthetics and public safety and the City Council of Austin intends the ordinance to eliminate all off premise signs at some point in the future. On page 2 of 3 at line 7 there would be an amendment that says, an off premise sign may be modified or replaced only if:, colon, then at line 9 you would delete the word if. And it would read the modification or replacement reduces the sign area by at least five percent. The City Manager would have -- would be directed to do the following three things. One, to investigate and determine what is necessary for the City of Austin to obtain dex to the certification. Second, to revise the three for one draft to require a conditional use permit and to bring that back in one month. And three, to make a determination regarding any legal constraints that may exist at the time of zoning changes so that there may be a change in the zoning with regard to the signs. Councilmember Spelman, do you consider that a friendly amendment?

>>Spelman: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem, all the things I said. -- You're in the the Mayor Pro Tem.

>>Garcia: I'm sorry. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: Paul, help him out. Mayor Pro Tem, I went through a number of things there. Do you consider that to be the motion that you have seconded?

>>Goodman: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Garcia?

>>Garcia: thank you. I have one question in part one. Did you aoff premise signs?

>>Mayor Watson: that's what I said.

>>Garcia: off. Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: I have a question. I've heard a lot of different things. One is a technical problem, and if I could get staff to give me a. [Inaudible]. What is the technical problem that the man from reagan referred to that could be taken care of if a moratorium was extended?

>> I'm not sure what technical problem he was referring to.

>>Lewis: I'm not either since we've been doing this for the last year or so. What -- let me ask you. What technical problems would be corrected in the next 30 days by an extension of a moratorium?

>> well, the technical problems are the interpretations that first I mentioned protective language should be inserted so that signs aren't rebuilt in areas that you would not want to have them and get community reaction. The technical areas that you have is when you read this ordinance, it's inconsistent through many parts. It said person, it says owner, it says sign owner. So the section that's operable is very inconsistent and really should be reworded to be consistent so that there isn't a misunderstanding as to what the intent is overall in regard to rebuilding. And who is entitle todd a permit and who is not entitled to a permit.

>>Lewis: well, all right. Thank you. Let me ask you another question. How many of your leases is based on a gross income here in Austin?

>> very few, very few. That's a trick -- that's a trick that people use because if you pay a percentage lease, you don't have to pay them any rent when the sign isn't rented. So when you have a slow period of time, like happened through the 80's, the landowner gets treated cheated because the sign goes vacant and he's not getting the percentage. So people have preferred for us to have fixed rents. We have some percentage leases, Council Member, but we do not have many. Most people want a fixed rent for a set period of time. They usually equate it to the property taxes or something.

>>Lewis: I also heard that jobs was created from your company. How many local jobs in the -- 21, 23, 02 zip codes have been created?

>> we're at 9211 east highway 290.

>>Lewis: I know where you're located.

>> We're about -- we have about 40 employees at the peak in the summertime. Our makeup is about 51% minority. And we then do subcontracting. We subcontract to local subcontractors here in Austin and in the area and these are usually very small subcontractors who do the maintenance on the signs and that throughout the year.

>>Lewis: well --.

>> Did I answer your question?

>>Lewis: well, yeah, but I didn't expect you to have the numbers right off as to what area of town these people live in that's employed by you. I don't understand, if we've been working on this ordinance all this time and all of a sudden, you know -- we had -- what was it, a week ago or two weeks ago that we heard this? and we said we didn't want any lobbying or anything and now we come up with a request for another month. I don't understand it. And I've been talking to people since last year about this sign ordinance. And if they hadn't fixed it in that length of time, they're not going to tix fix it in another three weeks as far as I'm concerned, not the wording anyway?

>> may I respond to that? one of the reasons -- the Planning Commission recommended that there be no replacement and we were under the impression that there was the direction that the Council was going. So there wasn't much to be worked on as far as language if there was going to be no replacement. I was unable to attend the public hearing because my wife had pneumonia and I was with her and then when I saw the videotape, my impression of the Council was that they were not inclined to vote for any replacement. And the language has always been the issue -- the legal department here has taken the most unusual interpretation of a continuation of a non-conforming use anyplace. And that is, every place going back to case law that when you terminate voluntarily a nonconforming use, use and structure. Not just the use, but the structure, it ends.

>>Lewis: okay. Let me ask you another question. If you had the opportunity to replace someone's sign, what is it, outdoors or whoever, at a 25% reduction, would you do it?

>> we would not do it in the case that the standardized signs, the poster panels, have to be --.

>>Lewis: no. I'm saying I know it's going to change the standard. I know it's going to change the north american standard as far as the 14 by -- the 12 by 24, the 14 by 48 are whatever, but I'm saying if you had an opportunity to change signs at a 25% reduction in the size of the space of the sign, would you do it?

>> would I go do it? in other words, I would have to go to another sign company, jump their lease and then reduce that sign by 25%?

>>Lewis: would you do that. Would you think it was profitable to get away from the standard?

>> no. Because then you would -- you wouldn't be able to receive the business. It would be like having Austin be in a foreign language. That's how you would it, getting away from the standard.

>>Lewis: all right. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion now. In regards to item no. 57. And that's to change the -- on line, well, 5-s, instead of 30 percent to 20 percent. Because if we intend to get rid of any signs, we're not going to get rid of them at 30 percent, because like I said, he's not going to go out and pay more to get a sign that he can't readily rent. Mayor the current motion being discussed is 25 percent.

>>Lewis: right.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask if Council Member Spelman would consider Council Member Lewis's suggestion that sign nine of page 2 of 3 would read the modification and replacement reduces the sign area by at least 20% as a friendly amendment?

>>Spelman: not at this time.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor pro tem -- well, it doesn't matter. Hang on a second, Council Member, if you want -- I'm trying to walk you through your motion. Is there anybody that seconds -- and what we'll do if somebody seconds that, we'll vote on that as a specific amendment first. Is there anybody that seconds that? is there a second? is there a second? motion fails for lack of a second. Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: on item 55, we're saying that off premises signs may be modified or replaced only if, right?

>>Mayor Watson: on item 55? on item 57 the change was -- on item 57 the words only if have been added and are part of the current motion at line 7.

>>Lewis: okay. Item 57. Only if. And all had three of these items have to be --.

>>Mayor Watson: yes. The way it would read is an off premise sign may be modified and replaced only if the modification or replacement reduces the sign area by at least 25 percent and the modified or replacement sign is constructed this the same location and materials as the original sign and sign I will lummation is not into any area for residential use. The reason I give that interpretation is you have an a, b and c with the word and being placed between b and c.

>> Let me ask the question from staff, if we change line 9 on page 2 of 3 in item 57 and we leave line 9 of page 2 of 3 in item 55, wouldn't that be a conflict? you know, I have both of these things and owe or are they both the same?

>> item 55 on your agenda --.

>>Lewis: I see 55, 57 and then I have a 57.

>> 55 Should be merely an extension of the ordinance that prohibits of issuance of permits to replace a sign. Place of an off premise sign.

>>Lewis: it says 55, 57?

>> I think they may have been bun dilled in the packet because they are in on the same subject. I think they may have been bundled in your packets because they relate to the same subject.

>>Lewis: I'm asking are they the same because one is dated February 22nd at 5:42 and the other one is dated February 25th at 12:47.

>> The February 12th is the revised version.

>>Mayor Watson: February 25th? February 25th, 1999 at 12:47 p.m., it's my understanding that is a version, the latest version.

>> That's correct. And there is an item also on your agenda, item 55, which is the extension of the interim development control that prohibits the issuance of permits. And as the motion stands, the -- the date for the expiration of that prohibition has been changed to March the 15th, the same date as the adoption of the new land development code.

>>Goodman: Mayor, can I follow up?

>> I guess I should explain it. What you have -- the ordinance that's been presented for your presentation is probably the one that you're looking at. Item 57 and it's dated February 25th, 12:47 p.m..

>>Goodman: and I think the issue was --.

>>Mayor Watson: hang on a second, Council Member Lewis. Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: was there significant differences for someone who only read the February 22 dlaft and now that we're talking about the February 25th draft, that was changed, if anything significant?

>> what was changed, if you look on page 3, the change was related to the recodification. We added a definition of off premise sign that did not appear in the recodification that's before you under item 70. And then so the new recodification will include a definition of off premise sign. And under part 3 there was a section in the code that prohibited signs that basically were off premium mits signs, but were not referred to by that term because it had been deleted in the new code.

>>Mayor Watson: for purposes of the record let me read that: in the earlier version for those who may have been working off the February 22nd, 1999 version, at 5:42 p.m., it is the same -- there's a part 2 beginning at line 4. The change is on the February 25th draft that it says -- it adds an off premise sign, the maintenance definition is the same, but then where you see on your February 25th section, line 13, have you the definition of off premise sign. Then part 3 is new where it shows the amendment. Part 4 was part 3 in the February 22nd draft and part 5 was part 4 in the February 22nd draft. All right. The motion has been made --.

>>Lewis: wait. I want to get this clear with staff because, you know, I don't know how the rest of the Council feels, but I tell you, I'm sick of this -- of people talking to me about this sign ordinance. And I want to know if we're going to have the wording cleared up and ready to pass this thing on March 15th. Since the Council is the one that requested the -- is requesting the extension.

>>Mayor Watson: that's the moratorium. You're passing --.

>>Lewis: that's what I said. I want to know if we're going to have things fixed so we can vote on this thing and pass it once and for all.

>>Mayor Watson: you're doing is tonight. The moes motion is --.

>>Lewis: but we're doing a moratorium. I want to know when are we going to finish with it. That's what I want to find out.

>>Garcia: let Council Member Lewis explain.

>>Mayor Watson: why don't you explain what your intent is here because we are passing it on all three readings don't tonight. So explain that.

>>Spelman: spell the way this ordinance becomes law is it enters the land development code. The land development code, we're changing the entire code and adopting a new plain language version of the land development code in item 71 this evening. And that new version of the land development code newly revised will take effect on March 15th. The reason that I move that we extend the moratorium only until March 15th is so that this change of the law would take effect at exactly the same time as the rest of the land development code which it would become a part of. So we're making a decision on the sign stuff and we'll never have to revisit it again except for threet for one section that I asked Mr. Lloyd to come back with in four weeks. But the bulk of this stuff we're going to pass tonight on all three readings if you vote yes and never have to see it again. You never have to see this again.

>>Lewis: I can't -- because what we're passing tonight is leaving it basically the same as it is, the same as not being able to replace the sign because nobody is going to go out there and replace a sign when the production of the sign is such that you can't get a return on it. And at 30%, I don't think that we're going to see any replacements. I really don't.

>>Goodman: 25.

>>Lewis: so based on that.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion is for 25 now.

>>Lewis: even at 25, I can't -- I just asked the man with the most signs in town if he could replace it with a 25% reduction and he said no.

>>Mayor Watson: would you close the doors, please.

>>Lewis: and if he wouldn't do it, I'm sure that some of these smaller sign companies won't be able to do it. And our intentions is to get rid of the signs, then we need to either reduce the signs or not -- or leave it like it is, one of the two, where you can't replace them at all.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Spelman?

>>Spelman: although the largest sign company in town has said they're not able to do it, many of the smaller sign companies have said that they would and that's why they're sport rg the ordinance as it is now. So some people think they can make a deal with the 25% smaller sign that would be favorable to them and the landowner.

>>Lewis: that's fine.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: I'll defer to Council Member Spelman first.

>>Spelman: I'd like to send us all a similar path think card. More important I would like to thank the staff who spent so much time working with the public and helping us understand all of the complications of this incredibly complicated problem. They have done wonderful work on this, waurking us through all the land mines and I think they deserve a lot of credit for it it. [Applause]. There's one last thing which I think we can clarify quickly. There was a conversation between Council Member Lewis and the representative of reagan a few moments ago which suggested -- I've heard this in the. This is with respect to 2510152 section d where owners of the property have to register. And it had been suggested to me that if an owner fails to register, then the owner of the sign may be liable or may have to take down the sign or some terrible consequences may occur down stream for the owner of the sign. I wonder if you can clarify that for us, David.

>> The consequence for failure to register is a fine. It's a violation of the code. It is not the removal of a sign.

>>Spelman: would it be permissible for the owner of the sign to register on behalf of the owner of the property?

>> yes, it would. It's always possible to have an agent to submit any application to the City of Austin. One of the -- well, I would say that the reason that the code reads this way now is that in your new code, excess language has been removed to the extent possible. And because it's always possible to use an agent to file an application, it's not necessary to state that in the ordinance. If the Council so desires, we could add language that the authorized agent of the owner, may file, etcetera, etcetera, if you would like to do that.

>>Spelman: that seems to me it would be a step backwards from a plain language version. I want to make sure anyone that is paying attention to the issue that, for example, reagan outdoor wanted to file -- wanted to register on behalf of all of the owners of the property, then they could do that.

>>Goodman: with some kind of verification, I assume.

>>Mayor Watson: hang on. Mayor Pro Tem, say it again.

>>Goodman: somebody who goes down and files as an agent, we have some kind of verification process that identifies the landowner an they're approval of that, right?

>> it would be the same verification that we require for any kind of application. Greg can explain that.

>> The majority of applications on file we don't ask for power of attorney or some affidavit representing that they are the agent. That goes for building permits, sign permits. The majority of our applications that are filed for site plans, the representation that's made, we go by. If there's a falsification of an application, then that application then is suspended. And then a permit is not issued if we find out that it's been basically submitted without the owner's consent. But all our applications for building permits and sign permits are usually brought in without any kind of certification or an affidavit that's signed saying that they are the true and actual agent because we deal with so many people.

>>Goodman: do we check, though? this is a little different than the usual.

>> Through the registration process we could actually have on through the registration the owner of the land and the owner of the sign, there by we would know.

>>Goodman: that sounds good. Thank you.

>>Lewis: I have one other question. Greg, let me ask you a question. Do we have -- do we have an inventory of the signs that's within the City limits?

>> we do now.

>>Lewis: and how many is -- how many -- do we issue permits that's for etj?

>> we do issue sign permits in etj. We would not issue a permit for a new sign, although we now may have a provision for a three to one provision, so you may actually have a new off premise advertising sign if three are removed. And I guess we'll be back to you in four weeks with that.

>>Lewis: in the three for one, is it a provision for banking the signs or is it a time limit on the length of time that you could have the sign there.

>> The proposal, I believe, is for a maximum of 90 days that you would have to show these three signs removed in order to install a new one.

>>Lewis: to take credit for the ones that's been removed.

>> To take credit for the ones that's been removed and to install a new one.

>>Lewis: is that 90 days from the time you take downtown the third one or the 90 days from the time you remove the first one?

>> I would have to go back to the draft that's been presented to you, but I believe that's from the removal of those three to the construction. Dave may be able to answer that a little bit better.

>> Yes, sir. The three for one draft which, of course, is not part of the motion this evening, and the two for one draft would all be subject to the requirement that you remove all signs being replaced and install replacement sign within 90 days of the date of the application for replacement. And that would apply to any replace.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made on items 55 and 57. Is there any discussion.

>>Goodman: Mayor, this is to address something that Council Member Lewis said. And I'm sooling that at the time that we approve the land development code, per se, at such time if we found better language or more clear language that was purely housekeeping and not dramatic change from anything we pacific tonight, that we could, for instance, look at things like page 2 of 3, item c for a nonconforming sign that is damaged or dismantled, etcetera, etcetera, whether it might not be clearer and less confusing if we just said the signs shall be removed rather than pinpoint who in fact -- if we're letting somebody go or if we're requiring a dual action here when that can't be. There are just a couple of things like that. And maybe we should think about permitee, if that's a word. And whoever has the site, the permit, is the person we're after.

>>Mayor Watson: but your clear intent is for plain eng labor, non-substantive changes such that there's no need to lobby on the issue.

>>Goodman: right. Purely housekeeping.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Any further discussion? motion has been made and seconded. All in favor opposed say no. Motion carries on a vote of six to one with Council Member Lewis voting no. That's on items 55 and 57. Council, we will go to items -- item no. 92.

>>Slusher: Mayor, I have to send some staff home, unless other people have questions on 61 and skoorx I would move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: I will -- instead of going to 92, we'll go to items 61 and 62. Councilmember Slusher moves approval on 61 and 62. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on 61 and 62.

>>Garcia: Mayor? I've got all my questions answered on 70, so I move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made an Council Member Garcia, seconded by Council Member Slusher so approve item no. 70. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 70. Let me ask if there's anybody else who has got somebody that can be quickly handled so we can send staff home on an item.

>>Lewis: yes, if we could go to 67 and 69. Items 67 and 69.

>>Mayor Watson: all right, items 67 and 69. I'll recognize Council Member Lewis.

>>Lewis: I would just like to have those items read into the record, at least the substance of the items so that the general public will know what it is that we're --.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. On item no. Number 67, let me read the resolution on item no. 67, Where as the mexicarte has been at its prnt site since 19 aye as a lessee with a mission to maintain a cultural presence in downtown Austin and where as the museum has established a strong presence in the Congress arts district that includes the Austin museum of art, the pair month theater, the Texas fine arts association, the state theater and the Austin children's museum and whereas the preservation of the museum compliments the City of Austin's desire to ensure the economic and vitality of downtown and where as the mexicarte museum represents a solid commitment to meeting the arts needs of the growing lan teen no community and where as a January 11th, 1988, the Austin City Council approved the execution of an agreement with the museum for a fees ability stut for design concepts, physical plans and the loix of an expanded museum operation downtown or at other locations. Therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin that the City manager is here by directed to begin discussions with museum regard tion their current status and initiatives toward locating a permanent home for the museum. The resolution that you is in your backup under 67 would have two changes in it. In the fourth whereas, it would stated the mexicarte miem and after the last whereas, the word and would be deleted. I'll entertain a motion.

>>Lewis: move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second? seconded by Council Member Garcia. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The motion carries on 67. Item no. 69.

>>Lewis: if you would just read item a through c on page 2, I think it would give the public the information that if someone is interested in applying for.

>>Mayor Watson: are you talking about under reman numeral two.

>>Lewis: yes.

>> It reads, the board of trustees and the City Council have established a community education consortium that acts as a policy advisor to both governing bodies to matters concerning education. The membership will consist of the following. A, the City Council and board of trustees will each appoint five members will overlapping membership terms. These appointments should reflect the diversity of the community. B, the consortium will select up to five additional members to represent other stakeholders, collaboraters or funders. C, two non-voting members will be apointed to represent the school district staff and the city stachlt. One will be appointed by the superintendent and one by the city. I'll entertain a motion with regard to item no. 69. Is fl any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Item no. 69 Passeses. Let's go to numb number 92 -- yes, Council Member?

>>Slusher: I don't know if we can get it done fast. The applicant has waited. It's been postponed several times. That would be number -- the one on north lamar. I'm looking for the number. 49.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member, the only reason I try to keep going pkback to 92 and 93 is nobody signed up on those two. I'm hoping they'll go fast.

>>Slusher: all right.

>>Mayor Watson: thanks. Item 92 -- slush slur you're getting a lot of help.

>>Mayor Watson: the dias is being very helpful tonight and I appreciate you. Item 92.

>> The caption will suffice for the staff presentation. Mayor this is a public hearing regarding a change in the street name for a portion of havana street to limon lane. It forms the intersection of havana street and south forth street approximately 30045 feet. Funding in the amount of 100 thrars for street sign costs is available in the 1988-99 operating budget in the department of Public Works and trmtion. The fees are waives in the e nine one initial dwraition. The City Manager indicates that suffices as the staff presentation. We have no one signed up to speak on item no. 92. Is there anyone here who wishes to be heard on item number 92? anyone wishing to be heard? anyone wishing to be heard?

>>Goodman: move we close the public hearing.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second? seconded by Council Member Garcia. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries with Council Member Spelman off the dias. Item number 94 is the action item to approve an ordinance regarding a change in the street name for a portion of havana street to limon hain la as previously described. Is there a motion? motion is made by Council Member Garcia. Is there a second? seconded by Council Member Lewis. Is there any discussion? Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: we don't have an ordinance that prevents changing a portion of the street --. [Inaudible].

>> This is consistent with our regulation ns ordinances.

>>Lewis: thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item number 94. Item number 93 is to conduct a public hearing to consider a revision of the electric utility department and add a kins dent load special contract ridetory the special services demand tariff. We have one person signed up to speak, Mr. Paul robbins.

>> Good evening. Council, I'm generally against this, but it's fill fhilosofhic as much as technical. Back in december of 1996, this Council froze rates and cut costs in order to buy-down the general debt and reduce rates. Now, we have akud some good amount of money since then, probably in excess of 200 million dollars. And I'm wondering when we're going to buy-down the debt. Right after this happened in '96, your consumer advocate mentioned to me that this well could be a way for the utility to award large rate breaks to customers in order to keep them. Now, this rate case you're reviewing tonight may actually do that, however, I'm asking you to step back and at some point in the near future hold another hearing on the very issue of what to do with this debt. I'm afraid the consumer advocate may be right. And that there may be moves to give rate breaks to many other -- well, several other large customers. And I would much rather this be done -- this money be used to reduce rates. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Robbins. Do we have staff to make any presentation?

>> chuck, do you want to respond? I'll briefly say that the money that we've accumulated in the debt to fee sans fund will be used when it is we know that we know exactly what it is that the state is is going to do when they pass the regulation sos that whatever we do is consistent with law and consistent with regulations and we're not spending money on something that we may not need to do. So it's part of a business decision, but maybe chuck can elaborate on that.

>> That's correct, with the legislation going on in terms of deregulation, the outcome of that Bill in terms of determining stranded costs -- determining stranded costs and etcetera will be -- something we'll have to evaluate after post deregulation. And once we understand the legal ramifications and the outcome of that particular bill.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. That's all the people signed up to speak. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion is made by Council Member Garcia and seconded by Council Member Lewis. Is there any discussion?

>>Lewis: I have a question for chuck?

>>Mayor Watson: are you discussing closing the public hearing? is there any discussion on closing the public hearing? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Public hearing is close the. That will take us to item no. 95, Which is the sub stan timothy mcveigh motion. We're in for a long night, aren't we, guys.

>>.

>>Lewis: I have a question. Speaking of the consumer advocate, what is the at that time tus -- what is the status?

>> cot mccull mcscott mckol lay is the representative. He represents all rate and tariff issues suches the item brait forward tonight, but he is still and we have a letter of agreement with scott that he is the consumer advocate.

>> So he is the consumer advocate. Because I know there was -- the Mayor Pro Tem was questioning the fact whether or not he was -- we had the agreement with him or whatever.

>> Her concerns really were about another issue and I talked to her this week and I'm going to talk to Mr. Manning about hugh we're going to deal with the concerns the Mayor Pro Tem has to deal with specific issues in terms of advice, how you do consumer affairs not related to rate matters and we've not had a chance to talk to scott about that. That's what her issue is.

>>Lewis: there he is. I didn't see you.

>> I didn't see you either, scott. It is nice to see you tonight.

>>Lewis: I was wondering because I know that there was -- the question was raised during the public hearing in East Austin as to whether or not he was still on the job. And I couldn't answer that.

>> Yes. And I would think his being here tonight is evidence of that.

>>Lewis: all right.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Slusher, did you have something?

>>Slusher: yes, Mayor. Would you elaborate beyond the rca on how this helps us prepare for competition and deregulation? [one moment, please] then, but it says there's a $40,000 revenue reduction or up to that much revenue reduction.

>> Yes, if all customers are eligible to do that, took that option and did not lease our facilities or have any maintenance contract with us, then we would not have that offsetting income. If they elected to lease our facilities and us maintain it, then we would have a income stream off set part of the revenue.

>>Slusher: what this means is that customers could -- they could opt into the rates, the special discounted rate that was passed by the Council majority in '96?

>> I would have to defer to bob for the effective date of the original ordinance. Bob?

>> back in '96, bob conn with the law department, back in '96, as you know the Council approved the special contract rate. And what that did is customers that typically might get the lps rate if they sign a longterm agreement they got a reduced rate under the lps special rider. They can do that today, go from general service to the lps rate. As Mr. Manning said they could either buy the facilities from us or go out and buy them on the market. Of course, if they bif buy them on the market we would have to remove ours and the rates go down. They can do that today if they go to general service or lps general contract rate. If we allow them to lease the facilities that are already there, we recover revenue or gain revenue that we would otherwise not have in our hands. It's a good --.

>>Slusher: well then -- I'm sorry. I stepped on your sentence.

>>Lewis: would you --.

>>Mayor Watson: let him finish his sentence.

>>Lewis: he was using the term lps. Would you just make it clear what you are referring to?

>> lps stands for large primary service, that is a customer that utilizes at least 3,000 kw a month.

>>Mayor Watson: anything else?

>>Slusher: okay. Well, so I'm still not clear on the $4 20,000 potential revenue reduction if they can do that already.

>> That's right. Let me explain this. The assumption was there are five customers that either can now move over from gsd, general service demand customer, to the lps customer, or soon can move over. And if they moved over today, which they could do without the lease provision in there, the loss would be greater than 4 20,000. And loss is not the right word it's reduction of revenues because they go from one customer class to the other. Since we use less facilities to serve lps customers the rates are less.

>>Slusher: I don't want to give anybody any ideas but why would somebody eligible to get a lower rate not take advantage of it?

>> they may not --

>> the reason they would not do it is many people don't want to be in the utility business. If they convert and they have to buy equipment and own, maintain and operate, that's not necessarily their core business. So a lot of customers would not -- several customers at least would not take advantage of that option. Because then they do get into either the ownership maintenance and/or contracting back to us if we approve this tariff.

>>Slusher: okay. So does this -- doing this make it more or less likely that they are going to move into that class?

>> it should have no effect other than if they do it, there's an opportunity for us to gain an offset to the loss of that revenue they could do with or without us.

>>Slusher: I would like to take advantage of their consumer advocates present.

>> Mr. Mcullough if you would come forward.

>> Thank you. I'm scott mcullough the consumer advocate. Let me clear up my status tonight. I'm here pursuant to a contract unique to this particular rate proceeding. I think what the questions have been raised in the past months and recently relate to a different contract that I was serving under related to competitiveness review and at this time there is no such contract, it expired in september. I continue to discuss with the utilities the possibility of coming back but at this point I'm not so I'm here for this one time shot, this contract I'm here today today is over when you all finish acting on it. Let me give you a few numbers, and I hope I don't misspeak what I've worked out with the utility. If all customers decide to go with the lps rate with the leasing option and they sign longterm contracts and they all do maintenance, and we're talking about an annual revenue reduction of about $439,000 a year. Of that, $139,000 is related to one customer, the Austin american-statesman. If you are looking at the numbers that were presented to you by staff, one thing that's important to understand so we don't double count is that the american-statesman revenue numbers appear in both the coincident peak estimate and the lps estimate. So if you add the two you are overcounting and double counting. I think I've got it right. I think wife worked it out with them. We're looking at what I predict will likely happen is that everybody will opt in and perhaps everybody will go ahead and sign these longterm contracts with maintenance, again, that's $440,000 a year. What I think is important to understand here, though, is that under this arrangement, nobody is going to do anything different than they do today. The City will still maintain all of the equipment. The only thing that happens is that revenues go down by $440,000 a year. Of course, they sign these longterm contracts, which basically means they promise to stay for some period of years, which I predict will be just about the time competition comes if it comes at all. So what are we buying for $440,000 a year? nothing. We're buying nothing. Nothing at all. These folks cannot leave the system, yes, they could become lps customers if they bought their own equipment. They do have that option. But we get nothing on account of this. I see no benefit. Mr. Robbins mentioned a moment ago the debt management fund. I think that's something to consider because this has an impact on the debt management fund. My understanding of the budget that was approved for this fiscal year is that the debt management fund will approximate $208 million. I don't know where we are actual, that's what I pulled off a handout that was given at a meeting not too long ago. Subtract $440,000 from that. Or if you don't, then expect the residential customers to make it up. That's the effect of approving this. Either everybody else has to make up the $440 thousand dollars or the 208 million goes down. So the degt management fund is relevant to your consideration today. Here's another thing. I'm going to start to do a little utility speak, try to speak english if I can. I think what you have here is the traditional utility action cost shifting and what those of us who understand economics know it's called ramsey pricing. What we're doing is giving people who have perhaps a choice a price break and loading costs and revenue responsibility on those who have no choice. In other words, the residential customers are being penalized for being captive customers. I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong as a matter of policy, and I think it's wrong as a way to run a utility. It's certainly wrong in a municipal owned utility when the folks who own the utility are the residential customers. Here's the real issue. Why are we giving price breaks to folks who can't leave now, making a promise to stay during a period of time when they got to stay anyway, and letting them go when they may be able to leave. And why are we not proposing something for the residential customers? do you see anything here for the residential customers? the questions that Council asked of staff said what's the benefit for residential customers and they said there is none other than perhaps the revenues we maintain by keeping these people while they got the stay anyway. I'm against this as a matter of policy. During a fair rate proceeding I told you that we weren't going to have competition and do we have competition? no. Are we going to have competition? the bills I've seen don't indicate that there is going to be mandatory competition within the City of Austin at least until you approve it. I have finally one great concern related to the debt management fund. I approve the fact we are building up a fund to pay down debt. I have some concerns about whether it is being used properly. I've only got to warn you, I don't know whether it's 208 million rntion I don't know it's 300 million. My estimate of these earnings are a much bigger number and if you worked for the public utility commission today you would be looking for a great -- and you wouldn't have this kind of money in your management fund. Let's look at that big pot of money. Do we really have ironclad guanantees that that money is going to be used to actually pay down debt or are we going to find ourselves in a hole some day and try to figure out how to get into that and not pay down debt instead of raise taxes. Do we have the kind of ironclad guanantees that money will in fact be used to pay down debt of all classes of customers? perhaps there is incentive later to be doing what we're doing today, reduce the cbs to that fund by other classes of customers besides residential customers, meaning the residential customers are going to pay down the debt. I think this is a bad idea. I think the staff hasn't thought it through. And I think that you should tell them to go back and get their priorities straight before they try to give big breaks to the big boys and remember who owns it. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>>Slusher: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Slusher.

>>Slusher: let Mr. Manning or anybody from the staff respond.

>> I would like to respond.

>>Mayor Watson: please, Mr. Conn.

>> I don't know if you have been following what's going on at the puc the last couple of years, but, you know, I hear what Mr. Mcullough says and frankly I think what he is saying does a disservice to the utility and he knows what he is saying is not true. As far as where the puc is today, the puc knows, and I'll say it and it came out in hearings in '97, the puc knows legislators know that most utilities in Texas are overcollecting in the rates they charge. The reason that's happening is people are in the process of trying to save up money, the utilities are trying to save up money to poun down costs. We have transition plans that have been approved by the puc for various utilities. They have what they call glide path into competition. The puc is helping the iou's get ready for competition. They know that the utilities are offsetting depreciation and loading costs so that they can reduce investment in the future and we're trying to do the same thing here. I take great exception to Mr. Mcullough's statement that we don't do anything for the residential customers. We're spending millions of dollars right now for the residential customers, using in his argument, I could see lps customers going what are you doing for us. We're talking about a reduction of revenues of perhaps if these customers choose to do this, several hundred thousand sand dollars. On the lease they could do it today anyway. They could go from general service demand customer to lps customer without the lease option chts what this does is it gives us an opportunity to recover revenues that are lost. What I would like to do and you've been hearing some of these things, but me remind you some of the things that we're doing right now to help the residential customers to the tune of several millions of dollars. We're looking at technology improvements on a --.

>>Mayor Watson: if I might interrupt you and I don't mean to cut you off and I don't mean to cut Mr. Mcullough off and Council, if you dissent from this let me know, but we have quite a few people here. I apologize. I anticipated since no one had signed up, Mr. Mcullough had not signed up to speak that we would be much more rapid moving through this item. I will tell you from my personal perspective, listening to this debate here just now puts me in a situation where I would prefer to receive a report that I would have an opportunity to review, ask questions about. The way I tend to ask questions before I vote here tonight based upon what I have just heard in this give and take. I don't know whether the rest of the Council shares that. Let me ask the City Manager if you would be willing to have such a report --

>> given the comments made by the consumer advocate I think we ought to be given the opportunity to lay out in writing what these two specific actions do and I would like you to -- I would like to recommend the item being pulled until I have an opportunity to present a Written report and we can have that discussion in open session. We'll also let in mcullough know and have a copy of the report so he is able to read it, commented on it.

>>Mayor Watson: I think that's very important. Does Council have any dissent with that?

>>Lewis: I would like to ask one question and maybe get that as part of the report. Would you make a reference in the report as to how this relates to the rate reduction that we gave to the big six, what in '95 and '96? I would like to know how this compares to that rate reduction.

>>Mayor Watson: please make that part of the report.

>> Thank you. We'll do that.

>>Mayor Watson: let's -- the item has been pulled. Thank you for being here Mr. Mcullough and thank you for the input. So item no. 95 Has been pulled with the idea we are going to get a report and Mr. Mcullough will be give ann opportunity to see that report and provide the input that the Council will need also.

>>Goodman: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>>Goodman: relative to that and a future item on the Council agenda that will be for a few of us co-sponsored, that's why I really think the consumer advocacy position has to be part of an ongoing information sharing process and solid position. Nobody talks to everybody and we might as well solidify the ability to be able to share information so that we don't have this information ever again.

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>> Ever again?

>>Goodman: ever again.

>>Mayor Watson: item 49. I'll recognize Council Member Slusher. I'm sorry. Councilmember gaurtion -- I will recognize chrrb.

>>Slusher: I'll tag in and help you next, Mayor. I would move for sf 5 on this tract.

>> I'll second the motion.

>>Mayor Watson: is there any discussion.

>>Slusher: I need to ask a question.

>>Mayor Watson: if you will come forward.

>> Yes, Council Members.

>>Slusher: yes, the neighborhood has asked for a masonry fence and I understand you would prefer wrought iron. Would you enlighten me on why one over the other?

>> we have three reasons, Council Member, for a wrought iron or steel fence, decorative fence. The first reason would be for security. We would be able to see through the fence to the vacant lot that's up the hill from us. The second reason would be because we're in an area of high clay content and we have -- and masonry fence is a much harder fence to maintain on a site -- on a sloping hill with a high clay content. The third reason is that a masonry fence basically would catch that -- we have a huge hill above us and the water coming down off the hill might catch and in a catastrophic I vent catch behind a wall too much which might be a problem.

>>Slusher: well, I find that fairly persuasive so I would add the wrought eastern fence to it.

>> And I'll consider that a friendly amendment. Motion has been made and seconded. Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: did you say mf 5?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>>Lewis: is that what --.

>>Mayor Watson: sf 5.

>>Slusher: sf 5.

>>Lewis: is there an overlay? conditional overlay at all on it or just sf 5?

>>Slusher: sf 5.

>>Mayor Watson: sf 5.

>>Slusher: what kind of overlay were you --.

>>Lewis: well, I mean, before the conditional overlay was considering the number of trips and all that. Of course that was with the mf 3.

>>Mayor Watson: that involved different zoning.

>>Lewis: let me ask you a question. Sf 5, would that -- I know you are saying that it's going to be low density or medium density. Would that accomplish the same thing? a sf 5 zoning?

>> I believe, Council Member, sf 5 would allow me seven units as opposed to 10 units.

>>Lewis: thank you, sir.

>>Slusher: Mr. Scharfe, we had talked one time about there not be a left turn during the day on to lamar.

>> Yes, sir.

>>Slusher: are you okay with that? I mean that is a busy street right there.

>> Put in a sign that says no left turn, for example? from my property on to --.

>>Slusher: during hours.

>> I'm fine with that if -- that's fine.

>>Slusher: okay. Till how about 7 to 7? that gets us past rush hour.

>> Yes, uh-huh, I think yes, that will be fine.

>>Slusher: that would be an overlay.

>>Mayor Watson: part of an overlay. As maker of the second I'll consider that a friendly amendment. Thank you for your koorption in this manner. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. -- This is on first reading. Opposed say no. The motion carries on a vote of six in favor with the Mayor Pro Tem off the dais. That will take us to item number 26. We have a number of people signed up to speak on this item, but this is an item that we have heard a great deal about. I'll recognize Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: thank you very much, Mayor. I would like to move that we suspend the rules to allow a limited amount of time to the people that are here, the parties that are here, and what I would like to do is I would like to give ten minutes to bfi, ten minutes to tds and 20 minutes to the neighbors who have not had a chance to speak here, and that would be my motion.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to have -- to suspend the rules to allow bfi a ten minute presentation, tds a ten minute presentation, followed by the neighbors for the neighborhood residents for 20 minutes. Is there a second?

>> I'll second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Council Member Slusher. Is there discussion? Council Member Spelman.

>>Spelman: should we provide wlmi for the opportunity to make a presentation?

>>Garcia: my response to that would be that because there are issues having to do with certain aspects of that particular landfill, since they are not in the recommendation at this time, that we wait on it.

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>>Garcia: maybe -- I know this issue is going to come back up.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask -- I can't imagine that, but I guess it could happen. Let me ask you if there is anyone that wants to -- I'll consider Council Member Spelman's -- I'll consider that a motion to amend? is there anyone that seconds that motion?

>>Mayor Watson: it would give some time to waste management. Is there a second?

>>Garcia: let me go ahead and consider -- we're talking about ten minutes. Ten minutes, that's a friendly amendment.

>>Mayor Watson: and the maker of the second, Council Member Slusher, do you consider that friendly.

>>Slusher: yes, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: 10 minutes for bfi, tds, waste management and 20 minutes for neighborhood representation.

>>Garcia: they don't have to use the whole time.

>>Mayor Watson: right.

>>Lewis: do we have any cards for and against from the neighborhood?

>>Mayor Watson: we do have cards and I'm not sure if they are all for or against.

>>Lewis: are we going to split it up?

>>Mayor Watson: what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask those who represent bfi and hopefully they've put their names here and I can pull out the cards to come up first, then I'm going to ask tds and then waste management and those who represent the neighborhood, I'll go in the order in which the cards are here.

>>Slusher: I would also like a presentation from the chairman of the swac.

>>Mayor Watson: why don't we start with that and Mr. Porter if you would come forward, I guess you can see there is some effort to limit the amount of time on this, but use your discretion. As chairman of the solid ways advisory committee we would like you to make a presentation.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmembers, basically you've seen our resolution and I would like to reiterate that we feel like longterm contract --.

>>Mayor Watson: I think I just fouled up. Before you start, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and I don't think I ever took a vote on it. Is there -- is there any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The motion carries with the Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Spelman off the dais. Please.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The recommendation that we sent to you on February 22 rpd had four components. The first was we recommend the Council execute previously negotiated 30 year contract with tds with prohibitions against incineration and clarification of acceptable waste. Swak had passed this in august of last year. This is merely an extension of that action. We also recommend the Council elect the City Manager to enter a short term, 90 to 120 days emergency contract for solid waste disposal services as need to do relief pressure on the routes that are in the northern part of the City that are currently set up to use the northern route. Northern landfill. Our third recommendation is a little more detailed and I would like to focus on that. We recommend any negotiations for longterm contract with bfi take into account the following issues. Bfi's failure to meet minimum requirements for phase 1 evaluation of rfp, environmental liability concerns raced by the carter burr guess report, you have heard that report, have copies of it. Concerns about neighborhood impacts and land use compatibility which you are going to hear a good bit about. An objective evaluation of the need for a north landfill site. And I would like to speak to this a moment. The concern has been that the transportation issue has been presented that requires the north side because of travel times, logistics, et cetera. This is based on a transportation model that I feel is fairly two dimensional. It talks about entering data at one particular time that is going to determine how long it takes to drive a truck a certain distances. That's good only as a snapshot of what is going on at the time that day or two take is entered. I think what is really called for is a more expansive stud that I looks at what is going to be changing over the time of the contract in the way of road caps it, demographics, population centers, et cetera. Now, this is something that can easily be done on a computer based model, but a three dimension al look at what is going to be happening will give us a more realistic read about whether or not we even need a northern landfill site and if so other details that might impact its location. And this brings us to our last recommendation and our third point when is consideration of the impact of the recommendation of the solid waste operations task force that. Report has just been released. Included in it are references to east-west routes versus north-south routes, dirl transfer station, other issues that will impact the need for certain transportation networks and I think that those areas need to be looked at. This is all information that can be assessed and quite honestly probably should have been assessed previously, but information that with a reasonable amount of time can be put to rest prior to moving into a contract that will potentially reach into the next generation. I would urge your consideration of that. Finally, swac recommends that contracts being negotiated should be brought back to Council for ratification prior to execution. I think it's important to be able to take one last look before committing to some of the dollars and time frames that we're talking about here. I thank you for your attention

>>Garcia: thank you, Mr. Porter. Questions for the chairman? kmurb?

>>Slusher: thank you. Would you elaborate a little bit on the discussion about whether bfi made the first cut or not at swac?

>> yes, I've seen the document in question and the-toe points that were gathered for the phase 1 evaluation summed to 101, 105 as the cut I don't have, 107 was the number we heard for some time. This was in error. Now, the points that were accumulated were based on a variety of things. I think one of the factors had to do with capacity. It was requirement for passing face 1 as well as environmental compliance. The City Manager has indicated that it would be possible to declare this an emergency acknowledge throw out in effect the grading effort that was done as part of the rfp process. That is entirely possible. But I think that the underlying issues need to still be considered. And we're talking about a capacity issue we have in this item 26 talking about a ten year contract with a five year extension for a landfill that may have seven years in it. This strains credibility. Until you look at what options are available and that includes transporting waste from one point to another. This gets back into looking at how you are impacting the environment by moving a lot of waste around a region. So I think that quite obviously they did not make the cut, that there are things that probably could be done and should be done to assess whether modifications can be made to their operation to allow them to meet that. Once again this is going to take time and research that hasn't been done yet. But it's very clear cut.

>>Slusher: and the on advisory commission called for further study on there needs to be a north Austin landfill?

>> exactly. Based on the transportation model that staff proposed that we felt was not complete enough, it was merely a two dimensional snapshot, not a three dimensional model.

>>Slusher: as an experienced visor in this field, do you have any feelings before that study is done on whether there needs to be one in the north? sorry to put you on the spot.

>> That's quite all right. My genuine feeling on that is that the -- there is not sufficient information to determine that at this time. And that's why we had included that in there. We would do as many other cities have done fine with a single landfill. It's merely a matter of cost when you start looking at that. And also a matter in this case of a City that's blessed in the sense with having at this time four landfills, one of which is closing. One of which has been deemed an environmental problem that can be rectified and one that may that we don't know for sure because of lack of research. Competition is a benefit to the City. Having those landfills is good. Whether or not we actually need to device and design our routes, which is the issue here to utilize all those has yet to be determined. So I think we're in fine shape going either way actually. But I don't have the information to make that call honestly. That's what I'm asking for.

>>Slusher: okay. Thank you, sir.

>> Sorry to wiggle.

>>Slusher: that's all right.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first bidder that we will call is tds and ms. Lauren ross is the -- is the speaker that's signed up and Mr. Mcullough has also signed on this one and he is registered on the card that he is against the bfi contract and is donating time to ms. Ross. Dr. Ross.

>> Councilmember Garcia, could I say something?

>>Garcia: set the clock for ten minutes. You can use the ten minutes any which way you want.

>> Thank you very much. I had not signed up. I did not not anticipate a change in rule and I did not eel ice that I would be called on this quick to speak but thank you for the opportunity. I'm bob gregory.

>>Garcia: stop the clock for a second. Let's see if we can get him a card so he can sign the card.

>> I have a card. Dennis, would you turn in my card? one will be turned in, sir.

>>Garcia: okay. Welcome, sir.

>> Start the clock. I'm bob gregory, one of the owners of Texas disposal systems. My brother jimmy is here tonight and he's the other owner and we're very pleased to have a part in this process. It's been a long process, about 26 months. I've talked to each of you, I thank four the opportunity to do that. I've given you materials. We started out about 11 years ago to set out a facility after the waste energy plant was cancelled to build a facility the City needed with landfill, composting and recycling and we did that and we have an excellent operating record now for eight years and I'm not sure if we have any neighbors here tonight, I'm sure we'll find out. I don't think so. We've not had anyone come out and speak against us in this two-year process that we have been underway with. We do have 50 years capacity. We -- we participated throughout the bid process. There was clearly only two bidders up until last Saturday and it was waste management and bfi and when waste management was excluded bfi was added by City staff. They had been eliminated two years ago from the bidding process, had not passed the scoring that was required to pass into phase 1 which was two years ago this last week. And was announced to you all in october of '97 that they had been eliminated in a letter from willie rhoades. From a landfill capacity standpoint, I recognize tonight that our proposal is set for 30-year proposal and bfi is set for a 10-year proposal. I would like to remind you that bfi's capacity is only about 7.4 years remaining assuming that the City continues to haul -- or hauls waste, the prescribed waste to them that you have proposed. You might want to consider if the City past this ordinance -- passed this ordinance or this contract, whether -- what position the City would be in in a couple years if they came back for an extension and you had given them a ten-year contract. From a transportation issue, the City staff has done an analysis that we would very much like for you all to study. And in a nutshell the analysis is basically from a best case scenario, assuming that the City was hauling to the bfi landfill now. In reality the City's rate structure is based on hauling from the City landfill and about 90% of their waste goes -- of your waste, our waste, goes to the City landfill. The City landfill is in fairly close proximity to the tds landfill. In 1995 approximately 40,000 tons of the City's waste came to our landfill and it worked fine, wokd without disruption to City services and the collection services. We saw then it would work and we had an opportunity to demonstrate and the City had an opportunity to demonstrate it could do it without increasing costs. The City budget shows a landfill disposal charge or a budgeted amount higher than our disposal costs so we submit to you that with the City's landfill cost to run its own land fill higher than our bid rate and the City already going to southeast Travis County for 90%, that it would not result in the prescribed 40 -- or 49 39 cent per month increase as has been committed by some. Environmental considerations, tds has an excellent environmental record. There are two landfills located in east Travis County adjacent to each other that share some of the same problems. I don't have any qualm to pick with bfi, I think they have a good facility, it's just that their next door to a facility that was exclude understand this process. From a standpoint of costs, the tds proposal is -- starts at $14 per ton. The state average disposal rate is $24 per ton. We are 42% under what the state average disposal rate is. It's a rate that we're very please to do offer the City, one that we think is very competitive and one that we think the City should be and hopefully will be pleased with for a 30-year contract. We urge the City Council to approve the tds 30-year contract for disposal of all the City's waste with a designated volume specified and instrubt staff to continue utilizing the bfi landfill on a year to year day cyst for the same follow until the City is able to reroute its collection crews to use the tds landfill or permit a north transfer station. In the alternative, tds urges the City Council to approve a short term emergency contract to allow time for the questions addressed in -- in recommendation no. 3 Of the February 22, 1999 swac resolution that you have been presented by the chair unanimous. I would like to give the rest of my time to Dr. Lauren ross.

>>Garcia: you have four minutes and 34 seconds.

>> Thank you, Council Members, I am here tonight to speak in support of sending our solid waste to the Texas disposal systems landfill. But mostly what I have to say I think has to do with the larger environmental issues that wrap around this issue. I think we're in a much better position tonight than we were when I was last here speaking on this issue because you do have the carter burgess report and that report confirmed several of the things that we have been saying to the Council about the problems associated with the waste management site. And I think there are clear environmental concerns associated with that site that we cannot lose sight of. First of all, I want to remind you that there are a large volume of chemicals that are suspected to be contained within that site. There are 21,000 drums of waste and we don't know either the content, nor the condition of those drums. We also know that there were pits that contained a capacity of 1,788,000 gallons of waste and we know that the types of waste that went in were known to be hazardous explosive, cars sin generallic and toxic. Thooes h. We also know those wastes were poorly placed, put into pits and the sides of the pits were observed to be weathered taylor clay. There is a dra mat ib difference between the ability of the unweathered taylor clay and the weathered taylor clay to hold and contain wastes. We also know that we are measuring toxic carvin generallic volatile organic compounds in the ground water associated with the waste management facility and the karlter burgess report confirms what I have said before which is that the current monitoring system at that landfill is not adequate to determine whether we have migration from that site and I think that's a concern that the City ought to have and hold in their mind beyond issuing the contract. There is definitely a link between bfi and the waste management site. The first link is geographic, they share a common boundary. The second link is hydro geologic. They are connected by that unweathered taylor clay and there is a hydrogeologic path way for the migration. And the third way that they are connected is that we're seeing the same kind of chemicals that we've seen in the waste management site showing up in bfi monitor wells and that is a confirmation that we're having those chemicals migrating between the two adjacent facilities. Let me just say in conclusion a couple of things about Texas disposal systems. First of all, that landfill is a naturally excellent geologic site for a landfill. It is the place in this community where we have the thickest depth of taylor clay and from a ground water and environmental perspective it's the perfect place for a landfill. They have em employed an extremely reliable minor construction meted tho utilizes that natural clay and comes back and recome pakts a very thick liner anyplace where they encounter the weathered taylor clay. So in theory they have a good site, they have a good system, and then the next thing is that they have very careful records and documentation, and you can see that in the tnrcc files and you could also see that in the carter burgess report. I liked that report, by the way. I really want to commend the City in doing that. I think it went right to the heart of the issues that you need to consider. What that report shows is very careful records and documentation of something that is critical for waste management and environmental protection and that's quality assurance. [Buzzer sounds]. And quality control. I think from an environmental and water quality perspective the choice is clear, tds is an excellent landfill and I commend the City for granting a contract to them.

>>Goodman: thank you, Dr. Ross. Is that it for tds then?

>>Garcia: that's the time for tds.

>>Goodman: okay. So -- okay. We're going to break into the order just a little bit because there is a representative here from the office of donna dux state representative for district 50 and also there is a representative here from ron davis, county commissioner, and they -- chris is here somewhere, and they wanted to read statements from those two respective offices. Thank you very much.

>> My name is chad dunn, a legislative assistant with if office -- or for dawnna dukes and she has asked mow to deliver the statement to you and the audience. I write to you as an advocate of the residents of east Austin and northeastern travis county. I apologize I was unable to discuss my views on this topic earlier. As you may know the Austin community landfill is located in the heart of my electricity I have detective. Over the past few weeks a member of my staff has followed the developments of the Austin City Council and I felt it was important that I share with you my concern over the positive posed contract with the fbi landfill n october it was discovered that areas of the Austin community landfill were not properly maintained and as a result lee chat was leaking from the facility. The tnrcc responded and has requested many improvements at the facility. Because the landfill was begun in 1970, the facility was not required to surround the perimeter with a lining. During that decade hazardous industrial waste was deposited at the site. It is the opinion of carter and burgess the independent investigator in this matter that the possibility exists for these materials to leak into the neighboring creek n followup to their visit in the fall the tnrcc performed a monitoring well test this week at the site. The results of this examination will not be available for at least two weeks. My office has contacted the investigator and I am hopeful we will see positive results from these tests rather than negative. It is by desire to per swid to you postpone your consideration of agenda item 26 until the tnrcc can retrieve the results of their study. I believe it is imperative for us to protect the water in Austin and seems to me we should gather all the possible information before the City makes a ten-year commitment. Thank you.

>>Goodman: and please express our appreciation to the representative for sending her statement.

>> City Council Members, Mayor this is from commissioner ron davis, who has sent me. He was unable to attend tonight. He really wanted to but was unable to. This is a press release that was issued on February 24th. It states: for many years we have been struggling with the quality of life issues in east and northeast Travis County. For example, East Austin gasoline storage facility, the tank farm, the City of Austin own solid waste facility, contamination of springdale park, the subsequent cleanup effort and the bfi recycling facility. The community is moving into a forward direction where the quality of life issues will be enhanced. An example of this is we have located a new Austin community college eastern campus that the City of Austin has supported and helped to make a reality. Another example is the ara project to enhance a community that needs economic development. These are two examples in which the City has had some involvement to ensure that this particular part of the community has had an opportunity to better itself. Now, however, the City is faced with a decision that will either lessen or improve the quality of life in the urban area of precinct 1. That decision is whether to contract to use the landfill site located in northeast Austin near giles road and north 290, to collect and store the City trash t community strongly opposes this action. Here are the recommendation for the City of Austin City Council. First, the recommendations are that the City of Austin vacant any opportunity to use urban adjacent neighborhood landfills for the City to collect its trash. Second, that the City look at alternatives, one being to use transfer stations thereby reducing truck traffic on our roads. Third, the City should be both responsive and responsible to the citizens of east and northeast Travis County. A highly populated area. Lastly, the City may become liable for the remediation of contamination of these sites. The county is currently dealing with a remediation process of the old travis county closed landfill. It cost taxpayers money to remediate this landfill. There is not on clear picture of the contamination at the active landfill site. Further, it has been pointed out that there may be migration from these currently active sites. The community strong li encourages the Austin City Council to vote down any contract the City tracks delivery to urban landfills. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you very much. And again, please express our appreciation to the commissioner. Okay. Next is bfi and we have linda rife. And she has nine minutes given to her by ray Shoal.

>> Are we going get the ten minutes? Kirk and I were going to split that if that's okay. Is that all right?

>>Garcia: the motion was to give you ten minutes so you can break them up any way you want. The Mayor Pro Tem was in the back when we did that resolution in that -- I mean that motion.

>>Goodman: jack chrem meant and rachel gave you their time.

>> We're fine here. I'm linda rife with bfi, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members. I wish I were a gar banl fairy and I could wave my wand and the garbage would go away and we would all be a lot happier but that's not the case. There's lots of issues and I want to address each one I've heard over the last week as quickly as possible. Kirt burton is with me, our engineer, he is over all landfills in south Texas. We have 17 near in Texas. First of all, capacity issues. The reason that we had problems the first time even being considered for -- if -- in our competition against waste management is we were honest about how long we had at our landfillen and we weren't not going to tell you the truth that that's what happened. Right now if you look at the tnrrc records you have a life span of 8.9 years. The whole thing with life spans is they are not black and white. It's not like picking up the garbage, it's not like here it is and now it's gone. It depends on volume, it depends on compaction rate. When the City of Austin came back to me several weeks ago and said will you honor your proposal, I had to go back and talk to my team and I came back and said we could honor the price, but I can't honor the terms. When I worked it out, what I could do is this. If we have 8.9 years on our life span, we figure with our new compaction technology which has been in place for a little less than a year that we could get up to 10.9 years. With logical diversion, including using the City of Austin's landfill for construction and debris, we could add 3.2 years getting up to 14.1 years. That still didn't give me 15 years that the City asked for. I told them there was no way I could get them 15 years unless we did a 10 foot vertical expansion which possibly get us to 18. We have the capacity there at the landfill. It's environmentally secure, it's dedicated disposal for the capacity of the City of Austin and sure rounding areas for at least another ten years without any kind of expansion. 2, On the bid proposal, I'm not going to defend anything what the staff or I'm not a lawyer here, but we submitted a proposal, we went through the landfill evaluation. That evaluation was not for all landfills in the City of Austin. The City of Austin's landfill wasn't part of that, the Travis County landfill wasn't supposed to be part of that, it kind of ended up doing that. We assumed that that evaluation was because we've still although more expensive than waste management, we're kind of in the rung. Our neighbors are the same neighbors as waste management. They are not a new group of people that are just being brought into this process. When I found out that the City asked us about our proposal and if we would honor our price I immediately called those neighbors because I have a relationship with harris branch, walnut place and chimney creek. The idea of a proposal process is not to serve bureaucracy but to serve the citizens of Austin with a fair and environmentally sound solution. I believe that the staff recommendation accomplishes that goal. On transportation issues, the City's volume will be about 10% of our total volume going into that landfill. You really aren't talking about a lot more trucks that are going into that landfill and if we diverted some waste it could even be a smaller number of trucks going in that landfill because what we would be bringing in is compacted garbage and possibly taking out construction and degree which is compacted. I'm not a truck riding expert and I live out of my car, you should look at it, it's got phones and files and all of that, and I by guess where it's logical -- buy gas where it's logical, sometimes on the north, sometimes on 2 south, I don't always drive back to my house to buy gas at my local station even if it is the least expensive. I think the staff recommendation does the same. On the water issues area, Mr. Carter answered two questions yesterday at the discussion group. Where will the water run from the barrel sites on the waste management landfill. He said most likely they will run back towards the travis county landfill. And how likely is it that waste management landfill will leak into bfi, he said not very likely. The reason he said that is because our landfill is up grading to waste management's and I can't tell you it's uphill because my engineer friend will hit me, but it's upgrade yentd which is somewhat like uphill and he's going to talk in more specifics about that. No matter ha the process is, the way the state legislation works, is that you have ground water monitoring wells. They go on our landfill anywhere between 40 and 60 feet depending on the geology of the land. As soon as -- and so does waste management along those lines. As soon as any ground water hits those wells, you go into remediation with the state. That takes in public notices, that takes in go ahead and clean it up, that takes in third party assessments, and it -- it's a whole big long process and again I can go into more explanation on that. But if there is anything that ever travels uphill over to our landfill, it would hit their ground water wells, then hit our ground water wells and we would have to work with the state and a third party person to clean that up. The idea here is we have have had problems in the past being next to waste management. We had gas problems, methane gas problems. When that happened, we put in and with the help from the City because they purchased our electricity, we put in methane power generators and we took care of not only our gas problems but waste management's gas problems because we started pulling methane gas off of our landfill as well by drilling pipes. So we took care of our problems and our neighbor's problems. We are a large company and sometimes that's a bad thing in Austin, but I believe that we're a large company and that we can take care of whatever financial problems that come up. Last but not least, bfi has had a long relationship with the City. We've helped light 20,000 homes this very day. We built the City's recycling program. We've assisted in the landfill even when you owned your own taking on 10% of your waste. We've even been pooper scoopers for the ricky Williams parade. We've had bad times too. That's part of a relationship. But we believe that we're environmentally safe. We have the capacity to serve the City of Austin. And we urge the Council to accept their staff's recommendation. Kirk?

>> I'm Kirk the district vice president for south and central Texas. As such I look over six landfills oust of the 17 operating landfills that bfi has in the state of Texas. Again, I would like to reiterate that bfi since [inaudible] does have the capacity to serve the City of Austin for ten year contract period. And further, with the compaction and diverse strategies we can put into place in order to make this happen. Bfi's longterm commitment to solid waste management in the Austin area through the election, recycling as well as the landfill. In terms of the ground water situation, that's been alluded to it's very important that members understand that the ground water travels predominantly from the north to south. Our site is from the north, is north of the waste management site and ground water travels to the south. And the last thing I would like to say is we do support the City staff in their recommendation that the City needs two sites, one north and one south, after we handled the traffic loads and look at the traffic situation all over. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you. Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: may I ask a question? you made reference to the fact that the ground water normally travels from the north to the south. At what depth do you go in your landfill?

>> our permit currently states we are 15 feet below grade. This is what was Written [inaudible]. Currently we go down to a depth of about 30 feet below ground level. It various throughout the landfill itself.

>>Lewis: so if you are 30 feet down and wmi's landfill is where it is currently, that mean it would actually be going downhill to get to you? I mean if you are 30 feet below grade. In other words, I'm not saying the bottom of the landfill is what is leaking, but if some portion of the landfill on the south side is leaking, it could actually go into your landfill because you are 30 feet down at the beginning. Am I correct?

>> I think you have to look in carter burgess study, figure 7 does a very good job at --.

>>Lewis: I know. On -- on the ground elevation, no, it wouldn't run into yours but if you dug down 30 feet, you would be below the ground level that is to the south of you.

>> Yes, sir, what I was referring to is the ground water he will vagz which are referred to in figure 7 of the report.

>>Lewis: well, I'm mostly referring to the leachate and it's supposedly either in the Travis County landfill or in the wmi landfill, one of the two has it, and so I'm just trying to figure out if it was there and if you was down 30 feet, then it would actually you would be below grade as far as they are concerned.

>> Well, in terms of the actual -- the landfill depths, the site -- the waste management site is deeper than our site.

>>Lewis: yeah, but I'm saying now that they've filled it up next to you, you are -- and I don't know how closure to the line of where you are operating from as far as the line goes, but at some point you are below them if you are operating at 30 feet below level, ground level.

>> Well, our operations like theirs below grade at some point in time, but the overall elevation I think -- again, you have to refer back to the report and the tnrcc report to adequately define which way the ground water flows.

>>Lewis: there's a statement they'd you had 8.9 years. Is that the-open '97-'98 report that you sent to tnrcc?

>> yes, sir.

>>Lewis: at what tonnage per year?

>> I believe that was based on the 7100 cubic yards per year. I deal in cubic yards and tons. I'm not sure what the conversion ratio, I believe it's a 3.3 cubic yards equaling a ton. And again, that was what I was referring to in terms of landfill capacity and landfill life. Depending on how much compaction -- compaction effort is applied you can force so many gate yards or what the truck brings into the site into the -- into the same hole.

>>Lewis: all right.

>> And through the efforts and through the equipment we currently have at the bfi sunset farms landfill, we have the ability to put three cubic yards, three trash trucks, I should say kukic yards of material into one airspace yard.

>> Right. So would the --

>> and that's what would bring our -- that's what brings our landfill life above the ten-year level.

>>Lewis: so would the -- with the staff's proposal of 75% I think it is, what would that be in cubic yards? would that be -- and I know you said you would do some transferring of material, but if you kept your same 77 cubic yards and you received the City's, how many cubic yards would that be in a rough estimate?

>> on a daily basis, probably right around 10,000 cubic yards per day. Which that is -- with those current rates, that is how we still have the overthe ten year capacity level that is required in the contract. We would not be up here saying we could provide a ten year capacity for the City of Austin's trash if we couldn't do it. [One moment please].

>>Lewis: how many days do you operate a year, 300?

>> currently we are only closed on Sunday. We operate on Saturday.

>>Lewis: that's 310. Let's say 300. So --

>> [inaudible] holidays, yes, sir.

>>Lewis: basically, that's -- that's -- 63 million cubic yards -- if you didn't change any of your operation, 63 million cubic yards a year. 63.9 Million yards per year at a 300 day operation.

>> No, I don't believe so.

>>Lewis: well, 7100 cubic yards per day, times 30, would -- with 30 days a month, and so -- well, I guess I could do 24 or 26. Since you are closed four days a month. But roughly 60 million cubic yards and you -- how -- my question is how are you going to determine when one of your trucks come in as to whether or not they have recycled -- not recyclable, but the debris that's not xat I didn't believe and -- compact I didn't believe and someone else comes to your landfill that has a vehicle, how are you going to determine before they unload it whether or not it's compactable or not.

>> Everybody that comes out there is compacted.

>>Lewis: I know, you said that you were going to connect the non-household waste or whatever over to the City landfill. You know. The debris.

>> That's a possibility. That's one of the diversion strategies. But that is a problem more of the function of the type of waste, whether it's a c and d material that could go to a type 4 site, which I think the city is looking at. In terms of the actual volume, the yearly volume at the site currently we are receiving right around 200,000 cubic yards per month. That ends up -- that's gate yards per month. Extend that out, you are looking at about 2.4 million gate yards, that's truck, container yards per year to the site. That equates, divide it by 3, it tells you how many cubic yards of actual landfill air space is consumed. That's the difference between the state report and what we see in our fliers. We fly every one of our site using aerial photo grammetry, that allows us to the amount of soil used for cover, types of wastes that have come in, allows us to determine compaction ratios that lets us project our landfill life.

>>Lewis: what is your authorized height that you can go to at the present time?

>> at the present time I think our current elevation, we can go up to I believe is 710 mean sea level.

>>Lewis: 710 above sea level?

>> yes, sir.

>>Lewis: your place is at what elevation?

>> it varies anywhere from 650 -- the ground level out there is -- varies anywhere from 650 down to -- to 630, I believe.

>>Lewis: 630.

>> Yes, sir. Which gives you roughly about a 70 to 80 foot height of -- of landfill out there that we are permitted currently at, yes, sir.

>>Lewis: all right, that's all that I have. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you. I am going to -- [inaudible]. Okay. If we can find a quorum while Council Member Garcia explains how we are going to do this.

>>Garcia: actually bfi had one minute 51 seconds more, you wanted to make a closing statement, but I guess you all all -- you all don't have to use it.

>> If there are any other questions we will be glad to address them at any time.

>> There was two things I wanted to clarify. One is in this contract we are not given 75% of the waste for 10 years. In fact we are not guaranteed in this contract any waste. It's based on cost. And each year as the cost changed between the two contracts they go different directions. So I wanted to ensure that was -- I also wanted to apologize to a couple of the Council Members that I did not get to talk to because I thought there was still an anti-lobbying clause on this contract until late Tuesday night. Thanks.

>>Garcia: thank you very much. Will the neighbors from chimney hills and from harris branch and from the neighborhoods in the area, the motion that the Council passed was to give you 20 minutes. The cards that we have from the people that have signed up add up to about 80 minutes. Some people have been assigned more time by other people who have signed and given -- donated their time. As an example, we have some people that have -- amy kersner, for instance, has 12 minutes, chuck croft, I haven't seen chuck. Is he here.

>> Back here.

>>Garcia: okay, you have nine minutes. Trek english has nine minutes.

>> I only need two minutes tonight since you are cutting it short.

>>Garcia: the way the motion was passed, the clock -- you will see there, it will have 20 minutes. So you can come and -- in the in order -- in the in order that you want to. The Mayor Pro Tem can call it from the cards that are here. It's any way that you want to, but the Council decided we would hear 20 minutes of testimony from the neighborhood. We gave 10 minutes to each company and then 20 minutes to you. So chuck do you want to start?

>> I will start. If you won't start the clock until I get up there.

>> Mr. Garcia, can we speak in the order.

>>Garcia: sure.

>> I would like to speak quickly.

>>Garcia: sure. The Mayor Pro Tem will conduct the meeting. She just asked me to explain.

>> Okay. Thank you. My name is --

>> [inaudible]. Tell us the order.

>> Can we do this real quickly. I am going to speak and then joyce best will speak. Chuck croft. And at that point deading on the time we have left, -- depending on the time we have left, either trek english or ms. Carter. If you can -- what clock am I looking at? this one right here. I need to know when I am within about five minutes. Judy maggio can you --

>> I am amy kirsten. I am the president of chimney hills north neighborhood association, I am representing about 230 homes tonight. One of my biggest problems is there is a flawed process in your rfp process. What that is is that at the swac meeting on Monday night when I asked what the wmi score or potential score under their environmental impact portion of the rfp, we were told out of a possible 50 points, they received 47. What I would like to know is why the City staff did not call up tnrcc and check on the last five or so years of state inspections of wmi. They had nine violations in the last five years, tds had only two. There's your flawed process. The other thing that I have to say to you tonight, concerned citizens have been speaking about this for many years. You are trying to squelch concerned citizens who after the carter-burgess report came out was quite obvious we were right all along. We are still right. That has not changed. Mr. Garcia, yesterday's work session, you said highway 290 is not a busy highway. Since the only traffic study for this area that was recently conducted by the City was performed on giles road, that's a one or three quarter mile road that runs only in front of the Austin community landfill and bfi. How could you possibly know that if that -- if there's not been any other study, none whatsoever.

>>Garcia: because I live out there.

>> There has been no study performed in recent history.

>> I drive that road every day.

>> I live out there. Very companies to the landfill. You need to come out right about where the landfill is.

>>Garcia: I am there.

>>Goodman: why don't we just --

>> no study has been authorized by the City on traffic or any of the impact of this neighborhood I want you to consider that. That's all that I have to say. Thank you.

>>Goodman: I understand. Let's try to keep, though, since we have a limited amount of time, things that we can discuss later and make your points for the record. Thank you.

>> Thank you. My name is joyce best. I chair the neighborhood group in harris branch. Our concern is if the Council approves a contract with bfi, we might have a scenario similar to the one that I am going to pose to you now. Even though the City knows that bfi only has about 8 years capacity, it could take its solid waste to bfi for a few years reducing the pressure on wmi so the wmi site could be quietly cleaned up. If currently pending legislation eliminates contested hearings at the tnrcc, then neither wmi nor dfi will have to deal with the neighbors. Supporters of the proposed legislation, house Bill 801 are pushing strongly to eliminated contested hearings for expansions of existing sites like these. The neighborhoods would have no say in the process. Then let's assume that in the near future the bfi site would need to expand to accommodate the City's garbage. It could expand by adding up to 100 feet to the existing height. The City would be in no position to oppose the expansion because the expansion would be needed to take care of City garbage. Another option might be for bfi to accept the City's garbage, then subcontract other waste disposal to wmi or the City could simply negotiate a contract with wmi once the site was cleaned up a little. Again no public hearings could be required if house Bill 10 --801 passes, since bfi has no space for a truck storage facility, there would be nothing to prevent the City from leasing space on the existing wmi site to build such a facility or on their adjacent expansion site. The City could even buy or lease adjacent land, build the recycling center and composting operation that can't get anyone else to build for them and allow bfi to use it so they could shut down the recycling operation in east Austin. If house Bill 801 passes no public hearings would be required by tnrcc. Since neither bfi nor wmi have the capacity to take even 7 a% of the City's waste for the next 30 years, one landfill could buy out the other or combine along their joint boundary to seek a vertical height that ties the two landfills together essentially filling the canyon between them to form a super landfill. If the two landfills were joined it could exceed 110 feet in height. The City could not oppose it because it would be linked to the landfills because of the city contract. The neighborhoods would have no influence if contested hearings for expansion of existing facilities have been eliminated. Bfi and wmi each currently receive as much solid waste as tds. At present about 90% of the city's garbage is hauled south to the City landfill that is closing. Traffic that used to go south will now come north and east. In our scenario, a central garbage operation, landfills, truck maintenance, storage depot, recycling, composting could be readily available. The anchor tenant for smart growth in northEast Austin could be waste disposal operations. This is not so much about whether tds gets a 100% solid waste disposal contract with the City, as it is with the select members of the Council and staff with his own agenda will be allowed to pretend our neighborhoods don't exist. They have told us repeatedly there is no environmental hazard and if there were the tnrcc would have said so. The carter-burgess lays that myth to rest. The surprise announcement less than one week ago that the city plans to send 75% of its solid waste to bfi is yet another attempt to quiet the objections of the community, somewhat like the surprise rule change that limits us to 20 minutes at this meeting. The only way to avoid the city's legal liability and scenario we have outlined is for the City to issue a 100% contract to Texas disposal systems which not only handles solid waste, but they also have recycling and composting operations. Even if a 39 cent per month increase were necessary for residential customers, a figure we question, 10 or 20 years from now is anyone going to remember that you saved them 39 cents a month? wouldn't you rather have citizens remember that this Council left a legacy of clean water, responsible policies for City services and a reputation for integrity in our neighborhoods? thank you for your time. Chuck?

>> thank you. [Applause]

>> thank you, joyce. Councilmembers, I am sure that you all have studied the report very well. And if you have you recognize that serious problems have been -- have been pointed out on the waste management site. These problems will just be transferred if they are not already existing on the bfi site. Now, I heard yesterday at the work session, for that the head built up in the county landfill could possibly be forcing some of the possibly toxic waste from the county landfill into the waste management. If that is true, which I don't believe, then what -- what -- how can you explain that maybe the waste management landfill has such a head that it's forcing on the bfi site? this doesn't make sense. The geography out there, the topography based on and I recall photographs before the fill was in -- because on aerial photographs indicate that these levels are pretty much on a level down slope toward the creeks. No matter what bleeds out of these landfill areas they are going to hit a watershed. As a matter of fact the landfill now is built on 3 watersheds. All right, here is walnut creek, decker, harris branch. The target here is where the landfill now exists. It drains down here in Waller creek, I mean walnut creek, drains into walter e. Long lake. It drains into harris branch. This is a popular area. Highway 130, Texas dot would like to see it come through here right next to the landfill. Also the City smart growth plan calls for a park in this area. So that part doesn't make sense really to me that everybody wants to be here, but it looks like as joyce said the major tenant anchor is going to be the landfill if we put any more out there. I would like to show you this. This is a copy of the tax maps from Travis County. These colored areas indicate waste management here. This white area is the travis county landfill no longer in use, b.f.I. Is the green area here. The little blue things you see here are tributary ies that run into walnut creek and some over here into harris branch. You can see that they built a landfill over the creeks and always the Travis County. Okay. It doesn't take a genius to -- to realize when you put trash into a creek, build are the over it -- they did not line these if you recall, it wasn't required at the time. So where does the leachate go when it passes through toxic waste all the way down into the lowest grade? it goes into these areas here because then it has a trail to go through. We have observed leachate coming out of these landfills, we have seen it coming into the creek. Now this is a serious environmental problem. Not just for the neighbors over there, the three neighborhoods this is for the whole region, that water eventually hits the Colorado river, folks. Now, we haven't seen any testing on that. I have wished that the City had authorized testing of some of the leachate and some of the material found at the perimeters of these landfills, including b.f.I.. So far we've had no luck with tnrcc, the only reason they have gotten active lately, in my opinion, is we have been twisting their tail, knocking on their door, sending them tapes of what we have seen and observed and taken pictures of, which I hope the Council Members have seen that tape. It was passed on by the Mayor I am sure. It's proof that something is coming out of there. Why hasn't somebody gone out, taken samples and see if it absolutely is or isn't toxic? nobody has authorized it, I don't know why. But it upsets me considerably, I suppose if we want to prove it, we are going to have to get a lab of our own and go out and test it. I hope we don't have to do it. There's one way to alleviate this, this is to close the landfill, the entire landfill, take remediation, make sure it's not leaking anymore, it won't and send the trash south. That would be my recommendation.

>>Goodman: thank you.

>> Is my time up.

>> I am not threw.

>>Goodman: there is --

>> you are short on time. A few more seconds.

>> Thank you very much. You guys through a wrench in my presentation.

>> All of our presentations.

>> What -- our presentation. Traffic is not a problem. The City staff has said that the garbage trucks are not going to use the City streets. That's we will, we are not in the City. -- That's wonderful. We are not in the City. So they will use probably springdale road which disects our neighborhood, come you up and go blew goose which is in the back door, -- blue goose in the back door, who is going to police it? it's not the county's determination to keep garbage trucks off the streets. It's the City's. The City says it's not our problem, that's the county, not the City. So we feel like that somewhere down the line things haven't been well thought out frankly. And the City's rush to get a contract on this, even though we all know that you have been offered temporary relief by tds and I think by b.f.I., also, to take care of your trash and garbage until you really decide what you are going to do and plan it out, because if you are talking about 10 years, 30 years, it's about time somebody started planning, just like isn't it interesting that they didn't plan when they built that -- that dump on top of tributaries to walnut creek, isn't that interesting? they say hey there's a gully, let's fill it full of trash. Wonderful. I yield.

>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am rafe carter. I have a background of more than five years of experience with hazardous waste and toxic materials handling, while assigned to the United States air force, I was a hazardous materials disposal officer and was assigned to the strategy air command headquarters in nebraska for more than 12 years. I can go on about my qualifications, relatively unimportant. The main thing they tell you is I'm not a neophyte when it comes to talking about the hazards of modern industrial waste. I am extremely concerned about the contract that the City staff is recommend thank the City Council approval approve. After further investigation into the conditions existing at the current location of the Austin community landfill and b.f.I. Solid waste locations I have found some of the following points: one, aerial photographs taken in 1984, 12 years after they were told they could no longer dispose of industrial waste at that site, we find the possibility of illegal drum storage areas. The chemicals in these drums would have been illegal deposited in violation of the municipal solid waste permit issued for that time period. There is no record of any waste being permitted for drum storage at that time. But the aerial photographs clearly show drums lined up prior to being buried. Mr. Gene keeper, a representative of the environmental protection agency, dallas region, stated to me in a previous telephone call, "we don't care what sort of indem indication policies the company has with any level of City, county or state government, they are essentially worthless. A company can go bankrupt and go out of business. We do not allow governments to go out of business and hazardous materials remediation is an expensive proposition for any government entity to get involved in." during the City's working group meeting yesterday the official representative of carter-burgess pointed out that the depth of the monitoring wells installed at both b.f.I. And wmi site is essentially not deep enough to measure the contamination of the ground water. And that there was a possibility of the contamination migrating under the b.f.I. Facility. It will pick up some water that is transitting from a higher level to the ground water, but the wells themselves do not extend down to pick up any contamination in the ground water itself. Under further questioning, he was asked about the flow of the leachate and seeps and what is called surface water. He fully answered the questions, but I still believe there was a miscommunication. There is usually little connection between the direction that surface water will flow and the direction that underground water or so-called ground water will flow. While it's true that the leachate water or the water from the seeps would flow away from the b.f.I. Site, the ground water is the most important. And it could very easily flow in both directions from the wmi site. That's because there's a geological fault under the area, it could direct one-third of the leachate to the north and to the west. Ladies and gentlemen, that's towards b.f.I.. The current b.f.I. Site is not fully protected with the leachate collection system. In fact as far as I can tell, approximately 80 acre of the total area has no leachate protection system at all. Finally, we are afraid, the residents of the area, that if the City award the contract to b.f.I., then the City will eventually build a truck storage or an overnight storage facility at or near the wmi site. The truck parking areas will eventually become soaked with hydraulic fluid, engine oil, gasoline, disease sill fuel, et cetera -- diesel fuel, et cetera. We are already afraid of that. This is in itself hazardous to ground water. This will only exacerbate an already existing hazardous condition. Ladies and gentlemen there are many people here tonight representing every neighborhood in the areas adjacent to the wmi, b.f.I. And acl landfill areas. East, west and forth north. None of us support awarding the contract to b.f.I.. Please work with us to ensure that it's safe for us and for our children to play outside, to drink the local water, to breathe the air and to enjoy the spectacular views of central Texas that brought me back here after being 20 years away. I don't necessarily want the acl closed down. I just want to make sure that it's safe to live there. The carter-burgess report indicates otherwise. And the track record of the city staff on this issue casts grave doubts on both their veracity and unfortunately their economy attention. [Applause] -- their competency.

>> Thank you, there's a minute left.

>> Good evening, I have less than a minute, I won't even make my presentation.

>>Goodman: tell us your name, though.

>> Trek english. And so my question to you tonight is since you presented us with b.f.I. Contract, a contract with b.f.I. On Saturday morning, that's when I first found out, I haven't had a chance to review anything that they have done. Mrs. -- Ms. [Inaudible] spewed a lot of things regarding compacting waste, vertical expansion, whatever. We don have any answers, we don't even know what they are talking about. I just found out from a report that they filed that they are using an alternative cover which consists of shredded tire chips and ground up mulch compared to other sites who use dirt, a layer of six inches of dirt. So I would like to know when was this permit modified to obtain -- when was the permit modification obtained [buzzer sounding] and why are they using such a coarse type of cover which allows more odors to escape and attracts more birds and flies. Since that's all of the time that I have, by the way you are still liable and I gave your legal department two cites concerning the cases that involve municipalities. I still think the result is diversion of waste you are still liable. I will write a letter showing you the scenario under which you could be liable.

>>Goodman: thank you ms. English. [Applause]

>>Goodman: well, that is all of our time. Now, -- not all of our speakers, but if we have questions of anybody, now is the time.

>>Lewis: we didn't have a public hearing, did we? okay. Does someone else want to go?

>>Garcia: I was wondering if we had a representative here from carter-burgess?

>> yes, we do.

>>Garcia: if you could come up. On page 42, let's see. On page 40, of your report where you are talking about the -- the ground water impacts, the present environmental impacts, that particular section dealing with all of the landfills?

>> if you will excuse me, I will get my copy, I can refer to it here.

>>Garcia: I guess so because b is b.f.I. Sunset valley landfill.

>> Page 41, you say?

>>Garcia: page 40 at the very top, it says phase 1 seeps, then it goes into section b. It says b.f.I. Sunset farms landfill.

>> I am there, yes. Everything after b refers to sunset farms, everything prior to that refers to acl.

>>Garcia: okay. The first part, the last sentence says records indicate that all of the compliance -- all of the complaints were satisfactory ily addressed and resolved. Is that in reference to the sunset farms landfill? the last sentence in paragraph b 1. Part of the page.

>> That's are ward to sunset farms, yes.

>>Garcia: the next section deals with present environmental impacts, it has ground water organic impacts, and inorganic impacts. Can you speak to that and n brief? brief form.

>> Well, as the -- as the text says, organic constituents have been detected in monitor well 9, which is near the southwest corner of --.

>>Garcia: can you point to it.

>> Of the b.f.I. Site.

>> Can you get this mike over here. You can -- it says the organic constituents have been detected in monitor well number 9 near the southwest corner of the b.f.I. Facility. This is the outline of the b.f.I. Facility. And acl here. Monitor well nine is -- is roughly in this position here.

>>Garcia: okay.

>>Garcia: the paragraph goes on to say organic constituents were first detected in 1993 and were present in ground water samples collected from this well until it was plugged in 1998. Does that mean -- is that an environmental risk? why did they plug the well in 1998? if they were still -- still had organic constituents? I don't know whether those represent environmental risks or not.

>> If -- to the best of my knowledge, I believe the organic constituents were all below -- all below mcl's for those particular constituents. In other words they didn't raise a concern with tnrcc. And I -- I cannot honestly remember why that well may have been plugged. It could have been an operational consideration.

>>Garcia: the inorganic impacts also talked about the last sentence says a better assessment of the significance of the inorganic concentrations measured in ground water may be possible after the facility has been completed. Background monitoring and statistical data is required by a subtitle d of the regulations, so that's going to be done in about two years?

>> that's correct. Subtitle d program, b.f.I. Has just installed 16 new monitor wells. To meet the requirements of subtitle d. And as you said, the background period or the period of monitoring will be almost two years. Or 8 quarters.

>>Garcia: and the next page, where you go to environmental risks, item no. 4 Says "based on the hydrological setting, landfill design and construction, operating practices observed that the sunset farms site environmental risks related to ground water and surface watered are -- water are considered to be low." can you elaborate on what low means? that a risk factor?

>> by that statement we are referring to the data that we reviewed from tnrcc and the history of ground water monitoring for the b.f.I. Site, which indicated that there were no major impacts to ground water and no real evidence in any of the perimeter monitoring wells that anything was leaving that site.

>>Garcia: last, the last question has to do with the next paragraph, if you could explain what this means, in the other potential liabilities it says "potential exists for ground water beneath the b.f.I. Facility to be impacted as a result of operations at the acl to the southwest." can you point on that?

>> yes, by that statement, we were referring to the potential liability that if ground water were to be impacted by the operations at the Austin community landfill, that potentially there could be some migration to the adjacent property underlying b.f.I.. That's a potential risk in this situation because -- because they are so close.

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

>>Mayor Watson: any other questions or comments?

>>Lewis: yes, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: I guess the other Council Members also received a letter from the county judge, sam biscoe, with his comments regarding this -- this issue. He makes the statement "this area has outgrown the days which solid waste disposal was an appropriate land use." I totally agree with him. Because of the -- of the growth in that area. Let me ask you a question. I asked the other gentleman the same question about the area that they are working in or that they are disposing solid waste in. Whether or not at 30 feet below ground level it was possible for -- for or likely that the leakage from the south would go to the north, he said it was very unlikely. I know that the north edge of -- of the waste management landfill out at the -- at some parts has been used, correct? is that correct? where -- where are they -- where are they disposing solid waste at the present time?

>> currently active the working phase at acl is -- is in the western portion, somewhere in here.

>>Lewis: what about up in the north -- north, that area up there?

>> this area is --.

>>Lewis: fill, right?

>> has been filled, yes.

>>Lewis: if they was 30 feet down and now they are probably 60 to 70 feet above ground level, and where is the working area for b.f.I. At the present time?

>> it's almost to where you see it here, maybe a little bit back further this way.

>>Lewis: that was my -- that was my point that -- that, you know, even though I know that the -- that the landfill to the south have filled the north portion of their site and they no longer use it, they work into the -- into the southwest, so that gives you -- that 70 feet elevation over -- well, actually 100 feet if you go 30 feet down to the north for -- for leakage, that -- that definitely wouldn't in my sense wouldn't be considered up hill. In any sense.

>> Let me make sure that I understand your question because I -- I am afraid that I don't right now. We are talking about the height of this?

>> well, I am saying that the north -- along the north line has been used, right?

>> right. This is landful.

>>Lewis: that's approximately 70 feet above ground level.

>> Right.

>>Lewis: okay. Now, to the south, the south portion, the southwest portion of the -- no, the other -- yeah, right. If they go down 30 feet,.

>> Below grade, yes.

>>Lewis: right. That's approximately 100 feet difference than the grade. But let's just say that it leaks from ground level at -- at the other site. That is still 30 feet -- 30 foot elevation, correct, that would be to the north.

>> Yes. As -- I think our report mentions it -- we don't see any evidence of leachate seeping from that portion of the landfill.

>>Lewis: well, they didn't either from the county when they first closed it.

>> If I may, I would like to address that particular issue. I have Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I am glad that I have an opportunity to speak to you here because there were several clarifications that I wanted to make concerning our report. In our report, as you have seen, we represented that the leachate recovery system on the Travis County side right here and everybody has -- everybody knows it as the flea market area, we recommended that that system be operated to -- in order to reduce some of the leachate buildup in the phase 1 area of the Austin community landfill here. This -- here's the property line between the two. This is the phase 1 municipal solid waste area of the acl facility. What we didn't mention in our report was that the travis county landfill here has done some extensive work on their landfill and they are in the process of planning design and construction of the wastewater discharge line to the City of Austin walnut creek sewer main. The county has also proposed interim measures, interim compliance plan measures which are being reviewed currently by tnrcc, which would alleviate some of the pressure from the hydraulic head within the county landfill. As you know, our report was based strictly on the existing studies on file and there was no field investigation done, no sampling, no borings taken. And the reports that we read, one in particular, indicated that waste was contiguous between these two landfills, between Travis County and the phase 1 of the acl to the north. A second source of information concerning the continuity of the waste was a former landfill operator at travis county who now works at the Williamson county landfill up north. He also mentioned to us that the waste was continuous. This suggestion that there is a hydro logical connection between these two landfills is based on that information. It's based on reports that the trash, that the waste is continuous between the two sites. Not on data from borings or monitor wells, which as you know is beyond the scope of our investigation. Also I would like to just reiterate one point, which I think was made in our report, but I will make it again. That is that the relative -- the relative virp tall risks that we feel that the -- environmental -- environmental risks, the seep area on this portion of phase 1 is relatively minor compared to other impacts at the site. Relatively speaking, it's a small risk. One other item, which I think had some potential impact in our report was that there's a photograph 3 in the very last two pages of the report where the photo caption read that the viewer was looking at erosion of the landfill cap in that position and that's inaccurate. That is not actually the landfill cap. It's road base which is being held in place by -- by some web material, geo textile. It's at the very back of the report altogether. In the last appendix. Those are all of the clarification issues that I wantedded to present.

>>Lewis: thank you, sir. I have a couple of statements that I would like to make. One is the lm contract -- the landfill contract an alternative for the staff recommendation to this landfill contract. Because of the smart growth that the Council has instituted over the last year, and the area that we are speaking of is the area that's primarily designated as the desired development zone, I feel that the City department should focus on policy that encourages positive growth in a I 4 "# @ the desired development zone rather than something that they -- something that the whole area consider negative.a 1 a g8c baugh the people from the neighborhood was speaking of people from the north and the east and the west, I live in the neighborhood just south of that. So I am well aware of the situation that goes on over there. Also, a revenue neutral strategy I think is possible because if we are delivering 90% of the waste now to our present landfill, that's south on 812, it's -- I don't think that the -- and I would have to do a calculation myself, but I think that the staff is overcalculating the amount that it would take to go from there to b.f.I. Landfill to deposit the solid waste that's now being deposited out at the present landfill. I really believe that as the ladies made the statement, in the next few years who is going to worry about the 39 cents that's charged? I was telling a number of people that for too long the people in the northeast section of town, east and northeast section of town has been subsidizing other people for -- to reduce their rates by allowing it to come to that portion of the area. And you know really we are tired of it. Right now b.f.I. Talks about what good neighbors they are, but we have been trying to get them to move that recycling plant off of bohm road for a number of years. And every time that we talk to them about it, they come back with some ridiculous statement that they want now to ask for a 10 year contract with the city to put solid waste in another neighborhood. )[So ... I think that, you know, if they was that interested in the contract and they knew four or five years ago that the -- that the airport, that the 812 solid waste facility was going to be closed, but do you think that they went out and tried to find another landfill to permit? they knew that we was going to have to have a landfill in the area. But I guess they figured, well, it's still in the north, still in the east, so it doesn't matter, we will just, you know, try to get another 50 or 25 or 30 feet height on it. So, you know, let the people from the downtown will have a sight of a mountain on the northeast section of town as most of the people out there call it mount trashmore along 290. It bothers me to a great deal that these people can do what they have done over the years and come back and talk about what good neighbors they are and how well their fall is run. The Council should avoid contracting with the entity that has been reluctant to assist in trying to better the neighborhoods in which they have been operating. Because believe me it had to be a fight to get them to close up some of the area around their recycling plant to keep paper and all from flying, going through the fence into the neighborhood. It was really, you know, a battle really to get them to try to correct that. Based on that, I think we can find an amenable way to dispose of our trash. I don't know, I don't think that the -- the staff pressured tds enough. I would have liked to have been in on that negotiation, I think that I could have gotten them down a little bit below $14.

>> Tds was immoveable.

>>Lewis: nobody is immoveable.

>> They certainly were, sir.

>>Lewis: but I believe we still have a chance to do some negotiating. I would recommend at this time, and unless someone else want to make a statement, I will make a motion.

>>Mayor Watson: go ahead and make a nothing. We may have statements after we get a motion.

>>Lewis: I would recommend that the City Manager bring back an option for the Council to consider for consideration that would send 100% of the solid waste collection to -- by the City to tds landfill without an increase in rate. Negotiate an agreement with tds to create a north transfer station and prepare an interim plan for landfilling Austin's solid waste for the next 90 to 180 days. I -- I am saying 100%, but if -- I think that even 90/10 rate would -- shouldn't change the price of operation for the solid waste to the degree it would require a rate increase. I think if we do decide we have a rate increase, I think we should have a number of public hearings and evaluations of the data that's presented to -- that causes the rate increase. That's my motion, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Council Member Lewis. Is there a second?

>>Goodman: I will second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem. Any discussion?

>>Goodman: yes, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: I think that the way this has been handled, a lot of people have felt blind sided several times along the way. With this option I think what we are going to get out on the table is an ability to look at all of the options, fairly, with valid numbers and enough time to evaluate all of the different things that have come up. We do have the ability to take our trash to a landfill, even noting the short time frame we have for our own landfill and the closing and opening of the airport. So we do have the ability to come to resolution on this. We could have come to resolution earlier, but just things have happened that have skewed the perception and have caused people to get upset with both the real and perceived process. So now I think it's time to lay all options out, take the opportunity to lay all options out and let everyone know that this is a fair, scientific and legitimate process.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion?

>>Slusher: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Slusher.

>>Slusher: Mr. Rhodes, could you come up for a second?

>>Slusher: let me ask you first. One of the points raised by the speakers is that we take our garbage to south Austin now and so ideal we need to take some of it north.

>> Okay. Currently it's economically feasible to take our garbage to south Austin. What we have here is operating costs for transporting the garbage to south Austin. It is correct if you take a look at the numbers in my program budgeting for the operation of my landfill, that the rate -- the rate is simply take the operating costs, divided by the tonnage in there to get the rate per ton. However there's one factor that's not included in there. We currently do receive revenue at our landfill of over a million dollars which will help offset the operating cost there. Therefore it is cheaper to take the garbage south currently than it would be if we signed these contracts and a couple variations if we signed this contracts. Currently it's more economically feasible and viable to to the garbage to my landfill in southEast Austin?

>>Slusher: because the rate we are paying at our own landfill per ton.

>> The operating cost of the landfill less the revenue received at the landfill produces a better rate today than what we would have on the couple of scenarios in these contracts.

>>Slusher: let me ask you this. Councilmember Lewis's motion would have a -- it all go to tzs in the south and build north transfer station, I assume, at least one. Now, what kind of -- and to -- instruct the City Manager to do that with no rate increase. First of all you are pricking there would be a rate increase. But what about the cost of -- let's just assume for a minute the City Manager could achieve that, you could achieve that, come back with no rate increase on that. But what about the cost of a north transfer station? what does that do to the predicted rate increase that you have if we go 100% to tds?

>> well, one, there -- if we built a transfer staying, I will use for example, a neighbor south of us just as an example. The City of san antonio has a transfer station. A tipping fee rate -- let me back up. The City of san antonio has three contracts to dispose of garbage. Their contracts are with b.f.I., waste management and tds. The tds contract has a tipping fee at the landfill and a transportation charge for the transfer station that they operate. Depending on who operates the transfer station there's a cost for doing that. The City has looked at the evaluation of the proposal -- of having a transfer station north, northeast, northwest, wlfr you want to take a look at it, saw that the travel costs that would have to be paid to operate that landfill -- that transfer station wagon a viable option at this time based on the low tipping fees that we currently have proposed to the City of Austin. Our garbage we have approximately 125,000 tons of garbage each year generated by the entire City of Austin. That's with my program and the other City departments within the City. We took a look at the viability of having transfer stations, did not see that it was viable because the tipping fees that we currently pay at -- we are proposing to pay at the landfills that would be viable to have a transfer station. A transfer station north would benefit hauling garbage to the south. It would not benefit hauling garbage to the north. A transfer station south would benefit hauling garbage northward. Not taking to it the south because the landfills are that close to the transfer station. To build a transfer station we have to find a site large enough to build one, you are looking at something to the tune of seven to 10 acres of land. You have to construct a facility. You have to permit the facility. And that would take a -- several years to get that accomplished. You are looking at approximately four to six years time freezing rain for obtaining the site, constructioning the site, taping the permits for the site and having it operational.

>>Slusher: okay. What do you predict the costs would be?

>> hold on a second.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> With inflation and tacked on to it, you would be looking at the range between a to $6 million, plus the cost of the land. 5 To 6 million.

>>Slusher: what's the rate impact of that?

>> five or six million. [Inaudible].

>> Well, we would probably debt finance part of this, that's part of the problem, but I am looking at a straight $6 million range, and I will -- I am not -- please don't hold me to this figure, we will be looking at approximately greater than $2 a month increase.

>>Slusher: $2 a month. Glrz he's not financing the date. Grrz then you are talking about 600,000 annually to add to the fund. Then calculate to take on a $600,000 expense, what would be the rate for that.

>>Spelman: actually we figured that out yesterday, 39 cents.

>> Currently 39 cents.

>>Slusher: I still have more questions, Council Member. What are you basing the -- I know I asked you to do it on the fly here, but what are you basing the five to six million dollar cost on?

>> we are building a transfer station south now. That costs us a little over $4 million for the construction costs of that facility. If you take a look at one trying to find -- taking time to find the facility, getting the permit and going through the processing with the City for the permits and going through the state for processing and for the permit and then construction costs, it's escalated in the past couple of years, you are looking between five to six million dollars. And I may number the ballpark with that estimate. -- May be in the ballpark.

>> It may be lower or higher depending on where we are locationing.

>>Slusher: go through the state.

>> You would have to get a permit for a transfer station.

>>Slusher: let me ask you this. If we did go -- Council Member Garcia was showing me the map -- City road map out of the carter-burgess report. We were trying to figure out if everything did go south, which route would the trucks take? let me ask -- let me make it a two part question. How do the trucks from the north get to the say things north of 290, how do they get to the current landfill that's about to close out by Bergstrom? and how would they -- what route would they take to get to tds?

>> currently they would take 183 down to my landfill.

>> Unless they are south of 183, 290 over to 183. Center of town it would be airport road out to 183 and then down. Depends on where they are at.

>>Slusher: what about if they went to tds.

>> Depends on where they are coming from. If they could -- determine that 35 is faster, probably try to travel down I-35 to the landfill.

>>Slusher: 35 is faster.

>> If they determined that.

>> If they determined that.

>>Mayor Watson: have them call the traffic engineer. [Laughter].

>> We do have -- if one truck heads that way, depending on the time of day, currently we leave our site at 7:30 in the morning to try to pick up garbage throughout the City of Austin. Normally we will a fill looked between 1:00 and 12:00. At that time of day they probably would not try to take I-35 south. Try to take an alternate route down to tds. What that route would consist of would be a roadway that would probably yield them less lights to 183, maybe utilized to a certain point, then get back down to tds, but I am not sure what particular direction they would use, if they are northwest, they would probably get on mopac try to go south on mopac. Currently they will probably go to ben white and take ben white east to 35 try to go south. Once they start doing construction on ben white and 35, then they will try to take alternate routes from northwest down there.

>>Slusher: ben white is pretty much a mess now.

>> Good travel time until the light. They have opened up a way to make that a left turn south on to 35, which is pretty good. However they will be doing additional construction on the site, I'm not sure when that's going to start, but once they start that intersection probably would not be one of the ways they would take to get down there from the northwest. They may be going down mopac to slaughter and then trying to take that over, but that's a series of lights on there. So I am not sure what direction they would try to take.

>>Slusher: okay, I will yield.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: let me ask you, you said that you received approximately a million dollars fees from -- at this present site.

>> Yes, sir, that's received in 1997, '98, $1.1 million.

>>Lewis: what's going to change at the site?

>> we will stop taking household garbage in the site.

>>Lewis: I am saying who delivers household garbage out there?

>> we have some smaller haulers that other private haulers around that may not have a contract that may want to come to us. We also have residential customers who live on the fringes of Austin and not in the City limits of Austin that bring their garbage there.

>>Lewis: what percentage is that versus the debris?

>> I would say if you asked me, I would say probably 90% is construction and demolition debris.

>>Lewis: we would lose probably $100, $150,000 difference in the revenue received right.

>> The expectation is once we open up as a construction demolition landfill, we would hopefully try to receive more revenue. Currently we are turning away business to make sure we can provide have space for the garbage for the citizens of Austin.

>>Lewis: okay. Well let's just say that we stay at the same rate. What is our approximate cost for operation of the landfill?

>> currently the cost of operation is for '97-'98 was $2.1 million.

>>Lewis: so we have a $3 million swing there basically. What would be the operation without our trucks going there if we just take -- take disposable --

>> hold on jim.

>>Lewis: non-household, what would it cost us to operate the landfill.

>> Part of the problem if you are just taking it from a number because like if we are going from construction demolition, that's operational costs, however we also have house keeping because we are closing our landfill, that cost have been factored into my operational cost. I don't have it broken out into the sense of what part is for the closure what part is just for the normal day to day operation of it.

>> What I will trying to get at is will the operation costs be lower for construction and demolition debris than it's been in the past?

>> I believe the operation costs that we are projecting for you 7-you 8 and the year on will be equal or higher because part of that is for the closure -- grrz let me see if I can answer the question. Garza Garza if you were so segregate what it costs to do type d or construction material, that is going to be a cheaper expense for us. The requirements are not nearly as stringent. However what you are trying to do is close the landfill. Final cover, final grade, tidy up the site. There's expenses that willie has loaded into his -- into that equation that is not segregated out, so he's not budgeting less money right now for that. Now after he's officially closed out the site, been accepted as closed out site, all that you have to do is the maintenance of it, there will be a difference in terms of what we spend for landfill services.

>>Lewis: tough have it closed and covered by what, may 1?

>> we have to -- no, we have to close it 60 days prior to the opening of the airplane. We have a plan in place for --.

>>Lewis: you have to have it covered by when, may 1?

>> 180 days after, final cover. Final cover must be in place sick months after we close.

>>Lewis: I am saying to keep the bird away you have to have it covered prior to the opening of the airport; is that correct?

>> that's correct.

>>Lewis: may one or two whatever. What I am speaking of is the difference in operating costs and the revenue received and additional revenue, possible additional revenue received and just a short distance going south, you know, I don't understand how you figure it's going to be -- require a rate increase when you have -- when you have the difference in the operating costs of the present landfill to use.

>> Because what he is spending for landfill services isn't going to change appreciatably. Therefore when you add on the additional expense for taking 100% to the t.d.s. Site, there's additional expenses he has to account for that he hasn't accounted for, could have been impact. 39 Cents I believe is the number that I saw. If in addition to that we then go build a transfer station on the north and incur a debt of about five to six million, we float that out to a 500,000, 600,000 annual cost, there will be an additional impact to his budget. So to answer your question in truth, we are going to need the time for us to figure out what is landfill closure cost versus what is the expense for just doing the demolition site.

>>Lewis: when did you -- when did you start the south transfer station. We started that process in you 3.

>>Lewis: starred in '93.

>> Six years ago.

>>Lewis: when is the projected completion date.

>> Any day now.

>> Any day now.

>>Lewis: what was the projected completion date, let me put it that way. You say any day now that, may be the end of the year or so.

>> November of last year and the contract is currently in liquidated damages.

>>Lewis: are we charging it?

>> yes.

>>Lewis: so it's going to cost us less the longer it's taking, right.

>> Well, it's impacted me as we speak.

>>Lewis: but my point is if you knew that then, you know, why -- what was the reason for not going to try to get a north transfer station?

>> one of the things that happened, Council Member, is that we were building a south transfer station and thinking that we needed this to haul garbage. We built the ones south first because that's where we found the land and were able to move on with building it. When we did the rfp in '96, and got the proposals back, and took a look at the tipping fee quoted in the -- in the proposals, we saw that it was not financially viable to operate it as a garbage transfer station.

>>Lewis: so what I am trying to get at is if we knew we was going to have to close, we knew in '93 we was going to close that landfill out there, when the airport opened, right?

>> yes, sir.

>>Lewis: I mean, we didn't know which landfill we was going to use, we knew t.d.s. Was down to the south, wmi, b.f.I. Was to the northeast and if we built the transfer station to the south, my question is why didn't we find some land -- in '93 land wasn't that hard to find in Austin. So you know I can't buy the fact that we sat around for three or four years knowing that we needed either a transfer station or we was going to have to haul garbage a long ways to -- to -- to either b.f.I. Or down south and not do anything about it.

>> If I could point out, we did in fact present a solid waste business plan that was adopted by prior Councils. In which it pointed out that we did intend in fact once we reached the capacity of our landfill not to permit another landfill site ourselves, but to use the existing private landfills, both north and south. That was the policy that was adopted by the Council at that point in time. That's what predicated our actions to this point.

>>Lewis: you know the -- the fact was at some point we was looking at both a nor and south transfer station.

>> When we went out for the rfp we invited proposals because we don't know if someone would propose a combination that might be more economical than relying on transportations. We found the alternative of having north landfill and south was far more economical than going south and having a north transfer site. If you said we don't have a north option it is possible perhaps having a north transfer site and a south landfill is your most economical way to go, but it would not likely be more economical between guiding it between south and north.

>>Lewis: basically you didn't have a south landfill so you built a south to use to transfer it to the north.

>> We really wanted to do that to keep our options open so neither landfill felt like they had a monopoly on the city's waste because if somebody in south bid a high price, we have an alternative to take it north, vice versa. Vice versa. That transfer site really could work for either way.

>>Lewis: if the north sides have been at a higher price, we have so the back and not built the transfer station, how would we have gotten it south? this is -- I still think that we -- we have sat around knowing all of the time that this was going to come up at some point when the airport opened. You know, to tell me that you need to make a decision because we need to close it in two days, we have been knowing for sick years that we was going to close that thing. Plus even if it wasn't closing closing -- in two months or whatever, it was going to close in about four or five years anyway because it would have reached capacity. You know, I mean, all the studies that we had when I was on airport advisory board was 2 on 06 was the maximum of the -- 2006 was the maximum of the capacity out there. We knew at some point we was going to have to do something. My question is why did we sit baseball and not do anything until it comes down to where we are going to have make a choice tonight or we are going to have -- the next thing it's going to be well the airport is going to have to delay opening.

>> Wow that's not going to happen, sir.

>>Lewis: I am saying I am not that keen --

>> the staff has always assumed until very recently at least, still have not concluded otherwise, that the option of north and south landfill is a viable option, that is in fact what the last solid waste business plan we adopted was.

>>Lewis: I could live with sending 10% that we have been sending to b.f.I., senting the rest of it, we have been operating on that premises all of the time, right in sending about 10% of it to b.f.I..

>> That's correct.

>>Lewis: so I mean I could work with that premises because I just don't understand how all of a sudden staff, but I do know because none of the staff lives northeast, that's the reason. If any of the staff lived northeast [applause] -- they would have been looking for some other alternative rather than the northeast station. I know that. And any of the staff that lives northeast raise your hand. None of you. So none of you even travel northeast. You don't have --

>> Council --.

>>Lewis: wait a minute, City manager. None of you is being subjected to the smells over there when the win is blowing, none of you is subjected to the traffic over there, and the rest of the things that's involved in that landfill. Had you lived over there. You would have made some alternative to either build a north transfer station or to look for an alternative site. Because we don't -- we didn't know five years ago whether these two sites was going to be open or not. This is my thing. So, you know, I mean, unless somebody -- unless waste management or b.f.I. Told you guys something that they didn't tell the rest of the world because at that time five or six years ago people were going bankrupt all over. B.f.I. Closed a number of their facilities in the last four or five years. Especially recycling plants. Recycling facilities. So, you know, it just bothers me that -- knowing that none of the people that was making the decision had any concern about the people that was living over there because it's not -- it's not a condition of your quality of life. None of you. So, you know, I rest my case because you can't convince me that had you lived in either one of these neighborhoods that you would have been that concerned about sending that 30 years of waste at 7 a% of the City's waste to that landfill.

>> I think to defend the staff, had the proposal from the south landfill been at 1175, or at 1375, our recommendations would have been different. I mean it's not our fault when that proposal came in the door --.

>>Mayor Watson: folks, folks, a Council Member may want to get it worked up, we are not going to have it out.

>> They came in at 1475. That's a different number. We looked at the numbers. We understand your motion of what we need to go do. We are not going to argue. We realize that.

>>Lewis: Mr. City Manager it's like I told staff earlier. There's no reason to negotiate with two different contractors and negotiate with one and then the other. Because anybody that's negotiating with two different people they use them to offset each other. Had you been negotiating with t.d.s. At the same time that you were negotiating with b.f.I., so that t.d.s. Didn't know what the outcome of the negotiation with b.f.I. Was then you would have gotten a better price because there's no way that you could keep it away from these people once it's finished. We didn't even start negotiations with -- negotiating with these people until we continued with b.f.I.. I am saying if we had gun negotiating with them at the same time we would have got a better price from them. You know? because the quality of life of the people making decisions is going to determine a lot about of the decisions they make.

>> I understand.

>>Mayor Watson: City Council Member Lewis?

>>Lewis: I rest my case.

>>Spelman: I think I share with Council Member rhodes.

>> You just promoted you Mr. Rhodes.

>> Demoted me.

>>Spelman: proper momenting you.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Lewis.

>>Spelman: no, I wouldn't consider it a promotion. Actually, however, I think I share with the department head rhodes a concern with the quality of life in northeast Austin as well. And I think the fact that Mr. Rhodes does not live in northEast Austin or other members of the staff don't live in northeast doesn't mean that wasn't an issue. If it wasn't I am sure it should have been. I am sure it is for all of us, when we finally make a decision on this it's going to involve some balancing of the costs which are going to be incurred by taxpayers, ratepayers all over the City to environmental concerns and neighborhood concerns which are going to be primarily borne by the people who have to live close to these landfills and have to travel the roads that the trucks are going to be traveling on. It's something we are all concerned about, something that will enter into our final decision a great deal. I want to focus on the cost issue for a second. I want to see if I can nail down a cost that's been nagging at me for the last 24 hour. You presented to us a list of costs under a bunch of different scenarios. Associated with hauling and tipping fees. Is that correct.

>> Correct.

>>Spelman: and I can't remember what they all have, I haven't got that list in front of me right now. If I could borrow your copy, I would appreciate it. You are saying right now, for example, your recommendation was 25% t.d.s., 75% b.f.I., that was your recommendation as of yesterday.

>> That's correct.

>> The total cost of tipping fees, hauling costs for that option would be 2.77 $8 million.

>> That's correct.

>>Spelman: that's per year, right?

>> yes. That's for the first year.

>>Spelman: first year. Okay. Most expensive option is 100% t.d.s. As the current t.d.s. Rate.

>> Correct.

>>Spelman: which is 3.4 million, that's about 630,000 per year difference. That's how I knew the 600 thousand dollars or 6 million transfer station would cost us 40 cents. Okay. Now, let me back off of that for just a second. What are the current costs for hauling, tipping fees when we have to incur them, I know not and you of our current garbage goes into our own landfill and operating costs of our landfill exclusive of closing feces, demolition, all of that stuff?

>> I will use you 7-'98 numbers, which I have pretty well in memory. The operating cost of the landfill is $2.1 million.

>>Spelman: okay.

>> Do -- that's bringing 90% of the garbage to our site. 10% Going to a private landfill at the rate of $13.50 a ton. Last year. Gives you another $100,000 in operating costs. We have a revenue that we brought in last year of $1.1 million.

>>Spelman: okay. Then hauling costs.

>> Hauling costs, I guess that's the thing I don't have the information what the hauling cost is.

>>Spelman: okay.

>> We can put that together but I don't have it with me this afternoon.

>>Spelman: let me give you a rough estimate. You have estimated the hauling costs if we are hauling 25% of our garbage to t.d.s., hauling costs of about 265. If that were 100%, would that be about a million?

>> yeah. In the ballpark.

>>Spelman: in the ballpark. So add a million to -- well, 2.1 our operating costs are another 100 thousand for tipping feces to b.f.I., less 1.1 million for revenues, that's total for 1.1 and then add another million or so for mauling costs. -- Hauling costs, we are talking about $2.1 million current costs.

>> Correct, by going to t.d.s. You still have not put in the tipping fee.

>>Spelman: I am not getting into t.d.s. At all. That's a whole different option. I am trying to figure out how much it costs us for '97-'98 for tipping fees, hauling costs primarily to our own landfill. We are talking about a baseline of 2.1. Now, what my concern here is is how much above or below that we have to go without having a rate impact. And what you have estimated for us yesterday was with 25% t.d.s., 75% b.f.I., at a total cost of about $2.8 million, there would not be a rate impact. We would not need a rate increase.

>> That's correct.

>>Spelman: even though that's about $600,000 more than our current costs.

>> Correct.

>>Spelman: so we can absorb $600,000 in costs without a rate increase.

>> Correct. With the 75/25 split.

>>Spelman: okay. Well, with the 75/25 split with a total cost of $2.8 million as opposed to our corner costs of $2.1 million. See what I am getting at, our costs are going up by 700,000 bucks, but yesterday you said we wouldn't need a rate increase, presumably you would find savings elsewhere in the organization to absorb that, we wouldn't really need to increase our rates.

>> I believe when we looked at the calculations yesterday we can absorb the 600,000, have a no rate increase for this fiscal year, for next year, looking at our cost of employees, the 75/25 split, capital costs, transfers coming in, what we believe is that you might even be able to get away with it next year. But part of our issue here is being able to look at the out years in terms what you would have to do. That was actually at the 75/25 split. Part of it has to do with really drawing down heavily on the fund balance for the fund, also we looked at capitalizing our costs in terms of operations.

>>Spelman: you are saying we can absorb the $700,000 split, $700,000 increase in total costs primarily because we are drawing down on the fund balance.

>> You are drawing pretty heavily on it. You could do that this year cover that, some of that you can cover for the next year. I am not real clear, we need to do some additional calculations for the third and fourth year because one of the things we have to worry about this fund is trying to keep it at a level for fiduciary responsibility, we need have to have at least 8% of our fund balance set aside for operating costs.

>> It seems to me that the differences among some of these options that you have outlined, $14,000 is a difference between 25% t.d.s. And 33% t.d.s.. It's another 72,000 to go from 25% t.d.s. To 50% t.d.s. And 50% b.f.I.. And seems in the context of 6 and $700,000 increases, that they will require rate increases.

>> Right.

>> 50, $70,000, It's really a drop in the buck, that is the sort of thing which we really ought to be able to absorb, too, without a rate increase.

>> What I really caution us on is for the six months of this fiscal year you could probably do that. It would be tight, we probably could absorb it. It would probably mean some of our capital expenditures we thought that we would do for next year we would probably have to look at delaying. Where I believe you have a problem is on the long-term issue, we would have to go back and look at the impact on the fund itself.

>> Sounds to me if you are talking about a couple or three careers out, that gives us enough time to make fundamental changes in the way we are doing business, just over the last couple of days just become clear to me, I think we have been discussing some of that, ways in which we can achieve substantial reductions in the costs without really changing the services we are delivering.

>> Yes.

>>Spelman: so that sounds like we are going to have a couple of years lead time to be able to do that. So we are really not looking at a rate increase downstream from really pretty much any of these options, is that --

>> I would say for at least two years, it's will be tight, it will mean we will have to make decisions in terms of the capital things we wanted to do or other operational issues we need to look at with the fund, we really tried to go through the numbers, look at this fiscal year, next fiscal year with rough projections in terms of where we thought we would be. I think when we get to that third year, heading into the third year we may have issues because we are drawing down heavily on the fund balance of the fund itself.

>>Spelman: I feel very strongly our rates are already high relative to our competitors. Our competitors may not be competitors in an open market, but certainly they are in our citizens minds. We need to do whatever is necessary having a rate increase despite what we may need to do in order to protect our neighborhoods andur environment:. [One moment please] if you have to vary it, it will be fine so long as you don't have any impact on the ratepayers. And then working with the solid waste advisory committee and with the staff and with the task force that you name, Mayor, come back with some other alternatives within let's say a reasonable time of 12 to 18 months. I think they will have to have at least that much time to look at all the issues. And among those issues is finishing the south transportation, looking at the -- looking at the issue of the north transportation, looking at the financing options, looking at the impact that those two facility ies will have on the rate pair and that that be reported to us within the next 12 to 18 months so we can have enough time to make an appropriate decision and not impact the service to our customers, the environmental protection that we are so -- so careful in protecting. And the rate that we charge our rate payers. And that's my substitute motion,.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion has been made by Council Member Garcia to go with a contract that would split three-67 insurance, 33 percent to tdi. Bfi for a five-year period. And with direction to the City manager to assess a potential alternatives and make a report back to the City Council in the next 12 to 18 months. I'll second the motion for purposes of discussion. Is there any discussion?

>>Griffith: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Griffith.

>>Griffith: I think that is a very interesting option and I'd like to offer a friendly amendment if Council Member would consider it. And that is that we not eliminate any of the options that have been suggested tonight. That the one that is 75/25 stay alive and be researched. The one that Council Member Lewis has suggested also be investigated as a viable option and also the one that you have just suggested be investigated.

>>Garcia: I consider that to be a friendly motion in this context. I already put my mic away so I could go home. [Laughter]. I don't have any problem with having all those options explored in this 12 to 18 months, but we close the landfills next Sunday and the staff has to have more explicit direction than look at all the options. I think they need to get a direction from the Council that says 33/67 is something that we can live with because it doesn't have a rate impact, it is not going to have an adverse environmental impact, at least in the short run. It is -- it is as safe as any -- as far as transportation goes, so it's a good option. And we need to give that kind of explicit direction, instead of saying go do whatever you think is in the best interest. The options, they should all be studied, including Council Member Lewis's option. I think his option in the long-term may prove to be the one that is the best. But I don't know. As Council Member Lewis has said and he expressed his feelings very well and the frustrations very well and he wasn't here when we passed the bond issue in 1992 for the airport. I was here. I was here along with Mayor Pro Tem early, went into many areas campaigning for the bonds to open the airport at Bergstrom strom. And a lot of people yelled at us, you know, held us hostage saying you're not going to do this right. You're not going to do this right. And we said oh, yes, we are. And so those of us who are on the Council in '92 have a little bit more at stake than everybody else because we told people we were going to do things the right way. And I agree with Council Member Lewis. We probably could have done what we're doing tonight a lot better. We could have done it earlier. We could have had, you know, -- we could have avoided doing it at the 11th hour, because it is the 11th hour. Sunday we close that. Unless we are going to move the opening of the airport, and that's a horrible thing to even think about, because we told everybody we're on time and on budget. So that said, I don't know, I don't have any problem with accepting your proposal, a friendly amendment in regards to the City Manager, but for what happens Monday morning, I would like to keep the motion intact.

>>Mayor Watson: I'm going to interpret that as not being -- you recognize the intent of her proposal, but you're not accepting it as a friendly amendment to change your motion.

>>Garcia: for the operation starting, you know, Monday and for the foreseeable future, no.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. And the reason I suggest that is because some of the potential options will be precluded if you enter into a 30 year contract that necessarily includes 33% of --.

>>Griffith: so Mayor, please --.

>> Mayor, please, the attorneys have asked me for a point of clarification. Do you want us to write into the contract that for the 30 year term tdi will receive 33% or do you still want us to use the recommendation that we will review it on an annual basis in terms of the fluctuation of the waste to each landfill.

>>Garcia: like you were going to do it, but instead of saying we're going to say 25-75, we're saying 33-67. The contracts are going to be Written as best they protect the interest of the City and the rate payers and the environmental protection.

>> Okay.

>>Griffith: a point of clarification. Does that mean that the options that Council Member Lewis suggested are not going to be investigated or will and be brought back? I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand.

>>Garcia: they all be investigated.

>>Griffith: and brought back.

>>Garcia: but for purposes of entering into a contract that will put the trucks rolling on Monday, March the first, 33-67 is what we're directing. And then the other things that I said about directing the City Manager and his staff to look into all those other issues, you know, those can all be investigated and I think they should.

>> It is implicit in what Council Member Garcia is saying is that options are available to be explored, but the current scenario would be a 63/67 split, and we would have the 12 to 18 month period of time to explore alternatives and potentials. And that would include anything you could do within the confines of the contract.

>>Griffith: it's my understanding and correct me if this is incorrect, that we have a contract with three landfills to go month to month for as long as we need to. Is there really that crisis on looming?

>>Mayor Watson: I'm not sure of the word crisis is an appropriate term, but there is a necessity of having some level of service as opposed to justinning to play this out over time and this motion would allow for there to be consideration of alternatives and at the same time gives regard to rank over -- gives us certainty with regard to transportation and allow at the same time the flexibility to look at it on a annual basis. Councilmember Spelman and then Council Member Lewis.

>>Spelman: ms. Connor, I would I would like to address a question to ms. Connor?

>>Mayor Watson: are you available.

>> I would be happy if you have another question.

>>Spelman: is is there any difference in the tipping fees of our month to month contracts and our long-term contracts?

>> we actually don't at this date have month to month contracts. They would have to be negotiated.

>>Spelman: no contract and a contract. That's a big difference.

>> It's been stated by month, tdi, that they would offer I think the terms of their proposal as a temporary contract. We have an existing contract with bfi where we're already on an extension where they would agree to extend that, continue to extend that.

>>Spelman: is the bfi contract --.

>> The contract isn't signed.

>>Spelman: are the fees higher or lower than the long-term contract they're offering?

>> they're higher, I believe. I think they're higher.

>> They are higher.

>>Spelman: that's a good reason for us to go to a long-term solution now then.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you. And this is directed to the other Council Member. And I wish the hundreds of millions of dollars protecting the quality of life in northwest Austin. Now we're concerned about a 39 cent increase to protect the quality of life in east and northEast Austin. To me that's telling me that the neighborhood said that you're saying that they're not there. It doesn't make a difference. It really -- I don't know -- gripes me, I guess, to sit here at this time and Council Member Garcia, you was talking about 1992 when you voted to move the airport to minor manor. I worked on -- to Bergstrom. I worked on the move with the manor when we had an agreement to move it to manor and then the Council turned around and said no, we're going to Bergstrom. We've spent the same amount of money going to Bergstrom than we would going to manor. We would have spent 650 million dollars building an airport over in manor, the same thing we're spending out here. Plus we would have had Bergstrom. So that tells me somewhere that somebody screwed up. He would have had three assets for 350 million dollars versus two. Now we only have Robert Mueller and Bergstrom. But we still have an airport for the same 650 million dollars. And most of the staff that was here now was here then. And I want to ask -- who is here from bfi or tds. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Gregory. They say month to month contract. What is the change in the tipping fee cost on this if you go with a 30 year contract or a long-term contract versus a contract for the next year -- I mean an agreement for the next year or whatever?

>> the letter I wrote to y'all in november to the City manager and to the Council Members was that we would extend the provision ns our contract, the long-term contract, for -- with or without a contract for any balance of the rest of this year. So the pricing that we proposed for our long-term contract would apply for any point in time that you wanted to use it for the rest of this year so that if we got to this very point, you would have an opportunity to not be rushed. You could say you can start hauling to our landfill on Monday and we can take it starting on Monday.

>>Lewis: is there anyone here from bfi?

>> yes, sir.

>>Lewis: with the extension or with an extension through the end of the year, what's the difference in the tipping rate?

>> right now we have a contract with the City until March 31st, and that rate is 1398. I would have to go back to my team to know whether or not we would extend it. We've extended it several times with the City. I can't get up here and promise you. We've been working with the city on getting the recycling since october, so I'm sure we'll continue doing that, but I can't promise you what rate. Hus Lewis so it's approximately -- but it wouldn't be at the same rate as a long-term contract? what was your rate for the long-term contract, 1378?

>> correct. Lewis and you're at 1398 now.

>> Correct.

>>Lewis: okay. But you said -- well, I understand the fact that you have been trying to get rid of the recycling. So staff is saying that -- we're not going to take it to waste management and I don't know if anybody is here from waste management, but since that's not an option, what would you -- what is your projection on the increase? what would it -- what would be the projected increase if there was an increase?

>> when we look at studying prices, we look at the time commitment, we look at what we're being asked to hold or not hold. There's a lot of different things that we look at when we set prices. So you're asking me to ask a price on a time commitment. I don't know. I assume that we would work with the City and come away with a satisfactory rate. We've been doing that.

>>Lewis: what was the last length of extension?

>> three months.

>>Lewis: what is the increase in the next three months.

>> At that point we hadn't raised the rates in awhile, so I think it was about 20 cents.

>>Lewis: so you went from 3:survey to -- 1378 to 13.98.

>> Approximately like that, yes. And I can't tell you. I don't have that information with me.

>>Lewis: all right. I don't understand the philosophy that we've gone through here speaking of a rate increase of less than 50 cents per customer when we're saying that we're going to actually have the northeast to subsidize your solid waste rates. And that's basically what I get from it because if you're going to dump it in my yard and it's going to cost you -- you don't have to pay an increase, then I'm getting the brunt of it. So for that reason I can't support the substitute motion.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote will be on the substitute motion. -- Yes, Council Member Garcia and then Mayor Pro Tem.

>>Garcia: I guess I could get emotional in responding to Council Member Lewis, but instead I'm going to do it with some levity so that --.

>> You're older than I am.

>>Garcia: but, you know, when my lovely wife and I decided to buy a house in Austin, they weren't selling houses west of I-35, so in 1965 we built a house in northEast Austin. We've lived there all the time and I've seen the struggle that the northeast has experienced. We still live there because we think that people like us who have been there a long time need to stay there to show our commitment to that neighborhood. And there's been times when we go out and I tell my neighbors that we're not going to move out of there and my wife said, I thought you said you were going to buy me a nice house in west Austin. And I said I can't afford a house in west Austin. But we have stayed there because we like it there. Our kids went to school there. People say that schools in northEast Austin are not good enough, but I say that my kids went to reagan and to pierce and to andrews and to John b Williams. When they went to the university of Texas, their grade point average stayed the same. So their education that they got in those schools was a good education and we're proud of the northeast. We'll stay there, keep our home there. And try to help the area as much as we can. We're seeing some improvements in the saint John's area. Together with Council Member Griffith, we worked -- and the rest of the Council we worked on the destination parks and natural areas. I think the northeast over the next 25 to 50 years will undergo substantial change and improve substantially. What we're doing in the chestnut area, what we're doing, all those -- in the east Cesar Chavez area. We're going to close holly by the year 2005 or earlier. There's going to be some very dramatic changes and Austin will become one City instead of being two cities like it has been for some time. And I want to be -- I want to join the rest of the City by staying where I am instead of moving somewhere else. So I say that this is a difficult decision and it may give the appearance that I don't care about the northeast area of town and that's not the case. That is really not the case. Thank you, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: first I need clarification on the motion. Can you tell me what the years were that you were proposing for each of the two number of years for the contract?

>>Lewis: for me?

>>Goodman: for the substitute motion.

>>Mayor Watson: it was tds for 30 years, bfi for five years.

>>Goodman: okay. Now, I'm wondering why those particular length of years because I think that's part of the problem with really negotiating with tds and bfi and wmi from the very beginning. If you've got a 30-year contract and you've made it pretty clear that it will be in the future before you give any kind of bulk to tds because the price is much lower for either bfi or wmi previously, then what does tds have to really gain knowing that there are a lot of -- I don't know what all, but I know there are requirements that are involved in signing on to a contract to 30 years. And the difficulty would be if you're not even going to be used or it can be fairly certain because of the way things have gone so far that the City is not going to want to use you until sometime in the future for any bulk of any magnitude and so what is it it benefit to come down on price?

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Garcia.

>>Garcia: I think tds and I think Dr. Lauren ross said it best of the. That side they selected? southeast Travis County has better soils for this particular use. The City is going to have to build, we already have the land and we're already on the way to building the todd lane transfer station. I think we're going to have to build one in the north. I don't know exactly when and I hope that's one of the issues that you, City Manager, begin to explore in earnest and the same thing goes for the solid waste advisory committee. It may be that over the longer term we -- this Council or other Councils decides that the best thing we can do is partner up with tds, use tds, whatever. I think the City may decide to build its own landfill at some point and I think as we grow, you know, let's face it, 10, 15 years, this area is going to have 1.8 million people and they're going to produce a lot of garbage and I don't know where we're going to put it. I worry about it. I wake it sometimes at night thinking that perhaps, you know, we may be facing a time when we're going to all drown in ta garbage. And my hope is that things like resick willing, Mr. Chairman, things like diversion, precycling, all those things that we can put those things together in such a way that we don't -- we don't adversely impact the environment any more than we have to. I think that -- I think in the last 50 years or so we have been reckless. I think that we have been reckless in the manner in which we have handled our garbage.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem, do you have something more?

>>Goodman: what I'm saying is, among other things, let me run through a small list that's been going through my head as I've listened to everything here here. Right now our landfill, the landfill that we use the most or the one we're about to close is in southEast Austin. It is south. And all the trucks go through. And a portion goes to the northeast. But right now when we talk about tds, it's virtually the same as it is right now. They're a little bit further southeast. And when we talk about the length of time that we want to contract with any of the entities that we've been talking about, we don't -- we don't really act as if we're going to give much business to tds, which I think is one of the problems. They are a good landfill. They do not have the environmental issues from an old, old landfill that we're having to deal with with wmi. And they don't have the political bag acknowledge with us that's come up from trying to sort of rehab and revitalize some of our areas in East Austin the way bfi has had to deal with. So those things aside, we still don't seem to want to take advantage of what tds has to offer. And that bothers me in that it's starting to look a little purposeful. And that I think is what bothers a lot of other people as well. Now, when we're looking at a 30 year answer to a problem, it seems very strange that the answers we come up with are very much the two that we know have great difficulty with that kind of contract and with that kind of longevity and with that kind of capacity. So that's why the whole thing has been bother some to some for a long time. And that's why I seconded Council Member Lewis's motion because I think it's time that we cut out what looks like game playing and get down to a real plan and implement it and not always be backed into this corner of the deadlines because people didn't want to talk to other people somewhere along the line. And community folks kept feeling blindsided. All of a sudden bfi was brought back in when the perception was that it was only wmi and tds to start with. That was a blind side for people. And that has no negative connotation as I speak on bfi, but it has to do with surprise, surprise, surprise, and here we are at the 11th hour. I mean, this is like the 11.99 hour, right, five minutes away?

>>Mayor Watson: literally.

>>Goodman: and it just doesn't do us any good to be trying to get information too late in the day to be able to do anything and then compromise the position because you are in the 11th hour. So if we have options to be able to look at what should have been out on the table all along and give everybody the opportunity to negotiate a realistic but legitimate figure for a 30-year contract, then that's what I want to do. And if we're not able to do it because we've used up all our time and we still never have laid it out along the way, then I'm very unhappy and we'll have to figure out something to do, but we didn't need to be here right now.

>>Lewis: Mayor, Mr. Gregory, let me ask you a question, please.

>> Yes, sir?

>>Lewis: with the 30-year contract, do you think it would be possible for your company to partnership with the City to build a north station with the City reimbursing you over the life of the contract?

>> yes.

>>Lewis: to some degree? I mean, well, to partnership with the City so that the impact with the City is less so that they don't -- we don't have to raise the rate just because we're building a north transfer station.

>> Regardless of the way it worked out, I think we could work with the City to finance and operate a transfer station. It works easierier when there's more garbage and we haul a lot of garbage, more than the City does to the north park.

>>Lewis: it's awful strange I get paid $30,000 a year and all these people get paid all this money and nobody comes up with these situations. There's something wrong with this picture somewhere. I don't know where, but there's something wrong it with it. Thank you, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote will be on the substitute motion.

>>Spelman: Mayor, I'm not sure this is a clarifying question or a friendly amendment, so let me is the question first. Councilmember Garcia, your motion, as I understand it, is to enter into a 30 year contract with tds and a five-year contract with bfi and that for the next 12 months, 33% of our trash goes to tds and the other goes to bfi could we put a definite time on it rather than that fuzzy --.

>>Garcia: why don't we say 18 months.

>>Spelman: then in 18 months then we could revisit that split and perhaps make a new decision as to what percentage goes to each of those places.

>>Garcia: correct. And I think the contracts are Written to allow us to do that.

>>Spelman: the contracts are Written to allow us to move the percentages around on a weekly basis. I think.

>> If I understood what Council Member Garcia's point was was that we would work with the solid waste advisory committee and the task force, the Mayor's task force to really develop a plan that gave you a series of option sos that if you do do a north transfer station, how much could you shift over to the south contract without impacting -- with little or no impact on rates so that you would come back with a plan that laid it all out and you would make some decision. And we may be surprisesed and we enter into the motions with tds, they may move on their price that makes them more attractive. And if that happens, there would be more waste going to tds if it was to our economic advantage and we're willing to sprain that if it's part of the negotiations.

>>Spelman: with that in mind splaer, will we need 18 months to come up with that plan that you're discussing?

>> at a minimum what you're talking about is a plan that lays out how -- the logistics of how you want to move the waste stream. You do a transportation study to each. Then you do the lines. At what point does the price have to be for disposal of a ton of garbage for the transportation to make sense and how much you factor into your transportation cost. We did this study back in '81 and we'd go back and do a similar study that laid that out for you, laid out the sectors of the City that you would need to put them in and then the relative prices that you would have to have for your transportation cost and disposal cost and it makes sense for you to build those transfer stations. And it's a minimal impact to the department. But I think I understand the equations and what we've got to do is get somebody on board to get it done. Spell but it's going to take you 18 months to do it?

>> we may be able to do it sooner.

>>Garcia: all I've done is taken what we've done in the past 18 months and flipped them over. And considering what we have to to do, that 18 month period may be short considering how we do things in the City, you know, how we have to go through all the commissions and everything else. We may have changes. You know, smart growth really works and we have more people in the inner City. We may have changes and we may have to do nings. We will have to work with the capital area planning orx, all those things need to be looked at. I think they need 18 months.

>>Mayor Watson: the motion will be as a friendly -- your question became a friendly amendment and so the motion will be 18 months.

>>Slusher: Mayor? I just have -- most of these have already been put in the motion, but I wanted to make some friendly amendments. One that the democratic implement the audit findings and -- and/or respond to findings that the department feels that it can't implement, the report on progress in 30 days, respond to the solid waste task force's report within 30 days of official release. And I believe we've already got explore transfer stations, explore building transfer stations. And I want to analyze the transportation model and scheduled by the auditor, but I believe that would be covered in the audit reported. And I wanted to clarify one more time. -- That's the end of my friendly amendments and then I would have a question.

>>Mayor Watson: let me walk through those and make sure they're clear. One is that the department implement the audit findings and/or respond to those findings that are not going to be -- it's my understanding, Mr. Rhodes that you have accepted all of the audit findings.

>> That's correct. In my response we would concur with their recommendations.

>>Mayor Watson: so we will have an official report from y'all within 30 days in response to that. Whether the potential friendly amendment is that you would respond to the solid waste task force report within 30 days and you've prepared a response to that.

>> Right.

>>Mayor Watson: where you concur and give an explanation to where you don't concur.

>> That's correct. Our responses with the report that went out Wednesday.

>>Mayor Watson: in addition -- but we want to make sure that that is clearly and officially done within 30 days, explore the possibility of transfer stations and, one, if it's not clearly delineated in the audit, a report back on the transportation findings in that audit.

>> That's right.

>>Mayor Watson: and that's considered to be a friendly amendment. So those will be part of the motion.

>>Slusher: I have two questions. And I think ms. Connor -- you might be able to answer it, but I'm referring to something she answered before, which was that under the substitute motion there is no -- the department can absorb costs to where there's no increase, no rate increase.

>> Right. It will require that in the year two, which was actually next fiscal year, that we will have to come back deferring things that we want to do. But I think we can absorb it.

>>Slusher: but there are things in the aud ited, I believe it's $500,000 that just goes to parks that's been doing that for a number of years. So we'd have a considerable impact. That's already in the substitute motion. Okay. And my second question I want to make sure before we vote is that the percent after -- you've said 18 months, Council Member Garcia. At that point we can adjust the percentages if the City wants to the rates will be locked in.

>> When you say rates, are you --.

>>Slusher: the rates that we're paying -- I'm sorry. The rates that we're paying, the tipping fees, the rates we're paying to the landfills.

>> We'll have contracts.

>>Slusher: they will be locked in the contract. If we decide to go up on one, down on the other, it will -- the top would be -- the top cost would be the rate that's in there tonight.

>> It actually is the rate plus I think the contracts actually have a cost of living factor annually in them. So actually the rates will automatically go up in terms of the tipping fee.

>>.

>>Slusher: but if we change the percentage, that won't change -- owe that won't make the rate go up.

>> The overall solid waste rate?

>>Slusher: the rates in the contract. We can change the percentages and the contract stays the same as far as the cost to us.

>> As it relates to the bfi contract, it is a flat rate. With the cost of living inflation increase annually. For tds, the more that goes to tds, the rate comes down.

>>Slusher: so there's no upward pressure from any rearranging of the percentages.

>> Right. Slurp slush okay. I think. That's all, Mayor Pro Tem.

>>Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem.

>>Goodman: possibly I have a friendly amendment. Let me try this. You had five years for bfi, right? and 30 for tds. And I think that's locking tds in too long and that they have no real incentive to negotiate a better price. Would you consider five for both or seven for both considering that supposedly bfi has seven years left?

>>Garcia: let me explain why I'm putting a short time frame on bfi. And that's because of their capacity issue. In the case of tds, they have capacity. The reports have stated, Mr. Gregory has told us, if in essence we are going to renegotiate, you know, I suspect seven for both of them would be fine. I just thought that tds wanted to have more certainty in the 30 year contract would give them that certainty and would not -- we wouldn't have to be worrying about what's going to happen in the seven year time frame. That's the reason I put it that way. If you want to go to seven with bfi, fine. I feel more comfortable with five.

>> I think that with respect to the -- we need a home base and tds in this instance is your home base. It's the 30 year home base. And I really do believe that when we sit down, we'll negotiate something that is a win for tds and a win for the city. And whether it's equal to what they proposed or some slight variation. But if in 18 months or in five years something happens where the northeast landfill simply don't work any more, you have a place in Mr. Gregory's landfill that is secure for your waste stream. Because it will take the City every bit, if it decides to get back into the landfill business, it will take every bit of 10 years to go permit one. And you're taking 10 years out or so or when this -- five years out, so you're really -- from a security standpoint, it makes more sense. And you should be able to negotiate a better deal with longer term than a shorter term.

>>Goodman: I understand that, but that's what I was talking about earlier. There seems to be no real reason for tds to go into a long-term contract because they're at every turn being treated as if that's not where we want to go. Their prices are too high. It's too far to travel. We need a north station, etcetera, etcetera. So I don't know that they really feel like they're doing anything but being locked in for some time in the future shoud we find something else to do.

>> Well, reading tea leaves. If the Council has asked us to look at building a north transfer station, I would think that's sending a fairly good signal to the southeast landfill that that is something where we want to take a serious look at should there be a good price. And again, I don't have any reason to believe that when we sit down with tds that we'll negotiate something equivalent to what they proposed or something light slightly better for the City. Then the transfer station will make sense for us.

>>Goodman: maybe so. And if we use the right numbers in the first place, they could probably be closer.

>> And if they use the right numbers in our negotiation with them.

>>Goodman: I've looked at the right numbers. They weren't ours.

>>Griffith: Mayor? in order to just codify what the manager just said, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that we actually do what the manager just suggested, which is essentially, number one on Council Member Lewis's list, which is bring back an option for Council consideration that would send 100% of the solid waste collected by the City to tds landfill without an increase in rates and we could do that in the 18 month time frame. Is that a friendly amendment? that's one --.

>>Garcia: I'm not sure that's what the City Manager said.

>>Griffith: that's one of the options.

>>Garcia: that's one of the interpretations, but it's not mine.

>>Griffith: is there -- okay. We're going to look at options again in 18 months.

>>Garcia: correct.

>>Griffith: okay. What I would like to say and what I think several folks would like to say is an option, not eliminating any other option. An option that would send all of the solid waste to the south location with no rate increase.

>>Garcia: let me explain it to you this way. Given what we know from the reports that everybody has given us, my motion was one that gave the City some assurances that they'll have a place to put the trash that we generate and secondly it gives the City Manager a flexibility flexibility -- and if I'm wrong, Jesus on this, let me know. Give the City management and solid waste the flexibility to go do a thing that is in the best interest of the people that live in this community, environmentally, from a rate -- you know, point of view and from, you know, every other aspect that affects solid waste. I think the amendments that were presented that are accepted address all those issues and I think the City manager has said that he can work with it. And we said that one of the things that we could look at is a Council Member Lewis proposal. I don't think that he is in any way, shape or form blocked from doing that.

>>Griffith: right. Is there any thing in what I just suggested that would be a problem for looking at any of the other options?

>> well, part of this is we've debated this since '96.

>>Garcia: no, no, it's been longer than that.

>> But this what it does for our staff is it allows to get this issue settled and then really work on really a semi -- a minor master plan for transportation expenses and for the final options that may play out in the longer term with proper figures, if the figures have been a problem. And we'll get a professional engineering firm in here to draw up proper figures. But we understand the direction of the Council and I think we can live with what the Council is recommending.

>>Garcia: Mayor, let me say this in closing. There are a lot of things that have to be done that we haven't done. We obviously did not communicate well with travis county in this particular study. I see Mr. Submit here from judge biscoe's office. He called me last night at my house and dan and I go way back and I was glad that he felt that -- comfortable enough to call me at the house at 9:00 o'clock at night. But he watch under the circumstances last night and he called me. And his concern was that during the time that carter burr yes, sir was doing the work, they didn't contact them. We we need to understand that this is one dmunt and that everybody that's in the pot, everybody that's working inside needs to work together. I mean, we're not going to solve this. This is a major problem in this community and we all need to be together on this to find the best solution. And I think we're on our way.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote will be on the substitute motion with the amendments. Would you call the roll?

>>Garcia: yes.

>>Griffith: pass.

>>Lewis: no.

>>Slusher: yes.

>>Spelman: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>>Goodman: pass.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote is four yeses, one no and two I take it abstentians. Do you wish to vote on the motion or do you wish to abstain, Council Member Griffith and Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Griffith: everybody did vote?

>>Mayor Watson: everybody except for two.

>>Goodman: can I give a lengthy vote?

>>Mayor Watson: sure.

>>Lewis: I voted no.

>>Mayor Watson: the vote is currently four -- the motion is going to carry, I'm just asking the two who passes if they wish to be shown abstaining or voting. Mayor Pro Tem?

>>Goodman: I'm going to vote yes and the reason is because we have to take action and I think that tds will be thinking that they've been treated unfairly and they will drop out and we will have made our bed.

>>Mayor Watson: Council Member Griffith, do you wish to be shown voting.

>>Griffith: yes, I'm going to be shown voting.

>>Mayor Watson: five notes votes in favor, two no, Council Member Lewis and Council Member Griffith being shown voting no. The substitute motion passes. Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: the City Manager said they've been negotiating this for a long time, but from where I've sat for the last year and a half or year and a half plus, the staff have figured out where they wanted to go, then figured a road to get there. And to me, in other words, the negotiations that they went through for the last year and a half talking about negotiating to me it was like we want to do it -- we want to put some waste at the north and we're going to see who can give us the best rate. And then they said, well, since we have one south, we'll see what they offer. And to me that is not in the best interest of the citizens of Austin. It wasn't the best deal and I've said all along that this garbage thing has stung, you know. And I don't care who hears it because even me, and I don't negotiate contracts. I know that if you're going to negotiate with two or more people, you negotiate with them at the same time if it's at all possible because it is no way the City could have kept secret what they negotiated with bfi once they completed the negotiation that tds couldn't find out because there was too many people that knew what the numbers were and I don't blame tds for not going down. If I had known what they had with bfi or wmi, I wouldn't have moved either. So --.

>>Mayor Watson: I didn't mean to interrupt you.

>>Lewis: I'm finished.

>>Mayor Watson: the remaining item on the agenda is item no. 208. That was an item that was to be discussed in executive session, however, it was not discussed in executive session. The informal policy of the Council is to not take up items in executive session after 5:00 o'clock, so that item will not be taken up today. I'll entertain a motion to postpone that item for one week. Motion is made by Council Member Garcia, seconded Council Member Slusher so postpone item 209 for one week. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Options say no. Motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Austin City Council at this regular scheduled meeting, the motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank y'all very much.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log