THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE WILL TAKE UP IS THE OPERATING BUDGET. THE MOTION THAT I WILL ACCEPT AND THEN THERE ARE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THAT MOTION, BUT THE MOTION THAT I WILL ACCEPT IS TO ADOPT AND APPROVE ON THIRD READING AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1999, AND TERMINATING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2000, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EACH DEPARTMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING THE ERRATA. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE IT ON THIRD READING.
>>GARCIA: SO MOVE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS, I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.
>>GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR, THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT TOLD ME THIS MORNING THAT THERE WAS AN -- A PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND I WILL READ IT INTO THE RECORD. AMEND THE GENERAL FUND TO REDUCE THE BEGINNING BALANCE BY 800,000 AND -- AND CHARLES CURRY WILL EXPLAIN WHAT THIS MEANS, AND INCREASE THE TRANSFER FROM THE AUSTIN ENERGY BY THE SAME AMOUNT TO REFLECT THE -- THE HIGHER REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. I THINK THAT -- THAT PARTICULAR -- THAT PARTICULAR CHANGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE WE HAD THAT 800,000 IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE. IT SHOULD BE IN -- OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, CHARLES?
>> (NODDED HEAD).
>>GARCIA: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT.
>> WHEN WE REPORTED TO YOU LAST WEEK THE REVENUE UPDATE, WE INCLUDED IN THAT A READVISED ESTIMATE FOR THIS YEAR'S AUSTIN -- REVISED AUSTIN ENERGY REVENUE. THEIR TRANSFER FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR INCREASES BY 800,000. WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THE AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET, WE INCLUDED THAT IN THE BEGINNING BALANCE AS IF IT WERE A CURRENT YEAR REVENUE. THE REVENUE APPROPRIATELY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN -- AS A REVENUE IN THE '99-2000 BUDGET AND NOT AS PART OF THE BEGINNING BALANCE. AND THE EFFECT OF THIS WOULD ALSO THEN BE TO AMEND THE AUSTIN ENERGY BUDGET TO INCREASE THAT TRANSFER LINE BY THE 800,000.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE AMENDMENT IS TO AMEND THE GENERAL FUND TO REDUCE THE BEGINNING BALANCE BY $1,800,000 AND INCREASE THE TRANSFER FROM AUSTIN ENERGY BY THE SAME AMOUNT.
>>GARCIA: 800,000, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SORRY, 800,000. MY NOTES DON'T READ WELL. AND INCREASE THE TRANSFER FROM AUSTIN ENERGY BY THE SAME AMOUNT TO REFLECT THE HIGHER REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THE MOTION IS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTIONS CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THE NEXT POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO INCREASE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOWN LAKE ANIMAL SHELTER FOR PET REGISTRATION FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>GRIFFITH: SO MOVE, MAYOR.
>>SLUSHER: SECOND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTIONS CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. NEXT POTENTIAL AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE LIBRARY. THAT IS TO INCREASE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY SUBSIDY FOR NON-RESIDENT BORE ERRORERS.
>>GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL BORE ERRORERS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: -- BORROWS.
>> DISCUSSION?
>>SPELMAN: I WOULD LIKE A DESCRIPTION OF THIS ITEM.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT.
>> WHEN THE BUDGET WAS PREPARED, AUSTIN ENERGY WAS PROPOSING TO -- TO NOT CONTINUE THEIR PROGRAM WHICH WAS IN EFFECT THIS CORNER YEAR OF PAYING FOR OUT OF CITY LIBRARY CARDS. THEY -- AT THE REQUEST OF THE OF THEIR COMMISSION, THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CONTINUE THAT PROGRAM. AND SO THAT -- THE ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECT ON THE -- WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, THE LIBRARY ASSUMED THAT THAT PROGRAM WAS NOT GOING TO CONTINUE. AND THEIR ESTIMATED INCREASE IN REVENUE AS A RESULT OF THE PROGRAM CONTINUING WILL BE THIS $20,000.
>>SPELMAN: HOW IS IT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SUBSIDIZING LIBRARY CARDS IS BRINGING MORE MONEY INTO THE LIBRARY?
>> BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN MORE OUT OF CITY RESIDENTS PURCHASING LIBRARY CARDS.
>> SO THE PRICE IS CHEAPER, WE JUST GET MORE PEOPLE --
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO.
>>SLUSHER: NO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?
>>GRIFFITH: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN?
>>SPELMAN: PASS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: YES.
>>.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: NO.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN?
>>GOODMAN: YES.
>>SPELMAN: I WILL VOTE YES, BUT I WOULD HAVE PREFERED TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH IT FOR A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HEARD WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
>>SLUSHER: I JUST DON'T SEE AUSTIN ENERGY --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HANG ON A SECOND COUNCILMEMBER. THE ITEM PASSED, SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT IS IN -- ON THE PREVAILING SIDE MOVE TO RECONSIDER TO A -- ALLOW FOR THAT DISCUSSION BY A COUNCILMEMBER. LET ME CALL THIS ALL OUT FOR THE RECORD. A MOTION HAS FIVE YESES AND TWO NOS. SHOWING COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN VOTING YES. SO THE MOTION PASSES. THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA TO RECONSIDER, IT IS SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN. SO ALL -- IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL RECONSIDER IT. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: WELL, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT EXPLAINING MY POSITION, COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN. I THOUGHT YOU RAISED SOME GOOD QUESTIONS THERE. I JUST -- MY PROBLEM IS WHY AUSTIN ENERGY, THE UTILITY, IS SUBSIDIZING OUT OF CITY USERS OF THE LIBRARY. TO ME THAT'S A DOUBLE PROBLEM BECAUSE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE SUBSIDIZING OUT OF CITY RESIDENTS AND SECOND OF ALL WHY IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD COME OUT OF THE LIBRARY BUDGET AND NOT AUSTIN ENERGY.
>>GOODMAN: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM THEN COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>GOODMAN: JUST TO OFFER A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY WHY THIS WAS STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE COMMISSION, JUDY FATH TOOK THE LEAD THAT NOT ONLY WAS IT A GOOD IDEA IN GENERAL BUT IT WAS A GOOD MARKETING TOOL FOR THE UTILITY. THE REASON THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OUTSIDE OUR UTILITY SERVICE AREA, IT'S NO THE UTILITY NOT THE LIBRARY TO FUND.
>>LEWIS: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, LAST YEAR IT WAS -- OUR UTILITY CUSTOMERS WAS THE ONES THAT -- NOT -- IF SOMEONE IS ON LCRA OR BLUEBONNET, THEN THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, AM I CORRECT? AM I CORRECT IN THAT?
>>GARZA: THAT SHOULD BE THE UNDERSTANDING.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER. LAST YEAR WE HAD ABOUT 11 AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
>>LEWIS: THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. CUSTOMERS OF OURS.
>> THEY HAVE TO BE AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS AND NON-CITY RESIDENTS.
>>LEWIS: RIGHT. OKAY.
>> YES, SIR, THIS WAS RECOMMENDED AS COUNCILMEMBER BY THE UTILITY COMMISSION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THE UTILITY OR THE GENERAL FUND, IT IS THE UTILITY BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CUSTOMERS OF THE UTILITY WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY. AND I DON'T THINK THE GENERAL FUND OUGHT TO INCUR THAT PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE. THE DECISION WAS LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, BY THE -- BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION AS A MARKETING -- STRICTLY A MARKETING SCHEME. I MEAN,S THAT'S ALL IT IS. YOU KNOW, IT'S A WAY IN THE -- IF I REMEMBER SHUDE CORRECTLY, IT'S A WAY TO BUILD GOODWILL WITH THOSE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. SO I HAD HESITANCY AT THE BEGINNING, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK NOW THAT IT IS -- THAT IT IS A GOOD IDEA AND IT OUGHT TO BE FUNDED BY THE COMPANY THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH THOSE CUSTOMERS AND NOT WITH THE GENERAL FUND. I DON'T WANT TO SPEND GENERAL FUND MONEY TO SERVE PEOPLE THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY.
>>GRIFFITH: AND --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?
>>GRIFFITH: NEITHER DO I. I THINK IT'S A QUESTIONABLE PRACTICE IN AND OF ITSELF AND THAT'S WHY I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MR. MANNING, I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION AT THE TIME OR PART OF THE DISCUSSION, REMIND ME, BECAUSE MY MEMORY WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS AS SOMEWHAT OF A PILOT, SEE HOW IT PLAYED OUT. CAN YOU GIVE US SOME DETAIL ON HOW IT HAS ACTUALLY PLAYED OUT IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE TAKING THE SUBZZY, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SUBZY, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE ARE ACTUALLY REACHING WITH IT.
>> THERE ARE 1,196 CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS. IN ESSENCE WE PAY HALF OF THE LIBRARY FEE. $24 PER CUSTOMER. WE HAVE NOT PICKED UP THE DESIRE COST OF THAT SERVICE. WE ARE PAYING 50% OF THAT, WHICH IS $24 PER CUSTOMER.
>>MAYOR WATSON: REMIND ME AT THE TIME DID THE -- [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE.
>> SHE WAS SAYING WE HAD SENT AN -- A BILL STUFFER TO ALL OUT OF CITY RATEPAYERS AND THAT WAS A SUBSCRIPTION RATE BASED ON THAT PROCESS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I AM A BILL STUFFER, TOO. [LAUGHTER]. I LIKE THAT TERM.
>> YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS RECOMMENDED OR THE TIME THIS CAME FORWARD, DID WE HAVE ANY SORT OF ANTICIPATION OR ARE WE MEETING ANY SORT OF ANTICIPATED RESPONSE TO IT OR WAS IT JUST KIND OF A GUESS AND SEE WHAT WOULD WORK IN.
>> IN SAYS SENSE THIS WAS A GUESS. LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR IT HAD GONE THROUGH BUDGET APPROVAL. INDEED WE DID GET ALMOST 1200 SUBSCRIBERS TO THE PROGRAM. WE DID NOT KNOW AND -- WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE SUBSCRIPTION RATE WOULD BE. SO WE LIMITED THE PARTICIPATION AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS JUST TO CONTINUE THAT THIS YEAR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MS. BRANCH, COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? HOW IS IT WORKING FROM A LIBRARY PERSPECTIVE?
>> PROBABLY BRINGING IN MORE CUSTOMERS FOR US. WE THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN?
>>SPELMAN: HOW MANY CUSTOMERS DID WE ANTICIPATE BRINGING IN WITH THIS PROGRAM A YEAR AGO? DO WE HAVE AN IDEA?
>> WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW.
>> NO ONE HAD DONE A STUDY THAT SAID THAT YOU WOULD GET X PEOPLE TO RESPOND.
>>SPELMAN: YOU MENTIONED THERE'S A LIMIT ON PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE LIMIT?
>> THE LIMIT WOULD BE THE FUNDING OF THE PROGRAM, THE DOLLARS.
>>SPELMAN: HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD WE CONCEIVABLY FUND WITH THIS PROGRAM?
>> WITH 20,000, THAT'S ABOUT 12 OR 1300, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY, WE ARE JUST ABOUT --
>> WE WOULD EXPECT THE SAME LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN THIS YEAR'S COMING BUDGET AS WE HAD LAST YEAR.
>>SPELMAN: IF MORE PEOPLE CAME THROUGH THE DOOR, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM ANY LIBRARY CARDS ANYWAY?
>> CORRECT, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL IF IT REALLY WAS OVERSUBSCRIBED AND ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRAM.
>>SPELMAN: OKAY.
>>LEWIS: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. LOOSE HOW MANY POTENTIAL -- WELL, HOW MANY OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS DO WE HAVE, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND?
>> PROBABLY 30% OF OUR CLIENT BASE, 90,000.
>> WE HAVE 322, 320 PLUS THOUSAND.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, EVERYTHING, WE ARE PROBABLY IN THE 340 RANGE.
>>LEWIS: YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM -- ON THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO INCREASE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY SUBSIDY FOR NON-RESIDENT BORROWERS. MOTION MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. I'M SORRY.
>>GARCIA: I DIDN'T HAVE THE MIKE ON THE FIRST TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I THOUGHT YOU WERE REPEATING YOURSELF THESE DAYS. [LAUGHTER]. MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
>>GARCIA: THERE'S AN ECHO IN THE ROOM.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED TWICE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO.
>>SLUSHER: NO.
>>GRIFFITH: NO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FIVE YESES, TWO NO, SIR, THE NOS BEING COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. THAT WILL TAKE US BACK TO AN ADOPTION OF THE OPERATING BUDGET AS AMENDED INCLUDING THE THREE AMENDMENTS PASSED TODAY AND INCLUDING THE ERRATA. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA AND SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: I --.
>>SLUSHER: WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FUND AMENDMENTS?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I MISSED IT, I APOLOGIZE.
>>GARCIA: LET ME ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION, MAYOR, IF I MAY. ON THE ISSUE OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THE PLAN IS STILL THE SAME AS TO WAIT ON THE GOGGIO AMENDMENTS UNTIL THERE'S MORE OF AN EVALUATION BY THE COUNCIL, CORRECT?
>>GARZA: THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS SOME ADJUSTMENTS. I THINK THE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR THE DENTAL CLINIC, SOUTH AUSTIN IS FOR SIX MONTHS. WE HAVE ALSO INTENDING IN THE FIRST QUARTER TO BRING TO YOU A PLAN OF HOW WE THINK THAT TRANSITION CAN WORK TO RBJ. IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO DECIDE AFTER THE PRESENTATION IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THAT PLAN THAT YOU BELIEVE IT IS NOT ADEQUATE, WE WOULD THEN RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO TAKE IT FOR A FULL YEAR AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN CLINIC. THE MONTOPOLIS IS FUNDED FOR A FULL YEAR. I THINK WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS BRING BACK TO YOU A PLAN SOMEWHERE RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST QUARTER INDICATING TO YOU HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO WORK WITH THAT, SO I THINK THAT THE DOLLARS ARE THERE, IF WE NEED TO INCREASE FUNNING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WE ARE READY TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>>GARCIA: OKAY.
>>GOODMAN: TO ADD ON TO THAT IN TALKING TO DAVID LOURIE EARLIER THIS WEEK, WE DISCUSSED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REDESIGN, IF YOU WILL, OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF PROVISION OF CARE. AND AT THE SAME TIME AS WE FOLK ABOUT THIS, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE CHECK ON HOW THE MEDICAL SOCIAL WORKERS DID IN THEIR NEW LOCATION AND WHETHER OR NOT WE DO IN FACT NEED FOUR NUTRITIONISTS ONE FOR EACH FULLY OPERATING CLINIC AND ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO RESOLVE TODAY, BUT NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE FINALLY CEASE THEIR BEING SO TO SPEAK.
>>GARZA: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND. IN ADDITION WE WILL BRING TO YOU SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO THE EXTENSION OF THE GEEJ I DON'T CONTRACT THAT TAKES THEM THROUGH THE TIME -- GOGGIO CONTRACT.
>>GOODMAN: CAN EVERYTHING COME IN AT THE SAME TIME.
>>GARZA: I THINK THAT AMENDMENT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN FASTER, WE ARE ABOUT AT THE END OF THEIR AUTHORIZATION UNDER MY AUTHORITY. AT SOME TIME IN EARLY OCTOBER I AM GOING TO NEED TO ASK FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR SOME EXTENSION.
>>GOODMAN: COULD I ASK YOU JUST ONE MORE THING. MS. DWIGHT AND MS. KITCHEN, HOW DO THEY FIT INTO --
>> WELL, MS. EQUIP, MARYANNE, I DIDN'T SEE HER AT THE MEETING, WE HAD A MEETING A WEEK AGO WITH COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN WHERE WHERE HE BOUGHT ALL OF THE TEAM TOGETHER. MS. KITCHEN WAS AT THAT MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT A PROCESS OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO GET US ON TRACK TO DO THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF POLICY DIRECTION, INFORMATION TO THE COUNCIL. WHAT WE WERE GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THERE BE A RESOLUTION THAT THE COUNCIL COULD GIVE US SOME VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OUTLINE, IF YOU WILL, OF A PROCESS THAT WE WILL NEED TO FOLLOW SO THAT THE INFORMATION FOLLOWS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS RATHER THAN JUST GIVING IT TO YOU ALL AT ONE TYPE, THAT THEY BE DONE IN A -- SUCH A WAY SO THAT YOU GET IT AS PART OF AN ORDERED PLAN SO THAT YOU CAN BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS AS PART OF AN OVERALL SYSTEM.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY.
>>GARZA: I CAN GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN ASKED FOR THAT BRIEFING AND WE HAD THAT BRIEFING EARLIER LAST WEEK. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME TALK WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT WE ARE OUTLINED AT THAT MEETING.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE NEXT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS ARE OTHER FUND AMENDMENTS, I APOLOGIZE, I SKIPPED OVER THOSE. THE FIRST POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS TO AMEND THE CONSERVATION REBATES AND INCENTIVES FUND BY INCREASING THE TRANSFER IN FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND BY $1 MILLION, AND INCREASING BUDGETED EXPENDITURES IN THE COMMERCIAL EXISTING LINE BY $600,000. THE LOAN OPTIONS BY $100,000. REBATE OPTIONS BY 300,000. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>>GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL. MAYOR THIS IS TO REFLECT WHAT WE DID YESTERDAY, HOUSES KEEPING.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE MOTION IS MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: YES, THANK YOU. MAYOR, THIS WENT THROUGH FAST YESTERDAY AND I HAVE SINCE ASKED SOME OF OUR UTILITY FOLKS ABOUT IT ON MY INITIATIVE TO TALK TO THEM. AND I THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME -- WELL, LET'S JUST SAY THAT WE ARE DOING QUITE A BIT ON CONSERVATION, INCREASED EFFORT ALREADY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYTHING THAT'S -- THAT'S BEING DONE IS BEING COUNTED IN THE BUDGET, SO IN THE TOTAL THAT'S BEING USED TO JUSTIFY ADDING THIS MILLION. I WAS WONDERING IF MR. DUNCAN COULD GET UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE PLAN WOULD. I THINK ALSO THE C.S.C., THE PART OF THE C.S.C. THAT'S GOING TO ENERGY CONSERVATION IS NOT [INAUDIBLE] IN THIS LINE ITEM, EITHER. THAT INCREASES OUR SAVINGS. COULD YOU ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
>>LEWIS: I'M SORRY [LAUGHTER].
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER. WE ARE INCREASING CONSERVATION IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UTILITY BUDGET. THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS THIS YEAR. WE ARE TRYING SEVERAL NEW CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, SUCH AS LOAD MANAGEMENT FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND WATER HEATERS AND SUCH IN OUR PROGRAM. ADDITIONALLY, OUTSIDE OF THIS CONSERVATION BUDGET THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING HERE, THE C.S.C. PROJECT, WHICH IS A SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS C.I.P. PROJECT IS CONSERVATION AND LOAD MANAGEMENT, LENDS QUITE A BIT TO OUR CONSERVATION EFFORT WHEN IT IS CONCLUDED. IN ADDITION ON THE OPERATIONS SIDE WE ARE DOING THINGS AT DECKER POWER PLANT THAT WILL INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM SIGNIFICANTLY. ALL OF THESE ARE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UTILITY BUDGET AND WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER AS A -- IS A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER INCREASE IN CONSERVATION THAN WE HAVE DONE BEFORE IN THE PAST.
>>SLUSHER: THAT WOULD BE IN SPENDING AND IN SAVINGS?
>> YES.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. COULD YOU GIVE ME SOME FIGURES ON BOTH, COULD YOU?
>> WELL, ON OUR TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION EFFORT, THAT IS REBATES AN INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, FOR INSTANCE THIS YEAR WE ARE GOING TO GET SOMEWHERE PROBABLY IN THE 21 MEGAWATT OR SO RANGE. FOR OUR COMING YEAR'S BUDGET, WE ARE APPROACHING AROUND 30 MEGAWATTS AND TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION AND REBATES; IN THE C.S.C. PROGRAM, WE ARE FUNDING IT THIS YEAR, THE ACTUAL CONSERVATION WILL COME IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, BUT WHEN THAT IS ACHIEVED, THE -- THE ENERGY SAVINGS THERE WILL EQUAL ALMOST A FIFTH OR 20% OF ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS IN THAT ONE EFFORT. AND THEN ON THE DECKER POWER PLANT WHERE THEY ARE DOING RETROFITS TO THE PLANT, THE SAVINGS THERE WILL RANGE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 12 MEGAWATTS UP TO MAYBE AS MUCH AS 20 MEGAWATTS. WE HADN'T FINALLY DETERMINED YET BECAUSE OF THE BIDS ARE STILL COMING BACK. BUT THAT'S -- WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, WE ARE EXPECTING ALMOST 60 MEGAWATTS OF DEMAND REDUCTION. THE MOST THAT WE EVER ACHIEVED THROUGH TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS WITH FULL COMMERCIAL REBATES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PAST WAS RIGHT AT 40 MEGAWATTS. SO IT IS A -- IT IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.
>>SLUSHER: SO IT WOULD BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT A 50% INCREASE OVER THE MAXIMUM WE HAVE ACHIEVED IN A YEAR IN THE PAST?
>> WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING DONE ON BOTH THE UTILITY SIDE AND TRADITIONAL REBATE AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
>>SLUSHER: DID YOU -- DOES THIS INCLUDE THE PROGRAM THAT -- WHERE THE AIR CONDITIONERS WOULD GET CUT OFF FOR THREE MINUTES A DAY ON -- ON HOUSES THAT VOLUNTEERED FOR THAT PROGRAM?
>> THIS DOES INCLUDE THAT AIR CONDITIONING LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, YES.
>>SLUSHER: WHEN WOULD THAT START GOING ON LINE?
>> WELL, AFTER BUDGET APPROVAL, WE WOULD START TO CONTRACT IMMEDIATELY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THESE, WE WOULD BE WORKING TO GET IN AS MANY AS WE COULD GET IN BY NEXT SUMMER'S LOAD.
>> HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THIS MILLION WOULD INCREASE THAT 60 MEGAWATT NUMBER?
>> WELL, IT'S ACCORDING TO WHERE YOU PUT IT. THERE ARE SOME PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOT -- JUST NOT AS COST EFFECTIVE AS OTHER PROGRAMS IN TERMS OF BANG FOR THE BUCK, IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH ENERGY SAVINGS YOU GET. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF THE MILLION WERE PUT IN AT ALL, WE WOULD NEED TO STEP BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLACE WOULD BE TO PLACE THAT MONEY. I WOULD NOT NORMALLY PUT IT INTO SOME OF THE REBATE PROGRAMS WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR 10 OR 15 YEARS. I WOULD LOOK AT SOME OF THE NEWER EFFORTS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT COUNCILMEMBER?
>>SLUSHER: YES.
>> YOU JUST SAID IF THE MILLION WERE PUT IN AT ALL. THAT AT LEAST SUGGESTED IN THAT STATEMENT IS THAT FIRST OF ALL IT WASN'T RECOMMENDED BY YOU, AND SECONDLY ARE YOU -- WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE DO IT NOW BASED UPON THE PROGRAM THAT YOU HAVE PLANNED OUT FOR THE NEXT YEAR?
>> WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT OVER THIS YEAR FINE TUNING OUR PROGRAMS. IT WAS NOT OUR RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THIS ADDITIONAL MONEY. WE EXPANDED THE REBATE PROGRAMS THAT WE THOUGHT NEEDED EXPANSION IN THIS BUDGET AND THAT WAS OUR BUDGET RECOMMENDATION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER I INTERRUPTED YOU.
>>SLUSHER: NO. I WAS THROUGH, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. MANNING A QUESTION, IF I COULD. THANKS, ROGER.
>>GOODMAN: CAN I FOLLOW HIM?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH, SURE.
>>LEWIS: DON'T GO TOO FAR. [LAUGHTER].
>>SPELMAN: IF WE WERE TO NOT PUT THIS ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLARS INTO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IT? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO IT? WE HAVEN'T BUDGETED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WAS TO THAT MILLION DOLLARS OF GREEN BACKS?
>> WE WOULD NOT ASK FOR THE MILLION DOLLAR. IN OUR BUDGET PROCESS THE ONE THING THAT ROGER DIDN'T MENTION IS BEFORE WE EVER MET WITH OUR CITY MANAGER, WE CUT OUR OPERATING BUDGET $4.2 MILLION. BEFORE WE EVER CAME WITH AN INITIAL BUDGET PACKAGE. IF THE MONEY WEREN'T IN CONSERVATION, WE WOULD NOT ASK FOR ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS IN OPERATIONS.
>>SPELMAN: SO THAT MEANS IT WOULD BE IN YOUR FUND BALANCE.
>> YES, SIR.
>>SPELMAN: IF WE CHANGED OUR MINDS, 3, 6 MONTHS FROM NOW, SAYING YOU KNOW WE DECIDED WE WANT TO TAKE SOME PORTION OF THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND PUT IT IN CONSERVATION SOMEHOW DEFINED OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN YOUR BUDGET, IT WOULD STILL BE THERE?
>> IF ONE OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS WERE A GOOD SUCCESS, WE MIGHT COME BACK BASED ON THE RESULTS OF LOAD MANAGEMENT.
>>SPELMAN: SEEMS TO ME BASED ON WHAT ROGER TOLD US, BASED ON THE HASTINESS OF THE DECISION WE MADE YESTERDAY, IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR US TO KEEP THAT MONEY IN THE FUND BALANCE, BUT ASK ROGER TO MONITOR THE SUCCESS OF SOME OF HIS NEW PROGRAMS AND TO GET BACK WITH US IN THREE OR SIX MONTHS AND LET US KNOW HOW THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF AMEND -- ADDING TO THOSE FUNDS THAT SEEM TO BE DOING A GOOD JOB FOR US.
>> WE WOULD CERTAINLY INTEND TO DO THAT.
>>SPELMAN: THANKS, JOHN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM THEN COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>GOODMAN: LET ME ASK JUST A FEW QUESTIONS AFTER I SAY IS THAT WHEN WE FIRST DID THE BUSINESS PLAN, WHEN WE KNEW COMPETITION OR DEREGULATION WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT WAS COMING BEFORE WE WERE TO GO TO THE BOND HOUSES IN NEW YORK, WE WORKED ON OUR BUSINESS PLAN WITH THE PROVISO THAT WE HAVE AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL OF THE GOALS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEEDED TO CHANGE ANY OF THAT. THE CONSERVATION DOLLARS THAT WE USED TO PUT INTO THE REBATE PROGRAM DID PAY OFF IN THAT BY THAT TIME WE COULD ALSO POINT TO PRUDENT BUSINESS MEASURES FOR THE BOND HOUSES BECAUSE WE HAD NOT HAD TO BUILD ADDITIONAL GENERATION PLANTS DUE TO OUR CONSERVATION, IE REBATE EFFORTS. WHEN WE CAME TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A CRISIS OR CLOSE TO ONE AT LEAST, A VERY IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL SITUATION, BECAUSE IN WAITING FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO ABOUT COMPETITION IN THE UTILITIES, THE PROPOSED GENERATION THAT WAS TO OCCUR IN THE STATE, NEW FACILITIES, DID NOT GET BUILT. AND WE WERE IN THE POSITION WHERE WE HAD TO COME OFF THE SCHEDULE WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PUT INTO PLACE FOR HOLLY FOR ONE THING BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAD THE 15% PAD AND -- IN CAPACITY. IS THAT CORRECT OR INCORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IN TERMS OF NEEDING THE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME GO FROM THERE TO WHAT ROGER SAID WAS THE C.S.C. INITIATIVE IS GOING TO DO 1/5TH OF 20% OF THE RESIDENTIAL USE, CAN YOU TRANSLATE THAT INTO A SAVINGS OF MEGAWATTS?
>> THAT WOULD BE FOUR OR FIVE -- THE C.S.C. PROJECT WILL BE FOUR OR FIVE MEGAWATTS IN LOAD REDUCTION.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. AM I CORRECT OR INCORRECT IN THINKING THAT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 400 MEGAWATTS TO REPLACE WHAT HOLLY GENERATED?
>> HOLLY IS ABOUT 575 MEGAWATTS.
>>GOODMAN: AM I CORRECT IN RECALLING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE, BECAUSE OF GROWTH, A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 400 MEGAWATTS IN CAPACITY?
>> THE CURRENT GENERATION PLAN IS FOR 2 100 MEGAWATT PEAKERS AND A GAS FIRED UNIT.
>>GOODMAN: SO IT'S 430. NOW TO ADD MORE MONEY INTO THE CONSERVATION REBATE PLANS AT THIS TIME, IS AN IMPROVEMENT. IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEM, BUT BIT BY BIT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AS A UTILITY IF IN FACT WE ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE LESS DEPENDENT ON THE FACT THAT IF OTHER GENERATION PLANTS DON'T MATERIALIZE SOMEWHERE, WE ARE IN TROUBLE. [INAUDIBLE] AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AS WELL. I DON'T THINK THAT IT HURTS TO INVEST IN A LITTLE MORE SUSTAINABILITY FOR OUR OWN UTILITY AND OUR OWN USERS. THE ADDITION OF THIS MONEY BRINGS IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS IN SPENDING TERMS, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THIS IS NOT ENORMOUSLY FRIVOLOUS OR AN INCREDIBLE INCREASE BEYOND ANYTHING WE HAVE EVER DONE BEFORE. AND I THINK THAT THE INVESTMENT RETURN IS FAIRLY SELF EVIDENT. THANKS, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK -- I WILL TURN THAT BACK ON NOW. HAVE WE DID ANY VERIFICATION ON -- ON THE UNITS OR HOUSES OR BUSINESSES THAT WE HAVE SERVICED WITH THE CONSERVATION AS TO FINDING OUT, GOING BACK AND FINDING OUT WHAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT WAS USED BEFORE CONSERVATION AND THE AMOUNT THAT'S USED AFTER TO FIND OUT FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROGRAM IS -- IS WORKING?
>> YES, SIR. WE DON'T DO IT ON EVERY INSTALLATION OBVIOUSLY. WE SPOT CHECK AND HAVE AN EVALUATION DONE PERIODICALLY IN WHICH WE LOOK AT BOTH THE BILL ANALYSIS OF WHAT THEIR CONSUMPTION WAS BEFORE AND AFTER THE RETROFIT. AND WE ALSO DO ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 12 SER AIR CONDITIONERS ARE ACHIEVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, BUT IT'S ON A SHOT CHECK BASIS. THEN EVERY FEW YEARS WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT COME IN TO DO AN EVALUATION TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GETTING THE MEGAWATT SAVINGS WE SAY WE ARE GETTING.
>>LEWIS: IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU DO 10 RE -- REPLACE 10 UNITS, DO UPGRADES IN 10 DIFFERENT PLACES WITH THE INSTALLATION AND ALL OF THAT, AND WHAT DO WE CHECK, ONE PERCENT OR 10% OF IT OR WHAT?
>> WELL, WE VERIFY 100% THAT THE UNITS ARE PUT IN.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, I KNOW.
>> BUT IN TERMS OF BILL ANALYSIS, OH, IT'S PROBABLY JUST A FEW PERCENTAGE THAT WE CHECK OF THE WHOLE -- WE PUT IN A THOUSAND OR MORE AND WE JUST CHECK A FEW PERCENTAGE AND THEN CALIBRATE OUR ENGINE -- OR COMPUTER MODEL ACCORDING TO THOSE FINDINGS.
>> ONE OTHER QUESTION. I MENTIONED THIS YESTERDAY, I GUESS. WITH THE METER READERS. DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO TARGET PEOPLE WITH OLDER AIR CONDITIONERS? BECAUSE BASICALLY I THINK IN ENERGY SAVINGS, MOST BUSINESSES -- BUSINESSES, NLGS THEY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES, ARE GOING TO ENERGY EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT. BUT MOST HOMEOWNERS WITH OLD EQUIPMENT, IF IT'S WORKING, THEY JUST LEAVE IT THERE AND THEY ARE LOSING A LOT OF ENERGY. OR USING A LOT OF ENERGY THAT'S NOT NECESSARY.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO. I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT. WE WOULD HAVE TO TRAIN METER READERS IN SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY PROFESSIONALLY HAVE A BACKGROUND IN. THEN SECONDLY IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO LOOK FROM THE OUTSIDE AND DETERMINE WHERE THE OLDER UNITS ARE. WHAT WE HAVE DETERMINED FROM THE SURVEYS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST OF OUR PROGRAM IS THAT WHEN AIR CONDITIONINGS GO OUT AND PEOPLE PURCHASE NEW AIR CONDITIONINGS, AS MUCH AS 85% OF ALL OF THE NEW AIR CONDITIONINGS BEING INSTALLED GO THROUGH OUR PROGRAM. AND UNTIL AIR CONDITIONINGS GO OUT, IT'S USUALLY NOT COST EFFECTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO TRADE THEM OUT.
>>LEWIS: WELL, IT MAY NOT BE COST EFFICIENT IN THE SENSE THAT -- BUT A CUSTOMER, UNLESS THEY REMAINS THAT ME CAN HAVE A NEW UNIT AND NOT PAY AS MUCH, PLUS IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THEM ONCE THEY FINISH PAYING FOR IT. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- I HAVE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAD OLDER UNITS AND FINALLY THEY CHANGED THEM OUT AND DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, ELECTRICAL BILL WAS CUT IN HALF WITH -- WITH THE SAME TYPE OF OPERATION AS THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY. SO I THINK IT'S AN EDUCATION PROCESS WITH THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE A BUSINESS WHEN WE DO ENERGY SAVINGS -- ENERGY RETROFITS. I MEAN, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY ANY MORE FOR THE UTILITY BILL, PLUS THE PAYMENT, WHY NOT HAVE NEW EQUIPMENT? YOU KNOW? AND THAT WAY EVERYBODY SAVES. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO MORE EDUCATION TO -- AND I THINK IF WE DID MORE EDUCATION, WE WOULD -- WE WOULD RECEIVE A GREATER SAVINGS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?
>>GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT INVESTMENTS IN CONSERVATION ARE GOOD FOR OUR UTILITY. I HAVE A LITTLE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE THIS ONE SETS OUT THE AMOUNTS THAT WE ARE -- THAT WE OUGHT TO SPEND BY RESOLUTION BEFORE THEY -- BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT HAS HAD A TIME TO EVALUATE IT. WE ARE NOW PAST THE SEASON OF HIGH CONSUMPTION. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS NOT PASS THIS ONE TODAY AND CONSIDER IT, TAKE IT TO YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM, TAKE IT TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, BRING IT BACK TO US, THIS IS NOT ONE THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE PRODUCING REVENUE WITH AT THIS TIME. THIS IS JUST USING UP PENNING -- USING UP THE BALANCE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO WE COULD SPEND ENDING BALANCE AT MY ONE TIME INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT NOW. PARTICULARLY I AM CONCERNED THAT MR. DUNCAN SAYS THERE MAY BE A BETTER WAY TO SPEND THIS MONEY THAN USING IT -- DID I HEAR YOU CORRECT ON THAT?
>> RIGHT.
>>GARCIA: SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DON'T CONSIDER THIS FUND AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME AND THAT WE INSTEAD SEND IT BACK TO MANAGEMENT FOR THEIR REVIEW TO SEE HOW BEST TO USE THESE DOLLARS, TAKE THEM TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND THEN BRING THEM BACK HERE SOMETIME THIS WINTER AND IF WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO IT IN PREPARATION FOR THE NEXT HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION MONTHS.
>> WE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, COUNCILMEMBER, PLUS WE SHOULD BRING BACK TO YOU WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME THE SUCCESS OF THE LOAD MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS.
>>GARCIA: OKAY.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, IF THAT WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, I WOULD SECOND IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION?
>>GARCIA: YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. HANG ON, LET ME GET MY NOTES WHERE I CAN -- SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION?
>>GOODMAN: YEAH, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM?
>>GOODMAN: IN AN ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO WHAT I HAVE BEEN PROPOSING AND SO IN KIND OF ANOTHER WORLD, I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THIS MOTION, BUT SINCE IT IS TO NEGATE MINE I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT I WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? THE VOTE IS ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO?
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE MOTION PASSES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO TWO WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH BEING SHOWN VOTING NO.
>>LEWIS: WHAT? OH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IS THAT ACCURATE COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>>LEWIS: SHOW ME VOTING NO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. THEN A 4 TO 3 VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS VOTING NO. THE NEXT POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT WHERE WE WOULD AMENDMENT THE SOLID WASTE SERVICES FUND BY INCREASING EXPENDITURES IN THE PAY AS YOU THROW RECYCLING PROGRAM BY $75,000 AND DECREASING THE ENDING FUND BALANCE BY THE SAME AMOUNT FOR RECYCLING ALTERNATIVE DROPOFF CENTER.
>>SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL.
>>GARCIA: SECOND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTIONS CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR? SINCE WE DID SOMETHING YESTERDAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY AND THE $1 MILLION, DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE?
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GETTING READY TO ASK MR. CURRY. HELP ME OUT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE HAVE A BALANCE AT LEAST OF $40,000, IF I AM LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT, IN THE GENERAL FUND. THE NEXT QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS BECAUSE OF THE OTHER FUND AMENDMENTS WHICH WAS DONE YESTERDAY, ON ITEM 6, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, TELL ME WHAT THAT DOES THERE TO --
>> IT WOULD BE MY SENSE THAT IN THE MOTION THAT THE COUNCIL JUST APPROVED, THAT YOU NEGATED THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED YESTERDAY --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S RIGHT.
>> SO WHEN YOU ADOPT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BUDGET UNDER ITEM 6 IT WOULD BE WITH ALL PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS. AND SO THAT -- THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR ENDING BALANCE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I APOLOGIZE THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID TO ME.
>> I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. [LAUGHTER].
>>MAYOR WATSON: I AM SURE IT'S ME.
>> WHEN YOU ADOPT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BUDGET UNDER ITEM 6, IN DOING THAT YOU ARE ALSO APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE AND ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO DELETE THE USE OF THE MILLION DOLLAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PUTTING IT IN THE ENDING BALANCE. OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. IT WOULD BE NOT TO APPROPRIATE THE MILLION DOLLAR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S WHEN I COME TO ITEM 6.
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET'S COME BACK TO ITEM 1 FOR JUST A SECOND. IN THE OPERATING BUDGET IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE --
>> AN ENDING BALANCE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO ME IS THAT THE CHANGE IN THE OTHER FUND AMENDMENTS OVER YESTERDAY, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE GET OVER TO ITEM 6. BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENDING BALANCE FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET.
>> OF THE GENERAL FUND, NO, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OF THE GENERAL FUND. THEN WE COME BACK UP TO THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND CHANGES, IF I READ THIS CORRECTLY, WE HAVE AN ENDING BALANCE OF $40,000.
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, WHAT I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND, MR. CURRY YOU FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN IF THIS STRIKES YOU IN DOING YOUR BUDGET STUFF AS A BAD IDEA, IF WE NEED TO GO, COUNCIL, IT STROOKS ME THAT BASED UPON ONE OF THE DISCUSSION WES HAD YESTERDAY CONCERNING COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS' MOTION ON FEES, THAT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO IS WE DON'T GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON THIRD READING OF THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND RIGHT NOW. THAT INSTEAD I PULL THAT OFF AND WE GO TO THE FEES AN OTHER THINGS BECAUSE THAT MAY ULTIMATELY IMPACT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND. SO INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PASS SOMETHING THAT HAS -- HAS THAT $40,000 HANGING OUT THERE, WE WILL GO TO THE OTHER ITEMS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS STILL ATTEMPTS TO PROPOSE CHANGING THE ALARM FEE, BUT THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN IMPACT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE $40,000. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS WE TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS BEFORE WE COME BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION FROM COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CAN I GET YOU TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION TO ADOPT THE OPERATING BUDGET AS AMENDED?
>>GARCIA: YES, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT, I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA IN A SECOND. I AM GOING TO SKIP OVER ITEM 3, WHICH IS THE AD VALOREM TAX RATE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT YET VOTING ON THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 4, FINES, FEES, OTHER CHARGES. THE MOTION WOULD BE --.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, COUNCILMEMBER?
>>GARCIA: YOU LEFT ME A LITTLE BIT BEHIND ON THIS. WHEN WE DID YESTERDAY'S ITEM 6, ELECTRIC UTILITY, WE HAD THE $1 MILLION AMENDMENT DONE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE ARE NEGATING THAT AMENDMENT?
>>MAYOR WATSON: I BELIEVE WE ARE. SO WHAT I AM GOING TO DO WHEN WE GET TO ITEM NO. 6, WE WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AS PART OF PASSAGE OF THE OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.
>>GARCIA: SECOND THING IS WHEN WE DID THIS, WE TRANSFERRED FOR CONSERVATION REBATES, DID WE AMEND THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO -- TO PUT THE MONEY ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE?
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING TODAY AS I UNDERSTAND IT IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S ORIGINAL MOTION HAD PASSED.
>>GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ITEM NO. 4, THE POTENTIAL MOTION, THE MOTION THAT I WILL ACCEPT, WILL BE TO ADOPT THE CITY OF AUSTIN FINES, FEES AND OTHER CHARGES INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL, AUGUST 5TH, 1999, WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FOR SMART GROWTH AMENDMENT, AUGUST 26TH, 1999, PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION STREET DAMAGE RECOVERY FEE; SEPTEMBER 2ND, 1999, MUNICIPAL COURT TECHNOLOGY FEE. THE MOTION WILL BE TO APPROVE ON THIRD READING AUTHORIZING FEES, FINES AND OTHER CHARGES TO BE CHARGED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS IN AMENDING THE CITY CODE. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>GARCIA: SO MOVE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS? ONE IS TO THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS TO REDUCE THE POLICE RESIDENTIAL ALARM PERMIT FEE FROM $25 TO $20, WHICH RESULTS IN A NEGATIVE GENERAL FUND REVENUE IMPACT OF $82,000. IS IT 82 OR 84?
>> 82.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I MISSPOKE YESTERDAY, I APOLOGIZE, I THOUGHT IT WAS 84. THAT WAS TABLED YESTERDAY ON THE MOTION OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN. IS THERE A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM THE TABLE?
>>GOODMAN: YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE MAYOR PRO TEM MOVES. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE MOTION IS MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE TABLE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOTION IS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. PASSES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THAT WILL TAKE US TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS -- WE NOW ARE DISCUSSING THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND FOR THE RECORD -- FOR THE RECORD THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, -- I APOLOGIZE, THIS SET OF NOTES, ONE SECOND. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN MADE THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU ON YOUR MOTION.
>>LEWIS: THANK YOU, MAYOR. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]
>>LEWIS: SO I WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS OVER THE -- OVER IN NEXT FEW MONTHS TRYING TO FIGURE A WAY TO INCREASE THE REVENUE WITHOUT PUTTING THE BURDEN ON ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS. SOME PEOPLE, THEY JUST DISREGARD FALSE ALARMS TO A POINT THAT THEY ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO SET IT OFF AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THE THINGS THAT I RECEIVED IS FROM SENIOR CITIZENS SAYING THAT WE HAD THE ALARM INSTALLED FOR SAFETY REASONS AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME PEOPLE COME BEFORE US THAT SAID THEY HAD AN ALARM FOR 15, 20 YEARS AND NEVER HAD A FALSE ALARM, NEVER HAD A CALL. THIS WAS MY REASONING FOR RECOMMENDING THAT WE NOT RAISE IT 66%, BUT DO HALF OF THAT. BUT AFTER LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SET OUT A PLAN TO INCREASE THE FEES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RATHER THAN ALL AT ONE TIME. SO THAT'S -- THAT WAS MY REASONING FOR ASKING TO REDUCE IT TO 20 RATHER THAN HAVING IT AT 25. I THINK IT'S JUST A LACK OF MANAGEMENT PLANNING TO GO A NUMBER OF YEARS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU RAISE IT 66%. IT'S VERY FEW OF US THAT LIKE AN INCREASE OF THAT MAGNITUDE AT ONCE. WE CAN ABSORB A SMALLER INCREASE. I THINK IF IT HAD BEEN AN INCREASE OF A DOLLAR OR TWO OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. SO -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS FEEL, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT THIS MUCH OF AN INCREASE WHEN THE MAJORITY OR A GREAT NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAS THESE ALARMS IS ON FIXED INCOME IS JUST TOO GREAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN SPELL ALTHOUGH IT IS A 66 AND TWO-THIRDS PERCENT INCREASE IT IS ALSO ONLY A $10 A YEAR INCREASE. THAT BORX WORKS OUT TO 83 CENTS A MONTH, CONSIDERABLE CHEAPER THAN THE ALARM COST, CHEAPER AND THE FEE YOU PAY TO THE ALARM COMPANY. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A ONE TIME ONLY INCREASE BECAUSE BY OUR POLICY WE'RE GOING TO ASK RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO PAY ONLY HALF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND WE CANNOT CHARGE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS MORE THAN $50 A YEAR. SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO UP AGAIN NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER THAT, THIS IS A ONE TIME ONLY DEAL AT 83 CENTS A MONTH, IT DOESN'T SOUND TO BE TOO BAD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK THE CHIEF. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM WE CAN CHARGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS? DOES ANYBODY KNOW?
>> THE MAXIMUM WE CAN CHARGE?
>>LEWIS: YEAH. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
>> WE CAN GO UP TO THE $50 FEE FOR EITHER BUSINESS OR RESIDENTIAL. THE LAW DOESN'T DISTINGUISH. WE HAVE ALWAYS DISTINGUISHED THOSE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS. SO WE CAN -- OUR MAXIMUM FOR ANY PERMIT FEE, BUSINESS OR RESIDENTIAL, IS $50.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MS. DUNKERLEY, YESTERDAY WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS IS NOT THE BIGGEST DOLLAR ISSUE WE WILL LOOK AT THIS BUDGET CYCLE, BUT HOW VERY INTENSELY IMPORTANT IT IS TO A FEW OF OUR CITIZENS. WHICH IS WHY I THINK IT REQUIRES SOME EXAMINATION. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE AND HOW ALARMING THAT IS FOR SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS. AND WE TALKED ABOUT -- OR I ASKED FOR SOME OPTIONS FOR IF WE DID DECIDE TO DO THIS, HOW IT MIGHT BE DONE, AND WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE ON THAT? HAVE HUH A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CERTAINLY UTILIZE THE $40,000 THAT THE MAYOR POINTED OUT, THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT WE'VE BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU TODAY, AND THE BALANCE I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SIMPLY REDUCE THE TRANSFER TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING FUND.
>>GARZA: AND SHE'S MAKE THANKING RECOMMENDATION ONLY IF THE COUNCIL DOESN'T ACCEPT OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO ADOPT THESE FEES AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU USE THE 40,000 TO GO BACK INTO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING FUND BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE UNDERFUNDED THAT FUND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
>>SLUSHER: I WAS WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO GIVE FOLKS A BREAK WHERE THEY COULD PAY IT IN TWO INSTALLMENTS OR MORE RATHER IF LITTLE A HARDSHIP FOR THEM TO GO UP THAT MUCH. DOES THAT CREATE MORE EXPENSES FOR THE DEPARTMENT?
>> WE -- COUNCILMEMBER, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SYSTEM, IT'S A RATHER OLD BILLING SYSTEM. WE HAD WANTED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN IT, BUT WE DEVOTED OUR PROGRAMMING RESOURCES TO THE Y2K EFFORTS. BECAUSE THOSE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, WE HAVE OUR PROGRAMMING RESOURCES BACK, BUT I CAN'T PREDICT RIGHT NOW HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO HAVE THAT OPTION. I THINK WE WOULD IN SOME FUTURE CHANGES THAT WE'RE HOPING TO MAKE. WE ALSO IN THE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH R.F.P. ASKED THOSE COMPANIES IN THEIR PROPOSALS WHICH IS CITY HAS NOW RECEIVED FOR AN ALARM PERMIT BILLING COMPONENT ENT. SOME CITIES HAVE THAT WHERE IT AUTOMATICALLY BILLS AND IT'S TIED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH. THAT -- ALSO THAT PROCESS WILL NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL SOMETIME LATER THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO MY ANSWER WOULD BE IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO OUR CURRENT SYSTEM THE WAY THEY ARE SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OFFER THAT IMMEDIATELY.
>>SLUSHER: WHAT ABOUT IF SOMEONE JUST SAYS WELL, I CAN'T PAY IT BY THE DEADLINE, I NEED AN EXTRA MONTH FOR THAT HIKE, FOR THAT $10 HIKE? WHAT WOULD WE DO THEN?
>> UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED AND THE FEES WE HAVE A FIVE DOLLAR LATE PAYMENT CHARGE THAT IS ASSESSED AUTOMATICALLY AFTER A TIME FRAME. I BELIEVE IT'S A 30 DAYS.
>>SLUSHER: SO FROM THE TIME THE BILL GOES OUT THERE'S 30 DAYS TO SEND IT BACK IN?
>> RIGHT.
>>SLUSHER: AND AFTER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A FIVE DOLLAR --
>> RIGHT. THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO LOOK AT SITUATIONS AND WAIVE A FEE. HOWEVER, I WOULD CAUTION WAIVING IT FOR THE FIVE DOLLAR LATE PAYMENT FEE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO TAKE IN ALL THOSE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. HOW WE DO THAT NOW IS IF THERE IS A NEW INSTALLATION AND IT HAS A LOT OF FALSE ALARMS THAT OCCUR ALL AT ONCE, WE WORK WITH THEM IN POSSIBLY WAIVING SOME OF THOSE FALSE ALARM FEES.
>>SLUSHER: YEAH, I WOULDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A MASSIVE LOOK AT WAIVINGINGS THE LATE FEE. I THINK THAT WOULD END UP COSTING US MORE, NOT TO MENTION THE TIME. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>>LEWIS: YES, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THIS -- ACCORDING TO MY FIGURES, THIS IS BASED ON A TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS OF 24,800. IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT?
>> LET ME MAKE SURE. I KNOW WE'VE GOT AROUND 20,000 RESIDENTIAL AND AROUND 12,000, IT'S -- IT'S AROUND 32,000 PERMITS, BOTH BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 19 FIVE, 19,500 RESIDENTIAL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THAT WE'LL VERY NEXT YEAR.
>>LEWIS: WELL, IF YOU TAKE 19 FIVE TIMES TEN --
>> PART OF THAT IS WE'RE -- BECAUSE THE NOTICE HAD GONE OUT ALERTING CUSTOMERS ABOUT THIS PROPOSED INCREASE, SEEING A LOT OF EARLY PAYMENT. WE ALSO NEED ABOUT A MONTH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING IN PLACE. SO WE DID NOT EXPECT A FULL 12 MONTHS OF THE INCREASE IN OUR REVENUE PROJECTIONS.
>>LEWIS: SO WOULD IT BE PRORATED FOR THE YEAR OR WOULD IT BE -- WHEN THEY ARE BILLED, WOULD IT START AN ANNUAL -- WOULD IT START ANNUALLY AT THAT TIME OR WOULD IT -- WOULD PEOPLE STILL KEEP THE ANNUAL MONTHLY PAYMENT -- MONTH?
>> AS THEY ARE BILLED. THE MONTH WON'T CHANGE. SO BEGINNING ON ANY RENEWAL NOTICES THAT THEN GO OUT IN OCTOBER, IT WOULD HAVE THE NEW FEE. BUT IF ANYONE IS WANTING TO PRE PAY BEFORE THAT, WE WOULD PROCESS THAT. BUT ANYONE WHO, YOU KNOW, IT WILL THEN WORK THROUGH WHATEVER MONTH THEY COME UP THROUGH THE YEAR, THEY HAVE 30 DAYS AFTER THAT TIME WHEN WE NOTICE THEM.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION IS TO REDUCE THE POLICE RESIDENTIAL ALARM FEE FROM $25 TO $20 WHICH IS NEGATIVE GENERAL FUND IMPACT OF $82,000. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. A VOTE YES IS TO REDUCE THE RESIDENTIAL ALARM PERMIT FEE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: YES MAYOR WATSON.
>>MAYOR WATSON: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.
>>GARCIA: NO.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THREE YES, SIRS AND FOUR NOS THE MOTION FAILS. THAT WILL TAKE US BACK TO THE MAIN ITEM WHICH IS TO ADOPT THE CITY OF AUSTIN FINES, FEES AND OTHER CHARGES INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL AS READ. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN MOTION WHICH WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. WITH THAT, COUNCIL, LET'S GO BACK TO ITEM NO. 1 COUNCIL, IF WE -- WHEN WE GO BACK TO ITEM NO. 1, IF WE PASS THE MAIN MOTION, KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE TWO WAYS WE COULD DO THIS. ONE IS TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM NO. 6 AND DEAL WITH ITEM NO. 6, WHICH HAD AMENDMENTS YESTERDAY. ONE OF WHICH WE HAVE DEALT WITH TODAY BUT WE'VE DEALT WITH IT AS PART OF THE OPERATING BUDGET. MR. CURRY, DO WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL ACTION ON ITEM NO. 6 BASED UPON THAT?
>> IN ADOPTING ITEM NO. 6, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BUDGET, YOU HAVE TODAY APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND THAT INCREASES THE TRANSFER FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY NEXT YEAR BY 800,000. THE WAY WE HAVE WRITTEN THE MOTION, WHEN YOU APPROVE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BUDGET, YOU ARE APPROVING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, YOU ARE REFLECTING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED THUS FAR THAT AFFECT THAT BUDGET. SO THE WAY WE HAVE WRITTEN IT, THE $800,000 TRANSFER WOULD BE INCREASED IN AN ADDITION, THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU APPROVE TODAY THAT REDUCED THE TRANSFER OUT FOR CONSERVATION BY A MILLION WOULD ALSO BE REFLECTED. IF COUNCIL PREFERS IN ADOPTING THE BUDGET, YOU CAN MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS AGAIN, BUT THE WAY THE MOTION IS WRITTEN, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE REFLECTED IN YOUR ACTION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT TAKES CARE OF WHAT MY QUESTION WAS. WHAT WILL HAPPEN, COUNCIL, IS IF WE ADOPT ITEM NO. 1 AS IT HAS BEEN AMENDED TODAY AND WE APPROVE IT ON THIRD READING, THEN WHEN WE GO TO ITEM NO. 6, WHICH IS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, WE CAN JUST APPROVE ON THIRD READING THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING OR APPROVING THE CAPITAL OPERATING BUDGET INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS APPROVED TO OUR FUNDS. AND THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE ACTION WE'VE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN AND WE WOULDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO AMENDING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET IN ELECTRIC UTILITY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO ITEM NO. 1. ITEM NO. 1 IS TO ADOPT THE OPERATING BUDGET AS AMENDED, INCLUDING THE ERRATA, AND APPROVE THIRD READING ORDINANCE APPROVING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PHYSICAL YEAR OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND TERMINATING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EACH DEPARTMENT, PROJECT AND ACCOUNT INCLUDING ERRATA.
>>GARCIA: MOTION THE APPROVE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PREVIOUSLY SECOND BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 3. WHICH IS SET PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND TO APPROVE ON THIRD READING AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND LEVEEING THE MUNICIPAL AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TEXAS IN THE AMOUNT OF 50.34 CENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>GARCIA: SO MOVED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 6. THE MOTION WILL BE TO ADOPT THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGETS OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY AS AMENDED INCLUDING THE ERRATA. IT WILL BE TO APPROVE ON THIRD READING AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGETS FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE ERRATA AND AMENDMENTS APPROVED TO OTHER FUNDS INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TODAY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND TERMINATING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2000, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EACH PROJECT AND ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE ERRATA. COUNCIL, PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE ADDED THE LANGUAGE -- IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU, AFTER THE WORD ERRATA, I HAVE ADDED THE LANGUAGE AND AMENDMENTS APPROVED TO OTHER FUNDS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>>GARCIA: SO MOVED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA TO APPROVE ON THIRD READING. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. --.)
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR, I'M SORRY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: YESTERDAY, AND AS PART OF ITEM 6 WE APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER OUT TO THE C.I.P. 1.7 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING ELECTRICAL LINES UNDERGROUND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.
>>SPELMAN: AND I ENGAGE UNDERSTAND A DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY MANAGER ASKING THE MEANING OF OUR DOING THIS. AND THE IMPRESSION I GOT WAS THAT WE -- BY ADOPT THANKING AMENDMENT, WE HAD AGREED THAT WE WERE GOING TO SPEND $1.75 MILLION IN REPLACING ELECTRIC LINES UNDERGROUND OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND PRESUMABLY ANOTHER 1.75 MILLION IN THE YEAR AFTER THAT. NO MATTER WHAT MR. MANNING'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE AFTER THE 6 OR 90 DAYS DURING WHICH HE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO STUDY THE ISSUE. SEEMS TO ME THAT'S PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF ASKING FOR THAT 30 OR 60 OR 90 DAY REVIEW FIRST, GETTING THE RESULTS BACK AS TO WHERE IT MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY, AESTHETICALLY AND ANY OTHER WAY TO PUT THOSE LINES DOWN AND THEN TO MAKE OUR DECISION AS TO HOW MUCH MONEY TO SPEND AND WHERE TO SPEND IT. I -- I SUSPECT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN I ASKED A FEW MINUTES AGO ABOUT THE CONSERVATION BUDGET. IF WE DO NOT SPEND THIS -- IF WE DO NOT ALLOCATE THIS 1.75 MILLION FOR THIS PURPOSE IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN THE FUND BALANCE IN 60 DAYS. IF IN 60 DAYS MR. MANNINGS'S REPORT COMES BACK AND SAYS IT MAKES SENSE TO SPEND A MILLION OR TWO MILLION IT'S STILL GOING TO BE AVAILABLE AND SEEMS TO ME IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO LEAVE IT PARKED IN THE FUND BALANCE, ALLOCATE IT WHEN WE KNOW WE NEED IT RATHER THAN TO ALLOCATE IT IN ADVANCE AND MAKE A STANDING DECISION WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT MONEY EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE. I WOULD OFFER THE AMENDMENT THAT WE REDUCE THE TRANSFER TO THE C.I.P. BY 1.7 MILLION DOLLARS, BASICALLY CANCELLING OUR ACTION ON ITEM B-2 ON PAGE 14 YESTERDAY.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: HANG ON ONE SECOND. LET ME MAKE A NOTE.
>>SPELMAN: ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT TURNS OUT MR. MANNING'S REPORT IS FAVORABLE TOWARDS UNDERGROUND LINE PLACEMENTS, I WOULD LIKE VERY FAVORABLE ON PULLING THAT MONEY OUT IN 60 OR 90 DAYS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO REDUCE THE TRANSFER TO THE C.I.P. BUDGET BY $1.75 MILLION. COUNCIL, YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A BLUE PACKET. IF YOU WILL LOOK AT PAGE 14 OF 15 IN THE BLUE PACKET, UNDER ITEM 6, B-2, WHAT THE MOTION WOULD DO WOULD BE IN NEKT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO NEGATE THE TRANSFER OUT TO THE C.I.P. OF THE $1.75 MILLION, BUT GO FORWARD WITH DIRECTION TO THE -- TO AUSTIN ENERGY TO ESTABLISH -- DO A REVIEW AND ESTABLISH CRITERIA THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED BASED UPON THAT REVIEW IF THE -- IF THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND PLACEMENT OF LINES.
>>GARCIA: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES. I NEED A SECOND TO THE MOTION.
>>GARCIA: WELL, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE US AN OPINION ON. NEITHER YOU NOR COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN NOR I VOTED FOR THIS WHEN WE DID THIS AMENDMENT. CAN WE VOTE -- IN ESSENCE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS VOTING FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THAT AMENDMENT. IS THERE A TECHNICALITY HERE EVEN THOUGH ALL OF US VOTED FOR THE WHOLE BUDGET, SO I NEED THAT CLARIFICATION.
>> I'M SORRY THAT I --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME SEE IF I CAN LAY OUT THE QUESTION FOR YOU. ON THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBERS -- YESTERDAY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN VOTED ON THE SIDE THAT DID NOT PREVAIL. HOWEVER, THAT AMENDMENT BECAME PART OF THE OVERALL ITEM THAT WAS VOTED ON AND THAT PASSED ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO ON FIRST AND SECOND READ, WITH THE OBVIOUS EFFECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN WAS IN THE PREVAILING SIDE THERE. THE QUESTION IS TODAY ON THIRD READING WHETHER HE IS IN A POSITION TO MOVE TO AMEND THAT OVERALL ITEM EVEN THOUGH HE MAY HAVE VOTED AGAINST THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS. FWARZ GARZ THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE THIRD READING, I BELIEVE. I THINK IT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND ANY COUNCILMEMBER CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT ON THE THIRD READING.
>>GARCIA: MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT SOMEBODY WHO WAS NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF AN ISSUE COULD NOT VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HE COULD NOT -- AND I'M NOT -- I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY MAKE THE FINAL RULING, BUT THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENT.
>> YEAH, YOU HAVE A NEW -- THERE IS ANOTHER MOTION FOR THIRD READING AND YOU ARE --.
>>GARCIA: SO LONG AS WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND --.
>> MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK ON A SECOND. IF IT BECAME AN AMENDMENT AND HE VOTED ON THE WHOLE ITEM AND HE PREVAILED ON THE WHOLE ITEM, HE CAN MOVE TO -- IT MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF IN A GAGT A PREVIOUS ITEM THAT HE LOST A VOTE ON. BUT TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: WELL, THE --.
>>GARCIA: I WANT TO SECOND THAT MOTION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.
>>LEWIS: WELL, THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ITEM YESTERDAY, IT WAS -- IT PASSED FOUR TO THREE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.
>>LEWIS: SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAIN MOTION, THE AMENDMENT IS WHAT WE ARE AMENDING TODAY, NOT THE MAIN MOTION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: NO, WE ARE AMENDING THE MAIN MOTION. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY. A MOTION WAS MADE TO ADOPT WHAT IS TECHNICALLY THE MAIN MOTION. IT WAS SECONDED. THEN AMENDMENTS WERE OFFERED TO THAT. THE COUNCIL VOTED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT SEPARATELY. ON ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS THE ONE NUMBERED NO. 2 UNDER B-2, THERE IS WAS A FOUR TO THREE VOTE. THAT AMENDMENT PASSED AND BECAME PART OF THE MAIN MOTION. THE COUNCIL THEN AS A WHOLE VOTED ON THE MAIN MOTION AND BROUGHT IT BACK TORE THIRD READING. THE PURPOSE FOR BRINGING IT BACK FOR THIRD READING IS SO THAT IT CAN BE AMENDED AGAIN IF NEED BE BY THE COUNCIL. HAD COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN VOTED AGAINST THE MAIN MOTION, THEN HE WOULD HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY OFFERING SOME OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THAT, BUT HE COULD STILL MOVE TO AMEND THAT MAIN MOTION.
>>LEWIS: WELL, ITEM NO. 3 WAS ALSO AMENDMENT AND -- TO THE MAIN MOTION. ARE WE AMENDING IT ALSO? WE JUST VOTED ON IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IN EFFECT WE ARE AMENDING IT BECAUSE THE MAIN MOTION SAYS THAT YOU WILL BE -- YOU WILL BE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGETS FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE ERRATA AND AMENDMENTS APPROVED TO OUR FUNDS. THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED TO OTHER FUNDS AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE WITH REGARD TO OTHER FUNDS HAD THE EFFECT -- TODAY, HAD THE EFFECT OF DECREASING THE TRANSFER OUT TO THE CONSERVATION REBATES AND INCENTIVE FUND BY $1 MILLION.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. SO IN ESSENCE WE ARE CANCELLING THE $1 MILLION OR ARE WE CANCELLING THE $1.75?
>>MAYOR WATSON: WE HAVE CANCELLED THE $1 MILLION. IF FROM IS A VOTE ON COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN'S MOTION THAT IS GREATER THAN THREE VOTES, THEN WE WILL BE CANCELLING THE 1.75. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN MOVE TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION, I THINK THE RULING OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT HE CAN DO THAT.
>> YES, IT IS.
>>SLUSHER: WELL, MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: KMURB.
>>SLUSHER: I WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THAT FOUR, THREE, BUT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE STANCE THAT THAT -- THAT COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN COULDN'T MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WE PASSED YESTERDAY IF HE WAS ON THE SHORT END OF IT, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD BE BACK HERE FOR ANOTHER READING. I THOUGHT WE WERE -- I THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING ON THE WHOLE BUDGET.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE ACCURATE.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND I SUPPOSE -- WELL, THE CHAIR IS GOING TO RULE THAT HE CAN MAKE THE MOTION ON THIRD READING TO AMEND THE OVERALL ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGETS BASED UPON ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. I WILL SAY THAT IF THERE IS DISCOMFORT BY THE COUNCIL, I WOULD RECOGNIZE KMURB AS A MEMBER OF THE PREVAILING SIDE ON THAT AMENDMENT, IF HE WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ITEM. I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARY.
>>SLUSHER: I DON'T THINK SO EITHER BECAUSE IT'S -- IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT --.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS CLARITY.
>>LEWIS: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT OR THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BRING BACK THE REPORT IN A TIMELY MANNER BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE SET SOME CRITERIAS YESTERDAY ACCORDING TO THE CITY MANAGER AS TO HOW AND WHAT WE WOULD -- HOW WE WOULD DETERMINE WHICH INTERSECTIONS -- OR WHICH AREA WE WOULD SPEND THIS MONEY IN. AND BASED ON THAT, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS -- BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS RELIABILITY, AND I THINK THAT IS THE LAST ONE, BUT -- AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA AT THE TIME, I MEAN DURING THE TIME THAT WE DETERMINE THAT WEE NEED IT BECAUSE OF RELIABILITY. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT THE ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT COULD GIVE US OTHER THAN THOSE THINGS IN A STUDY. IS IT ANYTHING THAT -- IS IT ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN -- OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTION IS BEING DONE AT AN INTRODUCTION THAT THE RELIABILITY IS SUCH THAT WE FEEL IT WOULD BE BEST TO PUT THEM ON THE GROUND AND WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT WE DO IT?
>> I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS WE WOULD WANT TO BRING BACK TO COUNCIL AND WE HAVE JUST GIVEN A COUPLE PARAGRAPH SYNOPSIS OF THE SAN ANTONIO PLAN WHICH IS ABOUT A ONE INCH DOCUMENT AND IT'S A VERY HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THAT. WE WOULD EXPECT THE COUNCIL WOULD WANT US TO BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING ANY OTHER CITIES THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IN THIS PROCESS AND WHAT SOME OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT BE, AT LEAST LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE IN A DEREGULATED ENVIRONMENT AND LOOKING AT THAT PLAN AND BRINGING BACK THOSE CRY TEAR I CAN'T REMEMBER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. IT WOULD BE VERY ENCOMPASSING AND WE CAN DO THAT IN 60 DAYS.
>>LEWIS: LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES, WHAT WOULD -- I MEAN WE KNOW SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES HAVE UNDERGROUND SERVICE, WHEN WE PUT IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS, MOST OF THE TIMES WE PUT UNDERGROUND SERVICE, SO UNDOT HE HADLY WE REALIZE IT'S OF BENEFIT TO HAVE IT UNDERGROUND FOR NO MORE THAN RELIABILITY AND AESTHETICS.
>> I THINK THE WISH WE WOULD BRING BACK TO YOU IS SIX CITIES WE SERVE, ACTUALLY SERVE SEVEN INCLUDING THE CITY OF AUSTIN, SO YOU WOULD WANT TO BRING BACK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION HOW YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE OTHER SIX MUNICIPALS THAT WE ALSO SERVE. IN TERMS OF CRITERIA THAT YOU COULD USE FOR EVALUATING THOSE PROJECTS.
>>LEWIS: THAT'S LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW. YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE SOMETHING THAT WESTLAKE OR ROLLING WOOD WOULD WANT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: RIGHT NOW YOU ARE SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A UTILITY THAT SERVES THEM.
>>LEWIS: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU ARE WEARING A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT HAT THAN JUST AS A CITY COUNCILMEMBER AND IF WE'RE GOING AS A UTILITY TO MAKE A DECISION TO PLACE LINES UNDERGROUND, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO CONSIDER OUR SERVICE AREA AS OPPOSED TO JUST A PORTION OF OUR SERVICE AREA.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, BUT I'M NOT -- THOSE ARE NOT THE INVESTORS THAT I'M SERVING AS A BOARD FOR. THE CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS IS THE -- IS THE INVESTORS. THEY ARE THE ONES --IST CITY OF AUSTIN OWNS IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WHILE THAT MAY BE TRUE, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION AS A BOARD THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BURY UNDERGROUND LINES IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SERVE, OR ARE WE GOING TO BURY LINES WHEREVER WE HAVE RATEPAYERS. YOU MAY BE RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER, BUT THE FACT IS AS PART OF AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION BEFORE WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO PUT MONEY INTO THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW, WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST GIVE KRRTION TO THAT THOUGHT.
>>LEWIS: WELL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAN AND REBATES. WE DON'T GO TO WESTLAKE, ROLLING WOOD AND THE OTHER FOUR CITIES THAT WE SERVE TO GIVE REBATES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I BELIEVE WE JUST VOTED ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY TO DO THAT FOR LIBRARY CARDS.
>>LEWIS: YEAH. WELL, THAT'S TRUE. BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT FOR ALL OF THE CUSTOMERS, THAT'S NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CITY AS A CITY RESIDENT. NOT JUST --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AT LEAST BEFORE WE START SPENDING MONEY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN'S MOTION IS TO LOOK AT ALL THE ASPECTS BEFORE WE MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION. YOU MAY BE RIGHT, IT'S JUST BEFORE YOU COMMIT TO SPENDING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY RIGHT NOW TODAY AT THIS MOMENT, THAT THOUGHT PROCESS BE CARRIED OUT.
>>LEWIS: ALL RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. TO ME THESE THINGS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE BUT COMPLIMENTARY. IT IS TIME TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IN A VERY MATERIAL AND SPECIFIC WAY AND THAT'S WHY I THINK -- WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO. AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE DO OUR RESEARCH AND THAT WE DEVELOP THE MATRIX AND THAT WE DO THAT, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GET GOING AND GET STARTED AND MAKE THE STATEMENT AND MAKE THE COMMITMENT. THEN IF THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT, CERTAINLY WE CAN DO THAT. OR IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS RECOMMENDED. WHAT WE NEED TO DO TODAY IS GO AHEAD AND SAY LET'S GO WITH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME WHEN THE STREETS GOING TO BE -- INTERSECTION IS GOING TO BE LAID OPEN ANYWAY, WE CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. WE CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT AND GET -- DO THE RESEARCH AND THEY ARE BOTH GOOD THINGS.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A POLICY DECISION ALONG WITH A UTILITY OPERATING DECISION. IF THE UTILITY WERE TO RECOMMEND TO US THAT WE BEGIN UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE, I WOULD BE DELIGHTED, BUT I WOULD ALSO DOUBLE-CHECK AND SEE IF IT REALLY DID COME FROM THE UTILITY. BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, THAT I CAN RECALL, AND OTHER UTILITIES ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OR HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED. NOW, ADMITTEDLY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN SIZE BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO DO THAT AND ALSO THE RELATIVE RICHNESS OF THEIR TAX BASE OR UTILITY RATEPAYER BASE. NONETHELESS, THIS IS NOT A NEW IDEA. THIS IS NOT CUTTING EDGE IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY. AND IT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN IN PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF VISIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE CITY FOR SOME TIME. AND I THINK THAT UNLESS WE WERE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM FROM ABOVE GROUND TO UNDERGROUND AT THIS MOMENT, THAT IT'S LARGELY IRRELEVANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE RATEPAYERS WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AS BEING THE BENEFIT FACTORS OF WHAT WE'RE -- OR THE BENEFICIARIES OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. YESTERDAY THERE FPS A MOTION THAT MODIFIED MINE -- THERE WAS A MOTION THAT MODIFIED MINE AND TOOK ALL PROPOSED SITES OUT OF THE MOTION AND I SUPPORTED THAT AND I STILL DO. I THINK THAT LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER BUDGET ISSUES WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS TIME, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTING ASIDE FUNDS UNDER THE CONCEPT OF A POLICY DIRECTION THAT WE'RE TAKING WITHOUT HAVING TO SAY AT THIS MOMENT WE'RE GOING TO DO X, Y AND Z, WHICH IS WHY I SUPPORTED THAT VOTE. I ALSO THINK, THOUGH, IT'S A LITTLE INCONSISTENT FOR US TO DO THAT IN SOME CASES AND DECIDE THAT IN THIS ONE THE ISSUES FROM THE UTILITY ABOUT THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY AND OTHER THINGS ARE SO UNKNOWN TO US THAT WE CAN'T EVEN SET ASIDE THE MONEY FOR A PILOT PROGRAM THAT HAS YET TO COME BACK TO US WITH RECOMMENDED SITES. AND SPEAKING AGAIN OF HOW OTHERS HAVE PROGRESSED AND HOW WE HAVE NOT, I JUST THINK THAT IN MANY WAYS WE TALK ABOUT THINGS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS KNOWING THEY ARE GOOD, BUT SAFE IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE PROBABLY WILL NEVER IMPLEMENT THEM. AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME I THINK THIS IS A POLICY DECISION THAT CAN SAFELY BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITHIN THE UTILITY SYSTEM AND CULTURES RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A SMALL PART OF THE WHOLE OPERATION. AND SO FOR MYSELF, I'M UNABLE TO RELATE TO WHY THIS IS SUCH A SCARY ISSUE TO GO AHEAD AND BITE THE BULLET AND SAY LET'S DO A PILOT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN'S CHANGE TO THIS. HE'S SAYING THAT THE PROGRAM OR THE 60 DAYS STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA, THAT INSTRUCTION WOULD STAY IN PLACE, THAT IT WOULD TAKE PLACE, BUT THE -- WE WOULD NOT APPROPRIATE THE 1.7 MILLION PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS NOW, BUT WOULD-BUT MA MONEY WOULD REMAIN AVAILABLE, BUT NOT BE SPENT ON ANOTHER PURPOSE AND THEN WE WOULD MAKE THE SPECIFIC FUNDING DECISION AT THE TIME IT COMES BACK?
>>SPELMAN: IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE FUND BALANCE IF WE NEEDED IT LATER. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
>>SLUSHER: IS THAT ACCURATE, MR. MANNING?
>> YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, I DON'T -- I CAN VOTE FOR THAT BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY -- EITHER WAY WE WERE GOING TO SCRUTINIZE IT AT THE TIME IT CAME UP TO SEE IF WE THOUGHT THE EXPENDITURE WAS APPROPRIATE, SO I DON'T -- AS LONG AS THE MONEY IS STILL AVAILABLE AND I'M GOING TO COUNT ON THE UTILITY TO CONSCIENTIOUSLY CARRY OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE PASSED YESTERDAY AND I THINK THEY WILL SO I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT THERE IS THAT HUNG A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. -- HUGE OF DIFFERENCE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: THAT MEANS WE WOULD GET THE REPORT BACK ON NOVEMBER 18TH. LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT HAVING A MEETING ON THE 11TH, BUT WE'RE HAVING ONE ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER.
>>MAYOR WATSON: RIGHT.
>>LEWIS: AND SO I -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ASKED FOR THINGS TO COME BACK IN A TIMELY MANNER IN 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE FORGET THEM AND THEY NEVER GET BACK. YOU KNOW, AND -- OR WE GET BACK -- THEY COME BACK AND THEY COME BACK AS A PARTIAL REPORT AND NO ACTION IS TAKEN AND THEN IT'S LOST. SO IF THE CITY MANAGER IS WILLING TO STATE -- STAKE HIS REPUTATION ON THAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET A FULL REPORT ON NOVEMBER 18TH SO WE CAN AT THAT TIME --.
>>GARZA: WHAT LITTLE REPUTATION I HAVE LEFT -- [LAUGHTER] -- I WOULD CERTAINLY STAKE IT FOR THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER. THE WEEK AFTER VETERANS DAY. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT AND HAVE THAT REPORT TO YOU. MR. MANNING IS NODDING HIS HEAD AND SAYING HE CAN HAVE THAT IN A FORTNIGHT. WE'LL HAVE IT OUT THAT WEEKEND BEFORE WHICH WOULD BE THE 12TH, WHICH IS THE PACKET YOU GET FOR THE 18TH.
>>SPELMAN: MAYOR, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I WOULD --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>>GARCIA: I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU WOULD.
>>LEWIS: THE CITY MANAGER STAKED HIS JOB ON HAVING THE REPORT BACK ON THE 18TH.
>>GARZA: I DIDN'T SAY JOB, I SAID REPUTATION. [LAUGHTER] BUT I UNDERSTAND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT HAD BEEN OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS IS THAT THE REPORT WOULD COME BACK FROM AUSTIN ENERGY BY THE MEETING OF THE 18TH AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS INDICATED THAT WOULD BE IN OUR BACKUP ON THE 12TH OF NOVEMBER.
>>GARCIA: OKAY. THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED, THAT IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO DECREASE THE TRANSFER OUT TO THE C.I.P. BY $1.75 MILLION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>>GOODMAN: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: I THINK THE NUMBER WAS 3.5 OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD. IT WASN'T RESTRICTED TO 1.7 IN A PARTICULAR YEAR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THE WAY -- LET'S BE R CLEAR ON THE MOTION. IT WAS 3.5 OVER TWO YEARS AND THE DISCUSSION ENDED UP BEING 1.75. DIFFICULTY BEING OF COURSE YOU CAN'T REALLY BUDGET FOR TWO YEARS.
>>GOODMAN: THAT WASN'T PART OF THE MOTION, THOUGH. THE DOLLAR FIGURE WAS 3.5 OVER TWO YEARS PERIOD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME ASK COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, YOUR MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE TO PULL OUT THE 3.5 MILLION OVER TWO YEARS AS OPPOSED TO 1.75 AS IS WORD UNDERSTAND ITEM B 2.
>>SPELMAN: I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE, AS WRITTEN DOWN. ON OUR FIRST READING ADOPTION IT SAYS WE INCREASE THE TRANSFER TO C.I.P. BY 1.75 MILLION. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. BUT THAT IS HOW APPARENTLY IT WENT DOWN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT DID DARYL SAY? WHAT DID YOU SAY EXACTLY YESTERDAY?
>>SLUSHER: I SECONDED. I THOUGHT IT WAS 3.5 OVER TWO YEARS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME SEE IF I CAN CREATE CLARITY HERE. I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER THAT THE MOTION WAS 3.5 OVER TWO YEARS. THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN DOWN HERE I'M GOING TO -- I'M GOING THE RULE AS NOT THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION THAT PASSED. WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAYS WAS HER MOTION WAS IN FACT THE MOTION THAT WAS VOTED ON. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN, SINCE YOUR MOTION IS TO PULL OUT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, IS THAT YOUR MOTION BE -- AND YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER MOTION YOU WANT TO MAKE, BUT JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, IS THAT THE MOTION BE TO DECREASE THE TRANSFER OUT TO THE C.I.P. BY 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS OVER TWO YEARS AND/OR TO DECREASE THE TRANSFER OUT OF THE C.I.P. BY 1.75 MILLION AND DECREASE ENDING BALANCE BY THE SAME AMOUNTS.
>>SPELMAN: SO LONG AS THAT'S CLEAR TO CHARLES AND BETTY, IT'S FINE WITH ME.
>> IT'S CLEAR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: VERY GOOD. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, WOULD THAT BE YOUR SECOND? I THINK THAT DOES MAKE IT MORE CLEAR. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: YEAH, SO BASICALLY WE'RE BACK TO THE -- WE'VE TAKEN OUT BOTH OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THIS AND SO -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW. GO AHEAD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: STILL HAVE ONE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE YESTERDAY ON FIRST AND SECOND READING WHICH RELATES PREDOMINANTLY TO THE --.
>>LEWIS: 685,000.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: ABSTAIN.
>> MAYOR WATSON.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.
>>GARCIA: YES.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN.
>>GOODMAN: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN.
>>SPELMAN: YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THERE BE FOUR YESES, TWO NOS AND ONE ABSTENTION, THE MOTION TO AMEND WHAT HAD BEEN APPROVED ON FIRST AND SECOND READING PASSES. THAT WILL TAKE US BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS TO APPROVE ON THIRD READING AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE ERRATA AND AMENDMENTS APPROVED TO OTHER FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND TERMINATING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2000 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EACH PROJECT AND ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE ERRATA. THE MOTION WAS MADE TO PASS IT ON THIRD READING BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM TO BE TAKEN UP AT THIS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING?
>>GARZA: I BELIEVE THERE CONCLUDING -- THERE ARE THO OTHER ITEMS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK BETTY AND CHARLES AND THE BUDGET STAFF. [APPLAUSE].
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD ADD THE COUNCIL AIDES TO THAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES. [APPLAUSE].
>> LAST BUT IMPORTANT THE COUNCIL AIDS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: BEFORE WE GO ON, THERE'S AT LEAST ONE ITEM THAT HAS COME BEFORE US AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF COMMUNITY ACTION REAL BRIEFLY.
>>GARCIA: AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, WE PASSED A RESOLUTION SAYING THAT ON HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, THAT THOSE BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK AND REFERRED BACK TO US WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I HAVE SERVED ALONG WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ON THE COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK FOR A FEW YEARS NOW. IT'S A VERY GOOD ORGANIZATION WITH REPRESENTATION FROM A WIDE SPECTRUM OF ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE COLLABORATION THEME THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED AT C.A.N. BE MADE PART OF ALL THE HUMAN SERVICE CONTRACTS -- HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE. IT WORKS WE WILL. IT HELPS ORGANIZATIONS DEFINE HOW THEY DO THEIR WORK. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT IS DONE IN THAT MANNER. AND I THINK EVERYBODY OVER THE LONGTERM WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE. I WANTED TO SAY ONE FINAL THING, MAYOR. THIS IS THE 21ST PUBLIC BUDGET THAT I APPROVED AND I HAVE TO SAY THIS PROCESS WAS THE BEST AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK, ALL THE BUDGET STAFF HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB AND THE AIDES, WE BRUSHED THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICK, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS AND AIDS TO THE COUNCIL SUSPECT SPENT ON THIS WAS EXTRAORDINARY AND SMART AND IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION I THINK MADE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE PROCESS.
>>GARZA: AS WE DISCUSSED, I TOLD THEM THEY DON'T GET COMP TIME FOR THAT, IT'S A VIOLATION OF CITY POLICY. [LAUGHTER].
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>>LEWIS: WELL, I WILL MAKE THE -- MAKE A MOTION AT THE NEXT MEETING TO AMEND THE BUDGET SO -- [LAUGHTER].
>>GARCIA: MOVE WE ADJOURN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA TO ADJOURN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU ALL, WE'RE ADJOURNED.