[08:12:10]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good
morning.

I'm austin mayor lee
leffingwell.

A quorum is present so we'll
call this work session of
the austin city council to
order.

On tuesday, october 16,
2012.

At 9:10 a.m.

We're meeting this the
boards and commissions room,
austin city hall, 301 west
second street, austin,
texas.

First item on the agenda is
to go into executive session
so the council will now go
into closed session to take
up one item pursuant to
071 of the
government code.

The council will consult
with legal counsel regarding
the following item.

A-1, legal issues related to
the fayette power plant.

Is there any objection to
going into executive session
on this item?

Hearing none, now go into
executive session.

This is a test.

This is a test.

Please stand by.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
would be october 27 meeting.

And the question from the city
manager is what staff persons
would councilmembers like to
have present if any?

Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: My position was
not to require any staff to be
on hand.

It was simply for us to hear
from citizens and we talked
about that as part of the fiscal
impact on this item.

That this was something that
councilmen -- a few of us on the
council wanted to do.

That's why we brought the item
forward.

But we didn't anticipate having
the atm, department directors,
anything like that to respond.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
would be my feeling also.

But I wanted to see if
councilmembers had any other
comments or different opinions
on that?

If there aren't any, we'll go
ahead with that no request for
staff members to join us at that
special meeting.

>> If they want to come and
watch and potentially speak if
they want.

Three minutes.

Item c-one is the discussion of
the citizens communications a
the november 1, 2012 meeting.

We have a staff person -- I can
go through it if we don't.

But it overlaps with a lunch
meeting at 12:00 noon.

They invited all councilmembers.

So one solution -- and I'm not
making any suggestions, I'm just
telling you what staff is
suggesting is that we move
citizens communication from noon
until 5:00 in the afternoon.

And that we recess at the noon
hour so all council could go to
the meeting if they wanted to.

That's the discussion item.

Not looking for any action.

Just seeing if anyone has a
comment.

Could be sill member spelman

>> Spelman: This is going to be
what day?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Thursday.

A regular council meeting.

>> Spelman: Sorry, thought you
were on a different item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: I guess if we have
the majority of the council
planning to attend this lunch,
why couldn't we just come first
thing in the morning since we do
it at 12:00 noon.

I see a material difference in
moving it from noon to 5:00 p.m.

As opposed to moving it from
noon to 10:30 a.m.

-- I feel there would be less of
an imposition on the citizens
who signed up.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I don't
care.

This is not my idea.

But I would say the reason
historically for having it at
noon is one reason people could
take off work at the lunch hour
and cme down.

The same rationale would apply
00 and would lead us into
30
anyway for live music and
proclamations.

30, that
recent history shows it's very
difficult to get through the
consent agenda by 10:30.

So we may have a time certain
for citizens communication where
it had been.

The main reason we're having it
for discussion today is that the
staff put it on the agenda.

Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: I have a couple of
question.

One I would say if citizens
communication moves, it needs to
move to a time closer to after
work hours, people who work from
00 as you pointed out
00 noon hour to
take their lunch.

It would be difficult for
someone to get to work for a few
hours and have to leave to come
down here.

Most people don't have that kind
of flexibility in their jobs.

But I guess my question is, have
citizens already signed up to
talk on november 1?

Are we two weeks out?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I don't
think so, no.

>> Tovo: Is there a precedence
to do this?

Citizens communication moved.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Not since
I've been here.

The only time we recessed the
council meeting in the past as i
can recall are for funerals and
things like that.

I plan to go -- I plan to step
out of the meeting and go.

 I will commit not to go
to the luncheon and we can have
that meeting.

>> Spelman: I'll happily stay
here too.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: No change
to the november 1 meeting.

And a quorum will be present and
maintained throughout the entire
time of the lunch meeting, okay?

With that, I think I'm going
to -- I have to step outside.

There's a crowd on the class out
there, step out for about ten
minutes.

I'm going to turn it over to
councilmember cole.

>> Cole: okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Mayor pro
tem cole.

And why don't we go ahead and --
you'll have 30 minutes or so at
least of items for councilmember
tovo?

>> Tovo: Councilmember tovo?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Oh, i
didn't get that.

 just councilmember
tovo?

>> Tovo: I want to ask the
question, what is the process
because I had my staff talk
about pulling items on monday
morning.

 management is getting
ready for the quarterly
briefing.

Bring that up as they come up
for the briefings here.

Are you ready to answer that
debra?

I didn't think of anything here?

 councilmember, we
changed the rules a couple of
months ago.

The idea was that council had us
until 12:00 on monday.

>> Tovo: Correct.

I know that, which I did.

We notified staff before noon on
monday, the appropriate staff.

>> Lead --

>> Tovo: So maybe we can just
work on that.

 councilmember tovo --
yes, okay.

>> Tovo: I pulled 28, 69, 25,
and 26.

And 62.

So, let's see.

Any preferences on where to
start?

I guess I'll start with 28.

Mayor pro tem?

 I say where you see
staff in the audience to answer
your questions.

>> Tovo: I see them sitting at
the desk.

The proposal to change the short
term rental fee from $221 to $50
which would result in an
estimated fiscal year impact of
$286,500 per year.

So that's $286,500 per year we
would not be collecting as
compared to our estimate.

I wanted to know if there are
any other notification fees
within planning and development
reviews that are nonstandard in
this way that are not the $241
that are the standard
notification fee?

>> $241 Is the standard fee that
we use for subdivision plan,
zoning-type notices.

There are other fees that are
different for the after music
venues.

That come in to play.

This particular fee for the
short term rental would be
different from the majority fees
that we charge.

There's some slightly different
aspects of this given that we
only notice 100 fee, the 500
feet we notice for the $241 fee.

We notice in this particular
fee, the property owners and the
utility customers.

For a typical residence, if you
went out about 100 feet, you
might be going maybe two
standard city lots in either
direction to the right or the
left of the residence, perhaps
the properties that are to the
rear.

They may be three directly
behind and diagonally from the
property and perhaps across the
street.

>> Tovo: I saw the rationale
for the -- the explanation of
the proposed rationale.

Do you have any data to show
what the variation is?

I can imagine in some cases it's
more densely populated, you
might have a large number of
property owners.

[10:14:00]

I'm certain I can't think of
examples, we might have had
examples where you might have a
property owner who has a couple
of neighbors within even a
300-footnote if occasion.

So do you have -- have you done
that kind of analysis to show
how they are over the last three
or four years, how notification
numbers have varied based on
particular cases.

>> I'm aware in the study that
came forward earlier this year
that the notification fees were
looked at and the amount of
staff that were involved,
although they were looking for
the standard notification that
we would do the 500 fee in
property and utility customers.

They can vary greatly.

If you're downtown, let's say,
next to the high-rise
condominiums, you can have a
much larger number of people who
are notified as opposed to maybe
being -- even near north austin
in a suburb, the hyde park, or
further out in northwest hills
or something that there will be
differences in the change of
that.

But they're looking at generally
what they average would be sort
of the cost of the notification
would be typically what matched
the cost of providing that
service so the demands of staff
in the postage.

We feel it would be lower in
this case because of what we
know the circumstances involving
more single family homes, the
multifamily or the commercial
zone property and only really
dealing with single family
neighborhoods for the most part.

>> Tovo: But there is a
significant amount of variation
already in what it costs you to
notify one kind of case versus
the other.

But we have a standard fee to
make it easier, consistent, and
to make sure that across the
board, it's fair to the citizens
but also recovering the city's
cost of providing that
notification, which can
sometimes be very considerable
and probably exceeds the $241.

[10:16:01]

>> Or be under.

As I said before, the idea is to
provide a fee that matches that
service.

What we can do after we get a
time period, we said we'd come
back to council and kind of give
you an update on where we are
and things and we can take a
look at what the actual costs
are and sending out these types
of notices.

If need be, we can adjust next
year what that cost may actually
reflect the amount of staff time
it would take to do that type.

>> Tovo: It would seem to me it
would make more sense to start
with a standard notification fee
for which there's precedent and
the city has a lot of
justification to use the
standard notification fee and to
collect those costs and
determine whether it's
appropriate to change it rather
than shifting it at this point
before you have any sense of
what the true costs are going to
be.

That's a comment more than a
question.

But have you gotten complaints
before about notification costs
from developers and other --
other -- other parties who are
responsible for paying the
notification fees?

>> Generally speaking, no.

The reason for the $241, two
reasons for that.

One is the $241 is a subset of a
much larger fee.

It's probably a couple of
thousand of dollars.

So it doesn't get noticed as
much, you know what I mean?

And then finally, most often
that's paid by a developer, in a
developing company, you know
what I mean?

So they're working on a
multimillion dollar project that
has a couple city fees.

Quite frankly in the big
picture, that's not a large deal
to them.

So you get a check and move
forward.

I think what's different in this
case and we did hear a lot from

[10:18:02]

citizens who wanting to
register.

I got a call from "the american
statesman" because they were
calling the newspapers as well,
the same folks were calling over
here, as well as the board of
realtors and the rental alliance
were all concerned about the
cost of the fee when the $235
registration fee and the $241
notification fee that the
overall cost of $476, what we
were hearing, was that was
keeping some folks from wanting
to go through the process.

They felt the fee was too high.

So we went ahead and looked at
the notification fee.

>> It seems like -- I have to go
back to my e-mail.

But it seems like from time to
time I've heard from people who
are concerned about notification
fees and because maybe there are
instances where they didn't need
to notify as many as others.

I'm certain many have been on
council complaining about the
cost of notifying because they
felt it was less than, you know,
it would be for some others.

So I'm trying to think of an
example where people complained
about the fees and the city was
going to be able to recover its
costs.

It's up and changed them.

To me it seems based on the
dollar amounts I've seen for
nightly rentals that people are
going to make their money.

It's their decision.

They feel fees are too high in
having a short term rental a
financially viable option, they
shouldn't do it.

Then we need to recover the
costs appropriate for the city
and not just be responding to
citizens who would rather pay
less.

It seems entirely inappropriate
at this point to change this fee

[10:20:00]

from our standard notification
fee.

I guess I would like to see what
kind of cost analysis has been
done for the fee and where that
comes relative to the $50 you're
proposing versus the standard
notification fee of $241.

I got some questions about 69.

But if others have questions
about the fee, I'll pause there
and let you ask them.

>> Spelman: I have one, the
notification for the site plan,
is it 500 feet or 300 feet?

>> 500 Feet.

>> Spelman: The notification is
1200 feet.

>> That's correct.

>> Spelman: You're taking the
fee, dividing it by five, the
$50.

>> Certainly it's possible.

The area that's being noticed is
much smaller because the area of
the circle --

>> as my sixth grade daughter
pointed out to me, pi-r-squared.

I forgot that at first.

Not a fifth of the area, 25%
less of the -- 25 times less of
an area than what it was.

>> Spelman: So if you count the
number on average assuming the
density doesn't shift from these
notifications to other
notifications you might be
having, assuming uniform
density, it would probably match
your costs better if you go from
$241 to somewhere around $10
than to go around $50.

>> If all else were I equal.

>> Spelman: I have no idea if
all else are equal or not
because we haven't seen that
many requests for notification
yet but we will and we'll have a
track record to be able to
balance the complicated stuff.

In the long run -- sorry, in the
short run, it's certainly
equitable for us to believe that

[10:22:00]

the 100-footnote if occasion is
going to be a small fraction of
the cost in your point of view.

>> A few fixed costs.

Obviously staff, the cost of the
actual paper, envelopes,
stuffing machine, etc.

But, yes, we do think this would
be a vastly different one than
we would normally do.

>> Thanks.

>> Morrison: You might have
said this before.

Are there any other notification
charges different than 500 feet?

>> It might be slightly
different.

>> Morrison: Is it larger?

>> I believe it's smaller.

Generally the standard
notification.

>> Morrison: I know the
general -- I'm asking, are there
any different?

>> There are different.

I can bring it back to you and
bring it to the process.

>> Morrison: I think that's
salient here that if we're going
to start doing it based on the
size of the circle up, we need
to be -- we need to look at that
comprehensively.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Where are
we on the items, councilmember
tovo?

>> Tovo: Not terribly far, but
we're moving.

So next, 69, and I guess
that's -- I do have one more
question related.

So the -- why was the ordinance
structured in the way that not
all utility customers are
notified?

In the rationale?

He said most notifications --
it's utility customers.

How did the decision get made?

[10:24:06]

>> All we heard was to notify
the property owners and the
ordinances and the properties.

So we did not hear -- I think
the rationale, I don't remember
the exclusive conversation about
renters but the idea behind the
notice was to let you know
there's a short term rental, but
let them know more specifically
the contact information for the
owner or the manager of the
short term rental property and
the thought being that if
someone is renting an apartment,
they're not going to be there
for the long term, maybe.

But if somebody is a neighbor
next door, an owner, be more
likely to have an issue with the
short term rental than a person
who lives in the apartment
complex who's, you know, with a
lot of other people.

So --

>> I guess I don't remember this
distinction being raised in our
discussion.

>> In the council meeting.

When we were talking in the
planning commission meetings, we
were talking with the property
owners.

But I don't remember the
specific conversation about
taking renters who are out, just
carried over from the pc
recommendation.

The thought was for the purposes
of why we're notifying in this
case as well as to notify for a
public hearing which is
typically what we're doing.

We notify on the public hearing.

The purpose of this notice was
to notify the contact person.

The problem is a property owner,
necessarily, than a renter.

>> Tovo: I guess the point is
that people have a short term
contact information for the
short term rental owner as
important for the renters who
are living in close proximity to
a short term rental as it may be
for the property owner more so
if the property owner has a
long-term tenant, they're
unlikely to be affected by the
short term rental on the block

[10:26:00]

but the tenant is likely to be
affected, if anybody is going to
be affected by it.

So I'm wondering if the planning
commission let me point out the
ordinance this council passed
ignored most of the provisions
from the planning commission's
recommendations anyway, much to
my dismay.

But I'm wondering if the
planning commission in their
discussions really meant for
there to be a distinction there
or if they were intending for
them for the notification to
follow the same procedures.

The language -- I wonder if they
thought or go to the property
owners versus the utility
customers.

Do they have the discussion?

>> We carried over from the
ordinance.

I don't remember the specific
conversation about including or
excluding renters of notifying
property owners of the notice.

>> Tovo: That's relevant to
anyone in the short proximity to
short term rentals.

What does the ordinance say with
regard to noing in other
kinds of issues.

Does it say property owners or
properties?

>> The director shall mail
notice of the contact all
properties within 100 feet of
the short term rental use at the
owner or operator's expense.

>> How does that get from all
properties to all property
owners.

I would think all properties
means the physical address.

That goes to the person who is
living there who may or may not
be the property owner.

[10:28:00]

Is this language really
different from the notification
provisions elsewhere in our code
that talk about site plans and
zoning cases?

>> Yes, we can get that to you.

Typically, under general notice
provision, we send it to the
utility customers, the property
owner, and those registered
neighborhood organizations which
may be environmental in a
regular neighborhood
organizations.

So there is a more formal
process set up for notifying an
interested party than perhaps a
property in this case.

>> For thursday, how the other
code defines the word property
in this context.

To me, it would suggest it does
not suggest that properties does
not equate to property owners.

If we can get a legal opinion on
that on whether or not our
ordinance has been adopted
really does mean notify only
property owners or if it could
be interpreted to utility
customers.

>> Morrison: I have a follow-up
question to that?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Could you point to
the right section?

>> 5 Of 8, letter c about the
middle of the page about the
ordinance.

>> Morrison: Okay, so all
properties, clearly that's not
just single family property?

>> Yeah, we took it to mean --
obviously we drafted the
ordinance.

So it's clear if we would
include the word "owners" after
"properties," but when we wrote
it, I can tell you our intention
was to the property owners
because we felt that was the
planning commission intended and
we were carrying that provision
over.

>> So if a condominium is within
100 feet, it would be in the
individual.

>> We would use what we used to
use before we added utility
owners to the notice.

So anybody that's the owner of

[10:30:03]

record will receive the notice.

>> Morrison: I noticed in the
resolution that you'll be
looking a it.

A different meth of notification
to those who need it.

Is it easily administered and
does not cost as much as mail.

Do you have any ideas what stuff
might contemplate?

>> We should let the sponsors of
the resolution tell us what they
were thinking when they made the
resolution?

>> Morrison: You don't have
anything in mind?

>> I will tell you how we will
respond to that.

>> Spelman: I will say I had
discussions with carl smart, the
director of the compliance
department.

And he and I had discussed
having a list that might be
available on-line in properties
that are registered with the
city and we had a contact
person.

We talked about that.

We worked with law enough to go
through that.

But if someone came to the city
sight, they could see if
property was registered or not.

There was a complaint and how to
contact the person who was
responsible for that property.

But we haven't vetted that
enough with the law department.

>> Morrison: That would be
notification.

That would mean making
information available.

>> That's correct.

Anybody wanted to find out about
any short term rental in this
city, they could go to a website
rather than waiting for a notice
to come in the mail.

Because then they have a --

>> Morrison: I understand just
to keep things moving along, i
just want to make it clear that
that would be deleting the
notification requirement.

It would not be considering a
different method.

>> No, just answering a question
about other types of
notification.

>> Morrison: I'm saying that's
not notification.

>> If I may add two other things
to it.

We're going to talk about it
before it's addressed before the

[10:32:02]

makers of the resolution.

One idea would be to map the
properties which, again, would
have to go through the
information to get it.

Another idea is we could -- we
do have the e-mails of all of
the community registry with all
of the neighborhood
associations.

So another idea could be that we
could notify the neighborhood
association that we have --
there's been a registration in
the neighborhood which would not
be used in the postal service.

>> Morrison: So that would be
notifying organizations as
opposed to property owners.

>> We don't have the property
owners' e-mail?

>> Morrison: Correct.

Do the sponsors of the
resolution have anything to add
to that?

Curious about their thoughts.

>> Spelman: Are we on item 69?

Or did we dispense with 28?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: 69.

>> Spelman: Fair enough.

>> Morrison: I'm two.

>> Spelman: That was exactly
the idea that it might be more,
a, efficient, b, reliable means
of ensuring that people did know
what was going on with the
neighborhood by notifying the
neighborhood association
residents and have that
apparatus go down to the
individuals.

And maintaining the map that's
up to date, discussing the
possibility that the map would
be up to date on a 24-hour basis
so anybody who knows what's
going on would have access to
the information in the short
term rentals in the city

>> Morrison: That's a good
idea.

I'm concerned about pushing the
information out.

In addition to making it
available.

>> Spelman: The information
will be available, whether or
not it will available via
e-mail, mail, fax, carrier
pigeon is a little up for grabs.

But it seems to me that
receiving another piece of mail
for the primary purpose of
letting someone know who the

[10:34:01]

contact person is in case
there's emergency or some sort
of a problem is not the most
efficient means of giving people
the information what they need
at the time they need it.

If you need it, you don't need
to search through the back mail
to figure out what the telephone
number is.

If there's a website to make
that telephone number available
to some other mechanisms that
will be available in realtime,
that will be more reliable in
helping people making it
necessary when they need to make
it.

>> Morrison: I want to make
sure all of that information is
available on the web.

That's a good idea in this
situation.

I think when something turns
into a short term rental, it's
important that people next door
knows that's happening
explicitly.

That's what I thought the intent
of it was.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: Having a website is a
good idea.

Having that information
available is a good idea.

Do I understand this
conversation to mean that you're
not suggesting that that
information replace our current
system of notification, are you

>> Spelman: I'm suggesting we
might consider replacing it, we
might consider adding it.

So if that's a notification is
available via the web.

I don't know yet, depends on the
cost and how reliable those who
we need to get to has gotten to
we have.

I would like to know how
reliable the notification is
likely to be.

>> Tovo: It's been an interest
to some members in our community
to have e-mail notifications
available as an option.

I believe that the staff has
been investigating that.

But I guess, you know, I just
strongly believe that we should
treat this as much as possible
like the other -- the other

[10:36:00]

instances we have where people
need to be notified.

So it should be a notification
and rendition.

I want to ask one broad
question.

It's probably not going to be a
surprise that I have concerns
about several of these
provisions.

But as a general question.

And this is one for mr.

Westhoven, there was a
discussion recely at the
planning commission, one of the
neighborhoods who has the
neighborhoods conservation
combining district wants to have
the option -- one is the
planning commission to consider
an option that would allow them
to restrict short term rentals
within the mccd -- the mccd that
you can project this better than
I can, is a tool for
neighborhoods to preserve
certain areas and to adopt more
stringent provisions that might
exist elsewhere in my
neighborhood.

Jerry, can you add to that
request?

>> Went before the commission to
ask to have the amendment to
create a short term rental rules
and apply it only to hyde park
and north hyde park.

They were requesting to add the
spacing requirement and the one
considered by council and add
the different feet to go to 750
or 7000 and the regulations in
type ii rentals in regard to
multifamily.

When that item came before the
planning commission, I spoke and
asked that the planning
commission not initiate that
amendment for the specific
reason that at that time, the
council ordinance still hasn't
taken an effect yet.

See how the council best
ordinance works before we go
changing anything.

And I was specifically concerned

[10:38:00]

about the concept of having the
rules regarding the short term
rentals.

Most neighborhoods do not have
it.

If most neighborhoods wanted to
change the short term rental
rules, you would come and ask
for an nccd.

Every neighborhood would have a
different set of short term
rental rules from an
administration's standpoint, i
felt there could be problemsome
as well as the fact that we
hasn't yet saw how this
ordinance works.

We still haven't seen how this
ordinance works.

Before we went to the individual
neighborhood, I ask that we give
it a few months to see how it's
working before we change it.

And I also did not see the
reason why hyde park necessarily
needed a different short term
rental rules than another
neighborhood.

What was unique about that
neighborhood with regard to the
short term rental use was
different from any other.

>> I guess as we look across our
neighborhoods across the city,
they have -- they have different
use categories and different --
AS YOU SAID, SOME HAVE NCDs,
Some don't.

It seems to me to make it
consistent with our current
practice to allow neighborhoods
to have more role in shaping
what they want their
neighborhood to look like.

Because all of the neighborhoods
are different, have different
character.

As a general practice, it makes
sense to allow different
neighborhoods to consider
different ways of amending the
short term rental ordinance so
that it makes better sense in
their context, in their land use
context.

But I wanted to highlight
something you said, which is
that your statement with
planning commission that the
ordinance hasn't taken effect
and we haven't had a chance to

[10:40:00]

see what it's like once affected
and once implemented and makes
more sense to see it on the
ground for me.

And I would make the same point
here for the same reason that
ordinance went into effect
october 1 and to me going back
and reopening it and making
tweaks is just inappropriate at
this point.

Not to say that I'm not happy to
reopen the ordinance.

I would like to suggest too and
will if it goes forward on
wednesday that on thursday or
maybe at a subsequent meeting
there are some changes I'd like
to see in the short term
ordinance.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: Happy to amend the
ordinance at short notice if it
WERE TO BAN STRs.

>> Tovo: Saying tweak the
ordinance.

But if you were on the sponsor,
you can sponsor it,
councilmember martinez.

Here are a few others I would
suggest, considering
neighborhoods to opt out.

Increasing the notification to
all utility owners that our
analysis that we're getting on
thursday suggests that
properties does indeed mean
property owners rather than
utility owners and there are
others.

But I leave it there for now.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison has a
comment.

>> Morrison: I wanted to follow
that up.

Jerry, it was highlighted for
me.

That is you said we need to see
how it works before changing
anything.

I would like to raise that for
the sponsors of the item because
I think we have a lot to learn
over the next three months.

There's a certain group of
people that I heard from and i
suspect that all of the

[10:42:00]

councilmembers have that seemed
to have driven a lot of what's
in there.

A whole lot of people are going
to be affected by the ordinance
that haven't taken notice
because they're the ones living
NEAR THE STRs, NOT THE ONES
Thinking of registering them for
now.

So I think it makes a lot of
sense to hold back on a tweaking
ordinance.

Otherwise, we're going to be
going through maybe not endless,
but several it rations and it
will will be a full time job to
collect items to change and
doing outreach and gathering the
folks, you know, on both sides
of the issue to have yet another
long, I suspect, public hearing
about it.

So I really think it makes sense
to hold back and maybe ask staff
to start collecting all of the
issues that are getting raised
as we go along.

And we think about I guess the
direction or the ordinance that
we pass comes back in a year,
perhaps, or something like that.

Maybe we can shorten that aptle
of time.

Responding to the growing pains
that gets these registered
immediately is really
problematic for me.

Or I can assure you there will
be a set that we'll be working
on soon.

So it would be really better to
hold off.

>> Before you consider tweaking,
you need to have some experience
under your belt to know what
tweaks to make.

I don't think a year is too long
a time, frankly.

Most of this is based on events
that occur once a year.

A big event in the fall, a big
event in the spring, a couple of
big events in the fall.

[10:44:02]

And to have all of that
experience that might affect
different parts of the city will
be valuable before we begin to
address that.

But I would also -- I heard
about the proposal by the
neighborhood to have special
rooms for the neighborhood.

I would see that as trepidation
to have special rules to
different parts of the town.

The problem there is
mismanagement or something like
that.

We create a different set of
rules and somebody has to keep
track of those.

It could easily become an
administration nightmare.

There is the issue of basic
fairness, I think.

We have different rules for
different parts of town would
be -- would basically offend my
sense of equity.

I don't know what the legal
issues might be.

Councilmember spelman?

>> Spelman: We're not tweaking
an ordinance for the resolution.

What we're dealing with is
dealing with implementation
details which were not covered
by the ordinance but only came
up after the ordinance passed.

The ordinance does not describe
the short term rentals.

That came up after the ordinance
was passed.

Method of notification is in the
ordinance.

That's true.

We didn't realize it was a
possibility that it was going to
cost $241.

We did not talk about short-term
rental affidavit.

That just came up as an
implementation detail after the
ordinance was passed.

It's the things that happened
after we passed the ordinance,
which I don't think any of us
saw as consequences of passing
the ordinance.

No one in the short term

[10:46:02]

community saw the agencies or
affidavits as part of the cost
of doing business.

That's perfectly appropriate for
us to tweak the details without
changing the bulk of what we
changed the decision on back in
december.

>> Morrison: Mayor, if I may.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let me
say I agree with you on that.

Certainly no one ever discussed
the fees ininvolved.

That's a problem we need to be
corrected immediately if not
sooner.

>> Morrison: So there are some
things in here about fees and
they're being addressed actually
in item 28, one of them is.

So some things in here are
actually tweaking the ordinance.

For example, consider
eliminating the requirements
that short term rentals must
review the whole dwelling.

Review the requirements for
suspension and revocation.

So put those inside as perhaps
save those and do the ordinance
once.

Let's talk about the
administrative rules.

That's what we're talking about.

If you will recall when this
ordinance passed, I specifically
asked our staff to ensure there
was some kind of public and
transparent mechanism for
setting the rules.

What happens was, it was such a
short timeline that the rules
had to be set under an emergency
basis.

Those rules, correct me if I'm
wrong, need to go through the
normal rule process and I think
that you have 180 days until and
perhaps an extension for going
through the normal rule process.

That is some posting.

You can respond and all that.

I had asked there would be some
way for folks on both sides of
the issue to see how these rules

[10:48:00]

were going to be developed and
provide input.

And I understand if we go
through the second round of rule
making, it's not the emergency
rule making, that that will
comply without request that i
made and have an open process.

So I would suggest that anything
to do with rules will in fact be
revisited in a few months and
maybe greg can give us a
timeline and we can talk more
about what the public process
will be.

>> The rules process -- we
implemented emergency rules
because it's back set up by the
code.

The regular rules process that
would take place would actually
maybe toward the end of this
month and may go on for several
months.

The rule is not posted quickly.

It goes through the process.

We work with stake holders and
contact them, the general stake
holders.

But they could go to the
process.

It would be better for a
different department and then
eventually after going through
all of that and receiving all of
the input, something would come
out in the early part of next
year.

It would go through those things
that we would work with about if
there's a type of application
and what we would consider it
being owner occupied.

Not unlike some of the things we
talked about with the emergency
rules.

Might deal with those things
that might deal with some of the
enforcement issue uhs that what
might be a violation.

With respect to what we're
working on right now.

>> Morrison: So I would like
to -- if I may --

>> city manager -- I want to
focus a little bit more in terms
of a regular process for rule
making.

Just emphasize the public
participation piece of that.

I want to make sure there's no

[10:50:00]

misunderstanding of what would
be involved there.

>> Like I said, we would contact
people and make sure people are
aware of this and stake holders
would be the short term rental
and notify and let them know
that the rule process -- all of
the rules are posted on rinne.

You can go back and take a look
at the rules and explains
typically what the calendar is
of that process should be all
on-line.

So it's nothing that's going to
be hidden behind some staff door
and conjured up.

It's done out in the open.

There's an appeals process with
regards to that if there's the
stake holder that is not there.

We had that recently with
different tree regulations about
how we implement the tree
ordinance and certainly those --
more of that if we had diverse
opinions on either side of that
issue.

>> Morrison: Just to be clear,
when I asked the question about
what was the rules prostesz,
there was a significant amount
of confusion and suggestion that
you had to be paying fees to be
able to be notified and things
like that.

So I would like to ask that we
make sure that there is not only
that, but maybe a menu for a
public discussion about it
instead of just individuals
providing written input.

That could be written proof
about the conversation about a
rule.

>> That could be a change to the
rule process.

We have stake holder meetings,
we could have a hearing.

>> Morrison: Not suggesting a
hearing.

>> I'm not aware.

Debra can come forward and speak
to this.

But when we go to the rules
process, we don't invite input
but we don't hold a public

[10:52:01]

meeting where people can provide
three minutes of testimony on
each portion of the ruling.

>> Morrison: But there are
stake holder meetings so
everybody can get in the room
and talk about it.

Okay.

That's all I'm asking.

So I guess I like to suggest
that if we look at the be it
resolved -- the fee schedule
one, two, is the code change.

Three and four and seven are
rules.

Seven may be a code change
eventually, but I would suggest
a rule consideration first.

And five and six are co-changes
that if 2, 5, and 6 were held
off for the year review, all the
other ones can be addressed much
sooner than that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You have
any comment on that suggestion?

>> Spelman: My item is not
their item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: From a
staff perspective?

Go ahead.

Do you have any comment?

>> Spelman: No, it seems to me
these are things that come up
only after we passed the
ordinance.

Although some do involve
changing in the ordinance
themselves which I think we
ought to talk about it, they're
not making changes, they're
asking for staff to take a look
at it and see if they see any
problems here.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Do you
foresee any problems?

>> We will work with whatever
you give us.

And see if, you know, what
recommendation we can run back
to you.

If there's some changes that we
can suggest, we'll make those
known to you.

But we'll work with whatever
direction you give us and move
forward in the 120-day period to
come back.

>> Spelman: I expect a more
pointed answer to the question
if we pass the ordinance and
give you time to think about it,
if we pass the resolution that

[10:54:00]

asks, do you foresee any
problems and you come back in
120 days, you probably have
foreseen problems or not and
tell us yes or no.

>> Yes, we'll have more
experience because we have more
applications.

>> Spelman: Exactly.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: So I foresee a few
problems.

But I wonder if you could talk a
little bit before we move on
about number six?

What's the idea there?

To allow homeowners to rent out
rooms on their house on a
short-term basis?

>> Spelman: Several people came
out and said we rent out rooms
for example.

We remember discussing it as a
council one way or the other.

It was part of the legacy of the
original recommendation for the
planning commission.

And it seems to me it could be
considered since we had not had
much discussion about it, it
makes sense for us to ask about
the subject.

>> Tovo: I believe -- I thought
at a the planning commission did
have discussions about that?

Am I right in thinking that?

I don't think it was --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Was it
included?

>> Tovo: There are stake
holders who have concerned about
that.

Let me say that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It wasn't
include in the original
planning.

The recommendation.

>> Tovo: Was or was not?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It was.

>> Tovo: Was included?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yeah.

>> Tovo: So some of the other
concerns that came up about
which we had little discussion
out council, one was
multifamily.

You may remember in the last
hearing about this item, people
raised concerns about what a
multifamily apartment -- how it
would work in a multifamily
apartment.

Is there a certain percentage of
short term rental units that
pushes something from being an
apartment complex to being an
out and out hotel and the staff,

[10:56:00]

I think, were struggling a
little bit with what that
percentage was.

So 100%, it would be clear that
it would be a problem.

Anyway, I just wonder if you
gave any consideration to
addressing some of those issues
that arose?

In our last hearing.

>> Spelman: Councilmember tovo,
if you were tempted to make a
friendly amendment to include
that as part of the things the
staff should consider, I would
happily accept that friendly
amendment and would not hold you
to the conventional thing that
you might have to vote for the
resolution.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Others
might.

>> Tovo: Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Could i
ask one question.

I don't know if it's
particularly germane to this
item or item number 28-related.

But the fees seem to be a big
point of contention.

Can you tell us so far how many
people have actually registered?

 mayor, councilmembers, as
of friday, we only had 19 that
were licensed.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay.

>> 19 Licensed.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
suggests we may have a problem
here.

>> Morrison: Yeah, I think so.

>> Tovo: It appears reached to
the point of diminishing
returns.

And kept going for a while after
reaching that point.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So i
think we need to take a hard
look at that.

And the connection with that it
seems like a big part of the
expense is additional code
enforcement personnel.

And I'm being overly simplistic,
idealistic, whatever.

But it seems to me that the
enforcement part of this is
something that has been going on
all along, that nothing is
really changed with regard to
that.

I mean, haven't we had
enforcement before?

[10:58:01]

I mean --

>> we had enforcement as it
relates to nuisance problems.

Someone tries to call.

There's parking, there's noise,
those kinds of problems.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Isn't
that what we're talking about,
enforcing?

>> We talked about going another
step now and requiring licenses.

So those who don't have licenses
operating without a license now
in violation or those who have a
license and then have
violations, we're looking at
suspensions, revocations,
whatever.

So there's more -- there's more
than that now.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It's in
the office stuff.

It's not going out and actually
taking note of complaints.

Is there too much noise, is
there too much trash out in the
?

This is stuff that you've been
enforcing all along.

You're saying three additional
personnel just to take care of
the licensing to verify the
licensing for certain
properties.

I would assume that's why the
complaint has been received.

You can say, okay, has this
person registered?

And is it appropriate or have
they exceeded the number of
complaints that they can have
without having some
administrative action taken on
their license.

That requires three -- that part
requires three additional
people.

You're not talking about the
field enforcement.

>> It includes field enforcement
if we have a complaint that a
property is operating without a
license, we have to go out and
check that property, do the
research that we do in the
office and with the data base,
but also go out and check it and
see if it's operating as an str
without a license.

So it's a combination of the
two.

>> Well, that explanation makes
sense.

I was just having a hard time
with the idea that all of a
sudden now we're going to start
enforcing all of the parts that
have to do with litter and trash
and noise and implying that we
weren't doing this before.

Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: I wanted to ask
the question on a different
item.

I don't know if I eel be able to
stay through the duration of all
o

>> I think you are talking
about the turn ramps that are
involved, some locations of
downtown, as part of the
great streets program.

Those are allowed under the
ada guidelines.

But in talking to members of
the community, those
projects, we're going to stop
putting those in, because we
have concerned about the
volume of pedestrians.

We have the ramps of those
installed.

>> You are saying, we will go
back to the old design?

>> We will use the -- as you
defined it, yes.

>> All right.

Thank you, appreciate it.

And mayor, the other question
I had is really just
curiosity question.

Items 48-59, I just don't
ever recall seeing so many
items that were listed under
authorized recurring,
exempted procure ams.

It is pretty substantial.

My question is, what is it,
and is it because it is
authorizing the procurements
throughout the fiscal year.

>> It is a new policy.

We will need to explain it.

>> Byron johnson, purchasing
officer.

What this is, yes, the law
department has looked at what
typically has been an
expenditure and whether it
has gone to council or not.

And in some cases, in other
cities, what they do is
identify things in the budget
process and they actually
allocate this in the budget
process.

In our process, we don't do
that.

Clear back till the charter,
we haven't brought forward
these.

The law department has looked
at us and said, we think the
safe bet for good government
is to bring forward these
type of items and get them as
an open item for council to
approve.

These are items that are
exempted from the competitive
bid office.

They have reassured me
they're not part of the bid.

It is the charter provision
that has city manager's level
of authority and above that
going to council.

To be safe, what we have done
is we have taken those items
we have looked at
historically over the last
three years, have been
expenditures.

What they are and what is
anticipated for this year and
we brought those forward.

We also anticipate that we're
not going to be perfect,
again, this is the first
year.

You will probably quarterly
see updates.

We can't predict what the
decisions will be.

We may need short-term
rentals, notices.

We may need to send more out.

You will see these going
guard.

The first take we will do at
the start of any fiscal year
saying annually, here are it
is things we looked at that
even though they're exempted,
they're items we think exceed
the level of city manager's
authority, so we're bringing
those forward.

Did that help to answer that?

You are saying this is
something that we usually
have not had in place and
have council bring on the
items.

These have occurred
historically administratively
because they're allowed
under -- by law?

>> Excellent analysis.

That is correct.

 I'm asking the
value question.

Why?

>> It gives it a chance to
say here are things that
we're doing and making sure
that we're following what the
city charter's intent is and
the idea that we go forward
with items of a certain
value.

It provides another level of
analysis to do this one.

Also puts everybody in the
department on notice that we
are looking at these so watch
your dollars.

And we're watching those very
carefully.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> It seems like you're
trying to get at
transparency, but I'm not
clear that it is actually
giving us -- these are items
that would have been brought
under the city manager's
authority and we would not
have noticed them anyway?

 city
manager.

>> That is correct.

But I think it is on the
grounds of a legal analysis
here.

You or whoever did the
analysis, you need to come
and speak to the legal
analysis that resulted in
this approach.

>> Ok.

Jacquelyn cul um is here as
well.

We have two legal principles
here.

Competitive statutes that are
in place and all of these
types of purchases under the
bidding statute are exempt
from a competitive
procurement.

And then we have our charter
in play.

So when you look at it, we
don't have to go out to a
competitive process which
would, you know, then make it
subject to your approval, but
we have our charter which
sets a limit on how much of
an expenditure can be done
without council approval.

So when we look at the
statute that talks about it's
exempt, but these are the
same services, but spread
across different departments,
when you put them together,
they're all over
administrative limit.

That's the issue.

So in this particular case.

This kind of arose out of an
audit where we were helping
purchasing look at this and
the recommendation was that
we would look at more
transparency, look at more
making sure we did things
more on a cumulative basis
instead of the separate
sequential kinds of things.

In this particular case, we
have the ability to know that
we purchase advertising
services in this amount on
behalf of the city in a year.

There may be some we don't,
but in this case, based upon
the charter and state law, we
recommended to the purchasing
department that they bring
these forward for council
approval.

And jacquelyn may want to add
something, because she was
the lawyer working with
purchasing on this matter.

>> --
 let me ask you
something, can you focus on
the aspect of the audit
you're familiar with?

>> I am not familiar with the
audit.

To comment on the comments.

I like to use aggregate.

If you look at these on the
agcombat and make sure the
best practices to approve
them.

>> Byron jackson.

The contract auditing audit
that ken's group did looking
at total expenditures.

So as an outcome of that, we
implemented a lot of
monitoring procedures
internally.

Not even things that went
through purchasing, but were
expenditures.

Since the change that we did
was to say, we're going to
help monitor all these types
of things to make sure we're
doing it.

We looked at the
expenditures.

As karen said they're
exempted they wouldn't come
through my shop, they're
expenditures being made.

So we look at everything that
went to the city manager's
level of authority and
aggregated those, per their
direction as to a commodity
type and said, here's what
these are.

And we wrote them down so it
would be easier for them to
be understandable by the type
of recurrence that they are,
such as postage is a common
thing.

So we're setting what they
deem to be want best
practices and the
identification and the
visibility to do this type of
a thing.

>>Cole: thank you.

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo?

We have a few preprogrammed
ones.

 I appreciate
staff, we did get things to
staff.

It was a matter of making
sure the information was
transferred to the mayor's
office.

I will make sure that happens
also.

I appreciate staff, would it
be ok to go ahead with one of
the ones I pulled?

>>Mayor leffingwell: sure.

 I had asked to
talk about item 27, which is
the payment to the award and
execution of a 12-month
agreement with clean air
force.

And as you recall, we had
quite a bit of discussion
about that during our budget
because there was some
suggestion to staff that we
change that instead of the
usual amount we have been
doing for 20-some years.

When it was discussed I went
back to refresh my discussion
at budget, what I heard from
staff was that they are in
the process of responding to
the resolution on air
quality, coming up with --
that is coming forward with
the report, soon.

And yes, they agree that we
would be continuing support
of the clean air force, that
we will have a discussion on
the mechanisms being changed
through the discussion with
staff on air quality.

However, what got posted was
cumulatively $90,000 but in
fact, it's divided up in a
new way that had never
happened before, and that is
a one-year membership in an
amount not to exceed $10,000,
and then in addition, an
$80,000 for funding the
city's involvement in clear
air programs.

I was just concerned about
changing the way we had been
doing it before.

I know we're going to be
having discussions.

And I fully expected after
our budget discussions that
what we would be doing would
be exactly what we had
before, which was a $90,000
membership payment.

So it may be a bit of a
technicality, but it concerns
me because it came out -- i
know that staff might
recommend changing something,
but that we were going to
be -- I thought we were going
to stay the same this year.

>> Chief sustainability
officer.

I think the total amount is
the same.

>>Morrison: yes.

>> I think part of the
challenge is membership fee
and what that delivers, and
then services offered and
provided by the organization.

So this is something that we
were taking the approach to
providing a membership fee
and also making sure we get
services in return for the
total dollar amount.

>> Well, I guess -- I mean,
we were going to be talking
about what the services were,
whether I might -- I know
staff wanted to bring up the
question of, was that the
best use of our money.

I have to say that I don't
know if it makes any
difference, but I really
thought we had come away from
budget saying we would do it
the same way as we did
before.

 city
manager.

>> I think there is some
confusion about this.

So I choose to withdraw it
and have further discussion
with staff.

 I appreciate
that.

I would like to ask if we can
hopefully see it back on our
next agenda so we can get
the --

>> yes, I understand.

Time is of the essence.

 thank you very
much.

 did you
have another item?

>>Morrison: I did.

Thank you.

It was a transportation item.

I thought gordon was here.

It is item number 62.

This is a new subpart h for
transportation to provide for
special events permits for
limousine charter services,
shuttles and airport shuttles
and I realize that we are
just trying to get more
services on the ground for
the incredible number of
people coming in.

I felt like I needed a little
bit of context for what it's
going to look like, what kind
of limits there might be.

What the perspective -- the
specific -- especially
interested in the perspective
of the taxi drivers are and
how you set the time limit.

>> So as we were looking at
the ordinance related to
ground transportation, we
felt that there was a need to
be able to expand the service
when we have special events.

Formula 1 is the one we're
working on right now.

And acl and south by
southwest is always a
transportation concern.

What can we easily do to
allow us, when we have the
events in town to have
expanded services.

So one thought was to allow
the limousine companies to
work with other limousine
companies throughout the
state to bring in additional
vehicles for short periods.

So this sets up a permit for
up to 16 days, which we would
set up certain windows for
certain special events with
certain caps I anticipate two
months out from an event, we
say this is what we're
looking at, here is the date
to accept permits, so you
will be informed and that
will serve as information to
the companies.

So at this point, we have 50,
roughly 50 limousine
companies that are approved
by the city that have
operating authority.

They have about 250 vehicles,
particularly with the crowd
that will be here for formula
1, we feel like there will
likely be a desire for folks.

We have heard that people
will be flying into dallas.

Staying.

We don't have control -- we
don't do background check for
the chauffeur.

Under the current ordinance,
we have no control of that.

To expand service for the
city, we felt that was a way
to expand service.

>> So there are several
events that are specifically
listed in the ordinance.

And I think I read that -- is
it correct that up to 16 days
on either side of the event
that the special permit --

>> a total of 16 days.

>> So one question I have is
some of the events are two or
three-day events and some are
nine or 10-day events.

Are all of them going to have
16 days?

Or it seems to me if
something is a 10-day event,
it would make sense to have a
different amount of time than
if it is a two or three-day
event.

>> I think that is something
that we can do with the
rules.

Again, providing the council
notification for the event,
this is how we're looking at
it.

South by southwest, acl on
two weekends.

We will probably see a full
16 days for those.

>>Morrison: right.

>> I don't know what we might
see for formula 1 this year
and future years.

 you think the
longer events, from sunday to
the following day is 16 days
is adequate.

I don't know if the ordinance
should say up to 16 days to
give you the flexibility as
opposed to you would have to
give them.

>> It says the permits will
be valid for 16 days.

>>Morrison: I see.

I see a legal angle.

>> We can certainly change
that.

>>Morrison: change that.

It seems to me if 16 days is
good enough for the long
ones, that maybe if we change
it to "up to 16 days" that
would be --

>> right.

 gives
flexibility.

>> For the window to be open,
we will say for formula 1 it
will be 7 days or something,
we will tailor that.

 I wonder if staff
could prepare that amendment
and get it posted back up.

 I saw an
affirmative nod.

>>Morrison: perfect.

Also in the backup it
mentions that the urban
transportation commission has
recommended this with a few
tweaks to it.

It noted that the
recommendations had been
integrated.

Could you mention just what
the recommendations were?

 carlton,
come up.

>> Carlton thomas with the
austin transportation
department.

The first concern was the
fees.

We had taken the approach
after discussions with the
stakeholders of the $125
cost.

They suggested that we
reconsider the fees and add a
fee for expedite, which would
encourage applying early.

Listing the events.

Rather than -- excuse me --
rather than a list of
qualifiers, we just identify
if it is the event.

 last question
then.

Did you -- was this any issue
for any of our usual
stakeholders in
transportation discussions?

>> I believe there was
similar concerns to what we
have heard previously.

So some of those relate to
how we're going to enforce
it.

We anticipate for formula 1
we have currently a staff of
two regulatory inspectors.

We will probably bring in
additional votes.

We have 6 or 8 so we run two
shifts.

Won't be here, they will be
 until
after 3:00 in the evening.

So we are looking now at the
staffing plan.

We would have continuous
support out there.

A second was how would we --
what's the enforcement
mechanism?

I believe in the ordinance,
it talks about we provide a
permit that we have to keep
on the dashboard.

We have inspectors in
prominent locations working
with them to make sure they
know where they can be and,
you know, I think we really
need to identify staging
areas so once their
passengers are dropped off,
they will know where they can
move to.

We will identify those, be at
sites to say you can move to
this area, to help keep the
traffic flowing.

 I thought no one
of moving downtown during
that formula 1?

>> Certainly people will be.

 what about, were
there concerns about this
would oversatisfy -- our
demand would be oversatisfied
and cause hardship for folks
currently providing
transportation to folks?

>> I think it was raised as
an issue.

If you go into the math, we
have currently about 250
limousines permitted.

About 750 taxis.

Taxis are constrained, the
driver can only work 12
hours, 12-hour shift.

So again we need to provide
transportation from before
, that is when the
buses start heading to the
site.

We need multiple shifts, but
we as a city have no way to
dictate to the franchises
they have to run multiple
shifts.

So there is no mechanism
where we can tell them you
have to have two drivers to
keep on the streets.

That is something we don't
control.

 even if we did
have some way to keep them on
the streets, do you think
that would be adequate
service for the number of
people in town?

For the big events?

>> If you are looking at 250
limousines, carrying a
thousand people.

And 750 cabs, that is 3,000
people.

If we have 20 to 30,000
people dropped off at trinity
and 15th street.

We have to move those people
out of there.

I think there will be plenty
of activity for everyone for
formula 1.

We need to see what we will
do for acl and south by
southwest.

I don't know if the numbers
in the mix would be the same,
but we have heard anecdotally
that there are time
constraints by south by
southwest when taxis are not
available.

>> I heard that, too.

 does the
ordinance allow you to set a
cab and deny additional
applications for more
limousines in the case that
we think we have enough?

>> I don't know that it is
specifically addressed in
here.

That is certainly something
we can add, either in the
ordinance or in a set of
rules to go with the
ordinance.

I think we're going to need
something that we can be
flexible with.

I think it is reasonable to
just say you can't bring
every limousine in the world
here.

There is some percentage of
the current fleet.

And this is set up so that
any limousine that comes in
has to work with one of the
existing companies so we
don't just get companies to
come in for an event to set
up.

 I would like to
see if you can provide an
amendment, it seems to make
sense to explicitly put in
the ordinance that staff has
the ability to deny them and
after a certain number has
been reached and that
obviously, you will have to
figure out how to do that and
what the formula ought to be,
but I we could -- I would
appreciate it if we could get
a staff recommendation on how
to amend that also.

She's already writing notes.

>> We can certainly make that
happen.

>>Morrison: all right.

Thank you.

>> Mayor?

 council
tovo is next and
councilmember martinez.

 I will try to be
quick.

This is a process where the
cabdrivers are in the
process.

>> The cabdrivers were not a
part of that the process.

Primarily prearranged
services.

So the limos, charte
shuttles spelman they were
involved --
 you spoke to the
ground transporta
stakeholders.

I would consider them
impacted.

So has this mechanism ever
been used in the past?

Have you ever allowed other
limousines from out of town
to come in?

And operate here?

>> And not regulate them, no,
this has not occurred in the
past.

 the fees, will they
go to the city or directly to
their local partner.

>> We assume two fees
associated.

A fee that's applied to the
permit that goes to the city.

And in order to gain
sponsorship from a local
company, we envision the
local company imposing a
certain fee on a company
coming to operate in austin.

We're not regulating that
fee.

We're regulating the
permitting fee.

>>Tovo: I see.

So a local partner at this
point, could charge whatever
they want for that
sponsorship?

Why did you decide not to put
some provisions in place on
that?

>> That is a business
relationship between a
private entity and another
private entity.

I don't know that we as a
city want to get in between
those two entities.

>>Tovo: ok.

I'm going back to question
number 3.

Is there a definition in the
code for charter vehicles?

>> Yes.

 I will look for that
then.

So you're going to identify
those that are permitted
because they will have some
sort of sticker or something
like that.

Is that right?

What will the penalties be,
if you see limousines
operating that are not part
of a local franchise and
don't have a sticker, what's
the -- what fines will be
assessed.

>> Typically the operating
without a permit or an
operating authority.

That's something that we have
done historically.

The fees range upwards of
$500 per offense.

 will you have
adequate enforcement?

Who will enforce it?

Transportation staff?

>> Yes.

 and you have two
people who will be enforcing
that during these events?

>> We anticipate flexing up
to six to eight, to cover two
shifts in the sites we will
cover.

We will bring in other folks
from the transportation
department to assist with
that.

>>Tovo: ok.

>> There is a lot of areas to
cover.

 I echo the interest
in seeing some limits
provided for in the
ordinance.

I noticed in the ordinance it
says that you would accept
applications up to three days
prior to the event.

And I wonder -- I mean, if
you get an influx of
applications is that going to
be manageable for your staff,
given all the other
responsibilities three days
before an event?

>> Right, which led to the
recommendation from the urban
transportation commission.

So if we impose a fee and
open the period and we have
late-comers because we will
anticipate late-comers we add
an additional fee which could
cover overtime and the cost
associated with handling a
late-coming application, we
would intend to still serve
that request.

>>Tovo: ok.

The last question is really
about cabs.

How are you going to
monitor -- one, I would say,
I really hope that we are
able to hear from cabdrivers
on thursday, because -- we
have reached out to some, but
it seems to me, if you get
enough other limousines in
town, that it will benefit
business and some of the
other out of town visitors
will potentially hire a cab
for the course of several
days, we would otherwise hire
a limousine if that is
available.

Are there any limitations on
limousine drivers in terms of
the hours they can drive?

>> [Indiscernible]
I'd have to make certain.

>>Tovo: ok.

That would be interesting to
know.

 durr, you
mentioned the cabdrivers are
limited to 12 hours and i
hope there is limitations to
others.

I think it would all apply.

>> The key is 12 consecutive
hours.

With the limo drivers, that
may make a trip, go home for
two hours until their client
has done their business and
then go back into service two
hours later.

It is typically not a
12-consecutive-hour workday
when dealing with the
chartered vehicles.

>> If they're waiting at a
site or something else, is
that considered a two-hour
break?

>> How we define "in service"

basically.

If they're not available for
calls or fares, technically,
they're not in service.

 if I'm a cabdriver, i
take somebody to the
racetrack, I hang around and
wait, which probably isn't
feasible, anyway, I won't
take any other fares that
day, because I have been
hired for the whole day to
pick them up and bring them
back.

If I'm not driving for a
four-hour block, does that
four-hour block count against
my time?

>> Well, again, if you engage
a taxi driver, the meter has
to run.

So in theory, they're getting
the $29 an hour waiting fee
during the time they're just
sitting out there waiting for
someone.

So if they're getting paid,
I'd say they're in service.

 so their waiting time
does apply to the 12 hours?

>> Yes.

 on the other hand, a
limousine may be waiting, but
those hours don't apply to
their maximum.

>> I would feel comfortable
coming back with a more clear
answer.

 that would be great
to know.

My last question is about out
of town cabs.

What are the provisions for
making sure that we have cabs
here that are not -- if we
have cab companies come from
other areas, what are your
provision for making sure
they're not allowed to
operate during busy weekends?

>> We will have regulatory
inspectors out.

Like we have for the hobby
building, 24 hours a day for
those.

We will have signage internal
to the events to let them
know where there is a taxi
stand.

And we'll regularly check
those.

If there is someone standing
or we see someone just
driving around looking for a
fare, then they will be
stopped and told it is a
requirement.

 they can't be fined
until they have a passenger.

Can they be fined if they're
in a queue?

>> They cannot until they
have taken a fare without
authorization.

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez, you
have the floor and you have
the gavel.

I have to leave.

 I will ask one
question and I'm out of here.

Actually councilmember tovo
touched on everything i
wanted to ask.

In the scenario, I want to go
back to the direct scenario
you gave earlier.

Somebody in dallas hires a
limo for the weekend, you
will take me to austin.

In that scenario, so your
plan is through your
enforcement officers to --

>> they're going to have to
show a trip ticket to show
they were hired for the full
weekend.

So when the enforcement
officer approaches them, if
they don't have the dashboard
ticket, they would ask them,
let me see your trip ticket.

If it shows all four days, we
tell them.

Now, if they're standing in
an area they're not supposed
to be standing, we'll give
them information on where
they can wait.

Basically, we have no control
on folks that start their
trip outside of the area and
end their trip outside of the
area under our current
understanding of our
ordinance.

 is there anything
that precludes a taxicab
driver of entering a similar
agreement of not necessarily
running the meter all day and
being for hire for a full
day.

If I give you a hundred
bucks.

>> Our laws require they
charge a fare on the meter.

That is not an option.

 that is not an
option for a cabdriver.

>> For a trip that starts
within the city of austin.

There are ways to game the
system.

>>Martinez: sure.

Speaking specifically about
the 12-hour provision.

Is that part of the franchise
agreement or part of the
company?

>> Codified.

>>Martinez: codified where?

>> State code.

 I received an
e-mail that a cabdriver was
rushed to the hospital after
saying he worked a 24-hour
shift this past weekend
because of acl and wanted
to -- I want to follow up
offline, if we have
provisions of mandatory
shifts and two hours
shift --

>> eight hours of rest.

We have to work with the
franchise holders.

They need to know when the
cabs are on or off --
 were you made
aware of the incident this
weekend?

We will get that information
to you.

>> Ok.

>>Martinez: thank you.

 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,
so I'm
going to call to order this
special meeting of the
austin city council on
august 30, 2012, 10:04 a.m.

301 West second street,
austin, texas.

Council will now take up
item 1 to conduct public
hearing and receive public
comment on the city of
 2012-2013
proposed budget.

Council also held a hearing
on the proposed budget on
august 23, 2012.

Council will close the
public comment on the
proposed budget at the end
of this meeting.

We're scheduled to adopt the
budget on september 10,
2012.

If council does not adopt
the budget on september 10,
we will continue on
september 11 and
september 12 if necessary.

So now first we'll go to our
speakers.

This public hearing, is
first speaker is tricia
castillo.

Tricia castillo.

Okay.

Either, closest one.

And you have three minutes.

>> My name is tricia
castillo and I'm
representing dove springs, a
community of about 50,000
people along with a major
route to the airport.

78744 Has outstripped austin
in crime and the population
changes.

Crime has surged 61% from
2001 to 2011 and the
population has jumped.

We're asking for help in
improving the safety and
health of our area.

Go into the safety issue,
we're asking the police
department to budget a
sufficient staff for a
visible presence in 78744.

Around the clock.

For also prompt support for
our growing neighborhood
watch effort.

We're asking also for a
storefront 787 -- in 78744
to be present.

I guess we're asking for
also to have bike patrol
officers and vehicle patrol
officers.

So as a deterrent for the
crime in the 78744 region.

One-third of our population
is 18 and under so the dove
springs recreation center is
a key part of engaging youth
in constructive activities
to reduce crime and improve
health.

78744 Has the highest
juvenile obesity rate in
austin and we're asking that
the parks department, parks
and recreation department
budget be sufficient to fund
the dove springs recreation
center with adequate staff
to supervise safe, organized
activities, providing
toddler-parent activities,
to provide broader weekend
hours of operation and to
prevent sufficient --
significantly reduce
participation fees for
organized activities.

Currently some fees run $120
per child for six-week
activities and the former
fee -- and formerly karate
is charging $20 a person per
month and families with
multiple children are unable
to afford this.

Our proposed -- the proposed
bond package includes about
5 million for the 78744
area.

Thank you for including us
in the bond package.

The original list of items
for 78744 total $30 million
out of the initial
800 million in possible
items.

We have received its
proportionate share, 78744
would have over $15 million
in improvements in the final
bond package.

We ask that you increase
operating budget funding for
police and recreation in our
community.

[Buzzer sounding]
thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.

Next speaker is michelle
silvera.

And while you are coming up,
I should mention that
councilmembers martinez and
spelman will be out today.

Don't expect them to be
here.

Councilmember martinez is
out on paternal leave and
councimember spelman is out
on medical leave.

You have three minutes.

>> My name is michelle
silvera and I'm a resident
of dove springs community.

I'm also a single working
mother of three young
children and also licensed
community health worker in
the dove springs community.

I've come today to ask you
to help improve the safety
of my community.

I utilize the recreation
center a great deal.

My family spends three to
four nights a week there and
my children participate in a
wide variety of sports
there, basketball, football,
dancing, karate.

I cannot afford to put my
children in these sports
otherwise.

Aisd rates on outrageous and
simply cannot afford it
without the recreation
center.

I have noticed an increase
in fees as well.

When my children are at
practice, safety is a huge
concern for me so I stay
there and I watch them.

Me and my son, we run the
trail.

There's smoking and drinking
the area, we have to remove
beer bottles daily.

I've never seen police
patrol the area.

I've seen them called when
there is an incident.

I feel our police department
needs funding.

They need to be more
proactive and not reactive
in our area.

The hours of the recreation
center is also concern for
me.

The current hours are monday
00 to
9:00.

School does not release
until 2:45.

On friday their areas a
10:00 a.m. to 6:00.

School does not release
until 2:45.

High school doesn't get out
00 and junior high
until 3:30.

That will give them about an
hour of recreation center
time on fridays.

00 to
00 and they are closed all
day on sunday.

These hours do not fit our
community's needs.

They fit the employees
needs, but not our
community.

With our community being a
third of the population
under 18, I feel there's a
need for a positive, safe
environment for them to
spend their evenings at
especially on friday and
saturday night.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.

Councilmember tovo has a
question for you.

>> Tovo: That's okay.

I just really wanted to
thank you for being here and
your neighbor and to let you
know we've heard from some
our other neighbors about
these issues and you've
raised very good points.

One of the questions, I'll
give staff a heads up,
whether adjusting -- at a
minimum whether we can
adjust some of the hours or
whether the parks department
could adjust some of the
hours at the rec center to
get more coverage on the
weekends and you may know
this already, but I know
that one of the neighbors
from dove springs yesterday
informed us that chief
acevedo is planning to come
down to the next
neighborhood planning team
meeting to hear of your
concerns and brainstorm
about public safety in that
area.

So thanks so much for
raising these really
critical concerns and for
being involved in your
community.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: